# Testing audiophile claims and myths



## Prog Rock Man (Jun 15, 2021)

*(As I find more blind tests I will add them to the list here.)*

 So, we love to have a good discussion/argument/rant here (and on all the other audio forums I have seen) about the many claims audiophiles make that others dismiss as myths. The arguments go round in circles; I hear a difference - but there cannot be a difference, it is all in your mind - have you tried different cables? - I don’t need to it is all in your mind etc etc, we all know how it goes.

 Occasionally there are attempts to test such myths. WHF’s own Big Question is an example. Three What Hifi forum members are invited to their listening rooms and have been blind tested on cables to bit rates. From the issues I have read, there is a confirmation that the myths of differences are not correct, the differences are real. Different bit rates have been correctly identified, different cables have produced different sounds in the same Hifi kit. But, they are blind listening reviews, which are different from ABX tests where people are asked to correctly identify products.

 Here is a list of blind listening and ABX tests that I have found on the internet. What I have done is summarise their conclusions.

*It is important to note the difference between blind and ABX testing as they produce different results. *

*Blind tests mean the listener does not know what they are listening and are asked to describe any differences they can hear which is a type of blind testing commonly used in audio. That kind of test often results in low priced hifi 'surprisingly' doing as well as high priced as factors such as image, product reputation is hidden from the listener. Some blind testing also involves a competition between products were say two amps are pitched next to each other and the winner progresses to the next round.* *As you see I have very broad in the definition of blind testing.*

*ABX testing more of a test. You listen to product A and product B and are then played X, which is either A or B and have to say which it is. There can be more than A and B as some tests involve multiple cables. Then any differences have to be clearly audible, which for the likes of cables has not been the case yet.* * I have also been broad in the definition of ABX testing.*

 The aim is to see what the overall result of these tests gives us and whether they provide evidence to back up or deny the reality of alleged audiophile myths. Before you read on here are tests you can try out yourself to see how your hearing is and what ABX testing involves...

http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php

http://abx.digitalfeed.net/

https://audiobacon.net/2019/08/30/interactive-abx-test-can-you-hear-the-difference/

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/5/15168340/lossless-audio-music-compression-test-spotify-hi-fi-tidal

(Note- the last one on theverge.com can be easily cheated, there is a visual clue, but it still allows the chance to listen to tracks at different bit rates)

A really well set out and easy to use bind test of different bit rates.

http://mp3ornot.com/

 ...and here is a very interesting article on a debate between audio sceptic Arny Krueger and Stereophile editor John Atkinson on ABX testing

Stereophile The Great Debate

 Finally, for those who say blind testing is designed to produce fails and discredit audiophiles, here are some positive ones where differences have been identified;

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/are...-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results.513481/

A side issue, but an important one, is whether or not break in/burn in is an actual thing. Do headphones need time and use to break/burn into their best sound? The answer is, no.

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/learn/break-in

"No evidence in support of the existence of the break-in effect was found in this test. The changes observed were either too small to be audible, or very large and not repeatable, which suggests fluctuations in system performance or environmental noise. Also, no pattern was observed in any of the changes over time, ruling out a cumulative or long term effect due to burn-in."


1. ABX Double Blind Comparator. 

 This is a web site dedicated to such testing. Back in May of 1977 there was a comparison of amplifiers which found over three tests of two amps each, listeners could tell a difference in two, but not the third which was an even split.
*It is important to note that not all of the ABX tests here are negative. Some do find differences can be identified. That shows that with some parts of the hifi chain there are real differences, but with others there are not.*

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

 A test of interconnects and speaker cables found that no one could pick out the differences between a series of wires from ‘blister pack $2.50 to $990 speaker cable. All the results were even with approximately 50% going for the cheap and expensive options.

 There is an interesting comparison of ‘video cables’ which found that once over 50 feet it was easy to spot which was the 6 foot cable and the much longer one.

 DACs don’t fair well with CDPs finding an original CDP being distinguishable from a more modern one, but an expensive stand alone DAC being the same as a CDP.

 None of the tests involve a large amount of people and some are just of one person.

2. Effects of Cable, Loudspeaker and amplifier interactions, an engineering paper from 1991.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5975

 Twelve cables are tested from Levinson to Kimber and including car jump leads and lamp cable, from $2 to $419 per metre. The results are based on the theory that loudspeaker cable should transmit all frequencies, unscathed to any speaker from any amplifier and loss is due to resistance. There is an assumption that letting through more frequencies with less distortion will sound better. But that seems reasonable to me.


 The best performance was with multi core cables. The car jump leads did not do well and cable intended for digital transmission did! The most expensive cable does not get a mention in the conclusions, but the cheapest is praised for its performance and Kimber does well. Sadly there is not a definitive list of the cost of the cables and their performance, so it is not clear as to whether cost equals performance, but the suggestion is that construction equals performance.


3. Do all amplifiers sound the same? Original Stereo Review blind test.

 (The original Bruce Coppola link is broken, and I cannot find any existing link at this time)

 A number of amplifiers across various price points and types are tested. The listeners are self declared believers and sceptics as to whether audiophile claims are true or not.

 There were 13 sessions with different numbers of listeners each time. The difference between sceptic and believer performance was small, with 2 sceptics getting the highest correct score and 1 believer getting the lowest. The overall average was 50.5% getting it right, so that is the same as you would expect from a random guess result. The cheapest Pioneer amp was perfectly capable of outperforming the more expensive amps and it was ‘striking similar to the Levinson‘.

 As an extra to this and for an explanation of how amps can all sound the same, here is a Wikipedia entry on Bob Carver and his blind test amp challenges

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver#Amplifier_modeling

4. Cable directionality.

 Not the best link as it only refers to a test without giving too many specifics. The cable maker Belden conducted a test with an un named magazine which found the result was perfectly random.

 I liked the next sentence which was “Belden is still happy to manufacture and sell directional cables to enthusiasts”

http://www.aes-media.org/sections/pnw/pnwrecaps/2000/lampen/

5. Head - Fi ABX Cable Taste Test Aug 2006.

 Three cables from Canare, Radio Shack and a silver one were put into the same sleeving to disguise them, a mark put on each one so only the originator knew which was which and then sent around various forum members. The result was that only one forum member got all three correct. The Radio Shack cheap cable and the silver were the most mixed up.

 Unfortunately I cannot see from the thread, which is huge how many members took part and what the exact results were.

6. HiFi Wigwam, The Great Cable debate. Power cable ABX test Oct 2005.

 This is a very well done large scale ABX test. A similar set up to Head-fi where four mains cables including 2 kettle leads (stock power cords that had come with hifi products), an audiophile one, a DIY one and a tester CD were sent out forum members. The results were inconclusive to say the least, for example;

 The kettle lead was C. There were 23 answers :
 4 said that the kettle lead was A
 6 said that it was B
 8 said that it was C
 5 said that they didn't know.
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?654-The-Great-Cable-Debate&highlight=blind+test

 The overall conclusion was that the kettle lead could not be properly identified or that one cable was better than another.

Note - one of the participants to this test has pointed out that the two kettle leads, described in the test as exactly the same were in fact not identical and were just basic leads which had come with hifi products.


7. What Hifi The Big Question on cables. Sept 2009

 From the Sept 2009 issue. Three forum members were invited to WHF and blind tested where they though the kit (Roksan, Cyrus, Spendor) was being changed, but instead the cables were. The same three tracks were used throughout.

 The kit started out with the cheapest cables WHF could find and no one liked it saying it sounded flat and dull. Then a Lindy mains conditioner and Copperline Alpha power cords were introduced and the sound improved.

 The IC was changed to some Atlas Equators and two out the three tracks were said to have improved with better bass and detail.

 Last the 60p per metre speaker cable was changed for £6 per metre Chord Carnival Sliverscreen. Again, changes were noticed, but they were not big.

 Various swaps took place after that which confirmed the above, that the power cords made the biggest difference. When the test was revealed the participants were surprised to say the least!

 Note - this is not an ABX test, it is a blind listening review and as you read on you find the two produce different results. What is worrying is that when I asked Clare Newsome, the Chief Editor about such tests she claimed that they were ABX and elsewhere on their forum they have claimed to do ABX testing. But they do not, they are blind listening reviews, which allow people the chance to claim a difference, but offers no evidence they they can really hear a difference.

8. Secrets of Home Theatre and High Fidelity. Can We Hear Differences Between A/C Power Cords? An ABX Blind Test. December, 2004

 A comprehensive article with pictures and the overall result was 73 out of 149 tests so 49% accuracy, the same as chance.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html

9. Boston Audio Society, an ABX test of Ivor Tiefenbrun, the founder of Linn. August 1984

 A rather complex testing of Ivor Tiefenbrun himself, who at that time was very pro vinyl and anti digital (the opposite almost of how Linn operate now!). There are various different tests and the overall conclusion was

 "In summary, then, no evidence was provided by Tiefenbrun during this series of tests that indicates ability to identify reliably:
 (a) the presence of an undriven transducer in the room,
 (b) the presence of the Sony PCM-F1 digital processor in the audio chain, or
 (c) the presence of the relay contacts of the A/B/X switchbox in the circuit."

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

 Even the founder of Linn could not back up claims he had been making when subjected to an ABX test of those claims.

10. The (In)famous Audioholics forum post, cables vs coathanger!. June 2004

"After 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire. Further, when music was played through the coat hanger wire, we were asked if what we heard sounded good to us. All agreed that what was heard sounded excellent, however, when A-B tests occured, it was impossible to determine which sounded best the majority of the time and which wire was in use."

https://forums.audioholics.com/foru...-is-good-enough-enough.2512/page-2#post-15412

11. Matrixhifi.com from Spain. ABX test of two systems. June 2006.

 Two systems, one cheap (A)  with a Sony DVD and Behringer amp (supported on a folding chair) with chepo cables and the other more expensive (B) with Classe, YBA, Wadia and expensive cables and proper stands were hidden behind a sheet and wired to the same speakers.

The results were;
 38 persons participated on this test
 14 chose the "A" system as the best sounding one
 10 chose the "B" system as the best sounding one
 14 were not able to hear differences or didn't choose any as the best.

http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

12. AVReview. Blind cable test. April 2008

 Some of AVR's forum members attended at a Sevenoaks hifi shop and listened to the same kit with two cheap Maplins cables at £2 and £8 and a Chord Signature at £500. They found the cheaper Maplins cable easy to differentiate  and the more expensive harder to differentiate from the Chord. Their resident sceptic agreed he could hear differences. The final conclusion was;

 ....from our sample of 20 near-individual tests, we got 14 correct answers. That works out at 70 per cent correct....

 So that is the second ABX to join What Hifi which suggests there is indeed a difference. But like What Hiif it shows the difference in results from Blind to ABX testing and how easy it is to try and obscure the two types of test.

https://hifiwigwam.com/forum/topic/12043-av-review-blind-cable-test/?tab=comments#comment-341108

Note - the link to test is broken, unable to find another

13. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, ABX test of CD/SACD/DVD-A. Sept 2007

 You need to be a member of the AES to access the article here; (EDIT, the link has changed and I cannot find the actual test referred to)

http://www.aes.org/journal/online/JAES_V55/9/

 a summary of which states "_A carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced listeners showed no ability to hear any differences between formats".  The results were that 60 listeners over 554 trials couldn’t hear any differences between CD, SACD, and 96/24._

Note - this test is apparently flawed, see post 962 for ful details, but basically the hi rez example used was from an original CD.

14. What Hifi, Blind Test of HDMI cables, July 2010

 Another What Hifi test of three forum members who are unaware that the change being made is with three HDMI cables. As far as they know equipment could be being changed. The cables are a freebie, a Chord costing £75 and a QED costing £150. Throughout the test all three struggle to find any difference, but are more confident that there is a difference in the sound rather than the picture. They preferred the freebie cable over the Chord one and found it to be as good as the most expensive QED. That result is common in blind testing and really differentiates it from ABX tests.

 In my opinion the way the differences between the cables are reported, they can be explained by the fact that it would have taken three brave testers to have said there was no difference. They had been invited to a test expecting to be able to identify differences.


15. Floyd Toole from Harman International (AKG, Infinity, JBL) Audio, Science in the service of art 1998

 A paper written by Floyd Toole which covers a number of topics about scientific measurements and audio. Go to pages 10 and 11 and there is a paragraph on blind testing. It shows how the 'differences' between speakers were greater when sighted tests were used over blind tests. The obvious conclusion is that sighted tests result in factors other than sound come into play when deciding on what sounds better.

https://www.harman.com/documents/AudioScience_0.pdf


16. Sean Olive, Director of Acoustic Research Harman Int, blog on The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests 2009

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

 Research using 40 Harman employees and comparing the results of blind vs sighted tests of four loudspeakers. As with the above by fellow Harman director, sighted tests show bias that blind do not.

 Below the article are various responses to the blog, including a very interesting exchange between Alan Sircom, editor of Hifi Plus magazine and Sean Olive. Alan Sircom makes the very interesting point that volume has a role to play with blind tests

 "Here's an interesting test to explain what I mean: run a blind test a group of products under level-matched conditions. Then run the same test (still blind), allowing the users to set the volume to their own personal taste for each loudspeaker under test. From my (admittedly dated and anecdotal) testing on this, the level-matched group will go for the one with the flattest frequency response, as will those who turn the volume 'down', but those who turn the dial the other way often choose the loudspeaker with the biggest peak at around 1kHz, saying how 'dynamic' it sounds."

 I had not thought of that before. You will end up with different conclusions between a blind test where the volume is set and where the volume can be adjusted. Adjustment allows preferences for different sounds to be expressed, without other influences being present that clearly have nothing to do with sound.

17. Russ Andrews re-cable David Gilmour's recording studio (not a blind test) 2000-2001

 This is not a blind test, but I think it is worth including here. The studio used (and I think owned) by David Gilmour was re-cabled using Kimber cables by Russ Andrews. This was apparently after extensive AB testing. I would have loved that to be after extensive ABX testing!

http://www.russandrews.com/history/

 Note - The original link is broken and I cannot find any link to the original article, just references to it.

 (Thanks to Pio2001 for finding the below tests and links)

18. DIY Audio forum, confessions of a poster. 2003

 A forum member joined and confessed that " Then I started to hear about some convincing blind tests and finally conducted my own. I was stunned at the results. I couldn't tell a $300 amp from a $3000 in the store I was working at. Neither could anyone else who worked there." Then he did his own blind test on a mate between an Onkyo SR500 Dolby Digital receiver and a Bryston 4B 300 wpc power amp and a Bryston 2 channel pre-amp owned by his mate. The 'red faced' mate could not tell the difference.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/12752-blind-listening-tests-amplifiers.html

19. The Boston Audio Society, discussion of two blind tests and their analysis 1990

 The BAS in an article discussing a CD tweek blind test by Stereophile; " In the CD-tweak test Atkinson and Hammond conducted a 3222-trial single-blind listening experiment to determine whether CD tweaks (green ink, Armor-All, expensive transports) altered the sound of compact-disc playback. Subjects overall were able to identify tweaked vs untweaked CDs only 48.3% of the time, and the proportion that scored highly (five, six, or seven out of seven trials--Stereophile's definition of a keen-eared listener) was well within the range to be expected if subjects had been merely guessing."

 Then the BAS are very critical of a Hifi News analysis of a blind test of amps from 2006; " Listeners scored 63.3% correct during those trials where the amplifiers were different (95 of the 150 A-BB-A trials). However, subjects scored correctly only 65% of the time when the amplifiers were the same (26 of 40 A-A/B-B trials.) Another way of saying this is that subjects reported a difference 35% of the time (14/40 trials) when there could have been no difference."

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/wishful_thinking.htm

20. Cowan Audio, an Australian audiophile and a blind test between CD players 1997

 A $1800 un named (they were reluctant to name it) versus a $300 Sony which resulted in both only guessing and getting about 50%. William Cowan stated that a sighted test before hand made them say "This will be easy, lets get on with the blind test". Ooops!

http://www.cowanaudio.com/

21. Pio2001's own ABX test between CD and vinyl in Hydrogenaudio 2003

 The results were 3/7 and 5/8 correct.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=21&t=7953

22. Tom Nousaine, article to Tweak or not to tweak? 1988.

 A test of identical CDP and speakers but different amps and cables, one being $300 and the other $5000. The results with 7 listeners of varying interest in hifi and 10 trials was a fail.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/1/12590.html

 Note - sadly Tom Nousaine passed away and direct links to his articles have broken.

23. AV Science Forum, Monster vs Opus cables. 2002

 Not particularly rigorous as in there were not enough tests, but as the poster states "And to cut to the chase, Mike could not identify the Monster from the Opus MM with any accuracy (nor the reverse, which also would have been a positive result if he had been consistently wrong) using our testing methodology. We stopped the test a little less than halfway through, I think we got through 8 A/Bs before we gave up."

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184

24. Stereo.net, blind testing of two pre-amps April 2008

 Its an Australian forum so the conclusion is typically forthright "CONCLUSION:There is bugger all between the 2 preamps, they were so close that any difference could not be reliably picked." The test was run well despite what doubts the tester has.

http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/ind...nd-testing-report-lightspeed-vs-me24-preamps/

25. Stereomojo Digital amp shootout 2007

 Various amps were tested blind, in pairs where the preferred amp went through to the next round. The winner was one of the cheaper amps called the Trends Audio TA-10 at $130, which is the tiny one on the top right of the pile

http://www.stereomojo.com/SHOOTOUT2007INTEGRATEDS.htm

Note - original link gone, Stereomojo does not appear to be online anymore. Link to thread about the test here;

https://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=3171.0

26. Head-Fi ABX Cable Test by member Edwood Aug 2006

 Three ICs made with Canare, Solid Silver and Rat Shack cables, but dressed to look the same. Only one person could tell the difference, which you would expect to happen when there is no audible difference and people are most likely guessing.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/blind-cable-taste-test-results.190566/

27. Les Numeriques. A blind test of HDMI cables by a French site (Google Translator used)

 Nine participants using no name, Belkin and Monster HDMI cables. Only one claimed to have a preference, but his feedback was inconsistent.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.lesnumeriques.com/blind-tests-avec-deux-jurys-experts-et-lecteurs-p770_6175_93.html

28. Home Cinema Fr .Com, a French test of interconnects (Google Translator used) May 2005

 The cables included ones from Taralabs, VDH, Audioquest and DIY ones. The result was that no one could reliably tell a difference.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29781210

29. Sound & Vision. Article by Tom Nousaine with 3 Blind Tests of speaker cables. c1995

All three are fails by the listeners using their own hifi systems and with their choice of track, volume and time.

Note - sadly Tom Nousaine passed away and direct links to his articles have broken. The original is at "Wired Wisdom, The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Nousaine, Tom, Sound & Vision(Canada), Sep 95, pg. 73-76."

30. Insane About Sound, Blind Tests of CD vs Audio Files and expensive vs cheap speaker cable. Wall Street Journal Jan 2008

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044692027492991.html.html?mod=technology_main_promo_left

Tests set up at an audio show in Las Vegas, found Wav files (52%) doing better than MP3 (33%) when compared with CD and in a test of $2000 Sigma speaker cables vs hardware store cable 61% of the 39 who took the test preferred the more expensive cable. So nothing conclusive for any of the tests, but interestingly John Atkinson and Michael Fremer from Sterophile magazine were described as easily picking out the more expensive cable.

Note - now behind a paywall.

31. AV Science forum, Observations of a controlled cable test Nov 2007

 A blind test between Monster cables and Opus MM, which as far as I can find is $33,000 worth of cable

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184

 but the owner of the very high end kit and cables was unable to tell the difference.

32. The Audio Critic, ABX test of amps Spring 1997

 A letter by Tom Nousaine to The Audio Critic in which he describes an ABX test of the owner of a very high end system, where a Pass Labs Aleph 1.2 200w mono block amp was randomly changed with a Yamaha AX-700 100w integrated amp. In the first test the owner got 3 out of 10 identified, then 5 out of 10. His wife then got 9 out of 16 and a friend 4 out of 10 correctly identified.

 The letter is split between pages 6 and 7 of the link. Note - sadly Tom Nousaine passed away and direct links to his articles have broken

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_24_r.pdf


33. Expert Reviews. Blind test of HDMI cables. Expert reviews 8 Feb 2011 (updated Jan 2020)

Two TVs, two Sony PS3s and a James Bond film played side by side with the only variable being changed HDMI cables. What is interesting is that there was little difference with the picture, but much more perceived difference with the sound. But, as many preferred the sound of the cheap to the expensive cables.

https://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs...-hdmi-cables-make-no-difference-and-heres-why

Note - not an ABX test and the reviewer acknowledges there could also be slight differences in the TVs and PS3s to contend with.

34. Blind test of six DACs, Stereomojo

 Like the other blind as opposed to ABX tests this one found the cheapest and most expensive DAC in the final, with only a hairs width between the two in terms of sound.

http://www.stereomojo.com/Stereomojo Six DAC Shootout.htm/StereomojoSixDACShootout.htm

Note - link gone.

35. The Wilson ipod experiment CES 2004. Stereophile Jan 2004

 Tenth paragraph down. A 'trick' blind test where a group at a consumer technology tradeshow thought they were listening to a $20,000 CDP, but were actually, happily listening to an ipod and uncompressed WAV files.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/011004ces/

 Sight really does have a major role to play in sound!

36. An evening spent comparing Nordost ICs and speaker cables. AVForums June 2006

 Further to the above ipod experiment, a report from a member of the AVForums and his experience of sighted and blind listening tests at a dealers.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/inte...ring-nordost-interconnects-speaker-cable.html

 The conclusion comparing the tests

 "And here's what I heard.

 1. All the cables sounded subtly different with one exception.
 2. Differences were less apparent with some music than others
 3. My assessment and experiences "blind" were different to my experiences "sighted""


37. A blind test of old and new violins. Westerlunds Violinverkstand AB March 2006

 This is really a bit of fun, but it again shows how we hear differently sighted to blind. In this test 6 violins, three c1700 (including a Stradivari) and three modern were played to a group of string teachers who cast votes 1 to 3 on their preferred violin. The stage was kept dark and they could not see which was which. The Stradivari came last, a modern brand won.

http://www.westerlunds.se/blindtesteng.htm


38. The Edge of audibility, blind test of recordings made with and without a mains filter. Pink Fish Media forum June 2011

 You can download and try the recordings yourself. Of those who have already, 2 preferred one, 6 the other and 10 had no preference.

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=101683

39. Blind test of CD transports Stereo.net.au Oct 2008

 Well set up and described, but to reinforce the Australian stereotype, after one set of failed tests they admitted no one could hear a difference, gave up and drank some beers instead!

https://www.stereo.net.au/forums/topic/9223-blind-test-gtg-1-cd-digital-transports/

Note - need to join forum to see.


40. ABX test of tracks with various levels of jitter added. HDD Audio forum March/April 2009

http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=15

http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=63

 One member MM has recorded his scores and they are no better than random.


41. Stereophile ABX test of power amps July 1997

http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html

 There were 505 listeners producing a nicely made graph of results which is a bell curve around random, just as you get from guessing. Yet Stereophile claim there was success with test as some people did better than average. There could be some truth in that as there have been blind test passes for amps. Even so it is a very small part of those tested who really need to tested again to confirm whether or not they were just lucky. The test is not statistically significant enough to say there is an audible difference.

42. Head-fi. A forum member testing cables sighted and blind Nov 2011

http://www.head-fi.org/t/578621/cables-tested-with-results

 This provides yet more evidence that sighted and blind testing produces consistently different results whereby people can hear a difference when sighted and cannot when listening blind.

43. Audio Society of Minnesota. Speaker cable listening test. April 2012

http://www.stereophile.com/content/minnesota-audio-society-conducts-cable-comparison-tests-0

 The results are very mixed with no cable making any clear difference. They accept there is no objective difference, but since there is a difference found which can easily be explained by random selection, they conclude a subjective difference is there and so allegedly "cable do make a difference".


44. The Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge - Reported by Tom Morrow June 2006

https://web.archive.org/web/20130716171611/http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall

 "The Richard Clark Amp Challenge is a listening test intended to show that as long as a modern audio amplifier is operated within its linear range (below clipping), the differences between amps are inaudible to the human ear."

 It is an ABX test which to pass needs two sets of 12 correct identifications. Reputedly over a thousand have taken the test and none have passed.

 "Do the results indicate I should buy the cheapest amp?"

 No. You should buy the best amplifier for your purpose. Some of the factors to consider are: reliability, build quality, cooling performance, flexibility, quality of mechanical connections, reputation of manufacturer, special features, size, weight, aesthetics, and cost. Buying the cheapest amplifier will likely get you an unreliable amplifier that is difficult to use and might not have the needed features. The only factor that this test indicates you can ignore is sound quality below clipping."

 Which is a relief for those who have shelled out a lot on a nice amp.

45. Audio Video Revolution Forum, thread on blind speaker tests, Nov 2007.

http://www.avrev.com/forum/loudspeakers/2627-best-sounding-speakers-according-scientific-tests.html

Positive results which strongly suggest speakers are clearly different even under blind testing conditions, both objectively and subjectively.


46. PSB Speakers, blind comparison test of four speakers, June 2012.

http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/ps...-sessions-at-canadas-nrc-acoustics-labpart-2/

"Several general observations I would make are these:
•PSB makes some darned nice speakers and their consistency of sound within a given product family is quite impressive.
•B&W makes a darned fine speaker, too, though one that caters to a different set of listener tastes (or perhaps a slightly different definition of “Fidelity”) than my own.
•Behind the scrim, and listening in mono, it is very hard to tell exactly how big a speaker system is or is not—the scrim eliminates any possibility of being biased by what our eyes tell us that our ears should hear.
•You can learn a lot from blind tests, but not everything that an audiophile would want to know."

47. Which? Consumer magazine, May 2021

 The UK consumer magazine, which values its independence and testing procedures to give fair and independent advice.

"Which? testing has shown that cheap HDMI leads - even value ones costing just a few pounds - can perform just as well as more expensive ones. When we last ran HDMI tests, we found that a £10 HDMI lead from a supermarket gave no discernible difference in picture quality to one costing almost £100."

https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/tel...-tv/buyer-s-guide-to-hdmi-cables-aisoQ3u7IhFD

48. Trust Me I'm a Scientist - Audio Poll: Neil Young and High-Definition Sound, May 2012

 A bind test of a high def WAV file version of Neil Young's self titled debut album against some standard AAC files.

 "The majority of you are audio engineers, professional musicians, and ambitious hobbyists, and I figured that if anyone would be able to tell these file types apart, it would be you guys.
 So, how did you do?
 Well… please accept my warm congratulations to the 49% of you who guessed right.
 That’s right: even among _our_ readers, the results came out no better than a coin flip. And we didn’t even need a huge sample size to get a result that’s consistent with the tremendous mountains of research already done in this field."

49. Analogue Planet "Proof That AC Cables Make a Big Sonic Difference" Jan 2018

"However the comparison between "stock" rubber molded and the AudioQuest cable is, especially since the most important point is to demonstrate that power cords do make a difference and even using the shotgun microphone from the second row, you should be able to hear it!"

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/day-two-ces-2018-proof-ac-cables-make-big-sonic-difference

Watch the video, start about 33 minutes and you get the end of the sales pitch, followed by two plays of the same music with different power cords. Can you hear a difference?

50. ABX double blind test results - wires 2011

Results, all the same.

http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_wire.htm

51. Sound & Vision. "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?" - updated from original article in 1983

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/speaker-cables-can-you-hear-difference

"So what do our fifty hours of testing, scoring, comparing, and listening to speaker cables amount to? Only that 16-gauge lamp cord and Monster Cable are indistinguishable from each other with music and seem to be superior to the 24-gauge wire commonly sold or given away as “speaker cable.” Remember, however, that it was a measurable characteristic—higher resistance per foot—that made 24-gauge sound different from the other cables. If the cable runs were only 6 instead of 30 feet, the overall cable resistances would have been lower and our tests would probably have found no audible differences between the three cables. This project was unable to validate the sonic benefits claimed for exotic speaker cables over common 16-gauge zip cord."

*Conclusion*

The clear conclusion is that ABX testing does not back up many audiophile claims, so they become audiophile myths as they show cables do not inherently change sound. Any change in sound quality comes from the listeners mind and interaction between their senses. What is claimed to be audible is not reliably so. Blind testing is also sometimes passed off as ABX. But blind testing is not really testing, it is a review of a product without seeing it, and that allows claims to be made about sound which have not been verified.

 If hifi is all about sound and more specifically sound quality, then we should, once the other senses have been removed be able to hear differences which can be verified by being able to identify one product from another by only listening. But time and again we cannot.

 So you can either buy good but inexpensive hifi products such as cables, amps, CDPs and be satisfied that the sound they produce is superb. You do need to spend time with speakers as they really do sound identifiably different. Or you can buy expensive hifi products such as cable tec and luxuriate in the build and image and identify one hifi from another by looks and sound. But you cannot buy expensive and identify it from cheap by sound alone.

*However and this is important*, after failing a blind test, one hifi buff, no less the editor of Sterophile said;

 "Over 10 years ago, for example, I failed to distinguish a Quad 405 from a Naim NAP250 or a TVA tube amplifier in such a blind test organized by Martin Colloms. Convinced by these results of the validity in the Consumer Reports philosophy, I consequently sold my exotic and expensive Lecson power amplifier with which I had been very happy and bought a much cheaper Quad 405—the biggest mistake of my audiophile career!"

 The author of the article goes on to say;

 "My point being, taking part in any kind of blind listening test necessarily creates an unnatural condition, one that we never encounter when listening to music for pleasure."

 I agree 100%, I did the same with my set up, reading and researching for this thread I would switch from using my Firestone Fubar DAC and power supply to using the DAC that comes in my MF X_CANV8P headphone amp. All the testing states they sound the same. But they don't!!!!! That is because when I listen for pleasure I can see my set up, its red, green and blue lights on telling me it is working. That gives me pleasure and pleasure makes for better SQ.


----------



## aimlink

Thanks for the time you put into preparing this post. It was VERY much appreciated. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I especially liked the one with the amps tested. The cables have been getting a lot of tired attention. However, the amps aren't. The typical headphone cable upgrade is between $200-300. OTOH, amplifiers can take one into the thousands. There's a lot more room there for serious spending for little if any gain.


----------



## ford2

I do not think that many with expensive gear are going to be enamored with those results.

 But it is all so true.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Very interesting.

 Still, wouldn't turn down a pair Levinson ML-2s, given an opportunity.


----------



## Shark_Jump

... and we now know how What Hi Fi conduct their blind tests. 
What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision - Blind Tests

 "All review verdicts are agreed upon by the team as a whole - not an individual reviewer. Each product will be listened to and/or viewed by several members of the test team, who will then discuss the final verdict before it appears in the magazine or on the website. This avoids any individual bias creeping in." 

 A bit of fun, and not to be taken too seriously.


----------



## DayoftheGreek

For some audiophiles, it actually has nothing to do with the "love of sound" and "trusting your ears." It has more to do with having the most expensive system, knowing the least about it, and making outrageous claims about how they have been in the hobby for a long time and they know what sounds best. 

 I guess everyone needs to feel important and have a midlife crisis (never ending for some) in their own way.


----------



## KingStyles

Its amazing how every thing supposedly sounds the same but when I listen to at meets it all sounds different with the same can. How can that be?


----------



## DayoftheGreek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KingStyles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Its amazing how every thing supposedly sounds the same but when I listen to at meets it all sounds different with the same can. How can that be?_

 

Lurk more.

 This question isn't as smart as you think it is.


----------



## ford2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DayoftheGreek* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For some audiophiles, it actually has nothing to do with the "love of sound" and "trusting your ears." It has more to do with having the most expensive system, knowing the least about it, and making outrageous claims about how they have been in the hobby for a long time and they know what sounds best. 

 I guess everyone needs to feel important and have a midlife crisis (never ending for some) in their own way._

 

They are the same one's who run out and buy a Porsche when they turn 50 even though it takes them 10 minutes to get into it,and longer to get out.


----------



## Handberg

Prog Rock Man, thank you for taking the time to put this summary together.


----------



## Feanor

Nice summary. I recall the debate about the headfi cable test, I'm happy it happened in the end. If we ever have a big euro meet I will try to assemble a Blind testing stand (not so sure about double blind as I will swap the stuff, but I am planning not to interact with the subject in any way), with different sources and amps and IC's and the same headphones.

 The same could be done in camjam, if someone was up for it. Just something simple, for instance a big black screen with a chair in front of it, and 2-3 amps & sources behind it. A nice ABX maybe with Tube - SS, cheap SS - premium SS, cheap DAC - premium DAC...

 Also something I have been itching to do is a headphone cable test, for that we would need 3 pairs of HD600's or 650's and put different cables on them, with a garden hose or heatshrink or something obscuring the cable and the connector. My only gripe is that people could claim the headphones are differently "burnt-in" or something, so we would need a control group who would test the same headphones, only with the same cable on all of them.


----------



## lonereaction

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Feanor* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also something I have been itching to do is a headphone cable test, for that we would need 3 pairs of HD600's or 650's and put different cables on them, with a garden hose or heatshrink or something obscuring the cable and the connector. My only gripe is that people could claim the headphones are differently "burnt-in" or something, so we would need a control group who would test the same headphones, only with the same cable on all of them._

 

I'm also wondering if anyone with any high end IEMs would care to do an ABX with aftermarket cables as well. Like JH13/16 with stock/twag cables.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KingStyles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Its amazing how every thing supposedly sounds the same but when I listen to at meets it all sounds different with the same can. How can that be?_

 

Because they look different? Maybe?! The article 3, "Do all amps sound the same?" does suggest we buy with our eyes and a budget.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Thanks Prog for putting all this stuff in one place. Sticky please!


----------



## KingStyles

Why do we even do this hobby if the source, transport, amp, and cables all sound the same? We would only need 1 forum to discuss the different sound signatures of headphones. Why go to cam jam? So we can plug our headphones into everybody elses equipment and congratulate them on just making a prettier version of something that sounds exactly the same as your own? Sorry about the sarcasim, but while maybe some amps and dacs etc very well could sound the same, there are plenty of products out there that sound different. Take for instance the amp test. The testers when picking out the equipment may have listened before hand and tried to pick equipment with sound signatures that all resembled each other rather than amps that tend to have a more drastic differences. Also, at what level did they set the db at. If the level was perhaps higher clipping or a lack of drive may have been found in the amps that didnt produce as much power. Anybody can setup a test to try to get the outcome they want, even if they use a wide range of equipment from different prices. We dont know if they were trying to prove that they dont make a difference thus slanting some of the equipment they choose. Just food for thought. I appreciate the time on this write up, but have to disagree with some of the findings. There is another forum that is talking about blind test that I agree with a lot more than this, or at least a different take on things.
Controversy of ABX testing | Computer Audiophile


----------



## Prog Rock Man

There is no doubt sighted tests reveal more differences than blind and that there are issues with ABX/blind testing. But those who say there are differences, I can hear them, need to work harder to be convincing. 

 I say that more about cables than amps and certainly sources, of which I have found no blind tests with one exception, bit rates.


----------



## DayoftheGreek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is no doubt sighted tests reveal more differences than blind and that there are issues with ABX/blind testing._

 

Sighted tests reveal more differences?

 You've lost me now.


----------



## KingStyles

Quote:


 There is no doubt sighted tests reveal more differences than blind and that there are issues with ABX/blind testing. But those who say there are differences, I can hear them, need to work harder to be convincing. 

 I say that more about cables than amps and certainly sources, of which I have found no blind tests with one exception, bit rates. 
 

^Agreed. Also while the differences in one piece of equipment being swapped could be able to be to small to reliably pick out, the combination of a lot of different pieces of equipment, as in someone elses system, the results of all those small differences could add up to a large audiable change.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DayoftheGreek* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sighted tests reveal more differences?

 You've lost me now._

 

Meaning whilst reading to find the blind test links it is clear that when tests are sighted people find it easier to claim they heard a difference. Make the same test blind and then it becomes random chance as people get it wrong, such as identifying the same kettle lead as two different cables. If the same people were to do a sighted test with a kettle lead, OK mains lead and an expensive audiophile mains lead, there would not be the same mistake!


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Make the same test blind and then it becomes random chance as people get it wrong, such as identifying the same kettle lead as two different cables. If the same people were to do a sighted test with a kettle lead, OK mains lead and an expensive audiophile mains lead, there would not be the same mistake!_

 

Prog Rock Man, you are confusing me with your terminology here. When you say 'mistake' are you being ironic?

 I mean if you have a correctly conducted blind test and it showed that statistically there was no difference detected between the two cables, then there is no difference audible between the two cables. There is no mistake except the person who thought they heard a difference was imagining it.

 Conversly if the test is sighted people know there is a change and a host of other factors come into play to effect the result. This is why blind testing is done.

 Right?


----------



## KingStyles

There is problems with blind testing also. Just because the people tested didnt hear it doesnt mean that they are the majority of the population or trained listeners. Most of these test are done with a very small slice of people compared to the overall population or even compared to just the population of audiophiles. There could be biases of the people setting up the test that will give one group or another a better chance. The test just shows that those people under those conditions could or could not hear whatever. It might give a base line but it isnt definitive as there will be exceptions that can pass the test probably if the test was continually done. It is more for food for thought as to warn a individual that it might not make a difference.


----------



## cer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KingStyles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just because the people tested didnt hear it doesnt mean that they are the majority of the population or trained listeners._

 

 What makes you think that subjective unscientific claims are more representative of the majority of the population? I'd say it's vice versa.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KingStyles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Most of these test are done with a very small slice of people compared to the overall population or even compared to just the population of audiophiles._

 

 So you are suggesting, that every audiophile has same opinons regarding same gear and every audiophile has the same level of "training"? That is definitely not the case. Of course I'm no statistical scientist, but it is widely aknowledged, that the size of the selection can be minuscule compared to the population and the results can still be statistically valid.
 This is Sound Science forum. Sucjective unproven claims are not scientific.


----------



## Deep Funk

To bad my hearing is limited. If I was a cat or dog my hearing would be so much better. Then again, I would not like to hear everything all the time, oh well...


----------



## jcx

there's a old test of tube vs SS "sound" difference:
   
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/12752-blind-listening-tests-amplifiers-28.html#post152392
   
  original Sterophile article:
   
http://www.stereophile.com/features/the_carver_challenge/


----------



## Uncle Erik

A couple of points about the amps: 1. Amp differences are measurable. You can find scientific results and graphs in every issue of Stereophile. These tests are repeatable using a variety of test equipment. They meet scientific scrutiny. However, I will grant that it may be difficult to tell amps apart in listening tests. Also worth considering is that the "all amps sound the same" tests intentionally exclude various topologies and/or tubes. My reading of that is that all amps sound the same except for the ones that don't. If you were to stack up solid state against DHT, push-pull, SET, etc., the differences would be both measurable and heard. 2. There are wide differences in amplifier build quality. A lot of the cheap ones are, well, cheap. If you're cool with a third world el discounto power transformer smoking off after a few years (and assuming you have proper insurance coverage and, hopefully, a sprinkler system and fresh batteries in your smoke alarm), then you can save plenty of money. If you want an amp built correctly with reliable parts, you will have to spend some money. Further, the cheap tube amps are on PCBs, which can be difficult or impossible to repair if something goes wrong.


----------



## ford2

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> A couple of points about the amps: 1. Amp differences are measurable. You can find scientific results and graphs in every issue of Stereophile. These tests are repeatable using a variety of test equipment. They meet scientific scrutiny. However, I will grant that it may be difficult to tell amps apart in listening tests. Also worth considering is that the "all amps sound the same" tests intentionally exclude various topologies and/or tubes. My reading of that is that all amps sound the same except for the ones that don't. If you were to stack up solid state against DHT, push-pull, SET, etc., the differences would be both measurable and heard. 2. There are wide differences in amplifier build quality. A lot of the cheap ones are, well, cheap. If you're cool with a third world el discounto power transformer smoking off after a few years (and assuming you have proper insurance coverage and, hopefully, a sprinkler system and fresh batteries in your smoke alarm), then you can save plenty of money. If you want an amp built correctly with reliable parts, you will have to spend some money. Further, the cheap tube amps are on PCBs, which can be difficult or impossible to repair if something goes wrong.


 


 I never realized that Singlepower was manufactured in a third world country,and was cheap to.


----------



## Ypoknons

Interestingly, the Chinese Darkvoice and La Figaro amps are point to point.


----------



## Audio Jester

This is a very informative thread. Thanks Prog Rock Man you have put together a fantastic post.  Personally I prefer a more passive approach, I am about to buy a new rig as my current one is very low-fo.  If I purchase this new gear and cannot hear a difference bewteen old and new rigs it is then time to focus on buying headphones and forget about amp/DAC upgrades.  I do get the feeling that some people around here forget that their opinions are not facts and they need to stop these little crusades to force their beliefs upon the rest of the audio community. 
   
  Strange as it may seem I am in this hobby to enjoy the music, not the gear.  I do enjoy the act of researching and waiting for my purchase to arrive, but at the end of the day I find more enjoyment in listening to my favorite album than buying a new amp.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





shark_jump said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> ...


 

 When you say "there is no mistake except" I read that as there has been a mistake. If you were to blind test one group and the result was a statistical average and then get a different group and the same kit or cables and do a sighted test, if they then get it right and say the audiophile cable sounds better than the kettle lead, I would now be very suspicious of their result.

  
  Quote: 





kingstyles said:


> There is problems with blind testing also. Just because the people tested didnt hear it doesnt mean that they are the majority of the population or trained listeners. Most of these test are done with a very small slice of people compared to the overall population or even compared to just the population of audiophiles. There could be biases of the people setting up the test that will give one group or another a better chance. The test just shows that those people under those conditions could or could not hear whatever. It might give a base line but it isnt definitive as there will be exceptions that can pass the test probably if the test was continually done. It is more for food for thought as to warn a individual that it might not make a difference.


 

 Very true King Style, the aim of this thread was to bring together the smaller tests to try and show a bigger picture. I say the bigger picture is that ABX/blind tests show audiophile claims cannot be truly verified.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





terriblepaulz said:


> Thanks Prog for putting all this stuff in one place. Sticky please!


 

 Exactly that.
  Was about time!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Thanks for all the thanks! Up to 10 now, including the alleged one where wire coat hangers were used along with cables and another where the founder of Linn gets his comeuppance!


----------



## Arjisme

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> There are wide differences in amplifier build quality. A lot of the cheap ones are, well, cheap. If you're cool with a third world el discounto power transformer smoking off after a few years (and assuming you have proper insurance coverage and, hopefully, a sprinkler system and fresh batteries in your smoke alarm), then you can save plenty of money. If you want an amp built correctly with reliable parts, you will have to spend some money. Further, the cheap tube amps are on PCBs, which can be difficult or impossible to repair if something goes wrong.


 
   
  You make valid points about a basis other than sound for selecting an amp.  Features, reliability, cost, appearance are all good reasons to select one amp over another.


----------



## Leny

Good collection in the opening post there Prog Rock Man.
   
   
  On the subject of amps the quality is indeed important; I was lurking over at DiyAudio.com earlier and there is a thread there that is very sad about the quality of a UK designed / Taiwan manufactured amp (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/166250-musical-fidelity-p150-owners-take-note.html).


----------



## nick_charles

The Spanish Website matrixhifi.com has a whole load of blind tests, pruebas ciegas as they call them...


----------



## JohnFerrier

Null tests could be interesting. Something like the following . . .
   
http://web.mac.com/davewronski/audio/null.html
   
  "Better sounding" cable to the positive terminal of a transducer and stock cable connected to the negative terminal. Feed both cables the _same _signal--music, whatever. (This can/is done with amplifiers.) The resulting sound is the difference.
   
  Can anyone think of the shortcoming(s) of such a test?
   
   
  .


----------



## Feanor

I like the idea of a null test!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

johnferrier said:


> Null tests could be interesting. Something like the following . . .
> 
> http://web.mac.com/davewronski/audio/null.html
> 
> ...


 

 My understanding of that test is that with the first two cables you can actually hear the difference, but with the second two you cannot hear a difference. Is that correct?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





leny said:


> Good collection in the opening post there Prog Rock Man.
> 
> 
> On the subject of amps the quality is indeed important; I was lurking over at DiyAudio.com earlier and there is a thread there that is very sad about the quality of a UK designed / Taiwan manufactured amp (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/166250-musical-fidelity-p150-owners-take-note.html).


 

 My Musical Fidelity X-CANV2 turned out to have the insides from an X-CANS, the original version. I received a personal apology from Antony Michealson and a free X-CANV8P. Result!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> The Spanish Website matrixhifi.com has a whole load of blind tests, pruebas ciegas as they call them...


 

 Thanks, test added to the list.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> My understanding of that test is that with the first two cables you can actually hear the difference, but with the second two you cannot hear a difference. Is that correct?


 


 Probably not a great example for this thread, but you have to look carefully at what he is doing. Notice that he clicks a button that turns white when he is doing the comparison. It's also when you don't hear anything.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> 12 - AVReview. Blind cable test. April 2008
> 
> Some of AVR's forum members attended at a Sevenoaks hifi shop and listened to the same kit with two cheap Maplins cables at £2 and £8 and a Chord Signature at £500. They found the cheaper Maplins cable easy to differentiate  and the more expensive harder to differentiate from the Chord. Their resident sceptic agreed he could hear differences. The final conclusion was;
> 
> ...


 

 The article states that the results were not statistically significant. Also if you read the article there were two sets of tests a first run of 8 where everyone guessed correctly (8/8) then a set of 12 with a different low end cable - the results of this was 6/12 or 50% or exactly chance.
   
  To lump these results together is misleading as they were 2 different conditions. The first results being very close to significant, you really need 10 trials, but it would appear very likely that the cheapo *was* different, and a second which was 50% or completely random suggesting no audible difference between the £500 and £8 cable.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I agree that the AVReview tests is the weakest and most obviously flawed. I put it in because it is interesting that two businesses which rely on reviews have found differences, but other more independent reviews have not.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Here is a nice picture of Harman's blind testing room.........
   

   
  ....with its automatic speaker shuffling system!


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Here is a nice picture of Harman's blind testing room.........
> 
> .
> .
> ...


 


 Wow!
   
Double-blind testing of Ipod Music Stations at Harman International 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEEozn2tpAg
   
  tonmeister86's Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/tonmeister86
   
  Nice to have a DBT section at Head-Fi ! ! !


----------



## buz

Very nice meta-study. Now if only I could get that irrational urge to upgrade my DAC away


----------



## Prog Rock Man

If only hifi dealers had blind testing rooms and you could see if you could pick out that new DAC from your existing one and a control!
   
  I wonder why they don't do that


----------



## DayoftheGreek

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> If only hifi dealers had blind testing rooms and you could see if you could pick out that new DAC from your existing one and a control!
> 
> I wonder why they don't do that


 

 That sure as hell doesn't help sell $10,000 amps and DACs now does it?


----------



## fzman

Nick, don't you think you are begging the question here by using the word 'guessing' ?
  Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> there were two sets of tests a first run of 8 where everyone guessed correctly (8/8)


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


fzman said:


> Nick, don't you think you are begging the question here by using the word 'guessing' ?


 

 ------------------------Guess--------------------------------

 guess (gs)
 v. guessed, guess·ing, guess·es
 v.tr.
 1.
 a. To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
 b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.
 2. To form a correct estimate or conjecture of: guessed the answer.
 3. To suppose; think: I guess he was wrong.
 v.intr.
 1. To make an estimate or conjecture: We could only guess at her motives.
 2. To estimate or conjecture correctly.
 n.
 1. An act or instance of guessing.
 2. A conjecture arrived at by guessing.
 -------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The most recent edition of What Hifi magazine has a blind test between a £250 stereo amp and a £1k plus AV amp for music only. The Stereo amp wins easily.
   
  But all amps sound the same, don't they!?


----------



## jcx

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> The most recent edition of What Hifi magazine has a blind test between a £250 stereo amp and a £1k plus AV amp for music only. The Stereo amp wins easily.
> 
> But all amps sound the same, don't they!?


 


 I did reference the Carver Stereophile challenge - where a $600 Carver amp is nulled by Bob Carver (with RadioShack parts overnite in his hotel room) against a "five figure tube amp"
   
  after adjusting frequency response and output impedance to match, Stereophile's "Golden Ears" couldn't tell the difference in blind listening
   
  so the literal "all amps sound the same" is a strawman - amps can differ in frequency response and output damping by enough to be audibly distinguished under DBT conditions
   
  but as a understood and controllable difference it is "uninteresting" in an engineering sense - it means designers just build in EQ to give their amps unique "voices" - not that there is some mysterious superiority of audiophile tweaks, parts or tubes vs SS in amplifiers


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The doctoring of amps so that they sound the same, and then exclaiming after a blind test that they sound the same, does seen somewhat pointless and odd.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> The doctoring of amps so that they sound the same, and then exclaiming after a blind test that they sound the same, does seen somewhat pointless and odd.


 

 The point became very clear when the prices of the amps involved were compared.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Very revelatory indeed, but us audiophiles tend to shy away from such potential slander.   We use cables as the punching bag to ventilate on this pesky issue of value for money.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





jcx said:


> I did reference the Carver Stereophile challenge - where a $600 Carver amp is nulled by Bob Carver (with RadioShack parts overnite in his hotel room) against a "five figure tube amp"
> 
> after adjusting frequency response and output impedance to match, Stereophile's "Golden Ears" couldn't tell the difference in blind listening
> 
> ...


 
   
  I understood the Carver challenge as a demonstration that the "tube sound" could be easily replicated in an SS amp.  The real strawman is reducing the statement "all solid state amps built in compliance with minimum performance standards sound the same" to the statement "all amps sound the same".  Nobody who expects to be taken seriously makes the second statement, while the first claim is supported by some empirical evidence.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





jcx said:


> I did reference the Carver Stereophile challenge - where a $600 Carver amp is nulled by Bob Carver (with RadioShack parts overnite in his hotel room) against a "five figure tube amp"
> 
> after adjusting frequency response and output impedance to match, Stereophile's "Golden Ears" couldn't tell the difference in blind listening
> 
> ...


 
   
  I understood the Carver challenge as a demonstration that the "tube sound" could be easily replicated in an SS amp.  The real strawman is reducing the statement "all solid state amps built in compliance with minimum performance standards sound the same" to the statement "all amps sound the same".  Nobody who expects to be taken seriously makes the second statement, while the first statement is supported by some empirical evidence.


----------



## ford2

Quote: 





jcx said:


> I did reference the Carver Stereophile challenge - where a $600 Carver amp is nulled by Bob Carver (with RadioShack parts overnite in his hotel room) against a "five figure tube amp"
> 
> after adjusting frequency response and output impedance to match, Stereophile's "Golden Ears" couldn't tell the difference in blind listening
> 
> ...


 


 It begs the question that if the carver $600 amp can beat *five figure tube amps" then WHY is carver building and selling near five figure tube amps on ebay.


----------



## jcx

for Profit?
   
  the Challenge didn't change the market, he couldn't sell his SS for what he can a tube amp given "High End Audiophile" expectations
   
   
  a few years ago I was at a BAS talk where a US manufacturer offering what they felt were good value power amps said they came to the conclusion they would have to close the doors or appeal to "High End" predjudices
   
  he went on about the machined Al case, careful matching of anodizing, "jewelry" connectors, exotic attenuator - but never once said anything about upgrading the amp circuitry
   
  they are now very sucessful, selling more product - and charging 4x more per watt


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





ford2 said:


> It begs the question that if the carver $600 amp can beat *five figure tube amps" then WHY is carver building and selling near five figure tube amps on ebay.


 
  Because people will buy them.


----------



## Currawong

Interesting thread this.  After much experimentation myself, I'm leaning towards the thought that tonal differences are easy to spot, but differences in detail are somewhat harder, so a short blind test of two tonally-identical components could easily result in people not being able to tell the difference.
   
  I'd have to find the thread, but a kid single-blind-tested his father on cables and his father picked them every time, but that was gear he was intimately familiar with.  With what I know now, I'm willing to bet I could probably set up DBTs myself which would guarantee a negative or positive result for different types of components by deliberately matching or mis-matching components respectively, eg: a grossly under-powered amp for large speakers that require a lot of power tested at a moderately loud volume with orchestral works against a much more powerful amp.


----------



## JxK

^I'll just add one thing. If/when you DBT cables, be sure to volume match. It's easy to overlook, but is an extremely important variable to eliminate.
   
  P.S. I like the quote you've got in your signature.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Yeah. Last week, Head-Fi changed ALL the cables. Night and day differences for me!


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





currawong said:


> With what I know now, I'm willing to bet I could probably set up DBTs myself which would guarantee a negative or positive result for different types of components by deliberately matching or mis-matching components respectively, eg: a grossly under-powered amp for large speakers that require a lot of power tested at a moderately loud volume with orchestral works against a much more powerful amp.


 
  No need to show us that you can detect something like 10% distortion.


----------



## Slaughter

We know our ears/brains have very short term memory. The same can be said for our eyes. They tend to fill in some blanks for us. The only way an ABX test would truly work, is with a switch box and short passages of a song. Flip the switch back and forth after maybe a 15-20 sec sample. Then our brain and ears don't have time to forget. Listening to a whole song and taking time to switch inputs or cables is just too long to be meaningful and not fair to our ears/brains.
   
  Think of HDTV's. All the decent ones look good by themselves until you put them side by side. Then the differences are very apparent. Black levels, color accuracy, noise, ect. The eyes/brain don't get a chance to forget or fill in some blanks when side by side. You can't do that with an ABX audsio test, so ABX in itself is flawed to some degree.
   
  Common sense people....


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


slaughter said:


> We know our ears/brains have very short term memory. The same can be said for our eyes. They tend to fill in some blanks for us. The only way an ABX test would truly work, is with a switch box and short passages of a song. Flip the switch back and forth after maybe a 15-20 sec sample. Then our brain and ears don't have time to forget. Listening to a whole song and taking time to switch inputs or cables is just too long to be meaningful and not fair to our ears/brains.
> 
> Think of HDTV's. All the decent ones look good by themselves until you put them side by side. Then the differences are very apparent. Black levels, color accuracy, noise, ect. The eyes/brain don't get a chance to forget or fill in some blanks when side by side. You can't do that with an ABX audsio test, so ABX in itself is flawed to some degree.
> 
> Common sense people....


 

 I use short segments in my DBTs and they work really well, I tend to concentrate on 1 - 5 second segments, I find this method to be very sensitive. The corollary to this of course is that if a 1 minute delay is sufficient to obscure the difference between a $5 cable and a $500 cable perhaps the differemnce is not worth worrying about


----------



## Prog Rock Man

^^ Absolutely.


----------



## Sumflow

There is more than one reason to own a Porsche besides ease of entry.
 Quote:
  


ford2 said:


> They are the same one's who run out and buy a *Porsche* when they turn 50 even though it takes them 10 minutes to get into it, and longer to get out.
 
 There are five types of Porsche buyers.


----------



## ford2

Quote: 





sumflow said:


> There is more than one reason to own a Porsche besides ease of entry.
> Quote:
> There are five types of Porsche buyers. 

 Could not care less,and you are quoting out of context.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Thread bump as I have added another blind test to the list.


----------



## happyxix

Quote: 





slaughter said:


> We know our ears/brains have very short term memory. The same can be said for our eyes. They tend to fill in some blanks for us. The only way an ABX test would truly work, is with a switch box and short passages of a song. Flip the switch back and forth after maybe a 15-20 sec sample. Then our brain and ears don't have time to forget. Listening to a whole song and taking time to switch inputs or cables is just too long to be meaningful and not fair to our ears/brains.
> 
> Think of HDTV's. All the decent ones look good by themselves until you put them side by side. Then the differences are very apparent. Black levels, color accuracy, noise, ect. The eyes/brain don't get a chance to forget or fill in some blanks when side by side. You can't do that with an ABX audsio test, so ABX in itself is flawed to some degree.
> 
> Common sense people....


 

 This can also be "flawed" if proven false. The clip might not be complex enough to see the difference or some other reason. I can put a VHs in both the HDTV and it'll be hard to see which one looks better as they all look very bad.
   
  Too many variables that people can call false on when they don't get the results they like.
   
  I believe in DBTs because although it might be slightly flawed here but it is enough to tell a pretty good truth.


----------



## Leny

Still a good thread Prog Rock Man, keep updating whenever possible.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Hi Leny and other thread watchers, I am happy to keep on with the search and any other links are appreciated. As you say happyxix "I believe in DBTs because although it might be slightly flawed here but it is enough to tell a pretty good truth."


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Thread bump for a link to a very interesting article by a former executive of the company who own AKG and other brands. Within the article is recognition of the difference between blind and sighted testing and how blind tests find smaller differences between speakers than when the same test is sighted. I am sure the author is correct in concluding, no matter how objective we try to be, brand, looks and price can be as big an influence on actual sound in deciding on what is best.


----------



## khaos974

You forgot the link.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> You forgot the link.


 

 It's in the first post.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Thread bump for a link to a very interesting article by a former executive of the company who own AKG and other brands. Within the article is recognition of the difference between blind and sighted testing and how blind tests find smaller differences between speakers than when the same test is sighted. I am sure the author is correct in concluding, no matter how objective we try to be, brand, looks and price can be as big an influence on actual sound in deciding on what is best.


 
   
  Thanks for the additions.  These are very much appreciated.
   
  I only had time to go straight to the part you mentioned.  I was particularly tickled by the study looking at sighted vs blinded impressions of 4 speaker systems by audiophiles, many of whom claimed the ability to not be swayed by cost, size, appearance, brand etc.
   
  Though both tests revealed differences between the speaker systems, the differences were quite exaggerated with the sighted test.  The cheap, plasticky looking system did particularly badly on relative terms to the other systems.  However, in the blind test, the cheap system with plastic enclosures outdid another system built by a reputable engineer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Tubes vs SS anyone?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  If you hang out in these threads too long, it can amount to huge savings and more focus on the music.
   
  I'm finding it more and more difficult to find the motivation to express my opinion on any of my gear.  It's so ephemeral.... a part of my own tiny world.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





aimlink said:


> Tubes vs SS anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  SS amp A vs SS amp B anyone? haha
   
  *thumbs up* aimlink


----------



## happyxix

They should get a real blind guy to do some testing. That why he have no visual bias at all and maybe his hearing is also probably enhanced?
   
  That would be interesting.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I have added another example (no 16) of a blind test, a blog studying the differences between blind and sighted tests. After it is a very interesting discussion by Sean Olive from Harman International, who ran the blind/sighted test and Alan Sircom who is the editor of Hifi Plus magazine....
   
   
   
   

  Dear Sean,

 As the new editor of Hi-Fi+ in the UK (perhaps one of the most 'out there' of audiophile magazines), I guess I am the Loyal Opposition. As such, I respectfully disagree with your suggestion of dishonesty in sighted tests. 

 The word 'dishonesty' implies some kind of deceit in the actions of the reviewer. Although I cannot speak for all subjective reviewers at all times, I suspect most would view their actions as being principally honest, but holding to a different set of values to yours. There's an obvious analogy here; a conservative might be fundamentally opposed to the viewpoint of a liberal (or vice versa), and may even express incredulity at those who support such a position, but still respect the integrity of that stance. Or at least, that used to be the case, but I suspect “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is passé now.

 For my part, I maintain that sighted tests can reflect the real-world conditions in which people choose and use their products. For example, because blind tests are inherently level-matched in design, they do not take into account the way products are evaluated by listeners in reality. 

 Here's an interesting test to explain what I mean: run a blind test a group of products under level-matched conditions. Then run the same test (still blind), allowing the users to set the volume to their own personal taste for each loudspeaker under test. From my (admittedly dated and anecdotal) testing on this, the level-matched group will go for the one with the flattest frequency response, as will those who turn the volume 'down', but those who turn the dial the other way often choose the loudspeaker with the biggest peak at around 1kHz, saying how 'dynamic' it sounds. I wrote on the topic in the early to mid-1990s (I believe it was in Hi-Fi Choice magazine, but the magazine's back-catalog is long gone now).

 Unlike some of my colleagues, I am not opposed to blind-testing, in part because my of my previous work with Hi-Fi Choice in the UK (which does still - at least partially - continue to run blind tests). However, I am keen to explore all potential avenues to see if audiophiles are hearing things, or hearing things. As such, I think there might be something other than double-blind ABX that has some degree of scientific credibility, and which might be able to answer this... such as longitudinal testing.

 I welcome your comments on the subject.

 Kind Regards

 Alan Sircom
 Editor, Hi-Fi Plus magazine

 
   
   
   
   

 APRIL 16, 2009 4:34 PM 
   
   



   
   

 Sean E. Olive said... 
   
   
   
   

  Dear Alan,

 Thank you for your response. I appreciate your feedback, and I am sorry if I caused you offense.

 It was not my intent to single out audio reviewers for not doing blind tests. Indeed, most audio manufacturers don't do controlled listening tests as part of the product validation and testing. If they have comprehensive perceptually relevant objective measurements in place, then listening may be less important.

 I don't think I implied reviewers are intentionally deceitful and dishonest. The word “dishonest” was used to describe the sighted test methodology itself. It fails in measuring the true sound quality of the product due to the influence of listeners’ psychological biases. The listener may not even be conscious of these biases, in which case, they could hardly be accused of being “dishonest” or “deceitful.” I can hardly be blamed as deceitful if I choose the red speaker over the light green loudspeaker, because it sounds louder and more powerful (like a red Ferrari). 

 Most audio reviewers I've met are decent, honest, intelligent people trying to do the best job they can given the limited time, budget and resources at their disposal. Most reviewers who visit Harman, tell me they would love to have access our listening facilities or have something like it for reviewing products. Given the choice, I think most reviewers would use a combination of blind and sighted tests. 

 I agree that sighted tests have a purpose, particularly to determine the influence of the visual factors (brand, price, design, advertising) on consumers’ perception. This allows audio companies to optimize the right balance of sound quality versus other important design/marketing variables (industrial design, advertising, etc) and predict consumer acceptance in the marketplace. Also, it doesn’t require a blind test to establish that a speaker sounds unacceptable due to audible rub and buzz. 

 Your example of having listeners adjust the level of different speakers to their preferred taste, to me, correlates with how much non-linear distortion or power compression the speakers have. Listeners will tend to increase the volume until the speaker and/or their ears begin to produce high-order distortion. Be careful: If the loudspeaker is a JBL Everest - you may find yourself listening at dangerously high SPL levels (>110 dB peak) before you realize it!


 Cheers
 Sean

 
   
   
   
   

 APRIL 17, 2009 4:51 AM 
   
   



   
   

 Alan Sircom said... 
   
   
   
   

  Dear Sean,

 No offense taken at all, and from what I gather, I would be one of the envious of your facility.

 My goal in writing here is arguably the same as I hold for the magazine; that there needs to some kind of rapprochement between the objective and subjective sides of the business. This is a long-term goal, I need to build a foo-broom with a longer handle first 

 Kind Regards

 Alan

 
   
   
   
   

 APRIL 17, 2009 5:09 AM


----------



## revolink24

The thing I always find interesting about blind testing is that the first people to claim they can tell a difference are the last to step up the plate and prove it. And I think that just says everything.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I certainly agree with the numerous comments I have read hunting for blind test results, that audiophiles have lost a lot of credibility by ignoring or arguing against blind/ABX testing. 
   
  I think that the discussion above is important as to another way to run blind tests which could be a compromise between those who favour sighted and those who say it needs to be blind test to get a true result. Let people adjust the volume to one which they like. i can understand that as I like a bright. forward sound, so I prefer the volume up where the dynamics kick in, which is too loud for others.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


prog rock man said:


> I certainly agree with the numerous comments I have read hunting for blind test results, that audiophiles have lost a lot of credibility by ignoring or arguing against blind/ABX testing.
> 
> I think that the discussion above is important as to another way to run blind tests which could be a compromise between those who favour sighted and those who say it needs to be blind test to get a true result. Let people adjust the volume to one which they like. i can understand that as I like a bright. forward sound, so I prefer the volume up where the dynamics kick in, which is too loud for others.


 

 This is a reasonable point.  The K702's, in particular, have poor dynamics at low listening volumes.  You need the volume nicely up to really get it going.  Not sure why...  So volume corrections could lead to issues if one piece of gear is operating more optimally at a particular volume.


----------



## Leny

Quote: 





xnor said:


> SS amp A vs SS amp B anyone?


 

  
  That made me smile!


----------



## Leny

Some time ago I was at a hi-fi show and sitting in a demonstration that had big speakers playing.
  The sound was fine... not world class, but certainly entertaining. 
   
  I thought the system and the big speakers were doing fine. Then... half way through the second track the company guy walks over to the big speakers and swings open the fronts... revealing really tiny speaker boxes inside! Then he points out a very small sub woofer in the corner of the room!.
   
  I can't remember the name of the company... it may have been Bose... but it was a good demonstration of how sight can be misleading.


----------



## xnor

Haha, that made _me _laugh.


----------



## timar

I'd like to add another empirical study (this time conducted on a scientifical level), which should be of greatest interest here, since it especially deals with headphones.
   
  Part one is theory, part two is the empirical study:
http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~briolle/11thAESpart1.pdf
http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~briolle/11thAESpart2.pdf
   
  The study was conducted for the international Audio Engineering Society and shows, in short, that if the frequency response of different headphones is accurately measured, one pair of headphones can be equalized to give the same subjective impression/quality like any other pair, just by simulating its frequency response.
   
  Conclusion is, that the sound of headphones of some basic quality (e.g. THD well below 1%) is determined (almost) exclusively by their frequency response. All those fancy audiophile terms like soundstage, resolution, clarity et al are nothing but functions of the actual frequency response.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Thanks for the links timar. It was interesting where the study stated the different sounds of different headphones can be re-created in one headphone (lower link, page 2). They also recognise the need to have an equal volume and each person being tested should set the volume to their preferred level. I think that there is evidence that tests can be flawed and 'differences' found between cables or equipment, purely down to differences in volume.
   
  The studies by Floyd Toole (first post no15 in the list) also corroborate the view that an equal frequency response is the generally preferred sound.


----------



## Ham Sandwich

Quote: 





leny said:


> I can't remember the name of the company... it may have been Bose... but it was a good demonstration of how sight can be misleading.


 

 That was very likely Bose.  I sat through one of their demos and that's exactly what they did.  But more than a demonstration of how sight can be misleading, it was more of a demonstration of how music you are unfamiliar with can be misleading.  Especially if those doing the demo intentionally make it misleading.  The music used for the demo wasn't really music, it was more like movie sound effects and movie soundtrack muzak.  Nothing that you could be familiar with and be able to translate how it should sound on a real stereo.  Sounds that could be EQed and carefully chosen to not demonstrate the hole or discontinuity the Bose system almost certainly has between the sub and the mains.  An interesting demo of how audio tricks can deceive you.


----------



## Leny

Hi Ham Sandwich, I can't remember what was playing at the demo because it was quite some years back. It may well have been as you suggest.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I have that same demo where the speaker opened up to reveal the Jewel (one little speaker on top of another) speaker in all of its tinyness. It was rock, Queen or Led Zep that was playing and it worked well as a demo to show how powerful the little speakers are. Power as opposed to sound quality is what I also remember.


----------



## jwhitakr

Great thread - subscribed to it.
   
  Thanks Prog Rock Man for the effort to compile these various links together!  Have not read through all of them yet, but working my way through them one at a time.  No real surprises, thus far.


----------



## happyxix

Quote: 





ham sandwich said:


> That was very likely Bose.  I sat through one of their demos and that's exactly what they did.  But more than a demonstration of how sight can be misleading, it was more of a demonstration of how music you are unfamiliar with can be misleading.  Especially if those doing the demo intentionally make it misleading.  The music used for the demo wasn't really music, it was more like movie sound effects and movie soundtrack muzak.  Nothing that you could be familiar with and be able to translate how it should sound on a real stereo.  Sounds that could be EQed and carefully chosen to not demonstrate the hole or discontinuity the Bose system almost certainly has between the sub and the mains.  An interesting demo of how audio tricks can deceive you.


 

 Yea its Bose. But even before they moved the covers I noticed cracks in the sounds which I thought it was werid. Then they removed the covers and I'm like that is why the sound cracks. Too loud/much power into drivers too small can often do that from my limited experience with speakers.
   
  But I was impressed when they covered it with a box and it still sounded the safe due to their dynamic changing whatever. Maybe I dunno speakers enough but that was quite interesting in my opinion.


----------



## Krav

Undoubtedly, the frequency response is the dominant determinant of the subjective quality. However, the study's target precision was at the level of 85%. There are other factors influencing the subjective quality that can fill the remaining 15%.
   
  For example, intermodular distortion, which can be quite high in full-size dynamic headphones, typically employing a flexible diaphragm that exhibits increased distortion in high frequency bands in the presence of strong bass. This is much less of an issue in rigid-cone loudspeakers. Apparently, AKG K7xx series fight the intermodular distortion with uneven-thickness, more rigid on average diaphragm, and I believe it helps. 
   
  Regarding the "audiophile myths", I think they are so hard to resolve because of the individual variation of sensitivity to distortions. I, for example, can easily distinguish a flat-frequency-response amplifier with 0.1% THD from one with 0.01% THD. Apparently, many other people can't.
   
  On the other hand, I don't have ability to tell the exact note which most closely corresponds to an arbitrary pure sine wave, while many musicians can do it with ease. Correspondingly, I can still listen with pleasure to a music slightly moved up or down the music scale (detuned), while I perceive any amplifier with over 0.03% THD as "harsh" or "dirty".
   
  So, I fully believe that some people can hear differences brought about by different cables, if the capacitance/inductance/resistance of these cables differs sufficiently to cause audible changes in the frequency-specific amplitude and/or phase response of certain amplifiers, passive crossovers, and dynamic speakers.
   
  Once long ago I owned an amplifier with improper shielding. The amp would drastically change its characteristics based on capacitance-to-ground of its surroundings - an unintended proximity sensor if you will. Not only a different cable, but sitting far away or close to the amp would change the sound - I kid you not!
   
  I also know that for my specific active speakers setup I would need to extend the balanced and well-shielded cables to about half a mile to start hearing audible difference, so this is a no-issue for me now. Nether can I hear any difference between 4 feet and 12 feet headphone cables of the "good yet cheap" variety I'm using, so that's not an issue either. But that may well be because I only use properly constructed amps with beefy power supplies and decent high-end headphones. Other people's mileage may vary.
   
  Quote: 





timar said:


> I'd like to add another empirical study (this time conducted on a scientifical level), which should be of greatest interest here, since it especially deals with headphones.
> 
> Part one is theory, part two is the empirical study:
> http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~briolle/11thAESpart1.pdf
> ...


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





krav said:


> Regarding the "audiophile myths", I think they are so hard to resolve because of the individual variation of sensitivity to distortions. I, for example, can easily distinguish a flat-frequency-response amplifier with 0.1% THD from one with 0.01% THD. Apparently, many other people can't.
> 
> while I perceive any amplifier with over 0.03% THD as "harsh" or "dirty".
> 
> ...


 


 Are you able to verify these findings with level matched blind tests ?
   
  The point of this thread is to examine decent evidence for and against such frequently made claims. Claiming the ability to detect differences when you know in advance that something is changed and you know the nature of the change is not very strong evidence. It does not mean you cannot detect these differences, but it does not constitute proof either.
   
  As for cables, I have tested cables blind and with measurements , the differences are generally so small as to be inaudible, only when the design is pathological is it likely to make a difference, for instance even though the unshielded cables I tested have very high (relatively ) noise it was not practically audible. I have posted samples from my experiments elsewhere, to date nobody has been able to DBT the samples.


----------



## Krav

For the THD, I think the answer would be yes. 0.1% and 0.01% sound very differently to me personally, with the same decent transducers and quality source material of course. I never participated in a blind test between the two, yet on a number of occasions I listened to supposedly high-end solid-sate amplifiers, which I knew nothing about, didn't like them, only to find out later that they were over 0.03% THD. And wise versa, every once in a while I come across one that I don't know anything about, like it intensely, and find out later its THD is well below 0.03%.
   
  Yet another data point is that once I owned an amp which I initially liked but gradually, over the course of 5 years, stopped liking and sold. Found out much later that this particular model was afflicted by serious "drying electrolytic capacitors" issue that would gradually shift at least one of its amplification stages from A/B regime to the B and beyond, resulting in increase of THD at low volumes.
   
  I think I do understand the concept of blind testing, the amazing strength of placebo effect, and what statistical significance means. On the other hand, I also know how large the genetic variations between humans are and how intricate the proper design of an experiment is.
   
  For instance, all blind audio equipment tests I heard about about so far used curtains to hide the equipment. The curtain may attenuate higher frequencies and thus bring down to below audible threshold the higher-order distortion harmonics that would be there in an un-covered speaker response.
   
  In my home system, only subwoofer's speaker is behind cloth. The rest of transducers, all 16 of them, are directly coupled to air, and this makes huge difference in what I perceive as clarity of sound. Walk into a store that sells professional monitors and try to find a single high-end speaker with non-directly-coupled mid and hight frequency transducers. There is a good reason for that preference by people who judge the quality of mixes professionally all day long every working day.
   
  Another factor not very well controlled in some of the blind studies I read about is the quality of source material. Most pop music CDs sound very similar to me on a mid-level-quality stereo system in my daughter's bedroom and the highly accurate system in our living room. Yet the difference between these systems when a decent SACD or Blu-Ray plays is nothing short of stunning.
   
  Lots of recordings the general population listens to are already pre-distorted, so it is very difficult to discern the more subtle distortions introduced by the amplification tract or transducers against the backdrop of massive deliberate distortions aimed at increasing subjective loudness/punchiness/liveliness/whatever of the music on a lesser-quality equipment.
   
  On the other hand, when I listen to a piece of classical music or, say, a Pink Floyd album, created by extremely gifted musicians and engineers with lots of experience using the best equipment in the world, I want to hear exactly what they wanted me to hear, without phantom sounds, veiling, fuzziness, and dirtiness due to the sound reproduction tract distortions.
   
  I'm with you on the cables myth. I think 99.99% of it is due to the placebo effect, occasionally reinforced by people with really bizzarre setups that could be indeed tripped by a particularly bad cable. With proper systems, just buy a moderately thick copper cable with clean connectors, and you'll be just fine.    

  
  Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Are you able to verify these findings with level matched blind tests ?
> 
> The point of this thread is to examine decent evidence for and against such frequently made claims. Claiming the ability to detect differences when you know in advance that something is changed and you know the nature of the change is not very strong evidence. It does not mean you cannot detect these differences, but it does not constitute proof either.
> 
> As for cables, I have tested cables blind and with measurements , the differences are generally so small as to be inaudible, only when the design is pathological is it likely to make a difference, for instance even though the unshielded cables I tested have very high (relatively ) noise it was not practically audible. I have posted samples from my experiments elsewhere, to date nobody has been able to DBT the samples.


----------



## khaos974

Note that I am not making any assumption about your ability to distinguish between 0.1% and 0.01% THD in an amp.
   
  But the way your data point was gathered would not make the placebo effect irrelevant. You friends or the seller who introduced you to those amps may not have told you the THD measures but they could have said something about "the incredible accuracy of the amp"or the look of the amp may have influenced your judgment. I have found that the product's look often match how it was designed, well engineered products with excellent measurements tend to look somewhat professional, or have a luxury/high tech feeling. New products that look vintage tend to have been designed more by ear than by computer simulation. The philosophy of the design match the customer's expectations. Simply by looking at a amp, I can often tell if it will measure well (considering the product category). That's why I would say one is not immune to placebo in non blind conditions, you would expect a level of THD based upon looks alone.
   
  Secondly, logically speaking, THD is not that important in an amp, less THD means better design of course, but speakers (or headphones) usually have a THD an order of magnitude superior to amps, thereby drowning the THD of the amp. That's not saying an amp with a bad THD will sound good, but the bad THD may be the one fault that have no sonic impact among many others.
   
  Your second "data point" with your personal amp tells us nothing, just that one of the reason it sounds bad MAY have been worsening THD.
   
  What I wrote is about the unscientific approach of data gathering, your data should be considered feelings and opinions, not proofs.

  
  Quote: 





krav said:


> For the THD, I think the answer would be yes. 0.1% and 0.01% sound very differently to me personally, with the same decent transducers and quality source material of course. I never participated in a blind test between the two, yet on a number of occasions I listened to supposedly high-end solid-sate amplifiers, which I knew nothing about, didn't like them, only to find out later that they were over 0.03% THD. And wise versa, every once in a while I come across one that I don't know anything about, like it intensely, and find out later its THD is well below 0.03%.
> 
> Yet another data point is that once I owned an amp which I initially liked but gradually, over the course of 5 years, stopped liking and sold. Found out much later that this particular model was afflicted by serious "drying electrolytic capacitors" issue that would gradually shift at least one of its amplification stages from A/B regime to the B and beyond, resulting in increase of THD at low volumes.


----------



## Krav

> Secondly, logically speaking, THD is not that important in an amp, less THD means better design of course, but speakers (or headphones) usually have a THD an order of magnitude superior to amps, thereby drowning the THD of the amp.


 
   
  I think this is a misconception, sorry. While it is true that the THD of even the best transducers is typically in the order of 0.25% to 1%, the distortions of commonly used transducers mostly simply add harmonics, otherwise known as overtones, or multiples of main frequency, that do change the timbre/coloration of sound, yet are perceived as natural by the human hearing system.
   
  The solid state amps introduce unnatural intermodulation distortions resulting in appearance of phantom sounds at frequencies (f1-f2) and (f1+f2), and these formulas are only that simple when only two major frequencies are present. With several major frequencies present at any given time in a typical recording (usually 3 to 12), the picture gets a lot more complicated.
   
  Numerous phantom signals at effectively random and constantly shifting frequencies, appearing due to the intermodulation distortion, greatly confuse the human hearing system and make any music sound, well, unmusical. The sound processing neural circuitry tries to filter those frequencies out, thus consuming more neurotransmitters, depletion of which manifests itself as listening fatigue.
   
  The solid state amp's THD is typically correlated with its level of intermodulation distortion. There are good theoretical reasons for that, but it can be also understood on a general level - the more linear and uniform over the frequency range the transmission function of the amp is, the less THD and less intermodulation distortions it will have.
   
  Basically, the most significant source for both harmonic and intermodulation distortions is the same - amp's non-linearity - and it has to be reduced to "unheard of" levels (pun intended  for a solid state amp to sound right. This is an oversimplification, only correct as a first approximation, yet it does indeed depict accurately the dominant factor.
   
  The high linearity is typically achieved with the negative feedback loop in combination with highly symmetrical amp design and very high open-loop amplification coefficient. Achieving this is expensive, as more stages of amplification are required and those stages have to consist of precisely matched components.
   
  This task is much simpler if the amp power requirements are low, as designers can use operational amplifier chips, which achieve high symmetry and ridiculously high open-loop amplification coefficients by the virtue of their on-one-chip design.
   
  That's one of the fundamental reasons why modern professional monitor speakers sound so good - they use multiple transducers, each powered either by a separate high-quality op-amp or a simple circuit incorporating one. 
   
  The splitting of original signal onto frequency bands happens before that professional monitor op-amp, using active crossover, so that the op-amp doesn't have to work as hard as the amplification cascades of a typical discrete amp that has to drive multiple transducers through highly lossy passive crossover.
   
  Corollary - a couple of professional monitors that cost slightly over $1,000 may sound as good and as loud as a combination of traditional audiophile-grade discrete amp and elite loudspeakers costing upward of $5,000. 
   


> What I wrote is about the unscientific approach of data gathering, your data should be considered feelings and opinions, not proofs.





   
  Yes, of course, those were my opinions. Yet by now you may have noticed that I have some background in electrical engineering and neuro-acoustics as well, so my opinions may have some merit after all 
   
  In general, applying scientific approach to data gathering and especially data analysis is sometimes much trickier than it may seem at first. Blind testing using speakers that are behind a heavy cloth is a good example of an experiment where the systematic error is not well-controlled. Thus I don't have much trust in some pieces of what passes as "research" these days.


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Krav* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> *I think this is a misconception, sorry. While it is true that the THD of even the best transducers is typically in the order of 0.25% to 1%, the distortions of commonly used transducers mostly simply add harmonics, otherwise known as overtones, or multiples of main frequency, that do change the timbre/coloration of sound, yet are perceived as natural by the human hearing system.[...]*
> 
> ...


----------



## DDVX

This isn't completely relevant but I was researching different sounding amps and came over this article (and a few others that are similar). This one doesn't have the most scientific layout but many other websites had similar posts if you want to google it. Can you tell the difference between Bud, Miller, and Coors? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
http://www.strandbrewers.org/reviews/blind98.htm
   
  Sorry if it is a bit off topic but it shows how much sight plays into our perception.


----------



## Leny

Blind testing beer... I like the sound of that!
   
  I get the feeling that after a few it's not really going to matter...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Harman International's listening lab for blind testing speakers, with its acoustically neutral curtain.
   
      
   
   read more here;  http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





ddvx said:


> This isn't completely relevant but I was researching different sounding amps and came over this article (and a few others that are similar). This one doesn't have the most scientific layout but many other websites had similar posts if you want to google it. Can you tell the difference between Bud, Miller, and Coors?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Correct me if I'm wrong, but they should have done it ABX instead. If there isn't an obvious and famous flavor to one of the brands, the testers may not have known what each brand was _supposed_ to taste like, leading them to choose a favorite but not being able to pick what brand it is. To see if a difference was clear rather than to see if they knew what brands tasted like, they should have had 4 samples, one marked A and the others marked 1-3 or whatever, and they choose which number tastes most like A.
   
  How did Harman International determine that their screen is acoustically neutral?


----------



## jax

You can find all kinds of (mis?)information about all kinds of subjects, in print, and online.  You can find counterpoint opinions debunking the same.  Ultimately, as with this stuff, you need to make your own decision.  Just because you find it online and or in print does not make it fact.  As far as these "myths" are concerned, I'd suggest you compare yourself, using your own ears, your own music, your own room, and no outside influences.  If you can't hear differences you will have saved a whole lot of money that you can put towards actual music, or towards some other priority.  Kingstyles makes a good point - there's an entire industry that's been thriving for a long time based on the presumed findings by millions of people that there are actual differences that they are willing to pay for.  Based on fact or fiction many of those people have found their investments to be rewarding on some level.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but they should have done it ABX instead. If there isn't an obvious and famous flavor to one of the brands, the testers may not have known what each brand was _supposed_ to taste like, leading them to choose a favorite but not being able to pick what brand it is. To see if a difference was clear rather than to see if they knew what brands tasted like, they should have had 4 samples, one marked A and the others marked 1-3 or whatever, and they choose which number tastes most like A.
> 
> *How did Harman International determine that their screen is acoustically neutral?*


 

 I do not know. I will try and find info on what it is made of. I would assume it is the same stuff speaker grills are covered with.  Apparently What Hifi also use some sort of screen for their blind tests. In any case, so long all of the speakers are played through it, they are on a level playing field.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jax said:


> You can find all kinds of (mis?)information about all kinds of subjects, in print, and online.  You can find counterpoint opinions debunking the same.  Ultimately, as with this stuff, you need to make your own decision.  Just because you find it online and or in print does not make it fact.  As far as these "myths" are concerned, I'd suggest you compare yourself, using your own ears, your own music, your own room, and no outside influences.  If you can't hear differences you will have saved a whole lot of money that you can put towards actual music, or towards some other priority.  Kingstyles makes a good point - there's an entire industry that's been thriving for a long time based on the presumed findings by millions of people that there are actual differences that they are willing to pay for.  Based on fact or fiction many of those people have found their investments to be rewarding on some level.


 

 I agree, totally, which is why I wish anyone who wants to criticise blind testing should try it themselves. I have no issue with, as you say people finding rewards with their investments, so long as they realise they are buying into a brand/style/image and not any real improvement in sound.


----------



## jax

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I agree, totally, which is why I wish anyone who wants to criticise blind testing should try it themselves. I have no issue with, as you say people finding rewards with their investments, so long as they realise they are buying into a brand/style/image and not any real improvement in sound.


 

 I don't think we agree totally - I think it is absolutely, entirely irrelevant whether they realize what you suggest or not.  What is important is if they enjoy what they ultimately choose.  Why they choose it and enjoy it may not be something you nor I could grasp, but we can certainly empathize with the concept of "enjoyment". 
   
  I would similarly think it entirely irrelevant for someone of faith to have knowledge that their God is not a scientifically provable fact.  If their faith makes their life fuller and more enjoyable and enhances their connection with people and with the world around them I'd say live and let live - who am I to judge or decree that science is the standard by which we all should live our lives?  I'd guess the majority of the people on the planet would have some cause to disagree on some level of reflection.  I'm not trying to drag this thread in that direction, God forbid (pun intended), but using it to illustrate a point.  Though hearts and minds may all be connected in some way, we are all quite different in the way we perceive the world, the choices we make, the paths we take.  As different as our fingerprints. 
   
  It comes down to the age old subjective / objective argument for which there will never be any winner or right answer.


----------



## cravenz

Quote: 





jax said:


> I don't think we agree totally - *I think it is absolutely, entirely irrelevant whether they realize what you suggest or not*.  What is important is if they enjoy what they ultimately choose.  Why they choose it and enjoy it may not be something you nor I could grasp, but we can certainly empathize with the concept of "enjoyment".
> 
> ...
> 
> It comes down to the age old subjective / objective argument for which there will never be any winner or right answer.


 

 x2


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Jax, I do not subscribe to the God and faith analogy. I also think that people should know the facts, or at least all of the 'facts' that are available, so that they can make a properly considered judgment.


----------



## jax

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Jax, I do not subscribe to the God and faith analogy. I also think that people should know the facts, or at least all of the 'facts' that are available, so that they can make a properly considered judgment.


 

 Facts are just a point of departure as far as emotions and perceptions are concerned in my book.  We perceive the world through individual and entirely unique "eyes" - facts tell me nothing about how someone else might perceive them...I can only guess and I could easily be entirely wrong.   Chocolate ice cream may be a fact, but how anyone might perceive it is not for me to say.  I can only tell you how I experience it.  Again, objective vs subjective - we are not on the same page and never will be, which is why I point out that we most certainly do not totally agree with each other.


----------



## Krav

It was exactly an example of an experiment not designed well.
   
  Look at the front fascia area surrounding tweeter of a decent professional studio monitor. It is sculpted to provide just right sound wave dispersion pattern and eliminate standing waves on the front surface of the monitor, and of course it is devoid of cloth.
   
  Look at the cabinet and mid-range cone of the monitor. They are rigid. The cabinet is very heavy (e.g. Genelec cabinets are usually made of metal) and the cone is very light (e.g. A7's cones are made of carbon fiber composite). There is a lot of thinking, design, and advanced material science going into those monitors with transducers directly coupled to air.
   
  Now if one places a cloth in front of such a monitor, the high-frequency directly coupled transducer magic is gone (try it yourself) and in addition I suspect there are going to be intermodulation distortions caused by the flexible heavy cloth, not dissimilar to the ones that the rigid light design of the monitor's mid-range cone was eliminating.
   
  Yes, the cloth may be acoustically transparent in the context of a typical consumer-grade loudspeakers testing - those speakers have huge FRC peaks and valleys and rampant intermodulation distortions anyway. Yet put a flat-curve low-distortion studio monitor behind it, playing a decent SACD material, and I believe some people with sharp hearing are bound to perceive the veiling and distorting effect of the curtain.
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I do not know. I will try and find info on what it is made of. I would assume it is the same stuff speaker grills are covered with.  Apparently What Hifi also use some sort of screen for their blind tests. In any case, so long all of the speakers are played through it, they are on a level playing field.


----------



## Krav

I think the analogy is relevant here. Two or three years ago as I recall there was a big news and subsequent fiery discussions related to the discovering of "God's gene". I'm close to the end of lunch break now and don't have time to search for references, yet the executive summary is that it turns out some people are genetically predisposed to have powerful religious experiences, and some are not, depending on the presence or absence of specific genes. For those who are predisposed, the "Unity with God" is a strong and undeniable subjective truth.
   
  Audio perceptivity is shaped by genetics as well as we know.
  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Jax, I do not subscribe to the God and faith analogy. I also think that people should know the facts, or at least all of the 'facts' that are available, so that they can make a properly considered judgment.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Krav and jax, to get back on topic, I provided all of the evidence that I can find on the internet relating to blind testing and what that has to say about audiophile myths. I have read many a thread on audiophile forums where religion, perception, semantics and philosophical meanderings have been the the counter to science. Can you now bring some actual science to this thread? For example, links to an actual study with regards to sound quality and perception.


----------



## jax

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Krav and jax, to get back on topic, I provided all of the evidence that I can find on the internet relating to blind testing and what that has to say about audiophile myths. I have read many a thread on audiophile forums where religion, perception, semantics and philosophical meanderings have been the the counter to science. Can you now bring some actual science to this thread? For example, links to an actual study with regards to sound quality and perception.


 

 The point I'm trying to make is that using "science" as a benchmark for human perception of the universe is simply a less than reliable resource.  Actually, science has proven to be a very transient resource throughout our brief history in establishing so called "facts".  Science once told us that the world was flat and that blood-letting cured diseases.  As advanced as science has become it remains transient. Today's discoveries are proved to be dated and antiquated faster than ever, or quite slowly in some cases.  As far as explaining things like the human mind, human perceptions, and our place in this vast universe, I don't believe it really begins to tell the whole story - thus the obvious connection to faith as some attempt to explain it.  Science has it's own theories.  Neither can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt.  The thing that always comes to mind in this tired discussion is that we are not machines and do not experience the world as such....so what, I ask you, is the point?  Meanderings aside, I'll just add a good book to suggest as being very much on point: "This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession"


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Blind testing audio is a scientific means of measuring peoples perception of sound quality. Can people perceive a difference between cables etc? The answer is usually no.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





jax said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that using "science" as a benchmark for human perception of the universe is simply a less than reliable resource.
> 
> *Then what is a reliable resource?*
> 
> ...


 

 Responses in bold, if you haven't guessed.


----------



## jax

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Blind testing audio is a scientific means of measuring peoples perception of sound quality. Can people perceive a difference between cables etc? The answer is usually no.


 

 My own personal experiences, over 30 years in this hobby, is that I can tell (some) differences and consistently identify them in blind tests conducted in systems, as my own and close friends, where I'm intimately familiar with them.  That is not to say that all changes yield such differences that are audible to me.  That is not to say the differences I hear will be the same differences you hear (or do not hear).   Whether relevant or not (and I posit that it is entirely not relevant to what makes EVERYONE happy - though some may get there kicks out of such things), you are probably quite correct.  The fact is, by far and away, the majority of people don't even care about such things, and would not take the time to even try it.  You can find studies that isolate groups of people who cannot tell the difference in red wines at various pricepoints (and diverse reviewed successes among "experts").  I suppose you could let such reviews determine that you should always buy the cheapest wine available.  Well, that's fine for some folks, but if you do enjoy the taste of red wine, and do have specific preferences, I doubt you'd be happy buying whatever is cheapest.  To each, their own.


----------



## jax

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Head Injury* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Responses in red.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





jax said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that using "science" as a benchmark for human perception of the universe is simply a less than reliable resource.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Responses in Plum.


----------



## Krav

It appears you missed my point. So here it goes again: it's been recently discovered exactly what genes control predispositions and enduring differences of opinions on many of he subjects that people typically can't agree on. The strength and inevitability of such predispositions has never been understood to that extent up until about 5 years ago.
   
  Human brains are just as, or even more diverse as their bodies. Imagine how silly would be a "blind test" proving that no human can lift over 400 pounds. Round up some random college students, and ask them to lift that unmarked weight, observe that not a single one can, and claim that it is humanly imposible to do it. Would that be a science?
   
  Concerning myself, I have significantly above average ability to separate events in temporal domain. Over and over again, the supposedly "good" audio and video systems that most people find smooth and seamless are perceived as disjoint and distorting by me. So I'm attracted to systems that most people find unreasonably perfectionistic and expensive. I think this is mostly genetic as my kids exhibits similar traits.
   
  On the other hand, my color perception is mediocre at best and I can never figure out what all this fuss about color accuracy and color clarity is about. I often rely on my wife's taste to dress in a color-unoffensive way. So, should you round me up to serve in some "limits of human color perception" test? 
   
  Believe me, I know a thing or two about statistics and design of experiments, as I've been doing it for living for quite a while. In a lot of the audio perception blind tests I read about the systematic error control is questionable at best. And none I'm aware of had enough participants to capture that elusive fraction of a percent of the population with "super-human" hearing acuity.
  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Krav and jax, to get back on topic, I provided all of the evidence that I can find on the internet relating to blind testing and what that has to say about audiophile myths. I have read many a thread on audiophile forums where religion, perception, semantics and philosophical meanderings have been the the counter to science. Can you now bring some actual science to this thread? For example, links to an actual study with regards to sound quality and perception.


----------



## jax

HeadInjury - I was trying to offer another perspective, not really to argue or persuade.  You seem to have a strong vested interest in protecting some tightly held beliefs.  I was never trying to change them, just suggesting that there are other ways to see things.  Your responses to me occur to me as to border on hostile and flippant.  I will take your suggestion and bow out of the conversation since my perspective does not fit with the criteria of the forum, or so it would seem.  Certainly I believe that "science" tells only a tiny part of the story, and there is far more that we don't know, and don't understand, than we do. 
   
  Krav - yes, I got it the first time, and appreciate the addendum.  Very interesting points.  The domain of perceptions that directly trigger such profound emotions as music is capable of is far too diverse and complex to attach numbers and graphs to, and really, what exactly is the point?  I guess I just don't share in the burning passion to "prove" everything, and to ferret out the "truth" in order to be satisfied.  In that respect, Headinjury is quite right - my input does not belong in this forum.


----------



## cravenz

Quote: 





jax said:


> Krav - yes, I got it the first time, and appreciate the addendum.  Very interesting points.  The domain of perceptions that directly trigger such profound emotions as music is capable of is far too diverse and complex to attach numbers and graphs to, and really, what exactly is the point?  I guess I just don't share in the burning passion to "prove" everything, and to ferret out the "truth" in order to be satisfied.  In that respect, Headinjury is quite right - my input does not belong in this forum.


 

 In a forum, everyone should be allowed to have a perspective, it is part of freedom of expression after all. Unless it goes against something so innately against human nature. I'm actually a subscriber to what Krav has just mentioned, but I will not voice my opinion any further more than his.
   
  I'm sure technical experiments give people some sense of certainty and security as to what they should expect. But yet in the audio world, there are many variables that still exist. Take a frequency graph on a particular headphone model. The make and design of the headphone affects the sound that comes out of the drivers as well to some degree. And then there is the biggest variable, human sonic perceptions and genetically, it is hard to know to what extent sound sounds to everyone. Again, I would refer to Krav's disposition. But whatever the case, agree to disagree. It's a forum that is available for discourse, but not if it gets personal.
   
  Music to me is meant to be enjoyed, but everyone has different reasons for going into this hobby. I suppose that this was posted in the sound science aspect of the forum, but all I want to say to jax is that you should not stop yourself from giving input and I'll leave it as that. I think it's important that you share your views and if people accept it, that's another thing altogether.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Deleted


----------



## Head Injury

How about the 128kbps vs. lossless one on our very own forum? There's lots of passes but also lots of failures, evidence enough that lossy isn't always as bad as audiophiles say. By now a lot of people are just waiting on the OP's reveal to see if they're right or wrong.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

There are loads of such tests here and other forums. The conclusions are that like kit, many claims are made, people in blind testing many cannot back up those claims. I thought I would stick to the less common blind tests of equipment.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Previous post self deleted and apologies to anyone who read it and saw it as an attack on them.


----------



## Pio2001

Hello Prog Rock Man,
   
  In case you're interested, I have just updated the french ABX list with 19 new links : http://chaud7.forumactif.fr/tests-abx-f8/post-it-annuaire-des-tests-abx-t5.htm
   
  I still plan to translate that list into english one day.
   
  Many interesting double blind tests were organized in France recently.
   
  Especially the Kangaroo series : 6 gatherings so far, with amplifiers, cables and DAC tested, with test conditions becoming more and more reliable everytime (double blind, level matching, balance matching..)  http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1037&t=29915556
  The Chez Jalot gathering, with spectacular influence of the level and balance matching : http://www.forumcabasse.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3396
  Denis31's amplifiers test, with night and day differences heard just before the ABX started... that eventually completely disappeared during the test (quote : the operator : "_Wanna hear the references again ?_" the listeners (together) : "_No use, sir, that's so obvious !_") : http://chaud7.forumactif.fr/tests-abx-f8/abx-d-amplis-yamaha-rvx657-vs-bgw-750a-t476.htm
   
  Besides these ABX on hardware, I got some more general results.
  Successful ABX for a 0.25 dB level difference, which confirms the need to match the levels with a better accuracy than that : http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/477613/a-proposed-optical-digital-cable-test/120#post_6567206
  Successful ABX on a simulated frequency response resulting of the removal of the oversampling filter of a DAC, which shows that non-oversampling DACs (like many very high end DACs) introduce objectively audible distorsion in the signal : http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1037&t=29842033&start=60#p170435302


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





head injury said:


> How about the 128kbps vs. lossless one on our very own forum? There's lots of passes but also lots of failures, evidence enough that lossy isn't always as bad as audiophiles say. By now a lot of people are just waiting on the OP's reveal to see if they're right or wrong.


 

 When 128 or even 192kbps fail to deliver, it's really quite clear and detrimental to my enjoyment while listening on my home setup.  With my iPod and SE530's at the beach, it's not that important.  OTOH, at 256Kbps, the incidence of a detrimental effect is impressively not so common.  However, when it happens, it can audible enough that it irks you enough to prefer the lossless version.  Effects I hear would be for example, exaggerated reverb on vocals or harshness and brittleness in upper mids to highs.  Sometimes there's a loss of dynamics.  Because of the hit and miss affair with 256kbps, I prefer lossless or even 320kbps if I'm doing new rips off CD's.
   
  It's no surprise that there's so much contention about whether or not one really hears a difference between lossless and lossy:
  - we have varying resolution equipment and cans.
  - we listen to different music (some recordings are more sensitive to lossy encoding than others)
  - we listen to different aspects of music in that we pay close attention to different aspects of our music.  From my own listening, I'm not convinced that lossy encoding affects all aspects of HiFi music reproduction.
  - we believe that if we can't hear something, then others can't.  Not to mention that this fuels the acquisition of the huge HAMMER in the form of placebo effect or imagination.  Every disparity in experience is seen as a nail to HAMMER on.
   
  I could easily be referring to cables as well.


----------



## nnotis

My concern with most of the audiophile gear tests that I've read about is that people are brought in to listen to entirely unfamiliar systems and music.  If I were to listen to a pair of Avalon Indras powered by cheap and expensive amps, my brain would probably be too busy tuning into the speaker signature to notice even large changes brought about by different amps.  On the other hand, I would happily submit to any blind test involving the swapping of amps in either my headphone or speaker setup.  I’m intimately familiar with the way each sounds, so small changes seem much more significant.  When the JH-13s first came out, I thought it was interesting that many experienced listeners were totally captivated by plugging them straight into their iPhones.  I don’t think any of them do now though.


----------



## Pio2001

Unfamiliar systems, that's right. But often, listeners perform the ABX with their own CDs.
   
  Sometimes, listeners say that the system used is better than what they have at home.
   
  Also, unfamiliar systems is only a problem with tests where listeners can't hear a difference to begin with. But in many tests, the listeners can hear the difference before starting the ABX.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





nnotis said:


> My concern with most of the audiophile gear tests that I've read about is that people are brought in to listen to entirely unfamiliar systems and music.  If I were to listen to a pair of Avalon Indras powered by cheap and expensive amps, my brain would probably be too busy tuning into the speaker signature to notice even large changes brought about by different amps.  On the other hand, I would happily submit to any blind test involving the swapping of amps in either my headphone or speaker setup.  I’m intimately familiar with the way each sounds, so small changes seem much more significant.  When the JH-13s first came out, I thought it was interesting that many experienced listeners were totally captivated by plugging them straight into their iPhones.  I don’t think any of them do now though.


 


 In one of the lnks that PIO2001 points to a listener cannot distinguish his own beloved Bryston amp from an Onkyo cheapy, he thought he was listening to the Onkyo and heard it as a crap amp, the amp never changed and his own biases were enough to make his own good amp sound rubbish. Similarly in "Do all amplifiers sound the same" most listeners heard a difference sighted and many described the differences in great detail, yet when done blind the same listeners could not hear differences between a $230 receiver and $12K monoblocks. if unfamiliarity was a big issue nobody would ever pass DBTs but there are loads of positive DBTs, wwe have over 90 years of psychophysics research which has plotted our powers of discrimination, yet the listener in the first case was completely familiar with his own amp and still could not hear it was his own ! When he was randomly blind tested with his amp and the onkyo, i.e biases removed he stll could not tell which was which.
   
  Now, if we are talking about practice/training that is a different matter. B and G found strong training effects in their jitter tests and anecdotally when I do DBTs I sometimes do better after a few trials going back and forth over the same section finidng an artifact that is different on one sample after a while it seems to just click and if you keep to the same segment you can keep hearing it, but it is not familiarity in the same sense as being familiar with  whole piece of music.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





pio2001 said:


> Hello Prog Rock Man,
> 
> In case you're interested, I have just updated the french ABX list with 19 new links : http://chaud7.forumactif.fr/tests-abx-f8/post-it-annuaire-des-tests-abx-t5.htm
> 
> .......


 

 Many thanks Pio2001. I have added the links I have not already got and that I can follow that are in English.


----------



## K.I. Unlimited

Any A/B's between headphones, IEMs, and bitrates? Those would be good too.
   
  The ones on amps and even large set-ups showing little to no differences were eye-openers.


----------



## Pio2001

Not between headphones or IEM that I know of.
   
  But the measurements made with artificial heads make clear that ABX test would succeed.
   
  What do you mean with bitrates ? High resolution or lossy compression ? Mp3, aac, Vorbis, something else ? CBR, VBR, ABR ?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Pio2001, what do you mean by "But the measurements made with artificial heads make clear that ABX test would succeed."? How does that work? Why?
   
  So many questions, so little time......


----------



## K.I. Unlimited

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Pio2001, what do you mean by "But the measurements made with artificial heads make clear that ABX test would succeed."? How does that work? Why?
> 
> So many questions, so little time......


 

 Refer to the headphoneinfo.com link I gave on the cables discussion thread - it outlines the Heads and Torso System (HATS) they use to 'review' headphones without any human testing. The results are astounding to say the least.
 [size=medium]

  Quote: 





pio2001 said:


> Not between headphones or IEM that I know of.
> 
> But the measurements made with artificial heads make clear that ABX test would succeed.
> 
> What do you mean with bitrates ? High resolution or lossy compression ? Mp3, aac, Vorbis, something else ? CBR, VBR, ABR ?






 The measurements by electronics like HATS, and by people differ on a large scale.
   
  For bitrates, yes, like what you've mentioned. It is very difficult for most people to differentiate hearing between 320kbps and lossless, for example.​[/size]


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Sorry K.I. Unlimited and Pio2001, I am still unsure. Do you mean that different headphones, if subjected to blind testing would easily be differentiated and that the testing of headphones with the HATS gives a totally different result from subjective reviews?


----------



## Pio2001

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Pio2001, what do you mean by "But the measurements made with artificial heads make clear that ABX test would succeed."? How does that work? Why?


 

 The measurements show that from a pair of headphones to the next, the frequency response differ by an amount of 10 dB at given frequencies.
   
  According to ABX tests, this is more than 10 times bigger than the smallest detectable threshold : http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm
   
  Therefore even if we could prevent the listener to feel what headphones are on his head, it is clear that the ABX test would be successful.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Thanks. Speakers off all types are the one hifi product I would expect to be easily identifiable. Then bit rates, amps, CDPs, DACs then last cables.


----------



## K.I. Unlimited

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Sorry K.I. Unlimited and Pio2001, I am still unsure. Do you mean that different headphones, if subjected to blind testing would easily be differentiated and that the testing of headphones with the HATS gives a totally different result from subjective reviews?


 
  First point is incorrect. I'm looking at whether blind testing will show whether people can still recognize headphones/IEMs in a blind test. And to make things more tricky, have some DBT's with headphones from the same brand.
   
  Second point is correct. The HATs' review of many headphones differ vastly. Like I mentioned once, due to the "non-human nature" of the test, the HATs cannot tell us things like, for example, how warm, cold or neutral a pair of earphones sound. How wide the soundstaging might be. And other subjective things.
  Due to HATs testing, things like ER6's get praised to heaven while Grado SR60's are found to be lacking all of a sudden.
 [size=medium]

  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Thanks. Speakers off all types are the one hifi product I would expect to be easily identifiable. Then bit rates, amps, CDPs, DACs then last cables.






 I find it oddly hard to differentiate between speakers. Unless one compares for example, a $25 mass-produced speakers from SonicGear and one of those $1000 tower speakers.
   
  Compare all the mass-market speakers and most people wouldn't tell the difference. Or rather, if speakers in the same price range is compared; one of your links showed no difference in speaker setups.
   
  As for me, I couldn't d/dx between high bitrate lossy and lossless, DACs and CDPs at all. Differences in amps were audible. Cables for me...is another question mark.
   
  More tests of these kind might help me (and us) answer our questions.​[/size]


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Bump as more tests found and added.


----------



## AmbientRevolut

Since it hasn't been mentioned in response to a previous comment. There ability for someone at all, anyone to pass a comprehensive blind test between 128kbps and lossless is sufficient evidence to prove there is a difference (not only has 1 passed it, but many, some may fail but that doesn't take away from the validity).
   
  I cannot say the same for cables, I have yet to see 1 comprehensive blind test of cables where someone has passed.
   
  I don't know if it's been mentioned here, but there is such a thing as the null statement. Cable people are coming with the claim "cables improve your SQ" the null assumption is to not believe until there has been testable and verifiable evidence to show that cables do in fact affect SQ. 
   
  A couple logic 101 classes would do some people good 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





" class="bbcode_smiley" files.head-fi.org="" height="" http:="" images="" p="" smilies="" src="http://files.head-fi.org/images/smilies//smily_headphones1.gif" title="
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




" width="" />
   
  Again, I'm not insulting anyone, the human brain is easily fooled, if you are so confident in your belief in cables, do a monitored blind test, where volume is accounted for to test your belief.
   
   
  -A R
   
  P.S Here is an example as clear as I can make it regarding the default position:
   
*A man walks up to you and hands you an orb made of glass, he tells you to keep this with you at all times and your life will improve.*
   
  From a scientific standpoint the default position is to not believe him until he gives you sufficient evidence.
   
*The man insists that it improved his life It will work for you too. *
   
  Lets break here and ask "should we believe this man?" Any rational person would say no.
   
*Being a normal person you say, OK what's the hurt in trying. You keep this orb with you, after 10 years your life has improved nicely since that time, should you believe now?*
   
  Again the answer is no, there are thousands of other factors in your life (including auto-suggestion and the placebo effect), a subjective experience that can have thousands of different explanations is not proof.
   
  So the rational thing to do is to still not believe and do a blind test, removing all the factors, take 2 people in a vacuum and slip the orb into one of their pockets, slip an object that feels like the orb into the other man's pocket, observe. THE SAME THING should be applied to cables, take out all subjective interferences, make it the same headphones, same amp, blindfold the guy so there is no placebo effect, test over and over again.
   
  Now apply this to the cable dilemma, except this man is selling you cables for $300+ and tell me what's wrong about that. Hope this makes it crystal clear.
   
  -A R


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





ambientrevolut said:


> Since it hasn't been mentioned in response to a previous comment. There ability for someone at all, anyone to pass a comprehensive blind test between 128kbps and lossless is sufficient evidence to prove there is a difference (not only has 1 passed it, but many, some may fail but that doesn't take away from the validity).


 
   
  Who claimed that the difference was inaudible? Not even jj, who developed the MP3 CoDec, has ever made that claim.
   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

There are those who like the idea of having a glass orb that they will cherish it. I know of one person on the forum who has read this thread and still bought an expensive cable. That is fine as they had all of the evidence and made a free choice. My main worry is for those who are not given all of the information and are only presented with bogus science and spurious opinions.


----------



## Lunatique

I didn't read the entire thread--just the first page, but has anyone done a double-blind test of headphone amps? I'm asking because I have heard amps that cost well over a thousand dollars but sounding not that better than straight out of my mp3 player when I A/B'd them.


----------



## Headdie

This thread is very interesting.
   
  As someone previously wrote : "I have to resist upgrading my DAC, even if I know that it won't probably change anything".
   
  Now, if I forget upgrading paths like DAC, tubes, headphone amplifiers, etc... Wich way should I go ?
   
  What about electrostatic ? Is there scientific evidence that people prefer the SQ of electrostatic headphones ?
   
  I'm not looking for a justification based on physical properties of the drivers, but a hearing test.
   
  Any information would be welcome, before I dig in my pocket to get a pair...
   
  Thanks all,


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





lunatique said:


> I didn't read the entire thread--just the first page, but has anyone done a double-blind test of headphone amps? I'm asking because I have heard amps that cost well over a thousand dollars but sounding not that better than straight out of my mp3 player when I A/B'd them.


 


 PIO2001 has done blind tests of headphone amps with some positive results !


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> PIO2001 has done blind tests of headphone amps with some positive results !


 
   
  Wasn't that because of the different output impedances?


----------



## Lunatique

Quote: 





headdie said:


> What about electrostatic ? Is there scientific evidence that people prefer the SQ of electrostatic headphones ?
> 
> I'm not looking for a justification based on physical properties of the drivers, but a hearing test.
> 
> ...


 

 Electrostats sound nothing like dynamics. I heard my first electrostat a few months ago and it was so very different from any dynamic headphones I have ever heard. I spent hours comparing the Stax 007 MK2 (powered by the 717 amp) to various high-end dynamic headphones like the D7000, Alessandro Pro, HD800, W1000X, DX1000...etc and the flagship Stax just completely and utterly destroyed them in terms of musicality, clarity, detail, texture, holographic imaging, presence, and so on. If you know anything about high-end studio microphones, then it's exactly like the difference between dynamic mics and condenser mics--two very different sounding technologies running on different principles and designs. This is nothing like cables or amps or whatever--this is two completely different sounding technologies.
   
  But keep in mind that I listened to one of the finest electrotats every made and the flagship product from Stax. I have never heard the entry or mid-level electrostats and cannot say if they sound similar to the 007mk2.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Wasn't that because of the different output impedances?


 

 There certainly may have been differences in output impedance, but if you null for them are you not then making the amps deliberately the same like the Carver challenge, that said if the only difference between a flat FR multi-$K amp and a flawed $200 amp is output impedance and you could do a cheap fix to make the cheapo the same as the expensive you could save a lot of money


----------



## p a t r i c k

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> There are those who like the idea of having a glass orb that they will cherish it. I know of one person on the forum who has read this thread and still bought an expensive cable. That is fine as they had all of the evidence and made a free choice. My main worry is for those who are not given all of the information and are only presented with bogus science and spurious opinions.


 


  Yes, this is the main thing which concerns me.
   
  There is now a common belief that when you buy headphones it is a _good idea_ to get them re-cabled.
   
  Those cable companies will make a fortune out of this and it often hits the pockets of people who don't have a great deal of money to begin with.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





headdie said:


> This thread is very interesting.
> 
> As someone previously wrote : "I have to resist upgrading my DAC, even if I know that it won't probably change anything".
> 
> ...


 

 I can see plenty of reasons to not resist the urge to upgrade your DAC. A hifi system with a feel good factor is, for psychoacoustic reasons, likely to sound better than one without. It is like the person who read the thread and decided still to buy fancy new audiophile cables. Music is about emotion after all.
   
  The money I would have spent upgrading is now spent on a monthly Spotify Premium subscription and collecting headphones. There is no scientific evidence that electrostatic headphones are best, just that they are different.


----------



## Headdie

So what are the scientific evidence that they have a different sound ? And what do you mean by different sound BTW...
   
  Quote:  





> There is no scientific evidence that electrostatic headphones are best, just that they are different.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The evidence that states headphoneshave a different sound is best shown here
   
  http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/about-headphone-measurements.php
   
  where you see the different frequency responses of lots of different headphones. Electro-static speakers are known to struggle with low frequencies and not do bass as deeply or with such impact as dynamic headphones.
   
  As for different, I prefer the sound of the Sennheiser HD201s rather than the tuned for bass HD202s. To some the bigger bass of the HD202s makes them better. I would say that it just makes them different.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





lunatique said:


> Electrostats sound nothing like dynamics. I heard my first electrostat a few months ago and it was so very different from any dynamic headphones I have ever heard. I spent hours comparing the Stax 007 MK2 (powered by the 717 amp) to various high-end dynamic headphones like the D7000, Alessandro Pro, HD800, W1000X, DX1000...etc and the flagship Stax just completely and utterly destroyed them in terms of musicality, clarity, detail, texture, holographic imaging, presence, and so on. If you know anything about high-end studio microphones, then it's exactly like the difference between dynamic mics and condenser mics--two very different sounding technologies running on different principles and designs. This is nothing like cables or amps or whatever--this is two completely different sounding technologies.
> 
> But keep in mind that I listened to one of the finest electrotats every made and the flagship product from Stax. I have never heard the entry or mid-level electrostats and cannot say if they sound similar to the 007mk2.


 


  Isn't this hyperbole, big time????
   
  It's only so much one can become accurate to the true sound one hears without using electronics and diaphragms to reproduce it.
   
  How can two supposedly accurate reproductions sound completely different with one utterly destroying the other??  Geeez 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  .... and no, I've not heard electrostats, but yes, I've heard cans that were preceded by similar hyperbole and had to smile.  While there may or may not be improvements, it's never a night and day situation with one sounding nothing like the other.  It can all be so misleading which lends itself to unnecessary spending secondary to overinflated hopes and expectations.


----------



## xnor

The FR of most 'stats I've seen look like there's a steep high pass filter to kill sub bass. This (inherent!) lack of ability to reproduce deep bass is, imo, what makes many think that 'stats are somehow "faster".


----------



## Headdie

Prog Rock Man : So the evidence relies on different FR patterns for stats and dynamics... right ?
   
  Lunatique : Thanks for this opinion. I've also listened to Staxes, but I was unable to compare them back to back with my actual phones. Now, I'm looking for scientific evidence of superority, not only differences. The kind of audible evidence you get by blind testing. Are you aware of such tests that have demonstrated a net preference for stats or dynamics ? Actually, I can see many musicians and sound engineers using stat mikes, but it looks like most of them use dynamic headphones. Someone here could validate this ?


----------



## InnerSpace

Quote: 





headdie said:


> Actually, I can see many musicians and sound engineers using stat mikes, but it looks like most of them use dynamic headphones. Someone here could validate this ?


 
   
  Any professional's default position is to choose cheap, durable and reliable equipment, unless there is a very, very good reason to go for better stuff.  With microphones - in the studio - there is such a reason.  With headphones, there isn't.  Pro headphones are used for specific reasons ... for a singer to hear a click track or a backing track, or for an engineer to hear subway rumble or HVAC noise, etc - almost yes/no propositions where SQ is irrelevant.  It's rare for anything to be mixed on headphones, but on those rare occasions a producer might well unbox his or her fragile stats and use them.


----------



## Lunatique

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Isn't this hyperbole, big time????
> 
> ...


 

 If you know me from my posts here, you know that I hate hyperbole. I always try to be as objective and realistic as I can be about everything in life. It's really hard to explain this with words--you really have to hear it for yourself. While finding a 007mk2 powered by a good amp to audition against other high-end dynamic headphones will be difficult depending on where you live (I had to travel to Taiwan in order to make it happen), there's another much easier test you can try that emulates the kind of differences between a dynamic and electrostatic sound. Just go to your local pro audio shop and ask to try a good quality condenser mic against a good quality dynamic mic--you'll immediately understand what I'm talking about. I can even do a recording of my voice with a good dynamic mic and a good condenser mic and post it for you to hear the differences--they both sound like me, but they really are night and day different. The two technologies sound so different, yet they both reproduce the same material "accurately." It's got nothing to do with frequency response IMO--it's about the speed at which the driver moves, and the weight/thickness/stiffness of the driver.
  
  Quote: 





xnor said:


> The FR of most 'stats I've seen look like there's a steep high pass filter to kill sub bass. This (inherent!) lack of ability to reproduce deep bass is, imo, what makes many think that 'stats are somehow "faster".


 

 Not with the Stax flagship headphones like the Omega 2 mk2's. They can go down to 30hz and still maintain a sense of authority, and when I tested the 007MK2 against the D7000, the Stax held its own against the D7000 on bass-heavy material with very deep and powerful hip-hop or IDM styled synth basses and kick drums. I also did sine wave tests at various frequency intervals and the 007MK2 performed very well down to about 30Hz. That's about as low as headphones really need to go because past that it's more vibrations than actual audible sound. Even most professional reference monitors can't go down to 20Hz even with an additional subwoofer, except for the very expensive ones.
  
  Quote:  





> Lunatique : Thanks for this opinion. I've also listened to Staxes, but I was unable to compare them back to back with my actual phones. Now, I'm looking for scientific evidence of superority, not only differences. The kind of audible evidence you get by blind testing. Are you aware of such tests that have demonstrated a net preference for stats or dynamics ? Actually, I can see many musicians and sound engineers using stat mikes, but it looks like most of them use dynamic headphones. Someone here could validate this ?


 

 I don't think a frequency graph can tell you anything because that's not the real difference between the two sounds (see my comments above). If anything, I think if the measurements targeted the driver's reaction speed and distortion, then maybe we'll see clear differences.
   
  Most musicians use dynamic mic because it's cheaper and can withstand rough handling. If you've ever seen a rockstar rocking out on stage you'd know that they really abuse the mics. Condenser mics cannot withstand that kind of physical abuse, nor can they withstand very loud SPL blasting at them from loud guitar amps at close proximity. But in the studio, it's a different story--you can carefully setup your mics and amps.
   
  Some musicians actually do like the sound of dynamics--it's warmer in general and less analytical. I think especially for mic'ing guitar amps and rock/hip-hop vocals, they like the warmer and thicker sound. Condensers are much more sensitive, delicate, detailed, and clear--great for classical recordings or jazz, or acoustic/folk. But all studios have both, and also ribbon mics too, and use them as a chef would use different spices while cooking. The mic pre's are also used that way--for desired coloration.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





headdie said:


> Prog Rock Man : So the evidence relies on different FR patterns for stats and dynamics... right ?
> 
> Lunatique : Thanks for this opinion. I've also listened to Staxes, but I was unable to compare them back to back with my actual phones. Now, I'm looking for scientific evidence of superority, not only differences. The kind of audible evidence you get by blind testing. Are you aware of such tests that have demonstrated a net preference for stats or dynamics ? Actually, I can see many musicians and sound engineers using stat mikes, but it looks like most of them use dynamic headphones. Someone here could validate this ?


 


  Correct. We know some headphones have more bass than others and such measurements confirm this. As for scientific evidence of superiority, blind testing of components have often resulted in embarrassment for high priced kit. See the blind tests by Matrix Hifi Non 11 and DIY Audio Non 18 in the first post. Then the Carver blind test of amps shows that once line leveled and a bit of EQ, all amps can be made to sound the same. So I suspect that a series of blind tests of kit would result in various high end stuff being humbled, but a lot I am sure would shine through as the best.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Lunatique* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Not with the Stax flagship headphones like the Omega 2 mk2's. They can go down to 30hz and still maintain a sense of authority, and when I tested the 007MK2 against the D7000, the Stax held its own against the D7000 on bass-heavy material with very deep and powerful hip-hop or IDM styled synth basses and kick drums. I also did sine wave tests at various frequency intervals and the 007MK2 performed very well down to about 30Hz. That's about as low as headphones really need to go because past that it's more vibrations than actual audible sound. Even most professional reference monitors can't go down to 20Hz even with an additional subwoofer, except for the very expensive ones.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Hmm I don't know what to think of this if I take a look at some measurements:
   

   
  (007 mk2 green, d2k red, 6 dB / vertical divison)
   
  And I don't think you'll see the stax performs any better in terms of distortion, than lets say a HD600 which can do a 100 dB SPL with as little THD+N as 0.1% over a big range of frequencies. That's quite hard to beat actually. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  And, dunno if it's in this thread, but the waterfall plots by ryumatsuba show that some Sennheisers are quicker in decay and cleaner.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





lunatique said:


> I don't think a frequency graph can tell you anything because that's not the real difference between the two sounds (see my comments above). If anything, I think if the measurements targeted the driver's reaction speed and distortion, then maybe we'll see clear differences.


 


  Not really, stats are actually slower than some dynamics in all honesty.
   

   
  And, just for giggles compares to a portapro:
   

   
  Distortion for both of them is under 1% THD at 90dB.


----------



## Lunatique

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Hmm I don't know what to think of this if I take a look at some measurements:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 That graph looks really off. When I tested the 007mk2 with sine wave tones, it certainly did not sound like it rolled off that much and that early, and that graph also contradicts other graphs I've seen of the 007mk2 (such as the one Shike posted below you). I'll be able to really put the 007mk2 through its paces in about a week or two though, since I've just purchases one and I can't wait to get it into my studio. I'll be testing it against all my other headphones including my Klein + Hummel O 300D's, so it's certainly a very tough challenge. I never bull anyone about anything, so if the king Stax is disgraced by my vigorous testing, I'll report it here on head-fi. I certainly did not decide to buy the Stax rig because it's the last word on accuracy or neutrality--that's not why I fell in love with it when I heard it. It was the musicality that blew me away. I absolutely loathe diminishing returns, and I'm extremely cautious about buying anything high-end because I know the diminishing returns are ridiculous. But in this case, I really fell head-over-heels for the flagship Stax sound and deemed it to be worth the thousands of dollars of investment.
   
  I'm actually aware of how excellent some dynamics are in terms of distortion and speed. I've seen Tyll's measurements and some are amazing (such as the HD800). My LCD-2 is also damn good in that way. Maybe it's not only distortion, but something else I haven't figured out yet, but it's definitely there and clear as day, just like the difference between dynamic mics and condenser mics--it's absolutely unmistakable. Anyone here is an expert on the differences between the dynamic and electrostatic technologies? Can you enlighten us on the exact reasons why electrostats and dynamics sound so different, and exactly what are the measurable aspects that will show up in graphs? Is it the transients?


----------



## Shike

Quote:


lunatique said:


> I'm actually aware of how excellent some dynamics are in terms of distortion and speed. I've seen Tyll's measurements and some are amazing (such as the HD800). My LCD-2 is also damn good in that way. Maybe it's not only distortion, but something else I haven't figured out yet, but it's definitely there and clear as day, just like the difference between dynamic mics and condenser mics--it's absolutely unmistakable. Anyone here is an expert on the differences between the dynamic and electrostatic technologies? Can you enlighten us on the exact reasons why electrostats and dynamics sound so different, and exactly what are the measurable aspects that will show up in graphs? Is it the transients?


   


  It could be a few things.  First, this won't apply to all but mostly Stax since we know measurements on them and that's what most will base their static impressions off of.  Phase from dispersion characteristics, difference in decay (Stax don't seem to decay fast enough), difference in transients (varies, but there are a good chunk of faster dynamic headphones).  There is also a level of expectation bias.
   
  My guess?  Longer decay makes people think the soundstage is larger (see numerous 'airy' descriptions).  Definitely not accurate in terms of a reference grade set, but obviously fun sounding for quite a few.  I have a set of SR-5s I refurbished myself sitting on a table myself, though they often go unused as my T-Amp isn't really enough to push them as hard as I'd like.


----------



## Currawong

In the above graphs, we have no mention of what was powering the Stax.  Such a steep roll-off in the bass suggests it was a very lowly Stax amp, and Stax doesn't make anything quite as comparable as the high-end dynamic headphone amps that are available, as likely it's too costly to produce an equivalent amp commercially.  I regrettably am not capable of providing a good technical explanation of what influences the performance of dynamics vs. electrostats, so I'll have to leave it to people seriously interested in that to ask someone like Kevin Gilmore who does know.


----------



## n3rdling

Fit plays a very large role in how the O2 sounds (and thus measures).  
  Quote: 





shike said:


> >
> 
> 
> My guess?  Longer decay makes people think the soundstage is larger (see numerous 'airy' descriptions).


 

 I don't think anybody has ever said they find the O2 to have a large soundstage, so no.
   
  Can you show us the transient measurements you speak of?  I've only seen decay measurements IIRC.  How about attack?


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





n3rdling said:


> I don't think anybody has ever said they find the O2 to have a large soundstage, so no.
> 
> Can you show us the transient measurements you speak of?  I've only seen decay measurements IIRC.  How about attack?


 


  O2 may be the exception, because most stat headphones almost are always called airy IME.  Looking at lower models decay does tend to increase which makes me wonder.
   
  There are no direct transient measurements, they are generally gathered from waterfall, frequency, impulse, THD, and squarewave graphs.  Attack is another term of transients, presumably in the beginning stage (ability to rise fast, the transient requires fast start and stop).  Impulse response is a decent way of showing that.
   
  Since frequencies are based on cycles the transient response is inherent.  If it can't rise fast enough it will appear as non-linear distortion in another frequency also impacting amplitude, if it can't stop fast enough you get excessive decay (which also impacts amplitude over time).  If it has good THD, a moderately flat FR in the treble, and good waterfall graph measurements then it's safe to say the transients are okay.  The treble, impulse response, and decay are quite erratic on many Stax models which means they probably aren't the prime example of transient response.
   
  Now, this isn't to say it's absolutely horrible either.  Most decay is done within such a short period of time so it's probably not going to be problematic.  Treble response and impulse, while not the greatest, are probably acceptable for a lot of people.
   
  It's like arguing over a few hp while driving something that weighs tons - there's examples of stuff that's better, but to what degree does it really matter is the question.  Still, I wouldn't use Stax as a reference set when looking for accurate reproduction of a signal, and transients are just one sliver of the pie considering that.


----------



## n3rdling

Do you have some measurements of Stax impulse response then?
   
  Also, when you say "accurate reproduction of a signal" are you saying the FR should be flat?  I remember reading articles on measurements and headphones that say a perfectly flat FR would sound horribly bright to the human ear.  Something to do with the proximity of the driver to our ears.  Then there's also loudness curves and HRTF to take into account.
   
  I believe most Stax models have a largish soundstage due to the housings and driver size.  The Lambdas (which people seem to generalize as the electrostat sound) have a cool driver housing design, where the backside is actually sloped to help with increasing soundstage much like angled drivers.  The Sigma speaks for itself, and the SR Omega has massive drivers that are slightly angled which makes the soundstage large.  The O2 and small monitor headphones (SRX) are generally described as having smallish soundstages.  Then again, I've always took "airy" to be more related to the presence of highs rather than the size of the soundstage.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Correct. We know some headphones have more bass than others and such measurements confirm this. As for scientific evidence of superiority, blind testing of components have often resulted in embarrassment for high priced kit. See the blind tests by Matrix Hifi Non 11 and DIY Audio Non 18 in the first post. Then the Carver blind test of amps shows that once line leveled and a bit of EQ, all amps can be made to sound the same. So I suspect that a series of blind tests of kit would result in various high end stuff being humbled, but a lot I am sure would shine through as the best.


 


 I don't think you're getting the right things out of the Carver Challenge.  What Bob did was not just a little EQ'ing - in addition to near-perfect frequency matching, he corrected for phase shift, response under different impedance loads, and the differing response curves for different harmonic orders.
   
  Basically, he made his solid state amp recreate within a 0.03% error exactly how the sample (tube) Conrad Johnson Premiere 4 amplifies.
   
  The problem is that his circuits end up being far more complicated and susceptible to breakdown - whether changing in sound over time thanks or just plain electrical problems (compared to say, Adcom amps, Carvers are generally more liable to run in to issues).  There's a reason that Carver's amp design doesn't dominate the mid-end solid-state market, despite the excellent price/performance.
   
  I went through and read it again, and I guess they never actually did any blind testing.  It almost sounded like they thought that they wouldn't benefit from doing such tests - but I'm not really sure.  You'd think that if anything they'd be biased towards hearing a difference, but then again, maybe after hearing/seeing the null tests they weren't expecting to hear any differences and thus did not.
   
  Anyway, I've found the differences between similarly designed amps with enough power to be pretty small.  I can definitely tell the difference between the older solid state amps and receivers versus more modern ones and versus recent crappy, bright receivers - but I'm not sure I could pass a blind test between my Carver TFM-15CB (well, I have three of 'em) and my Adcom GFA-555 if they were gain-matched.  I think the Carver is warmer, but maybe it's just my mind playing tricks on me...


----------



## LFF

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> but I'm not sure I could pass a blind test between my Carver TFM-15CB (well, I have three of 'em) and my Adcom GFA-555 if they were gain-matched.  I think the Carver is warmer, but maybe it's just my mind playing tricks on me...


 


 Might be playing tricks on you. The Adcom GFA-555 is a solid and awesome amp with a very warm sound. I own one and have yet to find another one that beats it completely in terms of price and performance.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





n3rdling said:


> Do you have some measurements of Stax impulse response then?
> 
> Also, when you say "accurate reproduction of a signal" are you saying the FR should be flat?  I remember reading articles on measurements and headphones that say a perfectly flat FR would sound horribly bright to the human ear.  Something to do with the proximity of the driver to our ears.  Then there's also loudness curves and HRTF to take into account.
> ...........


 
  That is right, the treble is toned down or else its proximity to the ear would make for a very bright sound. The flatter the FR for full sized speakers, the more natural and similar they sound.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> I don't think you're getting the right things out of the Carver Challenge.  What Bob did was not just a little EQ'ing - in addition to near-perfect frequency matching, he corrected for phase shift, response under different impedance loads, and the differing response curves for different harmonic orders.
> 
> Basically, he made his solid state amp recreate within a 0.03% error exactly how the sample (tube) Conrad Johnson Premiere 4 amplifies.
> 
> ...


 

 I was summarising as the point is if you make different amps sound the same, well what have you really achieved?


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I was summarising as the point is if you make different amps sound the same, well what have you really achieved?


 
   
  That's a painful question for many.  If it's not painful, then it's at the minimum... difficult. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  However, go to your local amp dealer and there will be tons of reassurance and distraction from such a question.  In a while, the difficulty disappears and the question loses significance and may be even entirely forgotten.  The thought!


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I was summarising as the point is if you make different amps sound the same, well what have you really achieved?


 


  
  You are assuming that amps should by default sound different. This speaks to what High Fidelity is or might be really about. In the dark ages (70s/80s) the objectivist camp had an expression for the ideal amp, it was a wire with gain, viz an amp should not add any character of its own - it should just accurately transmit the input signal but louder.
   
  In Masters and Clark's blind tests in  "Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same" they found that if properly level matched amps costing $230 and $12000 were actually very hard to tell apart.
   
  Nowadays we are bombarded with copy that has the working assumption that all amps are different, but this is seldom verified in anything like unbiased tests. Audio mags like Stereophile are populated with sighted reviews where the reviewer knows the price, appearance and design of the components in advance and thus have expectations of sound, generally the more expensive or more boutiquey or pretty the more they like it, there are exceptions of course. Yet these golden eared reviewers are often incapable of detecting apalling products such as the wire that adds several % distortion or the CD/DAC combo that has 25% distortion below 100hz and apallingly uneven FR.


----------



## InnerSpace

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Audio mags like Stereophile are populated with sighted reviews where the reviewer knows the price, appearance and design of the components in advance and thus have expectations of sound, generally the more expensive or more boutiquey or pretty the more they like it, there are exceptions of course. Yet these golden eared reviewers are often incapable of detecting apalling products such as the wire that adds several % distortion or the CD/DAC combo that has 25% distortion below 100hz and apallingly uneven FR.


 
   
  Yes, that's true.  Instinctively I don't feel that home audio is important enough for life-or-death testing, and sighted audition doesn't offend me greatly.  But I think some basic standards should be upheld - some mental precautions taken, if you like - and they aren't.  Over the years you see a basic correlation between physical appearance - even color - and the reported SQ.
   
  But re your second point quoted above: to be pedantic, I think the golden ears sometimes _are_ detecting distortion and uneven FR ... and liking it.  Given that recording processes are "bent wires with distortions and compression" it's no surprise that replay chains featuring euphonic colorations and tilted FRs can sound nice.  In many ways the arguments in this hobby happen because we're not really sure if the "Dark Ages" are over yet ... are we still interested in the straight wire with gain, or not?  It's a vexing question ... and I have to say that if someone gave me a black box to plug in - like a guitar pedal - and it made my system sound exactly like I wanted it to, in my wildest dreams ... then I'd take it, and I'd love it, and I wouldn't care if the wires inside were straight or bent like pretzels.  You?


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


>


 


  Just wanted to add that this is a tremendously important thread.
   
  Keep up the good work!
   
  And, many thanks for the DiffMaker!  It's a real show stopper!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  USG


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





n3rdling said:


> Do you have some measurements of Stax impulse response then?
> 
> Also, when you say "accurate reproduction of a signal" are you saying the FR should be flat?  I remember reading articles on measurements and headphones that say a perfectly flat FR would sound horribly bright to the human ear.  Something to do with the proximity of the driver to our ears.  Then there's also loudness curves and HRTF to take into account.


 

 You can find impulse response measurements at Ryumatsuba's site.  As for the horribly bright comment, I'd like to see the article you're referencing.  Last but not least, loudness curves are a moving target as is the HRTF.  A band wouldn't adjust their performance for you due to these, why should your headphones?


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





lff said:


> Might be playing tricks on you. The Adcom GFA-555 is a solid and awesome amp with a very warm sound. I own one and have yet to find another one that beats it completely in terms of price and performance.


 

 Well, I am using it to power notoriously difficult to drive _and_ typically neutral-to-bright sounding big Infinity speakers (Kappa 8 and the woofers of my Renaissance 90).  I've never so much as heard the Adcom as having a reputation for a warm sound, but I have heard that of the Carver.  In terms of warmth, both of them pale in comparison to my dad's McIntosh 6100 and Polk Monitor 7s.  I've got my own pair of the same Polks and with either the Carver or Adcom they didn't sound nearly as invitingly warm.
   
  I like the Adcom a whole lot more though - it's much more damage tolerant and has so much more power in reserve.  The Carvers also emit some kind of a very faint buzzing sound at all times - not loud enough to hear unless you stick your ear up to the tweeter, but it's there.  Nothing of the sort with the Adcom, and I would be willing to bet that it is a result of interference within the components.  Actually, when I took the cover off of one that was buzzing worse than the others and moved one of the wires (can't remember which one), the buzzing sound was affected and I was able to minimize it with a specific placement.  Of course, later it seemed to revert back to the same...  I guess my point is that I find the Adcom's simplicity, reliability, and versatility appealing.  It's ability to supply the big woofers with gobs of current is great.
  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I was summarising as the point is if you make different amps sound the same, well what have you really achieved?


 

 The perfect amp?  : D
   
  Differences in power handling make a big difference.  Probably the only really noticeable difference among good transistor amps.

  
  Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> You are assuming that amps should by default sound different. This speaks to what High Fidelity is or might be really about. In the dark ages (70s/80s) the objectivist camp had an expression for the ideal amp, it was a wire with gain, viz an amp should not add any character of its own - it should just accurately transmit the input signal but louder.
> In Masters and Clark's blind tests in  "Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same" they found that if properly level matched amps costing $230 and $12000 were actually very hard to tell apart.
> 
> Nowadays we are bombarded with copy that has the working assumption that all amps are different, but this is seldom verified in anything like unbiased tests. Audio mags like Stereophile are populated with sighted reviews where the reviewer knows the price, appearance and design of the components in advance and thus have expectations of sound, generally the more expensive or more boutiquey or pretty the more they like it, there are exceptions of course. Yet these golden eared reviewers are often incapable of detecting apalling products such as the wire that adds several % distortion or the CD/DAC combo that has 25% distortion below 100hz and apallingly uneven FR.


 

 I never ceased to be amazed by the wild claims of differences in sound when dealing with such similar (and all near-perfect) amps, CD players, DACs, etc.  Maybe I just don't have enough experience.  But changing speakers has always resulted in a definite difference in sound and capabities.

  
  Quote: 





innerspace said:


> Yes, that's true.  Instinctively I don't feel that home audio is important enough for life-or-death testing, and sighted audition doesn't offend me greatly.  But I think some basic standards should be upheld - some mental precautions taken, if you like - and they aren't.  Over the years you see a basic correlation between physical appearance - even color - and the reported SQ.
> 
> But re your second point quoted above: to be pedantic, I think the golden ears sometimes _are_ detecting distortion and uneven FR ... and liking it.  Given that recording processes are "bent wires with distortions and compression" it's no surprise that replay chains featuring euphonic colorations and tilted FRs can sound nice.  In many ways the arguments in this hobby happen because we're not really sure if the "Dark Ages" are over yet ... are we still interested in the straight wire with gain, or not?  It's a vexing question ... and I have to say that if someone gave me a black box to plug in - like a guitar pedal - and it made my system sound exactly like I wanted it to, in my wildest dreams ... then I'd take it, and I'd love it, and I wouldn't care if the wires inside were straight or bent like pretzels.  You?


 

 I agree - people like some distortion of particular sorts - some people more than others.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





innerspace said:


> But re your second point quoted above: to be pedantic, I think the golden ears sometimes _are_ detecting distortion and uneven FR ... and liking it.  Given that recording processes are "bent wires with distortions and compression" it's no surprise that replay chains featuring euphonic colorations and tilted FRs can sound nice.  In many ways the arguments in this hobby happen because we're not really sure if the "Dark Ages" are over yet ... are we still interested in the straight wire with gain, or not?  It's a vexing question ... and I have to say that if someone gave me a black box to plug in - like a guitar pedal - and it made my system sound exactly like I wanted it to, in my wildest dreams ... then I'd take it, and I'd love it, and I wouldn't care if the wires inside were straight or bent like pretzels.  You?


 

 Indeed, I guess my point was that the golden eared should know when something is out of whack, they are of course free to prefer it like anyone else but that they interpret the terrible as "accurate" as in the examples I alluded to is different.
   
  Hmmm tricky....I guess I would allow for speakers/headphones to conform to personal taste but for the chain up to that point to be accurate, since speakers/headphones have far more variability than electronics it makes sense to put the variations at that point ?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Just wanted to add that this is a tremendously important thread.
> 
> Keep up the good work!
> 
> ...


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> And, just for giggles compares to a portapro


 

 I just wanted to add that the PortaPro, PX100 ... measurements aren't the best to do comparisons with since they have a huge spike (over 10 dB) in the treble that pushes down the rest of the frequencies in the waterfall plot. And who knows, maybe ryu had to turn down the volume for these headphones to prevent any clipping in those resonant regions.
   
  And notice the ringing in the impulse response. I have a PX100 lying around here and without EQ (bad treble peaks, bad!) I would certainly not enjoy using them.


----------



## n3rdling

Quote: 





shike said:


> You can find impulse response measurements at Ryumatsuba's site.  As for the horribly bright comment, I'd like to see the article you're referencing.  Last but not least, loudness curves are a moving target as is the HRTF.  A band wouldn't adjust their performance for you due to these, why should your headphones?


 

http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/about-headphone-measurements.php
   
  I believe the following also has mention of it, but I haven't read it in a long time:
http://www.stereophile.com/features/808head/


----------



## Headdie

I've read the same "bright" thing on The Audio Critic website yesterday. Everybody should read the Audio Critic for a while, not just the top 10 lies...
  
  Quote: 





shike said:


> As for the horribly bright comment, I'd like to see the article you're referencing.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


n3rdling said:


> http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/about-headphone-measurements.php
> 
> I believe the following also has mention of it, but I haven't read it in a long time:
> http://www.stereophile.com/features/808head/


 
 Headroom's proposition only holds true if you're trying to mimic speakers in an undesirable listening position.  For example, I have a hard time agreeing with going out of ones way to add bass to headphones just to mimic speakers.  
   
  Some people listen to speakers in near field for mastering for example - would they want a roll-off to hide potential problems?  I have a hard time taking arguments of what sounds "natural" seriously - most mastered music will be incapable of ever sounding natural.
   
  As for Stereophile:
   
  Quote: 





> If you suppose that, as a result of Theile's work, there is now a headphone-industry consensus that the DF response assumption is the correct one, prepare yourself for disappointment. Headphones continue to espouse widely differing response philosophies: some close to FF, some close to DF, *and others nearer to flat. Which is "right" remains a bone of contention.*


 
   
  Pick your poison, but flat is flat and thus it reproduces the signal as the signal is intended.  Fixing it to ones ear seems counter-productive and silly to me, so I follow the third line of thought.  That's also why I have a pair of K601, which I've yet to find one person say they're "horribly bright" despite being one of the flattest headphones made.  In fact, many go on and on about a lush midrange and recessed bass and treble, even though the whole headphone is balanced all across the board.

 @Headdie
   
  Went to the audio critic and didn't see anything about headphone proximity defining treble.  Can you give part of the quote so I can search the page for it effectively?
   
  @Xnor
   
  I agree the impulse response isn't vary good to say the least, but the fact that Stax is even worst shows there's definite issues in terms of transients - that's all I was getting at honestly.  Grado's above SR-60 (comfy pads may impact it) show fairly promising measurements beyond FR, as do AKG K701, etc.


----------



## DJGeorgeT

I am one of the few who have heard differences between cable interconnects. I can hear differences between the IC that came with my FiiO amp and a cardas one. The interesting thing is that I much prefer the free IC that came with the FiiO amp. I noticed that the cardas IC is rather dark and does not let the high frequencies thru as much as the free FiiO IC.


----------



## Headdie

The Audio Critic no. 28, p. 32, reviewing the HeadRoom amplifier.
  
  Quote: 





shike said:


> Went to the audio critic and didn't see anything about headphone proximity defining treble.  Can you give part of the quote so I can search the page for it effectively?


----------



## khaos974

I totally disagree with you when you say that* flat is flat*, my point is while a pair of speaker with a totally flat FR is ideal, listening to a system with a flat FR is absurd, because a flat FR doe not exist.
  To be more precise, I want to listen to a system with a "perceived flat FR", ie. a system equalized according to equal loudness contours 9depending on my usual listening volume) and with some positive or negative gain depending on the distance to the transducer.
 In short, an wire with gain system, with a equalization before would be ideal. It's quite a lot of work though, hence why I haven't done it yet, I'm far too busy simply enjoying listening to music.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   
   
  Quote: 





shike said:


> Pick your poison, but flat is flat and thus it reproduces the signal as the signal is intended.  Fixing it to ones ear seems counter-productive and silly to me, so I follow the third line of thought.  That's also why I have a pair of K601, which I've yet to find one person say they're "horribly bright" despite being one of the flattest headphones made.  In fact, many go on and on about a lush midrange and recessed bass and treble, even though the whole headphone is balanced all across the board.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


khaos974 said:


> I totally disagree with you when you say that* flat is flat*, my point is while a pair of speaker with a totally flat FR is ideal, listening to a system with a flat FR is absurd, because a flat FR doe not exist.
> To be more precise, I want to listen to a system with a "perceived flat FR", ie. a system equalized according to equal loudness contours 9depending on my usual listening volume) and with some positive or negative gain depending on the distance to the transducer.
> In short, an wire with gain system, with a equalization before would be ideal. It's quite a lot of work though, hence why I haven't done it yet, I'm far too busy simply enjoying listening to music.


 
  
  Are you sure you read what I said?  You missed the context of the flat comment, "and thus it reproduces the signal as the signal is intended.".
   
  I don't know what you mean about a "flat FR" not existing unless you're talking about about the loudness curves (which seems you are).  My point is correcting for them, to me, seems like a bad idea.  You have the curves and adjust to them by just using your hearing daily, your brain copes and does the best to correct.  By EQing odds are you will throw your brain's perception for a loop to say the least, having it overcompensate.  Furthermore, if you were listening to a band they too wouldn't adjust for your curves.
   
  Also, since you're talking about EQing a flat headphone is EXACTLY what you want regardless, as a flat headphone will be the easiest to EQ regardless.  Trying to EQ an already erratic headphone makes what you're wanting to do all the harder.
   
  @Headdie
   
  Checked the review, and he didn't mention headphone frequency response in regards to the bright comment.  He's referencing how the xfeed (used to mimic room based sound crossover) made it seem less bright and more diffused - which if you're trying to mimic speakers in an average listening room makes sense.  When you have xfeed usually treble does get diffused and it can take a dive in speaker listening too.  It doesn't mean that's a good thing though, just an affect or consequence of the action depending on your outlook.


----------



## p a t r i c k

Quote: 





djgeorget said:


> I am one of the few who have heard differences between cable interconnects. I can hear differences between the IC that came with my FiiO amp and a cardas one. The interesting thing is that I much prefer the free IC that came with the FiiO amp. I noticed that the cardas IC is rather dark and does not let the high frequencies thru as much as the free FiiO IC.


 

 But can you hear these differences in a blind ABX test?
   
  The problem is auto-suggestion. You can simply set up a difference in perception and then maintain it.
   
  Please note that I am not saying there is no difference, I don't know if there is a difference or not. However I do believe that auto-suggestion plays a very large role in our hearing.
   
  So, if you have a well controlled blind ABX test then we could ascertain if the differences are audible by you or not.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





djgeorget said:


> I am one of the few who have heard differences between cable interconnects. I can hear differences between the IC that came with my FiiO amp and a cardas one. The interesting thing is that I much prefer the free IC that came with the FiiO amp. I noticed that the cardas IC is rather dark and does not let the high frequencies thru as much as the free FiiO IC.


 

 You are not one of the few, you are one of the many going by this and other audiophile forums. Crucially, are you experiences sighted or under blind testing conditions?


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





shike said:


> Are you sure you read what I said?  You missed the context of the flat comment, "and thus it reproduces the signal as the signal is intended.".
> 
> I don't know what you mean about a "flat FR" not existing unless you're talking about about the loudness curves (which seems you are).  My point is correcting for them, to me, seems like a bad idea.  You have the curves and adjust to them by just using your hearing daily, your brain copes and does the best to correct.  By EQing odds are you will throw your brain's perception for a loop to say the least, having it overcompensate.  Furthermore, if you were listening to a band they too wouldn't adjust for your curves.
> 
> Also, since you're talking about EQing a flat headphone is EXACTLY what you want regardless, as a flat headphone will be the easiest to EQ regardless.  Trying to EQ an already erratic headphone makes what you're wanting to do all the harder.


 
   
   
  I believed that by "as intended", you implied that the whole chain from the source to the auditor should be "wire with gain". That's what I disagreed with, to me the ideal reproduction system would take into account room acoustics and equal loudness contour. Room acoustic correction is a given I think, but equalising for loudness is good IMHO, you don't want the lowest notes froom a piano or a double bass to disappear whan listening at low volumes, would you?
   
  By the way, the AKG K601 which is a 'flat' pair of headphones according to you (I don't know, I didn't bother to check), is probably flat once the free field diffusion curve is applied, which means it's does not have a flat response.


----------



## nick_charles

Since the object of a cable is to transmit a signal unchanged then if you are right at least one of your two cables is faulty, I suggest you send the Cardas back if it is still under warranty. However, I suggest that before you do this you confirm that the cable is in fact acting as a low pass filter as you suspect.
   
  One method for doing this is outlined in http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/405217/my-cable-test-enterprise
   
  Although I am quite busy I can do this for you if you lack the kit required, I will have to charge my hourly consultancy fee and you will have to ship the cables to me and pay for return shipping, it will take me 2 hours to test each cable, the protocol requires a minimum of 10 trials per cable, trimming and alignment to +/- 1 sample (1/44,100s)  plus spectral analysis and averaging of results, I can even supply you with typical samples of recordings from each cable which you can attempt to DBT.
   
  PM me for prices.

  
  Quote: 





djgeorget said:


> I am one of the few who have heard differences between cable interconnects. I can hear differences between the IC that came with my FiiO amp and a cardas one. The interesting thing is that I much prefer the free IC that came with the FiiO amp. I noticed that the cardas IC is rather dark and does not let the high frequencies thru as much as the free FiiO IC.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> I totally disagree with you when you say that* flat is flat*,


 
  Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> By EQing odds are you will throw your brain's perception for a loop to say the least, having it overcompensate................


 
  Guys,  everything is EQ'd.  Nothing wrong with EQing.
   



  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> You are not one of the few, you are one of the many going by this and other audiophile forums. Crucially, are you experiences sighted or under blind testing conditions?


 

 Probably just his impression....  tried one, tried the other, went back and forth a few times, developed a preference.....  not very scientific, but it's all I do now.  I know better, so I don't even bother to test them....  just pick the one I think sounds better and go with it.....

  
  Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Since the object of a cable is to transmit a signal unchanged then if you are right at least one of your two cables is faulty, I suggest you send the Cardas back if it is still under warranty. However, I suggest that before you do this you confirm that the cable is in fact acting as a low pass filter as you suspect.


 

 Agreed.  Send the Cardas back.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> I believed that by "as intended", you implied that the whole chain from the source to the auditor should be "wire with gain".
> 
> *That's exactly what I'm saying - that is the only way to guarantee accurate reproduction of the signal.*
> 
> ...


 
   
  Responses in bold.


----------



## DJGeorgeT

No in fact, I did not believe that IC made any difference. This took me by surprise. It could be a combination of cable impedance and amplifier compatibility. Now for a cardas cable to sound worse than a free IC, that really took me by surprise. So, this is not autosuggestion.
  
  Quote: 





p a t r i c k said:


> But can you hear these differences in a blind ABX test?
> 
> The problem is auto-suggestion. You can simply set up a difference in perception and then maintain it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

But what about your experience of blind testing what you have found DJGeorgeT?
   
  Blind testing is what this thread is all about.


----------



## DJGeorgeT

yes, I have done a blind test and they sound different. The IC's sound different.


----------



## nick_charles

Can you describe your blind test protocol , since blind tests on IC cables are extremely rare this would be quite significant if it is verifiable, I still think it would be also very telling to objectively measure the cable differences, if there is a verifiable low pass effect on the cardas cable that is highly significant and suggests some serious mangling, what cardas cable is it by the way ?.
   
  I have measured several cables of widely varying designs and never found any that significantly alter the FR, so your evidence could be very valuable !

  
  Quote: 





djgeorget said:


> yes, I have done a blind test and they sound different. The IC's sound different.


----------



## DJGeorgeT

sure, you thing.
   
  I used my sansa fuze, the E5 FiiO amp, a pair of HD25 and ER4S and my colleage at work. Locked the volume on both sansa player and amp and sat a song on repeat.
   
  Without looking, I had him swap the ICs and not tell me which one was swaped and record which one I thought sounded clearer and which one sounded darker. Then we compared our notes.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





djgeorget said:


> sure, you thing.
> 
> I used my sansa fuze, the E5 FiiO amp, a pair of HD25 and ER4S and my colleage at work. Locked the volume on both sansa player and amp and sat a song on repeat.
> 
> Without looking, I had him swap the ICs and not tell me which one was swaped and record which one I thought sounded clearer and which one sounded darker. Then we compared our notes.


 


 Thanks for the explanation. I'll be honest I am not sure I would regard that test as rigorous enough, how many trials did you do, were your comments consistent on each trial for each cable, also single blind tests are problematical as there are all sorts of unconscious cues you can pick up from the expeimenter, it does not mean that you cannot detect a difference but it is not terribly strong evidence either.
   
  Seriously if you have the capability you could try recording samples of the analog outputs from both cables, then you could do a mathematical comparison of the FRs which would prove if the cardas did act as a filter.


----------



## DJGeorgeT

I can't remember exactly how many "rights" I got, but it was high up there in the 90% out of 30 to 40 tries and not all the tries flipping back and forth, but real tries like trying to trick me. Either I am a mind reader, extremely lucky or there are differences in the IC. Do the math on that probability...


----------



## DJGeorgeT

oh yeah, we used a  Y splitter as well. That one could have affected the sound, but I did not think so.


----------



## DJGeorgeT

and anyone who wants to try me out, here is the cardas cable:
http://www.headphone.com/accessories/cables/cardas-6-inch-mini-to-mini-cable.php
   
  and the FiiO E5 comes with its cheap and free cable:
http://mp4nation.net/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=9_45&products_id=261
   
  and you should have an HD25, ER4S, fuze, etc.
   
  Do those "rigurous" tests for me nick_charles  since you are so interested.


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





shike said:


> I believed that by "as intended", you implied that the whole chain from the source to the auditor should be "wire with gain".
> 
> *That's exactly what I'm saying - that is the only way to guarantee accurate reproduction of the signal.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Shike

@khaos974
   
  Checked Tyll's thread about building a lab, and it seems he measured for headroom using DF, so pretty close guess on the measurements.  You'd be right then, the K601 isn't flat at transducer level . . . hrm, not sure what I think.  I'd like to get a flat headphone from every school of thought now to see how they compare . . .
   
  As for their above 10Khz measurement - you're right, they aren't that accurate going up that high.  It's the same reason the DT48 only guarantees flat measurements on certain ranges.  It probably has to do with reflections and other issues thanks to the psuedo ear on the dummy.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Khaos and Shike, with all due respect you are miles off topic, why not PM each other?
   
  DJGeorgeT, would you do your test again, keep your score and follow Nick_Charles protocols as closely as possible so we can add you test to the thread. Thanks.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





djgeorget said:


> I can't remember exactly how many "rights" I got, but it was high up there in the 90% out of 30 to 40 tries and not all the tries flipping back and forth, but real tries like trying to trick me. Either I am a mind reader, extremely lucky or there are differences in the IC. Do the math on that probability...


 




  Quote: 





djgeorget said:


> oh yeah, we used a  Y splitter as well. That one could have affected the sound, but I did not think so.


 




  Quote: 





djgeorget said:


> and anyone who wants to try me out, here is the cardas cable:
> http://www.headphone.com/accessories/cables/cardas-6-inch-mini-to-mini-cable.php
> 
> and the FiiO E5 comes with its cheap and free cable:
> ...


 

 Please do not feel put-upon. Whenever a big claim such as yours is made it is rational to ask for strong evidence, you omitted much of the relevant details until after I questioned your protocol. The claim that ordinary analog cables are audibly different has never been supported by good evidence that is why when such claims perennially emerge it is important to investigate the evidence, it was not a personal attack.
   
  As for the stats it is impossible to do them without real numbers and preferably the "lab" notes since there are order effects and a set of trials not properly randomized will show the bias that we have to hear different even when no difference is made.
   
  However I can do something different and better. I can get the cardas cable and the FiiO with freebie and I have several other mini to mini cables ranging from very thin to 79 strand speaker cable gauge and measure them in circuit with a musical signal so as to show the FR of each, any low pass on the Cardas will be quite obvious.
   
   
  EDIT: Cardas cable and E5 ordered - will update when received and tested.


----------



## spookygonk

Very interesting thread. I wonder if any of these A/B tests had included an extra random test element (like simply flipping a coin, heads = A & tails = B) and see if that was more accurate than the listening panel.
   
  Also, I seem to recall a member here who has a registered blind girlfriend (can't find the trhead) and her hearing is so acute she could tell that the vocalist wasn't recorded at the same time as the rest of the band. Would she be able to discern differences in equipment?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





spookygonk said:


> Very interesting thread. I wonder if any of these A/B tests had included an extra random test element (like simply flipping a coin, heads = A & tails = B) and see if that was more accurate than the listening panel.
> 
> Also, I seem to recall a member here who has a registered blind girlfriend (can't find the trhead) and her hearing is so acute she could tell that the vocalist wasn't recorded at the same time as the rest of the band. Would she be able to discern differences in equipment?


 

 All of them should involved flipping a coin, but if you get 6 heads in a row you may need to doctor things slightly. Perfectly random would be 50%, but since a difference is being claimed that is often night and day, then a 90% pass is reasonable. Less than 90% and you may still have a difference, but one that is very hard to detect. But, and the reason for putting this together, we need more tests, amny more to really conclude whether audiophile claims are really myths or not. So far though, it is not looking good for those who say cables do make a difference. Sadly, that is hampered by some who claim great success in blind tests, but are not forthcoming with their protocols and full results.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Cardas cable and E5 ordered - will update when received and tested.


 
   
  So what do you think the reaction will be in "No Science Allowed" forum if nick_charles finds an IC that really does sound different?


----------



## DJGeorgeT

don't forget the er4s 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 or hd25


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> So what do you think the reaction will be in "No Science Allowed" forum if nick_charles finds an IC that really does sound different?


 


  Hopefully positive and followed up by lots of similar tests. I suspect that instead there will be lots of gloating and a refusal to do anymore tests.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Hopefully positive and followed up by lots of similar tests. I suspect that instead there will be lots of gloating and a refusal to do anymore tests.


 

 The pro-camp are quite content with their perceived differences.  They've always been.  I hope that you realize this.  There's no gloating.  Why test anything but to please the skeptic?  But alas, there are no skeptics among the pro-cablers, are there?  OTOH, the anti-cablers are the ones who can't hear differences or can't afford to obtain the benefits of such differences.  So, in their displeasure, they question the validity of such differences.  IOW's, try to make it a non-issue in the quest for better sound.  Less expense.... NO?  Only such individuals will gloat about anything.  There are a few anti-cablers here who are genuinely about the sheer science of this.  Only a few.  The majority are here about their music and how they can make it sound best for the least amount of resources.  Few here have unlimited resources - cash.
   
  Of course, there may well be a reasonably sized camp who are just here about 'I'm right while you are wrong' ego stroking exercise.  They'll also have reason to gloat about something.


----------



## jcx

at the extremes some cable constructions, RLC, shielding properties (measurable as "transfer impedances") do vary enough to potentially be audibly detected with some equipment combinations
   
  anyone who wants to gloat over disproving "all cables sound the same" is just playing with a ridiculously simplistic straw man version of the debate


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote:


aimlink said:


> Why test anything but to please the skeptic?


   
  The best reason to test stuff is to save yourself money. That logic should appeal to everyone regardless of their audio beliefs. Why pay $500 for a wire if a $5 wire sounds the same? Once we understand that our ears can be tricked, then we know why testing is needed to learn the truth free of human bias.
   
  Also, no knowledgeable audio skeptic says that all cables sound identical. Some wires have capacitance higher than usual, which when coupled with marginal gear can affect the frequency response. When I discuss this stuff I always add the word "competent," as in all _competent_ cables should sound the same. And they should.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## gsilver

Ok: Here's something that I've been wondering about with cable discussion:
   
  The whole idea behind upgrading them is "weakest link" theory, correct? As in, the entire system will only work as well as the weakest link in the chain.
   
   
  Wouldn't the solder points or the electrical path on the PCB of the components used represent a "weaker link" than some heavy gauge cable? (even if the cable wasn't terribly fancy, so long as it's functional)


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Cables are easy to switch, the internal parts of an amp etc are not. So I think you are right gsilver, why do the sceptics ignore huge parts of the chain and announce the cable is the weakest link?


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Cables are easy to switch, the internal parts of an amp etc are not. So I think you are right gsilver, why do the sceptics ignore huge parts of the chain and announce the cable is the weakest link?


 

 I have never read a pro-cabler announcing the cable as the weakest link.  Where have you?  GSilver brought up that issue all on his own.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





aimlink said:


> I have never read a pro-cabler announcing the cable as the weakest link.  Where have you?  GSilver brought up that issue all on his own.


 

 Maybe they don't do it directly, but by boasting about the improvements of sound quality (or whatever) of the overall system with shiny new cables --> this only makes sense if the cable is a weak link.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Maybe they don't do it directly, but by boasting about the improvements of sound quality (or whatever) of the overall system with shiny new cables --> this only makes sense if the cable is a weak link.


 

 I'm referring to the weakest link and not merely, a weak link.  All parts of a system each form a potential weak link.  However, to claim a particular point the weakest link is a wholly different ball game.  Which pro-cabler claims this with regard to cables, even indirectly, i.e., claim that cables are the weakest link?  It's amazing over time how the points made here grow distorted, abused and how complete fiction develops from poor understanding.... and might I add... poor intentions?
   
  But then again, one could, from a facetious standpoint, make the claim that since cables are what link the different components in the audio chain together, then they ARE the links and are therefore of utmost importance and indispensable.  However, this isn't what we're here about is it?  We're here about cables being a given in the audio chain. We're here, not about whether or not a cable should be used, but instead, about whether or not it matters which cable is used.  It's in this latter context that the cable has never been claimed the weakest link by a procabler.  Pro-cablers simply claim that it does matter which cable is used and not all cables sound the same.  IOW's, you can change the sound of your system by cable rolling.  Where that makes for a claim of cables now becoming the weakest link?  All I've seen is a distortion of a valid point put forward by GSilver.


----------



## khaos974

Pro cablers do not claim that cables are the weakest link.
   
  On the other hand, a lot of audiophiles claim that your system is only as good as its weakest link. For a pro cabler that adheres to this idea, the weakest link in a non cable believer's system IS the cables, since that person will use no name ones.
  I think that's what objectivists mean when they say that pro cablers declare cables the weakest link.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> Pro cablers do not claim that cables are the weakest link.
> 
> On the other hand, a lot of audiophiles claim that your system is only as good as its weakest link. For a pro cabler that adheres to this idea, the weakest link in a non cable believer's system IS the cables, since that person will use no name ones.
> I think that's what objectivists mean when they say that pro cablers declare cables the weakest link.


 

 The only context in which such a claim would be made is if a pro-cabler witnessed a user with perfect gear connected together by lamp-cord.  Since such a setup doesn't exist...., I'd be surprised if a pro-cabler made the 'weakest link' claim as being the cables.


----------



## khaos974

So, if someone had a hypothetical system with a full Naim or full Linn setup worth 10000$, connected with Monoprice/Radioshack basic cables in an acoustically retreated room, isn't the weakest link going to be the cables for the cable believer?
   
  PS: If you don't like Linn or Naim, feel free to replace it by any other system you may find good at 10k$, you can't replace the cabling of course.
   
  Quote:


aimlink said:


> The only context in which such a claim would be made is if a pro-cabler witnessed a user with perfect gear connected together by lamp-cord.  Since such a setup doesn't exist...., I'd be surprised if a pro-cabler made the 'weakest link' claim as being the cables.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Here and on other forums threads are posted all the time by people worried that the cable is somehow limiting the performance of their hifi. Whether that is referred to as the weakest link or not is really semantics. The issue is that blind testing has shown pretty comprehensively that cables do not make the differences that are claimed for them. Further blind testing has shown that speakers and room treatments and speaker positioning has a far greater effect than pretty much anything else. See the writings of Floyd Toole and the blind tests by Harman International for further evidence of that.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> So, if someone had a hypothetical system with a full Naim or full Linn setup worth 10000$, connected with Monoprice/Radioshack basic cables in an acoustically retreated room, isn't the weakest link going to be the cables for the cable believer?
> 
> PS: If you don't like Linn or Naim, feel free to replace it by any other system you may find good at 10k$, you can't replace the cabling of course.
> 
> Quote:


 
   
  So price makes it perfect?  I don't see why that is.  AFAIK, there's no perfect system simply because man is the judge.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Here and on other forums threads are posted all the time by people worried that the cable is somehow limiting the performance of their hifi. Whether that is referred to as the weakest link or not is really semantics. The issue is that blind testing has shown pretty comprehensively that cables do not make the differences that are claimed for them. Further blind testing has shown that speakers and room treatments and speaker positioning has a far greater effect than pretty much anything else. See the writings of Floyd Toole and the blind tests by Harman International for further evidence of that.


 

 I can see where if we throw very clear statements into the realm of semantics or word games, then discussions become useless.
   
  You yourself here are demonstrating that there are far greater factors to consider than the influence of cables.  I've genuinely never read a pro-cabler refute this.


----------



## khaos974

Let's clarify a few things first,
  
  Not once have I said that price made perfection, as you can indeed check I did merely say a good system.
   
  The price was merely an indication, it was mainly to avoid comments such as "low-fi rig can't reveal cables",  the example above could work with most rigs. For example, let's consider your own rig, which I suppose you like, replace all cables with basic Radioshack/Monoprices ones, and the headphone cables by the manufacturers' originals. Would you consider the cables, or some of the cables the weakest link of  this rig?
   
  Second, would you say you believe that cables are important when it comes to SQ?
  Third,do you believe in the, "your system is only as good as the weakest link" theory?
   
  If the answer to the 2 last question is no, then the explanation I had for the claim, cables are the weakest link does not apply to you.
   
   
   
  Quote: 





aimlink said:


> So price makes it perfect?  I don't see why that is.  AFAIK, there's no perfect system simply because man is the judge.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> Let's clarify a few things first,
> 
> *Sure.*
> 
> ...


----------



## khaos974

Thanks for your answer, it actually clarified a lot of things for me. I was not trying to win an argument but rather trying to understand how one conciliates
   
  -system only as good as the weakest link
  -cables are important when SQ is concerned.
   
  One cannot deny that cables are indeed a link for an audio rig. A corollary of a system is only as good as its weakest link is that the weakest link determines the upper limit of SQ you can reach with a system, that you can't go above a certain level of SQ determined by that weakest link. Since an already good rig with basic cables can be improved by changing components other than the cables, the conclusion would be that cables were not the limiting factor (which diminishes the importance of audiophile cables for SQ greatly) or that the theory of  "only as good as your weakest link" is bull.
   
  From your answer, I would say that you don't subscribe to the theory "only as good as the weakest component" but rather to the theory that a "weak component" apply a penalty to SQ.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> Thanks for your answer, it actually clarified a lot of things for me. I was not trying to win an argument but rather trying to understand how one conciliates
> 
> -system only as good as the weakest link
> -cables are important when SQ is concerned.
> ...


 

 Now that the heat has been turned down, I'll answer in same. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  You do seem to be understanding me now and I'd wager the position of most cable enthusiasts.  I can never speak for them all now, can I?
   
  I personally see the weakest link in a chain, not on changing relative terms depending on how happy I am with a particular part, but instead as a more fixed consideration/prioritization.  What this effectively means is that if someone isn't happy with his system, I'd never recommend a cable change to fix the issue.  For me, it will always be source, then headphones, then amp.  Cable changes will not get you to love a system you aren't happy with.  The cables don't amount to a large enough difference to convert dislike to like or misgivings to great. The same applies to dissatisfaction with a pair of cans.  If you're fundamentally dissatisfied with your cans, you simply can't hope a cable change will fix it.  You need to change the cans or I'd reluctantly suggest to change the amp.  There are times when someone will post complaining about their cans being too this or that they are disappointed.  At times, there are cable change suggestions.  However, this has inevitably been quelled by a resounding disagreement to the effect that recabling will not fix fundamental issues and this disagreement doesn't come only from anti-cablers.  It therefore cannot be considered a weak enough link that will turn an unsatisfactory system into a satisfactory one.
   
  I hope you can now see why 'weakest link' isn't merely semantics from my POV.  It's a fundamental claim that's never been made by a pro-cabler in any of the discussions that I've been involved, including this one.


----------



## InnerSpace

Quote: 





aimlink said:


> OTOH, the anti-cablers are the ones who ... can't afford to obtain the benefits of such differences.  So, in their displeasure, they question the validity of such differences.


 
   
  Anecdotally, I think this is exactly backward.  People get hooked on the upgrade path (for good reasons, and I'm right there with them) but - subliminally - they know meaningful steps forward are very expensive, so they scratch their itch by convincing themselves that (for example) cables make a meaningful difference.  They create - by simple proclamation - the validity of such differences.  They can't afford the $5000 amp they want, so they buy the $500 cable.  Just an observation.
   
  For the record, I believe that an audio system is an incredibly subtle and complex AC circuit, and _everything_ makes a difference.  But that it's not possible for a cable to be cheap enough to reflect its percentage contribution.  Better to save the endless sequence of cable expenditures toward something more significant.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Really, please elaborate?
  
  Quote: 





innerspace said:


> Anecdotally, I think this is exactly backward.  People get hooked on the upgrade path (for good reasons, and I'm right there with them) but - subliminally - they know meaningful steps forward are very expensive, so they scratch their itch by convincing themselves that (for example) cables make a meaningful difference.  They create - by simple proclamation - the validity of such differences.  They can't afford the $5000 amp they want, so they buy the $500 cable.  Just an observation.
> 
> For the record, I believe that an audio system is an incredibly subtle and complex AC circuit, and _everything_ makes a difference.  But that it's not possible for a cable to be cheap enough to reflect its percentage contribution.  Better to save the endless sequence of cable expenditures toward something more significant.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





aimlink said:


> OTOH, the anti-cablers are the ones who can't hear differences or can't afford to obtain the benefits of such differences.  So, in their displeasure, they question the validity of such differences.


 

 LOL
   
  Love the quote.........
   
  USG


----------



## Prog Rock Man

It is worth noting that the blind tests in this thread were all conducted by hifi enthusiasts, audiophiles and related publications for such. There is little information as to whether they were pro or anti cable beforehand, though the likes of What Hifi and the other magazines do have a pro-cable stance. AVreview does specifically state only one of its subjects was in the sceptic camp. I do think that it is reasonable going by the tone of each article linked to, the majority initially believed they would be able to hear a difference between cables etc. hence the repeated use of 'surprised' at the results!
   
  However, since all the cable blind tests have been fails, I would happily state sceptic or not, you cannot hear a difference between cables.


----------



## InnerSpace

Quote: 





big poppa said:


> Really, please elaborate?


 


  Which part, Pops?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





innerspace said:


> Which part, Pops?


 

 You do know that both of you are about to rehash old arguments that invariably become circular. Or are you going to surprise the rest of us and provide actual evidence for any claims?


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> It is worth noting that the blind tests in this thread were all conducted by hifi enthusiasts, audiophiles and related publications for such. There is little information as to whether they were pro or anti cable beforehand, though the likes of What Hifi and the other magazines do have a pro-cable stance. AVreview does specifically state only one of its subjects was in the sceptic camp. I do think that it is reasonable going by the tone of each article linked to, the majority initially believed they would be able to hear a difference between cables etc. hence the repeated use of 'surprised' at the results!
> 
> However, since all the cable blind tests have been fails, I would happily state sceptic or not, you cannot hear a difference between cables.


 


  I think it would be interesting to see what it actually does take in terms of a horrible cable to hear a difference - in other words, super-thin gauge, long, coiled, etc.  I didn't do a blind test or anything, but when I went from 20 year old (very stiff) 16 Ga, 30' long, coiled (only covered about 8') cable to new 10' sections of 12 Ga wire to power my Infinity Kappa 8s, I'm pretty sure there was a small difference in terms of bass and overall resolution.
   
  Maybe I was hearing things in my head, but I did go from just about the worst you could do to power them to something most would say is adequate.
   
  Today I did some listening tests (using my HD 600s) between a Beyerdynamic A1 amp and my uDAC today, and I'm not sure I could hear a difference between them when using the uDAC as the DAC.  Same thing comparing them to using an older Onkyo CD player and CDs of the same music (I had used FLAC files from my PC), no matter whether I used the headphone out of the player or the A1.
   
  Last night I spent a while comparing my uDAC and the headphone jack of my computer (a Thinkpad T510), and besides the difference in power for my HD 600s I'm not sure I could pass a blind test between them.  The uDAC seemed less fatiguing and slightly less shrill/slightly warmer, but of course it could have been level differences or just in my head.  To be fair, I have heard other computers' headphone jacks and they aren't all acceptable.  I'm just inclined to think Lenovo isn't using bottom-of-the-barrel parts.  On the other hand, it is weirdly a combined headphone jack/mic in jack...
   
  I also listened to a pair of AKG K701's and some Beyerdynamics of around the same price (don't remember the model, but looking at their website makes me think it was the DT 880), and those I could definitely tell the difference between - although it's still not that big of a difference.  I don't want to review them since others have done that, but my first impression was that the AKGs are a bit more emphasized in the highs and that the soundstage was a bit more spacious and precise than the HD 600s.  I suspect that the AKGs would be more fatiguing over time, and they certainly are a lot more delicate than the HD 600s and their carbon fiber construction - mine live in my backpack with my laptop, cameras (big SLRs), and more.  They get a lot of abuse as I carry them everywhere.
   
  I didn't listen much to the Beyers, so I can't really comment on them other than that they are of similar quality to the other two.
   
  They actually have a pair of HD 800s in stock, so I'm going to listen to those some other day.
   
  On a side note, they played a pair of Tangent EVO E4 (I think) speakers while I was in the store, and they sounded absolutely amazing (for the size and price).  I ought to ask if they were using a subwoofer or not, but I'm pretty sure they weren't (I had gone between it and the speakers but heard nothing coming from it).  Maybe it was on (it's always hard to tell), but even if it was I'm still impressed with the quality.  Given the price I'm inclined to try a pair.
   
   
   
   
  Wow, I guess I went all over the place here...


----------



## onef

+1 Vote to Sticky forever.
   
  Oh, and this: http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm


----------



## revolink24

Hey, that link already has its home in my sig.


----------



## gsilver

I can't remember where the the article was, but I do recall seeing an article that stated that over 30', there was clearly degredation in video signals compared to cables around 6'. Video, being easier to objectively measure, is a good starting point for showing signal loss.


----------



## onef

Quote: 





gsilver said:


> I can't remember where the the article was, but I do recall seeing an article that stated that over 30', there was clearly degredation in video signals compared to cables around 6'. Video, being easier to objectively measure, is a good starting point for showing signal loss.


 

  
  Quote: 





			
				BlackbeardBen said:
			
		

> I think it would be interesting to see what it actually does take in terms of a horrible cable to hear a difference - in other words, super-thin gauge, long, coiled, etc.  I didn't do a blind test or anything, but when I went from 20 year old (very stiff) 16 Ga, 30' long, coiled (only covered about 8') cable to new 10' sections of 12 Ga wire to power my Infinity Kappa 8s, I'm pretty sure there was a small difference in terms of bass and overall resolution.


 
   
  gsilver, that's absolutely right. Which is why it's necessary that longer runs require a lower gauge wire to compensate for signal attenuation. Back to basics.
  
  BlackbeardBen, could it be possible that difference you heard was from the replacement of possibly internally corroded cables, or that replacing the cables disturbed contact corrosion that had developed over the 20 years? Removing such would make a drastic improvement on SQ. I think this is the case for experiencing improved sound with new cables, more than anything else.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Just the point you are making? Do not know anyone you are describing?
  Quote: 





innerspace said:


> Which part, Pops?


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





onef said:


> gsilver, that's absolutely right. Which is why it's necessary that longer runs require a lower gauge wire to compensate for signal attenuation. Back to basics.
> 
> BlackbeardBen, could it be possible that difference you heard was from the replacement of possibly internally corroded cables, or that replacing the cables disturbed contact corrosion that had developed over the 20 years? Removing such would make a drastic improvement on SQ. I think this is the case for experiencing improved sound with new cables, more than anything else.


 


  I think internal corrosion could be a contributor, but I had fresh wire exposed on them (recently installed) so contact corrosion (at least at the connections) should not have been a problem.  The wire had become quite stiff though.
   
  I think the bigger issue may have been the length/gauge of the wire and coiling the excess (many loops, could have induced RF interference and/or enough back-EMF to notice).  Remember, I was running 4 ohm nominal speakers that extend almost as low as 1 ohm at some frequencies, so the resistance of such a long and thin wire running such low impedance speaker at high power levels may have been a factor.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Bump as more tests added. The total is 29 now and still waiting for a positive blind test for a cable.


----------



## matbhuvi

Great thread. Replying for bookmark
   
  Edit: Subscribed


----------



## estreeter

I wont be buying any megabuck cables anytime soon, particularly USB cables, but I would be happy to submit to any blind test with a pair of headphones plugged into my (modest) DAC+amp combination vs the onboard audio in my netbook. Regardless of the music, I know that the latter is more compressed, edgy/shrill and lacking in dynamics. Whether I could tell the difference between my current rig and the Grace M903 is a different question, but I would be more than a little stunned if I couldnt. I guess you dont know until you take part in such testing. 
   
  I'd also like to put some of these folks in a listening room with a pair of Krell monoblocks hooked up to a pair of Focal Grande Utopia floorstanders and ask them to tell me if they could *feel* any difference between that and the Pioneer amp ....


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *estreeter* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'd also like to put some of these folks in a listening room with a pair of Krell monoblocks hooked up to a pair of Focal Grande Utopia floorstanders and ask them to tell me if they could *feel* any difference between that and the Pioneer amp ....


 

 Probably can't "feel" any difference until you drive the Pioneer amp into clipping.......


----------



## Anjexu

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> I wont be buying any megabuck cables anytime soon, particularly USB cables, but I would be happy to submit to any blind test with a pair of headphones plugged into my (modest) DAC+amp combination vs the onboard audio in my netbook. Regardless of the music, I know that the latter is more compressed, edgy/shrill and lacking in dynamics. Whether I could tell the difference between my current rig and the Grace M903 is a different question, but I would be more than a little stunned if I couldnt. I guess you dont know until you take part in such testing.
> 
> I'd also like to put some of these folks in a listening room with a pair of Krell monoblocks hooked up to a pair of Focal Grande Utopia floorstanders and ask them to tell me if they could *feel* any difference between that and the Pioneer amp ....


 

  
  That seems rather obvious.  You wouldn't need blind tests to know the difference between on-board and a DAC/Amp combo.
   
  You would for cables though.  You have people spending far too much on cables which don't change the sound.  Perhaps they colour it, but if that's the case then the user simply prefers a different sound signature.


----------



## xnor

I've seen on-board chips that beat even not-so-cheap usb DACs in terms of SNR/dynamic range, distortion ...
   
  Generalizing that every on-board soundcard is inferior than external dedicated DACs is closed-minded and bordering on ignorance.


----------



## Anjexu

Quote: 





xnor said:


> I've seen on-board chips that beat even not-so-cheap usb DACs in terms of SNR/dynamic range, distortion ...
> 
> Generalizing that every on-board soundcard is inferior than external dedicated DACs is closed-minded and bordering on ignorance.


 


  Back at you with the "not-so-cheap" part.  I could resell a USB DAC at 10x the price, isn't going to make it better.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





anjexu said:


> .....  You wouldn't need blind tests to know the difference between on-board and a DAC/Amp combo.......


 

 But it would be interesting to see what the result would be.


----------



## kite7

What I'm more curious to know is from which laptops or which desktop computer motherboards have good sound better than most onboard. From what I know, a large proportion of motherboards use "Realtek HD Audio", it's hard to find onboard sound that is not *realtek*
  
  Quote: 





xnor said:


> I've seen on-board chips that beat even not-so-cheap usb DACs in terms of SNR/dynamic range, distortion ...
> 
> Generalizing that every on-board soundcard is inferior than external dedicated DACs is closed-minded and bordering on ignorance.


----------



## maverickronin

AFIK the its not really the chip itself, but the implementation.  The power supply side needs to be properly filtered, and the analog side needs to be well shielded.  I'm pretty sure Realtek has several different chips with different specs, but I've got no idea which chip is best or which OEM board put in what name brand computer has a good implementation.  Its likely to be pretty hard to find out which chip is best since I doubt people are itching to review these things, and because implementing it properly costs more than the chip itself, a getting a good chip isn't a guarantee of a good implementation.


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





xnor said:


> I've seen on-board chips that beat even not-so-cheap usb DACs in terms of SNR/dynamic range, distortion ...
> 
> Generalizing that every on-board soundcard is inferior than external dedicated DACs is closed-minded and bordering on ignorance.


 


  I'd really like to see the part nos and a link to a laptop/PC that comes standard with such a chip. I do agree that implementation is more important than the silicon, but that is where I start to get a little hot under the collar : Intel put millions into improving onboard graphics for the Core i3/5/7 chips, and about $20K into doing something with the audio. The codec on older chips is usually Realtek. but I believe that most of the newer stuff is the 'Intel High Definition Audio':
   
http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/hdaudio.htm
   
  I have posed the question on several forums as to whether folk can hear an appreciable difference in onboard sound with the newer chips/architecture,. but most people are obsessed with video framerates and their only concession to audio is a set of Logitech USB powered speakers for gaming.
   
  As I said, how about some links to the super chips you referred to earlier ?


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> I'd really like to see the part nos and a link to a laptop/PC that comes standard with such a chip. I do agree that implementation is more important than the silicon, but that is where I start to get a little hot under the collar : Intel put millions into improving onboard graphics for the Core i3/5/7 chips, and about $20K into doing something with the audio. The codec on older chips is usually Realtek. but I believe that most of the newer stuff is the 'Intel High Definition Audio':
> 
> http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/hdaudio.htm
> 
> ...


 

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=2747#ov
   
  Is an ancient board (released around '07) with a chip that has pretty flat FR, noise level below -96 dB(A), THD below 0.005%, overall rated "very good" by RMAA.
  The board cost less than 100 euros and had a lot to offer besides the 7.1 audio chip.


----------



## estreeter

> http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=2747#ov
> 
> Is an ancient board (released around '07) with a chip that has pretty flat FR, noise level below -96 dB(A), THD below 0.005%, overall rated "very good" by RMAA.
> The board cost less than 100 euros and had a lot to offer besides the 7.1 audio chip.


 
   
  Thanks for that - a card for gamers, and its good to see that they put some time into the audio. I would like to hear this from the headphone out.


----------



## axw

Quote: 





kite7 said:


> What I'm more curious to know is from which laptops or which desktop computer motherboards have good sound better than most onboard. From what I know, a large proportion of motherboards use "Realtek HD Audio", it's hard to find onboard sound that is not *realtek*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


 
   
  I absolutely agree. My subjective ranking of various devices' headphone outputs using low impedance Etymotic HF5 goes something like:
   
  1) NuForce Icon HDP  (superb clarity, great detail, quite a different league)
 2) NuForce uDAC-2  and... Asus Eee HAG1201 (yes! not much if any difference between the two)
 3) Lavry DA10 headphone output   (xlr outs are way better but I'm not considering them here)
  4) Meier Audio Porta Corda mk2 (I don't think it's still on sale)
 5) Dell Latitude Z600 and E6400
  
  As you may note, Asus Eee is on the same level as uDAC-2. I like its headphone jack more than DA10 and Porta Corda. Dells are a shame here.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Have any of you blind tested any of the products you are comparing? That is what this thread is about.


----------



## JerryLove

I think his point had been in laptops. The built in audio has issues. I can't tell you if they are the DAC or intereference in the pre-stage (there's a lot of RF in there)


----------



## ipm

I am not sure if my post was posted so here it is agian... 
   
  Has anyone seen any results from blind tests on mp3 vs. CD?
   
  My ears tell me there is a difference but this could be placebo.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





ipm said:


> My ears tell me there is a difference but this could be placebo.


 

 I once gave an audiophile friend a blind test of MP3 versus CD. He insisted he can always tell MP3 degradation, so I ripped a solo classical piano track he chose and converted it to MP3 at 128, 196, and 256 kbps, and played those plus the original extracted Wave file. I switched among all the tracks while he listened. The first time he got all four tracks right! But the second time he got them all wrong, choosing 128 kbps as the original Wave file, and choosing the original as 128 kbps.
   
  I can hear a slight loss at 128 kbps on some types of material, mostly stuff with lots of treble like violins or cymbals. But higher bit rates can sound as clean (to me) as the original.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## ipm

Interesting. My ears tell me that the differences are in losses in some highs/mids as you say, and in the subjective 'soundstage' as well. The latter in particular could be a farce on my part. I would like to get more information on this if a credible source exists. Perhaps it’s up to more listening experience etc, I am not sure.


----------



## KlausGut

Quote: 





xnor said:


> I've seen on-board chips that beat even not-so-cheap usb DACs in terms of SNR/dynamic range, distortion ...


 
   
 Isn't that the point of this thread, that people see rather than hear the differences? Now's the time to post about this old messy affair: http://gizmodo.com/315250/pear-cable-chickens-out-of-1000000-challenge-we-search-for-answers
   
  The parties involved could quible all they want about the ground rules but utlimately both audio reviewer and cable company knew it was a lose lose proposition.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





ipm said:


> I would like to get more information on this if a credible source exists.


 

 The most credible source is your own two ears. Rip a few types of music to MP3 at various bit-rates, then set up a blind test for yourself using a multi-track audio program. Do you have SONAR or Cubase etc? Or have someone else test you.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## maverickronin

Or use the foobar ABX plugin.  I think that's the best way.  It will give you the best chance to hear any difference, and if you can't tell them apart under those circumstances then you never will with that same equipment.


----------



## tabacaru

Thanks for this...
   
  After snooping around head-fi for a while, I was beginning to think I actually have hearing loss not being able to tell the difference between different types of cables and certain encoding options.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





tabacaru said:


> Thanks for this...
> 
> After snooping around head-fi for a while, I was beginning to think I actually have hearing loss not being able to tell the difference between different types of cables and certain encoding options.


 

 You are welcome tabacaru. I wonder how many others have been put off hifi by not being able to hear the 'differences' and worrying they do not have the 'necessary' hearing to appreciate good hifi?


----------



## Iniamyen

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 It's a double-edged sword 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I try to approach it without preconceived notions. The testing that I have done myself (ABX and non-) has proved to me that there is a point that it doesn't matter. BUT, it has also helped me to understand my abilities to hear some differences with different material/gear. Which has caused me to spend more money than I would have (in certain cases.)


----------



## 3X0

Quote: 





ipm said:


> I am not sure if my post was posted so here it is agian...
> 
> Has anyone seen any results from blind tests on mp3 vs. CD?
> 
> My ears tell me there is a difference but this could be placebo.


 

  
  Absolutely and scientifically speaking there is a difference (unlike DACs and amps of well-built and acceptable standard, where there are no differences when the units being compared are properly level-matched) between MP3 and CD.
   
  But these differences are generally beyond my hearing. Usually 192kbps+ is my worry-free target.


----------



## Heidegger

I'm very suspicious of blind testing. It introduces stress and totally changes the way people listen to music. Suddenly they are stressing over small differences rather than just relaxing and feeling the music. Sometimes test conditions change the very things they seek to measure. Moreover, there's no comparison between a test running only a few hours and living with something day to day when you really have time to notice differences. I don't know if I would be able to tell the difference between my RBCDs and SACDs in a blind test. I do know that in day to day listening I much, MUCH rather listen to SACDs. When I play regular CDs they can even sound great at first, but eventually something seems missing and I always go back to SACD. ALWAYS. 
   
  Finally, if the stuff about the amps is accurate and there really is no difference between amps that meet a certain minimum quality, then what are we to say about the many posts and reviews where people compare amps and hear all sorts of differences in terms of treble, bass, width, depth, soundstage, airiness, graininess, etc.? Are these people just crazy?


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> ...
> Finally, if the stuff about the amps is accurate and there really is no difference between amps that meet a certain minimum quality, then what are we to say about the many posts and reviews where people compare amps and hear all sorts of differences in terms of treble, bass, width, depth, soundstage, airiness, graininess, etc.? *Are these people just crazy?*


 

 Nope, just human.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> I'm very suspicious of blind testing. It introduces stress and totally changes the way people listen to music. Suddenly they are stressing over small differences rather than just relaxing and feeling the music. Sometimes test conditions change the very things they seek to measure. Moreover, there's no comparison between a test running only a few hours and living with something day to day when you really have time to notice differences. I don't know if I would be able to tell the difference between my RBCDs and SACDs in a blind test. I do know that in day to day listening I much, MUCH rather listen to SACDs. When I play regular CDs they can even sound great at first, but eventually something seems missing and I always go back to SACD. ALWAYS.


 

 If you can't tell the difference from sound alone (i.e. blind)  then how can you say they sound better?


----------



## Uncle Erik

Heidigger, if you hear a difference, then why do you need to see the cable?

"Stress" is a red herring.

A test was conducted here a few years back where people received three different cables in the mail. They could listen to them as they pleased before sending them on. No one watching and nothing to cause stress.

No one could tell the difference - the results were the same as chance.

Similar tests have been conducted many times.

The simple fact is that no one can tell the difference between cables if they don't know what they're listening to.

So save a few bucks and get the cheap cables. Why not? This hobby is about getting great sound, not winning a fashion show.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  
  Well, I don't know whether I would be able to tell the difference or not since I've never blind tested myself. All I can say is I listened only to SACDs for a few months, then tried switiching back to CDs. YUCK! Couldn't do it. CDs might sound similar to SACDs, but it's as if they have no soul. Something's missing. There is such a thing as unconscious perceptions. You may not be able consciously to perceive a huge difference between the sound of CDs and SACDs, but believe me your body senses it after a while. There's a huge difference in sheer visceral enjoyment. I would point to blind studies where people are unable to consciously distinguish between low rez vs. high rez, but there is a Japanese study where they monitered brain activity and they documented a _physiological_ difference. This supports my contention that people may not be able to consciously tell a difference in a blind study, but that they still experience a gut-level enjoyment of high-rez that is absent when listening to low-rez. I wouldn't switch back to CDs if you paid me.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Heidigger, if you hear a difference, then why do you need to see the cable?
> 
> "Stress" is a red herring.
> 
> ...


 


 I'm not saying stress is always a factor. In terms of rca and other such cables, it may very well be that there is no differnce. However, see my last post above about my belief that people can unconsciously perceive differences that they aren't able to identify consciously. I do notice a big difference, even consciously, between my Cardas and stock Sennheiser headphone cables. The difference is obvious. But my comment was mostly directed at blind studies of amps and SACDs.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Hif Wigwams blind power cable test also involved sending the cables to peoples houses to listen to them over time. Other blind tests talk of the relaxed and friendly atmosphere. I suspect that any stress is felt by those who believe they can hear a difference, but have a horrible feeling that under a test, they will fail.
   
  Heidegger, you are clearly very attached to SACD and it would be brilliant for you to do a blind test CDs vs SCAD. If you pass, which since there is a difference between them I hope you do, it can go in another thread on passed blind tests, to show that blind testing is not designed to fail as some claim.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 1.  Please post a link to the Japanese study to which you refer.  The crucial question is whether the test subjects had knowledge of the source material which allegedly produced those physiological responses.
   
  2.  IMO you are correct when you point to an unconscious (or sub-conscious) phenomenon as the cause of your perception of higher quality.  The question is whether that phenomenon is the result of the high-rez material or your knowledge that it is high-rez material.  The aforementioned Japanese study may directly address that question.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Some interesting tidbits on perception and hearing: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue52/ultrasonic.htm
   
  This was "science" in the early 70's (known in the 50's), but since CD's took over, we shouldn't be able to hear (perceive) anything above 20K. 
   
  Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





terriblepaulz said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I believe the Positive Feedback article provide more current information re our perception of ultrasonic frequencies.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks Nick.  I have heard reference (from you IIRC) to the Oohashi study before.  As I suspected - nothing new, and nothing definitive.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Some interesting tidbits on perception and hearing: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue52/ultrasonic.htm


 
   
  Missing from that article is a plausible explanation for how ultrasonic sound is generated from typical hi-fi loudspeakers which rarely have any real output above 20 KHz. How could one conclude that CDs are "missing" something compared to LPs and analog tape when few microphones can capture frequencies that high, and few loudspeakers ever play back that high?
   
  --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





terriblepaulz said:


> I have heard reference (from you IIRC) to the Oohashi study before.  As I suspected - nothing new, and nothing definitive.


 

 Further, the Oohashi study has been debunked and its flaws explained. Visit the Hydrogen Audio forum for the full details. The short version is they played multiple simultaneous tones through a single tweeter, and the tweeter's own IM distortion created alias difference frequencies within the audible band. So that's what people heard. When other researchers repeated the test using multiple tweeters, with one for each tone, nobody was able to hear or "perceive" the ultrasonic content.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Prog Rock Man

So many audiophile claims are along the lines "we have have found minute measurable differences, we can hear a difference, so they are down to those minute measurable differences". But that just cannot be if such differences are outwith the audible range.


----------



## ACDOAN

The A/B " blind" testing is nothing new to the Audio industry within the last couple decades. A simple search on AVS forum where all the genius rocket scientists gather together to challenge that amp is amp, cable is cable, DVD and CDP are all sound the same.
   
  My take is if you do not hear the difference why bother with someone's preference.  If a pair of  clothes hanger sound as good as the Silver Streak then use the clothes hanger and save your money for some rainy days. If NAD amp sounds the same with Krell amp or Audio Research amp when driving the Martin Logan , then go with the NAD, there will be abundance of money left behind for your off-springs . Emotiva products are another example. There are plenty of fans who love the Emo and consider the Emo are among the best there is but there are others who believe otherwise. So is it a myth or is it a listening skill that require years the training one ears to differentiate the sound from one product to another product in the same line ( I.E : amp to amp )
   
  There is no wrong and right answer. I prefer Martin Logan to dynamic speakers and I prefer to have the Krell to drive the Martin Logan SL3 and the Re-Quest than to have the NAD or Rotel to do the job because I can hear the difference in my enviroment and in my set up. Is it a myth ? To another guy who drive the Martin logan SL3 with the B & K receiver or the top of the line of the PioElite receiver, since he cannot hear no difference between the B &K and the PIO with the Krell or Bryston. Is it a myth or is it something wrong with his listening skill?
   
  It is what it is. There is no wrong or right answer here. If I can hear the difference and another person cannot then more power to that person. The power of saving the money that is. Other than that, the scientific blind test within the last couple decades does not stop  people who can hear the difference from buying audio gear according to their own preference and taste.
   
  It does not and will not stop me from buying Kimber Kables while according to someones else theRadioShack cables or Mono-Price cables supposedly produce the same sound quality.  Hey, this is a hobby for the discriminated ears and the non-discriminated ears. That's the beauty of it. I am happy with my SilverStreak/ Hero/ PBJ so do not tell me that it makes me wiser to buy Monster or RadioShack cables and so on and so on.
   
  Happy listening and enjoy the music, either with a pair of clothes hangers or a pair of SilverStreak.  Just enjoy the music and have a good time. That's all it count.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Are we talking typical hi-fi? If so, then yes, the argument is probably moot. However, typical hi-fi was not the impression I took away from the article. What I was reading between the lines from the author was what is "possible" with newer, extended formats. 
   
  It was my experience in my early days dabbling with live recordings (high school bands and choirs, church choirs, rock bands, etc) that anything I recorded "live" or in our makeshift studio almost always sounded superior to what was generally available on the record racks in the stores. Musically, commercial music was original, that's for sure, but the sound quality we captured was vastly more alive, open, dynamic and realistic.
   
  However, there were some quarter track recordings we sometimes purchased that sounded vastly superior in comparison to the LP version. Believe it or not, Crosby, Still, Nash and Young, Deja Vu was available on 1/4 track reel-to-reel and it sounded much better than the LP when played back over our Telefunken reel-to-reel, and HH Scott receiver! 
   
  In the early 70's we once had a visit from a professional recording engineer who brought in his half-track master of the same recording that was in our record racks. It was so vastly superior that we couldn't believe it was the same music. 
   
  There are plenty of examples of loudspeakers with FR beyond 20K, including the Revel Salon 2, Vapor Cirrus, Merlin VSM, and virtually _all_ the Dali's, to mention a few. With your background in studio work, recording, (etc.) you are already aware of several microphones available with solid capabilities beyond 20K, including the Earthworks QTC30 (~30K), Sanken CO-100K (~100K), the Sennheiser mkh8050 (~50K) and mkh800 (~50k). (Which of these have you already used in conjunction with AD systems capable of capturing these extended frequencies? Can you let us in on your own personal experience and what differences you observed?) 
   
  CD and LP comparisons? Well, besides the one's above, you're experienced enough to have heard some of the better LP based systems and know what sonic levels can be achieved from these and other analogue mediums. Speaking of typical hi-fi, _personally_, I'll take the sound quality from a $5K - $10K based turntable and some of my early Sheffield labs discs over 95% of the digital media and DACs almost any day. You can complain about the music on them all you'd like to but, the sound from these discs on a high-end system, or a typical hi-fi for that matter, is still highly regarded. (Although I'm starting to hear some similar sound quality--thankfully--from recordings from the new Bravura Records.) 
   
  To me there's a lot left for discovery. If the CD is it, then, I'm just gonna have to attend more concerts. There's lots of musical content above 20K at a live symphony.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





> 1.  Please post a link to the Japanese study to which you refer.  The crucial question is whether the test subjects had knowledge of the source material which allegedly produced those physiological responses.
> 
> 2.  IMO you are correct when you point to an unconscious (or sub-conscious) phenomenon as the cause of your perception of higher quality.  The question is whether that phenomenon is the result of the high-rez material or your knowledge that it is high-rez material.  The aforementioned Japanese study may directly address that question.


 

 1. http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2002/proceedings/Oohashi.pdf
   
  2. No matter which is true, I am enjoying SACD more than I ever enjoyed CD. Sound-and-enjoyment-wise, the best thing I ever did was switch to SACD, and I am not sorry about it. When I'm in 7th Heaven listening to Brahms' Piano Concerto or Third Symphony, questions about WHY I am enjoying it so much don't even come into the picture. But I am somebody who was never fully satisfied with the sound of CDs. If you're happy in the CD ghetto, then by all means stay there.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 Ethan, even my headphones go up past 30kHz and speakers go up much more. There are mics than can do 100kHz.


----------



## Happy Camper

Quote: 





acdoan said:


> The A/B " blind" testing is nothing new to the Audio industry within the last couple decades. A simple search on AVS forum where all the genius rocket scientists gather together to challenge that amp is amp, cable is cable, DVD and CDP are all sound the same.
> 
> My take is if you do not hear the difference why bother with someone's preference.  If a pair of  clothes hanger sound as good as the Silver Streak then use the clothes hanger and save your money for some rainy days. If NAD amp sounds the same with Krell amp or Audio Research amp when driving the Martin Logan , then go with the NAD, there will be abundance of money left behind for your off-springs . Emotiva products are another example. There are plenty of fans who love the Emo and consider the Emo are among the best there is but there are others who believe otherwise. So is it a myth or is it a listening skill that require years the training one ears to differentiate the sound from one product to another product in the same line ( I.E : amp to amp )
> 
> ...


 

 Dude, you mapped my quest trying to drive my MLs. I started with NAD, Carver, Rotel and now B&K separates for the last 10 years.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> > >
> >
> >
> >
> ...


 

 High resolution SACD entered into it:
  [size=xx-small] [/size]
  [size=xx-small]To carry out further experiments on this effect, we developed "Authentic Signal Disc" that is super audio CD (SACD) software containing the authentic signals for the hypersonic effect and "Authentic Hypersonic Audio System" that could reproduce the hypersonic effect. [/size]
   
  As to your second point: As much as I like headphones there is nothing like listening to music with your entire body. But of course headphones have their own advantages. And yet I can't stand listening to CDs even on headphones. SACD totally ruined me for CD. Whether it is psychological or physiological or both matters little when the end result is so enjoyable. I'm also a fan of blu-ray and dvd-audio, both of which sound better than CD to me.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Heidegger, you are clearly very attached to SACD


 

 You said it!


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





> Thanks Nick.  I have heard reference (from you IIRC) to the Oohashi study before.  As I suspected - nothing new, and nothing definitive.


 


 There's nothing definitive either way since all the blind studies have also been heavily criticized and their flaws pointed out. Moreover, there's at least one where people _were_ able to tell low and hi resolutions apart.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I think it would be more accurate to say that parts of the study have been questioned. Anyhow, I was referring to the physiological responses:
   
  [size=xx-small]"Noninvasive physiological measurements of brain responses provide evidence that sounds containing HFCs above the audible range significantly affect the brain activity of listeners." [/size]
   
  [size=xx-small]The Oohashi study itself states that people weren't able to perceive the ultrasonic content.[/size]


----------



## ACDOAN

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 Try to listen to " The Spanish Harlem " by Rebecca Pidgeon on CD then on SACD on the same disc and if a person cannot hear the diference , I am really sorry for their ability to hear and their listening skill..
   
  As far as LPs  as one poster mentioned, I can only sum it up in one adjective : Organic.


----------



## nick_charles

heidegger said:


> Moreover, there's at least one where people _were_ able to tell low and hi resolutions apart.





 


Citation ?


----------



## Heidegger

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398
   
  Please don't say it's another inconclusive study. They _all_ are.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398
> 
> Please don't say it's another inconclusive study. They _all_ are.


 


   Ah, I know that one, I have the full paper, I am an AES member. Have you read the full paper ? It is important to read the full paper not just the abstract. There is a lively discussion of it on Hydrogen Audio
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82264 it is certainly an interesting and thought-provoking paper but there are some serious concerns about the methods both experimental and for conversion and the stats are certainly a bit questionable - i.e with enough samples some will always be significant by chance alone and using a two-tailed test to show that folks can accurately do A=X or B=X. blind tests, a twotailed tests mean you can get a significant result when the testers get it wrong more often than they should do. There is a certain amount of cherry-picking in the data - chosing to exclude outliers from a global analysis and despite repeated calls the authors would not stump up the raw data which would have allowed us to have run our own stats. But read the full paper and see what you think. If you are a student you can get AES membership cheap and then pick up the paper for $5 - in general the AES has a whole bunch of interesting papers on these kinds of topics including the controversial Meyer and Moran.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> I think it would be more accurate to say that parts of the study have been questioned. Anyhow, I was referring to the physiological responses:
> 
> [size=xx-small]"Noninvasive physiological measurements of brain responses provide evidence that sounds containing HFCs above the audible range significantly affect the brain activity of listeners." [/size]
> 
> [size=xx-small]The Oohashi study itself states that people weren't able to perceive the ultrasonic content.[/size]


 


   But, the replication study suggests that having ultrasonic content per se present was not causing the physiological changes it was the IMD and thus new *audible sidebands *that caused the physiological effects, that is the argument anyway.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> I am enjoying SACD more than I ever enjoyed CD.


 


 You may find the exhaustive study described here interesting:
   
The Emperor's New Sample Rate


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Ethan, even my headphones go up past 30kHz and speakers go up much more. There are mics than can do 100kHz.


 
  Perhaps one or two speakers play that high, but _most_ speakers and microphones don't go past 20 KHz, and many don't even go that high.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 Meyer/Moran has been a subject of intense discussion at an SACD forum. The posters there point to all sorts of problems with it, although I couldn't say whether the criticisms are justified.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> But, the replication study suggests that having ultrasonic content per se present was not causing the physiological changes it was the IMD and thus new *audible sidebands *that caused the physiological effects, that is the argument anyway.


 

 I would note that the preponderance of studies I know about _do_ come out in favor of "humans cannot tell a difference between high and low resolution." At the same time, none of them seem to be definitive, they have all been criticized, and I consider the jury still to be out. I do know one thing is incontrovertible: I will not be exchanging my Cardas cable for the stock Sennheiser cable, and I will not give up the sound I get from sacd, dvd-audio, and blu-ray in favor of red book cd.  That much is certain.
   
  That's not to say that all sacds sound wonderful. They run the gamut. There are other factors such as mic placement that make a huge difference to me.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





terriblepaulz said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 I gotta say I was attracted to this thread because I had just ordered a $1,500 headphone amplifier for my 650 and the statement here about people not being able to tell the difference between amps really made me think twice about my purchase. I have a Hedroom micro amp that I like a lot, but it was time for an upgrade. Well, initially my new amp sounded terrible, much worse than my micro amp. Then I burned it in with constant play for three days per the manufacturer's own instructions and tried the amp out again with the very recording that had made me cringe. Huge improvement! Now, according to people on this thread the argument for what happened goes something like this: burning it in was the placebo that merely made me _think_ that the sound improved. I just don't buy it. After having read this thread, I approached this amp with a great deal of skepticism, but I cannot deny the improvement. And there is also a difference in the sonic signature of the two amps. Is it all just in my head? In a way, that question is pointless because, if it seems this real, then it might as well be real. That sums up my attitude toward all the skepticism. I just wanted to give my experience in case somebody out there is thinking about getting a good amp and this thread might dissuade them. Based on my own experience, which amp you choose _does_ make a difference, although if you only have money for a micro or desk top I can also tell you that getting a more expensive amp has also allowed me to see just how good my Headroom micro amp really is for its price. Even a Headroom micro can make the 650 shine, and it even has some advantages over my more expensive Black Cube Linear USB, so don't be ashamed of your micro and don't feel bad that you don't have a more expensive amp.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Meyer/Moran has been a subject of intense discussion at an SACD forum. The posters there point to all sorts of problems with it, although I couldn't say whether the criticisms are justified.


 
   
  There are two possibly legitimate crticisms. The first criticism is that not all the SACD samples came from a purely DSD chain, so for some samples the benefit of DSD was lost as the recordings were derived from old tapes or PCM recordings, ditto some of the DVD-A recordings were from old tapes so the higher dynamic range and bandwidth were not there to begin with. As far as it goes this is true, however several samples were properly high res (DSD or high res PCM) from start to player and on none of those did anyone manage a statistically significant result. So take that as you wish. Also note the listeners chose their own material, i.e they chose which discs to listen to and expected them to be better via high res.
   
  The second criticism is that one of the players used was technically only a bit (12 db) better than a CD player in its dynamic range so the benefit of the source material was hobbled by the playback. Now both SACD and 24/196  promise not just higher frequencies but also better dynamic ranges, the high frequences part we can ignore as even the "poor" player had the extended frequency range, but the "poor" player did have a dynamic range that was way below the theoretical capabilities of 24 bit or DSD - a miserly 108db.
   
  How damaging was this lowering of the dynamic range ? - well if the source material had an actual dynamic range of 144db (24 bits) then the 108db output seems pretty poor - however no existing high res player is actually much better in its dynamic range, several are worse, most are about the same - the two other players were about the same. Also more to the point no recording anywhere has a dynamic range of > 96db - even good classical recordings with a dynamic range of > 80db are highly unusual. So what were the critics complaining about, it was the fact that the "poor" player was cheap and so obviously really bad.
   
  So you don't just have to have an SACD or DVD-A player that has a dynamic range that is 4x better than CD (96 + 6 + 6)  each 6db doubles it but you must also have a "good" one as well - whatever that means.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


heidegger said:


> Now, according to people on this thread the argument for what happened goes something like this: burning it in was the placebo that merely made me _think_ that the sound improved. *I just don't buy it. *


 

  You don't need to, the testing methodology has been mentioned here tons of times.  Level match and do a DBT.
   
  If something sounds different between amps, either one or both are built wrong/insufficient for the load.


----------



## 3X0

Quote:


shike said:


> You don't need to, the testing methodology has been mentioned here tons of times.  Level match and do a DBT.
> 
> If something sounds different between amps, either one or both are built wrong/insufficient for the load.


 
   
  This.
   
   
  Honestly, the incessant kool-aid and audiophile delusion befuddles me to no end.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Link non 29 added to the original post. 
   
  I thought I would also link to the thread on positive blind tests to show some balance.
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/513481/are-blind-tests-bogus-examples-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results
   
  as they include some amps.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> heidegger said:
> ...


 

 Then the Headroom Micro Amp was insufficient for the load, because I'm getting a much different sound from the BCL. It's much deeper and all around much more expansive. Also there is no doubt that the sound of the BCL changed as it has gotten more play time. At first the sound was blurry and indistinct; now everything is much more focused.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Then the Headroom Micro Amp was insufficient for the load, because I'm getting a much different sound from the BCL.


 

 It's possible, the HD650 can go into 500 or so ohms territory.  Interestingly the Black Cube at its cost doesn't list any specs for anything above 300 ohms.  For all we know it's clipping or distorting too.
   
  As for the BLC sounding different due to increased play time -- this is almost guaranteed to be placebo.  Unless something is designed horribly wrong none of the measurements should change that drastically during operation.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





shike said:


> As for the BLC sounding different due to increased play time -- this is almost guaranteed to be placebo.  Unless something is designed horribly wrong none of the measurements should change that drastically during operation.


 

 Out of the box the BCL was a blurry, indistinct mess -- and slow as all hell. It has gained clarity and depth. It's much more focused. I wish one day you will own a brand new BCL and then you will know what I'm talking about.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> After having read this thread, I approached this amp with a great deal of skepticism, but I cannot deny the improvement. And there is also a difference in the sonic signature of the two amps. Is it all just in my head? In a way, that question is pointless because, if it seems this real, then it might as well be real.


 

 Not a very Heideggerian way of thinking.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   You make it sound more like Husserlian noemata than an existential development of readiness-to-hand (er, ear) from prior conspicuousness, which is what we're talking about..


----------



## 3X0

Quote:


heidegger said:


> It's much deeper and all around much more expansive. Also there is no doubt that the sound of the BCL changed as it has gotten more play time. At first the sound was blurry and indistinct; now everything is much more focused.


 


heidegger said:


> Out of the box the BCL was a blurry, indistinct mess -- and slow as all hell. It has gained clarity and depth. It's much more focused. I wish one day you will own a brand new BCL and then you will know what I'm talking about.


 
  I'm sorry, but what the heck? What are posts like these doing in the sound _science_ forum? Especially given the title and directive of this thread, this is simply ridiculou_s._
   
   
  I suppose I'll stick to AVS for reasonable audio discussion.


----------



## ex0du5

One of my favorite bits about cable reviews, is that they clearly associate the sound to the color of the cable. If it's made out of copper, it's warm. If it's made out of silver, it's analytical. If the mesh is colored black, it's neutral. The list goes on. More expensive cables always deliver more detail, better imaging, and a more expansive soundstage. They make the music come to life. It hurts my head.
   
  My dad and I auditioned $6k/pr cable on his B&W 800 Diamonds, and we honestly could not tell a difference in between cables. My dad claimed to hear enormous differences going from the Bryston 4B SST to 2x Bryston 7B, but I just don't hear it...in that sense, I'm skeptical as well. My hearing ability is certainly beyond his as well.
   
  I can listen to different headphones and different speakers and the difference in sound is astonishing. I can listen to different cables and I'm not sure I can pick out any difference whatsoever. Even amps are tricky...it took quite a few A/Bs in between onboard and an Asus Xonar STX before realizing that the STX was giving me deeper and stronger bass, but the difference was not mindblowing, and not certainly as big as spending an additional $200 on better headphones.
   
  I certainly think my Maverick Audio D1 is a big improvement over even the Xonar STX...but I'm not naive enough to think it's impossible for the differences to be in my head. Same goes with break-in...are the headphones really breaking in? Or am I just adjusting to the sound? My K702 sound full and rich after listening to them for a while, but if I take a listen to my HFI 580 and come back to them, they sound harsh and shrill. Psychoacoustics play a big role in this hobby.
   
  I can understand maybe justifying a small portion of your budget to get the most out of your high end headphones...but when people are spending three times the price of their headphones on amps and cables, I can't help but cringe.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





3x0 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> heidegger said:
> ...


 

 I'm warning people against the bad information that copiously lards this thread -- for instance, the claim that breaking in your amp does not result in better sound. If I had listened to the "science" being bandied about here, I would have packed my amp up and returned it to the store. Luckily, I let my amp burn in and was rewarded with wonderful sound. My amp _did_ require a break-in period. It sounds much better now than out of the box.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> I'm warning people against the bad information that copiously lards this thread -- for instance, the claim that breaking in your amp does not result in better sound. If I had listened to the "science" being bandied about here, I would have packed my amp up and returned it to the store. Luckily, I let my amp burn in and was rewarded with wonderful sound. My amp _did_ require a break-in period. It sounds much better now than out of the box.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> I'm warning people against the bad information that copiously lards this thread -- for instance, the claim that breaking in your amp does not result in better sound. If I had listened to the "science" being bandied about here, I would have packed my amp up and returned it to the store. Luckily, I let my amp burn in and was rewarded with wonderful sound. My amp _did_ require a break-in period. It sounds much better now than out of the box.


 

 The non-anecdotal evidence for amp burn is simply non-existent - there are no controlled blind listening tests to support the assertion that here is any meaningful (audible) burn-in in amps. You could however buy another identical amp and then do some blind tests yourself.
   
  The plural of anecdote is not evidence.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> I'm warning people against the bad information that copiously lards this thread -- for instance, the claim that breaking in your amp does not result in better sound. If I had listened to the "science" being bandied about here, I would have packed my amp up and returned it to the store. Luckily, I let my amp burn in and was rewarded with wonderful sound. My amp _did_ require a break-in period. It sounds much better now than out of the box.


 


  Here are some examples of the science (sorry- "science") of what you're describing:
   
The influence of familiarization on preference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_effect
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11191399


----------



## googleborg

the DC offset off my current pet amp starts off at 20mv and falls to about 2mv (the 10k trimpots are 'meh', getting some new bourns multiturn ones) after 10 minutes...i think it's as close to burn in i've seen...i think it's traditionally called 'warming up' though, and it happens every turn on, so it's not actually burn in is it... i sleep now (-_-)


----------



## Prog Rock Man

This thread was never about burn in.There are loads of other threads about that. After 317 posts on 22 pages all we get from the myth believers is anything but tackle the actual issue, when it comes to cables there is a complete failure to actually hear* a difference and as for other audio products the differences are so small that sometimes they fail to hear* a difference as well.
   
  * By hear a difference I mean being able to identify a difference by sound alone with no other senses involved.


----------



## 3X0

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> I'm warning people against the bad information that copiously lards this thread -- for instance, the claim that breaking in your amp does not result in better sound. If I had listened to the "science" being bandied about here, I would have packed my amp up and returned it to the store. Luckily, I let my amp burn in and was rewarded with wonderful sound. My amp _did_ require a break-in period. It sounds much better now than out of the box.


 
  Your belief is irrational since it is not grounded on any evidence. The contrary opinion, the one which observes the very "sciences" you seem to be against, actually holds weight based on _proof_.
   
  I think the marketing, audiophile voodoo, and all the nonsense perpetuated by stagnating publications like Stereophile have gotten to your head..


----------



## Heidegger

If you stopped theorizing and actually purchased more audio equipment you would know better. The engineer who designed the Black Cube Linear recommends you break it in. The person who actually designed the machine should know.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> If you stopped theorizing and actually purchased more audio equipment you would know better. The engineer who designed the Black Cube Linear recommends you break it in. The person who actually designed the machine should know.


 
   
  Pesumably Norbert can provide suiable before and after measurements and is in nooooo way pandering to audiophile dogma 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  My Wife used to be an EE , the sort where you go to University and get a degree and I asked her about the notion that burn-in could improve the sound of a solid state amp, she remarked that people believe a lot of strange things and doubted that you would find that assertion in any reputable text book.


----------



## Heidegger

Nick, go out and buy a brand new BCL then you'll hear the phenomenon for yourself. But I forget -- to you there is no such thing as hearing for yourself; there is only number crunching.
   
  I would not be keeping this amp if its sound had not improved dramatically.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





3x0 said:


> > Your belief is irrational since it is not grounded on any evidence. The contrary opinion, the one which observes the very "sciences" you seem to be against, actually holds weight based on _proof._


 


 I'm not against science, only against theories that are totally divorced from reality. The history of science is _studded_ with emendations, corrections, alterations, and reassessments. New things are learned, theories revised, predictions updated, things once thought scientifically impossible were later scientifically confirmed, old scientific beliefs have been replaced by new ones. Those who rely exclusively on the way something "should" be (I "shouldn't" be able to hear a difference before and after burn-in) and don't even take the time to see and hear something for themselves can deny the obvious only to themselves.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Nick, go out and buy a brand new BCL then you'll hear the phenomenon for yourself. But I forget -- to you there is no such thing as hearing for yourself; there is only number crunching.
> 
> I would not be keeping this amp if its sound had not improved dramatically.


 

 I do a substantial amount of listening for myself, I use a switch box, ABX software and multiple sources so I can test things like codecs, cables, digital connection types, line-out vs headphone out, cd players and so on, that said only the level matched blind tests make any sense, even rapid switching sighted tests are flawed. I have no need of another home headphone amp.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


heidegger said:


> I'm not against science, only against theories that are totally divorced from reality . . . .


 

  Err, let's get this straight.  Have you seen audiophilia tweaks?:
   
  Cables
  Burn-In
  CD Treatments (a marker along the edge)
  Wood blocks that supposedly bring data back to MP3s
  A clock with a felt dot on it.
  A pile of rocks on top of an amp
   
  Don't throw rocks when your house is made of glass.  Audiophilia has been built up various "theories" (as if we could even call them that) that are not only divorces from reality but completely asinine.  Furthermore, the fact that scientific theories are always trying to be disproved means they are held to a higher standard of scrutiny.  Almost everything you touch in life is a byproduct of science -- even your audio setup.
   
  Furthermore, us doing the DBT is seen as conflict of interest.  We believe there is going to be a null result.  Therefore, if we take the DBT and no findings are found you can make the accusation that we did it on purpose or suffer from "tin ears" (this has happened in the past to me).


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





shike said:


> Furthermore, us doing the DBT is seen as conflict of interest.  We believe there is going to be a null result.  Therefore, if we take the DBT and no findings are found you can make the accusation that we did it on purpose or suffer from "tin ears" (this has happened in the past to me).


 

 Or that something was wrong with your experiment.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> My Wife used to be an EE , the sort where you go to University and get a degree and I asked her about the notion that burn-in could improve the sound of a solid state amp, she remarked that people believe a lot of strange things and doubted that you would find that assertion in any reputable text book.


 

 Let me admit that your wife *may* be correct. I might have made a mistake. I was just experimenting with the gain switch on the bottom of the amp and noticed that at 0dB and 10dB the amp becomes slow-sounding, diffuse, and unengaging to me. When I set it at 18dB and 20dB it picks up speed and focus. I find that, for my HD650 headphones, 18dB is what works best. The difference I heard *may* very well have been due to the fact that I reset the gain switch several times. Although I'm not yet ready to totally rule out break-in, I at least see how it could have been something else.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  Bing-bong, does this mean you finally understand why we won't do a DBT for a particular piece of gear because one person claims it?  Plenty of us have done various DBTs and found nothing (especially Nick).  It doesn't make sense to test every individual claim unfortunately, especially when we have the belief there will be a null


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Let me admit that your wife *may* be correct. I might have made a mistake. I was just experimenting with the gain switch on the bottom of the amp and noticed that at 0dB and 10dB the amp becomes slow-sounding, diffuse, and unengaging to me. When I set it at 18dB and 20dB it picks up speed and focus. I find that, for my HD650 headphones, 18dB is what works best. The difference I heard *may* very well have been due to the fact that I reset the gain switch several times. Although I'm not yet ready to totally rule out break-in, I at least see how it could have been something else.


 
   
  Or it could be a well known phenomenon called equal loudness contour.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Nick, go out and buy a brand new BCL then you'll hear the phenomenon for yourself. But I forget -- to you there is no such thing as hearing for yourself; there is only number crunching.
> 
> I would not be keeping this amp if its sound had not improved dramatically.


 

 No one is doubting that you have heard an improvement in the sound of your amp. The question is, was that down to the amp or you? We say it was down to you.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> > Let me admit that your wife *may* be correct. I might have made a mistake. I was just experimenting with the gain switch on the bottom of the amp and noticed that at 0dB and 10dB the amp becomes slow-sounding, diffuse, and unengaging to me. When I set it at 18dB and 20dB it picks up speed and focus. I find that, for my HD650 headphones, 18dB is what works best. The difference I heard *may* very well have been due to the fact that I reset the gain switch several times. Although I'm not yet ready to totally rule out break-in, I at least see how it could have been something else.


 
   
  When you compare 2 equivalent and competently designed solid state components (leaving aside the special case of components where the transfer response has been tweaked) the single most likely cause of perceived difference is level difference. I have 3 (broadly similar) CD players, the loudest is 0.7db louder than the quietest, not a lot in absolute terms but enough so I can easily (20/20) dbt them apart. However, when I adjust the levels to be within about 0.1 I can no longer tell them apart. Most of the time slightly louder is perceived as better until it gets too loud of course. So when we listen casually it is easy to mistake a simple level difference for something more fundamental. That is why for serious tests level matching is important and why audio sales staff can sometimes convince you to buy the more expensive item by upping the volume


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  It's not just sheer volume though. The music gains clarity, vitality, and speed when set to 18dB as compared to 10dB on this particular amp.


----------



## 3X0

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> If you stopped theorizing and actually purchased more audio equipment you would know better. The engineer who designed the Black Cube Linear recommends you break it in. The person who actually designed the machine should know.


 

  
  Yeah, most "high-end audio manufacturers" (
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) will recommend you break in their equipment for at least three months because the conventional credit card protection mechanisms lasts for 60 days. The psychology of (irrationally) perceived improvement has followed since this clever marketing implementation.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> It's not just sheer volume though. The music gains clarity, vitality, and speed when set to 18dB as compared to 10dB on this particular amp.


 

 I think you're missing the point of volume matching, in this case as it relates to Fletcher-Munson. When music is played louder you can better hear the highs and lows in relation to the mids. So even a small volume increase makes the music both clearer and more full sounding.
   
  Also, as regards gear break-in, human auditory memory is very short. Measured in seconds or even fractions of a second. So small changes in clarity and presence etc simply cannot be perceived over periods of hours or days.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## nick_charles

NM


----------



## maverickronin

Quote:


heidegger said:


> I'm not against science, only against theories that are totally divorced from reality. The history of science is _studded_ with emendations, corrections, alterations, and reassessments. New things are learned, theories revised, predictions updated, things once thought scientifically impossible were later scientifically confirmed, old scientific beliefs have been replaced by new ones. Those who rely exclusively on the way something "should" be (I "shouldn't" be able to hear a difference before and after burn-in) and don't even take the time to see and hear something for themselves can deny the obvious only to themselves.


 
   
  You show little understanding of what science is.  Science is not an authority which tells you what to believe.  Science is not a body of knowledge.  Science is a process.  Science it a verb.  Science is self correcting.  Science changes when new and credible evidence is discovered.  If you think you have heard a difference because of some tweak then all that it indicates is that you should now do a proper test to provide evidence that the difference you heard is not just in your own mind.  If you provide us with evidence then we will believe your claims.  That's how the scientific method works.
   
  You also seem to misunderstand where the burden of proof lies and when a belief is justified.  The person making a positive claim is the one who is required to present evidence if he wishes for anyone else to believe him.  If he cannot present such evidence then no one else is justified in believing him and the person making the claim may not even be justified in believing it himself.  These conditions apply even if the claimant turns out to be right when further evidence is discovered!  The time to believe a claim is when evidence to support it is discovered and not a second before.
   
  If you are correct about something and you have no evidence to support your belief, you are essentially only correct by chance.  For example, if you lived 3000 years ago you would not be justified in believing in quarks even though they certainly existed and your body itself contained a very large number of them.  You would not and could not have any knowledge which would imply their existence and such non-evidence would support any number false ideas equally.  In the case of solid stage electronics "burning in" and pretty much every other audiophile tweak the only evidence that you, or anyone else, has exists only in your/their mind(s) and has not been independently confirmed.  Because of the well know failings of human perception, such anecdotal evidence must be almost entirely disregarded until it is confirmed independently.
   
  For these reasons no one else is justified in believing your claim is true based on your story and even you, the person who experienced it, should be skeptical about the accuracy of your own perceptions.  Unless you have more money than sense, you shouldn't just "trust your ears."
   
*tl;dr*
   
  You are obligated to prove your claim is true, we are not obligated to prove it false.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> heidegger said:
> ...


 
  Well said mav, esp. the part I bolded above.  That assertion is often taken as a big dis, when it is nothing of the sort, but merely a well-established observation about human nature that goes back to Descartes.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





terriblepaulz said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   

 *"The person making a positive claim is the one who is required to present evidence if he wishes for anyone else to believe him." *
  
 *"If he cannot present such evidence then no one else is justified in believing him and the person making the claim may not even be justified in believing it himself." *
  
 *"... even you, the person who experienced it, should be skeptical about the accuracy of your own perceptions. "*


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Yet increasing the volume does nothing to improve the 10dB setting. On the other hand, even listening at low volumes on the 18dB sounds better than listening to louder volumes on the10dB setting.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> even you, the person who experienced it, should be skeptical about the accuracy of your own perceptions.  Unless you have more money than sense, you shouldn't just "trust your ears."
> 
> *tl;dr*
> 
> You are obligated to prove your claim is true, we are not obligated to prove it false.


 


 In fact, I was _particularly_ skeptical precisely _because_ of this thread. I had just spent well over a thousand dollars on a new amp and here I was being pretty much told that it would make no difference what I amp I had, as they all sounded the same. However, there is such a thing as something that is self evident, a difference that is so obvious that it can't be denied. That is what I found. Not only did I hear an _undeniable _difference between my old amp and the new one (such that I would have had to be crazy to deny the difference), but, over time, I heard a difference in the sonics of the new amp. Again, no matter what degree of skepticism I approached it with, the difference remained self-evident and obvious. No insistence that I was merely imagining the difference was going to change that fact. At first I attributed the difference to break-in. However, I later realized that changing the gain setting resulted in much fuller, faster, and more engaging sound. Hence I conceded that the improvement I heard may not have had anything to do with break-in. A healthy amount of skepticism is good; but when you start believing that the senses can _never_ be trusted and that they _always _deceive you, and that moreover every little thing has to be scientifically proven before it can be accepted -- such a degree of skepticism is excessive and becomes counterproductive. Rather than always assuming that what somebody hears or perceives is imaginary, you would do well to at least consider the possibility that the report might be true. That way, you can better figure out why it might be true. For instance, had Nick not assumed that the difference I was hearing was imaginary, had he for the slightest moment entertained the possibility that I might indeed be hearing an actual difference, he might have asked himself _why_ I was hearing this difference and helped me discover that it was probably due to the gain switch rather than break-in. But since he automatically assumed that what I was hearing was mere placebo effect, he thereby closed off all possibility at solving the problem and arriving at the truth. This is not to say that what I was hearing _couldn't_ have been imaginary -- it might very well have been (so he shouldn't have assumed that it _wasn't_ either); but the problem, as I see it, is that he (or you for that matter) did not allow even for the possibility that I might be hearing an actual difference since I couldn't prove it scientifically (i.e., to your satisfaction). It turned out I _was_ hearing a difference and that there was also a rational explanation for that difference. But if I had listened to you people I would have convinced myself that I was imagining the difference due to the placebo effect.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Heidegger, this thread should reassure you more
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/513481/are-blind-tests-bogus-examples-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results
   
  that there are differences between amps. If amps are equalised and line leveled then they can sound so similar that it is difficult to pick any differences. If you leave them alone and let the listener chose volume, use tone controls then they do sound different.
   
  The big loser in this thread is cabling. Blind testing finds no differences with cables. The winner is speakers, where blind testing has found detectable differences.


----------



## ShawnSmith

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 you aren't warning people against anything. frankly your posts are complete and utter nonsense. Phrases like this: "sound was blurry and indistinct; now everything is much more focused" and this: "Out of the box the BCL was a blurry, indistinct mess -- and slow as all hell. It has gained clarity and depth. It's much more focused." literally mean absolutely nothing. None of those things are measurable. none of those things can be proven. You may as well have just said... but I swear it sounds so much more amazingly awesome now. It's nonsense and pretending that you are somehow refuting actual science with that is a joke.And frankly just the fact that you would use words and phrases like that to describe what you are hearing leads me to believe that you have spent far too long drinking in the audiophile kool-aid and buying into their marketing spin nonsense.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> > heidegger said:
> >
> >
> > > It's much deeper and all around much more expansive. Also there is no doubt that the sound of the BCL changed as it has gotten more play time. At first the sound was blurry and indistinct; now everything is much more focused.
> > ...


 
   
   


  Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


   
   


  Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


   


  Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


   


  Quote: 





heidegger said:


> For instance, had Nick not assumed that the difference I was hearing was imaginary,
> 
> *Please read what I actually said not what you think I said !*
> 
> ...


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Yet increasing the volume does nothing to improve the 10dB setting. On the other hand, even listening at low volumes on the 18dB sounds better than listening to louder volumes on the10dB setting.


 

 Then you should next play a test tone CD or similar to see what is different. Maybe that setting acts as a sort of Loudness switch? If it really sounds different, and I'm not saying it doesn't, I'd hope you would want to know what is changing just for your own interest!
   
  --Ethan


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Ethan,
            this would be trivial for Heidegger to test, just use a dmm to make sure the output levels are about the same and record samples, perhaps using white noise using the different gain settings adjusted to the same overall level, if such a loudness effect is there and it is not documented in the owners manual and personally I would call that a dubious design practice, but no matter,  then it would show up easily in a FR analysis using Audacity or similar.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> > *1. you did not mention you had been messing about with gain settings, had you done so I would have mentioned the influence of volume levels which I did  once you mentioned the gain settings changes. You witheld vital data. . . . **I am not psychic *
> >
> > *2. How can I solve a problem without all the required data*


 

 1. It's news to you that amps may have gain settings and/or that they may be adjusted by the user? You didn't consider it even as a remote possibility?
   
  2. Well, that's just it. You don't always know whether you have all the required data. You might come to a certain conclusion with the data you _do_ have and totally fail to see that you did not have some crucial bit of data that would change the results. How often are we told about studies that conclude such and such a thing only for the conclusion to be totally reversed a few years later? The scientific method is accurate and rigorous, but if it turns out that one or more of your premises is faulty or that crucial data was missing, then the possibility for error becomes great.  Also, seemingly irrefutable statements, even those based on established laws of physics, can be wrong. There was a time when scientists believed that everything in the universe -- everything material at any rate-- was explainable through Newton's laws of motion. Today of course we know that that is not the case. Finally, it behooves everyone to remember that not everything can be measured -- lest hubris infect us.


----------



## rroseperry

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> 2. Well, that's just it. You don't always know whether you have all the required data. You might come to a certain conclusion with the data you _do_ have and totally fail to see that you did not have some crucial bit of data that would change the results. How often are we told about studies that conclude such and such a thing only for the conclusion to be totally reversed a few years later? The scientific method is accurate and rigorous, but if it turns out that one or more of your premises is faulty or that crucial data was missing, then the possibility for error becomes great.  Also, seemingly irrefutable statements, even those based on established laws of physics, can be wrong. There was a time when scientists believed that everything in the universe -- everything material at any rate-- was explainable through Newton's laws of motion. Today of course we know that that is not the case. Finally, it behooves everyone to remember that not everything can be measured -- lest hubris infect us.


 

 Ok, stop right here. Newton's laws of motion are wrong, they were incomplete. They are still good for particular frames of reference. And they never "explained" everything, just the movement of physical objects.
   
  (added edit) I realized that it wasn't clear why I was harping on this little point in the whole long discussion. But Heidegger, you don't seem to have a good grasp of the science that you're dismissing. Generally research results add to what's known, it doesn't completely overturn it.  I think you might be working with a fuzzy understanding of Kuhn's notion of paradigm shifts.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote:


terriblepaulz said:


> > Originally Posted by *Heidegger* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> > A healthy amount of skepticism is good; but when you start believing that the senses can _never_ be trusted and that they _always _deceive you, and that moreover every little thing has to be scientifically proven before it can be accepted -- such a degree of skepticism is excessive and becomes counterproductive.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Terriblepaulz is right.  If our senses were 100% reliable and told us everything we needed to know about the world then we wouldn't need science at all.  The fact that we do should tell you something about the reliability of our senses.  Our senses are imperfect and have evolved for very specific purposes.  They send our brain much more data than we can process either consciously or unconsciously.  Our cognitive machinery take very large shortcuts that _usually _work and discard immense amounts of data that _usually _isn't needed.  This leaves us vulnerable to all sorts of misperceptions which can only be rectified through applying reason to evidence, i.e. the scientific method.
   
  Quote:  





> Also, seemingly irrefutable statements, even those based on established laws of physics, can be wrong. There was a time when scientists believed that everything in the universe -- everything material at any rate-- was explainable through Newton's laws of motion. Today of course we know that that is not the case. Finally, it behooves everyone to remember that not everything can be measured -- lest hubris infect us.


 
   
  Scientists never actually believed that.  For example the orbit of mercury was know to be different from what was predicted by Newton's laws of motion.  Scientists knew it was wrong, but kept using those laws anyway, because it worked so well for everything else.  The mystery of mercury's orbit was solved when Einstein developed his general theory of relativity.
   
  Science is always tentative.  Science never claims 100% certainty.  The only people who say it does are people like you who don't actually understand it.  All we are saying is that your claims are unlikely to be true since every time they have been properly tested they have failed.  If you believe them to be true then test them yourself.  Prove us wrong.  We are not dogmatically stating you are wrong and could not possibly be right.  We are stating that there is no evidence that you are correct and that we won't believe you until you show us evidence.
   
  Also, anything that exists can be measured given the right equipment.  If, even in principle it cannot be measured then how can you even claim it exists?  If something doesn't have to be measured before it can be claimed to exist then how can anyone disprove you?  If I need no evidence to claim that something exists then what stops me from claiming whatever I want and what stops you from believing it?
   
  Even if you _say _that its ok to believe in things which are undetectable you don't actually _believe_ it yourself.  If you did you'd end up believing anything that anyone ever told you.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





rroseperry said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I'm not dismissing science. I'm saying its not infallible. I also didn't claim that everything would be overturned, only that certain totally objective statements made in the past would have been proved wrong in light of quantum mechanics. Nothing can travel faster than light -- until of course something that travels faster than light is discovered.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> If our senses were 100% reliable and told us everything we needed to know about the world then we wouldn't need science at all.  The fact that we do should tell you something about the reliability of our senses.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


 

 1. They believed the Newtonian laws governed more than the latter can be applied to.
   
  2. Of course I don't believe that science claims 100% certainty. My problem is only with people who act as if it does and completely dismiss the experience of others when it does not seem to conform to what they believe is or isn't possible.
   
  3.  And what are my claims? A) My Cardas headphone cable sounds different than the stock cable. It does. Anybody who has actually heard it can tell you that, no matter what any measurements say. If your measurements say there is no difference in how they sound, then your measurements are wrong and you better figure out where you went wrong. B) That my new amp sounds different than my old amp, which again it does. C) Gain settings change the way the amp sounds, which they do. All my statements are correct. If your measurements contradict them, then your measurements are wrong. You're obviously forgetting to take something into account. Otherwise, the measurements would account for the real difference in sound. But of course as far as I know nobody here has actually measured the Cardas _vis a vis _the stock Sennheiser cable, so, without any measurements at all, you're up a tree. What are you basing your statements on?
   
  4. Sorry, not everything can be measured. The study of what cannot be measured is called phenomenology. For instance, suppose I am wearing contact lenses and go to a museum to look at one of my favorite paintings. While I am studying the painting it is closer to me than the contact lenses which I forgot I was even wearing. When I have a conversation with you, you are closer to me than the contact lenses. But to somebody who has objectified everything and comes limping along with his/her tape measure, the kind of closeness I am talking about makes no sense. S/he will always tell me that the contact lenses are closer to me than the painting or than the person I am intimately talking to. Of course, to the person with the tape measure perpetually lodged in their heads, "me" equals "body." They have no conception of how something farther away from my body can still be closer to me. When I say that the painting is closer to me, I'm not talking about my body at all. The kind of distance and closeness I'm talking about can't be measured. Another example: suppose you are walking down the street and spot a friend of yours who is a few yards away. That friend is closer to you than the stranger walking right behind you who you never noticed was ever there. Another thing that can't be measured is context. Things aren't just bare objects but exist in a context. Like signs, things perpetually point to and indicate each other. The presence of shoes indicates the existence of a shoemaker and of the animal who provided the leather for the shoe, and so forth. This is called the referential contex, which cannot be measured with any equipment.


----------



## rroseperry

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> I'm not dismissing science. I'm saying its not infallible. I also didn't claim that everything would be overturned, only that certain totally objective statements made in the past would have been proved wrong in light of quantum mechanics. Nothing can travel faster than light -- until of course something that travels faster than light is discovered.


 
   
  Whoa, didn't you read what I wrote? Newton's not wrong. Furthermore, he was concerned with celestial mechanics which only has the word mechanics in common with quantum mechanics.
   
  I love science fiction as much as though next person, but there are real reasons why light speed is an upper limit,


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





rroseperry said:


> I love science fiction as much as though next person, but there are real reasons why light speed is an upper limit,


 

 And good reasons they are until better reasons come along for why they are not.


----------



## rroseperry

Clearly you didn't bother to read the article. Ok, I'm done.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote:


heidegger said:


> 1. They believed the Newtonian laws governed more than the latter can be applied to.
> 
> 2. Of course I don't believe that science claims 100% certainty. My problem is only with people who act as if it does and completely dismiss the experience of others when it does not seem to conform to what they believe is or isn't possible.
> 
> ...


 

 1. No, it was know to be imperfect form the start.
   
  2. _You _are the only one claiming that anyone actually does claim "science" is infallible.
   
  3. Who said the measurement has to be taken by a machine?  If your magic cable de jour really does sound different then you should be able to identify it in a blind test.
   
  4. Stop glorying in your equivocation and make an actual point.
   
  Let me try and make this a little clearer.  In order to know that something exists you have to be able to measure it in some fashion.  You can measure it with a machine or with your own senses after suitable blinding and replication.  Perfect accuracy or precision is not necessary, but the phenomena must manifest in some way.  Things that do not manifest are not measurable and even though such things _may _exist we cannot know _anything _about them because we cannot interact with them in any way and they can have no effect on our reality.  If there is no manifestation to measure then you can have no actual information about the phenomena and are essentially _making stuff up_.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> > *I do know about gain switches, my M^3 has one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, i.e trusting that you had not allowed a confounding variable to enter the equation, you were as I recall the one who suggested not questioning absolutely everything ?*


 

 Hi Nick
   
  I wanted to ask you a couple of things. 
   
  First, which opamps do you have in your M^3?  (I have one with 8065s and another with 637/627s)
   
  In your experience do different opamps sound differently in your M^3? 
   
  And last, what is the official 'Sound Science' position on the effect of the gain switch? 
   
  Just to be clear, can we to assume that once volume balanced, low gain sounds exactly like hi gain? 
   
  USG


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Uncle Erik

Heidigger, are you saying that because quantum mechanics aren't fully understood that some fly-by-night company working out of a garage can violate known physics?

Not likely.

The cable manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Not one tests their cables because that isn't possible. If it is possible, please reference the test results.

Otherwise, you're just handing cash over to someone who has no idea what they're doing.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Heidigger, are you saying that because quantum mechanics aren't fully understood that some fly-by-night company working out of a garage can violate known physics?
> 
> Not likely.
> 
> ...


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I was under the impression that the gain switches were also used to allow the more stable center range of the volume pot to be used. 
   
  I normally listen at low levels, so even with my 600 ohm T-1s,  the low gain setting on my GS-1 allows me to move the volume pot past 9 o'clock.
   
  Btw, I also have never found noise to be an issue with the M^3 either.
   
  And so it seems, we might be arriving at an official 'Sound Science' position on the effect of the gain switch.  It simply raises or lowers the volume without affecting the sound signature of the amp.
   
  USG


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I can't help but bring up the amp, preamp, DAC thingy again here. We choose to single out cables, but based on the type of logic being used here, amps, preamps, DAC don't make a difference either. So, where do we draw the line? Do we choose one thing over another because of profit? Then we really need to be looking at all facets of the audio chain, not just cables. Mark Levinson, Halcro, Lamm, et al all sound the same.
   
  By the same logic, amplifier manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Tests do show differences in cables. Some tests just don't reveal audible differences. It has been shown that amps don't reveal audible differences either.  
  
  Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Heidigger, are you saying that because quantum mechanics aren't fully understood that some fly-by-night company working out of a garage can violate known physics?
> 
> Not likely.
> 
> ...


----------



## macbob713

I started a life long love affair with high quality back in in 1973 when I purchased my first real stereo system. Stacked Large Advent Speakers, a mid-priced Kenwood Stereo Receiver and a Dual 1229Q turntable with a Shure V-15 cartridge. Wow. Wonderful sound. I wired it with stock cables and 16 gauge lamp wire. It sounded marvelous. Over the years I gravitated to ever higher levels of quality, from upgraded electronics, [peaked with Krell Integrated amp], B&W 802 speakers, cables,   and a highend tube hybrid cd player from Carver. Despite having spent thousands and thousands of dollars on speakers, interconnects and electronics of all sorts, over the long run nothing really kept me happy for more than a year or so. Upon reflecting on all this and having significantly downsized everything as I have gotten older and moved from a large house to a 3 bedroom apt, I have come to a few conclusions.
   
  1.  A heck of a lot of  what passes for audio wisdom is really self delusion and snake oil, perpetuated by  high dollar advertising and people who buy into the spin and endless speculation, most of which is either wishful thinking or outright BS.
   
  2. Since I have downsized my living space, I decided to forgo a highend audio system and build a moderatly priced headphone setup.
  My research for a high quality pair of phones led me to Head-FI. After alot of reading on many websites, I purchased the AKG 702 and used it in the beginning with my headphone out jack on my Sony ES reciever. It sounded great, but after many, many hours on Head-Fi, I decided to take the plunge into a headphone amp to maximize my enjoyment of the 702.Sure enough that worked, and my phones really opened up. 
  Many months of reading led me to begin to question what I already knew and loved, and in Dec 2010 I sprung for the HD800. Wow. A significant improvement in sound quality. Then more reading convinced me to upgrade my headphone amp, which I did, to the Burson HA-160. Great piece. Even was an upgrade in performance for my 702's. More bass, better mids. 
  Then I kept reading the pros and cons of the new AKG Q701. Most posters on this site dismissed them as a hype job and a repaint for fresh sales. Well I have been listening to the Q 701 for several days now, and guess what, they clearly sound better than the 702 and actually rival my HD800. Are they better?  Not quite, but for significantly less money, anyone could have 95% of the sound quality of the HD800 for 1/3 the price. 
  So you might wonder where I'm going with all this, and it boils down to this. Many people praise and/or damn equipment they have never heard and make declarations on how great or how bad things may or may not be, without any real knowledge of the product. 
  Others make bogus claims for wire upgrades and every other kind of so-called upgrade or modification, some of which are quite bizarre. I read a series of articles dating back to the early 70's by one of the first audio critics and actual audio engineer, Julian Hirsch. He published tons of articles over the years for Stereo Review, and was always quite skeptical of fantastical audio claims. He published many controversial articles in  which he denounced the mysterys of cables, electronics etc. Anyone with an open mind and willing to challenge their own media induced assumptions should look him up on line. There is a ton of info on him.
  In closing, I don't want anyone to think that I have been immune to the hype and BS. Just read the above and it's clear I have chased dozens of pipe dreams and spent alot of money over many years chasing shadows and illusions, all fired my advertising and self-delusion. Some were really great and others were just hyped by schills for the industry paid to praise everything good advertising dollars could pay for.
  For those willing to consider my point of view, [and I'm sure I'll be roundly attacked], I would offer the following advice. Disregard the posts here that are just speculation, pro and con, and seek the comments of those who actually own and have lived with the equipment you are considering. Second, we all have sound preferences that vary from each other, so if you are tempted to buy or reject a product, based on reviews on this site, I suggest you click on the poster's name and check out their actual inventory of phones,etc. There you can see their sound preferences and better judge for yourself if the poster is biased to a certain type of sound signature, and in fact we all are. Third, does the poster even own the device in question, or are they just commenting on their pre-concieved opinions and prejudices. 
  So like all things in life, take everything with a grain of salt. Try to hear what you are thinking about buying,  if you can, and try to avoid hype and snake oil. And always remember what W. C. Fields said, "There's an ass for every seat".


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> I can't help but bring up the amp, preamp, DAC thingy again here. We choose to single out cables, but based on the type of logic being used here, amps, preamps, DAC don't make a difference either. So, where do we draw the line? Do we choose one thing over another because of profit? Then we really need to be looking at all facets of the audio chain, not just cables. Mark Levinson, Halcro, Lamm, et al all sound the same.
> 
> By the same logic, amplifier manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Tests do show differences in cables. Some tests just don't reveal audible differences. *It has been shown that amps don't reveal audible differences either.  *


 

  Brings to mind the Stereophile tests where the $12K Futterman monoblocks and the $200 Pioneer were indistinguishable.
   
 
   
  But amps, preamps and DACs are relatively complicated devices.  In comparison, a piece of wire is a fairly simple thing.
   
  USG


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





macbob713 said:


> Stacked Large Advent Speakers,


 


  Hey, nice post and a lot of truth in it. 
  I had stacked Advents too.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   Ran them at first from an Advent 300 receiver and then used the Advent 300 as a pre amp w/ a 100W per ch Hitachi amp.
   
  Never could decide whether I liked them better stacked or in the 4 corners of my room.
   
  USG


----------



## Shike

Quote:


rdr. seraphim said:


> I can't help but bring up the amp, preamp, DAC thingy again here. We choose to single out cables, but based on the type of logic being used here, amps, preamps, DAC don't make a difference either. So, where do we draw the line? Do we choose one thing over another because of profit? Then we really need to be looking at all facets of the audio chain, not just cables. Mark Levinson, Halcro, Lamm, et al all sound the same.
> 
> By the same logic, amplifier manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Tests do show differences in cables. Some tests just don't reveal audible differences. It has been shown that amps don't reveal audible differences either.


 

  Greetings,
   
  High level skeptic here.  I do draw the lines on a lot of the items you describe.  I sold my Carry Audio Xciter and went down to a DAC Magic because:
   
  1)  It performed measurably in line with some of the best out there.
  2)  I got it for $350 new shipped to my door from an authorized dealer.
  3)  Feature set. 
  4)  Piece of mind.
   
  I probably could have downgraded further, but number four made it worth it.  In terms of amps I don't believe in spending obscene amounts.  My X-Head I got for $125 measures in line with a lot of headphone amps here, there's no reason for me to go out of my way improving upon something that's already done right.  Same with my Niles amp that I bought used for $250 or so.  Technically it's just a 12 channel 25W gainclone, but for my small room it provides more than enough power before clipping (even including phase angle of my speakers) and nothing is deficient enough to claim it would sound inferior in any way shape or form to an amp costing more.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote:


rdr. seraphim said:


> I can't help but bring up the amp, preamp, DAC thingy again here. We choose to single out cables, but based on the type of logic being used here, amps, preamps, DAC don't make a difference either. So, where do we draw the line? Do we choose one thing over another because of profit? Then we really need to be looking at all facets of the audio chain, not just cables. Mark Levinson, Halcro, Lamm, et al all sound the same.
> 
> By the same logic, amplifier manufacturers exist to turn a dollar. Tests do show differences in cables. Some tests just don't reveal audible differences. It has been shown that amps don't reveal audible differences either.


 
   
  Amps can sound different... though when operating something they are sufficient to properly drive, well made amps don't. Don't take my word for it, here's an Engineer from McIntosh labs (http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#goodamplifiers)
   
  Pre-amps are low-powered amps with switches; so the above applies. Of course, few pre-amps are merely pre-amps. They are also EQs (obviously change sound), DACs (see below) and any number of other functions.
   
  I've heard DACs with problems... generally the older integrated PC hardware. Like amps, they can make a difference but (in my experience) generally don't. Unlike amps or wires, the measurements are not as simple because the job is not as simple. While I remain skeptical that there's improvement, I cannot from my knowledge call it impossible.
   
  Where are the lines? By far the major contributors to the sound you hear (barring some problem like trying to drive B&W 800's off an AVR's amp) are the source recording, the speakers, and the room (or the headphones)... well, those and your brain.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> .....
> 
> 
> 3.  And what are my claims? A) My Cardas headphone cable sounds different than the stock cable. It does. Anybody who has actually heard it can tell you that, no matter what any measurements say. If your measurements say there is no difference in how they sound, then your measurements are wrong and you better figure out where you went wrong. B) That my new amp sounds different than my old amp, which again it does. C) Gain settings change the way the amp sounds, which they do. All my statements are correct. If your measurements contradict them, then your measurements are wrong. You're obviously forgetting to take something into account. Otherwise, the measurements would account for the real difference in sound. But of course as far as I know nobody here has actually measured the Cardas _vis a vis _the stock Sennheiser cable, so, without any measurements at all, you're up a tree. What are you basing your statements on?
> ...


 

 Or the measurements are correct and there is another reason as to why you hear a difference.
   
  With regards to Cardas and stock Sennheiser cables what I am basing my opinion on is; the constantly failed blind tests and that there is no audibly measurable difference between cables, no matter what they are made out of and how they are made.
   
  Then differences appear when people can see as well as hear different cables. Then there are other reasons why cables can sound different and those reasons are in the head, placebo, buyer justification, psycoacoustics.
   
  So, extrapolating from existing knowledge I would say that the only reason why you can tell the difference between the Cardas and the Senn cable is because you can see which one is which and the only reason why you hear a difference is down to pyscoacoustic reasons.
   
  Measurements that show Cardas and stock Senn cables have a measureable difference that is in the audible range and a series of blind tests that find that difference can be reliably picked out, will then change my mind on the matter.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> this would be trivial for Heidegger to test, just use a dmm to make sure the output levels are about the same and record samples, perhaps using white noise using the different gain settings adjusted to the same overall level, if such a loudness effect is there and it is not documented in the owners manual and personally I would call that a dubious design practice, but no matter,  then it would show up easily in a FR analysis using Audacity or similar.


 
   
  Yes, it would be easy enough to test. I wonder if he'll do that. As I said, it seems everyone should be interested in understanding why things sound the way they do.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





rroseperry said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


   


  Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> heidegger said:
> ...


 
   
  1. You're obviously not listening to what I'm saying. The fact that there was a phenomenon that did not quite conform to Newton's Laws of Motion can't be compared to a context in which Newton's Laws break down and can't even be applied, as is the case with subatomic phenomena.
   
  2. I'm claiming no such thing. I am claiming that there are some presumptuous people who, using science as their excuse, are erroneously trying to tell me that the clear and obvious difference between my Cardas and stock cables is a figment of my imagination. It obviously isn't.
   
  3. I can easily tell them apart.
   
  4. According to you love doesn't exist because it can't be meaured.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I said just the opposite: that you should have questioned not only the possibility that I was hearing a real difference but also the possibility that I wasn't hearing a real difference. Obviously, I'm being unfair to you because I'm presupposing that you gave my problem more thought than you would give something that a stranger brings up in a forum. My point is that you should not always assume that you have all the relevant data, and that you should at least leave the possibility open that what somebody is saying might be true even if, at first blush, it doesn't seem to conform to what is possible.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Heidigger, are you saying that because quantum mechanics aren't fully understood that some fly-by-night company working out of a garage can violate known physics?
> 
> Not likely.
> 
> ...


 


 Hear you, Uncle Erik -- yet what can I say? Once having tried the Cardas there is no going back to the stock cable for me.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





rroseperry said:


> Clearly you didn't bother to read the article. Ok, I'm done.


 

 I didn't have time, but that doesn't mean I won't get to it. In any case, I already know there are extremely good reasons why nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Were any of these blind tests performed _specifically _with the Cardas and the stock Sennheiser cable?


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  The difference in sound between the Cardas and stock cables is such that if I performed the test and it told me there was no audible difference then I would assume there was something wrong with the test. If it told me that there is an audible difference, then it would simply be confirming what I already know.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

No and you are the person to do that for this thread. That will show whether Cardas and Sennheiser have the properties that you claim, an audible difference based on hearing ability alone or whether I am right to take existing evidence about cables and apply it to Cardas and Sennheiser cables.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  You are getting the sub-threads conflated, Ethan and I are referring to the_ gain switch of your amp issue _not _your headphone cable issue _. however once again, small differences in output level are often mistaken as fundamental differences in sound, you could adjust for this rather important variable (principle of parsimony, rather than Occam's razor TP 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) and then see (er hear) or measure if the differences you perceive persist - or get a pal to randomly attach one cable or the other and adjust output levels and see how often you correctly report which cable is connected.
   
  I am more inclined to think it _possible_ for headphone cables to be audibly different due to the relatively low signal levels they carry , c/f the one DBT of cables that anyone ever passed which was a 1m cable vs a 6m cable transporting an un-eq'ed MM cartridge output. That said I am skeptical and want better proof than a self-report , hey I've been misled by my own perceptions more than once...


----------



## JerryLove

Quote:  





> The difference in sound between the Cardas and stock cables is such that if I performed the test and it told me there was no audible difference then I would assume there was something wrong with the test. If it told me that there is an audible difference, then it would simply be confirming what I already know.


 

 So let me make sure I understand you. If you were to do a blind comparison with your own ears: and listening to the same cans through both cables sounded identical (you could not tell them apart), then you would believe there was something wrong with the test (the test being "you listening to your music from your amp over your cables with your cans") because, when and only when you know in advance which cable you are listening to, you can tell which cable you are listening to?
   
  That's a pretty straight-forward example of denial.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Heidegger, is it the case that the Cardas cable, at a set volume on your amp sounds louder than the Sennheiser one?


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> 1. You're obviously not listening to what I'm saying. The fact that there was a phenomenon that did not quite conform to Newton's Laws of Motion can't be compared to a context in which Newton's Laws break down and can't even be applied, as is the case with subatomic phenomena.
> 
> 2. I'm claiming no such thing. I am claiming that there are some presumptuous people who, using science as their excuse, are erroneously trying to tell me that the clear and obvious difference between my Cardas and stock cables is a figment of my imagination. It obviously isn't.
> 
> ...


 

 1.  So quantum dynamics /= Newtonian motion means what exactly?  You essentially said that newton's laws were dogmatically asserted as sacred doctrine but turned out not to be perfect, therefore science = FAIL.  I showed that they weren't.  What does quantum theory have to do with it?
   
  2.  Your claiming that other people claim something which they don't because it easier to shoot down then the actual position.  That's called a strawman.
   
  3.  If you can prove it then James Randi might give you cool million.
   
  4.  Emotions map to physical brain states which can be measured.  Not perfectly, but people are working on it.  That's the point.  It is possible.  Its based on something that manifests in our reality and which can be measured in principle even if our technology isn't up to snuff yet.  And don't forget that after suitable blinding and replication that even our fallible human senses can be used to make such measurements.  If you are sensing something then your senses have measured it in some manner, otherwise you couldn't have sensed it!  Blinding will help to ensure that what you are sensing originates outside your mind and replication will improve the accuracy of measurement.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> The difference in sound between the Cardas and stock cables is such that if I performed the test and it told me there was no audible difference then I would assume there was something wrong with the test. If it told me that there is an audible difference, then it would simply be confirming what I already know.


 
   
  Hilarious.  That attitude would get you fired from professional research.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *maverickronin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 3.  If you can prove it then James Randi might give you cool million.


 
   
  No he won't. Randi's a complete weasel.
   
  This was clearly borne out in the Michael Fremer/Pear Audio debacle.
   
  After that, I wouldn't trust Randi any further than Uri Geller can bend a spoon with his mind.
   
  se


----------



## maverickronin

Is there something I missed about the Pear Audio thing?  I recall them backing out because they wouldn't agree to a protocol that let the JREF check for tricks.


----------



## FEAST

I honestly think the entire ABX scene is a total joke.  You can't listen to a system, wait 5 min, listen to another, and then tell which one sounded better unless you KNOW the equipment by heart.  I have amplifiers that at home I can tell apart.  Barely though, and only because I have listened to them so much I know their exact signature.  If you wan't to quantify any difference in a short ABX test then you have to be flipping a switch instantly changing amplifiers with volumes set equally.  You have to have transparent speakers and a source that are both more than capable of revealing all that both amp's have to offer.  You have to have seasoned listeners who's ears and minds can detect the subtle differences.  Honestly, **** average people.  I had my average listener brother compare my HD 570's to the same style pair of closed senn's that are way trashier sounding.  He couldn't tell the difference (I made him close his eyes while I swapped phones).  I was rolling on the floor laughing because the difference is night and day to me.  The closed phones are WAY boomier bass-wise, the treble is grainy, and the mids sound plasticy.  So I really don't trust any of these blind tests with random people.  Also, changing amplifiers should be instantaneous and not with a 5+ min difference, not with any time difference.  After the music is paused we forget how it sounded unless it has been imprinted in our minds over months and months.
   
  So in my opinion all of these tests are ********.  But they do show that there isn't THAT much difference past a certain price point when comparing amps of similar power.  If they expected these tests to reflect anything, they would not be asking "which amp sounds better".  They would be asking specific questions that would allow popular consensus to determine an amps qualities - proving audible differences.  Asking about soundstage, clarity, bass, mid, and treble quality.
   
  Until this happens then the only thing I will ever trust are my own ears.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Is there something I missed about the Pear Audio thing?  I recall them backing out because they wouldn't agree to a protocol that let the JREF check for tricks.


 

 Yes, there is.
   
  First, it was Fremer who took the challenge. Pear Audio only offered to provide some of their cables for the test.
   
  However at the time Randi pulled the rug out from under Fremer and made snide remarks about how relieved he must be getting himself out of such a tight spot, there were TWO OTHER CABLES on the table. Fremer's own Tara Labs cables and some expensive cables from Transparent.
   
  At no time did Randi ever reject either of the two other cables before he did what he did to Fremer.
   
  You can read all about it in this thread over at the JREF forum:
   
  http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96913
   
  The man is a weasel, which is sad because I actually had some respect for him before this happened.
   
  se


----------



## maverickronin

Pretty much all of the links in there were broken so I couldn't get much info out of it.  I'm still disinclined to believe that Randi was was being intentionally dishonest because as far as I can tell he has no need to be.  Its not like they actually have any chance of winning with anything but a intentionally broken cable which wouldn't be allowed anyway since its obviously not "paranormal."


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





feast said:


> I honestly think the entire ABX scene is a total joke.  You can't listen to a system, wait 5 min, listen to another, and then tell which one sounded better unless you KNOW the equipment by heart.


 
   
  If this is true: then you can essentially never say that any system is better than any other. It must make buying very frustrating since you believe there are difference but cannot hear them.
   
  Also, ABX tests rarely have anything resembling 5-min waits between gear; and many have offered "with your own equipment".
   
  Quote: 





> So in my opinion all of these tests are bull.  But they do show that there isn't THAT much difference past a certain price point when comparing amps of similar power.  If they expected these tests to reflect anything, they would not be asking "which amp sounds better".  They would be asking specific questions that would allow popular consensus to determine an amps qualities - proving audible differences.  Asking about soundstage, clarity, bass, mid, and treble quality.


 
   
  Actually: amp ABX tests at this point are rarely about "which is better". The are about being able to identify amps at all. Properly setup, no one can.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Whether blind tests have been quick switches, slow switches, brief listening, extended listening, listening in a group or alone at home, they have all found that cables do not sound different when using ears alone.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Pretty much all of the links in there were broken so I couldn't get much info out of it.


 

 They've since been moved. I was able to find the new locations for all but the last link.
   
BLAKE WITHDRAWS FROM PEAR CABLE CHALLENGE can be found here:
   
  http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/102-blake-withdrawls-from-pear-cable-challenge.html
   
YET ANOTHER SNAG IN CABLE CHALLENGE can be found here:
   
  http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/103-yet-another-snag-in-cable-challenge.html
   
THE LATEST ON PEAR CHALLENGE REFUSAL can be found here:
   
  http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/104-the-latest-on-pear-challenge-refusal.html
   
  Quote: 





> I'm still disinclined to believe that Randi was was being intentionally dishonest because as far as I can tell he has no need to be.


 
   
  His "need" was to find a way to try and humiliate Fremer so he could look good to all his sycophants. And he did that when he dishonestly pulled the rug out from under Fremer after Pear withdrew their offer to supply cables.
   
  Quote: 





> Its not like they actually have any chance of winning with anything but a intentionally broken cable...


 
   
  Whether Fremer would have one the challenge or not is completely irrelevant. At issue is Randi's dishonestly withdrawing the challenge after Pear withdrew their offer.
   
  Quote: 





> ...which wouldn't be allowed anyway since its obviously not "paranormal."


 
   
  Again, completely irrelevant in this instance as it wasn't the regular JREF challenge.
   
  When Fremer initially signed up for the challenge, he objected to the term "paranormal" as he wasn't making any paranormal claims.
   
  This challenge was a special challenge that was separate from JREF and just between Fremer and Randi.
   
  se


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





feast said:


> I honestly think the entire ABX scene is a total joke.  You can't listen to a system, wait 5 min, listen to another, and then tell which one sounded better
> 
> *Generally here (this subforum) the gold standard is different not better, better being far too subjective, but agreed, for anything that is not momentually huge a gap of 5 minutes is far too much and by that token I got my "modded" CD player back after 3 weeks and it is a night and day improvement is beyond laughable.*
> 
> ...


----------



## EthanWiner

Originally Posted by *Heidegger* /img/forum/go_quote.gif


> The difference in sound between the Cardas and stock cables is such that if I performed the test and it told me there was no audible difference then I would assume there was something wrong with the test. If it told me that there is an audible difference, then it would simply be confirming what I already know.


 

 But don't you want to know what the difference is specifically? Why not just measure the response of both wires (and both gain switch settings), and then we'll all know. This is not difficult to do, and it will help you more than it helps me.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## upstateguy

heidegger said:


> The difference in sound between the Cardas and stock cables is such that if I performed the test and it told me there was no audible difference then I would assume there was something wrong with the test. If it told me that there is an audible difference, then it would simply be confirming what I already know.





 


I have a good friend on HeadFi who says the same thing.

Finding out you've been incorrect is a very bitter pill to swallow.

USG


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> I have a good friend on HeadFi who says the same thing.Finding out you've been incorrect is a very bitter pill to swallow.USG


 

 They are not alone, most hifi rag reviewers despise any kind of controlled test. The most interestng case is John Atkinson, who used to be English, as a young engineering grad he DB tested two amps, a cheap SS and a more expensive Tube amp, he could not tell them apart so bought the SS amp and hated it. So he then bought the tube amp and lived happily.
   
  Atkinson uses that as an example of why DBTs do not work. But Atkinson says he always wanted a glowing tube amp and no amount of rational thought will make such an obsession go away easily, he buys the tube amp and his irrational fixation is satisfied. It is Psychology not engineering.
   
  Hey, I still want a turntable even though I know full well how disappointed I will be with it, I gave up vinyl in 1984 for all the rational reasons, but still cannot wholly shake the desire to get a TT again...thankfully the sellers of such things used are asking absurd prices for them.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> They are not alone,* most hifi rag reviewers despise any kind of controlled test.* The most interestng case is John Atkinson, who used to be English, as a young engineering grad he DB tested two amps, a cheap SS and a more expensive Tube amp, he could not tell them apart so bought the SS amp and hated it. So he then bought the tube amp and lived happily.
> 
> Atkinson uses that as an example of why DBTs do not work. But Atkinson says he always wanted a glowing tube amp and no amount of rational thought will make such an obsession go away easily, he buys the tube amp and his irrational fixation is satisfied. It is Psychology not engineering.
> 
> Hey, I still want a turntable even though I know full well how disappointed I will be with it, I gave up vinyl in 1984 for all the rational reasons, but still cannot wholly shake the desire to get a TT again...thankfully the sellers of such things used are asking absurd prices for them.


 

 I know what you mean.....
   
  I still have my original TT, the cleaning kit, Zerostat antistatic gun and the DBX118 I used to reduce the vinyl surface noise. (shown below compressing some early digital material that had too wide a dynamic range for comfortable low level listening)


----------



## maverickronin

@SE
   
  Who knows?  There's not enough information for me to say either way.  I'm inclined to go with Hanlon's Razor.  Everyone makes mistakes and no one us can show anything remotely close to intent with out a lot more information.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Hey, I still want a turntable even though I know full well how disappointed I will be with it, I gave up vinyl in 1984 for all the rational reasons, but still cannot wholly shake the desire to get a TT again...thankfully the sellers of such things used are asking absurd prices for them.


 


  In all fairness vinyl does fill a gap if done right.  Not having to deal with loudness wars processed crap really does help.  You can also get a good direct drive table for $150 used which isn't too bad, or something like a vintage NAD for $50 or so (what I did).  I strapped a cheap $30 AT cart and phono preamp on it without an issue.  I haven't noticed a lot of pops, crackles, or surface noise honestly.  This coming from someone that was mostly raised on digital audio.  Of course if you can get your music on DVD-A or SACD there probably isn't a reason to go back that way.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> No and you are the person to do that for this thread. That will show whether Cardas and Sennheiser have the properties that you claim, an audible difference based on hearing ability alone or whether I am right to take existing evidence about cables and apply it to Cardas and Sennheiser cables.


 


   How would you A/B a headphone cable? I would have to be blindfolded or something. Come to think of it, how _were_ headphone cables tested by this thread -- or was it only other cables that were tested?


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> So let me make sure I understand you. If you were to do a blind comparison with your own ears: and listening to the same cans through both cables sounded identical (you could not tell them apart), then you would believe there was something wrong with the test (the test being "you listening to your music from your amp over your cables with your cans") because, when and only when you know in advance which cable you are listening to, you can tell which cable you are listening to?
> 
> That's a pretty straight-forward example of denial.


 

 I was thinking of other types of measurements.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Heidegger, is it the case that the Cardas cable, at a set volume on your amp sounds louder than the Sennheiser one?


 

 It sounds clearer. I should go back and check if it gets louder. But not that I remember.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> 1.  So quantum dynamics /= Newtonian motion means what exactly?  You essentially said that newton's laws were dogmatically asserted as sacred doctrine but turned out not to be perfect, therefore science = FAIL.  I showed that they weren't.  What does quantum theory have to do with it?
> 
> 2.  Your claiming that other people claim something which they don't because it easier to shoot down then the actual position.  That's called a strawman.
> 
> ...


 
  1. Science=FAIL? Where when did I say that? That is not my position at all. My position is that experiments aren't foolproof, and that our senses can _sometimes _be trusted.
  2. For a great example of a strawman, see your comment 1 above.
  3. I've only vaguely heard of that guy and his offer. Does he include headphone cables as well? And how would you go about proving it to him?
  4. There is no 1:1 correlation between brain states and intangibles such as love. My brain state can show total anger if somebody steals a thousand dollars from me, but that does not in the least affect the love I have for my parents, which remains constant no matter what temporary fluxes affect my brain. The love for my parents is abiding, while brain states are mutable and passing, in constant flux.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





eucariote said:


> Hilarious.  That attitude would get you fired from professional research.


 

 Maybe -- or maybe the fact that what I heard was so obvious it would lead me to question my experiment, see where it went wrong, what I wasn't taking into account, and make corrections, or else just be aware of its limitations.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote:


heidegger said:


> How would you A/B a headphone cable? I would have to be blindfolded or something. Come to think of it, how _were_ headphone cables tested by this thread -- or was it only other cables that were tested?


 

 An interesting question. It's possible that you could get two identical headphones with different cables. Run ABX. If they cannot be identified by sound, then switch the cables (So that the headphone with cable A now had B and vice versa) and then repeat. This would eliminate the headphones themselves as a variable...
   
  Though there would be subtle clues (like the warmth or coolness of the cup)  that might need to be dealt with.
   
  Perhaps, if you are sure which one you think is the better of the two, it could be run to an A/B switch that then runs through either a second "better" cable or the other cable.
   
  I'm sure something could be come up with.
   
  Quote: 





> I was thinking of other types of measurements.


 
  Oh? I thought you were discussing ABX tests.


----------



## Heidegger

As regards the amp, I found these comments on other posts that perfectly conform to what I experience:
   
  SP Wild writes: "Just make sure the dip switches at the bottom are all set to the maximum gain.  This setting is the most transparent - I leave it on max gain even to drive my 27 ohm cans or 300 ohm cans and anywhere in between - regardless of what the manual says.
   
  With the dip switches at the max setting the BCL is transparent enough for me to use as a pre-amp stage going into my tube-amps - The BCL is able to tighten up the midbass - the bass in my tube amps are less taught without the BCL active stage."
   
  KiwiNZ writes: "Mine's also set on max 20db for the best sound."
   
  Both are at:
   
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/438859/lehmann-black-cube-user-manual-english-version#post_5914894
   
  Then Kees writes: "I don't own one, but I had one on trial for some time.
 Not to say anything bad about the SQ of the BCL, but I didn't like it and didn't keep it.
 For me it had three disqualifying properties:
 - Rather disappointing dynamics. It sounds very polite and far away. It does not give me the feeling I am realy there. I contributed it to rather poor dynamics (I may be wrong, but that is what I thought to be the cause).
 - It does wonderful with Senn (HD650) but less so with other brands. Specifically my ATHs (W100) and Victor DX1000 did not do well with it. They sounded rather flat and uninvolving.
 - It did not have the ability to drive my (headphile) K340 to even a remotely acceptable level."
   
  Kees:
   
  "What annoyed me most was that I found that I inadvertedly kept turning the volume up, but that didn't help any. I even checked the back to see if there was maybe a gain switch..... And I don't usually play my music loud."
   
  And Kees again:
    Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Elephas*
_ Turning the volume up to help...what?

 The Lehmann BCL's gain switches are on the bottom._

 

  "If I do something inadvertedly, I don't know why I do it the moment I do it. My wild guess now would be: To compensate for the perceived lack of *dynamics?*. I know it doesn't help, that is why it annoyed me that I found myself doing it.

 I must say I never found the gain switches on the bottom. I don't think it would have made a lot of difference, considering I had the same experience with widely varying impedances (30, 65, 300 ohm), don't you think? Maybe for the K340, a bit.

 This is how I experienced it. It may very well be different for other people."
   
  The above is copied from:
   
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/190769/lehmann-black-cube-linear/15
   
   ~ So when I read Kees's comment that the BCL sounds "polite and far away" and that turning up the volume didn't help any, I knew exactly what he was talking about and immediately thought he probably had the gain switch at 10dB. I kept reading and bam he didn't even know the amp had gain switches, so never corrected for it.  By contrast, SP Wild knew about the gain switches and found that maximum gain gives the most *transparency,* which is exactly what I find (although I prefer the sound at 18dB rather than 20dB). I found no comments anywhere on this forum of people who actually own and have heard the BCL who have said that changing the gain setting doesn't _improve _the sound. Kees -- the guy who didn't know about the gain switches -- conjuctures that switching the gain wouldn't have made any difference, but of course he never heard the amp at higher gain. What he did hear at lower gain matches what I heard, and his disappointment with the amp mirrors my initial disappointment witih it before I switched to 18dB.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> 1. Science=FAIL? Where when did I say that? That is not my position at all. My position is that experiments aren't foolproof, and that our senses can _sometimes _be trusted.
> 2. For a great example of a strawman, see your comment 1 above.
> 3. I've only vaguely heard of that guy and his offer. Does he include headphone cables as well? And how would you go about proving it to him?
> 4. There is no 1:1 correlation between brain states and intangibles such as love. My brain state can show total anger if somebody steals a thousand dollars from me, but that does not in the least affect the love I have for my parents, which remains constant no matter what temporary fluxes affect my brain. The love for my parents is abiding, while brain states are mutable and passing, in constant flux.


 

 1.  To further elaborate, you were saying that because science = fail, you can go on believing whatever crap you want to until its proven absolutely 100% false and maybe even after that because after all, science = fail.
   
  2.  Not quite.  As I said before you were implying because our knowledge is not 100% perfect that there is still a possibility that you could be right and therefore you can continue to believe whatever you want.  We're not talking about possibilities, we are talking about probabilities.  _Anything _is logically possible if you contrive an arbitrarily complicated series of excuses.  Discovering that magic boutique cables actually worked would be quite close to discovering that gravity and relativity are in fact wrong and that instead, angels hold our feet to the ground.
   
  3.  Since most of your claims would break or overturn known laws of physics I think they qualify as paranormal.  Even if they don't, the Nobel Prize committee would sure love to hear about your discoveries.
   
  4.  "Love" is not intangible.  All your emotions, memories, likes, dislikes, and everything that make you who you are resides in your brain and are represented in its physical make up.  Where else would they reside?  Are you going to tell me you're a dualist and that your feelings exist in your soul?  Don't get me started on how stupid that is...


----------



## Uncle Erik

Heidigger, I'd settle for test results where there isn't a strict A/B comparison. What I'd like to do is have you compare several unknown cables as you see fit, short of cutting them open. You could also mix some known cables of your own choosing into the mix. Instead of trying to tell the difference, you'd write a review of each cable. Used on your own equipment and with your own selection of music.

Some of the unknown cables will be identical. Some will be things like coathangers or paper clips soldered together. Others might have a resistor soldered into one channel. And much else.

What would be interesting would be to compare your reviews of the various cables. What if you gave high marks to a cable brined in seawater for a month that has a resistor on the left channel, while trashing the pure silver cable? What if you find a cable that has a coathanger on the left channel and copper on the right to sound better than your Cardas? And much else along those lines. You would not be able to complain about the "stress" or having to make snap decisions. You'd have hours to evaluate and review each. And I think the results would be extremely telling. If there were two identical copper cables abd you gave them wildly different reviews, what would that say about your ability to evaluate cables? What if you brought in some magical $2,000 cable and gave a better review to paperclips?

I'd like to conduct these tests sooner or later. My guess is that there will be a lot of red faces among the golden ears. No one has ever passed a listening test, and I seriously doubt anyone could, even with _intentionally_ degraded cables.

Nick, my excuse for keeping a turntable around is access to cheap recordings that aren't on digital. I don't buy the sonic superiority arguments, however, vinyl can sound pleasing when done right. It might not be the best, but there's no reason you can't enjoy it. Being able to play 25¢ thrift store records just makes it better.


----------



## JadeEast

I like Uncle Erics idea. People seem to always try to prove cable diference with examples of better performing cables. Why not go the other way? Find a cable that makes a negative impact the sound quality.


----------



## AmbientRevolut

It's funny how closely this discussion mirrors other various discussions I have.. about other topics. Delusion is easy.
   
  -AR


----------



## maverickronin

Yep.  Its all got the same irrationality at its root.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> How would you A/B a headphone cable? I would have to be blindfolded or something. Come to think of it, how _were_ headphone cables tested by this thread -- or was it only other cables that were tested?


 

 Have them disguised. As yet there ahs been no blind test of a headphone cable that I can find.
   


  Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Maybe -- or maybe the fact that what I heard was so obvious it would lead me to question my experiment, see where it went wrong, what I wasn't taking into account, and make corrections, or else just be aware of its limitations.


 


  Or it is placebo and or psychoacoustics or something else in the mind of the listener as opposed to something about the cable. You cannot rule that out.


  Quote: 





heidegger said:


> It sounds clearer. I should go back and check if it gets louder. But not that I remember.


 

 Please check. Attenuation causing differences in volume may be a real reason as to how cables could affect sound.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Have them disguised. As yet there ahs been no blind test of a headphone cable that I can find.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

  
  Even blindfolded I think I could tell the cables apart just by the way they feel.
   
  The Cardas does not get louder.
   
  And sure I won't rule out placebo, but it's hard not to.
   
  By the way, the Black Cube's 10dB setting has really opened up in a marvelous way. I really think it's due to break-in period.


----------



## b0ck3n

All newcomers should be directed here when they join the forum, and equip themselves with knowledge before becoming subject to the influence of very convincing but highly subjective (and indeed probably mostly imagined) impressions that are expressed in just about every thread on here.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Even blindfolded I think I could tell the cables apart just by the way they feel.
> 
> The Cardas does not get louder.
> 
> ...


 

 I was meaning disguising the cables just by wrapping them in something, sheathing, fabric taped at both ends. You could even out the weight and feel of the cables that way and once blindfolded it would be much harder.
   
  I am glad that you will not rule out placebo, but I would be interested to know how you can keep your belief going in cables when faced with all of the contrary evidence in the opening post of this thread. I could not and it was finding all of that evidence that made me switch sides in the debate.


----------



## Uncle Erik

Heidigger, the point of a test is so you don't know which cable you're listening to. Telling them apart by feel would mean that your expectations would come into the test. It's important that you only listen to the cables.

I encourage you to try a blinded test. You might be surprised at what you find.


----------



## maverickronin

I think he meant that even if you blindfolded him and put him in front of a rig with two HD650s with different cables it still wouldn't be properly blinded because when he switched from one to the other it would be pretty obvious that one has a thick and stiff boutique cable and one has the flexible and lightweight stock cable.
   
  Because of that extra measures need to be taken to disguise the cables to "blind" the sense of touch.  Its not like with ICs where you can have a switchbox or something.  The person testing it has to put it on their own head and adjust it themselves.  The weight and texture of the cables would be be very obvious.
   
  I'd bet that whichever cable felt heavier and stiffer would get better reviews.  To get around this you'd need to either sleeve them with the same material and somehow equalize the weight and stiffness or get two of each cable and sleeve and disguise all four but make the stock cable thicker in one A/B pair and the boutique cable thicker in another A/B pair.  That would effectively decouple a cables weight and texture from its electrical/sonic performance.
   
  Of course I just came up with this on the fly so someone else probably has a better methodology somewhere.


----------



## Trysaeder

How to do a DBT: 
  Get two cables
  Get two headphones
  Plug the cables into your headphones
  Do the normal things to get music
*Damage the part of your brain responsible for emotions*
  Listen to each headphone
   
  Weeeee!!! Completely unbiased results from human listening. But still, people will find something wrong with this when it shows that the 1000% markup won.
   
   
  In all seriousness, some people are more easily affected by expectations that others. This, along with a strong emotional part of the brain, can make people hear things. EVERYONE will be affected by expectations. Your expectation is the horse, your experience is the cart, not the other way around.
   
  I have convinced several friends to upgrade from stock buds to MEE's selection of iems. Along with that, I have suggested that they use FLAC at home (they all have ipods). 100% of them said with great certainty that flac 'sounds so good', AFTER I explained what it was. When just given a flac file, not one person noticed a difference.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Speakers pass the most blind tests and are the most distinguishable part of the hifi chain. Codecs and different bit rates also do pretty well under blind testing. Enough to suggest that there is a worthwhile difference. Cables perform the worst out of all hifi products.


----------



## jcx

a problem with headphone swapping is that even sequential serial production headphones may not have basic driver sensitivity matching to 0.1 dB - which level difference CAN be heard in ABX DBT testing
   
  also the uncertainty in placement position, differences in seal if you have hair likely would mean even "perfectly" matched headphones would differ by more than the DBT threshold for repeated (re)placements - requiring many trials to give statistical resolving power
   
   
  the engineering approach is much simpler - a fundamental of the Scientific/Rationalist Physicalism/Materialism world view is that the "same" (within limits of measurement noise) signals at the headphone driver terminals then the headphone produces the "same" (again within noise, environmental, parameter drift of the transducers) sound
   
  with a modified headphone you could measure the V at the driver terminals with different cables attached with a "prosumer" grade soundcard w good ADC, DAC and http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm
   
  you can then listen to the difference file itself - and even turn the gain up, add the amplified difference track to the "reference" recording and try ABX in foobar with whatever "high resolving" system you lilke - even post the files for others to ABX
   
  for typical cable and headphone parameters there will be measurable differences with headphones that have large impedance bumps - like the HD600, but comparing with ABX thresholds they will be orders of magnitude less than established statisically significant audible frequency response variations:
   
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm
   
   
  of course you simply can't convince "true believers" that a 24/192K  ~US$130 ESI Juli@ card is by all engineering measures "more resolving"/accurate at audio than a $13K STOA turntable, hand crafted cartridge


----------



## Cataphract

Quote: 





jcx said:


> of course you simply can't convince "true believers" that a 24/192K  ~US$130 ESI Juli@ card is by all engineering measures "more resolving"/accurate at audio than a $13K STOA turntable, hand crafted cartridge


 

  
  Or even a $30 ($20 after MIR) Asus Xonar DG these days.


----------



## tlniec

I hate to say "so why even bother," but this, to me, gets to the heart of the matter.  If tiny, mundane variations like positioning on your head, seal, how much wax happens to be in your ears that day, etc -- even with THE SAME headphone -- are capable of producing audibly different sound, then how much value exists in plumbing the depths of audibility with things like jitter, cables, etc.  Are the folks that must have the most expensive source, DAC, amp, cables, and headphone and feed it nothing but 24/192 files also meticulously placing their headphones on their crania EXACTLY the same way each time, after carefully dressing their hair a specific way (to avoid seal interference) and gently cleansing their ears of wax?  Maybe they are, in which case I'm off-base.  But if they aren't, then it seems like they're futile in focusing their energy on their equipment, assuming reproduction faithful to the source is their goal.
   
  I guess if someone wants to say I'm using this as a rationalization for being OK with cheap gear and cables and CD-quality audio, and I must have tin ears, that's OK with me. 

  
  Quote: 





jcx said:


> a problem with headphone swapping is that even sequential serial production headphones may not have basic driver sensitivity matching to 0.1 dB - which level difference CAN be heard in ABX DBT testing
> 
> also the uncertainty in placement position, differences in seal if you have hair likely would mean even "perfectly" matched headphones would differ by more than the DBT threshold for repeated (re)placements - requiring many trials to give statistical resolving power
> 
> ...


----------



## curtain

Well this argument could be applied to anything, as in photography when capturing and reproducing a waveform as light is, you would still technically capture a better photo on a day with bad light with a top end DSLR than a point and shoot. I may have sleep in my eyes or a hang over or my glasses may need adjustment but that doesn't preclude the ability of a system to deliver a technically superior result for consumption however altered that might be.

Also i think, and I'm not accusing anyone here of this, people spending inordinate amounts of time posturing one position over another should possibly spend more time consuming and enjoying their music otherwise you might ask yourself if you're just being political because you are a little bit elitist or a little bit cheap and when it comes down to it, just plain bored.


----------



## dalethorn

Lots of good commentary here, and some hand-waving dismissals.  Indeed, have we come to the point where complex electronic products all sound the same, even when tubes/valves are used?  I have heard that tests have been done asking subjects to listen to CD tracks and then 192k MP3's from those tracks, where the majority of subjects said the MP3's sounded better.  So much for testing.
   
  When I tell people that I found a good CD ripper plugin in 2005 (CyberLink MP3), and I can rip most tracks at 128k and they're mostly indistinguishable from the CD, they gasp in horror.  OTOH I have no trouble spotting 1 db variations in most of the frequency spectrum with headphones, comparing to a Senn.800 for reference.  I suppose it depends on what you tune in to.
   
  When a test is done, how do you tell the subjects what to listen for, if they aren't experienced in hi-fi listening?  If all you tell them is to listen for *any* difference, then how would they identify the "better" component?
   
  In the Full Size headphones section of this forum, there is a tremendous push on headphone amps - seems like half or more of the million posts there.  So is that a bad thing, when I see (my opinion) that most of those amps aren't necessary or even an improvement in the sound?  Or is it just good business, since we're in the business of buying this stuff?


----------



## Headphone Workshop

Some other classic examples outside of audio...
   

   Riedel wine glasses (they make wine taste better, but only if the subject knows that it's a Riedel glass--people can't tell the difference in a blind taste test).  

   
  Of course, the Pepsi Challenge...When people blind tested Coke and Pepsi in the "Pepsi challenge," 57% chose Pepsi, yet they only had 4% of the soft drink market while Coke had 18%. When they knew which one was Coke, they overwhelmingly chose Coke.  It wasn't about the taste, and it still isn't, _it's all about the brand_.  And there are examples in every product category.  
   
  If you're interested in this effect from a marketing perspective, check out All Marketers are Liers (bad name, good book).
   
  It's interesting if you think about it...your brain ends up making the brand's claims true, subjectively.


----------



## dalethorn

headphone workshop said:


> Some other classic examples outside of audio...
> 
> 
> Riedel wine glasses (they make wine taste better, but only if the subject knows that it's a Riedel glass--people can't tell the difference in a blind taste test).
> ...



I don't drink Coke or Pepsi, and would recommend against it for anyone who cares about their health. Same reason I recommend good hi-fi gear for listening to those CD's or whatever. Better for your mental/spiritual health. And good hi-fi gear does sound better than the typical K-Mart stereo offerings, no matter what the taste testers conclude.


----------



## rroseperry

Quote: 





dalethorn said:


> I don't drink Coke or Pepsi, and would recommend against it for anyone who cares about their health. Same reason I recommend good hi-fi gear for listening to those CD's or whatever. Better for your mental/spiritual health. And good hi-fi gear does sound better than the typical K-Mart stereo offerings, no matter what the taste testers conclude.


 

 But this is completely disingenuous. No one is making the argument that there's no difference between a boom-box from Wal-mart and a good set up.  It's whether there's real value in some highly marketed pieces of that set up.


----------



## b0ck3n

I think most people around here really do hear a difference, as long as they're not blindfolded when listening the difference is actually there. The human mind is a funny thing. Take the McGurk effect - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 - an audiophile who's listening to his recabled LCD-2, plugged into a state-of-the-art DAC and amp, will hear a ton of difference because he expects to.


----------



## dalethorn

rroseperry said:


> But this is completely disingenuous. No one is making the argument that there's no difference between a boom-box from Wal-mart and a good set up.  It's whether there's real value in some highly marketed pieces of that set up.



Not disingenuous at all! I don't think you can draw such a distinct line between the "classes" of gear or their aficionados. Besides, forums like this run on the advertising, and all those advertisers' products surely fall into that "highly marketed" audiophile class. So what's the story? Are we saying the hi-fi items advertised here have dubious merit?


----------



## curtain

Quote: 





dalethorn said:


> Lots of good commentary here, and some hand-waving dismissals.  Indeed, have we come to the point where complex electronic products all sound the same, even when tubes/valves are used?  I have heard that tests have been done asking subjects to listen to CD tracks and then 192k MP3's from those tracks, where the majority of subjects said the MP3's sounded better.  So much for testing.
> 
> When I tell people that I found a good CD ripper plugin in 2005 (CyberLink MP3), and I can rip most tracks at 128k and they're mostly indistinguishable from the CD, they gasp in horror.  OTOH I have no trouble spotting 1 db variations in most of the frequency spectrum with headphones, comparing to a Senn.800 for reference.  I suppose it depends on what you tune in to.
> 
> ...


 
   
  I think the discussion of a lossy file being indistinguishable from a lossless one for a group of people is valid for them certainly, however it's drawing a long bow to use that as an argument as to what is valuable for everyone else.
   
  People are adult enough to make a judgement about what they are hearing (or not hearing) and choose one listening experience over another and direct their purchasing power accordingly. All this is toward the enjoyment of their hobby if not their bank account.


----------



## macbob713

Way back in the day of early Hi-Fi reviews and journalism, one of the very first professional engineers who was also a reviewer for Stereo Review published a number of ground breaking stories, two of which apply here. In comparing amps, Julian Hirsch found that there was no audible difference between comparable amplifiers and recievers  if they both measured low in distortion. He went on to say that most hi-fi gear at that time (the early 70's) was of such uniform quality a person would be hard pressed to hear any real difference. After the Compact Disc Player was introduced, Mr. Hirsch compared a number of models in different price ranges, and made the technical argument that again he found no audible evidence of any difference in sound quality between them. Each article included his technical anaylsis and the basis for his findings. Of course he was roundly attacked by the part of the audiophile community opposed to blind testing and who regards subjective opinions of their reviewers as gospel, hence virtually every new product reviewed is always pronounced a new breakthrough. 
  In the 80's, StereoReview did a landmark cover story on speaker cables, using controlled blind listening panels, and again found that time and again no one could consistently hear any difference in sound, from cheap lamp cord to expensive exotic cables. You can google Julian Hirsch and read more about his groundbreaking career.


----------



## rroseperry

Quote: 





dalethorn said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
   To be clear, when I wrote Wal-mart, I wanted to indicate cost and quality of the equipment, nothing about any person who might buy one.
   
  The theme of this thread has been whether audiophile (however defined) claims about differences among different elements exist. This can be looked at in two basic ways. First, is the gear competent? Second, once we're over the competent hurdle, do differences in construction, design, material, etc, make differences to the sound quality. A boombox doesn't pass the competence test, insofar as it can't be said to do a good job of audio reproduction. In that most basic way it's inferior to many of mp3 players, not to mention someone's desktop setup.
   
  Do some of the advertised products on here have dubious merit? Could be. I don't really see what that has to do with anything. Advertisers market to people most likely to buy their stuff. Do they believe their products have merit? I'd guess so.  Do they? Maybe, maybe not. Are you saying their mere presence is some guarantee of worth?


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Hey, I still want a turntable even though I know full well how disappointed I will be with it, I gave up vinyl in 1984 for all the rational reasons, but still cannot wholly shake the desire to get a TT again...


 

 When we went from records to CDs, I missed watching the platter spin and the arm magically float over the vinyl as I listened to music.  And now that we're moving away from physical media entirely, I miss the days when I could open a jewel case, place the disc in the tray, and click the play button and watch the fluorescent display tick away the seconds.  The iTunes Visualizer just annoys me.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The reason why this thread came about was because I wanted to start DIYing cables, with half a thought on expanding to sell some and make a small profit. I bought various cables and connections off ebay and soldering kit off ebay. Amazon and from a hardware shop and taught myself to solder using videos off You Tube. I called myself  'Out of this World Audio' and gave each cable a space themed name. (I even stuck a couple of posts on this forum's Head Gear section section and I have responses. They now get directed to the same cables I made, which can be bought now on ebay by people who have gone ahead to sell their cables).
   
  I sent my cables to members of another forum (What Hifi) and even a manufacturer and got favourable reviews. But, during this time I was swapping cables left right and centre and felt that really, there was no difference at all between mine and other audiophile and stock cables I already had.
   
  So I googled cable testing and quickly found blind tests and realised that there is a lot of blind tests out there, and not just cables. Having participated in many a cable debate on another forum as a pro cable believer, I was overwhelmed by the evidence that blind testing showed, there is no audible difference between cables.
   
  With regards to other parts of the hifi chain, I remember a big debate about how amps could sound the same, if equalised, which I thought was a ridiculous thing to do. But finding that the difference between amps is there, but it is usually minimal was also quite a revelation. The same was true of codecs and bit rates. I have not bothered with codec/bit rate blind tests as there are so many on the internet. But one thing is clear, people can tell between the extremes, but often prefer the 'poor quality' sounding MP3 or low bit rate. What! They should prefer the high quality Ogg Vorbis and lossless bit rates! But it just goes to show what happens when you just listen. The brain takes over and hifi is no longer what you would expect it to be, according to audiophiles anyway.
   
  So, after all of that my cable enterprise came to a halt. It cost me £70 in total, including the soldering kit, and I can now solder, have my own wonderful cables (that sound better than any other cable has ever sounded  and my knowledge of electronics has improved, so it was not a waste.
   
  I decided to put together all of the blind tests that I had found into a thread and share. There are so many cable debate threads that go in circles because people ask for proof, but debate who should provide it rather than just going out and finding it. Well, I had found it and I could not find another example on a forum of such a thread. So I put it together and published on the What Hifi Forum. Within about an hour it had been deleted! The b*****ds had deleted the whole thing and I was referred to their vague house rules with no change of an appeal!
   
  So, I put the whole thing together again and posted it here as at least in Sound Science you are allowed to debate such issues. But only Sound Science mind, there is no asking for proof or mentioning tests elsewhere on the forum so as not to upset intolerant audiophiles.
   
  It was nice to see a similar list has appeared on Hydrogenaudio forum courtesy of a member here Pia2000, from which I have added to here. At least such will make life easier for those who do want to see the evidence.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

This came up in another thread and is relevant here. Years ago an audio engineer Bob Carver conducted two challenges that he could make cheap amps sound the same as far more expensive ones. Audio Critic and Stereophile took up the challenge and both failed. Carver showed how all amps can sound the same. Here is the Wikipedia summary;
   
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver#Amplifier_modeling


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Audio Critic and Stereophile took up the challenge and both failed.


 
  LOL, that's great. I loved this:
   
     "The _Stereophile_ employees failed to pass a single blind test with their own
     equipment, and in their own listening room."
   
  Yet the people who write for Stereophile today don't seem to have learned anything from that experience. They still argue the same nonsense.
   
  It's also worth mentioning that The Audio Critic is (was) on the side of science in such debates.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## BlackbeardBen

If you read the original Stereophile article, it's not clear that they did any blind testing at all:
  http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge
   
  They mention it as the final step if they think they can hear differences and Bob thought he had duplicated the amp well enough.  But... they never say they did so - only stating that they certainly didn't do any DBTs, and that if anything they should have been biased to hear a difference.
   
  On page three they say this:
   
  Quote: 





> We made no effort to do A/B testing, since we feel it does not replicate normal listening conditions, and there is still insubstantial evidence that A/B testing reveals small differences as well as does prolonged listening to each unit under test. In our tests, one amplifier would be wired into the system and auditioned as long as we wanted, using a wide variety of program material that always, however, included the material listed above. Notes were made of anything we heard that we thought different from the other amplifier, and those specific points were checked again when we went back to the other amplifier.


 
   
  Presumably they mean they did not try blind A/B/X testing, because what they describe is exactly sighted A/B testing.  Funny how they say they'll try it in the beginning, but then wouldn't even attempt it...  the conclusion notwithstanding.


----------



## estreeter

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> This came up in another thread and is relevant here. Years ago an audio engineer Bob Carver conducted two challenges that he could make cheap amps sound the same as far more expensive ones. Audio Critic and Stereophile took up the challenge and both failed. Carver showed how all amps can sound the same. Here is the Wikipedia summary;
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver#Amplifier_modeling


 
   
   I dont have a problem with anything written in your post - all I want is to be able to buy a Carver headphone amp for $199. Thats it, Bob - get to it.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> I dont have a problem with anything written in your post - all I want is to be able to buy a Carver headphone amp for $199. Thats it, Bob - get to it.


 

 Go buy a Carver C-1 or C-11 preamp then!  If you don't think it does well with your headphones, well, you've only spent about $125 and you still have an awesome preamp.  It's as good as any out there (tons of input/output and a pretty good phono amp), and the Sonic Holography is at least fun to play with.


----------



## roy_jones

Quote: 





headphone workshop said:


> Of course, the Pepsi Challenge...When people blind tested Coke and Pepsi in the "Pepsi challenge," 57% chose Pepsi, yet they only had 4% of the soft drink market while Coke had 18%. When they knew which one was Coke, they overwhelmingly chose Coke.  It wasn't about the taste, and it still isn't, _it's all about the brand_.  And there are examples in every product category.
> 
> If you're interested in this effect from a marketing perspective, check out All Marketers are Liers (bad name, good book).
> 
> It's interesting if you think about it...your brain ends up making the brand's claims true, subjectively.


 


  While I don't think it necessarily relates to the results of the Coke/Pepsi challenge, I know for sure that I could identify (and greatly prefer) the taste of Coke in a blinded test 100 times out of 100.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

This thread is about doing the test and publishing the results, not 'knowing' how you will do it the test


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> This thread is about doing the test and publishing the results, not 'knowing' how you will do it the test


 
   
   
  While I understand and fully agree with your point, I've been served Pepsi at a restaurant before after asking for Coke without being told that it isn't Coke - and I've angrily identified the Pepsi as such.  And I'm not talking about in the South where you get a "Pepsi Coke" - this is in Michigan.
   
  But we're talking about audiophile claims and myths, not foodie ones!


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> While I understand and fully agree with your point, I've been served Pepsi at a restaurant before after asking for Coke without being told that it isn't Coke - and I've angrily identified the Pepsi as such.  And I'm not talking about in the South where you get a "Pepsi Coke" - this is in Michigan.
> 
> But we're talking about audiophile claims and myths, not foodie ones!


 

 I've had that happen to me a few times in the south.  A few times I even got RC.  Its not as good as Coke, but at least its better than Pepsi...


----------



## aristos_achaion

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> I've had that happen to me a few times in the south.  A few times I even got RC.  Its not as good as Coke, but at least its better than Pepsi...


 

 Quite naturally, since in the South, you're supposed to drink sweet tea.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> I've had that happen to me a few times in the south.  A few times I even got RC.  Its not as good as Coke, but at least its better than Pepsi...


 


  ಠ_ಠ
   
  Pepsi > you.
   
  Still, I've done blind tests with Coke and Pepsi and can tell them apart.  There are some oddballs though that if thrown in will mess me up (like RC and store brands).  I've started drinking store brands though because, quite frankly I'm cheap and they taste okay.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





roy_jones said:


> I know for sure that I could identify (and greatly prefer) the taste of Coke in a blinded test 100 times out of 100.


 
  I'm not saying you can't tell them apart, but have you ever actually tested yourself blind? My wife and I tested each other with sugar versus corn syrup Coke, and cream soda. The results surprised me:
   
Soda Blind Test
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Heidegger

Or maybe the improvements are for real. It's the position of the people I've heard from on this thread that there is no such thing as burn in. I bought a brand-new amp not too long ago. When I first listened to it I was horrified by what I heard. It was a gut reaction; it was obvious; it was total. I really thought about returning it. But on the hope that the sound would improve, I kept it. Well, the amp sounds great now and I'm glad I kept it. Maybe somebody out there reading this thread who knows about amps would like to say a few words about why burn-in is an actual physical phenomenon? For headphones, the people at Headroom told me that break-in has to do with the diaphragm. There must be some physical explanation for why my amp sounds better now than when I first got it. I've already taken note of the "it's all in your head/placebo" explanation. Now I'd like to hear from the other side.


----------



## Lunatique

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Or maybe the improvements are for real. It's the position of the people I've heard from on this thread that there is no such thing as burn in. I bought a brand-new amp not too long ago. When I first listened to it I was horrified by what I heard. It was a gut reaction; it was obvious; it was total. I really thought about returning it. But on the hope that the sound would improve, I kept it. Well, the amp sounds great now and I'm glad I kept it. Maybe somebody out there reading this thread who knows about amps would like to say a few words about why burn-in is an actual physical phenomenon? For headphones, the people at Headroom told me that break-in has to do with the diaphragm. There must be some physical explanation for why my amp sounds better now than when I first got it. I've already taken note of the "it's all in your head/placebo" explanation. Now I'd like to hear from the other side.


 
  Even our biological condition will cause our hearing to change. For example, if you drank too much coffee, or you didn't get enough sleep, or you were exposed to loud noises earlier, or you have having a bad sinus day with your allergy, and so on. The things might sound fatiguing one day, but the next day sounds just fine--it's your changing biology that's often the cause. 
   
  Also, if you just got a new audio device and it is exhibiting a response that's foreign to you, it'll stick out because it is emphasizing certain frequencies, or maybe the transients are different, or whatever. But once you start to get used to it, they no longer stick out because they are no longer foreign to you. The devices hasn't changed--your perception has. 
   
  But this is just a couple of possible explanations--there are others, and in some cases, certain designs can actually cause changes in how something sounds due to changing temperature, moisture, oxidizing--who knows? 
   
  Anyone who pays attention to this and have seen/heard authoritative information regarding it, all pretty much agree that so-called burn-in is not nearly as prevalent as people think it is, and it's always the uninformed who regurgitate the false information. Some products do require burn-in, and the user's manual for that product will tell you so, such as Digidesign's RM1 and RM2 speakers--they SPECIFICALLY tell the user to allow a certain amount of time to loosen up the drivers. I feel that if the manufacturer does not tell you it is required, then it isn't. To think that all designs require it would be like saying all products are designed to the exact same specifications--that just isn't true. OVERWHELMINGLY, most products on the market do NOT require burn-in in any way shape or form.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Or maybe the improvements are for real. It's the position of the people I've heard from on this thread that there is no such thing as burn in. I bought a brand-new amp not too long ago. When I first listened to it I was horrified by what I heard. It was a gut reaction; it was obvious; it was total. I really thought about returning it. But on the hope that the sound would improve, I kept it. Well, the amp sounds great now and I'm glad I kept it..


 

  
  Um, you are being a bit selective about the details of your experience you recount, you also were messing about with the gain switch which adds a confounding variable yes ?


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





lunatique said:


> The things might sound fatiguing one day, but the next day sounds just fine--it's your changing biology that's often the cause.


 
  This is the correct answer to the question "Why does the sound of gear change?" The gear doesn't change, our ears and our perception change. This is not a difficult concept. I don't understand why some people refuse to accept it. Has the same food never tasted different to you on different days? Has the same amount of light at night in your bedroom never seemed brighter or dimmer some days? The same happens with hearing, and I'd argue that hearing varies even more than other senses.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> This is the correct answer to the question "Why does the sound of gear change?" The gear doesn't change, our ears and our perception change. This is not a difficult concept. I don't understand why some people refuse to accept it. Has the same food never tasted different to you on different days? Has the same amount of light at night in your bedroom never seemed brighter or dimmer some days? The same happens with hearing, and I'd argue that hearing varies even more than other senses.
> 
> --Ethan


 

 Which is much more convincing explanation that the difference is inherent in the cable.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Um, you are being a bit selective about the details of your experience you recount, you also were messing about with the gain switch which adds a confounding variable yes ?


 

 "Messing around" sounds like I was doing something wrong. The gain switch is there to be, um, switched. But yes: When I first bought the amp, I believe it was set to 10dB, and it sounded horrible. I followed burn-in instructions that I found right here at head-fi. At some point, I also adjusted the gain switch to 18dB. The sound improved considerably. I can't absolutely say whether it was due to the gain or to break-in. _However_, the 10dB setting now sounds fantastic, much better than when I first got the amp. The fact that the 10dB setting improved -- the very setting that sounded horrible when I first got the amp -- leads me to believe it is due to burn-in. I suspect that all those here who are telling me that my hearing, not the amp, is what changed, don't quite realize just how atrocious this amp sounded at first (distant, indistinct, blurry, slow, and boring as hell) and therefore how obvious the change has been. To say that it was my hearing that adjusted to the amp, I would have to believe that my hearing adjusted to the utter crap that I heard when I first got the amp. But rather than trying to convince people, which isn't going to happen, I want to find out what physical explanations there might be for why the sound of the amp -- not my hearing -- changed so dramatically. The physics of burn-in, so to speak. I found information on the web about burn-in relative to speakers and headphones, but not much for amps.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> 1. I don't understand why some people refuse to accept it.
> 
> 2. Has the same food never tasted different to you on different days?
> 
> --Ethan


 

 1. Because I would then have to accept the "fact" that my amp is a piece of garbage, and that I have grown accustomed to listening to garbage. Not only that, but I would have to accept the "fact" that garbage now sounds great to me. Because garbage is exactly what this amp sounded like when I first got it. The other possibility would be that the amp really sounded great when I first got it, but that I only _thought_ it sounded like garbage.
   
  2. Only slightly, unless I am sick. When I'm sick, then food really does taste terrible. But I wasn't sick when I got the amp.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





lunatique said:


> 1. Even our biological condition will cause our hearing to change. For example, if you drank too much coffee, or you didn't get enough sleep, or you were exposed to loud noises earlier, or you have having a bad sinus day with your allergy, and so on. The things might sound fatiguing one day, but the next day sounds just fine--it's your changing biology that's often the cause.
> 
> 2. Also, if you just got a new audio device and it is exhibiting a response that's foreign to you, it'll stick out because it is emphasizing certain frequencies, or maybe the transients are different, or whatever. But once you start to get used to it, they no longer stick out because they are no longer foreign to you. The devices hasn't changed--your perception has.
> 
> 3. But this is just a couple of possible explanations--there are others, and in some cases, certain designs can actually cause changes in how something sounds due to changing temperature, moisture, oxidizing--who knows?


 

 1. The day before yesterday I played some SACDs and it seemed that the amp was emphasizing the treble too much. The music sounded a little too bright and somewhat unpleasant. I couldn't make out the mids that well. I played the exact discs yesterday and they sounded GREAT. Go figure. But the burn-in experience was more dramatic than that.
  2. That's possible, but there's a difference between things sticking out and the music sounding totally lifeless and slow. I can't emphasize that enough: _slow _and utterly unengaging when I first got it.
  3. Other explanations -- that's what I'm asking about.


----------



## Heidegger

Don't want to pile up posts, but when I left here I went searching for more info on amp burn-in and found an interesting and highly technical post about this at at
   
http://www.hifivision.com/introductions/4939-amplifier-burn-2.html
   
  The post by venkatcr concludes:
   
  "So what does happen that make people say that their amplifiers sound better after usage? There is one possibility and this relates more to the power unit.

 There is a lot of copper used in the power unit for flow of current. Asit [one of the posters over there at hifivision] had once explained that the conductivity of copper increases after current flows through it for some time. Essentially the molecules inside the copper align themselves in the direction of flow. This reduces internal resistance within the copper and aids in the smoother flow of current. The power unit will, thus, after some usage, be able to deliver marginally higher current, and more important, the higher current faster. This will affect the amplifier circuit in two ways. One, the amplifier’s slew rate will improve enabling the amplifier to match the input signal’s speed better. Two, the power unit will be able to replenish the capacitors faster, thus enabling the amplifier to attack the next rush requirement with equal gusto. The net effect will be that, to our human ears, the music will sound smoother.

 A well designed amplifier, in my opinion, will, with usage, not have any positive change in tonality, headroom, dynamics, or other similar and important characteristics of the sound signal. The only possible positive change is the increase in the slew rate and the resultant ‘attack’ speed of the amplifier."
   
  This really caught my eye since, above all, the black cube linear when first listened to had a very slow attack speed, making the music sound quite dull. (I can't tell you how often I yawned those first few days.) Venkatcr could be wrong, of course, but it really accords with my experience. Moreover, if you read his/her post s/he really seems to have done some homework. If correct, then all I have to say to you nay-sayers on this thread is: Keep your minds open. There might be things you don't know about. And don't assume that "subjective" experiences are _always_ wrong. Sometimes our ears can hear things that are _really _there. (Imagine that!)


----------



## khaos974

I didn't exactly bother to check my chemistry book but it seems to me that conductivity only depends on the nature of the material and its temperature, it seems strange that a non permanent electrical current would be able to change the metalic bond of the conduction electrons in the metal, if someone point me to a paper or an excerpt saying the contrary I'll gladly retract this statement. Besides, the atomic mesh of copper and silver, at room temperature, essentially is essentially static, again, please give me a paper saying otherwise.
   
  Typical propagation speed of the electromagnetic wave in a coax cable is about 2/3 speed of light, that's 2e8 m.s-1, I doubt that even dividing that speed by ten could have any audible impact.
   
  I think that you imagine the displacement of electrons in a cable as water pushing out of a tube, this is a very flawed image, let's replace it by a still imperfect but less flawed one: imagine a tube filled with water, with 2 discs plugging both end of the water filled section (water cannot escape the tube).
  Push on one end, the other en moves, pull on one end, the other end moves, any current you have in an audio system is essentially a succession of push/pull motions on one disc, the delay (if, as the guy on hifivision says, the speed of electricity varies) needed for it to propagate to the other disc is inconsequential, the other end will still make the same pull/push movement. And it is, considering the 2/3 speed of light figure, for all intent and purpose instantaneous in the audio realm.


----------



## jcx

yes electromigration is BS in room temp copper, wires with the dimensions of parts leads, amp internal wiring


----------



## Prog Rock Man

It would be worth starting another post on burn in, the above just gets lost here.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> 1. Because I would then have to accept the "fact" that my amp is a piece of garbage, and that I have grown accustomed to listening to garbage. Not only that, but I would have to accept the "fact" that garbage now sounds great to me. Because garbage is exactly what this amp sounded like when I first got it. The other possibility would be that the amp really sounded great when I first got it, but that I only _thought_ it sounded like garbage.


 
  I don't get your point about garbage. But unless you measured your amp, or at least made two recordings that you and maybe others here can compare, you really are just guessing. It makes no sense that a solid state amplifier will change sound over time. At least it makes no sense to people who understand how amplifiers actually work. This remind me of a great quote made years ago by a very smart person:
   
_"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it. But when you cannot ... your knowledge is ... meager and unsatisfactory."_ --Lord Kelvin, 19th century physicist
   
--Ethan


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> 1. I don't get your point about garbage.
> 
> 2. But unless you measured your amp, or at least made two recordings that you and maybe others here can compare, you really are just guessing. It makes no sense that a solid state amplifier will change sound over time. At least it makes no sense to people who understand how amplifiers actually work.
> 
> ...


 
  1. What's not to get? The amp sounded like a piece of junk at first. I wouldn't have paid $5 for it unless I was planning to resell it at a profit. In contrast, now it sounds fantastic, like a whole different amp.
   
  2. You say it makes no sense to people who understand how amplifiers work? Guess what? I think the people who built the amplifier should know then, and I sent them an e-mail asking about it. This is what Lehmannaudio wrote back: "[size=small]Typically, a new unbroken-in piece of equipment will sound a bit thin or dry, with a lacking of bass weight. . . . I don’t think what you are hearing is anything other than break-in." -- Stirling Trayle, Lehmannaudio. Now, who knows more about amps -- you or the people who build them?[/size]
   
  [size=small]3. Your appeal to numbers is rather pointless here, as neither one of us could make those calculations.[/size]


----------



## tmars78

heidegger said:


> 1. What's not to get? The amp sounded like a piece of junk at first. I wouldn't have paid $5 for it unless I was planning to resell it at a profit. In contrast, now it sounds fantastic, like a whole different amp.
> 
> 2. You say it makes no sense to people who understand how amplifiers work? Guess what? I think the people who built the amplifier should know then, and I sent them an e-mail asking about it. This is what Lehmannaudio wrote back: "[size=small]Typically, a new unbroken-in piece of equipment will sound a bit thin or dry, with a lacking of bass weight. . . . I don’t think what you are hearing is anything other than break-in." -- Stirling Trayle, Lehmannaudio. Now, who knows more about amps -- you or the people who build them?[/size]
> 
> [size=small]3. Your appeal to numbers is rather pointless here, as neither one of us could make those calculations.[/size]




Your point about what the maker of amp said, is rather pointless. Of course he is going to say that. He is in the business of making money too, and people looking to turn a profit, will say ANYTHING to make a buck. Sad? Yes, unfortunately.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> [size=small]3. Your appeal to numbers is rather pointless here, as neither one of us could make those calculations.[/size]
> 
> 
> *A good proxy for the numbers is to take the analog outputs and make recordings from them before and after a period of time, too late now of course, then you can scope out the FR and convert it into numbers which you can then plot so you get a graphical representation of a before and after...*


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> *The day before yesterday I played some SACDs and it seemed that the amp was emphasizing the treble too much. The music sounded a little too bright and somewhat unpleasant. I couldn't make out the mids that well. I played the exact discs yesterday and they sounded GREAT. Go figure.*


 

 Had you replaced your cables or performed some other tweak when you heard the treble emphasis, you would now be crediting the improvement to the cables or the tweak.
   
  What you have just described is a good example of what happens when people report the difference cables and tweaks make.
   
  USG


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Had you replaced your cables or performed some other tweak when you heard the treble emphasis, you would now be crediting the improvement to the cables or the tweak.
> 
> What you have just described is a good example of what happens when people report the difference cables and tweaks make.


 

 Reminds me of the numerous blind tests where nothing is changed; yet listeners are able to describe IN GREAT DETAIL the differences of A vs. A.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Is there someone out there who can explain this?  I would especially like to hear an explanation from someone opposed to blind or DBT.  It's one thing to not be able to tell between A and B.  But when they start to describe something that is the same as totally different, it sounds like they're just making stuff up- don't know any other way to put it.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Mkubota1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Reminds me of the numerous blind tests where nothing is changed; yet listeners are able to describe IN GREAT DETAIL the differences of A vs. A.
> 
> ...


 

 My guess is that expectation plays a big part in that.  They expected to hear something different, and so they did.
   
  USG


----------



## tmars78

mkubota1 said:


> Reminds me of the numerous blind tests where nothing is changed; yet listeners are able to describe IN GREAT DETAIL the differences of A vs. A.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I wouldn't say they are making it up. They really could be hearing what they are describing. The human mind is a powerful thing, and we can make ourselves believe almost anything, especially when we are expecting to hear something. Its called Expectation bias.

From Wiki:

Experimenter's or Expectation bias – the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.[8]


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

  Right... poor choice of words on my part.  What I meant was that they are describing what they perceive the sound is _as it passes through all of the effects of cognitive bias_.
   
  I was just reading up on an article about ABX testing (by Robert Harley no less) and all of the valid criticisms of it.  It seems like the main ones are length of listening time and system quality or familiarity.  So I thought to myself:  Aside from the obvious time constraints, why not do a DBT where the tested component is blindly inserted into the reference system for say a period of one or two weeks.  And then that component is switched out (or not!) and the tester gets to listen for another week or so.  You wouldn't be able to do a number of trials like you could in a traditional ABX test.  But it seems like this sort of method would appease those who say they can hear the difference.  Going back to my original question:  So what if you did a test like this with a person who says they can hear the difference between cable A and B, and at the end of say 3-4 trials they describe to you the differences (in great detail of course).  But then they find out that the cables were never switched.  What would they say?  Or would this never ever happen?
   
  I'm certainly not saying that ABX is the perfect test and I know there are people who have really excellent hearing (though not nearly as many that make the claim).  Blind testing is like chemotherapy.  It's not without its drawbacks; but the alternative(s) are usually far worse.


----------



## tmars78

mkubota1 said:


> Right... poor choice of words on my part.  What I meant was that they are describing what they perceive the sound is _as it passes through all of the effects of cognitive bias_.
> 
> I was just reading up on an article about ABX testing (by Robert Harley no less) and all of the valid criticisms of it.  It seems like the main ones are length of listening time and system quality or familiarity.  So I thought to myself:  Aside from the obvious time constraints, why not do a DBT where the tested component is blindly inserted into the reference system for say a period of one or two weeks.  And then that component is switched out (or not!) and the tester gets to listen for another week or so.  You wouldn't be able to do a number of trials like you could in a traditional ABX test.  But it seems like this sort of method would appease those who say they can hear the difference.  Going back to my original question:  So what if you did a test like this with a person who says they can hear the difference between cable A and B, and at the end of say 3-4 trials they describe to you the differences (in great detail of course).  But then they find out that the cables were never switched.  What would they say?  Or would this never ever happen?
> 
> I'm certainly not saying that ABX is the perfect test and I know there are people who have really excellent hearing (though not nearly as many that make the claim).  Blind testing is like chemotherapy.  It's not without its drawbacks; but the alternative(s) are usually far worse.




What you say is all well and good, and those types of tests have been proposed here numerous times, but no one has taken the plunge. Even if someone does take the plunge, if they fail, they will only blame the test. It seems to be what they usually do. From all of the reading I have done here at head-fi, what I have learned is, the skeptics want to be proved wrong, and the believers egos are too big, and are afraid to be proved wrong. They say they can hear differences, swear up and down they are there, but won't put their money where their mouth is, and find all kinds of excuses to not do a blind test.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





mkubota1 said:


> I was just reading up on an article about ABX testing (by Robert Harley no less) and all of the valid criticisms of it.  It seems like the main ones are length of listening time and system quality or familiarity.  So I thought to myself:  Aside from the obvious time constraints, why not do a DBT where the tested component is blindly inserted into the reference system for say a period of one or two weeks.


 


  That's been done before.
   
  Tom Nousaine had installed ABX switchers into a number of people's home systems where they could do the tests at their leisure, taking as long as they like to listen or switch, etc. Some of these people had the ABX switcher in their system for months and even years.
   
  None of them ever turned up a positive result.
   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

So much speculation reminds me of the idea that you can only realistically look at the unlikely once you have ruled out the likely explanations.


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> From all of the reading I have done here at head-fi, what I have learned is, the skeptics want to be proved wrong, and the believers egos are too big, and are afraid to be proved wrong.


 

 And that's what I find ironic about this whole thing.  Personally, I am a certified gadget freak who's looking for _any_ excuse to buy a new 'box' that will make the slightest difference- good or bad (to me it's more often 'different' than just those two choices).  If anything I have a bias towards hearing a difference.  I can list a number of reasons, from financial to psychological, why a person would want to believe they can hear things that cannot be heard.  But what possible motive (we've ruled out being a cheapskate) would I have not to believe in super-cool looking cables or a three rackspace tall line conditioner?
  
  Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> That's been done before.
> 
> Tom Nousaine had installed ABX switchers into a number of people's home systems where they could do the tests at their leisure, taking as long as they like to listen or switch, etc. Some of these people had the ABX switcher in their system for months and even years.
> 
> None of them ever turned up a positive result.


 

 I suppose it would be naive of me to think it hasn't been done... I guess I was just thinking out loud, wondering what objections or flaws they could possibly cite in such a test.  I can't think of any other field, industry, or hobby where _"take my word for it- the difference is like day-and-night"_ is so averse to any kind of comparison test to support that claim.  I have worked in the wine industry for over 7 years and never once heard a complaint about brown bag or DB testing.  The benchmark of the Institute of Masters of Wine is in fact DBT.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Cracking piont about wine tasting. When you think about it, DBT should be standard stuff for audiophiles.


----------



## maverickronin

Personally, I think it would be awesome if fancy boutique cables were anything other than audio jewelry.  If soldering on a fancy cable was all it took to make my T50RPs sound even better I'd be all over it, even if it was stupidly expensive.  My house and office are too noisy to justify spending a ton of money on headphones with out any isolation and short of super high end stuff (R10, 4070, etc) or custom IEMs (which I wouldn't mind except they have no resale value and they can be "outgrown") there probably isn't anything better that's not completely open..  Unfortunately those cables don't do anything extra besides look pretty.
   
  I do have a hefty line conditioner though.  Its mostly because I became paranoid about spikes or surges damaging my PC.  I don't think it does anything but protect my audio rig, but it can't hurt.  I got it cheap off ebay too.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





mkubota1 said:


> And that's what I find ironic about this whole thing.  Personally, I am a certified gadget freak who's looking for _any_ excuse to buy a new 'box' that will make the slightest difference- good or bad (to me it's more often 'different' than just those two choices).  If anything I have a bias towards hearing a difference.  I can list a number of reasons, from financial to psychological, why a person would want to believe they can hear things that cannot be heard. * But what possible motive (we've ruled out being a cheapskate) would I have not to believe in super-cool looking cables or a three rackspace tall line conditioner?*


 
   
  Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Personally,* I think it would be awesome if fancy boutique cables were anything other than audio jewelry*.  If soldering on a fancy cable was all it took to make my T50RPs sound even better I'd be all over it, even if it was stupidly expensive.  My house and office are too noisy to justify spending a ton of money on headphones with out any isolation and short of super high end stuff (R10, 4070, etc) or custom IEMs (which I wouldn't mind except they have no resale value and they can be "outgrown") there probably isn't anything better that's not completely open..  Unfortunately those cables don't do anything extra besides look pretty.
> 
> I do have a hefty line conditioner though.  Its mostly because I became paranoid about spikes or surges damaging my PC.  I don't think it does anything but protect my audio rig, but it can't hurt.  I got it cheap off ebay too.


 

 I just want to address the audio jewelry aspect. 
   
  I don't see anything wrong with upgrading to a better looking cable or a nicer looking piece of equipment.  How it looks counts.  We buy style all the time. 
   
  I wonder how many people actually go for really geeky looking things like my Blue Circle Thingee?


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *upstateguy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with upgrading to a better looking cable or a nicer looking piece of equipment.  How it looks counts.  We buy style all the time.


   
  Absolutely!!!  I am not at all opposed to that.  Although I've abandoned vinyl long ago for many reasons, there is nothing more relaxing than watching a tonearm float across the reflective surface of a record despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the actual sound.  I _get_ the handcrafted, non-mass produced, engineered to the Nth degree aspect of a lot of thing.  Just don't tell me that your Patek Philippe Complicated Perpetual tells time any differently than my Casio G-Shock, and I will appreciate both.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> I just want to address the audio jewelry aspect.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with upgrading to a better looking cable or a nicer looking piece of equipment.  How it looks counts.  We buy style all the time.


 

 That's fine if you know what you're getting into, but they sure aren't sold that way and that's really what I have a problem with.  Most boutique cable sellers don't flat-out lie but they sell them with the same "wink, wink - nudge, nudge" that others sell everything from nutritional "supplements" to quack medicine with.  They whip of a storm of placebo induced testimonials so they don't actually have to lie themselves.  Its about as dishonest as you can get without actually committing an actionable offense.
   
  I'm way over on the function (vs form) side of things myself.  I'll usually only pick something that looks better if it only costs me a little bit extra money and almost never if it costs me extra features.  I don't really mind if people are on the other end of the scale.  I just don't like seeing people get ripped off or seeing dishonest people prosper.  If you knew ahead of time that it was just for looks and not for sound then you probably weren't ripped off but if you bought it hoping for better sound then you probably were.


----------



## Uncle Erik

USG, in a sense you're completely right. But that's not the whole story.

Audio jewelry is usually pitched to equate to better sound. People assume that the 1" thick CNC milled aluminum faceplate means everything inside is well built and of the highest quality. The high price tags reinforce this. But what you often get is a bog-standard circuit on a PCB and a few boutique caps to dress it up.

But otherwise, aesthetics are important. I'll pay more for a gorgeous case. Sadly, there isn't too much of that around, either. Everyone seems to aim for a high-tech look with heavy aluminum panels. Those are OK, but I haven't seen much creativity in casework.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





mkubota1 said:


> Absolutely!!!  I am not at all opposed to that.  Although I've abandoned vinyl long ago for many reasons, there is nothing more relaxing than watching a tonearm float across the reflective surface of a record despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the actual sound.  I _get_ the handcrafted, non-mass produced, engineered to the Nth degree aspect of a lot of thing.  *J**ust don't tell me that your Patek Philippe Complicated Perpetual tells time any differently than my Casio G-Shock*, and I will appreciate both.


 

 Your G-Shock is going to be more accurate than any mechanical watch can, but if you want a dressier watch you have to look elsewhere. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
*click to enlarge*

   


  Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> That's fine if you know what you're getting into, but they sure aren't sold that way and that's really what I have a problem with.  Most boutique cable sellers don't flat-out lie but they sell them with the same "wink, wink - nudge, nudge" that others sell everything from nutritional "supplements" to quack medicine with.  They whip of a storm of placebo induced testimonials so they don't actually have to lie themselves.  *Its about as dishonest as you can *get without actually committing an actionable offense.
> 
> I'm way over on the function (vs form) side of things myself.  I'll usually only pick something that looks better if it only costs me a little bit extra money and almost never if it costs me extra features.  I don't really mind if people are on the other end of the scale.  I just don't like seeing people get ripped off or seeing dishonest people prosper.  If you knew ahead of time that it was just for looks and not for sound then you probably weren't ripped off but if you bought it hoping for better sound then you probably were.


 

 We are in 100% agreement.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   


  Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> USG, in a sense you're completely right. But that's not the whole story.
> 
> *Audio jewelry is usually pitched to equate to better sound.* People assume that the 1" thick CNC milled aluminum faceplate means everything inside is well built and of the highest quality. The high price tags reinforce this. But what you often get is a bog-standard circuit on a PCB and a few boutique caps to dress it up.
> 
> But otherwise, aesthetics are important. I'll pay more for a gorgeous case. Sadly, there isn't too much of that around, either. Everyone seems to aim for a high-tech look with heavy aluminum panels. Those are OK, but I haven't seen much creativity in casework.


 

 Hi Erik
   
  Sadly, you are *absolutely correct*. 
   
  Too bad the only place this can be discussed is here.
   
  Eric


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Too bad the only place this can be discussed is here.


 

 Now I know how all of those smokers in the smoking rooms at airports feel.


----------



## keanex

Audiophiles are the biggest suckers known to man and companies take advantage of it whole heartedly:
   
  http://www.musicdirect.com/product/51325
  http://www.musicdirect.com/product/82182
  http://www.musicdirect.com/product/72730
   
  and my favorite is this one: http://www.musicdirect.com/product/73520


----------



## tmars78

keanex said:


> Audiophiles are the biggest suckers known to man and companies take advantage of it whole heartedly:
> 
> http://www.musicdirect.com/product/51325
> http://www.musicdirect.com/product/82182
> ...




Did you see the price of the CD mat?? $200. Wow, no wonder people sometimes refer to audiophiles as audiophools. That is downright ridiculous. I am glad I am not in search of "perfect sound". I'd rather just be a music lover.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> > Your point about what the maker of amp said, is rather pointless. Of course he is going to say that. He is in the business of making money too, and people looking to turn a profit, will say ANYTHING to make a buck. Sad? Yes, unfortunately.


 

 First I'm told that people who know anything about amps don't believe in break-in. When I ask the people who actually know about my amp -- i.e., the manufacturer -- then I'm told they're lying. It's nice to have your cake and eat it too isn't it. Maybe it's not the manufacturer who's full of it but people on this thread.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> First I'm told that people who know anything about amps don't believe in break-in. When I ask the people who actually know about my amp -- i.e., the manufacturer -- then I'm told they're lying. It's nice to have your cake and eat it too isn't it. Maybe it's not the manufacturer who's full of it but people on this thread.


 
   
  Just like the manufacturers of all the crap keanex just posted above really know how green markers make your CDs sound better, right?  Its such a shame they're hiding it from the Nobel Prize committee.  Just think what else those magic (literally!) markers must be good for!  While we're at it, why doesn't Furutech license its secrets about magnetic polymers?  That's got to be good for more money than low volume runs of degaussing platters.
   
  The safe bet is that they're making it all up to sell to gullible consumers.


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Just like the manufacturers of all the crap keanex just posted above really know how green markers make your CDs sound better, right?


 

 If painting the edge of the disc green makes such a big difference, how come the CD manufacturers don't simply make them that way?  And never mind whether or not they work- $25 for a green permanent marker???  Sounds like a 2500% mark-up to me- which means that $800 AC cord they're selling you is...


----------



## b0ck3n

Who stands to gain here? The manufacturer who sells audio equipment to turn a profit, or the people posting in this thread? 

  
  Quote: 





heidegger said:


> First I'm told that people who know anything about amps don't believe in break-in. When I ask the people who actually know about my amp -- i.e., the manufacturer -- then I'm told they're lying. It's nice to have your cake and eat it too isn't it. Maybe it's not the manufacturer who's full of it but people on this thread.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> Who stands to gain here? The manufacturer who sells audio equipment to turn a profit, or the people posting in this thread?


 

 It is customary for those whom I have informed of cable scams and other audio myths to donate to me $5 for having saved them so much money.


----------



## milosz

As someone who is very interested in just which perceived differences are "demonstrable" and which are "not able to be reliably shown to be perceived as different," I applaud this thread.  I am building an A/B/X comparator for use with headphone amps and hope to be trotting it out to some meets and other club events, both to see if differences can really be heard and also to increase my sample size, as well as a way to include some self-style 'golden ears' in my sample.  I've also done some "sighted" A/B comparison, which I think will make an interesting contract with my own upcoming blind A/B/X listening tests of the same gear.  You can read these 'sighted' A/B comparisons in the "AMP A/B TESTS" thread I started on Head-Fi  or on a website I've set up for this purpose, ABTESTS.ORG
   
  In the original post of this thread, I particularly like what the Australians had to say:   
   
"CONCLUSION:There is *bugger all* between the two..."   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


​  ​


----------



## InnerSpace

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> First I'm told that people who know anything about amps don't believe in break-in. When I ask the people who actually know about my amp -- i.e., the manufacturer -- then I'm told they're lying. It's nice to have your cake and eat it too isn't it. Maybe it's not the manufacturer who's full of it but people on this thread.


 

 If you tried a sofa in a furniture store and it was really uncomfortable, but the salesman said, "Don't worry, it will soften up in three months," what would you do?
   
  If an amp needed burn-in, the manufacturer would do it in the factory.  It's inconceivable that anything would be sent out to market less than its best.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Furniture will mould itself to your shape, as will shoes. Burn in is fraught with bad analogies, one of the reason why the debate on burn in will always rage on.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> [size=small]Your appeal to numbers is rather pointless here, as neither one of us could make those calculations.[/size]


 
   
  It's not calculations, it's measurements. And I certainly know how to do that.
   
  "Numbers" is the only way to truly sort out what, if anything, changed about the amp over time. I'm sure you don't understand why this is true, but that's irrelevant. As long as you continue to believe your ears are somehow more accurate and more reliable than test gear, your knowledge of audio will remain stagnant. I don't know a nicer way to put it.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## InnerSpace

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Furniture will mould itself to your shape, as will shoes. Burn in is fraught with bad analogies, one of the reason why the debate on burn in will always rage on.


 


  Yeah, bad analogy, I agree.  It's more the sales person's BS I was focusing on.  Suppose the shoes were too small.  Would you believe a salesman who said they'd get two sizes larger after 300 hours?  People wouldn't believe this stuff in any other walk of life.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> It's not calculations, it's measurements. And I certainly know how to do that.
> 
> "Numbers" is the only way to truly sort out what, if anything, changed about the amp over time. I'm sure you don't understand why this is true, but that's irrelevant. As long as you continue to believe your ears are somehow more accurate and more reliable than test gear, your knowledge of audio will remain stagnant. I don't know a nicer way to put it.
> 
> --Ethan


 

 How would you measure what is already gone? The amp sounds _fantastic_ now. But when I first got it, it sounded horrible, and I mean really horrible. I didn't need to ask the manufacturer about break-in; I heard it with my own ears. The difference between the sound of the amp brand new and after break-in is not only obvious but _dramatic_. Still, I wanted to see what the manufacturer had to say about it. He just confirmed what I already knew. Had you been able to do your measurements (for instance, if, as NickCharles observed, I had recorded the sound the amp was making before break-in), then you would have been able to plot the difference on a graph. So it's not a question of my ears being more accurate or reliable than test gear. Had proper measurements been taken, they would have confirmed the difference. But, had I recorded it, all you would have needed to do was listen and you would have heard it. The measurements would have just been confirming the obvious.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> Who stands to gain here? The manufacturer who sells audio equipment to turn a profit, or the people posting in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Just like the manufacturers of all the crap keanex just posted above really know how green markers make your CDs sound better, right?  Its such a shame they're hiding it from the Nobel Prize committee.  Just think what else those magic (literally!) markers must be good for!  While we're at it, why doesn't Furutech license its secrets about magnetic polymers?  That's got to be good for more money than low volume runs of degaussing platters.
> 
> The safe bet is that they're making it all up to sell to gullible consumers.


 

 Although I've never tried the green pen or the polishes, there are some people over at another forum who swear by them. The theory, as I've heard them explain it, is that the optical disc scatters a lot of the laser light inside the CD player, and the thin side of the disc contributes to this scattering. By applying the green pen to the sides of the disc you reduce the amount of stray light inside the player since the sides are no longer able to reflect and scatter as much of the light. Whether that is true, whether it really makes the music sound better, I have no idea since I've never tried it. But the only way to find out for yourself is to try it, not to make an assumption about it beforehand: "Oh, that's impossible." Many things that today are considered possible were formerly considered _im_possible. How would you even _know_ whether it's impossible or not.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





innerspace said:


> Yeah, bad analogy, I agree.  It's more the sales person's BS I was focusing on.  Suppose the shoes were too small.  Would you believe a salesman who said they'd get two sizes larger after 300 hours?  People wouldn't believe this stuff in any other walk of life.


 

 That's an even worse anology. I've had many pairs of shoes that have needed to break in. Of course, if you only wear used sneakers from Goodwill, then you will not know what I am talking about. You might even consider shoe break-in to be impossible.


----------



## InnerSpace

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> That's an even worse anology. I've had many pairs of shoes that have needed to break in. Of course, if you only wear used sneakers from Goodwill, then you will not know what I am talking about. You might even consider shoe break-in to be impossible.


 

 So you _would_ believe a shoe salesman who said your new shoes would _grow two sizes larger_ after 300 hours?  Is there a limit to your credulity?


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





innerspace said:


> So you _would_ believe a shoe salesman who said your new shoes would _grow two sizes larger_ after 300 hours?  Is there a limit to your credulity?


 

 No, but I _would_ believe -- or at least not automatically _dis_believe -- a salesman who told me that the shoe might need a little while to break in and feel comfortable. I have also had shoes that never felt comfortable.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Heidegger, sorry but in this section of the forum, your opinion on amp burn in etc is not proof. It is barely evidence as you cannot discount your own senses as opposed to the amp cauing the change.


----------



## danroche

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Many things that today are considered possible were formerly considered _im_possible. How would you even _know_ whether it's impossible or not.


 


 Yes, but you're just getting around to challenging people to prove a negative.  Burden of proof belongs on someone proving this kind of this DOES have a benefit, which with the CD-pen effect is fairly straightforward to do.  Same with any number of audiophile claims.  When the theory of relativity was introduced, it was repeatably and predictably demonstrated. This doesn't mean that physicists before the 20th century were cynical idiots.
   
  If you're going to demand that others prove a negative, you can claim anything.  This is what cults do.  I can think up in my head right now a theory that, say, extremely large quantities of pop tarts cure some forms of cancer.  You can't disprove that.   I can't PROVE it either, but if I tell someone what they want to ear, they might cling to the "hope" that my statement holds and justify what they want to believe.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> How would you measure what is already gone? The amp sounds _fantastic_ now. But when I first got it, it sounded horrible, and I mean really horrible. I didn't need to ask the manufacturer about break-in; I heard it with my own ears. The difference between the sound of the amp brand new and after break-in is not only obvious but _dramatic_. Still, I wanted to see what the manufacturer had to say about it. He just confirmed what I already knew. Had you been able to do your measurements (for instance, if, as NickCharles observed, I had recorded the sound the amp was making before break-in), then you would have been able to plot the difference on a graph. So it's not a question of my ears being more accurate or reliable than test gear. Had proper measurements been taken, they would have confirmed the difference. But, had I recorded it, all you would have needed to do was listen and you would have heard it. The measurements would have just been confirming the obvious.


 

 No, you DO need to measure it.  There is NO way around that.  Saying "the changes are huge" is not a cop-out for measurement.  You DO NOT know how it would measure based on the differences you purportedly "heard".  Perhaps there was a difference.  Perhaps not.
   


  Quote: 





heidegger said:


> You're starting with the premise -- that is, the _assumption_ -- that the manufacturer is dishonest. I question that assumption. In any case, they already knew who I was and knew that I purchased the amp at least two months ago. Thus, I couldn't have returned it. They didn't stand to make a nickel. In any case, I don't believe in break-in because they told me it was real; I believe in it because I heard it with my own ears. You guys on this thread are full of theory, but seem to have relatively little experience compared with the audiophiles. I certainly don't consider myself an audiophile (this is only my second headphone amp), but it seems to me that audiophiles are the ones actually out there buying and testing all the products. They are the ones spending the money, bringing all that new equipment home, and actually using it. That is, they are the ones with the actual experience, and plenty of it. If audiophiles believe that you have to let a particular piece of equipment (a speaker, an amp) break-in, it's because they are the ones who have actually purchased and used a great many amps and speakers. Practically every review I have read -- even by established and well regarded audio experts -- begins with a statement about how they let the amp and/or headphone break in first. Not all equipment will have to break in, and, even for the stuff that does need to be broken in, it will be more dramatic with some than with others. For intance, I hardly noticed the break-in of my other amp. But with the Lehmann it was dramatic. Meanwhile, it's _usually_ (though not always) the people with little to no experience of _brand-new _equipment who think they know what they are talking about.


 

 Oh, so the people who have spent hundreds upon hundreds of dollars on these amplifiers (myself included, in fact) are going to free of bias in reporting the sound of amplifiers?  You're joking...  Everyone has a HUGE incentive to confirm to themselves and to boast to others that they made a good purchase - a worthwhile expenditure and something that makes a difference to the sound.  No one wants to believe that they have wasted their money.
   
  Lets look at this another way.
   
  Lets define burn-in explicitly as some change in the performance of a device, beginning from when the device is first used and tapering off in magnitude over time to the point where the the device is said to be burned-in.  That is, the change of burn-in happens rapidly at first and slows down to the point where it is essentially fully burned-in and further running makes smaller differences to the point of imperceptibility - it is approaching an asymptote, like the function x^(-1).
   
  Now, can we agree that any changes resulting in "burn-in" are going to be caused by changes in the constituent components of the device?  That is, changes in how a resistor or capacitor or transistor (or wire, or diaphragm) performs?  How those components _measure_ in performance?  If not, well, you can consign yourself to voodoo and there's no point in us trying to explain this to you.
   
  So assuming that the changes in the device as a whole result from changes in the constituent parts, that means that we can examine the parts to see if there are any changes resembling "burn-in" in use.  If there aren't, then burn-in can be determined to be a false concept without even measuring an assembled device - although that would always be welcome.
   
  I'm not an expert in the manufacture of electrical components, but it is my understanding that there are only two _relevant _and correlated sources of change in component performance over time of audio devices (besides outright failure) - one is operating temperature, the other component drift.  (Note that new capacitors are formed during manufacture, and that other factors, such as humidity, cannot be correlated consistently over time.)
   
  It's certainly recognized that components change performance based on temperature - no one debates that, and components certainly should be selected based on the intended operating temperature.  A well-designed solid-state circuit should be stable enough to handle those temperature changes without a significant change in performance though.
   
  Components drift over time though - for example, carbon resistors tend to drift upwards slowly over time, and metal film resistors are relatively time-stable in comparison (but are also subject to drift).  Capacitors drift too, and I haven't read about it but I imagine that transistors may as well.  But the thing about this is that the drift continues over time until (or past) failure of the component, whether the failure is exceeding the tolerance of the component in value (in which drift may continue) or outright failure such as a short or open circuit.  It's not arbitrarily limited to the first X hours of operation.
   
  Now, I'm not saying that measurable changes absolutely can't happen in the first X hours of use and then stabilize...  Show me measured proof and I'll believe it.  If it were a measurable and significant phenomenon, we would see published research about the need to "burn-in" components to reach steady-state performance levels.  Instead, we only read about burn-in in electrical terms as the initial high rate of failure of components, weeding out the bad parts early if you will.
   


  Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Although I've never tried the green pen or the polishes, there are some people over at another forum who swear by them. The theory, as I've heard them explain it, is that the optical disc scatters a lot of the laser light inside the CD player, and the thin side of the disc contributes to this scattering. By applying the green pen to the sides of the disc you reduce the amount of stray light inside the player since the sides are no longer able to reflect and scatter as much of the light. Whether that is true, whether it really makes the music sound better, I have no idea since I've never tried it. But the only way to find out for yourself is to try it, not to make an assumption about it beforehand: "Oh, that's impossible." Many things that today are considered possible were formerly considered _im_possible. How would you even _know_ whether it's impossible or not.


 

 Oh boy, here we go again...
   
  Try reading this: http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm
   
  In particular, this bit:
   
  Quote: 





> As former _Stereo Review_ and _High Fidelity_ editor David Ranada pointed out, however, light travels so quickly that it would be reflected back to the laser from the edge of the disc while the laser was still reading the same digital bit and therefore could not produce a distorted reading. Ranada confirmed his assertion by connecting a digital error counter to a CD player to compare data errors produced during playback of both colored and uncolored discs. He found no difference between the two types of discs at any portion of their surfaces [size=small]--[/size] inner rim, outer rim, or middle. He also tried coloring only half the circumference of a disc and using an oscilloscope to analyze the signal picked up by the laser. The scope showed no difference between the patterns produced by the colored and uncolored halves of the disc.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





danroche said:


> Yes, but you're just getting around to challenging people to prove a negative.  Burden of proof belongs on someone proving this kind of this DOES have a benefit, which with the CD-pen effect is fairly straightforward to do.  Same with any number of audiophile claims.  When the theory of relativity was introduced, it was repeatably and predictably demonstrated. This doesn't mean that physicists before the 20th century were cynical idiots.
> 
> If you're going to demand that others prove a negative, you can claim anything.  This is what cults do.  I can think up in my head right now a theory that, say, extremely large quantities of pop tarts cure some forms of cancer.  You can't disprove that.   I can't PROVE it either, but if I tell someone what they want to ear, they might cling to the "hope" that my statement holds and justify what they want to believe.


 

 Indeed - the burden of proof _must_ rest with those asserting a claim of some sort.  In this case, it is on those asserting the "burn-in" phenomenon.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> How would you measure what is already gone? The amp sounds _fantastic_ now. But when I first got it, it sounded horrible, and I mean really horrible. I didn't need to ask the manufacturer about break-in; I heard it with my own ears. The difference between the sound of the amp brand new and after break-in is not only obvious but _dramatic_.


 
 I'm sure you believe that. Look, if burn-in of solid state gear (and wires etc) was real, someone would have proven it by now with measurements. That it's too late for you to measure before and after is irrelevant. If the vendor of your amp is so sure, then let him prove it with real test data. Surely he has access to new and "burned-in" amps. But he can't provide that data, and he doesn't need to anyway as long as people are willing to believe it on his say so alone. This is indeed an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof. Yet that proof is never given because human hearing is incredibly unreliable, and human belief systems are very strong. As proven yet again by this thread. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  --Ethan


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Although I've never tried the green pen or the polishes, there are some people over at another forum who swear by them. The theory, as I've heard them explain it, is that the optical disc scatters a lot of the laser light inside the CD player, and the thin side of the disc contributes to this scattering. By applying the green pen to the sides of the disc you reduce the amount of stray light inside the player since the sides are no longer able to reflect and scatter as much of the light. Whether that is true, whether it really makes the music sound better, I have no idea since I've never tried it. But the only way to find out for yourself is to try it, not to make an assumption about it beforehand: "Oh, that's impossible." Many things that today are considered possible were formerly considered _im_possible. How would you even _know_ whether it's impossible or not.


   
  For $DEITY's sake, you're actually trying to defend it...  So should we waste our time testing all this crap too?  Should someone mount an expedition looking for elves in Iceland?  Should regulatory agencies be up in arms about fan death?  When someone suggests, _without any actual evidence_, something which require the overturning of the vast majority of a well established field of science then they can be safely ignored.  If you want to be taken seriously then do the tests yourself.  If you bring us evidence we will change our minds.
   
  The burden of proof is on you.  What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

  Quote: 





innerspace said:


> So you _would_ believe a shoe salesman who said your new shoes would _grow two sizes larger_ after 300 hours?  Is there a limit to your credulity?


 

 Clearly there is no limit.  Anyone want to sell him a bridge?


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


>


 

 First of all, appeals to science fall flat. I took basic physics where we learned about Newton's laws of motion, optics, gravity, electromagnetism, waves -- basic stuff. When you tell me that break-in is physically impossible, I have no way of knowing whether it is _actually_ physically impossible or not. Moreover, I don't even know whether _you _know whether it is really physically impossible or whether you're just parroting something you heard. So whenever anybody on this thread says something to the effect of "that's physically impossible" it would be nice if they explained _why_ it's physically impossible. I wouldn't necessarily know if the explanation is viable, but at least it would give me some sense of why it might be impossible.
   
  Now even if it is currently believed that something is impossible, that belief might get revised later on. I'm reminded of something somebody said a few pages back about nothing being able to travel faster than the speed of light. Just the other day I was listening to a Teaching Company course on astronomy where the teacher, Alex Filippenko, mentions a phenomenon in quantum physics called the collapse of the wave function where it seems that information is traveling faster than the speed of light. It has to do with the probability distribution of a photon. A given photon has a probability distribution where it can be anywhere in a given area around a lightbulb. A spherical detector encloses the light. When a given photon is detected (and it can be detected only once) the probability distribution vanishes instantly for that photon. Now whether this is really an instance of information going faster than light speed (the teacher certainly presented it that way) or not, the point is that in science something is very often true only until something is discovered to make it not true, or to require a revision.  
   
  I know that the power of suggestion is great. If people expect to hear something, they will hear it whether or not it might "really" be there. I happen to believe that subjective impressions -- what we contribute and bring to the table -- are an essential part of the world, and it is just as important to existence (and, in its own way, just as _real)_ than the brute "thing in itself." The problem is that the amp's slowness produced such a degree of boredom in me that it went way beyond subjectivity. I could barely stand listening to it. I would never have gotten used to its sluggishness. By contrast, now the amp just _attacks_ the music and is so full of energy that the difference cannot be ignored. I didn't expect the amp to sound slow, so it wasn't suggestion. It took me totally by surprise. Before I got the amp, I was a skeptic as regards break-in. But this experience cured me of my skepticism. I think you suffer from the same problem as religious fanatics. Yes, the power of suggestion is great. Much if not most of the improvements people think they hear just aren't there from an objective standpoint. But when you take the attitude that our ears _always_ deceive us, when you don't allow even for a moment that what I heard could have been real, when your opinion is so _automatic_, it just becomes a form of closedmindedness. You don't even allow for the possibility that -- for some unknown reason; that is, some reason that is not known to _you_ but that might nevertheless be rational (Or do you claim to be infallible like the Pope?) the amp really could have sounded slow. Maybe the task here is to figure out _why_ it sounded slow rather than automatically dismissing the possibility.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Heidegger* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> But this experience cured me of my skepticism


 
   
  Skepticism is a virtue.  Would you like to be "cured" of the rest of your intellect as well?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Heidegger, this thread is about testing audiophile claims by use of ABX blind tests. The key is that yes there are many changes in hifi kit that can be called burn in. But are they audible? So far there there is no evidence with blind testing to say either. However, the science suggests that no it is not audible. You can prove it is audible by conduction ABX tests.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Heidegger, this thread is about testing audiophile claims by use of ABX blind tests. The key is that yes there are many changes in hifi kit that can be called burn in. But are they audible? So far there there is no evidence with blind testing to say either. However, the science suggests that no it is not audible. You can prove it is audible by conduction ABX tests.


 

 Actually, even such changes themselves (changing performance from the initial level, at an ever decreasing rate so that at some point devices can be said to be "burned-in", after anywhere from 10 to 500 hours), are in question.
   
  Constant-rate changes, environmental changes (temperature, humidity), and changes at each startup (warmup of any kind, not limited to just temperature) at least have some founding in real-world measurements, and in some of those modes of change, comprehensive scientific consensus on the behavior.  So-called "burn-in" does not in any way.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Heidegger* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> I took basic physics where we learned about Newton's laws of motion, optics, gravity, electromagnetism, waves -- basic stuff. When you tell me that break-in is physically impossible, I have no way of knowing whether it is _actually_ physically impossible or not.


 
   
  If you understood what was taught in your basic physics class, then you'd understand why burn-in of electronics (not transducers) is impossible or at least not likely. Whether you understand or not is hardly the issue. You have made up your mind that the sound changed, while dismissing every more likely explanation. This is a belief system.
   
  Quote: 





> whenever anybody on this thread says something to the effect of "that's physically impossible" it would be nice if they explained _why_ it's physically impossible.


 
  It hardly seems worth the bother, because you have already ignored _dozens_ of clearly explained, logically sound explanations from me. Hint: For the sound to change, components inside the circuits must change their value. The value of components - Ohms, microfarads, and so forth - is easily measured. So this would be the path to learning if the sound really changed, or if we only think it changed due to the frailty of human perception. Likewise for measuring the audio signal itself, to see what changes from input to output. If break-in of SS gear and wires were real, someone with a vested interest would have proven it by now. To the best of my knowledge nobody has done that.
   
  I've explained all of this to you already, and every time you either failed to understand or simply refused to understand. You seem like a decent person who probably really does want to know the truth. So it's surprising that you argue so vehemently your beliefs, rather than try to learn from people who clearly know more about how audio works than you do.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> I know that the power of suggestion is great. If people expect to hear something, they will hear it whether or not it might "really" be there. I happen to believe that subjective impressions -- what we contribute and bring to the table -- are an essential part of the world, and it is just as important to existence (and, in its own way, just as _real)_ than the brute "thing in itself."
> 
> *The problem with subjective impressions is that they are non-transferable , I cannot experience what you experience and vice-versa so our impressions have limited utility, what you perceive as bright I might perceive as neutral or accurate and vice-versa. It is tempting to say neither of us is right, but if the device in fact has a measured 3db lift at 12K then I am wrong and you are right, sometimes there are right and wrong answers. If you say device A is better than device B then unless you use some objective criteria all you saying is that you prefer A, again of limited usefulness.*
> 
> ...


----------



## A9X

I was first linked to this thread a little while ago and it has taken me a few days to read it all. Many of the links in post 1 I had seen before, but not all and I am slowly reviewing them too. An excellent synopsis and a nice surprise as I had though Head-fi was more in tune with the audiophool side of things before.
   
  Overall I like it and agree strongly with the general premise that blind testing is the only worthwhile way to test for difference reliably as bias and other expectations are too powerful to ignore. Once I caught myself out by accident during the period when I built a lot of amps when I was absolutely sure I could tell differences between gear, parts, op points etc, and since then have been much more skeptical. But I must admit, I was never much of a believer in cables past RLC and shielding and have seen little since then to convince me otherwise.
   
  One other test I would like to point out that I did not see included was the Zipser test, reported by Tom Nousaine in the Audio Critic mag, beginning in the Letters section on p7 of the PDF. Very interesting as it addresses most of the issues often put up as counter arguments against DBT.
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_24_r.pdf
   
  As food was mentioned earlier, here are a couple of Youtube clips from Penn and Teller's BS show. Lot's of language used in it but it's available on TV so I assume OK to post the links.
  Bottled Water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPAjUvvnIc (wait for the restaurant scenes)
  The Best: Food.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KswZfnGhmUk (1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdWXI3GYllA (2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rhUOVnpYbA (3)
  Gullibility: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
   
  Disclaimer: I'm a huge fan of the show and Penn Gillette, so lots of bias on my part but they are all very appropriate to the discussion.
   
   
  WRT burn in, why has the phenomenon never been shown to exist in other applications of linear signal processing for similar bandwidths in other fields using such technology? I have spent quite a it of time lately on an industrial project that uses a lot of analogue signal processing and would be very pleased to see proof of such improvements, because in my 25+ years in electronics I haven't so far.
   
  I'm planning a couple of headphone amps in the near future for my STAX 404 and some dynamics I've yet to buy. I'm about to buy some PCBs/parts from AMB for a Dynalo and my interpretation of the Gilmore Blue Hawaii for the stats. I'm in no hurry so when they are built and (operationally) stable and placed into cases I'll measure them then give them a suitable signal and load for a couple of weeks and measure them again with some significant time on them. But that's for another thread.


----------



## b0ck3n

Please come back and link us to that test once you're done.
   
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *A9X* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> -snip-
> 
> I'm planning a couple of headphone amps in the near future for my STAX 404 and some dynamics I've yet to buy. I'm about to buy some PCBs/parts from AMB for a Dynalo and my interpretation of the Gilmore Blue Hawaii for the stats. I'm in no hurry so when they are built and (operationally) stable and placed into cases I'll measure them then give them a suitable signal and load for a couple of weeks and measure them again with some significant time on them. But that's for another thread.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Crickey, this article pulls no punches!
   
  http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_24_r.pdf
   
   
  The 'Paste this in your hat' on page 10 is a superb summary of myths in hifi.


----------



## maverickronin

Good article.

Where do you find all this stuff?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

A9X, found that Audio Critic article. I find articles and blind tests by spending many a day searching with google and reading. To blow my own trumpet, the opening post in this thread has taken at least a couple of hundred hours to put together, including all of the regular updates as I find more.
   
  There is now a simlar collection of blind tests on Hydrogen Audio put together by Pio2001 who is a member here and there. I have taken tests, particularly French ones from his list as he has taken from mine. Having two do the work has made things easier.
   
  http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82777&hl=blind+test


----------



## maverickronin

Cool. Thanks for the hard work.

My style is more get worked up over something little and spend an hour typing and proofing a single reply now and then rather than plan on spending time researching something.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Well I really enjoy your posts and I hope you do mine, even the ones where I pull no punches. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  My degree in History and International Relations and subsequent career in the legal system means I do not create the evidence, I just go out and find it, which means a lot of patient research, which I very much enjoy.


----------



## maverickronin

I don't have any qualifications or credentials to offer.  My arguments should stand on their merits, but some people are more receptive to those with formal training.
   
  I'm also glad that there a few other defenders of science and reason around here.
   
  The only punches I pull are ones which would probably violate the TOS.
   
  In any case I vastly prefer people who are straight forward and wrong or lying to people who are only "correct" by way of evasive maneuvers.  Those who are honestly mistaken can be corrected and even liars admit respect for the truth by substituting a falsehood in its place.
   
  Other...people...try to discredit and denigrate the idea that is is possible to know anything at all, as if millennia of effort have wrested no knowledge from the natural world.  They are far worse than simple liars.  To tell or believe a lie you must acknowledge that there is such a thing as truth.  Liars may be wrong and deceitful, but the scope of their damage is much more limited.  BS artists are often parasites upon the foundation of civilization itself.
   
  /rant


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Good article.
> 
> Where do you find all this stuff?


 

 It was a good article.
   
  Btw, did you take a good look at who the black hats are?
   
  USG


----------



## maverickronin

I've managed to miss the joke entirely it seems...


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> It was a good article.
> 
> Btw, did you take a good look at who the black hats are?
> 
> USG


 

  
  I was a bit surprised to see Arnie Nudell in there!  I didn't know the Genesis 1.x ribbon was straight from the Carver Amazings...
   
  I'm sure the decision to use it was/is certainly largely economic - as noted, the cost of each ribbon is quite low and certainly far less than the cost of all the EMIMs in the Infinity IRS...  It's interesting that it's only used for the midrange in the Genesis, with the planar magnetic tweeters derived from the EMIT-R used instead.
   
  Of course, Arnie is no longer with Genesis.  Also, I would expect his work at Infinity to be more of the "white hat" variety... I mean, he and Gary Christie invented the subwoofer and pioneered so many other speaker technologies...  and all of their work was based on rather rigorous scientific analysis and excellent engineering.
   
  I suppose the accusation of price gouging at Genesis is fair enough...  Although, I think it's important to note that the original IRS wasn't even supposed to be a production speaker until it turned out that people actually wanted them to build it!


----------



## b0ck3n

Anyone of you guys wanna take a crack at the JH3a? Is it legit? Does it make engineering sense?
   
  And thanks for pointing me to that article, it was a great read even for someone who has next to no understanding of electronics, certainly made my day at the office seem shorter.


----------



## maverickronin

Active corssovers are a more well know concept in loud speakers and you can measure that they actually do something.  I'd just about bet a kidney that it could be ABXed but I don't know of any tests relating to passive vs active crossovers off hand.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Active corssovers are a more well know concept in loud speakers and you can measure that they actually do something.  I'd just about bet a kidney that it could be ABXed but I don't know of any tests relating to passive vs active crossovers off hand.


 


  Mav, you have any idea how the active crossovers in the amp work with older JH13s that have the built in crossovers?  And do the newer JH13s only work with the JH3a amp because they now come without crossovers????


----------



## maverickronin

The amp will only work _well _with the specific earpieces tuned to it and it won't work at all with the standard passively crossovered 13s or 16s. You can send in your old pair, but they have to be completely remade so it costs a lot and its only like $500-600 more to get a whole new set of IEMs along with the amp. The IEMs made for the amp won't work with anything else either.

I talked with Jerry about it at CanJam last year. The JH3A (the amp) has 3 inputs, analog stereo mini, S/PDIF via mono mini, and USB. The crossovers are all done digitally by a DSP processor so the analog input is run through an ADC > DSP > 6 channel DAC > 6 channel amp > earpieces. There are 4 wires per earpiece, 3 signal and 1 ground. The digital inputs skip the ADC and are fed straight into the DSP. It also has a dial to adjust the level of the bass drivers so Jerry said there was no reason not to get the 16s since they're on $50 more and you can can set the bass to whatever you like anyway.

Using the digital inputs should yield better quality since it skips a conversion step. The prototype at CanJam was only being fed by the line out from an ipad but people were still comparing it full desktop rigs like an O2 & BHSE being fed by $DEITY knows what kind of high end DAC. I couldn't tell you myself because I made it a point not to spend much time listening to stuff so far beyond my budget.

There's been a lot of forum-drama due to the delays its suffered and I don't know if any of the details have changed since they locked the JH3A thread.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> There's been a lot of forum-drama due to the delays its suffered and I don't know if any of the details have changed since they locked the JH3A thread.


 

 Why did they lock the thread?


----------



## maverickronin

There were several delays in bringing it market which caused the whole thread to turn in to a giant flame war.

At CanJam they were saying it was supposed to ship in August or September of last year. First the guy who Jerry hired to do the programming side of things apparently bailed after it became clear they weren't going to make the ship date. The code for the amp itself was very incomplete as some unknown amount of processing for the demo was being done by the netbook it was tethered to and not in the amp itself. After that they had to start over almost from scratch. Then the new electronics guy they found had a stroke and was unable to continue so they had to find someone else. Then there were one or two batches of amps that were completed and shipped to them but were somehow defective so they obviously couldn't be sent out customers. Last I heard, Jerry was flying out to China (since they didn't seem to be able to find a place in US to it on short notice) to personally oversee the manufacturing process, but that was at least a few weeks (months? I don't remember) ago and right before the thread was locked.

Basically every time they set a new ship date there was another disaster that ruined it. There was a lot of bad blood, and near the end the only question seemed to be whether Jerry was incompetent or malicious. I think its just a lot of bad luck, but then I didn't shell out nearly $1800 almost a year ago for a product I haven't received yet.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> No, you DO need to measure it.  There is NO way around that.  Saying "the changes are huge" is not a cop-out for measurement.  You DO NOT know how it would measure based on the differences you purportedly "heard".  Perhaps there was a difference.  Perhaps not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Your entire post is a pointless rant. You say yourself you're not an expert. You also tell me that I "need to measure it," when you already know that it's far too late for that. The manufacturer told me that burn in with their amps is a real phenomenon. Moreover, I heard the difference with my own ears. I think I'll go with the people who actually built the amp and with my own ears rather than a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about. The people on this thread are quite scary: so wrong and yet so sure of themselves. If you don't want to believe that the amp improved its sound, then don't. You will just continue to be W-R-O-N-G. But don't feel bad about it; you have plenty of company on this thread. There are plenty of people here who are just as wrong as you are.


----------



## b0ck3n

^You came to this thread trying to convince us that burn-in is a real phenomenon. Science tells us that you're wrong, and we tell you so but by all means, present us with proof and we will listen. If anything is pointless it's your repeated efforts to try to convince us of something while at the same time refusing to provide proof.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> I think I'll go with the people who actually built the amp and with my own ears.


 

 Could you ask the amp maker to do some measurements, it would be trivial for them to take a freshly baked amp and measure its response and let it burn-in for a few weeks and then measure its response again, in fact if burn-in is so crucial why do they not do this as a matter of course since by their view the product is not ready when it is released !


----------



## BlackbeardBen

heidegger said:


> Your entire post is a pointless rant. You say yourself you're not an expert. You also tell me that I "need to measure it," when you already know that it's far too late for that. The manufacturer told me that burn in with their amps is a real phenomenon. Moreover, I heard the difference with my own ears. I think I'll go with the people who actually built the amp and with my own ears rather than a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about. The people on this thread are quite scary: so wrong and yet so sure of themselves. If you don't want to believe that the amp improved its sound, then don't. You will just continue to be W-R-O-N-G. But don't feel bad about it; you have plenty of company on this thread. There are plenty of people here who are just as wrong as you are.




I'm not an expert on burn-in (no one is), but I am an engineer, and I understand the scientific method. Claims of burn-in are unsupported by published objective evidence of any kind. Without that evidence, you cannot make the claim that it has an effect on burn-in and assume it is unequivocally true without unbiased, objective evidence. If that were acceptable, we'd have all manner of ridiculous claims... Well, we do anyway.

I'm not saying that every end-user must measure burn-in - only saying that if one wants to prove that it is real, it must be measured. You can believe whatever you want - that in itself doesn't make something real, but it can have a large effect on what we perceive...

nick_charles is right - it would not be difficult at all for a manufacturer to take and publish measurements if they really had something to prove. Then, at least, there would be something for a neutral third party to confirm or refute with its own tests (as you can't be serious that manufacturers are unbiased).


Anyway, here's a more broad survey of many manufacturers regarding burn-in (of speakers):
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_rodajealtavoces.htm

Which one do you believe? There's no consensus... I know that's about transducers and not amplifiers - but speaker crossovers themselves contain many of the components that amps have - especially the all-important electrolytic capacitors.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Could you ask the amp maker to do some measurements, it would be trivial for them to take a freshly baked amp and measure its response and let it burn-in for a few weeks and then measure its response again, in fact if burn-in is so crucial why do they not do this as a matter of course since by their view the product is not ready when it is released!


 
  I asked for that too a hundred-odd posts back.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Heidegger

Frankly, I would be embarrassed to ask them, especially since they already know who I am. But if you or Nick want to make the request, go ahead. I would be interested to know how they respond.
   
http://www.lehmannaudio.com/


----------



## upstateguy

Has any manufacturer ever made before and after measurements to demonstrate burn in?
   
   
  Maybe this is something Tyll knows about from his headphone measurements. 
   
  In all the measurements he made, he must have had the occasion to measure a well burned in pair of headphones Vs a brand new pair....   the same with headphone cables.  He must have measured headphones with new cables and the same headphones with well burned in cables......  At the very least, one would think that out of curiosity, he measured his own stuff before and after re-cabling and when they were new as and when they were burned in....
   
  Perhaps we can get Tyll to weigh in on this.............


----------



## Uncle Erik

If burn in is real, why don't manufacturers offer it as a service? It'd be blindingly simple to set up a board where headphones could cook for a few hundred hours. It'd probably cost a dollar or two in electricity and then they could charge an extra $50 or $100 for a "factory burned-in" headphone.

You know some people would pay for that.

It would be a beautiful way to pad margins.


----------



## maverickronin

Do these abominations count?


----------



## Willakan

uncle erik said:


> If burn in is real, why don't manufacturers offer it as a service? It'd be blindingly simple to set up a board where headphones could cook for a few hundred hours. It'd probably cost a dollar or two in electricity and then they could charge an extra $50 or $100 for a "factory burned-in" headphone.
> 
> You know some people would pay for that.
> 
> It would be a beautiful way to pad margins.




You could apply the same argument to headphone recabling. If it really makes such a difference, why don't manufacturers take advantage? Again, huge margins are possible. And you know how EVERY expensive headphone magically ships with a cable that makes it sound horrible until you replace it with a solid silver one, cryogenically frozen and soaked in yak's milk at a full moon. 

How can the headphone manufactures sit by as they ship their horribly crippled headphones? We should start a petition or something.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> If burn in is real, why don't manufacturers offer it as a service? It'd be blindingly simple to set up a board where headphones could cook for a few hundred hours. It'd probably cost a dollar or two in electricity and then they could charge an extra $50 or $100 for a "factory burned-in" headphone.
> 
> You know some people would pay for that.
> 
> It would be a beautiful way to pad margins.


 

 Pay £15 and Russ Andrews provide a cable burn in service  Clicky
   
  I cannot find the link, but in one of the burn in threads in Sound Science there is a link to an attempt to burn in a headphone and then ABX test it with one not burned in. They gave up when they found no two headphones measured the same when new. So each one is slightly different anyway and that was not audible.
   
  Heidegger, please read/re-read the opening post of this thread. I have added more tests recently. That is a heck of a lot of evidence that people when using their ears alone cannot hear differences between a whole host of hifi. Here we ask for people to listen to the music and not look at the hifi when deciding if hifi maker and reviewer claims are correct or not.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Frankly, I would be embarrassed to ask them, especially since they already know who I am. But if you or Nick want to make the request, go ahead. I would be interested to know how they respond.
> 
> http://www.lehmannaudio.com/


 


  Lehmannaudio have now been e-mailed with a link to this thread and asked, do you ABX test, do you thin there is burn in and could you share any evidence of such?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Frankly, I would be embarrassed to ask them, especially since they already know who I am. But if you or Nick want to make the request, go ahead. I would be interested to know how they respond.
> 
> http://www.lehmannaudio.com/


 


   I have emailed them a question asking for the mechanics of burn-in and for their measurements.


----------



## ryflmn

So essentially, the best bang for the buck are speakers/headphones.  Would everyone agree that this is where the greatest difference lies?


----------



## Tyll Hertsens

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Maybe this is something Tyll knows about from his headphone measurements.
> 
> In all the measurements he made, he must have had the occasion to measure a well burned in pair of headphones Vs a brand new pair....
> 
> Perhaps we can get Tyll to weigh in on this.............


 

 Aha! Well...this is timely.  I, in fact, just received a couple of pairs of Quincy Jones Q701s.  Last week I left a pair on the test system and measured them fresh out of the box, then played pink noise at 90dB SPL in them and measured them: a second time immediately after the first test: then at intervals of 5min, 10 min, 20 min, 1 hr, 5hr, 10hr, 20 hr, 40hr, 60 hrs and 100 hrs all without moving the cans at all. Next week I will be doing some subjective listening with those cans (which have been burning in more), and a fresh set out of the box. 
   
  My guess is that one will not be able to tell the difference between the curves visually, but I will be able to difference the measurements one against the others and come up with a fairly sensitive set of curves showing the differences of burn-in over time. I still doubt well see much, but the data is in the can and awaits analysis.
   
  Since I have not observed the data, it rests rather like Schodinger's cat on Excel spreadsheets awaiting the deterministic moment. Should anyone feel that they have a particular view at stake, I suggest now is the time to start praying about the situation, and possibly by force of will it's outcome can be shaped by your desires.


----------



## Jack C

ryflmn said:


> So essentially, the best bang for the buck are speakers/headphones.  Would everyone agree that this is where the greatest difference lies?




I agree with that conclusion but would caution that the other parts of a system should deserve the proper amount of attention as well. When is something "adequate" is up to personal preferences, and these are different for each listener. Ultimately, I am a strong believer in placing the majority of a system budget into the speaker/headphone than other parts of the system. 

Jack


----------



## nick_charles

Dialogue with Norbert Lehmann, *reproduced with permission*.
   
   
  Quote: 





> *My message*
> 
> Hello, I have been interested in high fidelity audio for over 35 years, I have been reading much about the controversy about solid state burn-in recently. I understand from fellow audiophiles that you are a proponent of such burn-in. Would you be able to explain to me how this works with respect to your SS headphone amps. What elements are burning-in, what physical changes are occurring and how do you measure the effect of this burn-in i.e do you do before and after measurements ?
> 
> ...


 
   
   
   
  Norbert Lehmann's reply Quote: 





> [size=11pt]Dear Dr. Charles,[/size]
> [size=11pt] [/size]
> [size=11pt]thank you for contacting me in this matter. I experience sound improvements in several aspects over time, at least for some weeks.  To me it does not matter where the effects come from. What I guess to be  very important is the overall thermal stability of the circuit. There are, however, _no_ differences to be measured at least with my Audio Precision ATS2  which is a very nice unit for production tests but no real state of the art unit like the 2700 type. [/size]
> [size=11pt] [/size]
> ...


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





tyll hertsens said:


> Aha! Well...this is timely.  I, in fact, just received a couple of pairs of Quincy Jones Q701s.  Last week I left a pair on the test system and measured them fresh out of the box, then played pink noise at 90dB SPL in them and measured them: a second time immediately after the first test: then at intervals of 5min, 10 min, 20 min, 1 hr, 5hr, 10hr, 20 hr, 40hr, 60 hrs and 100 hrs all without moving the cans at all. Next week I will be doing some subjective listening with those cans (which have been burning in more), and a fresh set out of the box.
> 
> My guess is that one will not be able to tell the difference between the curves visually, but I will be able to difference the measurements one against the others and come up with a fairly sensitive set of curves showing the differences of burn-in over time. I still doubt well see much, but the data is in the can and awaits analysis.
> 
> Since I have not observed the data, it rests rather like Schodinger's cat on Excel spreadsheets awaiting the deterministic moment. Should anyone feel that they have a particular view at stake, I suggest now is the time to start praying about the situation, and possibly by force of will it's outcome can be shaped by your desires.


 
  Provided that measurement error margins aren't higher than a hypothetical difference in measures due to burn in


----------



## Jack C

Tube rolling is a well understood method for getting noticeably different sound from amplifiers. Even tubes from the same manufacturing batch may sound different due to variances in tube characteristics.

Tube characteristics also change over time, resulting in audible changes in the sound produced.

In any case, this was my experience using tube Hi-Fi amplifiers, trying different tubes, and modifying/hand-building electric guitar tube amps.

Jack


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Dialogue with Norbert Lehmann, *reproduced with permission*.
> [size=11pt]This is a rather unacademic approach for an engineer - but it helps. Sorry that I can't supply a more satisfying answer.[/size]


 
  "Unacademic" and unsatisfying is an understatement. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  --Ethan


----------



## xnor

tyll hertsens said:


> Aha! Well...this is timely.  I, in fact, just received a couple of pairs of Quincy Jones Q701s.  Last week I left a pair on the test system and measured them fresh out of the box, then played pink noise at 90dB SPL in them and measured them: a second time immediately after the first test: then at intervals of 5min, 10 min, 20 min, 1 hr, 5hr, 10hr, 20 hr, 40hr, 60 hrs and 100 hrs all without moving the cans at all. Next week I will be doing some subjective listening with those cans (which have been burning in more), and a fresh set out of the box.




Interesting. I'm wondering 
a) if the pressure of the headband could 'compress' the earpads over time and therefore change the measurement results, and
b) if you repeat the same measurements with the same headphone (now that they are burned in) what the results would look like, assuming that the measurements you already took show a change over time.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Tube and opamp rolling are two that I cannot find any ABX testing. I would not be so confident that such will pass ABX tests, after all if amps struggle to do so, then their components are not likely to.
   
  In answer to a previous question, I have no doubt now that speakers/headphones are where you get the biggest differences.


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





willakan said:


> You could apply the same argument to headphone recabling. If it really makes such a difference, why don't manufacturers take advantage? Again, huge margins are possible. And you know how EVERY expensive headphone magically ships with a cable that makes it sound horrible until you replace it with a solid silver one, cryogenically frozen and soaked in yak's milk at a full moon.
> 
> How can the headphone manufactures sit by as they ship their horribly crippled headphones? We should start a petition or something.


 

 I have often wondered about this- particularly with the AKG K1000s.  Why would a manufacturer go to such lengths to engineer and manufacture such a headphone, and then hobble it with 'bad' cable that is hardwired to the PCB board inside?


----------



## tmars78

mkubota1 said:


> I have often wondered about this- particularly with the AKG K1000s.  Why would a manufacturer go to such lengths to engineer and manufacture such a headphone, and then hobble it with 'bad' cable that is hardwired to the PCB board inside?




My opinion? They don't. They probably know enough to know that a capable cable is a capable cable, and know the one they use will work just fine. There are times to believe the manufacturer, and there are times to look at them with a suspicious eye. Honestly, I think that they think people will always dismiss the stock cable, and replace it with one that has been sitting in magical pixie dust since 1850 BC, then flown to the moon and back 16 times, been blessed by Mother Theresa 5 times and worshipped by Joe Pesci for the past 6 months.


----------



## Uncle Erik

mkubota1 said:


> I have often wondered about this- particularly with the AKG K1000s.  Why would a manufacturer go to such lengths to engineer and manufacture such a headphone, and then hobble it with 'bad' cable that is hardwired to the PCB board inside?


First, prevailing cable mythology holds that every stock cable is, by definition, crap. You could have the purest silver drawn under the light of a full moon and passed over the lips of a maiden with fine silk insulation, and it would be utter crap if, and only if, it shipped as a stock cable. You'd be better off replacing it with a string of rusty paperclips, though the string of rusty paperclips would have to be very expensive (at least $300 if anyone is to take it seriously) and it would have to have a good reviews.

All stock cables are garbage, no matter what, and all aftermarket cables make things sound "better," no matter what, as long as the aftermarket cable is expensive and others proclaim its worth.

The reason manufacturers don't offer burn-in, cables, etc. is because their legal department would throttle them. There would be no defense against a claim of false advertising.


----------



## MacedonianHero

tyll hertsens said:


> Aha! Well...this is timely.  I, in fact, just received a couple of pairs of Quincy Jones Q701s.  Last week I left a pair on the test system and measured them fresh out of the box, then played pink noise at 90dB SPL in them and measured them: a second time immediately after the first test: then at intervals of 5min, 10 min, 20 min, 1 hr, 5hr, 10hr, 20 hr, 40hr, 60 hrs and 100 hrs all without moving the cans at all. Next week I will be doing some subjective listening with those cans (which have been burning in more), and a fresh set out of the box.
> 
> My guess is that one will not be able to tell the difference between the curves visually, but I will be able to difference the measurements one against the others and come up with a fairly sensitive set of curves showing the differences of burn-in over time. I still doubt well see much, but the data is in the can and awaits analysis.
> 
> Since I have not observed the data, it rests rather like Schodinger's cat on Excel spreadsheets awaiting the deterministic moment. Should anyone feel that they have a particular view at stake, I suggest now is the time to start praying about the situation, and possibly by force of will it's outcome can be shaped by your desires.




Awesome....perfect timing Tyll. Can't wait to see your results.


----------



## A9X

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> The reason manufacturers don't offer burn-in, cables, etc. is because their legal department would throttle them. There would be no defense against a claim of false advertising.


 
  The easy way around that would be to say 'some listeners believe it makes a difference, so to thoroughly test them, we soak test/burn in them for a week to ensure the best quality when you open the box.
   
  However, two pragmatic problems with doing so would be to have so many cans being 'burned in' and the time and space required to do so, and no matter what you used as the signal, it would open you up to endless discussions and emails about some other signal supposedly being better and other time wasting audiophile trivia that would take staff time to respond to.


----------



## A9X

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> "Unacademic" and unsatisfying is an understatement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  True, but if he can't measure the difference with an ATS2, then I'm comfortable any effects are below audibility.
http://audioprecision.com/products/ats2


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> The reason manufacturers don't offer burn-in, cables, etc. is because their legal department would throttle them. There would be no defense against a claim of false advertising.


 

 Why would anyone sue? Puffery is still allowed in advertisement as far as I know. A lot of audio companies do it without serious repercussions, wouldn't headphone manufacturers be in the same situation?


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Dialogue with Norbert Lehmann, *reproduced with permission*.


 


 That was quick. Basically he hears improvements for weeks, but can't measure the improvements. Either the measurements aren't picking something up, or the improvements heard are only placebo. In any case, my experience correlates with his. I have already described the sound of the amp when I first got it. But even after those problems improved, the amp continued to have relatively unpleasant treble (that was also a little grainy) for about two months. All I can say is that I no longer hear any defects at all. Regardless of whether the improvements are the result of my adjusting to the sound of the amp or whether the sound actually improved, I would urge anyone who acquires a new BCL not to judge it until you log in over a hundred hours on it. The amp sounded so horrible to me at first that I almost sent it back, but by golly I'm sure glad I didn't because the sound I'm getting now is nothing short of amazing.
   
  BTW Norbert is not just the owner, he actually designs and to some extent builds the amps, so I do put stock in the fact that he experiences improvements. This guy works with amps _all the time. _He probably knows more about amps than everybody on this thread put together. For now, I leave it as an unresolved mystery that may one day be resolved. Otherwise, I would have to believe that my amp really sounds like crap but that I psychologically convince myself that it sounds great because I spent so much money on it that my brain won't let me believe that I threw away my money. Of course, all I have to do to dispell that theory is turn on the amp and start listening to my 650s. The smile on my face is proof enough for me that this amp is the bomb!


----------



## maverickronin

khaos974 said:


> Why would anyone sue? Puffery is still allowed in advertisement as far as I know. A lot of audio companies do it without serious repercussions, wouldn't headphone manufacturers be in the same situation?




Most of the big ones aren't the same sort of fly by night operations that usually sell cables. I don't think the microphone divisions at Senn, Beyer, and AKG would take to kindly to crazy people over in the headphone division bringing down the wrath of regulatory agencies on the whole company.


----------



## khaos974

http://usa.denon.com/us/Product/Pages/Product-Detail.aspx?Catid=5840d55c-4077-4d9e-9421-36f204fb4587&SubId=85958de8-a123-4213-8ae1-bb6afaee9a97&ProductId=f7d26b3a-05a6-4724-a5c1-2a63642a6206
   
  AK-DL1
   
  Denon's 1.5 meter (59 in.) proprietary ultra premium Denon Link cable was designed for the audio enthusiast. Made from high purity copper wire and high performance connection parts, the AK-DL1 will bring out all the nuances in digital audio reproduction from any of our Denon DVD players with the Denon Link feature connected to a Denon Link enabled Denon A/V receiver. The AK-DL1 employs high level tin-bearing alloy shielding not typically available in commercial cabling, to eliminate data loss caused by noise. Additionally, signal directional markings are provided for optimum signal transfer. Attention to detail when building this cable was used by employing high quality insulation and woven jacketing to reduce vibration and to add durability. Rounded plug levers help prevent breakage.
   
  MRSP: $499


----------



## maverickronin

A $500 CAT6(?) and it still has the same cheap-ass plastic connectors. For that money you should get ceramic or something...

Also, I suppose I stand corrected.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Ditto. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   


  Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Dialogue with Norbert Lehmann, *reproduced with permission*.
> 
> 
> Norbert Lehmann's reply Quote:
> ...


 
   
  What a disappointing response from the CEO of Lehmannaudio.  Is that all he said?
   
  Anyway, I found this pic of Norbert experiencing some of his sound improvements, in several undisclosed aspects, over time, from unknown causes, that can't be measured.
   
  Was für ein Haufen Mist.


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> http://usa.denon.com/us/Product/Pages/Product-Detail.aspx?Catid=5840d55c-4077-4d9e-9421-36f204fb4587&SubId=85958de8-a123-4213-8ae1-bb6afaee9a97&ProductId=f7d26b3a-05a6-4724-a5c1-2a63642a6206
> 
> AK-DL1
> 
> ...


 


  I wish I didn't see that.  I sort of like Denon.


----------



## khaos974

And the worse thing is that it''s only an ethernet cable, where everything is digital and encapsulated in a non timing sensitive protocol.
  
  Quote: 





mkubota1 said:


> I wish I didn't see that.  I sort of like Denon.


----------



## xnor

mkubota1 said:


> I wish I didn't see that.  I sort of like Denon.




Well looks like there are enough *censored* people that buy/demand such products, so why not let them spend their extra money. As a result Denon could improve their more reasonable products. I know, the last part is kind of wishful thinking ...
And if you'd ever buy something like that, imo it makes more sense to buy it from them instead of from a company that offers only such stuff.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Even if headphone makers did include cables which had been cryogenically frozen with mermaid moon shine and unicorn sperm, some would still claim the treble was too harsh and would then buy a new cable from an aftermarket company.


----------



## maverickronin

At least in the old days (of oh...several years ago) when you had to sacrifice a small village's worth of children to you chip fab to get one bluray laser diode you at least got something useful for your trouble.

Near as I can tell, a lot of "cable believers" might as well be arguing about the acoustic properties of feathers from different ranks of angels...


----------



## EthanWiner

prog rock man said:


> cryogenically frozen with mermaid moon shine and unicorn sperm





tmars78 said:


> sitting in magical pixie dust since 1850 BC, then flown to the moon and back 16 times, been blessed by Mother Theresa 5 times and worshipped by Joe Pesci for the past 6 months.


 


> You could have the purest silver drawn under the light of a full moon and passed over the lips of a maiden with fine silk insulation, and it would be utter crap if, and only if, it shipped as a stock cable.


 
   
  Stop it, you guys are killing me!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  --Ethan


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Ditto.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Yeah, disappointing, but I would remind all you science buffs that the history of science is littered with examples of scientists claiming that something is impossible only for it to turn out to be just the opposite. For example, scientists thought that blue giants had to become red giants before they could explode. Then, in 1984, a blue giant was observed to explode. Prior to the observation, this event had been deemed an impossibility. The fact that current science says something is impossible is no guarantee that it actually is impossible. "Rubbish, my dear." So said British astronomer Antony Hewish, quite arrogantly, to his student, Jocelyn Bell, when she presented him with the evidence for the existence of pulsars. He, along with scientists in general, didn't believe a pulsar could exist. He was wrong. (Here's how unfair life can be: the Nobel prize was awarded to Hewish, not Bell, even though she was the one who made the discovery and he was the one who told her it was rubbish. That didn't stop him from taking the credit and the fame.) These are just two examples from a plethora that you can choose from of scientists saying that something is impossible, only for it to turn out not to be the case. If you think that only religious zealots persecute people, then you haven't read about the many incidents where scientists persecuted people -- very often their own fellow scientists -- for believing things that were deemed impossible but which later turned out to be quite possible indeed.


----------



## khaos974

You seem to forget that those discoveries usually happen outside the domains of validity of the usual models, or at their very edge, ie. at very large scales or at very small scales, or in domains where scientists usually acknowledge there is still much unknown. Which is the case when supernovaes and pulsars are concerned. Electrical engineering is not such a domain.
   
  You also have to realize that what you call persecution is simply other scientists trying to find flaws in the proposed theory, it is an essential part of research, peer review is a more appropriate term. Without it, there would be no progress since hundreds of half a**ed theories pop out every week, checking that they are valid is a must. If you (as a scientist) can't be bothered or is unable to demonstrate your intuition, all you have is an unfounded belief, it's worth nothing. If an intuition backed up with experimental evidence or enough reasoning behind it to appear somewhat convincing arrives, other scientist will try to verify it, if it holds up, you've discovered something new, if it doesn't you're back to your starting point.


----------



## b0ck3n

When I first got my HiFiMAN RE-ZEROs I thought they sounded thin, tinny, brittle and sibilant. I decided to stick it out with them and see if I could adjust to their sound signature, and ended up loving them. Unfortunately the left speaker gave out, so I had to send them back for a replacement.

Listening now to a replacement pair, fresh out of a sealed box, and they're just as lovely as I remembered them. Imagine how f*cking great they'll be after a couple 100 hours of burn in!


----------



## maverickronin

heidegger said:


> Yeah, disappointing, but I would remind all you science buffs that the history of science is littered with examples of scientists claiming that something is impossible only for it to turn out to be just the opposite. For example, scientists thought that blue giants had to become red giants before they could explode. Then, in 1984, a blue giant was observed to explode. Prior to the observation, this event had been deemed an impossibility. The fact that current science says something is impossible is no guarantee that it actually is impossible. "Rubbish, my dear." So said British astronomer Antony Hewish, quite arrogantly, to his student, Jocelyn Bell, when she presented him with the evidence for the existence of pulsars. He, along with scientists in general, didn't believe a pulsar could exist. He was wrong. (Here's how unfair life can be: the Nobel prize was awarded to Hewish, not Bell, even though she was the one who made the discovery and he was the one who told her it was rubbish. That didn't stop him from taking the credit and the fame.) These are just two examples from a plethora that you can choose from of scientists saying that something is impossible, only for it to turn out not to be the case. If you think that only religious zealots persecute people, then you haven't read about the many incidents where scientists persecuted people -- very often their own fellow scientists -- for believing things that were deemed impossible but which later turned out to be quite possible indeed.




Just because its been a few months doesn't mean you can just go repeating the same stupid arguments I addressed in this very same thread and carry on like I didn't already eviscerate them.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Heidegger, if you want some undiscovered electrical property to be responsible for alleged differences in sound quality, you are barking up the wrong tree. Look in your mind instead and accept placebo and psychoacoustics and their influences on how you hear.


----------



## khaos974

Relevant.
   
 The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science   
  http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1


----------



## maverickronin

khaos974 said:


> Relevant.
> 
> The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science
> http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1




Wow, that was actually pretty evenhanded. Most of those sort of articles just turn into mindless bashing of conservative politics and as a pseudo-libertarian conservative leaning promoter of science it usually gets me riled up.


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I would gladly invite you to debate on the evils of libertarianism* but this is probably not the place to do so 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
   
*actually, since there are many interpretations and degrees of libertarianism, my generalization is way abusive.


----------



## maverickronin

Well I'm not one of those crazy anarcho-capitalists if that's what you're talking about. I may dislike the concept of any government at all, but ATM is certainly a _necessary_ evil.

All be all ears if someone comes up with a better system, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## twylight

Those of you arguing with Ethan Winter need to google him...
   
  This thread is gold.  (actual gold, not cables)


----------



## JCred

Thank you. This is going to save me a lot of money. 

I can also add a little personal experience. I have a pair of Sennheiser HD203 headphones- they're light, closed, incredibly easy to drive and have a ridiculously long cord. 

I wanted to eliminate the one flaw preventing them from being a perfect portable solution. With no soldering experience, the nightmare of teflon coated wires and a Radio Shack supplies (too impatient to wait for Amazon), I burned two 3.5mm jacks and got lucky on the third. They sound the same and I am happy.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Some recommended reading for those who are still not convinced by the science and evidence presented in this thread


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> You also have to realize that what you call persecution is simply other scientists trying to find flaws in the proposed theory,


 
  No I'm talking about downright meanness and cruelty -- ridicule.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Quote:
> 
> 1.  If our senses were 100% reliable and told us everything we needed to know about the world then we wouldn't need science at all.
> 
> ...


 

 1. Who said our senses were 100% reliable? In fact, our senses are not 100% reliable, _but neither are they 100% unreliable._
  2. I was referring to quantum mechanics, not the precession of Mercury or general relativity. Anyhow, the fact that Mercury's orbit didn't conform to what Newton would have predicted wasn't discovered for more than a hundred years after Newton. The fact that there is a whole realm -- the subatomic realm -- where Newtonian physics doesn't apply, where it just breaks down, is what I was referring to. 
  3. You said it!
  4. There are many phenomena that can't be measured no matter what equipment you use. If I'm bored by a drive and you're entertained by it, we would both experience the duration of the drive differently. If I experience a drive as "taking forever," you will never be able to time how long my experience of the drive takes, regardless of how much objective time goes by. Not being bored, you might experience _the very same drive _as quite a quick one. How would you measure the difference in subjective time-experience between how long I experienced the drive and how long you experienced the drive as? Since you can't quantify my subjective experience of the drive's duration _or_ your subjective experience of the drive's duration, you could never calculate the difference between what I experienced and what you experienced. Why? Because some differences are _qualitative_, not quantitative. You can't give exact measurements for how much you love your parents or your wife. You can't measure how sad or happy somebody feels. All you could do is measure brain processes. All you could do is say, "I love them a lot."
  5. That still doesn't negate the fact that some things might very well be undetectable to us. There might be entire dimensions we could never know about. And of course there are always things that are _not yet detected_. It would be very sad if people limited themselves only to what has been proven by science, which in the end might only be a puny slice of the totality of existence. But if you are content with your puny little slice, then at least I hope for your sake that it tastes good.


----------



## b0ck3n

Those are human traits and certainly not specific to just science.

My personal belief is that an honest audiophile who pours loads of cash into his rig for his own enjoyment certainly isn't a bad person, even if I don't think his $350 cable makes a difference. It does to him/her because he/she believes so. No one's ever proven the existence of God but most would agree that it's immoral to persecute the religious. I only have a problem when people try to push lies onto others and try to disguise them as facts.



heidegger said:


> No I'm talking about downright meanness and cruelty -- ridicule.


----------



## b0ck3n

Your number 4 says it - there's no component burn-in, but you can perceive the sound as changing in a multitude of ways, but it's all in your head. Why is that so hard to accept?


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Heidegger* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 1. Who said our senses were 100% reliable? In fact, our senses are not 100% reliable, _but neither are they 100% unreliable._
> 2. I was referring to quantum mechanics, not the precession of Mercury or general relativity. Anyhow, the fact that Mercury's orbit didn't conform to what Newton would have predicted wasn't discovered for more than a hundred years after Newton. The fact that there is a whole realm -- the subatomic realm -- where Newtonian physics doesn't apply, where it just breaks down, is what I was referring to.
> ...


 
  Did you forget we had this same conversation two months ago...


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> 1. Who said our senses were 100% reliable? *In fact, our senses are not 100% reliable,* _but neither are they 100% unreliable._


 

  
  I'm going to agree with you.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

This article from Stereophile of a debate about ABX testing and its use neatly summarises the pros and cons of ABX testing..
   
  http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
   
  For me the most significant conclusion of the debate is that hifi is not so much about sound alone, it is also about looks, image and overall satisfaction with your hifi. If you are satisfied with your hifi, no matter what it cost or what components are used, it will sound better than otherwise.


----------



## maverickronin

prog rock man said:


> This article from Stereophile of a debate about ABX testing and its use neatly summarises the pros and cons of ABX testing..
> 
> http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
> 
> For me the most significant conclusion of the debate is that hifi is not so much about sound alone, it is also about looks, image and overall satisfaction with your hifi. If you are satisfied with your hifi, no matter what it cost or what components are used, it will sound better than otherwise.




So in other words ABX testing is for those who think sound is paramount and not for people who give equal weight to bragging rights and looks?


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> Your number 4 says it - there's no component burn-in, but you can perceive the sound as changing in a multitude of ways, but it's all in your head. Why is that so hard to accept?


 


 I totally accept the fact that sometimes -- maybe even most times -- it's all in your head. In this case, however, the sound of my amp changed so much that it's impossible to believe it was placebo.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Did you forget we had this same conversation two months ago...


 

  What I totally failed to recall was the evisceration you spoke of.


----------



## maverickronin

heidegger said:


> What I totally failed to recall was the evisceration you spoke of.




Which probably has something to do with why you continue to repeat the same arguments instead of responding to my original criticisms of them.


----------



## Currawong

Innerfidelity tests the old claim that K701s (now Q701s) require many hundreds of hours of break-in: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break


----------



## cifani090

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Innerfidelity tests the old claim that K701s (now Q701s) require many hundreds of hours of break-in: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break


 

 Its about time to show up those people who dont believe in this stuff


----------



## Tyll Hertsens

The numbers are small, baby, are you sure you hear it?


----------



## cifani090

100%, its not that you can hear it, as in really hear it, but you can feel a  difference and there is a hearing difference following.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> I totally accept the fact that sometimes -- maybe even most times --* it's all in your head.* In this case, however, the sound of my amp changed so much that it's impossible to believe it was placebo.


 

 I'm not willing to believe that it's all in your head.  Most probably a balance of environmental factors and perception.
   

  
  Quote: 





tyll hertsens said:


> *The numbers are small, baby,* *are you sure you hear it*?


 
   
  Good work Tyll. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
   
  Were the differences shown in your graphs large enough to be audible?

*"Summary* *Did I show break-in exists? No*. There are too many variables still. Was it simply movement? I don't know. If I did it again to another brand new pair would I get the same results? I don't know. _If I did it to an already broken in pair would I get the same results?_ I don't know. "
   
  It wouldn't be a bad idea to repeat the test, as you suggested, using the same headphones.  See what other anomalies appear along the way.
   
  One final question:  Do the broken in headphones sound any different to you, from the new ones you kept as a control?
   
  USG


----------



## cer

First of all, it is wonderful, that people don't just ask questions, but also do experiments. So thumbs up to Tyll for the effort. But, there's always a "but", isn't there?
  So now we have measurements for a headphone that has constantly been under stress for 90 hours. But what about, lets say, 95 hours, the last 5 with silence? To me, this would be something a bit more closer to conclusive data about the physics behind break-in. And of course, it is true - way too many variables. What about ambient temperature? Air humidity, pressure? Placement? Were those constant or can we assume those are not important? It is definitely a pretty long experiment so changes are entirely possible. But the most interesting aspect to me - what happens after some resting?
   
  When something unusual happens during measuring (20 hour anomaly), to me the first question would be - what is the most probable cause to the anomaly. It is a very slippery slope to assume, that something happened to the membrane. It could have, but it very likely also could be something else. So I would be very cautious with statements that maybe it is proof of break-in. Maybe not.
  We can definitely be sure, that people who hear enormous changes after break-in are totally happy with these slightly vague statements. To them, it is proof, that what they are hearing, is real. No matter, what is written in the conclusion or how small are the differences in measurements.
   
  All that a scientifically inclined sceptic can conclude is - something happened during those 90 hours that caused very small differences in measurements. It very seldom doesn't. Can we really conclude anything? Not really. It is nice to see, Tyll came to the same conclusion. To me though, an experiment without a conclusion is just not finished yet. There's no law against publishing unfinished experiments, but there's no real use to them also. The downside is, that these graphs and "maybe" statements just add fire to the myths. Which is evident here already.
   
  A good scientific experiment begins with a clear goal. What to we want to know or proof? When we have figured that out, we can go on with isolating variables. When everything else is isolated (at least everything important enough), then we can start measuring. And when something unusual happens (20 hour anomaly) we repeat and repeat again. It is not easy, that's for sure. But it is the basis to conclusions. Otherwise we could just be wasting precious time.
   
  Unfortunately, ABX testing of headphones seems nearly impossible to me. it is probably extremely difficult to isolate variables, most importantly placement. So it is very unlikely, that we could ever come to a conclusion about break-in effects being audible or not.


----------



## Tyll Hertsens

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *upstateguy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Do the broken in headphones sound any different to you, from the new ones you kept as a control?


 


  I haven't tried to listen to any of the "new" ones yet compared to the broken in one.  I need to be very careful about not breaking them in at all before I know what I want to do with the tests.
   

  
  Quote: 





cer said:


> A good scientific experiment begins with a clear goal. What to we want to know or proof?


 

  
   
   
  Whether headphones break-in or not.  Relax ... get some popcorn ... this will take a little while ... but we'll get there.


----------



## Mkubota1

While frequency response may not be the only change that happens during break-in, it might be the most significant in terms audibility.  To get an idea of what kind of changes we're talking about here, try creating a similar notch using a 2/3 or 1/3 octave equalizer and see what the difference is.  And then try to imagine the differences you think you can hear for things that don't even show up on the scope!


----------



## Tyll Hertsens

Hi Guys.  Just wanted to check in and say I screwed up: the THD data is on a different scale than the FR data and I didn't change the scales when I copied the FR spreadsheet to start the THD spread sheet. So, I fixed it up. Doesn't change the conclusion much (page three of the report) but I think the graphs allow you to compare a bit better.
  Sorry for the screw up.


----------



## TakashiMiike

Prog Rock Man and all I have a question. Have you ever blind tested your dac and amp, compared to just the audio out on your computer or laptop? Are there any blind tests, verifying the need for a dac and amp at all?
   
  I am considering doing a blind test comparing my dac/amp setup to the standard out out my computer, was just wondering if this has been performed yet?


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





takashimiike said:


> Prog Rock Man and all I have a question. Have you ever blind tested your dac and amp, compared to just the audio out on your computer or laptop? Are there any blind tests, verifying the need for a dac and amp at all?
> 
> I am considering doing a blind test comparing my dac/amp setup to the standard out out my computer, was just wondering if this has been performed yet?


 

 Why not give it a try sighted first?  See if you can hear a difference.  If you can, then you might try it blinded to see if the difference hold up.
   
  Are you using a sound card or MB sound?
   
  USG


----------



## TakashiMiike

It's a sound card, not sure which one, I've never really cared, because I've always had a dac. I can hear a difference sighted, but I'm afraid I may of course be victim to placebo even as I try to be as objective and rational as I possibly can. I need to buy myself a reverse Y splitter (2 inputs to 1 output) so that I can easily switch between them in a test (I can simply write a script that picks a random output and then see If I can identify which device it is going through.)
   
  If I were to do this test, I have a few questions:
   
  1) Is there scientific evidence that a dac and amp will perform better than just the soundcard, or motherboard sound?
  2) How do I go about volume matching, I have never researched the topic before, my first instinct would be to play a 1khz tone, and adjust the volume on my amp while switching between the inputs, until the transition becomes seamless and I can't tell the difference in volume.
  3) What would be a statistically relevant number of tests to perform that is still realistic?
  4) Should I pick a track that I am very familiar worth, or one that has lots of frequency extension, or etc. In other words, what should be my criteria to pick the optimum track to listen to (my instincts say familiarity)
  5) Has there been other tests like this that test output straight out of computer to that of a dac/amp combo?


----------



## MacedonianHero

upstateguy said:


> I'm not willing to believe that it's all in your head.  Most probably a balance of environmental factors and perception.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




E - Got my Edition 8LEs back today from Ultrasone. Great service, fixed them the same day (shipped out the next day). I got new drivers (both L and R) installed and I can confirm that the treble is hotter (like I remember with my Ed. 8s when I first bought them). After about 50 hours or so, the treble did tame and the mids did come out. Please note that I am saying this with about a week in between of hearing my Ed. 8s, but there is a difference to my ears with fresh drivers vs. drivers with several hours of burn-in.


----------



## jcx

volume has to be matched to  0.1  dB ~= 1%  -  this needs to be done with good test equipment because it is much smaller than the "just noticeable difference" hearing threshold for loudness - a big surprise in DBT tests is that SPL differences too small to be detected consciously as different in volume can be clearly seen in ABX testing of identical systems - and louder almost always is said to "sound better" when preference is also tested
   
  if you can get at the electrical signal that goes to the headphone's drivers then good professional AC multimeters can be OK if they are speced for the frequency you use


----------



## Tyll Hertsens

Quote: 





jcx said:


> volume has to be matched to  0.1  dB ~= 1%  -  this needs to be done with good test equipment because it is much smaller than the "just noticeable difference" hearing threshold for loudness - a big surprise in DBT tests is that SPL differences too small to be detected consciously as different in volume can be clearly seen in ABX testing of identical systems - and louder almost always is said to "sound better" when preference is also tested
> 
> if you can get at the electrical signal that goes to the headphone's drivers then good professional AC multimeters can be OK if they are speced for the frequency you use


 


  You're assuming the inside of your brain, and the experiencing of it by your being, is like a multi-meter, and it's not.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





takashimiike said:


> *It's a sound card, not sure which one, I've never really cared, because I've always had a dac. *I can hear a difference sighted, but I'm afraid I may of course be victim to placebo even as I try to be as objective and rational as I possibly can. I need to buy myself a reverse Y splitter (2 inputs to 1 output) so that I can easily switch between them in a test (I can simply write a script that picks a random output and then see If I can identify which device it is going through.)
> 
> If I were to do this test, I have a few questions:
> 
> ...


 

 It is unclear how your dac is connected to your computer?  Coax, optical, usb????
   
  You hear a difference.  What is it? 
   
  Which one is louder?
   
  You have to decide what sounds better to you, with what ever music you want.
   
  But you can try to do it by ear just to get the lay of the land.  Just note the positions of the volume  so you can go back to it.  Sometimes that is enough to see if there is little  or no difference.  Once you have them at what appears to be the same volume, see if they sound the same of not.  Note the differences.  Then increase the volume of one of them, and compare, then decrease the volume of the same one, and compare.  See if the louder one sounds better to you.  See if the differences you noted before change.  Not a scientific test but interesting  anyway.
   

  Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 You're ahead of the curve.... what can I say?


----------



## jcx

No, I'm just explaining one step in matching electrical drive to a transducer to determine if signal path components caused subjectively heard differences can be useful objectively in telling if the components "sound different" for more interesting reasons than just the level difference
   
  the component's full audio frequency response should be measured and compared to Clark Johnson DBT ABX thresholds - but as a shortcut many electrical signal path components are "flat" enough in FR to allow just testing level at one frequency - and 1 KHz is the default for audio measurements
   
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm  cruise the rest of the site for lots more ABX info
   
  there is no good way I know of to do the same for headphones - they all differ in FR over much of the audio range by levels greater than the known audible thresholds - so they are all expected to sound different on FR grounds alone
   
  but amplifiers, DACs can in principle, and practice usually be matched in FR, level to at least eliminate those as variables in subjective testing as long as you use the same headphone
   
  to me using a pro bench multimeter that has > 1KHz capability on the AC range is easier than SPL measurement to 0.1 dB (even if you own the equipement to get the repeatability requires fixturing) so if the difference is in electrical signal path components I'd just measure the electrical signal at the headphone terminals
   
  with some extra parts even PC soundcards can make the measurements - and over the whole audio range instead of just one or a few frequencies


----------



## Heidegger

Lots of questions asked recently. I have one myself. How would a slight ringiness or graininess in the treble show up on a test? In this case, I'm speaking about a headphone amp in particular. Thanks.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





cifani090 said:


> 100%, its not that you can hear it, as in really hear it, but you can feel a  difference and there is a hearing difference following.


 


  Not in this thread and in Sound Science you don't. Here, we want evidence. 
   
  Just a quick mention that post 1 is regularly updated and is now at 32 blind tests of various types and of various parts of the hifi chain. Those new to the debate should start with a read of the opening post.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> How would a slight ringiness or graininess in the treble show up on a test?


 
  The problem is those words are not very specific. Graininess is distortion. But I have no idea what "ringiness" means to you. Again, this is why test equipment is so useful. It shows you exactly what is happening, letting you relate technical changes to perceived changes.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Audio-Omega

[size=x-small]Is it possible to measure volume change in a single instrument in an orchestral track through headphones ?[/size]


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





audio-omega said:


> [size=x-small]Is it possible to measure volume change in a single instrument in an orchestral track through headphones ?[/size]


 
  It depends on what you want to measure. But there's no need to "measure" one instrument within an orchestra. Anything that changes the signal for one instrument will do the same for a single sine wave. Understand that a sine wave goes from negative through zero to positive. So one max-level sine wave encompasses both small and large signal levels. With a sweep you can assess everything needed at all frequencies.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> It depends on what you want to measure. But there's no need to "measure" one instrument within an orchestra. Anything that changes the signal for one instrument will do the same for a single sine wave. Understand that a sine wave goes from negative through zero to positive. So one max-level sine wave encompasses both small and large signal levels. With a sweep you can assess everything needed at all frequencies.
> 
> --Ethan


 
   
  A similar question:  Let's say there are 90 musicians in a given orchestra.  And there are 4 trumpets.  And you removed one of those trumpets.  I guess the question could come in two parts:
   
  1) If you were listening to a well-recorded and well-reproduced performance of that orchestra and one of those 4 trumpet players stopped playing, and assuming all 4 were playing the exact same thing- would you notice?
   
  2) If you did notice, would this difference that you heard be measurable in any way?
   
  My guess would be 'yes' to question #2.  If it's just a question of volume, that seems pretty easy to measure with today's instruments considering we can measure changes _far_ below 1 db and human hearing seldom can.


----------



## xnor

Regarding 2, even if you would not notice it you can probably measure it if you take a closer look.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> The problem is those words are not very specific. Graininess is distortion. But I have no idea what "ringiness" means to you. Again, this is why test equipment is so useful. It shows you exactly what is happening, letting you relate technical changes to perceived changes.
> 
> --Ethan


 


 Well, I suspect that any "subjective" (read: actual) description of the sound will be labeled "not very specific" by you. Keep in mind that people don't hear decibel level changes or frequencies or amplitudes. I don't hear soundwaves; I hear the gate squeaking in the back yard, I hear the footsteps approaching my house, I hear the violin, I hear the motorcycle booming past, the birds chirping in the tree. At worst, I hear a noise that I cannot identify. But I _never_ hear soundwaves or decibels. To claim such a thing amounts to a devivification of the phenomenon, a stripping away of the real-life content and leaving only a bare skeleton that could never be alive. What kind of description (based on what people actually hear and not on what people measure) would satisfy the requirement for specificity?
   
  By ringing I mean that the treble was slighty harsh and unnatural-sounding. Maybe a little metallic. In any case, the sound was unpleasant; it wasn't just something I imagined but it actually caused me to wince. That unpleasantness and harshness is gone; now I hear glittering highs. How did the treble go from harsh to glittering, from unpleasant to pleasant, from making me wince to making me sing? The sound on some of my best classical SACDs sparkles. (Incidentally, I have never heard this sparkle on a regular CD; I'm not saying it's not possible, just that I've never experienced it.) How is this sparkle registered on a test? Can you tell that the sound sparkles soley based on how high the frequency goes? How are unpleasant highs measured? Are you saying that you can tell what is a great recording just by looking at the measurements without listening to the recording? If you measured a bunch of recordings, would you be able to identify the great ones based only on those measurements? Can the sonics on a recording look great on paper but turn out to be mediocre when actually listened to?
   
  I'm trying to figure out what -- if anything -- can't be picked up by the kind of tests that are run. The tests seem lopsided to me because they don't take into account the fact that sound interacts with our ears. Is there anything about the sound that might not easily register on a test, such as an unpleasant quality in the treble? Norbert Lehmann's answer has only made me more inclined to think that break-in exists. I find it hard to believe that the guy who designed and built the amp -- who has listened to a large number of them -- would consistently experience an improvement in the sound of his amps if that improvement weren't real. People mention the case of a sound engineer EQing a recording till he gets it just right only to find out that the console wasn't even on. But that is a relatively rare occurrence. Norbert didn't say, "This happened to me once," but implies it is a regular and consistent event, one that he hears with all his amps. And I don't buy the claim that he's lying in order to get us to keep the amp until it's too late to return it.


----------



## Audio-Omega

Let's say one cable has more bass over another, is it possible to measure that bass difference ?


----------



## Currawong

At least one manufacturer on here claimed that to ensure plenty of bass with their amps one should use a LOD with 18AWG wire. It is also my personal, if un-tested belief that the Nordost Heimdall cables produce audible tonal distortion.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





currawong said:


> At least one manufacturer on here claimed that to ensure plenty of bass with their amps one should use a LOD with 18AWG wire. It is also my personal, if un-tested belief that the Nordost Heimdall cables produce audible tonal distortion.


 


  This is the wrong part of the forum for untested claims and opinion  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  It should not be too difficult to ABX your cliam and publish the results. Funny how no maker does that.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





mkubota1 said:


> 1) If you were listening to a well-recorded and well-reproduced performance of that orchestra and one of those 4 trumpet players stopped playing, and assuming all 4 were playing the exact same thing- would you notice?


 
  Probably not, but maybe. It depends on many factors including each trumpet's contribution to the total volume of the section. But the difference would not be only volume, but also timbre since multiple instruments playing the same note "beat" at various frequencies due to minute differences in pitch and timing.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote:


heidegger said:


> Well, I suspect that any "subjective" (read: actual) description of the sound will be labeled "not very specific" by you.


 
 It's not just me, but everyone who requires a clear description. If I say some model loudspeaker sounds "incoherent" I assure you that nobody will know what that means. Likewise for "ringiness." Only you know what that means, which is the problem.
   
  Quote:


heidegger said:


> I'm trying to figure out what -- if anything -- can't be picked up by the kind of tests that are run.


 
  Everything that can be heard can be measured. There are no exceptions. I'm sure I've explained that already.
   
  BTW, you do indeed hear sound waves and decibels. It's your brain that lets you perceive it as a squeaking gate etc.


 --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





audio-omega said:


> Let's say one cable has more bass over another, is it possible to measure that bass difference ?


 
  A cable would have to be seriously defective or incompetently designed to affect the frequency response audibly. Regardless, any change in response that can be heard can be easily measured. This is audio engineering 101, and the methods go back to 1940 and even earlier.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> Probably not, but maybe. It depends on many factors including each trumpet's contribution to the total volume of the section. But the difference would not be only volume, but also timbre since multiple instruments playing the same note "beat" at various frequencies due to minute differences in pitch and timing.
> 
> --Ethan


 

 Sure- and even if it were a matter of very slight pitch change (or timing) we could measure those things quite easily as well.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> 1. Everything that can be heard can be measured. There are no exceptions. I'm sure I've explained that already.
> 
> 2. BTW, you do indeed hear sound waves and decibels. It's your brain that lets you perceive it as a squeaking gate etc.
> 
> ...


 


 1. Maybe, but _is_ everything measured in these tests?
   
  2. No, I perecieve it as a squeaking gate because_ that's what it is_. By the time you start talking about hearing soundwaves, you have already _modified_ the primordial phenomenon by stripping it of most of its content and leaving only the bare soundwave in its place. The bare soundwave is a theoretical construct. You listen to music, not to soundwaves.


----------



## MacedonianHero

ethanwiner said:


> Everything that can be heard can be measured. There are no exceptions. I'm sure I've explained that already.
> 
> BTW, you do indeed hear sound waves and decibels. It's your brain that lets you perceive it as a squeaking gate etc.
> 
> ...




Please excuse my ignorance, but how does one measure sound stage width, depth? Instrumental locations on that sound stage? Instrumental separation, timbre, etc....?


----------



## Currawong

prog rock man said:


> This is the wrong part of the forum for untested claims and opinion
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Before something can be tested, a theory needs to be put forward. My purpose in stating my beliefs is that it might provoke someone with a proper scientific mindset to do some experiments. Since you mention what this part of the forum is about, it seems to me to be about armchair discussion of other people's experiments, alongside casual interpretations of equipment measurements. With the exception of Nick Charles and a couple of people who set up mp3 blind tests, I don't see anyone doing any actual experiments and posting the results here. While yourself and others have been trumpeting that X, Y and Z of audiophillia are all snake-oil, Tyll (and possibly soon others) have been doing proper research. I have been slowly pondering doing some carefully prepared tests myself. 

Regardless, you have to remember that science began for the purpose of explaining people's everyday experiences. It doesn't exist in a vacuum away from these things.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Just a few things.
   
  Isn't the sound stage and instrument locations on that stage a function of where the recording engineer put them?
   
  Aren't the cues for sound stage, room reflections, ambiance, echo, etc, located in the treble range? 
   
  Here's a thought.  Plug in your most cavernous sounding headphones, play something that has a very wide and deep sound stage, then, start cutting the treble, and watch the sound stage collapse because you can't hear the cues any more.
   
  My feeling is that when dealing with cables, a perceived change in sound stage is as arbitrary as a perceived change in treble or bass. 
   
   
*@  Curra *
   
*I don't see anyone doing any actual experiments and posting the results here.*
   
  It's unclear who should be doing the experiments and posting the results.


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> My feeling is that when dealing with cables, a perceived change in sound stage is as arbitrary as a perceived change in treble or bass.


 
   
  It's not just a coincidence that gear often described as airy/ open/ lively also has increased high frequencies, and stuff that has intimate vocals or a narrow soundstage usually has a bump somewhere in the midrange region.  Most of what we hear (I'm being generous/ overly cautious by not saying 'all') is known and measurable.  It's like tasting wine:  We have a million different descriptions for what we taste; but to chemists it's all pretty simple to explain.


----------



## b0ck3n

Indeed. A lot can be explained by producing a frequency response graph, but around these boards we often hear things like "FR charts tell nothing of sound quality" etc. I recently asked a very popular amp manufacturer if he could provide a FR graph to help ease my decision making, and he replied in the exact same way.



mkubota1 said:


>


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 Are you trying to claim that different cables sound different is a theory? If so it has been put forward ad nauseum here and on other hifi forums for years now. So we need to move on from the theory and do some testing. Yes Nick_Charles and a few others have conducted tests. Yes I and most others are armchair observers having a discussion about such.
   
  But, what was new with this thread is that for the first time (and I have checked and with the hundreds of hours finding testing I would have found such by now) a whole series of tests were gathered together as a meta study to see if audiophile claims are myths or are true. Was became abundantly clear was that many an audiophile has sat back and made claims and has asked to be presented with evidence. They have not bothered to look for it and it was easy to dismiss the one or two tests people could find/remember . In the first post I have included the dates of when the tests were done. They range back over the past 30 years and in all that time there has been relatively few, roughly one or two a year. So, to paraphrase you someone has been doing some experiments, but they have been too easily kept in the background and ignored as shown by marginalisation here, banning and ridiculing elsewhere of discussions on the testing audiophile claims, particularly by blind testing.
   
  If you are going to come here and state that you can hear a difference without evidence, then I will consider again go elsewhere in the forum and 'trumpet' that you and others are talking nonsense. We have been there before and I would suggest we should do that again. It would be far more constructive for you to stop pondering and do some tests yourself.
   
  You do not need to remind me what the science is for. I start and contribute to as many science threads as I can.


----------



## jcx

Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> Please excuse my ignorance, but how does one measure sound stage width, depth? Instrumental locations on that sound stage? Instrumental separation, timbre, etc....?


 

 have you gone to the AES site and typed "image" or "location" into the article search? - you may need to refine the search a little since either give (the max?)  a thousand hits http://www.aes.org/e-lib/online/search.cfm
  
  obviously there aren't meters that can tell you the seating spacing in the orchestra from a recording but lots is known about how humans localize sound sources by hearing and how those mechanisms can be manipulated/faked in stereo reproduction for pleasing illusions of "soundstage" "imaging"and what system time, frequency response characteristics aid or interfere with those spatial illusions
   
  psychoacoustic lossy data rate compression relies on understanding through intense DBT testing what signal "shortcuts" can be taken to throw out over 75% of the Shannon-Hartley Channel Capacity information in a musical signal and still be "transparent" with almost all musical source - the exceptions are valued by the codec development community to advance the algorithms - today's best codecs at 320 kb are "transparent" - which includes conveying the spatial illusions
   
  anybody know what (lossy?) format the clips are in? https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HX090368035264


----------



## Audio-Omega

Has anyone ever measured sound difference in cd players and use the same method to measure cables ?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





audio-omega said:


> Has anyone ever measured sound difference in cd players and use the same method to measure cables ?


 

 Measuring the FR of a CDP is pretty  routine, Stereophile has done this 100s of times, measuring distortion, noise and other unwanted attributes as well, this is not rocket science. Others here have measured the differences between cables numeorus times, if we stick to FR and noise the measurements to date suggest a very low likelihood of audible differences between "conventional" analog interconnects that do not either *purposely alter the signal via added components such a zobel networks *or *distort the signal through defective design*. To date no two competent conventional cables of the same approximate gauge and length have been shown to differ by more than low 100ths of a db at any frequency point across the audible spectrum and even these differences may be attributed to measurement error. I have done my own crude measurements and the inter-cable differences between 1m 77c and $140 cables do not indicate a rational reason for the large perceived differences and no blind tests to date have indicated a reliable ability to distinguish between two cables of similar type.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> 1. Maybe, but _is_ everything measured in these tests?


 
  I'm certain I've explained this at least three times so far in this thread. So for the last time: A null test will reveal all differences between two signals, even those you might not have thought to look for by measuring frequency response and distortion etc. I use null tests all the time. Same for an FFT, which shows the spectrum of a signal. So you look at an FFT of the input to a headphone amp, for example, and another of its output. Again, this is not rocket science, and the methods to measure _all_ aspects of audio fidelity have been known for decades.
  
  --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> Please excuse my ignorance, but how does one measure sound stage width, depth? Instrumental locations on that sound stage? Instrumental separation, timbre, etc....?


 
  First, what I've been addressing is measuring the fidelity of audio gear. Look at the first post to this thread, and that should be clear. But the things you mention like sound stage can be "measured" in some sense, by looking for phase differences between the left and right channels. A phase meter is common on high-end mixing consoles, to let the mixing engineer avoid "stereo" problems that would, for example, harm mono compatibility.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Hifi Choice in their reviews use sighted and blind listening (not ABX) and show various measurements of the likes of jitter and distortion. One thing that is abundantly clear, there is no correlation between sound quality and what they rate as an Editor's Choice or Best Buy and any measurement. If any measurement really did make a difference, we would know by now and the hifi makers would have acted upon it.
   
Hifi Choice have been reviewing and publishing measurements for years now. You really need to get the magazine to be able to read the group tests.
   
  I can assure you that CDPs, amps etc have all been tested and measured and the information is out there.


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> Indeed. A lot can be explained by producing a frequency response graph, but around these boards we often hear things like "*FR charts tell nothing of sound quality*" etc. I recently asked a very popular amp manufacturer if he could provide a FR graph to help ease my decision making, and he replied in the exact same way.


 

 Of course they do.  A more accurate statement of course would be, "FR charts don't tell everything about sound quality."  It's understandable why some manufacturers withhold this information because many people over-simplify and use this stuff almost exclusively to make their purchasing decision.  We all know it's more complex than that.  In the world of roadbikes there are companies that won't disclose how much their bikes weigh for the same reasons.  I would rather manufacturers give us this information and trust us to use it wisely.  But I understand that most people like simple answers to complex questions.


----------



## b0ck3n

I know next to nothing about amps, but if I'm allowed to speculate I'd say that amps are able to "enlargen the sound stage" and pull out more "sparkle" or "bass authority" from a set of headphones by manipulating frequency response. Some headphones need more power to reach proper volumes, but other than that what good does an amp do? Can you measure the frequency response of an amp, and if so, is there a database somewhere of those measurements?


----------



## monoethylene

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> I know next to nothing about amps, but if I'm allowed to speculate I'd say that amps are able to "enlargen the sound stage" and pull out more "sparkle" or "bass authority" from a set of headphones by manipulating frequency response. *Some headphones need more power to reach proper volumes, but other than that what good does an amp do?* Can you measure the frequency response of an amp, and if so, is there a database somewhere of those measurements?


 

 Hm..what else do you want from an amp?


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> I know next to nothing about amps, but if I'm allowed to speculate I'd say that amps are able to "enlargen the sound stage" and pull out more "sparkle" or "bass authority" from a set of headphones by manipulating frequency response. Some headphones need more power to reach proper volumes, but other than that what good does an amp do? Can you measure the frequency response of an amp, and if so, is there a database somewhere of those measurements?


 

 I'm certainly no expert either.  But most if not all of what we hear in sound reproduction is frequency, time, amplitude, and in anything other than mono sound, channel separation.  Distortion would be any deviation of these from the original source.  Amp design can affect all of these things.  And all of this can be measured far better than what most of our ears can detect.  I suppose they can publish these figures.  But would we know how to interpret them?  It's kind of like the nuclear power plant people telling you that you've been exposed to 3 millisieverts of radiation.


----------



## MacedonianHero

upstateguy said:


> Just a few things.
> 
> *Isn't the sound stage and instrument locations on that stage a function of where the recording engineer put them?*
> 
> ...




I agree, but some headphones can portray this better than others...not sure how one would go about measuring it though. 

I agree that treble energy is one factor (very good point Eric ) on sound stage perception, along with recording quality. But the location of the drivers from one's head, angle, etc..can also have an effect.


----------



## MacedonianHero

ethanwiner said:


> First, what I've been addressing is measuring the fidelity of audio gear. Look at the first post to this thread, and that should be clear. But the things you mention like sound stage can be "measured" in some sense, by looking for phase differences between the left and right channels. A phase meter is common on high-end mixing consoles, to let the mixing engineer avoid "stereo" problems that would, for example, harm mono compatibility.
> 
> --Ethan




But timbre, location in the sound stage, instrumental separation? Not all important things in life can be measured (William Deming). I agree that one can perceive much from measurements, but ultimately you just have to listen with your ears and decide for yourself. 

My (now sold) Grado RS1s measured pretty poorly...and confirmed during my own frequency sweeps...but in the end, I really enjoyed them and found things like timbre and energy/life brought to the music was something these measurements would not reveal.


----------



## Currawong

prog rock man said:


> Are you trying to claim that different cables sound different is a theory?


 

I'm saying exactly what I said: That, subjectively to me, a particular cable tonally distorts music. That, because after I noticed this in comparison to other cables I own, I read similar reports from owners, I think it would be interesting to investigate. I thought, personally, that they were a waste of money because they introduce distortion.

I thought that since this is supposed to be a forum about science that such an experiment would be interesting. As it is, with little exception, I don't see an interest in conducting experiments, probably not helped by the fact that people with an actual knowledge of audio equipment design and the relative fields of physics aren't interested in posting here.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> I'm certain I've explained this at least three times so far in this thread. So for the last time: A null test will reveal all differences between two signals, even those you might not have thought to look for by measuring frequency response and distortion etc. I use null tests all the time. Same for an FFT, which shows the spectrum of a signal. So you look at an FFT of the input to a headphone amp, for example, and another of its output. Again, this is not rocket science, and the methods to measure _all_ aspects of audio fidelity have been known for decades.
> 
> --Ethan


 

 Can you get more specific? For instance, _how_ would the things I spoke of show up on the test. Also, if something doesn't show up on the test, how would you know that it's not showing up?
   
  If eveything shows up on the tests, then if I were designing and building an amp or a headphone from scratch, it would be pointless to actually listen to the headphone or amp to see if I liked what I was hearing, since the measurements alone would tell me everything about the sound. I could just introduce my product into the market without anybody actually having listened to the headphone or the amp before the first one sold?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





currawong said:


> At least one manufacturer on here claimed that to ensure plenty of bass with their amps one should use a LOD with 18AWG wire. It is also my personal, if un-tested belief that the Nordost Heimdall cables produce audible tonal distortion.


 


   


  Quote: 





currawong said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 If someone is prepared to lend me a pair of these thingies in  Im RCA interconnect format I can do my crude tests, certainly any notable (+/- 1db) FR deviations in the audible spectrum would show up even on my $29 Behringer ADC !


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> But timbre, location in the sound stage, instrumental separation?


 
  Timbre is frequency response. Sound stage is volume and timing differences between the left and right channels. I don't know what "instrument separation" means, but to me it's a function of the musical arrangement as affected by the ear's masking effect.
  
  Quote: 





> Not all important things in life can be measured (William Deming).


 
  Perhaps not everything in life, but everything that affects the fidelity of audio gear can certainly be measured!
   
  --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Can you get more specific? For instance, _how_ would the things I spoke of show up on the test. Also, if something doesn't show up on the test, how would you know that it's not showing up?


 
   You really need to watch my *AES Audio Myths* video. If you already saw it, watch it again. All of this is answered in more detail and more clearly than I can post here over and over. In particular, see the section about Null Tests starting at 53:39.
   
  Quote:


> If eveything shows up on the tests, then if I were designing and building an amp or a headphone from scratch, it would be pointless to actually listen to the headphone or amp to see if I liked what I was hearing, since the measurements alone would tell me everything about the sound. I could just introduce my product into the market without anybody actually having listened to the headphone or the amp before the first one sold?


 
 If the goal is high fidelity - accuracy - then measuring alone is sufficient to verify a design. But some people prefer the colored sound of a non-flat response or added distortion. In that case you'd have to listen to see if _you_ find that particular skewed response and added distortion pleasing to _you_.
   
  --Ethan
  iiiiiii But


----------



## monoethylene

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> Perhaps not everything in life, but everything that affects the fidelity of audio gear can certainly be measured!
> 
> --Ethan


 


  If you have the equipment .
   
  I think that beside the fact that it can be measured, an ear is not a measuring device. So what you here is sth melted and the difficult thing is to seperate this within measurements. My personal opinion only..


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Heidegger, you cannot expect to be spoon fed information, particularly the same information again and again. You need to start doing your own reading and research. You are now coming over as someone who is avoiding/cannot deal with the issue that testing by listening fails to find the differences claimed by many audiophiles between hifi products.
   
  Currawong, please do an ABX test of your cables. Again, you come over as someone who is avoiding/cannot deal with the issue....etc.


----------



## Currawong

I intend to measure their effect at some point. Someone helpfully discovered an attachment for iPhones and iPads that turn them into an oscilloscope. This would make it very easy to, say measure the digital output of some of my gear.

I'm certainly not avoiding tests. If anything, I'd say you give the impression here that you are so firm in your beliefs that you totally dismiss even any science that might contradict them.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Heidegger, you cannot expect to be spoon fed information, particularly the same information again and again. You need to start doing your own reading and research. You are now coming over as someone who is avoiding/cannot deal with the issue that testing by listening fails to find the differences claimed by many audiophiles between hifi products


 
  My new amp sounds different than my old one, my Cardas cable sounds different than the stock Sennheiser cable, my BCL sounds different now than it did when I first turned it on, and SACD and DVD-As are preferable to RBCD. Something is not showing up on the tests, and I want to find out what that is. I asked a question of Ethan, and he gave me a link to his video, which is well made, worth watching, and informative, even if I disagree with his conclusions, so my question wasn't asked in vain. Never try to shame someone for asking questions.
   
  In the video, Ethan claims what so many do:  people cannot hear the difference between high and low resolution sound. But the studies I have seen on that question have been mixed. In any case, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that high resolution picks up more information than low resolution and is a more faithful representation of the actual sound. Even if you can't consciously hear it, you might very well feel it, and, in any case, I rather have something closer to the original. Of course, those who have listened to a wide range of both rbcd and sacd feel that sacds sound better. If people really can't hear the difference between low res and high res, then maybe it's just that the sacd recordings were recorded and engineered with more care, or by better technicians, or using better equipment, or maybe they are better miced, or maybe the record label chose their best recordings to show off on sacd. In the end, I don't care why they sound better, only that they do.
   
  Similarly, there are a wide variety of amps out there and they all don't sound alike. The designers can tune them to achieve a certain sound. Even Ethan just admitted that, so I don't see why the claim is made on this thread that there are no differences between hi-fi products.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> You really need to watch my *AES Audio Myths* video. If you already saw it, watch it again. All of this is answered in more detail and more clearly than I can post here over and over. In particular, see the section about Null Tests starting at 53:39.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


 

 As to why people hear a difference with ultra-high sampling rates, you posit comb filtering/room acoustics as the most likely reason, but what about headphones? While you don't mention sacd by name, your video implies that anybody who prefers high resolution media such as sacd are a bit foolish. Yet what about compression? The trend with rbcd production is toward compression, while sacd is about not compressing. As I understand it, compression reduces the dynamics. Maybe one reason why some people prefer sacd is because of this non-compression philosophy. Moreover, recording engineers and owners of record labels have admitted that for the sacd treatment they try to choose what they deem to be their best recordings. That is a not so silly reason to prefer sacd. Yet again some people like EQing and others don't. Several sacd labels eschew EQing when mastering a recording, which is why some people find them a bit flat.
   
  "If it weren't for science, we'd all be banging on tree stumps in a dark cave." No, we wouldn't, and weren't. Perhaps you were just trying to be funny, employing hyperbole?
   
  "You just need all the data." How do you know you have all the data?
   
  "Our hearing is more sensitive to distorions in the treble range. Distortion in that range becomes more objectionable." That explains why I noticed the harshness in the treble before my amp broke in. I found the treble unpleasant.
   
  "All transparent amps are the same." Well, not all amps are transparent, and not everyone wants or likes a transparent amp. Moreover, some amps produce audible noise. You seem to be offering a reason here as to why people hear differences between amps and why they might prefer one amp to another.
   
  Warm, cold, sterile, analytical, etc., there's a reason why people use those words -- i.e., because they are more human, based as they are on what people actually perceive and feel when they listen to reproduced music.  Moreover, the terms aren't as vague and arbitrary as you make out. There's even a glossary, I think on this forum, that tells you what they mean. "3dB down at 200Hz." Ha! Good luck. Most people just aren't going to describe their listening experience that way (thank God). I would even argue that terms such as "cold and sterile" are much more apt and revealing of the actual listening experience since they include sensations and emotions (which are so much a part of listening to music), even if they lack quantitative definiteness.
   
  "We should all strive for the highest fidelity possible." This begs the question, fidelity to what? To natural sound, to live music? Doesn't high resolution music and/or formats such as sacd, dvd-a, and blu-ray offer more accurate fidelity if that is the standard? Do you even listen to these formats? Do you really prefer standard dvd to blu-ray? I used to listen to a lot of opera on dvd, but have found opera on blu-ray to be more satisfactory. Is this just my imagination as well? Blu-ray doesn't sound better?
   
  I did appreciate your video. Thanks. I hope to explore your website soon. I must say, from what I heard, I like your art music more than your pop music. Great cello video.
   
  Audio reviewers can tell the difference between amps as long as they see the label? Well, I think many of them would disagree. Here is an interesting article that relates not only to that but to why amps sound different:
   
http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge
   
  Here is a link to a discussion among audio engineers filmed at the Philoctates Center in New York. It is called "Deep Listening: Why Audio Quality Matters."  Warning, it is more than two hours long, and sacd is only mentioned in the second hour if I remember correctly. But you may find the whole thing interesting (or not).  These are not silly audiophiles, but professionals who all agree that sacd is superior to rbcd.
   
   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY5hI98HEi0


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I intend to measure their effect at some point. Someone helpfully discovered an attachment for iPhones and iPads that turn them into an oscilloscope. This would make it very easy to, say measure the digital output of some of my gear.
> 
> I'm certainly not avoiding tests. If anything, I'd say you give the impression here that you are so firm in your beliefs that you totally dismiss even any science that might contradict them.


 

 I have been accused of that before. So for the record again, if evidence is produced, for example that cables do inherantly make a difference to sound quality, that also shows the existing evidence is wrong, I will buy an expensive cable and recommend others to do the same.
   
  For a while I did think that there was evidence of a contradiction of the science. What Hifi have been doing monthly blind testing for a couple of years now, some of those tests are in the original post on this thread and were high lighted that they did contradict other tests, as people could make out a difference. But, there was a flaw. The argument has taken place on the What Hifi forum, not here and it was that WHF and in particular its editor in chief Clare Newsome was misrepresenting the testing as ABX and indeed as a test. In fact all that was happening was that three forum members sat and listened and gave their thoughts on what they could hear. That is not a test and it is certainly not ABX. Expectation and peer pressure would have had a major influence on what their 'results' were. (That has now been high lighted in the original post).
   
  I have also joined other forums just to ask questions about reported ABX tests, such as Hifi Wigwam. I should have made that clearer and I can see why you think that I 'am so firm in my beliefs that I dismiss even any science that condradicts them'. I promise you that I do look at evidence as it is found, I review the evidence I have and if there are contradictions I try and find out why.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> My new amp sounds different than my old one, my Cardas cable sounds different than the stock Sennheiser cable, my BCL sounds different now than it did when I first turned it on, and SACD and DVD-As are preferable to RBCD. Something is not showing up on the tests, and I want to find out what that is. I asked a question of Ethan, and he gave me a link to his video, which is well made, worth watching, and informative, even if I disagree with his conclusions, so my question wasn't asked in vain. Never try to shame someone for asking questions.
> 
> In the video, Ethan claims what so many do:  people cannot hear the difference between high and low resolution sound. But the studies I have seen on that question have been mixed. In any case, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that high resolution picks up more information than low resolution and is a more faithful representation of the actual sound. Even if you can't consciously hear it, you might very well feel it, and, in any case, I rather have something closer to the original. Of course, those who have listened to a wide range of both rbcd and sacd feel that sacds sound better. If people really can't hear the difference between low res and high res, then maybe it's just that the sacd recordings were recorded and engineered with more care, or by better technicians, or using better equipment, or maybe they are better miced, or maybe the record label chose their best recordings to show off on sacd. In the end, I don't care why they sound better, only that they do.
> 
> Similarly, there are a wide variety of amps out there and they all don't sound alike. The designers can tune them to achieve a certain sound. Even Ethan just admitted that, so I don't see why the claim is made on this thread that there are no differences between hi-fi products.


 



 The reason why the various parts of your hifi sound so different is because you can see them and you know what you are listening to. Add in the other senses to hearing and we know how different hifi sounds different. I have been to various auditions for new hifi over the years and know I was able to hear clear differneces between CDPs, amps, speakers.
   
  The whole point of this thread was to show that when using hearing alone to differentiate between different hifi all the big differences claimed either reduce significantly or disappear completely. So, many hifi makers and reviewers, who make out that the sound difference is inherant in the product are wrong. That is where the myth comes in.
   
  I am not trying to shame you in asking questions, I was joining others pointing out you keep on asking the same question after you have been given the answer.
   
  With regards to amps, they can sound different as there are ABX tests where they have been correctly identified, as well as the ones where they have not. But what ABX testing has shown is that give an amp an even frequency response and level the volume, they will sound the same. That is interesting to know, particularly if you have two amps with a level frequency response and decent volume control, but wildly different prices and you are on a budget or do not want to waste money.
   
  Here is another thread I started on positive blind tests
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/513481/are-blind-tests-bogus-examples-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results
   
  There are none with cables, so I conclude cables make no difference whatsoever. There are some for CDPs and amps, so I conclude they can make a difference. Not in the thread are blind tests of codecs which repeatedly show passed ABX testing, so I conclude they make even more of a difference. Lastly are speakers, which are the easiest to identify in testing. So I conclude speakers have the biggest inherant influence on sound of all hifi products.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Heidegger* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> My new amp sounds different than my old one, my Cardas cable sounds different than the stock Sennheiser cable, my BCL sounds different now than it did when I first turned it on, and SACD and DVD-As are preferable to RBCD. Something is not showing up on the tests, and I want to find out what that is.


   
  In all likelihood what is "different" is only your perception. If the differences are real, then they can be measured. Power amps can sound different, though they don't usually unless they're either poorly designed or driven too hard. Wires do not sound different unless one or both are incompetent, which is rare except with specialty boutique junk. If you want to find out what's really going on, you need to do the research yourself rather than tell people who know a lot more than you that they're wrong. I don't know a nicer way to say this.

   
  Quote:


> I asked a question of Ethan, and he gave me a link to his video, which is well made, worth watching, and informative, even if I disagree with his conclusions


   
  How can you possibly disagree with my conclusions? What is your better explanation? If you have no better explanation, perhaps it's time to reconsider your opinions. What specifically do you think is incorrect in my video? Better, what do you think is correct, and why?
   
  Quote:


> it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that high resolution picks up more information than low resolution and is a more faithful representation of the actual sound.


   
  So are you arguing for 128 bits at a 12 MHz sample rate? At some point capturing frequencies higher than anyone can hear, with a noise floor lower than what the microphones pick up, is a waste of disk space and bandwidth. You need to do your own tests to find the point of diminishing returns. This is simple to do with a decent microphone and basic / free audio editing software. If you are not willing to do this, I'm not willing to keep explaining my conclusions based on tests that I actually have done many times.
   
  Quote:


> Even if you can't consciously hear it, you might very well feel it


   
  Now you are bordering on belief in magic.
   
  Quote:


> there are a wide variety of amps out there and they all don't sound alike. The designers can tune them to achieve a certain sound. Even Ethan just admitted that, so I don't see why the claim is made on this thread that there are no differences between hi-fi products.


   
  I didn't "admit" anything. I _explained_ that some gear is colored and some people like that coloration. Nobody claims that all gear sounds the same. In my opinion all gear _should_ sound the same, unless it's intended to add specific color for creative purposes such as in a recording studio. But consumer playback gear should aim for accuracy, not color.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## ffdpmaggot

Ethan - I mostly agree except for your last point, there are, in fact, amplifiers that do sound different due to limitations with creating a quality component with a given a price point, or given hardware limitations of the time. I have a few old amplifiers that definitely sound like crap, i plug my headphones directly into my laptop, the sounds okay, i plug them into the amp, treble gets veiled and generally sounds off, bass gets a bit muddier, mids get darker. Maybe this was supposed to be a deliberate coloration, but even when i adjusted the treble / bass balance, the treble, no matter how loud it was, sound veiled and lacked texture. I dont know what happens with better amps.


----------



## b0ck3n

Does running headphones in balanced mode make an audible difference? If so then why? I haven't been able to find the answer on my own, besides ofcourse the standard audiophile gospel.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> Does running headphones in balanced mode make an audible difference? If so then why? I haven't been able to find the answer on my own, besides ofcourse the standard audiophile gospel.


 


  This is an explanation of the technical, electrical differences - knowledgeable amp designer Nelson Pass comments on in it the thread.
  http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/148709-bridged-vs-conventional-amps.html


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> Does running headphones in balanced mode make an audible difference? If so then why? I haven't been able to find the answer on my own, besides ofcourse the standard audiophile gospel.


 
   
  If there is an ABX test of such out there I cannot find it. Without such, all else is speculation.


----------



## MacedonianHero

ethanwiner said:


> You really need to watch my *AES Audio Myths* video. If you already saw it, watch it again. All of this is answered in more detail and more clearly than I can post here over and over. In particular, see the section about Null Tests starting at 53:39.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...




Not sure how you would measure timbre and get a completely meaningful value. Instrumental separation is how well the instruments are well not smudged together, but each have their own unique voice. Basically my point is that there is a whole lot going on and one cannot reproduce what one hears with measurements and them make any sense if it all. I'm a professional engineer and we love to measure things, but I think this is one area that can't be *fully* quantified. Ultimately, you just have to listen.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> > I asked a question of Ethan, and he gave me a link to his video, which is well made, worth watching, and informative, even if I disagree with his conclusions
> ...


 

 1. I wish you had responded to the post I actually addressed to you, placed directly after the post you responded to. There, I mentioned a few issues I had with statements you made in the video.
   
  2. No, because with PCM there is a point where you hit diminishing returns. 24/96 is better than 16/41, but 192kHz is not better than 96kHz with today's technology. 192kHz is apparently plagued by all sorts of problems. See:
   
http://www.soundstage.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=126:96khz-vs-192khz&catid=57:reader-feedback&Itemid=24
   
  However, with DSD, you can theoretically go much, much higher.
   
  3. Here's a story you may find interesting and which you can hear for yourself if you follow the youtube link I provided ("Deep Listening: Why Audio Quality Matters"):
   
  "Geoff Emerick recorded a lot of Beatles material. He was working in his studio at the Neve desk (named after English electronics engineer Rupert Neve). It's a very famous desk. Emerick had an issue with one of the channels and he kept calling technicians in, and people kept coming in and saying there's nothing there. But Emerick kept saying that he was hearing something, and everybody said no, it's impossible, we've looked at it and don't hear anything. Neve came in and looked at it and they analyzed it with some other piece of equipment that hadn't been brought in. What Emerick was sensing, he wasn't hearing it, he was sensing something in one channel that was up around 58,000 cycles. He didn't hear it, but he felt it, his body felt it. It's a perfect example of how human beings perceive sound. We don't always hear it, but we feel it. [Red Book] CDs stop us from feeling it...SACD, with a much higher sampling rate, is completely different. With SACD, we can feel things." -- Craig Street, Record Producer (produced projects for Norah Jones, K. D. Lang, Cassandra Wilson, Chris Whitley, John Legend, Gypsy Kings, among others).
   
  4. Admit vs. explain? The fact is that you agree that not all amps sound alike. If they don't all sound alike, then why do you say things like, "Audio critics can hear differences among amps only as long as they are looking at the label." If there are differences, as you admited -- or _explained_ -- then why _wouldn't_ they be able to hear differences among different amps?
   
  5. In response to your call that I defer to people who know more about audio than I do, I can tell you that I have. Not all professionals agree with you. Again, if you watch the youtube video I linked to above, you can hear a panel of experts tell you that you are wrong. The panel includes Greg Calabi, managing partner and mastering engineer at Sterling Sound in NYC. He has mastered the music of John Lennon, David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen, The Ramones, Talking Heads, Patti Smith, Paul Simon, James Taylor, U2, Norah Jones, Bad Brains, The Beastie Boys, John Mayer, Emmylou Harris, et. al. He has mastered more than 6,500 albums. Do you want to claim that he doesn't know anything about audio? Well, watch the video and hear him pontificate against rbcd and praise the virtues of sacd.
   
  Another member of the panel who praises the superiority of sacd and high resolution in general over mere cd resolution is recording/mixing engineer Kevin Killen. He has handled the music of Peter Gabriel, Elvis Costello, Kate Bush, Jewel, Bon Jovi, U2, Bryan Ferry, Lorenna McKennit, Duncan Sheik, Shakira, Sugarland.
   
  Another panel member is Steve Berkowitz, Senior Vice President of Sony Music's legacy recordings. He's in charge of rereleasing classic recordings at Columbia records. he has worked with Bob Dylan, Tony Bennett, Leonard Cohen, Earth Wind and Fire, Michael Jackson, Miles Davis, Branford Marsalis, Fishbone, John Mellencamp, Jeff Buckley, Ministry, The Cars, et. al. I suggest you watch the video. It's two and a half hours long, but these experts totally contradict what you say about high resolution.
   
  In short, just as you ask me to give way to the knowledge of people who know more about audio than I do, let me similarly request that _you_ give way, or at least consider, the knowledge of those who may know more about audio than you. All the professionals in that particular panel work mostly with pop, rock, and jazz, but if you prefer to appeal to professionals working with classical music, I can also appeal to a number of highly knowledgeable audio professionals in that area who would totally contradict your assertions. Many classical music recording engineers vehemently argue the virtues of sacd and high resolution sound in general as opposed to standard cd resolution.
   
  "Deep Listening: Why Audio Quality Matters" can be seen both on youtube and the philoctetes center website:
   
http://philoctetes.org/past_programs/deep_listening_why_audio_quality_matters
   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY5hI98HEi0


----------



## forsberg

Watched the entire AES Audio Myths video. Great job. I think all head-fi'ers should give this a watch before wasting hundreds of dollars on perception.


----------



## forsberg

You know, Heidegger, I was reading the last few pages and wonder why you tried so hard to back up your claims, then I clicked on your profile and saw this:

*Cable Inventory - Cardas, AudioQuest*

I think that says it all right there. Good night!


----------



## b0ck3n

Ok so what I can gather from that thread, and go easy on me here as I know absolutely jack of electric engineering, is that a balanced (bridged) design can put out twice the power (over-simplified perhaps). It also reduces distortion (really?). What I'm questioning is the need for balanced operation when driving headphones - they certainly don't require the kind of power mentioned in the thread where balanced mode becomes beneficial (400W and upwards). I'm also questioning whether the difference in distortion, if truly there is one, can be picked up on by the human ear.
   
  When audiophiles tout balanced operation in an amp they're not talking about power efficiency or reduced distortion levels, but mainly a larger "soundstage" or "sound field". Very few seem to use a balanced source with their balanced amps, but then some claim that makes an even bigger difference. HeadRoom offers balanced re-cabling and balanced amplifiers, and just as an example here's how they describe the changes heard when the Beyerdynamic Tesla T1 is driven balanced: "In balanced-drive, the musical detail resolution becomes even more liquid, seamless and textural with an added touch of bottom-end heft."

  
  Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> This is an explanation of the technical, electrical differences - knowledgeable amp designer Nelson Pass comments on in it the thread.
> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/148709-bridged-vs-conventional-amps.html


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> Ok so what I can gather from that thread, and go easy on me here as I know absolutely jack of electric engineering, is that a balanced (bridged) design can put out twice the power (over-simplified perhaps). It also reduces distortion (really?). What I'm questioning is the need for balanced operation when driving headphones - they certainly don't require the kind of power mentioned in the thread where balanced mode becomes beneficial (400W and upwards). I'm also questioning whether the difference in distortion, if truly there is one, can be picked up on by the human ear.
> 
> When audiophiles tout balanced operation in an amp they're not talking about power efficiency or reduced distortion levels, but mainly a larger "soundstage" or "sound field". Very few seem to use a balanced source with their balanced amps, but then some claim that makes an even bigger difference. HeadRoom offers balanced re-cabling and balanced amplifiers, and just as an example here's how they describe the changes heard when the Beyerdynamic Tesla T1 is driven balanced: "In balanced-drive, the musical detail resolution becomes even more liquid, seamless and textural with an added touch of bottom-end heft."


 

 Yes, it is twice the power of the same amplifier in single-ended mode.  But it's not necessarily difficult to build a different amp with the same power, so that's why the power advantages are rather dubious.
   
  I do wonder, however, if the portable balanced amplifiers are perhaps the easiest/most efficient way to put out the large 1 W plus output that the most powerful ones are capable of.  I mean, the iBasso PB1 gets more than 20 hours of battery life on high gain (about 24 V peak-peak) driving my HD 600, and it's tiny.
   
  The difference in distortion actually comes down to two things - in a speaker amp, you're running at low impedances already, and when you bridge an amplifier you halve the effective impedance of the load that the output devices "see".  That actually causes an increase in distortion (why you'll see amplifiers quote increased distortion when bridged), but in an amplifier designed to be used solely as a bridged/balanced amplifier, that probably isn't so much of a problem.
   
  The main thing, however, is very real and quantifiable - even order harmonic distortion products cancel out to the degree that the positive and negative halves of the amplifier are matching.  Usually it is reduced to a very low level, but it does nothing to reduce odd order harmonic distortion.  You may remember that tube amps generally produce quite a bit of even order harmonic distortion, and that it is considered far less offensive (or even desirable) to have even order harmonic distortion (especially the second product) than odd order harmonic distortion.  Anyway, the level of harmonic distortion in modern amplifiers is very low to begin with, more or less inaudible.  So the actual value of the even order harmonic distortion cancellation is rather dubious.
   
  Also, to confuse you even more, most headphone cables themselves are already balanced.  If your cable has both lines for both sides running all the way to the plug, it already provides common-mode noise rejection.  There's no benefit to be had to run a balanced amplifier if that's your goal, and even so, such noise rejection is rather meaningless for anything but very low level turntable signals.  Headphone cables, speaker cables, and line-level signals generally have little to no issue with noise unless you're running them right along a power line or perhaps right in the vicinity of a powerful radio transmitter.
   
   
  So to me, yes, the claims here for improvements in balanced operation seem to be little more than the typical fare you see in certain sub-forums...  And I say that as an owner of both push-pull and single-ended headphone amplifiers.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





ffdpmaggot said:


> I mostly agree except for your last point, there are, in fact, amplifiers that do sound different due to limitations with creating a quality component with a given a price point, or given hardware limitations of the time. I have a few old amplifiers that definitely sound like crap, i plug my headphones directly into my laptop, the sounds okay, i plug them into the amp, treble gets veiled and generally sounds off, bass gets a bit muddier, mids get darker. Maybe this was supposed to be a deliberate coloration, but even when i adjusted the treble / bass balance, the treble, no matter how loud it was, sound veiled and lacked texture. I dont know what happens with better amps.


 
  Sure. Again, no one says that all audio gear sounds the same. Some gear really is crap, though over the past 10-20 years even cheap stuff is mostly excellent. For me it's about claims that amps (or whatever) can sound different, but that difference cannot be measured. This is just wrong.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> Not sure how you would measure timbre and get a completely meaningful value. Instrumental separation is how well the instruments are well not smudged together, but each have their own unique voice. Basically my point is that there is a whole lot going on and one cannot reproduce what one hears with measurements and them make any sense if it all. I'm a professional engineer and we love to measure things, but I think this is one area that can't be *fully* quantified. Ultimately, you just have to listen.


 
  Timbre - basically frequency response - can definitely be measured. For gear you measure the response the usual way with sine waves etc. For musical instruments you can record them and use an FFT to see the inherent resonances. But you are confusing psychoacoustics, which I have not addressed in this thread, with assessing audio gear. If someone claims that wires or a solid state circuit can "break in" and change the sound over time, that is simple to measure and prove or disprove. And that has nothing to do with human perception. What you describe about instruments being "smudged" together is mostly about EQ choices by the recording engineers, and also the ear's susceptibility to the masking effect.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> [too much formatting to quote in and out 10 times]


 
  Earlier you asked:
  > As to why people hear a difference with ultra-high sampling rates, you posit comb filtering/room
  > acoustics as the most likely reason, but what about headphones?
   
  Yes, headphones avoid comb filtering. I never said small positional changes are the only reason people think they hear a difference when none can exist. In fact, most of the time I believe it's simply due to faulty perception! But comb filtering shows that the sound really can change at our ears, even when nothing has actually changed in the signal path.
   
  I agree that some SACDs are recorded with more care than other formats. But that's no reason to waste 4x the bandwidth. The obvious solution is to not over-compress at all, then use regular CDs.
   
  You also asked:
  > "You just need all the data." How do you know you have all the data?
   
  I already answered that 5 times now. Null tests. Enough already. Now back to the present:
   
  > Here's a story you may find interesting and which you can hear for yourself
   
  That's old news, and has been debunked many times. That Michael Fremer and the others do not understand just shows that they in fact know less than me about audio. Here's the scoop on that Neve / Emerick story:
   
  I'm sure that console channel sounded different, but not because Rupert Neve or Geoff Emerick were hearing 50 KHz! When a circuit oscillates it creates hiss and "spitty" sounds, and distortion in the audible band. So obviously that's what they heard, not the actual 50 KHz frequency. And what studio loudspeakers reproduce 50 KHz anyway? None. I don't care how many famous acts someone recorded. It doesn't mean they understand the science. In this case clearly they do not.
   
  --Ethan
  Yes


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> 1. I wish you had responded to the post I actually addressed to you, placed directly after the post you responded to. There, I mentioned a few issues I had with statements you made in the video.
> 
> 2. No, because with PCM there is a point where you hit diminishing returns. 24/96 is better than 16/41, but 192kHz is not better than 96kHz with today's technology. 192kHz is apparently plagued by all sorts of problems. See:
> 
> ...


 
   
  Don't get taken in.  Profit is clearly their motive.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

This becoming a bit black and white, so to clarify the position with regards to amps
   
   - all amps do not sound the same as ABX testing finds reliable differences - clicky
   
   - the differences however are no where near as big as audiophiles and makers like to make out - clicky
   
   - all amps can be made to sound the same by equalising and line leveling the volume - clicky
   
  Each clicky links to a test from the opening post in this thread.


----------



## b0ck3n

Thanks for helping me make sense of it. Are you aware of a set of headphones that requires +1W outputs? Most small portables seem to range from 50-250mW, the iBasso PB2 2500mW - seems gimmicky to me.



blackbeardben said:


> Yes, it is twice the power of the same amplifier in single-ended mode.  But it's not necessarily difficult to build a different amp with the same power, so that's why the power advantages are rather dubious.
> 
> I do wonder, however, if the portable balanced amplifiers are perhaps the easiest/most efficient way to put out the large 1 W plus output that the most powerful ones are capable of.  I mean, the iBasso PB1 gets more than 20 hours of battery life on high gain (about 24 V peak-peak) driving my HD 600, and it's tiny.
> 
> ...


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> Thanks for helping me make sense of it. Are you aware of a set of headphones that requires +1W outputs? Most small portables seem to range from 50-250mW, the iBasso PB2 2500mW - seems gimmicky to me.


 
   

 Well, there are some extremely demanding headphones - the AKG K1000, and the Hifiman planar magnetic headphones (among others of the type) - that require far more current than other headphones.  They're low impedance and low sensitivity.
   
  High impedance headphones don't require as much power overall - but often, they need as large or larger voltage swings to avoid clipping.
   
  Having a high impedance means that less current is needed to reach a given potential (voltage), so high impedance headphones don't generally require more power - but they can utilize the high voltage of such amps.
   
  Take, for example, a 50 ohm headphone versus a 600 ohm headphone.  For argument's purpose, if they have the same sensitivity (in dB/mV, not dB/mW), you'll get the same volume from the same voltage swing.  But, it takes 12 times as much current (and power) to create that voltage swing on the 50 ohm headphones!
   
  However, exactly how much power you need to avoid clipping at loud listening levels isn't exactly as easy to calculate (thanks to the dynamic nature of music).  For many people it's easier (and more comforting) to know that they have far more power than they'll ever need.  Look at the Schiit Lyr, for example.


----------



## xnor

But the Lyr is ridiculously overpowered for normal headphones. With many headphones a few milliwatts are enough to produce high sound pressure levels.
  I'd take a small amp with just enough (clean) power which also allows me to use most of the volume control's range over something bigger with higher gain and probably noise etc. any day.


----------



## MacedonianHero

ethanwiner said:


> Timbre - basically frequency response - can definitely be measured. For gear you measure the response the usual way with sine waves etc. For musical instruments you can record them and use an FFT to see the inherent resonances. But you are confusing psychoacoustics, which I have not addressed in this thread, with assessing audio gear. If someone claims that wires or a solid state circuit can "break in" and change the sound over time, that is simple to measure and prove or disprove. And that has nothing to do with human perception. What you describe about instruments being "smudged" together is mostly about EQ choices by the recording engineers, and also the ear's susceptibility to the masking effect.
> 
> --Ethan




Let me try it this way then. I agree that timbre of a particular note can be "measured", but listening to music, there's a whole lot of notes being played at the same time....so making sense of the data would be next to impossible. Instrumental separation is a function of not only the recording, but source, amp, headphones too. Ultimately it is how the particular gear sounds...measurements be damned so to speak. Sometimes we get too hung up on how gear measures and we forget that we listen with our ears.


----------



## TakashiMiike

Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> Sometimes we get too hung up on how gear measures and we forget that we listen with our ears.


 


  If we listen with our ears why has not one person passed a blind test on cables, once their eyes are removed from the equation? We listen with our brain, our fallible brain, step up and take some blind tests.


----------



## CEE TEE

[size=medium]Hi Ethan,
   
  Thank you for having a discussion with us!!    I watched your link on YouTube and it was really interesting.  
   
I know that during my previous photo career I had tools around to sometimes help me with the color cast of my images...either changing ambient conditions or fatigue or habituation could lead me to check myself.  I had a GATF/RHEM light indicator on my monitor to let me know when ambient light around my monitor wasn't 5000K degrees Kelvin and would use the color tool in Photoshop to see what the actual "numbers" for color were since our brains adjust and our conditions are not consistent.  _(CMYK or RGB values- is there a color cast?  Find a grey/neutral area and check the numbers- is R or G a larger number or are RGB all equal?  Remove the cast and all of a sudden you see another "version" of your image that seems "correct" too!)_  Trying to control an image from capture to display as intended is difficult.  The actual color of that J.Crew sweater you are shopping for won't look the same on your monitor.
   
  I know I'm using audiophile jargon but could you speculate on what might cause a "warm" or in the extreme- a "smeared/bloomy" sound in a DAC/Amp?  Can almost sound like a "reverb" or "fast echo" to me if that makes any sense whatsoever...I know my description isn't related to a good technical understanding!  How do we talk about this?
   
   
   
I am also trying to understand what "neutral/flat" or transparent sounds like.   I understand from your video that it can be defined as "flat from 20hz to 20khz with little decibel deviation" and low distortion with good timing.  If I have iems that bypass my pinnae, and they have a flat  20-20 FR graph (no third-octave averaging/large decibel divisions in graph) is that the only way to know for sure that the gear is "transparent"?
   
*What is the best way to hear/understand "transparent" in a headphone system or to learn the Frequency Range to be able to communicate?  Frequency sweeps?  T**est tone CD?  Sheer memorization of instruments and ranges?  **Should I go through the "equalizing my phones" process or play with an EQ to understand what/where things are in the frequency range (by frequency and by decibel amount)? * _My mastering/musician friends then start to talk about "q" and parametric vs. graphic EQs..._




   
  Thanks for any help.  I'm trying to test my understanding, learn, and communicate better.
   
  CEE TEE​[/size]


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> ....... Sometimes we get too hung up on how gear measures and we forget that we listen with our ears.


 



 The irony is that those who do pay attention to the measurements and the information we get from them are more likely to be listening to the music with their ears alone. We are also far more likely to concentrate on what really makes a difference to sound quality, room acoustics, speakers etc.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> but listening to music, there's a whole lot of notes being played at the same time....so making sense of the data would be next to impossible





> *Not really, the process is exactly the same as a simple sine wave ! - the complex wave addition creates a complex wave but its characteristics are easily decomposed into individual frequencies and amplitudes, if you could not do this then psychoacoustic coding would be impossible, literally impossible, a FFT works just as well on both simple and complex.*





>





>





>





> . Instrumental separation is a function of not only the recording, but source, amp, headphones too.





> *How exactly does an amp create more or less instrument separation? How does it know where the instruments are in space and how to separate them? Does it filter the bands and then selectively attenuate some? If so it is seriously flawed ! - what is it doing to create this illusion ? - *





> *As I understand it crudely, the key to the illusion is in the difference in levels and timings and channel placement of individual wave components, if you have two cellos playing the same note and one is 3' behind and to the side of the other then there is a small but definite difference in both timing and level, the speed of sound is finite and distance decreases level, we use these cues to recreate the illusion of separation, that works even for mono. Then we have the stereo effect of using multiple mics which have slighly different inputs, then one cello appears more to the left than the other...the only way an amp can impact this last bit is if it has terrible channel separation , but that would decrease the illusion of space !*





>





>





>





>


----------



## maverickronin

As far as I can tell instrument separation appears to be a function of distortion.  Low distortion (or possibly just very even levels of distortion without large peaks) allows you to hear those subtle differences in levels and timing.  I don't have any real data to back that up other than comparing what I hear from a headphone with measurements of that same model of headphone.
   
  I'd assume the same would hold true for amps as well.  Besides that, some people say that tube amps somehow enhance the soundstage but I haven't really noticed that with my DIY Bottlehead Crack and my HD650s as compared to my transistor amps.  I'm not really sure how that would actually be possible though.  The closest thing I have to a hypothesis is that the extra 2nd order harmonics are somehow similar to a reverb effect but it doesn't seem too likely to me and I don't have any idea where to start investigating it in the first place.
   
  Feel free to shoot all this down if you want since its really just idle speculation.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> Let me try it this way then. I agree that timbre of a particular note can be "measured", but listening to music, there's a whole lot of notes being played at the same time....so making sense of the data would be next to impossible. Instrumental separation is a function of not only the recording, but source, amp, headphones too. Ultimately it is how the particular gear sounds...measurements be damned so to speak. Sometimes we get too hung up on how gear measures and we forget that we listen with our ears.


 
  Again, you are confusing psychoacoustics and perception with the specs and tests used to assess the fidelity of audio gear. Further, it is mostly untrue that "instrument separation" (whatever that really means) is a function of the gear. A piece of audio gear will affect clarity only if its noise and distortion are high enough to mask the music, or if its frequency response is skewed enough to reduce important frequencies enough to notice. So an amplifier that's 10 dB down at 5 KHz and above will surely sound muffled. To say "measurements be damned" only shows ignorance and maybe even arrogance. I'm sorry, but I don't know a nicer way to put it. Thankfully, the people who _design_ the gear you enjoy don't have that attitude! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





cee tee said:


> [size=medium]I know I'm using audiophile jargon but could you speculate on what might cause a "warm" or in the extreme- a "smeared/bloomy" sound in a DAC/Amp?  Can almost sound like a "reverb" or "fast echo" to me if that makes any sense whatsoever...I know my description isn't related to a good technical understanding!  How do we talk about this?​[/size]


 
  The way to talk about this is for both of us to use the same terms. These terms must have a universal meaning that everyone understands. So that leaves out "warm" and "smeared" and "bloomy." If you are hearing reverb or echoes that tells me either 1) you have a receiver set to some "surround enhancement" type mode, or 2) the problem is with your room. I can't help you resolve these terms because it requires being there in person as you play examples. I'm sure I could tell you the correct terms for what you hear if I was there.
   
  Quote: 





> I am also trying to understand what "neutral/flat" or transparent sounds like.


 
   
  For that you'd have to visit me, or find someone local with a good system that's set up properly in an excellent room. Are there any hi-fi clubs in your area?
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Arnaldo

Following on your theory, low levels of distortion should also help the perception of soundstage, which is created in part by very low levels of residual reverberation. This is pure speculation as well...

 Regardless, now you seem to be comparing your actual listening experience with available measurements, in order to formulate a valid opinion of a given component. It looks like a very rational approach.
  
  Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> As far as I can tell instrument separation appears to be a function of distortion.  Low distortion (or possibly just very even levels of distortion without large peaks) allows you to hear those subtle differences in levels and timing.  I don't have any real data to back that up other than comparing what I hear from a headphone with measurements of that same model of headphone...
> 
> Feel free to shoot all this down if you want since its really just idle speculation.


----------



## EthanWiner

This is to b0ck3n:
   
  I got your PM but for some reason I can't reply (the web page goes crazy and keeps reloading over and over). Do me a favor and start a new thread with your questions, and I'll be glad to answer.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## CEE TEE

Hi Ethan,
   
  So far, I have been trying to understand the full Frequency Range by listening to my reference tracks on my friend's studio/mastering set-up to try and hear what is in the recordings or what I am missing (like feeling the "flutter" of 20hz sub-bass).  He has Dunlavy Dunntech d'appolito arrays but it isn't an anechoic chamber...  I know he likes his bass/sub-bass a lot though, and so wonder if I am hearing more than is neutral in his set-up.  He has treated his room for sound but I wouldn't be surprised if he has left some extra bass unmitigated. 
   
  However, I also get to check his music on his system and then listen to it on my system to see whether or not I can reproduce it the way he intended as the artist and mastering engineer (within the limits of headphone/earphone technology).  My comparisons are hardly scientific at this point but I am trying to poke at my questions from different angles until I can get a sense of the answers. 
  
  I can try to find another system to listen to also.  Unfortunately I'm in CA, not CT !
   
  Quote:


ethanwiner said:


> For that you'd have to visit me, or find someone local with a good system that's set up properly in an excellent room. Are there any hi-fi clubs in your area?
> 
> --Ethan


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





arnaldo said:


> Following on your theory, low levels of distortion should also help the perception of soundstage, which is created in part by very low levels of residual reverberation. This is pure speculation as well...
> 
> Regardless, now you seem to be comparing your actual listening experience with available measurements, in order to formulate a valid opinion of a given component. It looks like a very rational approach.


 
  There's quite a bit more to soundstaging in headphones than just plain distortion.  If you just compare the overall distortion numbers between two' phones and expect to get some sort of idea about subjective perception on soundstage then you might assume that a good pair of universal IEMs is on par with the HD800s in that area.  I'm listening to my SE530s right now and I can tell you that ain't the case at all.  Since most music listened to via headphones was mixed to give a stereo image on speakers I'm of the opinion that a headphone that makes a coherent soundstage out of that signal is inherently colored because the signal the headphone is recieving is obviously not the same signal its outputting to your ears.  It introduces some distortion (preferably carefully controlled distortion) to the signal to make the soundstage seem more spacious and realistic.  This of course implies that I, along with everyone else who enjoys something resembling a speaker-like or life-like soundstage, actually enjoys colored 'phones.  Its just like the crossfeed filters I almost always use when listening to headphones.  If you left the filter on and ran the tests like that on the amp they'd look awful with all sorts of crosstalk and weird time delays.  Without the knowledge of what the crossfeed filter does and more importantly why it does it, you'd assume that anything played through the system would sound terrible until you actually listened to it.
   
  Does this shed any light on our ED10 dust-up?  I just pointed out that this distortion does indeed exist but since I've never heard it I didn't make any value judgments about it.  It _could _be a fiendishly clever way of tuning an expansive and realistic soundstage through S Logic.  It _could _just be crap.  I can't really say without hearing.  I can say it isn't a faithful reproduction of the input and that wouldn't change whether I liked it or not.  Its just like the crossfeed example I outlined above.  From looking at the ED10's numbers I can tell that _something _is quite different about them.  Since they market their soudstage enhancing S Logic rather heavily, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that S Logic is that "something" which is different about the ED10s.  Without either a through explanation or some head time I can't say if that "something" is good or not, but I can still tell that "something" is there from the graphs without ever hearing it in my life.  Does that make more sense?
   
  Its not like I'm anti-Ultrasone or something either.  I'm actually hoping it falls in the clever tuning category because I'm looking for a really good pair of closed headphones and the ED8s are on the short list and I'd like them to sound better than they seem to measure.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> There's quite a bit more to soundstaging in headphones than just plain distortion.  If you just compare the overall distortion numbers between two' phones and expect to get some sort of idea about subjective perception on soundstage then you might assume that a good pair of universal IEMs is on par with the HD800s in that area.  I'm listening to my SE530s right now and I can tell you that ain't the case at all.  Since most music listened to via headphones was mixed to give a stereo image on speakers I'm of the opinion that a headphone that makes a coherent soundstage out of that signal is inherently colored because the signal the headphone is recieving is obviously not the same signal its outputting to your ears.  It introduces some distortion (preferably carefully controlled distortion) to the signal to make the soundstage seem more spacious and realistic.  This of course implies that I, along with everyone else who enjoys something resembling a speaker-like or life-like soundstage, actually enjoys colored 'phones.  Its just like the crossfeed filters I almost always use when listening to headphones.  If you left the filter on and ran the tests like that on the amp they'd look awful with all sorts of crosstalk and weird time delays.  Without the knowledge of what the crossfeed filter does and more importantly why it does it, you'd assume that anything played through the system would sound terrible until you actually listened to it.
> 
> Does this shed any light on our ED10 dust-up?  I just pointed out that this distortion does indeed exist but since I've never heard it I didn't make any value judgments about it.  It _could _be a fiendishly clever way of tuning an expansive and realistic soundstage through S Logic.  It _could _just be crap.  I can't really say without hearing.  I can say it isn't a faithful reproduction of the input and that wouldn't change whether I liked it or not.  Its just like the crossfeed example I outlined above.  From looking at the ED10's numbers I can tell that _something _is quite different about them.  Since they market their soudstage enhancing S Logic rather heavily, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that S Logic is that "something" which is different about the ED10s.  Without either a through explanation or some head time I can't say if that "something" is good or not, but I can still tell that "something" is there from the graphs without ever hearing it in my life.  Does that make more sense?
> 
> Its not like I'm anti-Ultrasone or something either.  I'm actually hoping it falls in the clever tuning category because I'm looking for a really good pair of closed headphones and the ED8s are on the short list and I'd like them to sound better than they seem to measure.


 


  Well, a major part of soundstaging as it relates to headphones and speakers is the transfer function of our ears' pinnae on the signal.  Obviously an IEM is going to bypass most of that and only be influenced by the middle ear - but as far as other headphones, the differences in driver size and shape, distance from and angle to the ears, ear pads, etc. are all going to affect the ears' transfer function of the signal output by the headphones.  As for speakers, that expands to the room and direct/passive radiation of sound, etc.
   
  Obviously, this is only part of the equation - the recording itself (which has been discussed before) is obviously a factor here, and even has an influence on what sort of transfer function from the headphones to the ears is desirable.  Obviously if you make a binaural recording with a dummy head that is molded to fit yours, it would make more sense to use IEMs than circumaural headphones - and that's perhaps the simplest example, although it doesn't mean it's not possible to model more complicated ones (or that it hasn't been done).
   
  And then there's everything in between the recording and the headphone.  Looking at the evidence so far, it should be pretty clear that distortion is the only thing impacting the signal between those two points.  Obviously, induced reverb (and possibly other distortions) is/are going to cause some perceptual changes, perhaps even desirable (if not accurate to the recording).  But things like channel imbalance, phase distortion, and clipping are obviously going to have very negative impacts on the soundstaging.  I wouldn't necessarily expect harmonic distortion to do the same.
   
  At this point, I think it's a matter of linking all the known distortions to signals (scientifically all distortions can be categorized and measured to at least some degree) to human perception.  Obviously, with the amount of signal processing out there to mimic/change soundstaging (and I mean beyond crosstalk cancellation, crossfeed, etc.), it's not a black-box of a field.  It's not that difficult to, for example, compare the signal from a typical stereo mic setup for recording and a binaural mic setup - doing something like that you can make the sort of measurements needed to quantify the differences.


----------



## maverickronin

@BlackbeardBen
   
  Most of that reply was in regards to this exchange, which I was going to let drop until he brought it up here.


----------



## Arnaldo

My observation over the in influence of low distortion on soundstaging was basically just an extrapolation on your own theory.
   
  As to the Ed 10 issue which you brought up, I feel that there's more to it than just numbers, an opinion that your post doesn't seem to entirely disavow. Basically, their S-Logic open-back concept may have been conceived to work with the extended frequency range of high-rez acoustic recordings, and less so with more compressed material found in electronic music or older analog masters. Regardless, let's leave this discussion for the appropriate thread, shall we?
   
  OTOH, there's a lot less controversy over the Ed 8 in terms of closed cans. I have the Ed 8 LE and they literally killed my old Denon AH-D7000. But they have rather small earcups, so be warned about the comfort issue if you have large ears.
   
  PS 1: I have a SPL Phonitor on order and I'm looking forward to play with its cross-feed settings.
  PS 2: While my previous post was written in the context of your own preceding post, I do understand your interpretation.
  
  Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> There's quite a bit more to soundstaging in headphones than just plain distortion [...] Its just like the crossfeed filters I almost always use when listening to headphones.  If you left the filter on and ran the tests like that on the amp they'd look awful with all sorts of crosstalk and weird time delays.  Without the knowledge of what the crossfeed filter does and more importantly why it does it, you'd assume that anything played through the system would sound terrible until you actually listened to it.
> 
> Does this shed any light on our ED10 dust-up? [...] Since they market their soudstage enhancing S Logic rather heavily, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that S Logic is that "something" which is different about the ED10s. Without either a through explanation or some head time I can't say if that "something" is good or not, but I can still tell that "something" is there from the graphs without ever hearing it in my life.  Does that make more sense?
> 
> Its not like I'm anti-Ultrasone or something either.  I'm actually hoping it falls in the clever tuning category because I'm looking for a really good pair of closed headphones and the ED8s are on the short list and I'd like them to sound better than they seem to measure.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





arnaldo said:


> My observation over the in influence of low distortion on soundstaging was basically just an extrapolation on your own theory.
> 
> As to the Ed 10 issue which you brought up, I feel that there's more to it than just numbers, an opinion that your post doesn't seem to entirely disavow. Basically, their S-Logic open-back concept may have been conceived to work with the extended frequency range of high-rez acoustic recordings, and less so with more compressed material found in electronic music or older analog masters. Regardless, let's leave this discussion for the appropriate thread, shall we?


 
  I wouldn't have brought it up if it was completely off topic.  This thread is discussing how subjective impressions relate to objective measurements.  My main points are 1) Just because the system of measurements we have today isn't completely perfect doesn't mean we can or should ignore them in areas which have been shown to work.  2)  Measurements may not exactly be able to tell you what you'll like but the they can as surely as death and taxes tell you what's more accurate.
   
  The second part was all I was getting at in the other thread.  Related to this is the fact that headphones _need _some manner of coloration to sound natural and because everyone has different tastes an physiology no one can mostly agree to try and build them ruler flat like speakers or something.


----------



## MacedonianHero

ethanwiner said:


> Again, you are confusing psychoacoustics and perception with the specs and tests used to assess the fidelity of audio gear. Further, it is mostly untrue that "instrument separation" (whatever that really means) is a function of the gear. A piece of audio gear will affect clarity only if its noise and distortion are high enough to mask the music, or if its frequency response is skewed enough to reduce important frequencies enough to notice. So an amplifier that's 10 dB down at 5 KHz and above will surely sound muffled. To say "measurements be damned" only shows ignorance and maybe even arrogance. I'm sorry, but I don't know a nicer way to put it. Thankfully, the people who _design_ the gear you enjoy don't have that attitude!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I never did say measurements be damned (I am an engineer...I love my measurements...trust me). Please re-read my posts...all I said is not to forget to actually listen to what you're measuring too. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Using measurements for how music sounds exclusively is like taking FTIR & GC & UV/VIS Spectroscopy to determine what ingredients are in a particular dish to ascertain how it will taste. Can you do this, absolutely, but in the end, you really should also take a bite.


----------



## ffdpmaggot

Ethanwiner, this was a 250 dollar amp from the early 2000's. I fired it up expecting something great and magical, there were glowing reviews online, the sound truly was terrible, a/b testing between the amp and my laptop's sound card showed that it was bloody veiled and the bass was in fact a bit muddy, and the vocals were in fact, a bit boxy as far as i remember. My sound card is pretty crappy, you get the idea.
  Missed the last part of your post "some gear really is crap though"


----------



## CEE TEE

Okay...tonight I got to hear the unprocessed recording of a friend's live show I saw on Sunday night.  My other friend recorded it.
   

 I was able to listen to the recording at the show (in between sets) on the Sony MDR-V6 workhorses.
 I listened to the rough (unprocessed) recording on the Dunlavy Dunntechs in a studio tonight that my friend confirmed was treated *and measured* to have an even response across the range as much as possible _(I thought it might be north of neutral in the bass dept. because it has been hard for me to reproduce some of that sound/feeling on my headphone rigs and my friend's music does actually have a lot of low end)_.
 I just spent the last couple of hours listening to the .wav files through the UE RM, but on a portable rig and not yet through the Benchmark.
 Now I will have to take my UE RM into the studio soon and compare directly to the Dunntechs (though it will be unscientific because I don't think I can volume match)...should be interesting. 
   
*Because it is fun and I love the music and sound I've been hearing...*it keeps getting better and better too!
   
  Quote: 





cee tee said:


> Hi Ethan,
> 
> So far, I have been trying to understand the full Frequency Range by listening to my reference tracks on my friend's studio/mastering set-up to try and hear what is in the recordings or what I am missing (like feeling the "flutter" of 20hz sub-bass).  He has Dunlavy Dunntech d'appolito arrays but it isn't an anechoic chamber...  I know he likes his bass/sub-bass a lot though, and so wonder if I am hearing more than is neutral in his set-up.  He has treated his room for sound but I wouldn't be surprised if he has left some extra bass unmitigated.
> 
> However, I also get to check his music on his system and then listen to it on my system to see whether or not I can reproduce it the way he intended as the artist and mastering engineer (within the limits of headphone/earphone technology).  My comparisons are hardly scientific at this point but I am trying to poke at my questions from different angles until I can get a sense of the answers.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> 1. I agree that some SACDs are recorded with more care than other formats. But that's no reason to waste 4x the bandwidth. The obvious solution is to not over-compress at all, then use regular CDs.
> 
> 2. You also asked:
> > "You just need all the data." How do you know you have all the data?
> ...


 


 1. Go back to CD? _Never._ SACD is so much better on so many different levels. Setting aside the controversy over whether you can really hear the higher resolution, SACD makes so much more possible than CDs do. SACD can give you both stereo and multichannel versions of the music (for those who like surround sound). Although it's not often the case because of the inclusion of the multichannel track, theoretically I can *at last* get a whole act of an opera without having to change disc midstream. Heck, I can get an _entire_ opera on a single disc. SACDs can fit up to four albums on one layer, and hybrid SACDs have _two_ layers! My SACDs have information about the recording that I can access when I connect my player to a monitor. Wasted bandwidth? Who cares if all the space on any given SACD is used or not? The point is that it's there for when manufacturers want to use it. What's better about CD again? You don't believe in higher resolution? Fine, hybrid SACDs give you a standard CD layer that you can play on any CD player.
   
  2.  This "null test" you are referring to sounds like the kind of nulling astronomers employ when they look for supernovae. They take two images of the sky and "null out" what is identical between them so that only the differences between the two images remain. When you take a deep-field imagine of the sky, there is simply too much information for the eye to catch. Nulling allows them to see only the differences -- for instance, if a supernovae has exploded since the earlier image was taken. Is audio nulling similar to this? If so, I would just point out that there are many things that don't show up on these tests. In fact, they have discovered that anti-gravity, i.e. "dark energy"  (which is not the same as dark matter) is an inherent property of space but will never show up on any test or analysis. In fact, scientists don't really even know what it is. Of course, when anti-gravity was discovered (Einstein first proposed it; he called it the Cosmological Constant, but later disowned it when he got ridiculed by other scientists), scientists said oh no that's physically _impossible_. Anyhow, audio nulling is when you null two signals and see what (if anything) gets left over as a difference between them?
   
  3. In the anecdote as recounted by Craig Street, it was specifically emphasized that Emerick did _not_ hear it, but rather felt it.  As for the hiss and spitty sounds, according to Street's version of the story, others were brought in to see if they could detect what Emerick was hearing. They couldn't. They ran some initial tests, but still didn't detect it until some other piece of equipment was brought in. Where does your version of the story come from?
   
  As for your "famous acts" comment, the point is that they are audio _professionals_ with extensive _experience. _But of course I see what's happening. When I reference audio professionals who disagree with you, you will accuse them of not understanding the science, no matter how extensive their experience. When I reference somebody like Norbert Lehmann who clearly understands the science, then you will say he's not telling the truth. At least you should admit that there are knowledgeable people, professionals in the audio industry, who disagree with you. The matter isn't as settled as you make it seem. And this is not like the Repubilcans with their silly claims about scientists being "divided" as regards global warming. It's not just one or two audio professionals who disagree with you, but many of them.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> 2.  This "null test" you are referring to sounds like the kind of nulling astronomers employ when they look for supernovae. They take two images of the sky and "null out" what is identical between them so that only the differences between the two images remain. When you take a deep-field imagine of the sky, there is simply too much information for the eye to catch. Nulling allows them to see only the differences -- for instance, if a supernovae has exploded since the earlier image was taken. Is audio nulling similar to this? If so, I would just point out that there are many things that don't show up on these tests. In fact, they have discovered that anti-gravity, i.e. "dark energy"  (which is not the same as dark matter) is an inherent property of space but will never show up on any test or analysis. In fact, scientists don't really even know what it is. Of course, when anti-gravity was discovered (Einstein first proposed it; he called it the Cosmological Constant, but later disowned it when he got ridiculed by other scientists), scientists said oh no that's physically _impossible_. Anyhow, audio nulling is when you null two signals and see what (if anything) gets left over as a difference between them?


 
  I spent a good 5 minutes trying to come up wit a witty retort but this single paragraph is full of more idiocy than the rest of your posts in this thread of combined, cubed, and then possibly factorial-ed.  You really should try to understand this stuff before you trot it out as evidence to prove your point and fail spectacularly.  A few choice points...
   
  Why is a test designed to look for stuff that gives off light a failure when it doesn't detect something that does not give off light?
   
  Along those lines, what kind of magical energy do you propose is being transmitted with, yet is separate from, the electrical signals of an audio system which can be played via the transducers and perceived by humans but is unaffected by and undetectable to all the sophisticated measurement devices in the signal chain?  That's the fantasy you're proposing.  In reality, an audio null test will detect all differences between two signals.  It does not fail as a test because it does not take into account your state of mind.  That isn't part of the signal.
   
  And here's the big one...
   
  If dark energy "will never show up on any test or analysis" then how do we already know its there?  Quite the paradox...
   
  At this point I'm really beginning to question things.  That paragraph is either the one of the most brilliant Poes I've ever seen or...well...something that's not very nice...  On the one hand I could be incredibly angry and on the other I could be incredibly depressed.  I don't need any more depression.  I think I need to adopt the Hitchens approach and browse Sound Science with a bottle of whiskey or something.  I need more practice on the one liners too.  I don't yet have the skills to win a debate while half drunk...


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> At this point I'm really beginning to question things.  That paragraph is either the one of the most brilliant Poes I've ever seen or...well...something that's not very nice...  On the one hand I could be incredibly angry and on the other I could be incredibly depressed.  I don't need any more depression.  I think I need to adopt the Hitchens approach and browse Sound Science with a bottle of whiskey or something.  I need more practice on the one liners too.  I don't yet have the skills to win a debate while half drunk...


 
  Dark energy enhances the audiophile experience


----------



## maverickronin

That's what Lawrence Krauss said....


----------



## khaos974

Bringing dark energy into electric and acoustic engineering is so out here that I'm truly at a loss of words, next thing we know, he'll be bringing Special Relativity onto internal combustion engines.
  
  Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> That's what Lawrence Krauss said....


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> 2.  This "null test" you are referring to sounds like the kind of nulling astronomers employ when they look for supernovae. They take two images of the sky and "null out" ,,,


 

 I've pasted a brief definition of the null test below from an earlier discussion, and here is an example of its application in a blind test.
   
  With hypothesis testing, you begin with the null hypothesis which is that your drug treatment, cable, etc. doesn't do anything and so their measured effects will be random. The alternative hypothesis is that the drug, cable, etc. does have an effect, so the scores will be be reliably different (e.g. your answers as to which is the better cable will not be random). 

 The criterion for rejecting the null hypothesis and saying that the effects are real is if the distribution of scores comes out in a way would only happen less than 5% of the time assuming that the null hypothesis is true (p-value is less than 0.05). In this case, a set of random choices from two possible outcomes is described by a binomial distribution. So I set up the test to assume that each of the two cables will be picked with a 50% chance (the null hypothesis) and tested if the proportion of your particular choices would happen less than 5% of the time within this distribution.

 Your score (9 correct choices in 12 trials) would happen with a probability of p = 0.0537 under these assumptions. Which is pretty impressive, but sill larger than the .05 significance level.

 So the null hypothesis is not rejected.


----------



## Arnaldo

The AES paper below seems to confirm the benefits of high-rez, albeit limited to comparisons between 44.1 and 88.2 kHz. I wonder what their findings would be with even higher resolution formats such as DXD (352.8 kHz 24 Bit PCM) and/or DSD...
   
*AES E-Library*
*Sampling Rate Discrimination: 44.1 kHz vs. 88.2 kHz*
  (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398)
   
"It is currently common practice for sound engineers to record digital music using high-resolution formats, and then down sample the files to 44.1kHz for commercial release. This study aims at investigating whether listeners can perceive differences between musical files recorded at 44.1kHz and 88.2kHz with the same analog chain and type of AD-converter. Sixteen expert listeners were asked to compare 3 versions (44.1kHz, 88.2kHz and the 88.2kHz version down-sampled to 44.1kHz) of 5 musical excerpts in a blind ABX task. Overall, participants were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and their 44.1kHz down-sampled version. Furthermore, for the orchestral excerpt, they were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and files recorded at 44.1kHz."
   
*Authors:* Pras, Amandine; Guastavino, Catherine
*Affiliation:* McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
*AES Convention:* 128 (May 2010)
*Paper Number: *8101
*Subject: *Audio Coding and Compression

  
  Quote: 





heidegger said:


> 1. Go back to CD? _Never._ SACD is so much better on so many different levels. Setting aside the controversy over whether you can really hear the higher resolution, SACD makes so much more possible than CDs do. SACD can give you both stereo and multichannel versions of the music (for those who like surround sound). Although it's not often the case because of the inclusion of the multichannel track, theoretically I can *at last* get a whole act of an opera without having to change disc midstream. Heck, I can get an _entire_ opera on a single disc. SACDs can fit up to four albums on one layer, and hybrid SACDs have _two_ layers! My SACDs have information about the recording that I can access when I connect my player to a monitor. Wasted bandwidth? Who cares if all the space on any given SACD is used or not? The point is that it's there for when manufacturers want to use it. What's better about CD again? You don't believe in higher resolution? Fine, hybrid SACDs give you a standard CD layer that you can play on any CD player...


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





eucariote said:


> I've pasted a brief definition of the null test below from an earlier discussion, and here is an example of its application in a blind test.
> 
> With hypothesis testing, you begin with the null hypothesis which is that your drug treatment, cable, etc. doesn't do anything and so their measured effects will be random. The alternative hypothesis is that the drug, cable, etc. does have an effect, so the scores will be be reliably different (e.g. your answers as to which is the better cable will not be random).
> 
> ...


 

 You're confusing the scientific method of null testing and electrical null (difference) testing; the second of which is what Ethan is talking about.  Null difference testing reveals _all_ differences in two electrical signals.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





arnaldo said:


> The AES paper below seems to confirm the benefits of high-rez, albeit limited to comparisons between 44.1 and 88.2 kHz. I wonder what their findings would be with even higher resolution formats such as DXD (352.8 kHz 24 Bit PCM) and/or DSD...
> 
> *AES E-Library*
> *Sampling Rate Discrimination: 44.1 kHz vs. 88.2 kHz*
> ...


 

 I humbly suggest you read the full paper rather than rely on the abstract alone, the story in the abstract hides a certain amount of statistical legerdemain including the dubious use of 2-tailed tests and the unilateral removal of several outliers. There are also a number of questions about the methodology used for downgrading and the fact that with enough t-tests and correlations you expect to get some significant results purely by chance.
   
  Even if some of M and M's samples were low res *many were not *and on *no single sample *did anyone reach statistical significance. I have asked the authors of the McGilll study for the raw data so I could run it through a stats package myself but they declined. I agree that M and M *should redo the study using only high res sources *sadly they seem disinclined to do so.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





cee tee said:


> He has Dunlavy Dunntech d'appolito arrays but it isn't an anechoic chamber...  I know he likes his bass/sub-bass a lot though, and so wonder if I am hearing more than is neutral in his set-up.  He has treated his room for sound but I wouldn't be surprised if he has left some extra bass unmitigated.


 
  No room is perfectly flat, and most rooms have peak / null spans of 20 to 30 dB or even more. My living room is about as well treated as possible, and the LF response still varies about 10 dB. But the peaks are broad and well damped, not sharp and ringing. I mention this because the room has at least as much affect on what you hear as the speakers, and 100 times more affect than any electronics.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## CEE TEE

I'll inquire and see if I can find out how much the room varies.  Thanks!
  Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> No room is perfectly flat, and most rooms have peak / null spans of 20 to 30 dB or even more. My living room is about as well treated as possible, and the LF response still varies about 10 dB. But the peaks are broad and well damped, not sharp and ringing. I mention this because the room has at least as much affect on what you hear as the speakers, and 100 times more affect than any electronics.
> 
> --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

> Quote:   I never did say measurements be damned


   
  Actually, you did:
   


macedonianhero said:


> Ultimately it is how the particular gear sounds...measurements be damned so to speak.


   
  Quote:


> Using measurements for how music sounds exclusively is like taking FTIR & GC & UV/VIS Spectroscopy to determine what ingredients are in a particular dish to ascertain how it will taste. Can you do this, absolutely, but in the end, you really should also take a bite.


   
  I understand your point and disagree only slightly: If audio gear is shown by measuring to be transparent, then you already know how it sounds because it _has_ no sound. Which is as it should be IMO.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> I humbly suggest you read the full paper rather than rely on the abstract alone, the story in the abstract hides a certain amount of statistical legerdemain including the dubious use of 2-tailed tests and the unilateral removal of several outliers. There are also a number of questions about the methodology used for downgrading and the fact that with enough t-tests and correlations you expect to get some significant results purely by chance.


 
  Further, there can be audible factors _other_ than the highest frequency captured when using different sample rates.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Arnaldo

It's not that M&M used "some" low-rez recordings for their test, instead, it was the majority - as per their own list at http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm - with a few high-rez recordings thrown in as tokens. In other words, if you present a test to someone between low-rez on one side and low-rez on the other, the result will be statistically irrelevant.
   
  While I personally think M&M should first disavow their flawed results, we both seem to agree on the need for new tests, performed by knowledgeable professionals with a truly high-rez playlist.
  
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Even if some of M and M's samples were low res *many were not *and on *no single sample *did anyone reach statistical significance. I have asked the authors of the McGilll study for the raw data so I could run it through a stats package myself but they declined. I agree that M and M *should redo the study using only high res sources *sadly they seem disinclined to do so.


----------



## EthanWiner

Someone PM'd me a question for this thread, but I can't get this site's PM to work at all. And I prefer not to use PM anyway. So here's what was asked:
   
_I'm wondering if an amp can have any positive effects other than more volume?_
   
  It depends how you define "positive effects." To me, the most positive thing an amplifier can do is amplify the signal to play as loudly as desired, without affecting the frequency response or adding audible noise and distortion. So in that sense the answer is No. But some people like the sound of certain intentional colorations, such as distortion or maybe a slight "loudness switch" type bass boost. So in that sense anything goes. But if your goal is to hear accurately what the mixing and mastering engineers intended, then we're back to No. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  --Ethan


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Ethan, I've been thinking:

 Wouldn't it make sense to apply null difference testing to regular comparisons of electronics (DACs, amplifiers, pre-amps, etc.)?  It's not like null testing requires equipment above and beyond what is used for more common measurements, so there's no reason why it couldn't be done.
   
  It certainly would make sense to me, considering how publications and individuals usually have "reference" gear they use to compare everything else with - why not take it to the obvious next level and perform null testing between them?  If you start with gear that is consensually transparent, say something like the Benchmark DAC1, it would certainly do well as a reference component for much less expensive DACs.
   
  You could also perhaps run a given bit/sample rate DAC (or amp/pre-amp playing back a given signal supplied by a reference DAC) through a much higher bit/sampling rate ADC known to be a functionally transparent component to compare them digitally.
   
  I would presume such techniques are used by the better electronics component designers, and have been for decades (we certainly know Bob Carver has).  The question is though, why don't manufacturers talk about it and why isn't this a regular measurement in any audio publications?
   
  Is it because you're limited to comparison testing to or through a reference component that clearly can't be perfect (even if it may be much better than the components being compared)?  Even so, that problem (despite comparison measurements being true of every single piece of measuring equipment we have [i.e. lengths of time defined by vibrations of an atom, etc.]) is inconsequential (beyond proper instrument calibration) for nearly every other application or field that doesn't deal on the very smallest of measurable scales.
   
  Even so, there must exist reference ADCs and DACs at far higher bit/sampling rates and accuracy (at audio frequencies and amplitudes) than what is available to consumers or even recording professionals - for industrial use of sorts - an internal reference at government or large multinational corporations.
   
  I imagine the reason is political, rather...


----------



## b0ck3n

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> Someone PM'd me a question for this thread, but I can't get this site's PM to work at all. And I prefer not to use PM anyway. So here's what was asked:
> 
> _I'm wondering if an amp can have any positive effects other than more volume?_
> 
> ...


 

 Thank you, Ethan!
  
  I'm curious about how output impedance and its effects on how headphones perform. Afaik, the ideal output impedance would be 0, and as soon as that number rises, changes occur in the signal. Very few manufacturers specify output impedance, even fewer produce frequency response measurements. I'm looking for an amp, preferably portable, that can produce the amount of power required to drive an orthodynamic to satisfactory levels, like the HE-6, that doesn't manipulate its frequency response (intentional or otherwise) and doesn't add too much distortion. Where do I find something like that?


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> Thank you, Ethan!
> 
> I'm curious about how output impedance and its effects on how headphones perform. Afaik, the ideal output impedance would be 0, and as soon as that number rises, changes occur in the signal. Very few manufacturers specify output impedance, even fewer produce frequency response measurements. I'm looking for an amp, preferably portable, that can produce the amount of power required to drive an orthodynamic to satisfactory levels, like the HE-6, that doesn't manipulate its frequency response (intentional or otherwise) and doesn't add too much distortion. Where do I find something like that?


 
  If you're only going to be using orthodynamics with the amp then output impedance won't really matter.  Orthos aren't electrically damped so damping factor doesn't matter and they have flat impedance curves so a high output impedance won't change the FR.  Maybe Blackbeard can chime in about his balanced iBasso portable which seems to be a good way to get lots of power from a small footprint.


----------



## Yoga Flame

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> _I'm wondering if an amp can have any positive effects other than more volume?_
> 
> It depends how you define "positive effects." To me, the most positive thing an amplifier can do is amplify the signal to play as loudly as desired, without affecting the frequency response or adding audible noise and distortion. So in that sense the answer is No. But some people like the sound of certain intentional colorations, such as distortion or maybe a slight "loudness switch" type bass boost. So in that sense anything goes. But if your goal is to hear accurately what the mixing and mastering engineers intended, then we're back to No.


 
   
  Agreed.
   
  Though it can also be framed another way to a different effect-- Some amps such as those built into MP3 players are not fantastic at reproducing the audio signal while driving headphones. They add negative effects to the sound. If we take that as the baseline, then adding a good amp into the equation will have a net positive effect due to reducing the distortion from the default option.
   
  Again, I am in full agreement. I only emphasize the "without affecting the frequency response or adding audible noise and distortion" aspect, and that some amps perform that task better than others. Otherwise some may misunderstand the value of a good amp.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *BlackbeardBen* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> You're confusing the scientific method of null testing and electrical null (difference) testing; the second of which is what Ethan is talking about.  Null difference testing reveals _all_ differences in two electrical signals.


 

 Ah thanks, I'd just been skimming the thread.  Must remember to not shoot from the hip.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> I spent a good 5 minutes trying to come up wit a witty retort but this single paragraph is full of more idiocy than the rest of your posts in this thread of combined, cubed, and then possibly factorial-ed.  You really should try to understand this stuff before you trot it out as evidence to prove your point and fail spectacularly.  A few choice points...
> 
> Why is a test designed to look for stuff that gives off light a failure when it doesn't detect something that does not give off light?
> 
> ...


 

 Maverick, I didn't say that the astronomical null tests were a failure. They find exactly what they are supposed to locate. As to whether the audio null tests pick up everything (everything relevant to how we experience sound), I necessarily leave that open since I don't have a firm enough grasp of these tests to be able to say one way or the other. Ethan's appeals to science and his experrience with these tests add _a lot_ of weight to his argument, but a survey of the history of science finds scientists _again and again_ claiming that something is "impossible" only to be proven wrong. Moreover, people who have just as much experience (or more) with audio matters than Ethan contradict some of his statements. What I know is that much of what is claimed on this thread seems to go against the experiences I have had with my audio equipment. (The placebo effect is a powerful thing though.)
   
  I still have more questions for Ethan about null tests, questions that were not addressed in his video. For instance, it isn't clear to me how certain phenomena are registered to begin with so that they can, in turn, be nulled by the test. Is "sparkling sound" just a measure of how high the frequency goes? What does depth of soundstage look like when you measure it? How about the air around the strings, how natural their tone is, or whether a recording conveys the "wind" or "fanning" effect that you get when you attend a live classical music concert? How do these things show up as measurements?
   
  As for the dark energy paradox: scientists see the _effects_ of dark energy, but what dark energy (anti-gravity) itself is they have no idea at the moment, although there are several theories, some of them having to do with quantum fluctuations and virtual particles. The principal effect of dark energy is that the expansion of space, according to careful scientific measurements, is accelerating, which it shouldn't be unless you take "dark energy" into account.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Heidegger* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> As for the dark energy paradox: scientists see the _effects_ of dark energy, but what dark energy (anti-gravity) itself is they have no idea at the moment, although there are several theories, some of them having to do with quantum fluctuations and virtual particles. The principal effect of dark energy is that the expansion of space, according to careful scientific measurements, is accelerating, which it shouldn't be unless you take "dark energy" into account.


 

 So we see its effects but is doesn't, "show up on any test or analysis."  Makes perfect sense to me!


----------



## MacedonianHero

ethanwiner said:


> > Quote:   I never did say measurements be damned
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Actually I didn't my post was quite clear (at least to me ), talking my comments completely out of context...basically what I said was if it measures phenomenally, but sounds like crap...then "measurements be damned". Not that we should dispose of measurements, but they should be used hand in hand with our ears so to speak. 

Please explain what you mean in the bold section, I'm don't get what you're trying to say here.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> Thank you, Ethan!
> 
> I'm curious about how output impedance and its effects on how headphones perform. Afaik, the ideal output impedance would be 0, and as soon as that number rises, changes occur in the signal. Very few manufacturers specify output impedance, even fewer produce frequency response measurements. I'm looking for an amp, preferably portable, that can produce the amount of power required to drive an orthodynamic to satisfactory levels, like the HE-6, that doesn't manipulate its frequency response (intentional or otherwise) and doesn't add too much distortion. Where do I find something like that?


 

 I forget where, but recently I read a post here on Head-Fi running through the numbers, showing the actual impact of typical high output impedance amplifiers on different impedance headphones.  Basically, you don't need to worry about it so much at typical values (with coil driven headphones as mentioned), as in all but the most absurd examples (120 ohm output impedance, 32 ohm headphone impedance, etc.).
   
  Additionally, you could be said to be manipulating the frequency response of the Beyerdynamic DT-XX0 and T1 headphones whenever you use them with a low impedance amplifier...  They're designed for the "other", actually the "official", output impedance standard of 120 ohms.  Running them from low output impedance amplifiers is thus manipulating them...
   
  The reason for the 120 ohm output impedance standard is the difficulty in achieving a low output impedance with specific amplifier designs that were at one point the most common.  You may know that many receivers and amplifiers have a headphone jack which is coupled to the amplifier's output via a resistor - that was the most common type of headphone amplifier until recently (with DAPs and computers taking the throne).  The same goes for typical tube amp designs - it's difficult or impossible to have low output impedance for some of the designs, especially those with output transformers.  The Meier claim of 200-600 ohm resistors is news to me though, I have to say.  It's also a hugely exaggerated worst-case scenario compared to normal amplifiers.
   
  You don't get the maximum voltage transfer (i.e. best efficiency) with headphones/amps designed for that 120 ohm output impedance - but that's not often a problem for home use.  So I don't really see it as too much of a problem (at least if there was a clear demarcation on all headphones, stating the intended output impedance).
   


  Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> If you're only going to be using orthodynamics with the amp then output impedance won't really matter.  Orthos aren't electrically damped so damping factor doesn't matter and they have flat impedance curves so a high output impedance won't change the FR.  Maybe Blackbeard can chime in about his balanced iBasso portable which seems to be a good way to get lots of power from a small footprint.


 

 Interesting, I can't believe I didn't realize that before...   A flat impedance curve (as the resistive load of planar magnetics are) means no change in frequency response at different output impedances, as the ratio doesn't change.
   
  The voltage transfer is still affected, however.
   
   
  As far as the iBasso PB1 goes, I'm impressed with my HD 600.  Very much so, actually.  You can read all the reviews about it of course.  It sounds as flat in response to me as my Asgard does; actually I'm not even sure if I could tell them apart without turning the volume knob...
   
  The voltage swing is real - that certainly makes a big difference over less powerful amplifiers.  Take the uDAC that I have for example.  From what I can tell, it implements deliberate clipping to allow higher SPLs on headphones that it can't swing enough volts for.  That allows it to drive the HD 600 better than its limited voltage swing would suggest, but you lose a lot of the subtleties of the music as a result.  Higher powered amplifiers don't have that problem.
   
  I can't really say anything about its current capabilities...  Although, there is something interesting - it will drive the HD 600 balanced and my Alessandro MS-1i single-ended at the same time, and having half the gain for the Alessandro works out just about perfect in terms of volume.  They both play at about the same level, which makes them perfect companions for when you want to share your music.
   
  Other than that little benefit, I do find balanced operation to be annoying.  It really limits what cans I can use with the full voltage swing, without the extra expense of custom cables.  I'm extremely skeptical of the benefits of balanced operation - the advantages electrically are absolutely minimal; most likely inaudible in the vast majority of cases.  I do wonder about the efficiency however - if balanced operation is the only way to implement such high power in such a small amp.


----------



## b0ck3n

The T1 has a flat impedance of 600 Ohm - is it safe to assume that the PB2 with its 10 Ohm output impedance won't mess it up? The HD 800 isn't flat (HeadRoom's down atm so I can't link a graph), wouldn't that be recipe for disaster with most amps (unless they're really low output impedance)?
   
  I haven't exactly decided on what full-size I wanna get just yet, but an amp that's able to handle most, and on the go, would be ideal.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote:


b0ck3n said:


> The T1 has a flat impedance of 600 Ohm - is it safe to assume that the PB2 with its 10 Ohm output impedance won't mess it up? The HD 800 isn't flat (HeadRoom's down atm so I can't link a graph), wouldn't that be recipe for disaster with most amps (unless they're really low output impedance)?
> 
> I haven't exactly decided on what full-size I wanna get just yet, but an amp that's able to handle most, and on the go, would be ideal.


 

 No way.  In absolute terms HD800's impedance curve is a bunny slope compared to the black diamonds of the T1.  The T1 is way off the scale at Headroom but Tyll's new site has impedance graphs with a proper scale on the Y axis.
   
  In practice it won't matter anyway.  Only 10 ohms output impedance won't hardly change the FR of such high Z phones.  The important thing is the ratio of the 'phones impedance to its impedance plus the amp's impedance.  At its peak near 100hz the T1 measures 1400 ohms and at it minimum of 600 ohms is around 3khz.  1400/1410 and 600/610 are pretty close.   All that slope means is that the amp will need a good voltage swing which the PB2 should provide if the specs are accurate.  That extra output impedance will quite audibly effect things like BA IEMs though. A peak of 40 ohms @ 1.5khz (40/50) and trough of 10 ohms at 6khz (10/20) translates into a few dBs worth of difference but I'm tired as it is and don't feel like doing the math...


----------



## b0ck3n

Quote:


maverickronin said:


> Quote:
> 
> No way.  In absolute terms HD800's impedance curve is a bunny slope compared to the black diamonds of the T1.  The T1 is way off the scale at Headroom but Tyll's new site has impedance graphs with a proper scale on the Y axis.
> 
> In practice it won't matter anyway.  Only 10 ohms output impedance won't hardly change the FR of such high Z phones.  The important thing is the ratio of the 'phones impedance to its impedance plus the amp's impedance.  At its peak near 100hz the T1 measures 1400 ohms and at it minimum of 600 ohms is around 3khz.  1400/1410 and 600/610 are pretty close.   All that slope means is that the amp will need a good voltage swing which the PB2 should provide if the specs are accurate.  That extra output impedance will quite audibly effect things like BA IEMs though. A peak of 40 ohms @ 1.5khz (40/50) and trough of 10 ohms at 6khz (10/20) translates into a few dBs worth of difference but I'm tired as it is and don't feel like doing the math...


 

 I really appreciate the explanations you guys are providing, and realize that it isn't far off from trying to teach a monkey how to shred arpeggios.
   
  One more question if I may, since you mentioned BA IEMs. Is there any benefit to amplifying a BA IEM other than achieving higher volumes? As they're usually low impedance and high sensitivity, volume isn't much of an issue straight out of a DAP - I'm just curious whether the extra power has its benefits.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> .........This thread is discussing how subjective impressions relate to objective measurements.  My main points are 1) Just because the system of measurements we have today isn't completely perfect doesn't mean we can or should ignore them in areas which have been shown to work.  2)  Measurements may not exactly be able to tell you what you'll like but the they can as surely as death and taxes tell you what's more accurate.
> 
> ........


 

 I liked that so much it is worth highlighting.
   
  If measurements find either no difference or a difference so small as to be inaudible, then any audibility is not in the kit, it is in the listeners mind and has been created by being able to see what we are listening to. We also know that becuase ABX tests find that without sight, many audible differences disappear.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> I'm curious about how output impedance and its effects on how headphones perform. Afaik, the ideal output impedance would be 0, and as soon as that number rises, changes occur in the signal. Very few manufacturers specify output impedance, even fewer produce frequency response measurements.


 
  I'm not much of a headphones expert. I know that with loudspeakers a low output impedance is desirable, for both frequency response and damping. I'd think the same applies to 'phones, but I honestly don't know. Ronin mentioned an exception, so maybe he can elaborate on "why" a low output impedance doesn't always matter. I can tell you that any amp that doesn't have at least minimum published specs is probably not worth considering. Frequency response and output impedance are both very simple to measure.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> people who have just as much experience (or more) with audio matters than Ethan contradict some of his statements.


 
  You can use Argument From Authority all day long, but it doesn't make your case. The difference between you and others who disagree with me, and me, is that I can explain the facts clearly and succinctly. I can explain what _and also why_ every single time. They never can, so the result is often anger and then insults.
   
  Quote:


> I still have more questions for Ethan about null tests, questions that were not addressed in his video. For instance, it isn't clear to me how certain phenomena are registered to begin with so that they can, in turn, be nulled by the test. Is "sparkling sound" just a measure of how high the frequency goes? What does depth of soundstage look like when you measure it? How about the air around the strings, how natural their tone is, or whether a recording conveys the "wind" or "fanning" effect that you get when you attend a live classical music concert? How do these things show up as measurements?


   
  Not understanding "how certain phenomena are registered" is a big part of the problem. You fail to understand some of the most basic things that define what audio is. In this case, audio is changes in air pressure for acoustic sound, and changes in signal voltages for audio passing through wires and gear. So all sound is "registered" as these changes. Once you understand that, then you understand why a null test shows all (electrical) differences.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> what I said was if it measures phenomenally, but sounds like crap...then "measurements be damned". Not that we should dispose of measurements, but they should be used hand in hand with our ears so to speak.


 
  The better explanation for "measures phenomenally, but sounds like crap" is to learn how to measure the right things.
  
  Quote: 





macedonianhero said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  This is very simple. IMO all audio "playback" equipment (versus creative recording / mixing effects) should aim to pass audio without changing it or adding anything new. This is definitely possible, and lots of gear is clean enough to not change the sound audibly. Sure, everything adds some amount of distortion, and skews the frequency response some amount. But if those changes are small enough they won't be heard. For example, a response within 0.1 dB is close enough to flat to not hear, and distortion and noise 80+ dB below the music will not be heard while the music plays. So if the standard tests for audio gear show that the gear is audibly transparent, then it will have no sound. And in turn you can know it will sound like any other transparent device.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> I really appreciate the explanations you guys are providing, and realize that it isn't far off from trying to teach a monkey how to shred arpeggios.
> 
> One more question if I may, since you mentioned BA IEMs. Is there any benefit to amplifying a BA IEM other than achieving higher volumes? As they're usually low impedance and high sensitivity, volume isn't much of an issue straight out of a DAP - I'm just curious whether the extra power has its benefits.


 

 IME BA IEMs seem to be very sensitive to the quality of the amping.  I think its because they are bout low Z and very efficient.  They let you hear more of the source if it isn't completly transparent.  Also they do have rather crazy looking impedance curves as I showed in the link above.  I haven't done any blinded testing to back this up, but in sighted AB comparisons I notice differences between some amps that I don't notice with higher Z and/or less efficient 'phones.  Maybe its output impedance, maybe its something else electrical, maybe its placebo.  I don't have the equipment to measure it.
   
  Some DAPs, like the Clip+, shouldn't have trouble driving most BA IEMs from the numbers I've seen which indicate low output impedance and another important factor for such small and cheap amps, no bass roll off with low Z loads.  My otherwise excellent Cowon D2+ does this.  Since the DAP market is such a disaster you've got to make a sacrifice somewhere and picked a flaw that can be remedied with another piece of equipment.  The High Z input impedance of any half decent amp will bring the bass back up.  I also tend to get fatigued rather easily without some sort of crossfeed and picked an amp (the XM6) that has that feature.  That's way overkill for just IEMs on the go but it also serves a my DAC at work and can power my full size 'phones at home as well.

 Depending on your player, even a cheap amp may help with IEMs.  Fiio is coming out with a slim and sleek 3 channel active ground portable amp for around $60 which looks to be a decent choice if your need to choose a player with a so-so amp for other reasons like interface, formats, or storage.  I'd be all over it if it has crossfeed too.
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I liked that so much it is worth highlighting.
> 
> If measurements find either no difference or a difference so small as to be inaudible, then any audibility is not in the kit, it is in the listeners mind and has been created by being able to see what we are listening to. We also know that becuase ABX tests find that without sight, many audible differences disappear.


 






   
  Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> I'm not much of a headphones expert. I know that with loudspeakers a low output impedance is desirable, for both frequency response and damping. I'd think the same applies to 'phones, but I honestly don't know. Ronin mentioned an exception, so maybe he can elaborate on "why" a low output impedance doesn't always matter. I can tell you that any amp that doesn't have at least minimum published specs is probably not worth considering. Frequency response and output impedance are both very simple to measure.
> 
> --Ethan


 

 That does apply to conventional ("dynamic" as they are called in these parts) transducers with a diaphragm and a voice coil surrounding a magnet which are just miniature versions of traditional loudspeakers.  Some speakers and and increasing number of very popular headphones around here are alternatingly called orthodynamic, isodynamic, and planar magnetic and work a bit differently.  They are almost completely mechanically damped (often with precisely tuned layers of felt or other fabric) because they don't put out much (any?) back EMF in the first place and so they have no need of low output impedances to electrically damp them.  Second, they are almost purely resistive loads so the impedance of the driver is almost completely flat over the whole audible spectrum and won't cause the FR to vary due to the output impedance of the amp.
   
  That's why AFAIK, amplifier output impedance doesn't matter for those types of drivers.


----------



## b0ck3n

Quote:


maverickronin said:


> IME BA IEMs seem to be very sensitive to the quality of the amping.  I think its because they are bout low Z and very efficient.  They let you hear more of the source if it isn't completly transparent.  Also they do have rather crazy looking impedance curves as I showed in the link above.  I haven't done any blinded testing to back this up, but in sighted AB comparisons I notice differences between some amps that I don't notice with higher Z and/or less efficient 'phones.  Maybe its output impedance, maybe its something else electrical, maybe its placebo.  I don't have the equipment to measure it.
> 
> Some DAPs, like the Clip+, shouldn't have trouble driving most BA IEMs from the numbers I've seen which indicate low output impedance and another important factor for such small and cheap amps, no bass roll off with low Z loads.  My otherwise excellent Cowon D2+ does this.  Since the DAP market is such a disaster you've got to make a sacrifice somewhere and picked a flaw that can be remedied with another piece of equipment.  The High Z input impedance of any half decent amp will bring the bass back up.  I also tend to get fatigued rather easily without some sort of crossfeed and picked an amp (the XM6) that has that feature.  That's way overkill for just IEMs on the go but it also serves a my DAC at work and can power my full size 'phones at home as well.
> 
> Depending on your player, even a cheap amp may help with IEMs.  Fiio is coming out with a slim and sleek 3 channel active ground portable amp for around $60 which looks to be a decent choice if your need to choose a player with a so-so amp for other reasons like interface, formats, or storage.  I'd be all over it if it has crossfeed too.


 

 So it's basically only beneficial when forced to use a crap DAP. I haven't seen any measurements of the iPhone 4, but I haven't noticed any audible flaws either. Perhaps I should just relax and enjoy the music then


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> That does apply to conventional ("dynamic" as they are called in these parts) transducers with a diaphragm and a voice coil surrounding a magnet which are just miniature versions of traditional loudspeakers.  Some speakers and and increasing number of very popular headphones around here are alternatingly called orthodynamic, isodynamic, and planar magnetic and work a bit differently.  They are almost completely mechanically damped (often with precisely tuned layers of felt or other fabric) because they don't put out much (any?) back EMF in the first place and so they have no need of low output impedances to electrically damp them.  Second *As a result*, they are almost purely resistive loads so the impedance of the driver is almost completely flat over the whole audible spectrum and won't cause the FR to vary due to the output impedance of the amp.
> 
> That's why AFAIK, amplifier output impedance doesn't matter for those types of drivers *beyond voltage transfer efficiency*.


 

 Just clarified a few things there.
   
   
   
   
  Also, I must say that personally I don't really like the "orthodynamic" and "isodynamic" terms...  They're more or less marketing terms used by Yamaha and Peerless (orthodynamic); Wharfdale (isodynamic); Sansui and Aiwa called them "omni-dynamic"; Fostex called them "RP type" for "regular phase"; and so on...
   
  While none of those terms are necessarily wrong (or really less accurate in describing the driver than "dynamic" is, respectively), they're not the best terms IMHO.  "Orthodynamic" is a combination of "orthogonal" and "dynamic", more or less meaning "pertaining to, characteristic of, or acted upon by forces at right angles"; and "isodynamic" means, similarly (and I take this from dictionary.com):
   

   Having equal force or strength. 
   Connecting points of equal magnetic intensity. 
   
  While both are true, they could be applied to one degree or another to both electrostatic and conventional coil ("dynamic") drivers.  Planar magnetic, however, avoids that entirely, although it doesn't preclude true ribbon drivers (although nor do ortho/iso-dynamic).
   
  Anyway, I suppose it doesn't really matter so much, as long as everyone understands what's being talked about.  I'm just picking nits, having come from the speaker world where "planar magnetic" is perhaps the most well-understood term.  "Ribbon" (as refers to true ribbon drivers), however, is often misused for planar magnetic drivers like Infinity's EMIT and Magnepans...  That's actually the first term I knew for such drivers, until I learned about the difference in operating principle.
   
   
   
   
  Anyway, let's get back to designing plasma headphones...


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Just clarified a few things there.
> 
> Also, I must say that personally I don't really like the "orthodynamic" and "isodynamic" terms...  They're more or less marketing terms used by Yamaha and Peerless (orthodynamic); Wharfdale (isodynamic); Sansui and Aiwa called them "omni-dynamic"; Fostex called them "RP type" for "regular phase"; and so on...
> 
> ...


 

 I don't really think the name matters that much, but I'm not a professional engineer either...
   
  Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> So it's basically only beneficial when forced to use a crap DAP. I haven't seen any measurements of the iPhone 4, but I haven't noticed any audible flaws either. Perhaps I should just relax and enjoy the music then


 

 Well, you've got to pick you poison.  IMO there isn't a single good DAP on the market.  They all have a fatal flaw somewhere.  Using an amp with my D2 is way easier than hacking an SD slot into an iDevice or fixing the UI.  The clip+ even had the "pitch problem" until rockbox fixed it.  It still doesn't support SDXC though.  The Fiio X3 may be the first decent DAP since the venerable Rio Karma if its UI isn't a mess.  I'd prefer not to have to hire a retinue of pixies to help me swap micro SD cards, but even the Karma wasn't perfect.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> Bringing dark energy into electric and acoustic engineering is so out here that I'm truly at a loss of words, next thing we know, he'll be bringing Special Relativity onto internal combustion engines.


 


 I was trying to understand what an audio null test is, and the closest approximation I had to that was the kind of nulling they do in astronomy. It was merely a point of comparison.


----------



## Heidegger

deleted by author


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





arnaldo said:


> The AES paper below seems to confirm the benefits of high-rez, albeit limited to comparisons between 44.1 and 88.2 kHz. I wonder what their findings would be with even higher resolution formats such as DXD (352.8 kHz 24 Bit PCM) and/or DSD...
> 
> *AES E-Library*
> *Sampling Rate Discrimination: 44.1 kHz vs. 88.2 kHz*
> ...


 


 'The dCS PCM converters were, and still are, considered among the very best in the World, yet switching between the “SA-CD” and “CD” versions showed the clear improvements that DSD could bring to recording.  The rasp on strings was better.  The ORR uses period instruments and the _thwacks_ of the small timpani sounded like wood hitting skin.  There was an ease to the sound that was missing in the “CD” version.  The “CD” image seemed to be two-dimensional in comparison (even when listened to in multi-channel).  The start of the 4th Movement begins with a quiet string section that is joined by the horns as the level begins to build.  It was this 90 second section that demonstrated one of the biggest benefits of high-resolution recording: the sound of horns.  If there is one thing that CD cannot do, it is reproduce a horn playing loudly.  As the sound begins to expand from the bell, something seems to go wrong and it sounds like the notes are being pinched or squeezed.  The DSD version allowed the notes to build naturally.  We were all dumbfounded.
  Still, the most telling part of these test recordings was listening to the silences, the pauses between recordings.  Anyone who has stood in an empty concert hall has heard the “room-tone”, the sound of an empty room.  Listening to this in multi-channel DSD was a revelation.  For me, it was the thing that really made you feel like you were back in the Colosseum.  Bizarrely, even the room-tone sounded different between the “SA-CD” and “CD” versions!' Source:
   
http://www.superaudiocenter.com/DemRep.htm


----------



## Heidegger

Would the quality of the headphone jack make a difference? I also had a question regarding impedance, but I bundled it into my next post.
  Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> Someone PM'd me a question for this thread, but I can't get this site's PM to work at all. And I prefer not to use PM anyway. So here's what was asked:
> 
> _I'm wondering if an amp can have any positive effects other than more volume?_
> 
> ...


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> I'm surprised that your explanation does not take impedence into account. Some headphones need to be driven. Isn't it true that not all amps may be able to drive a certain headphone. My Headroom Micro couldn't fully drive my 300 Ohm 650, while my new amp can. The difference is audible. My receiver couldn't fully drive them either. Also, I have heard that a quality headphone jack also makes a difference.


 

 I think your forgetting that things like amps are best measured into _actual loads_ that replicate a voice coil.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> So we see its effects but is doesn't, "show up on any test or analysis."  Makes perfect sense to me!


 


 No, it doesn't show up on any test or analysis because it has never been detected; they don't know what or even _where_ it is. (To explain it, some theorists have posited other dimensions.) Another theory has to do with the latent energy associated with recently broken symmetry. For example, there is a product called Easy Heat used by campers. The packets contain supercooled water (sodium acetate solution). When you disturb the solution, the symmetry is broken and the solution crystallizes. During the phase shift from liquid to solid, the solution releases latent energy as heat, and the packets get pretty hot. They can be used for warming. Some physicists speculate that dark energy is some kind of force associated with a recently broken symmetry on a cosmological scale.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> You can use Argument From Authority all day long, but it doesn't make your case. The difference between you and others who disagree with me, and me, is that I can explain the facts clearly and succinctly. I can explain what _and also why_ every single time. They never can, so the result is often anger and then insults.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


 

 Well, how specific phenomena such as depth of soundstage and brilliancy are measured and registered is what I'm trying to understand, but I can see that you're not going to explain it in detail here. In any case, areas of compression and rarefaction (air movement) is basically what a sound wave is. But a sound wave is not something on a graph. What you see as a measurement during a test and what you actually perceive when you listen to a recording are not the same thing any more than thinking of the ocean is the same as the electrical processes occuring in my brain when I think about the ocean. Now, you _feel_ when air is being pushed around. When I use my micro amp or when I listen to CDs, I don't feel as much air being pushed around as I do when I use my Lehmann and listen to SACD. My Headroom Micro amp has no problem driving my 650 volume wise; that is, it can make my 650 sound very loud. But it can't reproduce the texture as well as the Lehmann does -- that is, the _sensation_ you get when you feel the air being moved against your ear, say with deep bass. Also my Lehmann, while it doesn't make the soundstage wider, adds depth, not to mention that all the instruments seem to grow in size when I listen via the Lehmann BCL as opposed to the Headroom Micro. Isn't this perhaps a sign that the Micro can't properly drive the 650? In which case, there would be other factors to consider when choosing a headphone amp than just transparency or coloration.
   
  In a previous post you mentioned wasted bandwidth. I'm not sure why you would believe that we must conserve bandwidth. Why shouldn't you let a frequency go as high as it wants to, even if you can't hear it. Is there a reason why we should not waste bandwidth?


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> No, it doesn't show up on any test or analysis because it has never been detected; they don't know what or even _where_ it is. (To explain it, some theorists have posited other dimensions.) Another theory has to do with the latent energy associated with recently broken symmetry. For example, there is a product called Easy Heat used by campers. The packets contain supercooled water (sodium acetate solution). When you disturb the solution, the symmetry is broken and the solution crystallizes. During the phase shift from liquid to solid, the solution releases latent energy as heat, and the packets get pretty hot. They can be used for warming. Some physicists speculate that dark energy is some kind of force associated with a recently broken symmetry on a cosmological scale.


 

 You continue to set the bar higher and higher.  Or is that lower and lower?  I can't even tell anymore.
   
  Quote: 





heidegger said:


> In a previous post you mentioned wasted bandwidth. I'm not sure why you would believe that we must conserve bandwidth. Why shouldn't you let a frequency go as high as it wants to, even if you can't hear it.* Is there a reason why we should not waste bandwidth? *


 

 Because it costs money and space.  You might as well collect jars of air...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Would the quality of the headphone jack make a difference?


 

 Please remember this is not a speculation thread as they create and further audiophile myths. Please ABX headphone jacks and post your results, OR STOP SPECULATING!!!!!


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> 'The dCS PCM converters were, and still are, considered among the very best in the World, yet switching between the “SA-CD” and “CD” versions showed the clear improvements that DSD could bring to recording.  The rasp on strings was better.  The ORR uses period instruments and the _thwacks_ of the small timpani sounded like wood hitting skin.  There was an ease to the sound that was missing in the “CD” version.  The “CD” image seemed to be two-dimensional in comparison (even when listened to in multi-channel).  The start of the 4th Movement begins with a quiet string section that is joined by the horns as the level begins to build.  It was this 90 second section that demonstrated one of the biggest benefits of high-resolution recording: the sound of horns.  If there is one thing that CD cannot do, it is reproduce a horn playing loudly.  As the sound begins to expand from the bell, something seems to go wrong and it sounds like the notes are being pinched or squeezed.  The DSD version allowed the notes to build naturally.  We were all dumbfounded.
> Still, the most telling part of these test recordings was listening to the silences, the pauses between recordings.  Anyone who has stood in an empty concert hall has heard the “room-tone”, the sound of an empty room.  Listening to this in multi-channel DSD was a revelation.  For me, it was the thing that really made you feel like you were back in the Colosseum.  Bizarrely, even the room-tone sounded different between the “SA-CD” and “CD” versions!' Source:
> 
> http://www.superaudiocenter.com/DemRep.htm


 

  
   
  It is trivial to detect amazing differences when you know you are listening to different things, there are endlesss sighted comparisons showing the superiirity of X over Y, the above is just one more...


----------



## jcx

multichannel is quite different - not a good basis for reasoning about 2-channel or headphone listening "soundstage" or "imaging" illusions - it was known from the beginning of Stereo that 3 channel with a center speaker gave much better spatial clues - it was just that Stereo was easy to add on to existing modulation schemes and was still a big step up from mono
   
  people in general don't seem to appreciate the modern understanding of "Signal Channels" - especially in the electrical domain we can be very certain of the quality/integrity/accuracy of the signal transmission between the microphone, through the recording/playback process to the Volts (and current) at your loudspeaker or headphone
   
  "soundstage", "imaging", "realism", "emotion" are all properties evoked in your brain after processing the reproduced sound waves - engineering doesn't know why or how - but we do know the how and why of accurately transferring the signals in the Studio to the headphone drivers on your head


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> That does apply to conventional ("dynamic" as they are called in these parts) transducers with a diaphragm and a voice coil surrounding a magnet which are just miniature versions of traditional loudspeakers.  Some speakers and and increasing number of very popular headphones around here are alternatingly called orthodynamic, isodynamic, and planar magnetic and work a bit differently.  They are almost completely mechanically damped (often with precisely tuned layers of felt or other fabric) because they don't put out much (any?) back EMF in the first place and so they have no need of low output impedances to electrically damp them.  Second, they are almost purely resistive loads so the impedance of the driver is almost completely flat over the whole audible spectrum and won't cause the FR to vary due to the output impedance of the amp. That's why AFAIK, amplifier output impedance doesn't matter for those types of drivers.


 

 Excellent thanks.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Would the quality of the headphone jack make a difference? I also had a question regarding impedance, but I bundled it into my next post.


 

 Only if it's broken or intermittent.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Heidegger* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> Well, how specific phenomena such as depth of soundstage and brilliancy are measured and registered is what I'm trying to understand, but I can see that you're not going to explain it in detail here.
> 
> In a previous post you mentioned wasted bandwidth. I'm not sure why you would believe that we must conserve bandwidth. Why shouldn't you let a frequency go as high as it wants to, even if you can't hear it. Is there a reason why we should not waste bandwidth?


 

 I have explained this many times already in this thread. Depth of sound stage etc is a psychoacoustic phenomenon that is unrelated to "measuring" the fidelity of audio gear. Since the main discussion has been about burn-in, and cables, and other things that affect the performance of gear, how humans perceive depth and width etc is totally unrelated.
   
  As for why we don't want to waste bandwidth, that's very simple. If a normal CD can hold up to 80 minutes of music, you'd get only about 30 minutes at 24/96. All your Wave or FLAC files would also be 2.5 times larger, and would take 2.5 times longer to download or email to friends. It seems to me that waste is waste, no matter how low the cost.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Ethan, bandwidth is very inexpensive today, as is storage. CD's are just too limiting, and time consuming to manage. The cost/time issue for downloads is a non-issue for many folks. Where I live, with fiber to our homes, 25Mbps (up and down) is pretty standard. Besides, I don't send my music around via e-mail as that invites piracy and the like. However, it's pretty easy to drag my portable hard disk full of FLAC files to my friends house!


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Peripherally related, here's an interesting article from the NYT's on dissecting music, the brain and the interpretation of musicality: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/science/19brain.html


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Ethan, bandwidth is very inexpensive today, as is storage. CD's are just too limiting, and time consuming to manage. The cost/time issue for downloads is a non-issue for many folks. Where I live, with *fiber to our homes, 25Mbps (up and down)* is pretty standard. Besides, I don't send my music around via e-mail as that invites piracy and the like. However, it's pretty easy to drag my portable hard disk full of FLAC files to my friends house!


 


 Unless you have a commercial/business account you'll get cut off real fast if you try to actually _use _it all...


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Unless you have a commercial/business account you'll get cut off real fast if you try to actually _use _it all...


 
   
  Depends on where you live, in France for example, all DSL connexions have had unlimited data transfer up and down since the earliest 512K ones. Of course, for an 25Mbps down, you usually get a 5Mbps up (though symmetrical up/down is getting more popular these days), but the amount of data you transfer is still unlimited.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Use it every day, obviously. It's a residential account. No problems. 
   
  If we were to saturate the line over a long period of time, it might look suspicious, but we're not talking data center quality of service. There might be bursts, but downloading hi-rez material is not an issues. These new lines are designed with hi-bandwidth requirements for streaming movies, music, etc. They also support telephony services. 
  
  Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Unless you have a commercial/business account you'll get cut off real fast if you try to actually _use _it all...


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Well, how specific phenomena such as depth of soundstage and brilliancy are measured and registered is what I'm trying to understand, but I can see that you're not going to explain it in detail here. In any case, areas of compression and rarefaction (air movement) is basically what a sound wave is. But a sound wave is not something on a graph.


 
   
  Here is a decent introduction to the construction of space & soundstage from interaural time, spectral and delay information, all contained in sound waves.  We really don't have to make it up from scratch (and lack of knowledge about something does not mean that it is unknowable/unknown).


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Use it every day, obviously. It's a residential account. No problems.
> 
> If we were to *saturate the line over a long period of time, it might look suspicious,* but we're not talking data center quality of service. There might be bursts, but downloading hi-rez material is not an issues. These new lines are designed with hi-bandwidth requirements for streaming movies, music, etc. They also support telephony services.


 

 As far as I'm concerned, that's considered actually using it.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> You continue to set the bar higher and higher.  Or is that lower and lower?  I can't even tell anymore.


 

 Here's what I'm driving at: appeals to science, even in audio, while powerful, are not always conclusive, even in areas where the physics is thought to be thoroughly understood and determined. Take the belief that nothing can move faster than light. This tenet was held to be inviolable up until thirty years ago, but it was wrong. In the 1980s scientists discovered that there is something that can indeed move faster than light, and that thing is space. Hence inflation, the incredibly rapid exponential expansion of the universe after the big bang. Space itself expanded faster then the speed of light, and did so without violating relativity, which says that particles can't travel _through_ space faster than light. No one dreamed that the expansion of space _itself_ could outstrip light. During inflation, space grew at a faster rate than light can travel.
   
  "At the end of the 19th c.  a number of famous physicists claimed that we knew everything. There was supposedly nothing else to be learned. Everything else was just a detail -- engineering, in a sense. Then along came quantum mechanics and general relativity and special relativity and changed the world. We shouldn't think that we know it all." - Alex Filippenko
   
  "There are many things that physicists and astronomers are doing now which twenty years ago would have been thought impossible." - A. F.
   
  "Look at the history of physics. We've often thought we _know_ how things work, and we were wrong." - A. F.
   
  So when anybody says to me, "That's physically impossible," I always leave open the possibility that it might be possible after all.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> 1. I have explained this many times already in this thread. Depth of sound stage etc is a psychoacoustic phenomenon that is unrelated to "measuring" the fidelity of audio gear. Since the main discussion has been about burn-in, and cables, and other things that affect the performance of gear, how humans perceive depth and width etc is totally unrelated.
> 
> 2. As for why we don't want to waste bandwidth, that's very simple. If a normal CD can hold up to 80 minutes of music, you'd get only about 30 minutes at 24/96. All your Wave or FLAC files would also be 2.5 times larger, and would take 2.5 times longer to download or email to friends. It seems to me that waste is waste, no matter how low the cost.
> 
> --Ethan


 

 1. Thank you for the straightforward answer.
   
  2. None of that is a problem with SACD.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Here's what I'm driving at: appeals to science, even in audio, while powerful, are not always conclusive, even in areas where the physics is thought to be thoroughly understood and determined. Take the belief that nothing can move faster than light. This tenet was held to be inviolable up until thirty years ago, but it was wrong. In the 1980s scientists discovered that there is something that can indeed move faster than light, and that thing is space. Hence inflation, the incredibly rapid exponential expansion of the universe after the big bang. Space itself expanded faster then the speed of light, and did so without violating relativity, which says that particles can't travel _through_ space faster than light. No one dreamed that the expansion of space _itself_ could outstrip light. During inflation, space grew at a faster rate than light can travel.
> 
> "At the end of the 19th c.  a number of famous physicists claimed that we knew everything. There was supposedly nothing else to be learned. Everything else was just a detail -- engineering, in a sense. Then along came quantum mechanics and general relativity and special relativity and changed the world. We shouldn't think that we know it all." - Alex Filippenko
> 
> ...


 



 Here is what we are driving at. It is so unlikely that there is a special audiophile electrical property, so far unknown to science that causes the likes of cables to sound different, that to believe there is one needs the suspension of reasonable belief. Now before you go on and say, yes and so there can still be such a property consider that ABX testing has repeatedly shown people cannot make out differences in sound. So, even if this highly unlikely property does exist, it is not audible.
   
  Furthermore, sighted and blind listening shows that knowing what you are listening to has a major influence on sound. So there is a lot of evidence to show it is the senses and not the hifi that causes the differences so many report, but wrongly attribute to cables etc.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> It is so unlikely that there is a special audiophile electrical property, so far unknown to science that causes the likes of cables to sound different, that to believe there is one needs the suspension of reasonable belief.


 
   
  Yes, especially since a null test would reveal any "special / previously unknown" properties. As I've explained at least a dozen times already in this thread.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## inarc

heidegger said:


> Take the belief that nothing can move faster than light. This tenet was held to be inviolable up until thirty years ago, but it was wrong. In the 1980s scientists discovered that there is something that can indeed move faster than light, and that thing is space. Hence inflation, the incredibly rapid exponential expansion of the universe after the big bang. Space itself expanded faster then the speed of light, and did so without violating relativity, which says that particles can't travel _through_ space faster than light. No one dreamed that the expansion of space _itself_ could outstrip light.



You contradict yourself with this example. The belief that nothing can move faster than light has not been disproven by the expansion of space because the expansion of space is not vectorial movement and hence space doesn't "move" (in which medium could it possibly move?). You seem to have misrepresented the theory of relativity or rather the scientific understanding thereof in the first two sentences and then corrected yourself in the following ones.
And even if some currently upheld scientific model turns out to be wrong in the future, this does not mean that anyone can just claim anything with the sole fallacious argument that science isn't omniscient or infallible. The burden of scientific proof rests on those who make unconventional claims.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Here's what I'm driving at: appeals to science, even in audio, while powerful, are not always conclusive, even in areas where the physics is thought to be thoroughly understood and determined. Take the belief that nothing can move faster than light. This tenet was held to be inviolable up until thirty years ago, but it was wrong. In the 1980s scientists discovered that there is something that can indeed move faster than light, and that thing is space. Hence inflation, the incredibly rapid exponential expansion of the universe after the big bang. Space itself expanded faster then the speed of light, and did so without violating relativity, which says that particles can't travel _through_ space faster than light. No one dreamed that the expansion of space _itself_ could outstrip light. During inflation, space grew at a faster rate than light can travel.
> 
> "At the end of the 19th c.  a number of famous physicists claimed that we knew everything. There was supposedly nothing else to be learned. Everything else was just a detail -- engineering, in a sense. Then along came quantum mechanics and general relativity and special relativity and changed the world. We shouldn't think that we know it all." - Alex Filippenko
> 
> ...


 

  
  Putting aside the fact that you have no idea what you are actually talking about, appeals to stupidity, insanity, and faith are demonstrably less useful than the scientific method.


----------



## Antony6555

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Here's what I'm driving at: appeals to science, even in audio, while powerful, are not always conclusive,


 

 A dbt is not so much an appeal to science so much as an appeal to common sense. It is not based on quantitative measurements, all it tests is whether you can personally hear a difference


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





inarc said:


> > (in which medium could it possibly move?).


 

 In hyperspace. I understand your objection, but the point is that there's a physical process that happens at a faster rate than light can move. Of course, the big bang theory (and hence inflation as well) is being challenged by brane theory, which says that what we call the big bang wasn't the origin of the universe at all, that it was actually a collision between two parts of the multiverse. Another article of faith of the scientific community -- the big bang -- might be on its way out.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Putting aside the fact that you have no idea what you are actually talking about, appeals to stupidity, insanity, and faith are demonstrably less useful than the scientific method.


 

 People were making music long before Pythagoras divided his monochord and discovered the harmonic ratios, which is why I fundamentally disagree with Ethan's claim that without science we'd still be banging on rocks in some cave. No one is saying that science isn't useful, but it also isn't the be all and end all of existence. And I have news for you, even science makes a lot of assumptions.


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> And I have news for you, even science makes a lot of assumptions.


 

 But assumptions based on repeatable demonstrations.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Heidegger* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> No one is saying that science isn't useful, but it also isn't the be all and end all of existence. And I have news for you, even science makes a lot of assumptions.


 

 Science is _how _we understand what actually exists.  Also as far as I'm aware, the only axiomatic assumptions that you need to make to do science are the laws of logic.  If you are interested in disproving logic then I suggest you give up because its impossible either way.  If the laws of logic are true then you obviously can't disprove them and if they aren't true then you can't prove or disprove _anything_.  It also makes it, by definition, impossible to have a reasonable discussion.  If that's actually the position you take, then I kindly invite you to leave for those two reasons.
   
  Now before you cry foul I must once again remind you that any example you have so far given as an "assumption" is actually a _conclusion _formed by hundreds of years of inquiry.  They are taken to be true because of the amount of evidence in their favor and lack of evidence against them.  They still may be false but until there is actual evidence to support that idea there is no reason to believe it and lots of reasons not to.  _That _is an actual assumption.


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Quote:
> 
> Science is _how _we understand what actually exists.  Also as far as I'm aware, the only axiomatic assumptions that you need to make to do science are the laws of logic.  If you are interested in disproving logic then I suggest you give up because its impossible either way.  If the laws of logic are true then you obviously can't disprove them and if they aren't true then you can't prove or disprove _anything_.  It also makes it, by definition, impossible to have a reasonable discussion.  If that's actually the position you take, then I kindly invite you to leave for those two reasons.


 

 Godel made an attempt though.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> Godel made an attempt though.


 

 Are you talking about the incompleteness therom or something else?


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Are you talking about the incompleteness therom or something else?


 

 Yes, though it's not to disprove logic per se.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> Yes, though it's not to disprove logic per se.


 

 I haven't extensively studied the issue but isn't the gist of it that axiomatic assumptions are necessary because no system can be completely proven from within itself?  Since the laws of logic appear to be what our reality is based on we would have to some how collect data from outside reality in order to prove them.
   
  If I'm understanding it correctly it doesn't serve to disprove logic, just to say that we can't prove it positively.
   
  EDIT: Just asking to clarify.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





mkubota1 said:


> But assumptions based on repeatable demonstrations.


 

 Of which there are loads in post 1 of this thread. That is the whole point of what is going on here.


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> I haven't extensively studied the issue but isn't the gist of it that axiomatic assumptions are necessary because no system can be completely proven from within itself?  Since the laws of logic appear to be what our reality is based on we would have to some how collect data from outside reality in order to prove them.
> 
> If I'm understanding it correctly it doesn't serve to disprove logic, just to say that we can't prove it positively.
> 
> EDIT: Just asking to clarify.


 

 Not quite, the gist of it is that given any consistent set of axioms, there are propositions that can neither be proven true or untrue. Godel did that for arithmetics, I have no idea how this could be applied elsewhere.


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Good god- that was so long ago.  What were we talking about again?


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Quote:
> 
> Science is _how _we understand what actually exists.  Also as far as I'm aware, the only axiomatic assumptions that you need to make to do science are the laws of logic.  If you are interested in disproving logic then I suggest you give up because its impossible either way.  If the laws of logic are true then you obviously can't disprove them and if they aren't true then you can't prove or disprove _anything_.  It also makes it, by definition, impossible to have a reasonable discussion.  If that's actually the position you take, then I kindly invite you to leave for those two reasons.
> 
> Now before you cry foul I must once again remind you that any example you have so far given as an "assumption" is actually a _conclusion _formed by hundreds of years of inquiry.  They are taken to be true because of the amount of evidence in their favor and lack of evidence against them.  They still may be false but until there is actual evidence to support that idea there is no reason to believe it and lots of reasons not to.  _That _is an actual assumption.


 

 Science makes many presuppositions, even suppositions that are accepted and posited _as_ suppositions by scientists themselves. They acknowledge these assumptions _as_ assumptions in order to make certain calculations about the universe. But there are more fundamental presuppostions that are not seen by science. The most fundammental presuppostion is the belief that the world is composed of physical objects. Science believes that the objective is the primary state of affairs -- what Kant called "the thing in itself" -- and that a subject (that is, subjectivity) is somehow added to this preexisting objective state of affairs. In truth however, just as a subject cannot exist without a world, neither can a world exist without a subject. What is taken as preexisting objects in truth only gain their existence, and thereby enter time, retroactively, through the experience of a being for whom time and existence are realities. The subject is essentially a clearing through which phenomena are freed from the oblivion in which they formerly "were," and only by being freed in this way do they show up as what they _are_. What science posits as preexisting "objects" of nature is actually a theoretical modification in the attitude of the subject, in which the primordial phenomenon is _stripped_ of its phenomenological content. This is accomplished by a process of theorizing. I begin with the whole (science instead begins with parts, particles, atoms, molecules, elements, cells, etc.) -- that is, with environmentality. I then single something out -- the hammer. Beginning with this hammer that I have singled out as an object of investigation, I begin to theorize: the hammer is brown, brown is a color; color is a genuine sense datum, a sense datum is a result of physical or physiological "processes," the primary cause is physical, this cause objectively is a determinate number of electromagnetic waves/photons that travel to my eyes through the air, the air is made up of simple elements, linking these are simple laws, the elements are ultimate, the elements are something in general (the ultimate element, previously and erroneously believed to be the atom, is now believed to be these irreducible vibrating strings as explained by string theory, but who knows what science will posit as the "ultimate element" fifty years from now). There is an assumption in science that if we thoroughly objectify nature we could learn what these things are. But objectifying a given phenomenon is precisely how you _don't_ find out what it is. The hammer is objectified -- and hence tacitly modified -- by treating it as an object of investigation. But as soon as I adopt this scientific attitude and turn the hammer into an object of investigation, I have thereby placed it in a different context. I have now placed it in a theoretical-scientific context. I have thereby _not_ turned it into a hammer (that is, I have not turned it into itself, because it was that all along _before_ I adopted a scientific attitude toward it). What I have done is turn it into an object of investigation. Now I investigate the hammer. I treat it the way Descartes treated the ball of wax -- as "a thing extended in space." I measure the hammer, I weigh it, I determine what elements it is composed of. I then look at a section of the hammer under an electron microscope. I note and observe the molecules of which it is composed and their structure, I note and observe the atoms, the subatomic particles, the electrons, ponder (for I can't actually observe it) their statistical cloud around the nucleus. I investigate the protons and neutrons, I calculate the atomic weight. I go even further and observe the quarks of which the larger subatomic particles are made, I go all the way down to the level of string theory and observe their characteristic vibrations. I have done all this, and yet _none of it _has told me what the hammer is. Indeed, the hammer is only a hammer when it has _not_ been turned into an object of scientific investigation to be analyzed and prodded. Indeed, the hammer is most truly a hammer in my *pre*scientific comportment toward the hammer. The less I _think_ and ponder about the hammer, the more I actually _use_ it in some task that has a _purpose_ to it, do I encounter the hammer _as_ a hammer. Hence, the most fundamental presupposition of science is its assumption -- the illusion it maintains -- that it could ever explain the world. Phenomena reveal themselves in their primordiality as being there _for_ us, and only by being there for us do they appear _as_ what they _are_. The worldview of science is actually a theoretical construction. Just listen to how scientists speak. The music we hear becomes "sound waves," it becomes "data." But this way of conceiving the world is only possible because the original phenomena have been taken out of their original context (for a context cannot exist without a situation, and to have a situation you must have a being such as a human being who is actually _in _a situation) and put into a highly _artificial_ scientific context. That is, the original phenomenon has been objectified, modified, turned into an object of investigation, and thus changed in a fundamental way.
   
  Similarly, the edifice of logic is built on a series of suppositions, for instance the basic axioms of geometry. On the basis of the basic propositions, I posit another proposition, which is also taken as valid. The "pre" in presupposition refers to a relation of logical ordering, a relation that holds between theoretical propositions, what Martin Heidegger calls "relations of founding and logical ground-laying: _if _this is valid, _so is that_." But this means that the validity even of propositions that are many generations away from the original logical axioms are dependent on the validity of the axioms upon which the edifice has been built. If, in the future, the basic axioms are found to be faulty, then it is conceivable that the conclusions built upon the basic propositions are called into question. Whether or not this turns out to be the case, it is at least theoretically possible, in which case, for all their worth, the edifice of logic is not to be taken as eternally binding. Even now, it has been determined that, depending on the overall geometry of the universe, there are scenarios in which parallel lines intersect.
   
  Instead of writing all of the above in answer to your comment, I could also have given you a single quotation originally spoken by a general who fought for the French Revolution (only later to be executed during the Reign of Terror): "To the Jacobins, cold reason weighs infinitely more than the warmth of pity and love."


----------



## Prog Rock Man

It is not the philosophers, it is the scientists who have and will discover how things work. All philosophy contributes is casting doubt by playing word games and digging into sematics.
   
  If I want to know if there is a difference between cables, I would head to physics, not philosophy.


----------



## inarc

heidegger said:


> In truth however, just as a subject cannot exist without a world, neither can a world exist without a subject. What is taken as preexisting objects in truth only gain their existence, and thereby enter time, retroactively, through the experience of a being for whom time and existence are realities.



Oh, so we are to distrust the presuppositions of the natural sciences and recognize yours as the "truth" instead? How convenient.
This discussion is futile, just as the majority on Head-Fi.org, and you may be a troll for rejecting the fundamentals of the natural sciences in a science (and not philosophy) subforum.


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> -snip-


 
   
  This is the science debate forum, if you want to speak of sound quality as what you experience, I find that a glass of a good single malt, a Lagavulin 16 for example, has a much much higher impact that any burn in in would have. Your long monologue may tell us how you approach science, but it simply is irrelevant as far as sound reproduction and high fidelity are concerned.


----------



## Arnaldo

Although somewhat cynical, your view of philosophy unfortunately rings true. While philosophers thrive on toying with the unanswerable, scientists work diligently to explain the unexplainable. So, for a factual analysis on possible sonic differences between audio components, one should indeed try physics or even psychology. But for an enlightening discussion on the appreciation of music, regardless of the audio chain, I'd much rather stick around a bunch of wacko philosophers...
  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> It is not the philosophers, it is the scientists who have and will discover how things work. All philosophy contributes is casting doubt by playing word games and digging into sematics.
> 
> If I want to know if there is a difference between cables, I would head to physics, not philosophy.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Cynical, bah!
   
  I decided not to continue after 1st year uni with philosophy after a tutorial involving the questions, how do you know it is red and does a tree make a noise when it falls down in a forrest and no one is there? I kept on refering to what physics tells us about red and noise, which annoyed the tutor no end!
   
  The reality of the matter is
   
   - people who can see what hifi they are listening to sometimes report hearing differences.
   
  - the descriptions of those differences vary and often contradict.
   
  - signal testing and null testing tells us what, if any differences there are between different parts of the hifi chain.
   
  - what we already know about what is audible to the human ear tells us that some measured differences are very likely to be audible and some are very unlikely not to be.
   
  - ABX testing then tells us further how likely or not a difference is audible or not.


----------



## rroseperry

heidegger said:


> But objectifying a given phenomenon is precisely how you _don't_ find out what it is. The hammer is objectified -- and hence tacitly modified -- by treating it as an object of investigation. But as soon as I adopt this scientific attitude and turn the hammer into an object of investigation, I have thereby placed it in a different context. I have now placed it in a theoretical-scientific context. I have thereby _not_ turned it into a hammer (that is, I have not turned it into itself, because it was that all along _before_ I adopted a scientific attitude toward it). What I have done is turn it into an object of investigation. Now I investigate the hammer. I treat it the way Descartes treated the ball of wax -- as "a thing extended in space." I measure the hammer, I weigh it, I determine what elements it is composed of. I then look at a section of the hammer under an electron microscope. I note and observe the molecules of which it is composed and their structure, I note and observe the atoms, the subatomic particles, the electrons, ponder (for I can't actually observe it) their statistical cloud around the nucleus. I investigate the protons and neutrons, I calculate the atomic weight. I go even further and observe the quarks of which the larger subatomic particles are made, I go all the way down to the level of string theory and observe their characteristic vibrations. I have done all this, and yet _none of it _has told me what the hammer is. Indeed, the hammer is only a hammer when it has _not_ been turned into an object of scientific investigation to be analyzed and prodded. Indeed, the hammer is most truly a hammer in my *pre*scientific comportment toward the hammer. The less I _think_ and ponder about the hammer, the more I actually _use_ it in some task that has a _purpose_ to it, do I encounter the hammer _as_ a hammer. "




Unlike philosophers, most scientists and ordinary people are able to keep two ideas in their head simultaneously, so that a hammer does not become _fundamentally_ something else when it's a matter of investigation. A thing (or the universe for that matter) remains its ineluctable self with all its uses and meanings as well as a thing to learn about. It's a matter of and, not or.

Also, if you knew anything about scientists, you'd understand that there's absolutely nothing cold about the work . The temperature of reason? a rhetorical flourish.

Sorry for the slap at philosophers, but this is the most egregious misuse of the practice of understanding why (i.e. philosophy) to condemn the practices of understanding how (science).


----------



## BlackbeardBen

You know, I've been thinking.
   
  Philosophy is like masturbation.  It accomplishes absolutely nothing useful, but sure feels good to those who do it...
   
  Okay, well _absolutely_ nothing is a bit of a stretch perhaps.  Philosophy has at least helped to lay down the foundations for the inductive reasoning process of the scientific method.
   
  But, why do we use science?  Why is it science that we use to explain everything around us today?

 Because it works.  It brings results.  It grows us our food.  It brings us our computers, our internet, our forums, our headphones and amplifiers.  It brings people to the moon.  It extends our lives, makes us comfortable when we're in pain, and overall improves our quality of life in highly tangible ways.
   
  Philosophy can't do that.  Nor should it.  It has its place - and that is not in discussions about signals theory and human audibility.


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> You know, I've been thinking.
> 
> Philosophy is like masturbation.  It accomplishes absolutely nothing useful, but sure feels good to those who do it...
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Ethics and logic are two branches of philosophy.
  Philosophy of the mind regularly crosses with psychology.
  Political philosophy led to the concept of the separation of the three powers...
   
  Saying that philosophy is masturbation and accomplishes nothing fruitful is plainly unfair.
   
  On the other hand, I agree that it has no place in signal theory.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Science makes many presuppositions, even suppositions that are accepted and posited _as_ suppositions by scientists themselves. They acknowledge these assumptions _as_ assumptions in order to make certain calculations about the universe. But there are more fundamental presuppostions that are not seen by science. The most fundammental presuppostion is the belief that the world is composed of physical objects. Science believes that the objective is the primary state of affairs -- what Kant called "the thing in itself" -- and that a subject (that is, subjectivity) is somehow added to this preexisting objective state of affairs. In truth however, just as a subject cannot exist without a world, neither can a world exist without a subject. What is taken as preexisting objects in truth only gain their existence, and thereby enter time, retroactively, through the experience of a being for whom time and existence are realities. The subject is essentially a clearing through which phenomena are freed from the oblivion in which they formerly "were," and only by being freed in this way do they show up as what they _are_. What science posits as preexisting "objects" of nature is actually a theoretical modification in the attitude of the subject, in which the primordial phenomenon is _stripped_ of its phenomenological content. This is accomplished by a process of theorizing. I begin with the whole (science instead begins with parts, particles, atoms, molecules, elements, cells, etc.) -- that is, with environmentality. I then single something out -- the hammer. Beginning with this hammer that I have singled out as an object of investigation, I begin to theorize: the hammer is brown, brown is a color; color is a genuine sense datum, a sense datum is a result of physical or physiological "processes," the primary cause is physical, this cause objectively is a determinate number of electromagnetic waves/photons that travel to my eyes through the air, the air is made up of simple elements, linking these are simple laws, the elements are ultimate, the elements are something in general (the ultimate element, previously and erroneously believed to be the atom, is now believed to be these irreducible vibrating strings as explained by string theory, but who knows what science will posit as the "ultimate element" fifty years from now). There is an assumption in science that if we thoroughly objectify nature we could learn what these things are. But objectifying a given phenomenon is precisely how you _don't_ find out what it is. The hammer is objectified -- and hence tacitly modified -- by treating it as an object of investigation. But as soon as I adopt this scientific attitude and turn the hammer into an object of investigation, I have thereby placed it in a different context. I have now placed it in a theoretical-scientific context. I have thereby _not_ turned it into a hammer (that is, I have not turned it into itself, because it was that all along _before_ I adopted a scientific attitude toward it). What I have done is turn it into an object of investigation. Now I investigate the hammer. I treat it the way Descartes treated the ball of wax -- as "a thing extended in space." I measure the hammer, I weigh it, I determine what elements it is composed of. I then look at a section of the hammer under an electron microscope. I note and observe the molecules of which it is composed and their structure, I note and observe the atoms, the subatomic particles, the electrons, ponder (for I can't actually observe it) their statistical cloud around the nucleus. I investigate the protons and neutrons, I calculate the atomic weight. I go even further and observe the quarks of which the larger subatomic particles are made, I go all the way down to the level of string theory and observe their characteristic vibrations. I have done all this, and yet _none of it _has told me what the hammer is. Indeed, the hammer is only a hammer when it has _not_ been turned into an object of scientific investigation to be analyzed and prodded. Indeed, the hammer is most truly a hammer in my *pre*scientific comportment toward the hammer. The less I _think_ and ponder about the hammer, the more I actually _use_ it in some task that has a _purpose_ to it, do I encounter the hammer _as_ a hammer. Hence, the most fundamental presupposition of science is its assumption -- the illusion it maintains -- that it could ever explain the world. Phenomena reveal themselves in their primordiality as being there _for_ us, and only by being there for us do they appear _as_ what they _are_. The worldview of science is actually a theoretical construction. Just listen to how scientists speak. The music we hear becomes "sound waves," it becomes "data." But this way of conceiving the world is only possible because the original phenomena have been taken out of their original context (for a context cannot exist without a situation, and to have a situation you must have a being such as a human being who is actually _in _a situation) and put into a highly _artificial_ scientific context. That is, the original phenomenon has been objectified, modified, turned into an object of investigation, and thus changed in a fundamental way.
> 
> Similarly, the edifice of logic is built on a series of suppositions, for instance the basic axioms of geometry. On the basis of the basic propositions, I posit another proposition, which is also taken as valid. The "pre" in presupposition refers to a relation of logical ordering, a relation that holds between theoretical propositions, what Martin Heidegger calls "relations of founding and logical ground-laying: _if _this is valid, _so is that_." But this means that the validity even of propositions that are many generations away from the original logical axioms are dependent on the validity of the axioms upon which the edifice has been built. If, in the future, the basic axioms are found to be faulty, then it is conceivable that the conclusions built upon the basic propositions are called into question. Whether or not this turns out to be the case, it is at least theoretically possible, in which case, for all their worth, the edifice of logic is not to be taken as eternally binding. Even now, it has been determined that, depending on the overall geometry of the universe, there are scenarios in which parallel lines intersect.
> 
> Instead of writing all of the above in answer to your comment, I could also have given you a single quotation originally spoken by a general who fought for the French Revolution (only later to be executed during the Reign of Terror): "To the Jacobins, cold reason weighs infinitely more than the warmth of pity and love."


 


  Chrome ate my post.  really got switch back to Firefox, so only a few points.
   
  Separate paragraphs enhance readability.
   
  More modern philosophers of science have much more useful things to say than Kant.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> On the other hand, I agree that it has no place in signal theory.


 


  Except that the only way to actually attack signal theory is to go straight to foundations like many here do.  If the whole world is actually just an amorphous collection of subjective impressions that only depend on what people think then all those centuries of investigation and experimentation don't mean anything and neither do the innumerable examples that allow you to live your daily life.  They aren't just attacking signal theory or electrical engineering.  Their target is the scientific method itself.  One of the only defense of such woo is to attack the very idea that the laws and principles governing out universe can be investigated, discovered, and understood to some degree 
   
  It seems irony know no limits.  In many ways, I think the personal computer is the pinnacle of our modern technology.  By harnessing the strange quantum properties of things far to small to observe directly we have created what is essentially a magic box which can manipulate data in any way imaginable.  Vast numbers of these are connected together to allow average people to communicate almost anything from most of the dry land on our planet and for a little bit more money over the rest of the land and the sea as well.
   
  Amid this symphony of science we are told that those same methodologies are inadequate to capture, record, and play back a waveform which rarely exceeds 20000Hz.  The mind boggles.  Its like trying to cut off the branch you're standing on with a rubber knife.  It stupid, impossible, and no one can figure out which aspect of it is worse...


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Except that the only way to actually attack signal theory is to go straight to foundations like many here do.  If the whole world is actually just an amorphous collection of subjective impressions that only depend on what people think then all those centuries of investigation and experimentation don't mean anything and neither do the innumerable examples that allow you to live your daily life.  They aren't just attacking signal theory or electrical engineering.  Their target is the scientific method itself.  One of the only defense of such woo is to attack the very idea that the laws and principles governing out universe can be investigated, discovered, and understood to some degree
> 
> It seems irony know no limits.  In many ways, I think the personal computer is the pinnacle of our modern technology.  By harnessing the strange quantum properties of things far to small to observe directly we have created what is essentially a magic box which can manipulate data in any way imaginable.  Vast numbers of these are connected together to allow average people to communicate almost anything from most of the dry land on our planet and for a little bit more money over the rest of the land and the sea as well.
> 
> Amid this symphony of science we are told that those same methodologies are inadequate to capture, record, and play back a waveform which rarely exceeds 20000Hz.  The mind boggles.  Its like trying to cut off the branch you're standing on with a rubber knife.  It stupid, impossible, and no one can figure out which aspect of it is worse...


 

 I'm not sure of how you understood my (imprecise) post, what I meant was that what Heidegger fed us about science is o dissociated from what science is that it is non sequitur basically. There are ways to refute  or modify the classical criteria of falsifiability, both Feyerabend and Lakatos have very interesting ideas, of course it would require that Heidegger first understood why and how the *basic Karl Popperesque* scientific method works.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> I'm not sure of how you understood my (imprecise) post, what I meant was that what Heidegger fed us about science is o dissociated from what science is that it is non sequitur basically. There are ways to refute  or modify the classical criteria of falsifiability, both Feyerabend and Lakatos have very interesting ideas, of course it would require that Heidegger first understood why and how the *basic Karl Popperesque* scientific method works.


 


  I kind of thought you were saying, along with Blackbeard, that this sort of semi-philosophical issue was OT and I was saying that it isn't  that all the facts, figures, and tests in the world mean nothing to Heidegger because he's not just disputing just their validity, he's disputing the methodology that generates them.  On that basis, no technical argument could persuade him because he seems to be convinced that all such arguments are flawed.  Its still stupid and baseless, but I don't really see it a as non-sequitur.  If reality really does work the way he seems to think it does then all the evidence in the would wouldn't matter because it was either gathered with a flawed methodology or because such evidence couldn't actually exist.  Because of this, arguments have to come from the "science isn't perfect but its the best we've got" angle.
   
  In essence, he's accusing us of trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when the existence of angels has yet to even be established.  Its so ass-backwards it makes my head hurt, but as always these arguments are conducted for the benefit of the lurkers and not those I argue against.


----------



## khaos974

^Quite so, his argument is somewhere between "dark energy make it sound better" and "science can't say anything about perception" with a dash of  "everything is relative". With such an incoherent view, I reserve myself the right to call it non sequitur. Lakatos has in interesting pov when he discusses the scientific method and the advancement of science, Heidegger? not so much.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Can we now call an end to the philosophy section of this thread, please?
   
  I am still working my way through the internet trying to find more testing, but many hopeful finds link back to tests I already know about. Very frustrating.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *maverickronin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> ...that this sort of semi-philosophical issue was OT and I was saying that it isn't  that all the facts, figures, and tests in the world mean nothing to Heidegger because he's not just disputing just their validity, he's disputing the methodology that generates them.  On that basis, no technical argument could persuade him because he seems to be convinced that all such arguments are flawed.  Its still stupid and baseless, but I don't really see it a as non-sequitur.  If reality really does work the way he seems to think it does then all the evidence in the would wouldn't matter because it was either gathered with a flawed methodology or because such evidence couldn't actually exist.  Because of this, arguments have to come from the "science isn't perfect but its the best we've got" angle.
> 
> In essence, he's accusing us of trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when the existence of angels has yet to even be established.  Its so ass-backwards it makes my head hurt, but as always these arguments are conducted for the benefit of the lurkers and not those I argue against.


 

 You certainly got what I was trying to say - put in another way, it doesn't matter if we all live in a dream world or the Matrix or whatever and none of what we experience is actually the truth - it's real as far as our reality is concerned.
   
  We make the measurements we make, and we formulate mathematical expressions to describe them.  It doesn't matter if it's the one and only real truth - we could just as well be playing a video game - because in most cases (where we have concluded that we're not missing any key influences) we get results that correspond exactly with what we expect (when properly accounting for the noise/error that we can attribute to different minor influences that are not worth tracking (or possible to) in the given case).
   
   
   
   
  Now I'm perhaps preaching to the choir, but...
   
  Going further on with the video game analogy - say you "are" a soldier fighting in Battlefield 2.  That's your reality - that's what you experience, even if it isn't the "truth" (i.e. that you are just a character in an electronic game).
   
  If you want to, say, predict bullet drop from one of the sniper rifles - given the right tools (the distances between flags shown on the map as your arbitrary measuring units) - you can measure the bullet drop at different distances.  Using those measurements, you can inductively determine a mathematical relationship to describe it.
   
  The game clock gives you a way to measure time - so you can measure bullet travel times, thus calculate the acceleration (and therefore speed) of the bullet as well (there actually happens to be no [negative] acceleration in the game).
   
  In the end, such measurements and induced formulas are incredibly useful in the construct of the game (well, they can be anyway...), regardless of whether the experienced reality is the "truth" or not.
   
   
   
  The same applies to what we perceive to be "real life".
   
   
   
   
   
  I'm no philosopher - an engineer by trade (perhaps that's obvious).  With my last post did I no way mean that philosophy is entirely useless - khaos974 - my philosophy is masturbation comment was intended to refer to the context we're talking about, of course.  Oh, and I thought it was funny myself...
   
   
   
   
   
  Oh, and Heidegger...
   
  Paragraphs.
   
  Use them.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> You certainly got what I was trying to say - put in another way, it doesn't matter if we all live in a dream world or the Matrix or whatever and none of what we experience is actually the truth - it's real as far as our reality is concerned.


 
   
  Agree with almost everything there.  Any sort of "matrix" would indeed have rules that could in principle be measured, understood, and used to our advantage just like Neo, but if we are truly in a dream-like world then all that goes out the window.  When you dream lucidly you can do anything and cause and effect have no meaning outside your own mind.  In my rare lucid dreams I can do things Neo could never dream of.  I _always _save the world.  I _always _get the girl.  I could even _create _new girls to get.  Damn near anything is possible in a lucid dream.
   
  If our reality was really influenced by our minds to that degree then the scientific method would be useless.  Two people could preform identical tests but the results could be completely different based on the wants or desires of those involved.  Such a reality would be a continual contest of will where the existence or nature of anything would have to defined by how much someone believes in it.  In such a place, magic cables really could make your headphones sound better no matter what objective testing others do with that same cable.  In a dream, belief creates reality.
   
  I wish I could remember a good link, but there are actually people who believe this to some degree!  There are actual people who believe the the enlightenment and scientific revolution changed the public consciousness so much that it _broke _magic.  Actual magic.  Spells, curses, and incantations.  It used to work, people stopped believing in it, then it stopped actually working!  While this is a good place to start a work of fiction about the last few mages in the world banding together to make a place safe for magic its obviously not a solid foundation to build a useful worldview on.


----------



## eucariote

I actually wrote my undergraduate thesis on Heidegger (the philosopher) and biological psychology.  Both point out that reality is a construction of the mind, but one that it is ultimately up to the world (Being) to decide whether our interpretation will work- by having our ideas predict outcomes in the world, or killing us off for having very bad ideas, etc.  Those are also the basic tenets of biology and neuroscience (what I do now for a living) so good philosophy is certainly not masturbatory or inconsistent with science.  That being said, the scientific method and the iteration of hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation/refutation, refined hypothesis, etc. ultimately delivers a vast and exquisite system of validated knowledge that has made our modern world what it is.
   
  I hope that Heidegger (the poster) reads some Heidegger (the philosopher) and wakes up the these facts.


----------



## upstateguy




----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> It is not the philosophers, it is the scientists who have and will discover how things work. All philosophy contributes is casting doubt by playing word games and digging into sematics.
> 
> If I want to know if there is a difference between cables, I would head to physics, not philosophy.


 

 Science derives from philosophy. It used to be that one and the same thinker pondered both metaphysics and physics. Today people are more specialized and tend to focus on a single subject.
   


  Quote: 





rroseperry said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Unlike philosophers, most scientists and ordinary people are able to keep two ideas in their head simultaneously, so that a hammer does not become _fundamentally_ something else when it's a matter of investigation. A thing (or the universe for that matter) remains its ineluctable self with all its uses and meanings as well as a thing to learn about. It's a matter of and, not or.


 

 Really? Because I find that people who "preach" science have a very hard time taking off their scientific cap and seeing things from another perspective. Everything outside the "objective" perspective that they have adopted is deemed "emotional" and hence insignificant. These people speak as if subjectivity were of absolutely no value (never mind that objectivity is nothing but a modification of subjectivity, and never mind that without first _imagining_ going to the moon it is very doubtful that science would have ever gotten us there; therefore, I count the imagination as even more important than science; without the imagination there would _be_ no science). To these people, the _only_ thing that counts are facts that have been scientifically verified. They speak as if human beings knew nothing until science came along. To these preachers of science, the phenomenon we call "the world" really has become something else. They largely see the world in terms of how it _shows_ itself in the particular light of objectivity that they have shined upon it. Under that light, the world shows up as an _object_, or as something that is made up of objects (such as fundamental particles or sound waves); and they think that if you could somehow unify all the objects and forces, you could then get an adequate picture of the universe. Meanwhile, they think that is the _only _way to interpret reality. As proof of how right they are, they often point to how _useful_ science is. That is their ultimate criterion: utility. It is no wonder that even such a venerable thing as philosophy counts as nothing to them. They find it hard to see the _value_ of philosophy because they don't see how it can be _used_. The ultimate example of utilitarianism is technology. We worship technology. Even common people think in technological terms nowadays. The problem is that from the perspective of technology the Earth is not _home_, it is rather a _resource_ to be used, manipulated, and consumed. Because science and technology see the world not as home but as object and resource, there is a great danger lurking in them. The ultimate irony is that those who preach science and who profess to believe in evidence fail to see the clearest evidence: nuclear bombs and the possibility of global destruction that science makes possible. If you think that nuclear bombs are dangerous, wait till scientists learn how to induce miniature black holes. Of course, it would be too simplistic to label science as totally bad and evil. It's very much a double-edged sword. Just as science can destroy the Earth it might also, under some hypothetical scenarios, save it, say by deflecting an asteroid. So I'm not saying that science is totally bad and worthless, just that it has major limitations and flaws, and that what it giveth with one hand it very often takes away with another (sure we have better factories, but also more pollution -- that sort of thing). But whenever you speak of these limitations or flaws, the preachers of science accuse you of attacking science, of being against science, and then they begin circling the wagon, so it is very had to have a debate with them.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Except that the only way to actually attack signal theory is to go straight to foundations like many here do.  If the whole world is actually just an amorphous collection of subjective impressions that only depend on what people think then all those centuries of investigation and experimentation don't mean anything and neither do the innumerable examples that allow you to live your daily life.  They aren't just attacking signal theory or electrical engineering.  Their target is the scientific method itself.  One of the only defense of such woo is to attack the very idea that the laws and principles governing out universe can be investigated, discovered, and understood to some degree
> 
> It seems irony know no limits.  In many ways, I think the personal computer is the pinnacle of our modern technology.  By harnessing the strange quantum properties of things far to small to observe directly we have created what is essentially a magic box which can manipulate data in any way imaginable.  Vast numbers of these are connected together to allow average people to communicate almost anything from most of the dry land on our planet and for a little bit more money over the rest of the land and the sea as well.
> 
> Amid this symphony of science we are told that those same methodologies are inadequate to capture, record, and play back a waveform which rarely exceeds 20000Hz.  The mind boggles.  Its like trying to cut off the branch you're standing on with a rubber knife.  It stupid, impossible, and no one can figure out which aspect of it is worse...


 


 I'm not saying that the world is just an amorphous collection of subjective impressions. Moreover, how amorphous are subjective impressions in general? In my view, not as amorphous as you make out.
   


  Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> I kind of thought you were saying, along with Blackbeard, that this sort of semi-philosophical issue was OT and I was saying that it isn't  that all the facts, figures, and tests in the world mean nothing to Heidegger because he's not just disputing just their validity, he's disputing the methodology that generates them.  On that basis, no technical argument could persuade him because he seems to be convinced that all such arguments are flawed.  Its still stupid and baseless, but I don't really see it a as non-sequitur.  If reality really does work the way he seems to think it does then all the evidence in the would wouldn't matter because it was either gathered with a flawed methodology or because such evidence couldn't actually exist.  Because of this, arguments have to come from the "science isn't perfect but its the best we've got" angle.
> 
> In essence, he's accusing us of trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when the existence of angels has yet to even be established.  Its so ass-backwards it makes my head hurt, but as always these arguments are conducted for the benefit of the lurkers and not those I argue against.


 


  Maverick, nothing sublunar is perfect. Yes, I believe that the methodology of science is flawed, even at its basis. Yes, I believe science and logic have an Achilles' heel. But that is not to say that science and technology are worthless and useless, or that they are totally mistaken. Achilles might have had a flaw in his heel (that is, at the basis), but that didn't keep him from being the best warrior that the Greeks had. We live in a particular _epoch_ of science. A survey of the history of science shows that the scientific beliefs of any given age can be highly limited -- at best, flawed. Just because a certain phenomenon regarding audio cannot be explained today or might be deemed impossible by the current state of science, doesn't mean that it will remain unexplained or that it will continue to be deemed impossible in the future. Science is a historical phenomenon, and scientific understanding can change radically from one epoch to the next. It behooves us to remember that the Ptolemaic model of the universe is today seen as totally wrong, yet in its day it largely conformed with the observable universe and also made certain crucial predictions, which is why it was held on to for so long. Since it could make accurate predictions, it was deemed correct. That is, it wasn't just vain superstition or religious beliefs but _logic and reason _that developed the Ptolemaic model of the universe and that kept it in place for so many centuries. I just love it when the adherents of reason speak of the Ptolemaic model as something that was soley developed out of irrational faith. In truth, the Ptolemaic model, which turned out to be wrong, was believed in precisely because it was the rational model _in its time_.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Quote:


 
   


> "Meanwhile, they think that is the _only_ way to interpret reality. As proof of how right they are, they often point to how _useful_ science is. That is their ultimate criterion: utility. It is no wonder that even such a venerable thing as philosophy counts as nothing to them. They find it hard to see the _value_ of philosophy because they don't see how it can be _used_."


 
   

  I don't see how this is as a criticism when you earlier said that the hammer is only truly knowable by being used with a purpose.


----------



## rroseperry

Ok, this needs some paragraphing for a coherent response.


heidegger said:


> Science was born of philosophy. It used to be that one and the same thinker pondered both metaphysics and physics. Today people are more specialized and tend to focus on a single subject.




Since this hasn't been true since (approximately) the 17th century and philosophy itself has branched like a blackberry shrub since the Greeks, I'm not sure why you bother with this particular red herring except to push this notion you have about science.




heidegger said:


> Really? Because I find that people who "preach" science have a very hard time taking off their scientific cap and seeing things from another perspective. Everything outside the "objective" perspective that they have adopted is deemed "emotional" and hence insignificant. These people speak as if subjectivity were of absolutely no value (never mind that objectivity is nothing but a modification of subjectivity, and never mind that without first _imagining_ going to the moon it is very doubtful that science would have ever gotten us there; therefore, I count the imagination as even more important than science; without the imagination there would _be_ no science). To these people, the _only_ thing that counts are facts that have been scientifically verified. They speak as if human beings knew nothing until science came along. To these preachers of science, the phenomenon we call "the world" really has become something else. They largely see the world in terms of how it _shows_ itself in the particular light of objectivity that they have shined upon it.




It occurs to me that you're having an old argument with someone else and not actually addressing the people on this thread. But anyway, I've worked with ecologists, studied under the guy who came up with the keystone predator theory in community biology and all of them (and the handful of mathematicians I've known) don't separate imagination from their science. Imagination is what makes it possible to ask the next question, to develop the next line of research, to get to that next plateau of understanding. And for that last point you're trying to make, I flat out don't believe you. Provide some links or take that somewhere else.



> Under that light, the world shows up as an _object_, or as something that is made up of objects (such as fundamental particles or sound waves); and they think that if you could somehow unify all the objects and forces, you could then get an adequate picture of the universe. Meanwhile, they think that is the _only _way to interpret reality. As proof of how right they are, they often point to how _useful_ science is. That is their ultimate criterion: utility. It is no wonder that even such a venerable thing as philosophy counts as nothing to them. They find it hard to see the _value_ of philosophy because they don't see how it can be _used_. The ultimate example of utilitarianism is technology. We worship technology. Even common people think in technological terms nowadays. The problem is that from the perspective of technology the Earth is not _home_, it is rather a _resource_ to be used, manipulated, and consumed.




OFFS you think this is the result of science? Prescientific people ruined their environments. Jared Diamond's book _Collapse_ covers this quite well. The exploit of the earth is a human thing and an old, bad habit we have as a species. Technology may accelerate it, but it's not technology's fault. Unless you blame the tool for the user's intent.



> Because science and technology see the world not as home but as object and resource, there is a great danger lurking in them. The ultimate irony is that those who preach science and who profess to believe in evidence fail to see the clearest evidence: nuclear bombs and the possibility of global destruction that science makes possible. If you think that nuclear bombs are dangerous, wait till scientists learn how to induce miniature black holes. Of course, it would be too simplistic to label science as totally bad and evil. It's very much a double-edged sword. Just as science can destroy the Earth it might also, under some hypothetical scenarios, save it, say by deflecting an asteroid. So I'm not saying that science is totally bad and worthless, just that it has major limitations and flaws, and that what it giveth with one hand it very often takes away with another (sure we have better factories, but also more pollution -- that sort of thing). But whenever you speak of these limitations or flaws, the preachers of science accuse you of attacking science, of being against science, and then they begin circling the wagon, so it is very had to have a debate with them.




I call BS on this too. You're conflating the (often serious) problems that science and technology can cause with the practice of science. It's the latter that you say has "major limitations or flaws" but you've never, _ever_ in this long conversation be able to accurately identify a single one. The best you've been able to come up with over and over again is, "if science can't measure the thing I _know_ is true about my amplifier, the problem is with the science and not with me." Ok, believe what you will, but your evidence for this being a reasonable explanation is remarkably weak, imo.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

How about starting a philosophy of science thread.....elsewhere.....?


----------



## b0ck3n

I would like to implore Heidegger to cease his hi-jacking of this otherwise extremely useful and educational thread. It's here to serve as an eye-opener and to offset the voodoo nonsense that comprises most of these boards.

Unless you have something useful and valid to contribute to the discussion, please refrain from posting. Philosophy is a fun topic but I fail to see the point you're trying to make, and how it relates to ABXing audio components.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Just because a certain phenomenon regarding audio cannot be explained today or might be deemed impossible by the current state of science, doesn't mean that it will remain unexplained or that it will continue to be deemed impossible in the future. Science is a historical phenomenon, and scientific understanding can change radically from one epoch to the next. It behooves us to remember that the Ptolemaic model of the universe is today seen as totally wrong, yet in its day it largely conformed with the observable universe and also made certain crucial predictions, which is why it was held on to for so long. Since it could make accurate predictions, it was deemed correct. That is, it wasn't just vain superstition or religious beliefs but _logic and reason _that developed the Ptolemaic model of the universe and that kept it in place for so many centuries. I just love it when the adherents of reason speak of the Ptolemaic model as something that was soley developed out of irrational faith. In truth, the Ptolemaic model, which turned out to be wrong, was believed in precisely because it was the rational model _in its time_.


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Maverick, nothing sublunar is perfect. Yes, I believe that the methodology of science is flawed, even at its basis. Yes, I believe science and logic have an Achilles' heel. But that is not to say that science and technology are worthless and useless, or that they are totally mistaken. Achilles might have had a flaw in his heel (that is, at the basis), but that didn't keep him from being the best warrior that the Greeks had. We live in a particular _epoch_ of science. A survey of the history of science shows that the scientific beliefs of any given age can be highly limited -- at best, flawed. Just because a certain phenomenon regarding audio cannot be explained today or might be deemed impossible by the current state of science, doesn't mean that it will remain unexplained or that it will continue to be deemed impossible in the future. Science is a historical phenomenon, and scientific understanding can change radically from one epoch to the next. It behooves us to remember that the Ptolemaic model of the universe is today seen as totally wrong, yet in its day it largely conformed with the observable universe and also made certain crucial predictions, which is why it was held on to for so long. Since it could make accurate predictions, it was deemed correct. That is, it wasn't just vain superstition or religious beliefs but _logic and reason _that developed the Ptolemaic model of the universe and that kept it in place for so many centuries. I just love it when the adherents of reason speak of the Ptolemaic model as something that was soley developed out of irrational faith. In truth, the Ptolemaic model, which turned out to be wrong, was believed in precisely because it was the rational model _in its time_.


 
   
  2 things:
   
  If the laws of physics, which are constantly verified by millions of scientists, used by millions of engineers to design everything from planes, to computers and buildings, are suddenly proven wrong for audiophile devices, you'd better come up with *very* solid proof, proof that goes beyond impressions.
  (referring to the null testing that triggered your philosophical diatribe)
   
  That the Ptolemaic model is wrong and yet made accurate predictions and was confirmed by the limited observations method of the time has no link with your conclusions that somehow our science is not enough to modelize audio phenomena, simply because you don't have serious contradictory observations to begin with.


----------



## CEE TEE

I agree, I am about to un-subscribe _with a vengeance_.
   
  The thread begins with the word "Testing."
   
  That means we are discussing things that can be set up in a scenario to be tested/measured.
   
  Certain aspects of audio can be _tested_.  Some of the results can be _heard_.
   
  The aspects of audio that can't be tested (or are impractical to test) we can identify and then _move on_.
   
  The results that we get that we can't hear, we can try to identify and then _move on_.
   
  It would be appropriate to try and identify that which is better to rely on "by the numbers" and that which is better by "ear" or maybe preference.  Okay.
   
  Discussing the things that affect the psychology of our hearing or the limitations of the reliability of our memory or something that questions our reliability as test instruments...these are the things I was hoping to find in this thread. 
   
*For practicality that affects where we spend our money*, not for the possibility of a "Theory of Everything" that envelops our current worldview is why I came *here*.
   
  If you want to have a _Good Will Hunting_ moment and talk someone into a flabbergasted stasis over some sort of "-ectivity", please create a thread with an appropriate title.
   
  Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> I would like to implore Heidegger to cease his hi-jacking of this otherwise extremely useful and educational thread. It's here to serve as an eye-opener and to offset the voodoo nonsense that comprises most of these boards.
> 
> Unless you have something useful and valid to contribute to the discussion, please refrain from posting. Philosophy is a fun topic but I fail to see the point you're trying to make, and how it relates to ABXing audio components.


----------



## jcx

a possible thread to continue "philosophical"discussions:
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/527660/audio-epistemology#post_7116428


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> *I would like to implore Heidegger to cease his hi-jacking *of this otherwise extremely useful and educational thread. It's here to serve as an eye-opener and to offset the voodoo nonsense that comprises most of these boards.
> 
> Unless you have something useful and valid to contribute to the discussion, please refrain from posting. Philosophy is a fun topic but I fail to see the point you're trying to make, and how it relates to ABXing audio components.


 

 Perhaps you would like to implore those responding to Heidegger as well.......


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





cee tee said:


> Certain aspects of audio can be _tested_.  Some of the results can be _heard_.


 

 Cracking quote CEE TEE.
   
  For all of the measurements that have been produced in threads on this forum and elsewhere, when a measureable difference is found we still need to show it is audible. In some circumstances it will be clearly audible, in others clearly not, but there is a range where there is disagreement as to what is audible or not. Simple I know but having googled decibels range there is a disagreement as to whether 0 dB is the threashold of hearing or if it is up to 10 dB.
   
  That is where ABX testing comes in as a means of establishing exactly what can be heard.


----------



## b0ck3n

And to take it even further, how audible is it 30, 40, 60db below the music? The test songs that Ethan demonstrated in his video really put that into perspective I think.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





rroseperry said:


> I call BS on this too. You're conflating the (often serious) problems that science and technology can cause with the practice of science. It's the latter that you say has "major limitations or flaws" but you've never, _ever_ in this long conversation be able to accurately identify a single one. The best you've been able to come up with over and over again is, "if science can't measure the thing I _know_ is true about my amplifier, the problem is with the science and not with me." Ok, believe what you will, but your evidence for this being a reasonable explanation is remarkably weak, imo.


 

 It's _pro forma _for audio reviewers to mention that the amp under review has so many hours of burn in time. Very often the review proceeds to describe the sound of the amp before and after the burn in period. Why do so many people experience this phenomenon, or _think_ they experience it? From where does the belief arise? The answer repeatedly given here: if you expect to hear a difference, you inevitably _will_ hear a difference. People's ears are led astray by their eyes, and also by biases and expectations. The placebo effect and expectation bias are real phenomena; that can't be denied. Ethan mentions comb filtering. These are all plausible explanations, but they have not been proven to be the major causes.  A few posts back, Nick Charles asked Norbert Lehmann, the manufacturer of the respected and well reviewed Black Cube Linear Headphone Amplifier, about burn in. This was Lehmann's response:
   
   [size=11pt]Dear Dr. Charles,[/size]
  [size=11pt] [/size]
  [size=11pt]thank you for contacting me in this matter. I experience sound improvements in several aspects over time, at least for some weeks.  To me it does not matter where the effects come from. What I guess to be  very important is the overall thermal stability of the circuit. There are, however, _no_ differences to be measured at least with my Audio Precision ATS2  which is a very nice unit for production tests but no real state of the art unit like the 2700 type. [/size]
  [size=11pt] [/size]
  [size=11pt]This is a rather unacademic approach for an engineer - but it helps. Sorry that I can't  supply a more satisfying answer. [/size]
  [size=11pt] [/size]
  [size=11pt]With kind regards from Germany[/size]
  [size=11pt] [/size]
  [size=11pt]Norbert Lehmann[/size]
   
  What a surprising statement! This person who designs and produces amplifiers, who would have more experience with amps than probably all of us on this thread, confirms that he experiences "sound improvements in several aspects over time, at least for some weeks." The statement is _extraordinary. _I expect for the average person to be taken in by the sound of a given amp, but I find it more difficult to believe that the guy who has _the most_ experience with this particular amp, confirms that he also experiences an improvement "in several  aspects" over a period of weeks. As a possible explanation, Lehmann guesses the "overall thermal stability of the circuit." He could not measure these improvements with the equipment on hand, though hastens to add that the equipment wasn't necessarily the best for the purpose. Placebo, expectation bias, comb filtering -- none of these sounds convincing in this case. The accusation is then made that the manufacturer is lying. Lehmann is keeping the myth of burn-in alive because it helps him sell more amps. I thought about -- and discarded -- that latter possibility. Just based on his note, I didn't get that impression. I believe it when he says that he's experiencing sound improvements. I keep going back to his statement about the overall thermal stability of the circuit. Can this stability vary or improve over time depending on how often the amp has been turned on or used, and why does it happen for only x number of hours before it reaches a certain stability? It basically has to do with how well it can conduct the signal?


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> The accusation is then made that the manufacturer is lying. Lehmann is keeping the myth of burn-in alive because it helps him sell more amps. I thought about -- and discarded -- that latter possibility. Just based on his note, I didn't get that impression. I believe it when he says that he's experiencing sound improvements.


 

 Personally I believe that he doesn't want to alienate his customer base.


----------



## jcx

we also have a burn-in thread or two
   
  aside from the small magnitude of the effects in solid state electronics a logical problem with physical theories of burn-in is why does it Always result in subjective sonic Improvement?
   

  
  Quote: 





jcx said:


> wet electrolytics have very well known issues with the electrolyte/oxide dielectric "forming" process being somewhat reversable
> without correct polarizing V the oxide partially "dissolves"
> 
> some time at operating V is required for Al electros to reform full strength oxide layer after long storage at 0 V
> ...


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> Personally I believe that he doesn't want to alienate his customer base.


 


  I agree with this statement. He is in the business of making money. And if you are happy with the way your amp has improved, of course he is going to agree with it.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Heidigger, are you actually postulating that because he claims he hears a difference, but he can't measure any changes, that there must be something changing in the amp that we can't measure?

 This is hopeless...


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





jcx said:


> aside from the small magnitude of the effects in solid state electronics a logical problem with physical theories of burn-in is *why does it Always result in subjective sonic Improvement?*


 

 Because the grass is always greener- not browner?  The audiophile community (and any other higher-end fanatical hobby) has to accept the idea of _different_- not just better.  But that's often not enough when you're shelling out huge amounts of money or trying to appease egos.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Heidigger, are you actually postulating that because he claims he hears a difference, but he can't measure any changes, that there must be something changing in the amp that we can't measure?
> 
> This is hopeless...


 

 Agreed, placebo etc is too easily dismissed.
   
  Harman Int have found differences with blind and sighted testing, using the same source/amp and different speakers, so the eyes have caused the difference, not the equipment.
   

   
  It is worth noting that blind testing produces smaller differences than sighted, which would go towards confirming the tendency of ABX tests to find smaller differences than those where people can see what is being changed. This test invloves speakers, where ABX testing finds the biggest difference. I am sure if we had a graph of four cables on test, we would have an ABX which is flat lined, but sighted testing by those who say cables cause differences all over the place.
   
  Full report by Sean Olive here
   
  http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html


----------



## rroseperry

heidegger said:


> It's _pro forma _for audio reviewers to mention that the amp under review has so many hours of burn in time. Very often the review proceeds to describe the sound of the amp before and after the burn in period. Why do so many people experience this phenomenon, or _think_ they experience it? From where does the belief arise? The answer repeatedly given here: if you expect to hear a difference, you inevitably _will_ hear a difference. People's ears are led astray by their eyes, and also by biases and expectations. The placebo effect and expectation bias are real phenomena; that can't be denied. Ethan mentions comb filtering. These are all plausible explanations, but they have not been proven to be the major causes.  A few posts back, Nick Charles asked Norbert Lehmann, the manufacturer of the respected and well reviewed Black Cube Linear Headphone Amplifier, about burn in. This was Lehmann's response:
> 
> [size=11pt]Dear Dr. Charles,[/size]
> [size=11pt] [/size]
> ...




I believe he means it too, in the absence of any other evidence. But note that he says (emphasis added): 



> *To me it does not matter where the effects come from. *


 

This says to me that engineer or no, he's as much in thrall to the mythologies of the audiophile community as any weekend hobbyist. His being an engineer and good at his work doesn't confer some special accuracy in respect to his personal experience of the equipment. The very fact that there's something that he hears but can't measure and has no idea how it comes about says that he's speaking as an audiophile, not as an engineer at that moment. It's not like it's not possible to build very good equipment and share the community's biases and beliefs


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Sean Olive's blog is great - I have to say he impresses me, although I certainly am not a fan of what Harman has done to the Infinity brand...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Indeed manufacturers do not agree on burn in. Here are the replies the Spanish site Matrix-hifi got when they asked speaker makers about burn in. I like Thiel's response of 'audiophiles says 30 hours'! Asking one hifi manufacturer about an issue and using their response to justify your position is poor evidence gathering. Here Matrix-hifi have gathered a lot of evidence.
   
   

 *Manufacturer*
 *Simplified Reply*
 *First Reply*
 *Second Reply*
 *Factory Burnt In? *
  New Form Research
  + 100 hours
  3 or 4 hrs during 4 weeks
   
  NO
  Thiel
  Iinvalid reply
  Audiophiles says 30 hours
   
  NO
  Apex
  Iinvalid reply
  Use it for a while
   
  No reply
  ScanSpeak
  Almost immediately
  5 minutes with signal tone
  1 month using music
  NO
  ATC
  Almost immediately
  Unnecessary, speaker’s ready when leaves the factory
   
  NO
  Vifa
  Invalid reply
   
   
  NO
  Beyma
  Almost immediately
  30 minutes with signal tone
  About a week with music
  NO
  Visatón
  Almost immediately
  Pushing membrane a few times at the most
   
  No reply
  Manger
  24 hours
  Our speakers are burnt in at the factory during 24 hrs, we cannot find any difference after this period.
   
  YES
  Madisound
  + 100 hours
  5 to 6 days at the speaker’s resonance frec.
   
  NO
  Meniscus Audio Group
  Iinvalid reply
   
   
  No reply
  Acoustic Elegante
  Almost immediately
  Burnt in in the first minutes of use
   
  NO
  JBL Pro
  Almost immediately
  Short, if any, burn in period
   
  NO
  Eminence Speaker
  + 1.000 hours
  Speaker will burn in forever
   
  NO
  Audiothechnology
  + 1.000 hours
  Depending on the cone material and its compliance
   
  NO
  HiVi - Swan Speaker Systems
  24 hours
  18 to 24 hrs
   
  NO
  Jordan
  Iinvalid reply
   
   
  No reply
  Adire Audio
  Almost immediately
  About one minute
   
  NO
  Orca Design
  + 1.000 hours
  Depending on the cone material:
 - Paper cones 1 min
 - Treated paper or plastic 1 week
 - Silk Dome Tweeters 2 weeks
 - Metal domes several monthes
 - Ribbon tweeters a few minutes
 - Plastic tweeters about 1 week
  1 minute 1 watt, then 1 minute to max AES power
  NO
  Morel USA
  + 100 hours
  Most of the cones 2-3 weeks, some needs hours and others 2 to 3 monthes
   
  NO
  HIQUPHON
  Almost immediately
  No need for burn in
   
  NO

    
  Of course, we do not know how audible burn in is from the above.


----------



## maxflinn

hey idc prog rock man
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, i've found ya..
   
  wow, just had a quick look through this thread and i can see you've really put some time and effort into it, fair play to you for that.
   
  i'll have a good read over the coming days and see what i can learn, i may even have something to add


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Hi Max, glad you found us.
   
  The original version of this thread was put onto the What Hifi forum, but deleted, as we know they do to any thread which asks too many difficult questions, let alone those that attempt to provide some reasoned answers, with lots of lovely evidence!


----------



## CEE TEE

Wow, Sean Olive's blog had a great continuing discussion and I went through the links and found free downloadable video courses from Infinity:
   
  http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/technology/technology_academy.aspx?test=1&Language=ENG&Region=USA&Country=US
   
  I haven't watched them yet but the last one is on testing...thanks, *Prog Rock Man* for the link to Sean Olive!
   
  UPDATE:  The infinity videos are 90% sales pieces.


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Ethan mentions comb filtering. These are all plausible explanations, but they have not been proven to be the major causes.


 
   
  I proved with hard data that the frequency response changes drastically over distances as small as four inches. If that isn't acceptable proof to you, then I give up. Again. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Quote:


> This was Lehmann's response:
> [size=11pt]"To me it does not matter where the effects come from."[/size]
> [size=11pt]This is a rather unacademic approach for an engineer[/size]


    
  [size=11pt]"Unacedemic" is an understatement. Any design engineer who doesn't care why the sound of his circuits changes over time is incompetent and a fool.[/size]
   
  [size=11pt]--Ethan[/size]


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Heidigger, are you actually postulating that because he claims he hears a difference, but he can't measure any changes, that there must be something changing in the amp that we can't measure?
> 
> This is hopeless...


 

 The only thing I'm postulating is that the guy with the most experience with headphone amps of anybody here confirms that he experiences burn in.
   
  Raise your hand if you have more experience with headphone amplifiers than Norbert Lehmann does.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> I proved with hard data that the frequency response changes drastically over distances as small as four inches. If that isn't acceptable proof to you, then I give up. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Comb filtering plays a role, but, as you know, we're talking headphones here. I don't believe Lehmann is incompetent. I believe he experiences burn in regularly, just can't explain why. Not everything in life has been explained yet.


----------



## b0ck3n

heidegger said:


> Comb filtering plays a role, but, as you know, we're talking headphones here. I don't believe Lehmann is incompetent. I believe he experiences burn in regularly, just can't explain why. Not everything in life has been explained yet.




You're sounding like a broken record. Nothing has changed since your first post regarding amplifier burn-in. If indeed burn-in is real, and it somehow eludes present measurement process, a blind test would be able to identify it.


----------



## Heidegger

Let the record show that nobody has raised their hand. Experience counts for something indeed it does.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Let the record show that nobody has raised their hand. Experience counts for something indeed it does.


 


  Ethan doesn't check his subs daily = you win.
   
  Impeccable logic!


----------



## Willakan

IMHO, admitting that there is no difference electrically is admitting that there isn't a difference. If equipment with measuring resolution that would make the human ear run away and hide fails to show a difference, there is no difference. Seeing if an electrical output is now doing things that is wasn't previously is hardly rocket science. Being knowledgeable doesn't render you immune to cognitive bias.


----------



## b0ck3n

Physical evidence is obviously not enough to convince Heidegger (though in truth, he's trying to convince everyone else rather than the other way around), which is why I suggested that he leaves it to his golden ears to decide whether something's actually there.


----------



## rroseperry

heidegger said:


> Let the record show that nobody has raised their hand. Experience counts for something indeed it does.




pfui


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Burn in has its place in audiophile myths. Some do indeed experience burn in, such as Mr Lehmann. The reason why I call it a myth is that there is no evidence beyond some people's personal experience, and here at the back of the bus........


----------



## Arnaldo

I just got my Sony SCD-XA5400ES SACD player back from VSE with their Terra Firma Lite balanced upgrade. According to their very specific instructions, I will "... likely notice an improvement in sound over the first few weeks of use." They also advised me to "... leave it on 24/7 for best sound. After the first few weeks, it should be at or very close to max performance." While I'm personally a bit skeptic about the whole burn in issue, I have to say that their views, as well as Norbert Lehmann's, do carry a lot of weight...
  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Burn in has its place in audiophile myths. Some do indeed experience burn in, such as Mr Lehmann. The reason why I call it a myth is that there is no evidence beyond some people's personal experience, and here at the back of the bus........


----------



## rroseperry

arnaldo said:


> I just got my Sony SCD-XA5400ES SACD player back from VSE with their Terra Firma Lite balanced upgrade. According to their very specific instructions, I will "... likely notice an improvement in sound over the first few weeks of use." They also advised me to "... leave it on 24/7 for best sound. After the first few weeks, it should be at or very close to max performance." While I'm personally a bit skeptic about the whole burn in issue, I have to say that their views, as well as Norbert Lehmann's, do carry a lot of weight...




Don't you think they know their customer base? Time after time you read on this forum about some one who gets a new piece of gear, has new toy letdown, but over time, begins to think it sounds better than it did out of the box. The burn in that's happening is between your ears. They want you to give the gear some time and to accommodate your expectations. Very savvy, I think.

What is there in a CD player to burn in? I mean, seriously?


----------



## Arnaldo

I don't really disagree with you. Like I said, I'm personally a skeptic and it makes sense that it has to do more with burning in one's memory rather than one's audio equipment. Nevertheless, I fully intend to give them the benefit of the doubt. There's nothing to lose one way or another...
  
  Quote: 





rroseperry said:


> Don't you think they know their customer base? Time after time you read on this forum about some one who gets a new piece of gear, has new toy letdown, but over time, begins to think it sounds better than it did out of the box. The burn in that's happening is between your ears. They want you to give the gear some time and to accommodate your expectations. Very savvy, I think.
> 
> What is there in a CD player to burn in? I mean, seriously?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





arnaldo said:


> I just got my Sony SCD-XA5400ES SACD player back from VSE with their Terra Firma Lite balanced upgrade. According to their very specific instructions, I will "... likely notice an improvement in sound over the first few weeks of use." They also advised me to "... leave it on 24/7 for best sound. After the first few weeks, it should be at or very close to max performance." While I'm personally a bit skeptic about the whole burn in issue, I have to say that their views, as well as Norbert Lehmann's, do carry a lot of weight...


 

 Yes they do carry a lot of weight, but they lack evidence to back up their claims. That is the whole point of this thread to test audiophile claims and myths. Let us see which is true or not.
   
  The big doubt about VSE and Lehmann is that their claim of burn in helps to stop returns which helps them financially. I am not saying this is a deliberate deception. But why do both companies choose to lend their 'weight' by saying burn in happens, rather than presenting actual evidence it happens (as in there are measureable changes over time) and that the change is audible (and so passes ABX testing)?
   
  It is the lack of evidence that means all they are doing is adding weight to that myth.


----------



## Willakan

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> "It is the lack of evidence..."


 

 Evidence? I don't need no EVIDENCE cos I CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE!
   
  /hides behind impenetrable wall of illogic


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





willakan said:


> Evidence? I don't need no EVIDENCE cos I CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE!
> 
> /hides behind impenetrable wall of illogic


 



 ...and here at the back of the bus we want evidence beyond I can hear a difference when I know what I am listening to. We want people who claim to be able to hear a difference to be able to show they really can hear a difference. We want them to use their ears. Just their ears........
   
  Too many audiophile claims are actually visual, they are not audible.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Too many audiophile claims are actually visual, they are not audible.


 


  Wondering which audiophile claims are not visual?


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Let the record show that nobody has raised their hand. Experience counts for something indeed it does.


 

 Let us also note that more experience in no way infers or even suggests being immune to placebo, confirmation bias, and other proven, undeniable, and demonstratable flaws with subjective sighted testing.


----------



## eucariote

^ agreed.  Multisensory integration, top-down influences & the formation of experience in a context of memory is how the brain works.  Something is going wrong if these things aren't happening.  Trying to be 'objective' just adds more expectations to experience.


----------



## Tyll Hertsens

Quote: 





willakan said:


> If equipment with *measuring resolution that would make the human ear run away and hide* fails to show a difference, there is no difference.


 

 Not so sure this is true. Are instruments and the mind sensitive to the same things?


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





tyll hertsens said:


> Not so sure this is true. Are instruments and the mind sensitive to the same things?


 

 When we're measuring differences in an electrical signals (amp, dac, and cable input vs output into whatever load), yes, we can measure _all_ signal differences with null testing.  We certainly know how people respond to different aspects of those signals (e.g. even versus odd order harmonic distortion), and we measure specifically for many of those of course which explain the most significant changes in the signal, but that's irrelevant if we're talking about two components that null test to some arbitrary level (best determined through blind testing) that's extremely far below the signal level (-60 dB or something, perhaps).
   
  I don't think you're trying to extend the "there must be electrical signal differences that are unknown and unmeasurable to science today" argument, are you?  I mean the claim of something in an electrical signal that a null test wouldn't detect, not just what the arbitrary measurements we take (THD, noise, etc.) indicate.


----------



## Uncle Erik

Yes, electronic test equipment tests the same thing we hear. It's a lot more sensitive, too. I've never seen anything that suggests otherwise.

Test gear doesn't measure placebo and expectation, though listening tests control for that.

Which is why no one has ever passed an unsighted test.

No significant measurements are compelling. That no one has ever passed an unsighted test is even more compelling.

Occam's Razor tells us that the "difference" in cables is imaginary.

Further, the financial aspect is damning. Cable marketers sell their "products" at ridiculous markups. That they're just trying to turn a dollar is laughably obvious. The reason they offer zero evidence that their products "work" is just more evidence of their fraud.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Yes, electronic test equipment tests the same thing we hear. It's a lot more sensitive, too. I've never seen anything that suggests otherwise.
> 
> Test gear doesn't measure placebo and expectation, though listening tests control for that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Yes, electronic test equipment tests the same thing we hear. It's a lot more sensitive, too. I've never seen anything that suggests otherwise.


 


  But they would say, "It's some force traveling through the wires that can't be measured or won't cancel itself out in a null test."  Essentially something on the order of the paranormal where its cause is unknown but the effects can be felt... to some.  Or something like that.  Don't mind me right now- I'm just giddy about the world not coming to an end.


----------



## maxflinn

why is it that those that believe in the burning in of componants always think the resulting sound is better? if componants did burn in the sound could just as easily be worse, that's basic logic which surely demonstrates that it's the listener that imagines this improved sound, and the burn in they believe has caused it.


----------



## Willakan

Quote: 





maxflinn said:


> why is it that those that believe in the burning in of componants always think the resulting sound is better? if componants did burn in the sound could just as easily be worse, that's basic logic which surely demonstrates that it's the listener that imagines this improved sound, and the burn in they believe has caused it.


 
  You can apply the same thinking successfully to much of high end audio. How is that after testing cables/super expensive new tube amp/magic marker now with 0.1% radium a positive difference is always perceived?
  You never seem to see a reviewer at 6moons turning around after saying "Will this state of the art new cable live up to expectations?" and saying "Nope, it was horrible, did unimaginably awful things to my sound." Somehow it's always a magical better change (you can get a quiet chuckle out of various Stereophile reviews in which the reviewer praises some monstrously expensive component as a new benchmark in pric...sorry, audio quality, which is then discovered on the test bench to be defective by design - uber-high distortion ect)


----------



## BlackbeardBen

The thing is, it's easy to make the claim that the manufacturer designed said component to sound better when broken in...


----------



## b0ck3n

Uber-high distortion goes hand-in-hand with descriptions like "warm" and "musical".


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Have any of you had a cable on loan to buy or bought one with a 'no quibble return' if not happy and then tried to return it? I have not, but I have read that there is often an appeal to burn in to try and get people to keep the cable.


----------



## jackmccabe

Burn-in on headphones to me is just getting accustomed to the sound.


----------



## kite7

Quote: 





jackmccabe said:


> Burn-in on headphones to me is just getting accustomed to the sound.


 

 I find this to be true. I had a grado SR125 which was bright but I kept listening to it and eventually adjusted. For some time I moved away from that headphone to another then when I put the SR125 on again, it sounded seemed bright again.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





kite7 said:


> I find this to be true. I had a grado SR125 which was bright but I kept listening to it and eventually adjusted. For some time I moved away from that headphone to another then when I put the SR125 on again, it sounded seemed bright again.


 

 That backs up measurements of car sub woofers and cinema speakers and the experience of a forum member who works in a studio, The woofer measurements found that the speakers did change in various ways such as frequency response. Then it was found, sometimes a few hours later but also weeks later, after no use the speaker would return to its original measurements.
   
  The guy who worked in the studio commented about how sure he was that he had burn in on headphones. I asked if he had a pair he had not used for a while, which he did, tried and found they were more like their original sound.
   
  So there is anecdotal and measured evidence that burn in does occur with speakers, it can be audible, but unless the speaker is in use all of the time, it returns to its original state.
   
  I have heard enough vintage headphones that my own experience backs that up as well.


----------



## Citan

Big thanks to Prog Rock Man and others like you for making threads like this!  You guys will/do save people a lot of money!


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Have any of you had a cable on loan to buy or bought one with a 'no quibble return' if not happy and then tried to return it? I have not, but I have read that there is often an appeal to burn in to try and get people to keep the cable.


 

 No.  But I have bought cables that I thought were new- only to listen to them and find out that they had already been burned in.  I went back to the store and expressed my anger to the salesperson.
   
  Quote: 





kite7 said:


> I find this to be true. I had a grado SR125 which was bright but I kept listening to it and eventually adjusted. For some time I moved away from that headphone to another then when I put the SR125 on again, it sounded seemed bright again.


 

 Absolutely.  (This is genuine.)  I started out with TF10s and then subsequently got Westone 4s and UE Reference Monitors.  In terms of treble amount, it goes something like this:  W4 < UE RM < TF10s.  I never thought the TF10s were overly bright; maybe just a little recessed in the mids.  But after I started devoting most of my time to the other two IEMs, I went back to the TF10s and thought, "These are a little bright."  Nothing changed except my own perceptions.


----------



## lunarmouse

Quote: 





jackmccabe said:


> Burn-in on headphones to me is just getting accustomed to the sound.


 

 I agree. The sound MIGHT not change much, it's just us ourselves get used to the sound signature of the new headphone.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





mkubota1 said:


> No.  But I have bought cables that I thought were new- only to listen to them and find out that they had already been burned in.  I went back to the store and expressed my anger to the salesperson.


 
  Hehehe, can't stop laughing.
   
  Looks like the thread is back to normal.  The ever growing list in #1 is impressive, good work!


----------



## jackmccabe

I do believe that certain headphones and speakers can change a bit due to the driver material changing, but generally they are small changes and not theses gigantic good to bad differences people claim to hear.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jackmccabe said:


> I do believe that certain headphones and speakers can change a bit due to the driver material changing, but generally they are small changes and not theses gigantic good to bad differences people claim to hear.


 

 Yes, whilst there is evidence to show there is burn in of speakers we don't know how much of that is audible and how much any change is actually getting used to the sound.
   
  Speaker burn in is one audiophile myth that has some substance to it. Burn in of other stuff is totally unproven.


----------



## jackmccabe

Cable burn in ಠ_ಠ


----------



## CantScareMe

I've read so much about burn in. And the debate is endless.
   
  But I often don't see a needed emphasis on ways we, as the headphone owner for example can actually make sure we answer the question 'have I experienced burn in?' with the least amount of bias and a high level of accuracy.
   
   
   
  Might this be something: I buy a full size headphone and listen to it for around 4 hours. I note down what I listen to- and good music for this might be something like chesky records' ultimate demo disk. Anyway, The next time I listen to it is after 100hrs of pink noise burn in, preferably in a similar physical setting as the first listen. And now I note down what I hear.
   
  I then compare the two.
   
  Even better- at both of the listens, I compare the headphone to say a 2000hr old akg k271. And note down how it compares in sound (sibilance/bass/resolution).
   
   
   
  This is my own personal test for burn in. If you think it's stupid, then it is stupid- leave it as that!!
  Whenever I have done this, my conclusion has been  'burn in don't exist.'  But I haven't always been able to use this way- like with the IE8. It took me ages to find a right fit with tips and insertion. Each time I tried a new method, the sound changed- like it does with all iem's I guess. And with the nuforce hdp- as I didn't have another dac/amp, and so listened to this thing throughout the time it was alive.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Yes, electronic test equipment tests the same thing we hear. It's a lot more sensitive, too. I've never seen anything that suggests otherwise.
> 
> Test gear doesn't measure placebo and expectation, though listening tests control for that.
> 
> ...


 





  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> That backs up measurements of car sub woofers and cinema speakers and the experience of a forum member who works in a studio, The woofer measurements found that the speakers did change in various ways such as frequency response. Then it was found, sometimes a few hours later but also weeks later, after no use the speaker would return to its original measurements.
> 
> The guy who worked in the studio commented about how sure he was that he had burn in on headphones. I asked if he had a pair he had not used for a while, which he did, tried and found they were more like their original sound.
> 
> ...


 

 Don't know why that should be true Proggie?  You can't undo the deterioration that occurs with use in headphones and speakers, by leaving them alone for a while.
   
  Speaker burn in has some substance to it, but speaker deterioration is a fact.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





    Your old speakers will never sound as good as they did when they were new.
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Yes, whilst there is evidence to show there is burn in of speakers we don't know how much of that is audible and how much any change is actually getting used to the sound.
> 
> *Speaker burn* in is one audiophile myth that has some substance to it. Burn in of other stuff is totally unproven.


 

 Agreed. 
   
   
   
  USG


----------



## Mambosenior

It seems plausible that audio equipment such as speakers do have/need an adaptive period. Since speakers are composed of more than electronic components—wood, metal, padding, cloth—the temperature and humidity level, to name just two factors, of a listener's room would conceivably have an effect on the sound. I've noticed that if temperature and humidity fluctuate drastically (i.e.: a long power outage) in my audio room, the sound does obviously change. I don't understand how this could be make-believe on my part. Could cable and/or audio equipment performance be also susceptible to these factors?
   
  Since I have very little opportunity to listen to my speaker-based system, sometimes for months at a time, the initial listening session gives me a sound that is flat, with the sound-field extremely narrow. After 48 hours of leaving the system on and playing music through it repeatedly without sitting and listening to it, the presentation returns to what I had remembered: a wide and deep sound-stage, very precise imaging and recognizable instrumental timbres. (Whether this Holy Grail was achieved at the 26th- or 34th-hour of continuous play, I don't know.) The room is a professionally treated acoustic space with dedicated electrical circuits. Except for the occasional replacement of a preamp driver tube (with same manufacturer) nothing has changed for the last 6-7 years. If this is common sense and I waste the reader's time (and patience), I apologize. My point is that if measurements of my equipment were to be made at the start and end the above-described “change” period, the scientific and quantifiable data would, probably, demonstrate no change in the laws of electrical conductivity between source and speakers, yet my hearing does acknowledge a difference...a BIG difference. It is an experience that I've tried with a number friends who are into audio and know my system. The perception of change has been unanimous. This was done by allowing only one person at a time to sit and listen so as to avoid any peer influence.
   
  Well, that's my story and I am sticking to it.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





willakan said:


> Evidence? I don't need no EVIDENCE cos I CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE!


 

 That is exactly how I feel.
   
Think of it this way: You dine at a restaurant with somebody you like. You're having a good time with this person, and the meal tastes great. A week later you return to the same restaurant and sit at the very same table and order the very same meal made exactly the same way with the same exact ingredients by the same exact chef, but this time you're dining with somebody who gets on your nerves, or maybe you're trying to eat after receiving some bad news. The food no longer tastes that good, and you don't enjoy the meal. Yet it was the _very _same meal that, according to a scientific analysis of the food, _should_ have tasted the same as it did before -- *only it didn't*.
   
  As long as I hear an improvement, that is what matters. Whether the improvement is due to physical or psychological factors, that's a fairly unimportant consideration as far as my musical enjoyment is concerned. This thread basically boils down to: You're not _supposed_ to hear a difference between your Cardas and stock Sennheiser headphone cables, or you're not _supposed_ to hear an improvement in your amp. The fact is that I *do* hear an improvement. Could the improvement be imaginary? Sure. But so what? As long as it adds to my enjoyment, the effect -- whether physical or "merely" psychological -- is welcome.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> That is exactly how I feel.
> 
> Think of it this way: You dine at a restaurant with somebody you like. You're having a good time with this person, and the meal tastes great. A week later you return to the same restaurant and sit at the very same table and order the very same meal made exactly the same way with the same exact ingredients by the same exact chef, but this time you're dining with somebody who gets on your nerves, or maybe you're trying to eat after receiving some bad news. The food no longer tastes that good, and you don't enjoy the meal. Yet it was the _very _same meal that, according to a scientific analysis of the food, _should_ have tasted the same as it did before -- *only it didn't*.
> 
> As long as I hear an improvement, that is what matters. Whether the improvement is due to physical or psychological factors, that's a fairly unimportant consideration as far as my musical enjoyment is concerned. This thread basically boils down to: You're not _supposed_ to hear a difference between your Cardas and stock Sennheiser headphone cables, or you're not _supposed_ to hear an improvement in your amp. The fact is that I *do* hear an improvement. Could the improvement be imaginary? Sure. But so what? As long as it adds to my enjoyment, the effect -- whether physical or "merely" psychological -- is welcome.


 

  
  But why depend on an object to make a subjective change; would it not make more sense just to make the adjustment in the subjective domain?


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Don't know why that should be true Proggie?  You can't undo the deterioration that occurs with use in headphones and speakers, by leaving them alone for a while.
> 
> Speaker burn in has some substance to it, but speaker deterioration is a fact.
> 
> ...


 

  
  It's not deterioration we're talking about - "warm up" is a better term to describe this sort of change, similar to a cold engine warming up.  The compliance of the suspension, stiffness of the diaphragm, conductivity of the electrical components, and other particular aspects affecting performance are, depending on the particular thing, either known to change with the increasing temperature of a running component or potentially may impact it.  The significance of any particular aspect is a bit more murky.
   
  There's no doubt that car engines run far more efficiently after warmup because the oil used in engines is tuned to have the right viscosity at expected operating temperatures - just viscous enough for startup in cold weather, optimal efficiency at steady-state running temperatures, and not becoming too viscous at high operating temperatures (of course that all depends on the car/oil/conditions, but you get my point).
   
  On the other hand, speakers and headphones obviously don't have that same critical level of high dependance of performance on temperature - so differences are smaller.  We know, for example, and can predict how electrical components behave at changing temperatures.  The differences are usually small but measurable.  The same goes for rubber and foam suspensions, and so on.
   
  The same goes for the other environmental conditions mentioned - although heat is certainly the largest operating difference.


----------



## Mkubota1

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Don't know why that should be true Proggie?  You can't undo the deterioration that occurs with use in headphones and speakers, by leaving them alone for a while.


 

  Like most everything I think it's a matter of degree.  Basically like a rubber band: If you stretch it and let go, it will return back to it's original shape- more or less.  If you really examined it up close you would probably find that it didn't return to its exact dimensions, nor will it ever.  The same can be said for moving drivers, except that drivers are typically composed of multiple materials- some which will rebound fairly easily like rubber or foam.  Things like paper or cloth might not regain their original form as easily.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> That is exactly how I feel.
> 
> Think of it this way: You dine at a restaurant with somebody you like. You're having a good time with this person, and the meal tastes great. A week later you return to the same restaurant and sit at the very same table and order the very same meal made exactly the same way with the same exact ingredients by the same exact chef, but this time you're dining with somebody who gets on your nerves, or maybe you're trying to eat after receiving some bad news. The food no longer tastes that good, and you don't enjoy the meal. Yet it was the _very _same meal that, according to a scientific analysis of the food, _should_ have tasted the same as it did before -- *only it didn't*.
> 
> As long as I hear an improvement, that is what matters. Whether the improvement is due to physical or psychological factors, that's a fairly unimportant consideration as far as my musical enjoyment is concerned. This thread basically boils down to: You're not _supposed_ to hear a difference between your Cardas and stock Sennheiser headphone cables, or you're not _supposed_ to hear an improvement in your amp. The fact is that I *do* hear an improvement. Could the improvement be imaginary? Sure. But so what? As long as it adds to my enjoyment, the effect -- whether physical or "merely" psychological -- is welcome.


 


The thing is, the meal you're paying for isn't advertised, promoted, and sold with the pretext that it will taste better if you enjoy it with a friend, and charge _you_ extra to have a friend there (not meaning charging them for their meal - just charging extra to have someone else in your party at the restaurant).  Your analogy is entirely irrelevant as regards to the value proposition.
   
That differs from snake oil salesmen, which either directly state or at the very least imply that there are actual, measurable differences that the snake oil is making.  If snake oil products were sold as audio jewelry for those that only want the best, sure, that's fine - as long as they're not falsely purporting (even passively) to do something that they don't.  As long as buyers are understanding that they're buying audio jewelry - not being falsely conned (by anyone including internet forum users and shop salespeople) into thinking that what they are purchasing makes a difference beyond what they imagine to be the difference, that's fine.  But that's not what's happening.  That's what the problem is.  People buying things that they are told and believe make objective differences to the sound, despite all evidence to the contrary.  Lies told or perpetuated in order to make profits (and for those who are entirely deluding themselves, somehow seek happiness), in other words.
   
  Sorry, I realized I was just taking your bait again.  This thread is for the discussion of the testing of audiophile claims and myths through the scientific method, not arguing about the ethics of those who do in fact sell audio products that make no significant measurable difference (but purport to do so, whether directly or indirectly).
   
  So if you want to talk about that, make a thread concerning that.  A dedicated thread for hearing perception would be appropriate.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





mambosenior said:


> It seems plausible that audio equipment such as speakers do have/need an adaptive period. Since speakers are composed of more than electronic components—wood, metal, padding, cloth—the temperature and humidity level, to name just two factors, of a listener's room would conceivably have an effect on the sound. I've noticed that if temperature and humidity fluctuate drastically (i.e.: a long power outage) in my audio room, the sound does obviously change. I don't understand how this could be make-believe on my part. Could cable and/or audio equipment performance be also susceptible to these factors?
> 
> Since I have very little opportunity to listen to my speaker-based system, sometimes for months at a time, the initial listening session gives me a sound that is flat, with the sound-field extremely narrow. After 48 hours of leaving the system on and playing music through it repeatedly without sitting and listening to it, *the presentation returns to what I had remembered*: a wide and deep sound-stage, very precise imaging and recognizable instrumental timbres. (Whether this Holy Grail was achieved at the 26th- or 34th-hour of continuous play, I don't know.) The room is a professionally treated acoustic space with dedicated electrical circuits. Except for the occasional replacement of a preamp driver tube (with same manufacturer) nothing has changed for the last 6-7 years. If this is common sense and I waste the reader's time (and patience), I apologize. My point is that if measurements of my equipment were to be made at the start and end the above-described “change” period, the scientific and quantifiable data would, probably, demonstrate no change in the laws of electrical conductivity between source and speakers, yet my hearing does acknowledge a difference...a BIG difference. It is an experience that I've tried with a number friends who are into audio and know my system. The perception of change has been unanimous. This was done by allowing only one person at a time to sit and listen so as to avoid any peer influence.
> 
> Well, that's my story and I am sticking to it.


 

*I've noticed that if temperature and humidity fluctuate drastically <snip> in my audio room, the sound does obviously change*
   
  It's not your imagination, I've noticed similar fluctuations with my speakers due to temperature and humidity, but I can't think of a reason why power outages or lack of use would affect them.
   
*....the presentation returns to what I had remembered*...
   
  I think it's just a function of your audio memory... after not listening to it for a while, it takes a little time before you're used to your sound field again.
    
  Quote:


blackbeardben said:


> *It's not deterioration we're talking about - "warm up" is a better term to describe this sort of change*, similar to a cold engine warming up.  The compliance of the suspension, stiffness of the diaphragm, conductivity of the electrical components, and other particular aspects affecting performance are, depending on the particular thing, either known to change with the increasing temperature of a running component or potentially may impact it.  The significance of any particular aspect is a bit more murky.
> 
> There's no doubt that car engines run far more efficiently after warmup because the oil used in engines is tuned to have the right viscosity at expected operating temperatures - just viscous enough for startup in cold weather, optimal efficiency at steady-state running temperatures, and not becoming too viscous at high operating temperatures (of course that all depends on the car/oil/conditions, but you get my point).
> 
> ...


 

 I was under the impression the topic was "break in" not warm up.  I agree with you that a "warm up" period can exist for many types of equipment, but the the number of hours required for "break in" is something else.  My feeling is that what's going on is a gradual deterioration rather than a "break in".
   
  I hate to post this in the middle of a thread because it could get lost, but *there is one documented  instance of* *gradual deterioration over time, that I know of.*
   
  We've all read the Carver Challenge so I won't repeat it.  What I will bring up is that 6 months after Bob Carver won the Challenge by making his SS amp sound like the tube amp, the magazine had an opportunity to evaluate the two amps a second time.  What they found was that the two amps didn't sound the same any more.  The reviewers attributed it to the gradual deterioration of the tubes in the tube amp during the 6 month period, but it could have just as well been a combination of both.  Regardless, the net result was that the null effect Carver had achieved was no longer there.
   
   
  Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> The thing is, the meal you're paying for isn't advertised, promoted, and sold with the pretext that it will taste better if you enjoy it with a friend, and charge _you_ extra to have a friend there (not meaning charging them for their meal - just charging extra to have someone else in your party at the restaurant).  Your analogy is entirely irrelevant as regards to the value proposition.
> 
> That differs from snake oil salesmen, which either directly state or at the very least imply that there are actual, measurable differences that the snake oil is making.  If snake oil products were sold as audio jewelry for those that only want the best, sure, that's fine - as long as they're not falsely purporting (even passively) to do something that they don't.  As long as buyers are understanding that they're buying audio jewelry - not being falsely conned (by anyone including internet forum users and shop salespeople) into thinking that what they are purchasing makes a difference beyond what they imagine to be the difference, that's fine.  But that's not what's happening.  That's what the problem is.  People buying things that they are told and believe make objective differences to the sound, despite all evidence to the contrary.  Lies told or perpetuated in order to make profits (and for those who are entirely deluding themselves, somehow seek happiness), in other words.
> 
> ...


 

 Good call.


----------



## Mambosenior

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> *I've noticed that if temperature and humidity fluctuate drastically <snip> in my audio room, the sound does obviously change*
> 
> It's not your imagination, I've noticed similar fluctuations with my speakers due to temperature and humidity, but I can't think of a reason why power outages or lack of use would affect them.
> 
> ...


 
  1. A power outage takes out AC systems as well as the automatic humidity control system.
   
  2. I would like to think it's my audio memory that is faulty and there is really no difference. However when I listen to a large symphonic score and hear the woodwinds coming from right above my knees, with all instruments bunched together and 3 feet away from me, I am quite sure that's not what I remembered from years of listening. In a couple of days the same passage is emanating from ear level, about 8 feet away from me and with almost visible instrumental separation. Go figure! (Call me Ishmael or call me crazy.)


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> That is exactly how I feel.
> 
> Think of it this way: You dine at a restaurant with somebody you like. You're having a good time with this person, and the meal tastes great. A week later you return to the same restaurant and sit at the very same table and order the very same meal made exactly the same way with the same exact ingredients by the same exact chef, but this time you're dining with somebody who gets on your nerves, or maybe you're trying to eat after receiving some bad news. The food no longer tastes that good, and you don't enjoy the meal. Yet it was the _very _same meal that, according to a scientific analysis of the food, _should_ have tasted the same as it did before -- *only it didn't*.
> 
> As long as I hear an improvement, that is what matters. Whether the improvement is due to physical or psychological factors, that's a fairly unimportant consideration as far as my musical enjoyment is concerned. This thread basically boils down to: You're not _supposed_ to hear a difference between your Cardas and stock Sennheiser headphone cables, or you're not _supposed_ to hear an improvement in your amp. The fact is that I *do* hear an improvement. Could the improvement be imaginary? Sure. But so what? As long as it adds to my enjoyment, the effect -- whether physical or "merely" psychological -- is welcome.


 

  
  You're almost there!  And the final step is..  Given that human experience and enjoyment is so strongly influenced by ones' current state, ideas, expectations  etc.  this factor could be accounted for and completely eliminated by simply removing one's knowledge of the hardware/cable/amp they're hearing.  The genius of this step is that it renders these (inescapable, natural, powerful) psychological factors mathematically independent*  of the particular hardware that is being evaluated.  And so with enough samples, these psychological factors are completely averaged out and all that is left is the influence of the actual hardware on one's judgement.  Ta da!
   
  * , which here means the probability of A (the choice of better hardware) given B, (knowledge/bias/expectation during the listening session) is equal to the probability of A.  Meaning that B has no influence on A and A is an independent probability. 
   
  Nobody believes that psychology doesn't affect experience, pleasure and judgement.  In fact that is our starting premise.  But to get on with discussions of actual hardware efficacy, we want to eliminate this influence.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





mambosenior said:


> 1. A power outage takes out AC systems as well as the automatic humidity control system.
> 
> 2. I would like to think it's my audio memory that is faulty and there is really no difference. However when I listen to a large symphonic score and hear the woodwinds coming from right above my knees, with all instruments bunched together and 3 feet away from me, I am quite sure that's not what I remembered from years of listening. In a couple of days the same passage is emanating from ear level, about 8 feet away from me and with almost visible instrumental separation. Go figure! (Call me Ishmael or call me crazy.)


 
   
  I didn't realize you were referring to air conditioning.     Point taken. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Pressure can also be a factor.  High pressure areas sound one way and low pressure areas another.
   
*...when I listen to a large symphonic score and hear the woodwinds coming from right above my knees, with all instruments bunched together and 3 feet away from me,...In a couple of days the same passage is emanating from ear level, about 8 feet away from me.... *
   
  Ok, you don't like the audio memory analogy. 
   
  How about this:  Maybe it's positional.
   
  When you begin listening after a long time away from your system, you're sitting stiff and upright, quite agitated that the sound is hitting you in the knees and the sound stage isn't right.  After a few days, you're become more relaxed, maybe had a beer or two. You've laid back and stretched out with your feet up and now the sound is hitting you at ear level with all the associated benefits.


----------



## CEE TEE

*Apologies* if someone has already linked to Tyll, but he measures the AKG 701 to see if there is evidence of any headphone burn-in:
   
  http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break
   
  Our own One-Man Mythbuster Squad.
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Yes, whilst there is evidence to show there is burn in of speakers we don't know how much of that is audible and how much any change is actually getting used to the sound.
> 
> Speaker burn in is one audiophile myth that has some substance to it. Burn in of other stuff is totally unproven.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





cee tee said:


> *Apologies* if someone has already linked to Tyll, but he measures the AKG 701 to see if there is evidence of any headphone burn-in:
> 
> http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break
> 
> Our own One-Man Mythbuster Squad.


 

 Well shucks, don't leave Tyll's summary out:
   
*Summary:   Did I show break-in exists?** No.** There are too many variables still. Was it simply movement? I don't know. If I did it again to another brand new pair would I get the same results? I don't know. If I did it to an already broken in pair would I get the same results? I don't know. *


----------



## CEE TEE

Just happy that someone is testing the question...
   
  I guess to delve further, you would need a statistically significant sample of the Q701.  
   
  Then you would be interested in the fundamental resonance areas (based on the initial development study observations) plus anything unexpected that could be observed.
   
  After that you would want to test other headphones to investigate further into the more significant changes- are they mostly observed in the fundamental resonances of the other drivers/headphones?
   
  Then we might tackle the audibility of any swings.  They don't appear to be that large but I am still very inexperienced and don't have an idea of the level of difference that I can perceive yet...maybe Tyll could comment on the audible nature of these differences based upon his experience?
   
  And, is there any correlation noticed <in any headphone> between noise/distortion anomalies and the FR?  Any audibility in any of these noise/distortion differences?


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





cee tee said:


> Just happy that someone is testing the question...
> 
> I guess to delve further, you would need a statistically significant sample of the Q701.
> 
> ...


 

 Yeah, what you said, tackle the audibility of the swings.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> But why depend on an object to make a subjective change; would it not make more sense just to make the adjustment in the subjective domain?


 

 The thing about the subjective domain, it doesn't exist independently of an outside world. And the thing about the placebo effect, expectation bias, and listening with your eyes -- when it is happening to you, you _believe_ the improvement is real. That's precisely what makes the effect effective. But the very fact that you _believe_ that the change is _physically_ real means that you're going to resist any explanation that suggests that it's some kind of subjective-imaginary bias. If I'm undergoing placebo, you should expect me to reject any explanation that limits the phenomenon entirely to the subjective domain. Yet I will acknowledge that the effect might be imaginary. But, if so, what can I tell you, the imagination offers a very nice enhancement to the sound, and I'm the happier for it.


----------



## upstateguy

Edit: see Below.


----------



## upstateguy

Post Deleted.  I got trolled.


----------



## WrxSTI

Think I'll rather afford myself real improvements than imaginatory ones, thank you very much.


----------



## Audio-Omega

We can hear whether the other person is smiling or not when talking on the phone.  Can measurement tell such difference ?


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





audio-omega said:


> We can hear whether the other person is smiling or not when talking on the phone.  Can measurement tell such difference ?


 

 You can hear people smile? Laughing yes, but smiling? Do you mean the change of the pitch of the voice (which can be measured of course)?


----------



## Audio-Omega

Voice can sound lighter and energetic when smiling.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





audio-omega said:


> Voice can sound lighter and energetic when smiling.


 

 Sure, you can measure that. There are a lots of software products that can analyze voices. For example you can also analyze voice for stress to detect lies.
  If you want to develop something like this on your own all you have to do is to come up with the right algorithms.  Input is a simple audio file that contains the recorded voice.


----------



## Audio-Omega

Is that measurable by the gadgets used to measure headphones, cables and amplifiers ?


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





audio-omega said:


> Is that measurable by the gadgets used to measure headphones, cables and amplifiers ?


 

 If you mean analog instruments and/or ADCs + software analysis, yes, without a doubt.
   
  I have no clue if someone is smiling or not on the phone.  If there is in fact a real difference in how one sounds when smiling over the phone, and I can't tell, it is either because my ear/brain system isn't sensitive enough (not going to be a problem with average hearing on horrible phone lines) or I don't know what cues to listen to.
   
  The same goes for analysis via instrumentation.  If we can hear it, we can measure it.  We just need to identify what differences there are, and the measuring equipment can do that quite easily.  Compare many multiple samples of "smiling" versus "not smiling" (since unlike testing audio amplification/DACs/etc. we're talking about the source signal, which is different every time when we're talking about smiling vs. not smiling when talking) and you can identify the specific sonic differences.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





> The present research has demonstrated that listeners can, with varying degrees of success,
> hear different types of smiles in the voices of strangers in the absence of visual cues. Listeners
> are very good at discriminating ‘Duchenne Smiles’ from ‘No Smiles’. They can also, to a lesser
> degree, successfully discriminate ‘Non-Duchenne Smiles’ from ‘No Smiles’, and ‘Suppressed
> ...


 
  Link to a paper on this subject: http://peer.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/49/91/97/PDF/PEER_stage2_10.1016%252Fj.specom.2007.10.001.pdf
   
  It's seems a bit of a messy thing talking about detecting the smile from a voice. We are interpretation "machines": we are always making interpretations of the world. A machine can't - yet and possibly ever - interpret the meanings of smiles and then understand the social cues. I have no doubt that the difference between a smiling voice and non smiling voice could be correlated to a change in some aspect of the signal. There appears to be some research done with spectral analysis, but the papers lay behind paywalls.
   
  Still, it's the kind of question that lay outside of the concerns of sound reproduction: the differences exists outside of any reproduction technology. You could, just walk up to someone and close your eyes and try to determine if they were smiling. No cables, no driver, no amp, no dac, no technology.
   
  We can probe the voice signal with instruments, but we will not be able to grasp the smiles inside the signal: the smile is a human interpretation. We can make a correlation to some parameter of the sound, but it's not the smile itself.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> I have no doubt that the difference between a smiling voice and non smiling voice could be correlated to a change in some aspect of the signal.


 

 In fact there has to be a change in the voice, else we wouldn't be able to 'detect' that someone is smiling while talking. There is no magical connection.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





xnor said:


> In fact there has to be a change in the voice, else we wouldn't be able to 'detect' that someone is smiling while talking. There is no magical connection.


 

 Exactly.  We're chemical and electrical machines - no magic.  If there's a change in the voice, we can measure it, and given a study to correlate the change with emotional responses, etc. it can be understood.
   
  Additionally, just because we haven't measured or can't yet measure something does not mean we can't or never will, respectively.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Exactly.  We're chemical and electrical machines - *no magic*.  If there's a change in the voice, we can measure it, and given a study to correlate the change with emotional responses, etc. it can be understood.
> 
> Additionally, just because we haven't measured or can't yet measure something does not mean we can't or never will, respectively.


 

 Of course even if it was magic that doesn't mean we couldn't figure it out either.  Magic has to follow rules too.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Magic has to follow rules too.


 
   
  Hah, good one.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





wrxsti said:


> Think I'll rather afford myself real improvements than imaginatory ones, thank you very much.


 


 I'm all for real improvements, but imaginary ones are real if they sound THIS good.


----------



## Heidegger

You're so wrong. We're not chemical and electrical machines. We're not machines at all. Try again. It's amazing to me that we would equate ourselves with the things we _build_ (machines). We're so much more than that.
  
  Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Exactly.  We're chemical and electrical machines - no magic.


----------



## Yoga Flame

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> You're so wrong. We're not chemical and electrical machines. We're not machines at all. Try again. It's amazing to me that we would equate ourselves with the things we _build_ (machines). We're so much more than that.


 
   
  There is ongoing philosophical debate over that matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_(philosophy)


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





yoga flame said:


> There is ongoing philosophical debate over that matter.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_(philosophy)


 

 It's interesting that people philosophize over this...  I suppose for those that believe in magical hand-waving of life (vitalizm), philosophizing is necessary because seeking knowledge via science is already ruled out from the beginning.
   
  So again we're back to the science vs. magic debate...  How quaint.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> So again we're back to the science vs. magic debate...  How quaint.


 
  I see it more as running into Cartesian dualism again and again. Subject vs Object.


----------



## Willakan

Why do these discussions always end up in philosophy? I actually find philosophy quite interesting, but in this context it's not hugely relevant - the point isn't whether or not an imaginary perceived difference is real - you've got to persuade people that it's imaginary first!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I agree. Some evidence from the pro cable side would be nice.


----------



## DaBomb77766

What.  I just read some of the posts up in this page and what is this.  How does this have anything to do with cables? 
   
  That said, the distinction between what is "alive" and what is "machine" will, eventually, begin to blur.  There is nothing "special" about humans, if our technological capacity becomes great enough it would certainly be possible to manufacture "people" in a factory dedicated to such a purpose.  You could even make people who are specifically designed to listen to audio equipment critically!
   
  Buuut, that is utterly irrelevant to cables, as far as I can see?  Not really sure what was going on here since I'm too lazy/tired to read a few pages back?
   
  Human psychology is extremely interesting though.  I find it endlessly intriguing how people can deceive themselves into believing a falsity beyond a shadow of a doubt, to the point it is impossible to change their mind, and actually "see," "hear" and "feel" things that aren't there.  It's endlessly infuriating too though.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Some people just do not want to hear that they could well be wrong. This thread was originally posted in the What Hifi forum and was deleted in its entirety. Then I pointed out that one of the Editor's was mixing blind testing with ABX testing, so ineffect misrepresenting the results of their blind tests run with forum members and published in the magazine. (The original post in this thread has been modified to relfect that). Recently I have been posting about how cable makers were unable to show how their cables actually affect sound quality. That has been the final straw as I am now banned


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Some people just do not want to hear that they could well be wrong. This thread was originally posted in the What Hifi forum and was deleted in its entirety. Then I pointed out that one of the Editor's was mixing blind testing with ABX testing, so ineffect misrepresenting the results of their blind tests run with forum members and published in the magazine. (The original post in this thread has been modified to relfect that). Recently I have been posting about how cable makers were unable to show how their cables actually affect sound quality. That has been the final straw as I am now banned


 


  Censorship at its finest, I guess...it sucks if the ones in power are the ones with the flawed preconceptions.  Of course, their beliefs are so strong that they feel we are the ones with the preconceptions, which is interesting, sad and true, all at the same time.
   
  It'd be nice if Tyll would do some technical tests involving USB and analog cables with his rather sophisticated test equipment though.  People should pester him about doing that more, maybe it'll make him more likely to do it...or it could have the opposite effect.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





willakan said:


> Why do these discussions always end up in philosophy? I actually find philosophy quite interesting, but in this context it's not hugely relevant - the point isn't whether or not an imaginary perceived difference is real - you've got to persuade people that it's imaginary first!


 

 It ends up in philosophy because the only recourse the the crazies have is to attack the basis of science itself.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Philosophising about science.
   
  Question hearing ability.
   
  Crying why can't we just enjoy our cables.
   
  Ignoring the evidence as presented from numerous sources.
   
  Those crazies really annoy me!


----------



## Tyll Hertsens

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> It'd be nice if Tyll would do some technical tests involving USB and analog cables with his rather sophisticated test equipment though.  People should pester him about doing that more, maybe it'll make him more likely to do it...or it could have the opposite effect.


 
   
  Prolly not going to do it.    
   
  I've never heard a USB cable make a difference, and while I have heard analog cables make a difference it's not really up my alley. LODs maybe, but really, three inches of good cable after the electrons have been traveling further inside consumer grade devices just doesn't make much difference.  I'm way more interested in LODs that don't break and are nice and flexible and reach cleanly where they need to go.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> It ends up in philosophy because the only recourse the the crazies have is to attack the basis of science itself.


 

 You admitted yourself some pages back that science isn't perfect, that it has its limitations.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> You admitted yourself some pages back that science isn't perfect, that it has its limitations.


 

 That still doesn't mean there's any reason to believe whatever wild ass guess someone comes up with until they present evidence for it.


----------



## Heidegger

When seeking to acquire a good headphone system, how much science does the average consumer need to take into account? In my opinion, very little to none. Instead of obssessing over the latest ABX results, try as many headphones/amp/source combinations as you can afford and stick with the one that sounds best to you, regardless of what the latest "study" says, which may very well be superceded by next year.
   
  Look at the numbers if you want, but they are never substitutes for listening for yourself. Trust the opinion of someone with lots of experience listening to and comparing lots of different equipment over many years or decades, rather than someone who just looks at the latest studies and automatically decrees what people should or should not be hearing.
   
  My rule of thumb is: "Listen for yourself." Don't let a silly old ABX study determine what you listen to. ABX studies kept me from trying SACD, DVD-A, and BD for years, but when I finally switched over it was the best audio decision I ever made (aside from getting the right speakers/headphones).
   
  Several people on this thread have called me crazy, but of course scientists are the ones who are repeatedly referred to as mad. (Who hasn't heard the phrase "mad scientist"?) To sane people, the Earth is our home, but from the technological/scientific point of view the Earth isn't home at all but an object, a "resource" to be used, manipulated, and exploited. This "scientific" attitude is indeed insane and will lead to disaster. It already has lead to disaster (nuclear arsenals that can destroy the world several times over, pollution, environmental degradation, the constant threat that scientists, who continue to play with fire by trying to rip the very fabric of existence apart, will blow up the entire planet), it's just that we aren't being honest with ourselves about it. Thanks to science and technology, we're well on our way to becoming the Death Star, and if that isn't insane nothing is.
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Philosophising about science.
> 
> Question hearing ability.
> 
> ...


----------



## Heidegger

Who said anything about believing wild guesses? Regarding audio matters, you don't need to believe anything I or anybody else tells you. My point is: listen for yourself. To which you say, I don't need to listen because the science already tells me ahead of time what I will hear. That's what I find troubling. People won't even listen to something because they already know it's bunk because science says so.
  
  And if you listen for yourself and prefer one amp to another, or prefer sacd to rbcd, then you're called crazy by people who've never even listened for themselves.
  
  Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> That still doesn't mean there's any reason to believe whatever wild ass guess someone comes up with until they present evidence for it.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote:


heidegger said:


> Several people on this thread have called me crazy, but of course scientists are the ones who are repeatedly referred to as mad. (Who hasn't heard the phrase "mad scientist"?) To sane people, the Earth is our home, but from the technological/scientific point of view the Earth isn't home at all but an object, a "resource" to be used, manipulated, and exploited. This "scientific" attitude is indeed insane and will lead to disaster. It already has lead to disaster (nuclear arsenals that can destroy the world several times over, pollution, environmental degradation, the constant threat that scientists, who continue to play with fire by trying to rip the very fabric of existence apart, will blow up the entire planet), it's just that we aren't being honest with ourselves about it. Thanks to science and technology, we're well on our way to becoming the Death Star, and if that isn't insane nothing is.


 

 You do realize that those "mad scientists" are in fact the reason why you can listen to recorded music in the privacy of your own home in addition to arguing with people who are far more grateful for the advances that the scientific method has brought us, via the _internet_.
   
  It never stops being amusing when ever someone takes the time to compose an anti-science screed on a computer and post it to the internet.  Put your money where your mouth is and move off the grid to the middle of nowhere or stand out on the street corner in rags proclaiming doom to any who will listen.  The truth is you can't.  You're too used to modern conveniences to do it, even if you actually felt that way.  You're just the same as those middle class whiny "activists"  who make "sacrifices" for the sake of fashion that few others can afford to take.  While people like you whine about things you don't understand some people are actually working to make the world a better place to live in.
   
  You might not think something silly like headphone cables has anything to do millions starving in the third world but all this woo stems from the same sources and you're contributing to it.  I'm neither a brilliant scientist or a maverick inventor who will single handedly save or improve billions of lives but I can do my best to pave the way for their advances by spreading helpful memes and smacking down harmful ones.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Who said anything about believing wild guesses? Regarding audio matters, you don't need to believe anything I or anybody else tells you. My point is: listen for yourself. To which you say, I don't need to listen because the science already tells me ahead of time what I will hear. That's what I find troubling. People won't even listen to something because they already know it's bunk because science says so.
> 
> And if you listen for yourself and prefer one amp to another, or prefer sacd to rbcd, then you're called crazy by people who've never even listened for themselves.


 

 Or perhaps I understand that perceptual errors, expectation bias, and a whole host of other issues makes looking for small differences in sound very difficult and can even invent large ones out of thin air.  Combined with a limited budget, its all you need to start taking measurements and blind tests very seriously.
   
  This difference steams from the fact that I and others like me are willing to admit our fallibility.  I don't trust my ears, I test them.  I look for measurements before I buy and I do my best to verify them afterwords.  I don't have much in the way of test equipment, but pink noise and a tone generator are surprisingly useful tools.  After a brief testing period I relax and just enjoy the music, knowing I don't have to worry about any metaphorical gremlins in the system.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Wow, am I hearing this right?  We actually have an anti-science advocate posting on the internet about high-end audio?
   
  That said, I don't trust my ears or anyone else's.  It's not their ears, per se, as much as it's their mind though.  I strongly believe that the placebo effect is far more powerful than most people give credit to.  It can change the way we perceive the world in rather nontrivial ways.  While some may be okay with this, I am not - I guess this is basically the main divide between the "believers" and "non-believers" in the audio world.


----------



## Uncle Erik

In other words, optical illusions are real? Just perceiving something is the definition of reality?

OK, take this a step further. You listen to cable X and think it sounds "bright." Someone else thinks cable X sounds "dark."

How do you determine which is right? Or is cable X simultaneously dark and bright?

How about if 100 people listened to cable X and 80 of them found cable X dark. Would that mean that you're wrong?

People hear what they expect to hear. Which is why when you take the logo off the cable no one can hear a difference. That's the reality.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> When seeking to acquire a good headphone system, how much science does the average consumer need to take into account? In my opinion, very little to none. Instead of obssessing over the latest ABX results, try as many headphones/amp/source combinations as you can afford and stick with the one that sounds best to you, regardless of what the latest "study" says, which may very well be superceded by next year.
> 
> Look at the numbers if you want, but they are never substitutes for listening for yourself. Trust the opinion of someone with lots of experience listening to and comparing lots of different equipment over many years or decades, rather than someone who just looks at the latest studies and automatically decrees what people should or should not be hearing.
> 
> ...


 



 Can you link to the ABX studies that stopped you from buying SACD etc? I can then put them into the first post on this thread about ABX testing. I would again ask you to start your own thread on the philosophy of science and to stop trolling here.


----------



## Willakan

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> In other words, optical illusions are real? Just perceiving something is the definition of reality?
> 
> OK, take this a step further. You listen to cable X and think it sounds "bright." Someone else thinks cable X sounds "dark."
> 
> How do you determine which is right? Or is cable X simultaneously dark and bright?


 
  It was such a conundrum as this which persuaded me to fully embrace audio science. When I first started looking at hi-fi equipment, I was unaware of the myriad of specs involved and started reading around to gather subjective opinion on what to buy - look at forum opinions, professional and non-professional reviews ect. My first choice was looking at a DAC to get. After lengthy research I concluded the following.
   
  Cambridge DACMagic<Yulong D100<Matrix Mini-i<DACMagic.
   
  I then posted a thread on the sound science forums "DAC Specs vs Subjective Opinion" in an effort to get to the bottom of all the confusing crap I was reading (This DAC is bright! No, it's warm! And more detailed and less detailed than this one! See this razor-flat frequency response? It's all wrong - it's bright and hence unmusical!)
   
  I started looking at numbers and never looked back.
   
  But the thing is, if I, as a consumer, have to do so much research and familiarise myself with so much audio science simply to get past all the BS to buy decently designed stuff that performs well, that suggests something is incredibly misleading in the entire industry - especially when initial conclusions suggest utterly bizarre things that are wholly confusing.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> How do you determine which is right?


 

 Fine, but listening to music isn't about being objective.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Fine, but listening to music isn't about being objective.


 

 Deciding how to spend your money should be.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Quote:
> 
> You do realize that those "mad scientists" are in fact the reason why you can listen to recorded music in the privacy of your own home in addition to arguing with people who are far more grateful for the advances that the scientific method has brought us, via the _internet_.
> 
> ...


 


 Do you realize how much you're sweeping under the rug with that post? But Prog Rock Man is right, this train of thought is off topic. I'll give it a rest.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Deciding how to spend your money should be.


 

 Not really. You should spend your money on the equipment that sounds best to you, assuming you can afford it.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





willakan said:


> It was such a conundrum as this which persuaded me to fully embrace audio science. When I first started looking at hi-fi equipment, I was unaware of the myriad of specs involved and started reading around to gather subjective opinion on what to buy - look at forum opinions, professional and non-professional reviews ect. My first choice was looking at a DAC to get. After lengthy research I concluded the following.
> 
> Cambridge DACMagic<Yulong D100<Matrix Mini-i<DACMagic.


 


  Hilarious.  I also found exactly the same thing after reading one too many posts about dacs.   Which is when I realized that so many of these deep opinions are just the experience of peoples' expectations.
   
  The human mind looks too hard for meaningful differences where there are none.  Stands to reason as over 80% of inputs to primary sensory cortex (areas that receive direct inputs from sense organs) come from within the brain.
   
  As blind tests are the only method for removing ~99% of all that subjective pollution, they are the only remaining option.


----------



## b0ck3n

What's wrong with my brain as I could never tell the difference?


----------



## Willakan

Just visit your nearest high-end audio shop with the idea "I am going to believe completely everything the salesman tells me." Emerge, $10,000 dollars poorer and I promise that you will hear a difference with all your new cable elevators and solid-state anti-vibration stands.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> What's wrong with my brain as I could never tell the difference?


 

 How seriously are you asking that question? The answer is absolutely nothing. Your hearing is spot on and your brain is resisteing belief in hype and psuedoscience.


----------



## b0ck3n

I've never been the imaginative kind. I never really doubted audiophile gospel either though, before learning that it was just that, gospel... would be kinda neat to hear "night and day" differences with all kinds of thingamobobs. But hey, atleast I don't have to worry about not being able to pay mortgage and keep food on the table.
   
  I've been to many HiFi stores, it's extremely tiring to have to explain that I just want to listen to a pair of headphones using my own music and not try the latest spaceship technology SACD player. "There's no point in buying that unless you're gonna pair it with this $25.000 DAC/amp combo". Truly they'd rather see me walk out the door without buying anything than just the headphones alone, unless I promise I've got some sick tubes waiting to roll back home.

  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> How seriously are you asking that question? The answer is absolutely nothing. Your hearing is spot on and your brain is resisteing belief in hype and psuedoscience.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

My music sounds tenfold times better now than when I believed cables made a difference and there was night and day difference between kit. Thinking the latter can only make you dissatisfied with your sound as you think you can do so much better with something (more expensive) than what you have. Not hearing a difference between cables (easy as there is no difference) and knowing night and day descriptives are nonsense means you can sit back and enjoy your music.
   
  The product that really gets my goat are aftermarket headphone cables, that cost more than the headphones 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. That just goes to show the power of suggestion over science with audiophiles.


----------



## b0ck3n

I've encountered many Cardas worshipping freaks. The good thing about old George is he's letting us know before hand how his cables are going to sound, so we don't run the risk of missing it when it happens.


----------



## Arnaldo

Do balanced connections make any sonic difference, either as interconnects or as headphone cables?
  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> [...] The product that really gets my goat are aftermarket headphone cables, that cost more than the headphones
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





arnaldo said:


> Do balanced connections make any sonic difference, either as interconnects or as headphone cables?


 

  
  Balanced cables make a difference in interconnects through better noise rejection. In headphone cabling it will lower the headphones impedance half. Arguments can be made that only a fully balanced system from the source all the way to the transducer is the only way to benefit from a balanced system. Changing the noise rejection and impedance is making a technical changes to the system; however, the question of an audibile difference vs technological difference can be one of shouting, face palming, and teeth gnashing.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> What's wrong with my brain as I could never tell the difference?


 
   
  Maybe you're a zombie.  Quick check- have you been bitten by the undead? 
   
  Here's an interesting article about a related issue- people who see patterns where none exist.  It seems that lack of control of one's life is a major predictor of the excessive perception of order in (literal) noise.  Maybe you're a zombie well in control of your destiny.
   
  edit: and here's a pdf.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





eucariote said:


> Maybe you're a zombie.  Quick check- have you been bitten by the undead?
> 
> Here's an interesting article about a related issue- people who see patterns where none exist.  It seems that lack of control of one's life is a major predictor of the excessive perception of order in (literal) noise.  Maybe you're a zombie well in control of your destiny.
> 
> edit: and here's a pdf.


 

 The implications are hilarious.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Thank you very much.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





arnaldo said:


> Do balanced connections make any sonic difference, either as interconnects or as headphone cables?


 

 We need an ABX test to know. Headphone cable ABX testing is difficult as you need to remove potentials of telling the difference such as feeling a different cable lying on your shoulder. My feeling is no, unless over a very long run in an environment where there is lots of RFI. That is why balanced cables are mainly for the pro audio market, recording and concerts.


----------



## Syan25

Thoroughly interesting read!


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> We need an ABX test to know. Headphone cable ABX testing is difficult as you need to remove potentials of telling the difference such as feeling a different cable lying on your shoulder. My feeling is no, unless over a very long run in an environment where there is lots of RFI. That is why balanced cables are mainly for the pro audio market, recording and concerts.


 


  Hm, I wonder if a balanced cable converted at the connector to be a normal TRS plug would be any different from running it in balanced mode?  Only headphones I know of that do this are the RE-ZERO and the RE262.  It'd be interesting to see ABX tests with that...and it would be incredibly easy to do, all that is needed is a balanced amp that supports the TRRS balanced connector and a normal TRS connector.


----------



## Arnaldo

From a purely logical perspective, meaning that I lack any practical experience on the matter, it makes sense that balanced cables are beneficial mostly when long runs are needed, and in installations where RFI is an issue. Likewise, it seems reasonable to assume as well that audible differences wouldn't be perceptible in a typical headphone setup, where short runs are employed. Either way, this is just the kind of useful info that this thread can and should strive to provide. Now, about power cords...
  
  Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> Balanced cables make a difference in interconnects through better noise rejection. In headphone cabling it will lower the headphones impedance half. Arguments can be made that only a fully balanced system from the source all the way to the transducer is the only way to benefit from a balanced system. Changing the noise rejection and impedance is making a technical changes to the system; however, the question of an audibile difference vs technological difference can be one of shouting, face palming, and teeth gnashing.


 
   

  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> We need an ABX test to know. Headphone cable ABX testing is difficult as you need to remove potentials of telling the difference such as feeling a different cable lying on your shoulder. My feeling is no, unless over a very long run in an environment where there is lots of RFI. That is why balanced cables are mainly for the pro audio market, recording and concerts.


----------



## Syan25

Yes- power cords - bring it on...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The powr cord test by Hifi Wigwam in the opening post is superb and conclusive that there is no difference between them.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> *My music sounds tenfold times better now than when I believed cables made a difference *and there was night and day difference between kit. Thinking the latter can only make you dissatisfied with your sound as you think you can do so much better with something (more expensive) than what you have. Not hearing a difference between cables (easy as there is no difference) and knowing night and day descriptives are nonsense means you can sit back and enjoy your music.
> 
> The product that really gets my goat are aftermarket headphone cables, that cost more than the headphones
> 
> ...


 

 My music sounds better than your music. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   


  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> The powr cord test by Hifi Wigwam in the opening post is superb and conclusive that there is no difference between them.


 

 Oh no, power cords make a big difference.  Just try your system without one.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Oh no, power cords make a big difference.  Just try your system without one.


 


 It plays just fine for a second or two till the caps run dry...


----------



## xnor

sorry for spam but YMMD


----------



## tmars78

Someone in the cable sub-forum is asking about headphone cables...that cost MORE than the headphone. That completely baffles me. I want to tell him to save his money, but it will only start a flame war, and I am not being the one to start it.


----------



## eucariote

^ I hear you.  A few weeks ago the HD650 thread turned into a celebration of the sound qualities of after-market cables, their substantive improvement over stock cable, etc.  I wrote up a challenge, offering my HF-1 or SRH840 headphones to anyone who could pass a blind test between their cables.  But couldn't post it, as I would have a party pooper and borderline troll.  Hallucinations make people happy- why take that away from them?


----------



## b0ck3n

I've seen evidence that the latest FOTM DAC actually degrades the signal from an iPod. I'm reluctant to share, even though it's recommended all over the place as the TotL portable solution, simply because it would only cause me grief. Whatever measurements I can provide will be drowned out in a sea of subjectivist noise - just look at what happened to dfkt when he blew the lid on the very expensive HiFiMAN players.

I agree that people should be allowed to imagine things as long as it makes them happy. It only becomes a problem when it leads to others wasting their hard earned cash and perhaps ending up with something that _didn't_ make a night and day difference.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





eucariote said:


> ^ I hear you.  A few weeks ago the HD650 thread turned into a celebration of the sound qualities of after-market cables, their substantive improvement over stock cable, etc.  I wrote up a challenge, offering my HF-1 or SRH840 headphones to anyone who could pass a blind test between their cables.  But couldn't post it, as I would have a party pooper and borderline troll.  Hallucinations make people happy- why take that away from them?


 

 I agree people are free to believe what they want, but when you own a $1,000+ headphone and are willing to spend more than that, on a cable for it, that, to me, is borderline psychotic. The price of that cable could get you 100 or more BRAND NEW cds, or 200 or more used ones. I wish someone would really take cables to task. Like buy one of their cables, claim it doesn't do what they say it does, then take them to court, and have them blind test it. They would fall flat on their face.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> I agree people are free to believe what they want, but when you own a $1,000+ headphone and are willing to spend more than that, on a cable for it, that, to me, is borderline psychotic. The price of that cable could get you 100 or more BRAND NEW cds, or 200 or more used ones. I wish someone would really take cables to task. Like buy one of their cables, claim it doesn't do what they say it does, then take them to court, and have them blind test it. They would fall flat on their face.


 


  Dunno, they have pretty good lawyers.  At least, the big ones do.


----------



## khaos974

Several mind altering products do indeed make music sound better, the impact is more noticeable than an amp change. Should I get stoned when I listen to music? 
Because this logic is what Heidegger (the poster) uses to justify his purchase method.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> Dunno, they have pretty good lawyers.  At least, the big ones do.


 

 I am sure they do, but I am sure the tests would speak for themselves, or one should hope.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> I am sure they do, but I am sure the tests would speak for themselves, or one should hope.


 


  ...some lawyers are pretty good.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> Several mind altering products do indeed make music sound better, the impact is more noticeable than an amp change. Should I get stoned when I listen to music?
> Because this logic is what Heidegger (the poster) uses to justify his purchase method.


 
   I don't understand the people who use material science and technical objects as tools but judge the results by subjective and idealistic measures. It would seem that if subjective results are all that matter then changes could be made by simply adjusting the subjective experience and ignoring material objects completely. Altering consciousness through drug use would certainly one way. But why the more subjective leaning audiophiles don't dive right into the meat of subjective tweakdom, I don't understand. It seems that many desiring the appearance of legitimacy of pseudoscience and the materialism of comercial consumption yet shun the work of the true subjectivists. Anyway I'm off to put some blue pieces of paper under the plants in my living room and align the screws in the electrical outlets.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> ...some lawyers are pretty good.


 

 Yeah, I mean OJ was found not guilty.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> Someone in the cable sub-forum is asking about headphone cables...that cost MORE than the headphone. That completely baffles me. I want to tell him to save his money, but it will only start a flame war, and I am not being the one to start it.


 


   


  Quote: 





eucariote said:


> ^ I hear you.  A few weeks ago the HD650 thread turned into a celebration of the sound qualities of after-market cables, their substantive improvement over stock cable, etc.  I wrote up a challenge, offering my HF-1 or SRH840 headphones to anyone who could pass a blind test between their cables.  But couldn't post it, as I would have a party pooper and borderline troll.  Hallucinations make people happy- why take that away from them?


 



 Doing exactly that got me a weeks ban here. I am now permanently banned from What Hifi for 'calling into question the integrity of the reviewing staff', in other words, I think you may be wrong about something, lets discuss it is forbidden. I have also posted on Hifi Wigwam, at first to see if a debate was possible on the general forum, which it is not due to trolling by the pro cable side and like here I am now relegated to an obscure side forum with fewer vists than elesewhere.


----------



## Syan25

Yes - I have also found things can be very sensitive - which makes lack of objectivity....I once complained that something was too expensive on the high-end forum and got a warning....


----------



## Willakan

Quote: 





syan25 said:


> Yes - I have also found things can be very sensitive - which makes lack of objectivity....I once complained that something was too expensive on the high-end forum and got a warning....


 


  Seriously? On what site? Surely not head-fi?


----------



## xnor

Something like that really makes me sick.. and makes me question why I'm still sticking around. Guess I'd be long gone without this subforum (where sanity and reason hasn't been abolished).


----------



## Syan25

Yes it was head-fi. They told me it was the hi-end forum and I had no right to question the price because it was the high-end forum where price is not the issue to be debated.


----------



## Syan25

I'm not trying to say anything negative about this site - I enjoy being on here alot and I have learned many things - but I would say - people can get very sensitive,,,


----------



## b0ck3n

This thread has done me far more good than all the rest of the forum put together, and I reference it all the time. I'm very thankful for your efforts, as well as those of other contributors to this thread.

Money makes Head-Fi go around and that becomes painfully obvious every once in a while. If you're gonna crash their party they'll do their best to invoke whatever obscure rules or policies they can to shut you up.



prog rock man said:


> Doing exactly that got me a weeks ban here. I am now permanently banned from What Hifi for 'calling into question the integrity of the reviewing staff', in other words, I think you may be wrong about something, lets discuss it is forbidden. I have also posted on Hifi Wigwam, at first to see if a debate was possible on the general forum, which it is not due to trolling by the pro cable side and like here I am now relegated to an obscure side forum with fewer vists than elesewhere.


----------



## Willakan

I think what nicely sums it up is an offhand line from a debate I was having in the "Can RCA cables make a difference" thread.
   
  "The idea that you can achieve perfection with a $1000 DAC is laughable."
  Note that the "perfection" refers to a previous comment from me about how a certain DAC was effectively measurably perfect many orders of magnitude beyond audibility.
   
  The DACs he suggested were superior had only two differences vs the much cheaper DAC - they were much more expensive and Stereophile liked them.
  Not to bash his choice or him here, but it seems depressing that price appears to be the only factor that really drives this hobby - something is more expensive, therefore it must be better and lo and behold - everyone decides it is! After every new eye wateringly expensive component reviewed by an audio mag supposedly breaks new grounds in price...sorry, sound, regardless of what the measurements say, you do begin to wonder.
   
  Fun thing to do in spare time: Try to find a negative "professional" review of a high-end cable.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Can I recommend this book as to why us science chaps are being sidelined
   
        
   
  It is ironic that as scientific discovery and knowledge and the quality of both grows at an ever growing rate, so many people are rejecting it in favour of their own subjective experience and feelings. Not just with cables, but many other areas from cosmetics to global warming, there are people who are making big bucks and could really do without any evidence that conflicts their views. I think it is terrible that many deal with such by being abusive, offensive etc.


----------



## Syan25

I heartily agree with the above


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Something like that really makes me sick.. and makes me question why I'm still sticking around. Guess I'd be long gone without this subforum (where sanity and reason hasn't been abolished).


 


  I don't even visit any of the other sub-forums anymore myself...  Well, hardly anyway.  I've found it to be a waste of time - hopeless, really.  Granted, my time here could be better spent elsewhere, really...


----------



## tmars78

Someone mentioned that a cable doesn't add bass in a thread, and although it wasn't a moderator, someone blurts out, "DBT is not allowed in this forum." No one never even mentioned DBT or anything. That is something that bothers me. You can't even give an opinion(the guy who said it, owns the cable) without someone wanting to quiet the truth seekers.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Hifi Wigwam is extremely intolerant of cable discusssions. There is no ban on cable debates there, but mention cables and you are accused of trolling and flaming by a whole load of people flaiming and trolling themselves.
   
  Sound Science here appears to be the only safe place to discuss cables, which is a damning indictment of people's attitudes towards what is quite an innocent and unimportant subject in the scale of things.


----------



## Arnaldo

A problem here and elsewhere is that administrators and moderators alike lack the kind of moderation needed to properly moderate a discussion board. Most are attuned to the site's marketing and advertising needs, as well as to their own radical personal biases. Let's just see how long it takes for them to start making some deep incisions here as well. So far, this thread has been like an oasis of moderation in the middle of a vast desert.
  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Doing exactly that got me a weeks ban here. I am now permanently banned from What Hifi for 'calling into question the integrity of the reviewing staff', in other words, I think you may be wrong about something, lets discuss it is forbidden. I have also posted on Hifi Wigwam, at first to see if a debate was possible on the general forum, which it is not due to trolling by the pro cable side and like here I am now relegated to an obscure side forum with fewer vists than elesewhere.


 
    Quote:


b0ck3n said:


> This thread has done me far more good than all the rest of the forum put together, and I reference it all the time. I'm very thankful for your efforts, as well as those of other contributors to this thread.
> 
> Money makes Head-Fi go around and that becomes painfully obvious every once in a while. If you're gonna crash their party they'll do their best to invoke whatever obscure rules or policies they can to shut you up.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Yes here is a little oasis and now I know it worse, much worse elsewhere, I want to show my appreciation for this forum 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I have been trawling through other forums and searches finds virtually nothing other than silence, deletions and flames. So lets not bit the hand that feeds us and I will follow my own advice


----------



## BlackbeardBen

An oasis for critical thinking about audio, yes.  But how far can we take things?  There's a de facto rule against talking about the moderation, which has got me in hot water here several times.  I don't think that's the way to run a ship, but I don't really have any input in the matter...  At least things in Sound Science remain relatively sane.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote:


arnaldo said:


> A problem here and elsewhere is that administrators and moderators alike lack the kind of moderation needed to properly moderate a discussion board. Most are attuned to the site's marketing and advertising needs, as well as to their own radical personal biases. Let's just see how long it takes for them to start making some deep incisions here as well. So far, this thread has been like an oasis of moderation in the middle of a vast desert.


 
   
  Hey we agree on something!
   
  Its not even limited to their views on audio or just keeping the ad revenue flowing in.  They're happy to use their privileges to advance other kinds of woo as well.  Anti vaccination lunacy and the evils or water fluoridation were recent "issues" I've seen advanced and by an admin and posts with links to relevant information were deleted without a word.
   
  IMO this shows more of a systemic problem than just keeping the advertisers happy.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I have been continuing to add to the original thread and have been tidying it up as well. It has taken me ages to fully appreciate the difference between blind and ABX testing, as the words are often used interchangeably or I suspect deliberately mixed up to cause confusion.
   
  What is clear is that blind tests, where you are asked about what you can hear and describe any differences produce differences which ABX then find cannot be heard at all. Indeed it is arguable blind testing is not really a test at all, only ABX is. A common result in blind testing is the 'suprise' where a chaep product performs as well as, if not better than a more expensive, well regarded one.
   
  To me there is a clear correlation between sighted tests and the 'night and day' differences, blind where certain influences are removed, particularly product image and reputation and cheap products shine and ABX, where differences either become very small or non existent.
   
  That surely explains how those who cry 'use your ears' are seriously missing the point. They are not just using their ears, but also their eyes and their knowledge of the product and proves the differences are not in the product, but are really in the listener.


----------



## Syan25

It is called placebo effect...


----------



## xnor

I think that both terms are really just coming from different fields of research (drug testing etc. versus audio) and hence the confusion. An ABX test kind of can be carried out as a double-blind test/experiment. Imo, if you use some ABX software, calling it a double-blind test doesn't really fit because there are no researchers. On the other hand, if you let someone switch between, lets say, cable A and B and this person (the "researcher") knows which is which (single-blind) or doesn't (double-blind) it does fit better. Still, ABX is special in the aspect that the subject has to decide if X = A or X = B and A and B are known. This kinda implies that the subject has to be able to hear a difference (or at least think he can) between A and B right at the start of an ABX test, whereas a blind-test could be carried out regardless of that. 



prog rock man said:


> To me there is a clear correlation between sighted tests and the 'night and day' differences, blind where certain influences are removed, particularly product image and reputation and cheap products shine and ABX, where differences either become very small or non existent.
> 
> That surely explains how those who cry 'use your ears' are seriously missing the point. They are not just using their ears, but also their eyes and their knowledge of the product and proves the differences are not in the product, but are really in the listener.



Well said.



syan25 said:


> It is called placebo effect...



But mentioning this word in cable etc. forums is not a good idea.


----------



## Syan25

of course - words like snake oil too - I guess it's all taboo...


----------



## Willakan

We are the Spanish (Audio) Inquisition! Our main weapons are money, susceptibility of buyer and money!
   
  Monty Python FTW.


----------



## jamesnz

Is there anything wrong with buying a cable just because it looks cool? Surely there is a difference between a $1 rca and a $100 rca? In terms of quality of materials. I don't think there'd be any noticeable difference in sound quality between any half reasonable cable and the most expensive one out there, but surely a cable could look better the more expensive it gets.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Well, I think it's important to note that ABX testing is a subset of blind testing.  ABX testing as normally defined (I can't see the point in trying to define a non-blind ABX method) is always at least single blind testing, but of course can be double blind as well.  I would argue that using Foobar's ABX tool is double blind testing - you are serving as both the researcher and the test subject.  If you really wanted, you could have a friend test after you set it up, or vice-versa, for example.
   
  Or, you could do an ABX cable (or whatever) test with a friend switching the cables, as mentioned, using a real random number set created ahead of time.  Then you're doing a single blind ABX test.
   
  Then, as Skylab has mentioned, there's just general "other" blind tests - one where you don't know what you're listening to at all, one where you switch between several different known components but never get a chance to listen to A or B or C or whatever - only X.  We've all heard about the switching out fancy cables and hearing huge differences one, where coat hangers or whatever were used the whole time.  That's blind too - or you could have one where you tell the listener that you're switching amplifiers or adding an equalizer or something, even though you're just changing cables or something.  That'd be a good method for eliminating expectation bias _against_ not hearing any differences, which isn't eliminated when a skeptic ABX'es two components he doesn't expect to hear a difference with.  Actually, that could/would be a particular ABX method anyway.
   
  And so on... I'm not an expert in blind testing methods - obviously there's a whole lot of them, some of which are useful and many of which are not.  But the point is that ABX testing is a subset of blind testing as a whole.
   
  One thing I find interesting - probably as a result of the mass confusion about what a double blind test (DBT) actually is - is that the other subforums very specifically ban "DBTs" and not single blind tests...  It's my understanding that if you were to go on posting about single blind tests in the cable subforum you'd be kicked out promptly, despite it specifically _not_ being included in the wording of the ban.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The test I have found fall into two categories and I have defined them as follows
   
  blind tests where the subject is asked to report on any differences, so they can say I prefer A to B as well as I can hear no difference
   
  ABX where they have to identify which cable is which, so it may involve more than just A and B as in some Hifi Wigwam test where there was A to D and you had to say which was the kettle lead.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> The test I have found fall into two categories and I have defined them as follows
> 
> blind tests where the subject is asked to report on any differences, so they can say I prefer A to B as well as I can hear no difference
> 
> ABX where they have to identify which cable is which, so it may involve more than just A and B as in some Hifi Wigwam test where there was A to D and you had to say which was the kettle lead.


 
   
  I think you need to be a bit more specific about the procedure in the first case - it's not very clear to me.  Perhaps that particular design has its own name.
   
  Anyway, that's still only a single type of blind test.  There's no definitive blind test, just many different types.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The best examples I can think of are the What Hifi Big Question blind tests. Three forum members go to their listening rooms and listen to kit hidden from view and are asked to comment on changes made during the test. It is not really a test as they are not asked to identify any thing. Such tests often result in cheap products being rated as well as more expensive ones.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





syan25 said:


> of course - words like snake oil too - I guess it's all taboo...


 
  The problem with words like snake oil and placebo is that they are loaded with judgement. People tend to use the terms as a final verdict on a phenomenon and then stop there. I've seen little to discussion or explanation among audiophiles skeptics of how placebo or of how snake-oil 'works' at any depth.  Using the words placebo and snake oil seems to be pointing to a cause without an explanation. 
   
  We have research, models, and understanding about the physical world. The utility of these models depends on a descriptive understanding and their testability. By just throwing out the cause as being placebo or snake-oil, and accepting this without looking for an explanation, skeptics are just using the terms for rhetorical purposes. I can certainly understand why someone would take offense to the terms when they are used solely for argumentation or to diminish a point of view. Without some real explanatory power behind them, the words are only political and coercive. 
   
   
   This pointing to a cause without an explanation seems to be something that skeptical people are opposed to when other audiophiles, or manufacturers (or anyone) does it, so it seems extremely out of place to see it used in a skeptical audiophile argument.


----------



## Arnaldo

In reference to item no. 13 of the initial post of this thread, there was a rather extensive discussion over the methodology and validity of these tests over at SA-CD.net (http://sa-cd.net/showthread/42987/42987/y#42987). It seems that the authors unknowingly used mostly SACDs sourced from low-resolution recordings in the tests (as per their own list at http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm), thus making the results statistically flawed. In other words, if you're testing someone with low-rez on one side and low-rez on the other, the result is obviously irrelevant. Maybe the post should be amended to include this information.
   
  OTOH, there is this AES paper (below) on the same topic, albeit limited to comparisons between 44.1 and 88.2 kHz. That in turn, leads one to wonder what their findings would be with higher resolution formats such as DXD (352.8 kHz 24 Bit PCM) and/or DSD. Regardless, this blind ABX test should be included in the initial post as well...
   
_*Sampling Rate Discrimination: 44.1 kHz vs. 88.2 kHz*_
  (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398)
_It is currently common practice for sound engineers to record digital music using high-resolution formats, and then down sample the files to 44.1kHz for commercial release. This study aims at investigating whether listeners can perceive differences between musical files recorded at 44.1kHz and 88.2kHz with the same analog chain and type of AD-converter. Sixteen expert listeners were asked to compare 3 versions (44.1kHz, 88.2kHz and the 88.2kHz version down-sampled to 44.1kHz) of 5 musical excerpts in a *blind ABX task*.* Overall, participants were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and their 44.1kHz down-sampled version. *Furthermore, for the orchestral excerpt, *they were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and files recorded at 44.1kHz.*_
_Authors: Pras, Amandine; Guastavino, Catherine
 Affiliation: McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
 AES Convention:128 (May 2010) Paper Number:8101  Import into BibTeX 
 Subject:Audio Coding and Compression_
_E-Library Location: (CD 128Papers)   /128/8101.pdf_


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> The problem with words like snake oil and placebo is that they are loaded with judgement. People tend to use the terms as a final verdict on a phenomenon and then stop there. I've seen little to discussion or explanation among audiophiles skeptics of how placebo or of how snake-oil 'works' at any depth.  Using the words placebo and snake oil seems to be pointing to a cause without an explanation.
> 
> We have research, models, and understanding about the physical world. The utility of these models depends on a descriptive understanding and their testability. By just throwing out the cause as being placebo or snake-oil, and accepting this without looking for an explanation, skeptics are just using the terms for rhetorical purposes. I can certainly understand why someone would take offense to the terms when they are used solely for argumentation or to diminish a point of view. Without some real explanatory power behind them, the words are only political and coercive.
> 
> This pointing to a cause without an explanation seems to be something that skeptical people are opposed to when other audiophiles, or manufacturers (or anyone) does it, so it seems extremely out of place to see it used in a skeptical audiophile argument.


 
   
  Heh, yeah, placebo is used to explain away possible audible differences...
   
  No, that's not it at all.  When all other possible non-auditory differences are eliminated by performing a blind test of some sort, and no difference is heard, depending on the depth of the test we know that such differences are almost certainly inaudible, to the point where we need overwhelming evidence for anyone to claim otherwise.  Other, non-audio differences then MUST account for the differences in people's perception of the sound - in other words, placebo.
  
  It's the same in medical trials - the difference is that we don't have the HHS and FDA overlooking consumer audio.  If we did, esoteric cables, elevators, solid state isolators, etc. would be relegated to the homeopathic section of the drug store...


----------



## rroseperry

blackbeardben said:


> Heh, yeah, placebo is used to explain away possible audible differences...
> 
> No, that's not it at all.  When all other possible non-auditory differences are eliminated by performing a blind test of some sort, and no difference is heard, depending on the depth of the test we know that such differences are almost certainly inaudible, to the point where we need overwhelming evidence for anyone to claim otherwise.  Other, non-audio differences then MUST account for the differences in people's perception of the sound - in other words, placebo.
> 
> It's the same in medical trials - the difference is that we don't have the HHS and FDA overlooking consumer audio.  If we did, esoteric cables, elevators, solid state isolators, etc. would be relegated to the homeopathic section of the drug store...




But JadeEast has a valid point here that the value judgment intrinsic to snake oil and to a lesser extent (imo) in placebo, sets up a fighting words environment. You've just told someone you think they're a fool. Well, they may be, but if you want to have a useful conversation with someone, it's not a great idea to start with an insult.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Thanks Arnaldo, the original post has been edited to reflect what have said about that test.
   
  We probably do need a new way of commenting on placebo. I tend to say the evidence is that the difference is not inherant in the cable, but in the listenrr instead.
   
  However, no one seems to be that bothered about upsetting us!!!!


----------



## rroseperry

prog rock man said:


> Thanks Arnaldo, the original post has been edited to reflect what have said about that test.
> 
> We probably do need a new way of commenting on placebo. I tend to say the evidence is that the difference is not inherant in the cable, but in the listenrr instead.
> 
> However, no one seems to be that bothered about upsetting us!!!!




sad, but true


----------



## Arnaldo

I just edited my previous post to include the missing link to the AES paper "Sampling Rate Discrimination: 44.1 kHz vs. 88.2 kHz" (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398)
   
  As to testing, I actually tried a little experiment myself, but it was ridiculously inconclusive. It simply took way too long to change from the stock to the aftermarket power-cords in my own system to reach any valid conclusions. It's a pity there's no way to ABX oneself, nor to try the placebo effect... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Thanks Arnaldo, the original post has been edited to reflect what have said about that test.
> We probably do need a new way of commenting on placebo. I tend to say the evidence is that the difference is not inherant in the cable, but in the listenrr instead.
> However, no one seems to be that bothered about upsetting us!!!!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

You could try the placebo effect by buying a really expensive cable and doing a sighted test. If you hear a difference placebo has worked........


----------



## Markon101

Thats why my little Fiio E9 amp is fine for my AKG K 702's. If they get loud enough and don't distort, then thats good enough.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

I still don't like that new wording of what a "blind test" is in the OP...  It's adding additional automatic qualifications to the term "blind test" that don't belong as being inherently part of it.
   
  If it was just labeled as "a type of blind test common in audio" it would be fine, but the wording implicitly states that all blind tests are of the second, non-ABX type mentioned.  That's not true.  It's muddying up the definition, which is clear-cut and much broader in scope.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





syan25 said:


> It is called placebo effect...


 
   
  Quote: 





syan25 said:


> My Cardas cable also improved definition particularly in the bass - the HD600 are formidable


 


   It seems that you enjoy the world on both sides of the curtain.


----------



## Arnaldo

But those expensive cables would have to be thoroughly "cooked" for me to be able to truly hear and appreciate the placebo effect! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> You could try the placebo effect by buying a really expensive cable and doing a sighted test. If you hear a difference placebo has worked........


----------



## DaBomb77766

I honestly don't understand why people simply disregard placebo with the same kind of reasoning as us with unverifiable/refuted audio claims.  They simply act like it doesn't exist or something.


----------



## eucariote

^ It's not unreasonable to deny the illusory aspects of experience.  Sensory experience for the most part works fine- people rarely have reason to stop and question it.  Let alone accept that elements of experience (related to hugely expensive decisions) are actually not real.  Even with neurological disease (e.g. anosognosia) when people *know* their parietal cortex is blown out they can't help but invent excuses as to why their arm doesn't work any more.  The brain makes inconsistent experience consistent, and excessive doubt and reflection are neurological features that were no doubt killed off by evolution.  That's why it's more polite imo to make cognitive fallacies impersonal, and ask if people would be willing to apply standard scientific techniques (blind tests and statistics) to evaluate factual statements about audio gear.


----------



## b0ck3n

Don't you guys think you should just open your minds, and leave it to your ears though?
   
  ...


----------



## Uncle Erik

b0ck3n said:


> Don't you guys think you should just open your minds, and leave it to your ears though?
> 
> ...


What makes you think your ears are reliable?

Are optical illusions real?

Can I interest you in buying a bridge? No? How about some "land" in Florida? Maybe some of this... oil... that will cure every ailment you have?


----------



## b0ck3n

The three dots were meant to give pause to realize that I was being sarcastic. I've been told time and time again to do just that, open my mind and trust my ears to tell me just how huge of a difference this or that will make. It's the audiophile debate stopper - brand me a close-minded moron who obsesses with charts and measurements. 

Elitist arrogance is bad enough as it is, but paired with ignorance it's in a whole different league of annoying.


----------



## Willakan

People with an illusory sense of superiority drive me insane. My rational side tells me not to get involved, but my irrationally angry rage-filled side inevitably gets the better of me.
  'Cos remember, measurements aren't everything (condescending tut)...
   
  EDIT: @Uncle Eric:
   
  It is pretty funny the stuff you can legitimise if you decide that selling products that rely on the user to "make a difference" is perfectly fine and legitimate. Can I interest you in a wellbeing enhancement mat (silver plated, cos expensive metals make the electrons in your nerves happy and stops the skin effect sapping your nerves of energy)


----------



## Uncle Erik

If there aren't measurements and hard data to back up claims, I question myself.

If someone is going to question the result of impartial test gear, they should also question whether they are an impartial judge.


----------



## Albedo

Some of what the DBT-camp are saying are irrelevant.. to their dismay, so then what?

*Veiled threat:* DBTers argues that no one who believes what an audiophile believes about the sanctity of music should "be taken seriously on any topic, let alone be thought seriously worthy of a Nobel Prize. They imply that those who disagree with them can expect to pay a penalty from other DBTers like themselves. Such threats have no place in logical argument or legitimate interest in getting the best sound/ experience.

*Personal attack:* Personal ridicule is also out of order. Nevertheless DBTers shamelessly stigmatizes individuals for their personal and audiophile convictions. On this board I've seen many members being open about their traditional audiophile beliefs being ridiculed, from a logical perspective, the expression of such personal biases is completely inappropriate. Behind these personal attacks and bigotry lies the DBTers repeated accusation that audiophiles is a malignant and corrosive force which is fatal to the audiophile community. DBTers presents no serious evidence or justification for that accusation, their accusations is categorically false, as they refuse to take into account psychology.

*Appeal to ignorance:* DBTers assumes that because something is unknown or seems unlikely, that fact can be used as evidence against its existence. This means that some DBTers believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no burn-in, directionality or disharmonics lurking behind the observable universe. In other words,they announces an unwillingness to believe evidence which might not support their view. This is not logical argument or scientific evidence. It’s a philosophical presupposition and personal bias, which DBTers flip around or projecting on to others.

*Popularity appeal:* The popularity of a belief isn’t relevant in science or logic. Truth isn’t democratic. It doesn’t depend on a majority vote. Nevertheless, DBTers implies that the appearence of DBTers must be true because of what they calls something like.. the overwhelming preponderance of DBTers among professionals, and in the membership of prestigious groups like AES (a group of people with high IQs). Even if DBTers were right about professionals favoring DBT, it wouldn’t prove its truth.

*False authority:* Many DBTers are claiming authority without justification or evidence, they consistently presents the views of like-minded DBTers as serious, credible authorities, and belittles those of the audiophile side of the camp as trivial, with no other reason than their hearing (or lack of it). DBTers routinely hurls assertions of momentous import, without serious evidence or argument, as when they asserts other members on this forum.

 It seems that some DBTers ironically thrives on ambiguity and confusion...

*Misapplication:* Tyey assumes that what is true of the parts of something must also be true of the whole. DBTers commits the mistake of treating hearing as a monolithic process, and refusing to distinguish between consciousness (mind) and subconsciousness (soul/ feelings). No one denies the subconsciousness. The evidence of the subconsciousness is overwhelming and everyday we are all affected by it and in many ways not aware of the full extend of this part of the hearing, as speakers of European languages have been found to make use of an absolute, though subconscious, pitch memory when speaking. DBT is an instrument and one uses the brain differently (more critical -> CNV) than one usually do when hearing a musical piece.. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20153786
   
*Obscurantism: *DBTers refuses to distinguish between hearing (as feeling) which are radically different than hearing (as analyzing). They insists on treating all hearing (as feeling) as the same, and as equally irrational, superstitious and unscientific. This broad generalization is grossly unfair and misleading. An equally unjustified tactic would be to treat alchemy and astrology as the equivalent of chemistry and astronomy.

*Misrepresentation:* Many DBTers misrepresents an opponents actual position through exaggeration or distortion. A good precaution is to ask an opponent whether or not you have stated their viewpoint clearly and accurately. Very few if any audiophiles will recognize themselves in the DBTers caricatures. They repeatedly accuses audiophiles of demanding credulity and of discouraging science and rational inquiry, some even blandly assumes that all audiophiles are basically the same in this regard. While their characterization may apply to some cults of exotic cables, it is categorically false when applied to the cult of tubes.
   
  Some individuals in the DBT-camp seems to be full of presumption..
   
*False Dilemma:* DBTers presents a false option between two extremes. On the one hand they portrays science as the heroic, rational pursuit of facts. On the other hand they portrays audiophiles as the hypocritical, irrational pursuit of unicorns. Some of their criticisms may apply to certain cults and false beliefs, but not to all audiophiles. Feelings and facts are not opposites as a dichotomy, there’s no necessary contradiction between the two. The argument of DBT in some cases is clearly distorted and false, modern science relies upon an unsupported belief both in the rationality of the universe and of our own minds.

*False cause:* We all make the mistake of unjustified assumption that when one thing precedes another, the first must cause the second. DBTers adds a peculiar, almost bizarre twist to this, as they offer no evidence in support of these assertions other than their admitted preference for the viewpoint which precludes the subconsciousness. There’s obviously something wrong with that. It is an accepted practice in logic to infer to the most sufficient explanation. In the debate about human hearing, a strong argument can be made that only  analyzing processes can account for human hearing and reason. By refusing to consider the possibility of CNV and causation, DBTers end up as treating hearing as a purely mechanical process that only belongs in the hemispheres of the brain.

 "Specialization of the two hemispheres is general in vertebrates including fish, frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals with the left hemisphere being specialized to categorize information and control everyday, routine behavior, with the right hemisphere responsible for responses to novel events and behavior in emergencies including the expression of intense emotions."
   
  CNV.. euphonic distortion.. right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_negative_variation
http://www.aes-uk.org/past-meeting-reports/harmonic-phase-the-missing-factor-in-distortion-measurement/


----------



## Willakan

Well, the problem is, traditional audiophile beliefs ARE extremely damaging to high-end audio. The average person sees audiophiles as faintly insane - if they started being more rational, then the industry would grow, more people would enjoy good audio, prices would be driven down - ok, a little over optimistic perhaps, but in the longterm there have got to be benefits.
  To address some more of your points:
  Personal Attack: As some DBT advocates undoubtedly stereotype audiophiles, you have stereotyped DBT advocates. Whilst not trying to justify those who taunt traditional audiophiles, those who do that do so in an attempt to make them seem ridiculous. If you want to discredit a group that holds a seemingly bizarre set of beliefs, the worst thing you can do is take them seriously - the moment you start arguing with science and countering their arguments you are creating an illusion of a debate, which will convince people that this is a set of beliefs worth debating. I'm not saying that's a good approach, I'm just trying to cast some light as to why that sort of thing happens.
   
  Appeal to Ignorance: Let's put this in context. The science of audio is not new - we haven't been stumbling across new things in audio for quite a while. The article "The Dragon In My Garage" springs to mind - with it's conclusion, highly applicable to the "unmeasurable differences" hypothesis that _"the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the...hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion." _In situations such as this we have to use our common sense - if I suggest that there is a dragon in my garage, yet can provide no evidence as to its existence, I can either cast half of science aside or place my faith in the highly plausible alternative explanations for this. The day a trustworthy group distinguishes all these components under blind testing conditions repeatedly, I will quite happily cast all my beliefs out of the window - I am beholden to reason, not arbitrary ideas.
  Popularity Appeal: Singling out DBT advocates for this seems rather strange. That form of argument, which you rightly criticised, is used all over the place by thousands of people. It's flawed, but you can't blame people for trying to use it when they feel that all other approaches are not working.
   
  False Authority: There are various authorities that have been vested with perhaps too much importance - but this occurs on every side of the divide by every argument. You could just as well accuse the DBT-attackers of putting too much faith in <Insert popular audio publication here>.
   
  Misapplication: The idea of people "hearing differently" under DBT conditions is a popular one, and has been blamed on stress, flawed test procedures - you name it. Here the onus is on the people attacking DBT to present their evidence, which they have not. Should we worry about the effect of people analysing the effect of their medication in medicine trials? I admit that's not an entirely fair comparison, but DBT is held as the gold standard in bias-free testing - until there is evidence presented to suggest otherwise, it shall remain so. Why should audio be a special case?
   
  Obscurantism: Not necessarily. For the reasons above, the idea of a different mode of hearing drastically affecting how people hear things is not one that is sufficiently supported to trouble DBT advocates.
   
  Misrepresentation: As some DBT advocates present audiophiles as sad old men obsessing over differences on their $50,000 vinyl rig that don't exist, they are likewise misrepresented by people on the other side of the argument as a load of manipulative science obsessives who sweep evidence under the rug and manipulate the facts to support only their belief. To a small extent, that's what you're doing now.
   
  False Dilemma: It is true that science doesn't allow you to sort of believe in bits of it, but not others. For example, it would be rather strange to dismiss the existence of cells, but to state my unequivocal belief in quantum physics. Again, not an entirely fair example, but you get my point. If you have a problem with a bit of science, present evidence to disprove it. That sort of evidence doesn't seem forthcoming...
   
  False Cause: Again, interesting, but if you want to use this as a legitimate avenue to attack DBT, the onus is on you to present evidence. I can bring in all kinds of science that might seem vaguely applicable to my arguments - without hard evidence it will simply muddy the metaphorical waters.
   
  Again, the DBT advocates stand firm (and occasionally smug and self-satisfied, but not quite as often as you imply - I think you're guilty of misrepresentation here
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) because no-one has present a single shred of compelling evidence to discredit their beliefs.
   
  Finally, focusing on DBT is missing the point. DBT is simply a useful, quick test format to quickly determine whether differences or effects genuinely exist, whilst eliminating bias as much as possible. That those who indulge in audio practises contrary to science feel the need to attack this test in particular rather suggests that they are searching for anything to use against those who endorse science as the way forward for audio.


----------



## sterling1

I've got an SACD, Mozart: Sinfonia Concertante in E Major & Concerto in D Major, Christoph Eschenbach. I like this SACD;but, finding it inconvenient to play, I put it in iTunes on my laptop, from SACD player to X-FI HD to  USB, recording to iTunes at 16/44.1, using  Creative's LP to MP3 software. Playing the piece from iTunes, upsampling to 24/96 in Windows 7, and sending from USB to X-FI HD to Toslink input at Sony TA-E9000ES, I cannot distinguish between the copy  and  the SACD original. A whole lot of conversions here and yet the original and copy sound identical to me.  Makes me think  audiophile quality is no longer tied to the word expensive.


----------



## Arnaldo

When comparing the high-rez SACD and RBCD stereo layers of most discs, the differences are startlingly to me, specially on a very revealing headphone system. It's an easy test to perform - just switch between SACD and RBCD playback on your player, although sometimes it's necessary to adjust the volume levels as well.
   
  But this is obviously a personal opinion and perception, which others may not share. And I guess that's why I hold such a high opinion of this thread, in that it's a learning tool in a truly open forum format, as opposed to other threads where absolute truths are dictated by a few very prolific posters...
  
  Quote: 





sterling1 said:


> I've got an SACD, Mozart: Sinfonia Concertante in E Major & Concerto in D Major, Christoph Eschenbach [...]


----------



## Albedo

Well Willakan..
   
  There is a profound change in auditory perception for pitch in early infancy, the circuit for labeling in the right auditory cortex may lose a function from childhood to adulthood, which reveals neuroplasticity in the development of Absolute Pitch (AP) ability. One can always say that ones choice of words are just putting it bluntly to the reader.. just making a point, but there's also the blatantly emotional response which one hopes to trigger.. in a clever way. U C?

 As for debates polarizing, there's the peculiar aspect of AP. Most people shows activity within the right inferior cortex during interval-judgment task (A & B), but that's not the case of those listeners with AP. MRI indicates a larger left planum temporale with those subjects, but is it just a specialized network in the retrieval and manipulation of verbal-tonal associations?

 There's always the heightened states of mind, where one are more sensitive and the extreme case of mania the auditory sense are heightened (serotonin), maybe one freaks out because of AP and there is in fact a hell on earth?

 Contingent negative variation (CNV) increases (dopamine) during intervals when a listener are building memory traces, but during the comparison phase there's a decrease in CNV. This suggests that the listener did not build a new memory trace, but used a process to check whether it compares or not as anticipated, A and B that is.

 Having a body (flashes vs. speaking, exhaling air, moving tongue, lips and jaw) do slow down ones thought (slow waves). slow in the sense that they take longer time to develop than do the sensory-evoked bursts. CNV and attention switching happens fast between divided attention (short term memory items reduce CNV as seen by distraction) and undivided attention. With experienced transcendental meditators the CNV amplitudes are more resistant to distractions like a memory task, than there is in a group of inexperienced people. Meditative experiences are often described in terms of heightened inner alertness and it's possible that this experience may influence cortical functioning to the extent that CNV amplitude are greater and distraction effects are lesser with more experienced meditators.

 The CNV is a fascinating phenomenon, when there is uncertainty about whether a just-made response was appropriate. The CNV paradigms and resultant slow waves offers interesting possibilities for studying effects of missing stimuli and short-term memory,
   
  I might add that buying new equipment for me is more of a cynical approach of sitting on the fence... waiting.. Head-Fi makes this somewhat difficult, in more than one way. If you catch my drift...


----------



## Willakan

That is, I'll admit, very interesting. Don't think it's gonna provide any evidence for the cable crowd, unless the sensitivity of one's ears increases by many orders of magnitude in such situations.


----------



## Albedo

The funny thing Willakan that's actually the case of visual cues/ stimuli, so either way... women won't stop wearing make-up.


----------



## Syan25

YES - and you can imagine how painful it is when I sit down...
  Quote: 





eucariote said:


> It seems that you enjoy the world on both sides of the curtain.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





arnaldo said:


> When comparing the high-rez SACD and RBCD stereo layers of most discs, the differences are startlingly to me, specially on a very revealing headphone system. It's an easy test to perform - just switch between SACD and RBCD playback on your player, although sometimes it's necessary to adjust the volume levels as well.
> 
> But this is obviously a personal opinion and perception, which others may not share. And I guess that's why I hold such a high opinion of this thread, in that it's a learning tool in a truly open forum format, as opposed to other threads where absolute truths are dictated by a few very prolific posters...


 
   
  An invalid comparison.  On many, if not most, hybrid SACDs the SACD layer and CD layer masters aren't even the same.  You can't compare them unless they're the same, so often the easiest way to do that is run the analog output from the SACD player through an additional 16/44.1 ADC/DAC stage (or downsample high-res PCM audio).  There was a _very_ extensive study done doing the former, with many trained and untrained listeners on many different systems, and no one could tell the difference except when there was no signal or the output was boosted to very high levels (revealing the noise floor).
   
  The study can be found here.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> I still don't like that new wording of what a "blind test" is in the OP...  It's adding additional automatic qualifications to the term "blind test" that don't belong as being inherently part of it.
> 
> If it was just labeled as "a type of blind test common in audio" it would be fine, but the wording implicitly states that all blind tests are of the second, non-ABX type mentioned.  That's not true.  It's muddying up the definition, which is clear-cut and much broader in scope.


 


  I have changed it and made it easier to read buy splitting it up. I have made it clear how broad the definitions are and put in more descriptive.
   
  PS - for some reason I cannot get the original post to copy and past onto a word document. I would like to save it elsewhere just in case something happens at the forum. Could somone else create a back up for it or tell me what i am doing wrong? Thanks.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Albedo. I am sorry but your criticism of DBTers does not wash we me. We are marginalised, subjected to all sorts of abuse, I am banned from two forums for trying to get a proper discussion going on the subject and I never flamed, trolled or been abusive to anyone. The other side is far worse IME.
   
  We tolerate you, unlike when we go elsewhere with our views.


----------



## Arnaldo

The simplest way to compare SACD & RBCD is to switch between the stereo SACD high-rez and RBCD layers, both chosen by the producers as representing their best sounding masters. OTOH, down-sampling the analog output of a high-rez SACD layer through a 16/44.1 ADC/DAC only adds unnecessary A/D and D/A conversions, thus invalidating any possible comparisons. Either way, with a very revealing headphone system, the difference between the SACD and RBCD tracks is startlingly, at least to me. Others are free to hear it differently, and that's the beauty of a truly open forum, as practiced on this thread.
   
  As to the M&M tests, they have been completely discredited. As I explained in a previous post, "there was a rather extensive discussion over the methodology and validity of these tests over at SA-CD.net (http://sa-cd.net/showthread/42987/42987/y#42987). It seems that the authors unknowingly used mostly SACDs sourced from low-resolution recordings in the tests (as per their own list at the bottom of  http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm), thus making the results statistically flawed. In other words, if you're testing someone with low-rez on one side and low-rez on the other, the result is obviously irrelevant."
   
  OTOH, there is this AES paper (below) on the same topic, albeit limited to comparisons between 44.1 and 88.2 kHz. That in turn, leads one to wonder what their findings would be with higher resolution formats such as DXD (352.8 kHz 24 Bit PCM) and/or DSD. *I think this blind ABX test should be included in the initial post of this thread, along with all the others.*
   
_*Sampling Rate Discrimination: 44.1 kHz vs. 88.2 kHz*_
  (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398)
_It is currently common practice for sound engineers to record digital music using high-resolution formats, and then down sample the files to 44.1kHz for commercial release. This study aims at investigating whether listeners can perceive differences between musical files recorded at 44.1kHz and 88.2kHz with the same analog chain and type of AD-converter. Sixteen expert listeners were asked to compare 3 versions (44.1kHz, 88.2kHz and the 88.2kHz version down-sampled to 44.1kHz) of 5 musical excerpts in a *blind ABX task*. *Overall, participants were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and their 44.1kHz down-sampled version.* Furthermore, for the orchestral excerpt, *they were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and files recorded at 44.1kHz.*_
_Authors: Pras, Amandine; Guastavino, Catherine
 Affiliation: McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
 AES Convention:128 (May 2010) Paper Number:8101 Import into BibTeX
 Subject:Audio Coding and Compression_
_E-Library Location: (CD 128Papers)   /128/8101.pdf_
   
  Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> ... On many, if not most, hybrid SACDs the SACD layer and CD layer masters aren't even the same.  You can't compare them unless they're the same, so often the easiest way to do that is run the analog output from the SACD player through an additional 16/44.1 ADC/DAC stage (or downsample high-res PCM audio).  There was a _very_ extensive study done doing the former, with many trained and untrained listeners on many different systems, and no one could tell the difference except when there was no signal or the output was boosted to very high levels (revealing the noise floor).


----------



## Albedo

Prog Rock Man: I can sympathize with that as such actions say a lot about the mentality and to some degree the severeness of their cognitive dissonance, which much of the FOTM hallelujah is all about. Sorry to hear those forums are that irritated by DBT, but I myself find the test to be a somewhat blunt instrument as how it is set up considering contingent negative variation.
   
  Toleration is a good thing, but.. well.. testing the claims without trying to at least understand euphonic distortions gets one nowhere, as there is no such thing as neutral sound.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I don't see the relevance of what you are saying. Blind testing has been conducted on loads of people, through primarily audiophiles, males and middle aged and it is straight forward. Either describe the difference and state a preference, hence we get cheap amps doing as well as very expensive ones, or which item are you listening to A or B?
   
  That sighted testing produces all of the other feelings you have spoken before, you must surely understand that sight and emotion plays a large part in what we hear.
   
  Hence the difference between sighted and all the types of blind testing, both of which are valid. From that we get the perfectly reasonable conclusion, there is no inherant difference in cables, and only small differences in other hifi components.


----------



## Albedo

The act of verbalization (CNV) do muck it up, but I see that the UK branch of AES has discussed euphonic distortion -> http://www.aes-uk.org/past-meeting-reports/harmonic-phase-the-missing-factor-in-distortion-measurement
   
  How big the difference is between A and B are in many cases small, but the perception of the whole feel about it is a different story. Before the seventies hearing was view as based on the determination of the late "auditory evoked potentials", but since then we have CNV and "that certain kinds of harmonic distortion may improve the perceived quality of a Hi‑Fi system."
   
  Blind tests narrows the perceived gap, yes.. when switching memory for memory, using another hemisphere to analyzing, to turn it into a concept (again), but this time more accurate. One of the halves always checking it's brother, it's actually quite absurd.. as we all possess the ability of absolute pitch, I see no reason to access working memory mechanisms.. for a second time.
   
  Yes.. feeling left outside, what do others think of me... and there it is.. the Milgram experiment -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment and maybe some of the reason why European have been found to make use of an absolute, though subconscious, pitch memory when speaking, does that in some way color the result of a blind test?
   
  I tend to think so..


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Would such not also apply to sighted testing? So we are on a level playing field between the two types of test. So what you are saying is not a variiable so it does not matter.


----------



## Albedo

Even more so in sighted tests, we are conform and IME in my country quite embarrassed to admit it -> http://translate.google.no/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psykologtidsskriftet.no%2Findex.php%3Fseks_id%3D8840%26a%3D2
   
  "Although sound frequency is represented subcortically, the integration of harmonics into a representation of pitch does not occur until auditory cortex. Adults and infants 4 months and older showed a mismatch negativity response to these pitch changes, but 3-month-old infants did not. Thus, cortical representations of the pitch of the missing fundamental emerge between 3 and 4 months of age, indicating that there is a profound change in auditory perception for pitch in early infancy". http://maciej.bioinfo.pl/pmid:19535583
   
  Nearly every conscious human being are attuned to a basic aspect of tonality early in life (parenting) and conform to their commands, this aspect is an invisible force (archetype) throughout their lives, but we all listen to music by yourself, certainly here at Head-Fi. Here is where the subconsciousness/ euphonic distortions occurs, as some "studies demonstrated that AP possessors did not appear to employ working memory during auditory oddball tasks because they have a fixed tonal template in their memories. However, the present findings showed that the AP possessors exhibited similar P300 as the non-AP possessors and did update the tonal context in the auditory oddball tasks. This result suggests that the AP possessors do not always refer to the fixed tonal template in their memories when executing the oddball tasks and they employ working memory properly according to the difficulty of the auditory tasks." -> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394002008121
   
  As hearing a record which one has already heard 300 times, but with different op-amps in an environment not producing P300 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P300_(neuroscience) 
   
  So one logs in to the forum raving about it.. guess what, it's not really something of any importance.. as your a snob, ironic isn't it?


----------



## rroseperry

albedo said:


> Even more so in sighted tests, we are conform and IME in my country quite embarrassed to admit it -> http://translate.google.no/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psykologtidsskriftet.no%2Findex.php%3Fseks_id%3D8840%26a%3D2
> 
> "Although sound frequency is represented subcortically, the integration of harmonics into a representation of pitch does not occur until auditory cortex. Adults and infants 4 months and older showed a mismatch negativity response to these pitch changes, but 3-month-old infants did not. Thus, cortical representations of the pitch of the missing fundamental emerge between 3 and 4 months of age, indicating that there is a profound change in auditory perception for pitch in early infancy". http://maciej.bioinfo.pl/pmid:19535583
> 
> ...





Could you explain what any of the above has to do with sighted vs db or ABX tests? (edited to add) And there's no evidence to show that the Milgram effect should show any directionality here.


----------



## Albedo

In any test as I see it, one tends to (more or less) have a critical attitude and switches hemisphere rapidly On the edge of the chair, concentration and blocking out unimportant/ irrelevant information to the task at hand.
   
  In post #980: "Specialization of the two hemispheres is general in vertebrates including fish, frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals with the left hemisphere being specialized to categorize information and control everyday, routine behavior, with the right hemisphere responsible for responses to novel events and behavior in emergencies including the expression of intense emotions."
   
  and in the link to CNV: "Walter and colleagues conducted the experiment in the chronometric paradigm. They had noticed that the electric response became attenuated, or habituated when a single stimulus is repeated. They also noticed that the amplitude of the electric response returned when a second stimulus was associated with the first stimulus. These effects were strengthened when a behavioral response was required for the second stimulus. In a chronometric paradigm, the first stimulus is called the warning stimulus and the second stimulus, often one that directs the subject to make a behavioral response, is called the imperative stimulus. The foreperiod is the time between the warning and imperative stimuli. The time between the imperative stimulus and the behavioral response is called the reaction time. The CNV, then, is seen in the foreperiod, between the warning and imperative stimulus".
   
  As I view it there is a connection to the Milgram effect, especially the norwegian conformity test, which later have been conducted with advanced scanners and the result being on the front page of NY Times.
   
  Quote: 





> The goal was to determine whether the normative influence or subconscious distortion of the senses behind the high conformity. If social conformity is the result of a conscious choice, assumed Berns and colleagues that they particularly wanted to record activity in the frontal cortex, which is considered brain regions responsible for conscious choice. But if the subject's compliance is due to distortions of perception ought to posterior parts of the brain associated with perception activated. Subjects were to determine whether two-dimensional shapes were identical or not while they were in an fMRI machine that measured the degree of activity in the brain. They were divided into two groups where one learned that four other volunteers had already judged the two characters. These four actors were instructed to respond to errors on the part of the tasks. In all, 41% of the responses that subjects gave the majority followed under these conditions. The second group was told that four computers were considered the two characters, and here was 32% of the responses to subjects compliant. So find the place a stronger normative influence in the face of people.
> 
> The scans of the brain showed that activity increased in parts of the brain associated with perception when the individual followed the group, however, there was little activity in frontal brain areas. Thus scientists assume that it takes place a strong influence on what people actually experience as the correct perception. In cases where the subject was in the majority of incorrect answers increased activity in the amygdala powerful, an area of ​​the brain linked to emotional activation. The researchers explain this but there is a norm in society that the majority represents the collective wisdom of many people and therefore is superior to a single person's decision, which is reflected in the jury and electoral systems. This norm is internalized by many, and makes that we often see a situation through the eyes of the majority even though we are not aware of it.
> 
> At the same time said many of the participants disagree with the majority, which led to a strong activation in emotional brain areas. This suggests that taking an independent decision on this standard is associated with a powerful emotional response.


----------



## rroseperry

albedo said:


> In any test as I see it, one tends to (more or less) have a critical attitude and switches hemisphere rapidly On the edge of the chair, concentration and blocking out unimportant/ irrelevant information to the task at hand.
> 
> In post #980: "Specialization of the two hemispheres is general in vertebrates including fish, frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals with the left hemisphere being specialized to categorize information and control everyday, routine behavior, with the right hemisphere responsible for responses to novel events and behavior in emergencies including the expression of intense emotions."




The part that you've cherry-picked skips right over the bulk of the wikipedia article that shows how limited the lateralization for humans. You're invoking the popular stereotype of right and left brainess here, but there' not much evidence (that I could find) of critical thinking residing on one side or the other. Critical thinking or listening isn't necessarily an edge of the chair behavior, it simply needs attention. 




> and in the link to CNV: "Walter and colleagues conducted the experiment in the chronometric paradigm. They had noticed that the electric response became attenuated, or habituated when a single stimulus is repeated. They also noticed that the amplitude of the electric response returned when a second stimulus was associated with the first stimulus. These effects were strengthened when a behavioral response was required for the second stimulus. In a chronometric paradigm, the first stimulus is called the warning stimulus and the second stimulus, often one that directs the subject to make a behavioral response, is called the imperative stimulus. The foreperiod is the time between the warning and imperative stimuli. The time between the imperative stimulus and the behavioral response is called the reaction time. The CNV, then, is seen in the foreperiod, between the warning and imperative stimulus".




Interesting, but not really connected to an ongoing stimulus such as listening to different equipment. CNV is about the response to single discrete stimuli. This connection just doesn't hold.




> As I view it there is a connection to the Milgram effect, especially the norwegian conformity test, which later have been conducted with advanced scanners and the result being on the front page of NY Times.




Milgram's primary finding is about people's response to perceived authorities, but there are multiple claimants to that particular crown. Is the Authority someone who thinks that scientific measurements of audio equipment might be a good deal or is it the publisher of an audiophile magazine, the maker of $$$$ cables? They all are going to be someone's authority and someone else's know-nothing.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Albedo, are you basically suggesting that human hearing is more accurate and precise than even the best scientific audio measuring equipment today?  If both DBTs and well-done scientific measurements show that two pieces of equipment are the same would you accept that or still try to push your point forward that scientific testing is irrelevant?
   
  Even if what you're saying is all true and good, it still can't disprove actual measurements...it's not like the recording equipment has to switch between "analyzing" and "listening" mode constantly in order to measure something.


----------



## sterling1

I only have a few SACD's; and,  just several of those are hybrid. So, to  get most of my SACD's onto the laptop I've had to do  analog to digital conversions.  Still, these conversions, stored as 16/44 files on the computer, sound indistinguishable from the original material when up-sampled to 24/96 and played from my hi-end system. I think it's all good. Even the 256k stuff I download from iTunes sounds good on my home theatre system when up-sampled to 24/96. I'm nothing but an ignorant layman with hi-fi, and, I don't no bits from bites; but,  I'm very happy now that I  can access my entire music library so conveniently from my laptop.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Hm, I wonder how many times you can do an ADC-DAC conversion before it starts to really degrade the quality of the output file...it'd be interesting to find out.  Maybe I should try it out with the crappy input port on my laptop.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> Hm, I wonder how many times you can do an ADC-DAC conversion before it starts to really degrade the quality of the output file...it'd be interesting to find out.  Maybe I should try it out with the crappy input port on my laptop.


 

 See Ethan Winer's AES workshop files (SoundBlaster Generations, up to 20 times) and video. I haven't done an ABX myself yet, no time atm. :s


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





xnor said:


> See Ethan Winer's AES workshop files (SoundBlaster Generations, up to 20 times) and video. I haven't done an ABX myself yet, no time atm. :s


 


  Hm, can't tell any real difference with a quick listen to both of them.  Probably gonna have to do an ABX test later on when I'm not so tired. 
   
  Still, I'm more interested in how many iterations it would take until it gets severely distorted.  Maybe it'll take hundreds or thousands if you're using a good enough DAC-ADC chain.


----------



## xnor

Just did a quick ABX on the original vs. pass20 one and could clearly hear differences (10/10). Also, my ReplayGain scanner reported a 0.76 dB difference the original file is louder which you should correct before doing the test (if you use foobar2k: encode the files to flac, scan them with RG and check the track gain option in the ABX window).
   
  Still, without knowing the original I couldn't say that the pass20 file sounds really worse per se. Guess you'd really need to do quite a large number of iterations to achieve that, considering that Ethan used some $25 SoundBlaster card.


----------



## Albedo

rroseperry I'm breaking it down, make it more tangible.. one can compare persons as less conform with Absolute Pitch (AP) and those that perceive music more bilateral, especially when the going gets tough.

 In post #984: "There is a profound change in auditory perception for pitch in early infancy, the circuit for labeling in the right auditory cortex may lose a function from childhood to adulthood, which reveals neuroplasticity in the development of AP ability. Most people shows activity within the right inferior cortex during interval-judgment task (A & B), but that's not the case of those listeners with AP. The CNV is a fascinating phenomenon, when there is uncertainty about whether a just-made response was appropriate. The CNV paradigms and resultant slow waves offers interesting possibilities for studying effects of missing stimuli and short-term memory."

 The case is that in tests and all seems to sound the same, I immediately think of CNV (slow wave) and not going completely haywire, being more analytical and not so excited as one try to make sense of what's going on. This is interesting when there's the question of conforming ones initial reaction to language (lost in translation) and trying to make the most sense. Here where Milgram comes in with "the normative influence/ subconscious distortion of the senses behind the high conformity. The scientists assumed "that it takes place a strong influence on what people actually experience as the correct perception".
   
  The fear of being wrong makes one conform, is there as slightest possibility that what one perceived not being there the second time, the third etc. no... it sound the same to me now, all the amplifiers sound exactly the same, there is no difference what-so-ever.

 One example is interesting about these tests, I'm thinking of Swedish radio that made a decision based on data gathered during 20.000 "double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference" listening trials, it only took one person in a sighted test to instantly identify an artifact of the codec -> http:// http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/520756/the-flaws-in-blind-testing 

 Not that I'm saying that this person had AP, but the visually induced auditory expectancy may have made him rely more on his left planum temporale (PT) like subject with AP. But one gets the sense of where I'm going with this, as even "musicians showed left dominant secondary auditory areas in the temporal cortex and the left posterior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during a passive music listening task, whereas non-musicians demonstrated right dominant secondary auditory areas during the same task." -> http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/8/754.full
   
  In that text the following is stated: "Musicians have special perceptomotor skills, such as manual dexterity, sight-reading ability, ability to improvise and absolute pitch (AP) processing. Several studies have indicated that daily musical training, as used by professional musicians to increase and maintain their skill, can induce functional reorganization of the cerebral cortex".
 This I'm finding interesting as further down it's stated that: "Therefore, our results may suggest that increasing musical sophistication should cause a shift of musical processing, or at least music perception, from the right to the left hemisphere and from the anterior portion of the superior temporal region to the posterior."
   
  One can wonder where I'm going with all this and if there is any relevance to the point that I'm making that our senses primarily are subconscious at first nad then switches to something else. The text then goes on stating: "Indeed, the post hoc questionnaire revealed that they did not employ any specific analytic approach, especially visual imagery, during the fMRI measurements. Although they did not use any specific strategy consciously, it is still possible that the musicians have developed a different way of listening to music, which is inherently more analytical. There is a possibility that musical training not only changes the regions involved in musical perception, but may also change how the music is perceived."
   
  The whole thing concludes that: "there is a distinct cerebral activity pattern in the auditory association areas and pre-frontal cortex of trained musicians. Such activity could be associated with AP ability and the use-dependent functional reorganization produced by longterm training."
   
  I'm suspecting that tests are all about CNV (Slow waves) and the seriousness with the whole thing chokes the ooh so elusive magic of music, there's a clear emotional negative bias/ mood about the whole procedure, which is further intensified with rapid switches, now.. hear this, now hear that, do you really, what, hey, is it, well, no, it isn't going on and on and on.

 There's a clear difference between CNV and Bereitschaftspotential (BP) as shown by a study about the relationship between conscious experience of volition and BP, where it was found that the BP started about 0,35 sec earlier than the subject's reported conscious awareness that "now he or she feels the desire to make a movement" and the scientist concluded with what I find quite amusing when it comes to boring listening tests "we have no free will in the initiation of our movements, though, since subjects were able to prevent intended movement at the last moment, we do have a veto."

 So one can easily predict what the outcome is after 50 DBT with a predominant negative bias as difficulty tends to intensify CNV, BTW.. some of the reason why music is so much better at night is because a reduction of CNV as one are sleep deprived and jumps up from the chair to any sudden changes as one are more on the edge (of the chair).
   
  Bottom line: BP as readiness (action) vs. CNV as steadiness (re-action). The only thing scientific listening to music prove is that it kills all the fun in quite an effective way, as it alter the way of ones music perception. As there is nothing to expect, when ones asked not to visualize.. the whole thing turn totally atonal, even musician have problems with atonality vs. tonality, but I'm not saying that a musical sheet is the same as a $700 signal cable.

 Yes CNV is linked to the judgment of a single interval, but it increases in amplitude once it get difficult.. and there's also evidence of the occurrence of CNV after several intervals in succession. This CNV increase could reflect the use of interval–based processes in the building of the interval memory trace.

 AND

 During the comparison phase, a CNV decrease is usually observed, suggesting that subjects did not build a new memory trace, but used memory to check whether something new occurred at the times they anticipated.
   
  IMHO..

 The whole turning upside down and especially that this.. is proclaimed as the truth, well.. as for exotic cables I wholeheartedly agree, but for op-amps there are measurements to back eventual claims of differences.
   
  I'd rather have elevated heart rate..
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0013469476901206 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20153786


----------



## Syan25

I'm pretty sure that good musicians can tell the difference between tonality and atonality - but other than that  - I like what I read...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I like it too, but I am stuck on some parts.
   
  Are you saying that the difference between the results from sighted and blind tests is cuased by the type and amount of stimulous on the two halves of the brain caused by the differences in the tests?
   
  Are you saying that difference can cause us to miss hearing something blind which can can hear sighted?


----------



## Albedo

In short: Yes, as in selective attention -> http://www.mind-meditations.com/concentration-attention/selective-attention-inattentional-blindness/
   
  It seems like that once we shift our focus from the enjoyment of music to the serious business of analyzing, there is much easier to go bilateral, than evoke the plasticity of the brain (Absolute Pitch are developed mostly in the first 6 years of life afterwards a general developmental shift from perceiving individual features to perceiving relations among features makes AP difficult or impossible to acquire) and finding out what exactly is going on. This I find rather disturbing as I've said before that: "speakers of European languages have been found to make use of an absolute, though subconscious, pitch memory when speaking." 
   
  Depressing as it is there are some interesting facts to consider about AP as in the case of blind musicians..
   
  Quote: http://maciej.bioinfo.pl/pmid:17179857


> Several reports have indicated a higher incidence of absolute pitch in blind than in sighted musicians. Employing a pitch memory task, we examined whether a blind absolute pitch musician would rely on different neural correlates than a group of sighted absolute pitch musicians. *The blind musician showed significantly more activation of bihemispheric visual association areas, lingual gyrus, parietal and frontal areas than the sighted musicians.* Sighted musicians showed more activation of the right primary auditory cortex and the cerebellum when compared with the blind musician. These differences in the activation pattern suggest the use of a different neural network including visual association areas while performing pitch categorization and identification in this blind musician in comparison with sighted musicians.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





arnaldo said:


> The simplest way to compare SACD & RBCD is to switch between the stereo SACD high-rez and RBCD layers, both chosen by the producers as representing their best sounding masters. OTOH, down-sampling the analog output of a high-rez SACD layer through a 16/44.1 ADC/DAC only adds unnecessary A/D and D/A conversions, thus invalidating any possible comparisons. Either way, with a very revealing headphone system, the difference between the SACD and RBCD tracks is startlingly, at least to me. Others are free to hear it differently, and that's the beauty of a truly open forum, as practiced on this thread.
> 
> As to the M&M tests, they have been completely discredited. As I explained in a previous post, "there was a rather extensive discussion over the methodology and validity of these tests over at SA-CD.net (http://sa-cd.net/showthread/42987/42987/y#42987). It seems that the authors unknowingly used mostly SACDs sourced from low-resolution recordings in the tests (as per their own list at the bottom of  http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm), thus making the results statistically flawed. In other words, if you're testing someone with low-rez on one side and low-rez on the other, the result is obviously irrelevant."
> 
> ...


 

 What part of "SACD and Redbook layers on hybrid discs are very often NOT of the same master" do you understand?  The easiest example is perhaps the highest selling SACD, Pink Floyd's _Dark Side of the Moon_.  The CD layer clips at several points in the album, particularly multiple times during _Money_.  The SACD layer does not.  No comparison between the layers to look at differences inherent to the encoding is valid in a situation like that.
   
  As for your claimed discrediting of the Meyer and Morgan test... Well, to begin with, the _Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect_ study is in no way widely accepted as conclusive proof - if anything, that's the flawed test we're dealing with here.  In addition to the BAS study, other researchers have tried to replicate the results of the Ooashi test and have so far found no audible difference.  To say that the BAS study goes against "established" science is, quite frankly, BS.
   
  Running the analog output of the SACD layer through an additional 16/44.1 A/D/A chain in no way invalidates the test either.  You still impose the quantization error and frequency response limits of 16/44.1 audio that are in question, and the A/D/A chain _only_ ADDS to the potential to make the difference audible.  If differences were audible under normal conditions, the A/D/A chain could be put into question as to making the audible difference, and it should be in such a case.  But because there was no audible difference in normal conditions, we can say that neither the A/D/A chain nor the 16/44.1 sampling made any audible difference.
   
  As for the quality of the recordings... Well, without seeing frequency response sweeps, it's impossible to know if those claims are true or not (unless the original source was normal res digital audio to begin with).  The "analog recordings can't have high bandwidth" claim is bull too.  Good reel-to-reel tape machines can reach up to 100 kHz, and supporting electronics can (and have) certainly hit frequencies above 20 kHz.  Nor does the reduced quantization error from SACDs over 16/44.1 audio disappear when you're using analog original recordings either.
   
  I can see you're not new to this discussion, and it's clear that you are not going to be convinced of anything that you don't want to believe.  Show me evidence that _all _those recordings are crap (not just a few of them, but most or all of them) and not worthy of being SACDs and not okay for the test, and show me evidence that an additional A/D/A loop put through only the CD-resolution audio can make it harder to tell the difference between it and the unmolested SACD output (of course, such an impact is impossible), and show me evidence to support your other claims and I may be convinced.  I only want real, significant, logical, evidence.  I haven't seen any yet.
   
  I've heard about but never read the newer 44.1 vs 88.2 paper, so I won't comment about it.  Maybe Nick can shed some light on it for us, since there's no mention of any of the details or testing methods in the abstract.


----------



## rroseperry

1. I don't doubt that musicians listen with a different skill set than non-musicians. But again, I'm not sure what that has to do with blind tests. I don't think you're going to find musicians exclusively in the pro or anti testing camps. Also critical listening to music is not the same as critical listening to equipment. I forget what thread it was on, but someone was writing that a musician friend is much less picky about headphones than he (the audiophile) is.

2. The desire to conform points in both directions, don't you think? It would entirely depend on who you're trying to accommodate, consciously or unconsciously. So I don't think it's decisive for or against the influence of authority.

3. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the core of your argument is here:


> I'm suspecting that tests are all about CNV (Slow waves) and the seriousness with the whole thing chokes the ooh so elusive magic of music, there's a clear emotional negative bias/ mood about the whole procedure, which is further intensified with rapid switches, now.. hear this, now hear that, do you really, what, hey, is it, well, no, it isn't going on and on and on.




You seem to be saying that there's no way to listen for pleasure and critically and once we start to listen critically, switching between equipment, the analytic mode evaporates the pleasure of music and produces a sense of stress that renders someone unable to distinguish among real (or unreal) differences. I am guessing that you would say that as long as you perceive differences while in aesthetic mode, it's all good, regardless of whether or not the differences are measurable. I think this is flawed thinking, but I want to be sure that I've interpreted you correctly before diving into this any deeper.


----------



## ffdpmaggot

Sorry to interrupt your argument, but for some personal input, ABX tests are frequently flawed in the fact that they aren't typically, in my experience, music the listener is familiar with and enjoys. When I AB/X lossless or 256 aac with 128 mp3 with my personal music library, I have no questions about which is which. Actually, a friend of mine sent me a 128 mp3, i thought it was a 256 aac (i dont leave that info column up in my itunes). I went to the album in itunes to buy it, checked out the previews, the previews sounded markedly better. Granted that I was expecting exactly no difference in sound quality, the fact that I heard one, speaks for my ability to distinguish between the two. A few days later I found mp3ornot on a google search, I consistently gets about 70% one those ABX's because I'm not familiar with the material. So whenever you look at an ABX, consider the listeners personal tastes if you dont already.


----------



## Arnaldo

With classical SACD discs, all DSD or High-Rez PCM recordings are derived from the same edited masters, which are then authored for the DSD SACD layers (stereo and 5.1 MCH) and for the (down-sampled) 44.1/16 PCM RBCD layer. So again, "the simplest way to compare SACD & RBCD is to switch between the stereo SACD high-rez and RBCD layers, both chosen by the producers as representing their best sounding masters." You should try it for yourself. But if you want to conduct high-rez audio tests with "The Dark Side of the Moon" (just like M&M did), I'm sorry, but further discussion of the matter is utterly pointless...
   
  With that in mind, the M&M tests are exactly like real M&Ms, just junk (although they do taste yummy). And if you think the analog recordings they used have the same frequency response/range as DSD or High-Resolution PCM recordings, well, again, it'd be a waste of time to prolong this exchange. Having said that, some analog recordings from the 60s and 70s sound quite nice to my ears, specially on SACD reissues from the likes of Analog Productions, MoFi and PentaTone.
   
  As I said in my post, "... with a very revealing headphone system, the difference between the SACD and RBCD tracks is startlingly, at least to me. Others are free to hear it differently, and that's the beauty of a truly open forum, as practiced on this thread." Likewise, if you fail to hear it on your system, nothing I say here will convince you otherwise...
  
  Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> The easiest example is perhaps the highest selling SACD, Pink Floyd's _Dark Side of the Moon_.  The CD layer clips at several points in the album, particularly multiple times during _Money_.  The SACD layer does not.  No comparison between the layers to look at differences inherent to the encoding is valid in a situation like that [...]
> 
> I can see you're not new to this discussion [...]
> 
> I've heard about but never read the newer 44.1 vs 88.2 paper, so I won't comment about it [...]


----------



## Syan25

ABOUT MUSICAL SKILL:
   
  The quote about blind and sighted musicians is a good one and probably is true in many cases. Often however,  alot of sighted musicians perform with their eyes closed. I am one of them. I've practiced and performed that way for years when doing solo work. I think the categories in the testing are a bit deceptive because it is too simplistic to have such a dividing line.  
   
  But again tonality/atonality is very different from absolute pitch - and there are many that question the value of having perfect (absolute) pitch as is useful in the tempered sense. It works for some kinds to music and not for others. Depending on the culture and music, lots of music have different kinds of scales with use of microtones such as quartertones - classical Indian music being only one example. Some musicians even complain of having it since it ruins their enjoyment of say avant-garde music that has quartertones in it - say the music of Harry Partch and his music of microtonal scales unplayable on conventional Western instruments. 
   
  And if we go further - it TRUE perfect intervals rarely come into music since the advent of the well-tempered keyboard instruments of the early Baroque period. And perfect intervals renders having the value of having perfect pitch less useful as a skill.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





albedo said:


> *snip*


 

  Seems that you like the brain.  Here are two more neuroscience references more to the point of this discussion.

 Sensory experience arises from integration of sensory data and internal information (expectation, memory, mood, etc.).

 This paper outlines the anatomical sources to auditory cortex from limbic/frontal/visual cortex directly and via the thalamus:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8578069

 This paper explains the necessity of such integrated information and outlines the balance of these sources, given the inferential needs of perception:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11127841

 In light of these facts, we're saying that:

 a) The influence of expectations, associations, prior information and multimodal integration on experience (e.g. knowing what cable you're using, then anticipating greatness/tone/worth) will absolutely shape how something is heard.  This makes unbiased choice (a is better than b) impossible.

 b) Remove that knowledge, and these prior influences on experience will become independent of source (cable, etc).  Average away all those (now random) internal influences with repeated trials or subjects, and the only systematic influence that remains is the external source.

 Cables may or may not have a real effect on sound.  Making that judgement while looking at the cable opens the floodgates of all that internal information in a source-dependent manner.  So it is much better to make such judgments solely on the basis of auditory information.
   
  That is all we're saying.


----------



## Albedo

Saying one can discern FLAC from 256 kbps AAC on this section of the forum gets one into trouble. 
  ___
  Playing the drums like a metronome invoke no emotional response as there only is logic, there's nothing from a technical viewpoint one can put ones finger on and that's it. The rhythm of someone allowing mistakes/ emotion into the equation get far more response from the audience as their are unexpected variations. I'm certain that people hear far more than what the science are saying, as I see much of this in my everyday interaction with human beings. I've always hated singing in choirs...
  ___
   
  As for the usual saying of DBT is that it's useful as it allows some (not us) to separate illusion from reality, but it differs greatly from what we normally hear and how we hear. Saying that DBT is isomorphic to reality is absurd as when listening to music the CNV in no way are as present as with DBT. When it comes to attention and arousal it becomes very clear what's going on.. DBT = CNV as attention is priority #1, but hey.. after half a hour of slow waves (dopamin) it's nice to get a break (serotonine) and report your findings.

 I can go on saying that I'm not accepting DBT unless it's preformed by blind identical twins with Absolute Pitch and savant syndrome in a concrete soundproof bunker where only rare particles can be detected, which of course is absurd.

 1. DBT are more like having the cold, the expensive Bordeaux taste exactly like the cheap table wine, or it's so minuscule a difference one doesn't care.. really. All amps sounds the same, well.. then I say that all red wines tastes the same as the main reason is getting drunk, people might tell you otherwise, but their wrong.. they are in fact just romanticizing their addiction to alcohol.
   
  2. No, there's a clear difference between unconscious and subconscious, the first state is something that knock you out cold and you are just breathing, only the most basic systems works The second state is where there's also a feel about it, like intuition which is before any cognitive activity. Conformity is an unseen authority, an influence that one doesn't sense or in some ways unwilling to oppose.
   
  3. Even the logic of language can convey feelings, but there's also ways to deny that what one are talking about has no connection to what another person pick up intuitively. Even if there is a system that's flawless in some minds like DBT I can sense much anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering (CNV a.k.a. slow wave) so what to do... impose the rule of the rational DBT-empire to the whole audio universe, but hey.. that's just me guessing. There not a shred of psychology in this DBT that's considered, why?

 One can keep the count, but only 50% saw the gorilla, like flipping the coin, guesswork, inconclusive, which prove what... we all are of course counting?

 What's the definition of a good sounding Head-Fi setup?

 SS, tubes, ortho, dynamic, electrostatic, NOS, clock lock, oversampling, vinyl, noisefiltering, powered by a battery, a good malt?

 What one does value the most is not something one can measure with DBT and the reason why is very apparent, anything else is just left to precise instrument to measure, something DBT certainly aren't able to do as it only change ones personal bias and replace it with another, psychology 101?
  ___
   
  I'll read those papers tomorrow eucariote, as your post popped up on the preview of this post.  As for knowledge (da'at) it's no where near to reality IMHO, but I think I'm agreeing with you.. if ones choice of an cable is copper for analogue, silver for digital, taking into account capacitance, ohm, skin effect and isolation, there's really nothing magical about it as cables for me should not be something one can detect.
   
  Jitter on the other hand, one can over a longer period of time "sense".
   
*Edit:* I've read the synopsis of those papers, but there's a twist to the body (subconsciousness)..
   
  Quote:http://www.auditory.org/postings/2001/385.html


> I have met students who didn't think they had any form of 'absolute pitch', but upon certain kinds of testing, revealed 'other traits'. An example is a bass player who I auditioned 3 weeks ago. I suspected some form of absolute pitch, but he denied it vigorously.
> 
> I played a D (below the bass clef) on the piano and asked him to name it. He couldn't do it. I asked him to raise his left hand and place his right hand "as if" he had a bass in his hands. I played the note and asked him to "finger" it. He was puzzled and reported that it was an open string. He adjusted his bow arm and said that it was 'D'.
> His 'body' had 'absolute pitch' that his 'ear' was not "aware" of.


   
   
  BTW the hell (a.k.a. subconsciousness) of Absolute Pitch is that there is no selective attention unless you lie.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

It's funny, for the longest time I thought a "NOS DAC" must be a "new old stock DAC"...  I was left wondering why some think vintage DACs must be better...


----------



## Albedo

I've made the mistake of actually believing that there were 32 bit DACs, but actually.. it wasn't until last year Analog Devices released AD5791 claiming it's the first true 20 bit DAC.
   
  The funny thing is that talking about something different reveals something... let me demonstrate.
   
  We all know that psychopaths have poor processing of secondary or incidental information, but there's also some evidence that they allocate excessive attention to their primary task. Psychopaths (with no empathy) are more proficient than non psychopaths at focusing attention on events that interest them because of a *larger CNV response*. There is also evidence that incidental processing of contextual information may be relatively uncoupled from primary attention among psychopaths relative to controls.
   
  Which in fact is rather funny.. that secondary attention appears to be more loosely tied to primary attention among psychopaths. The more empathic individuals are more likely to process multiple dimensions of a stimulus (or event) that is the focus of primary attention.

 There is consistent evidence that psychopathy is associated with rigid task-focused attention that is poorly modulated by secondary or incidental information (euphoric distortion?).
   
  It does put AES and the whole DBT-chebang in a rather distasteful position...


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





albedo said:


> It does put AES and the whole DBT-chebang in a rather distasteful position...


 
  Too much...


----------



## Willakan

Well, this makes a change. Normally these threads get sidetracked into philosophy - this one has got sidetracked into neuroscience/psychology.


----------



## xnor

What do you guys think about quasi-sighted tests, where the subjects think they see what's going on but are actually tricked, i.e. by a switch that doesn't even work, but still clearly hear the difference when the switch is flipped?
  JJ mentioned such a test in the audio myths video where he had a switch to change between "tube" and "transistor" amp, but the switch actually didn't do anything. He invited some guys including audiophiles and they "almost unanimously liked the tube amplifier." All but one of the EE's he invited also had a preference. This guy went up to the switch, flipped it a couple of times, listened at the speakers and finally detected that the switch didn't do anything.
   
  I'm certain that in a proper blind test this clearly erronous preference would not have shown up.


----------



## Willakan

Those tests are pretty funny, but they tend to reinforce the "all snobby science people laugh at poor audiophiles" stereotype...


----------



## xnor

While some aspects of that test are funny I think that it shows a very serious issue. People are neither dumb nor cloth-eared yet percieve ("hear" is the wrong word here) a difference solely based on someone telling them that they are listening to a tube amp.
  Basically the same happens with expensive cables and other exotic (read: snake oil) products. There are so many different types of distortion of the human mind going on here... it's mind-boggling.
   
  To me it's no surprise that such groups get smiled upon by "ordinary" people. Trying to inform them is like talking to a brick wall, for they are profoundly convinced of hearing differences - sadly, not with their ears.


----------



## Koolpep

There is one absolute truth. But no single person can determine it, as everything we experience is perception.
   
  Ask 5 witnesses of a car crash which color the cars had. They all saw the very same thing, still their mind bends and changes memories/perception. We in the head-fi forum are fighting over nuances in sound and perception that is way beyond what most people might even recognize as "different"
   
  The brain is a crazy instrument and it plays us well.
   
  There is no spoon.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Koolpep* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The brain is a crazy instrument and it plays us well.


 

 To the delight of the industry.
   
   
  It is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.


----------



## Syan25

Matrix quote?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> I've heard about but never read the newer 44.1 vs 88.2 paper, so I won't comment about it.  Maybe Nick can shed some light on it for us, since there's no mention of any of the details or testing methods in the abstract.


 

 I bought the paper so I have read it all, NOT JUST THE MISLEADING ABSTRACT, there are numerous methodological and statistical issues with it. For starters the recording chain. There were two mics connected to a microphone pre-amp and the L and R outputs were split and taken to two different ADCs (one had an external clock and the other did not)  one operating at 88.2 (external) and the other at 44.1 (internal)  - the 44.1 ADC fed a digital recorder and the 88.2 ADC fed a Mac Book Pro. The 88.2 was also downsampled to 44.1 using Pyramix. So there are three variations 88.2, 44.1 native and 44.1 downsampled from 88.2. Lets call these variations A, B and C
   
  ? Does anyone here actually know any recording engineer that would record at 44.1 native ? No, you record high and then downsample later so this is a strange test but we'll let that go for now.
   
  There were five different musical samples used,  the process was the same for each
   
  For each sample the three variations were presented in the following pairwise comparisons AB AC BC (randomly) - each pairwise test was run 4 times i.e AB presented twice and BA presented twice but randomly - however this means that each ABX test block for a pair was a mere 4 trials - far below a sensible n which would be at least 10.
   
  Then they decide to do 2-tailed T-tests - this means that getting it wrong significantly more than chance shows up as a positive result and also that the bar is half as high for significance - this is just plain wrong - the point was to show that listeners can discriminate between samples not whether they get it wrong more than chance. 3/16 were significantly worse than chance - the other 13 were exactly at chance levels - so the experimenters separate these groups out and analyze them separately - this is iffy if not outright dodgy.
   
  Then they pick the results apart by musical sample for the 13, remember each block is 4 trials.  This extra cherry-picking however still does not help much, on no occasion did any participant choose correctly 4/4 times - the average correct choices level for the 13 was never above 68.5% on any sample on any pair -  adding the 3 outliers back this drops so that it never exceeds 63.625% - by using dubious stats they declare these levels significant by invoking signal detecttion theory but they never give us the raw data for us to analyze - I have asked the author repeatedly for the raw data !
   
  Remember that aggregated detection levels were exactly at a chance level ! - this is why you use big numbers !
   
  Then there are other questions about how they assured the levels in the pairs were the same (given how many hoops the signal went through) and that there were no identifying artifacts in the switching (see the 1984 BAS test on Ivor Tiefenbrun) which may have been picked up - details are absent here.
   
  In fairness this was a conference paper so the expectations are a bit looser but I cannot believe they got a free ride on this when they presented.


----------



## xnor

Oh boy..


----------



## Arnaldo

The Swedish label BIS - very prominent in the classical market - was until recently recording all their productions in native 44.1 kHz 24 Bit PCM, for release as stereo/multichannel SACD. They release about 3 new titles per month, or 36/year.
   
  BIS started recording their SACDs in DSD in the early 2000s, but quickly switched to 44.1/24 because of editing limitations inherent to the DSD format. It was only this year that they decided to go to native 88.2 kHz 24 Bit PCM, as disclosed by the company owner, Robert von Bahr, on the SA-CD.net website.
   
  Among other classical labels, Audite also records in native 44.1/24, while Tudor records in 48/24.
  
  Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> ? Does anyone here actually know any recording engineer that would record at 44.1 native ? No, you record high and then downsample later so this is a strange test but we'll let that go for now.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





koolpep said:


> There is one absolute truth. But no single person can determine it, as everything we experience is perception.
> 
> Ask 5 witnesses of a car crash which color the cars had. They all saw the very same thing, still their mind bends and changes memories/perception. *We in the head-fi forum are fighting over nuances in sound and perception that is way beyond what most people might even recognize as "different"*
> 
> ...


 

 A brilliant summation of what we are up to!


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





arnaldo said:


> The Swedish label BIS - very prominent in the classical market - was until recently recording all their productions in native 44.1 kHz 24 Bit PCM, for release as stereo/multichannel SACD. They release about 3 new titles per month, or 36/year.
> 
> BIS started recording their SACDs in DSD in the early 2000s, but quickly switched to 44.1/24 because of editing limitations inherent to the DSD format. It was only this year that they decided to go to native 88.2 kHz 24 Bit PCM, as disclosed by the company owner, Robert von Bahr, on the SA-CD.net website.
> 
> Among other classical labels, Audite also records in native 44.1/24, while Tudor records in 48/24.


 

 I stand corrected.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





xnor said:


> What do you guys think about quasi-sighted tests, where the subjects think they see what's going on but are actually tricked, i.e. by a switch that doesn't even work, but still clearly hear the difference when the switch is flipped?
> JJ mentioned such a test in the audio myths video where he had a switch to change between "tube" and "transistor" amp, but the switch actually didn't do anything. He invited some guys including audiophiles and they "almost unanimously liked the tube amplifier." All but one of the EE's he invited didn't have a preference and this guy went up to the switch, flipped it a couple of times, listened at the speakers and finally detected that the switch didn't do anything.
> 
> I'm certain that in a proper blind test this clearly erronous preference would not have shown up.


 

 I love them.
   
  Quote: 





willakan said:


> Those tests are pretty funny, but they tend to reinforce the "all snobby science people laugh at poor audiophiles" stereotype...


 

 They're just mad because they got proven wrong.


----------



## Heidegger

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> Albedo, are you basically suggesting that human hearing is more accurate and precise than even the best scientific audio measuring equipment today?  If both DBTs and well-done scientific measurements show that two pieces of equipment are the same would you accept that or still try to push your point forward that scientific testing is irrelevant?


 
  It depends what aspect of hearing you're comparing. Human hearing can be very precise, for example in our ability to locate the source of a sound when waves reach one of our ears before the other. This is one factor to keep in mind when judging SACD. I think Ethan said that null tests don't cover certain aspects of audio, e.g. depth of soundstage. As to your second question, which I grant wasn't addressed to me, I would accept the measurements, but would still want to listen to the two pieces of equipment in question because the ultimate criterion for me is what I end up perceiving.


----------



## b0ck3n

No, Ethan said that "depth of soundstage" is something inherent to a recording, as in placement of mics and instruments, locale etc. The frequency response of a speaker or headphone can affect this to some extent. I've found that a U-shaped frequency response makes for a "deep and wide soundstage", while the opposite, well, you can fill in the blanks.

  
  Quote: 





heidegger said:


> It depends what aspect of hearing you're comparing. Human hearing can be very precise, for example in our ability to locate the source of a sound when waves reach one of our ears before the other. This is one factor to keep in mind when judging SACD. I think Ethan said that null tests don't cover certain aspects of audio, e.g. depth of soundstage. As to your second question, which I grant wasn't addressed to me, I would accept the measurements, but would still want to listen to the two pieces of equipment in question because the ultimate criterion for me is what I end up perceiving.


----------



## Syan25

Music is based on imagination and creative listening - expectation, repetition, metaphor - it is all there....so hearing isn't always about what is exactly there....and that is as it should be,,,,where would Mozart be - without that sense of metaphor making his musical variations all the more deceptive, original  and enjoyable....it delivers something different than what we are remembering hearing before.....
   
  Hearing is filled with memory...
   
  Audio tests however are a different can of fish...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





albedo said:


> In short: Yes, as in selective attention -> http://www.mind-meditations.com/concentration-attention/selective-attention-inattentional-blindness/
> 
> It seems like that once we shift our focus from the enjoyment of music to the serious business of analyzing, there is much easier to go bilateral, than evoke the plasticity of the brain (Absolute Pitch are developed mostly in the first 6 years of life afterwards a general developmental shift from perceiving individual features to perceiving relations among features makes AP difficult or impossible to acquire) and finding out what exactly is going on. This I find rather disturbing as I've said before that: "speakers of European languages have been found to make use of an absolute, though subconscious, pitch memory when speaking."
> 
> Depressing as it is there are some interesting facts to consider about AP as in the case of blind musicians..


 



 Have you got any more evidence of such? I really like the idea that when we are sighted we really can hear differences that are not just placebo. Or is what you are describing just placebo in another name?


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Have you got any more evidence of such? I really like the idea that when we are sighted we really can hear differences that are not just placebo. Or is what you are describing just placebo in another name?


 

 Even if that were true, I can't think of any good way to test it which means its not really science.  If anyone's got an idea about a methodology or protocol to test that sort of thing then go for it.  It sounds interesting.


----------



## ffdpmaggot

Take two amps, amp a, amp b. Use either amp and a resistor to play music back through the amp, then feed it to an ADC. Label the recordings with the respective amps they were produced with. Hypothetically speaking, the flaws in either amp should cancel each other out, and when we play recording a over amp b, and recording b over amp a, they should be exactly the same. Tell them which recording they're listening to with which amp, then make them pick which one is better. Once again, hypothetically, if they correctly identify the amps as sounding the same (and if the computer do too) then they are going based on what they're hearing, because if you tell them that the one amp is 10 k and the other is 100, they likely would lean towards the ten thousand dollar amp as sounding better if they based this on placebo effect. This would be more surefire if you found a less sciencey audiophile, rambled about pseudoscience nonsense for long enough to convince them that the 100 dollar amp will, in fact, molest the recording enough that the 10,000 dollar amp playing "pre-damaged" files would sound better. 
  
  Its more of a credibility test than anything, if they "pass" this test with a "they sound the same" then they could be deemed to be less prone to placebo effect. Also, I'm pretty sure that a less experience head-fi'er like myself who doesn't know what to expect from any given amp would do more reliable sighted tests. Maybe you should just use outlandish and obscure equipment.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Letting off steam -
   
  I am now banned from two forums for trying to discuss audiophile myths and claims. I have made it clear that I do believe people hear differences with cables, but that so far the evidence strongly suggests that difference is in them and not the cable.
   
  I have been part of another forums debate on a thread (called cable myth or not) now locked. It sadly has followed the ususal course. As soon as I join and add evidence I am accused of being a troll. When I say I believe the blind testing covered by others I supposedly cannot make my own mind up and am lead by others, yet if I accepted all they have to say, that is somehow not being lead by others?!
   
  Even though I repeatedly say I believe they do hear a difference in cables, I am accused of saying they cannot hear a difference. Even though I repeately say I am more interested in why it is they hear a difference, they say either they don't care (so why take part in the thread's discussion?) or they don't know and are not interested in the evidence (so again, why take part??)
   
  Any evidence is dismissed outright whilst hardly being looked at let alone discussed, but pseudoscience and philosophy is discussed at length.
   
  I had been repeatedly accused of having a closed mind, yet I do look at all of the evidence and if I ask are they open minded to the answer being the likes of placebo, the answer is no. So they are more closed minded that me.
   
  It is really weird why cables have such an uncritical fortress around them. It must make the cable makers very happy indeed.
   
  Rant over


----------



## Syan25

That's because cable makers are sponsors for this website.


----------



## Arnaldo

Good relations with advertisers and sponsors have an unduly and unacknowledged influence on the moderators of open forums, such as this one, as well as on editorial decisions by so-called closed sites, such as print and web publications. But the list of culprits goes well beyond cable manufacturers, to include certain darling headphone brands on this very site, as well as vinyl playback equipment on the sites of quite a few magazines...
  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> [...] It is really weird why cables have such an uncritical fortress around them. It must make the cable makers very happy indeed.


 
  Quote: 





syan25 said:


> That's because cable makers are sponsors for this website.


----------



## Albedo

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> Even if what you're saying is all true and good, it still can't disprove actual measurements...it's not like the recording equipment has to switch between "analyzing" and "listening" mode constantly in order to measure something.


 


  Nearly every human being (except savants) have selective attention and memory and we all see this happen in our everyday like all the time... like.. what did you say?


  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Have you got any more evidence of such? I really like the idea that when we are sighted we really can hear differences that are not just placebo. Or is what you are describing just placebo in another name?


 

 Hmm.. I saw a program on swedish television once, were they asked the subject to memorize the entire room and notice any changes. The funny thing was that they hadn't moved a thing, but the color of the wall was different and guess what..
   
  Do I have links, no.. but one can google selective attention, inattentional blindness, selective exposure etc. As for CNV and arousal I find this interesting -> http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/arousal.htm
   
  Evidence of an absolute subconscious pitch memory, well.. -> http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=ARLOFJ000002000003000085000001&idtype=cvips
   
  The phenomenon of confirmation bias explains why people tend to ignore information which does not fit with their beliefs while they weight agreeable information more heavily.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Thanks Albedo, this is an interesting link
   
  http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/arousal.htm
   
  and I see toatlly where you are coming from. The remaining difficulty for me is that if we really do hear a difference in sighted testing that somehow we miss in blind testing, we should be able to find taht difference. I see in the Swedish radio example there was an actual, verifiable and consistent difference difference. We need to find the same with cables before your theory really does explain why we hear differences sighted and blind.


----------



## b0ck3n

It's irrelevant if it doesn't measure differently, and cables don't. If we can in fact detect actual differences easier when doing sighted listening tests that's one thing, but it's not a discovery that's going to turn the world on its head.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Cable do measure differently, see Nick_James posts and others. The issue is more to do with how audible are those differences.


----------



## bigshot

arnaldo said:


> But the list of culprits goes well beyond cable manufacturers, to include certain darling headphones brands on this very site, as well as vinyl playback equipment on the sites of quite a few magazines...




Vinyl seems to be the most profitable domain of hoodoo, which makes sense, because the areas that most audiophools OCD over are carryovers from the analogue days. Back then, "veils over the sound", distortion in treble, boomy or thin bass, noise and other anomalies were common. When sound went digital, redbook solved almost all of those problems, so equipment salesmen had to start going further along in microscopic decimal points and resort to more confusing electrical theories to upsell their customers. It's easier to justify for vinyl because surface noise, hum, acoustic feedback and mechanical tracking are all issues people deal with. If you collect LPs, you need to be prepared for small distortions of the presentation of the sound. If you want perfect reproduction, stick to CDs.

Ultimately, audiophiles spend too much time listening to equipment and not enough time listening to music. Audiophiles rarely have diverse tastes in music. Autism may play a big part in Internet forums as well.


----------



## sean3089

I feel a little bit better about being stuck with a Yamaha receiver now.


----------



## Syan25

Ah,,,,I like what bigshot has to say about audiophiles. It seems be to most often the case...


----------



## eucariote

As much as I believe in the corrupting power of sponsorship (see U.S. Congress), the prevalence of weak thinking and specious argumentation (see this thread) and even a few misdeeds by the moderators, I think we should give head-fi the benefit of the doubt.  Unless there is good evidence, we shouldn't accuse the site of deleting posts just because some cable manufacturers advertize on this site.  Most of us - including cable skeptics- spend a *lot* of money on gear.  We're like the Consumer Reports of Head-fi- members won't spend less money if they are swayed by the scientific method, they'll just spend it more wisely.
   
  Our response to weak thinking can't be to put on tin foil hats.


----------



## khaos974

eucariote said:


> As much as I believe in the corrupting power of sponsorship (see U.S. Congress), the prevalence of weak thinking and specious argumentation (see this thread) and even a few misdeeds by the moderators, I think we should give head-fi the benefit of the doubt.  Unless there is good evidence, we shouldn't accuse the site of deleting posts just because some cable manufacturers advertize on this site.  Most of us - including cable skeptics- spend a *lot* of money on gear.  We're like the Consumer Reports of Head-fi- members won't spend less money if they are swayed by the scientific method, they'll just spend it more wisely.
> 
> Our response to weak thinking can't be to put on tin foil hats.




But spending 5K or 20K into a acoustically sound room doesn't profit the HiFi industry.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





sean3089 said:


> I feel a little bit better about being stuck with a Yamaha receiver now.


 


  Brilliant. The last Yamaha amp I listened to was an integrated one but to use its headphone out to try some cans. It sounded superb, so good in fact I have started recommending people who do not listen to headphones regularly stick with their integrated amps rather than fork out money on a headphone amp.


----------



## Syan25

Yes - I have an old Yamaha integrated amp - an old one from the 1990s but damn - it had good good sound...still use it when I am back at my parents house...


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> But spending 5K or 20K into a acoustically sound room doesn't profit the HiFi industry.


 

 There aren't any margins.  It actually takes work to do that sort of thing.  The only "R&D" that goes into cables is coming up with a name that hasn't been taken yet.


----------



## bigshot

khaos974 said:


> But spending 5K or 20K into a acoustically sound room doesn't profit the HiFi industry.




There' a lot of truth in that.

The audiophile marketing corps spend a lot of energy making people worry about totally inaudible things like jitter and ultra high frequencies, but very little on the two things that really do make a difference- room treatment and equalization.

I remember back in the late 70s, it was relatively inexpensive to get a good set of Roger Sound Lab cabinet speakers. If you put them in a room without a lot of furniture around them, they gave mighty decent sound. Today, they sell hideously expensive 5:1 systems that consist of tinny little mains, midrangey center channel and a big woofy sub. It's hard enough to put those in a room where the speakers overlap enough to create coherent phase, much less deal with the frequency response firebreaks between individual speakers. Trying to design a room that these systems sound good in is almost impossible.

Almost all of the complaints I read in HeadFi about sound quality would be corrected with judicious equalization. Yet audiophools resist EQ like the plague. Never mind the fact that studio mixing boards are covered with EQ tools, people are still convinced that equalizers degrade sound. They try to equalize in magical ways like substituting silver cables for copper ones, or buying headphones that are deliberately skewed to one end of the frequency response or another. They convince themselves that flat sounds "boring" and achieving it is an impossible goal, so they parallel park their sound signature back and forth by mixing and matching colored equipment- when one minor tweak on an equalizer would get them to the same place.

The main goal of audiophile retailers isn't to make your music sound good. It's to get you to spend money. They're wildly successful at this.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Almost all of the complaints I read in HeadFi about sound quality would be corrected with judicious equalization. Yet audiophools resist EQ like the plague. Never mind the fact that studio mixing boards are covered with EQ tools, people are still convinced that equalizers degrade sound. They try to equalize in magical ways like substituting silver cables for copper ones, or buying headphones that are deliberately skewed to one end of the frequency response or another. They convince themselves that flat sounds "boring" and achieving it is an impossible goal, so they parallel park their sound signature back and forth by mixing and matching colored equipment- when one minor tweak on an equalizer would get them to the same place.


 

The EQ holy wars continue...
   
  The only good argument against EQ is expense and impracticality and expense with sources other than a computer but given the loads of cash that most of those same people spend on things like cables there's no reason why they couldn't spend that some money on something more useful like a pro quality hardware EQ.


----------



## bigshot

Digital equalizers are more precise and don't shift over time like analogue equalizers, but a good analogue equalizer costs under $500 and can make a huge improvement in most systems, particularly speaker systems. It's possible with careful equalization to make midrange equipment sound better than unequalized high end equipment. It's great when it comes to bang for the buck.

Equalizing is a skill that requires practice and careful listening, but once you get a feeling for the types of sounds the numbers represent, it's pretty easy to quickly correct basic problems by ear. An added side benefit is the ability to see through deceptively presented specifications. For instance, advertising that talks about better frequency response above 15kHz sounds great until you know just how unimportant 15kHz is. And you know for yourself just how wide a dynamic range of 70-90dB really is.


----------



## Albedo

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> The remaining difficulty for me is that if we really do hear a difference in sighted testing that somehow we miss in blind testing, we should be able to find taht difference.
> ---
> We need to find the same with cables before your theory really does explain why we hear differences sighted and blind.


 

 Sight enhance auditory plasticity, but the subconscious part of it all shuts down really quick once CNV appear and there's a task at hand and the focus is more rigid and more of a conscious operation, to me it's very clear what missing in DBT. In everyday conversations one picks up ques about feelings that's not in the logic of language, but more in subtle intonations, body movement etc. Finding this differences one can look at why babies at four months develop and shift their perception and more gain a consciousness, but I would be interested in DBT preformed by autists with absolute pitch to rule out some the CNV that seems to dominate many tests.
   
  As for cables I'm not a believer, but buy into Mr. Jenvings explanation with interconnects: "The skin-effect has a dynamic and noticeable influence because an audio signal is nothing but variations of frequencies and sound levels. If we were to transfer only one stable frequency the skin-effect would not be any problem. The frequencies push the signal differently far out from the centre of the conductor. High frequencies travel on the surface whereas low frequencies travel inside the conductor. In order to minimize the skin-effect the EFF-I is designed in accordance with Equalized Frequency Flow (EFF) Technique. It is based on tube shaped conductors with a wall thickness of 0.20mm, which is well below the smallest skin depth within the Audio range. This allows the same resistance for all frequencies. The result is a transparent and exact reinforcement with clear room definition". -> http://www.jenving.se/?p=a_interc
   
  Copper is copper, the audible difference between interconnects are IMHO difference in isolation and skin-effect.


----------



## khaos974

I seem to remember that skin effect over a distance of several meter with a standard copper cable was far less than 0.1 dB attenuation when one compared 20kHz and a low frequency, hardly (or simply not) noticeable.


----------



## Albedo

Skin effect has much more to do with signal delays and deformation of transients. Supra do not dwell in pseudo-science, their Sword cable has a patented solution eliminating the* dynamic* skin effect. There's a difference measuring an electrical current and audio signals, both are noticeable, but only one is audible.
   
  Placebo and bias goes both ways.. as of all sounding all the same.


----------



## bigshot

My investigation of jitter hoodoo has taught me when you enter the territory of time, you have to quantify the amount of time deformation. Just how much of a delay and how short of a transient are we talking about?


----------



## Albedo

I have no clue with their EFF-I cable, but there's some information about one of their speaker cable:
   
  Quote: http://www.jenving.se/sword.htm


> Because Sword’s conductors comprise a number of insulated wires, dynamic skin effect is cancelled. Therefore Sword behaves as a non-inductive and phase stable cable. The difference in phase shift from 500Hz to 100kHz is only 0.002 deg. This allows for perfect timing. Patent holder: Johnny Svärd.


 
   
  About transient.. the plectrum hitting the string of a classical guitar and how this transient bounces and reflects inside the body of the guitar, the effect is a clearer sound with EFF-I than a $2 liquorice-like cable I had before that smeared it all out, no attack.


----------



## khaos974

Phase shift with transducers regularly exceed tens of degrees, so I don't really care if a the phase shift in a cable is 0.002 deg or ten times this amount.


----------



## Albedo

Well, I'm not sure about cables, I'd rather spend my money else where, but...
   
  Quote: http://www.geocities.ws/jonrisch/c4.htm


> The above three part article is a landmark series, as Duncan and Harrison show that Speaker Cables have a dynamic phase shift with a change in signal level. Phase shift is nothing new, and many have supposed that phase shifts might be a portion of the reason cables sound different from one another. However, the measurement results given in these articles is noteworthy because it shows that speaker cables are definitely non-linear components. A given loudspeaker cable's total amount of phase shift changes as the signal level changes.
> This means that FM is present, and an effect sonically akin to digital jitter is occuring within speaker cables.
> 
> The fact that this is occuring in speaker cables means that it also must occur, albeit at a reduced level, in interconnects as well.
> ...


   
   
  All this can of course be refuted..
   
  Quote: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html


> The main conclusion is that the results reported in the magazine articles do not require us to accept that cables can produce a signal phase or time delay which varies with the current level. Instead, the data reported seems quite consistent with what we would expect to occur as a result of the changes in load resistance made as a part of the measurement scheme. The observed phase changes therefore seem likely to be a consequence of an imperfection in the measurement methodology. No novel or unusual cable properties seem to be required. Standard transmission line and a.c. theory will suffice to understand the results obtained.
> 
> The fact that the reported observations can be modelled so easily does not, of course, constitute ‘proof’ that no new and unknown cable properties can possibly exist. Nor does it ‘prove’ that cables cannot affect the perceived quality of audio signals. However, it does indicate that the specific results reported in the magazine articles considered here do not require us to look for novel cable effects. So far as the cables themselves are concerned, the data only seems to imply that low series inductance and resistance will tend to minimise cable phase or time delays. This result seems unremarkable.


   
   
  Then someone goes on saying..
   
  Quote: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=13662


> Specialist audio cables are often sold to the consumer on the basis of eyebrow-raising claims for technical performance, though to date no repeatable test has shown any effect more surprising than mild frequency-selective attenuation. However, because the loudspeaker load is typically nonlinear and causes harmonic currents to flow, finite impedance in an audio cable does indeed cause harmonic voltages to appear across the loudspeaker. This distortion term is similar to, or even greater than, that produced by the amplifier’s intrinsic nonlinearity.


   
   
  The last resonating transient of that plectrum (previously hitting the string) in the body of the guitar, how much the transducer (in a IEM) moves as the tone dies out I don't know.


----------



## bigshot

albedo said:


> I have no clue with their EFF-I cable, but there's some information about one of their speaker cable:
> About transient.. the plectrum hitting the string of a classical guitar and how this transient bounces and reflects inside the body of the guitar, the effect is a clearer sound with EFF-I than a $2 liquorice-like cable I had before that smeared it all out, no attack.




It's pointless for them to cite figures without citing what plain old garden variety zip cord measures at. My bet is both are under the threshold of audibility by a mile.

As for the attack on a classical guitar, I use Radio Shack wires and I have no problem like that. If it was clearly noticeable, even after the time it took to swap speaker cables, you probably had your phase reversed on your cables before you swapped them out. But phase cancellation generally affects bass much more than midrange. The specs you cite don't come close to matching the effect you observed, so something else must have caused it.

It isn't very productive to refer to sales pitch provided by a manufacturer. That kind of information is about as complete and honest as a used car salesman's description of the condition of a jalopy. You'll find more useful statistics by reading third party scientific tests that do honest comparisons and put the figures into a real world context.


----------



## Albedo

There's not much information on their site about these things, but much R&D goes into isolation and the more technical aspect of their relative affordable cables so I'm sold. How transient distortion is measured I don't know, there is some reference to square waves and a spectral technique developed by audio consultant Ben Duncan -> http://www.jenving.se/?p=ply as my previous post states, these tests can easily be refuted. 
   
  As for the case of my interconnects (not speaker cables) the transients were better, changing between the two was over several months though... allowing burn-in (for the EFF-I) and all that jazz -> http://supracable.com/?p=direct
   
  As for honesty, well Mr. Jenving is saying that he believe more in measuring, than subjective listening on a YouTube clip. All this can of course be questioned, but I haven't read all the articles of Ben Duncan - Black Box -> http://www.britishaudio.co.uk/B-BOXVOL.htm


----------



## bigshot

Cables don't require burn in. They sound the same on the first day as they do six months later. They don't even have any measurable differences after burn in. Complete hoodoo.

If you were comparing two sounds with months between, there is no way your memory could handle it. Auditory memory lasts a few seconds with any degree of accuracy. The only way to compare two sounds is by direct A/B switchable line level matched comparison. A controlled listening test like this is not subjective.

Measurements don't mean anything unless they are put into the context of the range of human perception. For instance, people talk a lot about jitter, but jitter as it occurs in even the cheapest cd players is 100 times below the threshold of human audibility. Why spend thousands of dollars on improvements that only bats can hear? Context matters.

You are chasing down the wrong roads, Albedo.


----------



## Albedo

Well, maybe I'm taking into account that Absolute Pitch is precognitive or maybe.. it has something to do with that fact that I'm not that influenced by *c*ontingent *n*egative *v*ariation when makes choices concerning equipment. I think annealing of metal do play some part in burn-in (directionality) and it have been measured with a spectral technique developed by audio consultant Ben Duncan in conjunction with Jenving Technology AB. Well, so they say... haven't read the Black Box articles
   
  Memory is for the most part subconscious (as in feelings IMO) and switching between the liquorice-cable for some weeks, than EFF-I for some weeks, going back and forth for some months there was a difference. This difference was not something I tried to A/B rapidly as auditory memory viewed purely as a conscious act are something that's not real as new memory are building up... more like a model of the world which one view as a representation of the reality.
   
  IME viewing what's happened in an orderly way gets a CNV peak and the following slope change provide a memory trace that leads to decision making, CNV is as temporal as auditory memory and guess what... it's easy to view them as same, when rapidly switching (controlling) and the focus further enhances CNV, secondary perception gets blocked away as irrelevant. This is not as emotional and many mistakes this for objectivity, as there is a clear perception without the influence of the subconsciousness and of course the precognitive absolute pitch memory that all European talking individual possess.
   
  JItter is "audible", if one listens with not only the brain, but... also with the heart (subconsciousness).
   
  Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but what's up there that I clearly are hearing (sensing)?
  (don't say it's my own shadow, such a statement would kill me)


----------



## bigshot

Magical thinking and hyper technical hoodoo won't help you get a better sounding stereo. However, it may convince you that it sounds better on a purely solipsist level if that's what you're looking for. Me? I prefer controlled experiments and good old horse sense. I'm sure my friends appreciate the quality of my system better than if I had designed it by the I ching instead of by trial and error. Solipsism won't help them any, and friends are what really matter, right?

Please don't answer that you're your own best friend because that would kill me.


----------



## Albedo

Some basic knowledge of magic (subconsciousness) do help...
   
  Quote: 





> The other form of Thoth represents him primarily as Wisdom and the Word. He bears in his right hand the Style, in his left the Papyrus. He is the messenger of the gods; he transmits their will by hieroglyphs intelligible to the initiate, and records their acts; but it was seen from very early times that the use of speech, or writing, meant the introduction of ambiguity at the best, and falsehood at the worst; they therefore represented Thoth as followed by an ape, the cynocephalus, whose business was to distort the Word of the god; to mock, to simulate and to deceive. In philosophical language one may say: Manifestation implies illusion.


 
   
  Do deny the influence of the ape/ CNV is of course some sort of a control, I'm just saying it's also the illusion of control... to some extent.
   
  As the feeling of jitter must be acknowledge at first in controlled experiments that take into account not only the human hearing as pure physical, but also the whole psychological dimension of that complex and chaotic process, many here on the board use time and prolonged A/B-ing to rule out placebo, FOTM and do sometimes get entangled in some euphoric shifting of their mind, spending money and gaining experience as they more can sort out other audionauts somewhat flawed and subjective opinions.
   
  I'm just poking holes into the myth of control and the claims to the absurd notion that all amplifiers sounds the same once level matched.


----------



## Willakan

Okay...wait what? How is Egyptian mythology even slightly relevant to this? The subconscious ape and illusion of control? Look, if you're going to make such scientific leaps based on all sorts of research, you kinda need to back it up. Linking the odd related study which on closer inspection seems only tangentially related to what you're trying to argue combines with a writing style which occasionally (not in the above post) seems almost purposefully confusing, hurling neuroscientific terminology that you must surely be aware that remarkably small numbers of people are familiar with and that obscures whatever point you're trying to get across. Or perhaps I'm an idiot - either way, I would like some rather more concrete proofs of what appear to me at the moment to be pseudoscientific flights of fancy - I'm not entirely sure.
   
  Assuming this isn't an entirely new perspective on the human perception of audio you arrived at on your own, I would very much appreciate some links to the writings of other people who hold your complete view on the matter - people who have drawn together the information available in the same way you have - so I can either shake my head and walk off or bow to your superior wisdom, hat in hand


----------



## FullCircle

"Trained listeners" could someone define this, because most people can hear while still in their mother's womb. 
  
  Quote: 





kingstyles said:


> There is problems with blind testing also. Just because the people tested didnt hear it doesnt mean that they are the majority of the population or trained listeners. Most of these test are done with a very small slice of people compared to the overall population or even compared to just the population of audiophiles. There could be biases of the people setting up the test that will give one group or another a better chance. The test just shows that those people under those conditions could or could not hear whatever. It might give a base line but it isnt definitive as there will be exceptions that can pass the test probably if the test was continually done. It is more for food for thought as to warn a individual that it might not make a difference.


----------



## FullCircle

I love logic!
  
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Cables don't require burn in. They sound the same on the first day as they do six months later. They don't even have any measurable differences after burn in. Complete hoodoo.
> 
> If you were comparing two sounds with months between, there is no way your memory could handle it. Auditory memory lasts a few seconds with any degree of accuracy. The only way to compare two sounds is by direct A/B switchable line level matched comparison. A controlled listening test like this is not subjective.
> 
> ...


----------



## Syan25

I thought Blue Jeans cable was pretty decent regarding cables, information and price.


----------



## Albedo

Well, there's always the feel of music, but I'm not alone...
   
   
   
  Quote: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.10.1143&rep=rep1&type=pdf


> Currently available data is still insufficient to determine clearer limits for latency and jitter as well as to confirm much of what was said here in a musical context, making it difficult to assess the quality of musical and multimedia applications regarding temporal precision. This is so because much of the current research on music and timing perception makes use of non-musical stimuli. Since timing is so tightly tied to still unmeasurable aspects of music such as “feel” and since at least part of our timing perception occurs outside of consciousness, we need more experiments performed on actual music. Such experiments would face many technical challenges, some new, some of which have already been dealt with before.


 
   
   
  Quote: http://audition.ens.fr/P2web/eval2007/DP_schnupp-2008-neurometric.pdf


> Many recent studies have emphasized the importance of the temporal patterning of responses in the auditory cortex in the encoding of acoustic stimuli. Consequently, the neurometric approach may have to be adapted to be sensitive to differences in spike pattern rather than in spike rate before it can usefully be applied to the auditory cortex. An important contribution made by the present study is to show that this can, indeed, be done successfully. The psychophysical task used here probes a form of temporal pattern judgment that is sometimes necessary to discriminate complex natural sounds. Listeners discriminated natural from ‘‘flipped’’ twitters with near perfect accuracy when local time reversals extended over 80 msec but performed near chance with time reversals of 20 msec or below. There are several other lines of evidence to suggest that the ordering of auditory events is limited to time frames of 20 msec or longer. In humans, accurate temporal order judgments of click trains with varying amplitude require interclick intervals greater than 20 msec, and those of two pure tones presented simultaneously but with asynchronous onsets require stimulus onset asynchronies of approximately 20 msec.
> ---
> Taken together, these results suggest that psychophysical thresholds for ordering sequential acoustic events may often lie near 20 msec because the temporal discharge patterns that auditory cortical neurons use to encode these stimuli are unable to represent finer time scales accurately. It is important to note, however, that this limited. It is important to note, however, that this limited temporal resolution may not apply in higher-order cortical areas or in the context of other types of auditory tasks, such as pitch judgments, which, at the level of the auditory cortex, may be performed through a specialized set of rate coding pitch neurons, or gap detection, where very short gaps will result in transients that affect the spectrum of the signal. Nor might it apply to the perception of transients within a frequency channel, such as ramped and damped tones. It is also important to stress that a 10- to 20-msec limit in the temporal resolution at which sequential auditory events can elicit spikes in A1 neurons would not imply that the temporal precision of the spikes in representing the onset of each of these auditory events is limited to 50–100 Hz. On the contrary, the temporal jitter in evoked spikes across repeated presentations of a stimulus can be considerably less than 10 msec for some A1 neurons.


 
   
   
  Quote: http://gsd.ime.usp.br/~lago/masters/extended_abstract.pdf


> The higher timing precision of hearing and its relevance to music make the control of latency and jitter a very important part of the design of several systems for computer music. In many cases, systems are developed aiming at producing the lowest latency and jitter possible, which current cost-effective technologies put around a few milliseconds. However, many applications, especially those dealing with wide area network delays, cannot typically offer latencies under 10ms, and may be limited to much higher latencies; still, they are obviously very interesting and are, therefore, developed in spite of the supposedly suboptimal latency and jitter characteristics they are able to offer.
> ---
> Since we are able to use timing deviations as low as 20s between ears as cues to determine spatial positioning, variations in the typical 44.1KHz sampling frequency may a affect our spatial perception. However, since this kind of jitter comes from hardware imprecisions, there is not much that can be done about it but to improve the hardware precision and maybe increase the audio sampling rate. Besides that, this kind of jitter is not directly related in any way to the interactive aspect of a system, and therefore will not be further discussed here.
> ---
> ...


----------



## bigshot

albedo said:


> I'm just poking holes into the myth of control




I'll say you are! You're a wild man!

I agree that generalized euphoria is an important factor measured in the gin to tonic specs.


----------



## Syan25

You can also get euphoria with cialis....just so you know.....


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Magical thinking and hyper technical hoodoo won't help you get a better sounding stereo. However, it may convince you that it sounds better on a purely solipsist level if that's what you're looking for. Me? I prefer controlled experiments and good old horse sense. I'm sure my friends appreciate the quality of my system better than if I had designed it by the I ching instead of by trial and error. Solipsism won't help them any, and friends are what really matter, right?
> 
> Please don't answer that you're your own best friend because that would kill me.


 


 Solipsism .... great term, had to look it up.  Where do you guys get this stuff???   What are you studying???


----------



## Syan25

I'm knocked senseless..


----------



## bigshot

Sorry. Albedo and I are just goofin'.


----------



## Syan25

Actually it is a pretty interesting read. I've been influenced by magic vodoo cables etc...and am still to a degree, but there is a cynical side of me that tells me I'm doing wrong...having said this - I have only let myself spend 10% of the cost of the phones or amp in question on cabling such as interconnects. I like Bluejeans cables
   
  When it comes to listening - there is a lot of imaginative creative work involved with listening to music - and I think that also happens with audio. So we are easily mis-led by magical hyper technical hoodoo as you call it.


----------



## bigshot

The magic is in the art of performance. Focusing on the sound equipment is like focusing on the quality of the paper in a book of Shakespere's Sonnets.


----------



## Koolpep

Wonderful, well said!!
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The magic is in the art of performance. Focusing on the sound equipment is like focusing on the quality of the paper in a book of Shakespere's Sonnets.


----------



## Syan25

That is certainly true...


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The magic is in the art of performance. Focusing on the sound equipment is like focusing on the quality of the paper in a book of Shakespere's Sonnets.


 


  Except that the Sonnets can be found in paper back, hard cover and  expensive Leatherbound Collector's Editions.
   
  Same sonnets, different experiences.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Magic is in the art of performance. Some headphone rigs have you in the front row and some have you almost outside. A focus on equipment just gets us a little closer. It is all about the music. That's why I love any product regardless of cost as long as it sounds good and gets me closer to the feeling transfered in a performance.
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The magic is in the art of performance. Focusing on the sound equipment is like focusing on the quality of the paper in a book of Shakespere's Sonnets.


----------



## Koolpep

Theatre play done by great actors or lousy ones, they still say the exact same words, but your experience varies quite a bit. Be open minded. I am loving my office setup, 35 usd headphone, 30 usd dac and 350 usd tube amp. Weird combo, for sure, but it sounds awesome.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





albedo said:


> Well, maybe I'm taking into account that Absolute Pitch is precognitive or maybe.. it has something to do with that fact that I'm not that influenced by *c*ontingent *n*egative *v*ariation when makes choices concerning equipment. I think annealing of metal do play some part in burn-in (directionality) and it have been measured with a spectral technique developed by audio consultant Ben Duncan in conjunction with Jenving Technology AB. Well, so they say... haven't read the Black Box articles
> 
> Memory is for the most part subconscious


 

 Perfect pitch, imperfect pitch, ERP effects relating to attention, attenuation of said ERP signal with repeated stimuli/habituation, audition in two/one brain hemispheres, auditory processing taking place in toes, nose or eyeballs with musical training, etc. have absolutely no bearing on the reality of expectation & top-down influences on experience and the necessity of blind tests as a control for valid evaluation of gear.  In fact, they concede the point of processing effects on external experience.  You agree with the point of the op of this thread more than you know.


----------



## Albedo

I beg to differ..
   
  I've already pointed out that some processes are precognitive, not *pre* as expectations. Absolute pitch have much to do with motivation though... *cough* selective attention (post #1009 & #1042)
   
   
  Quote: http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=ARLOFJ000003000002000077000001&idtype=cvips&doi=10.1121/1.1472336&prog=normal


> Only the emphasis condition showed a significant bias toward norm-tones, with the syllables related to emphasis producing the strongest effects. The results show that in speech production, the retrieval from a precognitive, absolute pitch memory apparently is dependent on motivational state, which would agree with known characteristics of brain anatomy.


----------



## bigshot

Audiophilosophy 101 is in session!


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





albedo said:


> I beg to differ..
> 
> I've already pointed out that some processes are precognitive, not *pre* as expectations. Absolute pitch have much to do with motivation though... *cough* selective attention (post #1009 & #1042)


 

 Let me add motivation and attention to the list then 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  And the last sentence & conclusion of the paper you cite :"speech pitch selection
 is influenced here by auditory and by motivation-related input"
   
  This is *exactly* the point I/we are making.


----------



## Syan25

Perfect pitch - it is not that useful anyway. And perfect pitch is based on the tempered scale. True intervals - real fifths - sound quite different. And whose pitches are we talking about??? Indian music which predates classical is full of microtonal inflections and has nothing to do with the tempered pitches of Western classical music. Perfect pitch useful for classical musicians perhaps and even then depending on the kind of music being played. 
   
  As a musician - I think perfect pitch is useful but also a misguided concept  - since the truth of intervals are rarely used in music anyway....it's all artificial construct...it's also elitist because it miscounts other kinds of pitches in other kinds of music around the world. The word PERFECT is a problem.
   
  The NATURAL harmonic sequence gives us the true intervals and we altered them over three hundred years ago and changed them to make a scale then we say some people can hear those pitches perfectly in our man-made scales and oh they must be so *naturally* musical.!!
   
  And some of my other musician friends who have perfect pitch find it damn annoying when they want to enjoy for instance gamelan music or say Harry Partch's music....


----------



## Steve Eddy

Wow. You guys still here? Figured you'd have had it all worked out by now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## khaos974

And what does perfect pitch have to do with audiophile claims? 

Nothing, as far as I know, all audio devices from the cheapest ibuds to the most expensive system reproduce pitch with at least a 0.05 Hz accuracy of several orders of magnitude higher.


----------



## Syan25

Agreed - just trying to clarify. Let's get back to audiophile insanity...


----------



## bigshot

Pssst! (whispering) Not to ruin anyone's fun, but Albedo is trying to yank our chains.


----------



## Albedo

In cognitive psychology, dichotic listening is a procedure commonly used to investigate selective attention in the auditory system.
   




   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotic_listening_test


----------



## JadeEast

It's surprising that they could do any valid experiments with such crappy headphones.


----------



## Syan25

Indeed - one wonders


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Guys, rather than take digs at Albedo, I again think he is on to something. The dichotic listening test shows how, depending on what we concentrate on in a listening test, it is perfectly possible to miss clear errors. That backs up the Swedish radio blind listening test and explains why so many missed a problem.
   
  However, audiophile blind listening, the Swedish radio and dichotic testing are three different tests and we still need a reason to say that the faults found with the latter two also apply to the former.


----------



## Albedo

The strange thing about DBT and not having any reference to what there is to expect is not a guideline for choosing a system IMHO. I don't view such testing as the ultimate truth in how we perceive the world, but more as a tool to point out different perspectives and why we internally rationalize our choices. 
   
  One test I read some years ago came to the following conclusion.. 
   
   
  Quote: 





> Listening panel has failed to demonstrate any quality degradation..
> 
> as a result of several burning and ripping a track
> as a result of an allpass phase shift
> ...


 
   
  My point being.. either one sees what I'm pointing at or not... I'm not trying to make fun out of people, if so.. don't you think I would choose a different approach or maybe not... who knows.


----------



## Syan25

Interesting read!


----------



## tattoou2

Definitely a very interesting read and some of the posts were very pertinent and informative.


----------



## bigshot

I don't believe anyone can hear reversed absolute phase. The only point it would be different than proper phase would be the first wave of the first modulation. If one channel is reversed to the other, it is clearly audible. But if both are reversed, no. Humans operate on relativity.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





albedo said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 This plus no details about the test procedure render the results *completely useless* - a waste of time to discuss. You could as well paste some cable review "results" found on a cable manufacturer's websites.


----------



## Albedo

The test in it's full glory -> http://www.hifisentralen.no/cgi/yabb3/YaBB.cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=div54;action=display;num=1103185900
   
  Google translate will give you some clue about methodology, not scientific in this context meaning a CD was sent to a bunch of people that in all honesty heard in on their own stereo system trying to differentiate without any pressure.
   
  I've could have drawn and shot from the hip a.k.a. copy & paste my initial reaction + bold, maybe used a continuum fallacy, but...


----------



## JadeEast

Interesting test, the lack of correlation between the price of gear and results, while not surprising, is interesting to see. The fact that price was included in the survey was pretty crafty on the part of the test giver. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Syan25

Yes thank you!


----------



## drez

I think DBT can be misleading as they are effectively measuring MANY things not just the one variable, eg. the capacity of the subjects to retain detailed auditory information in memory and compare to a second sample.  The dichotic listening experiment as I see it points to a distinct of not immediately related factor in perception.  Scientific studies with human participants are infinitely unreliable - just look at how often medical science changes it's mind.  Don't get me wrong, I am all for methodological rigor, but if CLEARLY AUDIBLE factors can fool many people, what chance do subtle variations stand against a rigid testing methodology.
   
  Don't get me wrong, I am all for scientific verification of audiophile claims, however I prefer methodology less reliant upon human and methodological fallibility ie. electronic measurements and technical transparancy/honesty.  Sadly the complete audiophile industry has some sort of 'gentlemen's agreement' to behave like carpet salesmen and never produce evidence of even the most easily verifiable technical performance measurements.


----------



## Willakan

DBT tests are not perfect, but they're a helluvalot better than the sighted alternatives. In an ideal world, yes, we could just go by measurements, but various people insist that "measurements don't tell the whole story" so we are forced to prove them wrong with tests that eliminate bias as much as possible.
  Also, as the human memory for audio is ridiculously short (5 seconds or something?) many good DBTs use a switchbox that allows them to instantaneously switch between different sources/amps, so memory isn't so much of a problem.
  But yeah, it is faintly ridiculous just how bad things can be measurably before anyone notices. People fail to notice cables so horribly defective that they actually incorporate an accidental bass boost, but claim they can hear ineffably subtle things which no-one can measure...


----------



## drez

that sounds pretty reasonable - I know I can barely remember anything specific even within 5 seconds
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Given that it is impossible to switch around some equipment at home in less than 5 seconds it is more than likely that some of these DBT setups as you say are pretty much the only way to test something like a power cable without fooling yourself and other people.  On that subject though it would be interesting to find if there is such as study for auditory memory do prove/disprove some of these golden ear people.  Maybe let them sit the DBT for a month if they wish


----------



## Willakan

There have been various variations on the test tried - people have done them over days, in their own homes, with their own equipment - the results generally remain consistently damming for audiophile beliefs. The ironic bit is that the believers often insist upon longer listening sessions so they can get the feel of the music, making the chances of success for them move from ludicrously to preposterously remote.


----------



## drez

ouch 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 how embarrassing for them.


----------



## b0ck3n

Does that mean that you've changed your mind regarding aftermarket cables then drez?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I have now added a blind test of violins to the original post. It was conducted by playing each violin in a darkened part of a room so those listening could not see which violin was being played.
   
  I included it becuse
   
  - it shows how many variations there are to conducting blind tests
   
  - again it had a surprising result with cheap stuff out performing very expensive, as is often found in comparison blind tests
   
  - it shows that no matter how the blind test is conducted, the results are different to sighted testing.
   
  Blind testing is regularly dismisses as unscientific or badly done by those for whom the results are contrary to what they would want. But what is becoming very clear is that so long as those listening cannot see what they are listening to, no matter how the test is conducted, the results are consistent.


----------



## rroseperry

Slightly OT - One interesting effect of blind tests (actually blind auditions) has been on the number of women in top-tier symphony orchestras.

Here's a html version of the study. The original's a pdf


----------



## maverickronin

Auditions need to be blinded as well, so prejudices don't creep in.
   
  EDIT:  Ninja-ed, damn.


----------



## Syan25

Agreed - choosing blind auditioners and blind musicians is the only guarantee! Haha


----------



## Albedo

Here's an interesting read (page 18 to 26) -> http://www.affordableaudio.org/aa2010-09.pdf 
   
  Some excerpts..
   
  Quote: 





> We now have nearly thirty years of documented experience in the application of blind and A/B/X testing to stereophonic audio systems. The A/B/X test setup arrangements and test results have been consistently absurd and consistently statistically similar to guessing...which is an expected result when the ABX test is used inappropriately and when it is used for low numbers of subjects. One would think that, after all these years of "all amplifiers sound alike", A/B/X and blind listening test proponents would begin to question the validity of their testing methodology. I don't expect this to ever happen because ridiculing audiophiles is so easy and so much fun.
> ---
> Stereophonic music reproduction is designed according to the principles of sound localization, long term sonic memory of actual musical events, and the reception of tactile sensations from the sound stage. Blind audio testing, which includes visually obscuring all or part of the sound stage, rapid switching of musical selections and off-axis and group seating, impairs the listener's ability to localize sounds (seeing), to internalize and evaluate aural cues (hearing) and to receive correct stereophonic tactile information (touching). Any stereophonic audio system testing methodology which compromises and hinders the processes of human sensory perception will result in consistently inaccurate and often absurd results.
> 
> ABX and blind testing proponents say that they want to apply a scientifically rigorous testing methodology to stereophonic audio in order to determine if the claimed differences in audio components actually exist. However, they ignore decades of scientifically and mathematically rigorous subjective listening techniques that were developed by the inventor and subsequent researchers in the field of stereophonic sound.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





albedo said:


> Here's an interesting read (page 18 to 26) -> http://www.affordableaudio.org/aa2010-09.pdf
> 
> Some excerpts..


 


  lol...  So we can see soundstage, which is obscured by blind testing, and we can feel sound (yes) which is also obscured by blind testing (most certainly not)...
   
  Reads like more of the typical obfuscating drivel of subjectivists than anything useful - and yes, there are useful criticisms of blind testing and sound measurements.  This certainly isn't one of them...


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Reads like more of the typical obfuscating drivel of subjectivists than anything useful...


 

  No, it reads like the typical obfuscating drivel of pseudo-objectivists.
   
  I really wish people would stop using the word "subjectivist" to describe these people (along with not framing this as a subjectivist vs. objectivist issue). They are NOT subjectivists.
   
  se


----------



## Albedo

Ad hominem-argument was actually what I expected...


----------



## bigshot

I like the term "mathematically rigorous subjective listening". It's kind of like scientifically tabulating the number of angels on pin heads.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





albedo said:


> Ad hominem-argument was actually what I expected...


 

 There's really not a whole lot to say about the piece. It's largely little more than a big straw man.
   
  I found no real substance to it.
   
  se


----------



## JadeEast

Here is a nice observation of a cable test from a few years ago. 
  >http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





willakan said:


> There have been various variations on the test tried - people have done them over days, in their own homes, with their own equipment - the results generally remain consistently damming for audiophile beliefs. The ironic bit is that the believers often insist upon longer listening sessions so they can get the feel of the music, making the chances of success for them move from ludicrously to preposterously remote.


 


  X2.  If people make the claim that they hear a difference in their gear (what occupies the discussions of nearly every forum of head-fi), the ideal condition for a blind test is exactly the condition where they heard those differences - in their house, with their equipment, music, after spending all the time they need.  Except the judgements would be based on hearing only.  That would enough to rule out a massive and ubiquitous confound that judgement is based on internally created information.  And to count as a scientifically rigorous testing methodology the test would be repeated to a point that the outcome (random or non-random) is consistent.  Science is so simple as to be almost stupid.


----------



## jcx

mega studies with high "statistical power" are only required for investigating subtle distinctions - things that only a few in the test population can resolve, or can only be resolved with uncertainty
   
  no study regardless of size can establish a negative proposition "that no one can hear X"
   
  but something 90% of the population can resolve with 90% reliability really doesn't require many subjects and trials to accept the positive result that "X" can be heard
   
  audiophiles typically describe their uncontrolled "just listen" evaluations as revealing "night and day" differences - often with "specific" claims about bass tightness, sound-stage depth, frequency roll-off or emphasis...
   
  with such "clues" to focus attention, possible training on samples with known modifications its hard to understand why there aren't positive results in well designed DBT - if we accept sighted listening claims as reflecting objective, physical sound wave differences within human auditory discrimination limits
   
  it is entirely valid experimental design to restrict the subjects to those who demonstrate some level of discrimination in pre trial screening so 'dilution" by the "tin eared" crowd also isn't a sustainable objection - if only 1% of the population can resolve "X" with 90% reliability it still only takes small numbers of these "golden ears"
   
  people do learn so training is acceptable, desirable
   
  focus also seems to be critical, ABX may be weaker on this - variable experimental stimulus up/down threshold testing could be "better" - but this requires a good model of the experimental variable and a "measure" that gives a ordering


----------



## Albedo

Null result is quite easy to get with ABX, the brain usually refuse to play along with rapid switches and it all boil down to guessing. The text mentioned something about long time exposure.. I see some truth to it when it comes to jitter. When someone claim that all amplifiers sounds the same is for me absurd, what causes this phenomena?

 Placebo?

 Why does burn in exist if there is no difference, why do we have do get used to an amplifier?

 To get people of the narcotic silver cable I find ABX to be of some benefit, but if I was rolling op-amps... no way. Over time I pick up new nuances of the same record I'm hearing, but it's the same record and.. there.. a week later.. another detail, a new feeling, what.. I must be crazy.. rewind what, why didn't I hear this before? (this happens when I think my mind is playing a trick or I check outside to see where the sound came from).

 Over the course of time a more complex picture of the record one tends to get, most of these advocates of ABX are like Schiparelli who heroicly tried to identify surface patters on Mercury. Heroic.. as he had to use a big telescope at an object close to the sun (he eventually went blind). Though.. he seemed to recognize some patterns again and again and thereby determine Mercury's rotational speed, but he got it wrong.
   
   
  Quote: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Schiaparelli.html


> Cautious and unflambouyant though he was – in sharp contrast to Percival Lowell – Schiaparelli nevertheless seems to have been biased in his Martian studies by a underlying desire to prove the habitability (if not the actual habitation) of other worlds in the solar system. This willingness to see what was often not there is also suggested by his observations of Mercury. From these, Schiaparelli deduced that Mercury spins on its axis once every 88 days, the same time it takes to go around its orbit, so that it must always keep one face toward the Sun. Furthermore, he claimed that Mercury shows librations of 47° that is, it rocks back and forth considerably, so that there is a broad, temperate "twilight" zone between perpetual day and perpetual night. Only such an arrangement, Schiaparelli presumably realized, together with a Mercurian atmosphere (in which he also believed), would provide a tolerable environment for life.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





albedo said:


> Null result is quite easy to get with ABX, the brain usually refuse to play along with rapid switches and it all boil down to guessing.


 

 What rapid switches?
   
  There's absolutely nothing about ABX testing that requires rapid switching with regard to when the listener switches from A to B or X. The only rapid switching requirement is the time it takes to switch from A to B or X when the decision is made to make the switch. Other than that, there's nothing preventing the listener from listing say, to A for a minute, or an hour, or a day or a week before switching to B or X.
   
  In fact, Tom Nousaine installed ABX comparators in the homes of a number of audiophiles so they could run the tests at their leisure, with their own system, and switching between A, B and X whenever they wanted. However those tests didn't turn up anything of any statistical significance.
   
  Quote: 





> Over the course of time a more complex picture of the record one tends to get, most of these advocates of ABX are like Schiparelli who heroicly tried to identify surface patters on Mercury. Heroic.. as he had to use a big telescope at an object close to the sun (he eventually went blind). Though.. he seemed to recognize some patterns again and again and thereby determine Mercury's rotational speed, but he got it wrong.


 
   
  Ironically, this seems to best describe the pseudo-objectivists everyone persists in calling subjectivists.
   
  se


----------



## Albedo

When one uses a switch box.. if the switch from A to B is over a week I'm more for that procedure, as when changing op-amps, but I find it absurd that some claim that what differences I hear are placebo. As a sudden change of mind let's me hear an instrument that wasn't there before..


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





albedo said:


> When one uses a switch box.. if the switch from A to B is over a week I'm more for that procedure, as when changing op-amps...


 

 Then you should have no problems with ABX in general as there's no inherent requirement that switching be done in a certain period of time. It all depends on who's conducting the test and what constraints they put on it.
   
  Quote: 





> ...but I find it absurd that some claim that what differences I hear are placebo.


 
   
  Strictly speaking, no one can rightfully make such a claim. At best what can be said is that to date, no one has established actual audible differences. At least no audible differences below currently known thresholds.
   
  se


----------



## bigshot

albedo said:


> When one uses a switch box.. if the switch from A to B is over a week I'm more for that procedure, as when changing op-amps, but I find it absurd that some claim that what differences I hear are placebo. As a sudden change of mind let's me hear an instrument that wasn't there before..



That would involve a massive change in the signal. For an instrument's entire frequency footprint to be missing, it would involve a firebreak of an equalization dropout.


----------



## Albedo

A change of perspective might be the cause, reading about legendary parts to implement in a cheap DAC is of course something that has an effect so in a blind test I probably couldn't differentiate between them. As now hearing that instrument and shifting op-amp one knows where to look.
   
  .. but I find it strange when ABX turns 50% and people go on saying that one could just have guessed, same thing.. so if people starts to guess what happens?
   
  50%
   
*Edit:* From Wikipedia... It is important to understand that the *null hypothesis can never be proven*. Your data can only *reject* a null hypothesis or *fail to reject it*. For example, if comparison of two groups (eg: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that you do not have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, you fail to reject the null hypothesis.
   
  Quote: http://stattrek.com/Lesson5/HypothesisTesting.aspx


> *Can We Accept the Null Hypothesis?*
> 
> 
> Some researchers say that a hypothesis test can have one of two outcomes: you accept the null hypothesis or you reject the null hypothesis. Many statisticians, however, take issue with the notion of "accepting the null hypothesis." Instead, they say: you reject the null hypothesis or you fail to reject the null hypothesis.
> ...


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> No, it reads like the typical obfuscating drivel of pseudo-objectivists.
> 
> I really wish people would stop using the word "subjectivist" to describe these people (along with not framing this as a subjectivist vs. objectivist issue). They are NOT subjectivists.
> 
> se


 

 Well, it depends if they really buy into their "explanations" or not.  If they do, they're pseudo-objectivists as well as subjectivists - with pseudo-objectivity serving as a pseudo-logical "magic tunic" that is used to attempt to explain things that haven't been actually investigated objectively.
   
  If they don't buy into their explanations they're probably evil of some sort or at the very least unethical according to contemporary standards, if they're attempting to manipulate and deceive people for personal gain at the expense of said people...


----------



## drez

yes this is what I hate.  I don't mind John Grado tuning his headphones by ear (although calling the RS series reference is a bit of a stretch).  I do mind companies selling audiophile products making false claims about technical performance, which a whole lot [if not the majority] of them do.


----------



## Albedo

Quote: University of Göttingen emeritus professor of psychology Suitbert Ertel, who is an expert in statistical methods... 


> The easier to discriminate and more powerful two-choice format, was replaced with a less powerful three-choice format, which further elevated the chances of receiving similar results.
> ---
> The requirement for rejecting the “scientific hypothesis” is elevated to 2.5 standard deviations above chance (p = .006). In the social sciences, the conventional threshold of significance is 1.64 standard deviations with probability less than p = .05
> ---
> Not being able to reject a* null hypothesis* does not justify the claim that the alternate *hypothesis* is wrong.


   
  What can I say.. 
   
  Google is your friend -> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/39461-claim-your-1m-great-randi-7.html#post460625 (either konnichiwa or sayonara in "Search this Thread" will produce some amusing results).


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





albedo said:


> (either konnichiwa or sayonara in "Search this Thread" will produce some amusing results).


 

 Yes, Thorsten is rather uh... amusing.
   
  No further comment. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## rroseperry

Although not being able to reject the null hypothesis does not mean the alternate hypothesis is wrong, it does set a probability level for the rejection being a mistake. So if we're talking a p value less than .01, there's less than one chance in a hundred that the alternative hypothesis is correct.

In the tests Steve Eddy references above, the failure to find statistical significance (conventionally set at p of .05) mean that there's one chance in 20 that the participants were able to identify different set ups, which is not very good.

The null sets the probability bounds on a test, you're not going to be able to do better than that and for those invested in the difference, there will never be enough proof.


----------



## maverickronin

If you're looking for absolute proof outside of math textbook then you need to give up.  Its impossible.  Real life deals in probabilities.  As far as any reasonable person is concerned, the science on most of these issues is settled.
   
  That doesn't mean it impossible for the science that's been done so far to be wrong, but the odds that it is are similar to the odds of me sprouting wings and personally flying the to homes of all the trolls on this tread to smack them upside the head.
   
  A fact that seems to escape most of the woo-woo brigade is that most skeptics aren't just trying to rain on your parade.  I would like if this stuff were actually true.  I'd love to be able to make my headphones sound better with a recable.  I'd like to know that there is no limit to audio performance and that sufficient tweaking or money could always get me something better.  I would love to actually have psychic powers and think of all the lives that could be saved if magic crystals could actually heal people.
   
  The sad facts are that there is no reason to believe that any of that is true and every reason to believe its all false.  That's not proof, but those odds should tell you something.  It should tell you how to spend the limited time you have to live on this planet to make yourself happy and to make others happy.  You don't have time to waste on this BS.  You will not be able to affect the world in a positive way unless you know how it actually works and you will only cause harm if you act based on faulty assumptions of how it works.
   
  That's why standards of evidence are important.  You can't base your actions on an idea just because it hasn't been conclusively disproven and expect good results.  What's important is the evidence that backs it up and shows why it very likely to be true.  This audio woo has no objective evidence in its favor and mountains of evidence against it.
   
  And to preemptively rebut, that's not being closed-minded.  If _you _can't let your beliefs go then test them.  Test them the same way everything else in science is tested.  If you think none of those tests are good enough then invent you own and demonstrate its effectiveness.  Do the research and testing and then bring forth your evidence.  If its good enough I, along with the majority of rational people everywhere, will change our minds.  That's being open minded.
   
  Remember I'd like this stuff to be true.  I just don't any reason to think that it actually is.


----------



## Syan25

I like what you have to say - quite persuasive reasoning.
  
  Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> If you're looking for absolute proof outside of math textbook then you need to give up.  Its impossible.  Real life deals in probabilities.  As far as any reasonable person is concerned, the science on most of these issues is settled.
> 
> That doesn't mean it impossible for the science that's been done so far to be wrong, but the odds that it is are similar to the odds of me sprouting wings and personally flying the to homes of all the trolls on this tread to smack them upside the head.
> 
> ...


----------



## Alghazanth

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> If you're looking for absolute proof outside of math textbook then you need to give up.  Its impossible.  Real life deals in probabilities.  As far as any reasonable person is concerned, the science on most of these issues is settled.
> 
> That doesn't mean it impossible for the science that's been done so far to be wrong, but the odds that it is are similar to the odds of me sprouting wings and personally flying the to homes of all the trolls on this tread to smack them upside the head.
> 
> ...


 


  Well said.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote:


syan25 said:


> I like what you have to say - quite persuasive reasoning.


 
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Alghazanth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Well said.


 

 Thank you, and thank you.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





qwer74 said:


> For some audiophiles, it actually has nothing to do with the "love of sound" and "trusting your ears." It has more to do with having the most expensive system, knowing the least about it, and making outrageous claims about how they have been in the hobby for a long time and they know what sounds beats studio.


 

 There is an undercurrent of snobbery that's common among audiophile circles.  At its simplest level many people always assume a strict correlation between price and performance but it can get rather more insidious when people weight your words by the value of whatever's listed in your sig or your preferred genre of music.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> If you're looking for absolute proof outside of math textbook then you need to give up.  Its impossible.  Real life deals in probabilities.  As far as any reasonable person is concerned, the science on most of these issues is settled.
> 
> That doesn't mean it impossible for the science that's been done so far to be wrong, but the odds that it is are similar to the odds of me sprouting wings and personally flying the to homes of all the trolls on this tread to smack them upside the head.
> 
> ...


 

 haha had a rant on that youtube video


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *maverickronin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> And to preemptively rebut, that's not being closed-minded.  If _you _can't let your beliefs go then test them.  Test them the same way everything else in science is tested.  If you think none of those tests are good enough then invent you own and demonstrate its effectiveness.  Do the research and testing and then bring forth your evidence.  *If its good enough I, along with the majority of rational people everywhere, will change our minds.*  That's being open minded.


 
  Absolutely. Thumbs up on that post.


----------



## Albedo

Is been open minded to label anyone with a different view as under the influence of placebo?
   
  I'm trying to rule out my own mind playing tricks on me, but are those that rely on DBT doing the same self-searching activity and Google their ass off as to why these test produce null result because of statistic, contingent negative variation, little care of gear setup and how controlled the test is according to the human psyche?
   
  I think to be open minded one has to be open for critique to ones test procedure as the link in post #1135 point to, but when their only answer is an automated response.. computer says no answer.. DBT is the truth as human perception is flawed...  yes, it goes both ways as I have pointed out in post #1009 & #1042, but guess what.. it's like talking to a wall for me to, so I kinda know how it feels for you, but hey... what do you think happens when one has to hear the same awful song for the twentieth time?
   
  IME there are differences that I pick up after several weeks between switches, as I do take the subconsciousness into my consideration, that's why to me IME jitter is of importance, what's next... hearing jitter is placebo?
   
  There's no science behind such easy labeling of people, some of you are more open minded and not aspect blinded, but this debate has been going on since the inception of internet. I've Googled much and read those discussions, the main critique against DBT one can read in the link I provided in post #1135 written by Thorsten Loesch on diyaudio, but when none are trying to take the debate to another level, this will just be going in the same circles as -> http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=general&m=10174
   
  Bla, bla, bla... that's the point I'm trying to get past, but it depends... as it's rather difficult.. I've been going trough the last ten pages in this thread and by the looks of it... there's so much easier to draw and shot from the hip, guess we are all humans. 
   
  I might add that the same happens when I'm discussing religion with someone that hold Richard Dawkins in high esteem, the discussion get to a certain point and then it stops as when I'm saying that I see the reason for Dawkins crusade but in fact his axiom of the selfless gene are just as based on belief as the religion that he fight against, as in.. Descartes axiom is in fact intuitive as the only way out of doubt is... aha!
   
  The stigmata of the DBT-science is being an intellectual snob and complaining about those others with no discipline.


----------



## Willakan

Yes, but surely the problems with a sighted test from a psychology perspective are even greater?


----------



## rroseperry

^ Now that is an interesting (and illuminating) comparison.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





albedo said:


> I might add that the same happens when I'm discussing religion with someone that hold Richard Dawkins in high esteem, the discussion get to a certain point and then it stops as when I'm saying that I see the reason for Dawkins crusade but in fact his axiom of the selfless gene are just as based on belief as the religion that he fight against, as in.. Descartes axiom is in fact intuitive as the only way out of doubt is... aha!


 
  Since Dawkins and an open mind have been mentioned I thought I would post a link to a talk of his that I found amazing. I'm not a big Dawkins fan boy, but this particular lecture had a few points that I thought were pretty amazing. It's a reflection of our perceptions bound to our humanity, It also speaks to those that fear that science removes a sense of wonder and awe from the world around us. Prt 1. Prt 2. Prt 3.


----------



## Albedo

Depends on what ones expectations are, many that counted passes didn't see the gorilla. Arousal are of course demonstrated as a red loudspeaker sound better than a black one, but as I've already said.. drawing from the hip is so much easier, when trying to differentiate between two things, there's also the effect of expectation, but that of course is not up for debate. 
   
  If I were to point to auditory plasticity and when "someone" are told to listen now (Milgram) and differentiate (compare -> CNV, generating new memory) what exactly are one picturing?


----------



## bigshot

To be honest, I'm more interested in discussing how to build a great sounding stereo efficiently than I am in discussing scientific testing procedures. Shooting from the hip is the best way to do that without getting bogged down in unimportant details. It isn't necessary to prove.everything quantitatively. If something costs a lot of money and makes little or no difference, I want to know that because I've got bigger fish to fry. There are always things you can do to refine your system that actually will make a big difference. I'd rather focus on those and wriite off stuff people do for silly reasons like chasing inaudible numbers or stroking their own egos.


----------



## Uncle Erik

I just deleted a lot of posts.

1. Profanity is not allowed here. No, we are not prudes and I don't think anyone of Staff is easily offended.

We don't allow profanity for one simple reason. A lot of people access Head-Fi behind some kind of filter. If there's enough profanity, Head-Fi could be blocked for some members. We don't need or want that problem. Further, there are _plenty_ of other ways to show strong belief or disagreement. You should use them.

2. We do not discuss moderation publicly. If you have an issue, send me or anyone on Staff a PM. We will discuss it with you privately.

3. If you want a policy changed, take it to Jude via PM. Jude makes the rules.

Further, if profanity erupts again, I'll hand out some vacation time.

Cool it and get back to the discussion, folks.


----------



## Steve Eddy

I rest my case.
   
  se


----------



## drez

OK then no comment can be made by me (even remotely relating to above) in that case.
   
  I'm glad the staff don't offend easily and moderate from a pragmatic basis.  So much can't be said for everyone 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Well how about those blind tests...


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:  





> Well how about those blind tests...


 

 I'm happy to report that all three subjects passed the blind tests with flying colors. We have proven conclusively that they are indeed blind.
   

   
  Next subject...
   
  se


----------



## drez

lol


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





albedo said:


> Quote: University of Göttingen emeritus professor of psychology Suitbert Ertel, who is an expert in statistical methods...
> 
> 
> > The easier to discriminate and more powerful two-choice format, was replaced with a less powerful three-choice format, which further elevated the chances of receiving similar results.
> ...


 



 The aim of this thread was to bring together a whole load of blind tests, most of which are small and see if any pattern emerges. Fact is there is a very consistent pattern. In ABX blind tests cables fail every time and other components do a bit better with some passes. In blind comparison tests where people are asked to state a preference there is no correlation between build and price and performance. That happens ever single time. It does not matter who takes the test, where they take the test, what the test conditions were, the results are the same. People cannot reliably different by hearing alone.
   
  So that there has been no large scale test is not really an issue. It is also statistically relevant that no matter the test, the results are the same.


----------



## Albedo

Contigent negative variation are influencing ones precognitive absolute pitch perception, even Thorsten Loesch couldn't pick out his über-tweaked Marantz CD-player in these tests, but some of the other participants did, but of course the statistics says that there is no difference... statisticly. So Mr. Loesch must be diluting his mind as sighted he's hearing differences?
   
  DIY = continuous placebo, not measurable tweaking. Yes..
   
  ..but then many will view this standpoint as completely absurd, further advancement are impossible if one can not look at the axiom that DBT really is.


----------



## Willakan

As my post seems to have been deleted, I will restate my opinion that it stretches credulity to imagine that due to various psychological reasons the effective sensitivity of human hearing increases by several orders of magnitude in some situations. I suspect if such a revelation had much truth behind it it would be being extremely thoroughly investigated.
   
  EDIT: Whoops, wasn't deleted, just confused with threads.


----------



## Albedo

In Vietnam this happened to many soldiers... warped time perception.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





albedo said:


> Contigent negative variation are influencing ones precognitive absolute pitch perception, even Thorsten Loesch couldn't pick out his über-tweaked Marantz CD-player in these tests, but some of the other participants did, but of course the statistics says that there is no difference... statisticly. So Mr. Loesch must be diluting his mind as sighted he's hearing differences?
> 
> DIY = continuous placebo, not measurable tweaking. Yes..
> 
> ..but then many will view this standpoint as completely absurd, further advancement are impossible if one can not look at the axiom that DBT really is.


 



 Thorsten Loesch is not the only person who has failed to pick out his own high quality kit in a blind test.
   
  I see far more faults with sighted than blind testing. What about the axiom that sighted tests are?


----------



## Albedo

Yes, I'm fully aware of that and swap in very slow cycles.


----------



## Gwarlek

Dunno, probably famous video, but for ones who haven't seen it BEWARE! THERE IS NO WAY BACK!
  WAVs are here.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Thanks Gwarlek, it must be the most famous and most referenced You Tube video on hifi! Ethan Winer has made a number of contributions to this thread.


----------



## maverickronin

Too bad he got chased off by the trolls...


----------



## Gwarlek

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Too bad he got chased off by the trolls...


 
  Of course: all your beliefs, foundations and thousand of bucks made meaningless just in a hour. Being him I would hire some bodyguards.
  Something like that.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





gwarlek said:


> Of course: all your beliefs, foundations and thousand of bucks made meaningless just in a hour. Being him I would hire some bodyguards.
> Something like that.


 


 All that _and _he runs a business that can actually improve your systems SQ.  (Your speaker's SQ anyway.  Not so useful here...)  I'm sure all the snake oil salesmen would be jealous if they weren't raking in all the cash...


----------



## Albedo

Hmm.. source and amps are of little concern, but our acoustical dampening products are... shouldn't he had registered as a MOT?


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





albedo said:


> Hmm.. source and amps are of little concern, but our acoustical dampening products are... shouldn't he had registered as a MOT?


 

 Are you suggesting a -20dB room null is inaudible?  I sure as hell don't.
   
  Also I'd assume because this is _head_-fi, not _speaker_-fi.  Room treatments won't do jack for headphones...


----------



## Albedo

There is the case of over-damping if that's what you mean, but to get round such problem when moving from the dormitory to ones own apartment one tends to buy...


----------



## maverickronin

No, that what speakers sound like if you just plop them in the middle of any vaguely normal room.  Standing waves create points of cancellation and reinforcement at different frequencies and points all throughout the room.  These throw the FR all out of whack.


----------



## Albedo

1/2 vs. 1/3 as there is standing waves, but these can get cancelled out with digital room correction to some degree, setting the speakers closer to the wall reduces sound-depth, but the WAF goes through the roof.
   
  As for audio a terrible unknown factor is nehemoth, many woman rely on mens precognitive pitch perception, as I've observed that many are under the heels of their women, but that's also a myth, esoteric etc. That's some of the reason that I'm drawn into these discussions, much of myths and sagas have a origin, but is there something to it, dare one look into that matter and finding one self staring back at you in a terrible distorted manner?


----------



## rroseperry

Huh?


----------



## bigshot

Someone is amusing themselves. To be honest, I don't think it's worth the trouble in engaging with him.


----------



## Yoga Flame

That reminded me of the _Bene Gesserit_ from Dune.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Gesserit#The_Voice


----------



## Albedo

The worst part is that it's not sci-fi as.. buy me a drink... thi-hi.
   
  Much of this testing and these myth deals with the subconsciousness, if one refute it as insignificant, one gets nowhere as there's always other audible aspect that one are under the influence of... all it takes is a paper bag.


----------



## Syan25

Hmm...where is this thread exactly going now??


----------



## FullCircle

Thank you for posting this.
  
  Quote: 





gwarlek said:


> Dunno, probably famous video, but for ones who haven't seen it BEWARE! THERE IS NO WAY BACK!
> WAVs are here.


----------



## Gwarlek

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> All that _and _he runs a business that can actually improve your systems SQ.  (Your speaker's SQ anyway.  Not so useful here...)  I'm sure all the snake oil salesmen would be jealous if they weren't raking in all the cash...


 

 Oh, don't worry about that. It won't be long until some SOS (snake oil salesman) will start promoting some gimmickish device and claim that it affect SQ of open type cans. Gonna patent this one:
  EtherSonic Headline Cryo'd Plexglass (patent pending)

  
  Quote: 





fullcircle said:


> Thank you for posting this.


 

 You are welcome! Spread the word.


----------



## Syan25

Apparently rubbing snake oil in your ears - can actually improve your hearing - a cheaper alternative... 
   
  and here in Taiwan - snake blood is good for male ...oh err.....


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I have finally watched the presentation all the way through and understood what was being talked about. Just goes to show that hanging around hifi forums does mean you learn something. It is pretty damning of a number of myths.


----------



## Syan25

I really enjoyed the presentation too - watched it last night. Makes me feel foolish knowing where I have spent money in the past...but I already knew from working in music- that hearing like memory is selective///


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





albedo said:


> The worst part is that it's not sci-fi as.. buy me a drink... thi-hi.
> 
> Much of this testing and these myth deals with the subconsciousness, if one refute it as insignificant, one gets nowhere as there's always other audible aspect that one are under the influence of... all it takes is a paper bag.


 
   
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Someone is amusing themselves. To be honest, I don't think it's worth the trouble in engaging with him


 

  X2.  I still haven't figured out if his posts are inspired by drugs, malice or insanity.  Possibly a healthy combination of the three.


----------



## rroseperry

eucariote said:


> X2.  I still haven't figured out if his posts are inspired by drugs, malice or insanity.  Possibly a*n un*healthy combination of the three.




There, fixed that for you.


----------



## twylight

Albedo is trying to sound like he came off the Xenosaga game for the PS2...I think there must be a BS generator like for consultants, but more for idiotic JRPG nemesis/half brothers like Albedo in the game...


----------



## Albedo

When unknown people try to take another person down they reveal much about themselves, but about cognitive distortion.. the other side of the myth is that everything sounds the same. I've tried to find some of reasons to why that's the case, but guess what... when I'm taking this to other audible aspects of life.. there's definitly a reaction. Male chauvinism is a good weapon against giggles and coy behaviour, denying that is just a sign of too much manga -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotacon
   
  What's the phenomena I've been trying to point to all this time?
   
  Quote: http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/wacky_world_of_blind_testing/


> Unfortunately, this all gets a little tougher when we start trying to measure REALLY small differences, or trying to find out if there is an audible difference at all. When we compare two microphones, the differences are generally pretty large and at least reasonably obvious. both by objective measurement and perceived sound quality. When we go digging for the real or imagined differences between, say, 20 and 24-bit, or two audio cables, the acoustical or electronic measured objective differences are really very small. And with such small differences, the complexity of the blind test begins to actually affect the results.
> 
> It boils down to this obvious but inescapable fact: it is harder to correctly answer questions whose answers we don't know than questions whose answers we do know. Setting aside the obvious issues of prejudice, bias and cheating for a moment, we will get "correct" answers more often when we "know" the answers than when we don't. I've seen this effect a lot when doing my Golden Ears seminars . Listeners asked to identify the difference between two versions of the same recorded excerpt will have real trouble, at first, hearing that one version is 3 dB louder than the other. Once they are told and shown that such a difference exists, they find it "obvious".
> 
> ...


 
   
  It's just an instrument, a tool.... not the frikin' truth.
   
*Edit:* Typo & Added link.


----------



## rroseperry

albedo said:


> When unknown people try to take another person down they reveal much about themselves, but about cognitive distortion.. the other side of the myth is that everything sounds the same. I've tried to find some of reasons to why that's the case, but guess what... when I'm taking this to other audible aspects of life.. there's definitly a reaction. Male chauvinism is a good weapon against giggles and coy behaviour, denying that is just a sign of too much manga -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotacon
> 
> What's the phenomena I've been trying to point to all this time?
> 
> ...




No one on here has ever claimed that it was ever anything but a tool, a tool that's better than others because it controls for expectation.

Also you shouldn't be so quick to assume that everyone that's replying to you is male, just sayin'.


----------



## drez

The point of these test is to bring audiophiles back to earth - they prove that even the most golden of golden ears can mislead themselves (and others) trying to hear differences between equipment without accounting for the shortcomings of their methodology.  If you claim that something is clear and unambiguous, then it is reasonable to expect that this difference can be detected under controlled conditions.  If one cannot reliable detect differences between these setups then one should not claim that there are definite and clear differences.  This is called being honest and realistic about one's own abilities and limitations.
   
  If you are happy to be informed by people who cannot substantiate their claims reliably you may as well buy one of these.  If you cant reliably measure or audibly detect the performance of some other device, why not try this one?  It is an absolutely ridiculous and unscientific product - but then again so are many of the claims made by cable manufacturers.


----------



## Albedo

Deliberately missing the point... many in this section are biased to what others are hearing and the usual "sit down -> DBT", do you know see the reality.. that is all and everything.. the system... integrating everything into a sameness?
   
  There is nothing beyond 16-bit but unicorns...
   
   
  Quote: http://www.moultonlabs.com/weblog/more/24_bits_can_you_hear


> People have described the difference between 16-bit and 20-bit audio as the difference between mediocre and awesome. Others have ascribed a remarkable transparency to 20-bit signals. Similarly, individuals have reported increased clarity, definition, detailing and other virtues to audio signals with sample rates significantly higher than 48 kHz. Meanwhile, others note that such observations do not get made when we use double-blind tests, nor are they supported by such blind tests, presumed to be more rigorous and "objective" than more informal studies. In fact, double blind tests often seem to show that listeners can't reliably distinguish between 16-bit audio and 20-bit audio.
> 
> How can this be? How can people clearly hear an effect, to a point where they choose to describe it with a superlative such as "amazing", when under controlled blind conditions other people (and sometimes they themselves) can't distinguish it from the same signal without said "amazing" effect? One cynical answer is that they are simply making it up. This is called the "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. Humans are suggestible, and it is pretty easy for us to get stampeded into a group-think state of mind where we will clearly hear anything we think will be socially acceptable, whether it's real or not. All of us working in audio have had the experience of equalizing a channel to a point where everybody in the control room agrees we've made some really significant, perhaps awesome, improvements, only to discover that we were equalizing an adjacent channel that wasn't even switched on!
> 
> But I'm not satisfied with "The Emperor's New Stereo" answer. I'm sure that suggestibility is often an issue, but we know very well that we are susceptible to making these mistakes and we're generally pretty careful about avoiding them. Further, too many people I know whose hearing acuity I really respect have reported hearing things like a "BIIIIG" difference between 16-bit and 20-bit audio for me to say,  "Nah, that's just group-think. They're making it up!


 
   
  PS.. I-C-U... believing that people are unable to flip a simple dualism are saying a lot... *cough* there's even a link to lolicon *sigh*
   
*Edit: *The fuzz is about the 0,1%... 
   
    
  Quote: http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/what_do_we_mean_by_audibility/P1/


> If you think carefully about this, you can see that it has big implications for the design of loudspeakers, recorders, consoles, etc. We can design to pretty easy and low standards if we define the threshold of audibility as the level at which 1% of the population can't hear the defects. It really gets the price down! Or we can be rigorous, and design to a standard where 99% of the population CAN'T hear the defects. But then our products will be quite expensive, and may not be competitive in the market, while only providing a marginal benefit for the Golden-Eared types. It's a quandary.


 
   
  versus
   
   
  Quote: 





> Audibility changes as a function of experience. Called the "learning effect", repeated exposure to an effect increases our sensitivity to whatever audible threshold we're listening for, and increases our level of annoyance.


 
   
  IMHO the disagreement is fruitless when the baby gets thrown out with the bathing water, but I see the point when it comes to the FOTM hallelujah, but seriously... where some exaggerate the sound of a capacitors others do the same fault by DBT. 
   
   
  Quote: http://www.moultonlabs.com/weblog/more/whaddya_mean_its_inaudible


> While the proportional differences between those signals, in the digital realm, are huge (64:1 and 2.2:1, respectively), the actual magnitude of the perceivable differences (both physically and psychologically) are quite small.
> ---
> Meanwhile the debate rages on. As I write this, there is a thread on the listserv Sursound that can't reconcile the widely varying reports of audibility of various signal resolutions. Blind testing is called "bad science" by some because it doesn't reveal "audibility" that some people experience. Other writers argue that if you can't hear it while listening to it "blind", well, you can't hear it, period, in spite of what you hear. Others say we just can't objectively measure subjective phenomena like hearing, in any case. It goes on. Blah, blah, yada, yada.
> ---
> And finally, there's the problem of the Range Rule. This rule (The Range of the Theory must fit the Range of the Facts) requires that if we're going to make a scientifically valid statement about the threshold of audibility, that statement has to be limited to the range of our test conditions. If our data is all gathered in double-blind AB tests, then our statements regarding audibility are limited to such tests, and may not be freely applied elsewhere. When the test results are cited, such qualifications are usually ignored. This isn't bad science so much as bad reporting. Whatever we call it, there's a lot of it going around these days.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I can understand how, after reading about blind testing you could 'flip the dualism' and talk yourself out of hearing differences.
   
  There are also people who buy into the idea that a new cable will sound different and then find out it does not.
   
  Both suggest to me that again, it is the listener and not the cable that makes the real difference.


----------



## SpaceTimeMorph

"Flipping the dualism" is why the DBT must be conducted carefully.  That way when someone listens and does not hear the effect that has been nullified by the DBT they have the science to fall back on and aren't left wondering why their ears aren't good enough, or what's wrong with their equipment, or whatever else...  The science should filter and eliminate non-logical doubt about the end product.
  
  Quote:  





> If you are happy to be informed by people who cannot substantiate their claims reliably you may as well buy one of these.  If you cant reliably measure or audibly detect the performance of some other device, why not try this one?  It is an absolutely ridiculous and unscientific product - but then again so are many of the claims made by cable manufacturers.


 
   
  I liked the bit about, "The Blackbody’s effects easily traverse equipment cases, furniture, and other obstacles, for photon energy is pure energy that can go directly through all these substances."   Uh... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## bigshot

You know, it's fine if listeners in a double blind test can or can't hear a difference. But all I really care about is how my own stereo sounds. Like every other human, I've been subject to suggestibility when I make decisions. I've found that "improvements" that I only *felt* helped and didn't do the legwork to prove to myself too often ended up being smoke. In a month or two I was right back where I started. That's why whenever I get a new piece of equipment, I spend a week or two playing with it and comparing it to my other equipment. The results I've come to this way " sticks" and doesn't turn to smoke. I've saved a lot of money because I know if my decisions are good one's before I make more decisions.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





spacetimemorph said:


> "Flipping the dualism" is why the DBT must be conducted carefully.  *That way when someone listens and does not hear the effect that has been nullified by the DBT they have the science to fall back on and aren't left wondering why their ears aren't good enough, or what's wrong with their equipment, or whatever else...  The science should filter and eliminate non-logical doubt about the end product.*
> 
> 
> I liked the bit about, "The Blackbody’s effects easily traverse equipment cases, furniture, and other obstacles, for photon energy is pure energy that can go directly through all these substances."   Uh...
> ...


 

 Good point, the science supports those who do not hear a difference.


----------



## CEE TEE

How about a Ne-Hi?
   

  
  Quote: 





albedo said:


> The worst part is that it's not sci-fi as.. buy me a drink... thi-hi.
> 
> Much of this testing and these myth deals with the subconsciousness, if one refute it as insignificant, one gets nowhere as there's always other audible aspect that one are under the influence of... all it takes is a paper bag.


----------



## Albedo

IMO science supports neither sides and both, there’s a cognitive and a *pre*cognitive aspect of hearing, the extremes are congential amusia and absolute pitch.
   
  Quote: http://www.neuroscience-of-music.se/eng6.htm


> Before 2000 it was unknown that a precognitive version of absolute pitch is general in humans. This ability is subconsciously applied in speech and it can be considered as a further means of speaker identification, in addition to voice timbre.
> 
> Application of the precognitive, absolute pitch-memory increases with speech emphasis. This is neuroanatomically plausible, because the major precognitive command center for speech (in the anterior cingulate cortex) is not only linked to a pitch memory *but also to centers for arousal and emotion.*
> 
> The motivation dependent use of the absolute pitch-memory can be assumed as one of the evolutionary foundations of song, and thus of music in general.


 
   
  Now it's there, now it's not... IME certain things are only revealed through a larger span of time, this mainly applies to certain form of jitter and those fast transient in music.
   
  A long, long time ago I had dampened the digital transport with bitumen, a person in the collective noticed that the music was different, but could not point to exactly what it was, no words could be found... but there was a difference. Scientifically this can be or not, the illusion of control and the illusion of audio bliss, but what exactly exists?
   
  Why is it that women have a better hearing than men? 
   
  A BS radar as they are more connected to their feelings (precognitive)?


----------



## bigshot

Jitter and fast transients in music are so far apart in scale they might as well be on other sides of the earth from each other.


----------



## Albedo

So the information below is false?
   
   
  Quote: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/What-does-jitter-sound#comment-11110


> Transient response is anything but subtle. Its how the kettle drums sound when they are beaten with gusto on the start of Also Sprach Zarathustra. What happens with jitter is the transient response is "smeared" and unfocused. *It's mostly high frequencies affected.*
> *---*
> There is no standard for transient response measurements, so how can one compare apples-to-apples anyway?
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

The transients in music occur in a scale in time that is so far removed from the tiny fractions of fractions of time that jitter represents, it's not even in the same universe. Until you understand what a ps is, you aren't going to understand what jitter is.


----------



## Albedo

There's pS and there's PS...
   
   
  Quote: http://www.geocities.ws/jonrisch/jitter.htm


> The amount of jitter that it takes to affect the analog output of the signal used to be thought of as fairly high, somewhere on the order of 1,000 to 500 pS worth. Now, the engineers on the cutting edge claim that in order for jitter to be inaudible and not affect the sound of the signal, it may have to be as low as 10 to 20 pS. That's for 16 bit digital audio. That's a very tiny amount of jitter, and easily below what most all current equipment is capable of.
> 
> Computer systems never convert the 1's and 0's to time sensitive analog data, they only need to recover the 1's or 0's, any timing accuracy only has to preserve the bits, not how accurately they arrive or are delivered. So in this regard, computer systems ARE completely different than digital audio systems.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

*The Digital Domain*
In audio as with other digital data processing applications, AC power harmonics cause data corruption. Short of complete system failure, their is a "gray scale" effect of signal degradation that differs somewhat from analog applications. The main difference are the frequencies at which problems appear. For example in 16 bit audio, 16 bit chunks of data are processed at the rate of 44.1kHz. The bit stream rate in 16 bit audio therefore is about 700,000 bits per second (16 x 44,100.)  Various other digital clocking functions may run at much higher frequencies, but they too are subject to high frequency AC noise.
   
_How this sounds to the ear is a matter for subjective evaluation, but it is also measurable._ Recent tests done on a well known manufacturer’s DAT machine revealed some interesting results. First, under standard power, peak jitter was measured under test in a live performance situation. The results yielded a peak jitter of 18ns. At the same time, the average jitter measured was 6ns. Then, the test was repeated using balanced power. The results were surprising even though they were expected. Average jitter was cut by 1/2 to only 3ns and peak jitter was cut by 2/3, down to only 6ns.
   
When high frequency interference is present, proportionally there will be timing errors. Digital jitter appears in a manner not unlike intermodulation distortion in analog circuits. Jitter is compounded as more equipment is added to the digital signal chain the same way low frequency noise compounds in analog systems. Digital jitter is essentially "digital hum!"
   
  Full article: http://www.equitech.com/articles/bpng.html
   
 [size=medium]

[/size]  Quote: 





albedo said:


> There's pS and there's PS...


----------



## bigshot

Nice technical cut and paste, but it didn't address my point. The time frame of jitter isn't even in the same ballpark as the time frame of a transient in music. Compare the length of a snare drum hit to jitter. It would take a whole lot of jitter to "smear" that.


----------



## nick_charles

The maths of jitter is well known, the differences in the effects of different types of jitter are well known. Jitter degrades a signal by adding broadband noise (lowering effective resolution) or aharmonic distortion sidebands......nothing new here
   
   
  but where are the controlled listening tests that provide concrete evidence that jitter in commercially available *competent* digital components is actually a problem ?
   
  There are few published studies and the most conservative of them places the audible threshold of the worst kind of jitter at about 10ns - 20ns - this is a huge amount of jitter.
   
  A $350 Marantz CD player will provide jitter levels http://www.stereophile.com/content/marantz-cd5004-cd-player-marantz-cd5004-cd-player-measurements that are absurdly low - with sidebands that are over 120db down on the signal - or 10db below that actual noise floor of the item if you prefer it expressed that way
   
  How many anti-jitter device manufacturers have produced controlled listening tests to prove an audible benefit of ultra low jitter levels - answer none at all.
   
  Now lets look at something pretty bad
   
http://www.stereophile.com/content/oppo-dv-970hd-universal-player-measurements
   
  The worst jitter sidebands are still at 90db down - and they will be masked as will bands proximal - so the potentially audible sidebands will be at about 96db down.
   
  now something really bad
   
http://www.stereophile.com/content/mcintosh-ms750-music-server-measurements
   
  This has jitter so poor you might just conceivably hear it but it is so crap in other departments that it would be hard to isolate the effect of jitter anyway


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

My snare drums sound more "snarey." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
   
  Perhaps the biggest point is that jitter is additive and ultimately impacts the music. It's not clear what level is actually audible, and I suspect that some folks are less impacted by it than others. However like THD, IM, wow and flutter, etc., it's when it's gone that seems to make the difference. Similar to a sub woofer, if you hadn't lived with one, adding one is a revelation. 
   
  "15 The noise that jitter induces is not easily described: it is not a harmonic distortion but is a noise near the tone of the music that varies with the music: it is a noise that surrounds each frequency present in the audio signal and is proportional to it. Jitter noise is therefore subtle and will not be heard in the silence between audio programs. Experienced listeners will perceive it as a lack of clarity in the sound field or as a faint noise that accompanies the otherwise well defined quieter elements of the audio program."
   
  Full article: http://www.esstech.com/PDF/sabrewp.pdf


----------



## Albedo

Symmetrical ringing occurs before and after *each transient* a.k.a. Gibb's Phenomenon -> smearing.
   
*Edit:* That Marantz player sure looks nice, someone at diyaudio asked about what should be tweaked... no response.


----------



## b0ck3n

Geez, when was the last time you guys (Albedo, Seraphim) just sat back and enjoyed some music?


----------



## bigshot

Smeared transient, digital hum, fizziness in high frequencies, fuzziness in low volume passages... Jitter sounds like the list of ailments on a bottle of patent medicine tonic. Just throw in rheumatism and lumbago and you've got the whole set.

There are so many other issues that really impact sound quality, it's amazing how much time is spent worrying about noise that's buried 100dB down. Jitter is great for people with OCD, but I'd rather listen to great sounding music than worry about the inaudible.


----------



## bigshot

b0ck3n said:


> Geez, when was the last time you guys (Albedo, Seraphim) just sat back and enjoyed some music?




He can't because the article he just quoted said that every piece of stereo equipment made has bad levels of jitter!


----------



## Albedo

To many transient jitter doesn't exist because they have lost their high frequency hearing...


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Listening to Steely Dan, Two Against Nature, even as I type 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. The 24/96 release sounds better than ever!
   
  Actually, I listen all the time. My collection of music is worth considerably more than my audio gear itself. Been performing and listening for a LONG time. 
   
  Notice, that I have considerably fewer posts that some of the other folks. Too much music to listen to. Too little time! Small boat in an ocean of music! 
  Quote: 





b0ck3n said:


> Geez, when was the last time you guys (Albedo, Seraphim) just sat back and enjoyed some music?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Hey, knock it off 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Are you the pot calling this kettle black? Who's worried? We're just contributing another view. 
   
  I haven't made any fundamental changes to my system in several years. When I had my big rig, it went over five years without a single upgrade. Oh, replaced some tubes, but that was about it. 
   
  Maybe we should discuss Global Warming? 
   
   
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Smeared transient, digital hum, fizziness in high frequencies, fuzziness in low volume passages... Jitter sounds like the list of ailments on a bottle of patent medicine tonic. Just throw in rheumatism and lumbago and you've got the whole set.
> 
> There are so many other issues that really impact sound quality, it's amazing how much time is spent worrying about noise that's buried 100dB down. Jitter is great for people with OCD, but I'd rather listen to great sounding music than worry about the inaudible.


----------



## b0ck3n

albedo said:


> To many transient jitter doesn't exist because they have lost their high frequency hearing...




My audiologist tells me I have perfect hearing despite having spent quite a few nights on stage, in the metal scene I might add. Perfect _human_ hearing won't do you much good when you're trying to pick out distortion 90dB below the music playing. Then again one wonders how a person with your priorities is even able to hear the actual music.

Doesn't high frequency hearing degrade with age? Aren't audiofiles usually past their 30s?


----------



## bigshot

Desperation Argument No. 1
It doesn't show up in tests because testing methodology is flawed.

Even More Desperate No. 2
Your equipment isn't resolving enough to reveal it.

Totally Desperate No. 3
You can't hear it because you're deaf.

You've reached the pinnacle now. There's nowhere to go from here but down. Say goodnight, Gracie.


----------



## Albedo

The bugger is that for 99,9% absolute pitch is precognitive, but yes.. high fq hearing degrades with age, but to what extend is very individual.. plugging in a wall wart for me means sometimes I have to turn it 180° just to charge my cell phone as I'm hearing the high pitched bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.. telling this to others.. all I get is the raising of eyebrows.. what?
   
  Thinking back to last time of audio nevrosa in the nineties (last time I purchased a DAC).. clock-locking the digital transport with DAC was audible, but worth the price? Well, probably not.. the problem today is much more serious as the noise in a PC clearly are affecting the DAC.
   
  As for now.. while research my next DAC purchase.. I'm OCDing because it's going to last ten years... at least, asynchronous is for me not an option as my budget for a DAC is about $350. My biggest problem is the rational camp and their myths... and that none of them factor in a certain traits about the human condition (subconsciousness).
  ---
  1. THD is not telling the whole picture as the example with the 4th (audible) harmonic in a cable I posted in another thread.
  2. Add some blue tack on your clock crystal... do it... it only going to cost you 50 cents.
  3. No... it's not the hearing part that's the problem, it's the reporting back.
   
  The only thing after knowing it all is.. the night, yes... "I'm happy, hope you're happy too-o-oOo-ooooo"
   
*Edit:* typo.. and BTW debauchery or satiety?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





albedo said:


> 1. THD is not telling the whole picture as the example with the 4th (audible) harmonic in a cable I posted in another thread.


 

 If you've got a cable with audible 4th harmonic, it's time to throw it in the garbage. It's broke.
   
  se


----------



## Albedo

Well, some claim that even a coat hanger is sounding pretty good, so...


----------



## b0ck3n

My advice is to get something that's been measured to not distort within the audible range, and be at peace with the fact that the pixies smearing your cymbals is just your mind playing tricks on you.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





albedo said:


> plugging in a wall wart for me means sometimes I have to turn it 180° just to charge my cell phone as I'm hearing the high pitched bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.. telling this to others.. all I get is the raising of eyebrows.. what?


 

 Instead of turning the wall wart upside down, try standing on your head. It may have the same effect.


----------



## SpaceTimeMorph

How does the subconscious factor into when an audiophile is not able to not correctly identify swapped components in their own home, with their own equipment, listening to their own music at their leisure?  The fact is there are more instances where the ”subconscious” has been proven to disrupt the hearing process rather than augment it (the McGurk effect, bias, suggestibility, etc).  These aren’t “rational myths,” and the limits to the science don’t imply it is flawed, just unknown via rational means at this time.
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Albedo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> My biggest problem is the rational camp and their myths... and that none of them factor in a certain traits about the human condition (subconsciousness).


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Instead of turning the wall wart upside down, try standing on your head. It may have the same effect.


 

 Now, now....... play nice.


----------



## Uncle Erik

albedo said:


> Well, some claim that even a coat hanger is sounding pretty good, so...


Coat hangers sound so good that no one can tell them from $10,000 cables.

You mentioned the subconscious, too. That cannot be quantified, everyone has their own life experiences and expectations. Everyone looks at a piece of art differently.

However, it has a sneaky way of working into audio. Your subconscious expectations are shaped by the folklore and oral traditions in audio. Read that silver is supposed to sound like X enough times and your brain will keep that circulating somewhere and it might turn into an expectation or desire.


----------



## Albedo

The strangest thing is this fighting amongst yourself... all in all we are aiming at the same goal.. but honestly.. I've have to.. well.. at this point all I can say is for me.. precognitive absolute pitch and the Norwegian power grid that's very polluted with noise because it was designed to not falter because of problems with earth.
   
  Here where I'm at things are what they are.. but.. Sir James George Frazer.. The Golden Bough.. same thing happening if you know what I mean over and over again because of.. hope.. afterlife, well, I'm.. well, it's easy to just.. take it all down.. every viewpoint as it's.. this is not.. Baaaahh..I know exactly what the lesson is.. but.. 
   
  I dont't know, sub.. con.. it's written in hieroglyphs and still un.. un. un..know..able, but I believe that a_side of all the snake oil, there are something that's.. 
   
  music you can call it, life.. I don't know, but I see.. I hear, I'm not giving up.. put some blue tac on the clock crystal for me is a good dilution... 50 cents...  I'm wondering if all this is an elaborate way of  playing on certain strings, but.. I don't care...
   
  I've always been an outcast hearing things that's not there. yeah RIGHT.. manifested in body language, intonation.. bla bla bla.. I'm tired to just seeing this.. unbelievable.. hell   again and aGAIN, all over a... that's the cure.. seeing it all..
   
  YES.. of course mostly it's FOTM and all that, but... BLA BLA precognitive absolute pitch vs. bias and the belief in... but what I'm hearing is not just some insignificant.. why?
   
  The usual answer is that I'm hearing something thats (k)not.. I'm alone is not something new, but HERE it's about PS!!!!!!!!!!!
   
  I.. ai.. aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. et cetera. ad infinitum. science?


----------



## bigshot

There you have it.


----------



## b0ck3n

Alright, now you're scaring me.


----------



## Albedo

..the thing that's not meeeeeeeeeeeeee.
   
  Scoring points when somebody else are pouring their hearts.. OUT, I'm already aware of this aspect of life.. in all it's ugliness.. I'm born with an absolute view of EVERY word, I-C-U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
   
  Science, da'at.. talking to the deaf.. OK..
   
  Show me ONE paper with test subjects posseing absolute pitch.... ONE paper...
   
  or.. gloat................................. AP is..knowing what's not, the..it's all explainable ha ha..


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> There you have it.


 
   
  +1


----------



## Albedo

Hmm.. fear is what it is....................................................................
   
*Edit:* Remember that the lie is imprinted early he he...
   
*Edit II:* All are knowable, we're fighting about the 0,01 but... oh.. it's very much another thing we hardly wouls d admit.
   
  Edit III: The plus thing is working..... but ah!...the "science"..
   
  ...absolute pitch.. just the uh uh YEAH, the hallelujah in the science camp is just as desperate.


----------



## maverickronin

Also pouring his heart out, but not quite as unhinged...


----------



## JadeEast

Quote:


albedo said:


> Show me ONE paper with test subjects posseing absolute pitch.... ONE paper...


 

  I'm not sure what a paper about absolute pitch will do for you, but here are four.
  http://www.musicianbrain.com/papers/Loui_AbsolutePitch_Hyprconnectivity.pdf
  http://www.musicianbrain.com/papers/Schulze_PerceivingPitchAbsolutely.pdf
  http://www.musicianbrain.com/papers/Hamilton_APinBlinds.pdf
  http://www.musicianbrain.com/papers/Keenan_AP_2001.pdf


----------



## bigshot

Remember that guy in the Netherlands who used to post the whispery videos showing his stereo system on a complex series of dampening feet, wrapped in tinfoil with $1000 cables he cut up and reattached into Frankenstein monsters?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





albedo said:


> Well, some claim that even a coat hanger is sounding pretty good, so...


 

 No one said anything about "sound good." You were speaking of a cable with audible 4th harmonic. Instead of trying to obfuscate, show me such a cable.
   
  se


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Actually Steve, it was a claim by UE that a coat hanger sounded so good it was indistinguishable from a $10K cable (not UE's personal experience). However, as you point out, that doesn't mean is sounds good, either the coat hanger or the $10K hanger (err cable).
   
  Maybe though, some folks should do a DBT with a set of your cables? Are yours also indistinguishable from a coat hanger? 
   
  Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> No one said anything about "sound good." You were speaking of a cable with audible 4th harmonic. Instead of trying to obfuscate, show me such a cable.
> 
> se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Actually Steve, it was a claim by UE that a coat hanger sounded so good it was indistinguishable from a $10K cable (not UE's personal experience). However, as you point out, that doesn't mean is sounds good, either the coat hanger or the $10K hanger (err cable).
> 
> Maybe though, some folks should do a DBT with a set of your cables? Are yours also indistinguishable from a coat hanger?


 


  I don't even know what the "coathangers" remark had to do with anything I'd said.
   
  Albedo had mentioned some cable with audible 4th harmonic. I'd like to know just what cable this is supposed to be. I mean, not even RG-176, which has a steel center conductor has any hint of 4th harmonic. But Albedo seems to prefer obfuscating so I guess we'll never know.
   
  se


----------



## Willakan

Additionally, he failed to actually say what level this harmonic was at. I'm not sure what Albedo thinks is audible corresponds to what anyone else thinks is audible, having read and replied to some of his earlier posts - but apparently he's singlehandedly rewriting the rules of modern psychology until it makes sense, so that's OK.


----------



## khaos974

willakan said:


> Additionally, he failed to actually say what level this harmonic was at. I'm not sure what Albedo thinks is audible corresponds to what anyone else thinks is audible, having read and replied to some of his earlier posts - but apparently he's singlehandedly rewriting the rules of modern psychology until it makes sense, so that's OK.




I seem to remember it was a 4th harmonic at -140 dB, which wouldn't be that surprising actually. However I also seem to remember that the result was contested because it was at the very limits of his measuring gear.

BTW, it's a lot of "seem to remember" but I don't feel like reading pages upon pages to find the link again.


----------



## Willakan

-140db? That is completely and utterly inaudible. Words fail me to express just how stupidly far that is out of the range of audibility. That's like saying you can read a sign in size 5 font on the friggin' moon.
   
  Okay, I exaggerate slightly with the moon bit, but -140db is insanely quiet and without a shadow of a doubt completely inaudible.


----------



## khaos974

I know


----------



## b0ck3n

willakan said:


> -140db? That is completely and utterly inaudible. Words fail me to express just how stupidly far that is out of the range of audibility. That's like saying you can read a sign in size 5 font on the friggin' moon.
> 
> Okay, I exaggerate slightly with the moon bit, but -140db is insanely quiet and without a shadow of a doubt completely inaudible.




Must I keep reminding you to keep an open mind?! Maybe not too open, as Albedo has proven that invites demonic possession.


----------



## Willakan

I would like to think that at least half of the impression of being certifiably insane comes from the subtle nuances of his meaning being lost in translation. Perhaps I'm being a little over-optimistic.


----------



## bigshot

Never attribute to insanity that which can be explained by simple trolling.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Never attribute to insanity that which can be explained by simple trolling.


 


  bigshot's Razor......


----------



## Albedo

I made a mistake it was the third.. in a XLR cable..
   

   
  About AP I meant some test in audio that was not distorted by the usual cognitive process of remembering, about demonology.. some of you.. are _clearly_ gloating.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





albedo said:


> I made a mistake it was the third.. in a XLR cable..


 
   
  And what exactly is this supposed to be a plot of? Is it supposed to be the distortion specra of an XLR cable?
   
  se


----------



## bigshot

It's a Rorscach Test.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It's a Rorscach Test.


 

 In that case, it looks like a primitive drawing of some strange horned best. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## Albedo

I've already posted this information before -> http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/556398/cables-the-role-of-hype-and-the-missing-link/225#post_7588801
   
  Edit: Original thread -> http://www.hifisentralen.no/forum/index.php/topic,462.msg14122.html#msg14122 if DBT are making coat hangers as good as a cable it's very clear what's going on.. all sounding the same... a* null *hypothesis.


----------



## bigshot

I like how each post refers to a post in a different thread. It's kind of like Alice's rabbit hole.

Edit: Aha! The explanation has just shifted to Nowegian! Curiouser and curiouser! I commend you for your superb grasp of obfuscation!

I agree, it is very clear what's going on all right. A null hypothesis indeed!


----------



## Albedo

I've translated the Norwegian post into English so... obfuscation.. what?
   
  This is absurd..


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> In that case, it looks like a primitive drawing of some strange horned best.



I think he's trying to "buffalo" us!


----------



## Albedo

The magpie do actually sing... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XilaFMUwng from 0:57... still many are saying that I'm wrong.
   
*Edit:*
   
  Quote: http://www.avguide.com/forums/the-difference-between-medical-dbts-and-audio-dbts


> Despite the medical DBT being held up as the gold standard, I can tell you that many of them are either uninterpretable or poorly generalizable because of various failings in study design, study sample, and so on. Many of them tweak the statistics to make the differences seem more impressive than actually measured. Of course, it is possible to tweak the stats the opposite direction, for example to minimize the number of adverse outcomes. Simply redefine your endpoint, and there you go. I also know enough about these academics to know that their motives are not always pure and there may be all kinds of conflicts of interest.
> 
> I should also say: in audio DBT's, there is a *strong bias towards the null hypothesis* (that intervention X made no difference). Medical DBT's would be the same - if they were as poorly designed as audio DBT's. In fact, there have been a number of medical DBT's that have shown the null hypothesis when all of us in clinical practice, anecdotally know that the intervention makes a difference with our patients. In such cases, I ignore the study and tell people that I know that xxx works. Eventually another DBT may come along that changes the conclusion. It happens all the time!
> 
> ...


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I think he's trying to "buffalo" us!


----------



## Albedo

In Norway there's an animal that's called muskox, noted for its thick coat and for the strong odor emitted by males, from which its name derives.


----------



## bigshot

You got the buffalo backwards. His buffalo head is on his buffalo butt!


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





albedo said:


> I've already posted this information before -> http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/556398/cables-the-role-of-hype-and-the-missing-link/225#post_7588801
> 
> Edit: Original thread -> http://www.hifisentralen.no/forum/index.php/topic,462.msg14122.html#msg14122 if DBT are making coat hangers as good as a cable it's very clear what's going on.. all sounding the same... a* null *hypothesis.


 

 Oh for Pete's sake.
   
  This guy's measuring distortion from a loudspeaker using a microphone.
   
  The cable is NOT, I repeat NOT producing the harmonic distortion shown in the graphs.
   
  The only way that I can see such a huge disparity in third harmonic when driving the loudspeaker using the two cables is if the XLR cable has a bad contact, a cold solder joint, or more likely, the amp he's using is being driven into overload from oscillating due to the cable's capacitance.
   
  There's a reason you typically don't see people using microphone cables as speaker cables.
   
  se


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You got the buffalo backwards. His buffalo head is on his buffalo butt!


 


  I know, but the hump was on the other side, so it fit better that way....
   
  But you can have it either way.......


----------



## Albedo

He also said something in another thread about the effect the space between each wire has on multi-core wires, especially the 4th harmonic went FU with 10 dB.
   
  In a DBT even a coat hanger is good, this is just telling me it's a myth.. it's not a rational view... at all.
   
  About the Norwegian measurements.. the dude said that some people seems to ignore that the 3rd harmonic varies about 30 dB over a large area where the impedance are almost flat, he got the same result twenty times in a row. He also pointed out that the transducer had a SD-system which meant there was a symmetry making the load on the cable easier. A SD-system is a copper ring situated on the pole piece under the T-form, making the inductance inside and outside x-0 roughly the same and thereby less impedance modulation, but symmetrical BxL-curve and lower harmonic distortion.
   
  The XLR cable..
  C: XLR=1,224nF, 4kvmm=0,297nF
  L: XLR=7,7µH, 4kvmm=3,3µH
  R: XLR=0,371ohm, 4kvmm=0,071ohm.
   
[size=11.0pt]The amp (Oberon 2.1) ->  http://www.midgardaudio.no/extranet/Brosjyre/EngVer1.htm[/size]
  The transducer -> http://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/pdf/18w-8535-00.pdf


----------



## Steve Eddy

I can't think of any scenario by which the cable's RLC properties would suddenly cause the driver to behave in such a non-linear fashion.
   
  The amplifier boasts a damping factor of 1,600. That translates into an output impedance of 0.005 ohms. You don't get that kind of output impedance without quite a lot of negative feedback which can cause amplifiers to go unstable into certain capacitive loads.
   
  To rule this out, either someone should try and duplicate the test using a different amplifier, or look at the distortion in the electrical domain at the amplifier's output while driving that particular cable and loudspeaker.
   
  There have been too many instances where someone has shouted "HEY! LOOK AT THIS!" only to later discover there was something amiss in their test setup.
   
  But in either case, as I said previously, the distortion is NOT being produced by the cable itself as your original claim implied.
   
  se


----------



## Willakan

Quote: 





albedo said:


> In a DBT even a coat hanger is good, this is just telling me it's a myth.. it's not a rational view... at all.


 
  This prettymuch explains it all. You started from the position that OF COURSE stuff made a difference, therefore DBT and similar methods as applied in controlled listening tests are clearly wrong.
  You looked for "evidence" after arriving at a conclusion, not before. And that evidence which you are now producing isn't up to much.


----------



## b0ck3n

That's classic: all evidence found after arriving at a conclusion is custom fitted into that conclusion. Even so, the factual evidence outweighs the pseudo-scientific theories that Albedo's come up with by a wide margin (though I'll admit he's provided some interesting reading).


----------



## Albedo

[size=11.0pt]What john Curl measured might be what Snicker-is also measured, the Ply cable by Supra in it’s time was controversial because the conductors was as close to each other as possible in a flat surface. Back then most hi-fi cables were wide spaced cables, when Snicker-is widened the space he measured 4th harmonic distortion, one might say that the amp is crap (just e-mail Midgard Audio and complain about the flaw of Oberon 2.1 or something), one might say that John Curl equipment is antique… the two threads at diyaudio is an interesting read though and of course what Bruno said ->  http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/cable-distortion-and-dielectric-biasing-debunked[/size]
   
  For those curious about measured difference in cables...
http://www.eetimes.com/design/audio-design/4015821/Loudspeakers-Effects-of-amplifiers-and-cables--Part-5
http://www.nordost.com/downloads/New%20Approaches%20To%20Audio%20Measurement.pdf
http://audiofest.net/2010/video_player.php?video_id=10&Sid=10c06a43bf211482677cce015fb162ea
   
  About pseudo-science and all amps, DACs, op-amps, cables sounding all the same (null hypothesis are not biased bla, bla. bla)...
   
  Quote: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2010.00306.x/abstract


> We now have nearly thirty years of documented experience in the application of blind and A/B/X testing to stereophonic audio systems. The A/B/X test setup arrangements and test results have been *consistently absurd and consistently statistically similar to guessing*...which is an expected result when the *ABX test is used inappropriately* and when it is used for low numbers of subjects. One would think that, after all these years of "all amplifiers sound alike", A/B/X and blind listening test proponents would begin to question the validity of their testing methodology. I don't expect this to ever happen because *ridiculing audiophiles is so easy and so much fun.*
> ---
> 
> ABX and blind testing proponents say that they want to apply a scientifically rigorous testing methodology to stereophonic audio in order to determine if the claimed differences in audio components actually exist. However, they ignore decades of scientifically and mathematically rigorous subjective listening techniques that were developed by the inventor and subsequent researchers in the field of stereophonic sound.
> ...


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





albedo said:


> [size=11.0pt]What john Curl measured might be what Snicker-is also measured...[/size]


 
   
  What John Curl measured is a phantom. He was not measuring distortion produced by the cables. The distortion in his measurements was simply the distortion of his antiquated test equipment.
   
  When using more modern test equipment (AP System Two Cascade), and measuring more than 20dB below John's measurements, there was absolutely no sign of the high order harmonics in John's measurements.
   
  se


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


albedo said:


> In a DBT even a coat hanger is good, this is just telling me it's a myth.. it's not a rational view... at all.


 

 If you have trouble with that, you had better stay away from quantum physics. There's stuff there that you would never believe.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Albedo quoted
   
   "We now have nearly thirty years of documented experience in the application of blind and A/B/X testing to stereophonic audio systems. The A/B/X test setup arrangements and test results have been *consistently absurd and consistently statistically similar to guessing*...which is an expected result when the *ABX test is used inappropriately* and when it is used for low numbers of subjects. One would think that, after all these years of "all amplifiers sound alike", A/B/X and blind listening test proponents would begin to question the validity of their testing methodology. I don't expect this to ever happen because *ridiculing audiophiles is so easy and so much fun.*
  ---

  ABX and blind testing proponents say that they want to apply a scientifically rigorous testing methodology to stereophonic audio in order to determine if the claimed differences in audio components actually exist. However, they ignore decades of scientifically and mathematically rigorous subjective listening techniques that were developed by the inventor and subsequent researchers in the field of stereophonic sound."
   
   
  I would love to know more about the scientific and mathematically rigorous subjective listening techniques.
   
  The rest of the quote fails to acknowledge that the repeated failure of ABX and blind testing provides us with a very good explanation of how our ability to hear differences in hifi works. It fails to aknowledge the role of sight.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Remember that guy in the Netherlands who used to post the whispery videos showing his stereo system on a complex series of dampening feet, wrapped in tinfoil with $1000 cables he cut up and reattached into Frankenstein monsters?


 

 Patrick, is that you?


----------



## Head Injury

I know I'm late bringing this up, my internet was out for a few days, but:
  Quote: 





albedo said:


> The strangest thing is this fighting amongst yourself... all in all we are aiming at the same goal.. but honestly.. I've have to.. well.. at this point all I can say is for me.. precognitive absolute pitch and the Norwegian power grid that's very polluted with noise because it was designed to not falter because of problems with earth.
> 
> Here where I'm at things are what they are.. but.. Sir James George Frazer.. The Golden Bough.. same thing happening if you know what I mean over and over again because of.. hope.. afterlife, well, I'm.. well, it's easy to just.. take it all down.. every viewpoint as it's.. this is not.. Baaaahh..I know exactly what the lesson is.. but..
> 
> ...


 

 This post is so much better if read as introspective modern poetry. I went to the trouble of formatting it for Albedo:
   
   
  The strangest thing is this fighting amongst yourself
  all in all we are aiming at the same goal
  but honestly
  I've have to
  well
  at this point all I can say is for me
  precognitive absolute pitch and the Norwegian power grid that's very polluted with noise because it was designed to not falter because of problems with earth
   
  Here where I'm at things are what they are
  but
  Sir James George Frazer
  The Golden Bough
  same thing happening if you know what I mean over and over again because of
  hope
  afterlife, well, I'm
  well, it's easy to just
  take it all down
  every viewpoint as it's
  this is not
  Baaaahh
  I know exactly what the lesson is
  but 
   
  I dont't know, sub
  con
  it's written in hieroglyphs and still un
  un
  un
  know
  able, but I believe that a_side of all the snake oil, there are something that's
   
  music you can call it, life
  I don't know, but I see
  I hear, I'm not giving up
  put some blue tac on the clock crystal for me is a good dilution
  50 cents
  I'm wondering if all this is an elaborate way of  playing on certain strings, but
  I don't care
   
  I've always been an outcast hearing things that's not there
  yeah RIGHT
  manifested in body language, intonation
  bla bla bla
  I'm tired to just seeing this
  unbelievable
  hell   again and aGAIN, all over a
  that's the cure
  seeing it all
   
  YES
  of course mostly it's FOTM and all that, but
  BLA BLA precognitive absolute pitch vs. bias and the belief in
  but what I'm hearing is not just some insignificant
  why?
   
  The usual answer is that I'm hearing something thats (k)not
  I'm alone is not something new, but HERE it's about PS!!!!!!!!!!!
   
  I
  ai
  aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
  et cetera
  ad infinitum
  science?


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





head injury said:


> This post is so much better if read as introspective modern poetry.


 

 Wow.  I never thought about like that.
   
  The next step is obviously interpretive dance...


----------



## Willakan

He has to be trolling. I hope he's trolling. Please, God, let him be trolling.


----------



## Albedo

Quote: 





head injury said:


> I know I'm late bringing this up, my internet was out for a few days, but:


 


  That post was written in shock.. under a lot of emotional stress and much grief... maybe I shouldn't have logged in at all as I was very irrational at that time. Check the date of that post and next check any news about Norway. If you already know and just can't stand me posting some measurements about difference in cables, you have a strange way of attacking the messenger instead of those measurements or maybe it's your way of dealing with a terrorist/ the enemy that's not a Muslim as what's been in the news for the last ten years, all this hate against many innocent people on Fox News.
   
  Have a nice day and take care!
   
*Edit: *To PRM -> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=83979&st=0&p=725341&#entry725341 further down the "critique" is as usual very pubertal, but I think he has a some valid points. I might add that DBT and THD is a strange way of judging amps as good, properly implemented components are all good for low distortion, but the harmonic distortion in a transistor amp is high in the 7th, 9th and the 11th harmonic and it's all turned upside down for tubes... it's better at those harmonics, but the THD is bad.
   
  Reading either subjective reviews or DBT are not telling me much, but measurements of those harmonics are of key interest IMHO.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Albedo, I for one appreciate your contribution here as it is way more interesting that the usual psuedo-subjectivist trolling and you ahve made a number of valid points.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> ...psuedo-subjectivist...


 
   
   No no, it's "pseudo-objectivist," not "pseudo-subjectivist." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## Albedo

We all have the same goal PRM.. happiness, but also.. each to it's own and much about this fighting is IMO about having an unusual and unique Head-Fi rig. Take me for example.. an unusual focus on low jitter and re-clocking that I've chosen to feed to distorting tubes, I've actually invested more money in the source than the HP.
   
  Many will disagree, but for me it's a sane choice.. both financially and scientifically.


----------



## bigshot

All of us in the US know how the people of Norway feel. The whole world is getting to take turns paying the cost of being a free and civilized society in a mentally ill and barbaric world.


----------



## Albedo

There's not much anger here, more like reflection through grief.
  ---
  *
  ---
  Anyway.. IMO distortion is unavoidable so..
   
  Quote: http://www.coemaudio.com.au/faq.php#question21


> Scientific studies have shown that humans perceive even order distortion as being musically consonant while odd order distortion is perceived as musically dissonant.* There is also evidence that shows while up to -5% of 2nd order distortion is audibly tolerable, only -0.5% of 5th order distortion is audibly tolerable.*


   
   
  THD might be good, but humans are more sensitive to those odd harmonics. How does jitter affect those odd harmonics that we are more sensitive to?
   
*Edit:*
   
   
  Quote: http://www.gim.ntu.edu.tw/gia/nasality_hollowness/


> The sound qualities associated with the predominance of odd-numbered harmonics were first described by Hermann von Helmholtz (1877). He reported that if only the odd-numbered harmonics were present, the quality of tone was hollow; when a large number of such upper harmonics were present, nasal. It is interesting to note that Helmholtz's observations on these two sound qualities has attracted little attention from psychoacousticians or musicologists.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





albedo said:


> THD might be good, but humans are more sensitive to those odd harmonics. How does jitter affect those odd harmonics that we are more sensitive to?


 

 Says who?
   
  All they do is make an empty claim about "scientific studies."
   
  What studies exactly? Published where exactly?
   
  Why do you keep making references to claims made by companies in the business of selling audio gear?
   
  All I see is the usual empty hand-waving.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Oh, and you might want to visit the Stereophile website and look at the measurements in reviews of tube gear, particularly distortion spectra.
   
  Just as an example, here's the spectra from a Manley 440:
   

   
  Predominantly odd-order harmonics and a considerable amount of high order harmonics.
   
  se


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Oh, and you might want to visit the Stereophile website and look at the measurements in reviews of tube gear, particularly distortion spectra.
> 
> Just as an example, here's the spectra from a Manley 440:
> 
> ...


 

 this is followed and preceded by pretty awful measurements
   
  The S/N ratio, unweighted (referred to 1W into 8 ohms), was 69dB over a 22Hz–22kHz bandwidth (66.3dB from 10Hz–500kHz, unweighted, and 78.4dB A-weighted).
  The relatively high, but not alarming, distortion levels are –44dB (about 0.65%) at 100Hz and –37dB (about 1.5%) at 150Hz.
  The 1kHz intermodulation artifact lies at –49dB, or about 0.35%; the distortion level at 18kHz is –32dB, or about 2.5%.
  For our purposes, discrete clipping is defined as 1% THD+noise at 1kHz. In Triode mode at the standard feedback setting, the Manley's discrete clipping points were 158W (22dBW) into 8 ohms, 210W (20.2dBW) into 4 ohms, and 156W (15.9dBW) into 2 ohms (Amp is rated at 540wpc)  - over 2% distortion plus noise well before max power
   
   
  and then at the end it says
   
  Quote: 





> All in all, this is a very respectable set of measurements for a high-powered tube amp.


 
   
  this from the magazine that gets apoplectic about 1ns jitter !


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I added a blind comparison test of violins to the first post a while back. It has the consistent comparison result of price/age/image having no relationship with performance. After a claim on another forum and comment about violinists can supposedly tell the type of varnish used and hear differences I googled blind test violins. There have been a few involving Stradivarius and they are all fails for those who say they sound the best.
   
  An interesting point was made that people will go to hear and see a Stradivarius because of its fame. I think that that reinforces the link between sight and image and sound quality many perceive.
   
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081108164152.htm
   
  http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090915_violin.htm


----------



## khaos974

A few (dozen?) years ago, there was a single blind test involving a Strad, a Vuillaume (very famous French 19th century violin maker), and a modern violin with Zuckerman, Stern and a violin trader as the audience. The test was onl a single blind since they couldn't blind the player.

This ended with an inconclusive result with none of the expert being able to reliably identify the violins.

That said, I seem to remember there was some testing involving pure tones being played, recorded and analyzed by computer that showed interesting results.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> A few (dozen?) years ago, there was a single blind test, since they could blind the player involving a Strad, a Vuillaume (very famous French 19th century violin maker), and a modern violin with Zuckerman, Stern and a violin trader as the audience.
> 
> This ended with an inconclusive result.
> 
> That said, it think there were some testing involving pure tones being played, recorded and analyzed by computer that showed interesting results.


 

 Interesting info.....


----------



## khaos974

upstateguy said:


> Interesting info....




I retyped my original message which was absolutely a mess, maybe I was drunk when I posted it.


----------



## gregorio

khaos974 said:


> A few (dozen?) years ago, there was a single blind test involving a Strad, a Vuillaume (very famous French 19th century violin maker), and a modern violin with Zuckerman, Stern and a violin trader as the audience. The test was onl a single blind since they couldn't blind the player.
> 
> This ended with an inconclusive result with none of the expert being able to reliably identify the violins.
> 
> That said, I seem to remember there was some testing involving pure tones being played, recorded and analyzed by computer that showed interesting results.




About 15 years ago I was alone in a concert hall in Evian with Raphael Wallfisch. Raphael had seen me working with another musician and asked if I would mind giving my opinion on 3 different cellos he was evaluating. The three were quite different in their clarity and richness in different frequency ranges but one stood out as having a really powerful and rich lower register compared to the others. I gave Raphael my considered opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of each instrument and for my personal preference for the one with the exceptional lower register. Turns out that it was the most expensive of the three and that it was a Strad.

This was not a particularly scientific test but it was very blind as I had no idea at the time that any of the three was a Strad. I also can't rule out the possibility that Raphael played the Strad slightly differently to the other two due to subconsciously being affected by the fact that it was a Strad. In a sense though, it doesn't really matter whether the Strad was actually better or whether it just inspired Raphael to play better. I'm not sure what happened in the end, whether or not he actually bought the Strad.

Not sure how relevant or reliable this anecdote is, just thought I'd throw it out there.

G


----------



## Prog Rock Man

That a Strad did best in your blind test and worse in others shows how random it is. The same as cables. If Strads consistently did worse in blind tests, then that would no longer be random and there would be a discernable audible difference.


----------



## gregorio

prog rock man said:


> That a Strad did best in your blind test and worse in others shows how random it is. The same as cables. If Strads consistently did worse in blind tests, then that would no longer be random and there would be a discernable audible difference.




I don't see it that way at all. Khaos974 said that the test subjects couldn't identify which violin was which, not that they were unable to discern a difference. There is no controversy that the sonic differences between different makes of instruments are significant and well within the ability of a human to hear. These sonic differences between makes of instrument are many orders of magnitude more significant that the differences between cables, which are well outside the ability of a human to hear.

G


----------



## JamesHuntington

This info proves a lot about the hype behind spending money VS. a professional setup. Bose sound awesome in a Bose Studio. Dre Beats sound better in the store plugged into their amp with their music. My favorite setup right now is a 1992 JVC CDP with the on board PEM and some 1981 Yamaha YH-100 headphones hooked into the front jack. Total cost off the street is 200 or less, but you could use some newer studio headphones with similar results. My Pinnacle loud speakers sound like expensive speakers, and that was the idea behind their design. All this study proves to me is that a system should be set up by a professional, or you may not get what you pay for.


----------



## Heidegger

Well, here's more evidence why we shouldn't always take old scientific assumptions as eternal verities:  Exciting chatter in the physics world today - Neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light? Hmmm...
   
   http://bit.ly/n9YAKW


----------



## rroseperry

You need to check the links on that story.


----------



## nanaholic

Sorry but that's a non-argument.

 Science has many different fields, some we know VERY well and some we know very little.  Sub-atomic and Quantum physics is one which we know very little and has yet to even reach the point of coming up with practical applications, but things like germ theory, electromagnetism and signal theory (both digital and analog) is very well known and understood and we use and apply its theories in practical ways every day, and in fact if those theories are wrong our life as we know it now would most certainly crumble (for example if signal theory/analog-digital theory is wrong the PC and Internet you are using now would most certainly NOT exists).  You can't just take one poorly understood field and dismiss the other established one.


----------



## bigshot

Machinadynamica have been working on solving the problems with sub atomic neutrinos messing around with audio fidelity. Their new Super Intelligent Chip is all you need.
   
  http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm


----------



## drez

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Machinadynamica have been working on solving the problems with sub atomic neutrinos messing around with audio fidelity. Their new Super Intelligent Chip is all you need.
> 
> http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm


 


  lol that company is awesome "mind matter interactions" bahahahaha I hope they ship their products with a a letter kindly requesting customer not to have children.


----------



## bigshot

If you keep a set of "Magic Pebbles" in your front pocket, you will be unable to conceive.


----------



## DaBomb77766

http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html
   
  No way man, this is the end-all upgrade.


----------



## Willakan

Quote: 





heidegger said:


> Well, here's more evidence why we shouldn't always take old scientific assumptions as eternal verities:  Exciting chatter in the physics world today - Neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light? Hmmm...
> 
> http://bit.ly/n9YAKW


 

 That's basically a modified version of a logical fallacy involving "quantum mysticism" - basically "Look at all this complex crap scientists found. From this I deduce *scientific model/s or concept/s* are therefore no more likely than the theory I made up to explain why cables work."
   
  I'm not saying you made that exact argument, or even that you meant to follow it through like that, just pointing to how certain areas of science are constantly abused to "discredit" other areas.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





willakan said:


> That's basically a modified version of a logical fallacy involving "quantum mysticism" - basically "Look at all this complex crap scientists found. From this I deduce *scientific model/s or concept/s* are therefore no more likely than the theory I made up to explain why cables work."
> 
> I'm not saying you made that exact argument, or even that you meant to follow it through like that, just pointing to how certain areas of science are constantly abused to "discredit" other areas.


 
  Can we call you on an "appeal to motive"?
   
  I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Willakan

Twas relatively careful not to imply that that was the exact argument, but touche anyways.


----------



## khaos974

> Finally, its maximum output is 0.5dB higher than the standard 2V, which will be audible on an A/B comparison. Take care when auditioning to match levels carefully.




Stereophile about 20 years ago 
http://www.stereophile.com/content/proceed-cd-player-measurements


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 +1


----------



## SobbingWallet

Quote: 





nanaholic said:


> Sorry but that's a non-argument.
> 
> Science has many different fields, some we know VERY well and some we know very little.  Sub-atomic and Quantum physics is one which we know very little and has yet to even reach the point of coming up with practical applications, but things like germ theory, electromagnetism and signal theory (both digital and analog) is very well known and understood and we use and apply its theories in practical ways every day, and in fact if those theories are wrong our life as we know it now would most certainly crumble (for example if signal theory/analog-digital theory is wrong the PC and Internet you are using now would most certainly NOT exists).  You can't just take one poorly understood field and dismiss the other established one.


 

 What if a discovery were made that indicates we don't understand electricity as well as we thought we did?  Look up memristance, memristors, and their impact on the fundamental relationship between voltage, current, and flux. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I'm just trolling a bit though.  It's pretty profound stuff, but as huge as the implications are, they don't really change anything regarding our understanding of how audio equipment and signals behave as far as I know (which in a way kind of reinforces just how well-understood audio signals are).


----------



## Uncle Erik

You don't need a deep understanding of quantum physics to sniff out a con man.


----------



## liamstrain

Richard Feynman - who did have a deep understanding of quantum physics, always stressed the point that if you couldn't explain it in a simple way that just about everyone could understand - then you didn't really understand what you were talking about. 
   
  So - if you see a claim, mired in gobbledy-gook, that's a good indicator to look twice and make sure that they are not banking more on it sounding impressive, than, well, actually sounding impressive.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The Institute of Engineering and Technology on audiophile myths
   
  http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/11/believe-in-better.cfm
   
  which corroborates the conclusions from post #1 in the thread. I think this important from Karlheinz Brandenburg of the Fraunhofer Institute to the Audio Engineering Society
   
  "Brandenburg says science is still incomplete in terms of its understanding of how the brain processes sound. 'It's basic research that's needed for the next decade."


----------



## liamstrain

Nice article! Well worth the read through.


----------



## drez

More interesting is the review of the Denon Lan cable:
   
http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/product-reviews/B000I1X6PM/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1


----------



## maverickronin

Wow...  There isn't even a real review on the first page.
   
  The cable is directional.  Hook it up backwards and you'r music will play that way as well.  Comedy gold.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

A question guys, since I hope someone else here has enough experience to give a good answer:

 For actual listening ABX tests, how does one go about level matching for listening tests with headphones?  How would you set up the microphone with the headphone?  Since you only care about relative levels, would it be enough to have a crude seal around the cups with a hole for the mic?  Since I'm wanting to test electronics and not different headphones (at this stage), I would be able to leave the test rig in place as I level match the system with the two different items being tested.
   
  I would be using one of my Radio Shack SPL meters along with REW - the real time analysis should let me get that 0.1 dB accuracy needed (the RS meter (digital or analog, I have both) alone isn't enough, although the analog one could probably match within 0.2 dB or so).  Speakers would be easy enough to test with; it's just headphones and level matching that I am particularly worried about.


----------



## Willakan

For more accurate matching, use a test signal and match amplifier volume instead of headphone volume with a DMM. This eliminates the giant source of potential errors that is the microphone and is also somewhat easier.
  Here is a decent how-to:
   
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=71773


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





willakan said:


> For more accurate matching, use a test signal and match amplifier volume instead of headphone volume with a DMM. This eliminates the giant source of potential errors that is the microphone and is also somewhat easier.
> Here is a decent how-to:
> 
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=71773


 


  I wondered if that was an approach that would make sense.  I wasn't sure about the load on the amplifier making any difference - obviously that makes comparing different headphones impossible with this method.  Also, I'm not sure my DMM is that accurate with AC... I think it only has 0.1 V accuracy, which off the top of my head would seem to be way too inaccurate.


----------



## maverickronin

The accuracy will be better if you use a 50 or 60Hz sine wave.


----------



## Willakan

@Blackbeard Ben:
  You really want to match to 1%, so that doesn't seem like it will suffice. If you do use the mike, the only thing I can suggest is avoid moving it relative to the headphones at all, even by the smallest amount: but you probably already worked that out!


----------



## jcx

monitoring the V going to the headphone seems like the most practical method - with a Y connector and a a high R ( 10 kOhm is enough to avoid extra loading with dynamic headphones) V divider you could use a soundcard line input
   
  the soundcard line in may be as bad as a few % absolute accuracy, channel matching but the repeatability/resolution should be better than 0.01%
   
  if trying to check headphone cable properties you may want to probe the V at the headphone driver terminals inside the cups - less easy 
   
  the subjective comparision is always difficult with taking the headphone off, replacing it on your head, the physical placement, sealing (got hair?) giving changes in frequency response that should be ABX audible


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





jcx said:


> monitoring the V going to the headphone seems like the most practical method - with a Y connector and a a high R ( 10 kOhm is enough to avoid extra loading with dynamic headphones) V divider you could use a soundcard line input
> 
> the soundcard line in may be as bad as a few % absolute accuracy, channel matching but the repeatability/resolution should be better than 0.01%
> 
> ...


 


  That's a good idea.  So I set one amp/DAC system to the volume I want to do the test at, measure the output voltage of the amp on a multimeter, then adjust the values in the voltage divider to get an output voltage that my sound card input can handle, and then measure?
   
  Then I'd repeat the same for the other amp/DAC system, this time adjusting the volume to match that of the first based on the measured voltage.  This would definitely work for what I have in mind, particularly for amp testing.
   
  For comparing cables, it ought to work for, say, my HD 600 since I could measure at the headphone end of the cables.  Of course, if using the same amp that would make switching rather difficult to have to adjust the amp every time (if the cables [or DACs if switching them] are enough different in resistance [or output] to make a difference).


----------



## westsounds

I love this post its awesome thanks for going through the trouble to put it together. Thats what I love about forums like this its free of any marketing or bulls*** that you get with magazines and the like. haven't got through it all yet it will take some time to read all those reviews.
   
  A lot of the time gear just sounds different not necessarily better. When you do some AB testing some shines more than others but a lot of the time this could be down to personal preference also, hence why there is so many different stuff on the market selling. Just one of many examples I can give you is I had a cheapo midi CD player years ago and I bought the what Hifi best at £400-500 got it home to find the cheapo sounded MUCH better and it wasn't just me I made my random guests do the side by side and they said the same. However I and others have also listened to some equipment and been blown away by its presentation. Some equipment does sound amazing but I dont think the more you spend the better it gets but there is some superb sounding expensive equipment out there. If you spend more you do usually get better looking or quality materials and componants but the sound can be subjective.
   
  I have enjoyed testing different equipment in the past and wasted a lot of hours I suppose, I still have a quality system here and love it, it gets me close to the recording/performance and that what I'm after. Speakers are without a doubt the biggest sound changers and the component I have had more than anything of. If I won the lottery however I still go out and test the big money system's and have a drop dead gorgeous high end system just to be a snob, as long as it delivered the goods that is.
   
  Personally I've settled on ProAc speakers for my domestic use ( I keep going back to them and would hate to get rid of them now ) with quality but not really expensive partners. ProAc are quite expensive but they are not in comparison to others, this is a bold statement but I think they make some of best sounding speakers in the world at any cost!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Hi westsounds and welcome to the forum.
   
  Making people happier with their existing setup, losing the feeling that you need to constantly upgrade to get better sound and concentrating on what is important have become aims of this thread.


----------



## bigshot

Well, it depends on what your existing setup is.
   
  The point is to upgrade smart if you need to upgrade. Identify an aspect in your system that you aren't happy with, determine the source of the problem and correct it. Too many people think that just spending money is going to give them better sound. With electronics, this rarely happens because most electronics sound pretty much the same. The place where improvements can be made is with the choice of music itself, transducers like speakers and headphones, and acoustic adjustments like room treatment and equalization. The ends of the chain provide more options for improvement than the middle.


----------



## Eisenhower

Quote: 





nanaholic said:


> Science has many different fields, some we know VERY well and some we know very little.  Sub-atomic and Quantum physics is one which we know very little and has yet to even reach the point of coming up with practical applications, but things like germ theory, electromagnetism and signal theory (both digital and analog) is very well known and understood and we use and apply its theories in practical ways every day, and in fact if those theories are wrong our life as we know it now would most certainly crumble (for example if signal theory/analog-digital theory is wrong the PC and Internet you are using now would most certainly NOT exists).  You can't just take one poorly understood field and dismiss the other established one.


 

 Not to sniff my own farts here,
  but quantum mechanics is extremely well validated. Quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate physical theory yet conceived, as a matter of fact (much more so than electromagnetism, which is simply an approximation of quantum electrodynamics.)
  and its practical applications are too vast to list entirely.
   
  there are however some serious philosophical problems with QM, if that is what you meant by "we know very little".


----------



## drez

There certainly is a problem with certain people cough*Bybee*cough who claim to implement theoretical physics in practical applications cough*quantum_purifier*cough.
   
  If the man did develop practical applications as he claims, he should have won a Nobel prize by now.
   
  As for cables, amplifier etc I think there are some useful ways to implement science and logic eg. in understanding magnitudes of various parameters but there are some definite limits which need to be acknowledged as to what can be said with certainty purely from priorised knowledge.  There is also the fact that in a subjective field such as music reproduction objective analysis will only take us so far, and controlled subjective analysis has previously been shown to be very limited in the resolution of differences it can prove to be distinguishable.
   
  Analytical rigor is a two way street but IMO it takes a LOT of highly specialised, in depth technical inquiry to still not provide the relevant information a simple level matched (sighted or not) listening test can.  A few people here would probably argue with this but honestly in the end it is your subjective experience of music that you should be most worried about, not what you can prove to yourself or others.  IMO when it comes to music reproduction, numbers *[often can]* lie just as much as subjective impressions do.


----------



## Chris J

Argh!
  Just read thru some of this thread.
  I was thinking about getting a new DAC.
  May as well either:
  a.  pick it blind folded or
  b.  buy the cheapest one and be done with it or
  c.  pick based on my favourite features


----------



## Head Injury

I'd say a little of b and c. Buying with blind tests would be pretty time-consuming, but if you're up to trying I don't think anyone here would mind


----------



## Chris J

LOL!
   
  I meant buying it blind folded out of a choice of several!   No testing involved!
  Read the specs, the features, over and out, no endless agonizing over the best "sounding DAC".
  Even the mighty Absolute Sound said that all DACs sound almost identical in one of their digital issues.
  Must of had a moment of weakness in the editorial staff........
   
  I'm thinking of an Arcam rDAC because it is Apple compatible, and has several different types of digital inputs!


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





chris j said:


> I'm thinking of an Arcam rDAC because it is Apple compatible, and has several different types of digital inputs!


 

 It seems to measure well, but some audiophiles actually _like_ it so be careful!


----------



## bigshot

Perhaps there is some reason for it that I'm missing, but I've never seen the need for an outboard DAC for listening to digital music. The one built into players usually sounds pretty much the same.


----------



## Willakan

There are some examples of truly terrible DACs: my PS2 has a staggeringly high noise floor. And I would advise spending a little more than rock-bottom to get something someone has actually measured.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I went with C and bought a DAC on features, so it has a USB input and thats it!


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





chris j said:


> LOL!
> 
> I meant buying it blind folded out of a choice of several!   No testing involved!
> Read the specs, the features, over and out, no endless agonizing over the best "sounding DAC".
> ...


 

 I'm thinking either DacMagic+ (Dacmagic 100 for cheaper?) or Musical Fidelity M1 DAC A because the previous gens measured very well.
 And both have plenty of features.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> I'm thinking either DacMagic+ (Dacmagic 100 for cheaper?) or Musical Fidelity M1 DAC A because the previous gens measured very well.
> And both have plenty of features.


 

 Take this with grain of salt, but if you look on the DACMagic Plus thread there seems to be a lot of controversy over the sound of the DacMagic Plus.
  Maybe that just means it's too popular!


----------



## khaos974

Quote: 





chris j said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 There also was plenty of controversy about the sound of the original DacMagic, it still performed very well on the test bench 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  Well I could also recommend the Anedio D2, there's no (or very little) controversy on the Anedio D1 thread, and the measured performance is textbook excellent, we jump a whole price category though.


----------



## Grev

Thank you, PRM, this is highly related to my interest and fantastic summary.


----------



## saggett

I do find it curious that so few head-fi orientated DACs and amps come with published THD figures. If they did, then surely there would be a easy way to bypass a lot of "it sounds great / it doesn't sound that great" back-and-forth threads, just compare and see which has the most uniformly low distortion across the frequency spectrum. Of course there are other considerations to take into account, but its a good starting point.
   
  Is there anybody out there taking the same measurements of multiple dacs / amps for comparison purposes? It would be a handy complement to skylab's portable amp rankings, there may be a correlation between THD and his ranking.


----------



## liamstrain

Given how low THD figures are these days, I don't know that we'd find much correlation to audibility. But it would be interesting to run the comparison.


----------



## D. Lundberg

Quote: 





saggett said:


> Is there anybody out there taking the same measurements of multiple dacs / amps for comparison purposes?


 
   
  http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/index.html
   
  You need to register, but it's free.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





d. lundberg said:


> http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/index.html
> 
> You need to register, but it's free.


 
  [size=14pt]Thank you so much for that link. The results are fascinating. Often more fascinating is the comparison between subjective reviews and the objective performance. The pass/fail criteria seem considerably more generous for black disk spinners ((i.e allowing a speed error of 1% as a pass !) but that is for another time) but they test digital components (and cables for heaven’s sake !) whose performance is *so* bad they label the test sheets as Fail (the 1st gen Sony CDP101 passes but the £10,995 McIntosh MCD1100 fails) but HiFi mag reviewers sometimes consider them the best thing since sliced bread. This is truest for shiny and/or very expensive components. What can we make of this? Are the reviewers simultaneously capable of detecting miniscule differences in forwardness and airiness yet incapable of hearing grotesque distortion or huge amounts of jitter? Could it be we as humans are just not very good judges of sound quality? Could it be that even very ordinary specs are simply overkill?[/size]


----------



## drez

This is very interesting.  I personally think jitter is a very misleading and misunderstood metric, especially when treated as some isolated numeric value.  Many reviewers seem to agree that certain DACs show pretty much no change between different transports, while other DACs they claim can be moderately improved by using a separate SPDIF transport.  test files available online tend to show that magnitude of jitter alone does not seem to have much of an influence over audible sound quality.  Personally I think that Jitter is a metric which is only useful for the actual engineers designing the products as it really has to be understood in terms of the overall effect it might have on the performance of a piece of equipment in terms of distortion etc (again I think distortion is another fairly mute metric).  Unless you are someone that properly understands what jitter is and the possible consequences on the performance of a piece of equipment you may be designing looking at jitter and distortion figure will not really yield much useful insight.  The numbers are just not that useful by themselves unless you know what to do with them.


----------



## GrosseFuge

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> [size=14pt]Thank you so much for that link. The results are fascinating. Often more fascinating is the comparison between subjective reviews and the objective performance. The pass/fail criteria seem considerably more generous for black disk spinners ((i.e allowing a speed error of 1% as a pass !) but that is for another time) but they test digital components (and cables for heaven’s sake !) whose performance is *so* bad they label the test sheets as Fail (the 1st gen Sony CDP101 passes but the £10,995 McIntosh MCD1100 fails) but HiFi mag reviewers sometimes consider them the best thing since sliced bread. This is truest for shiny and/or very expensive components. What can we make of this? Are the reviewers simultaneously capable of detecting miniscule differences in forwardness and airiness yet incapable of hearing grotesque distortion or huge amounts of jitter? Could it be we as humans are just not very good judges of sound quality? Could it be that even very ordinary specs are simply overkill?[/size]


 
  Hi, I think that a part of the answer is the recordings people are listening too. When everything is processed it will be hard to agree upon what it actually sounds like when there is no original source (like a real life acoustic performance). So the quality becomes entirely subjective.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





drez said:


> This is very interesting.  I personally think jitter is a very misleading and misunderstood metric, especially when treated as some isolated numeric value.  Many reviewers seem to agree that certain DACs show pretty much no change between different transports, while other DACs they claim can be moderately improved by using a separate SPDIF transport.  test files available online tend to show that magnitude of jitter alone does not seem to have much of an influence over audible sound quality.  Personally I think that Jitter is a metric which is only useful for the actual engineers designing the products as it really has to be understood in terms of the overall effect it might have on the performance of a piece of equipment in terms of distortion etc (again I think distortion is another fairly mute metric).  Unless you are someone that properly understands what jitter is and the possible consequences on the performance of a piece of equipment you may be designing looking at jitter and distortion figure will not really yield much useful insight.  The numbers are just not that useful by themselves unless you know what to do with them.


 
   
  Jitter is the audiophile moral panic for the 2000s - there have been a few studies which have mapped jitter magnitude to levels of random noise and correlated distortion sidebands. Dunn's papers quantify the "effective resolution" hit of jitter and there is a robust cottage indusrty in jitter-kilers but oddly little empirical evidence as to the deleterious audible consequences of moderate levals of jitter beyond dog and pony shows and anecdotes. The few published empirical papers on jitter audibility suggest jitter outside of utterly egregious amounts just is not an issue but if a Sterophile compnent hits 1ns peak to peak jitter its *tut tut ! *while a turntable cen get away with 1.3% speed variation - sigh


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





grossefuge said:


> When everything is processed it will be hard to agree upon what it actually sounds like when there is no original source (like a real life acoustic performance). So the quality becomes entirely subjective.


 
   
  Yes and no. You can control for the effect individual components have - even without knowing the "original" source. E.g. CD + DAC + Amp + Speakers - if you only swa out the DAC, you can make a direct comparison to how it affects the system, without having the original. What you cannot say is that any of them are more true to source. So it is subjective in that sense - the whole experience is subjective, but you can make objective measurements and tests of components within that frame of reference.


----------



## GrosseFuge

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Yes and no. You can control for the effect individual components have - even without knowing the "original" source. E.g. CD + DAC + Amp + Speakers - if you only swa out the DAC, you can make a direct comparison to how it affects the system, without having the original. What you cannot say is that any of them are more true to source. So it is subjective in that sense - the whole experience is subjective, but you can make objective measurements and tests of components within that frame of reference.


 
  I agree but since the recording is not true to real life it's entirely subjective how to interpretate it. The recording is a big problem here. If the recording is so processed and harsh, it might not be so strange that many people might prefer a weak performing CD player who rolls of the highs and adds some nice "warm" distortion here and there. Actually, I think the instruments alone are already a problem (like drums, and electric guitars). Since the listeners have never heard these in real life, or only processed by the live installation how could they possibly pick out the best measured equipment consistently when it's entirely subjective on what the sound actually is. Apologies for my poor writing!


----------



## liamstrain

I'm not even talking about preference. Most of these discussions are whether a difference can even be detected. Any difference at all can be described, regardless of the nature of the original source.


----------



## saggett

Quote: 





> The few published empirical papers on jitter audibility suggest jitter outside of utterly egregious amounts just is not an issue


 
   
  I am curious, if small amounts of jitter make no audible difference then what is the most likely explanation for audible differences between different digital interfaces (Coaxial, Optical, USB)? I have personally observed that an Audio-GD NFB-10SE sounds somewhat drier and less airy over the USB interface compared to the Coaxial, though unfortunately I didn't do a blind comparison at the time.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





saggett said:


> though unfortunately I didn't do a blind comparison at the time.


 
   
  I think the answer to your question has already been answered.


----------



## liamstrain

1. It could be related to EFI noise in the computer (and what else is on that data port) - USB often must share resources. 
  2. USB often requires an additional step of processing before it hits the DAC, likewise Optical, whereas Coax/AES/EBU get passed through more directly. 
  3. It could be in your head.


----------



## kiteki

Thanks for compiling all these links.
   
  Today I looked at the Spanish matrix hifi test - http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
   
  and the ~djcarlst ABX tests - http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm / http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Wired%20Wisdom.pdf (scan?)
   
  They both seem invalid / flawed to me, the first one concludes 10 listeners identified the more expensive unit, without exploring chance (further testing), the second link has data in conflict with the real study, which I found scanned from the magazine, my posts here and here.
   
  So, looking at these 43 links you've compiled, are there actually any scientific ABX's on speaker or IEM cables, specifically the pure silver kind?
   
  I'm not super curious about cables, just curious if there actually are any valid blind tests on pure silver cables at the very end of the chain...


----------



## scootsit

Small sample size, and I was mistaken, the cable was not silver. Or was it? I have googled both of the discussed cables and the manufacturer specs do not discuss material.
   
  (Sorry)
   
  http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm


----------



## kiteki

Quote: 





scootsit said:


> Small sample size, and I was mistaken, the cable was not silver. Or was it? I have googled both of the discussed cables and the manufacturer specs do not discuss material.
> 
> (Sorry)
> 
> http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm


 
   
  Yes, here's the source of those tests - http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Wired%20Wisdom.pdf
   
  The cables are referred to like "Cable Z" to keep the manufacturer anonymous, I think.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Yes, here's the source of those tests - http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Wired%20Wisdom.pdf
> 
> The cables are referred to like "Cable Z" to keep the manufacturer anonymous, I think.


 
   
  Am I correct in understanding that the matrixhifi.com experiment only puts subjects through the test once and had 38 individuals take part?  If this is correct you are right in that this is a pretty poor testing method  as individual subjects are not called upon to repeatedly identify the systems.
   
  I'm not so much of a fan of the same/different ABX method - it is notoriously difficult to make sense of what you [think you] hear in this format, but it certainly can work in showing differences.
   
  I also believe ABX testing with speakers is inherently flawed due to comb filter effects.
   
  I think if one used the testing method where subjects know which system is A and which is B and can ask to change between these with headphones this would be the setup I would consider ideal.  I have found though from personal experience that even with this sort of ABX test where you know which is A or B and can select and listen to the options numerous times it takes a number of hours, along with awareness of your success rate in order to reliably discern differences between 128 kbps and 320 kbps mp3 files.  If I were using the "different or not" method or using speakers I cant say for sure if I would have been successful.
   
  I know provide.net use etymotic earphones but what is the rest of their testing methodology?


----------



## scootsit

I think the problem here is the incredibly small sample size. It would be cool to set up shop somewhere public, maybe the middle of a shopping mall and ask hundreds to ABX.


----------



## drez

I think the amount of people was alright, but they just needed to be tested multiple times to check if they could reliably tell which setup they preferred, and if they could continually detect this setup.  For example for each music track, the names of system A and system B are randomised but remain allocated to the same machines for each track being listened to.  Then for the next track, the names are randomised again for setup A and setup B but remain the same while one particular song is being played.  This way each individual is tested on multiple instances to see if they can reliably detect differences, and in this process the factors of individual listening skills are more effectively negated.  Increasing sample size does nothing to remove the factor of variation in people's listening skills.


----------



## scootsit

Ultimately, retesting people is pseudoreplicating. Retesting would become trivial given sufficient sample size, sufficient being dictated by optimization theory. Think of distributions, random would be normally distributed (centered at 50%), any actual differentiation would not be, and would instead be left-shifted. Significant distinction being significantly different from a normal distribution, given the null. This could be done using AIC, if you were so inclined or using Bayes law. Bayesian testing could be interesting, given some informative priors, you could minimize the necessary sample size.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





drez said:


> I think the amount of people was alright, but they just needed to be tested multiple times to check if they could reliably tell which setup they preferred, and if they could continually detect this setup.  For example for each music track, the names of system A and system B are randomised but remain allocated to the same machines for each track being listened to.  Then for the next track, the names are randomised again for setup A and setup B but remain the same while one particular song is being played.  This way each individual is tested on multiple instances to see if they can reliably detect differences, and in this process the factors of individual listening skills are more effectively negated.  *Increasing sample size does nothing to remove the factor of variation in people's listening skills.*


 
  That's actually exactly what it would do.  Given a large enough sample size things like that become irrelevant - the more people with different tastes and perception the less likely the results will be biased.


----------



## kiteki

drez said:


> Am I correct in understanding that the matrixhifi.com experiment only puts subjects through the test once and had 38 individuals take part?


 
   
  Yes, 38 individuals took part, each selecting A, B or X _one time_, A (= system A), B (= system B), or X (= decline / hear no difference).
   
  They then assembled the data into a pie chart with fairly even distribution (14, 10, 14) and _I think _they decided the 10 correct answers were chance, however there is _no science or statistics _behind that, and they're unclear on how they've deciphered the data.
   
  I'll assume they're positing that even if the 10 correct answers were skillful choices and not chance, it's irrelevant since 28 people out of 38 in ideal listening conditions can't hear the superior system, so what they were looking for here is _striking_ differences, which something like 35 out of 38 people can hear?  They're unclear on this.
   
  In the testing method, there's a picture of 6 individuals looking at the testing setup, the article says the superior system was chosen by pointing to it, wouldn't that influence the other testers?  Furthermore they said:
   
_"In order to avoid biasing outside the testing room, we took the license to swap the names of the systems from A to B randomly, so nobody knew wich system was playing when listening to the A or B."_
   
  So if in fact you don't know which system is playing (left or right), and you're only told "system A / B is playing now", then how do you_ point_ to the system which you thought sounded better?  Clearly outside of the testing room people could discuss which system sounded better, _left or right_.
   
  When looking at who was subjected to the test, it says
   
_"The human testers were all trained ears and used to extensively listening to high end equipments, a good number of them participated, each with his own conception of the high end world, some totally subjectivists, some completely objectivists, some in between."_
   
  So they've asserted "total subjectivists" and "complete objectivists" in the testing pool, wouldn't such self-labelled people with a hunch of what the test is about under the red sheets be inclined to answer they hear no difference, or point in the other direction to the subjectivist sitting next to them?
   
  This test is unclear and unscientific on so many levels, the only conclusion it reaches is 10 individuals out of 38 correctly selected the "more expensive system", so does that mean that there _were_ audible differences and we should buy expensive power cables and expensive interconnects?
   
  Another factor is, system A is using a perfectly good CD player, perfectly good interconnects, a studio level speaker amplifier, some fancy / expensive 'tempflex' speaker cables, connected to the exact same speakers as the other rig, so why should system A not sound very good, with very faint differences?  If 10 in 38 people can pick up the differences in these systems at an event, not even being familiar with any of the components (+ all components are hidden under the red sheets) then a result 10 people correctly hearing the 'better' sounding system is pretty damn high.
   
  Another issue is identifying which system sounds better isn't the same as identifying which system sounds different.
   
  So to me the validity of the results in this test is as much of a joke as the Meyer & Moran study.
   
  It's shameful that electrical engineers and self-labelled scientists or objectivists cite these two studies as 'evidence of snake oil' and it only discredits their views on audio, imho.
   
   
   


drez said:


> I'm not so much of a fan of the *same/different *ABX method - *it is notoriously difficult *to make sense of what you [think you] hear in this format, but it certainly can work in showing differences.
> 
> I also believe ABX testing with speakers is inherently flawed due to comb filter effects.


 
   
  I disagree, there is no reason to discard the same-different method in light of ABX.  It depends on _what you're listening for_, very very small changes in volume or FR are much easier to detect in a time aligned rapid switching (i.e. 0.1 seconds) ABX method, that doesn't give anyone the right to assume _all _audible differences are easier in that method, which I severely doubt.
   
  Not familiar with the speaker comb filter theory.
   
   


drez said:


> I know provide.net use etymotic earphones but what is the rest of their testing methodology?


 
   
  Please read carefully.  I don't think "provide.net" (http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm) are performing their own tests, they've compiled data from other tests, like this thread has done.
   
  I'll copy paste the results here.
   
   

 Interconnects and Speaker Wires Result Correct p less than Listeners $2.50 blister pack phono cable vs. PSACS Best




 70 / 139 = 50% - 7 $418 Type "T1" Biwire vs. 16 Gauge Zip Cord



 4 / 10 = 40% - 1 Type "Z" Biwired Speaker Cable vs. 16 Gauge Zip Cord



 70 / 139 = 50% - 7 $990 "T2" Speaker Cable vs. 16 Gauge Zip Cord



 16 / 32 = 50% - 2
   
   
  Now read this carefully.
   
  The first test "$2.50 blister pack" used Etymotic ER-4 IEM's and compared different brands of _interconnects_, I'm not very interested in comparing brand names (marketing) or interconnects (a passive component pretty far down the chain) so I haven't looked into that test, especially since they don't cite a source for it other than saying "for further info contact this guy".
   
  The next three tests are from _here, read it_ - http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Wired%20Wisdom.pdf
   
  That's a _magazine article from 1994_, is that the best we have on speaker cables?
   
  Now let's look at the data again, the magazine indicates:
   
   

 Interconnects and Speaker Wires Result Correct p less than Listeners           $418 Type "T1" Biwire vs. 16 Gauge Zip Cord



 3 / 10 - 1 Type "Z" Biwired Speaker Cable vs. 16 Gauge Zip Cord



 4 / 12 - 1 $990 "T2" Speaker Cable vs. 16 Gauge Zip Cord



 1 / 5, 2 / 4, 7 / 16 - 1
   
   
  So, do these results look the same?
   
  Let's look at the http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm link again, on the Type "Z" test it says the results were 70 / 139 = 50% and 7 people participated.
   
  Does that look familiar?  The "$2.50 blister pack phono cable vs. PSACS Best" has the exact same results, and has no references.  This highly suggests all the results were randomized.
   
   
  So, I wouldn't put much faith in any of the data at that site, likewise I wouldn't share much respect for people that keep citing links like these as some kind of empirical evidence, when evidently they didn't care to look at the study at all, only glanced over the results and conclued "these results suit my view, the outcome is negative, so it must be scientific".
   
  On the contrary when people link to studies like these with a the-sky-is-blue assertiveness it's only indicative of how unscientific and impartial their views in audio are. 
   
  p.s. I'm not writing this as a cable supporter, I just want to look at all the data fairly, and I'd prefer if sources like _Wikipedia_ told the truth and didn't link to fake data or unscientific studies.
   
   
   


scootsit said:


> I think the problem here is the incredibly small sample size. It would be cool to set up shop somewhere public, maybe the middle of a shopping mall and ask hundreds to ABX.


 
   
  In a shopping mall you will be testing the random populace so then it will be either...
   
  A) A test for striking differences
   
  B) A hunt for someone that can find the subtle differences.
   
   
  If we call DVD versus blu-ray striking differences then you can collect the data and say something like 75% said blu-ray looked better in the shopping mall, 15% said DVD looked better, and 10% declined to answer or said they could see no difference.
   
  If you're testing 50Hz versus 60Hz refresh rates then you're hunting for someone that can find the difference (consciously).  Audio is mostly 50Hz versus 60Hz type testing.
   
  You have to keep in mind there is conscious and subconscious perception, when exposed to UV light in a tanning salon, the endorphin release is subtle, and you are not consciously aware of that effect.  Likewise, if someone lives in Alaska during the winter and the lack of sunlight effects their seratonin levels, that is not something they can consciously assess.  Likewise, incandescent versus flouroescent lighting in your own home.
   
  So, if you ask someone at a shopping mall if they can perceive the difference between UVA / UVB / UVC light in an ABX test, you may as well ask them if they can hear subtle differences in audio components they're not familiar with and have no idea what to listen for, or see the difference between different Hz refresh rates.
   
   
  While I'm on this topic I may as well link to this article which discussed UV and infrared light in relation to 24/192 recordings, calling them "spectrophiles" - http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_s
   
  Let's look at their listening tests section - http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_lt
   
  Look, they link to the flawed / invalid Meyer & Moran study, just like Wikipedia, yet another parrot, now let's see what they write in the next section called Caveat Lector...
   
"it's easy to find minority opinions that appear to vindicate every imaginable conclusion. _Regardless, the papers and links above are representative of the vast weight and breadth of the experimental record._ No peer-reviewed paper that has stood the test of time disagrees substantially with these results. Controversy exists only within the consumer and enthusiast audiophile communities."
   
  Firstly the M&M paper didn't stand the test of time, secondly here is a peer-reviewed paper which "disagrees substantially with these results" - http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398
   
  The M&M paper asserted that 16/44.1 and 24/192 are identical, the Pras & Gustavino asserts a difference between 24/44.1 and 24/88.2, when you look at both papers impartially, the second one is actually more fair and scientific (however still not perfect and with some flaws here and there I think).
   
  Pras made a comment on the paper at the hydrogenaudio forums...
   
"although the topic is interesting, mainly these days when the Blue Ray Pure Audio is to be defined, never forget that differences between formats, ADC, DAC,... remain extremely subtle compared to differences between miking techniques, room acoustics, and of courses musicians and their instruments!"
   
  I think that much is true, the basic consumer or even the passionate audio enthusiant should still focus on musicians and their instruments, the technology of ADC, DAC and speaker/IEM cables _is_ subtle and the money definitely has higher reward in the technology of speakers, IEM's and CD's (music).
   
  High-end DAC's, OPA627, silver cables and 24/192 all have subtle differences I think that's the only conclusive evidence there is.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> That's actually exactly what it would do.  Given a large enough sample size things like that become irrelevant - the more people with different tastes and perception the less likely the results will be biased.


 
   
  But this assumes one answer is correct - if it is a choice between A or B and one is testing subjective preference then just think about the variation in preference for different sounding audio gear.  I read somewhere about a test which showed a statistical preference for lower distortion, but in this case A and B would need to have different audio distortion figures, and I am not familiar with the specifics of this test.  Either way increasing sample size is not really viable - how large a sample would we need, say hundreds, thousands.  Why not just cherry pick certain individuals, say without hearing loss, or possibly of certain professions such as musicians, audio engineers etc. or repeat the experiment with the same subjects on several occasions.


----------



## liamstrain

Most ABX testing is "do you hear a difference" not "which is better." (If a difference is heard, then there may be a qualifier statement - added to that effect, however). But with many of these tests, there is an easy, non-subjective answer - either there is a difference or there is not.


----------



## drez

^ Hmm I guess this would pretty effective in eliminating the factor of subjective preference, on the other hand though it trades this for a little more confusing test conditions in that the subjects have no guarantee that whatever differences they think have perceived are not guaranteed to be there.  I would be interested if there is a difference between blind tests where there is a guaranteed difference but one must choose a preference (even though this has the flaw of being susceptible to subjective preference) against where there is no guarantee of a difference between the samples the test subjects are offered.  I personally think I would find the "is there a difference" setup more confusing.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Well, I would agree with what you said if we were talking about, say, headphones or speakers...but if people can find a difference with cables period then that would be a pretty big deal.  To really get a good result with that, a fairly large sample size would be needed.


----------



## scootsit

drez,
  I think you are sort of teasing out another idea that is also interesting, that is a repeated measures sort of thing. Regarding whether or not people are able to improve their responses over time. Doing the same ABX repeatedly, you could also test differences between informative and uninformative rounds. ie: just keep repeating it with and without giving the test subject their result from the previous round. The point being that maybe after a few burn-in rounds, people could learn to detect the difference.
   
  Also, you don't ask "is there a difference?"
  The sampling strategey is play A, identify it as A.
  Play B, identify it as B
  Then play an unidentified sample.
  If a statistically significantly greater number can properly identify it, then there is a difference. If only ~50% are correct in their guesses then there is no difference.


----------



## bigshot

Sometimes I think people are more interested in testing methodology than sound. If you need to construct some sort of Rube Goldberg machine to hear a difference, maybe it just doesn't matter.


----------



## kiteki

bigshot said:


> Sometimes I think people are more interested in testing methodology than sound. If you need to construct some sort of Rube Goldberg machine to hear a difference, maybe it just doesn't matter.


 
   
  Yes, but then incandescent versus fluroescent lighting and monitor refresh rates above 60Hz and stuff like that don't matter either, or why people become addicted to tanning salons, or fall for subliminal advertising, or why people working in certain industries get mercury poisoning, or life-long tinnitus from using ultrasonic cleaning machines, and so on.
   
  There are subtle differences in audio, and they don't have to be consciously audible, or readily apparent to every single consumer in a basic ABX test.
   
  If you want amazing differences, you can get 7.1 Logitech surround speakers and a sub-woofer.  =]


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:  





> life-long tinnitus from using ultrasonic cleaning machines


 
  Tissue damage and conscious recognition are two entirely different things. If a projectile moving near the speed of light struck you, would you argue that because it hurt you could see it?


----------



## Tilpo

head injury said:


> Tissue damage and conscious recognition are two entirely different things. If a projectile moving near the speed of light struck you, would you argue that because it hurt you could see it?



As far as I know the transfer function of the middle ear drops down very fast at ultrasonic frequencies, and therefore most ultrasonic frequencies won't reach the cochlea, making damage impossible.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> As far as I know the transfer function of the middle ear drops down very fast at ultrasonic frequencies, and therefore most ultrasonic frequencies won't reach the cochlea, making damage impossible.


 
  I'm sure it'd still cause damage if it were loud enough though...


----------



## Tilpo

dabomb77766 said:


> I'm sure it'd still cause damage if it were loud enough though...



You can physically die from very loud volumes. 

But very high frequencies will probably not even enter the cochlea at any reasonable volume, so I don't see how they could cause hearing loss. E.g. a signal at 40kHz is attenuated by very large amounts (_at least_ -40dB) in the middle ear, and will hardly be transmitted at all to the cochlea.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> As far as I know the transfer function of the middle ear drops down very fast at ultrasonic frequencies, and therefore most ultrasonic frequencies won't reach the cochlea, making damage impossible.


 
  I wasn't the one making the argument that damage was possible. I was responding to kiteki's assumption that what causes tinnitus must be perceivable.


----------



## kiteki

tilpo said:


> As far as I know the transfer function of the middle ear drops down very fast at ultrasonic frequencies, and therefore most ultrasonic frequencies won't reach the cochlea, making damage impossible.


 
   
  You say impossible too quickly, there's usually other avenues to explore, there are many paths up the same mountain.
   





  
   
   
   


> Originally Posted by *Head Injury* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I was responding to kiteki's assumption that what causes tinnitus must be perceivable.


 
   
  No, you're correct.
   
  I'm saying those effects are imperceivable, and thus won't show up in a simple ABX.
   
  For example you can't ABX two tanning salon beds and say which one is better, since you can't see the ultraviolet light, nor can you perceive the effects (like endorphin release, skin cancer) straight away.
   
  Another example, if random people are presented three different computer monitors, to watch a Disney movie on, and asked to ABX them, they most likely won't detect the differences in the superior model, especially if they don't know what to look for, (like ghosting, refresh rate, audio/visual exact sync (input latency), different resolution...)
   
  A video editor, competetive gamer, fast action sports addict, videophile etc. could identify the differences if they knew what to look for.
   
   
  I think there's less illusion and less filtering in visuals though.  In audio we're more susceptible to illusions and filtering, however our mind likes to organise the information and filter what's unnecessary too, identify patterns and so on.
   
  For example, a lot of Japanese can't hear the difference between R and L, they have an "R filter", so they'd fail an R versus L ABX, while the difference between rabbit and labbit is striking to an American.
   
  The "sonic memory" and "less than 0.1 second switch" _only_ applies to certain sonic differences like volume (intensity), frequency response shifts, and a few others.  The 0.1 second rapid-switch, time-aligned ABX could very well introduce a slight illusion of it's own - since once you've identified a certain continual pattern of sound, a slight shift in it's basic components may not alter the final pattern.
   
  Here is a _visual example_ of pattern recognition and identification.  Once you can see this image you can never unsee it, even if you looked at it 10 years later, and the random black shapes were shifted around a bit.


----------



## kiteki

p.s.  I'm not writing this to defend expensive cables or CD players, which seems to be 95% of the first post in the thread.
   
  Just saying scientific papers and ABX all have their flaws and limits.  There's a lot of junk in expensive audio, and several gems.  The task is to identify the gems, not say it's all junk, lol.
   
  It's like tasting a sour apple, and saying "I hate fruit", I mean... one day you might find a pineapple... or a dragonfruit milkshake!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Regarding sample size, the reason for putting together all the studies was to get round that problem. It is a meta study which has advantages of different times, places, people and if there are minor flaws they are balanced by other tests without the same flaw. Even with all of those differences and minor flaws the results are very consistent.
   
  With blind comparison tests where people are asked to chose their preferred sound, cheap products can do as well as expensive. That is very good evidence to show us looks and brand etc influence sound quality.
   
  With ABX, where people have to decide if X is A or B and identify the product, then the results are even worse as in people mainly do no better than random guessing.
   
  If the tests were all seriously flawed then how come there is this consistency? Add in sighted tests to the mix where we get easy to spot differences and night and day claims, which again is very good evidence to show looks, brand etc affect sound quality.
   
  You have to also bear in mind this thread deals with failed tests, there is another one with passed tests. Put the two together and you find some parts of the hifi chain such as cables fail all of the time. But amps do pass, just and speakers even more so. I agree further testing of people who pass the likes of the Hifi Matrix test is needed as it tested a whole system so those who passed may well go on and do so again as amps have passed blind tests (as well as failed).


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Another example, if random people are presented three different computer monitors, to watch a Disney movie on, and asked to ABX them, they most likely won't detect the differences in the superior model, especially if they don't know what to look for, (like ghosting, refresh rate, audio/visual exact sync (input latency), different resolution...)
> 
> A video editor, competetive gamer, fast action sports addict, videophile etc. could identify the differences if they knew what to look for.


 
  By using this example are you trying to imply that certain golden-eared audiophiles or trained listeners can appreciate the difference between ultrasonic and no ultrasonic frequencies? Because I still call ******** on that.
   
  Ghosting, refresh rate, sync, resolution are all detectable phenomena. Ultrasonic frequencies aren't, except in exceedingly rare cases where 1. Information exists at those frequencies, 2. a listener is blessed with good hearing beyond 20 kHz. It is a case by case basis, not a function of knowing what to listen for.


----------



## DaBomb77766

I thought it was more on the topic of hearing damage with high frequency sounds though?


----------



## khaos974

kiteki said:


> p.s.  I'm not writing this to defend expensive cables or CD players, which seems to be 95% of the first post in the thread.
> 
> Just saying scientific papers and ABX all have their flaws and limits.  There's a lot of junk in expensive audio, and several gems.  The task is to identify the gems, not say it's all junk, lol.
> 
> It's like tasting a sour apple, and saying "I hate fruit", I mean... one day you might find a pineapple... or a dragonfruit milkshake!




Dragonfruits are ok, but the sugar-apples beside them are absolutely delicious.


----------



## Tilpo

khaos974 said:


> Dragonfruits are ok, but the sugar-apples beside them are absolutely delicious.



Am I weird for never having tasted either?


----------



## khaos974

tilpo said:


> khaos974 said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonfruits are ok, but the sugar-apples beside them are absolutely delicious.
> ...




Not at all, I have on very rare occasions seen dragonfruits in France, but I've never seen sugar-apples, I presume it's the same in the Netherlands.
If you have Asian markets newr where you live, that's usually where you can find really exotic fruits, like durians (  ) for example.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





khaos974 said:


> Not at all, I have on very rare occasions seen dragonfruits in France, but I've never seen sugar-apples, I presume it's the same in the Netherlands.
> If you have Asian markets newr where you live, that's usually where you can find really exotic fruits, like durians (
> 
> 
> ...


 
  If by exotic you mean gross then there's tons of food like that in Asia!


----------



## supra1988t

Well I haven't read the whole thread but I conducted my own little blind test today, the results of which I'm not too happy with. 
   
  I compared my new Shiit Bifrost DAC to the stock DAC in my Squeezebox touch.  The levels are matched perfectly (I cant hear a difference) and I had my fiance switch back between inputs on a Marantz Model 3600 which feeds a Knight KB-85 tube amp powering Electrovoice Royal 400s.  I listen to a handful of highres and standard resolution tracks that I am familiar with and had her switch inputs on my command.  
  I can hardly tell a difference and I definitely couldn't tell which I was listening to.  I was only doing listening A/B and didn't actually try to ABX but I doubt I'd be able to.  I am going to do some more listening using my Glow Amp/650s as well but it looks like the Schiit might be going back.  I am a little disappointed that I can't tell a difference and I hope the SB DAC is better than expected and its not my hearing.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





supra1988t said:


> Well I haven't read the whole thread but I conducted my own little blind test today, the results of which I'm not too happy with.
> 
> I compared my new Shiit Bifrost DAC to the stock DAC in my Squeezebox touch.  The levels are matched perfectly (I cant hear a difference) and I had my fiance switch back between inputs on a Marantz Model 3600 which feeds a Knight KB-85 tube amp powering Electrovoice Royal 400s.  I listen to a handful of highres and standard resolution tracks that I am familiar with and had her switch inputs on my command.
> I can hardly tell a difference and I definitely couldn't tell which I was listening to.  I was only doing listening A/B and didn't actually try to ABX but I doubt I'd be able to.  I am going to do some more listening using my Glow Amp/650s as well but it looks like the Schiit might be going back.  I am a little disappointed that I can't tell a difference and I hope the SB DAC is better than expected and its not my hearing.


 
   
  Not at all - I think this testing you have conducted is very useful and not indicative of a lack of hearing ability.  Has me tempted to test a cheaper DAC than the one I am currently using also in case I can make some profit.


----------



## bigshot

Next do the same thing with a midrange CD player and a DAC. I bet you find they're pretty much the same too.


----------



## Tilpo

supra1988t said:


> Well I haven't read the whole thread but I conducted my own little blind test today, the results of which I'm not too happy with.
> 
> I compared my new Shiit Bifrost DAC to the stock DAC in my Squeezebox touch.  The levels are matched perfectly (I cant hear a difference) and I had my fiance switch back between inputs on a Marantz Model 3600 which feeds a Knight KB-85 tube amp powering Electrovoice Royal 400s.  I listen to a handful of highres and standard resolution tracks that I am familiar with and had her switch inputs on my command.
> I can hardly tell a difference and I definitely couldn't tell which I was listening to.  I was only doing listening A/B and didn't actually try to ABX but I doubt I'd be able to.  I am going to do some more listening using my Glow Amp/650s as well but it looks like the Schiit might be going back.  I am a little disappointed that I can't tell a difference and I hope the SB DAC is better than expected and its not my hearing.



You should be happy. It safes you a lot of money, and leaves you with more money to spend on headphones, speakers and music.


----------



## Astrozombie

I always thought burn-in was real, but i had a little moment recently..........
   
  While i was waiting for a new receiver, i moved the old setup to my uncle's place and temporarily used the TV speakers. At first i was like "This is horrible!!" But about a week later i was getting used to the sound and said "hey it's not so bad? Are the speakers burning in? doubtful" Maybe there is something to this "just getting used to the sound so you overlook the flaws" type of deal


----------



## kiteki

I find it a little funny NwAv says 99.99% of what we hear is filtered, does he have any source to this information at all?  That is a pretty _insane number._


----------



## scootsit

Define filtered.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





supra1988t said:


> Well I haven't read the whole thread but I conducted my own little blind test today, the results of which I'm not too happy with.
> 
> I compared my new Shiit Bifrost DAC to the stock DAC in my Squeezebox touch.  The levels are matched perfectly (I cant hear a difference) and I had my fiance switch back between inputs on a Marantz Model 3600 which feeds a Knight KB-85 tube amp powering Electrovoice Royal 400s.  I listen to a handful of highres and standard resolution tracks that I am familiar with and had her switch inputs on my command.
> I can hardly tell a difference and I definitely couldn't tell which I was listening to.  I was only doing listening A/B and didn't actually try to ABX but I doubt I'd be able to.  I am going to do some more listening using my Glow Amp/650s as well but it looks like the Schiit might be going back.  I am a little disappointed that I can't tell a difference and I hope the SB DAC is better than expected and its not my hearing.


 
   
  I do not think it has anything to do with either DAC or your hearing. Instead it is all down to the perception of sound quality with and without other stimuli such as brand, image and cost.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





astrozombie said:


> I always thought burn-in was real, but i had a little moment recently..........
> 
> While i was waiting for a new receiver, i moved the old setup to my uncle's place and temporarily used the TV speakers. At first i was like "This is horrible!!" But about a week later i was getting used to the sound and said "hey it's not so bad? Are the speakers burning in? doubtful" Maybe there is something to this "just getting used to the sound so you overlook the flaws" type of deal


 
   
  I had that same moment with vintage headphones. How could they be burning in after so much use?


----------



## kiteki

scootsit said:


> Define filtered.


 
   
  Don't ask me, I'm not the one writing quasi-science in black ink.
   
  I assume he means that 99.99% is filtered which implicated that only 00.01% of the sounds around us are actually perceived / heard.  So, since only 00.01% makes it across the very thin bridge, it's easy for the mind to make you hear what you expect to hear.
   
  So for example, if you see a dog disguised at a cat, when it barks you actually hear a meow.  If you throw a blanket over the dogcat, you hear a woof.
   
  Pretty simple really.
   
...


----------



## scootsit

So 99.99% of auditory response is defined by visual cues?


----------



## kiteki

He is convinced that _the auditory response is heavily influenced by visual cues _- yes.
   
  His evidence to support it is
   
  - 99.99% is filtered (source?)
   
  - Matrixhifi test
   
  - McGurk effect
   
   
  The first one is conjured from thin air, as far as we're all concerned, until he links to a scientific source to back up such as insane number.
   
  The second one is a joke, there was nothing scientific about that test, and no one said they could hear a difference_ prior _to the blanket anyway.
   
  The third one is a linguistic effect in how we rapidly sort information into filing cabinets, we identify sonic patterns, it's very difficult to hear individual sounds and process all of it, however when you hear them in a pattern you can process blocks.  That's exactly how we _read fast, _or how chess players can play 2 minute games, they're looking at everything in pattern blocks, not letter by letter.
   
  This is easy to see in this example...
   


Spoiler: how%20to%20read%20fast



 
  The frsit one is cerunjod form tihn air, as far as w'ere all cocnnered, uitnl he lnkis to a sftciiienc surcoe to bcak up scuh as insnae nbuemr.

 The socned one is a jkoe, terhe was ntonhig seitciinfc auobt taht tset, and no one siad tehy colud haer a dferinecfe proir to the bnklaet awynay.

 The thrid one is a lgtuisiinc eefcft in how we rdaiply srot ifniaomotrn itno filnig cniaetbs, we iitndefy soinc ptntraes, i'ts vrey dliciffut to haer iuvniaddil sudons and pcsores all of it, heweovr wehn you haer tehm in a pttearn you can pcoress bclkos. T'tahs ealctxy how we raed fsat, or how ceshs playres can paly 2 muinte gmeas, tyre'he lkoniog at etihyvrneg in ptraetn bcklos, not lteter by letetr.

 Tihs is esay to see in tihs eplaxme...
   


   
   
  So when there is a visual of someone making lip movements, you can process the sonic information even faster, it's all so we can listen quickly and react quickly.
   
   
  So what does this have to do with audio?  It means when you're listening to music and audio components your mind makes them more similar than different.
   
  It means once you've identified a typical pattern of sounds they are assigned a value and the excessive information is discarded.
   
When you're listening to a more advanced cable, DAC, amplifier, speaker, IEM, capacitor, power supply or any really high-end $1k+ component, you're filtering out 99.99% and this makes it very difficult to pass a blind test.
   
   
  I am joking in the underlined parts, but do you see how easy it is to twist anything to your liking?  NwAv is essentially defending subjectivism, he's basically posited now with his 99.99% assertion that high-end systems actually have a lot information in them which is difficult to hear.
   
  Even if he didn't imply that, he can't prove the opposite now can he, if he can't even hear it.  
   
  At this point, subliminal audio cues come into play as well, which have been scientifically proven.
   
   
 "Subliminal audio stimuli  There were too few studies to complete a meta-analysis on this sub-category (n = 3), however, all studies were similar in that they examined how the brain responds to changes in a subliminal auditory stimulus. The left lateral cerebellum, left superior temporal gyrus and left insular cortex were most significantly activated in response to subliminal auditory changes. However, in one study, repetition of a voice was shown to reduce insular cortex activation (Kouider et al., 2010). Thus, regions associated with speech production (Broca's area), speech comprehension (Wernicke's area) and somatosensory responses seem to be activated independently of conscious awareness. These regions might be particularly susceptible to heightened activation during auditory hallucinations that are perceived to be independent of conscious volition, as experienced by, for example, those with schizophrenia."
   
  source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811911011529
   
   
  It's entertaining watching pseudo-science self-implode.
   
  (the 1.4 million visitors to that place most likely don't think so though)


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Don't ask me, I'm not the one writing quasi-science in black ink.


 
  You do that in every post.
   
  It's true we filter out information all the time. Human memory performs at different levels. Only the information that survives beyond sensory memory and into short term memory is of any use beyond reaction. The rest is filtered out and we don't make use of it.
   
  There's a psychological aspect as well. We only tend to remember what matches our preconceptions or expectations, our schemas. So in the case of high end audio, we're more likely to remember everything that matches what we expect to hear from a component. So with an expensive cable, we'll remember the positive, and with a cheap cable we'll remember the negative. That's if we have a preconceived notion that the high end cable will sound better. It ties into expectation bias.
   
  I don't know where he got the specific number, but it's most likely he didn't mean it as factual and instead as a generalization. Why don't you try to message him yourself?


----------



## kiteki

head injury said:


> There's a psychological aspect as well. We only tend to remember what matches our preconceptions or expectations, our schemas. So in the case of high end audio, we're more likely to remember everything that matches what we expect to hear from a component. So with an expensive cable, we'll remember the positive, and with a cheap cable we'll remember the negative. That's if we have a preconceived notion that the high end cable will sound better. It ties into expectation bias.


 
   
  I agree with that part.  If someone has spent $300 on a cable or a capacitor, it's most likely not for an experiment, they are somehow convinced - or expecting - it to sound better, this will influece their experience, if they are truly convinced, and then they'll tell their associates or the internet how good whatever cable is.  This is a very subjective and unscientific scenario though, and ties into marketing, like Beats headphones.  _I don't think this is relevant to the true differences in audio_, they shouldn't be mixed together into the same cocktail.
   
  I speculate on some quasi-science but I don't write about it like it's fact, that's what I meant by black ink.
   
  For example, a few years ago I may have speculated on subliminal advertising, that is quasi-science, now it's proven science, do you follow?
   
  Edit:  For example I don't write in black ink or tell anyone that DSD sounds better than PCM, I just speculate on that it could.  See the difference?


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> - 99.99% is filtered (source?)


 
   
  From the work of James "JJ" Johnston.  You could check out some of the stuff he posts on his blog occasionally.


----------



## kiteki

Oh yeah, I remember him talking about "steered" in that video, that you hear _what you focus on._
   
  Sighted listening is flawed from an evidence POV, I don't think anyone is contesting that.  In order to have evidence that capacitors sound different you need to blind test them.  Sighted listening is flawed but that doesn't somehow = everything sounds the same.
   
  Correlation != causation etc.


----------



## kiteki

Okay, I read the links now
   
_"This can be demonstrated by the old “backward masking” demonstration that was originally brought up in a different context, where it was alleged that there was satanistic content to part of the song “Stairway to Heaven” when it was played in reverse. Interestingly enough, when the reversed song is played to an unsuspecting audience (this has happened quite a few times in lectures), the audience hears nothing, or a very few random syllables. When, however, the “words” are presented, the audience hears the words clearly and correctly, even though the actual sound presented to the ear is not changed. This is a direct result of how we understand speech, when expecting speech with some particular content, we guide our feature extraction and object resolution to find the parts of our audio surroundings in order to extract the information, and in this case can do so even when there is no such information."_
   
   
  Exactly.
   
  This is why so many blind tests fail with random audiences.
   
  If you don't know what to listen for in a complex ocean of sound, you won't hear it.  In blind testing, you have to be familiar with the equipment, the content, and know what to listen for, if you don't there's little chance you'll hear anything, just like the audience didn't when played stairway to heaven backwards until they were told what to look for.
   
  Yet another example defending the subjective sighted listening position.
   
   
  Sortof joking again.  Just pointing out _you can twist pseudo-scientific implication facts however you want._
   
   
  Edit:
   
_"The partial loudnesses from the cochlea are integrated somewhere at the very edge of the CNS such that some memory of the past is maintained for up to 200 milliseconds. Level Roving Experiments show that when delays approaching 200 milliseconds exist between two sources, the ability to discern fine differences in loudness or timbre is reduced. It is well established you need very quick, click-less switching between signals when trying to detect very small differences between signals, otherwise you lose part of your ability to distinguish loudness differences."_
   
  Ok _now I finally know where all this 0.1 second ABX switch parroting_ is coming from.
   
  Sorry but the ABX switch time interval is completely up to the participant, they should be able to choose between 0.1 seconds or 20 seconds, it's entirely up to the participant.
   
  As soon as you say stuff like it_* has *_to be under 0.2 second switching, the blind test procedure has confined itself to that variable which is dependant on seperate findings.
   
  It's like saying I'll blind test two cars for you _but only in a car parking lot._
   
  If the participant can blind identify which sports car is which, they should be able to drive the cars however they want, hm?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Okay, I read the links now
> 
> _"This can be demonstrated by the old “backward masking” demonstration that was originally brought up in a different context, where it was alleged that there was satanistic content to part of the song “Stairway to Heaven” when it was played in reverse. Interestingly enough, when the reversed song is played to an unsuspecting audience (this has happened quite a few times in lectures), the audience hears nothing, or a very few random syllables. When, however, the “words” are presented, the audience hears the words clearly and correctly, even though the actual sound presented to the ear is not changed. This is a direct result of how we understand speech, when expecting speech with some particular content, we guide our feature extraction and object resolution to find the parts of our audio surroundings in order to extract the information, *and in this case can do so even when there is no such information*."_
> 
> ...


 
   
  See the bolded text. The point of this example is that, once the "words" were presented, the audience immediately heard what they were told to look for, *regardless of whether it was in there or not*. It is not "defending" the subjective position - it is damning it.


----------



## kiteki

If the difference between two systems is slightly enhanced soundstage between 50Hz-100Hz on one system and normal soundstage on the other, no one will ever find it unless you tell them exactly what to look for.
   
  If you could hear it in 0.1s ABX, it'd have to be the right piece of music switched at the right time.  Even then, your mind could easily filter it out in the switch, since it's "locked on" to a certain kind of sound.  So, an XXXX versus YXYX test could easily be more effective in some cases, and should be up to the participant.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> If the difference between two systems is slightly enhanced soundstage between 50Hz-100Hz on one system and normal soundstage on the other, no one will ever find it unless you tell them exactly what to look for.
> 
> If you could hear it in 0.1s ABX, it'd have to be the right piece of music switched at the right time.  Even then, your mind could easily filter it out in the switch, since it's "locked on" to a certain kind of sound.  So, an XXXX versus YXYX test could easily be more effective in some cases, and should be up to the participant.


 
   
  I don't recall ever specifying a specific timeframe for ABX. Or even that ABX is the only method to use. I'm fine with participant directed changes.
   
  However, the point of the above was that if you tell someone to listen for an expanded soundstage at a certain point, or in a certain range, the odds are good that they'll report hearing it - even if you are playing the same thing both times, with no actual change for them to hear. If you direct them to hear something, you immediately undermine the test - any data whether positive or negative is now unreliable.


----------



## kiteki

liamstrain said:


> However, the point of the above was that if you tell someone to listen for an expanded soundstage at a certain point, or in a certain range, the odds are good that they'll report hearing it - even if you are playing the same thing both times, with no actual change for them to hear. [/]


 
   
  Using schizophrenics in examples over and over isn't very useful.  I'm sure they see detail in blu-ray which isn't there too, while someone else needs their prescription glasses to see any difference in blu-ray at all.
   
   


liamstrain said:


> If you direct them to hear something, you immediately undermine the test - any data whether positive or negative is now unreliable.


 
   
  If you say so.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





head injury said:


> You do that in every post.
> 
> It's true we filter out information all the time. Human memory performs at different levels. Only the information that survives beyond sensory memory and into short term memory is of any use beyond reaction. The rest is filtered out and we don't make use of it.
> 
> ...


 
   
  This is a real problem which cannot be escaped 100% - but from my experience expectations this work both ways - if you are expecting apiece of equipment to sound better in a certain way and it does not, then what you hear will contrast with what you are expecting to hear - we need our schemas to make sense of what we perceive but I strongly disagree that they override any possiblity of objective evaluation within a particular category.  For example you drink a cup of coffee and you are expecting it to have sugar in it - you can still notice the absence of sweetness relative to what you are expecting.  
   
  The mechanism you mention of sensory memory being filtered before being retained into short term memory is particularly interresting, but as Kiteki posted it works both ways in that if we are not sure what we are listening for it can it very difficult to extract any useful information from what we perceive, especially to contrast very similar audio cues which must be noticed and also evaluated.  For this reason, along with others, I think that blind testing is of limited use in high end audio - and that measuring performance with lab eequipment is a much more useful tool for evaluating equipment performance.
   
  As for sighted testing, I think it is of some personal value and can always be compared against measured performance - but I definitely don't think blind testing is reliable enough evidence to serve as a blanket body of knowledge with which to challenge anecdotal observatoins.  Is however useful in demonstrating that under blind test conditions we cannot reliably discern differences between said equipment.  In addition it is not reasonable to expect people to be supermen who ardently follow the results of their experimentation.  For example if you move into a house and see ghosts, and you don't see ghosts when you are not in this house, then apart from taking anti-psychotic medication you may also consider moving houses?  What if you decide to take the meds but still see ghosts?  What if someone else moves into the house independently and also claims to see ghosts?  You can call them crazy or idiots , or send them to a series of lectures but this probably won't help.  The underlying causes existed long before the diagnosis, and will persist long after.
   
  My point is if there is some kind of subconscious agent that is causing us to perceive something on a regular basis - this is a real problem from a psychological standpoint, and the best course of action is not necessarily to put everyone on medication or send them to psychotherapy.  Of course I use the example of ghosts, because many here consider certain differences in audio equipment to be just that - phantoms - but this example unfairly presupposes that this is in fact the case.
   
  To clarify this - intangible things can have tangible value, and cannot be dismissed out of hand as a disease which can be cured.  There is also the possibility that behind the intangible, there is tangible material that has yet to be measured.


----------



## jcx

the 200ms limit is from the processing in the dedicated audio neural structures - very specific to fine loudness, timbre distinctions
   
  the question of short term/long term/working memory limits, decay, capacity are for after the features have been encoded, reach the brain itself
   
  this short summary article looks plausible to this non specialist, has good provenance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657600/ - very little hard info, only times I could find were 5-10s as possible "short term" memory limit - additionally there is the concept of limited capacity for different "items/features" in working memory - as few a 4, possibly a few more with training
   
  this suggests training, and deliberate focus are useful for discrimination, <10 seconds clips, switching may use more of the brain's "short term" capacity
   
  this doesn't preclude longer term listening where hypothetical "more complex" judgments, perceptions, but possibly along fewer "aural dimensions" can transfer to "long term" memory
   
  but there appears to be a case for relatively short clips, switching times being useful for discriminating some features of "the sound"


----------



## kiteki

> Originally Posted by *drez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> For example you drink a cup of coffee and you are expecting it to have sugar in it - you can still notice the absence of sweetness relative to what you are expecting.
> 
> [/]


 
   
  Exactly.  If you usually expect coffee with normal sugar and one day it has sweetener, you notice it.  If you ordered a Coke and you are served Diet Coke in a Coke glass you notice it.
   
  If an identical twin calls you pretending to be the other one, you notice it.  If you buy a $1000 fake watch in Thailand and think it's real, you think it's real.  Are these four cases related at all?
   
  Likewise, if a schizophrenic saw extra detail in blu-ray, which wasn't there, it doesn't mean I'm going to stop reading blu-ray reviews all of a sudden, or think it's the same as DVD.
   
  ??
   


> Originally Posted by *drez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> For this reason, along with others, I think that blind testing is of limited use in high end audio - and that measuring performance with lab eequipment is a much more useful tool for evaluating equipment performance.


 
   
  Lab equipment is entirely on a case by case basis.  In acoustic audio $10,000+ lab equipment is still completely useless compared to human perception in some areas.  It's very dependant on which specific case you're looking at.
   
  Anyway, you don't need visuals to listen to audio / music.  There is nothing visual in audio.  Blind evaluation should be used a hell of a lot more than it is.  Blind testing is OK if performed correctly.


----------



## kiteki

jcx said:


> this short summary article looks plausible to this non specialist, has good provenance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657600/ - very little hard info, only times I could find were 5-10s as possible "short term" memory limit - additionally there is the concept of limited capacity for different "items/features" in working memory - as few a 4, possibly a few more with training
> 
> [/]
> 
> but there appears to be a case for relatively short clips, switching times being useful for discriminating some features of "the sound"


 
   
  I believe 0.1 second switches will be useful for faint volume differences, if you took a break for 10 seconds, it must be impossible to hear faint differences in volume, at least that's how it seems to me.
   
  Volume is directly intertwined with frequency response.
   
  There are countless other sounds to look for though, which could hypothetically _only_ link to long term memory, in which case the rapid switch could only be confusing, or elicit an_ illusion of sameness._
   
  When people are trying two different perfumes, they don't rapid switch, they take a break, etc.
   
  We can discuss it until the horses come home.  In the end if someone thinks X device sounds different than Y, they can blind test it in any way they like.
   
   
  If you're testing vast numbers of random people, you need a very revealing testing setup, and you need to tell them what to look for in the differences (if you can), and you need to take aside the positive results and re-test them.
   
  If you want to test for something like different fluroescent light hertz rate flicker, or UVA versus UVC light, it would be impossible in an ABX, but you may find it in a blood test, there is always that too.


----------



## Albedo

Much of this has to do with motivation, but some sounds get dampened, but.. when getting into the elusive realm of those warm euphoric harmonies of high end all hell breaks loose. To go about it in a flowery way is not very productive, so I'll point to some interesting research.
   
   
   
  Quote: http://www.neuroscience-of-music.se/eng2.htm


> Before 1992 it was unknown that one of the* major functions of the mammalian inner ear is to selectively damp the loud frequency components of sound*. Without this function we would not be able to follow normal speech, and music would be a torture rather than a pleasure.
> 
> That* our ears are frequency selective amplifiers of weak sound* was first suggested by Thomas Gold in 1948 and was finally proved in the 1980s. We now also know that there is a complement of low-level amplification: high-level damping.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
   
  Quote: http://www.neuroscience-of-music.se/eng6.htm


> Before 2000 it was unknown that a *precognitive version of absolute pitch is general in humans*. This ability is subconsciously applied in speech and it can be considered as a further means of *speaker identification, in addition to voice timbre.*
> 
> Application of the precognitive, absolute pitch-memory increases with speech emphasis. This is neuroanatomically plausible, because the major precognitive command center for speech (in the anterior cingulate cortex) is *not only linked to a pitch memory but also to centers for arousal and emotion.*
> 
> The *motivation dependent use of the absolute pitch-memory* can be assumed as one of the evolutionary foundations of song, and thus of music in general.


 
   
   
   
  Quote: http://www.neuroscience-of-music.se/eng7.htm


> Before 2004 it was unknown if *the human brain is hard-wired for the perception of octave circularity*. In all advanced musical cultures the names for tones in scales are repeated, when the octave interval (frequency ratio 2:1) is reached. For example, in the European music system, the octave-spaced tones of 110, 220, and 440 Hz are all called A. Only in technical descriptions an additional octave number is added, like A2, A3, and A4. The universal practice of tone name circularity indicates an equally *universal circularity in pitch perception*. Octave circularity in pitch perception was also observed in the monkey.
> 
> The fiber network between the neuron layers is such that all signals triggered by octave-spaced tones, such as A2, A3, and A4, are likely to be pooled. They could then be trans-coded into an additional signal for a general A. This would explain why *all tones called A, regardless from which octave, have a common pitch quality, a so-called pitch chroma.* Thus, the auditory thalamus can be considered as the anatomical basis of our internal chroma map.
> 
> ...


 
   
Edit: Typo.


----------



## kiteki

albedo said:


> > Before 1992
> >
> > in 1948
> >
> ...


 
   
  in 2007
   
  in 2014
   
  in 2025
   
  in 2070
   
   
  All we can say with any certainty is that audio science is very limited and incomplete in 2012.  Statements to any other effect are only self-induced illusion.
   
  There is no 100% perfect audio playback system in 2012 either, that's pretty certain too.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





drez said:


> The mechanism you mention of sensory memory being filtered before being retained into short term memory is particularly interresting, but as Kiteki posted it works both ways in that if we are not sure what we are listening for it can it very difficult to extract any useful information from what we perceive, especially to contrast very similar audio cues which must be noticed and also evaluated.


 
   
  Blind ABX testing can work well for verifying the existence of an alleged concrete difference, which can be previously discovered in any way, sighted or not. There is usually no shortage of those, I see many claims of gear having "better sound stage", "more impactful bass", "improved details", "less sibilance", and more being made with great confidence. Statements like these would imply already knowing exactly what to listen for ?
   
  Quote:  





> As for sighted testing, I think it is of some personal value and can always be compared against measured performance - but I definitely don't think blind testing is reliable enough evidence to serve as a blanket body of knowledge with which to challenge anecdotal observatoins.


 
   
  What reliability advantage does sighted listening have over an otherwise identical, but blind test (assuming that the "not knowing what to listen for" issue is already dealt with), other than being more likely to produce the - more desirable to audiophiles - positive result due to its own flaws ? Two wrongs do not make a right.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





albedo said:


> Much of this has to do with motivation, but some sounds get dampened, but.. when getting into the elusive realm of those warm euphoric harmonies of high end all hell breaks loose. To go about it in a flowery way is not very productive, so I'll point to some interesting research.


 
   
  These are interesting, but do not have much to do with how "golden" the hearing is, rather than how "smart" it is. The effects described above still work on audio that is downmixed to mono, dithered to 8 bits, and downsampled to 22050 Hz. They show how intelligently the brain can process complex high level information, but audiophilia is about obsessive micro-optimization of the low level performance of audio playback.


----------



## Albedo

Yes, it's all about the obsession over something minute that's different from the linear thinking as I've somewhat tried to explain in post #1006. To further elaborate.. it's about what we all are trying to latch on to and to some degree fail at.
   
   
   
  Quote: http://asadl.org/jasa/resource/1/jasman/v88/iS1/pS49_s2?bypassSSO=1


> The role of attention in detection under conditions of frequency uncertainty has been extensively studied in a masking paradigm using auditory cues to alleviate the uncertainty. Studies of cues requiring higher‐order processing, for example, cues related to the signal in a fixed musical relation, show that such cues can be as effective as iconic (same frequency) cues. Subjects with absolute pitch detected pure tones in noise in conditions with (1) no cues, (2) iconic cues, or (3) visual cues intended to operate through auditory memory. Visual cues consisted of various symbols corresponding to the frequency of the signal presented in musical notation on a display terminal. In all cases, these were better than no cues and in the most effective cases, the visual cues were as effective as the iconic (auditory) cues.


 
   
  In the everyday life music sometimes sounds dreadful, sometimes not... timbreeeeeeeeee!


----------



## drez

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Blind ABX testing can work well for verifying the existence of an alleged concrete difference, which can be previously discovered in any way, sighted or not. There is usually no shortage of those, I see many claims of gear having "better sound stage", "more impactful bass", "improved details", "less sibilance", and more being made with great confidence. Statements like these would imply already knowing exactly what to listen for ?
> 
> What reliability advantage does sighted listening have over an otherwise identical, but blind test (assuming that the "not knowing what to listen for" issue is already dealt with), other than being more likely to produce the - more desirable to audiophiles - positive result due to its own flaws ? Two wrongs do not make a right.


 
   
  But to me blind testing, within the domain of discussing and selecting audio gear, is for mo mostly superfluous in that it mostly focuses on the production of evidence which can be used by others, so that they are excused from gathering their own evidence and experience.  It is a fairly blunt and mute instrument, and more often than not it is applied with the intention of mythbusting and is held to be more conclusive than it deserves to be.  It is like taking an eye test while squinting one's eyes.  It is both more controlled, and yet it yields a lower resolution of information.
   
  Objective testing with equipment, although having problems of it's own, is much more reliable in my opinion.  It can reliably show many differences that blind testing cannot, and this information can be used to challenge or corroborate sighted testing.


----------



## Tilpo

drez said:


> But to me blind testing, within the domain of discussing and selecting audio gear, is for mo mostly superfluous *in that it mostly focuses on the production of evidence which can be used by others, so that they are excused from gathering their own evidence and experience.*  It is a fairly blunt and mute instrument, and more often than not it is applied with the intention of mythbusting and is held to be more conclusive than it deserves to be.  It is like taking an eye test while squinting one's eyes.  It is both more controlled, and yet it yields a lower resolution of information.
> 
> Objective testing with equipment, although having problems of it's own, is much more reliable in my opinion.  It can reliably show many differences that blind testing cannot, and this information can be used to challenge or corroborate sighted testing.



Isn't that the very definition of empirical evidence, which forms the foundation for the natural sciences?


----------



## drez

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> Isn't that the very definition of empirical evidence, which forms the foundation for the natural sciences?


 
   
  For the first part yes, for the second part hopefully not.  I should hope that the results and data should be continually challenged both from within the discipline and across disciplines rather than excusing the collection of further data or development of different methods of research.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





kiteki said:


> Using schizophrenics in examples over and over isn't very useful.


 
   
  The point is that these are not schizophrenics. This is a fundamental issue with being human, as "playing backwards/lyrics" the example you yourself posted, demonstrated.


----------



## Tilpo

drez said:


> For the first part yes, for the second part hopefully not.  I should hope that the results and data should be continually challenged both from within the discipline and across disciplines rather than excusing the collection of further data or development of different methods of research.



But it's not like there has been only one double blind test. There have been countless as far as I know. Not for every single component, but I don't find it such a strange thing to extrapolate data from comparisons between other components.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> But it's not like there has been only one double blind test. There have been countless as far as I know. Not for every single component, but I don't find it such a strange thing to extrapolate data from comparisons between other components.


 
   
  My point is that blind tests are not the right kind of testing methodology to discern very small changes between audio samples - if you measure the differences and they are below -90dB in level then there is not much point doing another blind test in the same methodology - it is just beating a dead horse, even though thoroughness can be a good thing.
   
  If you measure the difference parameter, and prior blind testing has shown that this magnitude cannot be detected by blind testing, then there is small chance that further blind tests will prove successful.  The testing methodology, in said hypothetical configuration, is more than likely not capable of producing a meaningful result and probably need to be reviewed.
   
  Don't get me wrong I think blind testing has it uses just it also has very evident limitations in what it can demonstrate also.  For example if DBT test between two components shows no difference - this does not mean that they are the same - it just means that in the test participants could not tell them apart.  There could be a lot of important/useful performance differences that are not demonstrated by the blind test.  Of course one can argue that differences that cannot be shown in blind tests are not tangible and therefore not important, but I do not think this philosophy/attitude is universally/exclusively valid nor self-evident.


----------



## Tilpo

drez said:


> My point is that blind tests are not the right kind of testing methodology to discern very small changes between audio samples - if you measure the differences and they are below -90dB in level then there is not much point doing another blind test in the same methodology - it is just beating a dead horse, even though thoroughness can be a good thing.
> 
> If you measure the difference parameter, and prior blind testing has shown that this magnitude cannot be detected by blind testing, then there is small chance that further blind tests will prove successful.  The testing methodology, in said hypothetical configuration, is more than likely not capable of producing a meaningful result and probably need to be reviewed.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I think blind testing has it uses just it also has very evident limitations in what it can demonstrate also.  For example if DBT test between two components shows no difference - this does not mean that they are the same - it just means that in the test participants could not tell them apart.  There could be a lot of important/useful performance differences that are not demonstrated by the blind test.  Of course one can argue that differences that cannot be shown in blind tests are not tangible and therefore not important, but I do not think this philosophy/attitude is universally/exclusively valid nor self-evident.



In most cases if differences are not discerned in a proper blind test (decent sample size, good equipment, double blind), then it does have significance: it means that the difference, if it exist, is either below audible threshold or on the border of it. 
If it does not show up on a blind test, the difference simply cannot be huge, or else the test wasn't done properly. 

Over the past blind tests have as far as I know more or less proven that most CD players, amps and DAC's have very similar performance, meaning boutique components in these three categories are probably not worth it over decent mid-fi. It does not necessarily mean they are the same, no. But in my opinion it's more than enough reason to stick with mid-fi components and not feel the need to upgrade them. 
Tests have also shown that cable myths are false. But to be honest, I think that was done by electrical measurements and comparing them to established psychoacoustic thresholds as well, it's just that people didn't believe such tests.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





tilpo said:


> In most cases if differences are not discerned in a proper blind test (decent sample size, good equipment, double blind), then it does have significance: it means that the difference, if it exist, is either below audible threshold or on the border of it.
> If it does not show up on a blind test, the difference simply cannot be huge, or else the test wasn't done properly.
> Over the past blind tests have as far as I know more or less proven that most CD players, amps and DAC's have very similar performance, meaning boutique components in these three categories are probably not worth it over decent mid-fi. It does not necessarily mean they are the same, no. But in my opinion it's more than enough reason to stick with mid-fi components and not feel the need to upgrade them.
> Tests have also shown that cable myths are false. But to be honest, I think that was done by electrical measurements and comparing them to established psychoacoustic thresholds as well, it's just that people didn't believe such tests.


 
   
  To me the fact that many boutique CD players are not worth the money does not require blind testing - it is pretty obvious when some of them are measured with test equipment!  But that is probably missing your main point.
   
  To me I interpret your main point to be that double blind testing shows the limits of what is audible - is this really the case?  In other words when the individial parameters are isolated in their own blind test (like on this website), can people detect the same differences in music playback blind tests?
   
  I think it is a fair conclusion that if differences don't show up in blind tests that they are not huge or even particularly substantial for most people, but to me there are definite limits in terms of what can be inferred from the current body of tests.
   
  On a sidenote I have an idea for a DBT I wish to perform with WAVE vs FLAC CD rips ( I have two files that to me sound very different) but I need to check the level of the two files first - is there a good (free) program to do this with?


----------



## maverickronin

You should be able to null them with Audio Diffmaker.


----------



## Tilpo

drez said:


> To me the fact that many boutique CD players are not worth the money does not require blind testing - it is pretty obvious when some of them are measured with test equipment!  But that is probably missing your main point.



It gives us an idea of how the measurements correlate to physical world. Additionally, it makes it easier to believe there isn't an audible difference, for those who don't accept the measurements as enough proof.



drez said:


> To me I interpret your main point to be that double blind testing shows the limits of what is audible - is this really the case?  In other words when the individial parameters are isolated in their own blind test (like on this website), can people detect the same differences in music playback blind tests?



That's not my main point.
Audible thresholds are determined in psycho acoustical research.

My point is that if it doesn't show up in DBT, then it is going to be a very subtle difference at best. Not enough for me to care.



drez said:


> I think it is a fair conclusion that if differences don't show up in blind tests that they are not huge or even particularly substantial for most people, but to me there are definite limits in terms of what can be inferred from the current body of tests.



Of course, but in general it does provide evidence for the view that most modern electronics perform at or really close to transparency.



drez said:


> On a sidenote I have an idea for a DBT I wish to perform with WAVE vs FLAC CD rips ( I have two files that to me sound very different) but I need to check the level of the two files first - is there a good (free) program to do this with?



Foobar2000 has a very good component for doing DBT's with different files.


----------



## drez

Complains that I have no recording device and shuts down
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I will do some google research.


----------



## maverickronin

I thought it could do it with files you already had. Sorry about that.


----------



## kiteki

Audio diffmaker, while I haven't researched it yet, my immediate thoughts are
   
  - The A/DC / recording process is vital
   
  - when you compile, subtract and listen to the residual, it could lead to some very flawed conclusions
   
   
For example, some guy was telling me recently information above 11kHz is unnecessary, I told him I can very easily ABX a 16kHz+ cut-off and he thinks that's chasing fairy tales or hallucinations.
   
  He came to that conclusion by using an equalizer to cut off everything under 15kHz, (in which case you can hardly hear anything _at all), _so it would seem like when you're_ playing _the 15kHz and lower information it would very easily _mask_ the 16kHz+ information, so the conclusion is _ that extremely faint information is unnecessary._
   
  That just isn't how it works in real playback, and now he's calling the redbook standard _too high._
   
  The diffmaker would easily lead to similar conclusions if you don't take the ADC or real playback into account, which it clearly doesn't.
   
  The column on the right hand side with notes like "Paints and lacquers used on cables" or "EMI control devices" seem to indicate it's cynical research anyway, seeking not looking.
   
  Just a random example, how am I supposed to record, compile, subtract and listen to a ferrite clamp on a USB cable?  I don't think that's possible with that program, so does that mean ferrite clamps are useless?  The exact same thing would happen with every single capacitor out there, if we all followed cynical research like that audio systems would all be built at radioshack.


----------



## kiteki

> In most cases if differences are not discerned in a proper blind test (decent sample size, good equipment, double blind), then it does have significance: it means that the difference, if it exist, is either below audible threshold or on the border of it.
> If it does not show up on a blind test, the difference simply cannot be huge, or else the test wasn't done properly.


 
   
  Usually the last part.  I'm sure a standard RealTek soundcard versus a high-end DAC is borderline in a lot of cases.  That doesn't mean we should all use RealTek, even if it sounds "okay". =) 
   
  Can you tell the difference between $2 and $50 shampoo in a DBT?
   
  Let's all use...


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Actually, I'd say they already are pretty entertaining...


----------



## kiteki

I played with the equalizer like you said and the information above 15khz is barely noticeable, however it's quite noticable while music is playing.
   
   


blindinoneear said:


> Actually, I'd say they already are pretty entertaining...


 
   
  Hi, did you write to the news channel about your misinformed take on ENOB's yet?


----------



## bigshot

3% of the sound is more noticeable when 97% of the sound is drowning it out than when it's isolated all by itself. Who'da thunk it?!

He's not just making all ths stuff up... Noooooooooo....


----------



## drez

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> 3% of the sound is more noticeable when 97% of the sound is drowning it out than when it's isolated all by itself. Who'da thunk it?!
> He's not just making all ths stuff up... Noooooooooo....


 
   
  Is it drowning it out or giving it context though - only example I can think of is if one were to take a photograph and extract only the pixels with brigthness over 90% and place that against a white background - yes its hard to see.  If that same information was adding highlights to an image where our schemas might allow us to notice them.  They may be harder to see than when isolated but they could make a noticeable change to the overall dynamic contrast of the image.  Of course this analogy is not directly comparable as we are able to focus our visual attention more easily than our auditory senses.


----------



## Tilpo

drez said:


> Is it drowning it out or giving it context though - only example I can think of is if one were to take a photograph and extract only the pixels with brigthness over 90% and place that against a white background - yes its hard to see.  If that same information was adding highlights to an image where our schemas might allow us to notice them.  They may be harder to see than when isolated but they could make a noticeable change to the overall dynamic contrast of the image.  Of course this analogy is not directly comparable as we are able to focus our visual attention more easily than our auditory senses.



Fact is that it's not just concentrating on certain sounds, but a lot of information just get's lost in the auditory system before it reaches our consciousness. 
For example, if you measure the firing rate of a certain auditory nerve near the cochlea (that is, before the brain stem) using a microelctrode. If you then add a tone at the central frequency of this nerve you will be able to see it fire at a certain rate. If you then add another louder tone at say 30% below the central frequency, the nerve may completely be inhibited from firing, despite the nerve not reacting to this second tone alone.
This is know as two-tone suppression, and you can imagine that this occurs a lot of times with complex waveforms such as pretty much all music. 
This is before any processing has happened to the sound, and most likely this kind of suppression happens at the basilar membrane itself.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





drez said:


> Is it drowning it out or giving it context though - only example I can think of is if one were to take a photograph and extract only the pixels with brigthness over 90% and place that against a white background - yes its hard to see.  If that same information was adding highlights to an image where our schemas might allow us to notice them.


 
   
  Did you actually try this test ? Of the following images, the top left one is the original (converted to greyscale), the top right one is limited to the range 230 to 255, and the bottom one is limited to the range 0 to 230 (and scaled to 0 to 236 to compensate for the slight loss of overall brightness). The changes to the finer details are more visible on the top right image.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





drez said:


> But to me blind testing, within the domain of discussing and selecting audio gear, is for mo mostly superfluous in that it mostly focuses on the production of evidence which can be used by others, so that they are excused from gathering their own evidence and experience.  It is a fairly blunt and mute instrument, and more often than not it is applied with the intention of mythbusting and is held to be more conclusive than it deserves to be.


 
   
  While blind testing is often associated with "myth busting", you can use it to find out if you really hear a difference at your own terms, using your own equipment, with no pressure, and not publishing the results. It can be useful to provide a rough guideline on where the limits of audibility are. If you do not hear the difference, it may make sense to get somewhat better measuring equipment at a reasonable price to be on the safe side, but it indicates that the point of diminishing returns is already being reached.
   
  I do think the huge unpopularity of any kind of blind testing among audiophiles is mainly because it too often does not produce the "right" results, therefore the obvious conclusion is that it must be flawed.

  Quote:


> Objective testing with equipment, although having problems of it's own, is much more reliable in my opinion.  It can reliably show many differences that blind testing cannot, and this information can be used to challenge or corroborate sighted testing.


 
   
  Of course, measurements are important and useful, and extensive objective information about a product is valuable, even if unfortunately quite rare (manufacturers' specs are usually more about marketing than providing useful information). However, it is hard to judge the relevance of the measured parameters without being able to correlate them with the actual perception of audio. What is more important, 0.005% distortion instead of 0.01%, or 500 ps jitter instead of 1 ns ? Or are all of the above inaudible and irrelevant ? Fortunately, it seems that electronics can be made transparent for simple audio playback without much investment now, but when in doubt, some way of confirming the audibility of an effect is still needed.


----------



## kiteki

I see no one is taking the 16kHz comments seriously.  Well I'll experiment some more in Foobar and post some screenshots with a specific song example then.
   
  For the record bigshot I didn't use your name in post #1410, I just said "some guy", it could have been anyone.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Did you actually try this test ? Of the following images, the top left one is the original (converted to greyscale), the top right one is limited to the range 230 to 255, and the bottom one is limited to the range 0 to 230 (and scaled to 0 to 236 to compensate for the slight loss of overall brightness). The changes to the finer details are more visible on the top right image.


 
   
  Great work with the photos!  I think you are right that the difference is more noticeable/comprehensible when isolated against the white background, and that the removal of this detail from the highlights doesn't seem to make the modified image seem "wrong" nor all that different unless one swaps between them very quickly.  If one were to look at the two images with any decent interval between viewing each one it would be very difficult to tell them apart.  But I mean if someone showed you the second picture and pointed to the section where some of the highlight details are lost - I think you could possibly "learn" to tell them apart in a blind test given enough time and effort.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  As for being more noticeable though I would have to say definitely the isolated highlights is by far more readily perceived.
   
  As for analysing level of my ripped files - seems they are in fact different - maybe different record mastering or something, maybe whoever ripped the flac file (claims to be EAC) did something odd.  I might need to rip my own FLAC file to see what is going on.  Very odd.  Peak level for the FLAC rip seems to be 79%...


----------



## scootsit

I'm not suggesting this a useful analog in any way, but I'm curious, if you put the second image on a black background, what would the result look like?
   
  Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Did you actually try this test ? Of the following images, the top left one is the original (converted to greyscale), the top right one is limited to the range 230 to 255, and the bottom one is limited to the range 0 to 230 (and scaled to 0 to 236 to compensate for the slight loss of overall brightness). The changes to the finer details are more visible on the top right image.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





scootsit said:


> I'm not suggesting this a useful analog in any way, but I'm curious, if you put the second image on a black background, what would the result look like?


 
   
  Do you mean something like this (pixel values < 230 replaced with 0) ?


----------



## scootsit

More or less, yes.
  Thanks, very interesting.
  Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Do you mean something like this (pixel values < 230 replaced with 0) ?


----------



## bigshot

The main probem is that many people don't realize that frequencies double as they go up the scale. Each octave is double the one that came before. In other words, the lowest octave we can hear is 20 to 40 Hz, which is the exact same size as the top octave we can hear- 10,000 Hz to 20,000 Hz.

The average person can hear a little less than ten octaves from 20Hz to 20kHz... 80 notes approximately. 16kHz and above is about two notes in the musical scale at the very edge of human hearing. Totally useless. Anyone who says that is important to their enjoyment of music flat out doesn't know what they're talking about.

Discussing numbers on paper without understanding what they mean is a total waste of everyone's time.


----------



## kiteki

bigshot said:


> The main probem is that many people don't realize that frequencies double as they go up the scale. Each octave is double the one that came before. In other words, the lowest octave we can hear is 20 to 40 Hz, which is the exact same size as 10,000 Hz to 20,000 Hz. 16kHz and above is about two notes in the musical scale at the very edge of human hearing. Totally useless. Anyone who says that is important to their enjoyment of music flat out doesn't know what they're talking about.
> 
> Discussingt numbers on paper without understanding what they mean is a total waste of everyone's time.


 
   
 
  Sorry, but after reading this, it doesn't seem like I was paraphrasing you, you are indeed implicating the CD standard of 44.1kHz is too high, and 32kHz should be sufficient.
   
  I can very easily tell the difference between 44.1kHz and 32kHz resampling, as can any level headed person with sufficient hearing and experimentation.
   
  I've written a great number of polite paragraphs to try to put the "numbers on paper" in their correct context.
   
  I did experiment with an equalizer in the way you described, and repoted the results.  You don't want to partake in any of my experiments, that's OK if you want to believe in whatever you believe, however then you should keep it to yourself.


----------



## bigshot

I never said anything about the CD standard being too high. You made that up yourself.


----------



## kiteki

The CD standard = 16/44.1 = up to 22.05kHz
   
  24/96 = up to 48kHz
   
  16/32 = up to 16kHz.
   
  In Foobar or Audacity you can resample 16/44.1 to to 16/32, then you'll hear the difference which you keep calling "hearing voices", "I can see better than a microscope" and "wasting everyones time".
   
  A lot of users already know that speakers and room acoustics are big fish, they want to chase the small fish like lossless, ASIO and expensive sound-cards anyway.


----------



## bigshot

Downsampling introduces all sorts of other issues. I didn't tell you to do that. I said to use an equalizer.


----------



## Tilpo

kiteki said:


> The CD standard = 16/44.1 = up to 22.05kHz
> 
> 24/96 = up to 48kHz
> 
> ...



It's better to use a low-pass filter or digital equalizer. Otherwise you can get all sorts of audible artifacts.
Even then, I'm not surprised you can hear a difference. But that doesn't really mean it is very important. For most people the difference is going to be very subtle, and shouldn't really add that much to the overall enjoyment of the music. 
It is wise to include 16kHz+ information, but it is not necessary for good fidelity.

The CD standard is supposed to be overkill by the way. They did not want any compromises, that's why they made absolutely sure to include the entire audible band, and also introduced a rather high 16 bit wordlength, even though 96dB's of dynamic range is higher than you would most likely ever need.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I said to use an equalizer.


 
   
  Even then there are potential issues, a typical graphic or parametric equalizer will not have a "brick wall" response when used to filter out everything above 16 kHz, and the more audible 10-12 kHz range will likely be attenuated as well. On the other hand, with a very steep roll-off, the resulting ringing at 16 kHz may be audible to some. Of course, it is also important to avoid clipping and to match levels accurately. The comparison should be done with files at identical sample rate to exclude the possibility of different DAC filtering (or even Windows software sample rate conversion if the DAC does not support 32 kHz) affecting the results.
  It is only possible to know for sure if the test was done correctly if the files used are shared.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *kiteki* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> In Foobar or Audacity you can resample 16/44.1 to to 16/32, then you'll hear the difference which you keep calling "hearing voices", "I can see better than a microscope" and "wasting everyones time".


 
   
  Did you use (in fb2k) the SoX resampler with Target samplerate: 32000, Quality: Best, Passband: 99% and minimum phase response followed by another resampler with the same settings but the target samplerate set to whatever your DAC supports, e.g. 44.1 kHz, to avoid resampling by the OS?


----------



## bigshot

stv014 said:


> The comparison should be done with files at identical sample rate to exclude the possibility of different DAC filtering (or even Windows software sample rate conversion if the DAC does not support 32 kHz) affecting the results.
> It is only possible to know for sure if the test was done correctly if the files used are shared.




That's getting way too complicated. My original point was very simple. And he keeps misstating it to set up strawmen. I'll repeat it again.

Of the ten or so octaves that make up the full range of human hearing, the top one (10kHz to 20kHz) is the least important to the enjoyment of music. No instrument has fundamental frequencies up that high except for cymbals, and the harmonics are at a very low volume compared to the other octaves.

My suggestion was to familiarize yourself with what these frequencies actually sound like by playing with an equalizer and isolating the sound of music that exists above 15kHz. You can hear it, because you have human ears, but if you do this test, you'll find out it really isn't important because there's very little up there in music.

Correct balance in the middle of the audible range is much more important than messing around trying to optimize the stuff at the very edge of human perception.


----------



## scootsit

Sorry to ask a totally irrelevant question.
   
  But, you guys are talking about DSPs in foobar, and I really don't want to start a new thread...so, are there any decent crossfeed DSPs in foobar? I can't find any in the supported components. A recommendation would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





scootsit said:


> Sorry to ask a totally irrelevant question.
> 
> But, you guys are talking about DSPs in foobar, and I really don't want to start a new thread...so, are there any decent crossfeed DSPs in foobar? I can't find any in the supported components. A recommendation would be greatly appreciated.


 
   
  It's more than just crossfeed but TB Isone is my favorite.  There's also bs2b and xnor's crossfeed.


----------



## scootsit

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> It's more than just crossfeed but TB Isone is my favorite.  There's also bs2b and xnor's crossfeed.


 

 Thanks a lot, I saw the bs2b one, but it did not seem to be well regarded. I also saw the xnor one, but didn't realize that it was not a component, so I was searching all over the foobar site to no avail.
   
  Thanks!


----------



## Tilpo

scootsit said:


> Thanks a lot, I saw the bs2b one, but it did not seem to be well regarded. I also saw the xnor one, but didn't realize that it was not a component, so I was searching all over the foobar site to no avail.
> 
> Thanks!



I can personally recommend xnor's one. It is really quite good, but I stopped using it as I prefer RPGWizard's DSP chain. While that isn't crossfeed, I still advice you to check it out.


----------



## scootsit

Thanks, guys!


----------



## bigshot

This thread should be pinned in sound science


----------



## doublea71

Interesting stuff here. I'm feeling pretty okay having not spent large amounts of money on gear before finding this thread. I bought some custom iem cables and I now expect to not hear any difference, but I'm open to being wrong. It seems that we hear very differently (not necessarily better) with our eyes open.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





doublea71 said:


> Interesting stuff here. I'm feeling pretty okay having not spent large amounts of money on gear before finding this thread. I bought some custom iem cables and I now expect to not hear any difference, but I'm open to being wrong. It seems that we hear very differently (not necessarily better) with our eyes open.


 
   
  I would hope you do hear a difference and now you have a better idea of why that is.


----------



## doublea71

I have used them just a little bit and I haven't noticed a difference so far. I'll get around to some serious A/Bing soon.


----------



## Arkyle

I just looked in google for a random mp3 bit rate blind test, took it and came here to look for a post just like this! 
   
  I took the mp3ornot 128 vs 320 kbps test. I used just my laptop's soundcard and sennheiser HD 598. It was really easy to tell both apart and got a consistent correct score. I had a little handicap; my left ear can register up to 22 Khz (according to the horrible, excruciating, and painfully boring 40-min sound test with the audiologist my workplace forces us to take) so in two of those songs there was a certain pitch at the end of high notes that wasn't present in the more compressed file. Bass impact and general "noise" shows off which one is the lower quality too. There are some clear artifacts at the end of some notes that give away the lower quality compression, too.
   
  But the most interesting thing I found about this sound test is the fact that it was far easier to determine which was the lower quality file not by asking myself which sounds better, but which sounds worse, which isn't the point of having the pleasure of listening to music, is it? AAC and Vorbis at 128 kbps sound pretty good with far less artifacts and should do a good job of reducing the size of not so musically demanding (to call it something) files.


----------



## The Walrus

Quote: 





arkyle said:


> I just looked in google for a random mp3 bit rate blind test, took it and came here to look for a post just like this!
> 
> I took the mp3ornot 128 vs 320 kbps test. I used just my laptop's soundcard and sennheiser HD 598. It was really easy to tell both apart and got a consistent correct score. I had a little handicap; my left ear can register up to 22 Khz (according to the horrible, excruciating, and painfully boring 40-min sound test with the audiologist my workplace forces us to take) so in two of those songs there was a certain pitch at the end of high notes that wasn't present in the more compressed file. Bass impact and general "noise" shows off which one is the lower quality too. There are some clear artifacts at the end of some notes that give away the lower quality compression, too.
> 
> But the most interesting thing I found about this sound test is the fact that it was far easier to determine which was the lower quality file not by asking myself which sounds better, but which sounds worse.


 
  128 kbps really gives itself up with the poor high pitches. But I always thougtht that above 320 kbps, human ear cannot tell the difference. I'll put it to the test one day.


----------



## Arkyle

Quote: 





the walrus said:


> 128 kbps really gives itself up with the poor high pitches. But I always thougtht that above 320 kbps, human ear cannot tell the difference. I'll put it to the test one day.


 
  Haven't tried it, but I'm pretty sure the only way to tell the difference is because of the artifacts (like pre-echo) the mp3 file may have.


----------



## 329161

Extremely interesting and eye opening thread. I can't be bothered doing a search but- is there any benefit in lstening to HD (>16 bit, 44khz) files vs "normal definition" (16,44) files)? Also same question in regard to bi-amping speakers vs single amping speakers.


----------



## scootsit

Quote: 





dcfac73 said:


> Extremely interesting and eye opening thread. I can't be bothered doing a search but- is there any benefit in lstening to HD (>16 bit, 44khz) files vs "normal definition" (16,44) files)? Also same question in regard to bi-amping speakers vs single amping speakers.


 

 I think that (bi- or single amping speaks) has so much to do with your set up. If you really have that great of a system that it exceeds a passive crossover, sure, if not, it's probably deleterious. At least I know that the engineering of my passive crossovered speakers was engineered thusly, and can work with my simple hifi system. I've thought about switching to bi-amped, but it just seemed like so much added headache. Aynway, here's an interesting article: http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/biamping.html
   
  That isn't to negate the benefits in a very truly professional set up. If the sound engineer is taking into account the size and shape of the room, and designing amps and speakers to tune each spectrum, it makes sense to me. To the average user, it seems like more stuff to mess up. But, I'm sure others will strongly disagree with me. Regarding the audio file there was a site I found once where you could challenge yourself. I failed. Here's the site: http://mp3ornot.com/
   
  I used to rip my stuff in 128, and now use 320. My 320k files sound much better, but in retrospect, I think that has more to do with improvements in mp3 algorithms than it does file size.


----------



## 329161

I also remember reading somewhere that users would not be able to hear the difference between 320 kb/s lossy vs lossless audio. Now the difference between low bitrate vs 320 is debatable. I can also gather from elswhere in this thread that the difference between HD audio and normal def audio is also debatable. So can we conclude from this that there is no difference between low bit mp3 and HD audio?


----------



## 329161

Has anyone done any testing on the differences in the sound quality between  headphones ?


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





dcfac73 said:


> I also remember reading somewhere that users would not be able to hear the difference between 320 kb/s lossy vs lossless audio. Now the difference between low bitrate vs 320 is debatable. I can also gather from elswhere in this thread that the difference between HD audio and normal def audio is also debatable. So can we conclude from this that there is no difference between low bit mp3 and HD audio?


 
   
  A lot of people can't hear the differences between 320 and lossless, however a lot of people do claim to hear a difference between 128 and lossless. I personal do feel that I hear a difference but in my case a difference DAC is involved.



 Quote: 





dcfac73 said:


> Has anyone done any testing on the differences in the sound quality between  headphones ?


 

 It has been tested many times

 http://www.innerfidelity.com/headphone-data-sheet-downloads


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





dcfac73 said:


> I also remember reading somewhere that users would not be able to hear the difference between 320 kb/s lossy vs lossless audio. Now the difference between low bitrate vs 320 is debatable. I can also gather from elswhere in this thread that the difference between HD audio and normal def audio is also debatable. So can we conclude from this that there is no difference between low bit mp3 and HD audio?


 
   
  My understanding so far from a limited number of ABX tests is that between 320 and above a comparison between bit rates is harder than between 320 and below.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





dcfac73 said:


> Has anyone done any testing on the differences in the sound quality between  headphones ?


 
   
  Not with blind testing, no.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> It has been tested many times
> 
> http://www.innerfidelity.com/headphone-data-sheet-downloads


 
   
  Sorry, but that is a comparison of measurements, not SQ.


----------



## bigshot

If you know what the various measurements sound like, you can figure out what the headphone sounds like.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





scootsit said:


> I think that (bi- or single amping speaks) has so much to do with your set up. If you really have that great of a system that it exceeds a passive crossover, sure, if not, it's probably deleterious.


 
   
  In all cases, the two crossovers are doing the same thing. The only difference is with overall load on the amp. Put simply: an amp that can deal with your bass can also deal with your mid/treble; and put more simply: an amp that can deal with both is cheaper than two amps which can deal with one.
   
  The only place I've found any use for multi-amping within a single speaker (and I do have a setup like this) is when using active crossovers.


----------



## doublea71

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> If you know what the various measurements sound like, you can figure out what the headphone sounds like.


 
  To me, it perhaps sounds easier than it is. Wouldn't you also have to take into account whether it is open or closed, impedance, type of drivers and cup material (and probably other things I haven't thought of)? (I'm probably being Captain Obvious, so forgive me).


----------



## grokit

Measurements are a good benchmark, but they obviously can't tell the entire story.


----------



## westsounds

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Hi westsounds and welcome to the forum.
> 
> Making people happier with their existing setup, losing the feeling that you need to constantly upgrade to get better sound and concentrating on what is important have become aims of this thread.


 
  Thanks for the welcome [color=windowtext]Prog Rock Man[/color]. I’ll keep the posts short in future as this is one of the longest most controversial hi-fi threads ive ever seen, its fantastic : )
   
  And there’s me in my last post saying I was a ProAc convert :-/ well Ive just tried a another set of speakers a third of the price and guest what ! they actually sound better, more ‘detailed/natural/real’ at least in my current system anyway. They are still from a highly profile speaker maker but it just shows that the components matching along with room acoustic can also have a massive influence on what sounds better (to my ears anyway). That’s the problem here too many variables.
   
  Still think ProAc sound and look good though.


----------



## kLevkoff

Quote: 





grokit said:


> Measurements are a good benchmark, but they obviously can't tell the entire story.


 

 I would disagree. Measurements *CAN* tell the entire story (at least for electronics) - *IF* you take the correct measurements and interpret them correctly. Unfortunately, that last "if" qualification is sometimes difficult to achieve.
   
  There is no such thing as magic and, in reality, our ability to measure pretty much any electrical characteristic far exceeds our human senses. We most certainly *CAN* measure the levels and characteristics of any sort of noise or distortion with far more sensitivity and precision that we could possibly hear them. The only problem is that we don't always correctly correlate what we measure with what we hear.
   
  Another problem is simply the lack of motivation (and money) to settle certain questions "once and for all".
   
  Is there some wondrous difference between SET tube amps and big, clean solid state ones - or do those SET fans really just like the sound of 10% THD (of a particular flavor)? That one would be simple to settle..... Just take a perfectly clean amp and deliberately introduce the distortion from a SET amp to it and see if everyone who likes SET amps agrees that it sounds the same.... or not... (or even better).
   
  There are also three final *philosophical* questions to be answered. Let's assume that two interconnects *do* sound different. How do we judge which one is "better". Personally, I would say that the one that is more *accurate* is better - because the definition of high fidelity IS "accurate"....  BUT, what if one is noisier but the other is flatter? Which is the most important characteristic?
   
  Now, how about if I have two components, both with flaws, but the flaws tend to cancel each other. As an engineer, I am inclined to say
 "I have two flawed pieces of equipment - so we should fix both" but, to an audiophile, especially on a budget, they may find it perfectly reasonable to fix neither.
   
  And, my final one, and the one that really annoys me.... I'll call it "blame and credit".
   
  Let's just say that I have a specific amplifier... and we find (by a fair test) that it does indeed sound better with a certain specific line cord.
  Does this *really* mean that that line cord is "better"?
  Well, from a "hardcore engineering" point of view the answer is no.
   
  The reason is that the defined purpose of the power supply inside every piece of equipment is to take "regular line voltage" and convert it to whatever that particular piece of equipment requires to work properly. To put it in more common terms, and clarify a few engineering and design assumptions, the JOB of the power supply is to take the power you feed it, through the power cord that came with it (or any other one that meets spec), and make it correct for that particular device. In still other words, if you can hear a difference between those power cords, and one isn't outright defective, then the power supply inside the equipment IS defective.... because, by definition, if the power supply were working correctly, then it should eliminate any possible differences between power cables.
   
  So, then, if you can hear the difference between power cable A and power cable B on your $10,000 amplifier, the real question is:
 Why couldn't the guys who designed that $10,000 amplifier design a decent power supply?
  And the proper "response" is to try and improve the power supply until IT is working correctly
  (and we'll be able to tell easily because, when the power supply is working correctly,
  we will no longer hear differences when we change power cables).
   
  Keith


----------



## Yahzi

Just joined. This is a fascinating thread. I was having a discussion with a member on another forum concerning the audibility or lack thereof of jitter and cables and the conversation eventually devolved into a "scientific method is a fragmented belief system" argument and how debates rage on in the scientific community concerning all manners of topics.
   
  This argument was used to bolser the idea that you may believe facts or beliefs without evidence other than your own perception / intuition or even in contradiction with established "fact". I don't agree with this at all.


----------



## kLevkoff

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Just joined. This is a fascinating thread. I was having a discussion with a member on another forum concerning the audibility or lack thereof of jitter and cables and the conversation eventually devolved into a "scientific method is a fragmented belief system" argument and how debates rage on in the scientific community concerning all manners of topics.
> 
> This argument was used to bolser the idea that you may believe facts or beliefs without evidence other than your own perception / intuition or even in contradiction with established "fact". I don't agree with this at all.


 
   
  What you're talking about is what I would call "the theory of subjective reality". Personally, I would at least prefer that my beliefs agree with measurable reality. Some people, however, don't seem to share that preference.... and how can you "argue" with someone who makes a conscious choice to NOT care whether their beliefs agree with actual evidence or not? About the closest you can get is to at least establish some agreement as to what the question is.
   
  My personal "goal" in my system is to have as accurate a rendition of the original source material as possible... and I will always, at the very least, defer to evidence when and if it exists. What annoys me is when "the pure relativists" get into the discussion. For example, it is pretty well known that tube power amps make significant distortion. I personally am quite convinced that most tube lovers simply enjoy the distortion produced by tubes (and I have no problem with that), but I DO have a problem when one of them tries to insist that a SET amp with 10% THD is MORE ACCURATE than a good solid state design with 0.01% THD. I find it unlikely that the tube amp is doing some unmeasured mystery thing so much better than the solid state one that that "rightness" actually makes it more accurate. It seems much more likely to me that we are indeed both hearing exactly the same thing, the 10% THD, and the tube lover simply finds it euphonic. I can't argue with someone who claims that, to them, the tube amplifier "sounds better" - because that is their choice. If, however, they want to claim that is is MORE ACCURATE, then that is something with which I take exception. (At least I want them to show me some way in which it is measurably better which at least MIGHT offset the ways in which it is worse.)
   
  My opinion is that, if two things sound different, but you can't measure the difference, then you simply aren't measuring the correct thing.... (you certainly haven't proven anything "unmeasurable" is going on).
   
  I am also NOT willing to ignore my scientific experience and training (I don't feel there is a CHOICE involved there - any more than I could CHOOSE to stop believing in gravity).
   
  I can absolutely say that I have heard differences between DACs of reasonably good quality. And, on a certain DAC, when I added a USB-S/PDIF interface claimed (and shown) to have very low jitter, SOME things sounded quite different.... while the difference was barely perceptible if at all on other content. Since the converter doesn't change the data, but only the clock, I conclude that lowering the jitter probably causes the difference. (I perceive the difference as more "clarity" in things like cymbals, and, to me, they sound more "natural" with lower jitter. To me this at least suggests that it is "an improvement". Incidentally, I don't hear much difference at all with voices.)
   
  There is another rather deep philosophical question here..... I prefer that my equipment render the recording 'true to its nature".... but what if some sort of distortion, by being added, could render it closer to "the original" - whatever that is. Maybe that tube amp DOES sound "more like a live concert" because it is adding "back" a reasonable facsimile of something that the microphone originally failed to record? Maybe brass bands DO sound more lifelike over horn speakers - but maybe they make everything played through them sound more like a brass horn. (Of course, you can see the obvious problem there.... At best, we are only guessing that what was added is the same as what was lost. There is some precedent, though, that a reasonable copy sometimes looks better than an outright omission....  Modern TVs literally make up what they guess belongs in frames between the broadcast frames to make motion smoother - and sometimes it does look very good.)
   
  As I said, my preference is that my equipment render the recording with as little change as possible.
   
   
  Here's a final interesting "thought experiment" on relativism.....
   
  Let's assume you liked Rembrandt (I don't) and had just acquired a Rembrandt original - and were deciding how to light it.
   
  Would you.....:
   
  a) use a perfectly accurate white light to see the colors AS THEY ARE ON THE CANVAS
  b) use a light similar to candle light to simulate how Rembrandt would have seen it in his studio when he painted it
  c) knowing that Rembrandt had painted it for a particular customer, use light like what he would have expected to find in the customers' house (assuming HE was smart enough to paint it to look good there)
  d) leave your lighting alone, assuming you want to see what it looks like to have a Rembrandt hanging in your house
   
  Personally, with a scientific background, I would choose a)... but I can see validity to the other choices as well....
   
  [However, to finish the previous thought, I would NOT put it behind pink glass "because I like pink".]


----------



## kLevkoff

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Just joined. This is a fascinating thread. I was having a discussion with a member on another forum concerning the audibility or lack thereof of jitter and cables and the conversation eventually devolved into a "scientific method is a fragmented belief system" argument and how debates rage on in the scientific community concerning all manners of topics.
> 
> This argument was used to bolser the idea that you may believe facts or beliefs without evidence other than your own perception / intuition or even in contradiction with established "fact". I don't agree with this at all.


 

 Incidentally, to borrow from some other responses to a similar question....
   
  I would say that "scientific method" is really a collection of methodologies which has evolved over time into the most accurate and effective way we have of figuring out what's real and how things work. While it may be flawed, it at least attempts to head towards information that is complete, accurate, and correct.... and, as such, it is the best tool we have for doing so.


----------



## Yahzi

kLevkoff, excellently put! I can't possibly hope to reply to all your points but thank you very much for responding. I agree with most of what you said.
   
  Another complaint I'm seeing around these forums is the fact that ABX/DB testing is flawed and the methodology used is questionable. Now I haven't done nearly enough research on this, but despite that, I think that even if there _were_ issues in the testing, the alternative to ABX/DB testing, namely non bias-controlled testing where mood, bias, level differences, acoustic differences, time of day, sighted evaluations which all affect our perception is somehow "better" suited for the task?
   
  Really?


----------



## gnarlsagan

klevkoff said:


> Here's a final interesting "thought experiment" on relativism.....
> 
> Let's assume you liked Rembrandt (I don't) and had just acquired a Rembrandt original - and were deciding how to light it.
> 
> ...




Very appropriate analogy imo. Great read and I agree on all counts. I couldn't believe the number of tube amps I saw at the last meet I attended. Totally unexpected for me. I have read that it's possible to make a tube amp with distortion as low as solid state amps bit I haven't heard much follow up.


----------



## Yahzi

Actually that's another point. These ABX/DB tests.I haven't done proper research, but I would imagine you have to specify who the subjects are, what skills they have .. ie do we leave out people over and above a certain age group because their hearing is crap, and is there any way of quantifying this information? Do the conclusions drawn from the test apply to everybody, to all systems?
   
  Okay, now I'll do some research.


----------



## doublea71

Re: Rembrandt - I'd light it to make it as pleasing as possible to my eyes; it's a painting, not a science project.


----------



## bigshot

I'd sell it buy a nice print of dogs playing poker.


----------



## Meoow

A few days ago, a friend of mine lent me 3 Optical cables and 2 RCA cables in which are used for his speaker systems (he couldn't remember how much exactly was each of those he had bought for). 
  Anyway 1 of the two RCA is under $30 and the other one is high-end (Japanese). The 3 "high-end" Optical (1 USA / 1 German / 1 Japanese) are around the same price range at $250+.
   
_My system:_
_PC -> Cheap Optical ($40) -> Bifrost -> Chord CobraPlus RCA ($110) -> Asgard (Grainy, blurred, congested soundstage but still good enough -> sounded worst than my RSA Mustang)_
   
_Testing:_
_PC -> Cheap Optical ($40) -> Bifrost -> $50 RCA -> Asgard (Sounds thin, flat and very bright even with my HD650 -> Turned the warm-Asgard into a "crappy" Grados...Terrible cable)_
   
_PC -> Cheap Optical ($40) -> Bifrost -> Japanese (Fujiyama) RCA -> Asgard (Fun, warm but very balance, incredible soundstage, transparent-clear-detail-smooth sounding -> Huge improvement over the Chord CobraPlus cable in which brought out the true characteristic of Asgard)_
   
_PC -> Japanese (Fujiyama) Optical -> Bifrost -> Japanese (Fujiyama) RCA -> Asgard <This is the best cable combo for my system and I think any system in my experience> (Another big improvement from above* with sweeter vocal sounding, lustful, extremely balance technically)_
   
_PC -> USA Optical -> Bifrost -> Japanese (Fujiyama) RCA -> Asgard (Pretty much like listening to Audio Technica AD2000 with addictive airy vocal, soundstage is smaller than the Japanese, overall sound is more weighty and focus, doesn't have the transparency and clarity of the Japanese -> Best match for Audio Technica AD2000 owner)_
   
_PC -> German Optical (most expensive out of the 3) -> Bifrost -> Japanese (Fujiyama) RCA -> Asgard (Fun++ than the Japanese, warmer, fuller and more weighty bass, vocal is a bit more foward, overall sound is also more weighty and focus...smaller soundstage and less transparent-clarity than the Japanese -> HD 650's lovers)_
   
  ...So why I wrote this? Because there are people who would say "Cables are all the same doesn't matter the price"...well this is not true in my case here. But this is not what I am trying to prove, the question real is...
   
  1. Why do they sounds different? (those damn Optical cables)
  2. It is true that more expensive cables deliver better quality sound?????...unlike _"cables are all the same"_ statement or _"no one could tell the difference"_ statement.
  3. At what price-range should one spend to get the best performance/price?
   
  I had went through reading products from a lot of well-known brands. I found that most RCA cables that priced $250+ will feature "silver-plated cable and better sealing" and I believe that the 3 RCA
  from my friend featured this. I know nothing about Optical cable since USB is replacing it. This discovery got me a headache of how I should deal with this "problem" for my future systems.
   
  I ended up buying the 2 Japanese Fujiyama Optical and RCA cables from my friend for $300 of which estimate $450 - $510 brand-new price.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





meoow said:


> 1. Why do they sounds different? (those damn Optical cables)
> 2. It is true that more expensive cables deliver better quality sound?????...unlike _"cables are all the same"_ statement or _"no one could tell the difference"_ statement.
> 3. At what price-range should one spend to get the best performance/price?
> 
> I had went through reading products from a lot of well-known brands. I found that most RCA cables that priced $250+ will feature "silver-plated cable and better sealing" and I believe that the 3 RCA from my friend featured this. I know nothing about Optical cable since USB is replacing it. This discovery got me a headache of how I should deal with this "problem" for my future systems.


 
  1. Because the mind is a very powerful thing, and short term memory isn't flawless.
  2. At a certain point, yes. Cheap ones can cause problems.
  3. About $3 for RCA if you get them from the right place. I'm not too familiar with the prices of optical, but seeing as they just transmit data through light I would say the cheapest you can find.


----------



## Meoow

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> 1. Because the mind is a very powerful thing, and short term memory isn't flawless.
> 2. At a certain point, yes. Cheap ones can cause problems.
> 3. About $3 for RCA if you get them from the right place. I'm not too familiar with the prices of optical, but seeing as they just transmit data through light I would say the cheapest you can find.


 
  Even my mum could tell the differences considering she doesn't know which cable is which and most importantly she is not an audio-enthusiast.


----------



## Matrixnobu

I like comparing cables. And I have definately found that with rca cables you get what you pay for. I found that my MIT interconnects (don't remember the model # off the top of my head) that cost me about $300 bucks far surpassed anything else I have tried in the $100 range. Even in the $200 range. More natural sound. Less synthetic is the best way to describe it.
   
  My experience with optical and usb is rather limited though. But with my dac I prefered the usb by far. I tried a few different usb cables and really could not tell a difference in the sound. But I did notice that with cheaper usb cables I had small dropouts in the signal.


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





meoow said:


> Even my mum could tell the differences considering she doesn't know which cable is which and most importantly she is not an audio-enthusiast.


 

 Try this video


----------



## goodvibes

We're about to hit 100 pages of yes you can and no you can't. Why is it so important to 'prove' anything? Measurements don't prove what you can hear. They are a tool derived from listening to help in design. Cart before the horse if you use it as proof as they are not all encompassing.
   
  Try for yourself on something that is good enough to matter (Generally not computers or portable) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 and judge for yourself. If you don't hear it or care, great! If you do, also great but no one should tell another what he or she can perceive.
   
  I'm of the (repeatable
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) opinion that much of this is quite audible but I really don't care if it's important to anyone else. I do care that folks are told to close their minds due to a few zealots that think they know everything.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> We're about to hit 100 pages of yes you can and no you can't. Why is it so important to 'prove' anything? Measurements don't prove what you can hear. They are a tool derived from listening to help in design. Cart before the horse if you use it as proof as they are not all encompassing.
> 
> Try for yourself on something that is good enough to matter (Generally not computers or portable)
> 
> ...


 
   
  I don't think anyone is really arguing that others can't hear the difference. Just that the difference doesn't exist. And measurements and blind testing are really the only ways to accurately test that.
   
  The perception of sound is very easily distorted, which is why I fully believe that people who say they hear a difference in optical cables etc are telling the truth. The only thing I doubt is that if that difference is really there, which is where things like blind testing come into play.

 You're not crazy if you notice a difference that has been proven to not be there, it's totally normal in fact. Like I said before the mind is a powerful thing.


----------



## Meoow

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> I don't think anyone is really arguing that others can't hear the difference. Just that the difference doesn't exist. And measurements and blind testing are really the only ways to accurately test that.
> 
> The perception of sound is very easily distorted, which is why I fully believe that people who say they hear a difference in optical cables etc are telling the truth. The only thing I doubt is that if that difference is really there, which is where things like blind testing come into play.
> 
> You're not crazy if you notice a difference that has been proven to not be there, it's totally normal in fact. Like I said before the mind is a powerful thing.


 
   
  Hmmm...I think it all come down to our "wallet" because of at what limit should you spend for a cable that really give you that 99% accurate performance and not paying x2 or 3x that amount for an extra 0.1%. "This" concern me the most...


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> We're about to hit 100 pages of yes you can and no you can't. Why is it so important to 'prove' anything?


 
  Because we don't wanna be ignorant phools.
   
  Quote: 





> Measurements don't prove what you can hear. They are a tool derived from listening to help in design. Cart before the horse if you use it as proof as they are not all encompassing.


 
  Measurements add much needed objectivity to audio. Also, if you know you cannot reliably tell a 0.1 dB deviation from flat then we can say with a very high probability that you won't be able to tell a 0.001 dB deviation from flat (for example a cable).
   
  There's data from listening tests for many other things, such as audibility harmonic distortion, phase shift/group delay etc.
   
  If you look for measurements that are all encompassing: null difference tests. Google the Carver challenge.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Try for yourself on something that is good enough to matter (Generally not computers or portable)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  What I find much more objectionable is people making bold claims without anything to back it up other than anecdotes. If nobody questions those claims they get accepted and repeated in certain circles.
  I've seen people laugh at audiophiles because of such claims, some of which honestly are ridiculous.
   
   
  Quote: 





> I'm of the (repeatable
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  What does an opinion prove? What has an opinion to do with evidence, facts and truth?
   
  Regarding being open/closed-minded, open-minded means being willing to consider new ideas (NOT unconditionally!) which science promotes and thrives on.
  Closed-mindedness on the other hand is defined as:
  - misinterpreting evidence ("measurements don't prove what you can hear")
  - making invalid causal connections ("therefore measurements are useless" or "I cannot explain it, therefore it's magic"))
  - eliminate alternative explanations prematurely (for example placebo, the mind playing tricks on myself, bias etc.).
   
  Btw, there's a nice video about this on youtube. Let me quote this line:
  Quote: 





> Rehearsing your own prejudices such as "You think you know it all" or "You're closed-minded" is the definition of being TRULY closed-minded.


 
  Ohh, the irony.


----------



## supra1988t

Funny how everyone hears things that aren't there. I heard huge differences between two DACs that magically disappeared once I did a blind test. Not only could I not tell them apart , I couldn't tell when the actual switch between them was made in real time. Anyone who doesn't even consider placebo is doing themselves a huge injustice.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *goodvibes* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> Try for yourself on something that is good enough to matter (Generally not computers or portable)
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I'm going to mention something I haven't pointed to here in the past. On several occasions, I've been challenged by people who claim they can hear the unhearable and I've talked about the comparison tests I did to determine one way or the other for myself. These argumentative souls then proceed to tell me they've done tests too and describe how they did it and what they heard. Then I go into a little more detail about how I set up controls, and they say they set up the same controls. This goes back and forth a few times and eventually they fall into a description of the methods they used to compare that _contradicts the method they described earlier._
   
   
  I've been polite enough not to point these things out publicly. But it's happened several times. The problem is, the people who claim to be able to hear the differences that are quite clearly inaudible are the ones who don't bother to do any sort of controlled comparison like that to find out whether they can actually perceive. They're invested in the results so much, they can't be bothered to go to the trouble to find out if they are right or wrong. And they are often so invested in their argument that they make up little "white lies" to prove their point. I guess it's the internet...


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> They're invested in the results so much, they can't be bothered to go to the trouble to find out if they are right or wrong. And they are often so invested in their argument that they make up little "white lies" to prove their point. I guess it's the internet...


 
  or (trying to avoid) cognitive dissonance


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





xnor said:


> or (trying to avoid) cognitive dissonance


 
   
  Cognitive dissonance:
   




   




   
  se


----------



## goodvibes

I understand the crusade against snake oil. Plenty of it but there's also enough good things about with repeatable results. You don't need to believe it. No one has ever been convinced on a message board, LOL. I'm all for measurements in good engineering but there's more to it. Seems like most only get one half of the picture or the other and hunker down. I'll just go on my merry and better sounding 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 way. Bye.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> No one has ever been convinced on a message board, LOL. I'm all for measurements in good engineering but there's more to it. Seems like most only get one half of the picture or the other and hunker down. I'll just go on my merry and better sounding
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Again, that's a _closed-minded_ attitude. Maybe you didn't read my reply to your previous post? If you did then this is irony^2.
   
   
  I've learned and been convinced of many things on different forums including sound science on head-fi and I'm happy to change my beliefs (again, not unconditionally).


----------



## bigshot

I've learned a lot from message boards. (Heard a lot of hooey too!)


----------



## chewy4

Yeah I've learned plenty from message boards too. I don't go to them just to spout out my own thoughts and opinions, I like to listen to other people too.
   
  Too many people are to concerned about winning arguments (or in the case of head-fi justifying their purchases) that they miss out on learning opportunities.


----------



## bigshot

Ain't that the truth! But most folks don't want to hear the advice to NOT spend a lot of money. They want the upsell.


----------



## goodvibes

Learning is not the same as convincing some one out of a bias. Perhaps I should have said no one that doesn't want to change their mind will be convinced on a message board but it should have been understood. Equating that to learning is exactly the sort of message board twist of meaning I get so tried of. Live long and prosper.


----------



## goodvibes

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> I don't think anyone is really arguing that others can't hear the difference. Just that the difference doesn't exist. And measurements and blind testing are really the only ways to accurately test that.
> 
> The perception of sound is very easily distorted, which is why I fully believe that people who say they hear a difference in optical cables etc are telling the truth. The only thing I doubt is that if that difference is really there, which is where things like blind testing come into play.
> 
> You're not crazy if you notice a difference that has been proven to not be there, it's totally normal in fact. Like I said before the mind is a powerful thing.


 
  You can't prove a difference doesn't exsist. That's the very point. It may or may not but measurements are not proof.


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> Try this video


 
   
  I nominate this video as required viewing before sign up.


----------



## goodvibes

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Again, that's a _closed-minded_ attitude. Maybe you didn't read my reply to your previous post? If you did then this is irony^2.
> 
> 
> I've learned and been convinced of many things on different forums including sound science on head-fi and I'm happy to change my beliefs (again, not unconditionally).


 
  I don't care what you do or don't hear but I will not ignore what I do.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> You can't prove a difference doesn't exsist. That's the very point. It may or may not but measurements are not proof.


 
  With the right kind of measurements and/or proper blind testing, you pretty much can. Sound is not magic.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> You can't prove a difference doesn't exsist. That's the very point. It may or may not but measurements are not proof.


 
   
  That's a logical fallacy. You can't prove a negative.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> Perhaps I should have said no one that doesn't want to change their mind will be convinced on a message board


 
   
  I've changed my mind based on what I've learned in message boards. Haven't you?
   
  But of course, I don't mind changing my mind if I find a better source of information... How about you?


----------



## arande2

Basically expanding on goodvibes, think back to the periods before this one. EM radiation, what lies beyond the earth, the notion that the earth is round, mathematics: these were all discovered/developed by those before us and have been passed down through education. That reminds me there are always things left unknown or imperceptible. However, I take the side that the differences of what we DO measure are insignificant enough to be outside of our dynamic perception's ability to resolve the difference. Mind trickery, as others say. Science lives on!


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> That's a logical fallacy. You can't prove a negative.


 
  Right, this is correct. 
   
  I should have said that you can pretty much tell that an audible difference isn't detectable by the human ear through proper testing, not that you can prove one doesn't exist in any way. Which is all that really matters unless you're doing something weird with your headphones instead of listening to them. Or maybe if you're a dog or something.
   
  There may very well be several unknowns that create a difference, but that doesn't really matter if the difference isn't perceivable.


----------



## goodvibes

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You can't prove a negative.


 
  Isn't that what I just said? You guys just can't get your heads around that to the point of arguing against yourselves to try and make your case.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> Isn't that what I just said? You guys just can't get your heads around that to the point of arguing against yourselves to try and make your case.


 
  Yes. He was pointing out that it was a logical fallacy to use the fact that you can't prove something as proof of something.
   
  It's the logical equivalent of telling people they shouldn't discredit those who believe in unicorns, Santa Clause, etc due to the lack of absolute evidence against them.


----------



## goodvibes

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Yes. He was pointing out that it was a logical fallacy to use the fact that you can't prove something as proof of something.
> 
> It's the logical equivalent of telling people they shouldn't discredit those who believe in unicorns, Santa Clause, etc due to the lack of absolute evidence against them.


 
  I never argued that lack of proof proved anything. Are you guys professional debaters to twist everything so easily. I'm not asking for proof or trying to prove anything. You are. I'm happy! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




and you guys just aren't satisified with that.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> OK, but I'm not asking for proof. You are. I'm happy!


 
  Ignorance is bliss, right?


----------



## goodvibes

You tell me. I do sound for a living. I've passed double blinds given by 3rd parties on systems of my choosing but I'm sure that could be spun as well. I could do the same for you and I bet you'd hear it under correct conditions but so what? If I can't argue it correct, it can't be true because I should be able to change your minds on a message board. LOL  I gave a soft personal opinion and only say to keep an open mind and get jumped by zealots. 
   
  And I'm out for good. I respond to a post about measurements and get everything spun back at me with words put into my mouth and insults. Guys, wherever you go, there you are.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> You tell me. I do sound for a living. I've passed double blinds given by 3rd parties on systems of my choosing but I'm sure that could be spun as well.
> 
> And I'm out for good. I respond to a post about measurements and get everything spun back with at me with words put into my mouth and insults. Guys, wherever you go, there you are.


 
  Says the one who calls others closed-minded, zealots and know it alls. Goodbye, will miss the irony!


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> I never argued that lack of proof proved anything. Are you guys professional debaters to twist everything so easily. I'm not asking for proof or trying to prove anything. You are. I'm happy!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Exactly what are you trying to do?
   
  Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> You tell me. I do sound for a living. I've passed double blinds given by 3rd parties on systems of my choosing but I'm sure that could be spun as well.
> 
> And I'm out for good. I respond to a post about measurements and get everything spun back with at me with words put into my mouth and insults. Guys, wherever you go, there you are.


 
  And Sound Science would be glad to hear the results and details of those studies, as that is what this forum is about.
   
  This particular subforum is not about taking people's word that they hear differences in equipment. There are other places for that. It's about finding evidence that supports or denies the existence of those differences, and discussing the science behind why or why not differences in equipment exist.

 And part of the science behind why people hear these differences is a psychological aspect, so sorry if you're offended by that.


----------



## goodvibes

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Says the one who calls others closed-minded, zealots and know it alls. Goodbye, will miss the irony!


 
  One more response. I use measurements almost daily. I know their value and if you're going to call me ignorant for having a different opinion than yours, I would think it safe to assume that you're zealous. Saying to keep a more open mind is not calling you a close minded know it all unless you've got rabbit ears. How else to say that I feel the scope if greater than just measurement? You can't take every point of disagreement as an insult while throwing actual ones about off hand and not expect a response.
   
  I do blind compare all the time when comparing lossless encoders, cables, A2Ds etc. because I'm not a true subjectivist. I need repeatability. I know my way around a circuit board as well. I don't understand why more aren't more aware of differences and wont take the path of speculation on a message board. I just wanted to point out that I have a different view so that newbies have another perspective than simply the one that gets pounded whenever this discussion crops up.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> That's a logical fallacy. You can't prove a negative.


 
  If I have the right key then I can unlock the door.
  If P then Q. 
  I can't unlock the door, therefore I don't have the right key.
  Not Q then Not P.
   
  *Edit. Ha, I haven't proven a negative here have I!
   
  On further reflection I can see a bit of my issue here...
  "You can't prove a negative" looks like it's a self-refuting statement.
   
  Did I read the post wrong? Did it mean that "you can't prove a negative" itself is a fallacy?


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> One more response. I use measurements almost daily. I know their value and if you're going to call me ignorant for having a different opinion than yours, I would think it safe to assume that you're zealous. Saying to keep a more open mind is not calling you a close minded know it all unless you've got rabbit ears. How else to say that I feel the scope if greater than just measurement? You can't take every point of disagreement as an insult while throwing actual ones about off hand and not expect a response.
> 
> I do blind compare all the time when comparing lossless encoders, cables, A2Ds etc. because I'm not a true subjectivist. I need repeatability. I know my way around a circuit board as well. I don't understand why more aren't more aware of differences and wont take the path of speculation on a message board. I just wanted to point out that I have a different view so that newbies have another perspective than simply the one that gets pounded whenever this discussion crops up.


 
   
  Could you please share the results and details of these studies? Seeing as they would contradict all the other studies, you would be providing a very interesting perspective on this issue given you performed these tests correctly.
   
  Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> If I have the right key then I can unlock the door.
> If P then Q.
> I can't unlock the door, therefore I don't have the right key.
> Not Q then Not P.


 
   
  There are problems with this.

 Have you tried absolutely all possible methods of unlocking this door? There are an infinite number of possibilities. Telepathic communication, certain patterns of knocking that trigger internal mechanisms, re-assembling a key broken up into microscopic particles contained within your body etc... There are too many variables, the proof that you don't have the right key is not concrete. What is really proven here is that there is a lack of proof that you have the right key, not that there is zero chance of you having the right key.
   
   
  And a more accurate analogy would be trying to prove that the right key doesn't exist.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *goodvibes* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I know their value and if you're going to call me ignorant for having a different opinion than yours, I would think it safe to assume that you're zealous.


 
  I don't need to re-quote what you wrote, do I? I don't/didn't call you that for having a different opinion.
   
  Quote: 





> Saying to keep a more open mind is not calling you a close minded know it all unless you've got rabbit ears.


 
  See #1475.
   
  Quote: 





> How else to say that I feel the scope if greater than just measurement? You can't take every point of disagreement as an insult while throwing actual ones about off hand and not expect a response.


 
  Why are you so fixated on measurements? Have you seen the first page? There's a lot of listening tests.
   
  And did you look up null difference testing and the Carver challenge as suggested two pages back?
   
  Quote: 





> I do blind compare all the time when comparing lossless encoders, [...]


 
  Good luck with that. :S
   
  Quote: 





> I don't understand why more aren't more aware of differences and wont take the path of speculation on a message board.


 
  Probably because many of those differences are of imaginary nature? That's why we do listening tests in the first place, to separate the real from biased, imagined stuff.


----------



## bigshot

goodvibes said:


> Isn't that what I just said? You guys just can't get your heads around that to the point of arguing against yourselves to try and make your case.




Try wrapping your head around this statement....

I believe in leprechauns! Many people have reported seeing them and there has never been a scientific study that proves they don't exist.


----------



## bigshot

goodvibes said:


> I've passed double blinds given by 3rd parties on systems of my choosing




Wonderful! Now we're talking actual proof! Just fill us in on the test, who conducted it and where we can find the published results and we'll all be agreeing about your ability to hear these things instead of arguing!

You really did participate in controlled tests conducted by third parties, right?

Thanks in advance for the details!


----------



## bigshot

goodvibes said:


> One more response. I use measurements almost daily




You mentioned that you are a professional in the sound business. What do you do, if I may ask? I'd be happy to tell you about what I do.


----------



## bigshot

jadeeast said:


> I can't unlock the door, therefore I don't have the right key.




There's no negative there. The right key still may or may not exist.

This door needs a key to open. None of my keys open it. It's impossible to open this door.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> On further reflection I can see a bit of my issue here...
> "You can't prove a negative" looks like it's a self-refuting statement.


 
  It certainly looks like it. I've tried to find a way to rephrase it in a way to show that it's not actually trying to prove a negative, but I have only succeeded in confusing myself. Maybe someone can help me out here, as this is text book stuff so there probably is an explanation why it isn't self-refuting.


----------



## doublea71

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> It certainly looks like it. I've tried to find a way to rephrase it in a way to show that it's not actually trying to prove a negative, but I have only succeeded in confusing myself. Maybe someone can help me out here, as this is text book stuff so there probably is an explanation why it isn't self-refuting.


 

 Without evidence to the contrary, you cannot prove that something does not exist (the negative).
   
  A: "I made myself levitate today during meditation."
  B: "Bulls&*%. People don't have that ability."
  A: "You weren't there, so you can't prove that it didn't happen."
  B: "Leave me alone."


----------



## JadeEast

@bigshot. The negative is in the truth value of possessing the key-  not in the existence of the key.


----------



## chewy4

The statement still seems like it is trying to prove the non-existance of something, that something being the existance of proofs of a negative.
   
  I mean I fully believe in the statement, as there don't seem to be any situations that it isn't true in, but I am just confused by semantics right now.
   
  I guess I see it as it is trying to prove that the following type of statement IS true: "You cannot prove the non-existance of x"
  And that this statement is false: " You can prove the non-existance of x"
  
  So given that, "You cannot prove the non existance of anything" falls in line with what it is trying to be prove true.


----------



## bigshot

I think it's not a negative unless you're saying something doesn't exist, but I'll leave it to you philosophers to figure out for me.


----------



## doublea71

If I may quote Bill Clinton, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is..."


----------



## xnor

The people that make the claims/assertions that A sounds different from B are the ones that need to supply the evidence, not the others. Shifting the burden of proof is also a kind of a logical fallacy.


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> It certainly looks like it. I've tried to find a way to rephrase it in a way to show that it's not actually trying to prove a negative, but I have only succeeded in confusing myself. Maybe someone can help me out here, as this is text book stuff so there probably is an explanation why it isn't self-refuting.


 
  As originally stated "you can't prove a negative."
   
  Any positive assertion can be made into a negative, it's how language and logic works.
  I like cheese; I don't like cheese. Unicorns exist; unicorns don't exist. This is true; this is not true. This is false; this is not false. The key exists; the key doesn't exist. 1;0
   
  The assertion "can prove" is made a negative assertion by making it "can't prove." 
  For the statement to be proven true would require that a negative (can't prove) be true. Logically, this is incoherent. If true it falsifies itself.


----------



## bigshot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


----------



## mikeaj

These tests are to determine the existence of some kind of effect (thing, whatever), that it is nonzero.  The manner of proving things is by providing evidence of counterexamples, to prove that something is false.  You assume that the effect is zero, and test that idea.  (So why not assume that the effect is 1?  Then why not 0.8?  -2? 1203123? pi?  That's why we assume it's 0.)
   
  Based on any experiment, any data collected, you get some kind of evidence regarding this effect.  From that, you can determine the likelihood of there having been some kind of effect.  If the likelihood is high, then we say we have enough evidence to say that we have proven (to a certain degree of certainty) that the effect is nonzero.  There seems to be some kind of deviation as a result of the effect, even if you don't know with certainty what that might be.  You can do further analysis to quantify the nature of the effect, with some confidence levels, and other properties.  Regardless, the explanation of "sure, there is some difference" is confirmed, with a level of confidence.
   
  If there is not enough evidence to say that (most likely) the effect is nonzero, then that is a weaker result.  That means, within some level of confidence, we think that the result could be 0, it could be nonzero like 0.1, maybe nonzero like -0.2:  anyway, we think the range includes 0.  So we're not sure.  We failed to prove that the effect was nonzero, and that's it.  In other words, we don't have enough evidence to distinguish between the possibility between some nonzero effect (say some weak effect) and no effect.  Also, there can be a number of other explanations for why there is not enough evidence.
   
   
   
  Anyway, if the underlying theory and other results (prior to experimentation) suggests that there is no big difference, and nobody's been able to demonstrate evidence that a difference exists, then that's that.  We wait for evidence to show up to prove that it exists, and in the meantime, we remain skeptical.  There are bigger things to worry about than the possible existence of giant stealth-camouflaged chipmunks flying through the sky that communicate telepathically across space-time to their overlords in Atlantis.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> There are bigger things to worry about than the possible existence of giant stealth-camouflaged chipmunks flying through the sky that communicate telepathically across space-time to their overlords in Atlantis.


 
  You're completely underestimating just how giant these chipmunks are.
   
  Nice explanation though.
   
  JadeEast, while you bring up an interesting point, I think you might be getting too wrapped up in the semantics and might be misinterpreting them. What you're arguing against is a well established thing, and there are very likely already responses to what you have said. I personally don't have any more than what I've already said but I'm gonna look some stuff up later since you've got me thinking.
   
  EDIT: Well, as far as I can tell you are correct JadeEast. The statement appears to be a bit of a paradox. I was under the impression it was the basis of the burden of proof but I don't think it actually is as well established of a statement than I thought it was.


----------



## JadeEast

@ chewy, I wonder if my original example would have been seen differently if I had used the same logical structure but used a different example.
(yes, this is a gross simplification of the issue) 
   
*If P then Q*.     If (cables make an audible difference) then (blind listening tests will show a statistical difference) 
*Not Q*.            Blind listening tests don't show a statistical difference
*Thus Not P*.    So cables don't make an audible difference
   
  As far as  "_you can't prove a negative_" goes, even if it is meant to refer to the non-esitence of something, I find it hard to believe that there would be any arguments against my saying "no live elephants currently exist in my refrigerator."


----------



## chewy4

Still some problems regard absolutes though. There is an extremely unprobable chance that the people doing the blind tests were too hasty, didn't take them seriously etc... and that the elephants are invisible, there are miniature black holes that are absorbing the light reflecting off of the elephants making them impossible to see etc...
   
  To support your case, a good example would be:
 In order to be a bachelor by definition, one cannot be married. Therefor, married bachelors do not exist.


----------



## liamstrain

Can we assume that all statements made here include the usual disclaimer of, "within the bounds of scientific uncertainty."
   
  You are, obviously, correct. But I don't think we really need to spell out that the likelyhood of either elephants having adapted to invisibility (and size constraints) or miniature black holes, is so extraordinarily small, that, in the absence of any evidence to the support them, they do not merit specific mention. 
   
  Honestly - it feels like any moment this thread is going to head towards the metaphysical. Bertrand Russel's cosmic teapot is a nice answer for this entire issue. Lets stick to science where we can. I don't need to prove a negative, if the assertion has no positive support, the default answer in the absence of evidence, is the null hypothesis, or at best a "all the evidence we have to date suggests X". The end.


----------



## mikeaj

You can logically prove negatives, go through all the steps of ifs and thens.  That's not relevant to the original topic.
   
   
  There are a few issues here, when we're talking about experimental results:

 There could be issues with the way the experiment is run resulting in bad data (e.g. results skewed from some variable not controlled properly)
 The design of the experiment is not sufficiently good—not the right participants, not high enough sample size, test not sensitive enough, not testing for particularly the right thing
 Even assuming there are no problems with the results, the issue of rejecting the null vs. concluding the null is true (properly, the null is rejected, but it may not be true)
   
  With an experiment, you can't prove that the null (hypothesis: no difference) is true.  See my last post.
   
  However, with some null results, assuming #1-2 are covered, you can establish that the likelihood that there is a big difference, is small (even smaller).  It's useful to make a comparison with the kinds of effects that have been demonstrated to be audible, to get a perspective on things.  If some effects are so small that nobody can seem to prove that they are audible, are they worth pursuing?  That's a value judgement.
   
  I agree about the cosmic teapot.  That's really what's at stake, though many assertions are of course a little less ridiculous.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Can we assume that all statements made here include the usual disclaimer of, "within the bounds of scientific uncertainty."
> 
> You are, obviously, correct. But I don't think we really need to spell out that the likelyhood of either elephants having adapted to invisibility (and size constraints) or miniature black holes, is so extraordinarily small, that, in the absence of any evidence to the support them, they do not merit specific mention.
> 
> Honestly - it feels like any moment this thread is going to head towards the metaphysical. Bertrand Russel's cosmic teapot is a nice answer for this entire issue. Lets stick to science where we can.* I don't need to prove a negative, if the assertion has no positive support, the default answer in the absence of evidence, is the null hypothesis, or at best a "all the evidence we have to date suggests X".* The end.


 
   
  Yeah, always a good idea to make that assumption. I do of course agree with the argument in that case(assuming tests were performed with proper scientific standards). Just stating that when making statements about absolutes, you have to consider absolutely everything. But this discussion of logic has gotten a little far off topic at this point 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  But yes the bolded point was the general idea of the statement that spawned all this.


----------



## bigshot

Now that we have that solved, what is the meaning of life?


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Now that we have that solved, what is the meaning of life?


 
  To give life meaning. Next.


----------



## chewy4

Probably some hogwash about the human spirit.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Now that we have that solved, what is the meaning of life?


 
   
  Define life. 
   
  Then define meaning. 
   
  I'll come back later.


----------



## bigshot

Life is what you get if you commit a horrible crime.


----------



## doublea71

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Probably some hogwash about the human spirit.


 

 hahaha you guys crack me up. but seriously, since we are so susceptible to placebo, does anybody feel any envy towards those who do experience some sort of psycho-acoustic effect when switching cables, etc? sure, their minds are playing tricks on them, but doesn't it sound more....fun? i do have hazy recollections of such effects when i was a long-haired Jerry-loving youth and psilocybins were in vogue...


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





doublea71 said:


> hahaha you guys crack me up. but seriously, since we are so susceptible to placebo, does anybody feel any envy towards those who do experience some sort of psycho-acoustic effect when switching cables, etc? sure, their minds are playing tricks on them, but doesn't it sound more....fun? i do have hazy recollections of such effects when i was a long-haired Jerry-loving youth and psilocybins were in vogue...


 

 I don't envy those who pay for placebo. When it comes to placebo, I find .flac to be a very good source of it for me. Even though I know I failed a DBT, I still use it because I "feel" an improvement in SQ when I'm using it. Using .flac, unlike silver cables, doesn't cost me any money.

 :shrugs:


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





doublea71 said:


> hahaha you guys crack me up. but seriously, since we are so susceptible to placebo, does anybody feel any envy towards those who do experience some sort of psycho-acoustic effect when switching cables, etc? sure, their minds are playing tricks on them, but doesn't it sound more....fun? i do have hazy recollections of such effects when i was a long-haired Jerry-loving youth and psilocybins were in vogue...


 
   
  Not knowing is sometimes more fun. Agreed. Until things are working alright. Knowing whats real and whats not has its own merits, though, especially when you have to pay for all that.
   
  But not everyone is alike.


----------



## bigshot

doublea71 said:


> does anybody feel any envy towards those who do experience some sort of psycho-acoustic effect when switching cables, etc?




I've got a kick ass stereo that's objectively great. Why should I envy self delusion?


----------



## bigshot

parall3l said:


> When it comes to placebo, I find .flac to be a very good source of it for me. Even though I know I failed a DBT, I still use it because I "feel" an improvement in SQ when I'm using it. Using .flac, unlike silver cables, doesn't cost me any money




That depends on how much music you have. Using AAC 256 VBR my whole iTunes library fits on a single 2 TB hard drive. With flac, I'd need several drives and I'd have to split stuff across multiple drives.


----------



## autumnholy

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> I don't envy those who pay for placebo. When it comes to placebo, I find .flac to be a very good source of it for me. Even though I know I failed a DBT, I still use it because I "feel" an improvement in SQ when I'm using it. Using .flac, unlike silver cables, doesn't cost me any money.
> 
> :shrugs:


 
   
  Yep. FLAC all the way. No compromise. Unless I am really short of storage. Which is rare.


----------



## Meoow

If "psycho-acoustic effects" is playing in my head then why there are times that I "do" hear the differences and there are times that I "don't"?
  like for eg. There was one time I was testing the differences between 2 "normal" optical and usb, I tried really hard but I didn't hear any differences between the two.
   
  But there is one thing that I know for sure is that my amp&dac sound exactly how they should sound now with the right cables.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





doublea71 said:


> hahaha you guys crack me up. but seriously, since we are so susceptible to placebo, does anybody feel any envy towards those who do experience some sort of psycho-acoustic effect when switching cables, etc? sure, their minds are playing tricks on them, but doesn't it sound more....fun? i do have hazy recollections of such effects when i was a long-haired Jerry-loving youth and psilocybins were in vogue...


 
  The psilocybins are still gonna have a much better effect on sound quality.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   



meoow said:


> If "psycho-acoustic effects" is playing in my head then why there are times that I "do" hear the differences and there are times that I "don't"?
> like for eg. There was one time I was testing the differences between 2 "normal" optical and usb, I tried really hard but I didn't hear any differences between the two.
> 
> But there is one thing that I know for sure is that my amp&dac sound exactly how they should sound now with the right cables.


 

   
  Because the high-end cables cost more, so in your mind they _have_ to sound better.
   
  Try having someone else switch the cables for you. Tell them to not even switch them some of the time. 
   
  If they can do that over 20 times with you guessing correctly each time which cable was being used, you'll know that the difference isn't just psychological.


----------



## goodvibes

I'll give one example since it was specifically scoffed at by a very uncivil poster. We converted some files from ..I had written a long explanation here of the process, files and how the comparisons were done independently but you know, I deleted it. It would just escalate some of the poor form.
   
  I didn't make these claims because I want things to be different. I assume many things identical before hearing something wasn't quite. Whether it's significant enough to worry about for most folks on most systems, with most recordings, I can't say but it's important to me, regardless of how sure some of you are that it can't be different.
   
  This is not something I can prove or even argue without just sitting next to someone for a listen. Something that I am always up for even if it doesn't work out, We can always just listen to some nice tunes. I'm not some newbi. I've corrected flaws in gear. One manufacturer called me crazy only to apologize a week later and made the change. This sort of thing has happened with listening as the discovery method and a bit of electrical knowledge to find it. It's why I get so put off by claims that folks shouldn't trust their ears. Yes, there is placebo and snake oil, lots of it actually but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Ignorance is a lack of experience with something. I have 35 years of it on an almost daily basis. Unless you have more, you probably shouldn't call me ignorant. Perhaps not even then. 
   
  I won't get further in because this is always a circular discussion even when parties aren't trying to belittle the process as some have here. This post will be responded to with disbelief, credibility challenges and claims of insult to turn an argument. It's why I said I can't prove anything here and wont try. I just don't believe in the absolutes of measurement and find most comparisons have flaws on both side of the issue. I like handing somebody 3 of what should be the same files with labels like a-b-c and let them rank in any fashion they want to compare without any outside influence. They can listen to what meets their needs. It's not a 3rd party puposely trying to confuse them. You'd be surprised at how repeatable it is. It becomes a more human way of comparison and still without any predisposition. They are also not as influenced by performance pressure when on their own.
   
  Chewy. I know Mike Moffit. He really knows how to voice something. I see you own some of his stuff. If you're in Chicago some time, perhaps we can do some listening.
   
  As long as you all enjoy your own stuff, it's all good by me.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *goodvibes* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> It's why I get so put off by claims that folks shouldn't trust their ears.


 
  What? You still don't seem to have checked out the first page which contains _*LISTENING TESTS*_. These require participants to trust their ears (only).


----------



## goodvibes

You're not invited.


----------



## doublea71

I think many things affect our hearing, probably more than we're aware of.


----------



## bigshot

goodvibes said:


> I'll give one example since it was specifically scoffed at by a very uncivil poster. We converted some files from ..I had written a long explanation here of the process, files and how the comparisons were done independently but you know, I deleted it. It would just escalate some of the poor form.




Ha! Nice!

Are you the fella who bumped down the high bitrate songs using the wrong dither, then blamed the artifacting on redbook sound in general?


----------



## goodvibes

You are unbelievable and I wasn't referring to dither or you in that quote. If you mean when I said that I can notice the difference in various VST applicable dither algorithms used for the same correct function, than you've asked in a very antagonistic and assumptive way. I always use correct dither when doing bit rate sample conversions or level changes and am careful about which. Check the market, there's plenty of custom dithers out there which I'm sure you feel are all a waste of time. They are there because many feel that they help.
   
   That came up in a different scenario where I asked you if you used dither in a conversion and you correctly replied in the affirmative The rest was just an observation on dither in general that you've now spun out of control. You know, I must have used the _wrong _dither to hear a difference or their couldn't be one.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Please stop with the silly attacks. I'm happy to leave this inquisition if not addressed and I'll be sure to stay away in the future. I'm sure you won't miss me.


----------



## xnor

O_o, he just asked a question, didn't he?
   
   
  On dither: it's basically just noise. I guess you're talking about noise shaping algorithms. But unless you can hear the unshaped noise, shaping the noise won't improve anything at all. In fact, some noise shaping algorithms push the noise so aggressively into high frequency bands that it becomes audible (I successfully ABX'd that). That is pretty shocking, yet some "engineers" boast with these advanced (and often expensive) algorithms.


----------



## goodvibes

He did not _just_ as a question. He asked if I was _still_ doing blow? LOL
  Dither is a different thing than noise shaping. It for better low level linearity and bit tracking. Diferent discussion not for this thread but interesting. There have been all analog hearing studies where people could better distinguish quiet sounds with a bit of low level noise in the background.


----------



## xnor

Well I leave it to bigshot, but I define a single sentence ending with a question mark as question.
   
  I think the dither/noise shaping discussion does fit perfectly into this thread. After all it's a claim that dither X or noise shaping algorithm Y is better, sounds better etc.
  There's no question that dither reduces distortion of low level signals but I've never heard of "bit tracking".


----------



## liamstrain

I missed the exchange, and I'm not going to seek it out. I haven't picked up on much pointed animosity here though. 
   
  Goodvibes - we're both in town, would be good to grab a beer and talk audio some time.


----------



## goodvibes




----------



## bigshot

Wow! 

There was a guy around here a couple of weeks ago that said he could clearly hear the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit bouncedowns out of ProTools. It turned out he was probably defaulting to a dither that did't work right for his purposes. I was just asking if that was you. No insult intended. I don't understand your response.


----------



## Parall3l

Why don't we just perform one of those "null tests" with cables? That should measure all the sounds, including those that are inaudible.


----------



## goodvibes

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Wow!
> There was a guy around here a couple of weeks ago that said he could clearly hear the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit bouncedowns out of ProTools. It turned out he was probably defaulting to a dither that did't work right for his purposes. I was just asking if that was you. No insult intended. I don't understand your response.


 
  Amazing coincidence and I'm not doubting you and will take that at face value. I think that the only other exchange we've had included dither so I was mistaken and caught out. No that wasn't me. I do apologize.


----------



## Rawdawg3234

dayofthegreek said:


> For some audiophiles, it actually has nothing to do with the "love of sound" and "trusting your ears." It has more to do with having the most expensive system, knowing the least about it, and making outrageous claims about how they have been in the hobby for a long time and they know what sounds best.
> 
> 
> I guess everyone needs to feel important and have a midlife crisis (never ending for some) in their own way.



+1
I must admit that I've been learning as I go in this crazy audiophile world and sometimes I feel like I don't have enough experience to truly argue any one point or another. However, about how much time does one have to "be in the hobby" before they can have an opinion? I know what I like and I know what I don't like, which changes occasionally, so why wouldn't me or anyone else be able to express their opinion? 
I


----------



## Clarkmc2

rawdawg3234 said:


> +1
> I must admit that I've been learning as I go in this crazy audiophile world and sometimes I feel like I don't have enough experience to truly argue any one point or another. However, about how much time does one have to "be in the hobby" before they can have an opinion? I know what I like and I know what I don't like, which changes occasionally, so why wouldn't me or anyone else be able to express their opinion?
> I



It is not so much about experience here in the Sound Science forum. Some of us like to think that backing up our impressions with evidence more scientific than opinions is the ticket here. The High End forum is wide open and opinions and listening impressions are the coin of the realm there. Folks there seek out the impressions of others to help them make decisions.

The link Bigshot posted to Wikipedia's article on Argument From Ignorance will go a long way towards explaining what is going on here, and how the other forums are so different in that respect because they ignore the concepts in the article. Here some of us like to see proof that what was heard was real, and audible, because we want to base our decisions on more than individual hearing and preferences.

We are not stuck up about it. Once we have a neutral system we don't mind tailoring it to sound more pleasing to us (or liking it just the way it is), but we recognize that not starting with accurate reproduction makes it nearly impossible to get to where we want to be. None of this matters if you are talking about having lots of gear as a hobby, but it matters completely as far as listening to music exactly the way you want it to sound.

Personally, I agree with Bigshot that most listeners have never heard a balanced, neutral music reproduction system. I also consider seeking synergy by combining distorting gear with dis-similarly distorting gear a great way to accumulate lots of equipment but the approach least likely of all to end up with great sound.

In a nutshell, a single individual's hearing is so variable depending on mood, environment, expectations, context, over time, everything really, that it is a moving target and not a benchmark. A quest, having great sound reproduction for instance, without a benchmark is random wandering.


----------



## bigshot

rawdawg3234 said:


> I must admit that I've been learning as I go in this crazy audiophile world and sometimes I feel like I don't have enough experience to truly argue any one point or another. However, about how much time does one have to "be in the hobby" before they can have an opinion? I know what I like and I know what I don't like, which changes occasionally, so why wouldn't me or anyone else be able to express their opinion?
> I




The whole pont of opinions is to run them up the flagpole and see how they fly. If you're wrong about something, that's an opportunity to learn and modify your opinion to fit your new knowledge. That's a lifelong process.


----------



## doublea71

In a nutshell, a single individual's hearing is so variable depending on mood, environment, expectations, context, over time, everything really, that it is a moving target and not a benchmark. A quest, having great sound reproduction for instance, without a benchmark is random wandering.
 Edited by Clarkmc2 - Yesterday at 11:46 am
   
  +1


----------



## autumnholy

Any truth to this? I think this guy here mentioned a lot of scientific theory, wonder if it's true:
http://en.goldenears.net/1301
   
  Thank God we got the Internet, I have a great time verifying each other's arguments.


----------



## goodvibes

Quote: 





autumnholy said:


> Any truth to this? I think this guy here mentioned a lot of scientific theory, wonder if it's true:
> http://en.goldenears.net/1301
> 
> Thank God we got the Internet, I have a great time verifying each other's arguments.


 
  Not really. While I'm on the cables are different side of this opinion, I'm fully aware that his explanation doesn't hold water. The amount of capacitance, inductance etc needed in modern low impedance circuits to measure anything significant in the audio band is generally not there. Impedance issues and reflections may be but artifacts are generally minor enough in amplitude to be discarded by what we're told is perceivable.
  .
  He's not doing himself any favors with his technical explanation. It's a rationalization for why he hears a repeatable difference. He's a techie confronted with something he didn't expect and needs that understanding. It's that need for understanding even if it may still be beyond us that drives this never ending discussion. Even if his overall points about electrical characteristics are correct, they are not applicable to his model.
   
  And that cable in the pic is a load of crap. The problem is that even if you are on the side that differences exist, manufacturers, more often than not, are using black magic and pseudoscience as marketing for nonsense as many here do. Their technobabble marketing would lead me believe that it's all nonsense but we can't let that bias observation either. There are still some that do their bit deductively and come up with better things, imo, but it's a slippery slope for consumers. Even *if* different, and this is true for all kit, better may not be universal or be just a band aid. Have all your other ducks in a row before even considering peripherals. Nothing I hate more than costly cables on a cheap kit etc.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> Not really. While I'm on the cables are different side of this opinion, I'm fully aware that his explanation doesn't hold water. The amount of capacitance, inductance etc needed in modern low impedance circuits to measure anything significant in the audio band is generally not there. Impedance issues and reflections may be but artifacts are generally minor enough in amplitude to be discarded by what we're told is perceivable.


 
  And on the page:
  Quote: 





> From the perspective of every single manufacturer - excluding the cable makers - cables have no effect whatsoever on the sound. This is a valid observation since the absolute majority of cables have such small capacitance and inductance that the sound is unaffected;


 
  The cable seemed to be an exception, or his mind just played tricks on him (see below).
   
  Quote: 





> He's not doing himself any favors with his technical explanation. It's a rationalization for why he hears a repeatable difference. He's a techie confronted with something he didn't expect and needs that understanding. It's that need for understanding even if it may still be beyond us that drives this never ending discussion. Even if his overall points about electrical characteristics are correct, they are not applicable to his model.


 
  First of all, we know nothing about the setup of those speakers, cables, amps. Secondly, it seems that this was a sighted test and there's no word mentioning repeatability.
   
  You're also suggesting that what he hears is "beyond us", but if those differences go away in a blind test, which they usually do, that's clearly not the case. It would be the case if you couldn't measure any differences but hear a difference in a sighted and blind listening test, which afaik hasn't happened before.


----------



## goodvibes

I know many manufacturers that are 'cable careful' but it's counterproductive for them to participate in a debate that may bias consumers towards their product. You are happy to quote unprovable claims as long as they agree with your view yet easily dismiss those that don't.
   
  usually is assumptive yet you wouldn't assume repeated testing in something that the techie reviewer didn't expect to be there? OK. I wish I knew everthing and nothing wasn't beyond me.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> I know many manufacturers that are 'cable careful' but it's counterproductive for them to participate in a debate that may bias consumers towards their product.


 
  How is it counterproductive if people don't waste their money on expensive cables from some other manufacturer but on the company's products instead?
   
  Quote: 





> You are happy to quote unprovable claims as long as they agree with your view yet easily dismiss those that don't.


 
  Claims are just claims. Even if thousands of people claim they can hear a difference or were abducted by aliens doesn't make it any more true, so it doesn't matter if a claim agrees (or doesn't) with any of my views or beliefs.
   
  And I don't uncritically accept unprovable claims/assertions, usually I discard them. What unprovable claim did I agree with in my previous post? All I pointed out is that it's just another anecdote...
   
   
  If you want to add something useful to the "cables sound different" myth then please quote/post repeatable tests that show an audible difference between cables. And also post something to support your claim that cable sound is beyond us, or was that an unprovable claim?
   
  Btw, if there is no evidence to support a claim what's the most reasonable thing to do? Search harder? What if there's still no evidence showing up? Simply agree with all the crazy claims ... being gullible? Or just the non-crazy ones, but how do you distinguish between the two?
  Or simply just don't accept it until evidence shows up ... being open-minded.
   
  Quote: 





> usually is assumptive yet you wouldn't assume repeated testing in something that the techie reviewer didn't expect to be there? OK. I wish I knew everthing and nothing wasn't beyond me.


 
  I don't understand what you wrote above.
   
  I would expect reviewers to do comparative tests properly, i.e. if it's about sound quality a (double) blind test, regardless of the reviewers expectations. That's the whole point of doing such a test. Expectations and experiences can change what you hear to a large extent.
   
  So back to the anecdote: a salesman telling you that "this shiny cable improves sound, you just have to give it a listen and you'll hear what I'm talking about" does influence what you'll hear. And then there's all the other variables mentioned above such as amps, speakers and their placement etc.
  All this makes anecdotes one of the weakest forms of evidence.


----------



## goodvibes

Wow.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *xnor* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> So back to the anecdote: a salesman telling you that "this shiny cable improves sound, you just have to give it a listen and you'll hear what I'm talking about" does influence what you'll hear.


 
   
  It really is trivially easy to influence one's subjective perceptions.
   
  To give your anecdote something of a real world example, late last year I had a customer return a cable. He said he preferred a silver cable he was comparing it to. During the course of this, he said he really wished we'd made a silver cable. And that's when the devil on my shoulder whispered in my ear.
   
  So I told him a story. A story about a friend of mine who's in the audio transformer business. About how some years ago he'd bought a bunch of high quality silver magnet wire so he could offer transformers with silver windings in response to customers of his who were saying they wanted silver wound transformers. And how, when they saw the prices, they decided they didn't want silver wound transformers so much after all. And how he's been sitting on a bunch of silver magnet wire ever since.
   
  I told him we'd talked about this over the Thanksgiving holiday and that I had decided to buy some of his silver magnet wire and have it made into litz wire. I dragged this out for about two months, telling him that first it had to go to my wire guys to make litz wire out of it, then it had to go over to France to have the silk serve applied as no one in the US does silk serve anymore.
   
  Finally I told him I'd received the litz wire back from France and that I'd have his silver cable made up and sent out to him the next day.
   
  As expected, when he received the cable and gave it a try, he said it sounded better than the copper cable he'd returned. Of course he wasn't listening to a silver litz cable, he was listening to the same copper cable he'd previously returned. Well, not THE exact same cable he'd returned, but one made identically to that one.
   
  Then I broke the news to him. From our previous discussions I knew he had a good sense of humor so I thought he'd likely take it well. And he did. So well in fact that he immediately turned around and pulled the same stunt on a friend of his. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  So yeah, it is trivially easy to influence one's subjective perceptions. And it's quite reliable. I've done similar things many times over the past 30 years and it's never failed.
   
  se


----------



## xnor

Since it was not the same cable, did he have the old one to compare to the new one? Even if he did I wouldn't be surprised if he still preferred the new one.
   
  Anyway, thanks that was fun to read.
   
  That's basically the same story (SS vs. tube amp with a switch -> people prefer the tube amp, but the switch didn't do anything other than *click* ...) as jj tells in the Audio Myths Workshop video.
  Quote: 





> It is not delusion, it's nothing of the sort, it's the way the brain works.


 
  The brain will use and integrate any information...


----------



## liamstrain

Well, just because the brain operates in that manner, doesn't mean it is not also a delusion. It's just not a deliberate one.


----------



## xnor

To me a delusion is a thought disorder which somebody clings on to despite all contradictions with reality. When you tell people it is the same cable, amp etc. the differences they heard usually go away. If they don't then we can say it's a delusion. Otherwise it's just the way the brain works.
   
  It's the same with tuning an EQ filter only to find out later that the EQ/filter was bypassed. Once you know it was bypassed and listen again you understand that what you heard was imagined. I guess not everyone has made that experience yet.
   
  edit: oh I just noticed the
  Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> Wow.


 
  Thanks. If it wasn't meant that way maybe write a few more words? :S


----------



## doublea71

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> It really is trivially easy to influence one's subjective perceptions.
> 
> To give your anecdote something of a real world example, late last year I had a customer return a cable. He said he preferred a silver cable he was comparing it to. During the course of this, he said he really wished we'd made a silver cable. And that's when the devil on my shoulder whispered in my ear.
> 
> ...


 

 Classic!


----------



## goodvibes

It is and funny too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 No one is debating how easily one can be fooled. Lots of folks can't escape their own heads in many aspects of life. Keep in mind, that comment came form a cable manufacturer that feels his sound better than some others. One can understand the problem and still not agree that all differences are placebo. Steve seems as though he doesn't take things for granted as I don't either. Either way.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> Keep in mind, that comment came form a cable manufacturer that feels his sound better than some others.


 
   
  He actually makes no such claims. Never has.


----------



## goodvibes

OK but he sells $300 interconnect cables for a reason whether he says so or not. I appreciate it if he would prefer not to get into it and see he helps hobbyist when he can. My intention was not to put words in his mouth as he shouldn't need to defend his cables here.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> OK but he sells $300 interconnect cables for a reason whether he says so or not.


 
   
  The reason is pretty simple. Like most everyone else, I'm not independently wealthy and have to earn a living for myself.
   
  Quote: 





> I appreciate it if he would prefer not to get into it...


 
   
  Why's that exactly?
   
  se


----------



## goodvibes

I'm good. I just assumed an independant cable maker did so because he felt he could offer something better sounding. Poor assumption on my part. My mistake and I retract my comment.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> I'm good. I just assumed an independant cable maker did so because he felt he could offer something better sounding. Poor assumption on my part. My mistake and I retract my comment.


 
   
  Well, "sound" let alone "better sounding" is highly subjective (in fact, I'd argue it's ultimately entirely subjective), so it really hasn't much meaning outside a particular individual's experience so I don't even go there.
   
  What I make and sell is that which I've designed to satisfy only myself. Fortunately others have also found satisfaction with them which has allowed me to earn a living at it.
   
  se


----------



## goodvibes

Works for me. Again, sorry to make you go there at all.


----------



## bigshot

Diogenes would like you Steve.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> Works for me. Again, sorry to make you go there at all.


 
   
  No problem!
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Diogenes would like you Steve.


 
   
  Yeah? Does he have any cute sisters? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## Jessse

Hi, guys. I've been lurking Sound Science forum for some time and I think it's really great for all beginning head-fiers. I pretty much agree with any statement I've read here, but there's one question I haven't found an answer for. The Audio Critic says that (quote) "_[size=medium]If amplifiers A and B both have flat frequency response, low noise floor, reasonably low distortion, high input impedance, low output impedance, and are not clipped, they will be indistinguishable in sound at matched levels no matter what’s inside them.[/size]_". I suppose that it also applies to any solid state headphone amp. But what about the amp that can be found in the Asus Xonar Essence ST/STX sound cards? Is it also the same in terms of sound quality compared to desktop solid state amps? It's characteristics are one of the best out there* **(**Output Signal-to-Noise Ratio *is 117dB for Headphone-out (600ohms), *Output THD+N at 1kHz *is 0.001% (-100dB) for Headphone-out). Please help me out with this one.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





jessse said:


> But what about the amp that can be found in the Asus Xonar Essence ST/STX sound cards? Is it also the same in terms of sound quality compared to desktop solid state amps? It's characteristics are one of the best out there* **(**Output Signal-to-Noise Ratio *is 117dB for Headphone-out (600ohms), *Output THD+N at 1kHz *is 0.001% (-100dB) for Headphone-out). Please help me out with this one.


 
   
  It should be fine for 250 Ω or higher headphones, and also many lower impedance ones, but it does have a few disadvantages that affect low impedance headphones:
  - the output impedance is relatively high (slightly more than 10 Ω); this makes an audible difference with many low impedance dynamic headphones, and especially balanced armature IEMs
  - the distortion is not as good as advertised when driving a low impedance load under 100 Ω (see here and here); distortion in the 0.0x% range still might not be audible in practice, though
  - there may be some audible hiss with sensitive low impedance headphones and IEMs, especially when using a sample rate that is a multiple of 44100 Hz. This is because all volume and gain control on the card is digital, and the analog circuits run "wide open" at full gain all the time; also, Xonar family sound cards are noisier when the DAC has to be re-clocked to play audio at a sample rate of 44100, 88200, or 176400 Hz. There is about 20 uV or slightly less A-weighted noise floor on the headphone output at 44100 Hz (less than half of that at 48000 Hz), but this is obviously attenuated somewhat when driving a low impedance load. With Shure SE535 IEMs, for example, the A-weighted noise SPL would be ~30-31 dB, which is audible. The manufacturer's specification of 117 dB SNR is about right at the "good" sample rates and referenced to the full scale 7 Vrms output.
   
  For a small number of very hard to drive headphones like the Hifiman HE-6, there may not be enough power. Also, for some people who prefer really loud (and damaging) listening levels and/or very dynamic and "quiet" music, it might not be enough for headphones like the DT880-600Ω, but the peak SPL of nearly 113 dB is likely enough for most.


----------



## Jessse

Thanks for the detailed reply, stv104! I'm planning to use it with Sennheiser HD 600 (300Ω). Guess it should work fine on High or Extra High Gain setting. I was looking for something along the lines of Schiit Asgard, but I'd rather settle with my Xonar Essence ST now.


----------



## NA Blur

I am a little surprised that more headphones were not used to try to differentiate between the different setups.  From all of my testing the more sealed and flatter frequency response headphone almost always reveals the most about a system.  I am not saying that a custom IEM would give different results, but I am saying that it may be a better test than a setup susceptible to ambient noise and distraction.
   
  Take my home setup for example.  With a pair of Denon AH-D2000 headphone running through a Grace Design m903 amp fed via USB I found it very difficult to hear differences on mp3ornot.com.  Changing the headphone to a sealed IEM gave much better results.  I think tests like mp3ornot.com are good especially if one realizes they can hear the difference with better gear.  That is the entire premise of hi-fi.  To add onto that there are folks that are starting to actually measure results which provided direct evidence of whether there are differences or not.
   
  If we all used Apple ear buds for testing would we ever hear a difference where there was one?  Probably not.  There is a lot of components in the audio equation and some equipment improves the results and some degrade them.  It is not always the more expensive and hope that people out there understand that Worthington's lay is not a law of nature.  More money does not equal better than.
   
  I still thank people who conduct these tests and especially those that admit that they do not hear a difference.
   
  In the end I hope we all enjoy our gear and especially our music.  I hate to think about the loss of high quality sound production that raises the bar for audio engineers and recording studios.


----------



## Jessse

Did anyone do the DBT between Sennheiser HD 600 and HD 650? Is there really big difference?


----------



## liamstrain

I found the 650 to sound muffled and bloated in comparison, but I admit, it was not a blind test of any sort.


----------



## Jessse

After reading countless reviews I'm leaning towards HD600 too, but I realise that these reviews are far from being objective.


----------



## Yahzi

I don't know if there are any EE's posting here, but take a look at this article :
   
  http://audiophilereview.com/cables/why-speaker-cables-are-more-than-you-think-they-are.html
   
  Any glaring issues in this article?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Damping factor's a bit overrated.
   
  Dick Pierce (yeah, I know) had a good article on this in the June 1997 issue of Speaker Builder magazine.
   
  se


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> I don't know if there are any EE's posting here, but take a look at this article :
> 
> http://audiophilereview.com/cables/why-speaker-cables-are-more-than-you-think-they-are.html
> 
> Any glaring issues in this article?


 
   
  That's a pretty simple treatment, only focusing on the resistance of the entire length of cable and its effect on damping factor.  That said, this is the biggest issue with cables for audio (one of the only that's ever a legitimate point of contention), a very well known effect.  If the cable has non-negligible impedance, you will be able to measure a non-negligible drop across the cable itself, not to mention any differences in the signal seen by the load.
   
  There are also plenty of relatively cheap 16 gauge zip cords out there that should work just fine, much cheaper than whatever the boutiques are selling.  Just because 24 gauge cheapo wire is a problem for longer runs to speakers doesn't mean that something cheap isn't okay.
   
  Note that for many headphones, the length of cable is less and/or the impedance of the headphones is much greater.  Furthermore, many people are already using (and liking) headphone amps with 10, 30, 100 ohms output impedance of their own, so the impedance of the cable is going to be less than that (and effectively adds to the amount already from the amp output impedance).  Also consider that headphone drivers have less mass than speaker woofers.
   
  Anyway, there are other articles on this that are better.
   
  This, for example... also see the links on damping factor:
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
   
  I think damping factor is overrated by some, underrated by others.  At times, it can make a significant difference (not necessarily for the worse).  Others, not so much.


----------



## Yahzi

So basically to be safe, you should use the lowest gauge cable you can find. We know that 10 AWG cable is readily available to buy and it's dirt cheap. But then please explain this :
   
  http://www.nordost.com/specification/33/odin-supreme-reference-speaker-cable
   
  It says 20 x 20 AWG. I have no idea what that means. But here is my question. If this cable is 20 AWG then 10 AWG is going to offer far less resistance, correct? And this cable presumably costs thousands and thousands of dollars. So a $5 10 AWG cable offers lower resistance than this Nordost cable as linked? Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## liamstrain

yahzi said:


> So basically to be safe, you should use the lowest gauge cable you can find. We know that 10 AWG cable is readily available to buy and it's dirt cheap. But then please explain this :
> 
> http://www.nordost.com/specification/33/odin-supreme-reference-speaker-cable
> 
> It says 20 x 20 AWG. I have no idea what that means. But here is my question. If this cable is 20 AWG then 10 AWG is going to offer far less resistance, correct? And this cable presumably costs thousands and thousands of dollars. So a $5 10 AWG cable offers lower resistance than this Nordost cable as linked? Correct me if I'm wrong.


 
   
  24x20awg - those nordost cables bundle wires together, it is 24, 20 awg wires - biwired, so 6 per connector (each pole is 12x20) - so it is should be pretty low resistance overall. There might be other issues though (inductance/capacitance related).


----------



## bigshot

yahzi said:


> Any glaring issues in this article?




You mean besides making a mountain out of a molehill?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You mean besides making a mountain out of a molehill?


 
   
  You obviously have no appreciation at all for the sheer amount of work it takes to make a mountain out of a molehill. Try it sometime. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> You obviously have no appreciation at all for the sheer amount of work it takes to make a mountain out of a molehill. Try it sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Are we allowed to use more than one molehill, or is that cheating?


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> You obviously have no appreciation at all for the sheer amount of work it takes to make a mountain out of a molehill.


 
   
  I have great respect for the fine art of technical prevarication!


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Are we allowed to use more than one molehill, or is that cheating?


 
   
  A mountain out of _*a*_ molehill. Singular.
   
  se


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Are we allowed to use more than one molehill, or is that cheating?


 
   
  Only if the sum of the molehills doesn't add up to a hill of beans!


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I have great respect for the fine art of technical prevarication!


 
   
  No words over three syllables allowed.
   
  se


----------



## Yahzi

*There are also plenty of relatively cheap 16 gauge zip cords out there that should work just fine, much cheaper than whatever the boutiques are selling.  Just because 24 gauge cheapo wire is a problem for longer runs to speakers doesn't mean that something cheap isn't oka*y
   
  But the authors explanation on damping ... is that correct or it mainly fluff? If so, why? I'm just trying to better understand this.


----------



## bigshot

It's exaggerated Yahzi. If you were running wires to a house four doors down the block, it would be an issue. But when you're running them across the living room, it isn't.
   
  Mike AJ posted a great link that explains every issue involved, not just damping, and puts it all in context so you know what you really need. This guy knows his stuff.
   
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm


----------



## mikeaj

Yeah, there's something legitimate going on—unlike some power cord metallurgy BS or whatever else people espouse these days—but it's just not usually a big deal.


----------



## bigshot

If humans can't hear it, people shouldn't sweat it.


----------



## Yahzi

He said in the article "The resistance of the cable must be added to the output impedance of the amplifier".

 But is it true? And if so why? Some "experts" say that the total resistance in the cable should not exceed 5% of the nominal resistance of the speaker. Why is that, or is it a load of bull?


----------



## scootsit

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> He said in the article "The resistance of the cable must be added to the output impedance of the amplifier".
> 
> But is it true? And if so why? Some "experts" say that the total resistance in the cable should not exceed 5% of the nominal resistance of the speaker. Why is that, or is it a load of bull?


 

 How long of a run are you talking? Because for an average-ish run (say 10 or so feet) of decent gauge (16 or bigger) you shouldn't be anywhere near 5%, maybe more like .01% of an 8ohm speaker.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> He said in the article "The resistance of the cable must be added to the output impedance of the amplifier".
> 
> But is it true? And if so why? Some "experts" say that the total resistance in the cable should not exceed 5% of the nominal resistance of the speaker. Why is that, or is it a load of bull?


 
   
  The impedance of interest is that of everything in the amplifier -> speaker pathway that's not the speaker.  You add everything else up, including the cable impedance and amplifier output impedance, because these elements are in series, and impedances in series have an overall effect like the sum of those impedances (with lumped-effect model, should be accurate enough at audio frequencies, these distances).
   
  Because the speaker impedance varies with frequency, you want the other impedances to be low so you don't have unintended frequency response shifts and a little bit of excess distortion.  Also, because any extraneous impedance is in series with the speakers, you'll get a little less volume if the impedance is high.  The higher the cable (or amp output) impedance, the greater the effect on the system response.**  5% is a safe limit such that the response of pretty much any speaker will only be marginally affected, definitely not worth worrying about.  Some others may say 10% or something else.  For some speakers, you could get away with more, or they may sound different but not necessarily worse.
   
  **in practice, a "greater effect" relative to something really small may still be trivial.  Let's not get overexcited here.  It depends on how much we're talking about, the speakers.


----------



## scootsit

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Excellent explanation. My point was simply that unless you're using some really subpar or high gauge wire, or a long run, the wire resistance is probably more or less trivial. There was a great article I read about impedance, and how you are basically exponentially diminishing wattage with impedance. It made me think about it differently, more or less in the context that with a high impedance, your amp is basically driving a massive load, yet only 8z of that is the speaker itself, acting as a voltage divider, which is rather wasteful. A few pages back, someone talked about the relative merits (or rather, lack there of) of dampening factors. His points were excellent, so don't take my posting this article as being in confrontation to that. Rather, this wiki happens to have an excellent explanation of how to think of output impedance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_factor
   
  There is also a good wiki on output impedance, but I found it less informative than this one.


----------



## bigshot

I have a friend who does PA systems for live shows, anything from a small club to an amphitheater. He was doing an outdoor show 50 miles out of town and his assistant forgot to put one of the speaker cables on the truck. He had cabling for one side of the stage but not the other. It was too late to drive back and get it, so he sent his assistant to home depot to buy a spindle of lamp cord. He ran lamp cord with duct tape over it for the full run, expecting there to be problems. When he went to do the sound check and EQ, he couldn't notice any difference at all between the two channels. The show went off perfectly.


----------



## Yahzi

This part  :
   
  "By contrast, a 10 foot run of one quality high end 10AWG gauge cable can have a total resistance of just .02 Ohm. Adding this to the amplifier's output impedance of .01 Ohm gives a total of only .03 Ohms, which, divided into the 8 Ohm standard speaker impedance gives a true damping factor of 267 -- *better than 17 times the speaker control available from the lesser cable*. That's one of the key reasons why high end speaker cables sound better"
   
  Everything I've read about damping factor tells me that going from a DF of 20 to 200 is very, very small. So the author is confusing the matter?


----------



## scootsit

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I have a friend who does PA systems for live shows, anything from a small club to an amphitheater. He was doing an outdoor show 50 miles out of town and his assistant forgot to put one of the speaker cables on the truck. He had cabling for one side of the stage but not the other. It was too late to drive back and get it, so he sent his assistant to home depot to buy a spindle of lamp cord. He ran lamp cord with duct tape over it for the full run, expecting there to be problems. When he went to do the sound check and EQ, he couldn't notice any difference at all between the two channels. The show went off perfectly.


 

 I think that the 55c per foot "sprinkler" wire at Lowes is excellent. The strands are fine...ish so it's pretty flexible. You can get 12 gauge easy, and it's rated for outdoor use (low voltage) so the insulator is pretty robust and durable. I'm sure I could get the same performance out of cheaper cable, but I'm also sure I could get the same performance out of better cable, so that's about how far I'm willing to go. Oh, it's also OFC.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I have a friend who does PA systems for live shows, anything from a small club to an amphitheater. He was doing an outdoor show 50 miles out of town and his assistant forgot to put one of the speaker cables on the truck. He had cabling for one side of the stage but not the other. It was too late to drive back and get it, so he sent his assistant to home depot to buy a spindle of lamp cord. He ran lamp cord with duct tape over it for the full run, expecting there to be problems. When he went to do the sound check and EQ, he couldn't notice any difference at all between the two channels. The show went off perfectly.


 
   
  Clearly your friend is deaf.
   
  se


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Everything I've read about damping factor tells me that going from a DF of 20 to 200 is very, very small. So the author is confusing the matter?


 
   
  Huge damping factors look good for marketing, but it should be taken into account that the resistance of the voice coil itself also works against electrical damping, so there are clearly diminishing returns after some point. In other words, going from a DF of 20 to 200 does not actually result in 10 times better damping, more like going from ~95% of what is possible to ~99.5%. It should be noted, though, that loudspeakers can have lower than the nominal impedance at some frequencies, so that increases the effect of the damping factor somewhat.


----------



## jcx

Quote: 





jcx said:


> some direct measurements:
> http://www.passlabs.com/pdfs/articles/spkrcabl.pdf
> 
> extreme lengths (movie theater speaker cabling)
> ...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

More added to the OP. I do keep hunting and adding as I find tests.


----------



## Speedskater

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Damping factor's a bit overrated.
> 
> Dick Pierce (yeah, I know) had a good article on this in the June 1997 issue of Speaker Builder magazine.
> 
> se


 
  The Dick Pierce technical paper on "Damping Factor" not the magazine article.
   
  Damping Factor: Effects On System Response
 Dick Pierce - Professional Audio Development
   
  http://www.cartchunk.org/audiotopics/DampingFactor.pdf
   
  Bottom line is a damping factor of 5 is probably good enough and a damping factor of 10 definitely is!
   
  Frequency response is another issue.


----------



## Speedskater

If I was doing a live sound performance and desperately needed a PA speaker cable.
   
  My first choice:
  A roll of 14 by 3 plus ground in-wall Romex® (NM). Connect the Red & Black as one wire and the White and bare as the other. This equals 11AWG and the natural twist reduces interference.  But the cable is very stiff and very ugly.
   
  Second choice:
  Take a heavy AC power extension cord and cut the plugs off it. Replacement plugs are cheap.
   
  Third choice:
  If the audience is already in the building and I had a nearby spare mic cable, I would jury-rig connects and us it.  It won't be perfect but it will handle lots for audio power for the performance.


----------



## scootsit

Quote: 





speedskater said:


> If I was doing a live sound performance and desperately needed a PA speaker cable.
> 
> My first choice:
> A roll of 14 by 3 plus ground in-wall Romex® (NM). Connect the Red & Black as one wire and the White and bare as the other. This equals 11AWG and the natural twist reduces interference.  But the cable is very stiff and very ugly.
> ...


 

 Aren't PA speakers powered?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





scootsit said:


> Aren't PA speakers powered?


 
   
   
  Not all.


----------



## scootsit

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I am correct in thinking that the cabling would vary based on whether or not they were powered, right?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





speedskater said:


> The Dick Pierce technical paper on "Damping Factor" not the magazine article.
> 
> Damping Factor: Effects On System Response
> Dick Pierce - Professional Audio Development
> ...


 
   
  Thanks. It's the same as was published in Speaker Builder, only it doesn't include the graphs.
   
  Quote: 





> Frequency response is another issue.


 
   
  How do you mean? What other meaningful consequence of damping factor is there beyond altering frequency response?
   
  se


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> What other meaningful consequence of damping factor is there beyond altering frequency response?


 
  Distortion.


----------



## Speedskater

When the high damping factor crowd write about this, I think it's the controlling the woofer cone movement that's the subject of interest.
  My frequency response thought is about how the series circuit of the amp's output impedance, the speaker cable's resistance & the speaker's impedance and how this voltage divider will change with frequency.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





speedskater said:


> When the high damping factor crowd write about this, I think it's the controlling the woofer cone movement that's the subject of interest.
> My frequency response thought is about how the series circuit of the amp's output impedance, the speaker cable's resistance & the speaker's impedance and how this voltage divider will change with frequency.


 
   
  Actually, the control over the driver's resonance and distortion occurs through the non-linear frequency response and distortion of the current drawn by it when connected to a voltage source. So, it is not a separate issue.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Distortion.


 
   
  Meaningful? What can one expect going from a damping factor of say, 1,000 to 1?
   
  se


----------



## Speedskater

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Actually, the control over the driver's resonance and distortion occurs through the non-linear frequency response and distortion of the current drawn by it when connected to a voltage source. So, it is not a separate issue.


 
   
  So then it doesn't matter if the damping factor is greater than 10?


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





speedskater said:


> So then it doesn't matter if the damping factor is greater than 10?


 
   
  It can make a small difference, but something like increasing it from 100 to 1000 is likely inaudible.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Meaningful? What can one expect going from a damping factor of say, 1,000 to 1?


 
   
  In a test where I used a source with 100 Ω impedance to drive a DT880 Pro (a damping factor of 2.5), the distortion that appeared on the voltage on the headphones was roughly a tenth of the distortion in the acoustic output. Eliminating that is not much of an improvement, but it is better than nothing. The headphone is also not a particularly reactive one, with the HD650 used in the Benchmark output impedance paper, there was relatively more distortion when taking the higher damping factor (10) into account.
  Another example at InnerFidelity: DT48E (25 Ω) at near-zero and 120 Ω output impedance. There is a few dB of difference in the THD+N vs. frequency graphs here, although I am not sure how accurate/reliable they are.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Meaningful? What can one expect going from a damping factor of say, 1,000 to 1?
> 
> se


 
  >45 dB increase at low frequencies according to benchmark when going from an output impedance of 0.01 ohms to 30 ohms using an MDR-V6 (60 ohm) as load. That's only THD though.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





xnor said:


> >45 dB increase at low frequencies according to benchmark


 
   
  Of course, that is measured on the input voltage to the headphones, rather than the actual sound output with a microphone, where the difference would be much less.


----------



## Yahzi

I was having a discussion with an EE over source components .. a believer, and I explained how difficult it is these days to find a source component that doesn't measure flat and have low noise. His argument :
   
  "I can show you two source components that measure similar distortion figures (less than 0.005%) and they sound very different. Distortion measurements are only done at certain fundamental frequencies (like 1kHz) and only tells you a very small part of the total story. Distortion measurements don't consider factors like the phase response of digital filters or the result of phase shifts after the low pass filters at the upper octaves."


----------



## stv014

Quote:  





> "I can show you two source components that measure similar distortion figures (less than 0.005%) and they sound very different. Distortion measurements are only done at certain fundamental frequencies (like 1kHz) and only tells you a very small part of the total story. Distortion measurements don't consider factors like the phase response of digital filters or the result of phase shifts after the low pass filters at the upper octaves."


 
   
  What if distortion is tested at all audio frequencies and multiple levels, and the phase response of the digital filter is tested too, showing that the phase shift should be inaudible, like here ? It is true that the available information is often limited to a few numbers (maybe even just copied from the data sheet of the DAC chip, rather than actually measured), but that is not always the case, and when more detailed testing is done, it may still not show why the sound would be "very different", at least in sighted subjective reviews.


----------



## Yahzi

I mentioned level matching source components to my EE, and he replied with :
   
  "All digital source components are level matched, using a 1kHz sine wave, to 1V RMS analogue. The reference WAV test tone is created to be at a level of -1dB from absolute, sampled at 96kHz with 24 bit depth. Not trying to be funny but I've been doing this for a while".


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> I mentioned level matching source components to my EE, and he replied with :
> 
> "All digital source components are level matched, using a 1kHz sine wave, to 1V RMS analogue. The reference WAV test tone is created to be at a level of -1dB from absolute, sampled at 96kHz with 24 bit depth. Not trying to be funny but I've been doing this for a while".


 
   
  You EE chap(?) is wrong. I have measured the output levels from 3 different DAC and/or CDP combinations there can be anywhere up to a 0.5V difference in line levels !  Also look at some StereoPhile measurements on digital components they frequently show big variations away from the nominal !
   
  i.e 
   


> The CD-4.1x's maximum output level at 1kHz was 2.45V, an audible 1.8dB higher than the CD standard's 2V RMS.
> 
> 
> The maximum output level from both the ERC-2's balanced and single-ended outputs was 2.25V, which is 1dB higher than the CD standard's 2V. If not accounted for, this will tilt A/B comparisons in the Emotiva's favor
> ...


----------



## Speedskater

Well they used to be level matched (more or less) but that was then and this is now.  Back in the days when they all ran on AC power the very common output was 2V.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> I was having a discussion with an EE over source components .. a believer, and I explained how difficult it is these days to find a source component that doesn't measure flat and have low noise. His argument :
> 
> "I can show you two source components that measure similar distortion figures (less than 0.005%) and they sound very different.


 
   
   
  Ask your EE how he did his comparisons, sighted or blind ?


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





speedskater said:


> Well they used to be level matched (more or less) but that was then and this is now.  Back in the days when they all ran on AC power the very common output was 2V.


 
   
  2 Vrms is still a commonly used standard line level. The problem is that it is not implemented accurately enough for reliable ABX testing without having to adjust levels. A difference of at most 0.1 dB is acceptable in a blind test (in fact, someone at the hydrogenaudio.org forums was even able to ABX that with fast software switching between samples), and, to meet the 0.1 dB requirement even in the worst case, the line levels would have to be 2 Vrms +/- 0.05 dB. In reality, +/- 1 dB variation is common. I have two "2 Vrms" sound cards, one outputs ~1.94 at 0 dBFS, and the other (the more expensive, by the way) one outputs 2.15 Vrms.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





speedskater said:


> Well they used to be level matched (more or less) but that was then and this is now.  Back in the days when they all ran on AC power the very common output was 2V.


 
  Even CD player reviews done 25 years ago show these differences.


----------



## Yahzi

nick_charles said:
			
		

> Ask your EE how he did his comparisons, sighted or blind ?




I'll find out. I suspect it's a sighted evaluation which should invalidate the comparison and the anecdotal reports that follow.


----------



## stv014

By the way, even variations in source output impedance can cause greater than 0.1 dB difference, even if the output levels are the same unloaded. For example, if there are two exactly 2 Vrms sources with 100 and 500 Ω output impedance, then the actual input voltage to an amplifier with 10 kΩ input impedance will be 1.98 and 1.90 Vrms, respectively (0.34 dB difference).


----------



## Speedskater

Oops, I didn't read the fine print.
  It's 2 Volts (more or less) not anywhere near close enough for an ABX test.


----------



## Yahzi

Quote: 





> You EE chap(?) is wrong. I have measured the output levels from 3 different DAC and/or CDP combinations there can be anywhere up to a 0.5V difference in line levels !  Also look at some StereoPhile measurements on digital components they frequently show big variations away from the nominal !


 
   
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't level matching at one frequency (as the EE pointed out) incomplete as far as the listening test is concerned? I would think it is.


----------



## bigshot

Onlymif the frequency response isn't flat, and that's what you're doing the listening test to determine.


----------



## Yahzi

So testing at one frequency is the norm as far as level matching source components are concerned?


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> So testing at one frequency is the norm as far as level matching source components are concerned?


 
   
  The DAC or whatever is being compared is supposed to have a flat frequency response, so if the levels are matched at 1 kHz, they should be matched at other frequencies, too (except maybe some minor roll-off at the ends of the audio frequency range). If the frequency response is not flat, the result of the test will be positive anyway.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't level matching at one frequency (as the EE pointed out) incomplete as far as the listening test is concerned? I would think it is.


 
   
   
  I measured the average across the audible frequency spectrum


----------



## Speedskater

If both of the two DAC's don't have flat frequency response, then they very well may sound different!


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





speedskater said:


> If both of the two DAC's don't have flat frequency response, then they very well may sound different!


 
   
  Though the deviation from flat would have to be pretty large (anywhere from 1 to 3 db in parts) and fall into the category of badly engineered or tweako. Some manufacturers (such as Wadia) do alter the FR or have sets of filters to have a HF roll-off that can start as low as 5Hkz and reach as much as -6db at 20Khz. Some may find this pleasant to listen to but high fidelity (accurate) it is not - some manufacturers manage this inadvertently - that falls into the category of gross incompetence.


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





xnor said:


> >45 dB increase at low frequencies according to benchmark when going from an output impedance of 0.01 ohms to 30 ohms using an MDR-V6 (60 ohm) as load. That's only THD though.


 
   
  do you think 0.3% THD at these lowest frequencies is audible?  here's what Douglas Self has to say regarding THD audibility (go down to #4): http://www.douglas-self.com/ampins/pseudo/subjectv.htm


----------



## xnor

Probably not, but that was just a random example. Other amplifiers may have higher output impedance and higher distortion.


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Probably not, but that was just a random example. Other amplifiers may have higher output impedance and higher distortion.


 
  i wonder what the change in THD would look like post transducer?  i currently have a 100R impedance adapter to use with my AKG K702/K601/K271.  subjectively, the FR sounds much more balanced.  i'm intentionally coloring an amplifier to make an inherently colored transducer sound less colored 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## bigshot

I would think the distortion created by the transducer dwarfs anything even the most mediocre amp creates. In general THD is no longer much of an issue in solid state electronics.


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I would think the distortion created by the transducer dwarfs anything even the most mediocre amp creates. In general THD is no longer much of an issue in solid state electronics.


 
   
  this makes sense to me.  
   
  don't be afraid to adjust the FR of a HP with a series resistor in both channels.  i find EQing to be a pain in the ass.  line-level matching with a DVM when comparing components is a PITA, but necessary - if both components aren't matched in loudness, what's the point of comparing A/B or DBT?  
   
  i'm really enjoying my K702/K601/K271 from the Benchmark DAC1, but with an 100R impedance adapter.  both of these components have the reputation of being itty-bitty-spitty in the upper-mids and lower-treble.  the 100R on the AKG702 results in a DF = 0.6...and it sounds great.  without the 100R dongle, it hurts to listen to music above 70dB.  the K601 is a champ as well.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





fishski13 said:


> i wonder what the change in THD would look like post transducer?


 
   
  It is not an accurate comparison because the levels are different (106 dB SPL vs. 100), but here is the THD+N vs. frequency measured at the amplifier output with a damping factor of 10 (Benchmark), and the acoustic output with a damping factor above 150 (InnerFidelity):
   
    
  Of course, acoustic measurements are less accurate and reliable, and since it is not the same pair of headphones, random manufacturing variation in the transducers is also an issue.


----------



## Quarry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxlGI4OzeBk


----------



## scootsit

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  ...(it was a silly question, I read one of the legends wrong)


----------



## Yahzi

Guys, correct me if I'm wrong but speaker differences can be quantified in all respects now, right? One argument I've heard from cable believers is that due to the reactance of any audio system a cable that colors the sound one way in one system could very easily sound quite different in another system. Is that a particularly compelling argument? If I say the cables can be quantified.. but then audiophiles might say that's not possible because it depends on the system. Thoughts?


----------



## liamstrain

> One argument I've heard from cable believers is that due to the reactance of any audio system a cable that colors the sound one way in one system could very easily sound quite different in another system.
> Is that a particularly compelling argument?


 
   
   
No. It not only is not compelling, it does not make sense.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> If I say the cables can be quantified.. but then audiophiles might say that's not possible because it depends on the system.


 
   
  That is an excuse to believe things that are quite clearly not true. Audiophiles have a whole passel of prevarications like that.


----------



## Yahzi

Quote: 





> No. It not only is not compelling, it does not make sense.


 
   
   
  Could you explain why it makes no sense? Please understand I'm not disagreeing, just would like you to elaborate more on your answer.


----------



## bigshot

In theory, each step in the system adds (or doesn't add) noise, distortion or imbalances. When you get to the end of the chain, all of those anomalies theoretically add up to a mulligan stew of noise. This was true in the analogue era where turntables crackled and amps hissed and distorted. Every layer of noise built up, so you tried to keep each layer as clean as it could be.
   
  However, in the digital age this really doesn't happen. Even the cheapest CD players put out audibly perfect sound... massive dynamic range, inaudible noise and distortion, and perfectly balanced frequency response. The same is true of even humble amplifiers and receivers. The wires connecting add nothing at all. All of the potentially audible noise, distortion and imbalances come when the rubber hits the road- the speakers and the room.
   
  Audiophiles love to muddy the waters by concocting magical circumstances where 1+1 doesn't equal 2. The say things like a certain wire "sounds different" when it's connected to a certain CD player. They talk about "synergy". It's all hogwash. With digital audio, generally things either work or they don't. It isn't like analogue sound where everything added its own noise to the chain.


----------



## Yahzi

But I have seen, for example, speaker cables acting like tone controls. Surely in those cases it can be audible? Cables with grotesquely high inductance or capacitance? Audioholics measured some in their cable reports.
   
  But the whole "speaker is reactive load changing depending on the cable ...is nonsense?


----------



## Yahzi

Found this :
   
  http://www.silveraudio.com/papers1.html
   
Because of DC and AC resistance, the "sound" of a cable is really defined by how it alters the interaction between the source and load components. AC resistance (impedance) is the result of both capacitive and inductive effects (reactance) and is far more relevant than DC resistance however. AC resistance is perhaps the main source of the "voodoo" of audio cables since a given cable design will in principle cause different audio equipment to "behave" differently due to the substantial variation in both input and output impedance's of preamplifiers, power amplifiers, and front end units. 
   
The "voodoo" reputation of audio cables is worsened by the apparent irrelevance of typical steady state measurements. Educated "cable cynics" are fond of pointing out that calculated frequency effects (3db down!) of the capacitative and inductive values of any normal audio cable at normal lengths are much higher than any audible frequency. This simplistic argument implies that that such delicate, complex and highly variable sonic qualities affected by different audio cables (or amplifiers for that matter) such as sound stage depth, image focus and ambience could be completely explained by simple frequency attenuation.
   
Indeed persistent attempts by solid state designers to clone the very unique manner in which vacuum tubes affect the audio signal by using simple tone networks have always been a laughable and dismal failure. While the "first order" effects of LC influenced frequency attenuation are well characterized, indirect effects of their time delay components on our perception of the more subtle aspects of playback are not. One or two degrees of phase shift can be calculated in the audio band from capacitance whose frequency attenuation is well into the ultra-sonic regions. 
   
Exactly what one degree of phase shift and perhaps one tenth of a dB of attenuation may sound like is not known and is probably very unpredictable and extremely dependant on the particular source material. Such small effects could not normally be seen since they would be hidden in the noise floor of measuring equipment. Instead actual their existence can only be suggested mathematically. 
The fact that different audio cables do affect system performance differently would be especially challenging to defend if all audio cables had identical LC measurements.
   
Luckily, this is not the case, as different interconnect and speaker cable designs result in easily measurable variations in capacitance and inductance respectively.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Yahzi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Indeed persistent attempts by solid state designers to clone the very unique manner in which vacuum tubes affect the audio signal by using simple tone networks have always been a laughable and dismal failure.


 
   
Failure ?
   
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Yahzi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The "voodoo" reputation of audio cables is worsened by the apparent irrelevance of typical steady state measurements.


 
    
  What do you mean exactly by "typical steady state measurements" ?
   
  Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yahzi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Exactly what one degree of phase shift and perhaps one tenth of a dB of attenuation may sound like is not known and is probably very unpredictable and extremely dependant on the particular source material. Such small effects could not normally be seen since they would be hidden in the noise floor of measuring equipment. Instead actual their existence can only be suggested mathematically.


 
    
  It is entirely possible to measure less than one degree of difference in phase shift accurately, as is to measure less than 0.1 dB changes in frequency response. Any decent measuring equipment (and even some PC sound cards) has a dynamic range higher than what a human can hear at a volume level that does not cause hearing damage. It is also possible to attenuate the noise floor in the measured response by simply using a longer sample in the measurement, and the frequency/phase response of the test equipment itself can be factored out, too. In short, if there is a difference, it can be measured sooner than it can be heard.
  If a mathematical model of the effects is available, it can be simulated easily in software, and tested with an ABX comparator.


----------



## Yahzi

Please correct me, the reactive load comments and how different cables can affect those loads does not have merit? Or is there some degree of truth in there? Because audiophiles sometimes like to claim that cables in one system might not adversely affect performance, but some loads are affected due to certain cable characteristics, inductance, capacitance etc etc.


----------



## XxDobermanxX

Interesting test, so what he is saying is spending tons of money for cables to improve sound doesnt make sense


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Please correct me, the reactive load comments and how different cables can affect those loads does not have merit? Or is there some degree of truth in there? Because audiophiles sometimes like to claim that cables in one system might not adversely affect performance, but some loads are affected due to certain cable characteristics, inductance, capacitance etc etc.


 
   
  Speakers cables, if their RLC numbers trend too much in any one direction, can act as a sort of crossover (too much induction affects lows, too much capacitance affects highs (high-pass filter), etc. So, yes, you CAN make a *Speaker* cable that will potential affect the sound, depending on your speakers, and how bad you are a making cables (or deliberately try to do so).
   
  But by and large, the RLC figures for most speaker cables will have a negligible effect. 
   
  Interconnects with modern equipment should have zero effect, again, unless you are doing something wrong. 
   
  The whole "reactance of the whole system" argument is one for synergy, and an excuse to make up anything to fit their own pet theories.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Please correct me, the reactive load comments and how different cables can affect those loads does not have merit? Or is there some degree of truth in there? Because audiophiles sometimes like to claim that cables in one system might not adversely affect performance, but some loads are affected due to certain cable characteristics, inductance, capacitance etc etc.


 
   
  It is true that the exact effects of the cable depend on the load. However, in most cases they are small enough to be inaudible or make only a very minor difference, assuming that the cable is not used for a purpose it is poorly suited to (e.g. an extremely long high gauge wire with low impedance loudspeakers).


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> too much capacitance affects highs (high-pass filter), etc.


 
   
  Capacitance can only act as a highpass filter if it is serial, and that normally does not happen with cables that are not broken. Parallel capacitance can act as a lowpass filter, but either the capacitance or the serial impedance before it has to be unusually high for an actual audible treble roll-off to occur. Highly capacitive cables can make some amplifiers unstable, though, if they are not particularly well designed. Other than that, the most likely source of audible issues is serial resistance and perhaps inductance with low impedance transducer loads (e.g. I have measured a total cable resistance of about 4 Ω for a cheap low-ish impedance headphone).


----------



## Yahzi

Does such a thing as "synergy" exist or is that another audiophile myth? What are your thought on this? I must say, all this discussion is really interesting.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Capacitance can only act as a highpass filter if it is serial, and that normally does not happen with cables that are not broken. Parallel capacitance can act as a lowpass filter, but either the capacitance or the serial impedance before it has to be unusually high for an actual audible treble roll-off to occur. Highly capacitive cables can make some amplifiers unstable, though, if they are not particularly well designed. Other than that, the most likely source of audible issues is serial resistance and perhaps inductance with low impedance transducer loads (e.g. I have measured a total cable resistance of about 4 Ω for a cheap low-ish impedance headphone).


 
   
  Thank you for clarifying. The bulk of my point holds, that as long as the cable isn't deliberately made to have very high readings (or broken), it is unlikely to audibly affect anything.


----------



## xnor

This is non-BS hi-fi system:

   
   
   
  This is a system where each component was chosen carefully to "complement" each other. In other words, each randomly sized stone (vs standard sized brick) fills a different gap, i.e. synergy:


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Does such a thing as "synergy" exist or is that another audiophile myth? What are your thought on this? I must say, all this discussion is really interesting.


 
   
  Well - yes, ish, but not the way that most audiophiles mean it. There are total system considerations to think about - but they are predictable and measurable. There is no magic here. 
   
  Some headphones/speakers will sound better with some amplifiers, the reasons are usually pretty straightforward (impedance issues, or high freq rolloff which prevents otherwise hot speakers from burning off your ears with bright/tizzy sound). 
   
  There is little reason to worry about "synergy" as some mystical reason to keep upgrading every possible component (especially interconnects and power cables) - just pay attention and don't buy poorly designed equipment and you'll be fine. 
   
  It should be noted that generally speaking, all this stuff is only dealing with the last 1% of sound quality. If you have not dealt with room treatments, better speakers, equalization, good source recordings, etc - worrying about any of this rather like polishing the rims to a perfect finish on a POS rusted out 80's Buick.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> But I have seen, for example, speaker cables acting like tone controls. Surely in those cases it can be audible? Cables with grotesquely high inductance or capacitance? Audioholics measured some in their cable reports.


 
   
  A defective and poorly designed cable is still defective and poorly designed even if the manufacturer intended it to be that way. A cable can pass signals along cleanly. Knowing that, why would anyone want to use one that didn't?


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Found this :
> http://www.silveraudio.com/papers1.html
> 
> Exactly what one degree of phase shift and perhaps one tenth of a dB of attenuation may sound like is not known and is probably very unpredictable and extremely dependant on the particular source material.


 
   
  Complete hogwash. And they misspelled "dependent".


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Does such a thing as "synergy" exist or is that another audiophile myth? What are your thought on this? I must say, all this discussion is really interesting.


 
   
  Synergy is an audiophile excuse for having specs that shift all over the place. It's perfectly possible to make inexpensive cables and electronics that are perfectly transparent... meaning they take the original signal and pass it along cleanly and accurately.
   
  If you can buy cheap equipment that is clean and accurate, why would you ever want to buy equipment that is expensive and inaccurate? That is the "duh!" question that all the reams and reams of audiophile techno-blather is meant to answer. Throw out a few technical concepts, some buzzwords, a little bit of fear that your existing equipment "isn't quite good enough" and VOUILA! You're spending too much on equipment that performs poorly!
   
  Or you can learn for yourself what the measurements mean, understand what those numbers sound like in practice, and make informed decisions.


----------



## Yahzi

So basically in general audio cables lack sufficient reactance to create an audible difference?


----------



## scootsit

In my experience, definitely. The only real distinction being if one cable is bad, which is to say oxidized, aluminum, or made wrong. 

The monoprice cables are more than sufficient at about $2


----------



## bigshot

If audio cables have a "sound" they are by definition not doing their job properly, and there's either something wrong with the cable or the run is WAY too long (meaning hundreds of yards). You can go to monoprice or Radio Shack and buy inexpensive speaker cable and interconnects that do the job.


----------



## Yahzi

Quote: 





> A difference that is not quantifiable - just like every speaker , not matter how expensive or "reference", each has its own unique personality or coloration. And due to the reactance of any audio system a cable that colors the sound one way in my system could very easily sound quite different in your system , also the reason why some cables that may not be very expensive at all just work supremely well because by fluke they react favorably (to the listener) with the make up of the system they are installed in.


 
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> If the effects cables made were a quantified science that made a really noticeable difference you would be able to buy them based on how they were tuned - ie sold on the basis of their clearly defined frequency filtering characteristics , notch , comb , wide band etc and at the specific frequencies they filtered at.
> 
> Remembering that if you passively filter a signal it will not amplify anything but will make certain frequencies "sound" more prominent in the mix after filtering. And thats what cables do. They are very tiny teeny passive filters , whether they cost R12/m or R10,000/m.
> 
> And whether you like the results is really up to you and no one else.


 
   
  How would you guys deconstruct this? To my knowledge speaker performance is quantifiable and I mean every part of speaker performance. Same with cable differences, if it exists, we can quantify it. If it doesn't exist, then there is nothing to quantify. Pretty simple.

 The above quotes are from an audiophile I had a discussion with concerning cables.


----------



## xnor

"A difference that is not quantifiable" and "coloration" in the same sentence .. it's too nonsensical to deserve a reply.


----------



## bigshot

Audio specs are intended to quantify all of the aspects of sound. Response involves the balance of different frequencies of sound, distortion involves the difference between the input signal and the output signal, dynamics involve the level of the volume. All of these specs have thresholds of audibility- a point beyond which you can't hear a difference any more.

Electronic transmission of audio has been seriously studied for nearly a century. We've done a darn good job working out the bugs, at least with electronics. It's gotten to the point where most things either work or they don't. The exception is the mechanical end. It's always hard to control flapping transducers. That's the area of focus for folks who who want great sound. But that can be a lot of work doing room treatments and equalizing.

Audio salesmen don't want you to focus on that, because there isn't much they can sell you on that end. So they inflate the importance of expensive wires, glowing tubes and CD players that weigh as much as a small car. It's hooey designed to part you from your money.

Specs are a tool for judging how well equipment will work for you. If they're measured and reported fairly, and you understand what they mean, you don't need salesmen.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> How would you guys deconstruct this? To my knowledge speaker performance is quantifiable and I mean every part of speaker performance. Same with cable differences, if it exists, we can quantify it. If it doesn't exist, then there is nothing to quantify. Pretty simple.


 
   
  I agree with this, though we may not always know how to interpret the data we have, we can measure better than we can hear. If there is a change, we can measure it. Your audiophile friend is talking nonsense. But that's hardly new. Many propose that our ears do some magic that makes them able to detect things no instrument can...that it cannot measure "soul" or "musicality" - nonsense.


----------



## bigshot

No one seems to publish their specs on TBS distortion... Total Bull Sheist


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> So basically in general audio cables lack sufficient reactance to create an audible difference?


 
   
  I've measured the FR of many interconnect cables  (using very different designs and materials (copper/SPC/Silver)) in circuit- none from 77c to $135 had any significant effect on the FR though some (unshielded ones) did give rise to a bit more noise but the noisiest had average backgroud noise at about -97db !


----------



## Yahzi

It seems every day there is some audiophile nonsense being spread around. From this thread : http://www.avforums.co.za/index.php/topic,21095.15.html "In an ideal world there should not be an improvement of analogue over hdmi on a receiver. Reason is that the receiver takes the analogue signal and converts it into digital so that the internal DAC can do volume control (with 1's and 0's) on the outgoing analogue signal. (DAC's tend to colour their output signal) This seems to be true for lower end receivers when paired with an external DAC on the analogue input. But for higher end receivers this is not always the case as I see the same thing noted on other forums. Maybe they are less digitized on the analogue side."


----------



## Yahzi

And : "The DAC in the avr is optimized for multichannel use i.e. dts, etc. I don't expect it to do stereo extremely well. From my similar dealings I found the amps/source signature the same on analogue and hdmi. However, I did notice a bit more bottom end via the analogues. It wasn't really day and night. Could be the snake oil in the interconnects. As Hi-amphibian said we don't know how much is going digital. However, when I tried a much higher end cd player on the analogues it was a day and night difference".


----------



## liamstrain

Wow. That makes zero sense.


----------



## bigshot

What chimpanzee said those quotes?


----------



## Yahzi

It's our local AV forum. Just click on the link and read the posts ... at your peril.. ; - ) Every now and then we get an audiofool. If you are up to the challenge why not sign up and set these people straight?


----------



## bigshot

If they want to e set straight, they can venture into the sound science lion's den.


----------



## Yahzi

Not going to happen I'm afraid. It would be funny if someone from the inside could take them apart, one myth at a time.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Not going to happen I'm afraid. It would be funny if someone from the inside could take them apart, one myth at a time.


 
   
  In my experience, they find ways to dismiss such interventions. Until they start to seek out and think critically for themselves it's an uphill battle to fight fiction with fact. 
   
  That's not to say that it is not still valuable to put facts out there. It is. But to expect a tiger to change its stripes just because an outside came in and proved them wrong, is unreasonable.


----------



## Yahzi

"On AVRs this remains a tricky topic as many dont actually have analogue inputs that remain analogue..." Does this make any sense? Doesn't to me.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> "On AVRs this remains a tricky topic as many dont actually have analogue inputs that remain analogue..." Does this make any sense? Doesn't to me.


 
   
   
  It suggests that some analog input signals are then digitized internally by an ADC possibly for digital signal processing (Dolby, THX).


----------



## scootsit

I would like to broach the one major audiophile myth that I agree with. I have been questioned about it before, and seldom have a not intangible, visceral, or nostalgic answer. Why do I love records so much more than digital media? And why do I prefer CDs to even flac files? I feel like a hypocrite, but nothing is going to change my mind!


----------



## mikeaj

scootsit said:


> I would like to broach the one major audiophile myth that I agree with. I have been questioned about it before, and seldom have a not intangible, visceral, or nostalgic answer. Why do I love records so much more than digital media? And why do I prefer CDs to even flac files? I feel like a hypocrite, but nothing is going to change my mind!




Handling the media is priming you to listen, and there may be favorable associations with past experiences? I'm no psychologist.


----------



## scootsit

makes sense.


----------



## Yahzi

Guys, take a look at this cable "test" from the forums.
   
  "Another week, another test.

 One perticilurly good recording, with elements or bass, mids and airy highs.

 3 Suspects

 (a) Van Den hul Silver TC
 (b) Kimber KCAG
 (c) The R4.95 RCA

 as reference. Siltech SQ88

 Please note that even at 1500 euro for most expensive one here, this is NOT high end cable - more medium level.

 Two victims, one audiophile the other never been exposed to high end hifi and a videophile.

 I played same song with each of the cable, asked each person to say

 1) DID they hear a difference ?
 2) Which sounded best and worst

 I repeated the test 15 times, swapping cables at random, twice not swapping

 I didnr have KPGM to verify the results BUT this is what I found

 I had (c) in the test 5 times:

 The RCA (c) was identified 5/5 times AND but only 4/5 times considered the worst by both listeners.

 I had (b) in the system 7 times and (c) 3 times
  
 (a) and (b) was felt almost to close to call BUT even with that slight difference

 (a) was picked by BOTH people 5/7 times  to be the best and nicest sounding (b) 2 times and the rest undecided..

 The BAD news ?

 The RCA sounded too good to be in there! It should have been bad bad  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Comparing the VanDen Hul with a Siltech SQ88 (1500 euro) made almost no difference... no conclusive decision could be made if the sound changed or not.... to all the listeners it "sounded the same"

 That concludes my experiment on interconnects. I am happy I COULD hear differences. I COULD 100% identify the RCA  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But DAMMIT I should not have bought the expensive Siltechs  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Albeit at 75% discount. If I paid the full R20k I would have been pulling my hair out.

 Now for speaker cables  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




"


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> One perticilurly good recording, with elements or bass, mids and airy highs.


 
  Which recording, what was the entire playback chain?
   
   
  Quote: 





> I had (c) in the test 5 times:
> 
> [...]
> 
> I had (b) in the system 7 times and (c) 3 times


 
  So what is it, 5 or 3 times? What about a?
   
   
  Quote: 





> The RCA (c) was identified 5/5 times AND but only 4/5 times considered the worst by both listeners.


 
  5/5 still has a 3.1% probability of guessing and 4/5 of 18.8%.
   
  You should have done (at least) 10 trials per cable and identified the cable 9 times.
   
   
  Quote: 





> That concludes my experiment on interconnects. I am happy I COULD hear differences. I COULD 100% identify the RCA


 
  Not really.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *xnor* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> You should have done (at least) 10 trials per cable and identified the cable 9 times.


 
   
  It is a quote from another forum, the test was not done by Yahzi.
   
  It is not always easy to make a test like this fully blind, by the way, there are often subconscious cues that allow the listeners to find out what cable is being used.


----------



## scootsit

Thank God. The disregard for probability theory was frankly insulting. I would suggest to these folks that they read "The Drunkard's Walk", it is among the most approachable explanations of probably and Bayes law that I have yet found. And, it's way cheaper than the cables... 

I question if a meta study of all this anecdotal crap, interpreted properly couldn't generate real conclusions. I have the code for a Bayesian meta study. I just don't have the time to mine the data.


----------



## scootsit

oops... stupid phone


----------



## scootsit

sorry


----------



## Yahzi

"5/5 still has a 3.1% probability of guessing and 4/5 of 18.8%. You should have done (at least) 10 trials per cable and identified the cable 9 times." Please explain.


----------



## mikeaj

yahzi said:


> "5/5 still has a 3.1% probability of guessing and 4/5 of 18.8%. You should have done (at least) 10 trials per cable and identified the cable 9 times." Please explain.




Under the hypothesis that there is no difference and selections go for either with 1/2 probability...

Probability of 5/5 correct is (1/2) ^ 5 = 0.03125.
Probability of 4/5 or more correct is 6 * (1/2) ^ 5 = 0.1875.

For the 4/5, the 6 comes from there being 6 different experimental outcomes where 4/5 or more are correct: C C C C I, C C C I C, C C I C C, C I C C C, I C C C C, C C C C C, where C denotes a correct guess and I is incorrect. And if guessing blindly, each outcome out of 32 is equally likely. Just look up the binomial cdf instead of doing the above counting.

In other words, with a low number of trials, there is still a nontrivial probability that blind guessing would produce the same results, so we can't make any good conclusions from the results.


The bigger issue is probably the methodology of the experiment in the first place. If the cable swaps are single blind, that's no good because of experimenter bias. Who knows what cues can be picked up just by looking at the guy doing the swapping. See Clever Hans, for example.


----------



## scootsit

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I'm thinking that the improvements/detractions should be cumulative if cables do didley over squat. What if you recorded a song with different cables, then basically mixed a level matched ABX in the middle of the track, and phrased the test question very carefully, so that there was zero expectation bias. Something like, please listen to the attached track, and explain your perceptions of the differences in sound quality throughout the track.
   
  I guess my thought is this. Let's pretend for a second that cables can alter sound quality ever so slightly. We're talking close to $2000 per cable in the above post (I just quoted the last post, I'm talking about the one Yahzi posted). I question what system really is so stellar that $2000 is best spent on a cable?! I mean, I have never had that kind of dough laying around, but let's pretend for a second that you do. $2000 is a Mitchell or Roksan turntable, it's a pair of incredible line amps, it's a pair of spectacular speakers, it's the better part of a wall of amazing vintage gear, it's an incredible preamp. It's a lot of damn money to spend, even on a single component. So, I guess to me, I could see spending $2000 on cables, if your system is ~$100,000...maybe. Because only then could the $2000 not be spent any better on system upgrades.
   
  At the same time, $2000 is also ~200 CDs, or ~100 LPs, so is the hardware upgrade really enhance the enjoyment that much over so much software?
   
  I guess I could see spending $2000 on cables if you have the $100,000 system of your dreams, and every CD/LP ever pressed, and you got money to blow...
   
  Well, I guess it doesn't matter because I'll never be in that position.


----------



## Yahzi

"For the 4/5, the 6 comes from there being 6 different experimental outcomes where 4/5 or more are correct: C C C C I, C C C I C, C C I C C, C I C C C, I C C C C, C C C C C, where C denotes a correct guess and I is incorrect. And if guessing blindly, each outcome out of 32 is equally likely. Just look up the binomial cdf instead of doing the above counting. In other words, with a low number of trials, there is still a nontrivial probability that blind guessing would produce the same results, so we can't make any good conclusions from the results." I'm feeling especially dumb right now because I don't quite understand what you've written.  PS How do you quote on this forum? The normal quote code isn't working for me here.


----------



## xnor

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution
  To quote, just press the quote button and remove the parts you don't want to quote.


----------



## bigshot

I like music more than math.


----------



## Speedskater

Quote: 





scootsit said:


> I'm thinking that the improvements/detractions should be cumulative if cables do didley over squat. What if you recorded a song with different cables, then basically mixed a level matched ABX in the middle of the track, and phrased the test question very carefully, so that there was zero expectation bias. Something like, please listen to the attached track, and explain your perceptions of the differences in sound quality throughout the track.
> 
> ***********************


 
   
  This would not be a very sensitive test.
  For a good test, the listener should be familiar with both A and B before starting the test. The listener should be able to select A or B or X at will.  In sensitive tests the listener  is often unable to identify just what the differences are that allowed him to make to correct selection.


----------



## Yahzi

So besides the number of tests for each cable, what else was flawed in the experiment?


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> So besides the number of tests for each cable, what else was flawed in the experiment?


 
   
  The report is very vague about a lot of experimental details.  How long were listeners allowed to listen?  What environment, etc.?  Usually this means that best practices were not at all followed.  It seems like this was probably done single blind.
   
  Now think about possible ways the listener can get clues (consciously or not) for which cable is being used, other than by the sound:  looking at the body language of the person doing the swapping (if that person knows which is which), listening for differences in how the cables sound when being plugged in and out and dropped on the floor, and so on.  I mentioned single-blind studies and Clever Hans earlier.  
   
  On the flip side, certain different testing conditions may make things legitimately easier to distinguish.  For example, maybe a procedure that allows listeners to swap instantaneously would help them out.  Or a better sound system, or possibly higher volume, lower ambient noise, etc.
   
  If you're testing differences in sound quality, of course it's better to eliminate any other differences you can, like those above.  Unless somebody is very careful with those kinds of things, they usually aren't handled properly.


----------



## Yahzi

Any specific questions I should ask concerning the experiment? Okay, I''ll ask about the length of time taken between cable swops and where it was conducted. Anything else?  I'll report back here with his answers.


----------



## mikeaj

Those are more minor details. It's better to know more about the listening and testing procedure overall, but the biggest questions are about how the swapping is done.

Did the person who swapped know which cable was which? Were the cables directly physically handled during swapping?**

**To get around these things, I think one way to do it would be to use a switchbox with the cables already wired up, where the person handling the switchbox for the tests does not know which switch position selects which cable (somebody else set it up). Even then, that is not ideal. Best to keep the person switching and the whole mechanism out of sight and sound.


----------



## jnorris

Am I missing something?  Shouldn't $2000 cables sound amazingly clean and open at first listen and to all listeners?  Do you really have to work this hard to hear a difference after spending that much money?


----------



## liamstrain

> Am I missing something?  Shouldn't $2000 cables sound amazingly clean and open at first listen and to all listeners?  Do you really have to work this hard to hear a difference after spending that much money?


 
   
   
You do when there is no reason to think that cables will make much (if any) difference, regardless of how much you spent on them.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





jnorris said:


> Am I missing something?  Shouldn't $2000 cables sound amazingly clean and open at first listen and to all listeners?  Do you really have to work this hard to hear a difference after spending that much money?


 
   
  Taxes are the perfect example of spending a lot of money and not getting anything back for it. Audiophile cables are like taxes.


----------



## liamstrain

With the difference that one MUST pay taxes. Audiophile cables are more a tax on those who lack critical thinking skills.


----------



## Yahzi

This is what the guy said :
   
   
  Quote: 





> No Report just a little experiment that was done with friends, male and female.
> 
> How long ? They listened until one would wave a hand and stop the playing, 2-3 minutes.
> The environment - except for the fact that out environment if fcked, It was in a living room 6240mm x 5530mm x 2453mm, couches made of 350g/m3 material hammered to pine wood planted 1954/3, havested around 2006.
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Five bucks says the cables were in plain view of everyone when he switched and the lack of fancy insulation made the cheap cable obvious from across the room.


----------



## heathdwatts

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Taxes are the perfect example of spending a lot of money and not getting anything back for it. Audiophile cables are like taxes.


 
  Among the things that you are getting back for your tax dollars are roads, clean air, clean water, cheap food, a military to protect you, health care, Social Security benefits, the benefits of scientific research, and education. If one spends $2000 on audio cables, there might not be a measurable difference between the signal that they transmit and the sound transmitted from cables that are much less expensive can transmit. Of course, you might have been joking about our tax dollars being wasted; however, "audiophile" cables are unlike taxes.


----------



## bigshot

Roads and clean air are nothing compared to PRAT!


----------



## 80884

Incremental difference per dollar keeps decreasing as the investment in the upgrade increases. I mean, when you make you first 100dollar upgrade the difference will be exponential but as you keep increasing the value of you upgrades the difference is always smaller and smaller. If you upgrade from a 5 dollar cable to a 50 dollar cable you will hear a significant difference but to get the same quantum of sound improvement you will probably have to spend 500 dollars. Although there comes a time whem the minds starts hearing what the ears cant. Its a curse.


----------



## ChiefTofuBrain

I have been lurking on head-fi for a very long time. This is by far my favorite thread so far. Thank you for the detailed post Prog Rock Man.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





80884 said:


> If you upgrade from a 5 dollar cable to a 50 dollar cable you will hear a significant difference...


 
   
  Ah, no. No you won't unless one of the cables is broken, or deliberately futzed with to affect the RLC so much that it becomes a passive component in the circuit - which is just bad cable work.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





80884 said:


> Incremental difference per dollar keeps decreasing as the investment in the upgrade increases.


 
   
  Although I've found that it is pretty easy to spend too much, I haven't found much of a corollary between cost and sound quality improvement. In fact, a lot of very inexpensive equipment sounds just as good as the best high end stuff.


----------



## autumnholy

I'm buying a fancy IC and then I read this thread.
  And then most probably i'll end up buying it still.
  Cost me around $25. Not that I can hear a difference. Just that I'd want one for its aesthetics. I got one previously, but i think it has oxidized because i saw the inner part turned green.
   
  Actually I did try a sighted test on 3 cables, each is priced at $50, $100, and $160 respectively. Not sure what the materials are, and it seemed like the cables have certain names, or what number of N. And the question I'd like to ask is, I found out that I can hardly remember what I just listened. When i plugged in the cable between a portable media player and a portable amp, I started the song for around 30 seconds and then i stopped to change to another cable. But then, as soon as I started the song with the new cable, I came to realize I had forgotten how the previous song/cable sounded. Frankly, I can't be sure i hear anything different. I can't even notice anything significant because either I don't hear a difference or that I really forgot how the previous one sounded.
   
  For that matter, how can I successfully test a cable (sighted or not) as I have memory issues. Is there a better way to preserve my memory of that 30 sec so that I can compare the difference between the cables?


----------



## liamstrain

You could set up a rapid switching box, that would allow you go back and forth between them at the push of a button/switch.


----------



## autumnholy

For one cable i experience a loud crack or something on the headphones. Then i screwed the gold plug tighter and the crack is gone. I wonder what caused the sound. Tried it with different cable (the ones which the plug isn't "screw-able"). No such issue on that particular song.
   
  Using a switching box sounds like a great idea, however I tried it at the store. It's impolite to do that so obviously when the owner believes in his products (our culture here is a more conservative one). Maybe at my leisure at home. Was wondering how on earth can they tried different cables and say they heard difference. Before this I thought maybe it's that my ears aren't trained to listen to things... (not like the ones in sixth sense)


----------



## liamstrain

crack/crackle is usually oxidized or otherwise bad connections.


----------



## bigshot

autumnholy said:


> Using a switching box sounds like a great idea, however I tried it at the store. It's impolite to do that so obviously when the owner believes in his products (our culture here is a more conservative one).




Here in America we squeeze the fruit in the store to see if it's ripe.


----------



## autumnholy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Here in America we squeeze the fruit in the store to see if it's ripe.


 
   
  Reminds me of the story where the little boy tested each and every match before buying. LOL.


----------



## bigshot

When my sister was a kid she'd sample every candy in a Sees Candy box to find the chocolate covered cherry. A box full of candies with tiny bites out of them isn't appetizing.


----------



## scootsit

my mom taught me to stick a finger in the bottom of the candies


----------



## Finguz

For what it's worth a friend in london was always on about how awesome his hi-fi sounded, and how he could hear huge differences, especially after connecting his new £400 each interconnects between his cd player, dac and amp.

We were at his home one evening watching a movie and he popped out to get some wine and collect the take aways. While he was out we swapped the cables, with his wife in agreement, for throw away ones that come with standard audio kit ( thin plastic cables with the red and white plugs ).

When he returned we ate, enjoyed some wine and finished watching the movie. Then he fired up the hi-fi and spent the next hour playing disc after disc to let us hear all the extra detail e.t.c and explained to us how glorious it was to his ears.

Then, mid song, my friend handed him his cables. I won't repeat what he said here.

He sold the cables on ebay shortly after 

I'm not saying all kit sounds identical, I'm just saying that there are many people out their who fool themselves into believing they can hear a difference, when in practice they clearly cannot.


----------



## chewy4

That could even work on something that does make a difference to an average person.
   
  I've listened to my headphones for an hour straight before realizing I had Dolby Headphone on, which does make a clear and distinct difference. Although that was with songs I hadn't listened to before on those headphones but still you'd think I would have noticed the additional reverb and such; I did notice the imaging was really good but attributed it to my headphones and the songs themselves.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





finguz said:


> When he returned we ate, enjoyed some wine and finished watching the movie. Then he fired up the hi-fi and spent the next hour playing disc after disc to let us hear all the extra detail e.t.c and explained to us how glorious it was to his ears.
> Then, mid song, my friend handed him his cables. I won't repeat what he said here.
> He sold the cables on ebay shortly after
> 
> ...


 
   
  Funny story. Plus, likely got you in good with his wife.


----------



## Speedskater

Maybe she is a friend of "The Audiophile's Wife".
   
  http://www.theaudiophileswife.com/2011/08/its-not-that-heavy.html


----------



## Finguz

liamstrain said:


> Funny story. Plus, likely got you in good with his wife.




Hehehe indeed, she was fed up with him spending so much on hi-fi kit and thought it was a marvellous idea! 

I must say though, he had an awesome system and we were all very jealous 



speedskater said:


> Maybe she is a friend of "The Audiophile's Wife".
> 
> http://www.theaudiophileswife.com/2011/08/its-not-that-heavy.html




Class


----------



## Yahzi

Okay, this isn't so much a myth, but do you guys agree or disagree with this claim :
   
   
  Quote: 





> "We've had amps and source components that measures almost perfectly across the range, yet we cannot recreate a live performance convincingly, *or at least the illusion of same*."


----------



## xnor

No, because I don't think it has much to do with source components or amps.


----------



## Speedskater

The "*i*llusion's" problem areas are rooms, mics and speakers.


----------



## Yahzi

An argument I've heard over the years is that measurements can't accurately describe speaker timbre, or that science can't explain it yet. My question is, what measurement can give an idea of speaker timbre? I assumed it was frequency response related.

 Thoughts?


----------



## Yahzi

This is what I heard from one site :
   
  "*Frequency response , efficiency etc is quantifiable by science but a speakers timbre? You can plot a speakers frequency response on a graph but that will not describe a speakers timbre.

 Every component in the signal path , no matter how pricy the item was and how pricy the components used to build it were, adds coloration. The good components add "nice" coloration and others not so nice , case in point is the overtones/harmonics Valves add that give delectable richness to an audio performance.*"


----------



## xnor

Timbre is defined as a mixture of the fundamental tone, overtones, noise and the envelope. You can measure all these things. You can also play a musical note through a speaker and compare it to the real thing.
   
  I agree that every component adds coloration (not necessarily audible coloration, but measurable). What I strongly disagree with is that good components add "nice" coloration. Good components add very little coloration, bad components add much regardless if it's (theoretically) "nice" or not.


----------



## Yahzi

So frequency response doesn't play a role?


----------



## xnor

Of course it does. It's probably the most important thing. You do not want certain harmonics louder or softer due to a non-flat frequency response. That could change the timbre quite substantially.


----------



## Yahzi

So frequency response is probably the most important measurement to determine the timbre of a speaker, together with harmonic distortion?


----------



## xnor

Frequency response, THD+N, IMD


----------



## jcx

0.1 dB, ~ 1% comes up in audio psychoacoustic testing human thresholds rather often - in studies of timbre, harmonic phase sensitivity, a summary result was that if the waveform envelope didn't change by more than ~1% then the timbre wasn't changed
   
  this is consistent with psychoacoustic perceptual compression: MP3, Ogg Vorbis, ect. only use 6-7 bits per critical band to achieve "transparent" ratings with nearly all music - the better of these coding schemes only fail on a handfull of "killer samples" - mostly percussion, broadband "noise" like clapping/applause - not tonal instruments
   
  (for the non-engineers: 6-7 bits = 64 or 128 descrete levels ~= 1% resolution)


----------



## Yahzi

So SPL shifts can affect timbre and pitch. Reading up on Fletcher and Munson kind of explains this. But that would mean that even if the frequency response in our rooms were perfectly flat, a change in SPL could affect our hearing because our ears are non-flat and we perceive sounds differently at different levels.

 Correct me if I'm wrong here?


----------



## jcx

yes absolute playback level affects perceived frequency balance - Bob Katz - a recording engineer and writer claims this effect can be used to "dial in" small ~1 dB absolute differences between recording and playback levels - well below where most people can say the difference is loudness - if you have as well trianed ears as his, and test yourself against the calibrated sound feeds he has access to
   
  it is quite likely the "smile" eq curve built into some headphones makes them sound better/"more realistic" playing back recordings at lower levels than the live performance


----------



## Yahzi

So frequency response is largely related to timbre but how does IMD and THD+N factor into the equation?


----------



## Yahzi

Listen to this :
   
*"Distortion and colouration are two different things , colouration is a fleshing out of an audio signal's harmonic series with an addition or reinforcement of harmonic notes and distortion is a destruction of the signal.

 A system is a sum of its parts - all the little degrees add up to the whole , great audio designs are displays of magnificent mastery over the complex interactions of all the different parts of the system.

 No great designer only designs on paper using currently known science and plotting graphs and rows of figures. The proof is in the pudding and that is only revealed in the making of prototypes which reveal what that graph actually becomes in real life , often not quite what the designer intended.

 Does a wise man buy audio goods based on the science and graphs only or how they actually sound? A combination of both no doubt but with how they actually sound being the deciding factor.*"
   
  What a load of bollocks.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> So frequency response is largely related to timbre but how does IMD and THD+N factor into the equation?


 
  THD is the total harmonic distortion, the sum of powers of higher harmonic components divided by the power of the fundamental component.
   
  For example a 1 kHz sine wave played by an amp might also produce a lot of even (2 kHz, 4 kHz ..) and odd (3 kHz, 5 kHz ...) order harmonics. The odd ones are potentially more audible.
  If the THD is too high and becomes audible the 1 kHz tone doesn't sound like a clean 1 kHz tone anymore.

   
  The +N measurement does just that: add noise power to the sum of higher harmonics.
   
   
  In addition to harmonics, the fundamental components of two or more frequencies interact with each other and generate difference-tone and summed-tone components in the output, making it more offending than harmonic distortion.
  This is especially problematic in speakers with full-range drivers. Think of a big cone playing a bass tone and a high-frequency tone at the same time. The large cone movement for the low frequencies modulates the middle and higher frequencies.
   
   
  Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Listen to this :
> 
> *"Distortion and colouration are two different things , colouration is a fleshing out of an audio signal's harmonic series with an addition or reinforcement of harmonic notes and distortion is a destruction of the signal.
> 
> ...


 
  Additional or reinforcement of harmonics = harmonic distortion, so yeah what the guy wrote is BS.
   
  Of course, "designers" are gonna listen to what they made, that's not the problem. The problem is if the design is done by listening only, because then you could end up with something like in the graph above.
  Btw, there are people who are comfortable designing a piece of gear with measurements only.


----------



## Yahzi

I hate it when people claim that what we measure and what is heard are two completely different things. I think it's quite clear there is a strong correlation between measurements and sound quality. Are there any studies out there that support this?
   
  Btw, when you say there are people who are comfortable designing a piece of gear with measurements only, who are you referring? Famous designers? .


----------



## Kaffeemann

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> So frequency response is probably the most important measurement to determine the timbre of a speaker, together with harmonic distortion?


 
   
  Quote: 





xnor said:


> Frequency response, THD+N, IMD


 
   
  I would add CSD. Because the frequency response can look flat while the CSD shows a ton of ringing at certain frequencies.


----------



## autumnholy

I was rather puzzled by the idea of using an external DAC/Amp combo thru Line out USB dock from the iPod.
  Well, for some brands (preferred unnamed), some people claimed that the DAC section of the external DAC/Amp improves the overall sound like it's night and day, while some users experienced frustration over their experience of not experiencing anything significant from the DAC/Amp since iPod-> Dac/Amp itself costs much more higher than iPod->LOD->External Amp.
   
  Honestly, any idea if DAC itself matters much? I mean, things like the DAC in Fiio E17, is it much more different (sound quality wise) than something like in the $500 above region? Or the DAC in $500 above Portable Player is much better than something cheaper like the ones offered by Sansa?


----------



## jcx

Quote: 





> Btw, when you say there are people who are comfortable designing a piece of gear with measurements only, who are you referring? Famous designers?


 
   
   
  "...secured some research money so that Putzeys could further refine his class-D amp design. The goal was an amp module that would be easy to manufacture and suitable for a wide variety of audio applications, from mass-market to high-end. It had to be compact and have the same output impedance and power-supply requirements as a conventional amp. And it had to be cheaper and sound better. ”The idea was that there would be no excuse for not using it,” Putzeys recalls.

*This time, it took him eight months. He went through four generations of circuit boards without listening to any of them. Instead, he connected each board to an audio analyzer and then rejected it because the results on the analyzer weren’t what he wanted.*

 The fifth iteration, though, looked good. Just before Christmas 2001, he brought a pair of the amps home and connected them to the speakers in his living room. He put on a CD of Spanish classical music and selected a song by the 18th-century composer Juan Francés de Iribarren, ”Viendo que Jil, Hizo Rayo.” He settled back in a chair and listened. It took him just a few seconds to reach a conclusion: ”Straight in the bull’s-eye.”
 ...
 And when he can, he also listens to his own stereo setup, usually at night. The system is beautiful in the way that only a DIY audiophile’s can be; no rich poseur would ever wind up with something like this.
 ... His power amplifiers, small, elegant, and shiny, are a pair of monoblock units (a separate unit for the left and the right channel); they were prototypes for the MP150 amplifier from the Netherlands audio company Kharma International. Inside each box is, of course, a UcD module.
 ...

 The system is marvelous, if ungainly. And it nicely exemplifies Putzeys’s own credo about hi-fi components.

 "Stereo replay never actually reproduces a musical event,” he says. ”The only thing you can hope for is a credible illusion. But it can be a very nice illusion.”


----------



## Yahzi

So can we say with confidence that we can measure what we can hear?


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





autumnholy said:


> I was rather puzzled by the idea of using an external DAC/Amp combo thru Line out USB dock from the iPod.
> Well, for some brands (preferred unnamed), some people claimed that the DAC section of the external DAC/Amp improves the overall sound like it's night and day, while some users experienced frustration over their experience of not experiencing anything significant from the DAC/Amp since iPod-> Dac/Amp itself costs much more higher than iPod->LOD->External Amp.
> 
> Honestly, any idea if DAC itself matters much? I mean, things like the DAC in Fiio E17, is it much more different (sound quality wise) than something like in the $500 above region? Or the DAC in $500 above Portable Player is much better than something cheaper like the ones offered by Sansa?


 
   
  The DAC is where it all starts.  Of course it's important.
   
  The issue is about how much different one DAC is compared to another.  The idea behind external DACs for an iPod is that the external DAC "must" be much better than what the iPod uses internally, better than what Sansa is able to achieve for ~$30.  However, if you look at measured frequency response, distortion, noise, jitter, etc., it turns out that many of these cheap devices do D/A pretty well these days, relative to the imperfections of headphones used and relative to what humans hear.  That seems to hold up in what few fair listening tests are run.  That said, it's possible for DACs, expensive or not, to be different in sound quality (either intentionally or not).
   
  If you don't hear any noise or have other problems, I wouldn't worry about it or what others think.
   
   
   


yahzi said:


> So can we say with confidence that we can measure what we can hear?


 
   
  We can do a pretty good job measuring and quantifying what we hear, but mapping out what we perceive is a different matter.
   
  Any difference in sound that can be discerned should be significant enough to be (easily) measurably different with our current instrumentation.


----------



## Yahzi

What do you mean when you say "mapping out what we perceive"?


----------



## Yahzi

Quote: 





> Any difference in sound that can be discerned should be significant enough to be (easily) measurably different with our current instrumentation.


 
   
   
  Like audiometric testing?


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> So can we say with confidence that we can measure what we can hear?


 
  We can measure far more than what we can hear, which is why some people dismiss measurements - they do not understand them.
   
  I've seen reviewers dismiss measurements because device B sounded "better" but had a couple of dB higher THD, which was extremely low to begin with. I've seen people complain about a measured roll-off of ~0.5 dB at 5 Hz, or that -80 dB crosstalk is not enough etc.
   
  These people do not seem to know how well these devices perform, what the measurements mean, and that not every measured difference (in some cases even if it is big) causes an audible difference.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

+1 to this.
   
  I especially love the folks who rave about the "ultra wide" stereo images they get off of their turntables, the ones that use phono cartridges with about -25 db stereo separation.
   
  Somehow, -25 db gives them "beyond the walls!!!" stereo imaging, but -110 db noise or distortion in the digital realm gives them "fuzzy imaging" and "veils" over the music.


----------



## mark_h

Quote: 





blindinoneear said:


> +1 to this.
> 
> I especially love the folks who rave about the "ultra wide" stereo images they get off of their turntables, the ones that use phono cartridges with about -25 db stereo separation.


 
   
  Don't start on vinyl! Do you not know it has magical properties!


----------



## xnor

And there's nuts like Fremer: a few years ago he wrote a _glowing _review about a vinyl reissue of The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds. A few days later he was informed that it was cut from digital tape, so he took down his review and replaced it with one that complained that the album sounds too digital.
  He added stuff like "pale, thin and flat" and "flat, dimensionless, tinny, textureless and emotionally stunted" ...
   
  I guess he didn't know that the Internet doesn't forget.


----------



## Yahzi

In terms of construction and design, I have to assume cables (interconnects, speaker cable) are the easiest to make. I just can't see cable vendors losing sleepless nights over the conceptual design of a cable ... and then putting those design elements into practice .. and it taking THAT long. I mean seriously. Unless I'm wrong about cable design and it actually takes weeks to build a cable.
   
  The reason I'm asking is that in one of our cable threads there is a guy claiming a cable vendor has taken a decade to design and build a tonearm cable. How on earth could it take anyone a decade to build a cable? What inherent complexity is involved in building cable interconnects and speaker cable?


----------



## Yahzi

Let me ask you boffins a question. Would I be out of line if I said that a tonearm cable is less complex to design and build than a common toaster? Seriously ...


----------



## bigshot

The tonearm itself has more of an impact on the sound than the cable running through it. The run from cartridge to output jack is very short.


----------



## Yahzi

Right, but would I be correct in saying that the tonearm cable is less complex to design than a toaster? It might sound like a ridiculously absurd question, but please answer that. Thanks. ; - )


----------



## bigshot

Yes


----------



## Yahzi

Have you ever heard anything as ridiculous as taking a decade to build a tonearm cable? Actually technically it still hasn't been built, as the designer is not satisfied with the performance. So technically over a decade. I seriously wish there was a facepalm emoticon here.


----------



## liamstrain

I've heard much more ridiculous things in this audiophile world.


----------



## bigshot

To me, the most absurd concept is that frequencies beyond the range of human hearing impact sound quality in music.


----------



## Yahzi

Alright, second round of "cabling testing" :
   
  "_I NEEDED to learn something here so I indulged myself!

 Here goes:

 System: Krell/Tannoy Kingdom/Hovland/Wadia

 Listening room - Yeah olde living room, 6m x 5m.

 Cables:

 1) Transparent Reference Ultra XL ($12000) - Dont ask how much I paid for it.... a bargain of a lifetime!
 2) Van Den Hul Revelations - $2400 new, terminated
 3) QED Anniversary Silver XT - R80/m ($9/m on internet)

 Picked 4 songs I believe to be very well recorded.

 The suspects:

 A lady that has NO hi-fi, iPod and MP3 is life - my daughter (25) - and NO she NEVER agrees with me (A)
 A friend that has very decisive opinions about sounds/music he likes (B) and unbeliever (in cables)
 And me....curious to find something new and that I like! (C)  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 - NOT part of the test

 1st test. Does swapping the cables make an audible difference ? (Im excluded here, and I swap/or don't swap and walk out of the room - some members believe I INFLUENCE the listeners  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )....

 Result:

 6/7 times (B) heard a difference,
 5/8 times (A) heard a difference between the Transparent and QED

 2nd test. Can you identify your *preferred* cable ?

 Result:

 3/3 times (B) did pick up his preferred sound, 3/4 times he identified the crap cable (his words) and did not like it!.  (once I kept the QED and ACTED like swapping them - he commented it sounded the same). (7 tests)
 3/5 times (A) did pick a cable she preferred, she admitted once the sound was the same but liked it (I once faked the swapping of her preferred cable). She also 2/3 times didnt like the sound (8 tests)

 3rd test: Was there a preference ? YES BOTH liked the Transparent Reference.

 Now I know the transparent reference has all kinds of networks in its black box, maybe that helps a lot.

 The next rant is MY experience. I'm NOT Stereophile, AVSA etc.
 (If you have your own opinion and don't care what others say/think, please skip this part  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

 The QED on its own is a fine cable. But none of us liked it. It didn't excite. BUT this is the thing. If the other two cables weren't used you will NOT find something amiss!
 Yello - Of course I/m lying - is ultra fast and open. The bass incredibly - The VdH more sweeter. The QED sounds incomplete, not dull, but...damn for lack of word like old, tired speakers
 Flykiller - Yeah the 18" now kicks you off the couch. Kick, not rumble or push. The Krell sings. The VdH is definitely less sharp in sub/bass/lower mids
 Elisiane - The way this woman sings - WOW! "Lean down on me".... you have to hear it. Strange all 3 sounds ok here....
 Janis Ian - Breaking Silence - The Transparent is way better here... the QED again bit dull
 Three Blind Mice - Midnight Sugar - You want to hear a piano in FORCE ? Amazing
 Vinyl - Richie Valens - BETTER than CD - O sh..it Im going to be  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I have a nice thick 5mm+ twinflex here. I will put on connectors... and test.... and if anyone cares post a little feedback

*WHAT DID I(ME) LEARN* ?

 It is NOT night and day - except for two songs that were quite surprising.
 Is the most expensive one always the best ? No I think the VdH sounds excellent... but here the Transparent was the best
 One song was almost the same through all 3 ?! Recording bandwidth ? CD ? Less instruments ?

 Is the $12000 cable 6x better than the $2000 cable ? NEVER!!
 Is the $12k worth it ? NO - unless you swim in $$
 Should the QED cost $9/m ? Yes... its not worth more. I will use it in my HC or old retro hifi stuff
 I paid R2000 for the VdH quite a while ago- its WORTH every cent.... you never have to worry about this cable

 Does speaker cable make the same difference than interconnects ? Yes about the same  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Does system synergy/resolution make it easier the differentiate ? I think so, Jazzy agrees? Some cable in transit to be tested in other systems... lets hear

 Did the people convince THEMSELVES that cables made a difference ? YES but I will let them speak for themselves_"
   
  What do you guys think of this evidence? Surely it's concrete?  ; - )


----------



## bigshot

THE SETUP

Sitting crosslegged on a pillow in my living room. The pillow is Persian and retails for $600, but I got the deal of a lifetime on it! (Don't ask!)

THE RESULTS

I can fly if I really concentrate hard on it. I can't fly very high, just a foot or so off the ground, and it's more like hovering than flying. I find that three times out of ten, I am not able to fly. I just get a headache.

CONCLUSION

Although I can fly most of the time, birds are much better at it than I am.

_CREDIBLE?_


----------



## Yahzi

LOL. I really wish a member here could participate on our local forums. It really would be entertaining and enlightening.


----------



## Yahzi

It is true that we don't listen using our ears, but rather with our brains, right?


----------



## AKG240mkII

Quote: 





> _Cables:
> 
> 1) Transparent Reference Ultra XL ($12000) - Dont ask how much I paid for it.... a bargain of a lifetime!_


 
  That IS '12' and THREE zeroes, right ?
   
  When you switched cables, how long time did the subjects get to look at the downpayment for a nice house in silence ??


----------



## nick_charles

*My comments in bold. Please do not take them as confrontational, I deal with undergraduates a lot !*
  Quote: 





yahzi said:


> _Cables:_
> 
> _1) Transparent Reference Ultra XL ($12000) - Dont ask how much I paid for it.... a bargain of a lifetime!
> 2) Van Den Hul Revelations - $2400 new, terminated
> ...


----------



## liamstrain

It should be noted that (I believe) Yahzi is sharing amusing (or incredible) posts from other members on other forums - not his own posts.


----------



## Yahzi

Correct, I had no involvement in the test. Just thought I would share this concrete example with all of you.


----------



## Yahzi

Another myth... at least I think you could call it a myth, is the whole "quality over quantity" of wattage. I would rather have quality power over quantity. Thing is I don't know what quality power is these days. Is a Crown pro-amp quality power? Or is a Classe power amp quality power?


----------



## EthanWiner

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> I don't know what quality power is these days. Is a Crown pro-amp quality power? Or is a Classe power amp quality power?


 

 "Quality power" is simply sufficient power with a flat response, with low distortion and noise. Yes, Crown amps are a good value, and I have two of them in my home studio.
   
  --Ethan


----------



## bigshot

For home listening all you have to do is throw a rock over your shoulder and see what it hits. There's no lack of quality amps. At this point the only spec that means anything any more is the rated power.


----------



## Twizt

very interesting material you have here.
 I suppose this explains why I never really noticed a difference between regular and more expensive cables of the same material.


----------



## leogodoy

Great thread, I have learned a lot from reading this posts. 

My question is about LODs. Are they also in the same "audiophile myths" area? I use a cheap Fiio L1 with my setup (Fiio E6, iPod Nano and either Se215 or Westone 4R). Should I really believe I am missing something by not using a copper/silver/whatever they put on those 150 dollar cables I see people using here?

Sincerely,
Leo


----------



## bigshot

A line out dock is a line out dock.


----------



## scootsit

I mean, copper is a good idea. You should probably avoid any made of aluminum or well, anything less conductive. The Fiio L3/L5/L9, and that new one are probably all on par sonically with anything audiophile costing $150. The Fiio ones are really well made and can be had on amazon for under $10. Just take a look because not all of the Fiio LOD cables lock into the iPod, others just sort of sit there. I prefer the ones that lock.


----------



## leogodoy

You guys saved me some cash, thanks!


----------



## Yahzi

What do you guys think of the thick wire for bass, thin wire for treble? Look here :
   
*I have been experimenting with different gauge (thickness) cable on my speakers. I have a bi-wired setup, so my bass cables are different to my mid/treble cable. I started out with 16 AWG (1.5 mm^2) cores, and it sounded great. Listened to that for a couple of weeks, then changed everything in the bass section (including internal wiring) up to 9.5 AWG (6 mm^2), and the bass became more defined and articulate. I have had the 9.5 AWG cables in for two months or so - until today that is. Today I changed the cables running from the amplifier to the speaker up to 7 AWG (10.5 mm^2), and the definition and articulation is better still. The difference wasn't as pronounced as it was between the 16 AWG and 9.5 AWG, but still more than noticeable.*
   
  This sounds like expectation bias to me. What do you guys think?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Just touching base. One link, StereoNet no longer goes to the original test and I cannot find it. The rest appear OK.


----------



## Yahzi

The rest appears OK???


----------



## xnor

Without eliminating biases it could be an entirely imagined difference.
   
  4 mm^2 is usually more than sufficient for length up to about 10 meters.
   
  Btw, bi-wiring usually can not be detected in blind tests.


----------



## Yahzi

Just a technical question :
   
  Passive bi-amping ... does not separate the highs from the lows? It's a claim I hear about all the time. People bi-amp using their receivers but i can't see how it would separate the signals. Correct me if I'm wrong here?
   
  If passive bi-amping does not separate the signals and does not increase power, another claim I hear about all the time, what technical advantage would it have? None?


----------



## goodvibes

I tend to not be a fan but it does seperate the signals. The amps would blow up is their outputs were paralleled. One good amp beats 2 less good ones every time. The crossovers to the woofer and tweeter are almost allways seperate circuits tied together at the crossover input. Speakers with four terminals simple don't tie them together until the jumper is used. It's often better to strip the wire back and use it as your jumper than use the crappy gold plated jumpers given when single amping.
   
  Volume will be determined by whatever is driving the woofer, period and will not be noticably different than if it that same amp was used full range. You can get the impression of it being able to play louder with an amp or 2 added to the upper ranges because you can clip the woofer amp without it affecting the more sensative upper ranges as strongly. When pasasive bi-amping one needs to make sure both amps have identical gain. Active crossovers offer much greater benefits but generally have to be manufacturer supplied. You'd be surprised how much EQ is used is in better products for greater linearity and more correct slopes.


----------



## Yahzi

Quote: 





> tend to not be a fan but it does seperate the signals.


 
   
  Could you explain how passive bi-amping separates the highs from the lows? Thanks.


----------



## xnor

Do you mean bi-wiring with "passive bi-amping"?
   
  In that case there's no separation at all. The electrons don't care if there's one or thousand cables.
  There's only an advantage if you leave the speaker terminals bridged and use two pairs of wires with full wire gauge. On the other hand you could just use one pair of thicker wires with identical results.


----------



## Yahzi

Hi xnor,
   
  I'm talking about AVR's that offer bi-amping functionality. Every mid-range receiver nowadays has the bi-amp feature. You normally have to give up Zone 2 in order to make it work. Would that qualify?
   
  So there is no splitting of the highs and the lows? Which is what I suspect, I just need a second opinion.


----------



## xnor

In case of passive bi-amping there's also no splitting. Each amp receives the full-range signal.


----------



## goodvibes

I guess the question needs to be better asked. It does not seperate anything before the 2 amps but the 2 amps outputs do not interact. One only connects to the tweeter portion and the other only to the woofer portion. You wouldn't usually want a reciever to arbitrarily split frequencies in a full range speaker for the reasons I stated earlier.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Hi xnor,
> 
> I'm talking about AVR's that offer bi-amping functionality. Every mid-range receiver nowadays has the bi-amp feature. You normally have to give up Zone 2 in order to make it work. Would that qualify?
> 
> So there is no splitting of the highs and the lows? Which is what I suspect, I just need a second opinion.


 
   
  No splitting of the signal at the amp end. The split is in the speaker end, where one amp is powering the mids/tweeters, and another amp is powering the woofers. Dual input crossovers, rather than single input. Both amps are throwing full range signal at the speaker. That's all.


----------



## Yahzi

What would a laymans explanation be of active vs passive bi-amping?


----------



## goodvibes

Active is crossover in front of 2 amps in a 2 way setup. It can be a passive or active network in front of the 2 amps and it is still considered active bi amping. Active networks are often passive divices with gain stages anyways and don't need to deal with current loads at this stage. When the amps are bandwidth limited at their inputs and directly connected to the drivers, that's active. When they are full range at both input and output and allow the speakers crossover network to do the bandwith limiting, it's passive. Passive crossovers can lower transient response and cause more reactivity.


----------



## liamstrain

My understanding:
   
  active:
 crossovers are pre-amplification and so only the modified signals are amplified and send to the two different driver sets
   
  passive:
  all driver sets receive the same full spectrum signal, and crossovers are done after receiving this full spectrum amplified signal.


----------



## Yahzi

So Liam if I understand you correctly, no matter what signal is sent to the HF or LF drivers by the Amp in a Bi-Amp configuration, it will be altered by the speaker crossover anyway? Hence, the effects of Bi-Amping is eliminated?

 Correct?


----------



## liamstrain

No, not entirely - in a passive system you still have separate power for the different drivers, and that can mean less drain on the amp during higher impedance frequencies and passages for potentially better dynamics. 
   
  In an active system you get better gains still, since only modified (pre-crossed over signal) is amplified and sent directly to the drivers. 
   
  But - whether any of this offers a marked improvement over a standard system is something that would have to be tested properly. Some people swear by it. Some people (Linkwitz) design their speakers specifically for it. Personally, I think it's overkill for most users. Room treatment and better driver/speaker selection for the task would solve most problems the majority of listeners run into.


----------



## bigshot

Personally, I think just having enough power, speakers capable of putting out great sound and careful equalization are what you really need. I don't think biamping buys you much of anything. Better to put that money into better speakers.
   
  5:1 and a good DSP will make a huge difference too.


----------



## p a t r i c k

On the subject of bi-wiring, bi-amping, passive or active, I will tell you that personally I have tried them all!
   
  In the late 80s/early 90s when all this bi-wiring etc. thing got going I was very much into every craze that came along, including all kinds of voodoo about cables (costing me money I could so well have spent much more wisely).
   
  Today I think one really needs to stand back from these things and do a broader assessment before wasting a lot of time and energy which could be much better spent elsewhere.
   
  There is a problem with conventional speakers which is that as yet we don't have drivers capable of doing the entire audible frequency range, not at reasonable prices anyway. So we have this compromise of using two or more drivers. The problem is in matching these drivers, making sure that when the signal crosses from one to another, the listener can't hear the "join" or detect too much of a difference between the drivers. However, obviously the differences between the drivers are absolutely massive when compared with the kind of differences achievable by using, say, separate but identical amplifiers. When I write, massive, I would guess the differences between the two different drivers are in the order of millions or billions times greater than the differences achieved by the two identical amplifiers, or even more-so, the differences achieved by using two identical cables which are both connected at the amplifier output.
   
  So, when buying speakers buy ones made by a manufacturer who has attended well to the issue of ensuring that the crossover has been well managed between the two drivers. That is what is required.
   
  If someone can tell if their speakers are bi-wired or bi-amped with identical amplifiers in a double blind listening test, then I will be delighted and very very surprised.
   
  I will now give a suggestion for anyone that is attempting to get a better quality of reproduction from their Hi Fi with loudspeakers. If you have got a reasonable good transparent source, amplifier and speakers then what you need to address is the room they are in. It is the acoustics of the room which destroys you ability to hear what is on your CD, LP or digital file. It is not because your speaker cables are not pure enough in their composition of copper. It is not because your speaker cables are not numerous enough. You probably don't need to "upgrade" any part of your Hi Fi system at all. What you need to do is deploy acoustic treatments to your room.
   
  This is the big secret of getting good sound from Hi Fis (with speakers). The reason it is a secret is that there is no money to be made in room treatment by all those Hi Fi companies pushing you to buy the latest version of whatever they make. The Hi Fi magazines don't review room treatments because they don't come neatly in a box with a quote from the Shakyamuni Buddha on it.
   
  In the early 90s I stopped wasting my time with messing around with cables and other tweaks and I instead I did some pretty extensive room treatments in the listening room I had at that time. Even though my room treatments were actually fairly crap compared to those that an expert in that area might achieve, the results were stunning. I firmly believe that a modest Hi Fi in a well acoustically treated room will easily best the very most high end system you could construct placed in an untreated room.
   
  So, to all who are interested in getting good sound in a room in their home I recommend, stop reading Hi Fi magazines and blogs (most of them are the enemy of good reproduction). Instead read this:
   





   
  and search out information on DIY room acoustics on the Internet. You will find a lot.
   
  I have read the Master Handbook of Acoustics from cover to cover, (actually I have the fourth edition at present) and I will tell you it is fascinating indeed. I think you will enjoy it immensely and be surprised at the kind of problems you have to address acoustically.


----------



## bigshot

You have to be single to do room treatment. Wives don't allow it.


----------



## p a t r i c k

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You have to be single to do room treatment. Wives don't allow it.


 
   
  You are a gender stereotyping beast Mr. bigshot


----------



## bigshot

Women and bass traps don't mix. That's why most hifi nuts get banished to the basement, the one room in the house with the worst acoustics!


----------



## p a t r i c k

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Women and bass traps don't mix. That's why most hifi nuts get banished to the basement, the one room in the house with the worst acoustics!


 
   
  One could see getting good sound in the basement as a challenge


----------



## bigshot

One could see marriage as a challenge!


----------



## p a t r i c k

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> One could see marriage as a challenge!


 
   
  LOL


----------



## Yahzi

Came across this in one of the cable threads on my local forum. ABX and DBT's were mentioned as evidence of the fact that people can't reliably tell the difference between cables and the reply :
   
*Considering that even in the blind A/B you have high ratio of those that claim to hear the difference, even the low % of the "correct" answer cannot discount the FACT that listeners believe they hear the difference which automatically negates any scientifically obtained result.*
   
  I really want to put this person in his place.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Came across this in one of the cable threads on my local forum. ABX and DBT's were mentioned as evidence of the fact that people can't reliably tell the difference between cables and the reply :
> 
> *Considering that even in the blind A/B you have high ratio of those that claim to hear the difference, even the low % of the "correct" answer cannot discount the FACT that listeners believe they hear the difference which automatically negates any scientifically obtained result.*
> 
> I really want to put this person in his place.


 
   
   
Simple " "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away." (Philip K. Dick)


----------



## ukon16

Hmmm....
   
  Would it be perfectly fine to combine those room acoustic panels with canvas art coverings? 
   
   
  Just how many panels would a small room need? You don't need to blanket the wall and ceilings like a studio....I hope.


----------



## p a t r i c k

Quote: 





ukon16 said:


> Hmmm....
> Would it be perfectly fine to combine those room acoustic panels with canvas art coverings?
> 
> 
> Just how many panels would a small room need? You don't need to blanket the wall and ceilings like a studio....I hope.


 
   
  Hard to go into detail here, what you need, usually is to put a lot of treatments in the corners of the room first of all. It is pretty intrusive, personally I think that it needs to be a dedicated listening room really.
   
  You need to reduce the amount of bass and midrange energy in the room and this requires really deep boxy or columnar absorbing units in all the corners. When I did it in the dedicated room I used to have I built very large units for the four corners of the room, from floor to ceiling. Then hung deep absorbing units around all the edges of the ceiling. The room, in fact becomes quite a bit smaller really.
   
  Once you have reduced the bass and midrange energy, then you manage the secondary reflections.
   
  To manage those reflections you can use reflective panels in the centre of the walls and in the centre of the ceiling. These are ideally replaceable with panels of different materials and also these panels are to be adjustable for angle.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:  





> To manage those reflections you can use reflective panels in the centre of the walls and in the centre of the ceiling. These are ideally replaceable with panels of different materials and also these panels are to be adjustable for angle.


 
   
  I think I'd recommend diffusors over reflectors.
   
  se


----------



## p a t r i c k

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> I think I'd recommend diffusors over reflectors.
> 
> se


 
   
  In my brief description I pointed out that you need to manage reflections using what I described as "reflectors". These are placed on the walls on each side of the speakers and on the ceiling positioned between the listener and the speakers. You can actually work out the positioning using a mirror. You get a friend to hold the mirror in place. You sit in the listening position and you will ask your friend to move the mirror around until you see the speaker drivers in the mirror. Your friend marks the position. Now you know where the primary reflections are coming from.
   
  You can then manage those reflections. It might well be, and indeed often is the case, that a reflector is what is required, in other words, a panel with no diffusion. It might be that a bit of diffusion is required. In practice you will need to experiment, but for those panels you are in the business of managing reflections which are essential to good sound.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





p a t r i c k said:


> You can then manage those reflections. It might well be, and indeed often is the case, that a reflector is what is required, in other words, a panel with no diffusion. It might be that a bit of diffusion is required. In practice you will need to experiment, but for those panels you are in the business of managing reflections which are essential to good sound.


 
   
  Can't think of any instance where it would be required it be reflected rather than diffused or absorbed.
   
  se


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Can't think of any instance where it would be required it be reflected rather than diffused or absorbed.
> 
> se


 
   
  If the room is part of the computation for a reflex horn, or back loaded horn is the only thing I can think of. Unless you are talking about designing a concert hall where you are concerned with un-amplified projection from stage to the nose-bleeds.


----------



## p a t r i c k

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Can't think of any instance where it would be required it be reflected rather than diffused or absorbed.
> 
> se


 
   
  I recommend you get hold of F Alton Everest's _Master Handbook of Acoustics_.
   
  There are many excellent resources on the Internet as well for you to consider.
   
  You will find that in designing an acoustic treatment for a room for listening to music from a Hi Fi you will be creating management for key reflections in the room.


----------



## p a t r i c k

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> If the room is part of the computation for a reflex horn, or back loaded horn is the only thing I can think of. Unless you are talking about designing a concert hall where you are concerned with un-amplified projection from stage to the nose-bleeds.


 
   
  Well I have treated one room for use for listening to a Hi Fi in my time and I recommend you read F. Alton _Everests Master Handbook of Acoustics_.
   
  You will find that in creating such a room you will wish to manage some key reflections rather than simply diffuse or absorb all sound.


----------



## p a t r i c k

I brought up the subject in this thread of my past experience of treating a room acoustically for listening to music from a Hi Fi.
   
  I since moved house so I have that room no more and my new house is too small to have a dedicated listening room. This is because I now live in a very expensive part of the UK whereas I used to live in a very cheap part of the UK.
   
  My treatments were based primarily on my reading F. Alton Everest's book _Master Handbook of Acoustics_. I recommend anyone to read this book, it is if you like a "bible" for anyone wishing to get into acoustics, however it is well written and easily comprehended.
   
  I have read the book cover to cover and some!
   
  I've seen a couple of posts now in the thread which repeat one of the many myths about acoustic treatments, this myth being that acoustic treatment is about removing all possible reflections. This is not true.
   
  In fact the vast majority of reflections are removed however there are some essential key reflections which are to be managed, as I described earlier.
   
  I will now quote from page 410 of the fourth edition if the _Master Handbook of Acoustics_ in chapter 19 _Acoustics of the Listening Room_.
   
_Allowing a single lateral reflection of adjustable level would place control of the spaciousness and image effects in the hands of the experimenter/listener! The potential of this concept is staggering. Therefore, the next step in improving the listening conditions in this listening room will be the effective elimination of all of the early reflections, except for those of the lateral reflections off the left and right side walls that will be adjusted for optimum sound quality._
   
  F. Alton Everest then goes into considerable detail about how to manage these reflections.
   
  As I say I used this book (in fact an earlier edition) as the primary guide to my creation of my listening room and the results were excellent.
   
  So I recommend anyone interested in getting good sound reproduction to read this book.


----------



## bigshot

Personally, I think the sound of the room can be an important part of good sound. When you achieve a soundstage that has the subtle natural room ambience wrapped around it, it can add an extra level of realism. I also think that it isn't important, or even desireable to have the sound exactly the same at every seat in the room. A little natural variation is a good thing. It adds a perspective to the sound.
   
  Sometimes home theater guys (the ones who really work room acoustics) go overboard in trying to squeeze the last drop of theoretical sound quality out, and they end up with sound that is technically perfect, but acoustically sterile. Wen I was setting up my listening room, I was limited as to what I could do. The room is panelled floor to ceiling in beautiful golden knotty pine from the 50s. I wasn't about to junk it up with a bunch of giant dark brown acoustic panels. So I focused on the arrangement of the room. I tried putting furniture and rugs in different places and carefully adjusted the placement of the speakers. Even though I didn't go balls out on acoustic treatment, it still got me to where I wanted to go.
   
  it was a lot harder to balance the relative volume and EQ of the six channels than it was to set up the room. A little adjustment one direction or the other can have a big impact.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





p a t r i c k said:


> I brought up the subject in this thread of my past experience of treating a room acoustically for listening to music from a Hi Fi.
> 
> I since moved house so I have that room no more and my new house is too small to have a dedicated listening room. This is because I now live in a very expensive part of the UK whereas I used to live in a very cheap part of the UK.
> 
> ...


 
  In the fifth edition at least some of that chapter has been re-written.  It is suggested that reflections be treated by absorption with the possible desirability of lateral reflections, and that's in relation to the possible improvement of "spaciousness".  The degree of lateral reflection is to be determined experimentally:
   
  Excerpt: -----
   
  
  Lateral Reflections and Control of Spaciousness
   
  The lateral reflections from the side walls have been essentially eliminated by the absorbing material placed on the wall. A critical listening test should be performed with the sidewall absorbers temporarily removed, but with the floor, ceiling, and diffraction absorbers still in place. The recommendations of Fig. 18-7 can now be tested. Does the strong lateral reflection give the desired amount of spaciousness, or does it cause unwanted image spreading? The adjustment of the magnitude of the lateral reflections can be explored by using sound absorbers of varying absorbance (light cloth, heavy cloth, velour, acoustical tile, glass fiber panel) on the side-wall reflection points. For example, the lateral reflections can be reduced somewhat by hanging a light cloth instead of velour.
   
  Techniques such as these provide the ability to adjust the lateral reflections to achieve the desired spaciousness and stereo and surround imaging effect to suit the individual listener or to optimize conditions for different types of music. The discussion of the acoustical design techniques for small rooms is continued in the following chapters.
  -----
   
  In no case was it suggested that a deliberate reflector be added.
   
  The chapter doesn't discuss the use of a diffusor to control reflections, though diffusion is discussed in the following chapter on small studio acoustics.
   
  I don't have my copy of the fourth edition to compare to, sorry.
   
  edit: indicated book excerpt


----------



## jaddie

This might be my understatement of the week, but the book "Sound Reproduction - Loudspeakers And Rooms" by Floyd Toole covers the subject of reflections and their positive and negative effects in greater detail, a discussion spanning several chapters.


----------



## Yahzi

Can someone please explain, what is the best way to level match speakers when using a stereo amp for evaluation purposes?


----------



## bigshot

Use a preamp to balance the level.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Can someone please explain, what is the best way to level match speakers when using a stereo amp for evaluation purposes?


 
   
  Are you talking about level matching for the purposes of ABXor DBT testing, to eliminate volume differences as a biasing factor? Or something else?


----------



## Yahzi

Quote: 





> Are you talking about level matching for the purposes of ABXor DBT testing, to eliminate volume differences as a biasing factor? Or something else?


 
   
  Well if you are comparing two speakers in an apples to apples way ... in a sighted test, the best you can do is try to level match the volume between both. With a stereo set up, how would one go about doing this?


----------



## bigshot

Comparing two speakers is easy. Just put one pair as the A speakers and the second set as B. Switch between them. If there is a volume difference, you'll need two amps.
   
  Usually when I'm comparing speakers, I compare at a volume that is the loudest that is comfortable.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Well if you are comparing two speakers in an apples to apples way ... in a sighted test, the best you can do is try to level match the volume between both. With a stereo set up, how would one go about doing this?


 
   
  SPL meter or other calibrated microphone (with some way to analyze the input), test tones to use as a benchmark for volume, and multiple identical amplifiers (or an accurate repeatable way to attenuate the signal when needed).


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





p a t r i c k said:


> I recommend you get hold of F Alton Everest's _Master Handbook of Acoustics_.


 
   
  That has been on my bookshelf since the Second Edition.
   
  And I can't recall any instance where it was ever recommended to manage reflections by using REFLECTORS. Diffusion and absorption, yes. And even varying degrees of absorption to suit one's tastes. But not reflectors.
   
  Keep in mind that this is what you wrote that I was responding to:
   
  Quote: 





> _*To manage those reflections*_ you can use _*reflective panels*_ in the centre of the walls and in the centre of the ceiling.


 
   
  se


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> That has been on my bookshelf since the Second Edition.
> 
> And I can't recall any instance where it was ever recommended to manage reflections by using REFLECTORS. Diffusion and absorption, yes. And even varying degrees of absorption to suit one's tastes. But not reflectors.
> 
> ...


 
    +1, Steve.  He must have the terminology messed up.


----------



## Yahzi

Correct me but if I have a 200 ch x 7 power amp and I bi-amp, you are not sending 200 watts to the lows and 200 watts to the highs because of the passive crossover elements?


----------



## ACDOAN

jameshuntington said:


> This info proves a lot about the hype behind spending money VS. a professional setup. Bose sound awesome in a Bose Studio. Dre Beats sound better in the store plugged into their amp with their music. My favorite setup right now is a 1992 JVC CDP with the on board PEM and some 1981 Yamaha YH-100 headphones hooked into the front jack. Total cost off the street is 200 or less, but you could use some newer studio headphones with similar results. My Pinnacle loud speakers sound like expensive speakers, and that was the idea behind their design. All this study proves to me is that a system should be set up by a professional, or you may not get what you pay for.


----------



## ACDOAN

I caught a Bose rep jacked the bass and the treble in the 5.1 system in my store to the max instead using the calibration microphone. He also install a pre-recorded flash drive for that inflated " powerful" demo.

I do not hate Bose just the way they set up to demo their products. Comsumers take it home it will not sound the same. How would you like to take a heat from an angry customer since his $1, 499.99 sound bar sounds flat and much less dynamic as the one on demo? An exchange for another $1, 499.99 sound bar will not solve the problem but the customer insists the one he bought is defective !!!


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Correct me but if I have a 200 ch x 7 power amp and I bi-amp, you are not sending 200 watts to the lows and 200 watts to the highs because of the passive crossover elements?


 
  A crossover of any kind, passive or active, prevents inappropriate frequency energy from hitting the drivers.  It will also compensate for differing driver efficiencies. So there will be a different maximum power to each driver.  
   
  Not sure how you plan to bi-amp a speaker with a passive crossover unless provisions have been made for that.  Otherwise you have to take the crossover apart.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





acdoan said:


> I caught a Bose rep jacked the bass and the treble in the 5.1 system in my store to the max instead using the calibration microphone. He also install a pre-recorded flash drive for that inflated " powerful" demo.


 
   
  Every stereo store salesman does that. People may think their particular stereo salesman would never do that, but all that means is that he's sneaky and really good at adjusting the bass and treble knobs with his back turned to the unit. I saw a guy do this once. He had a big friendly grin on his face and his hands were behind his back casually. All of a sudden I noticed his sleeve moving and I looked behind him and he was dialing up the bass. When I called him on it, the big grin disappeared and he stopped talking to me.


----------



## scuttle

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Every stereo store salesman does that. People may think their particular stereo salesman would never do that, but all that means is that he's sneaky and really good at adjusting the bass and treble knobs with his back turned to the unit. I saw a guy do this once. He had a big friendly grin on his face and his hands were behind his back casually. All of a sudden I noticed his sleeve moving and I looked behind him and he was dialing up the bass. When I called him on it, the big grin disappeared and he stopped talking to me.


 
   
  Really good ones manipulate the controls knobs by clenching them between their buttocks. Which is why should only take a demo unit unless it's a _really_ great deal!


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





scuttle said:


> Really good ones manipulate the controls knobs by clenching them between their buttocks.


 
   
  Never buy floor models.


----------



## goodvibes

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Every stereo store salesman does that. People may think their particular stereo salesman would never do that, but all that means is that he's sneaky and really good at adjusting the bass and treble knobs with his back turned to the unit. I saw a guy do this once. He had a big friendly grin on his face and his hands were behind his back casually. All of a sudden I noticed his sleeve moving and I looked behind him and he was dialing up the bass. When I called him on it, the big grin disappeared and he stopped talking to me.


 
   Most better shops sell kit that don't even have tone controls, don't use switch boxes etc. Of course that will now be a scam as well. You know, giving you less and telling you those are a bad thing. Lordy Lordy preach on. Your game is actually better than those you admonish. Why would anyone turn up the bass and make it sound crappier to try and sell something. If that actually worked, it's probably good enough for who it for. Bose probably needs all the help it can get so maybe that's an exception. LOL The idea that you can hear anything in a big box store that sells Bose is a joke anyway.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





goodvibes said:


> Most better shops sell kit that don't even have tone controls, don't use switch boxes etc. Of course that will now be a scam as well. You know, giving you less and telling you those are a bad thing. Lordy Lordy preach on. Your game is actually better than those you admonish. Why would anyone turn up the bass and make it sound crappier to try and sell something. If that actually worked, it's probably good enough for who it for. Bose probably needs all the help it can get so maybe that's an exception. LOL The idea that you can hear anything in a big box store that sells Bose is a joke anyway.


 
  The one thing Bose systems don't need is more bass.  They don't have a lot of bass adjustment, and usually they need less.  A lot less.  
   
  Best Buy often has a "Magnolia Home Theater" demo room where you could possibly hear something, but the staff is highly under qualified and stuff often isn't set up right at all.  
   
  If someone is actually auditioning Bose, they've probably already drank the cool-aid.  If anything, those systems are what should be clenched. Bose are Masters of marketing.  Absolute masters.  I'm in awe. Unique products, highly proprietary, simple concepts, inventive engineering, high cost, sub-average results.   People who own them continue to love them too, owning them for many years.  Simply amazing.  
   
  A friend recently showed us their Bose system and proudly stated they loaded all their CDs into it, then threw the discs away.   Oh, and they've never done and don't know how to do a backup. Talk about drinking the cool-aid!


----------



## goodvibes

It's bliss.


----------



## ACDOAN

BB/ Magnolia stores in my area carry much better lines now .I saw a B &W 804 and some MacIntosh tubepre/amp with the Logan. Nice system but I wonder why would any Magnolia salesman display the Logan/MacIntosh system right by the entrance to their Magnolia section? Being a quasi-dipolar,the Logans are very picky about placement and they display them where all the noise in the store interferes with the music from the system. I guess their thinking is "look at us ,we now have MacIntosh and Logans". Big money at a very wrong place.


----------



## 329161

just to steer this thread a little askew- does anyone hear a difference between FLAC and WAV? I used to think I heard a difference between AIFF and WAV. Audiophiles are funny beings. But I guess faith is a powerful force.


----------



## 329161

I still think burning cds on a laptop on battery power sounds better than doing the same thing on mains power. Am I foolish on this?


----------



## jaddie

dcfac73 said:


> just to steer this thread a little askew- does anyone hear a difference between FLAC and WAV? I used to think I heard a difference between AIFF and WAV. Audiophiles are funny beings. But I guess faith is a powerful force.



This had been beat to death in another thread. 

But no.


----------



## jaddie

dcfac73 said:


> I still think burning cds on a laptop on battery power sounds better than doing the same thing on mains power. Am I foolish on this?


 Better in what way?


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





dcfac73 said:


> I still think burning cds on a laptop on battery power sounds better than doing the same thing on mains power. Am I foolish on this?


 
  Yes. Yes you are.


----------



## 329161

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Better in what way?


 
  I think cds burned on mains power sound warmer/muddier


----------



## xnor

Tbh, that sounds pretty ridiculous. Burn the same CD on battery and on mains power and compare them bit for bit. They should be identical. If not, something's broken on your laptop.


----------



## 329161

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Tbh, that sounds pretty ridiculous. Burn the same CD on battery and on mains power and compare them bit for bit. They should be identical. If not, something's broken on your laptop.


 
  Well, I've posted in the right thread then. Yeah, people also give this solution to counter the opinion that different DAWs sound different to each other. It's called the "null test" if I'm not mistaken. It makes sense, although I'm convinced I hear a difference.
   
  This has been done to death elswhere, but I'm convinced I hear sound quality differences in _playback _between different DAWs and Android music player apps. The null test is based on the premise that identically sized renders of sound files will sound the same. Many many people think that apps like Neutron _play _sound "better" than apps like Poweramp, or the stock music players that come with Android devices. Why should this be also not the case for different DAWs? Remember, I'm talking _playback _differences and not rendering.


----------



## liamstrain

Factors that can affect computer or portable device playback - 
   
  1. Decompression algorythms (especially from mp3 - there is less processing that happens from uncompressed files and less variability, but compressed files rely on advance processing before the audio stream starts). Most companies use the same ones, but not all. 
  2. Ability to prioritize resources within the device to prevent interference and data stream lags
  3. Built in pre-amp/eq settings. Some have none, some let you disable, some you have no control over - also with workstations, the hardware component driving the audio can have an effect if the impedances or power requirements don't mesh up. 
   
  Most of these are a non-issue, or demonstrably inaudible. But they *can* be a factor. 
   
  There are a few instances where battery power could potentially be quieter than mains power. But it would more likely take the form of background noise, than any "warmer/colder" and is usually due to mixing power signals with input audio signals as in a USB powered DAC/AMP (which can run quieter when on an internal battery, than powered from the usb). I don't see any reason it would affect CD playback or burning, unless, as has been said, there is something wrong with your machine. 
   
  The null test is more than just a file size check. It's bit by bit, digital data. If all the 1s and 0s are in the same place, they will sound identical. That's the way digital works. It's also why any USB cables that is not entirely out of spec (broken) cannot affect sound.


----------



## xnor

Yeah in a null test you add A and inverted B and check if the difference is silence. A + -B = 0
   
  Please don't take the following as an offense. Being convinced of something doesn't make it true. Some people are convinced they've been abducted by aliens. I believe you when you say you hear a difference. Maybe the discs are not identical for whatever weird reason, but it's more likely that there's bias at play.
   
  I cannot speak for android apps, but DAWs should play let's say WAV files identically through something like ASIO. There could be some processing going on in these apps or even outside the DAW if you use DirectSound (-> resampling if samplingrate doesn't match).


----------



## 329161

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Yeah in a null test you add A and inverted B and check if the difference is silence. A + -B = 0
> 
> Please don't take the following as an offense. Being convinced of something doesn't make it true. Some people are convinced they've been abducted by aliens. I believe you when you say you hear a difference. Maybe the discs are not identical for whatever weird reason, but it's more likely that there's bias at play.
> 
> I cannot speak for android apps, but DAWs should play let's say WAV files identically through something like ASIO. There could be some processing going on in these apps or even outside the DAW if you use DirectSound (-> resampling if samplingrate doesn't match).


 
  I hear what you say, and of-course you're right. But only if you haven't been abducted by aliens. I'm Catholic too, that should tell you something.


----------



## 329161

Yes, all these facts make sense, and yet there are many people (including professional music producers) who maintain they hear a difference between DAWs. The point was made before that a "placebo affect" could also work for the better. If people think they hear a difference (and in effect do), then this would affect the quality of the music they produce. Some members of this forum (and audiophiles in general) spend crazy  money on stuff that they derive more pleasure from simply because they believe it to be so. You or I might not hear this difference, but it make s adifference to them.


----------



## liamstrain

I understand what you are saying, we just should be clear about the difference between experiencing a difference (subjective), and their actually being one (objective). If there is no objective data to support an audible difference, and a mountain of evidence suggesting that, in fact, there shouldn't be one - then one's experience not withstanding, we shouldn't be making recommendations based solely on that experience. Especially given the very good evidence we have regarding how the brain processes data, and what factors can bias it (often tremendously). 
   
  That is to say, personal experiences, while valuable, do not trump objective evidence - especially overwhelming evidence. They may, however, inform the search for actual evidence that later might. In the meantime, it is what it is, one person's subjective opinion, and nothing more. An experienced placebo does not mean it is anything more than placebo - and it's predictive/modeling value for others is virtually nil (e.g. since we don't know the specific biasing factors, and there is no objective data to suggest a difference - there is no reason to think any two people would experience that placebo the same way, unless they are influenced by review/expectation/marketing similarly - quite murky waters).


----------



## scuttle

Quote: 





dcfac73 said:


> Yes, all these facts make sense, and yet there are many people (including professional music producers) who maintain they hear a difference between DAWs. The point was made before that a "placebo affect" could also work for the better. If people think they hear a difference (and in effect do), then this would affect the quality of the music they produce.


 
   
   
  If a producer thinks that performing an action will make the sound better, but it doesn't, then, yes, there will be an effect: production quality will be reduced. Which is pretty much what has happened over the past several decades.
   
  I think a big problem here is that you have failed to understand a large category of subjective changes, those where thanks to placebo effect people "hear" an improvement when they KNOW the change has been made, but hear no change - or a loss in sq - in blind testing.


> Some members of this forum (and audiophiles in general) spend crazy  money on stuff that they derive more pleasure from simply because they believe it to be so. You or I might not hear this difference, but it make s adifference to them.


 
   
  Again, you have to differentiate between changes that can pass blind testing and those that can't. As for the ones that can't, this is the SOUND SCIENCE forum.


----------



## 329161

Quote: 





scuttle said:


> If a producer thinks that performing an action will make the sound better, but it doesn't, then, yes, there will be an effect: production quality will be reduced. Which is pretty much what has happened over the past several decades.
> 
> I think a big problem here is that you have failed to understand a large category of subjective changes, those where thanks to placebo effect people "hear" an improvement when they KNOW the change has been made, but hear no change - or a loss in sq - in blind testing.
> 
> Again, you have to differentiate between changes that can pass blind testing and those that can't. As for the ones that can't, this is the SOUND SCIENCE forum.


 
  At the end of the day, listening to music is an experience that is not the same for everyone. What others experience, for whatever reasons, may not be the same as that for you or I. Re: the example of DAWs- if I perceive different audio quality in a different DAW, and this leads to a clearer mixdown. Would I be wrong in switching? Ableton has been consistantly singled out as having poorer audio quality. I've read in some production magazines that artists have switched to Logic to produce, and use Ableton to sketch out ideas because of this perceived difference in sound. At the end of the day- if this results in better mixdowns for them, who are we to say that they don't hear (perceive) a difference which affects their recorded output in a tangible way?


----------



## xnor

Religious discussion is forbidden in this forum but it's pretty much the same with people spending crazy amounts of money on stuff that doesn't really do anything but makes them feel the sound improves.
   
  Nobody lives in a vacuum. Every belief, decision, etc. has an affect on others even if it's just a simple post in an online forum. If you're rational you will say yes if I ask you: do you care if what you believe is true? Or do you not care whether something you believe is true as long as it makes you feel good?
  This question might sound ridiculous if we're talking about audio but it applies to anything really.
   
  Even professionals are ignorant in some respect...  for example some prefer to do analog summing instead of doing it in their DAW. They _have _to be ignorant about the extra D/A and A/D conversion and added noise, distortion, crosstalk etc. to justify their purchase. Their brain tells them: this _has _to sound better considering the price. As a result it does.


----------



## 329161

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Even professionals are ignorant in some respect...  for example some prefer to do analog summing instead of doing it in their DAW. They _have _to be ignorant about the extra D/A and A/D conversion and added noise, distortion, crosstalk etc. to justify their purchase. Their brain tells them: this _has _to sound better considering the price. As a result it does.


 
  Wow, that's a whole other can of worms


----------



## liamstrain

Not really. It's the same can, from a different point of view.


----------



## 329161

Some bands play on Persian rugs because they think it helps. Are they wrong to do that?


----------



## xnor

Helps in terms of acoustics or performance (can they play better)?


----------



## leogodoy

http://1heckofaguy.com/2012/10/02/leonard-cohen-on-the-carpet-in-concert/


----------



## 329161

Quote: 





xnor said:


> (can they play better)?


 
  Well, yes. I think they feel more comfortable on it, so this helps them to play better.


----------



## liamstrain

It would cut down on monitor level bass reflections, so that could have an actual effect on the sound too. 
   
  the point is psychoacoustics are real (on an individual level), but it is also unpredictable and not applicable as a predictive model (currently). They represent a sort of epi-acoustics - that is, an influencing layer on top of actual acoustics. Sometimes that can mean objective differences in sound (perceived comfort/familiarity allows for better performance), and sometimes not (the silver cable is not "brighter"). But they are not a reason to market or recommend products, or propose that they make a "real difference." Especially on the playback side of things.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





leogodoy said:


> http://1heckofaguy.com/2012/10/02/leonard-cohen-on-the-carpet-in-concert/


 
  Thanks, this mentions a couple of good reasons why to use rugs.


----------



## jaddie

xnor said:


> Thanks, this mentions a couple of good reasons why to use rugs.




Yes but the music world is full of rug abuse. Oh..um...wait...


----------



## leogodoy

The best reason for a persian rug is the one mentioned by The Dude Lebowski: "it really tied the room together, man".


----------



## 329161

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Yes but the music world is full of rug abuse. Oh..um...wait...


 
  haha, I saw what you did there....or did I?


----------



## 329161

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> It would cut down on monitor level bass reflections, so that could have an actual effect on the sound too.
> 
> the point is psychoacoustics are real (on an individual level), but it is also unpredictable and not applicable as a predictive model (currently). They represent a sort of epi-acoustics - that is, an influencing layer on top of actual acoustics. Sometimes that can mean objective differences in sound (perceived comfort/familiarity allows for better performance), and sometimes not (the silver cable is not "brighter"). But they are not a reason to market or recommend products, or propose that they make a "real difference." Especially on the playback side of things.


 
  actually, I'm not sure what point I was trying to make with that rug analogy.


----------



## Aquanote

Quote: 





dcfac73 said:


> I still think burning cds on a laptop on battery power sounds better than doing the same thing on mains power. Am I foolish on this?


 

 my soda came spilling out of my nose when i read this. hilarious


----------



## 329161

Quote: 





aquanote said:


> my soda came spilling out of my nose when i read this. hilarious


 
  why is that? Have you tried to burn cds both ways?


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Yes but the music world is full of rug abuse. Oh..um...wait...


 
  Xxx, Rugs & Rock 'n' Roll


----------



## jaddie

I'm soooo disillusioned.  I thought it was "Eggs, Rugs and Rock and Roll".  Now I have to throw out my entire collection of eggs.  And rugs.


----------



## 329161

Quote: 





dcfac73 said:


> why is that? Have you tried to burn cds both ways?


 

 didn't think so


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





dcfac73 said:


> why is that? Have you tried to burn cds both ways?


 
  Quote: 





dcfac73 said:


> didn't think so


 
  You don't have to try everything yourself.
   
  But I've burned countless CDs using my laptop connected to mains power and all were perfect, i.e. bit for bit the same as the source.
  If that's not the case for you, something in the laptop is clearly broken.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





dcfac73 said:


> I still think burning cds on a laptop on battery power sounds better than doing the same thing on mains power. Am I foolish on this?


----------



## drez

liamstrain said:


> I understand what you are saying, we just should be clear about the difference between experiencing a difference (subjective), and their actually being one (objective). If there is no objective data to support an audible difference, and a mountain of evidence suggesting that, in fact, there shouldn't be one - then one's experience not withstanding, we shouldn't be making recommendations based solely on that experience. Especially given the very good evidence we have regarding how the brain processes data, and what factors can bias it (often tremendously).
> 
> That is to say, personal experiences, while valuable, do not trump objective evidence - especially overwhelming evidence. They may, however, inform the search for actual evidence that later might. In the meantime, it is what it is, one person's subjective opinion, and nothing more. An experienced placebo does not mean it is anything more than placebo - and it's predictive/modeling value for others is virtually nil (e.g. since we don't know the specific biasing factors, and there is no objective data to suggest a difference - there is no reason to think any two people would experience that placebo the same way, unless they are influenced by review/expectation/marketing similarly - quite murky waters).




IMo the ability of science to account for the experience of life is very limited, I don't mean that it is useless or incorrect, but just limited in what it can predict. For me my direct experience comes first and foremost above a priorised mentally constructed determination of what my experience will be. Science enters to help make sense of what I directly perceive. 

For example I just bought an HD800, and seller says look at the FR chart there is no 6Khz peak, and sure the FR plot provided shows no peak. But my ears tell me otherwise, so I look into it further and the FR plots made by Sennheiser are absolute rubbish. If I were to assume the evidence provided to me was absolute and reliable, and that my own observations are feeble and worthless I would still have sore ears. On the other hand objective measurements help to determine what might be causing what I was observing. Still other people might listen to e exact same headphone and be perfectly happy with them, even with all things being equal.


----------



## scootsit

Quote: 





drez said:


> IMo the ability of science to account for the experience of life is very limited, I don't mean that it is useless or incorrect, but just limited in what it can predict. For me my direct experience comes first and foremost above a priorised mentally constructed determination of what my experience will be. Science enters to help make sense of what I directly perceive.


 
  This statement misrepresents, or fundamentally misunderstands the hypothetico-deductive method. Additionally, it is generalized to the point of absurdity. Whether you choose to utilize the scientific method in your audio-related decision making or not, you cannot simply disregard the scientific method when it is incongruent with whatever point you are making. Scientific inquiry is the basis of all (learned) knowledge (imprinted and instinctual knowledge excluded), and the scientific process, in and of itself should be beyond reproach.


----------



## scootsit

You can question the assumptions, conclusions, process, or procedure of any individual or experiment. But, disregarding the scientific method as a whole is ridiculous. Doing so undermines every single aspect of human knowledge and learning.


----------



## drez

scootsit said:


> This statement misrepresents, or fundamentally misunderstands the hypothetico-deductive method. Additionally, it is generalized to the point of absurdity. Whether you choose to utilize the scientific method in your audio-related decision making or not, you cannot simply disregard the scientific method when it is incongruent with whatever point you are making. Scientific inquiry is the basis of all (learned) knowledge (imprinted and instinctual knowledge excluded), and the scientific process, in and of itself should be beyond reproach.




I think you touched upon my point, scientific method is fine for scientific research, But it does not override what I directly observe, except in extreme cases. Fact is though that the science being brought to bear against "audiophile claims" is generally piecemeal and of limited scope and sample size. The vast majority would not pass for academic research. I do not consider it comprehensive.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





drez said:


> I think you touched upon my point, scientific method is fine for scientific research, But it does not override what I directly observe, except in extreme cases.


 
   
  The problem is that what you directly observe can be unreliable and biased, unless the right measures (double-blind testing, etc.) are taken to eliminate all sources of bias. This is something that has been known to science and proven for a long time, but is apparently very hard for audiophiles to accept (even banned here at the other sub-forums).


----------



## drez

stv014 said:


> The problem is that what you directly observe can be unreliable and biased, unless the right measures (double-blind testing, etc.) are taken to eliminate all sources of bias. This is something that has been known to science and proven for a long time, but is apparently very hard for audiophiles to accept (even banned here at the other sub-forums).




This is true, but unfortunately double blind testing and objective measurements are not practical for the vast majority of the decisions we make. If you can organise such testing for specific decisions this is great, and certainly generous in terms of providing a more reliable data point for other people.


----------



## scootsit

Quote: 





drez said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   You are right, anti-audiophile nonsense is frequently undersampled, while audiophile nonsense has little basis in reality and is unsampled. That is neither here nor there, because I frankly don't care. Admittedly, contrary examples likely exist for both.
   
  I am responding exclusively to your absolute disregard for the scientific method. The scientific method is contingent upon repeatable observation. To assert that your observation of the world supersedes well established and rigorously tested theory is ridiculous. Science is based on repeated and repeatable observation. I think you should review the hypothetico-deductive method, then reconsider your statements. You have not presently passed judgement on the application of the underreplicated pseudo-science of these boards, but rather, you have cast aspersion on science as a practice, the scientific method, and the philosophy of science.
   
  In short, just because it looks like the sun revolves around the earth doesn't make it so.
  For your edification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


----------



## drez

scootsit said:


> You are right, anti-audiophile nonsense is frequently undersampled, while audiophile nonsense has little basis in reality and is unsampled. That is neither here nor there, because I frankly don't care. Admittedly, contrary examples likely exist for both.
> 
> I am responding exclusively to your absolute disregard for the scientific method. The scientific method is contingent upon repeatable observation. To assert that your observation of the world supersedes well established and rigorously tested theory is ridiculous. Science is based on repeated and repeatable observation. I think you should review the hypothetico-deductive method, then reconsider your statements. You have not presently passed judgement on the application of the underreplicated pseudo-science of these boards, but rather, you have cast aspersion on science as a practice, the scientific method, and the philosophy of science.
> 
> ...




Yeah I should have limited the scope of my statement : (. Point I was trying to make is that in everyday life while we accept certain things as impossible due to our understanding of the world as supported by science religion etc for most decisions uncontrolled observations have to make do. Personally where my own observations are in conflict with established knowledge, while it does trigger a crisis, for the most part I side with my observations especially for my own personal decisions.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





drez said:


> This is true, but unfortunately double blind testing and objective measurements are not practical for the vast majority of the decisions we make. If you can organise such testing for specific decisions this is great, and certainly generous in terms of providing a more reliable data point for other people.


 
   
  If the observation is not made under properly controlled conditions, then there is no evidence that it is true, and it could very well be false, even if it is the same for the majority. If you look at this picture,

  do you trust your observation that B is a lighter shade of grey than A (especially after it is backed up by 10 out of 10 other people looking at it and also saying that B is lighter), or the measurement tool of the image editor that says that they are exactly the same ? What do you observe now, with the source of bias removed:


----------



## drez

^^Good point again. Another a example with audiophile cables is not level matching when one cable has less resistance due to different thickness, silver metal etc. There are definitely dangers in uncontrolled comparisons of analog cables. Agh so many edits...


----------



## UnityIsPower

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html


----------



## jaddie

drez said:


> ^^Good point again. Another a example with audiophile cables is not level matching when one cable has less resistance due to different thickness, silver metal etc. There are definitely dangers in uncontrolled comparisons of analog cables. Agh so many edits...




25ft of 16ga copper speaker wire with a 4 ohm load has less than .5dB of loss. 

Line level applications have loads so high there is no appreciable resistive loss. 

Level match due to cable loss really isn't an issue.


----------



## drez

jaddie said:


> 25ft of 16ga copper speaker wire with a 4 ohm load has less than .5dB of loss.
> 
> Line level applications have loads so high there is no appreciable resistive loss.
> 
> Level match due to cable loss really isn't an issue.




So what would be the loss of a headphone cables eg 8 foot of 24 gauge wire driving say a 50 Ohm headphone?


----------



## jaddie

drez said:


> So what would be the loss of a headphone cables eg 8 foot of 24 gauge wire driving say a 50 Ohm headphone?


 
Less than 0.2dB.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Less than 0.2dB.


 
   
  I this I see your point.  So I guess any change is going to be less than 0.1 dB in which case inaudible or impossible to level match anyway?


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





drez said:


> I this I see your point.  So I guess any change is going to be less than 0.1 dB in which case inaudible or impossible to level match anyway?


 
  Inaudible is the point.  
   
  Your earlier comment re: cables not being level matched is for the most part unfounded, especially in line-level applications.  My point here is to show that a common length of 16ga speaker wire has an insertion loss too small to upset a level match situation, even at an impedance minimum of 4 ohms. The second point, the headphone application, is that that situation results in even less cable attenuation.  
   
  Sorry, nothing personal, I just can't sit at let the concept of "cable loss" be thrown around without bringing it down to reality.
 ​  ​


----------



## drez

jaddie said:


> Inaudible is the point.
> 
> Your earlier comment re: cables not being level matched is for the most part unfounded, especially in line-level applications.  My point here is to show that a common length of 16ga speaker wire has an insertion loss too small to upset a level match situation, even at an impedance minimum of 4 ohms. The second point, the headphone application, is that that situation results in even less cable attenuation.
> 
> ...




No problem I appreciate your input a lot, these are things I do not understand fully on a technical level. I don't mind being corrected if I learn something.


----------



## scootsit

It would be conceivable that the impedance, capacitance, or construction of the cable (or insulator) could very minutely effect the frequency response of the cable, if I'm not mistaken, because impedance is frequency dependent.


----------



## liamstrain

Those differences in LRC values would have to be pretty far off to be anywhere near audible.


----------



## drez

Inner Fidelity are doing some interesting tests of headphone cables, so far the differences are very slight, enough that issues with earpads seal could be distorting the results. I have to say I wasn't expecting any different, most sensible cables I have compared only possibly had minute differences, and yes my comparisons were uncontrolled so feel free to take that anecdote with a grain of salt. Still it was enough for me to have a preference one way or the other, which is certainly a very convoluted psychological construct if it were one.


----------



## jaddie

scootsit said:


> It would be conceivable that the impedance, capacitance, or construction of the cable (or insulator) could very minutely effect the frequency response of the cable, if I'm not mistaken, because impedance is frequency dependent.


The big key here is the driving source impedance. No common length of interconnect can have enough capacitance to affect frequency response unless the driving impedance is quite high. The days of high impedance outputs are long gone. Inductance of any amount that could affect frequency response is simply a physical impossibility without adding a deliberate and significant series inductor. 

For speaker cables the surrounding source and load impedances completely swamp out anything the cable can provide in terms of L and C, with the possible exception of non-paired conductors with very large distances between them (like on opposite sides of the room) which creates a bit of L to contend with. The big factor in speaker wire is R, which is related to cross sectional size.


----------



## jcx

for completeness it should be pointed out that skin/proximity effect loss in heavy gage speaker cable with 4-8 Ohm speakers can be measurable by 20 kHz - but below audibility for most home wiring cases
   
  for any weight wire that I'd want to attach to headphones the wire is much smaller than the skin depth at any audio frequency, and headphone Z is higher than loudspeakers - making the skin/proximity loss negligible
   
http://www.head-fi.org/t/517462/why-are-speaker-wires-frayed#post_7011124
   
   
  [this thread is going in circles, I've posted the above link before]


----------



## stijn

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Less than 0.2dB.


 
   
  Imo such answers should a) be better specified (0.000001dB is also less than 0.2dB) and b) be backed up by a formula, after all this is the 'Testing audiophile claims and myths' thread so if we all start shouting numbers, seemingly out of the blue, we're doing nothing but feeding the myth. Don't get me wrong, I suppose you did calculate this number somehow but it would be nice to see how so that others can repeat the calculation for their own setup if they'd want to.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





stijn said:


> Imo such answers should a) be better specified (0.000001dB is also less than 0.2dB) and b) be backed up by a formula, after all this is the 'Testing audiophile claims and myths' thread so if we all start shouting numbers, seemingly out of the blue, we're doing nothing but feeding the myth.


 
   
  It is not difficult to calculate, you can find the resistance of 1 foot of 24 gauge wire in a table like this, which happens to be 25.67 mΩ (note: this is the resistance of 1 foot of 24 gauge solid wire, or stranded wire that has equivalent cross sectional area of copper). So, the resistance of an 8 ft cable is ideally 0.02567 * 2 * 8 = 0.41072 Ω (it is multiplied by 2 because of the ground (return) wire). That causes 20 * log10(50 / (50 + 0.41072))  = -0.071 dB gain (attenuation) on a 50 Ω load.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





stijn said:


> Imo such answers should a) be better specified (0.000001dB is also less than 0.2dB) and b) be backed up by a formula, after all this is the 'Testing audiophile claims and myths' thread so if we all start shouting numbers, seemingly out of the blue, we're doing nothing but feeding the myth. Don't get me wrong, I suppose you did calculate this number somehow but it would be nice to see how so that others can repeat the calculation for their own setup if they'd want to.


 
  I suppose I did calculate it too, even if quickly and roughly, and thanks to stv014 for the example.   I almost did show the example, but considering the apparent audience here and their apparent lack of understanding, I could probably have published any formula and nobody who didn't already get it would know the difference anyway.  Didn't seem worth the trouble and time, I'll re-consider next time.  
   
  But as to all shouting numbers...um...I don't hear numbers coming from the mythology camp, ever.  Because if they did make a claim like "standard cheapo wire produces an XdB roll off at Y-KHz" because of Z-effect, we'd just go prove them completely wrong simply and easily.  No, the number-shouting only comes from people with proof, even if the algebra isn't shown, it's easy to check. 
   
  Everything you need to know is pretty much out there already, published, and possibly there's a web-based calculator that does most if not all of the job for you. 
   
  So, you take me to task for not publishingthe example, yet no problem with somebody who says "Oooh, watch out for the capacitance, or impedance (we never touched on that one..) as if that were fact too. 
   
  As much as my lack of "proof" may have upset you, people posting comment without Googling the concept first annoys me too.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> The big key here is the driving source impedance. No common length of interconnect can have enough capacitance to affect frequency response unless the driving impedance is quite high. The days of high impedance outputs are long gone.


 
   
  Not completely. There is still some tube-based gear out there with output impedances in the thousands of ohms. But in the scheme of things, it's pretty rare.
   
  se


----------



## jaddie

steve eddy said:


> Not completely. There is still some tube-based gear out there with output impedances in the thousands of ohms. But in the scheme of things, it's pretty rare.
> 
> se



We could safely say that any gear designed such that an external uncontrolled variable (like the wire it has to drive) has an unpredictable sonic impact wouldn't exactly be the best engineered design. Probably has other issues too I they ignored cable drive.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> We could safely say that any gear designed such that an external uncontrolled variable (like the wire it has to drive) has an unpredictable sonic impact wouldn't exactly be the best engineered design. Probably has other issues too I they ignored cable drive.


 
   
  Yes, that would be pretty safe to say. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## Speedskater

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> We could safely say that any gear designed such that an external uncontrolled variable (like the wire it has to drive) has an unpredictable sonic impact wouldn't exactly be the best engineered design. Probably has other issues too I they ignored cable drive.


 
   
  The audio consultant [size=10.0pt]Dick Pierce [/size]discovered that over a decade ago.  He was testing some very well known & very expensive digital gear. It was so poorly designed that they would only work with some digital interconnects.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





speedskater said:


> The audio consultant [size=10.0pt]Dick Pierce [/size]discovered that over a decade ago.  He was testing some very well known & very expensive digital gear. It was so poorly designed that they would only work with some digital interconnects.


 
   
  I remember that. Great guy. Though I always thought he should have stuck with "Richard." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## drez

steve eddy said:


> I remember that. Great guy. Though I always thought he should have stuck with "Richard."
> 
> se



Classic lol.


----------



## Speedskater

I just saw a post from [size=10pt]Dick Pierce a week ago,[/size] on the pro audio e-mail board.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





speedskater said:


> I just saw a post from [size=10pt]Dick Pierce a week ago,[/size] on the pro audio e-mail board.


 
   
  Yeah? Glad to hear he's still kicking.
   
  se


----------



## stijn

Quote:
   


jaddie said:


> but considering the apparent audience here and their apparent lack of understanding, I could probably have published any formula and nobody who didn't already get it would know the difference anyway.  Didn't seem worth the trouble and time, I'll re-consider next time.
> 
> You should, it's the only way to educate people who do not know it.
> 
> ...


----------



## jaddie

Yeah, thanks, you're right.  I just got a little frustrated, my bad.  Check my recent post over on the "If it graphs bad then it is bad" thread.  See if you think I've done any better.


----------



## stijn

I just read through the thread and yes, that's the spirit :]
  Although it's probably already too difficult for some.


----------



## joeyjojo

Quote: 





drez said:


> IMo the ability of science to account for the experience of life is very limited, I don't mean that it is useless or incorrect, but just limited in what it can predict. For me my direct experience comes first and foremost above a priorised mentally constructed determination of what my experience will be. Science enters to help make sense of what I directly perceive.
> 
> For example I just bought an HD800, and seller says look at the FR chart there is no 6Khz peak, and sure the FR plot provided shows no peak. But my ears tell me otherwise, so I look into it further and the FR plots made by Sennheiser are absolute rubbish. If I were to assume the evidence provided to me was absolute and reliable, and that my own observations are feeble and worthless I would still have sore ears. On the other hand objective measurements help to determine what might be causing what I was observing. Still other people might listen to e exact same headphone and be perfectly happy with them, even with all things being equal.


 
   
  6 KHz sounds like a resonance in your ear. Read this http://www.head-fi.org/a/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial
   
  Science wins again.


----------



## GrindingThud

And yet somehow the pattern I perceive is pleasing to my eye. I'm going to have to change the brand of tube wax I'm using...



stv014 said:


> If the observation is not made under properly controlled conditions, then there is no evidence that it is true, and it could very well be false, even if it is the same for the majority. If you look at this picture,
> 
> 
> do you trust your observation that B is a lighter shade of grey than A (especially after it is backed up by 10 out of 10 other people looking at it and also saying that B is lighter), or the measurement tool of the image editor that says that they are exactly the same ? What do you observe now, with the source of bias removed:


----------



## xnor

Another illusion (aka "brain failure") that changes over time:
   
Spinning_Dancer.gif
   
  Rotating clockwise or counter-clockwise? Whatever you prefer..


----------



## ultrabike

Clockwise for me... for now... and why did they turn off the lights?


----------



## drez

Initially counter clockwise and then clockwise after looking up the wiki page (but before reading the article, strangely)
   
  Closest I could think to this sort of phenomenon in audio would be the illusion of stereo imaging.  This is an interesting talk from the editor of Stereophile, as well as a cheeky dig at the opposition:


----------



## p a t r i c k

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> That has been on my bookshelf since the Second Edition.
> 
> And I can't recall any instance where it was ever recommended to manage reflections by using REFLECTORS. Diffusion and absorption, yes. And even varying degrees of absorption to suit one's tastes. But not reflectors.
> 
> Keep in mind that this is what you wrote that I was responding to:


 
   
  Well, you question the use of the phrase "reflective panels". Well in my brief description I use this word to describe how you are managing reflections. I go on to say that these are to be managed by using different materials (meaning of course, for absorption or diffusion).
   
  Here is what I wrote:
   
_To manage those reflections you can use reflective panels in the centre of the walls and in the centre of the ceiling. These are ideally replaceable with panels of different materials and also these panels are to be adjustable for angle._
   
  As you can see I was writing in the context of reflection, so the use of the term "reflective panels" is really reasonable and sensible in that context.
   
  Steve, you go on to write:
   
_Can't think of any instance where it would be required it be reflected rather than diffused or absorbed._
   
  This is referring to these reflections of course.
   
  Unfortunately this is a repetition of a myth concerning creating an ideal acoustic in a listening room.
   
  If you do not plan and manage reflections in your listening room but absorb and diffuse them all, you will end up with a very small soundstage. Trust me, I have done this myself.
   
  Every acoustic engineer who you might wish to speak to would tell you this is their experience and they would follow that up with a discussion about the importance of managing reflections.
   
  You can of course manage reflections with different levels of diffuser/reflector, and of course this is what I pointed at in my initial posting.
   
  I would like you to have a look at the following diagram:
   

   
  This is from a website for a company that creates a product called a "Tube Trap". When I created the acoustic treatments for my listening room I would have loved it if I could have had these.
   
  With considerable simplification I will write that each Tube Trap is a column with an absorbing side and a reflecting side.
   
  Tube traps can be used for the three basic categories available to the acoustic engineer, diffusion, reflection and absorption.
   
  In the above diagram you can see that the Tube Traps are not simply all used to maximise diffusion and absorption, instead they are deployed carefully to managing diffusion, absorption and reflections.
   
  In the simpler system I described for my own room I actually describe managing the minimum of reflections, merely those from the side walls, and in fact one from the ceiling.
   
  Today an acoustic engineer in creating a listening room will work with many more reflections than this, and they will be using reflectors for that purpose. Now those reflectors might well be diffusors and absorbers for different frequencies or to create different levels of reflection, but they will also be reflectors. And when the engineer is talking about them in the context of reflection he or she will describe them very likely as reflectors.
   
  I'm delighted to see that jaddie has included a quote from the Fifth edition of F. Alton Everest's _Master Handbook of Acoustics_
   
_Lateral Reflections and Control of Spaciousness_
   
_The lateral reflections from the side walls have been essentially eliminated by the absorbing material placed on the wall. A critical listening test should be performed with the sidewall absorbers temporarily removed, but with the floor, ceiling, and diffraction absorbers still in place. The recommendations of Fig. 18-7 can now be tested. Does the strong lateral reflection give the desired amount of spaciousness, or does it cause unwanted image spreading? The adjustment of the magnitude of the lateral reflections can be explored by using sound absorbers of varying absorbance (light cloth, heavy cloth, velour, acoustical tile, glass fiber panel) on the side-wall reflection points. For example, the lateral reflections can be reduced somewhat by hanging a light cloth instead of velour._
   
_Techniques such as these provide the ability to adjust the lateral reflections to achieve the desired spaciousness and stereo and surround imaging effect to suit the individual listener or to optimize conditions for different types of music. The discussion of the acoustical design techniques for small rooms is continued in the following chapters._
   
  This is excellent and totally in line with my own actions based on a much earlier edition of this book. I currently have the fourth edition and this text is in that edition as well.
   
  jaddie tells us:
   
_In no case was it suggested that a deliberate reflector be added_.
   
  Steve Eddy also writes:
   
_And I can't recall any instance where it was ever recommended to manage reflections by using REFLECTORS. Diffusion and absorption, yes. And even varying degrees of absorption to suit one's tastes. But not reflectors._
   
  So, it is, apparently my use of the word "Reflectors", which is the cause of all the problems for Steve Eddy and jaddie.
   
  Well acoustic engineers talk in terms of "Reflectors", "Diffusors" and "Absorbers" however all acoustic treatments have some level of each of these properties.
   
  In F. Alton Everest's description he tells how he uses different levels of absorption and diffusion on the side walls to manage reflections. Well, if, for example you are using light cloth then there will be a great deal of reflection of most frequencies. And those reflections are "deliberate" 
   
  jaddie writes about me:
   
_He must have the terminology messed up._
   
  Apparently I have the terminology messed up because I wrote "reflector" 
   
  Well I was writing about reflections so I think my terminology was appropriate.
   
  In my original post I could, of course, equally have written that to manage the reflections use absorbers/diffusers and reduce absorption/diffusion to increase reflection. However it is very wordy, given that I was, in fact, writing about managing reflections.
   
  But this still wouldn't have kept Steve Eddy happy unfortunately, remember he writes:
   
_Can't think of any instance where it would be required it be reflected rather than diffused or absorbed._
   
  Okay, so in summary:
   
  When creating a listening room you will be in the business of managing reflections as well as diffusion and absorption.
   
  The idea that creating a listening room is about absorbing all reflections is false.
   
  When I am using devices to manage reflections I am perfectly entitled to describe them as reflectors (and this is true of professional acoustic engineers who will talk about reflectors, trust me!) or absorbers or diffusors depending on context.
   
  And finally:
   
  If Steve and jaddie are ever in London I would love it if they could join me in a trip to a concert at the Royal Festival Hall.
   
  This concert hall had a massive acoustic redesign in 2000 and today it is possibly the finest concert hall in the world, although I have not heard them all so, I will tell you that it is at least one of the finest at least.
   
  You will find the quality of the sound reproduction to be superb.
   
  Here is a pic:
   

   
  The internal treatments consists of the deployment of diffusors, absorbers and (whisper) reflectors. Some massive ones actually.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





p a t r i c k said:


> Well, you question the use of the phrase "reflective panels". Well in my brief description I use this word to describe how you are managing reflections. I go on to say that these are to be managed by using different materials (meaning of course, for absorption or diffusion).
> 
> Here is what I wrote:
> 
> ...


 
   
  It's not "reasonable and sensible" by any definition of the adjective "reflective" that I'm aware of. And according to my Oxford English Dictionary, in this context it means "That throws back something striking or falling upon the surface." Or if we defer to Webster's, "capable of reflecting light, images, or sound waves."
   
  So when you say "To manage those reflections you can use reflective panels..." you're essentially saying that the way to deal with a reflect*ION* is to use something that's reflect*IVE*. Which simply makes no sense at all. In other words, what you said was the equivalent of saying that the way to deal with a reflection from a mirror is to put a second mirror over the first mirror, the second mirror being the "reflective panel" that you referred to.
   
  Quote: 





> Steve, you go on to write:
> 
> _Can't think of any instance where it would be required it be reflected rather than diffused or absorbed._
> 
> ...


 
   
  And neither I nor anyone else stated any such "myth." This is a straw man.
   
  Quote: 





> You can of course manage reflections with different levels of diffuser/reflector, and of course this is what I pointed at in my initial posting.


 
   
  But you pointed to it in such a way that made absolutely no sense.
   
  Quote: 





> jaddie tells us:
> 
> _In no case was it suggested that a deliberate reflector be added_.
> 
> ...


 
   
  It was your use of the phrase "reflective panels" in the context of dealing with reflections.
   
  Quote: 





> jaddie writes about me:
> 
> _He must have the terminology messed up._
> 
> ...


 
   
  No, your terminology was not appropriate as your terminology made no sense.
   
  Quote: 





> But this still wouldn't have kept Steve Eddy happy unfortunately, remember he writes:
> 
> _Can't think of any instance where it would be required it be reflected rather than diffused or absorbed._
> 
> ...


 
   
  I'm sorry, but *NO ONE* here said that creating a listening room is about absorbing all reflections. This is another straw man.
   
  Your post related to dealing with first reflections from the floor, ceiling and sidewalls. And you said that the way to deal with those reflections was to use _reflective panels_. And in doing so, you were essentially saying to put mirrors on top of mirrors, which makes absolutely no sense.
   
  se


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





p a t r i c k said:


> You will find the quality of the sound reproduction to be superb.
> 
> Here is a pic:
> 
> ...


 
  Excellent hall.  Not used for sound *reproduction*.  Ever.  It's used for sound *production*, performance.  The purpose is completely different, and the room is built specifically for that.  If it were a room that size used for  sound reproduction, as in a movie theater, the acoustic treatment would be completely different.  
   
  We were talking about listening rooms used for sound reproduction.  The comparison of a home listening room to Royal Albert Hall makes no sense whatsoever.
   
  Read the Toole book, it will clear this all up for you.
   
  You say, "When I am using devices to manage reflections I am perfectly entitled to describe them as reflectors (and this is true of professional acoustic engineers who will talk about reflectors, trust me!) or absorbers or diffusors depending on context."
   
  Actually, as evidenced by this thread, if you intend exercise your right to use the wrong terminology, you must also be prepared to be misunderstood. 
   
  You're hanging onto and defending your use of the terms "reflector" and "reflection", despite some rather painstaking replies and excerpts from authoritative reference works.  If you were to say to an acoustic engineer, "I have a lot of reflections in my listening room.  Please add some reflectors to control them", he would probably decline the job, or at least make a large effort to explain why that wouldn't work.  
   
  If you were to say to an acoustic engineer, "I have a lot of reflections in my listening room.  Please add some something to control them", he would add a combination of absorbers and diffusors, and you'd be happy.
   
  It's apparent you have the basic concept, this is really a terminology issue.  But if you do decide to use the right terminology, life will be easier, you'll be understood the first time, and you (and we) won't have to spend all this time trying to clear up the misuse of words.
   
  Steve has just explained it very well. +1.


----------



## Yahzi

Having a DAC discussion with a DAC designer and he is claiming that different filter technologies can affect the presentation of sound. Is this true?


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Having a DAC discussion with a DAC designer and he is claiming that different filter technologies can affect the presentation of sound. Is this true?


 
  It depends on what he means by "the presentation of sound".  Sounds pretty ambiguous. Could mean anything, in which case, he could be right...or not.


----------



## Yahzi

In what way could he be right? Please explain.


----------



## Yahzi

Are there any positive results from DBT's involving DAC's? I just need to have my facts in order. I haven't seen one on the net yet, but maybe I missed one or two.


----------



## jaddie

"The presentation of sound" is completely ambiguous, could mean anything from an obviously audible effect to a nebulous and elusive character that can't be measured or reliably heard (and is probably imaginary).  Since I have no idea what he means by "the presentation of sound", I've given him room to be right and wrong, until we know more.  
   
  The general idea of the filters in a DAC is reconstruction and removal of the sampling frequency.  There are now several different ways to do that, which is I'm sure what we're talking about.  In the early days of digital audio the filters were multi-pole analog filters that were rather difficult to make, and didn't always perform well.  There were three main issues: making the response in the audio band flat (complex filter tuning often introduced response wobbles), presenting the highest audio frequency possible while deeply cutting off above the Nyquist frequency (this required a complex filter of many poles and zeros), and doing all of that with the least amount of in-band phase shift as possible.  The three goals are actually pulling the design in completely different directions, which made for a lot of wild filters and some necessary compromises.  Usually they moved towards less sampling frequency in the output and more phase shift in the audio band.  The audibility of that phase shift was, at the time, a concern, particularly since each recording channel had a filter, and each play channel had a filter, and if there was analog mixing in production, add a few more.  All those cascaded filters added a lot of phase shift into the signal.  
   
  Today we have high sample frequency recording, so the filters are bumped way up, and we have digital mixing, so no D>A and A>D round-trips with more filters to worry about. 
   
  Today the reconstruction filter is mostly done with oversampling, moving the final sampling frequency way up so that the filter itself doesn't have to be so severe, and taking advantage of some digital filter techniques.  Once you have flat audio band response with minimal phase shift and have removed the sampling frequency, the job is pretty much done.  
   
  That's my simplistic view on it.  I have no doubt a DAC designer would have at least some arguments to support his design.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Are there any positive results from DBT's involving DAC's? I just need to have my facts in order. I haven't seen one on the net yet, but maybe I missed one or two.


 
  Don't know, but a DBT of a DAC isn't as easy to do as some other gear.  You really need two complete systems running simultaneously, and in sync, then hit a hardware ABX comparator, which isn't something everybody has access to.  The source of the digital stream needs to be identical two, so that's two computers identically configured, also kind of expensive.  It would be a project, to say the least.  These things take a budget of time and money.  
   
  Now, if somebody has the money....I have the ABX comparator, and would make the time.


----------



## joeyjojo

Very good reply jaddie.
   
  Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Having a DAC discussion with a DAC designer and he is claiming that different filter technologies can affect the presentation of sound. Is this true?


 
   
  If you mean digital filters, for a real-world example have a look at the "Tech Highlights" page of the gamma2 website (a high quality DIY DAC). The main difference between the three filters is in the roll-off in the FR, and the pre/post ringing in the impulse response. I've done some very casual comparisons listening out for pre-ringing and couldn't tell the difference, but I would not be surprised to find a trained ear which could detect it. The point though is the differences between digital filters are very small as they have all pretty much converged to a compromise between the things jaddie mentioned (FR, phase shift, impulse response).


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





joeyjojo said:


> Very good reply jaddie.
> 
> 
> If you mean digital filters, for a real-world example have a look at the "Tech Highlights" page of the gamma2 website (a high quality DIY DAC). The main difference between the three filters is in the roll-off in the FR, and the pre/post ringing in the impulse response. I've done some very casual comparisons listening out for pre-ringing and couldn't tell the difference, but I would not be surprised to find a trained ear which could detect it. The point though is the differences between digital filters are very small as they have all pretty much converged to a compromise between the things jaddie mentioned (FR, phase shift, impulse response).


 
  The reason you won't clearly detect the "sound" of pre or post ringing of a given impulse response is that the ringing is not just a defect of a filter, but rather the result of the attenuation and removal of high order harmonics from a perfect impulse or square wave.  Even in a theoretically perfect filter, you'd have pre and post rings because of the filter action.  Ringing can be made to look worse by changing the filter type or cut-off frequency, but they will all ring at least somewhat except for something like a first order 6dB/octave, which isn't really useful for this purpose.  The application that shows less ringing is mostly the result of a higher cutoff or lower order, which is the point of oversampling.  But rings themselves aren't audible.  In fact, you can mess up a square wave beyond recognition with an all-pass filter and it will still sound the same.  Nor are rings an indication of any audible difference in SQ.


----------



## Audio-Omega

Is it possible to measure the level of graininess in music ?


----------



## liamstrain

Maybe, once the term graininess is better defined.


----------



## Yahzi

Another blind test using amplifiers (I did not conduct this test) :
   
   
  Quote: 





> With stereo, this is relatively easy. Same source, same speakers, tone defeat on all, loudness etc off, level matched with a accurate volt meter. Not sure what you mean by time-synchronised.
> 
> We've done this very test with the 3 brands of amp I mentioned (model is irrelevant), with a source switch and a speaker switch, so no need to change cables, and the cables were exactly the same between all. Some might argue that the switches introduce distortion - maybe so, but again it's the same distortion introduced in all the signal paths. The same goes for the source and speakers - nothing changed between amps.
> 
> ...


 
   
  What do you think of these results? Any issues with the tests, questionable results based on improper testing .... ??


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> What do you think of these results? Any issues with the tests, questionable results based on improper testing .... ??


 
  They're not very detailed results. Were there fake switches? Did they correctly identify whether it was amp A, B, or C?
   
  If they just said there was a difference every time a switch was made, then that isn't really worth much.


----------



## bigshot

He doesn't say that all the amps have the same power rating.


----------



## Yahzi

Looking through the Amp Challenge by Clark ..(first page). In his testing criteria he uses EQ to match the frequency response of the amps he tests. But wouldn't that invalidate his test results? Correcting deficiencies before the test and then testing the lack of deficiencies ..
   
  What are your thoughts?


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Looking through the Amp Challenge by Clark ..(first page). In his testing criteria he uses EQ to match the frequency response of the amps he tests. But wouldn't that invalidate his test results? Correcting deficiencies before the test and then testing the lack of deficiencies ..
> 
> What are your thoughts?


 
   
  He's not trying to make the same point that some others are.  Paraphrasing, his position would be more that amps sound the same aside from any frequency response differences (if they exist) and while not being driven into clipping.
   
  Actually, the majority of amps would have a flat response, so there would be no need to EQ.
   
  There are performance differences other than frequency response between different amps (other than output power levels as well), but these seem to have a relatively smaller impact on the sound, such that people that have taken the test could not distinguish between amps with very high probability.  That said, the setup is more difficult on the listener (hard to tell differences) than some other blind tests.  To give the listener more advantages, one would let the listener switch between amps by their own controls, maybe use some better speakers and room, possibly turn up the volume, and so on.  With a different procedure and setup, for example, it might be readily possible to distinguish an amp with significantly higher distortion than another, even if the frequency responses are matched.  Null results are always inconclusive on alternate possibilities and explanations; that said, that doesn't mean that we should be treating every possibility seriously, if they are ridiculous.
   
  Anyway, it just seems to show that any differences other than frequency response definitely do not make "night and day" differences, or else people would have been able to pass the test.


----------



## Roly1650

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> He's not trying to make the same point that some others are.  Paraphrasing, his position would be more that amps sound the same aside from any frequency response differences (if they exist) and while not being driven into clipping.
> 
> Actually, the majority of amps would have a flat response, so there would be no need to EQ.
> 
> ...


 
   


 If you read this link, http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm
  the listener controls pretty much all the parameters and can, for example, substitute speakers or source. Here is the precis version of the test procedure:
 Testing procedure The testing uses an ABX test device where the listener can switch between hearing amplifier A, amplifier B, and a randomly generated amplifier X which is either A or B. The listener's job is to decide whether source X sounds like A or B. The listener inputs their guess into a computerized scoring system, and they go on to the next identification. The listener can control the volume, within the linear (non-clipped) range of the amps. The listener has full control over the CD player as well. The listener can take as long as they want to switch back and forth between A, B, and X at will.
Passing the test requires two sets of 12 correct identifications, for a total of 24 correct identifications. To speed things up, a preliminary round of 8 identifications, sometimes done without levels or other parameters perfectly matched, is a prerequisite.
Richard Clark normally has CD source, amplifiers, high quality home audio speakers, and listening environment set up in advance. But if the listener requests, they can substitute whatever source, source material, amplifiers, speakers (even headphones), and listening environment they prefer, within stipulated practical limits. The source material must be commercially available music, not test signals. Richard Clark stipulates that the amplifiers must be brand name, standard production, linear voltage amplifiers, and they must not fail (e.g. thermal shutdown) during the test.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





roly1650 said:


> If you read this link, http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm
> the listener controls pretty much all the parameters and can, for example, substitute speakers or source. Here is the precis version of the test procedure:


 
   
  My bad, been a while since I looked through all the details.
   
  But this doesn't particularly seem to add up, if the test was often administered to large groups of people?  (I'm sure that's how the "thousands of people" came about.)  How many individuals were controlling the ABX switcher themselves, with good equipment and environmental conditions, etc.?  How many people scored better than say p=0.05 but not at the level required to pass—higher than 5% of participants?  Is the detection rate close to 50% or just not in the very significant range for each person?  Info seems to be missing.
   
  The fact that there were individual challengers on ABX setup (how many?  doesn't seem like a popular thing for many to try, especially considering the cost) does imply something, though.
   
   
  I wonder if anybody tried to rig this by selecting the right amp, or if that would be screened out.  e.g. build something to spec that passes the requirements but has high crossover distortion.


----------



## Yahzi

Was having an argument with a buddy over IB and in-wall. He seems to be saying that a speaker mounted flush in a wall is the same thing as an infinite baffle. Is that really true? I thought an IB was a system where the woofers were operating in free air. I don't think placing a speaker flush in a wall does that. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Was having an argument with a buddy over IB and in-wall. He seems to be saying that a speaker mounted flush in a wall is the same thing as an infinite baffle. Is that really true? I thought an IB was a system where the woofers were operating in free air. I don't think placing a speaker flush in a wall does that. Correct me if I'm wrong.


 
  Depends on the speaker and the wall.  Some in-walls have well defined back boxes, sometimes the back box is formed by the wall cavity, and if the cavity isn't sealed it's sort of a badly tuned port...ok, not really.  The come closest to a sealed box, usually. In-ceiling is different if it's a drop ceiling.  That's more of an IB. 
   
  Most in walls are designed to work with subs, so the bass response of the speaker isn't all that critical. But one advantage of the in wall is that it take early reflections off the wall to nearly zero because it's flush.


----------



## Yahzi

The speaker in question is ported. I just don't know how a flush in-wall ported speaker can behave as if it were in free air. Perhaps I'm wrong.


----------



## Yahzi

Something like this :


----------



## jaddie

Well, a ported speaker is (hopefully) precisely tuned to operate in it's box with the port.  Putting it flush in a wall won't change that, but it does two things.  Eliminates reflections off the front wall, and places the origin of bass waves at the wall...sort of the idea of the THX wall in cinemas. But I don't see anything infinite about it.


----------



## GrindingThud

You had to post this....now I want to refinish my basement. 


yahzi said:


> Something like this :


----------



## Speedskater

An Infinite Baffle loudspeaker requires an extremely large enclosure (like the size of a room) that's why it's called "Infinite".


----------



## leogodoy

I was reading about this test on another part of the forum:

The Audio Society of Minnesota Conducts Cable Comparison Tests

What Prog Rock said on the original post makes sense, but I would like your take on this as well:

"The resulst are very mixed with no cable making any clear difference. They accept there is no objective difference, but since there is a difference found which can easily be expalined by random selection, they conclude a subjective difference is there and so allegedly "cable do make a difference"."

Cheers,
Leo


----------



## xnor

By stereophile's logic, statistically insignificant results prove that there are differences because the percentage of "preference" of one cable was slightly higher? Just another article that shows their incompetence and patently absurd conclusions.
  Of course they didn't mention that the $ 8000 cable "scored" almost as bad as the $ 3 zip cord*. That would make the expensive cable look bad. But the $ 1200 cable with slightly higher "preference" proves that expensive cables sound better, right..
   
  *) By using stereophile's logic I conclude that $ 8000 cables make little to no difference to a $ 3 zip cord.
   
   
  When John Atkinson is asked if he can hear a difference between cables he comes up with anecdotes of back-alley blind tests that he passed. If he has golden ears, why doesn't he do a properly documented and statistically significant blind test that proves that he really can hear differences? If his hearing is as magic as he says he has nothing to lose, only to gain. Why doesn't he accept the $ 1 million offer by James Randi that a $ 7250 speaker cable makes a difference?
  Also see this.


----------



## dan.gheorghe

Guys, I personally believe in cables, but not unobtanium ones that costs 8000$. For me that is more than absurd. 

However, I do believe in differences cables could bring to your system, bad or good. I have recently found out that even USB cables make a difference. Yeah...you heard me...usb cables. Bash me all you want, I do not care. All that I know is that I found a really cheap USB cable that really goes well with my system.
  The usb cable costs 70$ or something like that. I gave it to a friend of mine who tested it along the stock, audioquest coffee (that has is 6x pricier) and wireworld starlight red (twice the cost). He liked my cable the most , even over the 6x times pricier AudioQuest coffee. He also did blind tests with them and concluded the same.
   
  Before testing it and finding this, I thought usb cables were bs, but now I am sure that they can bring differences. However, I personally do not believe in very expensive cables.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> Guys, I personally believe in cables, but not unobtanium ones that costs 8000$. For me that is more than absurd.
> 
> However, I do believe in differences cables could bring to your system, bad or good. I have recently found out that even USB cables make a difference. Yeah...you heard me...usb cables. Bash me all you want, I do not care. All that I know is that I found a really cheap USB cable that really goes well with my system.
> The usb cable costs 70$ or something like that. I gave it to a friend of mine who tested it along the stock, audioquest coffee (that has is 6x pricier) and wireworld starlight red (twice the cost). He liked my cable the most , even over the 6x times pricier AudioQuest coffee. He also did blind tests with them and concluded the same.
> ...


 
  Yeah, you're gonna have to post some blind testing evidence if you're making a claim like that in this subforum.
   
  The only way a USB cable could make a difference is if it had some sort of DSP chip in it. But that's a silly place to use a DSP at, you could just do it for free software side.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> Guys, I personally believe in cables, but not unobtanium ones that costs 8000$. For me that is more than absurd.
> 
> However, I do believe in differences cables could bring to your system, bad or good. I have recently found out that even USB cables make a difference. Yeah...you heard me...usb cables. Bash me all you want, I do not care.


 
  Well, we do not care about your anecdotes. So why even post in this forum? It's like saying "I never believed in aliens but yesterday I was abducted by them".
   
   
  Quote: 





> All that I know is that I found a really cheap USB cable that really goes well with my system.
> The usb cable costs 70$ or something like that. [anecdote ...]


 
  Are you kidding?
   
   
  edit: links removed, two posts containing those links are enough


----------



## dan.gheorghe

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Yeah, you're gonna have to post some blind testing evidence if you're making a claim like that in this subforum.
> 
> The only way a USB cable could make a difference is if it had some sort of DSP chip in it. But that's a silly place to use a DSP at, you could just do it for free software side.


 
  Told you that my friend DarKu, already did some blind tests that concluded he liked the Chord and Wirereworld starlight better than the AudioQuest coffee and the stock. I will ask of him to share his results here. 
  I for one am sure that they make a difference, even though as I told you, before actually hearing and testing one i thought it was bs. 

 I think the timing is everything. If you would have RAM or a big buffer inside your DAC, usb cables wouldn't make any difference. You cannot have error checking on the USB audio connection if you don't have a buffer. If you don't have error checking, well...if some zeroes become 1 and the other way around, you loose from quality.
  USB audio streaming != USB data transfer


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> Guys, I personally believe in cables, but not unobtanium ones that costs 8000$. For me that is more than absurd.
> 
> However, I do believe in differences cables could bring to your system, bad or good. I have recently found out that even USB cables make a difference. Yeah...you heard me...usb cables. Bash me all you want, I do not care. All that I know is that I found a really cheap USB cable that really goes well with my system.
> The usb cable costs 70$ or something like that. I gave it to a friend of mine who tested it along the stock, audioquest coffee (that has is 6x pricier) and wireworld starlight red (twice the cost). He liked my cable the most , even over the 6x times pricier AudioQuest coffee. He also did blind tests with them and concluded the same.
> ...


 
  How did he blind test a USB cable?


----------



## dan.gheorghe

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Well, we do not care about your anecdotes. So why even post in this forum? It's like saying "I never believed in aliens but yesterday I was abducted by them".
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?
> ...


 
  What you said has no logic at all. 
   
  I don't get it why some of you people take it personal ), really. I am just trying to tell you my honest impressions on this, that is all. 
   
   
   


> How did he blind test a USB cable?


 
  Well... both him and his wife participated. When one of them was listening the other one changed the cables. The one listening wrote his impressions down on paper.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> Told you that my friend DarKu, already did some blind tests that concluded he liked the Chord and Wirereworld starlight better than the AudioQuest coffee and the stock. I will ask of him to share his results here.
> I for one am sure that they make a difference, even though as I told you, before actually hearing and testing one i thought it was bs.
> 
> I think the timing is everything. If you would have RAM or a big buffer inside your DAC, usb cables wouldn't make any difference. You cannot have error checking on the USB audio connection if you don't have a buffer. If you don't have error checking, well...if some zeroes become 1 and the other way around, you loose from quality.
> USB audio streaming != USB data transfer


 
  Well I'd be very interested in what those cable makers are doing if he did manage to have a well controlled test.
   
  Ever use a digital antenna? Those easily display the differences between a faulty digital signal and a perfect one and show how there is no in between. Timing is just as important for them.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> What you said has no logic at all.
> 
> I don't get it why some of you people take it personal ), really. I am just trying to tell you my honest impressions on this, that is all.


 
  What I said has no logic, _*why*_?
   
  What you posted makes little to no sense. Because:
  - What you posted before are just anecdotes - if you don't know what that means read the definition of anecdotal evidence in a scientific context (also see my signature).
  - You mentioned you found a really cheap USB cable, in the next sentence you say it costs $ 70.
  - I do not take nonsensical claims personal and I'm not attacking persons, just nonsensical claims.
  - If we want honest (not always the case) impressions that are not necessarily truthful we can go to the cables forum...
   
  and:
  Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> Told you that my friend DarKu, already did some blind tests that concluded he liked the Chord and Wirereworld starlight better than the AudioQuest coffee and the stock. I will ask of him to share his results here.
> I for one am sure that they make a difference, even though as I told you, before actually hearing and testing one i thought it was bs.
> 
> I think the timing is everything. If you would have RAM or a big buffer inside your DAC, usb cables wouldn't make any difference. You cannot have error checking on the USB audio connection if you don't have a buffer. If you don't have error checking, well...if some zeroes become 1 and the other way around, you loose from quality.
> USB audio streaming != USB data transfer


 
  - If your computer can't handle streaming audio a trillion dollar USB cable won't change that.
  - USB receiver chips do have a buffer.
  - Even isochronous transfer mode has error checking.
  - If some bits flip you will most likely hear clearly audible glitches like nasty clicks or crackling noise and not a subtle degradation of quality.
   
  So far pretty much all of what you're written is nonsense. Again, don't take this personal, it's a matter of facts.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> Well... both him and his wife participated. When one of them was listening the other one changed the cables. The one listening wrote his impressions down on paper.


 
  That's what I would have assumed.  Problems here:  The cable swap time is way to long, and the test subjects (the guy and his wife) are only two subjects. I'll bet they did a handful of swaps then it got to be boring.  He needed at least 16 trials each, preferably 20.  Without more data, you can't reliably detect a trend.  And ideally the test should have been double-blind somehow.  Like a few of those swaps should have been just repeats of the same cable with the same swap timing to see if he still had a "preference".  Generally, double-blind testing determines if there is a detectable difference, and avoids picking a preference which by nature introduces bias.
   
  Other issues...wife and gear in the same room with him? Acoustic sounds of cable changes might have biased the results. And what's really being tested for here is the possible interaction of two cables with two other specific devices.  It doesn't prove that USB cables have an audible difference in general anyway unless other devices are also used and tested the same way.
   
  What his test with its limited data showed, sort of, was in an uncontrolled test with an unspecified number of trials, with two specific devices and two specific cables he claimed a preference.  And that's about all.  What we have is an opinion, not a tested principle.


----------



## dan.gheorghe

Quote: 





xnor said:


> What I said has no logic, _*why*_?
> 
> What you posted makes little to no sense. Because:
> - What you posted before are just anecdotes - if you don't know what that means read the definition of anecdotal evidence in a scientific context (also see my signature).
> ...


 
   
  I am not going to talk about your comparison with alien abduction as I think it is absurd 
   
  If a frame contains an error, it waits for the frame to be resent. If the buffer is not big enough this may interfere with the timing.
   
   



> T’S NOT JUST ONES AND ZEROS, IT’S THE TIMING!
> 
> There is a fundamental difference between the transfer of computer data and digital audio signals. Computers are able to transfer digital data without loss, because the data moves in the robust form of blocks, which do not depend on specific timing between the sending and receiving devices. However, digital audio signals are continuous streams of data, which are quite fragile, since the digital processor must remain perfectly locked onto the timing of the signal to avoid data losses.


 
   
   


jaddie said:


> That's what I would have assumed.  Problems here:  The cable swap time is way to long, and the test subjects (the guy and his wife) are only two subjects. I'll bet they did a handful of swaps then it got to be boring.  He needed at least 16 trials each, preferably 20.  Without more data, you can't reliably detect a trend.  And ideally the test should have been double-blind somehow.  Like a few of those swaps should have been just repeats of the same cable with the same swap timing to see if he still had a "preference".  Generally, double-blind testing determines if there is a detectable difference, and avoids picking a preference which by nature introduces bias.
> 
> Other issues...wife and gear in the same room with him? Acoustic sounds of cable changes might have biased the results. And what's really being tested for here is the possible interaction of two cables with two other specific devices.  It doesn't prove that USB cables have an audible difference in general anyway unless other devices are also used and tested the same way.
> 
> What his test with its limited data showed, sort of, was in an uncontrolled test with an unspecified number of trials, with two specific devices and two specific cables he claimed a preference.  And that's about all.  What we have is an opinion, not a tested principle.


 
   
  It wasn't a professional test approved by an international organization of some sorts, I can give you that ), but I think you exaggerate a little . I am just saying . I know a lot of people that noticed improvements brought by cables in general. You cannot just throw that aside. You can't say all the people that heard differences are victims of psichoacoustics. If they say they heard differences people put them to blind tests, if they hear differences in blind tests the results are cast aside, so practically whatever the results are, they don't matter to some people. 
   
  However I respect their opinion.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





> I know a lot of people that noticed improvements brought by cables in general. You cannot just throw that aside.


 
  Yes, I can.  I know a lot of people who think they notice improvements in many things that aren't real.  Without proper testing, you actually can just throw that aside as biased opinion.
  Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> You can't say all the people that heard differences are victims of psichoacoustics.


 
  You mean Psychological influence.  Psychoacoustics is something else.  And until you eliminate all psychological influences from a test, it's not just testing the device, it's testing the entire situation, and anything in it that may bias the results, which end up simply as opinion, not scientific data.  You have to isolate what exactly you are testing for, and remove as many other sources of bias as possible.  Psychology is a very powerful influence, which is why in a real test, the choices being compared would be unknown, the switching time would be instantaneous, and there would be a third choice to try to match to A or B, which is equal to choice A or B, but randomized for each trial...A/B/X style.  Meaningful statistical analysis requires a lot of data...resolution if you like.  Under-sample, and you've got too much noise in the data to sort out a marginally detectable difference.  What if after 5 comparisons a subject identified a difference correctly 2 times?  Well, the test material he was listening to at that moment may have occluded the difference, and he's literally one more choice away from correctly "guessing" the match. But what if, after 20 comparisons the same subject identified a difference correctly 12 times?  He's had many more opportunities to "guess", or detect the difference.  He's now several votes away from significantly altering the outcome.  See, you have to have enough data to get the "noise floor" down and show a trend.
   
  Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> If they say they heard differences people put them to blind tests, if they hear differences in blind tests the results are cast aside, so practically whatever the results are, they don't matter to some people.
> 
> However I respect their opinion.


 
  As I pointed out, the test wasn't blind, unbiased, detailed, controlled or meaningful.  It is opinion, and so long as we all realize that, we can respect is as opinion.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> If a frame contains an error, it waits for the frame to be resent. If the buffer is not big enough this may interfere with the timing.


 
  What are you saying here? That standard USB cables can't keep up with the voltage changes required to stream audio, but the more expensive ones somehow fix this? That the more expensive ones have buffers in them?
   
  It's not an intelligent device. It's just transmitting voltage changes. And it can do so at a rate well above what you need to stream audio.


----------



## JadeEast

> And until you eliminate all psychological influences from a test, *it's not just testing the device*, it's testing the entire situation, and anything in it that may bias the results, which end up simply as opinion, not scientific data.


 
  It would seem for any listening test, the perception of the individual is being tested-- not the device.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





jadeeast said:


> It would seem for any listening test, the perception of the individual is being tested-- not the device.


 
  Not of the conditions of perception are held constant and the device is changed.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Not of the conditions of perception are held constant and the device is changed.


 
  OK, let me improve on that.  The test is to determine if there is an audible difference between devices.  Yes, auditory acuity and perception are involved, but held constant.  The variables, ideally, are the devices being compared.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> I am not going to talk about your comparison with alien abduction as I think it is absurd
> 
> If a frame contains an error, it waits for the frame to be resent. If the buffer is not big enough this may interfere with the timing.


 
  I think expensive (digital) cables are equally absurd, but that's just my opinion.
   
  As for resending: that's simply *not true*. It's called USB audio streaming for a reason, it's a real-time system.
   
  In isochronous transfer mode the USB bus sends frames every 1 ms (= 1000 Hz). If your computer can handle real-time audio streaming (which any properly configured PC can) each frame will contain the next 1 ms worth of audio data. If not there will be _plainly audible glitches_.
   
  If a frame contains an error there is _absolutely no attempt to resend_ anything. The sender doesn't care what the receiver receives, it just pushes the data in an as _constant rate_ as possible. In fact, the receiver could not even tell the sender to resend anything because the communication is _unidirectional_. If bits flip the receiver could detect this using the checksum included in the frame, but there are only a few options (accept the erroneous data, replace it with silence or noise ...) how to deal with this situation, _requesting the frame to be resent is not one of them_.
   
  The link you posted contains some nice marketing material, but that's about it.. the rest is nonsense.


----------



## dan.gheorghe

Quote: 





xnor said:


> I think expensive (digital) cables are equally absurd, but that's just my opinion.
> 
> As for resending: that's simply not true. It's called USB audio streaming for a reason, it's a real-time system.
> 
> ...


 
  Ok. I am trying to justify the reason why I think it to be better (and I am quite sure of that). It seems you have some knowledge on this, so please correct me if I am wrong as I do want to learn more on this.
   
  Ok so it has error checking, but not error correction. How does it help if it detects an error?  Windows is not a real time system from what I know.
   
   
from here


> Unlike the S/PDIF or AES protocols, the USB audio interface does not send a constant stream of data. Instead, it sends audio data in 1-millisecond bursts, called_ frames_. Aside from the audio data themselves, each frame contains codes that specify the data’s sample rate. However, most computers and operating systems are not designed to process data in real time. Although these frames are sent roughly each millisecond, the exact timing between the bursts depends on the computer’s clock, and the load on the computer’s CPU and USB bus at any particular time.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> Ok so it has error checking, but not error correction. How does it help if it detects an error?


 
  You have to keep in mind that errors are extremely rare even with the cheapest of USB cables. Think of 1 flipped bit (1/8th of a byte) in a few months of nonstop (24 hours a day, 7 days a week ..) playback of audio.
  That's why correcting errors is of no concern. What's of concern for streaming audio is that data arrives at a constant rate.
   
  Quote: 





> Windows is not a real time system from what I know.


 
  That is true. They keyword here is Deferred Procedure Call (DPC) latency. Windows has a queue of such DPCs. Filling the next frame with audio data is the job of one of those DPCs. Now if the queue is too long or the calls take too long to complete the audio data cannot be provided in time. Again, the result is _clearly audible_ crackling noise or at least an annoying *click*.
  There are several free DPC latency checker tools like "LatencyMon" or "DPC Latency Checker". They also offer some advice how to fix those problems. Once the latency is fine data will be available and sent every millisecond. Isochronous transfer mode guarantees access to USB bandwidth.
   
  Misconfigured PCs and bad drivers are the main reason why people are having audio glitches with USB DACs. Internal soundcards are usually more resistant to DPC latency.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *xnor* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> They keyword here is Deferred Procedure Call (DPC) latency. Windows has a queue of such DPCs. Filling the next frame with audio data is the job of one of those DPCs. Now if the queue is too long or the calls take too long to complete the audio data cannot be provided in time. Again, the result is clearly audible crackling noise or at least some *click*s.
> There are several free DPC latency checker tools like "LatencyMon" or "DPC Latency Checker". They also offer some advice how to fix those problems. Once the latency is fine data will be available and sent every millisecond. Isochronous transfer mode guarantees access to USB bandwidth.


 
   
  And it should be noted that the cable plays no role in this process. Provided that it is not broken, and built to the very generous USB specs, and will still transmit data, it does not affect this transfer of information.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

But Burson Conductor with its Asynchronous USB receiver should be pretty much immune to all these timing errors issues.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





andrew_wot said:


> But Burson Conductor with its Asynchronous USB receiver should be pretty much immune to all these timing errors issues.


 
  As for errors that's not true. The only difference with async is that there is feedback from the receiver so the sender can make small adjustments in the data rate.
   
  Jitter is usually not a problem with either type of synchronization.


----------



## joeyjojo

I heard that $70 USB cables also make the photos off digital cameras look better - more vibrant colours in the midrange and bluer skies. That's how it looks to me and I trust my eyes.


----------



## xnor

I know you're just kidding, but the mind is quite powerful. Once bias creeps in you could very well hear differences. Differences that are not there in reality, but in your head.


----------



## scootsit

I find these debates a bit interesting, because there is often some nugget of truth somewhere in there that has long since been covered in a massive mountain of crap. For example, once upon a time, I had this giant spool of wire labeled "speaker wire" that was actually aluminum. Of course, upgrading from the 5 cent per foot to the 30 cent per foot ofc speaker wire I currently use made a difference. It is more conductive, less resistive, etc, etc. But, that doesn't mean that $100 per foot wire will be at all superior. I think some are conditioned to accept this notion of diminishing returns, and some feel that "you just can't hear that level of quality." But, that's not at all the case. Once upon a time, people used what they had lying around as interconnects, speaker wire, etc. I will admit that I even had a pair of interconnects made out of speaker wire. Yes, switching to real interconnects made a big difference, they were far less capacitive. Once the connector meets the required spec for the equipment, then it doesn't matter if it's $1 or $100,000, they should function nearly identically.
   
  Regarding USB cables. I once found an audible difference. I had this really crappy USB cable that came with a really cheap charger. The cable did not have the USB logo, and basically did not meet the USB standards of impedance, capacitance, and shielding. Copying data with it had errors, etc. It was intended basically to be a cheap knock-off that was capable of delivering the power from the charger. When I replaced it with a REAL USB cable, everything worked fine. I would imagine that using a similar POS cable with audio would have some pretty crappy consequences. I remember that if the (cordless) phone rang, using it to transfer data was impossible. But, that's not a $70 upgrade, monoprice sells excellent USB cables for ~$1.
   
  Yes, more conductive, less capacitive cable will work better. But this isn't a case of diminishing returns. Either they meet the spec for USB, or they do not. And it's literally 1s and 0s, how can the cable color, flavor, or massage the sound? I mean, unless you were previously using some similar knock off cable that had interference and all kinds of drop outs, there's no conceivable way to argue that.
   
  If we can all agree that what travels over USB is digital, which it sounds like we can, then I propose a test. If a cable can impact the 1s and 0s of audio, it can impact the 1s and 0s of data. Windows tells you data transfer rates pretty precisely. I would like someone to try this. Take a file, any file and transfer it to an external harddrive 1000 times, recording the mean transfer rate for each transfer. Do so to the same drive with both cables. If there is a significant difference (based upon a 95% alpha, and I would like to see raw data - I'll do the analysis for you), then I give you my word, I will audition the $70 USB cable.


----------



## joeyjojo

Quote: 





scootsit said:


> If we can all agree that what travels over USB is digital, which it sounds like we can, then I propose a test. If a cable can impact the 1s and 0s of audio, it can impact the 1s and 0s of data. Windows tells you data transfer rates pretty precisely. I would like someone to try this. Take a file, any file and transfer it to an external harddrive 1000 times, recording the mean transfer rate for each transfer. Do so to the same drive with both cables. If there is a significant difference (based upon a 95% alpha, and I would like to see raw data - I'll do the analysis for you), then I give you my word, I will audition the $70 USB cable.


 
   
  I almost wrote something like this above but I think an easy counterargument is that the USB audio "protocol" if you like (not sure what the right word is) differs from the mode used for file transfers. The point is still good though that if it can do file transfer OK (i.e. not millions of error corrects, should error correction be available) then it is likely to be similarly reliable for streaming audio, i.e. error rates of the one in many billions.


----------



## xnor

The correct terms are _isochronous _transfers (aka streaming real-time transfers) for example used with audio devices and _bulk _data transfers for example used with external hard disks.
  -> Isochronous guarantees bandwidth but not data integrity.
  -> Bulk guarantees data integrity but not bandwidth.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Has anyone run blind tests with an equipment that had burn in and a brand new counterpart?


----------



## jcx

for headphones it is next to impossilbe
   
  few serial production headphones of the same model match in frequency response to better than AB/X hearing thresholds, even those crowing about matched L&R drivers are mostly showing how poor in absolute terms "good" production tolerance is
   
  then you can't even put the same headphone on your head accurately enough to avoid frequency response changes between sessions - if Tyll's InnerFidelity reproducibility plots with the dummy head is to be believed


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> Has anyone run blind tests with an equipment that had burn in and a brand new counterpart?


 
  Blind, no, but objective, yes:
   
 http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break
   
  If you don't want to read it all, the results showed small changes after burn-in, but as far as audible results the tests were inconclusive.
   
  Double-blind testing of headphones is pretty much impossible, though.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Thanks for the link! Very informative


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





joeyjojo said:


> I heard that $70 USB cables also make the photos off digital cameras look better - more vibrant colours in the midrange and bluer skies. That's how it looks to me and I trust my eyes.


 
   
  That is the reason why some cables appear to do a better job than others when it comes to subjective sound and picture quality. Objectively, there is no difference from one functioning cable to another.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Blind, no, but objective, yes:
> 
> http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break
> 
> ...


 
   
  It is in another thread, I cannot remember which one, that there is evidence which shows there is some burn in with speakers, but leave them for a while and they return to their original state. So they only stay burned if if used regularly.


----------



## joeyjojo

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> That is the reason why some cables appear to do a better job than others when it comes to subjective sound and picture quality. Objectively, there is no difference from one functioning cable to another.


 
   
  Did you get the sarcasm?


----------



## dalb

I only read the OP of this thread, but it was amazing. Very glad something like this exists and hope more people take a look at it before wasting money, particularly on cables. Surprising too that I'd see it here on headfi


----------



## ElmersEAR

Excellent and well written post (I am referring to the original post). I am beginning to think that when I concluded that many expensive sound products sounded bad, I was just filtering what I heard through my wallet. I'm always asking myself the question does it sound good enough to justify the cost?  Usually--no, almost always--the answer is "no"!
   
  Does anyone else use a "wallet filter" to evaluate audio equipment?


----------



## fiascogarcia

I don't know what everyone's talking about.  I hear the differences!


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





fiascogarcia said:


> I don't know what everyone's talking about.  I hear the differences!


 
   
  I can see that.
   

   
  se


----------



## Autobat

Very interesting articles and comments.  I agree with nearly all of it but completely agree that all testing should be scientific where possible.
   
  So, if I may, can I summarise:
   
  * Cables do very little
  * Amps do change the sound but all amps can be made to sound the same with some tweaking and knowledge
  * Headphones and speaks change the sound as we would hope they would
  * Encoding process has an impact to a point
   
  So, where to from here.  We know that the industry is driven by design and form over substance which is backed up by the research, so the next logical question is, what is next?
   
  What will be the next component or process that the industry will put on show as delivering a new level of <insert sound related word>?  I find it very similar to all of the other industries where each iteration of a product is touted as the best thing ever and will ever be.  Just look at carpet cleaning products.  If their claims are to be believed the previous versions never worked and this version removes the most stubborn stains but this cycle is just repeated over and over again.


----------



## preproman




----------



## GatesDA

I haven't read through all 133 pages, but does anyone know of any reports of _iterated_ ABX tests? Iteration will filter out all those bell-curve random-distribution results.  No matter how many you get right by chance, the probability of consistently getting the _same _ones right through multiple iterations is almost nil.  The only positives left will be the people that can consistently differentiate, and those positives carry a lot more weight.

 For example, take test #42.  The person mentioned in the intro that correctly identified every time the amp was swapped was discounted as a "lucky coin".  Indeed, one out of every 32 people could do that without even hearing the test.  However, run the same test five times in a row and fewer than one in 33 million would be perfect "lucky coins".  If even one person out of a thousand can manage it, that's far too many to attribute to chance.


----------



## weisontherocks

I'm fairly new to this hobby and I'm really glad I stumbled upon this thread. The knowledge I've gained here will definitely have a huge impact on the way I buy, research, and audition gear. If I can't hear it, it's going to be hard to justify paying for it just because someone with a sense of hearing that's typically about as inflated as their ego thinks they can. I have a black sheet and some Grado SR80i's and a Fiio Andes coming in and I'm looking forward to closing my eyes and hearing if the Fiio brings an improvement that I can consistently identify over source amps and DAC's through the Grado's, my HTS, and my 2.0's. I only have my moeny to gain back if there's no noticeable audible improvement. If there is, I keep the device to enjoy and either way I can write a meaningful review based on my findings. Win - win for me since I don't have a reputation derived from biased subjective claims to worry about. I think I'm going to start pitting a lot of my comparable gear against each other through blind testing as well - for reference - fun - and possibly to identify future entries into the audio classifieds. Thank you all!


----------



## 367459

Have been reading this thread for the last few nights. Amazing discussion. Thank you so much to the OP and to all who keep questioning and explaining. I have put together a decent little system on a really tight budget and was seriously concerned that the cables might be letting everything down (even though it sounds good...). This has made me think about testing out some room improvements first if I want to improve sound going forward. I noticed that Foobar2000 has an ABX plugin so I am going to have some fun with that too (vid here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt7GyFW4hOI). 
   
  One question, if the published measurements can tell us much about the sound then what are the sort of measurements we should be looking for in a 'natural' amp/cdp/dac/tt?
   
  Thanks,
  Andy
   
  Edit: having Googled a bit more I realise this is a rather large question and probably not related to the original posting. Lots of info out there on the net so please disregard and count this post as a straight thank you from a new forum member.


----------



## EthanWiner

367459 said:


> what are the sort of measurements we should be looking for in a 'natural' amp/cdp/dac/tt?




If by "natural" you mean faithfulness to the source, then you are talking about _fidelity_. This article explains the four parameters of fidelity:

Audiophoolery

--Ethan


----------



## 367459

That's a great overview Ethan. Thank you.
  Andy


----------



## 367459

What do you think about the earplugs that claim to protect your hearing by reducing noise while keeping the hi-fi range intact?


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





367459 said:


> What do you think about the earplugs that claim to protect your hearing by reducing noise while keeping the hi-fi range intact?


 
  Are you talking about IEMs?


----------



## 367459

No - just straight earplugs marketed to musicians. Protect from noise (so they lower dBs) but you can still hear sound with clarity so unmuffled like normal earplugs.


----------



## liamstrain

http://www.etymotic.com/hp/erme.html


----------



## 367459

That's them. I think they're great so I don't want you bursting my perception bubble now...
   
  On another topic I came across this regarding a certain rather expensive power cable:
   
_*Why should a power cord, outlet, or their influence on DTCD matter when "miles and miles of wire" precede the system?*_
_Perhaps the most common misconception about electronics and electrical systems is the belief that components lie at the end-point of a long electrical pathway. Given the distances of ordinary wire that precede home or studio systems, many believe there is little value in using top quality power cords or similar high-performance AC components at the end of this electrical chain. The only problem with that concept is that it represents a false assumption based on what is commonly referred to as the garden-hose analogy._
   
_Power is not delivered to electronics like water through a hose and components do not sit at the end of a long distance electrical delivery hose. All power supplies lay between two poles of alternating current -- the hot and neutral. Once powered on, components represent the beginning of an electrical interaction, not an end point. They are essentially tapping into a vast reservoir of current._
   
_Components that are in close electrical proximity to one another are dramatically affected by neighboring components electrical emissions including EMI, RFI and conducted electrical noise. Electronics have long proven to be far more affected by noise generated within the system -- through shared AC distribution, component radiated EMI or the back wave of power-supply energy, than they are by noise generated hundreds of feet much less miles away. In brief, electronics are minimally affected by electrical conditions that exist outside their immediate environment (with the exception of voltage fluctuations which are tightly regulated by the power company)._
   
_Let's define the local electrical environment as that which exists between the home's AC electrical panel and the home entertainment system. Beginning at the electrical panel, the importance and gauge of the in-wall wiring, splice connections, terminations, and outlets increases dramatically as the AC signal nears its interface point with the power supplies of electronics. By this measure, the power cord connecting a component to its power source is not the last six feet of an electrical hose. At the point of connection between a component and power source, the power cord becomes a functional extension of the power supply itself._
   
_In terms of AC delivery, it is this local electrical network of primary connections, terminations, wiring and outlets that will have the greatest potential impact on the performance capability of recording, mastering and consumer A/V systems. These simple tenets are based on the near-field sensitivity and functionality of all A/V components._
   
  and
   
_*I have evaluated several aftermarket power cords in my system and cannot hear a difference. Why?*_
_Assuming the power cords tested were well made and served the purpose of reasonable DTCD then several common variables are likely playing a role in a null result._
   
_DTCD is a foundational power delivery concept, not a power cord or an outlet -- not a make or a model. Replacing one stock power cord with a better aftermarket model on a CD player, pre-amp or amp is analogous to pouring one part clean water into four parts dirty water -- the "water" is still dirty. To get a clear idea of the capability of improved AC cords, it important to replace ALL of the cables that have low DTCD and are impeding current delivery. The integrity of the rest of local AC network should also be evaluated. One loose connection or significantly degraded AC contact point can obscure benefits elsewhere._
   
_The other major factor to consider in evaluating the potential advantages of a measurably better power cord is the balance of the AC system. Systems that use massive low-pass filters will automatically be less sensitive to the (low-impedance to peak current) advantages of top quality outlets or power cords._
   
_Systems that use transformers, chokes, coils, voltage stabilizers and AC "networks" represent the opposite end of the spectrum from DTCD in terms of engineering and philosophy._
   
_It never benefits a pro or consumer A/V system to mix and match varying AC perspectives in the same system. Most often, competing approaches will unnecessarily complicate the system and make results of future component or power-system evaluations impossible to predict._
   
_If the evaluation context is within a replay system then the system and room variables also come into play in how apparent a single or dual power cord change might be._


----------



## bigshot

Question: Why is it that three feet of wire makes a difference when 20 miles of wire to the power plant doesn't?

Answer: Because all of your other equipment is polluting it. Buy a fancy wire for your refrigerator and AC unit too!

Question: I bought your overpriced wire and I couldn't hear a difference. Why?

Answer: Because the rest of your system sucks!

I love stuff like that!


----------



## wink

I use carbon instead of copper wire in my power leads.
   
  Why do they get so darn hot?


----------



## 367459

Bigshot - you said you analyse your setup for gremlins or underperformance and focus on improving those areas. Would you mind sharing with the noobs like me how you would approach doing that? E.g.: I like my new setup but I expect the bass could be tighter and I detect a bit of sibilance in the treble sometimes. If it's trade secrets - I understand . 

Thanks, Andy


----------



## doublea71

My favorite post in a long time. The claim? Some powerbanks make your dap sound better than others. Behold: 
   
*I want share my experiment with 3 power bank charger as follow :

Source : AK 120
Headphone : LCD 3
Power bank : with 2 USB charger 1 mAh and 2 mAh , Energizer only 1 USB

from left to right

Yoobao limited edition with Swarovski crystal 7800 mAh white colour

Hame 10400 mAh blue colour

Energizer power bank XP 8000

SQ :

The best sound quality if I charge my AK 120 with these 3 power banks as follow

The best SQ is with Hame , the best balance SQ the best bass impact
Second best SQ is with Energizer xp 8000
Third best SQ is with Yoobao

High : with Hame more clear and extended high
Mid : with Hame more sweet and clear
Bass : with Hame very clean bass impact and bass detail
Clarity: with Hame is the best m second Energizer
Separation : the best separation with Hame
Soundstage : the best with Hame , second Energizer
Backgound : with Hame has the black background

Hearing is believing please try it , I is very interesting experience
Can improve the power from AK 120 as well , I can drive my LCD 3 in loud but very excellent SQ

Conclusion : if I use power bank with higher ampere , can make the best SQ for my AK 120*
   
This is a level of self-delusion I just can't comprehend. I think this guy is seriously addicted to buying gear. He has every piece of high-end portable gear known to man, and always posts multiple pics of his newest/latest/best-sounding blahblahblah etc. I'm not exaggerating when I tell you I think this is an addiction of his. Frightening stuff. If I'm wrong, please correct me since I'm being fairly critical (I should be nicer, I know.)


----------



## xnor

That's like saying "I tested 3 keyboards X, Y and Z and with X the font looks the smoothest in Word."


----------



## coryeeeee

Thanks for this write-up. Helped me a ton.


----------



## bigshot

367459 said:


> Bigshot - you said you analyse your setup for gremlins or underperformance and focus on improving those areas. Would you mind sharing with the noobs like me how you would approach doing that? E.g.: I like my new setup but I expect the bass could be tighter and I detect a bit of sibilance in the treble sometimes.




The first thing I'd do is try to determine if the stuff you're hearing is mixed into the music itself. Find a super clean recording with lots of bass and high end and see if it still acts up.

If there are still problems even with well recorded music, it's likely frequency response issues in your headphones. I'd start by looking at published response graphs on your particular make and model and see if you see a midbass bump and a spike around 8kHz. A good equalizer can help you isolate the trouble areas and tame them. Always EQ subtractively. Don't push frequencies up... pull all the other frequencies down.

See if that helps.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Always EQ subtractively. Don't push frequencies up... pull all the other frequencies down.


 
  Generally agree, subtractive is the first choice when using a graphic EQ, but with judgement. If there's a 1/3 octave dip, it doesn't make sense to pull 3 octaves down to fix it.  
   
  More importantly, use the right tools.  A graphic equalizer with fixed frequencies is far less useful than a full parametric where you can dial in the exact frequency, Q and gain of the response problem you're trying to fix.  When you do that, the subtractive-only approach is less applicable.   Often having 5 bands of full parametric beats a 1/3 octave graphic hands down.


----------



## 367459

Great advice Bigshot and Jaddie. Thank you kindly. Off I blunder into the world of EQ and analogue vs digital, graphic vs parametric, etc... It's funny because before reading this and another thread I would have been straight to the upgrade cables/upgrade sources/upgrade everything I possibly can. No harm in playing with EQ and room layout first.
   
  Edit: Wow I've just noticed that this thread's very own Xnor has created a highly recommended EQ in Foobar. Well that's where I'll start then. Nice work Xnor!


----------



## bigshot

This is speakers, not headphones? If so room layout might have a lot to do with your bass problem. Also, if you have a sub, it might just be a level imbalance between the mains and sub.


----------



## 367459

Thx Bigshot. I guess the first thing I can do is compare whether I hear the same thing through speakers and headphones. That would be a good start. Right, back to the myths and claims...


----------



## Greenleaf7

I'm not sure if this is considered a myth, but what exactly do people mean when they use the term "black background"?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Basically just means very low noise.
   
  se


----------



## jaddie

Many, possibly most descriptive terms in audio are analogies, and many of those cluster around the visual description of something physical.  "Veiled", etc.


----------



## bigshot

Just about all digital audio has a black background, even the cheap stuff.


----------



## Greenleaf7

Thanks guys, that answers the question.


----------



## Greenleaf7

Just stumbled upon this article about the Myths behind tubes. Here's the link for those who are interested.
   
http://sound.westhost.com/valves/myths.html


----------



## bigshot

I've come to the conclusion that the best thing about tubes is that they glow really nice. Someone should come up with some nice LED fake tubes you can put on top of your solid state equipment to pretty it up.

Tubes don't improve the sound, in fact, they aren't even consistent in the way they degrade the it. Solid state has gotten to the point where it's pretty much plug and play. Why go back to worrying about whether the sound is shifting because a tube is not warmed up or beginning to fail?

Why do you think they call it solid state? It's because the sound stays the same.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Why do you think they call it solid state? It's because the sound stays the same.


 
   
  Um... no. It's called solid state because the charge carriers pass through a solid material (i.e. germanium or silicon for example) rather than through a vacuum.
   
  se


----------



## bigshot

I was being hyperbolic!


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I was being hyperbolic!


 
   
  Sorry. Missed the hyperbole emoticon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## Autobat

I always enjoy reading this thread.  I am a scientist (Physicist) who prefers to scientifically test and then study numbers and graphs before drawing conclusions on pretty much anything.  From a scientific method I agree with most of what I read here, however, I also understand that the placebo and nocebo effects have been observed in nature within studies and therefore can not be ignored.
   
  With this in mind, if people believe things sound better/worse then they will convince themselves of this.  No amount of research and evidence will ever convince the human brain that it did not hear a change if it believed that it did.  If we look at medical trials and the fact we can trick the brain into thinking that it received medication when it was just a simple sugar pill we will never understand what is happening when listening to something as subjective as music.


----------



## bigshot

There really isn't any reason to try to convince them. It only makes them unhappy.


----------



## uchihaitachi

And then the moderators come after you.


----------



## Autobat

Very true.


----------



## 367459

Interesting piece on the science (or lack of) of wine tasting: http://m.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis


----------



## jcx

precision of Ranking is the issue there - and the "bad judge" 4 points variance on a scale of 100 is way more consistent than chance - seems that the point is a little strained
   
  using the ranking beyond its repeatability is a social issue
   
  the other examples rather poorly thrown in just point to expectation effect skewing sensory perception - letting price, color info modulate the brain's interpretation of smell, taste


----------



## Greenleaf7

The latest Astell & Kern DAP, the AK120, utilizes two DAC chips instead of one. And according to the manufacturer, it offers the following benefits. 
   
The AK120 not only meets the standards of Hi-Fi audio, but also utilizes two DACs (digital to analog converters) maximizing the dual-mono set up to completely separate and isolate the left and right audio channels. As a result, the AK120 delivers broader a dynamic range and wider soundstage so that you can enjoy an even more realistic music experience. 
   
  I have been under the impression that proper implementation of the DAC chip, and not the number of DAC chips installed will directly effect the DACs measurements and in turn sonic quality.
   
  Can an improvement in sound quality, dynamic range and sound stage be achieved by using more dac chips?


----------



## stv014

Quote:  





> Can an improvement in sound quality, dynamic range and sound stage be achieved by using more dac chips?


 
   
  Using two mono DACs can improve the dynamic range by a few dB, but this is not really necessary or useful in practice, when a single stereo DAC chip can achieve 110+ dB without major difficulty if implemented properly. Under realistic listening conditions, the ~96 dB dynamic range of 16-bit CD quality audio is good enough to make the noise floor inaudible.
   
  Amplifiers and DACs do not normally affect the sound stage in any significant way, unless they are poorly designed or implemented, or deliberately include it as a feature (e.g. crossfeed). It is more likely that a difference in sound stage is perceived because of not comparing the devices under sufficiently well controlled conditions.


----------



## anetode

Each doubling of the number of DACs increases the SNR by 3db.
   
  edit: stv's already there


----------



## jaddie

You have to read the AK thing carefully, though.  They aren't using two DACs cascaded, they are used in a dual-mono configuration, one DAC per channel.  Can't see that actually improving anything beyond what you'd get with a single shared DAC.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





greenleaf7 said:


> The latest Astell & Kern DAP, the AK120, utilizes two DAC chips instead of one. And according to the manufacturer, it offers the following benefits.
> 
> The AK120 not only meets the standards of Hi-Fi audio, but also utilizes two DACs (digital to analog converters) maximizing the dual-mono set up to completely separate and isolate the left and right audio channels. As a result, the AK120 delivers broader a dynamic range and wider soundstage so that you can enjoy an even more realistic music experience.
> 
> ...


 
  Secret to success in the DAP market seems to be more DACs the better. Mixed with a brick like build, severe compromises, unusable UI and F*&ed up frequency response.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Oh and of course a gigantic price tag. How could I forget!


----------



## Jammin72

So I read about 75 pages of this before I got a bit burned out.
   
  On other pages inside has there been any consensus about where the line gets drawn between cruddy components and ones that are adequate enough to not be detected as being different?
   
  I've long been of the mind that transducers rule the roost on either input and output and this sort of ABX testing seems to confirm that bias.  That being said I've also fallen prey to switching one amp for the next or switching between DSD and PCM and very convincingly have noted changes in performance mostly in regards to 3D imaging on 2 channel stereo speaker playback.  The size of the sound stage and how far I perceive information filling the room in a cohesive manner has always been how I've made my selections.
   
  I'm attempting to rework my main playback system and It would be quite fun to see just what I could "get away with" on the components side in order to invest more heavily in the transducer category. It seems to me that after all the discussion really what we're looking for is something quiet enough to get out of the way and has enough power/voltage to accurately move the speakers/headphones of our choosing.
   
  Another thing that I find curious is that if different levels of distortion or frequency response are really all that separate the different amplifiers, preamplifier, and source components why hasn't someone built us a box that throws the various possibilities into memory and allows us to dial up signature sounds on a whim much like Bob Carver's "matching" experiment but in the digital realm.


----------



## bigshot

I can't see how an amp could possibly affect soundstage on a speaker setup. That would be either part of the recording itself or the acoustics of the room.

You're thinking along the right lines on your reworking of your speaker setup. I currently run mine with a $120 Sony bluray player, $400 Yamaha amp and Mac mini music server. Those things don't matter.

The things that do make a huge difference are:

The quality of the speakers
Equalization / Room acoustics
Multi-channel sound (5:1)
DSPs

All of these work together. For me multi-channel sound and control of the sound space with DSPs was a real revelation. I can easily switch from my surround simulation to direct 2 channel output and the difference is massive. 5:1 seems to be the domain of bass heavy home theater setups, but in a carefully equalized music setting, it is even more impressive.


----------



## Happy Camper

Amps do have an impact on soundstage. It was very noticeable trying different speaker amps with the HE-6s. Same source and material.


----------



## bigshot

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with HE-6 speakers. Who makes them?


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I'm afraid I'm not familiar with HE-6 speakers. Who makes them?


 
   
  The HE-6 is a headphone made by HiFiMAN, and is infamous for its poor efficiency, for which reason some people run it directly from speaker amplifiers.
   
  Sound stage is very subjective (and with simple stereo recordings on headphones, much of it is imaginary), so it is important to compare it under double-blind conditions with accurate level matching. Different amplifiers are likely not equally as loud at the same setting of the volume control, and slight loudness differences can be perceived as quality (for example, sound stage) differences.


----------



## Jammin72

happy camper said:


> Amps do have an impact on soundstage. It was very noticeable trying different speaker amps with the HE-6s. Same source and material.




Actually what's being argued and somewhat tested here is that after a certain threshold, no they don't. So the next great argument is.... Where's the threshold?


----------



## Jammin72

jammin72 said:


> Actually what's being argued and somewhat tested here is that after a certain threshold, no they don't. So the next great argument is.... Where's the threshold?




Of course the HE-6's are at one extreme end of the spectrum so the whole argument gets qualified as the threshold for your particular transducer of choice,


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> The HE-6 is a headphone made by HiFiMAN, and is infamous for its poor efficiency, for which reason some people run it directly from speaker amplifiers.


 
   
  Oh... like Stax I guess. If there is a difference in sound there, that probably has more to do with how the headphones are getting the power than how the amp "sounds".
   
  In any case, when I talk about soundstage I mean room acoustics, speaker placement, 5:1 surround... all the things that place sound in real three dimensional space. None of that applies to headphones.. and nothing an amp does could possibly affect that. In fact, as long as an amp is flat, clean and powered well enough, they are all pretty much the same.


----------



## EthanWiner

bigshot said:


> I can't see how an amp could possibly affect soundstage on a speaker setup. That would be either part of the recording itself or the acoustics of the room.




Exactly. I've said this before, and at the risk of irritating people I'll say it again: If you listen on speakers (not headphones) and your room has no absorption at the side-wall reflection points, you don't even know what imaging is.

--Ethan


----------



## jcx

some do attempt to control the early near wall relfection with good directivity control of the speaker, for an example: Geddes waveguide speakers designed for 90 degree pattern with 45 degree toe-in


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





jcx said:


> some do attempt to control the early near wall relfection with good directivity control of the speaker, for an example: Geddes waveguide speakers designed for 90 degree pattern with 45 degree toe-in


 
  ...and THX Ultra2 Certified speakers have controlled vertical directivity to reduce the intensity of reflections off ceilings and floors for this reason also.  Not a substitute for acoustic treatment, but sometimes you just can't.


----------



## bigshot

My room is all panelled in knotty pine with a high beam ceiling. No way I'm going to put acoustic panels on that. I made do with helpful placement of large couches and rugs, and a sound absorbing taxidermied Marlin on the wall!
   
  Seriously though, the pine panelling is super soft and doesn't bounce much sound. The room has a concrete slab floor and I stood in the middle before I moved any furniture or rugs in and did the "clap test" and it was amazing how little reflection there was.


----------



## jaddie

I'll bet your marlin is more of the diffusion species than absorption species, at least at the high end.  The semi-cylindrial diffusional marlin is fairly common in temperate waters.  The fully absorptive marlin has been on the endangered species list for a while, and if you have one mounted in your home your zealous California Fish and Game Police will bust you for sure.


----------



## Mezzo

So my brother in law did some testing of amps. Integra 30.4 vs Yamaha A-820 vs 4 year old Yamaha receiver. He has got 2x Vatrios mono block ( i think they fong kong amps ) i cant find info on the net about them. They are connected to the pre outs of his Yamaha ( 4 yrs old not sure of model number )
 Its ok, but at high volume ( this is his normal listening level +- -5db ) its a bit bright.

 So we took the integra he was offered and hooked it up. Needless to say it was so bright the tweeters stopped working on his Jamo C605's in half a song

 We then brought in a old school kenwood KMX100 power amp. I cannot believe how warm and smooth this amp is, I was expecting it to be bright as its old and its not parasound or nad . Just shows you name brand isnt always the way to look at things.

 Any ways to try get rid of the brightness we gave the integra another shot on the warmer Kenwood power amp. The results were day and night, it was alot warmer than those fong kong things he has, but still a little bright for me.
 Next was the old Yamaha with the Kenwood, It blew the integra out of the water, so much warmer and gentle on the ears.
 The next test was my Yamaha A820 with the same kenwood amp......all i can say was WOW it sounded amazing, it out played the older Yamaha and the Integra didnt even stand a close chance.

 All tests were done using the same speakers ( Jamo C605 ), Samsung Bluray hooked up via HDMI, same speaker cables and same interconnects all test were done with the same song aswell.

 Note all these tests were done just on the audio section, we didnt play with bells and whistles, all tests were done with multiple dsp settings, pure direct, 2ch stereo with sub and 7ch stereo ( he loves 7ch no idea why )

 Anything inherently wrong with this test?


----------



## bigshot

When you compare using DSP settings, everything is different. You're hearing differences in DSPs, not the amp itself. You should only compare straight output with no tone controls, no DSP, no EQ, nothing... and the volume level should be consistent and level matched carefully. If you can set up a direct switcher, that's best.

Your results aren't surprising, because newer Yamahas have the best DSPs.


----------



## Mezzo

Quote: 





> When you compare using DSP settings, everything is different. You're hearing differences in DSPs, not the amp itself. You should only compare straight output with no tone controls, no DSP, no EQ, nothing...


 
   
  He said he compared using pure direct, stereo and 7ch stereo for all three.


----------



## bigshot

He said he used three DSP settings, including pure direct. That just confuses the comparisons. The best way to do it is to line up the amps, set them flat / pure direct, go through one by one in passes trying to balance the output level to a normal listening volume, THEN do the comparisons with as short a time between listening samples as possible. A switch box would be ideal.
   
  The problem with comparing anything is that auditory memory is VERY short... only a few seconds. The more time between samples, the more apt expectation bias and sheer randomness is going to affect it. It is impossible to listen to three different DSPs on each amp, and then try to compare them to three DSPs on another amp. Compare one thing at a time.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





mezzo said:


> So my brother in law did some testing of amps. Integra 30.4 vs Yamaha A-820 vs 4 year old Yamaha receiver. He has got 2x Vatrios mono block ( i think they fong kong amps ) i cant find info on the net about them. They are connected to the pre outs of his Yamaha ( 4 yrs old not sure of model number )
> Its ok, but at high volume ( this is his normal listening level +- -5db ) its a bit bright.
> 
> So we took the integra he was offered and hooked it up. Needless to say it was so bright the tweeters stopped working on his Jamo C605's in half a song
> ...


 
  Precision level match?
  Compare using only pure-direct (+1 bigshot)
  Make sure all tone controls and, room cal and DSP are bypassed - pure-direct should do this, you have to be absolutely certain.
  Rapid switch comparison (requires switching hardware, but necessary if trying to make a direct comparison)?
   
  Blind/Double Blind? (Of course not, but that's the only way you can really tell that a difference exists).
   
  What does this mean: Needless to say it was so bright the tweeters stopped working on his Jamo C605's in half a song"?


----------



## Jammin72

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> I'll bet your marlin is more of the diffusion species than absorption species, at least at the high end.  The semi-cylindrial diffusional marlin is fairly common in temperate waters.  The fully absorptive marlin has been on the endangered species list for a while, and if you have one mounted in your home your zealous California Fish and Game Police will bust you for sure.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Three more tests added to the OP.
   
  Still waiting for a positive ABX test of cables, still finding speakers make the biggest difference.


----------



## 367459

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Three more tests added to the OP.
> 
> Still waiting for a positive ABX test of cables, still finding speakers make the biggest difference.


 
   
  Nice work Prog Rock Man! You're building quite the body of knowledge.
  Has the cartridge demagnetizer been covered in this thread? What do the myth-busters say?  http://hifishack.com/audiophysic.php


----------



## brunk




----------



## bigshot

I really don't doubt people can hear a difference between Frauenhofer 320 and Frauenhofer 128. Try AAC 320 against lossless, and if you can come up with a consistently accurate choice, I will be very impressed.


----------



## brunk

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I really don't doubt people can hear a difference between Frauenhofer 320 and Frauenhofer 128. Try AAC 320 against lossless, and if you can come up with a consistently accurate choice, I will be very impressed.


 
  If you have it available, send it to me  I'm not even on my "big rig". I'm just listening with a Beyer T1 out of the Yulong DA8 internal amp.


----------



## stv014

Maybe they fixed it since I last checked, but I recall mp3ornot.com has some problems:
  - the files are not level matched (the 320 kbps version is louder by a few tenths of a dB)
  - it is possible to guess which file is which simply from the time it takes to load them (obviously, the larger 320 kbps version takes longer)
  In any case, no one claims here that 128 kbps MP3 is transparent (or at least it only is with "easy" tracks).
   
  It is only nit picking, but 3/3 (12.5% chance of random guessing) is generally not seen as a statistically significant result.


----------



## m8o

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> [snip]
> 
> 25. Stereomojo Digital amp shootout 2007
> ...


 
   
  Legendary Post!  And I'm so glad this thread is still active so I'm not figuratively yelled-at for reviving a dead thread... but I have to reply in reference to this item above. 
   
  It is _so_ exemplary of what I've come to take to be a truth.  What the listeners so often are responding to is not the utmost in clean/clear/linear fidelity, but pleasing *distortion*.  The amp doesn't produce much of any power to the speakers at the frequencies where the impedance peaks to several dozen ohms whether due to driver or crossover resonance making for non-linearities of the speaker's frequency response, and it's not too hard to believe during listening trials and A/B comparisons that music dynamics had the amp reach these distortion levels found on their specs page:  High Power 10% @ 15W 4ohm, 10% @ 10W 8ohm.  ...but those non-linearities and distortions added to the speaker's reproduction, _sounded good_.


----------



## xnor

The funny thing is that it's based on a cheap tripath ("class T") chip and you can get populated boards for less than $20.
   
  It's not only low power but also suffers from high nonlinear distortion at higher frequencies (e.g. high odd-order harmonics at 1 kHz), intermod. distortion and rolls off the frequency response about 1 dB at 20 kHz.


----------



## bigshot

A rolloff of 1dB at 20kHz isn't even worth mentioning.

The thing that is interesting about that test is that the descriptions of the sound of the individual amps are different every time they are compared.


----------



## xnor

Well, in terms of audibility it isn't, but nevertheless imho an amp shouldn't start rolling off like that in the audible range.


----------



## 367459

Thanks to this thread I am starting to enjoy these type of websites more and more: http://verastarr.com/grand-illusion-signature/


----------



## xnor

The product name "grand illusion" may fit what the product is about, but visually the name "grand repulsion" would be a better fit.


----------



## teb1013

367459 said:


> Thanks to this thread I am starting to enjoy these type of websites more and more: http://verastarr.com/grand-illusion-signature/




Grand Illusion! Hilarious! I wonder if the people who make this ever saw the Renoir film or know what the name implies!


----------



## ab initio

Quote: 





367459 said:


> Thanks to this thread I am starting to enjoy these type of websites more and more: http://verastarr.com/grand-illusion-signature/


 
   

 The funniest thing is that after they charge 4 grand for a couple of cables, they'll still hit you up for that $12 shipping charge!
   
  Cheers


----------



## Hi-Five

Quote: 





ab initio said:


> The funniest thing is that after they charge 4 grand for a couple of cables, they'll still hit you up for that $12 shipping charge!
> 
> Cheers


 
   
  I'm sorry any product that costs $4K is not allowed to have generic heat-shrink as part of its build.  are you kidding me?  No custom molded ends or proprietary strain-relief...that's BS.  I don't care how much "silver foil lubricated with unicorn tears" are enclosed in that beast, it still looks cheap and unrefined.  Grand Illusion indeed!
   
  Hope that helps,
  Hi-Five


----------



## Greenleaf7

At first glance I thought those were shoe laces. But it could be just me..


----------



## m8o

But, don't they sell $10,000 replacement electric outlets to plug those into?  They're leaving money on the table!
   
  ...and yes ... I should just ignore the miles of copper and aluminum and countless high wattage breakers along the power path, believing somehow only the last 5 feet matters... yes, yes, sure, sure. 
   
  psst ... I gotta bridge for you to buy ... just 1/2 the cost of power interconnects.  Please paypal $$$ to "usuk_sendmoney@suckerborneveryminute.com" and it's yours.


----------



## ab initio

Quote: 





hi-five said:


> I'm sorry any product that costs $4K is not allowed to have *generic heat-shrink as part of its build*.  are you kidding me?


 
   
  Ha ha, I was thinking the exact same thing as well. Then I realized they only shrink-wrapped it to hide the cheap connector they used.
   

   
  Cheers


----------



## Hi-Five

Quote: 





ab initio said:


> Ha ha, I was thinking the exact same thing as well. Then I realized they only shrink-wrapped it to hide the cheap connector they used.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers


 
   
  Ha ha, very good point!


----------



## uchihaitachi

Has anybody attempted to sell audiophilr power stations by any chance?


----------



## 367459

There's some good stuff under Miscellaneous here  http://www.stereophile.com/content/2013-recommended-components
  Actual there's some gear I would seriously love to hear gathered together in this 2013 collection regardless of hype.


----------



## jcx

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> Has anybody attempted to sell audiophilr power stations by any chance?


 
  during a tour of a professional studio - built as a "end game" studio by the owner with a (long hallway) wall of  Gold, Platinum albums he mastered, a few Grammy's
   
  he bragged about being online the next day after a storm the previous week  knocked out power to the region for days - running the studio on his battery bank powered AC line regenerators


----------



## Archimago

Hey guys, nice thread!
   
  Admittedly, I haven't been able to go through all 139 pages yet... Just wanted to drop a note that over the last 6 months or so, I've put up a blog to document a few things for myself from an objective perspective (after years of exposure to audiophilia) and put my thoughts together in some of the "Musings" posts.
   
  I don't have any fancy gear or recording device, but even without that, I think there's something to be learned with just simple measurements...
   
  Main site:
  http://archimago.blogspot.ca/
   
  It all started when I was curious about folks who claimed high quality MP3 (~320kbps) was bad, so I set up a "blind" survey between transcoded MP3 (higher-than-normal bitrates, removal of lowpass filtering in LAME) to hide the obvious spectral anamalies in a standard MP3 encode with the original uncompressed CD rip without going through the psychoacoustic algorithm.
   
  Procedure:
  http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test.html
   
  Results:
  http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_3422.html
   
  Discussion:
  http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_2.html
   
  Subjective Descriptions:
  http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-internet-blind-test-part-4.html
   
  Relatively small "study" at about 150 respondents (including some from Head-Fi). Interesting seeing the results come through and correlation with quality / price of equipment.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Thanks, Archimago. Got you bookmarked.

se


----------



## ab initio

@Archimago
   
  Nice experiment and write up!





   
  Cheers


----------



## 367459

Bybees


----------



## drez

367459 said:


> Bybees




Any time someone mentions them I just recommend doing a google image search.


----------



## Autobat

Jebus!  I just googled that and checked out their website.  Now, I'm not one for s**t-canning things that I have no personal experience with but I'm pretty sure putting anything additional in the signal chain is only going to remove something (e.g. low/high pass filters) or add something (e.g. noise).
   
  These things cost 2 grand a pair!  Now I'm sure active processing of a signal (e.g. DSP) can alter the signal and produce some of the effects described on the website but what can a lump of "carbon nanotubes" do considering you are plugging your current interconnects into the damn thing anyway!
   
  /rant over


----------



## ferday

Quote: 





archimago said:


> Hey guys, nice thread!
> 
> Admittedly, I haven't been able to go through all 139 pages yet... Just wanted to drop a note that over the last 6 months or so, I've put up a blog to document a few things for myself from an objective perspective (after years of exposure to audiophilia) and put my thoughts together in some of the "Musings" posts.
> 
> ...


 
   
  really great site, glad i found this!


----------



## Syan25

interesting read! Cheers!


----------



## Wizz

Well, I can't believe I've read all 139 pages of this thread!
   
  I subscribed mainly to thank:

 *Prog Rock Man* for the extensive compilation of audio blind tests. Great work.
 *xnor, bigshot, jaddie, Steve Eddy, mikeaj* and others for the sometimes enthralling input.
   
  I'm a musician, sound engineer, music producer and DJ from Belgium and Switzerland.
   
  Since my teens (in the late 70s), always been on the rational side of  the audiophile "border". Partly because I've been exposed very early to sociology, social psychology and the like, so I knew how tremendously and easily the human senses can be abused and fooled by expectation, suggestion, perceived authority etc... (EDIT oh and by manipulation, marketing nonsense and the like, of course).


----------



## bigshot

Nice to have you around, wizz!


----------



## Wizz

Quote: 





dan.gheorghe said:


> I know a lot of people that noticed improvements brought by cables in general. You cannot just throw that aside.


 
   
Argumentum ad populum. Sigh. Cable believers seem to have an endless cornucopiae of fallacies ready to be thrown at the unbelievers, just as cultists do.
   
  Besides, of course we can throw that aside! This is called being rational. Even, dare I say, adult. If in your book a claim (a "noticed improvement" is just that, a claim), whatever silly it is, automatically gains credibility by simply being repeated by more and more people, despite the lack of any proof, then... there is a whole lot of b*s on earth that you are bound to be taking seriously! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Just open any tabloid: thousands of people on earth actually believe what's printed in these. By your book, because there are so many people believing in what is claimed in these, we shouldn't throw these claims aside? Pah! Count me out.


----------



## Wizz

Thanks for the welcome, bigshot


----------



## Wizz

In this debate, something that bothers me somewhat, it's the use of the word "*placebo*" when dealing with audio perceptions that can't be measured or proven.
   
  The placebo effect originally refers to a phenomenon that is, actually, measurable and provable. A patient takes a pill that is supposed to have no effect, but gets better nonetheless. The improvement is measurable (regression of symptoms - like fever, for instance) and sometimes -actually rather often- the "false" pill does better than the real one.
   
  To me "placebo" is a term that doesn't fit these audio illusions, since they can't be measured. They're not real... the original placebo effect, on the other hand, causes real, actual, measurable improvements in the patient.
   
  What we're dealing with in audio is, in my view much closer to hallucinations, where the brain creates "logical" patterns causing the senses to see, feel, taste or hear things that aren't actually there (at least not in the form we think we sense them). More close to optical illusions, as well. They have been discussed here btw, its a great way to remind people that we should NOT trust our senses, because our senses play tricks on _us all the time_.
   
  Just curious, has anyone here already played a game that I love, which is to concentrate (kind of) on audio noise (pink noise for instance) until actually hearing in it voices, melodies, chords, even a full orchestra? I do that often when taking a shower. It's fun, and rather easy if you have a bit of imagination. I know other people, musicians or not, who play that game too. Sometimes, the illusion can even get pretty uncanny! It's a bit like looking at video noise (like we could with old TV programs...) and seing movement in it. We sure see these things ven though they aren't there _per se_.


----------



## xnor

Well, let's say a guy gets a new shiny USB cable, installs it and suddenly his whole system sounds better. Measurements show the cable is identical to the old, cheap one.
   
  the new USB cable performing no better = placebo
  hearing an improvement = placebo effect


----------



## ab initio

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Well, let's say a guy gets a new shiny USB cable, installs it and suddenly his whole system sounds better. Measurements show the cable is identical to the old, cheap one.
> 
> the new USB cable performing no better = placebo
> hearing an improvement = placebo effect


 
  I think the argument is that expensive USB cables cannot be called a placebo because there is no scientific evidence that the health of the owner improves upon purchase. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Cheers


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





ab initio said:


> I think the argument is that expensive USB cables cannot be called a placebo because there is no scientific evidence that the health of the owner improves upon purchase.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Ah, but what about the health of the seller?


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





wizz said:


> In this debate, something that bothers me somewhat, it's the use of the word "*placebo*" when dealing with audio perceptions that can't be measured or proven.
> 
> The placebo effect originally refers to a phenomenon that is, actually, measurable and provable. A patient takes a pill that is supposed to have no effect, but gets better nonetheless. The improvement is measurable (regression of symptoms - like fever, for instance) and sometimes -actually rather often- the "false" pill does better than the real one.
> 
> ...


 
  Subjective differences or actual therapeutic effects fall under the placebo category so I think the word placebo is suitable for audio.


----------



## dvw

Quote: 





ab initio said:


> I think the argument is that expensive USB cables cannot be called a placebo because there is no scientific evidence that the health of the owner improves upon purchase.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  What if the owner was deaf......before


----------



## drez

Quote: 





wizz said:


> Argumentum ad populum. Sigh. Cable believers seem to have an endless cornucopiae of fallacies ready to be thrown at the unbelievers, just as cultists do.
> 
> Besides, of course we can throw that aside! This is called being rational. Even, dare I say, adult. If in your book a claim (a "noticed improvement" is just that, a claim), whatever silly it is, automatically gains credibility by simply being repeated by more and more people, despite the lack of any proof, then... there is a whole lot of b*s on earth that you are bound to be taking seriously!
> 
> ...


 
   
  I'm not too sure about that, the main idea cable believers employ is, "just listen to it" ie. build a transparent system and compare by ear (or visit someone with a transparent system and compare on their system).  There really isn't that much to it in terms of wild theories and justifications, in fact theory and/or measurement seems to be the preoccupation mainly in this subforum.  No endless cornucopiae of fallacies is or should be required, similarly, no fruitles or unreasonable "burden of evidence" to prove to someone else that you are hearing something with your own ears.  Opinions are offered without promise of universal validity, repeatability etc.  Caveats such as YMMV, IMO, in my system, to my ears ensure that these limits are established.  Opinions can be taken or ignored without unreasonable demands or assurances.  This is what allows normal discussions to take place outside this subforum.


----------



## dvw

Quote: 





drez said:


> I'm not too sure about that, the main idea cable believers employ is, "just listen to it" ie. build a transparent system and compare by ear (or visit someone with a transparent system and compare on their system).  There really isn't that much to it in terms of wild theories and justifications, in fact theory and/or measurement seems to be the preoccupation mainly in this subforum.  No endless cornucopiae of fallacies is or should be required, similarly, no fruitles or unreasonable "burden of evidence" to prove to someone else that you are hearing something with your own ears.  Opinions are offered without promise of universal validity, repeatability etc.  Caveats such as YMMV, IMO, in my system, to my ears ensure that these limits are established.  Opinions can be taken or ignored without unreasonable demands or assurances.  This is what allows normal discussions to take place outside this subforum.


 
  Actually, the biggest issue is a total disregard of facts and the total embrace of snake oil. The biggest put down is if you do not own the XYZ cable, you're not allowed to state your facts or opinions. Secondly, all facts are ignored. The argument always goes ;"there is no scientific theory yet or there is no measurement. In any industry you cannot do that. If you are a cook and you don't know the recipe....
   
  "Oh yes this tasted real good."
  "What is it?"
  "I don't know, I just picked it up from the backyard. It doesn't look like anything I've ever seen. I must have just invented it! Yeah!"
   
  This stuff just won't fly in the real world. If you believe in cable, I got this car I can sell to you and it can go from 0 to 100 in 2 sec. Oh wait, I meant this car will go really really fast. You'll need to buy it and try it..... Ah, test drive is not going to work because it needs 200 hours of burn in.
   
  " What do you mean the car is not fast? Do you have the burn in? Mmm... Do you have the racing strip? Hmmm... The road you're driving on probably does not have high enough resolution. Argg... You know sir. You don't know how to drive. And if you want to return the car there is an 100% restocking fee after 100 hr of use"
   
  Welcome to the real world.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





drez said:


> I'm not too sure about that, the main idea cable believers employ is, "just listen to it" ie. build a transparent system and compare by ear (or visit someone with a transparent system and compare on their system).  There really isn't that much to it in terms of wild theories and justifications, in fact theory and/or measurement seems to be the preoccupation mainly in this subforum.  No endless cornucopiae of fallacies is or should be required, similarly, no fruitles or unreasonable "burden of evidence" to prove to someone else that you are hearing something with your own ears.  Opinions are offered without promise of universal validity, repeatability etc.  Caveats such as YMMV, IMO, in my system, to my ears ensure that these limits are established.  Opinions can be taken or ignored without unreasonable demands or assurances.  This is what allows normal discussions to take place outside this subforum.


 

 "Just listen to it," but only in the context of sighted, non-controlled listening evaluations.  Throw in controls and not knowing what you are listening to and everything turns into a shambles.  Indeed on this web site you are not even allowed to raise the issue of a double blind test in some of the forums.  The human condition is as good as it gets for any of us, but the human itself is a highly imperfect measurement device.
   
  "There really isn't that much to in terms of wild theories and justifications..."  Are you being serious here?  From what I've read cable peddlers and their defenders make pretty much nothing but wild theories and justifications.   
   
  "No fruitles or unreasonable "burden of evidence to prove to someone else..."  If someone is making a claim, e.g. these two visibly different but electrically identical cables sound "night and day" different shouldn't the burden be on the claimant to back up the claim?  
   
  "This is what allows normal discussions to take place outside this subforum."  So far as I can tell, normal discussions take place in this forum too.  What's wrong with having a subforum that has a different tenor than all the other ones?  Isn't variety the spice of life?  I'm sure you're very welcome to post here, but if you are not comfortable with the discussions here why not seek out a spot more to your liking?


----------



## drez

My point is that speculation based off of other data points is still speculation, and that it is not reasonable to demand evidence or proof from people when they are stating an opinion.  In many cases, this is speculation based off data which is outdated, or not up to academic research standards.  There are already some single blind tests that challenge some of the cable myth claims, but these are met with harsh criticism over methodological weaknesses.  Sorry I can't be bothered to provide all the links at this point in time, but one (probably double blind, I have not read the paper myself) I have come across is the jitter audibility numbers which used to be thrown around, where more recent studies by Julian Dunn have revised the threshold down to 15-20ps.  let's face it most double blind tests are set up by audio skeptics who have a vested interest in not making fools of themselves by discrediting the what they have been claiming for years.  Double blind testing methodologies are difficult to set up, time consuming, and prone to produce null results.  Clearly it is not reasonable to expect everyone discussing hifi components to go to this level of trouble, especially when the likely result will not provide any useful data for the discussion.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





drez said:


> where more recent studies by Julian Dunn have revised the threshold down to 15-20ps.


 
   
  That is a theoretical estimate for a completely unrealistic worst case scenario. Do you listen to ultrasonic pure tones at ridiculously high SPL in a perfectly silent room, with jitter that is deliberately designed to produce a sideband at the frequency human hearing is most sensitive to ? If not, you can safely disregard this threshold for music listening under realistic conditions. It is also possible to simulate various types of jitter with software, and in fact I already did so on this forum, but apparently no one was confident of being golden eared enough to try to ABX the samples, which had very high amounts of jitter, by the way.
   
  Quote: 





drez said:


> Double blind testing methodologies are difficult to set up, time consuming, and prone to produce null results.  Clearly it is not reasonable to expect everyone discussing hifi components to go to this level of trouble, especially when the likely result will not provide any useful data for the discussion.


 
   
  Therefore, we should just accept the results of non-blind (and usually not even level matched) testing as fact, even though it is almost guaranteed to produce false positives ?


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





drez said:


> Double blind testing methodologies are difficult to set up, time consuming, and prone to produce null results.  Clearly it is not reasonable to expect everyone discussing hifi components to go to this level of trouble, especially when the likely result will not provide any useful data for the discussion.


 
  Yeah, life's tough.  But if you want real data you have to do real scientific tests with controls, and remove as many biases as possible.  No, you can't expect everyone to actually perform double-blind tests on everything they discuss, but to actually favor uncontrolled, bias-laden "tests" (readpinions) over scientific tests methodologies because they produce the data you like is putting your trust and belief in something rather inauthentic. DBT do produce accurate data.  Sometimes so-called "null results" are exactly that: accurate data.
   
  And with that, I submit my post #1000.  I now take a deep breath and wonder why.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





drez said:


> Double blind testing methodologies are difficult to set up, time consuming, and prone to produce null results.  Clearly it is not reasonable to expect everyone discussing hifi components to go to this level of trouble, especially when the likely result will not provide any useful data for the discussion.


 
  Most members on head-fi will go to ludicrous lengths to attain 'sonic nirvana'. I think DBT data is the best educational source as well as being the best determinant to achieve this.


----------



## drez

I wouldn't accept any opinion as fact, doing so is a big mistake, but this is a fairly obvious distinction, and my point was that in most cases opinion is a better basis for discussion than simulated or extrapolated predictions.  I guess I kind of contradicted myself by referring to data and scientific theory in order to support my argument, so that's probably not ideal and not to the point I was trying to make, and probably supports BlindInOneEar's argument more than my own.
   
  In this subforum evidence based discussion is the norm, and I guess a bit of mockery of how foolish the rest of the audiophile community is is to be expected.  I guess my point was that skepticism is fine and all for saving money not buying "snake oil" but consider for a moment that this information cannot provide some kind of perfect prediction for how all components will perform, and that in some cases might overlook certain variables and mechanisms affecting performance.  Put it this way, a lot of what I have read regarding cables doesn't match my own experience, and if you can think of a double blind test that can compare SPDIF cables of different lengths (not saying that there is an ideal, jus that they sound different in my experience) without adding anything to the signal chain, and without any wasted time or effort from myself being put in, I'm sure someone who has already ignored the sound science knowledge and drunk the kool aid will be willing to spend their time to prove what is already considered common knowledge outside of this subforum.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





drez said:


> and my point was that in most cases opinion is a better basis for discussion than simulated or extrapolated predictions.


 
   
  I would hardly consider popular opinion on internet forums as a reliable basis for discussion. Especially when all those who share the opinion are also affected by the same well known and proven psychological and psycho-acoustical effects. If you asked 10 people about this image, they would probably give the wrong answer, unless they already know about the illusion. Does that make their opinion fact, or just confirm that their perception is affected by bias ?
   
  Quote:  





> Put it this way, a lot of what I have read regarding cables doesn't match my own experience, and if you can think of a double blind test that can compare SPDIF cables of different lengths (not saying that there is an ideal, jus that they sound different in my experience) without adding anything to the signal chain, and without any wasted time or effort from myself being put in, I'm sure someone who has already ignored the sound science knowledge and drunk the kool aid will be willing to spend their time to prove what is already considered common knowledge outside of this subforum.


 
   
  Under those conditions, it can never be proven that a difference does not exist, just like it cannot be proven that alien abduction does not happen. Audiophiles trust sighted testing (even though it has been proven to be prone to showing differences that do not exist, like when comparing an amplifier to itself without knowing about it), and look for every possible excuse to invalidate DBT. But is it really worth obsessing so much about a very low chance that the cable makes a difference that is in most likelihood miniscule at best anyway ?


----------



## Don Hills

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> ... It is also possible to simulate various types of jitter with software ...


 
   
  I've been thinking... (somebody stop me, before I think again...  )  I'm interested in what your thoughts are on the following points:
  1 - I assume that you apply the "jitter" by altering the values of succesive samples. *Theoretically,* this may generate components outside the Nyquist bandwidth. Do you filter the results before writing the output file?  "Real jitter" also generates components outside the Nyquist bandwidth.
  2 - Does applying "x ns" of simulated jitter result in the same output after the reconstruction filter as "x ns" of actual DAC clock jitter would? It seems logical, and I intend to "do the math". 
  3 - The jitter that matters is the jitter in the final clock that clocks the samples into the analog reconstruction stage. Jitter before this point is irrelevant so long as it is less than half a sample period.
  4 - All modern DACs oversample. Given point 3 above, is it valid to consider the effects of jitter at x1 sampling rate? In an 8x oversampling DAC, the critical clock is also running at 8x the sample rate...
  5 - I don't think it's possible to generate simulated jitter that accurately simulates the effect of jitter of an oversampled DAC clock.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





don hills said:


> 1 - I assume that you apply the "jitter" by altering the values of succesive samples. *Theoretically,* this may generate components outside the Nyquist bandwidth. Do you filter the results before writing the output file?  "Real jitter" also generates components outside the Nyquist bandwidth.


 
    
  The signal is oversampled for the jitter simulation (which is a variable delay modulated by a mix of filtered noise and several sine waves), to minimize aliasing and interpolation artifacts. Components are indeed produced above the original Nyquist frequency (e.g. 22050 Hz), but the downsampling process filters them out.


----------



## stv014

By the way, here is the link for more information and samples. Anyone who wants to try the test can submit a different sample (< 30 s length), or suggest changes to the jitter parameters or improvements to the model.


----------



## Wizz

deleted


----------



## Wizz

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> Subjective differences or actual therapeutic effects fall under the placebo category so I think the word placebo is suitable for audio.


 

 I think you're right, I just checked and indeed, subjective differences in well-being also fall under the placebo effect. My bad.


----------



## Wizz

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Well, let's say a guy gets a new shiny USB cable, installs it and suddenly his whole system sounds better. Measurements show the cable is identical to the old, cheap one.
> 
> the new USB cable performing no better = placebo
> hearing an improvement = placebo effect


 
  I think you missed my point, which was that "hearing an improvement" cannot (I thought) be called a placebo effect, because it's not measurable.
   
  Since then, I've been corrected, as the placebo effect seem to also includes subjective (not measured) improvements.
   
  Nevertheless, i think it's important that those not familiar with the placebo effect in medecine, know that the improvements following the use of a placebo, are quite often measurable and objective. People actually get cured by taking a placebo. Knowing such things helps in putting things into perspective...


----------



## Wizz

Quote: 





wizz said:


> "hearing an improvement" cannot (I thought) be called a placebo effect, because it's not measurable.


 
  Though in given cases, measurements may confirm the improvement, of course.
   
  I was certainly not implying that none of these claimed improvements can ever be measured.


----------



## drez

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> I would hardly consider popular opinion on internet forums as a reliable basis for discussion. Especially when all those who share the opinion are also affected by the same well known and proven psychological and psycho-acoustical effects. If you asked 10 people about this image, they would probably give the wrong answer, unless they already know about the illusion. Does that make their opinion fact, or just confirm that their perception is affected by bias ?
> 
> 
> Under those conditions, it can never be proven that a difference does not exist, just like it cannot be proven that alien abduction does not happen. Audiophiles trust sighted testing (even though it has been proven to be prone to showing differences that do not exist, like when comparing an amplifier to itself without knowing about it), and look for every possible excuse to invalidate DBT. But is it really worth obsessing so much about a very low chance that the cable makes a difference that is in most likelihood miniscule at best anyway ?


 
   
  Well that's a good way of putting it regarding obsessing over miniscule chances of making a difference,  but you know a lot of audiophiles are pretty obsessive when they are willing to pay more than $25 for a cable, especially when it is provided without any measurements to prove that it makes a difference.  I'm probably preaching to the wrong audience regarding the inpracticality of DBT's and their tendency to show null results.  To be honest I have no idea why some things haven't been proven in double blind tests, given that to my ears the differences are there to be heard.  I also think this is why a lot of audiophiles don't place much weight on controlled testing, mainly because they trust themselves not to hold a bias and keep expensive equipment instead of sending it back at the end of the trial period.  Sometimes audiophiles compare a range of cables at one time in a comparison, and describe very specific sound signatures, indeed very complex congnitive bias.  And then other audiophiles who haven't even come across this opinion spontaneously describe the same attributes.  For example with USB cables, certain models are consistently described as sounding brighter, warmer, or smoother etc. where to me it seems highly unlikely that different audiophiles are merely being conciliatory given how audiophiles like to disagree with each other.
   
  Again though, I have probably come to the wrong place to discuss why I find it highly unlikely that certain claims of audio skepticism are accurate.  I guess they should ban audiophiles from criticising sound science in the sound science forum right?


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





drez said:


> Sometimes audiophiles compare a range of cables at one time in a comparison, and describe very specific sound signatures, indeed very complex congnitive bias.  And then other audiophiles who haven't even come across this opinion spontaneously describe the same attributes.  For example with USB cables, certain models are consistently described as sounding brighter, warmer, or smoother etc. where to me it seems highly unlikely that different audiophiles are merely being conciliatory given how audiophiles like to disagree with each other.


 
  There are seem to exist certain consistencies with what audiophiles 'hear' from given equipment which in testing offers negligible if any sonic differences. That's simply down to visual stimuli and verbal descriptions of the product in question.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





drez said:


> Again though, I have probably come to the wrong place to discuss why I find it highly unlikely that certain claims of audio skepticism are accurate.  I guess they should ban audiophiles from criticising sound science in the sound science forum right?


 
  Skepticism is usually not about making claims but rejecting them for lack of evidence. Or because they are unreasonable. Or because they're just stupid.


----------



## jaddie

Quote:  





> I guess my point was that skepticism is fine and all for saving money not buying "snake oil" but consider for a moment that this information cannot provide some kind of perfect prediction for how all components will perform, and that in some cases might overlook certain variables and mechanisms affecting performance.


 
  I don't want to presume that this statement is meant to imply there are mysterious and un-measureable effects in the world of electronics that cause devices to interact unpredictably, and in a favorable way with each other.  Hopefully, that's not was was being said here.  But just in case, that view is shared by many who also have in common a lack of understanding of electrical principles and measurements.  Measuring and predicting "interactions" is not difficult, and there isn't anything audible that cannot be measured.  The part of that science that is still under development is better correlation between measured results with their degree of audibility over demographics and population segments.  What DBT does is isolate what's audible from bias, which is absolutely necessary for reliable data on the degree of audibility of anything. 
  Quote: 





drez said:


> ...a lot of what I have read regarding cables doesn't match my own experience, and if you can think of a double blind test that can compare SPDIF cables of different lengths (not saying that there is an ideal, jus that they sound different in my experience) without adding anything to the signal chain, and without any wasted time or effort from myself being put in, I'm sure someone who has already ignored the sound science knowledge and drunk the kool aid will be willing to spend their time to prove what is already considered common knowledge outside of this subforum.


 
  Designing a DBT that can compare SPDIF cables without adding anything to the signal chain is easy.  Wasting your time and effort...that in itself is subjective to you, and outside of scientific test design parameters.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





drez said:


> <snip>
> 
> I find it highly unlikely that certain claims of audio skepticism are accurate.
> 
> <snip>


 
   
   
  Do you mind if I use your quote in my Sig?


----------



## Wizz

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Do you mind if I use your quote in my Sig?


 

 You beat me to it! Dammit!


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





drez said:


> I'm probably preaching to the wrong audience regarding the inpracticality of DBT's and their tendency to show null results.


 
   
  Everybody knows that DBTs between some components are nontrivial to set up (between audio files: is trivial). A lot of things aren't tested or could be tested more, sure.
   
  So tests that aren't carefully controlled have a much higher tendency to produce non-null results. You reject the null: great. The problem is that there is pretty much no basis to make any claims about what caused what in the conclusions. If you don't properly control the well-known nuisance factors, you don't really have an idea of which "treatment" gave you that outcome. It could have been the treatments you were testing, like sound of device A vs. sound of device B. Or one of the unintended effects. If you can't honestly tell them apart in the data, you can't draw any good conclusions without resorting to leaps of faith—and you'll find that without good rationale, others may not take the leap with you.
   
  Now, plenty of experiments with a double-blind procedure could be set up or have different parameters so as to increase the statistical power and make rejection of null more likely. Some DBTs are more sensitive than others, yeah. Some DBTs could even be biased in other ways, resulting in null rejections that shouldn't happen, and of course you can always reject the null by chance even if there's no effect and the experiment was proper. But we expect DBTs to generate more null results than uncontrolled or less controlled tests because we're throwing away a bunch of outcomes where you get a rejection due to some kind of biases and nuisance factors (i.e. not the ones you're trying to show). That's how it's supposed to be.
   
   


drez said:


> I guess they should ban audiophiles from criticising sound science in the sound science forum right?


 

   
  Depends on the criticism. If you want to suggest a better method, better explanations, better data or otherwise point out weaknesses with what's current (i.e. improve the current science or refute it based on scientific process and principles), that's a good thing. If you want to express your opinions and perceptions—despite whatever it is that other people are saying—that should be fine. People are entitled to believe whatever they want regarding things that aren't dangerous. But if you want to criticize things based on some anecdotes of "I think I heard it and so did others", then that's not going to go very well. You're probably not going to convince many people in sound science without using some sound science.


----------



## Wizz

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Everybody knows that DBTs between some components are nontrivial to set up (between audio files: is trivial). A lot of things aren't tested or could be tested more, sure.
> 
> So tests that aren't carefully controlled have a much higher tendency to produce non-null results. You reject the null: great. The problem is that there is pretty much no basis to make any claims about what caused what in the conclusions. If you don't properly control the well-known nuisance factors, you don't really have an idea of which "treatment" gave you that outcome. It could have been the treatments you were testing, like sound of device A vs. sound of device B. Or one of the unintended effects. If you can't honestly tell them apart in the data, you can't draw any good conclusions without resorting to leaps of faith—and you'll find that without good rationale, others may not take the leap with you.
> 
> ...


 

 Here you are, that's the kind of "brillant" posts I was referring to.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Drez, you simply don't know how lucky you are to get such elaborate, meaningful, sensible, educational, balanced, sound replies.
   
  Talking of which mikeaj, did you intend the pun in "_without using some sound science_"?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





drez said:


> I have come across is the jitter audibility numbers which used to be thrown around, where more recent studies by Julian Dunn
> 
> *Sadly Dunn is no longer with us so none of his studies are terribly recent, however in one of his last published papers he acknowledged the Benjamin and Gannon study which placed the thresholds substantially higher and Dunn (and Hawksford too) never did any empirical listening tests.*
> 
> ...


----------



## mikeaj

Quote:


wizz said:


> Talking of which mikeaj, did you intend the pun in "_without using some sound science_"?


 

   
  Pun intended, of course. You're welcome. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
   
  And as pointed out above by nick_charles, there are plenty of successful DBT trials for certain things: this ranges from slight FR tweaks, artificially created (relatively very high in magnitude) jitter, noise levels, harmonic distortion levels, etc. Note that some studies like Meyer and Moran also include some supplemental results of conditions where differences were heard and so on. There may be some meaningful context for a null result, even if it's not one that you are expecting or that you don't want to see.
   
  Anyhow, the better studies are ones where a threshold is established. e.g. how many cheap op amp buffers in series can be strung together before there's audible degradation (which was done)? A null result in a vacuum could just be an insensitive testing procedure, but they're not all like that. Yes, it could be that a listener or whatever else isn't sensitive enough, and a threshold that's too high gets established by a study. That's why some audibility thresholds tend to be based on multiple studies if possible and generally quoted pessimistically to give some margin for error.  w.r.t. jitter, nick_charles has covered it very well


----------



## bigshot

Why aren't audiophiles happy when they find out that stuff they worried about and considered spending a lot of money to correct turns out to be a non-issue? What makes them want to cling to trouble that doesn't exist?

I would think that finding out midrange gear sounds just as good as high end gear would be liberating.


----------



## xnor

Bigshot, you really have to get rid of that rational thinking to understand what's going on. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  It's like a threat to the(ir) hobby. Like an enemy taking away an important (<- irrational) part.


----------



## brunk

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Bigshot, you really have to get rid of that rational thinking to understand what's going on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  lol, the "sacred cow"


----------



## teb1013

Think of how many wars have been started by people invested in deeply held belief systems that can't be verified by objective testing. At least we're only spending our own money and we aren't harming anyone else who doesn't agree!


----------



## Don Hills

Quote: 





stv014 said:


>





> The signal is oversampled for the jitter simulation (which is a variable delay modulated by a mix of filtered noise and several sine waves), to minimize aliasing and interpolation artifacts. Components are indeed produced above the original Nyquist frequency (e.g. 22050 Hz), but the downsampling process filters them out.


 
   
  Thanks. So it's not exact, but "close enough for rock'n'roll".


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





teb1013 said:


> At least we're only spending our own money and we aren't harming anyone else who doesn't agree!


 
  I'd consider something like recommending a cable upgrade when it really isn't needed as harmful. Harmful to the poor guy's wallet. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  There are also people who cannot sleep well while breaking in their headphones day and night in a nearby drawer. That also seems a bit obsessive and harmful. I'm not making this up, that's what someone wrote in the break-in thread.


----------



## bigshot

xnor said:


> Bigshot, you really have to get rid of that rational thinking to understand what's going on.




I reserve my irrational thinking for other subjects... like girls.


----------



## Happy Camper

teb1013 said:


> Think of how many wars have been started by people invested in deeply held belief systems that can't be verified by objective testing. At least we're only spending our own money and we aren't harming anyone else who doesn't agree!




You are spending your money and that's the danger. This is the land of the Audio Science Templars and they have a diligent and stedfast code, a magnanimous message of danger and rebuke for the symphony of promising epiphanies intended to steal your cash with slippery oils and mystical witchcraft of delusional placebo. They mean well and are a noble bunch. Controlled DBT, electro-mechanical sciences and human physics, this is the world of the Audio Science Templars. 

I sleep well at night knowing they have our backs. They travel a thankless and lonely road for the good of the unaware. Bless their heart.


----------



## uchihaitachi

teb1013 said:


> Think of how many wars have been started by people invested in deeply held belief systems that can't be verified by objective testing. At least we're only spending our own money and we aren't harming anyone else who doesn't agree!




It is harmful! Audiophiles inevitably end up influencimg each other and creating a general consensus regarding audio components that is complete BS. We must all stop the BS indoctrination!


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> This is the land of the Audio Science Templars and they have a diligent and stedfast code, a magnanimous message of danger and rebuke for the symphony of promising epiphanies intended to steal your cash with slippery oils and mystical witchcraft of delusional placebo.


 
  Just beautiful.  Brings a tear...and I may just rip it off for my sig!


----------



## drez

Quote: 





wizz said:


> No kidding?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Are we talking about me or audiophile theories?


----------



## Wizz

Quote: 





drez said:


> Are we talking about me or audiophile theories?


 
  Short reply, so I read it.
  Interesting question. I'll have to check again. Sometime.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> It is harmful! Audiophiles inevitably end up influencimg each other and creating a general consensus regarding audio components that is complete BS. *We must all stop the BS indoctrination!*


 
   
  A noble quest whose execution proves elusive.....


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





drez said:


> Are we talking about me or audiophile theories?


 
  Think of it this way.  The people who post here are pretty sure that electrical theory can explain the sound that comes out of our speakers or our headphones.  What electrical theory cannot do is explain what audiophiles sometimes claim they can hear.  Often, what audiophiles claim they can hear and what is actually coming out of their speakers or headphones are two different things.  Electrical theory is insufficient to account for that.  The people who post here will do their best to explain to you what to expect from your stereo and why, but they can't really help you when you keep insisting that things that aren't there really do in fact exist.
   
  My advice?  Don't take yourself so seriously.  Accept the fact that you are human and that humans can indeed be fooled.  When you see a magician pull a rabbit out of an empty hat, do you really think that magic is involved?  Or can you grasp the idea that the magician created an illusion that deceived you?  One part or your mind is fully capable of tricking the rest of your mind into thinking something is true which is not in reality true.
   
  No one who posts here is saying that this is unique to you and that they are exempt from it!  The fact that those who post here insist on actual, neutral, verifiable evidence is because we all understand how easily we can be fooled.  Audiophiles like to portray "objectivists" as being arrogant, but really, it's the other way around.  Objectivists are the ones who acknowledge their fallibility and who therefore look to objective tests to help them in understanding how audio works.  It's the audiophiles who think that they are infallible and that their opinions should therefore be dispositive, and who cares what the test results show.


----------



## Happy Camper

jaddie said:


> Just beautiful.  Brings a tear...and I may just rip it off for my sig!


----------



## teb1013

blindinoneear said:


> .  Objectivists are the ones who acknowledge their fallibility and who therefore look to objective tests to help them in understanding how audio works.  It's the audiophiles who think that they are infallible and that their opinions should therefore be dispositive, and who cares what the test results show.




Not to be facetious but the term "objectivism" is too tied up with Ayn Rand for my taste. To quote Wikipedia:


Objectivism is a philosophy created by Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982). Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.[citation needed]

I think that we are talking about things that are scientifically verifiable in this thread.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





teb1013 said:


> Not to be facetious but the term "objectivism" is too tied up with Ayn Rand for my taste. To quote Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> Objectivism is a philosophy created by Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982). Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.[citation needed]
> ...


 
   
  You've been reading the wrong article. Try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29


----------



## teb1013

xnor said:


> You've been reading the wrong article. Try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29




Ok,as long as it's objectivity I am all for it!


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





teb1013 said:


> Ok,as long as it's objectivity I am all for it!


 
   
  I just dug this out from an older thread where I posted:
  Quote: 





> Subjectivism:  - the philosophical tenet that "*our own mental activity* is the only *unquestionable fact* of our experience" or that "accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all measure and law"
> - an extreme form is Solipsism (= only one's own mind is sure to exist, existence of every object may depend solely on someone's subjective awareness of it)
> - metaphysical subjectivism: *reality is what we perceive to be real*, and *no underlying true reality exists* independently of perception
> 
> ...


 
   
  Back there all these things were mixed and confused including Ayn's philosophy.
   
  If you read up on the strong or extreme forms of subjectivism be warned: it's pure BS.


----------



## Yahzi

Just wanted to know, if you have a stereo system combined with other speakers in a room, is it true that the additional unused speakers may act like passive radiators at some frequencies? Is this a myth or is there some truth to this? I have noticed that if I play some music on my main speakers set full range I feel my subwoofer cone move a little even when it's disconnected from the system. Weird.


----------



## bigshot

A passive radiator is sealed inside a cabinet alongside the active driver. Your unpowered sub sitting in the same room won't serve the same purpose.


----------



## Steve Eddy

yahzi said:


> Just wanted to know, if you have a stereo system combined with other speakers in a room, is it true that the additional unused speakers may act like passive radiators at some frequencies? Is this a myth or is there some truth to this? I have noticed that if I play some music on my main speakers set full range I feel my subwoofer cone move a little even when it's disconnected from the system. Weird.




They won't act like passive radiators, instead they act like Helmholz resonators and will absorb sound about their resonant frequency. 

se


----------



## Yahzi

Quote: 





> They won't act like passive radiators, instead they act like Helmholz resonators and will absorb sound about their resonant frequency.


 
   
  Would that not be detrimental to sound quality for stereo?


----------



## Yahzi

Would an unused subwoofer act like a bass trap of sorts? And other speakers in a room? What impact would they have on a pair of stereo speakers? I've always been told that a stereo system should have other speakers out the room otherwise it may contaminate the sound.


----------



## fiascogarcia

Quote: 





yahzi said:


> Would that not be detrimental to sound quality for stereo?


 
   
  Seems that it would be no more detrimental than all the other absorbent and reflective materials you have in the listening area that affect your accoustics.


----------



## xnor

Are the unused speakers shorted? I'd think that in this case there hardly were any movement.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> They won't act like passive radiators, instead they act like Helmholz resonators and will absorb sound about their resonant frequency.
> 
> se


 
   
  That's interesting. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  I didn't know that.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> That's interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Yeah, you can even put a variable resistor across the driver to change the Q of the resonance (i.e. how narrow or wide it is) and/or add some mass to the driver to lower the resonant frequency.
   
  Using Helmholz resonators to control room acoustics goes back to ancient times, the first examples being clay pots built into the walls with ashes put inside them to provide damping.
   
  se


----------



## jcx

but their effectiveness may be no better than the fraction of room interior surface area their opening makes up - ie not much
   
  you get some multiplier effect by locating at nodes in the room at the resonator frequency - but its not going to make up the differnce between concrete walls and green glue constrained layer damped hanging/isolator suspended gypsum board wall/ceiling or a foot of fiberglass behind acoustic tiles


----------



## Yahzi

Quote: 





> They won't act like passive radiators, instead they act like Helmholz resonators and will absorb sound about their resonant frequency.


 
   
  Please explain why its not a passive radiator? Why would it absorb at the resonant frequency? Just trying to understand.


----------



## bigshot

A passive radiator is sealed into the same cabinet as the driver. When the excursion of the driver goes out, the slight vacuum created by the movement pulls the radiator in. By adjusting the mass of the radiator, you can tune the response of the driver.

Just sitting there in the same room isn't sharing a sealed space. There's no push/pull going on. All it can do is vibrate with the sound the way anything else in the room would vibrate. A non-operating speaker in the room with a functioning one would have no impact at all on the sound of the system.


----------



## Yahzi

Oh okay, I assumed that because the cone has a resonant frequency that if the main speakers reached this frequency the cone of the sub would augment it.


----------



## Happy Camper

What kind of db would be needed to move a voice coil acoustically to it's amplifying frequency?


----------



## bigshot

I've done experiments similar to that with the walls of my listening room.


----------



## wahhabb

I find myself puzzled by the whole blind testing issue. As a scientist, I certainly believe in the value of double-blind testing. I am very much aware that our expectation color our experience. If you're told some amp costs $30K, you are likely to say it sounds better than one that costs $3K.
   
  On the other hand, so many of the "scientific" types seem to take great joy in "debunking" that any differences exist in cables, tweaks, etc. Differences in cables are often not at all subtle. I have spent large amounts buying expensive cables because they obviously sound better--to me, to my wife, to my friends.
   
  ABX tests often give you a few seconds of music to listen to. Some differences between gear only emerge over time. One system may let you sink into the music--feel relaxed and enjoy it. Another system may sound very accurate, yet leave you feeling edgy, strung up, uncomfortable. It takes a bit of time for these differences to emerge.
   
  Also, different kinds of music show different results. Some music with lots of deep bass will show off one feature of a system that another tune with high violin notes doesn't--and vice versa. The British term PRAT--for 'pace, rhythm and tempo'--defines another characteristic that takes some listening to recognize. But we live with our gear for a long time. That's why reviewers spend typically some months with a piece of gear before writing an article about it.
   
  It's true that some "golden ears" tend to ardently reject blind listening tests. The problem is often, as has been perhaps made clearer, that the wrong thing is being tested for. I would be grateful if there were more a spirit of collaboration and curiosity and interest and less stridency between the two camps.


----------



## mikeaj

So what's really the criticism? Some kind of ABX or otherwise controlled listening test need not rely on short samples. Usually different kinds of music samples are used, and sometimes it's test tones or noise because those allow for easier identification than music for a lot of artifacts or distortions. That said...
   
  With respect to getting used to the sound, the argument doesn't really seem to hold up in light of all the overwhelming results of psychoacoustics research. The ability to distinguish things reliably gets a lot worse if there is a greater amount of time. Doing relatively short and quick comparisons yields the highest statistical power.
   
  When you talk of the wrong thing potentially being tested for, is that with respect to electrical or acoustic measurements, or the listening tests? Just to be clear, are you suggesting that you have conscious preferences based on differences in sound generated? I'd say that a (legitimate) preference has to be based on recognition of differences, and hence a test for the statistically significant ability to recognize differences is what we're interested in for starters (if this is confirmed, we can move on to reasons for preference). Or are you suggesting that long-term exposure leads to some kind of physiological or subconsciously understood difference, but that people can't consciously figure out which is which and thus are affected but can't be expected to pass a relatively short-term blinded listening test?
   
  I don't know about taking joy in debunking, but part of the reason for skepticism has to do with the magnitude of changes we're talking about and then also the non-blinded subjective assessments that are being attributed to some things. If you look at the cause and effect of what causes something to be perceived, nothing really seems to add up anywhere unless you take the angle of "despite peoples' best efforts, nobody has yet found mystery factor ______".


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





wahhabb said:


> On the other hand, so many of the "scientific" types seem to take great joy in "debunking" that any differences exist in cables, tweaks, etc. Differences in cables are often not at all subtle. I have spent large amounts buying expensive cables because they obviously sound better--to me, to my wife, to my friends.


 
   
  Fine. But knowing what we know about human psychology as it relates to our subjective perceptions, until that is controlled for, such anecdotes don't really inform beyond what works subjectively for a particular individual.
   
  Quote: 





> ABX tests often give you a few seconds of music to listen to. Some differences between gear only emerge over time. One system may let you sink into the music--feel relaxed and enjoy it. Another system may sound very accurate, yet leave you feeling edgy, strung up, uncomfortable. It takes a bit of time for these differences to emerge.


 
   
  There's nothing inherent about ABX testing that mandates you only have a few seconds of music to listen to and I'm not sure where this is coming from, but I see it thrown out as a common "criticism" of ABX testing.
   
  And FYI, some years ago Tom Nousaine set up ABX comparators in a number of peoples' homes so they could do the testing at their leisure. Listen for as long as they want whenever they want. However nothing ever turned up.
   
  Quote: 





> Also, different kinds of music show different results. Some music with lots of deep bass will show off one feature of a system that another tune with high violin notes doesn't--and vice versa. The British term PRAT--for 'pace, rhythm and tempo'--defines another characteristic that takes some listening to recognize. But we live with our gear for a long time. That's why reviewers spend typically some months with a piece of gear before writing an article about it.


 
   
  See above.
   
  Quote: 





> It's true that some "golden ears" tend to ardently reject blind listening tests. The problem is often, as has been perhaps made clearer, that the wrong thing is being tested for. I would be grateful if there were more a spirit of collaboration and curiosity and interest and less stridency between the two camps.


 
   
  Well, the "golden ears" have had over 30 years to "do it right" and demonstrate once and for all the audible differences they've been claiming over those decades. But so far that hasn't happened, in spite of the fact that it would be a total game changer for the industry.
   
  So I'll end this by saying "We're _still_ waiting."
   
  se


----------



## wahhabb

I used to read articles that claimed that all that mattered about audio gear was whether it produced a flat frequency response curve. It's obvious now that much more is required. For example, transient response is critical to creating the sound of an instrument. Other features, like very low noise levels, play a big role in spatial orientation of sounds and other features. So this is an example of the failure to measure important items.
   
  I haven't carefully reviewed all of the tests that have been made, so I can't claim expertise about that. What I can say with confidence is that some of the sonic differences between gear that supposedly "people can't hear the difference between" are so blatantly obvious when you actually listen, that any test that says people can't tell the difference simply has to be an invalid test.
   
  It is true that some people have tin ears. I have read that in abx testing of MP3's vs. CD type 44-16 sound, many people could not hear the difference at more than a chance result. However, in further testing, some people could tell the difference with absolute consistency.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





wahhabb said:


> I certainly believe in the value of double-blind testing.
> Differences in cables are often not at all subtle. I have spent large amounts buying expensive cables because they obviously sound better--to me, to my wife, to my friends.
> ABX tests often give you a few seconds of music to listen to.


 
   
  The solution is easy. Do a long DB test. Find out if you really are hearing what you think you're hearing. I bet I know what you'd find out!


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





wahhabb said:


> I used to read articles that claimed that all that mattered about audio gear was whether it produced a flat frequency response curve. It's obvious now that much more is required. For example, transient response is critical to creating the sound of an instrument.


 
   
  The transient response of musical instruments is MUCH slower than the transient response of reasonably good transducers. Frequency response IS the key. It isn't easy to achieve a flat response. Most people aren't able to adjust it for themselves. Get yourself a nice flat response, and THEN decide whether FR doesn't matter.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





wahhabb said:


> I used to read articles that claimed that all that mattered about audio gear was whether it produced a flat frequency response curve. It's obvious now that much more is required. For example, transient response is critical to creating the sound of an instrument. Other features, like very low noise levels, play a big role in spatial orientation of sounds and other features. So this is an example of the failure to measure important items.


 
   
  I don't know what articles you're referring to specifically, but if you're reading articles that are making such simpleminded claims, you need to stop reading those articles and expand your horizons a bit. If you have a library nearby that has a decent reference section, I might suggest reading through some issues of the JAES (Journal of the Audio Engineering Society).
   
  Quote: 





> What I can say with confidence is that some of the sonic differences between gear that supposedly "people can't hear the difference between" are so blatantly obvious when you actually listen, that any test that says people can't tell the difference simply has to be an invalid test.


 
   
  Since you haven't demonstrated actual audible differences, you start from a false premise.
   
  You need to realize that subjectively perceived differences that are the result of nothing more than our own psychology seem no less "real" than those due to actual audible differences.
   
  Quote: 





> It is true that some people have tin ears. I have read that in abx testing of MP3's vs. CD type 44-16 sound, many people could not hear the difference at more than a chance result. However, in further testing, some people could tell the difference with absolute consistency.


 
   
  Not even the person who developed MP3 has ever claimed that there are no audible differences between MP3 and lossless. So not sure what your point is here.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The transient response of musical instruments is MUCH slower than the transient response of reasonably good transducers.


 
   
  But no one's claiming there are no audible differences between transducers. That's the one area there's no disagreement about.
   
  se


----------



## bigshot

Most of the differences are in frequency response. And the transient response of electronics is going to be so tight, it would be inaudible.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Most of the differences are in frequency response.




Doesn't change my point. 

se


----------



## bigshot

I didn't understand your point I'm afraid. I just couldn't conceive of worrying about transient response in anything *but* transducers.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I didn't understand your point I'm afraid. I just couldn't conceive of worrying about transient response in anything *but* transducers.




Was simply saying that transducers is the one area where everyone is in agreement with regard to audible differences. No one is going around saying all competently designed loudspeakers and headphones sound the same.

se


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





wahhabb said:


> <snip>   *As a scientist*... <snip>
> 
> <snip>*  I have spent large amounts buying expensive cables because they obviously sound better--to me, to my wife, to my friends.*  <snip>


----------



## xnor

wahhabb said:


> I have spent large amounts buying expensive cables because they obviously sound better--to me, to my wife, to my friends.



How I see it, all you did was wasting large amounts of money. You can get awesome - as much as I dislike to say it - "sounding" cables pretty cheap.

mikeaj and Steve Eddy already raised some good points about the rest you posted.

You can take all the time you want to do your own blind test with whatever music you choose and of course you also choose the components.



> The British term PRAT--for 'pace, rhythm and tempo'--defines another characteristic that takes some listening to recognize. But we live with our gear for a long time. That's why reviewers spend typically some months with a piece of gear before writing an article about it.



I only know it as pace, rhythm and timing. Imo it's just an audiophile figment. A way to artificially distinguish between components in sighted comparisons, or to be able to at least put some words on seemingly random feelings which at a closer look are clearly biased.


----------



## bigshot

Pace, Rhythm and Timing are functions of the musician, not the equipment.


----------



## Don Hills

The equipment doesn't have "P,R&T". The equipment under review is judged on how well it conveys the "P,R&T" embodied in the recording to the listener. Some reviewers don't make that distinction very well.


----------



## mikeaj

It should be relatively difficult for different audio equipment to significantly alter PRaT in any way though.
   
  Okay, a Sansa Clip plays some 0.25% too fast on stock firmware or what have you. The pace is literally off by some amount that some people might be able to hear (especially if A/B comparison). But it's relatively rare to see... a pace issue that bad? Plus, I don't really think that's what people are talking about?
   
  If you have a speaker system with some extreme phase shifts, maybe a live enough room, you'd get enough issues to smear the beats to throw off the timing or rhythm maybe? Or at least the perception of where the energy is concentrated in a beat and thus where it lands in time. But these kinds of things are being attributed to amps, DACs, not to mention cables.


----------



## bigshot

The transients in music are so slow compared to the ability of sound reproduction to reproduce them, I don't believe that there is equipment inaccurate enough to make one iota of impact on it. The only way that could happen is if you live in a train station.


----------



## Speedskater

We have exactly zero chance of an audiophile coming up with two similar, reasonable components, one with good 'PRaT' and one with bad 'PRaT'. While some make statements about 'PRaT' it all disappears in listening tests.

We must exclude components with euphonic coloration's like 'SET' amplifiers.


----------



## jcx

tubz aint smart enough to alter PRAT either - you need memory deep as the atleration is in time, and a way to alter the playback rate


----------



## Marleybob217

I like this thread!


----------



## wahhabb

I haven't done double-blind testing, but I have often done single blind testing, either with my wife or a friend. I would play a minute or two of a tune, make a change that they couldn't see, and play the same piece again. I'd often switch back and forth a couple of times, sometimes with the same song, sometimes with different ones, sometimes going ABAB and sometimes ABBA.
   
  I have also had my wife do the same for me so I could listen without being influenced by what I thought something should sound like.
   
  To summarize my experience over the course of many years of doing this:
   
  Hearing something the first time and then the second time, it typically seems as if there is a significant difference, even if it is the exact same setup. Clearly, I listen differently after having heard a piece once.
   
  Having said that, I have found that in many cases, there are obvious audible differences between cables, clear enough that the better cable can be immediately and consistently recognized.
   
  Of course, there are other cable pairs that may sound different from one another, but without one clearly being "better."


----------



## bigshot

Sounds like you've ended up with some pretty poorly designed cables.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





wahhabb said:


> I haven't done double-blind testing, but I have often done single blind testing, either with my wife or a friend. I would play a minute or two of a tune, make a change that they couldn't see, and play the same piece again. I'd often switch back and forth a couple of times, sometimes with the same song, sometimes with different ones, sometimes going ABAB and sometimes ABBA.


 
  When I ABX test with ABBA, I get a cheap little trashy tear in one eye.  Moma mia.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





wahhabb said:


> I haven't done double-blind testing, but I have often done single blind testing, either with my wife or a friend. I would play a minute or two of a tune, make a change that they couldn't see, and play the same piece again. I'd often switch back and forth a couple of times, sometimes with the same song, sometimes with different ones, sometimes going ABAB and sometimes ABBA.
> 
> [...]
> Having said that, I have found that in many cases, there are obvious audible differences between cables, clear enough that the better cable can be immediately and consistently recognized.


 
  Try a DBT. Do more trials. Document each trial, do not cherry pick.
   
  If you achieve statistical significance we can *start *talking: what cables, what setup, ...


----------



## Marleybob217

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Try a DBT. Do more trials. Document each trial, do not cherry pick.
> 
> If you achieve statistical significance we can *start *talking: what cables, what setup, ...


 
  I've always wondered, is there any significant measurable difference in cable upgrades? Like, one humans can actually hear?


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *wahhabb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> <snip>
> 
> I have found that in many cases, *there are obvious audible differences between cables*, clear enough that the better cable can be immediately and consistently recognized.
> ...


----------



## bigshot

marleybob217 said:


> I've always wondered, is there any significant measurable difference in cable upgrades? Like, one humans can actually hear?




Please see the first post in this thread.


----------



## thune

I admire the effort to compile the first post, but there is little there regarding cables; other than to say that middle aged men who claim to be audiophiles are, on average, likely not to hear differences in cables tested in group environments on systems they aren't familiar using tracks they haven't heard before.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





thune said:


> I admire the effort to compile the first post, but there is little there regarding cables


 
   
  As far as I can see, there are quite a few cable related links in the OP. But if you do not find any of them satisfactory, maybe you could post some (especially ones that did find a real difference that did not result from improper testing methods, broken cables, or other problems) yourself, so that they can be added to the list ?


----------



## bigshot

Somebody doesn't want to listen to the facts! They're too busy listening to their wires.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





thune said:


> I admire the effort to compile the first post, but there is little there regarding cables; other than to say that middle aged men who claim to be audiophiles are, on average, likely not to hear differences in cables tested in group environments on systems they aren't familiar using tracks they haven't heard before.


 
  How about you just go perform a rudimentary DBT.


----------



## Marleybob217

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Please see the first post in this thread.


 
  I have, please see this link: 
http://www.harmanaudio.com/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_7A7EB027F9D3A7B68272375CB10EFDC694000200/filename/audio_art_science.pdf
   
  It's not working, so the lazy person that I am, I wondered if other people knew much about this topic!


----------



## Steve Eddy

marleybob217 said:


> I've always wondered, is there any significant measurable difference in cable upgrades? Like, one humans can actually hear?




No one has found any, at least not beyond instances where the cable was either broken or so poorly designed it had sufficiently high resistance, capacitance and/or inductance that it was able alter the signal enough to be audible.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

marleybob217 said:


> I have, please see this link:
> http://www.harmanaudio.com/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_7A7EB027F9D3A7B68272375CB10EFDC694000200/filename/audio_art_science.pdf
> 
> 
> It's not working, so the lazy person that I am, I wondered if other people knew much about this topic!




Here's the new URL for that piece.

http://www.harmanaudio.com/all_about_audio/audio_art_science.pdf

se


----------



## bigshot

What in that article did you want me to look at, Marleybob?


----------



## Speedskater

Quote: 





marleybob217 said:


> I've always wondered, is there any significant measurable difference in cable upgrades? Like, one humans can actually hear?


 

 Well it's possible!
  We see some very strange boutique cables and some very poorly designed audiophile equipment.


----------



## Marleybob217

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> What in that article did you want me to look at, Marleybob?


 
  Already got it! It was this article: http://www.harmanaudio.com/all_about_audio/audio_art_science.pdf But I couldn't find anything else regarding measurements and actual hearable differences.
  This article contained less actual measurements and statistical proof of what differences are actually audible. So the search continues!
   
  Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Here's the new URL for that piece.
> 
> http://www.harmanaudio.com/all_about_audio/audio_art_science.pdf
> 
> se


 
  Thanks!


----------



## wahhabb

Quote: 





marleybob217 said:


> Already got it! It was this article: http://www.harmanaudio.com/all_about_audio/audio_art_science.pdf But I couldn't find anything else regarding measurements and actual hearable differences.
> This article contained less actual measurements and statistical proof of what differences are actually audible. So the search continues!
> 
> Thanks!


 

 Great article! Thanks for the post.


----------



## mrip541

This is quite possibly the best thread I've read on head-fi. Period. Thanks to all who contributed.


----------



## bigshot

Stick around. We cause trouble like this in Sound Science all the time.


----------



## Miss Tique

What you can hear and what you can measure are not necessarily the same thing. To give an example I can hear up to about 20KHz. But if I had an oscilloscope I would be able to measure up to the limit of the test equipment. Another thing to consider is that you can hear phase differences but you cannot measure it with a multimeter.
  I have seen humming birds fly backwards but it was only recently that I read a scientific paper that "tried" to explain why a humming bird could fly backwards. Conventional science has in this case no conclusive explanation for what is obvious to the eye.
  Even more outlandish is the inability of science to provide conclusive proof of the existence of dark matter. It can be shown to exist with one set of measurement but impossible to put on the table in a jar even though about 60% of space consists of the stuff.
   
  So at the end of the day scientific evidence is just another form of evidence. It is not the conclusion of what pertains to be factual.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





miss tique said:


> Another thing to consider is that you can hear phase differences but you cannot measure it with a multimeter.


 
   
  It can be easily measured with other equipment, though.


----------



## Miss Tique

For the benefit of myself and anyone else what equipment can be used to measure in stereo a phase difference within a listening environment?


----------



## stv014

That depends on what kind of phase difference you are trying to measure exactly. You would need an audio analyzer (which can possibly be software with relatively inexpensive hardware), measurement microphones if you meant acoustic phase differences, and a dummy head/HATS if you want to measure phase differences that are heard by a listener (of course, no dummy head will perfectly replicate a real listener, but then no two people have identical heads and ears either).


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





miss tique said:


> For the benefit of myself and anyone else what equipment can be used to measure in stereo a phase difference within a listening environment?


 
  The problem with trying to measure phase in an acoustic environment is that at high frequencies, wave lengths are pretty short.  15KHz is under 1", which makes 10 degrees 50 thousandths of an inch.  Hard to get any high frequency accuracy in an acoustic space because positioning is so critical. You can do OK mid band and below. 
   
  You don't actually need a dummy head to get a differential phase measurement that's meaningful, so long as it's done in the time domain, and you can ignore everything but the first arrival, and can take two measurements from positions that approximate the spacing of a pair of ears. The problem with time domain measurements is the resolution at low frequencies is terrible, and unable to differentiate small arrival differences.  
   
  So, you at HF you loose precision because positioning is critical, at LF you loose precision because the resolution is bad.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





miss tique said:


> What you can hear and what you can measure are not necessarily the same thing. To give an example I can hear up to about 20KHz. But if I had an oscilloscope I would be able to measure up to the limit of the test equipment. Another thing to consider is that you can hear phase differences but you cannot measure it with a multimeter.
> I have seen humming birds fly backwards but it was only recently that I read a scientific paper that "tried" to explain why a humming bird could fly backwards. Conventional science has in this case no conclusive explanation for what is obvious to the eye.
> Even more outlandish is the inability of science to provide conclusive proof of the existence of dark matter. It can be shown to exist with one set of measurement but impossible to put on the table in a jar even though about 60% of space consists of the stuff.
> 
> So at the end of the day scientific evidence is just another form of evidence. It is not the conclusion of what pertains to be factual.


 
  Just because science can't fully explain something right now doesn't mean it never will.  Don't forget, there was a time when we had no capability to do any time-domain measurements at all, and today it's common place, and that ability has explained a lot about what we hear. 
   
  It's also important to stay abreast of the latest research before drawing conclusions about the inability of science to explain something. Your humming bird flying backwards is actually a good example.  The answer to that has been well known and published for at least 15 years, perhaps longer.  A quick google search popped the answer up with a rather detailed explanation, within the first few hits.
   
  You also have to separate popular myth from fact.  For example, "A duck's quack doesn't echo.  Nobody knows why."  That's so popular a myth it's included on the "entertaining" on-hold messages on some automated phone attendant systems.  But it's not true.  Duck's quacks do echo, and I have recordings to prove it.  However, sometimes when they fly overhead and quack, you don't hear an echo because you are only a few feet from the largest reflecting surface, the ground or water.  The echo is placed so closely in time to the first arrival that it's not heard, and there are no other strong reflections.  Any sound will echo under the right circumstances. 
   
  Let's not devalue science just because it doesn't provide every answer right away.  There's nothing mystic about hearing, but there are limits to the number and type of people willing to do the research, and more significant limits to financing that research.  We probably have the right tools already, it's just a matter of time.


----------



## Marleybob217

Quote: 





miss tique said:


> What you can hear and what you can measure are not necessarily the same thing. To give an example I can hear up to about 20KHz. But if I had an oscilloscope I would be able to measure up to the limit of the test equipment. Another thing to consider is that you can hear phase differences but you cannot measure it with a multimeter.
> I have seen humming birds fly backwards but it was only recently that I read a scientific paper that "tried" to explain why a humming bird could fly backwards. Conventional science has in this case no conclusive explanation for what is obvious to the eye.
> Even more outlandish is the inability of science to provide conclusive proof of the existence of *dark matter*. It can be shown to exist with one set of measurement but impossible to put on the table in a jar even though about 60% of space consists of the stuff.
> 
> So at the end of the day *scientific evidence is just another form of evidence*. It is not the conclusion of what pertains to be factual.


 
  LOL! Why would you compare something that doesn't even interact with light or anything else for that matter, with sound? Dark matter really isn't anything yet, it's just a name for something science hasn't been able to explain yet. It's simply just a name for a gap in science, just as dark energy.
   
  Everything we can hear, can be measured. I'm sure some algorithms are lacking to explain some properties of sound, but it's possible nonetheless. The only thing microphones wouldn't be able to measure, is the way placebo and expectation bias can affect your music listening experience. You actually wouldn't need measuring device for that, just multiply the price of the product times gullibility 
   
  Guess what, scientific evidence is the Only form of evidence. If anything is factual, an experiment can be held, and the findings can be replicated. You literally cannot call anything factual if the outcome cannot be replicated. 
   
  But, if you wish to maintain that strange bubble you're living in, be my guest. It's certainly good for all those overpriced cable companies.
  However, if you even want to be remotely sure of anything, you need science.


----------



## xnor

Science flies you to the moon. Belief flies you ... into buildings.
   
  'nuff said.


----------



## ferday

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Science flies you to the moon. Belief flies you ... into buildings.
> 
> 'nuff said.


 
   
  Snap!
   
  but...without belief, there would be no motivation for science.  it's kind of too bad the word 'belief' has so many possible definitions...


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





ferday said:


> Snap!
> 
> but...without belief, there would be no motivation for science.  it's kind of too bad the word 'belief' has so many possible definitions...


 
   
  I'd use the word curiosity instead of belief - belief as you say is easily mistaken for other things such as faith


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> I'd use the word curiosity instead of belief - belief as you say is easily mistaken for other things such as faith


 
  That's exactly why I chose the word. The original quote is a bit different but "religious" discussions are not allowed here.


----------



## EthanWiner

miss tique said:


> you can hear phase differences but you cannot measure it with a multimeter.




Actually, phase shift _per se_ is not audible in the amounts found in typical audio equipment, Yes, you might hear 40,000 degrees of phase shift at a turnover frequency of 1 KHz, but that never occurs except in special contrived situations. Further, phase shift in audio gear occurs mostly at the frequency extremes, where it's even less audible. Now, you can hear phase shift if you apply it to one of two identical signals and then combine the signals. But then what you hear is the comb filtered frequency response, not the phase shift.

--Ethan


----------



## dizzyorange

Has there ever been a test of whether speaker stands make a difference in sound?  Does putting your speakers on a column of toilet paper rolls sound different from a proper lead shot weighted stand?  What about a stand weighted by water?


----------



## bigshot

The main thing is that your speaker drivers need to be on the same level as your ears.


----------



## thune

Oh right. Cabinet resonances (which are affected by stands and coupling) are inaudible because no convincing DBT has established their audiblity.


----------



## jcx




----------



## Marleybob217

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The main thing is that your speaker drivers need to be on the same level as your ears.


 
   
  I'm not so sure this is the only thing that's important. Speakers should be pretty secure, and cheap stands are usually really flimsy, allowing a lot of movement of the speaker.
  I had to secure the speaker stand to my desk, so that it wouldn't move as much. I did hear an increase in bass response, and mainly tightness of the bass.
  Could be placebo ofcourse, but the logic behind this seems very sound. Speakers move air, speakers don't move air as they should when the speaker is moving too.
   
  Quote: 





dizzyorange said:


> Has there ever been a test of whether speaker stands make a difference in sound?  Does putting your speakers on a column of toilet paper rolls sound different from a proper lead shot weighted stand?  What about a stand weighted by water?


 
  This is one of those audiophilic claims that actually might be true. Get the speakers as secure as possible. The heavier the speaker/monitor, the better (another benefit for active monitors). 
  Not exactly scientific data, but as close as it gets probably: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E5Wh93z0eo


----------



## Happy Camper

A firm cabinet mount is crucial for bass focus. My speakers came with both spikes and rubber pads. The rubber pads were on them when I brought them home. I had carpeting at the time and the speakers sounded soft and without the sharpness of presentation I heard in the showroom. I was told to swap out the feet and that took care of that.


----------



## bigshot

Perhaps this is a problem with those dinky satellite speaker systems with plastic cabinets. I'm used to speakers made of 3/4 inch plywood. They weigh a ton. You set them on the floor and they stay set.

The only vibration related problem I've ever had is acoustic feedback from the bass coming out of the speakers reaching the turntable of my record player and making it vibrate.

...well that and making all of the walls of my listening room rattle like crazy when I crank the volume!

However, if someone is having a problem with imaging, that is almost certainly either a problem with the drivers not being pointed properly at the listening position, speakers placed too far apart, or reflections caused by room acoustics. Setting speakers on little feet won't help that.


----------



## xnor

Afaik there are two contradicting ideas:
  a) isolate the speaker from the surface it stands on so that the surface doesn't vibrate
  b) couple the speaker to the surface it stands on so that the speaker doesn't vibrate as much
   
  With a solid speaker stand you don't need either, to achieve a) you don't want spikes.
  b) is the case if you have a soft thick carpet, like if your stands or speakers don't stand firmly on the ground.


----------



## bigshot

The more things you set your speaker on, the more things there are to rattle and buzz. If your speakers have some heft, and your floor is solid, you don't need anything at all.


----------



## EthanWiner

marleybob217 said:


> Not exactly scientific data, but as close as it gets probably: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E5Wh93z0eo




I'm too lazy to sit through 14 minutes of blabber.  Does the video ever show actual room measurement response graphs or waterfalls with and without the isolating platforms in place?

--Ethan


----------



## xnor

The video summed up:
  - the speaker (cabinet) has to be rigid
  - if the speakers is coupled to your desk, your desk can start vibrating and produce sound (requires a flimsy desk?)
  - "isolation spikes" (an oxymoron imo) are supposed to reduce the surface area and minimize transfer of vibrations - the guy in the video says himself that he is very skeptical of that, but they are useful e.g. for floorstanding speakers on carpet to stop the speakers from rocking
  - foam/isolation pads - common, nice, cheap, really do isolate
  - speaker stands: best for solid footing, flexible (I don't think he mentioned height-adjustability)
   
  No measurements, but he reports he could hear some differences...


----------



## ferday

i've always found that on hardwood (my old room) that putting rubber pads (cut-up heavy floor mats) really helped the vibrations of other things in the room....in my new room (with carpet and moderate room treatment) i have no issues at all with vibrations of either the speakers or any surface around
   
  by far the biggest difference i've ever made in the hi-fi world was treating and properly arranging my room, even more of a jump in quality then when i went to nice speakers
   
  as far as mounting the speakers on stands...i've always been old school in that if the speakers can sit on little stands, they aren't big enough to be useful speakers.  not very objective i know, but it's worked for me


----------



## xnor




----------



## dizzyorange

Quote: 





marleybob217 said:


> I'm not so sure this is the only thing that's important. Speakers should be pretty secure, and cheap stands are usually really flimsy, allowing a lot of movement of the speaker.
> I had to secure the speaker stand to my desk, so that it wouldn't move as much. I did hear an increase in bass response, and mainly tightness of the bass.
> Could be placebo ofcourse, but the logic behind this seems very sound. Speakers move air, speakers don't move air as they should when the speaker is moving too.
> 
> ...


 
   
  This is my current setup.  The bass is pretty boomy I have to admit.  I've looked all over my room and can't find anything else suitable as a speaker stand of that height.


----------



## brunk

Try moving it as far from the wall as possible on your desk and see if it improves. You may also want to cut off anything below 60hz to clear it up.
  Quote: 





dizzyorange said:


> This is my current setup.  The bass is pretty boomy I have to admit.  I've looked all over my room and can't find anything else suitable as a speaker stand of that height.


----------



## dizzyorange

Quote: 





brunk said:


> Try moving it as far from the wall as possible on your desk and see if it improves. You may also want to cut off anything below 60hz to clear it up.


 
  Do you know what the "Full-range speakers" option in the windows speaker config does?  I know it's a high pass filter of some sort but I'm wondering if anyone knows what frequencies it works at.  I can hear a difference by turning it on and off (the effect is instant), but turning it off doesn't seem to make the bass less boomy, it just seems to take away the deepest bass.


----------



## brunk

Quote: 





dizzyorange said:


> Do you know what the "Full-range speakers" option in the windows speaker config does?  I know it's a high pass filter of some sort but I'm wondering if anyone knows what frequencies it works at.  I can hear a difference by turning it on and off (the effect is instant), but turning it off doesn't seem to make the bass less boomy, it just seems to take away the deepest bass.


 
  While i dont know the exact details of the setting, most of those types of "full range" options will cut off at 80hz, allowing satellites to do their job, and the rest for the subwoofer.


----------



## bigshot

Often the large speaker setting is for 4 ohm speakers and small is for 8 ohm. On my receiver there is a separate setting for subwoofer crossover frequency.

Your speakers shouldn't be more than 8 feet apart, and they should stand out from the wall a couple of feet. Don't put them in the corners of the room or they'll couple with the wall and cause problems.


----------



## brunk

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Often the large speaker setting is for 4 ohm speakers and small is for 8 ohm. On my receiver there is a separate setting for subwoofer crossover frequency.
> 
> Your speakers shouldn't be more than 8 feet apart, and they should stand out from the wall a couple of feet. Don't put them in the corners of the room or they'll couple with the wall and cause problems.


 
  No, "large speaker" settings are for crossover frequencies. I've never seen anything to do with the nominal impedance of speakers besides the outputs of tube amps. His speakers appear to be near field, in which case those dimensions dont apply. I may be incorrect though since the picture is kind of dark and fuzzy.


----------



## bigshot

Maybe I'm misremembering. I had some sort of setting in the rabbit warren of menus for 4/8 ohm. Perhaps it was a different one.


----------



## Marleybob217

Quote: 





ethanwiner said:


> I'm too lazy to sit through 14 minutes of blabber.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  It does not


----------



## Steve Eddy

ferday said:


> as far as mounting the speakers on stands...i've always been old school in that if the speakers can sit on little stands, they aren't big enough to be useful speakers.  not very objective i know, but it's worked for me




HA! Yeah, that's worked for me too. 

se


----------



## doublea71

I think I've had my fill of cable talk. which was good fun and all, but I'd like to turn our attention to.... power supplies. I've read some claims about "clean power" having an effect on sound quality. One member has a bevy of usb battery packs that he claims provide varying levels of this mysterious "clean power" and thus changes in sound quality are discernible (according to him). I don't know one way or another, but I would like to hear some facts on this. Would anybody care to enlighten me?


----------



## Marleybob217

Quote: 





doublea71 said:


> I think I've had my fill of cable talk. which was good fun and all, but I'd like to turn our attention to.... power supplies. I've read some claims about "clean power" having an effect on sound quality. One member has a bevy of usb battery packs that he claims provide varying levels of this mysterious "clean power" and thus changes in sound quality are discernible (according to him). I don't know one way or another, but I would like to hear some facts on this. Would anybody care to enlighten me?


 
  Sorry I really don't know any facts regarding this. I am in fact, going to ramble about this. So, yeah.
  But it seems a bit like poppycock to me. I can however imagine how this myth started. Someone probably had some kind of device that was screwing with the ground, something like a laptop, or maybe a senseo device. When plugging the a laptop into the same outlet splitter as let's say a dac or amp, there is an awful buzzing sound. I bet something like this made some guy go haywire, and plugged the devices into some sort of battery, but without the interfering device. There is some truth behind it, but they forgot about a very important variable, a confounder if you will. Which was, a device messing with the clean power supply.
   
  /ramble


----------



## bigshot

If your stereo is plugged into the same circuit as a refrigerator or air conditioning unit, you might have problems. But if your power isn't causing buzzes or pops, there isn't any need for a power conditioner. It certainly won't improve sound quality.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





marleybob217 said:


> Sorry I really don't know any facts regarding this.


 
  ...so then why would you...never mind
   
  Quote: 





marleybob217 said:


> Sorry I really don't know any facts regarding this. I am in fact, going to ramble about this. So, yeah.
> But it seems a bit like poppycock to me.


 
  Some of it, for sure.
   
Here's a bit of detail on power conditioning, grounding etc.


----------



## Steve Eddy

jaddie said:


> Some of it, for sure.
> 
> Here's a bit of detail on power conditioning, grounding etc.




Poppycock! 

You up for a chat this weekend? Shoot me an email.

se


----------



## Marleybob217

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> ...*so then why would you*...never mind
> 
> Some of it, for sure.
> 
> Here's a bit of detail on power conditioning, grounding etc.


 
  Good question, I just like to invade discussions with my opinion I guess...


----------



## Speedskater

That "power conditioning & grounding" page has lots of problems.  Mostly it's because the page co-mingles ideas about connections to Mother Earth, Safety Grounds (Protective Earth) and audio system common.


----------



## jaddie

speedskater said:


> That "power conditioning & grounding" page has lots of problems.  Mostly it's because the page co-mingles ideas about connections to Mother Earth, Safety Grounds (Protective Earth) and audio system common.




Yes, but those grounds get comingled in real life as well. It only takes one device to "break the rules".

Care to elaborate on your comment?


----------



## XStayFrostyX

Prog Rock Man, you're a beauty. Blind tests are the only way to get truly valid information - especially in a kind of 'science' where so much is dependant on the perception of the user. Extremely useful info - especially for newbies, so you have starting point on where you want to put your efforts into getting good gear that actually makes a difference, & what kind of sound qualities you want to get out of your listening experience.
   
  Brand influence is huge - and what's even bigger I'd say is 'people' influence, i.e. buddy A says that a certain brand of headphone has a warm sound, wide & diverse soundscape - and when you listen to the headphone your look to hear the same thing.
   
  Best way to get bang for your buck in audio equipment - go to a store or convention - have a buddy put headphones over your ears without knowing any details except what you can hear and feel when they are on your head. Listen to all the choices, write down your favourites on a scale of 1-10, make a decision based on balancing cost of phones with that score. Profit $$$$


----------



## Marleybob217

Quote: 





xstayfrostyx said:


> Prog Rock Man, you're a beauty. Blind tests are the only way to get truly valid information - especially in a kind of 'science' where so much is dependant on the perception of the user. Extremely useful info - especially for newbies, so you have starting point on where you want to put your efforts into getting good gear that actually makes a difference, & what kind of sound qualities you want to get out of your listening experience.
> 
> Brand influence is huge - and what's even bigger I'd say is 'people' influence, i.e. buddy A says that a certain brand of headphone has a warm sound, wide & diverse soundscape - and when you listen to the headphone your look to hear the same thing.
> 
> Best way to get bang for your buck in audio equipment - *go to a store or convention* - have a buddy put headphones over your ears without knowing any details except what you can hear and feel when they are on your head. Listen to all the choices, write down your favourites on a scale of 1-10, make a decision based on balancing cost of phones with that score. Profit $$$$


 
  A convention maybe, a store hell no. So much chaos, noise and no time to properly test every headphone! I need atleast a couple of days before I really 'understand' the sound signature. Ok, if choosing between low/mid end headgear the choice would probably be a lot easier, since the differences between headphones is bigger in that scale.


----------



## Speedskater

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Yes, but those grounds get co-mingled in real life as well. It only takes one device to "break the rules".
> 
> Care to elaborate on your comment?


 

 And therein lies the problem!  Things like electricians treating all Safety Grounds as equals. 
  We need to look at Mother Earth, Safety Grounds  and audio system ground as 3 different areas.
   
  I'll PM you some docs at your web-page.  But it may take some time. (as it's a Holiday weekend and it's not raining right now).


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





speedskater said:


> And therein lies the problem!  Things like electricians treating all Safety Grounds as equals.
> We need to look at Mother Earth, Safety Grounds  and audio system ground as 3 different areas.


 
  I agree, we need to look at them as different areas.  However, they aren't in real life.  A simple example would be an RCA connector mounted to a metal chassis to which the third pin of the power cord is also connected.  No matter how other gear in the system is done, once connected to that device, we have a problem.  Or an AVR with separate chassis and HDMI grounds connected to a display with common HDMI and chassis grounds.  Happens every day thousands of times.
   
  The blog post was not intended to explore grounding from a standpoint of what's proper for signal, safety and earth, it's about surge protection.  A many kilovolt surge won't differentiate between the three much, in fact, keeping them partially isolate could increase the chance for damage.  The take away should have been that common-mode surge protection requires a good earth ground, which can only be accomplished at the breaker box.
   
  It's a knotty problem without a good practical solution because manufacturers of AV equipment, electricians and installers all have their own idea of how grounds should be connected.  Often, one shorts the others well-intentioined attempt.  
  Quote: 





speedskater said:


> I'll PM you some docs at your web-page.  But it may take some time. (as it's a Holiday weekend and it's not raining right now).


 
  Thanks, I appreciate that and look forward to reading them.


----------



## bigshot

Looks like another website sold out to advertiser pressure. Check out the link that used to talk about the Stereo Review Amplifier Challenge
  
3 - Do all amplifiers sound the same? Original Stereo Review blind test.
  
 (The original Bruce Coppola link is broken, this link is the best descriptive of the test with soem of the original images, I can find)

http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx

 A number of amplifiers across various price points and types are tested. The listeners are self declared believers and sceptics as to whether audiophile claims are true or not.

 There were 13 sessions with different numbers of listeners each time. The difference between sceptic and believer performance was small, with 2 sceptics getting the highest correct score and 1 believer getting the lowest. The overall average was 50.5% getting it right, so that is the same as you would expect from a random guess result. The cheapest Pioneer amp was perfectly capable of outperforming the more expensive amps and it was ‘striking similar to the Levinson‘.


----------



## EthanWiner

bigshot said:


> The cheapest Pioneer amp was perfectly capable of outperforming the more expensive amps and it was 'striking similar to the Levinson.'



LOL, I'm glad to know that my $150 Pioneer receiver has been vindicated. 

--Ethan


----------



## hogger129

Good to know.  I'm planning on purchasing a Pioneer VSX amp soon.  Mostly I want it because it can decode FLAC through USB up to 24/192.


----------



## SonicSavour

ethanwiner said:


> LOL, I'm glad to know that my $150 Pioneer receiver has been vindicated.
> 
> --Ethan




Hey Ethan, didn't know you were here two. I'm immensely enjoying your book at the moment and looking forward to some room measuring and DIY acoustic treatment project.B-) I would be intested to hear your opinion on the influence of headphone amps on headphone listening. I mean since no room is getting in the way... Greetings from Germany


----------



## xnor

Output impedance is the main technical aspect why headphone outputs sound different. It not only influences the output level (depending on the load impedance, also see level matching below) but depending on the impedance curve of the headphone also the frequency response.
 Some devices also have too small output caps which causes bass roll-off.
  
 Psychological factors include all kinds of biases. Not properly matching the levels means that the amp with higher gain will usually win. There's also price tag, brand name and reputation, looks etc.


----------



## EthanWiner

sonicsavour said:


> I would be intested to hear your opinion on the influence of headphone amps on headphone listening.




xnor already gave you good explanations. Most solid state amps these days are transparent enough to not matter.

--Ethan


----------



## cucera

ethanwiner said:


> xnor already gave you good explanations. Most solid state amps these days are transparent enough to not matter.
> 
> --Ethan




Exept for those multi BA inears where even a 10 Ohm output could lead to a weird frequency response.


----------



## xnor

Yeah unfortunately the 0 ohm output commonly seen in speaker amps is still not standard in headphone amps. That manufacturers like beyerdynamic and Sennheiser release amps with 100 and ~40 ohm output impedance doesn't help either. -_-


----------



## upstateguy

bigshot said:


> <snip>
> 
> 3 - Do all amplifiers sound the same? Original Stereo Review blind test.
> 
> <snip>


 
  
*Do all amplifiers sound the same* can be found here: http://webpages.charter.net/fryguy/Amp_Sound.pdf


----------



## joketamili

i agree with you,I do not think that many with expensive gear are going to be enamored with those results.thanks


----------



## Dustandshadow13

I just got done reading that 12 page whopper on USB cables in the PC Audio forum and I really must say.
  
 I listen to Coast to Coast AM at work for what I will describe as "for fun". I don't believe in UFOs, or shadow people, or homeopathy. I think it is all nonsense, and science says it is. They continually talk about how the "scientific community" refuses to believe their anecdotal evidence. There are boatloads of people that believe some absolutely insane things. 
  
 This is the same kind of thing I see when the debates over cables come up. Especially what I just finished reading. That thread turned into a real whopper. Some of the arguments for the USB cables, in my opinion, sounded a lot like a typical Coast to Coast episode about UFO sightings or Bigfoot. \
  
 "I know what I saw!!!"
  
 I would like to audition some cables and stuff for myself, and may do so when the opportunity arises (and if I can get a refund). Though, since I won't be going in with an open mind, I doubt I'd hear anything.
  
 Just my observations...


----------



## xnor

An open mind is essential, yes, but so is a proper test.
  
 Because if you've read all the wonderful reviews of cable X and you accept the claims blindly then you will probably hear a difference.


----------



## Dustandshadow13

That is how I feel about it as well. Your signature sums it up nicely.


----------



## teb1013

dustandshadow13 said:


> I just got done reading that 12 page whopper on USB cables in the PC Audio forum and I really must say.
> 
> I listen to Coast to Coast AM at work for what I will describe as "for fun". I don't believe in UFOs, or shadow people, or homeopathy. I think it is all nonsense, and science says it is. They continually talk about how the "scientific community" refuses to believe their anecdotal evidence. There are boatloads of people that believe some absolutely insane things.
> 
> ...




Thanks for an excellent well phrased analysis!


----------



## EthanWiner

dustandshadow13 said:


> I would like to audition some cables and stuff for myself, and may do so when the opportunity arises



Don't waste your time. Really. If you want to experiment with things that can improve your listening experience, try some acoustical panels. Of course this applies for loudspeakers, not headphones. But I assume you use speakers too?

--Ethan


----------



## doublea71

dustandshadow13 said:


> I just got done reading that 12 page whopper on USB cables in the PC Audio forum and I really must say.
> 
> I listen to Coast to Coast AM at work for what I will describe as "for fun". I don't believe in UFOs, or shadow people, or homeopathy. I think it is all nonsense, and science says it is. They continually talk about how the "scientific community" refuses to believe their anecdotal evidence. There are boatloads of people that believe some absolutely insane things.
> 
> ...


 
 But what about the people who have found shapeshifter droppings? Lol. I loved C2C when Art Bell was at the helm and even got to speak with him on air about 17 years ago or so....


----------



## Copperears

Wanted to take a quick moment to thank you for the dinner time 313-post read, particularly the OP, Ethan Winer, xnor and big shot among others who've lived long enough to hopefully save the next generation of music lovers from being snookered.

I was particularly entertained by the claim that burning CDs on battery power produces a better sound...... because, you know, cleaner 1s and 0s.

I reached a point in 1994 of finding my happy medium: Sony ES receiver and cd player, Definitive Technology BP 2000s (mainly because I wanted to have two heavy, coffin-sized objects that I could knock over onto a burglar if there was a break-in), Sennheiser headphones, done.

Add some IEMs for my iPhone years later and all is well.

I've wanted to get rid of my vinyl/CD music collection and go digital there, but recent headphone/iem/earbud-souring experiences with UMG audible watermarking has changed that hope to despair. Plus the thought of babysitting my own digital transfers..... well maybe someday if I'm bedridden by a near-fatal disease.

Anyways, more convinced than ever that audio tech has achieved what it needs to achieve, short of incredibly cheap, reliable lifetime archiving of all your purchased content on the head of a pin, with no audible issues or greedy paranoid security semi-solutions throwing the quality backwards 30 years.

I will wait for that last step, and enjoy what I have, as I've done for so long.

Keep up the good work, and don't let the posers get you down! 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bigshot

Ethan Winer is the real deal. When he speaks, I listen.


----------



## Steve58

Warning!
 Audiophiles are everywhere. There may be one in your house RIGHT NOW!



 
 "My brother, an audio engineering whiz kid has proven to me what is real and what is not. We gathered up 5 of our audio buddies. We took my "old" Martin Logan SL-3 (not a bad speaker for accurate noise making) and hooked them up with Monster 1000 speaker cables (decent cables according to the audio press). They were connected to an ABX switch box allowing blind fold testing. The music was played. Of the 5 blind folded, only 2 guessed correctly which was the monster cable. Keeping us blind folded, my brother switched out the Belden wire (are you ready for this) with simple coat hanger wire! After 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire. Further, when music was played through the coat hanger wire, we were asked if what we heard sounded good to us. All agreed that what was heard sounded excellent"—Dr. Bob Dean
  
Source: https://encyclopediadramatica.es/Audiophile
  
I think cable guys are so funny........and perhaps delusionary. OK skip the "perhaps"
  
This is not an indictment on this forum at all!! I get awesome advice and knowledge from visiting. But this cable thing... come on, put it to bed or conduct a blind test including methodology proving your claims. I find it annoying and sad, that newbies come to this forum some spending unnecessary​  cash on  cables when they could upgrade to something that makes a difference like DAP/headphone/amp upgrade..you know, something that might make a difference.
  
  
  
  

  
 ​


----------



## Copperears

I think audiophiles are just frustrated, wanna-be musicians without the skills or education.

If you really want to tweak, go out and get Native Instruments' Komplete 9 and then learn Reaktor. B)



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bigshot

It's an attempt to paint the consuming of music as being an art form itself.


----------



## Steve58

copperears said:


> I think audiophiles are just frustrated, wanna-be musicians without the skills or education.
> 
> If you really want to tweak, go out and get Native Instruments' Komplete 9 and then learn Reaktor. B)
> 
> ...


 
 Lets not generalise though There are also the ones that need the excitement of the next upgrade to "perfect their system" which is not feasible, but a never ending and a seductive journey.
 What does seem to prevail though is an almost religious belief in 'Cables' have you seen the "audio mains cable" guys? they think that 1meter (about 3 foot) of high........sorry, expensive mains cable will rectify a power station 100 kilometers away and the house wiring.......now that is funny......... or....... scary actually.


----------



## Copperears

Well, and it's just my opinion, I feel audio neurosis is driven by the need to do _something_ with the music, other than just passively consume it.

The logical next step would be therefore to produce it; and for the same price of some of this audio jewelry, there's a lot more tweaking fun to be had in trying to do so. 

OTOH just spending money feels like doing something, but with the least possible effort. I would hope to encourage a more satisfying alternative!  with a lot more satisfaction to be gained per dollar spent.

But again, that's just my opinion.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Copperears

bigshot said:


> It's an attempt to paint the consuming of music as being an art form itself.




Btw I don't mind your living in audio nirvana; the kids should go green, though.... and prefer IEMs! 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve58

bigshot said:


> It's an attempt to paint the consuming of music as being an art form itself.


 
  


>


 
 Really thats.......well out there....thats to weird!....LOL


----------



## perhapss

Great thread and thanks to you all.
 First thread I on Headfi I've actually read from beginning to end.


----------



## Mezzo

I have an odd situation. I am using 2 "different" sources for music playback , both only using digital COAX out to a digital pre.
 Source 1 - tower PC running logitech media server to a Squeezebox , using the digital out of the squeezebox, The file coming out the COAX is bit perfect
 Source 2 - Dell workstation , using foobar/Jriver/Plex/Media monkey etc as a player , Fed into a Behringer FCA1616 usb interface and using its COAX digital out to another input in the digital pre.
  
 Both digital outputs use the same cable , both machines have their own external HD's housing the music.
 The issue is that there is a distinct and noticeable difference between the 2 sources.... I cue up the same rip on one source as the other , play em synchronised and AB them .. there is no level matching required.

 The SBT compared to the FCA is less detailed , mids are more recessed and bass is deeper and lacks the slam of the FCA.
 NOt sure why this is the case , unless the FCA is doing some mangling , but on checking the output of both sources in a DAW , they are identical!!!
 I have tried firewire with the same results as USB on the dell/FCA source , and tried different players and servers...all of them set NOT to upsample etc.

 I have also noticed a difference when I compared the Squeezebox Touch's Coax vs Toslink output. In fact my friend noticed the difference in sound as well. I A/Bed the 2 to him and he instantly noticed.
  
 Odd ..... It seems no convolution in DSP (like usb to SPDIF or optical convertors) is not inconsequential .. despite those protesting that they are.
 Definitely not expectation bias / placebo effect etc....


----------



## stv014

> Definitely not expectation bias / placebo effect etc....


 
  
 Can you post some recordings of a short (< 30 seconds) sample from both, as well as the original sample itself ?


----------



## Mezzo

> Can you post some recordings of a short (< 30 seconds) sample from both, as well as the original sample itself ?


 
  
 How would I go about doing that?


----------



## stv014

mezzo said:


> How would I go about doing that?


 
  
 You record the analog output of your DAC with whatever suitable hardware you have for that purpose, and post the results. It should show the recessed mids and other effects, assuming that they exist. The most likely explanation is that either at least one of the digital outputs is not bit perfect, or it is indeed expectation bias. Since you heard a difference between optical and coaxial S/PDIF, there could be some kind of grounding problem, but that should not normally produce the effects you described.


----------



## upstateguy

mezzo said:


> I have an odd situation. I am using 2 "different" sources for music playback , both only using digital COAX out to a digital pre.
> Source 1 - tower PC running logitech media server to a Squeezebox , using the digital out of the squeezebox, The file coming out the COAX is bit perfect
> Source 2 - Dell workstation , using foobar/Jriver/Plex/Media monkey etc as a player , Fed into a *Behringer FCA1616 usb interface *and using its COAX digital out to another input in the digital pre.
> 
> ...


 
  
*Behringer FCA1616 usb interface*
  
  
 When I compared my Blue Circle Thingee USB interface to my HiFace USB interface there was a noticeable difference in the bass, mids and treble of the sound.  The second thing was that the respective volumes of the two interfaces were not the same. 
  
 (It's not important to go into it in this thread, but there are numerous threads about the use of attenuators to tame the over spec output of the HiFace.)


----------



## castleofargh

about cables the source of conflicts is that with the given conditions there is an audible difference in sound between 2 cables.
 the 2 points where in fact people disagree are in my opinion:
 -is that difference an improvement?
 -wouldn't it be much more simple and cost effective to buy beforehand products that are actually made for each other (impedance matching and what not), instead of wondering what cable is better in an electrically bad situation?
  
  
 because in my experience, when there are no trouble with matching gear, cables strangely lose much of their impact on sound.
 but when your gear is badly designed or if you decide to plug 150ohm OUT into 4ohm IN, then chances are that some components will not work at nominal conditions and challenge stability. then even a cable might add to the mess.


----------



## xnor

castleofargh said:


> about cables the source of conflicts is that with the given conditions there is an audible difference in sound between 2 cables.


 
 Digital cables, nope.
 Speaker cables with appropriate AWG .. nope.
 Interconnects .. nope.
 Headphone cables .. well, usually nope but there are some exceptions. Some stock cables are incredibly thin and/or have "high" (~1 ohm) resistance. Changing that to a "normal" cable for 5 bucks will fix that.
  
 (There may be exceptions - there always are - with BROKEN cables but broken products should never be included.)
  


> the 2 points where in fact people disagree are in my opinion:
> -is that difference an improvement?


 
 The *imagined *differences are usually perceived as an improvement (for example see Post-purchase rationalization). Biases also make them blind to realize that the *real *differences are usually completely inaudible.
  
  


> -wouldn't it be much more simple and cost effective to buy beforehand products that are actually made for each other (impedance matching and what not), instead of wondering what cable is better in an electrically bad situation?
> because in my experience, when there are no trouble with matching gear, cables strangely lose much of their impact on sound.
> but when your gear is badly designed or if you decide to plug 150ohm OUT into 4ohm IN, then chances are that some components will not work at nominal conditions and challenge stability. then even a cable might add to the mess.


 
 You didn't say it explicitly, but I hate the "synergy" between components idea. Now only because you would fix faults in one components with faults in other components, but because it sounds like you cannot get high fidelity gear - gear that is transparent, i.e. does not alter the frequency response, does not introduce loads of distortion, does not add audible noise, ...


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> about cables the source of conflicts is that with the given conditions there is an audible difference in sound between 2 cables.
> the 2 points where in fact people disagree are in my opinion:
> -is that difference an improvement?
> -wouldn't it be much more simple and cost effective to buy beforehand products that are actually made for each other (impedance matching and what not), instead of wondering what cable is better in an electrically bad situation?


 
  
 I think there are two points at work here...
  
 1) People who think there is a difference between cables because they have never made the effort to find out how cables work and do controlled tests themselves.
  
 2) People who have made the effort to understand and verify who know that there is absolutely no audible difference between properly functioning audio cables.
  
 "Matching" colored components in the hopes of arriving at a desired sound is an exercise in futility. Each component you buy would mess up what you have with another component. Thankfully, we live in the 21st century where audio equipment is calibrated to be as audibly transparent as humanly possible. You can swap in a different player or amp or cable and it will sound exactly like any other properly designed player, amp or cable.
  
 The only thing we aren't able to manufacture to be audibly transparent are headphones and speakers. They are the wild card. So you get flat and clean on everything else, and calibrate the equalization settings of your system to match your headphones or speakers.


----------



## castleofargh

yeah sorry when talking about audible differences, I was thinking of my own experience with super variable impedance multi BA driver IEMs, on sources above 3ohm. 
 as it is my only real experience of hearing sound differences from cale, I just mentioned that it did exist. sorry for not being clear as to when it existed ^_^.
  
 I had an argument on the uselesness of upgrading interconnects maybe a month ago, where as a result I tried a lot of different combos adding impedance adapters to the line out cable ^_^.
 and I've had one conclusive change(again better or not?) with the cheapest hifimediy usb dac, that did seem to behave just a little different. it was unexpected for me as it was above the cables in the sound chain, and I was actually trying to test the effects on the amps ^_^. but I blamed it on the hifimediy as everything else ended up the same to my ears with up to 3cables in series and 138ohm added.


----------



## castleofargh

xnor said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 again I was thinking 22ohm ak100 with 16ohm IEMs, or amps with 150ohm output on low impedance phones.
 I do kind of trust in supposed synergy, for wrong reasons. just that when 300people tell that this goes well with that, I'm tempted to believe it's a good pair to acquire. no extra belief behind it .


----------



## xnor

Granted, if we talk about low-impedance headphones with amps that have a not so low output impedance I'm kinda okay with calling it "synergy" because it's less technical than impedance bridging.


----------



## castleofargh

ethanwiner said:


> dustandshadow13 said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to audition some cables and stuff for myself, and may do so when the opportunity arises
> ...


 
  
  
 just to rebound on this
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5D5ab_tSjg&t=23m20s


----------



## krismusic

copperears said:


> Well, and it's just my opinion, I feel audio neurosis is driven by the need to do _something_ with the music, other than just passively consume it.
> 
> The logical next step would be therefore to produce it; and for the same price of some of this audio jewelry, there's a lot more tweaking fun to be had in trying to do so.
> 
> ...



I think, to be fair, it is a natural impulse to want to get the best out of our gear. 
Unfortunately this is a scenario that charlatans and even well meaning cable believers/ manufacturers exploit. 
Headphones at mid to high price points are inevitably a compromise. If someone is told that a cable can ameliorate these deficiencies then spending £100 on a cable can sound like a sensible alternative to several hundred for a better set of 'phones. Even though that purchase would be on much firmer ground.


----------



## Joostheizen

Perhaps someone knowledgeable can help explain something to me.
  
 I had a listen to an Arcam amp and a Yamaha amp at home. The Arcam amp A22 sounded very laid back and kind of "meh". I found that the volume seemed softer than the Yamaha using the volume knob. It just lacked drive and energy. The Yamaha (AS300) sounded louder at a given position, more lively and energetic. Now forgive me for using these subjective terms.
  
 I've been told that different amps have different gain structures, so the volume pot could have a lower or higher input sensitivity. I assume this could explain my observations. So I want you guys to please help me determine if the Arcam has a lower gain structure or input sensitivity compared to the Yamaha :
  
 Here are the Yamaha specs :
  
 http://www.arcam.co.uk/_ugc/file/a22p25e_manual.pdf
  
 Arcam specs:
  
 http://download.yamaha.com/search/download
  
 Could any kind person please find out if the spec on the Arcam could be causing this vs the Yamaha? I believe all audio related matters can be explained, but I would feel so much better knowing the specifications on the one amp was indeed the cause for the louder sound.


----------



## Yahzi

Could someone technical please help me out. Between these two integrated amps Yamaha AS300 and Arcam A22, I've found that subjectively the one amp (the Yamaha) at a low volume on the knob sounds louder, more energetic, livelier etc. The Arcam sounds softer and just plain anemic at a similar position on the volume knob. The Arcam has  a higher output power.

 Now I don't believe in amps sounding different, but I suspect the gain structure on both amps are completely different and could explain my observations. Hence I need your help as I don't know what specifications would cause this difference.
  
 Here are the specs for the Arcam :http://www.arcam.co.uk/_ugc/file/a22p25e_manual.pdf
 Here are the specs for the Yamaha :http://download.yamaha.com/search/download

 Could someone please tell me if the Arcam has a lower gain structure or input sensitivity or something over the Yamaha that explains the difference in volume over the volume knob? It would help me understand what is going on and I'll sleep better as well.


----------



## bigshot

The position on the volume knob isn't at all related on different amps. What you are hearing is just one at a slightly lower volume than the other because the volume pot is calibrated differently. Turn the other one up and it will sound the other way around. Odds are, both amps sound the same. Which one has better features?


----------



## Yahzi

So the two amps have different gain structures? If I'm understanding this correctly, the supplied power on one amp with a given gain structure could be reached over a wider range on the volume pot compared to another. So a higher gain structure means the supplied power is probably over a more narrow range on the volume pot.
  
 This is all very interesting to me. So even though the amp is less powerful, it sounds more powerful given a higher gain. I assumed there would be something in the spec sheets of both amps that could perhaps shed light on this.


----------



## bigshot

the volume pots are just different.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> the volume pots are just different.




So you're saying both amps have identical gain? 

se


----------



## bigshot

At the same volume, they would be the same. I don't see why it matters whether one pot goes to ten and the other goes to 11 if they have the same sound at the same output level. Maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## James-uk

What big shot said


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> At the same volume, they would be the same. I don't see why it matters whether one pot goes to ten and the other goes to 11 if they have the same sound at the same output level. Maybe I'm missing something.




If the gains are different, you won't get the same volume at the same setting if the pots are identical. Your saying it's because the pots are different implies the gains are identical. Was wondering what was giving you that idea.

se


----------



## bigshot

why not just turn the quiet one up a bit?


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> why not just turn the quiet one up a bit?




Sure, one can do that. What caught my attention though was your insisting it was the pots, that's all.

se


----------



## mikeaj

Yeah, it's likely the gains are different (and also the pots). You could measure the outputs and inputs with some constant test signal with pots at max to see what the gains are.


----------



## bigshot

I'd just listen to music and not worry about it.


----------



## Yahzi

steve eddy said:


> Sure, one can do that. What caught my attention though was your insisting it was the pots, that's all.
> 
> se


 


 So the difference in gain structure and volume pot from one amp to the next could explain the subjective terms such as 'laid-back', 'sterile', 'warm' etc?


----------



## bigshot

Not with volume matching


----------



## Steve Eddy

yahzi said:


> So the difference in gain structure and volume pot from one amp to the next could explain the subjective terms such as 'laid-back', 'sterile', 'warm' etc?




It certainly can, yes. It's been well known for a long time that simple differences in volume can be subjectively perceived as differences in quality. This is something that has been taken advantage of by less than honest salespeople for many years, making sure that the system they want to sell is played slightly louder than those that they don't. This is why serious research into audio makes sure to precisely match levels to remove that variable.

se


----------



## Mezzo

Steve, if one amp has a different gain structure to another, does that mean one amp can apply more power over a more narrow portion of the volume pot compared to another?
  
 Like some amps may need you to wind them up, if they have a lower gain. It's interesting, because there are times where more powerful amps tend to sound softer at a relative position, and it could because the pot and gain isn't sensitive over a narrow zone, but more so over a wider area.


----------



## Matrixnobu

I also noticed that the better the reproduced sound or music. The quieter it seems subjectively. So I seem to turn up really awesome equipment to crazy levels before I realize that it's kinda loud.


----------



## cswann1

matrixnobu said:


> I also noticed that the better the reproduced sound or music. The quieter it seems subjectively. So I seem to turn up really awesome equipment to crazy levels before I realize that it's kinda loud.


 
  
  
 It's only natural to crank it up.  Anyone who ever enjoyed live music performances knows that it's generally not "background" music, unless someone has just entering into a legally binding agreement and there's a big cake in the room. So when listening to recorded music we want to hear it at live performance volumes.


----------



## a_recording

Just found this thread. Have to say, props to the OP for collating such a broad set of results!


----------



## elmoe

No offense to the people in this thread, but while I agree to an extent about cable differences, you will never sell me saying power amps "all sound the same".
  
 I have a pair of Quad SS 99 monoblocks which I used paired with Dynaudio floor standing speakers. Now, a few years ago one of these amps started losing gain, and I bought a really CHEAP (40 euros, ~50 bucks) amp to replace them temporarily, while I get them fixed.
  
 Now, both when I got the cheap amp, and when I got my Quads back, the difference was night and day. Even my father who is an engineer and was rolling his eyes at me was dumbfounded - the Quads really were far superior, the sound is more dynamic, more airy, more subtle and precise without a doubt.
  
 Maybe you'll argue that the replacement amp was "too cheap", and indeed, it is a piece of crap (pardon my French) amp, and perhaps you are right. Maybe a decent 150-200usd amp would compete with my Quad monoblocks, but until I hear it for myself, I won't be easily convinced.
  
 Keep in mind that I would be quite happy to be proven wrong. I would sell any gear I own that's beaten or equalled by cheaper gear instantly.


----------



## bigshot

The problem with the cheap amp probably was power, not sound quality. Compare equivalent power ratings and see what you get.


----------



## elmoe

The Quads are 155W into 8 ohms, my el cheapo amp 100W into 8 ohms, so not THAT much difference. Especially since I don't listen to music very loudly. The speakers are Dynaudio Audience 62s - IEC Long Term Power Handling: 150 watts. They're pretty easy to drive - Dynaudio recommends around 65W amp for a small sized room...


----------



## bigshot

100 watts per channel for $50?! Wow. What amp was that?


----------



## elmoe

It was heavily used - bought it from a musician friend of mine.
  
 Inter-M R300 (not Plus).
  

  
 Never did any research on it, but it seems to be pricey! 300e or so, never thought it would be that expensive.


----------



## bigshot

Ah. That explains it. The capacitors were probably toast. How old is it? I looked one up on ebay and it looked like the late 80s.
  
 I think you would get different results with a modern inexpensive solid state amp that hasn't been "rode hard and put up wet".


----------



## elmoe

It's about 15 years old give or take a couple of years.
  
 So you're telling me a modern, cheap solid state amp will perform just as well as my Quad monoblocks? I am incredibly tempted to buy one and test this out, because if it turns out to be true I will sell the Quads in a heartbeat. What would you recommend?
  
 If I open up the Inter-M and take pictures, would you be able to tell if it is damaged? Because it still seems to work fine...


----------



## bigshot

I use a Yamaha AV receiver and I'm very happy with it, but you'll have to check to see if that's the best choice for you feature wise. Try one in the Yamaha RX series with Aventage in the name. Those are the best receivers Yamaha makes. I also hear that Onkyo and Dennon make excellent receivers. But I don't know model numbers on those.
  
 I couldn't tell if the amp is damaged from pictures. From what I'm told, capacitors go south after a while, especially under heavy use. It's usually more cost effective to just get a new amp than it is to recap an old one. Solid state components have come a long way in 15 years.


----------



## jcx

> So you're telling me a modern, cheap solid state amp will perform just as well as my Quad monoblocks?


 
 obviously not all/any amp - probably not even "most" mass market consumer "home theater in a box" - many will be objectively compromised
  
 and there are reasons to believe the numbers on the side of the box aren't adequate for an informed decision
  
 scraped from diyAudio, Dr Geddes and his wife have published measurement and listening test research - his contribution is the GedLee Metric - weights low level nonlinearity high, broad smooth low order distortion much less - and gives better correlation in his published listening tests
  
  Quote:


Originally Posted by gedlee
 You can believe it or not, but its true. I tested about five amps that I had and the Pioneer was the best.

 People always take my statements out of context. Once one has good electronics - and clearly price and "personal perception" don't correlate with good - then the only thing that matters is the speaker and the room (source material being a given). I have never said that any piece of junk electronics is fine. Only that very inexpensive and readily available electronics place the electronics into the "insignificant errors" category.

 I know that this is not a popular position and it's not one that I have always held, but I have studied this problem intensely and this is my conclusion. It is, by the way, the same one as held by Flyod Toole and Lauri Fincham and a whole host of other well know audio researchers. It's amp designers and marketers who seem to hold contrary beliefs
 

  Quote:


Originally Posted by gedlee
 No hardly - I don't "favor it", but I was severely chastised for using it at RMAF when, in fact, no one really knew if it was any good or not. It works just fine as my measurements show. I would not use this amp for many applications, but it suited my point at the time, which was that loudspeakers account for 99% (well you could argue 98%, but you get my point) of the audio systems sound quality.

 The amp is a Pioneer DSX-V912 - a receiver. The point is that it was on sale at Costco for $150.00. I bought several of them for home theater use. I used my test to measure the amps and they were quite good actually. Especially for chip amps. I was measuring a lot of chip amps (a survey of capability) and most were pretty bad. As a chip amp this unit definitely stands out. It compared quite favorably to a very well engineered discrete amp that I also use.

 I also tested several other receivers and they were almost universally bad.
 

  Quote:


Originally Posted by gedlee
 Crossover distortion is a particularly insidious form of nonlinearity because it happens at all signal levels and there is no comparable mechanism in a loudspeaker to mask it. The question was asked if I have a way of identifying crossover distortion in an amplifier.

 Yes, I do.

 You see the situation with crossover distortion is that the % distortion increases with falling signal level. This is exactly why it is so audible since this is directly opposite to our hearing.

 One could therefor ***** crossover distortion by looking at THD as the signal level goes lower, which is a typical measurement. The problem is that virtually all of these THD versus level measurements are THD + noise. When this is the case, the rise in THD at lower signal levels is actually the noise and NOT the distortion, but it is impossible to tell which is which. SO this test actually masks the real problem. One would have to track the individual harmonics of the waveform, but then the noise floor is still an issue.

 Hence the measurement problem is one of noise floor and how to measure distortion products down below this floor.

 This is done by averaging. But normal averaging can only lower the noise floor so much - down to the noise power. But if I have a signal and I average this signal synchronously then I can raise the net signal to noise level. This too is common. But if the signal does not exactly fit the time base then I need to window it and the resultant spectral leakage makes this synchronous averaging less effective.

 I use a signal that exactly fits into the time base of the A/D taking the data. This means that I don't have to use a window and I can synchronously average a signal to noise ratio that is about 20 dB better than a simpler test could achieve. This means for example that the input signal needs to be something like 976 Hz, not 1000 Hz, which doesn't exactly fit the window.

 I actually had to generate the input wav file in FORTRAN using quad precision, special random number generators and rounding techniques, because the test signals needed to have a 120 dB dynamic range - very difficult with 16 bits.

 I use a signal that starts out low and goes up in level. I plot out the results as the signal drops into the noise floor. This test shows vast differences in amps that measure identical with standard tests.

 It also shows that my Pioneer amp - you know the "really crappy" one that I get criticized for using at RMAF - is an extremely good amplifier. As good as the best that I have tested with this technique.
 

  
 [spellchecked some of the quotes]


----------



## bigshot

Most modern solid state amps that are operating within spec and not designed to be deliberately colored are audibly transparent. The only time they wouldn't be if there was insufficient power or incorrect impedance settings. Some amps may measure better than others, but it's only a theoretical difference. It wouldn't be something you hear with human ears.


----------



## jcx

I don't know that Geddes pursuit of low level/crossover distortion deep into the noise floor is warranted - but some AB amps, audio chip amps do show rising distortion as output level goes down - well above the noise floor
  
 and this really isn't captured in the side of the box specs - although easily seen with THD vs Power sweeps - preferably at a number of frequencies
  
 Geddes has the listening test results for our greater sensitivity to these distortions
  
  
 many consumer mass market amps still game the power specs - although you can now find the weasel words if you look closely since the FTC set some standards


----------



## bigshot

jcx said:


> some AB amps, audio chip amps do show rising distortion as output level goes down - well above the noise floor


 
  
 As the level goes down, the noise floor of the room takes over.


----------



## elmoe

jcx said:


> I don't know that Geddes pursuit of low level/crossover distortion deep into the noise floor is warranted - but some AB amps, audio chip amps do show rising distortion as output level goes down - well above the noise floor
> 
> and this really isn't captured in the side of the box specs - although easily seen with THD vs Power sweeps - preferably at a number of frequencies
> 
> ...


 
  
 So what you're saying if I'm understanding everything properly is that finding a "cheap" amp that's also good is kind of hit or miss? I looked into receiver prices for brands like Onkyo, Denon etc, and for the Wattage I need, the prices are pretty much hand in hand with my Quad amps, so it doesn't really seem worthwhile to make a switch just so I can get AM/FM radio and a remote control...


----------



## krismusic

I have a very nice portable amp that is supposed to be able to drive headphones up to 600 ohms. Would there be any benefit in a desktop amp?


----------



## ferday

elmoe said:


> So what you're saying if I'm understanding everything properly is that finding a "cheap" amp that's also good is kind of hit or miss? I looked into receiver prices for brands like Onkyo, Denon etc, and for the Wattage I need, the prices are pretty much hand in hand with my Quad amps, so it doesn't really seem worthwhile to make a switch just so I can get AM/FM radio and a remote control...


 
  
 really it's about the wattage....not sure what your quad amps cost (i've never seen a cheap monoblock LOL), but you obviously have a pre-amp already, so for "cheap" you'd be better off to look into say an emotiva (125wpc for $399) rather than an integrated AVR setup.  this will give you the true power rating at least
  
 receiver pricing goes up exponentially with wattage, and even then the rated wattage is more often than not a marketing ploy, they rarely get the rated power unless you are into some higher end stuff which isn't cheap anymore.
  
 i'm of the mind that SS is SS as long as it's not a total disaster of a setup...that said i'd love to be able to justify some nice monoblocks LOL i think they are so pretty and offer a different tactile experience (i don't mean sound-wise) than an AVR or stereo amp.  however, a very nice AVR will offer an amazing feature set and when combined with a "cheap but good" stereo/multi amp one has everything one could possibly need IMO.


----------



## bigshot

This is the Yamaha receiver I have. 110 watts $411.
 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004QR56SE


----------



## elmoe

That's about half the price I would get for selling my Quads. My dad has an Onkyo receiver 5.1, it should be pretty decent, I will borrow it and do some testing.


----------



## bigshot

The other nice thing about AV receivers is they usually have very good built in equalizers. Mine has a five band parametric that has vastly improved the sound of my stereo in my listening room.


----------



## ferday

bigshot said:


> The other nice thing about AV receivers is they usually have very good built in equalizers. Mine has a five band parametric that has vastly improved the sound of my stereo in my listening room.


 
  
 this is true!  i'm extremely impressed with the sound of my new onkyo, i finally jumped a bit over entry level AVR and i believe it was well worth it for the feature set (which includes built in EQ) and as a bonus the sound quality is up a lot more than i expected


----------



## Yahzi

Not sure if anybody has watched this but :
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9HrYAyVItY
  
 And :
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lozs7KWlQ7Q
  
 What do you make of these videos?


----------



## bigshot

Now let's see him compare the "little wiggles" on his scope to the thresholds of audibility.


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> Now let's see him compare the "little wiggles" on his scope to the thresholds of audibility.


 

 Oh I am sure the mantra applies.  If you hear it and can't see it (in measures or scopes), it is still there.  If you see it in measures or scopes, then you can hear it for sure. 
  
 No such thing as a measurement difference that can't be heard.  But there are surely things that can be heard yet cannot be measured.


----------



## Wizz

You're being ironic I guess, right?


----------



## elmoe

The Onkyo receiver has now been thoroughly tested against my Quads. It doesn't even come close, the difference is really obvious, so I am guessing that its 80W/channel into 8ohms might have something to do with it vs the 150W of the quads. In any case, considering the small difference in price between my Quads and a similarly powerful cheaper amp, I might as well just keep the Quads. I'll eventually try something like the emotiva posted above considering it can be found for 250usd or so used, just out of curiosity.


----------



## JRG1990

elmoe said:


> The Onkyo receiver has now been thoroughly tested against my Quads


 
 So it was a blind test with the levels matched?.
  
 Output power doesn't matter I highly doubt you have the quads at maxium volume, <1watt is average listening volume.


----------



## elmoe

There is no volume control on the Quads, they are monoblock power amps.
  
 I didn't do a blind test, because the difference was so obvious there was no need to. Levels were matched roughly, but I did that by ear not with a dB meter, anyway the difference was so obvious even at lower volume levels (on tube preamp) the Quads were much more dynamic.


----------



## Wizz

elmoe said:


> I didn't do a blind test, *because the difference was so obvious there was no need to. *





> Levels were matched roughly


 
 Don't you love reading the same argument again and again.
 People asuming that their senses always work at full power and are not to be questioned by some kind of objectivity.
  
 Elmoe, are you aware that the majority of people claiming "night and day" audible differences when testing this way, can't tell things apart anymore in a blind test?
  
 How many times will we have to state that human hearing is the easiest thing to fool, especially when you're expecting to hear something in the first place?
  
 Non blind testing is meaningless.
 Non carefully matching volumes implies nothing can be concluded from any listening test.


----------



## elmoe

wizz said:


> Don't you love reading the same argument again and again.
> People asuming that their senses always work at full power and are not to be questioned by some kind of objectivity.
> 
> Elmoe, are you aware that the majority of people claiming "night and day" audible differences when testing this way, can't tell things apart anymore in a blind test?
> ...


 
  
 What you don't seem to understand is that I couldn't care less whether you think I'm being objective or truthful. I'm not trying to argue anything. I was curious about people in here claiming a cheap (but decent enough) receiver would sound exactly the same as my monoblocks, so I tested it out for myself. If I hadn't switched back n worth 10 times and wasn't sure about what my ears were hearing, I still wouldn't even have bothered doing a blind test and matching levels perfectly - I would've instead instantly agreed with those claims and left it at that. After close to 20 years as a musician, and close to half of that as an audiophile, I don't really feel the need to prove anything to anyone other than myself. I could set everything up and do a blind test and match levels perfectly using a dB meter, but honestly the difference is so blatantly obvious that it wouldn't change a thing - that's how much of an audible difference there is.
  
 You're right about expectancy, I was expecting to hear the Onkyo receiver sounding exactly the same as my Quads (in fact I had an ebay ad all written out for the Quads!). It didn't, just like it didn't with the InterM amp. Now you and others will certainly not believe a word of that and think it's placebo, but I believe myself to be experienced enough as a musician and a listener to not have to get into blind testing/exact level matching when the difference is just that obvious to my ears (especially since this was done to satisfy my curiosity, not to prove a point on the internet). Maybe the Onkyo was defective (although it seems to work just fine with my father's 5.1 system), maybe the wattage being different was a bigger influence, maybe there is something else in my audio chain that has some kind of effect on this, who knows. The result I got still stands either way and is well enough to satisfy my curiosity, regardless of what your opinion may be.
  
 If ever you're near Grenoble, France, you're very welcome to come to my home for a beer and a listen. If my dad (an engineer by trade, a little hard of hearing in his old age, who was the first to tell me all this was total bullsh!t, pardon my french 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) noticed a big difference right away, there's no doubt in my mind you will too.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *elmoe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> If I hadn't switched back n worth 10 times and wasn't sure about what my ears were hearing, I still wouldn't even have bothered doing a blind test and matching levels perfectly


 
  
 Level matching by ear is notoriously unreliable, especially if not done with very fast (sub-second) switching between the sources, and is a major source of "night and day" differences heard between amplifiers. Just out of curiosity, could you repeat your listening test at what you think is equal volume, and then replace the music with a test tone, and measure the output levels (preferably with a multimeter) without touching any volume controls ? I suspect there will be a difference of a few dB.
  


> Originally Posted by *elmoe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> You're right about expectancy, I was expecting to hear the Onkyo receiver sounding exactly the same as my Quads


 
   
Expectation bias works on a sub-conscious level. You may have _wanted_ the Onkyo to sound the same, but you have no control over what you expect the result to be (if only it was possible). Just like you cannot simply "turn off" this or this effect, even after you already know about them being illusions.

  
 Then again, the receiver might really have sounded different for whatever reason, but so far you did not provide any convincing evidence.


----------



## elmoe

Haha no, if anything I wanted the Quads to sound better, but logic dictates they would sound the same and I usually tend to follow what science proves to be true, so I really was expecting to not hear a difference.
  
 I don't think a small difference in dB would make that much of an audible difference like what I heard, but since you seems honestly intrigued I will borrow the receiver once more. I have a dB meter stashed somewhere, but I also have a multimeter so I'll test things out that way. No doubt, as I did it, there was most certainly a difference in dB, but I also tried the Quads at a lower volume than the Onkyo just to be sure (so a big, noticeable difference in dB, with the Onkyo turned up louder), and even at lower volumes, the Quads sounded more dynamic and more airy. That being said, I'll test things out once more with matching levels, I'll even ask my dad to come over so he can bring the receiver and adjust the level himself for a blind test while I'm at it, but considering that the Quads sound MUCH better even at a LOWER level, I don't think the results will be any different.
  
 Can you recommend me a good test signal software/sound file for this? I only tested with music I am familiar with.


----------



## stv014

elmoe said:


> Haha no, if anything I wanted the Quads to sound better, but logic dictates they would sound the same and I usually tend to follow what science proves to be true, so I really was expecting to not hear a difference.


 
  
 Again, it does not matter what you want to hear, what you expect can be entirely different. Bias is sub-conscious, and it can work independently of, and even against your will. Can you successfully force yourself to ignore the optical illusion linked above, without covering parts of the image ?


----------



## elmoe

I understand what you're saying, and I tend to agree to a certain degree anyway.
  
 I will do the testing and get back to you. You'll have to give me a week or so though, before I have the time to get everything done.


----------



## stv014

> Can you recommend me a good test signal software/sound file for this? I only tested with music I am familiar with.


 
  
 Audacity (free editor) should be fine. Just generate a reasonably long signal that can be reliably measured with your equipment. For multimeters, a sine wave is recommended; some are only accurate at low frequencies (like 60 Hz), but even if you use 1 kHz and the DMM does not correctly measure it, it will still show the ratio of the two levels, which is what matters. For acoustic measurements, pink noise might be better; a simple sine wave is more sensitive to room acoustics, and moving the meter could change the level by multiple dB.


----------



## elmoe

Yep I know Audacity well, I'll use that then, will post in here once I feel I've done this properly, might take a few tries to get anything reliable.


----------



## krismusic

Fair play to you for bothering to do this Elmoe. I will be very interested to read what you find out.


----------



## bigshot

How will you manage a direct A/B comparison? There shouldn't be a gap between samples. Auditory memory is very short. 1-2 seconds.


----------



## elmoe

My SP preamp has two outputs that can be swapped through with a switch. All I need to do is set the receiver at the same dB level of the Quad amps (which don't have volume control) and then not touch the preamp volume knob. Just flipping the switch will output the signal to either the receiver or the monoblocks at the exact same dB level.
  
 I will have to run two pairs of cables to the speakers simultaneously though, one from the receiver and one from the monoblocks. I am wondering if it will be safe to do this? The receiver remote control has a mute button, so if I mute then switch quickly, it should technically be doable no? If you have other ideas, I certainly welcome them.


----------



## bigshot

That sounds like it should work. All you need is a kid to do the switching for you.


----------



## elmoe

Yep thats no problem.


----------



## bigshot

If you do hear a difference, try to define what it is... dynamics, frequency response, distortion, etc. If it is frequency response, see if you can correct for it using the Onkyo's tone controls. The mono block amps may have a "house sound" coloration. It isn't uncommon in amps without tone controls.


----------



## flppy ears

Lads n lasses - really - I've recorded half the stuff you're spending a gazillion quid on "stuff" to define how good it should sound - really as and when the band and I made it  - you can sometimes count in less than a grand in amps and speakers at source  - of course - and my point the room cost 100k - reading these forums Iit's all a bit emperors clothes in the dissection of the "audio" - i.e. you're reading far too much into the process - often you sometimes talk of gear that often cost more than the mix lol I know nowt I just  make the **** you're arguing about - if I have any advice I'd say **** the speakers buy a room - much cheaper ! Trust me go down the Dog n Duck in Soho on Friday and ask the drunkest bloke there he's probably the most audiophile engineer you've ever met.


----------



## Spyro

Even if its clean sounding...the louder the volume the harder it is on your ears.  Better to have a smoother more laid back and refined presentation for loud listeners.


----------



## bigshot

Lack of spikes in the response will make sound less fatiguing.


----------



## bigshot

flppy ears said:


> go down the Dog n Duck in Soho on Friday and ask the drunkest bloke there he's probably the most audiophile engineer you've ever met.


 
  
 But probably not the drunkest engineer I've ever met! I've met some doozies.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> If you do hear a difference, try to define what it is... dynamics, frequency response, distortion, etc. If it is frequency response, see if you can correct for it using the Onkyo's tone controls. The mono block amps may have a "house sound" coloration. It isn't uncommon in amps without tone controls.


 
  
 What I did hear without the blind testing and level matching was that the Quads were alot more dynamic, not in the volume sense but in the way drums for example were upfront and very clear sounding. On big band recordings such as some Mingus/Ellington to name a couple, instrument seperation was better and the presentation was overall much more airy. The level of detail for the most part was a few steps above the Onkyo, so I'm guessing frequency response was also a factor. The Onkyo sound was more muddled with a lot less "space" if that makes sense.
  
 I really dislike reviewing gear because honestly it sounds kinda silly using words like 'airy' and 'muddled' to describe sound, but for lack of a better vocabulary, I'll have to stick with what comes to mind first.


----------



## JRG1990

Might be because the monoblocks use a seperate amp per a channel which will have better crosstalk than a stereo amp, most reference and p.a amps use a dual mono design aswell and can be had at half the cost.


----------



## elmoe

jrg1990 said:


> Might be because the monoblocks use a seperate amp per a channel which will have better crosstalk than a stereo amp, most reference and p.a amps use a dual mono design aswell and can be had at half the cost.


 
 Pretty sure that's the case with my InterM amp (it has seperate volume knobs for each channel), and the Quads still sounded much better. Will do the test and see though.


----------



## stv014

elmoe said:


> What I did hear without the blind testing and level matching was that the Quads were alot more dynamic, not in the volume sense but in the way drums for example were upfront and very clear sounding. On big band recordings such as some Mingus/Ellington to name a couple, instrument seperation was better and the presentation was overall much more airy. The level of detail for the most part was a few steps above the Onkyo, so I'm guessing frequency response was also a factor. The Onkyo sound was more muddled with a lot less "space" if that makes sense.


 
  
 More dynamic and overall "bigger" sound with punchier drums is what slightly higher volume subjectively sounds like. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 It also affects the perceived frequency response, because at higher volume, bass and (to a lesser extent) treble become relatively more audible.


----------



## JRG1990

It would be worth using that amp in your blindtest as its closer in design to your mono blocks , I suspect the onyko receiver and inter-m amps are the neutral amps and the quads have been tuned through the the use of disortion or something to have a in house sound, I highly doubt for the price and target market the onyko and inter-m are aimed at they have been tuned to have a in house sound as it would be much more cost effective to make them using test equipment to be transparent.


----------



## stv014

jrg1990 said:


> Might be because the monoblocks use a seperate amp per a channel which will have better crosstalk than a stereo amp, most reference and p.a amps use a dual mono design aswell and can be had at half the cost.


 
  
 A stereo amp should be really poorly designed to have clearly audible crosstalk. I do not think anything better than -40 dB at 10 kHz (a figure that is not too hard to achieve, and means that a sound panned entirely to one side is "moved" by 1%) would make much difference, especially with speakers having limited stereo separation in the first place.


----------



## elmoe

stv014 said:


> More dynamic and overall "bigger" sound with punchier drums is what slightly higher volume subjectively sounds like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Once again, this was true also with the preamp + monoblocks at a significantly lower volume than the Onkyo.
  



jrg1990 said:


> It would be worth using that amp in your blindtest as its closer in design to your mono blocks , I suspect the onyko receiver and inter-m amps are the neutral amps and the quads have been tuned through the the use of disortion or something to have a in house sound, I highly doubt for the price and target market the onyko and inter-m are aimed at they have been tuned to have a in house sound as it would be much more cost effective to make them using test equipment to be transparent.


 
  
 Well I might as well add it to the mix then, but it'll have to be 2 at a time since my preamp only has 2 outputs.


----------



## eggncheezy

very interesting and cool. i liked # 33 with the hdmi cables


----------



## Hawaiibadboy

Subscribed.


----------



## elmoe

Did not forget this topic, still have a pair of speaker cables to buy so I should get down to business next weekend.


----------



## Mezzo

I have a question about harmonics. The fundamental is the lowest number in signal analysis and the harmonics are integral multiples of that number.
  
 But I've heard from some people that you get subharmonics too. Frequencies that are integral fractions of the fundamental. There is a discussion on another forum where someone is arguing that instruments can and do produce subharmonics below the fundamental and that it contributes to ambiance and sound staging.
  
 Any acoustic boffins here?  I thought the fundamental, by definition, was the lowest number. Or are subharmonics really the fundamental, and the tuned frequency is ..?


----------



## analogsurviver

mezzo said:


> I have a question about harmonics. The fundamental is the lowest number in signal analysis and the harmonics are integral multiples of that number.
> 
> But I've heard from some people that you get subharmonics too. Frequencies that are integral fractions of the fundamental. There is a discussion on another forum where someone is arguing that instruments can and do produce subharmonics below the fundamental and that it contributes to ambiance and sound staging.
> 
> Any acoustic boffins here?  I thought the fundamental, by definition, was the lowest number. Or are subharmonics really the fundamental, and the tuned frequency is ..?


 
 It is debatable if that are subharmonics or intermodulation (difference ) products of the sound(s) heard live. Be it as it may with the origins of these low frequency - it really does contribute to ambient retrieval / soundstage. 
  
 That is why I insist on using  ( recording)  equipment with "unnecessirily extended" bandwidth - in both directions. My entire recording chain has to pass 3 Hz ( in a word : THREE Hertz ) square wave MUCH better, with lower tilt, than the reference square wave observed trough AC coupled oscilloscope. Limit the extension in bass ( for anything approaching perfect square wave at a given frequency, the bandwidth of the equipment has to be good (- 3 dB ) to at least 1/10th of the test frequency.   That means  I use equipment that overall has 0.3 Hz ( one third of a Hz ) at -3 dB ) - and the cathedral will be progressively turning into village church, depending how severe limiting of bass in equipment is effective.  It is in no way limited to bassy sound source(s) - an unaccompanied  soprano in a (large) church is all that it takes ...
  
 This is audible even on very small speakers lacking the proper bass response; real benefits will show up on large speakers in a LARGE room - or, you've guessed it - headphones - that do support well extended bass.


----------



## Mezzo

analogsurviver said:


> It is debatable if that are subharmonics or intermodulation (difference ) products of the sound(s) heard live. Be it as it may with the origins of these low frequency - it really does contribute to ambient retrieval / soundstage.
> 
> That is why I insist on using  ( recording)  equipment with "unnecessirily extended" bandwidth - in both directions. My entire recording chain has to pass 3 Hz ( in a word : THREE Hertz ) square wave MUCH better, with lower tilt, than the reference square wave observed trough AC coupled oscilloscope. Limit the extension in bass ( for anything approaching perfect square wave at a given frequency, the bandwidth of the equipment has to be good (- 3 dB ) to at least 1/10th of the test frequency.   That means  I use equipment that overall has 0.3 Hz ( one third of a Hz ) at -3 dB ) - and the cathedral will be progressively turning into village church, depending how severe limiting of bass in equipment is effective.  It is in no way limited to bassy sound source(s) - an unaccompanied  soprano in a (large) church is all that it takes ...


 
  
 Based on how I understand the argument, what some people are saying is that like a helmholz resonator, if you whistle/blow over the bottle until you find the correct resonant pitch then the note emancipating from the bottle is lower than the whistle. So based on the fact that there is a resonant chamber excited by external influence; a note of certain pitch, as I understand it, people are saying that there are subharmonics with instruments with their own resonant cavities.
  
 I'm not clued up enough to know the answer. All I've been known is that you get a fundamental frequency and that is the lowest signal that you can get, the harmonics are multiples of that. Subharmonics ...? Not sure how that factors in given the fundamental frequency. Always known that harmonics are multiples of the fundamental.


----------



## EthanWiner

analogsurviver said:


> if that are subharmonics or intermodulation (difference ) products of the sound(s) heard live.




Yes, IM Distortion can create artifacts lower in pitch than either of two or more fundamental frequencies. But other than that there's no such thing as subharmonics. Whatever the lowest frequency is for a single note, _that_ is the fundamental.

--Ethan


----------



## analogsurviver

ethanwiner said:


> Yes, IM Distortion can create artifacts lower in pitch than either of two or more fundamental frequencies. But other than that there's no such thing as subharmonics. Whatever the lowest frequency is for a single note, _that_ is the fundamental.
> 
> --Ethan


 
 Sounds logical.
  
 There is another source of low frequencies - one which necessitates response practically to DC.
  
 It is the brass/wind  instruments - basically, a trumpet ( as the most typical of the family ) is basically a valve in which you blow and "regulate" the "output " (sound) by releasing valves with your fingers. It can generate mostly overpressure - only the most versed jazz players know how to "suck" instead of "blow" the trumpet. 
  
 Here we stumble upon yet another myth - the absolute phase. The above mentioned brass instruments will produce mostly only overpressure - giving a correspondingly output at the output of a correctly wired microphone mostly in the positive direction. It can be viewed as a sine wave superimposed on a very near to DC component. It is what gives the distinction of a trumpet from close range - and far away, say military barracks. Air tends to return to its state of equilibrioum, the further the sound has to travel, the more will be this low-next-to-DC component filtered out. This does give the sense of depth - which is sadly missing in audio equipment incapable of DC or near DC low frequency extension.
  
 A trumpet (or any other brass or to a lesser degree, wind instrument ) will sound odd if amplified by a microphone/microphone preamp with the absolute phase inverted. NO equalization can compensate for this - absolute polarity has to be observed from input to output, if fidelity of the real sound is to be preserved.
  
 I expect quite a hoolaballo after the above statement, with numerous "proofs" by tons of distinguished members of the audio community, who claim absolute phase to be inaudible. Yes, I agree ; in a multimiked recording, played over multi unit /way loudspeakers with phase incoherent crossoversa, it does not matter in the slightest; the inherent deficiences in recording itself render such precision impossible, and it is repeated on the multi way speakers, giving a totally predictable 50:50 outcome in the statistics of blind testing - falsely proving that absolute phase does not matter.
  
 Try a binaural recording on good, preferably electrostatic headphones, preferably driven by high voltage DC amp  ( like Stax models ) - THAT is a different ballgame altogether. The trumpet will really suck if reproduced "sucking" instead of "blowing" - and equipment lacking LF extension will be ruthlessly exposed as such. 
  
 There is more to the frequency response than just the fundamental frequencies as generally accepted. Organ, which is generally accepted to produce the lowest fundamentals ( usually 16 Hz, but there are exceptional instruments going yet one octave lower, down to 8.xy Hz ) , can be exceeded in LF extension by incomparably smaller trumpet, saxophone, etc - depending how close to these brass instruments is the listener.


----------



## EthanWiner

analogsurviver said:


> I expect quite a hoolaballo after the above statement, with numerous "proofs" by tons of distinguished members of the audio community, who claim absolute phase to be inaudible.




Yes, absolute polarity (not phase) should be inaudible. When a difference is heard, it can be traced to non-lineararity in the loudspeakers or headphones. The driver cone behaves differently pushing out versus pulling in.

It sounds like you play the trumpet? Can you record yourself playing whatever you believe illustrates a difference in polarity, and post the file? I'd like to hear an example of a file that sounds different forward versus backwards, and analyze it to see what's going on.

--Ethan


----------



## analogsurviver

ethanwiner said:


> Yes, absolute polarity (not phase) should be inaudible. When a difference is heard, it can be traced to non-lineararity in the loudspeakers or headphones. The driver cone behaves differently pushing out versus pulling in.
> 
> It sounds like you play the trumpet? Can you record yourself playing whatever you believe illustrates a difference in polarity, and post the file? I'd like to hear an example of a file that sounds different forward versus backwards, and analyze it to see what's going on.
> 
> --Ethan


 
 Well, all I can play is - audio gear 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 - be it reproduction or recording side of it.
  
 I merely chose the trumpet as the most commonly known brass instrument. Given that I am a recording engineer, I will ask a/some member(s) of the brass section of the symphony orchestra scheduled for the recording in next 10 or so days to play for this experiment the same tune from much closer than I usually record, from the regular position for recording the orchestra and as far away from the back of the hall as possible. The resulting files should be illustrative enough.
  
 Unfortunately, I can not record in the correct AND out of phase absolute polarity ( both channels 180 degrees out of phase ) - for reasons I do not wish to disclose. My mics etc  are wired so to produce positive going voltage when input is positive pressure. You can play the files back with any of the possibilities to invert the absolute phase; in digital domain, trough an additional analog inverting stage, by simply changing the speaker wires with BOTH speakers - simply choose the one you are most comfortable with, preferably the one that can be A/B'd by the flick of a switch.
  
 Original files will be DSD128. If you do not have native DSD playback, I can convert them for you into desired PCM - with reduced sonics. But any decent PCM should still be perfectly usable for this test.


----------



## upstateguy

stv014 said:


> More dynamic and overall "bigger" sound with punchier drums is what *slightly higher volume subjectively sounds like*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 +1
  
  


analogsurviver said:


> Well, all I can play is - audio gear
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 secrets, secrets, secrets.....  oh well.


----------



## analogsurviver

upstateguy said:


> +1
> 
> 
> 
> secrets, secrets, secrets.....  oh well.


 
 Nothing to do with the absolute polarity - merely stating why there will not be recordings in correct and 180 degree opposie polarity. The test or its validity will be in no way influenced by what I prefer to keep under wraps.


----------



## EthanWiner

analogsurviver said:


> You can play the files back with any of the possibilities to invert the absolute phase




Yes, of course, I don't need two versions. What would be the point anyway? You can't have two microphones in the same physical space, so that alone would account for a change in sound quality (mainly frequency response).



> If you do not have native DSD playback, I can convert them for you into desired PCM - with reduced sonics. But any decent PCM should still be perfectly usable for this test.




I do not have a way to play DSD files, so you'd have to convert them. But why do you think DSD is superior to PCM? PCM gives a perfect replica of what it recorded, within the limits of its own accuracy. PCM is also easier / less expensive to edit, so I never considered DSD. These days even mid-level converters are audibly transparent, so I don't see how anything could be "better" than transparent. But that's another issue. I'll be glad to play around with your trumpet files. Though all I really need is one file that you believe sounds different when the polarity is reversed.

--Ethan


----------



## bigshot

I'm puttin a five spot down on no difference, anyone want to spot me on that?


----------



## jcx

I thought is was well established that asymmetric waveforms with tons of even harmonics can be audibly distinguished by polarity of playback - our ears only produce nerve discharge pulses on positive pressure excursions - does get wiped out above a few kHz but is quite well known, can be seen in probes of animal auditory neurons
  
 for visualizing polarity/asymmetric waveforms consider sawtooth waveforms - no DC component necessary - you can see if the fast edge goes up or down
  
 but most agree that speaker distortion can interfere with demonstrating the effect, and at best it doesn't appear to very audibly significant


----------



## analogsurviver

ethanwiner said:


> Yes, of course, I don't need two versions. What would be the point anyway? You can't have two microphones in the same physical space, so that alone would account for a change in sound quality (mainly frequency response).
> I do not have a way to play DSD files, so you'd have to convert them. But why do you think DSD is superior to PCM? PCM gives a perfect replica of what it recorded, within the limits of its own accuracy. PCM is also easier / less expensive to edit, so I never considered DSD. These days even mid-level converters are audibly transparent, so I don't see how anything could be "better" than transparent. But that's another issue. I'll be glad to play around with your trumpet files. Though all I really need is one file that you believe sounds different when the polarity is reversed.
> 
> --Ethan


 
 What I meant were _*two*_ recordings from the _*same *_microphone in the _*same position *_- one in correct, another in inverted absolute polarity. That is why some equipment with XLRs allows for pin "inversion" - I do not have this capability. 
  
DSD is superior to PCM in time domain/pulse response - whichever you prefer. PCM is just plain too slow - DXD included ( I have no DXD recording capability at the present ) . Time permitting, I will use signal generator and record precisely defined pulse(s) using various resolutions of DSD and PCM - with *real machine(s)** - *not rosy picture versions from proponents from either of the camps - and post the photos of the actual output on the oscilloscope; if the digital storage of my oscilloscope will prove to be too slow/low resolution, I will try to catch the photo from the analog display.
  
I agree PCM is easier / less expensive to edit ; however, I am delighted at the request of the pending recording, where performers explicitely demanded NO EDITING - we will make XY? number of takes - and release the take the performers will be most comfortable with. Sort of modern day equivalent of _*Direct to Disk*_ recording, with the benefit of the possibility to record music in any reasonable lenght of time, without having to play the programme for the duration of entire side of a LP in one go, if you prefer to call it that way. Thus, the full fidelity of DSD128, without conversion to PCM for editing, will be available to the final consumer for the very first time.
Initially, CD will be released, with planned later availability as DSD128 download. As u$ual, $ problem$ ...
  
I did *Direct to CD-R* http://www.folketc.si/04Glasba.html recording with no editing whatsoever ( save for compression performers finally opted for because of the radio / infamous loudness wars ) in the past this way - we merely selected the best take of each song.


----------



## analogsurviver

jcx said:


> I thought is was well established that asymmetric waveforms with tons of even harmonics can be audibly distinguished by polarity of playback - our ears only produce nerve discharge pulses on positive pressure excursions - does get wiped out above a few kHz but is quite well known, can be seen in probes of animal auditory neurons
> 
> for visualizing polarity/asymmetric waveforms consider sawtooth waveforms - no DC component necessary - you can see if the fast edge goes up or down
> 
> but most agree that speaker distortion can interfere with demonstrating the effect, and at best it doesn't appear to very audibly significant


 
 I would appreciate if you can point to some referene(s) regarding our hearing mechanism and absolute polarity - I can hear it, but it would be nice to see confirmation in print.
  
 I agree sawtooth can be used - and it is audible one way or another;  but as it is next to nonexistant in real world, I prefer to use real instruments.
  
 Speaker AND headphones/IEMs DO interfere with demonstrating the effect. That is why I prefer using full range headphones or speakers, as any crossovers that are higher than the first order 6 db/octave (insufficient in most real case scenarios ) introduce phase or polarity troubles. The best are electrostatics ( either headphones or speakers ) driven by high voltage DC coupled amplifiers - followed by SINGLE full range dynamic drivers, be it headphones or speakers. I eschew multi driver approch whenever possible - I would NEVER use multi driver IEM like Shure SE 530; In pulse response, it can be clearly seen that  initially, its treble goes to negative and after a while the rest picks up into the correct polarity : http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/ShureSE530.pdf  Please note SE530 is a VERY benign example of this polarity problem - some speakers do go from positive to negative etc _*5 times *_in 20 Hz to 20 kHz bandwidth. Needless to say, these are utterly useless for demonstrating the effects of the correct and/or inverted absolute polarity - as well as for music reproduction; despite their frequency response being almost ruler flat ...
  
 Please note that quite some (most?) Stax models as delivered from the factory produce *inverted* absolute polarity
  
 http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/StaxSR009.pdf
 http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/StaxSR003SA1993.pdf
  
I will present how I practically deal with absolute polarity issues in real life at some later stage.


----------



## elmoe

So I finally got around to the doing the first round of testing today, specifically: the Quad 99 monoblocks vs Onkyo receiver. I might do another couple of rounds when I get some more free time, to compare Onkyo vs Inter-M and Inter-M vs Quad, but seeing the results I got today, I'm not sure it's worth bothering about.
  
 My multimeter's battery decided it had enough, so I had to use a dB meter to match volumes from each amp. I won't make a very long post about it, as only the result interest me and I don't like to get into page-long reviews of gear.
  
 Material used:
  
 Sine wave @ 60Hz (120s long) for dB matching the speakers.
 An el-cheapo dB meter, that still did the trick to match levels within 1dB.
 Lossless CD rips with foobar and WASAPI, digital out by optical from Emu 1212m soundcard.
 TOSLink glass optical cable (1m) to Benchmark DAC-1.
 DAC-1 balanced XLR out to Singlepower MPX3 tube preamp/headphone amp. (With a pair of Cardas XLR to RCA converters plugged into the DAC, and Cardas 300b micro RCA interconnects between DAC and preamp).
 Singlepower MPX3 has 2 pairs of RCA outputs:
 1) No name RCA interconnects to Quad 99 monoblocks
 2) No name RCA interconnects to Onkyo receiver
 Tubes used: Sophia Electric 6SN7 matched pair as output tubes, Ken-Rad black top 6SN7GT as the driver tube.
 No name el-cheapo speaker cables were used for both (for comparison's sake, not that I believe different cables would change anything)
 Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanding speakers
  
  
 Music used (I only bothered with what are to my ears good enough recordings to highlight the differences, unless specified otherwise):
  
 Prodigy - Mindfields
 Massive Attack - Teardrop
 Bill Withers - Just The Two Of Us
 Chic - Good Times
 Curtis Mayfield - Pusherman
 Marvin Gaye - Inner City Blues
 Otis Redding - Dock Of The Bay
 Ray Charles - Georgia On My Mind (poor recording)
 Stevie Wonder - Uptight
 Busta Rhymes - It Ain't Safe No More
 DJ Shadow - Fixed Income
 M.O.P - Ante Up
 Nujabes - Lady Brown
 The Roots - The Next Movement
 Art Blakey w/ Thelonious Monk - Blue Monk
 Art Pepper - Jazz Me Blues
 Bill Evans - Danny Boy
 Chick Corea - I Don't Know
 Dinah Washington - Salty Papa Blues (poor recording)
 Duke Ellington - Love You Madly
 Erroll Garner - Someone To Watch Over Me (poor recording)
 Hiromi Uehara - Place To Be
 John Coltrane - Giant Steps
 Keith Jarrett - Koln Concert part C
 Marcus Miller - Power
 Miles Davis - So What
 Nina Simone - I Put A Spell On You
 Phineas Newborn Jr - Harlem Blues
 Sidney Bechet - Original Dixieland One-step (poor recording)
 Toots Thielemans - Oh Suzannah
 Weather Report - Birdland
 Weather Report - Teen Town
 Deftones - Digital Bath
 Iron Maiden - Running Free
 Metallica - Hit The Lights
 Nirvana - Where Did Your Sleep Last Night (unplugged)
 Smashing Pumpkins - Rocket
 Soundgarden - Rusty Cage
 Gladiators - Hearsay (poor recording)
 Black Sabbath - Lord Of This World (poor recording)
 Bob Dylan - Highway 51
 Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
 Captain Beefheart - Zig Zag Wanderer (poor recording)
 Creedence Clearwater Revival - Ramble Tamble
 Dire Straits - Sultans Of Swing
 Dire Straits - Money For Nothing
 Howlin Wolf - I'm The Wolf (poor recording)
 Iron Butterfly - In A Gadda Da Vida
 Jimi Hendrix - One Rainy Wish (poor recording)
 Johnny Cash - Walk The Line
 Lightnin Hopkins - My Babe (poor recording)
 Pink Floyd - Time
 Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here
 Queen - We Will Rock You
 Supertramp - Bloody Well Right
 Taj Mahal - Statesboro Blues (poor recording)
 The Doors - Love Me Two Times
 The Police - Reggatta De Blanc
 The Who - My Generation (poor recording)
 Van Halen - Hang Em High
  
 All recordings are FLAC lossless CD rips. No SACD or otherwise were used, to keep things fair (although since some of these are really bad recordings, things weren't exactly fair).
  
 I realize the list is much too extensive for what I was testing, but I wanted to try alot of the music I listen to frequently to make sure things didn't vary too much from recording to recording. Keep in mind I didn't necessarily listen to the song in its entirety, more often than not the switching was done by a third party in the middle of a song.
  
 Set up:
  
 I don't feel comfortable posting pictures of my living room (thus showing how the speakers are placed, etc) but I figure it doesn't matter much considering they don't move from the spot they're in anyway. I sat about 7 meters away, in the middle with the speakers slightly tilted towards the middle point (me). I was blindfolded, and a third party switched between the preamp outputs at will. This was PARTIALLY flawed as the switch can slightly CLICK if you're not careful to switch slowly, but after a few tries she could switch between the outputs without me hearing the click.
  
 We agreed on 2 switches per song maximum (sometimes 1, sometimes none, without my knowledge), without me knowing which output was used when the song started. I would simply speak up whenever I felt I heard a noticeable change, there was no warning when switches happened and it was never up to me.
  
 Results:
  
 I'll keep these short, as I didn't bother taking notes for every single song used. I'll just describe what I heard on the most obvious ones (the better recordings/the more dynamic ones):
  
 Out of all the songs listed above, there were only 3 where I couldn't tell any obvious difference: Lightnin Hopkins - My babe, Sidney Bechet - Original Dixieland One-step, and Dinah Washington - Salty Papa Blues. Honestly, I blame the quite awful quality of the recordings.
  
 For every other song on there, the difference was audible, for the particularly dynamic/good recordings (the Dire Straits, Supertramp, The Police, Weather Report, Coltrane/Davis, and a few other songs in particular), the difference was quite important, so I'll stick to describing what differences I heard primarily for these.
  
 I'm not very well versed in audiophile vocabulary to describe sound signatures, so bear with me:
  
 There were all in all two aspects which really weren't subtle differences: soundstage and dynamics.
  
 Soundstage was alot wider using the Quad monoblocks, and I don't mean slightly either. The music really opened up with the Quads compared to the Onkyo where instrument separation was less distinct, soundstage had less space/air. Dynamics on the Quad were much more in your face and clear. I could tell the difference within the first second the drums joined in, which pretty much was the biggest difference between the two. I will spare you the two-page paragraph describing every cymbal crash with vocabulary taken from culinary reviews and just say that this test pretty much confirmed what I heard before right down to the detail. I might or might not do a couple of other rounds as said above, depending on interest.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *elmoe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Sine wave @ 60Hz (120s long) for dB matching the speakers.
> An el-cheapo dB meter, that still did the trick to match levels within 1dB.


 
   
It may sound like nit-picking, but 1 dB accuracy is not good enough. A level difference of 1 dB is definitely audible. Also, for acoustic level matching, sine waves can be problematic, because the measured level will vary with the location of the SPL meter, due to room acoustics; however, I do recommend the more accurate and reliable voltage measurement method (preferably testing the voltage under load) anyway. It would also be useful to find out the output voltage at your listening level. Additionally, it is best to make sure that individual channels (left and right) have accurately matched levels between the amplifiers.

  
 By the way, would it be possible to skip that tube pre-amplifier ? It might not make any difference, but it is better to have fewer variables that could potentially affect the result in some way.
  
 I see the Onkyo has tone controls and is a multi-channel amplifier. Make sure that it is set up to work as a transparent stereo amplifier, if possible at all (flat frequency response - which it may not even be capable of if the tone control is badly implemented, no surround sound processing, etc.).


----------



## elmoe

stv014 said:


> It may sound like nit-picking, but 1 dB accuracy is not good enough. A level difference of 1 dB is definitely audible. Also, for acoustic level matching, sine waves can be problematic, because the measured level will vary with the location of the SPL meter, due to room acoustics; however, I do recommend the more accurate and reliable voltage measurement method (preferably testing the voltage under load) anyway. It would also be useful to find out the output voltage at your listening level. Additionally, it is best to make sure that individual channels (left and right) have accurately matched levels between the amplifiers.
> 
> By the way, would it be possible to skip that tube pre-amplifier ? It might not make any difference, but it is better to have fewer variables that could potentially affect the result in some way.
> 
> I see the Onkyo has tone controls and is a multi-channel amplifier. Make sure that it is set up to work as a transparent stereo amplifier, if possible at all (flat frequency response - which it may not even be capable of if the tone control is badly implemented, no surround sound processing, etc.).


 
  
 Yes I should've been more accurate: the levels were matched to the exact dB (my dB meter doesn't show fractions of dB). That said, I don't think a 1dB difference would make that much of a difference in the soundstage, perhaps slightly for the dynamics, but again 1dB really isn't enough for the clear difference heard. I was told in this thread to use a sine wave, but if you want I'll use something else for the next round, please specify what you think would be better. I will also change the battery in my multimeter for next time, although I'm pretty sure the dB meter did just fine. I'll also take note of the voltage under load once I have an operational multimeter, and check the individual channel levels for everything as well.
  
 Yes, I can hook the DAC straight to the power amps I'm pretty sure that will work just fine. 
  
 The Onkyo is indeed multi channel (5.1) but I had it set as stereo with no tone control/EQ whatsoever. As to whether or not the tone control was properly implemented though, I'm afraid I have no idea.
  
 edit: the problem with using the DAC only is that I cannot switch between outputs like with the tube preamp, just realized this. So for a DBT it won't be effective.


----------



## bufferoverflow

> but again 1dB really isn't enough for the clear difference heard


 
 1dB IS 'the clear difference heard' .
 It doesn't matter that 'I don't think a 1dB difference would make that much of a difference in....'
 That 1dB IS the difference in blablaba .


----------



## elmoe

bufferoverflow said:


> 1dB IS 'the clear difference heard' .
> It doesn't matter that 'I don't think a 1dB difference would make that much of a difference in....'
> That 1dB IS the difference in blablaba .


 
  
 But the difference wasn't really 1dB, the dB meter read the same for each amps. It just doesn't show decimals.
  
 And no, a 1dB difference will not show any significant difference in soundstage, that's just a ridiculous claim.


----------



## bufferoverflow

'soundstage' is a ridiculous' term .
  
 And since your 'dB-meter' is only accurate to one dB there could easily be more than 0.2dB level-mismatch
 between the 2 amps - And that IS audible, you just won't perceive it as 'louder' but better - 'soundstage' for example -
  
  
 http://productionadvice.co.uk/level-matching/
  
 I  am not the one claiming anything here, there is general agreement that levels must be matched to less than 0.2dB
 or the louder kit will sound better (or be reliably recognized in a blind-test - But they are probably also 'ridicoulous' ??) .


----------



## EthanWiner

analogsurviver said:


> What I meant were _*two*_ recordings from the _*same *_microphone in the _*same position *_- one in correct, another in inverted absolute polarity.




How is that different from reversing the polarity after the fact during playback?



> DSD is superior to PCM in time domain/pulse response - whichever you prefer. PCM is just plain too slow




Why do you believe this? Do you have any Wave files or FFT graphs or oscilloscope images that show PCM can't capture transients whose rise times equate to 20 KHz?

Again, I look forward to hearing one or two files you post that sound different when the polarity is reversed.

--Ethan


----------



## elmoe

bufferoverflow said:


> 'soundstage' is a ridiculous' term .
> 
> And since your 'dB-meter' is only accurate to one dB there could easily be more than 0.2dB level-mismatch
> between the 2 amps - And that IS audible, you just won't perceive it as 'louder' but better - 'soundstage' for example -
> ...


 
  
 I'm real happy you joined head-fi so you could come in here and start name calling other members whose DBT don't match your notions. It really makes doing this whole ordeal for the benefit of others worthwhile 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 edit - ah, nice ninja edit to remove your petty insults, but it won't make you more convincing to me.
  
 On that thought and considering i apparently wasted my time only to have to read the following drivel, you'll pardon me if I put an end to this endeavor here and now.
  
 Enjoy your future discussion.


----------



## jcx

https://web.archive.org/web/20110101113016/http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audio/primer1.htm does concentrate on phase coherence - some of the info supports absolute polarity discrimination - page down past the missing graphs


> Although not in large numbers, previous research in investigation of the audibility of phase distortion has proven that it is an audible phenomenon. Lip****z _et al. _[7] has shown that on suitably chosen signals, even small midrange phase distortion can be clearly audible. Mathes and Miller [8] and Craig and Jeffress [9] showed that a simple two-component tone, consisting of a fundamental and second harmonic, changed in timbre as the phase of the second harmonic was varied relative to the fundamental. The above experiment was replicated by Lip****z _et al_., with summed 200 and 400 Hz frequencies, presented double blind via loudspeakers resulting in a 100% accuracy score.


 
 the 2nd harmonic relative phase shift test does amount to a test of polarity inversion audibility when the phase between the fundamental and the 2nd shift relatively by 180 degrees
  
 don't confuse the 180 degree phase shift of symmetric waveform, 1/2 period delay with polarity inversion - polarity can only be seen with a asymmetric waveform - requires a specific harmonic structure
  
 200 Hz + 400 Hz/90 degrees sines 1:1 amplitude:
  

  
 no amount of phase shifting, time delay of the above waveform will let you put the positive and inverted version on top of each other - both have 0 DC component, and a absolute polarity
  
 reading diyAudio and hydrogenaudio threads on the subject shows much confusion about the basic terms, assumptions


----------



## Kdavis71

kingstyles said:


> Why do we even do this hobby if the source, transport, amp, and cables all sound the same? We would only need 1 forum to discuss the different sound signatures of headphones. Why go to cam jam? So we can plug our headphones into everybody elses equipment and congratulate them on just making a prettier version of something that sounds exactly the same as your own? Sorry about the sarcasim, but while maybe some amps and dacs etc very well could sound the same, there are plenty of products out there that sound different. Take for instance the amp test. The testers when picking out the equipment may have listened before hand and tried to pick equipment with sound signatures that all resembled each other rather than amps that tend to have a more drastic differences. Also, at what level did they set the db at. If the level was perhaps higher clipping or a lack of drive may have been found in the amps that didnt produce as much power. Anybody can setup a test to try to get the outcome they want, even if they use a wide range of equipment from different prices. We dont know if they were trying to prove that they dont make a difference thus slanting some of the equipment they choose. Just food for thought. I appreciate the time on this write up, but have to disagree with some of the findings. There is another forum that is talking about blind test that I agree with a lot more than this, or at least a different take on things.
> Controversy of ABX testing | Computer Audiophile


 
  
 Seems to me that people are fooled by Marketing, advertising, and claims of the companies making this stuff. I am not experienced in any of this so I know I don't have much credit for what I say but the only thing that really makes a difference for me is the headphones themselves. I did AB testing with 3 headphones, Panasonic RP HTX 7, Sony MA900, and Audio Technica ATH-M50 having them plugged into my laptop directly, and my Fiio E17 and heard no difference at all. I used the same track for all 3 in FLAC format on Jriver.
  
 Maybe you could argue the point that those headphones don't scale as well as higher end headphones and make there's the point that this is all budget gear, but still. I spent $130 on a piece of equipment that makes no difference in the sound quality to me. I keep it for looks, and just to feel cool that I have an amp/dac


----------



## bigshot

It's difficult to run a solid test if you don't know the right terms to describe differences. You need to understand the variables to be able to control them and that takes a bit of research. You can't just plug two amps in side by side and expect to get a fair test. And you have to be able to accurately describe the differences if they exist, so you can track down the source of the differences.
  
 Quote:


elmoe said:


> And no, a 1dB difference will not show any significant difference in soundstage, that's just a ridiculous claim.


 
  
 1dB can definitely make a difference in perception of dynamics and frequency response. Level matching is the hardest part of any A/B comparison.
  
 Soundstage is a function of microphone placement, the mix and your room acoustics. An amp can't affect that unless it's defective and has tons of crosstalk between channels.
  
 As for the dynamics, did you have both amps set for 8 ohms on the speakers? If the Onkyo defaults to 4 ohms, that would cause a significant difference in dynamics.
  
 Frequency response imbalances are the most likely differences between amps, especially with an AV amp that is designed to be equalized to the room. But equalizing both amps to the same curve (or EQing one to match the other)  should produce identical results. That's why earlier I asked you to try adjusting the tone controls on the Onkyo to see if you could match the sound of the mono blocks. (I'm assuming you don't know how to use the equalizer built into the amp).
  
 The Onkyo has a ton of tone adjustments that the mono blocks don't. You need to work in the menus a bit and figure out how to set all those settings so it produces the same output as the "one size fits all" setting of the mono blocks.
  
 P.S. Was your test double blind?


----------



## Kdavis71

So basically, I won't be able to tell a difference unless I know what differences there could be and what differences to listen for?


----------



## bigshot

Without knowing what you are listening for, it's very difficult to set up a test that compares apples to apples. If the Onkyo was a basic amp, without all the AV settings, it would be a lot easier to set up the test. But unless you've gone through all the menus and determined how to set it to match the mono blocks, it isn't a straight test.
  
 When you understand the terms used to describe sound, and know the common reasons why an amp might deviate in one way or the other, it's a lot easier to chase down problems with your testing procedure and determine why there is a difference.
  
 Why is actually more important than If in this case. I can take two amps, one of which has the treble attenuated and can say that one sounds muffled. But that doesn't mean that the amps sound different. They're just set differently.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> 1dB can definitely make a difference in perception of dynamics and frequency response. Level matching is the hardest part of any A/B comparison.
> 
> Soundstage is a function of microphone placement, the mix and your room acoustics. An amp can't affect that unless it's defective and has tons of crosstalk between channels.
> 
> ...


 
 In principle, you are right.
  
 In practice, amps DO influence sonics. I thought that channel separation of 90 dB 20Hz-20kHz was enough, that any further improvemnt will bring nothing.
 Boy, was I wrong. I went from approx 90 dB to approx 100 dB (or more, could no longer see the crosstalk on the oscilloscope ). It WILL NOT show up on A/B test - because the switch/difference is too small in duration. After listening to a "90 dB separation" amp and switching to a "100 dB separation" amp , long term impression is one of simply more close to the sound heard live - tiny details we tend to glaze over in quick A/B ing emerge, and they are sorely missed when going back to "only 90 dB separation" amp. 
  
 In truly critical positions, I insist on dual monaural approach. Although NOT to the degree/extent of one stereo preamp from Mark Levinson - SIX boxes, phono, line, power supply, duplicated for stereo - the whole preamp had exactly 4 controls, volume control and input selector/each channel - NO on/off switch, it was on if plugged into the wall outlet.
  
 I ALWAYS tend to listen to the long term effects of so small diferences as described above while doing the chores, like dusting. etc. If it does feel overall more natural, comfortable, etc while listening in a totally relaxed mode, it IS better.
  
 I am certainly not against A/Bing, precise level matching, etc - but it is not the ultimate indicator whether the device under test is truly superior or not. No prospective buyer in the market for new violin ( or any other instrument ) is likely to decide between two comparable instruments in A/B lasting only few minutes...


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> I am certainly not against A/Bing, precise level matching, etc - but it is not the ultimate indicator whether the device under test is truly superior or not. No prospective buyer in the market for new violin ( or any other instrument ) is likely to decide between two comparable instruments in A/B lasting only few minutes...


 
  
 No one says A/B tests have to last for only a few minutes. But level matching, direct switching, and blind comparisons all prevent incorrect conclusions that are very easy to fall prey to. I don't believe that there is a human on earth who can consistently identify the difference between channel separation of 90dB and 100dB at normal listening levels in a fair test. But remove the blindfold, don't accurately balance line levels, multitask while performing the test, and don't compare directly with an A/B switch and I bet there are a lot of human beings who THINK they can.
  
 Again, it's about understanding how to describe and quantify sound... understanding what various frequencies sound like and how big a dB is. If you are listening to music with a peak level of 70dB, how can you possibly hear crosstalk 90dB down? If you turn the volume up enough to hear 90dB over a 30dB room tone, you are into the territory of the threshold of pain. That just plain doesn't make sense if you know what those numbers mean.
  
 The theory of it makes no sense + uncontrolled testing procedures = incorrect conclusion


----------



## jcx

no, basically when "just listening" for a difference your brain will more often than not perceive differences - we seem to be strongly biased to create these correlations even when the input is objectively random - like "magic thinking", superstitions
  
 this is in part because the relatively few bits of information in conscious perception is is way removed from the flood of data coming in on the tens of thousands of auditory nerve fibers - your brain has processed it way below conscious perception, throwing in everything possible - including your beliefs about the equipment
 this is not subject to "intellectual honesty", you can't just decide to turn off the processing and just evaluate the sensory input - if you are human
  
 that is why the Science of Perceptual Psychology is deeply committed to Blind testing, and removing all known clues except the variable being tested - small level differences have been proven to be heard - even though the listeners couldn't identify one as louder at the smaller fractional dB differences
  
  
 focus and training do come into the sensory discrimination equation - you can miss some features if concentrating on others, you can learn to make fine distinctions of some things with practice
  
 but you need to control for all other "clues" to make valid listening tests - and learn to deal with the fact that much audiophile accepted "wisdom" simply can't be verified in controlled tests - you can reject true "ears only" evidence or decide to live in the socially constructed marketing pushed "audiophool"  bubble


----------



## bufferoverflow

elmoe said:


> I'm real happy you joined head-fi so you could come in here and start name calling other members whose DBT don't match your notions. It really makes doing this whole ordeal for the benefit of others worthwhile
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


> And no, a 1dB difference will not show any significant difference in soundstage, that's just a ridiculous claim.


 
 He got what he flame-baited for ..
 But of course, I'm the bad guy for pointing out the indisputable fact that a level-mismatch greater than 0.2dB IS audible ..


----------



## bufferoverflow

> If you are listening to music with a peak level of 70dB, how can you possibly hear crosstalk 90dB down?
> If you turn the volume up enough to hear 90dB over a 30dB room tone, you are into the territory of the threshold of pain.


 
 OH my God, please stop with all this ridiculous 'science' and stuff ..
 I FEEL in my gut that it's better !


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> No one says A/B tests have to last for only a few minutes. But level matching, direct switching, and blind comparisons all prevent incorrect conclusions that are very easy to fall prey to. I don't believe that there is a human on earth who can consistently identify the difference between channel separation of 90dB and 100dB at normal listening levels in a fair test. But remove the blindfold, don't accurately balance line levels, multitask while performing the test, and don't compare directly with an A/B switch and I bet there are a lot of human beings who THINK they can.
> 
> Again, it's about understanding how to describe and quantify sound... understanding what various frequencies sound like and how big a dB is. If you are listening to music with a peak level of 70dB, how can you possibly hear crosstalk 90dB down? If you turn the volume up enough to hear 90dB over a 30dB room tone, you are into the territory of the threshold of pain. That just plain doesn't make sense if you know what those numbers mean.
> 
> The theory of it makes no sense + uncontrolled testing procedures = incorrect conclusion


 
 To be blunt - it was with stock and modified amplifier of the same type, with levels matched to within a scope trace - and you just can not patch all the connections for a true A/B - or at least I do not have that capability. Listening was done at the upper extreme for a normal level listening - nothing out of ordinary, say peak of 100 dB. 
 With headphones - to exclude room noise.  It could also be done in the middle of the night with speakers - provided no neighbours in the vicinity.
  
 That IS LOUD - symphonic orchestra rarely approaches this figure at a typical listening position. Amplified music is entirely different matter, but recently there is a trend for quality PA regardless limited maximum SPLs - finally.
  
 It was VERY interesting to observe the difference in overall sound of moving coil pre-preamplifier - or precisely said, the power supply for the said pre-preamp. Although I did use extraordinary phono cartridge with over 40 dB channel separation across midrange and stll not exceeding 30 dB at 20 kHz, and the channel separation should be limited by the cartridge, it DID sound quite markedly different with dual mono configuration. I bet if running a graph there would be both times the same - channel separation of the cartridge. Yet the sound as heard was much better with separate power supplies. Levels are inherently matched in this scenario - cartridge and pre-preamp gain remain constant. You just can not control an experiment better than this.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> To be blunt - it was with stock and modified amplifier of the same type, with levels matched to within a scope trace - and you just can not patch all the connections for a true A/B - or at least I do not have that capability. Listening was done at the upper extreme for a normal level listening - nothing out of ordinary, say peak of 100 dB.
> With headphones - to exclude room noise.  It could also be done in the middle of the night with speakers - provided no neighbours in the vicinity.


 
  
 Was your test done blind? How many times were you able to discern which one was which?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Was your test done blind? How many times were you able to discern which one was which?


 
 No. You can not perform A/B switching of moving coil cartridge signal levels without introducing more problems than different power supplies can cause. These pre-preamps also are quiet enough that for the best performance regarding picking up hum field from nearby equipment, that they require exactly the same phisycal positioning - and two objects can not be at the same time in the same spot.
  
These differences are admittedly small - but they are consistent in the long run. If listened to the better incarnation of this pre-preamp for say over a weekend, after which it is replaced by the worse version (power supply only), there is an immediate reaction: Where did the precision/You are there sensation go ?
  
I have a friend to whom I have been telling similar for ages - and it was trough one ear in, out trough another - for YEARS - UNTIL he heard my equipment first at my place, than in his own system. Needless to say, he does have the same integrated amp modified by me first heard in my system at his place now - along with several other satisfied customers. 
  
This integrated amp has seen improvement to everything - not just channel separation.  The first reaction of friend's wife while at the door entering their flat, after hearing the sound this amp produces, with memory of the stock unit sound :
  
*What *did you do !?!  
  
And she is a normal human being, not an audiophile by any stretch of imagination. 
  
Differences that big do not require blind A/B testing ... - she possibly could not have predicted what equipment was playing at the other side of the flat - could she ?


----------



## analogsurviver

ethanwiner said:


> How is that different from reversing the polarity after the fact during playback?
> Why do you believe this? Do you have any Wave files or FFT graphs or oscilloscope images that show PCM can't capture transients whose rise times equate to 20 KHz?
> 
> Again, I look forward to hearing one or two files you post that sound different when the polarity is reversed.
> ...


 
 It is no different, whenever is the polarity inverted in the absolute sense.
  
 It can be practically inverted many times in either the recording and/or reproducing chain; as long as the listener is presented with the correct absolute polarity, it is OK.
 This is done because sometimes various electrical circuits that do offer other advantages ( lower noise...) are used despite being absolute polarity inverting. 
  
 From decades of experience listening to phono cartridges/records it clearly emerged that reasonably flat response well past 20 kHz is required - it produces FAR more conviencing soundstage with recordings that did capture it. DSD128 is the first digital format capable of usable resolution to record the performance of phono cartridges on the most acid test, the square wave response. Any PCM up to 192/24 will distort the fine high frequency/time detail of the better cartridges to the point it can not no longer be distinguishable between two very similar cartridges/ styli. I will be publishing these photos from ANALOG display ( digital storage in Tektronix scope basically giulty of the same as PCM - it IS PCM !!! ) in Turntable Setup  thread
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/613136/turntable-setup-questions-thread-dont-start-a-new-thread-ask-your-question-here
 as a part of the forthcoming posts on phono cartridge electrical loading. There will be plenty of those - please allow some time, as the whole process will take quite some time and I do not want readers to jump to the wrong conclusion by looking at the very first picture pulled out of context.
  
 The differences among different phono cartridge designs will be presented, along with VERY SHORT music samples( because of copyright reasons ) in DSD128. For the correct impression, native DSD128 playback is mandatory. I will also give 48/24 PCM version of the same short DSD128 clips for those without native DSD playback capability - but these can not tell the true story to the full. 
  
 Please note that I consider DSD128 the very first usable digital audio format - like the Yugo was the lowest quality usable car. ( And what little Yugos did hit the USA shores, were spiffed up fully loaded models, unless more bare bones models available in what used to be Yugoslavia ).


----------



## analogsurviver

To those interested in comparing the PCM vs DSD, Channel Classics is offering free downloads of samples
 http://www.channelclassics.com/try-it-now
 in PCM as FLACs 44.1/ 96/192 kHz and DSD64 ( and ocassionally DSD 5 channel ) - including the front page and booklet . 
  
 You can use Korg Audiogate software not only to convert from DSD to PCM (and vice versa, if required ) - but to use it as a player.
 http://www.korguser.net/audiogate/en/download.html
With rather recently added High Quality as opposed to initially offered Light Load option , it became a truly superb sounding player on PC platform - I *guess* its Mac version is no worse. Same DSD file played by latest versions of Korg Audiogate do sound better than say DFF plugin for the latest Foobar 2000.  Both will convert to PCM - for full DSD quality, DSD DAC is required.
  
As full Audiogate is limited by the need to own a Korg MR series recorder or using Tweeter account for the authorization, there is now only player available for free : http://www.korg.com/us/news/2014/0203/
  
 P.S: Sorry - just read authorization/activation by Tweeter acount is no longer supported. Player without using Korg MR series product will also perform in Light Load mode only - giving equal sonics as Foobar 2000.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Differences that big do not require blind A/B testing


 
  
 Are you talking about a big difference when you say you could hear a difference between -90dB and -100dB crosstalk? That was the comparison that I was asking about.
  
 Expectation bias affects everyone. But it's much more likely in a person who has their ego invested in hearing things other people can't (i.e.: audiophiles) than in regular people. I would say that blind testing is probably more important for you and I than an average person. Especially since being honest and accurate about what we hear is more important to us.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> From decades of experience listening to phono cartridges/records it clearly emerged that reasonably flat response well past 20 kHz is required - it produces FAR more conviencing soundstage with recordings that did capture it.


 
  
 People who do audio restoration of older recordings have a psychoacoustic trick to prevent recordings with limited high frequency information from sounding muffled. They introduce a little bed of low level, high frequency hiss. The ears hear the hiss and don't miss the lack of high end as much. A severely band limited 78 sounds a lot better with a bed of hiss than clean.
  
 That's what is going on with your phono cartridge. The LP itself probably has little or no actual signal above 16kHz or so. But a cartridge that reproduces the surface noise in the upper frequencies tricks your ear into thinking it's hearing frequencies that aren't really there. All of it is probably in the range of 16kHz or lower. A cartridge rated to 20kHz probably starts rolling off the high end well below that limit.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> It is no different, whenever is the polarity inverted in the absolute sense. It can be practically inverted many times in either the recording and/or reproducing chain; as long as the listener is presented with the correct absolute polarity, it is OK.


 
  
 What happened to the sample of the trumpet that you said sounded clearly different with reversed polarity than correct? Are you still going to post that for us to hear? I'd be very interested to hear that because I've never been able to hear the difference between different absolute polarities before.


----------



## EthanWiner

analogsurviver said:


> From decades of experience listening to phono cartridges/records it clearly emerged that reasonably flat response well past 20 kHz is required - it produces FAR more conviencing soundstage with recordings that did capture it.




Ah, the old anecdotal evidence. Do this test again in a controlled fashion, and blind, and you'll find that frequencies higher than people can hear have no effect at all on the sound. The notion that ultrasonic frequencies must be captured and reproduced is the hold grail of audiophoolery. If someone could prove this they'd be famous! Alas, although people have tried countless times, no credible evidence has ever emerged that ultrasonics are audible directly, or indirectly as improved "imaging" etc.

As for phonographs and phono cartridges, any potential "benefit" one might wish was true is swamped out by their high levels of distortion and background noise, and wow timing errors literally 1,000 times greater than any digital jitter.

--Ethan


----------



## ferday

analogsurviver said:


> To those interested in comparing the PCM vs DSD, Channel Classics is offering free downloads of samples
> http://www.channelclassics.com/try-it-now
> in PCM as FLACs 44.1/ 96/192 kHz and DSD64 ( and ocassionally DSD 5 channel ) - including the front page and booklet .
> 
> ...


 
  
 well colour me entertained.  i downloaded the files just for fun (i don't have a DSD DAC, but several different transcoding softwares).
  
 the results were *not* what i expected.  i transcoded the DSD to PCM 24/192 using JRiver, i wish i had a DSD DAC but i'll wait until it actually has music to get   everything was played through the modi (and therefore downsampled to 24/96)
  
 192 v. 44 PCM: 10/10
 192 v. 96 PCM: 6/10
 192 v. DSD transcode: 10/10
  
 well, turns out the DSD (and the consequent transcode) has a much different R128 value, so i had to use replay gain
  
 to me, it was a perceived volume difference (some would say fullness or soundstage but i'm not fooled)
 i did check all the files and the R128, replay gain etc. are pretty much the same (less than 0.5dB) other than the DSD which should be fixed using RG.  normally i can't ABX 192(or lesser) lossless from mp3 320 (or even 256).  me thinks there is something else happening that i'm just not picking up quite yet
  
 anyways fun to play with


----------



## jcx

I put a a pair of polarity test files in the alt.zip over on diyAudio since I can't attach them here
  
  http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/54596-audibility-absolute-phase-5.html#post3841138
  
 also included the LTspice file that generates the .wav
  
 edit: rethought dither and concerned that I may not have LTspice waveform data compression turned off so I reposted as audio.zip in the same diyAudio thread


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> What happened to the sample of the trumpet that you said sounded clearly different with reversed polarity than correct? Are you still going to post that for us to hear? I'd be very interested to hear that because I've never been able to hear the difference between different absolute polarities before.


 
 That recording of trumpet sample(s) will take place on March 9, 2014. It will be posted a few days after that.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> People who do audio restoration of older recordings have a psychoacoustic trick to prevent recordings with limited high frequency information from sounding muffled. They introduce a little bed of low level, high frequency hiss. The ears hear the hiss and don't miss the lack of high end as much. A severely band limited 78 sounds a lot better with a bed of hiss than clean.
> 
> That's what is going on with your phono cartridge. The LP itself probably has little or no actual signal above 16kHz or so. But a cartridge that reproduces the surface noise in the upper frequencies tricks your ear into thinking it's hearing frequencies that aren't really there. All of it is probably in the range of 16kHz or lower. A cartridge rated to 20kHz probably starts rolling off the high end well below that limit.


 
 Actually, that can be the case with restorations of 78s.
  
 LP itself DOES have quite a healthy output at 20 kHz ( and above ). I just played some of my DSD recordings of various LPs using Foobar 2000 that also features spectrum analyzer. Better recordings do show output at 20 kHz, CLEARLY in beat with the music, NOT random noise, with the average peak level approx - 40 dB to the maximum in the midrange/bass - according to the music. These levels are quite comparable with CD; in the early days of CD, magazines used to publish the difference in spectrum of LP and its CD counterpart in record reviews - and differences were a few dBs, mainly in the bass, where tracking ability of the cartridge and lenght of time per side of a LP dictated compromises - less so in the treble.
  
 Probably in cartridge frequency response will not do it. It can be precisely measured, at least to within the tolerances among various test records; that is a couple of dBs either way, but decent cartridges have no trouble reaching and exceedeing 50 kHz. It is possible to accurately measure the frequency response to approx 67 kHz using test records recorded at 33 1/3 RPM with signals up to 50 kHz - by playing it back at 45 RPM. Needless to say, only the best carts need to apply; most will have severe troubles up to 50 kHz, let alone 67 or so... - an inferiour cartridge will destroy high frequency signal of the test record in a single play...
  
 Unfortunately, the best ones are no longer available - for decade(s).  It is true that the higher in frequency one goes, the higher is distortion of phono cartridge. There were a handful of truly excelent designs that could maintain both frequency response and exceedingly low distortion to at least 40 kHz - but I will not name them, as they are nowadays soooo rarely available for sale that any more positive feedback would simply drive the already high prices into the stratosphere. There are much more prospective buyers than cartridges available as it is, no compounding of this problem necessary. 
  
 The main attribute of a truly extended response with very low or no deviation from linear cartridge is - freedom from the vinyl noise, particularly ticks and pops.  Records themselves do not noise, most of the noise we perceive as such is the result of mechanical resonances - from stylus tip to the subchassis and/or plinth of the turntable. The same LP can be perceived as noisy or completely benign as far as noise is concerned - depends what is used to play it.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> LP itself DOES have quite a healthy output at 20 kHz ( and above ). I just played some of my DSD recordings of various LPs using Foobar 2000 that also features spectrum analyzer. Better recordings do show output at 20 kHz, CLEARLY in beat with the music


 
  
 Probably noise caused by groove wear or distortion in the original cutting. 20kHz sound only exists in cymbal and triangle hits, and even then it's masked by the much louder lower harmonics and fundamental. If it exists in music at all, it would be spread out with long gaps of no super audible frequencies between just the right cymbal crash. If it follows the beat, it is almost certainly distortion, not signal.
  
 Very high frequencies made for very delicate groove modulations, particularly in inner grooves. After a few playings, they would turn to distorted mush. That's why most LPs have a rolled off high end, giving that "warm vinyl sound".
  
 Surface noise like ticks and pops most definitely do come from the vinyl itself. A tonearm resonance can only add a few samples of ring off to the tick or pop, making it a little harder for digital declickers to remove.
  
 You're talking in an area that is one of my specialties now.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Are you talking about a big difference when you say you could hear a difference between -90dB and -100dB crosstalk? That was the comparison that I was asking about.
> 
> Expectation bias affects everyone. But it's much more likely in a person who has their ego invested in hearing things other people can't (i.e.: audiophiles) than in regular people. I would say that blind testing is probably more important for you and I than an average person. Especially since being honest and accurate about what we hear is more important to us.


 
 -90dB and -100dB crosstalk difference is not that audible at first; it is best appreciated only after listening for extended period to 100db device and then switching back to 90 dB one. 
  
 So fine perceptions are comparable to listening at concerts. No experienced performer will put the composition he or she wants to present to the audience in the best light possible at the very beginning of a concert - there will be those arriving late ( caught in traffic, etc ) , with mind still fixed "did I park the car in the zone allowed for parking or not " - and not on music itself. It takes about 5-10 minutes to an average person to "calm down" and starts to truly follow the music - and experienced performers will put some "warm up music" at the beginning of the concert. Similar is with 90 and 100 dB separation devices - quick A/B will most likely not tell you anything, because you have not yet reached the concentration etc necessary. 
  
 Whenever possible, I do use blind testing. But you can not always get another person to switch the gear for you while developing the final version of the modification for any audio device - not n times in a row - where n is quickly approaching high double figure.  There are practical limitations to this, unfortunately.


----------



## bigshot

I am concerned about your hearing. If you are spending long periods of time listening to music at extreme volumes to hear noise down at -90dB your ears have to be thrashed by now. Take care of your hearing.
  
 Blind testing is required. Find a friend to help. I think you are quite a bit more susceptible than most to expectation bias.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Probably noise caused by groove wear or distortion in the original cutting. 20kHz sound only exists in cymbal and triangle hits, and even then it's masked by the much louder lower harmonics and fundamental. If it exists in music at all, it would be spread out with long gaps of no super audible frequencies between just the right cymbal crash. If it follows the beat, it is almost certainly distortion, not signal.
> 
> Very high frequencies made for very delicate groove modulations, particularly in inner grooves. After a few playings, they would turn to distorted mush. That's why most LPs have a rolled off high end, giving that "warm vinyl sound".
> 
> Surface noise like ticks and pops most definitely do come from the vinyl itself. A tonearm resonance can only add a few samples of ring off to the tick or pop, making it a little harder for digital declickers to remove.


 
 I would love to have analog master tape, pressed analog record and digital "whatever" of the same recording - and compare those. 
  
 I agree that fundamentals are much lower in frequency and much higher in amplitude - even in cymbal and triangle. But harmonisc should follow the beat.
  
 I agree very high frequency make for a very delicate groove modulation - and that "average" equipment unfortunately turns them into distorted mush - particularly in the inner grooves. However, using available technology, not the generally no longer available one from the 80's (when there was peak in phono playback equipment quality ), it is possible to all but eliminate these effects.  But it is absolutely incorrect that these effects cause warm vinyl sound - wear and tear on vinyl records INCREASE high frequency response and add distortion, making treble more prominent and in extreme cases harsh - most definitely not warm.
  
 Surface ticks and pops can get extremely suppresed by the correct choice of materials - starting with cantilever of the cartridge>suspension>generator>mechanical interface of cartridge to tonearm>tonearm headshell>tonearm tube>tonearm bearings/tonearm base - etc, etc.  The use of stone materials for cantilevers, such as sapphire, ruby and diamond, is NOT a gimmick - Dynavector used to offer both ruby cantilevered Karat cartridge (at lower cost) and diamond cantilevered one (at higher cost). There is marked difference between the two - and it is also evident that diamond one is MUCH quieter in the groove. All other things but cantilever material being equal. Ruby cart is now long history, but DV17D3, as the latest incarnation of Karat Diamond is called, is still going strong - after 35 years since the original DV100D made its debut in 1979.
  
 One can always tell which cart is better - by listening to the "needle talk"  when playing back a vynil record, without the turntable connected to the rest of the system.
 The one that is the quietest will always win...


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> I would love to have analog master tape, pressed analog record and digital "whatever" of the same recording - and compare those.


 
  
 I had that opportunity. A record I produced way back when was released on both vinyl and CD. We recorded on 24 track tape. The CD sounded exactly like the master. The record didn't. Not surprising because we output the master to 4 track ADAT, and the ADAT sounded exactly the same.
  
 The way to minimize pops and clicks is to adjust the stylus tip size and shape to slide in under the band of groove wear. The tonearm and base of the turntable have very little to do with it.


----------



## Eternal Schism

Can anyone in this thread shed some light on if an amplifier of 2000 mW at 50ohms would be enough to drive the Hifiman HE-6 easily. I've heard the claims by owners that you need some extremely beefy 20V swing or 10W power for it. Objectively this is untrue right?
  
 Headphone sensitivity, sound science newb here,


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I had that opportunity. A record I produced way back when was released on both vinyl and CD. We recorded on 24 track tape. The CD sounded exactly like the master. The record didn't. Not surprising because we output the master to 4 track ADAT, and the ADAT sounded exactly the same.
> 
> The way to minimize pops and clicks is to adjust the stylus tip size and shape to slide in under the band of groove wear. The tonearm and base of the turntable have very little to do with it.


 
 I believe that was true in your case. Analog master tape gone trough 44.1 (CD) or 48 ( DAT ) kHz 16 bit PCM  should shrink the soundstage, if nothing else.
  
 The problem might or might not have been 24 track analog recording and mastering down to 4 / 2 channels .  It is VERY easy to lose the spatial cues this way; Sheffield once did a (direct to disk?) recording of the same music (symphonic orchestra) both with multimiked and pure 2 microphone techniques to illustrate the point of importance of microphone placement; it would not matter in the slightest whether the multimiked session was recorded with "anything" - by the time signal gets to the actual recorder, it is all over with accuracy. So what you described hints at most probably multimiked recording and analog record mastering (to be precise - CUTTING THE LACQUER ) done with less-than-stellar results. I know it is a VERY high order to produce a good sounding analog masterring - in analog days, the original mastering engineer was always proudly noted in the credit section.
  
I *wish* I had the opportunity to try working with lathe etc - but in economic climate over here, it is not possible - even in the wildest dreams. Thec closest our country came to actually have the record lathe capability was in the early/mid 80s - the latest Neumann VMS 80 system was delivered, but never installed - and was sold with factory seals still intact.
  
That is why I am using DSD - because it is, by FAR, the most analogue-ish sounding of all digital I am familiar with ; only DXD I have yet to experience. I will describe, in great detail and from any angle I see fit, what I can hear with DSD that can not be had with PCM - in a thread " vinyl ripping vs CD" (or something like that ) - because I promised it there and the course of life prevented me to devote to writing that post with the dedication deserved. It will be soon - time permitting .


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> I believe that was true in your case. Analog master tape gone trough 44.1 (CD) or 48 ( DAT ) kHz 16 bit PCM  should shrink the soundstage, if nothing else.


 
  
 No, you missed what I said... when we bumped the final analogue 24 track mix to digital, it sounded *identical*. Exactly the same. No special processing or mastering needed. When it was mastered for LP, they had to compress it a bit and roll off some of the top end to make it work on vinyl. The vinyl version was by necessity full of compromises.
  
 I would NEVER go back to recording to 24 track tape and releasing on vinyl. It was a royal pain in the butt to keep it sounding good. There were always compromises to be made for the medium. The projects I've done on digital were much easier and cleaner sounding, and we had a lot more flexibility.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> No, you missed what I said... when we bumped the final analogue 24 track mix to digital, it sounded *identical*. Exactly the same. No special processing or mastering needed. When it was mastered for LP, they had to compress it a bit and roll off some of the top end to make it work on vinyl. The vinyl version was by necessity full of compromises.
> 
> I would NEVER go back to recording to 24 track tape and releasing on vinyl. It was a royal pain in the butt to keep it sounding good. There were always compromises to be made for the medium. The projects I've done on digital were much easier and cleaner sounding, and we had a lot more flexibility.


 
 I know the limitations of analog disc - few people have heard how well done analog CASSETTE can sound.
  
 I could never make 44.1/16 kHz PCM sound anything like good cassette master. It may well sound I lost my marbles while laying such a claim, but then again, most people never heard last generation of cassete decks.
 Add superb tape (Sony Metal Master) and good noise reduction - and you are  2-3 dB short of 90 dB  dynamic range, bass that puts to shame any open reel recorder ever made - and , if the last unnecessary filtering is removed, an open sounding top end most would for the life never suspected it is coming from tape run at 4.75 cm/sec .
  
 I agree, that kind of dynamic range and bass is impossible on disc, save for extremely brief 45 RPM recordings.
  
 In that sense, digital is superiour. DSD unites this freedom from dynamic range constraints with openess at the top - something no PCM, particularly 44.1/16, is capable of. As noted several times before - not compared to another recorder, compared to live microphone feed. It simply sounds the most alike - not perfect, but closer than anything else.
  
 Analog disc, if done at half speed, can best any PCM and rival DSD in the treble. Analog disc mastered at half speed is normally capable of sounding better than the master tape, which has to be played back in real time.
  
 Trough careful squeezing the maximum out of any medium it is possible to make outstanding recordings. But I agree, analog is much more hassle and unfortunately is not equally reliable as digital.  Sometimes, it IS much more important to make ANY recording than risking it that analog would decide to malfunction at the only "take" available.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Analog disc, if done at half speed, can best any PCM and rival DSD in the treble. Analog disc mastered at half speed is normally capable of sounding better than the master tape, which has to be played back in real time.


 
  
 Nope. Not even close. Digital and 24 track trounces half speed mastered LPs on every parameter... frequency response, distortion, dynamics, wow and flutter, noise floor.... I don't know where you get that idea from. It sure isn't true. And if you can't make redbook sound as good as a cassette, you're doing something wrong.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Nope. Not even close. Digital and 24 track trounces half speed mastered LPs on every parameter... frequency response, distortion, dynamics, wow and flutter, noise floor.... I don't know where you get that idea from. It sure isn't true. And if you can't make redbook sound as good as a cassette, you're doing something wrong.


 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Fidelity_Sound_Lab
  
 http://www.enjoythemusic.com/Magazine/rickerinterview/
  
 Comparing half speed mastered LPs (sadly too few ...) with their real time cut counterparts.
  
 Frank Zappa was not particularly thrilled by Stan Ricker's half speed mastering of Joe's Garage; I have both original SR 1/2speed mastering on CBS as well as later digitally remastered real time cutting version - and they complement each other nicely; analog 1/2 speed is fine, nice, gentle, airy, digitallly remastered adds solid foundation of bass sadly lacking in 1/2 speed version - for the price of top no longer being that extended and fine, but surprisingly, adds a bit of dynamics in treble, too. 
  
 I am sorry I can not *somehow * squeeze that missing "top" into PC and send it over for listening. Once heard, you would immediatelly understand what I find wrong with digital - trouble is, it takes equipment, from the microphone to the crossover in the speakers, that can pass this quality intact.  No studio I have had the privilege to hear has been transparent enough to allow for  this - yet. I can perfectly understand why you find 44.1/16 "enough" - on most studio quality equipment, it is - enough, that is.
  
 I had both the privilege and lifetime curse, if you will, by being able to audition Beveridge 2SW speakers.  If you are after natural sound of unamplified instrumenrs and voices, that ( or its succesors, now built by the late inventor's son ) are THE speakers to use. If audio enginners were forced to use anything at least comparable for mastering and not what is usually in the studios, we would  have had much better recordings - decades ago. And the pressure to come up with something better than the red book would have been enough to make it happen.
  
 Wishes and aspirations are one thing, reality in the marketplace unfortunately another.


----------



## EthanWiner

analogsurviver said:


> -90dB and -100dB crosstalk difference is not that audible at first; it is best appreciated only after listening for extended period to 100db device and then switching back to 90 dB one.




I'm with bigshot on this. Even if you played music at earsplitting levels you'd never reliably tell one amount of crosstalk from another because both are way too soft to hear. Again, if only you would do a proper test you'll learn at what levels you can hear artifacts such as distortion and crosstalk. Crosstalk especially needs to be _much_ louder than -90 before it's audible.

--Ethan


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Comparing half speed mastered LPs (sadly too few ...) with their real time cut counterparts.


 
  
 We were talking about half speed mastered vinyl vs redbook CD. Redbook is perfectly capable of being audibly transparent when compared to the original master, no matter what format it is.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> We were talking about half speed mastered vinyl vs redbook CD. Redbook is perfectly capable of being audibly transparent when compared to the original master, no matter what format it is.


 
 *sigh* - THAT is the core of our disagreement. 
  
 Basically, you are comparing the master, in whatever format it is, to the redbook CD. Basically, I am comparing the live microphone feed to ANY master(recorder). 
  
 I worked *H.A.R.D. *- for about a decade - to come up with the recording technique that eschews any manipulation of the microphone feed ( NEVER used a mixing desk, for example - in fact the last time I touched a slider on one of those things it was perhaps a quarter of century ago; let alone any "mastering" in the traditional sense ) - and naturally, then I demand a recorder that will do this techniqie as much justice as possible.
  
 And it is: microphone feed>(analog)>DSD128>DSD64>PCM 192/24>PCM 96/24>PCM 48/24>PCM 44.1/16 . You can A/B, levels matched to 0.01 dB (or less, if you have the equipment precise enough to do it - mine allows for about 0.1 dB  ) till hell freezes over - and should not come up with different conclusion. (Analog) is debatable - it can be direct to disc, open reel recorder, cassette recorder, with or without noise reduction - but digital stands. Each digital with less resolution will take away a portion of immediacy, timing, sense of space ( in width, depth and - height ); in short - detail, turning live sound quality into ever less alive digital sample thereof.
  
 The end of the road for me is redbook CD; unfortunately, it IS de facto standard for music delivery these days, most real world people do not have access to and/or playback capability of SACD or analog records. Or HiRez files - but at least this is changing fast. Musicians demand CD - because of all the above. The light at the end of this tunnel is represented by HiRez digital downloads, particularly DSD.  They will grow in the future in number; but it has to be understood, DSD can not deliver its true potential if it is essentially older recording done in analog - and specially if the master really was redbook CD. It takes full DSD that NEVER saw any manipulation, necessitating conversion to PCM for editing etc - and then conversion back to DSD, to trully appreciate its capabilities.
  
 Microphone (techniques) and musicians good ( and bold ....) enough to be capable of and willing to issue such recordings should prove to be a tough nut to crack. Taken to the extreme,  *if* I , who can not play any instrument, was rich, theorethically I could take a few music lessons and pluck some piano (or whatever), have it recorded - and then find ( and pay well ... ) some mastering wizzard that will in the end produce a "correct" sounding recording -
 but that will neither be me - or naturally sounding.


----------



## Seifer01

From The Fly. When Brundle cooks two halves of a steak... I think of this as a Vinyl vs CD, analogue vs digital analogy 

BRUNDLE
Eat this. I need an objective opinion. Yes?

VERONICA
Well, it could use some Finesse, but it tastes like a steak.

BRUNDLE
Okay, Now try this, teleported half.

VERONICA
Are you serious? A monkey just came apart in there!

BRUNDLE
Baboon. Eat.

VERONICA
Ohh, it tastes funny.

BRUNDLE
Funny how?

VERONICA
It tastes, synthetic. So what have we proved?

BRUNDLE
The computer is giving us it's interpretation of a steak.
It's translating it for us, it's re-thinking it rather than
reproducing it, and something's getting lost in the
translation.

I could be wrong but isn't analogue "real", and digital a really good "impersonation"?


----------



## James-uk

seifer01 said:


> From The Fly. When Brundle cooks two halves of a steak... I think of this as a Vinyl vs CD, analogue vs digital analogy
> 
> BRUNDLE
> Eat this. I need an objective opinion. Yes?
> ...



Digital is such a good impersonation no human ear can tell the difference . That steak was sent through a fictional teleport in a movie .


----------



## Seifer01

james-uk said:


> Digital is such a good impersonation no human ear can tell the difference . That steak was sent through a fictional teleport in a movie .




Yeah a good impersonation but are there undefinables when listening to anologue? A certain essence that is missing from digital?
Many people after hearing vinyl for the first time have said "it just sounds more real". That says something to me.


----------



## upstateguy

bufferoverflow said:


> OH my God, please stop with all this ridiculous 'science' and stuff ..
> I FEEL in my gut that it's better !


 
  
 Great quote!  Do you mind if I use it in my Sig?


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Basically, you are comparing the master, in whatever format it is, to the redbook CD. Basically, I am comparing the live microphone feed to ANY master(recorder).


 
  
 How do you feed live microphones to a half speed LP cutting lathes? That is completely impossible. Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Most of it makes no sense to me, and when I ask for clarification, it drifts to completely different subjects that make no sense.


----------



## bigshot

seifer01 said:


> I could be wrong but isn't analogue "real", and digital a really good "impersonation"?


 
  
 Why are magnetic patterns on a strip of acetate any more real than digital 0s and 1s? What matters is the fidelity of the recording. CDs cover the entire range of human hearing. Bats may disagree, but that's good enough for me. At the point that a recording medium can contain all the sound we hear, the conversation should turn to creative recording and mixing techniques, not trying to come up with a new medium to capture even more sound we can't hear.


----------



## bigshot

seifer01 said:


> Yeah a good impersonation but are there undefinables when listening to anologue? A certain essence that is missing from digital?


 
  
 What essence? Describe the improvement sound. Then figure out why it sounds better by isolating the variables. Sound reproduction isn't magic. It's pretty easy to understand. You just need to ask the right questions and follow the path of facts to their correct conclusion. Too many people leap from premise to conclusion and ignore every fact that doesn't connect the two.


----------



## Steve Eddy

seifer01 said:


> I could be wrong but isn't analogue "real", and digital a really good "impersonation"?




According to Nyquist, Shannon, and a whole host of other pioneers of information theory, no.

se


----------



## Seifer01

Isn't analogue audio a sound wave, and digital audio jagged steps? 
Analogue flows, while digital stabs?

Analogue is more natural?

I've heard it said that digital recordings hurt some people's ears. Perhaps that's where all the talk of listening fatigue comes from, all that digital "stabbing".

I'm just pondering 

I haven't listened to vinyl for about 23 years or so.


----------



## cjl

seifer01 said:


> Isn't analogue audio a sound wave, and digital audio jagged steps?
> Analogue flows, while digital stabs?
> 
> Analogue is more natural?
> ...


 
 Assuming you're being serious with these questions here, you should watch this video. It demonstrates digital audio very nicely, and why that kind of perception (that so many people seem to have) is incorrect.
  
 http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml


----------



## ferday

seifer01 said:


> Isn't analogue audio a sound wave, and digital audio jagged steps?
> Analogue flows, while digital stabs?
> 
> Analogue is more natural?
> ...




Even the air which transports the sound has 'digital' steps (based on gas content, temperature, etc.). "True analog" does not exist (anywhere in the universe!), it just happens that the resolution of the steps are much smaller than the resolution of our ears to hear them. Analog is recorded using mechanical means onto mechanical devices, which also have resolution limits just like our mechanical ears and the mechanical speakers.
Analog can (can, not does) sound "smoother" because of naturally higher noise floor and harmonic distortion effects. Because digital does not suffer from these it can reproduce the recording EXACTLY, which for some recordings can potentially sound harsh or digitized....but that is information from the recording

When's the last time you went to a live event and thought that it didn't sound real because there were no surface pops/clicks or tape hiss? Analog can be a preference which is fine, but it is not superior for any false reasons of accuracy or natural response, etc


----------



## Steve Eddy

seifer01 said:


> Isn't analogue audio a sound wave, and digital audio jagged steps?
> Analogue flows, while digital?




No. The output of a properly implemented digital system is just as "analogue" as what's coming out of a phono cartridge. The whole "jagged steps" thing comes from a very naive understanding of how digital works. Read up on "reconstruction filter."

se


----------



## mikeaj

I think people get hung up on quantization error for A/D and D/A conversion and other details of essentially what is "error" or "noise" added to the original. Yes, it happens, but so it happens that error is introduced by all the analog parts of the signal chain too. What's important is the quality and quantity of these issues and how that relates to how we hear things.
  
 With respect to jagged steps (that's not how it works; it's just an easy and misleading ways of visualization), it's covered in this video, among other related topics:
 http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml


----------



## Steve Eddy

Ugh. Why couldn't they have done the video in something a little more universal instead of this WebM and Ogg stuff?

se


----------



## EthanWiner

Here it is on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM


----------



## Steve Eddy

Thanks, Ethan.

I was able to watch it, just had to go load it up on my PC. Unless I need to check my company email or do CAD/graphics work, I'm on my iPad these days.

se


----------



## Don Hills

steve eddy said:


> Ugh. Why couldn't they have done the video in something a little more universal instead of this WebM and Ogg stuff?
> 
> se


 
  
 He eats his own dog food (I believe he is one of the developers).


----------



## bufferoverflow

upstateguy said:


> Great quote!  Do you mind if I use it in my Sig?


 

 Be my guest .. I don't claim copyright on things I write on the internet ..
  
 re : -90 and -100dB crosstalk and listening to/for it for extended time :
 I to am seriously concerned for the hearing of people who do that -
 In fact, You have probably already done some damage, get it checked !
  
 Somebody once wrote a great article titled something like :
 'Want better sound ? - Turn down the volume !!'
 The 'idea' being that when you expose your hearing to excessive levels, it will 'defend' itself by lowering it's sensitivity.
 That will obviously NOT lead to better sound and if it happens to often, the sensitivity-lowering becomes permanent .
  
 I'll see if I can find the link and post it if I do ..
  
 BTW : regarding 78's etc and adding some 'hiss' :
 http://www.aphex.com/products/exciter/


----------



## higbvuyb

bufferoverflow said:


> Somebody once wrote a great article titled something like :
> 'Want better sound ? - Turn down the volume !!'
> The 'idea' being that when you expose your hearing to excessive levels, it will 'defend' itself by lowering it's sensitivity.
> That will obviously NOT lead to better sound and if it happens to often, the sensitivity-lowering becomes permanent .


 
 This is an important point. Higher volume (even below dangerous levels) also increases the effect of masking.


----------



## analogsurviver

Please see http://www.head-fi.org/t/253245/what-are-you-listening-to-right-now-new-thread-new-rules-please-read-them/50685#post_10345273
  
 post # 50698


----------



## cswann1

ethanwiner said:


> Here it is on YouTube:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM


 
 Wow.  What a fantastic video. Very informative.
  
 I've never stressed over bit-rates because I've never been able to tell the difference between my Nora Jones - Come Away With Me SACD and the standard redbook. Now I have a solid explanation of why that is, I mean other than the fact that I don't have superduperuberaudiophile hearing.


----------



## analogsurviver

cswann1 said:


> Wow.  What a fantastic video. Very informative.
> 
> I've never stressed over bit-rates because I've never been able to tell the difference between my Nora Jones - Come Away With Me SACD and the standard redbook. Now I have a solid explanation of why that is, I mean other than the fact that I don't have superduperuberaudiophile hearing.


 
 That video cracked me up - like VERY few things can. The exact immediate association, if posted, would get me banned in an instant - but suffice to say is that it is very cunningly hiding ( or completely non-understanding  ? ) what it really is all about. Nothing wrong with the presentation etc - but it IS too superficial and misleading to those who are not familiar enough with measurements and/or audibility of certain parameters on QUALITY audio equipment using QUALITY recordings.
  
 I do not know Nora Jones either on redbook or SACD - getting her firs LP is still something better forgotten sooner than later. It was not a good recording - enjoyabe yes, good - NO.
  
 There is at least one label with consistently high enough sound quality to justify getting AUDIBLY better than CD version. Opus 3 from Sweden. All were  originally recorded to analog tape, using minimalistic microphone setups. Personally, I am the most familiar with the http://www.discogs.com/Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-Music-By-Frank-Zappa/release/1820934 . It exists as original analog LP ( sadly, I was too late to get it at anything resembling sensible price ), CD and lastly, SACD/CD version. 
 It is HORRIBLE how much better the last polycarbonate version sounds compared to initial CD release - even on CD layer.  Switch your player to SACD  - MUCH better still. Opus 3 is now offering DSD downloads of most of its catalog - http://www.opus3records.com/ About half a year or so ago, there were a couple of free DSD downloads available, but I can no longer find them now.
  
 And no, you do not have to "endure" music of Frank Zappa, if that is not exactly your cup of tea - there are other good more accesible selections of music in Opus 3 catalogue, ALL with constantly high sound quality.
  
 Still ( make sure to select 720p resolution for best SQ possible on YT ):
  

  
 More of the same :
  
 
  
*Correction: *free sample DSD track download is still available, click on any of the CSD samplers and follow the instructions. It is Eric Bibb - Meeting at the Building (5.6 MHz)


----------



## Steve Eddy

*sigh*

se


----------



## mikeaj

Care to, uh, expound on what's "hidden" in the presentation in terms of the technical details? Or should I not even ask?


----------



## analogsurviver

mikeaj said:


> Care to, uh, expound on what's "hidden" in the presentation in terms of the technical details? Or should I not even ask?


 
 Of course you are WELCOME to ask.
  
 NO. Not in a short reply. 
  
 But I will do it - thoroughly. I will post the output of the following :
  
 - analog cassette recorder
 - analog HIFI video cassette recorder
 - CD-R recorder ( redbook, 44.1 kHz/16 bit )
 - PCM from 44.1/16bit to 192/24bit - various equipment
 - DSD64 and DSD128 ( with various output filtering )
  
- and COMPARISONS among the above - when presented with a 1 kHz square wave at the input and output as seen on an analog oscilloscope display. Real world machines, not sugarcoated manufacturer's version.
  
Please allow a couple of days to prepare and take pics of everything mentioned - it should give everyone a pretty clear idea why I find redbook inadequate. 
  
I have to ask to get a permission to post (a portion of )  recent DSD128 recording to illustrate the whole point - but will make it available to those in posession of native DSD playback only - via PMs. 
  
Enough/too much is lost if converted to PCM - even if it is 192/24.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> That video cracked me up - like VERY few things can. The exact immediate association, if posted, would get me banned in an instant - but suffice to say is that it is very cunningly hiding ( or completely non-understanding  ? ) what it really is all about. Nothing wrong with the presentation etc - but it IS too superficial and misleading to those who are not familiar enough with measurements and/or audibility of certain parameters on QUALITY audio equipment using QUALITY recordings.


 
 OK, I'll bite. What is it hiding/not understanding, and the audibility of which parameters exactly?
  
 EDIT: I posted this before seeing your latest reply. I am curious to see what exactly it is you claim is inadequate about PCM.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> OK, I'll bite. What is it hiding/not understanding, and the audibility of which parameters exactly?
> 
> EDIT: I posted this before seeing your latest reply. I am curious to see what exactly it is you claim is inadequate about PCM.


 
 Please read the Opus 3 reasoning behind the decision to use DSD - CAREFULLY SO. It is in there - I have not reinvented the wheel, rediscovered America  - or anything of the sort. Merely applying what I have been using in analog equipment for the past 30 or so years - with digital finally (sort of - via DSD) catching up.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> - and COMPARISONS among the above - when presented with a 1 kHz square wave at the input and output as seen on an analog oscilloscope display. Real world machines, not sugarcoated manufacturer's version.
> 
> Please allow a couple of days to prepare and take pics of everything mentioned - it should give everyone a pretty clear idea why I find redbook inadequate.


 
  
 That is, as long as you prefer to "listen" to your music only by looking at it on an oscilloscope. In reality, it is possible for two audio signals to look very different and sound the same (for example, due to phase errors that are the same on both channels, and do not result in significant variation in group delay), or to look almost identical and sound clearly different (e.g. 8-bit quantization or crossover distortion may not look obvious on a low resolution picture of an oscilloscope, let alone with a square wave).
  
 Why not try some ABX testing instead between 192/24 format PCM audio, and a version of it that has been converted to 44.1/16 and then back to the original format ? Preferably post the samples as well, so that it can be verified that the conversions were done properly.


----------



## cjl

Are you referring to this page: http://www.opus3records.com/dsd.html ?
  
 If so, the only real testable claim made is that DSD is superior to PCM in terms of its phase linearity. Aside from that, it's just a bunch of handwaving. As for the phase linearity? PCM doesn't inherently do anything to the phase, if implemented correctly. The antialiasing filter used prior to the sampling however can significantly affect the phase, especially at high frequencies. This is largely solved by oversampling though, which allows for the use of a very simple, well-behaved analog filter with a much shallower slope, followed by a much steeper digital filter once the signal has been digitized at the higher frequency (before subsequent downsampling).


----------



## cjl

stv014 said:


> That is, as long as you prefer to "listen" to your music only by looking at it on an oscilloscope. In reality, it is possible for two audio signals to look very different and sound the same (for example, due to phase errors that are the same on both channels, and do not result in significant variation in group delay), or to look almost identical and sound clearly different (e.g. 8-bit quantization or crossover distortion may not look obvious on a low resolution picture of an oscilloscope, let alone with a square wave).


 
 At the same time, looking at signals on an oscilloscope can be very interesting, if you understand what to look for. As I said before, I'll be curious to see the results (though as you said, it isn't a really good tool to see if the signals are audibly different - a spectrum analyzer would be much better at that task).


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> At the same time, looking at signals on an oscilloscope can be very interesting, if you understand what to look for. As I said before, I'll be curious to see the results (though as you said, it isn't a really good tool to see if the signals are audibly different - a spectrum analyzer would be much better at that task).


 
 I agree regarding oscilloscope vs spectrum analyzer - I would love to have one around.  Maybe in not too distant future ...
  
 But it can be seen on the scope too, if you know what to look for. As PCM uses brick filter, it is almost "digital" difference - signal is either present or absent, making exact quantzation/quality almost academic. As stated above, I would not mind a spectrum anylyzer in my inventory.


----------



## castleofargh

and the dsd version was made from?
 isn't it like saying that a flac version made from my mp3 track is audibly better than the mp3. I doubt that good old frank zappa did the recordings in dsd at the time. so from my point of view all audible differences could only come from remastering, or distortions related to the file format being decoded to analog.
 it looks like what you intend to demonstrate is that 2 different masterings are different, instead of showing that 2supports are different. or maybe I didn't get your explanation?


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> Are you referring to this page: http://www.opus3records.com/dsd.html ?
> 
> If so, the only real testable claim made is that DSD is superior to PCM in terms of its phase linearity. Aside from that, it's just a bunch of handwaving. As for the phase linearity? PCM doesn't inherently do anything to the phase, if implemented correctly. The antialiasing filter used prior to the sampling however can significantly affect the phase, especially at high frequencies. This is largely solved by oversampling though, which allows for the use of a very simple, well-behaved analog filter with a much shallower slope, followed by a much steeper digital filter once the signal has been digitized at the higher frequency (before subsequent downsampling).


 
 Yes.
  
 True.
  
 There is one crucial fly in this ointment - above Nyquist frequency, everything is chopped off in PCM. It is this all-important transient that all is about which is being lost using PCM - AND IT CAN NOT BE RETRIEVED at a later stage. It is possible to fiddle with PCM any number of times and loose nothing AFTER the initial recording - but crucial information  is already lost in the very first PCM.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> Yes.
> 
> True.
> 
> There is one crucial fly in this ointment - above Nyquist frequency, everything is chopped off in PCM. It is this all-important transient that all is about which is being lost using PCM - AND IT CAN NOT BE RETRIEVED at a later stage. It is possible to fiddle with PCM any number of times and loose nothing AFTER the initial recording - but crucial information  is already lost in the very first PCM.


 
 True, but all the information above Nyquist is inaudible, since it's above 22kHz (or, in the case of higher-frequency PCM, above 44, 48, or even 96 kHz).


----------



## mikeaj

What do you want to show with the square wave? Phase shifts? Removal of frequencies above Nyquist? Again, you need to demonstrate that these sound different, not that they look different on the scope. Yes, without infinite sample rate, you're chopping off information, but how much of it is (a) audible and (b) actual musical content you're interested in? Depends on the input and the sampling rate.
  
 Probably the best way to test this is to run something through A/D and D/A (with the dreaded PCM) and see if that sounds different than the original. Current evidence doesn't seem to indicate that people can detect the A/D -> D/A thrown in there, so... maybe you can try and prove otherwise.


----------



## EthanWiner

cjl said:


> the only real testable claim made is that DSD is superior to PCM in terms of its phase linearity.




Even that is dubious. Phase shift per se is inaudible in typical amounts. It's a total non-issue, a bogeyman invented by audiophile magazine writers to explain stuff they don't understand.

--Ethan


----------



## ferday

ethanwiner said:


> Even that is dubious. Phase shift per se is inaudible in typical amounts. It's a total non-issue, a bogeyman invented by audiophile magazine writers to explain stuff they don't understand.
> 
> --Ethan




His point being, at least it's a testable claim. 

It could also be testable for frequency response/cutoff of redbook PCM vs. DSD but after 24/96 PCM even that becomes an untestable claim (unless I am unaware of the common use of ultrasonic microphones)

Sounds like there may be some straws being grasped at, but the apparent willingness to provide "evidence" is interesting at least.


----------



## cjl

ethanwiner said:


> Even that is dubious. Phase shift per se is inaudible in typical amounts. It's a total non-issue, a bogeyman invented by audiophile magazine writers to explain stuff they don't understand.
> 
> --Ethan


 
 I didn't say that they were correct, or that it was a real issue (and in fact, I explained in the next bit of text that you cut off why it isn't an issue), but at least it is a testable claim, instead of the handwaving around about sound stage, stereo picture, attack, and depth of image.


----------



## jcx

very wrong on theory, the official analog low pass reconstruction filter for SACD "true DSD" single bit output is 50 kHz and has to be >5th order to get ahead of the noise shaping, DSD out of band noise rises above the analog full scale by ~ 1 MHz
  
 such analog filters have considerable phase shift and variable group delay
  
 and in actual practice most SACD compatible audio PCM DAC chips today are multibit Sigma-Delta and digitally filter the DSD input to increase bit depth, merge with their internal multibit modulator and digital filters at high internal OS ratio


----------



## esldude

analogsurviver said:


> Of course you are WELCOME to ask.
> 
> NO. Not in a short reply.
> 
> ...


 

 So why are you not including the LP in this comparison?  1 khz square wave should be most interesting.  Then you can show us how it does compared to digital.  Real world machines and all that.


----------



## analogsurviver

esldude said:


> So why are you not including the LP in this comparison?  1 khz square wave should be most interesting.  Then you can show us how it does compared to digital.  Real world machines and all that.


 
 I certainly can do that. But I chose to omit LP in this case - while it will be presented inn the Turntable setup thread.
 It has to be properly shown where are the limitations and where do they come from.  There will be more samples of "LP" square waves than anyone can bargain for - but I want to do it right. With explanations where are the limits of even the best test records ever available - best cartridges certainly can exceed the performance of even the best cutter head in this regard. The output will reflect the true nature of test record - not the inherent
 limitations of the cartridge.
  
 Out of all the other media, LP still enjoys the best response to square waves. There is one (or two) flies in this ointment - cartridges capable of outperforming even DSD on square wave signal are either no longer available - or costly beyond reason. They never were cheap - but top carts from early/mid 80s, while undeniably expensive, still did not burn such a big hole in one's pocket. Not 5 figures, even if adjusted for inflation.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> Out of all the other media, LP still enjoys the best response to square waves.


 
 Surely you're joking with this statement...


----------



## higbvuyb

analogsurviver said:


> - and COMPARISONS among the above - when presented with a 1 kHz square wave at the input and output as seen on an analog oscilloscope display. Real world machines, not sugarcoated manufacturer's version.
> 
> Please allow a couple of days to prepare and take pics of everything mentioned - it should give everyone a pretty clear idea why I find redbook inadequate.


 
 I use my _ears_ to _listen_ to music. You will have to demonstrate why the appearance of square waves should be relevant to what I hear.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> Surely you're joking with this statement...


 
 Absolutely not. 
  
 That is why I would like to present the issues with turntable square waves - once undersatood what is/was engraved in the groove and how that should look like on an oscilloscope, there is no other conclusion possible.
  
 Sure wish JVC made their in-house test records ( NEVER made available to any third party ) used for the development of CD-4 cartridges ( best of which was EXTREMELY well behaved beyond 60 kHz - in 1976 or so (!)  ) available at least to the professional market. They were cut at 1/10th of real time RPMs ... - making possible to test carts for pulse, which is better yet to establish transient behavuiour of cartridges than using square wave.
  
CBS STR 112 is the most prolific and de facto standard in square wave test records.  Very few are aware of its sucessor, the CBS CTC 310. They give markedly different response with any cartridge with sufficient bandwidth to allow these differences to come trough. Neither of these two records is "perfect" - but taken together it is possible to speculate what the cartridges are actually doing. If the clear, consistently repeatable pattern emerges using a large group of cartridges, the culprit must be the test record(s).
  
Like I said before, better/best cartridges exceed the test records in this regard without a single drop of sweat. Specs for cutter heads and cartridges are certain to back up this conclusion.
  
It is only because of these reasons I chose to omit square wave response from the LP in survey proposed above. Reader without sufficient knowledge/understanding might hastily jump to improper conclusion.


----------



## analogsurviver

higbvuyb said:


> I use my _ears_ to _listen_ to music. You will have to demonstrate why the appearance of square waves should be relevant to what I hear.


 
 No problem. I learned to observe the music as seen on the oscilloscope while listening to it at the same time - using fast phono cartridges and FAST electrostatioc headphones, both of which exceed the redbook  - at least twice -  in speed. 
  
 Knowing what square waves look like when fed trough the usual RIAA filter, and how hard it is to record and play them back in the first place is, I was shocked to discover it actually is possible to record and reproduce extremely close to square wave shape of signal of actual music - with analog record. One good example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I've_Got_the_Music_in_Me_(album)
  
 I used to sell CDs in retail - and dreaded mondays, when there was a fair possibility I will have to endure the same recording that started its life as analog tape transferred to analog record listened to over weekend - on the CD, as demo for the prospective customer.  There is very little point of having an actual redbook master transferred to LP - there is nothing LP could do better, with all the defects of real world analog - the worst of both worlds, if you will.
  
 I will describe the audible differences in detail - but please note, equipment that does justice to these relatively small differences without impacting its own stamp on the resulting sound does not come cheaply. What is enough for the reproduction of redbook is hopelessly inadequate for analog record. Sad, but true. I only wish it would not be so, as it limits the enjoyment of recorded music at this level to those that can afford it.


----------



## bigshot

When you think about it, it makes sense in a thread about audio myths...


----------



## Don Hills

analogsurviver said:


> ... With explanations where are the limits of even the best test records ever available - best cartridges certainly can exceed the performance of even the best cutter head in this regard. The output will reflect the true nature of test record - not the inherent limitations of the cartridge.


 
  
 I recall one test where the cartridge appeared to be ringing slightly on square wave transients, but a microphotograph of the test record groove showed it was actually caused by resonance in the cutter head / amp. I think I still have the report, I'll check.


----------



## analogsurviver

don hills said:


> I recall one test where the cartridge appeared to be ringing slightly on square wave transients, but a microphotograph of the test record groove showed it was actually caused by resonance in the cutter head / amp. I think I still have the report, I'll check.


 
 Yes, it is the CBS STR 112 test record. I will explain in detail how this ultrasonic ringing at approx 35 kHz got finally nailed - MM cartridges due to their electrical properties ( at least most of them - there ARE exceptions ) roll off just above 20 kHz, the usual point to which they maintain flat response is approx 27 kHz, followed by a steep rolloff above.  Square wave with these looks fairly good - the most widely known and acknowledged representative of this kind of transducer is Stanton 681 family.
  
 Enter MC cartridges: with their far lower output impedance, they are all but invulnerable to the electrical load and they present an almost exact replica of the mechanical portion of the transducing system. Here, this ultrasonic ringing was clearly visible - MODIFIED by the non linearities in frequency response of the mechanical part of ther transcduction system, stylus/cantilever/tension wire (if used)/elastomer suspension/output wiring. Any and all of them can put resonance(s)
waaay up from 20 kHz and only trough meticulous attention to every detail and interaction it is possible to realize "flat" transducer. These tend to be $$$$ as a consequence.
  
 The first cartridge that historically got it right was the Technics EPC 205CMK3 ( or one of its variants, there were normal 1/2" mount, integrated headshell and P-Mount versions, all with the same spec ). To make it even more exceptional - this is a MM cartridge ! The output from this cart mimics the actual ringing engraved into the record as seen under the microscope the closest of them all - no exaggeration ( as is most common) neither the reduction of this ultrasonic ringing. It is reasonably flat to beyond 60 kHz.  Rare as hen's teeth - particularly in good working order, as the elastomer used in this model ages anything but well - I STRONGLY recommend to insist on trying before buying the stylus for it, regardless of the factory seal; if it rides low at far below its rated tracking force, it is useless. I gave up after n attempts, n being higher than normal reasonable human being is willing to go. But if and when working ... - it would make such mockery of redbook version of the same originally ANALOG recording that it is trully embarrassing.
  
 Technics went on - all the way to the EPC P100CMK4 - reasonably flat beyond 80 kHz, output rated to 120 kHz. I never saw it in person, nor the photo of the square wave it reproduces; suffice to say, it was the lightest ever stylus effective tip mass, at 0.055 mg. That is roughly 4 times less than anything you can buy today...


----------



## EthanWiner

cjl said:


> I didn't say that they were correct, or that it was a real issue (and in fact, I explained in the next bit of text that you cut off why it isn't an issue), but at least it is a testable claim, instead of the handwaving around about sound stage, stereo picture, attack, and depth of image.




Sure, and I certainly didn't mean to disagree with you!

--Ethan


----------



## analogsurviver

As promised, here are the absolute polarity tests for trumpet. Recording is correct in absolute polarity. Files have been down sized from DSD128 to PCM 48kHz/24bit . It is a short excerpt from Maurice Ravel's orchestration of Modest Mousorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition.
  
 First sample is recorded at normal position of two trumpets within symphonic orchestra - approx 5-6 metres from the microphone :https://mega.co.nz/#!zpZHhAZB!jBbJw5FeAaMGikl08aMzqjVslM6CPyaQUzNfSr49yZo
  
 Second sample is two trumpets closest to the microphone within given possibilities - about 1 and half a metre away from the microphone : https://mega.co.nz/#!2sxSEA4R!yzw0qakinCvgyBp7HRire_iF5AZDj41HaXObPlw4ODk
  
 Third sample is recording from the back balcony of the hall - some 20 metres from the microphone : https://mega.co.nz/#!DoBkiJjT!CJc6I6f4AvjwSkG4uiVEfi9f6M7BpS_8Y_qnQhKiD0w


----------



## EthanWiner

I listened only to Sample 2, normal and then inverted. They sound the same to me. I listened on decent quality Sony headphones.

Usually a difference can be heard after inverting polarity only with low frequency content. And as I explained earlier, it's due to non-linearity in the speaker or headphone drivers, not the ear's ability to distinguish polarity.

--Ethan


----------



## jcx

ethanwiner said:


> I listened only to Sample 2, normal and then inverted. They sound the same to me. I listened on decent quality Sony headphones.
> 
> Usually a difference can be heard after inverting polarity only with low frequency content. And as I explained earlier, it's due to non-linearity in the speaker or headphone drivers, not the ear's ability to distinguish polarity.
> 
> --Ethan


 
  
 ethan - please make the clarification of what can be heard in careful tests designed to point up the differences and what is perhaps a "practical" decision to ignore polarity in normal music mastering
  
 polarity as I point out below (previously in this thread) can equivalent to substantial harmonic vs fundamental phase shift for asymmetric waveforms
  
 and the audibility has been tested by recognized researchers, published in Audio Engineering Society Journal
  
 http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3824
  


> ~~ On the Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems~~
> 
> The current state of our knowledge regarding the audible consequences of phase nonlinearities in the audio chain is surveyed, a series of experiments is described which the authors have conducted using a flexible system of all-pass networks carefully constructed for this purpose, and some
> conclusions are drawn regarding the audible effects of midrange phase distortions. It is known that the inner ear possesses nonlinearity (akin to an acoustic half-wave rectifier) in its mechanical-to-electrical transduction, and this would be expected to modify the signal on the acoustic nerve in a manner which depends upon the acoustic signal waveform, and so upon the relative phase relationships of the frequency components of this signal. Some of these effects have been known for over 30 years, and are quite audible on even very simple signals. Simple experiments are outlined to enable the readers to demonstrate these effects for themselves. Having satisfied ourselves that phase distortions can be audible, the types of phase distortions contributed by the various links in the audio chain are surveyed, and it is concluded that only the loudspeaker contributes significant midrange phase nonlinearities. Confining the investigation to the audibility of such phase nonlinearities in the midrange, circuitry is described which enables such effects to be assessed objectivbely fo their audible consequences. *The experiments conducted so far lead to a number of conclusions. 1) Even quite small midrange phase nonlinearities can be audible on suitably chosen signals. 2) Audibility is far greater on headphones than on loudspeakers. 3) Simple acoustic signals generated anechoically display clear phase audibility on headphones. 4) On normal music or speech signals phase distortion appears not to be generally audible, although it was heard with 99% confidence on some recorded vocal material*. It is clear that more work needs to be done to ascertain acceptable limits for the phase linearity of audio components-limits which might become more stringent as improved recording/reproduction systems become available. It is stressed that none of these experiments thus far has indicated a present requirement for phase linearity in loudspeakers for the reproduction of music and speech.
> ...


 
  
 and since no one seems to actually look back or even clik on links:


jcx said:


> I put a a pair of polarity test files in the alt.zip over on diyAudio since I can't attach them here
> 
> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/54596-audibility-absolute-phase-5.html#post3841138
> 
> ...


 
  
  


jcx said:


> https://web.archive.org/web/20110101113016/http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audio/primer1.htm does concentrate on phase coherence - some of the info supports absolute polarity discrimination - page down past the missing graphs
> 
> 
> > Although not in large numbers, previous research in investigation of the audibility of phase distortion has proven that it is an audible phenomenon. Lip****z _et al. _[7] has shown that on suitably chosen signals, even small midrange phase distortion can be clearly audible. Mathes and Miller [8] and Craig and Jeffress [9] showed that a simple two-component tone, consisting of a fundamental and second harmonic, changed in timbre as the phase of the second harmonic was varied relative to the fundamental. The above experiment was replicated by Lip****z _et al_., with summed 200 and 400 Hz frequencies, presented double blind via loudspeakers resulting in a 100% accuracy score.
> ...


----------



## EthanWiner

jcx said:


> ethan - please make the clarification of what can be heard in careful tests designed to point up the differences and what is perhaps a "practical" decision to ignore polarity in normal music mastering




I'm not promoting that people honor or ignore absolute polarity. My entire point is simply that it's not audible, and when it is it's due to the speaker drivers and not how we hear.



> the audibility has been tested by recognized researchers, published in Audio Engineering Society Journal




That article addresses all-pass filters and their frequency-selective phase shift. That's not usually audible either, though it can be in certain cases. But phase shift has nothing to do with polarity.

--Ethan


----------



## jcx

> ...But phase shift has nothing to do with polarity.


 
  
 didn't look at the waveforms I posted? shift the 400 Hz 2nd harmonic by 180 relative to the fundamental and you get the equivalent of inverting the polarity of the 2-tone waveform
  
 as I explained this can be done with frequency dependent phase shift - like Linkwitz XO - equivalent to all pass network phase shift - the test conditions are applicable to polarity inversion if the relative phase shift of the harmonic is enough
  


> ...not audible, and when it is it's due to the speaker drivers and not how we hear.


 
  
 is not what Lip****z concludes
  
 just read what I carefully collected, think about it without prejudging - the evidence is against both of your comments - absolute polarity detection is a property human hearing for some signals - and seems unimportant for music


----------



## EthanWiner

jcx said:


> didn't look at the waveforms I posted? shift the 400 Hz 2nd harmonic by 180 relative to the fundamental and you get the equivalent of inverting the polarity of the 2-tone waveform




What amplifier or other audio device shifts 800 Hz by 180 degrees while leaving 400 Hz alone? Further, that shift is benign unless you combine the source with the output, which would never happen. You're really reaching here. 



> the test conditions are applicable to polarity inversion if the relative phase shift of the harmonic is enough




Phase shift can be audible if it's extreme, such as _many thousands_ of degrees at midrange frequencies. If the lows arrive 1/4 second after the highs, well sure, you could hear that. But audio gear doesn't have anywhere near that much phase shift, and what phase shift does occur is generally at the highest and lowest frequency extremes. So again this is a reach.



> the evidence is against both of your comments - absolute polarity detection is a property human hearing for some signals - and seems unimportant for music




LOL, I ask _yet again_ for an example Wave file that shows absolute polarity being audible.

--Ethan


----------



## jcx

still haven't read without your preconceptions filtering everything - go to your DAW, add the 200/0 degree + 400 Hz/90 degree sines 1:1, then shift the 400 Hz by an additional 180, add to same 200 Hz/0 degree sine - look at the waveforms - think about their polarity
  
 any can do this at home, in free tools - Audacity, math tools that can export .wav like SciLab, XCAS, languages like Python with SciPy - I used a free Spice circuit simulator because I know it well
  
 you are missing the point of my examples of frequency dependent phase shift - they are to show that the Lip****z paper's test conditions are relevant to the question of polarity for specially constructed signals
  


> ~~ LOL, I ask yet again for an example Wave file that shows absolute polarity being audible


 
  
 more evidence you haven't fairly read my posts - the diyAudio link where I attached the zipped .wav files only shows a single download of the file as I write this - and at least one of the spice .asc file downloads was me
  
 http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/54596-audibility-absolute-phase-5.html#post3841138
  
 can't say the difference is immediately obvious to my ear - but I believe the Lip****z paper results, have heard 1st hand from John Allen that students quickly trained over a few hours of testing to hear some multi-way loudspeaker's XO phase shift in DBT - which was not a welcome result given his advocacy of 3-way or higher frequency partitioning to reduce loudspeaker IMD
  
 if you grant that the frequency dependent phase shifts referred to in the paper are audible - then you only have to do the simple waveform summing I describe to see the equivalence to polarity being audible
  
  
*EDIT it turns out that I can hear the difference, just can't articulate it - foobar2000 abx, motherboard Realtek HD sound, HD600 direct from computer headphone connector*


----------



## bigshot

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
  
 If it isn't able to be heard by human ears or even reproduced by the best transducers, who cares?
  
 I have to say that although a lot of people seem to put stock in foobar test results on the internet, I honestly don't see how that reflects on any particular aspect of sound unless an unbiased third party verifies it and presents all the information on how the test files were prepared and the methodology behind the test. I can create two nice files (one with a nice big click in it) and generate reams of 10 out of 10 report cards.  Not to besmirch anyone's integrity, but unconscious bias isn't the only thing that needs to be eliminated to get a fair test. Systems can be gamed.


----------



## wakibaki

jcx said:


> *EDIT it turns out that I can hear the difference, just can't articulate it - foobar2000 abx, motherboard Realtek HD sound, HD600 direct from computer headphone connector*


 
  
 I'd like to see an fft of the recaptured audio. I guess realistically that's a bit much to ask. This is a stress test for a transducer and indeed for the whole system and might reasonably be expected to reveal an assymmetric response, so the fact that you can _hear_ a difference doesn't necessarily mean that much. It could just mean that your system is not transparent in this sense.
  
 We understand and accept, of course, that there are limits to the stress that reproducing systems are exposed to in normal use, and limits to the quality of transducers, so this is not necessarily a serious reflection on the overall quality of your equipment, particularly when used for listening to music.
  
 w


----------



## jcx

bigshot said:


> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
> 
> If it isn't able to be heard by human ears or even reproduced by the best transducers, who cares?
> 
> I have to say that although a lot of people seem to put stock in foobar test results on the internet, I honestly don't see how that reflects on any particular aspect of sound unless an unbiased third party verifies it and presents all the information on how the test files were prepared and the methodology behind the test. I can create two nice files (one with a nice big click in it) and generate reams of 10 out of 10 report cards.  Not to besmirch anyone's integrity, but unconscious bias isn't the only thing that needs to be eliminated to get a fair test. Systems can be gamed.


 

 I did supply all the pieces in my posts collected just above, files linked on diyAudio since we don't seem to be able to attach them here at head-fi
  
 I invite others to look, listen, inspect the .wav in Audacity or whatever you are familiar with, post your own results - not at all claiming posting my results is absolute proof
  
 I could get out the Radio Shack SPL meter with a cardboard "adapter" for a indication within a few dB - but all of the sound system, mixer and foobar's volume sliders were each below -3 dB and the HD600 is a very begin 300 Ohm load with very good linearity
  
 the test files are 330 mVrms (or 33%), 670 mV peak - well below digital clipping  (LTspice maps .wav full scale range to +/-1.0 Vpp)
  
  
 I believe Ethan is simply wrong - the human psychoacoustic, and animal physiologic auditory nerve electrode probe evidence support our hearing being able to discern absolute polarity below a few kHz
  
  
 if you believe that the relative phase of a musical tone's harmonics contribute to timbre in addition to the relative amplitudes then you already are more than halfway to the audibility of polarity
  
  
 foobar2000, ABX plugin lets many ears repeat the tests - put your eyeballs on the .wav, ears on the sound, create the test waveforms yourself - instead of carping about "possibilities"
  
  
 its hard to see how small amounts of distortion could affect the results - for the asymmetric test wav 2nd harmonic is already 100%
  
 only asymmetric clipping could possibly "explain" - and at the <90 dB SPL (wouldn't drown out normal conversation) level I doubt any clipping is occurring


----------



## bigshot

I'm not referring to you specifically, but the person being tested shouldn't really be the one conducting the test. I can post tests stating that I can see dead people and post charts saying I can to back it up, but unless an independent authority verifies the evidence, I could just be talking through my hat and fabricating the proofs. Again, I am not specifically referring to your test, but the general trend of posting foobar test results as "proof".


----------



## jcx

try getting specific then - look at my files, listen, tell us where problems are or admit that many have wrongly "learned" about absolute polarity - the posted refs are respected researcher's findings
  
 if you keep harping on the "possible errors" I could feel insulted when I have provided the specifics, they are directly accessible, testable by you - particularly for someone with audio production tools, experience
  
 despite the Science saying otherwise somehow much of the pro audio world has come to believe absolute polarity is never audible - not that it is just seldom easily audible, mostly safely ignored
  
  
 while I couldn't tell immediately, my total "training" probably amounts to <10 min , few minutes at a time over a few days out of the past week - possibly the change to HD600 vs SA5000 helped too
 and I have only long abandoned high school band level musical training - no mixing/sound production experience, 50+ year old ears


----------



## bigshot

Are you saying that with your files you think I'll be able to hear the difference between absolute phase and reversed absolute phase?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Are you saying that with your files you think I'll be able to hear the difference between absolute phase and reversed absolute phase?


 
 This is a LONG story - IF it was from the start put right, it would have been mandatory and by now non-issue. In an ideal world, perhaps.
  
 In real world, there is ANY number of people who simply do not want this to be spread; equipment manufacturers, producers, record companies, etc, etc - because it forces everybody to work with better equipment with greater commitment - not necessarily resulting in better financial compensation for their effort. It is FAR  cheaper to declare (or "order" a paper by a esteemed member of AES ) absolute polarity to be inaudible - than rectifying ALL the faults in one's equipment and ways to use it.
  
 On GOOD equipment, absolute polarity reversal is easily audible. Whether or not one is willing to take the commitment - that is another question.


----------



## bigshot

I have good equipment, no problem about that, so it should be easily audible to me, right?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I have good equipment, no problem about that, so it should be easily audible to me, right?


 
 It depends what you are using. 
  
 It is one of the reasons why I insist on using my 80 mm full range speakers - they can not play very low or extremely high, they can not go loud (enough with some music - certainly not Mahler) - yet they are inherently uncapable of funny things with phase etc - such as most 2 and more way dynamic speakers. They have no trouble whatsover in discerning absolute phase - nor do Stax Lambda Pro headphones.
  
 These speakers truly excel with vocal music - if the choir does not consist mainly of equivalents of  Rebroff ... ( when he swithes on his "subwoofer").


----------



## jcx

> ~~The experiments conducted so far lead to a number of conclusions. 1) Even quite small midrange phase nonlinearities can be audible on suitably chosen signals. 2) Audibility is far greater on headphones than on loudspeakers. 3) Simple acoustic signals generated anechoically display clear phase audibility on headphones. 4) On normal music or speech signals phase distortion appears not to be generally audible, although it was heard with 99% confidence on some recorded vocal material


 
  
 again look at the waveform I construct - "phase distortion" of 180 degrees of the 2nd harmonic is equivalent to changing the polarity of the tone - so the JAES article I quote is directly relevant - and they say use headphones
  
  
 Daisuke Koya's 2000 Master's Thesis, AURAL PHASE DISTORTION DETECTION also warns that it is much more difficult to hear with loudspeakers - so use headphones
  


> ...In a broad sense, the average correct responses for the loudspeaker-based listening test were significantly lower than for the headphone-based test...
> ...Table 5.1 indicates that even for the headphone listening test, phase distortion audibility was of very subtle nature...
> ...Table 5.2 indicates for the loudspeaker listening test that the overall phase distortion audibility was increasingly difficult as compared to the headphone listening test...


 
  
  
 and this is head-fi - we should care even if the effect can only be heard in headphones - because we use headphones


----------



## analogsurviver

jcx said:


> again look at the waveform I construct - "phase distortion" of 180 degrees of the 2nd harmonic is equivalent to changing the polarity of the tone - so the JAES article I quote is directly relevant - and they say use headphones
> 
> 
> Daisuke Koya's 2000 Master's Thesis, AURAL PHASE DISTORTION DETECTION also warns that it is much more difficult to hear with loudspeakers - so use headphones
> ...


 
 I apologize for not looking further in the links you posted - I was busy making (preparations for) recordings - yet another Haydn's Paukenmesse under my belt. I will do it, time permitting, but would really  like thank you for taking the effort.
  
 Yes, headphones - or even better - EARSPEAKERS ( Jecklin Float, AKG K 1000, bigger Stax models ) - are the easiest to hear the effects of absolute polarity reversal
 etc effect(s) with. You have to build the listening *building* from scratch in order to *approach* the subtlety available in best "cans" - and then use speaker system that is preferably full range or at least does not make phase shifts within audio band, particularly not within midrange.
  
 I would love once to hear the late SME's president listening room; http://www.the-ear.net/features/sme-steyning-west-sussex-england ; I know a couple of people that had the privilege  ( and were ooching and aaching how good does it sound ever since... )  while the man was still alive, shortly after the SME V arm was introduced. Once I read (and forgot...) how many *tens and hundreds of* *tons *of concrete, carpets, drapes etc, etc is built into  this strictly listening room; it was ming boggling then as well as it is now. For us mere mortals, only wet audio dreams ...
  
I have a friend to whom I actually helped to unload a couple of truckloads of bricks for his house; this house is designed from scratch up to make one great sounding listening/living room; no parallel surfaces, floor in 2 (or is it 3 ? ) levels, etc, etc. Running TWICE the entire lenght of the house, from basement to living/listening room) are two exponential bass horns,  built into foundation of the house, with mouths masquerading as fireplaces.
  
You can put a transistor radio ( or nowadays, a better smartphone ) in that room and it would sound great; imagine a high quality speaker system...


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> It depends what you are using.
> 
> It is one of the reasons why I insist on using my 80 mm full range speakers - they can not play very low or extremely high, they can not go loud (enough with some music - certainly not Mahler) - yet they are inherently uncapable of funny things with phase etc - such as most 2 and more way dynamic speakers. They have no trouble whatsover in discerning absolute phase - nor do Stax Lambda Pro headphones.


 
  
 Here is what I'm saying... I'll go to the trouble of doing a test for myself if you think I should be able to hear it. My system is capable of extremely lifelike and vivid sound... balanced, full range response, inaudible levels of distortion, wide dynamics without clipping... it's a good system. I have never been able to hear differences in absolute phase before, but you are saying that it is "easily audible" with a "good system" (which I have). So I should be able to hear it.
  
 Good equipment + the test files + human ears = clearly audible difference. Right?
  
 If it requires special hearing ability and equipment with anomalies that highlight something that should normally be inaudible, I'm not interested in spending the time it takes to do a test. If that's the case, I'm just going to chalk it up to "maybe it's real. maybe it's not- but either way it just doesn't matter". I've been down the road on HeadFi too many times of people saying that they can hear "night and day" differences between things that should theoretically be totally inaudible. When I go to the trouble of trying to duplicate their findings, they start backpedaling, saying my hearing is impaired or I haven't spent enough money on my stereo system. Suddenly, the "night and day" differences become "subtle" "refined" things that require exquisite golden ears and equipment of elite and rarified status to discern. So I ask up front to see if "clearly audible with good equipment" really means that before I invest several hours setting up the test.
  
 thanks


----------



## bigshot

Quite frankly, some people seem to think that their golden ears and highly resolving equipment are a badge of honor. They march around proudly proclaiming their superior status among audiophilia. But for all the peacock strutting, it doesn't impress me. 99% of the time, I think they're just full of bologna and have nothing real in their lives to be proud of. And I honestly feel sorry for the 1% that might actually have some sort of weird hearing anomaly that makes them extra sensitive. It's miserable to hear frequencies we aren't supposed to hear and to be irritated by distortions that should be aurally transparent. That isn't superior hearing, that is a serious hearing defect as far as I am concerned.


----------



## JRG1990

I find them funny, especially when they argue with each other about silly things like what power cap , op amp , dac chip , cables sound best , I read the threads and posts purley for amusement.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Here is what I'm saying... I'll go to the trouble of doing a test for myself if you think I should be able to hear it. My system is capable of extremely lifelike and vivid sound... balanced, full range response, inaudible levels of distortion, wide dynamics without clipping... it's a good system. I have never been able to hear differences in absolute phase before, but you are saying that it is "easily audible" with a "good system" (which I have). So I should be able to hear it.
> 
> Good equipment + the test files + human ears = clearly audible difference. Right?
> 
> ...


 
 What should be audible IF equipment was "perfect" often does get masked by equipment deficiences.
  
 For example, the recordings with heavily assymetrical waveforms ( close miked jazz, specially brass...) DO sound quite differently with DC or very near DC capable electronic than on more limited in the bass variety - and they can all be 0.0 dB at 20 Hz.  With a DC or near DC amp, it will sound more "live" - but it will require MUCH more powerful amp - amplitude of the signal being equal, only on DC or near DC amp TWICE the voltage is required - to be able to maintain that "DC" to sustain the assimetry. Talking about 4 times more powerful amp - 400 W vs 100 W required.  That is expensive - and is repeated in the woofer section of the speaker. No wonder that only handfull is willing to bite this financially sour apple.
  
 It is not night and day difference - nor it is subtle. Let's put it this way - it is more lifelike if reproduced in the same polarity as real instruments.
  
 I stumbled upon this first when doing listening to prototypes of Benz phono cartridges in late 80s. Various styli tip profiles etc have been investigated , with one variable in otherwise two as same as humanly possible cartridges. After me insisting that two carts that have unknowingly to me been sent with exactly the same everything sound markedly different, it has evewntually been found they differed in absolute polarity. 
  
 One might argue that person assembling the cart should be able to orient the magnet the correct way and wire the coil to respective pins correctly. But after experienced first hand how this looks like in practice, how much is at stake if one wants to re-wire the cart correctly, I am no longer that adamant about wiring being correct -at the expense of very real prospect of degrading the performance of the cart just to have polarity correct.
  
 There are at least - or to be precise - WERE two records available to establish the absolute polarity in cartridges. From Ortofon ( for its cartridge measuring "computer") and CBS. Denon may also have had one such record available back then - will have to check it. The third I am positive to have polarity test was Audio magazine from Germany - being more interesting by the sheer fact it came in 3 formats - LP, CD and cassette !


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> What should be audible IF equipment was "perfect" often does get masked by equipment deficiences.


 
  
 So it doesn't require "good equipment" to "clearly hear" differences, it takes "perfect" equipment? Do you understand why I'm having problems here? The bar keeps sliding around. I don't know if my equipment is "perfect" but it is capable of a full range response, balanced to quite flat with no audible distortion and the ability to reproduce a wide dynamic range without overdriving or clipping. To me, that qualifies as a "good system". I'm having trouble pinning down your definitions.
  
 I'll ask one more time, then I'll give up... Should I be able to clearly hear the difference between different absolute phase using my equipment and ears?
  
 I'd kinda rather work out the possibility first so I don't spend several hours trying to hear something totally inaudible just to be told that I couldn't have heard it anyway because of ears/equipment.


----------



## jcx

> ...I'll go to the trouble of doing a test for myself if you think I should be able to hear it. My system is capable of extremely lifelike and vivid sound... balanced, full range response, inaudible levels of distortion, wide dynamics without clipping... it's a good system. I have never been able to hear differences in absolute phase before...


 
  
 use headphones? - as I highlighted it appears from the literature that it is much more difficult to hear phase distortions via loudspeakers, though not impossible 
  
 may want to shift test tone a few octaves up to avoid room modes but keep the harmonic << 4 kHz as the proposed hearing mechanism is the bunching of nerve pulses in positive pressure half waves and the bulk of the nerves can only manage ~4 k pulses per second
  
 the 2nd harmonic phase shift required for polarity inversion of the test tone I constructed should be larger than "even small midrange phase shift" that Vanderkooy and Lip****z tested - but still the better chance for detection should be with headphones
  
 I wasn't really sure I was hearing a difference in the sighted trials/"training" - but the ABX result was clear - maybe "performance pressure" helps, maybe there is some confounder that other eyes, ears can turn up
  
 for now I believe polarity is both audible and so subtle it is likely safely ignored in music recording/reproduction so you may still end up at:


> ...but either way it just doesn't matter".


----------



## bigshot

Thanks! That helps me!


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> So it doesn't require "good equipment" to "clearly hear" differences, it takes "perfect" equipment? Do you understand why I'm having problems here? The bar keeps sliding around. I don't know if my equipment is "perfect" but it is capable of a full range response, balanced to quite flat with no audible distortion and the ability to reproduce a wide dynamic range without overdriving or clipping. To me, that qualifies as a "good system". I'm having trouble pinning down your definitions.
> 
> I'll ask one more time, then I'll give up... Should I be able to clearly hear the difference between different absolute phase using my equipment and ears?
> 
> I'd kinda rather work out the possibility first so I don't spend several hours trying to hear something totally inaudible just to be told that I couldn't have heard it anyway because of ears/equipment.


 
 In a word - yes.
  
 Contact with real sound helps a lot - there is no way one can hear polarity reversal with real _unamplified _*acoustic *voices/instruments. If recorded/reproduced sound sounds vaguely strange - chances are good absolute polarity got reversed at some stage. Best to use for this are binaural recordings - because it is impossible to fiddle with anything that can alter it.
  
 This is a VERY good primer to demonstrate the binaural at its best - as video clearly show the position of each and every musician at any given moment - and headphones earspeakers ( AKG K 1000, Jecklin Float, Stax Lambda w/diffuse field EQ ) will reproduce it perfectly. YT limits the audio to some MP3 - but where binaural really shines is when recorded to and reproduced from DSD - natively. The higher DSD, the better.
  
 It gives "you are there" sensation, unmatched by anything else.
  

  
 Worst are multimiked recordings - they are totally useless for this task, as the resulting total output may well include instrument/voice  A
 picked up by mic 1 in correct polarity, by mic 3 ( or 8 or ...985 ) in reversed and/or phase displaced way - add to that mastering and it is clear to see that multimiked recording can not be used for this ( or any other real... ) purpose.
  
 I have included the listening room of SME in one of previous posts - it is trough use of full range crossoverless speakers (stacked Quad 63s in this example ) in well designed acoustic space that the quality of reproduction via loudspeakers can approach that of good binaural recording via earspeakers. Provided such a system is fed with simple 2 mic ( or, at worst, Decca "tree" ) recordings .
  
 At a cost ...


----------



## saiB

Could we please go back to 'science' and stuff, instead of subjective anecdotes ?


----------



## analogsurviver

saib said:


> Could we please go back to 'science' and stuff, instead of subjective anecdotes ?


 
  As "science" will try to convience one redbook CD is enough, and will leisurly take some good chunk of time, like decades, to catch up with the real state of affairs, if and when allowed to do so, I can not produce more than "anecdotes". I think it was Koss' slogan *Hearing is believing *(please correct me if I mistook it for someone else's ). As two of the members most pro redbook CD have openly stated not to be in possesion of native DSD playback - I can not even send them DSD files, as they will have to be converted to PCM one away or another prior to listening.
  
 Whenever I am opposing anything, I do it for a reason - and only observe the proceedings if I have no or too limited knowledge/equipment/whatever to at least try to grasp what it is all about. I would not say CD is bad if I had no or limited experience with it. 
  
 An "anecdote" that is ANYTHING but fun; a while ago, in the meantime banned head-fi member XNOR has devised a blind test with various resolutions of PCM - and "cheating" by removing the real content above 20 kHz by inclusion of some random noise. And got me fooled - along with my friend. But we WERE both very uneasy about the REAL best resolution PCM - and STILL chose the one tampered with random noise as "the best".
 There is a VERY sound reason for this - like it or not, I HAVE to listen to CD - given the finances, all my recordings have been issued so far as CD only - and we tend to "accept" the CD, with all of its limitations, as "standard". After that experience, my CD player gathered dust for more than half a year - the only diet being analog recorded vinyl and DSD - NO PCM whatsoever. It took me about a month to re-adapt myself to the correct thing - although exposed to real sound on at least weekly basis, it still is not everyday experience, as reproduced.
  
 I will try to make some "gadget" that will allow ABX level matching to below 0.1 dB - because I agree it does matter. Given the cost of GOOD attenuators/potentiometers/digital volume controls capable of repeatedly and reliably selecting volume within 0.1 dB among ABX, it will not be soon - although I would have preffered it having yesterday. But if I run across some great vintage analog device, which I was never able to afford when new, it will ALWAYS have priority over the ABX "gadget". 
  
 During the recent recording of Haydn's Paukenmesse, I used during rehearsals two Korg MR1000 DSD recorders in paralel. The recorders were both set at exactly the same gain - despite having normal analog potentiometers - namely 0dB or full gain and gain adjusted correctly in the microphone preamp. It is DOUBLE test - DSD128 vs PCM44.1/16 AND modified vs stock recorder - where modified one was used for the DSD of course. I will first ask performers a permission to post a short clip from either resulting recordings - without the need for level matching ( they are the same, within production tolerances, NO gain resistor changes in modified unit ).
 And that IS - *night and day* - difference. Essentially - "All amplifiers (when used within their operating envelope) sound the same" and "CD vs DSD" test in one.
 And no, I will not buy yet another MR1000 in order to make more tests with the exactly same recorders - on the contraray, the other still stock one will get modified ASAP.
  
 Then, theoreticians can dissect, evaluate, measure, WHATEVER it takes - to arrive at what is essential for approach to the perfect reproduction. I do not have the means necessary  to _*PROVE BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT *_what I can hear. I am no super hearing monster, my hearing is about normal for my age - 53. But listening to music live _as a listener within the audience _and comparing that to recordings over decades must bear some "anecdotal" weight...


----------



## EthanWiner

jcx said:


> go to your DAW, add the 200/0 degree + 400 Hz/90 degree sines 1:1, then shift the 400 Hz by an additional 180, add to same 200 Hz/0 degree sine - look at the waveforms - think about their polarity




But that's shifting only some of the content in a file using an all-pass filter, which is not the same as polarity reversal which reverses everything regardless of frequency.



> more evidence you haven't fairly read my posts - the diyAudio link where I attached the zipped .wav files only shows a single download of the file as I write this




I missed that because the link was within a quote, which I thought was you quoting someone else in this thread. I just tried to download the file but apparently I have to be a DIYAudio member to get it. The file is less than 1 MB so can you just email it to me? My email address is here:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/

I do want to hear this file, and try to see what's going on and if polarity is audible. I still assume if reversal is audible then it's due to driver non-linearity, but I'd like to see and hear it for myself.

--Ethan


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> In a word - yes.




I listen almost exclusively to acoustic music... classical and jazz. Much of it isn't multi-miked. I've never been able to discern absolute phase. I've been told now that hearing it on speakers is impossible. I have some first class headphones right now, and I've listened to binaural recordings on them. They sound very lifelike, but still I doubt that I would be able to discern absolute phase differences.

I'm asking clearly how I can set up a test where I can reproduce your claims of being able to easily hear differences in absolute phase and you're giving me unclear answers full of anecdotes and off topic comments on other things. I give up. I think you're making this all up as you go along. You're an interesting conversationalist, but I don't think you have ever attempted to verify any of your subjective impressions with objective testing.

In other parts of head fi, rambling impressions are fine. But in sound science we get to put impressions to the test to understand how things really work, nott just how we think they work. If you ever get interested in doing that, we're here to join in and help.


----------



## jcx

I keep getting resistance to my "180 degree 2nd harmonic phase shift is equivalent to polarity inversion" argument for my test tone
  
 how about this visualization  - I add a phase dependent offset (magneta) to the dynamic sum (sum in blue, magenta is "0" line for blue) to show the +/-90 plots mirrored about the x axis so polarity should be clear by eyeball
  
 I move both the fundamental and the 2nd phase to center the +/-90 sum's peaks on the y axis - "48" in the algebra pane is just the value of alpha when I did the screenshot
  
 but the trick is the relative phase of the 2nd harmonic is shifted a total of 180 degrees relative to the fundamental over the course of the animation - showing that it results in polarity inversion
  
 we do all agree that green and red are opposite polarity?
  

  

  
 membership at diyAduio isn't onerous - is  free, so far I get <1 official email from the site per month - you don't have to show your email address in your public profile
  
 it is about designing, building, measuring - some even claim to listen, too - several industry "names" in both electronics and loudspeakers regularly participate
  
 the headphone subforum isn't a scratch on head-fi though - even compared to just the diy section here - but there are more amp than cable threads at diyAudio


----------



## Steve Eddy

ethanwiner said:


> I just tried to download the file but apparently I have to be a DIYAudio member to get it. The file is less than 1 MB so can you just email it to me?




Just sign up and create an account. I'm rather surprised you don't already have one over there.

se


----------



## ab initio

jcx said:


> I keep getting resistance to my "180 degree 2nd harmonic phase shift is equivalent to polarity inversion" argument for my test tone
> 
> how about this visualization  - I add a phase dependent offset (magneta) to the dynamic sum (sum in blue, magenta is "0" line for blue) to show the +/-90 plots mirrored about the x axis so polarity should be clear by eyeball
> 
> ...


 
 Wait, why did you add an offset? Shouldnt the dc component be zero?
  
 Cheers


----------



## jcx

the varying vertical offset is just a visual aid I hoped would make the sine harmonic addition picture easier to read - less lines crossing over to keep track of - our eyes are really happier looking at a mirrored figure/seeing the inverse symmetry when the "fold" doesn't have overlap, is based off the mirroring line
  
 green, red should be very easily seen to be mirrored about the x axis == inverses, inverted in polarity waveforms just from shifting a sine and its 2nd harmonic
  
 obviously the audio doesn't want the offset - see my earlier Spice sim waveform picture - which didn't seem to convince everyone


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I listen almost exclusively to acoustic music... classical and jazz. Much of it isn't multi-miked. I've never been able to discern absolute phase. I've been told now that hearing it on speakers is impossible. I have some first class headphones right now, and I've listened to binaural recordings on them. They sound very lifelike, but still I doubt that I would be able to discern absolute phase differences.
> 
> I'm asking clearly how I can set up a test where I can reproduce your claims of being able to easily hear differences in absolute phase and you're giving me unclear answers full of anecdotes and off topic comments on other things. I give up. I think you're making this all up as you go along. You're an interesting conversationalist, but I don't think you have ever attempted to verify any of your subjective impressions with objective testing.
> 
> In other parts of head fi, rambling impressions are fine. But in sound science we get to put impressions to the test to understand how things really work, nott just how we think they work. If you ever get interested in doing that, we're here to join in and help.


 
 To be blunt how I found out absolute polarity is audible:
  
 1. DC coupled high voltage electrostatic headphone amplifier with matching headphones
 2. AGI 511 preamp - although not DC, it is VERY near - to arround 0.01 ( one hunreth of a Hertz ) - 3 dB
 3. Various phono cartridges ( for one reason or another, it is possible to get 50/50 cartridges either in correct polarity or inversed polarity *in the same batch *- and they do sound different when obeying their colour code; if wired so that all produce the correct polarity, altrhough slight differences remain, it is no longer "two camps" of sound)
 4. Some jazz close miked recordings , particularly on ECM label
  
 Then, in for repair came a tube preamp - with comparatively to AGI VERY limited bass response. It no longer sounded "true" - no matter what. And all of a sudden, this polarity thing became next to inaudible. 
  
 Then I hooked up my oscilloscope and listened to the portions of music that sonically differed the most - with both preamps. I found AGI could sustain the HIGHLY assymetric waveform from a tuba - where bandwidth limited tube preamp produced almost symmetrical output. Over the AGI, reversal of absolute polarity
 ( "mechanical", two parallel output posts, one wired correctly and another with reversed polarity , NO unnecessary electronics involved ) clearly produced different sound according to which output post headphones were connected. With tube preamp - all but inaudible; with everything else exactly rhe same.
  
 I highlighted the LF extension of electronics; it IS important for absolute polarity, as if too low, it is easily concluded "polarity does not matter".
  
 After that, I grew more attentive to this and can now hear it even with not soooo extended LF response as in AGI preamp feeding DC coupled power/headphone amp; but were it not for so good system as described above, I may well be convienced that absolute polarity audibility is a fairytale. Trouble is, the recording chain also has to be at least in the similar ballpark - ask MANY sound engineers,  they will confess to the filtering below XY Hertz to improve "clarity" and give reproduction side an easier time. 
  
It is all interelated; assume this, assume that - and it can no longer be "assumed" the recording will be of true high fidelity. That is why the likes of Sheffield, Miller & Kreisel, Reference Recordings, etc have been rebuilding the electronics of their otherwise specified microphones - it would NOT sound that good with a stock mike.
Same for the entire electronics chain from the mike to the recorder, whatever that might have been. And of course, they did not use stock "recorder" either... - enough is to see liner notes on any of these extraordinarily good recordings.
  
With sound, one can spill all the ink in the world and still not convience the Doubting Thomases; my expereince  from audio fairs, dealer's etc is a VERY simple one;
if it sounds, behind a half closed door, good enough to arouse my curiosity to investigate further by taking the whole demo, it IS good.  Seldom I get to regret the time spent at such demoes.
  
I have written this before, but will repeat it. I have a friend, actually a fellow student, whom I used to be sporadically meeting over the years/decades. I was always "audiothis/audiothat" - and it was trough his one ear in, out trough another. UNTIL he heard the proper demo of "my audio". Now, no matter how wild or outlandish claim I might lay - he simply says it must be true - because every other claim he has heard me to lay proved to be true in sound.  
  
No paper/computer/science "proof" can be more conviencing - but I *ALWAYS *welcome any help in establishing what helps further reducing the gap between live and recorded/reproduced sound. Trouble is also the following; HOW to measure something that is an order (or more ) better in magnitude than the measuring instruments?
  
Even more so - does anybody know of an audio analyzer capable of assesing the performance of the DUT - IN REAL TIME, for multiple parameters, with
real music and not technical signals ? That would be awesome - but probably the cost would be prohibitive for the military, let alone audio use.


----------



## EthanWiner

jcx said:


> I keep getting resistance to my "180 degree 2nd harmonic phase shift is equivalent to polarity inversion" argument for my test tone




Maybe I didn't understand because I'm not a math type. I got the file you sent, and I see that you simply inverted the polarity. So now we're on the same page.

For the benefit of others here, as I said in my email back to you: The tonality of the normal and inverted sections sounds identical to me, but the pitch seems to go very slightly flat on portions 2 and 4 compared to 1 and 3. I know the frequencies don't really change because I looked at an FFT, and I also created an inverted version myself from the source. So I now agree there is a difference! I think it's probably a psychoacoustic effect, but it's there. At least for me.

So what do you hear as the difference, pitch or timbre?

--Ethan


----------



## bigshot

You've stacked up so many variables there, I don't know how you can possibly isolate any one thing being responsible what you're hearing... swap in this amp and that headphone and that phono cartridge and this specific recordings... Chaos. No way to know what is causing what you hear. I'm positive now that there's no way to verify what you're saying, because you haven't set up your own controls enough to know what's going on. The big red flag for me would be the phono cartridge. I'd try to get that out of the chain to make sure I'm not just hearing acoustic noise and misinterpreting it as being part of the signal.

In any case, if you have to jump through that many hoops, it doesn't matter anyway. It isn't something that can be heard during normal music listening with a normal rig. Perfect sound is achievable without having to make it that complicated.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> You've stacked up so many variables there, I don't know how you can possibly isolate any one thing being responsible what you're hearing... swap in this amp and that headphone and that phono cartridge and this specific recordings... Chaos. No way to know what is causing what you hear. I'm positive now that there's no way to verify what you're saying, because you haven't set up your own controls enough to know what's going on. The big red flag for me would be the phono cartridge. I'd try to get that out of the chain to make sure I'm not just hearing acoustic noise and misinterpreting it as being part of the signal.
> 
> In any case, if you have to jump through that many hoops, it doesn't matter anyway. It isn't something that can be heard during normal music listening with a normal rig. Perfect sound is achievable without having to make it that complicated.


 
 It is SIMPLE. I do change one thing at a time - not many. For example - only preamp in an otherwise same system gets replaced at one time. Or cartridge known to have different absolute polarity ( in lack of proper test record, run-out groove with the "click" each revolution will do just fine observed on a scope ) 
  
 But I will try as many options as available. And see if there is any pattern to what can be heard.
  
 I have to do the normal work, like editing the recordings etc first, but time permitting will repeat that test from quarter of a century ago - with another preamp with limited LF extension vs the same type of AGI ( I was stooooopid enough to sell my first sample and was recentish lucky to get another ) and the same record. And hopefully I will be able to catch it on photo from the oscilloscope and record everything to DSD.
  
 And I promised pics of square wave trough many digital devices and by "popular demand" will include some of the LP/cartridge too - this will be done first.
  
 One unfortunately has to go trough that many hoops - if cartridge manufacturer screws up polarity, if recording engineer/mastering guy chops off the lows, if electronics limits bass, etc - HOW can waveform of reproduced music possibly resemble the real thing ? And we have not arrived at the end transducer, be it headphone or speakers, yet. So yes, it IS daunting, it IS easy to conclude "absolute polarity does not matter" under - call it that way - SNAFU conditions of an average recording trough an average system. But after things get, one by one, under control,  till each and every one IS under control, much more lifelike sound emerges. THAT is why I press forward  - because the whole chain, from the microphone capsule to headphone or speaker has to be put right - omit the last step and 90+% of all other previous steps taken will bring - next to nothing.
  
 If this game is played right, it does not necessarilly mean it has to cost an arm and a leg either. But , of necessity, it absolutely has to be THOROUGH. It costs nothing more or less to wire the microphone/cartridge/whatever correctly - but the awareness that it does matter ( and why )  is mandatory.


----------



## bigshot

I asked for a way to discern "clearly audible" absolute polarity differences and you listed a laundry list of specific equipment that was required. You said you swapped amps and it wasn't discernable any more. Then you threw in having to know the recording chain as well. You're wiggling all over the place here. I think you're just looking for weird hoops to jump through to justify a guess about a purely subjective impression. I don't think that polarity really has anything to do with it.

This isn't how we work here in Sound Science, I'm afraid. But feel free to have fun with all the technical gymnastics.


----------



## jcx

as I said, I don't have the musical training to use the terms with certainty - was biased against describing it as a "pitch" change since we all know pitch is just the periodicity/frequency of the fundamental, right? - but maybe frequency isn't the whole story in pitch perception
  
 if musicians do perceive the polarity difference as a small pitch shift then the obvious next step is to see if a real frequency change can make the test tones sound alike by compensating for the apparent pitch shift with polarity
  
 or see if you could accent a musical instrument by giving the player the option of swapping polarity on individual notes


----------



## ab initio

jcx said:


> the varying vertical offset is just a visual aid I hoped would make the sine harmonic addition picture easier to read - less lines crossing over to keep track of - our eyes are really happier looking at a mirrored figure/seeing the inverse symmetry when the "fold" doesn't have overlap, is based off the mirroring line
> 
> green, red should be very easily seen to be mirrored about the x axis == inverses, inverted in polarity waveforms just from shifting a sine and its 2nd harmonic
> 
> obviously the audio doesn't want the offset - see my earlier Spice sim waveform picture - which didn't seem to convince everyone


 

 Okay, my misunderstanding! Thanks!
  
 Cheers


----------



## EthanWiner

I tried mixing in a pure 200 Hz sine wave with both the original and reversed versions, to see if that countered the apparent pitch shift. The result was inconclusive. It sort of did and sort of didn't. The shift is so slight it's barely audible anyway. I'll think about this more and play with it more when I have a chance. I also noticed the effect seems to happen only with headphones.

--Ethan


----------



## analogsurviver

ethanwiner said:


> I tried mixing in a pure 200 Hz sine wave with both the original and reversed versions, to see if that countered the apparent pitch shift. The result was inconclusive. It sort of did and sort of didn't. The shift is so slight it's barely audible anyway. I'll think about this more and play with it more when I have a chance. I also noticed the effect seems to happen only with headphones.
> 
> --Ethan


 
 It is easier to hear this effect with headphones - but is audible, at somewhat lower/harder to hear level. with speakers that do not have crossover troubles. Best to use are full range speakers, be it electrostatic or dynamic variety. It also requires listening room with reasonably "symmetrical acoustics" - if reflections off the walls differ significantly, the effect will be masked by them. However, it is possible to achieve the conditions the effect is audible with speakers - at this level, the listener will be rewarded with very realistically reproduced sound.
  
 Hard, but not impossible to achieve.


----------



## analogsurviver

jcx said:


> as I said, I don't have the musical training to use the terms with certainty - was biased against describing it as a "pitch" change since we all know pitch is just the periodicity/frequency of the fundamental, right? - but maybe frequency isn't the whole story in pitch perception
> 
> if musicians do perceive the polarity difference as a small pitch shift then the obvious next step is to see if a real frequency change can make the test tones sound alike by compensating for the apparent pitch shift with polarity
> 
> or see if you could accent a musical instrument by giving the player the option of swapping polarity on individual notes


 
 This can be achieved in strins by bowing - bow up or bow down does sound slightly different and this was/is being  used by several composers and conductors
  
 .http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/rickerinterview/ricker9.htm


----------



## ab initio

I played around a bit with relative phase of a fundamental (120Hz) and its second harmonic. I created a few audio files that have the two frequencies in phase (0 degrees), shifted by pi/2 (90 degrees), shifted by pi (180 degrees, opposite polarity to 0 degrees), and shifted by 3pi/2 (270 degrees, opposite polarity to 90 degrees).
  
 I've uploaded the files to google drive for public consumption:
polaritytest_000
polaritytest_090
polaritytest_180
polaritytest_270
  
 You can use these wav files to test to see if _you_ can hear a difference in polarity/phase! Here's a plot of what each wavform looks like (pretty much the same as jcx's animation):
  

 Notice that the blue and red curves (0 and 180)  are asymmetrical about their mean (0). In this case we could define a polarity where we call the blue curve (0) the positive  wave because it achieves higher postive values while we call the red curve(180) the negative  wave.
  
 If you look at the green and cyan curves (90 and 270), you can see that they have symmetry about their mean; however, they asymmetric in time! These curves are *almost like* a low-order sin series approximations of sawtooth waves. In this case, the green curve is like a sawtooth wave that ramps down, while the cyan curve is like a ramp-up sawtooth wave as depicted at the top of the wikipedia article linked above.
  
  
 It's quite easy in foobar to ABX yourself to see if you can hear the change in polarity:

compare polaritytest_000 against polaritytest_180
  
 Or a flip in time

compare polaritytest_090 against polaritytest_270
  
 I did the polarity test on 000 vs 180:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



foo_abx 1.3.4 report
 foobar2000 v1.2.3
 2014/03/28 01:07:45

 File A: C:\scratch\polaritytest_sample000_120Hz.wav
 File B: C:\scratch\polaritytest_sample180_120Hz.wav

 01:07:45 : Test started.
 01:08:11 : 01/01  50.0%
 01:08:21 : 02/02  25.0%
 01:08:33 : 03/03  12.5%
 01:08:49 : 04/04  6.3%
 01:09:06 : 05/05  3.1%
 01:09:27 : 06/06  1.6%
 01:09:33 : 07/07  0.8%
 01:09:49 : 08/08  0.4%
 01:10:01 : 09/09  0.2%
 01:10:28 : Test finished.

  ----------
 Total: 9/9 (0.2%)


  
  
 Here's a code similar to what I used to generate the test:


Spoiler: Warning: MATLAB or GNU/octave code



fig1=figure;
 for i =1:4,
 Fs = 44100;
 duration = 5; % length of the sound clip to make
 t = [1:duration*Fs]/Fs;
 f1 = 120; % fundamental at 120 Hz
 f2 = 2*f1;  % 2nd harmonic
 phi = (i-1)*pi/2; % assign the phase shift
 y(i, = 10^(-12/20)*(cos(2*pi*f1*t) + cos(2*pi*f2*t + phi));
 fade = min(1, -10* (t.*(t/t(end) - 1)/t(end)));  % creates a quick fade in/out
 end,

 % plot a snippet of the waveforms
 figure(fig1),
 plot(t(1:1000)',y,1:1000)');
 xlabel('time, s'),
 ylabel('amplitude, %FS'),
 legend({'0','\pi/2','\pi', '3\pi/2'}),

 %play the generated clips back-to-back
 wavplay([y(1,.*fade,y(3,.*fade,y(2,.*fade,y(4,.*fade],Fs)
  


  
 Cheers


----------



## analogsurviver

ab initio said:


> I played around a bit with relative phase of a fundamental (120Hz) and its second harmonic. I created a few audio files that have the two frequencies in phase (0 degrees), shifted by pi/2 (90 degrees), shifted by pi (180 degrees, opposite polarity to 0 degrees), and shifted by 3pi/2 (270 degrees, opposite polarity to 90 degrees).
> 
> I've uploaded the files to google drive for public consumption:
> polaritytest_000
> ...


 
 Just downloaded first three samples - for the fourth, I would have to create an acount with Google. Also just installed ABX comparator in foobar 2000. 
  
 I have to learn to use the ABX comparator properly for blind testing etc ( ANYTHING but computer geek myself ) - but the first thing that comes to mind is that one track sounds mellow and the other sharp - depending how you queue them in test. They also differ in appearent loudness - the sharper is a bit louder than the mellow one. Or something in this direction. I will listen more properly after I figure out how to use ABX properly - but the differences among first three tracks is clearly audible to me.
  
 I listened with JVC HA-S500 headphones.


----------



## jcx

I think you should want an octave or two higher fundamental frequency - by 100 Hz our hearing is dropping by 20 dB of sensitivity - and especially with loudspeakers the cone excursion becomes higher at lower frequency too, both increasing the possibility of nonlinearity in the speaker
  
 zip should do a OK job on compressing simple continuous tones, Flac too of course


----------



## ab initio

analogsurviver said:


> Just downloaded first three samples - for the fourth, I would have to create an acount with Google. Also just installed ABX comparator in foobar 2000.
> 
> I have to learn to use the ABX comparator properly for blind testing etc ( ANYTHING but computer geek myself ) - but the first thing that comes to mind is that one track sounds mellow and the other sharp - depending how you queue them in test. They also differ in appearent loudness - the sharper is a bit louder than the mellow one. Or something in this direction. I will listen more properly after I figure out how to use ABX properly - but the differences among first three tracks is clearly audible to me.
> 
> I listened with JVC HA-S500 headphones.




I will double check the sharing permission on that last file. The abx in foobar is pretty easy once you know how to do it. Maybe i can do a quick walk through on using it

Cheers


----------



## James-uk

Objective experiment taking place regarding high res audio. http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/04/internet-test-24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio.html?m=1

Anyone can take part In the comfort of their own home with their equiptment .


----------



## analogsurviver

james-uk said:


> Objective experiment taking place regarding high res audio. http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/04/internet-test-24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio.html?m=1
> 
> Anyone can take part In the comfort of their own home with their equiptment .


 
 I downloaded the files. Although I could upload the 96/24 files to my Korg recorder(s), I will wait till I purchase/get my ifi nano DSD DAC - so that any ABX (using Foobar 2000) can be also made, Korg does not allow for single person blind tests.
  
 I am MUCH more into 1 bit DSD than any PCM, but this should also be interesting for educational purposes. I have downloades practically all 2L free samples in anything equal to or better than 94/24, including the complete samples you made your excerpts from.
  
 I am REALLY interested how DXD ( PCM at some think sinfully spendthrift frequency/bit depth rates ) compares to DSD128 - will have to wait for the ifi nano DSD DAC to find out.


----------



## SilverEars

About the files posted for listening tests.  Each listener would have different gear and some might have gear that is more transparent revealing details more or people with better perception.  Lots of variables.  How to account for that?


----------



## bigshot

Have each participant do enough trials to determine whether they can hear a difference, or whether it's just random chance.


----------



## James-uk

The idea of the test is to see if people can hear the difference in the comfort of their own home with their equipment. You can spend as long as you like (until June at least) comparing the files and having multiple sessions trying to compare the 2. If it is so obvious that 24 bit is better and enough people participate then the results wil be pretty conclusive. Obviously it's not a solid test without flaws and it's open for abuse especially by people that want them to sound the same. The questionnaire is aimed at trying to prevent sabotage. Ultimately if the difference is clear then no matter how many people can't hear the difference there will be a significant number that can so that will say a lot on its own.


----------



## analogsurviver

silverears said:


> About the files posted for listening tests.  Each listener would have different gear and some might have gear that is more transparent revealing details more or people with better perception.  Lots of variables.  How to account for that?


 
 You just can't. But it is helpful for each person to determine what he/she can hear with the equipment at hand and his/hers hearing. After the results will be revealed, it may well help people to decide to upgrade to the gear supporting better resolution.
  
 We are lucky - never before has been ( near to ) cutting edge technology so affordable :
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/683406/ifi-audio-nano-idsd-announced
  
 There are of course better sounding devices - adding a couple of zeroes to the right hand side of the price tag...


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> There are of course better sounding devices - adding a couple of zeroes to the right hand side of the price tag...


 
 That is by no means clear, nor has it been established in any scientifically valid study (assuming that the linked device doesn't have any blatant design flaws). There are of course better measuring devices, but to date, no study has shown the audibility of improvements beyond what is achievable in a fairly low-cost device.
  
 In other words, that device probably sounds exactly the same as my ODAC that I use at work, which sounds exactly the same as my Denon receiver at home, which sounds exactly the same as my dad's Sony blu-ray player at his house.


----------



## bigshot

Not necessarily conclusive... Unless the test is being administered by a neutral third party there is possibility that people will cheat the test. I wouldn't underestimate the power of ego to undermine honesty. A lot of people around hear are pretty doggone investeded in having superhuman hearing.

I've seen people cheat the test before on Head-Fi. There will be a bunch of negatives and one or two positives from people who are very vocal about their ability to hear what they theoretically shouldn't be able to hear.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> We are lucky - never before has been ( near to ) cutting edge technology so affordable :
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/683406/ifi-audio-nano-idsd-announced




My $120 Sony blu-ray player sounds exactly the same as that, even without an SACD in the tray.


----------



## James-uk

The result we show nobody can tell the difference . Because nobody will be able to tell the difference. Of course some will guess correctly by pure chance but so long as enough participate this won't be statistically proven.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> That is by no means clear, nor has it been established in any scientifically valid study (assuming that the linked device doesn't have any blatant design flaws). There are of course better measuring devices, but to date, no study has shown the audibility of improvements beyond what is achievable in a fairly low-cost device.


 
 I still have to order the ifi nano DSD DAC - because i "need" it for demoing my own DSD recordings without having to upload them to the Korg recorders each and every time ( time consuming, Korg has USB 2.0 and HDD is only 40 GB, expandable for sure to 80 GB, with possible option for 120 GB ( not all HDDs will work...)) - and searching for a particular movement or spot within that movement on the Korg is a major PITA compared to the computer/mouse. In plain English - if a performer wants to hear the same composition played at three different concerts, all of the  three concerts have to be uploaded to the recorder ( about 15MB/sec, recorder limited, 11 min of audio in DSD128 = 1 GB ), you can not "force" the recorder to skip to the requrired section one iota faster than it wants to ( it will go to start of the track ...)  - so convinience of DSD capable DAC is desperately needed. 
  
 What I do KNOW FOR CERTAIN is that ifi could not afford the use of high quality capacitors in nano DSD DAC - both because of the size of the unit (small, portable) and cost considerations.  It is perhaps one of if not THE most effective use of $ in (computer, digital) audio today - but even if they somehow got the good caps for free, they would not fit into so small an enclosure. Therefore, I have no illusions ifi could possibly rival or even exceed the sonic performance of my modified Korg.
  
 I have two Korg units - one modded and another still stock. It IS night and day difference between the two - but rest of the system has to be good enough.
  
 You are unlikely to see such a study any time soon - because ifi already uses componentry at least at the same level as laboratory measuring instruments. Measuring instrument should be at least one order of magnitude better than Device Under Test.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> My $120 Sony blu-ray player sounds exactly the same as that, even without an SACD in the tray.


 
Try http://www.discogs.com/Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-Music-By-Frank-Zappa/release/1820934
  
 If you can not hear the difference between the CD and SACD layers of this disc -  then nothing can help you. Even on the $ 120 Sony Blu-ray player.
  
 Earlier CD only release is MUCH worse - and all policarbonates are eclipsed by the original vinyl LP release, now next to unobtainium.
  
 Recording and mastering of this calibre is scarce, so more "mainstream" repertoire worth of DSD ( SACD is only an encrypted form of it ) is hard to recommend.
 Omnibus Wind Ensemble does have a Mozart etc disc, should Zappa prove too much to stomach.


----------



## JRG1990

What are the audiable differences between pcm and dsd?, the only difference I see is dsd recordings can store and playback even more inaudiable frequences than 192khz pcm.


----------



## bigshot

You got it.


----------



## bigshot

I did a very careful line level matched direct A/B comparison test with this recording...

http://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Histoire-Dumbarton-Concerto-Orchestra/dp/B0000XKB9W

The redbook layer was audibly identical to the SACD on multiple headphones and three different really good sound systems, including the one in the lab of my sound engineer friend.


----------



## analogsurviver

jrg1990 said:


> What are the audiable differences between pcm and dsd?, the only difference I see is dsd recordings can store and playback even more inaudiable frequences than 192khz pcm.


 
 To be blunt - time domain. DSD has MUCH better pulse response - even in real world, where filtering is still needed ( thus taking away some of its superiority in time domain, a necessary compromise in order to keep the ultrasonoc noise at an acceptable level ), than anything PCM - DXD included.
  
 I have promised photos from the analog oscilloscope for the squre wave response of various analog and digital devices. I am anything but an accomplished photographer - but this post will come sooner or later.


----------



## bigshot

There's no impulse in recorded music that even comes close to not being covered by 44.1. A redbook sample represents a very very VERY small sliver of time. Aside from that, an impulse faster than redbook can capture would need to occur at a frequency beyond the range of human hearing by definition. (see Nyquist)


----------



## JRG1990

Ive never heard audiable timing errors with pcm.


----------



## bigshot

I love it when people talk about "fast" timing and PRaT and point at the attack and decay of a snare drum hit as an illustration of what they're hearing. They don't have any idea how many samples go to make up that snare drum hit from attack to decay!


----------



## analogsurviver

jrg1990 said:


> Ive never heard audiable timing errors with pcm.


 
 It is both timing AND amplitude problem.  If listening to PCM recording ONLY, without frequent exposure to the real thing, one can "adjust" to that sound and - not miss anything. 
  
 And then be "shocked" how much different live sound is. 
  
 This is audible in all but the "slowest" instruments ( organ...it can not change volume fast - no matter what, it has slow start and yet slower decay, particularly in large venues ) - but easiest is to listen for this to a drum solo live *WITHOUT ANY MICROPHONES/SPEAKERS *- and then to the CD by the same drummer.  
  
 Believe me, this laaaarge caaaaaanyon of the difference experienced above can be bridged - but most definitely not with redbook CD.


----------



## bigshot

Redbook is more than capable of reproducing both amplitude and timing correctly. The redbook standard was created to exceed the range of a human's ability to hear. The differences between a live feed and redbook are going to be inaudible.

The area that standard redbook can't cover is in dimensional sound fields. SACD does sound better than two channel redbook for that. But multichannel sound is a lot more work to do right, so people focus on things that don't matter that are easy instead.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Redbook is more than capable of reproducing both amplitude and timing correctly. The redbook standard was created to exceed the range of a human's ability to hear. The differences between a live feed and redbook are going to be inaudible.
> 
> The area that standard redbook can't cover is in dimensional sound fields. SACD does sound better than two channel redbook for that. But multichannel sound is a lot more work to do right, so people focus on things that don't matter that are easy instead.


 
 Now - PLEASE - go to a concert hall, set up ANY semi decent microphone(s) setup ultimately giving two channel output - and adjust the direct feed from those mics AND output from any redbook CD standard recorder within 0.1 dB or less, ABX switching done by quality ANALOG switch , sighted or multitple blind -  and listen with any decent headphones. 
  
 And then ask yourself, _*honestly*__ - _if you *still *can claim the above statement .
  
 ( I certainly can hear the difference between the live feed and DSD128 - perceptible as slight loss of "air" around the instruments and voices - let alone the "blanket over everything" imparted by the redbook CD ) . 
  
 One area we might eventually agree upon is *dimension *in audio. Regardless how one might call it - soundstage, depth, width, height, dimensional fields, etc. It is an area where redbook CD is at the poorest.
 No, to do this right, no more than two channels are required - it has been around for ages, it is called binaural ( or artificial head, or Kunskopf, etc ). To be listened on headphones - this IS head-fi after all. Only with the advent of DSD, and DSD128 in particular, there is a recording medium available that does binaural finally justice . There IS a decisive advantage of DSD128 vs DSD64 (SACD) in binaural - redbook CD with binaural is a crude joke in comparison. Higher rez PCMs up to 192/24 are increasingly better than redbook, but simply can not provide the same degree of realism as attained by DSD128.
  
 A good DSD128 binaural recording is capable of fooling a person hearing it for the first time into "conversation" with a person that was there a couple of seconds/minutes ago - producing astonished and at the same time amazed faces upon discovery that the "conversation partner" has left the room and the recording was so realistic to fool even - spouses .
  
 Not gonna happen with redbook CD...


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> Try http://www.discogs.com/Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-Music-By-Frank-Zappa/release/1820934
> 
> If you can not hear the difference between the CD and SACD layers of this disc -  then nothing can help you. Even on the $ 120 Sony Blu-ray player.
> 
> ...


 

 It is entirely possible that there is an audible difference on that disk, since some SACDs use different mastering for the CD and SACD layers (so the difference is clearly audible). However, CDs are perfectly capable of replicating the same audio as SACDs, down to every audible detail.


----------



## OddE

> However, CDs are perfectly capable of replicating the same audio as SACDs, down to every audible detail.


 
  
 -With the (obvious; just thought I'd mention it) exception of multi-channel SACDs. (Where multi>2...)
  
 Then again, that may already be covered by your comment if one reads it to claim that the contents of a channel on a SACD is indistinguishable from a channel on a CD (provided the master is the same, of course) - in which case I agree 100%.


----------



## cjl

odde said:


> -With the (obvious; just thought I'd mention it) exception of multi-channel SACDs. (Where multi>2...)
> 
> Then again, that may already be covered by your comment if one reads it to claim that the contents of a channel on a SACD is indistinguishable from a channel on a CD (provided the master is the same, of course) - in which case I agree 100%.


 
 Fair enough, and that is a worthwhile distinction between CDs and DVD-audio/multi-channel SACDs.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Now - PLEASE - go to a concert hall, set up ANY semi decent microphone(s) setup ultimately giving two channel output - and adjust the direct feed from those mics AND output from any redbook CD standard recorder within 0.1 dB or less, ABX switching done by quality ANALOG switch , sighted or multitple blind -  and listen with any decent headphones.
> 
> And then ask yourself, _*honestly*__ - _if you *still *can claim the above statement .




Been there, done that in the recording studio.


----------



## bigshot

Multichannel sound is the next frontier for home audio. If standards for recording and playback can be firmly established, and some way of dummyproofing installation and room acoustics can get worked out, it will be as much of a leap over normal 2 channel as stereo was over mono. Unfortunately, 5:1 straight out of a box doesn't even come close to touching its potential. It takes a experience to tweak it properly- perhaps installation services that make house calls and set the whole system up... like a cable man. I had a professional install my sound system, but the only sort of calibration service he offered was THX certification, which in my opinion is overpriced and not at all what I was looking for. I had to do all of my tuning myself.

By the way, binaural recording is tremendously limiting and only appropriate for certain types of recordings. 5:1 is much more flexible and has the potential to improve every kind of recorded sound, from television broadcasts to recorded music of all kinds.


----------



## esldude

http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/ivantash/loudspeakerarraysforfocusinganddiffusingsound.pdf
  
 Nice AES presentation about beam forming arrays and some possibilities that exist to exploit for multi-channel sound and other purposes.  Long arrays of small speakers with the properly filtered and delayed input are cable of sending controlled beams of sound for mono, stereo or any number of other channels from a single up front position.  I gather the result would improve even more with multiple arrays in more positions.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Been there, done that in the recording studio.


 
 I will answer your _unedited _reply ( copy-pasted from my email subscription to this thread ).
  
 It certainly is possible to compare live feed to output from the recorder of any kind - analog and digital.  Analog has the advantage of including only  the defects that creep in during recording ( wow & flutter only of the recording part, not the combined w & f of recording and plaback , for example ), meaning that what you hear in monitor at the time of recording is the best that will ever come out of an analog machine.
  
 With digital, it depends how data is stored. If it is optical ( CD-R), there is a fair chance that ultimately finished CD will sound better than the monitor off the CD-R being recorded. If the data is being recorded directly to hard disk or solid state device, it is the best you can ever have.
  
 Korg DSD recorders record to a hard disk ( solid state is , even under best/most expensive scenario, barely capable of 100 MB/s requirement  for glitch-free DSD recording - besides, it apperently does not like numerous deleting/overwriting , leading to premature destruction, all of which is totally unacceptable for the requirements of DSD ) - and you can only hear its analog output AFTER it has been recorded to the HDD. It is the very same thing listening to the monitor or playback - so DSD recorders can be said to  "burn their audio on the fly - in real time ".
  
 DSD can be burned to disc http://www.ps3sacd.com/dsddiscguide.html I never did it - because it can only be DSD64 (same resolution as SACD) and after hearing DSD128 it just no longer makes any sense. So I can not comment how DSD disc sounds compared to DSD off HDD.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Multichannel sound is the next frontier for home audio. If standards for recording and playback can be firmly established, and some way of dummyproofing installation and room acoustics can get worked out, it will be as much of a leap over normal 2 channel as stereo was over mono. Unfortunately, 5:1 straight out of a box doesn't even come close to touching its potential. It takes a experience to tweak it properly- perhaps installation services that make house calls and set the whole system up... like a cable man. I had a professional install my sound system, but the only sort of calibration service he offered was THX certification, which in my opinion is overpriced and not at all what I was looking for. I had to do all of my tuning myself.
> 
> By the way, binaural recording is tremendously limiting and only appropriate for certain types of recordings. 5:1 is much more flexible and has the potential to improve every kind of recorded sound, from television broadcasts to recorded music of all kinds.


 
 Agreed on the first chapter. Due to the requirements, unlikely to EVER become widespread enough.  How many real households can afford listening-only room ?
 Similar problem was with the quadrophonic systems ( quite a number of presently available "surround" recordings started their life during quadro era in the 70s )
  
 I do not see binaural THAT tremendously limiting - but I agree 5:1 to be more flexible. With one fly in the ointment : it is inherently flawed ( some say; I heard it for real only once and do not have a room sized to implement it properly, so I will leave it at that. )
  
 I remember Chesky being one of the prime detractors for binaural say around 2005 or so. They had all kinds of reservations. Look at them now: like any other manufacturer of audio gear and/or record label, they saw where the action ( $ ) is. To each speaker centric high end system - how MANY headphone based portable systems preferred by young people are sold nowadays? Who buys then more records/downloads ? And they simply _conformed _to the real world market needs...


----------



## bigshot

I think the key to acceptance of 5:1 in normal homes is going to be when the TV/home theater, computer/media server, and stereo system all merge into one entertainment/media center. It's getting there. I bet you'll find people dedicating rooms in their house for it, just like people started turning their unused dining rooms and spare bedrooms into home offices in the 90s.

Re: Binaural- The average kid doesn't buy music for how well it's recorded and how good it sounds, that's for sure! No hope there except as a novelty.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I think the key to acceptance of 5:1 in normal homes is going to be when the TV/home theater, computer/media server, and stereo system all merge into one entertainment/media center. It's getting there. I bet you'll find people dedicating rooms in their house for it, just like people started turning their unused dining rooms and spare bedrooms into home offices in the 90s.
> 
> Re: Binaural- The average kid doesn't buy music for how well it's recorded and how good it sounds, that's for sure! No hope there except as a novelty.


 
 Regarding 5:1 - I certainly hope you are right.
  
 Re binaural - it is not only kids. Like it or not, sad, but true: an average musician, in anything from the early 30s to about 60s, is VERY likely to confess to have time/peace of mind to listen to recorded music - EVEN his own - in a car only. No kids running around, no nagging wife ( or husband ) - otherwise, (next to ) no time for listening to recordings. Is such a person going to invest in all the needed for 5:1 ? Dedicate a room desperately needed for growing kids - to audio? Possible, but unlikely.
  
 Headphone setup of even the highest calibre is both easier and cheaper. So binaural will have its share in the future.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> Korg DSD recorders record to a hard disk ( solid state is , even under best/most expensive scenario, barely capable of 100 MB/s requirement  for glitch-free DSD recording - besides, it apperently does not like numerous deleting/overwriting , leading to premature destruction, all of which is totally unacceptable for the requirements of DSD ) - and you can only hear its analog output AFTER it has been recorded to the HDD. It is the very same thing listening to the monitor or playback - so DSD recorders can be said to  "burn their audio on the fly - in real time ".


 
 This is laughably incorrect - current hard disk drives are capable of ~200MB/s sustained write rate on one device, while current high end solid state is capable of over 400MB/s sustained onto a single device. This rate can be further increased through the use of RAID and caching. My home computer has a solid state array capable of well over 600MB/s sustained writes and near 1GB/s sustained reads. I am curious where you're getting these required data rate figures though, since even DSD512, with a sample rate of ~22-24MHz, only requires ~3MB/s per channel of audio data (so even a 7.1 recording at DSD512, with a full separate channel used for the subwoofer info, would only require about 24-25MB/s).


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> This is laughably incorrect - current hard disk drives are capable of ~200MB/s sustained write rate on one device, while current high end solid state is capable of over 400MB/s sustained onto a single device. This rate can be further increased through the use of RAID and caching. My home computer has a solid state array capable of well over 600MB/s sustained writes and near 1GB/s sustained reads. I am curious where you're getting these required data rate figures though, since even DSD512, with a sample rate of ~22-24MHz, only requires ~3MB/s per channel of audio data (so even a 7.1 recording at DSD512, with a full separate channel used for the subwoofer info, would only require about 24-25MB/s).


 
 OK, I may have oversimplified a bit - I was stating the facts about what can be used _*with the Korg units.*_
  
 And that means CF or SSD cards connected trough an adapter instead of HDD. *INTERNAL !*
  
 You are dead wrong on the speed requirements : please see 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/425849/korg-mr-1-can-this-be-used-as-a-portable-player/225
  
 MR 1, MR 1000 and MR 2000S all use very similar "everything", and they DO require 100 MB/sec for glitch free DSD recording. It could _*maybe*_ work with 90 MB/sec ( Hoodman IIRC ) - but I am not about to splash that much money to end up with iffy performance I can not 100% rely on.
  
 Korg ( with the exception of 2000S ) are portable units - so any mumbo jumbo with external anything ( like RAID during recording - shivers....) is simply out of place.
  
 The figures you have quoted may well hold true in the latest computer gear - any principally audio gear is unlikely to support latest in computers, as it is hard enough to achieve the desired goal to function as intended in the first place and is usually "one computer generation behind" upon release; more so when using what is available at reasonable price. A Hoodman SSD card at roughly $ 500 a pop is a FAR cry above any manufacturer would consider in a device selling for less than say 5K. When introduced in 2006, MR 1000 was less than a third of that.
  
 And, yes, although I would have liked it otherwise, Korg MR series achieves below 20 KB/sec via its USB 2.0 .
  
 There will be no more serious DSD recorders from Korg; current MR 2 is a fancy _dictaphone_ aimed at musicians to be a minimum fuss device enough for them to be able to make recordings of spontaneous musical ideas. They are selling DSD DACs now - the number of DAC users outstrips the number of recorder users by ....


----------



## cjl

The only number I see in that thread is 100Mb/s, which is 12.5MB/s, right in line with my expected numbers for 8 channels of DSD256 or 4 channels of DSD512, and a data rate easily achievable by even a large number of USB thumb drives.
  
 (Note that B and b do not mean the same thing when it comes to data rates)


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> The only number I see in that thread is 100Mb/s, which is 12.5MB/s, right in line with my expected numbers for 8 channels of DSD256 or 4 channels of DSD512, and a data rate easily achievable by even a large number of USB thumb drives.
> 
> (Note that B and b do not mean the same thing when it comes to data rates)


 
 Sorry, you are correct in B vs b; but then, cards that can be used with Korg units ARE also generally below 100Mb/s,
 meaning we are basically back to square one.
  
 And that "at least 100 Mb/s" holds true for 2 channels of DSD64 ...- as far as I have searched the web, no one attempted+suceeded in replacing HDD with card of one description or another while retaining glitch free 2 channel DSD128 recording with the MR 1000. As it is a portable field recorder, having no moving parts storage without impact sensitivity, certainly was/is wish/desire of many.
  
 The MR-1 thread is full of attempts - which, to my knowledge, all failed when DSD64 recording was required. The price of the Hoodman SSD cards that are on the border of useability proved to be deterrant enough for the time being.


----------



## cjl

That's using a slow interface though - anytime there are truly high bandwidth requirements, you see completely different interfaces with the flash memory than you see in any audio device. For a truly extreme example, look at high speed HD cameras - they can push hundreds of megabytes or more per second of data, and as a result have large, specialized (and expensive) flash storage arrays to handle the huge data volume. No audio recording currently in use (of any type) comes remotely close to stressing a modern storage device the way that high res/high speed video can.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> That's using a slow interface though - anytime there are truly high bandwidth requirements, you see completely different interfaces with the flash memory than you see in any audio device. For a truly extreme example, look at high speed HD cameras - they can push hundreds of megabytes or more per second of data, and as a result have large, specialized (and expensive) flash storage arrays to handle the huge data volume. No audio recording currently in use (of any type) comes remotely close to stressing a modern storage device the way that high res/high speed video can.


 
 I know that interface used in Korg MR series is slow. It is the sign of the time during it was developed - currently, there is (?) only one new model of TEAC DSD recorder availble at the prosumer level - or pro device$$$$. 
  
 I agree that high res/speed video is even more difficult task than hi res/speed audio.


----------



## JamesHuntington

https://wyred4sound.com/products/music-servers/music-server


----------



## bigshot

Wow! 2 grand! My mac mini media server was a lot cheaper and it does all that too.


----------



## SilverEars

Our Music Servers, which come in 1TB and 2TB capacities, *offer resolution up to 32/384 kHz* (as well as DSD), can be controlled wirelessly with both Apple and Android devices, play internet radio (and great music apps like Pandora and MOG) and support drag-and-drop transfer of music from your computer or NAS drive.


----------



## cjl

So? Any reasonably-competent media server (capable of bit-perfect playback of 16/44 or ideally 24/44 or 24/48) will sound identical to that for a huge amount less money (and if for some strange reason, you have files that only come in esoteric high-bitrate formats, there are plenty of available software suites for both Mac and Windows (and Linux, for that matter) that will play them or downconvert them for you).


----------



## SilverEars

..


----------



## SilverEars

..


----------



## bigshot

I'm sure it has a DAC. But that 1TB drive isn't going to go very far with a library of DSD files. Assuming you could even find enough to fill it.


----------



## SilverEars

bigshot said:


> I'm sure it has a DAC. But that 1TB drive isn't going to go very far with a library of DSD files. Assuming you could even find enough to fill it.


 
 It does have a line-out.  So it's a computer with capability to convert 32 bit audio files.


----------



## analogsurviver

silverears said:


> Our Music Servers, which come in 1TB and 2TB capacities, *offer resolution up to 32/384 kHz* (as well as DSD), can be controlled wirelessly with both Apple and Android devices, play internet radio (and great music apps like Pandora and MOG) and support drag-and-drop transfer of music from your computer or NAS drive.


 
 For anybody to seriously consider a music server primarily intended for high resolution files, capacity of 1TB and 2TB is hopelessly too small.
  
 It is like a Ferrari with a 5 gallon tank...


----------



## esldude

analogsurviver said:


> For anybody to seriously consider a music server primarily intended for high resolution files, capacity of 1TB and 2TB is hopelessly too small.
> 
> It is like a Ferrari with a 5 gallon tank...


 

 Depends on whether people like having and ACTUALLY listening to a reasonable amount of music or boasting they have enough music to listen to something unique for 10 years before hearing anything twice.  The latter is a common affliction of audiophiles that makes little sense to me.


----------



## analogsurviver

esldude said:


> Depends on whether people like having and ACTUALLY listening to a reasonable amount of music or boasting they have enough music to listen to something unique for 10 years before hearing anything twice.  The latter is a common affliction of audiophiles that makes little sense to me.


 
 Contrary to _*potential*_ users of DSD and therefore storage systems of one kind or another, I am DSD regular and am recording my own masters. On average, it is a hair below 15 GB/session. Over 2TB of my own DSDs, most still made with Korg MR 1, therefore DSD64. If I were using MR 1000 from the start, that data would (almost) be doubled.
  
 I have some 2.5K LPs to digitize. I find DSD128 the first digital worthy enough to undertake it. Assume playing time of an average LP to be 40 minutes, times 2500 = 100000 minutes. 11 minutes of DSD128 = 1GB .
 100000 divided by 11 = 9.0909... TB
  
 That without any downloads ( I find Channel Classics to be both quality and reasonably priced - but sadly only DSD64 ).
  
 That amount of storage used for redbook CD would tend towards what you have described.


----------



## esldude

analogsurviver said:


> Contrary to _*potential*_ users of DSD and therefore storage systems of one kind or another, I am DSD regular and am recording my own masters. On average, it is a hair below 15 GB/session. Over 2TB of my own DSDs, most still made with Korg MR 1, therefore DSD64. If I were using MR 1000 from the start, that data would (almost) be doubled.
> 
> I have some 2.5K LPs to digitize. I find DSD128 the first digital worthy enough to undertake it. Assume playing time of an average LP to be 40 minutes, times 2500 = 100000 minutes. 11 minutes of DSD128 = 1GB .
> 100000 divided by 11 = 9.0909... TB
> ...


 

 No not at all contrary.  If you listen to about 3 complete albums each day, you would not repeat one for almost 3 years.  I am pretty safe to say, you listen to little of your 2500 album list more than very, very occasionally.  A diseased way to appreciate music in my opinion.  You may listen to a track or two more often, but again, you aren't listening to much of your extensive collection very often at all.  Quite pathetic in fact. And disguised as a collection valuing quality over quantity.  Yet valuing deceptive quality as quantity.


----------



## elmoe

esldude said:


> No not at all contrary.  If you listen to about 3 complete albums each day, you would not repeat one for almost 3 years.  I am pretty safe to say, you listen to little of your 2500 album list more than very, very occasionally.  A diseased way to appreciate music in my opinion.  You may listen to a track or two more often, but again, you aren't listening to much of your extensive collection very often at all.  Quite pathetic in fact. And disguised as a collection valuing quality over quantity.  Yet valuing deceptive quality as quantity.


 
  
 And who are you to tell people how to listen to their music exactly? Unlike your pretentious highness, some people actually like wide variety of music and won't settle for listening to 5 albums a month because it's supposedly the "best way to appreciate music". The only thing diseased is the mind that thinks it knows better how to enjoy music and gives lessons to others about it. The only thing pathetic is someone who cares so much about how others listen to their music they need to bash it openly as if their way is the only way to truly appreciate it.
  
 The only thing that's clear as day is that if you have such strong opinions of how others listen to their music you must be doing something wrong yourself.
  
 "Reasonable amount of music" - hah. Some people are more into listening to music than collecting a small amount of flawless recordings for bragging rights.


----------



## analogsurviver

esldude said:


> No not at all contrary.  If you listen to about 3 complete albums each day, you would not repeat one for almost 3 years.  I am pretty safe to say, you listen to little of your 2500 album list more than very, very occasionally.  A diseased way to appreciate music in my opinion.  You may listen to a track or two more often, but again, you aren't listening to much of your extensive collection very often at all.  Quite pathetic in fact. And disguised as a collection valuing quality over quantity.  Yet valuing deceptive quality as quantity.


 
 You also can look at it this way. On average, I do listen to 2-3 complete LP albums a day.
  
 I listen to some albums much more than the others, that is for sure. I have maybe less than 5 albums I never listened to - because they were acquired in larger batches of LPs and are music I am really not interested in. And then there are LP albums that are almost worn out with repeated playing. 
  
 I have all but stopped acquring new albums, it has to be something really special if it is say classical work of which I already have several versions of, or a completely new "whatever". I certainly do not want to go to the collector frenzy crowd, who have incomparably more recordings, some to the point they will not live long enough to be able to listen to them all - even once. 
  
 Once all digitized to DSD, it will be easier to find a particular work - couplings of classical works, although quite consistent, can have its quirks and some less frequent/obvious ones can slip under the radar of human mind. Phisically, it is possible position a record within the library at one place only; Bruch/Mendelssohn Violin concerto, as the most frequent coupling springs first to mind - under B or M ? 
  
 I believe each person's desert island collection would stop at the number say around 50 . Luckily, I do not have to make that kind of decision - yet.


----------



## analogsurviver

elmoe said:


> And who are you to tell people how to listen to their music exactly? Unlike your pretentious highness, some people actually like wide variety of music and won't settle for listening to 5 albums a month because it's supposedly the "best way to appreciate music". The only thing diseased is the mind that thinks it knows better how to enjoy music and gives lessons to others about it. The only thing pathetic is someone who cares so much about how others listen to their music they need to bash it openly as if their way is the only way to truly appreciate it.
> 
> The only thing that's clear as day is that if you have such strong opinions of how others listen to their music you must be doing something wrong yourself.
> 
> "Reasonable amount of music" - hah. Some people are more into listening to music than collecting a small amount of flawless recordings for bragging rights.


 
 Although I am more than just bitten by the audiophille bug, I do listen to "music" first, sound quality be damned. Just yesterday I remember going from one of the top phono cartridges ever to something incomparably more humble - because the original SQ and condition of the vinyl did really not warrant the use of that superb and by now next-to-unobtainium stylus.  I have 4 arm/cartridge combos on my main turntable and switching never takes more than say a minute.
  
 And damn sure I was enjoying the voice of Teresa Berganza Rossini arias just as well - despite the German Decca pressing I was able to get is below the quality of the British one ( I am unfortunately familiar with ) ...
  
 I hope everyone will eventually find the way to listen to their music as it suits best. Happy listening everyone !


----------



## bigshot

esldude said:


> Depends on whether people like having and ACTUALLY listening to a reasonable amount of music or boasting they have enough music to listen to something unique for 10 years before hearing anything twice.  The latter is a common affliction of audiophiles that makes little sense to me.




When you have broad tastes in music and are looking to broaden them even further, there is no such thing as a "reasonable amount of music". Better to spend money on music than electronics, that's for sure!


----------



## bigshot

esldude said:


> If you listen to about 3 complete albums each day, you would not repeat one for almost 3 years.




The whole point of a music server is that they don't have to be "complete albums" any more. I rip my classical library by joining tracks into complete works. A symphony is one track. Then I put the whole library on shuffle play and stream it to stereos all over my house. Sometimes I sit down and listen carefully, controlling what I play using my iPhone. Sometimes I program it to just play Vivaldi on random shuffle at a low level as background music. If I feel like Jazz, I have a Jazz library... and a country library, and a R&B and Blues library, and a bunch of other genres. I'm surrounded by music all the time 24/7. In a week, I go through the equivalent of over 200 CDs. In a year, it would be well over 10,000... "Albums" would never be able to do that.


----------



## esldude

elmoe said:


> And who are you to tell people how to listen to their music exactly? Unlike your pretentious highness, some people actually like wide variety of music and won't settle for listening to 5 albums a month because it's supposedly the "best way to appreciate music". The only thing diseased is the mind that thinks it knows better how to enjoy music and gives lessons to others about it. The only thing pathetic is someone who cares so much about how others listen to their music they need to bash it openly as if their way is the only way to truly appreciate it.
> 
> The only thing that's clear as day is that if you have such strong opinions of how others listen to their music you must be doing something wrong yourself.
> 
> "Reasonable amount of music" - hah. Some people are more into listening to music than collecting a small amount of flawless recordings for bragging rights.


 

 I did say it was my opinion.  Never stated it as a fact.  It is an opinion I hold having known  some people with large, large collections between 3000 and 10,000 albums.  Most poignant to me personally was a friend who I knew to love music, love good sound, and yet got into a mode of building the world's finest music collection within his abilities.  He came down with a serious illness, and I had the unfortunate experience of sitting in his listening room as he bemoaned the fact he was not going to live long enough to listen to even half of the LP's he had assembled in his collection. 
  
 Now there are many ways to get too obsessed or too compulsive with any hobby you like.  Spending the cost of a house on a system to play only a few of the finest albums made, collecting more music than you can reasonably ever enjoy, collecting only things of highest quality even if that means ignoring music you do enjoy, getting tied up in quality to the point you really don't listen to music for music anymore, and so on and so forth.  Certainly one is free to proceed as they wish in the world whether I or anyone think it makes sense.  Also naturally anyone on some unhealthy path will become defensive explaining how it is their business and no one else to decide what is right for them.  And it is.  It also something others can judge as healthy or not, sensible or not, even though there is no absolute right or wrong.  Trying to learn from others, and realizing we always see the mistakes of others we can't see in ourselves, I do try and at least sometimes notice such things and alter my behavior to avoid what I consider less desirable outcomes.   It is my opinion an overly large music collection is not an optimum way to proceed.  Is that 500 albums, is that 100 albums is that 5000 albums well I have no definitive way to answer.  I also realize sometimes you have an album for only part of what is on it.  But at some point too much music is really too much as in you cannot really listen to it.  Call it pretentious if you will. 
  
 Perhaps my earlier statements were too blunt and could have been stated more kindly.  No personal insult, lack of respect or judging anyone else as a lesser person was intended.  My  apologies if I did offend any of you.  It was a statement of an opinion which I hold.  Not a guideline I expect someone else to follow. Any judgment was only of the activity and not of the people themselves.


----------



## elmoe

Then making do without adjectives like pathetic, diseased, or most recently pretentious and unhealthy, would do you some good. If you wish others not to feel insulted, perhaps you should begin by not insulting them.
  
 As for your friend, I don't see how it was unfortunate. Perhaps his children, inheriting his large music collection, will make good use of it, or whoever else gets his hands on it. Nothing wrong with that, or are you saying that we shouldn't accumulate music we like because we're going to die someday without having listened to all of it? Who cares? At least I have the choice to pick from my extensive collection whatever I wish in the meantime.
  
 I don't see how accumulating music can be considered unhealthy. I have an extremely large collection and there are only very few albums I haven't listened to (yet). Much like bigshot, music is on pretty much 24/7, and I listen to a lot more than 3 albums a day, and am glad I have plenty of to choose from. It's not about obsession or compulsion, simply whenever I come across a piece of music I like, I buy it and listen to it. I get bored of it and discard it for years, then rediscover it. There is nothing quite like this in fact, and I feel sorry for anyone too haughty to be able to have such experiences as they are, to me, some of the best things in life.
  
 For the record I have a lot more than 10000 albums, and the number of which I haven't listened to is only in the 2 digits realm.


----------



## bigshot

Someone can spend their whole life appreciating one tree, but I prefer to try to take in as much of the forest as I can. If I come down with a terminal illness, it doesn't matter if I have ten records or ten thousand, I'm still going to regret not having the time to hear all the great music there is to hear. Music is ennobling and you can't have too much of that in our modern world as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Lukalop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrfX-g8auc8 >.>


----------



## JamesHuntington

If one collects any items, it's either healthy or not. Dying with regret after you lost your family because they couldn't handle your collection might be unhealthy. Having room and money to collect, like Jay Leno and his cars, is healthy to some and sick to others.
Back in the day I used to have so many tape cases in my truck that it caused tension with my girlfriend because she had to share space with them. She kicked them a few times but I needed them at hand. 
I know a guy with a quoted 13000 albums. He likes the Dead, metal and classic rock. I ask him if he has any JJ Cale and he's never heard of him. I was astounded. 
I find that I buy a lot of albums to maybe sell them at some time in the future. But I'm realistic and my music is usually a keeper for me or a keeper for future sale. Just those albums that are hard to find and someday somebody might pay good money for it. If we all collect then prices will go up. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Yahzi

I've heard audiophiles claim that the most accurate and finely tuned measuring devices are our senses. Do you agree with this? If not, why not?


----------



## Agharta

yahzi said:


> I've heard audiophiles claim that the most accurate and finely tuned measuring devices are our senses. Do you agree with this? If not, why not?




Lend me your senses and I will let you know. 

On a philosophical level, your universe is defined by your perception of it, so the most you can experience is at the point where your physical limitations end. I don't personally believe in a God or anything beyond what we can sense, since that's a logical tautology. 

On a practical level, everyone has differently tuned physical capabilities and senses, therefore there are as many perceptions of reality as there are us. It is through the consensus of science and the development of devices to assist our measurement of physical sensation that we attempt a handshake of recognised commonality, in an attempt to unite our essential aloneness in time and space. Beer also works.


----------



## Mezzo

Wow, you seem intelligent and well spoken. Your input on something else would be appreciated. When comparing electronic gear, and hearing differences, there is a cause and effect. In sighted listening test, the effect could be a result of a different cause.
  
 So if listening to music with two amps, the difference you hear between them may be not be a result of any inherent secret sauce, but in the way you compare the amplifiers. You would say it makes sense for comparisons to ensure complete parity to ensure a reliable conclusion that you are indeed hearing a difference in the electronics as opposed to your own biases agreeing with you?


----------



## Agharta

mezzo said:


> Wow, you seem intelligent and well spoken. Your input on something else would be appreciated. When comparing electronic gear, and hearing differences, there is a cause and effect. In sighted listening test, the effect could be a result of a different cause.
> 
> So if listening to music with two amps, the difference you hear between them may be not be a result of any inherent secret sauce, but in the way you compare the amplifiers. You would say it makes sense for comparisons to ensure complete parity to ensure a reliable conclusion that you are indeed hearing a difference in the electronics as opposed to your own biases agreeing with you?




Yes, of course. Confirmation bias and visual / tactile cues are expertly manipulated by audio manufacturers to exploit your emotional reasoning. This is hardly rocket science - if it didn't make a difference what something looked like, why bother making it look so fancy? Cables are the ultimate example of this. 

The question really is whether knowing that you are being fooled leads to less misery in the long term or if ignorance really is bliss. 

The answer lies in how you act as a result of knowledge. 

Ultimately, once you ask the question and explain it, you change the neuro path ways of the listener, and happy ignorance is destroyed. You can't un-know something. Which is why the audio industry is so full of shiny shiny and pseudo-scientific nonsense words. Cold facts play havoc with the bottom line.

Imagine if high end reviewers started saying they liked the way something sounded because it cost shedloads and looked great and well they just had a great lunch and the sun is shining. How refreshing would that be and how long before chaos reigned?


----------



## castleofargh

yahzi said:


> I've heard audiophiles claim that the most accurate and finely tuned measuring devices are our senses. Do you agree with this? If not, why not?


 
  
 it's utterly false on every levels. tools can measure with more precision, more range, on frequencies we don't even ear. and the reason is simple, the tools are made for that very purpose.
 the only time you will outperform a measurement tool is when the said tool is bad, or has a precision margin defined larger than the one of your own senses.
 so if the question is "can a human with lot of practice, outperform a badly made tool giving results he doesn't know how to interpret?" then the answer is yes ^_^.
  
 the only reason measurements don't help us so much is because those tool don't have bias, psycho acoustic, weird ears, and bad tastes for lack of real audio education. so they usually don't give the result I, as an individual, want or enjoy.


----------



## upstateguy

castleofargh said:


> it's utterly false on every levels. tools can measure with more precision, more range, on frequencies we don't even ear. and the reason is simple, the tools are made for that very purpose.
> the only time you will outperform a measurement tool is when the said tool is bad, or has a precision margin defined larger than the one of your own senses.
> so if the question is "can a human with lot of practice, outperform a badly made tool giving results he doesn't know how to interpret?" then the answer is yes ^_^.
> 
> the only reason measurements don't help us so much is because those tool don't have bias, psycho acoustic, *weird ears,* and bad tastes for lack of real audio education. so they usually don't give the result I, as an individual, want or enjoy.


 
  
 Never heard it expressed that way before. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 How would you define weird ears?


----------



## Agharta

Anyone who enjoys metal.


----------



## leogodoy

"Imagine if high end reviewers started saying they liked the way something sounded because it cost shedloads"

They do exactly that sometimes, don't they? Or at least they leave that to the buyers, price is most of the times a relevant information to determine quality in posts by "audiophiles"


----------



## Spyro

Nothing to imagine...its a reality and it works twofold.
  
 Your (or their) brain alreadly says "this is a better product because I am spending more."   Then if they bought it...and spent a ton of money...they will brainwash themselves to assure they like it (regardless) because they spent so much money on it.


----------



## Agharta

My point isn't to imagine that perception bias us real but rather that audio industry reviewers be honest about it.


----------



## davidsh

Interesting thread, am trying to establish my own opinion on the subject. It just seems so far out that so many people are deceived, I mean it's common sense on these forums that amps sound different! The list goes on...
  
 So far my own opinion, or should I rather say conservative guess, is that well constructed DACs are indistinguishable, so are cables and in some cases amps as well.


----------



## Steve Eddy

davidsh said:


> It just seems so far out that so many people are deceived, I mean it's common sense on these forums that amps sound different!




It doesn't seem so far out when you consider that all these people are, well, people. Human beings. We talk a lot about our ears ("Trust your ears!"), but neglect to consider that those ears are plugged into a highly subjective brain that relies on a surprising amount of interpretation when it comes to our perceptions. That's why I avoid using words like deceived, hallucinating, etc. We're simply being human. The only deception is the self-deception on the part of those who refuse to accept their own humanity. But vanity and ego can be quite powerful so there will always be people like that.

se


----------



## elmoe

davidsh said:


> Interesting thread, am trying to establish my own opinion on the subject. It just seems so far out that so many people are deceived, I mean it's common sense on these forums that amps sound different! The list goes on...
> 
> So far my own opinion, or should I rather say conservative guess, is that well constructed DACs are indistinguishable, so are cables and in some cases amps as well.


 
  
 You've owned Fiio products you've since sold and bought different amp/dac. Is it your opinion that there has been no audible change?


----------



## ab initio

davidsh said:


> It just seems so far out that so many people are deceived, I mean it's common sense on these forums that amps sound different!




I hope all amps are dead silent so that i can hear the music coming from my headphones or speakers.

 Otherwise, im taking that noisy amp back to get whatever component is whining (power transformer?) replaced.

Cheers


----------



## davidsh

There is audible change between my tube hybrid and SS amps, that's for sure! Ofc there a difference between my different Staxes and also 500/5LE. Haven't been able to reliably notice differences between my DAC and a sa1.32 in AB testing, though I found them to sound different subjectively.


----------



## elmoe

Were you using the same amp while ABing those two DACs?


----------



## davidsh

elmoe said:


> Were you using the same amp while ABing those two DACs?



Of course. I used my srm-t1, which has 2 inputs, switching in windows sound settings. The output on 1 DAC was higher than the other, corrected by ear through software.


----------



## ab initio

Have we discussed this miraculous product yet here in sound science?

Cheers


----------



## genclaymore

I wonder how many people fell for that power brick, looked like they cut the cable off a existing one and closed up the hole, you know they most be rolling around in cash with that non-sense.


ab initio said:


> Have we discussed this miraculous product yet here in sound science?
> 
> Cheers


 
 I wonder how many people fell for that power brick, looked like they cut the cable off a existing one and closed up the hole, I betting they made a killing and is rolling around in cash.


----------



## Mezzo

So one of my buddies told me yesterday that his USB powered hard drive and his externally powered hard drive changes how his music sounds.
  
 Serious. He told me that when he played his music through his Asus O Play mini if he used a USB powered hard drive the music sounded flat and just lacking whereas if he used his externally powered hard drive it sounded great.
  
 Now he is questioning whether the difference was a result of the power supply. Correct me here, but there is no possible way that a hard drive, whether USB or not, can alter the sound quality of an audio signal?


----------



## OddE

mezzo said:


> So one of my buddies told me yesterday that his USB powered hard drive and his externally powered hard drive changes how his music sounds.
> 
> Serious. He told me that when he played his music through his Asus O Play mini if he used a USB powered hard drive the music sounded flat and just lacking whereas if he used his externally powered hard drive it sounded great.
> 
> Now he is questioning whether the difference was a result of the power supply. Correct me here, but there is no possible way that a hard drive, whether USB or not, can alter the sound quality of an audio signal?


 
  
 -If the analog part of the sound card is not galvanically isolated from the rest of the computer, a ground loop could form and thus affect the sound. However, that would not make it sound 'flat', but rather cause an annoying hum. Also, it would require the sound card designer to be completely clueless. (Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a requirement in USB that the interfaces are galvanically isolated - but I do not know this; just a guess)
  
 That aside, I am at a loss. Would he be willing to test out foobar and the DBX plugin? You could simply play the same file repeatedly, stored on either drive without him knowing which was which, then do the tally afterwards and see whether there is any true difference.


----------



## analogsurviver

mezzo said:


> So one of my buddies told me yesterday that his USB powered hard drive and his externally powered hard drive changes how his music sounds.
> 
> Serious. He told me that when he played his music through his Asus O Play mini if he used a USB powered hard drive the music sounded flat and just lacking whereas if he used his externally powered hard drive it sounded great.
> 
> Now he is questioning whether the difference was a result of the power supply. Correct me here, but there is no possible way that a hard drive, whether USB or not, can alter the sound quality of an audio signal?


 
 Depends on the particular setup. Manufacturers go to great lenghts to ensure the best possible result for the first part of any audio device to be made right - the POWER SUPPLY.  No audio device can be better than its power supply - it should be absolutely stable and quiet, which is an obvious impossibility - yet devices powered from only so-so and superb power supplies definitely do sound different. Over USB, it is very hard to have enough current, low impedance and noise free supply for anything attached to it. It is perfectly possible for an externallly powered drive to offer better performance than something working off USB. 
  
 There are special cables/filter for USB powered devices ( like http://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/micro-iusbpower/ ) - and the trend is to incorporate same/similar within DACs etc.
  
 Computer as generally known is EXTREMELY noisy enviroment - be it mechanically or electrically. If one insists
 on really quiet operation and good power supply - forget about "bang for the buck" bargain machines - what suffices for computing is in no way enough for computer audio. It can also be that a laptop powered off its internal battery will work better than powered off mains - usually by switching supply that usually can be heard.
  
 Just general observations - there is as many variables with computers as is there computers. It is perfectly possible for two of the same model computers to sound differently - once  I traced the culprit to be a subpar display, which did not manifest any malfunction but *slight* buzz with audio during quiet passages.
  
As always, YMMV.


----------



## headdict

One of my buddies told me that the sound can be improved significantly by putting the NAS server on a kilobuck table. He happens to be a vendor of audiophile equipment, which obviously includes furniture. He does not believe in the magic of uber expensive cables, though. Those tables look quite nice, actually, but not as impressive as some cables. Should I trust him?


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *OddE* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a requirement in USB that the interfaces are galvanically isolated


 
  
 It is not. Implementing isolation increases the cost of the device, so cheap USB DACs tend not to include it. It may be missing from more expensive ones because some audiophiles are worried that the extra parts in the digital signal path "increase jitter". It can also be unnecessary if the device is not connected to anything grounded other than the PC. In any case, USB isolators can be bought for a few tens of $, should one be needed.
  


> That aside, I am at a loss. Would he be willing to test out foobar and the DBX plugin? You could simply play the same file repeatedly, stored on either drive without him knowing which was which, then do the tally afterwards and see whether there is any true difference.


 
  
 Maybe it could be detected by listening to acoustic noise from the drives themselves, if at least one is not an SSD. But chances are the OS would cache any data that has already been read once in memory - today's computers with gigabytes of RAM can easily cache entire CDs. Anyway, my guess regarding the "difference" is that it could very well be imaginary, especially judging from how it is described. Or maybe the files are not actually identical (e.g. due to ReplayGain tags), but this is not likely.


----------



## Mezzo

So then it could just be hearing bias that caused him to hear a difference. Or he looked for a difference that wasn't there, or expected one.


----------



## analogsurviver

mezzo said:


> So then it could just be hearing bias that caused him to hear a difference. Or he looked for a difference that wasn't there, or expected one.


 
 With storage device, any type and powered with anything, it may also be important if the files are fragmented or not - and to what extent they can be fragmented before it can be manifested as deterioration in SQ. On an infinitely fast infinitely capable computer this should not ba an issue - in real life things can be different.


----------



## Mezzo

But


analogsurviver said:


> With storage device, any type and powered with anything, it may also be important if the files are fragmented or not - and to what extent they can be fragmented before it can be manifested as deterioration in SQ. On an infinitely fast infinitely capable computer this should not ba an issue - in real life things can be different.


 
 How does fragmentation affect the sound quality? Things like the tonal qualities of the sound? Because I thought that if there were errors that the music would be garbled, or parts missing, or something of that nature.


----------



## analogsurviver

mezzo said:


> But
> How does fragmentation affect the sound quality? Things like the tonal qualities of the sound? Because I thought that if there were errors that the music would be garbled, or parts missing, or something of that nature.


 
 It could affect jitter - depending on the configuration/processing power of the computer.
  
 Degradation occurs long before there are audible  errors causing garbled music, missing parts or something of that nature obvious even to a bystander listener. The first thing to suffer is the warmth of sound as heard live or from a good master - it gets ever colder more this master is "downgraded", then gos spatial rendition, etc, etc, - long before the point described above has been reached.
  
 Any computer works with some kind of "error correction" in case data stream is not what it should have been - and the less this pre-programmed error correction system is required and triggered/used, the more accurate the audio reproduction. If buffering of the whole file is possible, than fragmentation of files on original drives should have no consequence on SQ.
  
 Just a reminder - it takes 25 frames ( or so...)  per second for humans to perceive a series of stationary pictures as moving picture - which is roughly 1000 times slower than what we perceive as sound - that is why so tiny errors in timing have great effects on audio quality.
  
 Even if we make that factor 500 or so to accomodate hearing loss with age etc.


----------



## castleofargh

mezzo said:


> But
> 
> 
> analogsurviver said:
> ...


 
 the only effect I can think of would be about power consumption on a hard drive crippling what was already obviously not enough for the rest. I don't imagine that happening on a lot of systems.
 with speeds available now, and the initial buffer, I really can't imagine how bad the fragmentation would have to be to have any effect at all on sound, and as you said it would probably cause real errors, not sound changes.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> the only effect I can think of would be about power consumption on a hard drive crippling what was already obviously not enough for the rest. I don't imagine that happening on a lot of systems.
> with speeds available now, and the initial buffer, I really can't imagine how bad the fragmentation would have to be to have any effect at all on sound, and as you said it would probably cause real errors, not sound changes.


 
 One real problem with USB is the female USB socket itself - or, to be more precise, the way the electrical contacts to the printed circuit board are made.
  
 In 99.9.........9% of cases, the USB female socket's hard metal connectors are soldered directly to the PCB - with the minimum of solder material that will do the job.
 Works fine when new - but after so and so many USB connector mating cycles these solder joints start to deteriorate - and they DO NOT FAIL IN DIGITAL FASHION ; very rarely an USB female connector fails in 1 : 0 fashion, either working perfectly or not at all; resistance of the connection increases haphazardly/randomly, causing all kinds of ill effects. It can lead to the message :" This USB device can work faster if connected to high speed USB 2.0 port ". And it can well happen that failures in solder joints on high speed USB2.0 port can downgrade it to normal USB2.0 or even USB 1.1 standard. And fail to provide the current reqiored by the device connected to it, despite power supply more than able to do it, etc, etc
  
 One can re-solder these pesky USB females a few times - but wear and tear each insertion physically puts on the solder joint and/or copper trace on the PCB will invariably lead to ultimately complete failure - and anything between perfect and failure condition in between. Which means even if one has "perfect" power supply within the computer, there is always a fair chance it will be stopped at the bottleneck of the USB connector(s) for the reason described.
  
 All these vagaries can lead to diminished SQ even without "real" errors. The above USB socket problem is unfortunately highly elusive - since it may manifest itself as the temperature changes, with different male USB connectors, etc - next to impossible to reproduce the same error.


----------



## OddE

mezzo said:


> But
> How does fragmentation affect the sound quality? Things like the tonal qualities of the sound? Because I thought that if there were errors that the music would be garbled, or parts missing, or something of that nature.


 
  
 -It shouldn't. The file you are playing back is buffered in RAM; it should be available there at least several seconds prior to (intended) playback. With the copious amounts of RAM available these days, I guess lazy programmers would simply buffer the entire file, then start playing it back.
  
 A bit is a bit is a bit is a bit. As long as the sample is present to be read into the DAC at the correct time, the output will be fine; it does not matter whether the bit came from a SSD drive or a spinning platter, a tape or - for that matter - a punched card; as long as it is available to be shifted into the DAC buffer prior to being needed, the audio output will be fine.


----------



## liamstrain

analogsurviver said:


> Degradation occurs long before there are audible  errors causing garbled music, missing parts or something of that nature obvious even to a bystander listener. The first thing to suffer is the warmth of sound as heard live or from a good master - it gets ever colder more this master is "downgraded", then gos spatial rendition, etc, etc, - long before the point described above has been reached.


 
  
 Not the way digital music works. There is no way for "warmth of sound" or "spacial rendition" to be affected by a degraded digital signal. It either works, or doesn't.

  


> Any computer works with some kind of "error correction" in case data stream is not what it should have been - and the less this pre-programmed error correction system is required and triggered/used, the more accurate the audio reproduction. If buffering of the whole file is possible, than fragmentation of files on original drives should have no consequence on SQ.


 

 Correct-ish. There is no reason to think error correction causes audible changes unless the signal breaks at some point.
  


> Just a reminder - it takes 25 frames ( or so...)  per second for humans to perceive a series of stationary pictures as moving picture - which is roughly 1000 times slower than what we perceive as sound - that is why so tiny errors in timing have great effects on audio quality.


 
  
 No demonstration yet of digital timing errors being audible, either in the form of jitter or anything else - until it gets so bad as to break the signal. Also, few dacs use unbuffered streams anymore -  or do not do their own clocking, making this even less of an issue than it ever was (or wasn't).


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> Just a reminder - it takes 25 frames ( or so...)  per second for humans to perceive a series of stationary pictures as moving picture - which is roughly 1000 times slower than what we perceive as sound - that is why so tiny errors in timing have great effects on audio quality.


 
 I can only assume here that you're referring to the frequency of audio, since that would indicate a frequency of ~25kHz. However, that's irrelevant - how quickly we can perceive two separate images before they appear to blend together in motion is much more analogous to how closely spaced two sounds could be before they would blend together audibly into a single tone. In fact, to take your argument to the ludicrous extreme, we can see light with a frequency of up to 750 terahertz, which is 30 billion times faster than what we perceive as sound. Clearly, the timing requirements for HD video must be incredibly precise - after all, if a single pixel is delivered to my HDTV a couple of picoseconds late, the overall ambience is ruined, and I feel a subtle jittery coldness is taking over the presentation of the movie.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Degradation occurs long before there are audible  errors causing garbled music, missing parts or something of that nature obvious even to a bystander listener. The first thing to suffer is the warmth of sound as heard live or from a good master


 
  
 Sorry, wrong answer.
  
 Error due to fragmentation manifests itself as momentary artifacts when the buffer underruns, not overall "tints" to the sound.


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> Sorry, wrong answer.
> 
> Error due to fragmentation manifests itself as momentary artifacts when the buffer underruns, not overall "tints" to the sound.


 
 Does anyone actually use computer hardware and/or software that cannot keep up with the very modest requirements to run lossless audio? 
  
 cheers


----------



## bigshot

I've never had a problem with a Mac.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> I can only assume here that you're referring to the frequency of audio, since that would indicate a frequency of ~25kHz. However, that's irrelevant - how quickly we can perceive two separate images before they appear to blend together in motion is much more analogous to how closely spaced two sounds could be before they would blend together audibly into a single tone. In fact, to take your argument to the ludicrous extreme, we can see light with a frequency of up to 750 terahertz, which is 30 billion times faster than what we perceive as sound. Clearly, the timing requirements for HD video must be incredibly precise - after all, if a single pixel is delivered to my HDTV a couple of picoseconds late, the overall ambience is ruined, and I feel a subtle jittery coldness is taking over the presentation of the movie.


 
 Yes, you assumed correctly - meant was audio frequency, from around 25 kHz to half that - to cover for loss in hearing due to age etc.
  
 I like your analogy of two separate images before they blend together in motion to how closely spaced two sounds could be before they would blend together audibly into a single tone. Precisely that was initial negative reaction from the choir when I swiched from redbook CD recording to DSD - they lamented they no longer "blend together" on recordings as they "did" using redbook CD. Nothing wrong with the better recording - only tiny errors in timing of the singers now stand out clearly, as they no longer are masked by the slow redbook CD.
 It took a while before the recordings were "good again" - on the part of the singers. It actually helped them by forcing them to sing "more blended" - making one of the best choirs in existance even better.
  
 Although I expect similar effect(s) in massed strings, the opportunity to record some of it has not presented itself yet - musicians are not too excited about the recordings that actually can show too much for their liking ... - like massed strings unmassed by less-than-perfect playing, for example.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Nothing wrong with the better recording - only tiny errors in timing of the singers now stand out clearly, as they no longer are masked by the slow redbook CD.
> It took a while before the recordings were "good again" - on the part of the singers. It actually helped them by forcing them to sing "more blended" - making one of the best choirs in existance even better.


 
  
 Nothing was wrong with redbook. Your choir just needed more rehearsal. There's no chance of audible timing problems with redbook unless you have a serious problem with your recording equipment.


----------



## analogsurviver

ab initio said:


> Does anyone actually use computer hardware and/or software that cannot keep up with the very modest requirements to run lossless audio?
> 
> cheers


 
 Please define "very modest requirements to run lossless audio". Which audio format was meant by that ?
  
 When *native *DSD and DXD are required, these two do not represent modest requirement - at least not for the average user .


----------



## headdict

analogsurviver said:


> Please define "very modest requirements to run lossless audio". Which audio format was meant by that ?
> 
> When *native *DSD and DXD are required, these two do not represent modest requirement - at least not for the average user .




Come on, even tiny portable devices can do that nowadays. What average user would need such formats, anyway?


----------



## ferday

analogsurviver said:


> Please define "very modest requirements to run lossless audio". Which audio format was meant by that ?
> 
> When *native *DSD and DXD are required, these two do not represent modest requirement - at least not for the average user .




Ridiculous, the average user can watch hd video which is way more intensive than any audio format that exists. 

Straw man.


----------



## ab initio

ferday said:


> Ridiculous, the average user can watch hd video which is way more intensive than any audio format that exists.
> 
> Straw man.


 
 My point exactly. One can watch HD video on a raspberrypi!
  
 Cheers


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Nothing was wrong with redbook. Your choir just needed more rehearsal. There's no chance of audible timing problems with redbook unless you have a serious problem with your recording equipment.


 
 Well, each time I incrementally improved the resolution ( from the mic capsule to the monitoring HPs - including of course recorder(s) ) - there was a mild improvement using redbook CD standard recorder.  But it really came to life with DSD.
  
 I probably did not use precise enough wording - timing. Meant was actually pulse response - or high frequency limitting in redbook CD. Redbook (or any PCM for that matter, including DXD ) can not react fast enough to record an acoustical pulse in its entire amplitude - or separate two singers or whatever that are off in time for less than the rise time of the recording chain - "blending" them effectively together - or failing to record the short time sound at all . That is why redbook usually fails to convience "you are there" -  while producing more "perfect" or "desired/polished" sound than actually heard live. To be precise - meant is rebook recording WITHOUT any mastering, which normally makes things worse still.
  
 Person who grew up with CD may well condemn higher resolution recordings as noisy - because redbook chops off everything above 22.05 kHz  - including noise of the venue, microphones, mic preamps, etc - and glossing over the errors of the singers/musicians -  giving an easy way out.  An analogy would be photography - if one uses the best possible analog camera with best possible lens and is honest not to come within miles of Photoshop ever - better inform the model to take whatever it takes she/he can do to make her/his skin etc look really best it can.
  
 (High) resolution can backfire - badly so. I remember one recording I did using the Sony HiMD  (last minute notice, could not pack/carry anything else in the time available) - and after it became clear that the concert is going to take longer than announced, I had no option but to stop the recording during an applause and change rec mode from redbook CD to the next lower resolution , MP3 of some not so low rate sort - in order to be able to record the whole concert on the 1GB MD I had at hand. As this was recording in the city in an atrium, there was more than fair amount of noise intrusion from the surroundings. The lower resolution of MP3 actually made the resulting recording (remember, everything else was kept exactly the same ) more enjoyable than its redbook CD counterpart .
  
 To borrow the phrase by the late Peter Walker of QUAD : (maybe not the exact wording, but in this sense )
  
 "_The more you open the window, the more muck will fly in"_


----------



## Yazen

Quote:


analogsurviver said:


> Please define "very modest requirements to run lossless audio". Which audio format was meant by that ?
> 
> When *native *DSD and DXD are required, these two do not represent modest requirement - at least not for the average user


 


ferday said:


> Ridiculous, the average user can watch hd video which is way more intensive than any audio format that exists.
> 
> Straw man.


 


ab initio said:


> My point exactly. One can watch HD video on a raspberrypi!
> 
> Cheers


 
  
  
 Depends on the hardware and software being used, and how they are being implemented.  Do I even need to elaborate? 
 P.S:  analogsurviver's point is valid, even today :/


----------



## analogsurviver

headdict said:


> Come on, even tiny portable devices can do that nowadays. What average user would need such formats, anyway?


 
 Yes, tiny portable devices can do that nowadays.  But ask yourself - how many are out there ? Astell & Kern come to mind - and latest top smartphones that allow for USB hosting use of DSD/DXD capable portable DACs. 
  
 Average user will probably limit the format needs at about what Neil Young's Pono is offering - and that assumption I consider to be optimistic. It is probably the wisest choice based on the commercial aspect of the whole musical business - but not the best that can be done. Still a tremendous improvement over MP3s.


----------



## headdict

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, tiny portable devices can do that nowadays.  But ask yourself - how many are out there ? Astell & Kern come to mind - and latest top smartphones that allow for USB hosting use of DSD/DXD capable portable DACs.



The processing power of even the highest-end portable player does not come close to that of a half-way modern laptop or desktop computer. Processing DSD or DXD is not really demanding compared to, say, video editing. Besides, since this is a science forum, what would be a scientifically supported reason to listen to DSD/DXD as opposed to less demanding, maybe even (slightly) lossy formats?


----------



## ab initio

yazen said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Depends on the hardware and software being used, and how they are being implemented.  *Do I even need to elaborate*?
> P.S:  analogsurviver's point is valid, even today :/


 
 Yes. This is the sound science forum. Claims should be supported by evidence. We are all here to learn, and we would all appreciate it if you can give us an explanation! It helps to move the conversation forward 
  
@analogsurviver, you clearly have very strong feelings regarding the benefits of hires audio; however, the only evidence you provide is typically long-winded stories. Repeated fallacies don't help us understand the science of sound. Is your only evidence for the benefits of hires formats based on personal experience in uncontrolled settings? Or do you have a deeper understanding of the mechanism(s) at play that cause the benefits that your purport to exist? If you have a deeper understanding, then please share that understanding with us, because the "i once had this experience where I thought I heard a difference" doesn't help anybody progress toward a deeper understanding of audio.
  
 I appreciate that you guys are here participating in this discussion and trying to explain how and why you think certain aspects of hi-end audio are the way they are; however, please try to provide tangible evidence to support your claims, otherwise it's just adding the the confusion.
  
 @ everyone else. I just want to remind you all that just because someone does a poor job arguing their point by using fallacies doesn't automatically make their point wrong.
  
 Cheers


----------



## ferday

ab initio said:


> Yes. This is the sound science forum. Claims should be supported by evidence. We are all here to learn, and we would all appreciate it if you can give us an explanation! It helps to move the conversation forward
> 
> Cheers




If not an explanation, at least a concrete example of where this may be relevant...


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, you assumed correctly - meant was audio frequency, from around 25 kHz to half that - to cover for loss in hearing due to age etc.
> 
> I like your analogy of two separate images before they blend together in motion to how closely spaced two sounds could be before they would blend together audibly into a single tone. Precisely that was initial negative reaction from the choir when I swiched from redbook CD recording to DSD - they lamented they no longer "blend together" on recordings as they "did" using redbook CD. Nothing wrong with the better recording - only tiny errors in timing of the singers now stand out clearly, as they no longer are masked by the slow redbook CD.
> It took a while before the recordings were "good again" - on the part of the singers. It actually helped them by forcing them to sing "more blended" - making one of the best choirs in existance even better.
> ...


 
 So far, nobody has ever shown the ability to distinguish between redbook, higher-resolution PCM, and DSD in a proper double blind test. Redbook allows for a timing precision better than a few tens of microseconds. There is absolutely no way any choir recording requires better timing precision than that, especially since at the frequencies sung by the choir, that is much less than a single period of the waveform.
  
 Now, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but only if provided with actual evidence demonstrating clearly that humans can perceive the difference between redbook and DSD (or any other two formats of at least equal technical capability to redbook).


----------



## analogsurviver

headdict said:


> The processing power of even the highest-end portable player does not come close to that of a half-way modern laptop or desktop computer. Processing DSD or DXD is not really demanding compared to, say, video editing. Besides, since this is a science forum, what would be a scientifically supported reason to listen to DSD/DXD as opposed to less demanding, maybe even (slightly) lossy formats?


 
 Computer progress at an ever faster pace - or something like that. I agree that video editing is more demanding - no problem with that.
  
 Scientifically supported reason to listen to DSD/DXD ? Hard to tell to a person who did not have first hand experience with either. I do not have any experience worth mentioning with the DXD - because native DXD playback I have for about a week and I have no capability to record DXD. So I will state so and let it pass until things change.
  
 DSD is different - I do have 4+ years experience with it. In short - it gives the audibly closest approximation to the
 analog - live microphone feed or live sound without any technical means. I have tried PCM up to 192/24.
  
 We could go in detail regarding frequency/pulse response, noise concerns, etc, etc - DSD in its present incarnations of DSD64 and DSD128 is not perfect - and DSD256 recordings are only slightly more numerous than recorders capable of recording in this format at the moment.  Suffice to say is that DSD is capable of the most precise recording of a complex waveform ( music ...) at this point - quality which can be maintained provided no mastering is required . Presently, there is no way to master the DSD natively - conversion to some multi bit ( more than one bit ) digital format is requred to allow editing etc. Nowadays, this usually means editing in DXD - and based on the amount of anticipated editing one can decide (provided there are means at disposal of course ) whether it would not be better to record in DXD if heavy mastering is to be used.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Well, each time I incrementally improved the resolution ( from the mic capsule to the monitoring HPs - including of course recorder(s) ) - there was a mild improvement using redbook CD standard recorder.  But it really came to life with DSD.


 
  
 Expectation bias at work.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, tiny portable devices can do that nowadays.  But ask yourself - how many are out there ? Astell & Kern come to mind - and latest top smartphones that allow for USB hosting use of DSD/DXD capable portable DACs. Average user will probably limit the format needs at about what Neil Young's Pono is offering - and that assumption I consider to be optimistic. It is probably the wisest choice based on the commercial aspect of the whole musical business - but not the best that can be done. Still a tremendous improvement over MP3s.


 
  
 That may be true of low bitrate Frauenhofer MP3s, but AAC, which is MP4, is completely transparent at high bit rates. You don't need DSD or high bitrate formats. You really don't even need redbook. I run my entire music server off of high bitrate AAC files and they are completely indistinguishable from the original format, be it CD or SACD.


----------



## liamstrain

analogsurviver said:


> because redbook chops off everything above 22.05 kHz  - including noise of the venue, microphones, mic preamps, etc - and glossing over the errors of the singers/musicians -


 
  
 How is it glossing over singer errors when no singer can sing anywhere close to 20kHz. Indeed few instruments can reach that. 
  
 As for noise of the venue, microphones, mic-preamps - can you show audibility of these in the north of 22.05kHz range?


----------



## JamesHuntington

Yes this is a science thread, but how often is science wrong? This analogue guy is explaining that there is loss when recording on various formats. Nobody is proving anything by explaining audible hearing frequencies or vocal ranges. The point is is that we are either getting the information that we would at a live concert/studio session or we are not. And for those spending significant money on a sound system it is worth it knowing there's less loss in frequencies. For those satisfied with headphones and personal audio gear, then it won't matter because you might as well listen to a concert through a hole in a wall.


----------



## bigshot

There is no loss. It's very simple to measure the sound going in and the sound coming out and determine if there is a difference. If there is, you do listening tests to determine if it is audible. All of this has been done many times. Digital audio has been subjected to all sorts of measurements and the range of error has been established. Likewise, human hearing has been studied and JND (Just Noticeable Difference) standards have been established. The range of error of digital audio is an order of magnitude or more below our ability to hear. To human ears, digital audio is perfect. We really don't need to discuss it unless someone can come up with solid evidence that indicates different... measurements, controlled listening tests. But that isn't likely. All of these studies have already been performed.
  
 Expectation bias is a very powerful thing. It makes people believe things that aren't true, and it makes them stick to their guns, even when all the facts contradict it. It weaves in and out around a person's ego and makes them think their hearing is superior to other people's. But the truth is, it's an illusion. We're witnessing that right here.


----------



## analogsurviver

ab initio said:


> Yes. This is the sound science forum. Claims should be supported by evidence. We are all here to learn, and we would all appreciate it if you can give us an explanation! It helps to move the conversation forward
> 
> @analogsurviver, you clearly have very strong feelings regarding the benefits of hires audio; however, the only evidence you provide is typically long-winded stories. Repeated fallacies don't help us understand the science of sound. Is your only evidence for the benefits of hires formats based on personal experience in uncontrolled settings? Or do you have a deeper understanding of the mechanism(s) at play that cause the benefits that your purport to exist? If you have a deeper understanding, then please share that understanding with us, because the "i once had this experience where I thought I heard a difference" doesn't help anybody progress toward a deeper understanding of audio.
> 
> ...


 
 I promised to post the photos of square wave as recorded by various analog and digital formats - and will post them in near future.  I wish I had more measuring equipment ( at least a spectrum and distortion analyzer ) - but I do not.
  
 The arguments against the audibility or effects of mere existance of frequency response above accepted limit of human hearing of 20 kHz are numerous - from microphones that do go beyond 20 kHz (even if not specified how tightly or not specified at all - but they DO ) that people think/claim they stop on the dime once 20001 Hz is reached - all the way to the final recording. Now please be honest and answer how many of you who are convienced in "perfect sound forever" actually posess native DSD and/or DXD playback capability - I am not claiming redbook is not enough because I have heard it three times over last millenium at friend's or someone else's place in unfamiliar setting and assume it is not enough. 
  
 The sound is NOT science - or not PURELY science - and it will never be. There will always be composers/singers/musicians first - the ART - who will create some new sound that is likely to tax the equipment at any given point in time beyond its capabilities. Do we have ENTIRE recording chain capable of recording the entire dynamic range of human hearing ( approx 120 dB ) ? No. Do we have recording venues  quiet enough to allow the full use of such hypothetically perfect recording chain ? No. Do we have the listening rooms capable of such dynamic range ? No. Do we normally have the equipment that can reproduce _*uncompressed *_recordings at lifelike SPLs ? No. This last one can be answered with yes in case of headphones/IEMs - some actually are capable of lifelike SPLs. Most audiophile friends that actually come to the concerts or sometimes recordings will usually comment :
  
 " .... but I never thought a ( put here your favourite acoustic voice/instrument/whatever  ) is so loud in real life..." 
  
 because they listen at home within the capabilities of their rooms, equipment and good neighbour relations - on top of compressed recordings. By compressed I by no means mean only popular music that has been subjected to the abuse of loudness wars - there is very little classical recordings that have been issued in uncompressed form - or recorded/mastered so not to tame the loud climaxes, particularly in the bass - while pushing up in level quiet passages. And no explicit compressor/limiter is required to arrive at  such officially uncompressed but actually pretty compressed sound. Simply because of the above reasons - to allow these recordings to be enjoyed by the public sufficient in number to be able to sustain everyone involved in making the recordings. Produce an "unplayable" recording or notorious system destroyer - and the story might quickly be over.
  
 With the advent of hirez digital at relatively accesible prices there is for the first time in history possible to record and playback at realistic levels - at least with headphones. Those who have speaker setups that can actually do it - I salute you and envy at the same time, as prerequisite is large enough (properly treated ) listening room - which in itself is more costly than most mortals can ever hope to afford.
  
 Only AFTER all this comes science - what it can do to qualify and quantify how much of which isolated parameter affects what aspect we perceive as audible. I am most certainly not against the science - but it is less than all-inclusive and in case of sound not profitable enough to foster much research beyond the status quo.
  
 To use analogy with cars; there are speed record breaking "cars" that try as hard as they can not to start to fly, which are the ultimate achievable - then there are dragsters of various types - then there are racing cars like F1 - there are rally racing cars - etc - and then there are normal every day cars up to and including Porsches and Ferraris & similar  , which have to conform to the rules and regulations of traffic within any given country.
  
 Now, because someone has say a Ferrrari and is capable of safely driving it to say 80 % of the car's ultimate performance, this does not mean everyone else must aspire to drive "in the same league". Most public roads in the world have speed limits - and besides that, common sense dictates to drive so as at least not to present danger to others involved in traffic. Because most of the time that Ferrari or whatever will not be used to the full potential, it does not mean it should have been downgraded in performance. And to whatever higher level might be normal roads upgraded because of this handful of Ferrais will benefit everyone else too - unless the lower speed limit outlaws the worse cars.
  
 The same with music. If you honestly tell a prospective customer that the requirement for a speaker based system truly capable of doing it is five towards six figures PLUS the necessary room  - how many will actually be willing and capable of such a commitment ? Then again - should recordings capable of doing justice to such systems be allowed, banned - or whatever ? Remember, such recordings can be enjoyed with headphones - at truly fraction of the cost for a speaker based system.
  
 Ultimately, it boils down to the original recording. If it is made with minimalistic microphone techniques, it has the possibility to reveal the potential of hirez formats. But it has to be originally recorded as hirez - not (n+1)th remaster of an album recorded originally half a century ago - which technically could not have been at the high enough level . Which is not to say there are no excellent recordings from that era that do come close - like Harry Belafonte's At Carnegie Hall. It does not sound "dated" by any means - more than 50 years later. If the recording had not been made with absolute top available at the time but considered the "average" consumer/equipment of the time - it would have fared far, far worse. 
  
 So, even if DSD and DXD might - or may - be considered an unnecessary overkill at the time - who knows what will be available in say next 50 years. The progress will continue, things will ultimately perform better and be more affordable than presently - but limiting the recording just because science says redbook CD should be enough is not a wise idea. Remember, far less people were capable of enjoying the Belafonte's Carnegie Hall recording off second generation copy of original analog master tape ( or even vinyl LP ) in the sixties than there are people with DSD/DXD native playback capability today - yet that did not deter the making of the recording to the highest standard then available.  Only decades later did the playback part catch up.
  
 I really wish I could *somehow* squeeze the sound in computer and send it via internet to another part of the globe - while having the control, or at least information over the ultimate outcome. Computer audio is not totally "digital" - in a sense that there are at least two major OS ( Windows and Mac ) - and software players are not created equally, even within given OS . Then there is a question of DAC - I hope now not someone will say they all sound the same ?
  
 In that sense, computer audio is similarly "analog" as real analog equipment ( which tape recorder, which cutting head, which cartridge - all on paper "compatible", in real life discernable enough ). 
  
 With all of the abovs said and done - does anybody honestly believe the sensation of sound perception can be 100% covered by science - for 100% of listeners ? Or that anyone is capable of making a truly blind ABX - completely equal for each and every of say 100 participants in the test ?  ( the closest could be achieved trough 100 pairs of headphones run off apropriate amplification fed from the same source ).


----------



## JamesHuntington

A recording is a recording. A better recording might not be audibly different on most stereos. But for people that have very good stereos and want to recreate a concert or studio performance, then a recording with all audible and inaudible noise is beneficial. And the best way to get this type of recording is with a medium that can handle such frequencies. Maybe the only way to get live/studio sound is live, but why not keep trying instead of red book/lossless satisfaction? Give me the information please, hold nothing back.


----------



## ferday

analogsurviver said:


> With all of the abovs said and done - does anybody honestly believe the sensation of sound perception can be 100% covered by science - for 100% of listeners ? Or that anyone is capable of making a truly blind ABX - completely equal for each and every of say 100 participants in the test ?  ( the closest could be achieved trough 100 pairs of headphones run off apropriate amplification fed from the same source ).




Great post! I don't think everyone here is disagreeing with you, certainly not 100%. But without proof...it is what it is. 
On a personal level, I'm interested in a lot of your ideas. 

I will say it seems strange to me that I can't personally a/b flac vs 256 (without choosing problem samples) but I'm somehow supposed to have my mind blown from 24/96 to DSD.


----------



## davidsh

Well, isn't it quite simple? If it is nowhere near audible to the human ear, it isn't audible? From all the scientific standpoints I have heard/seen 44.1/16 bit recordings are transparent. I suppose that must be end of story. Or?
  
 Also, anything past some 20 kHz shouldn't be audible to anyone, and if it is, it must be because something is wrong with the chain like intermodulation distortion, which is simply not supposed to be there. Period?
  
 One could argue that 16 bit vs. 24 bit makes a little sense. Nonetheless we are talking -96dB noisefloor relative to the loudest possible level in a 16 bit recording. That is quite massive.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> A recording is a recording. A better recording might not be audibly different on most stereos. But for people that have very good stereos and want to recreate a concert or studio performance, then a recording with all audible and inaudible noise is beneficial. And the best way to get this type of recording is with a medium that can handle such frequencies. Maybe the only way to get live/studio sound is live, but why not keep trying instead of red book/lossless satisfaction? Give me the information please, hold nothing back.


 
  
 I would like to know how inaudible sound is beneficial to listening to music on a home stereo.
  
 It doesn't matter what is in the recording or how good the stereo is if the content already exceeds a human being's ability to hear. All of those inaudible sounds might as well be gamma rays or a single atom. We can't perceive them.
  
 There are REAL ways to improve sound quality. Things that matter. But all of those involve optimizing the sound that we CAN hear. The irony is that audiophiles say they care about sound quality, but they worry about all the things that DON'T affect sound quality, and ignore the things that do. It's illogical and steeped in OCD. It's also a result of throwing around numbers and measurements without any idea what those sound like in the real world. How loud is 96dB? What does 20kHz sound like? What does 1% THD sound like in relation to .1% or .01% or .001%? Audiophiles know all about measurements of sound and nothing about what those measurements sound like.
  
 I have a really good sounding stereo myself. It wasn't crazy expensive and I didn't get it by worrying about things that don't matter. I got there by prioritizing to favor things that did the most good, addressing problems directly, planning in advance what I was going to do next, and systematically applying what I learned from science to optimize the sound. What I didn't do is try to twist science around to fit my pet theories. I made science itself my pet theory.


----------



## JamesHuntington

It doesn't matter if it's beneficial, it's that it's not there. 
Audiophiles like everyone else has limits in technology. 
And scientists, like consumers, also have to weigh the cost to benefit ratio. 
All that said, it is possible that all technology is not progressing at similar rates. Computers, microphones and speaker technology are not evolving at similar speeds. Computer geeks didn't design them to record music specifically, which may be the reason for such a lopsided evolution.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> It doesn't matter if it's beneficial, it's that it's not there.


 
  
 That has nothing to do with sound quality and everything to do with obsession with things that don't matter. That is exactly my point. Inaudible sound is only a problem if your brain makes it one. Lord knows, your ears don't care.


----------



## JamesHuntington

Some brains can't unimagine as well as yours.


----------



## liamstrain

jameshuntington said:


> Some brains can't unimagine as well as yours.


 
  
 Which is why proper a/b or dbt testing is helpful. 
  
 I absolutely understand trying to make sure that the recording has as much bit depth as possible - for reasons relating to the mastering and editing processes. But playback is another story entirely.


----------



## JamesHuntington

analog guy can tell the difference. Are you actually proper a/bing at the analog guys standards? Maybe your equipment is too flawed to get a great a/b? Because analog guy can hear it. Maybe it's the recording you are a/bing? 
If analog guy is right, then we all win. If he's wrong, then it doesn't matter.


----------



## liamstrain

jameshuntington said:


> analog guy can tell the difference. Are you actually proper a/bing at the analog guys standards? Maybe your equipment is too flawed to get a great a/b? Because analog guy can hear it. Maybe it's the recording you are a/bing?
> If analog guy is right, then we all win. If he's wrong, then it doesn't matter.


 
  
 He asserts he can hear it. But without knowing methodology and controls, we cannot evaluate whether it is psycho-acoustic phenomena, or actual audible differences.
  
 If he's right - he'll have changed much of what we know about human audible perception, electronics, digital audio, and sound reproduction in general. But the bar for evidence to do so is higher than merely stating it on a forum.


----------



## esldude

jameshuntington said:


> Yes this is a science thread, but how often is science wrong? This analogue guy is explaining that there is loss when recording on various formats. Nobody is proving anything by explaining audible hearing frequencies or vocal ranges. The point is is that we are either getting the information that we would at a live concert/studio session or we are not. And for those spending significant money on a sound system it is worth it knowing there's less loss in frequencies. For those satisfied with headphones and personal audio gear, then it won't matter because you might as well listen to a concert through a hole in a wall.


 

 Still it is a science thread.  Got anything other than bold claims behind analogue guy's suppostions?  If not, then it really doesn't belong here.  It is no different than the "trust me my ears can tell" idea all over the other forums.
  
 The point isn't at this level about getting all the information at a live concert or studio.  We aren't, but that is due to microphones and speakers.  Not the digital formats.  Currently digital formats can provide pretty much all the info a human could hear.  If we figure out how to mic it and play it back better, the formats aren't a bottleneck.  Since microphones are the first bottleneck, and digital will already gives us all those are generating, no increase in sample rate will dig out new info.  The microphone and pre-amp are not up to stressing the digital formats.  Plenty claim that is not the case, but no scientific info seems to support their opinion.  Just the reverse actually.


----------



## ab initio

analogsurviver said:


> With all of the abovs said and done - does anybody honestly believe the sensation of sound perception can be 100% covered by science - for 100% of listeners ? Or that anyone is capable of making a truly blind ABX - completely equal for each and every of say 100 participants in the test ?


 
 Yes. Yes. Yes.
  
 Cheers


----------



## bigshot

> If he's wrong, then it doesn't matter.


 
  
 Bingo!


----------



## bigshot

liamstrain said:


> He asserts he can hear it. But without knowing methodology and controls, we cannot evaluate whether it is psycho-acoustic phenomena, or actual audible differences.


 
  
 It's clear on his posts that it's expectation bias along with a heck of a lot of justification of expectation bias.


----------



## analogsurviver

esldude said:


> Still it is a science thread.  Got anything other than bold claims behind analogue guy's suppostions?  If not, then it really doesn't belong here.  It is no different than the "trust me my ears can tell" idea all over the other forums.
> 
> The point isn't at this level about getting all the information at a live concert or studio.  We aren't, but that is due to microphones and speakers.  Not the digital formats.  Currently digital formats can provide pretty much all the info a human could hear.  If we figure out how to mic it and play it back better, the formats aren't a bottleneck.  Since microphones are the first bottleneck, and digital will already gives us all those are generating, no increase in sample rate will dig out new info.  The microphone and pre-amp are not up to stressing the digital formats.  Plenty claim that is not the case, but no scientific info seems to support their opinion.  Just the reverse actually.


 
 Partially true. There are microphones ( at least one, Sanken ) that exceed the frequency response of all known digital recording, being about equaled perhaps (should be there about ) by DSD256 and maybe DXD recorder(s). That is to say "essentially flat" frequency response of mic/preamp/recorder to 100 kHz ( please note Sanken is anything but ruler flat, its response assumes the filtering in air across typical distance  used in recording  and polar characteristics of real world, not infinitely small physical objects -http://www.sanken-mic.com/upload/pdf/en/co-100k.pdf ) , no brick wall filtering - the response extends
 beyond the 100 kHz limit similar to that of analog amplifiers, definitely not PCM's brick wall filtering. 
  
 I would love to have access to the Sanken mics... - beyond my reach at the moment.
  
 There are other microphones for music capable of response extending well beyond 20 kHz - at least to the 50 kHz. . From several manufacturers, I would like to stress I am not affiliated with any one of them, not trying or wanting to be labeled a fanboy of any mic manufacturer.
  
 It also holds true that if one uses in series devices that have the same bandwidth and assume the same rate of attenuation vs frequency above the upper limit, one gets as many times higher rate of attenuation vs frequency as there are devices in the chain. The only filter that does not ring is 6 dB/octave - and the only practical way to avoid ringing is by placing those frequency limits outside the audio range and as far apart as possible - all in hope of ring free overall response. That is the prime reason for using devices that exceed the accepted human hearing limit of 20 kHz - because what ends up being recorded within 20 kHz limits is free from the above mentioned problems. Even if and when perfect digital filters become available - there will still be analog microphone which no matter how advanced, will still present less than perfect response. Farther away from audible range all these inaccuracies can be removed, the easier to get audio band without abberations.
  
 Above must have been at least part of the reason why the best recording engineers started to use *measuring* microphones ( extending way above 20 kHz ) from Bruel & Kjaer in the 70s for recording of music (despite that being "overkill" by any traditional reasoning - and much more costly to begin with ) - and it rather quickly lead to the introduction of somewhat simplified/aimed at music recording mics from Bruel & Kjaer in the early 80s - culminating in establishing DPA, which is the audio branch of Bruel & Kjaer of today.
  
 It is true there is no microphone/preamp that can exploit the full dynamic range of human hearing (about 120 dB) within the SPLs considered to be still normal for music ( peaks around 120 dB ) from the perspective of the listener within the audience - because of the mic/preamp  noise floor which is above 0 dB . Mics can go well in excess of 120 dB, thus achieving dynamic range over 120 dB, but that can only be used for close miking, which I generally avoid and actually never use.
  
 Whatever the recorder, it should be capable of at least the dynamic range of the microphone. 24 bit recording can achieve 120 dB dynamic range, DSD just a little less ( 1 or few dBs IIRC )  - which should be enough for any music. It is the noise from the microphones and preamps that limits the dynamic range at the lower levels. 
  
Not to mention the real world noise levels of recording venues ( lighting, heating, air condition, surrounding traffic, etc ) - that can dwarf any attempts at the perfection of the recording chain.


----------



## analogsurviver

liamstrain said:


> How is it glossing over singer errors when no singer can sing anywhere close to 20kHz. Indeed few instruments can reach that.
> 
> As for noise of the venue, microphones, mic-preamps - can you show audibility of these in the north of 22.05kHz range?


 
 No singer can sing close to 20 kHz - but two or more singers can start singing the same note with a tiny delay ( proving they are humans after all ) - and that delay can get swept under the rug if the recording is not capable of recording of so short duration signals and effectively blends the two or more sounds  into one "artificially perfect" sound. It will get clearer exactly what I meant after posting square and hopefully pulse response of varios analog and digital audio devices.
  
 I electronics, for the noise of semiconductors, etc, the noise is always given with reference to bandwidth; regardless how one want to interpret it, fact remains that greater bandwidth means more noise - and a decision/compromise has to be made to get the overall best performance possible on sample to sample basis.
  
 All real world microphones/preamps have in their noise spectrum components above 20 kHz - which contribute to the overall audibly perceived noise level. And each venue DOES have its own sound - that quiet hushing BEFORE the music starts ( it can be heard even on good analog recorded vinyl records, above the level of tape hiss and vinyl noise -  that total lack of any noise in some CDs just is not there in real life ). I expect to be very little ultrasonic content in the sound of the venue itself - if at all. That is why I am saying redbook CD standard is producing "artificially "better" or less noisy" recordings - by removing anything above 22.05 kHz range. It is a sort of automatic Photoshop that can not ever be turned off - and listener accustomed to redbook CD may well find live mic feed or high rez recordings to be more noisy than what he/she is accustomed to and grew to accept and demand. Effectively praising one of the most objectionable shortcomings of redbook as virtue.


----------



## stv014

analogsurviver said:


> No singer can sing close to 20 kHz - but two or more singers can start singing the same note with a tiny delay ( proving they are humans after all ) - and that delay can get swept under the rug if the recording is not capable of recording of so short duration signals and effectively blends the two or more sounds  into one "artificially perfect" sound.


 
  
 Sub-sample resolution delays are entirely possible in discrete time systems. It is a common and annoying myth that digital audio has a "timing resolution" of integer samples, and thus a very high sample rate is required to reduce this (non-existing) problem.


----------



## castleofargh

jameshuntington said:


> Yes this is a science thread, but how often is science wrong? This analogue guy is explaining that there is loss when recording on various formats. Nobody is proving anything by explaining audible hearing frequencies or vocal ranges. The point is is that we are either getting the information that we would at a live concert/studio session or we are not. And for those spending significant money on a sound system it is worth it knowing there's less loss in frequencies. For those satisfied with headphones and personal audio gear, then it won't matter because you might as well listen to a concert through a hole in a wall.


 
 I'm with you. and you might notice that we don't try to burn people for buying 24bit of dsd. if someone believes it is important, then it is. we just try to say to people to make sure it really is before spending money on it.
 also the whole idea of listening at home like it was the concert is a concept of its own. most of what the sound engineer does on the master is to maximize the detail retrieval and improve listening comfort/pleasure. he doesn't work to make it sound like the concert(he could). maybe people looking for concert sound should start there instead of inventing stuff that might or might not have a slight effect at a subconscious level. and pay for stuff that "might matter".
  


> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> The sound is NOT science - or not PURELY science - and it will never be. There will always be composers/singers/musicians first - the ART - who will create some new sound that is likely to tax the equipment at any given point in time beyond its capabilities. Do we have ENTIRE recording chain capable of recording the entire dynamic range of human hearing ( approx 120 dB ) ? No. Do we have recording venues  quiet enough to allow the full use of such hypothetically perfect recording chain ? No. Do we have the listening rooms capable of such dynamic range ? No. Do we normally have the equipment that can reproduce _*uncompressed *_recordings at lifelike SPLs ? No. This last one can be answered with yes in case of headphones/IEMs - some actually are capable of lifelike SPLs. Most audiophile friends that actually come to the concerts or sometimes recordings will usually comment :
> ...


 
 I agree with all the quote part, except ... your conclusion ^_^
 you're saying that the records are compressed and band limited because most systems are limited. to you this is a compatibility reason. this is simply not the case. albums are compressed because like I told you a few days back, most people want casual listening when turning on music at home. and real live performance is anything but casual (except maybe a few very calm genres). vocals for example are pretty much always dynamically compressed, human speech uses a wild range of dynamic, and if it would seem natural for you to listen to the real thing, be sure that most people at home would be disturbed by uncompressed vocals.
 and the most rational way to explain that is by looking at albums over time. when our recording capabilities weren't that great, we already had some amazing classical and rock albums with some nice dynamic ranges. with time we have increased tremendously our usable dynamic capabilities, vinyl could do nicely but with the risk of making the needle jump from a too drastic change, and overall treble voodoo EQ to limit picking up too much noise, the actually usable dynamic wasn't that amazing on most albums. tapes were a mess, cd brought some concrete 60+db(dac limit) usable without noise and now gives a good 100db with modern dacs, 24bit goes to 144db!!!! who could ever need that?
 yet even the best jazz records who luckilly slipped trough the loudness war, will usually not go above 60 or 70db of dynamic. those who do usually just pick up the room noise as a "bonus"... because the room noises do cover up what could have been the last part of a decaying sound. even in a studio there is a limit to what is actually usable because of ambient noise.
 not long ago someone posted a study saying that mostly people found a dynamically compressed track to sound better than the less compressed one (that doesn't make me happy at all, but that's how it is). of course how much compression will make the difference between better and simply rubbish, but clearly some compression is prefered by people.
 when the master is done, they know that people will listen to music between ... 65 and 95db I would say, for not so crazy humans. so what would be the point of having 120db of dynamic anyway? do you pretend you would benefit from al the sounds under 1db when your very silent room is already full of noises above 20db? wishfull thinking doesn't change real world situation. we would have to listen to the music at incredibly loud levels to expect any audible benefits, but then human ears protection kicks in and we end up hearing less than a normal volume level listening.
 even if it was pleasing (and it is not for casual listening), using a huge dynamic would make no sense. just look at good classical records, you wanna listen to it quietly, no can do. because of the nice dynamic(and I'm talking 50 or 60db here, nothing amazing), I just can't lay down and listen to it quietly. else I wouldn't hear half of the music.
 and that's all there is to it, even those free from the loudness war will compress the dynamic to a certain point because it makes sense to do so, to please the majority of listeners in a majority of situations.
 and filtering out the high frequencies is the same, why bother with stuff people cannot hear when keeping it just increases data weight and might actually be detrimental to the signal?
  
 also overall DSD dac is not that different from some PCM dacs that use the duration of a passing current to set the voltage level and shape the signal into analog. to put it simply, all the time it's ON the voltage goes up, and super fast ON/OFF switches are what decides of the voltage value at a given time. that's not how all PCM dacs work, but some do and I don't know the history behind DSD, but I would guess that those PCM dacs were what was used as a concept to make DSD. all that to say that I don't see DSD as a revolutionary format at all. less so because most actual DSD are converted PCMs.
 the only reason I see to get a DSD file is because those ******** woudn't make certain masters available in redbook.
  


jameshuntington said:


> A recording is a recording. A better recording might not be audibly different on most stereos. But for people that have very good stereos and want to recreate a concert or studio performance, then a recording with all audible and inaudible noise is beneficial. And the best way to get this type of recording is with a medium that can handle such frequencies. Maybe the only way to get live/studio sound is live, but why not keep trying instead of red book/lossless satisfaction? Give me the information please, hold nothing back.


 
 because the reasons to have "more" than redbook are unfounded in most cases and the potential improvements measure as far less important than having low distortion, having a stable power supply from the amp, and first real problem, the speaker/headphone. that is where improvement can be real and where it does make a difference, measurable and audible. 
 it's not that we have a fetish for redbook, we really couldn't care less what name and what extension is on our albums. it's just that the industry is putting money on mostly useless stuff when there are other areas that need fixing, or at least that could really benefit from R&D.
 also every time I see someone trying to sell me the hirez idea while using a 2% THD tube amp, I can't help but laugh at the irony.
  
  
 Quote:


> analogsurviver said:
> 
> 
> > With all of the abovs said and done - does anybody honestly believe the sensation of sound perception can be 100% covered by science - for 100% of listeners ? Or that anyone is capable of making a truly blind ABX - completely equal for each and every of say 100 participants in the test ?


 
 yup I really do. as long as what is tested is a simple stereo signal going into 2 outputs, there is nothing we can't measure or explain. it's nothing more than air pressure changing at one point. how complicated could that be? 1 single number at instant T says all there is to say and all that is said on a record. and even if we were to take into account the altitude and ambient temperature changing the air density, science still has it all very much covered. in fact science could tell how sound would go in most gases or liquids in confined space of any form. they probably even could do it with wind.
 thinking that the artistic part of a composer-interpret-sound engineer somehow keeps on being free and artistic after it's been pressed is false. the shape or our ear or our tastes are not some artistic components that gives us the right to say whatever because, "hey I'm unique! I say what I want". however messed up our ears, if we can ear sound, one signal with more bass than the second will be heard as having more bass for everybody or at least as being different (except maybe some rare pathological cases, but I'm willing to expect that we do not change the whole audio industry for those guys). a blind test is based on differences for that very purpose. we don't ask if the subject believes it is bassy, or grainy or if he likes it. we ask him if it's different than the other one. something anybody not mentally or physically challenged can do.
 and when people can't hear a difference, it doesn't matter what version is better. that's as simple as that, and the point of DBT for human, having more overall value than measurements that exceed human capabilities.
 but measurements are right if they can be reproduced in controlled enviromnent. in that way science is true. the sensation of sound perception can certainly be better covered by science than by my grandma's guts. and that is very much what people bring to say science isn't enough for audio. gut feelings.


----------



## ferday

castleofargh said:


> I'm with you. and you might notice that we don't try to burn people for buying 24bit of dsd.




Don't forget, that (at least currently) the best master can (often...or at least sometimes) be found in the high res format. It's the only reason I bother, but I've found a few gems with SACD and hd tracks etc.

If DSD started being common, and commonly had an altered-for-the-better master, I'd spend whatever it took to get into it. 

I still think it's silly that vinyl/cd/high res seem to (often) all have different mastering, with vinyl often bearing the best while being the most technically inferior format


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> > No singer can sing close to 20 kHz - but two or more singers can start singing the same note with a tiny delay ( proving they are humans after all ) - and that delay can get swept under the rug if the recording is not capable of recording of so short duration signals and effectively blends the two or more sounds  into one "artificially perfect" sound. It will get clearer exactly what I meant after posting square and hopefully pulse response of varios analog and digital audio devices.


 
 it doesn't work like that. if 2 singers sing with a delay, the cumulated air pressure recorded by the mic will simply be different than if they were in perfect synch. and that will be perfectly recorded.
 the sample rate of a digital signal has nothing to do with this. what you're saying is just not true. sounds are always "blended" into one perfect sound. sounds are air waves, at one point (mic or your ear) there can be only one pressure at a time no matter how many voices you have. the delay of one singer will just alter that pressure. so it will be recorded.
  
 I've seen a few misconceptions from you now, and I think you might want to reflect on the real reason you prefer dsd over redbook. I will venture that what you prefere in DSD doesn't really come from the format choice, but maybe from your system, the master used on the dsd, some matter of bias ...
 so you could say that what differences you think you can hear (I have no reason to doubt you, so I'll believe you really do), may actually come from your very nice DSD player that you happen to really like and happens to be really good, and maybe not from the simple fact that it is playing DSD. I think we might all find some common ground from a statement like that. when all the trials have tended to say that dsd itself was not sounding different than pcm to people. so you saying it does, kinda of pushes us into thinking you're a victim of placebo.


----------



## davidsh

What a can of worms that we've opened. 
  
 If you have a fast enough rise of sound pressure, would it be possible for redbook format not to be able to 'keep up' or would that automatically be deemed ultrasonic content in the case that redbook can't 'keep up' with a fast enough transient?
 Might be a stupid question. It's just a bit hard to wrap my mind around different frequencies being represented by a complex waveform.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *davidsh* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> If you have a fast enough rise of sound pressure, would it be possible for redbook format not to be able to 'keep up' or would that automatically be deemed ultrasonic content in the case that redbook can't 'keep up' with a fast enough transient?


 
  
 It would have to be ultrasonic content if Red Book format cannot "keep up". Faster rise at the same peak amplitude = higher frequency.


----------



## stv014

By the way, with a well implemented anti-aliasing filter, failing to "keep up" simply means that the ultrasonic content will be removed, but the audio band (<= 20 kHz) is still preserved without distortion.


----------



## Steve Eddy

https://soundcloud.com/whyy-the-pulse/an-audio-illusion

se


----------



## Roly1650

I read a mathematical analysis of DSD on the web somewhere, a few moons ago and which I cannot now find. Following the maths, (which is, wether we like it or not, the basis for digital audio), indicated that DSD was inferior, (lower Rez) than Red Book above about 10kHz. The authors of the analysis more than hinted that Sony had chosen the format to enhance copy protection and little else.

It's also interesting that several generations of dac chips from Wolfson, Burr Brown, TI and others have been both PCM and DSD capable from the get go. Oppo have used the feature in DVD and blu ray players back as far as the model 980 to make universal disc players capable of DSD and PCM playback up to 24/192. There is zero reason why standalone dac makers couldn't have been making DSD/PCM all-in-ones for some time now. The cynic in me sees marketing as the major reason why they haven't. IMO DSD is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.


----------



## ferday

roly1650 said:


> I read a mathematical analysis of DSD on the web somewhere, a few moons ago and which I cannot now find. Following the maths, (which is, wether we like it or not, the basis for digital audio), indicated that DSD was inferior, (lower Rez) than Red Book above about 10kHz. The authors of the analysis more than hinted that Sony had chosen the format to enhance copy protection and little else.
> 
> It's also interesting that several generations of dac chips from Wolfson, Burr Brown, TI and others have been both PCM and DSD capable from the get go. Oppo have used the feature in DVD and blu ray players back as far as the model 980 to make universal disc players capable of DSD and PCM playback up to 24/192. There is zero reason why standalone dac makers couldn't have been making DSD/PCM all-in-ones for some time now. The cynic in me sees marketing as the major reason why they haven't. IMO DSD is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.




The single bit is also problematic....

One of the few indisputable benefits is the smaller file size compared to outrageous PCM (24/192 I.e.) but since most of us are on board that is unecessary anyways, it's kind of a moot issue


----------



## Steve Eddy

roly1650 said:


> IMO DSD is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.




What do you think keeps the industry going? 

se


----------



## Roly1650

ferday said:


> The single bit is also problematic....
> 
> One of the few indisputable benefits is the smaller file size compared to outrageous PCM (24/192 I.e.) but since most of us are on board that is unecessary anyways, it's kind of a moot issue




1 bit x 2.8 MHz was the basis for the analysis.



steve eddy said:


> What do you think keeps the industry going?
> 
> se




So true.


----------



## analogsurviver

ferday said:


> Don't forget, that (at least currently) the best master can (often...or at least sometimes) be found in the high res format. It's the only reason I bother, but I've found a few gems with SACD and hd tracks etc.
> 
> If DSD started being common, and commonly had an altered-for-the-better master, I'd spend whatever it took to get into it.
> 
> I still think it's silly that vinyl/cd/high res seem to (often) all have different mastering, with vinyl often bearing the best while being the most technically inferior format


 
 Vinyl is, with all of its limitations, shortcomings and imperfections, still probably the best understood how to master in order to sound good. 
  
 Mastering has to try to squeeze the best sound out of any given format - even if it is MP3. That is why there are different masterings for different formats. I wish I could say that analog vynil was "unlimited" - just the way like the one for digital counterparts that never heard of loudness wars and kept the dynamic range intact. But it is not the case and can not ever be - unless accepting unrealistically short playing time and requiring nothing but the best cartridges  to play it  back. Think about a single song of about 3 minutes per side at 45 RPM.
  
 Try to compare the same song from the regular 33 1/3 LP to its maxi single version at 45 RPM - no comparison.
 It is true that mixes/masters for both are sometimes very obviously different - yet the 45 RPM version will always be more alive.
  
 It is funny that one of the bands that is so superior on 45s is band that does almost everything in digital - Yello.
 EXCEPT for one thing - besides doing samplings, they record killer quality percussion . It never sounds anywhere that conviencing on CD than it does off 45s. Here some musings by one half of the Yello himself,  from 20 years ago : http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1994_articles/dec94/yello.html


----------



## esldude

steve eddy said:


> https://soundcloud.com/whyy-the-pulse/an-audio-illusion
> 
> se


 

 Wish I had the link.  But there is a whole collection of sentences demonstrating that effect.  A couple friends refused to believe it was the same sound once they heard it clean and could understand it distorted.  I took both examples and subtracted one from the other leaving nothing before they were convinced.  Very neat effect. 
  
 I have wondered how long it lasts.  Imagine if you can hear that distorted mess and understand it once you hear it clean, how much you could plug in for less distorted stereo equipment.  Maybe everyone just needs to hear their favorite music on a super rig once, and can use dirt cheap junk forever thereafter.


----------



## bigshot

ferday said:


> Don't forget, that (at least currently) the best master can (often...or at least sometimes) be found in the high res format. It's the only reason I bother, but I've found a few gems with SACD and hd tracks etc.


 
  
 It's a case by case basis. Not all the hires masters are good. Many are downright awful. I've found that the best mastering was usually done for the format of first release, whether it's LP or CD. That's the master that was approved by all of the musicians and engineers.


----------



## bigshot

davidsh said:


> If you have a fast enough rise of sound pressure, would it be possible for redbook format not to be able to 'keep up' or would that automatically be deemed ultrasonic content in the case that redbook can't 'keep up' with a fast enough transient?


 
  
 In order for a transient to be "too fast" for redbook, it would have to be faster than any audible waveform, meaning it would have to exist outside of the range of human hearing. In reality, even the fastest transients on drum hits, etc span many, many samples. 1/44,100th of a second is a very teeny, tiny sliver of time. Human perception doesn't get anywhere near that neighborhood.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> ferday said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget, that (at least currently) the best master can (often...or at least sometimes) be found in the high res format. It's the only reason I bother, but I've found a few gems with SACD and hd tracks etc.
> ...


 
 that is completely wrong. vinyls are somehow saved from the loudness war because they are not good enough to withstand it. "too bad to be messed with" is how they are. the only thing making the vinyl better is the master itself not being crippled by ludicrous compression as forced on modern CDs(not because CD is bad but because record companies are directed by opportunistic a**holes). nothing in a vinyl is superior to cd. 
 as a demo you might find a vinyl with higher frequencies, or with higher dynamic. but the vast majority of vinyls even brand new ones who were never listened, have rolled off low and high frequencies, and not amazing dynamic range, even if you count all the noises as music.
  
 I need help here. you're telling us that high res audio is better than redbook, the benefits being the possibility to record higher frequencies with bigger dynamic.
 and now you're saying that vinyl is superior to redbook... let me LOL a little. vinyl has more noises, less usable dynamic(else the needle might just jump), and most of the time doesn't extend as much as redbook in high frequencies or at least is roll off to avoid problems. pretty much all your reasons to prefer high res audio should make you scream about how bad vinyl is.
  
 edit, might be interested in reading this http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> It's a case by case basis. Not all the hires masters are good. Many are downright awful. I've found that the best mastering was usually done for the format of first release, whether it's LP or CD. That's the master that was approved by all of the musicians and engineers.


 
 I agree it is on case by case basis. I also agree that no format is apriori well mastered. With originally analog recordings, the first pressing of the vynil will usually produce the best sound - because tape over time loses some information, develops print-trough during storage, etc - some tapes that were in around 80s magnetically superiour to their predecessors, did not hold up well in time, the worse simply pulverized themselves.
  
 There is at least one known exception to the rule of first is usually best : Peter Fripp of King Crimson decided to remaster KC catalogue after he was very dissapointed with the first CD transfers - again to vynil. That was around early 90s. I have a few of discs from this series and they are an improvement over the originally issued.
 No idea how fare yet 20 years younger remasters to commemorate 40 years of KC : http://blog.musoscribe.com/?p=430


----------



## ab initio

castleofargh said:


> that is completely wrong. vinyls are somehow saved from the loudness war because they are not good enough to withstand it. "too bad to be messed with" is how they are. the only thing making the vinyl better is the master itself not being crippled by ludicrous compression as forced on modern CDs(not because CD is bad but because record companies are directed by opportunistic a**holes). *nothing in a vinyl is superior to cd*.
> as a demo you might find a vinyl with higher frequencies, or with higher dynamic. but the vast majority of vinyls even brand new ones who were never listened, have rolled off low and high frequencies, and not amazing dynamic range, even if you count all the noises as music.
> 
> I need help here. you're telling us that high res audio is better than redbook, the benefits being the possibility to record higher frequencies with bigger dynamic.
> ...


 
 This is straight up not true! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Vinyl is far superior for generating static electricity by rubbing it with a wool cloth. Try doing that with CD!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




​
  
 Cheers


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> that is completely wrong. vinyls are somehow saved from the loudness war because they are not good enough to withstand it. "too bad to be messed with" is how they are. the only thing making the vinyl better is the master itself not being crippled by ludicrous compression as forced on modern CDs(not because CD is bad but because record companies are directed by opportunistic a**holes). nothing in a vinyl is superior to cd.
> as a demo you might find a vinyl with higher frequencies, or with higher dynamic. but the vast majority of vinyls even brand new ones who were never listened, have rolled off low and high frequencies, and not amazing dynamic range, even if you count all the noises as music.
> 
> I need help here. you're telling us that high res audio is better than redbook, the benefits being the possibility to record higher frequencies with bigger dynamic.
> ...


 
 Vinyl can be MUCH more variable in quality than anything else - because one has to factor in the general level of quality of playback, which is well below the capabilities of the best cartridges and certainly below the capabilities of any cutter head. It is tough for the guy who does the cutting/master to decide how much should be retained and how much "moderated" in order to make a commercially viable product. If I only cite one of the most notoriously known LP records, Telarc's
 Overture 1812 and its cannon shots, there were at least two versions - the first one of "unbridled passion" and second one "moderated" - because on most equipment, the first one would simply not play and jump out of the groove.
  
 There are other less extreme examples; I was incredibly lucky to be at the right place at the right time to be able to buy 
  
 http://www.discogs.com/ROBOTOBIBOK-Nawyki-Przyrody/release/650028
  
 Limited edition to 500 pcs, mine is # 199, hand written in alloted space on the jacket of the LP in front of me from the band leader's notebook and signed by the members of the band. All-out analog recording, with PUNISHING levels, exceeding even those found on the best direct to disc releases. If there is any bass limitting I do not know ( did not care to get the corresponding CD ) - but can not possibly see redbook to even start to hint at the treble that is in these grooves !
  
 Problem with this record ? If you can not lay hands on some of the say top 5 cartridges ever produced, all of which are vintage and next-to-impossible to get nowadays, the level is too high for almost anything you can buy today - regardless of price. Giving a level of distortion that is simply not sustainable, either from listening or record use point of view. That is why such records are very seldom produced - no commercial enterprise in the proper sense of the word commercial would dare to go this far. It is analogous to selling you a Ferrari - not a moderated road going version, but current TOTL F1 car. 
  
 I did record this outstanding vynil to DSD128 - and although I never before had to reduce the recording gain so low for any other LP, somewhere on the record there was STILL reached + 2 dB ( ! ) .
 To those not familiar with DSD - it is possible to exceed 0 dB with DSD, up to +3 dB before similar distortion as with PCM at exceeded 0 dB is heard. Not actually recommended to use DSD "in the red", but it is life saver during live recordings - as performers sometimes exceed their loudness by as much as 6 dB during concert as compared to the loudest during the rehearsal ; not regularly, but often enough.
  
 If the vinyl is being "moderated" too far - it is certainly possible to arrive at your claims; and unfortunately moderated recordings, much below what still would be reasonably acceptable, outnumber the good ones by factor of X - which is most likely a three digit number. 
  
 Ultimately, vynil can be much better than generally known; but it is extremely vulnerable and delicate, possible to be destroyed by a single play with a subpar (relative to the recording ) stylus/cartridge. Due to understandable restrictions regarding materials, health haphazard and enviromental pollution that came into being in the last 30 or so years, it is extremely unlikely we will witness the renewal of production of cantilevers that allowed those 30 or so years  old pinnacles of phono cartridge engineering - ever again. 
  
 Nothing would please me more than being proven wrong on this last sentence...


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> If there is any bass limitting I do not know ( did not care to get the corresponding CD ) - but can not possibly see redbook to even start to hint at the treble that is in these grooves !


 
 Whether you  can see it or not, the fact remains that redbook is perfectly capable of recording a 20kHz signal at 0dBFS, which is way, way beyond any treble level vinyl is capable of. The treble SNR of redbook is also way beyond what even the best vinyl equipment could dream of. With really specialized equipment and a perfect vinyl pressing, the vinyl might extend up a bit higher in frequency (to perhaps 30kHz instead of 22), but that's pretty questionable, and the highest frequency content would be worn away within a couple of plays anyways. Also, the difference between 22kHz and 30kHz is something like half an octave beyond the limits of human hearing anyways, so it won't make any difference regardless.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> Whether you  can see it or not, the fact remains that redbook is perfectly capable of recording a 20kHz signal at 0dBFS, which is way, way beyond any treble level vinyl is capable of. The treble SNR of redbook is also way beyond what even the best vinyl equipment could dream of. With really specialized equipment and a perfect vinyl pressing, the vinyl might extend up a bit higher in frequency (to perhaps 30kHz instead of 22), but that's pretty questionable, and the highest frequency content would be worn away within a couple of plays anyways. Also, the difference between 22kHz and 30kHz is something like half an octave beyond the limits of human hearing anyways, so it won't make any difference regardless.


 
 Agreed redbook is capable of 20 kHz 0dBFS - but can not go beyond 20 kHz. 0 dBFS at 20 kHz is never required, even with the most extreme organ ( more likely to be around 16 kHz ). All treble content above say 15 kHz is very low in level - but is clearly audible if left out. You can go and test this using Foobar2000 - while playing PCM, it is possible to switch on spectrum analyzer , limited to 20 kHz. It is extremely unlikely to find any recording of acoustical instrument(s) with 20 kHz at anything aproaching - 10 dBFS; something well within the capabilities of good phono cartridges. 
  
 Good phono cartridges can exceed 50 kHz response - and they do not wear out these frequencies within a couple of plays. To be fair, this statement holds true for excellent or extraordinary cartridges - if wrong cart is used, not even a single reproduction of these frequencies is possible, resulting in a destroyed record.
  
 Frequency response limit for records cut in real time is approx 25-27 kHz, depending on cutter head. However, cutting at half speed increases that by a factor of two, in excess of 50 kHz.. That is using normal equipment; with hot rods in this field, bias frequency from analog tape recorder well in excess of 100 kHz has been unwillingly recorded onto the analog disc...- and yes, the best cartridge ever made had/has response past 120 kHz .
  
 If you use spectrum analyzer capable of response above 20 kHz and observe the output of a beyond 20 kHz capable mike, you should see some low level "blips" above the 20 kHz every time any high frequency instrument is playing - like cymbals, harpsichord, trumpet, etc. It is LOW, generally lower than - 40 dBFS - but it just does not sound the same anymore if above 20 kHz content is completely removed - like trough redbook. Or a high inductance MM/MI phono cartridge that cuts off sharply above 20 kHz - basically producing much the same effect.
  
 Naturally, headphones and speakers should posess at least reasonable response to at least 40 kHz. They no longer are as rare as they used to be - nor they are as expensive as they used to be either.


----------



## liamstrain

analogsurviver said:


> If you use spectrum analyzer capable of response above 20 kHz and observe the output of a beyond 20 kHz capable mike, you should see some low level "blips" above the 20 kHz every time any high frequency instrument is playing - like cymbals, harpsichord, trumpet, etc. It is LOW, generally lower than - 40 dBFS - *but it just does not sound the same anymore if above 20 kHz content is completely removed* - like trough redbook. Or a high inductance MM/MI phono cartridge that cuts off sharply above 20 kHz - basically producing much the same effect.


 
  
 Citation needed.


----------



## OddE

analogsurviver said:


> If you use spectrum analyzer capable of response above 20 kHz and observe the output of a beyond 20 kHz capable mike, you should see some low level "blips" above the 20 kHz every time any high frequency instrument is playing - like cymbals, harpsichord, trumpet, etc. It is LOW, generally lower than - 40 dBFS - but it just does not sound the same anymore if above 20 kHz content is completely removed - like trough redbook.




-If the presence of ultrasonic frequencies on a record leads to audible differences, it suggests that intermodulation products are present. These in turn stem from non-linear effects, aka distortion. 

What you are effectively advocating, is that sub-par audio equipment is a good thing. (!)


----------



## analogsurviver

liamstrain said:


> Citation needed.


 
 I did it with one of my harpsichord DSD (DSD64 at that time ) recordings on the spectrum analyzer and home studio system of another well respected mastering engineer. When playing DSD64 master and then version mastered for the CD, there was a small but perceptible difference. And, as expected, total "silence" on the spectrum ananalyzer over 20 kHz - as per redbook.
  
 I will try to see if we can again meet and repeat that (and possibly post some pics of display on the spectrum analyzer ) - the other mastering engineer is extremely busy and hard to "catch", but he was specifically intrigued by this DSD recording as it actually did reproduce above 20 kHz content and wanted to show it to me on his spectrum analyzer.
  
 I repeat - the levels are LOW; but a soup without at least a grain of salt is not going to taste right regardless of excellence of other ingredients - despiite representing next to negligible nutritional value. Similar with "inaudible" sound.


----------



## liamstrain

I don't doubt that it displays on the spectrum analyzer. I do doubt that it makes a "small but perceptible difference" - that sounds exactly like expectation bias, and I would be curious to see the results of properly controlled dbt or even just a level matched blind A/B.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> I repeat - the levels are LOW; but a soup without at least a grain of salt is not going to taste right regardless of excellence of other ingredients - despiite representing next to negligible nutritional value. Similar with "inaudible" sound.


 
 This is a false analogy - nobody has ever claimed that salt is untasteable, and people can easily demonstrate in a double blind test the ability to tell the difference between a dish with salt and one without. Nobody has ever shown the ability to perceive >20kHz tones in a proper, well-conducted study.


----------



## ab initio

@analogsurviver
  
 Again, I urge you to provide actual tangible evidence for any of the claims that you are making. Writing flowery prose of your experiences in uncontrolled settings is a neat read, but it doesn't show, demonstrate, prove, or help in any way to support your claims. Ancedotal evidence is a logical fallacy. 
  
 It might impress the naive, but it's insulting to anyone who knows better. If you can provide graphs, example sound clips, measurements, blind listening test results, or pretty much anything else it would be useful to further the discussion.
  
 Cheers


----------



## analogsurviver

odde said:


> -If the presence of ultrasonic frequencies on a record leads to audible differences, it suggests that intermodulation products are present. These in turn stem from non-linear effects, aka distortion.
> 
> What you are effectively advocating, is that sub-par audio equipment is a good thing. (!)


 
 I am aware of the possibility of intermodulation distortion. Unfortunately, I am not (yet) capable of measuring IM in phono cartridges - despite having a test record capable of doing just that.  
  
 When using hirez digital with extension beyond 20 kHz , I did download files available from : http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html 
 For some reason, my Korg MR 1000 recorder says it does not support 1 kHz at either 0 dBFS or -105 dB, nor 96 or 192 kHz warble test - regardles these carrying .wav extension, which should be playable on Korg. This is the first time I ever saw such a message on Korg - it always did play the files it is supposed to.
  It does play 30 & 33 kHz  test - and 3 kHz intermodulation is barely audible, wild guess around - 80 dB - or lower. Not perfect, but low enough. There is utter silence when playing Pido_O_trollbat.wav track.
  
 The easiest way out is by saying it does not matter and limit the equipment and recordings so that it looks good. By advancing the equipment that can support above 20 kHz response while achieving inaudible intermodulation a true progess could be gained in the end.


----------



## nick_charles

cjl said:


> This is a false analogy - nobody has ever claimed that salt is untasteable, and people can easily demonstrate in a double blind test the ability to tell the difference between a dish with salt and one without. Nobody has ever shown the ability to perceive >20kHz tones in a proper, well-conducted study.


 
  
 That is not true as you phrase it. Certainly some younger folks can detect above even 22K though it is not common.
  
  
 If you mean that nobody can tell the difference when musical energy above 20 Khz is removed (or not) then that is different. In that case there is but one study from McGill and it is a bit contentious and has not been replicated but it did tentatively suggest that there _might_ be audible differences between 44 Khz and 48 Khz and 96Khz sampling, the stats were dodgy and the raw data impossible to extract from the researchers (I tried !)  but it stands as evidence of a sort as it was a proper controlled DBT, however it was a relatively small study compared to say Meyer and Moran.
  
 The only other study to hint at the effect of ultrasonics is the much debated Oohashi paper  but that might have been due to IMD between a midrange unit and a supertweeter ?
  
 Way back in the 70s Japanese researchers experimented with low pass filters cutting off everything above 20 or 18 or 16 or 14 Khz- in their sample nobody came close to detecting the 20K cut-off and few managed the 18 or 16K cut-off


----------



## esldude

analogsurviver said:


> I am aware of the possibility of intermodulation distortion. Unfortunately, I am not (yet) capable of measuring IM in phono cartridges - despite having a test record capable of doing just that.
> 
> When using hirez digital with extension beyond 20 kHz , I did download files available from : http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
> For some reason, my Korg MR 1000 recorder says it does not support 1 kHz at either 0 dBFS or -105 dB, nor 96 or 192 kHz warble test - regardles these carrying .wav extension, which should be playable on Korg. This is the first time I ever saw such a message on Korg - it always did play the files it is supposed to.
> ...


 

 Sir, you keep describing these things, advocating advancing the equipment that supports higher frequencies can be progress, but you only offer the old "Hey, I tried it under sighted conditions and heard it as true" substantiation.  That isn't going to cut it here.  Can you hear 30 khz?  As in a simple 30 khz tone.  If not, how does response out there benefit?  So far you imply it can be due to filter effects, ringing etc.  But those when they occur are above an audible range unless you hear up there.  Just repeating these things over and over with well respected engineers etc. etc. isn't getting you anywhere in this forum.  You just are muddying the waters without firm evidence to support your suppositions.


----------



## analogsurviver

esldude said:


> Sir, you keep describing these things, advocating advancing the equipment that supports higher frequencies can be progress, but you only offer the old "Hey, I tried it under sighted conditions and heard it as true" substantiation.  That isn't going to cut it here.  Can you hear 30 khz?  As in a simple 30 khz tone.  If not, how does response out there benefit?  So far you imply it can be due to filter effects, ringing etc.  But those when they occur are above an audible range unless you hear up there.  Just repeating these things over and over with well respected engineers etc. etc. isn't getting you anywhere in this forum.  You just are muddying the waters without firm evidence to support your suppositions.


 
 No, I can not hear a simple 30 kHz sine wave tone. Never did claim that.
  
 Just as is intermodulation distortion in equipment above 20 kHz possible to hear within audible band as difference products - it could also be that the similar difference between ultrasonic sounds is heard naturally. Removing them and thus removing this audible difference can have audible effect.  I agree that IMD in equipment shoul not exist - but removing the naturally occuring sound should not  be attempted.
  
 To me, this is most noticeable with cymbals - live and to a bit lesser extent hi-frequency ( either digital or analog ) does sound real, redbook not - to my ears at least. I remember months ago bigshot commented he perceives it as "pressure" and that it is uncomfortable to him. To me, it is the sign of being real or very close to that - and I do not want reproduced music to be more mellow and pleasurable than the real thing.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Frequency response limit for records cut in real time is approx 25-27 kHz, depending on cutter head. However, cutting at half speed increases that by a factor of two, in excess of 50 kHz.


 
  
 The problem isn't cutting, it's playing back. Frequencies above 15kHz or so at any sort of volume creates a delicate pattern in the groove wall that gets damaged immediately under normal play, even with correctly aligned turntables. Five or six plays and it turns into a mess of distortion. Because of this, LP mastering engineers would routinely roll off the high frequencies. There is information above 20kHz on LPs but it's surface noise and distortion.


----------



## JamesHuntington

As a garage musician and someone that recorded in analogue and digital along the years, it's easy for me to say vinyl sounds more realistic. After playing drums for a few years I got a general concept how a cymbal sounds from hit to end. To me analogue is most accurate. 
Don't hate on me but that's what I observe. I feel like a ADC is not as much listening, but attempting to mimic. I'd like to hear from analog surviver mostly, because there's not many people here that has his experience.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> I did it with one of my harpsichord DSD (DSD64 at that time ) recordings on the spectrum analyzer and home studio system of another well respected mastering engineer. When playing DSD64 master and then version mastered for the CD, there was a small but perceptible difference. And, as expected, total "silence" on the spectrum ananalyzer over 20 kHz - as per redbook.


 
  
 Dithering.


----------



## bigshot

nick_charles said:


> That is not true as you phrase it. Certainly some younger folks can detect above even 22K though it is not common.


 
  
 The difference between 20kHz and 22kHz is less than one note on a piano. It's a minuscule amount. And no one, not even teenagers in their prime can perceive anything up that high as a musical tone. It's basically just sound pressure that high.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Just as is intermodulation distortion in equipment above 20 kHz possible to hear within audible band as difference products - it could also be that the similar difference between ultrasonic sounds is heard naturally.


 
  
 How is distortion within the audible spectrum in any way comparable to frequencies outside the audible spectrum? You aren't hearing the sound with IMD. You are hearing an artifact.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> As a garage musician and someone that recorded in analogue and digital along the years, it's easy for me to say vinyl sounds more realistic.


 
  
 Five bucks says when you were recording analogue it was in a professional studio and when you were recording digital it was in someone's spare bedroom with a computer and mike. You're comparing professional to non-professional, not analogue to digital.
  
 I've produced recordings in both analogue and digital for LP, CD and TV release. Good luck finding a studio in Los Angeles set up to record to analogue 24 track like they did in the 70s. Every professional studio has replaced their tape decks with professional digital equipment because digital is more realistic than analogue.


----------



## JamesHuntington

I always did home studio. My recordings are nothing to compare to what is on vinyl and recorded in analogue or cd. But I did use very nice cymbals and played enough with good instruments to know what the recording should/would sound like from the other side of the mixing board. Either way, my love for music leads me to find it sad to limit artists in 
any way.


----------



## esldude

analogsurviver said:


> No, I can not hear a simple 30 kHz sine wave tone. Never did claim that.
> 
> Just as is intermodulation distortion in equipment above 20 kHz possible to hear within audible band as difference products - it could also be that the similar difference between ultrasonic sounds is heard naturally. Removing them and thus removing this audible difference can have audible effect.  I agree that IMD in equipment shoul not exist - but removing the naturally occuring sound should not  be attempted.
> 
> To me, this is most noticeable with cymbals - live and to a bit lesser extent hi-frequency ( either digital or analog ) does sound real, redbook not - to my ears at least. I remember months ago bigshot commented he perceives it as "pressure" and that it is uncomfortable to him. To me, it is the sign of being real or very close to that - and I do not want reproduced music to be more mellow and pleasurable than the real thing.


 

 Again with the way it feels.  Could you pass a blind test with redbook vs hires?  BTW, if the two frequencies mix and create a lower frequency artifact via IMD or other path, it would be picked up by a microphone.  You don't need ultrasonics to accomplish that.  Quite simply if the air has something in the range of the mic's response it picks up the sound within its abilities.


----------



## JamesHuntington

I agree that feeling the music is harder to comprehend if you aren't there when it's being recorded or hear it on a good analogue source. We should try double blind testing samples while sitting in front of our stereos at high levels and wearing ear plugs.


----------



## esldude

jameshuntington said:


> I agree that feeling the music is harder to comprehend if you aren't there when it's being recorded or hear it on a good analogue source. We should try double blind testing samples while sitting in front of our stereos at high levels and wearing ear plugs.


 

 Nope, not hard to comprehend.  Feeling often misleads one in these types of decisions.  Your feeling maybe, in fact is highly likely, to be due to something not at all related to the sound you are hearing.  That is usually how it works.  When you swing back around to deciding realities of recordings on feelings you are back in the soup of superstition no matter how real it feels.  That is something you really should understand.  Continuing to insist otherwise is just being pig headed about it. Not to mention how analog sources are simply inferior to digital ones.  Digital accurately records analog sources at a level of fidelity analog simply cannot equal.


----------



## JamesHuntington

I think it's funny how some people/groups of people on her think they are the only ones with their bull@&$?! detectors on. I mean, there's many of us with real experience who really wanted to be wholey satisfied with the regular old cd or rip. All your numbers and stats don't make me feel any better about red book.


----------



## JamesHuntington

I'm pigheaded and you're a sheep.


----------



## liamstrain

[quote="analogsurvivor]

Just as is intermodulation distortion in equipment above 20 kHz possible to hear within audible band as difference products - it could also be that the similar difference between ultrasonic sounds is heard naturally. Removing them and thus removing this audible difference can have audible effect[/quote]


If it is an audible effect, it is recorded in the audible band. Removing the ultrasonic artifacts via filter doesn't change the air pressure hitting the mic in the audible range.

If, however, it is distortion induced by the recording equipment - not the recorded instruments, then I, for one, would hope it was removed - as it is clearly faulty equipment, or methodology.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> All your numbers and stats don't make me feel any better about red book.


 
  
 We're perfectly aware of that. How redbook actually sounds or doesn't sound is totally irrelevant to how you feel about it. No kind of fact is going to convince you, because it's purely a feeling on your part. We get that perfectly.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> The problem isn't cutting, it's playing back. Frequencies above 15kHz or so at any sort of volume creates a delicate pattern in the groove wall that gets damaged immediately under normal play, even with correctly aligned turntables. Five or six plays and it turns into a mess of distortion. Because of this, LP mastering engineers would routinely roll off the high frequencies. There is information above 20kHz on LPs but it's surface noise and distortion.


 
 Both yes and no. Depends how far  the mastering engineers dare/are allowed to go.
  
 The high frequency problems are two - first is the stylus tip profile/geometry, second is the effective moving mass.
 The second can be also described as trackability (Shure), mechanical impedance ( Technics, Denon ) - etc. 
 It is simple - the lower the moving mass, the higher will be the resonant frequency of stylus yielding against vinyl groove wall elasticity, extending the upper frequency  limit  - and the lighter it is, better it will track louder/and/or higher frequency signals - provided compliance of the suspension is high enough to allow good tracking ability in the bass at the vertical tracking force used. 
  
 There is one VERY good reason why LP mastering engineers have adopted the tactics of limitting HF. One cartridge that did and still does enjoy quite a reputation even among some of the top cutting enginners is still Stanton 681EEE. It measures well, is very linear within audio band, is consistent, in short something they can rely on. It is a high inductance MI design of approx 900 mH - meaning its electrical response is anything but linear and is quite rolled off well before 20 kHz is reached. To achieve linear output, mechanical section is deliberately made to be resonant - so that the resultant response to just above 20 kHz is flat. 
  
 But who takes the brunt of this mechanical resonance? You have guessed it - poor vinyl groove has to work at least one more time harder than it would have to if the mechanically stylus would be "flat". Which of course limits trackability, increases distortion and record and stylus wear. It can possibly not sound clean on properly high modulated sibilants - and it is this characteristics that made me to go away from it, despite having otherwise quite some good and desirable qualities. The easiest way out is to reduce HF in master...
  
 Japanese went the other, proper way - when quadro was developed and requiring at least response to 45 kHz, they made anything within their power to allow the stylus to move as linearly as possible - WITHOUT deliberately boosting the falling electrical HF response with mechanical resonance. Audio Technica says in one of its brochures for CD-4 cartridges that besides better tracing & tracking of quadro AND stereo records, this new cartridge also has sigificantly lower record wear. You can download these papers from the Vinyl Engine - and to this day, AT SS15/20 family of cartridges , introduced roughly 40 years ago, is still higly sought after.
 Quadro failed for many reasons, one primarily being the fact that Japanese did not export the better/harder/less wear prone vynil - with regular vinyl, the HF subcarrier for quad really survived far too little. But whatever the fate of quad, it did boost the quality of phono cartirdges to another level.
  
 This concept of mechanically flat moving mechanical sistem was taken to the extreme by Technics - which was easier on the records than anything else, allowing essentially peak free response past 100 - 120 kHz..  They also backed it up with a low inductance electrical generator - despite being a MM cartridge, for all practical purposes not affected by cable capacitance and phono preamp input impedance while allowing extended response. If more of the cartridges were following suit, LP mastering people woul have to reconsider their decision to limit the HF on records - couple seconds of reproduction of properly made LP record played with big Technics cart is all that it takes. Unfortunately, getting ever more rare and difucult to find in usable condition.
  
 In real life, carts like Stanton 681EEE outnumbered Technics' by orders of magnitude - so one can understand the pragmatic decision of the mastering engineers. Technics cart was also serious money compared to anything then made in the US.
  
 With DSD, ther is no such trade offs/worries. And it is many times more affordable than on the limit of doable
 phono cartridge.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Both yes and no. Depends how far  the mastering engineers dare/are allowed to go.


 
  
 Back in the LP era, I produced a record and worked with the mastering and cutting engineers. The rolloff started at about 15kHz and tapered off smoothly. I made a point of asking about it because back then, I didn't know as much and I thought maybe the rolloff wasn't necessary. They explained that it was to prevent premature record wear (which equated with returns). The roll off was applied automatically when the disk was cut, it wasn't done as part of the mastering.
  
 Today's audiophile pressings may be different. But I don't know why anyone would want an LP of a digital recording when they could get full master quality with no compromises on CD.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Back in the LP era, I produced a record and worked with the mastering and cutting engineers. The rolloff started at about 15kHz and tapered off smoothly. I made a point of asking about it because back then, I didn't know as much and I thought maybe the rolloff wasn't necessary. They explained that it was to prevent premature record wear (which equated with returns). The roll off was applied automatically when the disk was cut, it wasn't done as part of the mastering.
> 
> Today's audiophile pressings may be different. But I don't know why anyone would want an LP of a digital recording when they could get full master quality with no compromises on CD.


 
 Cutting the high frequency content in an unlimited fashion into the lacquer master is anything but easy. Due to numerous factors, the prime being the necessity for the RIAA curve to be applied during mastering - which by the 20 kHz has +20 dB boost. Only the very last models of cutting heads and associated electronics could take and supply the power required - and in the region of approx 5-10 kHz, where the requirements for cutting the groove are the highest, that can meet or even exceed 500 W/channel, meaning that cutting chip is powered by one killowatt at peaks ! That is at the very limit of cutterheads, even if and when helium cooled - therefore before this last possible improvements have been made, each and every measure possible to reduce the requirements for the cutting system have been necesarilly made - including rolling off of the treble.  Automatic - impossible to switch off, for a good reason - not to fry the cutter head.
  
 Pro audio uses quite some filtering in order to remain "safe" - I am not familiar with record cutting myself , but remember spending quite some time with Telefunken's High Com ( and Nakamichi's development thereoff, High Com II ) before the thing did not  start sounding transparent. The culprit was the MPX filter, necessary for recording to tape from FM tuner; even if the button for the MPX filter was in the off position, still some filtering has been occuring. For recording music live, with no constant 19 kHz FM carrier present, there is no need to use any filtering - and the only remedy was to phisically remove the coils in the series with the signal and shortcutting the signal path. This finally worked without "closing down/shrinking the soundstage" - in conjunction with one of the few decks that also eschews any filtering from the playback head. This filtering the output from the playback head is necessary during monitoring the recording just being recorded - meaning the full quality of the recording is only available during consequent playback that does allow the filter to be removed. I can only wonder if there is not similarly *hidden* filtering going on in the record cutting system(s) as well - the opportunity to check this out has not presented itself yet.
  
 I certainly agree there is little point of recording vinyl release of basically CD quality recording - effectively giving one the worst of both worlds.
  
 There are still genuine analog recordings being made, even modern day direct to disk. One of the possibilities to produce a vinyl recording that should exceed the redbook CD could also be made from analog tapes or  hirez digital, preferably DSD, cut at less than real time speed, thus allowing frequency response to approx 50 kHz - something redbook is not capable of. Half speed record mastering does have one problem - the necessity to remain utterly flat down to at least 10 Hz, which in most commercially available systems simply was not the case.
  
 Most cutting systems still in use today have been modified to a lesser or greater degree - in order to be able to make better recordings than originally anticipated.


----------



## davidsh

Since this is sound science it would be lovely with some proofs or studies suggesting ultrasonic frequencies to be perceivable, else I don't see why we are even discussing this matter!


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver it certainly "feels" like you prefer vinyl and dsd, and you're just randomly fishing for anything available to make us admit vinyl is hires, and hires is better. I give it to you, you have lots of ideas.
  
 it went from hires being warm and low res cold(when the only thing hires could bring is actually high freqs.. go figure), to fragmented disc space and jitter( vinyl's jitter explodes whatever digital jitter can be), to pono and A&K saving us all from mp3 in portable when just before you said that hirez was too much for some systems to stream without lags. A&K and pono using the very same components you find in other systems, they should lag more and thus not being an improvement over mp3. you contradicting yourself all the time.
 then we went to soldering usb, hey why not try that(I actually think that usb plugs are fragile craps but they're not supposed to move much and the contact surface is actually often larger than on a jack).
 then ultrasonic sounds are important because we hear them, oh we don't hear them, well ok they're important because they interfere with audible frequencies and thus become audible.
 in my book this is a very bad thing, but hey some like harmonic distortion, why not have some who like intermodulation distortion. still this is distortion so not the real sound recorded by the mics, so not real and not natural.
  
 and now you try to convince us that vinyls are better than redbook, something possible in some very rare situations and probably only for the first 3 listening of said hyper vinyl. and probably not on all the prints as the mold doesn't make stuff 100% identical on all items.
 the only way to get the needle to go back down fast enough after passing the upper period of a very high frequency, is to have more pressure put on the needle, meaning the surface will wear out faster =roll off. there is no other way of doing it. and if the pressure is not good enough to follow the groove, then you will get variations in the amplitude as the needle will either jump above the groove, or not have time to go at the bottom before hitting another bump. = volume increase or roll off depending on choices that have nothing to do with the pressing. super reliable high quality ... that is one of the reasons why trebles are very much rolled off on vinyls. others would be to reduce contact noises, have a vinyl that sounds the same longer ...
 I searched for all this when I never had any interest for vinyl in the first place. for someone passionate as you are, I would expect you to have looked at those problems by yourself.
  
  to you having unreliable high freqs at a volume level that could change drastically is real sound. but at the same time you need dsd because redbook is not precise enough. your feelings are peculiar to say the least. be it DSD or vinyl, you're pretty much advocating for how the master is done. we all know that some masters are only available in vinyl or dsd, but that has nothing to do with the quality of dsd or vinyl. wearing the same underwear as a famous soccer player doesn't make me a good soccer player. a master is a master, DSD is DSD, and vinyl is mostly obsolete as a high fidelity support.
  
 a human when presented with solutions will first pick the one that goes with his own opinion. and if that option doesn't exist, he will then pick the easiest path to positive resolution for himself. call it survival instinct at a debate level, or just a need for the easy way out. still it mostly works like that in all situations(people handling other human lives often have to relearn some behaviors for that very reason, because if left as they are, they will take the first indication that everything is ok, and take that info as the well needed and anticipated relief instead of looking further). and that's how we have in here people denying science and measurements when it doesn't fit their own opinion, but who will still gladly pick science and measurements as soon as it goes where they want it to. you have clearly shown that you're one of those who accepts science only when it "feels right". that's simply not how it works.
 either you accept what defines sound in science and digital systems or you don't. a lot of things are still up for debate, the fact the you yourself can't hear 20khz isn't. the fact that redbook have overall better fidelity than vinyls isn't. the fact that up to this day we still haven't clearly demonstrated that people could tell dsd appart from redbook isn't.
 facts are not opinions, you can't just decide to desagree with facts on a whim.
  
 when my own experiments didn't go as repeatable science predicted, instead of deciding that I knew better, or that my super special audio system was better than the one of poor mislead people, I went to look for a reason why I was wrong. and sure enough I always found that I was wrong. when 2 same stuff sounded clearly different to me, I went and bought a 20$ switch. it's not even close to a DBT, yet 99% of the obvious differences I was hearing just disappeared with the switch. that's how it is and how feelings are mostly just feelings, based on experience tastes and other senses. making them often different from reality and why we try to live everyday following reason and not just feelings.
  
 you can keep bringing up different subjects until the moment you'll find one where you're right and shout "ahah told ya!". but up till now you've said a lot of misleading or plain wrong stuff as if they were certainty. and the rest gets the "I feel" certificate(I prefer that by the way, at least we can read it as being just an opinion). very few conclusive arguments overall.


----------



## James-uk

castleofargh said:


> analogsurviver it certainly "feels" like you prefer vinyl and dsd, and you're just randomly fishing for anything available to make us admit vinyl is hires, and hires is better. I give it to you, you have lots of ideas.
> 
> it went from hires being warm and low res cold(when the only thing hires could bring is actually high freqs.. go figure), to fragmented disc space and jitter( vinyl's jitter explodes whatever digital jitter can be), to pono and A&K saving us all from mp3 in portable when just before you said that hirez was too much for some systems to stream without lags. A&K and pono using the very same components you find in other systems, they should lag more and thus not being an improvement over mp3. you contradicting yourself all the time.
> then we went to soldering usb, hey why not try that(I actually think that usb plugs are fragile craps but they're not supposed to move much and the contact surface is actually often larger than on a jack).
> ...



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## JamesHuntington

When someone does their own tests a writes in such length about his knowledge we should not say "no way, you are wrong." We should leave it at that. Maybe someone else would benefit from that information in the future. Because many of the posts here say nothing and nobody bashes them. They waste a lot more space saying "prove it" than actually disproving anything. So, if someone wants to try to explain the myth of red book cd and how we regressed then we should let them and not waste space pointing to other studies. Most people here seem to be happy with red book cd and will continue to bash every other option no matter what information is set before them. It's similar to the dark ages, when science was not improved because of another type of book, but I don't have to tell you the story. Red book was once considered a audiophile excess, with people spending loads on players and having limited access to artists. At this point DSD is not really audiophile anymore as it can be replaced by downloads on many high end setups. Agree or disagree, let the man pass on his information without being predictable and pointing out stuff you learned on the 24bit vs 16 bit thread.


----------



## OddE

jameshuntington said:


> When someone does their own tests a writes in such length about his knowledge we should not say "no way, you are wrong." We should leave it at that. Maybe someone else would benefit from that information in the future. Because many of the posts here say nothing and nobody bashes them. They waste a lot more space saying "prove it" than actually disproving anything. So, if someone wants to try to explain the myth of red book cd and how we regressed then we should let them and not waste space pointing to other studies. Most people here seem to be happy with red book cd and will continue to bash every other option no matter what information is set before them. It's similar to the dark ages, when science was not improved because of another type of book, but I don't have to tell you the story.


 
  
 -In this case, I'm afraid analogsurvivor's writings is the closest analogy to 'that other type of book', if you like. Online forums are full of opinion presented as fact which flies in the face of established science. If someone reads these opinions and accept them as fact, knowledge in sound science has, in fact, regressed.
  
 There is no doubt in my mind that to analogsurvivor, what he describes in his posts appears to be real; that is not to say, however, that his -ehem- findings should be lent the same weight as peer-reviewed papers; not unless they are backed by the extraordinary evidence which extraordinary claims demand.


----------



## SilverEars

College education helps.


----------



## liamstrain

jameshuntington said:


> When someone does their own tests a writes in such length about his knowledge we should not say "no way, you are wrong."





> *When he is claiming things, without objective evidence, that go against the evidences we DO have, we say "you are wrong." With the caveat, perhaps unspoken - that good evidence and methods may change our minds. *





> Maybe someone else would benefit from that information in the future. Because many of the posts here say nothing and nobody bashes them. They waste a lot more space saying "prove it" than actually disproving anything.





> *Because that's how science works. You don't get to just say something is so without proving it. At the very least, you provide what you did - your data, your methods, your experiment from which you derived your observations. Others can then run the same experiments to test your results. It's not a fact just by saying so. *





> It's similar to the dark ages, when science was not improved because of another type of book, but I don't have to tell you the story.





> *Unlike that situation - our understanding and opinions will change, provided actual evidence is presented. Again - that's how science works - demonstrate your position so that others can evaluate it, and move the science forward. Tests without controls, and bad methodology lead to personal subjective opinions presented as fact because you "heard it" - and that doesn't cut it. That's no different than the fairy tales in "that other book." *


----------



## cjl

jameshuntington said:


> They waste a lot more space saying "prove it" than actually disproving anything.


 
 The burden of proof is always upon the person making the claim that goes against current scientific understanding.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> When someone does their own tests a writes in such length about his knowledge we should not say "no way, you are wrong."


 
  
 What if they actually *are* wrong?


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> What if they actually *are* wrong?


 

 Well saying they are wrong would indicate the possibility they are wrong.  Obviously for some people, in some minds, that is not a possibility.  I mean any well meaning audiophile will always tell the truth about what they perceive.  While scientific types only wish to crush the human spirit and curiosity.  Science is about crushing curiosity is it not?


----------



## castleofargh




----------



## cb3723

Aren't audiophiles classified as a cult following, so any claims made are redundant of science proving either way?
  
*OBEY FREQUENCY RESPONSE CHARTS, BURN IN NEW HEADPHONES, BEWARE OF MUDDY BASS, CABLES COUNT SO UPGRADE FROM STOCK ETC *




  
 lol


----------



## JamesHuntington

bigshot said:


> What if they actually *are* wrong?


What if you're wrong?


----------



## ab initio

jameshuntington said:


> What if you're wrong?


 

 Then when somebody presents compelling evidence which overturns our previous best understandings, we will accept the new evidence and refine our understanding and move on. That is the scientific method.
  
 Cheers


----------



## JamesHuntington

What's scientific about a abx then?


----------



## ab initio

jameshuntington said:


> What's scientific about a abx then?


 

ABX is just one of the many tools available to scientists who study auditory perception. If you are unclear on what is and isn't "science," I recommend browsing wikipedia's discussions on the topic for a quick refresher.
  
 Cheers


----------



## JamesHuntington

A little hypocritical there. You just can't handle that you're wrong every once in a while and cannot wiki your way out of this one. Wiki is wrong all the time, why should I believe anything you say?


----------



## liamstrain

Are you saying a properly controlled abx is not science? It is not, on its own, conclusive - no single piece of evidence is. But it at least can be structured to mitigate some of the biases in other more freeform listening tests. And can help corroborate other data to gradually build towards a conclusion.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> What's scientific about a abx then?


 
  
 That has got to be a setup line for a joke or something.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> What if you're wrong?


 
  
 About what?


----------



## JamesHuntington

ab initio said:


> ABX is just one of the many tools available to scientists who study auditory perception. If you are unclear on what is and isn't "science," I recommend browsing wikipedia's discussions on the topic for a quick refresher.
> 
> Cheers


Don't see anything about scientific on your abx link. Unless we all abx from the same computer and setup then it's flawed. So I guess we don't have to bring it up ever again.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> why should I believe anything you say?


 
  
 I've learned a great deal from the people around me in this forum and in real life. If you can't learn from other people, what's the point of even participating in an internet forum?


----------



## liamstrain

Ah - you mean individually doing our own abx testing? That is a scientific way of doing a personal exploration. But I agree, it is too uncontrolled to be considered rigorous evidence. 

A well crafted study on test equipment, and lead by researchers could be, however. Depending on methodology.

All this doesn't make the individual abx useless or not science. Just not compelling evidence. May satisfy some individual curiosity, however, regarding audibility on their rigs.


----------



## JamesHuntington

bigshot said:


> That has got to be a setup line for a joke or something.


I laugh every time I hear abx. It's about as scientific as the Pepsi challenge.


----------



## esldude

jameshuntington said:


> A little hypocritical there. You just can't handle that you're wrong every once in a while and cannot wiki your way out of this one. Wiki is wrong all the time, why should I believe anything you say?


 

 Well, good science can be tested.  You can test some things for yourself.  Now naively one might say fine, I will listen to A and then B to see if they sound different.  Over time a base of scientific understanding has been developed which says such an approach will in fact result in many false positives.  If you don't believe this to be true, it could be discussed, questions asked, answers provided, reasoning and evidence for all of this.  If you follow the good evidence, data, and scientifically done investigation you will at some point need to accept that evidence for what is and isn't happening, provide alternative evidence or believe something that won't stand up to scientific scrutiny.  You also get such evidence reviewed by others. 
  
 In the case of ABX, do you really need to discuss what is scientific about it?  If so, it might be a good thread to start.  Or read thru this one from late last year:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/689431/research-that-abx-dbt-testing-reflects-real-world-listening
  
 Or maybe this one would be helpful:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/599882/what-are-the-arguments-against-double-blind-tests-incl-abx
  
 Now to be honest I get the impression you simply wish to disagree, don't wish to believe what you think you hear in sighted listening is wrong, and don't like being told it is an inadequate way to make determinations.  The above threads if read would go a long way in explaining why sighted listening by careful people using top notch equipment still fails to be good science.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> I laugh every time I hear abx. It's about as scientific as the Pepsi challenge.


 
  
 Then I'll ask the question... Why should I believe anything you say?


----------



## bigshot

esldude said:


> Now to be honest I get the impression you simply wish to disagree


 
  
 He's trolled us here before. He'll go away soon.


----------



## ab initio

jameshuntington said:


> Don't see anything about scientific on your abx link. Unless we all abx from the same computer and setup then it's flawed. So I guess we don't have to bring it up ever again.




Abx is a tool. The link was for you to click and learn. Abx is utilized in scientific studies of perception. If it is executed properly, it produces meaningful data.

What you are claiming in your blanket statement is ingnorant. 

Read the wiki links on scientific method, you'll learn how humans have progressed using scientific approaches to formulate testable hypothesis, control variables, conduct tests, and analyze the results to draw meaningful conclusions and learn something new.

Just because you don't understand scientific principles doesn't invalidate them. Rather, it means you've got more to learn. 

Cheers


----------



## ab initio

JamesHuntington it seems you should Google "logical fallacies "

While you're at it, read the link in my signature on how to formulate a meaningful argument. 

Cheers


----------



## esldude

I'd also like to comment, that while personal testing rarely meets the rigor for scientific evidence it can still be educational.  For one, just carefully level matching two sources often reduces what someone subjectively judged large obvious differences to suddenly be well small or near non-existent.  For some types of comparisons you can do the ABX in Foobar or similar software until you are able to show real differences or find you can't.  What has become very interesting to me in trying things for myself is just how little it takes to bias, throw off or confuse human perception.  As well as how ready to pounce upon even chance correlation the human brain is.  The brain is a pattern matching machine of sorts.  Being quick to match patterns has survival skill.  But in the right conditions it will lead one wildly astray with only the flimsiest reasons.  It can make up out of whole cloth gut level real deeply felt differences when in fact there are none.


----------



## ab initio

esldude said:


> I'd also like to comment, that while *personal testing rarely meets the rigor for scientific evidence* it can still be educational.




+1

It can be fun, 

Cheerstoo!


----------



## castleofargh

Quote:


jameshuntington said:


> A little hypocritical there. You just can't handle that you're wrong every once in a while and cannot wiki your way out of this one. Wiki is wrong all the time, why should I believe anything you say?


 
  
 your answer to someone telling you he will admit being wrong if real facts are presented, is to tell him he can't handle being wrong?
 what are you talking about?
 are you just looking to start a fight?
  
 ABX is only a personal tool if not clearly under control of other people when done. it's a great first step anti bias tool for a person to know for himself if he's really hearing differences of just imagining them.
 nothing less nothing more. it's not to be used as a justification as it can be falsified or done in a wrong way.
  
 if you make a weird claim, we will say we don't think so.
 if you make the same weird claim saying you got 98% success over a valid number of abx, we might doubt the way you've done your abx(were both samples from the same master? were the volume levels balanced? etc..), but probably not the fact that you did it and had said results. I would say it's a good start to investigate something or bring up a subject. we will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if we know you're not just a victim of placebo.
 and abx is a big deal better at making a debate evolve than "I laugh every time I hear abx." as if there was anything to be proud of. if you don't see the purpose and benefits of an abx in certain situations, then at least don't be so proud of your own ignorance.
 but maybe you have some interesting claims about how abx is laughable?


----------



## Hapster

Why is it that I always feel like all of these threads turn into something that heavily resembles religious arguments?


----------



## ab initio

hapster said:


> Why is it that I always feel like all of these threads turn into something that heavily resembles religious arguments?




Do you think that scientific debates resemble religious debates?

I think that we're still doing alright here (okay, maybe it's getting a little emotional) . We haven't reached outright name calling (yet) and I think we're still on topic since Abx is one way to test audiophile claims. 

Hopefully we can all step back, breathe deeply, and try to move the conversation forward with well-intentioned (and hopefully well-formed) arguments! 

Cheers


Edit: I'm kicking back listening to Rush's "Necromancer " streaming over Bluetooth to a Sony avr driving some Sony floor standing speakers with heavily distorting tweeters and no low end. Still, its awesome tunes even though it's not audiophile by any stretch of the imagination. I don't have any abx evidence to prove the tweeter distortion is real, so we will call it IMHO.


----------



## Hapster

Well you've got the "Atheists" touting anything between cables not affecting SQ, 24-bit and 192khz being bad, and amps not being more than something that increases the volume. 

They ask that everything be proven and that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim I.e god.

And you have the "religious" people saying that personal experiences are more important, such as hearing the voice of god, or dying for several seconds and seeing heaven. (After switching cables, it sounded amazing) - purely anecdotal evidence. 

I would be interested in a sort of poll to see if there really is a correlation between religious beliefs and stance on certain frequently debated sound topics.


----------



## JamesHuntington

What's laughable about abx is that they are obviously as valid in science as the star rating on amazon.con. And anyone who disagrees and uses it to prove their points is just as hypocritical as someone telling a person with many years experience that he can't be able to hear improvements between two types of file formats because it's not possible. Not possible because the hypocrite gave red book cd the golden ear infallible label.


----------



## JamesHuntington

hapster said:


> Well you've got the "Atheists" touting anything between cables not affecting SQ, 24-bit and 192khz being bad, and amps not being more than something that increases the volume.
> 
> They ask that everything be proven and that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim I.e god.
> 
> ...


Its not just anyone making claims, it's someone who records music a lot making claims from very much experience, eg analog surviver. I don't claim to know it all and neither are many people that are called out on here. It seems that this thread died way before any people on here currently had anything new to input.


----------



## Hapster

jameshuntington said:


> Its not just anyone making claims, it's someone who records music a lot making claims from very much experience, eg analog surviver. I don't claim to know it all and neither are many people that are called out on here. It seems that this thread died way before any people on here currently had anything new to input.




Well, a priest or pope could say the same thing. They're not "just some guy".

I'm not picking sides, nor have I taken a stance, but I'm saying there does seem to be a lot of similarities.

the only thing that doesn't fit the model would be confirmation bias. I'm not sure how it would fit in.


----------



## ab initio

jameshuntington said:


> Its not just anyone making claims, it's someone who records music a lot making claims from very much experience, eg analog surviver. I don't claim to know it all and neither are many people that are called out on here. It seems that this thread died way before any people on here currently had anything new to input.



Claims are just that: claims.

It doesn't matter if Einstein makes them, they require supporting evidence to be valid. 

You are falling victim to argumentum ab auctoritate. You might consider googling logical fallacy 

Cheers


----------



## JamesHuntington

And I'm saying analog guys argument is more valid to me than than abx statistics or putting music through any sound test with computers involved. Computers can be fooled, as the software being used to test sq is only as good as the programmer. I have alse seen proof that condensed music is full of distortion, but people like the group on here still claim there's no way to hear those differences. Hypocritical!


----------



## JamesHuntington

Average people come on headfi to see what people like analog surviver is stating, and if they should buy into that "myth." but they unfortuneatly have to sift through the comments of a bunch of broom pushing google searching science want-to-be know-it-alls along the way.


----------



## liamstrain

People who want the mythology without the science and evidence can go anywhere else on this site. But here, no matter who you are, your claims need evidence to back them up. No free passes.


----------



## JamesHuntington

Red book Cd may be good for reproducing computer generated sounds or electronic music, but it is not the end all for for recording natural sound. You can always add more depth and detail to bring about realism. But if you're sample is not real to begin with, then cd, mp3 or acc is very capable.


----------



## castleofargh

jameshuntington said:


> What's laughable about abx is that they are obviously as valid in science as the star rating on amazon.con. And anyone who disagrees and uses it to prove their points is just as hypocritical as someone telling a person with many years experience that he can't be able to hear improvements between two types of file formats because it's not possible. Not possible because the hypocrite gave red book cd the golden ear infallible label.


 
 so making sure that you actually hear a difference is a joke, but "a person with many years of XP" should be faithfully trusted. sorry I really don't find that rational.
 I've seen so many people with decades of experience saying total nonsense. experience can mean anything. if I listen all my life to some warm rolled off ultra distorted tube amp+vinyl thinking that's hifi sound, how will I ever be right when I talk about the signature of a stax? I will come with all my years of experience and call the stax cold missing texture(no grainy distortion)with no bass and too much distorted trebles. should people comply with my opinion?
  
  
 to some, seeing a black cat and later receiving bad news, are 2 very much related events. that's how some decide that a 1000$ cable improves soundstage. how some decide that digital sound is cold, because the other source is rolled off. how some believe that high gain sounds better on IEMs because ... well it's louder... how some will say that plugging a headphone directly into the LO improves sound compared to HO.
 we have endless supply of misinterpreted information and erroneous conclusions on this forum. and a lot come from very "experienced" people.
 me counting down at a red light doesn't really make the light go green when I reach zero. when it does I haven't uncovered some telekinetic power. abx, dbt, overall scientific methods and repeatability are here to make sure a given consequence comes strictly from said cause, and not from something totally unrelated and sometimes entirely made up by our brain.
 when measurements place differences outside of the audible range, when a proper DTB shows the inability of the subjects to tell redbook from DSD, you can't expect us to take analogsurviver's anecdotes for granted as they state pretty much all that has been disproved up till now.
  
 nothing incredible here, and ABx is as good as what you make of it and how you conduct your test. if you do it in a stupid way you'll get stupid results. don't blame the tools, blame the people.
 if you believe you hear differences but 20 abx come close to 50/50, chances are, you're just lying to yourself. you can decide to ridicule abx if you want, but you won't learn anything from that.


----------



## castleofargh

jameshuntington said:


> And I'm saying analog guys argument is more valid to me than than abx statistics or putting music through any sound test with computers involved. Computers can be fooled, as the software being used to test sq is only as good as the programmer. I have alse seen proof that condensed music is full of distortion, but people like the group on here still claim there's no way to hear those differences. Hypocritical!


 

 lol didn't see that one when I posted.
 computers can be fooled!!!! but analog surviver cannot!!!! so I suppose we cannot listen to a dap, because the signal can be fooled and the signal is only as good as the programmer of the chipset...
  
 condensed music? what is that? did you get your proof from unreliable computer measurement on softwares only as good as the programmer?
  
 digital audio is measured to have far less distortion than vinyl or analog tape. so all mythically unreliable it is, it's still measurably better than analog mediums for data storage. but hey who am I to talk, I'm only relying on facts.
  
 I really wonder who's being hypocritical here. there are as you say a lot of people willing to see analogsurviver's opinions. but from what I've seen so far, I would guess that most of them don't come in sound science. superstition isn't our favorite subject in here.


----------



## JamesHuntington

No, the joke is there's too many variables involved in proving I could hear a difference and even if I did it over and over your kind would not accept it. You'd refute my walking on water, if you want to hear the truth. You are not testing anything anyone says you're just talking smack with the same google info. When anyone tries a test you say it's impossible because the human ear cannot possibly do that. You lack any scientific curiosity and sit in your beliefs doing nothing. That's what I say.


----------



## liamstrain

1. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
  
 2. I find it curious, how people who have clearly stated that they are willing to change their minds when presented with evidence, repeatedly, are accused of being closed minded.
  
 3. I would refute your walking on water, unless you provided some objective evidence. Saying it (or having one of your friends say it about you), doesn't count. 
  
 4. There is a difference between scientific curiosity, and endlessly wasting time addressing/retesting things that have already been addressed. Provide something new (new evidence to evaluate), and it's a different story. But so far, it has only been claims without evidence, and appeals to authority.


----------



## JamesHuntington

I hear some distortion between vinyl tracks, but that's pretty much it. The music is way less distorted than cd when I turn them up to live volumes. 
 On cd what I hear is overpowering snares 
and bass, and when the crash hits it's so far removed that I actually have to really listen for it. I say noise floors removed is a problem, and the problem is cd's lacking size.


----------



## liamstrain

I don't dispute that is what you hear. But now we need to dig around to see what the underlying variables are to determine where the differences originate. 
  
 Are you using the same amplifier.
 Does it have an integrated phono stage, or are you using an external?
 Is your CD player doing its own DA conversion, or are you using an external.
 Is everything functioning properly/to spec? 
 Likewise different mastering - are you comparing the same tracks on the two media?
 Are you level matching them? 
  
 All these (and many more) questions need to be addressed before you can say with any certainty anything about the causes of differences in your listening experience.


----------



## ab initio

jameshuntington said:


> Red book Cd may be good for reproducing computer generated sounds or electronic music, but it is not the end all for for recording natural sound. *You can always add more depth and detail to bring about realism.* But if you're sample is not real to begin with, then cd, mp3 or acc is very capable.




I highlighted the part that contradicts the fundamentals of discrete time signals and the current body of scientific evidence regarding human perception of noise, distortion, and timing. You are welcome to provide evidence or qualify your assertion as your own opinion.

 Read the threads and links provided throughout the sound science forum---you will learn a lot. I have!

Cheers


----------



## JamesHuntington

That sentence may be vague. I mean you can always capture more depth and detail to bring about more realism. Ant this is where red book is so lacking when using today's technology to produce music. Reality is always the goal, that's why more and more people are trying vinyl now. Because they were not happy with the limitations of affordable digital in red book. Please do more testing in the comfort of your own home before you believe numbers. I use many different setups and different but predictable results, and red book is limited using today's technology.


----------



## SilverEars

Man, A/B tests are freakin useless.  It's hard for me to tell which of my top two amps are better.  One is better with certain tracks, and the other with other tracks.


----------



## JamesHuntington

When any part of recording or playback equipment thinks for itself and takes out something for sake of its own limitations, then I guess we should just sit back and say: I might not have needed that because my brain is not going to able to differentiate between real and less than real anyway. For sake of argument I will digitize myself walking on water and the world can abx me not walking on water and we can see how many people still believe the world is flat.


----------



## liamstrain

jameshuntington said:


> When any part of recording or playback equipment thinks for itself and takes out something for sake of its own limitations...


 
  
 Does that include the rolled off highs on your vinyl?


----------



## SilverEars

Well, I know one sounds tiny bit brighter than the other, and the less bright one sound wider spacially.  Initially I thought the spacially wider one sounded better because the sibilance was controlled, and was detailed sounding.  The other pushes the subtality more so has a little bit of sibilance.  The one with littel bit of sibilance sounds excellent with jazz though, especially horns, and cymbals.  I don't get what true neutral would be. or true transparency.  Oh well...


----------



## castleofargh

jameshuntington said:


> You'd refute my walking on water, if you want to hear the truth. You are not testing anything anyone says you're just talking smack with the same google info.


 
 yes I would refute it. and you're wrong I have tested it, and failing even in the red sea on a trip to egypt, made me think that even one of the saltier sea on earth wasn't enough for even a skinny human to walk on it. even trying to cheat with rubber flip flops didn't work, that's how far I went in experimenting.


----------



## JamesHuntington

You'd refute me walking on water even if I did it again and again. It's as predictable as the lack of drum quality red book provides us.


----------



## liamstrain

> You'd refute me walking on water even if I did it again and again.


 
  
 Weird analogy - but if you did so under well controlled conditions, and objective witnesses or observation tools - I'd accept it. So far, all people are doing is saying they are walking on water though. Not demonstrating it. And when they try to demonstrate it under controlled conditions, they fail.
  
 *shrug*


----------



## ab initio

jameshuntington said:


> You'd refute me walking on water even if I did it again and again. It's as predictable as the lack of drum quality red book provides us.




I walk on water.
It's called ice.

What do you think is lacking in drum quality on CD? Dynamic range? I suspect the recording engineer and mastering engineers have more to do with that than the format. I bet we can identify the issue if you post a sample.

Cheers


----------



## JamesHuntington

Repeat post


----------



## JamesHuntington

You can google the difference between ice and water. You can also google a study of how it would be possible for humans to walk on water, a Harvard study. Anyhow, we can design machines to walk on water but at current evolution we couldn't make more than a few steps. Like the lizard that does it, we would have to move 15x faster and have huge feet. Lina like how I hear differences between cd and vinyl by turning them up loud. Maybe not 15x as loud as the average abxer, but loud enough to get my air drum on.


----------



## JamesHuntington

I compare walking on water to hearing the difference between red book and dsd because too many believe it's not possible. My main issue is garbled high hats and lack of crash and ride cymbals. Then there's the enhanced bass and snare drum that i hear on all my CD playing devices, which is far from the reality of live drum levels. I say it's beyond mixing and related to the limits of cd at our current abilities with that medium.


----------



## esldude

jameshuntington said:


> I compare walking on water to hearing the difference between red book and dsd because too many believe it's not possible. My main issue is garbled high hats and lack of crash and ride cymbals. Then there's the enhanced bass and snare drum that i hear on all my CD playing devices, which is far from the reality of live drum levels. I say it's beyond mixing and related to the limits of cd at our current abilities with that medium.


 

 Yes, you say lots of things.  You provide evidence for nothing, and aren't willing to do so.  So troll on.


----------



## Steve Eddy

jameshuntington said:


> I compare walking on water to hearing the difference between red book and dsd because too many believe it's not possible. My main issue is garbled high hats and lack of crash and ride cymbals. Then there's the enhanced bass and snare drum that i hear on all my CD playing devices, which is far from the reality of live drum levels. I say it's beyond mixing and related to the limits of cd at our current abilities with that medium.




Great. Now you've got a theory. Time to test it.

One can churn out theories until the cows come home. A theory that's never put to the test is meaningless and does absolutely nothing to advance knowledge and understanding. But then it's in some people's best interest not to advance knowledge and understanding.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

esldude said:


> Yes, you say lots of things.  You provide evidence for nothing, and aren't willing to do so.  So troll on.




I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss as a troll. Some people just can't think very rationally. I wouldn't call such people trolls. Their brains are wired the way they are. Nothing they can do about it. Not that that makes it any less frustrating trying to have a rational discussion with them of course.

se


----------



## SilverEars

steve eddy said:


> I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss as a troll. Some people just can't think very rationally. I wouldn't call such people trolls. Their brains are wired the way they are. Nothing they can do about it. Not that that makes it any less frustrating trying to have a rational discussion with them of course.
> 
> se


 
 yes, like when your mom tells you she doesn't know how to use the computer?  She ain't kidding.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  People have different smarts, and if the smarts don't fit, you shouldn't force it in.


----------



## JamesHuntington

silverears said:


> yes, like when your mom tells you she doesn't know how to use the computer?  She ain't kidding.     People have different smarts, and if the smarts don't fit, you shouldn't force it in.


Yup, your existences are thanks to a woman that can produce such types as yourselves but cannot use a computer. Kind of ironic. On the other hand, I chose not to wast my time on worrying about digital music, as I can neither fix or understand its popularity among those that jumped on the wagon around let's say early '80s. I appreciate what people like analog surviver is doing to explain what the future of digital music might behold. I'm sort of a BC minded person, or before CDs. Others might be more AD minded, or analogue-digital minded person. In my mind realistic and live sounding recordings died at AD. It's not that I'm used to listening to records. It's that I'm used to listening to live music. I come from a drummers perspective and many years jamming/recording live and acoustic drums. The sound on cd or rip is not like live acoustic sound. Which is why the only drums I can handle hearing on cd are machine made, and I can only assume it's because samples aren't taking off a noise floor like an acoustic recording would.


----------



## SilverEars

I like to keep lots music in a small box to listen on the go.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  And some of the tracks sound pretty good too.  I don't like to watch video cassettes, looks too fuzzy.  I like the 4k tvs.  Very digital lookin.


----------



## JamesHuntington

steve eddy said:


> I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss as a troll. Some people just can't think very rationally. I wouldn't call such people trolls. Their brains are wired the way they are. Nothing they can do about it. Not that that makes it any less frustrating trying to have a rational discussion with them of course.
> 
> se


It's interesting to me how people that are so quick to toot their own horn as science/audio experts are more realistically towards the bottom of the barrel of minds. I was going to use the term great minds instead of minds but I found that term not as fitting for yours.


----------



## JamesHuntington

BTW, it's a huge difference, logically, to say "you're wrong" or "you're irrational" than saying I disagree. I will leave it at that. I have been watching and reading this thread since before I first replied. I can say I've changed a lot since that day. I used to think the clear sound of the cd concluded better sq, but now I know a difference. I'd rather have dirty and live than clean and lacking. It's personal preference. And thanks for your lessons about logic and science, but what I don't know I will learn if I want. What I do know I'd rather keep to myself because the smartest people I know do more listening than talking for risking making a heal of themselves. 
Peace


----------



## elmoe

I don't know how valid this is, but it seems to go towards what JamesHuntington/analogsurviver are arguing:
  
 http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4-page-2


----------



## davidsh

jameshuntington said:


> steve eddy said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss as a troll. Some people just can't think very rationally. I wouldn't call such people trolls. Their brains are wired the way they are. Nothing they can do about it. Not that that makes it any less frustrating trying to have a rational discussion with them of course.
> ...


 
 Please, knock that name calling and those insults off.
  
 I just want to add one thing. CD's not sounding good at live volumes makes sense in many cases, as most CD's are mastered to sound good at 'sane' volumes.
  
 Besides, I also miss any arguments for why redbook is bad and vinyl is good, ecxept anecdotal reports.


----------



## JamesHuntington

davidsh said:


> Please, knock that name calling and those insults off.
> 
> I just want to add one thing. CD's not sounding good at live volumes makes sense in many cases, as most CD's are mastered to sound good at 'sane' volumes.
> 
> Besides, I also miss any arguments for why redbook is bad and vinyl is good, ecxept anecdotal reports.


I use red book and currently have about 1200 CDs stashed away and were ripped to lossless. This is not counting ones I sold along the years. My record collection is about 300 due to weight and size, and my preference for old vinyl and the availability. I never meant to say cd is bad, I say not as good. Before CDs I had about about 400 tapes and played music as close to 24/7 as I could. Today I sleep with music. I can't take it to work but I active listen about 5 hours a day. My ears are hella clean and I listen a tweet low volumes when I'm sleeping and let my ears adjust to as low as my ipod will play. Sometimes it wakes me up and it seams loud, so those bands might be part of the loudness thing that is unpopular to many people. 
In the end of the day when I put on my gear and want to rock, LP is my go to. I'm away from the road noise of my car stereo and in my happy place. I do enjoy listening to dsd/sacd about as much as cd and can hear a increase in overall volume with the two. My dsd/sacd is mediocre at about 30. In the end we are doing what is right for us. I hope cd gets better too, as I can see LP is kind of at its peak with 12" 45rpm sq. That or unless we want to go back to where we left off in the 70s and build records that play at faster speeds and are bigger around. Or maybe half speed mastered tapes are on a comeback, even though both LP and tape supposedly wear out over time. 





elmoe said:


> http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4-page-2


Oh and this deserves repeating over and over again.


----------



## Steve Eddy

jameshuntington said:


> It's interesting to me how people that are so quick to toot their own horn as science/audio experts are more realistically towards the bottom of the barrel of minds. I was going to use the term great minds instead of minds but I found that term not as fitting for yours.




So, as I was saying, you've got a theory, now it's time to test it.

se


----------



## castleofargh

elmoe said:


> I don't know how valid this is, but it seems to go towards what JamesHuntington/analogsurviver are arguing:
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4-page-2


 
  
 it doesn't bring much to the table, there are a lot of differences in the signals of CDs and LPs and we don't know if the reasons are different masters, or the LP messing up the signal.
 the amplitude excess is known, the needle will always "jump", and the higher the amplitude on the groove, the higher the jump. and the faster the frequency, the higher the distortion. it's like the opposite of a compressor for the amplitude part. but we can't give an exact value as the weight on the needle and all the dampening systems can make this change greatly. still even with the very best system it will happen. and again the only way to limit this is to accept wearing out the groove faster.
 I couldn't find what I was looking for, but here is the next best thing I still had in my limitless audio bookmarks(folders into folders into folders :'( ) http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yosh/recspecs.htm
 I should warn you, it's not fun to read.
  
 still the audioholics post brings some more questions and really doesn't make me want to have LPs at all. I guess it's about what one believes in.
 the conclusion is good, we don't have the original master of any albums in the test so we can't say much.
 to me that brings up more questions:
 - how close are both vinyl and CD from the original (distortion, remaster, ...)?
  
 - what is the noise level when there is music? obviously the changes in contact noises will be much more important when the needle is moving up and down and jumping. I will dismiss the fact that even on the silent part I would pick the steady -88db noise of CD any day instead of something that goes up to -50db on vinyl. I can't see how such a value can lead to say that noise is low on LP! ok that's in the bass region so it's probably not a harsh sound, but it is at a very audible level and has nothing to do with being realistic or better. noise is noise.
  
 - as stated in the conclusion, how do we know that the better dynamic of the LP is actual fidelity and not overshoots due to the mechanical movement of the needle on high amplitudes? how do we know that the lower dynamic of the CD isn't the work of the sound engineer done on purpose?
  
 -and what of all the distortion on LPs and all the mechanical parts that can go wrong and alter the sound even further away from the original signal? distortion from pressing errors, distortions from the vinyl wearing out, distortion from the changes in speed rotation from the turntable and from the position of the track on the vinyl, vertical distortion leading to sound distortion and loudness errors(apparently several DB is usual depending on the frequency). and that doesn't count the cartridge's quality, alignment ...
 disregarding all that to spit on inaudible stuff from the CD just doesn't make any sense. the magnitude of errors on the vinyl is several times that of the CD, if you don't like the sound of the CD blame the guy making the master, not the support itself that does a much better job than a vinyl.
  
 this article really shows nothing of the technical capabilities of the CD except that idd they filter out the ultrasonic sounds. nothing new, and boohoohoo, I cannot hear them sounds that my ears don't pick anyway. /me so sad.
 CD has higher fidelity than vinyl by a large margin. and that's it. if you don't like the sound, you probably don't share the tastes of the mastering engineer. it has nothing to do with usb plugs and memory fragmentation, and ultrasonic signals and whatever invented problems by analogsurviver that never reach 1%distortion ever, even piled up altogether.
  
  
 I can't see how going away from a signal can be called being more realistic sounding. I don't get it with tube amp that have high distortion, I don't get it with vinyls. and to me yes James, this is irrational AND I desagree. whatever you are actually hearing, you're putting the blame on the wrong reasons. that part at least is very clear. again we don't pretend that you don't hear differences, we could but that is not what matters here. what we find irrational is the way analogsurviver goes fishing with anything that comes to mind, to try and explain something that is actually very obviously unrelated. (cf one of my posts above where I sum up a few examples of his mostly false irrational claims).
  
 and up till now all you have to bring as information to back him up is that you know what you're hearing, ok, but how is your opinion better than mine? that's just an opinion.
 and you also clearly express the fact that you don't know much about digital process and justify it as "I don't need to learn about something wrong". isn't that wishful ignorance? you put us all in a bag and call us hypocritical or narrow minded because "we" don't share your personal feelings. but "we" in sound science are exactly the opposite of what you describe. "we" are curious about everything and try to learn about most of it with interest. if we didn't, we wouldn't be here. I don't need headfi to listen to my music or have opinions. I need headfi to try learning a few things.
 my parents had vinyls, I've discovered most of my favorite albums on vinyls and some have grown old with me I said adios to them 3years ago. today I still listen to mostly the same artists pink floyd, stevie wonder, chaikovsky, kate bush, al jarreau... long list of things I have loved for almost 40years and never stopped listening. but I listen to them as 16/44 PCM. because to me vinyl is a thing of the past.
 you can decide to keep them, you can love the boring action of turning sides at half of the album (so much fun on live albums...) and mostly you can have fond memories related to them. I can relate to that.
 but technically just take a CD add noises, a big range of different distortions, usually some roll off, and you'll be closer to what a vinyl sounds like. and again, facts, not my own opinion.


----------



## JamesHuntington

I





steve eddy said:


> So, as I was saying, you've got a theory, now it's time to test it.
> 
> se


if you like you can, go play a nice drum set, say above 3000 dollar in all so you can hear what I had. Then play for a few years with musicians that have equipment that can match the level of a drum kit. Really listen. Here's where I give you the key. Listen to how the bass and snare drum sound compared to the cymbals. Then listen to the cymbals over and over. Try to hear it, not just hitting it fast. Then listen to vinyl and cd and see for yourself what has the most realistic sq.. Don't compare music with drum machines or records mastered/recorded digitally. Listen to how the cymbals really don't get the appreciation they deserve on cd, and how the snare and bass drum are almost too loud. I would like to attribute it to poor recording but, in a pigheaded way a non scientific mind does, I had to grow to take it for what it is. 
Ok, I'll talk to you once you've at least tried my scenario as I think I've don't my homework to a lever that I get the concept.


----------



## ferday

Lol this thread is gaining in awesome power by the minute. But if you aren't using the same price range of computer as I am to read it, you won't get the irony


----------



## JamesHuntington

castleofargh said:


> it doesn't bring much to the table, there are a lot of differences in the signals of CDs and LPs and we don't know if the reasons are different masters, or the LP messing up the signal.
> the amplitude excess is known, the needle will always "jump", and the higher the amplitude on the groove, the higher the jump. and the faster the frequency, the higher the distortion. it's like the opposite of a compressor for the amplitude part. but we can't give an exact value as the weight on the needle and all the dampening systems can make this change greatly. still even with the very best system it will happen. and again the only way to limit this is to accept wearing out the groove faster.
> I couldn't find what I was looking for, but here is the next best thing I still had in my limitless audio bookmarks(folders into folders into folders :'( ) http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yosh/recspecs.htm
> I should warn you, it's not fun to read.
> ...


what a waste of a read here. I don't know where to start. But thanks for the worst read I hope I can forget.


----------



## Steve Eddy

jameshuntington said:


> I
> if you like you can, go play a nice drum set, say above 3000 dollar in all so you can hear what I had. Then play for a few years with musicians that have equipment that can match the level of a drum kit. Really listen. Here's where I give you the key. Listen to how the bass and snare drum sound compared to the cymbals. Then listen to the cymbals over and over. Try to hear it, not just hitting it fast. Then listen to vinyl and cd and see for yourself what has the most realistic sq.. Don't compare music with drum machines or records mastered/recorded digitally. Listen to how the cymbals really don't get the appreciation they deserve on cd, and how the snare and bass drum are almost too loud. I would like to attribute it to poor recording but, in a pigheaded way a non scientific mind does, I had to grow to take it for what it is.
> Ok, I'll talk to you once you've at least tried my scenario as I think I've don't my homework to a lever that I get the concept.




So, as I was saying, you have a theory, now it's time to test it.

All you're offering up here is a bunch of hand-waving and then expecting _someone else _to substantiate _your_ theory. 

That's not the way it works.

First of all what you propose completely ignores the fact that there's a whole recording, mixing and mastering process going on in between, not to mention leaving out the gross distortions vinyl brings to the table. There will certainly be audible differences between vinyl and digital, there's no argument there. But it is ultimately your claim that digital is incapable of capturing what vinyl can.

If you want to put that theory to the test, then I suggest what you do is find a piece of vinyl that renders drums in the manner you describe here, digitize it, and then see if you can reliably distinguish between the two under controlled conditions (i.e. using only your ears). 

se


----------



## esldude

jameshuntington said:


> I
> if you like you can, go play a nice drum set, say above 3000 dollar in all so you can hear what I had. Then play for a few years with musicians that have equipment that can match the level of a drum kit. Really listen. Here's where I give you the key. Listen to how the bass and snare drum sound compared to the cymbals. Then listen to the cymbals over and over. Try to hear it, not just hitting it fast. Then listen to vinyl and cd and see for yourself what has the most realistic sq.. Don't compare music with drum machines or records mastered/recorded digitally. Listen to how the cymbals really don't get the appreciation they deserve on cd, and how the snare and bass drum are almost too loud. I would like to attribute it to poor recording but, in a pigheaded way a non scientific mind does, I had to grow to take it for what it is.
> Ok, I'll talk to you once you've at least tried my scenario as I think I've don't my homework to a lever that I get the concept.


 

 You do realize as the guy playing the drums, for however many years, you don't know what it sounds like to someone listening 10 feet away.  You really are in no better position to be an arbiter of recorded drum sound being the musician. 
  
 Steve Eddy has given you a good experiment.  Find your favorite LP, digitize it and see if you can hear the difference.  If you can't then the problem with CD isn't the format limitations, but other factors like mastering.
  
 The article at Audiostream has too many uncontrolled factors.  But I did notice they digitized the LP in order to make comparisons.  Whether the CD or LP's were better will depend on the mastering.  One can find too many sub-standard LP's to give it a blanket superiority in sound quality award.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> I hear some distortion between vinyl tracks, but that's pretty much it. The music is way less distorted than cd when I turn them up to live volumes.
> On cd what I hear is overpowering snares
> and bass, and when the crash hits it's so far removed that I actually have to really listen for it. I say noise floors removed is a problem, and the problem is cd's lacking size.


 
  
 Clearly, your response curve has spikes and dips.


----------



## Steve Eddy

esldude said:


> Steve Eddy has given you a good experiment.  Find your favorite LP, digitize it and see if you can hear the difference.




On second thought, the better way to do that would be to split the analog out from the turntable, run it through A-D/D-A, and then switch between the two outputs. That way you're always running off the same source (i.e. the LP).

I recall someone already doing that. 

se


----------



## castleofargh

jameshuntington said:


> what a waste of a read here. I don't know where to start. But thanks for the worst read I hope I can forget.


 
 sure, thanks for making it clear that trying to explain something to you with arguments and reasons was a complete waste of my time. I stand corrected at least on that subject.
 and of course don't even try to argue about parts of my post by bringing anything that could actually be meaningful or interresting to the topic. or simply prove me where I'm wrong with let's say 1 actual fact we coud all check.
 after saying that most of us are hypocritical, not clever, and that we never admit being wrong. prove your point by being exactly all that and blindly dismissing anything you can't really argue against.
  
 way to go buddy!


----------



## esldude

steve eddy said:


> On second thought, the better way to do that would be to split the analog out from the turntable, run it through A-D/D-A, and then switch between the two outputs. That way you're always running off the same source (i.e. the LP).
> 
> I recall someone already doing that.
> 
> se


 

 That would work very well if you can control any latency issues.  Perhaps a mandatory half second dead time during any switch.  And you will need to set recording and output levels so the AD/DA loop precisely matches the level of the LP.  That part is certainly doable.


----------



## Steve Eddy

esldude said:


> That would work very well if you can control any latency issues.  Perhaps a mandatory half second dead time during any switch.  And you will need to set recording and output levels so the AD/DA loop precisely matches the level of the LP.  That part is certainly doable.




Yes. And I look forward to James' results.

se


----------



## stv014

jameshuntington said:


> Oh and this deserves repeating over and over again.


 
  
 It is a bad and misleading article, since the alleged "worse noise floor" of the CD recording is simply either because of poor equipment used (as it was written in 2004, I guess it was some ancient 16-bit Sound Blaster, or early AC97 onboard audio, or similar), or it was used incompetently. This can be seen clearly in the table at the beginning, as the recording makes the minimum RMS level compared to the original file worse by more than 20 dB. This translates to an ENOB of only about 13, which is worse than that of the Realtek HDA codecs on modern PC motherboards. For comparison, these tests of a somewhat newer sub-$100 sound card show noise floors at -130 dB or lower on FFT plots (note: it depends on the FFT size and window used, but no settings would bring it up even close to the ridiculous -80 dB level shown in the article), even with a signal playing. This noise floor is also fairly flat over the audio band, and is of course far lower than any of those recordings, be it from CD or LP.
  
 The reason why the LP looks more "dynamic" on the time domain plots is either that there are mastering differences, or it does not have a flat frequency response (applying a filter, especially to a dynamically compressed signal, can increase its peak to RMS ratio). Digital equipment would have to be seriously poor to make obvious, large differences to the shape and even overall level and dynamics of waveforms consisting mostly of mid-range frequencies.


----------



## stv014

esldude said:


> That would work very well if you can control any latency issues.  Perhaps a mandatory half second dead time during any switch.  And you will need to set recording and output levels so the AD/DA loop precisely matches the level of the LP.  That part is certainly doable.


 
  
 A simpler method is to record the LP in 192/24 format, and then create a version that is first converted to Red Book with a good resampler, then converted back to 192/24. This can then be compared to the original 192/24 recording using any ABX software, like the popular foobar2000 comparator plug-in. Now of course vinyl believers will say that even 192/24 PCM is inferior to LP by far, but if Red Book is so terrible because of the 22.05 kHz bandwidth, shouldn't it be easy to tell that apart from 96 kHz bandwidth (more than two octaves of important ultrasonic content) under well controlled conditions ?


----------



## elmoe

castleofargh said:


> it doesn't bring much to the table, there are a lot of differences in the signals of CDs and LPs and we don't know if the reasons are different masters, or the LP messing up the signal.
> the amplitude excess is known, the needle will always "jump", and the higher the amplitude on the groove, the higher the jump. and the faster the frequency, the higher the distortion. it's like the opposite of a compressor for the amplitude part. but we can't give an exact value as the weight on the needle and all the dampening systems can make this change greatly. still even with the very best system it will happen. and again the only way to limit this is to accept wearing out the groove faster.
> I couldn't find what I was looking for, but here is the next best thing I still had in my limitless audio bookmarks(folders into folders into folders :'( ) http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yosh/recspecs.htm
> I should warn you, it's not fun to read.
> ...


 
  
 Actually I don't have a turntable and I think the only vinyl I have is some old copy of Aqualung I was gifted way back when - All my music is on my computer, ripped to lossless. I can see the attraction with vinyl though I most certainly doubt it sounds "better" than the more accurate digital way of doing things, that said there is a lot of nostalgia associated with the vinyl sound and I can definitely see how it would please a lot of people, in a different way than digital audio does.


----------



## NickLondon

elmoe said:


> Actually I don't have a turntable and I think the only vinyl I have is some old copy of Aqualung I was gifted way back when - All my music is on my computer, ripped to lossless. I can see the attraction with vinyl though I most certainly doubt it sounds "better" than the more accurate digital way of doing things, that said there is a lot of nostalgia associated with the vinyl sound and I can definitely see how it would please a lot of people, in a different way than digital audio does.


 

 I am always amazed when I go to high-end audio stores and see turntables on sale for a ridiculous price... You'd have thought that this technology would have died out a long time ago.


----------



## RazorJack

I think it's great people still listen to vinyl, I for one do too. I highly doubt it will "die out" anytime soon.


----------



## liamstrain

Many people still prefer film too (I use it often, in conjunction with my digital cameras) - inferior doesn't mean useless. But many vinyl lovers miss the distinction between *preferring* something, and something actually being *better.*


----------



## JamesHuntington

Nobody here can find high quality vinyl tracks and do the abx thing? I don't like uploading copyrighted music or the idea of doing it. And like I said before, my recordings are not as good original. But I do enjoy the music from ADD vs DDD and find I can turn it up louder without getting distortion. Like Pink Floyd The Wall on any format is recorded at a lower volume than most of my albums,(at least some parts are low volume until a part comes that blasts your eardrum out) but it can be cranked up nicely without distorting my stereo even on red book. I have a vinyl copy that I put into mp3 320kbbp with 2006 technology and cannot hear a clarity difference between it and a convert from red book to 320 AAC. One thing I can do with a record like the 3 album set of The Wall is make it one track, which I did from converting from vinyl to mp3. It took 2 hours, but I was very careful with my pauses and starts. On disk the songs do not blend like tha album and that album was made to play without the pauses of tracks that happen when converting from cd. I'm sure there's a way to shorten or eliminate those pauses, but obviously I don't have to do so on vinyl my careful and lengthy made vinyl conversions.


----------



## Steve Eddy

jameshuntington said:


> Nobody here can find high quality vinyl tracks and do the abx thing?




You're the one making the claims. It not the responsibility of others to substantiate them.

se


----------



## esldude

stv014 said:


> A simpler method is to record the LP in 192/24 format, and then create a version that is first converted to Red Book with a good resampler, then converted back to 192/24. This can then be compared to the original 192/24 recording using any ABX software, like the popular foobar2000 comparator plug-in. Now of course vinyl believers will say that even 192/24 PCM is inferior to LP by far, but if Red Book is so terrible because of the 22.05 kHz bandwidth, shouldn't it be easy to tell that apart from 96 kHz bandwidth (more than two octaves of important ultrasonic content) under well controlled conditions ?


 

 Well the fact vinyl believers, and in this case this person thinks DSD is better than PCM and vinyl best is why I agreed with Steve Eddy about a direct comparison to real time vinyl.  This person would just say converting to PCM has destroyed the differences.  So first convince them PCM is clean, and go from there.


----------



## esldude

jameshuntington said:


> Nobody here can find high quality vinyl tracks and do the abx thing? I don't like uploading copyrighted music or the idea of doing it. And like I said before, my recordings are not as good original. But I do enjoy the music from ADD vs DDD and find I can turn it up louder without getting distortion. Like Pink Floyd The Wall on any format is recorded at a lower volume than most of my albums,(at least some parts are low volume until a part comes that blasts your eardrum out) but it can be cranked up nicely without distorting my stereo even on red book. I have a vinyl copy that I put into mp3 320kbbp with 2006 technology and cannot hear a clarity difference between it and a convert from red book to 320 AAC. One thing I can do with a record like the 3 album set of The Wall is make it one track, which I did from converting from vinyl to mp3. It took 2 hours, but I was very careful with my pauses and starts. On disk the songs do not blend like tha album and that album was made to play without the pauses of tracks that happen when converting from cd. I'm sure there's a way to shorten or eliminate those pauses, but obviously I don't have to do so on vinyl my careful and lengthy made vinyl conversions.


 

 James, like already said you are the one making the claims.  The testing has been done by many, you didn't believe them.  You described your special experience and what it took to hear the difference.  So only you can convince yourself or in fact show us your experience is special enough it gives you better abilities to hear. 
  
 Now you tell us you have converted to lossy formats vinyl and CD and not heard a clarity difference?  Isn't this contradictory with your previous claims?
  
 Your experience with Pink Floyd vs some other album isn't indicative of a blanket difference one can reasonably claim between ADD and DDD music.  Even if it was you would mostly be indicating the latter two D's in ADD properly reproduced the A at the beginning.  There are ADD as well as DDD recordings that will distort turned up and some of both that won't.  Though anyone's system over-driven with any source will eventually distort.  Further one should separate the limits of a technology from how it may be used vs abused.  The shame is current digital is capable of transparency in an age when most music released on the format is more compressed, altered and otherwise dirtied up than ever before.


----------



## castleofargh

vinyl, it goes to 11.


----------



## Yazen

Just because a format is less efficient does not mean that it is superior.  There are technical advantages/limitations to any format.  How can you there be no difference between DSD and PCM?  Not saying DSD is superior, clearly is inefficient.  
  
 I am wondering why is there even a need to ABX
 Amazing how well some people trust their ears haha.  Did not know it was possible to hear binary 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Jokes aside, I use MP3/AAC for my library.  Further scientific investigations are redundant IMO.  Would be best to research and contact engineers who were involved in the development phase.


----------



## JamesHuntington

esldude said:


> James, like already said you are the one making the claims.  The testing has been done by many, you didn't believe them.  You described your special experience and what it took to hear the difference.  So only you can convince yourself or in fact show us your experience is special enough it gives you better abilities to hear.
> 
> Now you tell us you have converted to lossy formats vinyl and CD and not heard a clarity difference?  Isn't this contradictory with your previous claims?
> 
> Your experience with Pink Floyd vs some other album isn't indicative of a blanket difference one can reasonably claim between ADD and DDD music.  Even if it was you would mostly be indicating the latter two D's in ADD properly reproduced the A at the beginning.  There are ADD as well as DDD recordings that will distort turned up and some of both that won't.  Though anyone's system over-driven with any source will eventually distort.  Further one should separate the limits of a technology from how it may be used vs abused.  The shame is current digital is capable of transparency in an age when most music released on the format is more compressed, altered and otherwise dirtied up than ever before.



No I said clarity, which is nothing to do with wheather your hearing a condensed version. Cd sounds very crystal clear to some extents, but separation of instruments is not as good for me on cd vs vinyl, especially cymbals. But, ive seen many studies showing their is more distortion every time music is converted to lower quality. Most say they can't hear it. I say I hear it at higher volumes. I use The Wall as an example because, though there are tracks, it doesn't have tracks for the most mart and plays nearly continuous. Some of my copy's on disc or mp3 have track pause that ruins the album.



yazen said:


> Just because a format is less efficient does not mean that it is superior.  There are technical advantages/limitations to any format.  How can you there be no difference between DSD and PCM?  Not saying DSD is superior, clearly is inefficient.
> 
> I am wondering why is there even a need to ABX
> Amazing how well some people trust their ears haha.  Did not know it was possible to hear binary
> ...


 that's how I feel, what's the point if abx. Somebody will call foul in some aspect of the test because they disagree.


----------



## esldude

jameshuntington said:


> No I said clarity, which is nothing to do with wheather your hearing a condensed version. Cd sounds very crystal clear to some extents, but separation of instruments is not as good for me on cd vs vinyl, especially cymbals. But, ive seen many studies showing their is more distortion every time music is converted to lower quality. Most say they can't hear it. I say I hear it at higher volumes. I use The Wall as an example because, though there are tracks, it doesn't have tracks for the most mart and plays nearly continuous. Some of my copy's on disc or mp3 have track pause that ruins the album.
> that's how I feel, what's the point if abx. Somebody will call foul in some aspect of the test because they disagree.


 

 I am still trying to figure out what your posting is about.  You don't accept other test results, you won't do your own, yet seem to only wish to come in and tell us of your subjective evaluation of somethings capabilities which don't make much sense with all that is known about such things. No one can tell you what you think you are hearing.  If you won't investigate the truth of the improbable, seems to me you are posting in the wrong sub-forum. 
  
 One of the big myths is LP is superior to CD.  It isn't by any rational accounting.  It may be someone's preference such as yourself.  But it is a preference and not a determination of ultimate fidelity you have made.


----------



## Yazen

esldude said:


> I am still trying to figure out what your posting is about.  You don't accept other test results, you won't do your own, yet seem to only wish to come in and tell us of your subjective evaluation of somethings capabilities which don't make much sense with all that is known about such things. No one can tell you what you think you are hearing.  If you won't investigate the truth of the improbable, seems to me you are posting in the wrong sub-forum.
> 
> One of the big myths is LP is superior to CD.  It isn't by any rational accounting.  It may be someone's preference such as yourself.  But it is a preference and not a determination of ultimate fidelity you have made.


 
 "There's just something about it.., ABX, etc" are subjective.
 There are many external factors that make LP superior to CD, and are mostly subjective as well.
  
 IMO LP is more enjoyable, but I would not trust it as an archive medium.  I would however have more faith in a CD 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 P.S:  Psychophysics, Psychophysics, Psychophysics


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> Nobody here can find high quality vinyl tracks and do the abx thing?


 
  
 Been there. Done that. Care to hear my results?


----------



## Yazen

bigshot said:


> Been there. Done that. Care to hear my results?


 
 No need, its clear that you have made an impression


----------



## bigshot

That was for James Huntington. He seems to be interested in the differences between vinyl and redbook.


----------



## Yazen

bigshot said:


> That was for James Huntington. He seems to be interested in the differences between vinyl and redbook.


 
 I know haha
 Based on the amount of sand that is being poured on James, I can only assume that there is a relationship between your observations and the opinions being expressed by others


----------



## ab initio

yazen said:


> I know haha
> Based on the amount of sand that is being poured on James, I can only assume that there is a relationship between your observations and the opinions being expressed by others


 

 The merits of the arguments should speak for themselves. Groupthink is not a valid reason for or against JamesHuntington's position.
  
 In this case, there is substantial theoretical and experimental evidence that indicates that redbook audio is more than capable of everything that vinyl can do (and then some) with regards to the human auditory system.
  
 Cheers


----------



## bigshot

yazen said:


> Based on the amount of sand that is being poured on James, I can only assume that there is a relationship between your observations and the opinions being expressed by others


 
  
 I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that most of us here have done that particular test. I did it when I first got a decent digitizing box for audio and video. I wanted to see if there was any distortion or loss in digitizing. So I captured Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues Vol 2 and compared level matched real time playback to the CD I burned of the vinyl rip.
  
 I'll keep you in suspense about what I found out, because I don't want to ruin the surprise for James Huntington.


----------



## Yazen

ab initio said:


> The merits of the arguments should speak for themselves. Groupthink is not a valid reason for or against JamesHuntington's position.
> 
> In this case, there is substantial theoretical and experimental evidence that indicates that redbook audio is more than capable of everything that vinyl can do (and then some) with regards to the human auditory system.
> 
> Cheers


 
 I have not seen the evidence being referenced by all of those who oppose James.  I have seen posts noting that James has no objectionable data to justify his observations, but I kind of find that ironic.
  
 Not on either camp, because I have not conducted scientific experiments of my own.  (This is a Science forum right? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)
  
  
 EDIT


bigshot said:


> I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that most of us here have done that particular test. I did it when I first got a decent digitizing box for audio and video. I wanted to see if there was any distortion or loss in digitizing. So I captured Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues Vol 2 and compared level matched real time playback to the CD I burned of the vinyl rip.
> 
> I'll keep you in suspense about what I found out, because I don't want to ruin the surprise for James Huntington.


 
 What a bigshot


----------



## bigshot

yazen said:


> I have not seen the evidence being referenced by all of those who oppose James.


 
  
 You SURE you don't want to hear what I found out in my direct A/B line level matched comparison of one of the best sounding LPs ever made and a digital rip of it?


----------



## SilverEars

Just a question, if you do a DBT of the different formats.  Wouldn't you know one is LP?  Wouldn't the LP have some characteristics that are obvious to know it is it?


----------



## JamesHuntington

If I rip one in digital do I still smell it? Haha, I know what big shot, or BS as I'll call him, is saying. IMO a digital rip is not as good as original but sounds good. At higher volumes those distortions will show up. But if you want to show your study it's better than not. Maybe I'll disagree but I'd be using my ears only.


----------



## bigshot

silverears said:


> Just a question, if you do a DBT of the different formats.  Wouldn't you know one is LP?  Wouldn't the LP have some characteristics that are obvious to know it is it?


 
  
 Not if the digital rip is a precise duplicate of the original LP.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> IMO a digital rip is not as good as original but sounds good.


 
  
 But your opinion is based on not ever doing the comparison test, and my opinion is based on finding out for sure what the correct answer is.
  
 Sorry to let you down like this, but you are wrong. A good digital rip of Lincoln Mayorga's D2D LP is indistinguishable from the LP itself. My capture was exactly the same as the original. My ears and the ears of the friend who helped me confirmed it.
  
 That really shouldn't be surprising because redbook is more than capable of containing the frequency range and dynamics of an LP. Redbook also has a much lower noise floor and pretty much no rumble, wow or flutter. Redbook specs exceed LP specs in every way.
  
 I've done similar tests with SACDs and CDs, iPods and standalone CD players, and lossless and compressed codecs at various bit rates and settings. I know what is audible and what isn't because I've taken the time and trouble to find out.
  
 All opinions are not created equal.


----------



## Yazen

bigshot said:


> You SURE you don't want to hear what I found out in my direct A/B line level matched comparison of one of the best sounding LPs ever made and a digital rip of it?


 
 I have not seen the evidence being referenced *by all* of those who oppose James.
 You are not the only one opposing James, but afaik you are the first to offer his/her recorded observations.  Sorry if I was unclear in my wording


----------



## ab initio

yazen said:


> I have not seen the evidence being referenced *by all* of those who oppose James.
> You are not the only one opposing James, but afaik you are the first to offer his/her recorded observations.  Sorry if I was unclear in my wording


 

 In short, you can find it here.
  
 Cheers


----------



## ab initio

ab initio said:


> In short, you can find it here.
> 
> Cheers


 
  
 I apologize for the snark, but these topics are discussed up and down in the forum. There is evidence presented and linked-to throughout the sound science forum. Not reading it does not me that it isn't there. I guess here, I let my frustration get the best of me.
  
 If you want a single source which has compiled a lot of the explanations, you might check out this site.
  
 Also, I just want to remind you that google is your friend. If you are genuinely interested in this topic and you find something online somewhere, we would be happy to discuss it here.
  
 Cheers


----------



## bigshot

yazen said:


> I have not seen the evidence being referenced *by all* of those who oppose James.


 
  
 Have you read the first post in this thread and followed the links there? Because the whole point of this thread is that the evidence is gathered in one place so we don't have to keep repeating the same old citations over and over... but we seem to have to do that anyway.


----------



## JamesHuntington

When your proof starts talking about tactile reasons like handling the equipment I turn off . I don't enjoy playing the record more than hearing. That is getting old to say nostalgia or tactile. If your proof can't keep about music specifically then I won't read it.


----------



## bigshot

What are you responding to? It sounds like you're replying something from a long time back in the thread.


----------



## ab initio

jameshuntington said:


> When your proof starts talking about tactile reasons like handling the equipment I turn off . I don't enjoy playing the record more than hearing. That is getting old to say nostalgia or tactile. If your proof can't keep about music specifically then I won't read it.


 

 What are you talking about? Specific quotes or links to whatever your blathering about would be infinitely more useful to further this discussion than your complaining that you don't like that the linked information is comprehensive beyond your patience to read it all.
  
 Cheers


----------



## JamesHuntington

Ab initio'z links about 6 posts ago. I don't want to repeat that link. Stop acting like you don't know what I'm talking about and read the posts, follow the link and read it.


----------



## ab initio

jameshuntington said:


> Ab initio'z links about 6 posts ago. I don't want to repeat that link. Stop acting like you don't know what I'm talking about and read the posts, follow the link and read it.


 

 I don't know what you are talking about. Please open the page, copy the URL to the section you are specifically worried about, and paste it in your reply. It will not only help me, but anybody else who reads through the thread to know what you are talking about.
  
 Cheers


----------



## JamesHuntington

ab initio said:


> In short, you can find it here.
> 
> Cheers


----------



## ab initio

jameshuntington said:


> *When your proof starts talking about tactile reasons like handling the equipment* I turn off .


 
  
 This is the part you need to link to.
  
 Thanks


----------



## Yazen

bigshot said:


> Have you read the first post in this thread and followed the links there? Because the whole point of this thread is that the evidence is gathered in one place so we don't have to keep repeating the same old citations over and over... but we seem to have to do that anyway.


 
  Should still reference information, all of the tests are listed numerically.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Quote:


ab initio said:


> I apologize for the snark, but these topics are discussed up and down in the forum. There is evidence presented and linked-to throughout the sound science forum. Not reading it does not me that it isn't there. I guess here, I let my frustration get the best of me.
> 
> If you want a single source which has compiled a lot of the explanations, you might check out this site.
> 
> ...


 
 Googling for cable differences was what got me on head-fi, and this thread saved me a great deal of disappointment (and $).  

 I should apologize to both of you, creating a fuss because I am stumped on an algorithm related problem.  Not gonna


----------



## JamesHuntington

ab initio said:


> I apologize for the snark, but these topics are discussed up and down in the forum. There is evidence presented and linked-to throughout the sound science forum. Not reading it does not me that it isn't there. I guess here, I let my frustration get the best of me.
> 
> If you want a single source which has compiled a lot of the explanations, you might check out this site.
> 
> ...


"Many people do prefer listening to music on vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile characteristics of vinyl - its "feel" - like larger artwork and its required playback ritual. Others prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. There is nothing wrong with preferring vinyl to CDs, as long as the preference is honestly stated on emotional terms, or is precisely quantified and tied to subjective experience, and not obscured with (fallacious) technical appeals." 

If a argument or article starts out here I shut it off. Believe me, if I said cd listeners mostly like them so they could see their reflection in the shiny surface, then you'd turn off too.


----------



## ab initio

Just in case anybody missed it during this bizarre back-and-forth, there _is_ a link to a compilation of information regarding CD vs vinyl:
  
 Quote:


ab initio said:


> If you want a single source which has compiled a lot of the explanations, you might check out this site.


 
  
 Cheers


----------



## ab initio

jameshuntington said:


> "Many people do prefer listening to music on vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile characteristics of vinyl - its "feel" - like larger artwork and its required playback ritual. Others prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. There is nothing wrong with preferring vinyl to CDs, as long as the preference is honestly stated on emotional terms, or is precisely quantified and tied to subjective experience, and not obscured with (fallacious) technical appeals."


 

 I have vinyl records and it has everything to do with nostalgia. What is written here is true. It never said ALL people.
  
 Here are some other topics regarding vinyl and vinyl vs CD that don't mention the valid reasons why people might choose to listen to vinyl:
Belt driven vs direct driven turntables
Cartridge damage
Weighting the headshell/tracking issues
vinyl resolution vs cd resoltion
vinyl (analog) signals vs digital signals
vinyl vs CD: ultrasound and anti-aliasing filters
vinyl and clicks/pops
vinyl playback wear
vinyl vs CD: mastering
  
  


jameshuntington said:


> If a argument or article starts out here I shut it off.


 
  
 Just because it starts by contradicting your position mean the article's content is invalid. When I read an article that takes a position contrary to mine, I become quite interested in the article because either a) i have something to learn or b) I want to identify the logical fallacy in the argument.
  
  


jameshuntington said:


> Believe me, if I said cd listeners mostly like them so they could see their reflection in the shiny surface, then you'd turn off too.


 
  
 I wouldn't turn off, but I would think you were a) being facetious or b) a bit looney.
  
 Cheers


----------



## esldude

yazen said:


> I have not seen the evidence being referenced *by all* of those who oppose James.
> You are not the only one opposing James, but afaik you are the first to offer his/her recorded observations.  Sorry if I was unclear in my wording


 

 Well, as Bigshot says, plenty here have done it.  Have talked about it, have provided more rigorous results of the matter etc. etc.  It does wear on one's patience.  The same old reasons not to believe something very well established everywhere except the niche of high end audio. 
  
 There is good research about what is audible not done by amateurs, but people in the field of psycho-acoustics.  Plenty of us have done what is within their reach just to convince themselves.  Results are pretty predictable with anything like good technique.  We don't need to re-invent, and re-prove the wheel for every doubting person who comes along.  Just one example is that larger than a .1 db level difference gets heard as a quality difference.  So if someone comes in with willy nilly comparison techniques across multiple formats that can't be fully matched due to mastering and makes blanket judgements we don't need to go and reprove every single aspect of the claim.  For starters there is a very basic problem with that approach.  Fix it and try again.  Usually said person insists on arguing whether or not it is important or claiming wide experience or special training to not need to do that.  We know they are wrong, they should listen and benefit from it.  Same for levels of distortion and frequency response flatness.

 So it is on firm ground to say LP by its nature is less accurate, of lesser fidelity than CD.  Its frequency response varies widely with cartridges.  Its distortion is higher and can be audible, its speed stability is more than an order of magnitude higher in its variability.  So it isn't all of those who oppose James.  It is physical reality that James opposes.  So typically you can cite the highest quality sources for these issues, or your own test results, or suggest a test for those doubting and typically get the response that James has now given.  He will figure it out using only his ears.  Great, wonderful, fine....but science it aint.  Try reading some introductory college level textbooks on the psycho-acoustics of hearing.  Much more info there regarding issues in audio than you might imagine.  Also much more blind tests with non-null results.  Many like to act as if all blind testing gets a null for everything.  That is nowhere near the case.  It does get repetitive null results for some cherished high end ideas which might give one pause about those ideas.


----------



## castleofargh

yazen said:


> ab initio said:
> 
> 
> > The merits of the arguments should speak for themselves. Groupthink is not a valid reason for or against JamesHuntington's position.
> ...


 
 most people old enough to have lived with music before the CD have probably at one point digitalized some vinyls(curious ones at least). first on tapes to have them "on the go", then on whatever available. it's a lonnnng story of trial and mostly error ^_^. and thinking back to the crap I was listening to, my ears are retroactively bleeding.
 to be honest before internet I had nobody knowledgeable about those things around me. and it was really hard to do things right on my own. I've wasted a lot of time on this.
 anyway, I've done it, made my own opinion, then measurements showed lots of benefits for the CD. just getting rid of most mechanical parameters meant getting rid of all the distortions they created on vinyls and that was a very real evolution.
 the cat has been out of the bag for some years now. I never though that I would be asked to prove the superiority of the CD as a medium for music in 2014. I don't even own vinyls anymore.
 I not judging people's tastes for vinyl. tastes are what they are. but when I read that vinyl is superior to CD right after being weirdly lectured on all the reasons why DSD is better than CD by the same people. that was just too much irony for me.
  
 and my own conclusion to digitalized vinyl was that the volume wasn't the same... mind blown!!!!!!!!!! maybe me setting the recording volume myself to avoid clipping should have been a hint to that amazing discovery.
 I hope I didn't spoil too much of big shot's revelations.
  
 also contrary to what you say, I have posted a few links already and didn't pull most of my arguments from a hat or from my own ass. like the link from hydrogenaudio on myths, I posted it one or 2 days ago. and one about friction and distortion (vertical and horizontal) and the different changes to minimize them adopted by the vinyl industry.
  
 to us sounding real doesn't mean to just like what we hear, it means to sound like the signal fed to the system. fidelity being the only way to approach what was really on the album. something a CD does better than the vinyl.
 http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page2.html  another link I gave before also mentioned the ability to control distortion to around 1% in what seemed to be the best situation, but here is a passage from this one:


> Even at the 0 dB level, many cartridges produce around 1% (or more!) harmonic distortion.


 
 by comparison the output harmonic distortions of a dac is usually between a hundred and 5 hundred times lower(just go check some random specs of dacs it goes even lower on quality dacs). how can something invent a hundred time more ******** sounds than what a CD does, be called better or more natural? it just doesn't make sens. and I'm counting CD+dac to be fair to vinyl+cartridge.
 the actual noise levels are also a joke compared to CD. who's hearing the quantization noise of a CD in normal listening? at the same time, no need to get measurement tools to hear hisses and pops from most vinyls.
 and you can also have fun looking up the jitter values or the FR fidelity. there is no limit to finding how much a vinyl is in practice a bad reproduction medium.
 to oppose that, we have had from James undocumented "more air", "it goes louder", "I know, I play 3000$ drums", "I don't read that", "you're hypocritical". so don't be surprised when you see people asking him for data and evidence.
  
 I'm trying to bring argued reasons in most of my posts and see no problem to being shown where I am wrong with argued reasons also. but my posts are from his own opinion, a waste of time.
 he's the friendly productive type.


----------



## Hijodelbrx

I've been glossing over this debate with varying degrees of interest.  It's a debate that's been going on since the advent of digital audio.  Digital sound in it's infancy, despite the claim of 'perfect sound forever', really wasn't.  Although I never thought it to be as bad as some made it out to be.  Decades later, there can be no argument that it's improved.  Head Fi has a very large youth base and it would be wrong for the uninitiated to come away from this thread thinking that vinyl/analog sound quality is BAD.  When the truth is that it can sound GLORIOUS.  Yes, the new tech is infinitely more accurate and perhaps less prone to mechanical glitches, and lord is it ever user-friendly, but it seems like the underlying unspoken argument here is that one sounds good, and the other doesn't.  This is simply a lie.  I own 1000's of records, the majority bought before the introduction of CD's.  I also own 1000's of CD's, and now I primarily spend my music money downloading.  I love my music in all it's forms.  You can find fantastic AND ****ty examples of bad sound in any form of playback, that's a fact.  The last seismic shift in sound quality probably occurred when we went from mono 78RPM's to stereo 33RPM's (and there's still music-lovers out there that love 78's!). 
  
 Fellas, this debate seems to have devolved into a "I'm right, you're wrong" "oh yeah, well prove it!" circular argument.  Very wordy and yet ultimately very boring.  As intelligent as it may be, why would anyone engage in an endless no-win debate.  Seems like some people like the sound of their own voices I guess.  I better get outta here before someone tells me to 'prove it!'.


----------



## bigshot

Some LP collectors do indulge in OCD handwashing rituals when they play records. Some like the big covers with readable typefaces. Others like getting music that has never been re-issued on CD. Still others like the fact that LPs generally sell for a buck or two a disk at swap meets. All of these are legitimate reasons to like vinyl.
  
 Believing the LP records as a format has superior sound quality to CDs is not a legitimate reason. It's demonstrably untrue.


----------



## bigshot

hijodelbrx said:


> The last seismic shift in sound quality probably occurred when we went from mono 78RPM's to stereo 33RPM's (and there's still music-lovers out there that love 78's!).


 
  
 I have over 15,000 LPs and 78s. Perhaps even more, I've lost count. Records can sound very good. But if I could have all of them magically digitized to hard drives, I would never play a record again. I like records for the music on them. Digital audio is a much better format for sound quality.
  
 By the way, there has been a major improvement in sound since the introduction of stereo. It's the standardization of 5:1. 5:1 is to stereo what stereo was to hifi mono and what hifi mono was to 78s.


----------



## RazorJack

bigshot said:


> I have over 15,000 LPs and 78s. Perhaps even more, I've lost count. Records can sound very good. But if I could have all of them magically digitized to hard drives, I would never play a record again. I like records for the music on them. Digital audio is a much better format for sound quality.
> 
> By the way, there has been a major improvement in sound since the introduction of stereo. It's the standardization of 5:1. 5:1 is to stereo what stereo was to hifi mono and what hifi mono was to 78s.


 
  
 Standardization of 5.1? All of the bands I listen to release their stuff in stereo.


----------



## DougD

jameshuntington said:


> But, ive seen many studies showing their is more distortion every time music is converted to lower quality.


 
  
 Well of course there is. Don't think anyone is arguing about that.
  
 re vinyl: Bear in mind that: 
 (1) when the master "tape" is copied to the metal masters, there is a lack of perfect fidelity, aka a loss of quality.
 (2) when the metal master is physically stamped into vinyl, there is another lack of perfect fidelity, aka a loss of quality
 (3) when the signal is read back of the vinyl the first time, there are imperfections in the process of converting wiggles to electric signals, and that is a loss of fidelity
 (4) as the vinyl is re-played, it acquires dirt and physical damage (diamond > vinyl), and yet another loss of fidelity.
  
 All-digital avoids (1), (2), (3), and (4) entirely as possible sources of error/distortion.
  
 Furthermore, a loss-less digital copy of what the sound engineer produces as "the master" will be identical. The technology checks that. If you make 100 copies, they will be bit-for-bit identical, as the technology checks and has built-in error-checking logic designed (and proven) to find and fix transmission errors. 
  
 If you play a digital tune 1000 times, it will suffer no physical degradation, so it will sound exactly the same on the 1000th play as it did on the first. I'm on my third copy of several LPs because I wore them out when I was younger, using equipment I could afford at the time. 
  
 A lot of people's impressions about digital were frozen in their minds long before lossless (aka No Signal Loss) technologies came to be the standard. No question that early MP3s at 160mps or less, using early A->D technology, sounded poor. But nobody serious about sound quality uses those anymore.
  
 As has been said many times, there are lots of reasons to listen to vinyl. But any argument that vinyl as an encoding/storage media has *inherent* sound quality advantages over digital is just flat-out wrong.
  
 There are many great recordings on vinyl. But they're not great because they're on vinyl. They're great because some people took the time and effort to make superb recordings. They're great despite the physical issues of vinyl. They'd be just as great, or perhaps even better, if released originally in digital form, and more robust against damage.
  
 (Sorry if some of this is redundant. I didn't read the entire thread.)


----------



## stv014

esldude said:


> the fact vinyl believers, and in this case this person thinks DSD is better than PCM and vinyl best is why I agreed with Steve Eddy about a direct comparison to real time vinyl.  This person would just say converting to PCM has destroyed the differences.


 
  
 Well, I already acknowledged that issue, although I suspect someone who believes that vinyl is inherently superior to _any_ PCM, no matter what, will likely also be convinced that blind tests are flawed, and would bring up the usual excuses (too short time, not hearing the difference under pressure, etc.) in the case of a failed ABX test. The reason why I suggested the Red Book vs. 192/24 PCM comparison is that it at least allows for testing the single most criticized (at least in a somewhat rational way, rather than just stating that anything digital is inferior to anything analog as an unchangeable fact) aspect of the CD format, notably the 22.05 kHz band limit, in a controlled, and if the samples are posted, repeatable and verifiable way.


----------



## JamesHuntington

Doug, you say nobody argues that lower quality downloads/rips would have more distortion, but many people do. Many people claim 320 kbbs is not distinguishable from cd and etc. 
your little writing here is nice, but I've seen evidence that shows a very minimal wear on records played on the same well maintained TT it's whole life.


----------



## bigshot

Damaging a record through mishandling is much more likely than playing a record out.


----------



## bigshot

razorjack said:


> Standardization of 5.1? All of the bands I listen to release their stuff in stereo.


 
  
 If they play Saturday Night Live or the Letterman show, they'll be in 5:1.


----------



## cjl

jameshuntington said:


> Doug, you say nobody argues that lower quality downloads/rips would have more distortion, but many people do. Many people claim 320 kbbs is not distinguishable from cd and etc.


 
 These are two separate claims. More distortion is not the same thing as an audible level of distortion. In the case of 320kbps vs CD, assuming a good modern encoder, the distortion levels on both will be inaudibly low the majority of the time. Nobody will argue that the 320kbps contains all the information of the CD-quality version, but the information loss will not be audible.


----------



## ab initio

jameshuntington said:


> Doug, you say nobody argues that lower quality downloads/rips would have more distortion, but many people do. Many people claim 320 kbbs is not distinguishable from cd and etc.
> your little writing here is nice, but I've seen evidence that shows a very minimal wear on records played on the same well maintained TT it's whole life.




Lossy compression, by definition incur distortion by virtue that information is lost. This is a mathematical necessity.

That said, given the improvements in the psychoacoustic modeling and sophisticated variable bit rate alogorthims implemented in modern lossy compressors, the audibility of those mathematical losses are becoming vanishingly small. Especially in the high bit rate mp3s, aacs, oggs, etc. where audible differences between the compressed version and lossless source are only detectible in a few select worst-case-scenarios dubbed "killer samples".

Cheers


----------



## castleofargh

jameshuntington said:


> Doug, you say nobody argues that lower quality downloads/rips would have more distortion, but many people do. Many people claim 320 kbbs is not distinguishable from cd and etc.
> your little writing here is nice, but I've seen evidence that shows a very minimal wear on records played on the same well maintained TT it's whole life.


 
  
 trying to get away from the vinyl vs CD dead end by blaming "people" for mp3 claims they didn't make in a sentence that is a make up argument?
 you don't bring data to support your claims, can't care to even try to oppose ours or any of the data given up till now. yet you won't admit being wrong about any part of it all, and you keep blaming others for mostly unclear reasons on things you think they meant.  what are you really trying to do here?
  
  
 but still I'm actually trying to participate to this topic, so let's play:
 we say, because we have actually tried a lot of times, that doing an ABX on 320mp3 vs the cd version is hard. saying that doesn't contradict in any way that we also believe in an increased level of distortion with lossy manipulation. if some data is lost then there will be resulting distortion. all the job done on mp3 was to be sure that most of those distortions would be inaudible.
  
  
  
  
  
  
 -jameshuntington: i've seen evidence....
 -morpheus: show me!


----------



## DougD

jameshuntington said:


> Doug, you say nobody argues that lower quality downloads/rips would have more distortion, but many people do. Many people claim 320 kbbs is not distinguishable from cd and etc.
> your little writing here is nice, but I've seen evidence that shows a very minimal wear on records played on the same well maintained TT it's whole life.


 
  
 James, you are a slippery debater. Let me rephrase. 
  
 (1) No reasonable person, who has any clue how the technology works, would ever argue that a lower quality rip  does not have more MEASUREABLE distortion than a higher-quality rip. "Loss of signal" *IS* distortion, by definition. (Not the only form of distortion.)
  
 (2) That's different from arguing about whether X level of distortion is AUDIBLE to most people, some golden-ears, or one person. 
  
 (3) The way of getting beyond opinions and anecdotes on (2) is double-blinded testings. The intent of that is to remove any and all "confounding" factors from the "which is better" hearing evaluations, so that all that is left is the sound hitting the listeners ears, and what they think of it. Statistics are used to show whether or not the results are within the limits of random chance or are "statistically real." 
  
 It's science because, done right, it's empirical, verifiable, and reproducible. 
  
 It's difficult, because there is plenty of evidence that humans interpret "a little louder" as "better," and precise sound-level matching of different components in a double-blind test is difficult. 
  
 (4) On the vinyl issue, the fact that you can cite an example where YOU (believe you) CAN'T HEAR any audible degradation does not prove there is no actual or measurable wear & tear.


----------



## Steve Eddy

I think it's time to just let James talk to himself. 

se


----------



## DougD

> Originally Posted by *RazorJack*
> 
> 
> Standardization of 5.1? All of the bands I listen to release their stuff in stereo


 
  


bigshot said:


> If they play Saturday Night Live or the Letterman show, they'll be in 5:1.


 
  
 All of my music (concert) DVDs and BluRays are 5.1, and they're mostly GRRRRRRRRRRREAT on speakers. I never knew that almost all the odd noises on a B-52s album were made by humans, until I saw the gal vocalizing them. 
  
 The DSP for "2-channel stereo" on my Yamaha receiver seems to do a pretty good job of packaging 5.1 up for headphone listening when I don't want to shake the house. (I have Stax h/p, so I'm hooked up through the main speaker outputs. Do have to remember to tell it to not send the .1 channel to the subwoofer though.)


----------



## davidsh

Which Staxes?


----------



## ferday

dougd said:


> All of my music (concert) DVDs and BluRays are 5.1, and they're mostly GRRRRRRRRRRREAT on speakers. I never knew that almost all the odd noises on a B-52s album were made by humans, until I saw the gal vocalizing them.
> 
> The DSP for "2-channel stereo" on my Yamaha receiver seems to do a pretty good job of packaging 5.1 up for headphone listening when I don't want to shake the house. (I have Stax h/p, so I'm hooked up through the main speaker outputs. Do have to remember to tell it to not send the .1 channel to the subwoofer though.)




Most modern receivers have excellent DSP. My onkyo has a lot of different options for 5.1 and one of them is always stellar for every recording I've tried.

I can't imagine going back to stereo now that my 5.1 is set up (thanks to big shot for helping me get it all sorted!!)

For headphones, there are also a lot of excellent cross feed DSP that also do an amazing job of making great sound too.

We are in a golden age of sound right now IMO


----------



## bigshot

It's a new world, that's for sure. The funny thing is that all the things we used to worry about back in the 70s (generation loss, noise floor, distortion, low quality/high quality speeds, etc) aren't problems any more, and totally new things have replaced them. The two biggest impediments to great sound that I see now are frequency response imbalances and limiting transducers to just two channels.


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> It's a new world, that's for sure. The funny thing is that all the things we used to worry about back in the 70s (generation loss, noise floor, distortion, low quality/high quality speeds, etc) aren't problems any more, and totally new things have replaced them. The two biggest impediments to great sound that I see now are frequency response imbalances and limiting transducers to just two channels.


 

 And my personal nemesis: room modes in my tiny home office (which is certainly not independent of frequency response imbalances).
  
 Cheers


----------



## JamesHuntington

dougd said:


> There are many great recordings on vinyl. But they're not great because they're on vinyl. They're great because some people took the time and effort to make superb recordings. They're great despite the physical issues of vinyl. They'd be just as great, or perhaps even better, if released originally in digital form, and more robust against damage.
> 
> (Sorry if some of this is redundant. I didn't read the entire thread.)



This kinda sounds like the younger brother, cd, being gealous of the older brother, vinyl, because the parents gave him more attention. And then spends his whole life blaming lack of attention for his mediocre life. 
Or maybe it's like how two people have a child and one of the parents passes on a genetic defect, but they put all their eggs in onE basket and the child, vinyl, exceeds expectation. But it was a rare occurance as you say.
I feel it is before the cd is even made, it will lack the ability to create realism,as much as CGI always looks fake to me. Vinyl, maybe not fully explored, in a lot of people's eyes like old sci fi movie where you see the strings as the space ship flys by the screen. The difference is one is a real object and the other is computer generated. Maybe we'll go back someday and look at analogue, but digital is winning as of today. Maybe there will be something totally different and better than digital in the near future? New ways to store and play back information that everyone will agree on. Or maybe computers will make our music and we can all agree how great it sounds?


----------



## Hijodelbrx

ferday said:


> Most modern receivers have excellent DSP. My onkyo has a lot of different options for 5.1 and one of them is always stellar for every recording I've tried.
> 
> I can't imagine going back to stereo now that my 5.1 is set up (thanks to big shot for helping me get it all sorted!!)
> 
> ...


 
  
 One of the original audiophile 'gurus' was a gentleman called J. Gordon Holt, he was the founder of Stereophile magazine.  Way back when, he tried to convince his readers that the wave of the future was 'quadrophonic' (4 spkr) sound.  Quad died a quick death but has come me back as surroundsound/5.1.  I believe it's plateaued as a device for movie watching.  I doubt whether it'll ever be accepted as a popular viable music-listening tool by the masses.  Time will tell.


----------



## bigshot

hijodelbrx said:


> I believe it's plateaued as a device for movie watching.  I doubt whether it'll ever be accepted as a popular viable music-listening tool by the masses.  Time will tell.


 
  
 I may be wrong, because I don't know many people like me, but my gut feeling is that the era of thundering bass and butt shakers built into the chairs has worn out its welcome. I think a lot of home theater types are looking to upgrade the *quality* of their sound, not just the volume of it. As they implement THX and other professional standards, they get closer to the real theatrical sound experience, and also the best sound for music as well. I had always been focused on music. Movies were a sideline. Then I bought a house and built a theater. I based the sound system on the core elements of my two channel music system and expanded it from there. It ended up being perfect for both. It's not an "either / or" thing.
  
 The big problem with Quad was the recording format. Vinyl really didn't work all that well, and reel to reel was expensive. Now we have $100 blu-ray players that can play any format you throw at them... even multichannel SACD.


----------



## JamesHuntington

hijodelbrx said:


> One of the original audiophile 'gurus' was a gentleman called J. Gordon Holt, he was the founder of Stereophile magazine.  Way back when, he tried to convince his readers that the wave of the future was 'quadrophonic' (4 spkr) sound.  Quad died a quick death but has come me back as surroundsound/5.1.  I believe it's plateaued as a device for movie watching.  I doubt whether it'll ever be accepted as a popular viable music-listening tool by the masses.  Time will tell.


Totally agree. Spend the same amount on 2 speakers as you would spend on 3 or more and you have less variables, less to go wrong and less settings. 5.1 is the reason my parents have to turn up the tv during talking scenes and down during action on movies.


----------



## bigshot

The more speakers in a system, the more channels that require volume balancing and EQing. It's not plug and play, but if audiophiles would take the money and time they waste on wires and needless high end black boxes and put it into creating a 5:1 music system, it would pay off for them in spades. I know, because that is exactly what I've done.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:
  


jameshuntington said:


> 5.1 is the reason my parents have to turn up the tv during talking scenes and down during action on movies.


 
  
 That isn't 5:1's fault. Your parents' system has an undersized or underpowered center channel. That's actually the most common mistake people make in 5:1. I did it myself. I have fantastic front mains and a top of the line sub, but I cheaped out on the center and rears. The rears isn't as much of a problem, because the soundstage is up front. But when the center channel can't keep up, your dialogue totally disappears. That's the part of the system that handles all the mono elements... the "phantom center" in a stereo system... If you don't have that covered, your mains don't matter.


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> I may be wrong, because I don't know many people like me, but my gut feeling is that the era of thundering bass and butt shakers built into the chairs has worn out its welcome. I think a lot of home theater types are looking to upgrade the *quality* of their sound, not just the volume of it. As they implement THX and other professional standards, they get closer to the real theatrical sound experience, and also the best sound for music as well. I had always been focused on music. Movies were a sideline. Then I bought a house and built a theater. I based the sound system on the core elements of my two channel music system and expanded it from there. It ended up being perfect for both. It's not an "either / or" thing.
> 
> The big problem with Quad was the recording format. Vinyl really didn't work all that well, and reel to reel was expensive. Now we have $100 blu-ray players that can play any format you throw at them... even multichannel SACD.


 

 Well I had a quad vinyl system years ago.  Some of those were quite worthwhile, some gimmicky of course, and some seemed to be little more than stereo times two.  But you left out my other quad format.  Quadraphonic 8 track.  At its best that really was pretty good for immersing you in a soundfield.  Even with all the issues of 8 track.  You did have 4 genuine channels with 8 track. 
  
 I still have a Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland quad 8 track spread over two tapes.  That was an other worldly mix which was interesting.  Haven't thought of it in years, I wonder who did the quad mix on it? Maybe I need to see if my old Akai 8 track still works and see if I could digitize that.  The other benefit is like the bane of many 8 track tapes, it switched tracks in the middle of some songs.   You remember perhaps, clunk, burrrrr, clink then music again. This could be edited out and made audibly seamless once digitized.  Of course on quad 8 tracks you only had tracks 1+3 and 2+4.


----------



## bigshot

It was the same with R2R. I have an Akai reel to reel deck that will play and record to the flip side of the tape at the same time as the front side. It cuts the playtime in half but gives you four discrete channels.


----------



## DougD

bigshot said:


> It's a new world, that's for sure. The funny thing is that all the things we used to worry about back in the 70s (generation loss, noise floor, distortion, low quality/high quality speeds, etc) aren't problems any more, and totally new things have replaced them. The two biggest impediments to great sound that I see now are frequency response imbalances and limiting transducers to just two channels.


 
  
 Don't forget sucky (re-)mastering jobs with highly compressed dynamic range. I'd like to think that was a just a phase the industry was going through, but I am not confident at all about that.


----------



## DougD

davidsh said:


> Which Staxes?


 
  
 I'm the original owner of a set of SR-X Mark 3's, with an SRD-7 energizer. (Circa 1977.) Just this afternoon Mr. UPS-man brought me a new set of earpads from Accutech to spruce them up a bit.
  
 I am getting a dose of UpGrade Fever though, which I'm fighting with some ambivalence. 
  
 d.d.


----------



## bigshot

dougd said:


> Don't forget sucky (re-)mastering jobs with highly compressed dynamic range. I'd like to think that was a just a phase the industry was going through, but I am not confident at all about that.


 
  
 Thankfully, that has only affected lousy ephemeral music.


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> Thankfully, that has only affected lousy ephemeral music.


 

 Sucky remastering (to use the same phrase as above) has affected a wide range of music, and I think it is one of the biggest problems with music quality at the moment. Just because you have a strongly-stated preference for jazz and classical doesn't mean that the quality of all other music is irrelevant or unimportant.


----------



## castleofargh

yum yum femoral music.


----------



## analogsurviver

I somewhat quietly left the scene - because I was interested what the response would be. And because I really want to get the abx , for the time being only in Foobar2000, right.
  
 Try as I might, I was NOT able to make foobar2K and iFi nano iDSD DAC to play DSD natively with ABX comparator.  The nano can play up to DSD256 natively in Foobar2K, yet not when using ABX comparator - then it gets reproduced as 176/192/24 PCM. I really struggled to do a blind test at first - but after getting to the 7-th WRONG pick in the row I did check at which resolution the DAC was actually playing - by removing a thick napkin over the LED that glows with respective colour for various resolutions of digital - and it turned out it was 44.1 vs 176/192 instead of 44.1 vs DSD128. Anybody knows the solution for this foobar2K ABX problem ?
  
 I do have quite a few DSD64 recordings from LP and relatively few in DSD128. I do not record in 192/24 with Korg recorders - besides the obvious pre/post ringing of PCM, which is normal, Korg recorders introduce ever greater phase shift/ever higher LF cutt-off frequency with increasing the PCM sampling frequency rate - which is the same for 44.1/16 as DSD64 and DSD128, yet it gets 4 times worse by the time 192/24 is reached -  and it is objectionable. Please note this comment on LF performance is comment on the Korg implementation and NOT a comment on PCM 192/24 itself . 
  
 For the sake of experiment, I will make some LP recordings in 192/24, and then convert them down to 44.1/16 and back to 192/24, so that filtering above 22.05 kHz with 44.1/16 or redbook can be compared in foobar2K with the original 192/24 recording which does not limit supersonic content so severely. But it has to be noted that higher sampling rates of PCM do not push the frequency response quite so much as redbook has to; usually, the response is made a bit gentler filtered than redbook, therefore at 192/24 do not expect 96 kHz @ - 3 dB or even 0 dB - that point is lower in frequency, but it does usually exceed 80 kHz. 
  
 I would appreciate the answer which lenght of the copyrighted material is allowed without ANY legal action possible against the uploader. This one certainly does not qualify : ( link to an entire album removed, as it is not allowed to be posted on head-fi; I merely wanted to present that such behaviour is a definite no-go .)
  
 I have prepared a sample of my recording of percussion/cymbals recorded in DSD64 in binaural, for which I have been granted permission to post it here. In hope DSD can be ABXed in foobar2K _*natively*_ - without the conversion to PCM. I certainly can convert it to 192/214 and post that to be compared to 44.1/16 - but it no longer is the same as native DSD.
  
 While searching for the answer whether foobar2K can play DSD natively under ABX comparator, I stumbled upon this:
  http://www.audiostream.com/content/dsd-v-pcm-file-comparison-16441-2496-24192-64x-dsd-128x-dsd
 Broadly speaking, it does generally echo my sentiments .
  
 I will also expand on the vinyl LP in the future, because there are aspects that require better clarification. Please note that I do not think it is perfect, that it lasts forever and that it is beyond criticism. FAR from it - yet I do feel it serves music better than redbook CD, by its very definition,  ever will. There are pros and contras for both of them - but both can be eclipsed by DSD. DSD itself is not perfect, it can be rightfully be accused to be inneficient in use of bits and bytes - yet implemented correctly, it does sound closer to the sound heard in real life than anything else I have heard to date.
  
 Please note _*sound*__ - on decent equipment _- and as of presently, (most probably ) not yet ABX-able using presently available computer gizmos. There is another VERY important remark in the audiostream link above, about which I have written before: ABX, particularly short samples, can be misleading - in case of DSD vs PCM, a couple of seconds are not necessarilly enough. The most prominent feature/quality of DSD is its recreation of space, particularly deph; here DSD128 trounces DSD64, not to say what it does to redbook. Just a reminder - I generally do not compare recordings made by others, I have plenty of my own.  I can not vouch for others, but I know my masters  - and they are not *mastered*_ (or even mastered *differently* ) _in any sense of the word - except for converting to another format, which I try to avoid at all costs. For release on CD, there is mastering involved - and due to financial reasons, it is PCM 192/32 floating point . Hopefully, that will change too - at least to the version converting to PCM only at the exact spot to be mastered and not the entire file.
  
 P.S: Yet another problem foobar2K ABX has - depending what file(s) it is playing, the actual level can vary by as much as 6 dB; that is normal, as nominal 0dBFS in PCM is not the same in DSD, the difference being 6 dB. Foobar2K under ABX will play a DSD128 file 6 dB quieter than corresponding DXD version of the same, both at 192/24 - yet it without ABX comparator it reproduces both in native resolution . I hope it is only me not configuring something right ... - reply gain can not be applied to DSD files, they have to be reproduced in foobar2K at +- 0.0 dB .


----------



## ferday

analogsurviver said:


> I would appreciate the answer which lenght of the copyrighted material is allowed without ANY legal action possible against the uploader. This one certainly does not qualify


 
  
 another good post, thanks for your efforts!
  
 FWIW copywrite to post sound clips is generally 30 seconds or less (fair use).  it's not a written rule but no one has ever been slapped over it.  i believe you have violated site rules by posting that link, however, so you might want to remove that


----------



## analogsurviver

ferday said:


> another good post, thanks for your efforts!
> 
> FWIW copywrite to post sound clips is generally 30 seconds or less (fair use).  it's not a written rule but no one has ever been slapped over it.  i believe you have violated site rules by posting that link, however, so you might want to remove that


 
 Thank you for the comment - and I will remove the link. I merely wanted to show *what is not permissible *- one can not pretend to post an entire album while pretending it to be "for educatinal purposes/fair use". I am the first to condemn such behaviour - as I would not like anybody to "educationally" distribute my own work either.


----------



## James-uk

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html?m=1

No surprises in this result just in. ^


----------



## ferday

james-uk said:


> http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html?m=1
> 
> No surprises in this result just in. ^


 
 i started a thread about it 
  
 it was such a well done piece that it deserves a thread, and archimago deserves credit for what was no doubt a lot of work!


----------



## James-uk

ferday said:


> i started a thread about it
> 
> it was such a well done piece that it deserves a thread, and archimago deserves credit for what was no doubt a lot of work!




Brilliant. I will subscribe . His blog is brilliant.


----------



## James-uk

First thing, I said brilliant twice in one sentence, bit weird . Second , to save me searching can you link the thread please . Thank you.


----------



## ferday

http://www.head-fi.org/t/724753/24-vs-16-bit-test-results
  
 brilliant!


----------



## ab initio

james-uk said:


> _Brilliant_*.* I will subscribe *.* His blog is _brilliant_.


 
  
  


james-uk said:


> First thing, I said brilliant twice in one sentence, bit weird .


 
  
 There are two periods between the first instance of "brilliant" and the second. Therefore, you did not say "brilliant" twice in one sentence. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 However, that technicallity does not invalidate that the study in the blog is very nice, indeed! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Cheers


----------



## elmoe

Yes very interesting read and probably one of the better made tests, thanks for sharing, that kind of test and sample size leaves little doubt.


----------



## Mezzo

Some people I've heard on other audio forums claim that AVRs can sound just as good for music as a stereo amp. To me it's unfair as an avr is a processor even in pure direct its simply too busy with too much going on. (5-11 power amps) lift the lid on any decent stereo amp and if will find very little going on. (Less is more) well shielded.


----------



## bigshot

Great sound comes from the proper settings... equalization, DSPs, dynamic correction, etc. It doesn't come from not being able to apply the proper settings at all. I guess you could go out and buy an outboard equalizer, dynamic expander/contractor and signal processing, but that would be very expensive and would get you to the same place as just using an AV receiver.

Midrange amps are generally audibly transparent, and processing doesn't degrade the signal, it improves it. So AV receivers are great choices for audio systems, not just home theater. The added benefit of 5:1 makes them much better than 2 channnel alternatives.


----------



## davidsh

Would you buy a receiver over a stereo amp (same Price) for a stereo setup?


----------



## blades

If you mean AV receiver then yes.  It would provide room calibration and bass amanagement where an integrated amp would not.  If you mrean a stereo receiver then probably not.  The integrated amp would likely be smaller and less complex.


----------



## ferday

davidsh said:


> Would you buy a receiver over a stereo amp (same Price) for a stereo setup?




Yes...because after running a good 7.1 I'm never going back. Even cheaper modern receivers support bi-wire and often passive bi-amp if one is so inclined. 

If it's money someone wants to spend there are multi channel receivers that can be properly (actively) bi-amped as well

I came from a (DIY x-over) active bi-amp stereo to a high-mid receiver, any nuance I may (or may not) have lost in the sound is overshadowed by the awesome true surround sound and the flexibility, and drop in wires and amps hanging around, is priceless



> Some people I've heard on other audio forums claim that AVRs can sound just as good for music as a stereo amp. To me it's unfair as an avr is a processor even in pure direct its simply too busy with too much going on. (5-11 power amps) lift the lid on any decent stereo amp and if will find very little going on. (Less is more) well shielded.




prove it. anything, c'mon...you were already roasted on this on another forum....


----------



## bigshot

davidsh said:


> Would you buy a receiver over a stereo amp (same Price) for a stereo setup?


 
  
 I would imagine that the receiver would have more and better features. Since sound quality probably wouldn't be an issue, features count. But I would still recommend going 5:1 even if all the music you listen to is stereo.


----------



## davidsh

I'm at conflict. Someone in my family wants to sell a hifi class A 40 watt, class AB 200 watt switchable power amp with full mundorf caps, wiring, expensive aftermarket components etc.
 The audiophile in me screams omg must have! 
 But with the knowledge I have now.. Not so sure it's a good idea after all, but darn, it's a cool amp. It doubles as egg-frier


----------



## cjl

How much do they want for it?


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> I'm at conflict. Someone in my family wants to sell a hifi class A 40 watt, class AB 200 watt switchable power amp with full mundorf caps, wiring, expensive aftermarket components etc.
> The audiophile in me screams omg must have!
> But with the knowledge I have now.. Not so sure it's a good idea after all, but darn, it's a cool amp. It doubles as egg-frier


 
 Play some really good recordings trough your they-want-me-to-sell-it class A/AB switchable amp - and trough the intended replacement. A dealer worth of his/her salt should be able to arrange such a demo.
  
 Then play the same recordings to those who want to make you to sell it - trough both amps, driving the same speakers in the same position in the same room.
  
 Preferably, have a third unbiased party doing the chore of AB(X) ing - and then decide. DO NOT FORGET to compare 3 times - with your present they-want-you-to-sell-it amp both in class A and class AB modes - plus obviously the intended replacement.
  
 And then, if you can disregard the financial issues, decide with your own ears. Here I have assumed that you are going to replace the amp with another stereo amp - if it is 5.1 you are coinsidering, that complicates the decision still further.  Good luck with the decision!


----------



## davidsh

1k for amp and an (old) computer made to audiophile standards. I'm mostly interested in the chassis, sound card and psu (which is rather new, no fans. The power amp is a Zapzolute, though aftermarket components. Think ima borrow it home or something. If it's silent enough for headphones then that's a big plus..


----------



## cjl

That's an awful lot for an older amp and computer - I'd probably pass that one up. If you really need 200wpc, that could be a plus (200wpc amps are fairly expensive), but if you don't, I'd save my money and get a newer receiver with better electronics, higher efficiency, and good room processing/bass management.


----------



## bigshot

I wouldn't trust any comparison set up by an audio salesman. I was comparing speakers once and a I caught a salesman changing the bass behind his back. I kicked him out of the listening room and set up the comparisons myself.


----------



## bigshot

davidsh said:


> I'm at conflict. Someone in my family wants to sell a hifi class A 40 watt, class AB 200 watt switchable power amp with full mundorf caps, wiring, expensive aftermarket components etc.
> The audiophile in me screams omg must have!
> But with the knowledge I have now.. Not so sure it's a good idea after all, but darn, it's a cool amp. It doubles as egg-frier


 
  
 40 watts wouldn't even get me started.


----------



## ferday

bigshot said:


> 40 watts wouldn't even get me started.




It would probably run the surrounds ok...might make a great headphone amp with speaker taps though


----------



## davidsh

ferday said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > 40 watts wouldn't even get me started.
> ...


 
 That's class A, it does 200 watt class AB.


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> That's class A, it does 200 watt class AB.


 
 It really depends what you need it for and what is the equipment used with it. 40 W class A (if real ) can be one hell of a lot of power, specially if used to power some sattelite speakers - and the lion's share of bass handled by the subwoofer (amp). It would also make a great amp for driving power hungry headphones directly off speaker output - provided it has low enough noise. Or electrostatic headphones coupled trough a transformer.
  
 Above are examples to use the 40 W class A amp at its best - you can add very high efficiency full range speakers to that list. In these applications, it could/should mop the floor with present AVR receivers. The basic amp should run rings around the present receivers - for starters, merely the power supply is likely to weigh more than the entire receiver. Any piece of audio equipment is only as good as its power supply.
  
 The tables turn if you require 5.1 and/or room acoustics optimization - in this case, features totally lacking in class A amp will tip the scale towards receiver.


----------



## liamstrain

You can do a LOT of damage with 40 watts - just depends on the speakers you are using, and the room you are filling. 
  
 I run a vintage McIntosh 50 watt amp through some high-sensitivity back loaded horn designs, in our living room - and believe me, you don't want any more power in there, if you still want to hear anything the next day.


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> 40 watts wouldn't even get me started.


 
 40 watts will drive most speakers to near-earsplitting levels. Large 3-way towers (or the like) might need more power for the bass, but most people way overestimate how much power they are using for speakers (and most people overestimate how much they are gaining by adding power - doubling power to the same transducer only gains you 3dB).


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> It really depends what you need it for and what is the equipment used with it. 40 W class A (if real ) can be one hell of a lot of power, specially if used to power some sattelite speakers - and the lion's share of bass handled by the subwoofer (amp). It would also make a great amp for driving power hungry headphones directly off speaker output - provided it has low enough noise. Or electrostatic headphones coupled trough a transformer.
> 
> Above are examples to use the 40 W class A amp at its best - you can add very high efficiency full range speakers to that list. In these applications, it could/should mop the floor with present AVR receivers. The basic amp should run rings around the present receivers - for starters, merely the power supply is likely to weigh more than the entire receiver. Any piece of audio equipment is only as good as its power supply.


 
 Any piece of audio amplification equipment that doesn't sound identical when level matched in a blind test is garbage and should be quickly thrown out. Any competent amplifier (including crazy class A behemoths and ordinary AVR receivers) should and will sound identical when playing within its power limits at an identical level.


----------



## ab initio

Here is an important question: Is the 40 W peak or RMS? 
  
 Cheers


----------



## bigshot

cjl said:


> 40 watts will drive most speakers to near-earsplitting levels. Large 3-way towers (or the like) might need more power for the bass, but most people way overestimate how much power they are using for speakers (and most people overestimate how much they are gaining by adding power - doubling power to the same transducer only gains you 3dB).


 
  
 My studio monitors are 12 inch five ways, and my room is large, plus I have a second set of mains on the B speakers. I'm up to the top 20% of my amp's output at normal sorta loud listening level, and I think the wattage on my receiver (factoring in 5:1) is double that.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> It really depends what you need it for and what is the equipment used with it. 40 W class A (if real ) can be one hell of a lot of power, specially if used to power some sattelite speakers


 
  
 Why would you get an expensive amplifier and then hook up dinky little satellite speakers to it? That seems exactly backwards to me.
  


analogsurviver said:


> The basic amp should run rings around the present receivers - for starters, merely the power supply is likely to weigh more than the entire receiver.


 
  
 Just put a couple of bricks inside the enclosure and the expectation bias based on weight should be the same.


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> My studio monitors are 12 inch five ways, and my room is large, plus I have a second set of mains on the B speakers. I'm up to the top 20% of my amp's output at normal sorta loud listening level, and I think the wattage on my receiver (factoring in 5:1) is double that.


 

 You have passive studio monitors? That's kind of unusual, but that definitely could use a pretty substantial amount of power.
  
 As for the top 20% of your amps output? I doubt if you're using more than about a tenth of its actual power output capability most of the time, but unless it measures in dBFS (like most modern receivers), it's hard to say for sure. I've hooked up power measurement equipment to my amp before, and I was shocked how loud a couple of watts actually is (and I've only very rarely come even remotely close to using my amp's full 115wpc capability). With large speakers and a fairly good size room though, it is good to have some headroom, and as I said, I can definitely see that kind of setup having a pretty high power requirement for dynamic peaks.


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> Just put a couple of bricks inside the enclosure and the expectation bias based on weight should be the same.


 
  
 @bigshot, I think you are going about this all wrong. Think of the heavy transformer as an investment in iron as a real asset to hedge against inflation and market volatility. 
  
 Cheers


----------



## bigshot

Audio by the pound!


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Audio by the pound!


 
 As a matter of fact, a resounding YES !
  
 Because generally one would want as little mass in transducers as possible - here one is paying more for less of mass. From microphone to the speaker and headphone - the tinier the fraction of a pound, the more expensive it is. And better the performance.
  
 And vice versa with the power supplies; how many switching power supply powered amplifiers that achieved any significant level of acceptance either from audiophile or PA/concert community can you list ?


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> And vice versa with the power supplies; how many switching power supply powered amplifiers that achieved any significant level of acceptance either from audiophile or PA/concert community can you list ?


 
 That's irrelevant - actual performance is what matters, not audiophile acceptance.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> Any piece of audio amplification equipment that doesn't sound identical when level matched in a blind test is garbage and should be quickly thrown out. Any competent amplifier (including crazy class A behemoths and ordinary AVR receivers) should and will sound identical when playing within its power limits at an identical level.


 
 In an ideal world, that _*should *_be the case. 
  
 Neither are the components and topologies used in those amplifiers - or the world - ideal or perfect. An amp that is on paper completely equal to another sample of the same type but built with better quality elements *IS GOING TO SOUND BETTER - PERIOD. *
  
 Want proof ? Get service manuals for Sansui gear from late 70s/early 80s, BA/CA3000 in particular - and add what was left out in ANY export version. There is a tiny * at the bottom of the "fine" print - saying that parts marked with an asterix are for Japanese market only. 
  
 The real deal was for sale in Japan only, I highly doubt you will be able to obtain an original one for comparison to an export model - it has been around 30 years ...
 But adding approximately equivalent of what has been left out produces quite a marked sonic difference - with benchmark measurements showing basically nothing at all. It is similar as in cars - basic and something near race potential. The difference being you can have ( and pay for it...) your car customized almost to the colour of the  last bolt and nut - while for amplifiers we are led to believe all are Ford Model Ts. 
  
 The differences in amps will be for the most part in the quiet ranges - those Sansui pre/amps are exactly as powerful in either version, but the better amp will have much better clarity and resolution at low level, specially on complex passages. Like symphony orchestra with chorus at p and below level.
  
 Although there is music with large dynamic range, say around 70 dB in real life, requiring lots of power for the bass, most of the time the music is much quieter, requiring VERY little power, well below 0.1 W. It is mainly here that amps are going to sound different - IF they are fed from sources capable of the same precision which are fed with recordings made on the machines with at least the same precision.
  
 That is a big and, above all, VERY expensive IF; if the studio used normal off the shelf equipment, the game was over there and then - it makes little sense playing such recordings back on amps with significantly better resolution. This is perhaps the biggest part why people still insist "all amps played within their limits sound the same". One can not fairly judge the difference among amps that is the last component in the total chain from the microphone to the speaker/headphone - if everything that precedes that amp is of inferiour quality. Yes, under those conditions, which are unfortunately norm and not an exception, they can and do "sound the same"... - if the entire chain is cleaned up, this will no longer be the case.
  
 Now try to approach the bean counter crowd with the notion they have to sanction you the use of parts on average 30 times as expensive as standard ones used by all the competition - with no officially sanctioned measurements to back up that superiority to give advertising department at least something "tangible" to put into brochures justifiying the increased cost. Add to that the fact that a single "clean" (link) swallow does not bring the spring to audio chain - the whole flock is required.
  
 THAT is the real problem.


----------



## cjl

And you have double blind, level matched tests showing the audibility of this unmeasurable "difference", right?
  
 (Sometimes I really start to feel like a stuck record here in Sound Science...)


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> That's irrelevant - actual performance is what matters, not audiophile acceptance.


 
 I will rephrase - how many switching power supply powered audio gear , be it audiophile or pro/stage, has actually equalled the performance of the audio equipment with linear power supplies ?
  
 Please note I am the last to say that anything has to have godzillion of years of tradition to be trusted as being good. Audiophile crowd is terribly too conservative in this regard. I have no reservations against new, more power efficient designs ( can you imagine EVERY amplifier in the world would be a 40 W/ch Pure Class A device ? With at least 200 W idle power consumption ?  - that simply is not sustainable on the global basis ) - BUT it has to offer the performance of at least the equal to whatever it is about to replace. 
  
 "But it is ALMOST as good ..." (97 % of performance at 30 % of price, for example ) - does not cut it in my book. 
  
 Almost never catches a rabbit. It goes with those 3 % - like it or not.


----------



## liamstrain

analogsurviver said:


> Neither are the components and topologies used in those amplifiers - or the world - ideal or perfect. An amp that is on paper completely equal to another sample of the same type but built with better quality elements *IS GOING TO SOUND BETTER - PERIOD. *


 
  
 Eh... sometimes. It depends on which elements you are talking about.


----------



## blades

+1.  Actually it happens seldom.  The quality of the components in a circuit have nothing to do with the sound.  The value of those components can have an effect.


----------



## Steve Eddy

liamstrain said:


> You can do a LOT of damage with 40 watts - just depends on the speakers you are using, and the room you are filling.
> 
> I run a vintage McIntosh 50 watt amp through some high-sensitivity back loaded horn designs, in our living room - and believe me, you don't want any more power in there, if you still want to hear anything the next day.




Yeah. Most modern speakers these days are made with drivers using heavy, inefficient plastic cones. Typical sensitivities are around 83-86 dB. Need a lot more power to light them up and consequently, more power compression.

se


----------



## analogsurviver

liamstrain said:


> Eh... sometimes. It depends on which elements you are talking about.


 
 Now ... which electrical elements/parts can range from 10 to 100 ( 30  sort of mean value ) times the price of commonly used parts ? Currently produced, not expensive solely due to their NOS status.
  
 Hint - there is a thread obout here on HF.


----------



## liamstrain

You'll notice it is not a thread in "sound science." Or backed by much in the way of rigorous evidence.

I have yet to see a convincing case made for how two caps with identical measurement characteristics (and same type e.g. film/ceramic) - but differing materials and price - could even possibly affect sound. Even if you deliberately designed an amplifier with such a topology as to be especially sensitive to capacitor changes (which you probably should not do anyway.)

Caveat... Obviously you could choose one with decidedly non-linear response to contrast... I consider this like comparing a broken circuit. Not really in the spirit of what we are saying.


----------



## ab initio

analogsurviver said:


> Now ... which electrical elements/parts can range from 10 to 100 ( 30  sort of mean value ) times the price of commonly used parts ? Currently produced, not expensive solely due to their NOS status.


 
  
 Oh Oh Oh I think i know this one!!!! [wildly raising, waving hand  in the air]
  
FUSES!!@!
omg i wish i were kidding
  
Cheers


----------



## ab initio

Other answers probably also scoring points (if this were family feud)

cables
capacitors
power chords
very small rocks
etc...


----------



## analogsurviver

ab initio said:


> Oh Oh Oh I think i know this one!!!! [wildly raising, waving hand  in the air]
> 
> FUSES!!@!
> omg i wish i were kidding
> ...


 
 Wrong.
  
 That would be far too easy - I have yet to see "an audiophile fuse" in flesh 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## ab initio

analogsurviver said:


> Wrong.
> 
> That would be far too easy - I have yet to see "an audiophile fuse" in flesh :duggfloat: .




Click the link and prepare to be amazed! 

 Cheers


----------



## analogsurviver

liamstrain said:


> You'll notice it is not a thread in "sound science." Or backed by much in the way of rigorous evidence.
> 
> I have yet to see a convincing case made for how two caps with identical measurement characteristics (and same type e.g. film/ceramic) - but differing materials and price - could even possibly affect sound. Even if you deliberately designed an amplifier with such a topology as to be especially sensitive to capacitor changes (which you probably should not do anyway.)
> 
> Caveat... Obviously you could choose one with decidedly non-linear response to contrast... I consider this like comparing a broken circuit. Not really in the spirit of what we are saying.


 
 There is such a case - curiously, provided by an IC manufacturer, specially meant for portable audio equipment. As space in portable is at premium, the only way to reduce the deleterious effects of capacitors ( one can fit into available volume ) is to use circuitry that allows lower capacitance values ( and hence better quality capacitors in volume available ) for achieving the same bandwidth - and their ICs offer just that. Things go so far that the THD in low frequencies is governed by the capacitor(s) - everything else is at least an order of magnitude better. Never before I did see anything conviencing like this case regarding capacitor influence on audio - should have bookmarked that page... - wait, it was Maxim . Will try to re-find it and post it here.
  
 Principle of course remains the same for other capacitors for audio. Although the benefits of super duper caps does get ever smaller with increasing price, going from electrolytic to film and/or ceramic to polystirene is at least an improvement of two orders of magnitude - at the same nominal capacitance. And it IS audible.
  
 For the general pointer what to look for, please check the mother of all capacitor articles  http://waltjung.org/PDFs/Picking_Capacitors_1.pdf
 or
 http://www.reliablecapacitors.com/pickcap.htm
  
 For the above reason, avoiding capacitors whenever possible is desirable. There are loudspeaker crossover made only with inductors and resistors  - as well as phono RIAA preamplifiers. Both at the upper end of the price scale.


----------



## davidsh

I am speachless, just one among many:
*NEW!!!* *Quantum Temple Bell*, handheld Tibetan brass bell that improves audio and video when rung in strategic locations around the room. Instructions for use provided. $129 each.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> And it IS audible.


 
  
 Cite the DBT or it doesn't count in this thread!


----------



## thune

I don't come into sound-science much. Is it normally a group-heckling slum? I can get *that* a million other places on the web.
  
 Here are some nice articles on capacitor distortion, recently made available online:
 http://www.linearaudio.nl/linearaudio.nl/index.php/my-library/cyril-bateman-s-capacitor-sound-articles


----------



## Yazen

ab initio said:


> Click the link and prepare to be amazed!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Is there an audiophile elixir that allows you to hear ultrasound? 
  
 Quote:


davidsh said:


> I am speachless, just one among many:
> *NEW!!!* *Quantum Temple Bell*, handheld Tibetan brass bell that improves audio and video when rung in strategic locations around the room. Instructions for use provided. $129 each.


 
 Need to arrange a group buy.  In for 10!!


----------



## liamstrain

thune said:


> Here are some nice articles on capacitor distortion, recently made available online:
> http://www.linearaudio.nl/linearaudio.nl/index.php/my-library/cyril-bateman-s-capacitor-sound-articles


 
  
 Cheers, I'll read through. Appreciate the article link.


----------



## analogsurviver

thune said:


> I don't come into sound-science much. Is it normally a group-heckling slum? I can get *that* a million other places on the web.
> 
> Here are some nice articles on capacitor distortion, recently made available online:
> http://www.linearaudio.nl/linearaudio.nl/index.php/my-library/cyril-bateman-s-capacitor-sound-articles


 
 Thank you for the links. At first glance, they seem to bring an update to what I was familiar before, I will read trough it all. Much appreciated.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Cite the DBT or it doesn't count in this thread!


 
 A little hard to do.
  
 Why ? I will repeat: I have a friend with whom we "regularly sporadically" meet. He was " trough one ear in, trough one ear out" - UNTIL he heard the first of my modified amplifiers in his own system. Ever since, he did change te tune.
  
 In principle, such a DBT could be arranged, using a stock and modified amp - and DBT ABXed. Best way to do it would be at some HF meet - with say 5 30 second samples per person, trough an ABX box of sufficient quality, level matched to within 0.1 dB or better, driving a good pair of headphones ( AKG K 1000 ) - or in case a WELL TREATED room with speakers can be arranged, this could be used as alternative and/or instead. The number of participants could be large enough in both headphone and loudspeaker scenario - but I prefer headphones, as seating arrangement of any loudspeaker system limits correct impression to the line in the middle of the room, with maximum three seats depth; everything else is too compromised to be truly relevant, although it could still be used in case listeners do not change their positions. All of the above requires quite some money to be arranged - which I simply can not afford at the time.
  
 As written before, I *CAN *make amplifier test - by comparing two live recordings of the same music made with the same resolution on two recorders, one stock and one modified. And post the 30 second files to be DBT ABXed on head-fi by anyone interested in the leisure of his/hers home. I can include original DSD128 as well PCM - preferably 44.1/16 redbook - as noted in my posts, foobar does not (yet?) support native DSD under ABX comparator ( it changes DSD to 192/24 under ABX). This way, both amplifiers AND DSD vs PCM can be tested - the later only by those in possesion of native DSD playback.
  
 That is what is within my (financial) capabilities at the moment and I am willing to provide in say 3 weeks from now on ( recordings are yet to take place in this time frame ).


----------



## castleofargh

thune said:


> I don't come into sound-science much. Is it normally a group-heckling slum? I can get *that* a million other places on the web.
> 
> Here are some nice articles on capacitor distortion, recently made available online:
> http://www.linearaudio.nl/linearaudio.nl/index.php/my-library/cyril-bateman-s-capacitor-sound-articles


 

 interesting read when you're curious about the subject thx. but as a pure audiophile(sound sound sound!!!!!!) I don't get the point of looking after capacitors. of course for a product manufacturer, or a few DIYers it's mighty important, but for me the product user? if my product can give under 100 or 110DB in distortion, then obviously the capacitors are also below that value(or they did something to correct the signal afterward). in any case it's taken care of. so isn't that a false problem?
 I know I could give the same argument for half our discussions here where people struggle between audibly perfect and audibly night and day perfecterer(what I now call the yellow M&M's), but if the end result is good(measurement good), why cares about the individual components? obviously the engineer did something right and the "problem" is solved for at least audio purpose.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> interesting read when you're curious about the subject thx. but as a pure audiophile(sound sound sound!!!!!!) I don't get the point of looking after capacitors. of course for a product manufacturer, or a few DIYers it's mighty important, but for me the product user? if my product can give under 100 or 110DB in distortion, then obviously the capacitors are also below that value(or they did something to correct the signal afterward). in any case it's taken care of. so isn't that a false problem?
> I know I could give the same argument for half our discussions here where people struggle between audibly perfect and audibly night and day perfecterer(what I now call the yellow M&M's), but if the end result is good(measurement good), why cares about the individual components? obviously the engineer did something right and the "problem" is solved for at least audio purpose.


 
 There are usually several capacitors in series - from input to output. And their defficiences do add up. A single bad capacitor may ruin entire chain - rendering all other good ones installed effectively useless. 
  
 Why does the use of good capacitors get limited to DIYers in most cases ? Co$t i$$ue$. The general rule of thumb in electronics is (roughly)
  
 Any inbuilt material costs  times five = retail price ( to take care of research & development, retail and support costs ).
  
 An aluminium polar capacitor costs next to nothing compared to film variety, specially better films ; same ceramic vs polystirene - polystirene is especially troublesome as it is next to impossible to use in automated setttings for soldering, necessitating manual labour, further increasing the cost. An average SMD based printed circuit board got automatically stuffed and soldered in the time you read the last sentence - and is the same time required to manually solder a single polystirene capacitor. Robot is cheaper than man, time is money ... - that is why even VERY highly rated manufacturers no longer go to these lenghts . 
  
 A single look into most of the measuring gear ( HP, Tektronix, etc ) will quickly reveal the problem - they have their share of bean counters too, with aluminumm polar electrolitics and ceramic capacitors - introducing about the same level of error as the devices supposed to be measured by this equipment.
  
 Clear enough ?


----------



## castleofargh

sure but again, if the output distortion of the gear is below audible levels why should that matter? what matters is the result, if someone gets good results with cheap stuff, then great job. well I bought the O2 so it should say it all about my opinion on the matter of cheap components.


----------



## Steve Eddy

castleofargh said:


> sure but again, if the output distortion of the gear is below audible levels why should that matter?




Because it's really just a big numbers game. It's really no different than the THD wars back in the '70s. 

se


----------



## ab initio

analogsurviver said:


> A single look into most of the measuring gear ( HP, Tektronix, etc ) will quickly reveal the problem - they have their share of bean counters too, with aluminumm polar electrolitics and ceramic capacitors - introducing about the same level of error as the devices supposed to be measured by this equipment.


 
  
 Wait a second.... are we accusing the leading manufactures of electronic test instruments of selling test equipment that doesn't meet the performance specifications because they didn't use audiophile components?
  
 No scientist in their right mind conducts a measurement with an instrument incapable of resolving the desired signal. This is experimental methods 101.
  
 Cheers


----------



## analogsurviver

ab initio said:


> Wait a second.... are we accusing the leading manufactures of electronic test instruments of selling test equipment that doesn't meet the performance specifications because they didn't use audiophile components?
> 
> No scientist in their right mind conducts a measurement with an instrument incapable of resolving the desired signal. This is experimental methods 101.
> 
> Cheers


 
 Precisely. But not for not meeting specs - only not trying to do best that can be done, they are clever enough to spec their equipment correctly.
  
 I do not like quality parts being called audiophile - as it has become some sort of derrogative term. But it is indicative tha audiophiles demand such quality and measuring pros do not.
  
 If you check the capacitors measurement links - the FIRST thing that had to be done in order to be able to measure well was making of an oscillator with low enough distortion. By a man who spent great chunk of his life understanding and perfecting capacitors - and presumably had everything commercially available for testing. When you reach the point the instrument is less perfect than device under test, no other way than replacing the instrument. Which usually means building your own.
  
 It happened before - late 70/80s best tuner manufacturers were coming up with tuners that had better specs than the best officially in the US available FM signal generator by HP. It was Matsusiita generator from Japan used to establish those figures - and Tandberg of Norway also had their own , at least on the par with Matsusiita - or else they could newer have built (and align) tuners of the quality they did. As well as was done by the Sage Audio in England in 80s - their power amp
 modules were at least one order of magnitude better spec'd for distortion than the best HP signal generator at the time.  Again courtesy of custom made generator.
  
 So much for the leading manufacturers. They do not per default push the envelope. Mostly only when forced by the competition.


----------



## liamstrain

analogsurviver said:


> But it is indicative tha audiophiles demand such quality and measuring pros do not.


 
  
 Yes - It is indicative - but not of what you think it is indicative of.


----------



## OddE

analogsurviver said:


> So much for the leading manufacturers. They do not per default push the envelope. Mostly only when forced by the competition.




-And this is where a well-renowned Köln (Cologne) - based company enters the picture. 

There's a lot of excellent, semi-affordable lab equipment out there nowadays - but the one manufacturer I've encountered which still builds to a standard, not a price point is Rohde u. Schwarz.


----------



## dvw

analogsurviver said:


> The differences in amps will be for the most part in the quiet ranges - those Sansui pre/amps are exactly as powerful in either version, but the better amp will have much better clarity and resolution at low level, specially on complex passages. Like symphony orchestra with chorus at p and below level.


 
 Are you saying the difference between amplifier is at low level? The distortion of a "quality" amplifier is lower at low volume than a non-quality amp. How in your opinion does switching regulator affect this low level amplification performance? Would a "quality" power cable help in this case?
  
 If two amplifiers are perfectlt faithful to the original sound, how would they sounded different? What is the definition of "better " in this case.
  
 I often see the term "resolution" being used. I never did understand what it means. This is first time I saw it being used with low level amplification. Does resolution means ability to produce signal at low level? So when people say the system does not have enough resolution, it means the system cannot reproduce certain sound? I have a recording of Sting playing in a cabin. In the background, there is a fire place with the logs crackling. I never noticed it until someone told me abut it. Now I can hear it on my system. Does this mean I have a high "resolving" system?


----------



## analogsurviver

odde said:


> -And this is where a well-renowned Köln (Cologne) - based company enters the picture.
> 
> There's a lot of excellent, semi-affordable lab equipment out there nowadays - but the one manufacturer I've encountered which still builds to a standard, not a price point is Rohde u. Schwarz.


 
 Yes, agreed. Rohde & Schwartz to my knowledge never did produce to a price point.
  
 An anecdote from my retail days. In store comes a "freshly baked" retired male customer. Interested in some plastic fantastic music system, typical CD/Tuner/cassette box + platic speakers, say around 200-300 EUR max. 
 And starts asking about selectivity of the FM tuner. A most unusual request in this price range, to say the least. 
 After switching to capture ratio, pilot tone suppression etc it was clear to me that this customer "knows something" - and I dully went to check the specs for this box. Most of what the customer wanted to know was not specified - and what was, was simply far below his expectations.
  
 Then I asked where he used to work. *National Radio & Television *- FM radio department. I knew immediately where he grew accustomed to such stellar performance/specs as he obviously took for granted - 
 Rohde & Schwartz 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. 
  
 But he obviously did not have to pay out of his own pocket ...


----------



## analogsurviver

dvw said:


> Are you saying the difference between amplifier is at low level? The distortion of a "quality" amplifier is lower at low volume than a non-quality amp. How in your opinion does switching regulator affect this low level amplification performance? Would a "quality" power cable help in this case?
> 
> If two amplifiers are perfectlt faithful to the original sound, how would they sounded different? What is the definition of "better " in this case.
> 
> I often see the term "resolution" being used. I never did understand what it means. This is first time I saw it being used with low level amplification. Does resolution means ability to produce signal at low level? So when people say the system does not have enough resolution, it means the system cannot reproduce certain sound? I have a recording of Sting playing in a cabin. In the background, there is a fire place with the logs crackling. I never noticed it until someone told me abut it. Now I can hear it on my system. Does this mean I have a high "resolving" system?


 
 Yes, although not entirely. But since the music is ALWAYS present at some low level and only ocasionally does get louder, this is the most critical range. If any audio device is poor at low level, it will never be acknowledged as being good. 
  
 If you under switching regulator understand switching power supply, the usual abberations are - or were - intermodulation in the treble. Each generation is better, I have yet to hear one that is completely devoid of this problem. 
  
 There is no such thing as perfection in real life. VERY few amplifiers survive the simplest of tests - one channel of the oscilloscope connected to the input, another to the output of the amplifier. Sensitivities of the oscilloscope adjusted so that both are the same in amplitude. Then invert one for 180 degrees and sum the two together ; VERY rarely a perfect line = no difference between the two - will be observed *when playing music *- not pure sine wave . If you only take this difference and amplify it so that you can listen to it with headphones or speakers, you will learn this difference, which in perfect amp would simply not exist, does not sound the same among different amplifiers.
  
 Yes, the cited example of logs crackling in the fireplace is indication of certain level of resolution. Poor equipment would glaze over it. 
  
 One could apply "resolution" to the musicians, too. I will never forget the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra under Ivan Fischer rehearsing Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra; he _*quietly spoke *_"_Leise" _= quietly - and was with that softly spoken word in a big concert hall louder than all  the members of the orchestra playing entrance to a movement of said concert... - they are justly famous for the ability to control their playing to this level !


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> dvw said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying the difference between amplifier is at low level? The distortion of a "quality" amplifier is lower at low volume than a non-quality amp. How in your opinion does switching regulator affect this low level amplification performance? Would a "quality" power cable help in this case?
> ...


 

 wow you really have a gift for finding "scientific look alike" to justify your strange views.
 maybe that's just me, maybe I forgot how to science.
  
  an amp would actually distort more on the higher voltage signal by simple math. be it good or bad amp. 1% distortion from a signal at 0DB will always make much more noise than even 5% distortion from a sound at -60DB. 
 the 1% distortion made from music at 0DB will be noise at -40DB and below, while the 5% distortion generated from a sound at -60DB will make a noise at -85DB and below(something like that right guys?).
 also the resulting signal of you suggested experiment(sorry I don't own an oscilloscope) could be the slight difference in alignment. or maybe just a difference in dynamic making the alignment impossible without stretching the signal exactly? that could create up to a few DB signals on your result that wouldn't really be noise per se.
  what load do you place on the outputs of the amp? and even if I imagine this as being done in a correct way, then the difference is ... the distortion of the amp. \o/ 
 and there might well be more because of IMD that obviously doesn't show up with a single sine wave, and because all the music will have ripples of harmonic distortions. but most of us know that already. what counts is the level in DB of the distortion, if it's low enough you don't hear it and that's it. even if the shape of the noise looks like mickey.
 I don't get where that example is going at all. it's not like any amp will ever measure with 0 distortion. you don't give us any numerical value as if an error was an error too many and that's it. maybe the noise(anything that is not music) is at -90DB and you make it look like it's the end for music.
  
 anyway I would really like to see the magnitude of whatever you hope to show in proportion to let's say ... the distortion from your beloved and oh so realistic vinyls, compared to the signal from the masters. that sure would put things in perspective. how come you're never that critical for all the defects of vinyl and DSD? this is sound science, I would expect all things criticized with the same rigor.
  
 oh and I think dvw's post was ironic.


----------



## dvw

analogsurviver said:


> If you under switching regulator understand switching power supply, the usual abberations are - or were - intermodulation in the treble. Each generation is better, I have yet to hear one that is completely devoid of this problem.
> 
> There is no such thing as perfection in real life. VERY few amplifiers survive the simplest of tests - one channel of the oscilloscope connected to the input, another to the output of the amplifier. Sensitivities of the oscilloscope adjusted so that both are the same in amplitude. Then invert one for 180 degrees and sum the two together ; VERY rarely a perfect line = no difference between the two - will be observed *when playing music *- not pure sine wave . If you only take this difference and amplify it so that you can listen to it with headphones or speakers, you will learn this difference, which in perfect amp would simply not exist, does not sound the same among different amplifiers.


 
 I'm so glad all my equipment are high resolution. But I don't think I can agree with you on switching regulators cause intermodulation distortion on high frequency signal (treble). If that is the case we'll be seeing lots of distortion on high frequency equipment like DSL modem, WiFi router. As far as I know all communication equipment use switching reg, and intermodulation would cause BER.
  
 On the next part of signal inverted 180 deg. Do this also apply to differential signal? Does this mean a single ended output is better than differential distortionwise? I mean when the signals are summed there will be more distortion than a simgle ended signal. You would definitely not recommend any bridged amp application, right?.
  
 Since no amp is perfect which I do agree. And no two amp are the same even coming off the same production line (at least in theory). Do you think any one can tell the difference between two amps of the same model? If not, what is the deviation before you can hear the difference? 0.5 dB, 1dB? I visited a headphone manufacturer a ouple of months ago. They do use "golden ears" to do the final QA on their headphone. They can hear about 1dB difference. 1 dB iis a lot of variance.


----------



## SilverEars

dvw said:


> I'm so glad all my equipment are high resolution. But I don't think I can agree with you on switching regulators cause intermodulation distortion on high frequency signal (treble). If that is the case we'll be seeing lots of distortion on high frequency equipment like DSL modem, WiFi router. As far as I know all communication equipment use switching reg, and intermodulation would cause BER.
> 
> On the next part of signal inverted 180 deg. Do this also apply to differential signal? *Does this mean a single ended output is better than differential distortionwise? I mean when the signals are summed there will be more distortion than a simgle ended signal. *You would definitely not recommend any bridged amp application, right?.
> 
> Since no amp is perfect which I do agree. And no two amp are the same even coming off the same production line (at least in theory). Do you think any one can tell the difference between two amps of the same model? If not, what is the deviation before you can hear the difference? 0.5 dB, 1dB? I visited a headphone manufacturer a ouple of months ago. They do use "golden ears" to do the final QA on their headphone. They can hear about 1dB difference. 1 dB iis a lot of variance.


 
 This makes sense, I have yet to run into a post that mentioned this, maybe because I spend a lot of time outside the science section.  The differential amp utilizes two outputs, which means there will be more amps that will be utilized fro two paths instead of single.  Since the differential is sum of both, distortion from each path would sum.  This depends on what is more significant.  Which is more more significant, the noise or the distortion caused by addition of the amps.  Anybody know more about this?
  
 I think that it's pretty reasonable to think that headphone is where the signal accuracy matters as it has the most significant distortion that is caused.  The amps magnatudes less.  What I like to see is signal measurements of various distortion of signals fed to the headphones, and we can get a better idea of the relationship between distortion of the amp to the headphones.


----------



## JamesHuntington

castleofargh said:


> interesting read when you're curious about the subject thx. but as a pure audiophile(sound sound sound!!!!!!) I don't get the point of looking after capacitors. of course for a product manufacturer, or a few DIYers it's mighty important, but for me the product user? if my product can give under 100 or 110DB in distortion, then obviously the capacitors are also below that value(or they did something to correct the signal afterward). in any case it's taken care of. so isn't that a false problem?
> I know I could give the same argument for half our discussions here where people struggle between audibly perfect and audibly night and day perfecterer(what I now call the yellow M&M's), but if the end result is good(measurement good), why cares about the individual components? obviously the engineer did something right and the "problem" is solved for at least audio purpose.


A pure audiophile is interested in caps, plugs or whatever to get better sound. 
The way to get great sound is by using great parts. Bose, for instance, can't engineer audiophile products because he uses cheap materials. Engineering is not how to get audiophile. Engineering with junk parts gets you Bose, at least. Engineering with quality parts gets you to what audiophiles desire. No audiophile would try to make a Bose speaker sound good by re-engineering it, adding foam, or anything because it's not good to start with. A few big companies put out products with great parts, but the overall product was not so good. All they needed was a someone to come along and use those parts right. But using parts right doesn't get too much better than Bose unless you actually care about every bit. The same goes with all products.


----------



## liamstrain

jameshuntington said:


> A pure audiophile is interested in caps, plugs or whatever to get better sound.


 
  
 The problem is, the pure audiophile does this assuming that these parts will get better sound. But ALL the testing, indicates this is pretty much not the case. That's where then engineer has the advantage, and can actually create things that do sound better - by knowing which things offer material improvements, and which are just higher cost with no audible improvement.


----------



## ab initio

jameshuntington said:


> A pure audiophile is interested in caps, plugs or whatever to get better sound.
> The way to get great sound is by using great parts. Bose, for instance, can't engineer audiophile products because he uses cheap materials. Engineering is not how to get audiophile. Engineering with junk parts gets you Bose, at least. Engineering with quality parts gets you to what audiophiles desire. No audiophile would try to make a Bose speaker sound good by re-engineering it, adding foam, or anything because it's not good to start with. A few big companies put out products with great parts, but the overall product was not so good. All they needed was a someone to come along and use those parts right. But using parts right doesn't get too much better than Bose unless you actually care about every bit. The same goes with all products.


 

 An audiophile should want the best sound possible, not the best imaginary sound. Just because you imagine an electrolytic capacitor inside an amplifier will be a detriment to the sound doesn't make it true.
  
 Cheers


----------



## JamesHuntington

ab initio said:


> An audiophile should want the best sound possible, not the best imaginary sound. Just because you imagine an electrolytic capacitor inside an amplifier will be a detriment to the sound doesn't make it true.
> 
> Cheers


just because you don't/can't hear it doesn't make it imaginary. Quality Capacitors are very important. The problem comes with the use of junk materials and the problem is real. The answer Many suggest to the problem is to avoid going backwards, so to say, by using cheap material or products that put profit first.


----------



## cjl

jameshuntington said:


> just because you don't/can't hear it doesn't make it imaginary. Quality Capacitors are very important. The problem comes with the use of junk materials and the problem is real. The answer Many suggest to the problem is to avoid going backwards, so to say, by using cheap material or products that put profit first.


 
 The beautiful thing about science though is that we can measure how much of a difference it makes, and study what kinds of differences are perceptible to humans. Evidence matters here, not just blind assertion of superiority.


----------



## castleofargh

cjl said:


> jameshuntington said:
> 
> 
> > just because you don't/can't hear it doesn't make it imaginary. Quality Capacitors are very important. The problem comes with the use of junk materials and the problem is real. The answer Many suggest to the problem is to avoid going backwards, so to say, by using cheap material or products that put profit first.
> ...


 

 but that's not even the problem, the signal gets ringing or overshoot or takes too much time to reach a voltage or to go back to zero, in probably several parts of a complex circuitry. a good deal of those circuits are in fact implemented just to counter those unwanted artifacts(filters, feedback ...). it's a very unrealistic idea to think that the signal is what it is and that each component with slight imperfection will add an irremediable defect to the signal. nothing could ever be done in electronic if it really worked like that. that's an oversimplified wrong idea of a circuit. having one component misbehaving isn't like going to mp3. a deviation doesn't automatically mean a signal loss.
  
 say we need one special type of component to build a particular system. that component always overshoot the desired voltage on first impulse and even the best component does it a little. if we have a way to supress that overshooting without bringing something worse whatever the value, why should we pay for the expensive slightly better one? I think the MIT videos on feedback show that brilliantly. take something super bad, add stuff, end up with a close to perfect sine wave. job done done!
 I would even bet that often times, changing a system for a component with better specs could actually have a negative effect on the output signal. because the design and component values were taking the bad component response into account and compensating for it adequately. so when the error is out, or smaller, the correction components might bring it back in the opposite direction.
  
 anyway, as always, if the output is transparent, it's transparent.  I believe that tubes are useless relics of the past in audio, but when I see a tube amp with great specs, it's still a great amp. how a good result is obtained doesn't matter.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> A pure audiophile is interested in caps, plugs or whatever to get better sound.


 
  
 Mostly whatever.
  
 People who aren't so pure want to actually understand how sound reproduction works, how human hearing works, and how to apply those principles to stereo equipment in a practical manner.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> just because you don't/can't hear it doesn't make it imaginary.


 
  
 If you can't hear it, it doesn't matter.


----------



## JamesHuntington

bigshot said:


> If you can't hear it, it doesn't matter.


I'm meaning you as in the person I'm quoting. A lot of people can't tell that Bose are junk, that's not my problem.


----------



## JamesHuntington

castleofargh said:


> but that's not even the problem, the signal gets ringing or overshoot or takes too much time to reach a voltage or to go back to zero, in probably several parts of a complex circuitry. a good deal of those circuits are in fact implemented just to counter those unwanted artifacts(filters, feedback ...). it's a very unrealistic idea to think that the signal is what it is and that each component with slight imperfection will add an irremediable defect to the signal. nothing could ever be done in electronic if it really worked like that. that's an oversimplified wrong idea of a circuit. having one component misbehaving isn't like going to mp3. a deviation doesn't automatically mean a signal loss.
> 
> say we need one special type of component to build a particular system. that component always overshoot the desired voltage on first impulse and even the best component does it a little. if we have a way to supress that overshooting without bringing something worse whatever the value, why should we pay for the expensive slightly better one? I think the MIT videos on feedback show that brilliantly. take something super bad, add stuff, end up with a close to perfect sine wave. job done done!
> I would even bet that often times, changing a system for a component with better specs could actually have a negative effect on the output signal. because the design and component values were taking the bad component response into account and compensating for it adequately. so when the error is out, or smaller, the correction components might bring it back in the opposite direction.
> ...


If your product uses parts that sound perfect at purchase, then break or change over time, then whatever I guess. Or if you string along a bunch of junk to counteract junk and perfect sound comes out, done? 
There's a reason people like older products and technologies, because they've stood the test of time. And a reason why designs are copied, because they work great. Just because this is a science thread doesn't mean we have to debate everything, some ideas can and are accepted. Among many people the analogue surviver is making complete sense. You may think tubes are relics and maybe in certain instances they are. There's a difference between signal transfer and signal amplification, and then putting rubber to road. As a buyer of gear I don't want guessing or maybe in my design. I want to know that a part is going to work correctly. If a part breaks, I want to know that replacing it doesn't create a guessing game.


----------



## liamstrain

jameshuntington said:


> As a buyer of gear I don't want guessing or maybe in my design. I want to know that a part is going to work correctly. If a part breaks, I want to know that replacing it doesn't create a guessing game.


 
  
 Then why are you touting audiophile methodology (e.g. haphazard, selective, or none) over engineering methodology (e.g. rigorous and heavily tested).


----------



## JamesHuntington

liamstrain said:


> Then why are you touting audiophile methodology (e.g. haphazard, selective, or none) over engineering methodology (e.g. rigorous and heavily tested).


I believe time tells, to some extent. When companies use cheap parts, I notice because I keep my stuff. A well made product gets better with time. 
As for testing new technology, I support it. But when companies try to fool people with look-alike parts and etc, that is where we should focus.


----------



## SunshineReggae

jameshuntington said:


> I believe time tells, to some extent. When companies use cheap parts, I notice because I keep my stuff. A well made product gets better with time.
> As for testing new technology, I support it. But when companies try to fool people with look-alike parts and etc, that is where we should focus.


 
  
 I agree that good parts will be inclined to improve build quality and in turn reliability of a product, which should make it objectively more desirable when compared to another product with worse quality of the same price. What I don't agree with is that high quality parts will improve sound in some inexplicable way just because they are "high quality'. Let's be honest, that's silly.


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> A lot of people can't tell that Bose are junk, that's not my problem.


 
  
 I think that's more an issue of not caring than not being able to tell.


----------



## bigshot

The parts used in digital audio equipment are often standardized and manufactured in bulk quantities. The fact that they are inexpensive doesn't mean that they are inferior in any way. It just means that they are used in enough different things that they can be made cheaply in quantity. You'll probably find a lot of the same parts in midrange stereo components as in high end.


----------



## castleofargh

jameshuntington said:


> If your product uses parts that sound perfect at purchase, then break or change over time, then whatever I guess. Or if you string along a bunch of junk to counteract junk and perfect sound comes out, done?
> There's a reason people like older products and technologies, because they've stood the test of time. And a reason why designs are copied, because they work great. Just because this is a science thread doesn't mean we have to debate everything, some ideas can and are accepted. Among many people the analogue surviver is making complete sense. You may think tubes are relics and maybe in certain instances they are. There's a difference between signal transfer and signal amplification, and then putting rubber to road. As a buyer of gear I don't want guessing or maybe in my design. I want to know that a part is going to work correctly. If a part breaks, I want to know that replacing it doesn't create a guessing game.


 
 if a part as a mechanical play, then obviously we want one that will resist the physical forces so that it will work longer. if the current ends up warming the component up to +90°c (194°f) then sure I don't want something that will melt or break rapidly. paying for that is a good reason.
 but any dac or amp do stuff to a signal that we would never approve of if they were explained step by step. that's what I'm trying to explain. one hazardous behavior somewhere can become a tool somewhere else. most problems can be solved later on and a solve problem isn't a problem, just like a distorting capacitor isn't a problem is the output signal ends up without those distortions or if the distortions are super super low. else they simply wouldn't use the lousy part, or they would and the output signal would be crap and would show on measurements.
 you can blame someone for giving you crappy sound, but you can't blame someone for giving you the same output signal with cheaper parts at a cheaper price. I don't see this as a problem unless we want to limit elite sound only rich elite people for business reasons. 
 sometimes there is no perfect product vs bad product(and sometimes there clearly is), they just have different specs and the good engineer will use what he can deal with.
  
  
 analog surviver is usually the kind of person I despise for trying to force false ideas onto others, but actually I happen to like him because even though a few of his hypothesis are dead wrong, he has real logic after that and tries seriously to explain rationally his ideas. that's much more enjoyable to debate with him than the usual "I know because I heard it and you're all wrong, science is wrong, I do what I want".
 so while I strongly disagree with most of what he says ^_^, I do respect his efforts to get to the end of problems.
  
  
 if a part breaks I'm too much of a soldering noob to even try changing it, so of course we don't have the same concerns here and I get your point.


----------



## Mezzo

Can someone please explain something to me about power.

If one amp is rated to deliver 100 watts and another is rated to deliver 200 watts, will the 200 watt amp be able to supply more current into a speaker than the 100 watt amp? 

If I have a 100 watt amp supplying 50 watts and a 200 watt amp supplying 50 watts, the bigger 200 watt amp will supply more juice? Looking to buy a power amp.


----------



## blades

Assuming the ratings are equally accurate, the 200 watt amplifier will be able to deliver more current and provide 3 db of additional gain.


----------



## castleofargh

mezzo said:


> Can someone please explain something to me about power.
> 
> If one amp is rated to deliver 100 watts and another is rated to deliver 200 watts, will the 200 watt amp be able to supply more current into a speaker than the 100 watt amp?
> 
> If I have a 100 watt amp supplying 50 watts and a 200 watt amp supplying 50 watts, the bigger 200 watt amp will supply more juice? Looking to buy a power amp.


 

 for the same sound same volume, and all things considered, they will deliver the same thing. the ideal situation being that the only limiting factor would be the speaker, so the amp will deliver what the speaker accepts to let go through in both current and voltage. just like a wall charger will deliver just what your phone or laptop requires and nothing more in current.
 if you're in situation where the amp set the voltage or current limit, then your speaker is simply not driven optimally and then the 200w amp might be better.


----------



## JamesHuntington

castleofargh said:


> if a part as a mechanical play, then obviously we want one that will resist the physical forces so that it will work longer. if the current ends up warming the component up to +90°c (194°f) then sure I don't want something that will melt or break rapidly. paying for that is a good reason.
> but any dac or amp do stuff to a signal that we would never approve of if they were explained step by step. that's what I'm trying to explain. one hazardous behavior somewhere can become a tool somewhere else. most problems can be solved later on and a solve problem isn't a problem, just like a distorting capacitor isn't a problem is the output signal ends up without those distortions or if the distortions are super super low. else they simply wouldn't use the lousy part, or they would and the output signal would be crap and would show on measurements.
> you can blame someone for giving you crappy sound, but you can't blame someone for giving you the same output signal with cheaper parts at a cheaper price. I don't see this as a problem unless we want to limit elite sound only rich elite people for business reasons.
> sometimes there is no perfect product vs bad product(and sometimes there clearly is), they just have different specs and the good engineer will use what he can deal with.
> ...


I don't see Any forcing false ideas. From my perspective I agree with him because it seems like he has some I the same basic knowledge that I have , but is much more knowledgable. I say basic knowledge, because I actually consider most of his opinion to be undoubtably true basic knowledge. Some of his opinions I have no experience, so I try to understand him.

IMO I see just as much myth in cheaper audio as I see in expensive gear. And by myth it's a lot about worth. I personally like my older gear, that's less to go wrong. No remote or computer needed to increase a audio signal.


----------



## dvw

mezzo said:


> Can someone please explain something to me about power.
> 
> If one amp is rated to deliver 100 watts and another is rated to deliver 200 watts, will the 200 watt amp be able to supply more current into a speaker than the 100 watt amp?
> 
> If I have a 100 watt amp supplying 50 watts and a 200 watt amp supplying 50 watts, the bigger 200 watt amp will supply more juice? Looking to buy a power amp.


 
 You've got to read the spec carefully when you're buying an amp. Some amp especially home theaters and AVR specification are tricky. For example, the amp might specify 200W when it is driving a single channel. This does not mean you're getting 200W per channel. The actual power you're getting wil be significantly less. In some cases, the specification may say 200W at 10%THD. Again the actual power will also be less. So the key is compare the specification apple to apple. Some 100W amp may deliver more "usable power"/juice than some loosely spec 200W amp.


----------



## dvw

jameshuntington said:


> IMO I see just as much myth in cheaper audio as I see in expensive gear. And by myth it's a lot about worth. I personally like my older gear, that's less to go wrong. No remote or computer needed to increase a audio signal.


 
 All consumer products have some sort of misleading marketing on them. The difference is high volume consumer product are regulated by FTC where boutique consumer products are not. So cheaper audio (is there any left) are more feature oriented and more competitive. The cheaper audio are being replaced by A/V home theater gear. Because of competition these gears actually have a deflation. The value is placed more on feature and convenience, and of course quality. The boutique audio placed their value on quality (mythical or not), prestige and uniqueness. So audiophile products include vinyl, vacuum tubes and other ancient technologies. It is also the only technology product that features inflation in prices more than the economic inflation.
  
 This is why we need to be informed consumers to sort out what is the proper value/myth for ourselves. A case study of Bose would be very interesting. Are there similarity between Bose believer and cable believer?


----------



## JamesHuntington

dvw said:


> All consumer products have some sort of misleading marketing on them. The difference is high volume consumer product are regulated by FTC where boutique consumer products are not. So cheaper audio (is there any left) are more feature oriented and more competitive. The cheaper audio are being replaced by A/V home theater gear. Because of competition these gears actually have a deflation. The value is placed more on feature and convenience, and of course quality. The boutique audio placed their value on quality (mythical or not), prestige and uniqueness. So audiophile products include vinyl, vacuum tubes and other ancient technologies. It is also the only technology product that features inflation in prices more than the economic inflation.
> 
> This is why we need to be informed consumers to sort out what is the proper value/myth for ourselves. A case study of Bose would be very interesting. Are there similarity between Bose believer and cable believer?


Cable believers have extra money. But they usually put more into components than the Bosers.
 Bose sells the whole set up and askes the consumer not to think and take their word for it.
 Cable buyers may just be thinking too much. But there is some science behind both, and some faith. There's faith in about any purchase. 
I don't think thicker or special material cables will improve sound in electronics as much as I believe average cables will bring down the quality of good electronics.


----------



## ferday

jameshuntington said:


> Cable believers have extra money. But they usually put more into components than the Bosers.
> Bose sells the whole set up and askes the consumer not to think and take their word for it.
> Cable buyers may just be thinking too much. But there is some science behind both, and some faith. There's faith in about any purchase.
> I don't think thicker or special material cables will improve sound in electronics as much as I believe average cables will bring down the quality of good electronics.




If special cables don't help, but average cables do harm....wireless?


----------



## liamstrain

jameshuntington said:


> I don't think thicker or special material cables will improve sound in electronics as much as I believe average cables will bring down the quality of good electronics.


 
  
 This makes zero sense. The inferred corollary to your "average cables will bring down the quality" is that better cables will improve the quality (since by default the average cables are what most people use). It may be technically bringing things back up to spec - but the net result is the same - an improvement. 
  
 There is also, of course, no evidence to support either assertion. Provided that you give a cable of sufficient gauge for the load and distance - and don't do anything stupid to massively increase capacitance or inductance (e.g. a deliberately flawed, or poorly made cable) - there is nothing to suggest a difference.


----------



## JamesHuntington

ferday said:


> If special cables don't help, but average cables do harm....wireless?


i don't stream or download with sq in mind, and very rarely for checking out new artists. I don't Bluetooth at all. I like cables, good or average, better than wireless. Can I prove wireless has more distortion in signal than wired, not really. But any music I stream is 320k or worse, and music I play wired is 320k or better, so I say I got wireless beat at minimum. IMO a wireless system worth listening to is more than I want to spend.


----------



## JamesHuntington

liamstrain said:


> This makes zero sense. The inferred corollary to your "average cables will bring down the quality" is that better cables will improve the quality (since by default the average cables are what most people use). It may be technically bringing things back up to spec - but the net result is the same - an improvement.
> 
> There is also, of course, no evidence to support either assertion. Provided that you give a cable of sufficient gauge for the load and distance - and don't do anything stupid to massively increase capacitance or inductance (e.g. a deliberately flawed, or poorly made cable) - there is nothing to suggest a difference.


I give no instance to how much loss or gain for a reason. I just stated my opinion. If anything, stated differently, is that above average cables will not bring down the quality as much as average cables. Your second paragraph I agree for the most part. In the case of extreme myth busting, cables are not going to make a product better than its capacity. They may, though, bring a product to its capacity. But it's hard to gauge this idea without looking at every product individually. Going above a products design capacity with cables is usually accepted as bringing less favorable results.


----------



## SilverEars

Read this advertisement from Schiit Audio, it's pretty funny.  Read the FAQ part.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  It's not like the BS audiofoolish advertisements, they have a sense of humor about it.
  
 http://schiit.com/products/wyrd-usb-decrapifier


----------



## bigshot

jameshuntington said:


> IMO a wireless system worth listening to is more than I want to spend.




Apple Airport


----------



## Yazen

Quote:


jameshuntington said:


> i don't stream or download with sq in mind, and very rarely for checking out new artists. I don't Bluetooth at all. I like cables, good or average, better than wireless. Can I prove wireless has more distortion in signal than wired, not really. But any music I stream is 320k or worse, and music I play wired is 320k or better, so I say I got wireless beat at minimum. IMO a wireless system worth listening to is more than I want to spend.


 
  
 Router
 Computer (HTPC/Embedded device/Desktop/etc)
 DAC/Amp
 Speakers
  
 You probably have everything you need already at home 
  
 I stream high bitrate/lossless audio to and from my home systems using a $5 ASUS router and a Raspberry Pi.


----------



## blades

I've done hundreds of bias controlled listening tests and amplifier tests are by far the most difficult.  Your best bet for level matching is not an SPL meter but rather an AC volt meter and some test tones.  Switching is the problem.  You either need a self operated switch box or someone else to do the switching in a manner that prevents you from knowing which unit is playing at any given time.  I won't write an article here.  The reason amplifiers are so difficult is that you have to repeat the level matching with each iteration of the test and that normally takes too much time to have a valid test.  Or you need two identical systems setup level matched in advance so that you can easily swap the source.  It isn't something you can do casually for curiosity's sake.  That is why so few valid bias controlled tests have been done.  It is a major undertaking.
  
 I can make matters easier for you.  As long as the amplifiers are solid state high fidelity (inaudible noise, distortion and variance from a flat frequency response) units and as long as they are used within their design parameters, they should be indistinguishable in a bias controlled tests.  If they aren't, then something is wrong.with at least one of them.  That doesn't hold true of tube amps, of course.  Most of them have audible noise, distortion and FR variance.  These statements are true regardless of the price of the amplifiers.
  
 If you want audible differences, forget the electronics and deal with the transducers.  They all sound different from another.


----------



## ab initio

transparentholo said:


> Hi All, relatively new here (though lurked around for years)
> 
> I'd like to contribute and try to perform an ABX blind test regarding Schiit Magni vs Lake People G109-S. A $99 amp vs a $500-$600 amp, I can be the guinea pig in this experiment (for my own knowledge and to contribute a blind test, which by most conventional knowledge in audio circles should definitely show a difference between the two amps). Now I've done a few DIY projects before (cmoy's, mini3's etc) with varying success, and i'm looking for a relatively inexpensive way to perform this test. I know I'll need to level match the amps, so I'll need a sound level meter. Additionally I'll need some sort of switcher so that I can toggle between amps, or I suppose have someone else toggle through amps for me.
> 
> ...




Sounds like a cool idea!

For your switching, you need
- a friend
- a switch for connecting amp outputs to single headphone (schiit passive pre could work fine)
- identical looking cables for hooking everything up
- rca splitters to send one source to both amps
- a blanket to hide the sources from the participants
- a multimeter to check outputs

Cheers


----------



## castleofargh

transparentholo said:


> One of the problems I believe I and others have, is though the arguments are convincing, I am not an electrical engineer, and I don't understand a lot of the things being said when you say I should level match with an "AC volt meter" that alone is hard to understand, I will have to research this. For me, In order to show myself that there is no value in high end amps, or that there is value in high end amps, I can't settle for just experience, that's why I want to AB test in some way, even if it's hackneyed, to get myself started in one direction or the other.
> 
> Another problem is testing myself seems to be prohibitively expensive / require experience. There are testers that claim differences in amps (Tyll from InnerFidelity) and testers that claim no difference in amps.
> 
> So I suppose i'm looking for some way to roughly test myself, without breaking a huge amount of bank (on testing equipment), if that makes sense. Even a rough test is satisfactory to me to start me on a path.


 

 the multimeter is ok because volt=loudness. as simple as that. while a sound level meter adds a need to be sure you will at no point move it or your headphone (not that easy when you're plugging and testing)+ the outside noises if you're not in a quiet environment. so in the end peak to peak measurement of a simple frequency is a good usable reading for loudness(just make sure you're close to the listening level you want to use beforehand with the headphone on at least one of the amp ^_^).
  
 tyll measure amps, so obviously there are measurable differences. what's important is to know if the variations are audible or not for you and your headphone, because that's what matters to us humans. and that's why a subjective test like what you want to try is the answer, instead of some more accurate measurements.
  
 and you will need at least one friend. you can bait one to your house with pringles.
  
 also it would be nice to know that your headphone has an overall flat impedance response in case both amps are not with the same impedance values (for small differences it doesn't matter).


----------



## blades

transparentholo said:


> One of the problems I believe I and others have, is though the arguments are convincing, I am not an electrical engineer, and I don't understand a lot of the things being said when you say I should level match with an "AC volt meter" that alone is hard to understand, I will have to research this. For me, In order to show myself that there is no value in high end amps, or that there is value in high end amps, I can't settle for just experience, that's why I want to AB test in some way, even if it's hackneyed, to get myself started in one direction or the other.
> 
> Another problem is testing myself seems to be prohibitively expensive / require experience. There are testers that claim differences in amps (Tyll from InnerFidelity) and testers that claim no difference in amps.
> 
> So I suppose i'm looking for some way to roughly test myself, without breaking a huge amount of bank (on testing equipment), if that makes sense. Even a rough test is satisfactory to me to start me on a path.


 
  
 The best way to match levels is to measure the voltage across the speaker terminals while playing a test tone of 1000 hz or so.  If you are using headphones, then you would measure the voltage at the cable connector.  Set the meter to AC volts and put the probes on the connector.  Very simple. 
  
 The major problem in audio is the existence of hearing bias.  What happens is that people fall prey to expectation.  They expect one unit to sound better than another because it is prettier, or  more expensive or because some magazine writer said it does.  Expectation bias is a self fulfilling prophecy.  The only way to eliminate bias is to use the ABX test you are talking about.  That means the listener has no idea which unit in a comparison is playing at any give time.  Those audible differences caused by bias will disappear and those audible differences caused by the equipment will be real and confirmed.  Because some writer says something sounds better than something else, unfortunately, means nothing at all.  It may be true and it may not be but the writer's saying so is meaningless.  Remember these folks are in the business of entertaining good prose is good entertainment.  To know if one piece of gear has an audible difference from another, the only meaningful method is the blind ABX test.
  
 All amplifiers have different measurements and it is easy to make measurements as long as you have the expensive equipment to do it.  the problem is that not all differences in measurements are audible.  Testing audibility is lot different than testing electrical performance because of hearing bias.
  
 I got started with bias controlled testing when people began claiming that one digital cable "sounded better" than another.  Since it is impossible that a competently made cable can change the values of the data, I knew this was nonsense.  So I did some tests with my wife helping me to determine that I was right.  One thing led to another and I got an audiophile group together to do a bunch of tests of nearly everything hifi.  It is a very boring and very time consuming process and can't be done by oneself.  It always requires help, otherwise you will know which unit is which.  Personally, I would never go through it again.  I learned from it to be sure but it was a hassle.


----------



## Mezzo

Can someone please advise me on something. I've always believed that driving an amplifier at higher levels meant that distortion would increase, even below clipping.
  
 I've also been told by many audiophiles and salesman that it is far better to drive an amp that has power in reserve, so that it is not stressed than one that is running close to its limits. Hence a larger amp would be better, because it can handle the demands easier.
  
 Now for the advise part. What I've recently gathered from other places is that distortion does *not* increase linearly with power output.  Is this true? So if I use an amp that is rated to deliver 100W, and I use 70W, the distortion between say 30W-70W won't be all that different?
  
 If I'm wrong about this then it means that amp headroom doesn't really do anything useful, which goes contrary to what I've learned for years.


----------



## davidsh

It depends solely on the amp! Go to stereophile (I think it is) or something and look up their amp measurements, you'll se distortion vs power plots. 
Often, SS amps will have a little higher distortion At lower outputs, distortion falling as output increases. Then, the distortion will eventually start climbing at some point, and sky-rocket at last (clipping). Try looking up some measurements..


----------



## James-uk

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/130620_AmpMeasurements_PDF_Booklet.pdf

These headphone amp measurements show nicely. Until clipping something like the O2 stays under audible distortion levels.


----------



## SunshineReggae

mezzo said:


> Can someone please advise me on something. I've always believed that driving an amplifier at higher levels meant that distortion would increase, even below clipping.
> 
> I've also been told by many audiophiles and salesman that it is far better to drive an amp that has power in reserve, so that it is not stressed than one that is running close to its limits. Hence a larger amp would be better, because it can handle the demands easier.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yeah, I know that story about headroom. "You can hear the amp's power below the surface, just waiting to be used."
  
 But that is not how amps work. Headroom is basically just power that's not used. There is no point in headroom in and of itself; it doesn't guarantee less distortion or better sound. All you need is sufficient power at the level you listen to at its loudest.
  
 It seems like you think that if the amp has a certain amount of power that it can deliver, then its distortion will fall into a certain range, making it more or less audible. But that's complicating the issue way too much, and approaching the idea of headroom in a very convoluted and unpractical manner (and I don't mean that with any offense at all).


----------



## blades

mezzo said:


> Can someone please advise me on something. I've always believed that driving an amplifier at higher levels meant that distortion would increase, even below clipping.
> 
> I've also been told by many audiophiles and salesman that it is far better to drive an amp that has power in reserve, so that it is not stressed than one that is running close to its limits. Hence a larger amp would be better, because it can handle the demands easier.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yes it is generally true that distortion increases with amplifier output.  In fact power ratings are based on distortion.  Virtually every amp will perform past its full rated output but the distortion then becomes audible.
  
 There is nothing wrong with having reserve power.  Virtually every amplifier has plenty of it.  But 20 watts from a 50 watt amplifier isn't any different from 20 watts from a 200 watt amplifier.  It doesn't cause more stress or heat.  it doesn't sound any different.
  
 The question is not something that cannot be answered without more information.  Let's say that at 70 watts (something you aren't actually likely ever to encounter) your amp might measure a THD figure of 1/10 percent.  At 30 watts it may have 1/100 of a percent distortion.  Neither figure is audible so it isn't an issue.  At 150 watts the amp might be at 2% distortion and you could likely hear that if you concentrated on it.
  
 Headroom is nothing more than unused power.  Let's say that your amplifier dissipates 1/2 watt on average driving speakers of average sensitivity.  That is a pretty typical number.  In order to have the ability to handle a peak SPL that is twice as loud as average, you would need 5 watts of power.  All the power above 1/2 watt is overhead and you would need at leats 5 watts of overhead to avoid distortion on peaks.  So your amplifier may get its average from SPL's ranging from the 5 watt dissipation down to milliwatts.  So headroom is important.  What it is not is complicated.


----------



## castleofargh

well you can dumb it down and see what you need.
 -obviously having not enough "headroom" is a bad idea. we get an amp so it can drive our gears.
 -just enough is a little tricky because as mentioned it's important that the amp has enough for the peaks outputs.(well it's not really tricky, you just need to be careful with the specs they are using for marketing).
 -too much headroom, depending on the amp might lead to noise. troubles fine tuning your volume knob and channel imbalance, if you have too much gain and depending on the volume control, analog, "digital", with steps(pairs of resistors). and a few amps have actually more distortion when being forced to output really low voltage.
  
 so some headroom yes. a shiiiiitload of it, why?


----------



## bigshot

Headroom is only important if a peak comes along that requires it. More headroom isn't better. All you need is enough.


----------



## Hijodelbrx

I understand that theoretically one doesn't need tons of power. But I've always subscribed to that saying; "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it"


----------



## ab initio

hijodelbrx said:


> I understand that theoretically one doesn't need tons of power. But I've always subscribed to that saying; "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it"


 
  
 One could say the same thing about low noise electronics. In this case it reverses whether or not you want 95% unused power for headroom.
  
  
 Cheers


----------



## jcx

you would rather have noise and not need it?


----------



## Hijodelbrx

I have a 100W Music Reference RM9 tube amp, an Audio Research LS15 tube preamp, and Spendor SP100's. The music sounds glorious! The 'noise' you guys are harping about is inaudible. If you're ever in Palm Beach Florida you're welcome to come over and hear for yourself!


----------



## bigshot

Not all tube amps have audible noise or distortion. Some tube amps sound as good as solid state amps.


----------



## blades

bigshot said:


> Not all tube amps have audible noise or distortion. Some tube amps sound as good as solid state amps.


 
  
 Yes, there are a few.  I used to have an Audio Research tube amp that scored no audible difference when compared to a solid state amp.  But there aren't many.


----------



## ab initio

jcx said:


> you would rather have noise and not need it?


 
  
 That's basically what we are debating with 90% headroom amps, no? 




  
 Cheers


----------



## Mezzo

> The best way to match levels is to measure the voltage across the speaker terminals while playing a test tone of 1000 hz or so.  If you are using headphones, then you would measure the voltage at the *cable connector*.  Set the meter to AC volts and put the probes on the connector.  Very simple.


 
  
 It would be great if someone could actually show how this is done, not by words, but with a video. Posted on Youtube, for instance, showing how it's all done.
  
 I would love to be able to level-match my gear, but I wouldn't know where to start. If someone could show how it is done in real time it would help immensely. Problem is, I don't see any videos posted anywhere for this kind of thing, so I imagine most people (layman) will never know how its done.
  
 It's one thing to explain with words, but actions speak louder, if you know what I mean.


----------



## stv014

I do not have a YouTube video, but for measuring the voltage on headphones, if you do not want to solder, you need:
 - a digital multimeter that is capable of measuring AC voltage, and is at least somewhat usable at ~1 kHz (it is not a problem if it e.g. only shows half voltage at that frequency, as long as it does so consistently)
 - a splitter with one female and two male TRS connectors, like this one
 You should then use the splitter as an extension cord (headphones to female connector, one of the male connectors to the amplifier's headphone jack), and the voltage can be measured on the other male connector. Or it can be plugged into a sound card line input, if you are aware of certain caveats regarding the use of sound cards as audio analyzers, and their work-arounds (see here, for example). But for simple level matching, just measure the voltage on the connector with the multimeter:
 - the tip is the left channel
 - the ring (middle part) is the right channel
 - the sleeve is ground (common for both channels)
 As a test signal, you can use a 1 kHz sine wave, which can be generated with a variety of freely available software. If you are matching two amplifiers, adjust the volume knobs until both output the same voltage within 1% error (~0.1 dB), and the volume is also suitable for normal listening. You may also want to check for channel imbalance by measuring both the left and right channels: If it is too different between the amplifiers (this can happen especially at low volume settings), then they could sound different even if the overall level is accurately matched.


----------



## Mezzo

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I am talking about speakers, not headphones. But I think I understand what you are saying and the 1 kHz test signal makes sense. Thanks for the post!
  
 However this :
  


> If it is too different between the amplifiers (this can happen especially at low volume settings), then they could sound different even if the overall level is accurately matched.


 


 So if one measures the left and right channels and there is imbalance then basically there is no way to level-match properly? So the test is basically worthless?
  
 I want to know how to level-match equipment for my own benefit and also if I want to know if I can hear the difference between electronics. I don't have any background or experience in designing listening tests, so I have no idea how to go about this, but I would rather start somewhere and not at all.
  
 Thanks again for the feedback.


----------



## stv014

mezzo said:


> Sorry, I should have been more clear. I am talking about speakers, not headphones. But I think I understand what you are saying and the 1 kHz test signal makes sense.


 
  
 In any case, you need to measure the voltage on the speakers or headphones. This may require DIY cables or connectors, if you do not have a connector (like the splitter recommended for headphones) that makes it possible to access the terminals with a multimeter.
  


> Originally Posted by *Mezzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> So if one measures the left and right channels and there is imbalance then basically there is no way to level-match properly? So the test is basically worthless?


 
  
 Not necessarily if at least one of your speaker amplifiers or receivers has a balance control. Then you can adjust it to match the imbalance of the other device. Another solution that may work is to use different volume settings where the difference is smaller, and change the source volume as well to compensate. With devices that do not use potentiometers, there might not be much imbalance to begin with. It also may not be necessary to match the channel balance as accurately as the overall levels (which can be calculated as the square root of the sum of the squared left and right voltages), but I am not sure what the maximum acceptable amount of error is.


----------



## bigshot

If it's difficult to go to all that trouble, just level match by ear and take your time about it. Then set up a blind test with a friend. A "close as dammit" test is better than no test at all. Everyone should do comparison tests of their equipment to find out what the differences are. Not many people do that, and that is a big reason audiophiles waste money on things that don't make a lick of difference.


----------



## James-uk

bigshot said:


> If it's difficult to go to all that trouble, just level match by ear and take your time about it. Then set up a blind test with a friend. A "close as dammit" test is better than no test at all. Everyone should do comparison tests of their equipment to find out what the differences are. Not many people do that, and that is a big reason audiophiles waste money on things that don't make a lick of difference.




Did this with my dac1 USB vs odac / O2. They sound identical. Both fantastic, transparent amp and dacs. Just shows transparent sound really is measurable . It's nothing to do with who made the components and how expensive they are. They either pass the objective criteria for transparency or they don't. If they do they sound identical. It's good to know that amps and dacs have reached this point and they can never sound any better . My wallet is very happy!


----------



## James-uk

Now we just need the damn sound engineers to make great recordings and so their job properly.


----------



## jcx

they just do what the guy with the money asks for - even if they would rather not
  


jcx said:


> Perceived loudness wins over musical quality
> 
> at a recent talk at a mastering studio we were told that several candidate mixes with differing levels of compression were provided for their projects and the most heavily compressed was always selected by the clients - even after it was explained what the compression was doing to the music and that the world renown mix engineer recommended the lesser compressed mix
> 
> ...


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> If it's difficult to go to all that trouble, just level match by ear and take your time about it. Then set up a blind test with a friend. A "close as dammit" test is better than no test at all. Everyone should do comparison tests of their equipment to find out what the differences are. Not many people do that, and that is a big reason audiophiles waste money on things that don't make a lick of difference.


 
 As has been mentioned to you before, the problem with level matching by ear is that two sources that differ slightly in level can be perceived as having the same exact level, but with the slightly louder one having a better quality. This can be discerned in a double blind test too. If you want to properly compare two components, level matching by ear is not good enough.


----------



## esldude

cjl said:


> As has been mentioned to you before, the problem with level matching by ear is that two sources that differ slightly in level can be perceived as having the same exact level, but with the slightly louder one having a better quality. This can be discerned in a double blind test too. If you want to properly compare two components, level matching by ear is not good enough.


 

 +1.  It is better than nothing, but not really good enough.  Besides using speakers it is simply too simple to do with a voltmeter.
  
 And how closely should it be matched?  Well usually .2 db is considered audible.  Making things simple a 2% voltage difference is just under .2 db (.172 in fact).  So match voltage to within 2% or a touch less.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> As has been mentioned to you before, the problem with level matching by ear is that two sources that differ slightly in level can be perceived as having the same exact level, but with the slightly louder one having a better quality. This can be discerned in a double blind test too. If you want to properly compare two components, level matching by ear is not good enough.


 
 Unfortunately true.
  
 Why unfortunately ? Volume control, be it digital or analog, gets troublesome below 0.5 dB "steps". And , again unfortunately, requires quite a lot of $. Most of the time
 one has to work without a reference tone for level ( like 1 kHz sine wave at specified level ) - and even if this reference tone is available, matching within 1% or its equivalent of 0.1 dB requires an oscilloscope ( 1% requires periodically calibrated/certified scope - or else scope inaccuracies will lead to incorrect matching ) or a good RMS voltage meter.
  
 Nothing impossible, but pricey - to the point that even rather big studios do not use level matching to within 0.1 dB or less. 
  
 Level matching by ear is sensitive down to approx 0.2 dB - which is also the amount of error in level caused by various conversions among different digital forms of recording. On one set of digital hardware it is possiblle to make/normalize a  0 dB peak recording - that same file will produce clipping by approx 0.2 dB with another software and/or hardware. That 0.2 dB is also audible - but only if you work with these low level differences for extended periods of time, like during editing.
  
 So the trouble is that both hearing and measuring becomes iffy below 0.2 dB difference - possible, but costly.


----------



## esldude

analogsurviver said:


> Unfortunately true.
> 
> Why unfortunately ? Volume control, be it digital or analog, gets troublesome below 0.5 dB "steps". And , again unfortunately, requires quite a lot of $. Most of the time
> one has to work without a reference tone for level ( like 1 kHz sine wave at specified level ) - and even if this reference tone is available, matching within 1% or its equivalent of 0.1 dB requires an oscilloscope ( 1% requires periodically calibrated/certified scope - or else scope inaccuracies will lead to incorrect matching ) or a good RMS voltage meter.
> ...


 
 Uhhhhh.....no.  Not really.
  
 If it works out that .5 db is close as you can get, then get that close.  Depends on the particulars of what you are comparing and how of course.  But with analog volume controls it is touchy, but possible to get very close.  Much digital gear is also cable of .1 db adjustments these days.  But even take a hypothetical like comparing two things and your digital volume control is only good in .5 db steps.  The two items aren't exactly .5 db different (if they were you could match them).  Being less than .5 db different or more than .5 db different means you will have the chance to match volume between the two at something for sure less than .5 db.  On average you might expect .25 db though it could be anywhere between 0 and .5 db.  Most test files can be done with at least 1 db of headroom so the little processing artifacts of DSP causing a level to clip aren't an issue.  So I am not sure why you would push the idea such matching will usually cost lots of money.  If worse comes to worse there are free digital sound editors that can adjust volume of digital files in a thousandth of a db or less with no artifacts worth worrying about.  Nor will you need more than a reliable AC voltmeter.  Plenty of them under $50 are good enough for matching a 1 khz tone.   Sure it may be 5% off in the reading, but they are usually a consistent 5% and consistency is the main thing for this sort of matching.
  
 So very possible and inexpensive.


----------



## bigshot

cjl said:


> As has been mentioned to you before, the problem with level matching by ear is that two sources that differ slightly in level can be perceived as having the same exact level, but with the slightly louder one having a better quality. This can be discerned in a double blind test too. If you want to properly compare two components, level matching by ear is not good enough.


 
  
 It doesn't apply if you're looking for very subtle differences, but if you are looking for clear differences, it's good enough. I don't sweat the little stuff. I'm looking for significant improvements. There are better uses for my time than worrying about things that I can barely hear in a rough comparison.


----------



## James-uk

bigshot said:


> It doesn't apply if you're looking for very subtle differences, but if you are looking for clear differences, it's good enough. I don't sweat the little stuff. I'm looking for significant improvements. There are better uses for my time than worrying about things that I can barely hear in a rough comparison.




It's great to read rational posts like this.


----------



## analogsurviver

esldude said:


> Uhhhhh.....no.  Not really.
> 
> If it works out that .5 db is close as you can get, then get that close.  Depends on the particulars of what you are comparing and how of course.  But with analog volume controls it is touchy, but possible to get very close.  Much digital gear is also cable of .1 db adjustments these days.  But even take a hypothetical like comparing two things and your digital volume control is only good in .5 db steps.  The two items aren't exactly .5 db different (if they were you could match them).  Being less than .5 db different or more than .5 db different means you will have the chance to match volume between the two at something for sure less than .5 db.  On average you might expect .25 db though it could be anywhere between 0 and .5 db.  Most test files can be done with at least 1 db of headroom so the little processing artifacts of DSP causing a level to clip aren't an issue.  So I am not sure why you would push the idea such matching will usually cost lots of money.  If worse comes to worse there are free digital sound editors that can adjust volume of digital files in a thousandth of a db or less with no artifacts worth worrying about.  Nor will you need more than a reliable AC voltmeter.  Plenty of them under $50 are good enough for matching a 1 khz tone.   Sure it may be 5% off in the reading, but they are usually a consistent 5% and consistency is the main thing for this sort of matching.
> 
> So very possible and inexpensive.


 
 I do not agree with that inexpensive part. Simply look at the prices for analog potentiometers that are specified at anything approaching 0.2 dB across at least 60 dB
 range. I agree that reliable AC voltmeter can be had for 50$ and that its absolute accuracy is not required for consistent result of matching we need.
  
 Problem is that for the most part I DO NOT WANT digital volume control - as it means DSP and that means PCM. Even if it is accurate to within 0.000000.....1 dB.
 Not on analog sources and not on DSD. Which brings us back to quality analog potentiometer$ / attenuator$. And THESE can be source of trouble - by the time they are "good enough", that means money. 
  
 The first stupid thing any analog volume control device must avoid like a pleague is - microphonics. Unfortunately anything but trivial and taken for granted to be free from it.
  
 It is fair to say that multichannel ( > 2 ) equipment can not be built with analog potentiometers ( differences become practically unmenageable, with the po$$ible exception of attenuator$$$ ) - but for all practical purposes, multichannel is already in PCM and yet another PCM stage will do no additional audible harm in such a system.


----------



## esldude

analogsurviver said:


> I do not agree with that inexpensive part. Simply look at the prices for analog potentiometers that are specified at anything approaching 0.2 dB across at least 60 dB
> range. I agree that reliable AC voltmeter can be had for 50$ and that its absolute accuracy is not required for consistent result of matching we need.
> 
> Problem is that for the most part I DO NOT WANT digital volume control - as it means DSP and that means PCM. Even if it is accurate to within 0.000000.....1 dB.
> ...


 

 Well I can't do anything about an irrational fear of DSP or PCM processing.  I would imagine that is an issue for a small minority of people.  Most sources these days are going to be digital.  By your own description digital volume bypasses issues of consistency, microphonics and fineness of control. 
  
 If you wanted something better in analog control you can go with switched resistors.  It is a problem created by eschewing digital processes.


----------



## analogsurviver

esldude said:


> Well I can't do anything about an irrational fear of DSP or PCM processing.  I would imagine that is an issue for a small minority of people.  Most sources these days are going to be digital.
> 
> If you wanted something better in analog control you can go with switched resistors.  It is a problem created by eschewing digital processes.


 
 Unfortunately, it is not an irrational fear.  Otherwise, all analog recorders and tapes to feed them would have long ago become relatives of the Dodo. Yet at least rell to reel tapes made comeback - not en masse as in the past, but there was sufficient demand to warrant current production of tapes. Slowly digital is approaching the overall quality of analog tape - and it eventually should become able of eclipsing it. Yet analog recordings  to sound as original would require perfect (digital) recorder - no such thing yet; almost, but almost never catches a rabbit.
  
 Switched resistors are unfortunately quite prone to microphonics - I had more than one rude awakening due to this in the past. What good is level perfectly matched if volume control "sings" along with the real tune ?
  
 There is a reason why some manufacturers insist on carbon potentiometers for audio - although plastic on paper looks better and is guaranteed to last much longer. Even if it means replacing the carbon potentiometer(s) every now an then.
  
 The reason is simple - sound.


----------



## bigshot

None of that matters. Listen with your ears with your brain turned on. Those who are too crazy to do that can feel free to disregard this advice.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver and his fight for endangered species ^_^.
  reel to reel tapes are found in all kind and all qualities, most of them have sadly poor crosstalk(but you're used to that with vinyls already right?), then I guess it depends on the speed used, as basically the faster you go the more you can put on it. but I'm not sure bringing in anything analog is a good way to make a point about how to measure an output.
  
  what about the readability scale limit on analog multimeter? at least having a digital screen is for sure a more precise way to get a value than looking at a needle.
  
 I have no problem with you making your own choices or enjoying "analog" systems more. or simply enjoying going from one system to another. but please check the amplitude of the problems instead of using the eternal "analog is the only real stuff" gimmick based on your obsessive love for analog. this universal statement works only in theory as no physical support is actually free from discrete limitations. so in effect there is no such thing as real analog audio and thus it's superiority has to be demonstrated with a little more than "it's analog".


----------



## bigshot

Analogue smells better. I love the smell of burning dust in the morning... it smells like... VICTORY!


----------



## James-uk

castleofargh said:


> analogsurviver and his fight for endangered species ^_^.
> reel to reel tapes are found in all kind and all qualities, most of them have sadly poor crosstalk(but you're used to that with vinyls already right?), then I guess it depends on the speed used, as basically the faster you go the more you can put on it. but I'm not sure bringing in anything analog is a good way to make a point about how to measure an output.
> 
> what about the readability scale limit on analog multimeter? at least having a digital screen is for sure a more precise way to get a value than looking at a needle.
> ...




It's sad that some folks are desperately clinging on to aspects of this debate because they are scared that, actually, all the effort they have been through in the past to obtain quality sound will be and is void. Digital and solid state have moved things past the point of what our ears and brain can distinguish as being perfect. It's almost like an elitist thing. It's like they don't want the masses to be able to enjoy hifi so they need to keep making stuff up to keep the way the listen exclusive some how . ultimately I don't care because I've opened my eyes and accept that my source /d-a conversion / amp are all transparent . It doesn't get better than this . It never will in terms of 2 channel stereo . The only thing that I need to change in the future in my rig is the headphones if I want a better/different sound. Until then I can maybe use eq if I please.


----------



## blades

analogsurviver said:


> The reason is simple - sound.


 
  
 Oh no! Now potentiometers have a sound.  I though we had reached the end of the road with hard drive cables.


----------



## cjl

It actually can be somewhat expensive (as passive electronic components go, not as audio gear goes) to get a good quality potentiometer that has minimal channel imbalance across a wide range of settings and that is silent when adjusting volume. Somehow, I doubt that's what analogsurviver was referring to though...


----------



## analogsurviver

blades said:


> Oh no! Now potentiometers have a sound.  I though we had reached the end of the road with hard drive cables.


 
 Yes, they do. And luckily carbon potentiometers are among the least expensive possibilities.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> It actually can be somewhat expensive (as passive electronic components go, not as audio gear goes) to get a good quality potentiometer that has minimal channel imbalance across a wide range of settings and that is silent when adjusting volume. Somehow, I doubt that's what analogsurviver was referring to though...


 
 Yes, that was EXACTLY what I was reffering to - cheap cheerful carbon potentiometer that does sound good but lacks ( minimal imabalance across say at least 60 dB of volume setting, is repeatable, that does not noise during adjustment ...) - can be quite cheap - the ones that do have the above qualities are another song entirely:
  
 http://www.hificollective.co.uk/components/potentiometers.html
  
 With careful shopping, one can save some % - but it unfortunately is in this general ballpark. Even if you can get 50% off the prices from the above link, it still is expensive. And you are ALWAYS limited by the physical size if replacing an inferior stock ( or worn ) potentiometer in existing equipment -  if it can not be physically accomodated, you can not use it, no matter how alluring specs it might have otherwise.
  
 Still wondering why potentiometers/switches of this quality are extremely rarely used in commercially available equipment ?


----------



## analogsurviver

james-uk said:


> It's sad that some folks are desperately clinging on to aspects of this debate because they are scared that, actually, all the effort they have been through in the past to obtain quality sound will be and is void. Digital and solid state have moved things past the point of what our ears and brain can distinguish as being perfect. It's almost like an elitist thing. It's like they don't want the masses to be able to enjoy hifi so they need to keep making stuff up to keep the way the listen exclusive some how . ultimately I don't care because I've opened my eyes and accept that my source /d-a conversion / amp are all transparent . It doesn't get better than this . It never will in terms of 2 channel stereo . The only thing that I need to change in the future in my rig is the headphones if I want a better/different sound. Until then I can maybe use eq if I please.


 
 The last thing I want is some elitist club, something unfortunately very present in audio. But I do strive for the minimal requirements that will do the trick - and unfortunately that can still not be made inexpesively. There is always possible to supass this level of "required" price at least an order of magnitude, by so caled audiophools things ( face plates thick enough to form an armor plate, VERY exotic connectors and cables, etc ) that bring very little, if anything, in sound quality.
  
 Things eventually trickle down - and within reasonable period of time, what is today cutting edge SOTA at prohibitive price, is likely to get within the grasp of broader public. Specially with digital this is possible and is actually occuring. Analog will unfortunately never be able to follow suit - precision manufactured superb stylus of a phono cartridge will unfortunately never be inexpensive.
  
 I agree regarding the headphones - even the least expensive electronic component will likely exceed the quality of even the best available headphones.  Which is not to say that everything that precedes these headphones is irrelevant - far from it.


----------



## bigshot

There is absolutely no reason to spend a lot of money on players or amps. Midrange equipment performs as well as expensive stuff to human ears. Headphones and speakers are a different matter. There, to get the best sound, you have to pay a bit. But the most important way of getting great sound is pretty much free... proper EQ settings for your transducer/room.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> The last thing I want is some elitist club, something unfortunately very present in audio. But I do strive for the minimal requirements that will do the trick - and unfortunately that can still not be made inexpesively.


 
   
But that's the fascinating thing - all current evidence (and by "evidence", I mean studies on human auditory capability, proper double blinded, level-matched tests, and similar sorts of things) indicates that for DACs, sources, cables, file formats, bit rates, amplifiers, and the like, you can absolutely pass that minimum level fairly inexpensively. The only area where there are still clear audible flaws at nearly any price level is the transducer itself, which is why any reasonable system should be primarily focused on the speakers or headphones (and, in the case of speakers, room correction and treatment is important too). Throwing huge wads of cash at esoteric file formats, garden-hose sized cables, and gigantic, gold-plated amplifiers is an exercise in futility.


----------



## ferday

bigshot said:


> There is absolutely no reason to spend a lot of money on players or amps. Midrange equipment performs as well as expensive stuff to human ears. Headphones and speakers are a different matter. There, to get the best sound, you have to pay a bit. But the most important way of getting great sound is pretty much free... proper EQ settings for your transducer/room.




I'll never understand why EQ is so demonized. Precision software parametrics, and near flawless DSP's are readily available for cheap (or free) and make a huge difference

I use JRiver which is $20/year roughly. I thought it was dumb to pay for software (I happen to like it a lot) until I spent some time here at headfi and realized people think nothing of buying a $500 amp to change the sound ever so slightly (synergy!) when the excellent DSP and EQ I have access to with JRiver will provide me with that same "synergy" and so, so much more. 

It can be done for free with foobar as well, so there you go....get a good quality tube emulator plugin and save your $500 for your transducer fund or some room treatment (which is sadly lacking even in many audiophile hi fi setups)


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> There is absolutely no reason to spend a lot of money on players or amps. Midrange equipment performs as well as expensive stuff to human ears. Headphones and speakers are a different matter. There, to get the best sound, you have to pay a bit. But the most important way of getting great sound is pretty much free... proper EQ settings for your transducer/room.


 
 I agree regarding the proper equalization - the first thing we notice is deviations from frequency response, next comes noise, only then come nonlinear distortions - provided all of these are within reasonable and not catastrophic limits.
  
 With headphones, strange things have started to happen. There are $ 60-ish  IEMs that completely defy you have to pay a substantial amount for headphones; but generally this still hold true.
  
 Although "players" and amps contribute less, they are audible - even with $ 60-ish ( but good ) IEMs ...


----------



## SilverEars

Has anybody measured the DAC's output with EQ setting?  How do they look?


----------



## analogsurviver

ferday said:


> I'll never understand why EQ is so demonized. Precision software parametrics, and near flawless DSP's are readily available for cheap (or free) and make a huge difference
> 
> I use JRiver which is $20/year roughly. I thought it was dumb to pay for software (I happen to like it a lot) until I spent some time here at headfi and realized people think nothing of buying a $500 amp to change the sound ever so slightly (synergy!) when the excellent DSP and EQ I have access to with JRiver will provide me with that same "synergy" and so, so much more.
> 
> It can be done for free with foobar as well, so there you go....get a good quality tube emulator plugin and save your $500 for your transducer fund or some room treatment (which is sadly lacking even in many audiophile hi fi setups)


 
 Well then you never had the "privilege" to use "an average, usually graphic" analog equalizer - or a superb sample of the same breed, preferably parametric..  The first one usually throws a blanket over sound - diminishing the quality to the level one is usually not interested in positive atributes it brings to the table.  The second one definitely outweighs any detrimental effects it may still have with what it does correctly. Yet it is still feared/cursed/definitely-not-kosher-to-use-it - whereas using (some) tube amps with deliberately designed non linear response for much the same but limited and unadjustable frequency response *is* kosher. There also are well designed tube amps that do not change their response as a function of the speaker attached.
  
 I agree that software DSP PCM equalizers can be quite good - and certainly better than none. Did not test J River EQ yet, but what is available in Foobar2000 is only for rough corrections. There is quite a few parametric EQ softwares available - even their free versions are quite usable. But really useful parametric EQ is usually payable. It still is - and will remain to be - DSP and PCM. 
  
 But before everything else - try to do as much as you reasonably can with room treatment. And hope not to find a notch of - 18 dB at approx 60 Hz as with my friend's - there is no amplifier and no loudspeaker that can compensate for this much of an error without severe overload/distortion; even if your hardware or virtual EQ can .


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> But before everything else - try to do as much as you reasonably can with room treatment. And hope not to find a notch of - 18 dB at approx 60 Hz as with my friend's - there is no amplifier and no loudspeaker that can compensate for this much of an error without severe overload/distortion; even if your hardware or virtual EQ can .


 
 I still maintain that your fear/distrust of PCM is completely unfounded, but I won't dwell on that. As far as this point goes though? I've yet to find a notch that deep that couldn't be solved by changing around the speaker positioning. It can be a fairly labor intensive process though, and the best spot for sound (especially for the sub) may not be the best spot for aesthetics, and in some difficult cases, two subs can be required to get a really good in-room response. Any time there's that kind of a problem though, you should always try repositioning your equipment before just trying to EQ it out.


----------



## ferday

analogsurviver said:


> Well then you never had the "privilege" to use "an average, usually graphic" analog equalizer - or a superb sample of the same breed, preferably parametric..  The first one usually throws a blanket over sound - diminishing the quality to the level one is usually not interested in positive atributes it brings to the table.  The second one definitely outweighs any detrimental effects it may still have with what it does correctly. Yet it is still feared/cursed/definitely-not-kosher-to-use-it - whereas using (some) tube amps with deliberately designed non linear response for much the same but limited and unadjustable frequency response *is* kosher. There also are well designed tube amps that do not change their response as a function of the speaker attached.


 
  
 i sold my kenwood ge7030 'graphic parametric' hardware EQ.  it didn't do anything better (or worse) than my software parametric, and as i listen pretty well 100% PCM these days it was a pointless taker of space and the flashing lights pissed me off while watching movies.  i personally have zero interest in physical / analog media, although i have a great respect for those who do.  i have nothing at all against tubes, in fact i'm saving up for a tube amp just to play with as i like tweaking stuff
  


> I still maintain that your fear/distrust of PCM is completely unfounded, but I won't dwell on that. As far as this point goes though? I've yet to find a notch that deep that couldn't be solved by changing around the speaker positioning. It can be a fairly labor intensive process though, and the best spot for sound (especially for the sub) may not be the best spot for aesthetics, and in some difficult cases, two subs can be required to get a really good in-room response. Any time there's that kind of a problem though, you should always try repositioning your equipment before just trying to EQ it out.


 
  
 it's funny how many "purists" are still afraid of subwoofers and/or multi-channel, just because it isn't easy to do properly. one should always room correct first; EQ after (then probably more room correct, then more EQ LOL then one has an official new hobby)


----------



## castleofargh

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Well then you never had the "privilege" to use "an average, usually graphic" analog equalizer - or a superb sample of the same breed, preferably parametric..  The first one usually throws a blanket over sound - diminishing the quality to the level one is usually not interested in positive atributes it brings to the table.  The second one definitely outweighs any detrimental effects it may still have with what it does correctly.


 
 ok what's going on here?
 first I see Tyll (innerfidelity) say that a beat solo is excelent, and now you're saying that a parametric EQ is better than something analog!!!!!!


----------



## esldude

silverears said:


> Has anybody measured the DAC's output with EQ setting?  How do they look?


 

 Not sure what exactly you are asking.  But it looks fine with whatever EQ has been applied being apparent in the response.
  
 Just one of many possible examples, I have used a microphone preamp to record LP's digitally into an AD converter at 48khz/24 bit.  Then do the RIAA reverse EQ digitally.  This is a very nice way to create digital copies of LP.


----------



## SilverEars

The FR of the DAC measured with EQ applied.  If the FR is similar to the EQ represented on the user interface.  I've seen this for DAPs, but it was for harware bass boost or Cowon BBE affects.  Here is measurement done on Cowon P1.


----------



## esldude

silverears said:


> The FR of the DAC measured with EQ applied.  If the FR is similar to the EQ represented on the user interface.  I've seen this for DAPs, but it was for harware bass boost or Cowon BBE affects.  Here is measurement done on Cowon P1.


 
 All of that will depend on the device and software used.  There is no reason the software prescribed EQ will differ from actual output in most cases.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> ok what's going on here?
> first I see Tyll (innerfidelity) say that a beat solo is excelent, and now you're saying that a parametric EQ is better than something analog!!!!!!


 
 Correction - meant was in the first place *analog *parametric EQ (please see my profile, there were/are such things ). I wish I could lay my hands on 10 band Technics Parametric EQ model; it was rare and expensive back then, it is even rarer and more expensive today. 
  
 There is a reason why - after they say *sigh* - do you really need an EQ ? - the answer will be Technics Parametric - on whichever site/forum/etc. Unless we start talking really silly money, like Mark Levinson's Cello Pallette Class A EQs, which reportedly sound even better. *Slightly* out of my financial reach ...
  
 If the above is not available, then I would reach for parametric virtual EQ. Or if it really takes so many bands to exceed the possibilities offered by my analog EQ - but more than five major "oopsy-daisy"s cause an alarm and hint that the transducer may require replacement. That is as far as the acoustics of the room/ headphone EQ is concerned.
  
 As far as fine EQing of masters go, there is a reason for 1/3rd octave EQs with around +-3 dB max correction, all action usually around 1 dB or less.
  
 And yes, some inexpensive headphones are indeed starting to achieve excellent results - much better than models of pretty high price just a couple of years ago. No experience with Beats Solo, but Havi B3 Pro 1 ( Chinese IEM, has its own thread here on HF for 5 months now ) has one hell of a performance - at any price, not just at its $ 60-ish level.


----------



## SilverEars

esldude said:


> All of that will depend on the device and software used.  There is no reason the software prescribed EQ will differ from actual output in most cases.


 
 I also would like to see headphones measurements in conjunction with EQ change, and DAC output measurements.


----------



## esldude

silverears said:


> I also would like to see headphones measurements in conjunction with EQ change, and DAC output measurements.


 

 For the most part there is no point or need.  A DAC with flat response will accurately output any EQ changes to the signal.  A headphone amp should accurately portray those changes as well.  Now excessive EQ could overdrive the amp and cause clipping or high distortion.  It also could do that for the headphone itself.  Within reason, any EQ will get correctly transmitted out to the headphone response within the limits of the headphone.


----------



## bigshot

I have a third octave Rane analogue graphic equalizer that is pretty close to perfect. It cost a bit though.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> I still maintain that your fear/distrust of PCM is completely unfounded, but I won't dwell on that. As far as this point goes though? I've yet to find a notch that deep that couldn't be solved by changing around the speaker positioning. It can be a fairly labor intensive process though, and the best spot for sound (especially for the sub) may not be the best spot for aesthetics, and in some difficult cases, two subs can be required to get a really good in-room response. Any time there's that kind of a problem though, you should always try repositioning your equipment before just trying to EQ it out.


 
 Well, most people here operate within given fact - a recording, most usually in PCM. Compare that to analog mic feed and you will start to understand - once in PCM or even worse,  redbook CD, you can DSP almost ad nuseaum, without any further loss of quality - but what you are starting with looks like a brick, was homologized and pastuerized to certain % of milk fat ( where the hell is cheese then coming from ?  ) - in short, what comes out of that brick ( Tetrapack, no idea how it is called in the USA ) will never have the thick yellow-ish cream on top after it is cooked as in real milk in mountains - period. The real milk with nothing skimmed off may well be "too strong" for the urban person, who may well react negatively to it - yet it is the REAL thing. It has its odor, smell, which IS different from one pasture to another - it is not skimmed  down to something like 0.5% or less milk fat where it becomes almost water - and that should be odorless.
  
 Similar with music and recordings. Was that distrust/fear expressed clear enough? When did you last experience "yellow-ish cream with distinct odor/smell" - in milk - or music ? 
  
 I completely agree regarding the acoustics, aesthetics and requirements for two subs in difficult cases - one should try to arrange all of these so not to require EQ at all. How much is this possible in real life is another story .


----------



## bigshot

All of that has everything to do with the application of the tools and nothing to do with the tools themselves. A good engineer can easily get great sound with digital audio, equalization, etc. As the old saying goes... A bad craftsman blames his tools.


----------



## esldude

analogsurviver said:


> Well, most people here operate within given fact - a recording, most usually in PCM. Compare that to analog mic feed and you will start to understand - once in PCM or even worse,  redbook CD, you can DSP almost ad nuseaum, without any further loss of quality - but what you are starting with looks like a brick, was homologized and pastuerized to certain % of milk fat ( where the hell is cheese then coming from ?  ) - in short, what comes out of that brick ( Tetrapack, no idea how it is called in the USA ) will never have the thick yellow-ish cream on top after it is cooked as in real milk in mountains - period. The real milk with nothing skimmed off may well be "too strong" for the urban person, who may well react negatively to it - yet it is the REAL thing. It has its odor, smell, which IS different from one pasture to another - it is not skimmed  down to something like 0.5% or less milk fat where it becomes almost water - and that should be odorless.
> 
> Similar with music and recordings. Was that distrust/fear expressed clear enough? When did you last experience "yellow-ish cream with distinct odor/smell" - in milk - or music ?
> 
> I completely agree regarding the acoustics, aesthetics and requirements for two subs in difficult cases - one should try to arrange all of these so not to require EQ at all. How much is this possible in real life is another story .


 

 Disregarding the babble about milk, I have heard the analog mic feed and the PCM versions.  Sounds the same to me.
  
 PCM is transparent in audible terms.  It simply is.  People proclaim otherwise, but all available rational evidence says it is.  Further one can digitize LP, and reel tape and get a result indistinguishable from the original.  Indicating the PCM process is transparent to those sources.


----------



## analogsurviver

esldude said:


> For the most part there is no point or need.  A DAC with flat response will accurately output any EQ changes to the signal.  A headphone amp should accurately portray those changes as well.  Now excessive EQ could overdrive the amp and cause clipping or high distortion.  It also could do that for the headphone itself.  Within reason, any EQ will get correctly transmitted out to the headphone response within the limits of the headphone.


 
 +1. 
  
 Only if it was not meant _acoustical _output measured with microphone/ear coupler/dummy head after the EQ has been applied - and how it compares to unequalized output. 
  
 DAC alone should not have any audible deviation from flat.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> All of that has everything to do with the application of the tools and nothing to do with the tools themselves. A good engineer can easily get great sound with digital audio, equalization, etc. As the old saying goes... A bad craftsman blames his tools.


 
 Partly agreed. Theorethically perfect equipment applied poorly will yield worse result than inferiour equipment applied excelently.
  
 Then again - one can apply all the expertize in the world, if data acquisition provides only so much info, it can not record what is not provided in the first place.


----------



## Mezzo

This might be a silly question but can amplifiers affect pace, rythm and timing of music? I've heard the term PRAT being thown around on audiophile forums.
  
 Is there any part of an amplifier that could possibly affect things like this, or is it totally bullcrap? My first thought is how can amplifiers change the timing and rhythm of music since it is a factor of the music, right?


----------



## castleofargh

mezzo said:


> This might be a silly question but can amplifiers affect pace, rythm and timing of music? I've heard the term PRAT being thown around on audiophile forums.
> 
> Is there any part of an amplifier that could possibly affect things like this, or is it totally bullcrap? My first thought is how can amplifiers change the timing and rhythm of music since it is a factor of the music, right?


 

 not satisfied with the answers on hydrogen?


----------



## liamstrain

Not really. You can inadvertently (or purposefully) affect the frequency response to roll off highs, or emphasize bass somewhat - and of course, impedance mis-matches can have all sorts of effects (flabby bass, etc.) - and harmonic distortion can seem to smooth things out by introducing artifacts... but actually change the pace, rhythm, timing? No.


----------



## analogsurviver

mezzo said:


> This might be a silly question but can amplifiers affect pace, rythm and timing of music? I've heard the term PRAT being thown around on audiophile forums.
> 
> Is there any part of an amplifier that could possibly affect things like this, or is it totally bullcrap? My first thought is how can amplifiers change the timing and rhythm of music since it is a factor of the music, right?


 
 In a competently designed amplifier, no. 
  
 However, if frequency response is not extended enough beyond and below the officially accepted 20-20k limits,
 it can have affect. More serious is defect in power supply - if it is modulated by the audio signal at ANY frequency, but particularly within 20-20k, it can have an effect on the so called PRAT. This also goes for particular points within the circuit that should be stable - not just main + - after the rectifiers and main capacitors.


----------



## bigshot

PRaT is complete hogwash. It's a does have a useful purpose though. It helps you sort out audiophile equipment reviewers who don't know what they're talking about.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> PRaT is complete hogwash. It's a does have a useful purpose though. It helps you sort out audiophile equipment reviewers who don't know what they're talking about.


 

 I was thinking just that, almost everytime a reviewer talks about PRAT he's in fact talking about the shape of the FR in the bass(or simply dreams the dream like they often do). often rolled off bass are called fast and controled with a great PRAT ^_^.
 in a way it's true, if you don't don't hear 30 or 40hz as loud, you hear more of the faster frequencies


----------



## nick_charles

analogsurviver said:


> In a competently designed amplifier, no.
> 
> However, if frequency response is not extended enough beyond and below the officially accepted 20-20k limits,
> 
> ...


----------



## Roly1650

bigshot said:


> PRaT is complete hogwash. It's a does have a useful purpose though. It helps you sort out audiophile equipment reviewers who don't know what they're talking about.



PRaT was an invention of the UK Hi-Fi press in the late '70's/early '80's, when they spent their time fawning over the whole Linn/Naim mantra of "it's not the measurements stupid, they tell you nothing". A dam broke, leading to the purely anecdotal reviewing/subjective assessment bandwagon we've got.


----------



## analogsurviver

nick_charles said:


>


 
 Well, it may well sound confusing at first - but really it isn't.  I am not fond of the term PRAT in the first place, but will offer my view on what might also be termed as PRAT.
  
 Frequency response of any electronic , if not perfect ( DC to light ), is at its corners (defined as -3dB points in frequency response ) actually *delayed *in relation to input signal - and that delay definitely IS audible. Only the midrange is on spot regarding time or phase or whichever way one wants to describe it - at both low and high end of the response the deviations are ever greater.  No response at certain frequencies means they were delayed - forever. The narrower the response, the more in time the output deviates from the original sound wave - despite being more than satisfactory in amplitude . This effect also can be "lumped" into PRAT.
  
 I agree that IM distortion can be a problem in wideband amplifiers. In competently designed amps/preamps it is NOT an issue - as a matter of fact, well designed wideband amps have usually lower IMD figures. However, higher up, usually well beyond 20 kHz, _*sources *_, be it analog or digital, can have significant spurious output;
 if the high frequency part of the end transducer, be it headphone or speaker, is behaving well above 20 kHz, say at least to 40 kHz, usually there are no ill effects due to IMD.
 We used to have an entire chain, from analog source to speaker, capable of essentially flat/useful response past 100 kHz. Then CD happened... - and 20 years after that, when SACD arrived, manufacturers were reinventing the wheel by boasting their amps can (again) reproduce 100 kHz. ...
  
 Regarding "points" : one can measure only input and output of an amplifier ad nuseaum, it may well have superb measured values on all the standard measurements ( FR, S/N, THD, IMD ) - yet it can not sound "right" and will be sonically beaten by amps that measure worse - sometimes FAR worse. 
 What is required is to go trough an entire amp and see where the "bottlenecks" are. There are, as usually, tradeoffs - be it actual design tradeoff, cost or simple decision by the manufacturer to offer different quality at different price points - despite the fact that it would cost not much more or no money to let the circuit be utilized to the full potential. Much of the Mark 1 trough Mark XY game can be "accused giulty as charged" on this count; manufacturers are usually only willing to up the ante to the approximate level of the competition, not the full potential of the circuit. Sad, but true.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> I was thinking just that, almost everytime a reviewer talks about PRAT he's in fact talking about the shape of the FR in the bass(or simply dreams the dream like they often do). often rolled off bass are called fast and controled with a great PRAT ^_^.
> in a way it's true, if you don't don't hear 30 or 40hz as loud, you hear more of the faster frequencies


 
 Actually, the OPPOSITE is true. 
  
 Any piece of electronics that limits low frequency response will sound LOUDER in the bass than truly well extended or ultimately DC capable equipment. This is VERY difficult to explain to an average and not-so-average listener. Significantly more than 90 % of all the audio equipment unfurtunately belongs to the limited LF response group - hence it de facto became the standard and all equipment is measured against.
 Greater extension in the bass should mean louder bass - right ?
  
*WRONG.*
  
*A* truly neutral and well extended in LF electronics (say - 3 dB @ 2 Hz or lower) will have a far more _*precise*_ bass - but not exaggerated in any way,. And definitely QUIETER than limited LF counterparts.  Regardless what headphone or speaker is being driven ( save those that have "no" bass to begin with ).  One could also term this as a part of the PRAT mantra.
  
 The full effect is achieved with truly great bass transducers - if loudspeakers, these have to be used in a LARGE room, considerably so than the usual rooms most people use for listening; 20 Hz has an wavelenght of 17 metres, what should be 3D diagonal of the listening room - meaning that leaves most of us with headphones to explore LF.
  
 One of the most revealing instruments for realism both in bass and TREBLE ( and everything in between ) is acoustic bass. Both in recording and in reproduction.
 It is perhaps the best instrument to use for testing of "PRAT" - whatever one understands under this term. It will ruthlessly reveal any LF or HF limiting - and is something what redbook CD will never get right, due to the lack of the HF extension. Again, please listen to the acoustic bass live - particularly plucked strings.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking just that, almost everytime a reviewer talks about PRAT he's in fact talking about the shape of the FR in the bass(or simply dreams the dream like they often do). often rolled off bass are called fast and controled with a great PRAT ^_^.
> ...


 

 I was talking about perceived "speed" not loudness. as more sub bass can feel like "slower" bass. and by extension some mistaking rolled off bass for great PRAT. at least that's how I understood the few reviews where it's mentioned and I was lucky to have auditioned the product.
  
 about more extension in bass not sounding louder, I kind of agree. and my own theory that I'm very not sure at all about, is as follows:
 -when we have several sine waves at several frequencies we kind of hear a mix of those as one tone. so with that idea extending the low frequencies would move that one perceived tone lower (if the lowest of the 3 sine moves to a lower freq, the perceived tone sounds lower).
 - then I through fletcher munson in the mix and I come up with some kind of not super scientific intuition that pushing the perceived tone lower will sound quieter.
 then I enforce that theory with very little confidence with music being but a lot of sine waves "et voila!"
 even to me it looks like nyan cat science but I couldn't imagine better reason.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> I was talking about perceived "speed" not loudness. as more sub bass can feel like "slower" bass. and by extension some mistaking rolled off bass for great PRAT. at least that's how I understood the few reviews where it's mentioned and I was lucky to have auditioned the product.
> 
> about more extension in bass not sounding louder, I kind of agree. and my own theory that I'm very not sure at all about, is as follows:
> -when we have several sine waves at several frequencies we kind of hear a mix of those as one tone. so with that idea extending the low frequencies would move that one perceived tone lower (if the lowest of the 3 sine moves to a lower freq, the perceived tone sounds lower).
> ...


 
 What is required for perceived speed in bass ?
  
 Extension waaaay above 20 kHz - with sources and headphones/speakers that support it - a good amp should be the least of a problem.
  
 I agree that rolled off bass can very easily be mistakenly perceived as having great PRAT - but now I hope the extent of mentioning PRAT is spent for some years to come - I doubt I thought or said or written it as many times as in few posts back - in my entire life. Far too loosely defined for my taste, actually mixing quite a few audible things in a single bag .
  
 Why does the limited LF response sound louder than the correct one ? Simple - if one observes the square wave trough an amp on oscilloscope, it can be clearly seen that what should have an amplitude of + - so and so many volts , can have twice that on leading edge and half that on trailing edge - and typical sagging in beetween the two instead of tops being flat.. A perfect responce (DC amp ) would be +- so and so many volts, with flat tops, no sagging. An example of limited LF response can be seen from approx 16:00 in the following video:
  

  
 The initial amplitude in limited LF response amp IS larger - and headphones/speakers will reproduce it and it will be ultimately perceived as louder.
  
 Since louder is better ... - even if in fact is inaccurate !


----------



## esldude

analogsurviver said:


> What is required for perceived speed in bass ?
> 
> Extension waaaay above 20 kHz - with sources and headphones/speakers that support it - a good amp should be the least of a problem.
> 
> ...





 Actually the waveform you are referring to is caused by reduced low frequency content.  There is no initial LF response that is larger.  Square waves are sines with odd harmonics.  The initial edge is from higher harmonics.  So were this a low frequency part of music the amp won't respond with an initial higher level that fails to continue on.  It will simply respond at a lower level, and that is it.


----------



## analogsurviver

esldude said:


> Actually the waveform you are referring to is caused by reduced low frequency content.  There is no initial LF response that is larger.  Square waves are sines with odd harmonics.  The initial edge is from higher harmonics.  So were this a low frequency part of music the amp won't respond with an initial higher level that fails to continue on.  It will simply respond at a lower level, and that is it.


 
 That is another interpretation. 
  
 Fact remains that it takes larger voltage swing in an amplifier and greater headphone or speaker excursion to reproduce limited LF response square wave than required for a (near) DC amp - for the same reference level in the midrange, usually 1 kHz. That makes LF limited response amps audibly "louder" in the bass.
  
 This fact also means that LF limited amp can reach clipping point earlier than (near) DC amp - for the same power rating and same midrange reference level. This IS important, as bass is usually the part in the audible spectrum that takes the lion's share of power. A clipped amp will definitely sound different than one still working within its limits. The differences can be more than 3 dB in the actual SPL achievable, therefore clearly audible. 3 dB SPL is the difference between a 100 and 200 W/ch amp, for example.
  
 No matter how interpreted, it is a deviation from the original signal, it is a form of distortion and it is audible. The problem is compounded by the fact that in any real scenario there are many (pre)amps connected in series - there can be quite a few from the microphone to the actual amp driving one's headphones or  speakers. All those LF rollofs simply add and by the time final output is reached, the original waveform can be objectionably audibly distorted.
  
 It is one source of  why the amplifiers can sound differently, despite being used well within their power limitations and their specs being well in excess of what is required in terms of noise and non linear distortion(s).


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> That is another interpretation.


 
 It is the correct interpretation, mathematically. The peak levels in the amp with a bass rolloff are no higher than they are in an amp with extended low frequency response. As a result, it will not clip any sooner.


----------



## esldude

cjl said:


> It is the correct interpretation, mathematically. The peak levels in the amp with a bass rolloff are no higher than they are in an amp with extended low frequency response. As a result, it will not clip any sooner.


 

 Yes except for phase delay which is what was being shown in the video.
  
 http://www.kennethkuhn.com/students/ee351/square_wave_testing.pdf  This shows such results.
  
 If you merely reduced low frequency content you get a drooped response between the ends of the square wave.  If there is phase delay you get the sloping tops and bottoms.  A coupling cap would cause reduced LF response and do so by delaying the lower frequencies.  Which gives the sloping result.  The initial edge will rise and the trailing edge troop.
  
 But that doesn't mean LF is more prone to clipping.  The higher leading edge is due to higher frequencies present, not lower ones.  The lower ones that somewhat cancel some higher harmonics are delayed and you see that in the trailing edge where the same higher harmonics are more suppressed.


----------



## cjl

esldude said:


> Yes except for phase delay which is what was being shown in the video.
> 
> http://www.kennethkuhn.com/students/ee351/square_wave_testing.pdf  This shows such results.
> 
> ...


 
 Ahh - you're right. I'd forgotten the impact of the phase shift. Sorry about that one (clearly, I need to go in search of more caffeine this morning).


----------



## ab initio

Here's some Schiity advice:
  
 Regarding power chords for use with Schiit's highest end amplifier:


> 11 Power Cord. Plug the end of the supplied IEC cord in here. You can also use fancy audiophile types, but they won’t really do anything—what about the thousands of feet of crap copper cables in your walls, huh?


 
  
 Regarding fuses for use with their highest end amplifier:


> Hey, can I replace the fuse? Sure, you can, but it won’t make it sound any better. Don’t use anything other than a 3A slo-blow 5 x 20mm fuse.


 
  
 Excerpts from the manual of the new Ragnarok
  
 Cheers


----------



## James-uk

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/mp3-cd-24-bit-audio-music-hi-res

A very misleading article. Listening set up by an audio store. No blind testing/ probably different masters used.


----------



## Syan25

interesting article...but definitely flawed


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Various links repaired and a tidy of the OP. Glad to see this is still continuing. Thanks.


----------



## LivingVoice

Ie


----------



## Hapster

Science is hard.


----------



## castleofargh

living the dream. I would expect that cable to make the girl I like to love me(but then it better not be in an incremental way, else I'll have to buy a lot of cables).


----------



## headdict

castleofargh said:


> living the dream. I would expect that cable to make the girl I like to love me(but then it better not be in an incremental way, else I'll have to buy a lot of cables).



I thought girls were more interested in tubes.


----------



## money4me247

headdict said:


> I thought girls were more interested in tubes.


 
 cables, tubes... same difference. anything long that you can plug in


----------



## Dark_wizzie

headdict said:


> I thought girls were more interested in tubes.


 





  
  
 Anyways. I have a question.
 AFAIK the entire point of tubes is to color the sound, to make it less hi-fi for the sake of more pleasing sound. Then what is the point of trying to make a neutral tube? If one wants neutrality, surely a solid state amp would get you there easier...


----------



## headdict

dark_wizzie said:


> Anyways. I have a question.
> AFAIK the entire point of tubes is to color the sound, to make it less hi-fi for the sake of more pleasing sound. Then what is the point of trying to make a neutral tube? If one wants neutrality, surely a solid state amp would get you there easier...



Fully agree. There is no point. Even girls would not be impressed by neutral tubes. Solid state, on the other hand, ...


----------



## analogsurviver

dark_wizzie said:


> Anyways. I have a question.
> AFAIK the entire point of tubes is to color the sound, to make it less hi-fi for the sake of more pleasing sound. Then what is the point of trying to make a neutral tube? If one wants neutrality, surely a solid state amp would get you there easier...


 
 Although you could say that, it is possible to design for very similar results with both solid and hollow state devices. Tim de Paravicini is one of the designers with this capability that springs to mind first.
  
 My introduction to E.A.R. of Tim de Paravicini :
  

  

  
 One has to really look closely to find what makes these mono E.A.R. 519s tick ; good ol' EL519 pentodes. One of the amps I would not mind, and one of the handful tube designs I could live with happily ever after. One of the very very very few tube amps that has distortion low enough to be comparable with good solid state. But it is the exception confirming the rule that tube amps are coloured compared to solid state - if opportunity presents itself, worth auditioning !


----------



## Dark_wizzie

I'm not saying that there's no way for tubes to ever be transparent. I just don't get the point. Why spend so much money, so much inconvenience when a measly $150 Odac can achieve the same thing? What is the point?


----------



## analogsurviver

dark_wizzie said:


> I'm not saying that there's no way for tubes to ever be transparent. I just don't get the point. Why spend so much money, so much inconvenience when a measly $150 Odac can achieve the same thing? What is the point?


 
 I wish good tubes could be a whole lot less expensive. That can not be done.
  
 I also wish that I did not hear some truly great tubes - because they are waaaaay over my budget. 
  
 No, semiconductors can not achieve the same thing - regardless of price. But they are infinitely more affordable and practical for 99.999......99 % of real world users. $150 ODAC or equivalent plus sizeable music library is better than
 a Kronzilla and (say) 7 super duper audiophile (SA)CDs...


----------



## Dark_wizzie

An amp just amplifies the signal. Technical superiority goes to solid state. For maximum fidelity it goes to the solid state. I've already pointed out that coloration isn't part of the discussion. I'm talking from a sound quality point of view. If it is neutral and transparent, that's all that is needed. If I grant that some tube system is transparent, it raises the question: Why spend, say, $1000+ on a system when a $150 can sound literally identical? It's not a matter of money in a person's wallet, it just makes no sense no matter how much money you have.


----------



## upstateguy

analogsurviver said:


> I wish good tubes could be a whole lot less expensive. That can not be done.
> 
> I also wish that I did not hear some truly great tubes - because they are waaaaay over my budget.
> 
> ...


 
  
 1980s, Carver Challenge dude.......................  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver
  
 "Carver caused a stir in the industry in the mid-1980s when he challenged two high-end audio magazines to give him any audio amplifier at any price, and he’d duplicate its sound in one of his lower cost (and usually much more powerful) designs. Two magazines accepted the challenge.
  
 First, _The Audio Critic_ chose a Mark Levinson ML-2 which Bob acoustically copied (transfer function duplication) and sold as his M1.5t amplifier (the “t” stood for transfer function modified).
  
 In 1985, _Stereophile_ magazine challenged Bob to copy a Conrad-Johnson Premier Five (the make and model was not named then, but revealed later) amplifier at their offices in New Mexico within 48 hours. The Conrad Johnson amplifier was one of the most highly regarded amplifiers of its day, costing in excess of $12,000..... The _Stereophile_ employees failed to pass a single blind test with their own equipment in their own listening room."


----------



## castleofargh

you start on the wrong foot. analogsurviver believes that vinyls( noise+distortion+crosstalk+..) is superior to pcm.
 so it would actually be strange if he was pro solid state amps.


----------



## Dark_wizzie

I don't get why pro-tube/audiofeelz amps people come to Sound Science subsection... isn't this suppose to be our sexy little party and ours alone?
  
 I JUST realized now what his username stands for.
 Boy, I'm really tired today.


----------



## bigshot

I think they like the attention they get here. We patiently listen to everything they say and respond. Over in the other HeadFi forums, they're just another face in the crowd. Here they are a special snowflake.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> No, semiconductors can not achieve the same thing - regardless of price.


 
  
 I have a $375 Yamaha AV receiver that does it.


----------



## analogsurviver

dark_wizzie said:


> An amp just amplifies the signal. Technical superiority goes to solid state. For maximum fidelity it goes to the solid state. I've already pointed out that coloration isn't part of the discussion. I'm talking from a sound quality point of view. If it is neutral and transparent, that's all that is needed. If I grant that some tube system is transparent, it raises the question: Why spend, say, $1000+ on a system when a $150 can sound literally identical? It's not a matter of money in a person's wallet, it just makes no sense no matter how much money you have.


 
 Ask yourself one single thing - have you ever heard a really good tube amp ? 
  
 More important - have you had the possibility to "live" with it at least for a long listening session ? A weekend ?
  
 As written above - NOT recommended if you can/wish not to afford it. Please do not forget you need the rest of the system at the similarly high level - those 519s from above were pushing Quad 57s and the rest also were no slouches.The same goes for recordings to be played ...
  
 I prefer solid state for a myriad of reasons, yours included. But to say that the best amp I heard was solid state would simply be  - a lie ; whether I am willing and able to afford its cost and its idiosincrasities is another matter entirely.
  
 There are tons of relatively inexpensive tube amps today - if the particular "flavour" suits one, why not - but I prefer as neutral whatever I can get within my budget. And that definitely will not be tube amp just because of tubes...


----------



## Dark_wizzie

analogsurviver said:


> Ask yourself one single thing - have you ever heard a really good tube amp ?
> 
> More important - have you had the possibility to "live" with it at least for a long listening session ? A weekend ?
> 
> ...


 
 I've been to Headfi meets... so yes, I have. Then I went back home to my O2/Odac and I was happy. If you can't offer any technical reason why you're right well then... You know your opinions fall on deaf ears with us. Any more talk is a waste of breath.


----------



## bigshot

Really expensive tube amps sound nice and light up really nice if you turn the lights out in the room, I'll give them that. But a solid state amp and a string of Christmas lights can get you to the same place a lot easier.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> you start on the wrong foot. analogsurviver believes that vinyls( noise+distortion+crosstalk+..) is superior to pcm.
> so it would actually be strange if he was pro solid state amps.


 
 I definiterly AM pro solid state amps in real world - unless sky is the limit for budget. I only wish I never heard those super tubes. They were most definitely NOT from USA !
  
 The only place tubes are inherently superior for audio are high voltage direct drive amplifiers for electrostatic speakers without output transformers - because of voltage requirements that generally exceed anything solid state is capable of. That might change in (near?) future - if SS devices capable of supporting required voltages become available at still manageable prices.
  
 Crosstalk in analog vinyl is definitely NOT impossible problem to solve. It can be reduced down to noise level, that is to say -60 or so dB, across entire 20-20 kHz range.
 Similar can be said regarding the distortion. But it does require extreme care in making AND setting up a turntable/arm/cartridge capable of such performance. There are even commercially available cartridges with such performance - check http://users.telenet.be/jallaerts/  There are also less costly ways of achieving the same - but it is fair to say it can never be cost competitive with digital as regards channel separation which is not problem with digital.


----------



## esldude

analogsurviver said:


> No, semiconductors can not achieve the same thing - regardless of price. But they are infinitely more affordable and practical for 99.999......99 % of real world users. $150 ODAC or equivalent plus sizeable music library is better than
> a Kronzilla and (say) 7 super duper audiophile (SA)CDs...


 
 It appears among others, the designer of EAR equipment disagrees with you. 
  
  
_In an interview for the former Audio magazine in January 1995, Tim is quoted as saying "I don't have to use tubes in my designs; I only do it for marketing reasons. I've got an exact equivalent in solid state. I can make either type do the same job, and I have no preference. People can't pick which is which. And electrons have no memory of where they've been: The end result is what counts._


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> Crosstalk in analog vinyl is definitely NOT impossible problem to solve. It can be reduced down to noise level, that is to say -60 or so dB, across entire 20-20 kHz range.


 
 So just to make sure I'm understanding you here, you're saying that if a problem is at -60dB or lower relative to the signal, it is good enough to be inaudible, right?


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> So just to make sure I'm understanding you here, you're saying that if a problem is at -60dB or lower relative to the signal, it is good enough to be inaudible, right?


 
 It would have been nice if less (better) than say -60 dB of crosstalk was available in stereo record. Just a hair above that, -56.XY  or -57.XY dB is theorethical limit for stereo record, as mathematically calculated in late 50s in JAES by a man from South America - in 1957 IIRC. This also is in the same ballpark as is inherent vinyl noise, at approx - 60 dB ref 0 dB level.
  
 Practical experience with phono playback is that there are marked differences among say 25 and 35 dB separation; the 35 dB figure is considered excellent. Above that, it gets ever more difficult to achieve it AND set up in order to truly have it in real turntable. There were/are very few cartridges capable of 40 dB+ separation - and they are a waste of money if the tonearm does not provide for the fine azimuth adjustment. Separation of this order is also sensitive to lateral geometry errors, meaning the best arm type for good channel separation is a linear tracking arm. Once channel separation of 35 dB+ consistent across entire record playing surface is experienced, itr is difficult to go back to lesser options. One result that often gets mistaken for the "lack of punch/dynamics" that cartridges with lower separation falsely introduce can be experienced as negative by the inexperienced; a good recording of say symphonic orchestra ( and reference to its (SA)CD counterpart ) should quickly tell which is more accurate. 
  
 Going from say 40 to 60 dB brings yet finer results, but requires more concentration on the part of the listener - it is not that quick A/B switching that would bring the true difference. Play say an entire side of an album - and then play it again with a cartridge/arm with lesser separation. There will be lot less detail and lot less clarity - particularly echoes off the walls of the recording venues will get blurred or inaudible at all. One can equate separation with distortion ; -40 dB is 1%, - 30 dB is around 3%, -20 dB is 10 %, -60dB is 0.1% .
  
 No analog tape recorder I have heard (of) can compete with a properly made analog disc system as far as channel separation is concerned. There is a reason why, althoug in limited scale, direct to disc recording method is still used today. How much of this advantage was/is being put into practice is another matter; cutting engineers can (be made to ) quickly reduce the amount of channel separation all the way down to mere 20dB or in some really bad cases even below that. 
  
 Best test records have channel separation measured with optical means ( SEM microscope ) approx 35 dB - so results better than this can be arrived at by approximating the error introduced by the cutting process and record production inverted in phase in the cartridge. But it would be nice if cartridges at reasonable cost would have been capable of those 35 dB in the first place; this rarely is so in practice, even if correctly adjusted for azimuth.
  
 Having separation better than 60 dB and resulting dynamic range of analog record ( 60 dB to 0dB level plus up to +18 dB max level = approx 78 dB) is hard to hear in a typical home speaker based system; for the same reasons as with audibility of noise, bit depth etc, which were already covered in this thread. At these levels, irregularities inherent in the records themselves  - warped and off-center pressed records, rumble, excessive vinyl noise - and inability of record players to deal with these AND mechanical resonances - prevail. 
  
 Which is not to say that the above can not be done. To the point of improving analog weaknesses beyond direct objectionability while retaining its virtues. At cost at first, hopefully bringing it within reach of more people later on.


----------



## jcx

no one has ever advertised, sold phono cartridges with -60 dB crosstalk spec, alignment tools that would make that happen
  
 many $k cart only spec "better than 30dB" channel separation, a very few 40 dB
  
 phonograph tracks are mixed to mono at low audio to make them practical to cut, play
  


> The disadvantage of the whole stereo LP scheme is that although the mastering engineer can adjust the groove pitch for loud or soft passages, the maximum and minimum depth of the groove are constant. Cut too much low frequency information with a wide stereo spread, and you get a lot of deep peaks and valleys in the groove and styli tend to pop out of the groove. Turn that down, and your stereo image collapses.
> 
> So the amount of stereo information has a lot to do with the level that can be cut to disc. No matter what you do beforehand, out-of-phase low frequency content will lift the stylus from the groove or drive it into the substrate. On the other hand, in-phase low frequency information causes lateral excursions wide enough to cut into the previously cut groove and into the area where a groove would be cut in the next revolution.


----------



## analogsurviver

jcx said:


> no one has ever advertised, sold phono cartridges with -60 dB crosstalk spec, alignment tools that would make that happen
> 
> many $k cart only spec "better than 30dB" channel separation, a very few 40 dB
> 
> phonograph tracks are mixed to mono at low audio to make them practical to cut, play


 
 Not true. I have already posted the link for the Allearts cartridges.
  
 Alignment tools to allow for it have appeared rather recently and are still rather costly - but if you know how to do it, it was being made for ages with a GOOD test record and an oscilloscope ( and preamp that does not mask -60 dB with self noise ).
  
 http://www.osageaudio.com/images/Musical_Surroundings/FozgometerManual.pdf
  
 http://www.technologyfactory.eu/index.php?item=clearaudio-azimuth-optimizer&action=article&aid=2453&lang=EN
  
 http://www.feickert.de/index.php?id=4
  
 It is true that MANY $K carts fail to produce even that advertised 30 dB; the reason is  that anything better than 35 dB
 is within LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF A DEGREE IN AZIMUTH. There are minutes of arc in play at -60 dB and this can be arrived only by judiciosly adjusting the azimuth as per above links. A cartridge that is that precisely made/adjusted/calibrated will unfortunately never be inexpensive. 
  
 I know there are limitations in cutting the low frequency content in analog master lacquer disc - progresivelly it is monoed below certain frequency in order to conserve space/playing time/ assure that it does not cross into adjacent groove. Here disc mastering men get separated from boys - but ultimately in bass analog record is limited and is inferior to digital. 
  
 Then again - how many people use stereo subwoofers and/or really full range speakers ?


----------



## bigshot

It does't even matter, because LP records in the real world don't contain anywhere near 60dB of dynamic range. Worrying about -60dB crosstalk in a phono cartridge is well into the range of overkill. Above 35dB isn't just hard to achieve, it's hard to hear because that is about what a good dynamic record actually produces in dynamics. What's the point of accurately reproducing the noise floor?


----------



## analogsurviver

dark_wizzie said:


> I've been to Headfi meets... so yes, I have. Then I went back home to my O2/Odac and I was happy. If you can't offer any technical reason why you're right well then... You know your opinions fall on deaf ears with us. Any more talk is a waste of breath.


 
 The simple technical reason is that the tube is inherently "cleaner" device than semiconductor - the flow of electrons is governed by voltages across plates and electrons are travelling in (near) vacuum. Any SS works by changing the properties of the material - it is the precise amount of impurities in silicone or other solid material that allow semiconductor behaviour in the first place. And that ultimately limits the resolution of this system. An electron in vacuum has less hurdles to negotiate than its companion making its way trough semiconductor. Ever heard the noise semiconductors (mounted to heatsinks ) make if driven to normal listening levels while connected to measurement resistors of appropriate rating instead to speakers/headphones ? The tubes also are not quiet - yet they sound much more similar to  music than their SS counterparts under such circumstances.
  
 It boils down to implementation - tubes are inherently prone to noise because the cathode has to be heated in order to emanate electrons, are prone to microphony due to sheer size, etc, etc - but in a design that is successful in keeping down the negatives and preserving the inherent superiority - the is audible. Unfortunately at crazy cost(s) I can not afford.
  
 I am PERFECTLY happy with and can listen to iFi audio nano iDSD amp/DAC and Havi B3 Pro 1 IEM earphones - grand total approx $ 260. And am grateful that such amount of money can yield so good sound quality.
  
 But there unfortunately is beyond - at a price.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> The simple technical reason is that the tube is inherently "cleaner" device than semiconductor


 
  
 Wrong. My Oppo BDP-103 has vanishingly small distortion and a noise floor in the basement. Try to create a tube based blu-ray player that clean.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> It does't even matter, because LP records in the real world don't contain anywhere near 60dB of dynamic range. Worrying about -60dB crosstalk in a phono cartridge is well into the range of overkill. Above 35dB isn't just hard to achieve, it's hard to hear because that is about what a good dynamic record actually produces in dynamics. What's the point of accurately reproducing the noise floor?


 
 I wish that _average _dynamic range of commercial LPs was higher than 35 dB - unfortunately it is not. There are excellent LPs out there with much greater dynamic range, but they are far in between.
  
 Funny but true - where do you think channel separation in analog disc is most audible ?
  
 In *dead center* positioned solo voice or instrument. Koetsu cartridges were and are still outstanding in this, nowadays joined by others. The difference between a -35 dB and "appreciably more" may be subtle in direct A/B - but listening say to a lieder recital with "better than" and "lower than" 35 dB cart(or stylus) OF THE SAME TYPE is an ear opener.
  
 Remember: -35 dB is still approx 2% distortion; - 60 dB is 0.1% 
 Would you buy an amp with 2% THD spec ? So - why cartridge ?!
  
 But you are right - hard to achieve and hard to hear, as loudspeaker positioning seldom is up to the task. Time and time again I felt frustrated with the final sound in the customer's home - a turntable that has been adjusted to the
 max possible level using headphones was simply being wasted because of the inability/unwillingness of the customer to arrange speakers properly - and invariably most of such people would rather die than use headphones ...
  
 The last sad fact is the reason why manufacturers of even very $$$$ carts do not generally pursue separtion beyond 35 dB. 
  
 There are cartridges in $200-300 bracket that can achieve > -35 dB separation if properly adjusted for azimuth -
 personally I have yet to see an Allearts in flesh ...


----------



## money4me247

dark_wizzie said:


> I've been to Headfi meets... so yes, I have. Then I went back home to my O2/Odac and I was happy. If you can't offer any technical reason why you're right well then... You know your opinions fall on deaf ears with us. Any more talk is a waste of breath.


 
 I don't think a technical or spec reason is really needed. It is definitely possible for a equipment to 'measure' better, but actually sound worse. In audio, specs actually aren't as helpful.
  
 However, I do think that most subjective impressions/reviews can get easily biased. I think that a controlled double blind direct ABX comparison with a large sample size would be the best for determining sound quality improvements with different gear.
  
 If you like your o2/odac, that's great. I think that it is wrong to dismiss everything else though. It's always good to try things with an open unbiased mind.
  
 edit: Fun fact, usually in a direct comparison for sound quality between different gear... people just prefer which ever one has a louder volume! hahah


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Wrong. My Oppo BDP-103 has vanishingly small distortion and a noise floor in the basement. Try to create a tube based blu-ray player that clean.


 
 I did say "implementation dependant". Low level noise in tubes will always be a problem - and achieving 100 dB+ dynamic range with tubes is hard if not impossible - in that case, really well made semiconductor may well win. I would never try to go with head trough brick wall with a tube moving coil preamplifier for low output MC cart - because physics says it just can not be done without excessive noise - at least not without transformer between the cart and actual phono amp.
  
 I also did say "power amplifier" - here thermal noise of tubes is the least bothersome. I too was sceptical before I heard that tube power amp - 100 W+ OTL pure class A mono blocks - but frankly, wish I did not take that listening session. The way how it went from whatever softest or loudest that any given recording was supplying has to be heard to be believed. I know it is a cliche, but I heard things on familiar recordings in new light - or for the first time. At punishing size, cost, heat, electricity bill, dreaded tube replacement ( cost ) - you name it.
  
 But if someone gave it to me and cover for replacement tubes and electricity bill for say next 10 years - I would take it in a heartbeat. In real life, I know that going good solid state is the most rational decision - and everyone can and should gather as much info as possible to arrive at an informed decision prior comiting to the purchase. Never did I say that tube audio is budget thing - at the moment, no tubes in operation at my place. No piggybank to support what my ears would be satisfied with.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> Remember: -35 dB is still approx 2% distortion; - 60 dB is 0.1%
> Would you buy an amp with 2% THD spec ? So - why cartridge ?!


 
 exactly, so why the tube amps and why the vinyls? that's what I don't understand. you obviously know a lot of things, but somehow you seem to have a rational bypass when it comes to those.
 tubes tend to have more distortion than SS amps and when they both are low enough, they actually sound the same.
 vinyls have lots of distortions when digital media doesn't.
 I just don't get it.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> exactly, so why the tube amps and why the vinyls? that's what I don't understand. you obviously know a lot of things, but somehow you seem to have a rational bypass when it comes to those.
> tubes tend to have more distortion than SS amps and when they both are low enough, they actually sound the same.
> vinyls have lots of distortions when digital media doesn't.
> I just don't get it.


 
 OK - let me put it this way - I wanted all and everybody to understand that I am familiar with shortcomings - be it analog , digital, solid state or hollow state.
  
 It boils down to which combination of the above yields the closest approach to live sound. CD can have zero distortion and infinite channel separation - but will NEVER sound real due to limited response above 20 kHz. Higher rates of digital are much better - and if and when done really well, can one day actually reach the position that they will surpass analog in each and every way imaginable. That day might be closer than I feel comfortable about - but is not yet here. And there will always be demand for quality archiving analog records to some digital worth of doing so.
  
 I do not think that the authors of this test had exactly in mind the outcome of this blind A/B - yet kudos to them for publishing the result :
  
 http://www.pteacoustics.com/pte_demo1_011.htm
  
 To make the "insult" even more painful - the then (2012) latest/greatest in digital had to bow to the million(s) of years older analog counterpart - cactus thorn:
  
 http://www.sound-smith.com/cartridges/hyperion.html
  
 because there IS a very sound reason behind using cactus for the cantilever - considering that Soundsmith uses in his other cartridges for the cantilever any conceivable legal material except diamond - and the reason is performance of the cactus in the region FAR above 20 kHz - where none of the traditional man made materials can reach overall quality of the cactus thorn as required for cantilever. The price might appear steep at first; but considering there is 10 year warranty and free retipping for the same period included,  a quick math exercise will tell you that a cartridge costing say initially $ 1000 may well run you more over 10 years with all the retipping(s) - while never performing at this level. 
  
 There are reasons beyond specs and officially sanctioned set(s) of measurements we can hear but are still not covered by science in sufficient detail to become "officially accepted". How on earth are we supposed to measure say the performance of this Cactus - with test records that were EVER made commercially available - neglecting even the fact most are long time no longer available ? Answer - we can not - but we can hear that cactus sounds better. Once upon a time, mid 70s, JVC did produce a test record used to evaluate the performance of their cartridges for CD-4 quadro system - which per default requires reasonably flat response at least to 50 kHz. It could be used to measure/document the superiority of "cactus". But that record, contrary to the known TRS series,  never did set foot outside the JVC lab...
  
 There are Soundsmith cartridges based on Bang & Olufsen MMC 1-5 series starting from IIRC $ 400 - up to Hyperion II - at almost 20 times the cost. Yet there are probably no shatteringly different performance differences among them if measured within the "official 20-20 kHz audible range".
  
 If that cactus, which I have yet to hear, does live at least to half of its potential, there is no and never will be software potent enough to "remove" pops and clicks with "normal" cantilever later in digital domain nearly as well as cactus cantilever does in real playback without any filtering. Resulting in subjectively MUCH quieter vinyl surface noise, yielding greater dynamic range from the SAME record(s).
  
 How do you "measure" that ? 
  
 Similar could be said about ( certain ) tube amps, DSD vs PCM, etc - is the reasoning behind it all now at least a bit more understandable ?


----------



## bigshot

Huh?!


----------



## bigshot

money4me247 said:


> It is definitely possible for a equipment to 'measure' better, but actually sound worse.


 
  
 No. Not unless your ears are imbalanced.


----------



## Head Injury

bigshot said:


> Huh?!


 
 Summary:
  
 Cactus > Science


----------



## bigshot

I tried cactus needles on my Victrola. They left a bunch or organic schmutz in the grooves. I had to reclean all the 78s I played with them. Messy. messy. messy. I'll stick with medium tone steel needles.


----------



## liamstrain

_"__and the reason is performance of the cactus in the region FAR above 20 kHz - where none of the traditional man made materials can reach overall quality of the cactus thorn as required for cantilever."_

 I'll have to ask my dog if she notices the difference. I know how much roll off I get above 17Khz, and I doubt many 40+ year olds (or frankly, many humans) can do much better.


----------



## bigshot

I heard that Greek Yoghurt puts out cosmic rays that control the way we think.


----------



## thune

Granting the so called "transparency criteria" for the sake of argument (a minimal set of maximally loose specifications, for which all electronic devices meeting or exceeding those specifications are indistinguishable under DBT), nothing can be said about a "transparent" device sounding better or worse than an non-"transparent" device. Certainly it is quite possible that the non-"transparent" generates the preferred stereo illusion. Valuing "transparency" as the only goal and suggesting that "transparent" devices sound better is just another unscientific opinion.


----------



## bigshot

That is the realm of audio signal processing, and that comes after you've established a baseline of accuracy.
  
 Start with flat and clean and work from there. But you have to drop your anchor on accurate before you can start straying from it. Otherwise you're just exploring randomly.


----------



## money4me247

thune said:


> Granting the so called "transparency criteria" for the sake of argument (a minimal set of maximally loose specifications, for which all electronic devices meeting or exceeding those specifications are indistinguishable under DBT), nothing can be said about a "transparent" device sounding better or worse than an non-"transparent" device. Certainly it is quite possible that the non-"transparent" generates the preferred stereo illusion. Valuing "transparency" as the only goal and suggesting that transparent devices sound better is just another unscientific opinion.


 
 +1.
  
 Also, audio equipment manufacturers do not provide all the measurements & specs required to give a comprehensive view of how the product will sound. If you were just to base your headphone purchase off headroom frequency response curves or whatever other one random measured data point, the resulting sound does not always correlate well to that one data point.
  
 There is a difference between accuracy of reproduction vs. pleasing sound. It is hardly fair to say that pure accuracy is the end-all of all music lovers.
  
 I am all for more science, more measurements, more specs, more controlled blind abx testing... but to say that a listening test from an experienced listener is invalid is very silly imo.


----------



## bigshot

money4me247 said:


> Also, audio equipment manufacturers do not provide all the measurements & specs required to give a comprehensive view of how the product will sound. If you were just to base your headphone purchase off headroom frequency response curves or whatever other one random measured data point, the resulting sound does not always correlate well to that one data point.


 
  
 I can look at a response curve and have a very good idea how a headphone will sound. But headphones vary a LOT more than amps, players or cables. Almost all of those are audibly transparent. You can find those by closing your eyes and throwing a dart. It's taken me a LONG time to find a headphone that meets my requirements. I know if I find a headphone that is clean and damn close to audibly flat and can handle a wide range of frequencies at loud volume, I can do anything I want with them. All it takes is an equalizer.


----------



## liamstrain

money4me247 said:


> I am all for more science, more measurements, more specs, more controlled blind abx testing... but to say that a listening test from an experienced listener is invalid is very silly imo.


 
  
 A listening test can be a useful data point. But when a biased test (sighted, without good level matching, etc) conflicts with the measured data we do have, then that listening test needs to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. I don't care how experienced a listener, we are all subject to unconscious biases - and if there are not even cursory attempts to control for them, then any conclusions drawn are inherently flawed.


----------



## money4me247

bigshot said:


> I can look at a response curve and have a very good idea how a headphone will sound. But headphones vary a LOT more than amps, players or cables. Almost all of those are audibly transparent. You can find those by closing your eyes and throwing a dart. It's taken me a LONG time to find a headphone that meets my requirements. I know if I find a headphone that is clean and damn close to audibly flat and can handle a wide range of frequencies at loud volume, I can do anything I want with them. All it takes is an equalizer.


 
 lol I agree. a frequency response is helpful.
  
 and I agree, most amps/dacs/cables/players... etc... even 320kbps vs flac have very little real-world sonic improvements. esp if done in a blind abx setting.
  
 however, there are definitely other sonic qualities that headphones have beyond frequency response (though frequency response is the one we recognize the fastest). Example: you can't EQ a HD800 to sound like a pair of beats. You can't EQ a HE-6 to sound like a HD800... etc.


----------



## money4me247

liamstrain said:


> A listening test can be a useful data point. But when a biased test (sighted, without good level matching, etc) conflicts with the measured data we do have, then that listening test needs to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. I don't care how experienced a listener, we are all subject to unconscious biases - and if there are not even cursory attempts to control for them, then any conclusions drawn are inherently flawed.


 
 It is actually really funny. Almost always the louder song is perceived as sounding better. That's just the way the human brain works.
  
 A listening test or review found on the internet is moderately helpful. The most helpful is a personal listening test!!! ...because then, even if there is bias or whatever, at least you still end up with something you like!!


----------



## bigshot

money4me247 said:


> ]Example: you can't EQ a HD800 to sound like a pair of beats.


 
  
 Bring me a set of both and I will get close as dammit.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I tried cactus needles on my Victrola. They left a bunch or organic schmutz in the grooves. I had to reclean all the 78s I played with them. Messy. messy. messy. I'll stick with medium tone steel needles.


 

 CANTILEVER ( NOT stylus ) from cactus thorn - stylus itself is of course diamond. For microgroove = anything from ( with safe margin ) 1950 on. 
  
 There are also DIY variations on the theme : http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=22847&start=156

  
  
 It is the same as with instrument makers - as instrument maker will be secretive from which woods his wood comes and with which varnish it is treated, cartridge maker(s)
 will tend to be secretive regarding which sort of cactus is used and how is it treated. The performance can be measured ( and optimized...) as anything else - yet due to lack of test records there are ever less objective measurements of phono cartridges published. The only establishment that does publish measurements of phono cartridges nowadays are Paul Miller's measurements for HiFi News and Record Review from UK. Given the results revealed and published for the Soundsmith strain gauge cartridge ( poor, to stay on polite side ) I doubt that Soundsmith will ever again let his carts measured by that establishment again. I am not aware of any measurements of Hyperion.
  
There are perhaps inherent problems with strain gauge cartridges - yet Soundsmith take on Bang and Olufsen MMC 1-5 moving iron cartridges ( Hyperion II being the pinnacle in that line ) is sound and should pass measurements with flying colours.


----------



## upstateguy

bigshot said:


> I can look at a response curve and have a very good idea how a headphone will sound. But headphones vary a LOT more than amps, players or cables. Almost all of those are audibly transparent. You can find those by closing your eyes and throwing a dart. It's taken me a LONG time to find a headphone that meets my requirements. I know if I find a headphone that is clean and damn close to audibly flat and can handle a wide range of frequencies at loud volume, I can do anything I want with them. *All it takes is an equalizer.*


 
 an equalizer and maybe some DSP....
  


analogsurviver said:


> CANTILEVER ( NOT stylus ) from cactus thorn - stylus itself is of course diamond. For microgroove = anything from ( with safe margin ) 1950 on.
> 
> There are also DIY variations on the theme : http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=22847&start=156
> 
> ...


 
  
 No two cactus thorns are going to have the exact same dimensions, densities or physical properties, so how can they calibrate the cartridges?


----------



## analogsurviver

upstateguy said:


> an equalizer and maybe some DSP....
> 
> 
> No two cactus thorns are going to have the exact same dimensions, densities or physical properties, so how can they calibrate the cartridges?


 
 Business as usual - there is no such thing as two completely equal phono cartridges. 
  
 Or headphones ... or ANY electromechanical transducer.
  
 There are much more grave concerns in a phono cartridge/stylus than just cantilever. The most critical is the way the diamond stylus is attached to the cantilever. Does it go into some hole made trough the cantilever (tube) - or is held in place by glue alone? If this joint is not stiff enough, it can introduce uhuhulala resonances - usually well above 20 kHz. Of course the method with hole and diamond inserted/pressed into that hole and glued more than an insurance than the only way of ataching it to the stylus is better - but it is getting ever less used due to the cost. This joint stylus/cantilever can cause greater havoc than any decent cantilever material ( boron, ruby, sapphire, in few ultra pricey carts even diamond ) - and plain aluminium cantilever with a "hole" mounting of the stylus can in reality outperform any of the above with poorly made glue stylus attachment.
  
 Joe Grado used to test and select styli for this in his Signature series of cartridges by listening - those that did sound OK got sold, those that did not got destroyed and reused the diamond for another chance in another batch. Under microscope, all looked OK - but optically you can not confirm high frequency resonance caused by less than perfect stylus fit to the cantilever. Shure cartridges ( V15V - all versions ) differ the most by the Q of the mechanical resonance approx at 35 kHz - some are superb, some are decent - and some stop ringing only if lifted out of the groove. And will sound markedly different one from another, even if 20-20 kHz shows practically zero difference.
  
 My assumption is that anybody going to the trouble of harvesting cactus thorns exactly at the time they have the best characteristics for cantilever - after having prior to establish when and which sort of cactus is the best - is going to pay attention to each and every detail imaginable. That is why such carts are usually built by a single person - and availability will be limited and subject to waiting period while the price reflects all the efforts and care that went into such a cart. 
  
 There is a solid reason why in mechanical engineering organic materials are usually the least desirable. There is always going to be differences in organic material that are beyond control. Then again - I do not see  classic wooden violins, violas, cellos and bases be replaced by "plastic" or whatever man made material instruments any time soon - despite the shortcomings of wood , lacquer, etc. 
  
 I agree violin etc is an instrument - and as such should have its acoustical colour/characteristics. Phono cartridge should be exactly opposite - should have zero colour of its own. If after working with the traditional materials turned out that cactus has better performance - next thing is try to assure that differences due to cactus are held within tight limits. At the price, this should be taken for granted. But those minimal differences may still be audible - just the way it is with other transducers. No such thing as 1:1 in electromechanical transducers. 
  
 I remember one shoot out with acoustic basses - or more correctly, strings for acoustic bases. I was giggling how similar it was compared to any audio component shoot out.
 IIRC, it boiled down strings from manufacturer X yielded most desirable sound with instrument A and strings from manufacturer Y with instrument B. These two combos were extremely close in timbre - but players of course know even better and yet finer picking came into play.
  
 So - in spite of all scientific testing ( no longer - scarce availability of test records limits testing to minimum ) available, I bet that any of these cactus equipped carts also gets listened to - and if it does not pass, it generally should never reach you. 
  
 Getting to hear a phono cartridge, set up really well, particularly as expensive as Hyperion, prior to purchase is rare indeed. If you are given a chance - do not fail to take advantage of it. You may decide you do not like it at all - or postpone the purchase of the lower model until you save enough for the "big one ".
  
 Unlike digital, where there should be no audible difference from  Gizmo XY #1234 and #1235, two phono cartridges of type YZ #2345 and #2346 can sound  audibly different - now think how it can be where carts have no serial numbers and get consequently less checked, less alone listened to,  prior to sale.
  
 Cartridges at level as high as Hyperion are made similar to musical instruments; there may even have a small number of units made to cater for certain type(s) of sound; or a cart can be adjusted to suit your requirements. And as with musical instruments ( pianos spring to mind), those really "hors categorie" usually carry 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  pricetag ...
 Not every Steinway "model so and so" costs the same ... - because it is not the same.


----------



## liamstrain

Carbon fiber cellos and violins are actually quite phenomenal sounding. fwiw. Those musicians who need their instrument to perform well in uncontrolled circumstances (e.g. outdoors, where humidity and temp changes affect the wood) have been snapping them up. I know more than a few who, if pressed, will say they sound better than their (very good) wood instruments, but that they have an aesthetic or emotional connection to the old instrument, which tips the balance. Not an objective one. 
  
 Which brings me back to my main point. I don't doubt that you may hear differences between two cartridges, but I consider that a FLAW in the cartridge design or construction if you do. I do not want the cartridge affecting the audio as pressed on the vinyl. If two of them sound different, then I want the one that deviates from the recorded signal least. THe goal should be parity. Not "tuning." And is a big part of how I don't see how anyone could possibly argue for sonic quality in vinyl over digital. 
  


> most by the Q of the mechanical resonance approx at 35 kHz - some are superb, some are decent - and some stop ringing only if lifted out of the groove. And will sound markedly different one from another, even if 20-20 kHz shows practically zero difference.


 
  
 I also have serious doubts that resonance above 30K is what anyone is reacting to. At the very least, I would like to see some evidence which correlates measured resonance in that region, with listening preference.


----------



## bigshot

liamstrain said:


> I also have serious doubts that resonance above 30K is what anyone is reacting to.


 
  
 Bats would beg to disagree


----------



## analogsurviver

liamstrain said:


> Carbon fiber cellos and violins are actually quite phenomenal sounding. fwiw. Those musicians who need their instrument to perform well in uncontrolled circumstances (e.g. outdoors, where humidity and temp changes affect the wood) have been snapping them up. I know more than a few who, if pressed, will say they sound better than their (very good) wood instruments, but that they have an aesthetic or emotional connection to the old instrument, which tips the balance. Not an objective one.
> 
> Which brings me back to my main point. I don't doubt that you may hear differences between two cartridges, but I consider that a FLAW in the cartridge design or construction if you do. I do not want the cartridge affecting the audio as pressed on the vinyl. If two of them sound different, then I want the one that deviates from the recorded signal least. THe goal should be parity. Not "tuning."
> 
> ...


 
 I agree regarding the carbon fibre cellos and violins. Even more affected by humidity is classical spanish guitar - that is why players are reluctant to tour in more humid climate regions, as the necks are prone to deformation. I also agree regarding aesthetic and emotional connection with the old instruments - but imagine as listener stepping into Musikverein and everything on stage is - black ...
  
 But if ultimately proven not only more consistent, but actually better sounding instruments , I wouldn mind "you can have it any colour as long as  it is black ". I still have vivid memory of the poor oboe player whose instrument  "froze" in the cold church; I was in (one of the ) front rows and could clearly see tears running down his cheek during the passage I knew he practiced almost to perfection - only to get completely <censored> by the instrument in cold...
  
 I certainly do feel regarding expectations for a phono cartridge as you do. It should be so good to "disappear" - leaving only the music and not altering it in any way.
 That is theory - practice is different. While a violin or cello is a LARGE chunk of material, cartridge and particularly stylus is at the very edge of being possible - and can not be made with the same kind of precision/ consistency as incomparably larger violin. 1 micrometer error is inconsequential in violin, yet can totally ruin the sound of a phono cartridge.
  
 Customers may also want a certain type of sound - or else they will carry the business to the competition. Assuming that a perfect phono cartridge existed - there will be those who would not replace their SPUs and Deccas ( etc, add your own preference ) nomatterwhat - as it no longer sound the way they expect it, as it may mean replacing the arm, which is no longer aesthetically/historically matched to the turntable, etc - you get the picture.
  
 There is also something that does get in the way with analog audio - expectations to be appreciably different from digital.
  
 When attending demo of then new Quiex SV pressings by Classic Records, "analog crowd" almost went uproar - as these newly mastered records were sounding "too digital" ! In short - they were praising what are actually shortcomings of analog as  - virtues; catch is that ultimately sells what is in demand, not what is right, be it scientifically proven/backed up or not. Majority of listeners never heard the master tape - and their reference is pressed record made from those masters best that could be done XY years ago. And once much more of what was actually on tape finally landed on disc, - it was "too digital " sounding ...go figure.
  
 Several times during considerable advances in analog audio ( of the proportion od the SME V tonearm ) reviewers were cautioning prospective customers that they might well not like the performance of the significantly better new product - because it was free from colourations that grew as de facto reference, and despite being wrong, people demanded them.
 Having a tombstone with the inscription _He/She Was Right _does not strike me as a particularly desirable end result. If a customer for several hundred cartridges walks in but wants to have them voiced so that they harmonize well with his electronics and speakers  (often the strategy to be able to sell the whole system, not just a bit here and trhere ) ( where perfectly neutral cart, if it existed, would sound off ) -
 what would you do ?
  
 Regarding "above 30 kHz" "whatever" at least in phono cartridges; those cartridges that exhibit at least reasonably flat response to and possibly beyond 50 kHz  will be appreciably quieter in the groove than those with *mechanical* resonances - regardless of electrical loading trying to make two wrongs right, as in most, but not all, MM cartridges. Those that exhibit exemplary behaviour above 20 kHz will be quieter still. What is perceived as vinyl noise should be more correctly called resonances excited in stylus/cantilever/tonearm/tonearm bearings/turntable plinth/record interface(mat)/platter/main bearing - the same (used) record can sound totally unlike on an "average" and "really good" turntable. On an average TT, the sound may be way too infested with ticks and pops - which can not be "mentally separated" from music. On a really good TT, these ticks and pops do not get away, but not only they 
 are quieter in volume, they got separated from the music enough to no longer be a destraction.
  
 And that is _*BIG *_  difference. 
  
 Historically, it was Lyra that started to make carts that did not get berserk due to vinyl noise ( short of scractch capable of tearing off entire cantilever - not something one would tend to play with a good TT ).
 That also landed Lyra decade(s) of being OEM for better Linn cartridges - and others had no choice but to at least try to follow suit.
 Two cartridges that perform "equally" 20 -20 kHz yet one of them plays records with considerably less noise/ticks/pops - which one would you choose? Specially if priced similarly ?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Bats would beg to disagree


 
 Poor bats - always scapegoats when talking about anything above 22050 Hz ...


----------



## bigshot

I've stopped paying much attention to the "analog crowd". It seems to have become another expensive consumer fetish. None of it has anything to do with sound quality. It's all about luxury items for rich men. When I was first starting out as a hifi nut, the focus was on building the better mousetrap... not spending a lot of money, just getting great sound out of your system so you can listen to your music better. Audiophiles have moved on far beyond that. It's more about status than music now. Kind of sad.
  
 Thankfully, there are a few modern equivalents of the old hifi nuts here in sound science.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Poor bats - always scapegoats when talking about anything above 22050 Hz ...


 
  
 They're your target audience!


----------



## liamstrain

analogsurviver said:


> While a violin or cello is a LARGE chunk of material, cartridge and particularly stylus is at the very edge of being possible - and can not be made with the same kind of precision/ consistency as incomparably larger violin. 1 micrometer error is inconsequential in violin, yet can totally ruin the sound of a phono cartridge.


 
  
 We have gotten very very good at micro (and even nano) scale manufacturing. It is admittedly harder for the very small hand crafter to approach that level though. 
  


> Customers may also want a certain type of sound - or else they will carry the business to the competition. Assuming that a perfect phono cartridge existed - there will be those who would not replace their SPUs and Deccas ( etc, add your own preference ) nomatterwhat - as it no longer sound the way they expect it, as it may mean replacing the arm, which is no longer aesthetically/historically matched to the turntable, etc - you get the picture.


 
  
 Certainly - but we need to be very sure to not conflate their preference, for objective performance. 
  


> Having a tombstone with the inscription _He/She Was Right _does not strike me as a particularly desirable end result.


 
  
 An engineer, or scientist (or philosopher, or any number of other fields) may disagree. 
  
  
  


> If a customer for several hundred cartridges walks in but wants to have them voiced so that they harmonize well with his electronics and speakers  (often the strategy to be able to sell the whole system, not just a bit here and trhere ) ( where perfectly neutral cart, if it existed, would sound off ) - what would you do ?


 
  
 First, I would seriously question why they built a system such that something which does not color the sound, sounds wrong (if ever there was a good argument for transparent equipment, it is this very situation). I'd also want to hear some tests done to show that to be the case (dbt/level matched, etc.)
  
 But if they insist that they want a colored sound, and not an accurate sound, then I'm sure a product can be found to meet their need (though an EQ would do it better, and wouldn't be so finicky in general). 

 Ultimately, such a question is why I could not in good faith be an audio component sales person, and prefer to stay on the engineering side of things.


----------



## OddE

bigshot said:


> They're your target audience!




-I chuckled at this and I do agree with the implied sentiment - though to be fair, it is /possible/ that frequencies >20kHz result in audible effects if the RIAA stage is not properly band-limited and also exhibits non-linear amplification. 

However, if this was the case, the proper response would be to band-limit and linearize it...


----------



## analogsurviver

liamstrain said:


> We have gotten very very good at micro (and even nano) scale manufacturing. It is admittedly harder for the very small hand crafter to approach that level though.
> 
> 
> Certainly - but we need to be very sure to not conflate their preference, for objective performance.
> ...


 
 I agree with you on all counts - in theory and in perfect world. 
  
 However, in real life things are different. I never did like equipment purposely designed to sound right as a combination only - as it was designed with deviation A in one component that cancelled with the exactly opposite -A in another - etc till one almost runs out of alphabet.  But they were/are among the most successful in the market - and God forbid even to quietly _think_ about an equalizer while anywhere near their " zone of influence". And that they is meant in plural - for firms.
  
 I also can not bring myself to be an audio component sales person - because after when one sees cable sales in real life generate incomparably more gain than almost everything else combined, you can only say yes or no. I do not say that cables do not matter, but nowhere to the extent as exploited by the cable manufacturers/retailers. 
 There are a few instances where cables actually do matter - yet none of the cable specialists have figured it out what these instances are and do not provide such cables at all. 
  
 I could not stop LMAO when I read a rep "confession" of a certain cartridge manufacturer that they were instructed to badmouth in the field  each and every other cartridge manufacturer - including the one they shared the same production plan with and sole difference (except an odd model equivalent lacking in one or another line) was the two
 had different marketing and distribution networks - with entrance and office for each firm from another lane/street, with actual plant in the middle ...


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> I never did like equipment purposely designed to sound right as a combination only - as it was designed with deviation A in one component that cancelled with the exactly opposite -A in another - etc till one almost runs out of alphabet.


 
  
 GREAT NEWS! Just about all midrange solid state electronics are designed to be audibly transparent. You can swap amps and players all you want and the sound stays transparent. This makes it VERY easy to use an equalizer at the last stage before the transducer to calibrate it exactly the way you want. The added benefit to you is that it doesn't cost a lot of money! I bet you're happy to find this out.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I've stopped paying much attention to the "analog crowd". It seems to have become another expensive consumer fetish. None of it has anything to do with sound quality. It's all about luxury items for rich men. When I was first starting out as a hifi nut, the focus was on building the better mousetrap... not spending a lot of money, just getting great sound out of your system so you can listen to your music better. Audiophiles have moved on far beyond that. It's more about status than music now. Kind of sad.
> 
> Thankfully, there are a few modern equivalents of the old hifi nuts here in sound science.


 
 I agree about status thing - it went too far long ago. And even more sad is that they hardly ever even try to listen to any music that is not from within very narrow selection they usually listen to  and requires more attention as to not interfere while boasting about the equipment. 
  
 I do not agree entirely that analog has become another expensive consumer fetish. It can not be as inexpensive as digital - and particularly not really high quality equipment. But some of the analog has gone to pure status symbol - there is only one table around 100K  I feel that *somehow* its price is justified. 
  
 To put things in perspective - the machines for azimuth adjustment  I posted yesterday are  anything but inexpensive - but even if one decides to use the most expensive one    ( 3000 something ) to correctly adjust a turntable for another 3000 - would the result surpass the SQ from a six figures TT that has not been optimized for azimuth. And if one uses the least expensive one it is still possible with a carefully chosen TT for say 1000 to achieve a better result than the six figure TT without azimuth optimization. But if you study it a bit , it can be done with an oscilloscope (say $ 200 ) and test record ( GOOD luck finding one at all, let alone at decent price ) - and carefully selected vintage TT off ebay or similar places for say 500 + stylus/cartridge.
  
 And although nowhere near the end of the road, if I say that I can not listen to music on Project RPM 4 ( approx 400 10 years ago ) - that would be a lie.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> GREAT NEWS! Just about all midrange solid state electronics are designed to be audibly transparent. You can swap amps and players all you want and the sound stays transparent. This makes it VERY easy to use an equalizer at the last stage before the transducer to calibrate it exactly the way you want. The added benefit to you is that it doesn't cost a lot of money! I bet you're happy to find this out.


 
 No news to me - I did list equalizer as a part of my equipment the day I registered with head-fi - and after quite a few years of using it before registering. It is an immensely useful piece of equipment if properly utilized.
  
 However, I do not agree that just about all solid ( or hollow ) state electronics are designed to be audibly transparent. I would really like to hear one day what - or to which degree - you call "transparent" -  in my book, that is something I no longer can hear any difference with or without it in the  system. I am not going to claim I am listening to same lenght of cable A and cable B and can hear a mountain of differences between the two - but amps and players swapping all I want while sound remaining the same is a bit far fetched.
  
 Except if "transparent" < "same" - then I would like some definition what is the degree of deterioration allowed to be still considered "transparent".


----------



## Head Injury

analogsurviver said:


> No news to me - I did list equalizer as a part of my equipment the day I registered with head-fi - and after quite a few years of using it before registering. It is an immensely useful piece of equipment if properly utilized.
> 
> However, I do not agree that just about all solid ( or hollow ) state electronics are designed to be audibly transparent. I would really like to hear one day what - or to which degree - you call "transparent" -  in my book, that is something I no longer can hear any difference with or without it in the  system. I am not going to claim I am listening to same lenght of cable A and cable B and can hear a mountain of differences between the two - but amps and players swapping all I want while sound remaining the same is a bit far fetched.
> 
> Except if "transparent" < "same" - then I would like some definition what is the degree of deterioration allowed to be still considered "transparent".


 
 Transparent would be measurably transparent within audible levels, or indistinguishable in a controlled ABX test.
  
 You need to separate this transparency from the transparency you're thinking of because the mind is too easily influenced by factors which have nothing to do with the changes being made to the audio signal and sound wave. Factors like brand, price, components, appearance, groovy glowing toobz, etc. These will cause you to "hear" a difference even when no audible difference in the actual audio exists, which can be demonstrated by taking those factors away in an ABX test.


----------



## analogsurviver

head injury said:


> Transparent would be measurably transparent within audible levels, or indistinguishable in a controlled ABX test.
> 
> You need to separate this transparency from the transparency you're thinking of because the mind is too easily influenced by factors which have nothing to do with the changes being made to the audio signal and sound wave. Factors like brand, price, components, appearance, groovy glowing toobz, etc. These will cause you to "hear" a difference even when no audible difference in the actual audio exists, which can be demonstrated by taking those factors away in an ABX test.


 
 I fully understand what you are talking about.
  
 Yet I can also perfectly understand why I keep receiving the same kind of answer " all amps sound the same " etc. There is far more potential in "midrange solid state" electronics than most are aware of - only slightly less more in even high end made today. And no, stock units are NOT transparent. You really do not need ABX to hear what
 a well modified amp brings over stock unit. I wish GOOD ABX "boxes" ( the ones that do not present SQ bottleneck due to poor inconsistent contacts and/or potentiometers ) were not that expensive. You can not ABX two amplifiers with a PC ( say in foobar2000 ABX comparator ) - that analog to digital converter in the PC (and of course DAC ) would have to be miracolous to  be able to do that without causing far more damage than the difference between the amps. 
  
 I have been preparing some Hi Rez samples - but the listening outcome after trough PC and DAC can vary all over the place - depending on software and DAC one is using, provided the PC and DAC is up to the task ( DSD128, PCM 192/24 - and beyond )  in the first place. This is the bottleneck, it can not be  taken for granted that "computer" on the other side will be capable of correctly displaying the differences. 
  
 Sorry, no MAC and related software experience.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> However, I do not agree that just about all solid ( or hollow ) state electronics are designed to be audibly transparent. I would really like to hear one day what - or to which degree - you call "transparent" -  in my book, that is something I no longer can hear any difference with or without it in the  system.


 
  
 I do line level matched direct A/B switched comparison tests of every piece of equipment I own. Every player and every amp/receiver I have ever owned sounds identical. If you would like some recommendations of dependable brands next time you are in the market, let me know.


----------



## bigshot

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> There is far more potential in "midrange solid state" electronics than most are aware of - only slightly less more in even high end made today. And no, stock units are NOT transparent.


 
  
 Yes they are. I've owned plenty. And there is no such thing as "slightly less transparent". Audible transparency is the same just over the line as a mile beyond it.


----------



## upstateguy

bigshot said:


> I've stopped paying much attention to the "analog crowd". It seems to have become another expensive consumer fetish. None of it has anything to do with sound quality. It's all about luxury items for rich men. When I was first starting out as a hifi nut, the focus was on building the better mousetrap... not spending a lot of money, just getting great sound out of your system so you can listen to your music better. Audiophiles have moved on far beyond that. It's more about status than music now. Kind of sad.
> 
> Thankfully, there are a few modern equivalents of the old hifi nuts here in sound science.


 
  
 +1
  


analogsurviver said:


> No news to me - I did list equalizer as a part of my equipment the day I registered with head-fi - and after quite a few years of using it before registering. It is an immensely useful piece of equipment if properly utilized.
> 
> However, I do not agree that just about all solid ( or hollow ) state electronics are designed to be audibly transparent. I would really like to hear one day what - or to which degree - you call "transparent" -  in my book, that is something I no longer can hear any difference with or without it in the  system. I am not going to claim I am listening to same lenght of cable A and cable B and can hear a mountain of differences between the two - but *amps and players swapping all I want while sound remaining the same is a bit far fetched.*
> 
> Except if "transparent" < "same" - then I would like some definition what is the degree of deterioration allowed to be still considered "transparent".


 
  
 -1
  


bigshot said:


> I do line level matched direct A/B switched comparison tests of every piece of equipment I own. *Every player and every amp/receiver I have ever owned sounds identical. *If you would like some recommendations of dependable brands next time you are in the market, let me know.


 
  
 +1
  
 (however, the existence of an audible difference in sound between amps was, for instance, the basis for the Carver Challenge back in the '80s)


----------



## Grave

Transparent DAC/amps exist, isn't that great?
  
 The ODAC/O2 sounds slightly more clear than the audiophile gear I had before which was not.


----------



## bigshot

grave said:


> Transparent DAC/amps exist, isn't that great?
> 
> The ODAC/O2 sounds slightly more clear than the audiophile gear I had before which was not.


 
  
 Audiophile equipment is more likely to be colored to create a "house sound". I'd rather have accurate sound. It's cheaper and sounds better.


----------



## Baxide

What is "accurate sound"? The sound that is either picked up by a set of mics during recording, the artificially generated sound from electronic musical instruments, or the sound resulting from the D to A conversion process?


----------



## liamstrain

baxide said:


> What is "accurate sound"? The sound that is either picked up by a set of mics during recording, the artificially generated sound from electronic musical instruments, or the sound resulting from the D to A conversion process?


 
  
 For our purposes, we are only talking about playback of an already mastered recording. The sound that as precisely as possible reproduces the information encoded on the playback media (CD/Tape/Vinyl). There are too many other variables involved on the other end of that, to even begin to work backwards towards the performance (if there even was one).


----------



## bigshot

baxide said:


> What is "accurate sound"?


 
  
 The sound on the CD you are playing.


----------



## Baxide

If it is THAT simple, how does one know when it is accurate? There is no way to tell.


----------



## analogsurviver

liamstrain said:


> For our purposes, we are only talking about playback of an already mastered recording. The sound that as precisely as possible reproduces the information encoded on the playback media (CD/Tape/Vinyl). There are too many other variables involved on the other end of that, to even begin to work backwards towards the performance (if there even was one).


 
 That says it all.
  
 I did say, countless time, I use live sound or sound picked by the microphones for reference. And 99+% of the time I record acoustic music without any electronic acoustical means used by the performers .
  
 Then would come raw master on whatever is used for recording.
  
 Only then would come mastered recording encoded on the playback media. 
  
 It is precisely due to difficulties involved in the process to work backwards towards the performance why this debate is taking place at all. First, performance must have taken place.
  
 In principle, one could sample the sound of the "best" singers, soloists, orchestras, conducted by the "best" conductor(s) - or better still, a single conductor in order to provide at least some artist consistency - and use that to "record" music the musicians used for sampling never played even individually, let alone together live on stage. And then master that to death until note by note perfection is achieved. Making the mastering engineer the true artist.
 Removing, by default, the last vestige of live sound and imprinting the stamp of whatever technical means used to
 make it possible at all.
  
Would the above, admittedly carried to the extreme, encoded to playback medium , still represent something you would accept as mastered recording fit to demonstrate whatever playback equipment ?


----------



## liamstrain

analogsurviver said:


> That says it all.
> 
> I did say, countless time, I use live sound or sound picked by the microphones for reference. And 99+% of the time I record acoustic music without any electronic acoustical means used by the performers .


 
  
 Yes, and as the recording engineer/mastering engineer - presumably you work to capture that performance with as much accuracy to the original performance (or at least spirit of the performance) as possible.
  
 I aim for my playback system to reproduce your efforts with as little of its own influence, as possible. Since I, as a CD purchaser was not there to compare against the performance, as a reference, I must trust that you are good what you do. And by the same token, not having the performance as a reference, I should not "tune" my system to compensate for deficiencies I can not accurately identify. Transparency is best, as a goal.
  
  


> In principle, one could sample the sound of the "best" singers, soloists, orchestras, conducted by the "best" conductor(s) - or better still, a single conductor in order to provide at least some artist consistency - and use that to "record" music the musicians used for sampling never played even individually, let alone together live on stage. And then master that to death until note by note perfection is achieved. Making the mastering engineer the true artist.
> Removing, by default, the last vestige of live sound and imprinting the stamp of whatever technical means used to
> make it possible at all.
> 
> Would the above, admittedly carried to the extreme, encoded to playback medium , still represent something you would accept as mastered recording fit to demonstrate whatever playback equipment ?


 
  
 I honestly do not know what you are asking here. It sounds like you are asking about an electronic artists composition (using sampled sounds), in which case, yes, I would want my playback to be as true to that artist's composition as possible (regardless of the instrument used) - but I don't know if that's what you mean.


----------



## liamstrain

baxide said:


> If it is THAT simple, how does one know when it is accurate? There is no way to tell.


 
  
 If you wished you could record the audio in your listening room, and compare the waveforms to look for obvious peaks and deviations across the audible range. Obviously it could not be a perfect match, but major shifts in emphasis would be obvious.
  
 I'm certain their are other ways. But that's an additional good argument for gear transparency. You don't know, so why are you selecting gear that does anything but reproduce the music transparently.


----------



## stumpy

I have been a high end speaker manufacturer/designer for 30 years, and an "audiophile" consumer as well.
  
 Once, I designed a speaker with a partner. Each of us had the same set of prototype speakers, and we were swapping components in and out and comparing notes.
  
 I remember calling my partner up one day and listening to the music playing in the background. I correctly identified the brand of capacitor he was using in the speakers, playing in the background over the phone, because of the sonic "signature".  It was immediately apparent. I know an amplifier designer who can pick out vinyl or digital over the phone, as I've talked to him a number of times with music playing in the background, and he was always right.
  
 A lot of these ABX tests at the beginning of this article are terribly flawed.  Quick listening sessions of unfamiliar source material is the main problem. The ear, like other senses, can become desensitized very quickly (like when you grow used to the smell of your own house, for a slightly gross example).
  
 That said, there really is a lot of bull(*&* in the high end audio industry. Grossly inflated prices is the number one problem. 
  
 The other problem is the source material. Although I like popular music (read: rock, pop, etc.), it really doesn't place a lot of demands on the playback equipment. A good recording of popular music sounds pretty good on a wide range of equipment. The main differences being the dynamics (speaker size and ss amp power). Modern digital is pretty good for this too, most mid level gear sounding ok to my ears, with no reason to spend more.
  
 Not so classical. Most modern classical recordings are mediocre at best.. Listening to newer recordings of Baroque music played back on digital gear through solid state into decent speakers is a dry, sterile and tortuous exercise. You need tubes to make this kind of music come alive. Proper recording of classical music is a lost art, as far as I can tell.
  
 I have my own opinions on gear:
  
 Analog is better than digital, it always has been. If you put money into analog (table, arm, cartridge, phono stage) and have good records, you will reap the benefits of your investment. Not so with digital.  The best digital front ends sound only marginally better than the mid level gear. The law of diminishing returns applies (I did say mid level, not entry level). OTOH, a good digital front end is a thousand times more practical. It goes without saying that the newer digital gear is better than gear even a year or two old, because of advances in chips.
  
 With ss amplification, of equivalent power, there are difference, but some are "subtle". The best ss gear retrieves a tremendous amount of detail without sounding hard or clinical. Mid/entry level ss gear, however, (like Rotel, Yamaha Natural sound, etc) has come a long way, and sounds pretty good to me. Pretty good but not great. Differences between these products and the megabuck gear is mainly in low level detail, soundstage, and perceived "quickness and dynamics". Excessive hardness, brightness, and grain has been greatly diminished in this stuff. I find Class D amps  to be underwhelming. Too smoothed over in the mids and surprisingly, the bass isn't all that convincing, and the treble lacks "enthusiasm".
 I haven't heard them all.
  
 I now find that some Japanese consumer brands' higher end products  sound very good compared to just a decade ago, and much better compared to 3 decades ago.  Too bad for all those boutique brands out there, and all the hard working designers of 2-4k integrated amps over in Europe, and the mid level DAC designers too.  I can't hear an important difference in these products (European or botique integrated amps/dacs versus the best 2 channel stuff from, say, Yamaha).
  
 Cables:  There is a difference in sound between cables, depending on what they are constructed from, and how well they are made (professionally terminated). There is a difference between connectors (high mass, low mass, surface area of contact).  Solid core, stranded, insulation (teflon or pvc), etc. These differences are "subtle" and not often apparent in quick a/b tests. OTOH,  outrageously priced cables are not worth the money. Common sense will tell you that. It's a scam, with very little basis in cost of materials or cost of manufacturing.
  
 Speakers: Most competently designed speakers sound remarkably similar at first listen at low volume. Achieving a flat response without gross errors (cone breakup problems, deviations from flat frequency response) is very easy to do now with modern measuring equipment. The Andrew Jones designed Pioneer speakers you can purchase at Best Buy for $129 each are amazingly good (though with limited power handling, so get the sub). They equal speakers costing upwards of 1k a pair of just a decade ago. I have some myself.
 In general, with speakers, you pay for dynamics, bass extension, and transparency, without errors of commission by the drivers or xo components. It's not a cheap proposition. Great speakers are just expensive to make (but not as expensive as the list prices indicate). 
  
 Since the consumer demands slender cabinets, small vented woofers are everywhere, which is a shame.  Large, sealed woofers sound better.
  
 Tubes: The only way to go for Classical and acoustic music, especially with digital sources. Unfortunately, they all sound different (the amps, the preamps and the tubes themselves), and different in unsubtle ways.No ss amplification captures the proper harmonic structure of stringed instruments. SS channels Santana, Norah Jones, Radiohead, pretty well, however.
  
 My opinions.


----------



## liamstrain

stumpy said:


> My opinions.


 
  
 Welcome, Stumpy - to HeadFi, and to "Sound Science" - your opinions are welcome, though we must be clear that is what they are. Many of your assertions are supported by anecdote alone, and while fine in a general discussion, doesn't counter more objective (bias controlled, and measurement based) evidences in this sub-forum. 
  
 At any rate, thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I look forward to hearing more from you.


----------



## bigshot

baxide said:


> If it is THAT simple, how does one know when it is accurate? There is no way to tell.


 
  
 Put signal in one end. See if it's the same when it comes out the other side.


----------



## bigshot

liamstrain said:


> Yes, and as the recording engineer/mastering engineer - presumably you work to capture that performance with as much accuracy to the original performance (or at least spirit of the performance) as possible.


 
  
 Actually, the engineer has a part in *creating* the performance. Recording and mixing isn't just pointing a camera and pushing the button. You craft the sound and create a balance that is better and more organized than real. When you're done, it sounds real. But  the reason it does is all the work you did to organize the sound.


----------



## liamstrain

Bigshot - of course. For the sake of this argument though, it is the engineer's efforts we must evaluate, we cannot know his intent.


----------



## Huggtand

bigshot said:


> Put signal in one end. See if it's the same when it comes out the other side.


 
  
 How do you measure the output from headphones best? Do I have to put a mic where my ear will go?


----------



## liamstrain

Huggtand - they make test stands essentially shaped like a human head, with mic's inside, ear canals, etc. That's the best way I know of, for headphones. But honestly measuring transducers (headphones or speakers) is it's own mess - which is why so many of us rely on measurements provided by people who already are equipped to do so well. You can check other components more easily though.


----------



## Huggtand

Thanks, not for me as a beginner then


----------



## cjl

baxide said:


> What is "accurate sound"?


 
 For the purpose of talking about an amplifier? It's really simple. Measure the signal going into the amp. Measure the signal coming out of the amp. If there is any difference aside from signal amplitude, it isn't accurate.


----------



## bigshot

huggtand said:


> How do you measure the output from headphones best? Do I have to put a mic where my ear will go?


 
  
 There are people who do those sorts of measurements and post them on the web. You don't have to go to all that trouble. Just figure out what the numbers mean in terms of real world sound that ears can hear and start looking at the charts. The problem is that most people don't bother to figure out what the real world sound is and base their opinions on abstract wavy lines.


----------



## Cryozeal

Thanks, This is one of the most useful compilation of articles I have ever read.


----------



## appsmarsterx

Does anyone knows how we can measure (properly compare) refinement of a headphone compared to another ?  sometimes I feel very guilty for saying "X headphone is more refined than Y". 
 and anyone knows how we can measure headphone characteristics like "grain", without giving our subjective impressions like "X is less grainy than Y" ?


----------



## liamstrain

First you need to define what exactly is meant by the terms. What characteristics define "refinement" and "grain." As it is, those are very fuzzy concepts. Then we can find tests to show it. 

 The flip side of that is - not everything is objective. How do you evaluate a painting for elegance? Is that even a useful criteria to try and apply objectively? Is there an agreed upon standard by which to make such a comparison. 
  
 When comparing headphones - you could probably start to draw some correlations between square wave performance, and the frequency response - and see which ones are more likely to have harsh spikes, or distortion when changing frequencies (and other measures) - and contrast those with impressions of words like refinement, and grain... to begin to see what elements might contribute to such a characteristic. But you are always going to be stuck with the definitions problem.


----------



## money4me247

appsmarsterx said:


> Does anyone knows how we can measure (properly compare) refinement of a headphone compared to another ?  sometimes I feel very guilty for saying "X headphone is more refined than Y".
> and anyone knows how we can measure headphone characteristics like "grain", without giving our subjective impressions like "X is less grainy than Y" ?


 
  
 I think refinement would really just be correlated to how neutral the frequency response is.
  
 Honestly, you will find that most things in this hobby is simply subjective impressions. Can vary from listener. Just the nature of it. Would love to have more objective data, but that doesn't seem to be the trend.


----------



## bigshot

liamstrain said:


> The flip side of that is - not everything is objective. How do you evaluate a painting for elegance? Is that even a useful criteria to try and apply objectively? Is there an agreed upon standard by which to make such a comparison.


 
  
 Actually, artists have fundamental principles that they can judge the quality of art on... the flow of a composition, balance, line of action, silhouettes, negative space, color theory, etc. Analysis and functionality are as important in art as in any other field.
  
 Anything can be judged by objective criteria. The differences in opinions come in when someone values one particular criteria more than another person does. In that case, neither are wrong, they just have different priorities. This is entirely different than like/don't like based on pure subjective taste.


----------



## bigshot

The way to analyze headphones is to first, understand the basic criteria for judging sound (frequency response, distortion, dynamics, time error, etc.). Then find out how those elements affect sound and what the thresholds of audibility for each one are. When you know those two things, you can compare one set of headphones to another in very specific ways. You can also look at the graphs that get posted and know what that will end up sounding like.
  
 A lot of people understand the criteria, but never get around to researching the audibility. This is actually worse than knowing nothing at all, because they end up chasing numbers that don't relate at all to what their ears can hear, and worry about waterfall chart measurements and square wave performance that are totally irrelevant to good sound.


----------



## liamstrain

bigshot said:


> Actually, artists have fundamental principles that they can judge the quality of art on... the flow of a composition, balance, line of action, silhouettes, negative space, color theory, etc. Analysis and functionality are as important in art as in any other field.
> 
> Anything can be judged by objective criteria. The differences in opinions come in when someone values one particular criteria more than another person does. In that case, neither are wrong, they just have different priorities. This is entirely different than like/don't like based on pure subjective taste.


 
  
 I certainly agree. My point was not that you could not judge the painting objectively. But that some applied criteria are not objective.


----------



## castleofargh

liamstrain said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, artists have fundamental principles that they can judge the quality of art on... the flow of a composition, balance, line of action, silhouettes, negative space, color theory, etc. Analysis and functionality are as important in art as in any other field.
> ...


 

 if it's not objective, it's sexual, and might involve my mother.  art V1.0 Freud style.


----------



## vertical

castleofargh said:


> if it's not objective, it's sexual, and might involve my mother.  art V1.0 Freud style.


 
  
 Ha ha. Thx, I needed that


----------



## bigshot

liamstrain said:


> I certainly agree. My point was not that you could not judge the painting objectively. But that some applied criteria are not objective.


 

 Wouldn't any defined criteria be basically objective? It might not be cut and dried, but objectivity is about the process, not the result.
  
 I work with great artists daily, and I can tell you that some of them can analyze art in ways that a scientist could learn from.


----------



## money4me247

bigshot said:


> Wouldn't any defined criteria be basically objective? It might not be cut and dried, but objectivity is about the process, not the result.


 
 could be a defined subjective criteria... like what sounds best to me. =P


----------



## liamstrain

bigshot said:


> Wouldn't any defined criteria be basically objective? It might not be cut and dried, but objectivity is about the process, not the result.
> 
> I work with great artists daily, and I can tell you that some of them can analyze art in ways that a scientist could learn from.


 
  
 The problem is that word "defined." Often there are no agreed upon definitions, or comparison points. I also work with artists daily (I'm an art director in an ad agency, and also a photographer) - and while we can break something down pretty specifically, some things are still pretty vague/personal/subjective. I used elegance before as a term which is loosely defined. 
  
 We can evaluate the things that go into elegance. clear expression of purpose, well defined and organized composition, good execution, etc. Each of which can be defined and evaluated mostly objectively - or at least against good benchmarks. But does meeting those criteria mean something is elegant? Sometimes. It depends. I do think some criteria, or at least some synthesis conclusions drawn from multiple criteria defy objectivity. 

 To me this devalues those criteria as useful tools (grain/refinement, etc) when discussing a headphone (or painting). At the very least means judgements using them, must be backed up by the evaluations we can measure. 

 I'm not sure I'm saying this clearly... I also suspect you and I largely are in agreement here - just nitpicking to clarify the argument.


----------



## bigshot

Elegance is vague. Clear silhouettes and a composition that flows and is balanced is pretty clear. There is specific terminology in art too. Lots of very specific aesthetic theories, (like warms against cools, contrasts in scale of textures, etc) too


----------



## liamstrain

Precisely - which is the point of my response regarding "refined" and "grainy" in headphone evaluation. There is specific terminology in audio evaluation, which are well defined, testable, and benchmarked. Then there are terms like "refined." Which doesn't mean anything objectively - too vague. Like "elegant." 

 "Elegance is vague. Clear silhouettes and a composition that flows and is balanced is pretty clear." - I would argue though, that the latter may be a component of elegance, but do not completely define it. And just meeting those criteria would not guarantee elegance.


----------



## appsmarsterx

thanks for the response. since majority of these audiophile terms are just subjective definitions, what is the best way to sonically compare 2 products ? from what I understand, testing things like distortion and frequency response can't really say overall resolution of a headphone.  so how can we say A headphone is overall sonically superior than B without giving our bias personal impressions ?


----------



## money4me247

appsmarsterx said:


> thanks for the response. since majority of these audiophile terms are just subjective definitions, what is the best way to sonically compare 2 products ? from what I understand, testing things like distortion and frequency response can't really say overall resolution of a headphone.  so how can we say A headphone is overall sonically superior than B without giving our bias personal impressions ?




u can't. that's why all reviews abt headphones around here are just subjective impressions & subjective comparisions. frequency response graphs are the only semi-objective measurement, but even then different sites have different ways of measuring it & the graphs dont always correlate to what ppl hear...

lol its kinda funny if u think abt it.


----------



## liamstrain

appsmarsterx said:


> from what I understand, testing things like distortion and frequency response can't really say overall resolution of a headphone.  so how can we say A headphone is overall sonically superior than B without giving our bias personal impressions ?


 
  
 It depends on what you are after - again, it comes down to definition. What do you mean by "overall resolution" ability to render microdetails clearly? we can measure that.
  
 What do you mean by sonically superior? For some people that will mean relatively neutral presentation, for others a big W curve and wow factor, for others airy and spacious presentation. We can demonstrate and measure all those things. But just saying "sonically superior" is a bit vague. You could, however, say that a given headphone performs better across a wide range of metrics. It has been my experience, that headphones which do, sound better to me - so I can look at those numbers and make a judgement call on the likelihood of a given headphone being pleasing to my ear. 
  
 That's using subjective judgment, but backed by objective measures and predictive value.


----------



## James-uk

So based on the objective criteria alone which headphone is technically the most 'accurate'?


----------



## liamstrain

What do you mean by accurate? Most neutral frequency range? Least distortion? All of the above?


----------



## James-uk

liamstrain said:


> What do you mean by accurate? Most neutral frequency range? Least distortion? All of the above?



All of the above I suppose. On paper I think the HD800 And SR009 pretty much nail it yet many think they are bright. My personal preference is the hd600 but on paper not as good as the other 2. Bass distortion on the 600 is pretty high although I hear it as 'fuller' sounding .


----------



## SilverEars

james-uk said:


> All of the above I suppose. On paper I think the* HD800 *And SR009 pretty much nail it yet many think they are bright. My personal preference is the hd600 but on paper not as good as the other 2. Bass distortion on the 600 is pretty high although I hear it as 'fuller' sounding .


 
 That's a joke right?  It is bright and it shows on the FR.  It's FR is the reason why you can only listen to it with certain music genres.  People try to fix it with expensive amps and dacs.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  They just can't face the reality.  It's brightness and harshness is it's true nature and people find colored sources to hardware EQ the damn thing.  People avoid genre with emphasis on harsh frequenices.  The audiophile genre which doesn't emphasize those frequencies.
  
 HD800 thread is the worst subjective thread I've ever read.  Bunch of unless info in there.


----------



## appsmarsterx

money4me247 said:


> u can't. that's why all reviews abt headphones around here are just subjective impressions & subjective comparisions. frequency response graphs are the only semi-objective measurement, but even then different sites have different ways of measuring it & the graphs dont always correlate to what ppl hear...
> 
> lol its kinda funny if u think abt it.


 
  
  
 I just want to know is there any way we can avoid the subjective bias. I believe subjective bias can lead in to myths. 
  


liamstrain said:


> It depends on what you are after - again, it comes down to definition. What do you mean by "overall resolution" ability to render microdetails clearly? we can measure that.
> 
> What do you mean by sonically superior? For some people that will mean relatively neutral presentation, for others a big W curve and wow factor, for others airy and spacious presentation. We can demonstrate and measure all those things. But just saying "sonically superior" is a bit vague. You could, however, say that a given headphone performs better across a wide range of metrics. It has been my experience, that headphones which do, sound better to me - so I can look at those numbers and make a judgement call on the likelihood of a given headphone being pleasing to my ear.
> 
> That's using subjective judgment, but backed by objective measures and predictive value.


 
  
  
 yes. that's what I meant by "overall resolution" - ability to render microdetails clearly/better than.... by term "sonically superior",  I meant ability to render microdetails better /ability to render instrument timbre better than another product (headphone) clearly . may be the term "refined" can probably mean the same thing..
  
 if we can measure the microdetail rendering capability of a headphone, how can we do that ? is there any particular tests for that ? (without subjective hearing tests)
  
  
 as an example, let's compare hd558 and hd600 for a moment, how can we sonically measure, which headphone has better resolution (overall better sound quality) than another by objective tests ? (without biased, subjective hearing tests).


----------



## money4me247

appsmarsterx said:


> I just want to know is there any way we can avoid the subjective bias. I believe subjective bias can lead in to myths.
> 
> yes. that's what I meant by "overall resolution" - ability to render microdetails clearly/better than.... by term "sonically superior",  I meant ability to render microdetails better /ability to render instrument timbre better than another product (headphone) clearly . may be the term "refined" can probably mean the same thing..
> 
> ...


 
 There is absolutely no objective standard test for anything in this hobby. Everything is subjective... even stuff that sounds objective is usually either taken out of context or overstating the importance of certain measurements that do not have that big of an effect in real life. You will learn soon enough that most people here form their opinions first, and then cherry-pick information to support their view. If you have come for objective-talk, this website is probably not the best place for you.
  
 There is the frequency response curve serves as a rough guideline on how to expect headphones to sound overall. There is harmonic distortion curves, square wave response, and cumulative spectral decay (waterfall) plots/impulse response. I am not sure how valuable any of these objective measurements are. I am actually in the pro-measurements/objectivity camp, but it doesn't seem like any of those measurements really means much in real life applications except the frequency response curve. Everything else seems kinda just bragging rights that it measured well. 
  
 However, I think there is actually a lot of value in an ear test. If you have ears (no need for special ears), and just do a double blind ABx comparison between two headphones that you have done no research about in terms of price/reviewed performance... I think whatever the difference you hear would probably be pretty accurate (as after you remove expectation bias, our ears are quite good at picking random differences).
  
 In fact, I honestly think that the lack of objective criteria is one of the reasons some people are drawn to this hobby. They like the fact that you can be a "golden ear/audiophile" and sound like a really legit expert without really saying/knowing anything beyond owning something expensive. The fact that there isn't a comprehensive sticky about common audiophile myths & what current scientific testing has found (cable difference, burn-in, decay, the real-world impact of amps/dacs) and the fact that head-fi is actually ad-sponsored... I really think that the main purpose of this website is really just to promote purchasing 'audiophile' gear and for people who enjoy the gear to socialize. Questioning sketchy manufacturer practices like charging an additional >$100+ for a small tweak for essentially the same product doesn't really get anywhere around here. Questioning priceerformance ratio usually just piss off owners of expensive stuff. Anytime you try to get into any objective type debate on the general forums, any random person's subjective impressions is always "more legit" due to the head-fi mentality that statements about headphones are only valid after hearing them. 
  
 Just what I've found from my experiences here. Didn't mean to sound negative about this place, but I think you have to see this website for what it is: bunch of headphone geeks that are using it as a platform to express their opinions and have people listen to them as audiophile experts.


----------



## sonitus mirus

money4me247 said:


> frequency response graphs are the only semi-objective measurement, but even then different sites have different ways of measuring it & the graphs dont always correlate to what ppl hear...


 
  
 I was able to use frequency response graphs from a single site that included all of the headphones that I had either auditioned or owned to get a rough idea of the characteristics that I preferred, and those that I did not favor as much.  Then, I read through countless posts and user reviews/experiences to get additional information and feedback on the headphones I was researching.  I had to find people that had similar tastes as mine, so that I could trust their impressions over another with completely different preferences in sound signatures.  The last few headphone purchases that I have made, even without auditioning them beforehand, provided the sound signature that I was fully expecting to hear based on this research.
  
 Frequency response graphs can be extremely helpful, if they are consistent with regards to how they are generated.


----------



## bigshot

There are several objective measurements that can tell you if something produces accurate sound... frequency response, distortion, noise floor/dynamic range, etc. As long as these criteria measure better than the threshold of human perception, they are audibly transparent. That means accurate. If something doesn't reach audible transparency, but gets closer than something else, it is more accurate. Specs represent sound. If you look at specs that were measured properly and you understand what the numbers represent, you should be able to know pretty well how something is going to sound.
  
 Audiophiles love to argue that specs don't represent how things sound. They like to say you can't measure that sort of thing and everything is subjective. That's because they are afraid of being proven wrong yet again. I don't have a lot of respect for people who value their own ego over the truth.


----------



## money4me247

sonitus mirus said:


> I was able to use frequency response graphs from a single site that included all of the headphones that I had either auditioned or owned to get a rough idea of the characteristics that I preferred, and those that I did not favor as much.  Then, I read through countless posts and user reviews/experiences to get additional information and feedback on the headphones I was researching.  I had to find people that had similar tastes as mine, so that I could trust their impressions over another with completely different preferences in sound signatures.  The last few headphone purchases that I have made, even without auditioning them beforehand, provided the sound signature that I was fully expecting to hear based on this research.
> 
> Frequency response graphs can be extremely helpful, if they are consistent with regards to how they are generated.


 
 I do agree that frequency response graphs are extremely helpful. but really more helpful when you are comparing headphones with drastically different sound signatures or to get a general sense of the sound signature.
  
 however, like this example: 

 beyond the general sense of the sound signature, I feel like micro-analyzing the slight curve differences is counter-productive. The thing is that these graphs are all smoothed out, so there is probably even more detailed rough spots that you can see if you zoom. I feel like simply doing a blind ABx listening comparison test would be much more productive than trying to extrapolate how a difference in curve at spot X over spot Y affects the sound. I feel like sometimes people do get biased by looking at frequency response curves first and then attribute perceived XYZ sonic changes due to X spot on a graph. Expectation bias can happen from both subjective data and objective data!! That's why I personally prefer blind listening comparisons as the best standard for 'objective' judging. I feel like if it is a well-controlled comparison, it gives that individual a very good and realistic sense of how the headphones perform without any biases.


----------



## liamstrain

money4me247 said:


> There is absolutely no objective standard test for anything in this hobby. Everything is subjective...


 
  
 Suffice it to say, I disagree entirely.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Apparently, I prefer an elevated bass. I was running around with a pair of Sennheiser PX100 with my DAP, and I really liked the sound.  I purchased a Sennheiser HD595 thinking it would be a better version of the cheaper PX100, but they were missing the bass oomph that I was seeking.  I used the same FR graphs on HeadRoom to identify similar FR graphs that matched the PX100 to get a list of headphones to investigate further.  Maybe I just got lucky, but the Denon AH-D5000 has a very similar FR, and I have not found a better headphone to my ears.
  
 Alternately, as a reference, I knew the AKG-701 was another headphone that I had that was lacking in bass (to me).   I avoided headphones with a similar FR. 
  
 In the end, I found that I do enjoy a flatter FR response, as long as this extends to sub-bass, as my Denon's have been modded to tame the bass a bit and I also enjoy my Mr. Speaker Mad Dogs, which are much flatter than the V-shaped signature of my D5000.  I still prefer the D5000 to the Mad Dogs overall, and I am not able to EQ to achieve a similar sound.  So, maybe I don't want accuracy in my headphones?


----------



## bigshot

money4me247 said:


> beyond the general sense of the sound signature, I feel like micro-analyzing the slight curve differences is counter-productive.


 
  
 When I look at that chart, I see almost identical response out almost to 10kHz +/-3dB or so. Then a considerable variation beyond that. I apply that to what I know about human hearing... i.e.: the most important octaves for balanced response are the ones between 40Hz and 10kHz, 3dB is the just noticeable difference for frequency response variation in music, the last octave from 10kHz-20kHz is the least used octave in music... and it tells me that barring any significant distortion or problems with fit and comfort, these headphones would all sound pretty similar. Odds are the variation due to manufacturing tolerances between two headphones of the same make and model might be as different as the differences between these different makes and models.


----------



## money4me247

bigshot said:


> When I look at that chart, I see almost identical response out almost to 10kHz +/-3dB or so. Then a considerable variation beyond that. I apply that to what I know about human hearing... i.e.: the most important octaves for balanced response are the ones between 40Hz and 10kHz, 3dB is the just noticeable difference for frequency response variation in music, the last octave from 10kHz-20kHz is the least used octave in music... and it tells me that barring any significant distortion or problems with fit and comfort, these headphones would all sound pretty similar. Odds are the variation due to manufacturing tolerances between two headphones of the same make and model might be as different as the differences between these different makes and models.


 
 hehe! i like your description  thank you. I think I would agree with your assessment.
  
 I have found that some people here sometimes go crazy about a certain peak, bump, or dip... and I am personally unsure how significant the impact of a slight measured variation between FR curves. I am personally leaning towards that you can probably accurately draw out an expected frequency response from just listening to a pair of headphones, but won't be able to capture the subtle variations. Perhaps those subtle differences does cause the subtle differences in sound between headphones, but I think beyond more big picture view, overanalyzing the slight variations may be more counterproductive.


----------



## bigshot

"Pulling out subtle variations" is usually subjective audiophile hooey. That's code for "From here on out in my review, I'm going to make everything up."


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> When I look at that chart, I see almost identical response out almost to 10kHz +/-3dB or so. Then a considerable variation beyond that. I apply that to what I know about human hearing... i.e.: the most important octaves for balanced response are the ones between 40Hz and 10kHz, 3dB is the just noticeable difference for frequency response variation in music, the last octave from 10kHz-20kHz is the least used octave in music... and it tells me that barring any significant distortion or problems with fit and comfort, these headphones would all sound pretty similar. Odds are the variation due to manufacturing tolerances between two headphones of the same make and model might be as different as the differences between these different makes and models.


 
 I don't see those as being as similar as you do - the LCD-3 is 10-15dB quieter than the T1 at ~8kHz, and that should be pretty audible. I do agree that the T1 and HE500 would sound pretty darn similar based on that graph, but there's a bigger difference between those two and the other two just below 10kHz, and that's a sufficiently low frequency that I would expect it to be a clearly audible difference.


----------



## castleofargh

about the best headphone objectively, if we're talking about listening loud, then I would go for ortho/electro without a doubt. but if we're talking about not too loud listening(what I personally look for), then it gets really complicated. up to a point where you want to listen quietly for hours and it's a nightmare to know what to buy as you have to look for a more V shaped signature, the lowest distortion at low volume levels, and at some point you need isolation. something that tends to ruin the quality of a driver.
 I'm not sure we can get one headphone that does behave the best from 60 to 100db.
 but if you guys have suggestion for a some top contenders at low volume, I'm mighty interested.
  
  
 Quote:


money4me247 said:


> sonitus mirus said:
> 
> 
> > I was able to use frequency response graphs from a single site that included all of the headphones that I had either auditioned or owned to get a rough idea of the characteristics that I preferred, and those that I did not favor as much.  Then, I read through countless posts and user reviews/experiences to get additional information and feedback on the headphones I was researching.  I had to find people that had similar tastes as mine, so that I could trust their impressions over another with completely different preferences in sound signatures.  The last few headphone purchases that I have made, even without auditioning them beforehand, provided the sound signature that I was fully expecting to hear based on this research.
> ...


 

 reading a graph is just like anything else, if the guy doesn't know how to read a graph and doesn't have enough references to actual sound(having a few of the measured headphones, and having actual experience in identifying one frequency), it will be useless. you can't blame measurements for not being objective simply because most audiophiles are ignorant and too lazy to read a scale or the name of the compensation curve applied. or because some think they're talking about trebles when they hear 2khz and talk about how low a headphone goes because it has a massive 125hz boost. blame the user not the tool.
 the main problem with audiophiles isn't subjectivity vs objectivity(some don't even understand what that means). it's that they are mostly ignorant about everything related to audio. like you say, some will fight over 1db more at 8khz, but how many know that one T1 vs another T1 might very well have more than 1DB variation? how many know that placing them one way or another will change the signature again? or old pads vs new ones...
 why someone claim graphs are useless, why someone claims that high res sounds better, why someone keeps looking for NOS DACs at the end of 2014, why people buy 1000$ cables for an IEM...
 it all comes down to how ignorant and how mislead people can be. when we know what we are reading, namely one graph of one headphone of a given series, we know what we can make of it and what should not be taken at face value.
 and because even reading a sentence gets distorted and someone out there will feel offended for no reason, I feel like I have to explain that being ignorant isn't the same as being an idiot. a bird crashing on a window isn't an idiot, it just doesn't have all the data.
  
 I sure like to audition the headphones, but meets and festivals aren't that great as a tool too me. usually there is too much noise, not enough time and we usually can't afford to go back and forth between 2 or 3 headphones. so to me, meetings are where I can look for huge differences, and measurements are where I can fine tune ^_^. kind of the opposite of what you suggest. ofc owning the headphones is another story, but I don't have tens of them :'(.


----------



## bigshot

cjl said:


> I don't see those as being as similar as you do - the LCD-3 is 10-15dB quieter than the T1 at ~8kHz, and that should be pretty audible. I do agree that the T1 and HE500 would sound pretty darn similar based on that graph, but there's a bigger difference between those two and the other two just below 10kHz, and that's a sufficiently low frequency that I would expect it to be a clearly audible difference.


 

 Try recreating it with EQ. See what you get. I bet it won't amount to a whole heck of a lot. By the time it gets up to the 8kHz and above range, the only thing that would be affected would be cymbals. You might be able to hear a slight difference in cymbal crashes if masking didn't cover it up anyway, but it wouldn't matter a whole lot to the overall response, because that is above the point where human ears perceive sound as a musical note and it is only occurring in brief cymbal hits, not continuous tones. 8kHz and up is pretty doggone high. People tend to overestimate the importance of that top octave to the response of transducers. If you can get fairly flat out to the top octave, you have accomplished 95% of your job.
  
 10-15dB at 3kHZ OH YEAH. Big difference. 10-15dB at 200Hz YES INDEED. But above 8kHz, you're starting to get into the ozone.


----------



## money4me247

@castleofargh, I'm definitely not saying graphs are useless, but yea, I do kinda feel like the fact that there are so many other variables (manufacturer variation in model, positioning, seal, pads, microphone placement, types of filtering used, type of weighting used, resolution of the graph you see vs the raw) that can influence the measurements that they are better served as guidelines rather than like a blueprint of exactly how the headphones are going to sound.
  
@liamstrain, the reason I stated earlier that there isn't any objective standard in the hobby (though slight exaggeration) is kind of being demonstrated here with how different people can have different interpretations of the objective data point: the frequency response curves. There are technically objective data points, but people have so much varying personal interpretations, I don't think there is really any hard universal objective standard. I would say that frequency response curves is probably the closest to an objective measuring stick as we have, but that does not seem to account for every aspect of the headphone's sound. There is also some objective value of comparing to a reference point (comparing one pair of headphones to another established sound of headphones in relative terms -> aka the HD600 has less bass than the M100s) as those claims can be duplicated and confirmed, but then you have lots of opinions that don't match, which is weird. Then factor in people's listening preferences, musical preferences, sound signature preferences... everything becomes really subjective really quickly. I think it is important to note that not everyone is looking for neutral headphones which makes things even more dependent on subjective "what do i like the best" type impressions.


----------



## bigshot

It's easy to find out for sure what the difference is. EQ the two settings and compare them for yourself. 10dB above 8kHz isn't the same as 10dB anywhere lower than that.


----------



## money4me247

bigshot said:


> It's easy to find out for sure what the difference is. EQ the two settings and compare them for yourself. 10dB above 8kHz isn't the same as 10dB anywhere lower than that.


 
 thank you for the information. i will definitely try that in the future to see what's up.


----------



## appsmarsterx

money4me247 said:


> There is absolutely no objective standard test for anything in this hobby. Everything is subjective... even stuff that sounds objective is usually either taken out of context or overstating the importance of certain measurements that do not have that big of an effect in real life. You will learn soon enough that most people here form their opinions first, and then cherry-pick information to support their view. If you have come for objective-talk, this website is probably not the best place for you.
> 
> There is the frequency response curve serves as a rough guideline on how to expect headphones to sound overall. There is harmonic distortion curves, square wave response, and cumulative spectral decay (waterfall) plots/impulse response. I am not sure how valuable any of these objective measurements are. I am actually in the pro-measurements/objectivity camp, but it doesn't seem like any of those measurements really means much in real life applications except the frequency response curve. Everything else seems kinda just bragging rights that it measured well.
> 
> ...


 
  
 yes I think you are right, this enthusiast niche might not for me. I'm not super rich or super crazy to spend 1000s of $$$ for something like super expensive cables, and these so called super high end amps, that doesn't makes much sense.  I'm thinking about quitting this place for a while but for some reason I'm keep coming back. I'm currently happy with my mid-fi setup, probably will stick with it forever.. lol
  
 I think once Tyll from innerfidelity did a burnin experiment with a Q701 but the results were inconclusive. there is a good article on ​goldenears, addressing the cables and the sound quality myth. it shows how capacitance/resistance in cables can only slightly changes the high and low frequencies, so some people might think buying high end cables can magically increase sound quality.
 http://en.goldenears.net/1301
  
 lack of objective criteria might be the reason why celebrity endorsed brands dominating the market share in this niche. probably they ll keep dominating forever..


----------



## limpidglitch

bigshot said:


> Try recreating it with EQ. See what you get. I bet it won't amount to a whole heck of a lot. By the time it gets up to the 8kHz and above range, the only thing that would be affected would be cymbals. You might be able to hear a slight difference in cymbal crashes if masking didn't cover it up anyway, but it wouldn't matter a whole lot to the overall response, because that is above the point where human ears perceive sound as a musical note and it is only occurring in brief cymbal hits, not continuous tones. 8kHz and up is pretty doggone high. People tend to overestimate the importance of that top octave to the response of transducers. If you can get fairly flat out to the top octave, you have accomplished 95% of your job.
> 
> 10-15dB at 3kHZ OH YEAH. Big difference. 10-15dB at 200Hz YES INDEED. But above 8kHz, you're starting to get into the ozone.


 
  
 Practical question here.
 When doing such a comparison, how should volume be normalized, if at all?


----------



## SilverEars

appsmarsterx said:


> yes I think you are right, this enthusiast niche might not for me. I'm not super rich or super crazy to spend 1000s of $$$ for something like super expensive cables, and these so called super high end amps, that doesn't makes much sense.  I'm thinking about quitting this place for a while but for some reason I'm keep coming back. I'm currently happy with my mid-fi setup, probably will stick with it forever.. lol
> 
> I think once Tyll from innerfidelity did a burnin experiment with a Q701 but the results were inconclusive. there is a good article on ​goldenears, addressing the cables and the sound quality myth.* it shows how capacitance*/resistance in cables can only slightly changes the high and low frequencies, so some people might think buying high end cables can magically increase sound quality.
> http://en.goldenears.net/1301
> ...


 
 I've seen FR sweep of cables.  Pretty much a flat line, purely resistive.  Capacitance and inducatance is negligible. A metal wire doesn't have capacitive or inductive characteristics at audio frequencies therefore it's flat, a resistor.  I haven't seen a sweep of cable other than a flat line.  This means it acts as a resistive element and only resistance matters to the signal.  Only cable that I have seen have significant(3.9ohm could be significant for very low impedance phones) resistance is Estron cables(because of high resisance, and why would you want high resistance?):
  
 http://cymbacavum.com/2014/09/24/estron-linum-balanced-2-5-trrs-think-thin-then-think-thinner/
  
Manufacturer impedance specifications are as follows:



> _ Vocal: 3.9Ω
> Music: 1.9Ω
> BaX: 1.4Ω
> 
> _


 For optimal technical performance with very sensitive multi-BA applications, the BaX model with lower impedance is recommended. *Linum* has posted some measurements of all three, using the same source gear and IEM, as performed by Cosmic Ears. Keep in mind that these measurements might not be applicable to all earphones.


----------



## Steve Eddy

liamstrain said:


> Suffice it to say, I disagree entirely.




I don't know, Liam. I think the only thing that has any real meaning to the _listener_ is the subjective experience. You can't really experience a set of numbers or measurements. You can only experience the gestalt. A favorite quote of mine:

_The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed_—Robert Pirsig

se


----------



## Rajikaru

steve eddy said:


> I don't know, Liam. I think the only thing that has any real meaning to the _listener_ is the subjective experience. You can't really experience a set of numbers or measurements. You can only experience the gestalt. A favorite quote of mine:
> 
> _The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed_—Robert Pirsig
> 
> se


 

 I believe in Gestaltism as well, when it comes to cars and motorcycles, the experience of which you can touch, hear, see, smell, and probably even taste (on a motorcycle). It is inherently easier to determine what's snake oil and what isn't with motor vehicles. Easier to measure (i.e. 0-60, lap times etc.), along with numerous safety and measuring standards etc. that vehicles have to go through before entering the market. We get to enjoy the gestalt mental dialogue when driving for the pleasure of it afterwards. 
  
 I cannot say it's the same case for audio though, which is why there should at least be a set of reasonable assumptions backed by solid science and measurements to operate on. A separator between what we know for sure (info backed by solid science, measurements, and listening tests) vs. unproven claims.


----------



## esldude

rajikaru said:


> I believe in Gestaltism as well, when it comes to cars and motorcycles, the experience of which you can touch, hear, see, smell, and probably even taste (on a motorcycle). It is inherently easier to determine what's snake oil and what isn't with motor vehicles. Easier to measure (i.e. 0-60, lap times etc.), along with numerous safety and measuring standards etc. that vehicles have to go through before entering the market. We get to enjoy the gestalt mental dialogue when driving for the pleasure of it afterwards.
> 
> I cannot say it's the same case for audio though, which is why there should at least be a set of reasonable assumptions backed by solid science and measurements to operate on. A separator between what we know for sure (info backed by solid science, measurements, and listening tests) vs. unproven claims.


 

 The point about the Pirsig quote is in the last sentence.  Either the machine or your mind is changed.  Even if the machines in audio are audibly equivalent a host of other factors alter the mind.  Altering the mind is what is needed.  But until one reaches that point in trusted the audible equivalence one likely can't change their mind.


----------



## Rajikaru

esldude said:


> The point about the Pirsig quote is in the last sentence.  Either the machine or your mind is changed.  Even if the machines in audio are audibly equivalent a host of other factors alter the mind.  Altering the mind is what is needed.  But until one reaches that point in trusted the audible equivalence one likely can't change their mind.


 
  

  
 When we talk about 'altering/changing the mind', the question is -_ Who is doing it?_
  
 The listener? The marketer? Head-fi group think? The Sith? 
  
 I'm highly resistant to Jedi mind tricks (or at least I hope I am). And if anyone is altering my mind, I would hope that person would be me.
  
 Seriously though, I know what you mean. There is a high level of subjectivity in this hobby. Objective measurements are important up to a certain point, after which subjective preferences come into play. 
  
 BTW, I've read your articles on nulling differences between cables, and wonder why no one does the same for Amplifiers and DACs.


----------



## bigshot

limpidglitch said:


> Practical question here.
> When doing such a comparison, how should volume be normalized, if at all?


 
  
 I would knock the whole track down a little more than the correction you are planning to do. That way it won't clip, and you'll be able to try ten dB up and ten down.


----------



## castleofargh

one simply can't seem to be able to thrive on doubt. I feel like being right has nothing to do with happiness, it's thinking we are right that matters, so that we can remove those annoying doubts that put shadows on our everyday happiness. "no diggity, no doubt".
  
  
  
  
 statistical results from DBT and ABX are used to decide if a drug is killing or helping people? well sure statistics are good enough for unimportant life and death questions, but they're not enough for amateur music listener. why? because they didn't say I was right last time.
 physical measurements are good enough when it comes to build a plane, send a ship into space, or built a 50stories building with 90% sand. but they can't explain sound pressure on a tympanic membrane. why? because measurements said that my favorite headphone had distortions. I can't live with that, better reject science entirely.
  
 -some rely on logic and the idea that an engineer might know a little more about electrical signal than some dude listening to music. those also tend to believe that humans are mostly made the same, that one day they will need glasses and that if doctors say human hearing goes from 20hz to 20khz then chances are that their own hearing abilities also lingers somewhere inside those values.
 those guys often lose some happiness in exchange for truth as they learn they are not always right.
  
  
 -others rely on ego and fame, always thinking that their own opinion or the opinion of the guy they respect most is the truth, and that they can perfectly be right while the entire world is wrong. those guys are the happiest as they never doubt. of course unless they're the american hero of a SF movie, in real life they pretty much always end up being dead wrong. but who cares about details like being wrong? they sure don't. ^_^


----------



## esldude

rajikaru said:


> BTW, I've read your articles on nulling differences between cables, and wonder why no one does the same for Amplifiers and DACs.


 
 Well I had intentions of doing the DAC and Amp nulling myself.    After discussions on cables I never bothered.  If you can't convince most with the cables then you have no hope with DACs or amps. 
  
 I have done a few DACs one channel vs another.  While not to audible levels genuine differences are much greater than interconnect.   I also believe one would find real differences between amps when they are connected to actual loudspeakers.  I may yet do those for satisfying my own curiosity.


----------



## bigshot

To some folks facts and careful testing are an impediment to what they want to believe. I don't expend a lot of energy on convincing those folks. I'll leave them to the shrinks.


----------



## SilverEars

appsmarsterx said:


> http://en.goldenears.net/1301
> .


 
 Good article. Read more into the article and looks like cable structure reveal it's reactive nature? In this case can capacitance or inductance be significant enough to be perceptable? Do some audiophile cables have significant enough reactance to shape FR? Anybody know of any products?  Could this be the reason for people stating cold or warm sounding based on iem cable? Is it possible these cables are purposely added reactance to be perceptable?
  
 I've seen Rin's cable measurements which were only flat. He didn't measure the $500 whiplash cable or anything like that. Would like to see the measurement. Are there measurements out there showing non-flat cables?


----------



## SilverEars

Golden Ears have wealth of info. Article on two cables. UE custom cable has 4.8ohms? Possibly for tuning the iem? Looks like the resistance shapes the impedance curve. Looks like area that is more affected is the least reactive area.


----------



## castleofargh

silverears said:


> Golden Ears have wealth of info. Article on two cables. UE custom cable has 4.8ohms? Possibly for tuning the iem? Looks like the resistance shapes the impedance curve. Looks like area that is more affected is the least reactive area.


 

 it's a tf10 impedance response with both cable, so only the differences must be looked at, not the overall shape.
 TF10 is my favorite pr0n star. I would recognize those curves
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 anywhere after spending so many years on markuskraus naughty RMAAs. 
  
  
 -the bash about EQ vs cable on goldenears post is priceless ^_^.


----------



## SilverEars

I meant shape the overall impedance curve which includes the driver.  I don't expect the cable to have resonance. Not sure if the phase is correct since the peak of the resonance is not 0 phase.  Looks like where it's capacitive is least affected by the cable resistance.


----------



## liamstrain

steve eddy said:


> I don't know, Liam. I think the only thing that has any real meaning to the _listener_ is the subjective experience. You can't really experience a set of numbers or measurements. You can only experience the gestalt. A favorite quote of mine:
> 
> _The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed_—Robert Pirsig
> 
> se


 
 There may well be a difference between what we experience, and what is true. But when what we experience is at odds with what we can show to be true, then I personally must defer to what is backed by evidence, not experience. This goes as far as discussions of facts about headphones. I only have issues when someone discusses experiences as though they were facts. I don't care if people want to believe differently, or make music decisions based on factors OTHER than what is measurable - hell, I prefer tubes. But I prefer them, knowing that I find the increased harmonic distortion pleasant - not because they are better (they are inherently flawed - same with vinyl). 
  
 As for meaning - at no point have I suggested that facts are the only thing that matters. Just that they are true.


----------



## liamstrain

castleofargh said:


> one simply can't seem to be able to thrive on doubt. I feel like being right has nothing to do with happiness, it's thinking we are right that matters, so that we can remove those annoying doubts that put shadows on our everyday happiness. "no diggity, no doubt".


 
  
 Skepticism is my bread and butter. Happiness has nothing to do with it. I cannot simply ignore facts, if they are disconcerting.


----------



## Steve Eddy

liamstrain said:


> I only have issues when someone discusses experiences as though they were facts.




Well, unless you're going to call them a liar, their experience is a fact, no? 

I know what you're saying, and that's where I draw the line as well. What I was getting at though is that as far as the listener themself is concerned, objective specs and measurements don't have any inherent universal meaning. 

se


----------



## bigshot

As long as brussel sprouts are poisonous, because that is my experience with them.


----------



## Strangelove424

If you were allergic to brussel sprouts, and only read audiophile literature, you might very well think that.


----------



## Dark_wizzie

I see we've moved onto vegetables for this thread. Progress!


----------



## castleofargh

vegetables are only a practical application of the multiverse theory:
 my world is the only real world ...
 hell is other people ...
 I live in a cave and only see shadows...
 if the box smells like dead cat, is quantum theory false?


----------



## limpidglitch

I know that I know what I know,
 that is all i know.


----------



## money4me247

lol if someone thinks brussels sprouts tastes 'poisonous' to them, I don't think it's not really something you can argue. it's a personal preference type deal. it is a fact as it is true that this person feels that way and experienced this, but not an universal 'truth' that can be applied to everyone.
  
 I don't think there is anything wrong with subjective type impressions about your headphones & preferences. Only issues I see is that some people get blinded by their own biases when making recommendations for others or arguments about headphones start because one person really personally like XYZ headphones and can't understand that someone else might have a different experience.
  
 Difference preferences in frequency response curves can factor greatly into the wide range of opinions on headphones. Remember not everyone is pursuing the pair of headphones that measures the most accurately or sounds neutral. Some people are just looking for what sounds best to them  that's what makes this hobby more interesting.


----------



## bigshot

Someday, someone is going to create a first class portable digital equalizer and the whole headphone market will take a nose dive. Instead of buying five or six sets of cans and swapping pads and modding them to try to shove them in the right or wrong direction, people will buy one set and EQ it exactly the way they want it to be.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I do want accurate sound, but typically I listen at very low volume levels with headphones, and I have found that I prefer a v-shaped frequency response.  With speakers, which I usually listen to at higher volume levels, I want a flatter frequency response.  I can listen to classical music on my speakers, but because the music almost always has a much larger dynamic range when compared to other genres, the sound signature of my headphones just doesn't cut it, since I have to increase the volume level.
  
 Though, I'm certain that the issue regarding Brussels sprouts being poisonous or not has been pea reviewed.


----------



## liamstrain

money4me247 said:


> lol if someone thinks brussels sprouts tastes 'poisonous' to them, I don't think it's not really something you can argue. it's a personal preference type deal. it is a fact as it is true that this person feels that way and experienced this, but not an universal 'truth' that can be applied to everyone.


 
  
 The equivalent argument would be that regardless of how it tastes to them, it is NOT poisonous. One is a subjective descriptor (how it tastes) the other a factual claim (poisonous).

 We can certainly apply a universal truth to that second point (allergens, or individual medical conditions not-withstanding, it is not a poisonous vegetable).
  
 And that's all I'm getting at - people can claim they hear things or don't - but some things can be tested and shown to be factually based. Their experience may not change, but the claims they can make about it must.


----------



## money4me247

bigshot said:


> Someday, someone is going to create a first class portable digital equalizer and the whole headphone market will take a nose dive. Instead of buying five or six sets of cans and swapping pads and modding them to try to shove them in the right or wrong direction, people will buy one set and EQ it exactly the way they want it to be.


 
  
 there are already many software EQ options out there, but people seem to prefer multiple pairs of headphones or modding over EQing. kinda weird if you think about it, but maybe new toy syndrome & the gratification of putting effort towards personally 'improving' your headphones? EQ is free!  hahah.
  
 i think it might be in the audiophile hobby culture to have that kind this mind-set of multiple pair of headphones for specific listening needs & hacking your headphones for  more improvement. would sound very impressive & 'audiophiley' to other people if you start talking like that hahah.


----------



## money4me247

liamstrain said:


> The equivalent argument would be that regardless of how it tastes to them, it is NOT poisonous. One is a subjective descriptor (how it tastes) the other a factual claim (poisonous).
> 
> We can certainly apply a universal truth to that second point (allergens, or individual medical conditions not-withstanding, it is not a poisonous vegetable).
> 
> And that's all I'm getting at - people can claim they hear things or don't - but some things can be tested and shown to be factually based. Their experience may not change, but the claims they can make about it must.


 
 hahah. lol obviously. brussel sprouts =/= poison. but that is a silly example as an obviously unrelated quality is applied to brussels sprouts as if someone else made such a nonsensical claim as fact. classic straw man argument. maybe something a 4 year old would say. so sure, if you define poisonous as being actually toxic to the human body, the example is worthless as that is obviously not a property of brussels sprouts and who would ever say that. but if you view it as "poisonous" as a personal, subjective description, the example has some value. 
  
 A more pertinent example is if someone says brussels sprouts taste 'bad.' this is an subjective impression, but you cannot argue with that person's experience regardless of what objective facts you pull up about its nutritional value or vitamin content.
  
 Claims people make about the sound are all based on a hypothetical personal "ideal sound." The bass sounds over-emphasized. ...over-emphasized compared to what? compared to this ideal that I have in my head about how the song should sound. By that very nature, it is all preferential and subjective without some sort of universal standard.


----------



## bigshot

I insist that Brussel Sprouts are poison. It's my opinion and it is just as good as any other opinion. If you disagree, either you are deaf or your stereo system is too cheap to reveal the poisonousness of Brussel Sprouts. If you persist in insisting that Brussel Sprouts are not poisonous, I am going to get emotionally distraught and notify the mods and they will lock this thread. So it's better for all of us to just agree that Brussel Sprouts are poison.


----------



## sonitus mirus

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/man-overdoses-on-brussels_n_2347448.html


----------



## money4me247

bigshot said:


> I insist that Brussel Sprouts are poison. It's my opinion and it is just as good as any other opinion. If you disagree, either you are deaf or your stereo system is too cheap to reveal the poisonousness of Brussel Sprouts. If you persist in insisting that Brussel Sprouts are not poisonous, I am going to get emotionally distraught and notify the mods and they will lock this thread. So it's better for all of us to just agree that Brussel Sprouts are poison.


 
 yes, you do make a point. that kind of attitude is ridiculous. applying an objective property to an item that can be easily objectively disproven is silly. And you are right, there are many people with that kind of mentality that is very frustrating to deal with. however, I feel like most claims people make about certain headphones are more personal subjective opinions.
  
 just think about the term 'audiophile.' it means lover of audio. it is totally an subjective view as people can love or hate the same objective sonic property. i do agree there is a place for objective measurements on sonic performance and that the pursuit of accuracy over other personal subjective sonic criteria is probably the easiest/best way to reach an enjoyable sound. I think objective criteria is very helpful (esp with the over-inflated prices of mediocre headphones), but there are many aspects of this hobby that is simply what you personally find to be most pleasing. This hobby is inherently subjective. 
  



sonitus mirus said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/man-overdoses-on-brussels_n_2347448.html


 
 hahaha!!!! rotfl too funny


----------



## OddE

bigshot said:


> Someday, someone is going to create a first class portable digital equalizer and the whole headphone market will take a nose dive. Instead of buying five or six sets of cans and swapping pads and modding them to try to shove them in the right or wrong direction, people will buy one set and EQ it exactly the way they want it to be.




-No, they won't. 'Regular' folk couldn't care less. (Why would I want a thingy like that, my earbuds look just fine the way they are?) 

Audiophiles, on the other hand, would in general be outraged that anyone could even suggest that EQ may be beneficial... Oh, the horrors.


----------



## liamstrain

money4me247 said:


> but if you view it as "poisonous" as a personal, subjective description, the example has some value.


 
  
 Back to the definitions problem. Basically, if you ignore the actual definitions of things, and apply words however you wish, then we cannot objectively measure things because we cannot know what to measure (they are making up the terms and what they mean). But when you do have them defined - e.g. poisonous or audibly transparent - then we can test it. And make predictions based on test results. Science! Don't want science, then don't make testable claims without evidence.


----------



## limpidglitch

I wonder what the LD50 is of Brussels sprouts.

*heads over to Web of Knowledge*


----------



## money4me247

liamstrain said:


> Back to the definitions problem. Basically, if you ignore the actual definitions of things, and apply words however you wish, then we cannot objectively measure things because we cannot know what to measure (they are making up the terms and what they mean). But when you do have them defined - e.g. poisonous or audibly transparent - then we can test it. And make predictions based on test results. Science! Don't want science, then don't make testable claims without evidence.




Dude, you totally missed how that was a straw man claim made sarcastically by big shot. It's not a definition problem, the initial statement is just ridiculous. It makes no sense if you define poisonous objectively. As a food item, bussels sprouts is inherently not poisonous. Basically like saying the food is poison. Or headphones are shoes. The statement is just blatantly false and does not typify normal subjective audiophile opinions. It is a poor example. Something like a specific food tastes bad would be more pertinent to the discussion of the subjective nature of experience. And ithink that is perfectly reasonable.

Edit: You can have an objectively measured "linear bass" on the FR graph, but someone can think that the bass is lacking. That is because they aren't seeking audibly transparent or audiophile neutral. They just want what sounds good to them. There is no way to objectively measure people's personal preferences. If you look at it from that mentality, I think that the subjectivity inherent to this hobby becomes apparent.

edit2: bigshot does make a good point about how some 'audiophile claims' are simply ridiculous and i agree that the whole idea of golden ears and attributing phantom qualities to certain headphones are silly. I think that objectively measured data and sonically-perceivable differences via ABx testing would be great for this hobby that is already fulled with random expensive junk that does not actually improve performance or myths about sound. However, personal preference is a big part of the hobby, so totally discounting personal experiences would be a mistake as well imo.


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> Someday, someone is going to create a first class portable digital equalizer and the whole headphone market will take a nose dive. Instead of buying five or six sets of cans and swapping pads and modding them to try to shove them in the right or wrong direction, people will buy one set and EQ it exactly the way they want it to be.


 
 If audiophiles won't accept free digital EQ on the desktop, why would they accept a portable version just because it's encased in a fancy box, and more expensive? Wait a second... nevermind. 
  
 I wouldn't mind having a portable DAC/EQ combo for the right price I think. A neutral setting with measured accuracy, and then a bypass EQ setting with 12+ physical sliders that adjusted bands in digital before going into analog. Could be nice for traveling.


----------



## castleofargh

about poisonous brussel sprouts:


----------



## headdict

strangelove424 said:


> If audiophiles won't accept free digital EQ on the desktop, why would they accept a portable version just because it's encased in a fancy box, and more expensive? Wait a second... nevermind.


 
 Exactly what I was thinking. If CHORD released a multi-grand EQ box that glows in the dark, now that might change the game!
 But it's a wide spread opinion (on head-fi anyway) that it's best to combine source/dac/amp/phones pairing with EQing. Gear obsessed audiophiles wouldn't stop rationalizing their GAS.


----------



## SunshineReggae

liamstrain said:


> Back to the definitions problem. Basically, if you ignore the actual definitions of things, and apply words however you wish, then we cannot objectively measure things because we cannot know what to measure (they are making up the terms and what they mean). But when you do have them defined - e.g. poisonous or audibly transparent - then we can test it. And make predictions based on test results. Science! Don't want science, then don't make testable claims without evidence.


 
  
 That's why they don't call it 'audibly transparent'. That would be too easy to (dis)prove. It gets transformed into 'clinical sounding'. If a device is 'audibly transparent', then it's 'clinical sounding'... Which is only an opinion, but if you disagree, that is just your opinion.. etc. This way it also means you don't even have to understand what audible transparency means to have an opinion about it. Works pretty great on the internets.


----------



## Dark_wizzie

Little off topic but regarding amps and coloration/distortion:
  
 Isn't it possible for a person to be fine with the caveats of a colored tube amp (coloration across everything, non-accurate, etc etc) and want a tube amp for the nonlinear distortion? Which you can't get with an EQ because that's linear... or so I heard.


----------



## liamstrain

IMO, yes it is certainly possible. That's my own situation. The problem only comes in when they start to mistake their _preference_ for objective (measured) improvement. E.g. forgetting that they like it for their flaws, and not that it is without them. 

 You can simulate tubes (not via EQ, but via other plugins). But I like the real thing for the aesthetic as much as the sonic effect.


----------



## Don Hills

castleofargh said:


> about poisonous brussel sprouts:
> ...


 
  
 The LD50 for Brussels Sprouts is about 105 g per Kg body weight. Between 8 to 9 kg (17.5 to 20 lb) for an 80 kg (176 lb) person. Severe health effects will occur at lower doses.
 (Maybe kids are smarter than we give them credit for when they refuse to eat them.)
 That concludes this Public Health announcement. We now return you to your regular programming.
  
 I'm with liamstrain on this. Give the choice between a "pretty" amp and an ugly one, and they both sound the same to me, I'll pick the pretty one even if it costs more. It's like appreciating the warmth of an open fire more than the same warmth from an electric heater.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Cost is a huge factor for me, and this is way more important than aesthetics.  I've always been in the opposite camp of Billy Crystal's character, Fernando ("You look marvelous!"), from SNL.  In contrast, I believe it is better to feel good than to look good.  I want the most practical amp that I can find at a good price that does what I need it to do.  I'm much more interested in compatibility with regards to connection types, size, and technical capabilities with my gear.  Although, I am truly happy to live in a world with so many varying opinions on these types of issues.


----------



## bigshot

I'm with you Sonitus. I don't mind spending money on something I need and will use, but when I end up with something that is very expensive that I really don't need, it galls me a little every time I look at it.


----------



## syNRG

Has anything been done with DAPs?
 I'm really curious as to what the blind testing has to say about spending a thousand dollars on a DAP when it's compared to something that is a fraction of the price.


----------



## bigshot

Get an iPod. They perform as well as any audiophile player.
  
 http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/ipod-touch-5g.htm


----------



## syNRG

bigshot said:


> Get an iPod. They perform as well as any audiophile player.
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/ipod-touch-5g.htm


 
 I'm looking for more than just measurements,; I'm looking for blind testing. Measurements are great, but in my opinion, they're only part of the story.
  
 I was hoping someone could link blind testing between something like the AK vs. iPod vs. Clip vs. Cowon (or any combination of these or other DAPs).


----------



## bigshot

Listening tests can only tell you if something sounds different, not if it sounds accurate. For accuracy, you look at measurements. Then once you find something that is audibly transparent, you can compare it to others and see if they sound the same. If they don't, then they aren't accurate. (logic) Measurements do tell the whole story. Sound is made up of frequencies. Deviation from accuracy is distortion. Volume is dynamic range. Those three things tell you an awful lot.
  
 But if it's listening tests you want, I've done direct A/B switched, line level matched comparisons between my home CD player (which I know to be audibly transparent) and an iPod playing an AIFF file ripped from the CD. Exactly the same.


----------



## castleofargh

synrg said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > Get an iPod. They perform as well as any audiophile player.
> ...


 

 it's not that hard to do, but then what headphone to do the test with? a super sensitive IEM that will make you hear the BZZZ BZZZ of the clip buffering, and the different levels of hiss of an ak(depends what model), and ipod? cowons are usually pretty quiet.
 or get some clue about what is what from the impedances changing the signature of something like a SE846?
 or some actually hard to drive headphones showing the limits of max volume on some DAPs sooner than on others?
 if you really want differences, it's easy to get some with most daps. and once there are some differences, picking the "best" sounding one will be simple. the reason why it's so hard to pretend like one DAP is better, is because with specific needs, the ideal DAP will change. 
 in the end the less demanding the headphone, the less important the source. that's what I really believe after trying a few DAPs now. and I'm not saying that in an elite audiophile way, as if you would need great sources to go with great headphones. no I mean that a lot of headphones are a damn bother and force you to change your source to adapt to them.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> it's not that hard to do, but then what headphone to do the test with? a super sensitive IEM that will make you hear the BZZZ BZZZ of the clip buffering, and the different levels of hiss of an ak(depends what model), and ipod? cowons are usually pretty quiet.
> or get some clue about what is what from the impedances changing the signature of something like a SE846?
> or some actually hard to drive headphones showing the limits of max volume on some DAPs sooner than on others?
> if you really want differences, it's easy to get some with most daps. and once there are some differences, picking the "best" sounding one will be simple. the reason why it's so hard to pretend like one DAP is better, is because with specific needs, the ideal DAP will change.
> in the end the less demanding the headphone, the less important the source. that's what I really believe after trying a few DAPs now. and I'm not saying that in an elite audiophile way, as if you would need great sources to go with great headphones. no I mean that a lot of headphones are a damn bother and force you to change your source to adapt to them.


 
 This has been a problem in the not so distant past. Check iFi Audio micro iDSD DAC  -  it can be adapted to ANY headphone out there ( save electrostatics ) - and although it sports > 4000 mW, it is possible to set it up/adjust/adapt even to the most sensitive IEM out there. On the other extreme, it *can* reasonably well power the most innefficient and power hungry _earspeakers _- the AKG K-1000 . 
  
 And it is one of the better/best DACs out there, specially for DSD. 
  
 I forgot to say that above is DAC/amp - to be used either with a smartphone on the go or as a part of the desktop computer system at home. I agree that DAPs are a niche product, bound to cost more for the same performance as smartphone + DAC/amp but offering less clutter/cabling. It is highly unlikely that software for any DAP will be as good and as well supported than that for highly competitive and above all incomparably more numerous smartphones. I would not mind an AK 240 myself, but unless it falls out of the blue in my hands I do not see it happening at the current price. Approximately the same level of quality can be had at about half the price with a smartphone and DAC/amp. For HD ( regardless if PCM or DSD) the bottleneck is the current capacity of memory cards - goes both for DAPs and smartphones, as they generally share the same memory cards. I also agree there is little sense for HD on the go in noisy enviroments.


----------



## money4me247

lol i feel like the whole DAP market is sucha niche and waste of time. any mp3 player works fine. or you can even use your smartphone nowadays if you have an external sd card. the two main appeals of a DAP seems pretty insignificant to me. the difference between lossless and 320kbps LAME mp3s isn't very noticeable in a blind ABx test or worth all that extra space for portable usage. if you are really into it fancy equipment, you can easily get a portable amp/dac for much cheaper & you aren't tied down into a >$200+ piece of hardware that gets outdated in a few years. also, stuck with their software and outdated player interface.


----------



## Rajikaru

money4me247 said:


> lol i feel like the whole DAP market is sucha niche and waste of time. any mp3 player works fine. or you can even use your smartphone nowadays if you have an external sd card.


 
  
 I'd have to disagree with that. A DAP is in many ways, a more elegant and efficient music source than a computer or a CD player. 
  
 Note that I'm talking about 'sensible' DAPs, because as you get closer to the $1K price range and higher, then it really does make much more sense to get something like an MS Surface Pro with an external DAC/AMP.
  
 Also, micro SD cards and hard drives are so affordable these days that storing lossless (i.e. flac) make sense as both a listenable music library and archive. Personally, I don't consider it archival if it's lossy.


----------



## syNRG

bigshot said:


> Listening tests can only tell you if something sounds different, not if it sounds accurate. For accuracy, you look at measurements. Then once you find something that is audibly transparent, you can compare it to others and see if they sound the same. If they don't, then they aren't accurate. (logic) Measurements do tell the whole story. Sound is made up of frequencies. Deviation from accuracy is distortion. Volume is dynamic range. Those three things tell you an awful lot.
> 
> But if it's listening tests you want, I've done direct A/B switched, line level matched comparisons between my home CD player (which I know to be audibly transparent) and an iPod playing an AIFF file ripped from the CD. Exactly the same.



I'm obviously not looking for accuracy especially if you look at the way that the above posts are worded; I'm specifically looking for a difference between 2 things. 
 
Although I agree that measurements are important, sound is only a perception, to say that measurements are the whole story, is in my opinion, somewhat wrong. From studying both the perception of vision and sound for the last 2 years, there is more to sound waves (or waves in general) than just what the physical properties are. After all, it's brain that interprets the sound. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Obviously not, since sound is just a perception. It's created when the ear detects different pressures (pressure waves/sound waves). Now I'm studying the actual physical properties waves and PDEs in math, and when I put the two things together, I don't think that measurements are the complete truth. But these are just my thoughts, nothing more.
(I apologise if I sound condescending in any way and it is not my intention to negatively impact your reputation, but I'm unsure as to how to word my thoughts other than directly.)
 
Between a CD player and iPod, I can imagine no difference, but I'm really looking for the high end. The highest of the high end to compare with the low end. I want to know if there is a difference between the 2. A HiFiMan DAP or a AK vs a Clip, iPod, Fiio.


----------



## Strangelove424

I've heard some horror stories of audiophile DAPs. Buggy implementations, UIs from the 80s, sound problems related to sound formats, and all for multiple times the price of a smartphone. The smartphone, just based on the the fact it has network connections, and can access any album on the spot streaming, seals the deal for me. And i particularly don't understand the striving for perfect, reference level sound in places that are almost certain to have relatively high ambient noise levels.


----------



## jodgey4

Also, why not just get a DAC/amp for a phone? More servers, players, storage, less pocket space sometimes... DAP's don't make much sense to me in the age of smartphones with standards for digital audio out.


----------



## Rajikaru

strangelove424 said:


> The smartphone, just based on the the fact it has network connections, and can access any album on the spot streaming, seals the deal for me. And i particularly don't understand the striving for perfect, reference level sound in places that are almost certain to have relatively high ambient noise levels.


 
  


jodgey4 said:


> Also, why not just get a DAC/amp for a phone? More servers, players, storage, less pocket space sometimes... DAP's don't make much sense to me in the age of smartphones with standards for digital audio out.


 
  
 I tried that in the iPhone 3G era. Personally, I don't like getting interrupted by SMS and phone calls when I'm listening. Airplane mode, on the other hand, defeats the purpose of having a phone as a communications device. YMMV


----------



## jodgey4

I use Android devices, and almost all notifications like that can be handled either in the options or with a rooted OS... so for me, that's a near non-issue. I hear ya, though .


----------



## bigshot

> Originally Posted by *syNRG* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I'm obviously not looking for accuracy especially if you look at the way that the above posts are worded; I'm specifically looking for a difference between 2 things.


 
  
 When you determine if there is a difference, then what? Is the iPod correct or whatever you're comparing it to? Measurements need baselines to interpret them properly. So do comparisons.
  
 By the way, the CD player I compared to my iPod was a $900 high end one that I knew to be well into the range of overkill when it came to sound quality.
  
 To me, a separate DAC with a portable player is like buying a car without an engine, then plugging an external engine in every time you want to drive to the market.


----------



## castleofargh

I've spent the last years digging for portable sources because I was always on the move for work and had to carry my bags ^_^. I have something like 10 cheap DAPs right now with maybe 5 or 6 different models and I can't say that any of those can do all I want from a dap. that's how dumb it is.
 -so computer+desktop dac/amp was marvelous for hotels, but that's it. (and now its tablet+dac amp I save some weight).
  
 -oldschool DAPs doing only music were what I described in last post, depending on my IEMs I always had some horrible hiss, or volume at 1 was already loud in quiet places, or the impedance killed the bass of my jh13. so I needed an amp most of the times to treat hissing and volume control (not even for actually driving something).
  
 -that led me to think "hey DAC/amps take about the same space as amps, so I should go phone+dac/amp". and I did, then I heard noises from the phone's EMI getting to the amp every minute or so, and looked for a DAC/amp the was perfectly shielded(I'm still looking). but I did find some that were a lot less sensitive than my first RSA amp(james bond would find any mic hidden in a room with a RSA protector). also I could go in airplane mod, so as long as the DAC/amp wasn't sensitive enough to grab waves from people's phone around me, I was good with it.
 but phones are getting bigger and bigger and I don't always want to carry it+an amp, going out for a run is impossibru, so I still had to keep some sansa clip around, and often another small DAP that had days of battery(j3 then sony e585), because with a phone, battery life really depends on your day with it and I ran out of juice too often(now I actually have a non android phone with tiny screen that lasts for 2weeks, that's how much battery life was a bother to me, I sacrificed the internet while taking a dump!!!!).
  
 -at that point, and that was like 2months back, I thought about having a phone for phone and a phone for music (true story). but thanks to james444 and joe bloggs "little crap IEM+EQ challenge" I experienced first hand the joys of a mobile phone that wasn't connected for a few days. the apps you paid for stop working until you connect back to the net (What?????) using the same account on 2 phones drove me crazy because so many apps(thx google) sync without asking you and I couldn't keep the DAP phone clean to save more battery. so it ended with 2 accounts (so paying 2 times for a few common apps...) and having to connect to the net every other day for stuff to work, making the apparatus useless while on a my last trip because the hotel had wifi problems called "nobody agreed to unplugged and replug a damn router untill the last day because the boss was on a trip". I know it's not something that happens a lot, but well it happened to me. so here I was going into bars asking for wifi on a small island ending up going into some guy's house who didn't know me at all to activate my phone. I felt very much like a guy looking for hobo signs like "wifi for mowing the lawn!", "cornbread and 5$ for cutting the tree" ...
 so now I'm back to square one waiting for a sony A16 to come out, something without android without streaming but a µsd slot and I expect a nice line out to use with my dac amp and hopefully about 20hours of battery. and I'll always keep at least 2 sansa clips in my bags as emergency kit.
  
 and that's how I forgot all about sound quality and questions like "what DAP sounds the best?". because not 1 product I tried was made for my needs so I never got to actually have to chose between 2 for music quality reasons.
 but I clearly agree with others, anything+ a good amp or a good dac/amp will tend to outperform a DAP alone however expensive it is. the counterpart is that you have to carry a brick on top of your dap or phone.
  
  
  
 when you guys find the perfect solution with zero hiss and low impedance, remember to tell me. I'll be the guy painting a fence for internet connection to reactivate my poweramp app.


----------



## money4me247

^^ lol... that was really confusing.
  
 You already have 10+ random daps (including/in addition to x2 sansa clips)... and you bought a phone to use as a phone & a phone to use as a DAP? ...rotfl. What? Hmmm... device without data connection simply to use to play music... wow that sounds a lot like any generic DAP or mp3 player. like the ones you already own.
  
 you're saying that ALL your IEMs had hissing? and had hissing on ALL variations of amp/dacs/daps/phones? ...maybe the problem is with your source files lol.
  
 I really don't understand people searching for super audiophile-type portable gear. If your headphones noise-isolates to the extent where you can hear the differences of lossless files/dacs, you will probably get hit by a bus because you can't hear anything else. Otherwise, with the ambient outside noise, it's not like you can tell the difference anyways. I really think any generic mp3 player or smartphone is more than capable for portable needs.
  
 Remember like a few years ago, all these DAP companies were basically out-muscled from the mp3 player market by Apple, so now they can only turn a profit margin by overcharging for "audiophile-grade dedicated audio player." aka a mp3 player w/ lossless playback & built-in amp/dac. Note smartphones can play lossless nowadays if you are really that into it and all portable headphones do not actually even require an amp. lol. I personally don't see the point.


----------



## castleofargh

money4me247 said:


> ^^ lol... that was really confusing.
> 
> You already have 10+ random daps (including/in addition to x2 sansa clips)... and you bought a phone to use as a phone & a phone to use as a DAP? ...rotfl. What? Hmmm... device without data connection simply to use to play music... wow that sounds a lot like any generic DAP or mp3 player. like the ones you already own.
> 
> ...


 

 desperate (and slightly crazy) people do desperate things. I was always on the move far from home for months so I missed having some good sound.
  
 to get clear, only some of my IEMs had hissing problems (IE80, togo 334, jh13) at different levels, the 334 being the very most sensitive I've had. and I have always owned a few other EIMs that weren't sensitive enough to be an "hissue". the problem was that those stupid hissing IEMs were also my favorites. so I tried to adapt the sources to them  (bad move).
 the idea of using a phone instead of some random dap is that most phones can be used as a digital source for a dac. when very few daps can do more than analog out. I like the sound of my leckerton dac/amp right now (and think that is what neutral and transparent sounds like) so I'm happy if my source can make use that. else obviously it would be dumb to add phones to all the daps I already have ^_^.
 clips are for audiobooks, for sport, and as backup. but sound with a very narrow soundstage on my low impedance IEMs for some reason, and also have that BZZZ BZZ noise sometimes.
 the cowon is for when I don't want to carry an amp but don't want to suffer hissing. but it doesn't sound that great even with dsp abuse, and changes the signature of a few IEMs ever so slightly(I think mine is about 3ohm but I never actually saw a measurement, all I know is that it's not above 5ohm from unscientific testing with a few resistors).
 the sonys I get because I like the line out and the UI on those. but they usually don't have enough battery or storage to only keep 1. and they all hiss!!!! (I got a casing stuck on my amp and switch 2 A865/867 for battery or music, in fact one has some EQ encoded with foobar in the albums to fit my jh13 ideal signature) ^_^.
 I also keep an old samsung YP-P3 that doesn't hiss much and has about 1ohm output (or very close because I don't hear any difference in signature from any IEMs). it actually sounds indentical to a clip+ without the BZZ BZZ when buffering, and it can get a little louder so can be used with a few low sensitivity headphones. but else it really sounds like a clip.
  
 if I was reasonable and clever, I would totally give up on trying to get great sound on portable and just use a pair of porta pro or a pair of hf5 for noise isolation into a few sansa clips. I do believe it is the clever move. but I'm an idiot. I want to buy a pair of shure se846 (really liked them a lot, small comfy good isolation, great bass and a little lush like I love) but resist because they are even more sensitive to hiss and impedance than any of my IEMs before so I'm wondering if I get one to use exclusively with an amp or give up?


----------



## bobby12

I agree that any mp3 player should be enough for most people even if you're using expensive IEMs, but disagree with the smartphone comment.
Every android smartphone I've tried had problems with hiss and doesn't sound right with the se846. Impedance issue or other internal parts maybe? The iphone sounds good and comparable to expensive DAPs, but I don't like iphones.

My CIEMs isolate really well, and I've almost been ran over by a car several times, luckily I have eyes


----------



## bigshot

I had problems with my iPod picking up noise in my car. I could hear a whine that went along with acceleration. I discovered that the plug on my cable was funky and wasn't connecting all the way. When I plugged it in, the ground was coming from the USB power plugged into the cigarette lighter, not from the audio jack. I replaced the cable, and all the problems went away.


----------



## money4me247

castleofargh said:


> desperate (and slightly crazy) people do desperate things. I was always on the move far from home for months so I missed having some good sound. to get clear, only some of my IEMs had hissing problems (IE80, togo 334, jh13) at different levels, the 334 being the very most sensitive I've had. and I have always owned a few other EIMs that weren't sensitive enough to be an "hissue". the problem was that those stupid hissing IEMs were also my favorites. so I tried to adapt the sources to them  (bad move). the idea of using a phone instead of some random dap is that most phones can be used as a digital source for a dac. when very few daps can do more than analog out. I like the sound of my leckerton dac/amp right now (and think that is what neutral and transparent sounds like) so I'm happy if my source can make use that. else obviously it would be dumb to add phones to all the daps I already have ^_^. clips are for audiobooks, for sport, and as backup. but sound with a very narrow soundstage on my low impedance IEMs for some reason, and also have that BZZZ BZZ noise sometimes. the cowon is for when I don't want to carry an amp but don't want to suffer hissing. but it doesn't sound that great even with dsp abuse, and changes the signature of a few IEMs ever so slightly(I think mine is about 3ohm but I never actually saw a measurement, all I know is that it's not above 5ohm from unscientific testing with a few resistors). the sonys I get because I like the line out and the UI on those. but they usually don't have enough battery or storage to only keep 1. and they all hiss!!!! (I got a casing stuck on my amp and switch 2 A865/867 for battery or music, in fact one has some EQ encoded with foobar in the albums to fit my jh13 ideal signature) ^_^. I also keep an old samsung YP-P3 that doesn't hiss much and has about 1ohm output (or very close because I don't hear any difference in signature from any IEMs). it actually sounds indentical to a clip+ without the BZZ BZZ when buffering, and it can get a little louder so can be used with a few low sensitivity headphones. but else it really sounds like a clip. if I was reasonable and clever, I would totally give up on trying to get great sound on portable and just use a pair of porta pro or a pair of hf5 for noise isolation into a few sansa clips. I do believe it is the clever move. but I'm an idiot. I want to buy a pair of shure se846 (really liked them a lot, small comfy good isolation, great bass and a little lush like I love) but resist because they are even more sensitive to hiss and impedance than any of my IEMs before so I'm wondering if I get one to use exclusively with an amp or give up?


 
  
 lol. I am quite surprised. those custom IEMs you listed are from $300 to $1,000+. that really sucks a lot that such expensive headphones hiss. I've never had any hissing problems with any of my gear, and I've never broken the $1,000 price bracket.
  
 Do your IEMs hiss when connected without anything playing? Or hiss even when the volume is at zero?
  
 It may be due to impedance mismatching or the S/N ratio of your amplifier being too low. I've read that you should aim for 1/8 of your headphone impedance for your source/amp's output impedance. I think most on-board audio has significantly higher impedance than your low-impedance IEMs (most device I think have at least 10ohms output impedance) so they hiss. You really just need to find the right amplifier I think and all your hissing problems will go away. Or I've see people talking about additional impedance to your chain though I have no experience with that. Either way, I think you are spending your money in the wrong direction. I think your problem should be fixable with an audio player or amplifier with an extremely low output impedance.


----------



## castleofargh

money4me247 said:


> lol. I am quite surprised. those custom IEMs you listed are from $300 to $1,000+. that really sucks a lot that such expensive headphones hiss. I've never had any hissing problems with any of my gear, and I've never broken the $1,000 price bracket.
> 
> Do your IEMs hiss when connected without anything playing? Or hiss even when the volume is at zero?
> 
> It may be due to impedance mismatching or the S/N ratio of your amplifier being too low. I've read that you should aim for 1/8 of your headphone impedance for your source/amp's output impedance. I think most on-board audio has significantly higher impedance than your low-impedance IEMs (most device I think have at least 10ohms output impedance) so they hiss. You really just need to find the right amplifier I think and all your hissing problems will go away. Or I've see people talking about additional impedance to your chain though I have no experience with that. Either way, I think you are spending your money in the wrong direction. I think your problem should be fixable with an audio player or amplifier with an extremely low output impedance.


 
  
  
 that's why I started with saying that in my first post, I really think it is the center of the "problem", not really overall sound quality:


> in the end the less demanding the headphone, the less important the source. that's what I really believe after trying a few DAPs now. and I'm not saying that in an elite audiophile way, as if you would need great sources to go with great headphones. no I mean that a lot of headphones are a damn bother and force you to change your source to adapt to them.


 
  
  
  
 the hissing problem I'm talking about (different from noises from cellphones waves, or the noise from a bad recording) is in fact a very simple and logic problem. one source will have some value of circuit and component noises. there always is and while always small it can be at very different levels depending on the DAP, you'll have to trust me on that one, a studio V is a hissing factory while a X3 didn't hiss even on my most sensitive stuff. it's not the IEM that hisses, it's the source, and the IEM is sensitive enough to bring it up or not. it's not a defect on the IEM's part.
 on something extreme like 8ohm with 124db for 1mw sensitivity(se846), the same low level voltage noise can sound tens of DB louder compared to the DAP plugged into some low sensitivity headphones, and while you adjust the loudness of the music, you don't adjust that noise.


----------



## bigshot

The iPod has a signal to noise ratio that goes right to the edge of redbook specs. Same with the iPhone. Nothing there to bring up.


----------



## Strangelove424

bobby12 said:


> I agree that any mp3 player should be enough for most people even if you're using expensive IEMs, but disagree with the smartphone comment.
> Every android smartphone I've tried had problems with hiss and doesn't sound right with the se846. Impedance issue or other internal parts maybe? The iphone sounds good and comparable to expensive DAPs, but I don't like iphones.
> 
> My CIEMs isolate really well, and I've almost been ran over by a car several times, luckily I have eyes


 
  I have an HTC One I'm very happy with. It measures extremely well in tests, and it puts out enough power (5.1mW into 330 ohm) to put even my 600ohm phones into decent volume levels. That impressed me big time. I can't judge the whole of the Android kingdom, but something tells me the HTC headphone amp was made for larger, higher impedance phones, not low impedance IEMs. I would call that a design decision (one I'm personally in favor of) instead of a problem.


----------



## money4me247

castleofargh said:


> that's why I started with saying that in my first post, I really think it is the center of the "problem", not really overall sound quality:
> 
> the hissing problem I'm talking about (different from noises from cellphones waves, or the noise from a bad recording) is in fact a very simple and logic problem. one source will have some value of circuit and component noises. there always is and while always small it can be at very different levels depending on the DAP, you'll have to trust me on that one, a studio V is a hissing factory while a X3 didn't hiss even on my most sensitive stuff. it's not the IEM that hisses, it's the source, and the IEM is sensitive enough to bring it up or not. it's not a defect on the IEM's part.
> on something extreme like 8ohm with 124db for 1mw sensitivity(se846), the same low level voltage noise can sound tens of DB louder compared to the DAP plugged into some low sensitivity headphones, and while you adjust the loudness of the music, you don't adjust that noise.


 
  
 lol if you are happy paying $1000+ for IEMs that hiss, i guess to each their own.


bigshot said:


> The iPod has a signal to noise ratio that goes right to the edge of redbook specs. Same with the iPhone. Nothing there to bring up.


 
 yea, I read that iPods/iPhone have pretty low output impedance and S/N ratios. you should try that with your hissing equipment.


----------



## Strangelove424

money4me247 said:


> lol if you are happy paying $1000+ for IEMs that hiss, i guess to each their own.
> yea, I read that iPods/iPhone have pretty low output impedance and S/N ratios. you should try that with your hissing equipment.


 
  
 I think you're confusing an attribute of IEM's physics (low impedance) with an inherent flaw with their design, or some kind of failure to deliver. I'm not personally interested in what anyone else pays for anything. That's a personal decision. No matter what you think of them, IEMs can serve a purpose. They are often used on stage as hidden monitors. The low impedance issue can be dealt with in a focused setup, a setup that I guarantee you is used in professional stage applications every day. Whether someone wants to accept the drawbacks of that design for their inherent benefits is their business.


----------



## bobby12

strangelove424 said:


> I have an HTC One I'm very happy with. It measures extremely well in tests, and it puts out enough power (5.1mW into 330 ohm) to put even my 600ohm phones into decent volume levels. That impressed me big time. I can't judge the whole of the Android kingdom, but something tells me the HTC headphone amp was made for larger, higher impedance phones, not low impedance IEMs. I would call that a design decision (one I'm personally in favor of) instead of a problem.




Every flagship android i've tested seems to hiss with the se846. Only flagship phone that doesn't hiss is the iphone. Louder = better to most people so I totally understand 
It's fine though since I don't like having a jack attached to my phone especially when I'm using it.


----------



## appsmarsterx

if your can hear noice with your android device, why not just use the usb otg functionality with your portable amp/dac? (if your device supports it)


----------



## money4me247

strangelove424 said:


> I think you're confusing an attribute of IEM's physics (low impedance) with an inherent flaw with their design, or some kind of failure to deliver. I'm not personally interested in what anyone else pays for anything. That's a personal decision. No matter what you think of them, IEMs can serve a purpose. They are often used on stage as hidden monitors. The low impedance issue can be dealt with in a focused setup, a setup that I guarantee you is used in professional stage applications every day. Whether someone wants to accept the drawbacks of that design for their inherent benefits is their business.


 
 lol. I think having $1000+ hissing IEMs is a failure on the part of the consumer. You either get a set-up that can handle low impedance IEM or don't waste your money on that.
  
 It's like buying $1000+ high impedance full-sized over-ears and complaining that they don't get loud enough. If you are going to invest in that kind of expensive gear, you need make sure that your equipment matches.
  
 I do think that extremely low impedance IEMs targeted for normal consumers that cannot be supported by standard smartphones/mp3 players have an inherent flaw in their design. Normal consumers are going to plug these into any random 3.5 headphone jack and expect it to work out of the box. If targeted for specific professional stage applications, then sure. whatever. I just don't see the pros of having an impedance so low that the headphones reveal noise out of standard jacks. It's not like impedance has any correlation with sound quality, so yes, I think that is a product design flaw.


----------



## Strangelove424

bobby12 said:


> Every flagship android i've tested seems to hiss with the se846. Only flagship phone that doesn't hiss is the iphone. Louder = better to most people so I totally understand
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I hear a dead silent background. Measurements support that. And yes, louder is important if you have headphones that won't be driven to acceptable levels on an iPhone. I used to have an iPhone, and am much happier with the HTC. ymmv
  
  


money4me247 said:


> I think having $1000+ hissing IEMs is a failure on the part of the consumer.
> ...
> 
> It's not like impedance has any correlation with sound quality, so yes, I think that is a product design flaw.


 
  
 Quite a contradiction in the same paragraph. Decide whether you are criticizing someone's personal choice in transducer or criticizing the transducer itself. If it's the latter, you're failing to understand the design goals of in-ear-monitors. If it's the former, then you're just bashing someone's personal preferences. 
  
 Castleofargh already pointed out the matching problem with his IEMs. He's not blaming equipment. Did you read his post at all? He stated mixed feelings for his low impedance IEMs, buts also stated his personal preference for their sound sig - despite the compromises. So if the guy you're bullying agrees with most of your points scientifically, and you're not making helpful suggestions for solutions, then you're just being condescending.


----------



## money4me247

strangelove424 said:


> I hear a dead silent background. Measurements support that. And yes, louder is important if you have headphones that won't be driven to acceptable levels on an iPhone. I used to have an iPhone, and am much happier with the HTC. ymmv
> 
> Quite a contradiction in the same paragraph. Decide whether you are criticizing someone's personal choice in transducer or criticizing the transducer itself. If it's the latter, you're failing to understand the design goals of in-ear-monitors. If it's the former, then you're just bashing someone's personal preferences.
> 
> Castleofargh already pointed out the matching problem with his IEMs. He's not blaming equipment. Did you read his post at all? He stated mixed feelings for his low impedance IEMs, buts also stated his personal preference for their sound sig - despite the compromises. So if the guy you're bullying agrees with most of your points scientifically, and you're not making helpful suggestions for solutions, then you're just being condescending.


 
 love how everyone on head-fi automatically assumes the worse of other people.
  
 lol I did offer suggestions on how to resolve the hissing. and I stand by the opinion that if you spent $1000+ on IEMs & still have to deal with hissing, you either made the wrong purchasing decision in the first place or need to figure out how the resolve the issue because for $1000+ any compromises in audio performance is unacceptable.
  
 it's not a contradictory opinion to say that I think in general that designing transducers with too low an impedance for the general consumer market is a design flaw on the part of the manufacturer and purchasing very expensive low impedance IEMs when your other components do not support it is a mistake on the part of the consumer. I am not bullying anyone at all. Just stating the obvious. At the end of the day, sound signature or sound performance has absolutely nothing to due with the impedance of a pair of headphones, so it's not like you are gaining any sonic benefits from purchasing something so expensive that does not match with the rest of your equipment. 
  
 the only person here being condescending/attacking/bullying others is you.


----------



## Strangelove424

money4me247 said:


> love how everyone on head-fi automatically assumes the worse of other people.
> 
> lol I did offer suggestions on how to resolve the hissing. and I stand by the opinion that if you spent $1000+ on IEMs & still have to deal with hissing, you either made the wrong purchasing decision in the first place or need to figure out how the resolve the issue because for $1000+ any compromises in audio performance is unacceptable.
> 
> ...


 
  
 There is no assumption going on here about your comments, your were rude and condescending. The constant "lol"s in response to sensible statements is a dismissive, condescending laughter, in addition to the tone you've taken in your comments. 
  
 It's a characteristic of IEMs to have low resistance, not just to be driven by small and hidden sources, but because of the nature of the transducer itself. We all make choices in equipment, and do our best to pair earphones to sources, and that is what castle is trying to do.  Criticizing someone's decision to buy a pair based on personal requirements and sound sig preference really doesn't add to the discussion whatsoever. You could criticize the majority of head-fi for purchasing power hungry headphones and then needing an amp.


----------



## Head Injury

strangelove424 said:


> You could criticize the majority of head-fi for purchasing power hungry headphones and then needing an amp.


 

 I just criticize them for the amps they buy


----------



## money4me247

strangelove424 said:


> There is no assumption going on here about your comments, your were rude and condescending. The constant "lol"s in response to sensible statements is a dismissive, condescending laughter, in addition to the tone you've taken in your comments.
> 
> It's a characteristic of IEMs to have low resistance, not just to be driven by small and hidden sources, but because of the nature of the transducer itself. We all make choices in equipment, and do our best to pair earphones to sources, and that is what castle is trying to do.  Criticizing someone's decision to buy a pair based on personal requirements and sound sig preference really doesn't add to the discussion whatsoever. You could criticize the majority of head-fi for purchasing power hungry headphones and then needing an amp.


 
 lol. no, you are assuming & making incorrect assumptions. the lol was because i find it surprising that someone can be satisfied with sub-par audio performance for something that is in the 1k+ range. I don't see how spending 1k+ on multiple pair of IEMs and gathering an exorbitant amount of different DAPs that do not work together = a sensible statement.
  
 Purchasing something that does not work properly with your equipment has absolutely nothing to do with personal preference! You wouldn't call getting a key that does not fit into a lock personal preference? Picking the color of your clothes is a personal preference. Picking the wrong sized clothes is not personal preference! lol!!!
  
 and sure, we can just sit here and act like spending $1000+ on IEMs that have hissing is acceptable. it blatantly is not. there is obviously a simple fix that will allow him to enjoy his expensive low impedance IEMs without hissing. I think that instead of going the route of experimenting by purchasing lots of different random DAPs/phones or whatever else, the key is to match the output impedance of the source. I think this can be accomplished with any mp3 player with a low output impedance (such as the iPod Touch) or perhaps an amplifier with a high S/N ratio & low output impedance.
  
 I think sub-par audio performance from ultra-expensive equipment is unacceptable & should be criticized until resolved. I am not attacking or insulting anyone like you are. I am disagreeing with a mentality and approach to a problem that I believe has a simple solution.
  
 The point of low impedance is to allow the headphones to sound good and be easily driven by portable sources . However, if the impedance is so low that you hear the noise from the output impedance... that is obviously counterproductive to the design goal of having the IEMs work with portable sources.


----------



## Strangelove424

I won't do this anymore. Simply won't. Said my perspective and won't waste another minute. 
  
 Castleofargh, if you're still reading this thread, and I can't say I'd blame you for having abandoned it, check out iPod nanos. I can't tell you the power output, but I know output impedance is 1/3 that of an iPhone. Older models I think tended to have less power output, maybe check Ebay for something cheap and handy. There is also a voltage/volume limiter to protect hearing, which may benefit the IEMs. Good luck.


----------



## money4me247

strangelove424 said:


> I won't do this anymore. Simply won't. Said my perspective and won't waste another minute.
> 
> Castleofargh, if you're still reading this thread, and I can't say I'd blame you for having abandoned it, check out iPod nanos. I can't tell you the power output, but I know output impedance is 1/3 that of an iPhone. Older models I think tended to have less power output, maybe check Ebay for something cheap and handy. There is also a voltage/volume limiter to protect hearing, which may benefit the IEMs. Good luck.


 
 lol. you do realize that tone is inferred on the reader's end & that I stated the exact same solution like a page back before you perceived my my posts to be offensive. if you give people the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming the worse and resorting to personal insults, I think this place would be a lot nicer.
  
 if I was being condescending or bullying, why would I be offering suggestions on how to fix the issue? lol!


----------



## castleofargh

those IEMs where what offered me the best sound and isolation I could find(or knew to find). I needed small stuff so even though I believed and still do, that IEMs are the crap of audio, I went for it and compromised along the way.
 super sensitive IEMs are just one of the many things that I had to decide upon, bad luck or some technical reason? I don't know. but amongst the IEMs I've auditioned, my favorite ones tended to be one of those stupidly sensitive ones. so I had to chose between common sense and the sound I liked(maybe I've just been an idiot liking the loudest one? ^_^)
 once I submitted to the sensitive IEM, all I could do was also submit to the compromises of the source. it's messed up, but the end sound can be really not so bad.
 all in all we just have to know how sensitive our IEMs are and avoid the noisier DAPs. just like we need to avoid high impedance ones for some IEMs, or have to look for more power to drive a few portable headphones. it's a problem and a different one each time, but there is always a way around it. my complains come from the fact that often times, the way around it also brings a few other restrictions and forces to do new compromises, like carrying a external amp, or not getting the DAP we like to use because it hisses or has too much impedance or not enough power... 
 it can all be dealt with as long as we are well informed (something we are not, people on headfi tend to forget the bad sides of the gears they bought and are so proud of). but those things do matter a great deal and that's why I always laugh when I read someone asking if this DAP is better than this other DAP. because the answer will always be half wrong depending on the headphone.
  
 edit: I wasn't offended or anything, plz say what you want to say(aslong as no modo comes around to say it's not ok).
 I get hot headed on lies(on purpose or by ignorance), but never by opinions.


----------



## jodgey4

Just as a side note, I think it's really strange that any IEM would be designed to be so low impedance and so sensitive. Most gear won't have power problems with IEM's, there's channel imbalance with pots at lower levels where you'd be more likely to be in, noise becomes an issue, you could accidentally blow them out much easier if you bump the volume knob, you're more limited in gear to stuff that has a really low output impedance as described (especially true with IEM's due to crossovers and varying impedances across the frequency spectrum when trying to get a proper damping factor and frequency response), and many amps become quite unstable/distorted/current-limited with loads even under 20 ohms.
  
 Designing anything below 32 ohms is just a* bad* idea to me. Higher impedance headphones means you can use many more sources to greater success, as it is usually flaws in sources that cause most of the issues I've explained. If you're having that many noise issues, you could maybe try an impedance adapter - http://www.head-fi.org/t/601669/impedance-adapters-cables-explained-listed/45 - or something like Heir Audio's Tzar series IEM's with impedances of 90 or 350 ohms.


----------



## money4me247

just a note it is actually a commonly documented phenomenon that our brains always prefer the loudest sound when all other things being similar. that is why it is important to volume match when demoing or else you just think the loudest one sounds best regardless of how true that is.


----------



## thyristor44

Brilliant article mate, realy enjoyed it.
 thyristor44


----------



## SilverEars

jodgey4 said:


> Just as a side note, I think it's really strange that any IEM would be designed to be so low impedance and so sensitive. Most gear won't have power problems with IEM's, there's channel imbalance with pots at lower levels where you'd be more likely to be in, noise becomes an issue, you could accidentally blow them out much easier if you bump the volume knob, you're more limited in gear to stuff that has a really low output impedance as described (especially true with IEM's due to crossovers and varying impedances across the frequency spectrum when trying to get a proper damping factor and frequency response), and many amps become quite unstable/distorted/current-limited with loads even under 20 ohms.
> 
> Designing anything below 32 ohms is just a* bad* idea to me. Higher impedance headphones means you can use many more sources to greater success, as it is usually flaws in sources that cause most of the issues I've explained. If you're having that many noise issues, you could maybe try an impedance adapter - http://www.head-fi.org/t/601669/impedance-adapters-cables-explained-listed/45 - or something like Heir Audio's Tzar series IEM's with impedances of 90 or 350 ohms.


 
 If you are talking IEMs.  I've only seen low impedance dynamics drivers which are flat impedance.  BA varies in impedance characteristics which means FR will be affected depending on it's reactance which you will see much more variations with BA iems with crossovers.  UERM may spec 30ohms, but there could be impedance drop to 10ohms at the treble.  ER4's impedance adapters boosts the treble since it has a typical single BA impedance response with flat impedance with rising impedance at high frequencies.  
  
 What I don't understand is how the impedance adapter drops the hiss without dropping the the signal level.


----------



## stv014

> What I don't understand is how the impedance adapter drops the hiss without dropping the the signal level.


 
  
 It drops both, but to compensate, you need to turn up the volume, and that typically increases the hiss less than the signal (because noise that is added after the volume control is not affected by it), so you get better SNR at the same loudness.


----------



## castleofargh

jodgey4 said:


> Just as a side note, I think it's really strange that any IEM would be designed to be so low impedance and so sensitive. Most gear won't have power problems with IEM's, there's channel imbalance with pots at lower levels where you'd be more likely to be in, noise becomes an issue, you could accidentally blow them out much easier if you bump the volume knob, you're more limited in gear to stuff that has a really low output impedance as described (especially true with IEM's due to crossovers and varying impedances across the frequency spectrum when trying to get a proper damping factor and frequency response), and many amps become quite unstable/distorted/current-limited with loads even under 20 ohms.
> 
> Designing anything below 32 ohms is just a* bad* idea to me. Higher impedance headphones means you can use many more sources to greater success, as it is usually flaws in sources that cause most of the issues I've explained. If you're having that many noise issues, you could maybe try an impedance adapter - http://www.head-fi.org/t/601669/impedance-adapters-cables-explained-listed/45 - or something like Heir Audio's Tzar series IEM's with impedances of 90 or 350 ohms.


 

 I +10000000 this opinion that a headphone shouldn't be designed with too low an impedance or too high a sensi!!!! as a consumer I do not need that shhhhhiiiiiiiiii....
 but it's done, and we see it a lot more than some years back. I really don't know enough about electricity to tell if they are retards messing with us, or if most likely they have something to win with those designs in term of audio on multi BA crossovers?
  
  
 for the link (it is interesting indeed) there is the "too good to be true" suspicion in my head, with all the useless meaningless junk sold all over headfi, if something like this worked ideally why isn't it sold everywhere by some guys selling the "1000$ 3resistors special" to audiophiles for IEMs?
  
 stv014 I cast a magic zobel spell and call upon your spirit to appear on this topic!!!
 plz explain moarrr, and if it's all good for IEMs and 5ohm daps(but the interest really being the voltage gain loss, not so much the damping gain), would you take me as a partner to make the 2015 elite headfier's toy that will lend us billions of undeserved $$$$?
  
 edit::: damn I should have F5 my browser, or maybe my casting worked so well it made you come back in time before I asked??? ^_^(now now I'm a science guy, can't you tell?)


----------



## SilverEars

stv014 said:


> It drops both, but to compensate, you need to turn up the volume, and that typically increases the hiss less than the signal (because noise that is added after the volume control is not affected by it), so you get better SNR at the same loudness.


 
 Yes, it makes sense that the noise added after the volume control attenuated with the resistor, but you can increase the signal level still.  I have experienced hissing increasing with increased volume control with amps, why is this?


----------



## GrindingThud

Most likely because the source component has a noise floor that is getting amplified. Short the input to an amp to ground and listen to it with the volume down, that is the lowest noise configuration. Moving the volume knob up from there will add thermal noise from the pot itself into the input to be amplified. Highest noise from the pot is usually heard at around 1 o'clock then decreases again beyond that point. 



silverears said:


> I have experienced hissing increasing with increased volume control with amps, why is this?


----------



## bigshot

strangelove424 said:


> I think you're confusing an attribute of IEM's physics (low impedance) with an inherent flaw with their design, or some kind of failure to deliver.


 
  
 IEMs are primarily for mobile use. So I would think they would be designed to work with most mobile DAPs.


----------



## SilverEars

bigshot said:


> IEMs are primarily for mobile use. So I would think they would be designed to work with most mobile DAPs.


 
 Mobile devices have insignificant impedance when compared to something like a dynamic driver portable phone of around 32ohms.  But iems have impedance characteristic that is not leveled and some dip low at certain frequencies than others.  Some DAPs have low impedance some relatively higher that may not work well with iems with varying impedance response.  One extreme example is the SE846.  You see where it drops to 4ohms?  Iphone 5 has like 4.5ohms output impedance.  There is no doubt 846 was designed for mobile use.


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> IEMs are primarily for mobile use. So I would think they would be designed to work with most mobile DAPs.


 
  
 I’m a big headphone guy, but from my limited experience in IEMs, I know there are two driver types: typical dynamic, which can produce good low end but get lost on detail, or BA drivers which function like planar magnetics with a sheet between two tiny magnetic structures. The BAs do detail great, but they don’t do low end, so they often combine multiple BA drivers. It’s the BA drivers that present the harder to drive loads that stress the mobile DAPs I believe, and they come in about 16ohm. The typical dynamic drivers are the ones we’re all used to that work fine on the mobile phones and stuff, but I think it is the slightly more exotic/precise BA drivers that present the problems for DAPs. If I were in that boat, I'd check out DAPs with less than 1 ohm output, and with the iPod Nano's .3 ohm output (atleast the generation I looked up) I would give that a shot. They're like $50 on Ebay.  
  
 Edit: Nevermind, the Nano is about 1 ohm. That's still vastly lower than the iPhone though.


----------



## money4me247

silverears said:


> Mobile devices have insignificant impedance when compared to something like a dynamic driver portable phone of around 32ohms.  But iems have impedance characteristic that is not leveled and some dip low at certain frequencies than others.  Some DAPs have low impedance some relatively higher that may not work well with iems with varying impedance response.  One extreme example is the SE846.  If you see where it drops to 4ohms?  Iphone 5 has like 4.5ohms output impedance.  There is no doubt 846 was designed for mobile use.


 
  
 I have read that all headphone impedance changes with frequency. The greater your output impedance is above zero, the greater voltage changes will to delivered to your headphones as the frequency changes, so for DAP/mobile phones/amps with higher output impedance, you will get greater frequency response deviations. There is a 1/8 rule of thumb stating if the output impedance is greater than 1/8th the headphone's impedance, you will get variations in frequency response. The variations are more extreme in balanced armature or multi-driver designs of IEMs. Balanced armature IEMs (such as models from shure, etymotic, and ultimate ears) can sound significantly worse with higher output impedance devices as their actual impedance varies with frequency very drastically from their rated impedance on the spec sheet.
  
 If you are passionate about multi-driver or balanced armature IEMs, you will need to invest in sources with really low (near zero) output impedance to eliminate the audible distortions.


----------



## Head Injury

money4me247 said:


> I have read that all headphone impedance changes with frequency. The greater your output impedance is above zero, the greater voltage changes will to delivered to your headphones as the frequency changes, so for DAP/mobile phones/amps with higher output impedance, you will get greater frequency response deviations. There is a 1/8 rule of thumb stating if the output impedance is greater than 1/8th the headphone's impedance, you will get variations in frequency response. The variations are more extreme in balanced armature or multi-driver designs of IEMs. Balanced armature IEMs (such as models from shure, etymotic, and ultimate ears) can sound significantly worse with higher output impedance devices as their actual impedance varies with frequency very drastically from their rated impedance on the spec sheet.
> 
> If you are passionate about multi-driver or balanced armature IEMs, you will need to invest in sources with really low (near zero) output impedance to eliminate the audible distortions.


 
 The 1/8 rule isn't a rule, it's a recommendation. The frequency response will change with any output impedance, even 0.1 ohm. 1/8 of the headphone impedance just happens to be a good number to aim for that achieves inaudibility almost all of the time. Most full-sized headphones will cope with much more. Some IEMs might need even lower.
  
 Also AFAIK planar magnetic drivers have flat impedance curves. There was some debate in another thread about whether or not damping factor mattered at all for them.


----------



## SilverEars

head injury said:


> The 1/8 rule isn't a rule, it's a recommendation. The frequency response will change with any output impedance, even 0.1 ohm. 1/8 of the headphone impedance just happens to be a good number to aim for that achieves inaudibility almost all of the time. Most full-sized headphones will cope with much more. Some IEMs might need even lower.
> 
> Also AFAIK planar magnetic drivers have flat impedance curves. There was some debate in another thread about whether or not damping factor mattered at all for them.


 
 Yup, and if anybody has looked at impedance curve of dynamic drivers of lower impedance for portable over ears or iems, you will see flat impedance.  Even look at the Sennheiser Momentum, it's flat.  When you get to high impedance designs like the Beyers or Sennheisers with 300ohm nominal the impedance curve shows significant resonance hump.  That hump is resonance where the peak point is where the inducatance and capacitance meet and cancel each other out to be resistive.  That means the left side where it rises is inductive and the right is capacitive.  The Q factor of the resonance changes with the added resistance which shape the resonance.  Within the resonance area is where the added resistance affects the FR.  And a measurement I've seen of the HD800 shows that it happens only when the resistance is pretty significant like a value that is equal to it.  180ohms shows only slight boost.  And, there was minimal FR changes in the region that is close to flat in the mids to high frequencies even with 600ohm output impedance.  Also I read that if you short out the speaker terminal, the cone resists movement, which means that with a resistance in between, it moves more freely.  That means the output impedance would cause less damping and cause less control of the driver.  Close to 0 output impedance would be like a short at the terminals creating maximum damping.  I believe stv posted some distortion measurments of the Beyers showing much higher distortions at the resonance frequencies with added output impedance.
  
 I think damping factor is for full sized headphones or speakers that has the characteristics like the Sennheisers or Beyers with the resonance hump and only matters because of the resonance.  I think low impedance iems with non-flat response is different.  Not sure if "damping" really applies to BA iems with skewy impedance response.  Since they are uneven some parts are going to affect the power output relative to others that would change the FR compared to output impedance close to 0.  I would think the reactive areas would be affected differently from resistive areas, but don't know how.


----------



## castleofargh

head injury said:


> money4me247 said:
> 
> 
> > I have read that all headphone impedance changes with frequency. The greater your output impedance is above zero, the greater voltage changes will to delivered to your headphones as the frequency changes, so for DAP/mobile phones/amps with higher output impedance, you will get greater frequency response deviations. There is a 1/8 rule of thumb stating if the output impedance is greater than 1/8th the headphone's impedance, you will get variations in frequency response. The variations are more extreme in balanced armature or multi-driver designs of IEMs. Balanced armature IEMs (such as models from shure, etymotic, and ultimate ears) can sound significantly worse with higher output impedance devices as their actual impedance varies with frequency very drastically from their rated impedance on the spec sheet.
> ...


 

 yup, in fact the 1/8 or 1/10 is a middle ground between power efficiency and damping factor impact. in truth having a damping ratio of 1/100 is just as good for sound so it should be called  the "at least 1/8 rule". 
 still following it is a no brainer. the fact that it doesn't always blow up when we don't do what's expected isn't reason enough to do whatever we want. it's still electricity and will always work best when we do as advised. if they make headphones and amps for impedance matching in mind, I'll be glad to follow a 1/1 rule instead.
 at least for electricity I do as I'm told ^_^.
  
 @money4you 
   etymotic is a bad example as the er4 is the most famous in ear for getting "better"(er4s) with added impedance. I think I've come across 3 or 4 IEMs thinking that a little more impedance could sound good(like the W4). for the rest, it either sounds like crap, or doesn't matter (I have the ety mc5 in my ears right now and they don't seem to care about impedance much, +100ohm seems to sound pretty much the same to me(minus the huge loudness difference).


----------



## Audio-Omega

http://www.popsci.com.au/science/medicine/this-woman-sees-100-times-more-colours-than-the-average-person,396736


----------



## analogsurviver

audio-omega said:


> http://www.popsci.com.au/science/medicine/this-woman-sees-100-times-more-colours-than-the-average-person,396736


 
 Most interesting - and I *guess* there is no scientific proof satisfying all the statistical requirements to be accepted
 by regular science at the moment - to prove her claims wrong or false. It is certain that humans with this ability exist and that they must be extremely rare; depending on circumstances, the time and place they were/are discovered, they might end up as guinea pigs in some lab, supreme sorcerers, royalty or simply being "disposed of " if they insist on their special ability - people tend to be hostile to things they can not understand and do not fit in the "accepted" drawer.
  
 I am most interesting if this does get researched and explained scientifically - but with all the science, at least one another human being with the same ability will have to be independently used for confirmation; one can not create a scientific apparatus if it is not known what to look for and one single person might be simply telling ferytales upon which wrong set of scientific parameters would end up being used.


----------



## castleofargh

the only uncertainty here seems to be how she really sees. when she looks at a chair, it's still a chair. and the spectrum of light hitting the chair and coming back to the eye is also still the same. reality doesn't change. checking that she has more kinds of cones is not at all at the limit of science. but sure if we could cut one eye open it might make things easier ^_^.
 in fact we have a rough idea about how a lot of animals see things and what frequencies they can perceive. it's how they interpret the data that is always the unknown factor.
  
  


> "You might see dark green but I’ll see violet, turquoise, blue. It’s like a mosaic of color.”


 
  
 hey I'm a tetrachrothingy!!! I've got tonnes of pictures done with my camera where shadow areas are dark green and full of violet and turquoise and blue. I used to call it noise and try to remove it.


----------



## money4me247

castleofargh said:


> the only uncertainty here seems to be how she really sees. when she looks at a chair, it's still a chair. and the spectrum of light hitting the chair and coming back to the eye is also still the same. reality doesn't change. checking that she has more kinds of cones is not at all at the limit of science. but sure if we could cut one eye open it might make things easier ^_^.
> in fact we have a rough idea about how a lot of animals see things and what frequencies they can perceive. it's how they interpret the data that is always the unknown factor.
> 
> hey I'm a tetrachrothingy!!! I've got tonnes of pictures done with my camera where shadow areas are dark green and full of violet and turquoise and blue. I used to call it noise and try to remove it.


 
  
 I think the point of bringing up that rare example is to claim that there are certain individuals within this community that can hear sonic differences that normal people can't.
  
 The more interesting example of people with 'special sensory gifts' would be synesthesia, where people hear colors or see sounds, due to neurons being cross-wired between traditional divisions of senses in various regions of the brain.
  
 Note that these types of phenomenon are extremely rare and not really applicable to the average population. Also, the processes behind them can be understood through science and research though some of these areas have not been well-studied.
  
 The traditional audiophile claims made around here of being able to hear certain sonic discrepancies due to an genetic golden ear or intensive ear training are mostly anecdotal without any rigorous testing using the scientific method. There have been certain cases where blind testing revealed something beyond mere chance, but I would imagine further objective testing would be required to verify the actual scope and accuracy of such personal claims. The existent of expectation bias is certainly well-established and not being blinded to the equipment drastically changes preferences. fun quick summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ear


----------



## Roly1650

money4me247 said:


> I think the point of bringing up that rare example is to claim that there are certain individuals within this community that can hear sonic differences that normal people can't.
> 
> The more interesting example of people with 'special sensory gifts' would be synesthesia, where people hear colors or see sounds, due to neurons being cross-wired between traditional divisions of senses in various regions of the brain.
> 
> ...



Interesting that it's only women that can have the necessary chromosome mutation, leading to this condition, a corresponding mutation in men leads to color blindness. Presumably therefore a similar phenomenon with hearing would also only apply to women, the result in men would be "cloth ears" not "golden ears". 

There is evidence that hearing can be trained, but it's not improving hearing, it's improving listening, two completely different things.


----------



## bigshot

If you actually go and find out what sort of exceptional hearing that people with exceptional hearing have, you find out that it isn't that much more than regular hearing. Just a few notes higher in the scale. And music wouldn't sound any different to them because most music doesn't contain those frequencies, and those frequencies are way beyond the range of being perceived as a musical note. Exceptional hearing is something you can test for and identify, but in the real world, it's no real advantage at all. In fact, it is often a detriment because high frequency squeals of fluorescent lights and TV monitors can become irritating.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> If you actually go and find out what sort of exceptional hearing that people with exceptional hearing have, you find out that it isn't that much more than regular hearing. Just a few notes higher in the scale. And music wouldn't sound any different to them because most music doesn't contain those frequencies, and those frequencies are way beyond the range of being perceived as a musical note. Exceptional hearing is something you can test for and identify, but in the real world, it's no real advantage at all. In fact, it is often a detriment because high frequency squeals of fluorescent lights and TV monitors can become irritating.


 

 but there are a lot of cures for that one problem. rave parties close to the speakers are just one of many.
  
  
 as you say it's easy to test people for their hearing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mosquito.


----------



## Mezzo

Just a technical question to the EEs on the forum. If you have two amps, one is rated to supply 100 watts and the other rated to supply 400 watts, and both are playing at a specific volume (let's say 90 dB), and you are using the same speaker, the power to the load at that SPL will remain the same between both amps, irrespective of the rated power output?
  
 Just want to wrap my brain around this before it kills me.


----------



## stv014

mezzo said:


> Just a technical question to the EEs on the forum. If you have two amps, one is rated to supply 100 watts and the other rated to supply 400 watts, and both are playing at a specific volume (let's say 90 dB), and you are using the same speaker, the power to the load at that SPL will remain the same between both amps, irrespective of the rated power output?


 
  
 Yes. The power required for a given SPL depends on the speaker's efficiency (usually specified in dB/W at 1 m distance). The maximum power output of the amplifier determines the maximum peak SPL that can be achieved with a given speaker efficiency at an acceptable level of distortion. However, if the more powerful amplifier has higher gain, it will probably need a lower volume setting for matched power output.


----------



## Wizz

mezzo said:


> the power to the load at that SPL will remain the same between both amps, irrespective of the rated power output?


 
  
 This is correct.
_Ceteris paribus_ of course.
 And given that the 90dbs are measured at the acoustic output (speaker), and are not some electrical level at some point in the chain.


----------



## analogsurviver

I have not gone trough it all yet, but this looks interesting : http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/new-methods-for-quantifying-sonic-performance/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&page=3&utm_source=email-316


----------



## bigshot

Height? What are they smoking?!


----------



## analogsurviver

Obviously something stronger ( NOTHING really) ... - if you never heard (of) height of instruments or voices reproduced, no matter how incorrectly, and still are convinced all music is at the same height, then it is perhaps time to go to some concert of choir(s) that are not being herded in the classical position on the stage 101% of the time by the traditional and most of the time unimaginitive conductors. Mahler symphonies can also take advantage of this - horns in the distance can also be positioned not only "far(ther) away", but also LOWER or HIGHER while still being far away - depending on the particular concert hall and capabilities it offers. It can and does give quite a different effect - and in most cases, public does get to see those horn players and their conductor only after the final applause, when they show out of their "hiding".
  
 Better audio equipment is capable of at least hinting at it (if recording managed to capture at least portion of it ) - but one can put redbook on anything and it would still be at "prescribed height" no matter what. To get the spatial cues right, more precise time information is required than redbook is capable of providing. However, going this far REQUIRES that one listens in sweet spot - like it or not, listening window is usually formula 1 car (single seat ), not a family SUV or not even Ferrari or similar 2 seater. Also speakers have to be painstakingly correctly positioned - it IS mind boggling how small misalignments throw the whole concept out of water. But once it is put right - WOW. Provided it is fed with purist microphone technique recording. One can try to hear it on multimiked recording(s) without successs - forever...


----------



## Wizz

bigshot said:


> Height? What are they smoking?!


 

 The whole thing screams "hoax".
  
_"So clearly we must remain cautious in predicting whether everyone can replicate our results to the same quantitative extent. In other words, depending on system and hearing acuity, your mileage may vary."_
  
 Which is a twisted way to confess "all that we've writing up to this point, is actually entirely pointless since our results cannot be reproduced".
  
 Damn, there are people in this world who have too much time on their hands. Instead of enjoying good music and good sound, they reinvent physiognomony. To what ends? that's the real question. Where lies the profit..?
  
 A hoax.. at best!
  
 Rather the usual plot to trick gullible people with an inferiority complex, into buying useless, offensively expensive "high end" stuff and building a temple for it in their living room.


----------



## Wizz

analogsurviver said:


> Obviously something stronger ( NOTHING really) ... - if you never heard (of) height of instruments or voices reproduced, no matter how incorrectly, and still are convinced all music is at the same height, then it is perhaps time to go to some concert of choir(s) that are not being herded in the classical position on the stage 101% of the time by the traditional and most of the time unimaginitive conductors. Mahler symphonies can also take advantage of this - horns in the distance can also be positioned not only "far(ther) away", but also LOWER or HIGHER while still being far away - depending on the particular concert hall and capabilities it offers. It can and does give quite a different effect - and in most cases, public does get to see those horn players and their conductor only after the final applause, when they show out of their "hiding".
> 
> Better audio equipment is capable of at least hinting at it (if recording managed to capture at least portion of it ) - but one can put redbook on anything and it would still be at "prescribed height" no matter what. To get the spatial cues right, more precise time information is required than redbook is capable of providing. However, going this far REQUIRES that one listens in sweet spot - like it or not, listening window is usually formula 1 car (single seat ), not a family SUV or not even Ferrari or similar 2 seater. Also speakers have to be painstakingly correctly positioned - it IS mind boggling how small misalignments throw the whole concept out of water. But once it is put right - WOW. Provided it is fed with purist microphone technique recording. One can try to hear it on multimiked recording(s) without successs - forever...


 
_"Mahler symphonies can also take advantage of this - horns in the distance can also be positioned not only "far(ther) away", but also LOWER or HIGHER while still being far away -"_
  
 Correct, who said differently BTW?
  
_"Better audio equipment is capable of at least hinting at it"_
  
 Incorrect. Totally impossible. Entirely in your head. This is nuts. Ludicrous. Illogical. Stupid.
  
 Would anyone state that you could hear right/left with a single mono channel and a single speaker? Of course not, that's why they invented stereo, duh.
 How then can anyone be irrational enought to state that you could hear height when height was never even recorded to start with? And with 2 speakers at that?
 You'd need at least 3 mikes and 3 speakers to record and reproduce height... or it's fairytales territory.
  
 But hey, sorry to bother you with facts, you don't like to be bothered by them I guess.
  
 As Paul says, "_you can't win with these people_".


----------



## Head Injury

analogsurviver said:


> ...one can put redbook on anything and it would still be at "prescribed height" no matter what. To get the spatial cues right, more precise time information is required than redbook is capable of providing.


 
 What time information is Redbook missing, why does it relate to height, and why would other formats capture it correctly?


----------



## jcx

sub sample time resolution isn't a challenge
  
 Redbook 16/44 isn't really missing timing info below Nyquist and above the noise floor
  
 even "pure analog" systems are limited by Shannon/Hartley Channel Capacity theorem - virtually all practical recordings, listening scenarios don't challenge Redbook audio S/N
  
 so if your music really is enjoyable with <20 KHz content - and no one's provided enough evidence to change psychoacoustic textbooks yet - then Redbook is apparently OK for final music delivery format
  
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/245555-temporal-resolution-6.html#post3697702 shows sub nanosecond relative positioning of audio band signals in Redbook digital coding similar to those used by Kunchur to show sub 10 microsecond interaural rime resolution


----------



## analogsurviver

wizz said:


> _"Mahler symphonies can also take advantage of this - horns in the distance can also be positioned not only "far(ther) away", but also LOWER or HIGHER while still being far away -"_
> 
> Correct, who said differently BTW?
> 
> ...


 
 In theory, you are correct. As a consequence, you would end up with 2x5.1 or 2x7.1 setup - 1 setup of speakers being maximum on the floor and another maximum to the ceiling (within possibilities of placing that is never optimal too close to the wall/ceiling/floor, most likely having to be flush mounted into the walls/floor/ceiling).
  
 However, even a mono recording can contain height. It is sad that this art is all but lost, stereo or even surround recordings can sound far more "off" than a really good mono. It does take an unusually high level of commitment in finding the right spot for the microphone and similarly positioning the speakers within the room.
  
 Mono on headphones just does not do it for me - it is the very last thing I would choose to listen to and will be the last ditch attempt if nothing else is available.  
  
 Height is possible to be reproduced kind of correctly using 2 channels only by the binaural technique - this IS head-fi. The results are not entirely consistent , be it regarding the microphone used, headphones used, interface headphone/listener. The best documented and most repeatable results can be achieved with what was devised in Germany and incorporated into Stax headphones and corresponding diffuse field equalizers - but it is not the only way. It is not perfect, yet it will clearly show why redbook is not nearly enough. Height is the most vague of 3D in audio, depth is much more easily perceived and too benefits greatly by greater bandwidth than allowed by redbook, width being the most easy one and does not improve significantly with higher bandwidth - if at all.
  
 All of the above is easily audible even on good IEMs - let alone the Stax setup. Saying that redbook is enough is similar to saying propeller driven aircraft is enough -
 we can wax all we might, but a propeller driven aircraft will not go faster due to the limitation that when propeller blades reach the speed of sound, they practically loose all efficiency and no amount of power can change that. So the conditions (temperature, height, etc ) of the speed record attempt for propeller driven aircraft weigh perhaps more than the aircraft itself - those few km/h or mile/h differences in single digits among various aircraft are only partly due to the aircraft itself.  The only real increase in propeller driven aircraft came with counterotating turboprops ( russian TU 95, civilian version Tu-114 being even faster ) which increased the speed by roughly 100 km/h, thus making a bomber faster than the fastest propeller driven fighter ever - but that is it. Any operational jet of the first generation can do better.
  
 I have not even read the article from TAS entirely - but do grasp what it is trying to say/proove. I agree it is (too) expensive, I agree it is hard to reproduce in one's home, etc - but binaural has next to none of these limitations. And will show that redbook is not enough. 
  
 I will end with a demo record by Sennheiser - a 7" vinyl. I own the real thing, which in ANY case sounds MUCH better played "live" than the following vid on YT - but will
 improve immensely by a cartridge with MUCH better bandwidth than redbook is capable of. The effect gets MUCH diminished on a cartridge that covers response only to just above 20 kHz ( vast majority of moving magnet cartridges - but there ARE exceptions ) - answering the question why moving cartridges have been soooo successful in the last 30 or so years. I only wish this could pass trough the ....khm..omputors...  ( and bandwidth limitations ) - better :
  
 
  
 Here is the other side of this record in German :


----------



## Head Injury

analogsurviver said:


> Height is the most vague of 3D in audio, depth is much more easily perceived and too benefits greatly by greater bandwidth than allowed by redbook, width being the most easy one and does not improve significantly with higher bandwidth - if at all.


 
 The increased bandwidth in higher resolution digital audio only increases the maximum frequency captured. It does not increase the bandwidth available to sound in the audible range. 44.1 kHz captures everything in the audible range, higher sampling rates capture exactly the same thing with the addition of frequencies we can't hear. Likewise there is nothing analog captures within the audible range that Redbook can't. We've been over this.
  
 Can you please also explain why depth and height cues cannot be captured by Redbook but width cues can? What is the difference between them that makes this true?


----------



## stv014

> Can you please also explain why depth and height cues cannot be captured by Redbook but width cues can? What is the difference between them that makes this true?


 
  
 Without multi-channel (for speakers) or binaural (for headphones) recording, the reproduction of depth and height cues is limited. Especially in cases when each instrument is recorded separately with a mono microphone, and then mixed with simple left to right panning, with some reverb added (which can simulate distance to some extent by changing the level relative to the reverb). I guess the lack of real cues increases the significance of imagination and expectation bias.
  
 It is definitely possible to reproduce height and depth in Red Book format with binaural recording and headphones (and, as evidenced by some YouTube demos, even lossy compression). In theory, a full 3D setup of speakers would allow for height information as well, but one is unlikely to find commercially available music in such format. The more practical 5.1 channel layout still reproduces depth (front vs. rear), and it does not need ultrasound for that.


----------



## Head Injury

stv014 said:


> Without multi-channel (for speakers) or binaural (for headphones) recording, the reproduction of depth and height cues is limited. Especially in cases when each instrument is recorded separately with a mono microphone, and then mixed with simple left to right panning, with some reverb added (which can simulate distance to some extent by changing the level relative to the reverb). I guess the lack of real cues increases the significance of imagination and expectation bias.
> 
> It is definitely possible to reproduce height and depth in Red Book format with binaural recording and headphones (and, as evidenced by some YouTube demos, even lossy compression). In theory, a full 3D setup of speakers would allow for height information as well, but one is unlikely to find commercially available music in such format. The more practical 5.1 channel layout still reproduces depth (front vs. rear), and it does not need ultrasound for that.


 

 I want everyone to understand that the questions I'm asking are rhetorical and intended to challenge analogsurvivor into thinking about the answers himself


----------



## sonitus mirus

Well I can clearly hear height cues with my CDs...oh wait...I'm lying on my side.  Never mind.


----------



## bigshot

Height is a vital part of audio sound quality! Have you ever met an audiophile midget? NOPE!


----------



## Head Injury

bigshot said:


> Height is a vital part of audio sound quality! Have you ever met an audiophile midget? NOPE!


 
 But conversely, why do all basketball players use Beats?


----------



## RRod

stv014 said:


> Without multi-channel (for speakers) or binaural (for headphones) recording, the reproduction of depth and height cues is limited. Especially in cases when each instrument is recorded separately with a mono microphone, and then mixed with simple left to right panning, with some reverb added (which can simulate distance to some extent by changing the level relative to the reverb). I guess the lack of real cues increases the significance of imagination and expectation bias.
> 
> It is definitely possible to reproduce height and depth in Red Book format with binaural recording and headphones (and, as evidenced by some YouTube demos, even lossy compression). In theory, a full 3D setup of speakers would allow for height information as well, but one is unlikely to find commercially available music in such format. The more practical 5.1 channel layout still reproduces depth (front vs. rear), and it does not need ultrasound for that.


 
  
 Technically if you knew up front that I had arranged one mic at ground level right and the other 10' in the air left, you could arrange your speakers that way and get a sense of height. Generality is the problem.


----------



## thune

I'm waiting for the argument that recordings can't even project a sound image wider than the speakers, or that HRTF trickery can't be used with 2-channel loudspeakers to put images to your side and even behind you. I'm not going to argue that the study is any good, but if your loudspeakers make all sounds seem like they're coming from a flat 2" vertical band between the speakers and they don't provide some illusion of images being broad, deep, and *tall*, you've got setup or equipment issues.
  
 Anyone remember hearing a well reproduced height-test (track 46) from the 1992 Chesky sampler ?


----------



## stv014

thune said:


> I'm waiting for the argument that recordings can't even project a sound image wider than the speakers, or that HRTF trickery can't be used with 2-channel loudspeakers to put images to your side and even behind you.


 
   
That would essentially be like binaural sound (or a simplified version of it if it only widens the image with phase shifting tricks) with headphones, but still not require "high resolution" formats or analog sources (or $10000 amplifiers or DACs, for that matter) to reproduce. However, I would guess simple panning (mono sound positioned between the speakers by changing the relative amplitude on each channel), or at best "wide" stereo is the most common on commercial stereo recordings, because it is the most compatible with any setup. While HRTF is not impossible with speakers (although for the best effect, it may need compensation for the HRTF at the listener's position), it is more sensitive to the positioning of the speakers and other acoustic factors, and if the effect does not work well, it could very well sound worse than simple stereo.


----------



## thune

True, when the encoded effects "don't happen" in reproduction it can sound worse and more confused than a straight recoding. I imagine this is why stereo spacializer tech never seems to take hold, because some/many people complain since it sounds bad/worse to them on their systems.
  
 It doesn't have to be fancy: the Blumlein Pair's ability to encode/project images outside the width of the speakers is remarkable enough, and any good system should be able to reproduce it.
  
 For height, I wonder if capturing the floor-bounce reflection in a recording can encode some illusion of height (by suggesting proximity to the floor [via different comb filter effects based on the different path lengths]) when listening through loudspeakers, not relying on HRTF at all.


----------



## money4me247

I think it is possible for some height information to be reproduced in headphones without binaural or surround sound. if you ever played a fps with headphones & heard an helicopter flying overheard, for example.

exact height seems a bit of a stretch and i havent recalled ever experiencing height in music files, but the concept isnt as absurd as some of you guys make it sound.


----------



## stv014

> For height, I wonder if capturing the floor-bounce reflection in a recording can encode some illusion of height (by suggesting proximity to the floor [via different comb filter effects based on the different path lengths]) when listening through loudspeakers, not relying on HRTF at all.


 
  
 It could have some effect, but probably not be very noticeable. At least when I tried this in the past with simple simulated room acoustics, the height changes were not really obvious. I am not sure how well someone who does not already know in advance the position of the sound source would guess it. Maybe I could create a test file where a sound is placed at various positions in a simple box shaped room, with simulated distance and reflections.


----------



## thune

stv014 said:


> Maybe I could create a test file where a sound is placed at various positions in a simple box shaped room, with simulated distance and reflections.


 
 I wish I had a speaker system which eliminated the reproduction floor bounce by design, when auditioning a such file [in case the reproduction floor bounce cues interfere with the recorded floor bounce cues]. Short of that, my experience has been that co-incident loudspeakers (KEF uni-Q etc.) seem to do a better job at these complex illusions than typical tweeter-(mid)-woofer loudspeakers.


----------



## stv014

money4me247 said:


> I think it is possible for some height information to be reproduced in headphones without binaural or surround sound. if you ever played a fps with headphones & heard an helicopter flying overheard, for example.


 
  
 The game may have used HRTF if it knew you are using headphones, though. Especially with a sound card that supports some kind of virtual surround (e.g. Dolby Headphone). Other than that, one expects a helicopter to be above, so in that case imagination can easily fill in the missing spatial information. It is possible to tell front and rear sounds apart by turning slightly (just like in real life if the direction of a sound source is ambiguous), e.g. if it appears to come from the center, turning to the left by a small amount will move the perceived position to the right/left if it is at the front/rear, respectively. How much it moves also gives a hint about its elevation.


----------



## bigshot

money4me247 said:


> I think it is possible for some height information to be reproduced in headphones without binaural or surround sound. if you ever played a fps with headphones & heard an helicopter flying overheard, for example.


 
  
 That is just a regular sound effect that your mind is placing above you because you know helicopters fly overhead. If you recorded a chain saw or power lawn mower the exact same way, they wouldn't seem like they are overhead.
  
 I was listening to the binaural hair clippers and my mind kept snapping the clippers in front of my head, then behind. Unless I focused on holding it in one place, it went all over the place. Your interpretation of the cues are more important than the cues themselves sometimes.


----------



## The Walrus

Hey guys,
 This question just popped into my mind. (maybe it has been answered, sorry if that's the case) Since we don't have ears at the top of our heads, how does our ears tell whether a sound is coming from above? Or is it just our brain interpreting and placing the source of the sound in space?
 By the way, what do you say about Ultrasone's claim here: http://www.ultrasone-headphones.com/en/technology/slogic 
  
 cheers


----------



## Don Hills

the walrus said:


> ...  Since we don't have ears at the top of our heads, how does our ears tell whether a sound is coming from above? Or is it just our brain interpreting and placing the source of the sound in space? ...


 
   
The shape of your pinnae (outer ears) alters the sounds you hear. A sound from overhead will sound different than the same sound from in front or behind you. It works best with sounds that you are familiar with. You've probably observed this yourself - you can often tell where a familiar sound is coming from (such as the snap of a twig), but when you hear an unfamiliar sound you look all around trying to locate the source, especially when it occurs on your midline - from directly in front to directly behind you.


----------



## sonitus mirus

the walrus said:


> Hey guys,
> This question just popped into my mind. (maybe it has been answered, sorry if that's the case) Since we don't have ears at the top of our heads, how does our ears tell whether a sound is coming from above? Or is it just our brain interpreting and placing the source of the sound in space?


 
  
  
 http://artsites.ucsc.edu/ems/music/tech_background/te-03/teces_03.html
  
_"Height information is provided by the shape of our ears. If a sound of fairly high frequency arrives from the front, a small amount of energy is reflected from the back edge of the ear lobe. This reflection is out of phase for one specific frequency, so a notch is produced in the spectrum. The elongated shape of the lobe causes the notch frequency to vary with the vertical angle of incidence, and we can interpret that effect as height. Height detection is not good for sounds originating to the side or back, or lacking high frequency content."_


----------



## analogsurviver

head injury said:


> The increased bandwidth in higher resolution digital audio only increases the maximum frequency captured. It does not increase the bandwidth available to sound in the audible range. 44.1 kHz captures everything in the audible range, higher sampling rates capture exactly the same thing with the addition of frequencies we can't hear. Likewise there is nothing analog captures within the audible range that Redbook can't. We've been over this.
> 
> Can you please also explain why depth and height cues cannot be captured by Redbook but width cues can? What is the difference between them that makes this true?


 
 Width - or span from extreme left to the exteme right and in between - can be most easily reproduced because they mainly rely on loudness of the signals, that is to say amplitude. Front to rear or depth perception has to involve some time cues - as the sound does not stop at some precisely "boundary" in any given real listening enviroment and echoes off walls etc mainly define the acoustics of that room.  Rise time of redbook  is approx 14 microseconds - or bandwitdh to 20 kHz. IF even I accept that this is "enough" - that means that this has to be maintained from input to output -from the sound waves impigning on the diaphragm of the microphone to the sound impigning on the eardrum - with every component in between fast enough to maintain that 14 uS risetime even under worst of conditions. In series as they are, that means each and every component does add so and so much delay/filtering - that means even the best equipment available does nor find maintaining that 14 uS easy - OVERALL. 
  
 There is no (pre)amplifier with infinitely short risetime or infinity bandwidth, no cable, and most certainly no microphone. Each and every component is slowing the original sound down somewhat - and this can CLEARLY be heard in redbook vs "higer speed" ( be it analog or digital ) : redbook is mostly flat surface as far as depth is concerned, under best of circumstances it has some depth that is definitely limited and does not match the same as analog or hirez digital and most certainly not live feed from the microphone.
 This has no "boundaries" except for the real boundaries in that room ( walls etc ) - redbook never reaches not nearly close in regard of depth, because it can not convey those tiny time differences that do give us perception of depth - it is not amplitude mostly/alone. Sound after climax of an orchestra does "travel" - to the other side from the performers, to the rear wall, it reflects off the rear and side walls, etc - and these time cues are not nearly good enough with redbook. Or, they are - until
 higher resolution version OF THE SAME RECORDING/MASTER is heard. "Perfect sound forever" brigade is VERY likely to say "it must be another mix/master" - because it is tiny tiny details at high frequencies that distinguish between "recording" or "real" - at least one octave above what redbook can provide. It is those barely audible entrances of strings etc that are on DSD audible and redbook only cathes up few micro(mili?)..seconds later - once the amplitude is high enough and/or the natural delay/ringing of digital filter has settled down - and clearly, their conclusion is - it MUST be different mastering ?!?!? I can not vouch for others as to how have they recorded and/or whether various resolutions of digital are really the same mix/master - when I listen to my original DSD128 master and its redbook counterpart derived from it (NO other stunts other than conversion of formats ) it does sound to me as described. YMMV.
  
 The most significantly audible jump in quality in digital occurs from redbook to 88.2 or 96 kHz sampling frequency - this IS "night and day". Further increase in resolution is not that audible at first instant - but does matter in the long run. SACD or DSD64 is not decisively significantly better than redbook - but DSD128 IS. 
 Going up from here, DXD ( 352-376 /24 and up to 752/24 ) and DSD256 and DSD512 should finally close the gap between microphone feed and recording - because they introduce errors/delays that really should not matter anymore. There are bottlenecks long before the limits of these formats are reached, most dominant being the microphones. Slowly but securely more 100 kHz and beyond mics are appearing - even if one thinks it is a waste of everything and total nonsense, the use of such mikes means they cover audible band more easily than designs that struggle even within audible band.
  
 ALL THE ABOVE MAKES SENSE ONLY IF AND WHEN SIMPLE RECORDING TECHNIQUES ARE USED - THAT MEANS TWO MICROPHONES. Any multimiking will introduce such gross time errors that advantage analog/hirez has over redbook may well NEVER be heard. Which limits the higher frequency rate digital to acoustic non amplified music - and certainly not pop etc, where natural sound without electricity practically does not exist. Here, the "tools" used are just too crude to warrant going to the above lengths regarding resolution of recording - but I would love to be proven wrong on this one.
  
 All of the above also means it is not possible to make a remaster of say Kind of Blue that could challenge the modern recording on technical terms. It is what it is - great piece of music - but not anything to write home about regarding sound quality. It is about the best available at the time of its creation.
  
 And precisely because it is great piece of music, I am going to listen to it now. Haven't in a long while - and will do it off vinyl which says mastered from original analog master tape. CBS roughly 90's. There were and will be digital "whatevers" - the real master for KInd of Blue is analog master tape and the best approximation is second generation of analog master tape - or so it used to be. New FAST digital may in the end displace it and analog record from the throne - but never redbook.


----------



## RRod

I think the "perfect sound forever" crowd would also say "double blind or meh."


----------



## sonitus mirus

analogsurviver said:


> Width - or span from extreme left to the exteme right and in between - can be most easily reproduced because they mainly rely on loudness of the signals, that is to say amplitude.


 
  
 I just finished reading the information in this link from NYU:
  
 http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~david/courses/perception/lecturenotes/localization/localization.html
  
 In this link they report about 2 cues available for sound localization, inter-aural intensity differences and timing differences.
  
  
 The paragraph about Measurement of timing differences was most interesting.
  
_"Very small differences in time between the two ears requires quite large differences in intensity to compensate for the perceived displacement of the sound."_


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> I think the "perfect sound forever" crowd would also say "double blind or meh."


 
 I agree.
  
 TROUBLE ?
  
 Computer audio is not far enough to allow decent ABX - in native DSD. The moment we are forced to go into PCM for the ABX software(s) to be enabled, much of the difference has already been thrown away. I did try MUCH time to see how well various softwares "translate" into real life sound scenario using mainly iFi nano iDSD DAC that allows VERY decent quality native DSD playback - for $/Euro 189, which is an affordable price. Trouble is, nano is not that great with PCM - therefore I will try the iFi audio micro iDSD DAC - which is reportedly one hell of a lot better, across the board, but particularly with PCM and does , as the first, support the ludicrous fast PCM and DSD formats from my previous post - at $/Euro 500.
  
 When and if software for ABX in native DSD ( or native DSD vs PCM WITHOUT DSD being converted into PCM ) will be released ( IF it can be done at all ... - I am not a mathematician, but it might well be impossible, similar situation as mastering in purely 1 bit DSD is not possible ). Then it would have to be perfected to a point it will no longer "click" whenever going from PCM to DSD or vice versa - thus making sure listener can not "count clicks" and thus essentially cheat.
  
 Computer software and hardware is FAR from "sounding equal" - at least at the present state.  And can cost as little as say 500 $ ( nano or similar DAC + "some" computer ) to sky is the limit - and although I would not expect the sky is the limit machine to play MP3s better than 500 $ rig can play DSD, it can well turn out it can coax out of redbook better result than lower price rig out of DSD. HOW can then such comparisons be fair - because even the software would tend to be MUCH different - just look at the requirements for the HQ Player. It requires a dedicated heroic specified PC for music exclusively.
  
 I find this situation similar to analog turntables; not so big difference in magnitude, but perceivable and audible nonetheless. So presently sending the sound around the globe and expecting it will sound exactly as intended on the other side is wishful thinking at best.  
  
 I am the last person ever to go into cables debate (unless applications that REALLY call for such and such cable - or it basically no longer works as intended ) - but these differences might be small enough to be masked by cable defficiences. And no, I do not spend any ludicrous amounts for cable, one that I like to use (with clear knowledge it can be improved upon - at normally hefty price increase  ) costs the whole of Eur 2.00 (actually, it IS below 2 per metre ). It is "good enough" to pass the information required.
  
 So, it is a bit more complicated than it seems at first glance. Hope a decent solution to the problem will be found in reasonable future.
  
 I would like to add that I am not apriori against redbook/CD - and admit that while posting around SQ, I did get to learn that redbook does not carp out at say approx -90 dB, but can, properly dithered and played with good software, achieve above ( or better said, below ) - 100 dB. Trouble - some softs are good in this regard, others suck. And not much is being written or said about it.
  
 Compared to above, analog is "easy" - at least it is more predictable. Trouble is that it tends to be pricey at quality level mentioned.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> I agree.
> 
> TROUBLE ?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Good PC audio isn't hard. A Magni/Modi stack gets you there for a vast majority of cans. Just combine it with a good player (again easy to find), find masters that aren't total sh@#, and you're done. Everything beyond that has left ABX territory and is into desk aesthetics.
  
 It's certainly possible to do DSD -> Redbook -> DSD, I just don't know the technical issues enough to know how it would affect ABX testing. I do know my own ears can't discern even 16/88.2 from Redbook, so I don't see how DSD does anything other than really fancy noise shaping. And my personal opinion is that if "cable deficiencies" matter, then we're into snake oil territory.
  
 I didn't think dithering was in any way hard these days, and I've even seen arguments that it's not even necessary, as the distortions it's hiding rarely stand out within the context of actual music. The sox "dither -s" command does to my ears a perfect job, and that's free…


----------



## analogsurviver

sonitus mirus said:


> I just finished reading the information in this link from NYU:
> 
> http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~david/courses/perception/lecturenotes/localization/localization.html
> 
> ...


 
 True. You can create an experiment at home; first, listen to your stereo speakers in normal central position. Then go say 10 degrees off axis ( that is usually less than "one chair from dead center left or right ) - and measure how much you have to compensate with amplitude intensity to perceive the sound in dead center again.
  
 That is why time differences are alfa and omega in audio - troughout the evolution, it was being perfected to allow our survival in nature. And that is why limiting the range of time differences by using too slow devices, such as redbook, is wrong. If fast enough devices are used, 2 chanell stereo can have quite a decent depth - which all but pancakes with redbook. One does not hear a different tune with "something fast" compared to redbook; but under favourable conditions, the recreation of acoustic space can be so good that it entices listening on this ground alone.
  
 Where did it all began? Turntables, to be exact phono cartridges. A phono cartridge can have all but one parameter from excellent to divine - if there is phase difference between the two stereo channel output, it will not sound good no matter what. It is something phono cartridge manufacturers tend to keep as low profile as possible - because it is highly sample to sample dependant. Thus it is entirely possible to get better sound with a lucky (next to ) ideal sample of an entry level cartridge than with TOTL that is slightly "off". Specs for phono cartridges DO NOT include phase difference between the channels - if they  did, that would have driven the cost of cartridges up at least 30 % to cover for the "rejects" that currently are being sold "bussiness as usual".
  
 And if anyone thinks all CD players have good phase relationship among the two channels, he/she is in for a rude awakening. It is true that nowadays lower priced "redbook", computers included,  is guilty of this. By running the faster sampling frequency ( ALL the way your hardware and software can support ), this phase difference goes proportionally lower and enables MUCH better
 left to right and even front to back localization - despite the fact that DAC of said device does not support above usually 48 kHz sampling rate.
  
 But even redbook machines with perfect phase between the two channels can do absolutely nothing if signal time differences are shorter than their own rise time - that is why faster devices are required, not because of < 1 % people that can hear above 20 kHz. Differences in time can be perceived by all humans, even with 20 kHz capability HALVED - and that is why an elderly gentleman with lots of experience with listening can subjectively evaluate say a tweeter better than a teenager with perfect hearing but without experience required. 
  
I never claimed I have superhuman hearing capabilities - just getting in writing ( remember, I am not a native English speaker ) what i _*know *_to be true proved much more difficult that I have ever emancipated.


----------



## diamondears

I don't know the objective measurements, but subjectively, the FIRST time I listened to a DSD128 recording, it's a truly wow moment. I couldn't believe my ears. The realistic-ness of the sound is unprecedented. I'm a believer. And I believe that DSD will be the mainstream format in 2 years time. If just 1 major popular label will invest on this, everything else will follow as the incremental improvement is very substantial that people cannot be "deceived" anymore by the un-investing labels.


----------



## diamondears

For non-believers (yet...), try buying the DSD128 version of the Jazz on the Pawnshop album (condensed album/selected songs in 1 album), and compare it to the regular red book or even high-res PCM version. The difference is SUBSTANTIAL. One sound/instrument becomes farther, another the same, and another less farther/loud. Amazing. 

I was a non-believer of high-res PCM as I don't hear substantial improvements over red book or 16/44. But DSD, totally different scenario.


----------



## headwhacker

> I don't know the objective measurements, but subjectively, the FIRST time I listened to a DSD128 recording, it's a truly wow moment. I couldn't believe my ears. The realistic-ness of the sound is unprecedented. I'm a believer. And I believe that DSD will be the mainstream format in 2 years time. If just 1 major popular label will invest on this, everything else will follow as the incremental improvement is very substantial that people cannot be "deceived" anymore by the un-investing labels.
> Edited by diamondears - Today at 12:26 pm


 
  
 Quote:


diamondears said:


> For non-believers (yet...), try buying the DSD128 version of the Jazz on the Pawnshop album (condensed album/selected songs in 1 album), and compare it to the regular red book or even high-res PCM version. The difference is SUBSTANTIAL. One sound/instrument becomes farther, another the same, and another less farther/loud. Amazing.
> 
> I was a non-believer of high-res PCM as I don't hear substantial improvements over red book or 16/44. But DSD, totally different scenario.


 
  
 Are you sure it's not just 2 different masters/source you are comparing? Is the PCM version deived from the same DSD source?


----------



## Don Hills

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> ... limiting the range of time differences by using too slow devices, such as redbook ...
> 
> And if anyone thinks all CD players have good phase relationship among the two channels, he/she is in for a rude awakening. It is true that nowadays lower priced "redbook", computers included,  is guilty of this. ...
> ...


 
  
 It is a common belief that Redbook (or any digital chain) is limited in time resolution to the time represented by the time between samples. This is incorrect. 16/44.1 digital can resolve time differences into the nanosecond range, orders of magnitude less than the time between two samples. If you doubt, I can refer you to videos and papers proving it.
  
 Some very early CD players had a phase shift between channels due to sharing a single DAC between channels due to cost. In one I have seen the test results for, the difference amounted to 22 degrees phase shift at 20 KHz. All players and DACs that you can buy since the 90s have one DAC per channel. Phase shift is essentially zero.
  
 Finally, rise time and frequency response are one and the same thing, viewed in different domains (time versus frequency).


----------



## stv014

sonitus mirus said:


> http://artsites.ucsc.edu/ems/music/tech_background/te-03/teces_03.html
> 
> _"Height information is provided by the shape of our ears. If a sound of fairly high frequency arrives from the front, a small amount of energy is reflected from the back edge of the ear lobe. This reflection is out of phase for one specific frequency, so a notch is produced in the spectrum. The elongated shape of the lobe causes the notch frequency to vary with the vertical angle of incidence, and we can interpret that effect as height. Height detection is not good for sounds originating to the side or back, or lacking high frequency content."_


 
  
 Indeed, the graphs below (generated from old KEMAR HRTF files without equalization) show how the HRTF changes as the elevation is increased from -30 to +30 degrees in 10 degree steps. The azimuth (horizontal direction) is fixed at 30 degrees to the right. The differences are mostly in the notches above 7 kHz.
  
        

        
 From the above, it looks like moving a narrow notch (or comb filter) between about 7-10 kHz can give the illusion of vertical movement. I did try this in the past with headphones, and the effect does work to some extent.


----------



## stv014

analogsurviver said:


> Rise time of redbook  is approx 14 microseconds - or bandwitdh to 20 kHz. IF even I accept that this is "enough" - that means that this has to be maintained from input to output -from the sound waves impigning on the diaphragm of the microphone to the sound impigning on the eardrum - with every component in between fast enough to maintain that 14 uS risetime even under worst of conditions. In series as they are, that means each and every component does add so and so much delay/filtering - that means even the best equipment available does nor find maintaining that 14 uS easy - OVERALL.
> 
> There is no (pre)amplifier with infinitely short risetime or infinity bandwidth, no cable, and most certainly no microphone. Each and every component is slowing the original sound down somewhat - and this can CLEARLY be heard in redbook vs "higer speed" ( be it analog or digital ) : redbook is mostly flat surface as far as depth is concerned, under best of circumstances it has some depth that is definitely limited and does not match the same as analog or hirez digital and most certainly not live feed from the microphone.


 
  
 I thought it was already extensively discussed that Red Book does not limit phase or delay to any large discrete "steps", and that faster rise time than what is possible with Red Book mathematically requires content above 22.05 kHz. Any delay or filtering added by equipment is irrelevant as long as it is inaudible and close enough to be the same on both channels. Here you can see that even a cheap sub-$100 sound card can achieve less than 0.1 dB roll-off up to 20 kHz, less than 50 ns inter-channel delay (vs. 10 us threshold of audibility), and less than 0.1/0.02 ms group delay variation up to 20/17 kHz, respectively (vs. ~1 ms audible level in the mid-range). Even the group delay is only due to the use of a minimum(ish) phase reconstruction filter, with linear phase it would be much less.
  


> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The most significantly audible jump in quality in digital occurs from redbook to 88.2 or 96 kHz sampling frequency - this IS "night and day".


 
  
 It should be easy to prove it then with some 20/20 ABX logs. Just take some 88.2 or 96 kHz sample, convert it to CD quality with a decent resampler, and then back to the original format, and compare the files.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Computer audio is not far enough to allow decent ABX - in native DSD. The moment we are forced to go into PCM for the ABX software(s) to be enabled, much of the difference has already been thrown away.


 
   
You have just said that the largest, "night and day" step is between Red Book and 96 kHz. If you have equipment that is capable of playing the latter, and you hear the improvement it makes, then you should be able to perform a 96 kHz vs. 96->44.1->96 converted sample comparison without problems. If you are worried about the conversion degrading the sound, that should just make it easier, since the 96 kHz original is not processed in any way.


----------



## diamondears

headwhacker said:


> Are you sure it's not just 2 different masters/source you are comparing? Is the PCM version deived from the same DSD source?


 Have you even compared a red book version between DSD128 or more of the same Master recording? The difference is so obvious I'm extremely doubting the intentions of doubters here. 

The answer to your question is yes.


----------



## stv014

diamondears said:


> The answer to your question is yes.


 
  
 Is that based on actually analyzing the samples (converting both to e.g. 176.4/24 PCM format, and subtracting the Red Book version should result in no difference other than the higher quantization noise of the CD, and the ultrasonic content of the DSD), or do you just _believe_ it is the case ? Do you even know if the playback levels are exactly the same ?


----------



## diamondears

stv014 said:


> Is that based on actually analyzing the samples (converting both to e.g. 176.4/24 PCM format, and subtracting the Red Book version should result in no difference other than the higher quantization noise of the CD, and the ultrasonic content of the DSD), or do you just _believe_ it is the case ? Do you even know if the playback levels are exactly the same ?


 Ok. I retract. I now believe DSD ain't improving nothing as soon as I read the words "analyzing samples", "converting to etc after subtracting red book", "higher quantization noise", "ultrasonic content", "playback levels", etc. I never do that to a layman (relative to my profession), unless I have nothing to impress but use technical terms. Or confuse unknowledgeable and blind bats...

Is it possible for record labels to just sell the Master recordings themselves? In this case, everything would be the same. Oh no...quantization, recording levels, and time itself would I guess be different...

So, satisfying all your conditions for a proper A-B testing, you mean you don't find SUBSTANTIAL improvement in DSD128 vs. red book?


----------



## bfreedma

diamondears said:


> Ok. I retract. I now believe DSD ain't improving nothing as soon as I read the words "analyzing samples", "converting to etc after subtracting red book", "higher quantization noise", "ultrasonic content", "playback levels", etc. I never do that to a layman (relative to my profession), unless I have nothing to impress but use technical terms. Or confuse unknowledgeable and blind bats...
> 
> Is it possible for record labels to just sell the Master recordings themselves? In this case, everything would be the same. Oh no...quantization, recording levels, and time itself would I guess be different...
> 
> So, satisfying all your conditions for a proper A-B testing, you mean you don't find SUBSTANTIAL improvement in DSD128 vs. red book?


 
  
 You do realize this is the "Sound Science" section of Head-Fi?
  
 Subjective opinions without proper analysis or control will always be heavily scrutinized.  You really should perform a proper ABX test - you will probably find the results surprising.


----------



## analogsurviver

don hills said:


> It is a common belief that Redbook (or any digital chain) is limited in time resolution to the time represented by the time between samples. This is incorrect. 16/44.1 digital can resolve time differences into the nanosecond range, orders of magnitude less than the time between two samples. If you doubt, I can refer you to videos and papers proving it.
> 
> Some very early CD players had a phase shift between channels due to sharing a single DAC between channels due to cost. In one I have seen the test results for, the difference amounted to 22 degrees phase shift at 20 KHz. All players and DACs that you can buy since the 90s have one DAC per channel. Phase shift is essentially zero.
> 
> Finally, rise time and frequency response are one and the same thing, viewed in different domains (time versus frequency).


 
 Please do refer me to the videos and papers proving that 16/44.1 can resolve time differences into the nanosecond range.
  
 That regarding timeline of (non)availability of "digital" sharing a single DAC with consequent phase shift "since 90s" does not hold true. Some computers, notebooks, netbooks etc, as well as external DACs, have been available as recently as 2009 - if not longer. With these, reduction of phase shift is clearly audible AND visible on the oscilloscope by the use of higher than 44.1 kHz sampling frequency in any software, foobar2000 being the most commonly known and used. Audible difference lies primarily in imaging : soundstage width ( it becomes wider/broader ) and soundstage depth ( it starts to show some vestiges of depth, it is no longer glass pane flat ). Since such "digital whatevers" are usually limited to sampling frequency of 48 kHz, the shape of the output signal (square wave, frequency response etc ) will be exactly the same as if when run with the 44.1/48 kHz "sampling" in software; only phase difference between channels does get reduced by increasing the sampling frequency in the software, it can not increase the resolution which is limited by the hardware. And this most definitely IS audible - if one's laptop/netbook is not exactly young, worth trying out if it does not hide inside a single DAC ...
  
 Yes, rise time and frequency response is the one and same thing viewed in different domains.
  
 However, "ringing" ( the correct consequence of lacking high frequencies ) in 44.1/16 > 88.2 >etc compared to analog signal ( live microphone feed ) can be significantly reduced to (almost but still not insignificant by the use of DSD128) insignificant discrepancy from the original by high enough sampling frequency. It is perceived in the timbre - 44.1/16 sounds hard and sizzly, where ever faster sampling sounds ever softer and smoother, in the end approaching to the live microphone feed. This statement does and will continue to hold water regardless of recent improvements in filtering for the 44.1/16 - the exact same measures can be used to improve filtering of higher sample rate PCM and similarly filtering for the DSD - which by the time DSD 512 is reached, becomes practically superfluous.  It means, for all practical purposes, signal that is faster than anything possible with analog with out of audio band noise low enough not to cause trouble - in other words, something that can faithfully record and play back music.
  
 It is unfortunately true that file sizes and everything that supports  hirez is mind boggling:
  
 DSD 64 (SACD )         1GB                22 minutes audio
  
 DSD 128                       1GB               11 minutes audio
  
 DSD 256                        1GB               330 seconds audio
  
 DSD 512                         1GB              165 seconds audio
  
 Exact time is slightly different, but no hair splitting please, meant was to show it does look daunting  . Similar occurs with DXD that can by now go past 700 kHz sampling/24 bit. But at the rate computers are progressing, above in say a decade may look "business as usual". I certainly hope so.
  
 I wish I could afford beyond DSD128 - but it will have to wait, impossible at the moment, as it means exchanging everything from recorder(s) to hard disks ( from above it should be clear SSD is out of question due to storage size/cost requirement ) and everything in between. But I do see the benefit, although it should not be as dramatic as the jump from DSD 64 to DSD 128 ( roughly equivalent in difference 44.1 vs 88.2 or 96 in PCM ).
  
 Conclusion : Dear Santa....


----------



## diamondears

bfreedma said:


> You do realize this is the "Sound Science" section of Head-Fi?
> 
> Subjective opinions without proper analysis or control will always be heavily scrutinized.  You really should perform a proper ABX test - you will probably find the results surprising.


 Yes I do. That's why on my first post I said "I don't know about the objective measurements, but listening to the DSD128 version blablablah"...so that objective, technical mumbo jumbo is irrelevant." 

Ears don't lie. There are still so many things in this world that still undiscovered in terms of measurements and science. Hearing is science too, I reckon. But I digress. Go on with it. Just thought of saying the obvious.


----------



## bfreedma

diamondears said:


> Yes I do. That's why on my first post I said "I don't know about the objective measurements, but listening to the DSD128 version blablablah"...so that objective, technical mumbo jumbo is irrelevant."
> 
> Ears don't lie. There are still so many things in this world that still undiscovered in terms of measurements and science. Hearing is science too, I reckon. But I digress. Go on with it. Just thought of saying the obvious.


 
  
 Ears most certainly do lie - environment, conditions, and controls also are variable.  That's why objective measurements and controlled testing are required for the topic at hand.
  
 Saying that "things are undiscovered" is just a cop out in Sound Science.  Particularly when claiming that the differences are "night and day" or "substantial".


----------



## diamondears

bfreedma said:


> Ears most certainly do lie - environment, conditions, and controls also are variable.  That's why objective measurements and controlled testing are required for the topic at hand.
> 
> Saying that "things are undiscovered" is just a cop out in Sound Science.  Particularly when claiming that the differences are "night and day" or "substantial".


 That's what they said centuries ago when someone said the earth is round. 

Anyway, are you saying that in a proper ABX testing, the DSD128 or up is the same as red book?


----------



## bfreedma

diamondears said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > Ears most certainly do lie - environment, conditions, and controls also are variable. That's why objective measurements and controlled testing are required for the topic at hand.
> ...




The old "the earth is round" canard. Also not appropriate for sound science.

Yes, I'm saying that legitimate controlled testing to date has demonstrated that humans cannot hear any differences between red book and any of the hi res formats.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Are you stating that you believe there are "night and day"/"substantial" audible differences in formats that can't be measured with modern instruments?


----------



## RRod

diamondears said:


> Yes I do. That's why on my first post I said "I don't know about the objective measurements, but listening to the DSD128 version blablablah"...so that objective, technical mumbo jumbo is irrelevant."
> 
> Ears don't lie. There are still so many things in this world that still undiscovered in terms of measurements and science. Hearing is science too, I reckon. But I digress. Go on with it. Just thought of saying the obvious.


 
  
 Ears may not lie but the brain sure does. It's very good at confirming things to us that we want confirmed without objective proof.


----------



## stv014

analogsurviver said:


> Please do refer me to the videos and papers proving that 16/44.1 can resolve time differences into the nanosecond range.


 
  
 It follows directly from the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, which states that (quote): _"If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B cps, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart"_. Since delaying a signal by any amount is a linear transform (it does not introduce any new frequencies that did not exist before applying the delay), if sampling a band-limited input is mathematically lossless, then so should be sampling its delayed version. Therefore, the resolvable time differences are limited only by the (possibly shaped) quantization noise, and that is no different from an analog signal with the same noise density. If you still do not believe, I can post a Red Book format file with nanosecond delays that you can detect by analyzing the file (unfortunately not by listening, as the delay would be too small to be audible).
  
 Quote:


> However, "ringing" ( the correct consequence of lacking high frequencies ) in 44.1/16 > 88.2 >etc compared to analog signal ( live microphone feed ) can be significantly reduced to (almost but still not insignificant by the use of DSD128) insignificant discrepancy from the original by high enough sampling frequency. It is perceived in the timbre - 44.1/16 sounds hard and sizzly, where ever faster sampling sounds ever softer and smoother, in the end approaching to the live microphone feed.


 
  
 That should just make the test suggested in post 3303 even easier. That is, as long as short ultrasonic ringing is actually audible, let alone with the masking effect from the higher magnitude content in the audio band. Any results ?
  


> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> That regarding timeline of (non)availability of "digital" sharing a single DAC with consequent phase shift "since 90s" does not hold true. Some computers, notebooks, netbooks etc, as well as external DACs, have been available as recently as 2009 - if not longer. With these, reduction of phase shift is clearly audible AND visible on the oscilloscope by the use of higher than 44.1 kHz sampling frequency in any software, foobar2000 being the most commonly known and used. Audible difference lies primarily in imaging : soundstage width ( it becomes wider/broader ) and soundstage depth ( it starts to show some vestiges of depth, it is no longer glass pane flat ). Since such "digital whatevers" are usually limited to sampling frequency of 48 kHz


 
  
 See above regarding clear audibility and proving it. By the way, a limitation to 48 kHz sample rate was typical of AC97 audio, which is not exactly new. Currently, even HD audio codecs on PC motherboards support 192 kHz playback in hardware.


----------



## stv014

diamondears said:


> Ears don't lie.


 
  
 Subjective perception can and does lie, depending on the circumstances. Several examples have already been posted (probably more than once) in this same thread.
  


diamondears said:


> That's what they said centuries ago when someone said the earth is round.


 
  
 It is ironical that the "flat earth" belief is actually the result of naive subjectivism (after all, it obviously _looks_ flat from where one is standing, so it must be true, right ?), yet keeps getting brought up in its defense.


----------



## analogsurviver

stv014 said:


> Is that based on actually analyzing the samples (converting both to e.g. 176.4/24 PCM format, and subtracting the Red Book version should result in no difference other than the higher quantization noise of the CD, and the ultrasonic content of the DSD), or do you just _believe_ it is the case ? Do you even know if the playback levels are exactly the same ?


 
 OK, guys, that does it. This post is CLEARLY meant to imply that _anything _above 44.1/16 is meaningless.
  
 To all computer first/audio second guys (and gals, if any ) - converting, substracting, etc-ing is utter nonsense if you are at location and comparing various digital gizmos to the sound heard live - it IS audible that anything else than live feed from microphones is inferior to it and that magnitude of that deterioration is  sample rate related .
 I do try to match the levels - it IS exactly the same whether I use any setting for resolution from 44.1/16 as the lowest and DSD128 as the highest available on Korg recorders - and subjective results are as described by now countless times. Although I do not practice it on regular basis, sometimes I do match the level of recorder to direct output from the microphone - because that means I have to set the recording level a couple dBs below the optimum for the recording, as output level of recorder is fixed and to match the level with the microphone feed an additional preamplifier to raise the level of the mike would be required - or at least padding down the output of the recorder one way or another would be required. Both solutions add additional elements in the chain and none of these elements are perfect.
 After doing it a couple of times - and hearing the difference(s) - I simply do not bother with it anymore - my goal is to make recordings best I possibly can, not to fiddle with ABXing and statistics and such. With differences as they are, one would not worry about the exact composition of tyres on  cars being compared - if one is an average family car and another F1 car - would one ? It is true that getting from A to B in traffic congestion is no faster with F1 than family car, that F1 car is incomparably more costly, that it is a single seater, it can not carry any luggage, that it is utterly impractical for anything but racing, etc, etc - but if racing is the name of the game, it IS the answer. 
  
 I am striving to present these differences best I can - but if there is no virtual ABX comparator that can satisfy basic blind testing requirements AND quality of ALL format file playback ( it does OK for PCM ) - then it becomes hard. ANY non virtual real hardware ABX "box" with matching within 0.1 db or less with quality switching IS going to be expensive - I reckon 500 + for reasonable quality, but there are switches and potentiometers considerably exceeding that price - EACH. It is an area where commercial audio products have to make do with whatever can be used that fits within the selling price - you can't use $ 300 potentiometer in a $ 500 amplifier, for example. Take a "simple" RCA for example - there are $ .50 connectors ( sometimes I do use them, because they do sound good ) - and there are $ 200+ NextGen RCA connectors, with matching females at same level of price. NextGen will create better contact from new to who knows how many connection/disconnectio cycles - reliably, each and every time. .50 connector might work well initially - but will deteriorate with repeated use much faster and will fail completely after far less cycles than NextGen will still be good as new. The difference in price is approx 400 times ... - and I can only dream about NextGens.
  
 Once in PCM, one can mix/remix/upsample/donsamle/whatever almost at libitum - and will remain "the same". Even back in the days I have been recording with CD recorder directly to CD, I did not care for dithering - as real world noises of both equipment and enviroment where music is being played are generally above the level dithering and more than 16 bits can improve upon in meaningful way. Not so with sampling frequency; one does get an incremental improvement, the most obviously audible one by doubling the sampling rate of redbook to 88.2 or 96 kHz. Above that, the differences are ever harder to hear and/or justify in financial terms - but that does not mean they do not exist and are not audible at least on top level equipment. That top level equipment in headphone world can cost less than 500 $/euro - to sky is the limit with speakers. That is to say that equipment capable of taking advantage of higher than 44.1/16 redbook sampling frequency recordings is not out of reach of majority potentially interested listeners.
  
 I have to stress that the format or resolution of the recording is not in itself any guarantee of the overall quality of the recording. A Sony WMD-6(C) pro cassette recorder will produce infinitely superiour recording to any of the latest/greatest digital machines - if it is fed from better (positioned ) microphones than new digital gear. NEVER forget what comes first, resolution of digital is meaningful only if and when there is something worth supporting in the first place.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> To all computer first/audio second guys (and gals, if any ) - converting, substracting, etc-ing is utter nonsense if you are at location and comparing various digital gizmos to the sound heard live


 
  
 What is nonsense about wanting to know for sure if the samples in a high resolution vs. Red Book comparison are the same master, and that the differences are *entirely* due to the limitations of the latter format ? It is not hard to "prove" subjectively that apples and oranges are different, but what is the point ?
  


> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I am striving to present these differences best I can - but if there is no virtual ABX comparator that can satisfy basic blind testing requirements AND quality of ALL format file playback ( it does OK for PCM ) - then it becomes hard. ANY non virtual real hardware ABX "box" with matching within 0.1 db or less with quality switching IS going to be expensive - I reckon 500 + for reasonable quality


 
  
 You have just claimed that 96/24 PCM makes a "night and day" difference compared to 44.1/16. Do you have _any_ equipment (external DAC with USB or S/PDIF input, or whatever) that allows for playing 96/24 in software and satisfies your high standards of quality ? If yes, then there is nothing else you need to perform the test, no hardware switching is required, because all the playback would be done on the same DAC in 96/24 format. If you do not have a DAC that can adequately play 96/24, then how do you know it is so much better ? Or are you claiming that any involvement of software (even if it leaves the high resolution stream bit perfect) unavoidably makes the test invalid, or, in other words, any form of high quality computer based music playback is physically impossible ?


----------



## analogsurviver

stv014 said:


> What is nonsense about wanting to know for sure if the samples in a high resolution vs. Red Book comparison are the same master, and that the differences are *entirely* due to the limitations of the latter format ? It is not hard to "prove" subjectively that apples and oranges are different, but what is the point ?
> 
> 
> You have just claimed that 96/24 PCM makes a "night and day" difference compared to 44.1/16. Do you have _any_ equipment (external DAC with USB or S/PDIF input, or whatever) that allows for playing 96/24 in software and satisfies your high standards of quality ? If yes, then there is nothing else you need to perform the test, no hardware switching is required, because all the playback would be done on the same DAC in 96/24 format. If you do not have a DAC that can adequately play 96/24, then how do you know it is so much better ? Or are you claiming that any involvement of software (even if it leaves the high resolution stream bit perfect) unavoidably makes the test invalid, or, in other words, any form of high quality computer based music playback is physically impossible ?


 
 If you have musicians playing in front of you live in real time, with sound :
  
 1.) heard live without any technical means (in the vicinity of the microphone )
 2.) heard as live analog microphone feed (using IEMs or headphones with very high isolation )
 3.) heard as output from recorder (set to different resolutions, or different recorder(s) level matched to 2.) )
       (using same IEMs or headphones as above )
  
 Do you really think you would need to ask regarding _*master *_(which is being currently recorded in front of you) being the same for 1.) trough 3.)? This is obvious Nonsense #1. The Nonsense #2 would be hearing the difference between 1.), 2.) and 3.) - particularly if 3.) would be 44.1/16.
  
 I use  http://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/nano-idsd/ - soon to be replaced by http://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/micro-idsd/  The micro can play any format that is yet likely to hit the market - let alone the lowly 96/24 .The nano is about half as capable - which is to say that it still matches the formats that any other DAC currently available is capable of.
  
 What I say that it is invalid in current computer audio is ABX comparator software that has to convert DSD to PCM in order to be able to perform ABX. If one works in PCM alone, it is OK - trouble is, PCM is not up to DSD. Listening to DSD via PCM (for any reason) is not the same. DSD is bound to have distractors - if nothing else, because it can not be represented on computer screen and dissected in the same manner as PCM. This is also problem with mastering/editing - one has to leave 1 bit enviroment and go to more bits (usually 8 ) in order to edit - so it is also bound to find fierce resistance from those engineers that would like to see every second edited to death - for the sake of note to note perfection also demanded by the musicians and listeners alike. I have heard one of recent(ish) recordings of one of Bartok's concertos by a premier soloist and orchestra took 113 (or was it 131 ? ) takes so that in the end note by note perfection can be pasted together - killing the spirit of a live concert beyond non-existance. Thank you -   but - no, thank you.
  
 DSD is something most comparable to direct to disk recording - enabling at least takes of songs one after another ad libitum, not having to perform for the duration of a length of a LP side (say 20 minutes ) in one go, with pauses between songs no more than say 10-15 seconds. It does put less strain on the musicians and engineers while still allowing for sonics comparable to and most likely superior to direct to disk ( analog disk limitations ).
So you are not likely to find many musicians or engineers capable and willing of doing it - because PCM and editing-to-death is sooooo much more convenient, easy - not to remain unmentioned, time in post production is MUCH less expensive than having to do it right in the first place, in a rented recording venue with all the musicians present; sound quality be damned. This is also why multimiking came into existance in the first place - because it allows clever producer to considerably cut the costs of the recording. With the assumption "everything" can be fixed in the postproduction...
  
People have grown accustomed to this "CD photoshoped" perfection that simply does not exist in real life - just the same models we get to see image of never have freckles, dimples etc - all edited out with photoshop. To the point that if someone is daring enough to present his/her true self for others to ask his/hers sanity ... 
  
In a way, native DSD can be regarded as truth-by-technology without the possibility to "photoshop" - IF it remains strictly in DSD 1 bit domain. Editing tools differ by how much of DSD has to be converted to PCM to execute that edit - entire track, just close vicinity around the edit mark, to how many bits should DSD be converted for editing ( the lower bit count lesser quality loss and tougher to perform the edit ), etc - but goal is always to have best SQ possible.


----------



## RRod

So what exactly would a non-multi-miked, straight from ADC to DAC recording of a live performance captured at 24/192 not have that the DSD recording would have?


----------



## stv014

> <wall of text>


 
  
 Well, it does not look like this discussion is leading anywhere, and you do not seem to be willing to actually answer any of my questions, so I just leave it at that.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> So what exactly would a non-multi-miked, straight from ADC to DAC recording of a live performance captured at 24/192 not have that the DSD recording would have?


 
 It is still the ringing on the square wave that 192/24 has on BOTH start and end of the semi-cycle - DSD behaves very much like analog, any ringing remaining (mainly from filtering ) being limited strictly to the start of the semi-cycle. 
  
 That ringing I hear subjectively as definitive limiting of the acoustics to less than recording venue has in real life. 44.1 is a flat plane, 88.2 has say depth of a few meters and height in vestiges, 192/24 has depth approaching the real size - but definitely NOT QUITE - similar with height. PCM does not have that relaxed feeling as heard live, there is "something" there that is not in the real thing. The difference between DSD64 and DSD128 is most instantly obvious in depth - with DSD128 being VERY close to the real thing. But without that precisely defined feeling of "limited cage/boundary" as with PCM.
  
 DSD 128 no longer rings on square wave if left unfiltered - but above audio band noise is still too much if left unfiltered. From this point, it is understandable why DSD 256 ( almost there ) and DSD 512 (most probably there ) - WITHOUT ANY OUTPUT FILTERING. Any real world filtering does ring a bit - and with DSD 64 (SACD) it is absolutely indispensable, with DSD 128 one can get away with murder on certain type of music ( but not all) - by the time we reach DSD 512, both frequency response should be extended beyond what could possibly be regarded as limiting in any way while the noise would be low and far enough from music to be considered inconsequential.
  
 DXD, which is a form of PCM, still has ringing both on start and end of a semi -cycle - but due to increased sampling frequency it is far lower in magnitude. The advantage is possibility to edit natively . It is a practical DSD or improved PCM - whatever suits one better.
  
 Both of the above is >> 192/24. 
  
 One can say the same through reproduction of pulse - with those insanely high sampling frequencies, be it DSD or PCM/DXD, the theorethical ideal does get approached to beyond what the most advanced electromechanical transducer ( loudspeaker or headphone ) is likely to be ever capable of reproducing - even plasma tweeters that work without any mass are limited by the speed with which air molecules can cool down - and that means that it is possible to reproduce the highest frequencies better by a speaker with an extremely light diaphragm driven by a very powerful motor. This allows for very well controlled response without any objectionable high Q peaking to around 200 kHz ( not a typo - in words: two hundred thousands cycles per second ) - at a price.
  
 And one should NEVER hear a tweeter on its own - it is there to help everything else, not to steal the show. Removing a well integrated tweeter with response way past 20 kHz from the system after having spent at least say few days with it is not going to be pleasant experience - provided the source material in the first place has recorded information that can be conveyed by such tweeters ( and DACs, amps etc having the support required ).


----------



## analogsurviver

stv014 said:


> Well, it does not look like this discussion is leading anywhere, and you do not seem to be willing to actually answer any of my questions, so I just leave it at that.


 
 I do not know of a better way to ascertain that master is the same than live sound being recorded to whatever format(s) and comparing them level equalized with the microphone feed - it can not get any better than that.
  
 With a master from a third party, one can never be 100% sure it was really derived at as claimed. 
 It is amusing but not funny - the first truly analog recording of Vienna Symphonic Orchestra in ages : http://www.project-audio.com/main.php?prod=gustavmahlersymphonien1&cat=vinyl&lang=en is available trough Project as LP - and until recently, when Linn discontinued selling downloads of other labels, as download up to 192/24. No DSD as Linn does not have (yet?) DSD player/server/whatever. And no LP - by the once premier analog oriented manufacturer. This goes to show the same recording does get marketed on various formats trough vendors that have commercial reasons to distribute it - including https://www.highresaudio.com/artist.php?abid=74904 For which of the above would you trust to be a "true" master - with the knowledge real raw master recording #00001 is on analog tapes ?
  
 I did link the specs for the DAC I am using.
  
 I did answer which part of computer audio is still lacking (ABX comparators of _*native*_ DSD vs PCM ) - which does not deny anything mentioned in your question, of which it is all valid.
  
 So it must be communication error, not my unwillingness to actually answer your question.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> It is still the ringing on the square wave that 192/24 has on BOTH start and end of the semi-cycle - DSD behaves very much like analog, any ringing remaining (mainly from filtering ) being limited strictly to the start of the semi-cycle.
> 
> That ringing I hear subjectively as definitive limiting of the acoustics to less than recording venue has in real life. 44.1 is a flat plane, 88.2 has say depth of a few meters and height in vestiges, 192/24 has depth approaching the real size - but definitely NOT QUITE - similar with height. PCM does not have that relaxed feeling as heard live, there is "something" there that is not in the real thing. The difference between DSD64 and DSD128 is most instantly obvious in depth - with DSD128 being VERY close to the real thing. But without that precisely defined feeling of "limited cage/boundary" as with PCM.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Ringing is a manifestation of the duality of frequency and time: to accept a sharp cutoff in one is to accept ringing in the other. But once again, the question of *objective* audibility comes into play. You have quite the catch 22 set up here: you claim you can here things like "less ringing" in DSD, then point out that DSD vs. PCM comparisons are a mess, then assume you must be right. You also simultaneously seem to both accept and reject hi-res PCM as a solution, so you're happy to point out better looking square waves in hi-res PCM but suggest they are still can't possibly be as *audibly* good as DSD, once again falling back on a lack of "good" DSD to PCM converters. What would you consider to be a "good" conversion? My gut is nothing, so what are we even talking about here? It's also odd that you talk about "standing in front of musicians" then rely on a square wave argument, when most live instruments I know of don't put out square waves. The fact is that many of us are pretty sure you couldn't tell a 16/44.1 square wave from even a 24/88.2 square wave in a legit ABX test, so it's hard for us to just accept that you can hear magic happiness in DSD. People who want DSD to not die (unlike Linn, evidently…) pretty much find every possible way to reject PCM, let alone poor old Redbook. And 200kHz is a joke; it reeks of hypertweeter marketing and a desire to kill bats.


----------



## bigshot

stv014 said:


> Well, it does not look like this discussion is leading anywhere, and you do not seem to be willing to actually answer any of my questions, so I just leave it at that.


 
 I'm with you.


----------



## Don Hills

analogsurviver said:


> Please do refer me to the videos and papers proving that 16/44.1 can resolve time differences into the nanosecond range.
> 
> That regarding timeline of (non)availability of "digital" sharing a single DAC with consequent phase shift "since 90s" does not hold true. Some computers, notebooks, netbooks etc, as well as external DACs, have been available as recently as 2009 - if not longer. With these, reduction of phase shift is clearly audible AND visible on the oscilloscope by the use of higher than 44.1 kHz sampling frequency in any software, foobar2000 being the most commonly known and used. ...


 
  
  
 Videos and papers:
 stv014 has already referred you to the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem. It is "the law". It says sub-sample timing resolution works. No-one has ever proven it wrong. If you don't believe it, re-read it until you do.
  
 You really need to watch Monty's show and tell video from beginning to end, but at about the 21 minute mark he demonstrates what really happens when you delay one channel relative to the other by less than one sample. You see a smooth change in the delay, not a jump from sample to sample. Note that (almost) everything in that video is correct and unarguable, with the arguable exception being his opinion that dither isn't always required.
  
 From one of J Robert Stuart's white papers:
Coding High Quality Digital Audio
  


> Even among audio engineers, there has been considerable misunderstanding about digital audio, about the sampling theory, and about how PCM works at the functional level. Some of these misunderstandings persist even today. Top of the list of erroneous assertions are:
> 
> i. PCM cannot resolve detail smaller than the LSB (least-significant bit).
> ii. PCM cannot resolve time more accurately than the sampling period.
> ...


 
  
 Regarding phase shift, your claims are... extraordinary. Phase differences between channels in a system with non-shared DACs will be negligible if the system is competently designed. Any "DAC" with significant phase differences between channels is simply broken. Feel free to take any competent modern DAC, feed it time-aligned ("mono") digital inputs, and produce scope pictures showing the "clearly audible" phase shift you claim exists.
  
  
 In a later post, you say:
  


> stv014 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that based on actually analyzing the samples (converting both to e.g. 176.4/24 PCM format, and subtracting the Red Book version should result in no difference other than the higher quantization noise of the CD, and the ultrasonic content of the DSD), or do you just _believe_ it is the case ? Do you even know if the playback levels are exactly the same ?
> ...


 
  
 His post explicitly states that, given competent equipment and operator, the only difference between a 16/44.1 KHz recording and a DSD recording will be that the Red Book version will have a slightly higher noise floor and be missing frequencies above 22 KHz. It only means something if you have (a) screwed up so that the noise flor becomes audible and/or (b) the source had meaningful information above 22 KHz.
  
 As for the "night and day" on location, you can easily make most or all of it go away. Simply adjourn to another (sound and vision isolated) room with your monitoring speakers / headphones. Have the desk operator feed you (level matched) the original, or the digital, without telling you which, and switch them back and forth. (There's a bit more to the protocol than that, to avoid out-of-band cues, but the principle holds.) You might just sometimes be able to tell 16/44.1 or DSD-64 from original, but I think you'll fail on 24/96 or DSD128. (A/B testing on "live" music is less accurate than using recorded music, because you have no opportunity to pick out specific musical phrases and repeat until you can identify a difference.)


----------



## Don Hills

analogsurviver said:


> It is still the ringing on the square wave that 192/24 has on BOTH start and end of the semi-cycle - DSD behaves very much like analog, any ringing remaining (mainly from filtering ) being limited strictly to the start of the semi-cycle.
> 
> That ringing I hear subjectively as definitive limiting of the acoustics to less than recording venue has in real life. 44.1 is a flat plane, 88.2 has say depth of a few meters and height in vestiges, 192/24 has depth approaching the real size - but definitely NOT QUITE - similar with height. PCM does not have that relaxed feeling as heard live, there is "something" there that is not in the real thing. The difference between DSD64 and DSD128 is most instantly obvious in depth - with DSD128 being VERY close to the real thing. But without that precisely defined feeling of "limited cage/boundary" as with PCM.


 
 You hear the "ringing"? Even at 44.1 KHz SR, the "ringing" is at 22.05 KHz. You must have the ears of a bat.
 In any case, it is not "ringing". It is Gibbs Effect, explained very clearly in Monty's video that I linked to in a previous post. Strictly speaking, it is the absence of frequencies higher than the Nyquist limit. So you're saying that you notice when frequencies higher than 22 KHz aren't there?


----------



## diamondears

bfreedma said:


> The old "the earth is round" canard. Also not appropriate for sound science.
> 
> Yes, I'm saying that legitimate controlled testing to date has demonstrated that humans cannot hear any differences between red book and any of the hi res formats.
> 
> Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Are you stating that you believe there are "night and day"/"substantial" audible differences in formats that can't be measured with modern instruments?


 

 As I said, I don't know about the objective measurements, so I don't have any evidence except my own hearing.
  
 I agree, based just on my ears again, that hi-res formats doesn't have difference vs red book. But not with DSD, and I hear the difference as very substantial.
  
 So, forget other hi-res formats, but with regards to DSD128 or up only, you don't hear any difference vs red book/16/44? I seriously think you need to have your ears checked.


stv014 said:


> Subjective perception can and does lie, depending on the circumstances. Several examples have already been posted (probably more than once) in this same thread.
> 
> 
> It is ironical that the "flat earth" belief is actually the result of naive subjectivism (after all, it obviously _looks_ flat from where one is standing, so it must be true, right ?), yet keeps getting brought up in its defense.


 
  You didn't get the point at all. The point is---don't conclude that DSD128+ is not better than red book 16/44...keep an open mind, study it more...that's what scientists are for...time to exit for me...not a scientist...lol


----------



## analogsurviver

don hills said:


> Videos and papers:
> stv014 has already referred you to the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem. It is "the law". It says sub-sample timing resolution works. No-one has ever proven it wrong. If you don't believe it, re-read it until you do.
> 
> You really need to watch Monty's show and tell video from beginning to end, but at about the 21 minute mark he demonstrates what really happens when you delay one channel relative to the other by less than one sample. You see a smooth change in the delay, not a jump from sample to sample. Note that (almost) everything in that video is correct and unarguable, with the arguable exception being his opinion that dither isn't always required.
> ...


 
 Thank you for the links. 
  
 It is 2:48 AM here - will return later today. Time to sleep.


----------



## jodgey4

@diamondears Have you considered that perhaps the DAC you're testing with does _not _have the same performance between PCM and DSD? There are many different methods of implementing DSD.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> Ringing is a manifestation of the duality of frequency and time: to accept a sharp cutoff in one is to accept ringing in the other. But once again, the question of *objective* audibility comes into play. You have quite the catch 22 set up here: you claim you can here things like "less ringing" in DSD, then point out that DSD vs. PCM comparisons are a mess, then assume you must be right. You also simultaneously seem to both accept and reject hi-res PCM as a solution, so you're happy to point out better looking square waves in hi-res PCM but suggest they are still can't possibly be as *audibly* good as DSD, once again falling back on a lack of "good" DSD to PCM converters. What would you consider to be a "good" conversion? My gut is nothing, so what are we even talking about here? It's also odd that you talk about "standing in front of musicians" then rely on a square wave argument, when most live instruments I know of don't put out square waves. The fact is that many of us are pretty sure you couldn't tell a 16/44.1 square wave from even a 24/88.2 square wave in a legit ABX test, so it's hard for us to just accept that you can hear magic happiness in DSD. People who want DSD to not die (unlike Linn, evidently…) pretty much find every possible way to reject PCM, let alone poor old Redbook. And 200kHz is a joke; it reeks of hypertweeter marketing and a desire to kill bats.


 
 To clarify a few things: I did never say that DSD vs PCM comparisons are a mess, I did specifically point only that present ABX comparators - like the one for Foobar2000 most commonly used - can not play DSD natively. One can still blind compare DSD vs PCM with the help of another person and switching of some sort - that could give fair results.
  
 Foobar2000 does play DSD natively when not doing ABX - question is _how _well. My experience is approximately at the level of Korg Audiogate V3.0.x Light Load (free) version- and is bested by both jRiver and Audiogate High Quality (legal only with purchase of Korg DSD device - either recorder or DAC ). This difference is large enough to allow a decent PCM to "slide in between". So, all players are not created equal and can and do influence the outcome. This is another reason why I said computer audio is hard - there are too many setiings in too many versions of software to keep it uniform.  And a faster computer will always have the upper hand.
  
 I do not assuring I am right - I wrote how I hear these things. Using other equipment may well change the outcome - I did prefer PCM with an amp that has dislike for high frequency noise of DSD. In that case, DSD did sound fuzzy and mushy - while PCM was "business as usual", in this case yielding better result. But generally I prefer DSD on equipment that can handle it..
  
 Square wave difference among various sampling rates of PCM and DSD is quite significant. And although no instrument can reproduce square wave, it is the best signal to use in order to see how well complex waveforms are reproduced. I was forced to start listening ( at safe levels, well below 0 dB ) to  1 kHz square wave used in phono cartridge testing - and anything bad sticks out like a sore thumb. For most phono cartridges, these abberations ( ringing ) lies lower in frequency than it is represented in hirez PCM - but there are some that meet or exceed hirez. Although direct ringing at 20 kHz + is not directly audible, it can and does creep in trough noise and intermodulation - both within audible range. 
  
 I will load tomorrow 1 kHz square wave recorded from analog signal generator with DSD128 recorder and compare PCM made from this in 44.1, 88.2 and 176.4 sampling rate, as these can be ABXed in foobar 2K. Or I can make direct recording in above three resolutions of PCM - will report how it will go. For comparison with DSD I would have to ask another person to operate the switch etc.
  
 There is one record I have seen on oscilloscope to resemble producing a signal extremely close to a square wave :  http://www.discogs.com/Thelma-Houston-Pressure-Cooker-Ive-Got-The-Music-In-Me/release/1229176 It would be interesting to compare it with the later issue made from analog tape and not direct to disc : 
 http://www.discogs.com/Thelma-Houston-Pressure-Cooker-Ive-Got-The-Music-In-Me/release/3072422 - both by ear and on an oscilloscope. I forgot exactly which song(s) are "close to square wave" - it has been 20 + years I have been curious enough to hook up an oscilloscope for musical signals after hearing things uncommon in normal records made from analog tape masters. I currently posses no version of this recording - except for CD.
  
 Bats always creep up whenever talking of beyond 20 kHz response in audio. And I have no desire of killing any innocent beings.


----------



## diamondears

jodgey4 said:


> @diamondears Have you considered that perhaps the DAC you're testing with does _not _have the same performance between PCM and DSD? There are many different methods of implementing DSD.


 

 Probably. And frankly, I don't know the answer FOR SURE. And, IMHO, neither do any of us. History has always told us that some things we know, and thought we know for sure, MAY and CAN and IS ACTUALLY be disproved or improved later on due to supervening events, techniques, science, geniuses, by chance, aliens, etc...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 But for now, I HEAR the difference, and its substantial, and I did everything I can within my resources (limited) to get everything else constant. The guys that has the MONEY within the industry I'm sure have tested this. The problem is, its not getting to us (public) if its gonna hurt their current business/investments/etc.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> I will load tomorrow 1 kHz square wave recorded from analog signal generator with DSD128 recorder and compare PCM made from this in 44.1, 88.2 and 176.4 sampling rate, as these can be ABXed in foobar 2K. Or I can make direct recording in above three resolutions of PCM - will report how it will go. For comparison with DSD I would have to ask another person to operate the switch etc.
> 
> 
> Bats always creep up whenever talking of beyond 20 kHz response in audio. And I have no desire of killing any innocent beings.


 
 I didn't think you were a bat killer. If you do ABX square waves, you have to make sure they are volume matched and upsampled to the same bit-depth/frequency, lest your DAC give you any cues due to spec switching. You should technically record at 176.4 and then down and re-upsample for the other two.


----------



## bfreedma

diamondears said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > The old "the earth is round" canard. Also not appropriate for sound science.
> ...




My ears are fine. You need to stop with the accusations and platitudes.

Again I ask - you believe there are "very substantial" audible audio differences between red book and DSD that are not measurable by current instrumentation?


----------



## diamondears

bfreedma said:


> My ears are fine. You need to stop with the accusations and platitudes.
> 
> Again I ask - you believe there are "very substantial" audible audio differences between red book and DSD that are not measurable by current instrumentation?


 Huh? Did I say your ears are not fine?

Yes, I think so. But I COULD be wrong, as all of us here. 

You didn't get the point still.


----------



## bfreedma

diamondears said:


> As I said, I don't know about the objective measurements, so I don't have any evidence except my own hearing.
> 
> I agree, based just on my ears again, that hi-res formats doesn't have difference vs red book. But not with DSD, and I hear the difference as very substantial.
> 
> ...


 
  
  


diamondears said:


> Huh? Did I say your ears are not fine?
> 
> Yes, I think so. But I COULD be wrong, as all of us here.
> 
> You didn't get the point still.


 
  
 Yes, you did tell me to get my ears checked - see above.  There's some irony that you can't remember what you posted and didn't fact check, yet are so sure those who have are wrong about this.
  
 I get the point - it's you who don't.  You're stating that you believe that there are "very substantial" differences in audio that you can hear but that we can't yet measure.  The slightly modified quote below seems appropriate as you seem so doubtful about established audio science theory.
_Subjectivists "make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.” ― Isaac Asimov_


----------



## liamstrain

Diamondears (and analogsurvivor) - in addition to bfreedma's point, you still haven't done anything to ensure that the DSD and Redbooks you are comparing used the same master. It's entirely possible they are not - so hearing differences would be natural, even if they were both at the same resolution/format, the different masters would ensure you hear differences. 
  
 Several people have proposed very basic tests you can do, to ensure you are comparing apples to apples, and I see no attempts on your part to even acknowledge that, much less attempt it.


----------



## analogsurviver

liamstrain said:


> Diamondears (and analogsurvivor) - in addition to bfreedma's point, you still haven't done anything to ensure that the DSD and Redbooks you are comparing used the same master. It's entirely possible they are not - so hearing differences would be natural, even if they were both at the same resolution/format, the different masters would ensure you hear differences.
> 
> Several people have proposed very basic tests you can do, to ensure you are comparing apples to apples, and I see no attempts on your part to even acknowledge that, much less attempt it.


 
 Sorry - I can not accept this post.
  
I have stated numerous times I use live music, live mic  feed etc as "master"  ( to make sure it is the same "input" for everything downstream ) - and can set recorder(s) to anything from MP3 192KBPS to DSD128 (and can convert the recordings into any format supported by Korg Audiogate), can parallel use up to 4 (or 8 if I borrow from friends ) recorders each set for different resolution fed from the same microphone - 
*and YOU have the nerve to ask if I am sure the master is the same ?????*
  
 Please do read my posts - because I regard this post of yours as the very last ditch attempt by the "perfect sound forever" brigade to linger along any longer. 
 And please do get the idea regarding what can be  master for DSD or CD absolutely straight - master is per definition something in best possible quality, in the above  case master can be raw recording in DSD from which one can bounce it down to CD - using one of several available software - NOT the other way around.
  
 At http://www.2l.no/hires/ you can download test files that started life mostly as DXD recordings ( 352kHz/24bit ) and were bounced down to the the stereo96/24 as the lowest resolution - and there are few that started life as 96/24 and were bounced up.  With a DXD capable DAC, you can ABX these in ABX comparator of Foobar2000.
 The fact that 2L did not bother to include 44.1/16 speaks volumes ... - but if you really must, can bounce any of these files down to 44.1/16 to hear for yourself with what you have decided to satisfy yourself.
  
 While at it, you should notice reason #3 why computer audio is hard - various softwares used for conversion from one format to another do produce audibly different results. And one has to subjectively decide which sounds best - science up or down.
  
 Because of these vagaries, I have postponed promised recordings of square waves from a vast range of analog and digital devices - because there is absolutely no way to ascertain that each and every software on each and every computer will play them back equally.


----------



## diamondears

bfreedma said:


> Yes, you did tell me to get my ears checked - see above.  There's some irony that you can't remember what you posted and didn't fact check, yet are so sure those who have are wrong about this.
> 
> I get the point - it's you who don't.  You're stating that you believe that there are "very substantial" differences in audio that you can hear but that we can't yet measure.  The slightly modified quote below seems appropriate as you seem so doubtful about established audio science theory.
> _[COLOR=000000]Subjectivists "make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”[/COLOR] [COLOR=000000]―[/COLOR] [COLOR=000000]Isaac Asimov[/COLOR]_


 Sorry to offend and disagree with you. And pardon me for forgetting that I said you need to get yours ears checked, which I forgot. 

So, your ears don't notice any difference between red book and DSD128 of a recording from the same Masters?

I said I don't know about objective measurements. And yes you still miss the point.


----------



## bfreedma

diamondears said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you did tell me to get my ears checked - see above. There's some irony that you can't remember what you posted and didn't fact check, yet are so sure those who have are wrong about this.
> ...




Not much of an apology. And I've already directly answered that question, which I assume you have forgotten as well.

Just because YOU don't understand objective measurements doesn't invalidate them.

Last word can be yours, debating this further with you is pointless.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry - I can not accept this post.
> 
> I have stated numerous times I use live music, live mic  feed etc as "master"  ( to make sure it is the same "input" for everything downstream ) - and can set recorder(s) to anything from MP3 192KBPS to DSD128 (and can convert the recordings into any format supported by Korg Audiogate), can parallel use up to 4 (or 8 if I borrow from friends ) recorders each set for different resolution fed from the same microphone -
> *and YOU have the nerve to ask if I am sure the master is the same ?????*
> ...


 
  
 The fact that 2L didn't bother to include 16/44.1 speaks to the fact that they cater to an audience that doesn't objectively assess sound formats, nothing more.
  
 The resampler comparisons I've seen done have never been auditory. They usually involve measurements and graphs thereof, to make objective decisions about the actual performance for a given task. Any resampler that creates audible artifacts would not be considered a viable solution to the problem at hand.
  
 You hide behind vagaries you create because it's the only way to avoid the truth. I see nothing stopping you from recording your favorite analogous square wave at 176.4 and comparing that file to resampled files at lower rates, other than reluctance. But we know how it will turn out. Theoretically, the 88.2 file would differ from the 44.1 file in frequencies above 22.05kHz, and those are already at 4% of the amplitude of the fundamental. How audible do you think a 10bit/21kHz sine wave is? I can't even hear a full-bore 16bit one at 18kHz with the volume all the way up on my amp.
  
 But theory doesn't matter. You'll just say there's some special sauce the ADC drops out and thus comparisons are useless. Even if we generated tones ideally in software, you'd say something like "well if we were using DeaDBeeF on *another* computer, I'd be able to tell the difference." Enjoy your DSD while it exists, and be glad the hipsters are keeping vinyl alive.


----------



## bigshot

DSD is audibly transparent... just like HD Audio, Redbook and most high bitrate lossy. It's all the same, just with different amounts of stuff you can't hear.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> The fact that 2L didn't bother to include 16/44.1 speaks to the fact that they cater to an audience that doesn't objectively assess sound formats, nothing more.
> 
> The resampler comparisons I've seen done have never been auditory. They usually involve measurements and graphs thereof, to make objective decisions about the actual performance for a given task. Any resampler that creates audible artifacts would not be considered a viable solution to the problem at hand.
> 
> ...


 
 For the resamplers - yes, I did look what the measurements ( on What is the best forum http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3534-Weiss-Saracon  and http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/04/analysis-comparison-of-dsd-encoders.html) were - and decided what is definitely NOT the way to go - Weiss Saracon software that filters anything above 30 kHz.  Besides costing an arm and a leg ( several K$ ).
 What is the point in taking the care and trouble and then filtering practically all hard won advantage out ?
  
 Since then, Korg Audiogate V 3.0.x ( I think x is by now 2 ) has made such audible progress over V 2.X.Y that has been compared to Saracon that it doe$ not make any $en$e to even con$ider Saracon. Audiogate V 2.X.Y. with High Quality setting  was comparable to foobar2000 -  but v 3.0.x High Quality is FAR better. All this refers to DSD converted to PCM of 192/32float or lower - my only gripe with current Audiogate is that it can play native DSD only with Korg DACs - with anything else the DSD playback does not even appear as an option in the menu.
  
I have absolutely no reluctance to record analogue square wave to 176.4 or any other within my capability and comparing it to resampled files at lower rates. If not today, I will do it tomorrow - I do not particularly enjoy the fact that a certain vintage accessory for turntables that is extremely hard to get came today in unusable condition and will require LOTS of dedication to get it going again. This ( shipping? ) damage is the last thing I need at the moment...
  
Believe me, I am more interested than you what it is that does draw me to DSD more than anything else - and my pure sine wave kHzs are even less impressiver than yours ...
  
Vinyl never really went away and hipsters are not the only ones keeping it alive. I know the biggest thanks goes to DJs - despite it is vynil at its lowest form of quality, spawning "needlz" - in official Shure catalogue ( ! ).  DSD fortunately is not software limited ( at least if you record your own recordings ) nor there are parts made out of Unobtainium ( such as phono styli or - why not by now - lasers for CD players ) - so I do not see it defunct in a way of say Sony Elcasette - which was doomed the moment there were no more Elcasette tapes to be found. And I would not be so sure about DSD's nonexistance in the market say in 20 years from now - which I can not say about 44.1/16, particularly as physical disc. Although few, there are CDs that can no longer be played ( porous plastics > oxidation - THE END ) - vynil has proven to be MUCH more longer lasting if taken care of properly.
  
And yes, there is no more practical thing than a good theory - if properly applied and interpreted .


----------



## bigshot

What the heck does vinyl have to do with DSD? This conversation wanders more than the Lost Tribes of Israel.


----------



## Wizz

analogsurviver said:


> OK, guys, that does it. This post is CLEARLY meant to imply that _anything _above 44.1/16 is meaningless.


 
  
 Cause it is.
  
 For end product, that is.
 Audio processing / production / mastering is a whole different thing of course.
  
 But for final listening/reproduction, until there's actual evidence to the contrary (instead of the usual technicoid-factoid based subjectivist/obscurantist/sophomoric arguments about how many angels can dance on the pin of a needle - something you're VERY good at BTW, lol....), more than 44.1/16 is, indeed, entirely meaningless.
  
 Bring on evidence (REAL-WORLD evidence, not your factoid-based codswallop)  to the contrary and I'll change my mind.
 I've been waiting for such evidence for years now.... still waiting... waiting... waiting....
  
 Indeed this discussion is going nowhere, as usual. I quoted Paul (from eponymous movie ...): _"you can't win with these people_". They are BELIEVERS. Their brain is wired in a totally different way than ours. They don't question their perceptions. They trust their ears, their eyes, and loathe everything that question their beliefs. They think their representation of the world is a map of reality.
  
 And the worst part is, they don't play fair in discussions. Always using the same old rethoric tricks and logical fallacies.
  
 This whole audiofools thing would be a great subject for a Social Psychology study!


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> What the heck does vinyl have to do with DSD? This conversation wanders more than the Lost Tribes of Israel.


 
  
 Because many DSD advocates feel that the extra sampling rate makes it "analogous enough" to "sound better" than Redbook. Stairsteps and all that you know.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> What the heck does vinyl have to do with DSD? This conversation wanders more than the Lost Tribes of Israel.


 
 Like DSD128 being the only digital so far that is "kind of" capable of capturing 1 kHz square wave from analog test record with all its particularities that, although should not be there in the first place, actually are very good indicator of  the quality of the analog vinyl playback ? Ever even *seen *how does it look like, let alone understand the reasons why it is like that ?
  
 I miss some of the high frequency detail from turntables even in DSD128 recording - and that means certain defects in replay still can not be documented otherwise than connecting the turntable to measuring setup - which can be EXTREMELY hard logistic problem. Ever set up a turntable really well and had to *dismantle *it for transport and set it up again at least in the ballpark of the precision once already attained - just to be able to take measurements ?
  
 With 44.1/16 being UTTERLY useless in this regard ? With anything PCM up to 192/24 "ringing-or-whatever-you-want-to call-it" more or less precisely where you want it to be clean so that you can see what the cartridge is really doing ?
  
 Something like that...


----------



## bigshot

LP records have nothing but noise above around 15kHz.


----------



## Wizz

stv014 said:


> It is ironical that the "flat earth" belief is actually the result of naive subjectivism (after all, it obviously _looks_ flat from where one is standing, so it must be true, right ?), yet keeps getting brought up in its defense.


 
 Was thinking along the same lines! ☺
  
 Flatearhters have the exact same mindset as these guys.
  
 - "my eyes can't be fooled: the earth is flat" / "my ears can't be fooled: 24/96 sounds better than 16/44.1"
 - "actually science proved that it's not flat" / "actually controlled listening tests showed that nobody can reliably tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96"
 - "I choose to trust my eyes, science is wrong, I know for a fact the earth is flat" / "I choose to trust my ears, these listening tests are flawed, the gear used is not good enough anyway, I know for fact that 24/96 sounds better than 16/44.1"
  
 Oh, they'll wake up someday I guess... you can't sleep your whole life long. Or can you? (*shivers*....)
  
 This said, I haven't listened to DSD yet, so who knows, maybe I'll have to eat my words and make amends..? I doubt it, but I'll keep an open mind.


----------



## Wizz

analogsurviver said:


> Like DSD128 being the only digital so far that is "kind of"* capable of capturing 1 kHz square wave from analog test record with all its particularities*


 
  
 References please?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> LP records have nothing but noise above around 15kHz.


 
 Not true. Not if at cutting the master lacquer ( or DMM ) is not decided to filter out HF content "to make it easier".
  
 It is hard to maintain more than approx 30 kHz on vinyl in the long run ( a single play with an inappropriate stylus/cartridge can shave higs away ) - but it CAN be done. All the way up to whatever the cartridge is capable of  -
 and although by accident, it was possible to cut in the record master _*bias frequency *_of the analog recorder - exceeding 100 kHz.  
  
 This is tough to play back - there were only less than 5 cartridges capable of playing beyond 100 kHz back.
 None is in the production anymore ( ecological reasons ) - but cartridges that are essentially/usefully flat to approx 50 kHz are quite numerous in today's market.
  
 Using less than real time speed analog record mastering, it is possible to cut frequencies up to at least 
 25 kHz divided by the cutting speed - for half speed 50 kHz is reached, for 2/3 speed 37.5 kHz etc. There are cutting heads that can go real time to 27 kHz and beyond - and can extend the bandwidth accordingly.
  
 This is roughly frequency response of the DSD128- exact figures depending on the output filtering.
  
 It is the minimizing the VERY high frequency ( >> 50 kHz ) noise that gets generated whenever the stylus is approaching mistracking due to tracking low frequencies at high amplitude that I am particularly interested in;  those cartridges that produce less of this noise invariably sound better - and are also apreciably quieter in the groove. I can see that noise on the 100 MHz oscilloscope, but it is MUCH lower in amplitude on DSD128 recording. It can be "heard" as audible noise during tracking of say 300 Hz at ever increasing amplitude; although no hard mistracking is allowed, some cartridges "noise" much more - or less - than others during tracking the higher amplitude signals, despite having roughly similar frequency response. I would like to find out what causes this unwanted behaviour.
  
 Vinyl records are in fact a lot less noisy than generally thought; most of the "noise" is in the turntable/cartridge/arm in form of mechanical resonances getting excited, not in the record itself.


----------



## Don Hills

analogsurviver said:


> Like DSD128 being the only digital so far that is "kind of" capable of capturing 1 kHz square wave from analog test record with all its particularities that, although should not be there in the first place, actually are very good indicator of  the quality of the analog vinyl playback ? Ever even *seen *how does it look like, let alone understand the reasons why it is like that ? ...


 
 Do you assert this as a result of what you hear, or because you have scope pictures to prove it? Pictures taken using an analogue oscilloscope to display the analogue output, not a digital sampling scope? Remember, this is the Sound Science sub-forum.
  
 Somewhere in my paper files I have an article from the 80s which includes a SEM photo of the square wave groove on a CBS STR-112 disc. It clearly shows ringing of the cutterhead on the square wave "edges" (on an LP, a square wave physically looks like a triangle wave.) Ironically, cartridges which most clearly show this ringing are the most accurate...


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Not true.


 
  
 Yes it is. I produced an LP back in the day. At the cutting stage, along with the RIAA curve, they applied a high frequency roll off to prevent ultra high frequencies from prematurely wearing into distorted mush. As I remember, the roll off started around 15kHz. Not anything that would affect the music.
  
 It doesn't matter what a cartridge is capable of playing back. Those frequencies aren't in the grooves. Any frequency above the rolloff is just noise from imperfections in the vinyl.


----------



## RRod

don hills said:


> Do you assert this as a result of what you hear, or because you have scope pictures to prove it? Pictures taken using an analogue oscilloscope to display the analogue output, not a digital sampling scope? Remember, this is the Sound Science sub-forum.
> 
> Somewhere in my paper files I have an article from the 80s which includes a SEM photo of the square wave groove on a CBS STR-112 disc. It clearly shows ringing of the cutterhead on the square wave "edges" (on an LP, a square wave physically looks like a triangle wave.) Ironically, cartridges which most clearly show this ringing are the most accurate...


 
  
 If you could find and scan that pic I'd love to see it. Do the graphs in this post reflect typical square-wave activity in vinyl?


----------



## castleofargh

the famous DSD is analog is marketing genius. I hope the guy who thought about that got himself a giant pool for his house with that communication strategy. a sample is a sample, they made it 1bit so that they could put a lot of them in, but there is only so much you can write in a 1bit sample ^_^. and between that sample and the next one, there is still a all bunch of nothing just like on any PCM. nothing went analog, they just used more samples to say the same thing.
  
  
  
 if some want to argue on a pure objective level that DSD is better than 16/44, sure it is. we all know it. but is DSD better than 24/96? no it's not, and we also all know it.
 the 1bit signal is BS, most DSD DACs are PCM delta sigma set to do the trick. and real DSD DACs tend to now go with several bits because it was such a stupid idea to use only one bit from the start knowing that the resulting noise would be a disaster.
  
 but when the oldschool audio elite spits on delta sigma because it's adding lot of noise compared to discrete good old R2R DACs, the same guys acclaimed DSD that had a lot more noise and used the exact same voltage up/voltage down system that you get on a pulse modulated DAC. on PCM you have 2 sample values and the DAC will generate the proper series of ON/OFF rapid actions to get from sample A to sample B.
 on DSD the signal is already ON/OFF orders. the result is pretty much the same, it only required more data to get the same result.
  
 DSD goes a lot faster when it comes to samples so it could record more ultrasonics for no reasons. that is true, but after all the heavy trim job done with noise shaping to get it out of the audible range, you still have to cut it out. else it might actually be a real problem for your system(and again were talking huge noise will lot of energy from 1bit, not from 16 or 24bit quantization). so in the end they cut it out at about the same place as you'd do on PCM. so no better ultrasounds on DSD!
  
  what's the result of all that? PCM 24/96 gives the same accuracy as DSD, it's almost troubling to see how close they are on most tests. and it isn't going to change much when you realize that 99% of all DSD available come from PCM masters that were reencoded.
  
 oh but that's forgetting that DSD is a problem even at mastering level, and almost all the guys making DSD masters actually work on a system that turns the track into PCM for mastering and back to DSD at the end. because it is such a bad data storage medium that we don't actually have much tools to work on it.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 so all in all, people buying DSD are buying mostly remastered PCM encoded in a difficult to handle format, that you can't actually use on most of your gears unless you convert them back to pcm(on the fly or not). the real evolution is that they successfully sold us a strong DRM shaped as a new media. and we smile while getting lied to, something us audiophile seem to really enjoy a lot.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> If you could find and scan that pic I'd love to see it. Do the graphs in this post reflect typical square-wave activity in vinyl?


 
 Yes, they do. There is LOTS to know and consider in order to be able to interpret the results correctly. The square wave that most perfectly "approximates" the perfect square wave IS NOT the accurate representation of the signal actually engraved in the groove.
  
 I also have somewhere bookmarked link to SEM pic of the ringing in test record - published IIRC in Popular Electronics early 80s.
  
 I will be posting square wave from vinyl. Please have some patience - I would like to do it right. There have been some incorrect explanations, whatever  little is available online is from one, in best case 2 test records - but none from the third one. It will be shown that cartridges have FAR better frequency response than cutterheads, it will be shown how to separate "ringing" of cartridge from "ringing" of test record ( cutterhead) - etc. The best test record for testing frequency response with a pulse method was NEVER available outside JVC - that's why they were able to produce cartridge mid 70s that overall still has not been equaled, let alone exceeded. A friend had this cartridge late 70s - and it is "perfectly boring" ( a la Quad ESL 57 or 63 ) ; it will not add or remove anything from the recorded signal. We were young, hype for emerging MC cartridges was super strong, we wanted "something new" - and that JVC cartridge ended God only knows where. Pity indeed - as nowadays it is next to impossible to get and if it does show up for sale, it is serious money.
  
That in-house-only JVC test record has been mastered at 1/10 of playing speed - meaning the pulse to be good to approx 250 kHz , enabling making the cartridge that was VERY flat past 60 kHz . No breakups, high Q resonances, loss of channel separation around resonance, etc, etc. Still only wishful thinking for most other cartridges ever produced.
  
 I do not own equipment to present graphs etc; will be posting actual files recorded from test records and occasional screenshot from an analog oscilloscope. Remember - digital storage oscilloscope is also a PCM device and is subject to same limitations as ADCs and DACs - and therefore will be used only as an information and not something serious. A modern day expensive digital scope might be "kind of" good enough.
  
 Whenever required, the files will be DSD128 - where not, I will be 48/16 for the sake of as broad compatibility as possible and reduced file size. From these, any analysis should be possible, depending on access to/availability of test equipment.


----------



## bigshot

Every home should have an LP with square waves on it.


----------



## charleski

castleofargh said:


> on PCM you have 2 sample values and the DAC will generate the proper series of ON/OFF rapid actions to get from sample A to sample B. on DSD the signal is already ON/OFF orders. the result is pretty much the same, it only required more data to get the same result.


 
 Since almost all DACs these days are PDM/bitstream/delta-sigma, I think the difference really is just that when feeding them a PCM signal the DAC itself needs to perform the requisite upsampling, decimation and noise-shaping, whereas with DSD that step has already been done and the data stream can go directly to the bitstream switch. It's hard to think of any reason why one path should be better than the other, unless you're using a DAC that's very poorly engineered.


----------



## castleofargh

charleski said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > on PCM you have 2 sample values and the DAC will generate the proper series of ON/OFF rapid actions to get from sample A to sample B. on DSD the signal is already ON/OFF orders. the result is pretty much the same, it only required more data to get the same result.
> ...


 

 yup that's my point(or one of them). DSD is a niche, real DSD recorded in DSD and not PCM converted are a niche in the niche. and most of them still end up being processed pretty much the same way (except for hardcore R2R NOS DAC users). so expecting anything more than maybe a different mastering when buying a DSD is really optimistic thinking.


----------



## diamondears

wizz said:


> Was thinking along the same lines! ☺
> 
> Flatearhters have the exact same mindset as these guys.
> 
> ...


 That's the point. You got it. Exactly what I'm saying. Bfreedma totally missed it.


----------



## castleofargh

http://sdg-master.com/lesestoff/attachment.pdf
  
 you think what you want of the thesis itself, but look at the pie charts p29 30 31. I find it to be one of the best example of sighted bias and why cognitive dissonance is such a real thing in everybody's life.
 the number of subjects isn't really significant so I wouldn't use it to "prove" that DSD sounds like PCM, but it's still in accordance with most trials on the subject. but in a world were people go pay 1000$ for a headphone cable, it's not so strange to still see people going all Don Quixote against PCM.


----------



## Greenears

iQuote: 





castleofargh said:


> http://sdg-master.com/lesestoff/attachment.pdf
> 
> you think what you want of the thesis itself, but look at the pie charts p29 30 31. I find it to be one of the best example of sighted bias and why cognitive dissonance is such a real thing in everybody's life.
> the number of subjects isn't really significant so I wouldn't use it to "prove" that DSD sounds like PCM, but it's still in accordance with most trials on the subject. but in a world were people go pay 1000$ for a headphone cable, it's not so strange to still see people going all Don Quixote against PCM.


 

 Interesting PDF.  I think the results are a bit invalid, because they are recording industry students and in the first test they were told about the various formats, so they were biased to pick something rather than the 3rd option "no difference".  Some should have been fed the same track twice without telling them to see if they preferred A or B anyway. You need to run statistics to know if the blind results are better than guessing but I'd say the relatively low sample size (60) you can get random bunching the same order of 60% they were seeing.  To me the results are not inconsistent with coin-flipping but it doesn't prove they were guessing either.  I'm glad someone made the effort to research it though.
  
 Are there any ABX test results out there that show conclusively that someone told the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit or DSD? Regardless which they liked better.


----------



## stv014

charleski said:


> Since almost all DACs these days are PDM/bitstream/delta-sigma, I think the difference really is just that when feeding them a PCM signal the DAC itself needs to perform the requisite upsampling, decimation and noise-shaping, whereas with DSD that step has already been done and the data stream can go directly to the bitstream switch.


 
  
 Some DACs may actually convert the DSD input to (high sample rate) PCM first, because most modern DAC chips are multi-bit, and converting the 1-bit DSD stream could give better performance than trying to play it directly.
  
 Also, any digital processing during the production of the music would likely be done in PCM format as well, because a 1-bit stream at MHz sample rate and with a large amount of high frequency noise is poorly suited to processing, while something like DSD sample rate combined with 32-bit floats is just very inefficient and there would be little useful content (even ignoring the fact that it is inaudible) above 96 kHz anyway. I would guess music sold in DSD format is often just converted high resolution PCM, but fortunately audiophiles will not hear the difference as long as they do not know about it.


----------



## Greenears

stv014 said:


> Some DACs may actually convert the DSD input to (high sample rate) PCM first, because most modern DAC chips are multi-bit, and converting the 1-bit DSD stream could give better performance than trying to play it directly.


 
 I actually looked into this last week.  Checked specs on 3 main high-end 24-bit audio DACs (Wolfson, TI/Burr Brown, Cirrus/ESS).  Their public datasheet did not definitively say whether the 1 bit was converted to PCM before being up-converted to 2-3 bit sig delta, or not.  But, I did get the impression they had a separate path and did not go through PCM.  Only someone at the companies can confirm.


----------



## charleski

stv014 said:


> a 1-bit stream at MHz sample rate and with a large amount of high frequency noise is poorly suited to processing


 
 I have to say I think this represents the main benefit of DSD (to record companies). Back when they started to consider using high-bit/high-samplerate releases as a way to separate customers from more of their cash one of the main concerns was (and still is) piracy [insert scary Jaws theme here]. The CD standard just handed out everything on a plate, and the DVD-Jon fiasco showed the vulnerability of encryption schemes. DSD offers the 'advantage' that, even if you manage to break through all the encryption layers, you still end up with a signal that needs a lot of further processing to make it usable.
  
 As far as multi-bit ΔΣ goes, it's sad but unsurprising that the chipmakers don't reveal the details of their implementation in datasheets. We might be able to infer some features by looking at the filtering, though. For instance, an early DSD DAC like the PCM1792 boasts an extensive 4-stage analog FIR filter to get rid of the DSD noise. Move forward 5 or 6 years to the CS4362A and we see that the 50kHz DSD filter is now implemented in the digital domain before it hits the DAC, suggesting that they may indeed be extending the wordlength to full-scale PCM.


----------



## SilentFrequency

I listen to music through iTunes quite a lot but have no idea what type of files they are, so am I missing out on any better type?

Thanks!

SF


----------



## RRod

silentfrequency said:


> I listen to music through iTunes quite a lot but have no idea what type of files they are, so am I missing out on any better type?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> SF


 
  
 iTunes native format is AAC, and these days they deliver in 256kbps, which should be as good to your ears as a FLAC. The issue with online music isn't really the format, it's the freedom to use the content and the choices of masters they have available.


----------



## RRod

charleski said:


> I have to say I think this represents the main benefit of DSD (to record companies). Back when they started to consider using high-bit/high-samplerate releases as a way to separate customers from more of their cash one of the main concerns was (and still is) piracy [insert scary Jaws theme here]. The CD standard just handed out everything on a plate, and the DVD-Jon fiasco showed the vulnerability of encryption schemes. DSD offers the 'advantage' that, even if you manage to break through all the encryption layers, you still end up with a signal that needs a lot of further processing to make it usable.


 
  
 This is why I was glad when hybrid discs became the standard: kept a lot of good recordings usable in the normal PCM way (multichannel SACD tracks notwithstanding).


----------



## SilentFrequency

rrod said:


> iTunes native format is AAC, and these days they deliver in 256kbps, which should be as good to your ears as a FLAC. The issue with online music isn't really the format, it's the freedom to use the content and the choices of masters they have available.




That's great, thanks!


----------



## analogsurviver

greenears said:


> I actually looked into this last week.  Checked specs on 3 main high-end 24-bit audio DACs (Wolfson, TI/Burr Brown, Cirrus/ESS).  Their public datasheet did not definitively say whether the 1 bit was converted to PCM before being up-converted to 2-3 bit sig delta, or not.  But, I did get the impression they had a separate path and did not go through PCM.  Only someone at the companies can confirm.


 
 There is at least one _*outside the companies *_that did the homework - beyond the companies/manufacturer. iFi Audio - or its parent AMR. They went to test every imaginable chipset and found one relatively "vintage" one that not only can do PCM and DSD - *both natively *- but also can perform way above manufacturer's specifications; they wrote their own protocol in order to squeeze the last bit of performance available from this chipset. Modern day chips simply do not allow for this kind of performance - proving again the point that when any technology is being made available for the first time, they try to make it best they can - then come cost cutters in the subsequent generations...
  
 Without their effort, DSD512 or corresponding DXD would not have been a reality. Now everything else has to catch up, about three months ago I was checking there was no DSD512 recorder available - yet.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Yes it is. I produced an LP back in the day. At the cutting stage, along with the RIAA curve, they applied a high frequency roll off to prevent ultra high frequencies from prematurely wearing into distorted mush. As I remember, the roll off started around 15kHz. Not anything that would affect the music.
> 
> It doesn't matter what a cartridge is capable of playing back. Those frequencies aren't in the grooves. Any frequency above the rolloff is just noise from imperfections in the vinyl.


 
 This is a totaly misleading. Simply record any LP made after say 1960 to any PCM of your choice, play it in foobar2000 with spectral analyzer enabled and get back to me if you can not find any 20 kHz indication bar moving - well past noise levels. No more and also no less than with CD. The instrument most likely to show 20 kHz in solid evidence are cymbals/percussion - I can not help if you dislike them, they are part of the music and will always be.
  
 Back in the day CD was new, magazines in their review of new recordings did compare spectrum analysis of both LP and CD version. The most notable difference was - and remains to this day - in bass; because of playing time compromise, bass is being somewhat reduced for LP. There is little if any difference in treble and those analysis did show no indication of  "nothing above 15 kHz" on records.
  
 If shoddy or overcautious engineers have actually cut the record with filter above 15 kHz ( mainly to keep it safe for the cutter head, which does lion's lion share of work in the region of 10 kHz and beyond - peaks can reach over 400 W/channel, meaning during some hot rod cymbal work there is almost one kilowatt peaks driving the cutting diamond, and the potential to burn the expensive cutterhead ( today anything from 5-10 K ), even if helium cooled,  is unfortunately real ) it is their fault - not that of analog record medium.


----------



## analogsurviver

wizz said:


> References please?


 
 http://www.korg.de/uploads/media/KRMR_OneBitRecording.pdf   Sorry, I can not find it in English anymore - this PCM lobby is obviously VERY strong. Truth to be told, I did not believe Sony will allow release of DSD recorders at this price level, despite ... - LONG story.  The inventor of DSD is/was working with Korg.
  
 I wish I could post a link for the only objective test for the Korg MR-1000 DSD recorder made in Germany by the pro audio magazine - back in the day MR-1000 was current and for sale by Thomann, Thomann(www.thomann.de - in German only ) did provide free link to that review - now it is not available anymore. I do have it in printed form, but do not want to infringe any copyrights. It does show true 1 kHz square wave performance that I verified on my units.
  
 Simply wait for the promised recordings and photos of analog oscilloscope screen - it should be clear as a bell why I prefer DSD over PCM.
  
 The only currently available prosumer level DSD recorder is http://tascam.com/product/da-3000/  I have not been able to trace any objective review for it comparable to the one for the Korg MR-1000 mentioned above - yet; as it can be used also as a DAC ( something that Korg units are uncapable of and which eventually lead to discontinuation ), it is the most rational decision in digital audio today if you have even the modest desire in recording.


----------



## castleofargh

greenears said:


> iQuote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I agree, that's why I did warn about the work itself and its significance. but if they had truly kept people in the dark, then we would have missed the nice differences between sighted and blind listenings showing all the bias so many dignified audiophiles would never admit possible.
  
 I've read about a few trials, usually with small number of participants, and each time whatever the result, you get the opposing team giving the same justifications.
 if they succeeded in telling 16 from 24 or 16 from DSD, then we end up looking for problems in the setup and usually we find some.
 if they couldn't tell the formats apart, the we end up with the fact that the test wasn't done on good enough gears, or was with songs the testies didn't pick, or even that the test is wrong and stressful or inviting null results.
 so as always, the only thing we can know for sure, is if I as an individual can hear a difference. past that there will always be people saying that the results are wrong because else they themselves would be wrong and they can't fathom the idea.
  
  
 speaking of wrong, @analogsurviver I would love to see what your equal loudness contour looks like. I'm sure it would show us all how important those ultrasounds really are for you.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> If you could find and scan that pic I'd love to see it. Do the graphs in this post reflect typical square-wave activity in vinyl?


 
 http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2/23876.html
  
 It is a highly _*charged  *_thread - like whenever there is evidence against status quo. 
  
 For life, I can no longer find link for  Popular Electronics, Nov. 1980 issue, "Phonograph Playback: It's better than you think!" By Dr. Bruce Maier and Jon Risch  ( the Discwasher team  provided some of the best reasearch into phono ever made ) ; all I can find is http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Poptronics/80s/1980/Poptronics-1980-12.pdf where you can see it listed in Index  ( Audio) on Page 82.


----------



## bigshot

Propeller Head Plaza!


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Propeller Head Plaza!


 
 I did not like the tone of the thread either ( I go there only if and when there REALLY is no alternative ) - but it is the only place where it is available and with the author posting. 
  
 It was/is the very same merry-go-around as here - it was debate MM vs MC cartridges ( Discwasher being distributor of Denon MOSTLY MC cartridges at the time ) versus the MM crowd who were of course panicking of losing business - just before MMs toppled off the Audio Throne by the MCs - at least for considerable amount of time.  It was the same high frequency issue as with redbook vs FASTER whatever - with the benefit that at the time faster recording without brick wall filtering (analog) was the norm and there was no generation being brought up with the CD , so sound quality was of greater concern than today - at least in general public. And it was pro et contra ad nuseaum, with proverbial bats not escaping the party....
  
 Funny thing - I did manage to get ( near ) equivalent of MC performance with MM cartridges - very best ones, with most of the pros and almost none of the cons of MM - but anyway, it is possible to have an extended frequency response with MM, for all practical purposes equalling that of MC ( > 50 kHz ) - under right conditions if the
 MM cartridge has not been hopelessly compromised in the first place. Sonic benefits being the very same as redbook vs Faster whatever - only in analog domain.


----------



## liamstrain

> "Phonograph Playback: It's better than you think!" By Dr. Bruce Maier and Jon Risch  ( the Discwasher team  provided some of the best reasearch into phono ever made )


 
  
 I'm certain they are totally unbiased, and have no commercial interest in making LPs more attractive to modern audiences. :/


----------



## bigshot

Remember CED video disks? They were disparagingly called "needle vision". They actually squeezed video out of a vinyl record- big, bulky, low resolution, they skipped. They sucked royally. Now we have blu-rays that contain hours of perfect high definition video and multichannel sound on a tiny silver disk. It's all about the amount of information packed on a disk and the accuracy of playback. Optical media wipes the floor with needles and grooves. Why would anyone believe that LP records sound better than CDs? Absurd.


----------



## Greenears

castleofargh said:


> I agree, that's why I did warn about the work itself and its significance. but if they had truly kept people in the dark, then we would have missed the nice differences between sighted and blind listenings showing all the bias so many dignified audiophiles would never admit possible.
> 
> I've read about a few trials, usually with small number of participants, and each time whatever the result, you get the opposing team giving the same justifications.
> if they succeeded in telling 16 from 24 or 16 from DSD, then we end up looking for problems in the setup and usually we find some.
> ...


 
 Well ultimately we all have our limits.  The antidote for "gear not good enough" is simple, just pick out the absolute most you would ever spend on a chain of equipment.  Then audition that, if you can't get an ABX positive result, then ABX more modest equipment against the expensive one and if that is null you've saved yourself quite a bit.  Actually it may get overall better if you reassign your dollars to things like speakers. 
  
 I have a practical antidote I've used to the AB loudness issue if you don't have the setups mentioned above handy.  Again you need a disinterested 3rd party to help you.  What you do is before each A-B switch, the assistant turns the volume control to very low.  Then after the switch you ask them with hand signals to bring it up to any level you like.  Remember the level is in your control and you can set it or change it as much and as long as you like.  But it takes away that volume cue.  It doesn't give you the nice instant switch, but a null result here is still very instructive, since we don't listen to instant switching I real life.  I found that if I can't tell A from B beyond a guess after going back and forth multiple times at multiple levels, I felt good that whatever A-B difference was really didn't matter to me.


----------



## analogsurviver

liamstrain said:


> I'm certain they are totally unbiased, and have no commercial interest in making LPs more attractive to modern audiences. :/


 
 No, they were (at the time, 80s ) not - see my post above - yet what they say IS true. And IS audible with the right equipment that does not have to cost an arm and a leg, but is more expensive than what is required for CD.
  
 It is indicative that Matsusiita decided to recently revive the Technics brand _*precisely *_because of hi-rez digital; 
 despite being in hiatus for over a decade, Technics engineers did not lay looking in air, but kept on working and came up with some great new developments - and must have not been exactly thrilled by the CD being unable to give them a true workout.
  

  
 The "normal people" range seems very interesting, and as an owner of Technics SB-RX50 speakers from mid 80s ( acquired three years ago and refurbished/modified with up to date parts ), I can tell you that this updated version will have an impact on the market; it is VERY hard to position it properly, it does require, despite small size, rather large(ish) room to really breathe, but those who will take the trouble will see their efforts compensated many times over - by the almost holographic imaging. IF recording does have it.  And LP/HiRez vs CD on SB-RX50 does sound like a bad joke - since this is head-fi, SB-RX50 was/is perhaps the closest one can get to Stax Lambda in loudspeaker world - or answer to the question "Is there a speaker one can listen after Stax?". The modern one has better non square box cabinet that should have far lesser diffraction effects and reduced standing waves within cabinet; if they managed to keep the HF performance of the coaxially mounted tweeter while allowing a bit better performance at its lower end of response, this one should be a clear winner.
  
 Although the first question majority will have in mind (where is the turntable ?) is not that interesting to me, I do wonder if they plan to reintroduce updated phono cartridges - that to this day are second to none.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> No, they were (at the time, 80s ) not


 
  
 I remember the 80s. There were all kinds of spurious articles by experts claiming that digital audio was inferior to old formats. I remember reading one by Lincoln Mayorga and Doug Sax that had all sorts of info about stair steps and sampling flicker and complete hooey. Later on, they wised up and admitted they were wrong and just didn't understand how digital audio worked. But the seed was planted in golden eared audiophiles who report hearing stair steps and jitter to this day.
  
 LP records are a fine format, capable of good sound, but redbook exceeds that on every single measure of quality. There were a couple of small bumps in the road early on, but digital audio has now achieved its goal of perfect sound.
  
 "in terms of pricing, the description of 'reference' seems perfectly justified." <--- The stupidest thing I've heard so far today.


----------



## Greenears

charleski said:


> As far as multi-bit ΔΣ goes, it's sad but unsurprising that the chipmakers don't reveal the details of their implementation in datasheets. We might be able to infer some features by looking at the filtering, though. For instance, an early DSD DAC like the PCM1792 boasts an extensive 4-stage analog FIR filter to get rid of the DSD noise. Move forward 5 or 6 years to the CS4362A and we see that the 50kHz DSD filter is now implemented in the digital domain before it hits the DAC, suggesting that they may indeed be extending the wordlength to full-scale PCM.


 
  
 The updated version of PCM1792, the DSD1792A still has the analog FIR filter for DSD.  That's their top-end dual PCM/DSD DAC. With DSD and PCM performance well over 120 dB it is really hard to imagine that this is the limiting factor in any end-to-end system, given the pesky little detail that you need transducers. 
  
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/dsd1794a.pdf
  
 I'm not really with the PCM conspiracy camp on this.  It would be cool to know more detail on all of these, but the detail may have been withheld because it is boring or they don't want their competitors to copy them (IE because it is good not bad).  Hard to know for sure.  Note that all of the main 3 DACs convert all incoming formats to multi-bit


----------



## Greenears

analogsurviver said:


> There is at least one _*outside the companies *_that did the homework - beyond the companies/manufacturer. iFi Audio - or its parent AMR. They went to test every imaginable chipset and found one relatively "vintage" one that not only can do PCM and DSD - *both natively *- but also can perform way above manufacturer's specifications; they wrote their own protocol in order to squeeze the last bit of performance available from this chipset. Modern day chips simply do not allow for this kind of performance - proving again the point that when any technology is being made available for the first time, they try to make it best they can - then come cost cutters in the subsequent generations...


 
 I checked out the iFi Audio website and on page 2 of their technical brief there is a "square wave" with sloped edges that they show as fuzzy out of the DAC and "clean" after their magic circuit.
  
 Let me put this in measured technical terms: It is complete hooey.  I'm sorry you've been had.  There is no such wave that you or any independent 3rd party has measured on the DAC output before or after their "cleanup".  This pulse makes no sense as a test waveform anyway, and I can assure you with modern DACs of >100 dB performance you cannot visually see anything like that on an O'scope. Period.
  
 If you can A-B detect the iFi box, which I doubt, then compare it to a source with an equalization option.  All you are hearing is a simple low pass filter.  A laptop equalizer will match your result and you can A-B that.
  
 I joined this "Sound Science" forum because I really liked the title.  There is valid science to discuss about sound, but we also need to retain the sound principals of science.  Brilliant title.


----------



## bigshot

The nice thing about the internet is that when someone types out a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't relate to the subject of the forum, you really aren't required to read beyond the first line or two. At least that is my theory!


----------



## analogsurviver

greenears said:


> I checked out the iFi Audio website and on page 2 of their technical brief there is a "square wave" with sloped edges that they show as fuzzy out of the DAC and "clean" after their magic circuit.
> 
> Let me put this in measured technical terms: It is complete hooey.  I'm sorry you've been had.  There is no such wave that you or any independent 3rd party has measured on the DAC output before or after their "cleanup".  This pulse makes no sense as a test waveform anyway, and I can assure you with modern DACs of >100 dB performance you cannot visually see anything like that on an O'scope. Period.
> 
> ...


 
 Please visit http://www.head-fi.org/t/711217/idsd-micro-crowd-designed-phase-3-show-a-little-leg-what-is-it-page-132 - it IS long, somewhere is the exact description of the DAC used - or was it here ? http://www.head-fi.org/t/683406/ifi-audio-nano-idsd-discussion-impression that the DAC was discussed in great detail - including someone trying to prove it can not do what it does according to DAC mfr specs - only to find that it is indeed capable of claimed performance.
  
 I have not seen any square waves off nano or micro that were arrived at with real hardware, not PC generated - and did not look at anything iFi posted because of that. I will record some using analog square wave generator and record 1 kHz ( approx - potentiometer for frequency setting should get replaced, good ones are costly, for sine wave up to 20 kHz I prefer precision of SineGen anyway ...) to Korg MR-1000 DSD recorder at the same level in ALL formats/resolutions it is capable of:
  
 DSD64, DSD128, PCM 24bit 192/176.4/96/88.2/48   16 bit 48/44.1
  
 I will also record low frequencies to see any high pass filtering in nano - Korg MR-1000 has -3dB point very low, approx 5 Hz from memory but will re-check while at it. And for fun I will record say 6 kHz square wave - this should really show the difference among various resolution files. All will be played on nano, with which I will also do the ABX of PCM files. I can also resample the DSD128 to all the "lower" versions and compare them to native recordings in the same resolution. That will be quite some work - I am NOT looking forward to listening to square waves, but for the sake of science...
  
 I will post pics off the analog oscilloscope screen for the above. This gives me creeps - I am the last person anyone should hire for photography...
  
 Please do send me a link to the square wave and pulse from ifi in question.


----------



## charleski

analogsurviver said:


> There is at least one _*outside the companies *_that did the homework - beyond the companies/manufacturer. iFi Audio - or its parent AMR. They went to test every imaginable chipset and found one relatively "vintage" one that not only can do PCM and DSD - *both natively *- but also can perform way above manufacturer's specifications; they wrote their own protocol in order to squeeze the last bit of performance available from this chipset. Modern day chips simply do not allow for this kind of performance - proving again the point that when any technology is being made available for the first time, they try to make it best they can - then come cost cutters in the subsequent generations...
> 
> Without their effort, DSD512 or corresponding DXD would not have been a reality. Now everything else has to catch up, about three months ago I was checking there was no DSD512 recorder available - yet.


 
 iFi uses Burr-Brown DACs with a multi-stage FIR filter for DSD, see the PCM1792 datasheet I linked above. See the PCM1795 for a more modern version of this design. The disadvantage is that the analog audio output is going through a bank of switched capacitors followed by 4th-order Bessel filters, a direct-charge-transfer stage to buffer the transients, and finally a 2nd or 3rd-order RC filter (see section 7.5.1 of Schreier and Temes). It's relatively expensive to implement correctly, but capable of producing perfectly acceptable results. There's nothing especially notable about it, except that it takes some skill to design properly.
  
 [Edit]I see one of your links talks about using the old DSD1700 architecture with its 8-tap filter. You need only look at the huge amounts of residual ultrasonic noise shown in Figure 8 to see why TI moved to a more modern design. This is probably workable in a completely-integrated design, where you can ensure you won't be driving instability in the power stages, but otherwise may produce undesireable results.
  
  
 As a matter of interest, I came across this patent which explains the method used by CirrusLogic in more detail. It talks about 'volume control by processing directly on the 1-bit data' and this presumably relates to their digital implementation of the 50kHz filter as well. It turns out that they are considerably extending the word length in order to perform this, but then decimate down to feed to their 4-bit ΔΣ DAC: "Delta-Sigma modulator *201*, whose noise transfer function is generally the high pass response shown in FIG. 2B, re-codes multiple-bit data generated from the volume scaling multiplication into multiple-bit data having m number of levels. For example, the scaled data may be 16 bit and the output of the modulator more completely quantized Delta-Sigma modulated 4-bit data." Since everything is going through their multi-bit DAC they don't need to include the aggressive filtering discussed above.


----------



## analogsurviver

charleski said:


> iFi uses Burr-Brown DACs with a multi-stage FIR filter for DSD, see the PCM1792 datasheet I linked above. See the PCM1795 for a more modern version of this design. The disadvantage is that the analog audio output is going through a bank of switched capacitors followed by 4th-order Bessel filters, a direct-charge-transfer stage to buffer the transients, and finally a 2nd or 3rd-order RC filter (see section 7.5.1 of Schreier and Temes). It's relatively expensive to implement correctly, but capable of producing perfectly acceptable results. There's nothing especially notable about it, except that it takes some skill to design properly.
> 
> As a matter of interest, I came across this patent which explains the method used by CirrusLogic in more detail. It talks about 'volume control by processing directly on the 1-bit data' and this presumably relates to their digital implementation of the 50kHz filter as well. It turns out that they are considerably extending the word length in order to perform this, but then decimate down to feed to their 4-bit ΔΣ DAC: "Delta-Sigma modulator *201*, whose noise transfer function is generally the high pass response shown in FIG. 2B, re-codes multiple-bit data generated from the volume scaling multiplication into multiple-bit data having m number of levels. For example, the scaled data may be 16 bit and the output of the modulator more completely quantized Delta-Sigma modulated 4-bit data." Since everything is going through their multi-bit DAC they don't need to include the aggressive filtering discussed above.


 
 Yes, it is PCM1792 - and yes, there is a reason why they did not use on paper better PCM1795 - "somewhere" in the nano and micro threads here on head-fi.
 PCM1792 can be made to perform above spec - and iFi discovered that and wrote their own protocol for it to get maximum out of it. nano uses single PCM1792 , micro uses two and hence can double on sample rates.
  
 Thank you for the CirrusLogic link - it is DAC used  in Korg MR-1000 and MR-1, will check exact models of DAC ASAP.


----------



## SilentFrequency

bigshot said:


> Remember CED video disks? They were disparagingly called "needle vision". They actually squeezed video out of a vinyl record- big, bulky, low resolution, they skipped. They sucked royally. Now we have blu-rays that contain hours of perfect high definition video and multichannel sound on a tiny silver disk. It's all about the amount of information packed on a disk and the accuracy of playback. Optical media wipes the floor with needles and grooves. Why would anyone believe that LP records sound better than CDs? Absurd.




I guess that explains why my dad replaced his entire vinyl collection with CD's?


----------



## The Walrus

Hey guys,
 Can someone refer me to a site that clearly explains the audio engineering terminology in their relevant context from the beginner level up? (like dither, dynamic range, PCM, bit depthe, bit rate etc. etc. ) 
  
 cheers.


----------



## charleski

the walrus said:


> Hey guys,
> Can someone refer me to a site that clearly explains the audio engineering terminology in their relevant context from the beginner level up? (like dither, dynamic range, PCM, bit depthe, bit rate etc. etc. )
> 
> cheers.


 
 Here's one:
http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/an-introduction-to-digital-audio
 Sound on Sound did a series of articles, they're a bit dated now, but cover the basics well:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may98/articles/digital.html


----------



## The Walrus

charleski said:


> Here's one:
> http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/an-introduction-to-digital-audio
> Sound on Sound did a series of articles, they're a bit dated now, but cover the basics well:
> http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may98/articles/digital.html


 
 Many thanks charleski
  
Cheers.


----------



## bigshot

the walrus said:


> Can someone refer me to a site that clearly explains the audio engineering terminology in their relevant context from the beginner level up? (like dither, dynamic range, PCM, bit depthe, bit rate etc. etc. )


 
  
 Check out the videos in my sig file too.


----------



## The Walrus

Thanks bigshot.
 I have watched Winer's workshop video a couple of months back. Actually it is that video that raised my interest in the subject. I know a little electronics, but digital audio engineering is lost on me beyond very basic concepts. 
 PS: Do you think hdtracks.com will refund my money if I told them that they are conning naive customers like myself? ))
  
 cheers.


----------



## analogsurviver

don hills said:


> Do you assert this as a result of what you hear, or because you have scope pictures to prove it? Pictures taken using an analogue oscilloscope to display the analogue output, not a digital sampling scope? Remember, this is the Sound Science sub-forum.
> 
> Somewhere in my paper files I have an article from the 80s which includes a SEM photo of the square wave groove on a CBS STR-112 disc. It clearly shows ringing of the cutterhead on the square wave "edges" (on an LP, a square wave physically looks like a triangle wave.) Ironically, cartridges which most clearly show this ringing are the most accurate...


 
 Both.
  
 Last time I checked, we hear analog - and whatever the storage media, has to be converted into analog for us to be able to hear it.
  
 Yes, the square wave you are refering to is from CBS STR112 test record, which is the most known and prolific test record with nominally square wave of 1 kHz that does look like triangle physically. It has ringing of approx 30-40 kHz - which is all but absent on subsequent test record from CBS, the CTC 310. And yes, that ringing is a VERY good indication of the quality of the cartridge; however, it did lead to at least one completely false interpretation : http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=43442&start=14
  
 Had I seen it while the SAE cartridge ( in reality product from Coral of Japan, http://www.vinylengine.com/library/coral-corporation/777.shtml - also under GAS Great American Sound and Thorens rebrands ) - SAE being high output version -  has been available at those silly low prices, I would have bought one on spot. The author that made above mistake has otherwise VERY good contributions on ve - but how on earth could he ringing at approx 35 kHz ( count them... ) associate with fuzzy midrange - is beyond me. That SAE cart is reproducing what is actually on the CBS STR 112 with extreme precision and cartridges that can equal or slightly exceed it cost uhuhulala. Even at current price http://www.ebay.de/itm/SAE-1000-LT-1000LT-MC-Tonabnehmer-Cartridge-NOS-/260304313907?pt=Plattenspielerzubeh%C3%B6r&hash=item3c9b589e33 it is still a steal. And there have been no reports of damping rubber deterioration - forums would be full of it. There are other known cartridges that have issues with elastomer ageing ( the worst being one of my otherwise beloved Technics models, EPC 205cMK3 ( in any form ) - which even as stubborn individuals as myself have to give up in the end ) - but generally most good quality vintage carts with their diamonds still intact/usable fare quite well and often run rings around present production counterparts.


----------



## bigshot

We don't hear analogue. We hear acoustic. If you want pure acoustic, you need to get yourself a wind up gramophone and a nail and play a Caruso record.


----------



## bigshot

the walrus said:


> PS: Do you think hdtracks.com will refund my money if I told them that they are conning naive customers like myself? ))


 
  
 I'd love to be a fly on the wall in HDTracks' customer service when that request comes through!


----------



## Greenears

analogsurviver said:


> I have not seen any square waves off nano or micro that were arrived at with real hardware, not PC generated - and did not look at anything iFi posted because of that.
> 
> .........
> 
> ...


 
  
 Just google "itube tech paper 3" and go to page 2. 
  
 In later posts between your post and this, others have pointed out that iFi uses the same TI/Burr Brown PCM1792 chip as half the industry.  I can positively tell you the output doesn't look like that before the alleged iFi "secret sauce".  By the way that chip has been upgraded to the DSD1792A but it is the same general architecture.  It has analog FIR filter built  in for DSD - that is not special to iFi.  There is a facility to use an external digital FIR filter rather than the built-in. Really you're going to improve on a 130dB DAC where the last 30 dB are completely inaudible anyway.
  
 But still the waveform doesn't look anything like that regardless the FIR - that marketing is pure snake oil.  The iFi DAC may sound fine I'm sure the 1792 is a good chip .... but fuzzy square waves? Really!
  
 Let's just knock down a few myths and move on.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> We don't hear analogue. We hear acoustic. If you want pure acoustic, you need to get yourself a wind up gramophone and a nail and play a Caruso record.


 
 Semantics. 
  
 And I would treat a Caruso record, if I owned an original one, with as gentle stylus that fit the specific groove as possible - and not a nail. And would go electric in between. 
  

 These are for hard core historically correct enthusiasts only - because 123 they look like this : 
  
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wardworks/Gramophone/
  
 Although the author above is not keen on diamond styli/modern cartridges, I would go that route. There are decent 78 styli/cartridges at reasonable price - as well as high end exotica that reportedly sound fantastic. At a price. 
  
 BTW, I do own a wind up gramophone - but one of the springs in ????? is broken, so it is "static display" only. One of the later model, without the big "horn". 
  
 78s I own can be counted on my fingers - and maybe a toe or two; before my time and beyond the cost my ancestors could afford in anything like quantity.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> And I would treat a Caruso record, if I owned an original one, with as gentle stylus that fit the specific groove as possible - and not a nail. And would go electric in between.


 
  
 I have dozens and dozens of Caruso records, and a restored Victrola to play them on. They will last forever when the needle is changed with each play and they sound MUCH better played acoustically than electrically. You've got something to learn in that area too.


----------



## analogsurviver

greenears said:


> Just google "itube tech paper 3" and go to page 2.
> 
> In later posts between your post and this, others have pointed out that iFi uses the same TI/Burr Brown PCM1792 chip as half the industry.  I can positively tell you the output doesn't look like that before the alleged iFi "secret sauce".  By the way that chip has been upgraded to the DSD1792A but it is the same general architecture.  It has analog FIR filter built  in for DSD - that is not special to iFi.  There is a facility to use an external digital FIR filter rather than the built-in. Really you're going to improve on a 130dB DAC where the last 30 dB are completely inaudible anyway.
> 
> ...


 
 Strange indeed. But you have mixed things up - I did not check it because it is irrelevant to either nano or micro iDSD DACs - it is a part of the iTube amplifier !
  
 BUT - what I have been referring to with iFi being special with PCM1792 is the SAMPLE RATE - iFi found that PCM1792 is capable of TWICE the sampling rates as specified by the manufacturer, enabling DSD256 and DXD384. Nano iDSD was not initially capable of DSD256 but "only" DSD128 - then they wrote their own protocol for the PCM1792 and released it as firmware update at later stage.  The same way they achieved DSD512 in micro iDSD by using two PCM1792s.
  
 How does the direct output of the DAC at the pin look like I have no idea - did not "attack" it with a scope yet - and that might indeed be snake oil. I also agree that the difference between 100 and 130 dB DAC should not be audible. 
  
 However, there is absolutely nothing to be taken away from iFi regarding sample rates - those few DSD256 and fewer still DSD512 downloads available DO sound great. Here they ARE unique - not only in price which is unheard of low compared to performance, but DSD512 playback is not yet  is now available from other manufacturers - http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/equipment/0814/gryphon_audio_designs_kalliope_dac.htm - at roughly 50 times the co$t. I do not think for a second a $500 portable device can truly compete with the 25K+ monster - but it does punch WAY above its weight.
  
 OK - in a day or two we will have *true unretouched *photos of what nano is capable in real life - not sugar coated mfr _drawing ._


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I have dozens and dozens of Caruso records, and a restored Victrola to play them on. They will last forever when the needle is changed with each play and they sound MUCH better played acoustically than electrically. You've got something to learn in that area too.


 
 Lucky you. As stated earlier, 78s are not my forte - and will likely never be.
  
 There were two WWs in Europe - "slightly" different than in the USA... - so they are harder to get and more expensive.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

Wow - overloaded with the long posts.
  
 It's amazing how different live music is from even the best systems (which I've heard, but not owned -- I've only owned good to very good systems). We're splitting hairs over things that are, say, 20% vs 21% of the "data" that's in live music.


----------



## charleski

analogsurviver said:


> iFi found that PCM1792 is capable of TWICE the sampling rates as specified by the manufacturer, enabling DSD256 and DXD384


 
 Actually, it's right there in the datasheet. The PCM1792 supports DSD system clock rates up to 11.2896 MHz (4 times the DSD baseline), which is DSD 256. The datasheet was last revised in 2006, so this isn't a new addition. DXD is supposedly a 24-bit PCM format, but there's some evidence that suggests it's merely DSD that's been converted without filtering the ultrasonic noise, and indeed Merging Technologies describes it as a conversion pipeline to make DSD useable in PCM workflows.


----------



## Greenears

analogsurviver said:


> Strange indeed. But you have mixed things up - I did not check it because it is irrelevant to either nano or micro iDSD DACs - it is a part of the iTube amplifier !
> 
> BUT - what I have been referring to with iFi being special with PCM1792 is the SAMPLE RATE - iFi found that PCM1792 is capable of TWICE the sampling rates as specified by the manufacturer, enabling DSD256 and DXD384. Nano iDSD was not initially capable of DSD256 but "only" DSD128 - then they wrote their own protocol for the PCM1792 and released it as firmware update at later stage.  The same way they achieved DSD512 in micro iDSD by using two PCM1792s.
> 
> ...


 

 Er .... that would be a .... no.
  
 iFi claimed their secret vintage part cleaned up the messy unpleasing output from the digital DAC.  That's exactly what they say.  Amplifiers don't clean anything up they are supposed to be a unit gain.
  
 And I keep pointing out that PCM1792 is out of date.  They need to use DSD1792A.  It's all on TI's public website.  There is no "secret" here.  They are selling the same thing as everyone else. Sorry that is life.


----------



## analogsurviver

greenears said:


> Er .... that would be a .... no.
> 
> iFi claimed their secret vintage part cleaned up the messy unpleasing output from the digital DAC.  That's exactly what they say.  Amplifiers don't clean anything up they are supposed to be a unit gain.
> 
> And I keep pointing out that PCM1792 is out of date.  They need to use DSD1792A.  It's all on TI's public website.  There is no "secret" here.  They are selling the same thing as everyone else. Sorry that is life.


 
 Let's get one thing straight. Whatever iFi is doing in iTube amp, is NOT "secret vintage part" from DACs - and they clearly stated which DAC they use (PCM1792). - NO secrets here. 
  
 These are TWO different things and I do not know why you keep trying to unite them - and although nano could benefit from beefier headphone amp, micro is a power station - with more than 4 W per channel, capable of driving practically all dynamic headphones in existance. micro is not only DAC, but a very dedicated headphone amplifier adaptable to practically any dynamic headphone - from the most sensitive IEMs to AKG K-1000 and everything in between, without any hiss or power output shortage. That K-1000 drive might be regardless of claims a bit weak - looking forward to give it a test ride the first opportunity.
  
 Which does not preclude some will use iTube amp paired with either nano or micro - but that was never anything I mentioned.
  
 I do not know the difference between the PCM1792 and PCM1792A - and we can not know whether the newer version can actually work in iFi design as a direct replacement without any changes. And as long as a device does its job and does it well, I do not consider it out of date - new device should improve upon the previous or at least be a suitable substitute for discontinued part. Times and again I "enjoyed" finding equivalents of "obsolete" semiconductors that for one reason or another did not match their no longer available counterparts. 
  
 Please go and see the info on PCM1792 and its implementation in iFi by the designer himself in the nano thread; you will see that although PCM1792 is the same as everybpdy else's, it is "programmed" diferently - in that case, they do not sell the same thing as everyone else. And I do not mind even if they do - as long as the final product works as intended and is competitive.


----------



## analogsurviver

charleski said:


> Actually, it's right there in the datasheet. The PCM1792 supports DSD system clock rates up to 11.2896 MHz (4 times the DSD baseline), which is DSD 256. The datasheet was last revised in 2006, so this isn't a new addition. DXD is supposedly a 24-bit PCM format, but there's some evidence that suggests it's merely DSD that's been converted without filtering the ultrasonic noise, and indeed Merging Technologies describes it as a conversion pipeline to make DSD useable in PCM workflows.


 

_*Correction - *_iFi did find the way to use the PCM1792 to twice beyond the spec - they are processing DSD512 with it - or 22.xyz MHz ( or 8 times the DSD baseline ).- or DXD to "beyond 700 kHz" .
  
 And that definitely is not in any revision by the manufacturer of the chip. Ifi wrote its own protocol to utilize capabilities that were not even mentioned by the manufacturer -
 Burr Brown, now Texas Instruments.
  
 I regard DXD as "practical DSD" - as it allows editing without going to too much conversion that can never be a good thing. Conversion from DSD to PCM and vice versa is lossy and should be avoided whenever possible.


----------



## Greenears

analogsurviver said:


> Let's get one thing straight. Whatever iFi is doing in iTube amp, is NOT "secret vintage part" from DACs - and they clearly stated which DAC they use (PCM1792). - NO secrets here.
> 
> These are TWO different things and I do not know why you keep trying to unite them - and although nano could benefit from beefier headphone amp, micro is a power station - with more than 4 W per channel, capable of driving practically all dynamic headphones in existance. micro is not only DAC, but a very dedicated headphone amplifier adaptable to practically any dynamic headphone - from the most sensitive IEMs to AKG K-1000 and everything in between, without any hiss or power output shortage. That K-1000 drive might be regardless of claims a bit weak - looking forward to give it a test ride the first opportunity.
> 
> ...


 

 "They went to test every imaginable chipset and found one relatively "vintage" one that not only can do PCM and DSD - *both natively *- but also can perform way above manufacturer's specifications;"
  
 These are your words, from previous posts. I'm sorry but this is still hooey, to use a technical term.  All the currently available DAC chips from the 3 major manufacturers do DSD and PCM natively, no worse than earlier versions (maybe better), and there is no secret key to unlock performance above that for which any of these chips were designed.  There just isn't.  I know you are in love with iFi but you have been duped.  It happens to all of us in electronics, me too.  Just need to accept it and move on.


----------



## analogsurviver

greenears said:


> "They went to test every imaginable chipset and found one relatively "vintage" one that not only can do PCM and DSD - *both natively *- but also can perform way above manufacturer's specifications;"
> 
> These are your words, from previous posts. I'm sorry but this is still hooey, to use a technical term.  All the currently available DAC chips from the 3 major manufacturers do DSD and PCM natively, no worse than earlier versions (maybe better), and there is no secret key to unlock performance above that for which any of these chips were designed.  There just isn't.  I know you are in love with iFi but you have been duped.  It happens to all of us in electronics, me too.  Just need to accept it and move on


 
  
 Frankly, I do not give a damn what is inside the box - as long as it does what is expected of it. Although I can "accept" that DAC chips of all three major manufacturerd do both DSD and PCM natively, I can not agree regarding the possibility to unlock the performance above that for which the chip was designed. Please do check the nano thread on head-fi, it is "somewhere" - I simply do not have time to search for it now in a loooong thread.
  
 I found the way how to extend the frequency response of MM cartridges WAAAY beyond any manufacturer knows ( or publicly admits to know ) how to. Because I did investigate each and every aspect of performance/design requirement that might lead to the on the paper impossible; in principle works with any cartridge, but makes sense only with those that are really suitable and unvariably they will be top/best ever attempts that used in manufacturer prescribed mode sound so little better than the models of say 1/5th and less cost within the line that
 all but few were discontinued ages ago. But they do have potential above mfr - so why not similar with DAC chips ?
  
 There is no mention of DSD512 capability anywhere in spec sheets for PCM1792 - and yet ifi managed to get it to work with DSD512. How would you explain this fact ?
  
 I have no problem accepting that I was duped - and to move on. Yet in this case I do not believe it was so.
  
 I am not in love with ifi - yet. After I have micro for at least a weekend that may well change.


----------



## charleski

analogsurviver said:


> _*Correction - *_iFi did find the way to use the PCM1792 to twice beyond the spec - they are processing DSD512 with it - or 22.xyz MHz ( or 8 times the DSD baseline ).- or DXD to "beyond 700 kHz" .
> 
> And that definitely is not in any revision by the manufacturer of the chip. Ifi wrote its own protocol to utilize capabilities that were not even mentioned by the manufacturer -
> Burr Brown, now Texas Instruments.
> ...


 

 So they're overclocking the chip. This is certainly a possibility, as with any digital circuit. You need to increase the gate voltage and provide proper cooling as the power consumption varies by V2 * f , so it'll be dissipating a lot more heat. The main problem is electromigration, which will decrease the part's lifespan even if it's adequately cooled (I see iFi only offer a 1 year warranty). Since the system clock is set by the input from the DSD decoder, I suspect they're relying on the fact that there are very few DSD512 recordings available and for the vast majority of the time the chip will be operating within spec on streams with a lower sample rate.
  
 I completely agree that converting back and forth between 1-bit and multi-bit is unwise. But that's really the problem with DSD in the first place, unless it's used solely to convert analog tapes that have already been mixed and mastered. Companies like Sonoma and Pyramix offer 'DSD' mixing solutions, but these are really hybrids that extend the word-length for mixing operations. Since you *have* to use multi-bit signals to mix and master, it makes the most sense to keep the highest number of bits that will be required, and only decimate down right before DA conversion (i.e. in the final output DAC), where it's done simply because you can get better linearity. Anything else just introduces more noise. The fact is that modern audio reproduction chains are already operating with vanishingly low noise floors, so you can usually get away with it, but why bother?


----------



## The Walrus

I don't know whether you guys discussed DACs before in this thread, but I wanted to post about my frustration.
 I use a 7 years old Squeezebox Duet and used to feed it directly to my power amp. Last month I decided that an update was in order since it was an old system (!!). I bought a used Arcam irDAC, connected it, did a blind AB test and guess what: besides a slight difference in line-out levels, it sounds the same, irDAC or no irDAC. That is $460 down the drain!
  
 I want a TV show like myth busters about the audio gear presented by Ethan Winer. So much snake oil going around.


----------



## castleofargh

we keep saying that DACs are the best part of our home systems, so improving upon them is unlikely to be a good money/sound investment. I would say the same about amps, but for them at least you need to buy something that goes with your headphone/speakers(proper impedance and power output), so we can still fool around and pretend that one is better that the other. but for DAC... they're well implemented and sound transparent, or they're bad stuff. that's about it.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> I will be posting square wave from vinyl. Please have some patience - I would like to do it right.


 
 You've been promising this for quite a while now - when are you actually going to follow through?


----------



## davidsh

Where can I get a proper understanding of impedance - both described as differences in phase angle between voltage and current and with the use of complex numbers? I am doing a project on said subject.
  
 Thank you.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> You've been promising this for quite a while now - when are you actually going to follow through?


 
 ASAP. It will be a part of the thread http://www.head-fi.org/t/613136/turntable-setup-questions-thread-dont-start-a-new-thread-ask-your-question-here - because it has much to do with phono cartridge electrical loading. Particularly MM cartridges are VERY vulnerable to this; MCs are all but unaffected as far as square wave is concerned when compared to the degree MM cartridges are. There is numerous threads and references regarding this online, yet all actually displaying real square wave on the oscilloscope screen that can be found are measurements from reviews of phono gear late70-80s from Europe. And the link for the ve posted above - that is it.
  
 Meat of these posts will be comparison of CBS STR 112 ( generally known, prolific ) and the last ever CBS CTC 310 test record; the later is rare enough so far the only mention of it online is by myself (!) ... - and these comparisons will clearly show that there was/is ringing from the cutterhead recorded on STR 112 and that cartridges that portray it faithfiully are (mostly) not ringing themselves. I have yet another square wave record that is - UTTERLY useless !
  
There will be "anything" - good or bad, I would like to show that phono playback is VERY accurate medium, but its drawback is that it has to be precisely made and even more precisely adjusted - the later is seldom followed trough.
  
 There is always "something more pressing" - today right driver of my Stax Lambda Pro decided to - quit. Not entirely, its sensitivity kept creeping ever lower, now being ? dB below should be value. Having made my own ESL headphones long ago, I am familiar what could go wrong; particularities of Stax construction are not something I am familiar with, never took one apart before... - and yes, I want Stax for the promised ABX of various PCM resolutions of square wave I would be doing right now if the driver did not go (almost) silent ...
  
 I will try to find on head-fi if this has happened before (it should, given the wide spread of Stax...) and whether there was any other remedy than replacement. Should be both faster and less expensive.
  
 P.S: Did find it - EXACTLY what I was most afraid of : http://www.head-fi.org/t/237468/stax-srm-1-mk-2-lambda-pro-channel-imbalance
  
 It appears that bias voltage no longer does reach the diaphragm; it is still clean,  but too low in output. Will have to sleep on this one, might just still be able to fix it.


----------



## bigshot

the walrus said:


> did a blind AB test and guess what: besides a slight difference in line-out levels, it sounds the same, irDAC or no irDAC. That is $460 down the drain!


 
  
 The same thing happened to me when I compared the sound of a $40 Coby DVD player from Walmart to a $900 audiophile SACD player I had just bought. Won't make that mistake again!


----------



## castleofargh

davidsh said:


> Where can I get a proper understanding of impedance - both described as differences in phase angle between voltage and current and with the use of complex numbers? I am doing a project on said subject.
> 
> Thank you.


 

 it's pretty straightforward. the complexity of it being mostly that the resistance can change with each frequency, but else you're still fine with good old ohm's law as long as you don't forget to count the source's impedance in the circuit.
 I find it easy to grasp when looking at something like MRO's measurements. http://rinchoi.blogspot.fr/2013/06/suyama-fit-ear-f111.html  you put the impedance response in one window, and the frequency response with different loads(somewhere down the page with 30 and 100ohm) in another one. and all becomes clear.  for other obvious examples you can check something like the heir4 or the W4. the SE535 also have a pretty hardcore impedance response while going very low, making the shape and amplitude of the signature(voltage changes) with higher loads, pretty easy to understand.


----------



## RRod

the walrus said:


> I don't know whether you guys discussed DACs before in this thread, but I wanted to post about my frustration.
> I use a 7 years old Squeezebox Duet and used to feed it directly to my power amp. Last month I decided that an update was in order since it was an old system (!!). I bought a used Arcam irDAC, connected it, did a blind AB test and guess what: besides a slight difference in line-out levels, it sounds the same, irDAC or no irDAC. That is $460 down the drain!
> 
> I want a TV show like myth busters about the audio gear presented by Ethan Winer. So much snake oil going around.


 
  
 Part of the problem is that if you look up "DAC reviews" you'll get stuff like this:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-i-hate-chocolate-ice-cream
  
 Convincing words, but as humans we always needs something to keep us honest with what our minds *want* to hear.


----------



## castleofargh

rrod said:


> the walrus said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know whether you guys discussed DACs before in this thread, but I wanted to post about my frustration.
> ...


 

 I got excluded from that topic(better than getting a ban for sure ^_^). I was accused of being ironic at an offensive level when pointing out that purrin was BSing people more often than not. I don't remember exactly the subject last time before they closed the door(it's sad I should have pasted a quote in here and let you have some fun too).  it was something weird about how he was hearing micro dynamic differences, but only micro, real dynamic was ok. yeah something like loud sounds were dynamic, but quiet sounds weren't, or the opposite... weird stuff and with some advanced audiophile lingo that takes more to poems than to science. and then he went on justifying what he was hearing with some uber advanced technical explanation about something well below -100db in values that couldn't for the life of me, be related to his subjective description.
  that, added the fact that he will almost never put a flat transparent DAC at the top of his list, as if a DAC was just another warm tube amp that had to be colored to "sound good", I went banana.
 I advise strongly to take that topic for what it is, purrin's own opinion on things, and really really nothing more.


----------



## davidsh

castleofargh said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > Where can I get a proper understanding of impedance - both described as differences in phase angle between voltage and current and with the use of complex numbers? I am doing a project on said subject.
> ...


 
 Thank you for the write-up, but I got the basics covered. This is a high-school project and I find the explanations that aren't just basic knowhow quite hard to follow. So I am seeking a proper explanation on capacitance and conductance and the mathematical background.


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> I got excluded from that topic(better than getting a ban for sure ^_^). I was accused of being ironic at an offensive level when pointing out that purrin was BSing people more often than not. I don't remember exactly the subject last time before they closed the door(it's sad I should have pasted a quote in here and let you have some fun too).  it was something weird about how he was hearing micro dynamic differences, but only micro, real dynamic was ok. yeah something like loud sounds were dynamic, but quiet sounds weren't, or the opposite... weird stuff and with some advanced audiophile lingo that takes more to poems than to science. and then he went on justifying what he was hearing with some uber advanced technical explanation about something well below -100db in values that couldn't for the life of me, be related to his subjective description.
> that, added the fact that he will almost never put a flat transparent DAC at the top of his list, as if a DAC was just another warm tube amp that had to be colored to "sound good", I went banana.
> I advise strongly to take that topic for what it is, purrin's own opinion on things, and really really nothing more.


 
  
 You know the page count about where that happened? Sounds entertaining ^_^ (or did they purge your words with fire?)


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> it's pretty straightforward. the complexity of it being mostly that the resistance can change with each frequency, but else you're still fine with good old ohm's law as long as you don't forget to count the source's impedance in the circuit.
> I find it easy to grasp when looking at something like MRO's measurements. http://rinchoi.blogspot.fr/2013/06/suyama-fit-ear-f111.html  you put the impedance response in one window, and the frequency response with different loads(somewhere down the page with 30 and 100ohm) in another one. and all becomes clear.  for other obvious examples you can check something like the heir4 or the W4. the SE535 also have a pretty hardcore impedance response while going very low, making the shape and amplitude of the signature(voltage changes) with higher loads, pretty easy to understand.


 
  
 Question on impedance (not having a background in the EM side of things): does varying impedance by frequency mean that you could hear changes in relative frequency balance in situations where the amp has to be turned to the max to get the necessary volume one wants from the headphones?


----------



## Greenears

davidsh said:


> Where can I get a proper understanding of impedance - both described as differences in phase angle between voltage and current and with the use of complex numbers? I am doing a project on said subject.
> 
> Thank you.


 

 Let me check my bookshelf.  Bobrow - Elementary Linear Circuit Analysis.  Chapter 4.  Wow, haven't opened that one in 25 years.
  
 That's a 200 page book knock yourself out.  Wikipedia "Electrical Impedance" page seems to have the basic C and L formulas summarized, just plug in the complex Z values and do basic complex number arithmetic and away you go.  It's not as hard as it seems.
  
 Yes this one's a little off topic


----------



## Greenears

the walrus said:


> I don't know whether you guys discussed DACs before in this thread, but I wanted to post about my frustration.
> I use a 7 years old Squeezebox Duet and used to feed it directly to my power amp. Last month I decided that an update was in order since it was an old system (!!). I bought a used Arcam irDAC, connected it, did a blind AB test and guess what: besides a slight difference in line-out levels, it sounds the same, irDAC or no irDAC. That is $460 down the drain!
> 
> I want a TV show like myth busters about the audio gear presented by Ethan Winer. So much snake oil going around.


 

 Snake oil, really?  I never heard of that....
  
 Do you know what chip 7 yo Duet was, 16 or 24?  I just did a detail spec review of the three major 24-bit DAC chips and the current versions all have very similar performance, and also very  very impressive performance that is probably 30+ dB beyond what anyone can hear.  So I can't say I'm surprised at your result but curious on more details to see if maaaaybe there is some material that will expose an A/B difference.


----------



## castleofargh

nope soz. but anyway it was a trivial stuff, he was probably just being too poetic in his way to describe a problem he had measured or something armless like that(I hope). and instead of admitting it, or simply telling me it was a figure of speech, he decided to not see what was wrong and let it slide out of proportion. ending up blaming nwavguy's minions of trying to kill the topic kill real science, kill everything. don't ask me how the poor guy became involved, but I was apparently one of them. xenophobia knows no limit.
  
 and that's how it ended, and how a trivial thing I don't even remember, escalated in something that made me angry and wasted everybody's time. so that was my bad, and if I didn't lose my temper to some poor ignorant boy who thought that science was an insult(not purrin), then it might have ended otherwise.
  
  
 audio lies just make me mad I guess. this afternoon I was looking for a cheap ips monitor, and wondered if an audiophile would go on amazon and post a review about how we should all wait 200hours before calibrating the screen because of burn in?
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  I really need to go on vacation somewhere.


----------



## The Walrus

greenears said:


> Snake oil, really?  I never heard of that....
> 
> Do you know what chip 7 yo Duet was, 16 or 24?  I just did a detail spec review of the three major 24-bit DAC chips and the current versions all have very similar performance, and also very  very impressive performance that is probably 30+ dB beyond what anyone can hear.  So I can't say I'm surprised at your result but curious on more details to see if maaaaybe there is some material that will expose an A/B difference.


 
  
 I didn't say DACs or irDAC was snake oil. It was just a generalization.
 I have a very cheap HD media player that I use to watch films. Now I've connected the irDAC to that and I don't even have to do an AB test. It figures that the DAC inside my media player is really crappy, so the irDAC found a place under my TV set after all.  
 The Squeezebox Duet receiver has a Wolfson 24-bit DAC.  irDAC has Texas Instruments PCM1796 I suppose. Do you think there is something I might have missed?


----------



## jodgey4

greenears said:


> Let me check my bookshelf.  Bobrow - Elementary Linear Circuit Analysis.  Chapter 4.  Wow, haven't opened that one in 25 years.
> 
> That's a 200 page book knock yourself out.  Wikipedia "Electrical Impedance" page seems to have the basic C and L formulas summarized, just plug in the complex Z values and do basic complex number arithmetic and away you go.  It's not as hard as it seems.
> 
> Yes this one's a little off topic


 
 Guess who's doing this for classes right now (though much much more in depth)? Me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. A true college level class on circuit theory with a good book is what you'd need. Depending on how in depth you want to go, you could look up a short video on impedance and impedance matching (power transfer).


----------



## Roly1650

greenears said:


> Snake oil, really?  I never heard of that....
> 
> Do you know what chip 7 yo Duet was, 16 or 24?  I just did a detail spec review of the three major 24-bit DAC chips and the current versions all have very similar performance, and also very  very impressive performance that is probably 30+ dB beyond what anyone can hear.  So I can't say I'm surprised at your result but curious on more details to see if maaaaybe there is some material that will expose an A/B difference.



The Squeezebox Duet was introduced in January 2008 with a 24 bit Wolfson dac, sorry don't know the model number or have any performance data, but the following link does make some comparisons in the verbage.

The later Squeezebox Touch uses a 24/96, (24/192 capable with software add on), AKM dac and I've forgotten the model number of that to! Here's a link to some measurements on the Touch : 

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/02/measurements-logitech-squeezebox-touch.html

Pretty nifty devices, I love my two Touch's, stream like champs from a sever or you can plug a usb hd straight in and it works stand alone. At the time the price was stellar compared to some of the higher priced network players, with performance on a par or better and remote controllable from an apple or android device. I'm not the least bit surprised that an off board dac makes no difference. Difficult to understand Logitech's reasoning for discontinuing the line, needed more bling maybe.


----------



## liamstrain

Since both the irDAC and internal Dac in the squeezebox are built around pretty decent chips, they should be effectively audibly transparent. I'm not surprised you did not hear a difference.


----------



## Greenears

the walrus said:


> I didn't say DACs or irDAC was snake oil. It was just a generalization.
> I have a very cheap HD media player that I use to watch films. Now I've connected the irDAC to that and I don't even have to do an AB test. It figures that the DAC inside my media player is really crappy, so the irDAC found a place under my TV set after all.
> The Squeezebox Duet receiver has a Wolfson 24-bit DAC.  irDAC has Texas Instruments PCM1796 I suppose. Do you think there is something I might have missed?


 
 PCM1796 is a 123 db 0.0005% THD+N 24-bit DAC.  There is a newer PCM1792A DSD/PCM chip with a few more dB but I would really expect you would have to do backflips to hear the difference, if it is even possible, between the TI chips.
  
 Woflson 24-bit is equivalent to PCM1792A.  You have excellent DAC chips all round.  On paper you should not be able to hear the difference.  Do some more testing, with the best 24 bit you can get. If you still can't get hear the difference then you confirmed the DAC specs and nobody messed up the quality with the external components.  I guess you should be happy you have two very good DACs? ? .. ?


----------



## analogsurviver

greenears said:


> PCM1796 is a 123 db 0.0005% THD+N 24-bit DAC.  There is a newer PCM1792A DSD/PCM chip with a few more dB but I would really expect you would have to do backflips to hear the difference, if it is even possible, between the TI chips.
> 
> Woflson 24-bit is equivalent to PCM1792A.  You have excellent DAC chips all round.  On paper you should not be able to hear the difference.  Do some more testing, with the best 24 bit you can get. If you still can't get hear the difference then you confirmed the DAC specs and nobody messed up the quality with the external components.  I guess you should be happy you have two very good DACs? ? .. ?


 
 It is PERFECTLY possible to hear the difference among the two DACs of above - or anything audio with on paper performance too good to be deemed audible.
  
 Because people keep forgetting that whatever digititis involved, it HAS to pass trough an ANALOG stage at some point - in case of DACs, that is output. For the analog
 circuit to be transparent beyond the spec for the above DAC chips, it is hard - damn hard, if not impossible. And it is the analog stage normally determining the final SQ, not the digititis one - which, after analog part is at least improved if not brought to par, can be audibly VERY good. The one DAC that on paper should be a winner but disappoints sonically on all fronts is Asus Xonar Essence One - because it has analog stage diretly from the mfr's data sheet(s) - involving the solution that would cost an arm and a leg if executed properly - not to mention about twice the volume of the present box size required to do it . So impossible to modify it into usable condition. One can update to firmware from 2018 - today - and whatever goodies are in its digital front end, can not pass past that analog output - and will still sound "dead" and "weiled" - no matter what. It was one of the most disappointing experiences in my audio life so far.
  
 With the two DAC chips (or DAC boxes ) from above, with none of which I am familiar, the one followed by a better (implemented) analog output should have sonically the upper hand.


----------



## castleofargh

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> For the analog circuit to be transparent beyond the spec for the above DAC chips, it is hard - damn hard, if not impossible.


 
 for once we agree on something, it is the analog part of an audio system that is the weak link. almost always ^_^.
  
 still there is (or at least there should be if the manufacturer isn't a crook) a difference between the DAC specs and the DAC chip specs. if the output of both DACs is good up to maybe -100db then apart from possible loudness difference, I don't see why they would sound different?


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> for once we agree on something, it is the analog part of an audio system that is the weak link. almost always ^_^.
> 
> still there is (or at least there should be if the manufacturer isn't a crook) a difference between the DAC specs and the DAC chip specs. if the output of both DACs is good up to maybe -100db then apart from possible loudness difference, I don't see why they would sound different?


 
 Hehe - NOW we finally arrive at some REAL questions and answers regarding AUDIBLE differences in audio - not just DACs.
  
 Question - not just for you - how much do you think is the ( approximate, say within 10 dB ) *true* dynamic range of the item in the picture:


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> It is PERFECTLY possible to hear the difference among the two DACs of above - or anything audio with on paper performance too good to be deemed audible.


 
  
 You're wrong. If a component exceeds our ability to hear, it achieves transparency and sounds just like every other transparent component.


----------



## The Walrus

bigshot said:


> You're wrong. If a component exceeds our ability to hear, it achieves transparency and sounds just like every other transparent component.


 
 That's what I think intuitively. If a DAC does not add audible distortion or noise, how can it perform any better? How can one DAC have, say, pronounced treble or perform poorly on low frequencies unless it has an equalizer or something to add colour?


----------



## charleski

davidsh said:


> Thank you for the write-up, but I got the basics covered. This is a high-school project and I find the explanations that aren't just basic knowhow quite hard to follow. So I am seeking a proper explanation on capacitance and conductance and the mathematical background.


 
 If you really want to get a grip on this you could try EdX, which has the free MIT 6.002 electronics course (impedance is covered in week 10). You really need 1st-year maths for this (calculus, differential eqns, complex algebra), but it might be easier to follow along with the video lectures rather than trying to plough through a textbook.


----------



## RRod

charleski said:


> If you really want to get a grip on this you could try EdX, which has the free MIT 6.002 electronics course (impedance is covered in week 10). You really need 1st-year maths for this (calculus, differential eqns, complex algebra), but it might be easier to follow along with the video lectures rather than trying to plough through a textbook.


 
  
 Whoa totally didn't know about those. Gonna look up an E&M course too; thanks much!


----------



## charleski

analogsurviver said:


> Hehe - NOW we finally arrive at some REAL questions and answers regarding AUDIBLE differences in audio - not just DACs.
> 
> Question - not just for you - how much do you think is the ( approximate, say within 10 dB ) *true* dynamic range of the item in the picture:


 

 Different electrolytics very definitely _do_ sound different, but we can measure that. The dynamic range would depend on the noise induced by the capacitor's ESR, which itself varies with temperature, capacitance, voltage rating and frequency. It's not really surprising that a capacitor with a tanδ of 0.1 at 25V sounds better than one with a tanδ of 0.14. Large capacitors tend to have a lower spread of the coefficient of frequency, which is lucky, as the only reason to use them is when you need a lot of capacitance. For 10μF@160V you should be using a polypropylene film cap anyway unless cost is a major concern.


----------



## analogsurviver

charleski said:


> Different electrolytics very definitely _do_ sound different, but we can measure that. The dynamic range would depend on the noise induced by the capacitor's ESR, which itself varies with temperature, capacitance, voltage rating and frequency. It's not really surprising that a capacitor with a tanδ of 0.1 at 25V sounds better than one with a tanδ of 0.14. Large capacitors tend to have a lower spread of the coefficient of frequency, which is lucky, as the only reason to use them is when you need a lot of capacitance. For 10μF@160V you should be using a polypropylene film cap anyway unless cost is a major concern.


 
 Correct.
  
 The value of the capacitors was chosen totally at random - from wikipedia, to not infringe any copyrights that may apply.
  
 Nice try as it is, you did not answer the question - along with godzillion others. I really appreciate your contributions, they are concise, correct and educational. But please :
  

  
 in dB ( approximately to within 10 dB ) for an
 "average electrolytic capacitor found in quality midrange mainstream manufacturer equipment ".
  
 Because these devices will usually NEVER see Elna Silmic, let alone polypropylene film caps - yet to some they are transparent. It is a serious question, paramount to understanding of quite few "facts" that are being presented here as undisputable and taken for granted. 
  
 Within such enviroment, it is PERFECTLY possible not to hear a difference between a shopping mall DVD player at say $ 50 and an audiophile CD player (or was it DVD player ? ) at $ 900. I am not saying that this actually happened; only implying there is a high level of probability that it was indeed the case.
  
 It does require a bit out of box thinking though.


----------



## charleski

analogsurviver said:


> Nice try as it is, you did not answer the question - along with godzillion others.


  
 Because, as I explained, if you really want an answer to that question, you'd need to provide a lot more information, including the rated specs of the capacitor in question, the operating temperature, the frequency at which you want to know the DR, the maximum allowable distortion, etc. This would allow a calculation of the upper bound of the DR, though in practice it will always be less than that. In real life no-one bothers to work this out because we know the problems posed by electrolytics.
  


> Because these devices will usually NEVER see Elna Silmic, let alone polypropylene film caps - yet to some they are transparent. It is a serious question, paramount to understanding of quite few "facts" that are being presented here as undisputable and taken for granted.


  
 A Silmic II will set you back 66p for 470μF in quantities of 1000, whereas a Nichicon could be had for 10p. You'll need 4 of them for your diode bridge, so the top-quality part would add £2.24 to the BoM - not exactly astronomical given the retail prices of better-quality gear, though it would be a factor lower down the scale. The actual impact of this on performance depends on other aspects of the design, though. If you're using them to feed a regulation stage, then there's not really much point in spending the extra money, as the regulators will take care of the defects. Any electrolytics used further down the power supply chain should have film bypasses anyway, which will bleed off ripple and noise. Needless to say, you shouldn't be using electrolytics in the signal path
  
 The overall design has a far greater impact than any one component. There's no harm in spending the extra £2, but a good design with cheaper parts will sound better than a poor one with fancy components. There's certainly a lot of cheap junk out there, but there are also quite a few decent manufacturers who are producing relatively cheap equipment in which the money has been spent where it matters.


----------



## Greenears

analogsurviver said:


> It is PERFECTLY possible to hear the difference among the two DACs of above - or anything audio with on paper performance too good to be deemed audible.
> 
> Because people keep forgetting that whatever digititis involved, it HAS to pass trough an ANALOG stage at some point - in case of DACs, that is output. For the analog
> circuit to be transparent beyond the spec for the above DAC chips, it is hard - damn hard, if not impossible.


 
 Er not so fast.  Right from the TI datasheet, they have an application note for the recommended external analog circuits, I/V LPF etc. They have two choices one achieving 127 dB and another 129 dB for various output levels.  None of these manufacturers are going to go the expense of a custom CMOS chip with 130 dB to lose 30 dB or more in the external circuit. 
  
 Not sure about hard, damn hard or impossible.  Looks pretty straightforward to me.  3 op-amps and about 15 passives per channel.
  
 Reminder, this thread is claims and myths.... sorry.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > for once we agree on something, it is the analog part of an audio system that is the weak link. almost always ^_^.
> ...


 

  
 a DAC, or even an amp for that matter, will not have the ideal best signal response at the output of each and every component. and in many cases the unwanted variations are known and compensated somewhere else in the circuit. 10different messes end up being something pretty accurate in the end.
 noise is noise, sometimes we can deal with it sometimes we can't. but problems over frequencies from the impedance changes in the capacitor for example can be mostly compensated in the circuit. if the compensation brings less problems than it will solve, then we're all good. it's a game of getting the right frequency response while not messing too much with the phase, and that kind of fragile exercise the engineer has to solve. and sure sometimes it's done better by one guy than by another one. but as always, if the final output measures well, who cares how they got there?
  
 worst case scenario, the circuit was using some cheap crap and was compensating for it. you change it for a better capacitor, and end up with the reverse negative effect at the output. upgrading a component isn't always like changing the tires of a car for better ones. hopefully the designer tried stuff and solved his problems his own way. of course some choices are about money and not about audio fidelity, but we just have to find out where adding money becomes audibly useless and buy there. ^_^
  
  
 also it was years ago so I'm not all that sure, but in my memories, we had to pay attention to the kind of capacitor we used for high frequencies(and I mean high, not audio high. more like 1mhz or something). so I'm not so sure that it is of importance in the audio range, even if we both have a very different idea of what that range is.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
  
  
  
  


charleski said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for the write-up, but I got the basics covered. This is a high-school project and I find the explanations that aren't just basic knowhow quite hard to follow. So I am seeking a proper explanation on capacitance and conductance and the mathematical background.
> ...


 
  
 wow this looks good, I've been seeking something like that, but outside of a few cool stuff with khan academy, I've had a hard time finding anything specific. I found something in french(as sometimes language+subject can be overwhelming for me)but they had like 20 topics altogether and the access was limited in time like real cursus registration... how dumb to put online something that you can't access 3 months later????
 france: like the rest of the world, but 5years ago! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 anyway thanks for the link, I'll see if I can find eternal happiness in it.


----------



## stv014

charleski said:


> Different electrolytics very definitely _do_ sound different


 
  
 Not necessarily if used correctly. In simple audio playback equipment with headphones, the only purpose for which electrolytic capacitors in the signal path make sense is DC blocking that can be avoided on the amplifier output, and anywhere else with a low corner frequency (like -3 dB at 2 Hz) the AC signal on the capacitor is small enough not to make an audible difference. It might matter in passive crossovers in loudspeakers, but I would not bet much on someone successfully telling apart in an ABX test 10 uF electrolytic and film capacitors on a Red Book level (2 Vrms) line output with a 10 kiloohms load.


----------



## analogsurviver

greenears said:


> Er not so fast.  Right from the TI datasheet, they have an application note for the recommended external analog circuits, I/V LPF etc. They have two choices one achieving 127 dB and another 129 dB for various output levels.  None of these manufacturers are going to go the expense of a custom CMOS chip with 130 dB to lose 30 dB or more in the external circuit.
> 
> Not sure about hard, damn hard or impossible.  Looks pretty straightforward to me.  3 op-amps and about 15 passives per channel.
> 
> Reminder, this thread is claims and myths.... sorry.


 
 That is WHY I have posted the picture of an electrolytic capacitor and asked how much is its _*true *_dynamic range ...
  
 And the catch lies PRECISELY in the "straightforwardness" of about 15 passives per channel. Because it is _assumed_ these passives to be perfect - and it is assumptions that are the mother of all cockups.
  
 There is a reason WHY one of the manufacturers of passive devices chose for its slogan : *Active in passives*


----------



## charleski

stv014 said:


> Not necessarily if used correctly. In simple audio playback equipment with headphones, the only purpose for which electrolytic capacitors in the signal path make sense is DC blocking that can be avoided on the amplifier output, and anywhere else with a low corner frequency (like -3 dB at 2 Hz) the AC signal on the capacitor is small enough not to make an audible difference. It might matter in passive crossovers in loudspeakers, but I would not bet much on someone successfully telling apart in an ABX test 10 uF electrolytic and film capacitors on a Red Book level (2 Vrms) line output with a 10 kiloohms load.


 

 I'd certainly agree that the overall design is vastly more important. The only way to be sure would be to do a thorough set of ABX tests. Some googling shows that someone did actually try this several years ago, but all the links to it are so ancient they point to dead servers. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone _did_ find a difference, just as I wouldn't be surprised if someone reported a difference between 10% carbon or 0.5% trimmed film resistors: there are measurable effects on the performance of the circuit.
  
 Slightly OT, but there is a recent post on HA that covers an example of a 30yr-old ABX test on amplifiers that demonstrated a clear difference in double-blind testing. It's notable that the $2200 amp was demolished by one that cost around a quarter the price, but then that's the audio industry in a nutshell.


----------



## stv014

charleski said:


> there are measurable effects on the performance of the circuit.


 
  
 Measurable does not necessarily imply audible, though. For example, this relatively cheap sound card with capacitor coupled (220 uF SMT electrolytics) outputs has about -84 dB distortion at 20 Hz when driving a low impedance load (22 ohms + 100 ohms output impedance) at full scale, while it is only about -98 dB at 1 kHz. The capacitors are indeed likely responsible for the clearly measurable increase at low frequencies, but is it actually audible ?
  


> Slightly OT, but there is a recent post on HA that covers an example of a 30yr-old ABX test on amplifiers that demonstrated a clear difference in double-blind testing. It's notable that the $2200 amp was demolished by one that cost around a quarter the price, but then that's the audio industry in a nutshell.


 
  
 Sometimes very expensive audiophile equipment can perform really poorly in measurements, although those who buy it tend not to care about that. DACs and other devices costing thousands or even tens of thousands have been measured to have jitter orders of magnitude higher than others at a fraction of the price, clearly audible bass roll-off, 20% distortion at some frequencies, and other problems.


----------



## charleski

stv014 said:


> Measurable does not necessarily imply audible, though. For example, this relatively cheap sound card with capacitor coupled (220 uF SMT electrolytics) outputs has about -84 dB distortion at 20 Hz when driving a low impedance load (22 ohms + 100 ohms output impedance) at full scale, while it is only about -98 dB at 1 kHz. The capacitors are indeed likely responsible for the clearly measurable increase at low frequencies, but is it actually audible ?


 
 The only way of knowing that is to do a blind test. Otherwise we're just speculating. But there are definite _measureable_ differences between electrolytic and film capacitors. Cyril Bateman did a good write-up on this, finding distortion measures twice that of a bi-polar film, and significant variance between samples. (If anyone's interested, an index of the other articles in the series is here.)


----------



## bigshot

If I see a measurement of distortion at -84 to -98dB, I don't need to do a listening test to know it isn't audible.


----------



## analogsurviver

stv014 said:


> Not necessarily if used correctly. In simple audio playback equipment with headphones, the only purpose for which electrolytic capacitors in the signal path make sense is DC blocking that can be avoided on the amplifier output, and anywhere else with a low corner frequency (like -3 dB at 2 Hz) the AC signal on the capacitor is small enough not to make an audible difference. It might matter in passive crossovers in loudspeakers, but I would not bet much on someone successfully telling apart in an ABX test 10 uF electrolytic and film capacitors on a Red Book level (2 Vrms) line output with a 10 kiloohms load.


 
 There is no such thing as using capacitors correctly - besides obvious no-no's. 
  
 One can eschew the use of capacitors altogether - but that is possible only in a strictly controlled inviroment where one can be sure the component before the Device Under Test and the component following it have the ability and characteristics to allow for capacitorless operation. The moment anything else gets connected, there IS chance of not only malfunction and poor performance, but failure and damage to other equipment can result.
  
 Because of this, in real world commercially available equipment you WILL find :
  
 1. Output capacitor on the source, let's say it is a CD player; to reach sufficiently low -3 dB point in real world, it will be 10 - 47 or more microfarad
  
 2. Input capacitor on the preamplifier : for good -3dB point, again 10 - 47 microFarad ; it is actually series connection of the two, bringing the capacitance down according to  http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node46.html
  
 3. Output capacitor on the preamplifier - 10 microfarad or more
  
 4. Input capacitor on the power amplifier - again 10 microfarad or more - again in series with the output capacitor from the preamp
  
 I have listed only the "safety" capacitors that under ideal conditions can be avoided; various smaller values in feedback loops etc can not be avoided.
  
 Together, they can - and DO - make quite a mess. One of the best contributions on capacitors is this : http://waltjung.org/PDFs/Picking_Capacitors_1.pdf
  
 An advice: careful with bets like the one you have proposed, at least NOT tested in a system that has been optimized according to the above article; if "standard" equipment with electrolytic after ceramic after electrolytic after tantalum c(r)apacitors is being used for the test, what actually reaches your ears is far too mangled to allow for a reliable ABX indentification of a single capacitor inserted in such a system. In such a system, you would win the bet - but that is not the goal if advancement of the reproduction of recorded sound is the prime objective.
  
 And you can be 123456789 % sure a $ 50 CD/DVD player has been STRICTLY forbidden to hear about quality capacitors, let allowed to see one from a distance, or
 heavens forbid, actually have ONE SINGLE soldered to its printed circuit board. Because that moment it can no longer be $ 50 CD/DVD player. Period.
  
 I am not the type to go to the extremes as found also on head-fi in the capacitor thread(s); but if even the lamest of film capacitors is an improvement over any electrolytic, the physical volume available can accommodate it and cost is manageable, you CAN bet I will use it - and so on and so on.
  
 Within ANY real box ( amp, preamp, DAC, (SA)CD player, tuner, etc ) there are enough capacitors that taken together and overall DO MAKE AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE.
 Problem is that the entire chain of the system has to be purged of poor capacitors - and even 5 figure  price tags per single box still are no guarantee some poor cap is not lurking within. Audiophools can be blinded by the use of 1 inch thick front plates etc - yet very often one can see the cost has not been spent on things that do count for sound - and if not flawed on basic level, the SQ of any given box, if it uses any capacitors at all, will depend on the quality of those capacitors. Active elements only do what they are told - and if it is garbage in, what do you expect to come out ?
  
 Due to the different impedances involved, tube equipment is here in clear advantage. In general. approximately one order of magnitude lower capacitance values can be used than with solid state - therefore vintage but high quality capacitors as paper in oil, silver mica, polystyrene, etc, etc can be used - and rarely there is a need for the dreaded electrolytics or even worse, tantalums ( the most treacherous and hard to find if defective, coupled with the worst of SQ ) - which invariably ARE used in midrange solid state electronics - both vintage and today.  This does not exactly confirm "tubes are coloured" claims either. In this sense, even run of the mill tube equipment can sound more clean - ever cared to look at it from this perspective ?
  
 Getting the solid state electronics to the standard of zero electrolytics in the signal path IS expensive - and it is why the entire recommendation from the above article 
 is being largely ignored. And as the article says, you have never heard your system really singing before you do take the plunge.
  
 With this large scale intro - how much (to within say 10 dB ) is the _*true *_dynamic range of an electrolytic capacitor ?
  
 And I did not even mention the effects power supplies can and most definitely do have on SQ; therefore, two DACs "from a couple of posts back" CAN be audibly different - despite having DAC chips that are both WELL past what should be audible; what MUST follow them can hardly do them justice and CAN be, even if on paper constructed from the same component values, decidedly built with different QUALITY of this same parts - and if ABXed on "clean/purged" equipment, WILL sound different. 
  
 Transparency does not equal pregnancy; one can be pregnant or not, the DEGREE of transparency has not been yet standardized in any meaningful manner.


----------



## charleski

bigshot said:


> If I see a measurement of distortion at -84 to -98dB, I don't need to do a listening test to know it isn't audible.


 

 You only *know* something if you test exactly what you're claiming to know. That's how science works. The rules on empiricism apply both ways.
  
 If you don't have data from a proper double-blind listening test then *you do not know* whether a change is audible or not. You might seek to make an informed guess, and you can debate about which parameters should play a role in making that guess, but it's still just a guess. We can't berate audiophiles for not performing double-blind tests and then fail to do so ourselves.


----------



## sonitus mirus

charleski said:


> You only *know* something if you test exactly what you're claiming to know. That's how science works. The rules on empiricism apply both ways.
> 
> If you don't have data from a proper double-blind listening test then *you do not know* whether a change is audible or not. You might seek to make an informed guess, and you can debate about which parameters should play a role in making that guess, but it's still just a guess. We can't berate audiophiles for not performing double-blind tests and then fail to do so ourselves.


 
  
 I don't *know* if a pink Tonka truck is orbiting around Venus, either, but it might be more likely than anyone hearing an audible difference with distortion attenuation as low as -84dB.  This is about .006% THD.
  
 http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/673awsi/
  
 I think it is better to expect someone to prove they can hear an audible difference, otherwise I'm going to continue to confidently assume that it cannot be done.


----------



## bigshot

charleski said:


> You only *know* something if you test exactly what you're claiming to know. That's how science works. The rules on empiricism apply both ways.


 
  
 Have you reinvented the wheel today?
  
 There are established thresholds of perception, and I can assure you that -84dB is well below the perceptual limits of any human being who has ever been tested. It's near the noise floor of redbook anyway.


----------



## charleski

bigshot said:


> Have you reinvented the wheel today?
> 
> There are established thresholds of perception, and I can assure you that -84dB is well below the perceptual limits of any human being who has ever been tested. It's near the noise floor of redbook anyway.


 
 The question was whether someone could hear the difference between an electrolytic coupling cap and a polypropylene one. It was _not_ whether -84dB is below the limits of perception. If you want to be a scientist, you need to make sure you're very clear about what question you're trying to answer. You can't characterise a circuit's behaviour with one measurement, and the audibility of distortion varies significantly under different circumstances: lossy AAC compression causes very large distortions, but they are inaudible; whereas Fielder 1989 showed that an A/D/A system with a full-level distortion of 0.008% could be audibly distinguished as a result of narrow-band distortion products and modulation noise.
  
 It's really very simple, if you want to say you *know*, then you need to stop waving your hands around and do the experiment, for heaven's sake. Maybe you're right, I don't know, but neither do you until we see the data. Science is based on experimental data. If you're not prepared to base your assertions on such data then you shouldn't claim they're supported by science.


----------



## Greenears

analogsurviver said:


> That is WHY I have posted the picture of an electrolytic capacitor and asked how much is its _*true *_dynamic range ...
> 
> And the catch lies PRECISELY in the "straightforwardness" of about 15 passives per channel. Because it is _assumed_ these passives to be perfect - and it is assumptions that are the mother of all cockups.
> 
> There is a reason WHY one of the manufacturers of passive devices chose for its slogan : *Active in passives*



 


Sigh. I realize that some believe whatever they want to believe. But let me set the record straight for the casual reader that may happen upon this sub-thread. I have recently had occasion to review the detail databooks for the three leading 24 bit DAC manufacturers (TI, Cirrus/ESS, Wolfson). All 3 have good reputations and the specs (and reviews) are all superlative. None of these companies are going to put out a flagship 24bit DAC without a well tested reference design, application and recommended active and passive companion circuits that does anything other than allow their product to perform fully. It is straightforward. Frankly you would have to do some work to mess it up. I have many years in the semiconductor industry and this is how the business works.

I was posting primarily in a response to someone that had ABX'd two DACs and was "surprised" he couldn't tell them apart despite a price and age difference (I think one was 7 years old and one recent). I'm not at all surprised, since the spec on all these 24 bit chips whether current or 5+ years ago are amazing. Users should be pleased that such good results are available for so little.

I'm not going to delve further into some esoteric debate about capacitors which I can assure our gentle readers is absolutely, positively, completely irrelevant to what I have just said.


----------



## castleofargh

charleski said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > Have you reinvented the wheel today?
> ...


 
 I tend to desagree. sure there are distortions and distortions, but after -80db with music playing I don't think it matters. was the AES paper about playing music while testing or something more specific?
 knowing if switching a cap will be audible is the wrong way to put the problem IMO. of course you can start changing parts on any system and expect something to go wrong at one point. will it show that the system was wrong as it was?
  
 here is how I see the problem at hand:
 -1/ most DACs indeed measure better than -80db for noise, disto, and dynamic. whatever the caps used in them.
 -2/ I fail to hear anything at -80db when I have music playing close to 0db at the same time(I tried to mix noise, tones, other musics, and failed all the ABx for -80db when I tried that).
 therefore caps don't matter all that much. at least to me ^_^.
  
 and that's our point with bigshot from the start, if a DAC already has transparent specs, why all the struggle to make them better? I'm always repeating the same thing, but amps and speakers/headphones need to improve to reach DAC specs, not the other way around.
 the benchmark guys spent years saying this and are now super proud of having at long last an amp with crazy specs and dynamic that supposedly can keep track with the DACs and 24bit records(marketing or real IDK, they usually tend to deliver, as they're not an audiophile brand 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





).
  
 most struggles about DACs and high-res look to me like having a car with 3wheels and arguying all day long about getting a better engine for optimal perf.


----------



## bigshot

charleski said:


> You can't characterise a circuit's behaviour with one measurement


 
  
 Frequency response and distortion should do it for most home audio equipment.


----------



## stv014

charleski said:


> but they are inaudible; whereas Fielder 1989 showed that an A/D/A system with a full-level distortion of 0.008% could be audibly distinguished as a result of narrow-band distortion products and modulation noise.


 
  
 If that is the lowest level they could detect, it is still greater, even if not by much, than -84 dB. Additionally, the -84 dB at 20 Hz figure is for a low impedance load (220 uF capacitor, 122 ohms total load impedance, ~1.94 Vrms unloaded output voltage). With a normal >5 kiloohms line input, there is barely any AC voltage on the capacitor, and the distortion drops to about -100 dB.
  
 Since the paper you linked is not freely available (it costs $20 to read), the exact conditions of the test are not known. For example, does the full level distortion of 0.008% apply to the narrow band products, or just a 1 kHz sine wave (as usual in specifications), and under worst case conditions the distortion is higher ? What was the level of the modulation noise ? And last but not least, did they use music, or artificial test signals specifically chosen to maximize the audibility of any artifacts ?


----------



## SilentFrequency

Why do some DACS cost thousands if the goal of transparency is achievable in DACS costing way less yet totally achieve the same end result?


----------



## stv014

silentfrequency said:


> Why do some DACS cost thousands if the goal of transparency is achievable in DACS costing way less yet totally achieve the same end result?


 
  
 As long as there is enough market demand for "audiophile" DACs costing thousands, they will be made and sold. Not everyone believes that DACs or other electronics (or even cables or software) can be audibly transparent.


----------



## castleofargh

silentfrequency said:


> Why do some DACS cost thousands if the goal of transparency is achievable in DACS costing way less yet totally achieve the same end result?


 

 some ADC and DAC will be used in a pro environments and will need better specs than what's needed at the end user listening level.
  
 and indeed, if some are willing to buy a DAC 3 times the price, someone will sell them ^_^.


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> Why do some DACS cost thousands if the goal of transparency is achievable in DACS costing way less yet totally achieve the same end result?


 
 Because they do not achieve the same results.
  
 Once upon a time, they were manufacturers offering the very same circuit - in basic, "normal" and "with all the bells and whistles" quality of construction - which included varying degree of quality of the electronic components AND their tolerances, improved power supplies, sometimes dual mono construction - and one could choose which level is best in his/her circumstances. 
  
 The quality has to be balanced FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT - no sense in having say superduper DAC followed by "merely" excellent preamp and "above average" power amp or headphone amp - better to have all three in "merely" excellent class. The law of diminishing return strikes hardest here - on has to pay extreme premium for the best level - making a "normal" version a real bargain in comparison.
  
 Which is not to say the basic is slouch - or that the audible differences among the three do not exist - IF the rest of the system is good enough. Yet finding a manufacturer offering above today may well prove impossible -  with the extreme competitiveness in the market today, every cent, not dollar/euro, does count.


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> Because they do not achieve the same results.
> 
> Once upon a time, they were manufacturers offering the very same circuit - in basic, "normal" and "with all the bells and whistles" quality of construction - which included varying degree of quality of the electronic components AND their tolerances, improved power supplies, sometimes dual mono construction - and one could choose which level is best in his/her circumstances.
> 
> ...




Thanks for your replies to:

stv014
castleofargh
analogsurviver



I guess audiophiles who have the finances for the very best audio "chain" equipment available will pay for optimum performance regardless of the incremental levels achieved if they are looking ultimately for "perfection"? in their personal audio playback experience?

Ive read members commenting on their personal audio gear set ups as their "end game" scenario which I guess for many here at HF is the goal?

I'm just very satisfied with what I have, totally and don't think I need to look into upgrading necessarily in the short term, but I'd like to hear a Sennheiser amplifier with my hd800's sometime as I've been recommended they sound best which also makes sense to keep amp and headphones the same manufacturer if they were designed to go hand in hand.

But I would really have to hear a big favourable difference in a Sennheiser amplifier first as they are so expensive.


----------



## Roly1650

silentfrequency said:


> Thanks for your replies to:
> 
> stv014
> castleofargh
> ...



But the fallacy in that is that price is directly related to sound quality, which isn't true. It's as ridiculous as the audiophile I heard say that one of the major criteria he uses for judging an amplifiers quality is its weight, (true story) or as ridiculous as believing the accuracy of a post on here is directly related to its word count.


----------



## SilentFrequency

roly1650 said:


> But the fallacy in that is that price is directly related to sound quality, which isn't true. It's as ridiculous as the audiophile I heard say that one of the major criteria he uses for judging an amplifiers quality is its weight, (true story) or as ridiculous as believing the accuracy of a post on here is directly related to its word count.




I guess I'm relating to audiophiles whom are prepared to pay more on equipment that they perceive as of higher sound quality no matter how big or small the increase is compared to lower cost alternatives.


----------



## baadaq

silentfrequency said:


> I guess I'm relating to audiophiles whom are prepared to pay more on equipment that they perceive as of higher sound quality no matter how big or small the increase is compared to lower cost alternatives.


 

 maybe in the past there was an small difference that could be percieve, atm that's just nonsense.


----------



## SilentFrequency

baadaq said:


> maybe in the past there was an small difference that could be percieve, atm that's just nonsense.




I'm unsure of what you are being specific on as "nonsense" but if you read a review like Brooko's hd600 v hd800 and even hd800 v T1, he personally perceives audible differences between each model and though that may seem a obvious example, I think maybe examples my point I originally tried to convey?


----------



## Roly1650

silentfrequency said:


> I'm unsure of what you are being specific on as "nonsense" but if you read a review like Brooko's hd600 v hd800 and even hd800 v T1, he personally perceives audible differences between each model and though that may seem a obvious example, I think maybe examples my point I originally tried to convey?



But, but.........
Your question was about dacs and amps, now you're jumping to transducers, which are by and larger, judged subjectively. It's not hard to understand why Brooko found audible differences, the degree of difficulty in designing a good loudspeaker or headphone makes designing a dac or amp seem trivial imo.


----------



## SilentFrequency

roly1650 said:


> But, but.........
> Your question was about dacs and amps, now you're jumping to transducers, which are by and larger, judged subjectively. It's not hard to understand why Brooko found audible differences, the degree of difficulty in designing a good loudspeaker or headphone makes designing a dac or amp seem trivial imo.




Yes, I know my question was about DACS and I was given three replies which I thanked for.

And I made a comment too which seems to have been misunderstood so I'm trying just to explain more clearly by giving Brooko's review as an easy example to percieved differences individually heard in equipment that varies in cost (yes it was a headphone example but that's not the point).

I'm just saying that some not all audiophiles will chase their individual percieved best from whatever piece of audio chain equipment including DACS, regardless whether others see no value in expensive ones or not.


----------



## castleofargh

roly1650 said:


> ... as ridiculous as believing the accuracy of a post on here is directly related to its word count.


 
 damn, I would have been soooooo accurate in most of my posts^_^.
  


silentfrequency said:


> baadaq said:
> 
> 
> > maybe in the past there was an small difference that could be percieve, atm that's just nonsense.
> ...


 
 it's still just a subjective opinion. does brooko preferring one amp tells you anything about the accuracy of the amp? headphones are irrelevant, even 2 headphones of the same model can have several DB of variation from one another(even left and right earcup of one headphone). they're all crap and we pick one when the smell doesn't disturb us too much.
 you're just showing that you mix 2 significations for "better". one that is about the accuracy of the transmitting tool, the other one being related to how someone you trust subjectively judged some tool. 
 both can have value, but they certainly aren't related all that often.
 because if we all really looked for the best accuracy, then nobody would buy vinyls or average tube amps with 1%disto or more. we would almost all use orthos because they have the lowest distortion values and stable FR, and never get anything else.
 but that's not how it goes. I know that I don't have an ortho because they're heavy ^_^. that's 100% of the reasons why I don't get some. how is that for high fidelity? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 most people don't hear distortions, they don't care for the noise floor, in the end they buy a frequency response(they hopefully like) with an abstract idea of high fidelity/upgrade/new/better. but most of the time it's only different.
 after transparency you upgrade to something sounding the very same. nobody gets moved or happy for spending 2000$ on something sounding the same as the old stuff he had. that's why accuracy sells only as a concept, not all that well as a reality(at least at the consumer level).


----------



## Roly1650

silentfrequency said:


> Yes, I know my question was about DACS and I was given three replies which I thanked for.
> 
> And I made a comment too which seems to have been misunderstood so I'm trying just to explain more clearly by giving Brooko's review as an easy example to percieved differences individually heard in equipment that varies in cost (yes it was a headphone example but that's not the point).
> 
> I'm just saying that some not all audiophiles will chase their individual percieved best from whatever piece of audio chain equipment including DACS, regardless whether others see no value in expensive ones or not.



Got it, change of topic noted.
Being an old fart the misunderstanding is all mine......maybe.


----------



## analogsurviver

roly1650 said:


> But the fallacy in that is that price is directly related to sound quality, which isn't true. It's as ridiculous as the audiophile I heard say that one of the major criteria he uses for judging an amplifiers quality is its weight, (true story) or as ridiculous as believing the accuracy of a post on here is directly related to its word count.


 
 Well, weight, at least in a power amplifier, DOES define the outer limits any non-digital operating amplifier can ultimately achieve. You can not have decent linear power supply without so and so much iron in transformers and so and so big ( great capacity ) capacitors - neither of which is light. And no amp can be better than its power supply - period. And to house all that, cabinet MUST be sturdy - which again drives the weight and price up. Add the necessary heat sinks ... - and no, do not think that they are oversized - they usually are big just enough to stay reasonably cool playing normal music into reasonably normal loudspeaker load, I have yet to see an audio power amp rated for continuous use with its full rated power.
  
 Just look at any decent 200 W+/ch  amplifier and check how much does it weight. And get back to me if you do not find paperweight  "counterparts" inferior in real world use. Audibly so.
  
 I certainly agree that price is NOT directly related to sound quality - AT FIRST. Time and time again it has unfortunately been proven that what started as an enthusiast's dream offering something way above in quality for considerably less than "normal going price" for similar quality product ended up being taken over by people who "rescued" the sinking ship - and MUCH more than "adjusted" the selling price from that point on, a situation that is in the end worse if the initial cost would have been realistic and capable of sustaining the product in the market. The only manufacturers who - in the past - have allowed themselves the luxury of actually building their flagships for more than selling them were big Japanese mfrs - Technics, Sony, Toshiba, etc - when they were building their image as non plus ultra manufacturer - who could recoup their losses with flagships trough sales of less quality/expensive gear that sold in million quantites.


----------



## Roly1650

castleofargh said:


> damn, I would have been soooooo accurate in most of my posts^_^.



It just maybe that you're the exception that proves my rule. I have the experiment designed.......you could be the perfect candidate. Any good at picking word counts, level matched, double blind?


----------



## baadaq

silentfrequency said:


> I'm unsure of what you are being specific on as "nonsense" but if you read a review like Brooko's hd600 v hd800 and even hd800 v T1, he personally perceives audible differences between each model and though that may seem a obvious example, I think maybe examples my point I originally tried to convey?


 
 why ... what?, i thought that you were asking for audible difference between dacs...


----------



## SilentFrequency

baadaq said:


> why ... what?, i thought that you were asking for audible difference between dacs...




.


----------



## Rajikaru

silentfrequency said:


> omg!
> 
> I was, I did, I explained myself more than once, maybe nobody got what I was saying, please let's just move on?


----------



## SilentFrequency

rajikaru said:


>




I guess that's me told


----------



## davidsh

castleofargh There are the hfm he560/400i and the Oppo's.
Besides, have you seen the Stax sr-207 measurements?


----------



## SilentFrequency

Has anyone else tried the out of your head virtual surround simulator demo using headphones?

It's really impressive IMO anyway and replicates various speaker set ups.

I've read that too of the line headphones alone can reproduce sound quality to the same level of top of the line speakers that cost 100k and over, essentially making expensive headphones appear cheap in comparison, but with this kind of software maybe the lines between headphone and speakers are blurring even more?

http://www.head-fi.org/t/689299/out-of-your-head-new-virtual-surround-simulator


----------



## RRod

silentfrequency said:


> Has anyone else tried the out of your head virtual surround simulator demo using headphones?
> 
> It's really impressive IMO anyway and replicates various speaker set ups.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Headphones will never quite shake you in the same way  I mean really, what I miss when I listen to a big symphony on headphones isn't f'in frequency response, it's that sense of a whole bunch of sound power shaking your bones.


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> Has anyone else tried the out of your head virtual surround simulator demo using headphones?
> 
> It's really impressive IMO anyway and replicates various speaker set ups.
> 
> ...


 
 *sigh* - it is the only "thingus" that might>may entice me to dip my toe in DSP > PCM ...
  
 Still, it would feel utter blasphemy for me to listen to analog recordin on vinyl and then having to go trough DSP.
  
 The other DSP that might entice me to do the same would have been some REALLY good virtual crossover for loudspeakers - it can be made well enough for the speaker to be actually capable of reproducing an acoustical square wave around/in the vicinity of the crossover frequency - compared to the usual _*gulasch *_





.


----------



## SilentFrequency

rrod said:


> Headphones will never quite shake you in the same way  I mean really, what I miss when I listen to a big symphony on headphones isn't f'in frequency response, it's that sense of a whole bunch of sound power shaking your bones.




Yes, I guess headphones with simulator software will never be able to compete with the physical sensation you get from speakers as you exampled 

But nontheless, I'm still quite impressed with the simulator software as it pushes the headphone experience further.


----------



## Head Injury

silentfrequency said:


> Has anyone else tried the out of your head virtual surround simulator demo using headphones?
> 
> It's really impressive IMO anyway and replicates various speaker set ups.
> 
> ...


 

 Yeah, I've tried it. Too much reverb for me. Didn't do anything EQ and crossfeed or HRTF software can't.
  
 You don't get the impact like RRod mentioned, the sound doesn't change when you move your head, and you're still filtering the speaker EQ through your own headphone's colorations. It's not really blurring any lines, but it is a cool idea.
  
 It was a good demonstration that price != sound quality in speakers. Can't remember which was my favorite but it wasn't one of the uber-expensive ones.


----------



## RRod

silentfrequency said:


> Yes, I guess headphones with simulator software will never be able to compete with the physical sensation you get from speakers as you exampled
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Don't get me wrong, I love me some HRTF, especially when you can customize it a bit a la OpenAL. Still, even good old Dolby Headphone™ does a good job for movies. I wish the techniques would get commonplace enough that I wouldn't need a Smyth :/


----------



## charleski

castleofargh said:


> I tend to desagree. sure there are distortions and distortions, but after -80db with music playing I don't think it matters. was the AES paper about playing music while testing or something more specific?


  
 He was testing A/D/A chains for music recording. If we want to estimate the perceptibility of THD we're posing a perceptual problem, and we need to take into account the effects of spectral masking and the complex interactive processes of auditory perception (which is a *whole* other discussion). It's not even a question of testing music vs noise, Furdek et al. 2007 (this one isn't paywalled, there's a typo in the caption to Fig 7 as it refers to pop) showed large differences in the estimation of grade of distortion between classical and pop music (they were using pretty high levels here in order to demonstrate the effect with a fairly small sample).
  
 I would argue that differences in the perceptibility of distortion depend not only on the actual spectral character of the music, but on what you _expect_ that spectral character to be - put rather simplistically, we can tolerate more distortion in pop music because we expect it to be using distorted spectra in the first place. This is where the real problem arises. Different people have different models of what they should be hearing. Some people might be very sensitive to distortions in a particular passage of music, but relatively immune to others, and this sensitivity may change radically from person to person, with different people being sensitive to distortion in different passages. We know that THD is a pretty crude measure, but the task of developing a perceptual metric for distortion sensitivity is a herculean task, and one which, I think, will have to wait upon advances in perceptual neuroscience.
  


> knowing if switching a cap will be audible is the wrong way to put the problem IMO. of course you can start changing parts on any system and expect something to go wrong at one point. will it show that the system was wrong as it was?


  
 Well the first problem is that we don't know the ciruit diagram of the Xonar, I don't own it, but looking at pictures online it does have a lot of aluminium hybrids clustered near the output ports. If these are coupling the output they're either running the ouput amp with a bias or (more likely) they've tied them in pairs to get them to self-bias (or alternatively, they're just ignoring the problem and hoping the reverse-bias levels on the output won't go high enough to make them blow up). So I wouldn't recommend anyone go trying to desolder the SMT caps on that board (and polyprops wouldn't fit into the space anyway). But to test this you simply need to make an AC-coupled biased buffer stage with switchable couplers (it would probably be best to ensure that trace resistances were equal between the two test sockets).
   





> -2/ I fail to hear anything at -80db when I have music playing close to 0db at the same time(I tried to mix noise, tones, other musics, and failed all the ABx for -80db when I tried that).
> therefore caps don't matter all that much. at least to me ^_^.
> 
> and that's our point with bigshot from the start, if a DAC already has transparent specs, why all the struggle to make them better? I'm always repeating the same thing, but amps and speakers/headphones need to improve to reach DAC specs, not the other way around.
> ...


 
 Well, you were testing for masking, which is a rather different thing. Basically, you were testing your brain's ability to reject inputs that are clearly unrelated to the perception it's trying to form. And yes, the brain's pretty good at that and I'm not surprised you couldn't hear the test tones. Unfortunately distortion products are often highly correlated with the primary input.
  
 As for whether it matters - well the question is why design a circuit that you know will produce measurable deficiencies? It's perfectly possible to produce DC-coupled output stages, it saves board space and component count, but you need to make sure you're using a properly-designed active element and can rely on the state of the Vcc and ground. I suspect they threw them in because it's the easiest way to ensure that you won't damage the downstream receiver with spurious DC levels. But that's really not a very good reason.
  
  


> Originally Posted by *castleofargh* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> because if we all really looked for the best accuracy, then nobody would buy vinyls or average tube amps with 1%disto or more. we would almost all use orthos because they have the lowest distortion values and stable FR, and never get anything else.


 
  
 Let me let you into a secret. I've heard plenty of live sound, both amped and acoustic, and I generally don't think it sounds very good. In fact I can remember quite a few concerts that sounded particularly _bad_. (But you still go because the performers are right there, you get the atmosphere and the buzz, etc.) Likewise, I don't buy into the ethos that the mastering engineer has some unique authoritative insight into how a recording should sound. So frankly I don't _care_ how the recording sounded at the mixing desk, and I'm not interested in reproducing that accurately. I'm not making measurements in a laboratory, I'm trying to enjoy some entertainment, and I just want it to sound good, according to my own uniquely idiosyncratic perception.
  
 Now a lot of the time accuracy does play a role in that - it provides an good solid baseline. And I'll admit that I'm biased in favour of well-designed equipment just as a matter of principle. But euphonics is a real issue that needs to be taken into account. It's intensely irritating when people claim their turntable/single-ended tube amp/horn speakers system produces pure and accurate sound. But if they say they use it because they like the way it sounds, then I can't see anything wrong with that, though it's not for me (I built a tube amp when I was a lot younger and spent several months trying to convince myself it sounded great before giving up).


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> Headphones will never quite shake you in the same way  I mean really, what I miss when I listen to a big symphony on headphones isn't f'in frequency response, it's that sense of a whole bunch of sound power shaking your bones.


 
 You can start here :http://www.head-fi.org/newsearch?search=headphones+with+subwoofer
  
 ...and may end up here : http://www.head-fi.org/t/2753/akg-k1000-with-subwoofer


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> *sigh* - it is the only "thingus" that might>may entice me to dip my toe in DSP > PCM ...
> 
> Still, it would feel utter blasphemy for me to listen to analog recordin on vinyl and then having to go trough DSP.
> 
> The other DSP that might entice me to do the same would have been some REALLY good virtual crossover for loudspeakers - it can be made well enough for the speaker to be actually capable of reproducing an acoustical square wave around/in the vicinity of the crossover frequency - compared to the usual _*gulasch *_:atsmile: .




You should totally make a simulator!


----------



## SilentFrequency

head injury said:


> Yeah, I've tried it. Too much reverb for me. Didn't do anything EQ and crossfeed or HRTF software can't.
> 
> You don't get the impact like RRod mentioned, the sound doesn't change when you move your head, and you're still filtering the speaker EQ through your own headphone's colorations. It's not really blurring any lines, but it is a cool idea.
> 
> It was a good demonstration that price != sound quality in speakers. Can't remember which was my favorite but it wasn't one of the uber-expensive ones.




Some of the simulator demos sounded like they were binaural which I like also and I agree that the simulator software is a really cool idea, it's just unfortunate that the developer mentioned to me that although they plan to do an iOS version someday it's not available right now, otherwise I think that would be a cool iPhone app


----------



## SilentFrequency

rrod said:


> Don't get me wrong, I love me some HRTF, especially when you can customize it a bit a la OpenAL. Still, even good old Dolby Headphone™ does a good job for movies. I wish the techniques would get commonplace enough that I wouldn't need a Smyth :/




You have a Smyth device?

I've read only a little about them but get the impression that they are amazing!

I'd love to try one someday


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> You should totally make a simulator!


 
 I agree - time and money always in short supply, #1 audio priority at the moment is to get my Stax Lambda Pro back in working condition ASAP -failure of one driver something akin to lightning out of the blue, two or three days ago
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> I agree - time and money always in short supply, #1 audio priority at the moment is to get my Stax Lambda Pro back in working condition ASAP -failure of one driver something akin to lightning out of the blue, two or three days ago .




Oh, I'm really sorry to hear that  but hope you can get your Stax back up an running soon 

How do you compare your Stax with the HD800?

I've read that Stax headphones are one of the very best but are electrostatic/different to conventional other headphone types?


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> Oh, I'm really sorry to hear that
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I will try to repair the driver first - I did construct my own DIY electrostatics now almost 3 decades ago. It is not hard to do, but with Lamda Pro one is at the mercy how does it "fall apart" - whether the diaphragm remains intact or gets schreaded. Then , it means either acquiring another working driver/complete headphones - or dismantling the other working driver and replacing both diaphragms and praying that the sound does not change too much. Lambda Pro does have its matching Diffuse Field Equalizer ED-1 and would hate to have this system compromised. New .2xy/4xy Stax are also out of question because of the ED-1.
  
 I am familiar with HD-800 - for about 15 minutes worth of listening. Too little to form any meaningful opinion about them. Except I would never want to trade them for Lambda Pro if it was only one or another. As an addition yes ( have other prioritie$ ), as only/main HP not - not after having lived with one or another electrostatic for > 30 years .


----------



## davidsh

analogsurviver said:


> silentfrequency said:
> 
> 
> > You should totally make a simulator!
> ...


 
 That's the problem with 'stats.. My LS is borked too. They are finicky, weird creatures.
  
 Besides, I don't like the comparison with hd800. It's a gross generalization.


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> I will try to repair the driver first - I did construct my own DIY electrostatics now almost 3 decades ago. It is not hard to do, but with Lamda Pro one is at the mercy how does it "fall apart" - whether the diaphragm remains intact or gets schreaded. Then , it means either acquiring another working driver/complete headphones - or dismantling the other working driver and replacing both diaphragms and praying that the sound does not change too much. Lambda Pro does have its matching Diffuse Field Equalizer ED-1 and would hate to have this system compromised. New .2xy/4xy Stax are also out of question because of the ED-1.
> 
> I am familiar with HD-800 - for about 15 minutes worth of listening. Too little to form any meaningful opinion about them. Except I would never want to trade them for Lambda Pro if it was only one or another. As an addition yes ( have other prioritie$ ), as only/main HP not - not after having lived with one or another electrostatic for > 30 years .




Im not technical in the least but get that your driver replacement/installation will be troublesome 

I guess if you've used electrostatic headphones for such a time then there's no going back to anything else 

I've read electrostatic headphones offer the most amazing sound quality second to none so hope I get to hear one someday


----------



## RRod

silentfrequency said:


> You have a Smyth device?
> 
> I've read only a little about them but get the impression that they are amazing!
> 
> I'd love to try one someday


 
  
 Sadly no; already paid that kind of scratch for both my headphone setups combined. I would like to find a place to demo one with my own PC rig, then decide if I need to save up $$ for a couple of years.


----------



## davidsh

silentfrequency said:


> I've read electrostatic headphones offer the most amazing sound quality second to none so hope I get to hear one someday


 
 Depends on what you value and what you like. And what pair of 'stats you try. They don't sound the same at all just as planars or any other driver tech doesn't. There are some traits specific to 'stats just as there are traits specific to planars


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> Im not technical in the least but get that your driver replacement/installation will be troublesome
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 ESL is not such a boogawooga - but it DOES require being precise and not rush things one iota before you are certain it can be done right. While at it, I might decide to modify it ( there is LOTS room for an improvement ) - but the compatibility with ED-1 is holding these type of horses back ...
  
 It is true, after so long period of ESL it is hard to go to anything else - including my beloved AKG K-1000. 
  
 And no, you would not want to hear _*my *_ESLs - as they are driven by an amp that is lethal many times over, they are in storage since 1999 - I simply decided to chose staying on this earth for a while longer, having reluctantly accepted decrease of SQ and am using Stax ever since. But ... - that itch is getting stronger ...


----------



## SilentFrequency

rrod said:


> Sadly no; already paid that kind of scratch for both my headphone setups combined. I would like to find a place to demo one with my own PC rig, then decide if I need to save up $$ for a couple of years.






I just found this video of the worlds most expensive turntables for vinyl recordings!

And if you go on the higherfi web site they sell all kinds of audio equipment at prices I didn't think existed in the audiophile world! I nearly died :eek:

I mean, just how good can a $300,000 turntable actually sound?



[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/SfIUh0S7yTQ[/VIDEO]


----------



## SilentFrequency

davidsh said:


> Depends on what you value and what you like. And what pair of 'stats you try. They don't sound the same at all just as planars or any other driver tech doesn't. There are some traits specific to 'stats just as there are traits specific to planars




Yes, I guess it's all subjective but isn't the Sennheiser Orpheus electrostatic too and widely regarded as the best ever sounding headphone made?

Alternatively, another member has already told me that he has actually heard the Orpheus firsthand at a audio meeting alongside the HD800's and HD600's and he preferred the HD800's over the Orpheus and also said the HD600's were not too far behind the HD800's. But that was his personal subjective opinion of course but nonetheless I found interesting.


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> That's the problem with 'stats.. My LS is borked too. They are finicky, weird creatures.
> 
> Besides, I don't like the comparison with hd800. It's a gross generalization.


 
 Stats are less robust than dynamic or planars - true. However, they are easier to repair in case stators have not been damaged and one knows how it is done. My Lambda Pro saw LOTS of use and the fact that they did survve intact that long is a testimony that they are quite durable. I know another pair that is being used 5/7 days per week for > 20 years at Benz Micro Switzerland for listening to _every cartridge leaving the factory *-*_ and although battered ( they do get to fall on the floor every now and then...), they still play just fine.
  
 I agree that my short comparison Stax Lambda Pro/HD 800 is TOO gross generalization.  HD 800 do have their merits - but they most definitely are not my cup of tea. Let's leave it at that - because going further it would mean I have to directly name their biggest flaw - and it is not a pretty one. Stax Lambda Pro could well be accused of the similar - except there is at least a quarter of the century between the two and mistakes made then should have been eradicated by now. Subsequent versions of Lambda did incrementally improve - not to the point of perfection, but above HD-800. 
  
 Although I have never heard a Senn ESL, these are made so that they could actually really sound amazing - with the right amplification.


----------



## liamstrain

I never liked the Stax Lambda's - but I really enjoyed the Stax 007. Some day, I'll justify their cost and end up with a pair. 
  
 I did demo a Smyth system - it was interesting. A very unusual experience. Not my cup of tea, but technically very interesting.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

analogsurviver said:


> Stats are less robust than dynamic or planars - true. However, they are easier to repair in case stators have not been damaged and one knows how it is done. My Lambda Pro saw LOTS of use and the fact that they did survve intact that long is a testimony that they are quite durable. I know another pair that is being used 5/7 days per week for > 20 years at Benz Micro Switzerland for listening to _every cartridge leaving the factory *-*_ and although battered ( they do get to fall on the floor every now and then...), they still play just fine.
> 
> I agree that my short comparison Stax Lambda Pro/HD 800 is TOO gross generalization.  HD 800 do have their merits - but they most definitely are not my cup of tea. Let's leave it at that - because going further it would mean I have to directly name their biggest flaw - and it is not a pretty one. Stax Lambda Pro could well be accused of the similar - except there is at least a quarter of the century between the two and mistakes made then should have been eradicated by now. Subsequent versions of Lambda did incrementally improve - not to the point of perfection, but above HD-800.
> 
> Although I have never heard a Senn ESL, these are made so that they could actually really sound amazing - with the right amplification.


 

 You have to know we want to know the HD800's biggest flaw! If not publicly, perhaps by PM?
  
 I'll probably ask in an HD800 thread, but I wonder how many have gone from HD800 to Stax and never back gone back.


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> I just found this video of the worlds most expensive turntables for vinyl recordings!
> 
> And if you go on the higherfi web site they sell all kinds of audio equipment at prices I didn't think existed in the audiophile world! I nearly died
> 
> ...


 
 It is not nearly required to go that far in price - but true, a good turntable can never be cheap. I did post that the lowest price for the *new * turntable of high enough quality is around 1 K - ( Turntable/cartridge/arm combination ) - but also that, even if you have perfectly set up turntable from the above vid, claiming that you can not enjoy music from correctly set up say Pro-ject RPM 4 ( a 10 years old model, now slightly improved and renamed ) at what then was $ 500 or so cartridge included - would be a lie. Worse - yes; use/worthless - FAR from it. But DACs a la ifi nano iDSD have nailed the coffin on which is written "turntable is better bang for the buck in audio than digital". That from an analogsurviver ...!
  
 A really good turntable setup is something one does not forget easily - whether the piggybank allows for it, is unfortunately another matter. In not too distant future, I hope will be able to manage to present how a really inexpensive ( relative - see above ... )  but quality vintage turntable could be put together - in the Turntable Setup thread. If one does not have two left hands, is prepared to put some work and quite some time in it  and is willing to wait for a good vintage device at a good price to come along in the first place. Want it "yesterday" - sorry, it will be MUCH costlier.
  
 And... yes, prices - or more precisely put price RANGE - of things turntable is perhaps the easiest way to shock an unsuspecting person ; phono cartridges ranging from say 20 to 30.000,00 ( you read it right, 30 K $ for a "needle" ); and contrary to "how much better a 300 K turntable can sound", really good cartridges unfortunately do sound better. Although it is not featured in the video ( because it is discontinued but still supported to this very day ), I suggest avoiding auditioning this one - IF , like me, have to ask how much does it cost  ( "if you have to ask, you can not afford it " ... ) Versa Dynamics (any model, but 2.3 being the best )
  

 ( I did follow the instruction from versa site NOT to link the photo ... )
  
 http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=29459
  
 To keep it short - the first TT I have NOT been able to hear - it will play the recording. It is NOT for the techically analphabet, as it does require minor but regular maintenance - but a weekend with the TT of this calibre will forever change your opinion about vinyl. If it does appear for sale - and you somehow scrape the money together  - it is how quick you are, forget even the slightest desire to haggle the price - next phone call it will be gone. 
  
 I am trying to emulate "kind of " this kind of performance at MUCH lower price - and we will see where it will lead and at what price it might be possible. But it is still LONG time before it will be ready - decent vinyl playback should be available to more people. But never expect it to compete in budget with the likes of ifi nano - Mission Impossible. For that kind of price, a decent _*new *_turntable mat is barely possible - and that mat IS the foundation of it all; unless you can afford the Versa ...


----------



## castleofargh

charleski said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > I tend to desagree. sure there are distortions and distortions, but after -80db with music playing I don't think it matters. was the AES paper about playing music while testing or something more specific?
> ...


 

 I'll keep it short so that the other members don't start dying of toolongus postus(tropical disease).
 -I agree with most points. yes I don't really know how to test my hearing for different correlated distortions, so I just tried a bunch of random stuff instead ^_^. still I think I would need a very peculiar situation to hear those if they measure below -80db.
  
 -I see nothing wrong with trying to improve upon what we have as a species, and I understand you guys wishing to see if you can press the last drop of sound out of everything. but I guess my approach is just egoistical. I want my own problems solved, and what isn't a problem for me, I see zero reason to care about it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.  my problems are amps and headphones, so that's where I'm looking for progress.
  
 -and I agree very much with the crap sound from live performances. I'm at a point where I prefer see bands in DVD instead. also I can't stand loud music(hyperacousis or I'm just grumpy? IDK ^_^) so I use plugs, but even with some custom special music blahblah kind of plug, the natural sound doesn't feel all that natural. a few times I get a nice surprise with smaller stages, but there is no way you'll get me to a stadium for a band anymore(or you could but only if I'm dead drunk at the time I need to make the decision).


----------



## headwhacker

castleofargh said:


> -and I agree very much with the crap sound from live performances. I'm at a point where I prefer see bands in DVD instead. also I can't stand loud music(hyperacousis or I'm just grumpy? IDK ^_^) so I use plugs, but even with some custom special music blahblah kind of plug, the natural sound doesn't feel all that natural. a few times I get a nice surprise with smaller stages, but there is no way you'll get me to a stadium for a band anymore(or you could but only if I'm dead drunk at the time I need to make the decision).


 
  
 I agree as well that live music recordings is crap. It's nice going to a concert and enjoy the moment/experience. But most of the time I don't want to hear it (badly tuned instrument, noisy environment) when I'm sitting on my desk relaxing and have my headphones on. 
  
 Studio recorded music will always sound the best over live recordings. I have a few live albums but mostly unplugged records of a few popular albums.


----------



## davidsh

A good live album over studio for me, thank you.
Besides, I really like the once-in-a-while nice surprise of excellent performance and sound at small venues - last time around was Doug McLeod.
Ohh, this is OT...


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *charleski* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Well the first problem is that we don't know the ciruit diagram of the Xonar, I don't own it, but looking at pictures online it does have a lot of aluminium hybrids clustered near the output ports. If these are coupling the output they're either running the ouput amp with a bias or (more likely) they've tied them in pairs to get them to self-bias (or alternatively, they're just ignoring the problem and hoping the reverse-bias levels on the output won't go high enough to make them blow up). So I wouldn't recommend anyone go trying to desolder the SMT caps on that board (and polyprops wouldn't fit into the space anyway).


 
   
The output of the Xonar (at least the front channels) is driven by an NJM5532 op amp, with a 100 ohms serial resistor per channel, and the already mentioned 220 uF electrolytics. The circuit is probably based on what is recommended in the CS4398 data sheet, and most likely would not have a significant DC offset on the output even without the capacitors.

  
 In any case, for those interested in testing the audibility of the distortion, it is not necessary to desolder any capacitors. Just post your preferred sample (30 seconds maximum length), and I will create one of these options for ABX testing:
 - a loopback recording from the Xonar (includes the capacitor distortion, as well as any other quality degradation from all the components in the loopback chain) vs. the original sample (maybe converted to the same format as the recording)
 - two loopback recordings from another device that does not have any output capacitors, with and without external serial capacitors added


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> It is not nearly required to go that far in price - but true, a good turntable can never be cheap. I did post that the lowest price for the *new * turntable of high enough quality is around 1 K - ( Turntable/cartridge/arm combination ) - but also that, even if you have perfectly set up turntable from the above vid, claiming that you can not enjoy music from correctly set up say Pro-ject RPM 4 ( a 10 years old model, now slightly improved and renamed ) at what then was $ 500 or so cartridge included - would be a lie. Worse - yes; use/worthless - FAR from it. But DACs a la ifi nano iDSD have nailed the coffin on which is written "turntable is better bang for the buck in audio than digital". That from an analogsurviver ...!
> 
> A really good turntable setup is something one does not forget easily - whether the piggybank allows for it, is unfortunately another matter. In not too distant future, I hope will be able to manage to present how a really inexpensive ( relative - see above ... )  but quality vintage turntable could be put together - in the Turntable Setup thread. If one does not have two left hands, is prepared to put some work and quite some time in it  and is willing to wait for a good vintage device at a good price to come along in the first place. Want it "yesterday" - sorry, it will be MUCH costlier.
> 
> ...




If I win the lottery, I will buy a top end turntable as a centre piece for my lounge in my lottery funded mansion but unless Taylor Swift and similar pop is available on vinyl, Id just use turntable as a piece of art as the ones depicted in video are beautiful to look at! 

Good luck with your turntable rig set up


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> A good live album over studio for me, thank you.
> Besides, I really like the once-in-a-while nice surprise of excellent performance and sound at small venues - last time around was Doug McLeod.
> Ohh, this is OT...


 
 I completely agree.
  
 I am mainly ( > 98 % ) recording acoustic music - of the by my own classification "clean" musicians. "Dirty" musicians are those who have to use anything electrical in order to produce their sound. Which is not to say that I do not enjoy and cherish "dirty" musicians and music they make, quite the contrary - but it is not exactly my thing.
  
 It has happened before - and hopefully and no doubt will, should I live for any longer, again; recording of a live performance was FAR superior to any "studio" attempt - even if that "studio" was the exact church in which live recording has been made. Sometimes the planets, galaxies and cell phones do get aligned in such a way to allow for such extraordinary live recording - plus add the sheer luck that the guy/gal who forgot to ( despite announcement before the concert for switching the phones OFF, not merely setting them to silent ) or does not know how to switch the cell phone off has not received any calls during the concert.
  
 I have written this before, but will repeat it; if the audience is presented with a truly magnificent performance, people will shut up, there will be no candy unwrapping, comments/talks, they will be turning their programme sheets as quiet as possible, coughing will get to the minimum, even the photographers will "get it" and will be clicketing only during pauses between movements, etc, etc - to the point one is hardly aware of listening to a recording of a live performance because of the sound intrusions by anything else but the performers are so discreet. There will be an occasional truck or plane - but that would have landed on "studio" recording in the same location as well - IF it was the best take of that piece by musical criteria. I have long ago decided NOT to interrupt the recording session if the music making at the moment was great and there were some outside noises ( believe me, I have PLENTY of those recorded ...) - because lot of times it is possible to use portions of those great moments that were not corrupted by outside noises in the mastering. 
  
 As I have already written: 100+ takes in a studio, to achieve note by note perfection by pasting it all together in the pursuit of "perfection" - no, thank you. Sooner or later, such artists will have to play live on stage ...  I could achieve similar result with 10000+ takes and budget allowing for enough postproduction/mastering; but it would have been the postproduction/mastering guy the actual artist - not me.
  
 There are "artists" that can't perform their own music - on playback - NEARLY as well as people participating in lip sync battles :


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> I completely agree.
> 
> I am mainly ( > 98 % ) recording acoustic music - of the by my own classification "clean" musicians. "Dirty" musicians are those who have to use anything electrical in order to produce their sound. Which is not to say that I do not enjoy and cherish "dirty" musicians and music they make, quite the contrary - but it is not exactly my thing.
> 
> ...




That video ^

So funny and I actually lol'd


----------



## charleski

stv014 said:


> The output of the Xonar (at least the front channels) is driven by an NJM5532 op amp, with a 100 ohms serial resistor per channel, and the already mentioned 220 uF electrolytics. The circuit is probably based on what is recommended in the CS4398 data sheet, and most likely would not have a significant DC offset on the output even without the capacitors.
> 
> In any case, for those interested in testing the audibility of the distortion, it is not necessary to desolder any capacitors. Just post your preferred sample (30 seconds maximum length), and I will create one of these options for ABX testing:
> - a loopback recording from the Xonar (includes the capacitor distortion, as well as any other quality degradation from all the components in the loopback chain) vs. the original sample (maybe converted to the same format as the recording)
> - two loopback recordings from another device that does not have any output capacitors, with and without external serial capacitors added


 

 Obviously they modified the recommended circuit to get the output resistance down, though 100Ω is still very high and there's going to be interaction with the impedance of the headphones. The circuit given in the datasheet is an example of hoping that the output voltage won't swing high enough to bust the capacitor with reverse-bias, though most can survive 1V of reverse-bias for short periods. Thinking about it, I suspect the reason they went this route is because they didn't want to rely on the -12V provided on pin 1 of the PCI JTAG pins, and the bus doesn't otherwise provide any negative voltage source.
  
 Here are a couple of samples, though the AC hum you mentioned in the Xonar measurements might complicate matters. They're 16/44.1 samples from the CDs, and I'm not sure it really matters what rate you record at, as long as it's equal or higher (it would be best to avoid any sample rate conversion).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFB5idDF1u5N0wxVGswbnFwTGM/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFB5idDF1u5SXB4TWZwNkJzZms/view?usp=sharing


----------



## upstateguy

sonitus mirus said:


> *I don't know if a pink Tonka truck is orbiting around Venus,* either, but it might be more likely than anyone hearing an audible difference with distortion attenuation as low as -84dB.  This is about .006% THD.
> 
> <snip>


----------



## SilentFrequency

My friends neighbour has installed some kind of pest deterrent on their front lawn that just looks like a square box with a sensor on it that emits a high pitched sound supposedly inaudible to humans but audible to cats, rodents etc.

But here's the thing, me and my friend can hear it and it's pretty horrible!

I checked online for more info and turns out that people generally under 25 yrs old can hear these devices and in some instances, devices have been made for this specific purpose!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/23/high-pitch-only-teens-can_n_98304.html

I think this is proof that certain high frequencies are audible to some and not to others. My friends neighbour with his pest device is an old guy so obviously he can't hear it but if he could I'd guess he would turn it off if he could as it's totally annoying.

So I guess sometimes the inaudible actually is audible to some.


----------



## RRod

silentfrequency said:


> My friends neighbour has installed some kind of pest deterrent on their front lawn that just looks like a square box with a sensor on it that emits a high pitched sound supposedly inaudible to humans but audible to cats, rodents etc.
> 
> But here's the thing, me and my friend can hear it and it's pretty horrible!
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yeah, 17-20kHz is generally the bailiwick of the young, as those of us longer in the tooth have generally deforested that particular set of ear hairs. That doesn't mean that there are people who magically hear 40kHz, though.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> Yeah, 17-20kHz is generally the bailiwick of the young, as those of us longer in the tooth have generally deforested that particular set of ear hairs. That doesn't mean that there are people who magically hear 40kHz, though.


 
 True. But I have heard of people, mostly _*women *_, who could/(still can? they age too ...) hear sine wave up to at approx 25 kHz. 
 But not appreciable above that. Which does not necasarilly mean we can not sense them *somehow*. Only that we can not hear them as pure sine wave, nothing more and nothing less.
  
 Once upon the time, when it was fun to listen to the _*variety*_ of noises with which the bubbles that form on the surface of the puddles after the summer shower have been  bursting... - I told at audiometry check EXACTLY which switch/potentiometer of their gear needs cleaning/replacement  - according to the operator, there should be NO audible signal 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





; those were the days.


----------



## castleofargh

silentfrequency said:


> My friends neighbour has installed some kind of pest deterrent on their front lawn that just looks like a square box with a sensor on it that emits a high pitched sound supposedly inaudible to humans but audible to cats, rodents etc.
> 
> But here's the thing, me and my friend can hear it and it's pretty horrible!
> 
> ...


 
 it just means that your anti rodent buzzer probably emits a wide range of frequencies including some in the audible range, or some at 20khz but super loud(and in this case you might want to avoid staying close to it for long).
  
 as for the mosquito "teenager repellent", it's emitting at 17.5khz. not 23khz or whatever frequency some people dreamed they could hear in music. yes children can hear higher than most adults, yes some can hear 21khz(if it's loud enough). but it doesn't mean there are no limits.
 just like when some random jamaican dude
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 runs 100m under 10s. that doesn't mean you have to believe people telling you they can do it in 5s. for frequency response it's the same thing, 20khz is the limit where you can hear without real discomfort due to how loud it needs to be to be heard. so you either don't hear it, or you hear it and want to cry if you go loud enough. in reality we indeed can go a little higher, and a little below 20hz too. as long as you're willing to crank up the volume and ruin your ears.
  
 it's pretty easy to find or generate yourself some test tones, you set the volume at normal listening level with 1 or 2khz tones. or reasonably loud if you have something to prove, but *do not change the loudness midway*, ultrasounds can damage your ears even when you hear nothing.
 in 3mn you'll know what you can and cannot hear, it's not rocket science. and if you happen to have a nice flat speaker, you could even try to make your own equal loudness contour(that takes some time to do right though).
 and by doing this your own limitations and reality will become obvious.
 but just like people rejecting abx, blind test, measurements, and sometime science as a whole idea... you will always get people failing to hear 17 or 18khz but at the same time swear on their children that hires sounds better thanks to ultrasounds. and that it is why vinyls and DSD sound better than even 24/96PCM.
 it's not a problem of knowing who can and who can't hear ultrasound, it's a problem of rational people vs delusional ones. even if hires was actually sounding audibly better, it wouldn't be because of ultrasounds. just like a sunset isn't better in real life compared to pictures because of UV light missing in the pic. you can find a all bunch of reasons why you may prefer the real thing, but UV light has nothing to do with why.
  
 vinyl vs cd: CD wins in dynamic, crosstalk(by a lot), distortions(by a lot), noise(I don't even...),lag/jitter/wow/however you want to call time errors(vinyls can change the speed of the original even faster than karajan). but vinyls can extend high in frequencies.
 hmmm... what argument vinyl lovers would use to defend their turf? it's really hard to guess.


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> lag/jitter/wow/however you want to call time errors(vinyls can change the speed of the original even faster than karajan).


 
  
 bazing


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *charleski* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Here are a couple of samples, though the AC hum you mentioned in the Xonar measurements might complicate matters. They're 16/44.1 samples from the CDs, and I'm not sure it really matters what rate you record at, as long as it's equal or higher (it would be best to avoid any sample rate conversion).
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFB5idDF1u5N0wxVGswbnFwTGM/view?usp=sharing
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFB5idDF1u5SXB4TWZwNkJzZms/view?usp=sharing


 
  
 I do not think the AC hum is much of an issue (i.e. audible), as it is at a very low level, and human hearing has a relatively high threshold at low frequencies. I am not even sure if I will use the same Xonar (which has since then been moved to another PC), even if that would be easier from a hardware point of view and I still have the 2x22 ohms test load, or the DC coupled headphone output of the Essence STX with and without serial capacitors added (some experimenting would be needed to achieve comparable distortion measurements).
  
 In the Xonar D1 vs. original sample case, I may convert the samples to 96/24 format first to minimize the effects of the DAC filter (as the DAC would oversample the 44.1 kHz input anyway, passing the samples through a 22.05 kHz lowpass filter is unavoidable). Although I would not expect it to be audible, it is not what is being tested now. With the external capacitor approach (two recordings, with and without the capacitors), no software conversion would be applied.
  
 Another processing I may apply is equalizing the low frequency roll-off from the capacitors, since the test is meant to be limited to distortion, rather than frequency response differences, which are "normal" as in the roll-off would be there also with ideal capacitors. While -0.27 dB at 30 Hz is not much, I think it would still require less "golden" ears to detect than about 0.003% distortion at the same frequency. It would probably be best to provide both equalized and unequalized samples.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> bazing


 
 Correction - NOT all vynils are the same. And the better ones are capable of keeping the speed better than K ever could.
  
 It is true that they are in the minority, but yes, they do exist. It is anything but easy to achieve such a performance, but it can be done. With real world records.


----------



## bigshot

25kHz is barely one note on a musical scale above 20kHz. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans.


----------



## SilentFrequency

castleofargh said:


> it just means that your anti rodent buzzer probably emits a wide range of frequencies including some in the audible range, or some at 20khz but super loud(and in this case you might want to avoid staying close to it for long).
> 
> as for the mosquito "teenager repellent", it's emitting at 17.5khz. not 23khz or whatever frequency some people dreamed they could hear in music. yes children can hear higher than most adults, yes some can hear 21khz(if it's loud enough). but it doesn't mean there are no limits.
> just like when some random jamaican dude runs 100m under 10s. that doesn't mean you have to believe people telling you they can do it in 5s. for frequency response it's the same thing, 20khz is the limit where you can hear without real discomfort due to how loud it needs to be to be heard. so you either don't hear it, or you hear it and want to cry if you go loud enough. in reality we indeed can go a little higher, and a little below 20hz too. as long as you're willing to crank up the volume and ruin your ears.
> ...




Thanks! 

I totally get your analogy of the runner and frequencies not being possible to be audible but unsure of your analogy of a sunset experience in real life compared to a photo of a sunset as don't UV rays give you a sun tan, so UV rays maybe do bear a difference in real experience over a photo?

I'm not trying to be pedantic (if that's the right word), just trying to understand your analogy more as I'm here to learn not be ignorant, I'd that makes sense?

Regarding the anti rodent buzzer, I honestly don't understand why the manufacturers of these things don't make them to a frequency that ensures nobody could hear it apart from critters as it is so annoying and I'm sure my friends neighbour realises we can hear it as when we've been walking past to her house with our hands over our ears and he is washing his car or pottering about wih his plants, he seems to have a smirk on his face. Sorry if that bit is off topic but I honestly think these devices should be banned and I'd hate to think what cats and dogs passing have to painfully hear.

Regarding vinyl v cd, well I think that may be a "circular" argument that is ultimately about personal preference like Apple v Android maybe, though my dad did replace his entire vinyl collection to cd years ago but I'm guessing part of his reasoning may have also been down to creating more physical space than anything else.


----------



## SilentFrequency

rrod said:


> bazing




"bazing" ?


----------



## RRod

silentfrequency said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 UV is part of sunlight but we don't SEE it, so it's not part of the experience of seeing a beautiful sunset. Now, if you want a tan in addition to seeing the sun, then you want the UV, in the same way you want <20Hz frequencies sometimes: not because you can hear them, but because they can shake you. Ultrasounds have plenty of uses (get a kidney stone some time , but are they part of the *aural* experience? Many of us would say no, but the vinyl apologists say yes. You must decide for yourself.
  
 The reason they make the anti-rodent buzzer somewhat audible is because they consider young men to be rodents


----------



## SilentFrequency

rrod said:


> UV is part of sunlight but we don't SEE it, so it's not part of the experience of seeing a beautiful sunset. Now, if you want a tan in addition to seeing the sun, then you want the UV, in the same way you want <20Hz frequencies sometimes: not because you can hear them, but because they can shake you. Ultrasounds have plenty of uses (get a kidney stone some time , but are they part of the *aural* experience? Many of us would say no, but the vinyl apologists say yes. You must decide for yourself.
> 
> The reason they make the anti-rodent buzzer somewhat audible is because they consider young men to be rodents




Oh, I get that now, high frequencies can be sometimes felt if not heard.

I honestly don't want to start a vinyl vs cd debate, so each to their own and experience of what they believe they can hear/not hear by whatever method of music playback.

I honestly think I've dated some rodents before 



ps what does "bazing" mean?


----------



## RRod

silentfrequency said:


> Oh, I get that now, high frequencies can be sometimes felt if not heard.
> 
> I honestly don't want to start a vinyl vs cd debate, so each to their own and experience of what they believe they can hear/not hear by whatever method of music playback.
> 
> ...


 
 Low frequencies (<20Hz, not >20kHz). «Bazing» is what you say when someone zings someone else.


----------



## SilentFrequency

rrod said:


> Low frequencies (<20Hz, not >20kHz). «Bazing» is what you say when someone zings someone else.




Thanks!


----------



## castleofargh

silentfrequency said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  UV are another frequency range of light. some animals will see UV as just another range of colors or contrast or however they manage to perceive them. the same way some animals will hear 25khz as just another tone. the limiting range isn't reality, it's us. that's why cutting it out before it reaches our ears or not, doesn't change what we hear.
 and yes UV will affect our skin but we don't consciously feel them(at least not until it's too late), and certainly don't see them. IR will feel warm on our body, but we also can't see them. and there are a lot of frequencies we are not equipped to perceive, but they still exist. do we need to record and transmit them all?
 UV have nothing to do with our human vision because they're out of what we humans can see. but you can get UV to react with some chemical and send back some light in the visible range. the same way some sound systems will send back IMD from ultrasound in the audible range. both having nothing to do with the real thing.
 our relation with different freqs is different, all sound isn't just sound. ultrasounds can still hurt our ears with high energy while we may not be audibly aware of them, and some ultra low frequencies can shake our body and be felt, but not really heard.
 all this comes from what we are, so ignoring our human perception limits when talking about music, that's a little strange for me.
 the same way I find it strange when somebody claim to hear the better decay of instruments thanks to 24bit, when those same people will fail any test asking them to identify a sound 90db below music. it's as if we were different species altogether depending on what subject we're talking about.  ^_^
 5%distortions on speakers is very ok, up to 1% on some tube amp is ok(real sound!!!!!), but 0.001% from a DAC and it's crap. most topics are like that with no regard for proportions or what humans can actually perceive. I find that very very disturbing.
  
  
 edit: I love karajan, when in a hurry, it's nice to be able to hear a symphony 10mn faster ^_^.


----------



## charleski

silentfrequency said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 There was Oohashi et al., who presented data showing a neurological effect from high-frequency sound. If I remember right, follow-up experiments led him to claim this was a result of ultrasonic activation of sensors in the skin.
  
 As far as having a smirk - lots of people use high-frequency emitters to stop teenagers hanging around near their property 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  
 [Edit: Found a link for his 2006 follow-up here. Attempts to replicate these results by testing conscious discrimination failed, but Oohashi's results relied on physiological markers rather than subjective discrimination. I don't know if anyone's attempted to measure the same thing yet.]


----------



## Steve Eddy

charleski said:


> There was Oohashi et al., who presented data showing a neurological effect from high-frequency sound. If I remember right, follow-up experiments led him to claim this was a result of ultrasonic activation of sensors in the skin.




I believe it was others that concluded it was simply due to intermodulation distortion that folded down into the audio band.

se


----------



## charleski

steve eddy said:


> I believe it was others that concluded it was simply due to intermodulation distortion that folded down into the audio band.
> 
> se


 

 He ruled that out in his follow-up by using separated channels.
  
 [Edit] Just found another paper from Oohashi's lab published this year that showed similar physiological effects with band-limited high-frequency components.
  
 None of this means we should all rush out to buy super-tweeters, but it's data that can't be ignored.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Did he? 

Ah well. I'm not a fan of gamelan music anyway. 

se


----------



## analogsurviver

charleski said:


> He ruled that out in his follow-up by using separated channels.
> 
> [Edit] Just found another paper from Oohashi's lab published this year that showed similar physiological effects with band-limited high-frequency components.
> 
> None of this means we should all rush out to buy super-tweeters, but it's data that can't be ignored.


 
 You should - before every parrott will want them and by then there will be yet another zero at the right hand side of the already hefty price tag.
  
 *sigh* - those Japanese have a nasty record of coming up with things in audio that are at first sight sooo over the top and... - well, wacko - only to create a deep sensation of embarassment if and when it "dawns" to us "somewhat west from the Land of The Rising Sun" - that they were right from the day one. Pricey - but good.
  
 The western concept of "best bang for the buck/best buy" does have its merits; on the other hand, it stifles any attempts at improving status quo, as these attempts at "better" can never be best buys - and can get so suppressed in the market that hardly anyone remembers they ever existed. 
  
 I will never forget the degree of shock delivered by the "tonearm base" price from Fidelity Research in early 80's - it was many times the price of my then turntable and simply mind boggling and incomprehensible. To this day it keeps its VALUE - because it is precisely made and seems it will last beyond one's lifetime; but back then, I did not even know what Vertical Tracking Angle was, let alone how to adjust it - and even more "beyond" was the notion that this could be done with zero free play and extreme repeatability.  
  
 Nice to see some data supporting the possibility for the humans to sense sound above 20 kHz; although I can not hear it as sine wave - I felt this way since forever ( always preferred designs supporting wide band performance past 20 kHz ) - but another thing is to see some evidence.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> Nice to see some data supporting the possibility for the humans to sense sound above 20 kHz; although I can not hear it as sine wave - I felt this way since forever ( always preferred designs supporting wide band performance past 20 kHz ) - but another thing is to see some evidence.




Keep in mind that the evidence shows its sensed through the skin somehow, not the ears, and the evidence is EEGs. Not any blind testing that I can see.

se


----------



## RRod

And yet people still can't ABX the stuff. Perhaps the body is just really good at sensing the total wave energy hitting it.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Keep in mind that the evidence shows its sensed through the skin somehow, not the ears, and the evidence is EEGs. Not any blind testing that I can see.
> 
> se


 
 In its literature, TAKET that produces Batpure http://www.taket.jp/batpure/batpure.html and Batpro (among others ) supertweeters does mention a simple test with which a person can test him/herself if he/she is likely to benefit from the use of supertweeters : http://www.taket.jp/bpp/bpp_e.html Now, there is inevitable "lost (or distorted ) in the translation" - so please refrain from nitpicking along these lines. Basically, if one feels the difference in the sensation of being exposed to supertweeter which dissapears when one covers his/hers face with hands - he/she will benefit from use of the supertweeter. Obviously, not every person has the same sensitivity to this; TAKET is being fair to mention it.
 http://www.taket.jp/bpp/img/read-more.pdf : it may well be further mentioned in the description of TAKET other products.
  
 It appears that blind testing as we know it is about to receive another "blind" - covered face or not. It looks like the term golden ears has been misnomer from the moment it has been created - it might turn out it will have to be revisited to "golden ears and golden skin".
  
 A friend has Batpure supertweeters - and yes, they ARE "perceivable" - not so much after first switching them on, but specially after listening some music with the supertweeters - and then switching them off. INSTANTLY "perceivable" - if one does not cover face with arms ( or cloth, etc ) - in short, if one listens naturally. I will spare you the usual audiophile adjectives - but they are real. It was ridiculous how so small device as Batpure can make such large difference in the enjoyment of stereo - provided they have something to play, that is to say the programme material is not limited to 20 kHz.
  
 Disclaimer: NO affiliation with TAKET, do not even own any of their products at the moment, but have experienced positive effects of using their Batpure - they are on my radar for purchase in reasonable future.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

silentfrequency said:


> Oh, I get that now, high frequencies can be sometimes felt if not heard.
> 
> I honestly don't want to start a vinyl vs cd debate, so each to their own and experience of what they believe they can hear/not hear by whatever method of music playback.
> 
> ...


 

 And could be "felt" in different ways, perhaps teeth cavity resonances. But what do I know. LOL


----------



## BirdManOfCT

analogsurviver said:


> You should - before every parrott will want them and by then there will be yet another zero at the right hand side of the already hefty price tag.
> 
> *sigh* - those Japanese have a nasty record of coming up with things in audio that are at first sight sooo over the top and... - well, wacko - only to create a deep sensation of embarassment if and when it "dawns" to us "somewhat west from the Land of The Rising Sun" - that they were right from the day one. Pricey - but good.
> 
> ...


 

 Hear! Hear!
  
 (dang, didn't intend that as a pun, but there it is)


----------



## Steve Eddy

"I followed another of Belt’s suggestions, with information gleaned from an article entitled "What a Mess!!! An alternative view of reality" on the Belt Electronics web page. In the article, Belt asserts that photographing a person affects them adversely, and that if you place a photograph of yourself as an infant or small child along with a current photograph of yourself in a plastic bag in the freezer, you will improve your listening experience."

"I have my photos in the freezer, and it has not only improved my enjoyment of music at home, but at fellow audiophiles homes nearby, and as far away as Las Vegas during this year’s CES."

http://www.positive-feedback.com/ambackissues/Belt.htm

se


----------



## Head Injury

steve eddy said:


> "I followed another of Belt’s suggestions, with information gleaned from an article entitled "What a Mess!!! An alternative view of reality" on the Belt Electronics web page. In the article, Belt asserts that photographing a person affects them adversely, and that if you place a photograph of yourself as an infant or small child along with a current photograph of yourself in a plastic bag in the freezer, you will improve your listening experience."
> 
> "I have my photos in the freezer, and it has not only improved my enjoyment of music at home, but at fellow audiophiles homes nearby, and as far away as Las Vegas during this year’s CES."
> 
> ...


 

 I put two photos of myself in the freezer and, after a rousing play of Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On", caught them making out.
  
 Highly recommended.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Bet you'll never get that image out of your head. It's like seeng grandma naked. You can never "unsee" it. 

se


----------



## charleski

rrod said:


> And yet people still can't ABX the stuff. Perhaps the body is just really good at sensing the total wave energy hitting it.


 

 There is a range of mechanoreceptors in the skin which are sensitive to vibration, you can see some standard measurements here. As far as I know, no-one's tested their output at really high frequencies, though you can consciously sense around 1-2kHz when it's modulated at a lower frequency. There's also evidence that high mechanical frequencies can cause nerve damage, but I'm not sure that sound waves would carry enough power to have deleterious effects.
  
 And, of course, since this is _head_-fi, you're not going to get these effects when listening on headphones.


----------



## liamstrain

charleski said:


> I'm not sure that sound waves would carry enough power to have deleterious effects.


 
  
 Not at the levels we usually encounter anyway. At (much) higher levels, sound waves can melt concrete.


----------



## RRod

charleski said:


> There is a range of mechanoreceptors in the skin which are sensitive to vibration, you can see some standard measurements here. As far as I know, no-one's tested their output at really high frequencies, though you can consciously sense around 1-2kHz when it's modulated at a lower frequency. There's also evidence that high mechanical frequencies can cause nerve damage, but I'm not sure that sound waves would carry enough power to have deleterious effects.
> 
> And, of course, since this is _head_-fi, you're not going to get these effects when listening on headphones.


 
  
 Yeah I mean I don't doubt it. I'm sure I could ABX speakers vs headphones ^_^ Just like I could tell you if you zapped me with sunlight containing UV and not containing UV once my sunburn set in; but is that experiencing a beautiful summer day? I guess count me skeptical that this is "the vinyl difference."


----------



## bigshot

Skin receptors are sensitive to bass, not treble.


----------



## SilentFrequency

castleofargh said:


> UV are another frequency range of light. some animals will see UV as just another range of colors or contrast or however they manage to perceive them. the same way some animals will hear 25khz as just another tone. the limiting range isn't reality, it's us. that's why cutting it out before it reaches our ears or not, doesn't change what we hear.
> and yes UV will affect our skin but we don't consciously feel them(at least not until it's too late), and certainly don't see them. IR will feel warm on our body, but we also can't see them. and there are a lot of frequencies we are not equipped to perceive, but they still exist. do we need to record and transmit them all?
> UV have nothing to do with our human vision because they're out of what we humans can see. but you can get UV to react with some chemical and send back some light in the visible range. the same way some sound systems will send back IMD from ultrasound in the audible range. both having nothing to do with the real thing.
> our relation with different freqs is different, all sound isn't just sound. ultrasounds can still hurt our ears with high energy while we may not be audibly aware of them, and some ultra low frequencies can shake our body and be felt, but not really heard.
> ...




Thanks, I understand your points now


----------



## SilentFrequency

charleski said:


> There was Oohashi et al., who presented data showing a neurological effect from high-frequency sound. If I remember right, follow-up experiments led him to claim this was a result of ultrasonic activation of sensors in the skin.
> 
> *As far as having a smirk - lots of people use high-frequency emitters to stop teenagers hanging around near their property  *
> 
> [Edit: Found a link for his 2006 follow-up here. Attempts to replicate these results by testing conscious discrimination failed, but Oohashi's results relied on physiological markers rather than subjective discrimination. I don't know if anyone's attempted to measure the same thing yet.]




I hope you don't use high frequencies to repell teenagers! 

And thank you for your provided links


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> In its literature, TAKET that produces Batpure http://www.taket.jp/batpure/batpure.html and Batpro (among others ) supertweeters does mention a simple test with which a person can test him/herself if he/she is likely to benefit from the use of supertweeters : http://www.taket.jp/bpp/bpp_e.html Now, there is inevitable "lost (or distorted ) in the translation" - so please refrain from nitpicking along these lines. Basically, if one feels the difference in the sensation of being exposed to supertweeter which dissapears when one covers his/hers face with hands - he/she will benefit from use of the supertweeter. Obviously, not every person has the same sensitivity to this; TAKET is being fair to mention it.
> http://www.taket.jp/bpp/img/read-more.pdf : it may well be further mentioned in the description of TAKET other products.
> 
> It appears that blind testing as we know it is about to receive another "blind" - covered face or not. It looks like the term golden ears has been misnomer from the moment it has been created - it might turn out it will have to be revisited to "golden ears and golden skin".
> ...




Wow, I googled TAKET and actually found a head-Fi made video exampling exactly what you mention! 

I kind of agree with the videos presenter in regards to the TAKET headphones themselves ie they certainly have an aesthetic look of "mad audio science experiment"!

I would maybe say they look "exotic" but I get the idea that TAKET are maybe attempting to push the envelope of the audio experience through headphones and I was totally intrigued throughout watching this video, I've honestly never seen anything like what was showcased! 


[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/p_QYt7owKNk[/VIDEO]


----------



## analogsurviver

charleski said:


> There is a range of mechanoreceptors in the skin which are sensitive to vibration, you can see some standard measurements here. As far as I know, no-one's tested their output at really high frequencies, though you can consciously sense around 1-2kHz when it's modulated at a lower frequency. There's also evidence that high mechanical frequencies can cause nerve damage, but I'm not sure that sound waves would carry enough power to have deleterious effects.
> 
> And, of course, since this is _head_-fi, you're not going to get these effects when listening on headphones.


 
 First, I would like to thank you for the links. I really do appreciate your posts and broader insight they are bringing to the subject.
  
 I beg to differ, sir.
  
 While it is true than the vast majority of headphones available can not excite (enough of ) our skin, there ARE a handful of what is far more appropriately than headphones ( usually reffered to them in this way due to tradition/convinience/familiarity by the most people/etc ) termed - *EAR SPEAKERS *.
  

 The original _*EAR SPEAKERs - *_Jecklin Float - by now around for 4 decades , recently re-introduced ( diaphragm area approx minimum  8 x 8 cm = 64 cm square )
  

  
 AKG K-1000 ; by now quarter of a century old (discontinued), due to the fact that drivers are in fact world's largest full range _*TWEETERS mounted to 79% acoustically open baffle *_and their consequent  good polar characteristics/wide dispersion, probably capable of  projecting more supersonic energy than highly directional Jecklin Float ; the fly in this ointment is the response limited to approx only 25 kHz. ( and they are worn in this photo chosen for neutrality  - backwards; the nose of the dummy head should be pointing towards the rear wall )
  

  TAKET 
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/566268/taket-bpp-portable-supertweeter-and-h2-headphone-head-fi-tv-episode-010/45
  

  Stax Sigma / Lambda - here on a well known member of (m)any forum(s)  even slightly Stax related - the oval "aperture" IS the diahragm surface and these ESLs are good to approx 40 kHz give or take some according to the exact model; still "enough" skin surface to have the potential of  "sensing" the supersonic response.
  
 The above and recent evidence people can sense above 20 kHz sound trough skin explains why I could never experience anything like the sensation above _EAR SPEAKERS are capable of producing  ( _familiar with all of them except TAKET ) - with IEMs. Simply NO skin on which they could radiate on - if we neglect the negligible surface of the ear canal between IEM tip and eardrum. The fact that I own K-1000 and Stax Lambda Pro and that my own designed ESL _Ear Speakers _are de facto everything Jecklin Float should be and could be (if they could be powered legally to that quality ) and that I prefer these transducers to the rest, particularly with binaural recordings, must bear some weight - even if dismissed as  anecdotal evidence until backed by who knows how many measurements and graphs etc.
  
 Is there any standard for measuring human skin sensitivity for >20 kHz sound ?
  
 P.S: Google search pictures is your friend :
  

  Sennheiser Surrounder - NEVER even heard about it !


----------



## castleofargh

steve eddy said:


> "I followed another of Belt’s suggestions, with information gleaned from an article entitled "What a Mess!!! An alternative view of reality" on the Belt Electronics web page. In the article, Belt asserts that photographing a person affects them adversely, and that if you place a photograph of yourself as an infant or small child along with a current photograph of yourself in a plastic bag in the freezer, you will improve your listening experience."
> 
> "I have my photos in the freezer, and it has not only improved my enjoyment of music at home, but at fellow audiophiles homes nearby, and as far away as Las Vegas during this year’s CES."
> 
> ...


 

 are there any modern "dorian gray" applications in freezing my pictures? maybe it works only if you take a clear picture of your ears?


----------



## charleski

silentfrequency said:


> I hope you don't use high frequencies to repell teenagers!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Some high-frequency emitters are specifically advertised as teenager-repellants, of course, these might not work on teens wearing IEMs 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## charleski

analogsurviver said:


> First, I would like to thank you for the links. I really do appreciate your posts and broader insight they are bringing to the subject.
> 
> I beg to differ, sir.
> 
> While it is true than the vast majority of headphones available can not excite (enough of ) our skin, there ARE a handful of what is far more appropriately than headphones ( usually reffered to them in this way due to tradition/convinience/familiarity by the most people/etc ) termed - *EAR SPEAKERS *.


 
 Hmm, well those are ... big - LOL.
  
 All we know is that Oohashi found the effect was blocked when users listened on in-ear monitors, or when they wore full-face helmets and jackets (see the 2006 paper I linked earlier). There's no data to establish how much of the skin needs to be exposed (and indeed, there is at least one suggestion that the effect may be modulated by the eyes). High-frequency sound does seem to produce a local physiological effect on skin cells, though it's unknown as to whether this is related to Oohashi's Hypersonic Effect.
  
 On poking around a bit more, it seems that Oohashi's results have recently been replicated independently, which certainly puts them on a surer footing. (Unfortunately all these papers are paywalled, but you can see the abstratcts.)
  
 Oohashi himself is an interesting (and slightly bizarre) fellow, he composed the soundtrack to _Akira_ and has been involved in a musical collective as well as holding a couple of professorships. You can read an interview from 2012 here.


----------



## RRod

charleski said:


> Hmm, well those are ... big - LOL.
> 
> All we know is that Oohashi found the effect was blocked when users listened on in-ear monitors, or when they wore full-face helmets and jackets (see the 2006 paper I linked earlier). There's no data to establish how much of the skin needs to be exposed (and indeed, there is at least one suggestion that the effect may be modulated by the eyes). High-frequency sound does seem to produce a local physiological effect on skin cells, though it's unknown as to whether this is related to Oohashi's Hypersonic Effect.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Surer footing if you mean the difference can't be audibly detected, it seems. Why use Bach's 5th French Suite for this, though? I guess whatever DSD/hi-res PCM they had around.


----------



## analogsurviver

charleski said:


> Hmm, well those are ... big - LOL.
> 
> All we know is that Oohashi found the effect was blocked when users listened on in-ear monitors, or when they wore full-face helmets and jackets (see the 2006 paper I linked earlier). There's no data to establish how much of the skin needs to be exposed (and indeed, there is at least one suggestion that the effect may be modulated by the eyes). High-frequency sound does seem to produce a local physiological effect on skin cells, though it's unknown as to whether this is related to Oohashi's Hypersonic Effect.
> 
> ...


 
 Hmm, if those are big to you, I *guess* you would have no trouble at all in naming my own earspeakers - resulting in their rightful name in your first attempt
  
_*Elephant Ears *_.
  
No kidding.
  
Here the updated recently re-introduced Float; on the head of none other but the Mr. Jecklin himself :
  

 *Summer* version
  

 *Winter* version
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/607422/new-jecklin-float-qa
  
 Thank you for the links, much appreciated 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  
 PS: WOW - just read that at least 150 seconds of exposure to sound >20 kHz is required for the subjects to be able to tell the difference - something I have been parrotting time and again, saying that ABX of couple of seconds just does not cut it for me and longer listening is required:
  




 Abstract  


  High-quality digital sound sources with inaudible high-frequency components (above 20 kHz) have become available because of recent advances in information technology. Listening to such sounds has been shown to increase the α-band power of an electroencephalogram (EEG). The present study scrutinized the time course of this effect by recording EEG along with autonomic measures (skin conductance level and heart rate) and facial electromyograms (corrugator supercilii and zygomaticus major). Twenty university students (19–24 years old) listened to two types of a 200-s musical excerpt (J. S. Bach’s French Suite No. 5) with or without inaudible high-frequency components using a double-blind method. They were asked to rate the sound quality and to judge which excerpt contained high-frequency components. High-α EEG power (10.5–13 Hz) was larger for the excerpt with high-frequency components than for the excerpt without them. This effect was statistically significant only in the last quarter of the period (150–200 s). Participants were not able to distinguish between the excerpts, which did not produce any discernible differences in subjective, autonomic, and facial muscle measures. This study shows that inaudible high-frequency components have an impact on human brain activity without conscious awareness. Unlike a standard test for sound quality, at least 150 s of exposure is required to examine this effect in future research.




 © 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> PS: WOW - just read that at least 150 seconds of exposure to sound >20 kHz is required for the subjects to be able to tell the difference - something I have been parrotting time and again, saying that ABX of couple of seconds just does not cut it for me and longer listening is required:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Actually it says, right in the text:
 "Participants were not able to distinguish between the excerpts, which did not produce any discernible differences in subjective, autonomic, and facial muscle measures. This study shows that inaudible high-frequency components have an impact on human brain activity without conscious awareness."
  
 So they can't tell a difference, not even after 150s.


----------



## charleski

rrod said:


> Surer footing if you mean the difference can't be audibly detected, it seems. Why use Bach's 5th French Suite for this, though? I guess whatever DSD/hi-res PCM they had around.


 
 This is a physiological effect that's independent of any conscious detection. This doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't affect perception, there are numerous examples of stimuli that fail to produce a conscious response, but influence the perception of adjacent cues. See, for instance, Kouider and Dehaene 2007. Oohashi tried to make an association with listerners' 'enjoyment' of the music, which was rocky ground and certainly debatable, though he did show some effect on comfotable listening levels. But attempts to dismiss his findings on the basis of a lack of conscious discrimination merely display a failure to grasp the current state of perceptual physiology.


----------



## RRod

charleski said:


> This is a physiological effect that's independent of any conscious detection. This doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't affect perception, there are numerous examples of stimuli that fail to produce a conscious response, but influence the perception of adjacent cues. See, for instance, Kouider and Dehaene 2007. Oohashi tried to make an association with listerners' 'enjoyment' of the music, which was rocky ground and certainly debatable, though he did show some effect on comfotable listening levels. But attempts to dismiss his findings on the basis of a lack of conscious discrimination merely display a failure to grasp the current state of perceptual physiology.


 
  
 I'm not dismissing his findings, I'm dismissing statements like "WOW - just read that at least 150 seconds of exposure to sound >20 kHz is required for the subjects to be able to tell the difference." But thanks for pointing out my failure to grasp things.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> Actually it says, right in the text:
> "Participants were not able to distinguish between the excerpts, which did not produce any discernible differences in subjective, autonomic, and facial muscle measures. This study shows that inaudible high-frequency components have an impact on human brain activity without conscious awareness."
> 
> So they can't tell a difference, not even after 150s.


 
 Well, one can take anything out of context - can't one - myself included. The quoted _*whole *_excerpt can be interpreted either way - if one takes out only what suits him/her. Tennis ball returned :
  
 High-α EEG power (10.5–13 Hz) was larger for the excerpt with high-frequency components than for the excerpt without them. This effect was statistically significant only in the last quarter of the period (150–200 s). 
  
 And the paper does say that the whole thing works on subconscious level : 
  
 This study shows that inaudible high-frequency components have an impact on human brain activity without conscious awareness.
  
 However, It is not my experience that ABX is that accurate or that it can be used as the final arbiter as some are convinced of. Personally, I find it extremely stressful - not something I seek in regular listening to music, be it live or recorded. After all, any reasonable length of time we dedicate listening to music is > 150 seconds - at least I hope so. Music speaks to us on more levels than reading sheet music or looking at the digital recording on the computer screen interpreted by presently available software or listening to recordings limited by redbook, etc - one day, maybe yes, today still - NOT. We should find the missing pieces of this particular puzzle called sound reproduction - not defend status quo to the last . One thing we DO know for sure is that redbook filters anything above 22050 Hz - and that this filtering is NOT present in nature. 
  
 I try to be objective and learn "from the other camp" as much as I possibly can; there are people more than willing to tar and feather the "perfect sound forever/ABX crowd"... - or at very best pay absolutely no attention to it whatsoever.
  
 Clear enough ?


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> Well, one can take anything out of context - can't one - myself included. The quoted _*whole *_excerpt can be interpreted either way - if one takes out only what suits him/her. Tennis ball returned :
> 
> High-α EEG power (10.5–13 Hz) was larger for the excerpt with high-frequency components than for the excerpt without them. This effect was statistically significant only in the last quarter of the period (150–200 s).
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yes, it's clear that people hang on to any shred of hope for their positions (goes for both sides). The filtering above 22050Hz IS present in nature, at least to our ears. It's exactly why we can't audibly discern tones above that: we have a built in limit to our hearing mechanism. Now it's perfectly fine for someone to posit non-aural feelings as possibly enhancing our experience of music. But EEG readings are the kind of thing that suggest an effect, rather than elucidate it. I'm sure there are plenty of things about which I am unconscious that set my brain going. Do they effect my experience?
  
 How about this test: take 16/44.1 content, and add to it hi-frequency content at a level present in these tests but that is uncorrelated with the music. What would you say if that set off the EEG?
  
 p.s. some more discussion on the topic here:
 http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=106744
 You sure get around don't you, castleofargh?


----------



## Roly1650

rrod said:


> Actually it says, right in the text:
> "Participants were not able to distinguish between the excerpts, which did not produce any discernible differences in subjective, autonomic, and facial muscle measures. This study shows that inaudible high-frequency components have an impact on human brain activity without conscious awareness."
> 
> So they can't tell a difference, not even after 150s.



This subject was discussed some months ago on a thread, which I can't now find. It may have been the detail of this study or one similar, which showed that the effect of supersonic frequencies on brain activity was band specific. The testers were correlating the differences in frequency band of brain activity which enhanced the human perception of "good" feelings and "bad" feelings/mood and they identified 3 specific frequency bands. Iirc the lower supersonic frequencies actually depressed human mood, the middle frequencies were marginally depressive/neutral and the super high frequencies enhanced human mood. I forget the specific frequencies, but I do recall the top of the super high frequencies was 100kHz. and that the complete range was 22 kHz - 100kHz. The study *specifically ruled out headphones, no matter how much of a **** they made you look, it had to be whole body immersion.
So there goes another theory for those just itching to claim golden ear status, headphones don't cut it and if you want to become really depressed listening to music, choose a hi rez format. :biggrin:*


----------



## bfreedma

roly1650 said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it says, right in the text:
> ...


*


Oh well. I was really hoping I might have Golden Ear Lobes.. *


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> Surer footing if you mean the difference can't be audibly detected, it seems. Why use Bach's 5th French Suite for this, though? I guess whatever DSD/hi-res PCM they had around.


 
 Bach French Suite(s) = harpsichord = content >20 kHz. Just because recording uses DSD/HiRez PCM it does not necessary contain > 20 kHz - it can and should not add anything that was not present in live sound in the first place.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> Yes, it's clear that people hang on to any shred of hope for their positions (goes for both sides). The filtering above 22050Hz IS present in nature, at least to our ears. It's exactly why we can't audibly discern tones above that: we have a built in limit to our hearing mechanism. Now it's perfectly fine for someone to posit non-aural feelings as possibly enhancing our experience of music. But EEG readings are the kind of thing that suggest an effect, rather than elucidate it. I'm sure there are plenty of things about which I am unconscious that set my brain going. Do they effect my experience?
> 
> How about this test: take 16/44.1 content, and add to it hi-frequency content at a level present in these tests but that is uncorrelated with the music. What would you say if that set off the EEG?


 
 Well, I am *a priori *against removing or adding hi-frequency content that is not correlated to the original - there was such a case about a year ago by a member banned since from head-fi; whether or not he is "sailing again under another flag" here is something I did not investigate further. I would never do such a thing; recorded so and so vs recorded that and that, if needed as sample A and Sample B for ABXing - but never removing original content to be replaced by something else. Or adding hi-frequency content to something that did not have any in the first place - EXCEPT perhaps by "upsampling" such a recording using software that can accurately predict what was missing in say redbook recording - but then CLEARLY stating what has been done.
  
 My goal is to make recording as close to the original as possible - for our natural filtering to be done by itself, not "doubling" it by the recording limited according to current knowledge. When we listen to music live, there is no one filtering the content above 20 kHz - except air itself, by which we CAN locate in the depth of sonic image. Adding ANY additional artificial filtering, but particularly one so close to the officially audible range, is bound to result in deterioration of our ability to perceive depth of image - and a person dressed for the concert in any given culture/society at the very least has the portion of skin around the eyes exposed - which could/should be enough to be able to take advantage of >20 kHz content that is, regardless how small in amplitude and "insignificant", present in live music.
  
 This dependance on skin to detect >20 kHz sound does worry me more than just a bit; "headphones" that clearly allow for this are rare, expensive and by default do not seal off the sound of enviroment AND they are anything but portable - and IEMs outnumber them by a factor I would rather not be aware of - meaning that >20 kHz for IEM  ( the vast of all majority of headphone listening ) is not beneficial - and SINCE IEM DOES represent the lion's share in the market, support for > 20 kHz in the mainstream will be far less provided than if >20 kHz was perceptible with IEM.


----------



## castleofargh

charleski said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > Surer footing if you mean the difference can't be audibly detected, it seems. Why use Bach's 5th French Suite for this, though? I guess whatever DSD/hi-res PCM they had around.
> ...


 

 isn't that just beating around the bush? there are loads of information our brain receives at every instant that aren't used for anything. even just for music, there is no way our brain could really deal with everything at all time for the length of a song. we end up focusing mostly on one instrument, or on the soundstage, or on the lyrics... but we never grasp it all in one go. excess data is discarded all the time. and when all senses are involved and linked as it has been shown they are, it's even worst. my feet are cold, there is a small air flow around my head from the open window, my eyes are looking at something, my heart is beating at a certain rhythm, there is a smell of leather from the couch, I'm thinking about the chicken I ate last night...
 at any given moment we indeed get all that information and our body may or may not react to some, we may or may not remember them, and most likely we won't even be aware of it at all because we focus on what we want or need to, and then our brain focuses again on what it deems important. it's a very cool process to avoid going banana from all the stuff we perceive.
  
 so are we supposed to start taking all those stuff into account because they may or may not have an unconscious impact on our listening experience? I bet you that the color of the room where you're listening to music has more impact, conscious or not than the small quantity of ultrasounds in a record. that is almost always like 20 or 30db lower than the midrange, will get attenuated even more from the speaker roll off, then attenuated again by the air between you and the speakers. this is all way past wishful thinking in my opinion.
  
  I could just start my own audio cult and say that ultrasounds have a bad effect on me at a subconscious level. so I think we should ban ultrasound from audio. is my idea less legit than expecting ultrasound to be a positive experience? maybe ultrasounds remind me about when I was in my mother's womb and some stranger tried to look if I had a penis? that was a bad time for me, I had no money and got grounded for 9months. talk about some bad subconscious stimuli.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> Bach French Suite(s) = harpsichord = content >20 kHz. Just because recording uses DSD/HiRez PCM it does not necessary contain > 20 kHz - it can and should not add anything that was not present in live sound in the first place.


 
  
 I know many instruments create > 20kHz, it was just not what I would think to be a first choice, given that many people have never listened to much Bach, let alone the French Suites, let alone with harpsichord.


----------



## analogsurviver

roly1650 said:


> This subject was discussed some months ago on a thread, which I can't now find. It may have been the detail of this study or one similar, which showed that the effect of supersonic frequencies on brain activity was band specific. The testers were correlating the differences in frequency band of brain activity which enhanced the human perception of "good" feelings and "bad" feelings/mood and they identified 3 specific frequency bands. Iirc the lower supersonic frequencies actually depressed human mood, the middle frequencies were marginally depressive/neutral and the super high frequencies enhanced human mood. I forget the specific frequencies, but I do recall the top of the super high frequencies was 100kHz. and that the complete range was 22 kHz - 100kHz. The study *specifically ruled out headphones, no matter how much of a **** they made you look, it had to be whole body immersion.
> So there goes another theory for those just itching to claim golden ear status, headphones don't cut it and if you want to become really depressed listening to music, choose a hi rez format.
> 
> 
> ...


 
 NOT what I was hoping to see/hear - I would appreciate any links to the thread in question.
  
 And, no way, listening to > 20 kHz recordings did never make me depressed - or otherwise I would have gotten rid of my vinyl records on "headphones" decades ago 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  
 Which is to say that I did know why I always insist on speakers that have reasonably extended high end :
  
 http://audio-heritage.jp/TECHNICS/speaker/sb-rx50.html
  
 and why I am eyeing the best ribbon tweeters ever : 
  
 http://www.raalribbon.com/


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> I know many instruments create > 20kHz, it was just not what I would think to be a first choice, given that many people have never listened to much Bach, let alone the French Suites, let alone with harpsichord.


 
 Well, I can hardly think of any other instrument that clearly and consistently produces > 20 kHz and is used in acoustic music on regular basis, therefore known to at least classical music listeners - the other being cymbals of one sort or another, but it is hard to find a musical piece dedicated exclusively to cymbals that lasts for at least 200 seconds. Of course there are stringed instruments - but overtones with these take even more "prior knowledge" to discern >20 kHz content with than with harpsichord.
  
 I guess it could also involve the use of synthesizers - but these are usually used to impress in the bass - by going waaaaay lower and waaaay louder than anything acoustical ( if you do not count rockets lifting off starting ramp ) can manage. Really possible to reproduce only by the likes od Audez'e - there IS a reason why they specify 130+ dB SPL capability for these orthodynamic headphones. The recent(ish) exposure to this was during the concert of _Oregon _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_%28band%29_ - _they sure know how to make power plant(s) looking forward to musicians 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - would really like to know how much power is required to generate soo high SPLs in sooo low bass frequencies ...


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I can hardly think of any other instrument that clearly and consistently produces > 20 kHz and is used in acoustic music on regular basis, therefore known to at least classical music listeners - the other being cymbals of one sort or another, but it is hard to find a musical piece dedicated exclusively to cymbals that lasts for at least 200 seconds. Of course there are stringed instruments - but overtones with these take even more "prior knowledge" to discern >20 kHz content with than with harpsichord.
> 
> I guess it could also involve the use of synthesizers - but these are usually used to impress in the bass - by going waaaaay lower and waaaay louder than anything acoustical ( if you do not count rockets lifting off starting ramp ) can manage. Really possible to reproduce only by the likes od Audez'e - there IS a reason why they specify 130+ dB SPL capability for these orthodynamic headphones. The recent(ish) exposure to this was during the concert of _Oregon _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_%28band%29_ - _they sure know how to make power plant(s) looking forward to musicians
> 
> ...


 
  
 I would hope that someone who wants >20kHz in their music could think of many instruments that clearly produce such frequencies on a regular basis, especially when such frequencies are being presented as the savior from Redbook Hell. Also, you have already said that people cannot discern the overtones >20kHz, as discerning would mean being able to pick them out of the crowd, which is not quite what this skin-sensitivity stuff seems to be about.
  
 But fair enough that people can stand Bach for enough time. I'm sure pieces by Varese and Xenakis could be conjured up that have plenty of >20kHz material, but if they exist in > Redbook I cannot say, and few would want to sit through them for 200s.


----------



## limpidglitch

roly1650 said:


> This subject was discussed some months ago on a thread, which I can't now find. It may have been the detail of this study or one similar, which showed that the effect of supersonic frequencies on brain activity was band specific. The testers were correlating the differences in frequency band of brain activity which enhanced the human perception of "good" feelings and "bad" feelings/mood and they identified 3 specific frequency bands. Iirc the lower supersonic frequencies actually depressed human mood, the middle frequencies were marginally depressive/neutral and the super high frequencies enhanced human mood. I forget the specific frequencies, but I do recall the top of the super high frequencies was 100kHz. and that the complete range was 22 kHz - 100kHz. The study *specifically ruled out headphones, no matter how much of a **** they made you look, it had to be whole body immersion.
> So there goes another theory for those just itching to claim golden ear status, headphones don't cut it and if you want to become really depressed listening to music, choose a hi rez format.
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I posted something like that a few months back.


----------



## bigshot

I remember another study at the AES that concluded that although some people perceive ultra high frequencies as sound pressure, no one indicated that the presence of those frequencies added anything to the sound quality of music.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> I would hope that someone who wants >20kHz in their music could think of many instruments that clearly produce such frequencies on a regular basis, especially when such frequencies are being presented as the savior from Redbook Hell. Also, you have already said that people cannot discern the overtones >20kHz, as discerning would mean being able to pick them out of the crowd, which is not quite what this skin-sensitivity stuff seems to be about.
> 
> But fair enough that people can stand Bach for enough time. I'm sure pieces by Varese and Xenakis could be conjured up that have plenty of >20kHz material, but if they exist in > Redbook I cannot say, and few would want to sit through them for 200s.


 
 Correction - I _NEVER _ said that people can not discern overtones >  20 kHz, only that "people as untrained as a bunch of students" (provided they do not study music )
 would find that harder than with harpsichord. In this context, harpsichord WAS/IS the best choice.
  
 As for Xenakis or particularly _*Varese in > Redbook *_- sorry, but you have just stepped on the most nasty "mine" in the world imaginable - me. I have about four concerts worth of _Slowind Festival 2009 _http://www.slowind.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:festival-slowind-2009&catid=50:arhiv-festivalov&Itemid=118&lang=en
 that was dedicated to Varese and  recorded in DSD64 ( less than 1 week after I got my first Korg MR-1 recorder - sorry, DSD128 capability was added later on with MR-1000 )   - and as we speak, necessary arrangements regarding copyrights and performing rights etc are being negotiated in hope these recordings will finally see the light of day - as some of the performances are at least equal of anything available, with few going way above that level - both in music making and sound quality .
  
 I also was still recording directly to CD-R - and thus have both binaural and recordings meant to be listened over loudspeakers. I assigned the DSD to that mike feed that sounded to me will benefit more - as I had only one DSD recorder available at the time. But practical decision was to record entire (part of ) the concert with the same setup(s).
  
 Regarding those who would want to seat trough them for >>>>>> 200 seconds ;
 according to the  participants of the festival, there are more of those in Ljubljana ( population 400.000 ), the capital of Slovenia (population 2 M give or take few souls )
 - than in New York.
  
 Go figure...


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> Correction - I _NEVER _ said that people can not discern overtones >  20 kHz, only that "people as untrained as a bunch of students" (provided they do not study music )
> would find that harder than with harpsichord. In this context, harpsichord WAS/IS the best choice.
> 
> As for Xenakis or particularly _*Varese in > Redbook *_- sorry, but you have just stepped on the most nasty "mine" in the world imaginable - me. I have about four concerts worth of _Slowind Festival 2009 _http://www.slowind.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:festival-slowind-2009&catid=50:arhiv-festivalov&Itemid=118&lang=en
> ...


 
  
 There's lots of caveats to everything in here, so I'll just wait for you to finish getting these recordings out, which I do not doubt are of the highest caliber. Were I physically near you, I'd be happy to ABX them properly for any hypersonic effect, as being someone who owns about 10CDs more of varese + xenakis than the average American, I could sit for the requisite time.


----------



## The Walrus

castleofargh said:


> I could just start my own audio cult and say that ultrasounds have a bad effect on me at a subconscious level. so I think we should ban ultrasound from audio. is my idea less legit than expecting ultrasound to be a positive experience? maybe ultrasounds remind me about when I was in my mother's womb and some stranger tried to look if I had a penis? that was a bad time for me, I had no money and got grounded for 9months. talk about some bad subconscious stimuli.


 
  
 LOL ))) Good one.


----------



## Roly1650

limpidglitch said:


> I posted something like that a few months back.



Yes, that's the study, thanks. 
My aging brain had forgotten the specifics but I'd remembered the essentials somewhat correctly. I remembered the study had specifically excluded headphones, it had to be whole body immersion, (nude? ) but had forgotten they used so many frequency bands and started at a relatively low frequency of 16 kHz. Anyway, the conclusion was that 16 - 24 and 24 - 32 kHz had a negative effect and frequencies above up to 100 kHz provided a positive effect. The outlier was the positive effect at about 80 kHz, but the weighted result tended to indicate negative outweighed positive.


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> Sennheiser Surrounder - NEVER even heard about it !




This ^

Is a serious fashion offence! 

Seriously, Sennheiser could no have made such a thing :eek:


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> This ^
> 
> Is a serious fashion offence!
> 
> Seriously, Sennheiser could no have made such a thing


 
 Well, after having cut the lacquer disc master for the Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture ( those cannons are legendary system destroyers, particularly notorious for phono cartridges jumping out of the groove altogether ...) using the Neumman cutting lathe/cutterhead system
  

  
 ........ - _*FIRE !!!! .....*_ ......

 ....ALMOST impossible to record and track - but ALWAYS never catched a rabbit 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  
 Stan Ricker reported the fact to the Gotham Audio, representative for the Neumann cutting lathe for US.
  
 Their response: THAT is impossible ! ( or something to that effect )
  
 Stan Ricker: Well.... - I *just did !*
  
 Sennheiser giulty as charged - they did it !
 At the turn of the millenium - there are threads about it here on head-fi. I guess it will be gaining in value over time as there will not be much, if any competition.


----------



## bigshot

I had a Telarc LP of Bizet's Carmen Suite that had a bass drum whallop that was massively distorted. It was cut WAY out of spec, and I doubt that any turntable could track it properly. I didn't hear that recording without distortion until it was released on CD.


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> Well, after having cut the lacquer disc master for the Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture ( those cannons are legendary system destroyers, particularly notorious for phono cartridges jumping out of the groove altogether ...) using the Neumman cutting lathe/cutterhead system
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The white groove in the photo does not look uniform to the other ordinary grooves so I'm guessing that's the part of the cannons in the track you mention?

Why can't vinyl handle that part of the track to produce such distortion?

I'm guessing this maybe an example of the downsides of vinyl in extreme instances?

As for Sennheisers neck brace contraption, I guess anyone can have a bad day and maybe that was Sennheiser's, but seriously, it just looks so wrong how ever could their designers have ever thought such a thing could ever be right? 

Edit: I guess Sennheiser have redeemed themselves ever since though


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *charleski* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFB5idDF1u5N0wxVGswbnFwTGM/view?usp=sharing
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFB5idDF1u5SXB4TWZwNkJzZms/view?usp=sharing


 
  
 I made some recordings of these, but the files still need to be processed (extracted, time aligned, level matched, etc.) and packaged. The capacitors that were used are cheap 10 uF 50V electrolytic ones of this type, and the load impedance was 680 ohms (in parallel with ~4.3k line input impedance). This did result in a few dB of low frequency roll-off (which can be equalized), and the distortion at 20 Hz is about 0.01%, so slightly higher than in the Xonar D1 measurements, but with more lower order harmonics.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I had a Telarc LP of Bizet's Carmen Suite that had a bass drum whallop that was massively distorted. It was cut WAY out of spec, and I doubt that any turntable could track it properly. I didn't hear that recording without distortion until it was released on CD.


 
 It certainly is possible to overcook the lacquer disc master in the bass - there is no phono cartridge capable of amplitudes cutterhead can without problems put onto a disc. Limit is the thickness of the lacquer, which ultimately limits the vertical movement/amplitude - that is why cutting engineers/companies prescribe the way the master for the LP release has to be prepared; bass reduced in overall level, minimum out-of-phase (vertical) information in the bass (effectively mono-ing the bass ) not to exceed the thickness of the lacquer, high frequencies rolled off/compressed/whatever-ed in order to make life easy and safe for the cutterhead, etc. Nasty stuff - but there are people that will go an extra mile in at least reducing the limitations by approaching the outer reaches of the equipment capability.
  
 For the extreme extremes of bass on vynil, there is an undisputed king for almost 4 decades : Dynavector tonearm. Now in its latest guise, the DV 507 MK II : http://www.dynavector.com/products/tonearm/e_507mk2.html
 Although I never saw one - and of course not heard either - it has a clear superiority over pretty much anything else ever commercially available. The original, DV 505, had even slightly more than critically damped horizontal resonance (please see description of DV 507 MK II above for eddy current damping, dynamic damping, etc ) - yielding ULTRA stable performance on even the most difficult bass passages that will unsettle anything else.
 All is required is a cartridge that can track amplitude large as required for any given record. Audio Technicas and Grados ( at least some models ) could/can track amplitudes up to 120 micrometers@300 Hz - and should not have any problems tracking 1812 in Dynavector. The only good review with objective measurements appeared in French audio press in late 70s, being reprinted by Dynavector at about the same time, when DV Karat series of cartridges appeared. There was NO resonance below 20 Hz that could be measured - the response was even falling a little with decreasing frequency - something conventional arms with their +10+dB high Q resonances around 10 Hz can not even dream about. Thus Dynavector can achieve VERY flat response down to extremely low frequencies - depending on cartridge, it can be within +1 - 5 dB from 20 Hz to less than 5 Hz - where variations in  conventional arms using the same cartridge could well be + - 10 and more dB across the 5-20 Hz range which is the most important range for the turntable as far as all the resonance related problems of analog playback are concerned:
 http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=1281
  
 As of Telarc's 1812, there are at least TWO (maybe more ? ) "cuts", as the original one was too tough nut to track with most equipment available at the time and subsequent cut(s) was a bit moderated. I do not know the Carmen, but given the reputation Stan Ricker has I would be inclined that the recording should be playable - with Dynavector arm, at least. But admittedly, these Telarc Bass Concertos ARE the analog's toughest challenge and
  were challenged only by Miller & Kreisel direct to disk recordings of LARGE organ :  http://www.discogs.com/Lloyd-Holzgraf-The-Power-And-The-Glory-Volume-1/release/4537692
 Again, this is something only Dynavector arm will play satisfactorily - without the aids like Shure Dynamic Stabilizer ( "brush"), Stanton/Pickering "brush", Discwasher's Disctracker
 http://www.vinylengine.com/library/discwasher/disctraker.shtml
, Stax CS-2 Stabilyzer - and there was a device similar to Disctracker sold in England by Zerostat. Particularly the last piece, The Bells Of St. Anne de Beaupre by Alexander Russel is a system destroyer hors d'categorie; the fundamental of the organ used extended down to around 6 Hz - and if the tonearm/cartridge exhibit ANY resonance below 20 Hz, this tremolo
 WILL get it; in extreme cases, there will be groove jumping, most "normal" arms WILL exhibit visible oscillations,
  only dynamic damping type arms ( few top Technics, Pioneer, Sony, JVC and Denon models ) will be relatively unscaved - but none can reproduce the extreme bass with the aplomb of the Dynavector arm. Expen$$ive - Ye$;
 worth the money - Ye$, even more $o.
  
 Dear Santa ...
  
 PS: Here is the quandary both myself as well as Telarc found themselves when preparing the transfer of 
 analog disc (me) to CD-R and master digital tape (Telarc) for the CD release of 1812 :
  
 http://hifi-writer.com/wpblog/?p=2504
  
 One HAS to decide - it is either intact cannons - and the rest of the 44.1/16 limited music quiet so down in level to the point of almost afterthought - or clipped cannons but music at least resembling itself. After that, I lost all desire to EVER transfer any vinyl to CD.
  
 Vynil with a good combination of cartridge and tonearm plays just fine.


----------



## cjl

roly1650 said:


> This subject was discussed some months ago on a thread, which I can't now find. It may have been the detail of this study or one similar, which showed that the effect of supersonic frequencies on brain activity was band specific. The testers were correlating the differences in frequency band of brain activity which enhanced the human perception of "good" feelings and "bad" feelings/mood and they identified 3 specific frequency bands. Iirc the lower supersonic frequencies actually depressed human mood, the middle frequencies were marginally depressive/neutral and the super high frequencies enhanced human mood. I forget the specific frequencies, but I do recall the top of the super high frequencies was 100kHz. and that the complete range was 22 kHz - 100kHz. The study *specifically ruled out headphones, no matter how much of a **** they made you look, it had to be whole body immersion.
> So there goes another theory for those just itching to claim golden ear status, headphones don't cut it and if you want to become really depressed listening to music, choose a hi rez format.
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Nitpick here (sorry, I can't help myself...)
  
 Supersonic = faster than the speed of sound
 Hypersonic = much faster than the speed of sound (to the point that thermal effects become significant in the flow)
 Ultrasonic = higher than audible frequencies
  
 Oohashi (or however you spell his name) is also guilty of a misuse of terms in his paper, since he keeps calling it the "hypersonic effect", despite the fact that he is referring to ultrasonic sounds.


----------



## Roly1650

cjl said:


> Nitpick here (sorry, I can't help myself...)
> 
> Supersonic = faster than the speed of sound
> Hypersonic = much faster than the speed of sound (to the point that thermal effects become significant in the flow)
> ...



Nitpick duly noted! Yes your definitions are correct, sometimes sloppy is just that......sloppy. I'm getting to the age where oftentimes my train of thought leaves me at the station.


----------



## cer

analogsurviver said:


> One HAS to decide - it is either intact cannons - and the rest of the 44.1/16 limited music quiet so down in level to the point of almost afterthought - or clipped cannons but music at least resembling itself. After that, I lost all desire to EVER transfer any vinyl to CD.


 
  
 I understand that the cannons were already clipped on the master recording so it's just a case of how to disguise that. You can't really transfer that kind of stuff to vinyl so something definitely has to be done. CD on the other hand can handle it easily. The CD is clipped because the original recording was clipped and transfered to CD unaltered. Which isn't a good thing at all.
 There's nothing on that vinyl that a decent transfer to a CD can't handle. Excess dynamic range is useless and 16 bit PCM has much more than enough for music. More than vinyl of course.


----------



## analogsurviver

cer said:


> I understand that the cannons were already clipped on the master recording so it's just a case of how to disguise that. You can't really transfer that kind of stuff to vinyl so something definitely has to be done. CD on the other hand can handle it easily. The CD is clipped because the original recording was clipped and transfered to CD unaltered. Which isn't a good thing at all.
> There's nothing on that vinyl that a decent transfer to a CD can't handle. Excess dynamic range is useless and 16 bit PCM has much more than enough for music. More than vinyl of course.


 
 I too understand that the master digital tape has to be clipped - but what I wrote unfortunately still holds true. Whatever and however the cannons on the LP record recorded - they ARE playable and if the peak on cannon shots is brought to just below 0 dB on 44.1/16 recorder, gets the music waaaaaaaay below normal levels compared to the similar music without cannons recorded to normal CDs. LPs or even MCs for that matter - and it loses in definition soooo badly that it is unlistenable compared to the "live" vinyl.
  
 I will repeat the exercise to a DSD128 and 192/24 - and see if the CD bounced down from these will be any better. It should. As I got that LP from a friend to transfer to CD some years ago, I will have to ask him to lend it to me again - and this can take quite a while...


----------



## limpidglitch

silentfrequency said:


> Is a serious fashion offence!
> 
> Seriously, Sennheiser could no have made such a thing


 
  
 All those Head-Fi memories…
  
 I remember Duggeh was rather fond of those. This is him:
  

  
 These days he's as elusive as Nessie herself, sadly.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> I too understand that the master digital tape has to be clipped - but what I wrote unfortunately still holds true. Whatever and however the cannons on the LP record recorded - they ARE playable and if the peak on cannon shots is brought to just below 0 dB on 44.1/16 recorder, gets the music waaaaaaaay below normal levels compared to the similar music without cannons recorded to normal CDs. LPs or even MCs for that matter - and it loses in definition soooo badly that it is unlistenable compared to the "live" vinyl.
> 
> I will repeat the exercise to a DSD128 and 192/24 - and see if the CD bounced down from these will be any better. It should. As I got that LP from a friend to transfer to CD some years ago, I will have to ask him to lend it to me again - and this can take quite a while...


 
 If the peak of the cannons is brought to just below 0dB, the main music level is still such that it has plenty of available dynamic range and resolution. CDs are perfectly adequate, unless you're listening to the music so loud that you'll blow your speakers when the cannons hit.


----------



## bigshot

If we're talking about the Mercury with Dorati, the CD sound is extraordinary. Much better than the vinyl pressings.


----------



## liamstrain

cjl said:


> If the peak of the cannons is brought to just below 0dB, the main music level is still such that it has plenty of available dynamic range and resolution.


 
  
 I expect some of that is depending on the recording levels and mic placement. No?


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> The white groove in the photo does not look uniform to the other ordinary grooves so I'm guessing that's the part of the cannons in the track you mention?
> 
> Why can't vinyl handle that part of the track to produce such distortion?
> 
> ...


 
 Somehow, the _*second *_photo of the Telarc cannons on vinyl has failed to show up - now please see the original post edited.
  
 According to all specs of the recording equipment, 1812 at these levels should have been Mission Impossible - but that was not the case. Be it as it may, these grooves are non plus ultra in analog record mastering in BASS. At the other end of the spectrum, in extreme treble, it was Stan Ricker again who recorded - by fluke/mistake/unintentionally - bias frequency from the analog reel to reel recorder; > 100 kHz with mechanical means !!!! using one of the latest incarnations of cutting lathe/cutting head/electronics . Allegedly, that master with >100 kHz on it reflects light in totally different manner than even quadrophonic discs with 50 kHz carrier signal - let alone normal stereo records that are all we are used to see.
  
 I guess that form follow function - and see no harm done in Sennheiser's attempt to pursue their dream - which does look "slightly unconventional" for anything remotely resembling headphones. And your guess has been fullfiled by the now many times over - it was an oddity I discovered only today.


----------



## analogsurviver

liamstrain said:


> I expect some of that is depending on the recording levels and mic placement. No?


 
 Not in this case - this recording is as it is and re-recording it to other medium means simply trying to preserve as much of the original as possible. The difference to any normal symphonic orchestra music is the fact that the cannon shots are a considerable difference in volume/loudness above that of music - much like the real thing.
  
 Do I understand correctly that below is A NEW TELARC RECORDING of 1812 - or is it 1978 master > etc ?
  
*CAUTION for those not already familiar with this recording - please first establish maximum safe playing level - cannon shots begin at approx 12:30 - SERIOUS EQUIPMENT - or even HEARING - DAMAGE MAY RESULT IF YOU FAIL TO FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS*


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> If we're talking about the Mercury with Dorati, the CD sound is extraordinary. Much better than the vinyl pressings.


 
 Mercury with Dorati vinyl is nowhere near being equivalent even to the kitty meow compared to a lion pack roar of the Telarc with Fennel recording - regardless on which sound carrier it is.
  
 So, I believe that CD is better. But considering the level of underachievement with this particular LP, it should not be hard at all to improve with CD.


----------



## bigshot

Have you heard the Dorati lately? It has low frequency information that makes my house shake and causes the dogs to hide under the sofa.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> Have you heard the Dorati lately? It has low frequency information that makes my house shake and causes the dogs to hide under the sofa.


 
  
 That's b/c your dogs are named Mercury and Naxos.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Have you heard the Dorati lately? It has low frequency information that makes my house shake and causes the dogs to hide under the sofa.


 
 No, I am refering to my ancient vinyl copy. Frankly, having heard Telarc decade(s) before, I was really wondering what all the fuss was about Mercury/Dorati recording.
  
 Still, it should be no match for Telarc in sheer sonics department - bass and loud is not something even I could complain about in CD ( strictly speaking, it was a Soundstream http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundstream
 recorder used, which has a bit better sampling frequency, 50 kHz, comparable to later DAT. )
  
 Try what Telarc recording can do - and where the dogs will seek refuge.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

liamstrain said:


> Not at the levels we usually encounter anyway. At (much) higher levels, sound waves can melt concrete.


 

 And there are some speakers made of concrete.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

bigshot said:


> Skin receptors are sensitive to bass, not treble.


 

 All about de bass, no treble.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

analogsurviver said:


> Not in this case - this recording is as it is and re-recording it to other medium means simply trying to preserve as much of the original as possible. The difference to any normal symphonic orchestra music is the fact that the cannon shots are a considerable difference in volume/loudness above that of music - much like the real thing.
> 
> Do I understand correctly that below is A NEW TELARC RECORDING of 1812 - or is it 1978 master > etc ?
> 
> *CAUTION for those not already familiar with this recording - please first establish maximum safe playing level - cannon shots begin at approx 12:30 - SERIOUS EQUIPMENT - or even HEARING - DAMAGE MAY RESULT IF YOU FAIL TO FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS*





 We have cannon shots at local parade and man, they're loud. Yes, they set off many car alarms hundreds of feet away.
  
 I heard pseudo-cannons at one "1812 Overture" concert. Not the same. But, still more so than percussion.


----------



## analogsurviver

birdmanofct said:


> We have cannon shots at local parade and man, they're loud. Yes, they set off many car alarms hundreds of feet away.
> 
> I heard pseudo-cannons at one "1812 Overture" concert. Not the same. But, still more so than percussion.


 
 We had a real concert of the symphonic orchestra ( outside the building of Slovenian Philharmonics in the middle/front ) and real cannons on top of the Ljubljana Castle hill a couple of years ago:
  

  

  
  
 and NO WAY you can/are allowed to make so much noise in urban enviroment as the historic guns Telarc used; still, it was a memorable experience, despite the acoustics of the square in front of the SF building not being exactly stellar - and the same could be said about the speakers ( open air concerts of acoustics music in any venue lesser than say Greek theatre is not possible without amplification ).


----------



## bigshot

Go get the Mercury. It's one of my reference disks. It has tracks of just the bells and the cannon isolated so you can pop your speakers without Tchaikovsky too. The best thing is that it is a first class conductor AND a first class orchestra AND a first class mix. Telarc's only claim to fame is that the cannon is recorded at a gross volume compared to the orchestra, so it tricks you into playing it too loud. The Dorati (both of them) hits every mark perfectly.


----------



## cer

analogsurviver said:


> Not in this case - this recording is as it is and re-recording it to other medium means simply trying to preserve as much of the original as possible. The difference to any normal symphonic orchestra music is the fact that the cannon shots are a considerable difference in volume/loudness above that of music - much like the real thing.
> 
> Do I understand correctly that below is A NEW TELARC RECORDING of 1812 - or is it 1978 master > etc ?


 
 I gather from the description that it is supposed to be a new recording. The cannons are still heavily clipped and at least to me they sound wrong and should be recorded at a lower level. As you probably can't cut clipping like that directly to vinyl i'm pretty sure it would sound slightly better and less loud on a vinyl.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Go get the Mercury. It's one of my reference disks. It has tracks of just the bells and the cannon isolated so you can pop your speakers without Tchaikovsky too. The best thing is that it is a first class conductor AND a first class orchestra AND a first class mix. Telarc's only claim to fame is that the cannon is recorded at a gross volume compared to the orchestra, so it tricks you into playing it too loud. The Dorati (both of them) hits every mark perfectly.


 
 I agree Dorati is a first class conductor ( I like his Copland on Decca ), that the orchestra is first class, BUT the vinyl in my possession
 http://www.discogs.com/Tchaikovsky-Beethoven-Minneapolis-Symphony-Orchestra-London-Symphony-Orchestra-Antal-Dorati-Overture/release/2273494
 does everything NOT to inspire confidence...
  
 Wait - is there another Dorati on Mercury ?
  
 On musical level, I like Karajan/Don Kosak choir
  http://www.discogs.com/Peter-Tchaikovsky-Don-Cossack-Choir-Serge-Jaroff-Berlin-Philharmonic-Orchestra-Herbert-von-Karajan-O/master/107645
 - but I have heard it in anything like recent memory on CD only. Recording itself is nothing to write home about - but I like the choir.
  
 As for "just the (church) bells" - we DO have in our country the tradition of _pritrkavanje _http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pritrkovanje ( use online translators ) - and I have had enough of it to last a lifetime already :
  

  
 There is even a LP with sound samples from around the country from approx > 25 years ago ( still in Yugoslavia ) :
  
  
  

  
 And although binaural recorded to DSD sounds thrillingly terrific, I decided there _IS_ such a thing as - too much realism.
  
 Still, there are "musicians" with quite interesting and innovative approach to it, so I _might _reconsider ...


----------



## bigshot

There are two Doratis... mono and stereo. Both excellent. The CD has spectacularly realistic sound. Vinyl can never cope with something like this. Mercury recorded pretty much direct to tape with no compression or limiting, so the dynamics exceed what vinyl is capable of.


----------



## charleski

castleofargh said:


> isn't that just beating around the bush?


 
 Decidedly not. He demonstrated a neurophysiological correlate to an auditory + ultrasonic stimulus (FRS). He showed changes in cerebral blood flow in the thalamus, the primary relay point for all sensory inputs that end up in the cortex. This is _very_ strong evidence that there is some alteration in the patterns being presented to higher cortical centers. Go back and take a look at Figure 5b of his original paper. The bars labelled HCS and FRS should be almost identical. They differ with a p value <0.0001. You can't dismiss this by waving your hands.


----------



## bigshot

It doesn't make music sound any better though.


----------



## charleski

roly1650 said:


> Yes, that's the study, thanks.
> My aging brain had forgotten the specifics but I'd remembered the essentials somewhat correctly. I remembered the study had specifically excluded headphones, it had to be whole body immersion, (nude?
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I'd be _very very very_ wary of associating the sign of changes in EEG power with specific emotional states. The important thing is that there's a significant change, but it's very debatable as to what specific alteration of neural function is signified by that change. If you want to learn more about Alpha-EEG (I confess I'm no expert on it), you could take a look at Bazanova 2012 (the Russians have quite a history on EEG research). One thing you won't find is that positive=good, negative=bad, it's a lot more complex than that.


----------



## charleski

stv014 said:


> I made some recordings of these, but the files still need to be processed (extracted, time aligned, level matched, etc.) and packaged. The capacitors that were used are cheap 10 uF 50V electrolytic ones of this type, and the load impedance was 680 ohms (in parallel with ~4.3k line input impedance). This did result in a few dB of low frequency roll-off (which can be equalized), and the distortion at 20 Hz is about 0.01%, so slightly higher than in the Xonar D1 measurements, but with more lower order harmonics.


 

 No problem. Doing things properly takes time.


----------



## charleski

bigshot said:


> It doesn't make music sound any better though.


 

 I think Philip Glass' _Music in Twelve Parts_ is one of the crowning achievements of 20th century music. Plenty of my friends think a couple of minutes of it is enough to drive them insane. The notion of 'better' will vary massively between individuals and even across different tests from the same individual.
  
 'Different' is something we can measure. 'Better' is a matter where science can't offer an opinion.


----------



## liamstrain

charleski said:


> 'Different' is something we can measure. 'Better' is a matter where science can't offer an opinion.


 
  
 But wasn't part of the point that, despite the measurement of physiological reaction, people couldn't identify when they did or did not hear/experience it? That would indicate "better" is entirely moot, despite the subjective - they didn't identify the sound at all.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> Not in this case - this recording is as it is and re-recording it to other medium means simply trying to preserve as much of the original as possible. The difference to any normal symphonic orchestra music is the fact that the cannon shots are a considerable difference in volume/loudness above that of music - much like the real thing.
> 
> Do I understand correctly that below is A NEW TELARC RECORDING of 1812 - or is it 1978 master > etc ?
> 
> *CAUTION for those not already familiar with this recording - please first establish maximum safe playing level - cannon shots begin at approx 12:30 - SERIOUS EQUIPMENT - or even HEARING - DAMAGE MAY RESULT IF YOU FAIL TO FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS*




 Wow - once the cannons cut in, that recording is awful. The clipping is appalling.


----------



## bigshot

charleski said:


> 'Different' is something we can measure. 'Better' is a matter where science can't offer an opinion.


 
  
 There was another test of super audible frequencies presented to the AES that directly addressed that. They tested people with tones to see if they could discern super audible frequencies, then they gave those who could detect the frequencies samples of music containing super audible frequencies and ones that didn't, and asked them to pick the one that sounded best. The results were that those frequencies made no impact on the perception of sound quality in music.


----------



## stv014

charleski said:


> No problem. Doing things properly takes time.


 
  
 Some samples are now available for testing: cap_abx.zip (Dropbox). The meaning of the numbers and letters in the file names is as follows:
  
 1: first sample at original level
 2: first sample amplified by 12 dB (by shifting it to the left by 2 bits) as it is very quiet
 3: second sample
  
 o: "original" sample (converted to 96 kHz - where the DAC has lower noise - with resample -f 3 -q 7 -ff 0.48 -r 96000 -g 0.9)
 n: loopback recording from headphone output of Xonar Essence STX (DC coupled) with no capacitors
 c: loopback recording with 10 uF capacitors (see this post for details), equalized with a FIR filter to match the frequency response of the 'n' versions with <0.01 dB accuracy
  
 To reduce the download size, all samples - originally recorded at 96 kHz - have been converted to 48 kHz with "resample -f 3 -r 48000 -q 9 -ff 0.49", as none of the files had any significant content (other than noise) above 22 kHz.
  
 Try to ABX "c" vs. "n" versions, or "c" vs. "o" to test the entire chain minus the frequency response error due to the capacitors. By the way, this could not be accurately equalized with an IIR filter that simulates an "ideal" capacitor, although the difference was not more than 0.1 dB.
  
 Frequency response and distortion graphs for all recorded samples, including the capacitor one without equalization:
    
 There seems to be some problem with the distortion on the right channel (even without any capacitors), although it is not significant enough to be a real issue. In any case, I do not think the distortion added by the capacitors should be audible.


----------



## charleski

liamstrain said:


> But wasn't part of the point that, despite the measurement of physiological reaction, people couldn't identify when they did or did not hear/experience it? That would indicate "better" is entirely moot, despite the subjective - they didn't identify the sound at all.


 
  
 I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I've already covered the fact that perception is subject to masking and priming effects which operate without conscious identification. Oohashi did find a significant increase in comfortable listening levels (set by the subjects) when ultrasonic components were present. I wouldn't like to speculate as to how that corresponds to preference.


bigshot said:


> There was another test of super audible frequencies presented to the AES that directly addressed that. They tested people with tones to see if they could discern super audible frequencies, then they gave those who could detect the frequencies samples of music containing super audible frequencies and ones that didn't, and asked them to pick the one that sounded best. The results were that those frequencies made no impact on the perception of sound quality in music.


 
 Again, tests that attempt to measure preferences are very weak. Let's say you record the results from that and then run the same test with the same people in a month's time. But on the second test you find that many choose a different sample. Is this because they're just picking one at random, or because their preference has altered? On Monday I might decide I want to eat pasta, on Friday I might decide I want to eat chicken, I don't know why, I just do. Does that mean both foods are equally good? On the other hand, I could tell you that spaghetti has a glycaemic load of 142, whereas chicken has a load of less than 15, so actually chicken _is_ better, but that's got nothing to do with my preference (you could argue that preference might be influenced by glycaemic load, but that influence might work either way). You can force the result by taking things to extremes - I'm willing to bet that if you gave 20 people the choice of eating pasta or a pile of stones they'd choose the pasta, but that doesn't really help us understand anything.
  
 Half-thought-out psychological tests like this can't hold a candle to actual measures of neural function.


----------



## cjl

charleski said:


> Again, tests that attempt to measure preferences are very weak. Let's say you record the results from that and then run the same test with the same people in a month's time. But on the second test you find that many choose a different sample. Is this because they're just picking one at random, or because their preference has altered? On Monday I might decide I want to eat pasta, on Friday I might decide I want to eat chicken, I don't know why, I just do. Does that mean both foods are equally good? On the other hand, I could tell you that spaghetti has a glycaemic load of 142, whereas chicken has a load of less than 15, so actually chicken _is_ better, but that's got nothing to do with my preference (you could argue that preference might be influenced by glycaemic load, but that influence might work either way). You can force the result by taking things to extremes - I'm willing to bet that if you gave 20 people the choice of eating pasta or a pile of stones they'd choose the pasta, but that doesn't really help us understand anything.
> 
> Half-thought-out psychological tests like this can't hold a candle to actual measures of neural function.


 
 Agreed. It would, however, be interesting to see if the ultrasonic frequencies do cause differences in perception through a well-controlled ABX test. A test asking listeners to match an unknown sample to one of two known samples would be much stronger than one simply asking for their personal preference, and if it resulted in a null result, that would fairly strongly indicate that the physiological response to the ultrasonic frequencies does not cause a perceptible difference in the experience of listening to the sound.


----------



## sonitus mirus

S


cjl said:


> Agreed. It would, however, be interesting to see if the ultrasonic frequencies do cause differences in perception through a well-controlled ABX test. A test asking listeners to match an unknown sample to one of two known samples would be much stronger than one simply asking for their personal preference, and if it resulted in a null result, that would fairly strongly indicate that the physiological response to the ultrasonic frequencies does not cause a perceptible difference in the experience of listening to the sound.


 
  
 Does it matter if the ultrasonic frequencies are an extension of the sound we are hearing, or can they be completely unrelated?
  
 Since we most likely cannot actually hear this ultrasonic frequencies, being human and all, a test would also need to determine if ultrasonic frequencies completely unrelated to the music could impact in EEG favorably.  If it is not related to what we are hearing and it just makes us feel good, I can get the same results from having a swimsuit model give me a neck rub while I listed to highly compressed and clipped AC/DC CDs.  My brain waves would be feeling a lot of joy, and I could tell the instant the neck rubs stopped.
  
 .


----------



## bigshot

charleski said:


> Again, tests that attempt to measure preferences are very weak. Let's say you record the results from that and then run the same test with the same people in a month's time. But on the second test you find that many choose a different sample. Is this because they're just picking one at random, or because their preference has altered?


 
  
 Because ultrasonic frequencies add nothing to the sound quality of recorded music.


----------



## cjl

sonitus mirus said:


> S
> 
> Does it matter if the ultrasonic frequencies are an extension of the sound we are hearing, or can they be completely unrelated?
> 
> ...


 

 That would be an interesting secondary test. If it became established that we could tell the difference between music with and without ultrasonic content, it could then be tested whether we could tell the difference between ultrasonic content from the recording (and thus, that is correlated to the music) and ultrasonic content that is just added on and is completely uncorrelated to the music.


----------



## RRod

cjl said:


> That would be an interesting secondary test. If it became established that we could tell the difference between music with and without ultrasonic content, it could then be tested whether we could tell the difference between ultrasonic content from the recording (and thus, that is correlated to the music) and ultrasonic content that is just added on and is completely uncorrelated to the music.


 
  
 I suggested this somewhere before, and I agree that it would be a good thing to check for. You could also add increasing levels of high-passed white noise to the musical HF content and see if you still get the same type of EEG readings. If the content of the ultra frequencies doesn't matter, then we can say they don't add anything *musically*, any more than a beer and a foot massage would.


----------



## castleofargh

if I don't know what it does, then I don't want it. I would think that this is the rational way to deal with ultrasounds. I can't understand how someone can push the idea that we should keep ultrasounds on records because we don't know what they do. I doubt the FDA would agree with that plan.


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> Not in this case - this recording is as it is and re-recording it to other medium means simply trying to preserve as much of the original as possible. The difference to any normal symphonic orchestra music is the fact that the cannon shots are a considerable difference in volume/loudness above that of music - much like the real thing.
> 
> Do I understand correctly that below is A NEW TELARC RECORDING of 1812 - or is it 1978 master > etc ?
> 
> [COLOR=FF0000]*CAUTION for those not already familiar with this recording - please first establish maximum safe playing level - cannon shots begin at approx 12:30 - SERIOUS EQUIPMENT - or even HEARING - DAMAGE MAY RESULT IF YOU FAIL TO FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS*[/COLOR]




Well, noting the warning red text I plugged my Sennheiser Momentum headphones into my iPhone 6 + at just below medium volume level with EQ set to "flat" and pressed play.

I found the music to be beautiful and yes, the cannons are quite something and sound off from the front then left, right!

I'm guessing that playback of this piece would sound even better from vinyl, cd or high quality download rather than YouTube? But really enjoyed it nontheless and can only imagine what those cannons would sound like in real life!


----------



## cdsa35000

I was expecting the canons to pop my ears or something, instead a lousy heavy muffled/clipped/compressed youtube clip. Maybe only the cd retained the dynamics.


----------



## analogsurviver

cdsa35000 said:


> I was expecting the canons to pop my ears or something, instead a lousy heavy muffled/clipped/compressed youtube clip. Maybe only the cd retained the dynamics.


 
 I will really have to redo the vynil rip - this time to DSD and 192/24. I do not remember LP to be that bad - YT is not that bad in my opinion, but am of course fully aware of its limitations in sound. 
  
 Does anybody know to which maximum resolution it is possible to upload sound to YT at present - with 2180p 4K ?
 Like in this interesting video:


----------



## SilentFrequency

cdsa35000 said:


> I was expecting the canons to pop my ears or something, instead a lousy heavy muffled/clipped/compressed youtube clip. Maybe only the cd retained the dynamics.




Does "clipped" mean distortion?


----------



## cjl

silentfrequency said:


> Does "clipped" mean distortion?


 
 Clipped is a type of distortion, yes, and it's a particularly bad/obnoxious one.


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> I will really have to redo the vynil rip - this time to DSD and 192/24. I do not remember LP to be that bad - YT is not that bad in my opinion, but am of course fully aware of its limitations in sound.
> 
> Does anybody know to which maximum resolution it is possible to upload sound to YT at present - with 2180p 4K ?
> Like in this interesting video:




This video is available to watch in 4k and according to its uploader, "if you are having trouble with 4k playback, try using different browsers like Internet Explorer, Firefox or Google Chrome."



[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/e-GYrbecb88[/VIDEO]



I've watched 4k on TV's in stores and they are so amazing, even crystal clear close up to the screen, but does the audio go up 4x the quality of the picture resolution from standard HD 1080p, if that's even possible?



cjl said:


> Clipped is a type of distortion, yes, and it's a particularly bad/obnoxious one.




Thanks!


----------



## Steve Eddy

silentfrequency said:


> Does "clipped" mean distortion?




Yes. It occurs when the signal swing is higher than the device can manage. Since it can't go any higher, it only goes to its maximum level, so the tops of the waveform gets flattened, or clipped. This produces high order harmonics, which is distortion.

se


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> Does "clipped" mean distortion?


 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipping_%28audio%29


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> This video is available to watch in 4k and according to its uploader, "if you are having trouble with 4k playback, try using different browsers like Internet Explorer, Firefox or Google Chrome."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Regarding sound quality on YT was meant this:
  
 http://www.h3xed.com/web-and-internet/youtube-audio-quality-bitrate-240p-360p-480p-720p-1080p
  
 I really was hoping for something better ...


----------



## bigshot

silentfrequency said:


> I've watched 4k on TV's in stores and they are so amazing, even crystal clear close up to the screen, but does the audio go up 4x the quality of the picture resolution from standard HD 1080p, if that's even possible?


 
  
 To discern higher screen resolution in video, you have to sit closer to the screen. At some point, you have to sit so close to see full resolution that you can't see the whole screen at one time any more. The amount of resolution you can see depends on the size of the screen and how far back from it you sit. The larger the screen and the closer you sit, the more resolution is necessary. 4K is suitable for projection in a movie theater.
  
 With audio the determining factor on bitrate is a bit different. Digital audio can reproduce all audible frequencies perfectly, but the determining factor is the volume. You can turn up the volume until you reach the noise floor of digital. With CDs, that would require a volume level so high, you would incur hearing damage. So in practice, bitrate isn't an issue at all.
  
 On youtube, the highest quality sound it supports is AAC 192 I believe.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> I will really have to redo the vynil rip - this time to DSD and 192/24. I do not remember LP to be that bad - YT is not that bad in my opinion, but am of course fully aware of its limitations in sound.
> 
> Does anybody know to which maximum resolution it is possible to upload sound to YT at present - with 2180p 4K ?
> Like in this interesting video:




  
 Best I could get on that was AAC 256.


----------



## castleofargh

yup the analogy between video and audio will almost always be a false one. they don't represent the same kind of data and the bit depth isn't used the same way. so it's a very slippery slope.
 for stereo music I guess it would be something like a 2pixels screen where you can change only brightness and how fast you can change it. ^_^
 there is no equivalent of screen resolution or color depth in audio.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> Best I could get on that was AAC 256.


 
 Thank you for the answer. The link I posted in theory supports more, bit in practice less than you have achieved. 
  
 Wizzard?


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> Thank you for the answer. The link I posted in theory supports more, bit in practice less than you have achieved.
> 
> Wizzard?


 
  
 Huh?


----------



## analogsurviver

Quote: 





rrod said:


> Huh?


 
 More was meant how you managed to get past 126 kbps rate to which "everything" from the link I posted above has been limited - 
  
                           ?


----------



## charleski

sonitus mirus said:


> S
> 
> Does it matter if the ultrasonic frequencies are an extension of the sound we are hearing, or can they be completely unrelated?
> 
> ...


 

 When the ultrasonic components are presented on their own there's no effect. So it's not just caused by the isolated presence of ultrasound, whereas the effects of getting a neck rub are unrelated to whether you're listening to music at the same time. But I agree, it would be worthwhile to establish whether the effect relies on the ultrasound being related to the auditory content. An obvious way of starting to do this would be to take material that has intermittent ultrasonic peaks and test whether there's a difference between playing the full range sound or just the auditory component together with continuous ultrasonic noise.
  
 As for questions of whether it makes us 'feel good' or 'perceived audio quality' - this is really just barking up the wrong tree. No experiment is going to tell you what sound system you should buy. Unfortunately a lot of the responses to the Oohashi results have been driven by entrenched commerical positions and have all the relevance of tests showing that 8 out of 10 cats don't mind whether they eat Kit-E-Kat or Whiskas. We know that ultrasonics are specifically modulating the percept, we don't know the nature of that modulation, and it may well require far more subtle experiments in order to elucidate it.


----------



## charleski

bigshot said:


> To discern higher screen resolution in video, you have to sit closer to the screen. At some point, you have to sit so close to see full resolution that you can't see the whole screen at one time any more. The amount of resolution you can see depends on the size of the screen and how far back from it you sit. The larger the screen and the closer you sit, the more resolution is necessary. 4K is suitable for projection in a movie theater.
> 
> With audio the determining factor on bitrate is a bit different. Digital audio can reproduce all audible frequencies perfectly, but the determining factor is the volume. You can turn up the volume until you reach the noise floor of digital. With CDs, that would require a volume level so high, you would incur hearing damage. So in practice, bitrate isn't an issue at all.
> 
> On youtube, the highest quality sound it supports is AAC 192 I believe.


 

 You're confusing compressed bitrate with dynamic range. A 16bit/44.1kHz signal from a CD is operating in the time domain and has 96dB of dynamic range, which is more than enough for any reasonable home application. But when it's compressed the signal is transformed into the frequency domain and lower bitrates indicate greater removal of the higher coefficients, which represent higher frequency sounds, but it has no impact on the dynamic range.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> More was meant how you managed to get past 126 kbps rate to which "everything" from the link I posted above has been limited -
> 
> ?


 
  
 B/C I'm a BAMF, natch ^_^
  
 I used youtube-dl.


----------



## Don Hills

charleski said:


> You're confusing compressed bitrate with dynamic range. A 16bit/44.1kHz signal from a CD is operating in the time domain and has 96dB of dynamic range, which is more than enough for any reasonable home application. But when it's compressed the signal is transformed into the frequency domain and lower bitrates indicate greater removal of the higher coefficients, which represent higher frequency sounds, but it has no impact on the dynamic range.


 
 You're confusing compressed bitrate with frequency response.
 Lower psychoacoustically compressed bitrates indicate greater removal of "masked" components and frequencies throughout the frequency range, not just higher frequencies. Encoders usually also apply a HF cutoff, usually around 16 to 18 KHz, because HF components usually require more bits to encode than their audibility warrants, but this is a separate process. Many encoders allow you to switch the HF filter off, at a cost to the bitrate.


----------



## bigshot

bit depth not bitrate, then


----------



## charleski

stv014 said:


> Some samples are now available for testing: cap_abx.zip (Dropbox). The meaning of the numbers and letters in the file names is as follows:


 
 Ok, I spent some time this weekend testing these, and I couldn't hear a difference. [I forgot how tedious ABX tests were, sigh.]
  
 I started off with the EBtG track ('abx3'), as I thought there was a subtle variation. But here are the results:
  
 File A: C:\Users\Charles\Desktop\cap_abx\abx3c96.flac
 File B: C:\Users\Charles\Desktop\cap_abx\abx3n96.flac
 14:25:18 : Test started.
 14:28:52 : 00/01  100.0%
 14:33:03 : 01/02  75.0%
 14:41:12 : 01/03  87.5%
 14:54:47 : 02/04  68.8%
 15:03:11 : 02/05  81.3%
 16:04:28 : 02/06  89.1%
 16:06:46 : 03/07  77.3%
 16:08:49 : 03/08  85.5%
 16:10:54 : 03/09  91.0%
 16:14:34 : 04/10  82.8%
 16:15:49 : 04/11  88.7%
 16:33:31 : 05/12  80.6%
 16:35:01 : 06/13  70.9%
 16:48:36 : 06/14  78.8%
 16:55:00 : 07/15  69.6%
 17:07:47 : 07/16  77.3%
 17:17:16 : 08/17  68.5%
 17:38:02 : 09/18  59.3%
 17:55:09 : 10/19  50.0%
 18:10:30 : 11/20  41.2%
 18:21:10 : 12/21  33.2%
 18:41:12 : 12/22  41.6%
 18:57:27 : 12/23  50.0%
 19:16:56 : 12/24  58.1%
 19:34:20 : 12/25  65.5%
 19:34:22 : Test finished.
  ----------
 Total: 12/25 (65.5%)
  
 At around test 12 I thought I'd isolated a very subtle distinction, and in fact I had a run of 6 consecutive correct answers from 16-21, but then that collapsed and I got the last 4 wrong. As you can see, towards the end I was taking 10-15 minute breaks between each attempt as it was quite fatiguing, though this meant that I had to retrain myself each time.
  
 I spent about an hour with the Bach sample ('abx2'), but was unable to find any section on which I thought I could discriminate, so I didn't do a formal ABX as I'd just have been guessing.
  
 Measuring the various files showed they were matched within 0.01dB:

*Bach-cap**R*​*L*​Peak-4.24​-4.27​Total RMS-27.51​-23.59​Ave RMS-23.26​-24.99​ITU Loudness-20.41​ ​
 
*Bach-nocap**R*​*L*​Peak-4.25​-4.28​Total RMS-22.52​-23.60​Ave RMS-23.27​-25.00​ITU Loudness-20.42​ ​
  

*EBtG-cap**R*​*L*​Peak-0.15​-0.19​Total RMS-14.97​-15.16​Ave RMS-16.41​-16.69​ITU Loundness-13.87​ ​
 
*EBtG-nocap**R*​*L*​Peak-0.17​-0.20​Total RMS-14.98​-15.17​Ave RMS-16.42​-16.70​ITU Loundness-13.87​ ​
  
 I compared the power spectra of the two samples averaged over the full 30secs using iZotope Ozone and they were indistinguishable:

  

 Ignore the light-green curve in each, which shows the instantaneous spectrum. In both cases the cap and no-cap averaged spectra overlaid each other precisely, and the same was seen when compared to the original ('o') files, showing that your FIR matching filter did a very good job.
  
 I then looked at the differences between the various files. I inverted the 'o' file and mixed it with the cap and no-cap files respectively (this effectively subtracts one signal from the other), then did the same subtrating the nocap from the cap file. Here are the average RMS values:

*Bach**R*​*L*​cap-orig-59.45​-59.24​nocap-orig-61.28​-60.51​cap-nocap-73.27​-74.84​*EBtG* ​ ​cap-orig-43.42​-43.71​nocap-orig-45.26​-45.54​cap-nocap-57.30​-57.62​
 The difference between the cap and nocap samples was around 14dB lower than that between each file and the original.
  
 I then normalised each difference file to 99% and here are the resulting spectrograms:
*Bach*
 cap-orig

 nocap-orig

 cap-nocap

  
*EBtG*
 cap-orig

 nocap-orig

 cap-nocap

 You can see some discontinuities between 2 and 6 kHz in both examples. This may be a result of the filtering you applied, I'm not sure.
  
 In any event, I was unable to reliably distinguish a difference between the cap and nocap files in this case.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *charleski* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The difference between the cap and nocap samples was around 14dB lower than that between each file and the original.


 
  
 That is normal, since both have slightly non-flat frequency response relative to the original, due to hardware filtering, while the "cap" samples are equalized to match the frequency response of the "nocap" ones.
  


> Originally Posted by *charleski* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> You can see some discontinuities between 2 and 6 kHz in both examples. This may be a result of the filtering you applied, I'm not sure.


 
  
 The samples are time aligned so that the phase is matched in the low kHz range. Therefore, the difference is the lowest there, but since the frequency response matching is not perfect, there is a higher difference at other frequencies.
  


> In any event, I was unable to reliably distinguish a difference between the cap and nocap files in this case.


 
  
 Well, 0.01% distortion means the harmonics have 10000 times lower magnitude than the fundamental, and with complex music that easily gets swamped. It is also only 0.01% at 20 Hz at full scale level, which probably rarely if ever actually occurred in the samples. I have more files of these recordings (including ones with all the test signals for measurement and synchronization purposes), and may upload those later.
  
 I wonder if the distortion is audible at least in the difference files ? Even that is not necessarily easy, but here is one older sample where low level amplifier distortion was successfully revealed by difference extraction. Perhaps the test could be repeated with a higher distortion level.


----------



## charleski

stv014 said:


> That is normal, since both have slightly non-flat frequency response relative to the original, due to hardware filtering, while the "cap" samples are equalized to match the frequency response of the "nocap" ones.
> ...
> I have more files of these recordings (including ones with all the test signals for measurement and synchronization purposes), and may upload those later.
> 
> I wonder if the distortion is audible at least in the difference files ? Even that is not necessarily easy, but here is one older sample where low level amplifier distortion was successfully revealed by difference extraction. Perhaps the test could be repeated with a higher distortion level.


 
 Well, it would be useful to see the original samples, just synchronised and level-matched. After all, filtering just introduces a confounding factor.
  
 Here's the difference between the cap and nocap versions:
EBtG (abx3)
Bach (abx2)
 These are unnormalised and therefore very soft, though the EBtG file is audible at normal listening levels.
  
 As a matter of interest I normalised the cap-orig and nocap-orig difference files for the EBtG sample and they were trivially easy to distinguish in an ABX test: Total: 10/10 (0.1%). (ITU Loudness -14.19 vs -14.26, so the level matching was retained.) The unnormalised difference files were down around -44 LUFS.
  
 [Edit: added links to last paragraph.]


----------



## stv014

charleski said:


> Well, it would be useful to see the original samples, just synchronised and level-matched. After all, filtering just introduces a confounding factor.


 
  
 Some of the original samples are now available: cap_test.zip (updated). The 44100 Hz recordings, which were not used in the ABX test, are not included for now for file size reasons. Also, to reduce the size of the package, most files have been compressed with FLAC, and the originally 32-bit (due to the ALSA hw device not supporting S24_LE format) recorded WAV files have been converted to 24-bit with '*sox 32bit.wav -t wav -b 24 24bit.wav*'.
  
 eq.wav is the impulse response that was used for filtering the "cap" sample.
  
 sample.flac is the complete test sample converted to FLAC format, with all the measurement signals included. However, it is not the 96 kHz upsampled version, which can be created with the command '*resample -f 3 -q 7 -ff 0.48 -r 96000 -g 0.9 sample.wav sample96.wav*'.
  
 Edit: in the recorded files, 0 dBFS is 2 Vrms voltage.
 Edit 2: the sample package is now replaced by the complete one from post 3650.
  
 For completeness, here is a list of more commands to create the final ABX test samples:

```
[url=https://www.dropbox.com/s/dqu1ng4fc4h4sys/dsputils.zip]convolve[/url] -f 0 record_cap_96000_2.wav record_cap_96000_2_eq.wav eq.wav resample -f 0 -d 129 -k 2.6270948381595 -g1 1.05524870 -g2 1.07224368 record_cap_96000_2_eq.wav record_cap_96000_2_a.wav resample -f 0 -d 129 -k 1.5552303325735 -g1 1.05390817 -g2 1.07085033 record_nocap_96000.wav record_nocap_96000_a.wav resample -f 3 -r 48000 -q 9 -ff 0.49 -k 29.99 -d 30 sample96.wav abx1o96.wav resample -f 3 -r 48000 -q 9 -ff 0.49 -k 60.99 -d 30 sample96.wav abx2o96.wav resample -f 3 -r 48000 -q 9 -ff 0.49 -k 91.99 -d 30 sample96.wav abx3o96.wav
```
 For the other samples, the last commands are the same, but with sample96.wav replaced with the *_a.wav files (which are level matched and time aligned with sample96.wav).
  


> Originally Posted by *charleski* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> As a matter of interest I normalised the cap-orig and nocap-orig difference files for the EBtG sample and they were trivially easy to distinguish in an ABX test: Total: 10/10 (0.1%). (ITU Loudness -14.19 vs -14.26, so the level matching was retained.) The unnormalised difference files were down around -44 LUFS.


 
  
 If the equalization and time alignment are not perfect, then there is some frequency response difference between the difference files that could easily be audible.


----------



## Greenears

Kudos on the ABX test.  I am doing some myself right now, and I agree with you that they are difficult and tedious.  It's people like you that have the knowledge and take the time with an open mind that can actually advance the science that exists somewhere out there past the hype.
  
 I looked back in the thread and couldn't easily find - what is the difference between cap and  no-cap files (was this different types of capacitors, that were discussed earlier)?


----------



## BirdManOfCT

Agreed, kudos on the ABX tests. I've done some in the past and they're a pain.


----------



## bigshot

Listening tests aren't difficult at all. They are only frustrating if you convince yourself you have to win.


----------



## stv014

> I looked back in the thread and couldn't easily find - what is the difference between cap and  no-cap files (was this different types of capacitors, that were discussed earlier)?


 
  
 In the "no cap" case, a DC coupled sound card headphone output - ASUS Xonar Essence STX with 10 ohms serial resistance - is driving a 680 ohms load. Since the load is in parallel with a ~4.3k sound card line input, the effective overall load impedance is 10 + ((680 * 4300) / (680 + 4300)) = ~597 ohms. The full scale voltage (i.e. the level of the test signals) on the 680 ohms load is about 1.7 Vrms.
  
 The "cap" recording is the same as above, except this time 10 uF/ 50 V electrolytic capacitors were connected in series with the output. These are random cheap non-audiophile capacitors (see link), although they have also not been used previously in any circuit, so the effects of ageing were not tested.


----------



## charleski

Ok, last night I decided to revisit these samples to see what happened without the filtering. Looking at the power spectrograms of the raw recorded samples the 'cap' files show a drop of around 1dB at 20Hz, which I doubted would be audible with the setup I was using (which was very definitely nothing special - using the output of the onboard ALC889 codec on my PC into a Topping NX1 driving a pair of ancient Sennheiser 580 Jubilees).
  
 All manipulations were done in Audition CS6. I extracted the third (EBtG) recording from both of the files and time-aligned them, then (in 32bit) matched the loudness of both to -14.90LUFS using negative gain via Audition's 'match volume' function. No other manipulations were performed. Finally I converted both to 48kHz/16-bit with triangular dither and no noise shaping (the ALC889 claims it can handle 24-bit files, but I thought 16-bit would be safer, and noise-floor isn't a factor here anyway). The resultant files are here: cap, nocap.
  
 I then ABX'd them today, and it looks like I might have got a positive result, though it's right at the threshold of perception. here's the output:
 foo_abx 1.3.4 report
 foobar2000 v1.3.5
 2014/12/16 08:45:49
 File A: [Path removed]\cap_abx\recordcap3--14.9LUFS-16bit.flac
 File B: [Path removed]\cap_abx\recordnocap3--14.9LUFS-16bit.flac
 08:45:49 : Test started.
 08:49:05 : 01/01  50.0%
 08:49:14 : 02/02  25.0%
 08:49:27 : 03/03  12.5%
 08:50:01 : 04/04  6.3%
 08:50:58 : 04/05  18.8%
 09:01:49 : 05/06  10.9%
 09:02:29 : 06/07  6.3%
 09:32:37 : 07/08  3.5%
 09:32:53 : 08/09  2.0%
 09:33:16 : 08/10  5.5%
 10:02:55 : 09/11  3.3%
 10:03:10 : 10/12  1.9%
 10:03:18 : 11/13  1.1%
 10:04:24 : 11/14  2.9%
 11:13:39 : 12/15  1.8%
 11:15:09 : 12/16  3.8%
 12:21:23 : 13/17  2.5%
 12:22:41 : 14/18  1.5%
 12:23:35 : 14/19  3.2%
 14:05:02 : 14/20  5.8%
 14:05:11 : 15/21  3.9%
 14:05:36 : Test finished.
  ----------
 Total: 15/21 (3.9%)
  
 I'd decided beforehand that I wanted to do at least 20 attempts to get a decent result. As you can see, by around test 13 things were looking good, though I had a few incorrect results at the end.
  
 But to be absolutely honest, I can pick holes in the methodology I was using here. As the timing of the tests suggests, I was using the feedback the foobar ABX plugin gives as to whether each choice was correct, and almost always after I'd made the wrong choice I decided to take a break (I had other things I needed to be doing, so that wasn't the only factor, but it certainly played an important role). The twentieth test was incorrect and took me over the 5% level, so I performed another almost immediately after and got it right, which brought the result to 3.9% and >20 tests. The more I think about it the less I like that, and I really wasn't being rigorous enough, though by that point I'd become sick of the whole affair and just wanted to finish.
  
 One other thing I noticed, and is clear from the timings, is that the more I thought about it and dithered, the more likely I was to be wrong. As I'll discuss below, I'd isolated the timbre of a specific note and was playing a section which was about 1 second long (this is the same point where I thought I could hear a difference on Sunday), which is how I was able to perform some of the attempts quite rapidly. On those trials where I thought I was sure on the first listen I usually ended up correct, whereas on the ones where I wasn't sure and spent time doing lots of comparisons I usually guessed wrong. I found the most sensitive way to check was to play A,X,B in order (for those where I thought X was A, and A,Y,B where I thought Y was A), so if I was right I'd be hearing same-same-different. It's also noticeable that the best results happened at the start of the day, when I was fresh, and performance was a lot less consistent by the early afternoon.
  
 It could be argued that we should lump these results together with the ones that I got on Sunday. I was only actually testing on the note used here in the latter half of those tests, though, and these files are certainly different as they lack any filtering. Since I'm comparing different sample files I think it's reasonable to regard this as a separate test (and the reason for the test was I wanted to see if the filtering had had any effect).
  
 Now to the specifics of what I was hearing (or thought I was hearing). As I mentioned, I isolated the timbre of one specific note that I thought sounded different. I went back after the test and found that section in the sample files to take a look at it. Segments that roughly correspond to what I was listening to on the ABX test can be found here: cap, nocap. I was concentrating on the first note heard in each.
  
 If we look at the actual waveform we can see something interesting:
*cap:*

*nocap:*


 When I first saw these I had a bit of a shock, as I'd been very careful to avoid any clipping (as, I'm sure, you had as well). But on looking at the original sample ripped from CD it was clear what was going on:

  
 One of the instruments had been recorded clipped, and then just mixed in with a tiny decrease in gain without attempting to restore the waveform. The recording as a whole did not show any clipping (waveforms pushing into the 0dB barrier), which is what makes me think this probably happened during the recording and mixing phase. Obviously, clipped waveforms represent a highly distorted signal, and in that context the extra distortion products from the capacitor seem to have reached the threshold of perception. Subjectively, I thought this note sounded very slightly sharper on the cap sample.
  
  
 So, there are a lot of caveats that I've discussed above, and the distinction is barely perceptible and limited to a specific circumstance - it took me quite a while to discover this difference. But at the end of the day, 3.9% is less than 5%, make of that what you will. What would be useful is if others did ABX tests on this as well to see whether or not this is just some peculiarity in my hearing (I definitely don't possess 'golden ears').


----------



## stv014

charleski said:


> Looking at the power spectrograms of the raw recorded samples the 'cap' files show a drop of around 1dB at 20Hz, which I doubted would be audible with the setup I was using


 
  
 Actually, there should be more roll-off than that (see graphs in post 3607), in theory it is -3 dB at about 27 Hz (1 / (2 * PI * R * C)).


----------



## limpidglitch

I'm not too familiar with what's generally considered perceivable levels, but this seems to me to be on the border, at least.
 (that's "cap" - "nocap")

 And if anyone knows of a way to implement octave smoothing in R I'd be very interested.


----------



## RRod

limpidglitch said:


> I'm not too familiar with what's generally considered perceivable levels, but this seems to me to be on the border, at least.
> (that's "cap" - "nocap")
> 
> And if anyone knows of a way to implement octave smoothing in R I'd be very interested.


 
  
 Are you using seewave? It may have something like that.


----------



## Greenears

stv014 said:


> In the "no cap" case, a DC coupled sound card headphone output - ASUS Xonar Essence STX with 10 ohms serial resistance - is driving a 680 ohms load. Since the load is in parallel with a ~4.3k sound card line input, the effective overall load impedance is 10 + ((680 * 4300) / (680 + 4300)) = ~597 ohms. The full scale voltage (i.e. the level of the test signals) on the 680 ohms load is about 1.7 Vrms.
> 
> The "cap" recording is the same as above, except this time 10 uF/ 50 V electrolytic capacitors were connected in series with the output. These are random cheap non-audiophile capacitors (see link), although they have also not been used previously in any circuit, so the effects of ageing were not tested.


 
 Maybe this has already been discussed - but why are you using electrolytic caps?  (I'm bypassing the question of why you are doing this at all).  I think they are all polarized (appears that way in the picture) Now I believe they tolerate a certain amount of negative transient voltage before distorting (and then blowing up).  So you might be on the edge before it becomes obviously noticeable.
  
 Just try a regular AC coupling cap and you should not be able to hear anything even a 1 cent cap.    Your ABX test indicates you are hearing something, to me.
  
  I still like the fact you are doing testing!


----------



## limpidglitch

rrod said:


> Are you using seewave? It may have something like that.


 
  
 I've looked into it, fiddled about little, but nothing much produced.
 (I'm having a more thorough poke-around now. Thanks for the tip)


----------



## stv014

greenears said:


> Maybe this has already been discussed - but why are you using electrolytic caps?


 
  
 Because it is the audibility of the distortion of electrolytic capacitors that was to be tested (see the discussion a few pages back). Actually, it is not uncommon for equipment - including both Xonar cards tested/measured - to have electrolytic coupling capacitors on the line output, even if it would not have significant DC offset without the capacitors. Many believe this audibly degrades the sound, and even make hardware modifications to remove the capacitors.
  


> Originally Posted by *Greenears* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Just try a regular AC coupling cap and you should not be able to hear anything even a 1 cent cap.


 
  
 Non-polarized capacitors above 10 uF actually cost more than 1 cent, especially if they are not electrolytic. They are also larger, again especially when using film capacitors. Manufacturers like to save both money and board space, whenever possible without major disadvantages. In any case, the test was created specifically for common cheap polarized electrolytic capacitors in not very low impedance circuits, such as line outputs.
  


> Originally Posted by *Greenears* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Your ABX test indicates you are hearing something, to me.
> 
> I still like the fact you are doing testing!


 
  
 I did not post any ABX results, nor did I expect anyone to successfully detect <= 0.01% (mostly 2nd order) distortion at 20 Hz, for that matter. It is not surprising if the low frequency roll-off in the unequalized samples is audible, but that is not because of the imperfections of the capacitors. The use of a high corner frequency was intentional to be able to create some appreciable amount of THD by increasing the AC voltage on the capacitors.


----------



## stv014

A complete package of the capacitor test is now available: cap_test.zip (Dropbox)
  
 This includes all the recorded samples, including the previously unused 44100 Hz non-resampled playback ones, as well as all scripts and the source code of all programs used.
  
 Without modifications, it can be built on Linux, and requires the standard C/C++ development tools, as well as the libsndfile library and sox. Just run 'make', and all samples, graphs, etc. will be created from the source files. 'make clean' removes all the generated files.


----------



## charleski

stv014 said:


> Actually, there should be more roll-off than that (see graphs in post 3607), in theory it is -3 dB at about 27 Hz (1 / (2 * PI * R * C)).


 
 I applied a +3dB low-shelf filter at 27Hz (FIR, linear phase) to the cap sample and it didn't produce any noticeable change in the waveform.


----------



## limpidglitch

charleski said:


> I applied a +3dB low-shelf filter at 27Hz (FIR, linear phase) to the cap sample and it didn't produce any noticeable change in the waveform.


 
  
 Pardon me if I ask stupid, but will a filter like that introduce the same kind of phase shift as a cap would?


----------



## The Walrus

Quick question: As far as amps (headphone amps in particular) go, is there more to consider besides THD and frequency response in terms of transparency? Some folks are talking about "sound stage" of an amp.  I thought sound stage (whatever that is) was a quality of the headphone...Or is that also a myth?


----------



## castleofargh

the walrus said:


> Quick question: As far as amps (headphone amps in particular) go, is there more to consider besides THD and frequency response in terms of transparency? Some folks are talking about "sound stage" of an amp.  I thought sound stage (whatever that is) was a quality of the headphone...Or is that also a myth?


 

 maybe add crosstalk to the mix and you should be covered.


----------



## headwhacker

the walrus said:


> Quick question: As far as amps (headphone amps in particular) go, is there more to consider besides THD and frequency response in terms of transparency? *Some folks are talking about "sound stage" of an amp.*  I thought sound stage (whatever that is) was a quality of the headphone...Or is that also a myth?


 
  
 Some folks want to listen to their amp. For them THD, crosstalk and transparency is irrelevant.


----------



## bigshot

Most amps don't have audible crosstalk.


----------



## analogsurviver

the walrus said:


> Quick question: As far as amps (headphone amps in particular) go, is there more to consider besides THD and frequency response in terms of transparency? Some folks are talking about "sound stage" of an amp.  I thought sound stage (whatever that is) was a quality of the headphone...Or is that also a myth?


 
 The mere posting  the question - regarding either - is testimony to the fact that you have not experienced "sound stage" properly yet. It is possible to kill the "sound stage"
 of even the best headphones by the use of an inferior amp - not to mention paired it with an inferior source - or even worse - an otherwise excellent recording being reduced down to redbook (or worse) . Or, the worst of it all - a recording devoid of "sound stage" in the first place. One can 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 beyond ad nuseaum -
 and still even the best equipment available will not be able to squeeze out what was not there in the first place.
  
 When it works, the music roams freely - when it does not, one is CLEARLY aware there are limits. I, for my part, was not exactly "thrilled" how a certain recent recording of mine turned out on demo CD once finished; but the result is comparable to playing the original DSD file on PC with some software that converts DSD to PCM 44.1/16; and  doing blind or even sighted ABX is not necessary, it IS great enough difference. And at present, blind ABX of DSD vs PCM is only possible by the use of a help by another person.
  
 The catch is in the equipment used - from microphone _cartridge_ - to the final transducer, be it headphone or loudspeaker. One simple electrical component ( capacitor, resistor, to a lesser degree active elements ) within any "box" in the entire chain can result in the typical SNAFU situation where differences are hard or impossible to hear - because they can not get past the bottlenecks these electrical components represent.
  
 Although valiant, those "cap" and "noncap" test attempts are an exercise in futility. NOTHING wrong with the test method(s) - IF the equipment with which these tracks were made and measured was perfect.
  
 Regarding perfection; I will never forget one of the lectures at the university - electrotechnics. We had a very clever guy, who commented at each and every opportunity the professor's or assistant's lecture by : "...but IF things were perfect, it would have been like this ..." Largely, this kind of became gentleman's quiet agreement not to be further commented upon - either by fellow students or by the lecturers. But once, he was REALLY persistent with his " IF>perfect" remarks. And what followed was anything but expected :
  
 "Yes, dear colleague, IF ... (insert anything according to your choice here) was perfect, you would have been right. In reality, NOTHING is perfect - except *woman**."*
  
 At this point, back then very few fellow female students among sea of males started to shine like at least 100 W bulbs - and grew a couple of inches taller and started nodding at each other in clear appreciation of what the professor has just said. This lasted maybe for 10-15 seconds, accompanied by the deafening silence from the male students majority.
  
 Then, professor speaking more to himself, but still CLEARLY audible across the classroom, this could be heard:
  
 " And even that she thinks of herself - by herself... "
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 So - with the intro above - I repeat the question: how much do you think is the true dynamic range of an electrolytic capacitor (within say 10 dB ) ?


----------



## bigshot

Soundstage has absolutely nothing to do with the particular digital reproduction format and everything to do with mixing and miking in the recording studio. You are wrong.


----------



## The Walrus

analogsurviver said:


> The mere posting  the question - regarding either - is testimony to the fact that you have not experienced "sound stage" properly yet. It is possible to kill the "sound stage"
> of even the best headphones by the use of an inferior amp - not to mention paired it with an inferior source - or even worse - an otherwise excellent recording being reduced down to redbook (or worse) .


 
  
 What inferiority are you talking about when you say "an inferior amp"? Which amp would kill the soundstage of, say Ultrasone pro 2900 and why?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Soundstage has absolutely nothing to do with the particular digital reproduction format and everything to do with mixing and miking in the recording studio. You are wrong.


 
 Absolutely not true.
  
 Of course first and formost is the miking; IF everything is perfect in advance, there is NO mixing required - at all. 
  
 And once you have the "signal" of this quality, it is impossible to neglect what digital formats are doing to the soundstage. A multimiked recording is inherently incapable of achieving the degree of realism I am striving for - Sheffield once issued a (double?) LP with the same performance captured symultaniously both  with a stereo pair and with multimiking. It was amusing to see my friend who thought I will be amazed at the difference he demoed it to me - I let the first "play" ( multimiked ) to pass without a single comment,  merely saying upon the first bars of the stereo pair recording: 
  
.... we could have listened to some good music instead of to that *minefield *of microphones ...
  
 True, with multimiking there can be no significant gain to be had over redbook by the use of better digital formats.


----------



## analogsurviver

the walrus said:


> What inferiority are you talking about when you say "an inferior amp"? Which amp would kill the soundstage of, say Ultrasone pro 2900 and why?


 
 Please wait a bit for that answer - I would like you all to realize what is behind this in reality. It is NOT a simple answer, it is NOT due to a single cause, although it can be related more or less to the imperfections of capacitors. 
  
 I can not say anything specifically for the Ultrasone Pro 2900 - because have never listened to them. Yet the principle applies universally, with better headphones making the difference among amplifiers more obvious. IF the signal up to this point was of high enough quality.


----------



## sonitus mirus

While we are waiting, can you tell us what the true dynamic range of an electrolytic capacitor is within, say, 10 dB?


----------



## SilentFrequency

the walrus said:


> Quick question: As far as amps (headphone amps in particular) go, is there more to consider besides THD and frequency response in terms of transparency? Some folks are talking about "sound stage" of an amp.  I thought sound stage (whatever that is) was a quality of the headphone...Or is that also a myth?




If you go to the "Soundstage Head Club" thread I think you will find the discussion is predominantly surrounding this attribute focusing on headphone part of the audio chain set up.



analogsurviver said:


> "Yes, dear colleague, IF ... (insert anything according to your choice here) was perfect, you would have been right. In reality, NOTHING is perfect - except *woman**."*




Your professor was a wise man I guess


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Absolutely not true.


 
  
 I don't know if you are making this stuff up as you go along, or if you are cherry picking misinformation from spurious sources, but the short answer is, you are wrong.
  
 Also, have you had a chance to review the lossy test sample I gave you?


----------



## Steve Eddy

sonitus mirus said:


> While we are waiting, can you tell us what the true dynamic range of an electrolytic capacitor is within, say, 10 dB?




What on earth are you going on about?

se


----------



## stv014

limpidglitch said:


> Pardon me if I ask stupid, but will a filter like that introduce the same kind of phase shift as a cap would?


 
  
 No, because it is linear phase, while an RC highpass filter is minimum phase. I used a minimum phase FIR filter for equalization. I guess the sample just did not have much content at such low frequencies, that is why a linear phase EQ does not make a very visible difference to the waveform. The phase shift from a minimum phase 6 dB/octave highpass filter affects relatively high frequencies, that is why even a slight bass roll-off can visibly change the 30 Hz square wave response.


----------



## charleski

the walrus said:


> Quick question: As far as amps (headphone amps in particular) go, is there more to consider besides THD and frequency response in terms of transparency? Some folks are talking about "sound stage" of an amp.  I thought sound stage (whatever that is) was a quality of the headphone...Or is that also a myth?


 

 It's certainly possible to argue that there's more going on with distortion than is represented by a THD figure. You might be interested in looking at the work done by Geddes and Lee on the perception of distortion, particularly the first two papers linked on that page. There's a fair amount of maths, but you can skip over that and still get an idea of what they're talking about. Basically, they argue that a measurement of distortion needs to take into account the known properties of auditory perception, and needs to be sensitive to the order of the distortion in relation to the overall level of the signal.
  
 They proposed a new and rather more complex metric for distortion which, unfortunately, has been largely ignored. As they put it in a letter: 'Everyone knows that THD is meaningless, but it’s easy to do and “the light is better.” '


----------



## charleski

limpidglitch said:


> Pardon me if I ask stupid, but will a filter like that introduce the same kind of phase shift as a cap would?


 
 I used Q=1.0, so it should be a reasonable approximation to the phase shift of an RC circuit with ideal components, but filter design is not my forte. Obviously, in real life electrolytic capacitors depart from the ideal state.


----------



## charleski

This is what the waveform in question looks like after applying a minimum-phase filter instead (all other parameters unchanged):


----------



## analogsurviver

sonitus mirus said:


> While we are waiting, can you tell us what the true dynamic range of an electrolytic capacitor is within, say, 10 dB?


 
 Yes. Depending how you look at it and depending the quality of the electrolytic capacitor, it is around the whole of
  
                                                                                                     40 dB.
  
  
 I did not want to provide the following link upfront, because it is a direct link
 http://www.reliablecapacitors.com/pickcap.htm
 to the capacitor manufacturer. Yet it is the only complete coverage of the article :
  
 Picking up capacitors
 Walter G. Jung and Richard Marsh
 Reprinted from Audio Magazine, February and March, 1980
  
 that is available online. 
  
 It covers the performance of capacitors in great detail, listing test methods/circuits for measurements, recommendations regarding improving real world circuits, etc, etc.
  
 If we "lump" all the ill effects in capacitors together ( I call it _*memory of the capacitor *_) and see that Dialectric Absorption etc for electrolytic caps are hovering around 1 % ( in a word: one percent ), that represents - 40 dB. Below that level, *everything *gets misrepresented - in effect making a certain plateau around which and below which the signal can no longer be regarded as perfect. The lower the level, the worse the result. It can be *MUCH*
 improved by the judicious use of quality capacitors that have at least better/lower "memory". The values required and physical sizes of the quality capacitors can become unmanageable extremely quickly (not to mention the cost...).
 Another possibility is to use active components that can provide the same result with the use of the lower value capacitors -  to allow the use of the quality capacitors that still can fit within the real world volume restrictions.
 I once saw (but forgot to bookmark ) the link to IC manufacturer Maxim - in effect advertising their ICs for the portable audio use, with CLEARLY shown measurements of THD for the industry standard best ceramic SMD capacitors/normal ICs and their ICs that can functionally replace standard ICs with the use of an order of magnitude lower capacitance value - and of course one can use then better capacitors. BIG difference - and although in non portable audio the space/volume is not at such a premium, the basic principle of course still applies.
  
 The multitude of those 220 uF electrolytic capacitors in the analog output section of the Assus Xonar Essence One in film version would exceed the volume of the entire box - not to mention the cost. But it would allow the unit to work as intended. The only economically viable solution would be replacement of that output stage with something that uses manageable value/size/cost capacitors - or dispenses with them altogether.
  
The really good capacitors do allow for at least dynamic range of the redbook - but going down to -120 dB or so 
is really pu$hing the limit. 
  
There is equipment totally devoid of the use of any capacitors in the signal path. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
  
"Perfect sound forever" or redbook or 44.1/16 bit PCM in theory has dynamic range of 96 dB - and although I used to be convinced below that is great nothingness, I did hear with my own ears using my own equipment that with the proper dither application that clearly can be extended below - 100 dB. And if you listen to redbook as played by various software players, they most definitely _*DO*_ differ in a 1 kHz @ - 100 dB level test. Painfully audible so. 
  
The inability to hear it anything to this effect in real world music recordings has at least partially to do with the capacitors used in equipment with which those recordings were made with - one can not record something that never reached the true input of the ADC chip, regardless that ADC chip  having nominally 140+ dB dynamic range.
  
 I did see once a very dedicated review  encompassing practically each and every DAC chip available at the time with measurements, sound quality descriptions, etc - all carried out with the use of the most basic capacitors possible. Electrolytics all the way.
  
 [size=15.5555562973022px]*LMAO*[/size]
  
 In effect, they have been testing capacitors - far more than the DACs themselves. Put it another way: if the DAC A
 requires in actual implementation of the real world circuit at least one more capacitor than the DAC B - providing that the spec sheets of both DACs are perfectly equal, the DAC B will always "win" in real world. End of story - because we are no longer dealing with a difference of S/N of say 120 dB vs 123 dB/ THD 0.001 vs 0.0005, but yet another "hidden" - 40 dB (or so...) "dynamic compressor" inserted into the chain. And no, this can not be represented by a single THD curve - as it is a HIGHLY dynamic phenomenon that changes - or should be changing - with the music itself. And you can not CLEARLY hear the effects on any other device containing similar quality of capacitors - due to veiling. Moral - the ENTIRE chain has to be optimized. Sadly, this means lots of work and lots of $$$$$$.
  
 Remember, that goes for the test gear, too; digital representation of an analog signal , even if *perfect*, would still have all the errors of the analog stage used in the ADC; in better/really good equipment (that can not cost $ 50 apiece ... ) that means one is generally measuring with order(s) of magnitude *worse *test gear than the device under test - clearly catastrophic failure to produce meaningful measurement. . 
  
 Now please open the service manual for ANY mixing desk - and start countin'em. Capacitors - that is.
  
 This is my answer why I consider most of the commercially available recordings to be "compressed" - even from the most hard core audiophile labels.
  
 Couple that to the fact that most of the recordings being made today are *deliberately *compressed ( atop the already mentioned compression due to imperfect capacitors in the recording chain ) in order to accommodate listening in home enviroment that has relatively high noise floor and is limited in absolute loudness due to neighbours etc - one can easily see why the status quo is as it is.  
  
 Going beyond it unfortunately is costly - and can not be implemented partially. One can not have the benefits of high rez without the use of quality capacitors - heck, it is not even possible to make true high rez without the use of high quality capacitors. One can from this draw one's own conclusions about "high rez" downloads that are available today - from the recordings made decades ago, on equipment than regarded as SOTA ( or at least whatever the piggybank could provide for ).
  
 Disclaimer : I am NOT affiliated with any capacitor manufacturer - only use whatever I can lay my hands on in order to bring the recording and reproduction as close to the original as possible. And I most definitely DO NOT possess unlimited finances resources - compromises that involve cost/performance have to be made. 
  
 There are sinfully expensive pieces of audiophile gear out there - either with 1 (or more... ) thick inch front plate - or "pretty face" designs - that still use electrolytic capacitors in the signal path.
  
 I would NEVER do that.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> Yes. Depending how you look at it and depending the quality of the electrolytic capacitor, it is around the whole of
> 
> 40 dB.




Absolute nonsense. You don't have a clue what you're talking about nor apparently do you know what dynamic range is.

se


----------



## BirdManOfCT

analogsurviver said:


> Hehe - NOW we finally arrive at some REAL questions and answers regarding AUDIBLE differences in audio - not just DACs.
> 
> Question - not just for you - how much do you think is the ( approximate, say within 10 dB ) *true* dynamic range of the item in the picture:


 

 About 40 dB?


----------



## Don Hills

steve eddy said:


> What on earth are you going on about?
> 
> se


 

 I don't think he really knows. It's the most awful mish-mash of misapplied jargon and misunderstood theory I've seen in a long time, and that's putting it politely. Capacitors have dynamic range?
 If electrolytics were really as bad as he says, a lot of electronic equipment that we depend on simply wouldn't work.


----------



## sonitus mirus

don hills said:


> I don't think he really knows. It's the most awful mish-mash of misapplied jargon and misunderstood theory I've seen in a long time, and that's putting it politely. Capacitors have dynamic range?
> If electrolytics were really as bad as he says, a lot of electronic equipment that we depend on simply wouldn't work.


 
 Hey now, I'm on your side.  I was only stirring the pot of ridiculousness.  The zaniness kept being piled on, and I simply went back a few dozen posts to see if perhaps an older, bizarre comment could finally be answered.


----------



## Don Hills

sonitus mirus said:


> Hey now, I'm on your side.  I was only stirring the pot of ridiculousness.  The zaniness kept being piled on, and I simply went back a few dozen posts to see if perhaps an older, bizarre comment could finally be answered.


 

 I apologise - I didn't read carefully enough. My remarks were aimed at the person you were asking the question of.


----------



## analogsurviver

don hills said:


> I don't think he really knows. It's the most awful mish-mash of misapplied jargon and misunderstood theory I've seen in a long time, and that's putting it politely. Capacitors have dynamic range?
> If electrolytics were really as bad as he says, a lot of electronic equipment that we depend on simply wouldn't work.


 
 Well, electrolytics have one thing in common with moving magnet phono cartridges. They do "kind of" work "well enough" - and they once , like the moving magnet cartridge, were the only reasonable game in town.
  
 There is, of course, a difference between the two. Moving magnet cartridge, or at least the majority of them, have problems due to the limited frequency response.
 It is due to the LRC filtering that occurs WELL WITHIN the audible frequency range for the vast majority of the MM cartridges - yet it can be made to look superbly flat up to and slightly beyond 20 kHz with the use of the precisely made mirror image resonance in the mechanical part of the transducer. Such a cartridge, even if and when electrically terminated with load that does produce the flattest measured response, will never sound nearly as good as a decently designed cartridge that is not forced to use mechanical resonance in order to measure flat; one resonance in audible range can thus be avoided and with it all phase shift anomalies that go with it.  The net result is usually FAR better imaging - despite both cartridges having for all practical purposes the same frequency response up to 20 kHz. There is another, far more important benefit - MUCH lower record wear. Who bears the brunt of that mechanical resonances - if not YOUR vynil groove walls, precisely where it is the most critical to begin with, that is to say high frequencies where lion's share of a phono cartridge work is ?
  
 ( Please note I am NOT against MM principle in general - only poor implementations. There were/are a few MM designs that did adres this in an exemplary fashion, one happens to be the fastest cartridge of them all . )
  
 Electrolytic capacitor is an even more sneaky thing. From your response, it is clear you have not even considered a capacitor could possibly have dynamic range - assuming it was perfect/infinite !? Now , PLEASE do click on the link
 http://www.reliablecapacitors.com/pickcap.htm
  - and each and every sub-link as well. To your surprise, there will be mechanisms that lead to dynamic range limitations in (electrolytic) capacitors described - along the methods for measuring them. And that has been available in print since 1980 !
  
 Extremely condensed conclusion - below say - 40 dB ( 1% of the maximum voltage level ), due to all ill effects of a REAL electrolytic capacitor, there is ever greater error as the signal is getting lower - because the capacitor is unable to discharge *correctly/perfectly *below that -40 dB or 1% voltage and signal has to "pull" it down instead. That IS painfully audible - if one does follow the advice given according the possible improvements, one is rewarded with MUCH better definition of sound; and yes, that gets better the lower the level. After having heard the "dynamic noise" ( all the distortions due to the capacitor issues ) removed (or at least brought down from 1 % to 0.01 % (still somewhat reasonable in price) or lower ( sky is the limit ) by the the judicious use of quality capacitors ) - there is no going back. 
  
 Trouble, as already mentioned countless time, is the cost. Simply go to any electronic components distributor and check the prices of film and electrolytic capacitors of the values needed for any real world circuit. And please do use manufacturer's reasoning regarding pricing - it is approx that MSRP is about 5 times all the expenses to produce it. So, going from one single capacitor that costs the manufacturer instead of 0.50$ for an electrolytic capacitor say to a film type for 3 $ does not increase MSRP by the difference of $ 2.50, but 5 times that - $ 12.50. Multiple that with say an average 50-100 times as in real world designs ( I count here replacement of small value ceramic capacitors for film types as well ) - and it is clear why nobody does it anymore. Furthermore, really good small value capacitors , the polystyrene, are extremely "hostile" to solder, being utterly unsuitable for anything like automated stuffing/soldering . Taking the time to solder one or two by hand being equal of automated soldering of the entire PCB...
  
An additional consideration that is in practice the main drawback, is the size/volume limitations. Film capacitors are in general FAR bigger than whatever one is replacing them with. So, for optimum results, a new PCB is the only correct way, meaning it is better to design a PCB with these large(r) components in mind from scratch. Extremely expensive and worth of consideration only if there is a large(r) unit run to be made. I know of extremely few high end devices that did take this in concern - at least they allow for replacing that dreaded electrolytic with film, as they did provide for enough space on the PCB. Doing it on "normal" PCBs designed for normal size electrolytic capacitors IS EXTREMELY difficult and time consuming. Replacing say a single 47 uF electrolytic with film type can set you back for a couple of hours - before it can *somehow* be squeezed into space available AND perform as it should - there are drawbacks regarding bigger size, increased lead spacing etc, resulting with higher inductance, possibly leading to oscillations - these ill effects have to be dealt with, otherwise the result may well end up as worse than staying with the original electrolytic ... - I have encountered cases where this simply could not be made to work properly 






.
  
But results are worth it. And they end the dilemma "Do the amplifiers sound different" - for good. Despite both stock and modified amp having EXACTLY the same schematics - just because that C on the schematic is *assumed * to be good enough/perfect for the job, it does not necessary mean *it is* .
  
It is precisely this what is wrong with capacitors; they do not work in a "digital" fashion, either work or not; they perform with various degrees of accuracy.
  
And to make matters worse, loudness wars with their compression of masters ( gee, today's Linn 24 Bits of Christmas free sample clearly being one of those - dynamics being next to non-existent ... ) operate well ABOVE where the effects of poor capacitors start to become audible. 
  
It takes some _*listening *_- repeated by more listening, preferably to live music - in order to be able to to hear the difference. If one relies on recordings by others, there is no way of knowing how and on which equipment they have been made - and there is absolutely zero guarantee they are free from capacitor induced limitations. And you can ABX  those recordings 





 and , quite correctly so, hear no difference. Which does not mean it does not exist on properly made recordings being auditioned on gear of high enough quality. 
  
 As can clearly be seen by now, it is anything but easy to further the pursuit of SQ; one needs to fulfill one condition, then next, etc - and some are very well "hidden", like this capacitor thing. And is too complex to be meanigfully presentable with current measuring practice - how on earth can one measure something if the device under test is order(s) of magnitude better than the measuring device ?
  
( Capacitor thing is grim enough to the point there are no/few? amplifiers that can drive the pure capacitive load for the purpose of testing capacitors at anything above small signal conditions - one audio amp specifically designed for capacitive load lasted the whole of couple of seconds when driving 10 uF/1 kVAC capacitor at 30 VRMS - although stable, FAR bigger heatsinks would have been required in order for the temperature shut down protection not to be tripped . Most others would not provide stable performance or blow their fuses instantly. If *manufacturers *of capacitors are struggling with this - what can be said of the amateur side ? )
  
And yes, in one of the links to recent AES papers regarding audibility of 16 vs 24 bit, there were TWO MORE papers; one dealing with the audible effects of digital filtering, the other with the conclusion that CD/redbook is NOT transparent for certain audible signals. 
  
My approach is fundamentally different from the CD crowd. I try to eliminate from the realm of possibility of anything that possibly might be audible ( bandwidth in electronics up to MHz level, sampling frequencies, bit depths, etc, etc )
- and can of course be accused of using overkill and high cost. True. But at least can not be accused of using *too little *- once the recording is over, it is too late to realize it was "too little". Despite not being in recording for long, I do have recordings of people who are no longer with us - no way of repeating them with "good enough according to whatever AES might come up in the future". The biggest topic of the AES in 80s was - MP3 and what can be left out of already insufficient CD in order to squeeze so and so much music on so and so much of limited storage - now it seems to be gradually picking up to approx the level of quality we had back in the analog days.
  
How many good musical artists have passed away in the intervening 30 or so years - which were dominated with digital recording, only recently being significantly improved over redbook ?


----------



## KeithEmo

Well said - although I would just add one thing... and that is that the _requirements_ for a capacitor vary depending on the application.
  
 For example, as analogsurviver points out, electrolytic capacitors have linearity and impedance problems.... A "perfect capacitor" should have an impedance that falls at a specified rate (z=1/2piFC) with rising frequency. Virtually all electrolytic caps have an impedance that falls with frequency to a point, then starts to rise again because of the internal resistance and inductance of the part. When you add this to the actual distortion caused by memory and other effects, you end up with a far from perfect capacitor.
  
 But, now, lets see what happens if you follow the common practice of "bypassing" that electrolytic capacitor - usually with a much smaller high frequency part. What the term means is that you put another capacitor in parallel with the original one (usually a much smaller one with much better high frequency performance and much better linearity - and so lower distortion). Commonly, for example, you would "bypass" a 10,000 uF electrolytic with a 0.1 uF or 1.0 uF film capacitor.
  
 So what do we end up with:
  
 Well, if the capacitor we've bypassed is in a power supply, we've gained a lot. A power supply filter capacitor essentially does two things. It acts as a power storage reservoir. Since standard 60 Hz power will be "filling" this reservoir either 60 times a second or 120 times a second - depending on the particular design -  this is relatively low frequency behavior, which most electrolytic capacitors can do pretty well. The other thing a power supply filter capacitor does is to filter out high frequency noise and, in order to do this, it really must have an impedance that gets low at very high frequencies. Electrolytic capacitors tend to not be very good at doing this. Luckily, however, even low value film capacitors do it very well. So, when you parallel that 0.1 uF file capacitor with your 10,000 uF electrolytic, the combination does both things pretty well. Also, since the job of the filter capacitor is to hold its voltage constant, it really doesn't matter if it distorts when the voltage changes... because the whole point is to pick values such that it won't change much. Also, as many people seem to forget, a major goal of the design of modern circuitry is to arrange things so that, even if the power supply voltage does change, the circuit will be affected by the change as little as possible. (An another way of saying that is that most modern amplifiers are pretty much immune to distortion in their power supply voltage). So, for a power supply, a properly bypassed electrolytic cap isn't going to affect the way anything sounds (since it will do a proper job of filtering the DC supply voltage, and isn't in the audio path signal.)
  
 Now, if the capacitor is an audio COUPLING capacitor, things are very different. The amount of distortion introduced by an audio coupling capacitor will depend on the signal level and the load of the circuitry it is driving. Unless it's a filter, a coupling capacitor is intended to be chosen such that it's impedance is a "negligible fraction" of the impedance of whatever load it's driving over the entire audio band. The impedance of the coupling capacitor is basically in series with the load - and forms a voltage divider with the load. This voltage divider is dividing the signal voltage down. If the coupling capacitor has a very low impedance at all audio frequencies, then even if it has distortion or nonlinearities, they won't affect the output signal much. However, if its impedance is significant, then a fraction of any nonlinearity it introduces will end up being added to the signal passing through it - as distortion. In this situation, it isn't enough that the capacitor has good low frequency response and good very high frequency response - separately; it must have frequency response that is good across the entire audio band, smoothly, and must not produce nonlinearities or distortion at any point in the audio frequency band.
  
 The frequency response of a single electrolytic capacitor bypassed with a smaller film capacitor is never going to perfectly achieve this smoothness. It will always show "steps" in impedance because of what is essentially multiple capacitors, each handling a different part of the frequency range. However, it may still be "good enough" - depending on the load impedance. For example, a 500 uF electrolytic capacitor, bypassed by a 0.1 uF film cap, driving a 270k ohm load, will be fine. Even though the electrolytic isn't especially linear, because it makes up such a small part of the voltage divider, only a very small percentage of the distortion it causes will end up in the signal. But, if that same coupling capacitor were asked to drive a 2.7 kohm load (100x less), then the effect it has on the voltage divider is 100x greater, and so it will add 100x more of whatever distortion it produces to the final resulting signal.
  
 In one case, that 500 uF electrolytic (and its 0.1 uF bypass) would probably sound just fine; in the other it wouldn't.
  
 Quote:


analogsurviver said:


> Well, electrolytics have one thing in common with moving magnet phono cartridges. They do "kind of" work "well enough" - and they once , like the moving magnet cartridge, were the only reasonable game in town.
> 
> There is, of course, a difference between the two. Moving magnet cartridge, or at least the majority of them, have problems due to the limited frequency response.
> It is due to the LRC filtering that occurs WELL WITHIN the audible frequency range for the vast majority of the MM cartridges - yet it can be made to look superbly flat up to and slightly beyond 20 kHz with the use of the precisely made mirror image resonance in the mechanical part of the transducer. Such a cartridge, even if and when electrically terminated with load that does produce the flattest measured response, will never sound nearly as good as a decently designed cartridge that is not forced to use mechanical resonance in order to measure flat; one resonance in audible range can thus be avoided and with it all phase shift anomalies that go with it.  The net result is usually FAR better imaging - despite both cartridges having for all practical purposes the same frequency response up to 20 kHz. There is another, far more important benefit - MUCH lower record wear. Who bears the brunt of that mechanical resonances - if not YOUR vynil groove walls, precisely where it is the most critical to begin with, that is to say high frequencies where lion's share of a phono cartridge work is ?
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


>


 
 Very good post. True on all counts.
  
 I purposely did not go into requirement/frequency/impedance related considerations for capacitors. Why? Because I wanted to specifically point out the "memory" of capacitors.
  
 It is bad because it is hidden. If anyone thinks It is not clear to me what the dynamic range is, that person is hopelessly mistaken :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range
 The same if anyone thinks that I think the dynamic range of electrolityc capacitor is limited to  40 dB and that it does not perform below that level AT ALL ; of course it does, question is HOW. Remember, reverberation of an acoustic space is defined as the time it takes till the sound level reaches -60 dB of its initial stimulus, whatever that might be. By - 60 dB, electrolytic capacitor is by approx 20 dB below the level at/to which it still settles down IN REAL TIME to at anything like required accuracy.
 We still use analog amplifiers driving analog headphones/amplifiers; at least on practical level, no "loudspeaker" one could attach directly to DAC without any analog interface - which usually WILL use capacitors. One day, perhaps it will be as common as it is its analog counterpart - but that may take quite some time in practice.
  
 For a highly dynamic and essentially transient signal of music, electrolytic capacitor IS hopelessly unsuitable for high quality performance. Even basic low grade films still run rings around the best electrolytics. Films also have the advantage of staying power - they are essentially forever, which is an enviromental problem; being mostly plastic of one sort or another, they decay in nature - for decades/centuries. A human being buys them once and can pass them on to the next generation - which is in stark contrast with the "recapping" bussiness of mixing desks for studios; mainly using new fresh electrolytics every so and so years, sometimes several times by the same person. No rewards for guessing why .
  
 Experimentally I did one amplifier modification totally devoid of electrolytic capacitors anywhere in the circuit. - and I may decide to make it permanent. Requires too much chopping/surgery to the stock chassis and is of course irreversible - it was done on "table conditions only" - reversible. And no, one REALLY does not want to meet this one "in the back alley" - not good for "health" - if the opposition is a stock amp...
  
 Again, due to the fact that it is a direct drive electrostatic amp, NOT suitable for ABXing - AT ALL. Any switch would increase the capacitance of the combined load FAR too much, equal to the load proper or even more - which is totally unacceptable.
  
 But one would have to be next to deaf/dead to, at that magnitude of audible difference, STILL insist on ABX.


----------



## RRod

So is there any hi-res, PCM recording you can point us to that is actually done "good enough"? And pardon my ignorance of capacitors, but are you saying that even if I bought said recording and did an ABX on it versus a downsampled redbook version, the ABX would be invalid because the components of my amplifier would be hiding the differences? Just trying to read through 3 sequential walls of text.


----------



## Stereodude

keithemo said:


>


 
  
 Why you use a .1uF film cap over a .1uF ceramic?  Ceramic caps are cheap, have very low ESR, and age well.  Frankly, outside of a power supply application where you need a lot of bulk capacitance, I have no idea why modern circuits have electrolytic caps in them.  They certainly shouldn't be in any sort of signal path.


----------



## analogsurviver

Regarding the first question - whether is there any PCM recording that is actually "good enough" and commercially available - sincerely, I do not know.  Except mine - of course. But I do not want to be forced to wave the "member of the trade" flag as yet - so I can not point you to the links where at least CDs are available. I would really love to arrive to the point some high rez downloads will become available - and even more so the DSD. The last one is particularly hard; essentially requiring "direct to DSD/zero editing" if a true DSD recording is to be offered; the realm of "photoshoping to perfection" is STRONG : 
  
 https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152873508848908
  
 Nowhere near the autotuning ever used on any CD issued so far that I recorded - but none would pass the strict DSD criteria - we simply can not afford hard/software that *could* do acceptable amount of damage during editing to be still deemed "genuine DSD". The best we can do at the time is editing in 192/32 float, the whole DSD file converted, not just portion close to the intended edit. Real life limitation.
  
 To the question whether any differences among "good enough" recordings in redbook and high rez would be masked by the components in your amplifier - most probably yes. I have already said that tube equipment is less likely to be the culprit here - because it uses higher impedances, requires lower capacitance values and is thus most of the times built with better quality capacitors.  1 - or even 2 - % simple THD (particularly if even order harmonics, 2nd, 4th, etc ) is far less offensive sounding than "the sound of electrolytics" - because whatever the THD of tube equipment, it is reasonably constant and does not increase below -40 dB to ? %. It is relatively very clean and low distortion at say < 20 dB, where most of the non compressed naturally recorded music actually lies; i DO like the things like conclusion of Mahler's 2nd - and there a really clean and powerful solid state amp most probably should have an edge - but for most acoustic music it is not required to have say levels around 110 dB or more. I certainly prefer lower distortion than most tube gear is capable of - but across the whole dynamic range, particularly in the soft end, not just close to the max output. 
  
 It is amusing but not funny; after the advent of digital audio, even the requirements for capacitors have changed; during the analog days, 80 dB dynamic range was more or less achievable on paper only - and 96 dB of redbook or more by high rez *can* get lost - even in top capacitors.
  
 I am in no way only waiting for the redbook to step on that proverbial banana core and smash its head; on the contrary, I DO appreciate its qualities and have been striving to make it sounding as good as I possibly could. One thing that absolutely has to be provided for with high dynamic range sources is their output impedance to be as low as humanly possible. Better DACs have "powerplants" for outputs - output impedance 10 ohms or even MUCH less - and there is almost no case I have heard an additional line stage of a "normal" preamplifier (that was perfectly acceptable in analog days...) inserted between such DAC and power amplifier is beneficial; most of the time, the startling dynamics well done digital is capable of gets dulled/tamed. Capacitors, output impedance(s) being higher - it simply makes no sense.
  
 I am FOR MUSIC - or its closest approximation in one's home. Via whatever works best. And yes, I am working on analog turntables & cartridges that should be viable
 for considerable time to come. LOTS of area for improvement.
  
 PLEASE DO NOT GET ME WRONG - OR EVEN GET OFFENDED by the following statement, either you personally or any other people that read this:
  
*Audio is not for sloppy people*​  
 Meant is the fact that sometimes only that last n-th degree of refinement most dismiss as unnecessary finally does make the whole journey worthwhile. It does not matter much if one reaches within 10 steps from the top of Mount Whateverest - the final goal has not been achieved.
  
 Trouble is, those last steps are u$ually the hardest to make.


----------



## analogsurviver

stereodude said:


> Why you use a .1uF film cap over a .1uF ceramic?  Ceramic caps are cheap, have very low ESR, and age well.  Frankly, outside of a power supply application where you need a lot of bulk capacitance, I have no idea why modern circuits have electrolytic caps in them.  They certainly shouldn't be in any sort of signal path.


 
 If this is adressed to me - I DO NOT use .1uf film over .1uF ceramic - I REPLACE it with .1uF film. Same for electrolytics. Goes up to 47 uF - and if REALLY important and there is ANY possibility to physically squeeze it into appropriate space AND work properly, up to 100 uf ...
  
 There are positions within circuit where lossy (low Q)  ceramic capacitors are preferable - and I use them. Or when inductance of film types is simply too much - etc.
  
 Whatever works and sounds best and is still within my reach. I would not go to 100 times the cost for few % *RELATIVE *improvement - even if that improvement is in 2 digits. 0.01 % Absorption is *good* enough, 0.001 % or less is better, but...
  
 We should not lie, commit adultery, wage war, kill - yet we DO. For whatever reasons. Same with the use of capacitors in audio equipment; try to go to the manager of "your imaginary electronics manufacturer/employer" - and convince him he should splash on average 10-30 times the money for the capacitors than what all the competition is using. No hard core measurements that advertising department could present as graphs to persuade prospective customers why part with more cash than at competitors. Do NOT forget - that one audio component in isolation achieves very little in the entire chain - and 1,2,3 - it would have been wrongly, but concluded nonetheless, that your component/proposal/approach does not deliver results promised and is uncompetitive.
 One is usually happy to accept *COMPROMISE *- just to be allowed to continue to work at that "imaginary employer". 
  
That is approx WHY. 
  
I did not care all that much for for the sound of a particular preamplifier by a VERY high end long time established US manufacturer. The owner came to the same conclusion - but not before 2 years have passed. We opened it and took the pictures for sale on ebay - to prove it is still in the original _*virgo intacta *_condition. 
  
About 1 minute was all that it took me to figure out WHY it had to go. This model was all but a shadow of the lavishly built models from the past that once upon a time were bristling with non plus ultra parts. Corners being cut wherever possible ...
  
As in cars - Mercedes A190 is *probably* not the most car for your money. But it does carry the coveted star... - and the prestige it is supposed to carry, in this case at the expense of things that really do matter in a practical vehicle. Available in other similarly priced, say Korean cars, that preserve the value over time compared to Mercedes so poorly that it is hard to go for them unless one decides to drive them - happily ever after - to the bitter end. Choices ...
  
As you can see, there are more aspects to anything than just pure performance. Another way of putting it WHY.


----------



## KeithEmo

To cover your second point first.....there are basically two main reasons why electrolytic caps are still used in the signal path.
  
 1) The circuit isn't DC coupled... in which the audio is superimposed on a significant amount of DC that must be blocked. This is common in portable equipment, which often runs off a single-ended power supply, and in tube equipment - because making tube equipment single ended is easy while making it run from a balanced supply is a lot more complicated and takes a lot more parts. Even in equipment that is essentially DC coupled, you still have to worry about gain and leakage and offset..... If your amp has a gain of 50, and your preamp has 20 mV of DC leaking from its output, the amp will boost that by 50x, which will put 1 V on your speaker - which would be dangerous. Even though that preamp may have "nominally 0 vdc" on its output, making sure that it's really 0 vdc is tricky. By putting a coupling capacitor on the input of the amp you block that DC from getting in and causing harm - so its a safety precaution. And, assuming you're using reasonably low impedances, the values are going to work out such that you need electrolytics because film caps in those values would be big and expensive.
  
 2) Sometimes you need to have a smoothing function somewhere inside a circuit. For example, in a servo circuit, you may need to use a resistor-capacitor filter to produce a really long time constant, and the values may work out to where it's impractical - again - to use anything other than an electrolytic (these can usually be avoided if you choose the right design, and you can design things so that they don't have much effect on the signal).
  
 Now, your first point is a lot more complicated, partly because I deliberately chose simple situations in my example.
  
 Let's look at the situation in detail....
  
 In a power supply, we might be putting that 0.1 uF mica in parallel with a 10,000 uF electrolytic. The electrolytic would be providing virtually all of the filtering at 60 Hz, while the 0.1 uF mica would be doing everything at 10 mHz or 50 mHz. In other words, at 60 Hz, the electrolytic cap is almost a dead short and the 0.1 mica is almost a dead open; at 50 mHz, the electrolytic is the dead open, while the mica is the dead short. In both situations, neither capacitor will be making significant distortion and, since it's a power supply, it wouldn't matter if it did anyway.
  
 In contrast, in most situations where you would use a 0.1 uF capacitor in an audio signal circuit, the capacitor is making a meaningful contribution to the performance - it isn't acting as a short or as an open - but as a resistor in a voltage divider. In that situation, and distortion produced by that capacitor will be added into the signal. Now let's assume, at the signal level and voltage we're using, and that 0.1 uF value, the mica capacitor will produce 10% THD, and the film capacitor will produce 0.1% THD. If we parallel one of each, we're going to end up with about 5% THD, which is not a significant improvement over 10% in audio terms. We'd be MUCH better off using a 0.2 uF film capacitor and getting 0% THD (or we could use a 0.1 uF film capacitor and compromise by changing a value somewhere else). 
  
 Unfortunately, I'm still simplifying things a bit... suffice it to say that, while bypassing an electrolytic capacitor in a signal circuit application may reduce the distortion, it is highly unlikely to come anywhere close to eliminating it entirely - unless the bypass itself is really big. (Would it really save much effort or cost to bypass a 470 uF electrolytic with a 100 uF film capacitor? Even the 100 uF film cap is going to be tens of times larger and more expensive than the electrolytic. You're better off either figuring out how to avoid the cap altogether, or simply accepting that you're going to be using a big expensive part. In that example, the best alternative would be to figure out how to direct-couple the circuit and eliminate the cap entirely.) To do the calculations correctly, you really need to calculate the "contribution" of the capacitor at the impedances used in the circuit, and over the full audio spectrum, then calculate the effect of the probably nonlinearities in that particular capacitor at those impedances and frequencies. (For example, if the load is 1k ohms, and the series capacitor is 100 ohms at a certain frequency, then about 10% of the signal voltage "appears across" the capacitor, so a linear distortion in the capacitor will likely cause about 1/10 as much of that distortion to appear in the load.)
  
 To specifically answer your question, certain types of capacitors, even though they have great basic parameters such as ESR and aging characteristics, have NONLINEARITY problems.... otherwise known as distortion. And, in any situation where that capacitor ends up being part of a voltage divider, where the signal voltage is involved, that distortion will end up being added to the signal. Some types of ceramic capacitors are notorious for this; others less so. (Make a voltage divider with the capacitor as one leg and a resistor as the other; pick a frequency where their impedances are equal; with some capacitors you'll see a microscopic amount of THD on your test frequency where they are attached together; with other types you might see as much as several percent THD; that's distortion that would be added to your signal if you use that capacitor.)
  
  
 Quote:


stereodude said:


> Why you use a .1uF film cap over a .1uF ceramic?  Ceramic caps are cheap, have very low ESR, and age well.  Frankly, outside of a power supply application where you need a lot of bulk capacitance, I have no idea why modern circuits have electrolytic caps in them.  They certainly shouldn't be in any sort of signal path.


----------



## Stereodude

keithemo said:


> To cover your second point first.....there are basically two main reasons why electrolytic caps are still used in the signal path.


 
  
 I understand about DC blocking.  My comment was more that there are lots of other viable options instead of electrolytic caps for most applications.
  
 Which reminds me, I need to call you guys about a damaged woofer in one of my Airmotiv 4 speakers that has a slight buzz under some conditions.


----------



## KeithEmo

Agreed.... although you do need to differentiate between viable operating solutions and safety considerations. (There are lots of amplifier designs that are totally DC coupled from end to end, but still have one DC blocking cap at the input "just in case your preamp has a bit of output offset".) Of course, it's not especially difficult to adjust the input circuit values so a reasonably sized film capacitor can be used - a 10 uF at 25v film cap isn't especially large or expensive.
  
 (Just call support and we'll be glad to take care of your Airmotiv...  )
  
 Quote:


stereodude said:


> I understand about DC blocking.  My comment was more that there are lots of other viable options instead of electrolytic caps for most applications.
> 
> Which reminds me, I need to call you guys about a damaged woofer in one of my Airmotiv 4 speakers that has a slight buzz under some conditions.


----------



## The Walrus

Changing the topic, what do you guys think about the HD headphones? I was seriously considering buying the HD800, that is until I saw the specifications on Sennheiser website...

Frequency response (headphones)14 – 44100 Hz (- 3 dB)
  
 Given that we cannot hear ultrasonics, would I be dumping $1500 for the sounds I cannot hear anyway? What does the HD stand for when it comes to headphones?  If  the difference is only the frequency response beyond hearing threshold, I'd pass...


----------



## RRod

the walrus said:


> Changing the topic, what do you guys think about the HD headphones? I was seriously considering buying the HD800, that is until I saw the specifications on Sennheiser website...
> 
> Frequency response (headphones)14 – 44100 Hz (- 3 dB)
> 
> Given that we cannot hear ultrasonics, would I be dumping $1500 for the sounds I cannot hear anyway? What does the HD stand for when it comes to headphones?  If  the difference is only the frequency response beyond hearing threshold, I'd pass...


 
  
 Plenty of other headphones in the HD line have listed specs above 22kHz. They're a headphone company, so if the numbers are legitimate then there's no reason to not list them, as they tap into the crowd that believes they can benefit from those frequencies. But I can assure you that the $1500 for the HD800 isn't just for numbers in a response spec. They sound a couple of "levels" up from my 598s, and a level above my 700s, as I'd expect from the price. Once you get to a certain level, you don't expect twice the price to give you twice the quality; there's a point of diminishing returns.


----------



## The Walrus

rrod said:


> Plenty of other headphones in the HD line have listed specs above 22kHz. They're a headphone company, so if the numbers are legitimate then there's no reason to not list them, as they tap into the crowd that believes they can benefit from those frequencies. But I can assure you that the $1500 for the HD800 isn't just for numbers in a response spec. They sound a couple of "levels" up from my 598s, and a level above my 700s, as I'd expect from the price. Once you get to a certain level, you don't expect twice the price to give you twice the quality; there's a point of diminishing returns.


 
 Thanks. I checked the specifications of my pro 2900, and the frequency range reads  6-42.000 Hz. I became allergic to any gear that has an HD or Hi Rez in its name, my bad. innerfidelity.com 's measurements show differences in frequency response and THD (HD800 vs pro 2900), but I'm not qualified to say whether they are significant. As you pointed out, I guess it boils down to diminishing returns. I will have get an HD 800 to try and compare the two headphones and decide which one I like more and whether the difference is really worth $1500.


----------



## RRod

the walrus said:


> Thanks. I checked the specifications of my pro 2900, and the frequency range reads  6-42.000 Hz. I became allergic to any gear that has an HD or Hi Rez in its name, my bad. innerfidelity.com 's measurements show differences in frequency response and THD (HD800 vs pro 2900), but I'm not qualified to say whether they are significant. As you pointed out, I guess it boils down to diminishing returns. I will have get an HD 800 to try and compare the two headphones and decide which one I like more and whether the difference is really worth $1500.


 
  
 Yeah, versus an already $500 set of cans you'll definitely want to audition, as it probably won't be a life-altering difference you hear. Still, they're a damn fine set of headgear, so give them a shot.


----------



## limpidglitch

I haven't heard the 2900, but I've heard other Ultrasones, and the HD800.
 The differences are not slight, mainly because they seem to aim for rather different qualities and customer groups. I'd describe the sound of the former as 'quirky', and the latter as 'rational', almost to a fault. Neither really fits my more 'romantic' ideal, but I can easily imagine someone preferring either of the signatures, irrespective of price. Definitely a good idea to have a listen for yourself.


----------



## analogsurviver

the walrus said:


> Changing the topic, what do you guys think about the HD headphones? I was seriously considering buying the HD800, that is until I saw the specifications on Sennheiser website...
> 
> Frequency response (headphones)14 – 44100 Hz (- 3 dB)
> 
> Given that we cannot hear ultrasonics, would I be dumping $1500 for the sounds I cannot hear anyway? What does the HD stand for when it comes to headphones?  If  the difference is only the frequency response beyond hearing threshold, I'd pass...


 
 "HD headphones" - at least in case of Sennheiser - have nothing to do with HD = High Definition . If I understand it correctly , it stands for Hörer Dynamisch ( Headphone Dynamic ) and has its counterpart in HE - Hörer Elektrostatisch ( Headphone Electrostatic ) - both denoting headphone and principle upon which they are based. They have similar names for microphones : MD = Mikrofon Dynamisch ( dynamic microphone ) and ME Mikrofon Elektrostatisch ( electrostatic condenser type, regardless if permanently polarized or requiring external power supply ).
  
 During early CD days, practically ANY new headphone set available at the time sported "digital ready" in its name or at least in its description and most certainly "screaming" on the box. Meant was that it supports the wide dynamic range of the CD.
  
 So, HD in Sennheiser has nothing to do with High Definition - and should absolutely not be used against them just because of the fact that HD as High Definition has somehow gotten the bad name with you.
  
 Regarding whether or not it makes sense to pay more for "the sounds you can not hear" - is something you will have to decide for yourself. It does not necessary have to be that way - but usually is: the headphone (or any other electromechanical transducer ) that has response more extended than 20 kHz will usually perform better in the audible range than its counterpart limited to "just" 20 kHz response. It usually goes hand in hand with lower mass - and as 
  
 F = m x a     ( Force equals Mass times Acceleration ) 
  
 still holds true, it means when there is given acceleration ( as in low SPL, which is nothing else than force per area - which means the lower the mass, the better the acceleration ) , sooner or later there will be mass that is too great for the transducer to follow the signal correctly. That means better definition of reproduction at low levels - regardless of the frequency range. Giving you in fact better dynamic range.
  
 Use your ears - in conjunction with preferably your equipment. The equipment that will support low levels/high frequency tends to be more expensive for the reasons we deal in this thread; how far can you hear the difference and how far you wish to follow this capability, is up to you to decide.


----------



## KeithEmo

I've found that the way headphones sound is simply very individual. Never buy speakers or headphones based on numbers - you gotta listen to them for yourself. There are headphones with great specs that sound lousy, and headphones with mediocre specs that sound great, and two sets of headphones with equally excellent specs can sound wildly different. (It would be nice if you could tell how they sound from the specs - but you can't.)
  
  
  
 Quote:


analogsurviver said:


> "HD headphones" - at least in case of Sennheiser - have nothing to do with HD = High Definition . If I understand it correctly , it stands for Hörer Dynamisch ( Headphone Dynamic ) and has its counterpart in HE - Hörer Elektrostatisch ( Headphone Electrostatic ) - both denoting headphone and principle upon which they are based. They have similar names for microphones : MD = Mikrofon Dynamisch ( dynamic microphone ) and ME Mikrofon Elektrostatisch ( electrostatic condenser type, regardless if permanently polarized or requiring external power supply ).
> 
> During early CD days, practically ANY new headphone set available at the time sported "digital ready" in its name or at least in its description and most certainly "screaming" on the box. Meant was that it supports the wide dynamic range of the CD.
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

keithemo said:


> I've found that the way headphones sound is simply very individual. Never buy speakers or headphones based on numbers - you gotta listen to them for yourself. There are headphones with great specs that sound lousy, and headphones with mediocre specs that sound great, and two sets of headphones with equally excellent specs can sound wildly different. (It would be nice if you could tell how they sound from the specs - but you can't.)


 
 I agree about not to buy a phone based on numbers only, and certainly not those as we usually don't even know how they came to those values, specs being incomplete specs most of the time. 
  
 but I disagree circumstantially with the rest ^_^. you can get a pretty good idea about the signature if you have some FR graphs(at least by comparing them to some made by the same guy, from a headphone you own). even more so when you know the kind of headphone it is.
 and I don't remember a headphone with an impulse response going on  for a long time and a warm signature to ever sound "fast" or dry or detailed.
 and it's more obvious for portable gears, but knowing the specs can at least let you pair the source adequately.
 all in all, I buy most of my IEMs based on specs alone and I rarely get surprised by the results. and when I do, it's usually something measuring good that I don't like. I don't think I ever listened to something that measured as real crap with messed up FR, lot of distortions in spikes and thought it was great. obviously to be fair to that statement I would need to define what I call crap. because to me an IEM can sound great while having a huge roll off as soon as 13 or 14khz. so frequency extension isn't a "crap criteria" to me ^_^. but on speakers, that would probably be one of the first thing I would check and would find frequency extention (mostly in the bass) to be very much a "crap criteria".
 that's why I said I disagree circumstantially. because it's hard to see it all as black and white.
  
  
 ps: late welcome to headfi, your posts up till now have been very interesting so keep it up plz ^_^.


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


>


 
 It was "generic" answer regarding solely frequency response beyond/above 20 kHz.
  
 The only headphones that do sound predictable to ALL listeners are _*earspeakers *_- which in no way touch one's ears and/or head ( NO pads of any sort ). Everything else is "hit or miss" - it is perfectly possible to find that to you a $20 headphone produces better sound than $2000 headphone - because it just happens to suit your ears.
  
 Literally - our pinna is as individual as our fingerprint - whatever we do to modify it in order to be able to wear in ear, on ear, around ear headphones, it changes our natural way of hearing .And if that hypothetical $20 headphone (provided it has reasonable low THD and good dynamic range ) in conjunction with mine/your/his/her ears produces very good approximation of the mirror image response in order for me/you/him/her to hear "flat" response - all the better.
  
 Earspeakers to the contrary present our *undisturbed  *ear with an as flat frequency response as humanly possible - since the ears perform as if there were no earspeakers in the vicinity, we perceive them as "flat" Deep bass has to be sacrified, as there are no pads and cancellation will inevitably occur at low frequencies.
  

  
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/50502451@N06/5934920830/in/photostream/
  
 The sheer naturalness of the reproduction of all music - except genres that really thrive on loud low bass -  is quite unlike anything more conventional using pads. And they will sound the "same" practically to all listeners provided the listener does not have significantly smaller or bigger head than "average" - in this case the correct distance between ear pinna and earspeaker driver can not be achieved. This is possible to rectify by using a different or modified headband frame construction.


----------



## RRod

Except there are plenty of headphones that get the same kind of descriptions from a variety of reviewers, who undoubtedly have differing pinnæ. I have yet to find someone who calls the HD800 overly warm or lacking in treble extension or having excessive bass.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> Except there are plenty of headphones that get the same kind of descriptions from a variety of reviewers, who undoubtedly have differing pinnæ. I have yet to find someone who calls the HD800 overly warm or lacking in treble extension or having excessive bass.


 
 HD 800 is a BIG circumaural open headphone and as such almost does not touch the pinna itself, allowing the pinna to work pretty much as intended. It is a good compromise - as its large circumaural pad allows for much better extension in the lows than it would have without it in "open" arrangement. 
  
 It is (n+1)th attempt at dynamic headphone by Sennheiser - no wonder it is as good as it is. It can not match Jecklin Float or AKG K 1000 in imaging - but beats both in bass and dynamic range. De gustibus non est disputandum - only the most significant differences noted.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> I agree about not to buy a phone based on numbers only, and certainly not those as we usually don't even know how they came to those values, specs being incomplete specs most of the time.
> 
> but I disagree circumstantially with the rest ^_^. you can get a pretty good idea about the signature if you have some FR graphs(at least by comparing them to some made by the same guy, from a headphone you own). even more so when you know the kind of headphone it is.
> and I don't remember a headphone with an impulse response going on  for a long time and a warm signature to ever sound "fast" or dry or detailed.
> ...


 
 There IS one known example of IEM headphone that can sound great but invariably measures like crap - by design . Havi B3 Pro 1. It is EXTREMELY sensitive to tips - and although the general lines of action using various tip geometries are known, no way one can for certain predict how it will sound in YOUR ears. Good ol' trial and error, I am afraid.
 If everything aligns itself as it should, it is a VERY satisfying sounding IEM - with soundstage most conventional full size headphones do not come close. It does not like to be pushed too loud, it does require a VERY powerful amp, far in excess of majority of full size dynamic phones, its THD measurements ( close to 10 % ! ) are alarming - yet it can sound absolutely mesmerizing.
  
 For 60 or so $ ...go figure.


----------



## Head Injury

analogsurviver said:


> There IS one known example of IEM headphone that can sound great but invariably measures like crap - by design . Havi B3 Pro 1. It is EXTREMELY sensitive to tips - and although the general lines of action using various tip geometries are known, no way one can for certain predict how it will sound in YOUR ears. Good ol' trial and error, I am afraid.
> If everything aligns itself as it should, it is a VERY satisfying sounding IEM - with soundstage most conventional full size headphones do not come close. It does not like to be pushed too loud, it does require a VERY powerful amp, far in excess of majority of full size dynamic phones, its THD measurements ( close to 10 % ! ) are alarming - yet it can sound absolutely mesmerizing.
> 
> For 60 or so $ ...go figure.


 

 Why's it require a powerful amp? From the InnerFidelity measurements I see 0.105 Vrms for 90 dB, meaning to should get to about 110 dB with a 1 Vrms iPhone.


----------



## analogsurviver

head injury said:


> Why's it require a powerful amp? From the InnerFidelity measurements I see 0.105 Vrms for 90 dB, meaning to should get to about 110 dB with a 1 Vrms iPhone.


 
 Although in theory  SPL levels should be achievable at 1 V RMS, Havi does improve with bigger drive. Depending on tips used, it may or may not require bass boost; that can add anything from 3 to 6 dB by 20 Hz. Once there is "enough", most other phones will sound deafeningly loud at this volume setting suitable for Havi. Although uncompressed commercially available recordings of classical music are as rare as the the proverbial hen's teeth, I managed to capture Berlioz Symphonie Fantasique in full glory; with slight EQ for the Havi (somewhere between above +3 to + 6 dB by the time 20Hz is reached ) in the bass, the final stroke on the big drum and timpany did audibly clip my Meier Audio DIY amp ( so that I can control which components get used 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ) when powered by 8.5 V Li-Ion battery - which went away to much lesser clipping by the use of 9.6 V NiMH battery. However, the clipping and congestion really went away once powered by two "9V" batteries in series ( this amp can be powered by up to + 28 V DC ). That 18 V or so DC  was probably overkill, most likely +12 V DC should do.
  
 The level heard live and monitoring in Havi IEMs were matched to the best I could possibly do. 
  
 Save for the last 18 or so seconds, the level never exceeds - 6 dB; the last stroke is really loud, in PCM mastered to a fraction of a dB below 0 dBFS. It is an extreme, a single peak, for any normal casual listening far less will do.
  
 During the rehearsal, the maximum level was about - 4 dB - if compared to the same setting/normalization for the live concert recording. No clipping of the amp powered by 8.5 V li-Ion battery driving Havi at that point ... - or any normal music listening prior to that.
  
 @ EVERYONE : whatever you are celebrating at the time, be it Christmas, Hanuka, Winter Solstice, etc -
  
                                                                                                    Happy Holliday Season


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> Although in theory  SPL levels should be achievable at 1 V RMS, Havi does improve with bigger drive. Depending on tips used, it may or may not require bass boost; that can add anything from 3 to 6 dB by 20 Hz. Once there is "enough", most other phones will sound deafeningly loud at this volume setting suitable for Havi. Although uncompressed commercially available recordings of classical music are as rare as the the proverbial hen's teeth, I managed to capture Berlioz Symphonie Fantasique in full glory; with slight EQ for the Havi (somewhere between above +3 to + 6 dB by the time 20Hz is reached ) in the bass, the final stroke on the big drum and timpany did audibly clip my Meier Audio DIY amp ( so that I can control which components get used
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 You too! Though the Symphonie isn't exactly the kind of piece I should be in the mood for at Xmas ^_^


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> You too! Though the Symphonie isn't exactly the kind of piece I should be in the mood for at Xmas ^_^


 
 You too!
  
 Of course I am not listening to Simphonie at the moment; I just wrote the single example where already hard drive for Havi had to  be further "fortified" - the recording took place 5 months ago...


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> You too!
> 
> Of course I am not listening to Simphonie at the moment; I just wrote the single example where already hard drive for Havi had to  be further "fortified" - the recording took place 5 months ago...


 
  
 I meant you put me in the mood for it by mentioning it; now I have the beheading part going through my head


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> I meant you put me in the mood for it by mentioning it; now I have the beheading part going through my head


 
 I apologize, I had no such intentions; sometimes, it is necessary to completely detach from any emotional impact music should have - and concentrate on dBs, Hzs, Vs and other technical-s; it has become custom to really enjoy music from the concerts I record sometimes months after - once I can comfortably slip into the skin of a regular concert goer.
  
 Therefore I cherish each and every "tourist" visit of a concert - enjoying music as such, although always used to "recalibrate" my ears with the real thing.


----------



## analogsurviver

One more thing; for those who have been downoading Linn's 24 bit of Christmas free music, today they have "second chance" offer for any track you might have missed. This is available only trough email you receive if you have been downloading before.
  
 Additional bonus - ALL the 25 tracks are in 192/24, so worth re-downloading those that were available only in lesser resolution the first time around. 24 bit vs 16 44.1 vs anything up to 192 and all that jazz...


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> I apologize, I had no such intentions; sometimes, it is necessary to completely detach from any emotional impact music should have - and concentrate on dBs, Hzs, Vs and other technical-s; it has become custom to really enjoy music from the concerts I record sometimes months after - once I can comfortably slip into the skin of a regular concert goer.
> 
> Therefore I cherish each and every "tourist" visit of a concert - enjoying music as such, although always used to "recalibrate" my ears with the real thing.


 
  
 I think we're just being separated by a common language at this point 
  


analogsurviver said:


> One more thing; for those who have been downoading Linn's 24 bit of Christmas free music, today they have "second chance" offer for any track you might have missed. This is available only trough email you receive if you have been downloading before.
> 
> Additional bonus - ALL the 25 tracks are in 192/24, so worth re-downloading those that were available only in lesser resolution the first time around. 24 bit vs 16 44.1 vs anything up to 192 and all that jazz...


 
  
 The tracks that originally weren't 192 still aren't; they've just been upsampled to give a consistent rate to the album.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> I think we're just being separated by a common language at this point
> 
> 
> The tracks that originally weren't 192 still aren't; they've just been upsampled to give a consistent rate to the album.


 
 Well, English is not my native language - so sometimes a bit harder for me to either understand others or express myself clearly 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





...
  
 I agree that the tracks that originally were not 192 should not be upsampled; then again, if the software is clever enough, it still might bring dividends.
 NOT going to ABX them on xmas 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## charleski

head injury said:


> Why's it require a powerful amp? From the InnerFidelity measurements I see 0.105 Vrms for 90 dB, meaning to should get to about 110 dB with a 1 Vrms iPhone.


 

 There are two things an amplifer provides: voltage and current. The voltage denotes the gain, or how loud it goes, but the amplifier also needs to be able to provide enough current to keep the voltage at the level required. Since headphones can be complex loads, this is not always a simple linear relationship. Here's a simple article on the topic - take a look at the graph that shows what's measured when he hooks up a pair of headphones to his iPod (and compare it to the 30Hz square-wave innerfidelity measured for the Havi ...). Most headphone amps don't actually provide that much gain, typically only giving 6dB, their role instead is to provide the current required to drive the headphones cleanly.


----------



## analogsurviver

charleski said:


> There are two things an amplifer provides: voltage and current. The voltage denotes the gain, or how loud it goes, but the amplifier also needs to be able to provide enough current to keep the voltage at the level required. Since headphones can be complex loads, this is not always a simple linear relationship. Here's a simple article on the topic - take a look at the graph that shows what's measured when he hooks up a pair of headphones to his iPod (and compare it to the 30Hz square-wave innerfidelity measured for the Havi ...). Most headphone amps don't actually provide that much gain, typically only giving 6dB, their role instead is to provide the current required to drive the headphones cleanly.


 
 Thank you for the reminder. Completely "forgot" this can be an issue...
  
 The amp I use for "normal" dynamic headphones , the Meier Audio portable DIY amp
  
 http://www.meier-audio.homepage.t-online.de/portaamp.htm  )
  
 is a pure DC design - and can maintain pure DC indefinitely. With 6171 , it is also >....>>....> 20 kHz. The only limitation is the output swing, which depends on the DC voltage of single ended power supply. In one of the previous posts I made a mistake: this voltage is NOT up to 44 V DC, but to 28V DC.


----------



## stv014

charleski said:


> Since headphones can be complex loads, this is not always a simple linear relationship. Here's a simple article on the topic - take a look at the graph that shows what's measured when he hooks up a pair of headphones to his iPod (and compare it to the 30Hz square-wave innerfidelity measured for the Havi ...).


 
  
 The article does not tell exactly what version of the iPod it is, but at least some older models had capacitor coupled headphone outputs that caused audible bass roll-off with low frequency loads, such as typical portable headphones and ear buds. That produces a square wave response like what is seen in the article.
  
 I think both graphs shown there may also have clipping in the analyzer or ADC, rather than from the iPod itself, because a square wave response that starts perfectly flat at the edges - it does not even have the ringing from band-limiting - and then begins to fall (even without the load) after some time is somewhat unusual.
  
 According to these measurements, at least the iPhone 6 Plus has no problems driving a 37.5 ohms load at full scale ~1 Vrms level, and there seem to be no output capacitors either. The Havi B3 Pro 1 has an impedance of only about 30 ohms, though, so it would require a couple dB higher maximum current. The iPhone also has an output impedance of a few ohms, which could be an issue for some headphones, but the Havi B3 seem to be almost purely resistive.


----------



## analogsurviver

stv014 said:


> The article does not tell exactly what version of the iPod it is, but at least some older models had capacitor coupled headphone outputs that caused audible bass roll-off with low frequency loads, such as typical portable headphones and ear buds. That produces a square wave response like what is seen in the article.
> 
> I think both graphs shown there may also have clipping in the analyzer or ADC, rather than from the iPod itself, because a square wave response that starts perfectly flat at the edges - it does not even have the ringing from band-limiting - and then begins to fall (even without the load) after some time is somewhat unusual.
> 
> According to these measurements, at least the iPhone 6 Plus has no problems driving a 37.5 ohms load at full scale ~1 Vrms level, and there seem to be no output capacitors either. The Havi B3 Pro 1 has an impedance of only about 30 ohms, though, so it would require a couple dB higher maximum current. The iPhone also has an output impedance of a few ohms, which could be an issue for some headphones, but the Havi B3 seem to be almost purely resistive.


 
 Germans have a great saying:
  
=rart_ou&suchspalte[]=rart_varianten_ou]Probieren geht über Studieren​  
 http://www.linguee.de/deutsch-englisch/uebersetzung/probieren+geht+%C3%BCber+studieren.html
  
 Believe me, Havi DOES benefit from an amplifier that should by all criteria be an overkill - it just gets better sounding.


----------



## charleski

stv014 said:


> The article does not tell exactly what version of the iPod it is,


  
 ? The post clearly refers to it as an 'Ipod 15GB'. Only 1 ipod was ever sold with a 15GB capacity: the 3rd gen iPod with dock connector.
  


> but at least some older models had capacitor coupled headphone outputs that caused audible bass roll-off with low frequency loads, such as typical portable headphones and ear buds. That produces a square wave response like what is seen in the article.
> 
> I think both graphs shown there may also have clipping in the analyzer or ADC, rather than from the iPod itself, because a square wave response that starts perfectly flat at the edges - it does not even have the ringing from band-limiting - and then begins to fall (even without the load) after some time is somewhat unusual.
> 
> According to these measurements, at least the iPhone 6 Plus has no problems driving a 37.5 ohms load at full scale ~1 Vrms level, and there seem to be no output capacitors either. The Havi B3 Pro 1 has an impedance of only about 30 ohms, though, so it would require a couple dB higher maximum current. The iPhone also has an output impedance of a few ohms, which could be an issue for some headphones, but the Havi B3 seem to be almost purely resistive.


 
  
 I've never seen the schematic for the iPod 3g, it might be interesting if you could post it. Capacitative coupling does, however, provide a convenient example of an amplifier running out of juice, in this case literally as the output capacitor discharges and can no longer supply electrons as current. In most cases the interaction with the load produces a more complex picture of frequency-dependent clipping.
  
 If the Havi B3 _is_ purely resistive, then the graphs they show in their report imply a problem with innerfidelity's test setup.


----------



## charleski

analogsurviver said:


> One more thing; for those who have been downoading Linn's 24 bit of Christmas free music, today they have "second chance" offer for any track you might have missed. This is available only trough email you receive if you have been downloading before.
> 
> Additional bonus - ALL the 25 tracks are in 192/24, so worth re-downloading those that were available only in lesser resolution the first time around. 24 bit vs 16 44.1 vs anything up to 192 and all that jazz...


 
  
 Unlike some well-known vendors, Linn are usually quite good at not pretending that material recorded normally has ultrasonic content, so this is a bit disconcerting. There was some fake-rescaling even on the tracks originally offered, such as 'Many Rivers to Cross', which came as a 96kHz file near the start of the month. I note, however, that the purchase page for album the track comes from correctly lists it as 44.1kHz, so maybe this is just a temporary aberration.
  

  


rrod said:


> You too! Though the Symphonie isn't exactly the kind of piece I should be in the mood for at Xmas ^_^


 
  
 Linn do a good version of the Messiah, which is a bit more seasonal . This was a pretty good year for them, with the Butt/Dunedin Requiem and the Fliter Chopin receiving a lot of well-deserved praise. Their catalog still has way too much audiophile jazz filler, but I suppose it pays the bills.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *charleski* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> ? The post clearly refers to it as an 'Ipod 15GB'. Only 1 ipod was ever sold with a 15GB capacity: the 3rd gen iPod with dock connector.
> 
> I've never seen the schematic for the iPod 3g, it might be interesting if you could post it.


 
  
 Sorry, I am not familiar enough with iPods to have guessed from the "iPod 15 GB" that it can only be an iPod 3G. If that is the case, this article seems to confirm the capacitor coupled output (-3 dB at about 50 Hz with 25 ohms load impedance).
  


> Originally Posted by *charleski* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Capacitative coupling does, however, provide a convenient example of an amplifier running out of juice, in this case literally as the output capacitor discharges and can no longer supply electrons as current.


 
  
 It is not really the amplifier "running out of juice", since the effect is (other than for the capacitor having non-ideal characteristics in practice) linear, and independent of the output level, unlike clipping. The amplifier could possibly have problems driving a reactive load, but as long as it can supply the required amount of voltage and current at low distortion at all frequencies, it does not overheat, and does not become unstable because of the reactive load, this should not be the case. Most headphones - other than multi-driver balanced armature IEMs and a few other models - are not very reactive in the audio band (where most of the output power is needed) anyway, and the impedance phase is usually within +/-20 degrees, and even less for the Havi B3 in particular.
  


> If the Havi B3 _is_ purely resistive, then the graphs they show in their report imply a problem with innerfidelity's test setup.


 
  
 The test in the blog post did not use the Havi B3, but rather a pair of iPod ear buds. In any case, even if they used resistors, the low frequency roll-off, and its expected effect on the square wave response would still have been there.


----------



## analogsurviver

charleski said:


> Unlike some well-known vendors, Linn are usually quite good at not pretending that material recorded normally has ultrasonic content, so this is a bit disconcerting. There was some fake-rescaling even on the tracks originally offered, such as 'Many Rivers to Cross', which came as a 96kHz file near the start of the month. I note, however, that the purchase page for album the track comes from correctly lists it as 44.1kHz, so maybe this is just a temporary aberration.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 It should become a decent practice to mention exactly in which format was the original recording AND master made. Or at least transparently noted with which software and hardware were the downloads made - and what was the source. 
  
 I have just checked Many rivers to cross track - mine came as 44.1kHz ( and I ALWAYS check for the highest resolution available to download ).


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > I agree about not to buy a phone based on numbers only, and certainly not those as we usually don't even know how they came to those values, specs being incomplete specs most of the time.
> ...


 

 wow! indeed these seem to be a perfect example. looking at this http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/HaviB3Pro1.pdf I have to say I would never buy it nobody could convince me that this is sounding good. between the distortions and the channel mismatch, I guess it's the kind of IEM where each sample is different and luck is a great part of the equation to get a proper sound.  or maybe tyll sample was just bad?


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> wow! indeed these seem to be a perfect example. looking at this http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/HaviB3Pro1.pdf I have to say I would never buy it nobody could convince me that this is sounding good. between the distortions and the channel mismatch, I guess it's the kind of IEM where each sample is different and luck is a great part of the equation to get a proper sound.  or maybe tyll sample was just bad?


 
 I did not like the measurements of my own pair either - yet it looks this is BY DESIGN !!! Havi have patented inner channel structure - and as alarming these measurements look like, they CAN - and DO - sound very well. 
  
 But I would really like to see say 10 random selected pairs tested and see if there is some "design envelope" - or it is total chance and luck. It has established itself as one of THE IEMs - and not only within its price class. The original Havi B3 Pro 1 thread on head-fi has been closed by the moderators - due to some particularly bad trolling...
  
 Let's put it this way - > 90 % musicians/singers to whom I demoed my pair of Havi were very positively surprised - at least one ordered it on spot ! Then again, most musicians do not run around with $500+ CIEMs ...


----------



## Head Injury

charleski said:


> There are two things an amplifer provides: voltage and current. The voltage denotes the gain, or how loud it goes, but the amplifier also needs to be able to provide enough current to keep the voltage at the level required. Since headphones can be complex loads, this is not always a simple linear relationship. Here's a simple article on the topic - take a look at the graph that shows what's measured when he hooks up a pair of headphones to his iPod (and compare it to the 30Hz square-wave innerfidelity measured for the Havi ...). Most headphone amps don't actually provide that much gain, typically only giving 6dB, their role instead is to provide the current required to drive the headphones cleanly.


 

 I know what amps do. The Havi isn't a particularly challenging load though. As mentioned by stv014, its impedance curve is fairly flat and the impedance isn't terribly low.
  
 And even if current is limited enough with the iPhone to reduce voltage, it's not going to cripple the Havi such that it requires "a VERY powerful amp". It'll just be somewhat less loud. That this IEM, which is about as difficult a load as a Grado, would require a very powerful amp is another audiophile myth.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> It should become a decent practice to mention exactly in which format was the original recording AND master made. Or at least transparently noted with which software and hardware were the downloads made - and what was the source.
> 
> I have just checked Many rivers to cross track - mine came as 44.1kHz ( and I ALWAYS check for the highest resolution available to download ).


 
  
 Looks like here someone was just lazy copying over the details from the singleton tracks, which had the correct info when I downloaded them on their own day rather than in the whole pack. Though really all these companies have to do is just provide a spectrogram or two for people who actually care about hi-res content; it's not like there are some kind of electronic pages where they can display extended info about their products or anything.


----------



## charleski

stv014 said:


> Sorry, I am not familiar enough with iPods to have guessed from the "iPod 15 GB" that it can only be an iPod 3G. If that is the case, this article seems to confirm the capacitor coupled output (-3 dB at about 50 Hz with 25 ohms load impedance).
> 
> 
> It is not really the amplifier "running out of juice", since the effect is (other than for the capacitor having non-ideal characteristics in practice) linear, and independent of the output level, unlike clipping. The amplifier could possibly have problems driving a reactive load, but as long as it can supply the required amount of voltage and current at low distortion at all frequencies, it does not overheat, and does not become unstable because of the reactive load, this should not be the case. Most headphones - other than multi-driver balanced armature IEMs and a few other models - are not very reactive in the audio band (where most of the output power is needed) anyway, and the impedance phase is usually within +/-20 degrees, and even less for the Havi B3 in particular.
> ...


 
  
 There are various causes that will lead to an amplifier being unable to supply the current required to maintain the demanded voltage. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.


head injury said:


> I know what amps do. The Havi isn't a particularly challenging load though. As mentioned by stv014, its impedance curve is fairly flat and the impedance isn't terribly low.
> 
> And even if current is limited enough with the iPhone to reduce voltage, it's not going to cripple the Havi such that it requires "a VERY powerful amp". It'll just be somewhat less loud. That this IEM, which is about as difficult a load as a Grado, would require a very powerful amp is another audiophile myth.


 
 No, it won't just get 'less loud'; it'll clip, which is different. Current-limited distortions may either be linear, as shown in the example I gave, which are generally reasonably benign; or non-linear which produce a more complex picture and are usually very audible. And no, the Havi doesn't require a 'VERY powerful amp' - I wouldn't call the 100mW Topping NX1 'VERY powerful'. The problem is that many output stages can muster far less. But suit yourself.
  
 [Edit] Actually, looking around it seems the best guess at present is that the NX1 uses the Maxim 9722 (note the use of a charge pump to provide a negative rail so the output can be DC-coupled). Digging through the datasheet and assuming the battery is a standard 3.3V LiIon, it probably only produces 50-60mW into a standard earphone load. The iPhone5, in comparison, can only muster half that when driving the supplied Apple earphones, and high-end Samsung phones are far worse. Power, of course, = I2Z, and is a reflection of the ability to deliver current.


----------



## bigshot

Midrange AV receivers are super clean, and powerful ones are relatively cheap. Amps aren't the problem any more unless you bought the wrong one.
  
 I have yet to find an amp that can't drive my iPods, and I have them going all the way back to the four button ones


----------



## davidsh

My iPhone drives any of my headphones fine, both HE-500 and HD800.


----------



## charleski

If you were really interested in busting myths rather than making unsupported assertions then you'd do some reading and crunch the numbers. _Everything_ depends on the peak output power that you'll require, and that depends on the dynamic range of the music and the average listening level you're targeting. The 30mW coming out of an iPhone would be just about enough to get an easily-driven headphone like the HD650 to 110dB, but it will clip when asked to drive them to 114dB, which requires 50mW.
  
 If you only listen to heavily-compressed music and keep the average listening level down to around 85dB, then you can get by with less. If you don't mind your music clipping on the peaks, then you can get by with less. If you restrict your choice of headphones to those that are easy to drive and very sensitive, then you can get by with less. If you don't want to make all these compromises, then you need more. Unless you have specifically demanding phones you don't need _lots_ of power (some monsters go well over 2W), but you *do need enough*.
  
 The fact is that producing an ouput stage with a decent amount of power costs money, and this is typically the first corner that gets cut in mobile devices. Most consumers simply get innured to the sound of music that clips and don't complain. But the idea that output power doesn't matter is a myth that deserves to get shredded.


----------



## RRod

charleski said:


> If you were really interested in busting myths rather than making unsupported assertions then you'd do some reading and crunch the numbers. _Everything_ depends on the peak output power that you'll require, and that depends on the dynamic range of the music and the average listening level you're targeting. The 30mW coming out of an iPhone would be just about enough to get an easily-driven headphone like the HD650 to 110dB, but it will clip when asked to drive them to 114dB, which requires 50mW.
> 
> If you only listen to heavily-compressed music and keep the average listening level down to around 85dB, then you can get by with less. If you don't mind your music clipping on the peaks, then you can get by with less. If you restrict your choice of headphones to those that are easy to drive and very sensitive, then you can get by with less. If you don't want to make all these compromises, then you need more. Unless you have specifically demanding phones you don't need _lots_ of power (some monsters go well over 2W), but you *do need enough*.
> 
> The fact is that producing an ouput stage with a decent amount of power costs money, and this is typically the first corner that gets cut in mobile devices. Most consumers simply get innured to the sound of music that clips and don't complain. But the idea that output power doesn't matter is a myth that deserves to get shredded.


 
  
 That's all good and fine until someone says something like that Magni, which can push the 800s to >115dBspl, isn't enough either. This happens all the time on the 800s thread. Output power certainly needs to be there, and you're right we shouldn't propagate a myth that "amps never matter", but I find that the opposite myth is much more prevalent, at least on this site.


----------



## castleofargh

it doesn't matter much, most headfi readers don't know that voltage only is loudness or that loud doesn't mean well driven. lots of people think that a 600ohm headphone is hard to drive whatever the sensitivity given. a good number of people don't get the difference between maximum output and the actual output when using a given headphone, thinking that more max output always means more power/control/sound quality into the headphone...
 so we end up debating driving ability with people who don't know what driving a headphone means. how many people are sure that the high gain switch gives better sound on their amp? it's a real problem of basic knowledge being replaced by intuition and caricatures.
  
 a few of us in here argue about numbers, how much is needed to get even the peaks perfectly, or that we took the specs @1khz when the impedance is different elsewhere for a given headphone, and most of it is true. but all of us debating here are likely to get a proper amp with a safe enough margin for our gears anyway. we're not the ones having much trouble getting a proper amp.
 the poor guy coming on headfi with zero electric background and very little audio experience will not get half of what we're talking about, and will most likely end up listening to some misinformed exaggerated statements from a guy saying "my stuff is the best", that has the benefit of being easy to grasp. and I really have no idea how to reach those new members before they get turned into brainless consumers paying for ideas instead of paying for sound.
  
 how do we reach people who love to know but dislike learning? how do we explain in a way they will bother to read, that answering "what is the best amp?" and forgetting to tell us what headphone he'll use, should never ever be answered by "I have the shiit xxxxx and it's the best"?


----------



## The Walrus

castleofargh said:


> it doesn't matter much, most headfi readers don't know that voltage only is loudness or that loud doesn't mean well driven. lots of people think that a 600ohm headphone is hard to drive whatever the sensitivity given. a good number of people don't get the difference between maximum output and the actual output when using a given headphone, thinking that more max output always means more power/control/sound quality into the headphone...
> so we end up debating driving ability with people who don't know what driving a headphone means. how many people are sure that the high gain switch gives better sound on their amp? it's a real problem of basic knowledge being replaced by intuition and caricatures.
> 
> a few of us in here argue about numbers, how much is needed to get even the peaks perfectly, or that we took the specs @1khz when the impedance is different elsewhere for a given headphone, and most of it is true. but all of us debating here are likely to get a proper amp with a safe enough margin for our gears anyway. we're not the ones having much trouble getting a proper amp.
> ...


 
 I used my Ultrasone Pro 2900 without a headphone amp as you said "It sounded good enough to me and it was certainly loud enough, so why would I need an amp for??".. That is until I learnt from you guys that my assumptions might be wrong after all and I tried my Walkman with an amp and heard the improvements with my own ears. (Below are the specifications of my headphones and no, they are not the best 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 )

S-Logic™ Natural Surround Sound Plus
Dynamic principle, open
 
Frequency range 6-42.000 Hz
Impedance 40 Ohm
Sound pressure level 96 dB
MU Metal bufferboard, reduced
field emissions in accordance with ULE (=Ultra Low Emission) standard
Driver 40 mm titanium-plated
Weight 295 g (without cord)

 Still, I'd like to mention that even if you use a line-out dock for the amp, the signal is not devoid of the sound effects (at least for the walmans I used) and unless I turn them off, I get serious distortion. (That's what I noticed anyway.)
  
 Having said that, I cannot figure out what IEM to use without an amp with Walkman A series. Note that I will be using them only at the gym and I need fair noise insulation. What shall I look for before making a decision before buying (my bu[size=12.8000001907349px]dget for the IEM's is say around $2[/size]00)


----------



## vertical

castleofargh said:


> it doesn't matter much, most headfi readers don't know that voltage only is loudness or that loud doesn't mean well driven. lots of people think that a 600ohm headphone is hard to drive whatever the sensitivity given. a good number of people don't get the difference between maximum output and the actual output when using a given headphone, thinking that more max output always means more power/control/sound quality into the headphone...
> so we end up debating driving ability with people who don't know what driving a headphone means. how many people are sure that the high gain switch gives better sound on their amp? it's a real problem of basic knowledge being replaced by intuition and caricatures.
> 
> a few of us in here argue about numbers, how much is needed to get even the peaks perfectly, or that we took the specs @1khz when the impedance is different elsewhere for a given headphone, and most of it is true. but all of us debating here are likely to get a proper amp with a safe enough margin for our gears anyway. we're not the ones having much trouble getting a proper amp.
> ...



Good summary of one of the core issues of the audio industry/ market...


----------



## charleski

rrod said:


> That's all good and fine until someone says something like that Magni, which can push the 800s to >115dBspl, isn't enough either. This happens all the time on the 800s thread. Output power certainly needs to be there, and you're right we shouldn't propagate a myth that "amps never matter", but I find that the opposite myth is much more prevalent, at least on this site.


 
 Well, the beauty of maths is that anyone can crunch the numbers themselves to check. Sennheiser HD800s are rated at a sensitivity of 102dB at 1V and 300Ω. At 600Ω the iPhone 5 can produce a maximum voltage of 1.0075V, and it'll drop a bit into lower impedances, but let's use that figure. So at maximum output the iPhone will be producing  102 + 20 * log(1.0075) = 102.06dB, which isn't really even close. Power output will be 1.00752 / 300 = 3.3mW, so in this case it's being limited by the restricted voltage swing. I assume you're talking about the Schiit Magni, which is rated at 260mW into 300Ω. This implies that it's producing a max voltage of sqrt(0.260 * 300) = 8.83V, which will produce 120.9dB and is more than you'll ever need.
  
 I think the problem is that people don't realise how non-linear this process is. You've either got the power you need or you don't. You really just need to look at the THD+N vs output curve, here's the one for the O2 amp:

 The distortion shows a very gentle climb with output until it sudenly hits the limits, clips and goes off the scale. As long as your output requirements always stay to the left of the vertical cliff, you're fine; if you end up heading to the right of it, you're &@£$!ed. This picture is a result of the high degree of linearity produced by solid-state amps. If we were talking about tube amps it would be different, as the distortion slope below the clipping threshold is anything but gentle and it's sometimes hard to see a threshold at all.


----------



## RRod

charleski said:


> Well, the beauty of maths is that anyone can crunch the numbers themselves to check. Sennheiser HD800s are rated at a sensitivity of 102dB at 1V and 300Ω. At 600Ω the iPhone 5 can produce a maximum voltage of 1.0075V, and it'll drop a bit into lower impedances, but let's use that figure. So at maximum output the iPhone will be producing  102 + 20 * log(1.0075) = 102.06dB, which isn't really even close. Power output will be 1.00752 / 300 = 3.3mW, so in this case it's being limited by the restricted voltage swing. I assume you're talking about the Schiit Magni, which is rated at 260mW into 300Ω. This implies that it's producing a max voltage of sqrt(0.260 * 300) = 8.83V, which will produce 120.9dB and is more than you'll ever need.
> 
> I think the problem is that people don't realise how non-linear this process is. You've either got the power you need or you don't. You really just need to look at the THD+N vs output curve, here's the one for the O2 amp:
> 
> The distortion shows a very gentle climb with output until it sudenly hits the limits, clips and goes off the scale. As long as your output requirements always stay to the left of the vertical cliff, you're fine; if you end up heading to the right of it, you're &@£$!ed. This picture is a result of the high degree of linearity produced by solid-state amps. If we were talking about tube amps it would be different, as the distortion slope below the clipping threshold is anything but gentle and it's sometimes hard to see a threshold at all.


 
  
 No disagreement here. I wasn't defending the iPod, just pointing out how "iPod doesn't have enough power" translates into "you need a $3000 tube amp that puts out umteen W at 600Ω" in certain threads. As I said previously, I think it's a damn shame for people with $2000 to think the HD800 is out of their price range due to myths about amps. And you made a good point about the dynamism of one's music. If you've got music with a 4dB range and you like to listen at 98dB or so, then you may never notice anything as far as clipping.


----------



## castleofargh

charleski said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > That's all good and fine until someone says something like that Magni, which can push the 800s to >115dBspl, isn't enough either. This happens all the time on the 800s thread. Output power certainly needs to be there, and you're right we shouldn't propagate a myth that "amps never matter", but I find that the opposite myth is much more prevalent, at least on this site.
> ...


 

 this brings the interesting question: how loud do we listen to our headphones? ^_^
 I personally only ever crank up a little to enjoy classical as I can't expect to set it quiet on the loud passages and still ear anything on the quiet ones ^_^. that's why I hate listening to classical in a car, I always end up pushing the volume too much for my own good. for a car the crap with a DR of 5 is perfect material, but now I'm off topic again 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
 else for most of the time I spend with headphones, I would suspect even an iphone would do given how quietly I listen to music.
  
  


the walrus said:


> I used my Ultrasone Pro 2900 without a headphone amp as you said "It sounded good enough to me and it was certainly loud enough, so why would I need an amp for??".. That is until I learnt from you guys that my assumptions might be wrong after all and I tried my Walkman with an amp and heard the improvements with my own ears. (Below are the specifications of my headphones and no, they are not the best
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I don't know that headphone, but I might very much have said something like that without even looking at the specs. if you said it was loud enough and you liked the sound, then to me you had no problem. ^_^
 now if the question is to know if the headphone can be well driven? that's another problem. I'm very sorry if my way of thinking led you to conclude I was giving a pass on the headphone's specs, I was probably only giving a pass to your enjoyment of music.
 if we take the needed 114db given by charleski featuring nwavguy, for what I personally think to be really the max I would ever need in a non crazy damaging listening. and the specs you just gave for the headphone, then you're really not good with the A15. in fact that headphone seems to need more power than the hd800^_^.
 I don't know enough specs for the A15, I'm only sure that the max voltage is around 0.4v (no load) so that's already a fail for the 114db into 40ohm. that would be more like 102db. and the A15 is anyway weak even compared to my other sony DAPs(and walkmans were never world wide famous for their amp sections to begin with).
 so I do believe you when you say that an amp improved your headphone.
  
 about IEMs it's a lot less of a problem as some of them would already reach 114db with only 1mw. so there is very little to fear when you buy an IEM. an easy and safe way is probably to stay with mono drivers unless you know where you're going(i.e you have the impedance graph). as the A15 has 4ohm output impedance, so crossovers would probably mess up the signature a little. and with the same idea, if you can get  8*4=32ohm or above as impedance value of the IEM. you're taking even less risks and lower the chances to perceive the background hiss of the A15.
 power has little chances to be the issue with an IEM.
 else as a personal advice, for the gym you might want to only use cheap crap. and most sport's IEMs don't isolate a lot because then you get to deal with cable noises, your heart beating and the thump of each step you take. so depending on what activity you plan to do, you might want different kind of IEMs.


----------



## bigshot

114dB is VERY VERY loud- heavy metal loud. The threshold of pain is right around 120dB. Most people don't listen to music with peaks over 90dB. That is plenty enough to raise the quietest dynamics in music above the noise floor of a room that isn't particularly quiet and it's loud enough to disturb the neighbors, but not loud enough to make your ears ring.


----------



## The Walrus

castleofargh said:


> I don't know that headphone, but I might very much have said something like that without even looking at the specs. if you said it was loud enough and you liked the sound, then to me you had no problem. ^_^
> now if the question is to know if the headphone can be well driven? that's another problem. I'm very sorry if my way of thinking led you to conclude I was giving a pass on the headphone's specs, I was probably only giving a pass to your enjoyment of music.
> if we take the needed 114db given by charleski featuring nwavguy, for what I personally think to be really the max I would ever need in a non crazy damaging listening. and the specs you just gave for the headphone, then you're really not good with the A15. in fact that headphone seems to need more power than the hd800^_^.
> I don't know enough specs for the A15, I'm only sure that the max voltage is around 0.4v (no load) so that's already a fail for the 114db into 40ohm. that would be more like 102db. and the A15 is anyway weak even compared to my other sony DAPs(and walkmans were never world wide famous for their amp sections to begin with).
> so I do believe you when you say that an amp improved your headphone.


 
 Thanks. I don't know why I thought I needed to mention the specs. of the headphones.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Actually I meant to say that it sounded "good enough" to me without the amp; but it wasn't! Had I learnt that amps are not just about loudness, I would have tried an amp sooner and see the difference in SQ. as I turned the volume up. (Or did I miss the point completely?)


----------



## castleofargh

the walrus said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know that headphone, but I might very much have said something like that without even looking at the specs. if you said it was loud enough and you liked the sound, then to me you had no problem. ^_^
> ...


 

 no, as long as you don't fall in the other hole and start saying that amps always improve the sound whatever the source whatever the headphone ^_^.


----------



## bigshot

None of my headphones have ever required amping to sound perfect. Honestly, if I can get great sound without needing yet another black box wired into the chain, I'm all for it.


----------



## The Walrus

bigshot said:


> None of my headphones have ever required amping to sound perfect. Honestly, if I can get great sound without needing yet another black box wired into the chain, I'm all for it.


 
 True, but if I get a clearer sound with an amp, I won't sacrifice the sound quality in spite of the inconvenience.


----------



## RRod

the walrus said:


> True, but if I get a clearer sound with an amp, I won't sacrifice the sound quality in spite of the inconvenience.


 
  
 Amps don't give clearer sound, they give louder sound. Certainly if you're getting clipping/distortion from an underpowered amp, then you would benefit from more power. But you can also get around that by using headphones that don't require much juice to begin with, and there are plenty of those out there that have great ratings.


----------



## bigshot

the walrus said:


> True, but if I get a clearer sound with an amp, I won't sacrifice the sound quality in spite of the inconvenience.


 

 I've tried my cans amped and they sound exactly the same, just louder. If you buy the right headphones, you don't need an amp.


----------



## The Walrus

rrod said:


> Amps don't give clearer sound, they give louder sound. Certainly if you're getting clipping/distortion from an underpowered amp, then you would benefit from more power. But you can also get around that by using headphones that don't require much juice to begin with, and there are plenty of those out there that have great ratings.


 
 That is my problem exactly: distortion at high volumes from my poor A series Walkman. But how would I choose a headphone that won't require amping just from the specs or ratings alone? (Not a rhetorical question, I really want to know.) I can't even get the specs of the Walkman's onboard amp.  Since I have a headphone that sounds great to me, isn't it better to get a small, $120 headphone amp instead?


----------



## davidsh

the walrus said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > Amps don't give clearer sound, they give louder sound. Certainly if you're getting clipping/distortion from an underpowered amp, then you would benefit from more power. But you can also get around that by using headphones that don't require much juice to begin with, and there are plenty of those out there that have great ratings.
> ...


 
 You could also get another player/DAP, just saying.
  
 The first you need to determine, though, is how much power the Walkman puts out. Then, you can calculate how loud your headphones will get. After that you can consider whether what number which you came up with is good enough for your listening habbits.


----------



## headwhacker

the walrus said:


> That is my problem exactly: distortion at high volumes from my poor A series Walkman. But how would I choose a headphone that won't require amping just from the specs or ratings alone? (Not a rhetorical question, I really want to know.) I can't even get the specs of the Walkman's onboard amp.  Since I have a headphone that sounds great to me, isn't it better to get a small, $120 headphone amp instead?


 
  
 Specs should help. Unless the specs are fake it will tell you if your source has enough juice to drive a headphone. However, you should still listen to the headphone first before making the purchase decision. Specs won't tell you how the headphone sounds.
  
 But for newbies it's difficult if not impossible to get things right the first time. Most of the time, people regret or at least they come to know later on that the first purchase is a mistake.


----------



## RRod

the walrus said:


> That is my problem exactly: distortion at high volumes from my poor A series Walkman. But how would I choose a headphone that won't require amping just from the specs or ratings alone? (Not a rhetorical question, I really want to know.) I can't even get the specs of the Walkman's onboard amp.  Since I have a headphone that sounds great to me, isn't it better to get a small, $120 headphone amp instead?


 
  
 If you already have cans you like, and it's not getting enough power, and you love your DAP, then yes, by all means, buy an amp and enjoy.
  
 When you can't get specs, you have to just guestimate. For instance, I'd wager that my HD598s can work with pretty much anything: 50ohm impedance is plenty high for most things, and 99db/mW is good sensitivity.


----------



## bigshot

the walrus said:


> But how would I choose a headphone that won't require amping just from the specs or ratings alone?


 
  
 The relevant spec for that is Sensitivity. My Oppo PM-1s are rated at 102dB and I can easily drive them from an unamped iPod.


----------



## headwhacker

bigshot said:


> The relevant spec for that is Sensitivity. My Oppo PM-1s are rated at 102dB and I can easily drive them from an unamped iPod.


 
  
 Headphone impedance is important too. PM-1 is 32 ohms and will work with most if not all music players. Beyerdynamic T1 also rated at 102dB but it's a 600 ohm load. iPod just don't have enough to drive it. 
  
 Yet when you look at the PM-1 thread people get crazy amping up this headphone.


----------



## castleofargh

the walrus said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > Amps don't give clearer sound, they give louder sound. Certainly if you're getting clipping/distortion from an underpowered amp, then you would benefit from more power. But you can also get around that by using headphones that don't require much juice to begin with, and there are plenty of those out there that have great ratings.
> ...


 
  


castleofargh said:


> about IEMs it's a lot less of a problem as some of them would already reach 114db with only 1mw. so there is very little to fear when you buy an IEM. an easy and safe way is probably to stay with mono drivers unless you know where you're going(i.e you have the impedance graph). as the A15 has 4ohm output impedance, so crossovers would probably mess up the signature a little. and with the same idea, if you can get  8*4=32ohm or above as impedance value of the IEM. you're taking even less risks and lower the chances to perceive the background hiss of the A15.


 

 sorry but I don't know of a better way to explain it. if you stick with a 32ohm IEM(and given that it has 32at all frequencies), then if we still keep the high standard of reaching 114db, that would mean an IEM with 32ohm and 107db@1mw. obviously the same stuff with an even higher sensitivity would work too.


----------



## bigshot

headwhacker said:


> Headphone impedance is important too. PM-1 is 32 ohms and will work with most if not all music players. Beyerdynamic T1 also rated at 102dB but it's a 600 ohm load. iPod just don't have enough to drive it.
> 
> Yet when you look at the PM-1 thread people get crazy amping up this headphone.


 
  
 I just wouldn't buy headphones that required an amp. A separate amp is a pain to drag around. Why not just find good sounding headphones that don't require an amp? Take the money an amp would cost and use the money you save to get even better headphones.
  
 The desire to amp among audiophiles has very little to do with the benefits of amping. It's like amps vs receivers. Back in the day, receivers didn't have the oomph of a dedicated power amp. You had to go to separates to achieve what you needed to do. But today's AV receivers have plenty of power and sound quality that exceeds the need. Plus, they are relatively inexpensive. But audiophiles still go out and buy expensive dedicated amps with less features that cost a lot more and end up with a huge equipment rack full of black boxes. It makes no sense to me. Just get the thing that does the job efficiently and inexpensively.


----------



## headwhacker

bigshot said:


> I just wouldn't buy headphones that required an amp. A separate amp is a pain to drag around. Why not just find good sounding headphones that don't require an amp? Take the money an amp would cost and use the money you save to get even better headphones.
> 
> The desire to amp among audiophiles has very little to do with the benefits of amping. It's like amps vs receivers. Back in the day, receivers didn't have the oomph of a dedicated power amp. You had to go to separates to achieve what you needed to do. But today's AV receivers have plenty of power and sound quality that exceeds the need. Plus, they are relatively inexpensive. But audiophiles still go out and buy expensive dedicated amps with less features that cost a lot more and end up with a huge equipment rack full of black boxes. It makes no sense to me. Just get the thing that does the job efficiently and inexpensively.


 
  
 Some may have good reason to just get a separate amp especially if they already have an expensive headphone that is harder to drive. But I agree with the idea to just get a headphone that do not require an amp. There are indeed plenty of those currently available.
  
 Not to mention a lot of cheap DAPs nowadays already has plenty of power to drive most cans.


----------



## Savant

headwhacker said:


> Headphone impedance is important too. PM-1 is 32 ohms and will work with most if not all music players. Beyerdynamic T1 also rated at 102dB but it's a 600 ohm load. iPod just don't have enough to drive it.
> 
> Yet when you look at the PM-1 thread people get crazy amping up this headphone.




Headphone impedance and sensitivity are not the only factors to take into account. Distortion levels and especially Output impedance are crucial to extract the best performance out of your headphones. 
Typically, portable devices as well as integrated Amplifiers boast relatively high Output impedance and this is quite obviously audible to me. 
I have a Hybrid Valve- Mosfet headphone Amp with an Output impedance of 33 Ohm that works superbly with my High impedance Beyers and Sennheisers but it simply doesn't sound right with a couple of Low impedance headphones that I own. On the other hand, these same headphones will perform perfectly with my other Amp, a Lake People G100, which boasts an Output impedance of only 0.2 Ohm.


----------



## SilentFrequency

headwhacker said:


> Headphone impedance is important too. PM-1 is 32 ohms and will work with most if not all music players. Beyerdynamic T1 also rated at 102dB but it's a 600 ohm load. iPod just don't have enough to drive it.
> 
> *Yet when you look at the PM-1 thread people get crazy amping up this headphone.*




I checked, Oppo make a headphone amplifier for the PM-1.

Why would they make an amplifier available if it did not provide any benefits?


----------



## headwhacker

silentfrequency said:


> I checked, Oppo make a headphone amplifier for the PM-1.
> 
> Why would they make an amplifier available if it did not provide any benefits?


 
  
 I don't think they would care as long as people buy them. There is one amp (portable) maker put a lot of features in his amp which sometimes does not make sense. When I ask about a feature he just said people ask for it so they did it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 On a serious note, no one can stop Oppo from selling an amp even though their headphones do not require one. Other headphones could benefit.


----------



## davidsh

silentfrequency said:


> headwhacker said:
> 
> 
> > Headphone impedance is important too. PM-1 is 32 ohms and will work with most if not all music players. Beyerdynamic T1 also rated at 102dB but it's a 600 ohm load. iPod just don't have enough to drive it.
> ...



Because people believe it'll benefit. Perhaps they even believe that too.

Why do Schiit make amps and DACs such as their statement products? Because they like going to the extremes with techs and geeky stuff like that while having fun and because they themselves believe it sounds better - which they are completely open about. They also state that the cheap Magni/modi might be the only amp and DAC you'll ever need.


----------



## SilentFrequency

Yes, well I guess headphone manufacturers making headphone amplifiers for their headphones that maybe don't require an amplifier and another brand also mentioned called "Schiit" which I understand is pronounced as it appears :eek: is maybe a little crazy then I guess?


----------



## The Walrus

I think saying headphone amps are unnecessary is just as wrong as saying they are a must. If you have a DAP that is able to drive your headphone and you are satisfied with the sound, then as bigshot said why add yet another black box?
 In my case, I love my headphones and my DAP, except it cannot drive my headphone properly. Of course I can try different headphones or I can buy a DAP with high output but why would I get into yet another adventure? Especially when my problem could easily be solved with a little and cheap amp that I can strap to my walkman? No big deal for me. But that's me. Someone else might prefer to buy a new headphone and be done with it. It differs from individual to individual I suppose.


----------



## headwhacker

the walrus said:


> I think saying headphone amps are unnecessary is just as wrong as saying they are a must. If you have a DAP that is able to drive your headphone and you are satisfied with the sound, then as bigshot said why add yet another black box?
> In my case, I love my headphones and my DAP, except it cannot drive my headphone properly. Of course I can try different headphones or I can buy a DAP with high output but why would I get into yet another adventure? Especially when my problem could easily be solved with a little and cheap amp that I can strap to my walkman? No big deal for me. But that's me. Someone else might prefer to buy a new headphone and be done with it. It differs from individual to individual I suppose.


 
  
 I think that is exactly what the discussion is about. To know when an amp is necessary and when it's not. Nobody is saying that an amp is absolutely unnecessary or the other way around. It's just been observed that throughout this forum most people use an amp when it's totally unnecessary. But just because they can and just want to use one for whatever personal reason.


----------



## The Walrus

headwhacker said:


> I think that is exactly what the discussion is about. To know when an amp is necessary and when it's not. Nobody is saying that an amp is absolutely unnecessary or the other way around. It's just been observed that throughout this forum most people use an amp when it's totally unnecessary. But just because they can and just want to use one for whatever personal reason.


 
 Agreed. If it sounds the same with or without the amp, why add something unnecessary to the equation?


----------



## jodgey4

What I think many fail to recognize here is that many here have separate DACs, to which an amp must be paired. IME, a DAC helps nearly every can, so it makes sense to use it and add a god amp to the end that can get the most of a clean source.


----------



## sonitus mirus

For portable solutions, I use my phone and a pair of efficient headphones.   
  
 I use a DAC and amp for desktop solutions, and these are mostly transportable as well (but not portable).  The reason for the DAC and amps is for consistency.  I always try to find a source, which is essentially any internet-capable device, that can output a digital signal to my DACs, and my DACs have a 2V or greater line-out feeding my amps.  My amps can properly drive a wide range of headphones, though I do not necessarily require amplification for most of these.
  
 Having a DAC and amp allows me to use practically any computer, laptop, or tablet pc to play a vast library of music and to use all of my headphones with the expectation that the sound will be identical whether I am at home, in my office, in a hotel room, Starbucks, etc. Consistency.


----------



## headwhacker

sonitus mirus said:


> For portable solutions, I use my phone and a pair of efficient headphones.
> 
> I use a DAC and amp for desktop solutions, and these are mostly transportable as well (but not portable).  The reason for the DAC and amps is for consistency.  I always try to find a source, which is essentially any internet-capable device, that can output a digital signal to my DACs, and my DACs have a 2V or greater line-out feeding my amps.  My amps can properly drive a wide range of headphones, though I do not necessarily require amplification for most of these.
> 
> Having a DAC and amp allows me to use practically any computer, laptop, or tablet pc to play a vast library of music and to use all of my headphones with the expectation that the sound will be identical whether I am at home, in my office, in a hotel room, Starbucks, etc. Consistency.


 
  
 Not everyone wants to have multiple device as complicated setup as you have. Other people would want to have a simple setup. e.g.
  
 X5 is is a DAP it can be used as a USB DAC. It has an amp powerful enough to drive many headphones from iems to full-size can as long as they are efficient enough. Why would one bother about headphones that X5 will have difficulty to drive and add an amp when it's better to find a headphone that will not need an amp with X5.
  
 I'll just choose one that is efficient enough and sounds good on X5. HE-400i for example is efficient enough that X5 can drive it properly. However, there are people will tell you that X5 is not enough and HE-400i needs more power. Same goes with Oppo PM-1, which is much more efficient than HE-400i.


----------



## cjl

savant said:


> Headphone impedance and sensitivity are not the only factors to take into account. Distortion levels and especially Output impedance are crucial to extract the best performance out of your headphones.
> Typically, portable devices as well as integrated Amplifiers boast relatively high Output impedance and this is quite obviously audible to me.


 
 Most portable devices have a low output impedance these days actually, and many "audiophile" amplifiers do not.


----------



## castleofargh

headwhacker said:


> sonitus mirus said:
> 
> 
> > For portable solutions, I use my phone and a pair of efficient headphones.
> ...


 
  
 the simple idea of considering a HE400i as portable headphone is special ^_^.

 modularity is a choice. if you know you will need a certain power all the time because you'll use only the headphone that needs it, then a X5 is the rational choice as it wouldn't be too much fun to carry a stack of bricks all year long. nor would it be fun to listen to the underdriven headphone on some crap DAP.
 but in my situation, while I think very highly of the X5 as far as audio spec are concerned, I wouldn't want to have it in my pants pocket. when summer comes and I drop the jacket, I also drop the amp and get going with a clip+ or another small DAP with efficient IEMs. I can still go on a trip and have the amp for when I'm at the hotel or something to enjoy some better(in my opinion at least) sound. but I would hate to have to carry the X5 with me and would probably give up on music altogether when going out.
 so it's really a matter of what we want and what we accept. I know that I'm always ready to sacrifice some audio in return for some comfort or ease of use. obviously not all audiophiles think that way 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## sonitus mirus

headwhacker said:


> Not everyone wants to have multiple device as complicated setup as you have. Other people would want to have a simple setup. e.g.
> 
> X5 is is a DAP it can be used as a USB DAC. It has an amp powerful enough to drive many headphones from iems to full-size can as long as they are efficient enough. Why would one bother about headphones that X5 will have difficulty to drive and add an amp when it's better to find a headphone that will not need an amp with X5.
> 
> I'll just choose one that is efficient enough and sounds good on X5. HE-400i for example is efficient enough that X5 can drive it properly. However, there are people will tell you that X5 is not enough and HE-400i needs more power. Same goes with Oppo PM-1, which is much more efficient than HE-400i.


 
 There is nothing complicated about it. I have a DAC that can connect to practically any source and an amp that can drive nearly every headphone available.
  
  
 I don't need a portable solution, and I enjoy the Google Music interface and features above anything else I have tried.  If something new and better for me is available later, I'm probably already set with my DAC and amp.


----------



## bigshot

silentfrequency said:


> I checked, Oppo make a headphone amplifier for the PM-1.
> Why would they make an amplifier available if it did not provide any benefits?


 
  
 For people who think "complicated is better". Why did Apple provide a digital out for the iPod when the internal DAC is just as clean as any external DAC you might plug it into? Same sort of thing.


----------



## bigshot

jodgey4 said:


> What I think many fail to recognize here is that many here have separate DACs, to which an amp must be paired. IME, a DAC helps nearly every can, so it makes sense to use it and add a god amp to the end that can get the most of a clean source.


 

 Yet another black box to carry around. My iPod classic puts out sound as good as any standalone CD player all by itself. No DAC or amp needed, just suitable headphones, and there are a LOT of suitable headphones to choose from. If I had to carry around and keep fresh batteries in three different boxes, I wouldn't bother to carry my music with me every day like I do now. Convenience has a value. (If my phone had a 128 gig hard drive in it, I wouldn't bother to carry the iPod.)


----------



## Ike1985

Hi Everybody!
  
 I am completely new to all this audiophile stuff although I have been a fiend for music since I was old enough to put headphones on.  The most I've ever spent on listening gear was an ipod + Re-Zeros.
  
 I'm looking to step up to a higher quality listening experience but don't want to be tricked by marketing into buying crap I don't need and won't be able to tell a difference in.
  
 I am pretty much set on one of the these two CIEMS: Custom Art Music Two/Custom Art Pro330v2.
  
 As far as DAPs, I have no idea. I have an HTC One M8 and may use that instead of a DAP, not sure. 
  
 With regard toAmps, any suggestions you could make would be nice.  Is an amp even necessary for these CIEMS?
  
 What cables do I need? I'm thinking cables don't make a whole lot of difference, sort of like how all hdmi cables are really the same and monster cables are a scam.
  
 Extra info:
 I listen exclusively to metal: thrash/death/black/symphonic/cinematic/metalcore/doom/etc.  Currently I just download flac files and convert them to alac to play on my iphone 3 and listen on the stock earbuds. 
  
 Just to add to the discussion, I would love to see double blind scientific tests between some of the top tier and mid tier CIEMs/DAPs/DACs/AMPS.
 Thank You!


----------



## The Walrus

bigshot said:


> Yet another black box to carry around. My iPod classic puts out sound as good as any standalone CD player all by itself. No DAC or amp needed, just suitable headphones, and there are a LOT of suitable headphones to choose from. If I had to carry around and keep fresh batteries in three different boxes, I wouldn't bother to carry my music with me every day like I do now. Convenience has a value. (If my phone had a 128 gig hard drive in it, I wouldn't bother to carry the iPod.)


 
 Well, you're in luck. Toshiba 128 GB micro sd card is $80 on eBay


----------



## Savant

cjl said:


> Most portable devices have a low output impedance these days actually, and many "audiophile" amplifiers do not.


 
  
 While I can agree that Portable devices have improved considerably of late, it is also true that these days the vast majority of Amps -"audiophile" or not- boast very low Output impedance. The notable exceptions are generally OTL Valve designs, which are obviously more suited for High Impedance Headphones. But even here there have been improvements of late, as the Schiit Valhalla 2 so clearly demonstrates.


----------



## SilentFrequency

the walrus said:


> Well, you're in luck. Toshiba 128 GB micro sd card is $80 on eBay




Actually the iPhone 6 is available with 128GB 

I've the iPhone 6 Plus (totally awesome size screen, good for selfies too etc) in 64GB and it's just amazing and great sound quality also


----------



## Gustave G

You are missing the point of having an Headphone amp.
 The amp is not for making your material louder, it's to support a larger dynamic range.
 A CD is capable of a dynamics range of 96db, but your average portable music device it not even capable to do half that
 (and low impedance headsets/buts, not even half).
  
 Note that if you listen to most modern music released these days, the publishers mix the material to be loud,
 So, you are lucky to get 1.5-3db dynamic range.
 If your listing to music that is only 3db range, stock amplifiers are sufficient.


----------



## castleofargh

gustave g said:


> You are missing the point of having an Headphone amp.
> The amp is not for making your material louder, it's to support a larger dynamic range.
> A CD is capable of a dynamics range of 96db, but your average portable music device it not even capable to do half that
> (and low impedance headsets/buts, not even half).
> ...


 

 errrhhh aren't we mixing dynamic and max possible dynamic here? I would suspect even an iphone to be able to deal with a little more than 80db dynamic. so if it may not be enough for the full dynamic of a CD, it's more than enough for the full dynamic of whatever track is recorded on it.
 sure an amp can help lower the noise floor compared to a sucky amp section of a cellphone, but that's just one part of what an amp can improve and unless the DAP was very hissy, I'm not even sure it will be an audible difference in most cases.


----------



## bigshot

Dynamic range is only affected if the amp doesn't have enough oomph to drive the cans. If it has enough, more power isn't going to make the dynamics any better.
  
 IKE1985, your iPod is already an audiophile DAP. No need to get anything better than that. Cables don't matter either. Get the cheapest at Monoprice.com. As for headphones, my recommendation is to only consider ones that don't require amping and put the money you would have spent on an amp into getting the best headphones you can afford. Headphones offer bang for the buck when it comes to sound quality. Electronics don't
  
 Spend money on headphones for sound quality.
 Spend money on electronics for features. Sound quality should be a given with decent midrange stuff like iPods.
  
 Hope this helps.


----------



## The Walrus

bigshot said:


> Yet another black box to carry around. My iPod classic puts out sound as good as any standalone CD player all by itself. No DAC or amp needed, just suitable headphones, and there are a LOT of suitable headphones to choose from. If I had to carry around and keep fresh batteries in three different boxes, I wouldn't bother to carry my music with me every day like I do now. Convenience has a value. (If my phone had a 128 gig hard drive in it, I wouldn't bother to carry the iPod.)


 
 Correct me if i'm wrong, but the best dac / amp is the transparent one right? So to get the SQ you desire, your source should be high quality (like loseless 16/44.1) and you should have good headphones / speakers that are appropriate for your taste. If I love the sound of my cans, I will not give them up and buy a different one just for the sake of convenience of not carrying an amp along. I'm not saying complex is better, far from it. My philosophy is if you find something that satisfies you perfectly, keep it.


----------



## The Walrus

silentfrequency said:


> Actually the iPhone 6 is available with 128GB
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Really? Had I known that iPhone comes with 128 GB, I would have considered buying it, though I very much doubt that it would be enough by itself to drive my headphones.


----------



## davidsh

If we are still taking about those in-ears you'd probably listen way too loud if the iPhone wouldnt be loud enough for you.


----------



## bigshot

the walrus said:


> Correct me if i'm wrong, but the best dac / amp is the transparent one right? So to get the SQ you desire, your source should be high quality (like loseless 16/44.1) and you should have good headphones / speakers that are appropriate for your taste. If I love the sound of my cans, I will not give them up and buy a different one just for the sake of convenience of not carrying an amp along. I'm not saying complex is better, far from it. My philosophy is if you find something that satisfies you perfectly, keep it.


 
  
 What I did was to decide on all of it at once. I didn't have to patch together things that didn't already work together. The iPod is a perfectly transparent DAP that doesn't require a separate DAC. Then all I needed to find was a set of headphones that I liked that worked with the iPod without requiring an outboard headphone amp. There are LOTS of headphones that fit that bill. It wasn't that hard to find a pair that worked with iPods and had the neutral balanced response I was looking for. In fact, the headphones found me... Oppo PM-1s. I can plug straight into my Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad or the receiver on my speaker system without it. MUCH simpler that way. I can put my cans in their canvas bag and my iPod in my shirt pocket and I'm ready to go.


----------



## The Walrus

bigshot said:


> What I did was to decide on all of it at once. I didn't have to patch together things that didn't already work together. The iPod is a perfectly transparent DAP that doesn't require a separate DAC. Then all I needed to find was a set of headphones that I liked that worked with the iPod without requiring an outboard headphone amp. There are LOTS of headphones that fit that bill. It wasn't that hard to find a pair that worked with iPods and had the neutral balanced response I was looking for. In fact, the headphones found me... Oppo PM-1s. I can plug straight into my Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad or the receiver on my speaker system without it. MUCH simpler that way. I can put my cans in their canvas bag and my iPod in my shirt pocket and I'm ready to go.


 
 Makes sense. Unfortunately I used my headphones with serious distortion because they weren't driven properly for two years. Now I cannot let them go and go on a tedious quest looking for another one that sounds as good and won't need an amp. (just the thought of it gives me the shivers.) 
 Alas, I found this thread way too late, so a small black box it is.... I hope that is understandable.


----------



## headwhacker

the walrus said:


> Makes sense. Unfortunately I used my headphones with serious distortion because they weren't driven properly for two years. Now I cannot let them go and go on a tedious quest looking for another one that sounds as good and won't need an amp. (just the thought of it gives me the shivers.)
> Alas, I found this thread way too late, so a small black box it is.... I hope that is understandable.


 
  
 Nothing wrong with what you are doing. However, convenience will become valuable once you find yourself limited with stacks of gear and tied to a desk. 
  
 I love my cans and iems but the ability to plug-in my HE-400i directly to my X5 or DX90 gives me the option to continuously listen to good music and walk around the house or backyard. It's also convenient listening while on bed. I love my T1 and O2/ODAC combo but I found myself listening longer with HE-400i/X5 combo just because it's easier.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I normally only listen with headphones in specific situations, and these typically involve me being tied to a desk for other reasons. I have speakers in the living room and bedroom that can fill the place with music if I am moving around.  If I am actively moving about, I opt to use my phone and IEMs, so I don't necessarily require outstanding performance.  
  
 Everyone has different situations that work best for them.  I don't have neighbors or anyone living with me to disturb.  Only at my desk, when I am working or playing on the computer, do I enjoy listening to music with headphones.  Most other situations I'd rather listen to music through speakers.  If the cooling solutions were super quiet on my PC, I'd probably use speakers there, too.  Until then, I will continue to use closed headphones at my desk.  My setup works perfectly for me.


----------



## davidsh

I can highly recommend custom fan profiles


----------



## sonitus mirus

davidsh said:


> I can highly recommend custom fan profiles


 
  
 Interesting!  Been using an Antec 900 case for several years now with the fans on low speed.  When the refrigerator's compressor is off in the far corner of the same room, I measure about 54 dB (C-weighted, slow/1 second time constant) where my head is positioned.  Oddly enough, despite being very noticeable to me, the refrigerator only seems to add 2 dB of noise when the compressor kicks in.  It holds beer, though, so I forgive it.  Closed headphones help to lower the noise floor, but my Denon D5K (with custom pads and damping) are not known to be great for isolation.  Still, even 4-6 dB of attenuation is significant.  I'm probably dealing with just under 50 dB of noise while wearing my headphones in this room with the desktop computer running .  I normally listen at volume levels between 75-90 dB, though closer to 80 dB on average.  I can still hear a doorbell ring or my phone notification alerts. 
  
 I need a new computer case that manages cables better.  I would be keen on finding some very quiet, yet efficient, fans to go along with it.  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## The Walrus

sonitus mirus said:


> Interesting!  Been using an Antec 900 case for several years now with the fans on low speed.  When the refrigerator's compressor is off in the far corner of the same room, I measure about 54 dB (C-weighted, slow/1 second time constant) where my head is positioned.  Oddly enough, despite being very noticeable to me, the refrigerator only seems to add 2 dB of noise when the compressor kicks in.  It holds beer, though, so I forgive it.  Closed headphones help to lower the noise floor, but my Denon D5K (with custom pads and damping) are not known to be great for isolation.  Still, even 4-6 dB of attenuation is significant.  I'm probably dealing with just under 50 dB of noise while wearing my headphones in this room with the desktop computer running .  I normally listen at volume levels between 75-90 dB, though closer to 80 dB on average.  I can still hear a doorbell ring or my phone notification alerts.
> 
> I need a new computer case that manages cables better.  I would be keen on finding some very quiet, yet efficient, fans to go along with it.  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


 
 I've been using Silverstone ST40NF fanless power supply with no complication for 7 years now. (It doesn't even get hot, so switched off the case fans.) I strongly recommend Silversttone's products.


----------



## ferday

sonitus mirus said:


> Interesting!  Been using an Antec 900 case for several years now with the fans on low speed.  When the refrigerator's compressor is off in the far corner of the same room, I measure about 54 dB (C-weighted, slow/1 second time constant) where my head is positioned.  Oddly enough, despite being very noticeable to me, the refrigerator only seems to add 2 dB of noise when the compressor kicks in.  It holds beer, though, so I forgive it.  Closed headphones help to lower the noise floor, but my Denon D5K (with custom pads and damping) are not known to be great for isolation.  Still, even 4-6 dB of attenuation is significant.  I'm probably dealing with just under 50 dB of noise while wearing my headphones in this room with the desktop computer running .  I normally listen at volume levels between 75-90 dB, though closer to 80 dB on average.  I can still hear a doorbell ring or my phone notification alerts.
> 
> I need a new computer case that manages cables better.  I would be keen on finding some very quiet, yet efficient, fans to go along with it.  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.




The bigger the fan, the slower/quieter (in general-use high quality fans). Also using a push/pull can really cut down on the number of fans needed


----------



## castleofargh

sonitus mirus said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > I can highly recommend custom fan profiles
> ...


 

 reminded me as a student, for a few years I was living in what was pretty much 1room, and ended up putting the fridge in the bathroom so that I could sleep better. ^_^
 it was fun but objectively not super practical. unless you can get the kitchen in the bathroom too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  
 for computers, I always felt that the bigger and slower rule worked best for noise at least in the long run. or going for lower computer specs and totally fanless. ok in winter, underclocked in summer.


----------



## nanaholic

sonitus mirus said:


> I need a new computer case that manages cables better.  I would be keen on finding some very quiet, yet efficient, fans to go along with it.  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


 
  
 You should head over to silentpcreview.com and read their fan reviews.  Basically you should start looking at 120mm fans or above to replace the standard case fans which are usually 90mm (but the nicer cases today usually comes with something nicer), and the other fan to get rid of ASAP is the crummy CPU cooler which comes free with the CPU.
  
 Also it depends on how much computing power you need.  If you don't need a lot an i5 Intel NUC is virtually silent requiring no effort to put together.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

sonitus mirus said:


> Interesting!  Been using an Antec 900 case for several years now with the fans on low speed.  When the refrigerator's compressor is off in the far corner of the same room, I measure about 54 dB (C-weighted, slow/1 second time constant) where my head is positioned.  Oddly enough, despite being very noticeable to me, the refrigerator only seems to add 2 dB of noise when the compressor kicks in.  It holds beer, though, so I forgive it.  Closed headphones help to lower the noise floor, but my Denon D5K (with custom pads and damping) are not known to be great for isolation.  Still, even 4-6 dB of attenuation is significant.  I'm probably dealing with just under 50 dB of noise while wearing my headphones in this room with the desktop computer running .  I normally listen at volume levels between 75-90 dB, though closer to 80 dB on average.  I can still hear a doorbell ring or my phone notification alerts.
> 
> *I need a new computer case that manages cables better.  I would be keen on finding some very quiet, yet efficient, fans to go along with it.  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.*


 
 Agree with what has been said about bigger fans so far. I would add a caveat - I would avoid 200mm fans, as my experience with stock or custom fans of that size have either been too noisy, QC issues, or have not provided adequate air flow. The range 200mm fans are limited, as are the cases that accommodate them. Best stick with 140 or 120mm IMO.
  
 Noctua fans are generally well regarded for the build quality and silence. Bit pricey, and their unique colour scheme is divisive to say the least (Though I think they have recently released black versions). I use the NF-F14 PWM (140mm) and NF-F12 PWM (120mm) and NF-F15 PWM (150mm). Although I haven't used them, their CPU coolers are also very well regarded for their cooling and silence.
  
 Noise is generally caused by vibrations/movement noise of fans, but also turbulence of the moving air. So if the intake section, or the air flow in front of the fans is obstructed or non-linear it can increase the noise. So cable management as well as generally a clean build inside the PC is IMO important, and not just for aesthetics. Also the reason why I prefer to have cases where the hard drive mounts are removable.
  
 Static pressure optimised fans provide a 'wider cone' shaped, dispersing airflow that are ideal for tight and obstructed enclosures and intake. Air flow optimised fans provide a more focused and linear air flow and so ideal for enclosures/intakes which are open and linear air flow is easier. I stick with SP fans always as IMO dust fiters are essential for the longevity of electronics, but present resistance. Most cases will have hard drive cages directly in front of the front intake fans. Also as long as you create a positive air pressure going in/out the case all should be fine imo.
  
 Case vibrations can be minimised with feet like these or towels, and placing it on a study base.
  
 ---
  
_Apologies for going off topic. This is a very interesting thread. I generally don't have anything to add to it mainly due to my lack of knowledge but I've nevertheless been following it for a while._
  
 Edit: grammar


----------



## sonitus mirus

Great advice from everyone on the quiet PC options.   Thanks!
  
 I suppose that bolting a 20" box fan to the side of my computer case is not the brightest idea. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 Looks like someone did this already.
  
 http://www.envador.com/cases/PVCII/
  

  
  
 Back to audio, I feel as if many people neglect to consider having a quiet environment as part of their audio setup.  Our ears adapt quickly, and I'd be interested in any studies that might have been done with regards to background noise and perception of loudness.
  
 Does 40 dB music in an anechoic chamber sound like 80 dB in a normal room?


----------



## SunTanScanMan

I can't even begin to imagine the amount of dust that PC will collect in a week 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. 
  
 When you mentioned anechoic chamber it reminded me of this video:
  

  
 I would presume that the sound dampening nature of the anechoic chamber will mean that your room is unlikely to sound like it.
  
 Edit: Slightly related to the above video when the guy talks about hearing his heart beating. I underwent a pericardiectomy last year. Ever since then, the sound of my heart beating is noticeably louder due to having less tissue of the pericardium, insulating the noise of the beating heart. The heart it turns out is a very loud organ. I've got used to the sound, both psychologically and physically.
  
 My guess is that for me, listening to music in an anechoic chamber would not be a good experience. There are perks to ambient noise.


----------



## OddE

suntanscanman said:


> When you mentioned anechoic chamber (...)


 
  
 -I've spent considerable amounts of time in an anechoic chamber while a student (The chamber doubled as our microwave aerial test lab; with me majoring in RF engineering, I spent hours and hours tuning designs in there.
  
 Short version - it drives you nuts. It messed with my balance nerves, making me dizzy and constantly feeling like I was about to fall. Sure, you do hear all sorts of noises from your own body - that didn't bother me much. What really got to me, was my inability to keep a sure footing in there. Bah.
  
 The anechoic chamber is one of the things I really do not miss about my student days. Now, the ready access to world-class minds and test equipment, on the other hand - I'd really like to be able to spend a few weeks a year in my old faculty just to pick other, smarter people's brains.


----------



## castleofargh

because of my real long lasting discomfort to anything loud, I tend to go for maximum isolation(like etymotic deeply stuck into the temporal lob^_^), and I couldn't say it really solves anything sadly. those stuff are life savers when in a train or a plane, but in an already calm environment you just go too deep into silence.
 same with going from a life in the center of a big cities to be now at the edge of a old isolated village.
  
 in both situations I just adapt too fast for my own good. at least that's how I feel. with customs or really isolating IEMs I rapidly adapt and start hearing body noises(breathing, heart, the friction of the discs in my neck when I turn my head, some noise if I'm stressed and can't relax my jaw... stuff like the cable moving become a torture on the er4. the most quiet tinnitus will now be clearly audible if I listen to music really quietly.
 I've come to a point where I force myself  to keep a loud enough music level(when I say loud it might be 55db) to stay above all those little noises. after spending all my life looking for ways to lower it and save my ears, I'm now troubled with the opposite because it works just too well ^_^.
  
 same with the place you live in. when living on a main street in paris, with crappy 150years old windows. not once did I think that my computer was making too much noise. everything was so noisy at all time. now that I live in a perfectly silent place, the computer noise drives me mad, and I bought some little fanless crap to use for music/video and basic web browsing. I stopped using my mechanical keyboard I loved so much because the clics became a very dominant part of the ambient noise, and a lot of small stuff like that becomes a problem because it's so quiet and nice.
  
  
 so my own experience leads me to believe that you need to find the right loudness but can't just go as low as you can hear, else something else is bound to ruin your fun.


----------



## w00dman

bigshot said:


> Listening tests aren't difficult at all. They are only frustrating if you convince yourself you have to win.


 
 They are difficult because you can't just do the casual listening. I mean you can, but that's not of much value.
 I agree you don't have to win, but you have to make an active effort and try to isolate particular points of comparison.
  
 Also they are difficult for me because I've never been much into audio.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

odde said:


> -I've spent considerable amounts of time in an anechoic chamber while a student (The chamber doubled as our microwave aerial test lab; with me majoring in RF engineering, I spent hours and hours tuning designs in there.
> 
> Short version - it drives you nuts. *It messed with my balance nerves, making me dizzy and constantly feeling like I was about to fall. Sure, you do hear all sorts of noises from your own body - that didn't bother me much. What really got to me, was my inability to keep a sure footing in there. Bah.*
> 
> The anechoic chamber is one of the things I really do not miss about my student days. Now, the ready access to world-class minds and test equipment, on the other hand - I'd really like to be able to spend a few weeks a year in my old faculty just to pick other, smarter people's brains.


 
 To some that might sound like an agreeable night out.
  
 But seriously, I would still like to experience a facility like that. I make do with the uni library where the silence is occasionally broken by students typing on their laptops. The scientist in the video seemed quite at ease, though the darkness may have helped. Did you not get adjusted to the place at all with time?


----------



## OddE

suntanscanman said:


> To some that might sound like an agreeable night out.
> 
> But seriously, I would still like to experience a facility like that. I make do with the uni library where the silence is occasionally broken by students typing on their laptops. The scientist in the video seemed quite at ease, though the darkness may have helped. Did you not get adjusted to the place at all with time?


 

 -An agreeable night out, pffft... That one almost made me spill coffee all over my keyboard! 
  
 Nope - as far as balance issues went, I never got quite used to it, and I went in there almost daily for the better part of three years.
  
 I think my discomfort was probably caused by the way my eyes and ears gave the brain conflicting info about the room - any noise I made left no echo whatsoever, indicating a very large, open space; however, if I looked around, I was in a room some 20-ish square meters (225 sqft or so) large, with all sorts of visually disturbing acoustic tiles on the walls.
  
 My dizziness got better in seconds if I closed my eyes - however, as we didn't have a fancy grating to walk on as in the video but just a couple of narrow (10-12 inches wide) walkways which were lifted out when critical measurements were to be made, I never quite took the chance at walking about with my eyes closed - would probably end up falling onto the tiles in seconds, causing all sorts of grief for the poor sods who were trying to maintain the room on an essentially non-existing budget.


----------



## derbigpr

sonitus mirus said:


> Interesting!  Been using an Antec 900 case for several years now with the fans on low speed.  When the refrigerator's compressor is off in the far corner of the same room, I measure about 54 dB (C-weighted, slow/1 second time constant) where my head is positioned.  Oddly enough, despite being very noticeable to me, the refrigerator only seems to add 2 dB of noise when the compressor kicks in.  It holds beer, though, so I forgive it.  Closed headphones help to lower the noise floor, but my Denon D5K (with custom pads and damping) are not known to be great for isolation.  Still, even 4-6 dB of attenuation is significant.  I'm probably dealing with just under 50 dB of noise while wearing my headphones in this room with the desktop computer running .  I normally listen at volume levels between 75-90 dB, though closer to 80 dB on average.  I can still hear a doorbell ring or my phone notification alerts.
> 
> I need a new computer case that manages cables better.  I would be keen on finding some very quiet, yet efficient, fans to go along with it.  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


 
  
  
 As someone who had the Antec 900, I can say it's a POS. Once you try a really high quality case, you will laugh at how bad the Antec is in virtually every way, and how unintelligent the design solutions on that case are. It's a high airflow case, I give it that, but it's loud, nasty, ugly, low quality.
  
 Now I had a Fractal Design Define R4 for about half a year, and my PC experience is totally changed (in the sense of using open back headphones near a PC). The case is virtually inaudible. Literally, I have to put my ear on the case itself to hear anything. My laptop is about twice as loud. The build quality is extraordinary, attention to detail as well...you have to see it in person to appreciate it, because on pictures it looks like an ordinary cheap case.  It's anything but. Panels have thick and heavy sound proofing materials on it, and on top of that, the metal used it very thick as well, the case is solid like a tank, just the two side panels weigh almost as much as the entire Antec 900 case. No flexing side panels or sharp metal edges here, and when you knock on the case it sounds like knocking on wood rather than like knocking on thin sheet of metal. It comes with two 140 mm fans on the case, and I find that to be enough and a great balance of sound and cooling. Use a graphics card with quiet coolers and a nice quality CPU cooler, and you can have yourself a PC so silent the only way you'll be able to tell it's on is by looking at the blue LED in the front.


----------



## analogsurviver

This is hilarious beyond extreme :


----------



## vertical

"Shoot the scientists."

I wonder how many marketing departments in tech product companies have felt that same strong emotion over the years. It's like a panel you'd see in an old Dilbert comic strip.


----------



## charleski

A quote lifted from Ethan Winer's book:


> “I thought cables didn’t matter, so I tried running my system without them. Huge difference!”     —Posted in a hi-fi audio forum


----------



## thehoff

derbigpr said:


> As someone who had the Antec 900, I can say it's a POS. Once you try a really high quality case, you will laugh at how bad the Antec is in virtually every way, and how unintelligent the design solutions on that case are. It's a high airflow case, I give it that, but it's loud, nasty, ugly, low quality.
> 
> Now I had a Fractal Design Define R4 for about half a year, and my PC experience is totally changed (in the sense of using open back headphones near a PC). The case is virtually inaudible. Literally, I have to put my ear on the case itself to hear anything. My laptop is about twice as loud. The build quality is extraordinary, attention to detail as well...you have to see it in person to appreciate it, because on pictures it looks like an ordinary cheap case.  It's anything but. Panels have thick and heavy sound proofing materials on it, and on top of that, the metal used it very thick as well, the case is solid like a tank, just the two side panels weigh almost as much as the entire Antec 900 case. No flexing side panels or sharp metal edges here, and when you knock on the case it sounds like knocking on wood rather than like knocking on thin sheet of metal. It comes with two 140 mm fans on the case, and I find that to be enough and a great balance of sound and cooling. Use a graphics card with quiet coolers and a nice quality CPU cooler, and you can have yourself a PC so silent the only way you'll be able to tell it's on is by looking at the blue LED in the front.


 
  
 +1 to the Fractal R4. I have 16 drives in mine and it is still barely audible. My UPS is louder.
  
 Only thing better than the R4/R5 is a LianLi or CaseLabs.


----------



## Ruben123

New Q!!
  
 How do you feel (some really have feelings about this topic) about using headphone amps? I see claims going everywhere, magical claims, and while I do not have a specially designed headphone amp (like I do not have special golden speaker cables .........) I do have some HiFi stereo receiver/amplifiers, a Behringer UAC 202 USB soundcard (with ´poor headphone amp´ ), a Sansa Clip + and a voodoo'ed Samsung GS1.
 My IEMs and phones are driven very well at -30 dB (my hearing is excellent), even the power hungry Havi B3 Pro1. Which, to be fair is driven right out of the Clip+ at -22dB. My Samsung (which is a famous DAP with Voodoo ROM) can go up to +6 dB.
  
 I can see that amps can give more power. Of course. But do they (magically!!) add soundstage? I have not heard any difference in soundstage, though small differences in sound colour (probably due to the impedance). I also can just not understand HOW it can add soundstage without effects, like DSP, crossfeed etc. I think it's placebo. Not sure though. It just adds power to the signal it gets. Ideally the sound ONLY gets louder, every frequency the same increase. Am I missing something or is it some myth? 
  
 OK yes Im also asking because ´ you cannot buy the Havi Pro1 without going for an amp too, otherwise you will be disappointed by the soundstage´ . I find the soundstage to be not that wide and deep, not specially so.


----------



## bigshot

"Soundstage" is the high end audio term for "placebo effect".


----------



## Ruben123

bigshot said:


> "Soundstage" is the high end audio term for "placebo effect".




Lol!!!


----------



## charleski

ruben123 said:


> New Q!!
> 
> How do you feel (some really have feelings about this topic) about using headphone amps?


 
   
The easiest (and probably most common) way of spoiling your listening experience is to turn up the volume enough to drive your amp into clipping. You need enough power to drive your headphones to an acceptable peak level, but more will be a waste. It's important to note that this applies to the peaks - it might be fine at the average listening level but then clip when things get louder, so this depends on the dynamic range of the music you listen to as well. Unless you only listen to heavily compressed music it's generally an idea to make sure you have something that can drive your headphone to _at least_ 110dB with an average listening level 20-30dB below that. You could restrict yourself to only listening at much lower volumes, but the human ear's frequency response varies with volume, so music does sound different when it's quieter. Increasing the volume by 3dB requires a doubling of output power.

  
 Unfortunately, the output stage is the area where it's easiest for a manufacturer to cut corners. The Clip has a very decent DAC, but can only produce 15mW into 16Ω. I'm not sure what the output of the Galaxy S1 is, but the Galaxy S4 can only produce around 4mW into 35Ω. The Behringer's headphone output is rated at 3.7mW@100Ω (with a 50Ω output impedance - I'm not surprised it's received criticism), so even under ideal conditions it can't be producing more than 11.5mW into 32Ω (and is probably producing less). None of these is enough to drive the Havi B3 to target levels, as it requires 34mW into 32Ω to reach 110dB. Luckily, outboard headphone amps with enough power are pretty cheap these days, though carrying around an extra box is a PITA. The Clip is so tiny that sticking it onto an amp isn't that much of a hassle, though.
  
 'Soundstage' is a general fluffy term that seems to be used a lot when people don't have a more concrete grasp on what's happening, though it is an important attribute that relies on subtle cues in the audio content. But in this case you can crunch the numbers quite easily and find out what's needed.


----------



## anetode

bigshot said:


> "Soundstage" is the high end audio term for "placebo effect".


 

 You can't be serious. Sure, with headphones you don't get a proper soundstage, you get a 'headstage', still...


----------



## liamstrain

anetode said:


> You can't be serious. Sure, with headphones you don't get a proper soundstage, you get a 'headstage', still...


 
  
 But it's a function of the headphones/speakers, not the amplifier. Anyone using the term in relation to an amp, has a long row to hoe.


----------



## analogsurviver

analogsurviver said:


> This is hilarious beyond extreme :




 I would like to stress that I do not agree with the statement that cables do not matter. There are at least two audio applications for cables that so far have not been properly adressed . There are probably more. Please do not ask which two apps are so cable dependant - I have plans to make them one day commercially available.
  
 In sense that cable made out of unobtainium conductor, woven in silk from Chinese Imperial Court, starched in virgin blood of Martian teenagers
 (who by losing virginity prior to reaching 23 years of age risk termination of their rights to get education) and similar extravaganza priced accordingly
 , I do agree that cables do not matter - or at least not to any degree proponents of cables would like to present. They can be a very nice frosting on a cake, but never take the cake's place. If the cake is not good to begin with, frosting does not matter - at all. With the two (maybe more) exceptions mentioned above - where cables can not only sound different, but are differences CLEARLY measurable in no uncertain terms. 
  
 What I do object with even more passion than shown in the video is the exclusive use of ABX testing for determining of audibility differences. I am not going to say it is not useful - but results of short term tests as mainly used in ABX just do not give the whole picture. There are subtler effects of "whatever you care to name" that are not going to be audible on ABX. Yet they will show themselves painfully audible to anyone who had the possibility to enjoy their benefits with casual music listening over at least weekend time - say the amount of music one would normally play over weekend. And maybe not even during that weekend.
  
 Come Monday, with the "standard" (whatever that might be) equipment reintroduced in the system, one starts noticing what is missing compared to the better equipment listened to over weekend. 
  
 Quick switching between/among short sound samples does not allow for enough adaptation time for discerning subtler things - at least not for me. Example? While roughly setting up the recording equipment in a hall prior to the arrival of musicians, I was only able to get the inherent noise floor of that hall as low as possible only after i was completely alone in that room for approx 10 minutes; only then did the faint hum emanating from the soft drinks dispenser located one floor above but "acoustically coupled" trough ventilation system became audible. With another person present ( not to mention the whole "band" ), that hum would clearly go unnoticed. Only to rear its ugly head later on during the recording where music is at the soft(est) level(s) for enough time for the soft drink dispenser hum to become glaringly obvious.
  
 By then, it is too late... - and one can count on the fact that NOBODY will be accommodating you with an ABX test for the hum audibility of soft drinks dispenser one floor above - not during Sunday, chosen specifically for recording due to the fact it is the only daytime when building is not used simultaneously for MANY musically related activities, dance included.


----------



## bigshot

anetode said:


> You can't be serious. Sure, with headphones you don't get a proper soundstage, you get a 'headstage', still...


 

 I am totally serious. How important do you think crosstalk is with headphones?
  
 There are tons of wires available for less than a meal at McDonalds that will do the job as well as any other set of wires. Cables don't matter.


----------



## liamstrain

analogsurviver said:


> Come Monday, with the "standard" (whatever that might be) equipment reintroduced in the system, one starts noticing what is missing compared to the better equipment listened to over weekend.


 
  
 I'm sure it could be arranged that someone else could blind swap, without your knowing when or if they were swapped over the course of several weeks - and compare your impressions taken at regular intervals during that period.
  
 I'd be rather curious to see your results from such a longer period dbt.
  
 I agree - there are certain instances when the cable matters, a bit. Especially when it is part of the circuit (as in an electric guitar, for instance). But for listening, provided that the cable isn't made poorly or deliberately to color (e.g. with wildly out of norm capacitance, or inductance, or far too narrow a gauge for the application) and provided that the equipment in use isn't so esoteric or poorly designed that it's going to start oscillating if something is even a fraction off...then cables don't matter. If you are choosing to use such equipment, then a larger conversation needs to be had about that.


----------



## Ruben123

liamstrain said:


> But it's a function of the headphones/speakers, not the amplifier. Anyone using the term in relation to an amp, has a long row to hoe.





This is what i mean: my amps are not the best, in numbers, but they do drive my Havi with ease, much higher volume and ill become deaf. I also dont hear clipping at -22dB.

Also, how can a louder (just louder! ) signal cause more soudstage/spacing/etc.... I guess it cannot

P.s. i rarely go above 90-95dB


----------



## charleski

ruben123 said:


> This is what i mean: my amps are not the best, in numbers, but they do drive my Havi with ease, much higher volume and ill become deaf. I also dont hear clipping at -22dB.
> 
> Also, how can a louder (just louder! ) signal cause more soudstage/spacing/etc.... I guess it cannot


 

 Well the answer to that is easy. The ear's equal-loudness contours are not parallel - the softer the music, the less you'll hear in the bass and treble and the greater the variation in the midrange, and this mucks up the positional cues.

 It's true, though, that the Clip is gain-limited, so you can't push it into clipping.


----------



## castleofargh

ruben123 said:


> Also, how can a louder (just louder! ) signal cause more soudstage/spacing/etc.... I guess it cannot


 
 it has nothing to do with the gear and everything to do with your ears. everything sounds better when a little louder. if you don't believe in this, you might want to look into it and experiment, because volume mismatch is the single most common cause for false statement and drama in the audio world. loudness changes everything!


----------



## davidsh

A myth (?) I've found when reading up on current amps: Say we have a low Z negative feedback amp the reactive elements of the speaker and oscillations will induce current at the speaker amp output which will wreck havoc with the negative feedback. 
  
 Can someone help me elaborate and perhaps help me understand negative feedback better?


----------



## liamstrain

charleski said:


> Well the answer to that is easy. The ear's equal-loudness contours are not parallel - the softer the music, the less you'll hear in the bass and treble and the greater the variation in the midrange, and this mucks up the positional cues.
> 
> It's true, though, that the Clip is gain-limited, so you can't push it into clipping.


 
  
 Yes - but two amps of differing power, but played at the same volume wouldn't do this. Which is the point.


----------



## Ruben123

So... IF i dont listen music at "loud" volume, my relatively poor amps are enough given that they do not clip? 
But if you want more power (=louder) you are going to the amp's limits and THERE you start to see differences.

Which, if im correct, means that an amp increases soundstage by placebo and, if you need/want it, higher volume.


Btw, i go for a good seal all the time so i can lower the volume to save my ears!


----------



## charleski

liamstrain said:


> Yes - but two amps of differing power, but played at the same volume wouldn't do this. Which is the point.


 
 You need an amp that's capable of delivering _enough_ power without clipping to drive the headphone to levels where you can resolve the positional cues properly. _That's_ the point.
  
 If all you need is 50mW you won't gain an advantage by having a 500mW amp. But you will be at a disadvantage if your amp can only produce 20mW.


ruben123 said:


> So... IF i dont listen music at "loud" volume, my relatively poor amps are enough given that they do not clip?
> But if you want more power (=louder) you are going to the amp's limits and THERE you start to see differences.
> 
> Which, if im correct, means that an amp increases soundstage by placebo and, if you need/want it, higher volume.
> ...


 
 Were you actually asking a question originally? ...
  
 Localisation is based on the integration of inter-aural intensity and phase differences, along with auditory stream analysis. There's a good introduction here. Inter-aural intensity differences are based on shading due to the shape of the head, and become more pronounced with higher frequencies, starting at around 1.5kHz (this is because the longer the wavelength the more it will diffract around an obstacle). As sound gets softer the relationship between the intensity and phase differences changes because of the alterations in the ear's frequency sensitivity. Put simply, it's easier to hear where a loud sound is coming from than a soft sound (in the absence of complications from reflections). This isn't a placebo.


----------



## Ruben123

Well my original question was, if an amp can magically add more soundstage. As i understand, higher volume gives better soundstage so an amp CAN add more soundstage.
But, only if your source is not clipping, of sufficiënt quality etc etc. So at normal listening levels up to 95 dB, if your source can deliver that, you wont hear a difference at the same volume level (for instance 85dB), but if your source ends at 80dB, an amp can deliver higher volume and THUS better soundstage.





charleski said:


> You need an amp that's capable of delivering _enough_ power without clipping to drive the headphone to levels where you can resolve the positional cues properly. _That's_ the point.
> 
> 
> Well my original question was, if an amp can magically add more soundstage. As i understand, higher volume gives better soundstage so an amp CAN add more soundstage.
> ...


----------



## liamstrain

charleski said:


> You need an amp that's capable of delivering _enough_ power without clipping to drive the headphone to levels where you can resolve the positional cues properly. _That's_ the point.
> 
> If all you need is 50mW you won't gain an advantage by having a 500mW amp. But you will be at a disadvantage if your amp can only produce 20mW.
> Were you actually asking a question originally? ...


 
  
 I left off the mandatory caveat. Provided that you have enough power from both amplifiers for the desired listening levels without clipping, let's say 50mW... then you gain no advantage between a 100mW source and a 500mW source.
  
 No - I was not asking a question, I was trying to clarify for those following along. I don't think anyone was actually arguing that two different volumes would sound the same from a positional standpoint (the point you refuted with your chart) - but that two amps of differing (but sufficient) power at the same volume would sound the same from that standpoint.


----------



## charleski

liamstrain said:


> I left off the mandatory caveat. Provided that you have enough power from both amplifiers for the desired listening levels without clipping, let's say 50mW... then you gain no advantage between a 100mW source and a 500mW source.
> 
> No - I was not asking a question, I was trying to clarify for those following along. I don't think anyone was actually arguing that two different volumes would sound the same from a positional standpoint (the point you refuted with your chart) - but that two amps of differing (but sufficient) power at the same volume would sound the same from that standpoint.


 

 It looks like the quoting system is getting confused and mixing up things I was addressing to two different posts. But yes, that's the point I've been making all this time. Having too much power doesn't get you anything but you _do need enough_. In practice it's probably wise to tack on a couple of dB to your target as manufacturers always tend to be optimistic about their products' capabilities, and the definition of 'enough' will vary depending on your headphones' properties.
  
 The real problem is that, while you can accept that cheap devices will skimp on their power output (they've got to cut corners somewhere, I suppose), it's very easy to find very expensive DAPs that compromise on this as well. Try finding a spec for the power output under load of the $2500 AK240. Try finding the power output of Sony's new $1200 walkman. Try finding the output of the $700 one they released last year. Try finding the power output of the $400 Pono Player (well, at least you can bridge the outputs, as long as you pay to have your headphones recabled...).  What do you think they have to hide? If I were spending $$$$ on a DAP I'd expect to be getting a product that I could be sure of, one that could cleanly drive any reasonable headphone, high or low-impedance, to 115dB without extra equipment or modifications.


----------



## castleofargh

charleski said:


> The real problem is that, while you can accept that cheap devices will skimp on their power output (they've got to cut corners somewhere, I suppose), it's very easy to find very expensive DAPs that compromise on this as well. Try finding a spec for the power output under load of the $2500 AK240. Try finding the power output of Sony's new $1200 walkman. Try finding the output of the $700 one they released last year. Try finding the power output of the $400 Pono Player (well, at least you can bridge the outputs, as long as you pay to have your headphones recabled...).  What do you think they have to hide? If I were spending $$$$ on a DAP I'd expect to be getting a product that I could be sure of, one that could cleanly drive any reasonable headphone, high or low-impedance, to 115dB without extra equipment or modifications.


 

 no need, A&K modifies audiophiles needs on demand. when they sold an expensive crap with a 22ohm output, it became suddenly not that much of a problem to have low impedance(but 4ohm from an ipod was a drama 6 months before). when they didn't offer a line out, it became suddenly ok to double amp(when people have been pissing on the sansa clip for years as a source for external amps because "double amping is baaaad"). there is no limit to what you can push an audiophile to do when your price says "high end".
  
 seriously, having more than 25mW into 30ohm is still kind of a new thing for DAPs. fiio, ibasso, and hifiman have opened the way but for the rest we stay with mostly crap amp section and no measurement :'(.  I like FIIO mainly because of how open they are about specs. I just wrote yesterday about the fact that I bought the O2 really just because it was the only amp I could find on the web with so many measurements. sadly it's something really rare.
 but I'm totally with you, when a brand "forgets" to give some specs for a product, it usually says a lot about the values of such specs.


----------



## bufferoverflow

charleski said:


> The easiest (and probably most common) way of spoiling your listening experience is to turn up the volume enough to drive your amp into clipping.


 
 Another good way to spoil your listening-experience, permanently, is to play to loud !
 at 90dB average and 110dB peak you are triggering the ears built-in protection against excessive volume and if you do it to long the 'protection' becomes permanent .
 (your hearing will reduce it's sensitivity, to protect itself .)
  


analogsurviver said:


> . There are at least two audio applications for cables that so far have not been properly adressed . There are probably more. Please do not ask which two apps are so cable dependant - I have plans to make them one day commercially available.


 
  
 This is the sound-science thread : Where is the science in claiming something and then refusing to back it up in any way - or even say what the %#?? you are talking about ?
 Then you go on with the usual ramblings about blind-tests not showing anything, because some people have golden ears or something -
 And offer nothing but meaningless talk to back up your claim .. Sorry, but no matter how many times subjectivist drivel is repeated it's still just drivel .
 Throw in the commercial motive you claim and we have - marketing mumbo-jumbo .


----------



## bigshot

Personally, I'd rather just choose good cans and a player that don't require amping. The less clutter the better.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> I would like to stress that I do not agree with the statement that cables do not matter. There are at least two audio applications for cables that so far have not been properly adressed . There are probably more. Please do not ask which two apps are so cable dependant - I have plans to make them one day commercially available.


 
   
 If you can't provide any evidence, this statement is useless and unsupported, and can be assumed to be false.
  
 Quote:


analogsurviver said:


> Quick switching between/among short sound samples does not allow for enough adaptation time for discerning subtler things - at least not for me. Example? While roughly setting up the recording equipment in a hall prior to the arrival of musicians, I was only able to get the inherent noise floor of that hall as low as possible only after i was completely alone in that room for approx 10 minutes; only then did the faint hum emanating from the soft drinks dispenser located one floor above but "acoustically coupled" trough ventilation system became audible. With another person present ( not to mention the whole "band" ), that hum would clearly go unnoticed. Only to rear its ugly head later on during the recording where music is at the soft(est) level(s) for enough time for the soft drink dispenser hum to become glaringly obvious.
> 
> By then, it is too late... - and one can count on the fact that NOBODY will be accommodating you with an ABX test for the hum audibility of soft drinks dispenser one floor above - not during Sunday, chosen specifically for recording due to the fact it is the only daytime when building is not used simultaneously for MANY musically related activities, dance included.


 
 ABX testing could easily discern the audibility of that hum. You would set up a test by making sure the ambient noise was as quiet as possible, then have someone turn on the soft drink machine (A), turn off the soft drink machine (B), and then turn it to a random state that is either on or off (X). If you could consistently tell whether it was on or off from the recording studio (matching X to A or B), you have conclusively proven that it is a potentially audible problem, and based on your description of it as "glaringly obvious", I would assume this would pose you no difficulty.


----------



## bigshot

Direct A/B switching is the easiest way to discern between two similar sounds. If you can't hear a difference when you can put one right next to the other, you sure aren't going to hear it when you have been listening for ten minutes and your ears have become totally acclimated to the noise.
  
 However, extended listening time is a great way to develop placebo bias and to convince yourself you can hear something you really can't.


----------



## charleski

bufferoverflow said:


> Another good way to spoil your listening-experience, permanently, is to play to loud !
> at 90dB average and 110dB peak you are triggering the ears built-in protection against excessive volume and if you do it to long the 'protection' becomes permanent .
> (your hearing will reduce it's sensitivity, to protect itself .)


 
 I'd advise an 85dB average, which will lead to peaks of 110dB or more on dynamic material. 85dB is the volume of city traffic inside a car, so not unreasonably loud. You certainly have to be sensible and avoid prolonged periods of listening at high volume, but you do need the volume if you want to get the experience.
  
 Here's the RMS histogram for the opening chorus of Bach's Mass in B minor:


 The majority of the material is 20dB or much more below the peak, with a mode of -24dB. Obviously if you're listening to music that's been squeezed flat in the loudness war you need to adjust your volume accordingly, and you will have much lower requirements for amplification if the peaks are only 6dB above the average level.


----------



## RRod

charleski said:


> I'd advise an 85dB average, which will lead to peaks of 110dB or more on dynamic material. 85dB is the volume of city traffic inside a car, so not unreasonably loud. You certainly have to be sensible and avoid prolonged periods of listening at high volume, but you do need the volume if you want to get the experience.
> 
> Here's the RMS histogram for the opening chorus of Bach's Mass in B minor:
> 
> ...


 
  
 What did you use to make that histogram?


----------



## Wizz

bigshot said:


> Direct A/B switching is the easiest way to discern between two similar sounds. If you can't hear a difference when you can put one right next to the other, you sure aren't going to hear it when you have been listening for ten minutes and...[...]


 
  
 Yes. This is basic knowledge among sound engineers, mastering engineers, music producers etc. People trained to hear minute details and minuscule differences, and spending lots of time practising critical listening. We KNOW that without A/B we can make unsound decisions (though we sometimes have to...) because we may be hearing what we expect, instead of what is.
  
 The mere questioning of this, is one of my basic baloney alerts.
  
 Anyone claiming that some (actual) sonic differences cannot be heard through a careful A/B setup but only through some sloppy methods including extended listening periods not directly correlated to each other and not even matching volumes, I consider automatically as a charlatan (if cynical) or a fool (if sincere). Until proven wrong of course. But I've been waiting for 30+ years now... still waiting... waiting...


----------



## charleski

rrod said:


> What did you use to make that histogram?


 
 That's Adobe Audition.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> ABX testing could easily discern the audibility of that hum. You would set up a test by making sure the ambient noise was as quiet as possible, then have someone turn on the soft drink machine (A), turn off the soft drink machine (B), and then turn it to a random state that is either on or off (X). If you could consistently tell whether it was on or off from the recording studio (matching X to A or B), you have conclusively proven that it is a potentially audible problem, and based on your description of it as "glaringly obvious", I would assume this would pose you no difficulty.


 
 Ahhhh - @cjl - and others - do you guys EVER work under real world conditions ?
  
 This post of yours REALLY pissed me off - because in real life, it took me having to record in that hall WITH hum "one sunday not so many full moons ago" - because there was no way to get to the floor above due to keys/clearence/etc - Mission Impossible. Then I had to arrange meeting with the director of that floor during working week in order to get the permission to be given the key and access to that floor on Sunday. No way on earth I could have learned of the din that soft drink machine is causing during normal week activities in that building - there are at least two dancing schools in addition to this music hall in the building, working almost round the clock from 08:00 till 22:00 hours - in between it is closed.  I could have only learned of this machine's very existance the hard way. It is immortalized on a CD.
  
 Me and my producer had to re-arrange the chairs for the musicians and microphone to the exactly same condition as the previous evening rehearsal - AFTER it has been re-arranged for a practice of baroque chamber orchestra in the morning. It took us more than half close to three quarters of an hour to get it all back to the original condition - and those 10 or so minutes of silence in loneliness, since he had to pick up an instrumentalist from the train station, was a godsend I am usually never blessed with. After musicians start arriving, tuning their instruments, singers "singing in" - you can FORGET any silence, and most certainly any ABXing.
  
 If I did not get rid of that hum before musicians arrived, I would have heard it only later during a very quiet passage in music.  If and when music is loud enough, that hum is not directly audible - but does colour the sound nonetheless trough intermodulation with mains frequency and its harmonics. 
  
 Why, do you ask, did we not book another hall with fewer problems? Answer is a straightforward one - money. Do you have any idea how much does it cost to have a piano at a hall that does not have a permanent good piano (although we did not need it this time)? How much does it cost to rent a hall? How much does it cost to....? Straighforward answer - TOO MUCH for means at our disposal. 
  
 In theory, that ABX of yours would work really fine. If I told some 30 musicians who arrive at their own expense, leave children at home with babysitters or if older unattended, in order to record something best possible under given conditions because they love music making that much, that they have to be distracted from concentration on their own work and further delayed because of some ABX - you have only one guess what the response would have been. 
  
 I did answer that extensively solely based on the fact that I basically respect you highly, jcl.
  
 However, I will never again waste this much time to explain the obvious. ABX in the above example is an afterthought of an ........... after..... thought.
 Lowest priority imaginable. I would be FAR better off listening to some test tracks recorded today in a salon where I have not set foot into for a hair under half a century. 
  
 It is the fundamental difference between being a WWI soldier in the trenches fighting real war wearing wrong colour trousers not by his fault - or manequin wearing latest "designs" of army trousers in salons far away from the action in the safe rear.  Here the link for the movie Le Pantalon ( Trousers ) in original French : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G5Wpl5d4FI - 
 because ABX crowd in a sense looks just as myopic as some of the officers in this movie made after real events - purveyors of "order, discipline and truth..."
- aka ABX.


----------



## bufferoverflow

charleski said:


> I'd advise an 85dB average, which will lead to peaks of 110dB or more on dynamic material. 85dB is the volume of city traffic inside a car, so not unreasonably loud. You certainly have to be sensible and avoid prolonged periods of listening at high volume, but you do need the volume if you want to get the experience.
> 
> Here's the RMS histogram for the opening chorus of Bach's Mass in B minor:
> 
> ...


 
  
 I am not going to disagree with you on those 85dB - It's what most decent workplace security legislation stipulates as the maximum acceptable 'safe' average exposure ..
 However, peaks of 110dB in high dynamic content music ain't exactly troublefree - Do it for to long time and your ears WILL try to protect themselves from excessive volume .
  
 @ analogsurvivor : I STILL don't have a clue what you are actually talking about - In a 'sound-science' context .. Except the fact that you have self-proclaimed financial interests ?


----------



## Wizz

He's pissed off, and promises to stop wasting time explaining "the obvious".
  
 The light at the end of the tunnel? ☺
  
 Would be nice to have this thread back on its original tracks...


----------



## bufferoverflow

@ Wizz :
 The thread never left it's original track, until someone came along and claimed golden ears can hear something that he has a cure for -
 And demanding that we jsut take his word for it .


----------



## analogsurviver

bufferoverflow said:


> I am not going to disagree with you on those 85dB - It's what most decent workplace security legislation stipulates as the maximum acceptable 'safe' average exposure ..
> However, peaks of 110dB in high dynamic content music ain't exactly troublefree - Do it for to long time and your ears WILL try to protect themselves from excessive volume .
> 
> @ analogsurvivor : I STILL don't have a clue what you are actually talking about - In a 'sound-science' context .. Except the fact that you have self-proclaimed financial interests ?


 
 OK - I am talking about most of this thread talking about some references, which may well be correct in themselves, but they do not reflect the reality as it is. Live sound is different. Time and time again my audiophile friends get shocked by the sheer loudness of acoustic music; there are peaks above 110 dB, sometimes even above 120 dB - and all the way down to the noise floor of any given recording venue.  And no, this music does NOT sound loud at all - because the duration of those peaks is so short.  I have long ago given up on musician's opinion how "loud" is any given piece on the programme - because they will invariably miss that short peak, noting the passage of lower absolute amplitude and longer overall duration as the loudest. There is one single exception to this rule I had the pleasure of working so far with; he knew EXACTLY where in the composition is the highest peak, playing it 2-3 seconds after me asking him - confirming my recording from the "pre-rehearsal" done in the morning. But that is one out of hundreds...
  
 There have been many references to mastering - one of the premium culprits is the compression. Very quickly can classical music get limited in dynamic range to 45 dB or less - peaks above 105 (110) dB are not desired in most home environment, noise floor of most modern buildings can well exceed 50 dB  - leaving you with maximum dynamic range possible in the above example of 60 dB - and usually being limited to a great deal less than that.
  
 One can limit dynamic range, frequency range - until it finally does fit into the CD redbook. And can insist on ABX ad nuseaum no matter what. 
  
 And then young _*students of music *_complain that music heard live does not sound as good as CD - after being bombarded by so many CDs or nowadays even worse, MP3 (or similar) on Youtube. Listened to over laptops or  iphones and the original earbuds that came with it. They could have just as well start using cheapo plastic toy instruments instead...
  
 There are about couple of _*Thousands of pages *_related to the problem a correctly designed cable could solve - on head fi alone. Without even being mentioned in most cases. Make no mistake, the problem is real and can be measured by anyone in possession of the equipment and knowledge required; yet make no mistake, I am not naive enough to give the idea on the silver platter for free - in the name of the "science". I am not like people in recent video, where - staged or not - interviewer got computer password out of a subject in a matter of minute or so...


----------



## bufferoverflow

Thank You 'analogsurvivor', now I may have a better understanding of where you come from .
 I especially like your mentioning of 'music students' complaining that live music does not sound 'as good' as a recording, however I don't believe that has anything to do with 'cables' ..
 But they are somewhat right, often a recording actually 'sounds better' than a live performance ..
  
 You say : "There are about a couple of _*Thousands of pages *_related to the problem a correctly designed cable could solve.
 Make no mistake, the problem is real and can be measured by anyone in possession of the equipment and knowledge required; "
  
 OK .. Then please point us to these measurements .
 Note that no 'objectivist' claims wires don't matter_ at all _- What we say is that a wire, correctly constructed of materials 'in spec', does not have a sound AT ALL !
 As opposed to 'subjectivists' who claim silver-wires 'sound' colder than gold-plated copper wires .
 DBT's have proven this beyond even unreasonable doubt, so I would REALLY like to see the measurements you have implying otherwise ...
  
 (I'm really trying here - Could say a lot about "One can limit dynamic range, frequency range - until it finally does fit into the CD redbook." and your talk about 120dB peaks - however, I like to be able to hear ..But, the limitations in redbook of frequency-range are only relevant to bats and dogs and quite frankly : I do not want to subject my hearing to a true 120dB dynamic range - Time is hard enough on the hearing all by itself  )


----------



## RRod

Part of the issue is that he's often talking about recording, which is a different monster than end-user delivery. No one in their right mind would record dynamic content at 16bits rather than 24, because yes, you can get the leveling wrong and mess up the peaks, and you'll want to do post-processing. But 120dB - 96dB = 24dB which is as quiet as any venue I know of, and then you add dither to the mix. So I still don't see how 16bits is insufficient for home delivery. Same thing with cables. If you're running hundreds of feet in cables, that's a different monster than my 5' headphone cable. The pros doing the recording need good stuff so that problems don't add up in the chain. Users are at the end of the chain, and thus can live with 16bits, 44100Hz, and normal cables.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> Ahhhh - @cjl - and others - do you guys EVER work under real world conditions ?
> 
> This post of yours REALLY pissed me off - because in real life, it took me having to record in that hall WITH hum "one sunday not so many full moons ago" - because there was no way to get to the floor above due to keys/clearence/etc - Mission Impossible. Then I had to arrange meeting with the director of that floor during working week in order to get the permission to be given the key and access to that floor on Sunday. No way on earth I could have learned of the din that soft drink machine is causing during normal week activities in that building - there are at least two dancing schools in addition to this music hall in the building, working almost round the clock from 08:00 till 22:00 hours - in between it is closed.  I could have only learned of this machine's very existance the hard way. It is immortalized on a CD.
> 
> ...


 
 But at the end of the day, the fact remains that you could use an ABX test to prove whether something was a problem or not. You keep trying to argue against the ABX as a good form of testing, and stating that it is impractical in some circumstances does not change the fact that it is the gold standard for determining whether a difference is discernible or not. You're absolutely correct that in some circumstances, ABXing everything isn't possible or practical. That's a very different statement than "ABX is useless" though.


----------



## castleofargh

wizz said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > Direct A/B switching is the easiest way to discern between two similar sounds. If you can't hear a difference when you can put one right next to the other, you sure aren't going to hear it when you have been listening for ten minutes and...[...]
> ...


 

 not 2 days go by on headfi without someone saying that rapid A/B switching is not a good subjective test to hear minute differences, and that he believes in long sessions more...
 I really don't understand how anybody pretending to be interested in audio testing can believe that crap. the same with people who pretend like volume matching doesn't matter much. those guys obviously never even tried a single proper test else they should know how much nonsense goes into those claims.
 and as those are the very starting point of making a subjective comparison between 2 sounds, it tells a lot about the nonsense that is going on in audio forums. it's both amazing and distressful.
 many of the strange claims have been known to be false and proved false by science and experiments for many many years. but audiophiles are unequivocally the best at repeating old claims over and over again reassuring each others in some kind of mass hysteria, refusing to grow up and refusing to learn.
 a good thing manufacturers don't stay stuck in the past with us. but of course most developers actually know what they are talking about. that's all the difference.
  
  
 talking about antiquated concepts that never die, I just saw 12monkeys the series ep2 and the silly girl in it makes some lame reference to red and blue being primary colors(I think ok cool) and then she says "give me yellow I can paint you the world!" ... sure silly girl go ahead. it shows how far something false can reach if repeated long enough to people who never question anything. the RYB idea has been accepted for centuries as primaries, any guy painting anything knew he couldn't actually get away with only those colors, but still even today they're called primary colors in many art courses. additive RGB, or subtractive yellow magenta cyan? who cares about those sciency crap, let me set my computer screen and my printer to RYB like an artist to get the "true colors of the masters". damn I can't seem to find the profile, maybe my screen isn't expensive enough?(apply this to any weird audio idea for true sound).


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> But at the end of the day, the fact remains that you could use an ABX test to prove whether something was a problem or not. You keep trying to argue against the ABX as a good form of testing, and stating that it is impractical in some circumstances does not change the fact that it is the gold standard for determining whether a difference is discernible or not. You're absolutely correct that in some circumstances, ABXing everything isn't possible or practical. That's a very different statement than "ABX is useless" though.


 
 I have never said ABX is useless. Unless the difference is so big that performing ABX would be nothing else but wasting time. IF the difference is big enough for the musicians intentionally left in the dark regarding what they are listening to light up with smile upon hearing it - what else do you need? OK, ABX, stats, etc, I get it - but necessary it is not.
  
 But it is impractical as hell in case of DSD and a single person trying to perform it - because current hardware and software do not allow switching from PCM to DSD and vice versa without making sounds that give away at least the fact that such a swich is taking place. Foobar2000 is incapable of ABX of PCM and DSD played natively - it will convert DSD to PCM in order to be able to do the ABX - effectively sabotaging the test before it began.
  
 At this level, software and hardware CAN have more of effect on the sonic outcome than DSD or PCM alone. Which means it is perfectly possible that using same test files listener A may come up with the exactly opposite result than listener B - and using their respective equipment, BOTH can be correct. 
  
 Now be fair and confess how many of you on this thread do possess native DSD playback capability. With YES or NO.
  
 At least I am not talking about something I have not heard and object to based on whatever but listening.


----------



## bigshot

If an engineer is doing things that make the musicians upset, they need to find a better engineer!


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> If an engineer is doing things that make the musicians upset, they need to find a better engineer!


 
 Oh, have you never witnessed to a musical event that is so intense - for whatever reason - that ANY request from the engineer is unwelcome ? That they may well hold it against you even if only trying to position microphone better ?
  
 Although rare, there are musicians whose  impresarios etc will do ANYTHING to "protect" their protege - including preventing any conversation with the musician before and during the rehearsal. The musicians themselves are usually quite approachable and friendly - but not everybody and not always.
  
 It all boils down to common sense - if the same musicians I know well are obviously in good mood, I might even squeeze in some ABX - but if I can see they are struggling with something ( like having to re-arrange singing roles within the choir because some singer is out with flu - an info old some 15 minutes, arrived well after the beginning of the recording - he or she was hoping to get well enough to perform to the last moment ... ) - than me disapearing into next-to-inexistence is the best policy.
  
 It is all case by case based - musicians are humans, they do not work with an off/on switch... - and part of the engineer's job is to cater to these human requirements in order to produce the best recording under given circumstances.


----------



## analogsurviver

bufferoverflow said:


> Thank You 'analogsurvivor', now I may have a better understanding of where you come from .
> I especially like your mentioning of 'music students' complaining that live music does not sound 'as good' as a recording, however I don't believe that has anything to do with 'cables' ..
> But they are somewhat right, often a recording actually 'sounds better' than a live performance ..
> 
> ...


 
 Measurements regarding cables for the said application are quite simple - at least in this application. But the answer is still no - if all manufacturers and users of their products have not been able to figure it out ...  In this case, it is NOT about conductor material, it is about electrical properties ( LRC) of the cable.
  
 This is head-fi ; therefore, recordings meant to be listened over headphones need not to be limited in dynamic range, since there are no room limitations or neighbour related concerns. To see - better said hear - what I mean, try to listen to say piano from a relatively close position, say 5 metres or less; or drum kit, or harp, or ANYTHING - but all of these LIVE, not canned and shaped to fit a CD according to whatever record companies see fit to further limit what could have been provided.
  
 The dynamic range in real world is limited by the room noise - concert halls have heating/cooling, air conditioning, lighting - ALL of which can be quite loud, particularly in the bass below 50 Hz.  If 110 dB peak is assumed max SPL, it takes a hall with 30 dB self noise in order to allow for a 80 dB dynamic range. That is better than average, a single bulb/lamp/whatever gone bad is going to diminish this figure further.
  
 The loudest sound heard so far by me was Suchoi Su 27 fighter plane during demo flight display. It is louder (and bigger...) than most western planes from "afar" -  but it literally hits you how powerful its two engines are when you are directly behind the exhausts, within cone of say one, maybe two degree of on dead-on-axis blast; the plane was at several occasions in this position, whether it was 1000 feet or 2, 3,5 thousand feet up in the air - did not matter much. Trying to reproduce this sound with headphones would most probably require some orthodynamics ( see SPL specs for Audez'e...) - one can certainly forget electrostatics.
  
 But, this is an extreme , unrelated to music listening. I am glad to have experienced it, but do not crave for repetition.


----------



## Wizz

Sigh, he's not listening to his recordings instead of posting here.
  
 Why don't you go write a blog or a book, AnalogSurviver?
 You obviously have lots of spare time considering all these walls of texts you're throwing at us.
  
 I only have one question though: *can I listen to your work*?
  
 I'd really like to check that:
  
 - you're and actual sound guy, not just some internet troll making things up as he goes (sorry that's just the way you sound)
 - your work is any good (in my book of course).


----------



## Ruben123

Analogsurvivor is a well known and one of the few professional members here and I think he doesnt need to prove you that. He is actually very experienced.
  
 Back on topic now.


----------



## Wizz

ruben123 said:


> Analogsurvivor is a well known and one of the few professional members here and I think he doesnt need to prove you that. He is actually very experienced.
> 
> Back on topic now.


 
 Unless you're a mod, or some authority around, why should I believe you or even consider your opinion on the matter?
  
 The proof is in the pudding.
 People talk, talk, talk, but when challenged to present real-world evidence, they suddenly become very shy.
  
 My own audio work is easy to find: one just has to look for it on the web.
 Here's a little help: Wizz's dirty little audio portfolio
 As a musician, a mixing and mastering engineer, I see no reason not to make my work available for people to listen to it.
  
 Anyone claiming to be a sound guy should be able to do the same.
 Since when is it NOT legit, outside of religion matters, to challenge people to provide evidence of what they claim?


----------



## RRod

In analogsurvivor's defense, he may not be at leisure to just post samples willy-nilly. Still, though, it's not unreasonable to ask for a summary of experience.
  
 As far as the "does anyone have DSD" question: yes, I own an SACD player and have heard my fair share of DSD content on it. I find no real benefit to it. Sonically the differences are non-existent, and it loses pathetically in terms of usability to PCM, whatever the sampling rate. Of course I'm sure someone will say "no you need the new super-er kinds of DSD with more megasamples!", but really, honestly, there is no need on the user end. On the recording end, I still haven't seen any good case for recording in DSD rather than PCM, besides typical "it's more like analog" drivel.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> In analogsurvivor's defense, he may not be at leisure to just post samples willy-nilly. Still, though, it's not unreasonable to ask for a summary of experience.
> 
> As far as the "does anyone have DSD" question: yes, I own an SACD player and have heard my fair share of DSD content on it. I find no real benefit to it. Sonically the differences are non-existent, and it loses pathetically in terms of usability to PCM, whatever the sampling rate. Of course I'm sure someone will say "no you need the new super-er kinds of DSD with more megasamples!", but really, honestly, there is no need on the user end. On the recording end, I still haven't seen any good case for recording in DSD rather than PCM, besides typical "it's more like analog" drivel.


 
 I am a free lance recording engineer. And although I do get to keep the masters, I no longer keep any rights (except moral). 
  
 Save for some super rare occasion, original DSD recordings get mastered in PCM - in my case, 192 32bit floating to be exact (economy reasons related, there are better tools to edit DSD if $ ).  If the last hole on the least important most faintly audible instrument plays a wrong note, that player can block publishing the whole recording - and I can not do absolutely nothing about it. There is around 90 players in a typical symphonic orchestra...
  
 Sometimes, after a "certain" amount of time, some of the players who did make mistakes that are more or less uncorrectable , do thaw and allow publishing an otherwise good recording. Sometimes, they do not. Beyond my control. If not available on Youtube, Vimeo, etc, etc publicly, I have to ask permission if I want to post any sample(s).
  
 I can only hope to finally see the green light for a recording of one of the top opera voices today - more than preparing the master for CD  and giving it to the singer in question at first convenient opportunity is something beyond anybody's capability. Specially as the recording was limited to a single evening session (said singer knows the schedule for the next three years in advance ), meaning the singing also can not be up to aspirations of the singer ( NO feedback - after three years ! ) - and it is well possible to clash with the singer's exclusive contract for recording with another recording organization.  Yet this recording is FAR closer to the real voice of the singer in question than anything commercially available.
 I do not think you would enjoy it in this case in my shoes ... Best one can do is to be "politely annoying/pushy" - HOW much - that is a million dollar question.
  
 As regards DSD : SACD is DSD64, and it was WRONG to be allowed out in the open. The first DSD that is "useful" is DSD128 - and by the time DSD512 is reached, there should be low enough distortion, high enough signal to noise ratio INCLUDING out of audio band noise, etc, etc. - but economic reality says I will have to satisfy myself with DSD128 for some time to come.
  
 DSD is best used for "direct to ..." recordings that are not meant to be mastered at all (except markers/tracks/eventual fade in/out) - IF the musicians are up to the task and can survive publishing the amount of imperfections played. To those who would rather die than not make edit every half second I can see DSD looking like a joke.
 Still, although DSD to PCM and vice versa is NOT lossless process, DSD can be converted to any PCM and then edited as usual.


----------



## RRod

I can't imagine having to interact with some of the egos in music, especially trying to convince them that imperfection should be documented for all of history. I was watching the documentary on Bernstein's own recording of West Side Story, and the whole session seemed like a gigantic boiler room of tension.
  
 As far as DSD for recording, I still don't see how this is beneficial over recording in PCM and not doing any mastering. That is, the "not mastering" part seems like it should be independent of the sampling framework.


----------



## Savant

analogsurviver said:


> As regards DSD : SACD is DSD64, and it was WRONG to be allowed out in the open. The first DSD that is "useful" is DSD128 - and by the time DSD512 is reached, there should be low enough distortion, high enough signal to noise ratio INCLUDING out of audio band noise, etc, etc. - but economic reality says I will have to satisfy myself with DSD128 for some time to come.




Agreed on SACD/DSD64. It is a joke, really....


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> I can't imagine having to interact with some of the egos in music, especially trying to convince them that imperfection should be documented for all of history. I was watching the documentary on Bernstein's own recording of West Side Story, and the whole session seemed like a gigantic boiler room of tension.
> 
> As far as DSD for recording, I still don't see how this is beneficial over recording in PCM and not doing any mastering. That is, the "not mastering" part seems like it should be independent of the sampling framework.


 
 You mean this one : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjxWKL6jhC4  
 I might decide to watch it and see where on the Ego "Richter's Scale" was Bernie compared to people I have worked with 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



.
  
And then there are guys who would on recording insist on doing ABX 





 - one can hardly ask for a break to change CD/battery/hard disk/whatever - AFTER having to record 10+minute tirade(s) on all that went wrong in the last take(s) !
  
 DSD has the advantage of being more analog. The prime difference being the fact that any ringing/overshoot/whatever when reproducing square wave affects solely leading edge of the square wave - and not the trailing edge as well, which is always symmetrically affected in PCM. By the time DSD512 is reached, filtering is no longer required, there is " enough" and "low enough" in any category imaginable - bringing a VERY accurate representation of the actual incoming signal. Penalty is in storage and computer performance > price...
  
 True, the "not mastering" is independant of the sampling framework.


----------



## sonitus mirus

If I understand correctly, only a live recording to DSD will have any audible differences from PCM.  The only way to hear any of these audible differences is to play these DSD recordings directly through a DSD capable device.  Any conversion from DSD to PCM will create an inferior copy that is no longer lossless with regards to the original, making it very difficult and impractical to ABX.
  
 Can any of the millions of songs that have already been recorded benefit from this DSD creation process?  I'm guessing the answer is most definitely no.  "Dark Side of the Moon" isn't going to sound any better on DSD512 compared to AAC 256 or any other audibly transparent version from the same master.  It doesn't seem possible to improve upon the content that has already been recorded.  We are talking about a very limited library of music at this point, unless I am way off.


----------



## analogsurviver

sonitus mirus said:


> If I understand correctly, only a live recording to DSD will have any audible differences from PCM.  The only way to hear any of these audible differences is to play these DSD recordings directly through a DSD capable device.  Any conversion from DSD to PCM will create an inferior copy that is no longer lossless with regards to the original, making it very difficult and impractical to ABX.
> 
> Can any of the millions of songs that have already been recorded benefit from this DSD creation process?  I'm guessing the answer is most definitely no.  "Dark Side of the Moon" isn't going to sound any better on DSD512 compared to AAC 256 or any other audibly transparent version from the same master.  It doesn't seem possible to improve upon the content that has already been recorded.  We are talking about a very limited library of music at this point, unless I am way off.


 
 You are correct on all counts. In principle.
  
 There is an IF. That IF is how clever/powerful are "upsample" software(s). This should be the way to improve the already recorded material. I have to test the "latest crop" of software(s) that allow for this - and see if they  actually
 manage to output a square wave better than on the original recording. Reportedly, MP3s if converted to DSD256 and higher (on the fly or pre-converted) particularly gain in SQ - but please do not quote me on that just yet.
  
 What I DO know : material recorded to DSD64 will sound MUCH better if converted to DSD128 - either for listening or conversion down to PCM. Benefit of doing so is approx 20 dB decrease of out of audio range noise - which is particularly bad with DSD64. 
  
 I will record square wave to Korg DSD recorder(s) and then post a photo of upsamoled square wave using various softs. If these differ in the ability to play -100 dB 1 kHz sine wave with PCM - then "imagine" what might this square wave upsampling test bring about.
  
 BUT I can not do anything before Monday - tomorrow recording of a concert, the day after recording for CD, day after that a friend that went to USA is returning to these quarters for the first time - in 27 years.  I *guess* he would like to have some proper food after all this time...- and there will be some adult beverages for sure.


----------



## RRod

Your response illustrates why no one is sensing any headway in the conversation. Because the next logical thing I would say is "symmetric ringing is only a problem if said ringing is audible", and then we get back into debates on ABX.
  
 I will say that my main beef with DSD is simply that it requires a whole new paradigm for doing what we can already do audibly well. I have trivial access to all kinds of DACs that will decode up to 32/192 with no issues, but I would have to intentionally buy something to get DSD decoding on, say, my Linux box. And for what content? And for what audible benefit? For what *provable* audible benefit?


----------



## bigshot

I know what broken records sound like, that's for sure!


----------



## limpidglitch

rrod said:


> Your response illustrates why no one is sensing any headway in the conversation. Because the next logical thing I would say is "symmetric ringing is only a problem if said ringing is audible", and then we get back into debates on ABX.
> 
> I will say that my main beef with DSD is simply that it requires a whole new paradigm for doing what we can already do audibly well. I have trivial access to all kinds of DACs that will decode up to 32/192 with no issues, but I would have to intentionally buy something to get DSD decoding on, say, my Linux box. And for what content? And for what audible benefit? For what *provable* audible benefit?


 
  
 Not to mention the DAW side of things.
 Audacity has its limitations, but it's absolutely possible to make some good music with it, at 24/48, on a modern laptop.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> Your response illustrates why no one is sensing any headway in the conversation. Because the next logical thing I would say is "symmetric ringing is only a problem if said ringing is audible", and then we get back into debates on ABX.
> 
> I will say that my main beef with DSD is simply that it requires a whole new paradigm for doing what we can already do audibly well. I have trivial access to all kinds of DACs that will decode up to 32/192 with no issues, but I would have to intentionally buy something to get DSD decoding on, say, my Linux box. And for what content? And for what audible benefit? For what *provable* audible benefit?


 
 I agree regarding the logic of audibility of said ringing.
  
 However - and that is BIG however - I feel that eliminating a potentially audible problem altogether is better than debating whether it is audible or not. One unknown less is ALWAYS better than one more. In music heard live, there is NO filtering (except HF rolloff as a function of the distance ) vcausing any form of ringing - yet all known forms of recording introduce some. DXD and DSD come mighty close to the perfection, DSD is faster in reaction times.
  
 I still find it hard how we - or pardon - I - can hear the difference in high end response beyond the frequency I can still reliably hear sine wave AND over headphones/speakers that roll off waaaay too early and have curtailed response in the treble to boot. It still comes trough , despite all the imperfections in between.
  
 I was appalled to see the measurements of most headphones - even high end models - after being used to performance of phono cartridges. Loudspeakers are generally even worse, specially if the acoustics of the room is allowed to take its toll. 
  
 I agree there is far more important to get better microphone(s) and headphones/speakers than worrying about DXD vs DSD. Yet it is now 60 years since the original Mercurys etc have been recorded - and STILL it is possible to get  out of the originally pressed vinyl records ever more by the use of a really good turntable. No one is going to do that with early digital recordings - because machines that read them now are so far better than the recordings themselves it really does not make much sense.
  
 By recording now to DXD or DSD, we create libraries for the future. And DXD/DSD capable DACs can be had from approx $200 or so - to the sky is the limit. They are available NOW, not like phono gear that took at least three decades to sort of catch up with what was in the grooves since around 1955 - and did and does cost a small fortune and will/can never be "cheap".
  
 I will post a few DSD128 DFF files - excerpts -  for which I have obtained permission - next week , time permitting.
 So that you can have some true unprocessed DSD - only taken out of an entire concert, maybe there will be some fade in/out - end of story. Nothing else done to the original file.
  
 "Provable" audible benefit. ? About the same thing as classic mechanical gear shifting and electronic gear shifting in racing bicycles. Yes, classics is lighter, yes, it is more reliable on the dark side of the Venus, it does not require getting new frame, is cheaper, can be adjusted by almost anyone, etc, etc - that is precisely why I do not want to go any near the new electronic shifting bikes. Because they say once tried, all of the above reservations evaporate in thin air, cost be damned...
 With bikes, the only cost effective solution for getting electronic shifting is complete new bike - with DXD/DSD, it is only DXD/DSD capable DAC (and possibly better computer), software that can play DSD natively + storage . They also generally play regular PCM better than DACs only few years old.
  
 For music in pure dsd: https://www.nativedsd.com/


----------



## bigshot

Eliminating inaudible noise is a waste of time. If you are breaking a sweat working to do that, you're taking time away from optimizing the things that *do* matter.


----------



## analogsurviver

limpidglitch said:


> Not to mention the DAW side of things.
> Audacity has its limitations, but it's absolutely possible to make some good music with it, at 24/48, on a modern laptop.


 
 Yes, DAW is the sour grape. Costly and likely to remain so. 
  
 TBH, I would seriously consider it only once DSD512 version will be available. It should not add that much more cost for the double present sampling rate.
  
 I agree it is possible to use audacity to good effect with 24/48. But I STRONGLY disagree it is possible to MAKE music with DAWs.  As I have ever stressed, my recordings are mainly about acoustic music with as little processing as possible, preferrably zero - and would not be "making" music in a DAW in a sense of mixing various instruments/tracks into something new, thus creating music. It is a form of art for sure, but definitely not my thing or along my lines. I do respect people doing it, though.


----------



## limpidglitch

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, DAW is the sour grape. Costly and likely to remain so.
> 
> TBH, I would seriously consider it only once DSD512 version will be available. It should not add that much more cost for the double present sampling rate.
> 
> I agree it is possible to use audacity to good effect with 24/48. But I STRONGLY disagree it is possible to MAKE music with DAWs.  As I have ever stressed, my recordings are mainly about acoustic music with as little processing as possible, preferrably zero - and would not be "making" music in a DAW in a sense of mixing various instruments/tracks into something new, thus creating music. It is a form of art for sure, but definitely not my thing or along my lines. I do respect people doing it, though.


 
  
 Your approach seems to mirror that of these guys.


----------



## bigshot

"Summary: These listening tests indicate that as a rule, no significant differences could be heard between DSD and high-resolution PCM (24-bit / 176.4 kHz) even with the best equipment, under optimal listening conditions, and with test subjects who had varied listening experience and various ways of focusing on what they hear. Consequently it could be proposed that neither of these systems has a scientific basis for claiming audible superiority over the other. This reality should put a halt to the disputation being carried on by the various PR departments concerned. "


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Eliminating inaudible noise is a waste of time. If you are breaking a sweat working to do that, you're taking time away from optimizing the things that *do* matter.


 
 Above is NOT my experience. At least not with vinyl records and players. On the contrary, it DOES matter very much how any likely cause of ringing, usually well above 20 kHz, can be tamed or eliminated altogether. I know and agree dragging the stylus along the groove does constantly excite any possible mechanical resonances - and that there is very little energy in actual sound waves above 20 kHz.
  
 But not - zero.
  
 If and when there will be digital recorder capable of FLAT ( 0 dB) at say 150 kHz and a gentle(r) rolloff above that (no brick wall filtering a la CD/Redbook) ( not available commercially yet, at least not to my knowledge ) and microphone to about the same frequency ( already exists, Sanken C 100k ), that would enable more research which instruments and from which angle(s) produce large(r) outputs above 20 kHz. With that capability and knowledge gained, things could perhaps get a little simplified and less costly - while still covering greater bandwidth than currently available equipment.


----------



## limpidglitch

bigshot said:


> "This reality should put a halt to the disputation being carried on by the various PR departments concerned."


 
  
 Good luck with that


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> "Summary: These listening tests indicate that as a rule, no significant differences could be heard between DSD and high-resolution PCM (24-bit / 176.4 kHz) even with the best equipment, under optimal listening conditions, and with test subjects who had varied listening experience and various ways of focusing on what they hear. Consequently it could be proposed that neither of these systems has a scientific basis for claiming audible superiority over the other. This reality should put a halt to the disputation being carried on by the various PR departments concerned. "


 
 Please DO read what was being compared : DSD has various sample rates, just as PCM does. It can be expressed either as frequency DSD 2.8XYZ MHz - which is 64x CD sampling rate of 44.1 kHz - or simply DSD64. The test in question is from 11 years ago, when there was no commercially DSD recorders with higher sampling rate for DSD - and the only DSD known was DSD64 and there was no requirement to write any numbers along the DSD - it was the only game in town in that age.
  
 Only two years later in 2006, Korg came up with commercially available double DSD or DSD128 or DSD at 5.6XYZ MHz. It is about the same difference as from 44.1 to 88.2 -96 kHz sampling rate in PCM - yet this difference sounds different. I consider DSD128 the minimum DSD that is really usable - and am frankly surprised that the listening panel did not find 176.4/24 PCM better than DSD64/SACD .
  
 One can of course count on disputations when large(r) sums of money are at stake - some things will never change.
  
 I have put the search for DSD recorder beyond DSD128 on standby for a while, so may well not know if there are now any more DSD256 recorders available besides Merging Technologies Horus and Hapi models. But gradually, they will show up.


----------



## analogsurviver

limpidglitch said:


> Your approach seems to mirror that of these guys.


 
 Yes, but with the following differences :
  
 1. They have money
 2. They can use facility of the university
 3. They employ "service" of students as panel 
 4. They had access to the best gear at the time
 5. They had ABX software by Emil Berliner Studio
 6. They could afford to present their work at AES - which was at the time conveniently in their home town.
  
 Similarities include large bandwidth speakers (Technics SB-RX 50 in my case, also to 35 kHz or so) and Stax headphones.
  
 I work alone, have to make living with what I do, will constantly invest little what I can in yet better recording chain, will design or modify my own gear and have to rely on my own ears. And was capable of converting quite a few musicians who were recording "conventionally" to now record with me. Particularly with vocal music, where any nuance is most easily heard. Over a course of approx 10 years or so since I started with a superbly modified Technics casette deck. DON'T laugh - I will re-record some of these analog masters to DSD128 and you will hear for yourself there is absolutely no place for laughter and ridicule when the cassette is done right.
  
 I am not surprised that the best results were obtained with stereo on headphones and that surround speakers fared far less usable to discern the difference. This again corroborates my experience with setting up analog turntables - time and time again, I was disappointed by the sound ultimately achieved in the customer's home over loudspeakers - not even a pale shadow of resolution that same turntable was capable of on Stax Lambda Pro/SRM1MK2  combination. Yet I never decided to cut any corners in the quality of setting up TTs, despite being familiar with what to expect in the end. But I did quit carrying Stax combo around - because the disappointment with their own speakers was usually greater than joy of discovering how great records can sound.


----------



## bigshot

Our ears have thresholds beyond which nothing matters any more. You can go ahead and up the sampling rate over and over again, but beyond a certain point it is moot. Regular old PCM is already beyond that threshold. Everything else is overkill.
  
 If you plan to do a lot of processing and boosting volume levels in the mix, a little higher bitrate might help. But for listening to music, redbook is already overkill. That listening test proves it.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Our ears have thresholds beyond which nothing matters any more. You can go ahead and up the sampling rate over and over again, but beyond a certain point it is moot. Regular old PCM is already beyond that threshold. Everything else is overkill.
> 
> If you plan to do a lot of processing and boosting volume levels in the mix, a little higher bitrate might help. But for listening to music, redbook is already overkill. That listening test proves it.


 

 analogsurviver believes ultrasounds are important, if you force yourself to accept the idea that they are, then you'll understand most of his arguments. as he is surprisingly rational and consistent past the ultrasound "detail".
 of course accepting that ultrasounds do mater when listening to music is something that requires a good deal of imagination when like myself you start losing tones above 16.5khz.


----------



## charleski

There's fault to be found on both sides in the ABX debate.
  
 On the one hand you can point to this discussion by David Clark, inventor of the ABX switcher, posted in response to a critique of his methodology. He claims that his approach is magically immune to Type II errors (and it's a little worrying that the term seems novel to him) and states, with _colossal _disingenuousness, "we never formally conclude that any difference is inaudible". Yeah ... right ... He goes on to display difficulty in identifying what defines 'a trial' and attempts to inflate his numbers accordingly: "our tests _do_ use a very large number of trials, we simply do not report each of them individually" (ORLY?). In an attempt to tug on our heartstrings, he bewails the difficulties that are faced: "large numbers of qualified listeners are hard to find." Sorry, but science doesn't award sympathy votes because your experiment was too hard to do properly. All he manages to do is demonstrate why engineers should stick to building things and leave the science to people who've been properly trained.
  
 But while David Clark just has me rolling my eyes, John Atkinson can get me spitting in fury with pieces like this steaming pile of dung in which he states blind testing "represents the actual point where two opposed faiths clash," and goes on to play the 'teach the controversy' card by moaning about those who "wrap themselves in the flag of "objectivity," " If Atkinson wants to preach faith-based audio then he needs to come clean about it rather than pretending to any rationality, and plant his flag in the camp of the flying spaghetti monster.
  
 There _are_ areas in which the classic ABX test could be critiqued, the problem is that they exist only as hints and outlines.
  
 The first is the 'golden ears' approach, which claims that some people have better acuity, either through natural variation or training, and are able to hear differences that other can't. The notion that humans vary in their perceptual abilities is hardly controversial - I have no doubt that a 16yr-old can hear, see, taste and smell better than me in my decrepitude. But if there's a difference, the first thing you should want to do is measure it. For instance, we have claims like this (from John Atkinson again) that a fellow editor had a 100% success rate on a blind test and could even identify the brand of amplifier 80% of the time. What's his reaction? Is it, 'Golly, this is an interesting result, let's repeat it with a lot more trials so we can be sure, and then do it with a range of other people to see if we can estimate how this variance is distributed'? No. This tiny result is taken as a 'win' for the home team and trumpeted from his editorial throne without thought of further exploration. Not even remotely good enough, John. Of course, one suspects that hifi magazines have to be careful with the whole 'golden ears' thing, as their primary function is to sell merchandise to consumers, and a result that states a difference that can be heard by some audio crackerjack may be imperceptible to the plebs with money in their pockets is probably not what they're looking for.
  
 The second, and far more interesting, approach is to question whether ABX is testing the right thing.
  
 Modern psycho-physiology is founded on an interactionist framework that has devolved fom early Gestalt ideas, in which we create models of the external world and continuously refine those models through integration of sensory stimuli. If I listen to an instrument I'm not hearing the fundamentals and overtones, the modulations and bilateral phase discrepancies, I'm hearing my interior model of what that instrument sounds like, and, subconsciously, I'm hearing how far the sensory stimuli differ from what my model tells me the instrument _should_ sound like. The problem is that we know our models are wrong, and so our perceptual systems engage in a constant process of refining them based on the data coming in. The problem with _that_ is that there's no easy way to judge which data should be incorporated into the model and which should be rejected as malformed or erroneous. If you know what a clarinet sounds like through long experience and then get presented with a recording in which everything above 5kHz has been removed, your system should be robust enough to realise that there's something wrong with the new data and you shouldn't expect clarinets to sound dull and lifeless in the future.
  
 Testing this integrate-or-reject mechanism is hard, not least because there are still gaping holes in our understanding of perceptual physiology. It's possible to persue indirect methods, however, in which we attempt to measure how activation of error signals has an impact on other psychological mechanisms. One such example (which has been trotted out by a variety of manufacturers) is described here (Stereophile again, no surprise) in which a German psychologist apparently discovered marked differences in responses to a mood questionnaire between those listening to analog and digital systems in a blind test. This is certainly very interesting, but those looking for more details about this experiment will be frustrated. Searching for anything by Jürgen Ackermann yields a lot of articles on car steering, and there's a Jürgen Ackermann listed as a practising psychologist in Frankfurt, but no sign of any audio publication and nothing on the AES site, even though this was (apparently) performed as part of a PhD thesis - it would be rare, to say the least, for a reputable university to award a PhD for work that was not worthy of publication, and rarer still for a student not to seek to get published. I'd certainly be very interested if anyone manages to track this down but ... 'Show me the money!' is the phrase that comes to mind. I should also note that searching for 'Jürgen Ackermann' brings up a 'Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe' flag on Google in the UK which is ... strange, though this may relate to someone else.
  
 There's certainly work that _could_ be done outside the arena of ABX testing, it's just that no-one seems to be bothering to do it. Instead we have scraps and fragments that are accorded a significance far beyond their actual value. There are certainly interesting questions to ask, such as the significance of accuracy versus euponics, and what is euphonic anyway? But you do actually have to do the experiment. The value of ABX testing is that, being fairly simple, it _has been done_ (and there are those who have done it properly instead of letting engineers kludge it). At the end of the day you have to go with the data that you've got. You always need to be open to new data, and it's always possible that new methods of testing will expose flaws in our underlying hypotheses, but until we actually _have _those data we don't really have anything to consider.


----------



## anetode

liamstrain said:


> But it's a function of the headphones/speakers, not the amplifier. Anyone using the term in relation to an amp, has a long row to hoe.


 
  


bigshot said:


> I am totally serious. How important do you think crosstalk is with headphones?
> 
> There are tons of wires available for less than a meal at McDonalds that will do the job as well as any other set of wires. Cables don't matter.


 
  
 The dangers of jumping to the latest page after not following the discussion for a while. I saw bigshot's quote but didn't bother to look up the context. Sorry for the intrusion, carry on trying to convince the same few people of something they want to disbelieve


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> This is hilarious beyond extreme :




omg!

That is so funny 

Where is that video from originally?


----------



## GrindingThud

SilentFrequency http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/downfall-hitler-reacts
http://downfall.jfedor.org/create/


----------



## SilentFrequency

grindingthud said:


> SilentFrequency http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/downfall-hitler-reacts
> http://downfall.jfedor.org/create/




Oh wow, thanks! 

I found this video below and have watched up to where they are discussing cable "skin effect"

It's pretty interesting so far I guess 

[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/lG-3KyURXqk[/VIDEO]


----------



## anetode

charleski said:


> Modern psycho-physiology is founded on an interactionist framework that has devolved fom early Gestalt ideas, in which we create models of the external world and continuously refine those models through integration of sensory stimuli. If I listen to an instrument I'm not hearing the fundamentals and overtones, the modulations and bilateral phase discrepancies, I'm hearing my interior model of what that instrument sounds like, and, subconsciously, I'm hearing how far the sensory stimuli differ from what my model tells me the instrument _should_ sound like. The problem is that we know our models are wrong, and so our perceptual systems engage in a constant process of refining them based on the data coming in. The problem with _that_ is that there's no easy way to judge which data should be incorporated into the model and which should be rejected as malformed or erroneous. If you know what a clarinet sounds like through long experience and then get presented with a recording in which everything above 5kHz has been removed, your system should be robust enough to realise that there's something wrong with the new data and you shouldn't expect clarinets to sound dull and lifeless in the future.


 
  
 This paragraph should be stickied. Our perception is a function of feedback, reinforcing past connections, weighting future growth. The problem is that there's a spectrum of sensory acuity and a vast array of experiences. Controlled listening tests work best when participants go through the same critical listening training process. The perverse irony is that audiophilia conditions people to expect differences to the extent that they compensate by strongly imposing the listening context on how they perceive. So they may well hear differences, but these differences have little to do with the sound that hits their ears.


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> omg!
> 
> That is so funny
> 
> ...


 
 I see this already got answered. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Packing gear for the today's and tomorrow's recordings - will be back maybe sunday.


----------



## SilentFrequency

There are lots of audio videos on YT as probably expected but I've just watched something that states there is zero audible effect between a 1/4 inch and a 1/8 inch jack which I agree with totally but as 1/8 inch jack is way more popular for most devices, why do some headphone manufacturers (Sennheiser hd800 for a start) use the bigger 1/4 inch jacks?


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> I see this already got answered. :atsmile:
> 
> Packing gear for the today's and tomorrow's recordings - will be back maybe sunday.




I think you might like this!! 


[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/xiVibzbqP60[/VIDEO]


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> I think you might like this!!


 





more of the same. But it is not equally strong - what it lacks, in the very least, is reference to ABX !!!


----------



## SilentFrequency

analogsurviver said:


> :bigsmile_face: more of the same. But it is not equally strong - what it lacks, in the very least, is reference to ABX !!!




I agree, your video is perfect for the topic!


----------



## liamstrain

silentfrequency said:


> There are lots of audio videos on YT as probably expected but I've just watched something that states there is zero audible effect between a 1/4 inch and a 1/8 inch jack which I agree with totally but as 1/8 inch jack is way more popular for most devices, why do some headphone manufacturers (Sennheiser hd800 for a start) use the bigger 1/4 inch jacks?


 
  
 I expect it is because the larger jacks are more dimensionally stable - less flex, less wear, etc. They hold up better over time. Which is why most larger amplifiers use them as the preferred output - and most professional gear. So it makes sense for professional headphones to match what their intended audience uses.


----------



## bfreedma

silentfrequency said:


> There are lots of audio videos on YT as probably expected but I've just watched something that states there is zero audible effect between a 1/4 inch and a 1/8 inch jack which I agree with totally but as 1/8 inch jack is way more popular for most devices, why do some headphone manufacturers (Sennheiser hd800 for a start) use the bigger 1/4 inch jacks?




The 1/4 inch jack has been the standard for many decades in home and pro audio gear. When portable audio devices and then phones came into play, they tended to use the 1/8 inch jack to reduce the weight of the connector. That and with the advent of truly slim portable audio hardware, the 1/4 inch jack housing was physically too large.

Ironically, the 1/8 jack is now the limiting factor in current device design. I think that either Bluetooth gets perfected soon or an even smaller/thinner connector will become the new standard.


----------



## RRod

silentfrequency said:


> There are lots of audio videos on YT as probably expected but I've just watched something that states there is zero audible effect between a 1/4 inch and a 1/8 inch jack which I agree with totally but as 1/8 inch jack is way more popular for most devices, why do some headphone manufacturers (Sennheiser hd800 for a start) use the bigger 1/4 inch jacks?


 
  
 Probably because their marketing research indicated that most potential buyers would be using them with 1/4" jacks. The HD598s come with their own adapter for I imagine the same reason.


----------



## KeithEmo

bfreedma said:


> The 1/4 inch jack has been the standard for many decades in home and pro audio gear. When portable audio devices and then phones came into play, they tended to use the 1/8 inch jack to reduce the weight of the connector. That and with the advent of truly slim portable audio hardware, the 1/4 inch jack housing was physically too large.
> 
> Ironically, the 1/8 jack is now the limiting factor in current device design. I think that either Bluetooth gets perfected soon or an even smaller/thinner connector will become the new standard.


 
  
 As far as headphones are concerned, they _SHOULD_ be electrically the same (the resistance of both is plenty low, and the current carrying capacity of both is plenty high) - but this isn't always strictly true.
  
 A nice clean 1/8 inch connector going into an 1/8 inch jack should be perfectly adequate to run a pair of headphones, and there's no legitimate electrical reason for it to sound any different. However, since there is less contact area, it may be more sensitive to wear or dirt, while the larger contacts and stronger spring tension on the larger connector is more able to avoid being affected by dirt, tarnish, or wear. (Another way of saying that would be to say that the 1/4 inch set is serious overkill - which gives it more ability to forgive damage or wear. In fact, most 1/4 inch plugs have powerful-enough springs that they can literally scrape through a little tarnish or dirt, while their smaller cousins are somewhat less able to do so.) 
  
 There's also the little matter of adapters. If your amp has a 1/4 inch jack and your phones have a 1/8" plug, you can plug a nice strong 1/4" adapter into the jack, then plug the smaller 1/8 inch plug from the headphone into it, and it will probably work fine. However, if the reverse is true, and your amp has an 1/8" jack while your phones have a 1/4" plug, you now have a big fat adapter that's big enough to fit the 1/4" plug on the phones being plugged into the small 1/8" jack on the amp. You end up with a big adapter, with a big plug inserted into it, hanging out of the small jack on the amp, which puts a lot of stress on that jack - especially if you happen to pull on the wire, or even just let it hang down.
  
 If you logic it out, having matching sizes on both is ideal, with possibly the 1/4" size being a little bit stronger and better. However, if you admit the possibility of having to "cover" all possibilities, the most sensible combination is to put the 1/4 inch jack on the amp and the 1/8" plug on the phones. From the point of view of either device, you will either be able to plug it in directly, OR you will be using an adapter from a small plug to a large jack - and you'll never need the untrustworthy adapter that goes from a large plug to a small jack.


----------



## bfreedma

keithemo said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > The 1/4 inch jack has been the standard for many decades in home and pro audio gear. When portable audio devices and then phones came into play, they tended to use the 1/8 inch jack to reduce the weight of the connector. That and with the advent of truly slim portable audio hardware, the 1/4 inch jack housing was physically too large.
> ...




I think you misunderstood my comment about the 1/8 jack being the "limiting factor". I'm only referring to the physical size of the connector limiting the thinness of portable devices, not the audio performance of the connector itself.


----------



## KeithEmo

bfreedma said:


> I think you misunderstood my comment about the 1/8 jack being the "limiting factor". I'm only referring to the physical size of the connector limiting the thinness of portable devices, not the audio performance of the connector itself.


 

 I wasn't quite sure which you meant. Either way, my comment was that sometimes the 1/8" jack becomes an electrically limiting factor as it ages.... even though a properly working 1/8" plug/jack will not sound or measure different than a 1/4" plug/jack, I have to say that, due to the mechanical factors, I have seen a lot more 1/8" jacks that have gotten crunchy or loose after being used for a while than 1/4" ones. (And, unfortunately, the "slim line" ones they squeeze into very thin modern players, seem especially prone to getting loose or wearing out. Unfortunately, unlike the old style panel mounted jacks, they are also usually not easily replaced if they fail or get loose.)


----------



## 1c3d0g

This is apparently causing quite a stir/ruckus/you-name-it:
  
 http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/02/to-the-audiophile-this-10000-ethernet-cable-apparently-makes-sense/
  
  
 A $10,000 _directional_ Ethernet cable...


----------



## headwhacker

1c3d0g said:


> This is apparently causing quite a stir/ruckus/you-name-it:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/02/to-the-audiophile-this-10000-ethernet-cable-apparently-makes-sense/
> 
> ...


 
 I pity the reviewer and the people arguing for it. Definitely, has no understanding of what they are talking about. At least one more site to add to my ignore list when I read articles in the internet. 
  
 It's irritating and depressing at the same time when people argues about an "ETHERNET" cable makes actual difference to sound. It's just a total waste of time to even think about it. Maybe just like in the "Visionaries" catoon series, the age of technology is about to end and the age of magic is coming. 
  
 I just hope those people are not designing any critical network setup. Or maybe they are that is why network outage is common in my work.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> I have to say that, due to the mechanical factors, I have seen a lot more 1/8" jacks that have gotten crunchy or loose after being used for a while than 1/4" ones.


 
  
 That isn't because of the connector. That's because the 1/8 inch jack is usually used on portable stuff that takes a beating. Most of my stuff is 1/4 inch, and I use them professionally. The 1/4 inch jacks get funky under heavy use too. I've had to replace several cables and jacks over the years. The wire going into the jack goes bad, not the jack itself.


----------



## SilentFrequency

1c3d0g said:


> This is apparently causing quite a stir/ruckus/you-name-it:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/02/to-the-audiophile-this-10000-ethernet-cable-apparently-makes-sense/
> 
> ...




o-m-g-!

Just really that is so expensive for a cable!


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> That isn't because of the connector. That's because the 1/8 inch jack is usually used on portable stuff that takes a beating. Most of my stuff is 1/4 inch, and I use them professionally. The 1/4 inch jacks get funky under heavy use too. I've had to replace several cables and jacks over the years.


 
 I suspect the 1/4 inch stuff takes more cycles to go bad than the 1/8 though, simply due to the physical size.


----------



## 1c3d0g

A lot of assuming in this thread...


----------



## The Walrus

I'm buffled when people describe their DAPs as warm, digital sounding, detailed, good imaging, etc. etc. Assuming that different DAPs are transparent within a reasonable margin of error, they should sound more or less the same. Right? So if I perceive my DAP as "warm sounding", what am I picking on? The difference in frequency response?


----------



## analogsurviver

the walrus said:


> I'm buffled when people describe their DAPs as warm, digital sounding, detailed, good imaging, etc. etc. Assuming that different DAPs are transparent within a reasonable margin of error, they should sound more or less the same. Right? So if I perceive my DAP as "warm sounding", what am I picking on? The difference in frequency response?


 
 You will have to listen a lot more to a lot more gear. 
  
 It is puzzling that amplifiers that by all logic 0.0...X % and 0.0X dB and comparable power can subjectively sound cold or warm . The amps that invariably got "cold" from me were Spectral designs - and it was opinion of every friend that ever got the chance to listen to it.  Just as if not more detailed is amplification from Swiss Physics - which you could most easily equate with the cozy warmness of a vintage fireplace. 
  
 By the definition of "all amps sound the same" camp there should be zero difference in sound between the two - but there is. And under no circumstances it can be pinned down to a SINGLE parameter - another thing that bothers me with "science". Always trying to boil down things to a single factor. I get it is easier to monitor etc - but it is seldom applicable in practice. Better performance in one parameter usually means worse in another - and it is balancing with many balls with the prime task of not letting down even one - despite other X not travelling in so high circles or whatever if one was let to fall to the floor.
  
 I have spent some two years in order to make my amp for ES headphones really sounding good. If you asked practically all electronic engineers to look at the schematics, they would say NO difference.
  
 You should have seen the faces of VERY FEW selected friends ( the amp is lethal - no joke, this had to be well understood before they were allowed to come anywhere near ) at the beginning and the final stages of the project. From 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 or meh - all the way to 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## RRod

the walrus said:


> I'm buffled when people describe their DAPs as warm, digital sounding, detailed, good imaging, etc. etc. Assuming that different DAPs are transparent within a reasonable margin of error, they should sound more or less the same. Right? So if I perceive my DAP as "warm sounding", what am I picking on? The difference in frequency response?


 
  
 If you recorded sound out of the headphone jack of a few competent DAPs, you'd probably find little difference once you aligned and volume matched the files. The concern is interaction of the DAP with specific headphones due to impedance and power issues.


----------



## bigshot

the walrus said:


> I'm buffled when people describe their DAPs as warm, digital sounding, detailed, good imaging, etc. etc. Assuming that different DAPs are transparent within a reasonable margin of error, they should sound more or less the same. Right? So if I perceive my DAP as "warm sounding", what am I picking on? The difference in frequency response?


 

 RRod nailed it. It's the interaction of the headphones, not the DAC itself.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> By the definition of "all amps sound the same" camp there should be zero difference in sound between the two - but there is.


 
  
 All amps that are designed and built to perform to spec should sound the same. If yours doesn't, send it back for a refund. It's defective.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> All amps that are designed and built to perform to spec should sound the same. If yours doesn't, send it back for a refund. It's defective.


 
 That is the same as saying Ford Mustang year XYZT will be performing the same as Ford Mustang year XYZT hot rodded by some famous and well established and proven to be good and true car maniac ( Chip Foose comes to mind from the times I still watched TV ).
  
 Put these two side by side and say to the car crowd they drive the same ... Good luck with that one !


----------



## Mr Rick

analogsurviver said:


> That is the same as saying Ford Mustang year XYZT will be performing the same as Ford Mustang year XYZT hot rodded by some famous and well established and proven to be good and true car maniac ( Chip Foose comes to mind from the times I still watched TV ).
> 
> Put these two side by side and say to the car crowd they drive the same ... Good luck with that one !


 
 That analogy makes no sense at all.


----------



## bigshot

No sense.


----------



## sonitus mirus

analogsurviver said:


> That is the same as saying Ford Mustang year XYZT will be performing the same as Ford Mustang year XYZT hot rodded by some famous and well established and proven to be good and true car maniac ( Chip Foose comes to mind from the times I still watched TV ).
> 
> Put these two side by side and say to the car crowd they drive the same ... Good luck with that one !


 
  
 The cars should drive the same.
  
 If a custom car was painted Meridian blue and then marketed as being superior to the black Mustangs by having a professional driver get a faster lap time, then we would be on point.  
  
 We are saying that these Mustangs should all have the same performance, and the paint job does not matter.


----------



## analogsurviver

sonitus mirus said:


> The cars should drive the same.
> 
> If a custom car was painted Meridian blue and then marketed as being superior to the black Mustangs by having a professional driver get a faster lap time, then we would be on point.
> 
> We are saying that these Mustangs should all have the same performance, and the paint job does not matter.


 
 Paint DOES matter.
  
 That's why manufacturer of racing bicycles Ridley is using paint that has the surface similar to that of a golf ball - yielding better dynamics. Measured in wind tunnel.
  
 By how much ? Enough for the Greg Lemmond to finish second instead of winning Tour de France in 1989 by the slightest margin in history - 8 seconds - over Laurent Fignon - IF Fignon could *somehow* use the paint not invented yet for two decades or so.
  
 Still on serious note - ever seen what "Mustang" looks like after being hot rodded by Chip Foose ? Ever seen what engines get mounted ? It would look like stock Mustang is standing still...


----------



## Rajikaru

analogsurviver said:


> .
> 
> Still on serious note - ever seen what "Mustang" looks like after being hot rodded by Chip Foose ? Ever seen what engines get mounted ? It would look like stock Mustang is standing still...


 
  
 I love car analogies, except, of course, when I don't agree with the point they're making. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 If we were to compare amps with cars, it would be like buying a $10K Toyota Yaris and a $2.2M Bugatti Veyron, but they both took exactly the same time to reach a destination since they start and stop at exactly the same time.
  
 A song doesn't really go any faster even if you have a $10K exotic amp. 

 If it's ride quality/comfort you're looking for, a Mustang (of all things) with a stiff suspension is not  the car you want. 
  
 (And if I needed to take family/luggage/groceries with me on the trip, the Yaris beats the Veyron hands down.)


----------



## Greenears

rrod said:


> If you recorded sound out of the headphone jack of a few competent DAPs, you'd probably find little difference once you aligned and volume matched the files. The concern is interaction of the DAP with specific headphones due to impedance and power issues.



No difference if you ABX it and they are not defective. Unless they intentionally add some EQ or effect to give them a certain sound. Which they can do easily. Even the DAC chip has an interface for proprietary filter.


----------



## Greenears

PS ABX test requires volume match for the uninitiated.


----------



## Savant

analogsurviver said:


> You will have to listen a lot more to a lot more gear.
> 
> It is puzzling that amplifiers that by all logic 0.0...X % and 0.0X dB and comparable power can subjectively sound cold or warm . The amps that invariably got "cold" from me were Spectral designs - and it was opinion of every friend that ever got the chance to listen to it.  Just as if not more detailed is amplification from Swiss Physics - which you could most easily equate with the cozy warmness of a vintage fireplace.
> 
> ...




I absolutely agree with your observations. I had my share of different Amps and Preamps, and a good assortment of Sources, both Digital and Analog, over many years, and I have always found significant differences between just about all of them. I consider myself a moderate Audio Objectivist, but I never cease to be baffled by the persisting failure by many Hardcore Objectivists on recognising these - to me- rather obvious and consistent differences. 

Incidentally, what amplification for ES's have you modified?

Best.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> All amps that are designed and built to perform to spec should sound the same. If yours doesn't, send it back for a refund. It's defective.


 
 Analogsurviver the designer does not please the ears of analogsurviver the listener, then analogsurviver the designer tries each and every possible way to ameliorate
 the situation, with analogsurviver the listener appreciating the efforts but commenting "better but not quite there yet", which has a consequence of analogsurviver the designer scratching his head even more and coming up with a yet better solution - and so forth for about two years. Until analogsurviver the listener is finally reasonably happy - beyond shadow of the doubt..
  
 Then, according to bighot,  analogsurviver finally reasonably happy listener should send the amp back for refund to analogsurviver the designer - because the amps ConditionDay1 and ConditionDay7XY do not sound the same and are thus both defective.
  
 I am in awe with your logic !


----------



## analogsurviver

savant said:


> I absolutely agree with your observations. I had my share of different Amps and Preamps, and a good assortment of Sources, both Digital and Analog, over many years, and I have always found significant differences between just about all of them. I consider myself a moderate Audio Objectivist, but I never cease to be baffled by the persisting failure by many Hardcore Objectivists on recognising these - to me- rather obvious and consistent differences.
> 
> Incidentally, what amplification for ES's have you modified?
> 
> Best.


 
 It is pretty much exactly as you have observed.
  
 It was not a modification of any commercially available product, it was the fruit of experience gained in building DIY ESL amps by Heymeyer and Sanders ( published originally in the Audio Amateur, reprinted by The Speaker Builder ) and a design by the developer (whose name I keep forgetting, but respect very much )  of otherwise much more known RKV Audio Valve amps, published as DIY  in the mid 80s in Germany.
  
 And then went until "enough" was reached - going as far as custom SMD resistors - laser trimmed to 0.03 % and power rating of 25 W (!) - each...


----------



## Savant

analogsurviver said:


> It is pretty much exactly as you have observed.
> 
> It was not a modification of any commercially available product, it was the fruit of experience gained in building DIY ESL amps by Heymeyer and Sanders ( published originally in the Audio Amateur, reprinted by The Speaker Builder ) and a design by the developer (whose name I keep forgetting, but respect very much )  of otherwise much more known RKV Audio Valve amps, published as DIY  in the mid 80s in Germany.
> 
> And then went until "enough" was reached - going as far as custom SMD resistors - laser trimmed to 0.03 % and power rating of 25 W (!) - each...




Thank you for the Info. Very interesting...


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > All amps that are designed and built to perform to spec should sound the same. If yours doesn't, send it back for a refund. It's defective.
> ...




An inappropriate "comparative" car analogy? I think we're close to the end of this discussion....


----------



## davidsh

I guess the output stage is tubed? 
I actually think tubes are a decent alternative to SS for driving 'stats. 
Please cure me.


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> I guess the output stage is tubed?
> I actually think tubes are a decent alternative to SS for driving 'stats.
> Please cure me.


 
 There was nothing else that could support the voltage required back in 1986 but HSD ( Hollow State Devices ).
  
 I read there are some Panasonic crazy voltage SS devices either in development or already commercially available . When I heard how much they are supposed to cost, it is back to lack of air.


----------



## charleski

headwhacker said:


> I pity the reviewer and the people arguing for it. Definitely, has no understanding of what they are talking about. At least one more site to add to my ignore list when I read articles in the internet.
> 
> It's irritating and depressing at the same time when people argues about an "ETHERNET" cable makes actual difference to sound. It's just a total waste of time to even think about it. Maybe just like in the "Visionaries" catoon series, the age of technology is about to end and the age of magic is coming.
> 
> I just hope those people are not designing any critical network setup. Or maybe they are that is why network outage is common in my work.


 
 Maybe go and read the article on Ars. Lee wrote it as an example of one of the most ludicrous pieces of tech he'd come across: "so obviously delusional that it’s impossible to _not_ point and laugh"
  


analogsurviver said:


> another thing that bothers me with "science". Always trying to boil down things to a single factor.


 
  
 No. That's _not_ what science is about. A lot of scientific models are extremely complex. But they're only complex because they need to be, and if you can work out a simpler model with an acceptable predictive power then that's what you'll use.
  
 If you want to boil science down to a single factor it would be constructing testable propositions, and then testing them. (OK, that's two things.)


----------



## analogsurviver

charleski said:


> Maybe go and read the article on Ars. Lee wrote it as an example of one of the most ludicrous pieces of tech he'd come across: "so obviously delusional that it’s impossible to _not_ point and laugh"
> 
> 
> No. That's _not_ what science is about. A lot of scientific models are extremely complex. But they're only complex because they need to be, and if you can work out a simpler model with an acceptable predictive power then that's what you'll use.
> ...


 
 In case of debates on head fi, "single factor" that bothers me is say frequency response, THD, IMD, S/N, bitrate, sampling frequency - you name it - used in _isolation _as being the influential factor for determining the SQ - and that there is a limit beyond which it no longer makes sense to improve it further.
  
 Maybe so - in a SINGLE device. Any usable system consists of many links in a chain - and their defects add up. Enough of them in a series each having an error below threshold of audibility does not necessary end up being below threshold of audibility as a system overall. That is why I prefer "a bit" of overkill .


----------



## bigshot

When an electronic component reaches audible transparency, then none of the factors matter. By definition, transparency means flat response, inaudible distortion, noise floor below the threshold of hearing, etc. At that point, all the focus for sound quality should be on the mastering of the music, transducer and acoustics. Further splitting the atom by chasing inaudible improvements is a total waste of time.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> When an electronic component reaches audible transparency, then none of the factors matter. By definition, transparency means flat response, inaudible distortion, noise floor below the threshold of hearing, etc. At that point, all the focus for sound quality should be on the mastering of the music, transducer and acoustics. Further splitting the atom by chasing inaudible improvements is a total waste of time.


 
 Say six amplifiers in series, each flat to say 0.2 dB @20 kHz will not end up being at the output of the sixth amp at 0.2 dB, but worse, around - 1 dB; it would also have greater phase shifr, etc. If the amps have MHz bandwidths, than this is of no consequence for audio - and that is why I prefer them.
  
 "Amplifier" is not only a box with input and output jacks; within such a box, more actual amplifiers in series can be employed, so figure of six is a VERY optimistic for the overall real world chain.
  
 microphone>microphone preamp>mixing desk( input amp>output amp) > recorder ( = input amplifier > storage(analog or digital ADC/DAC) > output amp ) > preamp > power amp > speakers/headphone
  
 Count 'em ...
  
 One horrible filter that is audible is called CD Redbook - which can be switched out only by elimination. Today, with computer power and storage capabilities, it is no longer necessary to limit ourselves by still sticking to it.


----------



## bigshot

Why would you ever put six amps in series in a home stereo? I have no idea what you talk about half the time.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Why would you ever put six amps in series in a home stereo? I have no idea what you talk about half the time.


 
  
 The simplest possible home setup would be a CD player/dac (one output amplifier ) > power amplifier > speakers. 2 amps total. 
 Most usually, there will be a preamp in between - either as a standalone unit or as a part of the integrated amplifier. 3 amps total.
  
 EACH of those amps can be regarded as cascaded input and output section - thus bringing the sum to four or six.
  
 Where are tone controls, equalizers, active filters, .... - you do use equalizer to get the speakers or headphons right  - don't you ? Unless the EQ is passive, it contains as many amps as there are channels - for stereo, that means half of those are amplifiers in series of each channel...
  
 What has given the equalizers the bad name ( noise, distortion, etc ) is mostly due to poor implementation and not inherent in the principle - but if one is going to have 10 or more bands per channel, those amps better be good !
  
 One can add electronic crossovers for speakers here also - which consists of at least input amp and low pass and high pass output amps, adding yet additional 3 amps in series per channel.
  
 Hope this clears what I meant.


----------



## bigshot

Inaudible.


----------



## Greenears

bigshot said:


> Why would you ever put six amps in series in a home stereo? I have no idea what you talk about half the time.


 

 And I don't know what he's talking about the other half  
  
 Ah analog, surely we jest....


----------



## headdict

greenears said:


> And I don't know what he's talking about the other half
> 
> Ah analog, surely we jest....



He's talking quite a lot. Getting half of it is still plenty...


----------



## stv014

bigshot said:


> Why would you ever put six amps in series in a home stereo? I have no idea what you talk about half the time.


 
  
 While there might be a few amplifier stages in the playback chain, the combined degradation from these can still very well be inaudible, especially since not every stage adds a low or (not insignificant amount of) high frequency roll-off. In this listening test, there are loopback recordings even from a system with 9 op amp stages and a power amplifier, but the frequency response error at 20 Hz and 20 kHz is still only a few tenths of a dB.


----------



## bigshot

Inaudible is inaudible.
  
 Some folks spend their whole lives worrying about sound they can't hear and no time on the sound they can. They lie in bed at night and worry about noise and distortion that are below the range of what bats can hear, then they fire up their tube amps and bask in the glow of euphonic distortion.
  
 Clean balanced sound in electronics is easy. It's just transducers that are the wild card. But audiophiles rarely talk about techniques for getting the best out of speakers and headphones. They're too worried about the "purity" of the electrical signal going into them.


----------



## wehaveyourpants

bigshot said:


> Inaudible is inaudible.
> 
> Some folks spend their whole lives worrying about sound they can't hear and no time on the sound they can. They lie in bed at night and worry about noise and distortion that are below the range of what bats can hear, then they fire up their tube amps and bask in the glow of euphonic distortion.
> 
> Clean balanced sound in electronics is easy. It's just transducers that are the wild card. But audiophiles rarely talk about techniques for getting the best out of speakers and headphones. They're too worried about the "purity" of the electrical signal going into them.


 
  
 Really? Come on man... 
  
 Oh, an another thing: I don't stay up late. I wake up early to talk to my suppliers and customers in Europe and Asia. I fight the spread of conjecture in my spare time.
  
 Inaudibility is not the same as imperceptibility... If it exists within the human hearing range it is audible, but possibly imperceptible. Can perception be improved through education and training? Yes, 100%! Can it be influenced by corporate marketing? Obviously.
  
 Audio, like the universe is infinitely complex. So stop trying to simplify it. There isn't anything simple about amplifier design, but it can be put into general terms to help you understand. Especially if all you want is to be a listener. As a manufacturer it is my job to protect my interest and to reestablish fact after decades of misinformation, marketing and conjecture. As an audio engineer I have a deep appreciation for sound.
  
 You've got 14k+ posts on this forum. You could have published a book by now.
  
 Listen, I am not trying to follow you around and screw with you. I get people like to get hot and loud on forums, but people that openly attack things they don't understand will always be called out by the people that do.
  
 Doesn't mean you need to be bitter about it. Really, if you want to become a thought leader just write a review on a different set of cans every week. I'd read that and probably subscribe to it as long as it is an Op-Ed and not pseudoscience.
  
 I am just tired of conjecture. You say something is inaudible, people read it and tell others. Conjecture spreads and I end up having to explain to people why they are wrong.
  
 Just stick to opinion. With opinion anyone can disagree, but no one can argue.
  
 PS... If you'd like me to prove that tubes are better at sound reproduction I have the equipment and facilities to conduct the experiments. You let me know and I will design an experiment and present my methods on a new thread that people can comment on before I run them. How about it? If I can't prove through the scientific process that Tubes produce a higher quality waveform that most accurately represents the original, I'll concede and send you a custom Tubecore system that uses a custom SS preamp instead of the Telefunken clone it uses now.
  
 What's it gonna be BigShot?
  
 -Jason


----------



## The Walrus

wehaveyourpants said:


> Really? Come on man...
> 
> Oh, an another thing: I don't stay up late. I wake up early to talk to my suppliers and customers in Europe and Asia. I fight the spread of conjecture in my spare time.
> 
> Inaudibility is not the same as imperceptibility... If it exists within the human hearing range it is audible, but possibly imperceptible. Can perception be improved through education and training? Yes, 100%! Can it be influenced by corporate marketing? Obviously.


 
  
 I'd really want to hear sounds beyond 20KHz and the sound of a mosquito 50 feet away. What education and training is needed? Is there an online course? 
 Sorry about the sarcasm, but "Inaudibility is not the same as imperceptibility" ??


----------



## bigshot

wehaveyourpants said:


> Inaudibility is not the same as imperceptibility.


 
  
 Inaudible is the form of imperceptibility specific to hearing. Invisible is imperceptibility to vision. Odorless is imperceptibility to the sense of smell...
  
 If you organize your thoughts a bit better and try to make valid points, I might get all the way through. I'm afraid on this one, this is as far as I get.


----------



## castleofargh

did we just fall into the homeopathy of sound? pretending that one drop of what we don't hear will change the ocean of what we actually hear?


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> did we just fall into the homeopathy of sound? pretending that one drop of what we don't hear will change the ocean of what we actually hear?


 
  
 It still seems like the tired, old claim that if a person can't hear a difference it is because of the source or equipment used or the qualifications or experience of the listener.


----------



## Greenears

How can something be simultaneously audible and imperceptible, or alternatively inaudible and perceptible?


----------



## davidsh

greenears said:


> How can something be simultaneously audible and imperceptible, or alternatively inaudible and perceptible?


It can't. Unless we are to talk about ultrasound and sub-bass being felt in the body/on the skin. Or perhaps ultrasound so loud that you'd experience pain and discomfort. 
But we don't wanna talk about that again, please..
I think Jason is trying to say that imperceptible/perceptible depends on the listener and his training.


----------



## bigshot

davidsh said:


> I think Jason is trying to say that imperceptible/perceptible depends on the listener and his training.


 
  
 Can one be trained to hear things that are beyond the thresholds of human hearing? It reminds me of the guy who decides he is going to learn to fly by jumping off a chair, then a ladder, then a second story window, then...


----------



## davidsh

bigshot said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > I think Jason is trying to say that imperceptible/perceptible depends on the listener and his training.
> ...



Of course one cannot. I have been thinking about this overnight. Certainly, something can be audible yet not perceived, if you define audibility as what our ears can pick up and percebtibility as what we can register with our brain given the signal from our ears..


----------



## SilentFrequency

davidsh said:


> It can't. Unless we are to talk about ultrasound and sub-bass being felt in the body/on the skin. Or perhaps ultrasound so loud that you'd experience pain and discomfort.
> But we don't wanna talk about that again, please..
> I think Jason is trying to say that imperceptible/perceptible depends on the listener and his training.




I would say that if you need training to listen to inaudible but perceptible sounds from music then you would not really be listening to the music for enjoyment but maybe as an experiment which is totally not something I personally would want to do as I listen to music for what I hear naturally for enjoyment.


----------



## davidsh

silentfrequency said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > It can't. Unless we are to talk about ultrasound and sub-bass being felt in the body/on the skin. Or perhaps ultrasound so loud that you'd experience pain and discomfort.
> ...



Feeling sub-bass that we can't hear can be enjoyable.
Whether ultrasound affect us is questionable at best.
Else, I agree, though there are some fussing over minute or non-existant difference perceiving them as small yet aggravatingly annoying.


----------



## wehaveyourpants

davidsh said:


> Of course one cannot. I have been thinking about this overnight. Certainly, something can be audible yet not perceived, if you define audibility as what our ears can pick up and percebtibility as what we can register with our brain given the signal from our ears..


 
  
 Of course one cannot. But I never said you could. Something inaudible, based on what your own ears can hear, is inaudible. But out of order harmonics are not inaudible. They actually stick way out like a red thumb. Amps with high THD are discernible from those that aren't. But to say you can't be trained to pick out an amp blindly is ridiculous. When you attend AE school you spend the first year in lab and then hundreds of hours each year afterwards in lab listening... What do you think we do this for?
  
 This is where I grew up:
  

  
 And I learned engineering on the API Legacy. This pic:
  

  
 I'm not a fan of Ben's reconfiguration but this console is an actual legend in the music business. I think it has 17 Grammys cut on it. My point is that when you grow up surrounded by Tube Class-A you can easily pick it out. Plus, if someone wants to argue that solid state is "better" than a tube, then build me a 1 watt amp that produces the output of the Marshall 1 watt head unit.
  
 Tubes can handle much abuse than a transistor. The biggest difference is when tubes heat up they become more efficient. Doesn't mean Solid State is bad.
  
 What I am saying is this: Doesn't matter what you like as long as you like it. Just don't treat audio like it's this generic simple thing and trash on things you don't understand.
  
 That's trolling.
  
 You should read this to better understand tubes: http://www.john-a-harper.com/tubes201/
  
 Enjoy


----------



## Don Hills

davidsh said:


> Of course one cannot. I have been thinking about this overnight. Certainly, something can be audible yet not perceived, if you define audibility as what our ears can pick up and percebtibility as what we can register with our brain given the signal from our ears..


 
  
 I hesitate to use a visual analogy, but it does fit:
 We appear to see a full panoramic view. However, our eyes only see detail over a small part of this view. If you look at a specific point but concentrate your perception on areas in your "peripheral" vision ("look to the side" without moving your eyes), you see much less detail in the periphery. To see any peripheral point clearly, you have to move your eyes so that you look at it directly. I see the auditory system as the same - we perceive the audio "scene" as a whole but not with much actual detail. We focus on one part of it at a time. Our "peripheral" hearing performs a similar function to our peripheral vision: alerts us to features of interest, such as possible threats in the environment.


----------



## bigshot

That is the kind of mixing board I used to work with back over thirty years ago. It looks weird with the computer screen and near field monitors on top. I guess whoever owns that now has ditched the 24 track Ampexes.


----------



## wehaveyourpants

bigshot said:


> That is the kind of mixing board I used to work with back over thirty years ago. It looks weird with the computer screen and near field monitors on top. I guess whoever owns that now has ditched the 24 track Ampexes.


 

 Right. So that Legacy console was built by API for Javelina. It was the first API in the Legacy series and was built for Warren Peterson. This is it's current configuration and currently owned by Ben Folds.
  
 ...


----------



## liamstrain

don hills said:


> I hesitate to use a visual analogy, but it does fit:
> We appear to see a full panoramic view. However, our eyes only see detail over a small part of this view. If you look at a specific point but concentrate your perception on areas in your "peripheral" vision ("look to the side" without moving your eyes), you see much less detail in the periphery. To see any peripheral point clearly, you have to move your eyes so that you look at it directly. I see the auditory system as the same - we perceive the audio "scene" as a whole but not with much actual detail. We focus on one part of it at a time. Our "peripheral" hearing performs a similar function to our peripheral vision: alerts us to features of interest, such as possible threats in the environment.


 
  
 It fits with the exception that with regards to our visual system, we have actually have an organ which moves, and changes focus (either deliberately or unconsciously). Any such "movement" or "focus" in the auditory system is brain processing the original stream, not a change in the data (amount or type) coming in. So I'm not sure what conclusions you can really draw with the analogy.


----------



## bigshot

wehaveyourpants said:


> Right. So that Legacy console was built by API for Javelina. It was the first API in the Legacy series and was built for Warren Peterson. This is it's current configuration and currently owned by Ben Folds.


 
  
 Is it 30 years old?


----------



## charleski

wehaveyourpants said:


> if someone wants to argue that solid state is "better" than a tube, then build me a 1 watt amp that produces the output of the Marshall 1 watt head unit.
> Tubes can handle much abuse than a transistor. The biggest difference is when tubes heat up they become more efficient. Doesn't mean Solid State is bad.


 
 Well, if a tube amp is cold it doesn't work _at all_, so I guess you could say that. Obviously it's trivial to construct a 1W solid-state amp, but I suppose (since you didn't state it clearly I might be wrong) what you're talking about is the distortion characteristics. There's absolutely no doubt that a tube amp pushed into distortion sounds wildly different (and better) than a solid-state amp that's hit the clipping wall. This will certainly be an issue when you're _producing_ the music and want a certain sound, but if you're listening to recorded music at home you don't want to be changing the sound too much. Add in the problems with transformers and low power output and you've got three very good reasons solid-state is generally better for a home system.
  


liamstrain said:


> It fits with the exception that with regards to our visual system, we have actually have an organ which moves, and changes focus (either deliberately or unconsciously). Any such "movement" or "focus" in the auditory system is brain processing the original stream, not a change in the data (amount or type) coming in. So I'm not sure what conclusions you can really draw with the analogy.


 
 Actually, there are a couple of muscles in the ear that do change the sound before it's transduced into nerve impulses: the stapedius and tensor tympani. These stabilise the ossicles of the middle ear and are mostly used in protecting the ear from loud sounds. You can usually feel (and even hear) the effect when these muscles tense up.


----------



## liamstrain

charleski said:


> Actually, there are a couple of muscles in the ear that do change the sound before it's transduced into nerve impulses: the stapedius and tensor tympani. These stabilise the ossicles of the middle ear and are mostly used in protecting the ear from loud sounds. You can usually feel (and even hear) the effect when these muscles tense up.


 
  
 For the purposes of the analogy being derived though, this isn't quite the same thing. As far as I know, someone cannot use those muscles to listen more carefully, or focus on a particular direction or frequency range, or anything.


----------



## charleski

liamstrain said:


> For the purposes of the analogy being derived though, this isn't quite the same thing. As far as I know, someone cannot use those muscles to listen more carefully, or focus on a particular direction or frequency range, or anything.


 

 Well, yeah, it's not really the same, and nowhere near the fine degree of control we have over our pupillary muscles. But some people are capable of flexing the tensor tympani voluntarily, and this produces a change in low frequency response. (Not surprisingly, as it's changing the stiffness of the eardrum.)
  
 In general you're right, though - our hearing is heavily dependant on post-transduction signal processing. The same is actually true of vision. Despite the ability to focus and move our eyeballs to foveate, the raw data we get is a mess: the optics are abysmal and the sensors are very noisy. Almost a third of our brain is devoted to cleaning up the signal we get from our eyes.
  
 I think what Don's really referring to is what's called Auditory Stream Processing, in which we separate out the sound we hear into streams which are associated with distinct objects in the real world. Some people are better at this than others, largely through training - a good conductor, for instance, can follow several different instruments at once and be aware of what they're doing. This is, certainly, entirely computational, but it's a critical component of auditory perception. (If anyone's interested, the canonical text on this is Bregman's Auditory Scene Analysis, you can read the first chapter here courtesy of a course on computer hearing.)


----------



## bigshot

You can't train yourself to hear frequencies outside the range of human hearing or to hear sounds at -80dB under music. The ear detects what it detects and it doesn't detect things below that threshold. Training is great for discerning elements in music for a greater appreciation of the musicality, but when it comes to sound quality, there's a line beyond which all the training in the world isn't going to help.
  
 If you want to improve sound reproduction fidelity, you would do well to focus on the specs of your equipment and put them in context of the specs of your ear. Then focus on improving the things you actually *can* hear, not the things you can't.


----------



## The Walrus

I can't believe that the ultrasonics and the human hearing DR is still being discussed in this thread.
 I wonder whether in some video gear geeks forum they are discussing the importance of an LCD TV reproducing ultraviolet. Or maybe some people are claiming that they can be trained to see the beams from their remotes... Who knows.


----------



## sonitus mirus

the walrus said:


> I can't believe that the ultrasonics and the human hearing DR is still being discussed in this thread.


 
  It only seems to be brought up by a few select individuals that are looking to promote a product, either directly or indirectly, that makes use of ultrasonics.  Links to any scientific analysis that might refute their position are entirely dismissed as invalid for any number of asinine reasons, and requests to provide support for their position are ignored in lieu of extremely lengthy retorts filled with anecdotal references or other personal claims that only serve to confuse or distract from the initial inquiries. 
  
 We've hit a wall where nobody is able to prove anything unless they just listen to extremely expensive gear with media that supposedly can't be fairly ABX'ed with more widely available software and equipment.  You just have to trust your ears.  It's simply too perfect of a marketing gimmick to take seriously.


----------



## bigshot

Marketing gimmicks work the best when they play to the hubris of the customer.


----------



## The Walrus

So true. My original question was:


the walrus said:


> I'm buffled when people describe their DAPs as warm, digital sounding, detailed, good imaging, etc. etc. Assuming that different DAPs are transparent within a reasonable margin of error, they should sound more or less the same. Right? So if I perceive my DAP as "warm sounding", what am I picking on? The difference in frequency response?


 
  
 And I got my answer (Thank you RRod) 


rrod said:


> If you recorded sound out of the headphone jack of a few competent DAPs, you'd probably find little difference once you aligned and volume matched the files. The concern is interaction of the DAP with specific headphones due to impedance and power issues.


 

 I don't want to restart the discussion until we hit the same wall again, but I am yet to hear a more sound and scientific answer.


----------



## analogsurviver

sonitus mirus said:


> It only seems to be brought up by a few select individuals that are looking to promote a product, either directly or indirectly, that makes use of ultrasonics.  Links to any scientific analysis that might refute their position are entirely dismissed as invalid for any number of asinine reasons, and requests to provide support for their position are ignored in lieu of extremely lengthy retorts filled with anecdotal references or other personal claims that only serve to confuse or distract from the initial inquiries.
> 
> We've hit a wall where nobody is able to prove anything unless they just listen to extremely expensive gear with media that supposedly can't be fairly ABX'ed with more widely available software and equipment.  You just have to trust your ears.  It's simply too perfect of a marketing gimmick to take seriously.


 
 What marketing gimmick I would like to ask ?
  
 There are analog turntables and records capable of the said bandwidth, they have been for 40 years, there are dynamic headphones with extended response ( the new Sony at $400-500 is not extremely expensive ), sooner or later there will be an ABX comparator for DSD without having to convert to PCM - and DSD capable DACs are available from about 200 $ . 
  
 I merely wanted to pour some clear wine to the @Music Alchemist - presenting him the truth about ES and why the latest "crop" of planar magnetics might well be the more sensible choice. With diaphragm so thin (thinner than even ES, below one micrometer ) ,  despite being metal thus heavier than plastics of ES, BOTH are MUCH lower than the mass of the air in the gaps within the structure of either phone - which ensures perfect damping across the entire surface. Planar magnetic = dynamic in electrical terms and amplifiers for these are not hard to do nor they must be per necessity be expensive. Not to mention the safety.
  
 And no, I have no affiliation with any manufacturer of any audio gear - except Benz Micro Switzerland, where I worked/consulted briefly a quarter of century ago and still have good relationship with - and you can go trough entire turntable related threads and you are not likely to find any preferential treatment of Benz products - except a few comments on certain cartridges in possession of the members.
  
 Whatever I wrote was and is because of my belief what does sound good - and it is my intention to first try to make it possible at all, then try to make it more affordable.  
  
 Which is way more than sitting on the laurels of "perfect sound forever" and negating the audibility of practically anything out there that has been reported independently  from various listeners across the globe.  Because it is "safe" to do so... - one can pull up any number of proofs and "proofs" to the contrary.
  
 If and when I will try to promote anything intended for sale - you will see MOT well before it will actually come to that.


----------



## headwhacker

analogsurviver said:


> What marketing gimmick I would like to ask ?
> 
> There are analog turntables and records capable of the said bandwidth, they have been for 40 years, there are dynamic headphones with extended response ( the new Sony at $400-500 is not extremely expensive ), sooner or later there will be an ABX comparator for DSD without having to convert to PCM - and DSD capable DACs are available from about 200 $ .


 
  
 I think the point is if I uderstand this right, it does not matter whether the gear is capable of capture/playback of ultrasonics if the limiting factor is our ears. Any claim stating otherwise is just plain marketing and no solid studies/evidence to support it.


----------



## stv014

If one has a DSD capable DAC, ABX software that is capable of playing DSD files (if I recall correctly, there is a foobar2000 plugin for that ?), and software for converting PCM to DSD, then it should be possible to compare unmodified DSD to a DSD->Red Book->DSD conversion. But if ultrasonics are so important, then converting the DSD to 176.4 or 192 kHz PCM (which can be played by most hardware) first and using that as the reference should not be a major issue, because if the 22.05-88.2 or 96 kHz range is presumably audible in some way for golden eared people, then so should be the loss of it because of downsampling to 44.1 kHz.


----------



## davidsh

How thin is the HE-1000 diaphragm? I assume that's what you are referring to?
Besides, extremely thin diaphragms can pose certain problems with high frequency resonances in ES at least


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> How thin is the HE-1000 diaphragm? I assume that's what you are referring to?
> Besides, extremely thin diaphragms can pose certain problems with high frequency resonances in ES at least


 
 It is below 1 micrometer thin - http://www.head-fi.org/t/751094/head-fi-ces-2015-highlights#post_11229854
  
 Yes, there is always the possibilities of the "kazoo" type of high frequency resonances in thin diaphragms.  The choice of material, tension, structural/temperature stability etc can take care of it - but it never is easy to achieve in practice and/or be able to offer sample to sample consistency. Only time can tell which design is able to perform well over a long period of time - obviously this is a total unknown with the new designs. like HE-1000.


----------



## davidsh

analogsurviver said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > How thin is the HE-1000 diaphragm? I assume that's what you are referring to?
> ...


 
 Exciting. The thinnest ES diaphragms are generally at 500 nm, which a couple of Stax vintage earspeakers use as well as the Orpheus and perhaps the old Jade (?), I think.


----------



## charleski

For anyone looking for a laugh on a rainy Thursday evening:
  
Sony will sell a “premium sound” microSDXC card to audiophiles in Japan  
 Thinking about it, it's such an obvious scam I'm surprised we haven't seen it before.


----------



## RRod

charleski said:


> For anyone looking for a laugh on a rainy Thursday evening:
> 
> Sony will sell a “premium sound” microSDXC card to audiophiles in Japan
> Thinking about it, it's such an obvious scam I'm surprised we haven't seen it before.


 
  
 I read that as "premium sound card", then I read the article and went


----------



## The Walrus

charleski said:


> For anyone looking for a laugh on a rainy Thursday evening:
> 
> Sony will sell a “premium sound” microSDXC card to audiophiles in Japan
> 
> ...




Joke isn't it. I don't want to believe.


----------



## headwhacker

Too early for April fools.


----------



## Hapster

Finally a solution to all those noisy SD cards, I try and sleep with my headphones plugged into my DAP, and the noise keeps me awake. For the last 3 years, there's been absolutely no solution to this problem, and now Sony has revolutionized the industry once again. Thanks sony!


----------



## The Walrus

(Off topic) For Ethan Winer fans. This guy is amazing:
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgqte_IgxlY


----------



## GearMe

charleski said:


> For anyone looking for a laugh on a rainy Thursday evening:
> 
> Sony will sell a “premium sound” microSDXC card to audiophiles in Japan
> 
> ...




It's true! It's true! Just look at Sony's graphs if you don't believe it!

Actually...the Toshiba Exceria is _definitely_ better than the rest for sound quality
"the Toshiba 32gb is softer, more musical, deeper, wider, timbre of vocals is much better, treble is far less harsh, the Sandisk has a forward cold digital edge to it throughout, I find it thoroughly yuck."

...and there is a difference between card formats (micro vs full-size SD) as well! 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/708636/qls-qa360-another-dsd-capable-dap/270


----------



## headwhacker

lol


----------



## OddE

headwhacker said:


> lol




-Every time I see products like this, I realise that the only thing keeping me from becoming a millionaire is my conscience. 

A moral compass is such a drag at times...


----------



## reginalb

gearme said:


> It's true! It's true! Just look at Sony's graphs if you don't believe it!
> 
> Actually...the Toshiba Exceria is _definitely_ better than the rest for sound quality
> "the Toshiba 32gb is softer, more musical, deeper, wider, timbre of vocals is much better, treble is far less harsh, the Sandisk has a forward cold digital edge to it throughout, I find it thoroughly yuck."
> ...


 
  
 I got in an argument about these things back in the day. The other argument for these cards is speed. You know, in DAPs with cheap little sd controllers that can't possibly handle the read speeds. I mean, I guess you can spend an enormous sum of money for your library to transfer more quickly. But people that think they need cards that have sustained write speeds designed to handle 4k video astound me. What could you possibly get out of that for music? Did you also buy the card readers necessary to support that speed? Do you know your phone can't support that speed?


----------



## ACHiPo

Noob post, so take it with a grain of salt.  To further qualify my statement, I've read a lot of the pages from this thread, but not all, so I apologize if this has been covered elsewhere.  Finally I am an engineer, thus philosophically lean toward the ABX school. 
  
 Ok, so where I struggle is in comparing systems, made up of sources, cables, amps, speakers, etc. each of which that cannot be reliably ABX tested per the OP, yet I can walk into a room and clearly hear a system that blows me away with realism, musicality, etc.  Chances are if I were to ABX my way to that system, I would not end up with the same result.  Conversely if a components were replaced one by one, chances are good that the difference would not be heard by me at each incremental step. 
  
 This experience (and it's happened many times over the years in this hobby) has me wondering if the problem is how ABX testing is conducted.  I know there's been some discussion about how long a segment of music is used for the comparison, the time between switching, the testing population, etc.  Clearly some people can put together systems that are substantially better sounding (at least to me) than others.
  
 Thoughts?


----------



## The Walrus

odde said:


> -Every time I see products like this, I realise that the only thing keeping me from becoming a millionaire is my conscience.
> 
> A moral compass is such a drag at times...


 
 True! Audiophile-grade SSD is a good idea for example! Though, I'm sure there are people marketing them.


----------



## Ruben123

achipo said:


> Noob post, so take it with a grain of salt.  To further qualify my statement, I've read a lot of the pages from this thread, but not all, so I apologize if this has been covered elsewhere.  Finally I am an engineer, thus philosophically lean toward the ABX school.
> 
> Ok, so where I struggle is in comparing systems, made up of sources, cables, amps, speakers, etc. each of which that cannot be reliably ABX tested per the OP, yet I can walk into a room and clearly hear a system that blows me away with realism, musicality, etc.  Chances are if I were to ABX my way to that system, I would not end up with the same result.  Conversely if a components were replaced one by one, chances are good that the difference would not be heard by me at each incremental step.
> 
> ...




Well im a science student myself (biomedical and medicines) but lets look at it differently. If you have to closely a/b/x to hear subtle differences, should you care? If the differences are that small i wouldnt care at all.


----------



## liamstrain

achipo said:


> This experience (and it's happened many times over the years in this hobby) has me wondering if the problem is how ABX testing is conducted.  I know there's been some discussion about how long a segment of music is used for the comparison, the time between switching, the testing population, etc.  Clearly some people can put together systems that are substantially better sounding (at least to me) than others.
> 
> Thoughts?


 
  
 From what we can see empirically, by far, the largest difference in sound comes from the transducers - speakers/headphones. Something you could audition and test against one another quite easily, comparatively. Either blind or objectively through measurement.
  
 Once you are happy with the transducer and they are driven properly (no impedence mismatches, appropriate power for the space) - most of your work is done, to get the wow system. It is unlikely any changes beyond that point will take you to "more wow" than you already have. You're just chasing that last niggling doubts about noise or transparency. Something you could ABX if you wished.


----------



## ACHiPo

Ruben,
That's my point--small differences are negligible except if you want to assemble an extraordinarily realistic and musical system. While I struggle to hear the incremental changes, getting them right seems essential to building an exceptional system.
Thanks,
AC


----------



## liamstrain

achipo said:


> differences are negligible except if you want to assemble an extraordinarily realistic and musical system. While I struggle to hear the incremental changes, getting them right seems essential to building an exceptional system.


 
  
 I'm not sure that's demonstrated. It's certainly a common assertion, but I don't believe it is show to be true. Build your system around transducers you like, and it's hard to go wrong.


----------



## ACHiPo

liamstrain said:


> From what we can see empirically, by far, the largest difference in sound comes from the transducers - speakers/headphones. Something you could audition and test against one another quite easily, comparatively. Either blind or objectively through measurement.
> 
> Once you are happy with the transducer and they are driven properly (no impedence mismatches, appropriate power for the space) - most of your work is done, to get the wow system. It is unlikely any changes beyond that point will take you to "more wow" than you already have. You're just chasing that last niggling doubts about noise or transparency. Something you could ABX if you wished.




Yep--just upgraded speakers and it made a big difference. Also upgraded phono stage, preamp, and amp, which also made a difference, some more than others. Rolled tubes--not much difference. Power cord--no difference. Balanced interconnects--small but significant difference. Acoustical treatment--small but significant difference. Speaker position--big difference. Listening position--big difference. Currently the system sounds by far the best I've ever had in my house, yet I've heard better/more memorable systems/rooms.

Guess that's why this is a hobby?


----------



## charleski

achipo said:


> Noob post, so take it with a grain of salt.  To further qualify my statement, I've read a lot of the pages from this thread, but not all, so I apologize if this has been covered elsewhere.  Finally I am an engineer, thus philosophically lean toward the ABX school.
> 
> Ok, so where I struggle is in comparing systems, made up of sources, cables, amps, speakers, etc. each of which that cannot be reliably ABX tested per the OP, yet I can walk into a room and clearly hear a system that blows me away with realism, musicality, etc.  Chances are if I were to ABX my way to that system, I would not end up with the same result.  Conversely if a components were replaced one by one, chances are good that the difference would not be heard by me at each incremental step.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The proponents of faith-based audio like to claim that there's more going on than mere measurements can reveal and that there are unknown variables that affect the sound. (Unknown, that is, until some guru comes along to enlighten us about our need for Costly Widget X.)
  
 In a way, they're right.
  
 But it's got nothing to do with the equipment used.
  
 There've been plenty of times when I've listened to a system and thought, 'Wow, this sounds really good!' And there've been times when I've listened to the same system and thought, 'Yeah, it's OK, but ...'
  
 What's changed? I have.
  
 The perceptual and emotional response to a musical experience is dependent on so many factors that are taking place _inside your head_ that in comparison the equipment used is almost irrelevant. It's not totally irrelevant, obviously. There are certain things that need to be done properly, and doing those things properly takes good design, and some reasonable expense. But these are problems that have largely been solved and there's very little scope for real improvement in everything except speakers (which face physical problems that are hard to solve).
  
 The great myth of audiophilia is that you can buy a system that will _always_ sound great, a system that will trump whatever mood you're in and _always_ make you feel happy and content. That myth is a lie. There's only one piece of equipment that can come close to fulfilling that promise, and it's a glass of good wine.
  
 When you go to audition a system in a dealer's shop you're put in a nice, comfortable environment. You know you've set aside some me time for you to indulge yourself. You listen to the music and yes, it's amazing. But then you take the system back home and set it up. The kids are arguing and you have issues from work at the back of your mind. And oh no! The system doesn't sound quite as good. Well, that's not the fault of the equipment.
  
 What I'm challenging here is the underlying premise that hearing 'a system that blows me away' really has all that much to do with the system, rather than the person who's hearing it.


----------



## Mr Rick

I've never found a system that didn't sound better after a few glasses of good wine.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

audiophile wine... now there's an idea


----------



## ACHiPo

charleski said:


> The proponents of faith-based audio like to claim that there's more going on than mere measurements can reveal and that there are unknown variables that affect the sound. (Unknown, that is, until some guru comes along to enlighten us about our need for Costly Widget X.)
> 
> In a way, they're right.
> 
> ...




Really good points. I need to noodle on them for a bit, but I agree the listener's attitude absolutely plays a critical role in the process. And to Mr. Rick, wine does seem to help in many cases, but per Charleski's point, it can also head you in the wrong direction.


----------



## ACHiPo

suntanscanman said:


> audiophile wine... now there's an idea


LOL CES here I come!


----------



## liamstrain

achipo said:


> Yep--just upgraded speakers and it made a big difference. Also upgraded phono stage, preamp, and amp, which also made a difference, some more than others. Rolled tubes--not much difference. Power cord--no difference. Balanced interconnects--small but significant difference. Acoustical treatment--small but significant difference. Speaker position--big difference. Listening position--big difference. Currently the system sounds by far the best I've ever had in my house, yet I've heard better/more memorable systems/rooms.
> 
> Guess that's why this is a hobby?


 
 Of all the things you list, the speakers are the most important. Some are hogwash on their face, scientifically (power cords? no). 

 If you are looking for big differences in sound, find the right speakers. Everything else is just that last 5% of difference.


----------



## bigshot

charleski said:


> The great myth of audiophilia is that you can buy a system that will _always_ sound great


 
  
 Well, I don't know if any system can sound good if your dog just died, but there are systems that sound good no matter what kind of music you play on them. I've worked to refine my response curve to as flat as possible. That means, what I am hearing is what the engineer heard in the studio on his own monitors calibrated to flat. When I hit random shuffle in my music library, it might come up with a modern digital recording, a mono hifi recording from the early 50s or a 78 from the early 30s. All of them sound as good as they possibly can sound. I almost never have to reach for tone controls or adjust the volume more than once. That's what counts. It's up to me to keep myself happy. Can't expect electronics to deal with that.


----------



## bigshot

liamstrain said:


> If you are looking for big differences in sound, find the right speakers. Everything else is just that last 5% of difference.


 
  
 You are being very generous with that figure.


----------



## liamstrain

bigshot said:


> You are being very generous with that figure.


 
  
 I initially typed 1%, but figured someone would gripe about it being unrealistically low. *shrug* Between room treatment, and speaker placement (and appropriate EQ if needed), I can see it falling somewhere in there.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Once the speakers are set up, I'd be interested to see how many people could tell a difference between a challenging piece of music in a high resolution format being played over some $50K+ MSB equipment or that same music being played in an AAC 320kbps version on an iPhone through the line level output.


----------



## bigshot

liamstrain said:


> Between room treatment, and speaker placement (and appropriate EQ if needed), I can see it falling somewhere in there.


 
  
 Those things are all related to the speakers though. My rule of thumb is that if speakers can produce a full range of frequencies loud without overdriving them, it doesn't really matter if their response is wonky straight out of the box. That can always be corrected with EQ, and the room is going to mess it up anyway. People spend tens of thousands on speakers that are flat as a stone in an anechoic chamber. But who has an anechoic chamber as a living room? You end up in pretty much the same place by getting loudspeakers that are less expensive and just calibrate them.


----------



## bigshot

sonitus mirus said:


> Once the speakers are set up, I'd be interested to see how many people could tell a difference between a challenging piece of music in a high resolution format being played over some $50K+ MSB equipment or that same music being played in an AAC 320kbps version on an iPhone through the line level output.


 

 I doubt it. I can't on my system.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> Well, I don't know if any system can sound good if your dog just died, but there are systems that sound good no matter what kind of music you play on them. I've worked to refine my response curve to as flat as possible. That means, what I am hearing is what the engineer heard in the studio on his own monitors calibrated to flat.




Based on what you've said in the other thread yesterday, you don't know how flat your system is. Audio science would recommend that you use measurements in the calibration of a speaker system, or at the very least, use measurements to verify that your golden ear is as good as you think it is. Don't be afraid. You might learn how to improve your system response better if you just take some measurements. Or you might find that your five band parametric EQ is inadequate for smoothing the room response. 

Not to mention, but in the audio science world, if something can be confirmed by measurements, and measurements are not provided, then it didn't happen 



bigshot said:


> Those things are all related to the speakers though. My rule of thumb is that if speakers can produce a full range of frequencies loud without overdriving them, it doesn't really matter if their response is wonky straight out of the box. That can always be corrected with EQ, and the room is going to mess it up anyway. People spend tens of thousands on speakers that are flat as a stone in an anechoic chamber. But who has an anechoic chamber as a living room? You end up in pretty much the same place by getting loudspeakers that are less expensive and just calibrate them.




Spreading more misconceptions about speaker setup I see. 

There are a couple of problems with this way of thinking because when speakers are not anechoicly neutral, then this can exacerbate problems with correcting room modes:

1) If a speaker's anechoic response has a dip that coincides with a room modal null (this often happens with bass response), then EQing to correct both the dip for the room + the anechoic response of the speaker can result in a speaker that will be distorted or even over driven at louder volumes at those frequencies. 

2) You said you only have a five band parametric EQ. If you have are having to use the EQ to correct say two dips or peaks at the listening position that are native to the speaker response that otherwise the room would not affecting, then that only leave you with three bands for room mode correction. In other words, when we don't have to correct for the speaker's native response, it gives us more flexibility in using our EQ. 

So there is very good reason why the goal is to start with speakers that have the best anechoic response. But I guess, thanks to you, all of those studio engineers can now forget about buying neutral speakers and just use EQ.


----------



## reginalb

cel4145 said:


> Based on what you've said in the other thread yesterday, you don't know how flat your system is. Audio science would recommend that you use measurements in the calibration of a speaker system, or at the very least, use measurements to verify that your golden ear is as good as you think it is. Don't be afraid. You might learn how to improve your system response better if you just take some measurements. Or you might find that your five band parametric EQ is inadequate for smoothing the room response.
> 
> Not to mention, but in the audio science world, if something can be confirmed by measurements, and measurements are not provided, then it didn't happen
> 
> ...


 
  
 If you read through that thread, there is an earlier post where Bigshot actually had his system measured after tuning it by ear.


----------



## cel4145

reginalb said:


> If you read through that thread, there is an earlier post where Bigshot actually had his system measured after tuning it by ear.




Perhaps it was before I talked with him in that thread, but I asked him about having it measured. He said he had someone else listen to it with tones. That's not the same thing as producing a frequency response plot. Based on what he said, you have bigshot, who clearly doesn't understand how room correction software works on receivers and develops a bias against them due, in part, to ignorance, being told by someone else that pooh poohs using any sort of measurement gear not to do it. This is how audiophile myths get propagated. 

Anyone who proclaims themselves to be about audio science would want to measure the room response to confirm whether what they had done by ear worked. All it takes is a $75 USB calibration mic, free software, and a computer. And not only can you learn about the frequency response of your setup, but also time domain issues. 

So if he is happy with how his setup sounds, that's great. But it's not audio science to proclaim that "I've worked to refine my response curve to as flat as possible," as he has, without taking measurements. And if you look at his very next post in this thread that I replied to, it demonstrates more misconceptions about speaker setup design and configuration (as well as some others in that other thread).


----------



## bigshot

The thing is, in a room where you have multiple seating positions (read: human living room) you can't just set a mike in one place, make a setting and say, "There! That's it." That might work well in a room that perfectly matches those triangle diagrams you see in home theater magazines, but not many people live in empty rooms with one lone chair sitting 2/3s back in the center of the floor. In the real world, balancing response involves balancing differences at different listening positions. Few people are lone wolfs who listen to music all by themselves in the same chair every time. And no room that is suitable for humans to live in is perfect when it comes to acoustics. You've got to mold the sound to correct for unavoidable problems. There are some things in home audio where rigid thinking works, but tuning the response to a room is not one of them. You start with measurements to get broad strokes, then you fine tune to make it work in all the ways you need your particular room to work.
  
 In my case, the one size fits all approach to balancing response didn't work at all. I had a lot of work to do because I had a fairly large room with very little opportunity for traditional room treatment. I had to experiment with speaker placement and furniture arrangement to get as close as I could to what I was shooting for, while still maintaining the ability to entertain groups of people in the room and seat them comfortably. Then I had to calibrate the response, taking into account multiple listening positions. I also had to make adjustments to accommodate dual use- both music listening and movie projection. That required a wider and higher than normal soundstage to match the size of the screen- which affected the reflection points on the side wall- which affected the response again. Every consideration had an impact on every other consideration. I had to go back and forth balancing as I refined the design of the room. It took a few months to balance all of those factors into a setup that served the purposes I needed it to serve.
  
 The advantage I had in doing this was I had the advice of someone who does this for a living. My engineer friend rents concert equipment. He doesn't just install it in a particular place and it sits there forever- he has to be able to drop his system into widely different sorts of venues... with different audience locations, different shapes of the hall, different acoustics... and still make it all work. He was very helpful suggesting workarounds to solve problems, and to point out the issues that were top priority and needed to be dealt with first. He looked at my room and what I was trying to do and gave me the theories I needed and some setups to try out. He said to go ahead and use the automatic EQ, but warned me that it would just be ballpark. I still had other issues beyond that which needed addressing. After I had come up with a setup using trial and error, I brought him back and he ran a few of his reference recordings, then spent about a half hour doing tone sweeps, showing me the areas where I had narrow imbalances. He looked at my equalizer settings and suggested a couple of minor changes, just for tidiness in crossovers but said that I had gotten it basically as close as I could with a five band parametric.
  
 Now, you can feel free to insist that a little mike sitting in the middle of a room knows best, but I am VERY glad I didn't just go the automatic one size fits all route and leave it at that. The modifications I made to that initial curve is the reason my system sounds as good as it does. Those modifications took into account a whole lot of factors that the little mike and the pink noise had no clue about.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> The thing is, in a room where you have multiple seating positions (read: human living room) you can't just set a mike in one place, make a setting and say, "There! That's it."
> 
> . . . . (blah blah)
> 
> Now, you can feel free to insist that a little mike sitting in the middle of a room knows best, but I am VERY glad I didn't just go the automatic one size fits all route and leave it at that.




Straw man argument. Or perhaps you are merely ignorant of what technology is available and best practices for using technology to achieve your goals? 

Audyssey MultEQ can do a lot for those hoping to use an automatic solution for EQ: http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq/how-to
Can you believe it? It advises taking multiple measurements through a wide seating area:
http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq/flavors
So much for your straw man argument. And not only that, look at the number of FIRs it can apply. Heck, it can even make some time domain correction. This is way more than one can achieve with a measly 5 band parametric EQ. There are plenty of guides on the web that describe how to use room correction software that comes in receivers to do this effectively. 

On the other hand, there is also the manual option of using REW room analysis with an EQ which provides not only frequency response information but also time domain, with lots of guides to assist with doing this. Here's one: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1449924-simplified-rew-setup-use-usb-mic-hdmi-connection-including-measurement-techniques-how-interpret-graphs.html. Look at the manual. You can even use it combine multiple measurements taken from different listening positions: http://www.roomeqwizard.com/REWV5_help.pdf
And heck, you can even apply the parametric EQ in the software and simulate the changes to get close without having do listening tests. Imagine how much time you could have saved? 

Audio science. It requires learning. And it requires keeping up. Seems like the technology bypassed your rather rudimentary understanding a long time ago. If you try learning more about current best practices without inserting your preconceptions formed by limited anecdotal experience and misinformation, you could probably improve your current home theater setup. For example, it's common knowledge that one subwoofer is not suitable for creating a smooth response across a wide seating area. You might be surprised what you could accomplish with two or three subs. Or maybe you might want to upgrade your Frankenstein speaker setup to a timber matched front soundstage? Your parametric EQ isn't correcting much for that problem.


----------



## bigshot

blah blah blah it is then! If you are going to behave like the hind end of a horse, I say bye bye bye!


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> blah blah blah it is then! If you are going to behave like the hind end of a horse, I say bye bye bye!




Well, given your forum signature line, I'm sure it sucks to have so many misconceptions pointed out to you over the last few days. But don't shoot the messenger. Use this new knowledge to see if you can improve your speaker setup.


----------



## reginalb




----------



## The Walrus

Question: How can I avoid hearing loss due to loud listening with over ear headphones? In my living room, I guess it is easy to measure the dB. What about headphones? How can I measure the dB my ears are subjected to while listening to music? (including the background noise of course)


----------



## jodgey4

Just compare to your living room. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get within a +/- 2db or so guess. Otherwise, you can probably just use a phone+app or cheap dB meter inside the cup for an approximation.


----------



## headwhacker

the walrus said:


> Question: How can I avoid hearing loss due to loud listening with over ear headphones? In my living room, I guess it is easy to measure the dB. What about headphones? How can I measure the dB my ears are subjected to while listening to music? (including the background noise of course)


 
  
 I use an iphone app. Then put the phone between the earcups and measure SPL.


----------



## The Walrus

headwhacker said:


> I use an iphone app. Then put the phone between the earcups and measure SPL.


 
 Thank you. What is the name of the app you use? Maybe it's available for android too. I just used two different apps and one shows around 70% and the other shows 110! Which one should I trust?


----------



## headwhacker

the walrus said:


> Thank you. What is the name of the app you use? Maybe it's available for android too. I just used two different apps and one shows around 70% and the other shows 110! Which one should I trust?


 
  
 I have 2 apps. One is called Decibels and the other Decibel 10th.


----------



## dprimary

the walrus said:


> Thank you. What is the name of the app you use? Maybe it's available for android too. I just used two different apps and one shows around 70% and the other shows 110! Which one should I trust?


 

 Android is very limited for measurement applications google is still working the realtime capabilities of the os so the it can be useful for measurements. The Bosch app for noise looks to be promising since they claim to have calibrations for many models of phones. Phone then to have wide variances do to the microphone in a phone tend to get dirt spit and other damage done to them. Any platform without a calibration reference can be way off.


----------



## Buffington

After reading dozens of pages of this thread, I find it both fascinating and discouraging.  I joined Head-Fi very recently, and only just starting getting into hi-fi audio a few months ago.  I have spent a lot of time reading thousands of reviews, articles, and forum posts on numerous websites, learning about a wide variety of topics in hi-fi audio.  I recently purchased my first pair of headphones (closed-back), a USB DAC, a tube amp, and an inexpensive set of cables, and am in the process of choosing an open-back pair of headphones. 
  
 I am now questioning whether I overpaid for this equipment, but am glad I did not spend a lot more.  As for cables, I was unable to hear any difference in sound quality between the cheap ones and the cables I borrowed that cost 90 times as much.  I did those comparisons before I found this thread.  I really wanted and tried to hear a difference between the cables after reading some very positive comments about the expensive ones, but could not discern any difference after a few hours listening to a wide variety of music.  It was obvious to me that the more expensive cables are not worth the extra money, even though the quality of the plugs on them is much higher.  I was initially skeptical of the advice I read from a cable retailer about the proper method of comparing cables.  They said cables should not be pulled in and out of the system for quick A/B comparisons, and should instead be left connected in the system with a signal running through them for at least several hours to let them settle in before auditioning.  After reading this thread, I am convinced that my initial skepticism was warranted.  With a delay of several hours between listening sessions, it would be impossible to determine whether the expensive cables provide any audible improvement in sound compared to inexpensive ones.
  
 If there really is no difference in sound quality between various DACs, amps, and cables that meet a certain minimum level of competence, what are we to make of all the hundreds of thousands of reviews and forum posts discussing in great detail all the nuances of sound experienced when using these various products?  If there really are no audible differences between hi-fi products over a huge range of prices, would we not have to discard a large percentage of what is written about hi-fi audio? Apparently it is nonsense, written by audiophiles who are delusional or dishonest or who have extraordinary hearing abilities that the vast majority of people do not possess, and thus their conclusions are of no value to most of us.  I now question whether reviews and impressions about headphones can be given much credence.  I realize that this thread does not suggest that there are no differences in sound characteristics between different headphones or speakers.  However, if we consider all the reviews and other subjective comments about DACs, amps, and cables to be of no value, how can we trust what anyone says about headphones either?  Can we dismiss other people’s impressions about certain types of audio equipment, yet give credence to their subjective opinions about headphones?
  
 Can we even trust our own perception of differences in sound quality when auditioning headphones, or are we just imagining the differences due to preconceived ideas about how each headphone is supposed to sound?  In the end, I suppose we have to trust our own hearing regardless of whether it perceives reality accurately.  I read an interesting viewpoint on a review of high-end cables, in which the writer said we should not waste time on component or cable changes where there is such a small improvement in sound that it is not significant and instantly noticeable and we have to strain to hear it.  Ironically, that reviewer was a believer in high-end cables, and gave high praise to the particular brand he was reviewing.


----------



## Mr Rick

I have heard all music sounds better if you live in Colorado.


----------



## castleofargh

buffington said:


> After reading dozens of pages of this thread, I find it both fascinating and discouraging.  I joined Head-Fi very recently, and only just starting getting into hi-fi audio a few months ago.  I have spent a lot of time reading thousands of reviews, articles, and forum posts on numerous websites, learning about a wide variety of topics in hi-fi audio.  I recently purchased my first pair of headphones (closed-back), a USB DAC, a tube amp, and an inexpensive set of cables, and am in the process of choosing an open-back pair of headphones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



welcome, and bravo for your natural scepticism. never let go of it!
everything is exagerated because of the mass hysteria a new product can create. here we call it FOTM, I call it new toy effect and would never care for people talking about something they just received. as suggested it doesn't usually last long. but then it is the internet, stuff still show up in a google search long after the reviewer came down to his senses.
also you will never see a review saying "this product is crap" on the front page of headfi or jude post a video saying "hey that brand is our sponsor,let me tell you how bad they are"  it's in the game, but I'm not sure everybody pays attention to this.
on a smaller level, people getting samples for review, will often get to keep it, or at least buy it at a very low price(I'm a nobody here and still got to benefit from this a few times now). it's easy to get how the reviewer will have a harder time making criticism when he knows he's likely to get more stuff in the futur if he's cool to the brand.
overall when the review is too good to be true, you just dismiss it and go on to another one.
the job is to find people you agree with on products you already owned and pray that you will still think alike on the next ones  
or of course you can start wasting your time getting actual knowledge about techs and measurements so that you can make a few estimates by yourself in the future. it's interesting but a really really long road and so much ignorance is mixed into facts, that the more you learn the more questions and doubts you have.
in the end, because the point is to enjoy music, I recommend you go to audio meetings, bring your stuff and try gears with it. and if you can borrow some gears to try at home, it's even better as you avoid a lot of noises and biases.

about our own perception, look into bias, controlled testing, and just try to avoid over confidence. the very first step when listening to 2 products is to make sure they deliver the same loudness. something obvious but not always easy to set in practice.


----------



## Ruben123

Conclusion is you have to read reviews of gear youd like to buy but dont blindly follow the reviews because you cant always trust them. That is actually very true. Look at the hypes in IEM land. Some new toy found, compared to other toys costing 10x as much, 100 people buy it, dont like it, hype over. The saddest is the endless buying of amps and comparing them, hearing differences that dont exist, and spending money again and again. Did I say spend? I meant waste.


----------



## RRod

buffington said:


> Can we even trust our own perception of differences in sound quality when auditioning headphones, or are we just imagining the differences due to preconceived ideas about how each headphone is supposed to sound?  In the end, I suppose we have to trust our own hearing regardless of whether it perceives reality accurately.  I read an interesting viewpoint on a review of high-end cables, in which the writer said we should not waste time on component or cable changes where there is such a small improvement in sound that it is not significant and instantly noticeable and we have to strain to hear it.  Ironically, that reviewer was a believer in high-end cables, and gave high praise to the particular brand he was reviewing.


 
  
 Headphones certainly have measurable differences in relative frequency response that should be audible, so we have belief off-the-bat that should sound different, at least before equalization. Even just adjusting the placement of headphones on the ear can affect the sound (another thing that can be measured if you use something like a head dummy). So with headphones you definitely get a particular reaction between the user and the headphone.
  
 These things *don't* happen with any well-designed DAC, for instance. They will have flat frequency response and have no interaction with user physiology. A good DAC should be neutral and handle the given data formats you want, period. But then what is there to review? "I really liked the RCA jacks on this DAC and that it handles DSD." That doesn't make for good drama online, and so instead you get humongous threads comparing DAC "sound."


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> about our own perception, look into bias, controlled testing, and just try to avoid over confidence. *the very first step when listening to 2 products is to make sure they deliver the same loudness*. something obvious but not always easy to set in practice.




I think this concept tends to get over--and incorrectly--applied. 

The idea behind making certain 2 products have the same loudness derives from ABX testing of two products to determine if they sound the same or not. If they do sound the same, and the loudness differs by < 1 db, we know that can bias one towards the louder product. That makes sense. 

But when testing two headphones (or speakers) where the frequency response is quite different, setting the loudness the same is setting an average of the loudness of all the frequencies. I find that some headphones, because of their frequency response, are more suitable at louder volumes, and some at lower volumes. For example, Grados, which many people find fatiguing. Me, too, at louder volumes. But I love their more forward sound at moderate listening volumes. But my K612 Pros, which I find to be less fatiguing, I like at louder volumes. This phenomena is explained by equal loudness contours. 

Consequently, I believe that one has to get comfortable with two sets of headphones--listening to each extensively by itself, at various volume levels (also to allow for psychological adjustment)--and then do comparisons at various volume levels.

Also, consider that ABX testing methodology says that one needs to use a measurement tool to match the volume because human ears can be unreliable for doing so. That would be more of a problem when comparing headphones since I don't think the ear is necessarily good at doing an averaging across all frequencies for two products that have significantly different frequency responses. So I think we tend to fool ourselves when we think we are accomplishing anything by saying we are comparing at the same volume unless one uses an SPL meter to set the volume level.


----------



## castleofargh

thus the last sentence of the quote. ^-^


----------



## davidsh

castleofargh said:


> thus the last sentence of the quote. ^-^


 
 You didn't quote ^-^


----------



## charleski

buffington said:


> what are we to make of all the hundreds of thousands of reviews and forum posts discussing in great detail all the nuances of sound experienced when using these various products?  If there really are no audible differences between hi-fi products over a huge range of prices, would we not have to discard a large percentage of what is written about hi-fi audio?


 
 Well, I'm restating something I said before, but here goes. The problem with reviews is that they actually review an _experience_ that the reviewer had, but then attribute the qualities of that experience to the equipment used in making it. There are a lot of factors that will alter your enjoyment of music, and the equipment used is actually the _least_ important element.
  
 I quite willing to accept that reviewer A had a great experience when he (Because ... can you name any female audiophile reviewers? I can't. Maybe this is the Steve Davis effect at work.) is happening to listen to Stack-o-Gear B. This is no guarantee that he will also have a great experience when listening to S-o-G B in the future, or that you will experience anything similar.
  
 Music is capable of creating a transcendent emotional repsonse, but the factors that lead to that repsonse are almost all cognitive, they're happening inside your head.
  
 I've been to concerts where I sort-of enjoyed myself but was really thinking, 'Hell, these songs sounded better on the record.' But, but, this is _live sound_! This is the _real thing_!* That really doesn't matter when I've had to spend an hour queuing in the rain and am feeling grumpy compared to sitting relaxed at home. Obviously there are a ton of other factors that can influence the experience you enjoy.
  
 The entire enterprise of audiophile reviewing is founded on the premise that a subjective evaluation of a perceptual experience can be attributed to the equipment used. This premise is *wrong*, no matter how 'skilled' (the world does not contain enough quote marks to contain that word in this context) the reviewer thinks he is.
  
  
 * Actually, there are a lot of equipment-related factors that muck up live sound, particularly the fact that it's very hard to set up speakers to cover a large auditorium properly. But this is still of minor importance in terms of your overall experience.


----------



## Dubwicht

Finally - the holy grail of audio myth busting. I haven't been to this site for a long time and discovered the thread today. Many thanks to the author 267 pages ago. I can't agree more. 

Speakers are the key to audio but beware the demising returns! I have three sets of home built speakers in my living room and they all sound good just different. I have a friend that designs speakers and occasionally visit him to listen to his newest creations. Everything he makes sounds good and after a hour or so and switching back and forth I forget the differences.


----------



## Buffington

charleski said:


> Well, I'm restating something I said before, but here goes. The problem with reviews is that they actually review an _experience_ that the reviewer had, but then attribute the qualities of that experience to the equipment used in making it. There are a lot of factors that will alter your enjoyment of music, and the equipment used is actually the _least_ important element.
> 
> I quite willing to accept that reviewer A had a great experience when he (Because ... can you name any female audiophile reviewers? I can't. Maybe this is the Steve Davis effect at work.) is happening to listen to Stack-o-Gear B. This is no guarantee that he will also have a great experience when listening to S-o-G B in the future, or that you will experience anything similar.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks for your comments.  I am coming to the conclusion that it is best to avoid reading any audiophile reviews, as it is a huge waste of time.  There are too many variables, such as the other gear in the chain, the type of music being listened to, the sonic tastes and listening skill of the reviewer, the mood they're in at the time, and whether they have any economic incentive to promote a particular product.  The conclusions of someone else's review may have no applicability to me, and those conclusions vary widely from one review to another.  I don't even want to see the data from measurements, because it means nothing to me.  If I am interested in a new piece of audio gear, I think it would be best to either borrow or buy it, and evaluate it myself at home with my own gear in a quiet environment at my normal volume levels, without preconceived ideas of what its benefits or characteristics are supposed to be.  If the new equipment doesn't prove to me pretty quickly that it substantially improves the sound, I don't want to waste any more time with it.  If I have to spend a lot of time trying to hear a difference, forget it.  If it does seem immediately to improve the sound significantly, then I can spend a few more hours trying hard to disprove that it causes an improvement, especially if it's a very expensive item.  If it can't pass that test, I either return it or sell it.
  
 I don't even care any more about the endless debates, some of them rather acrimonious, between the objectivists and the subjectivists concerning ABX tests, DBTs, and the like.  Both sides use the same tactic of questioning the validity of any test that has results that seem to go counter to their belief.  No one's mind will change no matter how many experiments are conducted.  I'm just going to rely on my own hearing, and try to do so with as little prior information about the products I audition as possible, so my evaluation is reasonably impartial.


----------



## bigshot

I read articles on home audio where they tell me what I can do to make my own equipment sound its best, not just tell me to buy something else. I also pay attention to facts and scientific theory and I google it and double check it to make sure the reviewer really understands it. I don't take anything on faith.


----------



## prot

buffington said:


> Thanks for your comments.  I am coming to the conclusion that it is best to avoid reading any audiophile reviews, as it is a huge waste of time.  There are too many variables, such as the other gear in the chain, the type of music being listened to, the sonic tastes and listening skill of the reviewer, the mood they're in at the time, and whether they have any economic incentive to promote a particular product.  The conclusions of someone else's review may have no applicability to me, and those conclusions vary widely from one review to another.  I don't even want to see the data from measurements, because it means nothing to me.



I think the biggest variable in those reviews is actually the payola. Most magazines write reviews with one hand and take ad money with the other. It just cant work. 
I still read audiophile press but mostly for news and I dont trust a single word regarding SQ impressions. Especially if the reviewer is one of those ppl who hears unicorns like "cable sound". 
Dont agree about measurements though. They surely dont tell the whole story but if it measures bad, it's bad. And while I do like some tube coloration, I generally prefer neutral sound. I wanna hear what the artist and producer heard not some other dude's idea about good sound. 

I liked one of your previous msges about feeling lost in audiophilia land. Been exactly there several years ago. I just bought/resold lots of stuff from ebay and tested it myself. Couldnt hear 90% of the bullsh*t you read in magazines like TAS. My experience is very well summarized by the "10 biggest lies" article from audiocritic
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_26_r.pdf


----------



## Buffington

prot said:


> I think the biggest variable in those reviews is actually the payola. Most magazines write reviews with one hand and take ad money with the other. It just cant work.
> I still read audiophile press but mostly for news and I dont trust a single word regarding SQ impressions. Especially if the reviewer is one of those ppl who hears unicorns like "cable sound".
> Dont agree about measurements though. They surely dont tell the whole story but if it measures bad, it's bad. And while I do like some tube coloration, I generally prefer neutral sound. I wanna hear what the artist and producer heard not some other dude's idea about good sound.
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks for your input, and for the link to that article.  I am glad you introduced me to that publication, and I intend to read some of the other back issues.  It is apparently a very controversial magazine, and even some people who are generally in agreement with the author’s methods and viewpoints think he goes too far at times.  Some audiophiles adamantly state that they can hear differences between various cables and components, and I would not want to be so dogmatic as TAC is in saying those people are all wrong.  I just know that I am going to be very reluctant in the future to spend money on any gear that does not make my system sound better to me.  I am no longer going to rely on reviews written by others, regardless of whether they are informal comments on a forum such as Head-Fi, or a “professional” review in one of the audio magazines.
  
 If I had known, even as recently as a few weeks ago, what I know now, I would have saved myself at least several hundred dollars on a DAC and amp, because I would have chosen less expensive ones.  In fact, I am no longer convinced that I even needed a DAC or headphone amp at all.  Maybe one of these days I will do a comparison between the setup I have now and just plugging my headphones directly into the PC, to determine whether the DAC and amp were a total waste of money.  I probably should have done that when I first got that equipment, and still had the chance to return it, but everything I had read prior to that time lead me to believe that a high-quality standalone DAC and headphone amp are essential to get the most out of high-end headphones.  Maybe that’s true, but I have become skeptical of anything I read in the world of hi-fi audio.
  
 In the 15 years since the “10 Biggest Lies in Audio” article was published, it certainly hasn’t hindered the audiophile cable industry, as there are now more than 50 manufacturers of specialty cable.  I have seen USB cables priced as high as $9,000 and interconnects as high as $13,500, so apparently there are some audiophiles who have deep pockets and are either naïve or have much better hearing than I.


----------



## prot

buffington said:


> Thanks for your input, and for the link to that article.  I am glad you introduced me to that publication, and I intend to read some of the other back issues.  It is apparently a very controversial magazine, and even some people who are generally in agreement with the author’s methods and viewpoints think he goes too far at times.  Some audiophiles adamantly state that they can hear differences between various cables and components, and I would not want to be so dogmatic as TAC is in saying those people are all wrong.  I just know that I am going to be very reluctant in the future to spend money on any gear that does not make my system sound better to me.  I am no longer going to rely on reviews written by others, regardless of whether they are informal comments on a forum such as Head-Fi, or a “professional” review in one of the audio magazines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you ask me, the whole audiophile cables industry is a shameles crook. Did some experiments a while ago and put up a little thread. Maybe you'll like it. 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/729693/the-voodoo-less-cable-thread-reasonable-cable-vendors-and-reviews

Unless you have 300+ohm HPs you prolly dont need an amp. Maybe a DAC cause some pc mboards are quite noisy. But the new 2014-15 ones are quite good. A report here http://www.head-fi.org/t/754695/asrock-z97-e-itx-ac-outperforms-my-bifrost-and-crack-hd-600

As about audio critic, no idea if that guy is right. Did a lot of tests myself but I'm far from being any sort of audio expert. However, my experience matches his. And he does sound *genuine*. And that's more than I can say about any other reviewer. Everytime I open one of those so called audiophile magazines, I just see people who want to make a quick buck writing whatever they have to about whatever pays best. Too bad ADC is not published anymore, I'd like a voice like that in the audioland. Even if he was wrong. 
Nowadays I do have some trust left for the pro audio press. At least they usually dont talk about unicorns. 

Anyway, good luck and good sound.


----------



## HPDJ

My kind of thread...[WARNING: LONG BUT INFORMATIVE RANT BELOW] 
  
 Boy, the things I've learned from 9 years of being an audiophile. I'm just SO done with so much of the nonsense. I've just glanced at some of the comments here and I'll try not to rehash what's been said already but....yeah cables? I can't say I've ever heard a difference. Not one. From power cables to interconnects to headphone cables. If you do then....great, I'm truly glad for you. I'm happy I don't because that would be MORE money to spend on stuff! Nooooooooooo 
  
 This hobby really tends to draw you AWAY from the music as apposed to drawing you INTO the music....because you get SO focused on getting the sound "right"...don't even get me started on "right" or "what the musician/producer intended" nonsense. If you happen to subscribe to that kind of terminology, I understand why and I don't want to offend you. It's a BIG marketing/selling point of manufacturers of all kinds. BUT, if you weren't in the EXACT room that they mixed and mastered the music in? With the exact gear they used? I'm sorry but you will NOT be able to hear it as "the musician/producer intended". It's just not possible. What a lot of folks don't understand is that most musicians are sad that people won't be able to hear it like _they_ do in the studio so the best they _can_ do is listen to it on a bunch of different systems after it's mastered (a car, laptop (some big time engineers are doing mixes on laptops folks, it's 100% true), boombox, bluetooth speakers etc) and try and get it to sound at least GOOD on all those systems. I know this because as a musician, I've had to do this. Sure you can spend.....whatever amount you want on gear...a lot, a little. It can sound amazing to you....and it if DOES then hold on to that feeling. But don't try and tell yourself that this is the way the artist wanted it to sound like. Don't let _that _notion bring you comfort about the sound your hearing. If you like it, it's how YOU want it to sound. And again. Enjoy that! Nothing wrong with that. This chase for an authentic recreation of the music is soooo bogus...it's like a rabbit hole. I'm saying this because I've caught myself from going any deeper into that hole. It DOES. NOT. END. Dudes are buying gear every year! Just for the latest and greatest....are you serious? Look this is a hobby so, as long as your not hurting yourself or others then, by all means, there are lots of ways to enjoy a hobby. Some in this hobby have to have the coolest LOOKING gear, some want the best SOUNDING gear (to their ears)...some need to be on the CUTTING EDGE....some of these people on the cutting edge in particular are reviewers. Sure because that's what they do! They have to be on top of what's new. But don't fall for their exclamations about the latest and greatest and start looking down on the piece of gear you spent years researching and saving for (I've done that so I know)....appreciate that gear you have and spend some quality time with it....if it's working right (sometimes they don't!) then give it some time. Let it help make your music listening emotional and involving. Because I BET that's one of the reasons you bought the gear in the first place. You didn't invest in this kind of gear (whatever the price) to have background music on all the time. My gear should help TRANSPORT me...emotionally...mentally. Whatever that means to YOU. I'm sure it's different for all of us.
  
 But I'm not into this endless buying of gear! The dude who wrote that review you've just read? Was in most cases PAID (as has been mentioned in this thread already)....how objective is his opinion?? Think about it. Will he bite the hand that feeds him? NO...will he find flowery words to dance around the few issues he forces himself to write, so that he appears objective? Most likely. As far as I'm concerned, I haven 't read a "professional" Hifi review in months and.....that's coming from someone who read them almost EVERY DAY.
  
 My system? For me? Is fantastic. I spent years reading and auditioning gear and saving up and have only a few regrets. I'm not about to beat myself up for those few mistakes either BUT...I have to learn from them otherwise the cycle won't end and you know what? I'm here for the music FIRST AND FOREMOST. That's me. Someone wrote this quote in a comments section of a website a while back and it's probably been posted on this thread already but...what the heck I'll post it again:
  
*"Reminds me of the the difference between a music lover and an audiophile.*

*A music lover listens to music with his sound system.*

*An audiophile listens to his sound system with music."*

 

This hobby also can break your heart when you've had a TASTE of well recorded music on a nice involving system and then you (excitedly) pull out that track from your favorite album from back in the day. Prepared to hear it in "all it's glory!" ...only to find that..........it sounds? Not so great! And your favorite artist (in this case) did NOT record your favorite music well......and so you search for well recorded versions of that album but they all disappoint and none of them sounds as real as that certain track you heard that you didn't particularly care for anyway but...it just sounded SO REAL AND CLEAR....so you start buying well recorded music from relatively unknown artists (not knocking em, some of it's great) and get a kick out of how good it sounds on your newly assembled system...and you show off to your friends and family and they are all impressed with the _sound _(nobody is particularly taken with the actual _music _in this example)......then someone takes a look at your music shelf (or browses your itunes or Jriver or whatever) and asks to play a track from some old album of yours that you've forgotten about....you oblige and.....it sounds flat....just not so great........you toss and turn in bed........OK OK I'll stop haha. But you get my point. So many audiophiles have adjusted their musical tastes to suit the GEAR...for ME, this is not the way I want things to go with my system. So, yeah...I was that guy where I had to do a whole "song and dance" to people about why this system I spent X amount of dollars on can't magically make everything sound good. Because even the best gear can't make a poorly recorded album sound good. Once you realize that....you (hopefully) start to focus on the music again and realize that more than half of the music that WAS recorded and IS recorded, is NOT recorded in an "audiophile approving way" haha. We have high standards and the average music lover (God bless em'...truly) doesn't care. You know that old saying about ignorance......

 

I can get chills from listening to a song off of my phone! I forgot that was even possible! Then I heard Neil Young's "Only Love Can Break Your Heart" while in a waiting room at my doctors and I just HAD to have that whole album but it was too late for me to buy a physical copy from my favorite music store so I had to wait till the next day......but that SONG was calling me, so I youtube'd it and OMG I got chills. I cried. From the music coming from. My. Phone.  So I don't _need_ my fancy headphones and DAC etc etc to be emotionally engaged. What a realization! Am I gonna sell my gear?? I've thought about it but....my gear DOES still help my music listening become much more of an EVENT that it would without it and...that is still worth keeping all of it for me. But hearing more of what the record has to offer is a DIFFERENT experience....but not _always _necessarily a BETTER experience (remember the poorly recorded music example from above). Our minds can do amazing things! They can make up for the shortcomings of poorly reproduced music! They do for the MILLIONS of people who don't have Hifi systems and just care about the music. Our minds can filter out the distortions and lack of frequency extension and PRAT etc etc. But only when we just focus on the music. Now, focusing on the music on a system that CAN produce great frequency extension and PRAT etc makes for something special now, doesn't it? What gear is required to get to that level? That's up to you.   But yes, my system makes listening to music more fun that it would be for me through my cell phones ear-buds. Thank goodness.

 

SO...will I stop buying gear?? For now, YES. I don't NEED anything else but to buy MUSIC. I can't believe I stopped buying music while immersed in this craziness....and now I'm back to ENJOYING and being wrapped up in my music and not obsessing over the SOUND and how it can get better....I KNOW there is better but....dude, when my music is giving me chills and my foot taps and I'm grinning when I listen? I have to not mess with that. You have to know when to get off this crazy train.

 

I will only think of buying gear again when I am able to have a dedicated space for my system and I am able to play music at any time of the day at any volume and my main focus at that time will be making sure the ROOM in not working against me and that will take some time and focus....but right now? I'm headphone focused and I got that right. For ME. Right now. When there is something SUBSTANTIAL in the world of headphones that deserves my attention...then I'll prick my ears up. But I'm talking SUBSTANTIAL. Like, Virtual Reality (yes, I'm taking it there) is about to take off in a major way very soon and with that will come Virtual sound in a more consumer friendly way and not at such a high cost, because I KNOW virtual sound is possible now already. You basiclally have to be aware of patterns in technology and how/when things trickle down to more affordable options. I've never been too upset at manufacturers "statement products" (however outrageous the cost) because that's when they dream BIG and the essence of those dreams tends to trickle down to their more affordable options over time. Woohoo! That's the best part.  What is possible now for X amount of dollars cost WAY more back in the day. But the evolution of this kind of trickle down pattern has made it possible for things to be attainable at cheaper prices over time with the advancements of technology year after year. OLED TV's are dropping in price _very _quickly....to use a current (relatively short term) example. They were all above 5K like a year ago. There are better examples but you get my point...

 

But virtual reality will change how people record things and that will require new gear...but most of the music we consume right now is mixed with 2 channels in mind (2 speakers). So besides wanting a dedicated music room and the right speakers to fill that room? I'm good for a while. And it's healthy to check in with yourself and see....maybe your good for a while too. Maybe you've been neglecting certain things (aspects) of your life cuz you've been hellbent on finding the RIGHT gear for your system....it happens. Happened to me in a way. Nothing too extreme. This head-fi bubble is a dangerously tempting place and can lead the newcomer down the wrong paths and fill their heads with the wrong info and a never ending desire for _more _or _different._ The term for what this kind of community can breed: a Covetous Culture. That's the danger with this kind of website. I guess our culture as a whole breeds a kind of covetousness so....yeah that's another story I suppose. But......I literally came to this site right now to unsubscribe from all my favorite threads...and then I forgot about this one in particular and...decided to talk (write) your ear off. Before I sign off. 

 

My unsolicited advice? Enjoy the hobby in any way you see fit. In a safe and respectable way. Be careful. Be smart. Be cautious of what you read. HAVE FUN! This rant has been about my experiences, of course...others here who have posted, feel the way I do and...I'm sure there are more of you out there. I'm going to continue to stay grounded in the music. That feels best for me


----------



## bigshot

prot said:


> If you ask me, the whole audiophile industry is a shameles crook.


 
  
 Fixed it for you!
  
 HPDJ, there ARE things you can do to improve the sound of your music. But they're rarely discussed in audiophile publications... If you have speakers, go 5.1. Huge improvement. Get an equalizer and balance your response. Ask other music collectors and find the best mastering of the albums you are looking for. All of these things will make significant improvements to the sound of your music.
  
 Oh... and listen to better music, regardless of sound quality!


----------



## prot

hpdj said:


> ...
> My unsolicited advice? Enjoy the hobby in any way you see fit. In a safe and respectable way. Be careful. Be smart. Be cautious of what you read. HAVE FUN! This rant has been about my experiences, of course...others here who have posted, feel the way I do and...I'm sure there are more of you out there. I'm going to continue to stay grounded in the music. That feels best for me



I would say that is very solid advice. 
And your audiophilia experience is probably not that uncommon. I can definitely relate to almost all of that. I remember before getting into what I call gear-craze, I was always listening to the music. Didnt care much about the gear and had to force myself to "listen critically". After a few years of audiophilia, the oposite tends to be more true.


----------



## prot

bigshot said:


> Fixed it for you!




You are prolly right about the whole industry. Way too roten in way too many aspects. But I still wanna keep that 1% of hope. 
There are still people and companies that I think are doing good work, products that have good price/perf ratios, etc. In the HP world I would nominate Stax, Hifiman, Senn, Beyerdyn, etc. Some of those show clear signs of audiophilia lately (e.g. senn's $300 cables) but their classic product lines are both good sounding and reasonably priced.


----------



## OddE

prot said:


> Some of those show clear signs of audiophilia lately (e.g. senn's $300 cables) but their classic product lines are both good sounding and reasonably priced.




-In fairness to Sennheiser, though, it is surprising how fast costs rack up for a company over a given size. 

The balanced HD800 cable (to which I guess you refer) is a prime example of a niche product made in small series; that means expensive. 

When I first started working for my current employer, I laughed at one of our suppliers quoting me $200 for a slightly modified RS232 straight cable. (Yeah, right - I can make one in ten minutes for $5 in parts!) 

Then I did the numbers. First I would have to fill in a requisition form for the parts, then have my manager approve it, take it to purchasing who would look around for a suitable supplier, etc, etc - and before you knew it, those outrageous $200 started to look like a bargain. 

To add to Sennheiser's woes, the cables are sold by distributors which expect a healthy profit, and the cables are only useful to people who have already proven that they are willing to fork over serious $$$ for a niche product. Go figure.


----------



## vid

prot said:


> You are prolly right about the whole industry. Way too roten in way too many aspects. But I still wanna keep that 1% of hope.
> There are still people and companies that I think are doing good work, products that have good price/perf ratios, etc. In the HP world I would nominate Stax, Hifiman, Senn, Beyerdyn, etc. Some of those show clear signs of audiophilia lately (e.g. senn's $300 cables) but their classic product lines are both good sounding and reasonably priced.


 
  
 Have you seen the $400 MSRP tag on the hd 600? A phone whose tech is from the 80s and 90s, whose frame is lifted straight from the 90s, and whose sound is like you'd expect from an 80s dynamic phone. Also, I'd question the pricing of the dt 990 pro at $300 MSRP, given they use the exact same frame as the dt 990 from the 80s and that beyer appears to have changed the driver tech little if at all since then.
  
 Though rather than blaming the industry per se, I'd say it's the gullible consumer at fault.


----------



## prot

odde said:


> -In fairness to Sennheiser, though, it is surprising how fast costs rack up for a company over a given size.
> 
> The balanced HD800 cable (to which I guess you refer) is a prime example of a niche product made in small series; that means expensive.
> 
> ...




There are of course various reasons behind those prices ... and ways to justify them .. and of course noone forces you to buy. 
But I still think the whole thing stinks and it's disingenuous at best. Senn's BOM for that cable is still (most probably) under $20 and noone stops them from selling directly for $50 or less. That would show they care about the customer first. The way they do it now shows that customer care is actually last on their list. 
I own multiple senn HPs and enjoy them all. But I dont wanna support that kind of attitude and prolly wont buy any of their products anymore.


----------



## HPDJ

Bigshot,

I TOTALLY agree with you on the use of equalization! Most audiophiles are scared of this and i messed with it a bit last year and it certainly DOES/CAN make a huge difference and can be downright fun with some music! This is no crime!

I'm down to try 5.1 at some point... Though I've heard it done poorly and that was a turn off and it made me not want to consider 5.1 playback unless the music or DVD was specifically mixed in 5.1. And most of the stuff i listen to is NOT mixed in 5.1. But if one is up for some more intensive tinkering, Im sure i could mess with the mix on a 5.1 system and have it sound good to me. My own tailored 5.1 mix sounds like it could be cool, i don't know. We'll see, when i cross that bridge. When i have a bigger space and nobody to disturb with my music. I won't be bound by the laws of audiophilia haha... For now it's desktop speakers and headphones. Due to space limitations, and neighbor considerations. 

I've only messed with 5.1 effects on headphones a little and wasn't too crazy about the sound, but I'll mess with it again at some point. As long as i don't get too carried away. I could try a million different things. But, as i mentioned in my rant, I'm getting to a place where I'm just not that interested in trying "things" as much as i used to. I went through that already. I'll come back to trying things at some point. 

The thing about finding " the best mastering " of an album based on people's advice is that it's very subjective. But yes, could be a way to help narrow my choices. I HAVE tried to find better mastered versions of certain albums I love and have not always been able to find any because they don't exist. Hence the example i made in my rant. In those instances i could EQ to taste, though that hasn't always proved successful for me, which is fine. OR I can just enjoy the music... So long as it's not so horrible sounding that it's distracting haha.

Listen to better music regardless of sound quality? I think I'm back on that path again and it feels goooood


----------



## OddE

prot said:


> Senn's BOM for that cable is still (most probably) under $20 and noone stops them from selling directly for $50 or less. That would show they care about the customer first. The way they do it now shows that customer care is actually last on their list.


 
  
 -Sure, but part of the problem (in my anecdotal experience, mind) of large corporations is that no matter what you try to make, the actual parts cost is just a small fraction of the end price because of all the people who need to be involved at all stages to get anything done at all.
  
 Add to that the fact that we are looking at a niche within a niche - I've got no idea how many HD800s Sennheiser sell in a year, and I've got no idea how large a percentage of those HD800 purchasers opt for the balanced cable (which, by the way, I agree is preposterously expensive!) - but I am pretty sure the balanced cable buyers are a minority even within the minority that those interested in $1500 headphones already are.
  
 I believe we've got part of the problem right there; if Sennheiser more or less sold these as a matter of course when you purchased a pair of HD800's, the price would be significantly cheaper. Now, it is just a slow-moving SKU - which requires significant margins to be viable at all.


----------



## cel4145

prot said:


> There are of course various reasons behind those prices ... and ways to justify them .. and of course noone forces you to buy.
> But I still think the whole thing stinks and it's disingenuous at best.




Well, but I think we have to give equal credit to the consumers who create the demand for the inflated pricing structures, who have been informed why X piece of equipment doesn't perform as they insist that it does, who ignore the role of expectation bias (e.g. price) in audio equipment subjective evaluation.


----------



## cel4145

hpdj said:


> But if one is up for some more intensive tinkering, Im sure i could mess with the mix on a 5.1 system and have it sound good to me. . . .




When it comes to speakers, you are better of using measurement equipment to evaluate the frequency response of a setup and help find the sound that is right for you, rather than just "messing" with the mix of speakers.


----------



## bigshot

hpdj said:


> I'm down to try 5.1 at some point... Though I've heard it done poorly and that was a turn off


 
  
 If you ever get to Los Angeles, stop by and I'll demo my system for you. Most 5.1 is set up for movies where the sub is just effects and grossly over inflated. I set mine up for music first, then just make a couple of small tweaks to accommodate movies.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> If you ever get to Los Angeles, stop by and I'll demo my system for you. *Most 5.1 is set up for movies where the sub is just effects and grossly over inflated.* I set mine up for music first, then just make a couple of small tweaks to accommodate movies.




This is an audiophile myth. A system that is optimized for HT properly generally performs equally well for music. A smooth frequency response is important for both. 

Now that doesn't mean there aren't some people who might like to have one EQ'd differently than the other. But that tends to be the exception, not the rule.


----------



## prot

cel4145 said:


> Well, but I think we have to give equal credit to the consumers who create the demand for the inflated pricing structures, who have been informed why X piece of equipment doesn't perform as they insist that it does, who ignore the role of expectation bias (e.g. price) in audio equipment subjective evaluation.




That's for sure a large part of the issue. Our senses are far from perfect and can be easily influenced by a miriad of factors. 
Simply looking at a beautiful, expensive component makes you think it sounds better. And you will actually hear better sound.


----------



## cel4145

prot said:


> That's for sure a large part of the issue. Our senses are far from perfect and can be easily influenced by a miriad of factors.
> Simply looking at a beautiful, expensive component makes you think it sounds better. And you will actually hear better sound.




But you can play it the other way. I tell myself repeatedly that more expensive electronics provides very diminishing returns that may not be audible and is definitely not worth it. I'm trying to bias myself the other way. That way, I might hear _even less_ of an improvement than there actually would be in a blind test, and thus discourage myself from upgraditis


----------



## bigshot

cel4145 said:


> This is an audiophile myth. A system that is optimized for HT properly generally performs equally well for music. A smooth frequency response is important for both.


 
  
 That is true for the other channels, but not the sub. Home theaters have seat shakers and subs designed for big low frequency spikes and rumbles that don't work well at all for music. You'll find home theater systems with multiple subs all firing at levels way beyond flat response too. With movies, the LFE channel is a discrete channel that is primarily low frequency effects. You don't need to worry about a smooth handoff from mains to sub like you do with music with a crossover at 80Hz. Also, with movies the center channel is usually mostly dialogue. With a music system, it's more important to integrate it as a boost for the phantom center between the mains. A home theater can sound fine and not work well for music, but a system designed for music will always sound good as home theater.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> That is true for the other channels, but not the sub. Home theaters have seat shakers and subs designed for big low frequency spikes and rumbles that don't work well at all for music. You'll find home theater systems with multiple subs all firing at levels way beyond flat response too. With movies, the LFE channel is a discrete channel that is primarily low frequency effects. You don't need to worry about a smooth handoff from mains to sub like you do with music with a crossover at 80Hz. Also, with movies the center channel is usually mostly dialogue. With a music system, it's more important to integrate it as a boost for the phantom center between the mains. A home theater can sound fine and not work well for music, but a system designed for music will always sound good as home theater.




Audiophile myth. That's not my definition of a good home theater setup, nor what most serious HT enthusiasts describe. Good subs aren't designed for "big low frequency spikes and rumbles that don't work well for music." You are thinking about cheap subs that do neither justice very well. Not to mention that special effects in movies definitely benefit from accurate, good transient response subs. It's creates texturing in the effects that doesn't happen with cheap subs. The only difference that come into play with music vs. movies with subs is that music doesn't tend to benefit from as deep a low frequency response as movies can: there's just not much <30hz content with music, whereas there is with movies. 

As for the LFE channel, you seem to misunderstand it's purpose. Bass content is present on the other channels as well. The LFE channel is for boosting some of the low end bass effects (it's mainly duplicating, not providing new content) since a subwoofer can handle them in a way that speakers generally cannot (it can be dangerous to output some of the very low content to speakers). So it's still important for the sound to be properly transitioned from the speakers to the sub because those other 5 channels are contributing to the subwoofer output. 

And I disagree that a center channel should be implemented for music that is two channel. Two channel should use 2 speakers, so the center channel doesn't come into play at all. With 5.1 audio (e.g. bluray concerts), the music is mastered to come out through the center channel just as the other two--it's not some kind of "boost" mechanism. Not to mention, that by definition in multichannel audio setup, a "phantom center" is when you are running multichannel sound that does not use a center channel. An AVR mixes the center channel sound into the left and right speakers.


----------



## vid

The curious thing about consumer idiocy, at least in audiophilia, is that not only do people passively let in the commercial assault to spend more, they actively reject advice on how to get the same thing for less money.
  
 I did a small-scale survey on head-fi some years back which found that by far the largest majority of posters find happiness in buying (but not in using) new gear. From this, you might suggest a tentative distinction between true audiophilia and psedo-audiophilia, the latter of which is just plain consumerism under a different name and to which the majority subscribe.


----------



## ferday

cel4145 said:


> And I disagree that a center channel should be implemented for music that is two channel. Two channel should use 2 speakers, so the center channel doesn't come into play at all. With 5.1 audio (e.g. bluray concerts), the music is mastered to come out through the center channel just as the other two--it's not some kind of "boost" mechanism. Not to mention, that by definition in multichannel audio setup, a "phantom center" is when you are running multichannel sound that does not use a center channel. An AVR mixes the center channel sound into the left and right speakers.




Then you just haven't heard a good multi setup IMO. With the current quality of up mixing, convolution, PEQ, etc. a 2 channel stereo mix can be made to sound utterly fantastic on a multi system. I use software rather than an AVR and I simply never use just 2 channels for music anymore. That's what I have headphones for 

I'm willing to admit it as a preference and an opinion, but good multi is just better than 2-channel in almost every case for me!


----------



## cel4145

ferday said:


> Then you just haven't heard a good multi setup IMO. With the current quality of up mixing, convolution, PEQ, etc. a 2 channel stereo mix can be made to sound utterly fantastic on a multi system. I use software rather than an AVR and I simply never use just 2 channels for music anymore. That's what I have headphones for
> 
> I'm willing to admit it as a preference and an opinion, but good multi is just better than 2-channel in almost every case for me!




Why would you guess that I haven't heard it? Why not guess that _your_ assumptions are wrong? 

What you are doing is distorting the audio. A 2 channel signal is designed for playback over 2 speakers. When 2 speakers (or 2.1) are properly placed and setup, that will give you the most accurate rendition. Now you can certainly enjoy using various DSP features to mix 2 channels into more channels, but that's not what the audio was mastered and mixed for. If you ever hear a REALLY good setup, you might find that it sounds better out of 2 channels


----------



## bigshot

cel4145 said:


> And I disagree that a center channel should be implemented for music that is two channel. Two channel should use 2 speakers, so the center channel doesn't come into play at all.


 
  
 If you do that, you had better have a pretty small screen in a fairly small room and sit very close, because the speakers can't be further than 6 to 8 feet apart then.
  
 My screen is ten feet and the room is over 20 feet wide, so I run a DSP and play 2 channel in 5.1. It sounds MUCH better than doing a normal 2 channel setup, and not because of the rears... because the soundstage is larger. It isn't distorted at all. The soundstage up front is identical, just larger. Perhaps you haven't heard a good 2 channel to 5.1 DSP.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> If you do that, you had better have a pretty small screen in a fairly small room and sit very close, because the speakers can't be further than 6 to 8 feet apart then.




Let's talk audio science instead. Optimal left/right channel speaker setup is an equilateral triangle with the listening position. That determines the distance the speakers need to be apart (for those that are unfamiliar with that, here is some explanation about speaker placement: http://www.audioholics.com/home-theater-connection/speaker-placement-setup-tips-for-upgraded-home-theater-systems). 



bigshot said:


> My screen is ten feet and the room is over 20 feet wide, so I run a DSP and play 2 channel in 5.1. It sounds MUCH better than doing a normal 2 channel setup, and not because of the rears... because the soundstage is larger. It isn't distorted at all. The soundstage up front is identical, just larger. Perhaps you haven't heard a good 2 channel to 5.1 DSP.




That sounds like you might not have an optimal setup for 2 channel music. What's the distance between your left and right speaker and the distance to the primary listening position from each of them?


----------



## bigshot

cel4145 said:


> Let's talk audio science instead. Optimal left/right channel speaker setup is an equilateral triangle with the listening position. That determines the distance the speakers need to be apart


 
  
 If you have a two channel system and the speakers are more than 8 feet apart, you are going to have problems with the phantom center dropping out. That's why 5.1 adds the center channel... to fill in the gap so the soundstage meshes evenly all the way across the wider spread.
  
 But you're just trolling, so it doesn't matter.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by cel4145 Let's talk audio science instead. Optimal left/right channel speaker setup is an equilateral triangle with the listening position. That determines the distance the speakers need to be apart If you have a two channel system and the speakers are more than 8 feet apart, you are going to have problems with the phantom center dropping out. That's why 5.1 adds the center channel... to fill in the gap so the soundstage meshes evenly all the way across the wider spread. But you're just trolling, so it doesn't matter.




I don't see any trolling. And he's pretty accurate when describing speaker setup and subs. Given that your speakers are from different manufacturers/lines and are not timbre matched, DSPing 2 channel to 5.1 doesn't sound like a winner to me. I would suspect it's going to sound pretty odd moving from locations dominated by one speaker to a location dominated by another.

Even with matching speakers I rarely like the results of using DSP to add channels.


----------



## bigshot

If a speaker can produce a full range of frequencies at a high volume level, it can be equalized to produce the response you are looking for. Timre matched *is* balanced response. Choosing speakers to match is useless, because a speaker on one side of a normal living room doesn't sound like a speaker on the other side. You have to compensate. Theory is great, and it's important to understand, but in a theater, there isn't ONE listening position unless everyone sits on each other's laps. And sometimes it's nice to have a table to set your drink on in the real world. Well designed and tweaked 5.1 systems take all that into account. You can't be dogmatic and design theoretical systems in your head. Anyone who has gone to the trouble to build one that is both functional as a theater, AND as a living space, AND sounds really good with music (as mine does) knows that.
  
 If you don't like the sound of your DSPs, you have the wrong DSPs. Next time you are in the market for an AV amp, let me know and I will give you a recommendation.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> If you have a two channel system and the speakers are more than 8 feet apart, you are going to have problems with the phantom center dropping out. That's why 5.1 adds the center channel... to fill in the gap so the soundstage meshes evenly all the way across the wider spread.




No. It doesn't matter how far your speakers are apart in distance, except as it relates to the listening position. You can have speakers twenty feet apart if the listening position is roughly in an equilateral triangle, and still have good soundstage for 2 channel audio. It is the geometry of the setup that is important. 



bigshot said:


> But you're just trolling, so it doesn't matter.




I suppose Stereophile is just trolling when they recommend the same advice: 

"Entire books have been written about the relationship between loudspeakers and room acoustics, but the starting point for any successful setup is to position the two speakers and your listening chair as the apices of an equilateral triangle; that is, the speakers are each as far away from you as they are from each other. "
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1008speaks/

Please provide a source that supports your argument. This is the audio science forum, not the "I'm audiophile who made up my own theories" forum. If you aren't comfortable supporting what you have to say beyond subjective anecdotal experience, perhaps you should share your ideas about HT setup in the Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) on Head-Fi where anything goes.


----------



## bigshot

yeah right. I passed by you before. Here I go again. NEXT!


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> If a speaker can produce a frequency at a high volume level, it can be equalized to produce the sound you are looking for. Timre matched is useless, because a speaker on one side of a normal living room doesn't sound like a speaker on the other side. Theory is great, and it's important to understand, but in a theater, there isn't ONE listening position unless everyone sits on each other's laps. And sometimes it's nice to have a table to set your drink on in the real world. Well designed and tweaked 5.1 systems take all that into account. You can't be dogmatic and design theoretical systems in your head. Anyone who has gone to the trouble to build one that is both functional AND sounds really good (as mine does) knows that. If you don't like the sound of your DSPs, you have the wrong DSPs. Next time you are in the market for an AV amp, let me know and I will give you a recommendation.




I can't figure you out. You like to pull the science card, right until it gets to your system. If I recall correctly, you EQ by ear and don't have measurements of the results, so how you know you have anything other than your preference? Systems like Audyssey XT32 Pro may not be perfect, but they certainly account for more than a single listening position though obviously, the main listening position is going to sound the best. I'd rather have one ideal location and many other good ones rather than use DSP to expand stereo to 5.1 and ensure no one has a good location.

This isn't being dogmatic, it factual. I respect your knowledge of the recording/production side of audio, but your thoughts around Home Theater are straight out of the subjectivist camp. Your statements about musical vs. HT subwoofers was one of the classic audio myths, long since debunked with high quality modern subs which excel at both. Next time you need to set up a proper HT, let me know and I'll give you some recommendations.

Edit: my HT is also in a functional living room, sounds really good, AND measures well.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> If a speaker can produce a full range of frequencies at a high volume level, it can be equalized to produce the response you are looking for. Timre matched *is* balanced response. Choosing speakers to match is useless, because a speaker on one side of a normal living room doesn't sound like a speaker on the other side. You have to compensate. Theory is great, and it's important to understand, but in a theater, there isn't ONE listening position unless everyone sits on each other's laps. And sometimes it's nice to have a table to set your drink on in the real world. Well designed and tweaked 5.1 systems take all that into account. You can't be dogmatic and design theoretical systems in your head. Anyone who has gone to the trouble to build one that is both functional as a theater, AND as a living space, AND sounds really good with music (as mine does) knows that.




Really? Because those of us who have heard the difference between a timbre matched front soundstage and a non-timbre matched one notice that only those who can't afford a timbre matched setup would say something like this. If that's all you can afford, OK. But don't assume since you haven't actually heard the difference in your room that there is no advantage. 

Meanwhile, this is failed logic in terms of applying EQ. The best front soundstage is the exact same matching speaker across the front. Then EQ only has to correct for room interaction if you have three accurate speakers, and then you can add a house curve if desired. If your speakers are different, it can require a LOT more PEQ filters to smooth them all to make them sound similar. A LOT more.


----------



## dprimary

bigshot said:


> If you have a two channel system and the speakers are more than 8 feet apart, you are going to have problems with the phantom center dropping out. That's why 5.1 adds the center channel... to fill in the gap so the soundstage meshes evenly all the way across the wider spread.
> 
> But you're just trolling, so it doesn't matter.


 

 You can have phantom center even if the speakers are 80 ft apart you just need a really big room. If the room is not deep enough then you have problem. If you are trying to keep in the near field  then yes 6-8 feet is pushing it. You cannot mix a stereo mix into a left right and center mix unless you have the multitrack or microphone channels.  I cannot take a stereo classical recording and somehow process it for it to be left, center, and right and still have all the instruments clearly identifiable in their location. I often have to do cross matrix mixing in very wide shallow rooms but it is a necessary evil in those cases. I have one room the distance between the center speaker and either the left or right is far greater then 8 feet


----------



## bigshot

dprimary said:


> I cannot take a stereo classical recording and somehow process it for it to be left, center, and right and still have all the instruments clearly identifiable in their location.


 
  
 I can.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> I can.




You also think the way to go is to tune a 5.1 channel setup by ear without bothering to use measurements, that subs for HT setups necessarily have bad bass, and that there is no advantage in using timbre matched speakers. Perhaps you are creating a myth yet again. 

If your left/right/center setup using DSP provides equivalent imaging to your left/right alone (whether that imaging is accurate is another debate), perhaps your left/right placement is borked. What is the geometry of your front soundstage setup relative to the listening position?


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> If a speaker can produce a full range of frequencies at a high volume level, it can be equalized to produce the response you are looking for. *Timre matched *is* balanced response. Choosing speakers to match is useless*, because a speaker on one side of a normal living room doesn't sound like a speaker on the other side. You have to compensate.




:blink: All these years I've bought speakers that match -- who knew?!

I have this vision of your 5.1 system

JBL.......................Klipsch......................Altec
.
.
.
Cerwin.........Your golden ears.........Radio Shack
Vega..........manning the EQ/DSP........Speaker

M&K
Sub

yeah...i know the brands date me but didn't want to invest the time in equating them to today's stuff. 


Funny thing -- when I was growing up we had stereos in multiple rooms in our house and they were actually geared for different listening mostly due to their speakers (yes, the speakers were matched). 

So...think Planars or Electrostats in one room, Acoustic Suspension in another, Ported (or Bass Reflex) in another. It sure _seemed_ like the speakers had different strengths/weaknesses and sounded better with some genres than others. Now, I come to find out we had three identical systems -- they just had to be EQ'd for the different rooms.


----------



## Phishin Phool

> Originally Posted by *bigshot*
> 
> 
> 
> If a speaker can produce a full range of frequencies at a high volume level, it can be equalized to produce the response you are looking for. *Timre matched *is* balanced response. Choosing speakers to match is useless*, because a speaker on one side of a normal living room doesn't sound like a speaker on the other side. You have to compensate.


 
 Utter nonsense - timbre matching is indeed recommended if your front soundstage isn't timbre matched the speakers don't blend naturally instead of giving you a seamless soundstage you end up more with definable point sources of sound. It isn't the be all end all but certainly is significant.


> If you do that, you had better have a pretty small screen in a fairly small room and sit very close,* because the speakers can't be further than 6 to 8 feet apart then.*
> 
> My screen is ten feet and the room is over 20 feet wide, so I run a DSP and play 2 channel in 5.1. It sounds MUCH better than doing a normal 2 channel setup, and not because of the rears... because the soundstage is larger. It isn't distorted at all. The soundstage up front is identical, just larger. Perhaps you haven't heard a good 2 channel to 5.1 DSP.


 
 Also not true The width of speakers typically should be equivalent to the distance you are from a speaker (forming an equilateral triangle - the farther away you are the wider (further apart) speakers can be.
  
  
 If you choose to turn 2ch audio into faux 5.1 that is certainly your prerogative but I have yet to hear a well designed system where 2ch audio sounds better matrixed and expanded to additional channels.
  
 BTW -timbre matching is not balanced response , it is uniform tonality.
  
  
 Edit - I see some others have already pounced on your rubbish sorry to be repetitive


----------



## RRod

phishin phool said:


> BTW -timbre matching is not balanced response , it is uniform tonality.
> 
> 
> Edit - I see some others have already pounced on your rubbish sorry to be repetitive


 
  
 I'm not really understanding the invective going on here. If I sat in a spot in a room and got two different sets of speakers to deliver *exactly* the same frequency response in that spot, what difference in tonality would I hear? I know such matching is impossible to attain, but let's by hypothetical for a second.


----------



## bfreedma

rrod said:


> I'm not really understanding the invective going on here. If I sat in a spot in a room and got two different sets of speakers to deliver *exactly* the same frequency response in that spot, what difference in tonality would I hear? I know such matching is impossible to attain, but let's by hypothetical for a second.


 
  
 You kind of answered your own questions.  It's highly unlikely you can EQ different speakers to perfectly match tonally
  
 While with identical speakers/drivers and a good room EQ system, sound panning across the stage will sound coherent.  Nothing worse than watching a movie where the car driving from left to right across the front stage sounds like a Hemi on the left and a turbo 4 on the right.  Ok, that's clearly an exaggeration, but timbre matching IF you properly EQ the room is a benefit.
  
 I'll ask this a different way - why not use identical speakers or at least speakers with the same drivers?  What's the downside?


----------



## RRod

bfreedma said:


> You kind of answered your own questions.  It's highly unlikely you can EQ different speakers to perfectly match tonally
> 
> While with identical speakers/drivers and a good room EQ system, sound panning across the stage will sound coherent.  Nothing worse than watching a movie where the car driving from left to right across the front stage sounds like a Hemi on the left and a turbo 4 on the right.  Ok, that's clearly an exaggeration, but timbre matching IF you properly EQ the room is a benefit.
> 
> I'll ask this a different way - why not use identical speakers or at least speakers with the same drivers?  What's the downside?


 

 No downside, of course. But separating "timbre" from "frequency response" seems odd to me. On a held note, the timbre of an instrument IS the frequency content. Audible dB variations between the relative harmonics are all it takes to change a trumpet into an oboe. If we consider a loudspeaker to be a musical instrument, why should it act differently?


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> I'm not really understanding the invective going on here.




Because, in the manner of how audiophile myths are often created, Bigshot has making up his own theories about HT setup and configuration based upon his limited, anecdotal experience and the equipment he has instead of basing it on audio science. 

Here's a suggestion for you. Do you have multiband graphical EQ or multiple PEQ options on a device that you use with your headphones? If so, take one channel (left or right) and raise and lower multiple frequencies just a few db. Do you like what it does to the sound? Even fairly accurate speakers will have a lot of minor variance--more variance than you can probably EQ in with that experiment since you would need a lot of EQ filters--despite the fact that manufacturers (and some reviewers) like to smooth the frequency response graphs that they provide.


----------



## Phishin Phool

Maybe this helps
  


> In music, *timbre* (/ˈtæmbər/ _*tam*-bər_ or /ˈtɪmbər/ _*tim*-bər_) also known as *tone color* or *tone quality* from psychoacoustics, is the quality of a musical note, sound, or tone that distinguishes different types of sound production, such as voices and musical instruments, string instruments, wind instruments, and percussion instruments. The physical characteristics of sound that determine the perception of timbre include spectrum and envelope.
> 
> _In simple terms, timbre is what makes a particular musical sound different from another, even when they have the same pitch and loudness_. For instance, it is the difference between a guitar and a piano playing the same note at the same loudness. Experienced musicians are able to distinguish between different instruments of the same type based on their varied timbres, even if those instruments are playing notes at the same pitch and loudness.
> 
> ...


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> Because, in the manner of how audiophile myths are often created, Bigshot has making up his own theories about HT setup and configuration based upon his limited, anecdotal experience and the equipment he has instead of basing it on audio science.
> 
> Here's a suggestion for you. Do you have multiband graphical EQ or multiple PEQ options on a device that you use with your headphones? If so, take one channel (left or right) and raise and lower multiple frequencies just a few db. Do you like what it does to the sound? Even fairly accurate speakers will have a lot of minor variance--more variance than you can probably EQ in with that experiment since you would need a lot of EQ filters--despite the fact that manufacturers (and some reviewers) like to smooth the frequency response graphs that they provide.


 
  
 See my response above. I'm fine with the impossibility of perfect frequency matching, and that there are more holes in most actual FR plots than swiss cheese.


----------



## RRod

phishin phool said:


> Maybe this helps


 
  
 That contradicts nothing of what I said, so what point did you have?


----------



## analogsurviver

Obtaining a well defined symmetrical response in any given real world room is a pain enough in itself - even using hypothetically perfect loudspeakers. 
  
 Those who think that it is possible to obtain good response with unmatched speakers are clearly delusional - to remain on the polite side. Although it is possible to equalize the response - it will be equalized at a SINGLE SPOT, with most likely different polar pattern, different decay characteristics, etc - creating an absolute mess with imaging. That is the same as saying a person with one arm or leg significantly shorter than another (for any reason) can be a model for studying the symmetry of a human body. 
  
 I can CLEARLY remember the response from one Italian manufacturer regarding their speaker that stole the Milan show in 1986. It was a relatively small 2 way ported system with "plain vanilla" Audax drivers. I asked the representative how they can charge approx the equivalent of $ 500 for something that uses drivers widely available for roughly $ 80-100 at the time - 29 years ago.
 He grinned: Yes, the drivers are precisely what you mentioned. BUT - you are not going to buy 1000 pairs of tweeters and 1000 pairs of woofers, measure them all and match the drivers in best possible stereo pairs obtainable - and sell off the remaining drivers not meeting the strict standards for matching.
  
 There was godzillion other speakers FAR more pricier than measly $500 - yet the effort this manufacturer put into their product and its presentation ( large room, perfectly treated, regardless the small size of the 2-ways ), driven by valve amps and turntable, left 99,9% of competition, regardless of size or price, in the dust. 
  
 The only comparable, although at far lower level, was the demo of Dahlquist DQ20.  There were big Apogees, Infinity IRS V, you name it - which presented themselves under conditions demoed as ridiculously overpriced caricatures of the small $500 "Italian".
  
 The only fly in the ointment is the fact that 99.987654321 % of listeners do not possess anything like comparably large and acoustically treated room for listening -  which IS a prime prerequisite for any serious listening.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> See my response above. I'm fine with the impossibility of perfect frequency matching, and that there are more holes in most actual FR plots than swiss cheese.




Then I'm not clear on why you were questioning the criticism of Bigshot's claim that timbre matching is unnecessary. The benefits should seem rather obvious if you understand that.


----------



## bfreedma

rrod said:


> See my response above. I'm fine with the impossibility of perfect frequency matching, and that there are more holes in most actual FR plots than swiss cheese.


 

 Agree as well, but why add even more holes in the FR plots than necessary by using unmatched speakers.  Decay and impulse response consistency are also small but valuable improvements when using identical speakers.
  
 Why make the job harder than it has to be.  And Bigshot's views of this?  He's making them up to fit his own environment and doesn't have the measurements to back up his claims - an odd way to take a stand in Sound Science.


----------



## Phishin Phool

Wasn't trying to contradict just give some additional info and understanding.


----------



## RRod

phishin phool said:


> Wasn't trying to contradict just give some additional info and understanding.


 
  
 That's cool. Just the other day I was adding up sine waves to recreate a trumpet sound, just for kicks. It's amazing how close you can get even just copying peaks from a frequency plot. Hence my original assertion.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> Then I'm not clear on why you were questioning the criticism of Bigshot's claim that timbre matching is unnecessary. The benefits should seem rather obvious if you understand that.


 
  
 I'm debating the separation of "timbre matching" from "getting a flat frequency response", since the ideal attaining of the latter should give you the former. But yes I agree that starting off with sibling speakers will undoubtedly make everything easier and that practice is always harder than theory.


----------



## bfreedma

That was possibly the shortest, most concise, and most congenial debate in Sound Science history


----------



## RRod

bfreedma said:


> That was possibly the shortest, most concise, and most congenial debate in Sound Science history


 
  
 Just wait


----------



## castleofargh

seems obvious for matched speakers as a principal, but what if the room isn't symmetrical (left/right)?
  





 you can't catch me I'm a ninja!


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> I can CLEARLY remember the response from one Italian manufacturer regarding their speaker that stole the Milan show in 1986. It was a relatively small 2 way ported system with "plain vanilla" Audax drivers. I asked the representative how they can charge approx the equivalent of $ 500 for something that uses drivers widely available for roughly $ 80-100 at the time - 29 years ago.
> He grinned: Yes, the drivers are precisely what you mentioned. BUT - you are not going to buy 1000 pairs of tweeters and 1000 pairs of woofers, measure them all and match the drivers in best possible stereo pairs obtainable - and sell off the remaining drivers not meeting the strict standards for matching.




Nice story. 

This seems to be what Grado did with the i series (not sure about e) when you bump from the SR 60/SR 80 to the mid level Prestige models: better matched drivers. Makes sense that it would provide improved sound


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> See my response above. I'm fine with the impossibility of perfect frequency matching, and that there are more holes in most actual FR plots than swiss cheese.




OK.


----------



## bfreedma

castleofargh said:


> seems obvious for matched speakers as a principal, but what if the room isn't symmetrical (left/right)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Room EQ software isn't perfect, but I've managed a pretty flat FR in a far less than ideal room.
  
 But you're correct - most of us have, to be kind, less than perfect rooms for audio reproduction.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Nice story.
> 
> This seems to be what Grado did with the i series (not sure about e) when you bump from the SR 60/SR 80 to the mid level Prestige models: better matched drivers. Makes sense that it would provide improved sound


 
 Phono cartridges, microphones, loudspeakers, headphones - the SAME story.
  
 Please check Grado cartridges - you will find the same model is after manufacture tested for tolerances and gets its "dot" designation. I can remember the ratio in price can be as high as 3 between the lowest and highest quality stylus of the same "model". And it more than makes sense to get the closest toleranced cartridge from the nominally lower model than least toleranced from the nominally higher model.
  
 At least Clearaudio used to do the very same with their cartridges back in the day - and each and every dB of channel separation was _precisely _priced...
  
 Ortofon used to sell some carts selected for superb separation ( way above the nominal spec for the "random" production run ) at premium price.
  
 Koetsu celebrated the 80th annyversary of its creator, Mr. Sugano, by releasing 80 "hors categorie" cartridges, painstakingly reserved from the production over many many years. Never saw or heard one, but this anyversary batch had the most peculiar pricing I ever encountered in any audio component :
  
_Price to be set by the dealer_
  
 The catch in really good recordings will ALWAYS be in the tolerance for the stereo pair. And to which degree WAY above manufacturer's spec are mikes matched is one of the most closely guarded secrets of any serious recording engineer.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> seems obvious for matched speakers as a principal, but what if the room isn't symmetrical (left/right)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Ninjas are not impervious to a well placed burst from an AK-47... match, set and game over.
  
 That is precisely why I put listening room first, equipment second. In any room that is significantly _acoustically _asymetric, 
 (like glass sliding doors, balcony, etc on one side and a thick covered sofa or loaded bookshelf on another, etc ),
 there is no way one can make this asymetry dissapear.
  
 Those large glass $urface$ are a big PITA - because it takes at least $500-1000 (depending on size ) in *thick heavy drapes* before such a room becomes listenable. Worst case scenario - glass behind dipoles 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ....
  
 All of this is luckily avoidable by using headphones 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## GearMe

analogsurviver said:


> All of this is luckily avoidable by using headphones :atsmile: .




+1 to that! For a few grand, I can have several different, high-quality 'well controlled listening rooms' that I can swap in and out based on music genre, mood, etc. Cost prohibitive for most folks in the Stereo/multichannel full-size system world.


----------



## Phishin Phool

gearme said:


> +1 to that! For a few grand, I can have several different, high-quality 'well controlled listening rooms' that I can swap in and out based on music genre, mood, etc. Cost prohibitive for most folks in the Stereo/multichannel full-size system world.


 
 True but even the best headphones do not re-create and pale in comparison to what even a modest priced stereo/multichannel set-up offers.
  
 Example - spent last weekend listening to Fostex TH900, Alpha Dog Primes and Audeze LCD-3 among others on a chord hugo so around $3800 worth of headphone set-up at a given time and if I had to choose just one or the other I would take my HT system every time


----------



## RRod

phishin phool said:


> True but even the best headphones do not re-create and pale in comparison to what even a modest priced stereo/multichannel set-up offers.
> 
> Example - spent last weekend listening to Fostex TH900, Alpha Dog Primes and Audeze LCD-3 among others on a chord hugo so around $3800 worth of headphone set-up at a given time and if I had to choose just one or the other I would take my HT system every time


 
  
 Even my $300 (total) Sony floorstanders + rot-gut Polk subwoofer give me more total enjoyment than my HD800s, and that's because I have them on the side of the fireplace in an open living room with only the automatic EQ on the Yamaha receiver. Sure the HD800s bring out detail better, but when something like a brass chorale opens up the impact just isn't the same.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> Even my $300 (total) Sony floorstanders + rot-gut Polk subwoofer give me more total enjoyment than my HD800s, and that's because I have them on the side of the fireplace in an open living room with only the automatic EQ on the Yamaha receiver. Sure the HD800s bring out detail better, but when something like a brass chorale opens up the impact just isn't the same.


 
 Using headphones + dedicated subwoofer*S* ( that crap bass is mono never did hold water for me...) can bring this missing impact, tactile bass, etc, which is admittedly missing in headphone only setup. 
  
 I guess I will have to put the money where my mouth is - but sure reading those threads about headphones&subs here on head-fi make me droooooool.
  
 AKG K 1000 are definitely worth it !


----------



## analogsurviver

I just ran across this today: http://www.aes.org/publications/standards/search.cfm?docID=99
  
 Add a subwoofer ...


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> I just ran across this today: http://www.aes.org/publications/standards/search.cfm?docID=99
> 
> Add a subwoofer ...


 
  
 Oh man I am so down for that. The last time I was big on gaming was when Aureal was giving Creative a run for its money with A3D; we all know how that turned out. After coming back to games a bit I was baffled by how HRTF standards still didn't exist. Can anyone with access tell me if they talk about simulated surround (from discrete speaker sources) versus in-application-calculated signals (like via OpenAL)?


----------



## bigshot

The placement of a sub in a room is more important than the number of subs.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> The placement of a sub in a room is more important than the number of subs.


 
  
 That's entirely room dependent.  There is no way to predetermine which will be the better solution without placement testing and subsequent measurements, particularly in mixed use rooms where placement options are not unlimited.  You may want to look into Geddes research on this as he lays it out in great detail.
  
 This was achieved with two JL F113s in a mixed use room with limited placement options using Audyssey Pro.  A lot better than when I had a single F113 in the best possible position in my room - I'll see if I can find the old measurements of the single for comparison.  Smoothing is at 1/12 octave.


----------



## bigshot

The point was that having two subs isn't that important. More speakers always adds complications. A well placed single sub can do the job without the possible problems of two. And there isn't any detection of directionality below 80Hz in humans, so it isn't a matter of "mono bass" or "stereo bass". Especially if you are wearing headphones and are just using the sub for the kinesthetic thump.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> The point was that having two subs isn't that important. More speakers always adds complications. A well placed single sub can do the job without the possible problems of two. And there isn't any detection of directionality below 80Hz in humans, so it isn't a matter of "mono bass" or "stereo bass". Especially if you are wearing headphones and are just using the sub for the kinesthetic thump.


 
  
 You are completely incorrect in making those assertions as universal statements of best practice.  A well placed single sub will almost never be as good as two well placed and properly integrated subs.  If you took the time to actually measure your room, this would be fairly obvious in short order.  Personally, I'd really like to see measurements of the room you EQ by ear.  I suspect there would be some pretty ugly surprises....
  
 This also has nothing to do with mono or stereo bass, nor is this about bass directionality.  That you would even bring that up shows your lack of understanding of the principles of bass reproduction.  Room modes are highly location sensitive and in many rooms, no single sub can be placed in a location that's optimal.
  
 And if more speakers add complications, why do you run surround instead of stereo?  You're arguing against yourself.
  
 You may know quite a bit about recording and engineering, but it isn't translating well to home theater and room acoustics.


----------



## bigshot

I try to converse politely with you and you keep trying to pick fights. Honestly, I'm not interested in fighting.
  
 That said, this is one of the most important threads in HeadFi. No trolling here.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I try to converse politely with you and you keep trying to pick fights. Honestly, I'm not interested in fighting. That said, this is one of the most important threads in HeadFi. No trolling here.



_Edit: after rereading my last post, I should have toned it down a bit. I still stand by it's technical content. Still, the below remains an accurate history of our first go round:
_

Actually, you snidely offered to help me pick an AVR with "proper DSP" in our first exchange, so please don't try and sell me on your "polite" approach. And now, for the second time, you've called someone who corrected your information a "troll" on this thread rather than discussing the actual topic.

You made some incorrect statements about bass reproduction and those errors were pointed out. I'm happy to continue the discussion, and if you want to point out specifically where you believe I'm trolling, we can discuss that civilly too.

So now that we've both gotten that out of the way, where do you disagree with my last post?


----------



## bigshot

I didn't snidely do anything. I recommend DSPs highly. It's been my experience that well designed DSPs are extremely beneficial to 5.1 sound systems, and I believe that intelligent application of DSPs is the future of high end audio. Not all DSPs are the same. Some manufacturers are more advanced in that area than others. I'm happy to recommend the ones I know about if someone is interested.
  
 I'm not angry. I'm just only interested in conversing in a friendly manner with friendly people.


----------



## Phishin Phool

bigshot said:


> I didn't snidely do anything. I recommend DSPs highly. It's been my experience that well designed DSPs are extremely beneficial to 5.1 sound systems, and I believe that intelligent application of DSPs is the future of high end audio. Not all DSPs are the same. Some manufacturers are more advanced in that area than others. I'm happy to recommend the ones I know about if someone is interested.
> 
> I'm not angry. I'm just only interested in conversing in a friendly manner with friendly people.


not angry, just misinformed


----------



## bigshot

I just know that I use DSPs on my system and my system sounds fantastic. I've made the offer to audition it for folks who get to the LA area, but only the nice ones are invited. Most people around here fit that bill.


----------



## Phishin Phool

Typically the goal of audophilia is to get as close as possible to recreating the source as exact as possible. Now this doesn't mean that 'fun' headphones or DSP aren't enjoyable or suit our personal taste but taste is not a measure of accuracy. I am genuinely interested though as to what AVR you use, currently I am using a Pioneer Elite AVR and its DSP processing isn't as good as my THX Ultra certified Onkyo AVR


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I just know that I use DSPs on my system and my system sounds fantastic. I've made the offer to audition it for folks who get to the LA area, but only the nice ones are invited. Most people around here fit that bill.




It would be much simpler for you to send measurements. REW and a calibrated Mic or an OmniMic for $300 would give you all the capabilities you would ever need.

I'd offer to do the measurements myself the next time I'm in LA, but I guess my disagreeing with you puts me off the "nice" list.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> I try to converse politely with you and you keep trying to pick fights. Honestly, I'm not interested in fighting.
> 
> That said, this is one of the most important threads in HeadFi. No trolling here.




In an audio science forum, insisting on homespun theories is more akin to "trolling" than "conversing politely."

Audio science teaches us how difficult it is to achieve a smooth response with only one sub.


----------



## bigshot

I calibrate with ears because that is what I listen to music with. I don't require specs beyond thresholds of human perception.
  
 I appreciate the tag team effort to get this thread locked, though. Have a VERY nice day!


----------



## dprimary

I was taught to listen first and then verify with test equipment. Over the years though I have learned to measure rooms to the point I can identify problems without listening. Making minor adjustments to the acoustics to room that is pretty good to start with is always a challenge.


----------



## bigshot

It's all relative to the thresholds of human hearing. Ultimately, it's what we can hear that counts.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I calibrate with ears because that is what I listen to music with. I don't require specs beyond thresholds of human perception.
> 
> I appreciate the tag team effort to get this thread locked, though. Have a VERY nice day!


 
  
 Disagreeing with you over audio theory in the Audio Science forum titled "Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths" is hardly a tag team effort to get the thread closed.
  
 This discussion would be far better if you would participate in those conversations rather than accusing those who disagree with your claims as being trolls. I really would like to continue the discussion but you haven't yet responded to where my post which you took offense to was technically inaccurate.
  
 AnalogSurvivor got "tag teamed" by you and many others and I don't see him complaining, just trying to explain his position.


----------



## Phishin Phool

bigshot said:


> I calibrate with ears because that is what I listen to music with. I don't require specs beyond thresholds of human perception.
> 
> I appreciate the tag team effort to get this thread locked, though. Have a VERY nice day!


 
 I work in ophthalmology and optics so I guess I should just calibrate all my eye charts and equipment by sight instead of measuring since my eyes are what I use to see them

  
 I would suggest reading the following article and then explain how accurate your Golden Ears are
  
 https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys406/lecture_notes/p406pom_lecture_notes/p406pom_lect5.pdf
  
 (edit- I am still sincerely interested in what unit/equipment you use for DSP  )


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> I calibrate with ears because that is what I listen to music with. I don't require specs beyond thresholds of human perception.
> 
> I appreciate the tag team effort to get this thread locked, though. Have a VERY nice day!




Let me start by quoting a profile signature line that is relevant here:

"Welcome to Sound Science. Sorry about your preconceptions."

There's nothing wrong with trying your hand with calibrating your setup by ear. 

But it is unscientific to insist that measurements would not assist in making that process easier and that measurements would not provide a superior method without actually_ testing your assumptions using measurements_. 



bigshot said:


> I appreciate the tag team effort to get this thread locked, though. Have a VERY nice day!




If Head-Fi Sound Science threads were to be locked every time someone's subjectively based assumptions were threatened by scientific discussion, then there could be no discussion in this area of the forum. And if you are uncomfortable with having your preconceptions questioned and your misconceptions exposed, you really should remove that forum signature line.


----------



## castleofargh

phishin phool said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > I calibrate with ears because that is what I listen to music with. I don't require specs beyond thresholds of human perception.
> ...


 

 if there is one thing that I'm pretty confident about is that bigshot didn't claim to have golden ears. his point all in all, is that he's the one listening to his system so if he can't notice a problem, it just means it's not a problem for him. can't really complain about that logic ^_^.
  
 I do believe that measurements can of course bring better control in pretty much anything for at least one point in the room. and he was wrong on a few statements of this ongoing subject as others pointed out. but it doesn't mean that what he did by ear has to sound bad. he at least knows from his friend that the signature is about right, that's already better than what most people get in their own houses. even some audiophiles would go by placing expensive stuff in a room(not going past the triangle thing) and not using any EQ because they want "the real sound" or other weird misunderstanding of the sort.  what bigshot does is a small misdemeanor at best when serious audio crimes are going on all over the planet and batman only deals with gotham
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
 so for me it's:
 no to the claims, why not to his choices, and yes to listening to music in his room ^_^.


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> It's all relative to the thresholds of human hearing. Ultimately, it's what we can hear that counts.


 

 Unfortunately, it's darn near impossible to get a true flat response by ear though. Measurement helps to ensure that the calibrated response is actually the desired response. A response can sound "flat" too, and still be audibly different from a true flat response. There's really no substitute for measurement for this sort of thing (and measurement can also greatly speed up the process of obtaining a flat in-room response).


----------



## Phishin Phool

castleofargh said:


> if there is one thing that I'm pretty confident about is that bigshot didn't claim to have golden ears. his point all in all, is that he's the one listening to his system so if he can't notice a problem, it just means it's not a problem for him. can't really complain about that logic ^_^.
> 
> I do believe that measurements can of course bring better control in pretty much anything for at least one point in the room. and he was wrong on a few statements of this ongoing subject as others pointed out. but it doesn't mean that what he did by ear has to sound bad. he at least knows from his friend that the signature is about right, that's already better than what most people get in their own houses. even some audiophiles would go by placing expensive stuff in a room(not going past the triangle thing) and not using any EQ because they want "the real sound" or other weird misunderstanding of the sort.  what bigshot does is a small misdemeanor at best when serious audio crimes are going on all over the planet and batman only deals with gotham
> 
> ...


 
 Well that makes sense - as I stated there is nothing wrong with tuning a sound to your liking (one of my favorite headphones is the DT990 and it is a fun phone with a V shape FR) but to assume that the sound signature is accurate in terms of audio reproduction by simply using your ears defies logic and science. I often use DSP and other 'fudges' to get Movie 5.1/7.1 soundtracks to sound right as the mixing isn't always top notch and also with some tapers recordings that have flaws revealed by upper echelon speakers/cans I EQ  till it sounds good (luckily my AVR holds multiple profiles so I can send a signal there and then use speakers or a line out to a headphone amp if necc.
  
 At the end of the day adjust your system to what makes you happy but recognize that it may not measure properly or have a scientific reference point.


----------



## bigshot

cjl said:


> Unfortunately, it's darn near impossible to get a true flat response by ear though.


 
  
 You can get one close enough for human ears by using human ears. It's like anything else in audio. You can split your fractions forever using measurements, but ultimately, all you are going to hear is what your ears hear. The other thing is that a flat response isn't flat all over the room. A measurement is from one point in the room. That is great if your room is just for one listener. But if you have multiple seating positions within the room for groups of people, or if your acoustics are slightly different when you drop a screen, or if you have issues in parts of the room that can't be dealt with through room treatment, or a bunch of other exceptions to the rule, you need to be able to compromise and develop workarounds.
  
 A lot of people think that the sound of the room should be eliminated and cancelled out. I don't like that kind of system. I like it when the system works *with* the room to create an even, balanced sound that is natural for the sound of the room. I understand if someone wants to create a listening room with upholstered walls, panels and traps everywhere, one chair 1/3 of the way back in the room, and a response from that one chair that is perfectly flat. But I have friends over and need to make the space work for groups of people. If I was running a mixing stage, I might need that other kind of setup, but I am creating a *living* room system. For me, the flat response is just the starting point, not the destination. I want the impression of a flat response overall, not just in one chair.
  
 My sound engineer buddy who helped me with my system is really good at walking into a club, auditorium or arena and quickly figuring out speaker placement and EQ to give an overall sound to the entire audience, not just the position of his mixing board. He helped me a lot with understanding the variables that needed to be taken into a account in my particular space. Every space is different and requires different approaches. You can follow acoustic principles, but some things you just have to try and see if it works.
  
 I'm also working within the limitations of a five band parametric equalizer. It would be great to go down and smooth out every tiny bump and dip, but I have to work with five bands to create an overall curve. If I get too focused on small details, the overall won't be covered properly.
  
 The nice thing is that it all works and the sound in my room is great. Come by and hear it if you ever get to LA.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> cjl said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, it's darn near impossible to get a true flat response by ear though.
> ...




Without debating the process, I do want to dispel the image that all people who utilize measurements do so in the single chair room you describe or limit their measurements to a single location in thaat room.

I'm sure some do, but most of us also live in "real wold" mixed use rooms and have friends who visit that we want to accommodate with quality audio. I'm certainly not going for nor have I achieved a flat response, I'm simply trying to get rid of the worst response anomalies over as much of the room as I can.


----------



## bigshot

exactly. we agree then.


----------



## Phishin Phool

The point of taking measurements is to 'normalize' or calibrate the entire room - that is why multiple measurements at different locales are used and often room treatments to give the best overall performance. 
  
 Once again myself and others submit that science, ABX testing, and numerous experiments have shown that you simply can not do this by ear - it is just not possible to do accurately. It may be pleasing to the listener but pleasing=/accuracy. Unless you are claiming you and your friend indeed have golden ears that the rest of the world - audiologists included do not you are folling yourself and making foolish  and inaccurate statements.
  
 I am able to set my room up by ear the way I like it   = True
 I am able to set up my room to give an accurate flat frequency response and  volume match multiple speakers by ear= FALSE


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> exactly. we agree then.




Yup. Just using different tools to achieve the same goal.


----------



## bigshot

phishin phool said:


> Once again myself and others submit that science, ABX testing, and numerous experiments have shown that you simply can not do this by ear


 
  
 The sound mixers that engineer the albums you play on your system EQ by ear to achieve a pleasing, natural balance all the time. The room may be calibrated, but that is just the baseline. The real work of mixing is done by ear.


----------



## Phishin Phool

bigshot said:


> The sound mixers that engineer the albums you play on your system EQ by ear to achieve a pleasing, natural balance all the time.


 
 Nonsense - if they do then I submit that is poor engineering control and likely to sound terrible. I too know many sound engineers as well as being very friends with the Moog family who founded moog synthesizers and they laughed when I told them of your claims.
  
 Hell, even the guys running the soundboard at the local National guard armory for weekend bands use level monitors to calibrate sound.
  
 I assume seeing as I asked politely twice that you just refuse to answer what type of unit you use for DSP.


----------



## bigshot

A synthesizer by definition doesn't have any baseline equalization curve, does it?


----------



## Phishin Phool

bigshot said:


> A synthesizer by definition doesn't have any baseline equalization curve, does it?


 
 No but the folks who developed them happen to know a good bit about sound and recording.


----------



## bigshot

Do they adjust the sound of their synths by ear or with measurements?


----------



## Phishin Phool

bigshot said:


> Do they adjust the sound of their synths by ear or with measurements?


 
 When a model is developed it is bench tested and measured scientifically and then production models are bench tested to sonically match within a given tolerance and that is done by machine not by ear if that is what you are asking.
  
 Once again I have no problems with DSP and adjusting things to be more pleasing to the ear - listener preference is often more important than accuracy (after all I use equipment to listen to music not music to listen to my equipment) but to suggest one is equvalent to the other is fallacy.


----------



## bigshot

What about when you play music with it.


----------



## Phishin Phool

Not sure I understand the question.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I really enjoy listening to my KRK 8" Rokit G3 monitors over my headphones, though I have absolutely no room treatment and have no idea about the frequency measurements.  I don't have an EQ at all, and my only modest options are a +/- 2dB adjustment for LF or HF settings on the back of each of the speakers.
  
 My problem is that I really don't have a good space for an audio system.  I'm currently using a dining room nook for my office where I use these speakers, and this is an open design that has a kitchen and family room in the same space.
  
 The point is that my opinion on the sound quality is absolutely subjective and quite possibly very wrong.  I'm only using my ears and comparing the results to a limited number of references.  Without measurements, I'm no better off than someone else claiming that they just know that 24-bit music is audibly superior to 16-bit music because they believe they hear a clear difference.
  
 I was messing around with room treatment options and found some great resources, many of them way over my head from a technical perspective.  The calculator tools at the following site are fantastic and incredibly detailed.  
  
 http://www.jhbrandt.net/  (go to the RESOURCES section and then TOOLS)
  
 The complexity of these tools really helps to drive home just how far someone can go to really tweak their audio systems.  
  
 For me, I'm still dealing with a set of bowls occasionally rattling around in the kitchen cabinet, so this stuff is way beyond my means at the present time, but I find it all very fascinating.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> You can get one close enough for human ears by using human ears. It's like anything else in audio. You can split your fractions forever using measurements, but ultimately, all you are going to hear is what your ears hear. The other thing is that a flat response isn't flat all over the room. A measurement is from one point in the room. That is great if your room is just for one listener. But if you have multiple seating positions within the room for groups of people, or if your acoustics are slightly different when you drop a screen, or if you have issues in parts of the room that can't be dealt with through room treatment, or a bunch of other exceptions to the rule, you need to be able to compromise and develop workarounds.




Besides the problem with your claim that the human ear is a more effective measurement tool, you are setting up a false dichotomy. A measurement mic is just like your head. You can move it to other points in the room to take measurements just like you can your ears. And as I have pointed this out to your previously in the last few weeks, even some auto EQ room correction software (e.g. Audyssey MultEQ and YPAO multipoint) is designed to take measurements from multiple positions. And furthermore, one who is taking the measurements themselves and manual eqing can use REW to average the graphs from multiple positions to aid in arriving at a correction that assists the various positions--the human brain can't do that.



bigshot said:


> A lot of people think that the sound of the room should be eliminated and cancelled out. I don't like that kind of system. I like it when the system works *with* the room to create an even, balanced sound that is natural for the sound of the room.




The only "natural" sound for a room is no EQ. What you are imposing is your own perception of what sounds good, whether that's a tendency toward flat or some kind of house curve.



bigshot said:


> My sound engineer buddy who helped me with my system is really good at walking into a club, auditorium or arena and quickly figuring out speaker placement and EQ to give an overall sound to the entire audience, not just the position of his mixing board. He helped me a lot with understanding the variables that needed to be taken into a account in my particular space. Every space is different and requires different approaches. You can follow acoustic principles, but some things you just have to try and see if it works.




Whether or not your friend was able to help you achieve what you believe is good sound is not evidence that taking measurements is an inferior method of system calibration over tuning by ear. 

Just because my friend who is a chef likes to bake cakes in his commercial gas oven, and I bake one cake in my home gas oven and it turns out good, it does not mean that gas ovens are superior to electric ovens. All it means is that I like the cake that I baked in my oven. 



bigshot said:


> I'm also working within the limitations of a five band parametric equalizer. It would be great to go down and smooth out every tiny bump and dip, but I have to work with five bands to create an overall curve. If I get too focused on small details, the overall won't be covered properly.




Which is why it's illogical to dismiss the advantage of timbre matched speakers. A 5 band PEQ will have enough trouble trying to produce a decent response in a living room across a wide seating area. If your speakers were better matched to begin with, in all likelihood you would end up with a smoother response. Same with the advantage of well placed dual subs over a single sub for creating a smoother response though a wide seating area. With only a single sub, there is more to correct. 



bigshot said:


> The nice thing is that it all works and the sound in my room is great. Come by and hear it if you ever get to LA.




There are plenty of expensive interconnect cable fans who say the same thing. I suppose that just because they and their friends who have heard their system with their expensive cables think it sounds better, that's proof enough, based upon your arguments.


----------



## cel4145

phishin phool said:


> I assume seeing as I asked politely twice that you just refuse to answer what type of unit you use for DSP.




He has already stated he uses a Yamaha receiver. PEQ was a feature on Yamaha receivers several years back (I don't think it still is). Plus, he's indicated his receiver only takes a single measurement point, so it can not be a newer mid-level/high level Yamaha receiver with YPAO multipoint.


----------



## bigshot

RXV671 is the number of it I believe.


----------



## Phishin Phool

bigshot said:


> RXV671 is the number of it I believe.


 
 Thanks - As I stated I am not against DSP but as far as room set-up I was goin gto suggest trying the AVR calibration vs by ear and see what you think if you had it. My old Onkyo w/ Audyssey XTdid 8 and could be expanded to 32 sample points IIRC and On my Pioneer Elite it uses Mcacc with multiple measure points and several memory presets for different tweaks or profiles if you desire. Not sure which I like better and no experience with YPAO.
  
  
  
  
 Something else I read regarding Audyssey and Mcacc
  
Time and Frequency Correction:


The time domain is where many of the problems are. Parametric and graphic equalizers can only correct for the frequency response and do so in a very coarse manner because they have limited resolution (bands).
Further, whether they have fixed or adjustable bands doesn't matter because bands cause phase problems that most people hear as "ringing" or "smearing." That's why, after thirty-plus years of trying this method, most people don't like the results. And they turn it off.


----------



## RRod

phishin phool said:


> Thanks - As I stated I am not against DSP but as far as room set-up I was goin gto suggest trying the AVR calibration vs by ear and see what you think if you had it. My old Onkyo w/ Audyssey XTdid 8 and could be expanded to 32 sample points IIRC and On my Pioneer Elite it uses Mcacc with multiple measure points and several memory presets for different tweaks or profiles if you desire. Not sure which I like better and no experience with YPAO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 What are these many problems in the time domain? And how are they a greater problem than not having a flat frequency response at your listening position? Honestly wondering because people seem to just through out the term "time domain" like it's some fancy demon, when in fact they just mean "the samples themselves."


----------



## Phishin Phool

That was from the Audyssey website itself but here is info that may answer your question
  
 http://www.erzetich-audio.com/knowledgebase-05-time-vs-frequency
  
 also Phase shift and polarity aren't things you are going to ascertain by ear.


----------



## RRod

phishin phool said:


> That was from the Audyssey website itself but here is info that may answer your question
> 
> http://www.erzetich-audio.com/knowledgebase-05-time-vs-frequency
> 
> also Phase shift and polarity aren't things you are going to ascertain by ear.


 
  
 I know what the time domain is; it's the plot of your specific sample points. My question was, for an uncalibrated system, what are these time domain problems that need time-domain DSP algorithms to correct, and why would you worry about these fixes more than achieving a flat frequency response with frequency-domain DSP?


----------



## bfreedma

rrod said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by Phishin Phool That was from the Audyssey website itself but here is info that may answer your question http://www.erzetich-audio.com/knowledgebase-05-time-vs-frequency also Phase shift and polarity aren't things you are going to ascertain by ear. I know what the time domain is; it's the plot of your specific sample points. My question was, for an uncalibrated system, what are these time domain problems that need time-domain DSP algorithms to correct, and why would you worry about these fixes more than achieving a flat frequency response with frequency-domain DSP?




I don't think it's an either/or situation. Why not correct both when the tools allow for it?

Agreed that if you can only correct for one, I would target FR first.


----------



## RRod

bfreedma said:


> I don't think it's an either/or situation. Why not correct both when the tools allow for it?
> 
> Agreed that if you can only correct for one, I would target FR first.


 
  
 I agree it isn't either-or; the language of the blurb makes it seem like the author thinks that time-domain issues are the greater concern, that's all.


----------



## Phishin Phool

That I do not know - just relaying some info that I came across as perhaps some users may find it pertinent. I was intriguesd by the statement that PEQ causes  issues to remain which come across as ringing and smearing and adjusting just the FR isn't enough. I agree - correct both.
 As I am happy with my multi point Mcacc room calibration which addresses Speaker Adjustment, Equalizer, Phase Control,Speaker Polarity Check, Standing Wave Control, Subwoofer Equalizer, Independent Dual Subwoofer Output, Full Band Phase Control. I have then checked the SPL level at various points in my room and am satisifed with both what I hear and measure. I am certain I can't achieve that by ear alone.


----------



## castleofargh

but then what it the objective? to remove the room(by compensating for all the reflexions changing FR and phase) or mimicking some ideal room?


----------



## bfreedma

phishin phool said:


> That I do not know - just relaying some info that I came across as perhaps some users may find it pertinent. I was intriguesd by the statement that PEQ causes  issues to remain which come across as ringing and smearing and adjusting just the FR isn't enough. I agree - correct both.
> As I am happy with my multi point Mcacc room calibration which addresses Speaker Adjustment, Equalizer, Phase Control,Speaker Polarity Check, Standing Wave Control, Subwoofer Equalizer, Independent Dual Subwoofer Output, Full Band Phase Control. I have then checked the SPL level at various points in my room and am satisifed with both what I hear and measure. I am certain I can't achieve that by ear alone.




Good to hear the new version of MCACC is working well on your subs. The previous version didn't EQ subs properly or anything under 63hz for that matter.

That's what drove me from Pio to Denon. Then ended up buying an Audyssey Pro kit so I could tweak the curves a bit more to my preference.


----------



## bfreedma

castleofargh said:


> but then what it the objective? to remove the room(by compensating for all the reflexions changing FR and phase) or mimicking some ideal room?




IMO, it's to reduce the most objectionable room issues. That's about the best you can hope for with most of the common REQ solutions.

I'd love to try the full version of Dirac one day, but at over $10k, that's not happening. The reduced capability versions available from some companies (Emotiva for one) don't interest me and have some implementation flaws.


----------



## RRod

So do people call phase issues a "time domain" problem?


----------



## bfreedma

rrod said:


> So do people call phase issues a "time domain" problem?


 
  
 They can be interrelated but I wouldn't say it that directly.
  
 For anyone who didn't major in acoustics looking for a good book that covers much of what we've been discussing, I recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0240520092/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
  
 Toole is pretty straight forward (as much as the content can be) and sticks to the science of sound reproduction without getting into unicorn dust theories.


----------



## RRod

bfreedma said:


> They can be interrelated but I wouldn't say it that directly.


 
  
 I wouldn't either, but such a confounding would explain why they always seem to come up in the same breath (on this forum at least).


----------



## bfreedma

rrod said:


> I wouldn't either, but such a confounding would explain why they always seem to come up in the same breath (on this forum at least).


 
  
 Well, it wouldn't be the first time in Head-Fi history people incorrectly used nomenclature.  It happens all the time at AVS too. Getting everyone using terminology correctly would probably cut out half the arguments and a good chunk of the posts.
  
 Correct use of audio terminology on this site or world peace - which is the more achievable goal?


----------



## castleofargh

bfreedma said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't either, but such a confounding would explain why they always seem to come up in the same breath (on this forum at least).
> ...


 

 coming from different countries doesn't help for sure. I learned the little I know in audio reading it in english on the web. so if you guys give me a misuse of word enough times, I will learn it and misuse it like a boss.
 the first one I got, I guess was "microphonics" to talk about mechanical cable noises ^_^. that one even crossed the continents and we vastly misuse it in french too.


----------



## analogsurviver

I am firmly convinced that time/phase errors are more detrimental than amplitude errors. Audibly so.
  
 It is perfectly possible to equalize say headphones to have a next to identical frequency response between the left and right channel - WELL within 1 dB. If  the EQ employed results in any phase delay between the two, it will sound a lot worse than if it is EQed for zero phase difference while still being not too far off in amplitude - say 1 dB. 
 With parametric EQ, it usually is possible to get both right - but it is a time consuming process.
  
 Definitely it can be done.


----------



## bigshot

phishin phool said:


> Thanks - As I stated I am not against DSP but as far as room set-up I was goin gto suggest trying the AVR calibration vs by ear and see what you think if you had it.


 
  
 I started using the built in auto EQ in my Yamaha. It dialed my sub down to zero, put a huge dip in the response at 100Hz and made my rears much too loud. I used that as the jumping off place to refine my response, and then when I was happy with it, I brought in a friend who is a professional sound mixer to run a tone sweep to double check my results. That was my process. It took longer than just "set it and forget it" but the results are as good as I can get with my equipment, and it sounds phenomenal to human ears.


----------



## bigshot

rrod said:


> What are these many problems in the time domain?


 
  
 Phase cancellation is the biggest one. Reducing primary reflections is the best way to reduce that to acceptable levels.
  
 P.S. Time is the cause, cancellation is the effect, if that helps make the terms more understandable.


----------



## bigshot

rrod said:


> what are these time domain problems that need time-domain DSP algorithms to correct, and why would you worry about these fixes more than achieving a flat frequency response with frequency-domain DSP?


 
  
 Generally a 5.1 system will have a setting to set the distance each speaker is from the main listening position. That is is the main DSP that corrects for time problems. Time isn't a huge problem in normal sized rooms. The response of your speakers and the response of your room is much more important generally. Unless you have a very large room to fill.


----------



## bigshot

phishin phool said:


> As I am happy with my multi point Mcacc room calibration which addresses Speaker Adjustment, Equalizer, Phase Control,Speaker Polarity Check, Standing Wave Control, Subwoofer Equalizer, Independent Dual Subwoofer Output, Full Band Phase Control. I have then checked the SPL level at various points in my room and am satisifed with both what I hear and measure. I am certain I can't achieve that by ear alone.


 
  
 Your ears probably can't hear half of the corrections anyway, so it really doesn't matter. The only problems are the problems that are problems within your range of hearing.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> coming from different countries doesn't help for sure. I learned the little I know in audio reading it in english on the web. so if you guys give me a misuse of word enough times, I will learn it and misuse it like a *boss*.
> the first one I got, I guess was "microphonics" to talk about mechanical cable noises ^_^. that one even crossed the continents and we vastly misuse it in french too.


 
 Misuse it like a *champ*.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> but then what it the objective? to remove the room(by compensating for all the reflexions changing FR and phase) or mimicking some ideal room?


 

 The theory among a lot of folks is to remove all of the sound of the room to make "pure" sound. But one thing I learned from my acoustic Victrola is that the room can add a very important factor to the sound. We accustom ourselves to the sound of a room as we speak in it. If suddenly the sound of music doesn't have the same acoustic as our voices, it can make the music sound false. There are good effects and bad effects of room acoustics. Obviously frequency response imbalances and phase cancellation are bad effects. Those are best to deal with. But a little bit of resonance or "live" sound isn't necessarily a bad thing. You can synthesize those things with DSPs and a sometimes they are built into the mix, but a familiar sound is a good thing.
  
 Like I say, hardcore purists will disagree, but I have found this to be true for me. The thing about early Caruso acoustic records is that they were recorded very dry. No room acoustic at all. Victrola dealers told customers to place their Victrolas in the opposite corner of the room to use the walls and floor as extensions to the horn, and to add room acoustics that were perfectly natural because they were created by a real room... yours. Accurately reproducing music is easy. Accurately reproducing space gets more tricky. If you have a little non-destructive REAL space to work with, it can add some nice depth cues to your sound system. You just don't want too much so it gets all mushy and mixed up.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> The theory among a lot of folks is to remove all of the sound of the room to make "pure" sound. But one thing I learned from my acoustic Victrola is that the room can add a very important factor to the sound. We accustom ourselves to the sound of a room as we speak in it. If suddenly the sound of music doesn't have the same acoustic as our voices, it can make the music sound false. There are good effects and bad effects of room acoustics. Obviously frequency response imbalances and phase cancellation are bad effects. Those are best to deal with. But a little bit of resonance or "live" sound isn't necessarily a bad thing. You can synthesize those things with DSPs and a sometimes they are built into the mix, but a familiar sound is a good thing.
> 
> Like I say, hardcore purists will disagree, but I have found this to be true for me.


 
 If one sits too close to their rear speakers, they could get delay lines.


----------



## Don Hills

rrod said:


> I agree it isn't either-or; the language of the blurb makes it seem like the author thinks that time-domain issues are the greater concern, that's all.


 
  
 When you are selling hammers, you describe all problems as nails.


----------



## SilentFrequency

charleski said:


> For anyone looking for a laugh on a rainy Thursday evening:
> 
> Sony will sell a “premium sound” microSDXC card to audiophiles in Japan
> 
> ...




I don't get this?

Why are SONY which are a totally major brand making this product?

I would have thought SONY as a trusted brand but now I'm totally confused?


----------



## liamstrain

They are a trusted brand, but they also are profit driven, and if labeling something differently will drive sales, they they will do so. This is true of essentially ALL brands. Make your decisions based on good reasoning and good evidence - not a companies marketing.
  
 This is also why you should not necessarily trust research which is done by a company or other profit/biased organization. Not without supporting evidence from other sources.


----------



## analogsurviver

silentfrequency said:


> I don't get this?
> 
> Why are SONY which are a totally major brand making this product?
> 
> I would have thought SONY as a trusted brand but now I'm totally confused?


 
 I DID NOT check the spec for the Sony "audio" card - yet.
  
 A few years ago, I was trying to replace the HDD in Korg DSD recorder(s) with "card" - and there was NOTHING out there that could communicate fast enough ( or DSD recording would stutter, cut off completely, etc  ) - save for possibly the Hoodman card ( $$$$$$$ ) . Frankly, I forgot the rate required - and simply kept on using dependable and reliable HDD.
  
 So, BEFORE anyone accuses Sony of selling snake oil, please do check how fast exactly is the new card - chances are that they managed to get it fast enough for HiRez , specially DSD, for a more reasonable price.
  
 If your preference is lossy audio at rock bottom possible price, you can use low speed dirt cheap cards - but please do not condemn the existence of rocket fuel if your preferred transportation is moped.
  
 If the new Sony card does not offer any tangible advantage over cards available prior to its introduction, I do concur it makes no sense - except making money.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> So, BEFORE anyone accuses Sony of selling snake oil, please do check how fast exactly is the new card - chances are that they managed to get it fast enough for HiRez , specially DSD, for a more reasonable price.




From the article that was linked above

"Speaking of margins, the 64GB "premium sound" SR-64HXA MicroSDXC card is expected to retail in Japan for about $160—a price that the Journal characterizes as being about five times the price of other Class 10 microSDXC cards (*a quick check on Amazon shows that cards with similar sizes and speed ratings cost a bit over $20 at the low end*)"

Even if the new card is faster than your typical Class 10 from Samsung or SanDisk, is there any evidence that those Class 10 64mb cards are not fast enough for hirez audio? Also, you could purchase a 128GB Class 10 card from Samsung or SanDisk for considerably less than the Sony. Now I don't know for certain that it is true for microsd cards, but with SSDs and flash drives, when you go up in size in a particular model series, you generally get some good improvements in speed.


----------



## cjl

Well, your first problem was using DSD at a ludicrous bitrate. 1.4Mbps (16/44) is more than enough for playback, and you could maybe justify ~2.1Mbps per channel (24/88.1) for recording, though ~1.05Mbps per channel (24/44.1) is actually plenty.
  
 As for speed, if class 10 is insufficient, get a UHS rated card. That card is still rated class 10, so it's quite a bit slower than a UHS3 card such as this: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sandisk-pixtor-advanced-64gb-microsdxc-class-10-uhs-3-memory-card-red-gold/7801144.p?id=1219290680472 (which is still less than half the price).


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> From the article that was linked above
> 
> "Speaking of margins, the 64GB "premium sound" SR-64HXA MicroSDXC card is expected to retail in Japan for about $160—a price that the Journal characterizes as being about five times the price of other Class 10 microSDXC cards (*a quick check on Amazon shows that cards with similar sizes and speed ratings cost a bit over $20 at the low end*)"
> 
> Even if the new card is faster than your typical Class 10 from Samsung or SanDisk, is there any evidence that those Class 10 64mb cards are not fast enough for hirez audio? Also, you could purchase a 128GB Class 10 card from Samsung or SanDisk for considerably less than the Sony. Now I don't know for certain that it is true for microsd cards, but with SSDs and flash drives, when you go up in size in a particular model series, you generally get some good improvements in speed.


 
 Hoodman'n approx 2 years ago fast enough were 250-500$ 16 GB and 32 GB, respectively. Class 10 is not fast enough. As said, it all boils down whether it is fast enough - or not. Sony premium products were and will always be pricier than "generics" - no idea if they really went too far this time.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Hoodman'n approx 2 years ago fast enough were 250-500$ 16 GB and 32 GB, respectively. Class 10 is not fast enough. As said, it all boils down whether it is fast enough - or not. Sony premium products were and will always be pricier than "generics" - no idea if they really went too far this time.




Yeah, but it doesn't work to say "Class 10 is not fast enough." Class 10 is just a minimum speed standard and currently (I think) the fastest standard that can be used to label flash memory. Both Samsung's and Sandisk's basic Class 10 cards greatly exceed the minimum standard, and Sandisk also has their Extreme Pro series that is even faster. So you have to look at measurements to know what is enough, and you have to know which specific measurements to look at depending on the file size you are trying to read and/or write. And of course whether you are trying to read or write. Since Sony seems to be targeting a market that believes that they can get better sound from their cards, then it's the read speed that is important. 

So has anyone ever noticed problems with reading hirez files off Class 10 cards on their DAP?


----------



## StanD

Far too many audiophiles are suckers for wild claims by marketing slimebags. Its unfortunate that much money is wasted on useless crap and not spent on products that will truly bring an improvement to the experience.
 Who loses? The consumer and the manufacturers that make the real deal.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think some of the arguments here are getting off-track.
  
 From the ads I've seen, they aren't selling it based on being faster. They're claiming that it draws less power, or that it draws power more consistently. The idea is that portable devices have power supplies that aren't very well regulated. Since digital devices, including memory cards, draw current in short bursts at clock transitions, it's possible that the variations in the current draw of a memory card might cause voltage shifts or noise in the power supply which, in turn, might cause other components running off that same power supply to not work as well. They're claiming that their memory card draws power in a way that is "friendlier" to the power supplies in portable devices, and so will "annoy" their power supplies less - and that this will translate to better audio performance.
  
 If you believe that using ordinary diodes in the power supply of an amplifier can create noise spikes big enough to affect the audio performance, which is the justification usually used for using fast-recovery diodes in power supplies, then this isn't much less reasonable than that.... (after all, a memory card has BILLIONS of transistors and diodes, many of which switch every time you read or write data).
  
 From a purely non-technical point of view, when the clerk at the store where someone just bought an $800 portable music player asks him "whether he wants the good audiophile memory card or the cheap one", don't you think most customers will take the good one? (The trick is to make the difference between the $120 "audiophile" memory card and the cheap "regular" one seem cheap enough - in comparison to the total purchase - that they don't think too hard about it.) There are also going to be plenty of customers who just plain *imagine* it sounds better... and, as they say, "a sale is a sale". (And this isn't any sillier than the arguments Sony used in their early sales literature promoting SACD.)
  
 (Personally I'm pretty sure that the effect wouldn't be at all noticeable on a reasonably well designed device, and that, if there is a device that is that sensitive to supply variations, it's going to have worse problems than what memory card you use. However, it's quite possible that they could find a few devices that actually do work better with their wondrous memory card - which would prove that it isn't 100% silly 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. )


----------



## bigshot

I think the main problem with audiophilia is that manufacturers keep coming up with solutions to problems that don't exist. This fancy memory card is a gold plated example. I don't think there is a situation where it would make any audible difference. Jitter... high bitrates... high sampling rates... super audible frequencies... distortion levels three times below the threshold of audibility instead of just two times... these are the sorts of things that people worry about and throw money at. But it's all a complete waste of time, energy and money, because none of this impacts the sound quality of recorded music.
  
 If audiophiles actually focused on improving things they actually *can* hear, instead of the things they *can't*, they might actually be able to achieve better sound quality. But that requires more research and understanding than money. Easier to just trust the salesman and throw money at problems that don't exist. Laziness.


----------



## StanD

Another waste of money that would otherwise be put to good use.


----------



## Phishin Phool

FWIW here is what is posted in the comments section of the sony card article which I totally agree with


> Okay, everyone here needs to take a step back. I am an actual analog circuit designer, so here is my take:
> 
> First of all, let me start by saying I'm sure, just like everyone else, that these devices have no practical effect on the audio produced by pretty much any practical system. That said, people seem to be confused about the nature of noise in a system.
> 
> ...


 
 The bold  pretty much sums it up.


----------



## castleofargh

my reasoning behind this was: they started making DAPs with µSD slots, they want to get something out of it.
 after all it's the only reason why sony spent so much time and energy trying to lock everything from formats, to memory sticks, to plugs. if you told me that the sony µSD won't let you play music when used into a second device, I would still think "good old sony".


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Yeah, but it doesn't work to say "Class 10 is not fast enough." Class 10 is just a minimum speed standard and currently (I think) the fastest standard that can be used to label flash memory. Both Samsung's and Sandisk's basic Class 10 cards greatly exceed the minimum standard, and Sandisk also has their Extreme Pro series that is even faster. So you have to look at measurements to know what is enough, and you have to know which specific measurements to look at depending on the file size you are trying to read and/or write. And of course whether you are trying to read or write. Since Sony seems to be targeting a market that believes that they can get better sound from their cards, then it's the read speed that is important.
> 
> So has anyone ever noticed problems with reading hirez files off Class 10 cards on their DAP?


 
 Specifics for case mentioned is somewhere here : http://www.head-fi.org/t/425849/korg-mr-1-can-this-be-used-as-a-portable-player
  
 Existing cards that interface via IDE provide perfect PLAYBACK - so no problems used fpr DAPs. Korg MR-1/1000/2000S is a RECORDER - and rates for writing required are faster.  Tascam DA-3000 DSD recorder does use "cards", yet there is a list of what does work and what does not - utilizing the full resolution of the recorder. Lesser cards will work with a lesser resolution selected on the recorder.
  
 So, checking the compatibility/capability of your gear and intended use is case to case specific - sometimes you can use inexpensive stuff, sometimes you can not.


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


> I think some of the arguments here are getting off-track.
> 
> From the ads I've seen, they aren't selling it based on being faster. They're claiming that it draws less power, or that it draws power more consistently. The idea is that portable devices have power supplies that aren't very well regulated. Since digital devices, including memory cards, draw current in short bursts at clock transitions, it's possible that the variations in the current draw of a memory card might cause voltage shifts or noise in the power supply which, in turn, might cause other components running off that same power supply to not work as well. They're claiming that their memory card draws power in a way that is "friendlier" to the power supplies in portable devices, and so will "annoy" their power supplies less - and that this will translate to better audio performance.
> 
> ...


 
 Miniaturization is nice and useful - as long as it does not become counter-productive. 
  
 It all depends what one wants to "pair" with what. Digital HF garbage IS a problem in audio - of which are MUCH more aware guys coming to computer audio from the traditional audio than those whose speak is mostly reduced to 0 and 1. And there are cases where it is possible to get rid of this interference by sufficient physical distance put between the source of interference and device being affected.
  
 A typical example from the analog world - low output moving coil cartridges. By low output is meant anything at or below  0.1mV/5cm/sec output voltage - which is roughly three times (or 9.542425 > 10 dB ) less than "currently usual".  Cartridges with this kind of output offer MANY advantages over those capable of three times more output - yet are unpopular to the extreme. Why ?
  
 Amplifier noise. And if not noise, then - HUM. I did lend a friend a MC cart with 0.1 mV output and a preamp I knew is "silent" even with this minuscule output voltage. And he kept on bitching how this thing does not work, that it hums tooooo muuuuch.
  
 OK - I went to see what was bothering him. Neat, custom made rack - with cables made to length within an inch or so - you can not re-arrange - anything...
  
 Turntable/arm>cartridge close to the power amplifier and its massive transformers; below turntable a tuner, known for emitting hum into its surrounding - and so on and so forth. 
  
 It took him a WEEK till he somehow put it all together without major cable purchases and so that turntable was finally free from surrounding electric garbage. That includes CD player ON STANDBY being merely plugged into the same AC outlet as the rest of the system - it took plugging it out when not listened to in order not to disturb the turntable.
  
 You should have seen his face after all this was taken care of - 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	













,
  
 Most of audiophiles or music listeners NEVER heard music reproduced at this level - because it is HARD to achieve in practice. And it requires some knowledge and common sense. And time and patience - "it hums too much" would be an answer from more than 99% of real people. By upping the output approx three times or + 10 dB better S/N ratio this gets swept under the carpet - at the expense of the ultimately achievable sound quality. But it definitely is doable to have noise/hum "free" analog system with a 0.1 mV output cartridge.
  
 With portable gear, where smaller/lighter is always better , you can not afford larger distances between digital garbage and sensitive analog circuits - and reduced EMI/RFI from the new Sony card, if it is real, is in this case a plus. Gear dependant, not everything is going to be affected by the same degree, but calling something 10 mm or so "thick" "reasonably designed" is pushing it a bit - meaning there is maximum 7 mm "thickness" for the electronics inside - if it were 20 - 30 mm,  that interference could be MUCH lower - but the trend is for ever thinner portable gear - phones, DAPs, you name it.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Specifics for case mentioned is somewhere here : http://www.head-fi.org/t/425849/korg-mr-1-can-this-be-used-as-a-portable-player
> 
> Existing cards that interface via IDE provide perfect PLAYBACK - so no problems used fpr DAPs. Korg MR-1/1000/2000S is a RECORDER - and rates for writing required are faster.  Tascam DA-3000 DSD recorder does use "cards", yet there is a list of what does work and what does not - utilizing the full resolution of the recorder. Lesser cards will work with a lesser resolution selected on the recorder.
> 
> So, checking the compatibility/capability of your gear and intended use is case to case specific - sometimes you can use inexpensive stuff, sometimes you can not.




So your issue was write speeds. Read speeds are much faster, typically at least 2 or 3 times faster. I have a lot of trouble imagining that DAPs are having any trouble with the read speeds on any Class 10 cards. 



analogsurviver said:


> With portable gear, where smaller/lighter is always better , you can not afford larger distances between digital garbage and sensitive analog circuits - and reduced EMI/RFI from the new Sony card, if it is real, is in this case a plus.




How do you know that other micro sd cards add audible noise to the signal? If they don't, then it's not a "plus" to spend all that money on that card. I think this new card is probably just a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> So your issue was write speeds. Read speeds are much faster, typically at least 2 or 3 times faster. I have a lot of trouble imagining that DAPs are having any trouble with the read speeds on any Class 10 cards.
> How do you know that other micro sd cards add audible noise to the signal? If they don't, then it's not a "plus" to spend all that money on that card. I think this new card is probably just a solution in search of a problem.


 
 I did state what the problem was. Still is - I really must check is this Sony card can write fast enough. 
  
 I DO NOT know for sure whether other SD cards add audible noise or not - because I do not own any device using them - yet. But I do know that I do prefer external USB CD burner with its own power supply over the version of the same for mounting in the PC itself - because PC is the last place one can find decent power supply. 
  
 Miniaturization took a HEAVY toll on recording equipment - anything in now almost mandatory 1U rack size is simply too small - and forces the use of next best quality components that can be cramped into so small volume. Meant is PRO level gear - now you can imagine what my opinion on a smartphone sized audio might be.
  
 OK, it works . Question is - HOW ? Or better - how much better it could have been if not necessary squeezed in those thin sizes/volumes ...
  
 I am no way pushing for this new Sony card (far more pressing purchases than that on the horizon ) - but although I am no Sony fan, at least not a huge one, they did come up with better than competition solutions in the past - although at cost. And were not challenged for considerable time, if at all. 
  
 I hope this new card does have some real purpose and justification for its existence. Sony did push in the past batteries and "memories" all proprietary, which served no other purpose but forcing its customers to remain loyal to Sony if they wanted to use their Sony equipment at all. This luckily changed in the last few years - standard batteries, standard "cards" , etc.  If they managed to pack something tangibly better in this new card, it is fine with me - but only if. The price is always a factor - but if the new card is fast enough for my use, it is a WILD BARGAIN compared to Hoodman's - just do the math of capacity/price.
  
 For pure playback, the only real benefit could come from reduced EMI/RFI and of course reduced power consumption - portable devices do not run on batteries, which by now have stabilized more or less in capacity, forever...
  
 Every one has to consider what his/hers requirements are - and whether he/she can afford it. This Sony card is probably OTT for most DAP users, might be beneficial with some gear and might be indespensable with admittedly even less gear. Whether it is worth it, depends on each case by case basis. And if it does provide some real benefit, will spark competitive manufacturers to come up with something similar at lower price or something better at the same price. Which should benefit us all.
  
 I, as everyone else, would like to have my sports bulldozer with low mileage - for free. Yet we all know this will remain in the domain of dreams only. In real world, I will always go for the minimum that will unconditionally support the result required - sometimes it will be a 0.50 $ RCA connector, sometimes it will have to be a $500 SD card - because nothing else would do.


----------



## KeithEmo

Because they are both simply ways of describing the same basic "thing" - although they describe it in different ways.
  
 If you have a sound source that is in phase at all frequencies, then all frequencies are being produced (or delivered) at their proper times. "Shifting the phase of certain frequencies" is simply another way of saying that you will be altering the times at which they arrive. Likewise, if you delay everything in one channel by a fixed time (like by moving the speaker two feet further away), then you will be altering the phase of everything you hear from that channel (relative to the other channel you didn't move).
  
 The two are mathematically linked, and you can calculate one from the other, but they are not the same. For a given shift in time, the amount of phase shift it produces will depend on the frequency; and, for a given shift in phase, the amount of time shift it is equal to will depend on frequency.
  
 In other words, when phase is entirely perfect, time response will also be perfect, but when either is NOT perfect, then the other won't be either, but the numbers describing the error will look different depending on which way you do so.
  
  
 Quote:


rrod said:


> So do people call phase issues a "time domain" problem?


----------



## KeithEmo

The part you don't understand is that the Japanese market is even more into silly little high-tech audiophile gadgets than the American market. There are lots of products (both legitimately cool ones and silly ones) that are quite popular in Japan but not even sold in the US. (I had a portable minidisc recorder years ago - which was cool and quite expensive; I had to have it shipped in from Japan because American stores were still only selling portable cassette recorders and CD players.)
  
 I agree entirely that the mainstream American market isn't going to buy any of these, which is undoubtedly why Sony released them in Japan.
  
 Quote:


silentfrequency said:


> I don't get this?
> 
> Why are SONY which are a totally major brand making this product?
> 
> I would have thought SONY as a trusted brand but now I'm totally confused?


----------



## StanD

keithemo said:


> The part you don't understand is that the Japanese market is even more into silly little high-tech audiophile gadgets than the American market. There are lots of products (both legitimately cool ones and silly ones) that are quite popular in Japan but not even sold in the US. (I had a portable minidisc recorder years ago - which was cool and quite expensive; I had to have it shipped in from Japan because American stores were still only selling portable cassette recorders and CD players.)
> 
> I agree entirely that the mainstream American market isn't going to buy any of these, which is undoubtedly why Sony released them in Japan.


 
 "There's a sucker born every minute." - David Hannum
 I'm sure there are audiophools in the USA that will buy it along with silver and gold USB cables.


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


>


 
  
 Yeah I can understand the use of "time problem" in that way. I just think that many people don't understand that phase shift/delay are things you actually get from frequency analysis.


----------



## Phishin Phool

rrod said:


> Yeah I can understand the use of "time problem" in that way. I just think that many people don't understand that phase shift/delay are things you actually get from frequency analysis.


 
 What - that does not sound right to me phase and time delay are from speakers not being equidistant and the waves not arriving uniformly and/or speakers being wired backwards inverting the phase . Exactly how does freq response analysis have anything to do with that?


----------



## Phishin Phool

keithemo said:


> Because they are both simply ways of describing the same basic "thing" - although they describe it in different ways.
> 
> If you have a sound source that is in phase at all frequencies, then all frequencies are being produced (or delivered) at their proper times. "Shifting the phase of certain frequencies" is simply another way of saying that you will be altering the times at which they arrive. Likewise, if you delay everything in one channel by a fixed time (like by moving the speaker two feet further away), then you will be altering the phase of everything you hear from that channel (relative to the other channel you didn't move).
> 
> ...


 
 That is different then what I have been led to believe - time domain is described as the same but phase shift I have been led to believe is due to the speaker being wired backward (red to black and black to red) causing the wave to be inverted and hence out of phase - two sound waves can have the same frequency and timing but be 180 out of phase

 those waves have the same frequency and timing but are out of phase.


----------



## RRod

phishin phool said:


> What - that does not sound right to me phase and time delay are from speakers not being equidistant and the waves not arriving uniformly and/or speakers being wired backwards inverting the phase . Exactly how does freq response analysis have anything to do with that?


 
  
 Ah, so then it's just using a term in different contexts. Phase shift, phase delay, and group delay are analytic outcomes from a DFT analysis, and when we're talking about something like the effect of EQ on "phase", that's what we mean (i.e. what does the phase shift of an impulse look like after EQ).


----------



## StanD

phishin phool said:


> That is different then what I have been led to believe - time domain is described as the same but phase shift I have been led to believe is due to the speaker being wired backward (red to black and black to red) causing the wave to be inverted and hence out of phase - two sound waves can have the same frequency and timing but be 180 out of phase
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Phase shift is measured in degrees at a specific frequency. When it is 180 Deg out of phase and combined equally (amplitude) with the original that is called destructive interference as it cancels that signal and might be a simple inversion at all frequencies which how ANC (Active Noise Cancellation) tries to work.
 When it varies with frequency the losses vary with frequency, Musicians use this with an effects box called a Phase Shifter which can give a an effect of a moving comb filter. The also use flanging which is  a time domain effect, originally done using varying analog tape delay in the recording studio.
 Below is a link for a popular effects box. There are sample sounds at this webpage.
http://www.bossus.com/products/ph-3/


----------



## dprimary

phishin phool said:


> That is different then what I have been led to believe - time domain is described as the same but phase shift I have been led to believe is due to the speaker being wired backward (red to black and black to red) causing the wave to be inverted and hence out of phase - two sound waves can have the same frequency and timing but be 180 out of phase
> 
> those waves have the same frequency and timing but are out of phase.


 

 It is a common incorrect use of the term phase. You are not 180 degrees out of phase there is nothing you can do in the time domain to correct it. You have reversed polarity.


----------



## Phishin Phool

dprimary said:


> It is a common incorrect use of the term phase. You are not 180 degrees out of phase there is nothing you can do in the time domain to correct it. You have reversed polarity.


 
 Thank you for the clarification but I have another question if that second wave was time shifted 1/2 cycle would it not be in phase with the other and thus can be corrected by a time shift.


----------



## dprimary

For a continuous sine wave yes you could delay one of them to get them to line up. How ever it would not really be in phase or corrected the polarity, even though it would look like you did on a scope. For complex wave you could never get them to line up. Sometimes the simple sine waves used for illustrations make us over look what is really going on.


----------



## Phishin Phool

Thanks appreciate the info!


----------



## davidsh

phishin phool said:


> dprimary said:
> 
> 
> > It is a common incorrect use of the term phase. You are not 180 degrees out of phase there is nothing you can do in the time domain to correct it. You have reversed polarity.
> ...



It's because phase shift is likely regarded to be regarded as +/- 90 degrees as that is what can be achieved with caps/inductors. Correct me if I'm wrong


----------



## StanD

davidsh said:


> It's because phase shift is likely regarded to be regarded as +/- 90 degrees as that is what can be achieved with caps/inductors. Correct me if I'm wrong


----------



## KeithEmo

Unfortunately you're oversimplifying.
  
 Phase shift can be anything - you could have a phase shift of 0.001 degrees, or 27.235 degrees, 90 degrees, or 926 degrees.
  
 It just so happens that 90 degrees is a particular phase shift that is useful for certain things 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 The other thing is that, in the real world, phase shift almost always varies with frequency. For example, it is pretty much impossible to design a network out of R's, L's, and C's that will give you the same phase shift at different frequencies. In a simple R-C or L-C network, the phase shift will be different at every frequency, and will vary according to a simple formula. (When you hear of networks that deliver "90 degrees of shift over a wide range of frequencies", what they've really done is to design a network that produces something near 90 degrees of phase shift over a certain range of frequencies. A typical "90 degree all-pass network" in an old-time SQ decoder, for example, was really more like - 90 degrees, +/- 15 degrees, between 100 Hz and 10 kHz, and that's being quite optimistic.)
  
 With things like speakers, which have lots of reactive parts, it gets quite a bit messier. Look at some phase plots of actual speakers..... A typical three way speaker may have a phase plot that zig-zags over a range of several HUNDRED degrees of phase, and usually not in a nice straight line or a smooth curve. This is why things like crossovers and room correction get so complicated. You can adjust your sub so that is perfectly in phase with your main speaker's woofer at 64 Hz, but it will still almost certainly not be perfectly in phase at any OTHER frequency. This is why specific situations tend to require lots of fiddling around with crossover frequencies and phase adjustments to find the compromise that provides the best overall results in a given room.
  
  
  
  
 Quote:


davidsh said:


> It's because phase shift is likely regarded to be regarded as +/- 90 degrees as that is what can be achieved with caps/inductors. Correct me if I'm wrong


----------



## KeithEmo

It doesn't - specifically. However, virtually all types of filters (digital or analog) that produce changes in frequency response ALSO produce changes in phase response.
  
 You basically have three choices:
  
 1) Ignore the phase shift your filters introduce
 2) Minimize the phase shift and try for a filter that corrects the frequency response without buggering up anything else
 3) Create a specific filter whose frequency response fixes your frequency response issues, but design it such that it's phase response ALSO corrects for phase/time issues.
  
 That last one is what Dirac does. Rather than use one specific type of filter, which would have one specific phase response, they use what's called "mixed phase" filters, which is a fancy way of saying that they can choose from a variety of filter types, each of which has different effects on phase. This allows them to analyze each situation, and then design a custom filter that corrects both the frequency response and the timing errors - at least to a significant degree. (Instead of "being stuck" with the phase response of the specific filter type they use, they vary the type of filter they design for each situation so they can USE the differences between them as a tool for correcting phase issues.)
  
 If you use a PEQ to correct frequency response, it's sort of pot luck whether the phase response of the filters it uses will make the phase response of the overall system better, worse, or no different. By actively CHOOSING between different types of filter configurations, Dirac can slant that trade-off firmly in favor of correcting the frequency response issues and IMPROVING the phase response. This generally results in a huge overall improvement (although the benefits vary to some degree depending on the situation).
  
 Quote:


phishin phool said:


> What - that does not sound right to me phase and time delay are from speakers not being equidistant and the waves not arriving uniformly and/or speakers being wired backwards inverting the phase . Exactly how does freq response analysis have anything to do with that?


----------



## Phishin Phool

Thanks Keith it is nice to learn something factual and not repeated mis-information and the application of a filter affecting phase certainly makes sense . I have a question - Does having a set of timbre matched speakers help to keep them in phase over varying frequencies or is there still significant variation?


----------



## KeithEmo

That's sort of a tricky question.
  
 The fact that the speakers are timbre-matched probably wouldn't signify much one way or the other.
  
 However, speakers all of the same model and manufacturer should be quite closely matched. The phase response of a speaker is determined by the drivers, the design and type of crossover used, and even the cabinet tuning has some effect on it. I would figure that speakers of the same model from the same batch would be _VERY_ closely matched, you might or might not see very slight differences over different batches (especially if the particular model is produced for a very long time). Next, speakers of similar models, with similar drivers, and from the same series (like the center and fronts form a certain model line) would also probably be pretty close.
  
 Anything beyond that is a bit of a guess since even one manufacturer may decide to use very different crossover designs on different models, and they can be wildly different between manufacturers, even on speakers that are superficially similar in design, and that sound much the same (like three way speakers with dome tweeters and 8" cone woofers).
  
 Luckily, it's probably not critically important that different sets of speakers be that closely matched as long as the speakers in each symmetrical pair (front mains, or surrounds) are very close. The biggest effect phase response has is on imaging, and there just isn't much critical imaging between, say, a left front and a left surround. (Things like frequency cancellations due to phase differences will probably be less noticeable than frequency response aberrations caused by room placement and such.)
  
  
 Quote:


phishin phool said:


> Thanks Keith it is nice to learn something factual and not repeated mis-information and the application of a filter affecting phase certainly makes sense . I have a question - Does having a set of timbre matched speakers help to keep them in phase over varying frequencies or is there still significant variation?


----------



## bigshot

The room is going to have MUCH more of an effect on phase of speakers than the speakers.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> The room is going to have MUCH more of an effect on phase of speakers than the speakers.


 
 Amen to that. Even the person in the room (not a hall) is an acoustic factor and is going to have an effect, especially when they move around.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Amen to that. Even the person in the room (not a hall) is an acoustic factor and is going to have an effect, especially when they move around.




Move around? If you move around you're obviously not an audiophile. You must sit, motionless with your head locked in the sweet spot. Anything else and you might as well just get a Bose. 

se


----------



## Phishin Phool

Thanks - luckily my front soundstage speakers are all make/model matched with sequential serial #'s so hopefully not much variance. I know toe in or out just a bit affects imaging significantly but that is certainly room / dipole influenced.


----------



## Mr Rick

phishin phool said:


> Thanks - luckily my front soundstage speakers are all make/model matched with sequential serial #'s so hopefully not much variance. I know toe in or out just a bit affects imaging significantly but that is certainly room / dipole influenced.


 
  
 Just make sure the relative humidity and barometric pressure are maintained constant, or all your hard work will be for naught.


----------



## Phishin Phool

Lol, actually my home theater room is humidity in climate control however it is not for sonic reasons


----------



## analogsurviver

phishin phool said:


> Thanks Keith it is nice to learn something factual and not repeated mis-information and the application of a filter affecting phase certainly makes sense . I have a question - Does having a set of timbre matched speakers help to keep them in phase over varying frequencies or is there still significant variation?


 
 Set of timbre matched speakers DOES NOT necessary keep them in phase over varying frequencies - even in case of theorethically perfect match between the speakers.
  
 Reason ? Phase response/coherence - or however you might want to call it. Here it is full range single drivers that shine in phase accuracy - full range electrostatics, full range dynamic drivers, from oval SABA, Lowther, etc. I specifically remember measurement for Acoustat full range output transformerless amp powered
 ESL vs Bowers & Wilkins 3 way dynamic system - while both were reasonably linear in amplitude, phase response has shown the difference - while the Acoustat did not have exactly the same phase shift for all frequencies within 20-20 kHz, it DID have positive phase across this entire range - (with the possible anomaly at the fundamental system resonance in the bass ) ;
 B & W allowed itself FIVE times to go from positive to negative - which sounds _*yuck *_with recordings that do take phase seriously. No wonder no one can hear the effect of absolute phase reversal using such designs - as they mangle this important piece of audio information beyond recognition. 
  
 You can go and compare measurements from innerfidelity - they publish it as pulse response. While amplitude can be relatively easily made flat, achieving phase coherent output from a multi driver headphone is a major PITA. This is why I never could warm myself for any Shure multi way IEM - I prefer something with less extended response, but "in one piece". Dynamic drivers are getting ever better and although only the very pinnacle of them can ever hope to compare with electrostatics regarding phase fidelity, they are getting better and are trickling down to more reasonable prices. The new HiFiMan HE-1000 ( not heard yet, the first opportunity for me will be likely Hi End Munich in May ) may well be the first dynamic seriously challenging electrostatics . Hopefully, within couple of years the technology may well trickle down to within reach of most serious listeners - like not above 1K per pair.


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Move around? If you move around you're obviously not an audiophile. You must sit, motionless with your head locked in the sweet spot. Anything else and you might as well just get a Bose.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Don't be so down on Bose, they are great at two things.

ANC (Active Noise Cancellation)
Marketing
 Not necessarily in that order.


----------



## SilentFrequency

bigshot said:


> I think the main problem with audiophilia is that manufacturers keep coming up with solutions to problems that don't exist. This fancy memory card is a gold plated example. I don't think there is a situation where it would make any audible difference. Jitter... high bitrates... high sampling rates... super audible frequencies... distortion levels three times below the threshold of audibility instead of just two times... these are the sorts of things that people worry about and throw money at. But it's all a complete waste of time, energy and money, because none of this impacts the sound quality of recorded music.
> 
> If audiophiles actually focused on improving things they actually *can* hear, instead of the things they *can't*, they might actually be able to achieve better sound quality. But that requires more research and understanding than money. Easier to just trust the salesman and throw money at problems that don't exist. Laziness.




I totally get your point but I think in this case ie SONY which is a totally international brand then a lot of people would put their trust in this brand, rightly or wrongly so Im unsure if laziness is maybe fair to label with?


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Don't be so down on Bose, they are great at two things.
> 
> ANC (Active Noise Cancellation)
> Marketing
> Not necessarily in that order.




Ha!

se


----------



## bigshot

silentfrequency said:


> I totally get your point but I think in this case ie SONY which is a totally international brand then a lot of people would put their trust in this brand, rightly or wrongly so Im unsure if laziness is maybe fair to label with?


 

 How many people put faith in GM for the Corvair before Ralph Nader put out Unsafe At Any Speed?
  
 Brand is no guarantee of quality. Someone who doesn't understand what they are buying and puts faith in brand names are lazy.


----------



## castleofargh

wouldn't be the first time sony marketing goes a little too far, or "forgets" to mention the part where some super duper stuff is in fact useless at the output.
 we're well past the point where trust in a company means trusting everything they say. in those days and age that's just being plain gullible.
 I have full confidence in sony stuff for being well made and well thought. but the BS they put on to advertise their stuff... lol. and I say sony but any big brand is the same(else they would stay that big for long if they worked only with facts as marketing).
  
  
 even if the engineers making a product are legit, the marketing department will always find a way to abuse a term or misunderstand a function for what it's not. we on headfi do it all year long, so why not the marketing guys who by definition are paid to be able to sell sand in the desert?


----------



## cel4145

And let's not forget that Sony continued to use Sony Memory Sticks in their electronics as the primary flash memory format and sell them for exorbitant prices long after other manufacturers standardized on Compact Flash and then SD (and then micro SD). Or what about the PS Vita? Generally run $35 to $40 (or more) for a 16GB proprietary Sony memory card :eek:

So I don't think that really makes them trustworthy in the flash memory market. They have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to fleece consumers when it comes to flash memory.


----------



## SilentFrequency

bigshot said:


> How many people put faith in GM for the Corvair before Ralph Nader put out Unsafe At Any Speed?
> 
> Brand is no guarantee of quality. Someone who doesn't understand what they are buying and puts faith in brand names are lazy.




I'm not sure comparing automobile safety ( I googled GM Corvair) with a micro sdxc card is a good equation to label people as lazy but I understand your point to a degree so to speak.


----------



## wink

There is no such thing as audio myths, they're subjective experiences.. That's why we have YMMV.


----------



## StanD

wink said:


> There is no such thing as audio myths, they're subjective experiences.. That's why we have YMMV.


 
 Ask the Bunyip if he prefers the Pono.


----------



## castleofargh

wink said:


> There is no such thing as audio myths, they're subjective experiences.. That's why we have YMMV.


 

 but even subjectivity has its limits. when you try to force others to accept you reality, it's not subjective anymore, it's propaganda and delusions.
 -"the voices aren't real, there are only you and me in that room" said the doctor.
 -"but they're real, they're telling me to buy a silver power cable!" replied the man in straitjacket.
  
 if the guy didn't try to convince so many people about his voices, he would still be living his life without a care in the world. from my point of view it's the same in audio, if the guys weren't trying so hard to convince others about their placebo and claims that contradict any rational experiment, we wouldn't feel the need to tell them how sick they are.
 subjective stuff should stay personal. while objective ones can be shared because of how they can be reproduced by anybody.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> but even subjectivity has its limits. when you try to force others to accept you reality, it's not subjective anymore, it's propaganda and delusions.
> -"the voices aren't real, there are only you and me in that room" said the doctor.
> -"but they're real, they're telling me to buy a silver power cable!" replied the man in straitjacket.
> 
> ...


 
 My neighbor's dog told me to buy a silver USB cable. "It would increase the soundstage and extend the bass further," or so he said.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree - there are distinct lines between "subjective reality" "objective reality" and "just plain lies" - at least some of the time.
  
 Whether a $200 bottle of Sauvignon Blanc "really" tastes better than a $2 jug of Mad Dog is subjective - because, while we all agree that they aren't the same, it's just possible that one of us may like the $2 bottle better (and, in fact, which one is better is a matter of opinion). However, if I take a single $2 bottle of wine and pour half of it into an empty bottle with a fancy label on it, then the fact that the wine is _exactly the same_ is no longer subjective. We can have a lively discussion about whether one of us thinks it tastes different when poured out of the fancy bottle, but saying that the wine itself is different is just plain not true.
  
 Likewise, it's a fair subjective question about whether the tiny differences in distortion and noise between two high quality amplifiers are audible and, if so, which is better - but, if we actually subtract the outputs of both and get nothing at all, then we've proven that they are _not_ different, in which case we can't (rationally) continue discussing the differences that aren't there.
  
 In the case of subtle claimed differences between things like cables, while I tend to agree that some tests can be misleading, at the very least I expect the person making the claim to be able to demonstrate that a difference exists that _they_ can demonstrate. If someone insists that they can hear a difference between otherwise identical silver and copper interconnects, then I'm mot especially interested in how many people, or what percentage of the people tested, can hear a difference what percentage of the time. But, if you want me to even listen to your claim, then I do expect you to show that _at least one person_ can reliably hear a difference.
  
 If you claim that there's an obvious difference, yet even you can't reliably tell which is which in a double blind test, then I am forced to consider that the most likely explanation is that you were either imagining that you heard a difference - or you're just plain lying.
  
 If even one person out of a room of 500 can reliably tell which is which, then you have proven that there is a difference. However, if out of those 500 people, NOBODY can reliably tell the difference, beyond what they would be expected to get right if they just plain guess, then you have failed to provide any evidence that lends credibility to your claim. And, in the real world, when someone makes a claim, but has nothing whatsoever to back it up, we generally ignore them - or tell them to come back when they have some sort of evidence to prove that their claim is even worth thinking about.
  
 I don't doubt that the guy in the straightjacket thinks silver wires sound better, but he also thinks he's Napoleon, and I have about as much reason to believe he's right about one as the other... so I probably have better things to do with my time than investigate either of his claims...  
 Quote:


castleofargh said:


> but even subjectivity has its limits. when you try to force others to accept you reality, it's not subjective anymore, it's propaganda and delusions.
> -"the voices aren't real, there are only you and me in that room" said the doctor.
> -"but they're real, they're telling me to buy a silver power cable!" replied the man in straitjacket.
> 
> ...


----------



## OddE

Wow. The Ultima Mat mentioned in the 24 vs 16 bit thread comes with marketing blurb which is way over the top - even by the standards of the most -ahem- esoteric of audio kit suppliers.
  
 It would be interesting to report them to the Better Business Bureau and see what happened; presumably US legislation on marketing is a bit more lax than here in Norway, but basically - most of their description of what the mat is and does would, strictly speaking, be illegal around here.
  
 Matter of fact, the only parts of the description which would pass muster is the claim that it is 20% of the thickness of a CD (if true, obviously) and the price.


----------



## jodgey4

If someone can make money off of idiot audiophiles, I say, more power to them (through cyro-treated silver cables breathed on by hippogriffs, of course)!


----------



## analogsurviver

odde said:


> Wow. The Ultima Mat mentioned in the 24 vs 16 bit thread comes with marketing blurb which is way over the top - even by the standards of the most -ahem- esoteric of audio kit suppliers.
> 
> It would be interesting to report them to the Better Business Bureau and see what happened; presumably US legislation on marketing is a bit more lax than here in Norway, but basically - most of their description of what the mat is and does would, strictly speaking, be illegal around here.
> 
> Matter of fact, the only parts of the description which would pass muster is the claim that it is 20% of the thickness of a CD (if true, obviously) and the price.


 
 Hmmmm.
  
 Now, I am REALLY interested why you think the Ultima mat mentioned is something it would be illegal in Norway.
  
 I have not been aware of its existence till yesterday - BUT it ticks one important box other CD mats do not. And that is being conductive on the side that comes in contact with the label side of the CD - preventing static buildup on the CD, which is better solution than any antistatic product yet made for the CD. These discharge the CD prior to the playback and can do absolutely nothing to prevent it getting charged again during up to 80 minutes of playback. Last time I checked, CD works by rotating the disc, and that means friction - which is used in the lowest grade of school to show  how by rubbing two electrically non conductive objects develop electrical charge. I do not believe you have never experienced static charge on the CD during its removal from the drawer after the playback.
  
 I, too, find the price of the Ultima mat steep. However, if it actually does what it claims, that is to say keeps the CD static charge free for the duration of the playback, that gives it an edge - and hey, this has become, for the largest part, a capitalist society on the global scale. And they would be foolish not to charge for what it seems to be #1 product of its kind on the market. No different than anything else.
  
 I do not subscribe to the practice of discharging the CD of its electrical charge by lightly pressing it between two sheets of kitchen aluminium foil - not because I could not hear the difference this makes to the sound, but since I absolutely do not want to put any unnecessary scratches to the playing surface - we all know what these cause, specially in the long run. My CDs and CD-Rs are handled with care and are all in mint condition - and I will keep it that way. Now, there is a mat that adds electrostatic discharge, for the duration of the playback to boot - what is there not to like, except the price ?
  
 The sonic benefits of CD mat(s) are real. And they work correctly with the products they are intended to be used with. If there is something fishy and worth taking to the Better Business Bureau, it is the audio cable manufacturers - or more specifically, the use of exotic cables in cases they actually degrade the performance. Not every change in sound is for the positive - I will limit myself here to the exotic phono interconnect cables, some of which tend to be of too high capacitance and poor shielding and no doubt change the sound - and no doubt for the worse. Again, there are GREAT phono cables - or better said - WERE. People would not be paying MORE for the used cables than they went for new - for no reason. Ebay prices of any product are the true indicator whether anything has stood the test of time - or not.
 There is one particular discontinued phono cable that ALWAYS sparks a bidding war - whenever it comes up for sale. For a VERY GOOD reason.
  
 You will NEVER find a CD mat that will make the performance of the CD player worse ( except in those cases that prevent its use OR in extremely rare case the clamping mechanism of the CD player can not deal with the additional 0.3 or so mm thickness of the mat ).
  
 The only problematic aspect of this CD mat business is - pricing. How, in some cases, printing the name/brand/model on basically the same product can triple or more
 the price to the public IS beyond my comprehension.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

odde said:


> Wow. The Ultima Mat mentioned in the 24 vs 16 bit thread comes with marketing blurb which is way over the top - even by the standards of the most -ahem- esoteric of audio kit suppliers.
> 
> It would be interesting to report them to the Better Business Bureau and see what happened; presumably US legislation on marketing is a bit more lax than here in Norway, but basically - most of their description of what the mat is and does would, strictly speaking, be illegal around here.
> 
> Matter of fact, the only parts of the description which would pass muster is the claim that it is 20% of the thickness of a CD (if true, obviously) and the price.


 
  
The Ultimate Evolution in CD Mats...  
 ,,,16-bit/44.1K recordings will resemble 24-bit/192K recordings.... don't they already? 
  
 CD IS THE EVIL OF SOUND!!! power to the Turntables and to HD? sound!!!!!! 128-bit/2048K is the Future....


----------



## OddE

analogsurviver said:


> Now, I am REALLY interested why you think the Ultima mat mentioned is something it would be illegal in Norway.


 
  
 -The core idea in the Norwegian legislation on marketing is that claims made need to be verifiably true (Now, claiming that something 'may' provide some beneficial effect or that 'some claim...' it provides same is OK.)
  
 What shoots the Ultima Mat firmly north of the wall is claims like 'has improved bass articulation' and 'has improved high frequency linearity' which are both easily measured and verified - and it would surprise me big time if they were able to produce any such documentation.
  
 The gobbledegook on the subtle improvements gained by aligning the mat with the (arbitrarily printed) label would probably pass; as would most of the pseudo-science; what does them in is the hard, precise claims that the mat can do something which would blow digital signal theory out of the water if it indeed worked as advertised.
  
 As for static buildup in the disc - even if the mat should in fact convert static buildup to heat faster than the disc itself could - why would it be significant? (This is not a rhetorical question; I am genuinely curious) - the disc is, after all, being read optically.
  
 Oh, and I agree that CDs (well, any media) should be handled carefully to remain as pristine as possible and that the lower circle of hell is reserved for high-end cable salesmen.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

odde said:


> As for static buildup in the disc - even if the mat should in fact convert static buildup to heat faster than the disc itself could - why would it be significant? (This is not a rhetorical question; I am genuinely curious) - the disc is, after all, being read optically.


 

  
 I am curious to....


----------



## analogsurviver

odde said:


> -The core idea in the Norwegian legislation on marketing is that claims made need to be verifiably true (Now, claiming that something 'may' provide some beneficial effect or that 'some claim...' it provides same is OK.)
> 
> What shoots the Ultima Mat firmly north of the wall is claims like 'has improved bass articulation' and 'has improved high frequency linearity' which are both easily measured and verified - and it would surprise me big time if they were able to produce any such documentation.
> 
> ...


 
 I see.
  
 Trouble is - CD mats DO improve sound much the same way as described for the Ultima. And no, measurements (so far) could not find anything conclusive - but listening will leave no doubt whatsoever. If you can hear ( disc played real time, not ripping for x times longer than the recording, in order to get good reading result ) it but science can not (yet) provide meaningful measurement(s) that would officially back up the claims - what does the (Norwegian) legislation say then in such a case ? 
  
 Regarding electrostatics in CD replay - it can attract dust particles to disc and transport (obviously not beneficial ) - and even without any dust (impossible in real life ), eliminating statics does have positive effects on sonics. Some of the claims can be read about here (never seen or heard it in real life ):
  http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0213/orb_audio_sakura_destat.htm
 If you still play vinyl, you might have Zerostat or similar anti static gun - this works in a pinch. And the mentioned method of gently pressing the CD between one folded sheet of kitchen aluminium foil will also do the trick - with the reservation of possible _*slight*_ damage to recorded side ( FAR lower than by simply (re)placing the disc to and from some of the atrocious packagings CD case designers are bombarding us with - OK, for aesthetic reasons OK, but I place the CDs from ANY "design" case to normal CD jewel case - and that together with original case takes twice the place required for storage.
  
 What can I say - use your ears. Or better - your spouse's. Women generally hear better than men - and are, USUALLY, NOT preconditioned with notions how something should sound - almost total lack of expectation bias.
  
 Now, don't spoil the experiment by calling her to bring the kitchen aluminium foil to the listening room - go and get it yourself, so that she can't see what you will be doing. For hard the core ABXers - BLINDFOLD HER ! 
  

 And play her favourite CD as usual - and then discharged. If your CD tray is plastic - and you own antistatic gun - "zap" that one too ... - SLOWLY. Rapid "zapping" any of the antistatic guns produces arcing and achieves exactly opposite from the desired result - take note.
  
 I am curious what the ladies will have to say...
  
 DISCLAIMER :
 The cost of kitchen aluminium foil required is below 10 cents - and I am not affiliated with any of the vendors, mines etc, involved to produce the said foil.


----------



## Phishin Phool

What good will cd-mats and other voo-doo do for me when I am still unable to block the gravitational effects of the moon which I am certain must be affecting the shape of the sound waves travelling to my ear. When are they going to get a fix on that??


----------



## OddE

analogsurviver said:


> Trouble is - CD mats DO improve sound much the same way as described for the Ultima. And no, measurements (so far) could not find anything conclusive - but listening will leave no doubt whatsoever. If you can hear ( disc played real time, not ripping for x times longer than the recording, in order to get good reading result ) it but science can not (yet) provide meaningful measurement(s) that would officially back up the claims - what does the (Norwegian) legislation say then in such a case ?


 
  
 -The Marketing Control Act is pretty clear on that issue; here's section 3:
  
_"Documentation shall be available to substantiate factual claims made in marketing, including as to the properties or effect of products. The documentation shall be in the possession of the advertiser at the time that the marketing takes place."_
  
 So, short version - unless you have proof it works as you claim, making the claim in a marketing context is illegal. Now, lawyers can (and probably do!) argue what both 'documentation', 'substantiate', 'properties' or 'effect' really mean - but if the act is to carry any weight, the requirements for the documentation must be quite stringent.
  
 The workaround is to include blurb from 'satisfied customers' and let them make the more outlandish claims.
  
 Oh, and I do have an antistat mat for my turntable - that is a quite different cup of tea.
  
 Obviously, static attracts dust - but then again, as long as there is not enough dust build-up to fool the two-layered error correction embedded in the CD track into interpolation, there really shouldn't be any audible difference to my closed mind.
  
 Now, the missus is an engineer and a skeptic, but I could try the experiment on a colleague who is firmly in what I somewhat tongue-in-cheekly call the faith-based audiophile camp - he'll probably WANT to hear a difference; I do agree that with my initial bias, I'd probably be inclined to not hear any difference at all even if there was one.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

The Power Of Imagination...
  
 Every time I power on my audio system the sound gets better... all the time... every day its getting better... I love it...
  
 has it changed over time? maybe... or maybe not... one fact is known, it's getting older... maybe older is better...


----------



## MacacoDoSom

enhanced image dimensionality and transient clarity. The noise floor was blacker and deeper, as if layers of grunge were being washed away.
  
 $350


----------



## analogsurviver

odde said:


> -The Marketing Control Act is pretty clear on that issue; here's section 3:
> 
> _"Documentation shall be available to substantiate factual claims made in marketing, including as to the properties or effect of products. The documentation shall be in the possession of the advertiser at the time that the marketing takes place."_
> 
> ...


 
 Thank you for the clarification - good to know.
  
 You mentioned yourself the two-layered error correction embedded into CD track - both mat and antistatic treatment of CD (integrated in that super duper mat...) try as hard as possible that this does not get forced into interpolation. Here "better, more delineated bass , extended treble, etc" originate from. By reducing if not completely eliminating this error correction to be triggered. Not from some voodoo.
  
 Ok, as your missus falls into UNUSUAL category ( which still does not preclude her as being a possible candidate for the test ), you can try your faith-based colleague - but DON'T tell him what will be compared - just ask him what version, if any, sounds preferable to him. Blind or blindfolded testing still applies, of course.


----------



## Phishin Phool

macacodosom said:


> enhanced image dimensionality and transient clarity. The noise floor was blacker and deeper, as if layers of grunge were being washed away.
> 
> $350


 
 Thank you - the check is in the mail.
 Somewhere in heaven the inventor of the pet rock is smiling.


----------



## Roly1650

odde said:


> -The Marketing Control Act is pretty clear on that issue; here's section 3:
> 
> _"Documentation shall be available to substantiate factual claims made in marketing, including as to the properties or effect of products. The documentation shall be in the possession of the advertiser at the time that the marketing takes place."_
> 
> ...


 
Wouldn't there also be the more fundamental issue of how a static charge can build up in a cd while being played? There is no contact whatsoever so what is rubbing against what to induce static? And how could the cd and whatever it's rubbing against survive the process for any more than a limited number of plays? 

I found with vinyl, where there is physical contact, that an increase in humidity local to the turntable was as effective as anything at combating static. That can be achieved with a free pot and some free water! The Watts Parastatik used much the same principle, a wet foam inner surrounded by an open cell foam outer with microfiber cover. Very effective. A local ionic fan can also do the same thing, but cd's, I don't know, can't say I've ever noticed any static build up after play and I get zapped by all sorts of things, even a bed frame, so I've got this filed under bogus.


----------



## KeithEmo

Here in the US, our "truth in advertising" enforcement is based to a large extent on "damage" or "risk of harm". We do have specific requirements that are enforced about claims on food, and on medicine, and about the safety of consumer products, but on other types of claims you usually need some sort of claim that someone got hurt or cheated because of the false or misleading information. It is also usually necessary to prove that actual false information was (deliberately) provided and, furthermore, that some person or group is interested enough to file complaints and encourage the government to actually take action.
  
 I looked at the description of that mat (which I agree isn't very likely to improve a digital signal), and I didn't see any specific claims that could be proven to be deliberate lies. They didn't say it lowers THD, or reduces the BERT errors on a disc; instead they made vague claims like "makes imaging more holographic" - which would be pretty hard to disprove (or to prove) because there is no measurement that I am aware of for "how holographic it is" - and the opinions of any number of listeners, without measurements to back them up, are just opinions.  They made a bunch of claims that, while they sound "good", can't be proven or disproven... so they're basically safe from being "legally caught actually lying". In fact, I'm sure they do have testimonials from gullible customers claiming that they do indeed hear a difference. At that point, it's more like claiming that your make the best tasting soda in the world..... it's not a lie but merely an "un-fact".
  
 Beyond even that, however, there is no "interested party" out there who would apply pressure to the government to even investigate those claims. (If there was a competitor who made mats that actually did make a difference, then they might pressure the government to investigate the false claims of their competitor. If it were a choking hazard to small children, or gave off toxic vapors that might reasonably poison someone, any number of government agencies would investigate. However, as it sits now, our government agencies share the sentiments of one poster here: "It really doesn't matter if a company takes advantage of a few gullible audiophiles; caveat emptor.") Now, if they had sold a bunch of their mats to people based on those false claims, then those people had sued them for "false advertising", then you would have a case. However, I assume they were smart enough to cheerfully refund the money of their dissatisfied customers, which leaves only satisfied customers. (So in fact there's nobody left to claim that they were cheated out of money because of the false claims.... so "no harm was done".)
  
 Unfortunately, it's even more insidious than that. Once you offer a consumer their money back if they're not satisfied, a certain "mental logic" kicks in, where they think "It must work. If it didn't work, then everybody would send it back." This, in turn, makes them more biased to believe that a difference must exist - and so to be more likely to imagine that they hear a difference even where none exists.)
  
 Quote:


odde said:


> Wow. The Ultima Mat mentioned in the 24 vs 16 bit thread comes with marketing blurb which is way over the top - even by the standards of the most -ahem- esoteric of audio kit suppliers.
> 
> It would be interesting to report them to the Better Business Bureau and see what happened; presumably US legislation on marketing is a bit more lax than here in Norway, but basically - most of their description of what the mat is and does would, strictly speaking, be illegal around here.
> 
> Matter of fact, the only parts of the description which would pass muster is the claim that it is 20% of the thickness of a CD (if true, obviously) and the price.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> I see.
> 
> Trouble is - CD mats DO improve sound much the same way as described for the Ultima. And no, measurements (so far) could not find anything conclusive - but listening will leave no doubt whatsoever. If you can hear ( disc played real time, not ripping for x times longer than the recording, in order to get good reading result ) it but science can not (yet) provide meaningful measurement(s) that would officially back up the claims - what does the (Norwegian) legislation say then in such a case ?




When you say "listening will leave no doubt whatsoever," you mean ABX testing? I bet not. 

And yes. A disc could be played in "real time" over a digital connection to a computer, saved, and the digital signal could could be compared with and without the mat.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> When you say "listening will leave no doubt whatsoever," you mean ABX testing? I bet not.
> 
> And yes. A disc could be played in "real time" over a digital connection to a computer, saved, and the digital signal could could be compared with and without the mat.


 
 Yes, I DO mean ABX testing - and have promised in 24bit thread - at dealer's, he is going to test me, I test him. ASAP, hopefully within a week, when he has the first "hole" in the schedule. 
  
 But at this proposition, all I heard at first from him over the phone was laughter, then he tried to persuade me it is a complete loss of time ( I agree - wholeheartedly so ) - only when I explained it to him that nothing else might convince you Doubting Thomases, he grundgedly agreed. 
  
 The things I do for love science : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF-eWkKMBns
  
 And I will upload a few CD rips with and without the mat, limited to 30 seconds, as I want you to know exactly which commercially pressed CD  was ripped (all the numbers...)  but limitation in time is to avoid copyright etc problems. It would be easier for me to upload the whole track.
  
 My PC does not have S/PDIF input to be fed from the regular CD player - which would be the best way to do. I will use Yamaha CRW-F1E external burner connected trough USB for ripping.


----------



## wakibaki

analogsurviver said:


> But at this proposition, all I heard at first from him over the phone was laughter, then he tried to persuade me it is a complete loss of time ( I agree - wholeheartedly so ) - only when I explained it to him that nothing else might convince you Doubting Thomases, he grundgedly agreed.


 
  
 So you and this person are going to achieve an unbiased result?
  
 Don't even bother. Just lie, it'll be a lot less trouble.


----------



## analogsurviver

wakibaki said:


> So you and this person are going to achieve an unbiased result?
> 
> Don't even bother. Just lie, it'll be a lot less trouble.


 
 Yes - because both know how a CD sounds without and with CD mat. And I have blindfolds (some 3-4 of them) for such cases - for years.
  
 No, I do not lie. And I do not intend to change that - ever.
  
 He laughed for a good reason. HE laughed at me when I first presented him with the idea that a CD mat could make a lick of a difference ...- that was some 7 years ago.
  
 You will be able to download those rips, named TrackXa and TrackXb and compare them all by yourselves - and after a reasonable time, I will reveal the statistics.
  
 You will outnumber us two by X:2 ratio anyway...


----------



## bigshot

Are you just going from thread to thread talking about CD mats? Honestly, give it a break.


----------



## OddE

roly1650 said:


> Wouldn't there also be the more fundamental issue of how a static charge can build up in a cd while being played? There is no contact whatsoever so what is rubbing against what to induce static?


 
  
 -Air. (Yup, that'll do. Not in any significant way, that is - but a CD could conceivably receive a static charge simply by being spun in air. (Though I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the spindle was grounded just in case, anyway.)


----------



## analogsurviver

odde said:


> -Air. (Yup, that'll do. Not in any significant way, that is - but a CD could conceivably receive a static charge simply by being spun in air. (Though I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the spindle was grounded just in case, anyway.)


 
 ditto.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Are you just going from thread to thread talking about CD mats? Honestly, give it a break.


 
 I only posted abot the mat here because it was quoted by another member.
  
 I will upload the promised rips in a few days, but before my own blind test over at dealer's - in 24 bit thread.
  
 Sayonara till then.


----------



## bigshot

You got the 24 bit thread locked. Why don't you create a new thread just for your commentary?


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> You got the 24 bit thread locked. Why don't you create a new thread just for your commentary?


 
 Time to make a new 24bit thread. Call it "Hires or Not" to confuse the Admins.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> You got the 24 bit thread locked. Why don't you create a new thread just for your commentary?


 
 24bit thread - locked ?
  
 I have opened it after your post here - and locked indeed it is. 
  
 It was not my intention - not at all.
  
 Then again, I did not try to ridicule other members. Merely tried to present things as I see and hear it - it did not materialise overnight. And share the experience. 
  
 Just because something is not comprehensible to others, this does not necessary mean it is trolling. As stated numerous times, sound is NOT something you can 100% squeeze into a computer and recreate exactly the same on another part of the globe. Maybe some day, but that day definitely has not yet arrived.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> 24bit thread - locked ?
> 
> I have opened it after your post here - and locked indeed it is.
> 
> ...


 
 Didn't you just say, "Sayonara till then." Get to work and post back when you've finally done your deed.
 We've had enough of mats for now, you don't need to keep it going because someone else posted something. We've heard your thoughts on this to no end.


----------



## Roly1650

odde said:


> -Air. (Yup, that'll do. Not in any significant way, that is - but a CD could conceivably receive a static charge simply by being spun in air. (Though I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the spindle was grounded just in case, anyway.)



Possible I suppose, but taking the analogy from high speed vehicles traveling in air, which I would think is similar, the friction between the air and whatever results in heat, not static electricity. Also, as you say, the main spindle is metal and likely grounded by mechanical means inherent in the design. Also, the cd does have a conductive layer, however thin, in its construction. And again, I'll repeat I've never seen any evidence of static in a cd after play, maybe I've been lucky.


----------



## Phishin Phool

analogsurviver said:


> 24bit thread - locked ?
> 
> I have opened it after your post here - and locked indeed it is.
> 
> ...


 
 You may not be able to get an exact re-creation but I believe you can get one so close that the difference is beyond anybody's perception (auditory) capabilities. I can create an eye chart or ototype that exceeds 20/8 resolution with different characters or letters but even if I do so that is beyond the capability of human sight discrimination so essentially meaningless.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

one question I ask, why buy CDs and CD mats, why don't you just buy files... problem solved!
 (maybe there is some voodoo for PCs and DAPs, like DAP mats and Tunning Dots, have to google it... If someone knows about it I would like to ear)


----------



## StanD

macacodosom said:


> one question I ask, why buy CDs and CD mats, why don't you just buy files... problem solved!
> (maybe there is some voodoo for PCs and DAPs, like DAP mats and Tunning Dots, have to google it... If someone knows about it I would like to ear)


 
 Place a bulb of garlic on your keyboard.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, I DO mean ABX testing - and have promised in 24bit thread - at dealer's, he is going to test me, I test him. ASAP, hopefully within a week, when he has the first "hole" in the schedule.
> 
> But at this proposition, all I heard at first from him over the phone was laughter, then he tried to persuade me it is a complete loss of time ( I agree - wholeheartedly so ) - only when I explained it to him that nothing else might convince you Doubting Thomases, he grundgedly agreed.
> 
> The things I do for love science : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF-eWkKMBns







wakibaki said:


> So you and this person are going to achieve an unbiased result?
> 
> Don't even bother. Just lie, it'll be a lot less trouble.




Agreed. Yours and your dealer's attitude don't actually inspire much confidence that the ABX protocol will be followed. 



analogsurviver said:


> And I will upload a few CD rips with and without the mat, limited to 30 seconds, as I want you to know exactly which commercially pressed CD  was ripped (all the numbers...)  but limitation in time is to avoid copyright etc problems. It would be easier for me to upload the whole track.




That will be interesting. If you and the dealer find there is a difference in ABX testing, if you would like to prove it to others, maybe the way to go is to have the dealer open up a thread here on Head-Fi for sharing a CD mat. Let various head-fi members use it and pass it on to other members. Or, since the CD mat is so expensive, see if Innerfidelity or Audioholics would review it and make such files available for download.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

I've tried it but it smells a bit... I use KEYBOARD MAT, (I've created it myself, not patented yet, but I'll sell it to friends at $1500, special price) it reduces the reflections of the light so they don't interfere with the sound (among other stuff) hearing is believing...
  
 The only problem with it is that I cannot write properly in this forum... but I still can read it... I will try a SCREEN MAT, to further improve my marvelous sound system...


----------



## StanD

So what's next? Phrenology and how it can be used to determine the quality of our perception?
 Here's a good one, you can never have enough wattage.


----------



## jodgey4

This thread is unbelievable some (most) days... ayyyyyyyyy


----------



## MacacoDoSom

AudioQuest NRG WEL Signature AC Power Cable 3m - £9,225.00 ($13771.22)
  
 't was never William E. Low's intention to create a signature series in as much as the line created itself. As anyone who has ever birthed something from the ground up knows, things have the tendency to take on lives of their own. Inspiration becomes the compass which sets the direction we follow. WEL Signature Speaker cable is a 30 plus year culmination of our best materials and techniques, combined with the sensitivity and refinement that only comes when someone loves music and appreciates the objectivity of uncolored, undistorted sound.'
  
 'The negative conductors in WEL Signature AC are insulated with partially conductive Carbon-Loaded Polyethylene. This remarkable material damps radio-frequency garbage from being fed back into the amplifier. The sonic benefit is exactly the same reduction in “hash” and better dimensionality that comes whenever RF garbage is reduced in an audio circuit. WEL Signature AC uses Foamed-Polyethylene Insulation on its positive conductors because air absorbs next to no energy, and Polyethylene is low-loss and has a benign distortion profile. Thanks to all the air in Foamed-PE, it causes much less of the out-of-focus effect common to other materials.'
  
 'WEL Signature AC power cables have an inner circular array of positive conductors spiraling in one direction. Around this inner group, are the negative conductors, spiraling in the opposite direction. Even while the positive and negative conductors are crossing each other instead of being parallel, the relationship between the positive and negative groups is fixed and non-changing, adhering to one of AudioQuest’s most basic design tenets: consistency. The result is an astonishing clarity, like focusing a camera lens you had no idea was so far out of focus.'
  
 'The result is an astonishing clarity, like focusing a camera lens you had no idea was so far out of focus.'
 'The result is an astonishing clarity, like focusing a camera lens you had no idea was so far out of focus.'
 'The result is an astonishing clarity, like focusing a camera lens you had no idea was so far out of focus.'
 'The result is an astonishing clarity, like focusing a camera lens you had no idea was so far out of focus.'
  
 THIS IS A POWER CABLE!
  
 one of the best items to have an audiogasm...


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Just because something is not comprehensible to others, this does not necessary mean it is trolling.


 
  
 You are overpowering the discussion and shutting it down. If you aren't intending to troll, you should carefully read a few replies, not for content but for the effect you are creating, and decide if that is the effect you are trying to have on the thread. If it isn't, you might want to rethink your approach to the discussion.
  
 And to the people replying, this is one of the most important threads in this forum. If you haven't read the first post in this thread, go back and read it. This thread shouldn't be locked. It would be a bloody shame if it was. Everyone should stop feeding the "incomprehensible".


----------



## StanD

How much wattage do you really need?
 Let's pick the venerable HD600 for the case study.

300 Ohms
Sensitivity of 97 dB/mW
120 dBSPL requires 199.6 mW
  
 Who really needs a peak over 120 dbSPL?
 Do you even need that much?
 A Schiit Asgard 2 can almost make it to 123 dbSPL continuous.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bigshot said:


> You are overpowering the discussion and shutting it down. If you aren't intending to troll, you should carefully read a few replies, not for content but for the effect you are creating, and decide if that is the effect you are trying to have on the thread. If it isn't, you might want to rethink your approach to the discussion.
> 
> And to the people replying, this is one of the most important threads in this forum. If you haven't read the first post in this thread, go back and read it. This thread shouldn't be locked. It would be a bloody shame if it was. Everyone should stop feeding the "incomprehensible".


 
  
 I think you are absolutely right, for my part I'll stop it... I will not trow any more wood to the fire! sorry... this was a really nice thread, until...


----------



## MacacoDoSom

stand said:


> How much wattage do you really need?
> Let's pick the venerable HD600 for the case study.
> 
> 300 Ohms
> ...


 
 this was about?


----------



## StanD

macacodosom said:


> this was about?


 
 The myth about *one can never have enough wattage*. Or it scales with even more power. I run across this often enough on the forums.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

seriously?


----------



## StanD

macacodosom said:


> seriously?


 
 Seriously what? You prefer mats?
 There's always harping about needing wattage far beyond any possible benefit.


----------



## manbear

stand said:


> Seriously what? You prefer mats?
> There's always harping about needing wattage far beyond any possible benefit.




+1

Someone is always harping about how "orthos need current" without ever specifying how much.


----------



## jodgey4

Well, the current thing is basically == moar power in general, because of the lower impedances of ortho models.


----------



## StanD

manbear said:


> +1
> 
> Someone is always harping about how "orthos need current" without ever specifying how much.


 
 Yes, that's a popular one. When I show them the math, they still insist upon it. Most people don't understand the different aspects of DR.

What is recorded and possible to reproduce.
The use of Volume Compressors and Limiters in the studio.
Ambient noise levels and how that figures in.
How much headroom does one really need?
  
 Here's a link that shows common ambient noise levels. Scroll down a little.
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TableOfSoundPressureLevels.htm


----------



## StanD

jodgey4 said:


> Well, the current thing is basically == moar power in general, because of the lower impedances of ortho models.


 
 It also has to do with sensitivity as well. 1W is enough for the HE-500's, yet some people insist that it needs several watts, they typically use the HE-6 as an example in the context of all orthos.


----------



## manbear

jodgey4 said:


> Well, the current thing is basically == moar power in general, because of the lower impedances of ortho models.




Yes, but it just seems to me like people are more irrational about current than voltage. 

The HE-6 theory makes sense.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> How much wattage do you really need?
> Let's pick the venerable HD600 for the case study.
> 
> 300 Ohms
> ...


 
 You need _*enough. *_And that can vary a lot.
  
 Worst case scenario ( for headphones ) :
  
 AKG K 1000
 - 120 ohm
 - sensitivity 73 dB/mW
 - it can not take level that would push it to 120 dB , at least not in lower frequencies, even if and when amplifier is    capable of producing enough juice. Diaphragm excursion limitation - bottoming.
  
 And you can have super sensitive IEMs, that are on the opposite of the power requirements. Where main concern is amp with noise low enough not to hiss.
  
 Meant was the fact that it can not be generalized how much power is required - headphones are even more all over the chart than loudspeakers when it comes to powering.
  
 If you need 120 dB SPL capability depends on the intended use of the headphones. All I can say is that any audiophile *****footing regarding loudness/dynamic range/bass was shattered the moment I tried to monitor grand piano with headphones that are otherwise audiophile darling. At the same level as piano heard live.
  
 Basically, they distorted and bottomed in lower octaves - big time. Could not possibly match the piano heard live - even given infinite power. And I was listening a few metres away from the piano, not at the piano.
  
 If your overconcern for hearing safety was right, all pianists would have gone deaf before general public would ever notice them.   The 120 dB peaks exist in acoustic music, but are over so quick that we do not perceive them as loud. It can be as brief as few miliseconds - but you would hear it if it was clipped or compressed. Anyone genuinly concerned about hearing safety should go and see the thread dedicated to it, where it is nicely revealed which levels at which durations are to be avoided. 
  
 Far greater danger to hearing represent recordings with close to zero DR, playing at average 90 dB, than a high DR recording peaking at 120 dB in the duration of about one or two seconds per hour and average being around 70 dB.
  
 If you worry too much regarding noise levels - an average car at say 120 km/ on motorway is approx 80 dB in the cabin - for hours. Should now all stop driving ?


----------



## KeithEmo

Exactly....
  
 When I RIP a CD, my ripping software verifies the results by comparing a checksum of the actual numbers it read to one stored in a database. If the result matches the database, then my RIP is _identical_ to RIPS of the same CD performed by several other people. It's not "sort of the same" and it won't "maybe be better if I try it a few more times". Every single number is the same. If adding a mat doesn't change the numbers, then they will still be correct (and identical); in which case they cannot sound different when I play those two files. If it changes the numbers, and I get different numbers, and my original numbers were correct, then the new and different numbers must be _WRONG_. And, if you compare those two files, and they are the same, then there is simply no possible reason for them to sound different - unless you believe in magic.
  
 When you play a CD directly from a CD player into a DAC, the digital audio "signal" is made up of numbers and a clock. At this point both the clock and the numbers are important. If the mat were somehow capable of helping the player deliver those same numbers, but improved the quality of the clock - perhaps by reducing jitter, then it could _possibly_ produce an audible improvement in sound. (However, if you know how the circuitry inside a CD player works, then you would understand why this is also rather unlikely.) However, this is simply not true for digital audio that is ripped to a _FILE_ - because only the numbers are stored in the file. The clock, whether good, bad, or better, is discarded at this point, and a new one is created when the file is played.
  
 Quote:


cel4145 said:


> When you say "listening will leave no doubt whatsoever," you mean ABX testing? I bet not.
> 
> And yes. A disc could be played in "real time" over a digital connection to a computer, saved, and the digital signal could could be compared with and without the mat.


 
  
 I have a proposal for you to present to your dealer... who is quite certain that there is an obvious difference...
  
 You will RIP the same CD ten times, half with the mat and half without; name the file you get each time ( "01-testtrack.wav" "02-testtrack.wav" etc) and keep track of which is which in a list.
 Now, give those ten files to your dealer - MINUS THE LIST, and ask him to tell you which five were done with the mat.
 He can play them on whatever equipment he likes (since it's the files themselves we're comparing).
 If the difference is real and obvious, he should have no trouble telling which files were done with the mat - ten times out of ten - right?
 If he gets nine out of ten correct you pay him double.
 If he gets less than nine out of ten right, then he gives you the mat, buys you dinner, and apologizes.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> You need _*enough. *_And that can vary a lot.
> 
> Worst case scenario ( for headphones ) :
> 
> ...


 
 We can always count on you for BS and going out of context. Super sensitive IEMs are totally out of context so I have no idea why you even brought that up.. I already brought up the misused example of the HE-6,so you had to find another. Very few headphones need gobs of power and most people will never ever need much.
 Nothing is recorded and distributed as playable product that has the DR you're going on about. You can imagine that all you want but it ain't happening.
 Try to stay in context.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Agreed. Yours and your dealer's attitude don't actually inspire much confidence that the ABX protocol will be followed.
> That will be interesting. If you and the dealer find there is a difference in ABX testing, if you would like to prove it to others, maybe the way to go is to have the dealer open up a thread here on Head-Fi for sharing a CD mat. Let various head-fi members use it and pass it on to other members. Or, since the CD mat is so expensive, see if Innerfidelity or Audioholics would review it and make such files available for download.


 
 OK - one morning or afternoon needlessly thrown away less - I like it. Would be put to better use.
  
 Just for the record - the mat I use and will be used for rips is this one : 
  
 http://www.ebay.de/itm/CD-Matte-BLACK-DIAMOND-High-Tech-Kohlefaser-/361259778725?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_77&hash=item541cc2c2a5
  
 I do not have that 239$ mat, I only commented it should have the advantage of keeping the disc electrostatic charge free for the duration of the playback - something that is not achievable by other means and, at least in my experience, proved to be at the very least plausible. The main purpose of the CD mat is to damp out any vibrations that occur simply trough spinning - plus whatever acoustic pickup from the loudspeakers. This function will be performed by any carbon fibre mat/disc which is sufficiently thin for the clamping mechanism of the CD player still working as intended.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> We can always count on you for BS and going out of context. Super sensitive IEMs are totally out of context so I have no idea why you even brought that up.. I already brought up the misused example of the HE-6,so you had to find another. Very few headphones need gobs of power and most people will never ever need much.
> Nothing is recorded and distributed as playable product that has the DR you're going on about. You can imagine that all you want but it ain't happening.
> Try to stay in context.


 
 And I can always count on your BS, too.
  
 I wanted to present that each one needs power _*exactly enough - or a bit headroom *_- for his or hers actual headphones - not Imaginary Average Headphone. And used two extremes to illustrate that point.
  
 You generally can not power supersensitive IEMs and inefficient orthos with the same amp - because the requirements are vastly different. There are few extremely rare exceptions, but let's keep it at that. 
  
 Now go and check some releases of Telarc and Reference recordings of classical music and see if they do not approach or exceed DR I mentioned.  Certainly they do exceed 60 dB DR.


----------



## manbear

analogsurviver said:


> If you need 120 dB SPL capability depends on the intended use of the headphones. All I can say is that any audiophile *****footing regarding loudness/dynamic range/bass was shattered the moment I tried to monitor grand piano with headphones that are otherwise audiophile darling. At the same level as piano heard live.
> 
> Basically, they distorted and bottomed in lower octaves - big time. Could not possibly match the piano heard live - even given infinite power. And I was listening a few metres away from the piano, not at the piano.
> 
> If your overconcern for hearing safety was right, all pianists would have gone deaf before general public would ever notice them.   The 120 dB peaks exist in acoustic music, but are over so quick that we do not perceive them as loud. It can be as brief as few miliseconds - but you would hear it if it was clipped or compressed.




Why does this matter to someone using commercial recordings? 

You speak as if the concerns you face when monitoring or making your own recordings should be relevant to everyone.

In case my point is not clear: I dont get distortion or clipping when listening to piano. Why does it matter if you?


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> And I can always count on your BS, too.
> 
> I wanted to present that each one needs power _*exactly enough - or a bit headroom *_- for his or hers actual headphones - not Imaginary Average Headphone. And used two extremes to illustrate that point.
> 
> ...


 
 The point is about people claiming to need far more power than necessary for a particular set of headphones and having some magical belief that they will gain SQ/scale from it. Many amps have sensitivity switches and are low enough in noise to use with both orthos as well as sensitive IEMs. If that is one's requirement then it is readily available or they can get two amps. Some esoteric releases that nobody is interested in has little value and I would doubt that your claims of DR are real.
 I know it must be difficult for you but try to stay in context. Try not to get into tangents.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> Now go and check some releases of Telarc and Reference recordings of classical music and see if they do not approach or exceed DR I mentioned.  Certainly they do exceed 60 dB DR.


 
  
 The lowest I've seen RMS go is between -70 and -65dB (peak normalized to 0dBFS), and I have lots of Telarc and RR recordings. That's certainly well below 60 but not really pushing Redbook yet.


----------



## StanD

So lets look at the HE-500 Planar Magnetic.
 Impedance: 38 Ohms.
 Sensitivity: 89 dB/mW
  
 1W will bring it to 119 dBSPL. That means 2W will bring it to 122 dB SPL. Yet some people claim it must have 4 or 6 watts. 6W will take it to almost 127 dBSPL. In all practicality, 1W will do perfectly fine and most people will never even need that much as most people listen to music that has a fair degree of compression or volume limiting baked into the recording. Yet there is always someone preaching more wattage and gets newbies to spend money that would be best used elsewhere.


----------



## Phishin Phool

Is the need for power though always related to volume or spl? It would seem if power was the only part of the equation than all amps would sound the same which is clearly not the case. Can increased power benefit in other ways outside of volume? Such as could it require or indicate higher quality caps or components?


----------



## analogsurviver

manbear said:


> Why does this matter to someone using commercial recordings?
> 
> You speak as if the concerns you face when monitoring or making your own recordings should be relevant to everyone.


 
 It does not. I did say that capability to reach 120 dB depends on intended use - merely stated which is it.
  
 As there are cars for getting from A to B at the minimum possible cost, there are cars that aspire for the ultimate performance. 
  
 But if the public road system is being kept so low to support nothing but 90 km/h ( an approx equivalent of CD redbook ), limited in curvature of the bends, inclination, you name it - things become boring. I am not saying breaking the sound barrier belongs on the public road - nor does driving a Ferrari to its limits. For that, there are tracks - natural flats that allow it or man made circuits where such activity at least poses no danger to others.
  
 Music is different. It does have its range - in dynamics, in frequency response - which has not yet been reached by any recording. And here it is deliberately cutting corners being made specifically to accommodate certain recording format. Cut this, filter that, etc - until it "fits" into CD redbook.
  
 Every one decides which music is to his/hers liking, played at level and dynamic range of choice. No one is forcing one to do anything. But I find the opposite side who considers itself a governing body what should and not should be done a bit too much.  There is more than enough such people already - so much and stuck in each and every pore of the System that is really painful.
  
 Painful to hear one of the last living and still active pupils of Rubinstein (a pianist of course ), whose eyes started to sparkle listening to my recording of his recital. His first remark, obviously startled, was : "How well did you capture the quiet and loud parts - never heard my playing recorded like that !" The man is now in his late 60-s ... - and about half of his mastery of the command of the piano simply does not come trough on his official CDs.
  
 Sorry, not gona happen using conventional thinking, conventional equipment , conventional limiting of each and everyone who does not want to conform and be in the comfort zone of the masses. And extraordinary musicians like this pianist will never get a recording that will do his lifelong endeavour justice.
  
 I never said each and everyone should aspire to the same goals as mine.  But I have always respected a sales clerk who takes the time and trouble to show the prospective customer the whole range - not just up to the level 
 the clerk has judged the customer on the basis of the customer's clothes etc.  Even if the customer bought in the end the most bottom of the line product, that clerk has made a customer - for life. And that satisfied customer will return once financially more fit. And again. And again. Ultimately, ending buying near or at TOTL level.
  
 As regards your question why does it matter if you do not get clipping on piano and I do : first, the recording is certainly different. Second, lifelike dynamic range is more demanding than to what commercial recordings have decided to limit themselves - compression of one way or another is at play. Chances are your headphones/amp driving them to clip are certainly higher with my recording - because it is left intact.  Just as you will not go deaf from listening to piano live, you are not going to go deaf listening to my recording using headphones or speakers capable of lifelike loudness and dynamic range without excessive distortion.
  
 One compressed recording sounds like recording - one non compressed recording has a good foundation to start sounding like real music. If not hampered by the playback equipment.
  
 Clear enough ?


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> The lowest I've seen RMS go is between -70 and -65dB (peak normalized to 0dBFS), and I have lots of Telarc and RR recordings. That's certainly well below 60 but not really pushing Redbook yet.


 
 That is about normal.
  
 One thing regarding dynamic range is bothering me for some time now. It has to do with the resolution at the quiet levels.
  
 There are recordings that on meter do not record particularly high DR readings - but sound much more dynamic than DR reading suggests. Has anybody access to the US Navy study during WW II where it was allegedly shown how high _*negative *_signal to noise still allows for the positive identification of orders over radio - you read it right, how quieter can speech be compared to to the inherent noise of the radio transmission in order to be still intelligible, even if for the basic military commands.
  
 This is particularly relevant for analog recordings which, despite being marred by tape noise/hiss, do not "die" below noise and there is intelligible information below tape noise. 
  
 Please note I heave heard/read about this - looooooong ago. I do not state this a a fact, but as a possibility.


----------



## StanD

phishin phool said:


> Is the need for power though always related to volume or spl? It would seem if power was the only part of the equation than all amps would sound the same which is clearly not the case. Can increased power benefit in other ways outside of volume? Such as could it require or indicate higher quality caps or components?


 
 A good amp, of which there are many, delivers its specified power cleanly. Having more is of no value. Yes you can find some junk out there that distorts noticeably at the higher end of its range of power, but that is the realm of junk products and of no interest to us. There is no advantage or benefit of having excess power that is never tapped. Passing power through certain types of caps will introduce nonlinearities (distortion). This can be avoided by using large value quality caps, or even better, DC coupled output stages which is typical of SS amps.
 If one takes two amps with distortion levels below a human's ability to perceive it is highly unlikely that one can truly ABX a difference. It is very easy to find an amp that has distortion levels well below our ability to perceive. The audio hobby is rife with rumors, myths and flash mobs parroting unsubstantiated stories. As I stated previously, we are unable to tell the difference between 0.1% THD and 0.001% THD. In fact our ability to detect THD is well above 0.1% THD. IMO we may be better at hearing IMD than THD but amps typically outperform our capabilities by a wide margin.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> That is about normal.
> 
> One thing regarding dynamic range is bothering me for some time now. It has to do with the resolution at the quiet levels.
> 
> ...


 
 Intelligible has to do with the brain processing information which is laden with noise and many times is not complete or partially masked by noise. This has nothing to do with appreciating some hypothetical recording of music that hovers above the noise floor. Buy better recordings. You seem to spend a lot of energy looking for irrelevant stories that are not in context.


----------



## Phishin Phool

stand said:


> A good amp, of which there are many, delivers its specified power cleanly. Having more is of no value. Yes you can find some junk out there that distorts noticeably at the higher end of its range of power, but that is the realm of junk products and of no interest to us. There is no advantage or benefit of having excess power that is never tapped. Passing power through certain types of caps will introduce nonlinearities (distortion). This can be avoided by using large value quality caps, or even better, DC coupled output stages which is typical of SS amps.
> If one takes two amps with distortion levels below a human's ability to perceive it is highly unlikely that one can truly ABX a difference. It is very easy to find an amp that has distortion levels well below our ability to perceive. The audio hobby is rife with rumors, myths and flash mobs parroting unsubstantiated stories. As I stated previously, we are unable to tell the difference between 0.1% THD and 0.001% THD. In fact our ability to detect THD is well above 0.1% THD. IMO we may be better at hearing IMD than THD but amps typically outperform our capabilities by a wide margin.


 
 Thanks I wasn't trying to insinuate anything or justify anything just curious as to whether there was an advantage. I have amps that go louder than I would ever want to listen and some that don't go loud enough with certain cans and I have no idea what the output of any of them are off the top of my head and even if I did it would change based on which headphone I use as the impedance are different on each. If what I listen to sounds good to me then I am happy. I have moved far from the "I use music to listen to my equipment" to the ever so much more enjoyable "I use equipment to listen to my music." For me I am pretty much at or near end stage with my set-up as I have achieved as best I can within my budget (which is currently an HD600, Beyer990, Garage1217 tube amp and Music Hall Dac/Amp and a fiio portable on the way). Much more of my efforts and $$ have gone into my HT set-up


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> The point is about people claiming to need far more power than necessary for a particular set of headphones and having some magical belief that they will gain SQ/scale from it. Many amps have sensitivity switches and are low enough in noise to use with both orthos as well as sensitive IEMs. If that is one's requirement then it is readily available or they can get two amps. Some esoteric releases that nobody is interested in has little value and I would doubt that your claims of DR are real.
> I know it must be difficult for you but try to stay in context. Try not to get into tangents.


 
 " Some esoteric releases that nobody is interested in has little value " speaks volumes of you.
  
 RRod has confirmed > 60 dB DR - for the same esoteric releases nobody is interested in .
 That makes us at least two - more than nobody.
  
 Just because I drive "normal" or even "subnormal" car, I do not feel the need to say to those with Porsches and Ferraris and Bugattis and Koenigs that nobody is interested in such cars and that their accelerations and final speeds are doubtful to me. Despite I will most probably never travel at such speeds and accelerations.
  
 Live and let live - and have some fun from time to time (even if only on YT : but I wanted to see some really badass snowmobile - that can easily beat all the above cars - from standstill to at least 100 mph ).


----------



## cel4145

phishin phool said:


> For me I am pretty much at or near end stage with my set-up as I have achieved as best I can within my budget (which is currently an HD600, Beyer990, Garage1217 tube amp and Music Hall Dac/Amp and a fiio portable on the way). *Much more of my efforts and $$ have gone into my HT set-up*




That's so easy to do


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> " Some esoteric releases that nobody is interested in has little value " speaks volumes of you.
> 
> RRod has confirmed > 60 dB DR - for the same esoteric releases nobody is interested in .
> That makes us at least two - more than nobody.
> ...




 There you go again, another meaningless analogy. The appreciation for acceleration and enjoyment of audio are two entirely different experiences. I used to have a Mustang GT with a modified 5.0L V8 that put out 400 HP. The Holley 4BBL carb was so big that if someone fell into it they would never be found again. I really enjoyed the acceleration and heel toeing through the corners but had to be careful not to terrorize my passengers. This has nothing to do with the enjoyment of music or the topics appropriate to this thread. You keep on bringing up doubtful fringe cases that have no value.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> How much wattage do you really need?
> Let's pick the venerable HD600 for the case study.
> 
> 300 Ohms
> ...




I agree. 

But this would be greek to many people who don't know what the SPL is of their typical listening volume. So the higher numbers always seem "better"


----------



## dazzerfong

cel4145 said:


> I agree.
> 
> But this would be greek to many people who don't know what the SPL is of their typical listening volume. So the higher numbers always seem "better"


 

 Remember, impedance across all the frequencies is not even, so while it may technically reach that loud, the same might not be able to be said if the impedance is wildly varying.
  
 That being said, never hurts if you have more headroom for SPL. Of course, you're never going to reach 120 dB SPL, but it's good to know you can reach it if you need it to have that much juice.


----------



## StanD

dazzerfong said:


> Remember, impedance across all the frequencies is not even, so while it may technically reach that loud, the same might not be able to be said if the impedance is wildly varying.
> 
> That being said, never hurts if you have more headroom for SPL. Of course, you're never going to reach 120 dB SPL, but it's good to know you can reach it if you need it to have that much juice.


 
 The power/sensitivity spec is at 1 kHz. Perhaps the true SPL is based upon voltage driving the headphones and the related sensitivity at voltage. For example the varying impedance curve found in certain Sennheiser headphones only affects FR when an amp's output impedance is high and it forms a frequency dependent attenuation with the headphone's varying impedance. When the amp's impedance is low the FR is flat despite the varying impedance curve further supporting the notion of voltage is what truly matters when loudness is concerned. If that's the case the power level is only relevant for determining the amount of current an amp has to supply at a given frequency. As the impedance goes up then the demand for current goes down which makes driving the headphones easier not harder.


----------



## headwhacker

dazzerfong said:


> Remember, impedance across all the frequencies is not even, so while it may technically reach that loud, the same might not be able to be said if the impedance is wildly varying.
> 
> That being said, never hurts if you have more headroom for SPL. Of course, you're never going to reach 120 dB SPL, but it's good to know you can reach it if you need it to have that much juice.


 
  
 For dynamic driver headphones yes. But planars have even impedance across its FR. However, manufacturers quote the impedance of dynamic driver headphones at the lowest point which usually is at 1Khz. The highest impedance is usually twice the value of the lowest (spec) impedance. So as far as power requirement goes (assuming sensitivity is constant) at peak impedance the headphone is actually drawing half the power needed.
  
 So calculating the power requirement based on the headphone's published impedance should cover the power needed across the audible frequency range. 120dB SPL target is more than enough.


----------



## Don Hills

Some thoughts on static on CDs:
 An object moving through air can acquire a charge on its surface. A rotating CD satisfies that requirement. In most designs of player, both sides are exposed and will accumulate charge.
  
 The charge on the (usually) upper surface, away from the laser head, is "mostly harmless" as all it can effectively do is pick up dust. This is also the charge that is dissipated by the type of conductive mat that is under discussion. The charge on the underside (nearest the laser) could be more of a problem. If the charge was spread unevenly on the disc surface, it could apply a varying attractive force on the laser head as the disc rotates, causing the focusing servo to work harder.
  
 I suspect the effect would be quite small, certainly less than that caused by the warps and eccentricity present in many discs and spindle drives. But if you have a poor quality CD player, where variations in servo drive current result in noise in the power supply that in turn gets back into the DAC clock or analogue stages, there might be some theoretical benefit to dissipating the static charge on the disc.
  
 Unfortunately, the mats under discussion won't do it - they're on the wrong side of the disc. An anti-static spray would be more effective, provided that it didn't significantly reduce the optical transparency of the disc. Permastat used to make a product for LPs, it's very likely that their current product line has something suitable for CDs.


----------



## bigshot

I'll add anti static CD spray to my list of "solutions to problems that don't exist".


----------



## bigshot

By the way, anyone who has experienced what static does on records knows that it manifests itself in a nice BANG! loud enough to wake the dog and get him barking. Has anyone experienced that with a CD?


----------



## castleofargh

dazzerfong said:


> cel4145 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree.
> ...


 

 the impedance variation, be it on the headphone or on the amp part, will usually not be of meaningful magnitude, and you most likely know when it may be(because of the amp design, or because you know a particular headphone has an impedance response that looks like electrocardiogram ^_^). while in some cases it can be enough to be audible and change the FR by a few db, what's a few db when looking for 120db? the most variations will come from IEMs and IEMs are unlikely to reach the max output of a source.
 also I don't know how other people do it, but I look at the headphone impedance response (we now can find it most of the time between innerfidelity and goldenears), and check for the worst case scenario, not for the value @1khz.
  
 so my only unknown is the amp's impedance variation and I expect it to be relatively small in the 20hz/20khz on a competent modern design(usually can go up at the extremes from what I've seen, but rarely a concern for most of the audio range unless you're analogsurviver^_^). so only a few db of margin are really needed for that stuff.
  
  
 the real trouble is assessing how loud we users listen to music, and how loud are the peaks on the most dynamic track we own/will own. in my case, I never seem to reach 100db at home on the hd650, and tend to be below 90db peaks with my IEMs most of the time. there are probably a few classical tracks where I actually need to go above just to hear some movements, but the fact is that on those really dynamic stuff with clear separated loudness, I change the volume setting during the symphony so it's a false problem to me. I dislike really high dynamic for that reason, to benefit from the quiet passages you have to go crazy loud on the rest and that just sucks IMO. I hate 5db dynamic pop even more, but to me there is a clear middle ground that is both practical and enjoyable. else I just use a light dynamic compressor 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
 but of course that's me with my headphones, in my calm quiet life at home. the same thing in the street would be different, and when people ask me about those stuff I recommend products with 115db in mind, because I don't know how they listen to music. so for once I'm with the subjective guys, you need the headroom you need.
  
  
  
 about having more headroom never hurts, it's an endless weird debate with no real proof that more is better in any way(but that doesn't stop an audiophile as we all know).
 still if you have much power and then need a voltage divider for proper gain whats the point? add voltage, reduce voltage \o/.
 same with the volume knob at the lowest values. we amplify the signal adding some noise/distortion in the process, just to reduce it adding again some matter of noise. even though I'm talking about really low and inaudible stuff it makes no sense to do it on purpose by getting a 3W 25db gain amp for IEMs.
 depending on how the amp is designed, it can lead to more noise and/or channel imbalance. so headroom is good, but I'm not for a great deal of it because yes it can hurt.


----------



## analogsurviver

don hills said:


> Some thoughts on static on CDs:
> An object moving through air can acquire a charge on its surface. A rotating CD satisfies that requirement. In most designs of player, both sides are exposed and will accumulate charge.
> 
> The charge on the (usually) upper surface, away from the laser head, is "mostly harmless" as all it can effectively do is pick up dust. This is also the charge that is dissipated by the type of conductive mat that is under discussion. The charge on the underside (nearest the laser) could be more of a problem. If the charge was spread unevenly on the disc surface, it could apply a varying attractive force on the laser head as the disc rotates, causing the focusing servo to work harder.
> ...


 
 I agree on the remark a conductive CD mat will only discharge the side of the CD it sits on - label side - but this is still better than nothing at all. Thank you for the description of the mechanism that could cause trouble due to static charge.
  
 Actually, the manufacturer of CD mat I linked also markets CD spray - for the very purpose cited. It also seals small scratches on the CDs. He claims that combination of mat and spray yields the best overall performance.
  
 As I mainly use "CD" as CD-R recorder and went to umpteenth  trouble to get really great stock CD-Rs ( they reflect the light better than anything else, gold CD-Rs included - only a straight glass mirror is more light reflective of objects I know, "regular" CD-Rs are dark/blurry in comparison ) , I was and am weary of spraying these - do not want to spoil so hard won and so hard to get better "optics" of these CD-Rs. But I might give this spray a try in the future on commercially pressed CDs - which, no matter how well handled, will eventually accumulate some hairline or thinner scratches or "pitting".
  
 To those who ask themselves why bother with CDs in days of FLACs and downloads etc: simply, it is still the sound carrier most people on the planet have access 
 to and ability to play it. This fact alone makes it worthwhile to do everything that can be done to play it back with the greatest fidelity possible. Again, music selection in downloads has shrinked - not everything on analog records made it to CD, not every CD made it to downloads.
  
 Regarding downloads: a friend travelled across the whole of Australia some 5 years ago; outside big cities, internet coverage is so poor/slow that you can actually have a breakfast or even lunch while waiting to open - your email. Now imagine downloading music in anything above MP3s...


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


> I have a proposal for you to present to your dealer... who is quite certain that there is an obvious difference...
> 
> You will RIP the same CD ten times, half with the mat and half without; name the file you get each time ( "01-testtrack.wav" "02-testtrack.wav" etc) and keep track of which is which in a list.
> Now, give those ten files to your dealer - MINUS THE LIST, and ask him to tell you which five were done with the mat.
> ...


 
 Your proposal just accepted over the phone. He will deliver the CD for me to rip and him to listen to 10 rips of the chosen track, five done normally and five with mat, he will of course not know which were done with and without mat.
  
 The story about mats and this dealer is too complicated to go around here, there will be no paying double or dinners with apologies, only the fair results of the test revealed.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> By the way, anyone who has experienced what static does on records knows that it manifests itself in a nice BANG! loud enough to wake the dog and get him barking. Has anyone experienced that with a CD?


 
 No. It is not that dramatic. 
  
 See post #4250 @Don Hills for the explanation why this belongs to the Digital Shades of Grey - in a perfect world, it would be black and white, 0s and1s, in real world things are not perfect.
  
 This static potentially could affect even the finest of CD players. But mat, even at $239, is for sure more economic solution if paired with reasonable CD player (say up to a grand ) than trying to match this result with a five figure design that places, among others,  extraordinary attention to the optical side of the equation. For about the same sonic audible result. You "save" at least some 8741 $ this way - which can be put to good use. And this is perhaps the ground that justifies the $239 price of the mat.
  
 Or in other words, prevention is better than cure. If the CD disk does not resonate and is statically not  charged, "optics" will have MUCH easier time. Trying to compensate for these by now KNOWN problems ( for at the very least 7 years...) with a "super" transport/optics is going to cost more than those 239$ - while in no way guaranteeing the same results. 
  
 A friend had a sinfully expensive CD player. It was adjusted to accept only disks with errors etc below the certain standards. Real world CDs got rejected by more than 2/3rds - and he had to resort to something more normal, that does allow "substandard" = real world discs still to be played. One can get portable CD players with shock prevention activated to play "all" discs, scratched as hell included - question is HOW.


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> No. It is not that dramatic.
> 
> See post #4250 @Don Hills for the explanation why this belongs to the Digital Shades of Grey - in a perfect world, it would be black and white, 0s and1s, in real world things are not perfect.
> 
> ...


 

 To test this definitely, why not rip twice (or _n_ amount of times), then compare the bits for all the files. If your theory is correct, they should all be varying slightly.


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> To test this definitely, why not rip twice (or _n_ amount of times), then compare the bits for all the files. If your theory is correct, they should all be varying slightly.


 
 Will do. Will compare those 10 rips (five with mat, five without) that are going to be listened by a dealer friend. CD to be ripped and listened to arrives this Sunday evening and will be ripped this coming Monday.
  
 As noted, my mat is not antistatic - only the effects of vibration can be tested.


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> Will do. Will compare those 10 rips (five with mat, five without) that are going to be listened by a dealer friend. CD to be ripped and listened to arrives this Sunday evening and will be ripped this coming Monday.
> 
> As noted, my mat is not antistatic - only the effects of vibration can be tested.


 

 Looking forward to the result. Are you preparing yourself for any excuses and beratements if, and I say IF, he mucks up completely?


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> Looking forward to the result. Are you preparing yourself for any excuses and beratements if, and I say IF, he mucks up completely?


 
 The only thing that worries me is the fact that Yamaha CRW-F1E USB  "burner" I am forced to use ( I do not have PC accepting S/PDIF from regular CD players ) is one of the best CD "transports" around - and a copy made from the master CD-R burnt by the Marantz DR-6000 CD-R recorder ( same transport used in all top Marantz/Philips/Studer CD recorders ) on which it has been recorded sounds without any doubt better than the master CD-R itself (played both on a "neutral" CD player ) - with both with or both without mat. Mat used on Marantz comes close to without mat on Yamaha.
  
 Other than that, no. The use of the mat in a system that has enough transparency is always audible. There are unfortunately also systems where there are so many problems that they sound the same no matter what. I did experience that  quite a few times - and basically it would require a completely new system at higher level. 
 It needs not to be particularly expensive either - but do not expect to find quality required at the lowest budget level.
  
 No such worries regarding the system my dealer friend will choose to use for this test. I will ask him to specify it all - down to the cable used if required, I will ask him to use something "reasonable" - not $$$$ stuff , the use of which may well turn many off. Although I may come across as someone with unlimited budget, it is actually opposite the case. I will try to achieve the desired goal with the least resources - but the goal has to be achieved.
  
 Hence, in this case,   (normal  CD player + mat ) vs  ( Super CD Player without mat ) to achieve about the same result - at a decidedly different cost.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> One can get portable CD players with shock prevention activated to play "all" discs, scratched as hell included - question is HOW.


 
 'When the buffering circuitry is in operation, the compact disc is read at a fixed read speed or CAV and the content is buffered (with optional ADPCM compression) and fed to RAM within the player. The audio content is read from RAM, optionally decompressed, and then sent to the amplifier. When the disc reading is interrupted, the player momentarily reads the data stored in RAM while the tracking circuitry finds the passage prior to the interruption on the CD.
 Another method has the disc rotating at variable or CLV speed (the normal rotation method for a CD player), but at a slightly higher speed than with the buffer feature switched off. The buffer method is the same as before.'
Electronic skip protection  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> 'When the buffering circuitry is in operation, the compact disc is read at a fixed read speed or CAV and the content is buffered (with optional ADPCM compression) and fed to RAM within the player. The audio content is read from RAM, optionally decompressed, and then sent to the amplifier. When the disc reading is interrupted, the player momentarily reads the data stored in RAM while the tracking circuitry finds the passage prior to the interruption on the CD.
> Another method has the disc rotating at variable or CLV speed (the normal rotation method for a CD player), but at a slightly higher speed than with the buffer feature switched off. The buffer method is the same as before.'
> Electronic skip protection  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 
 Sure.
  
 Catch is HOW big error/scratch is still allowed prior player rejects the disc altogether. These portables are usually made so to "accept" anything - so that it will "play". That serious player was made to not accept discs below certain standard to which commercially available discs SHOULD conform.
  
 Theory and practice do not necessary equal in real life. Some reasonable compromise between these two extremes has to be used in normal machines. There is no guarantee each CD ever made will play on each CD player ever made - there are combos that are incompatible. 10+ years of experience in CD retail.


----------



## Don Hills

analogsurviver said:


> ... This static potentially could affect even the finest of CD players. ...


 
  
 If a player is affected by static, it is not a "finest" CD player.
   


analogsurviver said:


> ... A friend had a sinfully expensive CD player. It was adjusted to accept only disks with errors etc below the certain standards. Real world CDs got rejected by more than 2/3rds - and he had to resort to something more normal, that does allow "substandard" = real world discs still to be played. One can get portable CD players with shock prevention activated to play "all" discs, scratched as hell included - question is HOW.


 

  
 Your friend was conned. As you point out, reliable disc reading need not cost a lot. There is no excuse for a high end player to have below par reading and error correction.
 It is an indictment of the audio(phile) industry that shoddy engineering can be labelled a "feature" and sold at a premium. You wouldn't accept it in, say, a high end watch or car.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> Sure.
> 
> Catch is HOW big error/scratch is still allowed prior player rejects the disc altogether. These portables are usually made so to "accept" anything - so that it will "play".


 

 ...so they are very good players... they can read anything... and still sound good... crappy  DVD players that just read some DVDs and skip and freeze on others are crappy DVD players no matter the price... some cheap DVD players can read anything without problems... and then you say that on those players the image lacks 'transparency' and 'breath' or something like that...


----------



## castleofargh

macacodosom said:


> analogsurviver said:
> 
> 
> > One can get portable CD players with shock prevention activated to play "all" discs, scratched as hell included - question is HOW.
> ...


 

 don't get what the amplifier is supposed to do with digital data, I guess DAC was the proper word the writer wanted to use.  but for the rest, yeah buffering isn't exactly a new thing for CD players.
  
  
 anyway when I get a CD I rip it, accurip it if I feel like it, and then never touch it again. vinyls annoyed me when I had to turn them, CDs annoyed me for having to change them to get another one. I had some kind of jukebox for CDs at one point but it broke after a year or 2.
 hard disc is magic and computers are my sources of music.
  
  
 also it may come as a surprise, but I don't think analogsurviver is right about all that stuff. there has been countless improvements on CD players with all kinds of error corrections, and just like a computer doesn't crash every other day like it did in 1995, CD players that are not weird stuff full of dust, will most likely read the CD just fine (until the CD itself start to be physically messed up).


----------



## Phishin Phool

don hills said:


> If a player is affected by static, it is not a "finest" CD player.
> 
> 
> Your friend was conned. As you point out, reliable disc reading need not cost a lot. There is no excuse for a high end player to have below par reading and error correction.
> It is an indictment of the audio(phile) industry that shoddy engineering can be labelled a "feature" and sold at a premium. You wouldn't accept it in, say, a high end watch or car.


 
 I still am using a BD player from early 2008 (it is one of 4 currently in operation in my house and perhaps 8 or 9 over the years). It has played every disc cd/blu-ray/dvd that I have ever placed in it. I can not say the same about any other player of any sort and I have had many that cost a lot more than that one. Coupled with the fact that it has 7.1 Analog out and excellent bass management and does decoding for hd audio (all except flac) makes it so that I will never replace that player until it dies and isn't repairable. Not even connected to the internet at this point yet it still handles all bd. About once a year I check for a firmware update. 
  
 OT: I too use computer a lot , I have around 450GB of music on my hhd NAS but a buddy of mine who owns a recording studio and is an avid taper (legal) a few years back spent time transferring all his music to computer and at his 50th birthday party he had crates and boxes of cd's sitting out (thousands if not tens of thousands) and told everybody to just "take it pelase" I ended up with several boxes containing several hundred cd's which I have not ripped and haven't even heard all of them yet but I keep finding gems such as old Led Zepplin and Bob Marley concerts from the early 80's as well as modern and contemporary stuff- I prefer computer based music but it is a chore to rip that many discs.


----------



## analogsurviver

don hills said:


> If a player is affected by static, it is not a "finest" CD player.
> 
> 
> Your friend was conned. As you point out, reliable disc reading need not cost a lot. There is no excuse for a high end player to have below par reading and error correction.
> It is an indictment of the audio(phile) industry that shoddy engineering can be labelled a "feature" and sold at a premium. You wouldn't accept it in, say, a high end watch or car.


 
 Be it as it may - fact remains that not all CD players are created equally. I agree that there is many fishy things going on in high end audio, where mass produced gear can and usually does exhibit better sample to sample consistency and overall reliability - but usually does not provide the performance of the high end IF and WHEN this performs as it should.


----------



## analogsurviver

phishin phool said:


> I still am using a BD player from early 2008 (it is one of 4 currently in operation in my house and perhaps 8 or 9 over the years). It has played every disc cd/blu-ray/dvd that I have ever placed in it. I can not say the same about any other player of any sort and I have had many that cost a lot more than that one. Coupled with the fact that it has 7.1 Analog out and excellent bass management and does decoding for hd audio (all except flac) makes it so that I will never replace that player until it dies and isn't repairable. Not even connected to the internet at this point yet it still handles all bd. About once a year I check for a firmware update.


 
 Great. Hold onto it !


----------



## James-uk

Seriously who uses CD players anymore?! I can stream flac in bit perfect quality thousands of miles to my iPad and you guys are discussing cd mats and static build or some rubbish! It's insane!!!!!!!!


----------



## RRod

james-uk said:


> Seriously who uses CD players anymore?! I can stream flac in bit perfect quality thousands of miles to my iPad and you guys are discussing cd mats and static build or some rubbish! It's insane!!!!!!!!


 
  
 I just use it once to get the music into FLAC, because I still like liner notes ^_^


----------



## MacacoDoSom

rrod said:


> I just use it once to get the music into FLAC, because I still like liner notes ^_^


 

 that's it CDs are only good to read the booklets... FLAC is the way to go...


----------



## MacacoDoSom

I would like to see more about 'Testing audiophile claims and myths'


----------



## analogsurviver

james-uk said:


> Seriously who uses CD players anymore?! I can stream flac in bit perfect quality thousands of miles to my iPad and you guys are discussing cd mats and static build or some rubbish! It's insane!!!!!!!!


 
 Not everything is available as FLAC or some other download, not everywhere is internet coverage as good as you experience, CD mat comes still handy - even only for ripping.
  
 Personally, I would prefer to see CD got never invented in the first place, but here it is and it is still the #1 sound carrier which most people have access to and can play back. Therefore it is important to get the most out of it. 
  
 Now ask yourselves if FLAC providers on the internet took the trouble to rip the CDs required correctly or not - few streamers I tried and which rip the CD in few minutes certainly do not sound as good as rip done slowly, with or without mat - and as time is money.... - you seriously believe internet FLAC providers are going to the trouble to get really good digital "copies" ? 
  
 I have written this once before: the same friend who use to have that sinfully expensive CD player also did not want to believe that making CD copy sounding better than the original is possible - and that slow ripping and slow burning of CD/CD-Rs makes no sense. He is a bit of Quick Draw McGraw in these matters . I let him do the rip and burn his way (total about 10 minutes or so ) - and then we compared the results in his player using CD mat ( which he fully approves the use of ).
  
 After about 1 minute of playback of his "fast food" and my "slow food" copy, that "fast food" flew to - the dustbin.
  
 Anyone requiring an ABX in such a case would be the proud recipient of the certificate issued by whoever attended the same demo, attesting he/she is an - Idiot.
  
 CDs and CD-Rs are NOT created equal. Get used to deal with it.
  
 There is no guarantee how the FLACs streamed via internet have been arrived at - either.


----------



## Phishin Phool

> There is no guarantee how the FLACs streamed via internet have been arrived at - either.


 
 That may be one of the few things you have ever said that I agree with XD


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> There is no guarantee how the FLACs streamed via internet have been arrived at - either.


 


phishin phool said:


> That may be one of the few things you have eversaid that I agree with XD


 
  
 There's no guarantee about how _anything _was processed before it got to whatever your favorite format is so everyone is in the same boat anyway.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

aaaaaaaahhhhhh good reply..................


----------



## James-uk

analogsurviver said:


> Not everything is available as FLAC or some other download, not everywhere is internet coverage as good as you experience, CD mat comes still handy - even only for ripping.
> 
> Personally, I would prefer to see CD got never invented in the first place, but here it is and it is still the #1 sound carrier which most people have access to and can play back. Therefore it is important to get the most out of it.
> 
> ...



but where does the obsessing end?! How did you survive the vinyl days?! All those distortions imperfections that comes with vinyl. It must of driven you to madness! I mean we live in an age where audibly transparent 256 lossy streaming is possible , I'm talking perfect sound quality! Yet you are talking nonsense about ripping CDs and using cd mats and all sorts of other weird bizarreness! . It's like you need to find fault with everything ! . It's complete and utter madness!! I'm lost for words.


----------



## dazzerfong

james-uk said:


> Seriously who uses CD players anymore?! I can stream flac in bit perfect quality thousands of miles to my iPad and you guys are discussing cd mats and static build or some rubbish! It's insane!!!!!!!!


 

 I don't know, it's pretty nostalgic at times to go through your folk's CD collection.
  
  


analogsurviver said:


> Not everything is available as FLAC or some other download, not everywhere is internet coverage as good as you experience, CD mat comes still handy - even only for ripping.
> 
> Personally, I would prefer to see CD got never invented in the first place, but here it is and it is still the #1 sound carrier which most people have access to and can play back. Therefore it is important to get the most out of it.
> 
> ...


 

 Let's not get too ahead of ourselves now with your multitudes of anecdotes, and wait for the results of your 'bet' with your store owner. I'll be blunt, I won't be surprised either way when I see the results.
  
 Look, you still don't get the point of ABX. If it's that painfully obvious, it should be painfully easy to pass. Calling someone an idiot just to test a difference somewhat objectively is what's idiotic. So rather than dodge the test, just man up and take it.
  
 Also, just to make sure we're on the same page here, we're saying using a CD mat for writing makes a difference, not when it's reading right? Coz if it's the former, I reckon most of us here could care less since most of us transfer to a discrete file in the end.
  
 Again, let's wait for your store owner friend.


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> I don't know, it's pretty nostalgic at times to go through your folk's CD collection.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Sure. But I find ABXing fine for more subtle differences, like 16/24 bit - where on some tracks I could get plausible difference, but on others was totally guessing - so obvious like a fast made rip/burn without mat vs slowly made rip/burn with mat are nothing but complete waste of time.
  
 The results from the store _employee _are likely to come in mid/end next week.


----------



## analogsurviver

james-uk said:


> but where does the obsessing end?! How did you survive the vinyl days?! All those distortions imperfections that comes with vinyl. It must of driven you to madness! I mean we live in an age where audibly transparent 256 lossy streaming is possible , I'm talking perfect sound quality! Yet you are talking nonsense about ripping CDs and using cd mats and all sorts of other weird bizarreness! . It's like you need to find fault with everything ! . It's complete and utter madness!! I'm lost for words.


 
 Vinyl is FAR from finished. And I am still working on ironing out the imperfections to the point of vinyl rips being completely acceptable for the A.C.D. born Person (After Compact Disk ). While retaining all of its superiority over CD - on some more serious digital than CD redbook.
  
 If you are satisfied with what you have, fine. If someone tried to show me the possible way how to improve the sound reproduction at reasonable price ( the mat I suggested is on auction, some 5 or so hours before end at EUR 7.50, "average" winning bid being <40 EUR ), regardless how improbable it may sound to me, I would not be so negative about it. Remember, I have no affiliation with the seller - at all.
  
 No problem throwing a CD into CD-burner, rip it at 44x or more speed ( can not be done with mat ) in less than two minutes and call it after conversion ( another minute or so ) than FLAC. I am not saying all are made like this - but some certainly are.


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> Sure. But I find ABXing fine for more subtle differences, like 16/24 bit - where on some tracks I could get plausible difference, but on others was totally guessing - so obvious like a fast made rip/burn without mat vs slowly made rip/burn with mat are nothing but complete waste of time.
> 
> The results from the store _employee _are likely to come in mid/end next week.


 

 Wait, wait: you're changing 2 variables by doing that. Keep the rip speed constant, and test only the presence of the mat. THEN we're talking.
  
 Also, my bad. Here's hoping everyone still remembers it next week.


----------



## StanD

dazzerfong said:


> Wait, wait: you're changing 2 variables by doing that. Keep the rip speed constant, and test only the presence of the mat. THEN we're talking.
> 
> Also, my bad. Here's hoping everyone still remembers it next week.


 
 He'll probably conduct the test somewhere out in the Woop Woop where a fluff goes unnoticed.


----------



## dazzerfong

stand said:


> He'll probably conduct the test somewhere out in the Woop Woop where a fluff goes unnoticed.


 

 I'll give him benefit of doubt (or more like 2 million benefits). I'm a nice guy: what can I say?
  
 Also, it's been a while since I heard that term. G'day mate.


----------



## StanD

dazzerfong said:


> I'll give him benefit of doubt (or more like 2 million benefits). I'm a nice guy: what can I say?
> 
> Also, it's been a while since I heard that term. G'day mate.


 
 Fluff as in mistake or the release of gas? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 In this context, either works for me.
 I don't give this a Buckley's chance of coming out right.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> Vinyl is FAR from finished. And I am still working on ironing out the imperfections to the point of vinyl rips being completely acceptable for the A.C.D. born Person (After Compact Disk ). While retaining all of its superiority over CD - on some more serious digital than CD redbook.


 
 superiority over CD
  
 this is not a audiophile myth, it's plain wrong!
  
 what superiority? more noise? wow and flutter? the random percussionist that pops around with different licks every time you play it? what?
  
 now you've done it, stop talking about mats.....


----------



## dazzerfong

stand said:


> Fluff as in mistake or the release of gas?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 OK, now we're entering bogan territory.


----------



## bufferoverflow

analogsurviver said:


> Vinyl is FAR from finished.
> And I am still working on ironing out the imperfections to the point of vinyl rips being completely acceptable for the A.C.D. born Person (After Compact Disk ).
> *While retaining all of its superiority over CD* - on some more serious digital than CD redbook.


 
 Hear hear - I to miss the large covers, they where often works of art in their own right .
 Now, all we get is lousy pixelated digital thumbnails ...
 But I have a feeling that is not what you mean, so could you please inform me/us :
  Exactly what about vinyl is "superior" to CD, apart from the tracking-error, surface-noise,distortion,
 limited dynamic range and wear on the media meaning that you had to buy a new record for about every 50 plays  ?
  
 I think, subjectively, that you are just missing all the endless tinkering required to get decent sound from LP's .
 And maybe the ritual of carefully removing the vinyl from the sleeve, dusting and zapping it, turning it around halfways and whatnot.
 I will give you analouge-nostalgics one thing - The whole experience of playing back your music is not the same, CD's are rather boring in that respect .
 But then, who has the attention-span to listen to a complete record any more ?
  
 The whole analouge-is-better thing reminds me of an old joke :
 Q :How many country&western musicians does it take to change a light-tube ?
 A : 41 - One to change the tube and 40 to sing a song about how good the old one was .
  
 Seriously, as a format, CD mops the floor with vinyl - And when it doesn't it is NOT the medias fault, it is 'human error' .


----------



## headwhacker

bufferoverflow said:


> I think, subjectively, that you are just missing all the endless tinkering required to get decent sound from LP's .
> And maybe the ritual of carefully removing the vinyl from the sleeve, dusting and zapping it, turning it around halfways and whatnot.


 
 ^ Old habits die hard. Or in this case, you can't teach old dogs new tricks.


----------



## bufferoverflow

I don't know about habits and old dogs, but I do remember one thing :
 While performing all the rituals required to play a LP with good results, one was almost always thinking
 " Oh boy, this should sound good "
 - And guess what ? It usually did, even those horrible German pressings of Thin Lizzy-records.
  
 If you have already made up your mind that A sounds better than B ... It does ... Always !


----------



## MacacoDoSom

I'm an old dog, I have grown with vinyl, on my late twenties, the CD come along and I've never looked back... free at last...
  
 Many people tried to convince me the there was nothing like vinyl... (audiosnobs?)
  
 The fact is that they are growing... every time I enter my favorite music store the CD shells are shrinking and the vinyl ones are growing... it seems that the ritual is growing with the deafness... or they just don't like to listen to MUSIC but just like the ritual and show to their snob friends "Hey, Have you seen my Ferrari?"


----------



## headwhacker

macacodosom said:


> I'm an old dog, I have grown with vinyl, on my late twenties, the CD come along and I've never looked back... free at last...
> 
> Many people tried to convince me the there was nothing like vinyl... (audiosnobs?)
> 
> The fact is that they are growing... every time I enter my favorite music store the CD shells are shrinking and the vinyl ones are growing... it seems that the ritual is growing with the deafness... or they just don't like to listen to MUSIC but just like the ritual and show to their snob friends "Hey, Have you seen my Ferrari?"


 
  
 I doubt vinyl is growing because it's selling more than CDs. CDs are dying due to streaming or online downloads. CDs are increasingly becoming expensive distribution medium compared to streaming/downloads. I bought less than 10 CDs in the last 5 years. All of them never saw any light since ripping them to ALAC. Never played them ( not even once) on any cd player. The only reason I bought the CDs is because I can't find them being offered online or streaming.


----------



## cel4145

headwhacker said:


> I doubt vinyl is growing because it's selling more than CDs. CDs are dying due to streaming or online downloads.




It's also just too easy to buy CDs online. Go to Amazon (or some other music site), listen to the songs, and if you like, order it right then instead of driving to the CD store where you can't even listen to them.


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> Fluff as in mistake or the release of gas?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  


dazzerfong said:


> OK, now we're entering bogan territory.


 
 We'll end up asking,"Which Drongo opened their lunch?" Perhaps they'll let us know the results of the ABX testing of hires fluffs.


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> Wait, wait: you're changing 2 variables by doing that. Keep the rip speed constant, and test only the presence of the mat. THEN we're talking.
> 
> Also, my bad. Here's hoping everyone still remembers it next week.


 
 Any testing will be constant speed, the only difference being absence or presence of the mat. 
  
 I only cited that fast vs slow copy making as producing so obviously different results an ABX is REALLY not warranted.


----------



## Phishin Phool

> CDs that are in good condition can be ripped at high speed without error.
> 
> Just think, data programs - which are not allowed ANY errors during the installation read - have no problem installing at high speed if the disk isn't damaged. The error correction scheme in audio CDs isn't a robust as for data, but it is still effective.
> 
> ...


 
 From a Microsoft Software engineer
  
 of course the ability to read a cd matters - if there are scratches or other imperfections or issues with the physical media than that certainly can affect things and cause increase in time as several attempts may need to be made to get a clean read -remember we are only copying ones and zeros on a rip there is no "varying value" that need be recorded. If you feel otherwise I have some fabulous premium HDMI cables I can let go for a steal


----------



## bufferoverflow

macacodosom said:


> I'm an old dog, I have grown with vinyl, on my late twenties, the CD come along and I've never looked back... free at last...
> 
> Many people tried to convince me the there was nothing like vinyl... (audiosnobs?)
> 
> The fact is that they are growing... every time I enter my favorite music store the CD shells are shrinking and the vinyl ones are growing... it seems that the ritual is growing with the deafness... or they just don't like to listen to MUSIC but just like the ritual and show to their snob friends "Hey, Have you seen my Ferrari?"


 
 Like the other guy said, most of that is caused by the increasing availability of downloadable music, but it IS true that vinyl-sales are increasing and you can even buy
 USB-turntables (!!) ..
  
 I think it's mostly caused by this :


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> There's no guarantee about how _anything _was processed before it got to whatever your favorite format is so everyone is in the same boat anyway.


 
 Nope. I know exactly how my master recordings have been processed.
  
 Beyond that, you are right.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bufferoverflow said:


> USB-turntables (!!) ..


 
 let my laugh...
 I think you're right, It's the Life Of Brian...
  
 But sure those USB-Turntables are not of an audiophile grade... are they?


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> Nope. I know exactly how my master recordings have been processed.
> 
> Beyond that, you are right.


 
  
 So do you only listen to music that you recorded and mastered yourself or something?  Did you supervise their entire production?


----------



## Phishin Phool

maverickronin said:


> So do you only listen to music that you recorded and mastered yourself or something?  Did you supervise their entire production?


 
 Most assuredly so and when he was done bigshot set-up and calibrated evrything by ear as that is the most accurate.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> let my laugh...
> I think you're right, It's the Life Of Brian...
> 
> But sure those USB-Turntables are not of an audiophile grade... are they?


 
 No. Generally, they are to be avoided as a pleague - with possible exception confirming the rule. Or at the very least not being record destroyer on the first play.


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> So do you only listen to music that you recorded and mastered yourself or something?  Did you supervise their entire production?


 
 Of course not. I was listening and am still listening to recordings of others - ALWAYS interesting to hear how various aspects have been tackled throughout the history, technology changes,  record labels, engineers, etc. I own around 2K of LPs and , one way or another, couple hundred CDs - plus my recordings. 
  
 No, I do not supervise the entire production. I do not do editing/mastering. Since my recordings are ALWAYS two mike only, there is no "mixing" in conventional sense possible - making a voice or instrument louder or quieter in the "mix" is impossible, as well as "placing" it in the "space" - it HAS to be done right on the spot. That means mastering is reduced to cutting and pasting together outtakes from various takes that fit musically together (rhytm, pitch, etc), producing hopefully something that fits together so well that even very critical listening will not reveal cut. I fortunately have a friend who has such a feeling and technical expertise to do it right.
  
 Given the perfect playing, my recordings do not require any further intervention - except bouncing down to whatever format. There exist one CD that is issued without a sigle cut - simple the best take was selected for the release. Unfortunately, in the end it was decided to compress the dynamic range - something I will never allow again.
  
 Due to financial constraints, all recordings issued so far are on CD - but since recently, there is a privately owned Merging workstation in our country, allowing for DSD mastering - and hopefully being able to offer native DSD downloads in forseeable future.  It all boils down to money in the end... - so far , DSD64 and DSD128 have been edited as 192/32float and then bounced to CD redbook for release on CD.


----------



## jodgey4

I don't think any USB tables have ceramic cartridges at least, which actually makes them better than most cheap tables on the market. But What is this thread? Just use EAC for perfect rips to lossless, and never touch a CD again. Ez.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

The Audiophile Claims And Myths...
  
 shall we start over?
  
 Summarizing, what are the Myths and what are the claims, can anybody do that? ...or there are to many to quote?


----------



## bigshot

See the first post in the thread. A few dead links there now, but it is still great reading.


----------



## StanD

Tube amps can tame a headphone's sibilance or fatiguing treble.
 1) By some magic a tube amp can notch out a headphones particular FR peaks without affecting the rest of the treble or upper mids. To do this it would by some mystical means be able to determine the correct frequencies, filter Q and attenuation to accomplish this.
 2) Even though the THD specs of a good amp are below human perception, tubes will generate even order harmonics that will make treble harshness vanish. More magic.


----------



## bigshot

stand said:


> Tube amps can tame a headphone's sibilance or fatiguing treble.


 
  
 Well it might actually do that if it rolled off all the treble.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> Well it might actually do that if it rolled off all the treble.


 
 Only that quality amps have a flat FR. One can roll off treble in EQ, don't need tubes for that.


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> No, I do not supervise the entire production. I do not do editing/mastering. Since my recordings are ALWAYS two mike only, there is no "mixing" in conventional sense possible - making a voice or instrument louder or quieter in the "mix" is impossible, as well as "placing" it in the "space" - it HAS to be done right on the spot. That means mastering is reduced to cutting and pasting together outtakes from various takes that fit musically together (rhytm, pitch, etc), producing hopefully something that fits together so well that even very critical listening will not reveal cut. I fortunately have a friend who has such a feeling and technical expertise to do it right.
> 
> Given the perfect playing, my recordings do not require any further intervention - except bouncing down to whatever format. There exist one CD that is issued without a sigle cut - simple the best take was selected for the release. Unfortunately, in the end it was decided to compress the dynamic range - something I will never allow again.


 
  
 From this statement would I be mistaken in inferring that you choose your playback material based on how it's recorded rather than on what is recorded?
  
 AFIK, this is exactly where the derogatory definition of "audiophile" comes from.  Someone who uses music to listen to the gear rather than using the gear to listen to music.
  


macacodosom said:


> The Audiophile Claims And Myths...
> 
> shall we start over?


 
  
 Don't worry.  It's been like this forever.  I took a 2 year break and when I came back nothing was different. 
  






 
  
  


stand said:


> Tube amps can tame a headphone's sibilance or fatiguing treble.
> 1) By some magic a tube amp can notch out a headphones particular FR peaks without affecting the rest of the treble or upper mids. To do this it would by some mystical means be able to determine the correct frequencies, filter Q and attenuation to accomplish this.
> 2) Even though the THD specs of a good amp are below human perception, tubes will generate even order harmonics that will make treble harshness vanish. More magic.


 
  
 I've never actually got around to testing this but I have a hypothesis that low damping factor caused by high output impedance might change the characteristics or driver ringing in the treble range which would reduce perception of sibilance.


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> From this statement would I be mistaken in inferring that you choose your playback material based on how it's recorded rather than on what is recorded?
> 
> AFIK, this is exactly where the derogatory definition of "audiophile" comes from.  Someone who uses music to listen to the gear rather than using the gear to listen to music.
> 
> ...


 
 You would be (for the most part) mistaken.
  
 No. I would still choose something musically better but technically inferiour to something musically bland but technically superiour. But I am of course attracted to better recorded material more. Unfortunately, did not develop the ability to bring the likes of Melchior etc back to life ...- there are simply no singers of his calibre today.
 But I try as much as I can to record the best musicians within reach.
  
 To be blunt - some otherwise superbly recorded japanese jazz without any real musical substance gets zero play time chez moi. But there are superb japanese jazz musicians on less well recorded labels that I do listen to. 
  
 Clear enough?


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> Since my recordings are ALWAYS two mike only


 
  


analogsurviver said:


> You would be (for the most part) mistaken.
> 
> No. I would still choose something musically better but technically inferiour to something musically bland but technically superiour. But I am of course attracted to better recorded material more. Unfortunately, did not develop the ability to bring the likes of Melchior etc back to life ...- there are simply no singers of his calibre today.
> But I try as much as I can to record the best musicians within reach.
> ...


 
  
 But _must _it be still be a two mic recording regardless of other considerations?


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> But _must _it be still be a two mic recording regardless of other considerations?


 
 There are EXTREMELY few commercially available recordings made with only two microphones outside binaural variety - which in itself is rare.
  
One two examples I know of is Mahler symphonies series with Inbal on Denon in early 80s (recorded with AB spaced pair of then new Bruel & Kjaer omnis ) - the other Water Lilly Acoustics  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Lily_Acoustics of 
 "Kavi"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavichandran_Alexander
 The phisolophy of WLA is here : http://www.waterlilyacoustics.com/techspecs.htm
 It should be noted that since recently Kavi has moved from analog recording to digital - explained in this interview:
 http://www.tnt-audio.com/intervis/waterlily_e.html
  
 One could say that "Kavi" is my role model - despite not using my preferred recording technique - OSS or better known as Jecklin Disk. But he does use my dream loudspeaker (not allowed to be imported to EU since recent legislation - even if I had the "change" ) - Beveridge 2SW. Heard it in 1979 - haunted by its sound ever since.
 Too bad it HAS to be backed by something that can play louder - Bev just will not go above certain SPL. But within its envelope, it has no equal - at least for me. 
  
 However - and that is big HOWEVER - if I were listening only to two mike recordings, practically none of my records and CDs would ever get for a spin.  Musical content before technicalities - even if it means listening to the dreaded (technically) DGG. They simply have too good musicians to be overlooked - period. There is lots of MUSICALLY GREAT recordings all over the globe - it would be shame to dismiss them on the grounds of inferiour sonics.
  
 But when one audio buddy of mine wanted to impress me with Sheffield release of the same event recorded with multimiking and some minimalist (forgot exactly which 2 or 3 mike technique was used ), I politely asked  him to throw that multimiked version off the TT - replacing it with the simple setup - so that I can listen to some music...
  
 I sign off with a video of a pianist I got to hear live and _*attempted *_to record in very early 2001 or so ( Marantz portable cassette recorder decided to went on strike in the first third of the recital - and my mikes then were nothing to write home to begin with either ) - and I purposely selected a video with subpar sonics - it should give you the idea of genius behind these jazzy improvisations on Chopin - Leszek Moždžer from Poland:
  
 
  
 It should lead you to other his videos, the CD with recorded Chopin variations
  
 has, besides great playing, GREAT sonics - and so on.
  
 http://www.discogs.com/Leszek-Mo%C5%BCd%C5%BCer-Impresions-On-Chopin/release/4208040
  
 http://www.discogs.com/Leszek-Mo%C5%BCd%C5%BCer-Chopin-Impresje/release/3379258


----------



## analogsurviver

jodgey4 said:


> I don't think any USB tables have ceramic cartridges at least, which actually makes them better than most cheap tables on the market. But What is this thread? Just use EAC for perfect rips to lossless, and never touch a CD again. Ez.


 
 Sadly, I have seen USB tables with ceramic cartridges.
  
 I will try EAC - but first glance at Features does not look too inspiring - effects, effects and more effects - and what is more troublesome, it looks it can not be tamed to low, if not 1x speed - all I could find is mention that it slows down whenever encountering the problem. That excludes use of mat. 
  
 Further worries - does EAC support Audio Master Quality Recording recording mode from Yamaha ? If not, less interesting than in a cold cup of tea ...
  
 This is the FIRST link "EAC Audio Master Quality Recording" I could find
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/highest-quality-cd-rsburning-software-1
 - did not go trough it yet - but it seems I am stuck with Yamaha/Nero package as it seems is the only one allowing for the Audio Master Quality Recording mode at 1x  burning speed. Actually, it is LOWER than 1x - 67 (theoretically 68) minutes maximum duration recording for 700KB blank in AMQR it will write for over 80 minutes.
  
 EAC seems to be more Plextor burners oriented software.


----------



## analogsurviver

OK, you guys are seriously cracking me up regarding vinyl.
  
 I am the first to admit it has problems - but also potential beyond the CD. That from the Day One, when Philips Prototype was travelling around the globe appearing on countless electronics shows, IIRC 1979 or 1980 - and next year was joined by few others (Hitachi, Toshiba spring to mind from our fair ), two years after that it was omnipresent everywhere.
  
 It is unfortunate that vinyl is only now coming really of age. The biggest game changer is the recent  _*relatively *_widespread adoption of ultrasonic cleaning of vinyl records. I will go as far as saying that if you never heard an ultrasonically cleaned record - you have never heard what vinyl can really sound like.
  
 And it is the also fairly recent advent of tonearms that offer zero free play and very low friction bearings. One of them is semi-affordable ( which is to say very expensive at 6K5 $) , the other is lunatic fringe priced (30 K$). I have heard the former and, grundgingly, it is worth the money in case you have large analogue record library. Of the second all I can say lucky those who can afford it - but I could happily live ever after with the former and rather give the difference to charity - or buy the records that still interest me. At the moment, I can not afford either.
  
 Whatever your experience with vinyl, if you have not heard ultrasonically cleaned record played by one of these two arms ( plus a decent turntable and cartridge/phono preamp ) , you have not heard what really is in those grooves. Plain and simple. It is expensive, but from certain level up, vinyl is still king of the hill.
  
 For limited budget, my recommendation will always be digital - but not CD.


----------



## jodgey4

EAC is for ripping, not burning. It does multiple scans of the CD to verify the data, making it a much better program than most else I've seen, plus it's free and easy to use. I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## StanD

jodgey4 said:


> EAC is for ripping, not burning. It does multiple scans of the CD to verify the data, making it a much better program than most else I've seen, plus it's free and easy to use. I have no idea what you're talking about.


 
 Busted....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sometimes he posts faster than the thinks.


----------



## analogsurviver

jodgey4 said:


> EAC is for ripping, not burning. It does multiple scans of the CD to verify the data, making it a much better program than most else I've seen, plus it's free and easy to use. I have no idea what you're talking about.


 
 OK, thank you for the clarification.
  
 As you are most probably using it - does it change reading speed during the process ? According to the Features, it does. Can it be forced to go slowly, at some constant speed, not exceeding say 10x during ripping ?


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> OK, thank you for the clarification.
> 
> As you are most probably using it - does it change reading speed during the process ? According to the Features, it does. Can it be forced to go slowly, at some constant speed, not exceeding say 10x during ripping ?


 
 It offers a variety of fixed speed options in the Drive Options along with a checkbox that allows it to "Allow speed reduction during extraction." My laptop's drive comes up with Current, 6, 12 and 24 times as options.
 The current version looks to have some options for CD-R but I've never used that.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> OK, thank you for the clarification.
> 
> As you are most probably using it - does it change reading speed during the process ? According to the Features, it does. Can it be forced to go slowly, at some constant speed, not exceeding say 10x during ripping ?




I don't understand the point of forcing the slower speed just because. It checks itself, and if a read error is detected, it reads the frame many times: http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/overview/basic-technology/extraction-technology/

You might want to focus more on the error detecting features of your drive and make sure you have EAC configured properly for that. Test it with a somewhat scratched CD using DAE Quality: http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/other-projects/dae-quality/


----------



## Phishin Phool

If I have a cd mat and use it in my cd-rom drive in my pc does it somehow magically make my data better and more pure. Will my quickbooks find some money that somehow got lost because the data was copied too fast? SMH


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> I don't understand the point of forcing the slower speed just because. It checks itself, and if a read error is detected, it reads the frame many times: http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/overview/basic-technology/extraction-technology/
> 
> You might want to focus more on the error detecting features of your drive and make sure you have EAC configured properly for that. Test it with a somewhat scratched CD using DAE Quality: http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/other-projects/dae-quality/


 
 The point of forcing the slow speed is DUE TO CD MAT - it can not be 100% centered on the drive and going full speed will eventually throw everything off - scracthing CD-R, CD mat, in worse case drive. Up to approx 10x there is no problem - but shiit did happen few times I forgot to check ALL the boxes relevant to speed in Nero. Due to this, changing speed is also not welcome - hence the question.
  
 Although I almost exclusively work with new or mint CDs and CD-Rs, I will test it with somewhat scratched CD using DAE Quality.
  
 I will look into it today - it is already tomorrow. After I wake up.
  
 Thank you for the info !


----------



## StanD

phishin phool said:


> If I have a cd mat and use it in my cd-rom drive in my pc does it somehow magically make my data better and more pure. Will my quickbooks find some money that somehow got lost because the data was copied too fast? SMH


 
 Be careful, if you print the money it's counterfeiting, if the Fed prints money it's called Quantitative Easing.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> The point of forcing the slow speed is DUE TO CD MAT - it can not be 100% centered on the drive and going full speed will eventually throw everything off - scracthing CD-R, CD mat, in worse case drive. Up to approx 10x there is no problem




That makes sense


----------



## maverickronin

Quote:


analogsurviver said:


> There are EXTREMELY few commercially available recordings made with only two microphones outside binaural variety - which in itself is rare.


  
 I already knew that which is why this...
  
 Quote:


analogsurviver said:


> Since my recordings are ALWAYS two mike only


 
   
 seemed a little unlikely.  It still doesn't square with this either...
  


analogsurviver said:


> However - and that is big HOWEVER - if I were listening only to two mike recordings, practically none of my records and CDs would ever get for a spin.


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


>


 
 If I can choose between two mike version and multimiked version of approximately same musicianship , I will go 99% with 2 mike version.
  
 If I do not have 2 mike version, I will not go into the corner and sulk listening to - silence. I will enjoy what can be enjoyed.
  
 I do not even have any equipment that could support multimiking - unless you count artificial head and stereo pair as something for "mixing"... - certainly never even touched a mixing desk - not even with a barge pole.


----------



## Head Injury

maverickronin said:


>


 

 I believe he means the recordings he _makes_ are always two mike recordings, not the recordings he listens to.
  
 I know it can be hard to decipher his posts sometimes, don't worry


----------



## jodgey4

stand said:


> Be careful, if you print the money it's counterfeiting, if the Fed prints money it's called Quantitative Easing.



...


----------



## analogsurviver

head injury said:


> I believe he means the recordings he _makes_ are always two mike recordings, not the recordings he listens to.
> 
> I know it can be hard to decipher his posts sometimes, don't worry


 
 Yes, the recordings _I make _are always two mike recordings.
  
 When listening to recordings of others, I give preference to 2 mike versions - IF available.


----------



## maverickronin

head injury said:


> I believe he means the recordings he _makes_ are always two mike recordings, not the recordings he listens to.
> 
> I know it can be hard to decipher his posts sometimes, don't worry


 
  
 Now that finally makes some sense.
  
 BTW, good to see another familiar face around here


----------



## limpidglitch

maverickronin said:


> I took a 2 year break and when I came back nothing was different.


 
  
 Hey, welcome back!
 I don't thing you've missed much, except maybe the HOT debacle, that was fun:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/741043/some-hot-science-from-synergistic-research
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/744295/synergistic-research-hot-device
  
 Anyone know about the final test results? I can't remember to have seen them.


----------



## maverickronin

limpidglitch said:


> Hey, welcome back!
> I don't thing you've missed much, except maybe the HOT debacle, that was fun:


 
  
 Wow...
  
 6 pages in and I don't know whether to laugh or cry....


----------



## RRod

maverickronin said:


> Wow...
> 
> 6 pages in and I don't know whether to laugh or cry....


 
  
 Supposedly someone's bringing one to the meet here in DC on Sunday. We'll see if it causes fisticuffs ^_^


----------



## maverickronin

rrod said:


> Supposedly someone's bringing one to the meet here in DC on Sunday. We'll see if it causes fisticuffs ^_^


 
  
 Someone should bring a decent ADC and measure it while no one's looking.  Also get an accelerometer app and balance their phone on it to check if that piezoelectric sand is doing any transducing.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> OK, thank you for the clarification.
> 
> As you are most probably using it - does it change reading speed during the process ? According to the Features, it does. Can it be forced to go slowly, at some constant speed, not exceeding say 10x during ripping ?


 
  
 FWIW, I just ripped a track 10 times using cdparanoia, and the resulting rip was identical all ten times. And it was certainly reading faster than 1x speed, and had to correct a few frame jitter errors that occurred at different times for each rip. So it's at least consistent.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> FWIW, I just ripped a track 10 times using cdparanoia, and the resulting rip was identical all ten times. And it was certainly reading faster than 1x speed, and had to correct a few frame jitter errors that occurred at different times for each rip. So it's at least consistent.


 
 Interesting, I will have to try this one too.
  
 Same question as for EAC - can it be kept from spinning - EVER - faster than say 10x ? Does it change it speed, in case it finds sector(s) it needs to read again?
  
 This is the reason why it is impossible to check for errors while burning in Nero using mat - there is NO WAY the verification can be done at anything but top speed of the drive and that was the first time I got "shiit happens" ( it will, naturally, throw the mat, which can , for all practical purposes, never be 100% centered on the CD/drive, off - together with the CD(R), in best case only scratching mat ). No other way of preventing this fatal spin-up but unchecking the box for verification of the copy after burning in Nero. If I have overlooked something that CAN control the speed during verification after burning in Nero ( I am using Nero 8 because back compatibility with Yamaha CRW-F1E USB burner and compatibility with Win7 - later versions of Nero may no longer work ) and someone knows how to do this, I would appreciate it very much.
  
 Please note authoring physical CDs is VERY important to me - musicians generally do not have time or knowledge working with files of ANY kind - and they are the most satisfied with CDs (strictly speaking CD-Rs). Therefore burning in highest possible quality IS a concern and that leaves for now Yamaha/Nero combo as the only one I know to support Audio Master Recording Quality. Changing the Yamaha drive is NOT an option - under any circumstances ( I did stock up on these... - NOS, used, refurbished, whatever-that-still-works-ed ...).
  
 Long story short - does cdparanoia EVER spin up beyond say 10x speed, even for the shortest of time? Can this be controlled/limited - damn the time required ?
  
 Here comes the clincher :  no time were the errors you all are obviously so preventing to occur while copying AUDIBLE. According to at least one result, my copy SHOULD sound like - shiit. No way this was borne out in listening - EVER.
  
 But playing back the CD in a normal CD player with or without CD mat is instantly audible. And copy made using mat during ripping and burning sounds also better than the one that used mat only during ripping OR burning - let alone one not using mat at all.
  
 In short - errors other than that as displayed by numbers of any of these "exact copy" methods have to be at work during normal playback on CD (DVD, did not try Blue Ray) players. Picture improvement on the DVD players that can use CD mat ( usually spin-up in certain models precludes use of mat ) is CLEARLY VISIBLE.
  
 This is an honest question - I am not making this up. Even if it turns out CD ripping without mat using "exact" methods is good enough for creating file to be listened from HDD/SDD, I would still like to know how and why it makes so audible difference when playing disc back by a player.


----------



## Phishin Phool

I think I am going to start marketing reverse polarity mats for those in the southern hemisphere to combat the Coriolis effect


----------



## analogsurviver

phishin phool said:


> I think I am going to start marketing reverse polarity mats for those in the southern hemisphere to combat the Coriolis effect


 
 You can mock as you please, but the above would most probably never hold in the listening room.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> You can mock as you please, but the above would most probably never hold in the listening room.


 

 I think it will... just imagine the poor guys listening to CDs with the CD player trying to spin backwards... it must be a mess... an inverted mat should solve the problem... but anyways they must have their own brands with that feature....


----------



## limpidglitch

analogsurviver said:


> Interesting, I will have to try this one too.
> 
> (…)
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think you already know the answer to this. Just man up and admit it to yourself.


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> This is an honest question - I am not making this up. Even if it turns out CD ripping without mat using "exact" methods is good enough for creating file to be listened from HDD/SDD, I would still like to know how and why it makes so audible difference when playing disc back by a player.


 
 Because you knew the CD mat was in the player?


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> Because you knew the CD mat was in the player?


 
 Guys, chill up a bit.
  
 How many of you are musicians?
  
 How many of you are SINGERS ?
  
 How many of you are singers that won http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Grand_Prix_for_Choral_Singing  ?
  
 How many of you are conductors that won the above - TWICE ?
  
 I am not a musician, can not sing (at least not well... ) - but working with the above cats did teach me a thing or two.
  
 And they clearly rejected some things I thought/hoped for to be better and an improvement over the previous.
  
 YET THEY ARE *ALL* ANONIMOUS REGARDING THE CD MAT.
  
 Got it ?


----------



## Phishin Phool

> This is an honest question - I am not making this up. Even if it turns out CD ripping without mat using "exact" methods is good enough for creating file to be listened from HDD/SDD, I would still like to know how and why it makes so audible difference when playing disc back by a player.


 
 Placebo. Digitally you are only storing ones and zeros so if you get an exact match you have an exact match. 
 Reminds me of the arguing over decoding Dolby True HD/DTS-HDMA in the player or AVR. If no other processing (DSP) is done the sound is exactly the same yet people insist that their AVR or player does it better.


----------



## analogsurviver

phishin phool said:


> Placebo. Digitally you are only storing ones and zeros so if you get an exact match you have an exact match.
> Reminds me of the arguing over decoding Dolby True HD/DTS-HDMA in the player or AVR. If no other processing (DSP) is done the sound is exactly the same yet people insist that their AVR or player does it better.


 
 This particular bucket does NOT hold water.
  
 No idea regarding Dolby etc - never tried that - but CD playback in CD players is affected by mat (except turntable like platters that support the CD across entire surface of the label side and laser reads them from the top - or those that have slot loading too thin to allow additional 0.3 mm or so thick disk ).


----------



## MacacoDoSom

phishin phool said:


> Placebo. Digitally you are only storing ones and zeros so if you get an exact match you have an exact match.
> Reminds me of the arguing over decoding Dolby True HD/DTS-HDMA in the player or AVR. If no other processing (DSP) is done the sound is exactly the same yet people insist that their AVR or player does it better.


 

 with or without the MAT?


----------



## Phishin Phool

analogsurviver said:


> This particular bucket does NOT hold water.
> 
> No idea regarding Dolby etc - never tried that - but CD playback in CD players is affected by mat (except turntable like platters that support the CD across entire surface of the label side and laser reads them from the top - or those that have slot loading too thin to allow additional 0.3 mm or so thick disk ).


 
 That is your opinion which has never been able to be validated by legit ABX testing or similar bias free methodology. 
 I view a cd mat like I view people who love BOSE - if you're happy does it matter


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> Guys, chill up a bit.
> 
> How many of you are musicians?
> 
> ...


 

 Chill? I'm not the one wasting the caps lock key.
  
 Appeal to authority is _not_ a valid argument. Just because a few guys told you it's 'better' doesn't mean it's definitive proof. If you're convincing yourself, I don't care what you think. However, if you're gonna convince others, try harder.


----------



## analogsurviver

phishin phool said:


> That is your opinion which has never been alke to be validated by legit ABX testing or similar bias free methodology.
> I view a cd mat like I view people who love BOSE - if you're happy does it matter


 
 You will have the opportunity to listen and compare the files in few days.
  
 When playing a CD by a CD player in real time, there is no going back and re-reading the sector(s) that were not read 100% correct. Same with DVD player. Whatever the errors this may produce, IS reduced>eliminated with the use of mat.
  
 Ripping with Nero is done much the same way, only it is done faster. I will upload files for you to compare/listen/evaluate with software/whatever . 
  
 Each 30 seconds (copyright etc limit) sample will be uploaded twice - once with the mat, once without . Random sequence - And after a reasonable time, I will publish the results of everyone that will participate in the test.
  
 I do not like Bose (with the exception of using 901 Pro Version (no idea how it is really called) for the live concert centre speaker for singers - normal left and right positioned walls of speakers produce the voice of the singer as wide as the stage itself - something I hate to the max. Clever PA engineers know how to use this to a much more natural sounding amplified concert ).


----------



## Ruben123

Finish this discussion now. I thought Ive read somewhere that analogsurvivor will be conducting a test this week/near future, lets STOP this endless discussion with no final words until he has come up with test data. If it's a myth, we will know soon.


----------



## bufferoverflow

Quote analogsurviver: 





> Same question as for EAC - can it be kept from spinning - EVER - faster than say 10x


 
 EAC can, don't know about other ripping-software, because EAC was the first I tried and never looked for a replacement ..
  
 Either way, ripping with a mat is just placing more weight on the drive, it has absolutely ZERO influence on the final result .
 And I "seriously doubt" it has any influence on playback either .
 But hey, the laws of expectation-bias states that if you expect it to sound better with a mat -
 It will sound better, at least to you and anyone else whom you have told that it sounds better .
 Until you make a proper DBT and realise that it makes no difference at all .
  
 You still owe to tell us exactly how vinyl is superior to digital ..


----------



## Phishin Phool

> When playing a CD by a CD player in real time, there is no going back and re-reading the sector(s) that were not read 100% correct. Same with DVD player. Whatever the errors this may produce, IS reduced>eliminated with the use of mat.


 
 Not true, there is a buffer for just such an issue (difficulty reading a sector). If you exceed the buffer then yes you will have an issue.


----------



## sonitus mirus

analogsurviver said:


> You will have the opportunity to listen and compare the files in few days.


 
  
 Granted, I've resorted to skimming your posts or simply skipping over them as soon as my eyes roll in my head, but I seem to recall that you have made numerous claims that files would be provided for others to analyze or that you would be reporting results of a test, but I've never seen anything.  Usually you create multi-paragraph posts filled with utter nonsense, misdirection, and bewildering analogies that sidetrack any attempt to approach a closure or improve the direction of the discussion.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bufferoverflow said:


> You still owe to tell us exactly how vinyl is superior to digital ..


 


 ...maybe because of this?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

...a good solution...


----------



## castleofargh

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> You will have the opportunity to listen and compare the files in few days.
> 
> ...


 

 1/ cd players doing multipass with a huge buffer have existed for years. I had a portable one, what seems like an eternity ago( I would say between 1996 and 2000) that I would shake like an idiot for 2 or 3 seconds with no lag, then I got a minidisc with even more buffer.
  
 2/ ripping a CD: of course the computer can come back on a problematic parts if it detects a reading problem. unless you use the worst ripping method possible, it will.
  
 3/ more than listening to it, I would be more interested in seeing if the 2 tracks have actual digital differences. if they do, it would be good to do another rip just to see if the amount of differences is similar by doing nothing. and if there are real recorded differences, I would wonder how to prove that the one with the mat is the better one, and not the one with the most errors? given how you favor vinyl to CD, it would seem rational to expect you to find the one with the most errors to sound superior. ^_^
 this reminds me of the ice age, you know that sad period in humanity when people claimed that CD sounded better when placed in a freezer.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
  
  
 Quote:


bufferoverflow said:


> You still owe to tell us exactly how vinyl is superior to digital ..


 
 you can search on headfi for this. we already did it for many many many pages. I went on writing all the bad measurements and all the kinds of noises and distortions from vertical and horizontal mechanical movements, the poor crosstalk, the limits of the material itself, the limited dynamic, the mastering rolling off trebles on purpose to deal with amplitude errors and to try to limit the noise...
 nothing stood in front of analogsurviver and his idea that ultrasounds are the music, and nothing else matters!
  
 I felt like that again with the pono engineer explaining how impedance and frequency response didn't really matter that much, but time smearing did ...
  tunnel vision is a real thing. that's my conclusion.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> Finish this discussion now. I thought Ive read somewhere that analogsurvivor will be conducting a test this week/near future, lets STOP this endless discussion with no final words until he has come up with test data. If it's a myth, we will know soon.


 
 +1000


----------



## MacacoDoSom

This is a snapshot of the 2nd track of 'Sinikka Langeland - The Half-Finished Heaven' a 96/24 recording, supposedly a Master - a nice all acoustical recording.
 What do you people think it is that spike above 30k ?
 it is there throughout the track...
 please someone comment...


----------



## StanD

@MacacoDoSom Anyone with a signal generator can add ultrasonic tones to a recording.
 If I was a bat or dolphin I might be interested. Us Carbon units can't hear it, even if it is naturally occurring.


----------



## Phishin Phool

I have always found vinyl to sound slightly different than cd - better is subjective but less accurate would be correct. I find tube amps to 'sound better' but the harmonics introduced make them less accurate.


----------



## StanD

phishin phool said:


> I have always found vinyl to sound slightly different than cd - better is subjective but less accurate would be correct. I find tube amps to 'sound better' but the harmonics introduced make them less accurate.


 
 There's a good chance the harmonic distortion is well below what a human can distinguish, so should not affect SQ. Google up info about the Human Threshold for hearing distortion, *Just Detectable Distortion (JDD)*. The numbers are much higher than anyone is going to be willing to admit.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> This is a snapshot of the 2nd track of 'Sinikka Langeland - The Half-Finished Heaven' a 96/24 recording, supposedly a Master - a nice all acoustical recording.
> What do you people think it is that spike above 30k ?
> it is there throughout the track...
> please someone comment...


 
 If it is there constantly, it must be some kind of defect : mic resonance (least likely), grounding/RFI generated (can and does happen), oscillation anywhere from mic capsule right out to the analog output (there are lots of (pre)amps in any recorder...each of them can be the source of this ). 
  
 Music overtones extending beyond 20 kHz are usually lower in level and are "in beat" with the music ( with instruments that can produce >20 kHz) - "constant " over any appreciable amount of time (few seconds) would only be organ, but I have not heard of an organ that would incorporate on purpose pipes capable of >20 kHz .
  
 Even less likely would be some ultrasonic insect repellent - being picked up by otherwise setup extended enough to record to 48 kHz - if I see correct.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> If it is there constantly, it must be some kind of defect : mic resonance (least likely), grounding/RFI generated (can and does happen), oscillation anywhere from mic capsule right out to the analog output (there are lots of (pre)amps in any recorder...each of them can be the source of this ).
> 
> Music overtones extending beyond 20 kHz are usually lower in level and are "in beat" with the music ( with instruments that can produce >20 kHz) - "constant " over any appreciable amount of time (few seconds) would only be organ, but I have not heard of an organ that would incorporate on purpose pipes capable of >20 kHz .
> 
> Even less likely would be some ultrasonic insect repellent - being picked up by otherwise setup extended enough to record to 48 kHz - if I see correct.


 

 This is an ECM recording... acoustic instruments and voice... I've been seeing this kind of thing in most of the so called HD tracks, some times 2 very thin spikes one octave apart...
  
 as I cannot hear it I suppose its noise generated by the mics or the pre-amp, I even tried to use a high-pass filter at 20kz and put it several octaves below so I could hear what is there... but what I could only hear was a distorted noise of some kind...
  
 maybe they use an insect repellent in the studios in order to ultrasonic content in their (HD) recordings....
  
 I can get some other examples if someone is interested... maybe some Neil Young super HD Masters 192/24....


----------



## maverickronin

macacodosom said:


> This is a snapshot of the 2nd track of 'Sinikka Langeland - The Half-Finished Heaven' a 96/24 recording, supposedly a Master - a nice all acoustical recording.
> What do you people think it is that spike above 30k ?
> it is there throughout the track...
> please someone comment...


 
  
 Interesting.  I have a few 24/96 tracks that I should check for this kind of thing.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Interesting, I will have to try this one too.
> 
> Same question as for EAC - can it be kept from spinning - EVER - faster than say 10x ? Does it change it speed, in case it finds sector(s) it needs to read again?




Have you downloaded it yet and looked through the options yourself? I don't remember if it has a drive options speed setting, but StanD indicated already that it does. Did you check for yourself on the software and then google for information on what it does? Have you read the tutorials online for configuring EAC? 

And no. It makes no sense that if you could set the drive speed that it would then spin up faster than that setting to double check a potential read error.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> This is an ECM recording... acoustic instruments and voice... I've been seeing this kind of thing in most of the so called HD tracks, some times 2 very thin spikes one octave apart...
> 
> as I cannot hear it I suppose its noise generated by the mics or the pre-amp, I even tried to use a high-pass filter at 20kz and put it several octaves below so I could hear what is there... but what I could only hear was a distorted noise of some kind...
> 
> ...


 
 I will have to install VoxengoSPAN - but it will have to wait, "something" went bad enough my main PC does not recognize even my Yamaha burner, so it needs a thorough clean up . I do not want to mess with the VST plugins required for Windows prior to that. ( No problem, I can get CD rips promised using netbook ...).
  
 I can then test my own recordings for ultrasonics - but will have to bounce DSD down to some PCM. Which is the PCM that still works with VoxengoSPAN - 96/24 or it can go to 192/24? 
  
 I DID manage to "reap" approx 30 kHz  constant noise in one of the recent recordings due to weird grounding/RFI problem on that location - but otherwise, I hope my recordings to be free from CONSTANT HF content indicating trouble. 
  
 If you can share the exact ECM recording, I might have its equivalent on the vinyl - I stopped buying ECM after they went to digital recording, SQ nosedived at that point - and their official CD releases are also a very pale shadow of their former analogue LP  glory, particularly for the originally analogue recordings.
  
 I hope VixengoSPAN will work in my setup eventually - although it does not extend as high as I would have liked (minimum 67 kHz or so, the highest one can check a phono cartridge with a regular sweep test record - 50 kHz record intended to be played at 33 1/3 RPM played at 45 RPM *( do not try this with anything but absolute top guality minimum effective mass stylus !!! ) .* I am interested if there is anything similar in original ECM LPs - cartridges exceed this 30 kHz - twice and more.
  
 It is interesting to see such anomalies in HD masters - checking the original *#1 Master (whatever it is - analogue or digital ) *_is the only way to know for sure._


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Guys, chill up a bit.
> 
> How many of you are musicians?
> 
> ...







dazzerfong said:


> Chill? I'm not the one wasting the caps lock key.
> 
> Appeal to authority is _not_ a valid argument. Just because a few guys told you it's 'better' doesn't mean it's definitive proof. If you're convincing yourself, I don't care what you think. However, if you're gonna convince others, try harder.







ruben123 said:


> Finish this discussion now. I thought Ive read somewhere that analogsurvivor will be conducting a test this week/near future, lets STOP this endless discussion with no final words until he has come up with test data. If it's a myth, we will know soon.




Agreed. 

Analogsurviver, this thread is not for promoting why you think the cdmat is good. It's for testing audiophile myths, so any subjective evaluations that do not follow strict testing protocols are not adequate "tests" using sound science and are best considered OFF TOPIC. 

So why not stay on topic and focus on getting help on how to properly conduct your test? If you want to argue why CD mats are good based on sighted evaluations, here is the forum for you: http://www.head-fi.org/f/21/cables-power-tweaks-speakers-accessories-dbt-free-forum.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Have you downloaded it yet and looked through the options yourself? I don't remember if it has a drive options speed setting, but StanD indicated already that it does. Did you check for yourself on the software and then google for information on what it does? Have you read the tutorials online for configuring EAC?
> 
> And no. It makes no sense that if you could set the drive speed that it would then spin up faster than that setting to double check a potential read error.


 
 No, I did not. Something went bad enough with my PC it does no longer recognize my Yamaha burner >clean up>install ASAP. Drivers for Yamaha are cleverly burried in Nero and anything downloadable did not solve the problem so far. Goes beyond my command of PC, will ask a friend sometime next week we both have time. It is quite complex to have everything I use compatible - as sometimes for back compatibility some ancient software still has to work. 
  
 I can still use Yamaha with my netbook, will not affect promised rips for comparisons.
  
 I hope what you wrote regarding staying at speed setting will turn out to be true.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> I hope what you wrote regarding staying at speed setting will turn out to be true.




If you want to know for sure, you could ask in the Hydrogenaudio forums: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/. They maintain one of the tutorials on EAC. But I think you should try to figure it out for yourself first so you know a bit more about the software. 

If you go there, be sure to read their terms of service first, though. If you start promoting the benefits of CD mat based on sighted evaluations, you will be in violation of their posting policy. Given that I have a feeling you might not be able to restrain yourself, I don't think I would mention CD mat at all


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Analogsurviver, this thread is not for promoting why you think the cdmat is good. It's for testing audiophile myths, so any subjective evaluations that do not follow strict testing protocols are not adequate "tests" using sound science and are best considered OFF TOPIC.
> 
> So why not stay on topic and focus on getting help on how to properly conduct your test? If you want to argue why CD mats are good based on sighted evaluations, here is the forum for you: http://www.head-fi.org/f/21/cables-power-tweaks-speakers-accessories-dbt-free-forum.


 
 Point taken.
  
 Uploads will proceed as promised.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> I will have to install VoxengoSPAN - but it will have to wait, "something" went bad enough my main PC does not recognize even my Yamaha burner, so it needs a thorough clean up . I do not want to mess with the VST plugins required for Windows prior to that. ( No problem, I can get CD rips promised using netbook ...).
> 
> I can then test my own recordings for ultrasonics - but will have to bounce DSD down to some PCM. Which is the PCM that still works with VoxengoSPAN - 96/24 or it can go to 192/24?
> 
> ...


 

 VoxengoSPAN shows until 96Khz so it goes to 192Khz
 The Originals came from HD Tracks and PonoMusic Store (They are Not mine, as I don't spend money on garbage I can't ear and even if I could I didn't want to), so I don't know for sure if the master is analogue or digital... the old ones from Neil Young are analogue for sure... more than that... 
 there are no VST plugins required for Windows!
  
 You can use foobar with a lot of free VST plugins to analyze, equalize.... (whatever you want), your audio files


----------



## GrindingThud

32KHz ultrasonic motion detectors in alarm systems look like that.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> VoxengoSPAN shows until 96Khz so it goes to 192Khz
> The Originals came from HD Tracks and PonoMusic Store (They are Not mine, as I don't spend money on garbage I can't ear and even if I could I didn't want to), so I don't know for sure if the master is analogue or digital... the old ones from Neil Young are analogue for sure... more than that...
> there are no VST plugins required for Windows!
> 
> You can use foobar with a lot of free VST plugins to analyze, equalize.... (whatever you want), your audio files




 Sorry - "semantics" : from the "Download types & How to set up"
  
VST, VST3 for Win32 and Win64 (Win32_64_VST_VST3) — VST and VST3 plugin for 32-bit and 64-bit host audio applications running on Windows. *This download requires a VST or VST3-compatible host audio application to run.*
  
 Will install the minute my PC is "healed".
  
 If it works with 192 kHz, it means it will likely display to 96 kHz - *YES !!!*
  
 This is what I call _Positive Collateral Damage - _it it were not for your desire to show how "bad" hirez downloads are, I might have not stumbled upon VoxengoSPAN...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## analogsurviver

grindingthud said:


> 32KHz ultrasonic motion detectors in alarm systems look like that.


 
 Ahhh  -  another one joining the ranks of what I call _*Nikola Tesla's Call From The Grave *_( hum and its harmonics, 50 Hz in Europe, 60 in the USA, *allegedly *both in Japan, etc ). Nasty stuff, particularly with dimmed lights ... - BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ !
  
 In other words, another worry to worry about as people keep on forgetting to switch off electrical buzzmakers - with this one not even being directly audible.
  
 Thank you for the tip !


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> If you want to know for sure, you could ask in the Hydrogenaudio forums: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/. They maintain one of the tutorials on EAC. But I think you should try to figure it out for yourself first so you know a bit more about the software.
> 
> If you go there, be sure to read their terms of service first, though. If you start promoting the benefits of CD mat based on sighted evaluations, you will be in violation of their posting policy. Given that I have a feeling you might not be able to restrain yourself, I don't think I would mention CD mat at all


 
 I will familiarize myself with the software first and will see how far can I go on my own.
  
 On Hydrogenaudio, they write enough semi misinformed gobbledegook regarding vinyl that  I would not trust them a - bit. Let alone groove
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  
 They are much better with digital, so I might reconsider. 
  
 Rhetorical question: if your spouse comes, from doing any chores around the house, voluntarily to the listening room and asks you *WHAT *did you do for the sound of otherwise familiar CD to suddenly sound better (and she was not even in the room when you put the CD mat on for the first time, let alone sawit in flesh ) - what is then that - TBRLNEBWT ?
 ( triple blind removed location no expectation bias whatsoever test ) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 I agree, it does not follow the strict ABX DBT rules - but do you not find this a bit absurd ?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> I will familiarize myself with the software first and will see how far can I go on my own.
> 
> On Hydrogenaudio, they write enough semi misinformed gobbledegook regarding vinyl that  I would not trust them a - bit. Let alone groove
> 
> ...


 
 ...she was pulling your leg...
  
 Now another example, this one from LINN Records 192/24 'Kuniko Plays Reich', this time I could capture the audio... Just Marimbas...


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> ...she was pulling your leg...
> 
> Now another example, this one from LINN Records 192/24 'Kuniko Plays Reich', this time I could capture the audio... Just Marimbas...




 This is marimba > percussion > treble above 20 kHz - normal. 
  
 But that 24 kHz persistent constant peak "should" not be there.
  
 You really make me want to install this FFT analyzer - I have seen similar (same?) only for a few of my own recordings, now I would like to check them all.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> This is marimba > percussion > treble above 20 kHz - normal.
> 
> But that 24 kHz persistent constant peak "should" not be there.
> 
> You really make me want to install this FFT analyzer - I have seen similar (same?) only for a few of my own recordings, now I would like to check them all.


 
 His kit has Tinnitus.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> His kit has Tinnitus.


 
 It did happen - once. Now I would like to check it - for 6 or so years of recording back.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> I will familiarize myself with the software first and will see how far can I go on my own.
> 
> On Hydrogenaudio, they write enough semi misinformed gobbledegook regarding vinyl that  I would not trust them a - bit. Let alone groove:eek: .
> 
> They are much better with digital, so I might reconsider.




I offered that as a useful resource to solve your current problem. You can take or leave it. Not interested in getting into a debate with you about why you don't like Hydrogenaudio because of what they say about vinyl. 



analogsurviver said:


> Rhetorical question: if your spouse comes, from doing any chores around the house, voluntarily to the listening room and asks you *WHAT *did you do for the sound of otherwise familiar CD to suddenly sound better (and she was not even in the room when you put the CD mat on for the first time, let alone sawit in flesh ) - what is then that - TBRLNEBWT ?
> ( triple blind removed location no expectation bias whatsoever test ) :atsmile:
> 
> I agree, it does not follow the strict ABX DBT rules - but do you not find this a bit absurd ?




I'm not interested in your efforts to discredit audio science just because you would prefer that subjective evaluations be considered sufficient evidence. I doubt anyone else here is either. 

If you want help with testing your CD mat, great. Otherwise, this is a better place where you can go to rant about your displeasure with audio science: http://www.head-fi.org/f/21/cables-power-tweaks-speakers-accessories-dbt-free-forum


----------



## MacacoDoSom

...Sorry I had a Low Pass Filter at 20K ... I have made another one, this time with only VovengoSPAN
  
 Higher ultrasound noise and the same spike....


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> ...Sorry I had a Low Pass Filter at 20K ... I have made another one, this time with only VovengoSPAN
> 
> Higher ultrasound noise and the same spike....




 I cry *FOUL !*
  
 This is the way PCs sound whenever they reach the _terminal speed _for audio - they begin to noise like crazy, just as in this example. I know it from the use of Korg Audiogate (which plays DSD as PCM, and has rates and depths selectable - one of my netbooks will play back DSD as 192/24 just OK on wall power supply, switching it to batteries creates exactly the same noise as in your example).
  
 This is NOT fault of the recording, it is inability of either soundcard, Voxengo SPAN, settings - no idea.
  
 That peak at 24 kHz remains - and that is the only thing correctly represented in this example.
  
 Try to figure out what went wrong - I hope I did cover all the possible culprits, but there may be more.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> I cry *FOUL !*
> 
> This is the way PCs sound whenever they reach the _terminal speed _for audio - they begin to noise like crazy, just as in this example. I know it from the use of Korg Audiogate (which plays DSD as PCM, and has rates and depths selectable - one of my netbooks will play back DSD as 192/24 just OK on wall power supply, switching it to batteries creates exactly the same noise as in your example).
> 
> ...


 
 You are completely wrong my friend, first of all the sound card has nothing to do with it... this works in the digital domain only, you can change the sound card and it shows the same... although I am using an external DAC capable of reproducing 192/24 (for listening without re sampling) if I change to the internal card (A realtek that goes to 48kHz) the drivers/card does the re-sampling before the output and although I am hearing at 48KHZ, VoxengoSPAN shows the same...
 you try it...
  
 I think you have a hell of an imagination you can see (and ear) things that are not there...


----------



## KeithEmo

If I were being cynical (which I am) I could suggest a few possibilities.....
  
 1) Maybe she noticed that you were dragging out all your favorite CDs and playing them - which you always do when you have a new audio toy to try.
 2) Maybe, since you were specifically trying to hear something, you were playing them louder than usual - and it just sounded better because it was louder.
 3) Or maybe you were playing just pieces of songs instead of listening to whole albums (I do this when I'm listening to a new piece of equipment).
 3) Maybe she just noticed that you were running around excitedly doing something - or seemed unusually happy.
 4) Maybe she noticed that you had opening a new package that just arrived and then disappeared into the music room.
  
 I can easily imagine any of these things serving as an unconscious cue to her that you had something "positive" going on - and that it involved your beloved stereo. It's sort of like when something good happens and everybody around says "gee, you sure seem happy today"; they're picking up on all sorts of unconscious cues. (Just like I'll bet your wife would notice right away if you hit the lottery - even if you were trying your best to keep it a secret. We humans are very good at "reading" one another - especially when it's someone we know very well.)
  
 There was a famous case quite a few years ago where a fellow had a horse that could supposedly count to five by stamping its foot (he would say a number and the horse would stamp that many times). The fellow swore that there was no cheating, and that the horse was really counting. The horse was tested several times, and always passed with flying colors... until, one day, someone suggested that the horse should be tested again, only this time its owner would stand around a corner where the horse couldn't easily see him, so he couldn't make any motions or gestures to tip it off. This time the horse failed - totally. It turned out that the horse really was very smart, and it had figured out that, when its master spoke a number to it, he would slightly hold his breath until the horse had reached the correct count. So, every time he spoke a number, it would stamp slowly until he let out his breath - at which point it had reached the correct number and would stop. (The horse had learned, at least mostly on its own, to stamp slowly until its owner released his breath... but it wasn't counting. There was little doubt that the owner was totally unaware of this, or else he wouldn't have agreed to the test.)
  
 Even if you were to sit in that room, switching back and forth, while your wife sat down the hall listening, and you were saying "how about now" each time, it's not at all unreasonable to think that something in the pitch or level of your voice was giving her clues as to whether you were expecting a positive or negative response each time. That's why, in a properly conducted double-blind test, even the person giving the test can't know which choice was which - so they can't unconsciously "give away" the fact to the person taking the test.
  
 Quote:


analogsurviver said:


> I will familiarize myself with the software first and will see how far can I go on my own.
> 
> On Hydrogenaudio, they write enough semi misinformed gobbledegook regarding vinyl that  I would not trust them a - bit. Let alone groove
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Just a thought..... if the recording was originally mastered on tape, that _could_ be a tiny bit of the record bias frequency that's making its way through.
  
 (Amazingly, the high frequency used to bias the record head on tape recorders _DOES_ survive on the tape - although at a very low level. There is at least one company using it to detect and correct pitch variations, wow, and flutter caused by tape stretch. They use the record bias signal like a servo track to monitor and correct the speed of the audio signal. There is a blurb about the company and their process on the page on HDTracks where they talk about how the recent remasters of the Grateful Dead studio albums were produced. I would just add that to the long list of things that could be causing a little bit of low level ultrasonic noise. Luckily, since it's ultrasonic, it shouldn't be much of a problem. )
  
 Quote:


analogsurviver said:


> If it is there constantly, it must be some kind of defect : mic resonance (least likely), grounding/RFI generated (can and does happen), oscillation anywhere from mic capsule right out to the analog output (there are lots of (pre)amps in any recorder...each of them can be the source of this ).
> 
> Music overtones extending beyond 20 kHz are usually lower in level and are "in beat" with the music ( with instruments that can produce >20 kHz) - "constant " over any appreciable amount of time (few seconds) would only be organ, but I have not heard of an organ that would incorporate on purpose pipes capable of >20 kHz .
> 
> Even less likely would be some ultrasonic insect repellent - being picked up by otherwise setup extended enough to record to 48 kHz - if I see correct.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> You are completely wrong my friend, first of all the sound card has nothing to do with it... this works in the digital domain only, you can change the sound card and it shows the same... although I am using an external DAC capable of reproducing 192/24 (for listening without re sampling) if I change to the internal card (A realtek that goes to 48kHz) windows does the resampling and VoxengoSPAN shows the same...
> you try it...
> 
> I think you have a hell of an imagination you can see (and ear) things that are not there...


 
 "To think is to know nothing " - is a saying around these parts.
  
 No idea what exactly went wrong here - but the symptoms are soooo familiar...You can say whatever you want, I did install Korg Audiogate to quite a few friend musician's computers - and only few did not have, at least initially, problems with noise at the high quality and high sampling rate/bit depth setting. Usually, it is the in the panel settings for sound, which are seldom set to the max (192/24 most usual ) - but can be LOTS of stuff that prevent proper performance in sound. With older machines, lower resolution had to be set as a compromise - up to the maximum particular computer still could play without sudden increase of noise as in example above.
  
 I even experienced one bad screen - which oscillated at high frequency and the situation returned to normal the minute the screen from another computer was replaced. It worked flawlessly up to 88.2 kHz sampling, above that noise - no matter which settings that were running flawless on another pc of the same type - with it original screen. If I did not experience myself, would not believe it either.
  
 Sorry, this is real life - from experience first hand. 
  
 I did like my jump from DSD64 recorder to DSD128 recorder - but I did NOT like the consequences : at least twice as powerful PC as before for "normal chores" (or it will noise like in this sample), if I wanted to "upsample" DSD64 to DS128 my old netbook took *6 times the real time *- with typical concert being 2 times 50 or so minutes - which is to say conversion took 10 or so hours - in real life, no go. Etc, etc - bottom line - you need MUCH more
 powerful and faster computer, faster processor, more RAM, more ????. Like it or not - no way around it. Check the requirements for the HQ Player - and you will start to get the idea.
  
 Now imagine DSD512 or "equivalent" PCM  - 8 times the speed, 8 times the storage, etc, etc - 
  
 I imagine VoxengoSPAN run at 192 kHz (display to 98 kHz ) to be quite a "hungry animal" - and that it can behave like that if computer is not up to the task. Here we have seen it misbehaving at half the speed - 96 kHz(48 display) ...
  
 I will see how it will go in my setup - once my PC is "healed". 
  
 Can not wait - but will have to
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




... Hopefully, it will not turn out pc upgrade is required to run 192(96display) version.
  
 Not exactly with this software - but been there, done that before ...


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


>


 
 Plausible.
  
 The craziest and least believable episode with tape bias being transferred to another format was done by Stan Ricker - he managed to get > 100 kHz (122 kHz to be exact ) tape bias frequency transferred to master lacquer disk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Fidelity_Sound_Lab
  
 http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue2/mastering.htm


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> if I wanted to "upsample" DSD64 to DS128 my old netbook took *6 times the real time *- with typical concert being 2 times 50 or so minutes - which is to say conversion took 10 or so hours - in real life, no go.




No doubt. Netbooks were never meant to be audio and/or video processing power houses. They were mainly designed for simple word processing, surfing the next, and other mundane tasks. That's a bit like trying to ride across your state on a child's tricycle


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> No doubt. Netbooks were never meant to be audio and/or video processing power houses. They were mainly designed for simple word processing, surfing the next, and other mundane tasks. That's a bit like trying to ride across your state on a child's tricycle


 
 That little Atom processor was never meant to be whupped.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> No doubt. Netbooks were never meant to be audio and/or video processing power houses. They were mainly designed for simple word processing, surfing the next, and other mundane tasks. That's a bit like trying to ride across your state on a child's tricycle


 
 Sure - but the principle applies just the same.
  
 Whenever the task is doubled/quadrupled/increased 8 times - you need at least that much more computer power. 
  
 192/24 FFT is much more demanding than just 192/24 playback - and computer in question (I hope it is only settings that can be optimized ) had a "knee" or "terminal speed" at 96/24 FFT and even that only with 20 kHz low pass filter - the moment filter was removed, it could no longer work without added noise. 
  
 You can peacefully include this into X Digital Shadows of Grey - hardly a better case is possible when digital does not either work perfectly or does not work at all - but works - poorly.
  
 Regardless how fringe effect or requirement it may seem to any member - it is the proof that digital, under certain real circumstances, CAN work - poorly.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> Sure - but the principle applies just the same.
> 
> Whenever the task is doubled/quadrupled/increased 8 times - you need at least that much more computer power.
> 
> ...


 

 I give up..... you won.... (I tough this was a science forum not a voodoo one)
  
 Just going to wait for your voodoo Mat tests....
  
 Horses know math, and bats to...


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm becoming quite confused as to where the noise is actually occurring......
  
 If we're talking about a purely digital operation - like converting a DSD file into a PCM file using Audiogate - then that is not a real time operation. Within reason, even a very slow computer should be able to do a perfect job, even though it might take a lot longer to finish. If that's what we're talking about, then all this talk about "reaching the computer's limit" is meaningless unless a specific piece of software simply faults when asked to perform certain conversions. 
  
_HOWEVER_, then I see it mentioned that "there is a good outboard DAC connected". If we're talking about having a program convert the DSD file into PCM "on its way to the DAC" rather than writing the output to a file, then this isn't implausable at all. Transferring digital audio to a DAC most certainly_ IS_ a real-time operation, and overtaxing the computer most certainly _CAN_ result in odd noises coming from the DAC - because the computer has become unable to deliver a steady stream of numbers to the DAC. This typically results in what I tend to refer to as a "screeching" or "chittering" noise. This noise is being caused by the computer sending a non-continuous stream of audio information to the DAC, and is the result of the DAC then trying to decode this defective audio stream.
  
 The important point here is that this should _ONLY_ occur when we're playing audio through the DAC... and should _NEVER_ occur if we're doing simple file operations. In other words, it could happen if you were playing a DSD file through a PCM DAC - and letting the player program do the conversion as the file is played. In that case, it's quite possible that the choice of using certain filters in the player could make the difference between the computer delivering a steady stream of audio to the DAC or failing to do so. However, it should _NEVER_ occur if you were to convert the DSD _FILE_ into a PCM _FILE_, then play the resulting PCM file... and the distortion should never be present in the PCM file itself. (I recall trying a certain player program which offered the option of upsampling the audio as it was played, and offered several filter choices. Some of those filters required so much processing power that my quad-core desktop computer with 8 gB of RAM wasn't capable of playing audio using them - and produced the characteristic chittering noise after a few seconds whenever it tried. Again, note, though, that the error was occurring inside the computer, to the audio stream on its way out to the DAC - and there was no flaw or error present in the actual file that was playing.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> I give up..... you won.... (I tough this was a science forum not a voodoo one)
> 
> Just going to wait for your voodoo Mat tests....
> 
> Horses know math, and bats to...


 
 Cheer up - it is not about winning.
  
 It is about trying to find the weak links - wherever they may be lurking - so that we can understand them and eventually eliminate them. And finally have better performance from whatever the gear.
  
 No voodoo - I sure did not like wasting two days before finally deciding to try another screen - and did not enjoy paying for the replacement either. In no manual will you find that oscillating screen will affect higher sampling frequency audio... - and it was never ABXed against properly working one. Either of those does not make it any less real.
  
 Did you try to eliminate the noise of the FFT without the 20 kHz low pass filter ?


----------



## limpidglitch

analogsurviver said:


> Cheer up - it is not about winning.
> 
> It is about trying to find the weak links - wherever they may be lurking - so that we can understand them and eventually eliminate them. And finally have better performance from whatever the gear.
> 
> ...


 
  
 No, it's about testing audiophile claims and myths, look at the tread title.
 And since you present the most audiophile claims and myths, you win.
  
 Here's a gold star for your effort, now please go and play somewhere else.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> Sure - but the principle applies just the same.
> 
> Whenever the task is doubled/quadrupled/increased 8 times - you need at least that much more computer power.
> 
> ...


 

 it all depends on the window... the FFT I mean... If you looked at the window instead of writing you would be... illuminated... and... peaceful...
  
 yeah I know digital sucks and all...
  
 yeah man dig it... analogue is the way to go... Red Book is evil... Hurrah to the White Book... (damn commies...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)
  
  
 I'm taking a break...


----------



## sonitus mirus

analogsurviver said:


> Nice.
> 
> And then enjoy _*only *_ABXing happily ever after. And nothing above 44100 Hz to boot.
> 
> That means no live concert - for good.


 
  
 ABXing is perfectly fine if the test is properly administered.  Your comments about 44.1 KHz and live concerts are nothing more than subjective filler with absolutely no basis in any scientific method.


----------



## DougD

keithemo said:


> I have a proposal for you to present to your dealer... who is quite certain that there is an obvious difference...
> 
> You will RIP the same CD ten times, half with the mat and half without; name the file you get each time ( "01-testtrack.wav" "02-testtrack.wav" etc) and keep track of which is which in a list.
> Now, give those ten files to your dealer - MINUS THE LIST, and ask him to tell you which five were done with the mat.
> ...


 
  
 I like the way you think.
  
 If there is no real difference, the probability of getting 9 or 10 correct "by chance" is approx 1.07%.  (Per the calculator at http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx . ) 
  
 For a full ABX, shouldn't there also be one labeled reference copy for "no matt" and one labeled reference copy for "fancy matt" ?


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


> I'm becoming quite confused as to where the noise is actually occurring......
> 
> If we're talking about a purely digital operation - like converting a DSD file into a PCM file using Audiogate - then that is not a real time operation. Within reason, even a very slow computer should be able to do a perfect job, even though it might take a lot longer to finish. If that's what we're talking about, then all this talk about "reaching the computer's limit" is meaningless unless a specific piece of software simply faults when asked to perform certain conversions.
> 
> ...


 
 You are correct - converting DSD file to PCM file and then playing back should not result in any such increase of noise - it will just take so much longer to convert.
  
 REAL TIME converting and playing  (from DSD to PCM, as in Korg Audiogate - or vice versa in jRiver19 , for example ) or so called converting in the fly IS another matter. jRiver specifies PRECISELY
 http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Windows_System_Requirements
 how much computing power you got to have
 http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=54396.0
 in order to use the software in full measure - and will stutter, noise and hiccup if it is not met. 
  
 FFT IS more demanding than just simple playback of 192/24. For those who think this is another audiophile myth, load Foobar2000 and start using graphic features like VU meter, spectrogram, etc, etc - and you should reach a point, sooner or later, when things will start sliding downhill.
  
 Except if you have infinite computer power.


----------



## castleofargh

that's just showing once again how much DSD is a stupid choice for file format.


----------



## lamode

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> converting DSD file to PCM file and then playing back should not result in any such increase of noise - it will just take so much longer to convert.


 
  
 The CPU load of the conversion will be the same whether the conversion is saved as a file or transferred to a DAC. There is no reason why it should take "so much longer" to convert to a PCM file.


----------



## lamode

castleofargh said:


> that's just showing once again how much DSD is a stupid choice for file format.


 
  
 "Stupid" is a strong word, but I'd agree that DSD is certainly inferior and should be allowed to die off ASAP.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> The CPU load of the conversion will be the same whether the conversion is saved as a file or transferred to a DAC. There is no reason why it should take "so much longer" to convert to a PCM file.


 
 True.
  
 What I wanted to underline is that it IS POSSIBLE to convert the file on a slow low computing power machine - and then play it back. Taking all the time in the world if required.
  
 It is NOT POSSIBLE for the same machine to convert it on the fly - it is perfectly possible to get the noise as heard and seen in that FFT example. 
  
 The same file on a more powerful computer would get converted much faster - and would be playing the conversion on the fly without any problems.
  
 Please clinging to straws - for the task at hand, computer either does the performance required - BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN ONE NOT AT LEAST TO TRY TO DO IT - noising, stuttering and so on and so forth in the process..
 Not a SINGLE one waved the white flag by displaying message to the effect:
 " Chosen application exceeds the capabilities of this machine"


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> that's just showing once again how much DSD is a stupid choice for file format.


 
 It is different, it is much more data, it can be accused of being inefficient, etc, etc, etc.
  
 It most definitely does require MUCH more computer power.
  
 It most definitely requires MUCH more storage. 
  
 Yes, true. Please note the minimum DSD I consider to be usable is DSD128 -twice the SACD sampling, DSD64.
  
 But if the end result mops the floor with the CD redbook - it is all that matters.
  
 You can call it crazy - but most definitely not stupid. 
  
 Higher sampling rates of PCM place very similar requirements on the computer.


----------



## Head Injury

analogsurviver said:


> But if the end result mops the floor with the CD redbook - it is all that matters.


 
 It doesn't, though.


----------



## StanD

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I get a head injury reading some of his claims.


----------



## stv014

> Higher sampling rates of PCM place very similar requirements on the computer.


 
  
 That is not entirely true, because processing DSD (such as downsampling it to a saner format) has to run at the MHz range sample rate of the DSD, and does not really benefit computationally from the lower resolution. 192/24 is still smaller than DSD128 by about 18%, and converting it at high quality to/from 44.1/16 can easily be done in real-time on any CPU that is not very outdated (there are some old 44.1->96 benchmarks here, 192 kHz is twice as expensive in theory).


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> It is different, it is much more data, it can be accused of being inefficient, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> It most definitely does require MUCH more computer power.




"Much more computing power" than what? You specified a netbook as being a problem earlier on, but those are very, very, very weak machines. What's the actual proof of how much computing power it needs. That JRiver Wiki page you provided was useless. Their minimum system requirements look like they were written years ago. And their recommended system? No one should have to have a solid state drive, which means they are just pulling a fast system out of hat. Meanwhile, the benchmarks list forum page tells one nothing about what's necessary to do the DSD conversion. 



analogsurviver said:


> But if the end result mops the floor with the CD redbook - it is all that matters.




But where is the proof? So how are you going to test this theory of yours? Just because you believe it is true doesn't make it true. Provide evidence.


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> FFT IS more demanding than just simple playback of 192/24. For those who think this is another audiophile myth, load Foobar2000 and start using graphic features like VU meter, spectrogram, etc, etc - and you should reach a point, sooner or later, when things will start sliding downhill.
> 
> Except if you have infinite computer power.


 
  
  
 It's not a myth but you've got to have a pretty ancient computer or be running a crapload of effects before it becomes an issue.  Real time audio processing is pretty trivial on vaguely modern CPUs.
  
 OTOH real time _video _processing will crush most cpus.  I'm doing my best to keep myself form upgrading to a hex or octo core i7 so I can tweak my Avisynth SD video upsampling script for even better quality.
  
   





> #MT SUPPORT SETUP
> SetMemoryMax(1024)
> SetMTMode(3,0)
> ffdshow_source()
> ...


 
  
 (BTW... is there <code> button I'm missing?)
  
 This is the very bleeding limit of what my 3.7GHz quad core i7 can reliably manage when upsampling SD video to 1080p.  I'd like to use higher quality blur and sharpen options that my cpu just can't handle, hence the dreaming about an upgrade that could probably buy me a used pair of Omega II's...
  
 Audio is a walk in the park in comparison because there's just less data to work with.  192 thousand samples per second times 24 bits per sample time two channels is 9216kpbs.  For 1080p video you have 1920 pixels wide times 1080 pixels tall times 12 bits per pixel (for the common video YV12 color format) times an approximate 30 frames per second (varies by source, DVD, blu, HDTV channel etc) is 746496kbps or _81 _times as much data. 
  
 That's not even a fair comparison because 192/24 is pretty over the top compared to 1080p video.  4k video might e a fair comparison would have 4 times as much data as 1080p video for a whopping 324 times as much data as 192/24 audio.  Also, if you some kind of "video purist" in the same vein as those who believe that 24 bit is a better playback format for audio than 16 bit then you'd probably want to use 32 bit RGB colorspace instead of 12 bit YV12 and need to multiply all those numbers by another 2.67.
  
 As a foot note, you might notice that video on your hard drive doesn't take up this ludicrous amount of space.  That's because it all compressed with what amount to the same kinds of lossy compression that MP3s use for audio.  While it seems no one around here can stand any kind of (data) compressed audio but you hardly hear a peep about poor quality video compression or demands for lossless video formats...


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> It's not a myth but you've got to have a pretty ancient computer or be running a crapload of effects before it becomes an issue.  Real time audio processing is pretty trivial on vaguely modern CPUs.
> 
> OTOH real time _video _processing will crush most cpus.  I'm doing my best to keep myself form upgrading to a hex or octo core i7 so I can tweak my Avisynth SD video upsampling script for even better quality.
> 
> ...


 
  


maverickronin said:


> It's not a myth but you've got to have a pretty ancient computer or be running a crapload of effects before it becomes an issue.  Real time audio processing is pretty trivial on vaguely modern CPUs.
> 
> OTOH real time _video _processing will crush most cpus.  I'm doing my best to keep myself form upgrading to a hex or octo core i7 so I can tweak my Avisynth SD video upsampling script for even better quality.
> 
> ...


 
 All valid points.
  
 I merely wanted to present HOW that noise in FFT could originate. That recording from Linn is from Christmas 2013 free downloads and DID, DOES and WILL play back without that increase in noise on any capable enough machine. As you noted, it is not too difficult or expensive to achieve this - but it is mre demanding than redbook. FFT certainly is harder requirement and does tax computer more than mere playback - and CAN overtax the capabilities available, resulting in such noise.
  
 Since you are running computer for video, such low requirements may well seem petty to you; there are not for some others. Certainly not for those accustomed to the requirements that are barely enough for redbook - or slightly more. You need not go too far back to find 192/24 uncapable machines.


----------



## analogsurviver

stv014 said:


> That is not entirely true, because processing DSD (such as downsampling it to a saner format) has to run at the MHz range sample rate of the DSD, and does not really benefit computationally from the lower resolution. 192/24 is still smaller than DSD128 by about 18%, and converting it at high quality to/from 44.1/16 can easily be done in real-time on any CPU that is not very outdated (there are some old 44.1->96 benchmarks here, 192 kHz is twice as expensive in theory).


 
 Of course not. Each one can figure on his own how much is required for each format.
  
 Trouble is, PCM has got to be MUCH higher sampling in order to allow anything like shallow filters possible for DSD and phase response ( ot whatever it is correctly called - we all know what is meant ) for both being *roughly similar to quite high frequencies. *Then it is several times bigger than DSD128. 
  
 Each format has its pros and cons, I would choose 192/24 over DSD64 any day in the week. By judging what is still manageable one can reach a sensible compromise.
 Sky is the limit - DSD512. No filtering required anymore, de facto almost instantaneous pulse response/close to zero rise time, not as implied by (you?) for the redbook - _prior to output filtering. _Not at the actual analog output, as with DSD512. In other words - an almost perfect recording, past any chance humans could possibly hear its defects either in frequency response or dynamic range. Finally, something limited by people operating such equipment, not the other way around.
  
_O_nce upon a time, a computer was the size of the room, with several technicians required only to constantly change its failing tubes. Now, we already have DSD capable audio players that fit easily into a pocket - like Astell and Kern, Chord Hugo etc - but are still quite pricey and capacity to carry much music is still limited.
  
 But in 10 years - WHO knows ?


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> I merely wanted to present HOW that noise in FFT could originate.


 
  
 A slow cpu still can't cause that.
  
 If it's to slow to play the file, or to run the FFT, it's just going to stutter and skip.  It's not going to act completely normal except for adding random and/or spurious tones to the FFT output.


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> A slow cpu still can't cause that.
> 
> If it's to slow to play the file, or to run the FFT, it's just going to stutter and skip.  It's not going to act completely normal except for adding random and/or spurious tones to the FFT output.


 
 You can download , now for free, 
  http://www.korg.com/us/products/audio/audiogate3/ This soft will work in "lite load" and "high quality" modes - but high quality requires autechnication by connecting a Korg recorder or DAC. There IS one hell of a difference between the two versions - both in SQ and in how much will your computer "sweat".
  
 There are settings in Audiogate for the format you want to listen DSD files in. From 192/24 all the way down to MP3 96 kbps - and everything in between. You can quickly find that some less capable computers will start to noise whenever too fast sampling will be selected - and things toughen up by the use of high quality mode.
 Sometimes, a high quality mode and lower sampling is preferable to light load and 192 sampling. Audible on laptop speakers.
  
 At the very bottom of the page, there is a link for downloading the last Audiogate V.2.x - it is less strain on the computer than V.3.x - but also less fine sounding.
 Playing with any of these can quickly find the spot where a computer might start acting normal while adding noise - even if it will not stutter at all. 
  
 Experience from > 20 instalations to various computers. Latest ones usually perform without a single hiccup - while some older can not work, even if and when Audiogate is the only thing running - no internet, no nothing. And everything in between.
  
  
 That on your PC or MAc and your DAC - even if it is DSD capable. DSD playback (for now) possible using Audiogate only with Korg DSD DACs.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> "Much more computing power" than what? You specified a netbook as being a problem earlier on, but those are very, very, very weak machines. What's the actual proof of how much computing power it needs. That JRiver Wiki page you provided was useless. Their minimum system requirements look like they were written years ago. And their recommended system? No one should have to have a solid state drive, which means they are just pulling a fast system out of hat. Meanwhile, the benchmarks list forum page tells one nothing about what's necessary to do the DSD conversion.
> But where is the proof? So how are you going to test this theory of yours? Just because you believe it is true doesn't make it true. Provide evidence.


 
  


cel4145 said:


> "Much more computing power" than what? You specified a netbook as being a problem earlier on, but those are very, very, very weak machines. What's the actual proof of how much computing power it needs. That JRiver Wiki page you provided was useless. Their minimum system requirements look like they were written years ago. And their recommended system? No one should have to have a solid state drive, which means they are just pulling a fast system out of hat. Meanwhile, the benchmarks list forum page tells one nothing about what's necessary to do the DSD conversion.
> But where is the proof? So how are you going to test this theory of yours? Just because you believe it is true doesn't make it true. Provide evidence.


 
 Please go to Computer audiophile - these computer audio things change so damn fast, I purposely did not want to link anything from the vanguard of this push for the increased performance - iFi Audio. There are threads here on head-fi, I have just seen they succeeded with firmware update for the MAC users to be finally capable of playing back DSDs with IFi DSD capable DACs, etc, etc - ALMOST ON DAILY BASIS...Same for Androids now kind of coming of age when DSD playback OTG connected DSD capable DACs is concerned - it goes beyond the scope of this thread.
  
 Proof ? I did write when it will be commonly available - when ABX tool capable of native playback of PCM and DSD is widely available and with genuinely hirez recordings, be it DSD or PCM/DXD.  Each and every one will be capable to hear it - first probably at dealer's  - and if that will be convincing enough, then in your home.
  
 I think I covered the artists and their recordings made at various stages in the history of recorded sound well enough just a post or two above.
  
 The general dissatisfaction with sound science is the fact that it persisently concentrates on one single parameter. It IS scientifically correct - but sound recording and playback has MANY stages - and within EACH  stage there are MANY potentially troublesome bottlenecks. The biggest one is the widespread use of multimiking - 
 if the signal is so mangled BEFORE it reaches the recorder, it does not matter much if recorder is an old _*below Sony WMD6 *_cassette deck - or the latest/fastest recorder in its first beta testing in the field. A MP3 recording made with properly made simple microphone technique will kill any multimiked DSD.
  
 There are LOTS of other "bottlenecks" . I know many/most of you are annoyed by my "not playing by the book" methods; but if I wanted to ABX each and every component in say a recorder I changed - I  would still be doing it. Comparing the result of a SINGLE capacitor vs no capacitor is the same as comparing a drop of water against an ocean - with or without that single drop of water. It does not matter - it is overwhelmed by the ocean, that one drop of water notwithstanding.
  
 All the defects in this chain from the microphone to our ears do add up; and if you concentrate on playback side only of this story, you lose any influence what you are going to listen to. If *someone* forces on from tomorrow all commercially available recordings can not exceed MP3 96 kbps - game is over. 
  
 And CD redbook is not that much above that, on purpose chosen bad MP3 at 96kbps, so that you can better understand what I am after. The difference is of course less than between MP3 96 kbps and redbook, but it makes in the long run for listening experience MUCH closer to real thing, something CD has not, at least to my ears, never been capable of achieving.


----------



## bufferoverflow

analogsurvivor, you asked how it was that your wife could hear the difference with the mat, from another room !
 Besides the suggested answers from other posters to that question, I have a very unscientific theory about that :
 She loves you and wants you to feel good .. (no, I have no hard scientific proof that "love" exists)
 But women are quite good at making others feel good and even care about if they do or don't ..


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Please go to Computer audiophile - these computer audio things change so damn fast, I purposely did not want to link anything from the vanguard of this push for the increased performance - iFi Audio. There are threads here on head-fi, I have just seen they succeeded with firmware update for the MAC users to be finally capable of playing back DSDs with IFi DSD capable DACs, etc, etc - ALMOST ON DAILY BASIS...Same for Androids now kind of coming of age when DSD playback OTG connected DSD capable DACs is concerned - it goes beyond the scope of this thread.
> 
> Proof ? I did write when it will be commonly available - when ABX tool capable of native playback of PCM and DSD is widely available and with genuinely hirez recordings, be it DSD or PCM/DXD.  Each and every one will be capable to hear it - first probably at dealer's  - and if that will be convincing enough, then in your home.




Yeah. I'm not going to Computer Audiophile. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You don't shrug it off and say go find it. 

And if you can't (haven't) ABX tested PCM vs. DSD, you don't have proof of that either. 

This is the "Testing audiophile claims and myths," not the "let me tell you why all my subjectivist evaluations are true" thread. It seems you need to go start your own thread somewhere so that you can have the type of discussions you want to have.


----------



## analogsurviver

bufferoverflow said:


> analogsurvivor, you asked how it was that your wife could hear the difference with the mat, from another room !
> Besides the suggested answers from other posters to that question, I have a very unscientific theory about that :
> She loves you and wants you to feel good .. (no, I have no hard scientific proof that "love" exists)
> But women are quite good at making others feel good and even care about if they do or don't ..


 
 Hehe - try similar for MANY singers - at least half of which male - for whom I hope they do not feel love for me - males, that is. But they do care about me - because they like my recordings of their singing.
  
 Unscientific - yes; less real because of that - no.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Yeah. I'm not going to Computer Audiophile. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You don't shrug it off and say go find it.
> 
> And if you can't (haven't) ABX tested PCM vs. DSD, you don't have proof of that either.
> 
> This is the "Testing audiophile claims and myths," not the "let me tell you why all my subjectivist evaluations are true" thread. It seems you need to go start your own thread somewhere so that you can have the type of discussions you want to have.


 
 Sorry, no point arguing that computer has got to have enough juice to perform its task flawlessly. I did post the Audiogate link and you can try if you do not believe - I can not recreate exactly the same computer environment as yours to tell you at which setting it does start to misbehave. These are PERSONAL computers - and each is set differently over time.
  
 I only wrote (n+1) times you can not ABX DSD vs PCM in Foobar2000 - because it needs to be converted to PCM in order to be possible to perform ABX. Besides that, it produces soft click or noise whenever going from DSD to PCM - alarming the listener at least that switching between these two modes is changing place. I hope this limitation will be overcome in reasonable future.
  
 And I most definitely can not furnish each and every listener with the modified Korg MR-1000, so far the best sounding DSD capable machine. It can not be used as DAC with a computer, it is not possible to select a DSD or PCM file change  faster than in about 15 seconds (menu and all that jazz ) , etc, etc. - therefore extremely tough to perform an ABX with it.  All I know  most of your jaws would be on the floor after actually hearing what it can do - but no, I can not squeeze it and its sound in the internet for everyone to hear. I wish outboard DSD DACs would come closer to this sound - but they do not. 
  
 Real life limitation - and not my unwillingness to play by the book.


----------



## analogsurviver

head injury said:


> It doesn't, though.


 
 It is much like in the last days of the piston driven airplanes - one can argue whether it is 810 km/h at such and such altitude and such and such wind - or it is 812.58 km/ h by another plane with yet 1000 HP more under the hood under slightly different conditions - to everyone it was clear the future are jet propelled aircraft.
  
 CD, as well as piston driven aircraft, has finite limitations. And it is response to a hair above 20 kHz for CD and speed _approx 800 km/h ( do not want to google the exact figure, but that can be disputed anyway ) _for a piston driven aircraft in level flight.
  
 None of the above is - enough. Except it has been accepted in airplanes 70 years ago and will take some more time before it is accepted for audio. 
  
 As simple as that. Of course, there is an untold group of people who would go to any length to prevent it from happening - mainly because of losing market share. And the requirement to upgrade the gear. Why exactly are those people the very same who declare CD obsolete technology when it comes to playing CD with a CD player?
 And refuse to believe that from the pressed CD a better copy of CD-R can be made? But when it comes to the fact that it is not so easy and convenient to do it, they do not want to hear it - at all ?
  
 I certainly agree that so-called-Hi-Rez-downloads  should be perfectly transparent where do they come from and how they were made. It is not fair to charge premium for something that can be traced back to a 44.1/16 redbook copy - and stretched to whatever higher.
  
 But genuine hirez should be priced premium - within reason. Today, it is technically possible to sell the exact bit perfect copy of the master.  What is usually done is to make a one step down removed from the master conversion available to the public for purchase - ad that still, if done correctly, will run rings around redbook.
  
 Slowly, an ABX comparator that does allow for comparison of PCM and DSD - both native - will become hopefully available. In the same manner, more and more new, genuine hirez recordings, both in DSD and PCM/DXD, will become available. The least problem will be DSD capable DACs and amplifiers - they are here, and here to stay.
  
 And then there will be no longer possible to fish in the murky waters with "perfect sound forever". Much the same, original mono LPs of Beatles and contemporary recorded music will still sound the best on the vinyl. And those few CDs fortunate enough to be recorded on equipment already devoid of teething troubles but still old enough to escape loudness wars will probably continue sounding their best in redbook.
  
 And me personally would still listen to 100 or so years record or its restauration - if interested in music on that recording. 
  
 Things evolve - needs not to go to infinity, but stopping it all at redbook is stopping it one bridge too soon.


----------



## Head Injury

analogsurviver said:


> None of the above is - enough. Except it has been accepted in airplanes 70 years ago and will take some more time before it is accepted for audio.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
 20 kHz is plenty. I can't hear above 18 kHz. I've tried and tested.
  
 Not sure what you're talking about in the next section, but it sounds conspiratorial.
  
 Why should hi-rez be priced premium? Is it an elitism thing?
  
 You don't need an ABX comparator to do an ABX test, it just makes it easier. Heck, if you could prove you can hear _anything_ above 16/44.1, even in PCM, people might take you more seriously.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, no point arguing that computer has got to have enough juice to perform its task flawlessly.




Right. It's stating the obvious. And without proof of how much/what computer setup is minimally needed, it's not worth saying more than once. 



analogsurviver said:


> Real life limitation - and not my unwillingness to play by the book.




Sure. But you already stated your case that you think it sounds better the first couple of times you said it. Repeating/recasting your subjectivist arguments and unsubstantiated claims over and over again is not a good fit for this thread. Start your own thread if you want to keep discussing it. 

Start your own thread.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

Hi *analogsurviver *why don't you start a new thread outside the Science Forum... something like '*WHY I LOVE CD MATS'*
  
*you talk as if you know anything... NO the LINN records *
KUNIKO kuniko plays reich  
 is not free and is not from 2013!
  
 I bought it!
  
 and those posts about computational power are just....


----------



## cel4145

macacodosom said:


> Hi *analogsurviver* why don't you start a new thread outside the Science Forum... something like '*WHY I LOVE CD MATS'*






And one for why DSD is better than Redbook CD.


----------



## analogsurviver

headpie said:


> Just a honest question: Isn't it true that headphones impact sound much more than the DAC/AMP? I mean, If you use a 4000$ headphones and a 200$ dac/amp vs the contrary, The first will sound much better. So why do people still claim that they have the same importance? I don't think it is true


 
 Yes. No good headphones or loudspeaker, no good sound.
  
 In 1986, I designed electrostatic headphone _*system *_( headphones + amplifier ), which, when heard by a friend who helped me with the design of the amp, beat then brand new Sennheiser Orpheus by a country mile. Senn was a 30.000 DEM (approx 15K$ BEFORE customs in US ) - and I have (censored) custom made electronic elements in that amp, never made available to anybody else. It is deadly ( voltage x current ) - many times over. Since late 1999 in storage - I willingly accepted decrease in SQ by adopting Stax Lambda Pro/SRM1MK2 amp - because I plan to roam this Earth for a while longer. It is not a marketable preposition - about an equivalent of the car that broke the sound barrier.
 To simply push the envelope as high as it can possibly be done.
  
 I mainly got the "job" (impossible to get working permit in Switzerland ), better call it an extended visit,  at Benz Micro (one of the best manufacturers of phono cartridges in the world) because of my reviews of preproduction samples - the source can not hide absolutely nowhere on these ES earspeakers. And I missed them while in Switzerland, where I had to make do with Stax Lambda Pro/SRM1MK2. BTW, those very same pair of Stax is still, although "battle bruised", going strong at Benz's - daily operation of at least 2 hours, 5/7  week, more than 25 years. Each and every cart gets final check, after measurements etc,  prior to packaging by - listening. 
  
 But the opposite is equally true. You can still hear the difference between DSD and PCM, particularly the lowly redbook, although to a lesser extent, on Xiaomi Piston2 :
  http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/low-cost-high-value-25-xiaomi-piston-2
  
 Although "nothing special" - they are seriously good - especially properly equalized ( $$$ ).
  
 I am very much looking forward to auditioning the new HiFiMan HE-1000 at Munich High End show in May, although I am naturally interested in more products and services that will be there, the clincher to definiteely go there were the announced HE-1000. This thing has the potential to dethrone the electrostatics - but would like to hear it by myself to confirm.


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> You can download , now for free,
> http://www.korg.com/us/products/audio/audiogate3/ This soft will work in "lite load" and "high quality" modes - but high quality requires autechnication by connecting a Korg recorder or DAC. There IS one hell of a difference between the two versions - both in SQ and in how much will your computer "sweat".
> 
> There are settings in Audiogate for the format you want to listen DSD files in. From 192/24 all the way down to MP3 96 kbps - and everything in between. You can quickly find that some less capable computers will start to noise whenever too fast sampling will be selected - and things toughen up by the use of high quality mode.
> Sometimes, a high quality mode and lower sampling is preferable to light load and 192 sampling. Audible on laptop speakers.


 
  
 Your missing a few things here but I think the most important is that the FFT from that VST plugin is an analysis of the data on the computer and is independent of what kind of DAC you send it to or even _if _you send it to a DAC at all.  It is a measurement of the data in the file itself and is not a measurement of any signal that come out of the computer or anything connected to it.


----------



## analogsurviver

head injury said:


> 20 kHz is plenty. I can't hear above 18 kHz. I've tried and tested.
> 
> Not sure what you're talking about in the next section, but it sounds conspiratorial.
> 
> ...


 
 I can not hear above 14 kHz - sine wave. In my best days, I could hear just below 19 kHz - FM pilot tone etc never did bother me. But in those days, I could bring the operator of audiology test to tears - because I could have indicated each and every sliding potentiometer etc flaw - by hearing signals whenever there should be total silence, etc, etc. I am still good at it, but years have certainly taken their toll.
  
 I wrote why hearing ability over 20>18>15>10 kHz is not required to hear the difference between DSD ( or heck, anything fast, analog record included ) and CD redbook. Catch is in the phase response (or whatever one might call it ) - limiting frequency response will limit the width and particularly the depth of the soundstage.
 That is VERY audible - even with constant channel separation. And is the most objectionable for me in anything band limited. The most common of these band limited things in audio is - CD redbook. Hence dissatisfaction...
  
 I have also written regarding headphones/loudspeakers that can do this well - on messed up headphones or speakers, it does not matter in the slightest. Once heard, hooked forever. The least expensive speakers I know that will do the trick are http://www.visaton.com/en/industrie/breitband/frs8_8.html - approx $25 or so per one, + of course the enclosure. Voigt Pipe http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/29321-cyburgs-needle-cyburgs-pipe-frs-8-a-2.html creates a full range speaker (that will not play loud in the bass, etc ) with imaging that is second to none.  NOT recommended to hear one well made DIY pair properly positioned in listening space with a true hirez recording - and the speaker does not go exactly stellar above 15 kHz or so either. NOT if you do cherish the idea the CD is enough for all times.
  
 Consider yourself warned.
  
 There are other "really full size" speakers that will also do. At a cost that is anything but inconsiderable. Like cabinets for Lowther drivers that will run you five figures - and the first is unfortunately not 1. There is some middle ground like Thiele co-axial driver, etc. It CAN be done - and you do not need to be a bat in order to enjoy it.
  
 There are LOTS of headphones that exceed 20 kHz - although, as indicated, NOT unconditionally required to hear the difference between say, DSD128 and CD redbook.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> Hehe - try similar for MANY singers - at least half of which male - for whom I hope they do not feel love for me - males, that is. But they do care about me - because they like my recordings of their singing.
> 
> Unscientific - yes; less real because of that - no.


 
  
 Unfortunately you have a track record of making up stories, like the one about measuring an orchestra at 113dB from 30m away using a smartphone app. (I'm still LOLing about that one)
 And then there are the countless claims which contradict well established science without any proof whatsoever.
 So no, your posts can't be taken seriously at all. If I correct your many false claims, it is not because I think I can change your mind, but because I want to help other newcomers to get the facts.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> It is much like in the last days of the piston driven airplanes - one can argue whether it is 810 km/h at such and such altitude and such and such wind - or it is 812.58 km/ h by another plane with yet 1000 HP more under the hood under slightly different conditions - to everyone it was clear the future are jet propelled aircraft.
> 
> CD, as well as piston driven aircraft, has finite limitations.


 
  
 As does human hearing. All we need is a format which exceeds our ears' limits. There is no benefit to going any "faster" than that. In fact, it's a waste of download bandwidth, disk storage, processor load, etc.


----------



## lamode

headpie said:


> Just a honest question: Isn't it true that headphones impact sound much more than the DAC/AMP? I mean, If you use a 4000$ headphones and a 200$ dac/amp vs the contrary, The first will sound much better. So why do people still claim that they have the same importance? I don't think it is true


 
  
 Agreed. The price/performance ratio is very different for these components.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> In 1986, I designed electrostatic headphone _*system *_( headphones + amplifier ), which, when heard by a friend who helped me with the design of the amp, beat then brand new Sennheiser Orpheus by a country mile.


 
  
 In the year 1785, I created the world's first supercomputer using home-made ICs, centuries ahead of its time. In the end, I had to shut it down because of a lack of available software, and it was emitting unsafe levels of X-rays....


----------



## StanD

lamode said:


> In the year 1785, I created the world's first supercomputer using home-made ICs, centuries ahead of its time. In the end, I had to shut it down because of a lack of available software, and it was emitting unsafe levels of X-rays....


 
 Not to be outdone by the excess levels of bullSchiit from CD Mats and DSD fantasies that have been plaguing this thread for too long.


----------



## uchihaitachi

lamode said:


> Unfortunately you have a track record of making up stories, like the one about measuring an orchestra at 113dB from 30m away using a smartphone app. (I'm still LOLing about that one)


 
 For real?????


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> Unfortunately you have a track record of making up stories, like the one about measuring an orchestra at 113dB from 30m away using a smartphone app. (I'm still LOLing about that one)
> And then there are the countless claims which contradict well established science without any proof whatsoever.
> So no, your posts can't be taken seriously at all. If I correct your many false claims, it is not because I think I can change your mind, but because I want to help other newcomers to get the facts.


 
 I have checked regarding that 113 dB readig with the friend in question. The app used was https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bti.soundMeter
 I am awaiting his reply regarding the accuracy of that meter - against his Conrad SPL meter (nothing special, but solid and good value) . Will report what his reply would be - but the reading on the IIRC Samsung Galaxy 6? REALLY did show 113 dB. Could be error/fluke - will report ASAP.
  
 But, without a doubt, it was LOUD. Much above say some Brahms and similar - Prokofiev and other Russians are known for that.
  
  
  
  


head injury said:


> 20 kHz is plenty. I can't hear above 18 kHz. I've tried and tested.
> 
> Not sure what you're talking about in the next section, but it sounds conspiratorial.
> 
> ...


 
 Why should be _genuine _hi-rez be priced premium?
  
 If nothing else, because it is new recording. Furthermore, whoever goes to the trouble of getting true hirez, will want to use the best equipment and best people for the job. All of the above costs money - infinitely more so than just remastering DSOTM for the up-teenth time. Which has been amortized - many times over by now.  Not so with a new recording that is unlikely to ever generate as much income as DSOTM did - and still does.
  
 I did say that 16/24 testing was tough - I could hear the difference rather consistently in some tracks, and in some not at all. They were test tracks from 2L I have in all available resolutions - and 96 kHz and up and DSD  sounds much different than 44.1kHz 16/24 thing - therefore easier to tell apart.


----------



## lamode

uchihaitachi said:


> For real?????


 
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded/3345#post_11484713


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> Why should be _genuine _hi-rez be priced premium?
> 
> If nothing else, because it is new recording. Furthermore, whoever goes to the trouble of getting true hirez, will want to use the best equipment and best people for the job. All of the above costs money - infinitely more so than just remastering DSOTM for the up-teenth time. Which has been amortized - many times over by now.  Not so with a new recording that is unlikely to ever generate as much income as DSOTM did - and still does.


 
  
 I'm pretty sure he's asking something like why a higher resolution should cost more than standard 16/44 of the same recording.  Many of the websites that sell hires audio downloads also sell the same recordings in standard formats but charge more for high resolution version.  Considering it was already recorded in hires, the downsampling it is actually _extra _work and yet it's sold for less.  Sure the hires version takes up a bit more space on their server, and a bit more bandwidth for the user to download but today is not 15 years ago and that's not much of an issue.  Bandcamp will let you buy and download any album in any format you want (MP3v0, MP3 320kbps CBR, FLAC, ALAC, or Vorbis) for the same price and that price can be as low as $1.  I've bought several albums from there and download FLAC files which surprisingly turned out to be 24/44 and they don't even tell beforehand, let alone brag.


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> I'm pretty sure he's asking something like why a higher resolution should cost more than standard 16/44 of the same recording.  Many of the websites that sell hires audio downloads also sell the same recordings in standard formats but charge more for high resolution version.  Considering it was already recorded in hires, the downsampling it is actually _extra _work and yet it's sold for less.  Sure the hires version takes up a bit more space on their server, and a bit more bandwidth for the user to download but today is not 15 years ago and that's not much of an issue.  Bandcamp will let you buy and download any album in any format you want (MP3v0, MP3 320kbps CBR, FLAC, ALAC, or Vorbis) for the same price and that price can be as low as $1.  I've bought several albums from there and download FLAC files which surprisingly turned out to be 24/44 and they don't even tell beforehand, let alone brag.


 
 Why do tickets for concerts, opera, sports events, etc, cost differently ? Because from some seats, you can hear and see better - therefore different pricing.
  
 Same with recordings - Linn has policy of pricing MP3s the lowest, 192/24 or DSD/physical SACD disc the highest - and everything in between. I am not saying its prices are high or low, just that I find this style differentiation fair.
  
 Native DSD   https://www.nativedsd.com/ ( you can download some free tracks if desired ) 
 has pricing similarly done - DSD64 stereo, DSD64  multichannel, DSD128 stereo, DSD128 Multi, DXD, etc - I also find it fair. Not inexpensive, but fair.
  
 24/44 is not exactly higher resolution - but it is nice that Bandcamp is offering it starting at $1.


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> Why do tickets for concerts, opera, sports events, etc, cost differently ? Because from some seats, you can hear and see better - therefore different pricing.
> 
> Same with recordings - Linn has policy of pricing MP3s the lowest, 192/24 or DSD/physical SACD disc the highest - and everything in between. I am not saying its prices are high or low, just that I find this style differentiation fair.


 
  
 That's not really a good analogy.
  
 The most important difference is that seats at real life events are limited goods.  There are only do many to go around.  Seats _will _run out. and by the law of supply and demand, prices for choice seats _will_ increase regardless of what they're originally sold for or what regulation attempts to stop it.  OTOH you will never run out of digital downloads.  It is not intrinsically a scarce good and it's scarcity is only protected by government regulation.  Given that the high res version are original they will only have a tiny increase in marginal cost over a standard res download and consequently only a tiny increase in price is justified by production costs.
  
 To use Bandcamp as an example again, they apparently find this difference so tiny that to even bother to charge more for FLAC* than for MP3 would cost more than they'd make back.
  
 The second fail is that being close to a physical event. actually lets you see it and hear it better.  It is demonstrably superior.  The most polite thing I can say about high res recordings is that their superiority has yet to be demonstrated.
  
 Given these facts I think the higher prices of high res audio downloads is best explained by mistaken belief in their superiority which increased demand for them among the uninformed or unconvienced, and which allows sellers to increase their prices even further.
  
  
*(which isn't strictly high res, but is analogous because the ratio of file size difference between MP3 V0 and 16/44 FLAC is similar to difference between 16/44 FLAC and 24/96 FLAC)


----------



## wakibaki

analogsurviver said:


> I find this style differentiation fair.


 
  
 Yes, this is what I find puzzling.
  
 Where I live there's a big issue over energy prices. Gas, electricity. The wholesale gas price goes up, the price to the consumer goes up, the wholesale gas price comes down, the price to the consumer stays the same. Except people kicked up so much they got the government to force the energy companies to reluctantly reduce their prices, after quite a delay of course. In the meantime the energy companies have such a plethora of pricing plans that as in the case of mobile phones, it's very difficult to decide which is best for oneself.
  
 In your case though, you, a _consumer_, seem determined to defend a pricing structure where the relationship to cost is tenuous in the extreme. This is leading you to romanticize a relationship where none exists. (The electricity company is my friend.)
  
 This is fortunately at least less antisocial than stalking.


----------



## davidsh

analogsurviverI'd love to see ABX results comparing 44.1/16 and 192/24


----------



## analogsurviver

wakibaki said:


> Yes, this is what I find puzzling.
> 
> Where I live there's a big issue over energy prices. Gas, electricity. The wholesale gas price goes up, the price to the consumer goes up, the wholesale gas price comes down, the price to the consumer stays the same. Except people kicked up so much they got the government to force the energy companies to reluctantly reduce their prices, after quite a delay of course. In the meantime the energy companies have such a plethora of pricing plans that as in the case of mobile phones, it's very difficult to decide which is best for oneself.
> 
> ...


 
 It is not puzzling - at all.
  
 I am far more on the side of "producer" than _consumer_ of recordings in this case. If you knew what and how long does it take in order for the musicians to arrive at the position to be able to rehearse a piece of music well enough to be recorded, how difficult is to find a venue in which to record and how much does it cost, you would start thinking differently. There is no such thing as wholesale price for the musicianship - better musicians cost more and you have to learn to deal with it.  Sometimes, the lack of funds for a single one rehearsal more that would be required to get things in order can backfire during the concert/recording so badly that it renders the whole effort useless for the recording in the end. It did happen, more than once, and it hurts like hell when it is my  technically the best recording so far - that will be as a whole not getting anywhere due to too big errors in playing. Budget simply could not be stretched more - end of story, lesson learned.
  
 There is no way of denying SACD (DSD64) came into being and distribution as a direct consequence of the fact that CDs were and are being illegally copied. On massive scale. I wonder what you would do, in case that the work of your profession could be downloaded illegally free or copied from CDs without any financial compensation - would you endorse it ? Something had to be done - and it did work for a while, at least what it did was to stop making of illegal copies for a while.
  
 I did get to see how sales of CDs plummeted the minute CD recorders became available - and even more when it was possible to do it with computers. I was working in CD retail at the time - and you would not believe how many "customers" were returning or at least trying to return the "defective" CD the next day after the purchase.  
 After being copied, illegally, of course. In how many copies? Enough for the new arrivals that should sell reasonably well to linger on the shelves , sometimes long enough to have to be put on sale after a while. 
  
 It is a MUCH different game than the gas - and one everybody is trying to solve in order for the wolf to be fed and sheep still being intact. Bandcamp is one of the possible solutions.
  
 You can not copy gas - after it is burnt, at whatever the price, it is gone. With CDs, you can make - illegally - a fortune; buy one, rip an image of it, be audacious enough to return it to the store as defective and claiming the money back, then producing copies ad libitum.  
  
 This is the other side of the same coin !!!


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> It is not puzzling - at all.
> 
> I am far more on the side of "producer" than _consumer_ of recordings in this case. If you knew what and how long does it take in order for the musicians to arrive at the position to be able to rehearse a piece of music well enough to be recorded, how difficult is to find a venue in which to record and how much does it cost, you would start thinking differently. There is no such thing as wholesale price for the musicianship - better musicians cost more and you have to learn to deal with it.  Sometimes, the lack of funds for a single one rehearsal more that would be required to get things in order can backfire during the concert/recording so badly that it renders the whole effort useless for the recording in the end. It did happen, more than once, and it hurts like hell when it is my  technically the best recording so far - that will be as a whole not getting anywhere due to too big errors in playing. Budget simply could not be stretched more - end of story, lesson learned.
> 
> ...


 
 As much as I hate to say it, I do agree with him that the higher bit rate stuff _should_ cost more. How much more is up to anyone's guess, but that's how basic capitalism is. Doesn't matter if there's a perceived improvement or not (there's none to me), but the bandwidth itself is enough of an excuse to increase the cost. However, and I must stress very strongly, _the different versions of the songs are to be from the same master_.

 Now, stop going off-topic and focus with the issue at hand. No-one is talking about CD sales plumetting here. Also, what you say about the 'price' of musicians will be true if the costs of a CD is actually reflected by their fee. It's not, hence I call BS.


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> @analogsurviverI'd love to see ABX results comparing 44.1/16 and 192/24


 
 Why not ? 
  
 Would comparing 192/24 and 44.1/16, both converted from the DSD128 with the use of the Audiogate 3, be good for you ?


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> As much as I hate to say it, I do agree with him that the higher bit rate stuff _should_ cost more. How much more is up to anyone's guess, but that's how basic capitalism is. Doesn't matter if there's a perceived improvement or not (there's none to me), but the bandwidth itself is enough of an excuse to increase the cost. However, and I must stress very strongly, _the different versions of the songs are to be from the same master_.
> 
> Now, stop going off-topic and focus with the issue at hand. No-one is talking about CD sales plumetting here. Also, what you say about the 'price' of musicians will be true if the costs of a CD is actually reflected by their fee. It's not, hence I call BS.


 
 I agree on the requirement _ that all versions are from the same master ._
  
_I _agree on the bandwidth - in that light, MP3s can be the costliest way to buy music.
  
 From your response regarding the "price" of musicians is clear that you do not have a clue how that goes. Whenever a live microphone is on stage, "wages" of musicians go up by at least 30 % - by their contract, union rules - you name it. And one way of recuperating the costs of recording, and I mean NEW recording, is by selling it in various qualities. Sorry, DSD128 and MP3 can not cost the same - despite the fact that additional work is required for converting the DSD128 to anything else.
  
 This consumerism has made the price of the musicianship almost invisible. At least with re-releases of re-releases. It is one hell less expensive to re-release some famous recording from the past every sparrow knows is "good, reference playing" - than releasing a new recording of a local band playing the music of living composers. Not to mention famous musicians playing the music of living composers - do you have any idea how much these rights cost ? Short answer - enough for the most to avoid recording new music - at all. It was so for Bolero from Ravel - not before 75 years have passed from the composer's death ... (if you could not afford the performing rights). 
  
 Technical side - whatever it is - costs the least. Or USED to cost the least - prior to hirez. If you really want hirez, it means the change of - almost everything. Faster microphones, faster electronics, faster recorders - which have to be bought new, they can not be  part of "heritage" that was "amortized" long ago. In short, it costs dearly. And has to be reflected in price of the recordings to the public.
  
 Yet, it is the only tangible differentiation by which a"front row" and "back seat" "tickets" can be sold. It is the only leverage that can be used to recoup the costs of recording - and new recordings will always be pricier than the older ones. Despite if being on MP3...


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> I agree on the requirement _ that all versions are from the same master ._
> 
> _I _agree on the bandwidth - in that light, MP3s can be the costliest way to buy music.
> 
> ...


 

 Of course recording takes up a large majority of a musician's income. Hell, it's worse in Europe, where they subside off recordings even more than normal (if you believe Naxos, that is, and I do). Problem is, I _highly_ doubt each album takes approximately the same amount of money to produce, yet most albums, when new, are priced the same (niche and exclusives notwithstanding). Who pockets this money? If you say the musicians, I'm calling your BS, because you and I both know the producers take the rest.
  
 MP3 should be the cheapest, not the most expensive, considering if it's going up against hi-res formats, it's the smallest, and if it's up against CD's, there's no physical medium.
  
 Now, back to claims on CD mats and all of it. You're not getting away that easily.


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> Of course recording takes up a large majority of a musician's income. Hell, it's worse in Europe, where they subside off recordings even more than normal (if you believe Naxos, that is, and I do). Problem is, I _highly_ doubt each album takes approximately the same amount of money to produce, yet most albums, when new, are priced the same (niche and exclusives notwithstanding). Who pockets this money? If you say the musicians, I'm calling your BS, because you and I both know the producers take the rest.
> 
> MP3 should be the cheapest, not the most expensive, considering if it's going up against hi-res formats, it's the smallest, and if it's up against CD's, there's no physical medium.
> 
> Now, back to claims on CD mats and all of it. You're not getting away that easily.


 
 Of course producers also have to be paid. As much as I hate to say it, but without them, almost nothing would get recorded and released. And they know it ...
  
 Correction - I meant MP3s can be the most expensive per amount of data - not in the actual amount of money.
  
 No problems, I am selecting the CDs to be ripped for you all to listen/compare/whatever - and I will get in the evening the CD of choice from my friend to listen to 10 rips of it, 5 with and five without the mat. I have absolutely no intention to get away with it - on the contrary !


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> Of course producers also have to be paid. As much as I hate to say it, but without them, almost nothing would get recorded and released. And they know it ...
> 
> Correction - I meant MP3s can be the most expensive per amount of data - not in the actual amount of money.
> 
> No problems, I am selecting the CDs to be ripped for you all to listen/compare/whatever - and I will get in the evening the CD of choice from my friend to listen to 10 rips of it, 5 with and five without the mat. I have absolutely no intention to get away with it - on the contrary !


 
 I gotta admire your tenacity, mate, despite our differences. Stick to what you believe is right.
  
 Also, producers: can't live with them, can't live without them.


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> I gotta admire your tenacity, mate, despite our differences. Stick to what you believe is right.
> 
> Also, producers: can't live with them, can't live without them.


 
 If I were not sticking to what I believe in, I would still be selling (ever worse recorded by others...) CDs ...
  
 I agree regarding the producers - and Sunny side of the Alps IS - in the Europe.


----------



## davidsh

analogsurviver said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > [@=/u/335227/analogsurviver]@analogsurviver[/@]I'd love to see ABX results comparing 44.1/16 and 192/24
> ...



Sure it would, would make your claims more believable


----------



## Opportunist

This tread has turned into a "dialogue" between analogsurviver and various people who mistakenly believe that answering his posts will bring matters forward. By this point, I for one have had more than enough.


----------



## James-uk

opportunist said:


> This tread has turned into a "dialogue" between analogsurviver and various people who mistakenly believe that answering his posts will bring matters forward. By this point, I for one have had more than enough.




I agree. It's exhausting ! His posting is beyond any form of logic or rationality . I Think he needs help.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

james-uk said:


> I agree. It's exhausting ! His posting is beyond any form of logic or rationality . I Think he needs help.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

Hi *ANALOGUESURVIVER* this is a good one for you...
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/702404/philips-golden-ears-challenge


----------



## StanD

opportunist said:


> This tread has turned into a "dialogue" between analogsurviver and various people who mistakenly believe that answering his posts will bring matters forward. By this point, I for one have had more than enough.


 
 I was hoping his hands would develop a cramp and he'd stop.


----------



## bufferoverflow

maverickronin said:


> *Sure the hires version takes up a bit more space on their server, and a bit more bandwidth for the user to download* but today is not 15 years ago and that's not much of an issue.  Bandcamp will let you buy and download any album in any format you want (MP3v0, MP3 320kbps CBR, FLAC, ALAC, or Vorbis) for the same price and that price can be as low as $1.  I've bought several albums from there and download FLAC files which surprisingly turned out to be 24/44 and they don't even tell beforehand, let alone brag.


 
 4x the filesize, and therefore 4x more bandwidth, is hardly "a bit more", is it ?
 And remember, for the outfits selling this, we are talking *upstream bandwidth* .
 Even in the Nordic countries upstream is (a lot) more expensive than downstream bandwidth .
 So, if a outfit sells it all for the same price : Lowrez-customers are paying the bandwidth-bill for high-rez customers .
 That can hardly be called 'fair pricing', can it ?
  
 (Yet another clear-cut example of how unfounded audioholic nonsense is harmful IMHO)


----------



## lamode

bufferoverflow said:


> 4x the filesize, and therefore 4x more bandwidth, is hardly "a bit more", is it ?
> And remember, for the outfits selling this, we are talking *upstream bandwidth* .
> Even in the Nordic countries upstream is (a lot) more expensive than downstream bandwidth .
> So, if a outfit sells it all for the same price : Lowrez-customers are paying the bandwidth-bill for high-rez customers .
> ...


 
  
 Technically true but irrelevant, as the bandwidth costs may be $0.001 for an MP3 and $0.004 for a FLAC (for example). The bandwidth costs is insignificant compared to the product cost.


----------



## dprimary

analogsurviver said:


> There is no way of denying SACD (DSD64) came into being and distribution as a direct consequence of the fact that CDs were and are being illegally copied. On massive scale. I wonder what you would do, in case that the work of your profession could be downloaded illegally free or copied from CDs without any financial compensation - would you endorse it ? Something had to be done - and it did work for a while, at least what it did was to stop making of illegal copies for a while.
> 
> I did get to see how sales of CDs plummeted the minute CD recorders became available - and even more when it was possible to do it with computers. I was working in CD retail at the time - and you would not believe how many "customers" were returning or at least trying to return the "defective" CD the next day after the purchase.
> After being copied, illegally, of course. In how many copies? Enough for the new arrivals that should sell reasonably well to linger on the shelves , sometimes long enough to have to be put on sale after a while.


 
 The biggest mistake the industry ever did was destroy Napster, I never discovered more music or bought more then that period. Most of it was encoded at 128 using winamp which was a horrible encoder. But I was able to find large amounts of new things and then I would buy a CD.
 I quickly set up a server in our office and put most of our catalog on it. You could tell any our stuff because it was encoded at 160 to 192 depending on what I decided was an acceptable quality loss vs file size and we used professional encoders that did multi pass VBR to give much higher quality, though it took 3-4 hours to encode an album. Soon I was hosting friends' catalogs as well. A completely legal Napster server. 
  
 The industry itself has stolen more from me in physical media, then pirated downloads cost me. A lost digital sell is much cheaper to lose then cases of CD's that distribution did not pay for.
 How Tower Record ever became so big was always a mystery, every statement I they ever sent me was worry. Often it had albums from a different label.
  
  
 Distribution costs would have been close to zero you just needed a seed server. Then release higher quality encodings and charge about $.25 a song which would cover royalties.  Bring the costs down that is not worth your time to steal it. The record industry is about the most inefficient  industry in the world.
  
  
 I have designs copied all the time. I can tell when the people copying, can't explain why they have certain feature in the design that was put in for an exact situation that does exist elsewhere. I worry more about running out of time. Unless you want to spent ALL your time suing people you can't protect it. At best you slow it down. It is better just to keep coming up with new ideas.


----------



## bufferoverflow

No it isn't insignificant - Because, as a previous poster stated :
 The original master IS already "high-res" so you don't really need to do anything but put in on the server .
 Nonetheless, the costs for storage are 4 times as high, as are the bandwidth-costs .
 Imagine a top-10 hit that sells in the millions - well, You do the math ...
  
 EDIT : But either way, it's STILL a lot cheaper than having to distribute a physical media world-wide ....


----------



## maverickronin

bufferoverflow said:


> 4x the filesize, and therefore 4x more bandwidth, is hardly "a bit more", is it ?
> And remember, for the outfits selling this, we are talking *upstream bandwidth* .
> Even in the Nordic countries upstream is (a lot) more expensive than downstream bandwidth .
> So, if a outfit sells it all for the same price : Lowrez-customers are paying the bandwidth-bill for high-rez customers .
> ...


 
  
 This kind of nonsense is definitely harmful, but not in that way.  Like lamode said, 4x almost nothing is still almost nothing.
  


lamode said:


> Technically true but irrelevant, as the bandwidth costs may be $0.001 for an MP3 and $0.004 for a FLAC (for example). The bandwidth costs is insignificant compared to the product cost.


 
  
 It's not like these kind of places are being hosted out of someone's basement.  You get server space near a backbone where bandwidth is cheaper and if you're really huge contract out to a CDN.  Selling downloads is pretty much all markup anyway.  The marginal cost of each new download is only the bandwidth cost.  When people you don't know any better are being bilked into paying double or triple for something that doesn't sound any different to human ears a few extra pennies for people who buy standard definition downloads is the least of my worries.


----------



## bufferoverflow

> This kind of nonsense is definitely harmful, but not in that way.


 
 It is *also* harmful in the way I wrote .
 Bandwidth isn't free and I'm pretty certain most people here know there are close to zero free lunch-meals in this World .
 Somebody is going to pay that extra bill .. Anyone who wants to guess who ??


----------



## maverickronin

bufferoverflow said:


> Nonetheless, the cost for storage are 4 times as high, as are the bandwidth-costs .
> Imagine a top-10 hit that sells in the millions - well, You do the math ...


 
  
 If high res download ever do become that popular then that certainly will make a significant overall impact on internet infrastructure but I don't really see that happening.  It's just the latest snake oil marketed to a niche enthusiast community and I think it's likely to stay that way.
  
 Average people never seem to get worked up about audio so nobody is going to deploy this kind of thing on such a massive scale that it will cause a dramatic cost increase because they will have to pass that on to the consumer who won't understand it, won't care about it, and thus won't pay for it.  The average itunes user just isn't going to care.
  
 I'd be more worried about 4k video causing that kind of problem.  It's not completely useless like high res audio since there's at least a visible difference if you sit close enough to your TV.  Of course few people actually do, but that doesn't stop the public lapping up the latest advance in video marketing like they always do.
  


bufferoverflow said:


> It is *also* harmful in the way I wrote .
> Bandwidth isn't free and I'm pretty certain most people here know there are close to zero free lunch-meals in this World .
> Somebody is going to pay that extra bill .. Anyone who wants to guess who ??


 
  
 It is a problem, but for the reasons I outlined above I believe it's a comparatively small one.


----------



## cel4145

bufferoverflow said:


> It is *also* harmful in the way I wrote .
> *Bandwidth isn't free*




As pointed out, the difference in cost is a mere pennies at most. For example, the web hosting company I use for some smaller websites costs about $1 per 20 GB of bandwidth. No doubt there are much better deals to be had than that.


----------



## bufferoverflow

cel4145 said:


> As pointed out, the difference in cost is a mere pennies at most. For example, the web hosting company I use for some smaller websites costs about $1 per 20 GB of bandwidth. No doubt there are much better deals to be had than that.


 

 How many albums is 20GB in 24/196 audio ??
 Also, you need to take into account that a professional commercial outfit will want close to 100% up-time
 and disk-storage is in reality *at least* double .
 Again, You do the math for a top-10 selling album ....
  
 EDIT :
 I agree that "high-res" video is more likely to become "a hit" and therefore also a bandwidth-problem .
 But it DOES look better under the right conditions . 24/196 audio doesn't,generally, sound any better than redbook .


----------



## dprimary

analogsurviver said:


> I have checked regarding that 113 dB readig with the friend in question. The app used was https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bti.soundMeter
> I am awaiting his reply regarding the accuracy of that meter - against his Conrad SPL meter (nothing special, but solid and good value) . Will report what his reply would be - but the reading on the IIRC Samsung Galaxy 6? REALLY did show 113 dB. Could be error/fluke - will report ASAP.
> 
> But, without a doubt, it was LOUD. Much above say some Brahms and similar - Prokofiev and other Russians are known for that.


 
 There is not currently any android app that could be considered a valid measurement. ​There is very high chance the microphone and preamp was clipping. At most you can use it for a relative measurement between two things done in the same time period. SPL is an absolute measurement.  
 There is too many variables on the platform, some phones do SRC without your knowledge. What filters on the microphone is there auto gain, noise processing and more? The latency can vary from 50 to 400 ms
 Google till version 5 did not have good real time scheduling which measurements tend to need. I have heard they have reduced the OS latency to 20ms still over 10 times too high but getting closer. By version 6 or 7 they should have it worked out.
  
 I have no idea if the hardware latency is being reduced and if can ever be consistent. 
  
 There is a few useful ones on iOS platform, apple has also added a measurement mode function in the OS which allow the app to stop any conversation and processing that could corrupt the measurements. If you compare them the android apps you will understand how far the platform is behind in measurement.
  
http://www.studiosixdigital.com is way ahead of everyone. Andrew Smith's old company, before he sold it, made hardware based audio test equipment. He also sells calibrated microphones and preamps. Depending on the microphones you can certify the system as a type1 or 2. A full system can get pricey, but a bargain compared to other older systems.
  
http://www.faberacoustical.com is a viable solution but you are on you own for the microphones and preamps.
  
 On any os I would not trust the microphones built into a phone, even when they start out close they vary wildly as the microphone get contaminated. At best it is holding your finger in the wind to decide the direction and speed.
  
 Even with calibrated microphone, I don't complete trust a measurement unless the system was checked with a microphone calibrator just before the measurement are made.
  
 Measurements have to be repeatable. When I see one that doesn't seem right I measure it again. If it doesn't repeat, it might have been an error.


----------



## analogsurviver

dprimary said:


> There is not currently any android app that could be considered a valid measurement. ​There is very high chance the microphone and preamp was clipping. At most you can use it for a relative measurement between two things done in the same time period. SPL is an absolute measurement.
> There is too many variables on the platform, some phones do SRC without your knowledge. What filters on the microphone is there auto gain, noise processing and more? The latency can vary from 50 to 400 ms
> Google till version 5 did not have good real time scheduling which measurements tend to need. I have heard they have reduced the OS latency to 20ms still over 10 times too high but getting closer. By version 6 or 7 they should have it worked out.
> 
> ...


 
 I am still awaiting response from a friend. Since *everything *he uses proved so far as reliable, I took it for granted also in this case.
  
 Thank you for the links. Not now, other priorities - and not interested in precise noise measurements anyway. 
 Music - and musicians - are NOT repeatable in loudness. 10 years of experience in the field - best you can expect from them is 2 dB precision. And this tolerance is enough - I do not care if it is 106 or 108 dB, as long as it does not overtax the equipment capability (gain settings etc).
  
 I will have to buy a reasonable SPL meter. Not B&K level, but also not the cheapest China toy. Something you can bring to a concert and not arouse suspicion with. Someone might mistake it for the recorder and then you can end up in trouble.


----------



## cel4145

bufferoverflow said:


> How many albums is 20GB in 24/196 audio ??




You made the claim about bandwidth usage. You tell me what you are thinking. 



bufferoverflow said:


> Also, you need to take into account that a professional commercial outfit will want close to 100% up-time
> and disk-storage is in reality *at least* double .




Your claim was about bandwidth usage costs. These are different cost elements. 



bufferoverflow said:


> Again, You do the math for a top-10 selling album ....




Your claim. You do the math. Cost pennies based on the figure I gave you, a tiny fraction of the cost of the music to consumers, and that's based on a cheap reseller hosting account from a good hosting company for generalized website usage. Someone with higher bandwidth requirements, like a music download company, would likely be able to find a web hosting package that is tailored to better suits their specific needs for more download bandwidth.


----------



## analogsurviver

bufferoverflow said:


> How many albums is 20GB in 24/196 audio ??
> Also, you need to take into account that a professional commercial outfit will want close to 100% up-time
> and disk-storage is in reality *at least* double .
> Again, You do the math for a top-10 selling album ....
> ...


 
 2 GB in 196/24 means 25 minutes of audio, 20 GB = 250 minutes = approx 4 "average" albums.
  
 DSD64 = 1 GB = 22 minutes audio
  
 DSD128 =1 GB = 11 minutes audio
  
 Above are not correct to the last second, but will serve to get a general idea.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> 2 GB in 196/24 means 25 minutes of audio, 20 GB = 250 minutes = approx 4 "average" albums.
> 
> DSD64 = 1 GB = 22 minutes audio
> 
> ...


 

 ...but not in FLAC...


----------



## RRod

Oh ***, we're talking about audio-streaming bandwidth now?


----------



## lamode

bufferoverflow said:


> How many albums is 20GB in 24/196 audio ??
> Also, you need to take into account that a professional commercial outfit will want close to 100% up-time
> and disk-storage is in reality *at least* double .
> Again, You do the math for a top-10 selling album ....


 
  
 You are really clutching at straws...
  
 The cost of HD storage per GB is now around $0.02, and an album needs to be stored only once (slightly more than once in a RAID setup but close enough).
 Storage costs are completely insignificant here.
  
 The first company I found charges $0.12 per outgoing GB. For a 24/192 album like Michael Jackson's "Thriller", for example, that is 1.65 GB (FLAC), or $0.20 per upload. A 24/96 version would be $0.10. That is not even 1% of the product price. Also insignificant. And I'm sure I could find a better deal if I shopped around.
  
 And your million-copy-selling example is irrelevant. Sell a million copies, even at 24/192 at $20 a copy and you have revenue of $20m and upload costs of only $200,000. Explain to us again how the upload costs make this impossible!?


----------



## lamode

dprimary said:


> There is not currently any android app that could be considered a valid measurement. ​There is very high chance the microphone and preamp was clipping. At most you can use it for a relative measurement between two things done in the same time period. SPL is an absolute measurement...


 
  
 All of the apps I could find said the readings were limited to 100dB or less due to hardware limitations of various smartphones. But analoguesurvivor already knows this - I informed him in the other thread.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> ...but not in FLAC...


 
 Gee, FLAC or no FLAC, it IS one hell of a lot more than MP3s...
  
 Furthermore, FLAC applies to PCM, not DSD (at least as far I know ) . DSD downloads usually require unzipping - but is still much larger file than CD redbook.
  
 Please do not turn this into "my car can run for XY miles on one thimble of petrol" - or " my car can accelerate to such and such speed in so and so time - who-cares-for-consumption" pi**ing match. 
  
 Those interested can find exact figures online - whether they seem reasonable under given conditions is up to each individual to decide. There certainly are corners of the world that do not support hirez over internet - yet. And IPs can have one hell of a lot different pricing - so whatever might hold true in USA will not hold true in Europe, which is much more heterogene territory - not to talk about Africa. There are lot of places where the internet is NOT unlimited in bandwidth/data transfer.
 20 GB or four ( or six in FLAC, give or take a song or two ) albums in 192/24 may be someone's monthly "package" - with quite a steep charge after exceeding that limit. Or having internet speed reduced to snail speed for the rest of the month.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> Gee, FLAC or no FLAC, it IS one hell of a lot more than MP3s...


 
  
 ... and as I posted above (with actual figures) the cost is still irrelevant. The actual premium you would have to charge for 24/192 over MP3 to cover upload bandwidth would be an extra *1%*


----------



## Head Injury

analogsurviver said:


> Gee, FLAC or no FLAC, it IS one hell of a lot more than MP3s...
> 
> Furthermore, FLAC applies to PCM, not DSD (at least as far I know ) . DSD downloads usually require unzipping - but is still much larger file than CD redbook.
> 
> ...


 
 The discussion is on cost to the supplier vs. markup, not on inconvenience to the consumer. I think we all agree hi-rez is considerably less convenient for the consumer in both storage space and bandwidth.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> ... and as I posted above (with actual figures) the cost is still irrelevant. The actual premium you would have to charge for 24/192 over MP3 to cover upload bandwidth would be an extra *1%*


 
 OK, as you wish. It may hold true in the USA, it may not hold true in lots other parts of the world internet coverage is poorer. And dearer.
  
 Still, what is being purchased with hirez is effectively more data, larger file. Since when a truckload should cost the same as one paperbag of "data" ?


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> OK, as you wish. It may hold true in the USA, it may not hold true in lots other parts of the world internet coverage is poorer. And dearer.


 
  
 We are talking about upload costs to the seller here. AS ALWAYS you try to change the topic.
 How many 24/192 music sellers are based outside of the US or Europe? None that I know of.
  


analogsurviver said:


> Still, what is being purchased with hirez is effectively more data, larger file. Since when a truckload should cost the same as one paperbag of "data" ?


 
  
 Since there is no audible difference and no significant cost difference. It should be treated as a format "preference" and nothing more. You can't compare digital files with tangible goods.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> We are talking about upload costs to the seller here. AS ALWAYS you try to change the topic.
> How many 24/192 music sellers are based outside of the US or Europe? None that I know of.
> 
> 
> Since there is no audible difference and no significant cost difference. It should be treated as a format "preference" and nothing more. You can't compare digital files with tangible goods.


 
 I did not try to change the topic. Just present the situation as I see it. Europe is, again, FAR from being with as equal prices regarding internet as the USA - goes for upload too.
  
 There is a thread here on head-fi listing most of the sources for hirez - I erronously deleted that bookmark.
  
 There are quite a few in Asia - the most known and with interesting programme is e-onkyo. Some are in this link : 
 https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/free-hi-res-music/
  
 That there is no audible difference between  CD redbook and hirez is your conviction/claim.
  
 Since when is basic version of software (say Windows - or Cats of one sort or the other ) the same price as pro level ? None of these are tangible goods either - but have a very tangible price differences.
  
 PS: http://www.head-fi.org/a/list-of-lossless-and-high-res-music-flac-alac-aiff-dsd-dxd-etc-download-sites


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> I did not try to change the topic. Just present the situation as I see it. Europe is, again, FAR from being with as equal prices regarding internet as the USA - goes for upload too.


 
  
 The location of the business is completely irrelevant anyway, as anyone is free to choose the cheapest host they can find globally.


----------



## bufferoverflow

well, I still think bandwidth and storage-costs will be an important parameter for making a profit in the recorded music-industry of the future,where there no longer is a monopoly on distributing a physical media for the artists -
 For a price of course .
  
 Besides, most people couldn't care less, they are listening while riding their bike to work or whatever,
 in noisy environments, often with more than crappy "headphones" -
 And they are perfectly happy all the same, as long as they like the music -Just like it should be,
 gear don't mean f-all when the music is crap --Good music always works, crappy gear or not ..
 Just saying : most people couldn't care less about "HiFi" and the things we discuss here,
 so there is no real financial incentive for the industry to spend money on the project of GB-downloads .


----------



## lamode

bufferoverflow said:


> well, I still think bandwidth and storage-costs will be an important parameter for making a profit in the recorded music-industry of the future,


 
  
 Why do you choose to ignore the writing on the wall? These costs are not significant now and continue to become even cheaper every year.


----------



## cel4145

bufferoverflow said:


> well, I still think bandwidth and storage-costs will be an important parameter for making a profit in the recorded music-industry of the future,
> where there no longer is a monopoly on distributing a physical media for the artists - For a price of course .




I'm sure cost of physical media, the packaging, and shipping/transportation are a much higher cost than storage and bandwidth for digital audio files. Way more. 

As for bandwith and storage costs, it will surely _lessen_ in the future. For instance, gotta like this graph:



I'm sure there's a similar graph for bandwith out there somewhere


----------



## cel4145

lamode said:


> Why do you choose to ignore the writing on the wall? *These costs are not significant now and continue to become even cheaper every year.*




+1

You beat me to it.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> I'm sure cost of physical media, the packaging, and shipping/transportation are a much higher cost than storage and bandwidth for digital audio files. Way more.
> 
> As for bandwith and storage costs, it will surely _lessen_ in the future. For instance, gotta like this graph:
> 
> ...


 
 It holds true regarding hirez, too ...


----------



## maverickronin

Speaking of large music downloads I just found someone named Exabyte on Bandcamp.
  
 Don't think the files are quite _that _big though.


----------



## KeithEmo

You are quite correct - for a full ABX test there should be two or more reference samples for A and B.
  
 (I am just trying to do a simple "screening" to determine "whether there's anything to test or discuss".)
  
 For that matter, there should also be some sort of randomization protocol. After all, one of those "unconscious cues" I was talking about is the order in which samples are arranged. For example, when offering three glasses of soda to taste, you must mix up the order to rule out the possibility that right handed tasters tend to prefer the glass on the right - or the opposite, or that most people prefer the first sample they taste - or the last. In this case it's quite possible that both the person setting up the test and the person taking it have an unconscious preference for early tracks, or late tracks, or tracks with even numbers, or tracks with numbers evenly divisible by 3 (by letting a machine randomize the order you rule out all these possibilities). I'm assuming that the tracks will be at lest more or less mixed up and not, for example, arranged as 1-5=mat and 6-10=no-mat.
   I base my expectations - and tests that I propose - on a few simple basic facts. There are only two places in "a digital audio _stream_" where information is contained. The _values_ recorded in the individual digital bits are information, and the_ timing_ with which they are presented is also information (the clock). In the case of a digital audio_ file_, the timing is not stored on the disc or other storage medium, and so the_ only_ information is contained in the bits themselves. (This is much simpler than analog audio, where it is quite possible that there is some specific distortion or error that you don't happen to be measuring. It is also simpler than considering an entire CD player, where the mat could influence other parts of the player that are involved in the conversion process besides the data itself.) With a digital file by itself, if the bits are the same, then they _are_ the same - and, if the files are different, then the bits _must_ be different.
  
 Honestly, with all the discussion of test protocols, I seem to have glossed over an important specific question:
  
_HAVE WE DONE THESE RIPS WITH ACCURATERIP OR OTHERWISE CONFIRMED THAT WE DO IN FACT HAVE THE SAME BITS WITH AND WITHOUT THE MAT?_
  
 (If not, then the most obvious assumption would be that the mat is in fact altering the data - which might reasonably be audible. And, if so, it should be pretty easy to determine which is correct - with or without.)
   However, we must be careful to separate things about the digital data file from things about the file _while its playing_. (For example, let's assume that I put ten copies of the _same_ file on a CD. It's possible that various instances of that track might sound different because the CD drive has more jitter on early tracks than on later tracks, or even because one area on the disc is more subject to bit errors. If I'm playing that CD player into a DAC, that extra jitter could make the early tracks sound audibly different. And, if I'm ripping that CD, it could result in more uncorrected data errors on early tracks, which might also make the ripped tracks sound different. However, if the jitter results in data errors, then the ripped tracks will contain different data, which will be obvious when we compare them. Likewise, if the jitter does not result in data errors, the I can easily demonstrate that as well - by  doing a bit compare on the files. Most modern CD ripping programs do this automatically using AccurateRIP or another similar data confirmation service. (In fact, CD players read their data through a buffer, so the data itself should have any jitter that's a result of the read process itself removed. However, it's possible, for example, that vibration from the spinning CD could introduce jitter or other distortion at the output by causing a wire somewhere to vibrate. If so, then a mat could possibly help that - or make it worse.)  
  
 A lot of the claims for "cd mats" and "magic liquids" are based on some facts and assumptions that are somewhat correct - but not entirely. For example, let's say we're playing a slightly scuffed CD on a CD player. Because it's worn, the data stored on the CD actually has some bad or unreadable bits. Luckily for us, when the player reads that CD, there are two levels of digital error correction that will do their best to repair those problems. These use extra information, and some rather fancy math, to "reconstruct" the missing or garbled data. (Gaps up to about 1/8" on a single track should be perfectly corrected.) If they are successful, then the data is "new again" -_ it is not in any way different than the original data_ (this is known as "a recoverable error"). If the damage is too extensive, then most CD players have the option of "patching over the gap" with "similar data". When this happens, you may hear a tick or a pop, but, whether you notice it or not, the data is _NOT_ the same as it was, and a simple bit compare test will show that it has changed. (Most computer CD drives lack this final correction step and will simple report a failure if they encounter an unrecoverable error - which is one reason why "audio players" will sometimes play discs that computers won't.)
  
 Most mats and treatments I've read about claim to reduce the number of uncorrectable errors and/or reduce read jitter. Remember that uncorrectable errors are missing data that is replaced with interpolated "data that's sort of close" - and so we would expect them to be audible. However, you should also be aware that it is very unlikely that reducing jitter during the actual read process will affect the jitter at the output of the CD player. Virtually all CD players read the data from the disc into a buffer. Therefore, any jitter present in the read process will not be passed on to the output anyway. (However, it's theoretically possible that a high enough level of jitter in the mechanism could cause additional read errors.) The only flaw in this argument is that uncorrectable read errors are in practice_ VERY RARE_. Of the 500+ CDs that I've ripped using my current software, which confirms every bit of every rip against the AccrateRIP database, I have seen exactly three uncorrectable errors on three individual tracks. One turned out to be a damaged disc, one went away when I reripped the disc - and so was probably dust, and one turned out to be a manufacturing flaw on the disc itself - and was present on two additional copies. Therefore, uncorrected errors would seem to be "a problem that doesn't really exist". (Of course, it's also possible that the $19 CD drive in my computer is really much better, and so has lower error rates, than the expensive audiophile players that the mats and liquids claim to improve. Likewise, it's quite possible that a solution that makes scratches optically less visible could reduce the number of unrecoverable on some few badly damaged discs. However, and this is where audiophiles seem to get confused, the fact that a given "fix" actually helps a few badly damaged discs _DOES NOT_ suggest that it will improve ones that aren't damaged.)
  
 At this point, I do want to mention one possibility that is obvious to me - but we haven't even considered yet...
  
 If I rip a CD without the mat and the data from the disc is perfect (which we can tell by our AccurateRIP report), and it does sound different when we use the mat, then the most likely cause would seem to be that the mat is changing the data (and, since it was perfect to begin with, the only possibility would be that the mat is adding more errors). Luckily, if that's the case, we would be able to tell easily enough by doing a bit compare.
  
 The other possibility is that, perhaps by reducing vibration or something similar, the mat makes the analog output of certain CD players sound better for some reason_ other than_ because it improves the data. However, if that's the case, then we would expect no difference in the bits of digital file rips done with it, and no difference on the sound of those files.... unless they were played on that CD player (with the mat).
  
   Quote:


dougd said:


> I like the way you think.
> 
> If there is no real difference, the probability of getting 9 or 10 correct "by chance" is approx 1.07%.  (Per the calculator at http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx . )
> 
> For a full ABX, shouldn't there also be one labeled reference copy for "no matt" and one labeled reference copy for "fancy matt" ?


----------



## KeithEmo

I would also remind everyone that _ALL_ FFT displays are a _representation_ of what's present in the audio. Not all FFT displays are entirely accurate, and FFT analysis in general is very prone to various artifacts - especially if you make incorrect or less-than-optimal choices in your display parameters. So, if you see something unexpected or odd in an FFT display, I would advise you to confirm it with a different program, or at least on a different range or scale on the current program, just to rule out it's being simply an artifact of the particular program and configuration you're using - unless you are _VERY_ familiar with the capabilities, limitations, and quirks of the program you're using.
  
_REAL TIME_ conversion can be amazingly processor intensive. However, it's very easy to see if that's what's going on. Simply do the conversion as a file conversion first, then play the converted file. This will gain you several things. First, it will rule out any issues due to the processor load from doing the conversion in real time. Second, many conversion programs, in order to prevent such issues, use a "lower quality mode" when doing on-the-fly conversions, or don't offer you some of the "heavier" options. Therefore, it's quite possible that you'll get a better quality conversion or be offered more options if you use a file-to-file conversion. (Even beyond basic "processing power" issues, there are other problems that can be caused by real-time processing in general, which can be as simple as a computer having trouble reading from a USB stick that happens to be plugged into the same internal USB hub as the DAC, or graphics interrupts from the conversion program interfering with the real time data stream.)
  
 Quote:


analogsurviver said:


> You are correct - converting DSD file to PCM file and then playing back should not result in any such increase of noise - it will just take so much longer to convert.
> 
> REAL TIME converting and playing  (from DSD to PCM, as in Korg Audiogate - or vice versa in jRiver19 , for example ) or so called converting in the fly IS another matter. jRiver specifies PRECISELY
> http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Windows_System_Requirements
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


>


 
 All valid and good suggestions.
  
 But, in that FFT noise "appearing out of nowhere", one can not do that. The input is already a "preconverted" file, it needs not to be converted from one file type to any other type file on the fly - it is 96/24 from Linn. "All" it has to perform is FFT - and it STILL noises. 
  
 Be as it may, AFTER I have my PC back in order, I will install that FFT software - and can only pray my hardware is fast/powerful enough . On that Atom processor powered netbook the ONLY thing that could run smoothly was Korg Audiogate 2.x.y with DSD128 FILES - forget anything else, like internet, any video etc running at the same time.
 What I have now is 2-3-4 ? times better, question remains - will it be enough to run FFT at 196/24(98display) mode ?
  
 I have seen, many times, PCs that _should _be capable of running the task(s) according to _minimum _system requirements. Only to find out that those _minimum _system requirements are gross underestimation for real life performance... - and a substantially "bigger" computer is required in real life.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

keithemo said:


>


 
 With 2 different analyzers.. the same recording as before 96/24 from ECM...
  
 any suggestions of where this large spike come from?
  
 this begins with the ending of file then to the beginning... both very silent passages...
  
 could it be a mosquito repellent? as someone suggested?


----------



## maverickronin

macacodosom said:


> With 2 different analyzers.. the same recording as before 96/24 from ECM...
> 
> any suggestions of where this large spike come from?
> 
> ...


 
  
 If it's an active ultrasonic source recorded by the mics then I'd guess a motion detector for turning off lights after everyone leaves the room.  It could also be an artifact caused defective gear in the signal chain at the time of recording or introduced during the mixing.
  
 While we're back on this on the subject, this is another potential downside of high res music playback.  It's entirely possible (though admittedly unlikely) that a large enough ultrasonic spike in a high sample rate music file could blow your tweeters without giving any audible warning.  It's a pretty small risk, but there's no reason to take it since you can't hear ultrasound anyway.


----------



## analogsurviver

Although not directly applicable to the FFT noise spike, you can test your PC  if it has the performance required for conversions on the fly etc by downlading jRiver
 http://www.jriver.com/  free trial. There is a benchmark test in its Help menu and in jRiver's blog you can figure out how many "points" are required for certain operation(s). 
  
 It can be simple playback of MP3 - up to converting on the fly while performing correction for the acoustics of the room or EQing headphones. And accordingly, the load on the computer can vary wildly as well.  Although jRiver does not achieve the same quality as native DSD, converting MP3 on the fly up to DSD256 ( using DSD capable DAC of required performance ) can significantly improve the SQ of those MP3s. Or CD redbook... - the reason is the ability to use MUCH simpler filtering not affecting the soundstage nearly as much as CD redbook has to - by default.
  
 For Mac, an "equivalent" is Amarra or Audirvana - being Windows user, no direct experience with these.


----------



## Phishin Phool

> ...converting MP3 on the fly up to DSD256 ( using DSD capable DAC of required performance ) can significantly improve the SQ of those MP3s. Or CD redbook... -


 
 That is quite a claim - got anything to back that statement up?


----------



## lamode

macacodosom said:


> With 2 different analyzers.. the same recording as before 96/24 from ECM...
> 
> any suggestions of where this large spike come from?
> 
> ...


 
  
 It's just one possibility, but electronic ballasts for fluorescent lights operate in that band. Without being at the venue, it is just guesswork.  What kind of lighting was installed there?


----------



## lamode

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> converting MP3 on the fly up to DSD256 ( using DSD capable DAC of required performance ) can significantly improve the SQ of those MP3s.


 
  
 Oh good grief... more ridiculous claims. How can adding noise and distortion "improve" the sound?


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Although jRiver does not achieve the same quality as native DSD, converting MP3 on the fly up to DSD256 ( using DSD capable DAC of required performance ) can significantly improve the SQ of those MP3s. Or CD redbook... - the reason is the ability to use MUCH simpler filtering not affecting the soundstage nearly as much as CD redbook has to - by default.


 
  
 Upsampling CD quality audio does not restore the lost information above 22.05 kHz (not that it should normally be needed anyway, as the listener is most likely not a bat), with the "simple" filter at most it produces high frequency images of the content in the audio band. The filter used in the upsampler has to deal with the same trade-offs as any other (hardware or software) reconstruction filter for 44.1 kHz PCM.


----------



## OddE

macacodosom said:


> could it be a mosquito repellent? as someone suggested?




-Could be, but my money would be on the alarm system; motion detection sensors typically rely on ultrasound and doppler shift on the echoes. 

Though it would make sense for the sensors to be disabled when the alarm system was disabled - which it presumably would be when recording was in progress... Hm.


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> converting MP3 on the fly up to DSD256 ( using DSD capable DAC of required performance ) can significantly improve the SQ of those MP3s. Or CD redbook...


 
  
 That's like saying you took a picture of an apple with a cheap 2MP point and shoot camera, printed it out, took a picture of _that_ picture with a TOTL DSLR and quality glass, and then claiming the second picture contains more detail of the original apple.
  


lamode said:


> It's just one possibility, but electronic ballasts for fluorescent lights operate in that band. Without being at the venue, it is just guesswork.  What kind of lighting was installed there?


 
  
 That's a good one too.  I forgot about EMI.


----------



## StanD

lamode said:


> Oh good grief... more ridiculous claims. How can adding noise and distortion "improve" the sound?


 
 I see everyone is still busy feeding the troll.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

...another strange one for you guys... HDtracks... 192/24....


----------



## MacacoDoSom

Please try to keep it serious, people...


----------



## analogsurviver

odde said:


> -Could be, but my money would be on the alarm system; motion detection sensors typically rely on ultrasound and doppler shift on the echoes.
> 
> Though it would make sense for the sensors to be disabled when the alarm system was disabled - which it presumably would be when recording was in progress... Hm.


 
 Alarm sensors and emergency lights (which can also emit ultrasonics ) are prescribed to be ON by the law - at least whenever people are in the building. Else, the police, fire department or security is  obliged to come for a check if everything is in order - and those visits are not free. It varies in regulation across the globe, but for these reasons , people responsible are VERY reluctant to turn off anything that might result in a "visit" and a resulting fee - even during recordings.
  
 It is hard enough for them to be persuaded to kill the ventilation or heating devices -  but these are at least audible to them and they can understand why they have to be shut down for the recording. But they usually do it reluctantly, because powering down the "climate" in a large hall might take some time to really stop - and at least the same amount of time to get it up again. 
  
 It may sound trivial - but once such noises land on the recording, it is only recording engineer who gets the blame. Sometimes, more energy must be spent into assuring the decent noise free environment is achieved - than in recording itself.


----------



## lamode

macacodosom said:


> ...another strange one for you guys... HDtracks... 192/24....




  
 There's not much point in posting every example. The same list of suspects applies to each one. My money is on the lighting.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

lamode said:


> There's not much point in posting every example. The same list of suspects applies to each one. My money is on the lighting.


 

 ...could be... thanks...


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> There's not much point in posting every example. The same list of suspects applies to each one. My money is on the lighting.


 
 Something else we may agree on. 
  
 No matter how we look at it, it is the real thing. We as audience do not get "quieter treatment" than during the recordings - that is certain to be true.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> Oh good grief... more ridiculous claims. How can adding noise and distortion "improve" the sound?


 
 The proof of the pudding is in eating it - isn't it ? Or in this case, listening.
  
 This is not something only me will attest to be true - you can go to the Best classical recording ever thread here on head-fi, download the entire Bach organ works in AAC256 I posted link there - for free - and listen to them straight and as converted DSD128 and higher - and THEN tell me what SOUNDS more realistic to you.
 Stepping foot in a church and listening to some real organ may provide reality check after the CD redbook diet.
  
 The worst legacy CD did inflict on public at large is the sterile black nothingness in sound that is NEVER present in live music. No performance heard live or recording in the studio is so "quiet" as it normally lands on the CD. That "noise and distortion" are actually filtered out by the steep filter , inherent to the CD redbook - there is nothing in nature filtering the content above 20 kHz ( 22050 Hz, to be precise ) - and these natural noises are responsible for the correct spatial localization - no matter how small in amplitude, removing them is detrimental to the realism obtained. You can add to that more than 16 bits required to capture the "noise" that is actually the part of the real music - more accurately so.
  
 I am aware of the out of "audible" band increase of noise with DSD. For this reason, I believe letting out DSD64(SACD) was a BIG mistake. It is (too) poor - period.To get the "silence" above "audible band" required to be able to silence even the likes of hard core CD redbook supporter, DSD512 is required. DSD128 is the _minimum _I consider to be fit for musical reproduction - not totally quiet, not totally indistinguishable from the source (live mic feed ) - but much better than CD redbook.


----------



## OddE

analogsurviver said:


> Alarm sensors and emergency lights (which can also emit ultrasonics ) are prescribed to be ON by the law - at least whenever people are in the building.


 
  
 -Burglar alarms; not fire alarms. (Which, for obvious reasons, tend to be disabled whenever people are in the building.


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> download the entire Bach organ works in AAC256 I posted link there - for free - and listen to them straight and as converted DSD128 and higher - and THEN tell me what SOUNDS more realistic to you.


 
  
 Would you jump off a bridge before listening to Bach if I told you it would make things sound better afterwords?  I'm assuming you won't.
  
 For similar reasons I refuse to spend money on a DSD DAC before someone can _demonstrate _that they're actually better.
  
 Even if money isn't at stake, time is also limited, which is one reason why "you need to try it yourself first before you can make a judgement" is a useless argument.  The other reason is that it can apply to _everything_ which means it is specific to nothing.  If you tried every silly idea regardless of prior probability you'd never have time to do anything else.  I'm pretty sure that you accept that there's a limit to what's even worth testing _somewhere _since I doubt you'll be to eager to see if impromptu BASE jumping will improve the sound of your stereo.
  
 If there _is _a limit then we methodology to determine that.  What methodology would you recommend?


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> Would you jump off a bridge before listening to Bach if I told you it would make things sound better afterwords?  I'm assuming you won't.
> 
> For similar reasons I refuse to spend money on a DSD DAC before someone can _demonstrate _that they're actually better.
> 
> ...


 
 Faith in trolling.


----------



## KeithEmo

At this point it would just be guessing, but I can see how it could be a rodent or insect repellor, or even some sort of equipment noise (like an air conditioner). However, I'm inclined to think that most microphones wouldn't record frequencies that high and, if they did, anything like that would have been filtered out by the recording engineer.
  
 Another possibility I can see would be if it was some sort of filtering or processing artifact. For example, DSD recordings have a very high and rising ultrasonic noise floor. If you were to take a DSD recording, and convert it to 24/96 PCM, and apply the required 40 kHz low pass filter necessary for 24/96 recording, but _OMIT_ the low-pass filter that should be used to get rid of the ultrasonic noise associated with the DSD format itself first, I suspect you would end up with something rather like that. I can also see where aggressive noise shaping, which deliberately "pushes" noise out of the audio band, and up into the ultrasonic range, could either create or aggravate such a situation.
  
 Honestly, however, since it seems to be there in the original file, as a consumer you have little choice except to treat it as "part of the master". It doesn't look to me like it's at a very high or dangerous level, but, if you're worried, just throw a 25 kHz low-pass filter on it in your favorite audio editor program and get rid of it.
  
 Quote:


macacodosom said:


> With 2 different analyzers.. the same recording as before 96/24 from ECM...
> 
> any suggestions of where this large spike come from?
> 
> ...


----------



## MacacoDoSom

keithemo said:


>


 

 I'm not worried at all I just think it's strange, to see these kind of artifacts in different recordings made in different conditions and studios...
 I have came across with these several times in the so called HD files but not all, maybe 1/4 of them, 3/4  are as expected.
 Usually when this happens, happens throughout the album, but not always...
 What I usually do, is re-sampling to 44.1/16, the ominous Red Book standard and I'm very happy with the results...
*analogesurvior* can call me names and see if I care...


----------



## KeithEmo

If I was being cynical, I might suggest that some of these are anomalies that were there in the master, but were simply not noticed before. (For example, if you were mastering at 24/96, but distributing at 16/44, applying an aggressive boost in the high treble could add a nice sparkle to some instruments, but cause all sorts of HF noise... but the extra HF noise would then disappear when you down-sampled to put your final cut onto a CD. (But it wouldn't disappear when you decided to pull out that 24/96 file and sell it at 24/96.)
  
 Quote:


macacodosom said:


> I'm not worried at all I just think it is strange, to see these kind of artifacts in different recordings made in different conditions and studios...
> I have came across with these several times in the so called HD files but not all, maybe 1/4 of them, 3/4  are as expected.
> Usually when this happens, happens throughout the album, but not always...
> What I usually do is re-sampling to 44.1/16, the ominous Red Book standard and I'm very happy with the results...
> *analogesurvior* can call me names and see if I care...


----------



## MacacoDoSom

keithemo said:


>





> If I was being cynical, I might suggest that some of these are anomalies that were there in the master, but were simply not noticed before. (For example, if you were mastering at 24/96, but distributing at 16/44, applying an aggressive boost in the high treble could add a nice sparkle to some instruments, but cause all sorts of HF noise... but the extra HF noise would then disappear when you down-sampled to put your final cut onto a CD. (But it wouldn't disappear when you decided to pull out that 24/96 file and sell it at 24/96.)


 
  

 You may be right... at least it's the best explanation so far... I don't believe much in the alarms, lights, dimmers, rodent repellents...etc


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> Would you jump off a bridge before listening to Bach if I told you it would make things sound better afterwords?  I'm assuming you won't.
> 
> For similar reasons I refuse to spend money on a DSD DAC before someone can _demonstrate _that they're actually better.
> 
> ...


 
  


maverickronin said:


> Would you jump off a bridge before listening to Bach if I told you it would make things sound better afterwords?  I'm assuming you won't.
> 
> For similar reasons I refuse to spend money on a DSD DAC before someone can _demonstrate _that they're actually better.
> 
> ...


 
 No, you assume right I would remain on that bridge. 
  
 For the nature of work I do, I was naturally interested in DSD DAC. And have one on veeeery extended and overdue loan, the other one is going back to its owner ...  soon. Couple of days.
  
 I had absolutely no doubt that MP3 "upsampled" to DSD64 - or better yet, DSD128 sounds better - tried that years ago with my Korg DSD recorders. The only practical limitation of the Korg units is the fact that they can not be used as DACs - everything has to be uploaded to its internal HDD. And that is limited in capacity - stock units from 20 or 40 GB, software limitation for the HDDs being in either case 100 GB. That is NOT much when running DSD128 and over 2-3 TB of my own recordings. Plus downlads...
 No DSD capable DAC I have tried can touch - for now, yet - the performance of my modified Korg MR-1000 recorder. But they get better than stock Korg unit.
  
 Similar can be said about the software required to do the conversion. It made tremendous advance in just few years - Korg Audigate as initially introduced bears little sonically resemblance to the present latest incarnation. Audibly so. And so do competitive products. 
  
 So I am obviously not speaking about something I do not know or have not tried. 
  
 Now - how in the world I can prove anything if there is not an ABX comparator (it IS - but is propritary of Berliner Insitute from Berlin and not (freely? ) available) that can do the ABX of both PCM and DSD _*native ?*_ Foobar2000 has to convert the DSD into PCM in order to be able to perform ABX - negating the whole point before it begun.
 This ABX thing is going so far that almost only computer statistics is being accepted - and at present, no available software can furnish that for native ABX between DSD and PCM.
  
 But foobar2K can play DSD native - on about the same quality as latest incarnation of Korg Audiogate V2.x.y, but below the level achieved by jRiver or Audiogate V.3.x.y. All using the same outboard DSD capable DAC.
  
 I admit bungee jumping and BASE jumping have tickled my imagination a bit - but not enough to jeopardize my music listening for hopefully considerable time to come. Even if solely from the CD.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> I'm not worried at all I just think it's strange, to see these kind of artifacts in different recordings made in different conditions and studios...
> I have came across with these several times in the so called HD files but not all, maybe 1/4 of them, 3/4  are as expected.
> Usually when this happens, happens throughout the album, but not always...
> What I usually do, is re-sampling to 44.1/16, the ominous Red Book standard and I'm very happy with the results...
> *analogesurvior* can call me names and see if I care...


 
  


macacodosom said:


> I'm not worried at all I just think it's strange, to see these kind of artifacts in different recordings made in different conditions and studios...
> I have came across with these several times in the so called HD files but not all, maybe 1/4 of them, 3/4  are as expected.
> Usually when this happens, happens throughout the album, but not always...
> What I usually do, is re-sampling to 44.1/16, the ominous Red Book standard and I'm very happy with the results...
> *analogesurvior* can call me names and see if I care...


 
 The last thing I want to do is calling someone names.
  
 I can not wait to see the results for my own recordings made in the last 6 or so years ....


----------



## lamode

macacodosom said:


> I don't believe much in the alarms, lights, dimmers, rodent repellents...etc


 
  
 This is the "sound science" forum. Your "beliefs" should not come into it. No offence.
  
 I don't post things without good reason. See this paper regarding an ultrasonic recording system and the ultrasonic noise from fluorescent lighting which they measured: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10739149.2014.971329?af=R&journalCode=list20
  
 It also gets a brief mention in this study: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> Now - how in the world I can prove anything if there is not an ABX comparator (it IS - but is propritary of Berliner Insitute from Berlin and not (freely? ) available) that can do the ABX of both PCM and DSD _*native ?*_ Foobar2000 has to convert the DSD into PCM in order to be able to perform ABX - negating the whole point before it begun.
> This ABX thing is going so far that almost only computer statistics is being accepted - and at present, no available software can furnish that for native ABX between DSD and PCM.


 
  
 If the difference is as obvious as you claim then you won't need any fancy switchboxes or software, just two DACs and someone behind the curtain switching cables.
  
 If it's not as obvious as you claim then why should we care?  How many people want to spend several times more on their music and DAC to hear a difference so tiny it's only perceptible if you repeatedly switch two tracks back and forth mid-playback when the difference a new pair of headphones or speakers makes is obvious to just about anyone?
  


analogsurviver said:


> So I am obviously not speaking about something I do not know or have not tried.


 
  
 Unfortunately, whether or not you've tried it and what you've experienced when you did try it are known not to be reliable evidence in this kind of situation.  Based on everything we know about audio reproduction and the humans who listen to that reproduced audio it is far more likely that your experience has a psychological explanation rather than an acoustic, anatomical, or electrical one.
  
 It still_ might_ turn out to be true, but I'm not going to change my mind until someone actually demonstrates it.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

lamode said:


> This is the "sound science" forum. Your "beliefs" should not come into it. No offence.
> 
> I don't post things without good reason. See this paper regarding an ultrasonic recording system and the ultrasonic noise from fluorescent lighting which they measured: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10739149.2014.971329?af=R&journalCode=list20
> 
> It also gets a brief mention in this study: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm


 

 also right... "beliefs" should not come into it.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> This is the "sound science" forum. Your "beliefs" should not come into it. No offence.
> 
> I don't post things without good reason. See this paper regarding an ultrasonic recording system and the ultrasonic noise from fluorescent lighting which they measured: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10739149.2014.971329?af=R&journalCode=list20
> 
> It also gets a brief mention in this study: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm


 
 But this "beliefs" obviously are real enough to be, at least partly, documented by science.
  
 Thank you for the first link, was not familiar with it. The second I have posted before - quite numerous times by now.
  
 Please note I am an individual trying to get reproduction of the recorded sound as good as possible, I am not an university or organization with incomparably more vast resources - that has the staff, equipment etc to perform any of the measurements they might have wish to explore. Without such "beliefs", there would be no - or far less - initiative to measure them - in the first place.


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> Please note I am an individual trying to get reproduction of the recorded sound as good as possible, I am not an university or organization with incomparably more vast resources - that has the staff, equipment etc to perform any of the measurements they might have wish to explore.


 
  
 Pretty much everyone else on this forum is too.  We just add one more thing.  We look into what kind of tests have already been done in order to inform our purchasing decisions regarding what is likely to improve the sound and what won't.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> The last thing I want to do is calling someone names.
> 
> I can not wait to see the results for my own recordings made in the last 6 or so years ....


 
 ...you calling me names was a figure of speech...
  
 But about your own recordings I would like to have your feedback...
  
 this kind of thing doesn't show in most of the old masters '50's, 60's at least that I have seen... I have been doing this kind of stuff for quite some time now, out of curiosity, with every HD file I could get my hands on... and I really would like to understand what's happening....
 I have checked some Steven Wilson recordings and they don't have this, maybe because he doesn't do any mastering (as he says) just mix transfers?
 Could this be a mastering artifact?


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> ...you calling me names was a figure of speech...


 
 No problems -"multitasking"  plus not being native English speaker may produce awkward response from my part sometimes.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

I'll suggest that there is a practical way to ABX double blind test DSD versus PCM audio.
  
 At least, if one starts with the assumption that if DSD audio at sufficient sample rate is superior, and that a PCM ADC/DAC loop would degrade or otherwise affect the sound audibly.
  
 At least one commercial ABX switch box is available with line level and amplified level switching.  It would be trivial; given the resources to purchase, rent, or borrow such a switch box; to test a DSD file output to a DSD DAC, and ABX compare with and without the PCM ADC/DAC loop.
  
 If a difference is clearly audible, this would unequivocally demonstrate so.


----------



## Phishin Phool

Are you only saying that native DSD DAC are an improvement or are dacs that accept DSD via. DoP included as well? There are reasonably (~$400) native DACs and sub $200 dsd via dop DACs available.


----------



## Currawong

I was going to try and recover this thread by moving the DSD discussion out of it, but since it goes back well into last year, it is simpler to re-open the thread. It is beyond being able to do.


----------



## Phishin Phool

So it is done?


----------



## StanD

phishin phool said:


> So it is done?


 
 I think he discovered that time travel is a myth. OK, back to BS.


----------



## KeithEmo

Actually - while what you said makes perfect sense - it's also wrong (in terms of what you're hoping to achieve). Unfortunately, it's virtually impossible to do a "simple" comparison between DSD and PCM, and here's why:
  
_WHENEVER_ you convert a file from PCM to DSD, or from DSD to PCM, the conversion process is not a simple bit-perfect conversion - there is always digital filtering involved. In essence, this means that there's no way you can ever have "identical PCM and DSD copies of the same content" to compare. If you start with a 24/192 PCM file and convert it into DSD, the DSD file you end up with will be slightly different depending on which converter program you use and what options you pick; likewise, if you start with a DSD file, and convert it to PCM, the PCM files you end up with will sound slightly different depending on what converter and options you use. (I heard a demo of two files, both converted to 24/96 PCM from a DSD master, using Korg Audiogate and Weiss Saracon, the top two converter programs, and they absolutely sounded subtly different. The difference wasn't huge, but it was at least as large as the difference between either of the PCM conversions and the DSD original.)
  
 Even if you were to start with an actual live performance, and record it in both PCM and DSD, using the same microphone, preamp, and recorder for both, you would _STILL_ be comparing the differences between PCM and DSD _WHEN RECORDED BY THAT PARTICULAR RECORDER_. And, of course, when you purchase a commercial DSD file or high-def PCM file, both have been "mastered" - and not necessarily handled the exact same way. Likewise, if you were to play a DSD file on your Oppo, and configure the Oppo to convert to PCM, it wouldn't necessarily sound identical to a PCM file you got by converting that DSD to PCM using some _OTHER_ device or software.
  
 Likewise, if you started with some digital audio file in some third format, not directly equivalent to either, then converted it into both DSD and PCM versions, you would be comparing both the formats themselves and the colorations of each of the two conversion processes - which, of necessity, _WILL_ be different.
  
 I'm not trying to be discouraging here. It's just that, in this particular case, you can never get rid of all the other variables. About the best you could do would be to prove that, in a particular situation, and with particular equipment, _NO_ difference was audible. (If we know that there are indeed slight differences in the content itself, but we can't hear any difference at all, then we have pretty well proven that _NEITHER_ the differences between the two files _NOR_ the differences between the two formats are audible. But, if we do hear a difference, we can't know which variable is causing them.)
  
 In fact, there's even a third variable. Since the optimum reconstruction filters for DSD and PCM are slightly different, it's also quite possible that the DAC we happen to be using for the comparison might itself sound better with either PCM or DSD content - not because of the format itself, but because the design of that particular DAC is better optimized for playing one or the other.
  
 Quote:


blackbeardben said:


> I'll suggest that there is a practical way to ABX double blind test DSD versus PCM audio.
> 
> At least, if one starts with the assumption that if DSD audio at sufficient sample rate is superior, and that a PCM ADC/DAC loop would degrade or otherwise affect the sound audibly.
> 
> ...


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

Any comparision (DSD vs. PCM or 44 vs.129 or 16 vs. 24) can't be exact from technical point of view.
  
 Here we:
  
 1. Resample and compare converters, or
 2. Simultaneously capture and compare capturing devices.
  
 Even sometime suggested comparing of studio releases DSD and PCM by one label. Here we don't know what from two aforecited cases was applied. Also different mixing/mastering/postproduction.


----------



## lamode

I could add that as resolutions of both formats become higher, the conversion artefacts also dominish. At some point they will be inaudible. Where that limit is is a matter of controversy, and I'm skeptical that people could reliably pick between formats in an ABX test.


----------



## maverickronin

keithemo said:


>


 
  
 Actually BlackbeardBen is right on this one.  The key phrase is...
  


blackbeardben said:


> At least, if one starts with the assumption that if DSD audio at sufficient sample rate is superior, and that a PCM ADC/DAC loop would degrade or otherwise affect the sound audibly.


 
  
 We're not talking about digitally converting a DSD file to PCM, we're taking the output of a DSD DAC, feeding it into a PCM ADC and then out through a PCM DAC.  This sidesteps all the issues about conversion quality and filter optimization since there is not digital format conversion and there are two separate DACs.  If DSD has "something" audible which PCM doesn't, then the ADC/DAC loop will degrade the signal and get rid of that 'something', whatever it may be.  If you can switch the ADC/DAC loop in and out without audible differences then the conclusion will be that PCM is at least as good as DSD.
  
 I'd forgotten about it before, but this is is a pretty standard way to test formats so different that they can't be played back with the same hardware.  For example, there have been tests where a PCM ADC/DAC has been switched in and out while listening to vinyl and people couldn't tell the difference either.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

You totally missed the point of my post.

There is zero need for digital conversion to or from DSD to PCM to compare them via the method I proposed.

You would take the _analog_ output of the DSD DAC and run it into a comparator that can switch between a pass-through and a level matched PCM ADC/DAC loop.

It doesn't matter how the signal gets to analog before the PCM ADC/DAC loop. You could run the same ADC/DAC loop to do null testing against any source, be it a master tape, vinyl, high res PCM, etc.

Obviously you would be testing a whole ADC/DAC loop rather than one or the other. But since the whole point is to establish the audible transparency or lack thereof of PCM audio relative to some other format, this isn't contrary to the test goals.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

maverickronin said:


> We're not talking about digitally converting a DSD file to PCM, we're taking the output of a DSD DAC, feeding it into a PCM ADC and then out through a PCM DAC.  This sidesteps all the issues about conversion quality and filter optimization since there is not digital format conversion and there are two separate DACs.  If DSD has "something" audible which PCM doesn't, then the ADC/DAC loop will degrade the signal and get rid of that 'something', whatever it may be.  If you can switch the ADC/DAC loop in and out without audible differences then the conclusion will be that PCM is at least as good as DSD.
> 
> I'd forgotten about it before, but this is is a pretty standard way to test formats so different that they can't be played back with the same hardware.  For example, there have been tests where a PCM ADC/DAC has been switched in and out while listening to vinyl and people couldn't tell the difference either.


 
 Could you attach drawing of test scheme for univocal understanding, please?


----------



## Roly1650

Keith, your post are always interesting, you are one of the few "wordy" posters I ever bother reading in there entirety, but I do have a small request. When you post your reply before quoting the post you're replying to, then your post can't be quoted without cut and paste, a pita on a tablet or phone. If there's a break in posting activity it then makes it difficult to pick up the thread quickly, because you have to look back to find out what post of yours is being responded to by a subsequent poster, quoting you. All you get is, "Originally Posted by KeithEmo". If you insert the quote from the post you're replying to first and then your reply, your post can then be quoted properly. Please cut a small break for us lazy, banana fingered sods.


----------



## maverickronin

yuri korzunov said:


> Could you attach drawing of test scheme for univocal understanding, please?


 
  
 I just whipped this up in a couple minutes on draw.io but it should help some.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

maverickronin said:


> I just whipped this up in a couple minutes on draw.io but it should help some.




Note that in most cases with a single output from the original source (DSD in this case), you will need the PCM loop input and output both through the switch box. Essentially, like a tape loop.

Actually, you could pretty easily use a receiver or preamp tape loop for a single blind test.

Also to note for everyone else, you aren't limited to testing the transparency of PCM ADC/DAC by this method. It works for just about anything you can convert or change in real time. That includes testing cables, signal processors, etc., etc.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

Thank you.
  
 DSD DAC divide 1 output to 2 lines or it's 2 DSD DACs?


----------



## maverickronin

blackbeardben said:


> Note that in most cases with a single output from the original source (DSD in this case), you will need the PCM loop input and output both through the switch box. Essentially, like a tape loop.


 
  
 Depends how complicated you want to make the diagram but that should be enough for the basic premise.
  
 After all I left out the amplifier too...


----------



## maverickronin

yuri korzunov said:


> Thank you.
> 
> DSD DAC divide 1 output to 2 lines or it's 2 DSD DACs?


 
  
 It's deliberately simplified, so it's basically assuming either there are two separate outputs or that you split the one output to two lines.  If it only has one output, a tape loop like BlackbeardBen suggested would be the way to go.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

yuri korzunov said:


> Thank you.
> 
> DSD DAC divide 1 output to 2 lines or it's 2 DSD DACs?




A good hardware ABX comparator is going to have a tape out/in function to allow a single input to the comparator looped out for processing and thus comparison with a pass-through.



maverickronin said:


> Depends how complicated you want to make the diagram but that should be enough for the basic premise.
> 
> After all I left out the amplifier too...




Right. But it seems there's still some confusion.

Heck, you can even use an ABX comparator with speaker (or amplified headphone) level capabilities for comparing level matched amplifiers!


----------



## maverickronin

blackbeardben said:


> Heck, you can even use an ABX comparator with speaker (or amplified headphone) level capabilities for comparing level matched amplifiers!


 
  
 That sounds like a fun kinda project.  A fully automated hardware ABX switchbox.  Need to get an Ardiuno, a screen for it, some high current relays, and a few more connectors...


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

maverickronin said:


> It's deliberately simplified, so it's basically assuming either there are two separate outputs or that you split the one output to two lines.  If it only has one output, a tape loop like BlackbeardBen suggested would be the way to go.


 
  
 Thank you. Me seems that scheme fully correct.
  
 1. I watch here we compare [certain system *PCM* ADC+DAC] vs. [source analog signal].
  
 I.e. we estimate how impact the [certain system *PCM* ADC+DAC] to [source analog signal].
  
 2. Same experiment we can done with [certain system *DSD* ADC+DAC] vs. [source analog signal].
  
 Like case #1 we estimate how impact the [certain system *DSD* ADC+DAC] to [source analog signal].
  
  
 3. We can realtime switch between case #1 and case #2.
  
 However we will compare 2 systems (i.e. devices) not formats.
  
 I correctly understand gist of experiment?


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

blackbeardben said:


> A good hardware ABX comparator is going to have a tape out/in function to allow a single input to the comparator looped out for processing and thus comparison with a pass-through.
> Right. But it seems there's still some confusion.


 
 Thank you for details.


----------



## maverickronin

yuri korzunov said:


> However we will compare 2 systems (i.e. devices) not formats.
> 
> I correctly understand gist of experiment?


 
  
 Since you need different hardware to play DSD and PCM you can only test differences between the formats indirectly.  If DSD is audibly superior to PCM then the addition of the PCM ADC/DAC conversion should degrade the signal and produce audible differences.
  
 You can't strictly conclude that that one format is superior or that the they are equivalent with this method because there is different hardware involved, but it's like that with every other kind of test you could do since there's always hardware involved somewhere.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

maverickronin said:


> Since you need different hardware to play DSD and PCM you can only test differences between the formats indirectly.  If DSD is audibly superior to PCM then the addition of the PCM ADC/DAC conversion should degrade the signal and produce audible differences.
> 
> You can't strictly conclude that that one format is superior or that the they are equivalent with this method because there is different hardware involved, but it's like that with every other kind of test you could do since there's always hardware involved somewhere.


 
 Yes. Even we can replace DSD to PCM DAC (on upper part of scheme). It don't impact anything.
  
 Same example in 44 vs. 192 kHz domain: processional DAC very possibly give better result in 44 kHz than consumer DAC at 192 kHz. Diferent apparatus, not advantages of standard here too.


----------



## KeithEmo

Actually, you've got it a bit backwards there..... the filtering, and so the potential to alter the sound as part of the conversion process, is much _MORE_ extreme with an A-to-D or D-to-A conversion than with a relatively simpler digital-to-digital format conversion.
  
 When you play that DSD file through the DSD DAC, the DAC is going to alter the sound (because filtering is applied by the DAC), then the PCM ADC process is going to apply filtering, then the PCM DAC is going to apply filtering again .... You've gone through THREE separate conversions, and each of those conversions is going to alter the sound. You're also starting from an assumption that the output of the DSD DAC is at least good enough to count as a "source" for the sake of our test. (What if the DSD recording sounds different, not because it's somehow "capturing something that PCM is missing", but simply because it's coloring the sound? If that's the case, then we'd also like to know that.)
  
 (I could even really play devil's advocate and suggest that it just might be that DSD is adding some sort of coloration, and PCM then removes that coloration, thereby "fixing a defect" caused by DSD, rather than removing something beneficial that DSD succeeds in capturing and PCM does not. Even if there really is some "magical difference in sound" between DSD and PCM, we still don't know if it's an improvement or a reduction in quality.... just as deliberately adding second harmonic distortion can make some recordings sound "more realistic" - even though it is clearly added distortion.)
  
 The proper way to test both formats, and to compare them, would be to start with an analog source, then convert it into digital and back into analog, using both DSD and PCM, and see how the results compare - to each other and to the original analog source. (Of course, even then, unless you repeat the test lots of times, with lots of different ADCs and DACs, you won't know if any differences you hear - or don't hear - are because of the format or just because of how the specific brands and models of devices you're using perform. It's quite possible that a certain DSD DAC may be better than another certain PCM DAC, or vice versa, for some reason other than because of the format used.)
  
 At the very minimum, if we're going to do a PCM recording and playback of a DSD "original", then we should also do a DSD recording and playback of a PCM original. My expectation is that either process is going to alter the sound slightly... and, if so, then this whole "debate" boils down to which coloration you personally find preferable. (If you're going to complain that the PCM recording "doesn't sound exactly like the original", then clearly we also need to know whether the DSD recording and playback does or not as well.)
  
 My personal predictions are these:
  
 1) Not all DSD DACs, or all PCM DACs, sound the same, and so I wouldn't necessarily expect any two of either type to sound identical.
 2) Neither DSD nor PCM will produce a result that is identical to the original source, both will be slightly different from each other, and from the original, and in fact each individual DAC will sound different, but neither format will overall be obviously closer to that original.
 3) The differences between DSD and PCM DACs will be about the same magnitude as the differences between different DSD DACs, or different PCM DACs.
  
 These are based on the simple fact that all of the scientific analysis of the subject I've seen shows that neither format is superior or different in any meaningful way. There are all sorts of reasons why different DACs, or different ADCs, sound different... and I think that DSD vs PCM is just one more item that might rate being added to that list. I also don't find it in the least surprising that DSD recordings (which are, after all, only produced nowadays "for sale to audiophiles", and which are also much more difficult to edit than PCM) would be mastered and processed differently than PCM recordings. I personally suspect that it is this different mastering that is responsible for all of what people continue to insist is some difference in the sound quality of the format itself. And, finally, I don't find it surprising that a particular DAC might be optimized to sound best with one or the other format - either because the designer considered that one to be "more important", and optimized the filters and other circuitry for it, or simply due to blind luck. (In fact, if I was designing a DSD DAC, and this fact was to be a major selling point for that product, I'd make damned sure that DSD and PCM didn't sound the same on my product - because, after all, that difference in sound is a major selling point for my product.)
  
   Quote:


maverickronin said:


> Actually BlackbeardBen is right on this one.  The key phrase is...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about digitally converting a DSD file to PCM, we're taking the output of a DSD DAC, feeding it into a PCM ADC and then out through a PCM DAC.  This sidesteps all the issues about conversion quality and filter optimization since there is not digital format conversion and there are two separate DACs.  If DSD has "something" audible which PCM doesn't, then the ADC/DAC loop will degrade the signal and get rid of that 'something', whatever it may be.  If you can switch the ADC/DAC loop in and out without audible differences then the conclusion will be that PCM is at least as good as DSD.
> ...


----------



## RRod

When you say that not all DACs "sound the same", what do you mean? It doesn't seem like people are able to ABX differences between *competent* consumer-level DACs, so I'd hope that pro-grade stuff is even more transparent.


----------



## jodgey4

rrod said:


> When you say that not all DACs "sound the same", what do you mean? It doesn't seem like people are able to ABX differences between *competent* consumer-level DACs, so I'd hope that pro-grade stuff is even more transparent.


 
 If they all have distortion figures below audible levels, and a full frequency response, and a low enough noise floor - any differences should be inaudible to the human ear. So literally, some say all DACs sound the same (ES9018 no different from a WM8740). Some mean it to say they all sound the same in ABX testing as well... depends on who you ask.


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


>


 
 At long last - a really good post.
  
 I'm dead beat from the whole day of recording, but in a nutshell - everything you said does hold water.


----------



## RRod

jodgey4 said:


> If they all have distortion figures below audible levels, and a full frequency response, and a low enough noise floor - any differences should be inaudible to the human ear. So literally, some say all DACs sound the same (ES9018 no different from a WM8740). Some mean it to say they all sound the same in ABX testing as well... depends on who you ask.


 
  
 Yes but he said they *don't* sound the same, so I'm wondering what differences people are hearing that could actually be verified in a DBT.


----------



## maverickronin

keithemo said:


>





> Actually, you've got it a bit backwards there..... the filtering, and so the potential to alter the sound as part of the conversion process, is much _MORE_ extreme with an A-to-D or D-to-A conversion than with a relatively simpler digital-to-digital format conversion.
> 
> When you play that DSD file through the DSD DAC, the DAC is going to alter the sound (because filtering is applied by the DAC), then the PCM ADC process is going to apply filtering, then the PCM DAC is going to apply filtering again .... You've gone through THREE separate conversions, and each of those conversions is going to alter the sound. You're also starting from an assumption that the output of the DSD DAC is at least good enough to count as a "source" for the sake of our test. (What if the DSD recording sounds different, not because it's somehow "capturing something that PCM is missing", but simply because it's coloring the sound? If that's the case, then we'd also like to know that.)


 
  
 And people still probably won't be able to tell the difference just like they can't with vinyl.  (I totally forgot that link was in the OP...  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Oh well, it's been almost 5 years.)
  
 Part of the point is basically to cede the high ground to the format under test (DSD) and see if the PCM conversion screws it up.  If it doesn't PCM passes.  If it does, then further tests are called for.
  
 No one experiment is going to tell you everything you want to know but this one will tell you something pretty useful.  Having an analog master and making a separate DSD and PCM recording of it it a fine idea too, but it's much less practical. I'd say that's it not even necessary unless someone can first ABX the PCM conversion in the tape loop and _then _ABX it in revers with a PCM  source and DSD conversion in the middle.


----------



## analogsurviver

How about something guaranteed to be 101% PCM free - entirely DSD vs DSD comparison. Two ADCs, original recordings on both in DSD64, DSD256 recording on the more capable machine, DSD128 "bounced down from DSD256", DSD64 "bounced down from DSD256" using Sygnalist software, the same using Pyramix - IIRC.
 The first DSD64 file was originally 0.34 dB too low in level being later "lifted by 0.34 dB" using Sygnalist soft. In short - 6 files, of which 5 are level matched < 0.1 dB, therefore directly ABXable - IF you have _*NATIVE*_ DSD playback capability to DSD256 - otherwise to the DSD sampling your DAC is capable of playing back _*NATIVELY*_ , using ASIO . ( DACs that can do it all start at  approx $200 - and up )
  
 CAUTION - all six files , 4:53 in duration each, amount to 1.92 GB downloads. 
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/635-midsummer-night%92s-dream-compare-simultaneous-dsd64-and-dsd256-session-recordings/


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

From math point of view DSD and PCM are fully identical in audible range.
  
 I said about audible range due while no reliable proofs that we hear ultrasound.
  
 Here can be differences due practical realisations - real devices / software.
  
 It may be big differences


----------



## KeithEmo

Actually, you missed my point. Your proposed test would indeed do a very good job of confirming confirming whether digitizing an analog signal using a PCM ADC, then converting it back into analog using a PCM DAC, will result in any audible difference. However, that isn't the same thing as _COMPARING_ DSD to PCM. In fact, what you're doing is comparing PCM to - nothing - or to a piece of wire. (Since I know that different PCM DACs do indeed sound slightly different, I'm pretty sure they each also sound different than a piece of wire.)
  
 However, if we want to compare DSD to PCM, then what we need to determine is whether using a DSD ADC and a DSD DAC makes LESS of a difference to the sound than using their PCM equivalents. (If what comes out of that DSD DAC is a perfect reproduction of the original, then clearly we would strongly prefer not to alter it. However, if it's already been altered by being recorded and played back in DSD, then our only reasonable goal is to either compare the alterations perpetrated by DSD to those wrought by PCM, and figure out which is less bad, or to determine whether the additional changes introduced by the PCM process make a significant contribution to the errors already introduced by the DSD process or not.)
  
 In other words, I really don't care much whether a PCM recording of a DSD recording can accurately reproduce the analog output of the DSD recording; I'm more concerned with whether a DSD recording is closer to the original source content than a PCM recording. (After all, the goal here is to reproduce the original, and not to reproduce the DSD recording.)
  
 Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> You totally missed the point of my post.
> 
> There is zero need for digital conversion to or from DSD to PCM to compare them via the method I proposed.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

maverickronin said:


> And people still probably won't be able to tell the difference just like they can't with vinyl.  (I totally forgot that link was in the OP...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I would agree with you except for one thing - I think it's unfair to "cede the high ground to DSD". If we do the test this way, and we do hear a difference, people are going to interpret the results as "OK, we proved that PCM messes things up". Unfortunately, at this point, the DSD proponents will consider their point proven, and nobody will want to go on and test the rest of the possibilities - for example, that maybe DSD messes things up even worse than PCM.
  
 I say that, if what we really want to know is "which format, if either, is more accurate" then we should set the test up that way. I simply see little point in proving "whether you can make a perfect PCM copy of a DSD source" until we've determined that this is a worthwhile goal.
  
 My starting point for all this is that I happen to already know that I can hear differences between different PCM DACs playing the same PCM content - at least sometimes and with some DACs, so I have little doubt that a PCM copy will NOT be "perfect".... as they say in court, I'll stipulate to that. So my only real interest would be in knowing if DSD is better, worse, or equal. (If it turns out that DSD is no more accurate than PCM, then we're wasting a lot of effort even discussing whether we can make a perfect copy of an already flawed copy.)


----------



## OddE

rrod said:


> When you say that not all DACs "sound the same", what do you mean? It doesn't seem like people are able to ABX differences between *competent* consumer-level DACs, so I'd hope that pro-grade stuff is even more transparent.




-I'll come out and say it - given that my Nuforce uDAC ($100) is run at sensible levels into a not-too-hard-to-drive pair of headphones, I am unable to distinguish its output from that of my ($2,000) Benchmark DAC2 HGC. 

For the record - that is as expected...


----------



## KeithEmo

rrod said:


> When you say that not all DACs "sound the same", what do you mean? It doesn't seem like people are able to ABX differences between *competent* consumer-level DACs, so I'd hope that pro-grade stuff is even more transparent.


 
  
 I disagree entirely.
  
 Excluding some niche audiophile products and options, any "competent" DAC is going to have a very flat frequency response and very low distortion and noise. The differences you hear are going to be due mostly to the differences in how they handle transients. Virtually all modern DACs use digital oversampling - and the benefits of doing so far outweigh the drawbacks. However, all digital oversampling filters create errors in transient response. (They reproduce a sine wave perfectly but, if you feed in an asymmetrical and irregular waveform, they change its shape. Mathematically, all of the energy is present at the right frequencies, but some of it arrives at slightly wrong times.) If you look at the brochures for a lot of DACs, they will show you oscilloscope pictures of transients... which look sort of like a short sharp spike with some ringing before and after the main peak. That ringing is energy that has sort of landed in the wrong place - or, more correctly, at the wrong time. Since it's pretty close to when it should be, we don't hear it as "extra sound at the wrong times", but it does affect the overall sound of what we're listening to. In fact, by designing the filters a bit differently, you can trade off various aspects of these errors, but you can't entirely eliminate it. (For example, you can mathematically "trade" "more post-ringing for less pre-ringing".)
  
 Many DACs even offer you the option of choosing between different digital filters, each of which reproduces transients slightly differently. (Typically, if you were to feed a sharp spike into the DAC, one filter will reproduce it with some ringing before and some after, while another option will have no ringing before the spike, but at the cost of more ringing after it, and a third filter may have less ringing altogether - but at the cost of a less flat frequency response.) While certain filter choices may actually affect frequency response, most alter transient response while avoiding changing the frequency response significantly.
  
 If you listen to a commercial DAC which offers multiple filter choices, and switch between them, you will indeed notice a subtle difference. It's quite subtle, and you may only notice it with some recordings, and only with some headphones and speakers, but it is quite repeatable when it's present. Listen to a good recording with wire-brush cymbals; with some filters they'll sound more like actual metal while, with others, they'll sound more like a steam valve going "tssss, tssss, tssss". In some cases, the sibilants that accompany voices will sound different - and more exaggerated with some filters than with others. Remember that, mathematically, all of these choices are "really close" but none of them are "perfect". Of course different DAC products also have different analog circuitry, which also accounts for slight differences in sound.
  
 I would also remind you that these differences are very subtle - and far less than, say, the differences between speakers, or headphones, or phono cartridges. To be honest, if I switch back and forth between filters, while a song is playing, the differences seem obvious - eyes open or closed - but, if I were to walk out of the room and come back, I very much doubt I could tell you which one was playing; that's the degree of difference we're talking about here.
  
 The types of differences you hear between DACs are also rather different in type from thos you hear with amplifiers or speakers, so you may not notice them unless you actually listen for them. (And, yeah, they are about as miniscule as the differences I typically hear between DSD and PCM versions of the same recording.)


----------



## KeithEmo

odde said:


> -I'll come out and say it - given that my Nuforce uDAC ($100) is run at sensible levels into a not-too-hard-to-drive pair of headphones, I am unable to distinguish its output from that of my ($2,000) Benchmark DAC2 HGC.
> 
> For the record - that is as expected...


 
  
 It really depends on what you're listening to and what you're listening to it on...
  
 Since I happen to work for Emotiva, I have an Emotiva DC-1 DAC, and a pair of our Airmotiv powered monitors (which use the modern version of the air motion transformer tweeter). On those speakers, using the HDTracks 24/192 versions of the Grateful Dead albums, or the Eagles Hotel California, the DC-1 sounds very different from my Wyred4Sound DAC2, and both of those sounded very different than the DragonFly (v1) I had; likewise, all of those sounded different than my Benchmark DAC1Pre (the old series). However, on a pair of AKG K240 headphones, I couldn't hear any difference at all between any of them (on a pair of HiFiMan 500's you could hear the difference - but barely).
  
  
  
  
 When I compare that DAC to my Wyred4SOund DAC2, on those speakers, the difference is pretty obvious, and both of those DACs sound pretty different than my old DragonFly (v1). Likewise, I used to have a benchmark Dac1Pre (the old series) - which I just sold - and it also sounded quite different.


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


> I disagree entirely.
> 
> Excluding some niche audiophile products and options, any "competent" DAC is going to have a very flat frequency response and very low distortion and noise. The differences you hear are going to be due mostly to the differences in how they handle transients. Virtually all modern DACs use digital oversampling - and the benefits of doing so far outweigh the drawbacks. However, all digital oversampling filters create errors in transient response. (They reproduce a sine wave perfectly but, if you feed in an asymmetrical and irregular waveform, they change its shape. Mathematically, all of the energy is present at the right frequencies, but some of it arrives at slightly wrong times.) If you look at the brochures for a lot of DACs, they will show you oscilloscope pictures of transients... which look sort of like a short sharp spike with some ringing before and after the main peak. That ringing is energy that has sort of landed in the wrong place - or, more correctly, at the wrong time. Since it's pretty close to when it should be, we don't hear it as "extra sound at the wrong times", but it does affect the overall sound of what we're listening to. In fact, by designing the filters a bit differently, you can trade off various aspects of these errors, but you can't entirely eliminate it. (For example, you can mathematically "trade" "more post-ringing for less pre-ringing".)
> 
> ...


 
 Type of filtering is the core of the Sygnalist HQ player http://www.signalyst.com/consumer.html . You can choose pre-ringing, post ringing - etc - according to the known defects of CDs that were recorded on known equipment producing these undesirable effets - and software will add exactly the opposite pre or post- ringing, effectively restoring the desired response. It takes one hell of a computer to do it right ( IIRC - 12GB RAM is minimum requirement ) - actually, they offer a music-only computer, optimized to cover for any setting that may actually tax that same computer to the max.
  
 There is one fly in that ointment - you have to know on which machines your CDs have been made - and which "correction" filters are to be applied. About as useful and widespread as various non-exactly-RIAA-equalization curves for vinyl - some are known, most aren't.
  
 Enter the simplicity of the DSD512 - NO filtering required anymore, no guesstimating which equipment has been used to produce your file. At least in digital domain - analog sections will still be the limiting factor and will ultimately set the SQ. Digital can be dirt cheap - analog most definitely not - if it wants to be really good. For fact - not in mfr's brochures or internet only.


----------



## RRod

If you hear these differences under DBT conditions will all possible confounding conditions accounted for, then ok, otherwise it's hocus pocus. Even then, any differences could be unnecessarily deliberate (like if someone wants their fancy filter to sound better). In either case of upsampling or downsampling, the ringing artifacts should have energy concentrated towards 1/2 the lower Nyquist rate. To me that means people should be able to hear them in a downsample from hi-res formats to Redbook, and they don't (at least in DBT conditions), even in music with lots of bashing on cymbals.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> Since I happen to work for Emotiva, I have an Emotiva DC-1 DAC, and a pair of our Airmotiv powered monitors (which use the modern version of the air motion transformer tweeter). On those speakers, using the HDTracks 24/192 versions of the Grateful Dead albums, or the Eagles Hotel California, the DC-1 sounds very different from my Wyred4Sound DAC2, and both of those sounded very different than the DragonFly (v1) I had; likewise, all of those sounded different than my Benchmark DAC1Pre (the old series).


 
  
 Which one was accurately doing the d/a conversion? They can't all be performing to spec if they all sound different.
  
 It's much more likely that high end DACs are jury rigged to alter the sound than midrange ones. Try comparing to the line out from an iPod or a decent blu-ray player and see which one matches those. Those are most likely to be accurate. I have an Oppo HA-1 and iPods and iPhones and Macs and an Oppo BDP-103D and a low end Sony blu-ray player... all of those sound exactly the same. If I bought something that wasn't audibly transparent with all of them, I would start worrying and would want to know which component was performing out of spec.


----------



## analogsurviver

Just to get some idea what is pre-requisite to listen to really small differences in sound ( "anything" - from ADCs, DACs, analog sections within, amps, etc ) , here interview with the designer of one of the best loudspeakers ever made : Andrew Munro 
  

  
 I have auditioned this system about two years ago - and it is SUPERB - near field monitor. Trouble is, simply too small to be used in home, at normally larger listening distance from that just behind the mixing desk in a studio as seen in the video.
  
 However, after having lounched an even smaller Egg, my hopes skyrocketed at the confirmation that Bigger Egg is scheduled to appear in forseeable future:
  

  
 Now, I can "see" the Technics coaxial driver capable of 100 kHz  http://www.technics.com/us/products/c700/sb-c700.html response "mated" to the superb enclosure of Egg - the bigger, upcoming one - as the ultimate loudspeaker for serious work - AND home listening. Wishful thinking? - hope NOT !
  
 Here the presentation for the original Egg 150 : 
  

  
 The Audio Amateur and later The Speaker Builder magazines have been publishing articles on difraction effects in speaker (boxes) in 70s and 80s - and is really nice at least one manufacturer has been able to put a practical egg shape enclosure in regular production. Prior to that, "eggs" have been an exclusive domain for the "lunatic carpenter fringe" - and only few are known to be ever actually made - none I am aware of went into production due to the prohibitive cost.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

DACs that "sound the same" is not exact term for technical testing.
  
 Then wtite methodics of testing must be noted how differ (%%, dB, V, ...) devices that used for test.
  
 These devices measured by certified measurement tools with precision from 3 times more.
  
 In this case then we read results of test, we can say, as example "for DACs with maximal difference in frequency responce 1 dB we can't listen difference".
  
 If don't do it we can use 2 DACs what have difference 5 dB (even from one manufacturer) and say about listening of difference.
  
 Or we use DAC with 1 dB difference, but our friends use with 5 dB. We will say "no difference", our friends will say "there are difference".
  
  
  
 What is scientific experiment? It is experiment with repetable results independent of experimetators and number of performance.
  
 Possible test one or two devices. It interesting. However here impossibly make general resume.


----------



## stv014

keithemo said:


>





> Actually, you missed my point. Your proposed test would indeed do a very good job of confirming confirming whether digitizing an analog signal using a PCM ADC, then converting it back into analog using a PCM DAC, will result in any audible difference. However, that isn't the same thing as _COMPARING_ DSD to PCM. In fact, what you're doing is comparing PCM to - nothing - or to a piece of wire. (Since I know that different PCM DACs do indeed sound slightly different, I'm pretty sure they each also sound different than a piece of wire.)
> 
> However, if we want to compare DSD to PCM, then what we need to determine is whether using a DSD ADC and a DSD DAC makes LESS of a difference to the sound than using their PCM equivalents.


 
  
 If a PCM A/D->D/A loop (or DSD->PCM->DSD digital conversion) cannot be distinguished from the analog (or DSD) original in extensive blind testing, then that already strongly suggests that PCM is indeed good enough for audibly transparent reproduction. What would be the point of DSD making less than already zero audible difference to the sound, then, considering the practical disadvantages (such as more difficult and computationally expensive DSP) compared to PCM, and the less efficient usage of a given bit rate ? DSD64 requires 4 times as much space as Red Book, which could spent on more channels - a real, audible improvement - and still better than CD quality sample rate and resolution.


----------



## RRod

yuri korzunov said:


> DACs that "sound the same" is not exact term for technical testing.
> 
> Then wtite methodics of testing must be noted how differ (%%, dB, V, ...) devices that used for test.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I agree. I could probably have put my question better as:
 If one is really hearing differences among (pro-grade) ADCs/DACs, what are these differences, and are these differences expected given the specs? Moreover, are these differences still detectable in blind testing circumstances?
  
 The answer I got, that I'm still not quite sold on, was pre-echo due to digital filtering. My doubt is due to my own testing of down-sampled (even sub-44.1) material where I can't hear such artifacts, and due to the theory about the frequency characteristics of pre-echo in cases of resampling to/from standard PCM formats. I of course could be convinced instantly if a hi-res sample could be provided that caused audible pre-ringing when down-sampled to Redbook.


----------



## limpidglitch

keithemo said:


>


 
  
 If you want to know whether there is a point to DSD, or rather want to disprove supremacy of DSD, you don't really have to compare it to anything at all.
 All you need to do is to show whether the current system of digital capture and playback is transparent, which maverickronin's set-up lets you do. Whether the source is a DSD output, tape, vinyl, or directly from a pair of mic pre-amps in a concert venue, if you can't differentiate it from the PCM AD/DA loop, then that's that. You can't improve on transparency. One kind of homeopathic remedy doesn't work any better than another kind of homeopathic remedy.


----------



## KeithEmo

limpidglitch said:


> If you want to know whether there is a point to DSD, or rather want to disprove supremacy of DSD, you don't really have to compare it to anything at all.
> All you need to do is to show whether the current system of digital capture and playback is transparent, which maverickronin's set-up lets you do. Whether the source is a DSD output, tape, vinyl, or directly from a pair of mic pre-amps in a concert venue, if you can't differentiate it from the PCM AD/DA loop, then that's that. You can't improve on transparency. One kind of homeopathic remedy doesn't work any better than another kind of homeopathic remedy.


 
  
 I agree - if you can't differentiate the "original" from the version that's been through "the PCM loop" then you have indeed proven that PCM is "effectively perfect" at reproducing whatever your original source is. However, you seem to be missing a huge piece of the equation, which is that DSD is not "a reference source"; it's simply another way of doing capture and playback - like PCM. All that test will prove is whether PCM is capable of perfectly reproducing a particular source - which, in that case, is simply a DSD copy of a real source.
  
 So, yes, if you can't tell the difference between a signal played directly from a DSD source, and one that has then been recorded and played back using PCM, then you have indeed demonstrated that PCM is "perfect enough" to make a perfect copy of a DSD source... or you could say that you've proven that PCM is "at least as good as DSD"... but that is precisely all you've proven.
  
 (My point here is that, even if you find out that you _CAN_ hear the difference between the "DSD original" and the "PCM copy", you still have NOT proven that DSD is better; you've simply proven that PCM isn't perfect. And, for the record, I promise you that you _WILL_ be able to measure the difference between a PCM copy and a DSD original, _AND_ between a DSD copy and a PCM original; _AND_ between either a PCM or DSD copy and an analog original; the only question in my mind is whether that differences will be audible.)
  
 The problem is that there are a whole bunch of other things we sort of need to know....
  
 What if DSD significantly alters the original in a bad way?
 If that's the case, then all we're testing is whether PCM causes enough additional damage to be noticeable.
  
 What if DSD and PCM both alter the signal a little bit - equally? (Which is what I would expect based on the science.)
 If that's the case, then both are equally good as recording formats, but neither is better, and one should avoid converting between them (and so suffering the flaws of both).
  
 If you want to prove "the supremacy of DSD", then you need to prove that it reproduces something better than PCM.
 Which means that you need to quantify the reproduction quality of _BOTH_ - and then compare them.
  
 Another thing you're ignoring is that there is a "downside" to DSD; it is a nuisance to record and edit, and PCM is already the de-facto standard.
 So, if it turns out that both are "equally perfect", then, in terms of justification "DSD loses on points".
 In order to justify its existence as a_ REPLACEMENT_ for PCM, DSD has to demonstrate that it is actually _BETTER_ in some way.


----------



## KeithEmo

stv014 said:


> If a PCM A/D->D/A loop (or DSD->PCM->DSD digital conversion) cannot be distinguished from the analog (or DSD) original in extensive blind testing, then that already strongly suggests that PCM is indeed good enough for audibly transparent reproduction. What would be the point of DSD making less than already zero audible difference to the sound, then, considering the practical disadvantages (such as more difficult and computationally expensive DSP) compared to PCM, and the less efficient usage of a given bit rate ? DSD64 requires 4 times as much space as Red Book, which could spent on more channels - a real, audible improvement - and still better than CD quality sample rate and resolution.


 
  
 I agree entirely.... and I suspect that will turn out to be the case.
  
 However, my point is that, even if you _CAN_ hear a difference, that won't prove that DSD is superior... only that PCM isn't perfect.
 (I don't want to let the DSD fans "set this up" such that, if there is an audible difference, it seems to automatically prove that DSD is not only different but better.)


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> Which one was accurately doing the d/a conversion? They can't all be performing to spec if they all sound different.
> 
> It's much more likely that high end DACs are jury rigged to alter the sound than midrange ones. Try comparing to the line out from an iPod or a decent blu-ray player and see which one matches those. Those are most likely to be accurate. I have an Oppo HA-1 and iPods and iPhones and Macs and an Oppo BDP-103D and a low end Sony blu-ray player... all of those sound exactly the same. If I bought something that wasn't audibly transparent with all of them, I would start worrying and would want to know which component was performing out of spec.


 
  
 You are incorrect - but only because you're considering a specific list of specs (which, in the case of DACs, don't usually include all of the actually relevant ones).
  
 Frequency response, signal-to-noise ratio, THD, IMD, and all the other "normal specs" are all what we call "steady state" measurements; they are measured using a continuous sine wave. As it turns out, this works very well for analog devices, because the types of errors introduced by flawed analog circuitry tend to show up when you test them this way. (Transient Intermodulation Distortion was the first type of distortion that was noticed in analog circuitry which "doesn't show up" when you test a circuit this way - and it turns out that you can detect it from the other measurements if you know how to interpret them.) 
  
 In contrast, because they work on entirely different principles, digital circuits like ADCs and DACs tend to produce other types of errors - some of which _ONLY_ show up when you use transients or other specific types of test signals (other than the sine waves used for the "standard measurements"). I can show you two different DACs, both of which have "normal specs" that are so good that it's a virtual certainty that the flaws present are inaudible (THD < 0.003%; frequency response flat to a small fraction of a dB; S/N ratio of 130 dB or so), yet they still do sound different. And, yes, if you look at their outputs on an oscilloscope, using a transient-type test signal, you will see obvious differences in the output waveform.
  
 This is _NOT_ some magical difference that people imagine is there; it's real and you can see it very easily on an oscilloscope - the only question is whether it is audible or not. And, yes, if you look at the output of your iPod reproducing a signal that includes transients (and not just steady state sine waves), you will find that what comes out is considerably different than what goes in... it's nowhere near "perfect". And, yes, it is also true that some vendors do deliberately "voice" their "high-end" products to sound distinctly different than everybody else (and those differences are easily measured).
  
 (If you want to argue about which one is "right", the reality is that none of them is precisely correct, and the errors, while small - are _different_. If the digital oversampling filter is properly designed, then all of the energy is there, in the correct proportions, which gives you a near-perfect frequency response, but some of that energy is shifted slightly away from the precisely correct time. If you were to look on a spectrum display, the signal would look perfect; however, if you look at the actual waveform on an oscilloscope, it will be different... and the different filters do sound slightly different with certain content. Note that we're talking about slight differences here, to the point where they may only be audible with certain recordings, and with certain speakers or headphones - if the recording or the output device isn't especially accurate at reproducing transients to begin with, then you aren't likely to hear differences between them.)
  
 However, since you mentioned it, I do have to ask you a question....
  
 If, as you say, you really hear _NO_ difference between your Oppo HA-1 and your iPod, then_ WHY_ did you spend $1200 for the HA-1?


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> I have auditioned this system about two years ago - and it is SUPERB - near field monitor.




How can it be a "SUPERB" near field monitor with an offset tweeter like that? An offset tweeter is anathema to listening near field. For near field, you really want a point source. Looks like he put all his attention into the enclosure but took his eye off the ball on some equally important details. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> Frequency response, signal-to-noise ratio, THD, IMD, and all the other "normal specs" are all what we call "steady state" measurements; they are measured using a continuous sine wave. As it turns out, this works very well for analog devices, because the types of errors introduced by flawed analog circuitry tend to show up when you test them this way. (Transient Intermodulation Distortion was the first type of distortion that was noticed in analog circuitry which "doesn't show up" when you test a circuit this way - and it turns out that you can detect it from the other measurements if you know how to interpret them.)




You really need to brush up on modern test and measurement capabilities. And then of course there's also difference testing which uses actual music signals as its inputs.

se


----------



## KeithEmo

analogsurviver said:


> Type of filtering is the core of the Sygnalist HQ player http://www.signalyst.com/consumer.html . You can choose pre-ringing, post ringing - etc - according to the known defects of CDs that were recorded on known equipment producing these undesirable effets - and software will add exactly the opposite pre or post- ringing, effectively restoring the desired response. It takes one hell of a computer to do it right ( IIRC - 12GB RAM is minimum requirement ) - actually, they offer a music-only computer, optimized to cover for any setting that may actually tax that same computer to the max.
> 
> There is one fly in that ointment - you have to know on which machines your CDs have been made - and which "correction" filters are to be applied. About as useful and widespread as various non-exactly-RIAA-equalization curves for vinyl - some are known, most aren't.
> 
> Enter the simplicity of the DSD512 - NO filtering required anymore, no guesstimating which equipment has been used to produce your file. At least in digital domain - analog sections will still be the limiting factor and will ultimately set the SQ. Digital can be dirt cheap - analog most definitely not - if it wants to be really good. For fact - not in mfr's brochures or internet only.


 
  
 I played with HQPlayer for a while; even on my Quad Core Dell desktop machine some of the longer filters were unable to run without problems.... but it is a cool idea.
  
 However, I do disagree with a few of the claims you attribute to it....
  
 First, ordinary DACs _ALWAYS_ oversample, and so _ALWAYS_ apply oversampling filters. In order to avoid this entirely, you would need to use a non-oversampling DAC (which have other "issues"). (Signalist used to recommend buying or building a NOS DAC to use with HQPlayer if you wanted to avoid this.) However, by upsampling a 44k signal to 192k in software, then feeding that 192k signal to the DAC, you are allowing the DAC to operate in a mode where it can hopefully use gentler filters that have less effect on the audible signal.
  
 Second, while it's possible to correct for certain types of production flaws, some of the damage or alteration caused by an aggressive filter is irreparable. So, while they may be able to "improve" content recorded using certain ADCs with certain filters, they cannot "make badly damaged content perfect again". It's more like sharpening a fuzzy picture; if you do it well, you can often improve things, sometimes dramatically, but it isn't "perfect".
  
 Third, your statement about "no filtering" being required for DSD512 is incorrect. The fact is that, because of the very high sampling frequency, the filtering required is at such a high frequency that it can be very gentle, and so should be totally innocuous in terms of damaging the audible portion of the frequency spectrum - but it isn't "not there". You also seem to be under a slight misapprehension about how difficult it is to design a DAC. A current high-quality DAC chip costs somewhere between about $2 and about $20; and it's already the supporting circuitry - things like the power supply and analog sections - that take the most design effort. In short, producing a DSD512 DAC isn't going to be especially cheaper or easier than the current designs. Of course, the huge downside to DSD512 is that, since none of the current studio mastering equipment or playback equipment supports DSD512, that would mean replacing everything.
  
 The other thing you need to do is to maintain perspective between the various "levels" of the different formats. DSD64 is approximately equivalent to 24/96 PCM, and DSD128 is pretty close to 24/192 PCM. Therefore, if you want to reasonably compare DSD512, you should be comparing it to 24/384 PCM, or perhaps 24/768 PCM - which offer similar frequency response - and require similar bandwidth and storage space. (In other words, DSD512 is _NOT_ some magically easy way to get wonderful sound quality with very little effort. It's just another alternative, which has its own strengths and weaknesses, and which is going to have to justify itself before anyone will bother implementing it.)
  
 Without belaboring the point, look around a bit and read the various discussions about why SACD was a resounding commercial failure - because most of those reasons apply even more to DSD512. (Instead of comparing CDs to SACDs, use the same types of comparison between 24/384k PCM and DSD512.) DSD is difficult to record, difficult to edit, takes up at least as much space as equivalent quality PCM, and hasn't shown any benefits sufficiently compelling to overcome those obstacles.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> How can it be a "SUPERB" near field monitor with an offset tweeter like that? An offset tweeter is anathema to listening near field. For near field, you really want a point source. Looks like he put all his attention into the enclosure but took his eye off the ball on some equally important details.
> 
> se


 
 Sorry, this speaker IS superb - and its LED system for pointing the speakers EXACTLY right is extremely narrow - if you can't see it, BOTH from the listening position, you will not get the correct reproduction.
  
 Please read again trough it all, watch the videos - better yet, audition the system yourself.  It is one of the least coloured speakers ever made.
  
 Now - to be fair - how many nearfield monitors you know that actually are point source? Outside Tannoy ?
  
 That is why I would love to see the driver from this ( one can see that they worked much harder than usual on the cabinet, curved and mirror-image asymetrical -  measurements for this speaker are superb, but I have yet to see and hear it in flesh )
  

  
 packaged into enclosure like that 
  

 With the hole for the tweeter faired over - - if not actually made specifically for the Technics coaxial driver.
  
 The result should be really, REALLY good - specially if supporting amplifier would, again, ensure the pairing of the left and right channel _*acoustic output *_not to exceed 0.5 dB - as in all "Eggs".
  
 I DO love point sources, from the diminutive Visaton FRS-8 full range 80 mm driver ( mounted in spheres if required...) trough Technics SB-RX50 (which is the predecessor from the current reincarnation, mid 80s, normal "box" ) - and use them on regular basis. 
  
 A coax in egg shaped resonance and diffraction free enclosure, positioned atop some "woofer" that also eschews diffraction as much as humanly possible (or some narrow stands + subwoofer ) , should be capable of producing sound of great precision - one that has not been achieved yet.
  
 I have auditioned the original sE Egg 150 - and that was the most uncoloured thing I ever heard in pro audio, offset tweeter or no offset tweeter. Imagine what described above could achieve...


----------



## Ruben123

I like this debate, but more important is if the differences are audible and then how much. Or is it placebo. Or does "audiophile" gear maybe have some sort of tweaked DAC to actually REALLY sound different to let audiophiles hear the difference between those and "consumer grade", correctly adjusted DACs?


----------



## limpidglitch

keithemo said:


> So, yes, if you can't tell the difference between a signal played directly from a DSD source, and one that has then been recorded and played back using PCM, then you have indeed demonstrated that PCM is "perfect enough" to make a perfect copy of a DSD source... or you could say that you've proven that PCM is "at least as good as DSD"... but that is precisely all you've proven.


 
  
 No, you've demonstrated that PCM is audibly perfect, and DSD is at best equally as good. As such the debate is rather pointless really. 
  
  


keithemo said:


> (My point here is that, even if you find out that you _CAN_ hear the difference between the "DSD original" and the "PCM copy", you still have NOT proven that DSD is better; you've simply proven that PCM isn't perfect. And, for the record, I promise you that you _WILL_ be able to measure the difference between a PCM copy and a DSD original, _AND_ between a DSD copy and a PCM original; _AND_ between either a PCM or DSD copy and an analog original; the only question in my mind is whether that differences will be audible.)


 
  
 Let's worry about that _after_ the PCM DBT fails.
 Until then we can discuss what kind of weapons we want to use to fight the coming zombie apocalypse.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, this speaker IS superb - and its LED system for pointing the speakers EXACTLY right is extremely narrow - if you can't see it, BOTH from the listening position, you will not get the correct reproduction.




That's fine. I don't like listening with my head in a vice to keep it perfectly positioned in order to avoid the lobing effects that are inevitable with an offset tweeter design like that.




> Please read again trough it all, watch the videos - better yet, audition the system yourself.  It is one of the least coloured speakers ever made.




Will you provide the vice? 




> Now - to be fair - how many nearfield monitors you know that actually are point source? Outside Tannoy ?




Not many. Which is why I can't help shaking my head at the plethora of so-called near field monitors with offset tweeters. It's basically a contradiction of terms.




> That is why I would love to see the driver from this ( one can see that they worked much harder than usual on the cabinet, curved and mirror-image asymetrical -  measurements for this speaker are superb, but I have yet to see and hear it in flesh )




That would certainly be a step in the right direction. But I'm sorry, I just can't take seriously anything that calls itself a near field monitor but uses an offset tweeter.




> I have auditioned the original sE Egg 150 - and that was the most uncoloured thing I ever heard in pro audio, offset tweeter or no offset tweeter. Imagine what described above could achieve...




You're aware that cabinet diffraction can be (and has been) effectively dealt with using equalization networks, yes?

se


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


> I played with HQPlayer for a while; even on my Quad Core Dell desktop machine some of the longer filters were unable to run without problems.... but it is a cool idea.
> 
> However, I do disagree with a few of the claims you attribute to it....
> 
> ...


 
 I agree on most of points you made. Of course, comparisons among "similar size file" or "levels" of DSD and PCM should be considered.
  
 No thing is _magically _better than the other - the reason why DSD is superior to PCM will FOREVER be in the pulse response - unless PCM is made many times the size of the DSD file in order to actually start approaching the pulse capability of the any chosen level of DSD. The negative side of DSD vs PCM is of course noise rising above 20 kHz - which gets reasonably low enough by DSD512.
  
 I agree - it requires the change of everything. And in this bush the rabbit that would like to proclaim "perfect sound forever" is really hiding - trying to prolong the CD redbook to as much as possible. There is not a single device (except maybe mic cables ) in a 48/24 capable studio that would not represent a significant bottleneck in say DSD256 environment - if not preventing doing recording at all.
  
 DSD512 capable DACs exist - and start at approx 500-600 $ (depends where you live ). DSD512 commercial recorder, at least not to my knowledge, does not exist - yet. There is DSD256 recorder available - from Merging (Horus and Hapi) and from Weiss (IIRC). I will have to look into it a bit more if any other has also appeared.
  
 I can not afford anything above DSD128 at the moment - yet if and when I decide to bite the bullet, it will be for DSD 512. Listening to the samples I posted a few posts back is convincing enough - if DSD256 can be that better compared to DSD128, I have no doubt that DSD512 would be even better - a little, audible on the best of equipment, if implemented correctly. I sure prefer DSD256 or even DSD128 over DSD512 that "stutters" for any reason.
  
 There are a few DSD512 test tracks available - arrived at by upconverting DSD256. DACs that can play them are available - now and for reasonable price. If money is no object, there is always http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/equipment/0814/gryphon_audio_designs_kalliope_dac.htm  I *guess* I will never even see it in flesh - but it does exist.


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> You really need to brush up on modern test and measurement capabilities. And then of course there's also difference testing which uses actual music signals as its inputs.
> 
> se


 
  
 I assure you I'm quite up to date on what can be measured - and on what usually is. Our AP test sets here at Emotiva do an excellent job of testing transient performance - amongst a lot of other things. However, I'm sort of missing your point here. The comment was made that "all good DACs measure and sound the same" - to which I replied that they only all measure the same if you only use the basic steady state tests.... and it doesn't appear that you disagree with me on that point.
  
 Doing "difference testing" with a music source is not that difficult - but evaluating the results is... which is why most "basic tests" use a sine wave as their source. (In the old days, it was very easy to simply null out the original sine wave and then measure the total of anything that was left. On modern equipment, it's also easy to look at the spectrum of the output, and also easy to measure and calculate things based on the knowledge that anything other than the line that represents the pure sine wave doesn't belong there. With music as a source, you have to either analyze the full complex spectrum of the music, then do the same for the output, then figure out what types of errors are causing which differences, or you have to look at the two waveforms and determine the differences that way.... which you can do by nulling them against each other....  at which point you still have to analyze your difference/error waveform and figure out what the differences actually mean. Unfortunately, some differences in waveform that are visibly obvious are still inaudible, while some highly audibly forms of distortion are barely visible on the waveform.)
  
 Back to DACs, though.... with an decent oversampling DAC, you will end up with a flat frequency response because the overall energy response is very accurate, and - at least with a sine wave - you will also end up with very low THD, yet you will end up with visible differences in transient or irregular waveforms due to ringing. (And which tests they will show up on, and which they won't, should be rather obvious once you understand how the tests work and what they're testing.) However, whether specific amounts and types of ringing are audible at all, and, if so, whether certain types "sound better", still seems to be a matter of debate, although the currently accepted "wisdom" is that post-ringing is more innocuous than pre-ringing with most content (which is why Dolby's latest encoder includes an option to upsample while "reducing pre-ringing at the expense of adding more post-ringing" as a way to "improve sound quality using post-processing"), and it also seems likely that certain individuals simply find one or the other more or less audibly annoying.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> No thing is _magically _better than the other - the reason why DSD is superior to PCM will FOREVER be in the pulse response - unless PCM is made many times the size of the DSD file in order to actually start approaching the pulse capability of the any chosen level of DSD. The negative side of DSD vs PCM is of course noise rising above 20 kHz - which gets reasonably low enough by DSD512.


 
  
 This is incorrect as the impulse in both cases is a result of the low pass filter, and not the format itself. Furthermore, perfect impulse response (which neither system achieves) is meaningless as it requires infinite bandwidth which is totally unnecessary for human ears.
  
 DSD does have other disadvantages such as greater distortion and noise and of course incompatibility with EQ, which is a total deal breaker, imo.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> That's fine. I don't like listening with my head in a vice to keep it perfectly positioned in order to avoid the lobing effects that are inevitable with and offset tweeter design like that.
> Will you provide the vice?
> 
> 
> ...


 
 That is humo(u)r - at its worst. 
  
 You do not have a SINGLE clue what a true audio "vice" is. Compared to that, admittedly small area provided by Egg is a VAST space.
  
 Enter big Audiostatic ESLs. I mean BIG (900ES - IIRC) . Imagine a LARGE listening room - some at very least 15 m long and 8 metres or so wide. At a fair - with rows and rows of seats , capacity over 100 people.
  
 With ONLY the seats EXACTLY in the middle axis between the speakers occupied (and vigorously "fought for") - because anybody who sat one single seat removed from the centerline discovered in less than five seconds the distributor could well spare the trouble of bringing all those seats - except those 10 or so exactly on the centerline. 
  
 It gets worse - speaker was so directive you were penalized by "outside heaven/nirvana" performance the minute you dislocated your head by more than an inch or so - even if seating 10 m away from the speakers. Bur, true, if you managed to discipline yourself (most helped themselves by supporting their head with arms...) , the award was one of the best reproduction I have ever heard. Off > one inch - catastrophy...
  
 So, in this case, I rather endure quality headphones and cable - at least can move my head a bit...
  
 This is an audio vice - _*hors categorie.*_
  
 I am aware that cabinet diffraction can be dealt with equalization networks. 
  
 The same goes for resonances within the cabinet itself. If there are no standing waves - or are very well dispersed with none being particularly large (high Q) - whatever remains can be much more easily dealt with than an regular rectangular box that has to rely solely on the damping material. Heavy damping will always have reduced dynamic range as a consequence - even if it achieves reasonably flat measured frequency response - but will be audible on well recorded material.
  
 I hope you realize prevention is better than cure ?


----------



## KeithEmo

ruben123 said:


> I like this debate, but more important is if the differences are audible and then how much. Or is it placebo. Or does "audiophile" gear maybe have some sort of tweaked DAC to actually REALLY sound different to let audiophiles hear the difference between those and "consumer grade", correctly adjusted DACs?


 
  
 I agree.... and the reality is almost undoubtedly "all of the above". Some "audiophile DACs" most definitely _ARE_ tweaked to make them sound "special", and frequently some of the filter choices on units that offer multiple filters frequently _DON'T_ have a flat frequency response, so of course they sound different. Non-oversampling DACs are another example; a typical NOS DAC has a high-frequency roll off of about - 3 dB at 20 kHz, which makes an obvious difference in how it sounds, which in turn makes it very difficult to judge how much, if any, difference the NOS topology itself makes. I have several DACs which offer a choice of filters, and, while each filter sounds slightly different with some content, it's not as easy to say that one or the other is "better" - they're just slightly different. And Sabre DAC chips are most certainly "tweaked" to produce their characteristic flavor - which some people love and others don't.
  
 Placebo effect is also a major factor with lots of audio gear.... which includes DACs.
  
 Also, to put this in proper perspective, the differences between most decent DACs are _FAR_ smaller than the differences between different speakers, or headphones, or phono cartridges. This means that they aren't likely to be significant unless you first notice them, then decide that they are specifically significant to you. They also tend to be the type of differences that you only notice with certain source material, and with certain headphones or speakers.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> Our AP test sets here at Emotiva do an excellent job of testing transient performance - amongst a lot of other things.




If you're with Emotiva, why aren't you identified as a Member of the Trade? Better get that taken care of.

se


----------



## cel4145

keithemo said:


> Our AP test sets here at Emotiva do an excellent job of testing transient performance - amongst a lot of other things.






steve eddy said:


> If you're with Emotiva, why aren't you identified as a Member of the Trade? Better get that taken care of.
> 
> se




Now I understand why your profile name is Keith_Emo_. But Steve is right. Best to get designated a member of the trade. 

Good to have someone with Emotiva on the forum


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> This is incorrect as the impulse in both cases is a result of the low pass filter, and not the format itself. Furthermore, perfect impulse response (which neither system achieves) is meaningless as it requires infinite bandwidth which is totally unnecessary for human ears.
> 
> DSD does have other disadvantages such as greater distortion and noise and of course incompatibility with EQ, which is a total deal breaker, imo.


 
 Output filter for DSD can be MUCH more shallow than foe PCM - which usually uses extremely steep/brickwall filtering, even at 700+kHz sampling rate - and this is the reason why comparably sized file DSD will always have the upper hand over pulse response o the PCM.
  
 True, neither system achieves the perfect pulse response. But achieving approx 99% vs 84% for DXD (PCM 384/32) is a difference - not to mention the CD at some 15 or so % .  http://www.lindberg.no/english/collection/004.pdf
  
 True, distortion is higher on DSD - but not to audible level. Both noise and distortion go down at higher sampling.
  
 True, virtual EQ (DSP) is impossible with DSD. As much as I would like to say "under perfect conditions it does not matter" I am aware there are cases EQ via DSP is beneficial in real world.


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> True, virtual EQ (DSP) is impossible with DSD. As much as I would like to say "under perfect conditions it does not matter" I am aware there are cases EQ via DSP is beneficial in real world.


 
  
 You more or less _need _DSPs in order to get to as close to perfect conditions as we can get.  Digital crossovers, time alignment, etc for bi/tri amped speakers are extremely useful.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> Output filter for DSD can be MUCH more shallow than foe PCM - which usually uses extremely steep/brickwall filtering, even at 700+kHz sampling rate - and this is the reason why comparably sized file DSD will always have the upper hand over pulse response o the PCM.


 
  
 It is not an upper hand if it only affects inaudible/ultrasonic frequencies! Come on.. we've been over this many times.


----------



## lamode

maverickronin said:


> You more or less _need _DSPs in order to get to as close to perfect conditions as we can get.


 
  
 I'd go so far as to say that DSP has the capability to make >1,000 times the sonic improvement compared to the difference between CD and other HD digital format you can name.
  
 So yes... DSP matters, and a system which can't support it is dead in the water.


----------



## maverickronin

lamode said:


> So yes... DSP matters, and a system which can't support it is dead in the water.


 
  
 It certainly is for me. Even with headphones.  I play everything I can out of foobar since I can use TB Isone with it.  It leaves plain stereo in the dust.


----------



## analogsurviver

ruben123 said:


> I like this debate, but more important is if the differences are audible and then how much. Or is it placebo. Or does "audiophile" gear maybe have some sort of tweaked DAC to actually REALLY sound different to let audiophiles hear the difference between those and "consumer grade", correctly adjusted DACs?


 
 There is no such thing as "consumer grade", correctly adjusted DACs.
  
 There is also no such thing as correctly adjusted pro level DAC. 
  
 They can be both correctly adjusted - and still sound poor. 
  
 I have said, many times over, that analog sections, inevitable in ANY - ADC or DAC - will play a major role in SQ. And two "boxes" (whatever) that are according to the electrical schematic and *conventional *measurements more or less indistinguishable can sound MUCH different - IF one box uses regular grade electronic components, the other parts known for better performance. It can be the same type of aparatus, with stock and "super" parts - and both will sound decidedly different.
  
 Use microphone feed and listen trough both - and you will start to understand what I have been about all this time.
  
 A SINGLE poor/regular grade capacitor in the entire chain can bring the performance considerably down - now go and get any service manual and start counting how many of those are in a single "box" - the entire chain is comprised of many such "boxes".
  
 Compared to these losses in analog circuitry, is DSD vs PCM pretty pointless - and should be put right first.
  
 A single quality capacitor from regular, not audio specialist manufacturer, can exceed the cost of ADC or DAC chipset. Not to mention those from specialized audiophile production. For this reason, these quality parts are usually never seen in commercially available equipment - listening trough the same analog crap, used by practically everyone, both in consumer and pro gear, should - and does - yield the same or very similar results - PCM or DSD. Neither of which being taxed to the max, as analog signal gets so mangled in commercially available equipment BEFORE it ever sees ADC - let alone DAC - that it does almost not matter at all.


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


> Back to DACs, though.... with an decent oversampling DAC, you will end up with a flat frequency response because the overall energy response is very accurate, and - at least with a sine wave - you will also end up with very low THD, yet you will end up with visible differences in transient or irregular waveforms due to ringing. (And which tests they will show up on, and which they won't, should be rather obvious once you understand how the tests work and what they're testing.) However, whether specific amounts and types of ringing are audible at all, and, if so, whether certain types "sound better", still seems to be a matter of debate, although the currently accepted "wisdom" is that post-ringing is more innocuous than pre-ringing with most content (which is why Dolby's latest encoder includes an option to upsample while "reducing pre-ringing at the expense of adding more post-ringing" as a way to "improve sound quality using post-processing"), and it also seems likely that certain individuals simply find one or the other more or less audibly annoying.


 
  
 There shouldn't be a debate about whether certain types of pre-ringing due to digital filters are audible; it's perfectly within the realm of the industry to test if people can actually hear anything, be it comparing two music samples or listening to a null file. The current status seems to be that people can't hear any differences (pre-ringing or not) between hi-res formats and Redbook. Even with my now-gone setup of a Bifrost + V200 + HD800, I could down-sample things to 38k and not even hear anything in the null file, let alone in an ABX comparing the two music files. If someone tells me "well you need to hear how X-type cymbals sound", then I say, do the experiment on a decent sample of people and cement the legitimacy of hi-res formats. It never seems to get done. I mean, it really only takes one hi-res sound sample of an actual musical sound to do the trick.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

rrod said:


> I agree. I could probably have put my question better as:
> If one is really hearing differences among (pro-grade) ADCs/DACs, what are these differences, and are these differences expected given the specs? Moreover, are these differences still detectable in blind testing circumstances?
> 
> The answer I got, that I'm still not quite sold on, was pre-echo due to digital filtering. My doubt is due to my own testing of down-sampled (even sub-44.1) material where I can't hear such artifacts, and due to the theory about the frequency characteristics of pre-echo in cases of resampling to/from standard PCM formats. I of course could be convinced instantly if a hi-res sample could be provided that caused audible pre-ringing when down-sampled to Redbook.


 

 From my experience not always we listen difference. And otherwise not what we listen has real difference.
  
 I want said only what:
  
 1. Fully correct double blind test demands deep knowledges of tested subject due many subtle details that can appear insignificant at first look.
  
 2. Home double blind test we can consider as interesting experiment, but is not enought proof due not clear many the subtle details (goal 1).
  
 3. Even professional carefully developed and performed test also is not true in last instance.


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> You more or less _need _DSPs in order to get to as close to perfect conditions as we can get.  Digital crossovers, time alignment, etc for bi/tri amped speakers are extremely useful.


 
 True.
  
 That is why Quad ESL 2915 ( a full range electrostatic crossoverless design ) will always run rings around multi driver speakers requiring time alignment. 
  
 DSP is a good, extremely useful,  but still - cure for the problem. Preventing the problem from occuring  is the better strategy.


----------



## RRod

Quote:


yuri korzunov said:


> From my experience not always we listen difference. And otherwise not what we listen has real difference.
> 
> I want said only what:
> 
> ...


 
  
 Agreed; a properly set up test isn't trivial. I do home testing solely for my own benefit and to save myself money ^_^ The actual rigorous testing on the broad (and specific) public, I leave to the industry. But in this case it seems trivial to do: grab a few pros who say they can hear differences, grab some normal folks who may or may not think they can, and blind test them properly on hearing pre-ringing. Then provide the sound sample for the broad world.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> I have said, many times over, that analog sections, inevitable in ANY - ADC or DAC - will play a major role in SQ. And two "boxes" (whatever) that are according to the electrical schematic and *conventional *measurements more or less indistinguishable can sound MUCH different - IF one box uses regular grade electronic components, the other parts known for better performance. It can be the same type of aparatus, with stock and "super" parts - and both will sound decidedly different.




First of all, the actual design implementation could be the biggest factor in which performs better, right? So better grade components doesn't guarantee better grade sound. 

Second, this is a subjectivist argument. If you don't have ABX testing data to confirm that the differences exist, then you have no argument.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

rrod said:


> Quote:
> 
> Agreed; a properly set up test isn't trivial. I do home testing solely for my own benefit and to save myself money ^_^ The actual rigorous testing on the broad (and specific) public, I leave to the industry. But in this case it seems trivial to do: grab a few pros who say they can hear differences, grab some normal folks who may or may not think they can, and blind test them properly on hearing pre-ringing. Then provide the sound sample for the broad world.


 

 Yes. For buying own apparatus home double blind test suitable tool. Currently impossible choose audio hardware by parameters. Many parameters not showed or don't measured.
  
 Even if it will available, better way - go and listen.


----------



## RRod

yuri korzunov said:


> Yes. For buying own apparatus home double blind test suitable tool. Currently impossible choose audio hardware by parameters. Many parameters not showed or don't measured.
> 
> Even if it will available, better way - go and listen.


 
  
 Better if it's at a local meet. Having to deal with audio equipment salesmen ranks on my list of things I enjoy right above "cleanup at Fukushima."


----------



## lamode

> Preventing the problem from occuring  is the better strategy.


 
  
 That's all very well, but in the real world... at no point in history, and at any price, has anyone ever made a sound reproduction system that couldn't benefit from DSP. It can help to overcome complex diaphragm breakup modes, for example, which might require extremely complex analogue filters which would cause all sorts of issues. DSP crossovers are superior in every way (except price) to traditonal passive crossovers, etc.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> That's all very well, but in the real world... at no point in history, and at any price, has anyone ever made a sound reproduction system that couldn't benefit from DSP. It can help to overcome complex diaphragm breakup modes, for example, which might require extremely complex analogue filters which would cause all sorts of issues. DSP crossovers are superior in every way (except price) to traditonal passive crossovers, etc.


 
  
 There are crossoverless loudspeaker designs - in the real world. That are inherently free from any complex diaphragm breakup modes.
  
 But I agree, where frequency response alterations are absolutely required, DSP is the reasonable way to go - only NOT at 44.1/16 .


----------



## KeithEmo

rrod said:


> There shouldn't be a debate about whether certain types of pre-ringing due to digital filters are audible; it's perfectly within the realm of the industry to test if people can actually hear anything, be it comparing two music samples or listening to a null file. The current status seems to be that people can't hear any differences (pre-ringing or not) between hi-res formats and Redbook. Even with my now-gone setup of a Bifrost + V200 + HD800, I could down-sample things to 38k and not even hear anything in the null file, let alone in an ABX comparing the two music files. If someone tells me "well you need to hear how X-type cymbals sound", then I say, do the experiment on a decent sample of people and cement the legitimacy of hi-res formats. It never seems to get done. I mean, it really only takes one hi-res sound sample of an actual musical sound to do the trick.


 
  
 I agree with you - except for one detail - which sort of depends on what you're trying to establish.
  
 From a marketing perspective, proving that a significant number of people can hear the difference would serve to establish that "there's a legitimate market need for high-res files"; however, to prove that an audible difference exists, all you need to do is produce one guy (or gal) who can consistently hear the difference with at least one file. As long as even a few people can hear the difference, then that difference may be worth the extra cost and aggravation_ for them_. The reality is that the folks who sell high-res files have little reason to do a study - because their business is predicated on the _assumption_ that the difference is real (so the results of a study might hurt their business, but have little likelihood of helping it).  I don't know of many people who stand to profit from proving that high-res files _aren't_ worth the bother.
  
 My personal experience is that I have absolutely heard high-res files that sounded better than their 44k "equivalent counterparts"; and those high-res files sounded different when they were down-converted to 44k. However, I'm not at all convinced that the differences I heard were attributable to the difference between the sample rates rather than simply because the 192k version file had been more carefully mastered; and I'm also not convinced that the differences I heard when I down-sampled the file weren't due to the inevitable slight differences that get introduced whenever you perform any sort of conversion. Therefore, I'm not 100% convinced that, as a general statement, "high-res files sound different/better than 44k files"; however, I am convinced that at least some high-res files sound better than their 44k equivalents, for whatever reasons, which is enough reason for me to be willing to buy those files, and also enough reason for me to want my equipment to be able to play them without subjecting them to an extra conversion.
  
 Since both bandwidth and storage space have gotten so cheap, I simply don't find it significantly more difficult or costly to use the high-res versions when they're available. (And, yes, I've even heard a few high-res reissues that sound _worse_ than their Red Book counterparts, and those I don't listen to.) Back when vinyl was all there was, I used to buy MFSL half-speed mastered records.... I'm not really sure they sounded better because they were half-speed mastered, or because they used virgin vinyl, or simply because they were mastered better... the point was that they offered a different version which did indeed sound better... and I find this to be the case today with at least some high-res digital audio releases.
  
 I would also disagree with your blanket statement about people not hearing any difference... a lot of people don't seem to agree with that statement... and that isn't limited to audiophiles. (For example, the latest version of Dolby's "Professional Audio Encoder"  includes an option to up-sample 48k video content to 96k through a filter that they claim produces a reduction in pre-ringing (at the expense of more post-ringing), and which they claim "makes the audio sound better".
  
 Personally, I'll reserve judgement until it actually does get tested, but, until then, I wouldn't assume either way.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> There are crossoverless loudspeaker designs - in the real world. That are inherently free from any complex diaphragm breakup modes.




Not aware of any drivers whose cones are free from breakup. Can you point me to some?

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Just a reminder. This is the Sound Science forum. Hand-waving and empty claims should be taken elsewhere.

se


----------



## RRod

Yes, I'm sure there are monetary and political (in the industry sense) reasons for not having a much larger set of rigorous listening tests for these things. My naive hope, of course, is that some large professional organization would take up such tasks, but much more often it's guys on hydrogenaudio who seem to put this stuff through the ringer.
  
 I have yet to see any conclusive and undisputed results about the audible superiority of hi-res when there is no deliberate "mis-mastering" of the Redbook counterpart. I of course have no issue if people want to move on to, say, 24/96, if only to give analog components an easier time. It's the wild claims about obvious superiority coupled with the release of yet another version of the Dark Side of the Moon on a proprietary format that reeks of DRM that irks me. Dolby can write all it wants about pre-ringing, and people can make their own decisions. But those decisions would be better made after a bit of learning and testing, which hopefully we encourage people to do when they come on here.


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Just a reminder. This is the Sound Science forum. Hand-waving and empty claims should be taken elsewhere.
> 
> se


 
 Dang, this isn't the Science Fiction forum?


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Dang, this isn't the Science Fiction forum?




No. In spite of some doing their damnedest to try and turn it into that.

se


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> Dang, this isn't the Science Fiction forum?


 
  
  


steve eddy said:


> No. In spite of some doing their damnedest to try and turn it into that.
> 
> se


 
 I'm waiting for someone to bark out that wearing a dog collar will enhance soundstage.


----------



## Steve Eddy

rrod said:


> Yes, I'm sure there are monetary and political (in the industry sense) reasons for not having a much larger set of rigorous listening tests for these things.




Bottom line is, they don't have to. 

They can just make their empty claims, convince people there is something "wrong" with their systems, offer a "cure," and human psychology takes care of everything else. Fundamentally no different than those "Power Band" or whatever bracelets, with the "magic" hologram on them. Not only are there many people who will buy them, you can also find plenty of people who will swear by them. 

So where's the incentive?

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> I'm waiting for someone to bark out that wearing a dog collar will enhance soundstage.




Or a bracelet with a magic hologram on it.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Or a bracelet with a magic hologram on it.
> 
> se


 
 You got that totally wrong, it has to have Neodymium magnets.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> You got that totally wrong, it has to have Neodymium magnets.




Oh. When did samarium cobalt go out of fashion?

se


----------



## Phishin Phool

I was told mine had to be turquoise as it contained the channeled souls of Native Americans which will give me ears like the rabbit.


----------



## cdsa35000

You should try grounding yourself with Anti-Static Wrist Strap.
No more static noise interference, better imaging, more peaceful sound , no electroshocks etc.


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> You got that totally wrong, it has to have Neodymium magnets.


 
  
  


steve eddy said:


> Oh. When did samarium cobalt go out of fashion?
> 
> se


 
 Neodymium magnets are stronger and Samarium sounds more like an alien race that overnights at area 51.


----------



## headdict

phishin phool said:


> I was told mine had to be turquoise as it contained the channeled souls of Native Americans which will give me ears like the rabbit.


 

 Hey guys, can you please show me the way to the Science Fiction forum. I got here thinking this was it, but as it turns out, this is the Fantasy forum.


----------



## StanD

headdict said:


> Hey guys, can you please show me the way to the Science Fiction forum. I got here thinking this was it, but as it turns out, this is the Fantasy forum.


 
 Go 3 light years past Betelgeuse and make a right. Bring a silver headphone cable.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Go 3 light years past Betelgeuse and make a right. Bring a silver headphone cable.




Really? You are so old fashioned. 

There are no headphones in the future. Music is beamed directly to the implant in your brain


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Really? You are so old fashioned.
> 
> There are no headphones in the future. Music is beamed directly to the implant in your brain


 
 If it's powered by Windoze, you better pray against a BSOD.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Not aware of any drivers whose cones are free from breakup. Can you point me to some?
> 
> se


 
 I said _loudspeaker designs - _and that is not limited to cones.
  
 Electrostatics as a group. Quad ESL 2912 as perhaps the most accomplished of the breed. Although rather rare, not that all uncommon or unknown - and although around $ 10 K  in price, far from being the most expensive loudspeaker in existence.
  
 There were two "electrostatics" without the diaphragm - force field was powerful enough to create sound waves. By the two otherwise rivals - both builders of extremely high quality amplifiers. Both too inefficient for normal use, both requiring power far in excess of anything usually considered enough, both limited in ultimate SPL. Both superiour to anything else within their loudness capabilities. John Iverson and Nelson Pass. Electro Research, later Electron Kinetics-  and Threshold, later Pass Labs. John Iverson misteriously disappeared quite some time ago, Nelson Pass is still with us -  working with Lowther full range cone driver used as midrange and treble unit, mounted on open baffle and helped by a slot loaded woofer for bass - requiring crossover. Lowther is of course not without breakups - but is build and refined over the decades to the point it can still compete with multi driver systems requiring crossovers. Pass also wrote a very good primer on crossovers for loudspeakers around 1980 - and no doubt used this and his later work to produce a decent crossover for the said speaker. 
  
 There was even a full range ionic or plasma speaker - admittedly 3 way, requiring crossovers. But certainly without breakup. Plasma speakers, even small tweeters, generate ozone - which is not desirable and is a problem - the larger the speaker, the more ozone it creates. There is even a thread on plasma speakers on head-fi http://www.head-fi.org/t/532312/plasma-speaker - although commercially available plasma tweeters have almost all been discontinued, there is lots of DIY projects that exceed the performance of commercial designs available in the past. Plasma speakers working directly in air are hazardous for health regarding ozone generation - but there is a way around this, by having plasma in an inert gas, as it has been done in Hill Plasmatronics speaker.
  
 Plasma speakers are limited in high frequency response by the cooling of the gas - for air, it is around 150 kHz. 
 Pulse response for the Magnat tweeter from ca 1980 shows exemplary precision - no overshoot, only it takes a cycle or two for the amplitude to reach its proper value - either at acceleration or deceleration.  
  
 There may be more designs that are not subject to diaphragm breakups - or ones with breakups controlled so well that final system works better than conventional approach. Some of them are of Japanese origin and extremely rare out of Japan. 
  
 As you can see, there were, are and will be drivers without cone breakup.
 Some are even rather commonly available (electrostatics) - some remain as myth long ago after they have played their last piece of music.


----------



## KeithEmo

rrod said:


> Quote:
> 
> Agreed; a properly set up test isn't trivial. I do home testing solely for my own benefit and to save myself money ^_^ The actual rigorous testing on the broad (and specific) public, I leave to the industry. But in this case it seems trivial to do: grab a few pros who say they can hear differences, grab some normal folks who may or may not think they can, and blind test them properly on hearing pre-ringing. Then provide the sound sample for the broad world.


 
  
 I can give you a trivial test -
  
 Find yourself a Wyred4Sound DAC2, play something with well recorded wire brush cymbals through it, on a reasonably good amplifier, on speakers that have good tweeters.
 Switch between the various different filter choices (I believe it has 6 different choices).
 They sound different.....
  
 Which proves, at least on that DAC, that the different filter choices sound different (of course it doesn't prove if they sound different _BECAUSE_ they have different transient characteristics, or because of some other difference between the settings, and it doesn't prove which if any is better.)
  
 You also neglected one important point... Since the digital filters are part of the DAC, in order to do this test, you must have the actual hardware of the different DACs to use (or the one DAC with switchable filters). You can't "give those sound samples to someone to listen to" because the only way to listen to them is on a DAC, in which case you're hearing  what the digital filters on _THAT_ DAC sound like - or at least a combination of both. The only way to do the test is to physically listen to the samples on different filters. (Since there are quite a few DACs out there that offer switchable filters, that part isn't too hard to do.)


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> If it's powered by Windoze, you better pray against a BSOD.




No. It's not powered by Windows. But the CD player with the built in wireless for transmitting it DOES use a CD Mat


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> I can give you a trivial test -
> 
> Find yourself a Wyred4Sound DAC2, play something with well recorded wire brush cymbals through it, on a reasonably good amplifier, on speakers that have good tweeters.
> Switch between the various different filter choices (I believe it has 6 different choices).
> ...




Nothing without adequate controls. Like I said, the hand-waving and empty claims are for other forums. Not Sound Science.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> As you can see, there were, are and will be drivers without cone breakup.




Ok, I thought you were talking about conventional dynamic drivers.

But even with conventional drivers breakup can be mitigated with proper design.

se


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> No. It's not powered by Windows. But the CD player with the built in wireless for transmitting it DOES use a CD Mat


 
 The Mat can do double duty. When a user has a BSOD, they can rest their head on it. By the way, it's powered by Windoze for Embeded Alien Technology, same OS used by high end DAPs.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Ok, I thought you were talking about conventional dynamic drivers.
> 
> But even with conventional drivers breakup can be mitigated with proper design.
> 
> se


 
 It is true that "anything" can be mitigated with proper design. To a point.
  
 Let me get one thing straight - the best are designs that, left unattended, tend from good to better. Perhaps the most palpable audio example is Kuzma 4-Point tonearm.
 It does not and can not have free play in its unique bearing system, yet it has low enough friction. Temperature will not unsettle this perfection - as it is basically held together by gravity. Totally unlike conventional ball bearings, which, regardless of the precision of the bearings used, WILL display microscopic free play - and hence depart from the perfect "sinking" of the energy put into arm by the stylus tracking the groove - into the turntable base (where it should dissipate as heat ).
  
 Five minutes with this arm is enough to grasp WHY the records suddenly have MUCH lower noise floor and ticks and pops are MUCH less pronounced than with other arms - even when using the same turntable and cartridge.  It is no subtle difference.
  
 There is no DSP in this or any other galaxy that could make an ordinary ball bearing behave nearly as well as the bearing in 4-Point  tonearm. Or any other design compared to the one that is inherently superiour - and then try to compensate for the difference using DSP.
  
 In loudspeakers/headphones, this kind of "if left alone, I will get better over time - or at least will not deteriorate with time" is harder to achieve. Just think of foam(s) used in loudspeaker/headphone production: over time, this foam(s) disintegrate altogether - making some otherwise superb designs unrepairable. The most hurts the extraordinary Technics SB-R100 coaxial loudspeaker - even if you find a soul brave enough to attempt and actually restore its unique suspension system (three way flat diaphragm coaxial driver ), it will be extremely unlikely it will still have the same frequency response as the original - which is really hard to believe - if it was not measured by IAF in Rome, Italy.  https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/81737880/stereoplay-t/technics-sb-r100-esb-707-fostex-gz-2001-yamaha-ns-2000-kef-104.2.pdf  It met or exceeded frequency response, on and off axis, of any then known loudspeaker ever tested - within its loudness and bass extension capabilities, which are both somewhat limited. I never heard it, but friend(s) did - and what they told me makes me every now and then look for the SB-R100.
  
 Everything you will ever see for sale looks like this : 
  

  
 There is no sane person who listens to music who owns SB-R100s in working order who would sell them - no way, Jose. People linger on rotten foam samples years if not decades prior deciding to offer them for sale - and the most unusual quantity that appears for sale is - a pair. Usually single speaker is offered, but I have seen three pieces in the same auction. The foam "ring" between the bass and midrange driver (or is it passive outer bass driver and inner driver proper, with tweeter in the centre ) has no equivalent and has to be "kludged" by somehow making it from two other foam surrounds . The exact properties this surround should have is anybody's guess - speakers are over 30 years old now and Technics did not exist as brand for about a decade - only recently being reintroduced.


----------



## jodgey4

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> It is no subtle difference.


 
 If I had a dollar for every time you said this... . But interesting about the tonearm, regardless.


----------



## analogsurviver

jodgey4 said:


> If I had a dollar for every time you said this... . But interesting about the tonearm, regardless.


 
 I intentionally postponed the audition of this arm - for two years or more - fearing what might come out. Listening to very well known LPs.
  
 Prior, I could be telling myself it can not be that better and can not be worth the money. POOOF - in less than five minutes. There are loose ends in 4-point ;  but that super stable bearing system will more than compensate for these shortcomings. The other arm that could/should be equal/better is "only" 5 times or so the price of
 4-Point.
  
 The proper impact this arm makes will reveal itself listening to some music for extended period - say at least 3-4 sides of a LP.  And although it does not pull out of the groove "details I never knew exist on the record", it does present everything in a much more cohesive way than LP is credited for. It "sticks together" better than anything I have heard so far. And can, with really well cut records, even in bass, the Aichilles heel of vinyl,  challenge digital.  
  
 Going back to a lesser arm is not a pleasant experience.


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


> I can give you a trivial test -
> 
> Find yourself a Wyred4Sound DAC2, play something with well recorded wire brush cymbals through it, on a reasonably good amplifier, on speakers that have good tweeters.
> Switch between the various different filter choices (I believe it has 6 different choices).
> ...


 
  
 Tell me a good recording with wire brush cymbals and I'll give it a shot with my current hardware. As far as digital filters, I can certainly listen to differences by applying various ones to samples, holding my own DAC constant, which is at least something. I've done this for linear vs. minimum phase for up/down-sampling and not heard anything.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> It is true that "anything" can be mitigated with proper design. To a point.
> 
> Let me get one thing straight - the best are designs that, left unattended, tend from good to better. Perhaps the most palpable audio example is Kuzma 4-Point tonearm.
> It does not and can not have free play in its unique bearing system, yet it has low enough friction. Temperature will not unsettle this perfection - as it is basically held together by gravity. Totally unlike conventional ball bearings, which, regardless of the precision of the bearings used, WILL display microscopic free play - and hence depart from the perfect "sinking" of the energy put into arm by the stylus tracking the groove - into the turntable base (where it should dissipate as heat ).
> ...




What has a turntable to do with loudspeakers, which I thought was the subject of our discussion? 




> In loudspeakers/headphones, this kind of "if left alone, I will get better over time - or at least will not deteriorate with time" is harder to achieve. Just think of foam(s) used in loudspeaker/headphone production: over time, this foam(s) disintegrate altogether - making some otherwise superb designs unrepairable.




Then don't use foam. 




> The most hurts the extraordinary Technics SB-R100 coaxial loudspeaker - even if you find a soul brave enough to attempt and actually restore its unique suspension system (three way flat diaphragm coaxial driver ), it will be extremely unlikely it will still have the same frequency response as the original - which is really hard to believe - if it was not measured by IAF in Rome, Italy.




The SB-R100 was a two-way design, not three-way. 

And why would its frequency response be so hard to be believed? I assume Technics designed a crossover for it. Or are you suggesting that its flat frequency response was purely the result of its drivers?




> It met or exceeded frequency response, on and off axis, of any then known loudspeaker ever tested - within its loudness and bass extension capabilities, which are both somewhat limited.




And how many hundreds of loudspeakers did they measure?




> There is no sane person who listens to music who owns SB-R100s in working order who would sell them - no way, Jose. People linger on rotten foam samples years if not decades prior deciding to offer them for sale - and the most unusual quantity that appears for sale is - a pair. Usually single speaker is offered, but I have seen three pieces in the same auction.




There are any number of "cult classics" out there you could say the same thing about.

se


----------



## bigshot

Knock yourself out, guys.


----------



## Ruben123

To me it sounds silly to test a DAC with several filters. Shouldnt you compare DACs without any filters enabled at all? Or did you mean in general filters could make a difference, because I can believe that. But it's much more interesting how DACs sound different from each other without filters, mods, EQs etc.
  
 Which comes to the point that, just a thought really (!), I wonder if audiophile graded stuff IS actually actively filtered, EQed or modded. And audiophile stuff is not the gear a professional would buy for in the studio, but those Tera, AK and Sony players that are well above the $1000. Of course placebo could be big, but what IF, on the devices a simple, subtle EQ is enabled (even though it's off) to let there actually BE differences in sound.
  
 Still just a thought. The power of placebo is big though.
  
 Also. I listened yesterday to Mozart's 4th violin concerto, on LP. Cant remember I ever heard a violin so real on my stereo setup, but it might of course be the mastering, method of recording etc. I did notice though the highs were much rolled off compared to CD.
  
 Now Im out of here! Too much talk in too less time, I cant catch up.


----------



## bigshot

But... but... Without filters, all DACs sound the same!


----------



## Ruben123

Which seems very logical to me. It's only job is to create a wave of 0s and 1s. A Dutch HiFi site describes the DAC as the most important part of the HiFi system, because lots can go wrong. All sound different . oh and their site is sponsored.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> What has a turntable to do with loudspeakers, which I thought was the subject of our discussion?
> Then don't use foam.
> The SB-R100 was a two-way design, not three-way.
> 
> ...


 
 I have cited the tonearm (not turntable) as an example of things that tend towards better all on their own - without any intervention from outside. Simply because it is the best example in all things audio I am familiar with.
  
 True, SB-R100 was a two way speaker - which does not diminish the importance of the foam for the passive bass driver; it is even more critical to get the foam characteristics right , as the third "crossover" is entirely mechanical
 and the compliance of the foam suspension determines at which frequency the passive bass driver kicks in. Here the picture that should clarify the construction of this speaker :
  

  
 The crossover in SB-R100 was VERY simple ( it is at least pictured in the link with measurements provided ), so the resulting flat response of within +-1 dB from _approx _(please see graphs) 100 Hz to 20 kHz  at 15 degress (or so) off axis actually is the result of careful driver design. But it is the uniformity of the curves at various angles that are superiour to most other speaker designs . Please note that this is measured in the horizontal plane only - and that symmetrical coaxial driver can not behave any different in vertical plane - which, if measured (and published...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ) would look at least "strange" for normal loudspeakers - which can have MUCH different sound if listened to sitting or standing, for example. SB-R100 will not change its character in any abrupt fashion - no matter where listened from - by default and by design.
  
 I did not count - exactly - how many speakers they did measure at IAF Roma - but it is VERY large number; here the link to _*some*_ of the measuremenst published in the Italian (and in Stereoplay of Germany ) audio press : 
 http://www.annuarioaudio.it/tag/vintage-audio/page/7/
 They usually published loudspeaker measurements in batches, similar to the review of SB-100R, where five loudspeakers were being tested.  I started to sporadically buy SUONO (eng : Sound) and Stereoplay magazines in 1978, but measurements date back - at least - quite a few years. I have yet to find the links for the older ones - but here at least index for the SUONO : http://www.suono.it/La-rivista/Archivio Clicking on cover picture will reveal at least index for that particular issue - for the older issues at least. On average 1 loudspeaker per every issue.
  
 In any case, the number of audio gear tested at very least equals that has been objectively tested in the USA ( Audio, High Fidelity, Stereo Review ) - and includes of course Italian and other nations gear, most notably from Japan - in a much more unbiased fashion than by the US magazines.
  
 I agree that similar regarding the unwillingness to sell on part of the owner could be said about many audio classics - but some are more special than the other and therefore even harder to get. SB-R100 is a departure from "normal" in so many ways - and with the sound to match; couple that to the fact that almost none survived in original condition to date - and that even less of those almost none are ever being offered for sale.


----------



## stv014

analogsurviver said:


> Output filter for DSD can be MUCH more shallow than foe PCM - which usually uses extremely steep/brickwall filtering, even at 700+kHz sampling rate - and this is the reason why comparably sized file DSD will always have the upper hand over pulse response o the PCM.


 
  
 PCM at higher sample rate requires a much less steep filter, as the transition band can be fit between 20 kHz and the Nyquist frequency (or even higher if some imaging is acceptable, hardware DAC filters tend to have only a few dB of attenuation at the Nyquist frequency). Therefore, 176.4/16 PCM (which has identical storage requirement to DSD64) allows for an order of magnitude shorter impulse response than Red Book, which has yet to be proven to be audible under controlled conditions anyway:

    (this shows a total length of ~1 ms at 705600 Hz sample rate, and 50 samples = ~0.07 ms)
  
 More than 10 times shorter with insignificant imaging than (already transparent) CD audio with imaging between 22.05 and 24 kHz.
  


> True, neither system achieves the perfect pulse response. But achieving approx 99% vs 84% for DXD (PCM 384/32) is a difference - not to mention the CD at some 15 or so % .  http://www.lindberg.no/english/collection/004.pdf


 
  
 Those impulse responses for DSD are not entirely correct, because they do not include the noise that would be present at the full bandwidth. And as soon as the bandwidth is limited to remove the excessive amount of high frequency noise (for DSD64, the recommended filter is IIRC 6th order with a corner frequency of 50 kHz), DSD no longer has its theoretical "perfect" impulse response.


----------



## stv014

> Back to DACs, though.... with an decent oversampling DAC, you will end up with a flat frequency response because the overall energy response is very accurate, and - at least with a sine wave - you will also end up with very low THD, yet you will end up with visible differences in transient or irregular waveforms due to ringing.


 
  
 The ringing is because of the reconstruction filter, and is basically a simple frequency response (= Fourier transform of impulse response) issue. The faster the roll-off, the longer the ringing is. But it is not a real problem as long as it is short enough and inaudible. MP3 has longer pre-echo than the pre-ringing of a typical 44.1 kHz linear phase DAC filter, and at more (or at all) audible frequencies, yet people struggle to tell high bitrate MP3 apart from lossless in blind tests.


----------



## analogsurviver

stv014 said:


> PCM at higher sample rate requires a much less steep filter, as the transition band can be fit between 20 kHz and the Nyquist frequency (or even higher if some imaging is acceptable, hardware DAC filters tend to have only a few dB of attenuation at the Nyquist frequency). Therefore, 176.4/16 PCM (which has identical storage requirement to DSD64) allows for an order of magnitude shorter impulse response than Red Book, which has yet to be proven to be audible under controlled conditions anyway:
> 
> (this shows a total length of ~1 ms at 705600 Hz sample rate, and 50 samples = ~0.07 ms)
> 
> ...


 
 Agreed. DSD has to be filtered because of noise above 20 kHz - all things considered, DSD512 is perhaps the optimal thing to go with. 
  
 The "recommended" filtering for DSD does not exist. Each real hardware machine has its own - some have even more variants. And yes, these filters do change the sound. The Korg MR-1 DSD64 capable recorder has three DSD filter settings, the MR-1000 DSD128 capable has a single DSD filter setting (and both can switch DSD filter entirely off - great for observing pulses on the oscilloscope, less so for listening. There ARE amplifiers that go berserk with ultrasonic noise from DSD64/SACD - and filtering has to be applied that suits best the actual combination used ).  The higher the DSD rate of sampling, the less filtering of lesser order at higher corner frequency is required - again leading to DSD512, where no or minimal filtering (first order) would be required. Pulse (almost) intact, noise (almost) no longer of amplitude that could be considered harmful in any way.
  
 The relative difference in pulse response still stands - a "comparable size file" of DSD is superior to PCM .
  
 Regarding audibility of pulses shorter/faster than allowed by the CD redbook: difficult one, because it requires entire chain, from source to speakers/headphones that can support essentially flat response to at very least 40 kHz, preferably yet an octave above that. All I do know that a phono cartridge having rise time of equal to or less than 3 microseconds compared to a regular cartridge (both very similar in construction and other characteristics) with approx 8-9 microsecond rise time in a system that did satisfy above requirement IS a night and day difference. This was the fastest source - by far -  I ever had the pleasure to work with.
  
 I already did say where this difference is the most audible - in the reproduction of BASS. All it takes is a good recording of acoustic bass - and you can go from there on. To soundstage, depth, etc. It simply makes listening experience closer to the real thing.
  
 And no, at present there is no way to record such a performance of analog turntable to any digital gizmo - DSD256 recorder, which is available, would still be too slow.
 And the cartridge in question, one of the prototypes of 1990 for what later became Benz Ruby, is questionable if it still exists at the factory, after it was relocated to another location some half a mile away in late 90s.  But using today's magnet materials, that speed could be maintained while allowing for a much more practical voltage level; the prototype in question had "the whole" of 0.03 mV/5cm/sec output sensitivity - and of course this was not practical. By bringing the output 3-4 times higher (possible today with better magnet materials), this could be revived.


----------



## lamode

steve eddy said:


> What has a turntable to do with loudspeakers, which I thought was the subject of our discussion?


 
  
 If you are new to his posts let me fill you in. His MO is to post an outrageously and completely unsupported claim. When you answer him with hard science he usually dives straight into another topic. He will usually return to the original argument a day or two later, making the same claims as if the hard science never existed, and so it goes....


----------



## lamode

ruben123 said:


> To me it sounds silly to test a DAC with several filters. Shouldnt you compare DACs without any filters enabled at all?


 
  
 I believe they are referring to sample rate converters, for which there are several algorithms and almost infinite possible settings. Upsampling is a good idea for 16/44 audio because if allows for a much less severe low pass analogue filter stage.


----------



## Ruben123

Thanks for the correction.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> The relative difference in pulse response still stands - a "comparable size file" of DSD is superior to PCM .


 
  
 Posting this every single day doesn't make it true.
  


analogsurviver said:


> Regarding audibility of pulses shorter/faster than allowed by the CD redbook


 
  
 Now you are going on about ultrasonics again and other theoretical waveforms which either don't exist in reality or are inaudible by humans.


----------



## stv014

analogsurviver said:


> Agreed. DSD has to be filtered because of noise above 20 kHz - all things considered, DSD512 is perhaps the optimal thing to go with.


 
  
 DSD512 has the same bit rate as 16-bit PCM at 1.4112 MHz (= 705.6 kHz bandwidth). Not exactly what one would call optimal.
  


> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The "recommended" filtering for DSD does not exist.


 
  
 It does not exist for PCM either, though. The impulse response I have shown above can be shortened further. In fact, even matching the approximate response of the 50 kHz 6th order lowpass filter (-3 dB at 50 kHz, ~-30 dB at 88.2 kHz) would be acceptable for the 176.4 kHz reconstruction filter. In any case, DSD64 has barely any dynamic range at 88.2 kHz and above, and the noise is high enough to swamp most real musical input. So, it is either filtering or noise. Obviously, DSD at higher rate has a wider usable bandwidth, but then it needs to be compared to higher rate PCM, accordingly (e.g. DSD128 = 352.8/16 PCM).
  


> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The relative difference in pulse response still stands - a "comparable size file" of DSD is superior to PCM .


 
  
 Only for those who value unneeded extra (theoretical) bandwidth and impulse response length over everything else. For everyone else, it is just wasteful, and cumbersome because of the limited DAC support and poor suitability for DSP.
  


> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Regarding audibility of pulses shorter/faster than allowed by the CD redbook: difficult one, because it requires entire chain, from source to speakers/headphones that can support essentially flat response to at very least 40 kHz, preferably yet an octave above that.


 
  
 Well, those who do not have equipment that would make it possible (for the theoretical listener with super-human hearing) to detect the difference between Red Book and DSD, the use of the latter has no real benefits anyway ? On the other hand, if the difference is audible, it should remain audible in blind testing, too.
  


> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I already did say where this difference is the most audible - in the reproduction of BASS.


 
  
 Which does not make much sense, and just further suggests that the difference you hear is imaginary, or a result of trivial reasons like differences in mastering, loudness, etc. Can you post a sample (even just a couple of seconds) of those bass instruments in a high resolution format ?


----------



## stv014

For comparison, here is the impulse response of a 6th order Butterworth lowpass filter at 50 kHz corner frequency (the response is not accurate above 100 kHz, but this should not make much visible difference to the impulse). The sample rate and duration shown are the same:

 Edit: and also a minimum phase version of a slow roll-off 176.4 kHz reconstruction filter with 60 dB attenuation at 88.2 kHz:

 The frequency response of both filters (blue = 6th order Butterworth):


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> What has a turntable to do with loudspeakers, which I thought was the subject of our discussion?
> Then don't use foam.
> The SB-R100 was a two-way design, not three-way.
> 
> ...


 
 What does a (good) turntable have to do with loudspeakers?
  
 Directly - nothing. Indirectly, when both are seen as a part of the whole chain/system - everything. You can not test the ultimate capabilities of the speakers or headphones using CD redbook - something faster is required. That something faster was, until the advent of SACD and beyond redbook PCM, entirely in the analog domain - be it tape or (direct to ) disk. And still is the fastest source available to the general public - with most recent DSD and PCM catching up with normal high end turntables in speed at the moment. I said _*normal *_- not the best obtainable.
  
 The _*tonearm *_in question was referred to simply because it is the best example I know of "things that by themselves tend towards better". It is inherent in the design - no action required on the part of the user, basically no maintenance required ( but bearings are easy and cheap to replace in case of major accident of dropping something heavy on the tonearm ) - the exact opposite of a dynamic multi way speaker with pronounced cone breakup, diffraction problems, standing waves and resonances in the cabinet - all of which must be corrected for by the use of DSP. Not to mention the crossover ... again DSP - so how all this processing is expected to outperform a decent electrostatic speaker , which is inherently free of the said problems and does NOT require any DSP to sound decent ? When a computer of sufficient processing power is factored in the overall price of the entire speaker system, it can quickly exceed the cost of those hypothetical electrostatics - at almost any price, but particularly below say $ 5 K - computer will run at least a grand, add software - and at this 5 grand overall speaker system price, about 3.5 K remains for the speakers and amplifier(s) proper. Which does not buy you much in today's multi driver dynamic speakers - either commercially available or DIY.
  
 But you can get a great speaker at around 2 K - Magnaplanar. Evolved over decades to the point I really find it hard to believe it would benefit from DSP (if not used for poor placement/acoustic room correction ). It is inherently made so to come by the use of the first order filtering - which is the only theoretically free of ringing when the outputs from the filters are summed back together. It requires the drivers that are "flat" or at least have resonance no nearer the crossover frequency than two octaves above the crossover frequency for the woofer and at least two octaves below the crossover frequency for the twitter. This precludes the use of first order filtering for most driver types - which require far sharper filtering, as they can not tolerate the bandwidth required for first order. Maggies can - and that is why they are still around after all these decades and going ever stronger.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Can somebody recommend me a good performance yet budget audio analyser, for measuring specifications of amps and mp3 players and such...


----------



## analogsurviver

stv014 said:


> DSD512 has the same bit rate as 16-bit PCM at 1.4112 MHz (= 705.6 kHz bandwidth). Not exactly what one would call optimal.
> 
> 
> It does not exist for PCM either, though. The impulse response I have shown above can be shortened further. In fact, even matching the approximate response of the 50 kHz 6th order lowpass filter (-3 dB at 50 kHz, ~-30 dB at 88.2 kHz) would be acceptable for the 176.4 kHz reconstruction filter. In any case, DSD64 has barely any dynamic range at 88.2 kHz and above, and the noise is high enough to swamp most real musical input. So, it is either filtering or noise. Obviously, DSD at higher rate has a wider usable bandwidth, but then it needs to be compared to higher rate PCM, accordingly (e.g. DSD128 = 352.8/16 PCM).
> ...


 
 To only quote the last sentence : the record in question where the difference in speed was most clearly audible is this one http://www.discogs.com/Sibelius-Sir-Colin-Davis-Boston-Symphony-Orchestra-Finlandia-KareliaSwan-Of-Tuonela-Valse-Triste/release/1541768 - played on normal 8-10 microsecond rise time cartridge or 3 microsecond rise time cartridge - with everything else kept constant. Mastering of course remains the same - it is the SAME record being played.
  
 I do not have this cartridge - I would have to re-measure my carts, but the fastest I have would probably be 7 microseconds, maybe a bit less.  Even DSD128, after filtering, can not capture this 7 microsecond rise time intact. Remember, rise times do add up - cascading two 7 microsecond rise time devices does not unfortunately bring you a 7 microsecond rise time system _*overall *_- but it will be slower. Sometimes twice slower, but that fortunately is the worst case - real will be somewhere in between.
  
 Yes, I cam make a recording of this record, with a cartridge of say 8-9 microsecond rise time ( because I have it set up really well - those who know what it takes to really dial in a cartridge will know WHY I am reluctant to swap cartridges; two screws and four cartridge pins take a minute or two to mount or dismount, getting everything EXACTLY right again for the other cartridge can take - days... The procedure repeats itself when the cartridge that has been removed has to be mounted again . Having a cartridge mounted to removable headshell helps - but not much. And I do not use any removable headshell arm at the time ). And I can record this to DSD128 - which brings us at best to overall rise time of approx 10 microseconds - or normal good cartridge played live; which was demonstrated to be utterly demolished by the 3 microsecond cartridge. I can do it, I can post few seconds (damn the copyrights - it is  great playing on this Sibelius, I hate to have to use it as audio test record, it should be enjoyed in its entire length ! ) - but it is nowhere near enough to be capable of demonstrating what it takes.
  
 So, regardless how it was recorded - the difference of 6-7 microseconds in rise time (more than twice the frequency response extension ) between cartridges enabled 
 one unique thrill, one which I have never experienced outside music hall. As sound travels faster trough solids than trough air, we can FEEL the stroke of say timpany BEFORE we hear that stroke - if we seat away enough from the stage, say approx in the middle of the hall or further back. Before the renovation, the wooden floor in our Philharmonics allowed for that - so I was quite familiar and seasoned with this.
  
 You can imagine how my jaw dropped upon sensing/hearing this floor/body sensation before actually hearing the sound by ears - for the first time using recorded sound, a vinyl record played back by a 3 microsecond rise time cart. Swap the cartridge to normal 8-10 microsecond cart - back to normal, NO this body sensing sensation anymore... - and it is NOT the only difference. Just the firs most immediate one that gets noticed instantly.
  
 I spent an entire weekend at the Benz factory in Switzerland listening to this large system in a large concrete hall - playing every record I could find on this extraordinary cartridge. I did specify the system before - just a quick reminder : cart/SME V arm/ Thorens table (Switzerland...these cats are PATRIOTS) / Swiss Physics Model 5 preamp / Swiss Physics Model 6(a?) power amp / Maggie XY ( up to 1990, the one with almost 2 metres tall ribbon, good past 40 kHz) - LARGE concrete hall, partly acoustically treated, listening at some 5 metres from the speakers - conditions few of us had ever had the pleasure to get acquainted with.
  
 I hope you realize now WHY I am so for the fast things in audio - and why I insist on the fastest digital I can find - or afford. Those 3 microseconds are within reach of DSD512 or an equivalent in PCM (700+kHz/24)
  
 If still interested in the above recording, I will do it - with the reservations I clearly noted.
  
 You also can realize why I feel about the CD redbook as I do. This recording (in one compilation or the other ) is available as CD. Besides being available as CD, I really see no point - not after discovering what is really in those grooves.
  
 The cartridge that _might _possess similar capabilities to the Benz Ruby _prototype _and has usable output voltage is Haniwa - but it is out of reach for all but a lunatic fringe. It does tick all the important boxes(  low mass and particularly low inductance - important for phase response ! ) - that guarantee speed, speed and more - speed - in addition to normal top notch performance. I would love to see an objective measurement review for it - the best available online is this : http://www.analogplanet.com/content/kubotek-haniwa-hctr01-mkii-6t-green-marker-phono-cartridge
  
 Dear Santa...


----------



## analogsurviver

uchihaitachi said:


> Can somebody recommend me a good performance yet budget audio analyser, for measuring specifications of amps and mp3 players and such...


 
 +1.
  
 But I am afraid this question belongs to "sports bulldozers with low mileage" category - yet there is nothing that would please me more than being proven wrong.


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> Can somebody recommend me a good performance yet budget audio analyser, for measuring specifications of amps and mp3 players and such...


 
  
 You could look at the links in stv014's sig.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/609480/ok-so-what-can-i-reliably-measure-from-a-pc-soundcard
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/566929/headphone-csd-waterfall-plots/870#post_9229141
  
 I haven't look at those in depth because I already my own setup by the time I saw those.  Mine is a little different from what from what you asked for but at the moment I use a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, Dayton EMM-6, and Arta for measuring my headphone mods.
  
 I've heard good things about the QA400 but never used one or looked into it seriously.
  
 That's not a solid answer, but it might be a good place to start.


----------



## Steve Eddy

lamode said:


> If you are new to his posts let me fill you in. His MO is to post an outrageously and completely unsupported claim. When you answer him with hard science he usually dives straight into another topic. He will usually return to the original argument a day or two later, making the same claims as if the hard science never existed, and so it goes....




Yeah, I know. Just let myself get suckered in is all. 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Yeah, I know. Just let myself get suckered in is all.
> 
> se


 
 You kind of get caught up in the Eddy Current.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> You kind of get caught up in the Eddy Current.




Eddy?

Current? 

Eddy Current?

...

...

BWAAHAHAHAHA!

You funny guy, Stan! 

se


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> You kind of get caught up in the Eddy Current.




Or more like chasing the dog who runs in circles:


[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHfpzrDuSYg[/VIDEO]


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Eddy?
> 
> Current?
> 
> ...


 
 I try.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> I try.




That was worth a noogie. 

se


----------



## lamode

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> And still is the fastest source available to the general public - with most recent DSD and PCM catching up with normal high end turntables in speed at the moment. I said _*normal *_- not the best obtainable.


 
  
 Here we go again... fastest in what way? If you bring up impulse responses and inaudible ultrasonics again I will kill a kitten.


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> That was worth a noogie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I'll wear a helmet with a Neodymium magnetic shield and silver cables.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> I'll wear a helmet with a Neodymium magnetic shield and silver cables.




Plain ol' tinfoil will work just fine. All reasonably designed helmets sound the same. 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Plain ol' tinfoil will work just fine. All reasonably designed helmets sound the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Yeah, but audiophiles must make up some fancy cr@p to BS about. I got some guy telling me that he can hear big differences in soundstage between different varients of the FiiO E12 portable amp.


----------



## Mr Rick

stand said:


> Yeah, but audiophiles must make up some fancy cr@p to BS about. I got some guy telling me that he can hear big differences in soundstage between different varients of the FiiO E12 portable amp.


 
  
 Ask him what he is smoking.


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> Yeah, but audiophiles must make up some fancy cr@p to BS about. I got some guy telling me that he can hear big differences in soundstage between different varients of the FiiO E12 portable amp.


 
  
  


mr rick said:


> Ask him what he is smoking.


 
 I'll take a good guess, cables made from hemp.


----------



## cel4145

mr rick said:


> Ask him what he is smoking.






stand said:


> I'll take a good guess, cables made from hemp.




I heard it was CD Mats


----------



## maverickronin

Once I made a cable that really _did _dramatically change the soundstage.
  
 I took it apart and discovered that a strand from one wire was loose and making contact with the other channel.
  
 Moral of the story:  Always triple check your soldering.


----------



## headdict

maverickronin said:


> Once I made a cable that really _did _dramatically change the soundstage.
> 
> I took it apart and discovered that a strand from one wire was loose and making contact with the other channel.
> 
> Moral of the story:  Always triple check your soldering.


 

 If a cable is defect, you can always sell it to an audiophile and buy an HD800 from the proceeds.


----------



## maverickronin

headdict said:


> If a cable is defect, you can always sell it to an audiophile and buy an HD800 from the proceeds.


 
  
 Always a possibility.
  
 But then I'd to register as a MOT, plus these pesky morals keep getting in the way.  I don't quite have the skillz or materials to make ones a cool looking as Steve and just sell them on that basis.


----------



## headdict

lamode said:


> Here we go again... fastest in what way? If you bring up impulse responses and inaudible ultrasonics again I will kill a kitten.


 

 I am awed by your relentless pursuit of something that at first glance could be mistaken for communication, but in reality is an illusion. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 BTW if you're interested I will give away a trick by which you make the pages load twice as fast.
  


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Just block the most prominent BS contributor.


----------



## manbear

Are the grooves in a vinyl record even cut precisely enough for microsecond rise times to matter? What is the rise time of the machine that makes the record?


----------



## castleofargh

manbear said:


> Are the grooves in a vinyl record even cut precisely enough for microsecond rise times to matter? What is the rise time of the machine that makes the record?


 

 don't even try, analogsurviver has tunnel vision when it comes to vinyls. he will argue about how important it is to improve pretty much anything at any level in a digital system, even more so if it helps his favorite ultrasound. but all of a sudden, talk about vinyl and most problems don't matter anymore. it's like when a mother looks at his child, exagerating the good points and being blind to the child's bad side.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

...and now something completely different...
  
 Where are the CD Mats testing files, due to be ready last week?


----------



## bigshot

headdict said:


> BTW if you're interested I will give away a trick by which you make the pages load twice as fast.


 
  
 I would be happy to take your advice, but for every one of those posts there are six pointless replies to it.


----------



## headdict

bigshot said:


> I would be happy to take your advice, but for every one of those posts there are six pointless replies to it.


 

 The more that follow my advice, the less pointless replies. Up to the point where CD mats are no longer brought up at least every ten posts. But I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> Here we go again... fastest in what way? If you bring up impulse responses and inaudible ultrasonics again I will kill a kitten.


 
 Not advised - I am cat lover.


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> Once I made a cable that really _did _dramatically change the soundstage.
> 
> I took it apart and discovered that a strand from one wire was loose and making contact with the other channel.
> 
> Moral of the story:  Always triple check your soldering.


 
 You could be nice and carefully solder in a capacitor and sell that as a soundstage limiter. They'll be lining up to buy them, not knowing what a soundstage limiter is. Sounds good, like PRaT or however they like to spell it.


----------



## analogsurviver

manbear said:


> Are the grooves in a vinyl record even cut precisely enough for microsecond rise times to matter? What is the rise time of the machine that makes the record?


 
 Good question. 
  
 According to data from cutterhead manufacturers, it should not be possible to record such high frequencies - limit for flat response in real time cutting is 27 kHz. That means rise time approx 10 microseconds.
  
 However, it CAN be made faster. Half speed mastering doubles that to 54 kHz - flat - and whatever mumbo jumbo has been done to the recently refurbished/upgraded/modified cutting machine at ....?....., HAS BEEN GOOD ENOUGH for Stan Ricker to cut - REAL TIME this time - 122 kHz bias frequency from the analog recorder - straight to a master disc.
  
 Test records are known to deviate in high frequencies - and the most prolific and the one that de facto became reference standard is CBS STR 112 - which has known ringing at approx 35-40 kHz ( forgot the exact frequency, will be noted in my upcoming reviews of phono cartridges ). I used this test record to arrive at the 3 microsecond
 rise time of that prototype cartridge - quite unheard of.  Normal values are approx 8 microseconds and up - with less than a handful of those capable of approx 6 microsecond rise time. I have yet to measure anything below 6 microsecond rise time in a cartridge - so this 3 microsecond really stands out. It can be due to the fact there was an extremely short but rather large overshoot - something a 8 microsecond rise time cartridges simply gloss over/fail to reproduce at all. It can be a defect in test record only this super low mass cartridge could accurately follow. 
  
 Far less known successor to the CBS STR 112 was CTC 310   test record. This one does not exhibit the typical ringing seen in output of cartridges that exceed 20 kHz response when playing back STR 112. But its rise times are more moderate compared to STR 112.
  
 JVC in Japan did produce a non plus ultra pulse test record - for developing their CD-4 records and cartridges. Cut at 1/10 speed (theoretically to 270 kHz ), it really created next to perfect pulse response testing of cartridges - but unlike the known industry standard, the TRS series, this pulse test record has NEVER been made available to anybody outside JVC.
 http://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/x1.shtml It is worth registering with vinylengine - just to see the SEM photo of the said test record groove within this link.
 I did get to hear the X-1 cartridge in late 70s - and all I can say that it is "nothing special". Which is about the best one can say about any audio component. 
 X-1 in working order today is one hell of a lot $ - and worth every cent, whatever the amount paid. It is made out of unobtainium by now - only ever saw two samples for sale, just south of a grand - for 40 years old NOS samples. Forget any replica styli for it - only the original is the real deal.


----------



## bigshot

How high can you go? https://youtu.be/cDjnB_61k58


----------



## headwhacker

macacodosom said:


> ...and now something completely different...
> 
> Where are the CD Mats testing files, due to be ready last week?


 
  
 +1


----------



## bigshot

The matts are with the blind tests between DSD and redbook that he was going to do.


----------



## analogsurviver

headwhacker said:


> +1


 
 Coming up.
  
 There has been delay due to locking the thread ( I did try my best to have it unlocked again, BIG THANKS @Currawong ) - and there was delay due to one unscheduled recording on my side and my friend's busy week.
  
 It also happened - out of the blue - another friend had a super rare chance of buying the AKG K-1000/BAP-1000 combination. As his initial reaction has been less than lukewarm, and I did not have the chance to listen to BAP-1000 before, together this amounted to three LONG listening sessions - in excess of four hours each. Long story short - he is now a happy and satisfied owner, I have access to BAP-1000 if needed - as I own K-1000 for a long time and is to stay with me for good.
  
 It is still on, and the tracks will be uploaded. I will do one thing before that - and that is comparison of conversion from a square wave recorded from a signal generator to a real world recorder in anything from MP3 to DSD 128 - and various software used to convert say MP3 up to DSD 256 as played by iFi Audio iDSD nano and micro DSD capable DACs - and posting a photograph of the rise times as seen on the analog oscilloscope. The micro goes back to its owner tomorrow, so this is the reason why I had to squeeze this in before CD mat test tracks . I would like to see if software(s) are really capable of calculating back what has been missing in the original MP3 file.
 In addition, various settings for filtering on iFi nano and micro can be used to see which one measures the closest to the original analog input.
  
 This tests only the digital ADC - DAC path - whether or not the front end of the recording (mics , preamps, mixing desk, etc ) did provide or did not provide information above 20 kHz, is beyond the scope of this test. The goal is to show if present real world equipment (and not sugar coated manufacturer's claims ) and software  actually can restore/upgrade the lossy MP3 and CD redbook to something that is actually better - ultrasonics included.
  
 I can upload these tracks if there will be interest - but remember, it really makes sense only if you have the native DSD playback capability and an oscilloscope that goes high enough in frequency to display all the differences.
  
 Over and out - I am going to record umpteenth possibilities/combinations of the above.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bigshot said:


> The matts are with the blind tests between DSD and redbook that he was going to do.


 

 All in the same basket? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 There should be a new thread only for these tests!


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> All in the same basket?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I am considering new thread(s) for posting these test(s).


----------



## Steve Eddy

Just came across this industrial strength non sequitur today.

Enjoy. 

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue77/skoff.htm

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Just came across this industrial strength non sequitur today.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> ...


 
 If a hand grenade lands right on me, I'm SOL. If it misses by a few feet, that's not perfect, but I'm still SOL.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> If a hand grenade lands right on me, I'm SOL. If it misses by a few feet, that's not perfect, but I'm still SOL.




Yup. 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 If David Carradine hung himself in a closet in Bangkok with a silver or copper headphone cable, would the results be any different? What would Master Po have said?


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> If David Carradine hung himself in a closet in Bangkok with a silver or copper headphone cable, would the results be any different? What would Master Po have said?




"Colonel Mustard, in the library, with the candlestick." —Master Po 

That adults in a modern society can be so utterly bereft of even the most basic logic and reasoning faculties simply astounds me.

To say that unless a cable is anything short of "perfect" there will be audible differences is to assume that our hearing is also "perfect" and therefore without limit. Which of course is demonstrably absurd. A cable doesn't have to be "perfect" in order to be audibly transparent, it only has to be "less imperfect" than our own hearing, which they are by a country mile. 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> "Colonel Mustard, in the library, with the candlestick." —Master Po
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 It's just like some people that believe they can hear the difference between 0.001% THD and 0.1% THD. Or they can hear a difference of 0.1 dB in FR. The only thing I can hear coming from such people is noise.


----------



## sonitus mirus

steve eddy said:


> "Colonel Mustard, in the library, with the candlestick." —Master Po
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Even if 500 subjects were unable to pass an ABX, it could be their mind tricking them into believing that there was no difference to be heard.  How did we make it this far?


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> I am considering new thread(s) for posting these test(s).




It's time to stop considering. If you want to keep talking about DSD and CD mats, instead of using this thread to run ongoing conversations about them, YOU SHOULD START NEW THREADS. Instead, you have made this your personal thread to keep those topics running. 

Who agrees with me? Let's have a vote. Separate threads for DSD and CD mats?


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> It's time to stop considering. If you want to keep talking about DSD and CD mats, instead of using this thread to run ongoing conversations about them, YOU SHOULD START NEW THREADS. Instead, you have made this your personal thread to keep those topics running.
> 
> Who agrees with me? Let's have a vote. Separate threads for DSD and CD mats?


 
 Sayonara to CD mats. Maybe Head-fi can start a forum dedicated to CD Mats.


----------



## castleofargh

steve eddy said:


> That adults in a modern society can be so utterly bereft of even the most basic logic and reasoning faculties simply astounds me.


 
 never had that kind of surprise, my mother is and always was that typical person.
 the other day she loses internet, and asks me to come "do something" about it. I arrive at her house, there is a telephone cable hanging right next to the door 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. I ask her why she didn't tell me about the cable and that I would have brought some to replace it. she doesn't even start to imagine a relation between both occurrences, tells me she called the provider who confirmed a problem like 10meters aways from the dslam so obviously it can't be because the cable is cut outside the house(our DSLAM being 4km away/2.5miles).
 that's how being fed false information makes her logic repellent. she will set a hierarchy of trust from the facts she gets, and it is mostly based on how much she believes in the source. so an IT guy in Morocco couldn't possibly be wrong, it's his job so he has to know. and therefore the hanging cable must be an unrelated occurrence. ^_^
  
 I imagine other people can have other reasons to fail@logic, like basic ignorance, but to her it's all about how much she likes and trust the source of intel. and not so much about how rational the claim is.  a "people before facts" kind of logic.
  
  
  
  
love u mum!!!!!


----------



## lamode

steve eddy said:


> Just came across this industrial strength non sequitur today.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I feel like I lost 20 IQ points just reading that. Luckily I have plenty to spare


----------



## Steve Eddy

sonitus mirus said:


> Even if 500 subjects were unable to pass an ABX, it could be their mind tricking them into believing that there was no difference to be heard.  How did we make it this far?




Might want to brush up on ABX testing. If the person being tested isn't confident they're perceiving a difference while comparing A and B (which are always known during the test), the test could never be completed in order to have "failed" it. 

Audiophiles often use this line of reasoning to "debunk" ABX testing, but don't seem to realize that those who actually complete the test are confident that they're perceiving differences. But the results show that their responses were no better than guessing.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

castleofargh said:


> never had that kind of surprise, my mother is and always was that typical person.
> the other day she loses internet, and asks me to come "do something" about it. I arrive at her house, there is a telephone cable hanging right next to the door  . I ask her why she didn't tell me about the cable and that I would have brought some to replace it. she doesn't even start to imagine a relation between both occurrences, tells me she called the provider who confirmed a problem like 10meters aways from the dslam so obviously it can't be because the cable is cut outside the house(our DSLAM being 4km away/2.5miles).
> that's how being fed false information makes her logic repellent. she will set a hierarchy of trust from the facts she gets, and it is mostly based on how much she believes in the source. so an IT guy in Morocco couldn't possibly be wrong, it's his job so he has to know. and therefore the hanging cable must be an unrelated occurrence. ^_^




Awwww... Moms. Gotta love 'em. Mine's going on 80 so you can imagine the frustrations I'm dealing with as well.



> I imagine other people can have other reasons to fail@logic, like basic ignorance, but to her it's all about how much she likes and trust the source of intel. and not so much about how rational the claim is.  a "people before facts" kind of logic.




Yeah. But this isn't a case with a mother and the Internet. This is someone of "authority" writing for an online publication. 

se




[COLOR=EE82EE]love u mum!!!!![/COLOR]
[/quote]


----------



## Steve Eddy

lamode said:


> I feel like I lost 20 IQ points just reading that. Luckily I have plenty to spare




Sorry, man. I should have put up a mental health warning. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

> [COLOR=EE82EE]love u mum!!!!![/COLOR]




Ok, who's the smartass? 

EDIT: Never mind. I see where that came from now. 

se


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> Just came across this industrial strength non sequitur today.
> http://positive-feedback.com/Issue77/skoff.htm


 
  
 "I have never heard anybody claim that all cables... are perfect, so I'm going to accept that they are not."
  
 I'm going to state a (baseless) claim to support my (foregone) conclusion.
  
 Guess what? All cables ARE perfect, or at least they should be or they are junk. The same goes for redbook and amps and DACs.


----------



## bigshot

stand said:


> Sayonara to CD mats. Maybe Head-fi can start a forum dedicated to CD Mats.


 

 There is one... The Cable / Power / Tweaks (DBT Free) forum. In fact it's perfectly on topic there because no one will be allowed to counter the nonsense with bothersome talk about testing or needless measurements.
  
 I suggest that discussion of CD Mats is off topic for Sound Science until it involves controlled DBT testing.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> "I have never heard anybody claim that all cables... are perfect, so I'm going to accept that they are not."
> 
> I'm going to state a (baseless) claim to support my (foregone) conclusion.
> 
> Guess what? All cables ARE perfect, or at least they should be or they are junk. The same goes for redbook and amps and DACs.




Technically they're not "perfect." But they needn't be. His erroneous assumption is that our sense of hearing _is_ perfect and without limit. Which if of course utterly absurd. So a cable doesn't have to be "perfect," only need be "less imperfect" than our sense of hearing, which of course they are.

se


----------



## MacacoDoSom

stand said:


> cel4145 said:
> 
> 
> > It's time to stop considering. If you want to keep talking about DSD and CD mats, instead of using this thread to run ongoing conversations about them, YOU SHOULD START NEW THREADS. Instead, you have made this your personal thread to keep those topics running.
> ...


 

 One for CD Mats another for DSD, because they are completely different matters... so one can chose what to read (or not) the one that interests him/her the most, without much confusion and comments, like this one. Another advantage would be that this (and other threads) would become much more clean and readable.
 By the way, is it possible to to have a Science Fiction section?


----------



## StanD

macacodosom said:


> One for CD Mats another for DSD, because they are completely different matters... so one can chose what to read (or not) the one that interests him/her the most, without much confusion and comments, like this one. Another advantage would be that this (and other threads) would become much more clean and readable.
> By the way, *is it possible to to have a Science Fiction section*?


 
 Isn't that where people have cable fantasies? One of my fav's is how a very expensive power cable improves treble or soundstage.


----------



## Ruben123

Story of the weakest link in the signal chain Stan... Why NOT improve soundstage and treble response if the rest of your system is top notch?


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> Story of the weakest link in the signal chain Stan... Why NOT improve soundstage and treble response if the rest of your system is top notch?


 
 With what a power cable or perhaps a CD Mat?


----------



## Ruben123

I meant a power cable to be precise lol
Power cables affecting the sound... Yeah right!


----------



## MacacoDoSom

stand said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > One for CD Mats another for DSD, because they are completely different matters... so one can chose what to read (or not) the one that interests him/her the most, without much confusion and comments, like this one. Another advantage would be that this (and other threads) would become much more clean and readable.
> ...


 
  


stand said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > One for CD Mats another for DSD, because they are completely different matters... so one can chose what to read (or not) the one that interests him/her the most, without much confusion and comments, like this one. Another advantage would be that this (and other threads) would become much more clean and readable.
> ...


 

  ...not to mention the transparency, the bass, the breath, the the...


ruben123 said:


> I meant a power cable to be precise lol
> Power cables affecting the sound... Yeah right!


 

 Of course they do! ... many kinds of sounds... but you need to connect it directly to the high tension pole and use a custom transformer and...


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> I meant a power cable to be precise lol
> Power cables affecting the sound... Yeah right!


 
 Well...if one is to plug it into the back of their head, something is going to happen. I'm sure that one of those geniuses is bound to try it.


----------



## StanD

macacodosom said:


> ...not to mention the transparency, the bass, the breath, the the...
> 
> Of course they do! ... many kinds of sounds... but you need to connect it directly to the high tension pole and use a custom transformer and...


 
 I'm sure that a direct connection to mains voltage is sufficient to give them a rise.


----------



## sonitus mirus

steve eddy said:


> Might want to brush up on ABX testing. If the person being tested isn't confident they're perceiving a difference while comparing A and B (which are always known during the test), the test could never be completed in order to have "failed" it.
> 
> Audiophiles often use this line of reasoning to "debunk" ABX testing, but don't seem to realize that those who actually complete the test are confident that they're perceiving differences. But the results show that their responses were no better than guessing.
> 
> se


 
  
 I never suggested that the test was failed, simply not successfully passed.  I was attempting to provide a slant on the ridiculous notion in the link you provided that claimed the following: _"The fact of it is that placebo effect works both ways: Not only will it allow believers to hear things that aren't there; it will also allow non-believers to NOT hear things that are there!"_
  
I am blaming an incomplete ABX on a reverse placebo effect.  It's the best explanation for why no one can hear a difference when I just know that there must be a difference, because I trust my ears and the equipment costs a lot more.  Oh yeah, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## dazzerfong

steve eddy said:


> Just came across this industrial strength non sequitur today.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> ...


 
 Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't ABX not make sense if it's done on a doubter? Even _if_ they do hear a difference, it's easier for them to fake not hearing a difference than a believer faking that they do hear a difference.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dazzerfong said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't ABX not make sense if it's done on a doubter? Even _if_ they do hear a difference, it's easier for them to fake not hearing a difference than a believer faking that they do hear a difference.




Not sure what your point is. What is stopping the believers from simply demonstrating their claims using controlled listening tests? This debate has been going on for some 30 years. But it's just been a lot of empty claims and hand-waving, as well as goofball articles like Skoff's. When is someone finally going to step up to the plate and put an end to this once and for all? There's absolutely nothing stopping them. Will this debate still be taking place 30 years hence? 

se


----------



## MacacoDoSom

food for thought...
 reverse placebo for doubters...  everything is a placebo... any kind of medicine is taken as a placebo, so nothing happens, no effects, even with some hard stuff...
  
 I believe that this debate will still be taking place 3000 years from now...
  
 I can hear some Egyptians 3000 BC discussing the properties of some kind of stone has in the construction of a pyramid and the effects it has in the afterlife...


----------



## Steve Eddy

macacodosom said:


> food for thought...
> reverse placebo for doubters...  everything is a placebo... any kind of medicine is taken as a placebo, so nothing happens, no effects, even with some hard stuff...




Thing is, placebos actually have an efficacy rate. It's not as if a placebo's efficacy rate is zero. 

And here's something even more interesting. A placebo's efficacy rate differs depending on how it's administered. 

If it's just a simple white tablet, it will have a given efficacy rate. If the pill is made small and blue and you emboss a logo into it, it will have a higher efficacy rate. If it's a capsule, higher still. And the most effective of all is if it's given as an injection. 

se


----------



## castleofargh

macacodosom said:


> food for thought...
> reverse placebo for doubters...  everything is a placebo... any kind of medicine is taken as a placebo, so nothing happens, no effects, even with some hard stuff...
> 
> I believe that this debate will still be taking place 3000 years from now...
> ...


 

 not sure those stuff can be called debate. for a guy to believe that his own sighted evaluation gives more accurate information than any form of blind test, he has to be madly ignorant about a great deal of things.
 and placebo can, and has been tested in various ways. I didn't personally tried the afterlife, also I don't own a pyramid, so I'll refrain from making a claim on the last part.


----------



## dazzerfong

steve eddy said:


> Not sure what your point is. What is stopping the believers from simply demonstrating their claims using controlled listening tests? This debate has been going on for some 30 years. But it's just been a lot of empty claims and hand-waving, as well as goofball articles like Skoff's. When is someone finally going to step up to the plate and put an end to this once and for all? There's absolutely nothing stopping them. Will this debate still be taking place 30 years hence?
> 
> se


 
 Nah, my point is, it's up to the believers to prove the doubters wrong, _not_ the other way around. Because unless it's proven otherwise, it's reasonable to assume it's false.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dazzerfong said:


> Nah, my point is, it's up to the believers to prove the doubters wrong, _not_ the other way around. Because unless it's proven otherwise, it's reasonable to assume it's false.




Ah, gotcha. Yeah, the onus is on the person making the claims to substantiate them. 

se


----------



## dazzerfong

steve eddy said:


> Ah, gotcha. Yeah, the onus is on the person making the claims to substantiate them.
> 
> se


 
 Precisely. Hence, that article is complete bollocks when it keeps parroting 'it will also allow non-believers to NOT hear things that are there', because it's inconsequential. Hence why that article has, as someone claimed before, dropped his IQ by a bit. I think I have to agree.
  
 This part is _by far_ the worst:
  


> 1. It's possible for things to exist even if they can't be proven. Germs have always existed, whether or not anybody believed in or could prove them.
> 2. Tests don't necessarily mean squat: Before the invention of the microscope, you could test for germs all you wanted, but could never actually demonstrate their existence. Even today, if I look for them in a vessel of nitric acid or through the working end of a hammer, I won't see any. You have to have the right tools and be testing for the right thing under the right circumstances for test results to have any meaning at all.
> 3. Even if you have "good" test results, meaningfully derived and accurately presented to answer the right questions, it's not certain that anyone will ever believe them. The experience of Leeuwenhoek, and countless others, including, in our own field, Tesla and John Bedini, proves conclusively that proof isn't necessarily conclusive. People really do see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.


 
  
 Using that line of thinking, I can say that there's a flying spaghetti monster above us, and there's _nothing_ you can just 'coz. Even then, I think he missed out the point on the germ theory (and how it came to be accepted) because _they proved it to the point beyond any doubt_. They didn't accept it just _because_. They accepted it because they scrutinised it to the point of oblivion and they still can't defeat it.
  
 Shame the same can't be said for audio stuff.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dazzerfong said:


> Precisely. Hence, that article is complete bollocks when it keeps parroting 'it will also allow non-believers to NOT hear things that are there', because it's inconsequential. Hence why that article has, as someone claimed before, dropped his IQ by a bit. I think I have to agree.




Quite so.




> This part is _by far_ the worst:
> 
> 
> Using that line of thinking, I can say that there's a flying spaghetti monster above us, and there's _nothing_ you can just 'coz. Even then, I think he missed out the point on the germ theory (and how it came to be accepted) because _they proved it to the point beyond any doubt_. They didn't accept it just _because_. They accepted it because they scrutinised it to the point of oblivion and they still can't defeat it.




Exactly. It wasn't by way of a bunch of hand-waving and empty claims that germ theory was accepted. That only seems to pass muster with so-called "high end" audio.




> Shame the same can't be said for audio stuff.




A shame indeed.

se


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> Ah, gotcha. Yeah, the onus is on the person making the claims to substantiate them.


 
  
 In audiophile circles, the person making the claims simply has to write a bunch of vague prose full of gushing praise and sloppy science and publish it on the internet!


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> In audiophile circles, the person making the claims simply has to write a bunch of vague prose full of gushing praise and sloppy science and publish it on the internet!




Yeah. Sad.

se


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> In audiophile circles, the person making the claims simply has to write a bunch of vague prose full of gushing praise and sloppy science and publish it on the internet!


 
 Sloppy Science? More like conjecture and the ranting of the flash mob.


----------



## KeithEmo

stv014 said:


> The ringing is because of the reconstruction filter, and is basically a simple frequency response (= Fourier transform of impulse response) issue. The faster the roll-off, the longer the ringing is. But it is not a real problem as long as it is short enough and inaudible. MP3 has longer pre-echo than the pre-ringing of a typical 44.1 kHz linear phase DAC filter, and at more (or at all) audible frequencies, yet people struggle to tell high bitrate MP3 apart from lossless in blind tests.


 
  
 Actually, you're only partly correct.
  
 If it wasn't for the need for a sharp filter before the A-to-D process, and for a reconstruction filter afterwards, then you could theoretically avoid ringing - true. However, real world upsampling filters create and alter the character of ringing. A FIR filter basically "works" by passing the original signal through a whole series of delay steps, then summing specifically chosen amounts of the signal from each of these "taps" together. This means that, when you pass a complex waveform through the filter, it comes out significantly altered. While it's true that some digital filters do introduce significant and very audible changes in frequency response, there are all sorts of combinations that produce a result that is extremely flat in the audio band, and have very low THD, yet produce very different output signal characteristics when you look at transients. They have a flat response because,_ when you sum the total energy over time_, the result is correct. However, the actual waveform that comes out, and so the instantaneous voltages along the way, are altered.
  
 However, your generalization about "the sharper the filter the longer the ringing" is an oversimplification - or rather simply one set of cases. There are any number of DACs which offer filters with equally flat sine wave frequency response... yet one has equal periods of pre-ringing and post-ringing, one has a long interval of post-ringing and no pre-ringing, and a third has a long interval of pre-ringing and no post-ringing. (The current favorite is to mathematically eliminate the pre-ringing by shifting the energy it contains into post-ringing. You can do this and end up with essentially flat frequency response, a lot of post-ringing, and almost no pre-ringing. Many people claim that this type of filter sounds "cleaner and more natural".) Whether you agree with whether it matters or not, those filters have been "custom designed" to have similar sine wave frequency responses, yet have very different ringing behavior.
  
 Feel free to argue that "many people" or "most people" won't hear - or possibly won't notice - the difference; but some do. Also feel free to claim that, with some specific content material, nobody at all will hear the difference... and I won't disagree with you. However, with some content, some people apparently are able to hear the difference. 
  
 As for your statement about MP3's .... that's hyperbole. I don't honestly know many people who "struggle to tell the difference". I would certainly agree that a lot of people don't find the difference significant, and a few even prefer the artifacts present in an MP3, but I haven't met many people who "can't ever hear the difference" when you switch back and forth. I'm sure you could find some songs where I couldn't hear the difference; likewise, I could find a few songs where 8 out of 10 people would find it obvious - but neither proves anything.
  
 If you look at an oscilloscope trace, it's obvious that even the best MP3 or AAC files don't deliver a waveform that's even close to the original. From the sales figures on iTunes, it's equally obvious that most people either don't hear the difference at all, or simply don't find it significant enough for it to influence their enjoyment - or their purchasing habits.
  
 Your statement itself is true - it doesn't matter as long as it's inaudible.... but you haven't yet shown that it's inaudible to all listeners.


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


> As for your statement about MP3's .... that's hyperbole. I don't honestly know many people who "struggle to tell the difference". I would certainly agree that a lot of people don't find the difference significant, and a few even prefer the artifacts present in an MP3, but I haven't met many people who "can't ever hear the difference" when you switch back and forth. I'm sure you could find some songs where I couldn't hear the difference; likewise, I could find a few songs where 8 out of 10 people would find it obvious - but neither proves anything.


 
  
 What are these few songs? One would think that the crowd that hates mp3 and the like would be carting out such songs in every thread on the subject.


----------



## Phishin Phool

I would think that would depend on what software algorithm did the mp3 and at what bit rate. Also what some people can easiltydiscern may different for others and can also be skewed by what speaker/headphone one uses as they all have different FR curves- sound and psycho-acoustics can be very nuanced at times


----------



## RRod

phishin phool said:


> I would think that would depend on what software algorithm did the mp3 and at what bit rate. Also what some people can easiltydiscern may different for others and can also be skewed by what speaker/headphone one uses as they all have different FR curves- sound and psycho-acoustics can be very nuanced at times


 
  
 8 out of 10 people means a pretty broad range of equipment and people to me  Bold claims need to be supported at some point, and if the only requirement is "give me a song," that isn't exactly asking for a lot.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> As for your statement about MP3's .... that's hyperbole. I don't honestly know many people who "struggle to tell the difference".


 
  
 Raising my hand...
  
 At AAC 256 and LAME 320, I can't hear a difference at all and no one I have ever met has been able to tell a difference. I created a listening test with three codecs (Fraunhofer, LAME and AAC) at three bitrates (192, 256, 320) along with a lossless original. I have given this test to many people now, and no one has been able to consistently identify a difference between any of the tracks above Fraunhofer 192. If you would like to take the test yourself, just let me know and I will send you a test file.


----------



## bigshot

rrod said:


> What are these few songs? One would think that the crowd that hates mp3 and the like would be carting out such songs in every thread on the subject.


 

 I found a song that had audible artifacts at 192, but above that it was transparent.


----------



## KeithEmo

rrod said:


> Tell me a good recording with wire brush cymbals and I'll give it a shot with my current hardware. As far as digital filters, I can certainly listen to differences by applying various ones to samples, holding my own DAC constant, which is at least something. I've done this for linear vs. minimum phase for up/down-sampling and not heard anything.


 
  
 I'll have to admit that most of those are Jazz - which I'm not a huge fan of - so I couldn't name one that's available offhand (the test track I like the best is actually a track called "Boxenkiller" - which is on an old demo CD put out by Focal a long time ago - it's basically drums and cymbals). The HDTracks 24-192 versions of Eagles - Hotel California and Grateful Dead - American Beauty are also mastered very nicely if they're more your thing (but not especially for cymbals). Also, many of the test CDs seem to have some version of a "drums + cymbals" track which works pretty well, and the 24/96 versions of Dark Side of the Moon in the Immersion set are very nice (and have some nice metallic noises that are good for listening to transients).
  
 You have highlighted one of the major difficulties in testing this sort of thing, however..... If you use different DACs with different filters, it's difficult to know if any differences you hear are due to the digital filters or something different about the DACs and, if you use one DAC with multiple filters, you have to wonder if that the vendor deliberately "tweaked" the filters to sound noticeably different above and beyond what was inherent in the filters. The differences I hear between the various types of filters are often less obvious than the differences you hear between different DACs because of other circuit differences (even ones that use the same DAC chip and its same internal filters). You also need to understand that there is no specific thing as "a minimum phase filter" or "a linear phase filter" - both of those are classes (types) of filters, so different versions of each may be quite different - in terms of their transient response and of how they sound. So, if you're using a program for testing, then all you're doing is comparing ITS particular minimum phase and linear phase filters (and some programs will offer you multiple of each type). And, after that, you're always going through the oversampling filter in the DAC you're playing your samples through (unless you build or buy a NOS DAC without filters).... 
  
 I would also like to stress that these differences are very subtle - which means that it's quite possible that some folks may hear them but simply not consider them important. (I also noticed that I could hear the differences very clearly on my electrostatic headphones, and on a pair of HiFiMans I used to own, but I can't hear them much if at all on my pair of AKG271's... so, apparently, some speakers and some headphones simple don't let you hear the difference - presumably because THEIR drivers either have enough ringing to cover up any differences in the source.)


----------



## bigshot

I think you are talking about compressed audio with medium bit rates, not high bit rate lossy. At 320, both LAME and AAC are capable of perfectly reproducing as high as humans can hear. If you go down to 192 however, the frequency response rolls off around 16-17kHz. People with young ears might be able to hear a difference between lossless and 192, but not 320.


----------



## jodgey4

bigshot said:


> I think you are talking about compressed audio with medium bit rates, not high bit rate lossy. At 320, both LAME and AAC are capable of perfectly reproducing as high as humans can hear. If you go down to 192 however, the frequency response rolls off around 16-17kHz. People with young ears might be able to hear a difference between lossless and 192, but not 320.


 
 I can hear the difference between 192/256/320, but not 320 and lossless. The highs get _bizarre_ at low rates. Even the mids get grainy and atonal. 192 is unlistenable. 256 bothers me usually, moreso depending on my source gear.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I think you are talking about compressed audio with medium bit rates, not high bit rate lossy. At 320, both LAME and AAC are capable of perfectly reproducing as high as humans can hear. If you go down to 192 however, the frequency response rolls off around 16-17kHz. People with young ears might be able to hear a difference between lossless and 192, but not 320.




I recently put the question to jj (James Johnston, one of the developers of the MP3 codec and retired from AT&T Bell Labs) if 320 kbps MP3 was audibly indistinguishable from 16/44 PCM. Here's his response:

_"I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if something on the order of castinets/bells wouldn't do it.

The nonuniform quantizer is a dog at high rates, and the block switching isn't short enough to avoid pre-echo on a stressful signal with attacks."_

For what it's worth.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> I recently put the question to jj (James Johnston, one of the developers of the MP3 codec and retired from AT&T Bell Labs) if 320 kbps MP3 was audibly indistinguishable from 16/44 PCM. Here's his response:
> 
> _"I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if something on the order of castinets/bells wouldn't do it.
> 
> ...


 
 Might that (highlighted) be implementation and platform specific? The right breed of dog (CPU) might not even blink. What does he mean by "isn't short enough?" Fast enough due to CPU?


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> Nothing without adequate controls. Like I said, the hand-waving and empty claims are for other forums. Not Sound Science.
> 
> se


 
  
 I agree with you 100% there.
  
 And, when you're talking about things like the (supposed) differences between certain interconnect cables, which some people claim to hear, even though test measurements don't show them, then I would say the burden of proof lies first with proving that a difference exists at all.
  
 However, this situation is the exact opposite. Nobody disputes that different oversampling filters have different transient responses. The differences between the transient responses of various oversampling filters are easily visible on an oscilloscope, or on some of the standard tests in the Audio Precision test suite - and it's pretty obvious that different DACs really are producing very different looking output waveforms from the same input test signal. And, when you switch between the various choices while keeping everything else the same (which you can do on certain DAC chips like the Wolfson 8741), you can also hear differences.
  
 Also, certain "non audiophile" vendors claim that the differences are real. For example, an option claimed to improve the transient response of existing digital source material by shifting the pre-ringing into post-ringing is an advertised feature of Dolby Labs Professional Encoder (v2), and many other "reputable" conversion programs offer multiple filter options, which are widely agreed to make the resulting output sound different - for _some_ reason.
  
 As far as I can see, the only questions are:
  
 1) Whether the differences you can hear when switching between filters on some DACs are because of the differences in transient characteristics, or are merely differences in some other characteristic (like frequency response) which accompanies the differences transient response. (On some DAC chips, like the Wolfson, you can switch _ONLY_ the filter, although you cannot change the transient characteristics of a filter design without also affecting other parameters at least slightly.)
  
 2) How significant those differences are. (Perhaps one is "audibly perfect" and the others are simply slightly wrong.) 
  
 2a) And, if they are different, then which one - if any - is "right" or "the most right".


----------



## bigshot

jodgey4 said:


> I can hear the difference between 192/256/320, but not 320 and lossless. The highs get _bizarre_ at low rates. Even the mids get grainy and atonal. 192 is unlistenable. 256 bothers me usually, moreso depending on my source gear.


 

 I agree that 256 Fraunhofer isn't perfect, but LAME 256 is very very good and AAC 255 is totally transparent.


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> I recently put the question to jj (James Johnston, one of the developers of the MP3 codec and retired from AT&T Bell Labs) if 320 kbps MP3 was audibly indistinguishable from 16/44 PCM. Here's his response: _"I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if something on the order of castinets/bells wouldn't do it. The nonuniform quantizer is a dog at high rates, and the block switching isn't short enough to avoid pre-echo on a stressful signal with attacks."_


 
  
 Which codec is he talking about? Fraunhofer 320 is *almost* transparent, but not quite. Perhaps that is what he was referring to. I've found MP4 is a full notch better than MP3.


----------



## jodgey4

bigshot said:


> I agree that 256 Fraunhofer isn't perfect, but LAME 256 is very very good and AAC 255 is totally transparent.


 
 Idk if I've heard Fraunhofer... I was thinking/talking LAME. What uses Fraunhofer? AAC is 256 is transparent to my ears as well IIRC.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Might that (highlighted) be implementation and platform specific? The right breed of dog (CPU) might not even blink. What does he mean by "isn't short enough?" Fast enough due to CPU?




He's talking about the codec itself.

se


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> However, this situation is the exact opposite. Nobody disputes that different oversampling filters have different transient responses. The differences between the transient responses of various oversampling filters are easily visible on an oscilloscope, or on some of the standard tests in the Audio Precision test suite


 
  
 When I listen to music on my home stereo, oscilloscope readings aren't what matter to me. Audible differences matter. How much of a difference of transient response are we talking about, and what is the JDT (Just Detectable Threshold) for transient response in human hearing.
  
 My interest is where the line of audible transparency lies, not which file is theoretically most accurate. What I can't hear won't hurt me.


----------



## bigshot

jodgey4 said:


> Idk if I've heard Fraunhofer... I was thinking/talking LAME. What uses Fraunhofer? AAC is 256 is transparent to my ears as well IIRC.


 

 Fraunhofer is plain vanilla MP3. LAME is a more advanced form of MP3. AAC is MP4.
  
 Whenever someone talks about audibility of artifacting in lossy, it only makes sense if they specify the codec and bitrate they are referring to, because Fraunhofer 128 sounds pretty bad, but AAC 320 sounds as good as lossless. There is a range of quality there.


----------



## jodgey4

bigshot said:


> Fraunhofer is plain vanilla MP3. LAME is a more advanced form of MP3. AAC is MP4.
> 
> Whenever someone talks about audibility of artifacting in lossy, it only makes sense if they specify the codec and bitrate they are referring to, because Fraunhofer 128 sounds pretty bad, but AAC 320 sounds as good as lossless. There is a range of quality there.


 
 Ah. I thought LAME was the industry standard. Good info, thanks.


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


> I'll have to admit that most of those are Jazz - which I'm not a huge fan of - so I couldn't name one that's available offhand (the test track I like the best is actually a track called "Boxenkiller" - which is on an old demo CD put out by Focal a long time ago - it's basically drums and cymbals).
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> ...


 
  
 I would hope that something like Hotel California has been listened too enough to death for there to be a consensus on this, but I'll give the other tracks a shot. As far as linear and minimum phase, I should have specified I was testing those options in the SoX resampling filter, where I don't expect much variability in the end result. Doesn't the phase have to have a particular mathematical relationship to the amplitude in a minimum-phase filter?


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> I recently put the question to jj (James Johnston, one of the developers of the MP3 codec and retired from AT&T Bell Labs) if 320 kbps MP3 was audibly indistinguishable from 16/44 PCM. Here's his response:
> 
> _"I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if something on the order of castinets/bells wouldn't do it.
> 
> ...


 
  
  


stand said:


> Might that (highlighted) be implementation and platform specific? The right breed of dog (CPU) might not even blink. What does he mean by "isn't short enough?" Fast enough due to CPU?


 
  
  


steve eddy said:


> He's talking about the codec itself.
> 
> se


 
 The Codec is implemented in softwrare. Performance is determined by the way it's programmed and the performance of the CPU. So if "isn't short enough" is related to how fast the Codec executes to avoid the pre-echo, then today's faster CPUs and posiibly better coding can make a difference. So what did he mean?


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> The Codec is implemented in softwrare. Performance is determined by the way it's programmed and the performance of the CPU. So if "isn't short enough" is related to how fast the Codec executes to avoid the pre-echo, then today's faster CPUs and posiibly better coding can make a difference. So what did he mean?




Maybe he means the algorithm used for the standard. I'll see if I can get a clarification.

se


----------



## stv014

bigshot said:


> Fraunhofer is plain vanilla MP3. LAME is a more advanced form of MP3.


 
  
 Both are MP3, LAME just implements encoding to the same format somewhat more efficiently. Just like 7-Zip can create a few percents smaller (but fully compatible) .zip file than Info-ZIP.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> If it wasn't for the need for a sharp filter before the A-to-D process, and for a reconstruction filter afterwards, then you could theoretically avoid ringing - true. However, real world upsampling filters create and alter the character of ringing. A FIR filter basically "works" by passing the original signal through a whole series of delay steps, then summing specifically chosen amounts of the signal from each of these "taps" together.


 
  
 I know how a FIR filter works. Otherwise, I would not have been able to write the utilities linked in my signature.
  


> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> However, your generalization about "the sharper the filter the longer the ringing" is an oversimplification - or rather simply one set of cases.


 
  
 It is an intentional simplification, and with all other variables being equal, a narrower transition band indeed requires a longer impulse response.
  


> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> There are any number of DACs which offer filters with equally flat sine wave frequency response... yet one has equal periods of pre-ringing and post-ringing, one has a long interval of post-ringing and no pre-ringing, and a third has a long interval of pre-ringing and no post-ringing. (The current favorite is to mathematically eliminate the pre-ringing by shifting the energy it contains into post-ringing. You can do this and end up with essentially flat frequency response, a lot of post-ringing, and almost no pre-ringing. Many people claim that this type of filter sounds "cleaner and more natural".) Whether you agree with whether it matters or not, those filters have been "custom designed" to have similar sine wave frequency responses, yet have very different ringing behavior.


 
  
 All of those differences are down to the phase response, which is also part of the frequency response, it is just often not shown on graphs. It is also something that human hearing has been shown to be rather insensitive to, as long as it is the same on both channels, and the variation in group delay over the audio band is kept low enough (< 1 ms). And if a filter has any kind of ringing, then it does not have a perfect flat response. It may have flat magnitude response and group delay up to an arbitrarily chosen frequency (like 20 kHz), but that also implies that the artifacts are outside that range.
  


> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> As for your statement about MP3's [...] I'm sure you could find some songs where I couldn't hear the difference; likewise, I could find a few songs where 8 out of 10 people would find it obvious - but neither proves anything.


 
  
 And on the majority of songs where you could not hear the difference, the format still uses window sizes that are greater than the impulse response length needed to reconstruct CD quality audio, and the waveform is still significantly altered. Additionally, chances are the encoder also uses a brick wall lowpass filter by default even at 320 kbps bit rate.
  
 But to stay on the topic of digital reconstruction filters, you can post samples from any tracks of your choice, and I will upsample them to 192 kHz (or whatever other high sample rate) with various filters, then you can post your ABX results for comparing the filters.


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Maybe he means the algorithm used for the standard. I'll see if I can get a clarification.
> 
> se


 
 If the agorithm is demanding a faster CPU just might it work. The CPUs in smartphones have really sped up in recently.
 It's like Windoze works poorly when using a slow normal CPU and not enough RAM. Works good with an i7 and 8 GB or more of RAM.


----------



## stv014

rrod said:


> As far as linear and minimum phase, I should have specified I was testing those options in the SoX resampling filter, where I don't expect much variability in the end result. Doesn't the phase have to have a particular mathematical relationship to the amplitude in a minimum-phase filter?


 
  
 It does, it is basically the Hilbert transform of the magnitude response on a natural logarithmic scale. Resampling filters can also be mixed phase, which is a trade-off between linear phase and minimum phase.


----------



## stv014

stand said:


> The Codec is implemented in softwrare. Performance is determined by the way it's programmed and the performance of the CPU. So if "isn't short enough" is related to how fast the Codec executes to avoid the pre-echo, then today's faster CPUs and posiibly better coding can make a difference. So what did he mean?


 
  
 The "isn't short enough" refers to the standard block sizes (in samples) defined for the MP3 format, which are fixed, and determine the potential length of pre-echo. There are two block sizes the encoder can switch between depending on the input, a short block for transients, and a three times longer long block. The trade-off is that a longer block can be encoded more efficiently, but creates longer pre-echo.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> So, if you're using a program for testing, then all you're doing is comparing ITS particular minimum phase and linear phase filters (and some programs will offer you multiple of each type). And, after that, you're always going through the oversampling filter in the DAC you're playing your samples through (unless you build or buy a NOS DAC without filters)....


 
   
The effects of the filter in the DAC used for playback should be minimal with 44.1->192 (or even 96) kHz resampled input, especially if the DAC filter is linear phase, and in any case it is the same for all samples.

  
 If no audible difference is detected under controlled conditions between dramatically different software filters, then what are the chances that a reasonably designed hardware DAC filter (which can also be accurately simulated or captured in software, by the way) is not transparent ?


----------



## RRod

stv014 said:


> It does, it is basically the Hilbert transform of the magnitude response on a natural logarithmic scale. Resampling filters can also be mixed phase, which is a trade-off between linear phase and minimum phase.


 
  
 Thanks, stv. Yeah, SoX let's you specify a parameter for "tweener" phases along the min/max spectrum. I played around with this a bit with a sample of a thunderclap from one of my old "Sonic Boom" CDs; even using maximum phase with a ridiculously steep cutoff (so the pre-ring goes on for ages), I couldn't hear a difference with a downsample to 38ksamples. For something like MP3, where you have bands smack in the heart of the audible range, I can of course see a long ring manifesting itself audibly, but for pure PCM resampling to/from standard rates I have a hard time believing people hear any difference between a good linear vs. minimal phase solution. Once I can borrow my wife's Mac I can download the HDTracks suggestions and test for myself (why oh why hasn't site-specific download software died?)


----------



## StanD

stv014 said:


> The "isn't short enough" refers to the standard block sizes (in samples) defined for the MP3 format, which are fixed, and determine the potential length of pre-echo. There are two block sizes the encoder can switch between depending on the input, a short block for transients, and a three times longer long block. The trade-off is that a longer block can be encoded more efficiently, but creates longer pre-echo.


 
 So then do we need a third smaller blocksize and an alorithmic improvement? If people cannot hear a difference then does it really matter?


----------



## stv014

stand said:


> So then do we need a third smaller blocksize and an alorithmic improvement? If people cannot hear a difference then does it really matter?


 
  
 Adding a third block size would be possible, but it would no longer be standard MP3 format then. Of course, it does not matter when there is no audible difference, the issue only affects some "killer samples" at high bit rate, such as the above mentioned castanets.wav file.


----------



## StanD

stv014 said:


> Adding a third block size would be possible, but it would no longer be standard MP3 format then. Of course, it does not matter when there is no audible difference, the issue only affects some "killer samples" at high bit rate, such as the above mentioned castanets.wav file.


 
 That's pretty much what I was getting to, "it does not matter when there is no audible difference." Some possible fringe file is not important to me as I seriously doubt that any one can tell the difference when an entrire band is playing.


----------



## KeithEmo

rrod said:


> I would hope that something like Hotel California has been listened too enough to death for there to be a consensus on this, but I'll give the other tracks a shot. As far as linear and minimum phase, I should have specified I was testing those options in the SoX resampling filter, where I don't expect much variability in the end result. Doesn't the phase have to have a particular mathematical relationship to the amplitude in a minimum-phase filter?


 
  
 Yes - and no.
  
 When you design a "real world" filter (electronic parts) you have a whole bunch of choices. For example, a high pass filter for bass management might be "24 dB/octave at 80 Hz". However, there are technically an infinite number of possible variations that will meet that basic requirement. That specification says that, at frequencies well above the specified cutoff point, the frequency response will drop at 24 dB/octave, but some specific choices start rolling off a little sooner and don't reach that slope as soon, others roll off precisely at the rate and frequency called out, but they may have some ripples in their frequency response in the pass band, and various different ones have different phase shifts associated with them.
  
 Digital filters basically mimic analog filters using math, so they include all of these choices and tradeoffs. One of the huge benefits of digital filters is that you don't nave to worry about parts tolerances, or about choosing "practical" or easily available parts values. Another is that you don't have to pay for each individual part, or pay someone to solder it into a circuit board. However, with digital filters, you have even more choices, and there are still limitations in what you can do. For example, FIR filters are created by passing the signal through a series of delay steps and "tapping off the signal" at each step; you then add the proper amounts of signal from each tap to get your result. However, the more taps you use, the more computing power it takes to "run" the filter, so there is often a tradeoff between the number of taps "required" and the number you can "afford"... if you use too few taps your result is inaccurate (which is sort of like distortion); if you use too many, then you'll need a more powerful processor (if it's in hardware), or your player program will drop out and make funny noises on some computers (if its in software). There's a cool software player called HQPlayer (Signalyst - it's already been mentioned) - which offers a choice of several upsampling filters. Some of the filters are "so long" (which means they have a lot of taps) that they are super-accuruate, but a quad-core computer with 8 gB of RAM isn't powerful enough to run them without dropouts.
  
 It's not nearly as simple as hoping that a "minimum phase filter" will have zero degrees of phase shift at all audio frequencies. When you say "a minimum phase filter", the programmer says "How many taps? How much overall phase error am I allowed? How much phase ripple am I allowed? How much stop-band attenuation do you need right above the cutoff - and how much final stopband attenuation do you need? How much ripple in the stopband is OK?"
  
 The term "minimum phase" filter means that the filter will have as little phase shift as possible, within the abilities of the design chosen, the processing power available, and the frequency range specified. A "linear phase" filter will instead do its best to have phase shift that varies linearly with frequency. However, the actual response of each will not follow the theoretical perfect line for that type of response exactly.
  
 (If you remember the old days of SQ four-channel decoders. The theory said that the signal was decoded by "taking one channel, phase shifting it 90 degrees at all frequencies, then summing that to another signal, phase shifted by 90 degrees in the other direction". The reality was that the typically used phase shift network in most decoders was able to deliver a phase shift of 90 degrees +/- 10 degrees for frequencies between 100 Hz and 10 kHz. (Which means that the actual phase shift, rather than being a straight line as the theory required, looked more like a winding river - but at least it stayed within 10 degrees of what it was supposed to be between 100 Hz and 10 kHz, which was where it was most important.) Digital filters are usually much better than that, but they still aren't perfect. Many DAC chip makers provide graphs of the actual frequency and phase responses of their oversampling filters in their product literature.....  take a look at a few of them to see how far some of those veer from "theoretically correct".
  
 This is a link to an Audio-GD DAC that uses the Wolfson 8741 DAC chip. That chip itself offers several oversampling filter choices (I believe it offers 21 in total). Their product lets you choose between 9 of them. (They provided nice graphs showing the frequency response of each of those nine choices. It's too bad they didn't include pictures of the transient response of each, because you would see that each has different amounts and proportions of pre-ringing and post-ringing.) What you don't see is that each also handles transients slightly differently, which is why two filters, both of which are very flat to above 20 kHz still may sound very different.)
  
 http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/Headphoneamp/NFB1532/NFB15.32EN_Use.htm
  
 The main reason that choosing a filter isn't a no-brainer is that the tradeoffs never end up being the perfect choice. One filter has very little ringing, and it's symmetrical between pre-ringing and post-ringing; another choice has more overall ringing, but almost all of it is post-ringing. Yet another has virtually no ringing, but the cost is that it has a frequency response that isn't flat (noticeably). Which is the "best" choice depends on your priorities. It's also made even more complicated because each may be more or less important depending on your content. For example, cymbals and plucked guitars have lots of transients, so we can predict that we would hear differences in transient response most obviously with them. In contrast, vocals don't contain many really sharp transients at all, but may be more sensitive to variations in frequency response. 
  
 The most common place where you see this is with many current "apodizing filters" (which is sort of a catch-all term). Many of these filters are designed with the intent of eliminating most or all pre-ringing at the expense of increasing the post ringing - because post-ringing is assumed to be better masked and so less annoying. Unfortunately, as a "side effect" of how they work, many of these filters introduce a high-frequency roll off - of as much as -3 dB at 20 kHz. So, when that apodizing filter "sounds smoother", are you actually hearing its improved transient performance, or the high-frequency roll off, or a little of bot? Hmmmmm.
  
 (But, just to shut down some anticipated comments.... both the difference in transient waveforms and the non-flat frequency response are easily measured and demonstrated - and most people find the overall difference quite audible. The unknown is determining which of the differences is the one that's audible. And, yes, it should be reasonably easy to provide enough different combinations and permutations of the differences to legitimately test which is which.... but I'm not aware of anyone's having done so so far.)


----------



## KeithEmo

stv014 said:


> The effects of the filter in the DAC used for playback should be minimal with 44.1->192 (or even 96) kHz resampled input, especially if the DAC filter is linear phase, and in any case it is the same for all samples.
> 
> If no audible difference is detected under controlled conditions between dramatically different software filters, then what are the chances that a reasonably designed hardware DAC filter (which can also be accurately simulated or captured in software, by the way) is not transparent ?


 
  
 I agree entirely.
  
 If nobody could hear a difference then we could conclude that the difference - if it exists - doesn't matter. The problem (for your proposition) is that this isn't the case. If you take that Wolfson 8741 DAC chip and switch it back and forth between two filters while playing music, the fact that there are differences when you flip the switch is pretty obvious.
  
 So you're left with only two questions:
  
 1) Are the differences really because of the different digital filters, or are they because of some other factor that you've failed to adequately control?
  
 2) Are the differences really somewhat arbitrary, or is one choice simply correct, and the others all simply wrong to varying degrees?
  
 However, you also have to be very careful about test conditions. Since we already know that the difference is real, and can be measured, we need to be very certain that, if we don't hear it, that isn't due to the limitations in test equipment. (Back when I had a DAC with a Wolfson 8741 chip, several of my friends agreed that we could all hear differences with the speakers I was using at the time, but none of use could hear any difference using the mid-priced pair of AKG headphones I was also using at the time. We assumed that this was because the transient response of the headphones included enough ringing to mask the differences in the amounts of ringing with the different filters, while the speakers had more accurate transient response, but it could have been something else. The point is that, since the differences were clearly audible and repeatable with even some equipment proves that they are audible.)


----------



## KeithEmo

rrod said:


> I would hope that something like Hotel California has been listened too enough to death for there to be a consensus on this, but I'll give the other tracks a shot. As far as linear and minimum phase, I should have specified I was testing those options in the SoX resampling filter, where I don't expect much variability in the end result. Doesn't the phase have to have a particular mathematical relationship to the amplitude in a minimum-phase filter?


 
  
 We (Emotiva) just came back from Axpona - and Hotel California was the most chosen sample track for listening to powered monitors and headphone DACs - so clearly not everyone agrees about that. The 24/192 HDTracks version is very nice, and a lot of people seem to be quite familiar with how they expect it to sound.
 (I for one don't especially want to hear it again for a while 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ).


----------



## cel4145

stv014 said:


> Both are MP3, LAME just implements encoding to the same format somewhat more efficiently. Just like 7-Zip can create a few percents smaller (but fully compatible) .zip file than Info-ZIP.




This might help people if they see the encoding as happening in two main stages: 



So the loss happens at the bit/noise allocation stage based on the psychoacoustic model. Then the audio file is encoded as a bitstream, and then later decoded as a bistream to PCM in a lossless process--this bitstream encoding/decoding is the mp3 format. LAME and Fraunhofer are just the lossy part of the process.


----------



## KeithEmo

jodgey4 said:


> Ah. I thought LAME was the industry standard. Good info, thanks.


 
  
 MP3 is interesting.
  
 There is a standard decoder (how the decoding is done is standardized), so anything produced by an encoder must be able to be played by that algorithm, but, while the encoding _process_ is standardized, the _choices_ made along the way are not. Basically, the encoder gets to "decide" what to throw away, and how to handle what's left to some degree - as long as the end result complies with the overall standard. What this means is that anything encoded on any MP3 encoder should play on any MP3 decoder and, within certain limits, the same MP3 file should play the same on different decoders, but different encoders can produce wildly different results from the same content. (In the old days, people used to discuss endlessly which encoder sounded best with what type of music, and which settings were best on which encoders. There was even one utility that allowed you to automatically encode the same track on multiple encoders, then compare the different versions, so you could pick the best encoded version of each individual track.) Also, some options work better with certain types of content (for example - VBR encoding is usually better than CBR encoding - but not always, and different encoders may do better or worse at how they handle the bit rate determination).
  
 (Think of it like a FAX. if you have a FAX, it should be able to print anything sent by any other FAX. And, while the end quality will be limited by how good your FAX is, it will also be limited and determined by how well the sending FAX works and what options it uses.)


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> When I listen to music on my home stereo, oscilloscope readings aren't what matter to me. Audible differences matter. How much of a difference of transient response are we talking about, and what is the JDT (Just Detectable Threshold) for transient response in human hearing.
> 
> My interest is where the line of audible transparency lies, not which file is theoretically most accurate. What I can't hear won't hurt me.


 
  
 I agree - but then there's no point in discussing any of this with anyone else, because the limit of audibility of what you can hear on your system may be far different than anyone else's. I can hear differences between filters easily on one pair of headphones I have, yet I can't hear them at all on a different model (all other conditions the same); so how do we "decide" whether those differences are "audible" or not?
  
 I would personally say that the differences between various digital filters are small - far less than, say, the differences between speakers or headphones. However, they are of a different character than the differences between headphones or speakers. I also find them to be consistent (in conditions where I hear a difference, I hear the same difference each time - a given filter consistently sounds "clearer" or "the cymbals sound more metallic" every time).
  
 I agree that I'm not going to let someone tell me what I can hear, but, if I can hear a difference, then it matters to me. And, if I can correlate that difference to some measurement or oscilloscope trace, then I can use that spec to help decide which of the hundreds of DACs out there are worth auditioning and which aren't (again - for me). It's also somewhat a matter of attention. I specifically tend to listen for, and so to notice, things that affect whether a cymbal hit sounds like metal hitting metal or more like a steam valve leak - but I'm not especially sensitive to pitch and I'm not especially bothered if the instruments in an orchestra appear out of place in the sound stage. Other folks notice slight pitch shifts in the vocals, and are very fussy about sound stage. Obviously, for each of us, that Just Detectable Threshold on each of those characteristics is going to be wildly different. However, that still doesn't mean that having a standard set of measurements by which to compare each won't be equally useful for each of us.


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> I think you are talking about compressed audio with medium bit rates, not high bit rate lossy. At 320, both LAME and AAC are capable of perfectly reproducing as high as humans can hear. If you go down to 192 however, the frequency response rolls off around 16-17kHz. People with young ears might be able to hear a difference between lossless and 192, but not 320.


 
  
 We're not actually talking about frequency response here.... although that does fall off at some very low bit rates as well.
  
 What we're talking about are essentially specific types of distortion (not stock THD or IM, but other ways in which what comes out can be different from what went in). Imagine how, if you were to paint a painting of a photograph, using all the colors available in the original photo, the painting would still look different than the photo. It's more like that.


----------



## KeithEmo

rrod said:


> What are these few songs? One would think that the crowd that hates mp3 and the like would be carting out such songs in every thread on the subject.


 
  
 Why?
  
 Personally, I have nothing whatsoever against MP3 files.... or against Mad Dog ($2 a bottle wine).... but I usually don't listen to the one or drink the other.
 In fact, if I wanted music for my car, and all I had left was very small USB sticks, then I might well resort to using MP3.
 I also have a few cameras that only take JPG pictures, although my _GOOD_ camera does RAW and TIFF, and I almost always use them when they are available.
  
 The video on a Blu-Ray disc is also compressed; and, if you actually compare a frame side-by-side to uncompressed video, you can see a slight difference.
 Since I'm not willing to buy the ten discs you would need to hold a movie in uncompressed HD, and nobody sells them that way anyway, I consider that more than a fair compromise.
  
 However, since storage space and download bandwidth are so cheap, I see no reason to consider compromising.
 I also see no reason to try to "save the world from bad HiFi".
 (And, as far as being an interesting academic discussion, that boat has sailed a long time ago.)


----------



## sonitus mirus

keithemo said:


> Spoiler: Full Reply:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 What were your test conditions to be able to determine with any certainty that differences were clearly audible and repeatable?  Can these differences be attributed to sound quality or simply volume level variations?


----------



## Steve Eddy

sonitus mirus said:


> What were your test conditions to be able to determine with any certainty that differences were clearly audible and repeatable?




I'm left wondering the same thing. So far it seems to be just the usual unsubstantiated claims rather than the result of controlled listening tests. And if that's the case, it simply doesn't belong in Sound Science.

se


----------



## StanD

> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo*
> 
> 
> :
> ...


 
@KeithEmo I'd wonder which model AKG headphones were used. Perhaps Planar or Electrostatic headphones should have been used if one was overly concerned with transient response.
  
@sonitus mirus I agreee
  
@KeithEmo What the heck were the test conditiions/methodology and how were they controlled? Repeatable in what way? Or was it a bunch of buddies getting togther over some beers, chilling out listening to music?


----------



## maverickronin

For anything this subtle it's DBT or it didn't happen.
  
 There are too many opportunities to fool yourself otherwise.


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> There are too many opportunities to fool yourself otherwise.




Vanities and egos tend to put people in denial of this fact.

se


----------



## castleofargh

maverickronin said:


> For anything this subtle it's DBT or it didn't happen.
> 
> There are too many opportunities to fool yourself otherwise.


 

 that's why those objectivist stuff don't interest audiophiles. I mean how many years since the DBT received an upgrade? nobody cares about DBT anymore 2 lame guys for the set up and execution, that's history science! if those stuff were handled by the other side, we would have reached tredecuple by now and everybody would be waiting to get the next one with maximum anticipation. one guy would send a mail to the other one who would fax the launch signal to a guy starting a fire for the other guy to send a pigeon... an we would kill the guy who set up the test, or at least send him to guantanamo for a week. leave nothing to chance.
  
 up your game science!


----------



## KeithEmo

stand said:


> @KeithEmo I'd wonder which model AKG headphones were used. Perhaps Planar or Electrostatic headphones should have been used if one was overly concerned with transient response.
> 
> @sonitus mirus I agreee
> 
> @KeithEmo What the heck were the test conditiions/methodology and how were they controlled? Repeatable in what way? Or was it a bunch of buddies getting togther over some beers, chilling out listening to music?


 
  
 1)
 The headphones were a pair or middle-of-the-road AKGs (either K240's or K271's - I forget which ones I had out that day) - didn't hear the difference with them.
 The speakers were a pair of Emotiva Airtmotiv 5's (which have a new Kapton version of the Heil AMT "folded ribbon" tweeter) - differences were obvious with those.
 And, yes, I'm sure electrostatics would have done a better job of making what's there audible - but they were in the closet that day.
 (Truthfully, we were listening to the speakers, assumed that headphones would make the difference more obvious, and were rather disappointed that the AKG's seemed less revealing than the speakers. Since the DAC wasn't bought because it had multiple filters, and I would in fact prefer a single filter that was simply "correct, we had no specific expectation that they would make any difference - or not.)
  
 2)
 Yes, the test conditions were " a couple of buddies listening"  - sadly sans the beer. However, what we're talking about here is a strictly qualitative statement of difference - equivalent to holding two pieces of paper next to each other and stating "yes, they appear to be different colors". (And we humans have been demonstrated to be very _good_ at noticing those sorts of differences.) You will note that I have carefully avoided mentioning any claims of which was better, or which we preferred.
  
 The DAC we were using that day was a Wyred4Sound DAC2 (original model), which lets you switch filters instantly by pressing a button on the remote. And, with a lot of different content, when you hit the button, there is a slight change in the sound. (The music seemed to continue to play at the same level, and the frequency response seemed to remain constant - at least with most of the filters - but the sound of high frequency instruments like cymbals changed. Therefore, it's possible that some slight difference in frequency response or distortion was what we were hearing as a difference. That's why all I'm saying is "when you switch it sounds different".)
  
 And, in terms of timing, we were switching back and forth, sometimes every second or two, strictly to see if there was a change when the switch was flipped.
  
 I have another DAC that uses the Wolfson device - which lets you change filters with a front panel switch. Again, when you flip the switch the sound changes a little bit.
  
 Since, as it happens, the science shows that different filters do indeed produce very different output waveforms, and those differences are most obvious with signals that contain strong transients, this seems to suggest the possibility that the known differences in measured performance just might correlate with the differences we thought we heard. (The standard test signal, both in the AP test suite and every other test I've seen, is a single impulse. You can clearly see that some filters have more or less ringing than others, and some have more or less pre-ringing or post-ringing. As to how audible (or not) certain differences are, one would certainly want to do a lot more testing.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> Since, as it happens, the science shows that different filters do indeed produce very different output waveforms, and those differences are most obvious with signals that contain strong transients, this seems to suggest the possibility that the known differences in measured performance just might correlate with the differences we thought we heard.




Of course as you should know, correlation does not equal causation. 

So until you're prepared to move beyond that, it's just more of the same empty claims we've had for decades and a waste of time here in Sound Science.

se


----------



## maverickronin

keithemo said:


> Yes, the test conditions were " a couple of buddies listening"  - sadly sans the beer.


 
  
 So in other words it didn't happen...


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> So in other words it didn't happen...




Might as well have dragged out the disinterested spouse trope. That thing's so old it has whiskers.

se


----------



## StanD

keithemo said:


> Yes, the test conditions were " a couple of buddies listening"  - sadly sans the beer.
> 
> Since, as it happens, the science shows that different filters do indeed produce very different output waveforms, and those differences are most obvious with signals that contain strong transients, this seems to suggest the possibility that the known differences in measured performance just might correlate with the differences we thought we heard.





steve eddy said:


> Of course as you should know, correlation does not equal causation.
> 
> So until you're prepared to move beyond that, it's just more of the same empty claims we've had for decades and a waste of time here in Sound Science.
> 
> se


 
 No beer, that may have been the problem.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> I agree - but then there's no point in discussing any of this with anyone else, because the limit of audibility of what you can hear on your system may be far different than anyone else's.


 
  
 I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about the limits of perception for all human beings that have been established through careful testing. There is absolutely no point looking at the specs for a piece of stereo equipment without having a firm grasp of the specs of the human ear. What frequency range can we hear? At what point does distortion become audible? What is the smallest volume difference we can detect in music? These are all facts that have been established through controlled listening tests. Just like the question, at what point does lossy audio become audibly transparent?
  
 When you see people claiming to hear things that humans can't possibly hear, it's pretty easy to deduce that they are either mistaken or full of hot air.


----------



## bigshot

Doing carefully controlled tests are a pain in the ass. I know. I do them for my own use. But the advantage of doing careful tests is that when you are finished, you never need to wonder again... you KNOW.
  
 When I was thinking about building a media server to stream music all over my house, I wanted to establish a standard encoding rate. My goal was to box up all my CDs and put them in the garage, and replace them with a hard drive. With over 10,000 CDs, ripping is no small undertaking. I wanted to KNOW that my rips were audibly identical to the CD.
  
 I knew that lossless was identical, but I use iPods every day, and file size matters. So I set up a line level matched direct switchable A/B test between my home CD player and my iPod playing various codecs and bitrates. I did careful comparisons of dozens of different songs, representing every kind of music in my collection. It took me several days of work. But at the end, I knew where the line of transparency was.
  
 This test was just for my own purposes. But other people were curious where their line of transparency was. Some people told me that they could easily discern a difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless. So I created a file that contained various high bitrate lossy settings and a lossless file and asked them to see if they could tell a difference. I gave it to dozens of audiophiles and got their reactions.
  
 Guess what... The line of audible transparency for them was EXACTLY the same as the line of audible transparency for me. We might all have different ears, but we all have human ears.


----------



## Phishin Phool

Yea but hearing changes with age - (simplified) the younger you are the greater the freq range and ability to identify high frequency variations.
 I know what you mean though as  I have converted/ripped close to a terabyte of music on my HDD (mostly flac) and my server streams at the appropriate nitrate based on network throughput (or user selectable).


----------



## bfreedma

phishin phool said:


> Yea but hearing changes with age - (simplified) the younger you are the greater the freq range and ability to identify high frequency variations.
> I know what you mean though as  I have converted/ripped close to a terabyte of music on my HDD (mostly flac) and my server streams at the appropriate *nitrate* based on network throughput (or user selectable).


 
  
 You've discovered how to stream bacon?  I'm in as an investor!
  
 (I hate autocorrect too...)


----------



## StanD

bfreedma said:


> You've discovered how to stream bacon?  I'm in as an investor!
> 
> (I hate autocorrect too...)


 
 You need that to preserve your bacon bits.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> When you see people claiming to hear things that humans can't possibly hear, it's pretty easy to deduce that they are either mistaken or full of hot air.




I think you've cracked it, Bigshot!

Hot air!

Hot air is less dense. Sound will propagate differently!

Of course! Why didn't I think of it before?

Seriously though, "high end" audio reminds me of a video I saw some years ago.

The video was just a still image of a driver sitting in a Formula 1 car. The soundtrack was someone making race car sounds with their mouth, as if it were the driver sitting in the race car making them. Put me on the floor.

Basically, "high end" audio makes a lot of noise, but never actually moves us down the road when it comes to real knowledge and understanding.

se


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> Of course as you should know, correlation does not equal causation.
> 
> So until you're prepared to move beyond that, it's just more of the same empty claims we've had for decades and a waste of time here in Sound Science.
> 
> se


 

 Wrong....
  
 Correlation is plenty to indicate that there's _something_ going on....
 Which then justifies the next step in the process (figuring out what it is)....
  
 1) Figure out_ IF_ there's a difference
 2) Figure out what that difference is
 3) Figure out _WHY_ it's happening
  
 Although, in reality, most science involving perception ends at correlation.
 (We know that too much THD sounds bad, but we don't actually know _WHY_ it does.)
  
 In this case, we know that there is (at least sometimes) a difference in the way various DACs, and various filter choices in a single DAC, sound.
 We also know that different filters do different things to the signal (we can see the results on an oscilloscope, or measure them with an AP, and those differences are clearly "real").
 So, we know that we can hear differences, and that we can measure differences.
 The next step is to determine how (or if) the differences we've measured correlate with the differences in sound.
  
 We've even finished part of that last step - we have a few theories about how different amounts of ringing _MIGHT_ affect how something sounds.
  
 It seems to me like we've pretty well done all the base research necessary to justify an experiment and to give us some ideas about how to proceed.
 (If I was back in college, this would make a great term paper 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 )


----------



## bfreedma

keithemo said:


> Wrong....
> 
> Correlation is plenty to indicate that there's _something_ going on....
> Which then justifies the next step in the process (figuring out what it is)....
> ...


 
  
 Until you have the proper controls on your testing, you really can't make that statement regarding audibility with any credibility.
  
 A "couple of buddies" doing a listening test doesn't reach that standard in this forum.


----------



## bigshot

phishin phool said:


> Yea but hearing changes with age - (simplified) the younger you are the greater the freq range and ability to identify high frequency variations.


 
  
 Established thresholds of human perception takes that into account. The thresholds are generally best case situations.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> 1) Figure out_ IF_ there's a difference
> 2) Figure out what that difference is
> 3) Figure out _WHY_ it's happening


 
  
 But earlier in this thread didn't you...
  
 1) Assume that MP3 files sounded bad like a cheap bottle of wine
 2) Rely on your impressions from an uncontrolled test with a buddy
 3) Say that "why" doesn't matter because hard drive space is cheap, so you don't have to compromise


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> Wrong....
> 
> Correlation is plenty to indicate that there's _something_ going on....




Wrong...

Correlation simply indicates that there _may_ be something going on. 

Or maybe not.

Under sighted conditions, correlations are a dime a dozen.

So until you can get past simple correlation and just spinning theories, you haven't moved the ball down the court. "High end" audio has been sitting dribbling the ball on their side of the court for over 30 years.

se


----------



## KeithEmo

maverickronin said:


> So in other words it didn't happen...


 

 Enough already.
 What is your criterion for claiming that it didn't happen?
 Are you suggesting that nothing is real unless you were there?
 Or are you saying that nothing is real unless it is certified as real by some specific number of observers?
 If so, how many, and who?
  
 The way real science generally works is that someone observes something.
 They then first confirm that what they believe they've observed is real.
 They then usually propose some sort of theory about what they believe might have caused what they observe.
 (At this point, you usually check whether your theory contradicts any science that is already established.
 However, note that this doesn't preclude testing it, because that "established science" may in fact turn out to be wrong.)
 They then conduct some experiments to try to determine if their theory is true or not.
  
 In fact, I could be imagining this, or I could just plain be lying (or you could be lying when you say that you don't hear a difference).
 However, a lot of individuals claim to hear a difference, and many major players (like Dolby Labs) claim that the difference is audible.
 To me that suggests that there might actually be a difference.
 The fact that the difference itself is easily seen and measured further seems to reinforce the possibility that it might also be audible.
  
 Now, I'm not going to get into an argument about whether there really is an audible correlation or not - since that's what we're talking about testing.
 However, I'd have to say it seems rather far fetched to say that there isn't enough evidence to justify further study.
  
 To put that another way.... where is your evidence that suggests that this couldn't possibly be true?
  
 Proposing theories is in fact a very important part of science - even if they later fail the test and turn out to be wrong.


----------



## bigshot

Do you want to know? Because if you do, arguing about proper scientific testing procedures isn't going to get you anywhere. Employing them will.
  
 The point is, you cite a measurable difference, and you admit the difference is very small. So far so good... But then you don't apply the same rigor to your own perception that you apply to measuring the equipment and come to a conclusion that assumes that since you can measure a difference, you should be able to hear one.
  
 Human hearing is VERY forgiving compared to test equipment. But human nature can make your observations deceiving. You need to understand the limitations of human hearing if you want to determine what is important and what isn't. And that means filtering out the effects of human nature to make sure what you are perceiving really is what you are perceiving.
  
 Do you know the threshold of perception for time based errors in music? If you compare that figure to the amount of time error you are talking about that is created by filters, then you can quickly determine if your impression actually lines up with your perception.
  
 You have human ears. There is no reason to believe yours are any better than anyone else's. So established thresholds of perception are a really good way to get a red flag whether your impression might not be correct.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> Proposing theories is in fact a very important part of science - even if they later fail the test and turn out to be wrong.




Yes. But a theory is nothing until actually _put to the test_. Unless you are expecting others to do your work for you, there's no point in even putting out a theory unless you're prepared to put it to the test. 

"High end" has a long history of tossing out all manner of theories but never following through on them. It seems the only purpose is to try and impress the gullible in an attempt to sell product.

When do you plan to actually follow through with your theory? 

se


----------



## maverickronin

keithemo said:


> Enough already.
> What is your criterion for claiming that it didn't happen?


 
  
 The fact that you admitted that you didn't even attempt to use a proper methodology.
  
 Uncontrolled listening reports concerning such things are worthless as evidence.  The best they can be is material for generating new hypotheses.


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> Yes. But a theory is nothing until actually _put to the test_. Unless you are expecting others to do your work for you, there's no point in even putting out a theory unless you're prepared to put it to the test.
> 
> "High end" has a long history of tossing out all manner of theories but never following through on them. It seems the only purpose is to try and impress the gullible in an attempt to sell product.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The short answer there is that I personally probably won't. Personally, I think it would be cool to prove the point once and for all, but I simply don't have the time or enthusiasm to set up what I would consider to be a thorough and complete test. Also, much as I consider it to be an interesting question academically, I simply don't consider it to be especially important. I own quite a few DACs; some of them have multiple selectable filters, and others do not. In point of fact, while I am absolutely convinced that the different filters sound slightly _different_, I do _NOT_ consider those differences to be _significant_.
  
 My Wyred4Sound has six different filters. One or two of them have significantly non-flat frequency response, and sound very different, so I don't use them. The others sound subtly different, but I don't find any of them particularly better than the others. My Emotiva DC-1 only has one filter, which I find equal to any of those in the Wyred4Sound. So, personally, I consider the fact that they sound slightly different to be "interesting but not especially important". I most certainly wouldn't personally consider multiple filters to be a significant feature when choosing a DAC to buy.
  
 Some of the new DACs Emotiva will be introducing soon have multiple selectable filters, and, again, they sound slightly different, but I personally don't prefer one over the other (at least not by enough to be significant). As a product, having multiple filters is important because some people want that feature, but our company doesn't have much interest in "selling people that it's important". The DAC has excellent technical performance, and sounds very good - regardless of which filter you select - and, _IF_ you consider having a choice of filters to be important, it has that feature as well. (Our "official company opinion" is that we're happy to provide the feature for people that want it, but we're not going to try and convince anybody who isn't interested that they should be. As a feature, it didn't cost very much to include, and people will be able to experiment and decide for themselves whether they hear a difference. Again, the difference in transient response between the filters is obvious on a test report, and we'll probably publish the pictures that show how they differ. Whether people consider it important or not is up to them.)
  
 (If we ever decide to do any "workshops", it's definitely on my short list as "an interesting subject", and I'd personally love to do it and see how many people could hear the difference. It's so easy to skew the results in public demonstrations that I can't say it would prove much, but it would still be interesting to try.)


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> The short answer there is that I personally probably won't. Personally, I think it would be cool to prove the point once and for all, but I simply don't have the time or enthusiasm to set up what I would consider to be a thorough and complete test. Also, much as I consider it to be an interesting question academically, I simply don't consider it to be especially important.




Then why bother even bringing it up in the first place?

se


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> But earlier in this thread didn't you...
> 
> 1) Assume that MP3 files sounded bad like a cheap bottle of wine
> 2) Rely on your impressions from an uncontrolled test with a buddy
> 3) Say that "why" doesn't matter because hard drive space is cheap, so you don't have to compromise


 
  
 Actually, welcome to the rabbit hole......
  
 Most people seem to agree that Mad Dog (Mogen David 20/20) tastes different than most $50 bottles of wine, but whether it's "bad" is more a matter of opinion. However, the fact remains that I'm sure you can find plenty of people who can tell them apart, which establishes that a _difference_ exists. Likewise, I seem to recall a recent test in which somewhere around half the participants were able to tell the difference between MP3 files and WAV files - even though a significant part of that fraction didn't consider it important. The interesting point - to me - was that a few actually _preferred_ the MP3 files. (I would cite it, but I don't recall the details.)
  
 The point you seem to ignore is that we humans are actually quite good at recognizing differences. To go back to my example, very few people could tell you whether a sheet of paper is really white, or slightly off-white and, if so, which way it's tinted. However, if you place two colored squares next to each other, we are amazingly good at determining whether they are identical in color or slightly different. Likewise, our acoustic memory isn't very accurate, but we do pretty well at saying whether two signals are identical or not if we switch back and forth quickly. (So, yes, if I were to hand two sheets of paper to a few of my friends, and everyone agreed that they were slightly different colors, I _would_ consider that as a reasonable claim that they actually were different colors - and I would be even more likely to consider that if it turned out that the paper had measurably different chemical properties.)
  
 The problem is, to put it bluntly, everybody has an agenda. Dolby Labs has a reason to "believe" that post-ringing sounds better than an equal amount of pre-ringing - because the ability to shift the ringing is a selling feature of one of their products. Likewise, folks who sell HD files have a reason to be biased that they are better, and to want to convince you that they're right; while very few people have any reason to expend time and effort proving the opposite (or convincing you of it). And I don't know many companies who stand to make money if they can prove that a $5 cable is as good as a $500 one.... but proving that would cost a lot of companies a lot of sales.
  
 I have personally created and converted lots of audio files. Every MP3 encoder I've ever tried was unable to encode a significant number of files I was familiar with without at least some of them coming out sounding audibly different. From this information, I consider it a given that I have been unable to reliable convert files to MP3 and trust them to not be audibly altered. Likewise, of the large number of MP3 files I've downloaded, a significant proportion of those I had the opportunity to compare to the uncompressed original sounded noticeably worse - and none sounded better.
  
 Now, perhaps the MP3 format itself is capable of performing well enough to satisfy me, and perhaps I could find that perfect encoder if I did enough research. Or perhaps, by using a combination of encoders, then auditioning the results, I could find specific encoders that could handle specific types of content perfectly, and then use the best encoder for each individual type of file. However, I consider it unlikely, and, since storage space is so cheap, the "benefits" of using MP3 are virtually worthless to me.
  
 There's also something called "Pascal's Wager".... and this is a variation of it. If I save all my files as WAVs, and it turns out MP3s would have been indistinguishably good, then all I've lost is some cheap storage space; but, if I save them all as MP3s, and it later turns out that WAV is better, then I've failed to save the best quality version of my files - which is an irreparable loss. So all the risk is in favor of using the known good format rather than the "claimed good" format. (Remember that _nobody_ is claiming that there is any chance that the MP3 is better.)


----------



## KeithEmo

maverickronin said:


> The fact that you admitted that you didn't even attempt to use a proper methodology.
> 
> Uncontrolled listening reports concerning such things are worthless as evidence.  The best they can be is material for generating new hypotheses.


 
  
 Agreed 100% - which is all that I'm suggesting.


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> Then why bother even bringing it up in the first place?
> 
> se


 
  
 I believe that I brought it up as a rebuttal of the (unsubstantiated) claim that "all decent DACs sound the same".


----------



## maverickronin

keithemo said:


> I believe that I brought it up as a rebuttal of the (unsubstantiated) claim that "all decent DACs sound the same".


 
  
 It's quite a bit more substantiated than your claim.
  
 There are a few examples in the OP...


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> I believe that I brought it up as a rebuttal of the (unsubstantiated) claim that "all decent DACs sound the same".




That's not any sort of rebuttal. The rebuttal would be to say that the statement would be better served by saying "No one has yet to demonstrate audible differences between decent DACs." That would have been a rebuttal. Confusing the issue further with unsubstantiated claims isn't a rebuttal. At least not a rebuttal that advances the argument.

se


----------



## StanD

keithemo said:


> The short answer there is that I personally probably won't. Personally, I think it would be cool to prove the point once and for all, but I simply don't have the time or enthusiasm to set up what I would consider to be a thorough and complete test.
> :


 
 But you do have the time to make lengthy posts all day long, so c'mon do it right. Hey, how do you get away of spending that much time on the net during work hours? Some guys have all the luck.


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


> I believe that I brought it up as a rebuttal of the (unsubstantiated) claim that "all decent DACs sound the same".


 
  
 I believe what I said to start it off was:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/4530#post_11535098
  
 Which was in response to the initial claim that DACs sound different. Then we got into the supposed reason, which was given as the digital filtering.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> The point you seem to ignore is that we humans are actually quite good at recognizing differences.


 
  
 Are we good at recognizing differences that controlled testing has proven that we can't recognize? The ARE established thresholds of perception. If you want to claim that you personally can perceive things that previous tests have indicated that no human can perceive, then the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. And you said you have no interest in doing that. So it isn't out of line for me to dismiss your claim without qualms.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> I believe that I brought it up as a rebuttal of the (unsubstantiated) claim that "all decent DACs sound the same".


 

 If all DACs measure the same within the thresholds of human hearing, why wouldn't they sound the same? They're DESIGNED to be audibly transparent, aren't they? Transparent is the same.
  
 A rebuttal would involve supporting arguments, not just coming up with another theory. And by the way, the claim that all DACs sound the same is substantiated by the measured specs and the established thresholds of perception.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> If all DACs measure the same within the thresholds of human hearing, why wouldn't they sound the same? They're DESIGNED to be audibly transparent, aren't they? Transparent is the same.
> 
> A rebuttal would involve supporting arguments, not just coming up with another theory. And by the way, the claim that all DACs sound the same is substantiated by the measured specs and the established thresholds of perception.




I prefer to phrase it as I did in my reply to Keith. It refrains from absolutes and effectively puts the ball back in their court by pointing out that their claims have yet to be substantiated.

se


----------



## KeithEmo

rrod said:


> I believe what I said to start it off was:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/4530#post_11535098
> 
> Which was in response to the initial claim that DACs sound different. Then we got into the supposed reason, which was given as the digital filtering.


 
  
 I believe you're right.
  
 My viewpoint on the whole issue is that I personally can hear significant differences between different DACs, and between the different digital filter choices offered on some DACs. I have several different DACs which have a choice of filters, and, on most, the differences between the filters are subtle but clearly audible. So, to me, while I'm certainly willing to consider the possibility that the differences I hear are due to something other than the filters, they are clearly present - and so due to something - and I'm somewhat curious as to whether that something is the digital filters (which I consider to be the most likely theory to date) or something else..
  
 I consider the fact that lots of people claim to hear differences, including myself and most people I know, when taken in conjunction with the fact that *there clearly are real and easily measurable differences present*, to suggest that the measurable differences may likely be responsible for the audible ones.
  
 Some people seem to be of the viewpoint that I don't have sufficient proof that there are audible differences to justify finding why such differences might be present... As far as I can tell, they base that claim on the assumption that "if the THD and noise are inaudibly low, and the frequency response is flat enough that any variations can be safely considered to be inaudible, then there can't possibly be any difference in sound" - which logically extends to their claiming that THD, noise, and frequency response are the *ONLY* factors which can affect how something sounds... and so any theory suggesting that some other factor (such as digital filter response) is audible requires a lot of evidence to even justify its being considered.
  
 Since I don't consider their central assumption to be either "true" or "thoroughly proven", while they clearly do, my part in this discussion is basically at a standstill. If anybody wants to argue that my theory that digital filters may account for differences in the way DACs sound is unreasonable, or that my assertion that the difference is there at all is not only untrue but unreasonable, then you'll have to first prove that the assertion that it appears to contradict - that THD, noise, and frequency response are the ONLY factors that affect sound - is actually true.


----------



## bigshot

If you can hear differences, then which one is accurate and which ones are distorting the sound?
  
 Next question is what are the measurements of the distortion?


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> you'll have to first prove that the assertion that it appears to contradict - that THD, noise, and frequency response are the ONLY factors that affect sound - is actually true.


 
  
 Distortion is the difference between the original sound and the recorded sound
 Noise is sound that has been added to the original sound
 Frequency response is the balance of the relative volume of different parts of the sound spectrum
  
 What else is there?
  
 Sound has been studied for hundreds of years. If you can come up with a new aspect that audibly affects sound reproduction, you''ll be able to revolutionize recording technology and be rich and famous. The first step is to prove that you can consistently hear a difference under controlled conditions. Go for it!


----------



## KeithEmo

maverickronin said:


> It's quite a bit more substantiated than your claim.
> 
> There are a few examples in the OP...


 
  
 I find the opposite. There are lots of DACs out there that offer multiple filter choices, and most people I know can usually hear differences between the different settings. Likewise, some companies who I would not consider to be "tweaky audiophile specialty companies" - like Dolby Labs and Weiss - offer different filter choices on various products, and claim that those choices do indeed alter the sound. So, to me, it seems like a given that different filters can obviously alter the sound, and the only question then becomes the question of which filter characteristics, and in what amounts, produce differences that are actually audible. Also, again, different filters produce very different transient responses, which can be easily seen on a scope trace or a test run - so the only question is whether those differences are audible or not.
  
 Honestly, all I've seen to the contrary are studies that show that, under certain conditions, using certain products and source material, certain groups of people have proven unable to hear a difference between certain filter characteristics. This is far from proving a general case claim that "no audible difference exists with any products and any source material under any conditions".
  
 I'm usually on the other side of this argument - but that's usually in cases where the measurements don't show differences that people claim they're hearing...
 however, in this case, the differences are quite obvious, and the only question is whether they're audible or not.
  
 Anyway, I truly don't care enough to keep arguing about it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 As usual, people will believe what they wish to believe.


----------



## castleofargh

keithemo said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > I believe what I said to start it off was:
> ...


 

 I would tend to agree with the idea, as after all, distortions of different kinds and at different frequencies can be more noticeable than others. but in practice, the only situations where something changing below -80db was audible to me in an abx, were weird extreme examples with tones or square waves or suspiciously altered recorded tracks from a guy who had money to make by convincing us.
 with actual music I'm still looking for something I can identify as different when FR is real close, distortion low and nothing is hissing enough for me to tell the sources apart.
 so I tend to fall into the same situation as 16/44 vs highres. while I understand the measures are different as they should, in practice I fail to see the audible point in any of my tests so far.(well I've heard a few DACs with minute but audible differences, but hey were real expensive audiofool stuff where even the FR seemed different, and the other time was with a 25$ hifimediy. for most other stuff, I wouldn't bet money on me succeeding an abx even when deep down I do feel like there may be something different in the sound.
 but then we fal into the other usual argument, should I trust myself or the test? ^_^
  
  
 could it be that different filters, outside of some phase stuff and pre vs post ringing, also end up with some IMD coming back into the audible range at a high enough level to be audible? maybe from ultrasounds not rolled off fast enough in one filter case?


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


> I believe you're right.
> 
> Some people seem to be of the viewpoint that I don't have sufficient proof that there are audible differences to justify finding why such differences might be present... As far as I can tell, they base that claim on the assumption that "if the THD and noise are inaudibly low, and the frequency response is flat enough that any variations can be safely considered to be inaudible, then there can't possibly be any difference in sound" - which logically extends to their claiming that THD, noise, and frequency response are the *ONLY* factors which can affect how something sounds... and so any theory suggesting that some other factor (such as digital filter response) is audible requires a lot of evidence to even justify its being considered.
> 
> Since I don't consider their central assumption to be either "true" or "thoroughly proven", while they clearly do, my part in this discussion is basically at a standstill. If anybody wants to argue that my theory that digital filters may account for differences in the way DACs sound is unreasonable, or that my assertion that the difference is there at all is not only untrue but unreasonable, then you'll have to first prove that the assertion that it appears to contradict - that THD, noise, and frequency response are the ONLY factors that affect sound - is actually true.


 
  
 It's not unreasonable, it's just one of those things that is best tested blind and rigorously. I tested the line-out of a few of my DACs a while back (hooked em up to a E-MU 0404 I got for cheap), and saw a variety of approaches to an impulse response (iPod clearly trying to minimize pre-ringing, on-board sound-card clearly not ^_^ ) Still can't AB them apart, so I have little hope in a true regimented ABX test. Same story with my Modi, which I keep around b/c it's too much of a bother to sell and specs better, though to no audible benefit to myself.
  
 But we come to the same place these discussions always go: party A claims "audible", parties B-Z say "DBT", and party A says "eh not worth it, I hear what I hear," and it's the ♭♩ciiiiiiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiiiife♪♫


----------



## Steve Eddy

rrod said:


> But we come to the same place these discussions always go: party A claims "audible", parties B-Z say "DBT", and party A says "eh not worth it, I hear what I hear," and it's the ♭♩ciiiiiiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiiiife♪♫




It's simply not in the industry's best financial interests. As long as they can maintain the illusion among their customers that they're somehow ahead of the pack, that's as far as it needs to go.

se


----------



## bigshot

I go to the trouble of doing listening comparisons with every piece of equipment I own because I care and I demand the best.
  
 I paid a big chunk of money for a highly rated DVD/SACD player a few years back. I read a bunch of reviews that gushed over its significant improvement of sound quality over even high end CD players. Around the same time, I bought a $40 Coby DVD player for my bedroom at Walmart. I did a comparison of the two with the same CD and couldn't hear any difference between the two. Since then, I've done comparisons between all of my equipment, from the Oppo HA-1 all the way down to a entry level Sony blu-ray player. Every single player, DAC and DAP I have ever bought sounds exactly the same- audibly transparent. If I ever ran across something that *didnt* sound identical, I would immediately box it up and return it as defective.
  
 I demand audible transparency in my electronics and I get it without even trying. The trick is always finding good transducers.


----------



## knucklehead

Quote:


keithemo said:


> I find the opposite. There are lots of DACs out there that offer multiple filter choices, and most people I know can usually hear differences between the different settings. Likewise, some companies who I would not consider to be "tweaky audiophile specialty companies" - like Dolby Labs and Weiss - offer different filter choices on various products, and claim that those choices do indeed alter the sound. So, to me, it seems like a given that different filters can obviously alter the sound, and the only question then becomes the question of which filter characteristics, and in what amounts, produce differences that are actually audible. Also, again, different filters produce very different transient responses, which can be easily seen on a scope trace or a test run - *so the only question is whether those differences are audible or not*.
> 
> Honestly, all I've seen to the contrary are studies that show that, under certain conditions, using certain products and source material, certain groups of people have proven unable to hear a difference between certain filter characteristics. This is far from proving a general case claim that "no audible difference exists with any products and any source material under any conditions".
> 
> ...


 
  
 Don't leave just yet .... it's just getting interesting.
  
 The *only* question for a true audiophile would not be if they sound different or not. The question would be, if they *-- do --* sound different, which one is more accurate to the source ... and for the intellectually curious -- why?  (Bigshot's two previous posts you ignored)
  
 Why have a DAC with a switch for a *"less accurate"* setting? Seems like a question to tilt a few beers over to me.


----------



## Don Hills

stv014 said:


> ... with all other variables being equal, a narrower transition band indeed requires a longer impulse response. ...


 
  
 I also recall JJ saying that the closer you get to fs/2, the longer your reconstruction filter has to be. At fs/2, the required filter length goes to infinity...


----------



## bigshot

knucklehead said:


> Why have a DAC with a switch for a *"less accurate"* setting?


 
  
 My like button seems to be missing, but if I had one, I would click it for this.
  
 By the way, I have an Oppo HA-1, which I'm told is a very good DAC/Amp. I haven't seen any filtering options on it. Am I missing something? Is this a common feature? Nothing I have seems to have any ability to do that.


----------



## lamode

keithemo said:


> The way real science generally works is that someone observes something.
> They then first confirm that what they believe they've observed is real.


 
  
 ... which requires a DBT or ABX, which you didn't do. All you have so far is a wholly unreliable impression dripping with expectation bias.


----------



## stv014

lamode said:


> ... which requires a DBT or ABX, which you didn't do. All you have so far is a wholly unreliable impression dripping with expectation bias.


 
  
 It is understandably difficult to convince MOTs that what they sell (in this case audiophile DACs) may make no audible difference compared to cheaper alternatives. And, as it has been proven recently, it is always possible to make the debate drag endlessly, or at least until the thread ends up being locked.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> if you use too few taps your result is inaccurate (which is sort of like distortion); if you use too many, then you'll need a more powerful processor (if it's in hardware), or your player program will drop out and make funny noises on some computers (if its in software). There's a cool software player called HQPlayer (Signalyst - it's already been mentioned) - which offers a choice of several upsampling filters. Some of the filters are "so long" (which means they have a lot of taps) that they are super-accuruate, but a quad-core computer with 8 gB of RAM isn't powerful enough to run them without dropouts.


 
  
 There is not much point making upsampling filters for CD quality audio playback extemely long, since that just means longer (even if most likely still inaudible) ringing and faster roll-off than what is needed. A 4 ms long linear phase FIR lowpass filter with a Kaiser (beta = 12.5) window is enough for a 2 kHz transition band from a ruler flat response (< 0.0001 dB variation) to more than 120 dB attenuation. It can also be converted to minimum phase (no pre-ringing) without changing the length of the impulse response.
  
 By the way, the computational cost of FFT convolution is proportional to the base 2 logarithm of the impulse response length, which means it can be made very long and still run in real time on an average computer. The only issue is that it is processed in large blocks, leading to high latency and uneven CPU usage, but for simple file based playback this is not a major problem, as it can be solved by buffering and using a separate thread for the filter. In any sensible case it should not require gigabytes of memory either.
  


> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> It's not nearly as simple as hoping that a "minimum phase filter" will have zero degrees of phase shift at all audio frequencies.


 
  
 A minimum phase filter should not have zero degrees phase shift at all frequencies. That would actually be a linear phase filter.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> My like button seems to be missing, but if I had one, I would click it for this.




And there's no Like button for any of your posts.

I guess you're just not a Likable guy. 

se


----------



## lamode

keithemo said:


> Actually, welcome to the rabbit hole......
> 
> Most people seem to agree that Mad Dog (Mogen David 20/20) tastes different than most $50 bottles of wine, but whether it's "bad" is more a matter of opinion.


 
  
 Wine is not a reproduction so this metaphor is meaningless. A red is as valid as a desert wine.
  
 Audio reproduction is high fidelity only if it closely approximates an original event. Any other 'flavour' is simply not hi-fi.


----------



## KeithEmo

castleofargh said:


> I would tend to agree with the idea, as after all, distortions of different kinds and at different frequencies can be more noticeable than others. but in practice, the only situations where something changing below -80db was audible to me in an abx, were weird extreme examples with tones or square waves or suspiciously altered recorded tracks from a guy who had money to make by convincing us.
> with actual music I'm still looking for something I can identify as different when FR is real close, distortion low and nothing is hissing enough for me to tell the sources apart.
> so I tend to fall into the same situation as 16/44 vs highres. while I understand the measures are different as they should, in practice I fail to see the audible point in any of my tests so far.(well I've heard a few DACs with minute but audible differences, but hey were real expensive audiofool stuff where even the FR seemed different, and the other time was with a 25$ hifimediy. for most other stuff, I wouldn't bet money on me succeeding an abx even when deep down I do feel like there may be something different in the sound.
> but then we fal into the other usual argument, should I trust myself or the test? ^_^
> ...


 
  
 That is distinctly possible. As with most things, you can't design a filter for one characteristic alone.... which is why you can't have two filters that are really "identical in every way but the one you're trying to test".


----------



## Steve Eddy

lamode said:


> Audio reproduction is high fidelity only if it closely approximates an original event. Any other 'flavour' is simply not hi-fi.




No. But by the same token, it doesn't mean it won't "taste good." 

se


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> Distortion is the difference between the original sound and the recorded sound
> Noise is sound that has been added to the original sound
> Frequency response is the balance of the relative volume of different parts of the sound spectrum
> 
> ...


 
  
 You've hit the nail on the head - _THE MEASUREMENTS WE'RE DOING DON'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY_.
  
 When we measure THD+N, we _ALWAYS_ use a steady state signal - a continuous sine wave. In the old days we fed our clean sine wave into the unit under test, filtered that original input signal out of the output, and anything we had left was either distortion or noise. Today, we feed in our clean sine wave, and look at the spectrum of the output; our sine wave will be a sharp vertical line on the spectrum, and anything else, again, will be either distortion or noise._ BUT_, that's all with sine waves.
  
 Now, let's skip to a speaker. My speaker has a slight resonance in its tweeter at 5 kHz. Whenever I feed in a clean sine wave to the tweeter, because of that resonance I get 1% as much "extra junk" at 5 kHz. So, if I feed in a 2 kHz test signal, I get back what should be there, plus an extra 1% as much 5 kHz "distortion" (it's more like noise than THD since it isn't a harmonic of the input signal - but, either way, it will be there as "1% THD+N"). However, as is always the case with ringing, my tweeter continues to ring after the signal stops; let's say it takes 5 milliseconds to die down all the way.
  
 Now, I'm going to play a 2 kHz test tone into my speaker for five seconds, then stop my test signal, and measure my speaker's output 2 milliseconds later. At that instant in time there is _NO INPUT_ _SIGNAL_ - because we stopped it 2 milliseconds ago. However, we still have a tiny bit of ringing at 5 kHz that hasn't died down all the way yet. _At THAT INSTANT_, the output of my speaker is _PURE DISTORTION_. I have 1% of 5 kHz sound that shouldn't be there and _ZERO PERCENT_ of the signal that should be there, because it isn't even playing anymore. However, we don't say that it has "infinity % THD for two milliseconds". Instead we use a spectrum measurement, average the reading over ten seconds or so, and count the cumulative amounts of signal and junk. (Or, more likely, we show the THD+N measured with our sine wave, and we show a separate waterfall plot that shows the ringing - and we don't say "well, for a split second, the entire signal was ringing".) It's generally accepted that we hear the steady state THD one way, and the ringing in the quiet spots of the music a different way, and we don't measure them both together.
  
 This is precisely the same thing that is happening with DAC filters. When you feed in a sine wave, a perfect sine wave comes out - a typical $2 DAC chip can deliver THD performance of around 0.003% if you design the circuitry around it decently. However, when you feed in something other than a sine wave, like a pulse, you get ringing either right before it, right after it, or both. This ringing doesn't show up on steady state THD measurements because it doesn't happen with simple sine waves. And, if we use a time-lapse spectrum analysis instead, it also doesn't show up as an error because it isn't really comprised of "extra" acoustic energy - it's composed of the energy that belongs there, but some of it has been shifted slightly in time by the filter.
  
 Therefore, you have a situation where, for tiny instants of time, the input signal was zero, but the output signal was ringing. However, since this only happens with transient-type signals, it doesn't show up in a standard sine wave THD measurements, and, since it doesn't shift the overall energy content and make it wrong, it also doesn't show up measurements made by reading the energy content in each band of the overall spectrum over some period of time. The _ONLY_ place you can see it clearly is by looking at a transient response trace for the DAC you're looking at.
  
 Note that some of the ringing is inevitable because of the fact that we are applying a filter. However, when the different filter choices give you results with very different ringing characteristics, it's logically obvious that one of them must be closest to "the original signal with a theoretically perfect band limiting filter applied to it" and the other must be further away from that optimum in some way.
  
 And _THAT's_ how you can have a DAC that significantly alters the signal, yet still has really low THD and noise specs.
  
 You _COULD_ devise a test which applied a signal, then tested the output after the signal was removed, and it would give you a separate "ringing distortion" number... but nobody has done so yet... and, since the transient response plot shows everything you need to know, there's really no need. However, the point is that, for devices that include digital filters, the list of "important measurements" (_THD+N, S/N ratio, and FREQUENCY RESPONSE_) must be expanded to include _TRANSIENT RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS_.
  
 Now that we all understand how a DAC with very low THD can still significantly alter the signal, we come back to the original question of how audible it is, or whether it's audible at all (or, rather, how audible it is when we alter the transient response in different ways).
  
 And, to add one final bit of information there, it's pretty well accepted that loud sounds mask quiet sounds that happen _AFTER_ them. So, in my speaker example, you probably wouldn't notice that few milliseconds of quiet 5 kHz noise right after the 2 kHz test signal stops if it was all happening in music. _HOWEVER_, do we know for sure how well some extra ringing would be masked if we heard the distortion _BEFORE THE LOUD SIGNAL IT GOES WITH?_ This is what "pre-ringing" is... it's ringing that happens_ BEFORE_ the signal. And the question of how well a loud sound masks us from _PERCIEVING_ a quieter distortion sound that occurs _BEFORE_ a louder legitimate signal, which our ears have already "processed", really isn't thoroughly enough understood yet to say for sure. (The current "apodizing filters" are based on the theory that ringing after the signal is well masked, but ringing before the signal is audible and annoying, so it sounds better to "trade" and get rid of the pre-ringing at the expense of extra post-ringing. Many major players, including Dolby Labs, are quite convinced that this theory is true - and_ IT_ is what we're discussing here.)
  
 Here's a link to Dolby's white paper on the subject....
 (what we're discussing starts on about page 4)
  
 http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-truehd-lossless-audio-performance-white-paper.pdf


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> (The current "apodizing filters" are based on the theory that ringing after the signal is well masked, but ringing before the signal is audible and annoying, so it sounds better to "trade" and get rid of the pre-ringing at the expense of extra post-ringing. Many major players, including Dolby Labs, are quite convinced that this theory is true - and _IT_ is what we're discussing here.)




Convinced the theory is true, but without actually putting the theory to the test.

How convenient.

se


----------



## RRod

And still we have the argument that the existence of a pre-ring doesn't mean it's audible. ♬♪The ciiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiiife♫


----------



## castleofargh

ok noob question:
 if I record a test tone and apply an EQ at different levels(maybe one simulating analog EQ and one with minimum phase?) and then just change the gain so that the loudness stays the same on each recorded sample. wouldn't I end up with a lousy practical way to abx those stuff for cheap?


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> You've hit the nail on the head - _THE MEASUREMENTS WE'RE DOING DON'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY_.


 
  
 Of course that wasn't what I was saying, but feel free to have that impression if you'd like.
  
 But let's say I hear something and for some reason it doesn't manifest itself in measured frequency balance, relative volume levels, added noise or differences in sound.
  
 I would say that a controlled listening test is needed to prove the existence of what the measurements aren't reflecting before coming to that conclusion. You keep getting ahead of yourself, coming up with theories why the difference exists before you even know for sure if one does. You can't just assume that there is a difference because your impression is that there is a difference. You have to establish that there actually *is* a difference first. If you don't do that, and there actually is no audible difference, then it's no surprise the measurements don't show anything either. Perceptions can be deceptive. Controlled testing eliminates that variable.
  
 You have some nice theories about obscure forms of distortion there. Very interesting. All you need to do is prove they are audible. I've done direct A/B switchable line level matched comparisons of a lot of different digital players and DACs and I have yet to find one that sounds any different than any other one. I'm basing my theory that all DACs sound the same on my tests. Do your own tests and see if they prove otherwise.
  
 But I do admit, none of my players or DACs have a "make it sound different filter switch". For the life of me, I don't know what the purpose of that would be.


----------



## Roly1650

keithemo said:


> Snip>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> And, to add one final bit of information there, it's pretty well accepted that loud sounds mask quiet sounds that happen _AFTER_ them. So, in my speaker example, you probably wouldn't notice that few milliseconds of quiet 5 kHz noise right after the 2 kHz test signal stops if it was all happening in music. _HOWEVER_, do we know for sure how well some extra ringing would be masked if we heard the distortion _BEFORE THE LOUD SIGNAL IT GOES WITH?_ This is what "pre-ringing" is... it's ringing that happens _BEFORE_ the signal. And the question of how well a loud sound masks us from _PERCIEVING_ a quieter distortion sound that occurs _BEFORE_ a louder legitimate signal, which our ears have already "processed", really isn't thoroughly enough understood yet to say for sure. (The current "apodizing filters" are based on the theory that ringing after the signal is well masked, but ringing before the signal is audible and annoying, so it sounds better to "trade" and get rid of the pre-ringing at the expense of extra post-ringing. Many major players, including Dolby Labs, are quite convinced that this theory is true - and _IT_ is what we're discussing here.)
> 
> ...



Temporal masking was discussed on another thread last year iirc.

From this Wiki: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking

Note, the Wiki makes no mention of the page having issues, which it normally does if some or all content is controversial, so I'm assuming this is all scientifically verifiable content.

"Temporal masking or non-simultaneous masking occurs when a sudden stimulus sound makes inaudible other sounds which are present immediately preceding or following the stimulus. Masking which obscures a sound immediately preceding the masker is called backward masking or pre-masking and masking which obscures a sound immediately following the masker is called forward masking or post-masking.[5] Temporal masking's effectiveness attenuates exponentially from the onset and offset of the masker, with the onset attenuation lasting approximately 20 ms and the offset attenuation lasting approximately 100 ms.

Similar to simultaneous masking, temporal masking reveals the frequency analysis performed by the auditory system; forward masking thresholds for complex harmonic tones (e.g., a sawtooth probe with a fundamental frequency of 500 Hz) exhibit threshold peaks (i.e., high masking levels) for frequency bands centered on the first several harmonics. In fact, auditory bandwidths measured from forward masking thresholds are narrower and more accurate than those measured using simultaneous masking.

Temporal masking should not be confused with the ear's acoustic reflex, an involuntary response in the middle ear that is activated to protect the ear's delicate structures from loud sounds."

The durations mentioned seem a lot longer than anything being discussed in this thread.


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> ok noob question:
> if I record a test tone and apply an EQ at different levels(maybe one simulating analog EQ and one with minimum phase?) and then just change the gain so that the loudness stays the same on each recorded sample. wouldn't I end up with a lousy practical way to abx those stuff for cheap?


 
  
 What exactly do you want to test?


----------



## bigshot

The gold plated example of putting the cart before the horse in audio is jitter. Everyone proposed theories about how jitter was a heretofore unmeasured form of distortion, and attributed all sorts of  anecdotal subjective impressions to it. Manufactures even rushed out to build ultra-low jitter DACs and audiophiles spent large amounts of money to get equipment with low jitter ratings.
  
 NO ONE BOTHERED TO CHECK IF IT WAS AUDIBLE FIRST.
  
 Then a few years down the road, controlled tests are done and it's found that the levels of jitter in even the cheapest digital players is as much as 100 TIMES below the threshold of audibility. Jitter is a great theory. But who the hell cares if it isn't audible? Why didn't the people who were beating the drum for jitter early on do a simple test to see how audible it is? Because they were more interested in stamping "NEW AND IMPROVED!" on the box of their product than they actually were in building something that actually sounded better.
  
 Trying to fix problems before determining if a problem actually exists first is totally backwards.


----------



## KeithEmo

roly1650 said:


> Temporal masking was discussed on another thread last year iirc.
> 
> From this Wiki: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking
> 
> ...


 
  
 Quite so.... however, one should always remember that, just because something is stated on Wikipedia, and isn't actively disputed, does not establish it incontrovertibly as absolute and unquestionable truth. (This is the same information which is used to "prove" that we can't possibly hear the difference between MP3 files and uncompressed audio, because the errors and omissions deliberately introduced by the compression process are all supposed to be masked so we can;t hear them, and that claim is being challenged by lots of people at the moment.)
  
 If WikiPedia had existed a thousand years ago, it would have stated that the Earth was flat (and seventy five years ago it would have stated absolutely that matter was composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons).


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> Of course that wasn't what I was saying, but feel free to have that impression if you'd like.
> 
> But let's say I hear something and for some reason it doesn't manifest itself in measured frequency balance, relative volume levels, added noise or differences in sound.
> 
> ...


 
  
 My point is that there are many different things which can be measured - measuring THD, frequency response, and S/N ratio is really just cherry picking a few of them. The differences I'm talking about are quite easy to measure, so they are indeed quite real - the only thing in question is whether they are audible. Since a lot of people, from my beer buddies, to Dolby Labs, to most of the DAC manufacturers currently in business, seem to believe that they are also audible, it seems to be a reasonable assumption - at least enough so to justify doing actual tests.
  
 I've done my tests, and I can hear differences in the different settings (at least on my equipment, and with the several DACs I have with switches).
  
 Now, as for why someone would include a "make it sound different switch" - that answer is easy - and not at all technical.
 1) Some people believe certain filter types are more accurate with certain types of music, so they use different filters for Jazz than they would for Rock.
 2) Some people believe that the certain specific sound of a given filter will better complement their other components - or their whole system in general.
 3) Some people simply like choices and seem to derive great enjoyment experimenting with them.
  
 And, since it's a relatively cheap feature to include, manufacturers are going to include it. (As long as some customer considers it to be a valuable feature, it will sell more product if it's included, which is all the incentive any sane manufacturer needs to include it.)
  
 Personally, I agree with you; I would rather have one filter that's accurate and simply use it.
 (And, as I've mentioned elsewhere, while I do hear differences, I don't consider them to be especially significant -
 except in a few cases where certain choices sound obviously and deliberately "off".)


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> Convinced the theory is true, but without actually putting the theory to the test.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> se


 

 I'm guessing Dolby probably ran a few tests.... but I haven't seen them published....


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Trying to fix problems before determining if a problem actually exists first is totally backwards.




But that's the foundation upon which much of "high end" is built.

se


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> Now, as for why someone would include a "make it sound different switch" - that answer is easy - and not at all technical.
> 1) Some people believe certain filter types are more accurate with certain types of music, so they use different filters for Jazz than they would for Rock.


 
  
 Can you please explain why accurate sound reproduction for one genre of music would be different than accurate sound reproduction for another?
  


keithemo said:


> My point is that there are many different things which can be measured - measuring THD, frequency response, and S/N ratio is really just cherry picking a few of them. The differences I'm talking about are quite easy to measure, so they are indeed quite real


 
  
 Are you aware that in the past few posts, you have gone back and forth between "the distortion I am talking about is measurable" to "these forms of distortion don't show up in measurements" and back again?
  
 If you would like me to recommend some players that have accurate DACs without audible distortion of any kind, I'd be happy to do it. I have a house full of them here.


----------



## RRod

For fun, here is an example. This is a clipped out clap of thunder, with a bit of pure silence put in before it. There are three files:
 t.wav = original
 u.wav = upsample to 176400 then back down to 44100, using a *maximum* phase filter each way in SoX
 d.wav = difference file
  
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwmVtb5IwniEdE1iX2NWU0xoX0k/view?usp=sharing


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Can you please explain why accurate sound reproduction for one genre of music would be different than accurate sound reproduction for another?




_You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means._ —Inigo Montoya

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> I'm guessing Dolby probably ran a few tests.... but I haven't seen them published....




Might be instructive to ask them.

se


----------



## lamode

bigshot said:


> The gold plated example of putting the cart before the horse in audio is jitter. Everyone proposed theories about how jitter was a heretofore unmeasured form of distortion, and attributed all sorts of  anecdotal subjective impressions to it. Manufactures even rushed out to build ultra-low jitter DACs and audiophiles spent large amounts of money to get equipment with low jitter ratings.
> 
> NO ONE BOTHERED TO CHECK IF IT WAS AUDIBLE FIRST.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm really missing your 'like' button.


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> Can you please explain why accurate sound reproduction for one genre of music would be different than accurate sound reproduction for another?
> 
> 
> Are you aware that in the past few posts, you have gone back and forth between "the distortion I am talking about is measurable" to "these forms of distortion don't show up in measurements" and back again?
> ...


 
  
 1) As far as I'm concerned, reproduction should simply be accurate. However, I can see how, if you're going to settle for huge flaws, different flaws would be more problematic for different types of music. For example, a speaker that has no output below 50 Hz will work just fine for solo flute music, but not so well for pipe organ, and a speaker that produces midrange well, but not low or high frequencies, might sound good on vocals, but very bad with cymbals or bass drums. I stated that "some people feel this way" and, as a manufacturer, the simple fact that some of your market wants something is sufficient justification to provide it to them - whether I think it's important or not.
  
 2) If you read carefully, you'll see that I haven't gone back and forth at all. What I said was that we're talking about an easily measurable form of distortion that doesn't show up on static THD, S/N, and frequency response measurements. Our (current) Audio Precision test sets have a long list of tests they can perform, and several of them address impulse and transient response, which is considered to be an important consideration for both audio and non-audio applications. (I'm trying to respond to whomever it is who keeps insisting that "if it doesn't show up on THD, noise, or frequency response graphs, then it isn't real".)
  
 3) No thanks, I already have several very nice - and very accurate - DACs (all of which have THD down in the triple zeros, and S/N in the above 120's, and frequency response that is very flat, and many of which even sound quite similar.) Emotiva, who I work for, currently makes five DAC models, three of which offer switchable filters, and several other products which include high-quality DACs, and we have the AP test gear that easily measures both the standard THD, S/N, and frequency response, and other things like impulse response.)


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> But that's the foundation upon which much of "high end" is built.
> 
> se


 
  
 Not all improvement are solutions to specific problems....
  
 Most people seem to agree that cars are a more efficient form of transportation than horses. However, I suspect that most people a century ago didn't actually believe that horses had some sort of problem that needed fixing. 
  
 Or, to look at it from the opposite direction, unless your audio system is accurate enough that you can never, under any circumstances, tell the difference between a recording and the original performance, then it still does have a "problem" that needs fixing.
  
 Some of "high end" is legitimately based on an attempt to improve the quality of audio reproduction; virtually all of it is based on a desire to produce a product which can be sold (it's called staying in business); and, luckily for us, a significant fraction of it manages to do both. (And, unfortunately, some of it is _ONLY_ based on selling a product - whether it works or not.)


----------



## sonitus mirus

It sounds like a DAC with multiple filters is attempting to do the job of an EQ.  Personally, I never want a "bass boost" or any other obtrusive filter applied on my DAC.


----------



## prot

lamode said:


> I'm really missing your 'like' button.




Me too. bigshot maybe you should talk to a forum admin, yours are the only posts without a like-button.


----------



## castleofargh

rrod said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > ok noob question:
> ...


 

 well from my understanding the higher the EQ value, the higher the ringing from it, so maybe use that to see if I can notice something and then go on to check the resulting encoding(with EQ) to see how much ringing could be called audible? but maybe that isn't the same kind as what's happening when rolling off the high freqs? or do I need several tones or white noise, in which case I will just end up hearing the FR change ? 
 I already tried to hear the samples made on hydrogen with brickwall filter vs smoother ones, but I can't say it really opened my eyes on anything. so I guess I'm looking for something drastic that would become my positive reference. to get what else there is apart from maybe FR roll off, and understand what I should hear.
 a little like with jitter where having some very ludicrously massive jitter in a track can help get the idea of what it would sound like when it's really at and audible level.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> Not all improvement are solutions to specific problems....




If an improvement isn't the result of a solution to a problem, I'm at something of a loss as to the context you use the word "improvement."




> Most people seem to agree that cars are a more efficient form of transportation than horses. However, I suspect that most people a century ago didn't actually believe that horses had some sort of problem that needed fixing.




Don't see any germane analogy here at all.




> Or, to look at it from the opposite direction, unless your audio system is accurate enough that you can never, under any circumstances, tell the difference between a recording and the original performance, then it still does have a "problem" that needs fixing.




Well here we are discussing the reproduction side of the equation where the recording is already a given.




> Some of "high end" is legitimately based on an attempt to improve the quality of audio reproduction; virtually all of it is based on a desire to produce a product which can be sold (it's called staying in business); and, luckily for us, a significant fraction of it manages to do both. (And, unfortunately, some of it is _ONLY_ based on selling a product - whether it works or not.)




I think there are some advances to be made with regard to transducers, but in the electrical domain, I haven't seen anything that needs fixing for quite some time.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

prot said:


> Me too. bigshot maybe you should talk to a forum admin, yours are the only posts without a like-button.




It was the forum admins who intentionally took it away.

Maybe if we all just reply to his posts individually with big thumbs up graphics, they'll put it back. 

se


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> well from my understanding the higher the EQ value, the higher the ringing from it, so maybe use that to see if I can notice something and then go on to check the resulting encoding(with EQ) to see how much ringing could be called audible? but maybe that isn't the same kind as what's happening when rolling off the high freqs? or do I need several tones or white noise, in which case I will just end up hearing the FR change ?
> I already tried to hear the samples made on hydrogen with brickwall filter vs smoother ones, but I can't say it really opened my eyes on anything. so I guess I'm looking for something drastic that would become my positive reference. to get what else there is apart from maybe FR roll off, and understand what I should hear.
> a little like with jitter where having some very ludicrously massive jitter in a track can help get the idea of what it would sound like when it's really at and audible level.


 
  
 See my previous thunder example. You really can't hear any pre-ring because we're still doing things at a high rate, and the amplitudes are highest for frequencies near Nyquist.
  
 Now say I do the following: take the original sample, then resample to 11025 back to 44100, both times with a sharp maximum phase filter. Now you CAN hear a pre-ring:
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwmVtb5IwniEQmg4WGtMclg3MzA/view?usp=sharing
  
 You'll hear it as a short, high-ish pitch whistle before the (now crappy sounding) thunder. The lower rate means that the amplitudes of the more-audible frequencies are now higher, and a sharp cutoff means that the ringing lasts longer. These together = actual audible pre-ring.
  
 p.s. sox incantation to make that:
 sox t.wav lo.wav rate -p 100 -b 99 11025 rate -p 100 -b 99 44100


----------



## Roly1650

keithemo said:


> Quite so.... however, one should always remember that, just because something is stated on Wikipedia, and isn't actively disputed, does not establish it incontrovertibly as absolute and unquestionable truth. (This is the same information which is used to "prove" that we can't possibly hear the difference between MP3 files and uncompressed audio, because the errors and omissions deliberately introduced by the compression process are all supposed to be masked so we can;t hear them, and that claim is being challenged by lots of people at the moment.)
> 
> If WikiPedia had existed a thousand years ago, it would have stated that the Earth was flat (and seventy five years ago it would have stated absolutely that matter was composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons).



Oh no, say it isn't so! Why do normally sane and sensible posters insist on trotting out the dog eared old flat earth argument? The fact is the Greeks deduced the earth wasn't flat in about 500BC and the circumference was calculated within 2% in 240 BC. The early Christian church was responsible for the suppression of much scientific knowledge and whatever Wikipedia published 1,000 years ago would have been entirely dependent on how courageous the editor was feeling, the church tended to do nasty, painful things to you if you didn't toe the party line. The fact is, the church dragged civilization into the Dark Ages with the subsequent loss of millennia of scientific knowledge. As you don't trust Wiki, I'll let you do your own research.

As for the numbers in the article I linked to, they were arrived at through scientific research, anybody disputing them is free to do their own research, the operative word being research, not if, maybe and perhaps, a considered opinion is still only an opinion. And whoever claimed science had the definitive word, new research replaces what went before, but again, the operative word is research.


----------



## RRod

Do you know much more about this "pre-masking". Is there some mechanism for this that affects human hearing?


----------



## lamode

keithemo said:


> However, I suspect that most people a century ago didn't actually believe that horses had some sort of problem that needed fixing.


 
  
 So you think a delivery by horse was never late, or no-one ever complained that a journey by horse-drawn carriage took too long? Seriously? The ideal travel time is 0 seconds. Anything more than that can be improved upon.
  
 However this is all a convenient distraction from the main point which is that if something is inaudible, there isn't a problem, no matter how it measures. And I really don't understand why people keep attacking the state-of-the-art in DAC technology when over 99% of the distortion and FR anomalies in your system will come from the transducers, not the electronics!


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> No thanks, I already have several very nice - and very accurate - DACs (all of which have THD down in the triple zeros, and S/N in the above 120's, and frequency response that is very flat, and many of which even sound quite similar.)


 
  
 Why do you need specs on your equipment that are an order of magnitude below your ears' ability to hear? And why do you *still* hear differences between your DACs?


----------



## KeithEmo

lamode said:


> So you think a delivery by horse was never late, or no-one ever complained that a journey by horse-drawn carriage took too long? Seriously? The ideal travel time is 0 seconds. Anything more than that can be improved upon.
> 
> However this is all a convenient distraction from the main point which is that if something is inaudible, there isn't a problem, no matter how it measures. And I really don't understand why people keep attacking the state-of-the-art in DAC technology when over 99% of the distortion and FR anomalies in your system will come from the transducers, not the electronics!


 
  
 Exactly. (But then cars aren't always on time either, and I'm not sure they had fifty_ horse_ pileups on the freeway.)
  
 My point was that most people though horses were "good enough", yet there was clearly room for improvement. And, back before airplanes became common, most people thought ground transportation was "good enough". Likewise, many people thought the cylinder phonograph was "good enough", and the FAX wasn't developed as a consumer technology for decades because nobody saw a need for it. And now many people think that the current state of the art in amplifiers, or DACs, is "good enough". I personally have never heard a stereo system that was so perfect that I literally couldn't ever tell the difference between it and a real live performance. Therefore, there is also room for improvement there.
  
 In fact, I still know quite a few people who've never flown, and so probably don't see a need for air transport. There are a lot of people claiming to hear differences between components for a lot of reasons, and I'm personally inclined to believe that about half of the time it's all in their heads (one way or the other). The bottom line is that, if you honestly can't hear any difference between different DACs, they you can save a lot of effort and time by _NOT_ shopping for one you like. (Just as someone who can't taste any difference between Mad Dog and a $100 bottle of wine can save a lot of money on their booze bill.)
  
 As to why DACs are currently so popular as a topic of conversation - I would put that down to what amounts to a fad... just like people currently seem obsessed with gluten in food and global warming. I personally find the differences between DACs to be audible enough to "matter" to me; the DAC I'm listening to now sounds audibly better (to me) than the one it replaced - and that's enough justification to me.
 If you don't agree, then that's one less thing you have to worry about 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 (I'm certainly not going to suggest that you should spend money trying to achieve a fix for a problem you aren't experiencing.)


----------



## bigshot

prot said:


> Me too. @bigshot maybe you should talk to a forum admin, yours are the only posts without a like-button.


 
  
 I don't see like buttons on anyone. I didn't realize that I was the only one. Well, I didn't ask for that, and I didn't ask for the pixie dust comment under my name either. There are several significant keywords that pull up my posts at HeadFi at the top of a Google search. I bring them traffic. You would think that HeadFi would appreciate my contributions here. But go figure. I guess I'm "unlikeable".


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> (I'm certainly not going to suggest that you should spend money trying to achieve a fix for a problem you aren't experiencing.)


 
  
 But obviously you have experienced problems with DACs. You don't know which one is accurate. They all sound different to you. Wouldn't it be best to know exactly why that is so you can directly address the problem instead of just guessing and coming up with theories about which one is best that you aren't interested in proving or disproving?
  
 If I heard differences in DACs, I wouldn't say, "Oh good, now I get to pick the one I like best!" I would say, "Oh crap. Which one of these DACs is accurate and which one isn't." But I work in the film business, and it's my job to figure stuff like that out so it doesn't end up biting me in the rear. If you really don't care about accuracy, that's fine. But if you don't care about accuracy, you shouldn't pay attention to the number of zeros behind the decimal point in the specs, and you shouldn't be spending a whole lot of money on your stereo equipment. Accuracy is a difficult goal to strive for. Just accepting whatever sounds good to you at the time should be easy.


----------



## Ruben123

Isnt it a better idea to discuss about myths and claims in a seperate topic (per claim) and post the results here?


----------



## bigshot

DACs have been ABX tested in the past. Just google "ABX DAC".


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> Why do you need specs on your equipment that are an order of magnitude below your ears' ability to hear? And why do you *still* hear differences between your DACs?


 
  
 I don't need that extra performance, and I could happily give up a significant degree of the performance on those three particular specs and still be totally happy (although, considering that a DAC with a THD of 0.003% doesn't cost more than one with a THD of 0.03%, I suppose being better than necessary couldn't hurt.) None of this has anything to do with the fact that you keep insisting that, if those three measurements are good enough, none of the other dozens of measurements that can be taken can possibly matter, or be audible. Why are you so convinced that none of the other differences, at least some of which can be easily measured and demonstrated, couldn't possibly be audible?
  
 I personally probably couldn't tell the difference between a real Van Gogh and a $500 forgery. And, if I were to take pictures of both with the camera in my phone, I'm not sure anyone could tell the difference from those pictures. Does that mean that the real Van Gogh can't possibly be any different from the forgery, or does it just mean that I either can't see, or don't notice, the things that make them different... and that the camera in my phone just isn't good enough to record it?
  
 As to why I hear a difference between different DACs - well, since the measurements show that the difference is really there, perhaps my hearing is better than you think it should be...


----------



## lamode

keithemo said:


> My point was that most people though horses were "good enough", yet there was clearly room for improvement.


 
  
 Ok, but I hope you can agree that after a certain point there is no room for improvement. In this context, once error becomes inaudible to human hearing. Then it is not just good enough, but impossible to improve upon.


----------



## KeithEmo

lamode said:


> Ok, but I hope you can agree that after a certain point there is no room for improvement. In this context, once error becomes inaudible to human hearing. Then it is not just good enough, but impossible to improve upon.


 
  
 Agreed.... once it reaches a point where no human being can be shown to hear any difference whatsoever, then there's no compelling reason to improve it. (There's still the matter of aesthetics... even if you don't "need" the accuracy, a watch that's accurate to 1 second a year would still be "technically better" than one that's only accurate to ten seconds a year. However, I would separate that from "a useful difference".)
  
 The problem is that a few tests that show that a certain sample of people failed to hear a specific difference, using certain equipment and certain source material, and under specific conditions, doesn't prove that "nobody anywhere can ever hear it". Most people can't hear if a guitar is a tiny bit out of tune, and that includes me, yet there are a few people who can apparently do so quite easily. However, as long as one person out there can hear it, you can't claim that "it's inaudible". Likewise, obviously most people don't hear anything wrong with the quality of the AAC compressed music they sell on the iTunes store, but that doesn't mean that _nobody_ can hear the difference. It just means that enough people can't hear it that it isn't a factor on their yearly sales figures.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> None of this has anything to do with the fact that you keep insisting that, if those three measurements are good enough, none of the other dozens of measurements that can be taken can possibly matter, or be audible. Why are you so convinced that none of the other differences, at least some of which can be easily measured and demonstrated, couldn't possibly be audible?


 
  
 Because...
  
 1) I have done controlled listening tests between DACs and I have never experienced any audible difference between them
 2) I've read reports online of other people doing controlled listening tests of DACs and they all found the same thing
 3) The specs for DACs that we measure and judge them by are all far beyond the established thresholds of audibility
 4) Science has been studying sound for over a century and has been able to perfectly record and playback sound in the past. Although it is possible there are still more things to learn, it isn't likely that what remains to be discovered is fundamental to reproducing music in the home
 5) I know that my own subjective impressions can be very misleading, so I see value in controlled testing
 6) The people who claim to hear a difference between DACs all seem to be people who aren't particularly interested in testing their subjective impressions
  
 What are the reasons why I should think otherwise?


----------



## analogsurviver

An interesting and informative view on DSD and PCM:
  
 http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-thorsten-loesch-amrifi-audiostream-addendum-pcm-vs-dsd


----------



## StanD

keithemo said:


> I don't need that extra performance, and I could happily give up a significant degree of the performance on those three particular specs and still be totally happy (although, considering that a DAC with a THD of 0.003% doesn't cost more than one with a THD of 0.03%, I suppose being better than necessary couldn't hurt.) None of this has anything to do with the fact that you keep insisting that, if those three measurements are good enough, none of the other dozens of measurements that can be taken can possibly matter, or be audible. Why are you so convinced that none of the other differences, at least some of which can be easily measured and demonstrated, couldn't possibly be audible?
> 
> I personally probably couldn't tell the difference between a real Van Gogh and a $500 forgery. And, if I were to take pictures of both with the camera in my phone, I'm not sure anyone could tell the difference from those pictures. Does that mean that the real Van Gogh can't possibly be any different from the forgery, or does it just mean that I either can't see, or don't notice, the things that make them different... and that the camera in my phone just isn't good enough to record it?
> 
> As to why I hear a difference between different DACs - well, since the measurements show that the difference is really there, perhaps my hearing is better than you think it should be...


 
 Another bad analogy. You comparison of art skills is more like a layperson comparing the fine details of composition for classical or some other specialization of music.
 Comparing hearing SQ to vision is not valid either.
 Is your eyesight near sighted or far sighted or do you have a touch of astigmatism? Hearing defects are different and the loss of hearing in the higher treble region cannot be equated to visual deficiences.
 By the way the human JDD for THD is far higher than 0.03%.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> The problem is that a few tests that show that a certain sample of people failed to hear a specific difference, using certain equipment and certain source material, and under specific conditions, doesn't prove that "nobody anywhere can ever hear it".


 
  
 And I suppose it could be said that just because the sun rose in the East and set in the West today, it doesn't mean it's going to do that tomorrow.


----------



## headdict

bigshot said:


> I don't see like buttons on anyone. I didn't realize that I was the only one. Well, I didn't ask for that, and I didn't ask for the pixie dust comment under my name either. There are several significant keywords that pull up my posts at HeadFi at the top of a Google search. I bring them traffic. You would think that HeadFi would appreciate my contributions here. But go figure. I guess I'm "unlikeable".


 

 There's still the red flag button at the bottom of your posts, in case you don't behave. And you can be followed. At least there's a follow button in your profile.


----------



## bigshot

stand said:


> By the way the human JDD for THD is far higher than 0.03%.


 
  
 I'm curious if any audiophiles are aware of how those numbers relate to human hearing.


----------



## bigshot

headdict said:


> There's still the red flag button at the bottom of your posts, in case you don't behave.


 
  
 Well that is a virtual certainty!


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> I'm curious if any audiophiles are aware of how those numbers relate to human hearing.


 
 Sometimes I bring this up in some threads where people claim to hear big difference in amps. Few people acknowledge it, most scoff at it because it would mean their ears are full of Schiit and they can't handle it since they think their ears are golden. Pyrite if you ask me.


----------



## bigshot

If they simply compared the specs of speakers and headphones to amps and DACs, I would think they would realize where problems most likely exist. What is the point of having a distortion rating on a DAC of 10,000 times below the distortion rating of your speakers?


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> If they simply compared the specs of speakers and headphones to amps and DACs, I would think they would realize where problems most likely exist. What is the point of having a distortion rating on a DAC of 10,000 times below the distortion rating of your speakers?


 
 I've brought that up as well, they don't believe me. I really love the claims of bright or dark amps that have flar FR's. Just yesterday I asked for people to identify the property of a paticular amp that makes it bright. No answers, just angry audiophools. There are peope that think they can hear 0.1 dB in an FR.


----------



## Ruben123

You buy a headphone for life, an amp or even better a dap you only buy for few months until you find a better one.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> If they simply compared the specs of speakers and headphones to amps and DACs, I would think they would realize where problems most likely exist. What is the point of having a distortion rating on a DAC of 10,000 times below the distortion rating of your speakers?


 
  
 Once you point this out the argument always becomes that when you chain the DAC and the transducers together, suddenly small differences in the DAC become audible. So they'll say that 0.001% + 1% isn't audible, but 0.002% + 1% is audible, because… I dunno.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> You buy a headphone for life, an amp or even better a dap you only buy for few months until you find a better one.


 
 Sounds like the business plan for botique audio products.


----------



## bigshot

stand said:


> There are peope that think they can hear 0.1 dB in an FR.


 
  
 I had a discussion with one of those guys in the headphone forum once.


----------



## bigshot

> Originally Posted by *RRod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Once you point this out the argument always becomes that when you chain the DAC and the transducers together, suddenly small differences in the DAC become audible. So they'll say that 0.001% + 1% isn't audible, but 0.002% + 1% is audible, because… I dunno.


 
  
 I think the problem is that digital audio doesn't provide any relief for retentive people. In the analogue era washing records compulsively, worrying about generation loss, reducing the number of pieces of equipment in the signal chain, and worrying about layers upon layers of distortion actually meant something. Today all of that is pretty much meaningless. But old habits die hard and people continue to spend all their energy and money trying to solve problems that have long since been solved.
  
 Meanwhile, they deliberately select headphones with V shaped response, refuse to use equalizers, listen to rock music that is engineered like ass, and buy wires that cost 1000 times more than they really should. If people really cared about sound quality, you would think they would base their decisions on carefully controlled listening.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> I think the problem is that digital audio doesn't provide any relief for retentive people. In the analogue era washing records compulsively, worrying about generation loss, reducing the number of pieces of equipment in the signal chain, and worrying about layers upon layers of distortion actually meant something. Today all of that is pretty much meaningless. But old habits die hard and people continue to spend all their energy and money trying to solve problems that have long since been solved.
> 
> Meanwhile, they deliberately select headphones with V shaped response, refuse to use equalizers, listen to rock music that is engineered like ass, and buy wires that cost 1000 times more than they really should. If people really cared about sound quality, you would think they would base their decisions on carefully controlled listening.


 
  
 A++ great service would read again and/or press an available like button.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> I think the problem is that digital audio doesn't provide any relief for retentive people. In the analogue era washing records compulsively, worrying about generation loss, reducing the number of pieces of equipment in the signal chain, and worrying about layers upon layers of distortion actually meant something. Today all of that is pretty much meaningless. But old habits die hard and people continue to spend all their energy and money trying to solve problems that have long since been solved.
> 
> Meanwhile, they deliberately select headphones with V shaped response, refuse to use equalizers, listen to rock music that is engineered like ass, and buy wires that cost 1000 times more than they really should. If people really cared about sound quality, you would think they would base their decisions on carefully controlled listening.


 
 I'd give you a thumbs up but my browser can't resolve the microdetails of your thumbs up button.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> I've brought that up as well, they don't believe me. I really love the claims of bright or dark amps that have flar FR's. Just yesterday I asked for people to identify the property of a paticular amp that makes it bright. No answers, just angry audiophools. There are peope that think they can hear 0.1 dB in an FR.




What bothers me most is that they then spread this thinking to other people who don't know any better. Just today I was helping someone with speaker/receiver setup by PM, and he said, "But isn't Marantz more musical than Denon?" :rolleyes: Not his fault.


----------



## castleofargh

with all the guys who can hear the added precision of 24bit quantization, 0.1db is obviously easy.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> What bothers me most is that they then spread this thinking to other people who don't know any better. Just today I was helping someone with speaker/receiver setup by PM, and he said, "But isn't Marantz more musical than Denon?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I usually try to bring up the truth in threads to protect the innocent. Some of the stupid myths gall me but I remain polite despite some of the rude responses.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> with all the guys who can hear the added precision of 24bit quantization, 0.1db is obviously easy.


 
 These genuises should wear pajamas with a cape and shirt with a red S.


----------



## bigshot

"Lissen to dat DAC!"


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> But obviously you have experienced problems with DACs. You don't know which one is accurate. They all sound different to you. Wouldn't it be best to know exactly why that is so you can directly address the problem instead of just guessing and coming up with theories about which one is best that you aren't interested in proving or disproving?
> 
> If I heard differences in DACs, I wouldn't say, "Oh good, now I get to pick the one I like best!" I would say, "Oh crap. Which one of these DACs is accurate and which one isn't." But I work in the film business, and it's my job to figure stuff like that out so it doesn't end up biting me in the rear. If you really don't care about accuracy, that's fine. But if you don't care about accuracy, you shouldn't pay attention to the number of zeros behind the decimal point in the specs, and you shouldn't be spending a whole lot of money on your stereo equipment. Accuracy is a difficult goal to strive for. Just accepting whatever sounds good to you at the time should be easy.


 
  
 Your first point is quite valid..... and, since all the DACs I've heard differences with have very low THD, very low noise, and very flat frequency response, but different transient response in their filters, that would seem to make the theory that the measured difference might account for the observed difference to be a reasonable theory to be tested, now wouldn't it.
  
 I agree with your second point entirely. Life would be a lot easier if I _didn't_ hear any difference. I used a Benchmark Dac1 Pre for years, which has exemplary specifications, and I was rather disconcerted to hear another DAC, with equally exemplary specs, which sounded noticeably different.
  
 Here's a question for you, since you say you're in the film industry.... Dolby says that the differences are clearly audible, and considers the apodizing filter to be an important selling point of their "Professional Encoder version 2". Do you consider them to be a credible source of information? or are they "just making it up"?


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> Your first point is quite valid..... and, since all the DACs I've heard differences with have very low THD, very low noise, and very flat frequency response, but different transient response in their filters, that would seem to make the theory that the measured difference might account for the observed difference to be a reasonable theory to be tested, now wouldn't it.


 
  
 Do you know what the thresholds of perception of other types of timing error are... for instance what amount of time makes for audible phase shift or jitter? How fast is the fastest transient in music... say a drum hit? How do any of those figures compare to the difference in transient response that you are talking about?
  
 The answer is that it is so small it only even theoretically affects the very top frequencies in the hearing range. Most people can't even hear those frequencies. But that isn't all... not only are we talking about pre-ringing up around 20kHz, we're talking about very low levels of it.
  
 The amount of difference you're talking about here is probably as far from being audible as your .003% THD.
  


keithemo said:


> Here's a question for you, since you say you're in the film industry.... Dolby says that the differences are clearly audible, and considers the apodizing filter to be an important selling point of their "Professional Encoder version 2". Do you consider them to be a credible source of information? or are they "just making it up"?


 
  
 Dolby is VERY good at coming up with NEW AND IMPROVED stamps to stamp on their products. AAC 256 is audibly transparent. CDs are audibly transparent. Do you really think there is an audible difference between DTS Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD? The only differences between them is who gets the royalties for the standard. Producers choose between competing audio formats. The one that gets chosen has more to do with technical reasons like file size and compatibility or promotional perks than it does sound quality.
  
 None of those things matter to a home stereo. Audibly transparent is audibly transparent. Speakers and headphones, signal processing and the quality of the recording itself make MUCH more of a difference than the player or amp. Players and amps should be audibly transparent. If they aren't there is probably something wrong with them- manufacturing defect or poor design.


----------



## bigshot

One quick clarification... I have no doubt that boutique audiophile DACs have switches that audibly alter the sound. But those filters are performing out of spec and correcting inaudible problems in a way that alters the audible range. That means that when you cut in the filter, your flat frequency response isn't flat any more. You are hearing a difference in frequency response, not pre-ringing or the lack of it.
  
 Plain vanilla DACs like you find in iPods, CD players, blu-ray players, etc... even very inexpensive ones are perfectly capable of producing sound without audible levels of pre-ringing. Esoteric filters are a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, just like jitter.


----------



## knucklehead

steve eddy said:


> keithemo said:
> 
> 
> > However, I suspect that most people a century ago didn't actually believe that horses had some sort of problem that needed fixing.
> ...





>


 
 Here's the analogy:
  
 http://factually.gizmodo.com/in-1893-2-5-million-pounds-of-horse-manure-filled-nyc-1603208434
  
 When someone endlessly suspects, guesses, and groundlessly hypothesizes in a thread that's supposed to be about actually testing claims, it fills up with horse ----!


----------



## StanD

knucklehead said:


> Here's the analogy:
> 
> http://factually.gizmodo.com/in-1893-2-5-million-pounds-of-horse-manure-filled-nyc-1603208434
> 
> When someone endlessly suspects, guesses, and groundlessly hypothesizes in a thread that's supposed to be about actually testing claims, it fills up with horse ----!


 
 Why is it when someone dumps a load of *B*S in a post, another person blames it on horses? I say horses are smarter than most audiophiles.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> Here's a question for you, since you say you're in the film industry.... Dolby says that the differences are clearly audible, and considers the apodizing filter to be an important selling point of their "Professional Encoder version 2". Do you consider them to be a credible source of information? or are they "just making it up"?




Key phrase being "Dolby says..." Not even Einstein got away with "Einstein says..."

What has Dolby done to actually _demonstrate_ that said differences are audible? 

Harman International resorted to flat out fraud in a video they recently produced. The video even featured one of their head researchers, Sean Olive, who, along with Floyd Toole I had a lot of respect for. Not that Sean said anything that was fraudulent, rather he was featured in a video that was fraudulent in order to give it greater credibility. 

se


----------



## castleofargh

steve eddy said:


> when posting your thoughts on the internet, pretend like it's an Allan Poe quote


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> An interesting and informative view on DSD and PCM:
> 
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-thorsten-loesch-amrifi-audiostream-addendum-pcm-vs-dsd


 
  
 Meh... flawed article. There are posts here which are far more accurate and useful.


----------



## MusicMate

Hi everyone, First post here!
 I am wondering what is the sample rate/but depth which if you go beyond you won't notice the difference. 
 I want to save space on my hard disk, But on the other hand i want good quality.
 I will appreciate your advice
 Cheers


----------



## RRod

musicmate said:


> Hi everyone, First post here!
> I am wondering what is the sample rate/but depth which if you go beyond you won't notice the difference.
> I want to save space on my hard disk, But on the other hand i want good quality.
> I will appreciate your advice
> Cheers


 
  
 16bit/44.1ksamples


----------



## MusicMate

Really? I thought myself it was Maybe 96Khz. It is just that i myself find most of the recordings in that sample rate range of a higher quality. What i find in them as a much "tighter" sound.
 Does someone agree?
 I know this topic is quite subjective and there are many psychological elements involved.


----------



## RRod

musicmate said:


> Really? I thought myself it was Maybe 96Khz. It is just that i myself find most of the recordings in that sample rate range of a higher quality. What i find in them as a much "tighter" sound.
> Does someone agree?


 
  
 Many do, it's just that a good part of this thread is dedicated to how they are wrong ^_^


----------



## MusicMate

Yeah, Right


----------



## MusicMate

I think that maybe sample rates above 88kHz or 96kHz are not needed, But i myself think that 88kHz will sound better than 44.1kHz,
 But it's not based upon testing


----------



## RRod

musicmate said:


> I think that maybe sample rates above 88kHz or 96kHz are not needed, But i myself think that 88kHz will sound better than 44.1kHz,
> But it's not based upon testing


 
 The best thing to do is to take some tracks you like at 88 or 96, downsample them to 44.1, then back up, and see if you can hear a difference (especially in a blind test).


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> Meh... flawed article. There are posts here which are far more accurate and useful.


 
 Then please post a link to them - there are LOTS of them floating around, none of which try to present DSD and PCM in so fair light. There are actual pieces of equipment that used to be utilized by most - so at least in this way the article is anything but flawed. And having worked with them, having measured them, having listened to them and eventually building his own DACs goes a little longer than some theoreticizing - from anybody - including the likes of Lipschitz. As much as I like his papers on RIAA networks, his digital is a fair cut below that landmark achievement.


----------



## MusicMate

Sorry for the lack of knowledge, But could you please tell me which software to use to downsample my files?
 Also what do you think about DSD? I find it more neutral and real, Maybe a little artificial.. But i like it.


----------



## MusicMate

You have 1080 posts, RRod, It's a cool number


----------



## MusicMate

Now you have to get to 1920!


----------



## RRod

musicmate said:


> Now you have to get to 1920!


 
  
 Hopefully not 44100 ^_^
  
 If you use Foobar, you can try the various plugins for it. I like to use SoX, but it's command line to people shy away. Others who use Winders™ might have other options.


----------



## MusicMate

How do i install it? It is a dll file. Foobar doesn't let me install it as a vst, Nor as a component of course. I tried to restart foobar and nothing..


----------



## MusicMate

Oh, Just found it. I moved it to the active DSPs and try it out


----------



## MusicMate

Okay, I tried it. Unfortunately i don't have someone with me right now to blind test me but i'll do it tomorrow. Too many psychological elements are involved right now so i am really not objective, But i find the 192kHz version to sound maybe a little "tigher" and clearer than the 44.1kHz, But by a very small margin.
 I'll do some more testing tomorrow.
 Thanks for the help!


----------



## RRod

musicmate said:


> Okay, I tried it. Unfortunately i don't have someone with me right now to blind test me but i'll do it tomorrow. Too many psychological elements are involved right now so i am really not objective, But i find the 192kHz version to sound maybe a little "tigher" and clearer than the 44.1kHz, But by a very small margin.
> I'll do some more testing tomorrow.
> Thanks for the help!


 
  
 No prob. You might as well try the Foobar ABX plugin too; that should obviate the need for a friend to help.


----------



## MusicMate

Actually i experience something very odd-I am listening to a DXD track,And i think it sounded even better when it was downsampled to 192kHz, It sounded fuller.
 That's weird


----------



## bigshot

musicmate said:


> I think that maybe sample rates above 88kHz or 96kHz are not needed, But i myself think that 88kHz will sound better than 44.1kHz,
> But it's not based upon testing


 

 Human hearing extends to 20kHz. 44.1 extends to 22kHz. 96 extends to 46kHz. Why would you need a full octave of sound your ears can't even hear. Within the range of human hearing 16/44.1 covers everything you can hear perfectly.


----------



## MusicMate

Maybe we don't hear it, But we feel it. Sound waves are vibrations. I don't know if it is true, But it may be


----------



## bigshot

It isn't true. Ultra high frequencies do not affect the sound quality of music.


----------



## MusicMate

It's interesting, The resampler is actually changing the sound, It's nice.
 What resampler do you think sound the best?


----------



## headwhacker

musicmate said:


> Sorry for the lack of knowledge, But could you please tell me which software to use to downsample my files?
> Also what do you think about DSD? I find it more neutral and real, Maybe a little artificial.. But i like it.


 
  
  


rrod said:


> Hopefully not 44100 ^_^
> 
> If you use Foobar, you can try the various plugins for it. I like to use SoX, but it's command line to people shy away. Others who use Winders™ might have other options.


 
  
 If you use Mac XLD is a nice frontend that use SOX plugin.


----------



## MusicMate

bigshot said:


> It isn't true. Ultra high frequencies do not affect the sound quality of music.


 
 And what if my dog listens to my headphones?
 Come on people, Stop thinking only about yourselves


----------



## MusicMate

You didn't tell me what you think about DSD yet..!


----------



## castleofargh

musicmate said:


> You didn't tell me what you think about DSD yet..!


 

 it's a stupid format that shouldn't exist. people don't like that I call it stupid but when you look how complicated it is to record, impossible to master, complicated to rip. and for no major resolution gain over PCM, stupid really is the fitting word.
 and once you realize that most albums started as PCM, were remastered in PCM and only after got converted to the"superior" DSD for the release...  I start to feel like "stupid" was still too kind a word.


----------



## bigshot

musicmate said:


> And what if my dog listens to my headphones?


 
  
 My dog can save up and buy her own headphones!


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> it's a stupid format that shouldn't exist.


 
  
 I'm pushing the imaginary LIKE button I see in my mind's eye


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > it's a stupid format that shouldn't exist.
> ...


 

 I wonder if I should report you for this, the imaginary like isn't a toy people should abuse.


----------



## bigshot

You've summoned the demon! I will be banned for a week!


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> it's a stupid format that shouldn't exist. people don't like that I call it stupid but when you look how complicated it is to record, impossible to master, complicated to rip. and for no major resolution gain over PCM, stupid really is the fitting word.
> and once you realize that most albums started as PCM, were remastered in PCM and only after got converted to the"superior" DSD for the release...  I start to feel like "stupid" was still too kind a word.


 
 DSD is no more complicated to record as PCM - you need a decent recorder anyway, regardless of format it records in.
  
 It is impossible to master natively in 1 bit - but it is possible to edit it in DXD (8bit) and only the region around the edit point is affected - the rest can be maintained in pure DSD - yielding >90% ( unless the recording is an infinite string of edits...) pure DSD recording even after editing.
  
 Ripping DSD is no more difficult to rip than WAV - only on SACD it was intentionally encripted to stop the tide of copying the music from the CDs - which almost killed the whole music industry. Now - if whatever YOU do for living, could be replaced by copying it on a computer illegally and for free - would YOU endorse it ?
  
 I agree that recording in PCM and then only release it in DSD is not the way to go. DSD came into being for archiving the analog tapes - which it does better than PCM.
 Also, native DSD recordings in at least DSD128 offer better sonics than PCM - but they have to be played back natively too. No PCM anywhere in the chain (except for edit points, if it can not be avoided ).
  
 The reason it is - or it was - not done that way is high cost of equipment that can work with DSD. DAWs and software supporting DSD are anything but common and, being state of the art, can not be expected to be cheap. There is almost zero second hand options available in the market. For this reason, all my DSD recordings so far were mastered in PCM 192/32 float and then bounced down to CD for the release. But finances permitting, I would go to DSD/DXD capable editing in a heartbeat.
  
 The reason that DSD is so fiercely opposed is the fact that recording engineers got spoiled by limitless possibilities to manipulate the signal using DSP - which is PCM based and can not work with DSD. Meaning plugins on plugins.... on plugins made for PCM DAWs can no longer be used - thus forcing the engineers to get the sound they are after on the spot -not days, years or decades later in the post production. 
  
 PCM has allowed for the most treacherous "photoshop" in the history of music - given enough time=money, one could record anybody - and in post production "fix" her or him into an enjoyable listening experience. Not numerous are those musicians, who after learning to which degree the mistakes in their playing can be fixed in
 the post production, will be bold and brave and honest enough to allow an unedited recording to be released.
  
 Those who are good enough to be recorded in one go, without stopping, which inevitably means splitting the whole composition from various bits and pieces, are exceedingly rare nowadays. It is becoming a lost art. Although DSD still allows editing within constraints noted above; 
 it is far less manipulation friendly - and thus encourages everybody to be more honest and focused during the making of the recording in the first place.
  
 For this reason, the direct to disk analog recordings are and will remain to be unsurpassed - there is NO way to stop/correct/split/anything - you get to hear it exactly as it was played during the recording - of not only one song, but for the duration of the entire record side (15-25 minutes ). Just like live concert.
  
 McDonalds is forced to close some 700 of its restaurants. Although I feel sorry for the loss of working places - was and is selling such "food" - EVER - a honest way of making a living ? Why can competing fast food chains relatively prosper with their healthier alternative fast food ?
  
 I have always equated CD with McDonalds and vinyl with  restaurant good enough to require booking the table in advance. Not necessary expensive, but requiring more commitment on the part of the user. DSD, if used with discretion, is capable of giving us some part of the lost art back - at relatively reasonable price. 
  
 This is how I see it - and it is reflected in the pure SQ as well. Although no one is stopping anybody of creating honest PCM recordings -
 with all the technical possibilities available, they will NOT get unused...
  
 In this light, being "stupid" is regarded as a positive in my book - if it encourages more honesty in music recording. 
  
 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x217sbb_britney-spears-without-autotune-ouch_lifestyle
  
 This is the younger sister of a friend - singing live on the TV show. I admit I did not take my friend seriously, when she praised the voice of her younger sis - now I  can not wait to hear her live:


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bigshot said:


> > Originally Posted by *RRod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> > Once you point this out the argument always becomes that when you chain the DAC and the transducers together, suddenly small differences in the DAC become audible. So they'll say that 0.001% + 1% isn't audible, but 0.002% + 1% is audible, because… I dunno.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ruben123

We live in the world of gadgets. Why bother about things that really alter the sound as -really- even basic gear sounds excellent. No cardridges, no extra phono pre-amps, no terrible 500 Ohm output impedance amps, no dirty vinyl records or broken cassette tapes.
  
 Back then, those were the things you cared about. Now everything seems to be perfect, there is no thing that needs to be exchanged in even the cheapest setups, combined with the internet which is full of information, you could endlessly upgrade your gear with better stuff that is 0,1% better or maybe even NOT better at all. But because of the weakest link in the chain story SOMEWHERE must be SOMETHING that is not good enough BECAUSE the music SHOULD sound better. Which is not the case most of the time. So then you upgrade your cables, try another amp, get yourself a better CD-player or a better DAP... and thanks to the expectation bias THEY WILL sound better, first few months. After that, the bias doesnt work anymore and you keep looking for another piece of equipment that will lead you to audiophile heaven.
  
 And also dont forget the gadgets. People really care. Every 6 months a new phone, new tablet or new laptop... or new audio stuff because it's cool.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> We live in the world of gadgets. Why bother about things that really alter the sound as -really- even basic gear sounds excellent. No cardridges, no extra phono pre-amps, no terrible 500 Ohm output impedance amps, no dirty vinyl records or broken cassette tapes.
> 
> Back then, those were the things you cared about. Now everything seems to be perfect, there is no thing that needs to be exchanged in even the cheapest setups, combined with the internet which is full of information, you could endlessly upgrade your gear with better stuff that is 0,1% better or maybe even NOT better at all. *But because of the weakest link in the chain* story SOMEWHERE must be SOMETHING that is not good enough BECAUSE the music SHOULD sound better. Which is not the case most of the time. So then you upgrade your cables, try another amp, get yourself a better CD-player or a better DAP... and thanks to the expectation bias THEY WILL sound better, first few months. After that, the bias doesnt work anymore and you keep looking for another piece of equipment that will lead you to audiophile heaven.
> 
> And also dont forget the gadgets. People really care. Every 6 months a new phone, new tablet or new laptop... or new audio stuff because it's cool.


 
 We are the weakest link. Updates are *not* currently available.


----------



## maverickronin

steve eddy said:


> Harman International resorted to flat out fraud in a video they recently produced. The video even featured one of their head researchers, Sean Olive, who, along with Floyd Toole I had a lot of respect for. Not that Sean said anything that was fraudulent, rather he was featured in a video that was fraudulent in order to give it greater credibility.


 
  
  
 Got a link or anything?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

castleofargh said:


> musicmate said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't tell me what you think about DSD yet..!
> ...


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> Got a link or anything?




http://youtu.be/mDZcz-V29_M

The most fraudulent part of the video is during the "demo" portion.




se


----------



## Phishin Phool

steve eddy said:


> http://youtu.be/mDZcz-V29_M
> 
> The most fraudulent part of the video is during the "demo" portion.
> 
> ...


 
 For those of us who are a little slow , exactly what is fraudulent?


----------



## limpidglitch

phishin phool said:


> For those of us who are a little slow , exactly what is fraudulent?


 
  
 They're obviously intentionally conflating data compression and dynamic compression.
  
 MP3 does not compress dynamics (at least if you use a reasonable bit rate).


----------



## maverickronin

steve eddy said:


> http://youtu.be/mDZcz-V29_M
> 
> The most fraudulent part of the video is during the "demo" portion.


 
  
 3 minutes in and I already want to throw up....


----------



## Steve Eddy

phishin phool said:


> For those of us who are a little slow , exactly what is fraudulent?




Well, throughout the video they keep conflating dynamic range compression (see _loudness wars_) with lossy digital data compression (i.e. MP3), even though their intent is the latter (the video is basically just a propaganda piece for Harman's Clari-Fi "technology").

They are two completely different things.

What makes the "demo" portion particularly fraudulent is that the "Compressed Audio" portion of the waveform is NOT using digital data compression, but rather dynamic range compression. Further, they have dramatically reduced its level. With dynamic range compression, it's level would be near the peaks of the "Uncompressed Audio" waveform. That's why dynamic range compressed music sounds louder. But they couldn't have it sound louder because people often perceive louder as being of higher quality. That would have defeated their purpose. So they dishonestly dramatically reduced the level so that the "compressed" version would sound muted and muffled, even on a smartphone speaker.

If you showed the waveforms at the scale they're shown in the video of an uncompressed audio signal and even a 96kbps MP3, the waveforms would look identical.

This was an intentional deception on Harman's part. It's a complete fraud.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

limpidglitch said:


> They're obviously intentionally conflating data compression and dynamic compression.
> 
> MP3 does not compress dynamics (at least if you use a reasonable bit rate).




You won't get it at any bit rate. What they're using is severe dynamic range compression and a severe reduction in level. It's a complete fraud.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> 3 minutes in and I already want to throw up....




Yeah. It's just incredible. If I were Sean Olive, I would have resigned in protest.

se


----------



## Phishin Phool

phishin phool said:


> For those of us who are a little slow , exactly what is fraudulent


 
 Thanks (actually I am at work and my pc doesn't have sound) just after posting I started to read comments that said the same thing data comprssio <> dynamic compression.


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> Do you know what the thresholds of perception of other types of timing error are... for instance what amount of time makes for audible phase shift or jitter? How fast is the fastest transient in music... say a drum hit? How do any of those figures compare to the difference in transient response that you are talking about?
> 
> The answer is that it is so small it only even theoretically affects the very top frequencies in the hearing range. Most people can't even hear those frequencies. But that isn't all... not only are we talking about pre-ringing up around 20kHz, we're talking about very low levels of it.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The short answer to your first question is - No. I've heard different studies quoted about the audibility of jitter and various timing errors. Some studies seem to indicate that any jitter under about 5 nanoseconds (5000 ps) is inaudible; others show people able to recognize and differentiate much lower amounts. Likewise, some studies suggest that timing errors and "time smear" under several milliseconds is inaudible, yet one paper presented to the AES claimed to show that differences as small as 25 microseconds were audible under some conditions (they presented proof that differences in time shift between the channels of that much produced an audible shift in the position of some instruments in the sound stage - and had some stats to back up that claim).
  
 This same discussion is still sometimes dredged up about the differences between JPG images and uncompressed images. The actual fact is that, for the majority of content, and to the majority of people, a good quality JPG is indistinguishable from an uncompressed original - yet the process handles certain types of image content very badly (so it's also trivial to find as many images as you like that it cannot be used with without causing serious - and obvious - artifacts. As far as I can tell, MP3 is the same way. For most people, with most content, and most playback systems, the difference is insignificant. Yet a certain percentage of recordings always sound distinctly flawed after being converted.)
  
 As for Dolby, I agree with you that I wouldn't necessarily believe all their claims, but I also don't think it's "safe" to automatically assume everything they claim is a lie. DTS Master Audio and TrueHD are both lossless formats, so there is no reason to expect there to be a difference between them. As for AAC 256, I can state for fact that I've heard "high quality downloads" from the iTunes store that are audibly obviously inferior to the CD version of the same content. (Of course, it's always possible that some flaw in how they did the conversion, or even a deliberate alteration in sound for some other reason, may be responsible).
  
 The whole discussion of "audibly transparent" always comes down to test conditions. I remember when Memorex though it was obvious that a cassette recording which topped out at 16 kHz was "just like the real thing" - and I'll bet there was some guy a century ago swearing that cylinder records were "indistinguishable from reality". In the case of things like what metals you use in an interconnect, where there are NO measurements suggesting the slightest difference in performance, I would agree that the burden of proof lies with proving that a difference exists at all before trying to quantify it. However, with DACs, where there are all sorts of easily measurable differences, and it all boils down to which ones can be heard, and which ones can't, I think you have to be very careful about stating all the test conditions. I don't know if I would hear differences between DACs on_ your_ equipment, and I don't know if _you_ would hear differences on mine, and I don't know which of us would or wouldn't with specific source material, other than that, on my equipment, with certain specifically chosen files, I find the difference quite obvious. (Note that I didn't say it was a bigger difference that the difference between different speakers or headphones - because, to me, it isn't. But it is still present and audible.)
  
 Saying "we tested fifty recordings, using such and such speakers and amplifiers, and asked fifty people off the sidewalk to participate" is plenty good enough to provide "evidence" that most of your customer base won't hear anything wrong with AAC 256, but, in order to claim that "there is no audible difference", you need to do so with a wide variety of sources, equipment, and listeners. If I can find one person who, on one particular recording, and using one particular speaker, can hear a difference, then your claim that the difference is "inaudible" has been invalidated. (We can go for "inaudible to most people" or "close enough that it shouldn't matter" - but we can't legitimately go any further.)  I can tell you that, to me, those differences between DACs are clearly audible on one pair of headphones I have, yet they are totally _INAUDIBLE_ with another pair I own - with the same content, headphone amp, etc. I would also say that they are inaudible to me, on that equipment, with about 85% of the recordings I own, and only "obvious" on a few... but that's still not "none". So, which speakers, and which sources, and which headphones were used in those tests that "proved" that the difference is _never_ audible? Did they repeat the test with a dozen different brands of speakers, of different types and other characteristics, or are we just left to hope that they chose a pair of speakers that does better rather than worse at showing up such differences? And how about the source material they used? I hope it covered a wide variety of recording formats, and a variety of sources, so we don't have to wonder if, after taking it as a given that "CDs are audibly perfect", they simply used a few CDs they had lying around - or only one type or format of music.
  
 Proving a negative is very difficult....
  
 I would agree that the differences between DACs are far less than the differences between speakers. However, I can hear them under certain conditions, and I find them "significant". Since there are differences in measured specs that seem to correlate with those differences I think I hear, it's up to you to prove that they can't possibly be audible - either under ALL test conditions, or under the same test conditions under which I claim to hear them.
  
 And, to be specific there... (here are some specific conditions under which I find the differences obvious)
  
 Speakers: Emotiva Airmotiv 5, Emotiva Stealth 8 (self powered, so no amplifier specified)
  
 Test recordings: Eagles Hotel California (HDTRacks 24/192 reissue); Boxenkiller (from an old Focal Demo CD); Grateful Dead American Beauty (HDTracks 24/192 reissue); Blackmore's Night - Cartouche (from a plain old CD)
  
 DACs (which sound different from each other - to me): Wyred4Sound DAC2 (original version); Benchmark Dac1 Pro; Emotiva XDA-2 (v1); Emotiva DC-1; Audioquest DragonFly (v1); AudioLabs MDac
  
 DACs (which have multiple filter choices - at least some of which sound different from each other to me): Wyred4Sound DAC2; AudioLabs MDac; Emotiva Big EGo (pre-production)


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> As for Dolby, I agree with you that I wouldn't necessarily believe all their claims, but I also don't think it's "safe" to automatically assume everything they claim is a lie.




Please quote where anyone here said any such thing.

se


----------



## limpidglitch

steve eddy said:


> You won't get it at any bit rate. What they're using is severe dynamic range compression and a severe reduction in level. It's a complete fraud.
> 
> se


 
  
 Yeah, I coded some music with MP3 at 8kbps (after i wrote that). Dynamic range is completely preserved.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





> To date,
> Over 25 billion songs have been downloaded
> Over 50 billion hours of music has been streamed.
> Compression has stripped emotion from every note.


 
  
 We need an animated vomiting smiley face over here...
  
 Seriously though.  This is just a bunch of people complaining how things are different now and not even bothering to do a simple abx test to see if their preconceptions were accurate.


----------



## limpidglitch

maverickronin said:


> We need an animated vomiting smiley face over here...
> 
> Seriously though.  This is just a bunch of people complaining how things are different now and not even bothering to do a simple abx test to see if their preconceptions were accurate.


 
  
 Either that or Harmon is paying very well.
 It's not as if these mega stars are without the means to something about these grievances, if they really wanted to.
  
 For some reason (money) they choose to ride on the coat-tails of big business.


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> We need an animated vomiting smiley face over here...
> 
> Seriously though.  This is just a bunch of people complaining how things are different now and not even bothering to do a simple abx test to see if their preconceptions were accurate.


 
 Here you go, you asked for it, you got it.


----------



## Steve Eddy

limpidglitch said:


> Yeah, I coded some music with MP3 at 8kbps (after i wrote that). Dynamic range is completely preserved.




Yup. I did the same thing some time back.

se


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Well, throughout the video they keep conflating dynamic range compression (see _loudness wars_) with lossy digital data compression (i.e. MP3), even though their intent is the latter (the video is basically just a propaganda piece for Harman's Clari-Fi "technology").
> 
> They are two completely different things.
> 
> ...


 
 I find this Harman Kardon video a seriously missed opportunity to present their case competently and fairly. This is fraudulent and is inexcusable - comparing compressed (sometimes even clipped) dynamic range track at much lower average volume to something with normal dynamic range - without even stating the data compression used - if at all.
  
 However, I CAN sympathize - in part - with their decision. So - you record a truly terrific recording, the artist wants to have it on the internet ASAP - and that means Youtube.  Or if you - and the artist - is/are a bit more finicky  about the sound, that means Vimeo - as it does have a bit  better sound (up to AAC 352 IIRC ). Now, I look upon the CD as the downstairs maid - and then it has to be downgraded - yet once more ?!?
  
 I find the sound of my recordings over YT offensive. Where there should have been silence or sound decaying troughout the concert hall or church - there are MP3 artefacts covering all the hard won details, result of years of painstaking work,  completely up. Yet sometimes it is the only way they can be presented - at all.
  
 The problem is that most of the people today do listen to smartphones and (usually) pretty crappy earbuds - if the average level of the "earbuds" that come with the smartphones would be at least something in the class of Xiaomi Pistons (2 or 3, forget the details), then it would have been an entirely different story. Not to mention the crappy speakers in laptops - or Bose small cubes trying to play some church organ off desktop computer.
  
 Which all generates pressure for more dynamically compressed recordings - at as low data rates as possible.
  
 And HK chose to use this fraudulent comparison in video. It is not fair - yet it does reflect the feelings of musicians and producers/recording engineers regarding what can in the end actually be heard by most listeners. Who never even heard what Stax (other than record label) is, let alone 009 - and you can replace that Stax with any of the headphones listened to by the members on this thread - Xiaomi Pistons at <30$ shipped - included.
  
 And in fairness, what these musicians and producers/recording engineers want to present , can not be achieved by lossy audio. Compared to lossy, I might - <gulp> - even say that CD *is* "good enough". 
  
 Regarding ABX and musicians - there are two "grades". Those who do care and will be complaining about every nuance - and those who will only value a recording in direct proportion of the ability to make more money from/with it. MPzero.three - if it means $. And very few in between these two extremes. But you are all delusional if thinking that after playing live, an acoustic musician who cares about how he/she is presented will be satisfied with MP3 version ( or AAC) of the recording. And will tell you where can such an ABX be sticked to - in various grades of politeness.
  
 Generally - something like that vomiting smiley posted a few moments ago.


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> We need an animated vomiting smiley face over here...
> 
> Seriously though.  This is just a bunch of people complaining how things are different now and not even bothering to do a simple abx test to see if their preconceptions were accurate.




Thing is, they're pinning the blame on the wrong culprit. That video is a complete fraud.

But my point went to KeithEm. If a company like Harman can stoop to something this low, why should we think something is true just because "Dolby thinks it's true"?

se


----------



## StanD

@analogsurviver What's with the outburst?


----------



## prot

bigshot said:


> I don't see like buttons on anyone. I didn't realize that I was the only one. Well, I didn't ask for that, and I didn't ask for the pixie dust comment under my name either. There are several significant keywords that pull up my posts at HeadFi at the top of a Google search. I bring them traffic. You would think that HeadFi would appreciate my contributions here. But go figure. I guess I'm "unlikeable".




Just contact some forum admin, prolly some software glitch like many others ... or some setting in your account .. or you already got the max no of likes 

@everyoneElse
why dont you just leave analogsurvivor be? AFAICS, he just goes on and on about some "lalala" that he supposedly hears and still did not deliver a single one of the tests he promised .. repeatedly. Hot air all over the place.


----------



## StanD

prot said:


> Just contact some forum admin, prolly some software glitch like many others ... or some setting in your account .. or you already got the max no of likes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Methane.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> I find this Harman Kardon video a seriously missed opportunity to present their case competently and fairly. *This is fraudulent and is inexcusable - comparing compressed* (sometimes even clipped) dynamic range track at much lower average volume to something with normal dynamic range - without even stating the data compression used - if at all.




Which, by the way, threatens their credibility a bit for the science they publish.


----------



## Steve Eddy

cel4145 said:


> Which, by the way, threatens their credibility a bit for the science they publish.




Yeah. They should have their AES membership revoked.

se


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> steve eddy said:
> 
> 
> > Well, throughout the video they keep conflating dynamic range compression (see _loudness wars_) with lossy digital data compression (i.e. MP3), even though their intent is the latter (the video is basically just a propaganda piece for Harman's Clari-Fi "technology").
> ...


 
    
  
 Why don't we have a thumbs down?...


----------



## maverickronin

Also,  let's not forget to mention that we live in an absolute golder age of Hi-Fi.
  
 The explosion of high quality headphones has allowed many more people to experience HiFi than ever before.  A <$100 pair of IEMs and a decent smartphone playing AAC files from iTunes let you experience something that only a few decades ago would have required multi kilobuck investment on top of already owning your own home so you'd have a place to put the speakers without disturbing your neighbors.
  


stand said:


> Here you go, you asked for it, you got it.


 
  
 Yes, but can you hack huddler and put it next to the atsmile?
  


steve eddy said:


> Thing is, they're pinning the blame on the wrong culprit. That video is a complete fraud.


 
  
 In that particular part of the video is so screwed up I can't tell what they're trying to blame on what, but it sure as hell has nothing to do with lossy data compression.
  


steve eddy said:


> But my point went to KeithEm. If a company like Harman can stoop to something this low, why should we think something is true just because "Dolby thinks it's true"?


 
  
 Dolby is just busy selling and creating new standards so they can collect the licensing fees on them.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were in cahoots with large volume speaker manufacturers just to up the number of speakers that every HTiaB needs (quadraphonic, 5.1, 7.1 Atmos, etc, etc..)
  
 At least those extra speakers actually do _something _though...


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> @analogsurviver What's with the outburst?


 
 Because , regardless how important Science actually is - it is not even admissible in truly artistic circles.
  
 Try to say something of the sort to the best musicians out there ( the Gypsies ...- it is hard to even gain access to their "partys with music", yet from hearsay tales of those who did have the privilege,  I wish to be able to attend at least one before departing from this earth )
 - or some conductor or musician who 
*positively hates any kind of recording *_- _
_you can be happy to be allowed to record at all _- while being quieter than a fly - unless for that recording musicians are overpaid many times over. Then those attracted to $ might "pose" for the ABX - those who are not will show you the door ASAP.
  
 There are musicians who did and do not see ANY point in repeating a passage that went a bit off - "why - I/we just played it..." - end of story, nomatterwhat. Hans Knappertsbush was known for that - that is why only few, mostly live recordings exist of his otherwise superb conducting .
  
 What I wanted to say is that the ABX , DSD vs PCM vs whatever technically reproduced sound do not matter much when actually making a recording - and reactions by the musicians seen in the video are only a variation on the theme I have witnessed many times over. Now try to put yourselves in their shoes - after playing and going to school for many many years, rehearsing the programme for months, they get a multimiked recording with a totally artificially re-constructed "acoustics", totally at the mercy of the recording engineer, artificial reverb, compressed dynamic range, limited frequency range, compressed data delivery - something that is barely recognizable as being different from the recording of the playing of their greatest "nemesis" - how would you feel then ? Like ABXing ?
  
 I agree, it is far from science - but why, if not because of  the science, did the above described conditions came into being in the first place ? 
  
 And yes, the promised uploads are coming. Because I care too much about the music to be silenced by the "it all sounds the same" brigade.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> Why don't we have a thumbs down?...


 
 I ask myself the same question.


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> In that particular part of the video is so screwed up I can't tell what they're trying to blame on what, but it sure as hell has nothing to do with lossy data compression.




Yeah. But they conflate the two throughout the entire video.




> Dolby is just busy selling and creating new standards so they can collect the licensing fees on them.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were in cahoots with large volume speaker manufacturers just to up the number of speakers that every HTiaB needs (quadraphonic, 5.1, 7.1 Atmos, etc, etc..)
> 
> At least those extra speakers actually do _something_ though...




True. 2.0 still gets my 54 year old ass up and groovin' though. As scary a thought as that may be. 

se


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Because , regardless how important Science actually is - it is not even admissible in truly artistic circles.
> 
> Try to say something of the sort to the best musicians out there ( the Gypsies ...- it is hard to even gain access to their "partys with music", yet from hearsay tales of those who did have the privilege,  I wish to be able to attend at least one before departing from this earth )
> - or some conductor or musician who
> ...


 
 You seem to confuse poorly recorded/mastered work vs. the playback format. Perhaps you hate ABX because you fear the truth. Get over it and try to chill out.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > @analogsurviver What's with the outburst?
> ...


 

 ...sometimes they say, 'uhau! I did that?
  
 'Because I care too much about the music to be silenced by the "it all sounds the same" brigade. '
  
 ...are you talking about the studios, the engineers or the musicians? Hope is not DSD vs PCM...


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> DACs (which have multiple filter choices - at least some of which sound different from each other to me)


 
  
 I looked up DACs with filters because I had never heard of such a thing. Those filters are designed to correct a problem in the inaudible range by applying filters that affect the audible range. In short, the cure is much worse than the disease. It's essentially an EQ busy box for audiophiles to switch in and out to screw up the flat response. The DAC is better without it.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> I looked up DACs with filters because I had never heard of such a thing. Those filters are designed to correct a problem in the inaudible range by applying filters that affect the audible range. In short, the cure is much worse than the disease. It's essentially an EQ busy box for audiophiles to switch in and out to screw up the flat response. The DAC is better without it.


 
 But it sounds great to the uninitiated audiophiles, especially after it's been given proper marketing spin, And oh, the pictures of a new button on the front panel. _Gotta get me one of those_.


----------



## bigshot

The funny part is that they use the fact that there is a "make it sound different button" to argue that all DACs sound different! Well, if they didn't have the "make it sound different button" maybe they would all sound the same!


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> And oh, the pictures of a new button on the front panel. _Gotta get me one of those_.




New button? Oh please! Today's front panels are a veritable wasteland compared to what we grew up with! 



Buttons and switches and knobs! Oh my!
Buttons and switches and knobs! Oh my!
Buttons and switches and knobs! Oh my!

se


----------



## bigshot

I actually wish amps all had stereo/mono switches again. I have no idea why they did away with that one.


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> Yeah. They should have their AES membership revoked.
> 
> se




I wouldn't say that. 

But research at Harman is driven by the effort to develop products and establish a reputation as scientific leaders for its promotional value, not for pure research reasons. There is a bias there that might be influencing the direction of their research (or what not to study) or, undoubtedly, what products they use in their study. 

So when people are quick to cite Harman research based on their reputation as objectivists, let's not forget that Harman is more than willing to use subjectivists' view points that contradict the science if they think it will make them money. This is not the first time that marketing trumps truth at Harman, such as Harman's marketing of the Infinity P363 as a 6 ohm speaker, even though measurements indicate that by industry standards, it should be rated 4 ohms: http://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/primus-p363/primus-p363-measurements. Why do they do that? Because people in the target market for those speakers are less likely to buy 4 ohm speakers when entry and mid level AVRs typically are not 4 ohm rated.


----------



## lamode

musicmate said:


> Maybe we don't hear it, But we feel it. Sound waves are vibrations. I don't know if it is true, But it may be


 
  
 No, we don't feel it


----------



## lamode

castleofargh said:


> it's a stupid format that shouldn't exist. people don't like that I call it stupid but when you look how complicated it is to record, impossible to master, complicated to rip. and for no major resolution gain over PCM, stupid really is the fitting word.
> and once you realize that most albums started as PCM, were remastered in PCM and only after got converted to the"superior" DSD for the release...  I start to feel like "stupid" was still too kind a word.


 
  
 +44,100


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> Ripping DSD is no more difficult to rip than WAV - only on SACD it was intentionally encripted to stop the tide of copying the music from the CDs - which almost killed the whole music industry. Now - if whatever YOU do for living, could be replaced by copying it on a computer illegally and for free - would YOU endorse it ?


 
  
 And what about consumers who want to use digital servers? Nice way to make DSD even more obsolete!
  


analogsurviver said:


> I agree that recording in PCM and then only release it in DSD is not the way to go. DSD came into being for archiving the analog tapes - which it does better than PCM.


 
  
 No, it doesn't.
  


> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Also, native DSD recordings in at least DSD128 offer better sonics than PCM


 
  
 Nope.
  


analogsurviver said:


> The reason that DSD is so fiercely opposed is the fact that recording engineers got spoiled by limitless possibilities to manipulate the signal using DSP - which is PCM based and can not work with DSD. Meaning plugins on plugins.... on plugins made for PCM DAWs can no longer be used - thus forcing the engineers to get the sound they are after on the spot -not days, years or decades later in the post production.


 
  
 So in other words it is incompatible with the workflow of 99% of audio engineers. And you make it sound as if DSP is a bad thing, which it is NOT. It is a tool which can improve sound as well as being abused. I think they also oppose it because it can't be used for mixing, and it is all just so pointless. There are ZERO advantages to DSD, only disadvantages. But you know this already...
  


analogsurviver said:


> PCM has allowed for the most treacherous "photoshop" in the history of music


 
  
 You make it sound as if Photoshop is a bad tool, but it is used by all image professionals to achieve higher quality results than ever before.
  


analogsurviver said:


> For this reason, the direct to disk analog recordings are and will remain to be unsurpassed - there is NO way to stop/correct/split/anything - you get to hear it exactly as it was played during the recording - of not only one song, but for the duration of the entire record side (15-25 minutes ). Just like live concert.


 
  
 And every modern DAW can be used exactly the same way, but without the disadvantages of analogue.
  


analogsurviver said:


> I have always equated CD with McDonalds and vinyl with  restaurant good enough to require booking the table in advance.


 
  
 Oh good grief...


----------



## bigshot

here we go again...


----------



## Steve Eddy

cel4145 said:


> I wouldn't say that.




I would. And did. So there! 




> But research at Harman is driven by the effort to develop products and establish a reputation as scientific leaders for its promotional value, not for pure research reasons. There is a bias there that might be influencing the direction of their research (or what not to study) or, undoubtedly, what products they use in their study.
> 
> So when people are quick to cite Harman research based on their reputation as objectivists, let's not forget that Harman is more than willing to use subjectivists' view points that contradict the science if they think it will make them money. This is not the first time that marketing trumps truth at Harman, such as Harman's marketing of the Infinity P363 as a 6 ohm speaker, even though measurements indicate that by industry standards, it should be rated 4 ohms: http://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/primus-p363/primus-p363-measurements. Why do they do that? Because people in the target market for those speakers are less likely to buy 4 ohm speakers when entry and mid level AVRs typically are not 4 ohm rated.




Sure. But the Distortion of Sound video was far far beyond the pale. Not even in the same universe as fudging a couple of ohms on a loudspeaker impedance rating.

se


----------



## prot

analogsurviver said:


> ( the Gypsies ...- it is hard to even gain access to their "partys with music", yet from hearsay tales of those who did have the privilege,  I wish to be able to attend at least one before departing from this earth )




That paranthesis might just be the first and only worthwile thing you posted here. As someone who attended a few of those I can highly recommend em .. those things can get amazingly crazy .. in a most positive way. 

Doubt those guys have any sort of musical training but they play with such passion sometimes, it kinda touches your core. And they can play anything ... really anything .. play an mp3 for them once and 5mins later you get their own amazing version. Somethin like pink floyd played by a gipsy band is otherwordly. 

Btw, looks like this guy heard it too http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHPqmcM3le0. 
You can buy their recordings and some youtube videos are ok but really nothing compared to a live concert or even better a party ... especially if there's lots of alcohol involved


----------



## bigshot

When it comes to home audio, I have no idea how people can look to manufacturers as authorities with a straight face. But people continue to believe "white papers" on sales sites full of pseudo-scientific blather and worry about inaudible problems that can only be solved by pulling out your credit card yet another time.


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> I would. And did. So there!
> Sure. But the Distortion of Sound video was far far beyond the pale. Not even in the same universe as fudging a couple of ohms on a loudspeaker impedance rating.
> 
> se




I didn't think you were completely serious, but OK 

And you are right. I didn't watch but a few minutes of the video, but why didn't a Harman engineer act as a consultant for that? I know why. The marketers and upper management just don't care what's right. They care about selling product and making profit.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> here we go again...




Right. 

Is it possible that someone who wants to discuss DSD in circles could start a new thread for it? 

WHY is it necessary to go round and round about DSD in this particular thread? Why don't we just shut down all the other threads with specific topics and run them here, too? 

Analogsurviver, since you obviously love to talk about, do many of us a favor and start a separate thread for it.


----------



## lamode

steve eddy said:


> http://youtu.be/mDZcz-V29_M


 
  
 I love the way they treat all MP3 as being the same quality. Quite deliberate misinformation.
  
 Then the compressed v. uncompressed drum sample. Wow, what nonsense.
  
 And do they really think that lossless music will sound better through those $20 earbuds?
  
 Seriously, guys.
  
 p.s. Did Snoop just say that he raised me? What a colossal *********


----------



## maverickronin

steve eddy said:


> True. 2.0 still gets my 54 year old ass up and groovin' though. As scary a thought as that may be.


 
  
 Two channels is plenty for music.  More channels are helpful for movies/TV but we've already hit the point of diminishing returns.
  


bigshot said:


> I actually wish amps all had stereo/mono switches again. I have no idea why they did away with that one.


 
  
 +1


----------



## Steve Eddy

lamode said:


> I love the way they treat all MP3 as being the same quality. Quite deliberate misinformation.
> 
> Then the compressed v. uncompressed drum sample. Wow, what nonsense.
> 
> ...




Yeah. It's just... Incredible.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> Two channels is plenty for music.  More channels are helpful for movies/TV but we've already hit the point of diminishing returns.




Well, if you want to try and accurately recreate the original sound space you're going to need more channels. But only if that's important to you.

se


----------



## Ruben123

lamode said:


> I love the way they treat all MP3 as being the same quality. Quite deliberate misinformation.
> 
> Then the compressed v. uncompressed drum sample. Wow, what nonsense.
> 
> ...


 

 Makes me think about the Pono marketing by Neil Young... With the only 5% of the original information in MP3 and the drums how fake they sound compared to a 192 WAV on the Pono.


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> I looked up DACs with filters because I had never heard of such a thing. Those filters are designed to correct a problem in the inaudible range by applying filters that affect the audible range. In short, the cure is much worse than the disease. It's essentially an EQ busy box for audiophiles to switch in and out to screw up the flat response. The DAC is better without it.


 
  
 I'm afraid you didn't read far enough.....
  
 Your basic statement is correct; the filters are necessary to remove extra energy that is added by the upsampling process.
  
 However, it's a bit more complicated that you seem to think. When you sample audio, extra energy (or however you prefer to describe it) is created by the process itself. _THIS CANNOT BE AVOIDED_. And, in order for the process to work properly, this energy _MUST _be removed afterwards. If you want to record something analog at a 44 kHz sample rate, the Nyquist frequency for that sample rate is 22 kHz (half the sample rate). When you make the recording, you _MUST_ use a filter to ensure that nothing above 22 kHz reaches the ADC, not even background noise. Anything above that  frequency will not only not be accurately recorded, but it will converted by the encoding process into noise/distortion_ INSIDE THE AUDIO BAND_ which will be clearly audible, easily measurable, and very unpleasant. Then, when the digital audio is converted back into analog, you must again apply a low-pass filter at that Nyquist frequency to again prevent extra information that is a result of the digitizing process from interfering with the intended signal inside the audio band. The problem is that the filtering required is difficult to achieve in practice. To produce even reasonably good audio performance, the filter required in the DAC would have to be flat to 20 kHz, but down at least 70 dB to 80 dB at 22 kHz. (When you hear "NOS DACs" that claim to not filter their outputs, they are lying - the output is actually being low-pass filtered by the response of the rest of your equipment, which simply refuses to pass the high frequency components. Unfortunately, that failure is often not very graceful, and can result in large amounts of IM distortion and other  unpleasant things.)
  
 Oversampling was invented as a way to address this issue. The Nyquist frequency is related to the sample frequency. If we take our 44 kHz sampled CD audio and up-sample it to 96k, then the Nyquist frequency becomes about 49 kHz. Since the actual requirement of the process is a filter that is "flat to 20 Khz, yet down 80 dB or more at the Nyquist frequency, with this new higher Nyquist frequency, we can apply a much gentler (and easier to build) analog filter, and still meet our requirements. However, you can't just "magically" transform 44k sampled audio into 96 kHz sampled audio; the upsampling process generates errors, which appear as noise and distortion and, you guessed it, these then have to be filtered out. _THIS_ is the filters we're talking about. 
  
 You can't eliminate these filters for two reasons:
  
 1) Technically, the filters are part of the process; if you don't include them, and leave in the extra junk that's generated by the entire process, then the results will be mathematically incorrect.
 2) Because of the way the entire process works, if you fail to remove that extra noise, part of it will "fold down" into the audio band, where it will be very audible.
  
 In both cases, the reason for the filters is to remove excess energy at frequencies outside the audio frequency range that will absolutely interfere audibly and measurably with the desired audio if you don't remove it. It is not "just a filter to adjust the frequency response"; in fact, if they were "perfect" none of these filters would affect the audible frequency at all; their purpose is to remove ultrasonic noise which would otherwise modulate and interfere with the signal in the audio band. 
  
 In other words, it's not "just a problem in the inaudible range"; it's a problem that, while it starts out in the inaudible range, will do a really good job of trashing the audible range if you don't handle it properly.... Without that filtering, a significant percentage of the audio that comes out of your DAC will consist of byproducts of the sampling process, mostly at frequencies that aren't harmonically related to the original signal, which therefore sound even nastier than simple harmonic distortion. We're talking double-digit percentages here - not some tiny (and arguably inaudible) amounts. You should be able to find a good explanation of this, including the math that goes with it, on any website that explains the theory of digital sampling and signal processing.


----------



## Phishin Phool

Keith very interesting and informative. It leads me to a question. I have a DAC that "supposedly" (at least it claims that and has the selector for it) allows for upsampling to 96 and 192 khz or leave it alone at the received/native sample rate. I have always just left it at native (although I have briefly experimented with the upsampling feature assuming a filter was used and there is a slight and very subtle difference). From your example it would seem that leaving it on native rate is detrimental and should make things sound worse.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I actually wish amps all had stereo/mono switches again. I have no idea why they did away with that one.


 
 Unbelievable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Something, at last, we agree on 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 !
  
 But I am afraid that disappearance of the stereo/mono switching  has something to do with the appearance of something very rarely seen on my amps - CD input ...
  
 Here the link for my preferred preamplifier - The AGI 511 : http://audio-database.com/AGI/amp/model511-e.html
  
 Here some info on its capabilities - and originator of the DBT aka ABX - meaningful in the context of  the preamplifier of such calibre that even after 40 years still outperforms most of what came since :  http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/group-buys/268708-agi-511-preamplifier.html  The Italian intermezzo (poor English and all... - but he knows what is he talking about)  in these posts IS understandable - Italian distributor did a great job at the time and quite a few of these are known to still happily play in the systems of my western neighbours.
  
 Basically - the most "DC to light" frequency response audio component that does not actually support DC or light frequencies - but one that makes 20 Hz and 20 kHz totally laughable - it goes well below 0.1 Hz (depending on resistance of the load, << 20 Hz even into 600 ohms ) - and its phono input exceeds 100 MHz , line  stage is ok > 100 kHz - and can using modern ICs slew the output at 3000 V/uS. 
  
 That is what I _might _call an audibly transparent (pre)amplifier ... - it is the preamp that most easily pulls Houdini - of them all.


----------



## RRod

None of that changes the fact that you're talking about the audibility of pre-ringing due to digital filters used for upsampling/interpolation. I would imagine that the benefits of having a slower roll-off for the anti-aliasing filter far offset the addition of pre-ringing from a non-minimal-phase digital filter, seeing as how the pre-ring will be low level and concentrated at high frequencies.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> You seem to confuse poorly recorded/mastered work vs. the playback format. Perhaps you hate ABX because you fear the truth. Get over it and try to chill out.


 
 I do not hate ABX. For PCM, it is a breeze using Foobar2000 - for DSD,  it is a no go at the moment using a computer.
  
 I do not fear ABX of revealing anything.
  
 I do not confuse poorly recorded/mastered work vs playback format. I have merely stated how it all can - and DOES - break on the shoulder of the musician.
  
 What I am saying that ABXing PCM , whatever it is, post true damage done is meaningless. Frankly, I do not care in which format something has been recorded - if it had to pass trough the inferiour analog stage first; it is not exactly helping to capture this by the highest analog or digital resolution at hand. 
  
 But I do feel ABXing as gross differences as NATIVE DSD128 and CD redbook - BOTH played NATIVELY on quality equipment - is an utter waste of time. If one wants to call that hatred - OK with me. I can not demonstrate this to anyone of you not in the possession of a DSD capable DAC. Converting to PCM simply does not count as equal.


----------



## Phishin Phool

Yet another quesrtion - are people here postulating that DSD played via DoP sounds different than native encoded/decoded DSD?


----------



## KeithEmo

phishin phool said:


> Keith very interesting and informative. It leads me to a question. I have a DAC that "supposedly" (at least it claims that and has the selector for it) allows for upsampling to 96 and 192 khz or leave it alone at the received/native sample rate. I have always just left it at native (although I have briefly experimented with the upsampling feature assuming a filter was used and there is a slight and very subtle difference). From your example it would seem that leaving it on native rate is detrimental and should make things sound worse.


 
  
 Your conclusion would make sense - except that there's other stuff going on. Virtually all modern DACs, and specifically _ALL_ delta-sigma DACs, oversample the signal internally as part of how they work. You have no control over it, and you can't disable it.... The option you have on your DAC is the option of having the signal upsampled outside the DAC chip, before being passed to the DAC chip, which is going to oversample it again anyway. (The term "oversampling" always refers to upsampling to an even multiple of the original sample rate, while "upsampling" can refer to any change to a higher sample rate, whether it happens to be an even multiple or not.) The oversampling done inside the chip achieves all the benefits that I described, and the extra upsampling doesn't really improve on that - it's just another opportunity to alter the sound and offer you more options.
  
 (Since non-oversampling DACs are generally designed that way to appeal to a particular audience, it makes little sense to use a non-oversampling DAC chip, then do oversampling outside the chip - although some high-end companies expend the effort to bypass the oversampling filters in the DAC chip and use their own external ones - which some DAC chips allow - with the idea that their filters sound better - either because the programming is better, or because they've made better choices.)
  
 So, in general, offering external switchable oversampling is usually more of a marketing gimmick than anything else. However, there are three reasons that I can think of why this might affect the sound:
  
 1) Treating the DAC chip, including any oversampling it does internally, as a "black box", some DAC chips may perform or sound better when handling signals at specific sample rates.
  
 2) Any upsampling process includes digital filtering, so the digital filter they use in their upsampling algorithm may produce a slight audible difference in sound.
  
 3) Some DACs have mechanisms that are designed to remove jitter - but those mechanisms work by resampling the signal to a new clock - and often upsample as a sort of "side effect". Therefore, it's possible that the method they're using to upsample is also doing something else that may be audible at the same time.


----------



## analogsurviver

phishin phool said:


> Yet another quesrtion - are people here postulating that DSD played via DoP sounds different than native encoded/decoded DSD?


 
 Yes - it is yet another unnecessary "link" in the chain. Designers of DSD capable DACs are trying to avoid it as much as possible - as it involves conversion to PCM , which is a lossy process . Slightly lossy, but lossy nonetheless. For best results, PCM and DSD should be recorded and reproduced (ADC and DAC) NATIVELY - which has not been the case in most of PCM in the last two decades - chips are mostly "hidden" delta sigma aka DSD  - and NOT native PCM. Please look at the link I posted yesterday.
  
 PCM/DSD thing is NOT a black and white affair - except in few isolated cases that pursued the matter using out of box thinking.


----------



## KeithEmo

phishin phool said:


> Yet another quesrtion - are people here postulating that DSD played via DoP sounds different than native encoded/decoded DSD?


 
  
 Without getting into the whole "PCM vs DSD debate", that is a definite possibility.
  
 A DSD audio stream has its own clock embedded in it, and the DAC that is used to decode it may use the included clock directly, or it may do something to "clean it up" before using it, or it may do some sort of processing and re-clock the signal entirely, and either of those second two options _MIGHT_ alter the sound. With DOP, the DSD data is sent over the USB stream as packets, which must be reassembled after they are received, so the original data clock is _DEFINITELY_ being discarded and replaced with a clock generated by the DAC. Whether the results of these operations will end up being identical or not would depend on how the particular DAC is handling the situation.


----------



## bigshot

Cacheing.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> Some DACs have mechanisms that are designed to remove jitter


 
  
 Jitter is inaudible... by as much as 100 times, even in the cheapest digital audio equipment.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> You can't eliminate these filters


 
  
 You don't need external "make it sound different" switches. If you just take the oversampling and filter built into every modern DAC, you are fine. The only DACs that sound different are ones that are defective by design... deliberately made to sound different.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> ...sometimes they say, 'uhau! I did that?
> 
> 'Because I care too much about the music to be silenced by the "it all sounds the same" brigade. '
> 
> ...are you talking about the studios, the engineers or the musicians? Hope is not DSD vs PCM...


 
 I am talking about ALL of these - because ultimately, recordings will hopefully be DSD and , wishful thinking hopefully, processing similar to DSP will be made available for the DSD (or at least of the quality surpassing PCM ).


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> You don't need external "make it sound different" switches. If you just take the oversampling and filter built into every modern DAC, you are fine. The only DACs that sound different are ones that are defective by design... deliberately made to sound different.


 
  
 Yes, but some of those modern DACs offer multiple choices_ internally_. I certainly agree that the one internal filter on the AD1955 works just fine (we use those on our XDA-2 and DC-1), but the Wolfson 8741 offers a choice of 21 different_ internal_ filters.... so which one is "right"?


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> Jitter is inaudible... by as much as 100 times, even in the cheapest digital audio equipment.


 
  
 Well, then, a typical $299 stereo system is "perfect", and we're all wasting our time trying to improve on it....
  
 I'm curious, though....exactly how much jitter does it take to be audible on a 4x oversampling delta-sigma DAC - and please specify the waveform and spectrum of the jitter you're using to perform the test (you have to specify both the DAC architecture and the spectrum of the jitter you're testing with since the amount of distortion a given amount of jitter will cause depends on both the DAC architecture you're using and the actual frequency spectrum of the jitter).


----------



## Phishin Phool

If it matters my DAC uses Burr-Brown (TI) PCM1796 dac chip. two controls on it one allows you to select the input (usb,coax,toslink, AES/EBU) and the other is native, 96, 192 sample rate.
  
 I actually had a DAC on order that did native DSD all the way up to DSD 512 and had a femto clock (so it did re-clock) but I got so fed up with the company/manufacturer that I ended up demanding my money back so I never received it and decided to cull my headphone stable to three cans each with a different signature and just enjoy the music be it mp3, wav, flac etc.
  
 Funny thing is that I am no longer using music to listen to my equipment and am enjoying life a lot more with a few sheckles in my pocket now to grab new content (and go golfing more) but I have been learning and enjoying the science (and hence the exposed myths) behind it all.


----------



## lamode

keithemo said:


> Well, then, a typical $299 stereo system is "perfect", and we're all wasting our time trying to improve on it....
> 
> I'm curious, though....exactly how much jitter does it take to be audible on a 4x oversampling delta-sigma DAC - and please specify the waveform and spectrum of the jitter you're using to perform the test (you have to specify both the DAC architecture and the spectrum of the jitter you're testing with since the amount of distortion a given amount of jitter will cause depends on both the DAC architecture you're using and the actual frequency spectrum of the jitter).


 
  
 See my signature for a study regarding jitter audibility. Summary - not an issue in the real world.
  
 As for the $299 stereo system being perfect, no-one said that, but the performance of a $200 DAC is superior to a $20K speaker, so transducers are always the weakest link in the chain, not the electronics.


----------



## StanD

lamode said:


> See my signature for a study regarding jitter audibility. Summary - not an issue in the real world.
> 
> As for the $299 stereo system being perfect, no-one said that, but the performance of a $200 DAC is superior to a $20K speaker, so transducers are always the weakest link in the chain, not the electronics.


 
 Perhaps humans are the weak link more often than we realize.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> Yes, but some of those modern DACs offer multiple choices_ internally_. I certainly agree that the one internal filter on the AD1955 works just fine (we use those on our XDA-2 and DC-1), but the Wolfson 8741 offers a choice of 21 different_ internal_ filters.... so which one is "right"?


 
  
 The one that is audibly transparent. I have CD players, iPods, computers and blu-ray players... all with different DACs in them. And they are all audibly transparent. You don't need to choose a filter yourself. Just buy a DAC that is designed to perform to spec. Honestly, most DACs fit that bill. The only exceptions are the audiophile DACs with "make it sound different" buttons.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> Well, then, a typical $299 stereo system is "perfect", and we're all wasting our time trying to improve on it.


 
  
 Yes, I have an iPod that cost about that much that is audibly perfect. No reason to improve upon it. I have a Sony blu-ray player that cost half that amount that is audibly perfect too.
  
 Cost and quality are not necessarily related in home audio.


----------



## analogsurviver

prot said:


> That paranthesis might just be the first and only worthwile thing you posted here. As someone who attended a few of those I can highly recommend em .. those things can get amazingly crazy .. in a most positive way.
> 
> Doubt those guys have any sort of musical training but they play with such passion sometimes, it kinda touches your core. And they can play anything ... really anything .. play an mp3 for them once and 5mins later you get their own amazing version. Somethin like pink floyd played by a gipsy band is otherwordly.
> 
> ...


 
 I see that you've been through that experience - good for you! 
  
 No, those guys have extremely seldom any musical training - yet they play with such precision, imagination, speed and passion that boggles the mind.  
  
 I have been listening to the Budapest Gypsy Symphony Orchestra live in my hometown - twice; you have not heard the Radetzky Marsh - unless played by them : 
  

  
 Fanfare Ciocarlia have become commercialli-sed in recent years - but I did get to see them live prior to that: 
  

  
 One of the last concerts ever played by Frank Zappa as a rock musician has been in Budapest in 1991  - with the entire band of Gypsies from Hungary backing him up instead of his regular lineup - with next to none rehearsal. Unfortunately, we had, just some 200 miles to the west, a real war going on at the same time - and although a Zappa fan, did not learn of this concert prior a few months ago while browsing for the Zappa concert from 1974 - in my hometown.
  

  
 If more party/crazy - oriented, there is probably no better place than Guča festival in Serbia http://www.gucafestival.rs/  
  

  
 However, NOTHING can prepare you for a good Gypsy brass band heard live and unamplified - say at 5 metres from the lead trumpet (specially if they have _tapan _as the drum). Whoever designs an audio system capable of accurately reproducing that dynamic and frequency range ( can fall to "silence" (rare) while going to ear-splitting levels ( very common), from near DC to at least 80 kHz ( both supplied by brass ) - is worthy of receiving a Nobel Prize.  It is THE ultimate audible and palpable musical sensation. It happened that I stumbled upon _Feat Sejdić Band ( a somewhat pocket edition of only 5 members ) - the best brass band at the time - _in the centre of Belgrade in late 1989. Those 30 or so minutes went by as a lightning - and the sheer _presence _of this band remains unchallenged by anything before - or since.
  
 Not for those with SPL meters - they would all turn - red...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> No, those guys have extremely seldom any musical training - yet they play with such precision, imagination, speed and passion that boggles the mind.
> 
> I have been listening to the Budapest Gypsy Symphony Orchestra live in my hometown - twice; you have not heard the Radetzky Marsh - unless played by them :


 
  
 They were all over the place. Constantly out of time. It was almost unlistenable.


----------



## StanD

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Aw c'mon it must've been the pre-echo or they were pretty loose and should practice more.


----------



## KeithEmo

lamode said:


> See my signature for a study regarding jitter audibility. Summary - not an issue in the real world.
> 
> As for the $299 stereo system being perfect, no-one said that, but the performance of a $200 DAC is superior to a $20K speaker, so transducers are always the weakest link in the chain, not the electronics.


 
  
 Interesting - and I've seen that study quoted before.
  
 Unfortunately, I see several serious flaws in their test methodology:
  
 1) I didn't see a list of the actual equipment used for the test.
  
 2) I didn't see either a list of the test samples they used, or even a statement of how they were recorded, what sample rate they were, or how they were mastered.
  
 3) Even allowing for 1) and 2), I would at least expect to see some measurements showing that the equipment they used was of sufficient quality to allow the presumed differences to be heard. (For example, if their DAC had an inherent input jitter of 2 ns, then I wouldn't expect to be able to hear differences between input samples with different amounts of jitter until they exceeded the amount already present. In other words, if you're testing for "audibility of jitter", then you need a CONTROL situation with very low jitter against which to compare it.)
  
 4) Back to 1) and 2), I would like some sort of assurance that the other equipment they used was of sufficient sound quality to allow differences to be heard. (To take the extreme case, I wouldn't expect to hear jitter on a $9 pair of discount store ear buds. Therefore, I would have expected them to assure us that reasonably good quality equipment was used for the test - and to provide particulars.) From the information given, we really have no way of ascertaining whether the humans involved were unable to hear the difference due to their limitations, or whether their equipment was simply not good enough to_ allow_ them to hear the difference.
  
 5) A proper experiment should also include more information about how the participants were chosen. (Just saying, "we used a mix of paid and unpaid volunteers" really wouldn't stand muster as a seriously well controlled experimental trial in any other industry. The information they provided about what type of individuals were included was useful, but it would have been nice to see stats about things like the ages of the participants... especially since we know that human hearing acuity decreases with age.)
  
 In short, as far as I can tell, their study would seem to prove reasonably well that 23 specific listeners, chosen from a sample of folks who we might reasonably assume were at least interested in the results, when listening on their personally chosen DACs and other equipment, were unable to hear relatively high levels of artificially simulated jitter when it was applied to unspecified sound samples. While I do find this to be quite interesting, it's also pretty far from "proving that jitter is inaudible to everyone".


----------



## analogsurviver

phishin phool said:


> If it matters my DAC uses Burr-Brown (TI) PCM1796 dac chip. two controls on it one allows you to select the input (usb,coax,toslink, AES/EBU) and the other is native, 96, 192 sample rate.
> 
> I actually had a DAC on order that did native DSD all the way up to DSD 512 and had a femto clock (so it did re-clock) but I got so fed up with the company/manufacturer that I ended up demanding my money back so I never received it and decided to cull my headphone stable to three cans each with a different signature and just enjoy the music be it mp3, wav, flac etc.
> 
> Funny thing is that I am no longer using music to listen to my equipment and am enjoying life a lot more with a few sheckles in my pocket now to grab new content (and go golfing more) but I have been learning and enjoying the science (and hence the exposed myths) behind it all.


 
 Pity you did not proceed with that native to DSD512 DAC - it IS worth it. It is also EQUALLY VERY capable with PCM - to equally insane high sampling frequencies (too lazy to check the box about 2 metres away...).  Its only drawback is that it does not play anything lossy. 
  
 I can not say whether it is the end game DAC - or not; certainly it is bound to not become obsolete for some time to come (not something that can be said about most other DACs) - higher and highest rates it is capable of  are only now emerging as commercially available recordings. One could do a LOT worse for the money - it is perhaps the greatest bargain in audio today - specially if one owns AKG K-1000 headphones - the most difficult to drive dynamic headphone in history.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Aw c'mon it must've been the pre-echo or they were pretty loose and should practice more.


 
 They were more in sync as I remember them hearing live - and, yes, this timing problems may well be the multimiked recording problem; live they were MUCH more together than heard in any of their officially available recordings.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> They were more in sync as I remember them hearing live - and, yes, this timing problems may well be the multimiked recording problem; live they were MUCH more together than heard in any of their officially available recordings.


 
 Don't make excuses for them, they are just not tight. Practice.......


----------



## KeithEmo

analogsurviver said:


> Pity you did not proceed with that native to DSD512 DAC - it IS worth it. It is also EQUALLY VERY capable with PCM - to equally insane high sampling frequencies (too lazy to check the box about 2 metres away...).  Its only drawback is that it does not play anything lossy.
> 
> I can not say whether it is the end game DAC - or not; certainly it is bound to not become obsolete for some time to come (not something that can be said about most other DACs) - higher and highest rates it is capable of  are only now emerging as commercially available recordings. One could do a LOT worse for the money - it is perhaps the greatest bargain in audio today - specially if one owns AKG K-1000 headphones - the most difficult to drive dynamic headphone in history.


 
  
 I don't quite understand what you mean by "It doesn't play anything lossy". In general, when you play a file on a computer or portable player, it is the computer or player that decodes the file; and then sends its output to the DAC as PCM (or DSD). Therefore, as long as the DAC supports PCM, it can play any lossy file that the software on your computer or player can play.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Don't make excuses for them, they are just not tight. Practice.......


 
 No - I do not make excuses for them.
  
 I did quite a few parallel recordings with the competing conventional "microphone minefield" multimiking - and comparing the end result of both, conductor said (quote) : With that other (multimiked) recording , I had the feeling of conducting the wrong - tempo...!" (end quote)
  
 Yes, multimiking can lead to result THAT removed from the reality.
  
 It also resulted in the cancellation of pre-scheduled recording of a CD - the performers  are glad that in the end they went with me.
  
 Just a quick glance at the video - and count 'em. Microphones ............................................................................
  
 Too bad the manager of BGSO did not reply regarding the recording by me - the results of the conventional multimiking are plainly obviously inferiour to the orchestra heard live - to the point of being accused of playing poorly.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> No - I do not make excuses for them.
> 
> I did quite a few parallel recordings with the competing conventional "microphone minefield" multimiking - and comparing the end result of both, conductor said (quote) : With that other (multimiked) recording , I had the feeling of conducting the wrong - tempo...!" (end quote)
> 
> ...


 
 I don't see how multimiking could possibly throw the band off. More magic?


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


> I don't quite understand what you mean by "It doesn't play anything lossy". In general, when you play a file on a computer or portable player, it is the computer or player that decodes the file; and then sends its output to the DAC as PCM (or DSD). Therefore, as long as the DAC supports PCM, it can play any lossy file that the software on your computer or player can play.


 
 True. My mistake.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> I don't see how multimiking could possibly throw the band off. More magic?


 
 Only goes to show that you - along with most of the rest - still have not grasped what it is all about.
  
 Music recording is, essentially, nothing but recording of - time. 
  
 Simple recording technique _does not equal _primitive; actually, it is the other way around.
  
 And is the case of less is more. 
  
 Taking advice given at  0:48 goes a long way :


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> They were more in sync as I remember them hearing live - and, yes, this timing problems may well be the multimiked recording problem; live they were MUCH more together than heard in any of their officially available recordings.


 
  
 This is just more evidence that you make everything up as you go along, and it's tiresome.
  
 Any timing errors introduced by microphones are constant, as the distance between the microphone and the players is constant.
  
 However, the timing of certain players in this performance is sometimes on time, sometimes ahead and sometimes behind of the rest of the orchestra. Multi-miking does NOT explain this.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> 1) I didn't see a list of the actual equipment used for the test.
> 2) I didn't see either a list of the test samples they used, or even a statement of how they were recorded, what sample rate they were, or how they were mastered.


 
  
 I believe they let each participant use their own equipment and recordings, so the answer to both of those is "a wide range". The participants included both professional recording engineers and audiophiles. The equipment was up to professional and audiophile standards. The study was peer reviewed. I'm glad to be able to clear this up for you.
  
 Jitter is a complete hoodoo that has been blown up way out of proportion by audiophile DAC makers who want to flog an inaudible error until it appears to be a critical issue.


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> No - I do not make excuses for them.
> 
> I did quite a few parallel recordings with the competing conventional "microphone minefield" multimiking - and comparing the end result of both, conductor said (quote) : With that other (multimiked) recording , I had the feeling of conducting the wrong - tempo...!" (end quote)
> 
> ...


 
 That must be the first time I've heard someone saying that an orchestra played better live than in studio conditions. If it's a mike problem, it'll be a constant offset: problem is, even a simpleton like me could tell that it's swinging all over the place.

 Call it 'passion' if you will, but that does not mitigate the lack of cohesiveness in the pieces.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> This is just more evidence that you make everything up as you go along, and it's tiresome.
> 
> Any timing errors introduced by microphones are constant, as the distance between the microphone and the players is constant.
> 
> However, the timing of certain players in this performance is sometimes on time, sometimes ahead and sometimes behind of the rest of the orchestra. Multi-miking does NOT explain this.


 
  


lamode said:


> This is just more evidence that you make everything up as you go along, and it's tiresome.
> 
> Any timing errors introduced by microphones are constant, as the distance between the microphone and the players is constant.
> 
> However, the timing of certain players in this performance is sometimes on time, sometimes ahead and sometimes behind of the rest of the orchestra. Multi-miking does NOT explain this.


 
  


lamode said:


> This is just more evidence that you make everything up as you go along, and it's tiresome.
> 
> Any timing errors introduced by microphones are constant, as the distance between the microphone and the players is constant.
> 
> However, the timing of certain players in this performance is sometimes on time, sometimes ahead and sometimes behind of the rest of the orchestra. Multi-miking does NOT explain this.


 
 No, I am not making this up.
  
 The only correct timing can be heard by a human - being positioned reasonably in the centre and not too far removed from the orchestra.  The best a microphone can do is to try to replicate this human hearing as possible - and that leaves us with two ears>two microphones. 
  
 Although the physical distances between various groups of performers and "respective" microphones are constant, that does not mean the multimiking can replicate the exact time delays from the point of imaginary listener - meaning each and every mike should have its own delay regarding the reference. Furthermore, interaction between the microphones and comb filtering inherent in such cases creates untold problems - none of which are usually taken care of. Mixing is generally limited to amplitude for each microphone/instrument (group) and eventually placing it within the panorama.  Which is not nearly good enough.
  
 I will say that this is a VERY large/numerous orchestra of basically violins, basses, cymbalons and clarinets ( with little of anything else ). It is questionable how well they could hear each other on that particular stage - if the players have to perform "deaf" or "at very least hear each other poorly" - it can lead to this. Sometimes during recording of choirs and solo singers, all that it takes is relocation of singer(s) - sometimes for ridiculously small distances - for them to hear themselves well and perform flawlessly. In such a large orchestra, you get to seat where your seat has been put - end of story. Whether the players can hear themselves well or not - there were cameras, flowers on the stage, etc - not much that could be done. And they did best they could in given circumstances.
  
 I agree there are mistakes that are directly attributable to human factor - and should have been fewer. Yet I do not find it worth destroying the spirit of the spontaneous performance in pursuit of "perfection".


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> That must be the first time I've heard someone saying that an orchestra played better live than in studio conditions. If it's a mike problem, it'll be a constant offset: problem is, even a simpleton like me could tell that it's swinging all over the place.
> 
> Call it 'passion' if you will, but that does not mitigate the lack of cohesiveness in the pieces.


 
 Oh - then you must have not witnessed many rehearsals/concerts/recordings.
  
 It is rare that "everything" clicks together so well during a live performance that the live performance is selected for the official issue - over the studio version. But it does happen - and if and when it does, those recordings are special indeed. They are the documents worth preserving - of the unique performance that can not be replicated.
  
 Studio version might have note to note perfection, achieved trough many takes and then splicing them together in a whole song or composition. But it is impossible to replicate exactly the same spirit - for each and every member of the orchestra and/or choir over anything the period required for the recording of the entire piece. . There can be more than 200 people on that stage - which can only feel, think and act as one when focused on the performing the composition live, in front of the public. Some musicians even require "public" on the studio recordings - as otherwise feel the lack of interaction with the public. I have heard more than once :
 " I can not play/sing for an empty hall as well as for the real people".
  
 Humans will always be fallible - and that is what makes even the best musicians interesting - how they manage to play down their deficiences and put to the fore their advantages. 
  
 Otherwise, sheet music reader app, connected directly to the brain (eliminating ageing of our ears ) and playing those readouts perfectly "in the style of X orchestra, Y conductor , Z soloists and Ž cocert hall ( ž being one more letter after z in our alphabet ) - might take over real quick. How quickly one would get fed with all the possibilities of ALWAYS THE SAME PLAYING  would create an interesting myth of music listening in the (near?) future - all on its own.


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> Oh - then you must have not witnessed many rehearsals/concerts/recordings.
> 
> It is rare that "everything" clicks together so well during a live performance that the live performance is selected for the official issue - over the studio version. But it does happen - and if and when it does, those recordings are special indeed. They are the documents worth preserving - of the unique performance that can not be replicated.
> 
> ...


 
 Errrr, no. I'm a former concert pianist, and I can safely tell you that recording studios, while not sounding as 'lively', will next to always play better technically while being recorded. Right now, what I'm hearing are sections of an orchestra rather than being one cohesive unit. You can record emotion and _rubato_, but the minute you do it such that it compromises integrity of an orchestra, you're gone. That illusion you've sustained through the music is shattered.
  
 Of course, while I play in front of an audience, I feel better. I feel that it's more 'alive': it's also called adrenaline. I am more willing to be more exuberant while playing in front of an audience. BUT I do not compromise the cohesiveness of the orchestra to do that. Seems to me that orchestra's doing exactly that: sacrificing cohesiveness for flashiness and exuberance.
  
 Hence, if anything, I should be calling _you_ out in saying that you need more experience in listening. Because if you think that was acceptable, time to up your game. Decent orchestras will play with expression _while_ keeping together.


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> I don't see how multimiking could possibly throw the band off. More magic?


 
  
  


analogsurviver said:


> Only goes to show that you - along with most of the rest - still have not grasped what it is all about.
> 
> Music recording is, essentially, nothing but recording of - time.
> 
> ...




 Are you serious? As already pointed out the time delays are constant, the goofups of the band are varying. Next thing is a little math and reality. It takes 10 ms for sound to travel 3.4 Meters at sea level at 20 Deg, C. Band members positioned along the way have the same issues with time delays as the microphones, even when they are not recording. That band has much more serious problems. If you have problems with the recording process, get yourself some delay lines. My best advice is to stop cooking up weird theories.


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> Errrr, no. I'm a former concert pianist, and I can safely tell you that recording studios, while not sounding as 'lively', will next to always play better technically while being recorded. Right now, what I'm hearing are sections of an orchestra rather than being one cohesive unit. You can record emotion and _rubato_, but the minute you do it such that it compromises integrity of an orchestra, you're gone. That illusion you've sustained through the music is shattered.
> 
> Of course, while I play in front of an audience, I feel better. I feel that it's more 'alive': it's also called adrenaline. I am more willing to be more exuberant while playing in front of an audience. BUT I do not compromise the cohesiveness of the orchestra to do that.
> 
> Hence, if anything, I should be calling _you_ out in saying that you need more experience in listening. Because if you think that was acceptable, time to up your game. Decent orchestras will play with expression _while_ keeping together.


 
 Nice to know we have a pianist on this thread ! You are not the only (former) musician, though.
  
 I agree with you.  There is never too much experience in listening. I try to listen as much as I can - less than I should and could have, but still very much.
  
 I did attend to the concert of Leningrad Philharmonics back in the day - not too much time after Evgeny Mravinsky has passed away, it should still be his orchestra then. Yet the univolvement, first with the change of the programme from some rarely heard Russian pearls to some iron core repertoire, second with downright flat and emotionless playing, shocked me. The critics tried their best to wrap the negatives in between the lines - yet one look at the departing public after the concert said it all, without a single word. And they could/can be as cohesive as it gets - for me, it was the worst concert ever given by the professional orchestra. I would take _TWICE _as non cohesive Gypsy Symphony over that edition of Leningrad Philharmonics - any day in the week. I do not recall whether they were officially still called Leningrad Philharmonics at the time - or not. 
  
 Of course it is joy to listen to performers that can play with expression while their keeping together never comes into question - but they are more rare than not.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Are you serious? As already pointed out the time delays are constant, the goofups of the band are varying. Next thing is a little math and reality. It takes 10 ms for sound to travel 3.4 Meters at sea level at 20 Deg, C. Band members positioned along the way have the same issues with time delays as the microphones, even when they are not recording. That band has much more serious problems. If you have problems with the recording process, get yourself some delay lines. My best advice is to stop cooking up weird theories.


 
 I am serious.
  
 Your math reasoning is correct. But it is not complete - you did not allow for the differences in time arriving at each and every microphone in the multimiked setup - off the floor. Together, it represents a giant and chaotic comb filter generator - in addition to mics interacting with each other.
  
 Whatever the band is doing, will always be more accurately represented by a single optimally positioned microphone (stereo or multichannel) - and not multimiking. No human being can hear like a multimiked setup can - we only have two ears, which we can not throw in front of the instrument or section having a solo at the moment - and pull them back to normal when the whole band plays together. This is a simplified description what multimiking and mixing desk are actually doing - no wonder it can not and does not sound natural. It is the artificially made attempt to chop something to pieces and assemble it back together - and it will always be limited to the choice of the producer/sound engineer/mastering, at best representing something at least one step removed from the natural sound. 
  
 It is the single most destructive thing in all of audio - compared to that, everything else pales.
  
 The above is correct for acoustic instruments playing in real acoustics. Genres that can not exist without electrical aids in order for us to be able to hear them at all, are of course forced to use mixing - for real, their sound does not exist. Ever heard an electric guitar playing without an amp ?
  
 I really find it tiresome how people do not realize sound can not be mixed from multi channels - if it is to sound realistic. No one will use 20 cameras at the same time to capture say a sports game and mix/delay it all together in a single picture - it would obviously look unnatural and unacceptable. Single cameras are being used and selected to be shown at the appropriate times - sometimes in more screens/pictures - but always separate, with an occasional soft fade from one camera to another. 
  
 Why do you think it should fare any better with sound ?
  
 The only problem is that anybody will object to out of focus or stressed photo or moving picture - their audio counterparts are much easier to remain under the radar of most listeners - because most of the listeners get to know such recordings generally sooner than hearing the real thing - accepting them as de facto standard.
  
 And finding the real thing sounding "strange" upon finally getting to hear it.


----------



## StanD

@analogsurviver Sounds like more of that creative story telling. First point is that the band was not playing consistently, microphone placement cannot possibly cause this. That is an issue with musicianship.
 Next point; how many microphones did you use and what was the placement. Give me dimensions. I'll bet that the delays cannot possibly account for what I heard, other some creative storytelling.
 There is nothing in point #2 that can account for point #1. I recommend that they practice more.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> @analogsurviver Sounds like more of that creative story telling. First point is that the band was not playing consistently, microphone placement cannot possibly cause this. That is an issue with musicianship.
> Next point; how many microphones did you use and what was the placement. Give me dimensions. I'll bet that the delays cannot possibly account for what I heard, other some creative storytelling.
> There is nothing in point #2 that can account for point #1. I recommend that they practice more.


 
 The recording of Budapest Gypsy Symphony OrchestraIt is NOT my recording.
  
 I do NEVER use multimiking. Or mixing desk, limiters, delays, etc. I even do not have the capability - on purpose.
 2 mics (or stereo pair) > preamp > recorder - end of story. 
  
 I selected the best SQ audio of them I could find in a reasonable time on the YT. Bearing in mind how well I have heard them playing live, I find it - mildly put - disappointing that their officially available recordings are as they are. They also go under the name of  "Les 100 Violons Tziganes de Budapest" - and you can check the SQ and playing if so inclined.
  
 I merely stated the fact that the SAME concert can be recorded - simultaneously - one way or another; - with one way clearly producing VERY different result than the other - and sounding much more like as heard by the person in the audience on the best seat in any given hall.
  
 No recording can make up for subpar musicianship - but one thing is correctly revealing any flaws in playing, the other is compounding the problem by yet more temporal issues due to microphone technique. It IS possible to record a band that plays or sings just fine in such a way that they appear to be off - the very reason why I decided to start recording in the first place - and am still around.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> The recording of Budapest Gypsy Symphony OrchestraIt is NOT my recording.
> 
> I do NEVER use multimiking. Or mixing desk, limiters, delays, etc. I even do not have the capability - on purpose.
> 2 mics (or stereo pair) > preamp > recorder - end of story.
> ...


 
 The delays in microphone placement cannot change the musicianship of the band, period. It may compromise the SQ but not compromise their musicianship. Lets face it, they should practice more often. We're talking a few ms between microphones, that will change the spacial aspects of the recording, not even enough to create echoes or meaningful reverb, that's the hall at work.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> The delays in microphone placement cannot change the musicianship of the band, period. It may compromise the SQ but not compromise their musicianship. Lets face it, they should practice more often. We're talking a few ms between microphones, that will change the spacial aspects of the recording, not even enough to create echoes or meaningful reverb, that's the hall at work.


 
 Wrong.
  
 I wish I had the other recording made using multimiking. It is the equivalent of CBS (Sony) or NPR in the US releasing the very recording with which they lost out to the single person private enterprise. Of course I did not get to hear it, all the conductors and musicians/singers who did ( no ABX has ever been made(possible)) opted for me - and the other side lost the pre-scheduled recording for the CD.
  
 I did say - ad nuseaum times by now - that multimiked recording can not reveal the superiority of the DSD over PCM. The signal is too mangled before it ever reaches the recorder(s) - whatever the format they record in.
  
 Due to Member of the Trade rule, I will not be posting any of my recordings available on YT stating my real name and/or with links for purchasing the CDs. But I will send you the YT link to the title song from the CD in question as a PM.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Wrong.
> 
> I wish I had the other recording made using multimiking. It is the equivalent of CBS (Sony) or NPR in the US releasing the very recording with which they lost out to the single person private enterprise. Of course I did not get to hear it, all the conductors and musicians/singers who did ( no ABX has ever been made(possible)) opted for me - and the other side lost the pre-scheduled recording for the CD.
> 
> ...


 
 We're not discussing DSD or PCM, why are you changing the discussion? We're discussing a band that should practice more. A compromised recording/miking may sound bad but that doesn't change the musicianship.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> We're not discussing DSD or PCM, why are you changing the discussion? We're discussing a band that should practice more. A compromised recording/miking may sound bad but that doesn't change the musicianship.




Friend of mine on another forum sometimes taps me on the shoulder (ok, email) and asks "Why do you feed it?" Just sayin'.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Friend of mine on another forum sometimes taps me on the shoulder (ok, email) and asks "Why do you feed it?" Just sayin'.
> 
> se


 
 You have a point but the disinformation is annoying.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> You have a point but the disinformation is annoying. :blink:




I know. But by the same token, if they're not fed, they'll eventually go looking elsewhere. 

se


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> We're not discussing DSD or PCM, why are you changing the discussion? We're discussing a band that should practice more. A compromised recording/miking may sound bad but that doesn't change the musicianship.


 
 Sorry, I did not want to change the discussion. 
  
 True, a compromised recording does not change the musicianship. But it can misrepresent good musicianship to the point of being perceived by the listener of such a recording that the musicians really did perform poorly.


----------



## Phishin Phool

FWIW I have several live recordings  that are a mix of soundboard and two pairs stereo mics and they exhibit none of the claims that have been made -The recording sound harmonious and ' right '  I would say the only difference between those and the 100% soundboard version is the inclusion of ambient crowd sounds


----------



## sonitus mirus

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, I did not want to change the discussion.


 
  
 That is rich.  
  
 How about providing the results of your dealer friend's testing with the CD mat?  It has been several weeks now.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/4245#post_11492210
  
_"Your proposal just accepted over the phone. He will deliver the CD for me to rip and him to listen to 10 rips of the chosen track, five done normally and five with mat, he will of course not know which were done with and without mat."_
  
 I won't pester you about the files you were supposedly going to make available for others to analyze.  One thing at a time.


----------



## lamode

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> multimiked recording can not reveal the superiority of the DSD over PCM.


 
  
 Of course... because there is no superiority. But you already knew that.


----------



## lamode

stand said:


> We're not discussing DSD or PCM, why are you changing the discussion?


 
  
 He likes to do that every time someone points out that he is wrong.
 Be prepared for endless circular arguments.


----------



## analogsurviver

sonitus mirus said:


> That is rich.
> 
> How about providing the results of your dealer friend's testing with the CD mat?  It has been several weeks now.
> 
> ...


 
 The CD mat test tracks will get uploaded. I have decided to post the same test for my dealer friend for all of you too - 10 rips, five with, five without the mat.  ABX till death us parts - if so desired.
  
 You can bet I do not enjoy the fact that after recent trouble with my PC ( it did no longer recognize the CD burner, among other things ) , now it does not recognize my RAID box - and as I have to author a CD from the recent recording to the deadline, had to transfer the recording from the recorders to another smaller HD - in order to be able to work at all. It is sheer luck that I did not erase the recordings from the recorder - otherwise I would not be able to work until monday, as it is holliday here - May 1st - and people who could help are off limits till monday.  
  
 And I have scheduled recording tomorrow...


----------



## Opportunist

analogsurviver said:


> ....
> 
> You can bet I do not enjoy the fact that after recent trouble with my PC ( it did no longer recognize the CD burner, among other things ) , now it does not recognize my RAID box - and as I have to author a CD from the recent recording to the deadline, had to transfer the recording from the recorders to another smaller HD - in order to be able to work at all. It is sheer luck that I did not erase the recordings from the recorder - otherwise I would not be able to work until monday, as it is holliday here - May 1st - and people who could help are off limits till monday.
> 
> And I have scheduled recording tomorrow...


 
  
 Fortunately, you're an analog surviver.


----------



## analogsurviver

opportunist said:


> Fortunately, you're an analog surviver.


 
 Yep.


----------



## bigshot

stand said:


> You have a point but the disinformation is annoying.


 

 Don't worry. When it comes to disinformation, we consider the source.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

Reading this thread is better than Monty Python...


----------



## bigshot

ANNDD NOWWWW THUUUHHH DEEESSDEEE SKETCH!


----------



## Opportunist

macacodosom said:


> Reading this thread is better than Monty Python...


 
  
 And now for something completely different...


----------



## StanD

So who wants to rail about PRaT changing the timing/beat of music? Or how about decay in headphones makes musical notes last longer or makes for reverb, one of my favs.


----------



## Mr Rick

Can we discuss the merits of capacitor rolling???


----------



## StanD

mr rick said:


> Can we discuss the merits of capacitor rolling???


 
 The only merits to changing a capacitor is if a crappy one is used to couple to your amp's output to headphones/speakers and becomes nonlinear when carrying/dissapating power. My solution is simple, I don't buy that kind of crap. DC coupling for SS or a quality pure tube amp that has a good output transformer is the way to go. I prefer SS amps.


----------



## analogsurviver

mr rick said:


> Can we discuss the merits of capacitor rolling???


 
 Believe me, if your intentions are not really serious, you do not want to get anywhere near this topic. By serious I mean not only theoretically, but knowing at least the hot end of the soldering iron from the cold one.
  
 But, unless you can get by without the use of capacitors anywhere in the signal path, it is THE topic to discuss.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Believe me, if your intentions are not really serious, you do not want to get anywhere near this topic. By serious I mean not only theoretically, but knowing at least the hot end of the soldering iron from the cold one.
> 
> But, unless you can get by without the use of capacitors anywhere in the signal path, it is THE topic to discuss.


 
 So tell us the properties of a capacitor that relevant and how they affect sound. Don't make up stuff, I'm an EE and can smell that a mile away.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> My solution is simple, I don't buy that kind of crap. DC coupling for SS or a quality pure tube amp that has a good output transformer is the way to go. I prefer SS amps.




How 'bout SS with a transformer on the input and cap coupled output? 

se


----------



## MacacoDoSom

mr rick said:


> Can we discuss the merits of capacitor rolling???


 

 Bait?


----------



## Mr Rick

macacodosom said:


> Bait?


 
 We are on a roll. Why stop the BS now??


----------



## lamode

stand said:


> So tell us the properties of a capacitor that relevant and how they affect sound. Don't make up stuff, I'm an EE and can smell that a mile away.


 
  
 Well, the topic of capacitor non-linearity is well-known. I am surprised to see it questioned here. Here is one study measuring distortion of various capacitors:
  
 http://psykok.dyndns.org/diy/UP/Youpi/PCBs/Capas/EW-WW_CapsSound_Part1.pdf
 http://psykok.dyndns.org/diy/UP/Youpi/PCBs/Capas/EW-WW_CapsSound_Part2.pdf
 http://psykok.dyndns.org/diy/UP/Youpi/PCBs/Capas/EW-WW_CapsSound_Part3.pdf
 http://psykok.dyndns.org/diy/UP/Youpi/PCBs/Capas/EW-WW_CapsSound_Part4.pdf
 http://psykok.dyndns.org/diy/UP/Youpi/PCBs/Capas/EW-WW_CapsSound_Part5.pdf
 http://psykok.dyndns.org/diy/UP/Youpi/PCBs/Capas/EW-WW_CapsSound_Part6.pdf
  
 Some of the results:
  
 The results are that a 10 nF X7R ceramic capacitor gives -80 dB 2nd harmonic, -60 dB 3rd , -105 db 4th, -85 dB 5th, -110 6th, -100 7th.
 10 nF COG ceramic gives -125 dB 3rd, and not measurable other harmonics.
 1 uF film/foil polypropylene gives unmeasurable distortion (< -130 dB).
  
 Intermodulation distortion was also measurable in some capacitors.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> Well, the topic of capacitor non-linearity is well-known. I am surprised to see it questioned here. Here is one study measuring distortion of various capacitors:
> 
> http://psykok.dyndns.org/diy/UP/Youpi/PCBs/Capas/EW-WW_CapsSound_Part1.pdf
> http://psykok.dyndns.org/diy/UP/Youpi/PCBs/Capas/EW-WW_CapsSound_Part2.pdf
> ...


 
 It goes beyond mere electrical stuff. What on earth is a super duper capacitor worth if it proves to be - microphonic ?


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> The only merits to changing a capacitor is if a crappy one is used to couple to your amp's output to headphones/speakers and becomes nonlinear when carrying/dissapating power. My solution is simple, I don't buy that kind of crap. DC coupling for SS or a quality pure tube amp that has a good output transformer is the way to go. I prefer SS amps.


 
  
  


steve eddy said:


> How 'bout SS with a transformer on the input and cap coupled output?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I've seen that done before, recently, I wonder where?


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> So tell us the properties of a capacitor that relevant and how they affect sound. Don't make up stuff, I'm an EE and can smell that a mile away.


 
 Being an EE helps - or detracts - from understanding what is required for audio. 
  
 You will have to dig my old(er) posts regarding caps, I really do not want to repeat them.
  
 But a fair warning : you can ABX on ipods and the like till hell freezes over more times than the best quality counter can possibly ever count. It is simply too poor. Period.
  
 Because it takes replacing each and every poor capacitor in the entire chain - before you can hear all the benefits of the capacitor change. Sometimes, a single poor capacitor remaining in the entire chain can hold the whole system, from microphone capsule to the final transducer, considerably down.
  
 These caps are expensive - always were, always will be. And, since SMD, there was a sizeable reduction of availability - as film capacitors do not lend themselves well to the SMD soldering. It needs not to be exorbitantly priced, but pocket change it will not be in any case. And you have to know  which properties of capacitors are the most important for each and every application in any given circuit. 
  
 The real world limit regarding the use of good caps is their SIZE - and cost.
  
 You can forget finding the really good caps in series produced commercially available equipment. NOS stocks are dwindling by the day and do not allow for consistency in the production - you would hate it to discover that in the piece of audio electronics that you bought in a heartbeat after hearing it at a friend's, your unit, manufactured a few months later, no longer sports the same capacitors - which may have been manufactured before you were even born. And yes, you would be opening the box AFTER being not nearly satisfied with the sound as heard at your friend's. You would not like the ABX results of such case - either.
  
 A large scale manufacturer could afford custom built caps - good caps are still being made, but are really expensive. Which can mean the same "box", equipped once  with normal industry standard caps, second time with premium caps, will display 5 times the difference in price. Because caps themselves are in the range from 3 - 100 times as expensive as the regular stuff - and are generally NOT suited for automated soldering. An entire SMD board can be soldered by robots in about the same time as a single capacitor is soldered correctly into the place by hand  - meaning it is extremely hand labour intensive. Further bringing the cost up.


----------



## StanD

lamode said:


> Well, the topic of capacitor non-linearity is well-known. I am surprised to see it questioned here. Here is one study measuring distortion of various capacitors:
> 
> http://psykok.dyndns.org/diy/UP/Youpi/PCBs/Capas/EW-WW_CapsSound_Part1.pdf
> http://psykok.dyndns.org/diy/UP/Youpi/PCBs/Capas/EW-WW_CapsSound_Part2.pdf
> ...


 
 Of course none of our fancy audio kit uses crap ceramic caps in the signal path. OK, maybe on fleaBay.
 I used to design 18 bit A/D converters using integrators, for measurment systems. Dielectric Absorption could add nonlinearity, especially for dual slope when using a switch, so I used teflon caps.


----------



## StanD

As usual @analogsurviver can't identify any properties and goes into rambling mode. He seems to like using cheap caps that suffer from microphonics. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
 Custom caps= marketing hype. If one cannot design with off the shelf caps, they should hand in their brains.


----------



## bigshot

I'm sure dogs feel compelled to run after sticks that are thrown too. Try as they might, they just can't resist running and fetching the stick to get the master to throw it for them again.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> I'm sure dogs feel compelled to run after sticks that are thrown too. Try as they might, they just can't resist running and fetching the stick to get the master to throw it for them again.


 
 Some of them will chase capacitors. Those usually come with silver cables for leashes.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Of course none of our fancy audio kit uses crap ceramic caps in the signal path. OK, maybe on fleaBay.
> I used to design 18 bit A/D converters using integrators, for measurment systems. Dielectric Absorption could add nonlinearity, especially for dual slope when using a switch, so I used teflon caps.


 
 Teflon caps, hailed by many as non plus ultra, have one extremely annoying property : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect
  
 I remember when working in microelectronics plant back in late 80s, a friend in the measurement department got a measuring cable intended for HP picoampermetr isolated with teflon.
  
 All that came out, instead of expected results, were "street numbers" - "measurements"  below certain level were all over the place, and randomly so - cable insulated by teflon was producing this totally at random distributed error readings. 
  
 Enter the normal "plastic" ( I forgot which plastic exactly it was isolated with ) cable - results back to normal.
  
 After that, I stopped thinking about teflon caps - despite their other properties make them the most desirable of them all.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Teflon caps, hailed by many as non plus ultra, have one extremely annoying property : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect
> 
> I remember when working in microelectronics plant back in late 80s, a friend in the measurement department got a measuring cable intended for HP picoampermetr isolated with teflon.
> 
> ...


 
 I recommend that you refrain from opening your amp and rubbing on your teflon caps. I'm sure you can find another way of getting your kicks.
 I doubt that teflon caps are a must for most audio applications. There are other choices.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

Where the hell was I before meeting you guys?
 I love this....


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> As usual @analogsurviver can't identify any properties and goes into rambling mode. He seems to like using cheap caps that suffer from microphonics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I did say I do not want to repeat myself - but for starters I will repeat only this: http://waltjung.org/PDFs/Picking_Capacitors_1.pdf
  
 Now try to get polystyrene capacitors in values below 100 pF in today's market - off the shelf, from the readily available current production. Although they might even be "available" in the catalogs, you will have to order a sizeable quantity in order to be able to get a single one. No marketing hype - but reality of real life.
  
 And it was not low priced caps, hailed by many how musical they are, that proved to be microphonic.
  
 Usually, off the shelf caps in the above case end up as ceramic (whatever the number for the best ones) - they still are some three orders of magnitude poorer than polystyrene.
  
 Now - go and count 'em - in any real world piece of audio electronics.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> I recommend that you refrain from opening your amp and rubbing on your teflon caps. I'm sure you can find another way of getting your kicks.
> I doubt that teflon caps are a must for most audio applications. There are other choices.


 
 You have missed the point - I pointed _your _choice of capacitors for admittedly critical application as being prematurely thrown in on the hearsay that they are the best.
  
 I have never used a teflon cap in an audio application - usually, their sheer size will prevent them to be used as a replacement for lesser siblings. 
  
 I have a friend with a Conrad Johnson HSD ( Hollow State Device ) preamp and power amp. Replacing regular already high end caps with teflon  sets one back by more than most are willing to spend on their entire audio - just check the C-J price lists. That I find unreasonable - at best.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> It goes beyond mere electrical stuff. What on earth is a super duper capacitor worth if it proves to be - microphonic ?




Um, that's part of the "electrical stuff" as well.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> I've seen that done before, recently, I wonder where?




I don't know, but the son of a bitch ought to be taken out and shot. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Dielectric Absorption could add nonlinearity, especially for dual slope when using a switch, so I used teflon caps.




There isn't any nonlinearity to be traced to DA. This is a topic that's been roiling over on diyAudio for the past week or so. DA was turned into a big scary audiophile Bogey Man after Walt Jung and Richard Marsh published an article about capacitors in Audio magazine back in the '80s or '90s. Yes, DA can cause problems in certain circuits, but there's no nonlinear component to it.

se


----------



## castleofargh

macacodosom said:


> Reading this thread is better than Monty Python...


 

 if you're looking for the best audio, know that the holy grail is in the castle of aaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........


----------



## Steve Eddy

castleofargh said:


> if you're looking for the best audio, know that the holy grail is in the castle of aaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........




Pay no attention to this guy, folks. He's just a harmless little bunny rabbit. 

se


----------



## MacacoDoSom

I don't see TV anymore... I just sit in front of my PC waiting (anxiously) for the next episode/reply...
  
 (listening to some crappy music in my super duper HI-FI, Turntable-> ADC->*DSD*-DAC->valve amp (still warming up)... *no RED book, no EQ, no speakers...*





???)


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> There isn't any nonlinearity to be traced to DA. This is a topic that's been roiling over on diyAudio for the past week or so. DA was turned into a big scary audiophile Bogey Man after Walt Jung and Richard Marsh published an article about capacitors in Audio magazine back in the '80s or '90s. Yes, DA can cause problems in certain circuits, but there's no nonlinear component to it.
> 
> se


 
 Remember I didn't say audio, It was for an integrator where a switch would  close across the capictor to rapidly discharge it. This would cause a small nonlinearity in the A/D conversion.


----------



## ib1dance

Great Thread.
  
 Belief is such a inferior thought process compared to understanding.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Remember I didn't say audio, It was for an integrator where a switch would  close across the capictor to rapidly discharge it. This would cause a small nonlinearity in the A/D conversion.




Yeah, in the conversion. DA itself is a linear phenomenon. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

ib1dance said:


> Great Thread.
> 
> Belief is such a inferior thought process compared to understanding.




Yeah. But belief can be quite comforting, which I guess is why it's so popular. And then we have our vanities and egos to contend with as well. 

se


----------



## StanD

I knew I could count on @analogsurviver to concot a story. I didn't say use teflon, there are many other tyes well suited for audio that are not expensive and can be bought in small quantities on the Internet. I wonder if he's rubbing his teflon caps as per his post.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Remember I didn't say audio, It was for an integrator where a switch would  close across the capictor to rapidly discharge it. This would cause a small nonlinearity in the A/D conversion.


 
 Yes, I remember it was for an integrator, nonlinearity, etc - which is correct. It is critical to have a good capacitor in this application.
  
 The same thing happens with audio. Why would irregular behaviour of capacitors be important for digital only ?
  
 I did post something that might once be possible to prove scientifically - yet nobody replied to that particular sentence, even as a idea - or , more prevalent on this thread, mocking of an idea. It (in)directly involves capacitors in audio.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> I knew I could count on @analogsurviver to concot a story. I didn't say use teflon, there are many other tyes well suited for audio that are not expensive and can be bought in small quantities on the Internet. I wonder if he's rubbing his teflon caps as per his post.


 
 Now - I _might _be tempted to get my # 000000000001 teflon capacitor. Just for the kicks of having one. To be able to rub it ...
  
 I am using internet to obtain other tyes well suited for audio that can be bought in small quantities. It is my #1 use for the internet - from the day 1 .


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, I remember it was for an integrator, nonlinearity, etc - which is correct. It is critical to have a good capacitor in this application.
> 
> The same thing happens with audio. Why would irregular behaviour of capacitors be important for digital only ?
> 
> I did post something that might once be possible to prove scientifically - yet nobody replied to that particular sentence, even as a idea - or , more prevalent on this thread, mocking of an idea. It (in)directly involves capacitors in audio.


 
 A/D conversion is very different from amping an audio signal. This involves reseting an integrator with a semiconductor switch (fet) in a few nS where the DA byproduct depends on the amount of voltage discharged and how that compares to the integration period which varies and thus creates a nonlinear effect. This is not the classic slow charging phenomena but instead manifests in much smaller values affecting bit level measurements. I learned about this form the hard way, in a Lab prototyping and designing circuits.
 One does not short out a capacitor with a switch when passing audio through it.
 What do you mean by capacitors and digital? The only real use in that scenario is bypassing power traces on the PCB, other than related circuits like multivibrators and oscillators.
 Perhaps what you posted didn't get answered for good reasons, perhaps it didn't make sense.


----------



## ib1dance

steve eddy said:


> Yeah. But belief can be quite comforting, which I guess is why it's so popular. And then we have our vanities and egos to contend with as well.
> 
> se


 
  
 Yes belief can be quite comforting and provides hope to many. Yet self understanding ( Biology; Evolution;Ecology;Astronomy etc)  can provide insight and hope that there is so much more we have yet to understand about our existence.
  
 Vanities and ego's can easily be mitigated with scientific evidence (For example, all the observed and measured evidence suggests I am an animal.All be it with a very active imagination) .  But, try & explain that to a irrational ego maniac whom thinks he's a Deity, like the leaders of some country’s.
  
 They don't take it very well  .
  
 Apologies for going of topic a little.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> A/D conversion is very different from amping an audio signal. This involves reseting an integrator with a semiconductor switch (fet) in a few nS where the DA byproduct depends on the amount of voltage discharged and how that compares to the integration period which varies and thus creates a nonlinear effect. This is not the classic slow charging phenomena but instead manifests in much smaller values affecting bit level measurements. I learned about this form the hard way, in a Lab prototyping and designing circuits.
> One does not short out a capacitor with a switch when passing audio through it.
> What do you mean by capacitors and digital? The only real use in that scenario is bypassing power traces on the PCB, other than related circuits like multivibrators and oscillators.
> Perhaps what you posted didn't get answered for good reasons, perhaps it didn't make sense.


 
 Yes, I realize this nonlinearity is Dialectric Adsorption related - and the same is true in audio. If analog stages want at least to approximate 120+ dB dynamic range of better digital, they can not allow themselves to use anything but premium capacitors. The times are of course longer - but I did post an audio  preamp with nS response yesterday IIRC - where the capacitors are stretched to their limits.
  
 Yes, the scenario you mentioned is a correct one.
  
 There is a *slight* chance that what I posted seems so beyond believable because of a very simple reason - very few went that far to be able to see/hear the problem.
 You certainly can not get there with anything available for purchase.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> The same thing happens with audio. Why would irregular behaviour of capacitors be important for digital only ?




DA is linear. It will not create distortion with regard to analog audio.

se


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, I realize this nonlinearity is Dialectric Adsorption related - and the same is true in audio. If analog stages want at least to approximate 120+ dB dynamic range of better digital, they can not allow themselves to use anything but premium capacitors. The times are of course longer - but I did post an audio  preamp with nS response yesterday IIRC - where the capacitors are stretched to their limits.
> 
> Yes, the scenario you mentioned is a correct one.
> 
> ...


 
 Audio amps do not work anywhere in the realm of nano-seconds. What? You work in VHF and microwaves? Digital is not analog and does not need capacitors other than to bypass the power traces on PCB's. Stop making up goofy stuff,


----------



## Roly1650

steve eddy said:


> DA is linear. It will not create distortion with regard to analog audio.
> 
> se



Is it time for me to tap you on the shoulder?


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> DA is linear. It will not create distortion with regard to analog audio.
> 
> se


 
  
  


roly1650 said:


> Is it time for me to tap you on the shoulder?


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> DA is linear. It will not create distortion with regard to analog audio.
> 
> se


 
 There is more than just DA - all explained in the Jung and Marsh article, together with methods and test circuits to measure the imperfections in capacitors.  
  
 I have "lumped" all these into "memory" - as to one cause or another, capacitors do not discharge entirely and in infinitely short period - there is always residue of charge that in theory assuming a perfect capacitor should not have been the case. 
  
 Practice is different. As are real world capacitors and their ability to follow both high frequency and high dynamic range.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> There is more than just DA - all explained in the Jung and Marsh article, together with methods and test circuits to measure the imperfections in capacitors.
> 
> I have "lumped" all these into "memory" - as to one cause or another, capacitors do not discharge entirely and in infinitely short period - there is always residue of charge that in theory assuming a perfect capacitor should not have been the case.
> 
> Practice is different. As are real world capacitors and their ability to follow both high frequency and high dynamic range.


 
 The residual charge affects DC not audio, hence I had issues with A/D conversion, You could take most of your stuff and do a stand up comedy act at an engineering school. Stop trying to connect dots that are not there, it sounds rediculous. What's next, the inductance in the leads of a capacitor affects treble?


----------



## lamode

> As are real world capacitors and their ability to follow both high frequency and high dynamic range.


 
  
 Are you listening to 1GHz warble tones again?
  
 And since when does a capacitor have a "dynamic range"!?


----------



## StanD

lamode said:


> Are you listening to 1GHz warble tones again?
> 
> And since when does a capacitor have a "dynamic range"!?


 
 Maybe he's planning to test the Max voltage specs and fry a few caps? We used to prank fellow EE's and put an electrolytic cap in their desk and blow them up by overvoltaging them. Made a nice mess..


----------



## RRod

lamode said:


> Are you listening to 1GHz warble tones again?
> 
> And since when does a capacitor have a "dynamic range"!?


 
  
 Oh no, we're going to get into that again


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> Oh no, we're going to get into that again


 
 Break out the waveguides,


----------



## sonitus mirus

The Holy Capicitor of Antioch shall have a dynamic range of three, no more, no less.  Three shalt be the dynamic range, and the dynamic range shall be three.  Four shall not be the dynamic range, nor either the number two, excepting that thou then proceed to three.
  
 Right?  So it is settled.  The dynamic range of a capacitor is five.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Audio amps do not work anywhere in the realm of nano-seconds. What? You work in VHF and microwaves? Digital is not analog and does not need capacitors other than to bypass the power traces on PCB's. Stop making up goofy stuff,


 
 Wrong. 
  
 I have posted a Japanese link - which although with some funny translations, correctly lists the specs/capabilities of this unique preamplifier. http://audio-database.com/AGI/amp/model511-e.html
  
 I will upload one day ( when I decide to scan my library of audio stuff ) the original brochure for the 511. Its phono basically works as a two way (loudspeaker) crossover - the low audio stuff ( still past 100 kHz RIAA equalized response ) , above that to at least 90 MHz ( NOT a misprint ) - but usually faster than that - to cater for any possible RFI pickup problems - WITHOUT having to resort to RLC filtering directly at the input, which has adverse effects on the frequency response of MM cartridges.
  
 The output of this VHF part gets ultimately connected to ground - you can use any odd unshielded cables ( linear tracking arms...) with any odd impedance cartridge, without ever experiencing radio pickup - which is the sure proof the circuit is too slow - as happens in all normal phono preamps under adverse conditions of cartridge/wiring/shielding/RFI . 
  
 To my knowledge, no other phono preamp features RFI filtering made in this way. The circuit uses an ageing IC for audio ( basically a dual 714 of military grade case and selection ) and bipolar transistors for feed-forward in order to achieve response past 90 MHz spec.
  
 Line stage is made using LF357 - and unusual AC and DC feedback loops, which guarantee tilt of less than 2% into 600 ohm load at 20 Hz. I have replaced this IC for modern, less noisy and much faster IC - slew rate increased to 3000 V/uS . In theory - no coupling cap known to mankind of the required value can slew at this rate.
  
 It is perhaps the best designed piece of audio equipment - ever. Compared to its execution, HP and Tektonix 
 measuring gear is a - joke.
  
 It was designed cca 1975-ish ...


----------



## MacacoDoSom

...in the bottom we can see clearly a resonance box...


----------



## StanD

@analogsurviver Let me guess you get this stuff off of alien abduction conspiracy websites. You have a unique talent for taking/finding things out of context and into the realm of the rediculous.


----------



## StanD

macacodosom said:


> ...in the bottom we can see clearly a resonance box...


 
 Isn't that a waveguide under the trap door?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

...no it's a wave loop... (analogue loop)


----------



## bigshot

The title of this thread is Testing Audiophile Myths, but who would have guessed it would end up with Audiophile Myths testing us! (well, our patience at least...)


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> @analogsurviver Let me guess you get this stuff off of alien abduction conspiracy websites. You have a unique talent for taking/finding things out of context and into the realm of the rediculous.


 
 Nope. 
  
 If all of you EVER listened to this preamp, ever seen the schematics, ever seen the description, ever seen the objective measurements of anything even approaching this level of quality - and tried to at least try to bring the rest of the system *reasonably* close - only then would you realize what is behind such designs.
  
 It makes me puke to see comments on AGI on various forums - where milk teeth audiophiles, born heavily ACD (after CD) , after stumbling upon the AGI one way or another, asking if the AGI is worth keeping - or replacing by something like entry level Pro-Ject  or NAD phono stage. And equally idiotic answers by "connoisseurs".
  
 I did get to hear it for the first time in 1979 - driving Acoustat X ( or was it Monitor? - 1 ESL panel more ) ESL speakers with built in high voltage direct drive amplifiers.
 A setup that even now, 36 years later, dwarfs the accuracy of most of what is available today.


----------



## Steve Eddy

roly1650 said:


> Is it time for me to tap you on the shoulder?




Stan's got my back. Ouch!

Hey, I'm only human. Plus I wanted to get rid of the rest of my bag of Purina Troll Chow. 

se


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Nope.
> 
> If all of you EVER listened to this preamp, ever seen the schematics, ever seen the description, ever seen the objective measurements of anything even approaching this level of quality - and tried to at least try to bring the rest of the system *reasonably* close - only then would you realize what is behind such designs.
> 
> ...


 
 All from an overactive imagination. Do you know that if you keep a CD Mat overnight in a pyramid its audio properties improve a thousandfold.


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Stan's got my back. Ouch!
> 
> Hey, I'm only human. Plus I wanted to get rid of the rest of my bag of Purina Troll Chow.
> 
> ...


 
 Store it overnight on a CD Mat in a pyramid.


----------



## lamode

I will give credit to analogsurviver for one thing - he speaks English very well for a non-native (he's Slovenian).
  
 Just found one of his recordings here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k03viQs--vc
  
 Pity about youtube's audio quality - it's a nice performance.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> All from an overactive imagination. Do you know that if you keep a CD Mat overnight in a pyramid its audio properties improve a thousandfold.


 
 You, together with the rest of the co-thinkers, are in for a very rude awakening.
  
 There is absolutely no imagination required once a really decent audio is heard.
  
 Or why then CD will no longer be enough.
  
 Only then don't start asking what you can do to improve your systems.
  
 Then it will be my turn to laugh.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> You, together with the rest of the co-thinkers, are in for a very rude awakening.
> 
> There is absolutely no imagination required once a really decent audio is heard.
> 
> ...


 
 They'll be coming to take you away first. Hahaa. If only you studied electronics, for real, you wouldn't post such silly things.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

lamode said:


> I will give credit to analogsurviver for one thing - he speaks English very well for a non-native (he's Slovenian).
> 
> Just found one of his recordings here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k03viQs--vc
> 
> Pity about youtube's audio quality - it's a nice performance.


 

 Good performance indeed... and very very good recording! ...but you think the audio has poor quality? why? AAC 254Kbps.
  
 Do you think it would be much different in DSD?


----------



## lamode

macacodosom said:


> Good performance indeed... and very very good recording! ...but you think the audio has poor quality? why? AAC 254Kbps.
> 
> Do you think it would be much different in DSD?


 
  
 It wasn't a comment about this recording, just Youtube sound in general. According to this article it is *126 kbps AAC*
 Recording sounded pretty good via earbuds I am currently using.
  
 http://www.h3xed.com/web-and-internet/youtube-audio-quality-bitrate-240p-360p-480p-720p-1080p


----------



## bigshot

It depends on when it was uploaded. For the past couple of years, youtube has been using 256 AAC VBR, I think. Before that it was 192. It hasn't been 128 for many years.


----------



## RRod

ffprobe gives this as the content of the audio stream:
 Stream #0:1(und): Audio: aac (LC) (mp4a / 0x6134706D), 44100 Hz, stereo, fltp, 253 kb/s (default)


----------



## lamode

rrod said:


> ffprobe gives this as the content of the audio stream:
> Stream #0:1(und): Audio: aac (LC) (mp4a / 0x6134706D), 44100 Hz, stereo, fltp, 253 kb/s (default)


 
  
 Thanks, I guess that article got it wrong.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> Good performance indeed... and very very good recording! ...but you think the audio has poor quality? why? AAC 254Kbps.
> 
> Do you think it would be much different in DSD?


 
 A fitting comment on the difference between the DSD128 master and YT version :
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKm5xQyD2vE&list=PLZs0gQed9tMRIHjxkkBZ3qRVLb-8eH6iJ
  
 It happens it is one of my technically best recordings - and the only one for which I am authorized to use selected excerpts - in native DSD128. For a year or so by now.
  
 This is due to the fact that string playing was unfortunately not at the level which could allow for issuing the live recording on the CD . It happened so that one or two rehearsals for the strings fell trough because of the _force majeure - _it is inappropriate for me to go into more detail ( multiple conflict of interests of all the parties involved). I have recorded those strings since at least twice and there were no such hiccups as unfortunately present on this recording. Which will because of it all never go beyond what is available on YT - which is a pity, as singing of the Čarnice choir (and both soloists) really was fantastic - and unfortunately, unknown at the time, the swansong of this generation of singers. Today they continue under the same name with different conductor, only 3 members of the generation seen in this video remaining. Still in forming stage(s) each choir has to go trough.
  
 I will use this recording, Mythbuster style, to dispell quite a few statements so persevering in pages of this thread. Taking no prisoners in the process.  What goes around, comes around ;  but I will do it by the book. 
  
 In 12 or so hours, I will be recording duo organ and flute in one of the most  charming and exclusive concert stages with the breathtaking acoustics - a privately owned chapel some 10 miles away from my home. Here a vid (sound from a camera, I recorded the live concert the day before ): 
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2irW3kSDaVo
  
 And here my live recording , YT style (derived from CD redbook, not directly from the DSD ):  
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RRF-aLnAnI
  
 It is 02:30 AM here; over and out till futher notice.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > Good performance indeed... and very very good recording! ...but you think the audio has poor quality? why? AAC 254Kbps.
> ...


 

 ...as I hear it the room has some strange resonances and despite the somewhat poor quality of the camera recording, I prefer it by far (if you want to listen to the music).
 I found the second to be very distracting, anyway either recordings could do a lot better with EQ
  
 For me a good recording let's you/makes you, focus in the music and/or instruments the artist wants to... not the equipment used to record or the room... or the audience... that is why there are good producers, bad producers or no producers at all... that is why when you reach a professional level, the medium/equipment used (they're all good) doesn't matter much, it's the production and the intent of the mix that matter for a recording to be good, very good, or just poor...
  
 All good recordings need post-production if the intent is for people to listen to MUSIC...
  
 I find the Chesky binaural recordings a nice curiosity, you can hear the dynamics, the room, the ambiance, everything, but the MUSIC...comes second...
 different philosophies I think...
  
 Well, one can argue that everything is music, but you can have a field recording where you can hear the birds, the bees, the wind and even some water, all in the same plan, or you can have it focusing on... the bees... without being distracted by the other sounds, the producer/mixer will decide what he/she wants you to focus to... in these recordings my focus goes to the room...not the music or the musicians.
  
  
 I really don't want to recreate a live experience when listening to music... (well I'm not an audiophile, I'm a musicophile..)
  
 In a live concert (when you are there) there is a lot to distract you, you don't go there to listen to music, you go there to see a performance and you will miss *A LOT*, that is one of the reasons that sometimes a good performance (to the public) is not going to make a good audio recording (but maybe a good video).


----------



## Phishin Phool

Perhaps "one" would be inclined to trade me one of their mystical cd mats for some outstanding tuning dots.


----------



## analogsurviver

phishin phool said:


> Perhaps "one" would be inclined to trade me one of their mystical cd mats for some outstanding tuning dots.


 
 You would not believe what "tuning dots" - one might call them even that way - can accomplish - if and when applied correctly and where it matters.
  
 Except for the fact that I am in no way inclined to reveal this "tiny" detail to other competing manufacturers. I am loyal to the people who treated me well LONG after I no longer work there.
  
 Nothing mystical about mats either - the mechanism behind all of such mats I have described numerous times and will not be repeating it.
  
 For the way Edison treated Tesla, he is no hero in my book - the other way around actually. But I remember one (true?) anecdote about him:
  
 In a factory, some Edison made and supplied machinery broke down - bringing entire plant to a stop. The owner of the factory brought Edison ASAP to the malfunctioning machine and asked the foreman of the shift to explain to the Edison how did the machine behave just before breaking down/stopping to work. Foreman explained. Then Edison asked for a larger hammer - and placed a hammer blow at some place of the machine; the machine sprung to life, back to normal operation.
  
 The happy factory owner asked Edison what is his due. Edison coolly replied - 1000 $. "What - a thousand bucks for a blow with a hammer !?!" was furious the factory owner. "Please explain HOW can a hammer blow cost one grand ". Edison requested a sheet of paper and a pencil.
  
- one hammer blow .............................................................. 1 $
- knowing where to blow with the hammer...........................999 $
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL .............................................................................1000 $      
  
 The same principle applies to much things - and audio devices are certainly no exception. 
  
 Some things can be calculated with the precision so high that actual physical thing will work with 100 %  of the calculated model - actually, for real, from the first time.  Some have to be arrived at by trial and error
 - either way, one has to know
WHERE or HOW something has to be applied in order to be beneficial to the process in which it is used.
  
 CD mat is such a thing - except for the exceptional cases already mentioned too many times, it is beneficial when playing back the CD / CD-R / DVD . Never tried Blue Ray - no idea if it can be used or if it works better with it.
  
 If you were a manufacturer of an advanced CD transport, for which you spent say a year for R&D -  and got equaled at an important show in SQ by a shoping mall DVD player - because "they" used CD mat and you did not - while both using the same DAC -  I *bet* that grin of yours would disappear  in no time flat 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




...


----------



## MacacoDoSom

phishin phool said:


> Perhaps "one" would be inclined to trade me one of their mystical cd mats for some outstanding tuning dots.


 

 I don't have CD mats, yet... but I have... a Marigo Titanium power cable... I could trade for your  outstanding tuning dots.
  
 and what about a *Balanced Apparition 5.8 Signature Digital Cable*?
  
 “This digital cable is a Jonathan Scull favorite. Air, air, and more air . . . . the midrange is as good as digital gets.”
  
 what do you have to say to this?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

http://dagogo.com/stage-iii-kraken-power-cable-review-followup
  
 any comments?


----------



## maverickronin

Too much of another Kraken?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

that, is a must... but the mids tend to get a bit blurred, not to mention the highs...


maverickronin said:


> Too much of another Kraken?


 
 that, is a must... but the mids tend to get a bit blurred, not to mention the highs...


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> - one hammer blow .............................................................. 1 $
> - knowing where to blow with the hammer...........................999 $
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> TOTAL .............................................................................1000 $


----------



## StanD

There he goes again, analogsurvivor.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

stand said:


> There he goes again, analogsurvivor.


 

 ...what life will be without him? ...boring!
  
 ...and I'm still waiting for the CD mats test files...


----------



## StanD

macacodosom said:


> ...what life will be without him? ...boring!
> 
> ...and I'm still waiting for the CD mats test files...


 
 I'm surprised that he hasn't come up with a new hybrid technolgy, placing tuning dots on CD Mats. Just think of all the possibilites.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> http://dagogo.com/stage-iii-kraken-power-cable-review-followup
> 
> any comments?


 
 nope - 
  
 BECAUSE 
  
  - just beside the cable review - 
  
 I saw this :  http://dagogo.com/audio-by-van-alstine-abx-comparator-review-part-1-audio-store-wiring
  

  
  
 It is a real hardware ABX comparator - from someone I trust and deeply respect for decades - Frank Van Alstine. I did not go trough it all yet - but chances are that these 999 $ are probably one of the if not the smartest spent $$$ in audio today - saving LOTS of unnecessary spent  money in the long run. Convince your local dealer he/she needs one to impress the customers, gain their trust while at the same time increase his/hers credibility - then get him/her to lend it to you over weekend or something.
  And it works with analog sources - no dreaded computer absolutely required
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 !
  
Specification:

 Price: $999
 Connections: two preamplifiers, two power amplifiers, three sets of speakers with or without subwoofers.
 Precise volume level matching, within 0.1 db, of any system.
 Blind test modes (either informal or formal) force evaluations by how it sounds.
 Works with or without a subwoofer.
 Programmable power-up state and adjustable display brightness.
 Persistent volume settings power up the same as they were when last powered down.
 Multiple systems can be set up permanently and switched in/out with remote control.
 low noise.
 Built in "Y" splitter can be used to drive two units with one source.
 Allows selection of up to two speakers at the same time.
 Mute entire system with a single button.
 Gold plated RCA connectors for line level signal connections.
 DC coupled (no capacitors in the signal path).
 Ground lift capability should a ground loop noise problem exist (very rare).
Audio by Van Alstine


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Convince your local dealer he/she needs one to impress the customers, gain their trust while at the same time increase his/hers credibility - then get him/her to lend it to you over weekend or something.




Why would a dealer want to do that? A dealer is much better off letting audiophools have their purely subjectivist based views. They'll sell more expensive electronics that way. And that would kill off the extra money they make on a sale when they add on some expensive cables. 

Are you trying to bankrupt the dealers?


----------



## Phishin Phool

> You would not believe what "tuning dots" - one might call them even that way - can accomplish - if and when applied correctly and where it matters.


 
 OMG, beyond belief (and help)
  


> Nothing mystical about mats either - the mechanism behind all of such mats I have described numerous times and will not be repeating it.


 
 Actually , nothing BUT mysticism - SMH


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Why would a dealer want to do that? A dealer is much better off letting audiophools have their purely subjectivist based views. They'll sell more expensive electronics that way. And that would kill off the extra money they make on a sale when they add on some expensive cables.
> 
> Are you trying to bankrupt the dealers?


 
 You guys _*really *_reign supreme as spin doctors - got to give you that !
  
 If I propose a $ 50 or so CD mat, I am a blantant snake oil salesman depriving poor audiophools of the hard earned and saved money for the tuition of their children - if I propose a really well made ABX comaparator, then I am trying to bankrupt the dealers. You win - no matter what. 
  
 And yes, cables CAN be used to finely tune one's system. I do not like the idea of charging for it as much as it is charged in real life - but hey , it DOES work. 
  
 You also CAN ABX two cables with this Audio by Van Alstine ABX box - simply use an Y RCA splitter at the output of the source (in case it does not have two sets of output jacks already ) and - voila - your DBT ABX of cables can begin. 
  
 But, it is always questionable how far one wants to go with this - if an honest test might reveal something the tester would NOT like to be revealed.
  
 It is a double sided sword.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> You guys _*really *_reign supreme as spin doctors - got to give you that !
> 
> If I propose a $ 50 or so CD mat, I am a blantant snake oil salesman depriving poor audiophools of the hard earned and saved money for the tuition of their children - if I propose a really well made ABX comaparator, then I am trying to bankrupt the dealers. You win - no matter what.
> 
> ...


 
 You can always buy the ABX hardware and gift it to your favorite audio dealer.
 I have a switch and I use it.
 Cables, more snake oil. So what is the electrical property of a cable that affects SQ? Please no goofy answers.


----------



## analogsurviver

phishin phool said:


> OMG, beyond belief (and help)
> 
> Actually , nothing BUT mysticism - SMH


 
 Well,
  
 1.) ignorance
  
 and 
  
 2.)
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinkers_%28horse_tack%29
  
 are not exactly punishable - but they do NOT give one an advantage over those who can see beyond the tip of their nose.
  
 And/or are willing to explore past the immediately obvious.
  
 I said I can not comment on those "dots" in public - for the reasons cited - but your mere response indicates that you are guilty of either 1.) and/or 2.)


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> You guys _*really *_reign supreme as spin doctors - got to give you that !
> 
> If I propose a $ 50 or so CD mat, I am a blantant snake oil salesman depriving poor audiophools of the hard earned and saved money for the tuition of their children - if I propose a really well made ABX comaparator, then I am trying to bankrupt the dealers. You win - no matter what.




You really think an ABX comparator is a good device for the typical dealer's business model and regular customer? Joe Audiophool regular customer to the dealer won't be upgrading his DAC or amp every few years once he finds out he cannot hear a difference. 

I think you are totally clueless about how the hi-fi shop makes money.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> You can always buy the ABX hardware and gift it to your favorite audio dealer.
> I have a switch and I use it.
> Cables, more snake oil. So what is the electrical property of a cable that affects SQ? Please no goofy answers.


 
 Cable electrical properties ?
  
 RLC characteristics. These can - and are - used to tune the final response, particularly high(er) output impedance tubed gear can be affected - tube preamps DO NOT LIKE practically any capacitance (if no cathode follower or other "buffer" is used - ideally omited for better sonics) - that is why many purist tube gear is made as integrated amps - eschewing that catastrophic 100 pF or more of interconnect between pre and power amp - replacing it by say 10-20 pF internal connection.
  
 You could say similar regarding inductance with some SS stuff.
  
 Again, cables CAN be microphonic. Not exactly electrical property as such, but sound is vibration and vibration in poorly made cable will provide signal if vibration is impigning on the cable. A definitive disadvantage if such cable is used in a sound recording and/or reproduction system.
  
 Then there is the material of the conductor itself. Copper, as the most common material used, is subject to deterioration with time, creating green patina after a (quite) few years :
  

  
 Although an older cable can look intact without broken/damaged plastic insulation, cutting it up will reveal much the same pic as above - I sure did not like the appearance of my Stax cable when it broke and had to be repaired - yuck ! It also no longer can conduct as when new - no doubt about it.  Trouble is  that this is a slow process - precluding any ABXing - and we adapt to it on daily basis. One does usually not perform decade(s) old Cu cable
 tests vs fresh current production - unless that old cable breaks beyond reasonable repair.
  
 The oldest form of semiconductor was - Copper Oxide. Each such crystal of oxide actually is - a diode. Many many many diodes in series CAN NOT FUNCTION AS A CONDUCTOR - but as, at least partially, as semiconductor.  Which CLEARLY is a not desired property.That is why copper is being processed to as oxygen free percentage as possible - and why techniques to create as long copper oxygen free crystals as possible have been developed. 
  
 This is where silver cable has and will always have edge over copper - it oxidizes on the surface, yet this oxide prevents it to rot further into the material - and besides giving more reliable and better performance, may even be less expensive in the long run. Replacing ALL the cables say in a studio on regular basis (say 10 or so years ) is one hell of a lot work - and doing it two or three times can well mean it would be mprte cost effective to use silver from the start.
  
 Then, there are properties of the insulation - again, the same story as with capacitors - dialectric properties.
  
 When you combine all the above PLUS geometric considerations (affecting RLC and microphonics ), it can be rather easy to see that the cable can be tailored to the desired end sound. It should not be like that in an ideal world - but we are not living in ideal world, everything has its practical limitations. 
  
 Cables included.
  
 I did - quite intentionally - throw a teaser or two regarding cables in the past - including a hint or two. Yet the responses were soooooooooooooooooooooo narow minded in their denial of ANY possibility that cable could cause audible difference that I hardly can believe this is Sound Science forum - where impedance, voltage, current, pF, R, uH , etc - should mean something.
  
 Get your act together - it is HIGH time. 
  
 And my absolutely last post on cables.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> You really think an ABX comparator is a good device for the typical dealer's business model and regular customer? Joe Audiophool regular customer to the dealer won't be upgrading his DAC or amp every few years once he finds out he cannot hear a difference.
> 
> I think you are totally clueless about how the hi-fi shop makes money.


 
 I do KNOW.
  
 That is why hifi shops are weary/scary to employ me in the first place - because I DO NOT LIE. 
  
 And will send the customer even to the competition if I honestly can not fullfill the customer's desire with what is available in a store I work at. Not exactly popular with store owners - as you might have guessed by now.
  
 Got some friends - for life - because of that.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> I do KNOW.
> 
> That is why hifi shops are weary/scary to employ me in the first place - because I DO NOT LIE.




If dealer doesn't have an ABX comparator, they don't have to lie. They can sell equipment based on their--and their customers'--subjective impressions. They'll make way more money that way.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> If dealer doesn't have an ABX comparator, they don't have to lie. They can sell equipment based on their--and their customers'--subjective impressions. They'll make way more money that way.


 
 Interesting world.
  
 I get *almost* tar feathered because of CD mat at say $50 - which I neither produce nor sell. Being ridiculed in any variation on the theme possible in the process.
  
 Because it *no way under this sun* a CD mat could possibly make a lick of a difference.
  
 ( but can prevent one from buying a new CD player - because the existing one + CD mat CAN be match or more than match for the latest offerings  - those things actually have happened )
  
 Yet if dealers do not employ an ABX comparator - according to you - they are relieved of any guilt for selling  more costlier gear than necessary - for the sake of  making more profit.
  
 A dealer still CAN lie - even if employing an ABX comparator. How many dealers will be willing to tell you the gear they are selling has lower life expectancy than that of the competior's ?


----------



## Phishin Phool

> Again, cables CAN be microphonic. Not exactly electrical property as such, but sound is vibration and vibration in poorly made cable will provide signal if vibration is impigning on the cable. A definitive disadvantage if such cable is used in a sound recording and/or reproduction system.


 
FALSE
  
Sound is not transmitted via cables - electrical impulses are and they are not microphonic. A transducer (speaker) is required on the other end to turn the electrical impulses into acoustic sound.
  
I am beginning to think you quite mad!


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Cable electrical properties ?
> 
> RLC characteristics. These can - and are - used to tune the final response, particularly high(er) output impedance tubed gear can be affected - tube preamps DO NOT LIKE practically any capacitance (if no cathode follower or other "buffer" is used - ideally omited for better sonics) - that is why many purist tube gear is made as integrated amps - eschewing that catastrophic 100 pF or more of interconnect between pre and power amp - replacing it by say 10-20 pF internal connection.
> 
> ...


 
 OK,so lets debunk your usual wild ideas.
 First some real information, the properties.

Resistance
Impedance
Capacitance
Inductance
  
 1) Old cables, if they fail replace them.
 2) Copper Oxide, Cables are not made of copper oxide and it takes a very long time for that to begin forming on an insulated cable. Even if there was a thin skin of copper oxide on a cable it wouldn't be a problem.
 3) Capacitance, a couple of hundred pf load should not affect a modern heaphone amp. A 200 pf capacitance has a reactance of 796 Ohms at 1MHz or over 39 kOhms at 20 KHz. Nothing to worry about, except for wild immaginations. Even a cheap opamp from the 1970's can handle that, if used properly.
 4) Inductance, yep that's a problem, at very high radio frequencies.
 5) RLC, once again, something to consider at radio frequencies, not audio. Do some math, it's not that complicated.
 6) Microphones, get a cable that doesn't have stiff wires and insulation. This is a mechanical thing, not electronic. The sound does not come through electronically, it's mechanically conducted vibrations.If you have a dirty connector, clean it.
 7) Dielectric properties are effectively manifested in pf, any stock headphone or interconnect cable I own has very low capacitance, not in the realm of audio.
 To use your vernacular:

Your claims as usual are soooooooooooooo rediculous.
Get your act together and put your overactive imagination under control.
Go to school and study some electronics. I have.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> I get *almost* tar feathered because of CD mat at say $50 - which I neither produce nor sell. Being ridiculed in any variation on the theme possible in the process.
> 
> Because it *no way under this sun* a CD mat could possibly make a lick of a difference.




You are in a sound science forum. You are not in a hifi shop. If you don't understand why you deserve to be tarred and feathered for your subjective claims after all this conversation, you need to get out. (lol)



analogsurviver said:


> Yet if dealers do not employ an ABX comparator - according to you - they are relieved of any guilt for selling  more costlier gear than necessary - for the sake of  making more profit.




Who said anything about relieving guilt? I said they don't have to lie. They can continue to sell based on subjective impressions, just as they have been doing: "This sounds better to me." And their business model depends on it, or they won't be making sales.


----------



## StanD

@analogsurviver , et.al. More on cables.
 The wavelength of 20 kHz is 15000 meters. So let's not think of transmission lines, SWR, termination or waveguides. I can't think of anyone with a 1/4 Wave headphone cable.
 As the frequency lowers the wavlength increases.
 The Ham radio 10 Meter (wavelength) band beings at 28.000 and goes to 29.700 MHz. So don't worry about headphone cables.


----------



## limpidglitch

stand said:


> The wavelength of 20 kHz is 15000 meters. So let's not think of transmission lines, SWR, termination or waveguides. I can't think of anyone with a 1/4 Wave headphone cable.


 
  
 It would have been if sound traveled at the speed of light.
 As it stands, the wavelength of a 20kHz soundwave at STP 17.15mm (343ms-1/20000s-1)


----------



## StanD

limpidglitch said:


> It would have been if sound traveled at the speed of light.
> As it stands, the wavelength of a 20kHz soundwave at STP 17.15mm (343ms-1/20000s-1)


 
 However, what travels in the cable is electrical and travels near the speed of light. Once it leaves the headphone/loudspeakers that's when the story changes. Your scenario is incorrect as it applies to cables.


----------



## OddE

stand said:


> However, what travels in the cable is electrical and travels near the speed of light. Once it leaves the headphone/loudspeakers that's when the story changes. Your scenario is incorrect as it applies to cables.


 
  
 -More like at 60-70% of the speed of light in most practical cables, but I am splitting hairs here, a favourite pastime of mine. You are right; he's wrong. (And I love reading these cable threads - being an MSc who majored in RF engineering and an avid ham radio operator, I've done my fair share of both crunching the numbers on, building and testing transmission lines (fancy word for 'cable').
  
 Short version: At baseband audio, there's no magic; just about anything goes.


----------



## StanD

odde said:


> -More like at 60-70% of the speed of light in most practical cables, but I am splitting hairs here, a favourite pastime of mine. You are right; he's wrong. (And I love reading these cable threads - being an MSc who majored in RF engineering and an avid ham radio operator, I've done my fair share of both crunching the numbers on, building and testing transmission lines (fancy word for 'cable').
> 
> Short version: At baseband audio, there's no magic; just about anything goes.


 
 Even lamp (brown zip) cord will work, then again you did say that, "just about anything goes." I'm an EE and find a lot of the audio threads very amusing. I specialized in audio, instrumentation, process control and microprocessor/digital.
 I dabbled in RF, me and a buddy did some bad things with a spark gap when we were 12, in a densly populated urban area, NYC. Lets just say that Radio and TV reception was compromised when we were messing around.


----------



## bigshot

How fast does misinformation travel? It seems to defy physics sometimes!


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> How fast does misinformation travel? It seems to defy physics sometimes!


 
 When it comes to our friend it defies physics and travels faster than the speed of light. He cheats and uses a wormhole.


----------



## limpidglitch

stand said:


> However, what travels in the cable is electrical and travels near the speed of light. Once it leaves the headphone/loudspeakers that's when the story changes. Your scenario is incorrect as it applies to cables.


 
  
 Ah yes, minor detail


----------



## Phishin Phool

stand said:


> Even lamp (brown zip) cord will work, then again you did say that, "just about anything goes."......


 
 LOL - I actually have 14g brown lamp cord as my wires for my HT and that set-up is way more expensive than my headphone hobby (and more important to me as well). 7.2 Paradigm system. Nothing I have seen or heard has convinced me to change.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

stand said:


> odde said:
> 
> 
> > -More like at 60-70% of the speed of light in most practical cables, but I am splitting hairs here, a favourite pastime of mine. You are right; he's wrong. (And I love reading these cable threads - being an MSc who majored in RF engineering and an avid ham radio operator, I've done my fair share of both crunching the numbers on, building and testing transmission lines (fancy word for 'cable').
> ...


 

 ...now its getting interesting


----------



## MacacoDoSom

stand said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > How fast does misinformation travel? It seems to defy physics sometimes!
> ...


 


 ...that's how fast...


----------



## analogsurviver

Guys - you've really cracked me up with the past few replies.
  
 So much so  I had to check your profiles - each and every one of the frequent posters - in hope they _might _( a fairly low possibility ) reveal at least a hint of hope for at least a faint possibility that any one of you might - eventually - realize that what I said is not anywhere as far removed from audio frequencies as some of you have been trying to represent with math - which was correct. It is all WELL WITHIN  AUDIBLE RANGE - if you know what to look for.
  
 Problem - there is LOTS of you with the
  
 "It looks like Member X  hasn't added anything to their community profile yet."
  
 not listing even at least some equipment used. I have found so far _*TWO *_members that just might be possibly capable of grasping what it is about cables - based on the equipment they , according to the profile, allegedly use.
  
 None of you use any of the equipment that is the most sensitive to the cable (quality) - and it shows in the answers. Painfully so.
 I had to laugh so hard at few posts that it actually - hurt.
  
 Sorry, the lack of collective practical experience you as a group so amply manifested is downright shocking. And you can be quadruple PhDs - and still not being able to realize the problem laughing right in front of your face.
  
 I am really sorry we live so far apart - a good old listening session, with ABX DBT if required, would be able to clear things up in one afternoon. Because hearing IS believing - and demonstrable by ABX DBT . 
  
 I realize you probably all are quite decent guys in person - yet this internet thing can be quite "strange" - for the "lack" of better word. Let's leave it at that.


----------



## jodgey4

I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt. I know many audiophiles who have bought expensive cables and returned them, buy new things and don't update their profiles, etc. I've also auditioned lots of speaker equipment I can't remember the exact names of, and don't list.
  
 Also, to suggest that you know more than a supposed 4x PhD I think is a bit presumptuous, though well intended. Let's all be careful in assuming backgrounds.


----------



## maverickronin

Honestly around here it won't matter what gear someone lists in their profile.  Someone or other will get around to blaming it for not be "resolving" enough eventually.
  
 Someone with the exact same gear will instead blame you for having improper taste in music.


----------



## sonitus mirus

analogsurviver said:


> It is all WELL WITHIN  AUDIBLE RANGE - if you know what to look for.


 
  
 It seems silly to have to ask, but what do you define as being within audible range?


----------



## analogsurviver

jodgey4 said:


> I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt. I know many audiophiles who have bought expensive cables and returned them, buy new things and don't update their profiles, etc. I've also auditioned lots of speaker equipment I can't remember the exact names of, and don't list.
> 
> Also, to suggest that you know more than a supposed 4x PhD I think is a bit presumptuous, though well intended. Let's all be careful in assuming backgrounds.


 
 That is a start - giving the benefit of a doubt 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Most of the rest have categorically taken the stand "negate whatever he says". 
  
 I did not list all of the equipment - or that auditioned. But I did list the most important pieces of equipment I use. There is not a SINGLE cable of any appreciable value used - because (good enough) quality does not have to be expensive - but YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO KNOW WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THAT CABLE IN THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION. Going all the way unfortunately will cost you dearly. Although (somewhat) familiar with such cables, I do not go anywhere near - simply because I can not afford those prices and will ALWAYS find better way to spend the audio $ - which is not to say that I do not appreciate the audible differences cables, if used judiciously with discretion, can make in the final tuning of the overall system sound. A good dealer, worth his/her salt, should be capable of demonstrating to anybody the importance of the cables - with real gear, real rooms, real recordings. At practically every price range. Now - do not blame him or her - if it turns out the cable you are willing to die for - costs almost as much to be capable of - literally - killing you from starvation. 
  
 I did NOT say that I know more than  quadruple PhDs - but there ARE PhDs that do not know hot side of the soldering iron from the cold. There is no more practical thing than a good theory - yet totally removed from practice, it is equally worthless. Having played with audio for some 4 decades now on an uninterupted quest for better sound does give a great deal of practical experience - which no theory on its own can possibly provide.


----------



## analogsurviver

sonitus mirus said:


> It seems silly to have to ask, but what do you define as being within audible range?


 
 In this case, (16)20 Hz to 20 kHz.
  
 Otherwise, the goal I am striving for is some five times that - to 100 kHz. Range that microphones and recorders are just beginning to make a reality.


----------



## bigshot

100kHz isn't five times 20kHz. It's about two and a half octaves higher.


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> That is a start - giving the benefit of a doubt
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 No, it's more like 'negate everything which doesn't fit scientific understanding thus far.' That's kinda how 'science' works: ignore it until you can prove it. So far, you haven't proven anything except raising the ire of the entire Sound Science community. This isn't some anecdote you tell your awestruck friends: here, you're scutinised until we run out of things to say about you. The fact that you're employing strawmen arguments and arguing the logic rather than the argument for your claims is sufficient to most here that you're of no contribution to this thread.
  
 If I talk to a mate about him buying cables, then I'll give him benefit of doubt. If I'm in a science conference talking about him buying cables, then I'll rip into him. Different scenarios, different responses. Get it through to that head of yours. _We are under no obligation to be handing out benefits of doubts here_.
  
 Don't worry, they don't only negate what _you_ say: they'll negate anyone who says anything stupid without any corroboration. I'll demonstrate:
  
*A FULL MOON CAUSES THE SOUND TO BE BRIGHTER AND MORE CLEAR*
  
 Now wait while everyone reks me.
  
 Oh, and: 
  


analogsurviver said:


> I did NOT say that I know more than  quadruple PhDs - but there ARE PhDs that do not know hot side of the soldering iron from the cold. There is no more practical thing than a good theory - yet totally removed from practice, it is equally worthless. Having played with audio for some 4 decades now on an uninterupted quest for better sound does give a great deal of practical experience - which no theory on its own can possibly provide.


 
 Conversely, there ARE practical guys who don't know the difference between inductance and capacitance. It works both ways here. Completely useless argument here: if you think you know better than them, then _show_ them. Talking to them isn't going to convince them one way or another.


----------



## StanD

Our friend analogsurvivor is unable to provide valid technical reasons, properties and numbers to prove his odd cable theories. I have given him the only properties that are in context, concepts and some calculated numbers. So instead he invokes a mild insult or two and then throws some silly BS at the wall, hoping that it'll stick.
@analogsurviver Where's the beef?


----------



## lamode

sonitus mirus said:


> It seems silly to have to ask, but what do you define as being within audible range?


 
  
 Well he didn't say audible range FOR HUMANS


----------



## StanD

lamode said:


> Well he didn't say audible range FOR HUMANS


 
 Looks like Ross Perot's pet bat.


----------



## Head Injury

dazzerfong said:


> *A FULL MOON CAUSES THE SOUND TO BE BRIGHTER AND MORE CLEAR*


 
 Hmm yes I see that's reasonable.


----------



## castleofargh

the list! the mmorpg of forums. the longer you play the stronger you are. an average uninterested 60 year old guy will almost always have owned more and better stuff than a 25 year old guy. it's a time+money equation, not an audio expertise rating. my father has owned at least twice as many audio stuff as me, and most likely his last stuff is worth more than all the audio gears I've bought in my life. he never knew a thing and simply bought the expensive stuff some guy told him was the best. I guess he would get maximum respect for his massive expertise on headfi...
 a little silly TBH. and that's without accounting for all the people who couldn't care less about showing a list of the stuff they own to others.
  
  
  
  
  
 ps: no hd800 on full moon!
 does it make music bright only once the sun is down? because I might need a clock to know when to switch amp.


----------



## dazzerfong

castleofargh said:


> the list! the mmorpg of forums. the longer you play the stronger you are. an average uninterested 60 year old guy will almost always have owned more and better stuff than a 25 year old guy. it's a time+money equation, not an audio expertise rating. my father has owned at least twice as many audio stuff as me, and most likely his last stuff is worth more than all the audio gears I've bought in my life. he never knew a thing and simply bought the expensive stuff some guy told him was the best. I guess he would get maximum respect for his massive expertise on headfi...
> a little silly TBH. and that's without accounting for all the people who couldn't care less about showing a list of the stuff they own to others.
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Look, I could care less what they buy. It's their money, after all. But when they proclaim it's 'better' without even coming up with a shred of evidence, that's where I draw the line.
  
 Also, no, in the day, it's even brighter. I mean, how could it not be: more solar energy! To tame the HD800's treble, you need to wait for a waxing crescent. /s


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> the list! the mmorpg of forums. the longer you play the stronger you are.


 
  
 Some of us old codgers are still just questing after bang for the buck sound, not money or prestige!


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> Well he didn't say audible range FOR HUMANS


 
 In this case - see my exact reply to 
@sonitus mirus  - I did specify frequency response limited to (16)20 Hz - 20 kHz .
  
 There are thread after thread about a specific not only principle of operation, but brand specific headphones . 
 And yet there is little, if any ( I admit - did not go trough _*all *_of those threads  - at least the size of this one - EACH )
 mention of _ *CABLES *_- and the totally unnecessary but audible troubles they cause, well within the human hearing range - and starting at the *lowest * limits of hearing of the above little friends : (according to the "species" - of both headphones and bats )
  
 [size=17.0300006866455px]Bats[/size][size=17.0300006866455px][edit]  (from wikipedia)[/size]
Bats have evolved very sensitive hearing to cope with their nocturnal activity. Their hearing range varies by species; at the lowest it can be 1 kHz for some species and for other species the highest reaches up to 200 kHz. Bats that can detect 200 kHz cannot hear very well below 10 kHz.[20] In any case, the most sensitive range of bat hearing is narrower: about 15 kHz to 90 kHz.[20]

 

If this is not a clue enough, then I do not know what it is. I _*did *_point out the problem ( one of them, the other(s) I did not proceed with - yet ) in this and other threads - only to get either blank stares from those who do not realize what the problem is - and not so well disguised unease from those who sell the solution to the problem that could basically, in most cases, be solved by the better cable - which is many times less expensive option. Or considerably further improve the performance by combining both. There is a catch, though; the said cable does not exist off the shelf - or at least I have not been capable of sourcing it; and I *am **good *at sourcing hard to obtain parts. I did use "the next best readily available" cable - as a sort of technology demonstrator - if you will.


----------



## Don Hills

... so changing the cable makes a difference great enough to be AUDIBLE? Then something is incompetently designed or constructed. Either the cable or, more likely, the equipment being interconnected. Please list your equipment, so that I can avoid buying any of it... And don't bother to trot out the line that only the most resolving equipment can reveal the difference caused by the cable. That dog got too old to hunt a long time ago.


----------



## analogsurviver

don hills said:


> ... so changing the cable makes a difference great enough to be AUDIBLE? Then something is incompetently designed or constructed. Either the cable or, more likely, the equipment being interconnected. Please list your equipment, so that I can avoid buying any of it... And don't bother to trot out the line that only the most resolving equipment can reveal the difference caused by the cable. That dog got too old to hunt a long time ago.


 
 STAX


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> In this case - see my exact reply to
> @sonitus mirus  - I did specify frequency response limited to (16)20 Hz - 20 kHz .
> 
> There are thread after thread about a specific not only principle of operation, but brand specific headphones .
> ...


 
 Again you fail to define the properties of a cable that affect the SQ. It's back to making unsubstantiated claims and hoping it'll stick to the wall. Well I think I've identified how this cable stuff works, it's based upon an old song,  "'Cause you know it's just. Your imagination running wild."


----------



## dazzerfong

stand said:


> Again you fail to define the properties of a cable that affect the SQ. It's back to making unsubstantiated claims and hoping it'll stick to the wall. Well I think I've identified how this cable stuff works, it's based upon an old song,  "'Cause you know it's just. Your imagination running wild."


 
 To be fair, with speakers, there's a pretty big difference if you use 30-gauge cable as opposed to a 10-gauge one............


----------



## StanD

dazzerfong said:


> To be fair, with speakers, there's a pretty big difference if you use 30-gauge cable as opposed to a 10-gauge one............


 
 Who uses 30 gauge wire for speakers? But you can use lamp cord/brown zip cord not silver cables that were assembled by elves.
 Also the gauge can be determined by how much power is required and the length of the run.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Again you fail to define the properties of a cable that affect the SQ. It's back to making unsubstantiated claims and hoping it'll stick to the wall. Well I think I've identified how this cable stuff works, it's based upon an old song,  "'Cause you know it's just. Your imagination running wild."


 
 Oh dear - I did write STAX - didn't I ? What  are they famous for - vacuum cleaners ?
  
 Now - once for a change - step down from the cathedre http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cath%C3%A8dre , out of the comfort zone - and start _*thinking *_- this case does not even require thinking out of the box, just plain solid engineering - IF one understands the principle of operation and problems it creates in real world where there are no limitless resources.
  
_*CAPACITANCE*_


----------



## lamode

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> ...be solved by the better cable...


 
  
 I have been working for some years on a comprehensive guide to audio interconnect cables, which will answer every question the novice and expert alike will need to know. I decided to make it publicly available here in its entirety, so without further ado, I present...
  
*LaMode's Comprehensive Guide to Audio Interconnect Cables for the Novice and Expert Alike*
  
 Question: Do cables make a difference to the sound?
 Answer: No


----------



## lamode

stand said:


> Who uses 30 gauge wire for speakers? But you can use lamp cord/brown zip cord not silver cables that were assembled by elves.
> Also the gauge can be determined by how much power is required and the length of the run.


 
  
 The power efficiency is not important on a home audio system. Losing 5% of power is barely an audible difference.
  
 However the resistance of the cable will affect the speaker's damping, which may be audible in extreme circumstances.


----------



## lamode

> Originally Posted by *analogsurviver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> this case does not even require thinking out of the box, just plain solid engineering


 
  
 If you understood even basic RC filters, you would understand how ridiculous the claim is that the capacitance on an interconnect will make an audible difference to the FR.
  
 Here is an online calculator to make it easy even for trolls with bat-like hearing: http://www.ekswai.com/en_lowpass.htm
  
 Example:
  


 Yes, that's nearly 32 MHz!!


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> If you understood even basic RC filters, you would understand how ridiculous the claim is that the capacitance on an interconnect will make an audible difference to the FR.
> 
> Here is an online calculator to make it easy even for trolls with bat-like hearing: http://www.ekswai.com/en_lowpass.htm
> 
> ...


 
 If you read what I wrote, there was *NO *mention *of the interconnect .*
  
 ( As usual, your math is OK - but clearly applied to things that do not matter - 32 MHz is a bit high even for me .  Besides, if you know a real world cable of any reasonable length with the capacitance of only 5 pF (five picofarads) , I am all ears - 5 pF is about the capacitance of a *low capacitance  *RCA plug. )
  

  
 What can be seen above IS CLEARLY LIMITED in the performance BY THE CABLE. ( Or any Stax EVER made ).
  
 This is my final " drawing anyone on this thread by the hand to the problem " I will ever post.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> If you read what I wrote, there was *NO *mention *of the interconnect .*


 
  
 it doesn't matter, because no interconnect on the planet (>$5) measures badly enough to make an audible impact to the treble.


----------



## stv014

> Yes, that's nearly 32 MHz!!


 
  
 Real cables tend to have higher capacitance than 5 pF, though. Actual numbers vary, but a few hundred pF seems to be normal for a headphone cable. In some extreme cases where 10+ meters of cables are used to connect an amplifier to a source with kiloohms of output impedance, it is possible for the corner frequency to be in the range of tens of kHz. But that is far from being a usual situation, and even -3 dB at 50 kHz means less than 0.7 dB attenuation at 20 kHz, and less than 0.2 dB at 10 kHz. And if the source has only 100 ohms of output impedance (which can easily be achieved using a cheap NE5532 output buffer), then the FR effect of any realistic cable capacitance in the audio band is negligible.


----------



## analogsurviver

stv014 said:


> Real cables tend to have higher capacitance than 5 pF, though. Actual numbers vary, but a few hundred pF seems to be normal for a headphone cable. In some extreme cases where 10+ meters of cables are used to connect an amplifier to a source with kiloohms of output impedance, it is possible for the corner frequency to be in the range of tens of kHz. But that is far from being a usual situation. And if the source has only 100 ohms of output impedance (which can easily be achieved using a cheap NE5532 output buffer), then the FR effect of any realistic cable capacitance in the audio band is negligible.


 
 You have, again, similar to others, stated the correct values for the dynamic transducers and their corresponding amplifiers.
  
 Does word STAX - or pic of Stax amp and headphone - ring any bells ?


----------



## lamode

stv014 said:


> Real cables tend to have higher capacitance than 5 pF, though. Actual numbers vary, but a few hundred pF seems to be normal for a headphone cable. In some extreme cases where 10+ meters of cables are used to connect an amplifier to a source with kiloohms of output impedance, it is possible for the corner frequency to be in the range of tens of kHz. But that is far from being a usual situation. And if the source has only 100 ohms of output impedance (which can easily be achieved using a cheap NE5532 output buffer), then the FR effect of any realistic cable capacitance in the audio band is negligible.


 
  
 Well, it seems to me we were talking about interconnects. Headphone cables tend to have higher capacitance per meter, and are also longer than typical interconnects, so yes I would expect significantly more capacitance in headphone , but still not enough to matter.
  
 Headphone example, with higher C and lower R, showing 26MHz cutoff freq. Feel free to play around with your own numbers.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> it doesn't matter, because no interconnect on the planet (>$5) measures badly enough to make an audible impact to the treble.


 
 OK - in battlefield, you don't get an Iron Cross for being stubborn and/or stupid. It is NOT an excuse.
  
 You get a Wooden Cross.
  
 So, duck - quickly as you can - in first available shelter - and STUDY what are the real values for the items I have posted in pic above.
  
 THEN punch the numbers in the calculator - and the result SHOULD confirm what I am saying - provided you did the homework right in the first place.
  
 I even allow you to use theoretically perfect source connected by perfect cable (zero R. zero L, zero C) - the result is the same.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> OK - in battlefield, you don't get an Iron Cross for being stubborn and/or stupid. It is NOT an excuse.
> 
> You get a Wooden Cross.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I would help if you
 a) stuck to one argument without changing the argument every post, and
 b) wrote something intelligible about sound science without resorting to obscure WWII references.
  
 We were discussing interconnects. You were proven wrong. Posting photos of Stax headphones is NOT a rebuttal.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> I would help if you
> a) stuck to one argument without changing the argument every post, and
> b) wrote something intelligible about sound science without resorting to obscure WWII references.
> 
> We were discussing interconnects. You were proven wrong. Posting photos of Stax headphones is NOT a rebuttal.


 
 We were discussing CABLES - I do not remember using the exact word "interconnect" by myself anywhere in the last posts.
  
 So - STAX.
  
 And - CABLES.
  
 And - amplifiers or  ( to a lesser degree, but still affected by cables ) transformers driving Stax ( remember - ELECTROSTATIC ) headphones.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *lamode* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Headphone cables tend to have higher capacitance per meter, and are also longer than typical interconnects


 
   
I did a quick test with a ~1.5 m no name 1/8" TRS to 2xRCA shielded cable, and the capacitance between the ground at one end and one of the channels at the other end seems to be about 400-450 pF.


----------



## lamode

stv014 said:


> I did a quick test with a ~1.5 m no name 1/8" TRS to 2xRCA shielded cable, and the capacitance between the ground at one end and one of the channels at the other end seems to be about 400-450 pF.


 
  
 Ok, a lot higher than the 5pf someone else suggested but with an R value of 1000 ohm that's still a cutoff around 350kHz.


----------



## analogsurviver

stv014 said:


> I did a quick test with a ~1.5 m no name 1/8" TRS to 2xRCA shielded cable, and the capacitance between the ground at one end and one of the channels at the other end seems to be about 400-450 pF.


 
 Normal values. This is for dynamic headphones - and should have no MEASURABLE (did not say audible - no matter how small ) difference with any decent amplifier and dynamic headphone combination.
  
 Electrostatics are MUCH tougher nut to crack. And LOTS of fishing in murky waters is going on there; I could post the EXACT numbers, but it would be more interesting if all the others are forced to do the homework and arrive at the same/similar results. These have both measurable and audible differences as a result of CABLES - well within the audible range.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> Ok, a lot higher than the 5pf someone else suggested but with an R value of 1000 ohm that's still a cutoff around 350kHz.


 
 Assumption is the mother of all XXXXXXXX .
  
 Try to get the REAL values for the Stax - particularly the model I posted.
  
 And be amazed/shocked how many orders of magnitude the above assumption is removed from the truth ...


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> Electrostatics are MUCH tougher nut to crack. And LOTS of fishing in murky waters is going on there; I could post the EXACT numbers, but it would be more interesting if all the others are forced to do the homework and arrive at the same/similar results. These have both measurable and audible differences as a result of CABLES - well within the audible range.


 
  
 Are you now talking about the cable between the Stax amp and the Stax headphones? You failed to specify.
  
 Funny... yesterday you were talking about how important silver interconnects are in a studio. Tomorrow I'm sure you will say that the advantages of silver cables can only be heard with native DSD recordings. And so it goes, again and again...


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> Assumption is the mother of all XXXXXXXX .
> 
> Try to get the REAL values for the Stax - particularly the model I posted.
> 
> And be amazed/shocked how many orders of magnitude the above assumption is removed from the truth ...


 
  
 That post specified specs for an  *RCA* cable
  
 We are discussing *INTERCONNECTS*
  
 Try to keep up


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> Are you now talking about the cable between the Stax amp and the Stax headphones? You failed to specify.
> 
> Funny... yesterday you were talking about how important silver interconnects are in a studio. Tomorrow I'm sure you will say that the advantages of silver cables can only be heard with native DSD recordings. And so it goes, again and again...


 
 Yes, the cable between the Stax amp and the Stax headphones.
  
 Or any electrostatic cable between the driver and headphone.
  
 BTW - Stax DOES offer silver cables for this purpose - although because the design itself is flawed ( be it copper or silver ) to the max, I would never consider buying them.
  
 The advantages - or disaddvantages - of silver cables ( depends whom you ask )  can be heard on any decent recording - no native DSD recording required.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> That post specified specs for an  *RCA* cable
> 
> We are discussing *INTERCONNECTS*
> 
> Try to keep up


 
 Now you are trying to change the subject - because you should know where what I claim leads to - and that it is capable to pierce ANY armor - yet invented or not -claiming that cables can not, under any circumstances, mean an audible difference.
  
 And I was being merciful - staying within the realm of headphones. That is why I did scroll trough the profiles of members on this thread yesterday.
  
 As none of you have listed using analog turntable with magnetic  cartridge, I decided not to bring that up. But it looks something like this : 
 http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
  
 PLEASE NOTE : this is entirely different than electrostatic headphones driven by amps case !!!
  
 Yet both cases ARE clearly audible - and both can be improved by using less capacitance


----------



## dazzerfong

Just asking, how do you ignore people here (ie. make them disappear)? I want to see what it's like for everyone to argue with thin air.
  
 Oh wait, we already are.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Again you fail to define the properties of a cable that affect the SQ.




Again you feed it. 

Think I'm just going to write this thread off. 

se


----------



## stv014

dazzerfong said:


> Just asking, how do you ignore people here (ie. make them disappear)? I want to see what it's like for everyone to argue with thin air.


 
  
 If you hover the mouse over the name, a drop-down list appears, then click "Block Member". You will need to refresh the page for the change to be applied to a thread you are already viewing.


----------



## Opportunist

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, the cable between the Stax amp and the Stax headphones.
> 
> Or any electrostatic cable between the driver and headphone.
> 
> ...


 
  
 What is an "electrostatic cable"? Never heard of any such animal.


----------



## jcx

cables for electrostats are special - the cable even with special construction, foamed dielectric still accounts for ~30% of the C load your amp has to drive
  
 also with some project amps having more stored energy in their supplies than defibrillators it is good to see double/reinforced insulation for the  volts


----------



## maverickronin

Quote:


analogsurviver said:


> Assumption is the mother of all XXXXXXXX .
> 
> Try to get the REAL values for the Stax - particularly the model I posted.
> 
> And be amazed/shocked how many orders of magnitude the above assumption is removed from the truth ...


 
  
 I just measured my SR-207 and got a whole 134pf.
  


opportunist said:


> What is an "electrostatic cable"? Never heard of any such animal.


 
  
 Just the cable for a pair electrostatic headphones like Stax or the Koss ESP-950.  They just usually need to be rated for higher voltages, and usually lower capacitance than a cable used for normal headphones since an electrostatic transducer already a capacitive load anyway.


----------



## Phishin Phool

FWIW from a cable manufacturer/seller
  
 http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/exoticmaterials.htm
  
 http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/doeswirematter.htm
  
 and a hodgepodge of good info
  
 http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/index.htm


----------



## peterinvan

phishin phool said:


> FWIW from a cable manufacturer/seller
> 
> http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/exoticmaterials.htm
> 
> ...




And my favourite for DIY cables:

http://www.canare.com/ProductItemDisplay.aspx?productItemID=53

Looks like, for a 9 foot cable, about 1 ohm, and 500 pF


----------



## prot

stand said:


> @analogsurviver
> Sounds like more of that creative story telling. First point is that the band was not playing consistently, microphone placement cannot possibly cause this. That is an issue with musicianship.
> Next point; how many microphones did you use and what was the placement. Give me dimensions. I'll bet that the delays cannot possibly account for what I heard, other some creative storytelling.
> There is nothing in point #2 that can account for point #1. I recommend that they practice more.




(responding to an old msg, but it's not like the current cable "debate" was any better/useful.)

Those are not musicianship issues, the fault lies with anyone who had the "genius" idea to build an organized band of gipsy musicians. That's like trying to teach horses to swim belly-up ... you may succeed but they are just not made for that. The entire magic of the gipsy music lies in the free-flowing energy that they unleash in their songs. Get rid of that, confine them into some restricted, rules-based system and you have .. nothing.
Also, anyone who complains about things like tune/sync/pitch after a gipsy concert either attended the wrong one or did not understand anything. If you wanna know what's that about, go to a gipsy wedding or some gipsy festival or even watch a gipsy movie ... the whatever philharmonic is the last place where you will hear true and enjoyable gipsy music.


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> Quote:
> 
> I just measured my SR-207 and got a whole 134pf.
> 
> ...


 
 Correct. I have Lambda Pro and SR-207 is a variation on the theme - the capacitance differences are negligible, around 10 pF IIRC.
  
 Now please see what this capacitance means regarding the corner frequency of whatever Stax amp you have ...- hope not it is the little one from the pic I posted above.


----------



## davidsh

So the Stax headphones have specs that are like 120 pF and very little resistance.. How does that roll off the high end?


----------



## analogsurviver

jcx said:


> cables for electrostats are special - the cable even with special construction, foamed dielectric still accounts for ~30% of the C load your amp has to drive
> 
> also with some project amps having more stored energy in their supplies than defibrillators it is good to see double/reinforced insulation for the  volts


 
 I was hoping you would chime in - because I know you are knowledgeable in the matter of electrostatics.
  
 But I must say I am surprised at the overly optimistic asumption regarding the percentage of the C load that gets eaten up by the cable. I DID achieve 
 around this percentage (I have to dig out the papers with the exact figures) - but original Stax is FAR worse - cable has MORE capacitance than the driver itself ...


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> So the Stax headphones have specs that are like 120 pF and very little resistance.. How does that roll off the high end?


 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> Correct. I have Lambda Pro and SR-207 is a variation on the theme - the capacitance differences are negligible, around 10 pF IIRC.
> 
> Now please see what this capacitance means regarding the corner frequency of whatever Stax amp you have ...- hope not it is the little one from the pic I posted above.


 
  
 Assuming my cheapo multimeter has high enough input impedance not to load the SRM-252S I have sitting at my desk I get a zout of ~24.5K and a cutoff of ~48.8khz.
  
 Maybe I'll check my T1S later.


----------



## davidsh

analogsurviver said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > So the Stax headphones have specs that are like 120 pF and very little resistance.. How does that roll off the high end?
> ...


 
 Very informative.. not. Perhaps you could give a hint


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> Assuming my cheapo multimeter has high enough input impedance not to load the SRM-252S I have sitting at my desk I get a zout of ~24.5K and a cutoff of ~48.8khz.
> 
> Maybe I'll check my T1S later.


 
 Even if that is indeed the correct output impedance, this does not mean this little amp can drive the Lambdas (around 130 pF) with full output to the frequency mentioned. Much larger SRM1MK2 only manages to be able to power these 130 or so pF up to approx 4 kHz at the full output swing - and its dive capability is then falling at 6 dB/octave. 
  
 As you have the T1S - please describe the difference in sound between the two on complex music and high volume - like the finale of the Mahler's second symphony...


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> Very informative.. not. Perhaps you could give a hint


 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance


----------



## maverickronin

analogsurviver said:


> Even if that is indeed the correct output impedance, this does not mean this little amp can drive the Lambdas (around 130 pF) with full output to the frequency mentioned. Much larger SRM1MK2 only manages to be able to power these 130 or so pF up to approx 4 kHz at the full output swing - and its dive capability is then falling at 6 dB/octave.
> 
> As you have the T1S - please describe the difference in sound between the two on complex music and high volume - like the finale of the Mahler's second symphony...


 
  
 Hey, this one is at least _possible_.
  
 I've never noticed that difference though so either the 252S has enough current capacity for it's output voltage or I just don't listen at the ear bleeding volumes required to tell the difference.


----------



## RRod

These cans sound horribly complicated to deal with. Do they do your laundry too or something?


----------



## davidsh

analogsurviver said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > Very informative.. not. Perhaps you could give a hint
> ...



The impedance falls with frequency demanding more current from the amp. Is that a problem?


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> Hey, this one is at least _possible_.
> 
> I've never noticed that difference though so either the 252S has enough current capacity for it's output voltage or I just don't listen at the ear bleeding volumes required to tell the difference.


 
 Well, I did have the SR-252S on test for two or so days.
  
 It took me the whole two seconds to hear the difference between it and SRA-12S - and it was audible at low levels too. But the greatest differebce between the two is in the treble - the higher the frequency and the higher the loudness, the bigger the difference.
  
 Is the T1S the original amp for the Omega ? If yes - I never liked it - even a bit. It could not push the Omega to anything like real loudness/dynamic range. Pure, nice, rafined - but so limited in dynamics it was really sad.
 For compressed recordings only - or very low dynamic range music.


----------



## cjl

lamode said:


> The power efficiency is not important on a home audio system. Losing 5% of power is barely an audible difference.
> 
> However the resistance of the cable will affect the speaker's damping, which may be audible in extreme circumstances.


 

 To be fair, multi-driver speakers with several passive crossovers can have impedance curves that vary hugely with frequency (example here: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_3/images/b&w-804s-speaker-impedance-phase.gif ), so if you have cables that have a significant resistance (relative to the speaker) you can create clearly audible frequency response changes, and since a lot of speakers drop to 5 ohms (or less) and have cable runs of 10 feet (or more), this can actually be an issue if you try to wire them with something like 24AWG (or even 18AWG for long in-wall runs or the like). Of course, the solution is easy: don't use 18-24AWG for low-impedance speakers. Spend an extra few cents per foot and get 14AWG or 12AWG instead.


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> The impedance falls with frequency demanding more current from the amp. Is that a problem?


 
 DRUM ROLL..... - YES ! That is EXACTLY the problem.
  
 Once the amp runs out of steam, it can prioduce all sort of odd sounding noises when driving electrostatics. The first is trough slewing induced distortion - the signal is faster over period of time amplifier can follow - creating typical grainy sound of electrostatics when driven by too small current capable amps.
  
 You can create similar by conecting TWO pairs of headphones - and if STILL do not get to hear it, you can add the ultimate insult - the Stax extension cable i between. It will cut  the frequency response limit by which an amp can perform properly - in half or less.
  
 You can avoid this from happening by either using bigger more powerful (in this case supplying more current ) amplifier - or you can try reducing the overal capacitance load with the existing aload. Since real values are such to clearly affect audible range, it means that by replacing factory cable for something with appreciably lower capacitance can give you the same result as original cable plus more powerful amp.
  
 This CAN be measured - and heard. One can hardly produce an amp powerful enough or cable low capacitance enough not to have an effect within audible range with electrostatics - specially headphones, which are usually conected trough cables having capacitance greater than the electrostatic driver itself.
  
 And - this is NOT all this said cable does wrong.


----------



## lamode

cjl said:


> To be fair, multi-driver speakers with several passive crossovers can have impedance curves that vary hugely with frequency (example here: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_3/images/b&w-804s-speaker-impedance-phase.gif ), so if you have cables that have a significant resistance (relative to the speaker) you can create clearly audible frequency response changes, and since a lot of speakers drop to 5 ohms (or less) and have cable runs of 10 feet (or more), this can actually be an issue if you try to wire them with something like 24AWG (or even 18AWG for long in-wall runs or the like). Of course, the solution is easy: don't use 18-24AWG for low-impedance speakers. Spend an extra few cents per foot and get 14AWG or 12AWG instead.


 
  
 10 ft of 16 AWG (a typical gauge) would have a resistance of around 0.1 ohm, which will not be an issue in terms of impedance interaction with a load which drops to 5 ohm.
  
 Even 24 AWG at this length has resistance of around 0.25 ohm - also not enough to create audible FR anomalies with such a speaker. The cable voltage difference from peak to dip would be under 5% (inaudible).
  
 (I pulled these resistance figures off the first website I could find.)


----------



## maverickronin

maverickronin said:


> Honestly around here it won't matter what gear someone lists in their profile.  Someone or other will get around to blaming it for not be "resolving" enough eventually.
> 
> Someone with the exact same gear will instead blame you for having improper taste in music.


 


analogsurviver said:


> Is the T1S the original amp for the Omega ? If yes - I never liked it - even a bit. It could not push the Omega to anything like real loudness/dynamic range. Pure, nice, rafined - but so limited in dynamics it was really sad. For compressed recordings only - or very low dynamic range music.


 
  
 Point proven.


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> Point proven.


 
 Well, if you are around live music much - that can not co-exist with T-1S for long. 
  
 How on earth has KG measured bigger voltage swing on T-1S than on SRM1MK2 is beyond me http://www.head-fi.org/t/582518/electrostatic-amplifiers-voltage-ratings the sample I was able to listen to briefly could not reach the volume of the SRM1MK2 no matter what .  It was looong ago, perhaps it was an early sample - but that was not "usable" - at all.
  
 It sounded as rafined compressor - at best. It would not grossly distort or clip - it just stayed at certain level of SPL for far longer than it should have. It was most non lifelike of anything I have ever heard by Stax. If it could maintain its positives when things get tough - it would be great. But so limited - not. 
  
 Music heard live has dynamic range - and it is not to be compressed by equipment. Particularly headphones that aspire towards being the best.


----------



## bigshot

It's really kind of sad what has happened to this thread lately. I remember when the first post was made. It was a tremendously useful resource.


----------



## manbear

bigshot said:


> It's really kind of sad what has happened to this thread lately. I remember when the first post was made. It was a tremendously useful resource.




Someone should start a new thread called "analogsurvivor cage match"


----------



## cel4145

manbear said:


> Someone should start a new thread called "analogsurvivor cage match"




Could the mods restrict him to only one thread in this forum?


----------



## maverickronin

manbear said:


> Someone should start a new thread called "analogsurvivor cage match"


 
  
Done.
  
 Now if analogsurvivor would oblige us...


----------



## Phishin Phool

bigshot said:


> It's really kind of sad what has happened to this thread lately. I remember when the first post was made. It was a tremendously useful resource.


 
 Agreed and I was just thinking about unsubscribing as I used to learn stuff here and the title is a noteworthy and good idea but this thread jumped the shark long ao and now it is like a train wreck you can't help staring at.


----------



## cel4145

maverickronin said:


> Done.
> 
> Now if analogsurvivor would oblige us...




I no one would reply to him in this thread other than to say "go post in this new thread," I think he would


----------



## manbear

maverickronin said:


> Done.
> 
> Now if analogsurvivor would oblige us...




Awesome!

Now we just need everyone to post their replies to him in that thread.

I'll try to get some replies going once i get home bc the copy pasta is too much to do on my phone right now.


----------



## cjl

lamode said:


> 10 ft of 16 AWG (a typical gauge) would have a resistance of around 0.1 ohm, which will not be an issue in terms of impedance interaction with a load which drops to 5 ohm.
> 
> Even 24 AWG at this length has resistance of around 0.25 ohm - also not enough to create audible FR anomalies with such a speaker. The cable voltage difference from peak to dip would be under 5% (inaudible).
> 
> (I pulled these resistance figures off the first website I could find.)


 

 Your numbers for 24AWG are a factor of 2 too low for the cable resistance - the total length of wire the signal travels through is 2x the cable length (since it has to traverse the full loop), so you would get 0.5 ohms from 10 feet, which could approach an audible level with a lot of speakers (though it'd still be awfully subtle, and probably not an issue). Your 16AWG number looks right though - my source says it is 4 ohms/kft, which means a round trip resistance of 0.08 ohms for a 10 foot run. In general, I would always use 14AWG for speakers, since it's cheap insurance against cable resistance being any sort of problem, but if you really needed skinnier wire for some reason, you could usually get away with it.


----------



## analogsurviver

manbear said:


> Someone should start a new thread called "analogsurvivor cage match"


 
 It is NOT about that - at all.
  
 I have used the cable for electrostatics as an example that does stand out and requires more familiarity with the matter and can not be brushed away with "cables all sound the same". Yet most tried exactly that - with only  @cjl at least correctly understood the problem - regardless getting the magnitude of the problem wrong.
  
 IIRC, is the capacitance in Stax Lambda Pro as follows : 82 pF cable, 56 pF driver. I was able to get the combination of new cable and driver about the same as the old cable alone - and cables are no shorter than the original. That increases the corner frequency (where the output starts to fall by 6 dB/octave) almost twice - the same as achieved by MUCH larger and MUCH more costly amplifiers. It brings about better clarity, particularly in the higher frequencies - and particularly with the soprano.
  
 There are other examples where cable's real electrical properties ARE important - particularly with phono cartridges. A low impedance moving coil cartridge like Haniwa I posted a few posts ago requires exactly the opposite in wiring that carries its output to the preamp from a high impedance moving magnet cartridge -  the first needs as low resistance as humanly possible while still being flexible enough not to mechanically impede the tonearm movement, the other is all about reducing capacitance - and these requirements can not be satisfied with a single universal wiring. It would "work" - then again, one does not use all the technology at the disposal today to skimp on - wiring ?
  
 Admittedly, most of the members on this thread use digital sources that put out approx 2 Vrms and feed with them amplifiers for dynamic headphones - with the maximum of some 50 Vrms drive ( worst case scenario, AKG K-1000) - but most other dynamic headphones require far less voltage swing.
  
 Compare that to a system that starts with a 0.8 mVrms at full output ( Audio Note IO Ltd with 0.04 mV/5cm/sec ) and marches to 1500 Vrms (electrostatic headphones ) or 3000 Vrms (electrostatic speakers) - and has to remain quiet and RFI free etc - here, the demands on cables is much higher than a simple 2 Vrms line between a digital source and an amp.for dynamic headphones or speakers.
  
 OK, how it is with turntables on this thread is known - but electrostatics are used over here too.


----------



## bigshot

phishin phool said:


> Agreed and I was just thinking about unsubscribing as I used to learn stuff here and the title is a noteworthy and good idea but this thread jumped the shark long ao and now it is like a train wreck you can't help staring at.


 

 Would someone like to help me update the original post in this thread? There are some broken links in there and the OP hasn't been around for some time to fix them.


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> Done.
> 
> Now if analogsurvivor would oblige us...


 
 Nope.
  
 Not until the new thread is properly renamed.
  
 It is - for a reason - analogsurviv_*E*_r .


----------



## maverickronin

Changed the spelling for you.


----------



## bigshot

I think it's a mistake to try to curb demands for attention by feeding it with more attention.


----------



## analogsurviver

maverickronin said:


> Changed the spelling for you.


 
 +1.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I think it's a mistake to try to curb demands for attention by feeding it with more attention.




Yeah. Someone needs to put the Purina Troll Chow under lock and key.

se


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> Again you fail to define the properties of a cable that affect the SQ. It's back to making unsubstantiated claims and hoping it'll stick to the wall. Well I think I've identified how this cable stuff works, it's based upon an old song,  "'Cause you know it's just. Your imagination running wild."


 
  


analogsurviver said:


> Oh dear - I did write STAX - didn't I ? What  are they famous for - vacuum cleaners ?
> 
> Now - once for a change - step down from the cathedre http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cath%C3%A8dre , out of the comfort zone - and start _*thinking *_- this case does not even require thinking out of the box, just plain solid engineering - IF one understands the principle of operation and problems it creates in real world where there are no limitless resources.


 
 Again, you're just babbling, not answering the orginal question. Apparently you have nothing meaningful to say about this.


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> Who uses 30 gauge wire for speakers? But you can use lamp cord/brown zip cord not silver cables that were assembled by elves.
> Also the gauge can be determined by how much power is required and the length of the run.


 
  
  


lamode said:


> The power efficiency is not important on a home audio system. Losing 5% of power is barely an audible difference.
> 
> However the resistance of the cable will affect the speaker's damping, which may be audible in extreme circumstances.


 
 But I wouldn't use 30 gauge wire for a length of wire feeding a low inpedance speaker that will carry any amount of power.
 How 12 Gauge zip wire? Cheap enough, probably works just fine. I googled up that it should have a resistance of 0.00162Ohms per foot. I can't believe it's that low.​


----------



## dprimary

phishin phool said:


> FALSE
> 
> Sound is not transmitted via cables - electrical impulses are and they are not microphonic. A transducer (speaker) is required on the other end to turn the electrical impulses into acoustic sound.
> 
> I am beginning to think you quite mad!


 

 Cables can be microphonic, but as usual not in a playback system. Microphonic headphone cables? they must be plugged into the worlds most unstable amplifier. What people are claiming as microphonic headphone cable is just acoustical transmission down the cable.


----------



## dprimary

There is an old saying in audio "it depends". Audiophiles latch on to some known effect, electrical, physical, or acoustical property and then try extrapolate to home audio even when can't possibly apply at audio frequencies or levels. Oxygen free cable the copper used in many types of cable happens to be oxygen free for physical reasons not electrical. So even the cable not marketed as oxygen free is likely to be oxygen free. High frequency skin effect is an example even at 100kHz the skin depth of copper is a 21AWG solid wire. You could use standard 10-12 gauge stranded THHN electrical wiring and still not have a skin effect issue.
 Now if someone is asking about skin effect for a wireless microphone on the RF section 500-600MHz, or bluetooth or WiFi yes you can be having an issue. but then the people that have heard it doesn't matter start jumping on the person about it doesn't matter, ignoring that the question was about RF. 
  
 Do cables matter? it depends. Five feet in your house just about any wire over 16AWG will work. Hundreds of feet of wire in a stadium with 500,000 watts you might want to be careful. You have both voltage drops and damping factor issues. Not mention cost and weight. Power amps located in a machine room 100 feet away form the speaker again I need to be careful. Damping factor is critical in a studio. Same with capacitance at home or a DAP and headphones most likely never going to even be close to an issue or audible (though some "high end" cables have insane capacitance creating their own issues) Running Belden quad star 300-400 feet in the remote recording could have roll off issues. Vintage guitars have very high impedance it is easy to have problems with them.
  
 I work with about 150 audio engineers and technicians amazingly we do not spend all day arguing about what can and can't be heard, most discussions end up well they is only one way to the that or there is a few ways to do that and here are the tradeoffs. 
  
 Now everyone knows AKG K240 is the best headphones ever. I can prove it. Everything I have ever recorded sounds exactly like what I heard in the studio on headphones..... oh wait those were AKG K240 headphones.


----------



## analogsurviver

dprimary said:


> Cables can be microphonic, but as usual not in a playback system. Microphonic headphone cables? they must be plugged into the worlds most unstable amplifier. What people are claiming as microphonic headphone cable is just acoustical transmission down the cable.


 
 How you can test most easily if a coaxial cable ( interconnect ) is microphonic or not ?
  
 Simply plug it into a phono input, open the volume as you would usually listen to your turntable, and tap with your finger anywhere on the cable EXCEPT the exposed centre pin on the RCA male plug on the other end of the cable. Poor ones will be instantly audible, for good ones you will have to turn up the volume by 10 dB or more before you will be able to hear anything.
  
 And you can refrain from trotting the old excuse "we don'tb listen to turntables anymore" - it is your loss, turntables can teach you a great deal about the sound and its reproduction.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> How you can test most easily if a coaxial cable ( interconnect ) is microphonic or not ?
> 
> Simply plug it into a phono input, open the volume as you would usually listen to your turntable, and tap with your finger anywhere on the cable EXCEPT the exposed centre pin on the RCA male plug on the other end of the cable. Poor ones will be instantly audible, for good ones you will have to turn up the volume by 10 dB or more before you will be able to hear anything.
> 
> And you can refrain from trotting the old excuse "we don'tb listen to turntables anymore" - it is your loss, turntables can teach you a great deal about the sound and its reproduction.


 
 Get a pyramid, it can be used to sharpen razor blades, enhance cables and revitalize CD Mats. Just to mention a few things that it can do.


----------



## lamode

stand said:


> Get a pyramid, it can be used to sharpen razor blades, enhance cables and revitalize CD Mats. Just to mention a few things that it can do.




You forget that analoguesurviver lives on a different planet with a magnetic field 23,000 times stronger than here on earth


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> Get a pyramid, it can be used to sharpen razor blades, enhance cables and revitalize CD Mats. Just to mention a few things that it can do.


 
  
  


lamode said:


> You forget that analoguesurviver lives on a different planet with a magnetic field 23,000 times stronger than here on earth


 
 That's why his pyramid is made of Mu-metal.


----------



## Toom

Why does this Glenlivet Founder's Reserve make my Blue Train album sound so great?


----------



## StanD

toom said:


> Why does this Glenlivet Founder's Reserve make my Blue Train album sound so great?


 
 What if you sit on a CD Mat when listening? Does that improve the SQ even more? Since you have Glenlivet on hand, it'll be up to you to run some thourough tests. Are you up to the task?


----------



## limpidglitch

stand said:


> What if you sit on a CD Mat when listening? Does that improve the SQ even more? Since you have Glenlivet on hand, it'll be up to you to run some thourough tests. Are you up to the task?


 
  
 I'd expect the CD mat to have better synergy with a giant seidel of some Bohemian brew. Works perfectly as a coaster.


----------



## RRod

Gentlemen put their PRaT Ale on a CD mat to keep rings off the table.


----------



## sonitus mirus

rrod said:


> Gentlemen put their PRaT Ale on a CD mat to keep rings off the table.


 
  
 Are you suggesting that the CD mat prevents pre-ringing?


----------



## dprimary

I tapped on the cable for all three tables in the house as loud as the amp would go. Nothing - no microphonics. They are high end cables at least 3-4 dollars each. Of course I did not tap on the cable close enough to the turntable to mechanically transmit vibrations to the turntable.


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> Gentlemen put their PRaT Ale on a CD mat to keep rings off the table.


 
 Golem doesn't care.


----------



## analogsurviver

dprimary said:


> I tapped on the cable for all three tables in the house as loud as the amp would go. Nothing - no microphonics. They are high end cables at least 3-4 dollars each. Of course I did not tap on the cable close enough to the turntable to mechanically transmit vibrations to the turntable.


 
 That is exactly as it SHOULD be.
  
 I did not enjoy the fact that one cable still bearing the same designation since about two years "misteriously" turned from dead silent into microphonic. This is how I accidentally stumbled upon this discovery - most unpleasent.
  
 You have very high end cables compared to mine - mine are about half the cost ( if the cost is given per metre for stereo connection, unterminated ).
  
 P.S: You have to tap on the UNTERMINATED CABLE - not on something with the cartridge attached on the other end - as you did if I understand you correctly. That is right, simply plug RCA to RCA interconnect cable into phono input - and repeat the test by tapping.


----------



## prot

dprimary said:


> There is an old saying in audio "it depends". Audiophiles latch on to some known effect, electrical, physical, or acoustical property and then try extrapolate to home audio even when can't possibly apply at audio frequencies or levels. Oxygen free cable the copper used in many types of cable happens to be oxygen free for physical reasons not electrical. So even the cable not marketed as oxygen free is likely to be oxygen free. High frequency skin effect is an example even at 100kHz the skin depth of copper is a 21AWG solid wire. You could use standard 10-12 gauge stranded THHN electrical wiring and still not have a skin effect issue.
> Now if someone is asking about skin effect for a wireless microphone on the RF section 500-600MHz, or bluetooth or WiFi yes you can be having an issue. but then the people that have heard it doesn't matter start jumping on the person about it doesn't matter, ignoring that the question was about RF.
> 
> Do cables matter? it depends. Five feet in your house just about any wire over 16AWG will work. Hundreds of feet of wire in a stadium with 500,000 watts you might want to be careful. You have both voltage drops and damping factor issues. Not mention cost and weight. Power amps located in a machine room 100 feet away form the speaker again I need to be careful. Damping factor is critical in a studio. Same with capacitance at home or a DAP and headphones most likely never going to even be close to an issue or audible (though some "high end" cables have insane capacitance creating their own issues) Running Belden quad star 300-400 feet in the remote recording could have roll off issues. Vintage guitars have very high impedance it is easy to have problems with them.
> ...




That sounds sooo .. sane  
Thx for bringing back that kind of sense and expertise in this thread ... missed it a lot lately!


----------



## cjl

stand said:


> How 12 Gauge zip wire? Cheap enough, probably works just fine. I googled up that it should have a resistance of 0.00162Ohms per foot. I can't believe it's that low.​


 
 I tend to use 14AWG, simply because 12AWG starts to get kind of large for some speaker/amp terminals. That's a very reasonable solution though - 12 or 14AWG zip cord is perfectly adequate for just about any home audio application, and it's fantastically cheap too.


----------



## StanD

cjl said:


> I tend to use 14AWG, simply because 12AWG starts to get kind of large for some speaker/amp terminals. That's a very reasonable solution though - 12 or 14AWG zip cord is perfectly adequate for just about any home audio application, and it's fantastically cheap too.


 
 But the audiophiles with Mega-Buck cables will be so dissapointed. There's a sucker audiophile born every minute.


----------



## Opportunist

stand said:


> But the audiophiles with Mega-Buck cables will be so dissapointed. There's a sucker audiophile born every minute.


 
  
 Stay calm - they will eventually die (naturally or otherwise).


----------



## StanD

opportunist said:


> Stay calm - they will eventually die (naturally or otherwise).


 
 That could happen with a frayed cable and electrostatics.


----------



## Opportunist

stand said:


> That could happen with a frayed cable and electrostatics.


 
  
 Not if you are an analogue survivor.


----------



## StanD

opportunist said:


> Not if you are an analogue survivor.


 
 Even he has his limits, even if he doesn't think so.


----------



## StanD

This is how Cable Enthusiasts and Audiophiles with overactive imaginations operate.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Even he has his limits, even if he doesn't think so.


 
 So do you...


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> So do you...


 
 Yes, you test the limits of everyone's patience, even mine. Now get in with the crowd.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Yes, you test the limits of everyone's patience, even mine. Now get in with the crowd.


 
 Sorry, this is getting ridiculous . So far, I did not respond to your infantile attempts at insults - but I may reconsider.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, this is getting ridiculous . So far, I did not respond to your infantile attempts at insults - but I may reconsider.


 
 You have insulted plenty enough times. You also make constant unsubstantiated claims and respond to challenges with rediculous theories and diversions.


----------



## bigshot

Watch the thread get locked fellas, and it won't be analogs fault


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bigshot said:


> Watch the thread get locked fellas, and it won't be analogs fault


 

 absolutely right...


----------



## Tropic

I think DACs do make a difference, but there's a point where you have to stop because the sound doesn't get better - it just gets more detailed and refined, which you have to ask yourself is it worth the $1000+ of paying?


----------



## Ruben123

tropic said:


> I think DACs do make a difference, but there's a point where you have to stop because the sound doesn't get better - it just gets more detailed and refined, which you have to ask yourself is it worth the $1000+ of paying?




But when is better actually better? Is a $0,02 DAC chip enough, or is the $1 chip the top of the audiophile DACs? 
Remember audiophile DACs are often made in 1000s because of the lower demand, so of course their $1 could at once be $100, just because they make less of them.


----------



## uchihaitachi

tropic said:


> I think DACs do make a difference, but there's a point where you have to stop because the sound doesn't get better - it just gets more detailed and refined, which you have to ask yourself is it worth the $1000+ of paying?


 
 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html


----------



## prot

uchihaitachi said:


> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html




One of my favorite tests .. and such a hit with audiophiles


----------



## Don Hills

analogsurviver said:


> ... P.S: You have to tap on the UNTERMINATED CABLE - not on something with the cartridge attached on the other end - as you did if I understand you correctly. That is right, simply plug RCA to RCA interconnect cable into phono input - and repeat the test by tapping.


 
  
 That's an invalid test. The correct way is to test with the cable terminated at both ends in its intended role - preamp to amp, for example, or turntable to phono amp.
 Actually, I shouldn't mention that - I'm picturing someone testing their kilobuck interconnects your way and finding out they are microphonic...


----------



## uchihaitachi

prot said:


> One of my favorite tests .. and such a hit with audiophiles


 
 Is it more likely that differences will be noticed on a full speaker set up or with top of the line headphones?


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

tropic said:


> I think DACs do make a difference, but there's a point where you have to stop because the sound doesn't get better - it just gets more detailed and refined, which you have to ask yourself is it worth the $1000+ of paying?


 

 Also need know:
  
 1. What you want from equipment?
  
 2. What hear in new apparatus?
  
 In my opinion, main difference between hi-fi and hi-end in ability pure playback not only in high loudness, but for low levels too.
  
 It important for classical music.
  
 If comparing good equipment both classes at mid and high loudness, very probably will not difference. Or this difference will very small.
  
 Of course, it is no rule or claim. Only subject of considering then copmaring different classes.


----------



## analogsurviver

yuri korzunov said:


> Also need know:
> 
> 1. What you want from equipment?
> 
> ...


 
 Yes, the better equipment will ALWAYS be first noticeable at low levels, in quiet parts of the music. But that difference can only be appreciated with a good recording and good equipment. Everything has to be at the approximately the same level.
  
 If you can, try to audition Beveridge electrostatic speaker. Although not capable of the SPLs ultimately required, it can play with by far the most believable dynamic range within its limits of SPL. It is also the speaker with the lowest THD - ever. Not much below its max SPL, it has less than 0.03% 2nd harmonic from certain bass frequency up and great deal less third harmonic - speaker, measured with the microphone in an anechoic room ...


----------



## analogsurviver

don hills said:


> That's an invalid test. The correct way is to test with the cable terminated at both ends in its intended role - preamp to amp, for example, or turntable to phono amp.
> Actually, I shouldn't mention that - I'm picturing someone testing their kilobuck interconnects your way and finding out they are microphonic...


 
 I do agree it is a bit far fetched test - but invalid - no.
  
 There is an interesting design even having its own thread  http://www.head-fi.org/t/466253/olive-oil-injected-rca-cable  I have one variation on it ( liquid within is clear - whatever it is ) , looong time overdue to return to its rightful owner. The liquid serves two purposes - first is to have a good electrical properties (dialectric - oil capacitors ) and the liquid damps any mechanical resonancesces (microphonics ) - so it is no snake oil. In about five years, being connected and reconnected numerous times,  it is still going strong and did not leak liquid or anything unusual.
  
 It is quiet in my - as you have termed invalid - test.


----------



## Toom

analogsurviver said:


> I do agree it is a bit far fetched test - but invalid - no.
> 
> There is an interesting design even having its own thread  http://www.head-fi.org/t/466253/olive-oil-injected-rca-cable  I have one variation on it ( liquid within is clear - whatever it is ) , looong time overdue to return to its rightful owner. The liquid serves two purposes - first is to have a good electrical properties (dialectric - oil capacitors ) and the liquid damps any mechanical resonancesces (microphonics ) - so it is no snake oil. In about five years, being connected and reconnected numerous times,  it is still going strong and did not leak liquid or anything unusual.
> 
> It is quiet in my - as you have termed invalid - test.




If I am gonna pay hard earned money for liquid cables, I demand pure snake oil!


----------



## StanD

toom said:


> If I am gonna pay hard earned money for liquid cables, I demand pure snake oil!


 
 I wonder what the benefits of fish oil might be.


----------



## Dobrescu George

toom said:


> If I am gonna pay hard earned money for liquid cables, I demand pure snake oil!


 
 oil... dries up... this is why oil capacitors have a downside...
  
 everything that is made out of organic materials is bound to degrade over time...
  
 yes, you could see an advantage, i think, for a period of time..


----------



## StanD

dobrescu george said:


> oil... dries up... this is why oil capacitors have a downside...
> 
> everything that is made out of organic materials is bound to degrade over time...
> 
> yes, you could see an advantage, i think, for a period of time..


 
 But what is shorter, the belief period or the time for organic degradation?


----------



## analogsurviver

toom said:


> If I am gonna pay hard earned money for liquid cables, I demand pure snake oil!


 
 You can read the exact description of the oil used in these cables on the above mentioined thread - by its designer. I had no idea they went so far with technology.
  
 I did  not even know of this thread until today. What I can asure you is the fact that cable did not change a bit in five years of use - save for the understandable wear on contact surfaces - as I need this cable only from recorder to preamp/headphone amp on location recordings - and during that period, it must have been over 100 of making and breaking the contact. No problem so far.
  
 Cable sounds very civilized, no detail gets omited but more importantly, no etching or standing out. It is a honest quality product, proved its reliability over time and is reasonably priced. Please see ebay if interested.
  
 No affiliation - just satisfied user.
  
 It is OK for CD player//DAC to headphone/power amp, for phono use it obviously lacks required shielding.


----------



## Toom

analogsurviver said:


> You can read the exact description of the oil used in these cables on the above mentioined thread - by its designer. I had no idea they went so far with technology.
> 
> I did  not even know of this thread until today. What I can asure you is the fact that cable did not change a bit in five years of use - save for the understandable wear on contact surfaces - as I need this cable only from recorder to preamp/headphone amp on location recordings - and during that period, it must have been over 100 of making and breaking the contact. No problem so far.
> 
> ...


 
  
 How can a cable sound civilized?


----------



## StanD

toom said:


> How can a cable sound civilized?


 
 Just another silly term to confuse unsubstantiated claims.


----------



## icebear

stand said:


> I wonder what the benefits of fish oil might be.


 

 I am sure there can be an advantage using cold pressed extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) from a specific area. Of course there will be differences depending on the vintage and you will have to have an oil and filter change after a certain period of time. Maybe after recycling the oil you can use it for frying, depending on the favorite music style the fries come out differently


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Just another silly term to confuse unsubstantiated claims.




I thought another thread was created for him to entertain himself? What's he still doing in this thread?

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> I thought another thread was created for him to entertain himself? What's he still doing in this thread?
> 
> se


 
 He needs an audience.


----------



## StanD

icebear said:


> I am sure there can be an advantage using cold pressed extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) from a specific area. Of course there will be differences depending on the vintage and you will have to have an oil and filter change after a certain period of time. Maybe after recycling the oil you can use it for frying, depending on the favorite music style the fries come out differently


 
 If you go by the theory of, "You are what you eat," one can improve their musicianship by eating food fried in oil from a cable used to listen to masters of the genre of interest. Unless you're in a gypsy band.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> He needs an audience.




Then give him one. In the _other_ thread. 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Then give him one. In the _other_ thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Wiseguy


----------



## prot

uchihaitachi said:


> Is it more likely that differences will be noticed on a full speaker set up or with top of the line headphones?




good question but I doubt there is a definitive answer. 
Speakers would be better for things like soundstage & imaging but top headphones like the hd800 are more detailed than most speakers. Maybe one of those brutally detailed & neutral pro speakers like the Barefoot would be best.

 But it also matters a lot how familiar you are with the music and the HPs/speakers used during such a test.. familiarity with whole playback chain is important I guess. And it is quite hard to find even two people familiar with the same music and playback components ... and a test with only one participant is hardly relevant for anything.

...complex stuff ...


----------



## StanD

prot said:


> good question but I doubt there is a definitive answer.
> Speakers would be better for things like soundstage & imaging but top headphones like the hd800 are more detailed than most speakers. Maybe one of those brutally detailed & neutral pro speakers like the Barefoot would be best.
> 
> But it also matters a lot how familiar you are with the music and the HPs/speakers used during such a test.. familiarity with whole playback chain is important I guess. And it is quite hard to find even two people familiar with the same music and playback components ... and a test with only one participant is hardly relevant for anything.
> ...


 
 IMO it's easy to get a good electronic playback chain, the headphones/speakers and acoustics at the end makes the big difference.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> IMO it's easy to get a good electronic playback chain, the headphones/speakers and acoustics at the end makes the big difference.


 

 Agree about headphones.
  
 Speakers work in pair with room. If room has large ceramical or glass surfaces, it kill any speakers


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> IMO it's easy to get a good electronic playback chain, the headphones/speakers and acoustics at the end makes the big difference.




Yeah. No one is arguing there aren't audible differences when it comes to transducers such as headphones and loudspeakers.

se


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> IMO it's easy to get a good electronic playback chain, the headphones/speakers and acoustics at the end makes the big difference.


 
  
  


yuri korzunov said:


> Agree about headphones.
> 
> Speakers work in pair with room. If room has large ceramical or glass surfaces, it kill any speakers


 
 Isn't that part of the acoustics that I mentioned? One can move a couch/chair in the room or take a couple of steps over and change the deal.


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Yeah. No one is arguing there aren't audible differences when it comes to transducers such as headphones and loudspeakers.
> 
> se


 
 True, I haven't heard that one and probably won't as it's the holy grail of audiophiles to always hear a difference.


----------



## prot

stand said:


> True, I haven't heard that one and probably won't as it's the holy grail of audiophiles to always hear a difference.




you mean my shinny new $1000 USB cable makes no difference !?!?! ... what kind of commie nonbeliever are you !?


----------



## analogsurviver

toom said:


> How can a cable sound civilized?


 
 Completely new to audio ?
  
 I am NOT among those who are going into long c able reviews - because the differences, if any in a CD LEVEL TO HEADPHONE/POWER AMP INTERCONNECT are relatively small. Yet they can be described as "bright", "dark", "grainy" "lacking focus" - etc. "Civilised" would be avoiding any of the above, being hard to describe while obviously doing nothing obviously audibly  wrong. Neutral - if you will  .
  
 I am not above using - from time to time -  the basic RCA cables that came with a tuner or cassete deck. Quite often I prefer those over some artsy craftsy audiophile cables with insanely high prices. Yet these oil filled cables definitely do not belong to this category. 
  
 As with anything, it is a matter of synergy with the rest of the system and personal taste. For me, there is rather quickly over which violin sounds the best. For the violinists, it is into much more minute details - and will choose according to their preferences.
  
 I merely try to use whatever allows passing trough the greatest variety of sounds as intact as it can get for a certain amount of money I can still afford. There are cables that cost really silly money - for a dubious increase in sound quality. As there are far greater - or thinner - bottlenecks in audio than interconnect cable, I tend to eliminate those first. No point in listening to them in all of their "glory" trough an even better cable that reveals the shortcomings of whatever precedes it even better.
  
 The price level of oil filled cables is approx $ 30 for 1 meter long stereo pair of RCA terminated cable + shipping. I find this reasonable.


----------



## StanD

prot said:


> you mean my shinny new $1000 USB cable makes no difference !?!?! ... what kind of commie nonbeliever are you !?


 
 If I believed and spread the word I'd be an apparatchik.


----------



## StanD

IMO _Synergy_ is often used to explain a myth or make a claim that cannot be proven.


----------



## Toom

analogsurviver said:


> Completely new to audio ?


 
  
 I've been able to hear for the last 43 years, since I was a baby.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> IMO _Synergy_ is often used to explain a myth or make a claim that cannot be proven.


 
 There _ARE _musical groups composed of individually quite average musicians who, acting as a whole, infinitely surpass the sum of the individual members.
  
 It could also be called synergy. Try solo albums by some of them - after getting used to the high standards achieved by the mother group.


----------



## bfreedma

Did I miss the release of the CD mat test files?.......


----------



## analogsurviver

toom said:


> I've been able to hear for the last 43 years, since I was a baby.


 
 Being able to hear and to listen are two different  things - but the former is prerequisite.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> There _ARE _musical groups composed of individually quite average musicians who, acting as a whole, infinitely surpass the sum of the individual members.
> 
> It could also be called synergy. Try solo albums by some of them - after getting used to the high standards achieved by the mother group.


 
 As usual your response is out of context. Considering your logic, I contend that putting 10 oil filled cables together will *not *make a difference.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Isn't that part of the acoustics that I mentioned? One can move a couch/chair in the room or take a couple of steps over and change the deal.


 
 It is correct that too much acustically hard surfaces (glass, ceramics, marble, stone, etc ) will kill any speaker. You can not just take a few steps to change the deal.
  
 Basically, after listening to my speakers in a MUCH larger room, with very high ceilings, etc, etc, I stopped worrying about speakers in my home; I literally cried that fateful day, realizing the room is such a limitation that can not be overcome - nomatterwhat. And it is not glass/ceramics/stone affair either.
  
 Equally, I avoid recording in a certain venue where MANY concerts are being held - as a pleague. Marble, glass, stone, and to top it off, acrylic fence all in one go across the entire balcony. Not a single absorptive acoustical element, like a carpet or picture _not under glass_ . An echo upon another - into infinity.
 The only way for this venue to sound semi acceptable is to pack it with audience beyond its capacity.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> Isn't that part of the acoustics that I mentioned? One can move a couch/chair in the room or take a couple of steps over and change the deal.


 

 Or move speakers.
  
  
  
  
 Me seems, expensive cable suitable for expensive apparatus due esthetic reasons not for sound quality.
  
 Why need buy cheap and "casual" cables for apparatus, usually with beautiful design?
  
 These accessories must have nice look. And price


----------



## Dobrescu George

I think that i had lost the subject.. i remember something about oil?...
  
 well, as far as audiophile claims go and what is actually true, i can guarantee that software canges sound.
  
 For anyone interested, there is a first software that makes the difference obvious, hqplayer, with another coming, with a more elegant UI...


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> Or move speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Would you buy a power cable that costs a few hundred dollars or a speaker cable that runs a grand or more? There has to be a threshold where it's simply too much to spend.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> It is correct that too much acustically hard surfaces (glass, ceramics, marble, stone, etc ) will kill any speaker. You can not just take a few steps to change the deal.
> 
> Basically, after listening to my speakers in a MUCH larger room, with very high ceilings, etc, etc, I stopped worrying about speakers in my home; I literally cried that fateful day, realizing the room is such a limitation that can not be overcome - nomatterwhat. And it is not glass/ceramics/stone affair either.
> 
> ...


 
 Depending on the room, a few steps is all it takes. Sometimes one has to be on an axial poistion. One can have standing waves, modes and nodes to contend with, standing waves might require changing the position of a wall, so here comes the bulldozer. Listening position is important, that's one reason that I like headphones.


----------



## lamode

uchihaitachi said:


> Is it more likely that differences will be noticed on a full speaker set up or with top of the line headphones?


 
  
 They used Sennheiser HD800 headphones. They may not be everyone's favourite but they are widely respected as being one of the best.


----------



## lamode

tropic said:


> I think DACs do make a difference, but there's a point where you have to stop because the sound doesn't get better - it just gets more detailed and refined, which you have to ask yourself is it worth the $1000+ of paying?


 

 If it gets more detailed and refined then it DOES become better.


----------



## uchihaitachi

lamode said:


> They used Sennheiser HD800 headphones. They may not be everyone's favourite but they are widely respected as being one of the best.


 
 The question wasn't whether HD800 is the best. The question was whether it will be easier to tell differences between sources via TOTL speakers in a controlled setting taking into room acoustics etc. or on TOTL headphones....


----------



## lamode

> Yet they can be described as "bright", "dark", "grainy" "lacking focus" - etc. "Civilised" would be avoiding any of the above, being hard to describe while obviously doing nothing obviously audibly  wrong. Neutral - if you will  .


 
  
 They can be described in a million different ways but they all sound EXACTLY the same.


----------



## lamode

dobrescu george said:


> well, as far as audiophile claims go and what is actually true, i can guarantee that software canges sound.


 
  
 Well, only if it changes the bits, and that's not necessarily a good thing. Perhaps if you are performing a sample rate conversion in software better than the DAC is capable of natively, then it may sound a little better.


----------



## lamode

uchihaitachi said:


> The question wasn't whether HD800 is the best. The question was whether it will be easier to tell differences between sources via TOTL speakers in a controlled setting taking into room acoustics etc. or on TOTL headphones....


 
  
 But HD800s *are* TOTL headphones, so you are contradicting yourself.


----------



## analogsurviver

Speakers or headphones ?
  
 The best answer is "it depends". And will boil down to the type of speakers (and their setting within the room ) , type of headphones - and type of the recording. One type of the recording may favour the former, another the later. Another type of the recording - the tables may/will turn.
  
 No generalization is possible. It all depends how it was recorded, on which equipment was it monitored and for what type of listening was it intended. Binaural recording will sound thin and bodyless on speakers - perhaps the case these differences are the most pronounced. There is any number of cases that are in- between.


----------



## RRod

lamode said:


> If it gets more detailed and refined then it DOES become better.


 
  
 Only if you can hear it, that is. It's like the current tongue-bathing the Ygg is getting. Here are some #s:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/764787/yggdrasil-technical-measurements
  
 I see those measurements and think "nice, but not better than much cheaper DACs I've seen. And are the improvements audible?" My favorite is the comparison of jitter to the ODAC. Yes, it indeed looks like the Ygg has lower jitter error, but you have to also look at the values on the Y-axes. Artifacts 120dB down from the signal? No one hears that. How much trouble does one need to go through to make inaudible even more inaudibler?


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> But HD800s *are* TOTL headphones, so you are contradicting yourself.


 
 HD 800 are not TOTL headphones.
  
 Maybe in present line of Sennheiser. Their best effort was and remains to this day Orpheus electrostatic.
  
 Which is far from saying HD-800 are not good or suitable for such comparisons. They are.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

dobrescu george said:


> I think that i had lost the subject.. i remember something about oil?...
> 
> well, as far as audiophile claims go and what is actually true, i can guarantee that software canges sound.
> 
> For anyone interested, there is a first software that makes the difference obvious, hqplayer, with another coming, with a more elegant UI...


 

 ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????''


----------



## lamode

rrod said:


> Only if you can hear it, that is. It's like the current tongue-bathing the Ygg is getting. Here are some #s:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/764787/yggdrasil-technical-measurements
> 
> I see those measurements and think "nice, but not better than much cheaper DACs I've seen. And are the improvements audible?" My favorite is the comparison of jitter to the ODAC. Yes, it indeed looks like the Ygg has lower jitter error, but you have to also look at the values on the Y-axes. Artifacts 120dB down from the signal? No one hears that. How much trouble does one need to go through to make inaudible even more inaudibler?


 
  
 Well it seemed that you were talking about the *sound* becoming more detailed and refined, in which case it is better.
 I'd be the first to agree that better specs are only useful if the difference is audible. A -160dB noise floor is not any better in the real world than a -120dB noise floor, for example. Is that what you meant?


----------



## Dobrescu George

macacodosom said:


> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????''


 
 HQplayer , if you set it correctly sounds better than most audio sftware players... you can test and tell me, if it is this way or not.


----------



## RRod

lamode said:


> Well it seemed that you were talking about the *sound* becoming more detailed and refined, in which case it is better.
> I'd be the first to agree that better specs are only useful if the difference is audible. A -160dB noise floor is not any better in the real world than a -120dB noise floor, for example. Is that what you meant?


 
  
 Well I think often people will see better specs and think "ahha, it sounds more refined", which is a great way to pre-bias one's listening. That was my only point.


----------



## uchihaitachi

lamode said:


> But HD800s *are* TOTL headphones, so you are contradicting yourself.


 
 I never said, or even insinuated that HD800s weren't TOTL. I asked whether listening tests would be more discernible using TOTL headphones or speakers.
  
 You answered a question that was never posed in the first place.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

dobrescu george said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????''
> ...


 
 the software  players (that I know of) simply pass the bits to the DAC, they have no sound... I use foobar and if I want, I can modify/resample/filter/equalize...use WASAPI or ASIO, etc...
 why would one want to use a software, to modify the sound? somebody that doesn't have a DAC? if the PC board is crappy the sound will always be crappy... isn't it? or am I wrong?
 Please tell me what are the real benefits of having HQPlayer...


----------



## Dobrescu George

macacodosom said:


> the software  players (that I know of) simply pass the bits to the DAC, they have no sound... I use foobar and if I want, I can modify/resample/filter/equalize...use WASAPI or ASIO, etc...
> why would one want to use a software, to modify the sound? somebody that doesn't have a DAC? if the PC board is crappy the sound will always be crappy... isn't it? or am I wrong?
> Please tell me what are the real benefits of having HQPlayer...


 
 Using real time high resolution resampling software, based off interpolation algorithms that create the waves perfectly when compared to the sampled waves.
  
 If the DAC uses a simple linear resampling, the created waves look like steps on a staircase, while in high resolution, they are curved lines. 
  
 The step things create alaising, and harmonic distortions, due to the fragmented movement of the driver. They also have other problems. 
  
 Example down.
  
 You can come to my place for more details.
  
  
 This is how sampled waves look like in computer, 1Khz, 10khz and 16 khz, created with free software audacity
  

  
  
  
  
 This is how they look after resampling using a high resolution resampling algorithm:

  
  
 In real life, waves must always be curved lines, and never have straight lines or corners.. It sounds much better with high resolution capable DACs.
  
 Just try hqplayer. My algorithm is optimized differently, trying to do a different thing.


----------



## StanD

@Dobrescu George Great on sine waves, but what happens with unpredictable things, like music.


----------



## RRod

dobrescu george said:


> Using real time high resolution resampling software, based off interpolation algorithms that create the waves perfectly when compared to the sampled waves.
> 
> If the DAC uses a simple linear resampling, the created waves look like steps on a staircase, while in high resolution, they are curved lines.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Why wouldn't I just let the DAC recreate the waveform for me?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

dobrescu george said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > the software  players (that I know of) simply pass the bits to the DAC, they have no sound... I use foobar and if I want, I can modify/resample/filter/equalize...use WASAPI or ASIO, etc...
> ...


 
  
 straight lines? where?
 What you are showing me is GRAPHIC resolution not AUDIO. If you show the samples/sample values, you'll have 'steps' but that is not what one can listen with ANY DAC... in the analogue domain there is no steps... old pal Nyquist tells us that the wave will be perfectly reconstructed... so that is not what HQPlayer does...
  
 What does it do really?


----------



## bigshot

The old stair step thing again. DACs produce reconstructed waves that are smooth as silk. All they need to do that are two samples for any frequency. 44.1 produces up to the edge of human hearing with no steps. See Nyquist.


----------



## lamode

dobrescu george said:


> Using real time high resolution resampling software, based off interpolation algorithms that create the waves perfectly when compared to the sampled waves.
> 
> If the DAC uses a simple linear resampling, the created waves look like steps on a staircase, while in high resolution, they are curved lines.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Only one problem with this... the linear interpolation (which I have never heard of being used in real life but who knows) shows the waveform prior to the low pass filter section. It will look much more similar to the high resolution version once filtered. Secondly, any artefacts (noise) which remain will be below -100dB and inaudible in the real world.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dobrescu george said:


> In real life, waves must always be curved lines, and never have straight lines or corners.. It sounds much better with high resolution capable DACs.




You really need to take a refresher course on basic digital audio.

se


----------



## StanD

So what are we looking at? Stair cased waveforms and some form of linear interpolation vs. upsampled approximations interpolated for a sine wave. Well if the sample rate is higher, it make look nice on a plot but if the sanple rate is higher than we can perceive, then it has no practical value. If the waveform is not sinusoidal then there is probably no benefit either. Also the sample rate is probably higher than the horizontal resolution of the plot, hiding what is there. Looks cute though.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bigshot said:


> The old stair step thing again. DACs produce reconstructed waves that are smooth as silk. All they need to do that are two samples for any frequency. 44.1 produces up to the edge of human hearing with no steps. See Nyquist.


 

 it seems that the steps don't disappear from some minds... or is it intentional?  well, 20 years ago I thought this was real with the (des)information that came with the sound boards... for most people it seems to make perfectly sense...


----------



## Steve Eddy

macacodosom said:


> it seems that the steps don't disappear from some minds... or is it intentional?  well, 20 years ago I thought this was real with the (des)information that came with the sound boards... for most people it seems to make perfectly sense...




Yeah, that old canard just won't die. It's really a shame. 

se


----------



## Dobrescu George

Let me develop further:
  
 Nyquist stated:
  
 IF the interpolation algorithm and transducers are ideal, double the frequency that needs reproducing is enough.
  
 But in reality, there is not ideal algorithm for interpolation, nor ideal transducers.
  
 Before telling me that i am wrong, test HQplayer. 
  
 By having more samples, the interpolation algorithm within the DAC is relaxed, creating a better result. 
  
 To complete the statement, the stair waves are how the data looks before being sent through the DAC, but some DACs will create a fine wave out of it, others will not. 
  
 Real music takes into account lot of wave inforation, i am going to develop on this on my project, basically, when you have a very complex wave, more samples actually make for more data, as long as a sample is placed by a very small difference an algorithm can pick on that and actually accentuate the sound that that small movement meant. most DACs do not feature this, as it is not exactly what is recorded, but it can be considered sort of DSP.


----------



## Ruben123

Without thinking about it or going into discussion, if this is true, CDs are actually then brought to a higher quality than vinyl since vinyl and CD are ideally identical but vinyl does not use any sort of DAC chip.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

ruben123 said:


> Without thinking about it or going into discussion, if this is true, CDs are actually then brought to a higher quality than vinyl since vinyl and CD are ideally identical but vinyl does not use any sort of DAC chip.


 

 CDs are actually better than vinyl, no matter what...


----------



## Ruben123

macacodosom said:


> CDs are actually better than vinyl, no matter what...


 

 Thought I read somewhere in a blind test a new vinyl 100% clean could not be distinguished from CD. But yeah most of my vinyl sounds very inferior to CD but I like them anyway.


----------



## StanD

Interpolation is just a SWAG. Going beyond sine waves is probably an even bigger stretch. Just look at an analog musical waveform. Point samples taken at CD sample rates seem to be  in the end indistinguishable so I can't see the value of going beyond what we can actually perceive. Perhaps a good exercise in interpolation and a fun project.


----------



## Dobrescu George

stand said:


> Interpolation is just a SWAG. Going beyond sine waves is probably an even bigger stretch. Just look at an analog musical waveform. Point samples taken at CD sample rates seem to be  in the end indistinguishable so I can't see the value of going beyond what we can actually perceive. Perhaps a good exercise in interpolation and a fun project.


 
 Maybe you are right. 
  
 Maybe my Doctorate work supported by my teachers and my university is going to have only minor audible differences.
  
 I belive strongly in my ideeas because i already know how hqplayer sounds like, and i know what it did to get there. I admit that i am working at a DSP, which really modifies the sound compared to the sound that was before.
  
 But both chord hugo and HQplayer do this, and both sound extremely good and close to reality. 
  
 I guess that explaining this in scientific terms would be simpler, but i am restricted to not showing much of the actual data, copyrights and such.
  
 But the good part is that whatever the results might be, the software i am developing is going to have an intuitive user interface, be multiplatform, and free, and have bitperfect support. So it might be a big hit regardless of if you like or not the particular algorithm i have created. Most features it has make it really nice.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dobrescu george said:


> Let me develop further:
> 
> Nyquist stated:
> 
> ...




Where exactly did Nyquist say that?

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

dobrescu george said:


> Maybe you are right.
> 
> Maybe my Doctorate work supported by my teachers and my university is going to have only minor audible differences.
> 
> I belive strongly in my ideeas because i already know how hqplayer sounds like...




This is the Sound Science forum. Have you performed and published any controlled listening tests to demonstrate any actual audibility?

se


----------



## StanD

dobrescu george said:


> Maybe you are right.
> 
> Maybe my Doctorate work supported by my teachers and my university is going to have only minor audible differences.
> 
> ...


 
 If the software is good, free, even with an extra feature, then who is to complain? I just question the need for this extra feature.


----------



## RRod

dobrescu george said:


> Maybe you are right.
> 
> Maybe my Doctorate work supported by my teachers and my university is going to have only minor audible differences.
> 
> ...


 
  
 What's the point of even mentioning it if you can't tell us anything about it, other than product promotion, which isn't the role of the sound science forum.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> CDs are actually better than vinyl, no matter what...


 
 This particular bucket of water would be empty before you turn around to carry it any real distance required.
  
 The reason is the limited frequency response of the CD. Vinyl at its best has its disadvantages low enough - CD can not, in any way, make up for the lack of response.
 For the digital to _approach _the vinyl, particularly direct to disk, minimum 88.2/16 would be required - CD is too slow, no matter what ...


----------



## Dobrescu George

stand said:


> If the software is good, even with an extra feature, then who is to complain? I just question the need for this extra feature.


 
 The extra feature was where i started. That and the need for a new User interface, that would be even more user friendly and more intuitive than already existing ones. Now, the project has grown into a one solution for all problems in audio.
  
 I feel like i want to discuss how to optimize my works in here, but i think that it is a little early for this, mostly i should do this after i have two sample songs, one processed through my algorithms and one not.
  
 Is there any feature that would really be a game changer?


steve eddy said:


> This is the Sound Science forum. Have you performed and published any controlled listening tests to demonstrate any actual audibility?
> 
> se


 
 only mathematical theoretical papers, i need to do the dirty work myself and write the software that does this. I promise to offer a link to some examples, after i finish. It is still in the early development process.
  
  


rrod said:


> What's the point of even mentioning it if you can't tell us anything about it, other than product promotion, which isn't the role of the sound science forum.


 
 not really product promotion, i am forbidden to do this, i wanted to make some people try HQplayer, which is not my product. I wanted to know if most people consider it closer or further from real life sounds. it helps me optimize. 
  
 i can mention some things, not the algorithm itself, or at least, not until my PhD work is officially published and patented to me. You know, a Doctorate can be painfully hard to write, and is a heartbreaking thing if somebody steals it. And that somebody might be people who read my post by chance, not even users in here, teachers told me to have some kind of paranoia if i am going to ever talk about this online.
  
  
 If i am not welcome in here, i shall apologize and just read, until i have my results ready for a good sound science double blind testing


----------



## Steve Eddy

dobrescu george said:


> only mathematical theoretical papers, i need to do the dirty work myself and write the software that does this. I promise to offer a link to some examples, after i finish. It is still in the early development process.




Until you do, what's the point in making all these assertions?

se


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> The reason is the limited frequency response of the CD. Vinyl at its best has its disadvantages low enough - CD can not, in any way, make up for the lack of response.
> For the digital to _approach _the vinyl, particularly direct to disk, minimum 88.2/16 would be required - CD is too slow, no matter what ...


 
  
 Wrong. And it's been explained to you why it's wrong over and over again.


----------



## lamode

dobrescu george said:


> To complete the statement, the stair waves are how the data looks before being sent through the DAC, but some DACs will create a fine wave out of it, others will not.


 
  
 All DACs encompass a steep low pass filter which remove any steps and ensures a 'smooth' waveform.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> Wrong. And it's been explained to you why it's wrong over and over again.


 
 That's how he rolls/trolls. Ignore the truth and make up another story.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

dobrescu george said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > Interpolation is just a SWAG. Going beyond sine waves is probably an even bigger stretch. Just look at an analog musical waveform. Point samples taken at CD sample rates seem to be  in the end indistinguishable so I can't see the value of going beyond what we can actually perceive. Perhaps a good exercise in interpolation and a fun project.
> ...


 

 Hope to listen to it...


----------



## lamode

ruben123 said:


> Without thinking about it or going into discussion, if this is true, CDs are actually then brought to a higher quality than vinyl since vinyl and CD are ideally identical but vinyl does not use any sort of DAC chip.


 
  
 Vinyl has no chance of matching CD's performance technically.


----------



## Dobrescu George

steve eddy said:


> Until you do, what's the point in making all these assertions?
> 
> se


 
 to see what the actual take on high resolution resampling is right now. I guess that reading around could had done the same, but after i heared HQplayer, i wanted to be sure what the take is about this particular subject.


lamode said:


> All DACs encompass a steep low pass filter which remove any steps and ensures a 'smooth' waveform.


 
 Knowing this also helps me understand, i had done most of works in mathematics, and the basic assumption was that most DACs will only do average between two samples, always resulting straight lines and corners...
  
 Nevertheless, the actual algorithm SQ can be optimized if i take into account how most of the modern DACs do this thing.
  
  
  
  
 I guess that i asked around sound science to optimize my algorithms to give better results with today's modern DACs, as i am more of a mathtematics guy, and some things that are obvious to others can escape my view, which is sometimes too narrow from all the work.


----------



## Dobrescu George

lamode said:


> Vinyl has no chance of matching CD's performance technically.


 
 My personal take, as i listened to vinyl, is that i always got crakcs and pops with vinyl. I could not get music without them, so i had given up. maybe i used a defective equipment, or i missed a step in listening to it... 
  
 In theory, vinyl is analog the data it holds is just analog information, it should be able to reproduce data exactly, with ideal transducers, and not coloring equipment. I have only heard a vinyl two or three times, i heared the pops, i had given up, i have no ideea how it sounds in comparation, or why i had that pops.


----------



## Dobrescu George

Sorry for me intruding in here, sound science is a place for me to learn some things, and i am far from knowing all aspects of sound, you, guys know much more, so i will learn and ask, if it is okay with you...


----------



## lamode

dobrescu george said:


> By having more samples, the interpolation algorithm within the DAC is relaxed, creating a better result.


 
  
 As I wrote to you earlier, you are assuming that the SRC in the DAC is inferior to the software SRC.
  
 Furthermore it is strange to be pushing just HQPlayer when it is well known that several software players offer the same SRC functionality.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Wrong. And it's been explained to you why it's wrong over and over again.


 
 Sorry - this will not go trough.
  
 Musical instruments DO have frequencies well beyond 20 kHz. Beyond 100 kHz in fact - I did post link confirming this.
  
 I should go and check the EXACT aliquotes/frequencies from muted trumpet, etc - with harmonics at say 80 kHz and 83 kHz. It gives intermodulation product of (F2 - F1), which is 3 kHz - which IS audible to any human being. And it is MISSING in CD Redbook. Period.
  
 This IS naturally occurring IMD - in sound heard live. It is NOT an intermodulation artefact occurring in the equipment.
  
 Now please do not say 3 kHz or so ( or any given real natural intermodulations from ultrasonics falling well within the 20Hz-20 kHz range ) - is inaudible ...


----------



## lamode

dobrescu george said:


> In theory, vinyl is analog the data it holds is just analog information, it should be able to reproduce data exactly, with ideal transducers, and not coloring equipment. I have only heard a vinyl two or three times, i heared the pops, i had given up, i have no ideea how it sounds in comparation, or why i had that pops.


 
  
 Every step of the vinyl audio chain introduces noise, distortion, resonances, cross-talk, etc. Being all-analogue is what makes it WORSE, not better.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry - this will not go trough.
> 
> Musical instruments DO have frequencies well beyond 20 kHz. Beyond 100 kHz in fact - I did post link confirming this.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Your post confirmed that a trumpet with a Harman mute and some cymbals have a small amount of ultrasonic energy, but it's ultrasonic so it's irrelevant.
  
 We've been over this ad nauseum. Stop trolling.


----------



## StanD

lamode said:


> Every step of the vinyl audio chain introduces noise, distortion, resonances, cross-talk, etc. Being all-analogue is what makes it WORSE, not better.


 
 Not to mention problems with the medium and the kit at the begining of the chain. I'd call that starting out on the wrong foot.


----------



## lamode

stand said:


> Not to mention problems with the medium and the kit at the begining of the chain. I'd call that starting out on the wrong foot.


 
  
 Sure, I meant every step from the master tape to the listener's speakers.


----------



## cdsa35000

Ahahahanalog is good for electricboogie scratching needle on plastic fx.
Digital is good 8bit chiptune digitalitus fx.


----------



## StanD

cdsa35000 said:


> Ahahahanalog is good for electricboogie scratching needle on plastic fx.
> Digital is good 8bit chiptune digitalitus fx.


 
 Looks like you just had a CRC error. Who uses 8 bit digital audio?


----------



## analogsurviver

dobrescu george said:


> My personal take, as i listened to vinyl, is that i always got crakcs and pops with vinyl. I could not get music without them, so i had given up. maybe i used a defective equipment, or i missed a step in listening to it...
> 
> In theory, vinyl is analog the data it holds is just analog information, it should be able to reproduce data exactly, with ideal transducers, and not coloring equipment. I have only heard a vinyl two or three times, i heared the pops, i had given up, i have no ideea how it sounds in comparation, or why i had that pops.


 
 The vinyl records do not pop or noise - per se.
  
 The noise and pops excite the transducer ( Stylus, cantilever, suspension, cartridge, tonearm tube, tonearm bearings, interface between record itself and turntable mat/platter, main turntable bearing, structure holding together the main bearing and tonearm and any suspension the TT is decoupled from the supporting table etc ).
 ANY of those can have its resonances - and together they add up into unlistenable cacophony on poor equipment, while almost dissapearing with top flight units.
  
 The game changer with vinyl is ultrasonic record cleaning. There are commercial products in 4K range - yet go to YouTube and see what "ultrasonic record cleaning" search brings . In DIY, you can have a decent cleaner for say 400-500 EUR/$. 
  
 It is eerie to wait  an entire side for a single pop - from a LP that was previously almost unlistenable because of pops.
  
 THAT  ABX would be over in one -  second.


----------



## cdsa35000

Best of Chiptune [8 bit music, retro visuals] 
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf_p3-8fTo0[/VIDEO]


----------



## StanD

cdsa35000 said:


> Best of Chiptune [8 bit music, retro visuals].


 
 Not bad,  wiseguy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 They should redo on Midi with modern kit.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> Your post confirmed that a trumpet with a Harman mute and some cymbals have a small amount of ultrasonic energy, but it's ultrasonic so it's irrelevant.
> 
> We've been over this ad nauseum. Stop trolling.


 
 No, those levels are not small in amount - at all. Just go and see the link.
  
 You all "conveniently" pretend as the naturally IMD stemming from ultrasonics does not occur. That is the proverbial ostrich keeping its head in the sand
 ( in reality, they dig holes in the sand for their eggs, but you should know what was meant )


----------



## analogsurviver

cdsa35000 said:


> Ahahahanalog is good for electricboogie scratching needle on plastic fx.
> Digital is good 8bit chiptune digitalitus fx.


 
 That is what 8 bit digital is only good for. 
  
 Not for reproducing music played by acoustic instruments - which are a "bit" more complex in nature than those synthesized sounds.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> That is what 8 bit digital is only good for.
> 
> Not for reproducing music played by acoustic instruments - which are a "bit" more complex in nature than those synthesized sounds.


 
  
 Except for a few choice metal tracks I have that I can get down to 8bit with no audible differences ^_^


----------



## Dobrescu George

analogsurviver said:


> The vinyl records do not pop or noise - per se.
> 
> The noise and pops excite the transducer ( Stylus, cantilever, suspension, cartridge, tonearm tube, tonearm bearings, interface between record itself and turntable mat/platter, main turntable bearing, structure holding together the main bearing and tonearm and any suspension the TT is decoupled from the supporting table etc ).
> ANY of those can have its resonances - and together they add up into unlistenable cacophony on poor equipment, while almost dissapearing with top flight units.
> ...


 
 I never knew that the turntable had so many different components that matter. 
  
 I think that i might re-consider what i had seen, but my experience, (20 hours totally in a 3 different ocasions) was full of pops or cracks. As i had no experience with vinyl i thought that that was the normal SQ of it.


stand said:


> Not to mention problems with the medium and the kit at the begining of the chain. I'd call that starting out on the wrong foot.


 
 so, analog, even though it has more fidel data ( in theory perfect reproduction) is actually tainted by my cheap equipment.
  
  
  
 I would ask then, out of pure curiosity, if a very expensive vinyl can reproduce as good, better, or worse than the same price digital.
  
 I am curious if my equipment was the bad thing with the record, or it was the vinyl disc itself..
  
 As i understand it, electromagnetic interference can affect vinyl playback pretty easy, and can degrade vinyl discs pretty fast.
  
 As a matter of question, what life has a vinyl disc? i mean, i know that the electromagnetic data stored on it is not eternal, but after how much time, the degradation begins to occur?


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> Except for a few choice metal tracks I have that I can get down to 8bit with no audible differences ^_^


 
 But it sounds better on DSD.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

lamode said:


> analogsurviver said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry - this will not go trough.
> ...


 
*ad nauseum*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## StanD

macacodosom said:


> *ad nauseum*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 
 He's pretty good at trolling.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dobrescu george said:


> As a matter of question, what life has a vinyl disc? i mean, i know that the electromagnetic data stored on it is not eternal, but after how much time, the degradation begins to occur?




If stored under good conditions, probably centuries.

se


----------



## MacacoDoSom

stand said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > *ad nauseum*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...


 

#@F$§€%/(/)}?@@#######pçahValydfp.ZMX.<XCN<NB<NZXM 
  
PLEASE! I PREFER OLIVE OIL IN CABLES....
please ANALOGESURVIVOR just show us the *CD mats test files... *we already know the rest... I think we need another subject to entertain us...


----------



## cjl

dobrescu george said:


> so, analog, even though it has more fidel data ( in theory perfect reproduction) is actually tainted by my cheap equipment.


 
 Analog is no more "theoretically perfect" than digital - both are limited by the details of the specific implementation of the recording and storage medium. The limitations are different, sure, but neither is "theoretically perfect", and the errors are perfectly quantifiable. When you go through and figure out the achievable resolution, dynamic range, frequency response, and distortion from each, CD quality digital tends to blow LP records out of the water. That isn't to say that LPs can't sound excellent, but in terms of actual, achievable audio performance, CDs are quite simply better.


----------



## analogsurviver

dobrescu george said:


> I never knew that the turntable had so many different components that matter.
> 
> I think that i might re-consider what i had seen, but my experience, (20 hours totally in a 3 different ocasions) was full of pops or cracks. As i had no experience with vinyl i thought that that was the normal SQ of it.
> so, analog, even though it has more fidel data ( in theory perfect reproduction) is actually tainted by my cheap equipment.
> ...


 
 I will put it this way; up to say 1K, or even 2K price, stick with digital - it does have better performance/cost ratio. It is impossible to have inexpensive QUALITY analog.
  
 Above that, things go dicey. I depends on MANY factors - but in the end, even the best digital today can not match a really good direct to disk recording played by a really good turntable. Both can cost WELL north of six figures ...
  
 The only exception MIGHT be native HiRez recordings - either PCM or, preferably, DSD.  If done well, they may well sound better than even the best vinyl. 
  
 Vinyl disc life is veeery streeeeeetchy. Depends on the equipment you play it on. It can be destroyed by a single play on an inferiour or poorly adjusted equipment - or can be played with slight increase in noise but not much worse distortion several hundred times by a top flight equipment. Unfortunately, this costs serious money.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> Above that, things go dicey. I depends on MANY factors - but in the end, even the best digital today can not match a really good direct to disk recording played by a really good turntable. Both can cost WELL north of six figures ...


 
 The best digital today can easily, by a huge margin outperform the frequency response, distortion, and dynamic range from any LP ever made. It's not even close. It'll also cost 2 orders of magnitude less than the numbers you're throwing around - an audibly perfect amp, dac, and digital source can easily be had for ~$1k or so (and that's including a speaker amp - if you're talking headphone gear, drop that another order of magnitude or so down to a couple hundred dollars at most).


----------



## upstateguy

dobrescu george said:


> Before telling me that i am wrong, test *HQplayer.*
> 
> 
> .... i am going to develop on this on *my project*, ....


 
 Edit:  if this hasn't bee asked before.....
  
 ●   since you already have it, how much does the HQplayer you're promoting cost?
  
 ●   after you get your degree, will the software you're working on be free to the audiophile community, or are you going to try to charge for it like the HQplayer?


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> The best digital today can easily, by a huge margin outperform the frequency response and dynamic range from any LP ever made. It's not even close.


 
 No, it can not.
  
 The frequency response of the vinyl over 100 kHz has been achieved - and both in playback and recording. This is only recently approachable by DSD256. 192/24 still has too steep filtering above approx 80-85 kHz (depending on particular DAC/filter used ). 383/24 may also fare well. 
  
 The dynamic range of vinyl is 78 dB - at best. Add to that additional 20 dB reduction of noise possible by using the CX process - which CBS invented just prior being acquired by Sony. Sony knew that these records are to be supressed ASAP if the CD is ever to gain acceptance - so they pulled every CX encoded record they could from the shops back - and destroyed them.
  
 Ultimately, 100 kHz response and 98 dB dynamic range IS close to even the best digital.
  
 Admitedly, no such record exists - YET !


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> If stored under good conditions, probably centuries.
> 
> se


 
 True - if not played.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> No, it can not.
> 
> The frequency response of the vinyl over 100 kHz has been achieved - and both in playback and recording. This is only recently approachable by DSD256. 192/24 still has too steep filtering above approx 80-85 kHz (depending on particular DAC/filter used ). 383/24 may also fare well.
> 
> ...


 
 Even accepting your figures, a 16 bit PCM DAC with response out to 100kHz would be relatively trivial to make. The file format wouldn't be anything special either. No, it isn't readily available since response above 20kHz doesn't matter, but it really doesn't take anything special to have a digital file or dac with 100kHz of bandwidth if you want it. Hell, here's a dac chip that'll do it just fine (up to 384kS/s sample rate, pass band up to 0.45Fs, so just under 173kHz bandwidth): https://store.ti.com/PCM5102APWR-2VRMS-DirectPath-112dB-Audio-Stereo-DAC-with-32-bit-384kHz-PCM-Interface-P25175.aspx
  
 Note the cost? Granted, a full DAC implementation with this would be a couple hundred dollars or so if you really wanted to wring good performance out of it (including the cost of manufacture, etc), but still, it handily beats even your impossibly optimistic numbers for LPs.


----------



## cjl

Oh, and for what it's worth, just because digital easily can support bandwidth up to >100kHz doesn't mean that it's necessary for good quality musical playback. In reality, 20kHz is all you need, and it's pointless to do any more than that. I was merely demonstrating that it's pretty trivial for digital audio to beat even the most ludicrously optimistic numbers that AnalogSurviver is putting up for LPs, if you really felt that that was necessary.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> Ultimately, 100 kHz response and 98 dB dynamic range IS close to even the best digital.




You left out linearity. I could design you an amplifier with MHz bandwidth, 100+ dB dynamic range, but I bet you wouldn't want to listen to it for very long.

se


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> Oh, and for what it's worth, just because digital easily can support bandwidth up to >100kHz doesn't mean that it's necessary for good quality musical playback. In reality, 20kHz is all you need, and it's pointless to do any more than that. I was merely demonstrating that it's pretty trivial for digital audio to beat even the most ludicrously optimistic numbers that AnalogSurviver is putting up for LPs, if you really felt that that was necessary.


 
 In reality, 20 kHz is not enough. I have my own recordings that no longer sound as good when brick filtered for the CD. They extend at least to 40 kHz - music, not noise.
 Using better equipment, this can be extended to approx 100 kHz.
  
 It will take some time until this will get accepted - but eventually it will.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> You left out linearity. I could design you an amplifier with MHz bandwidth, 100+ dB dynamic range, but I bet you wouldn't want to listen to it for very long.
> 
> se


 
 I use such an amp on daily basis. It is VERY linear. Just to make sure it can play whatever the source is providing with aplomb.


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> In reality, 20 kHz is not enough. I have my own recordings that no longer sound as good when brick filtered for the CD. They extend at least to 40 kHz - music, not noise.
> Using better equipment, this can be extended to approx 100 kHz.
> 
> It will take some time until this will get accepted - but eventually it will.


 

 Demonstrate it with a double blind test then.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> Ultimately, 100 kHz response and 98 dB dynamic range IS close to even the best digital.




Oh, and are you assuming all recording would be direct to disc? No intervening analog tape?

se


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> Even accepting your figures, a 16 bit PCM DAC with response out to 100kHz would be relatively trivial to make. The file format wouldn't be anything special either. No, it isn't readily available since response above 20kHz doesn't matter, but it really doesn't take anything special to have a digital file or dac with 100kHz of bandwidth if you want it. Hell, here's a dac chip that'll do it just fine (up to 384kS/s sample rate, pass band up to 0.45Fs, so just under 173kHz bandwidth): https://store.ti.com/PCM5102APWR-2VRMS-DirectPath-112dB-Audio-Stereo-DAC-with-32-bit-384kHz-PCM-Interface-P25175.aspx
> 
> Note the cost? Granted, a full DAC implementation with this would be a couple hundred dollars or so if you really wanted to wring good performance out of it (including the cost of manufacture, etc), but still, it handily beats even your impossibly optimistic numbers for LPs.


 
 I am familiar with TI latest DAC offerings. They have LONG ago abandoned 44.1/16 Redbook only capable devices...


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> I use such an amp on daily basis. It is VERY linear. Just to make sure it can play whatever the source is providing with aplomb.




You didn't even understand what I said.

I can design you an amplifier with MHz bandwidth, 100+ dB dynamic range, but it would NOT be very linear. Yet you're saying vinyl can be the equal or better than digital based only on bandwidth and dynamic range, leaving linearity out of the picture.

Show me vinyl that can equal or exceed the linearity of digital. Or even get close.

se


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Oh, and are you assuming all recording would be direct to disc? No intervening analog tape?
> 
> se


 
 No. I am realist.
  
 Technically, it IS challenging. But the 1234567890'+!"#$%&/()=?* ( a curse stronger than anything you can even think of )  PCM and DSP have de facto spoiled the generations of the musicians after it was introduced to be practically incapable of recording without multiple takes, splitting, etc -  everybody is damn afraid to put a wrong note for posterity as a recording. 
  
 Sad - but true.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> No. I am realist.




Then speak to the linearity of vinyl.




> Technically, it IS challenging. But the 1234567890'+!"#$%&/()=?* ( a curse stronger than anything you can even think of )  PCM and DSP have de facto spoiled the generations of the musicians after it was introduced to be practically incapable of recording without multiple takes, splitting, etc -  everybody is damn afraid to put a wrong note for posterity as a recording.
> 
> Sad - but true.




You don't think there were multiple takes, etc. with tape? 

se


----------



## StanD

I see you guys have been very busy feeding our resident troll.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Then speak to the linearity of vinyl.
> You don't think there were multiple takes, etc. with tape?
> 
> se


 
 Linearity of the vinyl - as linearity of the frequency response or linearity of the dynamic range ?
  
 With tape, there WERE multiple takes, etc. The most horrible are classical recordings with VERY low tape hiss, then all of a sudden instant switch to MUCH higher hiss, some 3-4 notes of a solo instrument played, loud hiss continuing for a second or two, sharp transition to low hiss "bussiness as usual". Such records even got prizes ...
  
 Except for the fact that THE BEST recordings were always done live - listen to Mravinsky recordings on Melodiya, coughing in presumably cold russian winters be damned...
  
 One VERY good live recording is the last time Willy Boskovsky was conducting The New Year concert in Vienna - in 1979. It is also the first digitally recorded recording by Decca - and in vinyl it is SUPERB. CD version is not nearly as good.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

I am hearing so much noise.............................................................................................................................................
  
 foreground noise and...lots of distortion.... no dynamic range at all, just noise...


----------



## StanD

macacodosom said:


> I am hearing so much noise.............................................................................................................................................
> 
> foreground noise and...lots of distortion.... no dynamic range at all, just noise...


 
 Can you _survive_ all of that pseudo random noise?


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> But it sounds better on DSD.


 
  
 Of course, just like Neil Young.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

stand said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > I am hearing so much noise.............................................................................................................................................
> ...


 

 I don't think I can, no...


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> Linearity of the vinyl - as linearity of the frequency response or linearity of the dynamic range ?




Neither. I'm speaking of the underlying linearity of an analog record/playback chain. Namely the tape machine, the cutter head, the LP itself, and the phono cartridge. We'll assume that the intermediate electronics are perfect.

Lack of linearity results in distortion. Most notably harmonic and intermodulation distortion.

So if you were to feed a perfect sine wave into an analog tape recorder, produce an LP with it, and play it back on the best vinyl rig in existence, how much distortion could we be expected to see coming out of the phono cartridge?

se


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> Of course, just like Neil Young.


 
 He should stick to singing and entertaining.


----------



## MacacoDoSom




----------



## MacacoDoSom

they are watching...


----------



## sonitus mirus

macacodosom said:


> they are watching...




With brains that large, surely they deduced that there was nothing worth seeing here long ago.


----------



## StanD

This is a must watch


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> This is a must watch




 haha


----------



## MacacoDoSom

...that's how I'm feeling...


----------



## Eee Pee




----------



## lamode

dobrescu george said:


> I would ask then, out of pure curiosity, if a very expensive vinyl can reproduce as good, better, or worse than the same price digital.


 
  
  
 Quote:


analogsurviver said:


> I will put it this way; up to say 1K, or even 2K price, stick with digital - it does have better performance/cost ratio. It is impossible to have inexpensive QUALITY analog.
> 
> Above that, things go dicey. I depends on MANY factors - but in the end, even the best digital today can not match a really good direct to disk recording played by a really good turntable. Both can cost WELL north of six figures ...
> 
> The only exception MIGHT be native HiRez recordings - either PCM or, preferably, DSD.  If done well, they may well sound better than even the best vinyl.


 
  
 George, please don't listen to our resident troll. At least 99% of LPs recorded in the last 30 years were digitally mixed and mastered so the LP with all its faults has no chance to reproduce the digital master as well as simply transferring the bits from the digital master in the studio straight to your DAC at home. Even with earlier analogue masters, there is no comparison, technically speaking.
  
 I think digital beats vinyl at all price points, but that's not to say vinyl sounds bad. The noise and distortion can add a warmth and personality which some people like, but it's not as close to the studio sound.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> No, it can not.
> 
> The frequency response of the vinyl over 100 kHz has been achieved - and both in playback and recording.


 
  
 ...which explains why bats really enjoy certain esoteric Japanese vinyl pressings.


----------



## lamode

dobrescu george said:


> I would ask then, out of pure curiosity, if a very expensive vinyl can reproduce as good, better, or worse than the same price digital.
> 
> I am curious if my equipment was the bad thing with the record, or it was the vinyl disc itself..
> 
> ...


 
  
 Here's a good guide to some of the vinyl myths: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> George, please don't listen to our resident troll. At least 99% of LPs recorded in the last 30 years were digitally mixed and mastered so the LP with all its faults has no chance to reproduce the digital master as well as simply transferring the bits from the digital master in the studio straight to your DAC at home. Even with earlier analogue masters, there is no comparison, technically speaking.
> 
> I think digital beats vinyl at all price points, but that's not to say vinyl sounds bad. The noise and distortion can add a warmth and personality which some people like, but it's not as close to the studio sound.


 
 True that 99% of LPs recorded in the last 30 years were digitally mixed and mastered.
  
 At one point, they all started sounding "the same". No prizes for guessing what was happening at the time.
  
 That is why any of the better cartridges will usually wave a flag saying : ( similar to computer asking numerous times : Are you sure you want to format the disk ?)
  
 "Are you really sure you want to wear my precious stylus for this digital crap ?"
  
 Yet there are still nowadays analog recordings being made - including direct to disk. But you have to be careful - mastering lathes that really do keep the capability to work with analog source and have not been modified for digital master tape are scarce. 
  
 There are numerous sources for good old pre digital era LPs - one of the good signs can be seen from afar - their sleeves do not sport an EAN code - it has not been yet invented when there were records made all analog way ! Re-releases may well have an EAN code - and what you do NOT WANT - sign reading digitally remastered.
 This would get you the worse of both worlds.
  
 If a recording is natively digital, I usually prefer it as a CD.
  
 So - why on earth do you think original first press releases of recordings now 60 or so years old still sell for silly money ? Rarity alone - when there are numerous re-re-re-re-releases in digital this digital that ? 
  
 Or it may be because of the sound ?


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> Here's a good guide to some of the vinyl myths: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29


 
 Oh dear...  -  I have commented on that link before.
  
 It is riddled with false - and at best - poorly understood capabilities of vinyl. There are good and accurate accounts - and there are total under appreciations.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> So - why on earth do you think original first press releases of recordings now 60 or so years old still sell for silly money ? Rarity alone - when there are numerous re-re-re-re-releases in digital this digital that ?
> 
> Or it may be because of the sound ?


 
  
 Certainly the collectability/rarity and NOT the sound quality.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> ...which explains why bats really enjoy certain esoteric Japanese vinyl pressings.


 
 Um - multitude...
  
 Japan vinyl pressings are primarily superiour to anything else because of - you have guessed it - Japanese vinyl. Particularly that developed for the CD-4. No longer in production for decades, unfortunately. Quite a few US audiophile labels pressed their vinyl in Japan because of that - Reference Recordings and Mobile Fidelity included.
  
 With esoteric American , sometimes even European music.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> Certainly the collectability/rarity and NOT the sound quality.


 
 Ever heard a first press Solti/Wagner on Decca? Second press ? Third ?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 First CD ?
  
 Second CD ?
  
 Final CD ?
  
 I did cover that before, if interested, dig out in the old posts.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

lamode said:


> Well, only if it changes the bits, and that's not necessarily a good thing. Perhaps if you are performing a sample rate conversion in software better than the DAC is capable of natively, then it may sound a little better.


 

 Of course in qualitative hardware used enought qualitative algorithms. And there difference will not very big. As usual in hi-fi/hi-end.
  
 Here impossible guarantee sound improving due improving ability depend on many factors.
  
 Also additional sound improving we can get with moving digital filtration stage from DAC to audio conversion software.
  
 If PCM DAC allow directly put digital stream to analog filter, this mode will like multibit DSD with PCM's sample rate.
  
 However not all DACs allow turn off internal processing (resampling + filtering).
  
 There we can try find "best sounded" DAC's audio resolution (bit depth+sample rate).


----------



## Toom

After the results of the last 24 hours, we need double blind voting here in the UK.


----------



## Dobrescu George

upstateguy said:


> Edit:  if this hasn't bee asked before.....
> 
> ●   since you already have it, how much does the HQplayer you're promoting cost?
> 
> ●   after you get your degree, will the software you're working on be free to the audiophile community, or are you going to try to charge for it like the HQplayer?


 
 I am not exactly promotin HQplayer, it is not my product, and it is not free. You can test it to see that it manages to change the SQ to something nice!
  
 My software is going to be free for everyone who wants to use it. Taking money for software is kind of now working out, because, i usually use freeware software, i think that most people want to do this too, no?
  
  
  


lamode said:


> ...which explains why bats really enjoy certain esoteric Japanese vinyl pressings.


 
 When i was designing my works, i also considered this to be true. There are high resolution files that have ultrasonic noise on them, and i considered that using a low pass filter could result in a better sound, than letting the ultrasonics go to the DAC.
  
 Maybe i am wrong. 
  
 I would want a further discussion on the matter, does ultrasonic affect what can be heared?
  
 I think that even if they contained high order harmonics, the microphone would had recorded these harmonics, so i do not have to reproduce ultrasonics, to get the best sq possible.


----------



## OddE

analogsurviver said:


> I should go and check the EXACT aliquotes/frequencies from muted trumpet, etc - with harmonics at say 80 kHz and 83 kHz. It gives intermodulation product of (F2 - F1), which is 3 kHz - which IS audible to any human being. And it is MISSING in CD Redbook. Period.
> 
> This IS naturally occurring IMD - in sound heard live. It is NOT an intermodulation artefact occurring in the equipment.
> 
> Now please do not say 3 kHz or so ( or any given real natural intermodulations from ultrasonics falling well within the 20Hz-20 kHz range ) - is inaudible ...


 
  
 -If it is occurring naturally in the venue, the product will be captured by the microphones and reproduced faithfully by whatever recording medium has a larger bandwidth than 3kHz; no need to record the ultrasonic content and hope the full recording->playback chain passes them through and reproduces them at the far end.
  
 The 3 kHz tone would be the result of superposition, by the way - not IMD. (Again, splitting hairs is a favourite pastime of mine.)


----------



## lamode

odde said:


> -If it is occurring naturally in the venue, the product will be captured by the microphones and reproduced faithfully by whatever recording medium has a larger bandwidth than 3kHz; no need to record the ultrasonic content and hope the full recording->playback chain passes them through and reproduces them at the far end.
> 
> The 3 kHz tone would be the result of superposition, by the way - not IMD. (Again, splitting hairs is a favourite pastime of mine.)


 

 Exactly


----------



## analogsurviver

odde said:


> -If it is occurring naturally in the venue, the product will be captured by the microphones and reproduced faithfully by whatever recording medium has a larger bandwidth than 3kHz; no need to record the ultrasonic content and hope the full recording->playback chain passes them through and reproduces them at the far end.
> 
> The 3 kHz tone would be the result of superposition, by the way - not IMD. (Again, splitting hairs is a favourite pastime of mine.)


 
 Plausible.
  
 Still requires microphone/preamp that goes all the way to 100 kHz to be able to do that on playback - even if we assume that above 20 kHz sound has no effect on the _*human perception *__- it is not necessary only hearing involved ._
  
 Splitting hairs is good ( in about the same way as this speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Da1tDKFfno 
 - for the normal people to be able to get their eggs hair-free.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *Dobrescu George* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> By having more samples, the interpolation algorithm within the DAC is relaxed, creating a better result.
> 
> To complete the statement, the stair waves are how the data looks before being sent through the DAC, but some DACs will create a fine wave out of it, others will not.


 
   
Those who somehow have a DAC that does not could easily find something better at a low cost, such as Realtek HD audio codecs:


 These graphs of 44.1 kHz digital DAC filters have been generated from the recorded samples of this blind test posted some time ago. So, the audibility of the difference can be readily ABX tested as well. For comparison, I have also added linear interpolation, which was simulated as a 32 samples long triangle impulse at 705600 Hz sample rate. The stopband rejection of especially the PCM1792 is better than shown, since there is some low level noise in the recordings.
  
 As it can be seen, even the Realtek DACs can cleanly (<0.1% imaging) reconstruct sine waves up to 18 kHz, and for the (still less than $100-200) sound cards the same level of imaging only appears at about 20.5 kHz. Not to mention it is ultrasonic, and should not be audible anyway, other than as a result of very high IMD or other problems. All the tested filters are reasonably flat up to 20 kHz, and have sufficient attenuation above 26 kHz. With a competent DAC, software upsampling (which can by the way be done at a high quality with existing free software like the foobar SoX resampler plugin) should not normally be needed or have audible advantages.


----------



## Tropic

ruben123 said:


> But when is better actually better? Is a $0,02 DAC chip enough, or is the $1 chip the top of the audiophile DACs?
> 
> Remember audiophile DACs are often made in 1000s because of the lower demand, so of course their $1 could at once be $100, just because they make less of them.



 

I agree on this, they stick the label 'audiophile' on something and increase the price tremendously. I honestly don't mind the difference between FLAC and streaming audio, I mean, I prefer FLAC but would be happy streaming audio straight from my MacBook 2015 if I have to.


----------



## cel4145

toom said:


> How can a cable sound civilized?




He means the marketing prose makes it sound civilized.


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> He means the marketing prose makes it sound civilized.


 
 Now - as if you have never heard a totally brand new never used cable that was rough in the beginning ...
  
 These oil filled cables went to great lengths by design to prevent this as much as possible - and they do not require electrical DC bias to achieve this "pre-polarization" of the dialectric and thus do not require the burn in. The insulation on the silver plated wire is _porous - _meaning it is there only to physically prevent short circuiting, while allowing oil dialectric good properties to be in direct contact with the conductor. 
  
 It actually is a clever design - if you can see past the "snake oil", which I understand stands for fraud in the States.
  
 And, yes, it does sound "civilized" from open box. You can google "cable burn in" - and see what mumbo jumbo gets here cleverly completely avoided - by design. As noted, it is NOT expensive.


----------



## StanD

dobrescu george said:


> :
> When i was designing my works, i also considered this to be true. There are high resolution files that have ultrasonic noise on them, and i considered that using a low pass filter could result in a better sound, than letting the ultrasonics go to the DAC.
> 
> Maybe i am wrong.
> ...


 
 Since we cannot hear above a certain frequency, which declines with age or hearing damage, there is no value in reproducing anything above a certain frequency, 20 kHz is considered the high end for most young human beings. There is a downside to allowing these higher frequencies/ultrasonics to come down the chain. They consume power and Dynamic Range that would otherwise be used for sound that we can perceive.


----------



## Toom

analogsurviver said:


> Now - as if you have never heard a totally brand new never used cable that was rough in the beginning ...
> 
> These oil filled cables went to great lengths by design to prevent this as much as possible - and they do not require electrical DC bias to achieve this "pre-polarization" of the dialectric and thus do not require the burn in. The insulation on the silver plated wire is _porous - _meaning it is there only to physically prevent short circuiting, while allowing oil dialectric good properties to be in direct contact with the conductor.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 I think some of that oil must have got into your brain. Nobody in the real world believes any of this stuff.


----------



## analogsurviver

tropic said:


> ruben123 said:
> 
> 
> > But when is better actually better? Is a $0,02 DAC chip enough, or is the $1 chip the top of the audiophile DACs?
> ...


 
 The price of the digital processor chip - whatever it is - is invisible compared to the supporting electronics and particularly when compared to the quality analog section(s). 
  
 Then again, seeing a mass produced piece of electronics being equipped with  a front plate of the thickness fit for a tank, replacing a few electrical components and selling it as own product at five times or more price than the original stock unit IS snake oil.


----------



## analogsurviver

toom said:


> I think some of that oil must have got into your brain. Nobody in the real world believes any of this stuff.


 
 I am not cable crazy guy - far from it. I do not approve or like LOTS of audiophile cables with prices that defy any reason - like 5 figure for speaker cables, for example.
  
 These little oil cables are good. How about listening to them - you may be surprised. Then again, no affiliation with either maker or seller(s).


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> Then again, seeing a mass produced piece of electronics being equipped with  a front plate of the thickness fit for a tank, replacing a few electrical components and selling it as own product at five times or more price than the original stock unit IS snake oil.


 
 No, snake oil is when it also claims to fix all of your life's problems. What you described is called 'capitalism', and more cynically, a rip-off.


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> No, snake oil is when it also claims to fix all of your life's problems. What you described is called 'capitalism', and more cynically, a rip-off.


 
 Fair enough.


----------



## Toom

analogsurviver said:


> I am not cable crazy guy - far from it. I do not approve or like LOTS of audiophile cables with prices that defy any reason - like 5 figure for speaker cables, for example.
> 
> These little oil cables are good. How about listening to them - you may be surprised. Then again, no affiliation with either maker or seller(s).


 
  
 Why would I want to buy a cable to 'listen' to it (such an insane notion) when the ones I have are fit for purpose, i.e. link things together and transmit the information as they should?
  
 If I am ever discovered explaining to another person that I deliberately buy audio cables soaked in olive oil because it makes them 'sound civilised', you all have my permission to punch me repeatedly in the neck.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> Now - as if you have never heard a totally brand new never used cable that was rough in the beginning ...




You are a deserving winner


----------



## RRod

odde said:


> -If it is occurring naturally in the venue, the product will be captured by the microphones and reproduced faithfully by whatever recording medium has a larger bandwidth than 3kHz; no need to record the ultrasonic content and hope the full recording->playback chain passes them through and reproduces them at the far end.
> 
> The 3 kHz tone would be the result of superposition, by the way - not IMD. (Again, splitting hairs is a favourite pastime of mine.)


 
  
 Superposition would just mean that the result is the sum of the two sine waves, no? Wouldn't you still need some non-linear mechanism to generate an audible 3kHz tone in this situation? If I play the sum of these two tones through my computer and headphones, I don't hear anything. If I sum up 18 and 19kHz waves (also beyond my hearing ability), I don't hear anything either, not 18kHz, not 19kHz, not 18.5kHz, not 1kHz. If I cranked the volume I'm sure I'd start to hear stuff, but I like my hearing ^_^


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> You are a deserving winner


 
 Now say also that keeping the contacts clean and treated by various chemicals specifically designed to seal and protect them against corrosion, wear and tear is not audible - and you are complete.
  
 These chemicals were first developed for military - you do not want a plane etc to fail due to poor contatcts - do you ? Regardles if audio is used in home environment or in studio or on location outdoors, it is still far less hostile environment than in a plane. But it helps nonetheless - and is audible. And time consuming - cleaning and treating or re-treating the entire chain can take hours - but worthvile.


----------



## Dobrescu George

I am going to ask this very complicated question.
  
 We have harmonics.
  
 We have harmonics caused by ultrasonics
  
 we have first order harmonics
  
 and we have the normal sines.
  
 Now, i do understand most of the things, but:
  
 IF ultrasonic harmonics of high order could be audible, and picked up by a microphone and recorded.
  
 The normal music we listen to, also has harmonics that are also recorded.
  
 So, by the simplest logic circle, if this is true, then when we playback music thorugh speakers, we also play the original harmonics, bust we are also creating harmonics, thing which is true for most types of drive membranes. 
  
 So how do we get to not create more harmonics that were recorded? (this would be named as total harmonic distortion, no?)


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> Superposition would just mean that the result is the sum of the two sine waves, no? Wouldn't you still need some non-linear mechanism to generate an audible 3kHz tone in this situation? If I play the sum of these two tones through my computer and headphones, I don't hear anything. If I sum up 18 and 19kHz waves (also beyond my hearing ability), I don't hear anything either, not 18kHz, not 19kHz, not 18.5kHz, not 1kHz. If I cranked the volume I'm sure I'd start to hear stuff, but I like my hearing ^_^


 
 Sum is the result of adding the voltages from the two signals, not creating new frequencies which is undesireable and is called Intermodulation Distortion which are sum and difference frequencies. This is useful for radios and is called heterodyne for frequency conversion, nothing good for our context. How did you come up with 18.5 kHz?


----------



## OddE

rrod said:


> Superposition would just mean that the result is the sum of the two sine waves, no? Wouldn't you still need some non-linear mechanism to generate an audible 3kHz tone in this situation? If I play the sum of these two tones through my computer and headphones, I don't hear anything. If I sum up 18 and 19kHz waves (also beyond my hearing ability), I don't hear anything either, not 18kHz, not 19kHz, not 18.5kHz, not 1kHz. If I cranked the volume I'm sure I'd start to hear stuff, but I like my hearing ^_^


 
  
 -I may be way off (happens all the time when I try to recollect high school physics without putting the theory to the test!) - but the presence of two waves of different frequency in the same medium would lead to - ahem, a beat note? I'll look it up once I've made dinner and put the kids to bed.


----------



## lamode

odde said:


> -I may be way off (happens all the time when I try to recollect high school physics without putting the theory to the test!) - but the presence of two waves of different frequency in the same medium would lead to - ahem, a beat note? I'll look it up once I've made dinner and put the kids to bed.




The amplitude of the combined waves would demonstrate the interference pattern or beat. There is no intermodulation though. That would be the result of IMD in part of the recording chain.

As usual, out batty friend is using arguments which are irrelevant


----------



## StanD

dobrescu george said:


> I am going to ask this very complicated question.
> 
> We have harmonics.
> 
> ...


 
 Harmonics are multiples of the fundamental frequency, thus are higher in frequency. If ultrasonics are above the human threshold of detection why would one even bother trying to record or reproduce them if they would only waste Dynamic Range? I recommend that you get an engineering or physics text book on signals, harmonics, etc, and read up. I forget but what field are you working to get the Doctorate in?


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> Sum is the result of adding the voltages from the two signals, not creating new frequencies which is undesireable and is called Intermodulation Distortion which are sum and difference frequencies. This is useful for radios and is called heterodyne for frequency conversion, nothing good for our context. How did you come up with 18,5 kHz?


 
  
 If you play, say, a 440 and a 441Hz sine wave, you hear a 440.5Hz sine wave modulated at 0.5Hz (though we hear it as 1Hz modulation, because I guess ears are weird). At least I don't hear two different tones if I try such an example. Your first sentence is exactly why I asked the question. Is there some aspect of air that engenders an actual audible tone at the difference frequency?


----------



## Dobrescu George

stand said:


> Harmonics are multiples of the fundamental frequency, thus are higher in frequency. If ultrasonics are above the human threshold of detection why would one even bother trying to record or reproduce them if they would only waste Dynamic Range? I recommend that you get an engineering or physics text book on signals, harmonics, etc, and read up. I forget but what field are you working to get the Doctorate in?


 
  
  
 Sorry, but i am not looking for ultrasonics, i am not going to reproduce those, as it will degrade the signal  quality, in mathematical model, if the sine has the ultrasonics, it is hard to reproduce by the graph, by the DAC, and b the diaphragm of the driver. Contrary to my first beliefs, ultrasonics are not great, the reason we do not hear them is because the ear membrane does not resonate to them. This means that the membrane producing the sound should not resonate either, as the space is closed, it is more complicated with harmonics.
  
 I asked that about harmonics because it is kind of a new thing i have to take into account, and i want to maximize the learning curve, i am going to read about harmonics and what to do with them in the weekend, i am pretty curious and excited to learn about harmonics and harmonic distortion. I have only basic knowledge about it now.
  
 My PhD is in Mathematics and wave theory, but the exact discipline is none, because my project includes strong knowledge from most fields possible that affect this, as the final result is based on the experimental results, this meaning if there is a difference in SQ between before and after.
  
 my field of specialization is mostly mathematical applications. The algorithms i have been working on, take into account only strict mathematical models in ideal theory, how they will actually sound is another matter.
  
 Also, today i had a pretty long and interesting work with math professor about transient recovery possibility, and how much the erorr rate will degrade the original signal.
  
 My algorithm is fully compativle with the ideal mathematical model, and we could be hearing much closer to reality music very soon!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.Most data is kept within my working place, not within head-fi.


----------



## RRod

odde said:


> -I may be way off (happens all the time when I try to recollect high school physics without putting the theory to the test!) - but the presence of two waves of different frequency in the same medium would lead to - ahem, a beat note? I'll look it up once I've made dinner and put the kids to bed.


 
  
 That's my issue. As lamode said, you get an amplitude modulation that is related to the difference, not an actual new tone, unless some non-linear process is going on. Put another way, a long-enough FFT of the resulting signal would just show two peaks at the two original frequencies and no peak at the difference.


----------



## StanD

rrod said:


> If you play, say, a 440 and a 441Hz sine wave, you hear a 440.5Hz sine wave modulated at 0.5Hz (though we hear it as 1Hz modulation, because I guess ears are weird). At least I don't hear two different tones if I try such an example. Your first sentence is exactly why I asked the question. Is there some aspect of air that engenders an actual audible tone at the difference frequency?


 
 The beat frequency will be 1 Hz or the difference. 440 - 441 = 1. If I remember, when the beat frequency is below 10 Hz, then you will percieve a single frequency that is the average. So in this case you will percieve 440.5 Hz modulated by 1 Hz. As the frequencies become further apart, I believe above 60 Hz, at one point one will hear the original frequencies. This is covered in detail at the below link.
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section5_5/Sec5_5.htm


----------



## lamode

rrod said:


> Is there some aspect of air that engenders an actual audible tone at the difference frequency?


 

No, the human ear on the other hand is far from perfect.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> The beat frequency will be 1 Hz or the difference. 440 - 441 = 1. If I remember, when the beat frequency is below 10 Hz, then you will percieve a single frequency that is the average. So in this case you will percieve 440.5 Hz modulated by 1 Hz. As the frequencies become further apart, I believe above 60 Hz, at one point one will hear the original frequencies. This is covered in detail at the below link.
> http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section5_5/Sec5_5.htm


 
  
 Thanks. The math from the mother of all reputable sites is:

  
 So the frequency of the modulation is 1/2 the difference, but for some reason our ears hear just the difference. But your link says what I thought:
 "In contrast to this, the notes at 500 Hz and 625 Hz while beat at 125 Hz. Again, the sound will get louder and softer with a frequency of 125 Hz. But, how will the brain perceive this? Actually, this frequency is far too fast for the brain to follow individual oscillations, and so the brain does not interpret these beats as a periodic change in the loudness of the sound. In fact, under the right conditions, the brain interprets the beat frequency as its own frequency. In other words, you hear a new tone at 125 Hz! This is called a difference tone."
  
 That's of course a lot different than the microphone picking up anything at the difference, which is what people seemed to be saying would happen with tones at 80kHz and 83kHz. And since neither of those tones is audible, it makes sense we don't pick up any difference tone either.
  


lamode said:


> No, the human ear on the other hand is far from perfect.


 
  
 Blasphemy!


----------



## StanD

Don't blame the ear, it's the brain that does weird things.


----------



## lamode

stand said:


> Don't blame the ear, it's the brain that does weird things.




Technically they both do


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> Since we cannot hear above a certain frequency, which declines with age or hearing damage, there is no value in reproducing anything above a certain frequency, 20 kHz is considered the high end for most young human beings. There is a downside to allowing these higher frequencies/ultrasonics to come down the chain. They consume power and Dynamic Range that would otherwise be used for sound that we can perceive.


 
 No rely proof what we hear above 20 kHz or it impact to our perception.
  
 20 kHz limitation allow expand dynamical range for audible frequencies.
  
 Also we avoid ultrasound's intermodulations. It's results appear in audible range.
  
*I.e. we must worsen sound for achieving better sound.*
  
 It positive impact to hearing (subjective perception).
  
 Since 2009 my AuI ConverteR does filtration upper 20 kHz.
  
  
 Improving quality is not guaranted. However for some systems possible improving.
  
 Of course here secret in details - how create the filter balanced by opposite features.
  
 Best regards,
 Yuri


----------



## Toom

lamode said:


> No, the human ear on the other hand is far from perfect.


 
  
 While I am as far from a religious creationist as it gets, the popularity of One Direction must surely be a sucker punch to the theory of evolution.


----------



## KeithEmo

dobrescu george said:


> Using real time high resolution resampling software, based off interpolation algorithms that create the waves perfectly when compared to the sampled waves.
> 
> If the DAC uses a simple linear resampling, the created waves look like steps on a staircase, while in high resolution, they are curved lines.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Fortunately, while very dramatic, that scary story just isn't true (at least not for real world properly designed "audio DACs"). Whether you're talking about the "steps" caused by the sampling itself, and which are present at the output of a basic ladder DAC, or about the distortion and aliased information added by an oversampling process, both are (or should be) ENTIRELY REMOVED by the reconstruction filter in the DAC (and a reconstruction filter to do just that is part of the design of any PROPERLY designed DAC). True, if I use linear interpolation to upsample, the resulting waveform will contain lots of extra high-frequency information. However, once the reconstruction filter is applied to remove that information, what remains will be a very nice smooth signal, and one that is very close to a higher-sample-rate version of the original.
  
 The only way you're going to see all sorts of stairsteps and aliasing is if you're using some sort of "NOS filterless DAC" - which simply omits the proper filtering. (Some of those omit the filtering, but they aren't truly "filterless" anyway; they're just counting on the limited frequency response of your other components to do the filtering, which leads to the sorts of problems you described, and is sort of hit and miss - since your speakers weren't designed as a reconstruction filter).
  
 Most DAC chips include one "correct" oversampling filter, although some offer you a choice between several, and many allow you to bypass the internal filter and design and use your own. The nice thing about software like HQPlayer is that it allows you to choose between several different filters without altering the hardware. However, the down-side is that you're still going through the oversampling process and reconstruction filters in your DAC itself, in addition to the oversampling and filtering performed by the software, unless you design one specifically intended to be used with external filtering and upsampling. (Your DAC will still need to have a reconstruction filter on its output, but it can be a much simpler one, designed to work with the oversampling filters provided by the software.)
  
 Looking at the pictures in a program like Audacity is really not very useful. The only ACTUAL information involved is the little dots that represent the individual samples; whether the software you're using renders the line it uses to connect those dots as a jagged line, or as a smooth curve, is determined solely by the graphics and rendering algorithms they use to create the screen picture. (When you play that signal, the data points will be sent to the DAC, and it's the hardware in the DAC that will be "connecting the dots" - so what you see on screen is simply the program's "idea" about what that result will be. )


----------



## upstateguy

stand said:


> I see you guys have been very busy feeding our resident troll.


 
  
 It must be "LOVE YOUR TROLL WEEK" or something because they just can't leave him alone.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Now Guys, ask yourselves this:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Where would this thread be without our troll?
Wouldn't you say that the troll is responsible for generating and stimulating, more posts than anyone else?
Isn't that why you guys keep answering him?
What would you do if he went away?
So, admit it, don't y'all really want the troll to stay here and continue doing what he does?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Just want to introduce two words to the ultrasonics discussion. _Intermodulation Distortion_.

se


----------



## lamode

steve eddy said:


> Just want to introduce two words to the ultrasonics discussion. _Intermodulation Distortion_.
> 
> se


 

 you're a few pages too late


----------



## Dobrescu George

lamode said:


> you're a few pages too late


 
 Intermodulation distortion. 
  
 I had thought about that. But i thought that if it was meaningfull for what you can hear, the microphone should had already picked up on it.


----------



## StanD

dobrescu george said:


> Intermodulation distortion.
> 
> I had thought about that. But i thought that if it was meaningfull for what you can hear, the microphone should had already picked up on it.


 
 Intermodulation Distortion is not in the air to be picked up by the microphone, it is generated within the the audio chain. Hint, the word distortion.


----------



## upstateguy

steve eddy said:


> Just want to introduce two words to the ultrasonics discussion. _Intermodulation Distortion_.
> 
> se


 

 wondering what the frequency response is of the mike that's recording all this ultrasonic stuff?


----------



## StanD

upstateguy said:


> wondering what the frequency response is of the mike that's recording all this ultrasonic stuff?


 
 You can find mics that exceed the high frequency limits of us meat popsicles, however, I don't see what value it can possibly contribute unless one is an ultrasonic troll.


----------



## Dobrescu George

stand said:


> You can find mics that exceed the high frequency limits of us meat popsicles, however, I don't see what value it can possibly contribute unless one is an ultrasonic troll.


 
 i read a lot on bands recording nowdays with ultrasonic mics so that they will sound more naturally. 
  
 The ultrasonics look like noise in spectrographs, but there is a book which concluded that it could affect what we hear. 
  
 I will look deeper into the matter, but for the moment i install a perfect low pass filter, nothing over 25Khz will ever get over my things, because at the moment i consider ultrasonics more harmfull than benefical.
  
 I might change this later, if i fiind to be wrong, but with the knowledge of the moment, this is how i consider it to be fair. Headphone drivers hurt temelves by trying to reproduce ultrasonics, it could destroy headphones, or normal sounds that one should hear.


----------



## upstateguy

stand said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > wondering what the frequency response is of the mike that's recording all this ultrasonic stuff?
> ...


 

 I assume the mics we're referring to are recording studio mics.  So I'm wondering why they would be calibrated to pick up stuff beyond human hearing?  If that's the case how did this ultrasonic stuff come end up on a recording?  Never mind the filtering that might be done during mastering.


----------



## StanD

upstateguy said:


> I assume the mics we're referring to are recording studio mics.  So I'm wondering why they would be calibrated to pick up stuff beyond human hearing?  If that's the case how did this ultrasonic stuff come end up on a recording?  Never mind the filtering that might be done during mastering.


 
 I can sum it up in a common acronym, BS.


----------



## Dobrescu George

upstateguy said:


> I assume the mics we're referring to are recording studio mics.  So I'm wondering why they would be calibrated to pick up stuff beyond human hearing?  If that's the case how did this ultrasonic stuff come end up on a recording?  Never mind the filtering that might be done during mastering.


 
 there are lots of albums with ultrasonics. I had my hands on one few days ago, it sounded, very very good. But i do not think that it had anything to do with the ultrasonics, i manually filtered the ultrasonic data out, and it still sounded very good.


----------



## StanD

dobrescu george said:


> there are lots of albums with ultrasonics. I had my hands on one few days ago, it sounded, very very good. But i do not think that it had anything to do with the ultrasonics, i manually filtered the ultrasonic data out, and it still sounded very good.


 
 So you've learned something, firsthand.


----------



## upstateguy

stand said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > I assume the mics we're referring to are recording studio mics.  So I'm wondering why they would be calibrated to pick up stuff beyond human hearing?  If that's the case how did this ultrasonic stuff come end up on a recording?  Never mind the filtering that might be done during mastering.
> ...


 

 what is the frequency range of the ultrasonics we're talking about?


----------



## StanD

upstateguy said:


> what is the frequency range of the ultrasonics we're talking about?


 
 Nothing overly specific, simply above anything what we can hear.


----------



## upstateguy

stand said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > what is the frequency range of the ultrasonics we're talking about?
> ...


 
 IC, so my T-1s and GS-1 which supposedly go up to 50,000 Hz are capable of reproducing these ultrasonics but my speakers and speaker amps are not..... But....
  
 I also noticed, for example, that Benchmark lists the Frequency Response for the DAC2 HGC as +0 dB/-0.04 dB (20 to 20 kHz at Fs=96 kHz ).  Does this mean that ultrasonics are eliminated at the level of the DAC?  [[http://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-dac2-hgc-digital-to-analog-audio-converter]]


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

Wide band microphones can sound better due "reserve" of features. It work in easy mode. Using small part of own resources.
  
 Like for playback 10 W power we use 100 W amplifier.


----------



## RRod

upstateguy said:


> IC, so my T-1s and GS-1 which supposedly go up to 50,000 Hz are capable of reproducing these ultrasonics but my speakers and speaker amps are not..... But....
> 
> I also noticed, for example, that Benchmark lists the Frequency Response for the DAC2 HGC as +0 dB/-0.04 dB (20 to 20 kHz at Fs=96 kHz ).  Does this mean that ultrasonics are eliminated at the level of the DAC?  [[http://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-dac2-hgc-digital-to-analog-audio-converter]]


 
  
 If you look at the manual, it gives -0.7dB@45kHz with a sampling rate of 96kHz.


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> Wide band microphones can sound better due "reserve" of features. It work in easy mode. Using small part of own resources.
> 
> Like for playback 10 W power we use 100 W amplifier.


 
 If the maximum power used for the peaks of Dynamic Range is 10 W, then anything above that is wasted when an amp can do a good job at 10 W. In fact the 10 W is not even continuous if it's a peak. The term "reserve" is often overused.


----------



## Dobrescu George

stand said:


> If the maximum power used for the peaks of Dynamic Range is 10 W, then anything above that is wasted when an amp can do a good job at 10 W. In fact the 10 W is not even continuous if it's a peak. The term "reserve" is often overused.


 
 Totally true.
  
 I never found that power equals quality. 
  
 For a pair of 10W speakers, a good 10W amp is way better than any more powerful bad amp. in fact, i observed that quality cannot be described by any quantifier in audio products. most of times it is what you hear, that is what you get. there are dynamically compressed albums that i love, weak amps that sound better than powerful ones, and so on, we cannot quantify quality, we can only judge and listen ourseves what is better and what is not.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> If the maximum power used for the peaks of Dynamic Range is 10 W, then anything above that is wasted when an amp can do a good job at 10 W. In fact the 10 W is not even continuous if it's a peak. The term "reserve" is often overused.


 
 Here I meant nominal power (average, not peak).
  
 10 W use little linear range in wide total range (100 W).
  
 It allow playback 10 W with minimal distortions.


----------



## lamode

upstateguy said:


> I assume the mics we're referring to are recording studio mics.  So I'm wondering why they would be calibrated to pick up stuff beyond human hearing?




They are not calibrated to do this at all. It just happens that some microphone designs which work well up to 20kHz continue to work past this limit... until they don't any more.


----------



## upstateguy

rrod said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > IC, so my T-1s and GS-1 which supposedly go up to 50,000 Hz are capable of reproducing these ultrasonics but my speakers and speaker amps are not..... But....
> ...


 
  
 did you notice the freq. resp. for the DAC2s built in headphone amp?


----------



## RRod

upstateguy said:


> did you notice the freq. resp. for the DAC2s built in headphone amp?


 
  
 I didn't see it listed, just:
 Bandwidth > 500 kHz


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> Here about nominal power (avarage, not peak).
> 
> 10 W use little linear range in wide total range (100 W).
> 
> It allow playback 10 W with minimal distortions.


 
 One has to know what the DR is and use it for calculations if one wants to be optimal. Audiophile claims of recorded DR are often exaggerated so precision is not simple. So for most people calculating the peak power required for 115 dBSPL as per the sensitivity rating of their headphones or loudspeakers is more than enough, besides too loud and one will damage their hearing and if speakers are used invite a visit by the police. Of course with speakers one has to account for the distance to the listener. A statement of 100 W, without knowing the sensitivity, is IMO just a wild guess. SNR confuses this even more as one may end up far too loud for their own good and be able to hear the noise floor and end up turning down the volume and not using the excess power that they paid for/wasted their money on.


----------



## upstateguy

dobrescu george said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > If the maximum power used for the peaks of Dynamic Range is 10 W, then anything above that is wasted when an amp can do a good job at 10 W. In fact the 10 W is not even continuous if it's a peak. The term "reserve" is often overused.
> ...


 
  
  
 What about them sounds better? 
  
 How would you describe the difference in sound between a weak amp and a powerful amp?
  
 EDIT:  to ask for an example of a weak amp and a powerful amp


----------



## Dobrescu George

upstateguy said:


> What about them sounds better?
> 
> How would you describe the difference in sound between a weak amp and a powerful amp?
> 
> EDIT:  to ask for an example of a weak amp and a powerful amp


 
 In my experience, i used a very powerfull headphone amp, like ifi micro idsd and fiio e12a as amps. I liked e12a better, for some reason. I reckon that i have easy to drive headphones, and idsd had way too much power for them, but this is still a demonstration that different signatures, and what we like cannot be quantified by any type of data.
  
 I would still like micro idsd better if i had hd800 or LCD series headphones...


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

stand said:


> One has to know what the DR is and use it for calculations if one wants to be optimal. Audiophile claims of recorded DR are often exaggerated so precision is not simple. So for most people calculating the peak power required for 115 dBSPL as per the sensitivity rating of their headphones or loudspeakers is more than enough, besides too loud and one will damage their hearing and if speakers are used invite a visit by the police. Of course with speakers one has to account for the distance to the listener. A statement of 100 W, without knowing the sensitivity, is IMO just a wild guess. SNR confuses this even more as one may end up far too loud for their own good and be able to hear the noise floor and end up turning down the volume and not using the excess power that they paid for/wasted their money on.


 

 100 W is not real. It can be 20 and 80 W. As example, simply.
  
 Yes. Power is only one of component of sound pressure formula.


----------



## StanD

yuri korzunov said:


> 100 W is not real. It can be 20 and 80 W. As example, simply.
> 
> Yes. Power is only one of component of sound pressure formula.


 
 Well, you did give a specific number being 100 W. Since the numbers are large, I'll assume that headphones are not being used. So it'll be sensitivity, distance and an individual's tolerance for pain.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> They are not calibrated to do this at all. It just happens that some microphone designs which work well up to 20kHz continue to work past this limit... until they don't any more.


 
 False.
  
 http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/qtc-series-2/qtc50/
  
 Just look at the specs for QTC 30, QTC40, QTC50. There is always a matched pair - with even tighter specs.
  
 And there is M50 - a selected basically QTC 50 . Also available as matched pair.
  
 There are other makes - but with less info available online.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

"We, at our studio, always do the mixing/mastering during the night and with the assistance of a tamed bat (we name it BatBoy) that helps us to better evaluate the EQ and Compression needed for the production of HighRes files..."


----------



## analogsurviver

upstateguy said:


> wondering what the frequency response is of the mike that's recording all this ultrasonic stuff?


 
  
 We can start at the bottom : Panasonic WM-61A http://industrial.panasonic.com/lecs/www-data/pdf/ABA5000/ABA5000CE22.pdf
  
 It is spec'd up to 20 kHz ( and is remarkably linear, better than many much more expensive capsules ) - but it goes MUCH higher. Just grab a bag of 10 or 20 pcs and measure and make pairs - but they are used for burglar alarms, as they pick up the sound of breaking glass really well - and that aint lowly 20 kHz. The price for a single WM-61 capsule  is around 5 $ - and is up to the user to provide the "rest" of the usable microphone. Very popular is Linkwitz modification https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSPQf42JgbI 
 - WM-61A in standard electrical connection is very easily overloaded, after performing not-so-gentle-massacre that allows for much greater SPL without overload and thus better dynamic range, it is advisable to remeasure the resulting microphone.
  
 Very good is Earthworks - here the spec for the best measuring mike they make : http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/m-series/m50/
  
 Here the first microphone intended for MUSIC recording extending to 100 kHz : http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/freqpola.cfm/3.1000400
  
 Here a Bruel & Kjaer measuring mic - 3 Hz - 100 kHz : http://www.bksv.com/Products/transducers/acoustic/microphones/microphone-cartridges/4939
  
 There may well be more - Gefell, Josephson, Neumann, etc, etc - but it is enough to give you some taste.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> "We, at our studio, always do the mixing/mastering during the night and with the assistance of a tamed bat (we name it BatBoy) that helps us to better evaluate the EQ and Compression needed for the production of HighRes files..."


 
 I'll ask him ( or her - female bats supposedly hear even higher ) if you pay him/her enough...


----------



## Steve Eddy

upstateguy said:


> wondering what the frequency response is of the mike that's recording all this ultrasonic stuff?




Analogsurviver posted some links in the Cage Match thread.



>




Cool! A brim and some shades! Thanks, man!

se


----------



## cjl

yuri korzunov said:


> Here I meant nominal power (average, not peak).
> 
> 10 W use little linear range in wide total range (100 W).
> 
> It allow playback 10 W with minimal distortions.


 
 A "true" 10W amp (one that is actually capable of 10W continuous at its rated distortion level) should happily play at 10W all day long with no issue at all. There should be no audible difference between a 10W amp and a 100W amp playing the same material, unless the peak required power exceeds 10W.


----------



## Steve Eddy

lamode said:


> you're a few pages too late




Sorry. Been busy. 

se


----------



## Dobrescu George

May i start a war?
  
 I was listening to a CD interpretation through my headphones, and other headphones, various amps and DACs, yet nothing was reproducing the actual live simple guitar song...
  
 simply, i want to know sound science's opinion on why is that.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> We can start at the bottom : Panasonic WM-61A http://industrial.panasonic.com/lecs/www-data/pdf/ABA5000/ABA5000CE22.pdf
> 
> It is spec'd up to 20 kHz ( and is remarkably linear, better than many much more expensive capsules ) - but it goes MUCH higher. Just grab a bag of 10 or 20 pcs and measure and make pairs - but they are used for burglar alarms, as they pick up the sound of breaking glass really well - and that aint lowly 20 kHz. The price for a single WM-61 capsule  is around 5 $ - and is up to the user to provide the "rest" of the usable microphone. Very popular is Linkwitz modification https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSPQf42JgbI
> - WM-61A in standard electrical connection is very easily overloaded, after performing not-so-gentle-massacre that allows for much greater SPL without overload and thus better dynamic range, it is advisable to remeasure the resulting microphone.
> ...




Don't forget, we don't need just extended response, that extended response also needs to be very linear

se


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Don't forget, we don't need just extended response, that extended response also needs to be very linear
> 
> se


 
 It is "questionable" what linear is. For high frequencies, it will mean SMALL diameter diaphragm - or else polar pattern will be anything but good - more important than a few dB off on axis in real life. 
  
 Microphone measurements are the most tedious and expensive. TBH - only manufacturers - and their agents (in case of Bruel & Kjaer/DPA ) are truly qualified to measure them. In the whole history of the home audio press, there was 1 ( in a word : one ) comparative review of microphones published in England - early 80s IIRC. 
 And that one review blew the budget of the magazine for all measurements for one year... - no wonder there were (next to ?) none repetitions I am aware of.
  
 Earthworks are supposed to be very linear - I would not mind owning a pair. Or Bruel & Kjaer/DPA 4006/4003 - or ...
  
 With microphones , it will never be ABX thing to be decisive - place/orient it a bit different, the tables will turn. What counts is how well one can use the tools - provided both tools are about equally matched in various qualities. 
  
 It is also NOT desirable for microphones meant for recording from greater distance to be linear - because linear mic from great distance produces VERY DULL recording. That is why Sanken mic has its response lifted above approx 10 kHz - and no matter how strange this looks to a "flat or nothing" guy, it IS proven in practice.
 By judicious use of frequency response and polar pattern, it is possible to use Sanken mic in many ways - producing the desired effect. Which would be both unnatural and impossible with completely neutral flat response mic.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> steve eddy said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget, we don't need just extended response, that extended response also needs to be very linear
> ...


 

 ...my bat is paid very well, in mosquitoes....thank you! he appreciates your concern...


----------



## lamode

dobrescu george said:


> May i start a war?
> 
> I was listening to a CD interpretation through my headphones, and other headphones, various amps and DACs, yet nothing was reproducing the actual live simple guitar song...
> 
> simply, i want to know sound science's opinion on why is that.


 
  
 Was it a binaural recording? A good binaural recording is essential if you are trying to recreate utmost reality with headphones.


----------



## analogsurviver

dobrescu george said:


> May i start a war?
> 
> I was listening to a CD interpretation through my headphones, and other headphones, various amps and DACs, yet nothing was reproducing the actual live simple guitar song...
> 
> simply, i want to know sound science's opinion on why is that.


 
 The shortest answer would be - read this thread from the start.
  
 Then you will realize guitar, as anything else, can be recorded in many ways. Some recording techniques are more natural sounding, some less. Binaural is great, but you really need to have the top artificial head for that - or you will drown in noise. That is from approx $ 6-7 K and up - to beyond 30 for top Head Acoustics (Aachen Head). Acoustic guitar belongs to the most difficult instruments to record if the recording is to sound naturally. Normal techniques from far (natural...) are normally too noisy - and close miking, while giving great dynamic range and low noise, sounds plain unnatural - no guitarist would allow you to listen to him/her at 10 cm distance - nor would you find such sound acceptable.
  
 And if you want to hear the fingernails on the strings naturally, it will not be on CD ... - ever. Close, but never quite there.
  
 But it all begins with the right microphone for the job. Compared to that, MP-3 or DSD256 play relatively minor role. Not to mention DAC...
  
 If it is not in the recording, no after the fact gizmo can correct for that.


----------



## castleofargh

steve eddy said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > wondering what the frequency response is of the mike that's recording all this ultrasonic stuff?
> ...


 

 Butch KeithEddy!


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> It is "questionable" what linear is. For high frequencies, it will mean SMALL diameter diaphragm - or else polar pattern will be anything but good - more important than a few dB off on axis in real life.




No, we know what linear is and how to measure the level of non-linearity. We do it every day with amps, preamps, loudspeakers, etc. 

The linearity I'm speaking of hasn't to do with frequency response or polar patterns. I'm talking about the basic transfer function of the microphone. The less linear it is, the more distortion (namely harmonic and intermodulation) it will produce. So unless you can reasonably assess the linearity of the microphone, and assure that it is linear enough, you can't use that microphone to test whether or not the intermod products you may hear at 3kHz are due to the microphone or the ear.




> Microphone measurements are the most tedious and expensive. TBH - only manufacturers - and their agents (in case of Bruel & Kjaer/DPA ) are truly qualified to measure them. In the whole history of the home audio press, there was 1 ( in a word : one ) comparative review of microphones published in England - early 80s IIRC.
> And that one review blew the budget of the magazine for all measurements for one year... - no wonder there were (next to ?) none repetitions I am aware of.




The measurements should be provided by the microphone manufacturer. But usually you just get on axis response plots and polar response plots, not distortion graphs. But the bottom line is, until you can be sure that the microphone is far more linear than the ear, I don't see how you can test your hypothesis that non-linearities in the ear producing intermod products in the audio band demonstrate a case for the need to record and play back ultrasonic frequencies.




> Earthworks are supposed to be very linear - I would not mind owning a pair. Or Bruel & Kjaer/DPA 4006/4003 - or ...


 I don't know what "supposed to be very linear" means. What exactly is being used to assess its linearity?




> It is also NOT desirable for microphones meant for recording from greater distance to be linear - because linear mic from great distance produces VERY DULL recording. That is why Sanken mic has its response lifted above approx 10 kHz - and no matter how strange this looks to a "flat or nothing" guy, it IS proven in practice.
> By judicious use of frequency response and polar pattern, it is possible to use Sanken mic in many ways - producing the desired effect. Which would be both unnatural and impossible with completely neutral flat response mic.




Again, when I talk about linearity, I'm not talking about frequency and polar response.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

castleofargh said:


> Butch KeithEddy!




Yippie ki yay, y'all! 

se


----------



## bigshot

> Originally Posted by *Dobrescu George* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I was listening to a CD interpretation through my headphones, and other headphones, various amps and DACs, yet nothing was reproducing the actual live simple guitar song...
> simply, i want to know sound science's opinion on why is that.


 
  
 Miking and or mixing/mastering


----------



## Tropic

The only cables that I've seen to have difference in sound and on paper is the Linum BaX, which edit / add impedance to the source. I still think cables are a cosmetic thing though.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

cjl said:


> A "true" 10W amp (one that is actually capable of 10W continuous at its rated distortion level) should happily play at 10W all day long with no issue at all. There should be no audible difference between a 10W amp and a 100W amp playing the same material, unless the peak required power exceeds 10W.


 

 You are right. However if you playback 10W at 100W amp, you have chance get less distortions


----------



## headwhacker

tropic said:


> The only cables that I've seen to have difference in sound and on paper is the Linum BaX, which edit / add impedance to the source. I still think cables are a cosmetic thing though.




Adding resistance in the cable will most like just attenuate the signal. Just like how JH Audio control the bass quantity on their siren series iems.


----------



## analogsurviver

Please see the answer given regarding the microphones in the other thread.
  
 The distortion of the microphones can be low - VERY low. The best testimony to that were the measurements of the Beveridge 2SW speaker made in the late 70s/early 80s ( in Instituto Alta Fedelta  Roma, Italy ? someplace in Germany? ) and published in German audio press (Stereoplay ? ) . I have it somewhere and if and when it will turn up, will upload it. Anechoic chamber measurements of the THD ran below 0.03% for the 2nd harmonic and below 0.01 % for the third harmonic - from about 100-200 Hz to well above 10 kHz - measurement of the SPEAKER in an anechoic chamber with a microphone, not its driving amplifier !
  
 Now we can theoreticise ad nuseaum whether the distortions of both speaker and microphone are both so low as to accurately represent the true value, whether they mutually cancelled each other out, etc - I merely stated a case that in my memory has no peer. Those distortion levels are good in an electronic component - not in tranducer(s) ... It is hard for anybody to even approach these distortion levels using other transducers - but the inherent microphone distortion might be lower still.
  
 I have heard the big Bev speaker in 1979, Milano, Italy - and am haunted by its sound ( or better said, the lack of it ) ever since .


----------



## Dobrescu George

bigshot said:


> Miking and or mixing/mastering


 
 ...
 ...
 ...
  
 How much DSP processing is necessary, i wonder to make everything sound just like before recording music?..
  
 I really mean this, analyzing the song, creating an ideea of what is going on, then changing it...
  
 In my experiement with an acoustic guitar, i had tried listening to that guitar from about 50 meter away, in free air, and from a room inside a building, at 50 meters height, and 50 meters distance from the guitar being played.
  
 The sq was still more alive than any recording i have on hand, with someone covering an acustic song, with the cheapest guitar.
  
 I have been thinking, acoustic guitars produce sounds from 80hz all the way to 10-14 khz ranges. If nail picked the strings. Recorded guitars... are.. lifeless in comparation..
  
 I know that there are reasons like mastering, recording, room acustics, and so on, but i was thinking that besides re-creation of transients, which is possible mathematically, what kind of DSP should the simplest music undergo to sound like before it was recorded?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

dobrescu george said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > Miking and or mixing/mastering
> ...


 

  acoustic guitar 200 meters away? and you hear the fingernails?
  
 I've been listening for acoustic guitars for about 50 years now... and in most circumstances the recordings always sound better... at some meters away (depending on the room acoustics) it sounds dull... by free air you mean open air? out in the open? in a sunny day with no wind? and you hear what?


----------



## Dobrescu George

macacodosom said:


> acoustic guitar 200 meters away? and you hear the fingernails?
> 
> I've been listening for acoustic guitars for about 50 years now... and in most circumstances the recordings always sound better... at some meters away (depending on the room acoustics) it sounds dull... by free air you mean open air? out in the open? in a sunny day with no wind? and you hear what?


 
 no wind, between buildings...
  
 I do not hear fingernails, but the entire sound has another... vibration to it... i cannot put it in words.
  
 I do not sing guitar nor other instruments, but i know people who do, and i asked them to do some experiemnts with me.
  
 I might be exaggerating the distances.. the most extreme extent was me being in a 4th floor in a room of a building and the guitar playing was outside, at evening, at some distance, not that much of a distance...


----------



## analogsurviver

yuri korzunov said:


> You are right. However if you playback 10W at 100W amp, you have chance get less distortions


 
 It depends.
  
 It is MUCH easier to design low distortion amplifiers with lower power than big amps. The border is usually around 70 - to max 100 W. Above that, the amps are usually poorer in SQ when called upon to work with say 10 W maximum level. There is a myriad of technical reasons for that - and amps of more than 100 W of power with really good SQ are rare and VERY expensive.
  
 I agree it is a good idea to have reasonable headroom - to stay well clear of the possibility of clipping; that sounds MUCH worse than >100 W amp playing at 10 W power level.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

dobrescu george said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > acoustic guitar 200 meters away? and you hear the fingernails?
> ...


 

 and what is your problem with the recordings? maybe you like it more in the open...  personally I like it more recorded... have you tried to put your ear on to different parts of a guitar? you will get other perspectives of its sound,,, what is the sound you want to ear? the acoustic of the room? the sound produced inside the guitar by its body? or the sound produced by the strings?
 10000 guitars 10000^100 different sounds...


----------



## analogsurviver

dobrescu george said:


> no wind, between buildings...
> 
> I do not hear fingernails, but the entire sound has another... vibration to it... i cannot put it in words.
> 
> ...


 
 You can forget recording and reproducing the guitar as heard from the 4th floor and guitar playing outside - technical means are not at the level required and it is likely they never will be. Microphone with zero self noise does not exist - yet (?).


----------



## castleofargh

I'm one of those guys who would be real unhappy if my favorite records were to sound like a live performance. I always read that stuff, that people want the real sound like it was at the concert. well it's easy, invite 20dudes in your house, use bad speakers and push the volume too loud. that should be a good start in trying to recreate the "live" experience ^_^.
 to make it simple, I go to a concert because some people convinced me the sound wouldn't suck and I wouldn't need ear plugs. usually they lied and I spend the all time with my custom earplugs that supposedly keep on ok-ish FR balance. but of course the sound sucks that way.
 on the other hand I listen to music at home to relax. and I'm glad the sound level of different instruments are matched so that I can hear everything even quietly. 
  
 and for guitars, I also find that records are more enjoyable because you get all the details of a mic close by, hear the fingers moving on the string etc. I wouldn't say it's better, but i prefer it that way.
  
  
  
  
 about the 10W 100W amps, I wonder how often it's true that a more powerful amp used at lower level is better? you read it everywhere and people always want more power, but the same people usually don't understand electricity at all, and just imagine that the sound at same loudness into the same load will somehow use more power that will sound obviously different... so I really don't know.
 also I have that idea that powerful stuff tend to have more noise so I try to make sure I have enough headroom, but would go for too much as an idea of better fidelity(of course that could just be another urban legend and I somehow believed that one ^_^).


----------



## Dobrescu George

I have this problem,..
  
 let's take rodrigo y gabriela recordings, a song that is pure acoustic guitar.
  
 then you make a cover with a live acoustic guitar, without any electronic part, just wood and strings and fingers.
  
 the one that is sang live by someone sounds much more alive, has more spark to it, is way different. it has so many more nuances.
  
 I am between those who hates concerts because they are loud, and sometimes the quality is way less than the recorded music.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> and what is your problem with the recordings? maybe you like it more in the open...  personally I like it more recorded... have you tried to put your ear on to different parts of a guitar? you will get other perspectives of its sound,,, what is the sound you want to ear? the acoustic of the room? the sound produced inside the guitar by its body? or the sound produced by the strings?
> 10000 guitars 10000^100 different sounds...


 
 I can sympathize with you both - with the desire to hear the guitar as heard live - and more up close (recording) - which allows the use of the microphones without excessive noise and more intimate presentation of the guitar than a listener would normally experience during a guitar recital.
  
 In response to the above problem, I designed a special microphone that can, to a good extent, combine the two above conflicting requirements.  And it was not funny when I later discovered it has been invented a few years before - by Jurg Jecklin. Except he arrived at it after XY ( two digits, first most definitely NOT 1 ) years working in recording, it took me 4 years after deciding to go into free lance recording.
  
 I agree with 10000 guitars to the power of 100 different sounds statement.
  
 Just check this great album : http://www.discogs.com/David-Bromberg-David-Bromberg/release/2043643
 and "more images" - to see the choice of the guitars at David's disposal at the time. 
  
 And listen to this original CBS LP  ( make sure it is not some later re-release that has been digitally remastered ) on a good turntable - and anything digital. In one of the pieces, he accompanies himself by - "seating" on the chair, VERY subtly and VERY well "seated" - which almost completely disappears in digital version(s) - ruining the intended effect completely.


----------



## Ruben123

A less powerful amp is only worse at a given volume/loudness if the amp clips. Cheaper amps could clip sooner than more expensive ones though you really have to turn up the volume.
 See beginning of this thread: A $25 Behringer amp for DJs could not be distinguished from a $$$ audiophile amp DBT'ed. I believe that.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> I'm one of those guys who would be real unhappy if my favorite records were to sound like a live performance. I always read that stuff, that people want the real sound like it was at the concert. well it's easy, invite 20dudes in your house, use bad speakers and push the volume too loud. that should be a good start in trying to recreate the "live" experience ^_^.
> to make it simple, I go to a concert because some people convinced me the sound wouldn't suck and I wouldn't need ear plugs. usually they lied and I spend the all time with my custom earplugs that supposedly keep on ok-ish FR balance. but of course the sound sucks that way.
> on the other hand I listen to music at home to relax. and I'm glad the sound level of different instruments are matched so that I can hear everything even quietly.
> 
> ...


 
 OK - to clarify once and for all - by live concert sound I personally mean, in 98.7654321 %, an acoustic music concert, where anything electrical is for lighting/heating only - and I prefer to exclude even that completely ( 50/60 Hz and its harmonics off lamps, sub bass drone of clima, etc ).
  
 I agree amplified live concerts can sound horrible - yet do check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_%28band%29 - in my opininon, the _invisible _guy responsible for the stage sound is their - at very least - equally important member as players on the stage. Not "quite" of "acoustic quality" - but close, and the effects that are impossible in acoustic only music can sound breathtakingly good.
  
 Regarding 10 W 100W amps - a 100 W amp can trounce the 10 W amp when playing say at 8 W or below only if and when extraordinay attention and detail went into its design. A cheapo 10 W class AB amp vs 100 W pure class A amp comes to mind - but the price difference is equally staggering. 
  
 It is not necesary true that more powerful amps means more noise. Technics proved it with their SE-9060 amp from the Professional series - S/N of 125 dB - you can plug the IEMs into SPEAKER outputs ( if you have the guts and are careful enough with the volume...) - and it would still not hiss...


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

analogsurviver said:


> It depends.
> 
> It is MUCH easier to design low distortion amplifiers with lower power than big amps. The border is usually around 70 - to max 100 W. Above that, the amps are usually poorer in SQ when called upon to work with say 10 W maximum level. There is a myriad of technical reasons for that - and amps of more than 100 W of power with really good SQ are rare and VERY expensive.
> 
> I agree it is a good idea to have reasonable headroom - to stay well clear of the possibility of clipping; that sounds MUCH worse than >100 W amp playing at 10 W power level.


 

 100 W as example only. Practically I suppose, 20 ... 30 W.
  
 From my experience electrical power is not strong influence in perceiving of loudness.
  
 It suitable to theory. 2 times more power its 3 dB only.


----------



## analogsurviver

yuri korzunov said:


> 100 W as example only. Practically I suppose, 20 ... 30 W.
> 
> From my experience electrical power is not strong influence in perceiving of loudness.
> 
> It suitable to theory. 2 times more power its 3 dB only.


 
 Very useful is representing the power of amplifiers as dBW - it gives the true perspective
  
 http://www.rapidtables.com/electric/dBW.htm


----------



## MacacoDoSom

Hey, analogsurviver, have you tried a mid/side recording configuration? if so tell me about the results...


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> Hey, analogsurviver, have you tried a mid/side recording configuration? if so tell me about the results...


 
 No - because _before _I decided to go into recording, have been listening to practically any recording (technique) available - and they got written off - one by one. M/S included.
  
 I might reconsider - there will always a situation creep up that may favor M/S under the given circumstances.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, analogsurviver, have you tried a mid/side recording configuration? if so tell me about the results...
> ...


 

 so you don't use any technique? just place 2 microphones in whatever place? wherever you fell like? and see what happens?


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> so you don't use any technique? just place 2 microphones in whatever place? wherever you fell like? and see what happens?


 
 Of course not. 
  
 I use binaural, OSS - or more commonly known as Jecklin Disk - and that "half (il)legimate person son" between the two...


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Now - as if you have never heard a totally brand new never used cable that was rough in the beginning ....




No. I've never heard a cable sound "rough" to begin with. And I was being literal when I said what you heard was due to the marketing prose--an expectation bias.



analogsurviver said:


> .These oil filled cables went to great lengths by design to prevent this as much as possible - and they do not require electrical DC bias to achieve this "pre-polarization" of the dialectric and thus do not require the burn in. The insulation on the silver plated wire is _porous - _meaning it is there only to physically prevent short circuiting, while allowing oil dialectric good properties to be in direct contact with the conductor. .




I'm sure the manufacturer is laughing it up that you and others believe that these oil-based cables offer any benefit. It's not figuratively a snake oil product. These cables actually have oil in them. Someone must have had a lot of fun figuring out that new angle to part audiophools from their money with that design characteristic. It's a great joke. Next we'll probably see some other crazy audiophool product with oil in it. (lol)


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> No. I've never heard a cable sound "rough" to begin with. And I was being literal when I said what you heard was due to the marketing prose--an expectation bias.
> I'm sure the manufacturer is laughing it up that you and others believe that these oil-based cables offer any benefit. It's not figuratively a snake oil product. These cables actually have oil in them. Someone must have had a lot of fun figuring out that new angle to part audiophools from their money with that design characteristic. It's a great joke. Next we'll probably see some other crazy audiophool product with oil in it. (lol)


 
 Oil as dialectric has been used in particularly high voltage application ( cables, transformers ) for ages. It is not a gimmick.  But it is true this is its first use for the so called audiophools - in this cable.
  
 I did say you can ABX - cables . An ABX box - as that from Van Alstine - one well rested subject for DBT and one merciless jury. 
  
 If it was not for the money ( I need some things, ABXed or not, million times more urgent than an ABX box ) - I would have bought that ABX box - on spot. Still thinking about it...


----------



## StanD

That's it, oil filled high voltage headphone cables for people that feel the need to waste money. "High voltage application," another distraction.


----------



## upstateguy

dobrescu george said:


> <snip>
> In my experiement with an acoustic guitar, i had tried listening to that guitar from about 50 meter away, in free air, and from a room inside a building, at 50 meters height, and 50 meters distance from the guitar being played.
> 
> *The sq was still more alive than any recording i have on hand*, with someone covering an acustic song, with the cheapest guitar.
> ...


 
  
 I know exactly what you mean.  I think what you were hearing was the *absence* of sound, as opposed to what is captured in a studio.  So to reproduce the open air sound, you'd have to thin out a studio recording by removing the frequencies that are attenuated in open air.  If you wanted to simulate distance, you'd have to remove cues picked up by close miking.
  
 EDIT: which is exactly what bigshot said
  


analogsurviver said:


> OK - to clarify once and for all - by live concert sound I personally mean, in *98.7654321 %*, an acoustic music concert, where anything electrical is for lighting/heating only - and I prefer to exclude even that completely ( 50/60 Hz and its harmonics off lamps, sub bass drone of clima, etc ).
> 
> <snip>


 
  
 LOL, *98.7654321 %*.....


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> That's it, oil filled high voltage headphone cables for people that feel the need to waste money. "High voltage application," another distraction.




Or how about your turntable mechanical parts have to be lubricated with a specific audiophile grade oil? There are already plenty of people being taken by claims regarding expensive lubricants with tools and firearms. I think we should buy some generic lubricant, repackage it in a pretty bottle with the name "audio grade" and on it, mark up the price at least 500%, and tons of fools would buy it. The guy that run's multitool.org did that just for fun for multitool enthusiasts : Uncle Def's Premium Tool Oil: http://forum.multitool.org/index.php?topic=51383.0. 

Here is the best part in his description of the product 



> For only two dollars more, that's right, a total of $9.95* I will automatically upgrade your order to Uncle Def's Ultra Premium Tool Oil in the Red Cap! The Red Cap means that Uncle Def's Ultra Premium Tool oil is far more advanced than that black cap, which is why the Red Cap is red, while the Black Cap is merely black. So, if the Black Cap is the same quality of Multitool Oil you are used to then just imagine the secrets Red Cap will open up for you!




Be easy enough to convince audiophools that a different labeled bottle was a better grade just because it's a different labeled bottle and the manufacturer says so


----------



## stv014

steve eddy said:


> Don't forget, we don't need just extended response, that extended response also needs to be very linear


 
   
And for recording, the microphone should ideally have low noise as well, which is not as important for the originally intended application of frequency response measurements. A small capsule generally has a more extended frequency response, but worse SNR.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Or how about your turntable mechanical parts have to be lubricated with a specific audiophile grade oil? There are already plenty of people being taken by claims regarding expensive lubricants with tools and firearms. I think we should buy some generic lubricant, repackage it in a pretty bottle with the name "audio grade" and on it, mark up the price at least 500%, and tons of fools would buy it. The guy that run's multitool.org did that just for fun for multitool enthusiasts : Uncle Def's Premium Tool Oil: http://forum.multitool.org/index.php?topic=51383.0.
> 
> Here is the best part in his description of the product
> Be easy enough to convince audiophools that a different labeled bottle was a better grade just because it's a different labeled bottle and the manufacturer says so


 
 The secret ingredient is White Bat Guano. One has to put something in there besides a picture of Ace Ventura on the label.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> The secret ingredient is White Bat Guano. One has to put something in there besides a picture of Ace Ventura on the label.




lol

Probably has to say "Tier 1, Flagship oil" somewhere on the label as well.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> The secret ingredient is White Bat Guano. One has to put something in there besides a picture of Ace Ventura on the label.


 
  


cel4145 said:


> Or how about your turntable mechanical parts have to be lubricated with a specific audiophile grade oil? There are already plenty of people being taken by claims regarding expensive lubricants with tools and firearms. I think we should buy some generic lubricant, repackage it in a pretty bottle with the name "audio grade" and on it, mark up the price at least 500%, and tons of fools would buy it. The guy that run's multitool.org did that just for fun for multitool enthusiasts : Uncle Def's Premium Tool Oil: http://forum.multitool.org/index.php?topic=51383.0.
> 
> Here is the best part in his description of the product
> Be easy enough to convince audiophools that a different labeled bottle was a better grade just because it's a different labeled bottle and the manufacturer says so


 
 Unfortunately, there is LOTS of "fishing in murky waters" regarding oil for lubrication of turntables. As described above.
  
 There is at least one oil that is, regardless being expensive like hell, high tech ( nano balls ) and legit : http://www.vandenhul.com/products/accessories/the-lower-friction-tlf-special-oil-type-i-and-ii
  
Holy _*horrors - *_it is even recommended to improve/prolong the life of bearings of CD players 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 !
  
 The best turntables no longer use bearings requiring lubrication - one way or another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




...


----------



## StanD

All turntables should remain in their boxes.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> All turntables should remain in their boxes.


 
 I have a nasty feeling turntables will keep on spinning into the time the NEXT generation will no longer recognize what CD is and what to do with it ...
  
 I remember a girl then 6, after seeing a vinyl LP for the first time, saying :
  
_What a BIG - CD ...._


----------



## Toom

analogsurviver said:


> I have a nasty feeling turntables will keep on spinning into the time the NEXT generation will no longer recognize what CD is and what to do with it ...
> 
> I remember a girl then 6, after seeing a vinyl LP for the first time, saying :
> 
> _What a BIG - CD ...._


 
  
 and yet ironically she probably had better hearing than most of the middle aged audiophiles here.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stv014 said:


> And for recording, the microphone should ideally have low noise as well, which is not as important for the originally intended application of frequency response measurements. A small capsule generally has a more extended frequency response, but worse SNR.




Yeah, but linearity is the most important factor for examining his hypothesis.

se


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> Oil as dialectric has been used in particularly high voltage application


 
  
 Dear God, noooooo!!!!!!
  
 The oil dielectric's function is to provide electrical insulation, suppress corona and arcing, and to serve as a coolant.
  
 NONE of that is relevant to audio interconnects. NONE.


----------



## Steve Eddy

upstateguy said:


> LOL, *[COLOR=0000CD]98.7654321 %[/COLOR]*.....:atsmile:




His figure's just a bit off. It's actually 98.76543217, so he should have rounded up that 1 to a 2. 

se


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Unfortunately, there is LOTS of "fishing in murky waters" regarding oil for lubrication of turntables. As described above.
> 
> There is at least one oil that is, regardless being expensive like hell, high tech ( nano balls ) and legit : http://www.vandenhul.com/products/accessories/the-lower-friction-tlf-special-oil-type-i-and-ii
> 
> ...




Yes. But you need to be concerned about any friction between the tone arm and the mechanical parts that allow it to pivot relative to the rest of the turntable. Audio grade lubrication can reduce friction and create better soundstage and imaging, right?


----------



## analogsurviver

toom said:


> and yet ironically she probably had better hearing than most of the middle aged audiophiles here.


 
 Definitely. It is natural. 
  
 But hearing capability does not equate listening capability - try to get 6 years old to listen to some serious classical stuff with great dynamic range for more than a couple of seconds...
  
 Yet despite inevitable hearing loss that begins from day one and reaches quite significant reduction of objectively measured acuity, even downright old, not just middle aged people, can select a good violin, cymbals, etc - regardless of the fact that a significant portion of the response of the violin or cymbals is no longer audible to them as sine waves.
  
 I have even read about the "procedure" how to prepare oneself for the critical listening - published decades ago in one of the US underground audio press. It started with reference to our childhood - when everything was play and everything was interesting - and everything was PLEASURE. Children are by definition " professional hedonists" - seeking only pleasurable things in life - something we no longer can afford in later adult life. It went about how to awake this long-forgotten "professional hedonist" within ourselves, pointing on paying attention to your surrounding, your inhaling and exhaling, concentrating on _easily hearing the blood circulating in your ears - _and so forth. It takes at least 15 minutes before one can prepare him or herself into this avid "professional hedonist" condition - again, for the first time, after MANY years. It felt like being born again - and it allowed to MUCH easier discerning of any differences in sound.
  
 Children can do it in an instant - adults are finding getting to this level of attentiveness ever harder with increasing age.
  
 Of all the articles I read about the audio, this one is perhaps the most significant. Thank you for reminding me of it by commenting on the young girl's hearing - I have not been practicing it in a decade, by now maybe two. Time to start anew.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> I have a nasty feeling turntables will keep on spinning into the time the NEXT generation will no longer recognize what CD is and what to do with it ...
> 
> I remember a girl then 6, after seeing a vinyl LP for the first time, saying :
> 
> _What a BIG - CD ...._




That's what people would say when they saw my laserdiscs. 



se


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Yes. But you need to be concerned about any friction between the tone arm and the mechanical parts that allow it to pivot relative to the rest of the turntable. Audio grade lubrication can reduce friction and create better soundstage and imaging, right?


 
 Not necessary required. There are air bearing turntables and arms - as are those using liquid for bearings of both table and arm.
  
 But, yes, (sigh...) - I will have to reinstate Piggybank For That VdH Oil - because what you have described are precisely the results heard with better bearings in analog turntables. There is one design of tonearm bearing that literally *CRIES *for as low viscosity oil with as low friction as possible - and bearing in mind other positive properties of that deceptively chintzy looking arm, that oil might well prove to be the biggest bargain of them all. Despite being silly - two-three bottles of this oil equals the price of that turntable on the used market ...
  
 And - make no mistake - that can also be demonstrated by measurements. As it affects the most coveted performance of any turntable, that is trackability - which is easily measurable - and audible.


----------



## StanD

Out of the mouths of babes. That little girl is smarter than most audiophiles. _What is that useless disc_? _And that weird thing with the arm_. _I think I'll sit on a CD Mat_.


----------



## bigshot

I have hundreds and hundreds of laserdiscs. I'm trying to think of a craft project to make out of them.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> I have hundreds and hundreds of laserdiscs. I'm trying to think of a craft project to make out of them.


 
 Got any Laser Disc Mats?


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Got any Laser Disc Mats?




We gotcher Laser Disc Matt for ya right heah, pal! *grabs crotch*

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> We gotcher Laser Disc Matt for ya right heah, pal! *grabs crotch*
> 
> se


 
 Don't squeeze too tight or else you'll be listening to Zeppelin's the Lemon Song and it'll hurt some.


----------



## Steve Eddy

By the way, with regard to Analogsurviver, and for those who aren't reading the Cage Match thread, I'd like to repeat an excerpt from a post I made over there.

_I'd never really read any of his posts very thoroughly before, and just jumped on the bandwagon dismissing him as a troll.

But a recent event caused me to reconsider. It was when he was arguing cable capacitance vis a vis electrostatic headphones. After reconsidering, I concluded he was making some very good points.

So I sent him a PM and asked him if he would be up for a good old fashioned telephone conversation so I could get to know him a little better than would be possible from just posts in a forum.

He was and we had a very nice talk yesterday, which lasted for an hour or so before I had to break to take another call.

While I can't say I would agree with him on everything, I found him to be a genuinely nice guy who is actually quite knowledgeable, and I will no longer dismiss him as a troll. Instead, I will just exercise more patience with him, and look forward to our next telephone chat._

se


----------



## StanD

@Steve Eddy Does that mean he's awfully persistent and needs to learn a thing or two?


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> @Steve Eddy
> Does that mean he's awfully persistent and needs to learn a thing or two?




Well, first you have to stop and think and consider who is the one who needs to learn instead of automatically assuming it's Analogsurviver. I've caught myself doing that twice with him this past week. 

Ultimately what I'm saying is that he's a nice and knowledgeable guy, and not at all what I would consider to be a troll. And I would like to apologize to him publicly for my making that assumption for as long as I did. I consider him a friend now.

That doesn't mean that I am going to agree with everything he says. If he says something I disagree with, I'll take him to task the same as anyone else (and not even my closest and dearest friends get to escape that). But he does not deserve to be considered or called a troll.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Well, first you have to stop and think and consider who is the one who needs to learn instead of automatically assuming it's Analogsurviver. I've caught myself doing that twice with him this past week.
> 
> Ultimately what I'm saying is that he's a nice and knowledgeable guy, and not at all what I would consider to be a troll. And I would like to apologize to him publicly for my making that assumption for as long as I did. I consider him a friend now.
> 
> ...


 
 OK, not a troll, but still at times annoying. Everyone makes mistakes.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I believe it was castleofargh that brought up the notion that Analogsurviver was generally on point with many of these discussions, provided that one believes that ultrasonics are crucial to achieving the highest possible audio quality.  Generally this means that ultrasonics must be captured at the recording and maintained throughout the mastering process.  Then, of course, it would take specific audio equipment to play back these recordings so that the ultrasonics could be experienced somehow.  Whatever benefits might be gained simply can't be applied to millions of songs that have already been recorded, of which many of these already sound excellent without ultrasonics.  I'm no scientist, and I don't even play one on TV (or forums), but the idea seems rather absurd to me.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> OK, not a troll, but still at times annoying. Everyone makes mistakes.




What makes him annoying necessarily? Sure, he talks about things I'm not necessarily interested in, but it's easy enough to just skip over those posts. And I think everyone pouncing on him and calling him a troll might have at least a little to do with his behavior here. I'm not at my best either when I'm always put on the defensive side. 

se


----------



## RRod

steve eddy said:


> What makes him annoying necessarily? Sure, he talks about things I'm not necessarily interested in, but it's easy enough to just skip over those posts. And I think everyone pouncing on him and calling him a troll might have at least a little to do with his behavior here. I'm not at my best either when I'm always put on the defensive side.
> 
> se


 
  
 But you also don't almost get thread's locked for going on about CD Mats. He certainly is a nice guy, and is in the trenches making recordings in concert halls which is more than I can say for myself or many, but he also is a bit… innocent, which means he doesn't see the bedlam he can flare up around here.


----------



## Steve Eddy

sonitus mirus said:


> I believe it was castleofargh that brought up the notion that Analogsurviver was generally on point with many of these discussions, provided that one believes that ultrasonics are crucial to achieving the highest possible audio quality.  Generally this means that ultrasonics must be captured at the recording and maintained throughout the mastering process.  Then, of course, it would take specific audio equipment to play back these recordings so that the ultrasonics could be experienced somehow.  Whatever benefits might be gained simply can't be applied to millions of songs that have already been recorded, of which many of these already sound excellent without ultrasonics.  I'm no scientist, and I don't even play one on TV (or forums), but the idea seems rather absurd to me.




Well, I don't think what was done in the past should keep us from moving forward.

And while I don't think it will turn out that ultrasonics are crucial, at least he's not pulling the idea out of thin air. His fundamental thinking is sound (no pun intended). As I said, he's actually quite knowledgeable, but I think he can get a bit ahead of himself at times. And I think if we just treat him with a little more respect and patience, we can all learn something at the end of the day. I'm glad he accepted my reaching out to him in order to get to know him better.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

rrod said:


> But you also don't almost get thread's locked for going on about CD Mats. He certainly is a nice guy, and is in the trenches making recordings in concert halls which is more than I can say for myself or many, but he also is a bit… innocent, which means he doesn't see the bedlam he can flare up around here.




What is the source of the bedlam? Certainly not Analogsurviver. So I don't know why you talk of the bedlam that _he_ can flare up. 

se


----------



## RRod

steve eddy said:


> What is the source of the bedlam? Certainly not Analogsurviver. So I don't know why you talk of the bedlam that _he_ can flare up.
> 
> se


 
  
 The guy who kept bringing up the benefits of a CD Mat? Why would he be implicit in any of the discussion over it? Like I said, I don't think he means to troll in the classic sense, but I can see why people get that impression.


----------



## Steve Eddy

rrod said:


> The guy who kept bringing up the benefits of a CD Mat?




I would argue that the source of the bedlam was those people who were responding to him. 

se


----------



## RRod

steve eddy said:


> I would argue that the source of the bedlam was those people who were responding to him.
> 
> se


 
  
 Once the fire is started, it's certainly up to those standing around it not to get burned or to fan it further. But that doesn't free the fire-starter from any and all blame.


----------



## Steve Eddy

rrod said:


> Once the fire is started, it's certainly up to those standing around it not to get burned or to fan it further. But that doesn't free the fire-starter from any and all blame.




I would argue that Analogsurviver is not the fire-starter either.

Is the woman who wears a short skirt and low cut blouse the "fire-starter" if she is raped? That's not an argument I would make. Would you? Yet that's essentially the argument you are making here with regard to Analogsurviver.

se


----------



## RRod

steve eddy said:


> I would argue that Analogsurviver is not the fire-starter either.
> 
> Is the woman who wears a short skirt and low cut blouse the "fire-starter" if she is raped? That's not an argument I would make. Would you? Yet that's essentially the argument you are making here with regard to Analogsurviver.
> 
> se


 
  
 Wow that's quite the straw-man. It's not at all like that, but we'll leave it there because we've hit the ludicrous part of the map.


----------



## lamode

steve eddy said:


> _I found him to be a genuinely nice guy who is actually quite knowledgeable, and I will no longer dismiss him as a trol_


 
  
 The two are not mutually exclusive. As long as he posts about CD mats, breaking in cables, and recordings with 100kHz content...repeatedly... he is the very definition of a troll.


----------



## analogsurviver

To a non native English speaker, google to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedlam
  
 I can see this particular soup, made from the leftover of the CD mats (that  are otherwise bringing joy to their users on daily basis ), causes all sorts of abnormal behaviour in otherwise presumably reasonably normal behaving people. 
  
 Now imagine waking up and the first thing you see is _*THIS:*_ 
  

  
 You can choose :
  
 1.) To have a stroke on spot, your famous last words : Blame the CD Mat ! AaaarrrrrGGHHH ! ...........................(thud)
 2.) Throw it out of the window, together with any CDs it has, no doubt about it, infested with unpronouncable desease, by merely being within the distance of say 7 inch
 3.) After gaining some composure, cautiously - so that nobody can see the blasphemous act you are about to perpetrate - chose to play the CD which  is in immediate       physical contact with the CD mat ; with the CD mat actually in its intended position during playback. Will you survive ? Can you ever show your face in public - ever         again ? Can you risk being ostracized in Sound Science thread(s) for something that genuinely is meant well - but is not  accepted as common knowledge  - yet?


----------



## bigshot

Who then is the very definition of "trolled"?


----------



## bigshot

Steve Eddy and I remember Patrick from back in the old days of the forum. I think we have a similar thing here. It's best to sit back quietly appreciate the goofiness rather than to put on armor and go to battle. If you can't control yourself, just block him.


----------



## Steve Eddy

rrod said:


> Wow that's quite the straw-man. It's not at all like that, but we'll leave it there because we've hit the ludicrous part of the map.




It's not a straw man, it's an analogy. 

At best you can say Analogsurviver's words are kindling (short skirt, low cut blouse). It is those who respond to those words that are taking the match to them (the rape). Hence, it is those who are responding to Analogsurviver who are the fire-starters, and the source of any bedlam.

If you have a counter-argument, I'd love to hear it. But so far, I haven't seen any sort of argument from you. Just empty assertions. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> 1.) To have a stroke on spot, your famous last words : Blame the CD Mat ! AaaarrrrrGGHHH ! ...........................(thud)
> 2.) Throw it out of the window, together with any CDs it has, no doubt about it, infested with unpronouncable desease, by merely being within the distance of say 7 inch
> 3.) After gaining some composure, cautiously - so that nobody can see the blasphemous act you are about to perpetrate - chose to play the CD which  is in immediate       physical contact with the [COLOR=E6E6FA]CD mat ; with the CD mat actually in its intended position during playback. Will you survive ? Can you ever show your face in public - ever         again ? Can you risk being ostracized in Sound Science thread(s) [/COLOR][COLOR=E6E6FA]for something that genuinely is meant well - but is not  accepted as common knowledge  - yet?[/COLOR]




You left one out. 

4.) Use them as drink coasters to avoid rings on your coffee table.



se


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> To a non native English speaker, google to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedlam
> 
> I can see this particular soup, made from the leftover of the CD mats (that  are otherwise bringing joy to their users on daily basis ), causes all sorts of abnormal behaviour in otherwise presumably reasonably normal behaving people.
> 
> ...


 
 I would like to hear nothing more about CD MATS until you came with the (long ago) PROMISED files............................ and then, we could all talk(?) about it. OK!


----------



## Steve Eddy

lamode said:


> The two are not mutually exclusive. As long as he posts about CD mats, breaking in cables, and recordings with 100kHz content...repeatedly... he is the very definition of a troll.




Then we must have very different definitions of "troll." 

I've been involved in the online world for over 30 years, which is probably about as old as the term troll in this context.

To me, and to those I associated with back in the '80s, troll always referred to someone making outrageous and disingenuous comments solely for the purpose of provoking a reaction from others. 

It comes from trolling, as in fishing, where you put the bait on the hook (the outrageous and disingenuous comments), and troll it through the waters hoping a fish will take the bait.

Now it seems troll has come to mean anyone saying anything someone doesn't like or otherwise disagrees with. It's just a lazy epithet far removed from its original meaning.

I don't see Analogsurviver as anything resembling what I would call a troll.

se


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bigshot said:


> Who then is the very definition of "trolled"?


 

 People who read and post in 'Testing audiophile claims and myths'


----------



## RRod

steve eddy said:


> It's not a straw man, it's an analogy.
> 
> At best you can say Analogsurviver's words are kindling (short skirt, low cut blouse). It is those who respond to those words that are taking the match to them (the rape). Hence, it is those who are responding to Analogsurviver who are the fire-starters, and the source of any bedlam.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm not going to dignify rape analogies with arguments. Sorry.


----------



## StanD

In simple terms I find survivor to be clever and always cooking up another silly story to further some rediculous claims. He does upon occasion come up with some interesting thoughts, I will  not deny that, however, the bulk of his posts are to further some rediculous stuff, e.g. ultrasonics, CD Mats. And he persists, trolling direct responses. As I said he is clever. I would tend to agree with the Big guy on this.


----------



## limpidglitch

stand said:


> In simple terms I find survivor to be clever and always cooking up another silly story to further some rediculous claims. He does upon occasion come up with some interesting thoughts, I will  not deny that, however, the bulk of his posts are to further some rediculous stuff, e.g. ultrasonics, CD Mats. And he persists, trolling direct responses. As I said he is clever. I would tend to agree with the Big guy on this.


 
  
 Like a drunk guy with a blunderbuss, it's not surprising that he hits the mark on occasion.
  
 Unlike a drunk with a blunderbuss, however, he may be scatterbrained and neurotic, but still mostly harmless.


----------



## lamode

steve eddy said:


> troll always referred to someone making outrageous and disingenuous comments solely for the purpose of provoking a reaction from others.


 
  
 Still has that meaning, and you can't deny his posts have that effect. Perhaps we disagree about the _mens rea_


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Steve Eddy and I remember Patrick from back in the old days of the forum. I think we have a similar thing here. It's best to sit back quietly appreciate the goofiness rather than to put on armor and go to battle. If you can't control yourself, just block him.




Personally, I think Patrick transcended troll. I think he was just batSchiit crazy. 

se


----------



## Eee Pee

He has some pretty incredible (in a good way) posts in the turntable threads here.  From pictures of stylus shapes under microscopes to talking about proper set up with an oscilloscope. Helps even the newbiest of noobs.


----------



## Steve Eddy

rrod said:


> I'm not going to dignify rape analogies with arguments. Sorry.




Oh my god.

It's a LOGICAL ANALOGY, not a MORAL EQUIVALENCY. If you can't understand that, then I doubt you're even capable of making a rational argument. 

*sigh*

se


----------



## RRod

steve eddy said:


> Oh my god.
> 
> It's a LOGICAL ANALOGY, not a MORAL EQUIVALENCY. If you can't understand that, then I doubt you're even capable of making a rational argument.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Of course it's not, but it's not the kind of topic I use for logical analogies. I am plenty capable of rational thought, thanks.


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> I would like to hear nothing more about CD MATS until you came with the (long ago) PROMISED files............................ and then, we could all talk(?) about it. OK!


 
 Agreed.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> In simple terms I find survivor to be clever and always cooking up another silly story to further some rediculous claims. He does upon occasion come up with some interesting thoughts, I will  not deny that, however, the bulk of his posts are to further some rediculous stuff, e.g. ultrasonics, CD Mats. And he persists, trolling direct responses. As I said he is clever. I would tend to agree with the Big guy on this.




Perhaps he would be willing to give you his phone number and you can speak with him yourself and get to know him better. I'm glad that I did.

And I'm sure his "forumside manner" wasn't helped any by some here who just mocked and impugned him and treated him as if he was a complete idiot.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

lamode said:


> Still has that meaning, and you can't deny his posts have that effect. Perhaps we disagree about the _mens rea_




They only have that effect because of some of those replying _giving them that effect_.

Years ago, I started and ran what became the largest political chat channel on IRC (Internet Relay Chat). And at times we would have genuine, obvious trolls come into the channel. And I could have simply booted the troll out of the channel. But I wouldn't. Instead, my policy was to boot those who took the bait. Why? Because they were the ones who lit the match and turned the channel into a scroll of worthless posts. Not the person doing the trolling.

It's the same thing here, except it doesn't involve an actual troll. But the source of the bedlam, those lighting the matches is the same.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

rrod said:


> Of course it's not, but it's not the kind of topic I use for logical analogies. I am plenty capable of rational thought, thanks.




Haven't seen any evidence of it yet.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Perhaps he would be willing to give you his phone number and you can speak with him yourself and get to know him better. I'm glad that I did.
> 
> And I'm sure his "forumside manner" wasn't helped any by some here who just mocked and impugned him and treated him as if he was a complete idiot.
> 
> se


 
 I did not think him to be a _complete idiot_ but but rather a smart person without the proper technical training, concocting wild stories, perhaps to get a reaction.


----------



## RRod

steve eddy said:


> Haven't seen any evidence of it yet.
> 
> se


 
  
 "And I'm sure his "forumside manner" wasn't helped any by some here who just mocked and impugned him and treated him as if he was a complete idiot."
  
 Should take your own advice, se.


----------



## sonitus mirus

AS is the Cliff Clavin (from Cheers) of this forum thread.  The Buffalo Theory comes to mind.
  
 Time to make myself smarter.


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> Personally, I think Patrick transcended troll. I think he was just batSchiit crazy.


 
  
 I don't think our current situation is all that different.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

Now the topic is ANALOGSURVIVER, not testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.............................................................


----------



## Steve Eddy

rrod said:


> "And I'm sure his "forumside manner" wasn't helped any by some here who just mocked and impugned him and treated him as if he was a complete idiot."
> 
> Should take your own advice, se.




Sure. When I see some evidence that you're even as on the ball as Analogsurviver. All I've seen from you is "Ewwww! You said rape! I can't even continue this discussion. Where's my fainting couch?" 

What if I had used an analogy that had involved murder instead? Would that have caused you to have a case of the vapors as well? I strongly suspect that it wouldn't have.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I don't think our current situation is all that different.




I do. By a long shot. 

se


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> I don't think our current situation is all that different.


 
  
  


steve eddy said:


> I do. By a long shot.
> 
> se


 
 Is that a pun?


----------



## RRod

steve eddy said:


> Sure. When I see some evidence that you're even as on the ball as Analogsurviver. All I've seen from you is "Ewwww! You said rape! I can't even continue this discussion. Where's my fainting couch?"
> 
> What if I had used an analogy that had involved murder instead? Would that have caused you to have a case of the vapors as well? I strongly suspect that it wouldn't have.
> 
> se


 
  
 Continue the discussion that AS is a troll? Seems like that's already been fleshed out anyway. I hold to my initial assessment, and I disagree with your assessment, though I don't hold the ire that other seem to towards AS, having chatted with him a bit in PMs.


----------



## StanD

Are we done?


----------



## headdict

macacodosom said:


> Now the topic is ANALOGSURVIVER, not testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.............................................................


 

 It should be called "the never-ending struggle to survive analog". For how many pages has this been going on? It's a shame and for the most part it's not analog's fault. Let's conclude that we all were being trolls or accomplices and put an end to it.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Is that a pun?




Nope. Simply a strong disagreement.

se


----------



## limpidglitch

It seems a bit silly to claim that Analogsurviver has been badly treated, when he has played a key part in getting two big threads locked, and as a result has had his very own thread dedicated just to him.
  
 And on top of that, Steve Eddy, of all people, starts defending him vehemently by using analogies of extremely poor taste, and going ad hominem on RRod, who's as sharp and stand up as they come?
  
 Did I step through the looking glass?


----------



## bigshot

Let's just say that the people who have engaged with him in the past aren't the problem. The ones who do in the future are.


----------



## Steve Eddy

limpidglitch said:


> It seems a bit silly to claim that Analogsurviver has been badly treated, when he has played a key part in getting two big threads locked, and as a result has had his very own thread dedicated just to him.




What exactly was the key part he played in getting threads locked?

If no one had responded to him, would those threads have been locked? I'd bet good money they wouldn't have. And if they wouldn't have, then I don't see how his part could have been key. 




> And on top of that, Steve Eddy, of all people, starts defending him vehemently by using analogies of extremely poor taste, and going ad hominem on RRod, who's as sharp and stand up as they come?




First, I'm afraid I completely fail to see what about my analogy constituted "extremely poor taste." As I have already said, it was a logical analogy, not a moral equivalency. 

Rape is often not reported, because defense attorneys for the rapist have been known to attempt to publicly excoriate the victim, arguing along the lines of the victim dressing too provocatively, and effectively "asking for it." Basically, they attempt to make the victim seem at least partially responsible for the crime in an attempt to get a lighter sentence for their client, or even get them off without any punishment. 

This of course is absurd. The responsibility for the rape falls entirely on the shoulders of the rapist. They are the one who took action resulting in the rape.

Similarly (and again, I'm speaking only _logically_, not morally), to say that Analogsurviver's words were the cause of any bedlam which has occurred in these threads is equally absurd. The responsibility for any bedlam falls entirely on the shoulders of those responding. They are the ones who took action which resulted in the bedlam.

Again, I completely fail to see what is tasteless about this in any way, shape or form. I can only see it being considered tasteless by someone who doesn't understand the difference between logical analogy and moral equivalency. Those are two completely different things, and if someone doesn't understand that, then the problem is not with the analogy.

se


----------



## upstateguy

steve eddy said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > "And I'm sure his "forumside manner" wasn't helped any by some here who just mocked and impugned him and treated him as if he was a complete idiot."
> ...


 
  
  
*"a case of the vapors" *LOL, you have me in stitches. 
  
 Great Material!!!!
 How do you think this stuff up????


----------



## limpidglitch

steve eddy said:


> What exactly was the key part he played in getting threads locked?
> 
> If no one had responded to him, would those threads have been locked? I'd bet good money they wouldn't have. And if they wouldn't have, then I don't see how his part could have been key.


 
   
 Picture the situation as a star graph with AS in the centre. Remove that single central node and the conflict resolves. That is a key part.
 Alternatively of course you could remove every single one of the surrounding nodes, but it would be far less effective.

 You might also want to ask the admins about why the discussion of religion, politics and DBT is discouraged on this forum.
  
 Quote:


steve eddy said:


> First, I'm afraid I completely fail to see what about my analogy constituted "extremely poor taste." As I have already said, it was a logical analogy, not a moral equivalency.
> 
> Rape is often not reported, because defense attorneys for the rapist have been known to attempt to publicly excoriate the victim, arguing along the lines of the victim dressing too provocatively, and effectively "asking for it." Basically, they attempt to make the victim seem at least partially responsible for the crime in an attempt to get a lighter sentence for their client, or even get them off without any punishment.
> 
> ...


  

 I have no intention to discuss this with you. If you can't see it, you can't see it.


----------



## Steve Eddy

upstateguy said:


> *[COLOR=0000CD]"a case of the vapors"[/COLOR]* LOL, you have me in stitches.
> 
> Great Material!!!!
> How do you think this stuff up????




Probably the same way you think up the makeovers for my avatar. 

se


----------



## dazzerfong

So, less about rape, and more about sound/science? I'm dying to get the stuff I learn in DSP at uni retaught to me properly.


----------



## bigshot

Look! We don't even need AS to get this thread locked. We can do it all by ourselves.


----------



## Steve Eddy

limpidglitch said:


> Picture the situation as a star graph with AS in the centre. Remove that single central node and the conflict resolves. That is a key part.
> Alternatively of course you could remove every single one of the surrounding nodes, but it would be far less effective.




Hmmm. Not seeing that as analogous.

How about picturing it like this.

Analogsurviver's posts are just among a series of many other posts. If no one responds to them, they just scroll on into the past and die a quiet death (I hope "death" isn't too tasteless a word to use here). Now imagine that someone willingly chooses to respond. And then someone else. And someone else. And so on, and so on, until bedlam ensues, and the thread gets locked.

Now, question for you.

Who was it exactly that chose to take their No. 2 pencil and fill in the "C. Bedlam/Thread Lock" circle on the multiple choice quiz as to what direction the thread is going to take?

Was it "A. Analogsurviver," "B. Those who willingly chose to respond to his post," "C. All of the above," "D. None of the above" or "E. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me"?

It certainly wasn't Analogsurviver. He doesn't have the power to force anyone to respond to his posts, which would otherwise just scroll away without so much as a kerfuffle let alone all out bedlam and thread locking. Or are you arguing that his words are so powerful, so divisive, that no mortal human being can resist responding? If not, then I don't see how the responsibility for any bedlam/thread locking can fall to anyone other than those responding to his posts.

Look, I've responded to posts that in hindsight I probably shouldn't have. And I've even been banned for doing so. But I have _never_ blamed anyone but myself for having made those posts. Every post that I write I do entirely of my own volition, and I am _entirely_ responsible for any consequences of that post.

Now please, tell me what is wrong with that? And why should anyone hold themselves to a lesser standard and place _any_ of the blame elsewhere?




> You might also want to ask the admins about why the discussion of religion, politics and DBT is discouraged on this forum.




What, you think audio discussions are fundamentally any different than discussions on religion, politics, or DBT? As long as you have a wide diversity of human beings doing the discussing, you're going to have times where the arguments get heated. There's simply no escaping it. And I say this with some 30 years of experience discussing a variety of topics in online discussion forums such as this.




> I have no intention to discuss this with you. If you can't see it, you can't see it.




Ok, so the so called tastelessness of my analogy is so blindingly obvious, that if I don't see it, then I just don't see it, and to that end you have no interest in discussing it with me, which might involve making some rational argument as to why it is so tasteless. You win on obviousness by default.

Hmmmm...

So tell me, how is that really any different than someone coming in here, saying they just bought some expensive new cable, and that the audible differences were so jaw-droppingly obvious, that if you can't hear it, then you just can't hear it. And they have no intention of discussing it with anyone or supporting their claim. They heard it. It was obvious. They win by default.

How far would that fly in here? Would you just run out and buy a pair of those cables yourself?

se


----------



## limpidglitch

steve eddy said:


> Hmmm. Not seeing that as analogous.
> 
> How about picturing it like this.
> 
> Analogsurviver's posts are just among a series of many other posts. If no one responds to them, they just scroll on into the past and die a quiet death (I hope "death" isn't too tasteless a word to use here). Now imagine that someone willingly chooses to respond. And then someone else. And someone else. And so on, and so on, until bedlam ensues, and the thread gets locked.


 
  
 Certainly, there are many participants, but not all are of equal importance (or degree, if you wish)
 You are directly contradicting yourself with this:
  
   
 Quote:


steve eddy said:


> What, you think audio discussions are fundamentally any different than discussions on religion, politics, or DBT? As long as you have a wide diversity of human beings doing the discussing, you're going to have times where the arguments get heated. There's simply no escaping it. And I say this with some 30 years of experience discussing a variety of topics in online discussion forums such as this.


 
  
 It is inevitable within these kinds of group dynamics, so how can it be controlled?
 The admins have two realistic choices. Either they remove the bait (which can be subjects such as religion, politics, DBT in the tweako threads, or incessant mumbo jumbo in these parts) or they can drain the pond (close the thread).
  
   
 Quote:


steve eddy said:


> Ok, so the so called tastelessness of my analogy is so blindingly obvious, that if I don't see it, then I just don't see it, and to that end you have no interest in discussing it with me, which might involve making some rational argument as to why it is so tasteless. You win on obviousness by default.
> 
> Hmmmm...
> 
> ...


  

 If you really want to discuss this, I'm sure there is some forum somewhere on the internet where it can be done.
 You've regretted taking on some contentious issues in the past. I'm fairly certain I'd regret it if I took on this, yet you keep on pushing me. Do you recognize the dynamic?


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> What exactly was the key part he played in getting threads locked?
> 
> If no one had responded to him, would those threads have been locked? I'd bet good money they wouldn't have. And if they wouldn't have, then I don't see how his part could have been key.




+1

Currawong already explained that it was the regular posters in that 16 bit vs 24 bit thread that got it locked, not just AS.


----------



## Steve Eddy

limpidglitch said:


> Certainly, there are many participants, but not all are of equal importance (or degree, if you wish)
> You are directly contradicting yourself with this:




No contradiction at all. See below.




> It is inevitable within these kinds of group dynamics, so how can it be controlled?




My point was never about control. My point was about _responsibility_. Acknowledging that something is inevitable isn't absolving anyone of responsibility. We can't completely control crime. Some amount of crime is inevitable. But we still hold people responsible for the crimes they commit. 




> The admins have two realistic choices. Either they remove the bait (which can be subjects such as religion, politics, DBT in the tweako threads, or incessant mumbo jumbo in these parts) or they can drain the pond (close the thread).




I think there is a third realistic choice. It goes to my policy on the political channel that I ran that I mentioned previously. And that was instead of booting the troll, I would boot those who fed the troll. After a while, people finally got the idea, stopped feeding the trolls, and while trolls would still come to the channel and try to start some Schiit, without being fed, they would soon move on to more fertile ground and there was no bedlam on the channel.

Except in this instance, there is no troll. Just someone who says some things that people don't necessarily agree with. Which is fine. There are no rules here saying that everyone has to agree with anyone else. The bedlam results from people taking such a hostile approach, and dismissing as a troll, someone who is completely sincere in what they are saying. And where there is no insincerity, there is no troll in my opinion.




> If you really want to discuss this, I'm sure there is some forum somewhere on the internet where it can be done.




Wait, you say my analogy was offensively tasteless, without presenting even a half-assed argument as to why exactly it was tasteless, and you don't think I would want to discuss it?




> You've regretted taking on some contentious issues in the past. I'm fairly certain I'd regret it if I took on this, yet you keep on pushing me. Do you recognize the dynamic?




No, I did not say I have regretted taking on some contentious issues in the past. I haven't regretted taking on any issues in the past, including contentious ones.

What I said was I have made _posts_ in the past that in hindsight I probably shouldn't have made. And my point, which you seem to have missed completely, was that I took _full responsibility_ for those posts and didn't try to lay any blame on others, as some here are trying to do blaming AS for posts that _they_ consciously and willingly made. 

se


----------



## Toom

I would be interested in learning more about the psychological impact of reducing music listening to a solitary pursuit.


----------



## Steve Eddy

toom said:


> I would be interested in learning more about the psychological impact of reducing music listening to a solitary pursuit.




Don't know much about psychology, so can't offer anything useful on that. But when you get right down to it, it's always been something of a solitary pursuit, don't you think? I mean actually listening to music rather than music serving as a backdrop to a more social affair.

se


----------



## limpidglitch

steve eddy said:


> No contradiction at all. See below.
> My point was never about control. My point was about _responsibility_. Acknowledging that something is inevitable isn't absolving anyone of responsibility. We can't completely control crime. Some amount of crime is inevitable. But we still hold people responsible for the crimes they commit.
> I think there is a third realistic choice. It goes to my policy on the political channel that I ran that I mentioned previously. And that was instead of booting the troll, I would boot those who fed the troll. After a while, people finally got the idea, stopped feeding the trolls, and while trolls would still come to the channel and try to start some Schiit, without being fed, they would soon move on to more fertile ground and there was no bedlam on the channel.
> 
> Except in this instance, there is no troll. Just someone who says some things that people don't necessarily agree with. Which is fine. There are no rules here saying that everyone has to agree with anyone else. The bedlam results from people taking such a hostile approach, and dismissing as a troll, someone who is completely sincere in what they are saying. And where there is no insincerity, there is no troll in my opinion.


 
   
 We seem to largely be in agreement. Except I want to assign some of that responsibility to AS.
  
  
 Quote:


steve eddy said:


> Wait, you say my analogy was offensively tasteless, without presenting even a half-assed argument as to why exactly it was tasteless, and you don't think I would want to discuss it?
> No, I did not say I have regretted taking on some contentious issues in the past. I haven't regretted taking on any issues in the past, including contentious ones.
> 
> What I said was I have made _posts_ in the past that in hindsight I probably shouldn't have made. And my point, which you seem to have missed completely, was that I took _full responsibility_ for those posts and didn't try to lay any blame on others, as some here are trying to do blaming AS for posts that _they_ consciously and willingly made.
> ...


  

 Yes


----------



## Steve Eddy

limpidglitch said:


> We seem to largely be in agreement. Except I want to assign some of that responsibility to AS.




Ok.

All I can say is that I hope I never see the day that I place _any_ responsibility on _anyone_ other than myself for anything that I write.




> Yes




Ok.

I find this rather odd.

So far two people have said that my analogy was offensively tasteless. Yet neither so far has been willing or able to explain _why_ exactly it is offensively tasteless. Only that it is "obvious" 

Well it seems that something that is so obvious should only take a paragraph or two to explain why. But so far, absolutely nothing.

I think it's is just an irrational knee jerk reaction. Sort of like "bad words." Some people are keen to say that you've said a "bad word," but can never say exactly _why_ it's bad. They can never seem to get any farther than "because it is." Because that's simply all they can say as they can't make any sort of rational argument.

Ah well.

If anyone else felt that my analogy was offensively tasteless, could you please give some sort of explanation as to why?

Thanks.

se


----------



## dazzerfong

steve eddy said:


> So far two people have said that my analogy was offensively tasteless. Yet neither so far has been willing or able to explain _why_ exactly it is offensively tasteless. Only that it is "obvious"


 
 I think it's time for you to take your 'rational' mindset back a notch, Steve. This is audio we're talking about, not politics and crime. Right now, analogsurviver is hardly the woman who 'wears the short skirt and low-cut' blouse': if he was less combative about it, I think most of us will let it slide. What's worse, the moment you said '_it is those who respond to those words that are taking the match to them (the rape)'_, that's going too far.
  
 There are far better analogies for what's going on, and you chose the one that had to be mired in controversy and complexity of it. Why not choose a houseowner who doesn't lock their doors instead? Much less controversial!


----------



## Opportunist

Isn't it time to make a clean break and start afresh, staying within the topic of this thread, viz. testing audiophile claims and myths?
  
 For my part, I find it frustrating to read posts talking about specific audio equipment, accessories and recordings, including but not not limited to olive oil cables, super-exclusive turntables and recordings made in one of Europe's most beautiful churches, where those are not backed up by reference to tests, data or other verifiable evidence as to their alleged superiority or inferiority. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that other posters share this feeling.


----------



## StanD

opportunist said:


> Isn't it time to make a clean break and start afresh, staying to the topic of this thread, viz. testing audiophile claims and myths?
> 
> For my part, I find it frustrating to read posts talking about specific audio equipment, accessories and recordings, including but not not limited to olive oil cables, super-exclusive turntables and recordings made in one of Europe's most beautiful churches, where those are not backed up by reference to tests, data or other verifiable evidence as to their alleged superiority or inferiority. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that other posters share this feeling.


 
 +1x103 Can we get back to the original purpose of the thread and not bog down on the same stuff?


----------



## lamode

steve eddy said:


> They only have that effect because of some of those replying _giving them that effect_.
> 
> Years ago, I started and ran what became the largest political chat channel on IRC (Internet Relay Chat). And at times we would have genuine, obvious trolls come into the channel. And I could have simply booted the troll out of the channel. But I wouldn't. Instead, my policy was to boot those who took the bait. Why? Because they were the ones who lit the match and turned the channel into a scroll of worthless posts. Not the person doing the trolling.


 
  
 I wasn't going to reply to this because I hoped the topic would die, but it seems it hasn't.
  
 That's an absurd moderation policy, and silly to use your own past policy to justify your current view - of course you agree with yourself! lol
  
 Btw, you're not the only moderator here, or the only one has has been online for 30 years. None of these attributes add any validity to your argument.
  
 Peace


----------



## Steve Eddy

dazzerfong said:


> I think it's time for you to take your 'rational' mindset back a notch, Steve.




I'm sorry. I didn't know that rationality was so frowned upon here. I won't let it happen again.




> This is audio we're talking about, not politics and crime.




No, we weren't talking about audio. We were talking about who should be held responsible for bedlam. Nor did my analogy have anything inherently to do with politics or crime.




> Right now, analogsurviver is hardly the woman who 'wears the short skirt and low-cut' blouse': if he was less combative about it, I think most of us will let it slide. What's worse, the moment you said '_it is those who respond to those words that are taking the match to them (the rape)'_, that's going too far.




I can only see it "going too far" to those who are incapable of distinguishing logical analogy from moral equivalency.

I guess I'm just giving some people too much credit.

I didn't go to fancy Ivy League colleges or anything. I dropped out of school after 9th grade and had typical grades of Cs, Ds and Fs. But Christ, I know the difference between logical analogy and moral equivalency. And even for those who may have been a bit confused, I'd like to think that once I had explained that I was making a logical analogy, not a moral equivalency, they would say "Oh, ok. I see what you're saying."




> There are far better analogies for what's going on, and you chose the one that had to be mired in controversy and complexity of it.




I see no reason at all for why it should be controversial, nor any more complex than the house owner analogy you give below. And still, no one has been able to explain _why_. Not even you. All I get is "that's going to far." 




> Why not choose a houseowner who doesn't lock their doors instead? Much less controversial!




Sure, that could work as well. Though it is no better or worse than the analogy that I used. And again, I fail to see why my analogy should be at all controversial, except to those who think a logical analogy is the same as moral equivalency. And if so, I think those people should take a moment to learn the difference (if anything this forum is about learning) instead of getting themselves all in a thither and calling for the smelling salts.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

lamode said:


> I wasn't going to reply to this because I hoped the topic would die, but it seems it hasn't.
> 
> That's an absurd moderation policy, and silly to use your own past policy to justify your current view - of course you agree with yourself! lol
> 
> Btw, you're not the only moderator here, or the only one has has been online for 30 years. None of these attributes add any validity to your argument.




That's funny. I don't recall ever using the fact that I had been a moderator and have been online for 30 years to add any validity to my argument. I explained my reasoning in the very text you quoted. Let me refresh your memory.

_"Why? Because they were the ones who lit the match and turned the channel into a scroll of worthless posts. Not the person doing the trolling"_

You say that's an absurd moderation policy. But your only apparent "argument" (and I'm using quotes to indicate that I'm using the term very loosely), is that it is a view that I held in the past, as if because of that alone, it is an invalid view to hold in the present.

What exactly is wrong with the reasoning behind that view? What exactly makes it absurd? If it wasn't all the people responding to the troll who were turning the channel into a scroll of worthless posts, then who the hell was it? And if it was the people responding to the troll who were turning the channel into a scroll of worthless posts, why shouldn't they be the ones to get the boot? 

Can you make an actual argument? Something more than "That's an absurd moderation policy"? If that's all you've got, then I guess I can trump it with "No it's not! So there!" and stick out my tongue just for good measure.

I'm not at all averse to admitting I'm wrong, or changing my views and opinions, but I'm not going to so just because someone simply says "That's an absurd moderation policy," or "That's going too far." 

Look, this forum is called Sound _Science_. And rational argument is at the very foundation of science. Rational argument is the crucible that serves to separate fact from fiction and moves us forward. And if you can't make a rational argument, then what on earth are you doing here? Should it be named Sound Scientology instead? Or Sound Pretend Science? 

If "I heard it, therefore it is so" doesn't fly in here on matters of audio, why should "That's an absurd moderation policy, therefore it is so" or "You've gone too far, therefore it is so" be allowed to fly when it comes to other matters? 

I don't get it.

se


----------



## MacacoDoSom

can't you solve this over the phone?


----------



## castleofargh

that's why talking in front of a beer is the best. sometimes it ends up with a punch in the face, but most of the time it ends well because nobody wants to spill some precious beer.
 diplomatic tip1: never stay with an empty glass!
 diplomatic tip2: don't get out of the bar before you agree on something!(extra tip, you usually can agree on the taste of the beer and be done with it)


----------



## Steve Eddy

macacodosom said:


> can't you solve this over the phone?




Actually I think the underlying issue about "argument" is relevant to a forum that wants to call itself Sound _Science_

se


----------



## upstateguy

steve eddy said:


> <snip>





> kerfuffle





> <snip>
> 
> se


 
  
kerfuffle,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## Steve Eddy

upstateguy said:


> [COLOR=0000CD]kerfuffle[/COLOR],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,




I see you found the Easter egg I hid just for you. 

se


----------



## dazzerfong

steve eddy said:


> I'm sorry. I didn't know that rationality was so frowned upon here. I won't let it happen again.
> No, we weren't talking about audio. We were talking about who should be held responsible for bedlam. Nor did my analogy have anything inherently to do with politics or crime.
> I can only see it "going too far" to those who are incapable of distinguishing logical analogy from moral equivalency.
> 
> ...




Alright, agree to disagree then. I'll tell you that I'd you phrased it better rather than act all high and mighty, this could've been avoided. But I guess 30+ years on forums makes you the expert, right? 

Oh, and way to take a shot at college. Not even related at all. No one cares (or knows) about your education history.


----------



## castleofargh

this has taken a sad turn, almost as sad as what I went through on the pono thread(but you're just not there yet). what's done is done, and no kitten was hurt in the making of this thread. so no drama (I would of course have requested a ban if a kitten had been murdered).


----------



## StanD

Can everyone hit the reset button and drop all of the animosity and be friendly. Let's back to the business this thread was originally intended or something close to it. Please.


----------



## StanD

How about JDD (Just Detectable Distortion). Can humans detect better than 0.1% THD? Or what is it that we can detect? What about the spectra of the THD?


----------



## Steve Eddy

dazzerfong said:


> Alright, agree to disagree then.




If you say so.




> I'll tell you that I'd you phrased it better rather than act all high and mighty, this could've been avoided.




I still see nothing that should have been avoided on my part. I keep being told that my analogy was offensively tasteless. And I keep asking why. What exactly makes it offensively tasteless? And so far, NOT ONE PERSON HAS GIVEN ONE SCINTILLA OF AN EXPLANATION. Not so much as a paragraph or even a single sentence. NOTHING.

So tell me, why should I care about something that no one can even explain? 

_Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away..._

—Hughes Mearns

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> How about JDD (Just Detectable Distortion). Can humans detect better than 0.1% THD? Or what is it that we can detect? What about the spectra of the THD?




Listening to music or pure tones? Most of the thresholds are established using pure tones. Whole different ballgame when it comes to listening to music. 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Listening to music or pure tones? Most of the thresholds are established using pure tones. Whole different ballgame when it comes to listening to music.
> 
> se


 
 Lets consider both scenarios.


----------



## Steve Eddy

[VIDEO][/VIDEO]





stand said:


> Lets consider both scenarios.




Don't think you're going to find much out there using music. And of course much will depend on the particular music.

But since we seem to be able to produce audibly transparent electronics already, even in modestly priced consumer gear, I'm not sure how useful the answers would be. Unless maybe you wanted to design something unusual which would have distortion up near the JND.

Would be great if jj was a user here. He'd probably have all the answers you want.

se


----------



## jcx

low order harmonics are heavily masked % 2nd, 3rd aren't detected with pure tone due to upwards frequency masking, especially when the fundamental's SPL exceeds ~ 80 dB
  
 in music many instruments will already have natural harmonics making up their timbre - small additions and subtractions from low order nonlinearity generating harmonics of the fundamental again is hard to detect
  
 the trick for hearing small amounts of low order distortion is to use 2 tone test signals and listen for Intermodulation difference frequency - depending on frequencies chosen the IMD difference tone can be lower in frequency than both test tones and easier to hear since downward frequency masking has a steeper slope at moderate to high SPL than the upward masking curve
  
 the 2 tone IMD test is supposed to permit detection of as low as -80 dB IMD product in some circumstances
  
 but there is a challenge to AB/X a Sousa March added at -60 dB to a Brahms Lullaby - so real music can have very strong masking


----------



## davidsh

Has anything notable happened over the last 4 days? I gave up at page 257...


----------



## Ruben123

At what point doesn't the crosstalk not matter any more?
-90 db, -120db...?


----------



## Vartan

ruben123 said:


> At what point doesn't the crosstalk not matter any more?
> -90 db, -120db...?


 
 - 76 db


----------



## analogsurviver

ruben123 said:


> At what point doesn't the crosstalk not matter any more?
> -90 db, -120db...?


 
 Around - 60 dB.
  
 Which is not to say that improving an amplifier from around 90 dB to below residual noise is not audible - it is; but it will only be appreciated over long listening sessions.
 And even that not directly - unless you test with two of the same type amps, one left at 90 dB or so, other "all the way". It will be the most noticeable when you go from the better back to the worse ... - AFTER you have familiarized yourself with the better one.
  
 That is why , sometimes, manufacturers offer both stereo amps in one box - or mono blocks, which share nothing but the power line. At a cost - but it is hard to disagree - once heard the same circuit powered in stereo (common supply) or mono block version. Yet both will usually exceed  90 dB separation no matter what - with mono blocks, it should be unmeasurable and impossible to improve upon further.


----------



## stv014

ruben123 said:


> At what point doesn't the crosstalk not matter any more?
> -90 db, -120db...?


 
  
 There is a test with simulated crosstalk in this old thread. No ABX results have been posted, though, either because of the lack of interest, or the difference being much more difficult to detect than people expected.
  
 In any case, if you view for example -40 dB crosstalk as 1% narrower sound stage, it is hardly something to be particularly worried about. That figure (and usually much better) can easily be achieved by any decent electronics for typical home listening with headphones or speakers, as long as analog sources like tape, vinyl, or FM radio are not involved.


----------



## analogsurviver

stv014 said:


> There is a test with simulated crosstalk in this old thread. No ABX results have been posted, though, either because of the lack of interest, or the difference being much more difficult to detect than people expected.
> 
> In any case, if you view for example -40 dB crosstalk as 1% narrower sound stage, it is hardly something to be particularly worried about. That figure (and usually much better) can easily be achieved by any decent electronics for typical home listening with headphones or speakers, as long as analog sources like tape, vinyl, or FM radio are not involved.


 
 Dream on - both vinyl and FM can exceed 60 dB of channel separation - but admittedly only by few cartridges and tuners. Both are more limited by the source programme - where vinyl cutting mastering engineers can quickly knock this down to 25 dB - or less.  Better FM tuners http://sportsbil.com/tandberg/tpt-3001-b.pdf ( when tested by Audio in US, it exceeded specs )are equally generally outperforming the specs for the transmitters - but few of the transmitters are good enough to 60 dB and beyond channel separation.   
  
 The crosstalk in one of the best vinyl test records - EVER - has been measured by a scanning electron microscope to be on the order of -35 dB. Techniques to cancel this inherent crosstalk to below 60 dB are in place for at least 30 years - and ARE being used. In commercially available products. Today. At a price. http://users.telenet.be/jallaerts/welcome.htm ( check top model MC 2 Formula 1 ).
  
 But, yes, -40 dB is where things start to level off regarding improvement of channel separation - and this is the reason why there was recently a resurgence of hardware and software for the correct adjustment of  azimuth for phono cartridges - because -35 dB or better channel separation is  within approximately one third of a degree in angle - which can not be "eyeballed" - even in case of 100% geometrically correct cartridge ( 1 out of 100 - IF you are - lucky ...). You can get more information regarding audibility of even the smallest amount of amplitude AND PARTICULARLY PHASE of the crosstalk signal in the phono cartridge azimuth alignment process descriptions/instructions - then any place else. http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/vinyl-lp/37-technology/161-adjust-part-i.html
  
 Except that it can be done by the use of only a test record and an ANALOG microscope  oscilloscope - if you know what to do. I have been doing it for nearly 30 years.


----------



## StanD

Seems to be too much effort to get proper separation in a vinyl system when one cannot find much if any content with the requisite separation. Doesn't seem to be worth it, reminds me of BetaMax, only far less available as in almost nothing.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Seems to be too much effort to get proper separation in a vinyl system when one cannot find much if any content with the requisite separation. Doesn't seem to be worth it, reminds me of BetaMax, only far less available as in almost nothing.


 
 Wrong.
  
 Go to any dealer prepared to demonstrate to you - on your records - how a properly adjusted quality cartridge can sound. It should result in separation better than 40 dB - which is, for all practical purposes, good enough.
  
 Transfering older tape originated analog recordings to any digital will also transfer this channel separation - or lack thereof. Today, both analog and digital can play any channel separation was available on analog tape.
  
 As said, getting down to -60 dB separation level is possible - which should be "good enough".
 But it is not -100 or more dB.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Go to any dealer prepared to demonstrate to you - on your records - how a properly adjusted quality cartridge can sound. It should result in separation better than 40 dB - which is, for all practical purposes, good enough.
> 
> ...


 
 Not enough content + too much hassle = not worth the effort. If one is into it, then it might good for them for the usual audiophile reasons.
_Possible_ separation levels and maintaining this performance is IMO in this case just not worth the hassle.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Not enough content + too much hassle = not worth the effort. If one is into it, then it might good for them for the usual audiophile reasons.
> _Possible_ separation levels and maintaining this performance is IMO in this case just not worth the hassle.


 
 Equally, I could write 
  
 no content above 20 kHz = not worth the effort with CD.
  
 Yet I did chose to use it, making the best of my efforts, to the best of its abilities - although it can never be a match for the best analog has to offer. Learning a few things along the way.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Equally, I could write
> 
> no content above 20 kHz = not worth the effort with CD.
> 
> Yet I did chose to use it, making the best of my efforts, to the best of its abilities - although it can never be a match for the best analog has to offer. Learning a few things along the way.


 
 And I will agree that any content above 20 Khz is not worth the effort on any medium. Of course you are distracting from the point I made by going off on a tangent.


----------



## Ruben123

Thanks all. Is the lower channel separation in db better than higher? Because you're talking about 40 db and I read the Sansa Clip has around -88.


----------



## analogsurviver

ruben123 said:


> Thanks all. Is the lower channel separation in db better than higher? Because you're talking about 40 db and I read the Sansa Clip has around -88.


 
 Good enough


----------



## stv014

ruben123 said:


> Thanks all. Is the lower channel separation in db better than higher? Because you're talking about 40 db and I read the Sansa Clip has around -88.


 
  
 Higher (in terms of absolute dB value) is better, and -88 dB crosstalk is plenty good enough. Although it will likely be worse when loaded with low impedance headphones, it still should not be an issue.


----------



## KeithEmo

Quote:


analogsurviver said:


> False.
> 
> http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/qtc-series-2/qtc50/
> 
> ...


 
  
 If you're recording something with a stereo pair of microphones, then, if those microphones aren't exactly matched in terms of frequency response, distortion, and phase, the image is going to "pull" to the left or right. Since any product, including microphones, is going to vary over time and production runs, if you want two microphones to be identical in all these characteristics, then they're going to need to be matched (and it most certainly won't_ hurt_ anything). Even if you had two microphones that were flat to a fraction of a dB (which would be pretty rare), if one has a peak where the other has a dip, they're not going to image perfectly. (Even if you buy two with sequential serial numbers, which many people seem to consider important, they could be made with the last capsule produced from "batch 11" and the first from "batch 12", which could be made with some slightly different part, or some production run change, or one could have had a part replaced during production testing which could be slightly different, so it does make sense to buy two that are actually matched.)
  
 Now, if you're going to do full milti-tracking, where you aren't going to use a pair of stereo mics in stereo anyway, then it shouldn't matter nearly as much.At that point, it's simply a matter of consistency. However, as someone doing recording, even just being able to assume that two of your microphones that are supposedly the same _really_ sound identical without having to confirm it or adjust anything would still make life easier.


----------



## Roly1650

ruben123 said:


> Thanks all. Is the lower channel separation in db better than higher? Because you're talking about 40 db and I read the Sansa Clip has around -88.



The posters have been using shorthand, the negative sign is assumed to be there, as crosstalk wouldn't ever be a positive number, it's the signal level below the opposite channel. So, to us non EE's it's actually -40 dB and the Sansa Clip is a whole magnitude better than that.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> And I will agree that any content above 20 Khz is not worth the effort on any medium. Of course you are distracting from the point I made by going off on a tangent.


 
 Sigh...
  
 This folly about beyond 20 kHz not mattering has to stop.
  
 I found a good sample of acoustic guitar and voice from DPA microphones - NOT stating in which resolution it is. Downloading reveals it is 96/24 - and it has extremely low noise up to 48 kHz limit - with dynamic range between 20 and 50 kHz between 30 and 40 dB. Too bad I did not bookmark it ( it was among few clips posted to Gearslutz - in order to compare various makes and models of microphones - some of which are of interest to me ).
  
 From a voice and acoustic guitar... - imagine what would come out with recording in 192/24 or above of some percussion, muted trumpet, violin, etc. 
  
 Because of this folly "everything over 20 kHz is baaaaaaad" - even the DPA decided to "adjust" their specs:
 http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/products.aspx?c=item&category=234&item=24385#specifications
 Those who know the real deal from the day the same mic (with a bit lesser electronics ) and the SAME capsule got introduced as Bruel & Kjear 4006 back in 1980 or so can - only roll on the floor laughing at this 20 -20K spec.
  
 As I said, this _*MUST *_ end. It is exactly the same situation as with HD-800s being accused of who only knows what - on the ground of having too extended frequency response. 
  
*NOBODY* dared to contest that HD 800 post as having to great frequency response post - because you all know that it was right.


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


> If you're recording something with a stereo pair of microphones, then, if those microphones aren't exactly matched in terms of frequency response, distortion, and phase, the image is going to "pull" to the left or right. Since any product, including microphones, is going to vary over time and production runs, if you want two microphones to be identical in all these characteristics, then they're going to need to be matched (and it most certainly won't_ hurt_ anything). Even if you had two microphones that were flat to a fraction of a dB (which would be pretty rare), if one has a peak where the other has a dip, they're not going to image perfectly. (Even if you buy two with sequential serial numbers, which many people seem to consider important, they could be made with the last capsule produced from "batch 11" and the first from "batch 12", which could be made with some slightly different part, or some production run change, or one could have had a part replaced during production testing which could be slightly different, so it does make sense to buy two that are actually matched.)
> 
> Now, if you're going to do full milti-tracking, where you aren't going to use a pair of stereo mics in stereo anyway, then it shouldn't matter nearly as much.At that point, it's simply a matter of consistency. However, as someone doing recording, even just being able to assume that two of your microphones that are supposedly the same _really_ sound identical without having to confirm it or adjust anything would still make life easier.


 
 +1.
  
 That's why , when recording a super rare Guarnieri (and priceless, estimated to be worth XY M$ for insurance purposes only ) violin in Australia , *THE* reference stereo pair from Bruel & Kjaer was flown in from Denmark - by the corporate jet. And flew back to the factory in Naerum the minute after finished recording. 
  
 It, too, is priceless.
  
 In multimiking, it is next to irrelevant to have matched pairs ...


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Sigh...
> 
> This folly about beyond 20 kHz not mattering has to stop.
> 
> ...


 
 And you keep beating the dead ultrasonic horse, primarily as a distraction when you can't deal with another issue. This is one thing that might tick people off. Try to stay on topic.


----------



## Ruben123

roly1650 said:


> The posters have been using shorthand, the negative sign is assumed to be there, as crosstalk wouldn't ever be a positive number, it's the signal level below the opposite channel. So, to us non EE's it's actually -40 dB and the Sansa Clip is a whole magnitude better than that.


 

 OK, I would have guessed the ''perceived headstage'' of audioplayers like the Sansa could be explained by that... BUT if the differences are quite small and -88 is already really good I think it has nothing to do with the ''headstage'' differences between audio players.
  
 So how could the Sansa's headstage be small then, ignoring placebo.


----------



## Toom

I can't hear beyond 15khz so why should I give a monkeys about all this stuff?


----------



## StanD

toom said:


> I can't hear beyond 15khz so why should I give a monkeys about all this stuff?


 
 analogsurvivor cannot accept the fact that humans have limitations. He tends to use ultrasonics as a tangential distraction when he cannot answer someother topic. I really wish he'd stop doing.


----------



## Dobrescu George

stand said:


> analogsurvivor cannot accept the fact that humans have limitations. He tends to use ultrasonics as a tangential distraction when he cannot answer someother topic. I really wish he'd stop doing.


 
 Ultrasonics can affect what we hear.
  
 I can hear ultrasonics btw. I was at the university, and we were using an ultrasonic defectoscopy meter, and i was able to hear the ultrasonic, something, it was quite awfull.
  
 Also the noise floor of a normal public university is around 95DB


----------



## StanD

dobrescu george said:


> Ultrasonics can affect what we hear.
> 
> I can hear ultrasonics btw. I was at the university, and we were using an ultrasonic defectoscopy meter, and i was able to hear the ultrasonic, something, it was quite awfull.
> 
> Also the noise floor of a normal public university is around 95DB


 
 Exactly what frequency.


----------



## imackler

Looking for some advice:
 I want to do some testing out of various amps/dacs into a pair of headphones. Is there a device that would let me match volumes between two sources with a single out into one pair of headphones and switch input between the two (or more sources) easily? 
 At some point, I'd recruit someone to help me with the test while I didn't look.


----------



## Dobrescu George

stand said:


> Exactly what frequency.


 
 18Khz to 19.5Khz.
  
 After setting the defectoscopy meter higher, i would not hear the noise anymore.


----------



## StanD

dobrescu george said:


> 18Khz to 19.5Khz.
> 
> After setting the defectoscopy meter higher, i would not hear the noise anymore.


 
 That is not above 20 kHz. Also testing with an background noise level of 95 dBSPL is absolutely rediculous.


----------



## Dobrescu George

stand said:


> That is not above 20 kHz. Also testing with an background noise level of 95 dBSPL is absolutely rediculous.


 
 I was not testing for ultrasonics, i was using an enginerring tool for detecting holes in metals, the result was me staying with hands on ears the entire time..
  
 I have been thinking that i should really do something about staying in a place with 95 db of noise floor, it is awfull.


----------



## Roly1650

ruben123 said:


> OK, I would have guessed the ''perceived headstage'' of audioplayers like the Sansa could be explained by that... BUT if the differences are quite small and -88 is already really good I think it has nothing to do with the ''headstage'' differences between audio players.
> 
> So how could the Sansa's headstage be small then, ignoring placebo.



Can't help you with the Sansa, I've never heard one, but there could be any number of reasons why the perception is what it, without there being any real difference. Level matching not being as accurate as it should be, impedance issues, group confirmation bias, echoic memory being short term, the list goes on. If the Sansa measures similar to other audibly transparent players, then it should sound similar.

Sorry I can't be anymore help.


----------



## StanD

dobrescu george said:


> I was not testing for ultrasonics, i was using an enginerring tool for detecting holes in metals, the result was me staying with hands on ears the entire time..
> 
> I have been thinking that i should really do something about staying in a place with 95 db of noise floor, it is awfull.


 
 In any case we were discussing ultrasonics as above 20 kHz, your numbers were below that.


----------



## Dobrescu George

stand said:


> In any case we were discussing ultrasonics as above 20 kHz, your numbers were below that.


 
 quite true... but still, if the instrument is named ultrasonic, why on earth would it use frequencies that can be heared by some people, it is plain wrong...


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> Around - 60 dB.
> 
> Which is not to say that improving an amplifier from around 90 dB to below residual noise is not audible - it is; but it will only be appreciated over long listening sessions.
> And even that not directly - unless you test with two of the same type amps, one left at 90 dB or so, other "all the way". It will be the most noticeable when you go from the better back to the worse ... - AFTER you have familiarized yourself with the better one.
> ...




So closed back headphones and IEMs should be used? Because I can't imagine any self-respecting audiophile doing anything but running away screaming from a pair of these. My god! How could anyone bear the crosstalk? 



se


----------



## maverickronin

imackler said:


> Looking for some advice:
> I want to do some testing out of various amps/dacs into a pair of headphones. Is there a device that would let me match volumes between two sources with a single out into one pair of headphones and switch input between the two (or more sources) easily?
> At some point, I'd recruit someone to help me with the test while I didn't look.


 
  
 I'm not aware of any inexpensive ABX boxes.  As for volume matching, there are a few ways to do it.
  
 For volume matching different headphones, I have a Radio Shack SPL meter with an old CDR bluetaked to around the mic.  Just center it against the pad and take a reading.    You can use either a 1khz test tone or white/pink noise depending on your preferences.
  
 For volume matching the same headphone on different amps you need to be more precise and measure the output voltage of the amp with a multimeter.  For that you should hook up the headphones to the amp with a Y splitter and measure the voltage from the other end end of the Y splitter while playing a 60hz test tone.


----------



## upstateguy

maverickronin said:


> imackler said:
> 
> 
> > Looking for some advice:
> ...


 
  
 Hey MR how have you been?
  
 Quick question:  If procedure ●*1*● works for different headphones, why can't you use procedure ●*1*● for matching the same headphone with different amps?


----------



## maverickronin

upstateguy said:


> Hey MR how have you been?
> 
> Quick question:  If procedure ●*1*● works for different headphones, why can't you use procedure ●*1*● for matching the same headphone with different amps?


 
  
 I've been OK.  Sometimes life just get in the way and all...
  
 Unless you've got a full fledged acoustic lab, level matching via an SPL meter is much less precise than measuring voltage with a even a cheapo DMM so the DMM would be the preferred method.  Of course that wont work for different headphones since different models have different efficiencies and even different pairs of the same model will vary slightly which rules out matching the voltage to match the volume and only leaves measuring SPL.  Since headphones already vary much more widely in their sound than amps and DACs do, the uncertainty introduced by using a less accurate method is usually swamped by the difference between the headphones themselves.
  
 If you're testing two different amp or DACs then level matching is much more important since, all else equal, the slightly louder one will be perceived and sounding better and lead to false positives.


----------



## cel4145

upstateguy said:


> Quick question:  If procedure [COLOR=0000FF]●*1*●[/COLOR] works for different headphones, why can't you use procedure [COLOR=0000FF]●*1*●[/COLOR] for matching the same headphone with different amps?




I would think it would be more reliable for volume matching amps to the same set of headphones over using it to volume match different headphones.


----------



## jodgey4

Would it be better to use a 1kHz test tone or pink or white noise in SPL matching? My intuition tells me pink is the best bet.


----------



## cel4145

jodgey4 said:


> Would it be better to use a 1kHz test tone or pink or white noise in SPL matching? My intuition tells me pink is the best bet.




+1

For headphones, definitely pink or white noise. For amps, it shouldn't matter, should it?


----------



## Dobrescu George

jodgey4 said:


> Would it be better to use a 1kHz test tone or pink or white noise in SPL matching? My intuition tells me pink is the best bet.


 
 SPL matching is done great with 1khz tone and pink and white noise. 
  
 A SPL meter should measure it no matter what.
  
 Considering that two headphones do not have the same frequency response, doing either will proove a erorr margin, so whatever you pick, it will still be with a margin of erorr.


----------



## maverickronin

cel4145 said:


> For headphones, definitely pink or white noise. For amps, it shouldn't matter, should it?


 
  
 If you're matching by output voltage you'll need to use a 50 or 60hz sine wave since only fancy and expensive multimeters will give a reliable AC RMS reading with anything else.


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> If you're matching by output voltage you'll need to use a 50 or 60hz sine wave since only fancy and expensive multimeters will give a reliable AC RMS reading with anything else.


 
 One only need it to be repeatable at the same frequency.


----------



## maverickronin

stand said:


> One only need it to be repeatable at the same frequency.


 
  
 Yeah, that's true.  Other pure tones may work too, depending on meter.
  
 I don't think pink noise would be very repeatable though...


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> Yeah, that's true.  Other pure tones may work too, depending on meter.
> 
> I don't think pink noise would be very repeatable though...


 
 Being random is should average out close enough.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Being random is should average out close enough.




Close enough? This is _audio_ we're talking about here. No such thing as close enough. 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Close enough? This is _audio_ we're talking about here. No such thing as close enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Like those guys that can hear 0.1 dB difference?


----------



## castleofargh

matching my IEMs is something I just gave up upon trying. often if the signature is relatively close it works ok-ish with a few different test tones or some noise. like matching the different cheap etymotics, they all have big sensi/impedance differences but the FR is close. for them it works nicely. 
 but trying to match my IE80 to an etymotic is more of a comedy than it is a test. I could match one frequency and still get more than 15db difference at another one, there is no point in ABing them in the first place.
 now objectively, the easy solution is to accept that the IE80 has no relation to anything remotely neutral and balanced(a compensation curve that would make them balanced doesn't exist just yet ^_^), and just dismiss it as crap even though they can be a lot of fun subjectively. but going at it that way, we wouldn't be left with many headphones to test ^_^.


----------



## cel4145

maverickronin said:


> If you're matching by output voltage you'll need to use a 50 or 60hz sine wave since only fancy and expensive multimeters will give a reliable AC RMS reading with anything else.




That makes sense. I was thinking use SPL meter to measure


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Like those guys that can hear 0.1 dB difference?




No. The ones that can hear the difference between 0.0001% copper and 0.00001% copper. 

se


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> No. The ones that can hear the difference between 0.0001% copper and 0.00001% copper.
> 
> se




I thought it has to have oil around the copper to make a difference?  :confused_face_2:

(I couldn't resist :atsmile: )


----------



## uchihaitachi

How would I go about connecting a laptop to an outboard DAC that only takes Coaxial, XLR and optical without any loss in fidelity?


----------



## dprimary

keithemo said:


> If you're recording something with a stereo pair of microphones, then, if those microphones aren't exactly matched in terms of frequency response, distortion, and phase, the image is going to "pull" to the left or right. Since any product, including microphones, is going to vary over time and production runs, if you want two microphones to be identical in all these characteristics, then they're going to need to be matched (and it most certainly won't_ hurt_ anything). Even if you had two microphones that were flat to a fraction of a dB (which would be pretty rare), if one has a peak where the other has a dip, they're not going to image perfectly. (Even if you buy two with sequential serial numbers, which many people seem to consider important, they could be made with the last capsule produced from "batch 11" and the first from "batch 12", which could be made with some slightly different part, or some production run change, or one could have had a part replaced during production testing which could be slightly different, so it does make sense to buy two that are actually matched.)
> 
> Now, if you're going to do full milti-tracking, where you aren't going to use a pair of stereo mics in stereo anyway, then it shouldn't matter nearly as much.At that point, it's simply a matter of consistency. However, as someone doing recording, even just being able to assume that two of your microphones that are supposedly the same _really_ sound identical without having to confirm it or adjust anything would still make life easier.


 

 Pulling a calibration file for one of my earthworks measurement microphones if only varies +- .2 dB out to 30kHz.
 I know one that we just had checked  was off a few dB starting around 26kHz but it has dropped a few times, I let the butterfingers techs keep using that one.
  
 I don't think earthworks can meet the temperature rating of a type 1 microphone.
  
 BK's have even better specs and stability but you have add a zero to the price.


----------



## bigshot

When I record, I usually use Neumann U87s. They are VERY consistent, but I would imagine that the companies that provide them keep close watch on them to make sure they keep in calibration.


----------



## dprimary

jodgey4 said:


> Would it be better to use a 1kHz test tone or pink or white noise in SPL matching? My intuition tells me pink is the best bet.


 

 Test tones. A sweep would be best, but good luck getting the response the same. Pink noise is random the level varies some as well. When you slow the averaging down far enough to average the variations out you are taking a few minutes.


----------



## dprimary

bigshot said:


> When I record, I usually use Neumann U87s. They are VERY consistent, but I would imagine that the companies that provide them keep close watch on them to make sure they keep in calibration.


 

 For U87's I would want a matched pair. They have been making them for something like 30 years at least. Two random ones could very a large amount.


----------



## Steve Eddy

cel4145 said:


> I thought it has to have oil around the copper to make a difference?  :confused_face_2:
> 
> (I couldn't resist :atsmile: )






se


----------



## sonitus mirus

uchihaitachi said:


> How would I go about connecting a laptop to an outboard DAC that only takes Coaxial, XLR and optical without any loss in fidelity?


 
  
 I think you are looking for a USB to Coaxial converter.
  
 Something like this product: http://www.amazon.com/Signstek-Coaxial-Converter-Decoder-Analogue/dp/B00FEDHHKE
  
 There are versions that can convert 24-bit/96kHz.
  
 I was looking to eliminate a nasty ground loop with my powered speakers, and I opted for cheap solution that worked out great for me.  I use a chromebook to stream music and output with USB to a Peavey DI box with XLR outputs.  The DAC specs are not wonderful, but it gets the job done.  Again, there are similar products that measure better. 
  
 If you are looking to connect to an amplifier with XLR inputs, you could go the DI box route.  This is what I am using: http://www.amazon.com/Peavey-USBP-USB-Audio-Interface/dp/B004A4PSEU


----------



## uchihaitachi

sonitus mirus said:


> I think you are looking for a USB to Coaxial converter.
> 
> Something like this product: http://www.amazon.com/Signstek-Coaxial-Converter-Decoder-Analogue/dp/B00FEDHHKE
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks for the response.
  
 Basically, I managed to get hold of a Benchmark DAC1 (classic the one without USB) at a crazy low price.
  
 So I am trying to figure out a way to get my laptop to have a coaxial output. I would like an option that wouldn't damage fidelity in anyway. Would be grateful for further feedback!


----------



## sonitus mirus

uchihaitachi said:


> Thanks for the response.
> 
> Basically, I managed to get hold of a Benchmark DAC1 (classic the one without USB) at a crazy low price.
> 
> So I am trying to figure out a way to get my laptop to have a coaxial output. I would like an option that wouldn't damage fidelity in anyway. Would be grateful for further feedback!


 
  
 This will do the trick for $14.  
  
 http://www.amazon.com/Syba-External-Adapter-Optical-SD-AUD20101/dp/B006SF68P2
  
 One of the reviewers was specifically using this product to do exactly what you are trying to accomplish.
  
 http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3BB4BZHSZVFXT/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B006SF68P2


----------



## uchihaitachi

sonitus mirus said:


> This will do the trick for $14.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Syba-External-Adapter-Optical-SD-AUD20101/dp/B006SF68P2
> 
> ...


 
 Slight problem, I will need it to support 192khz (I know there is no sound difference), but I wanted it to run some tests!
  
 Also, am I correct in thinking that a USB to Coaxial output is strictly digital, and therefore unless the product is completely faulty, there shouldn't be any degradation in the fidelity?


----------



## StanD

uchihaitachi said:


> Slight problem, I will need it to support 192khz (I know there is no sound difference), but I wanted it to run some tests!
> 
> Also, am I correct in thinking that a USB to Coaxial output is strictly digital, and therefore unless the product is completely faulty, there shouldn't be any degradation in the fidelity?


 
 Yes it is digital. If end up with a ground loop, optical can solve that.
 Another option, I got one of these last year:
 NuForce U192S Asynchronous USB to SPDIF Converter

USB 2.0 audio to S/PDIF converter
Coaxial S/PDIF output and Optical TOSLINK output
16 or 24 bit resolution
44.1, 48, 96, 176.4, and 192 kHz sampling rates supported
USB-powered; no external power supply required


----------



## uchihaitachi

stand said:


> Yes it is digital. If end up with a ground loop, optical can solve that.
> Another option, I got one of these last year:
> NuForce U192S Asynchronous USB to SPDIF Converter
> 
> ...




Could you possibly explain what you mean by it's ground loop and optical can solve that? 

I presume the other USB to Coaxial output that is selling for crazy amounts is purely snakeoil?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

-sorry wrong post!


----------



## dprimary

analogsurviver said:


> It is "questionable" what linear is. For high frequencies, it will mean SMALL diameter diaphragm - or else polar pattern will be anything but good - more important than a few dB off on axis in real life.
> 
> Microphone measurements are the most tedious and expensive. TBH - only manufacturers - and their agents (in case of Bruel & Kjaer/DPA ) are truly qualified to measure them. In the whole history of the home audio press, there was 1 ( in a word : one ) comparative review of microphones published in England - early 80s IIRC.
> And that one review blew the budget of the magazine for all measurements for one year... - no wonder there were (next to ?) none repetitions I am aware of.
> ...


 

 I have always A-B'd microphones in recording to select which will work best, then make finer adjustments on the ones I select. Often I am surprised at the ones I chose. I few times I ended with ones I would have never picked. But in that certain room they worked really well. 
  
 Some recording microphones have a boost starting around 10kHz. above 8kHz the sound pressure losses can start to be a problem even in a small concert hall. 22C air at 15% RH has a 1dB loss at only 4kHz at 10 meters.  4k is .105 dB/m 20k is .333 dB/m 30k is close to a half a dB per meter at .450 dB/m. At 10k with microphones only 10 meters away you are already down 2.5dB and 3.3dB at 20kHz. This does not count the reduced reverb time in the higher frequencies.


----------



## dprimary

uchihaitachi said:


> Thanks for the response.
> 
> Basically, I managed to get hold of a Benchmark DAC1 (classic the one without USB) at a crazy low price.
> 
> So I am trying to figure out a way to get my laptop to have a coaxial output. I would like an option that wouldn't damage fidelity in anyway. Would be grateful for further feedback!


 
 Here is a list of them
  
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/USB_SPDIF.htm


----------



## uchihaitachi

dprimary said:


> Here is a list of them
> 
> http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/USB_SPDIF.htm




Sadly not many reviews and even less specifications. Any advice on making an educated choice?


----------



## bigshot

dprimary said:


> For U87's I would want a matched pair. They have been making them for something like 30 years at least. Two random ones could very a large amount.


 

 The studios I use provide them. I don't have mikes of my own. They probably buy matched pairs, maybe even matched sets for each studio.


----------



## dprimary

uchihaitachi said:


> Sadly not many reviews and even less specifications. Any advice on making an educated choice?


 
 Cut out the ones that don't met your requirements (os and 192k) cut out ones are beyond what you will be willing to pay and look at what is left then look for reviews on those.


----------



## analogsurviver

dprimary said:


> I have always A-B'd microphones in recording to select which will work best, then make finer adjustments on the ones I select. Often I am surprised at the ones I chose. I few times I ended with ones I would have never picked. But in that certain room they worked really well.
> 
> Some recording microphones have a boost starting around 10kHz. above 8kHz the sound pressure losses can start to be a problem even in a small concert hall. 22C air at 15% RH has a 1dB loss at only 4kHz at 10 meters.  4k is .105 dB/m 20k is .333 dB/m 30k is close to a half a dB per meter at .450 dB/m. At 10k with microphones only 10 meters away you are already down 2.5dB and 3.3dB at 20kHz. This does not count the reduced reverb time in the higher frequencies.


 
 A great post. By someone who obviously actually has practical experience with recording. I have not gone to the lengths of  temperature and RH ( sometimes, we are forced to record in unheated remote churches, even during winter, close to 0C air - or even below,  because of their good acoustic properties and  location away from the road or railroad; the practical PITA is how to wind the cables that get very hard in so low temperatures, apply some reasonable "internal heating", etc - despite wearing the clothes and shoes fit for mountaineering ... ) - in described conditions, it is keeping the morale up that comes first. But your figures are absolutely correct.
 Keep up the good work !


----------



## dprimary

I have other extreme 22C would mean we cooled the room all day. It will be in 40-45 range in a few weeks. Hopefully you don't have to record in churches with domes. There has been times I would swear there was violins 20 meters in the air behind me, domes are always a battle


----------



## analogsurviver

Sorry - double post.


----------



## StanD

uchihaitachi said:


> Could you possibly explain what you mean by it's ground loop and optical can solve that?
> 
> I presume the other USB to Coaxial output that is selling for crazy amounts is purely snakeoil?


 
 A ground loop can form when a device gets ground through an input be it a USB or line input as well as the powerline and or via its output. This causes varying current to flow between the devices and causes noise. An optical connection does not use electricity to convey the signal thus there is no ground connection on that path to potentially form a loop with that path. There are also USB isolators that use optical coupling that can possibly help, I've recommended this to someone in the past and it worked. If one has a ground loop there are other simpler things to try before getting more stuff.


----------



## stv014

On the other hand, coaxial (rather than optical) S/PDIF is not isolated, and is therefore not protected from ground loops. The expensive USB to coaxial S/PDIF converters claim to reduce jitter, and may or may not implement isolation as well. In other words, they are indeed likely to be snake oil, as jitter is not normally audible with a DAC of any reasonable quality. Optical S/PDIF may have higher - but still inaudible - jitter than coaxial, that is why the converters use the latter, as the people buying them tend to worry more about jitter than ground loops.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *uchihaitachi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Basically, I managed to get hold of a Benchmark DAC1 (classic the one without USB) at a crazy low price.
> 
> So I am trying to figure out a way to get my laptop to have a coaxial output. I would like an option that wouldn't damage fidelity in anyway. Would be grateful for further feedback!


 
  
 Your laptop may already have optical S/PDIF output. It is just often shared with one of the 1/8" TRS connectors to save space.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Unfortunately it doesnt 

If you were in my position, use a benchmark dac1 with a converter or get the benchmark dac1 usb for a slight premium 150USD more, what would you go for?


----------



## StanD

uchihaitachi said:


> Unfortunately it doesnt
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 You might want to look into a Schiit Bifrost Uber USB DAC. It has all 3 inputs, sounds great and costs less.


----------



## sonitus mirus

uchihaitachi said:


> Unfortunately it doesnt
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 If you are set on getting the DAC1, get the version with the USB.  This device would certainly be the end game for almost everyone, so you may as well future-proof it by getting one with the most options available.  It will also make it easier to sell once you come to your senses and use a $50 DAC later.


----------



## lamode

dobrescu george said:


> I can hear ultrasonics btw.


 
  
 No you can't, by definition, hear ultrasonics.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> No you can't, by definition, hear ultrasonics.


 
 Some people can. I know of a person who could hear to 24 kHz - pure sine wave. But this is exceptional hearing.


----------



## Dobrescu George

lamode said:


> No you can't, by definition, hear ultrasonics.


 
 Sorry, i cannot, i can hear what is considered ultrasonics by some engineering books.. they consider that 16-20Khz is ultrasonics, for some reason. 
  
 This explains loud noises i hear sometimes in carrefour, near some devices for checking prices. it is quite disturbing.,


----------



## StanD

dobrescu george said:


> Sorry, i cannot, i can hear what is considered ultrasonics by some engineering books.. they consider that 16-20Khz is ultrasonics, for some reason.
> 
> This explains loud noises i hear sometimes in carrefour, near some devices for checking prices. it is quite disturbing.,


 
 If you consider audible sounds as sonic as in something a human can hear, what would you think that *ultra*sonic means?


----------



## Dobrescu George

stand said:


> If you consider audible sounds as sonic as in something a human can hear, what would you think that *ultra*sonic means?


 
 well... the people who made the defectoscopy meter thought that 16 khz is ultrasonic...
  
 I personally consider ultrasonic anything above 24-28Khz, but because i think that there are people who can hear until those ranges. 
  
 Of course, i might be wrong.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dobrescu george said:


> well... the people who made the defectoscopy meter thought that 16 khz is ultrasonic...
> 
> I personally consider ultrasonic anything above 24-28Khz, but because i think that there are people who can hear until those ranges.
> 
> Of course, i might be wrong.




Let's for the moment say that there are.

At what levels?

If you're familiar with the equal loudness curves, you'll see that our hearing is least sensitive at the extremes, meaning that frequencies at the low end and the high end need to be louder compared to mid frequencies to be heard. And at the high end, sensitivity drops pretty quickly.

Now consider the spectral makeup of real instruments. Certainly no instrument has a fundamental in that range, only harmonics. And those harmonics drop off pretty quickly with increasing frequency.

So given this, and our decreased sensitivity at high frequencies, and given the loudness of the fundamentals, are there any instuments that produce harmonics at those frequencies that would be sufficicient to be audible even to those who may have some sensitivity up to 24-28 kHz?

se


----------



## StanD

dobrescu george said:


> well... the people who made the defectoscopy meter thought that 16 khz is ultrasonic...
> 
> I personally consider ultrasonic anything above 24-28Khz, but because i think that there are people who can hear until those ranges.
> 
> Of course, i might be wrong.


 
 By definition ultrasonic is above audible give it up already. You are not doing a good job of mincing words.


----------



## KeithEmo

ruben123 said:


> OK, I would have guessed the ''perceived headstage'' of audioplayers like the Sansa could be explained by that... BUT if the differences are quite small and -88 is already really good I think it has nothing to do with the ''headstage'' differences between audio players.
> 
> So how could the Sansa's headstage be small then, ignoring placebo.


 
  
 I would have to disagree entirely there. The "cost" of having too much crosstalk is that you can't have a sound appear in one side and not the other. While someone may record a sound in only one channel on a test disc, this simply doesn't happen in real life, and it wouldn't matter anyway (you've surely never heard a situation with speakers where sound from the left speaker couldn't reach your right ear at all - unless you put your head in a hole in the wall with each ear in a different room - and most people complain that headphones have too much separation). In reality, any system with a separation of 30 dB or 40 dB or more is going to reproduce any actual music you have just fine....  at least as far as channel separation.
  
 When you talk about imaging and sound stage, the most critical factor is almost certainly phase response (between different frequencies in each channel, and between the channels at various frequencies), since timing and phase are what our brains mostly use to figure out where something is apparently located.


----------



## cjl

keithemo said:


> I would have to disagree entirely there. The "cost" of having too much crosstalk is that you can't have a sound appear in one side and not the other. While someone may record a sound in only one channel on a test disc, this simply doesn't happen in real life


 
 Sadly, this isn't entirely true. Some recordings (especially classic rock) hard pan sounds to one side, to my great annoyance. They're OK on speakers, but near unlistenable on headphones. Of course, this isn't the kind of thing that would be helped by better channel separation.


----------



## maverickronin

cjl said:


> Sadly, this isn't entirely true. Some recordings (especially classic rock) hard pan sounds to one side, to my great annoyance. They're OK on speakers, but near unlistenable on headphones. Of course, this isn't the kind of thing that would be helped by better channel separation.


 
  
DSPs to the rescue.
  
Alternatively...


----------



## KeithEmo

uchihaitachi said:


> Slight problem, I will need it to support 192khz (I know there is no sound difference), but I wanted it to run some tests!
> 
> Also, am I correct in thinking that a USB to Coaxial output is strictly digital, and therefore unless the product is completely faulty, there shouldn't be any degradation in the fidelity?


 
  
 Yes - and no.
  
 A digital audio signal consists of data and a clock. Unless, as you say, it's completely faulty, a USB-to-S/PDIF converter should be able to convert the data without losing or altering any of the bits. This leaves the clock.... and any variations in timing it might have - like jitter. In the old days, many USB devices, including converters, used USB isochronous mode, which allows the computer to provide the output clock for your USB data. Because of the way USB works, in this mode, the output jitter is often so bad that it exceeds even the ridiculously high numbers that "jitter doubters" agree are audible. Luckily, most modern DACs and converters use asynchronous USB mode, where the clocking is controlled by the DAC or converter instead of the computer, and the jitter should remain within reasonable levels. (Benchmark DACs are immune to jitter anyway, so it shouldn't matter anyway.)
  
 However, some DACs are not immune to jitter and, with them, at least some of us are convinced that we can hear the difference between converters that have good jitter specs and those that do not. (Again, since the Benchmark has its own jitter removal circuitry built in, this should definitely not be an issue with it.)


----------



## uchihaitachi

sonitus mirus said:


> If you are set on getting the DAC1, get the version with the USB.  This device would certainly be the end game for almost everyone, so you may as well future-proof it by getting one with the most options available.  It will also make it easier to sell once you come to your senses and use a $50 DAC later.


 
 I know it's inaudible but I was offered the DAC1 at such a good price. Can't resist the temptation!


----------



## KeithEmo

uchihaitachi said:


> Could you possibly explain what you mean by it's ground loop and optical can solve that?
> 
> I presume the other USB to Coaxial output that is selling for crazy amounts is purely snakeoil?


 
  
 The electrical ground on computer power supplies is notoriously noisy. Since USB DACs and USB-powered converters run on the computer's electrical system, sometimes this ground noise can leak into the analog circuitry (you hear funny little noises, and sometimes you can actually "hear" what's happening on the computer screen). The way to eliminate or prevent this is to electrically isolate the ground on the computer from your audio system. Since Toslink connections are optical, and so don't have a ground connection at all, as long as your audio is passing through a Toslink connection, it will be isolated, and so immune to this problem. The Coax and other inputs on many devices are also electrically isolated, but not all, and many USB connections are not.
  
 While a lot of the fancy USB audio gadgets are indeed snake oil, and that's especially true for fancy USB audio cables, some of the higher-end converters do have jitter specs that measure far better than the lower cost ones. So, in terms of measured electrical performance, you are sometimes getting something for your money. As usual, some folks find there to be an audible difference, while others insist that there is not. (Since some DACs, like the Benchmark models, have circuitry that renders them immune to jitter, while the sensitivity of other DACs to jitter may depend on specifics of their design, it's not unreasonable to expect some DACs to be affected a lot more by jitter than others.)


----------



## cjl

keithemo said:


> Yes - and no.
> 
> A digital audio signal consists of data and a clock. Unless, as you say, it's completely faulty, a USB-to-S/PDIF converter should be able to convert the data without losing or altering any of the bits. This leaves the clock.... and any variations in timing it might have - like jitter. In the old days, many USB devices, including converters, used USB isochronous mode, which allows the computer to provide the output clock for your USB data. Because of the way USB works, in this mode, the output jitter is often so bad that it exceeds even the ridiculously high numbers that "jitter doubters" agree are audible


 
 I'd be curious to see a source for that - I was under the impression that even isochronous dacs can have jitter levels way below anything that would be remotely audible.


----------



## KeithEmo

uchihaitachi said:


> Unfortunately it doesnt
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Considering that even a cheap converter that goes up to 24/192 is going to cost between $50 and $200 or so, and it will be an extra box and an extra cable to find homes for, I'd spend the extra $150 to get it all in one box. (Besides, as someone else already said, the resale value on a DAC without a USB input isn't going to be nearly as good if you do decide to sell it later.... and, besides all that, not all converters work all that well, and I would expect the USB section build into the Benchmark to be pretty good.)
  
 (Also, as someone else suggested, you might also want to look at a Schiit Audio Bifrost.....    )


----------



## KeithEmo

stv014 said:


> On the other hand, coaxial (rather than optical) S/PDIF is not isolated, and is therefore not protected from ground loops. The expensive USB to coaxial S/PDIF converters claim to reduce jitter, and may or may not implement isolation as well. In other words, they are indeed likely to be snake oil, as jitter is not normally audible with a DAC of any reasonable quality. Optical S/PDIF may have higher - but still inaudible - jitter than coaxial, that is why the converters use the latter, as the people buying them tend to worry more about jitter than ground loops.


 
  
 Actually, you've got to read the specs - many Coax inputs are in fact isolated, usually by coupling transformers (although certainly not all of them).


----------



## dprimary

uchihaitachi said:


> Unfortunately it doesnt
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I would just pay more for the USB version. One less thing to go wrong.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> The electrical ground on computer power supplies is notoriously noisy.




It's not so much the ground as much as it is the interchassis currents caused by the fault return path (that third pin on the IEC).

se


----------



## dprimary

stand said:


> You might want to look into a Schiit Bifrost Uber USB DAC. It has all 3 inputs, sounds great and costs less.


 

 The Bifrost is a completely different class of equipment from the Benchmark. Schiit is great sound low price, designed for home use. Benchmark is balanced, rack mountable. I buy gear from Schiit pretty often, but I don't view it as a professional equipment.


----------



## StanD

dprimary said:


> The Bifrost is a completely different class of equipment from the Benchmark. Schiit is great sound low price, maybe not so stable and tends to sensitive to RF. Benchmark is balanced, rack mountable. I buy gear from Schiit pretty often, but I would not put in a studio or connect it to a large sound system.


 
 Most good products produce sound far better then we can tell the difference. The marketing teams know how to stir up audiophiles so a message to your wallet, Caveat Emptor.


----------



## cjl

dprimary said:


> The Bifrost is a completely different class of equipment from the Benchmark. Schiit is great sound low price, designed for home use. Benchmark is balanced, rack mountable. I buy gear from Schiit pretty often, but I don't view it as a professional equipment.


 
 EDIT: quote updated to reflect dprimary's edit.
  
 To respond to the new quote, I agree that the Benchmark has some benefits for studio/professional use. I wouldn't expect it to sound any different though.


----------



## StanD

cjl said:


> What makes you say that it isn't stable and sensitive to RF? Have you got any test results demonstrating this?


 
 This is the world of the audiophile, hearsay and anecdote have far too much weight


----------



## KeithEmo

cjl said:


> I'd be curious to see a source for that - I was under the impression that even isochronous dacs can have jitter levels way below anything that would be remotely audible.


 
  
 Personally, before we even get to the usual discussion about what someone is dead certain someone else can't possibly hear, I think this one is simply "a loss on points". Faced with a choice between having the computer create a clock that is approximately correct, adaptively based on buffer capacity, and may vary with hardware and software load, or having the receiving device control the clock, based on an actual local clock, generated at the point where it will be used, the latter is simply better engineering. Since the price difference is only a few dollars, I see no reason to choose to use the less accurate method - even though, according to some people, the serious flaws that exist may not be audible. Asynchronous is simply the "right" way to do a USB interface and, since it only costs a few bucks more to do it that way than the wrong way, it's really a no-brainer.
  
 (It's really not so bad to pay $10 extra for a better design - even if it turns out that not everyone can actually hear a difference.)


----------



## dprimary

cjl said:


> What makes you say that it isn't stable and sensitive to RF? Have you got any test results demonstrating this?


 

 The ones sitting on my desk. I've contacted their support about it who told me move the radio sources.


----------



## StanD

dprimary said:


> The ones sitting on my desk. I've contacted their support about it who told me move the radio sources.


 
 I have a Bifrost sitting next to a Wifi transmitter, laptop, tablet and smartphone. No problemo.


----------



## cjl

keithemo said:


> (It's really not so bad to pay $10 extra for a better design - even if it turns out that not everyone can actually hear a difference.)


 
 Ahh, but what if nobody could ever hear the difference, and the real-world results are such that you're already way below the theshold of audibility with the cheaper design? In that case, I'd just as soon save the ten bucks. That's why I'm curious what the real-world numbers say.
  
 (Also, if I remember right, isn't the ODAC isochronous?)


----------



## dprimary

stand said:


> Most good products produce sound far better then we can tell the difference. The marketing teams know how to stir up audiophiles so a message to your wallet, Caveat Emptor.


 
 There are other factors then just sound quality in audio ( don't care about audiophiles) stable, linear, interfaces well, no pin 1 issues, doesn't care about power, can get dropped off a truck and then driven over and still work is equally valuable. Great sound and working always beats excellent sound if it worked. Something like Benchmark I would expect to work sitting on a microwave under a pile of phones in the transmitter room of a radio station, that is part of what I am paying for.
  
 Only a handful of equipment is used in both professional and consumer audio.


----------



## StanD

dprimary said:


> *Retracted*


 
*Retracted* as requested


----------



## dprimary

stand said:


> I have a xxxxxxx sitting next to a Wifi transmitter, laptop, tablet and smartphone. No problemo.


 
 I will contact them again. Please edit out my last few comments that mention the product.


----------



## KeithEmo

cjl said:


> Ahh, but what if nobody could ever hear the difference, and the real-world results are such that you're already way below the theshold of audibility with the cheaper design? In that case, I'd just as soon save the ten bucks. That's why I'm curious what the real-world numbers say.
> 
> (Also, if I remember right, isn't the ODAC isochronous?)


 
  
 Interesting question. I have a $20 Casio watch that keeps time just as accurately as a $100k Rolex - but many Rolex owners seem to find other reasons to buy one. Likewise, there is something aesthetically pleasing about proper engineering in terms of performance (so some of us might pay a little more for something that worked better even if the difference wasn't audible). Buying a piece of audio gear that's "just as bad as it can be and still not be audibly bad" does seem to feel a little bit like going out of the way to buy a loaf of bread that's only one day from its use-by date instead of a week away; I really can't see much harm in buying something that offers a little bit of safety margin as long as the cost isn't very much higher.... as long as it's clear what I'm paying for.
  
 I do believe that the 0DAC is isochronous. However, note that the Sabre DAC chip - which it uses - also has built-in jitter reduction mechanisms. I also find it interesting that you mention the 0DAC. I've had one for quite a while and, while I would say it sounds pretty good, and is certainly competitive in its price range, I would not by any means say that it sounds "indistinguishable from other DACs", or that it is "audibly perfect".


----------



## uchihaitachi

keithemo said:


> Interesting question. I have a $20 Casio watch that keeps time just as accurately as a $100k Rolex - but many Rolex owners seem to find other reasons to buy one. Likewise, there is something aesthetically pleasing about proper engineering in terms of performance (so some of us might pay a little more for something that worked better even if the difference wasn't audible). Buying a piece of audio gear that's "just as bad as it can be and still not be audibly bad" does seem to feel a little bit like going out of the way to buy a loaf of bread that's only one day from its use-by date instead of a week away; I really can't see much harm in buying something that offers a little bit of safety margin as long as the cost isn't very much higher.... as long as it's clear what I'm paying for.
> 
> I do believe that the 0DAC is isochronous. However, note that the Sabre DAC chip - which it uses - also has built-in jitter reduction mechanisms. I also find it interesting that you mention the 0DAC. I've had one for quite a while and, while I would say it sounds pretty good, and is certainly competitive in its price range, I would not by any means say that it sounds "indistinguishable from other DACs", or that it is "audibly perfect".


 
 Blind tests couldn't tell an ODAC+O2 apart from a the Benchmark DAC2 HGC


----------



## KeithEmo

uchihaitachi said:


> Blind tests couldn't tell an ODAC+O2 apart from a the Benchmark DAC2 HGC


 
  
 Interesting that you compare it to another DAC that also uses a Sabre chip 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I've never heard the DAC2 HGC personally, although I did own an original DAC1 USB and a DAC1 Pre, and they sounded a bit different than the 0DAC.
 (Also interesting that the DAC1 line didn't use Sabre chips, but Benchmark switched over for the DAC2 line..... )


----------



## bigshot

I did a comparison between a $40 Walmart DVD player, an iPod classic and a $900 SACD player and they all sounded identical.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> I did a comparison between a $40 Walmart DVD player, an iPod classic and a $900 SACD player and they all sounded identical.


 
 Well, I'm sorry if you had any preconceptions, hahahaha.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Well, I'm sorry if you had any preconceptions, hahahaha.




You know the "Welcome to HeadFi. Sorry about your wallet" saying? 

Maybe we should have one for here. "Welcome to Sound Science. Sorry about your preconceptions." 

EDIT: Just made it my signature.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> You know the "Welcome to HeadFi. Sorry about your wallet" saying?
> 
> Maybe we should have one for here. "Welcome to Sound Science. Sorry about your preconceptions."
> 
> ...


 
 I was teasing BigShot as that is his signature. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 He beat you to it.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> I was teasing BigShot as that is his signature.   He beat you to it.




I knew that. 

se


----------



## cel4145

dprimary said:


> There are other factors then just sound quality in audio ( don't care about audiophiles) stable, linear, interfaces well, no pin 1 issues, doesn't care about power, can get dropped off a truck and then driven over and still work is equally valuable. Great sound and working always beats excellent sound if it worked. *Something like Benchmark I would expect to work sitting on a microwave under a pile of phones in the transmitter room of a radio station, that is part of what I am paying for.*




And how do you know that? Anecdotal evidence? Instinct based on brand loyalty? Reputation (we know how well that one works)?

Not saying it's not true, but I know that I have biases that make me attribute durability and reliability to products that quite possibly don't deserve it.


----------



## dprimary

I would start with EMC standards it has passed. Past performance of the brand, to a lesser extent reputation. Talk to people that have used it in the the same function, and when I have to push equipment to the limits of its specifications talk to the manufacturer about the device's limits and will they support it even when running on the edge of the capabilities.
  
 Sometimes we have to get samples and test it ourselves.  That would be another difference in professional equipment and consumer. While it is not unheard of the to get detailed specifications and support for a use that pushes the limits of a consumer device, the manufacturers of professional equipment have support for that and are expecting it.


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> I did a comparison between a $40 Walmart DVD player, an iPod classic and a $900 SACD player and they all sounded identical.


 
  
 ... to you... under whatever unspecified test conditions you used...
  
 Just curious - but what _were_ your _test conditions_?
  
 What speakers were you using? And what amplifier? And what was your music source? And how good is your hearing? (Don't get mad; I have to ask. A good buddy of mine used to work as a machinist, and his hearing is rather damaged, so he probably wouldn't hear the difference no matter what.) I wouldn't hope to hear a difference either - if I was listening through a $99 pair of speakers, or a $19 pair of iPod earbuds, or if I was listening to a badly recorded disc (or maybe a compressed piece of iTunes audio).
  
 It's also true that all of the "players" you mentioned probably at least rise to the level of "pretty good". This means that, if you were to play a compressed version of someone's latest pop tune that you bought from the iTunes store on each, I wouldn't bet I could hear the difference either. And, if we were to limit that to using a pair of $99 Beats headphones, then I'd bet against hearing any difference myself. It's also true that, if you were to play all three through a pair of $1000 electrostatic headphones instead, the difference between those headphones and the Beats ones would be so huge that it would be a lot more obvious than any difference between the sources. I also wouldn't necessarily expect "a $900 SACD player" to sound better than either of the others - because I wouldn't generalize that all $900 SACD players sound especially good. However, failing to discern a difference under several different conditions is _NOT_ at all the same as "proving" that no such difference exists under _ANY_ conditions.
  
 I have owned an iPod classic, and, at least with some source material, I most certainly can hear a significant (to me) difference between how the output of that iPod sounds and how the same material sounds when played through the output of any one of several DACs that I own. (And, since the DACs I'm referring to have better specs than the iPod, and their manufacturers haven't been accused of lying about those specs, I'm forced to conclude that the specs on the iPod are _NOT_ "good enough to be audibly perfect".)
   
I think the problem a lot of people seem to have with some of these discussions is in differentiating between "significant differences", "audible differences", and "important differences".

  
 If you're listening to an iPod classic using the $20 ear buds it came with, then buying a new pair of headphones is most certainly going to make a much bigger difference than spending an equal amount of money on a better DAC (bearing in mind that a $200 DAC may not even _BE _better than the one in your iPod anyway). Likewise, if you buy all your music from iTunes, because you find the convenience to be more significant to you than the fact that they compress everything, then it probably wouldn't make sense _to you_ to start buying CDs or high-res music downloads.
  
 I'm belaboring this point because the semantic differences I mentioned often seem to "bleed" into various surveys which are intended to "prove" something - and are a lot of the reason why studies so often disagree. If you were to "stop some people on the street", play a WAV file and an MP3 file for them on an iPod, through a $100 pair of headphones, and ask them "if they heard any difference", the answer you would get from most of them wouldn't be an accurate answer to that question - instead they would be answering "whether they heard a significant difference". In other words, they're going to tell you "if they heard a difference _THAT THEY THOUGHT WAS WORTH MENTIONING_".
  
 (Try the same test - only do it as an ABX test - where they get to hear the MP3, the WAV, and then an unknown which they must try to identify.... only this time offer each subject $100 if they can identify the unknown correctly a statistically significant percentage of the time.... and I'll bet you would get a very different percentage of correct answers. The reason, obviously, being that you've given them a significant motivation to listen carefully, and to ignore how significant or important they consider the difference to be, and to concentrate on whether it exists. In short, you've given them plenty of incentive to actually do their best to see if they can hear a difference or not - rather than just respond "they both sound OK to me".)
  
 Now, semantic trivialities aside, you may reasonably argue that, if they have to try that hard to hear a difference then it isn't_ important_.... however, that wasn't the original question.


----------



## cel4145

keithemo said:


> I think the problem a lot of people seem to have with some of these discussions is in differentiating between "significant differences", "audible differences", and "important differences".
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, semantic trivialities aside, you may reasonably argue that, if they have to try that hard to hear a difference then it isn't _important_.... however, that wasn't the original question.




You are right about the difference in semantics. For me personally, when it comes to audio electronics, I'm just looking for "significant" differences because my goal is to listen to music. If it's not significant to me, then I might as well invest in better headphones/speakers to improve my music listening experience


----------



## cjl

keithemo said:


> I do believe that the 0DAC is isochronous. However, note that the Sabre DAC chip - which it uses - also has built-in jitter reduction mechanisms. I also find it interesting that you mention the 0DAC. I've had one for quite a while and, while I would say it sounds pretty good, and is certainly competitive in its price range, I would not by any means say that it sounds "indistinguishable from other DACs", or that it is "audibly perfect".


 
 All of the measurements and blind tests I've seen indicate that it should be audibly perfect, and I tend to believe data over random anecdotes. If you can show that you did a level-matched blind test and were able to distinguish it from another DAC (and the other DAC didn't have any obvious flaws in its performance), that would mean something.
  
 As for your rolex comparison? That's actually fairly accurate, in my opinion. If someone buys a $50k tube amp (or something like that) because they like feeling like they have a symbol of opulence or prestige, and because they like the way it looks, and how the tubes glow when it's on, that's fine with me. Those are valid reasons for liking a product. It's when they try to claim that it sounds objectively better than a $1k solid state amp that I take issue - just like I would take issue with someone trying to claim their Rolex as the pinnacle of chronological stability and accuracy. There's nothing wrong with liking Rolexes (or high end audio gear), but don't claim it's because of its' technical performance unless you can back that up with data.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> Just curious - but what _were_ your _test conditions_?


 
  
 Level matched, direct A/B switchable, single blind on three different systems- headphones, my main speaker rig and the rig of a sound mixer friend of mine. We did a test between SACD and CD too the same way. Same results. That's good enough for my use. Everyone should do it for themselves. A lot of people would be very surprised about what they can't hear.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bigshot said:


> keithemo said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious - but what _were_ your _test conditions_?
> ...


 

 ...really?


----------



## bigshot

Yes, a sound mixer friend of mine was interested so I set up the test files. The hardest part was finding an SACD that had the same mastering on both the redbook layer and the SACD layer. Also, the SACD player wouldn't switch layers without a huge delay, so we had to compare two disks in two different machines... the Philips SACD player and the cheap CD player.
  
 I guess most people figure testing stuff is too much of a hassle. It did take back and forth over several days to do all of that. But I'm confident that the results reflect the reality of the situation and are good enough for me to move forward with. That was my purpose. I was beginning to build a music server and I wanted to see what it required to put together a system that would sound as good as possible.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bigshot said:


> Yes, a sound mixer friend of mine was interested so I set up the test files. The hardest part was finding an SACD that had the same mastering on both the redbook layer and the SACD layer. Also, the SACD player wouldn't switch layers without a huge delay, so we had to compare two disks in two different machines... the Philips SACD player and the cheap CD player.


 

 ...and the SACD sounded much better I hope... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 transparent???


----------



## bigshot

AAC256 = redbook = SACD
 $40 Walmart CD player = midrange Yamaha CD player = iPod Classic = $900 Philips SACD player
  
 I did a few different combinations of equipment, but it always came out the same. And since then I have tested the iPod against my Sony midrange blu-ray player and an Oppo BDP-103D and got the same results.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bigshot said:


> AAC256 = redbook = SACD
> 
> I did a few different combinations of equipment, but it always came out the same.


 

 DON'T SAY!!!!


----------



## KeithEmo

cjl said:


> All of the measurements and blind tests I've seen indicate that it should be audibly perfect, and I tend to believe data over random anecdotes. If you can show that you did a level-matched blind test and were able to distinguish it from another DAC (and the other DAC didn't have any obvious flaws in its performance), that would mean something.
> 
> As for your rolex comparison? That's actually fairly accurate, in my opinion. If someone buys a $50k tube amp (or something like that) because they like feeling like they have a symbol of opulence or prestige, and because they like the way it looks, and how the tubes glow when it's on, that's fine with me. Those are valid reasons for liking a product. It's when they try to claim that it sounds objectively better than a $1k solid state amp that I take issue - just like I would take issue with someone trying to claim their Rolex as the pinnacle of chronological stability and accuracy. There's nothing wrong with liking Rolexes (or high end audio gear), but don't claim it's because of its' technical performance unless you can back that up with data.


 
  
 I do have an interesting question for you... since you are the one making the "positive assertion" here (that "all good DACs sound the same"). Have you actually compared the 0Dac to other DACs, double-blind or otherwise, or are you just accepting other people's claims about what specifications are and are not audible?
  
 I might suggest you find a DAC that uses the Wolfson 8741 chip. That chip includes several different internal digital filters, and offers the ability to switch between them using a simple hardware switch - so many DACs that use it give you a front panel switch to switch between filters (and, by flipping the switch, the only thing you're changing is that internal filter). Regardless of whether you suspect Wolfson of deliberately "fiddling" with things to artificially produce audible differences, the fact remains that different filters, all with THD low enough that it should be inaudible, and frequency responses flat enough that any variations there should also be inaudible, nevertheless do manage to somehow sound different. This clearly proves that there's something else that constitutes an audible difference between them - which disproved your claim that no such difference can exist.
  
 (I don't know who's producing DAcs using the Wolfson lately - but AudioG*D used to make several reasonably priced ones.....


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> I might suggest you find a DAC that uses the Wolfson 8741 chip.


 
  
 I'm pretty sure that one of the iPods I tested with had a Wolfson chip in it. The filters weren't adjustable though. I wouldn't be surprised if optional filters did actually make a measurable and audible difference in the range of human hearing though. That's kind of the purpose of giving options, isn't it? I know some people prefer a smoother wider rolloff at the top end to give a "warm analogue sound" as opposed to keeping it flat up to beyond the range of human hearing and then filtering up there were it can't be heard.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> I do have an interesting question for you... since you are the one making the "positive assertion" here (that "all good DACs sound the same").




That's funny. I can't find that phrase in his post. Yet you use quotation marks.

I think you're being rather disingenuous here.

se


----------



## cel4145

keithemo said:


> I might suggest you find a DAC that uses the Wolfson 8741 chip. That chip includes several different internal digital filters, and offers the ability to switch between them using a simple hardware switch - so many DACs that use it give you a front panel switch to switch between filters (and, by flipping the switch, the only thing you're changing is that internal filter). Regardless of whether you suspect Wolfson of deliberately "fiddling" with things to artificially produce audible differences, *the fact remains that different filters, all with THD low enough that it should be inaudible, and frequency responses flat enough that any variations there should also be inaudible, nevertheless do manage to somehow sound different.* This clearly proves that there's something else that constitutes an audible difference between them - which disproved your claim that no such difference can exist.




I didn't follow everything you wrote earlier. But did you establish that this claim is based on ABX testing? Or just what you perceive as different in sighted listening tests? And if so, with the ODAC?


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> Level matched, direct A/B switchable, single blind on three different systems- headphones, my main speaker rig and the rig of a sound mixer friend of mine. We did a test between SACD and CD too the same way. Same results. That's good enough for my use. Everyone should do it for themselves. A lot of people would be very surprised about what they can't hear.


 
  
 Cool, and that would certainly be sufficient for an individual to determine if the differences were audible in their system (which should be plenty if you're deciding what to buy).
  
 However, I was looking for more specific information. For example, I find the differences between my various DACs to be clearly audible with my Koss ESP950's (electrostatic headphones - which include their own headphone amplifier and accept line level inputs), and on my Airmotiv 5 powered monitors, yet I am pretty much unable to hear any differences between them when I use my AKG K271 mkII or AKG K240 mkII headphones (using the headphone amplifiers in the DACs).  [In all instances using a computer to play FLAC losslessly compressed files - a mixture of files ripped from regular Red Book CDs and assorted 24/96 and 24/192 audio files, mostly from HDTracks. These being played through an Audiophilleo 2 USB-to-S/PDIF converter, which has low enough jitter to ensure that jitter isn't a factor, and then fed into the Coax S/PDIF input on the DAC.]
  
 Differences clearly heard between: AudioQuest DragonFly (not through the converter since it is USB only); Emotiva XDA-2 (v1), Emotiva DC-1, Wyred4Sound DAC2, AudioLAB MDAC, Schiit Bifrost (original).
  
 This clearly suggests that some components mask the differences I'm hearing (or some components exaggerate them).
  
 Therefore, the fact that no differences are audible on specific equipment is useful information, but only in the context of knowing what equipment was used.


----------



## bigshot

I'll say it. A good DAC should be designed to be audibly transparent. And an awful lot of DACs are. I haven't found one that isn't myself yet, but I don't buy DACs with options to change the way the DAC sounds. That makes no sense to me.
  
 My Oppo HA-1 and BDP103D sound exactly the same as my iPod and my iMac and my $120 Sony blu-ray player. Those are the things I use right now.
  
 I'm not sure what specific equipment my sound mixer friend has. But I have a VERY good 5.1 speaker system and Oppo PM-1s if that helps you put it in perspective. I check all my electronic equipment to make sure it's audibly transparent when I buy each piece. I have carefully set the room acoustics and EQ and I don't want anything that is colored in the signal chain messing that up. So far, everything is plug and play... just as transparent as the piece it's replacing.
  
 If I do happen across equipment with coloration, I'll pack it up and send it back for a return. I have no use colored equipment.


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> I'm pretty sure that one of the iPods I tested with had a Wolfson chip in it. The filters weren't adjustable though. I wouldn't be surprised if optional filters did actually make a measurable and audible difference in the range of human hearing though. That's kind of the purpose of giving options, isn't it? I know some people prefer a smoother wider rolloff at the top end to give a "warm analogue sound" as opposed to keeping it flat up to beyond the range of human hearing and then filtering up there were it can't be heard.


 
  
 I agree entirely.... however, my point was that most of their filters (including ones that clearly do sound different) are flat enough between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, and have low enough noise and THD, that, according to what some people seem to keep insisting, they should sound audibly the same. And, so, the fact that they don't proves that those parameters are insufficient to "define how a DAC sounds".
  
 In other words, all by itself, that chip is proof that DACs with audibly flat frequency response, and inaudible levels of THD and noise, can indeed still sound different. (And, since virtually all manufacturers of DAC chips seem quite convinced that this is due to the differences in digital filters they use, I'm inclined to consider that to be the best theory to date as to why.)


----------



## uchihaitachi

keithemo said:


> I agree entirely.... however, my point was that most of their filters (including ones that clearly do sound different) are flat enough between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, and have low enough noise and THD, that, according to what some people seem to keep insisting, they should sound audibly the same. And, so, the fact that they don't proves that those parameters are insufficient to "define how a DAC sounds".
> 
> In other words, all by itself, that chip is proof that DACs with audibly flat frequency response, and inaudible levels of THD and noise, can indeed still sound different. (And, since virtually all manufacturers of DAC chips seem quite convinced that this is due to the differences in digital filters they use, I'm inclined to consider that to be the best theory to date as to why.)


 
 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html 
  
 Awesome link, you should have a read!


----------



## KeithEmo

cel4145 said:


> I didn't follow everything you wrote earlier. But did you establish that this claim is based on ABX testing? Or just what you perceive as different in sighted listening tests? And if so, with the ODAC?


 
  
 Nope.... based on individual (and perhaps some "group") listening... which is why I've been pretty careful to avoid making sweeping generalizations. In order to make valid generalizations, you need to have a lot of data, and you need to be very careful about how you interpret it.
  
 For example, what if a dozen people perform a double-blind ABX test, yet they _EXPECT_ to not hear any difference between the various units under test? Doesn't that constitute an expectation bias that biases them in the direction of hearing no difference? The only way I can think of to avoid that would be to be sure to include units that we _DO_ expect to sound different - so we can have a control showing that the participants actually do hear differences that we know do exist. So, if you want me to accept a study showing that THD of 0.1% is "the threshold of audibility", then you need to present data showing both that THD < 0.1% was _NOT_ detected by the participants, and that THD > 0.1% _WAS_ detected. (I would compare the results of a whole bunch of samples, at all different levels of THD, and want to see a line - where everything below the line was inaudible and everything above it was.)
  
 Otherwise it's possible that the test conditions simply weren't appropriate to determine the question. Like I said before, the fact that I heard no difference with AKG 240 headphones could show that either a) there is no difference or b) the difference, if present, cannot be heard with those headphones.


----------



## icebear

I got a Marantz SA11-S3 a couple of months back which comes with some options for filter rolling
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 http://us.marantz.com/us/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?CatId=ReferenceSeries&ProductId=SA11S3
 quote :
 [*Multiple Filters Offer Versatile Listening Options*
 Two digital filter options are provided for both PCM and DSD bitstreams. _With PCM content Filter 1 has a symmetrical impulse response with extremely short pre- and post-echo characteristics and an absolutely linear phase response for a sound that is the most faithful to the original digital audio source, while the Filter 2 option provides a more analog-like signal that strikes the best balance of fine detail coupled with rich harmonics. With DSD content from SACD, Filter 1 provides a direct decoding function with no additional filtering, while the *Filter 2 option attenuates any residuals above 100 kHz.*_
 As well, there are two additional digital filtering functions, *one that includes noise shaping for improved in-band low level linearity as well as another one that provides effective filtering of extremely low frequency infrasonic signals (stop band is DC~1.7 Hz). *All three digital filtering functions are controlled by dedicated buttons on the remote, with last memory function that retains the settings during disc changes and even when the player is powered down.] unquote
  
 Acc. to the marketing speak some options do influence freq. above 100kHz and below 1.7Hz. Switching back and forth between these filters slightly alters the soundstage width. There is no night and day difference in sound and I most likely would have a hard time telling which filter is used when I left the room and came back and someone switched the setting. Never the less there is a difference in sound even if the shaping is supposedly influencing sub or far above the audible frequency spectrum. I always end up with filter one, no noise shaping and no DC filter in case I feel to try any of the filters. It sounds more open/airy is the best I could try to put it into words. And although it's not actually blind testing, the player is so far away and the display so tiny, that I can't see a thing, unless I stand up and walk over
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  
 btw: the player uses a Burr-Brown DSD1792A, about $20 a piece at Mouser (cheaper in bulk quantities)
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
 And more importantly I do like the sound in general and particularly with SACD's - if that is caused by better mastering only and not the DSD format - which is highly likely - I do not really care, I just enjoy listening to the music 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> For example, what if a dozen people perform a double-blind ABX test, yet they _EXPECT_ to not hear any difference between the various units under test? Doesn't that constitute an expectation bias that biases them in the direction of hearing no difference?




Don't know much about ABX testing, do you? If you did, you wouldn't even ask such a question because if the listener isn't confident that they're hearing a difference between A and B (which are always known), then the test can't even proceed, and there is no result. Period. Not a null result. Not a positive result. But _no_ result at all.




> The only way I can think of to avoid that would be to be sure to include units that we _DO_ expect to sound different - so we can have a control showing that the participants actually do hear differences that we know do exist.




That's what every ABX test requires. You really need to brush up on the subject.

And what's this "...we know do exist" nonsense? When was this established except by way of ego, vanity and pure faith? 

All we've had from your side for decades has been a lot of claims supported by nothing but a bunch of hand-waving. It grew old years ago and is tiresome. I've been listening to it for over 30 years. 

se


----------



## Roly1650

keithemo said:


> I do have an interesting question for you... since you are the one making the "positive assertion" here (that "all good DACs sound the same"). Have you actually compared the 0Dac to other DACs, double-blind or otherwise, or are you just accepting other people's claims about what specifications are and are not audible?
> 
> I might suggest you find a DAC that uses the Wolfson 8741 chip. That chip includes several different internal digital filters, and offers the ability to switch between them using a simple hardware switch - so many DACs that use it give you a front panel switch to switch between filters (and, by flipping the switch, the only thing you're changing is that internal filter). Regardless of whether you suspect Wolfson of deliberately "fiddling" with things to artificially produce audible differences, the fact remains that different filters, all with THD low enough that it should be inaudible, and frequency responses flat enough that any variations there should also be inaudible, nevertheless do manage to somehow sound different. This clearly proves that there's something else that constitutes an audible difference between them - which disproved your claim that no such difference can exist.
> 
> (I don't know who's producing DAcs using the Wolfson lately - but AudioG*D used to make several reasonably priced ones.....



Certainly, Audio GD don't claim that the frequency response graphs are the same on their website. See the link for the various filter switch positions on the NFB12 with dual Wolfson 8741 dac chips.
Are the differences enough to be audible? Well not being identical and varying with different sample rate/bit depths would indicate there's a fair chance, but as you say maybe the quality of the equipment determines that.

http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/Headphoneamp/NFB12/NFB12EN_Specs.htm


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> I agree entirely.... however, my point was that most of their filters (including ones that clearly do sound different) are flat enough between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, and have low enough noise and THD, that, according to what some people seem to keep insisting, they should sound audibly the same. And, so, the fact that they don't proves that those parameters are insufficient to "define how a DAC sounds".


 
  
 I would recommend going back and measuring again, and performing an ABX test to make sure a demonstrable difference exists. I bet if you did those two things, you would find out there is a mistake somewhere. Or you just might establish an entirely new theory of sound reproduction. Go for it! Maybe you'll make history!
  
  
 (but I've got two bits bet on the mistake)


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> That's funny. I can't find that phrase in his post. Yet you use quotation marks.
> 
> I think you're being rather disingenuous here.
> 
> se


 
  
 I put quotation marks around the phrase because, while the concept I was getting at is well known in philosophy, I'm not sure of the proper name for it.
  
 Basically, if I say I cannot hear any difference, then that statement makes no claims that impinge on you (I'm not saying that you can or can't hear anything).
 Likewise, if I say that I can hear a difference, but with specific test equipment, and under specific conditions, I am still only making a claim about my personal experience.
  
 However, if I state the "no difference exists" then, by inference, I am making a claim about YOUR experience.
 (I'm stating that I don't hear a difference, but I'm also stating that, since no difference exists, either you won't hear one either or, if you say you do, then you must be wrong.)
  
 It's like my saying that a certain address on a certain street doesn't exist - if you claim that it does, then either you're wrong or you're lying.
 (And stating it as a fact is not the same as saying "I think you're wrong" or "I'd like to see your map".)
  
 By stating that "no difference exists" as if it were a proven fact, he is essentially saying that I am wrong.
 He could have said something like "all of the evidence and results of studies I've seen seem to suggest that the difference shouldn't be audible" if he preferred to be less contentious.
  
 The simple fact is that, if he were actually able to demonstrate that there were no differences between various DACs, then I would be on his side.
 However, the differences are very well documented (just look at impulse response test graphs of ay DAC).
 The sole "item under discussion" is whether the differences are audible or not......
  
 And, while it's true that some studies have indeed failed to prove that differences in digital filters are actually audible, the few actual test results people keep trotting out are rather thin. Face it, the fact that two dozen volunteers were unable to hear something, using their own equipment, and their own sample material, really doesn't constitute "ironclad proof that no audible difference exists" - at least not on the planet where I live.
  
 I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it that a difference exists, but I also haven't seen any "proof" that such a difference doesn't exist.
 (I will concede that the differences I'm hearing might be due to something else, or even that I might be imagining them, but I will expect actual proof of that before I consider it to be true.)
 The "standards" about what is and isn't audible, like much of what we "know" of science, are subject to periodic revision...


----------



## KeithEmo

roly1650 said:


> Certainly, Audio GD don't claim that the frequency response graphs are the same on their website. See the link for the various filter switch positions on the NFB12 with dual Wolfson 8741 dac chips.
> Are the differences enough to be audible? Well not being identical and varying with different sample rate/bit depths would indicate there's a fair chance, but as you say maybe the quality of the equipment determines that.
> 
> http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/Headphoneamp/NFB12/NFB12EN_Specs.htm


 
  
 If you look at the graphs, you will see that the graphs for several of the filters are all within the arbitrary limits that seem to be accepted as "inaudible variation".
 (Let's ignore the apodizing filters with the high-frequency roll off.)
 For example, if you use 24/96 content, you will find that many of them remain "flat" to within a very small fraction of a dB from 20 to 20 kHz.
 Therefore, those filters should sound exactly the same if only frequency response matters.
 I believe you will find that the THD figures for all of them also fall safely under the 0.01% which most people seem to consider as "obviously inaudible".
  
 And, unless EVERY audible difference can be credited to a significant difference in frequency response or THD, then my point is made....


----------



## sonitus mirus

It is not logical to expect someone to be able to test and determine that no difference exists.  We can determine if a difference exists through testing.  Until someone does this, I think it is fair to claim that no difference exists.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> By stating that "no difference exists" as if it were a proven fact, he is essentially saying that I am wrong.




Please quote where he stated that unequivocally.




> He could have said something like "all of the evidence and results of studies I've seen seem to suggest that the difference shouldn't be audible" if he preferred to be less contentious.




That's funny. By my reading, that's precisely what he said.

He wrote "All of the measurements and blind tests I've seen indicate that it should be audibly perfect, and I tend to believe data over random anecdotes."

How is that any different than your example and how the hell do you read that as "no difference exists"?




> And, while it's true that some studies have indeed failed to prove that differences in digital filters are actually audible, the few actual test results people keep trotting out are rather thin.




Well instead of just hand-waving in here, why not get to work and add to the body of research? High end audio is long on talk but conspicuously absent when it comes to action. But I guess as long as all it takes is talk to make a sale, there's really no incentive, is there?

And that's fine. Just don't make out like you have any interest in expanding our knowledge and understanding. Otherwise you're just muddying the waters.




> Face it, the fact that two dozen volunteers were unable to hear something, using their own equipment, and their own sample material, really doesn't constitute "ironclad proof that no audible difference exists" - at least not on the planet where I live.




Except that the person you were replying to said absolutely no such thing. Which brings me back to my original point. I think you're being rather disingenuous.

se


----------



## cel4145

keithemo said:


> For example, what if a dozen people perform a double-blind ABX test, yet they _EXPECT_ to not hear any difference between the various units under test? Doesn't that constitute an expectation bias that biases them in the direction of hearing no difference?




Maybe. But ABX testing still eliminates other biases, which is why it's important. So that doesn't discount the value of DBT over sighted listening at all. Plus, you obviously wouldn't have that problem, so seems a moot point. 

So why not do some testing instead of all this speculation that the ODAC will sound different from chip X or that such and such filters produce an audible response?


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> Maybe. But ABX testing still eliminates other biases, which is why it's important. So that doesn't discount the value of DBT over sighted listening at all. Plus, you obviously wouldn't have that problem, so seems a moot point.


 
  
 ABX is fine for the case of a single person wanting to prove he can hear a difference, which is curiously the case that always seems to get the most resistance from the person ^_^


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> ABX is fine for the case of a single person wanting to prove he can hear a difference, which is curiously the case that always seems to get the most resistance from the person ^_^




I'm sure that there are members of the trade that DON'T want to know if their different dacs and amps really do sound the same


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> I'm sure that there are members of the trade that DON'T want to know if their different dacs and amps really do sound the same


 
  
 First rule of drug dealing: don't sample your own product.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> I'm sure that there are members of the trade that DON'T want to know if their different dacs and amps really do sound the same


 
 That would create a marketing challenge called reality.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> That would create a marketing challenge called reality.




I've been thinking we should have you do Mystery Science Theater 3000 style reviews of some of these audiophool videos on YouTube. Good match for a format since they are scifi


----------



## SandAndGlass

I had a couple of cheap players laying around in the system, a under $50 Sony cd/dvd player and a Samsung Bluray player. I got rid of them and replaced them with an Oppo BDP-93. I can't say that with the Sony CD player and the Oppo both playing CD's through the player's digital outputs into the Peachtree iNova (and on to the XPA-2), that I could tell any difference from memory, as they were never connected at the same time. This is with both units having been played through different amps and different speakers.


----------



## bigshot

I once was talking to a guy online who swore up and down that his Oppo BDP105 sounded light years better than his old midrange Sony blu-ray player. He had his equipment listed in his signature file, and it listed a high end AV amp. I asked him how did he connect his Oppo to the AV amp... he said HDMI. (The Sonys don't have RCA outs.) Of course if he had them hooked up with HDMI, all of the digital to analogue conversion was being done in the AV amp, not the players. HDMI totally bypasses the DAC in the Oppo. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't sound identical hooked up that way. He figured it out and backed down fast.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I once was talking to a guy online who swore up and down that his Oppo BDP105 sounded light years better than his old midrange Sony blu-ray player. He had his equipment listed in his signature file, and it listed a high end AV amp. I asked him how did he connect his Oppo to the AV amp... he said HDMI. (The Sonys don't have RCA outs.) Of course if he had them hooked up with HDMI, all of the digital to analogue conversion was being done in the AV amp, not the players. HDMI totally bypasses the DAC in the Oppo. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't sound identical hooked up that way. He figured it out and backed down fast.


 
 Well, one just should not do this kind of a mistake. Being 100% home theatre free, there is nothing featuring HDMI I can think of in my possession.
  
 There are audible differences in DACs - or more correctly, in analog stages. I remember having a really good laugh when some time ago, somebody tested, side by side, practically any chip set available at the time, using prototype breadboards. Nice, commendable, etc.
  
 With one "simple" glitch - he used normal grade of capacitors throughout the test, same (non)quality used for each and every chip set.
  
 About as good as testing the optics of  various cameras - shooting trough a dirty glass on windows ...


----------



## bigshot

Just whistling and waiting for someone interesting to answer.


----------



## analogsurviver

Ditto.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Differences clearly heard between: AudioQuest DragonFly (not through the converter since it is USB only); Emotiva XDA-2 (v1), Emotiva DC-1, Wyred4Sound DAC2, AudioLAB MDAC, Schiit Bifrost (original).
> 
> This clearly suggests that some components mask the differences I'm hearing (or some components exaggerate them).


 
  
 Another (in my opinion not unlikely) possibility is that the "clear" differences you heard are mainly the result of expectation bias and simple factors by level differences.
  


> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> For example, what if a dozen people perform a double-blind ABX test, yet they _EXPECT_ to not hear any difference between the various units under test?


 
   
That is why the test should ideally be performed by people who do expect to hear differences. You could try some ABX tests yourself, although I guess you most probably will not.

  


> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Interesting that you compare it to another DAC that also uses a Sabre chip


 
  
 Actually, there is a new revision of the ODAC that no longer uses an ESS DAC.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Just whistling and waiting for someone interesting to answer.




Answer what? Was there a quiz?

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> There are audible differences in DACs - or more correctly, in analog stages.




When was this demonstrated under controlled listening conditions?

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> When was this demonstrated under controlled listening conditions?
> 
> se


 
 Perhaps that was an anecdotal post. It happens.


----------



## KeithEmo

cel4145 said:


> Maybe. But ABX testing still eliminates other biases, which is why it's important. So that doesn't discount the value of DBT over sighted listening at all. Plus, you obviously wouldn't have that problem, so seems a moot point.
> 
> So why not do some testing instead of all this speculation that the ODAC will sound different from chip X or that such and such filters produce an audible response?


 
  
 I agree entirely - that ABX testing is very effective at what it does.
  
 I guess I'm confused.... I thought this thread was about "audiophile claims and myths" - and perhaps about discussing them. If it's really only about "publishing the results of tests" then we should all just go join the AES. The way real science works (at least in other places) is that people come up with theories and ideas, discuss them, decide which ones seem worth testing, design tests, validate those tests to decide if they'll really test what wants testing, do the tests, and then analyze and discuss the results...
  
 Back when I went to school, we were taught that matter was made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. As I recall, a few people even ran various tests to "prove" this theory. And, in fact, a few trivial devices - like atomic bombs and nuclear reactors - were designed based on this idea. Now, as it turns out, that was wrong after all. (Matter is either made up of little bundles of energy, or of little string things vibrating in eleven dimensions, or perhaps those are wrong too.) It seems like, in real life, it's not all that easy to figure out where the line between myth, theory, and reality falls (and it has this nasty habit of moving when we look into it a bit).
  
 However, there seems to be a serious misconception about what ABX testing actually gives you in most situations. In actual point of fact, all it gives you is a result showing that a statistically significant number of people could tell Product X from Product Y, and which one they "liked better", under very specific conditions. This makes it a great way for an individual to decide what product to buy, and a great way for the marketing department to figure out how many of their potential customers can hear a difference between product X and Product Y and, if they do, which one they like better. However, as a scientific tool, it's not very useful because the information it yields is not properly controlled. (Let's say it's a good way to apply scientific principles to the study of product preferences.)
  
 In a "proper scientific experiment", you first theorize what results you hope to find. You then devise a test that meets certain basic requirements:
 1) it allows you to vary _ONLY THE THING YOU WANT TO TEST_ while keeping everything else constant
 2) it offers some way to quantify the results
 3) it does both of these things over the range of interest
  
 To put this in the context of audio equipment....
 1) if you're testing the threshold of audibility of THD, then you need to be able to vary THD _WHILE EVERYTHING ELSE REMAINS UNCHANGED_
_2)_ since we're testing audibility, some sort of test comparing the audibility of different amounts of THD would be appropriate (an ABX test between different levels of THD would be appropriate)
 3) we need to verify that our test equipment allows the results to be observed
  
 To put this in the context of where I came into this discussion.... if we want to actually determine the audibility of different digital filters in DACs....
 1) we need a way to change digital filters in a DAC while everything else remains equal (this can be tricky because different filters often have different frequency response)
 2) this is easy (we can ask a sample of people whether they can hear a difference; although, of course, we can then only declare the results valid for our particular sample group)
 3) this may be the tricky part (we need audio samples with less ringing that that which we are hoping to test, and we need speakers that can deliver those samples accurately)
  
 Obviously, if the speaker we use has 10 mS of ringing, then that will quite probably prevent us from hearing the difference between 1 mS of ringing and 2 mS of ringing due to different filters. This will render the test results invalid or meaningless. So, in order to actually test this, we need to find a speaker or other transducer that has little enough ringing to avoid obscuring the results - and we need to document that we've tested that to be the case and provide the specifics of what speaker we used and how we tested it. (If we find out that the speaker we used displays the same amount of ringing with all our sample filters, because it has worse ringing on its own, then we can't consider the test to be valid, right? So, at a very minimum, we need measurements showing that our speaker was faithfully delivering the test signal.... or we may find that we can't even do a valid test because there is no speaker on the market that meets our requirements. If that happens, we may have to design a special transducer to use for our experiment, or we may have to conclude that we can't test it. This happens in "real science" like physics all the time.)  
  
 Now, an_ IMPORTANT_ distinction: If the marketing department is doing this study, then it is quite sufficient to demonstrate that "using a reasonable sample of people chosen at random, using typical home audio equipment, a significant majority was or was not able to hear a difference". However, if we want to state the result as a scientific fact, then we must either ensure that the test equipment is indeed able to perform the test effectively, or, failing that, that we have made the best possible attempt to ensure that it has (and then we need to state that limitation).
  
 Again, back to my example, if you can find a transducer that actually has less ringing than the filter on a DAC, then it would be ideal. If not, then using the best available transducer (in terms of ringing) will have to do - but you had better state its limitations in your test results.
  
 Now that we've reached this point, we will, of course, come back to the claim that what we're talking about is "beyond the limits of human hearing". Personally, I place most of the various claims about "the limits of audibility" of various things in the same category as the other claims we're discussing here.... and I'm not willing to accept that one claim is invalidated simply because it conflicts with another claim. (And, yes, there have been AES papers "proving" that nothing above 20 kHz is audible; but there has also been at least one other AES paper "proving" that there were audible differences between a 20 kHz band-limited signal recorded at a 44k sample rate and the same signal recorded at a 96k sample rate. Therefore, at least to me, that all falls into "reasonable but unproven claims".)


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> However, there seems to be a serious misconception about what ABX testing actually gives you in most situations. In actual point of fact, all it gives you is a result showing that a statistically significant number of people could tell Product X from Product Y, and which one they "liked better", under very specific conditions. This makes it a great way for an individual to decide what product to buy, and a great way for the marketing department to figure out how many of their potential customers can hear a difference between product X and Product Y and, if they do, which one they like better. However, as a scientific tool, it's not very useful because the information it yields is not properly controlled. (Let's say it's a good way to apply scientific principles to the study of product preferences.)




You really don't have a clue what you're talking about here and it is abundantly clear that you have no real understanding of ABX testing. So until you do, I would suggest you just make no further mention of it (hint: it has nothing to do with preference testing).

*sigh*

I shouldn't have to feel embarrassed that I'm involved in this industry. But I do. 

se


----------



## KeithEmo

cel4145 said:


> Maybe. But ABX testing still eliminates other biases, which is why it's important. So that doesn't discount the value of DBT over sighted listening at all. Plus, you obviously wouldn't have that problem, so seems a moot point.
> 
> So why not do some testing instead of all this speculation that the ODAC will sound different from chip X or that such and such filters produce an audible response?


 
  
 Hmmmm... that sounds like what I said right at the beginning...
  
 ... That the measurements show that there is an actual difference between the response of various digital filters
 ... And that many people (including myself and the companies who make the DAC chips) claim that the differences are audible
 ... And that it therefore makes sense to do some serious tests (before dismissing all such claims because they disagree with other claims)
  
 I also find it interesting how so many people (especially here) are so selective in their willingness to believe....
  
 For example, ESS, the company who makes the Sabre DAC used in the 0DAC states all sorts of specifications.
 They also state (or at least they did state in their original published marketing literature) that their DACs sound different than everybody else's.
 I find it very... entertaining... how many people here seem eager to use one of their claims (the specs) as proof that their other claim (that their DACs sound different) is a lie.
  
 You might find this white paper from ESS interesting....
  
 It not only describes their design philosophy, but mentions in several places how they adjusted design characteristics because they believed doing so achieved "better sound quality" - even though these characteristics produce results that are far below "the limits of audibility" that some people on this thread seem quite convinced of.  
  
 http://www.esstech.com/PDF/sabrewp.pdf


----------



## cel4145

keithemo said:


> I agree entirely - that ABX testing is very effective at what it does.
> 
> I guess I'm confused.... I thought this thread was about "audiophile claims and myths" - and perhaps about discussing them. If it's really only about "publishing the results of tests" then we should all just go join the AES. . . .




It's quite simple. This is not about other people. You have repeatedly claimed that some DACs sound different from others to YOU when audio science would suggest that might be not true. For validating your OWN opinion, you could ABX test.


----------



## Steve Eddy

cel4145 said:


> It's quite simple. This is not about other people. You have repeatedly claimed that some DACs sound different from others to YOU when audio science would suggest that might be not true. For validating your OWN opinion, you could ABX test.




When someone says there is a serious misconception about ABX testing and then goes on to demonstrate that the serious misconception is their own, what more can you expect? 

Too bad he doesn't spend as much time trying to actually learn something as he puts into these lengthy posts of his. But I sense that he's only here to preach and has no particular interest in learning anything. 

se


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> When someone says there is a serious misconception about ABX testing and then goes on to demonstrate that the serious misconception is their own, what more can you expect?
> 
> Too bad he doesn't spend as much time trying to actually learn something as he puts into these lengthy posts of his. But I sense that he's only here to preach and has no particular interest in learning anything.
> 
> se




Exactly. 

If had access to an ABX comparator and the means to do an accurate volume match, I'd be testing all kinds of stuff that I have because I'd like to learn. 

I'm willing to hear discussions that criticize DBT when it comes to comparing things like speakers which DO sound different, because I think there is more flaw to the process than some objectivists are sometimes willing to admit. But comparing to see if something is different or not with ABX? It works.


----------



## StanD

@KeithEmo I'm one for a good analogy but I don't think that trying to equate the validity of simple audio engineering and far out string theory is in the same ballpark. Electrical Engineering is applied/practical physics and string theory is just that, theory.


----------



## Steve Eddy

cel4145 said:


> If had access to an ABX comparator and the means to do an accurate volume match, I'd be testing all kinds of stuff that I have because I'd like to learn.




Great!




> I'm willing to hear discussions that criticize DBT when it comes to comparing things like speakers which DO sound different, because I think there is more flaw to the process than some objectivists are sometimes willing to admit. But comparing to see if something is different or not with ABX? It works.




What flaws do you mean?

But yeah, with things like loudspeakers where there's no question with regard to audible differences, ABX is pointless because ABX is all about identification. But blind testing in general still has value. Floyd Toole (now retired from Harman) for example, used blind preference testing to try and correlate preference to measured performance. Such tests needed to be blind so that preference was based on sound alone, instead of other influences like looks and price.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> @KeithEmo
> I'm one for a good analogy but I don't think that trying to equate the validity of simple audio engineering and far out string theory is in the same ballpark. Electrical Engineering is applied/practical physics and string theory is just that, theory.




Methinks those strings are actually straws. 

se


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> @KeithEmo I'm one for a good analogy but I don't think that trying to equate the validity of simple audio engineering and far out string theory is in the same ballpark. Electrical Engineering is applied/practical physics and string theory is just that, theory.


 
  
  


steve eddy said:


> Methinks those strings are actually straws.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 So now he's a straw man?


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> So now he's a straw man?




No no, think "grasping." 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> No no, think "grasping."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 That happens. Too Often


----------



## KeithEmo

stv014 said:


> Another (in my opinion not unlikely) possibility is that the "clear" differences you heard are mainly the result of expectation bias and simple factors by level differences.
> 
> 
> That is why the test should ideally be performed by people who do expect to hear differences. You could try some ABX tests yourself, although I guess you most probably will not.
> ...


 
  
 You could be right, although I rather doubt it (based on the fact that I also find the differences between different filter choices and DAC chips to be clearly audible - to me and to others who were present at the same time - with other products as well). However, since I'm only human, and so are they, I'm certainly willing to consider that I might be wrong.
  
 (I'll also drop at this point that Emotiva - who I work for - makes several DACs. Both of our current models - the DC-1 and XDA-2 - only have a single digital filter choice - which is quite accurate. However, we will be introducing a few new models very shortly which do have switchable filters. They offer three different filters, which do indeed sound slightly different, to me and to everyone else who's auditioned them, although, since they also have slightly different frequency responses, I won't make any specific claim as to what the audible differences consist of. Personally I don't find any particular choice especially better.... and, since we don't charge extra for the feature, we encourage anybody who doesn't notice or care about the difference to _NOT_ push the button.)
  
 Honestly, since I already own quite a few DACs, many of which I find to sound better than the 0DAC, and several of which have other features which I also consider important (like full sized balanced outputs instead of the 1/8" jack on the 0DAC, and multiple digital inputs, which I do use), I really don't have much reason to set up a full test at this point. However, I wasn't really trying to "prove" that the differences exist; I was simply trying to point out that the logic of the person who insists that such differences couldn't _possibly_ exist is flawed, and that it is indeed worthy of being tested. (There seems to be at least one person who insists that there's no possible point in doing any tests at all because it's just "fact" that any differences, if they exist at all, are "below the threshold of audibility").
  
 I personally think that there is a major disconnect between "important differences" and "just differences". I'll also say up front that I don't consider most of the differences that I'm hearing to be important. My Wyred4Sound DAC2 has six filter choices, several of which are very flat - and are claimed to differ only in impulse response to transients. You can switch between them using a button on the remote control, which makes doing so very easy. And, when you switch, the sound does change. To be totally honest, I wouldn't bet that I could tell you which filter was selected at a given moment - and certainly not if I were to leave the room and come back - yet that doesn't invalidate the fact that they are different - and this is the weakness of ABX testing as a scientific tool (outside of as a way to select an audio product).
  
 The closest analogy I can come up with is how we perceive color. If you consider two square tiles painted similar colors, experiments have shown that we humans can distinguish amazingly small differences in color when you place two tiles side by side. However, if shown each tile individually, or one after the other, we are much less able to distinguish differences. So, if I were to take several tiles of very similar colors, and hold them up one after the other - in the same format as an ABX test - most humans would probably not be able to distinguish them. However, if I were to lay those same tiles on a table, overlapping each other, most of us would be able to see where two dissimilar colors were next to each other. Likewise, we could probably say quite accurately which was brighter or darker if they were displayed next to each other, but would fail miserably if they were displayed one at a time.
  
 Clearly, how important this is depends on interpretation. If you run out of paint in the middle of a wall, then you'd better match it exactly for the remaining half. However, if you're painting two different rooms to match, precisely matching the color is a lot less critical, and there might be times where putting a contrasting strip of molding between two slightly dissimilar walls would be enough to prevent us from noticing the difference.
  
 I personally suspect that differences much less that what we normally accept as "the limits of audibility" are audible - but only under special circumstances. For example, most of us would totally unable to hear 0.1% THD if it were added to a typical music signal. However, if I were to play a perfect clean 440 Hz sine wave, and then add to it 0.1% as much of a 1 kHz sine wave, I suspect most of us would find _THAT_ to be easily audible. Therefore, simplistic claims like "xx% THD is inaudible" are just that, simplistic. In reality, in some circumstances, 1% THD may be inaudible while, in others, 0.05% may be clearly audible. (If you don't believe that, take a 20 Hz tone, and add 0.05% as much of a 1 kHz tone..... )
  
 Whenever we design real scientific tests, we must take into account the test conditions, the accuracy and resolution of the equipment, and the "validity" of the test procedure. In most cases, we end up having to "test the test" before we can test the unit under test.
  
 In my color tile example, a "regular ABX test" where each tile was held up in sequence would yield one result (no difference seen), while placing the tiles next to each other would produce a different result (difference reported). Neither result is, in and of itself, wrong; each is "correct" under the conditions in which it was performed. However, if we were to conclude from the first test that "human beings cannot see the differences between the colors of the tiles", and make that as a blanket statement, then that conclusion would indeed be wrong.
  
 In this thread, we have someone who, based on the facts that:
 1) he cannot hear differences between three specific devices under specific circumstances
 2) "established fact" "proves" that certain differences will be inaudible _UNDER ANY CONDITIONS_
 There is no reason to test my claims (or those of anyone else who claims to hear a difference).
 I say his logic and "facts" don't rise to the level of certitude to justify his claim.
  
  
 As for the new 0DAC, if you're referring to the new PCB version by JDS labs, yes that is indeed interesting.
 From the picture, it seems to use the TI/BB PCM5102a DAC chip - which includes a choice of two switchable digital filters
 (since they're supposed to be "audibly indistinguishable" I wonder which one they decided to use; I don't see any mention of the testing they used to decide).
 If you Google the DataSheet, you will also see all sorts of nice graphs and scope traces of the (quite different) impulse responses of the choices.


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> What flaws do you mean?
> 
> But yeah, with things like loudspeakers where there's no question with regard to audible differences, ABX is pointless because ABX is all about identification. But blind testing in general still has value. Floyd Toole (now retired from Harman) for example, used blind preference testing to try and correlate preference to measured performance. Such tests needed to be blind so that preference was based on sound alone, instead of other influences like looks and price.
> 
> se




I do agree. DBT does have value in speaker testing. But I think the flaw is that some objectivists over generalize what you learn from DBT. DBT typically tests how speaker A sounds compared to speaker B at volume level X, which is based on some kind of weighted averaging, not that speaker A or speaker B always compare the same at different listening volumes. What I have found is that some headphones I really like at moderate listening volumes but not at loud listening volumes. And vice versa. And my "theory" is (and you are welcome to correct me) that due to equal loudness contours, a headphone with certain types of emphasis can be good at lower volumes, and then I don't need that emphasis at higher volumes and it tends to sound too aggressive. Grados for example. Moderate volumes, I love them. Higher volumes, the treble is too aggressive for me, fatiguing, where as headphone with more demure treble is not and I enjoy them more at higher volumes.

And then 2nd, some music seems to benefit more for headphone A over headphone B, and vice versa. Or if I am listening more for vocals vs. drums where the unique signature of a headphone tends to bring out one or the other more. 

I know that some people recognize the limits of what DBT can tell you. But others seem to over attribute a DBT test as proof that speaker/headphone A is always better than speaker/headphone B.


----------



## cjl

keithemo said:


> However, there seems to be a serious misconception about what ABX testing actually gives you in most situations. In actual point of fact, all it gives you is a result showing that a statistically significant number of people could tell Product X from Product Y, and which one they "liked better", under very specific conditions. This makes it a great way for an individual to decide what product to buy, and a great way for the marketing department to figure out how many of their potential customers can hear a difference between product X and Product Y and, if they do, which one they like better. However, as a scientific tool, it's not very useful because the information it yields is not properly controlled. (Let's say it's a good way to apply scientific principles to the study of product preferences.)


 
 ABX doesn't care about preference. All it asks is that you listen to sample A (known), you listen to sample B (known) and then you try to determine whether sample X (unknown) is the same as A or B. It doesn't matter what your preference is - if you can hear a difference, you should be able to get a statistically significant result. In addition, if one person can repeatably pass a well-controlled ABX, that would mean that the difference is audible to them. Even if 99% of the population couldn't hear the difference (and therefore couldn't pass the ABX), that would be a useful and interesting data point, and would go a long ways towards justifying the need for the better-performing component. To answer your comment about the color tiles, ABX testing doesn't require any particular method of comparing. You could sit down and listen to A for two hours one evening, B for two hours the next, and X for two hours on the third evening, then repeat this process over a couple months. That would be just as valid as an ABX as a fast switch method would (though fast-switch level matched comparison of short audio sections is the most sensitive method according to everything I've read, as well as in my own testing).
  
 All this having been said, if the difference is as obvious as many claim (to quote you, "I find the differences between my various DACs to be clearly audible with my Koss ESP950's"), passing an ABX should be relatively trivial, right?


----------



## KeithEmo

cel4145 said:


> It's quite simple. This is not about other people. You have repeatedly claimed that some DACs sound different from others to YOU when audio science would suggest that might be not true. For validating your OWN opinion, you could ABX test.


 
  
 I agree entirely (I could do a formal test)... or I could just leave it as an untested personal observation... to be considered accordingly.
 I'm not even specifically asking anyone to believe me...
 At the moment, let's just leave it that I've stated an observation.
  
 Real science often goes just that way....
 One scientist says: "I think I observed such and such....."
 Then another one says: "That seems to agree with my observations....."
 Or maybe: "My observations seem to suggest exactly the opposite....."
 At which point someone sometimes devises a test to find out who's right.
 (Since many individuals, several companies that manufacture DAC chips, and several audio companies selling DACs,
 agree that DAC filters do sound different, that would seem to make it worthy of testing.)
  
 My problem is with the guy who is absolutely certain I must be wrong.
 When he obviously has_ NOT_ tested any of the equipment I did...
 (Note that I don't doubt in the least that, using his equipment, and his test samples, he was unable to hear any differences between the three devices he compared.)
 In contrast, he is absolutely certain that I must be wrong... or at least that my claim is "unworthy of testing".


----------



## cjl

keithemo said:


> My problem is with the guy who is absolutely certain I must be wrong.


 
 Having read (with some amusement) the argument between you and Steve about interpretations of my statements, Steve is definitely much closer to the interpretation I intended. I'm not saying that you're definitely wrong, I'm saying that your anecdotes contradict a fair amount of more substantial evidence, measurements, and tests. As a result, I'm inclined to believe the weight of the evidence rather than your anecdote. If you provided evidence for your statements (such as a well-controlled ABX test with <1% probability of guessing), I would give your statements much more weight, but as is, I'm forced to dismiss them as being insufficiently supported to overturn accepted audibility thresholds.


----------



## Steve Eddy

cel4145 said:


> I do agree. DBT does have value in speaker testing. But I think the flaw is that some objectivists over generalize what you learn from DBT. DBT typically tests how speaker A sounds compared to speaker B at volume level X, which is based on some kind of weighted averaging, not that speaker A or speaker B always compare the same at different listening volumes. What I have found is that some headphones I really like at moderate listening volumes but not at loud listening volumes. And vice versa. And my "theory" is (and you are welcome to correct me) that due to equal loudness contours, a headphone with certain types of emphasis can be good at lower volumes, and then I don't need that emphasis at higher volumes and it tends to sound too aggressive. Grados for example. Moderate volumes, I love them. Higher volumes, the treble is too aggressive for me, fatiguing, where as headphone with more demure treble is not and I enjoy them more at higher volumes.




Well if you're going to compare speakers or headphones, you're going to have to compare them at some consistent volume, otherwise, the one that is played louder will tend to sound "better." This is the case even when you're comparing identical components, but with one just played louder. It's an old trick that was used by unscrupulous stereo salesmen back in the day.




> And then 2nd, some music seems to benefit more for headphone A over headphone B, and vice versa. Or if I am listening more for vocals vs. drums where the unique signature of a headphone tends to bring out one or the other more.
> 
> I know that some people recognize the limits of what DBT can tell you. But others seem to over attribute a DBT test as proof that speaker/headphone A is always better than speaker/headphone B.




Who are you talking about? I don't know anyone who is shoving double blind listening tests down anyone's throat with regard to preference. When blind testing is brought up here, it typically concerns establishing an actual audible difference between things that no one has established audible differences for, like cables. So I don't know what your complaint is here.

se


----------



## KeithEmo

cjl said:


> Having read (with some amusement) the argument between you and Steve about interpretations of my statements, Steve is definitely much closer to the interpretation I intended. I'm not saying that you're definitely wrong, I'm saying that your anecdotes contradict a fair amount of more substantial evidence, measurements, and tests. As a result, I'm inclined to believe the weight of the evidence rather than your anecdote. If you provided evidence for your statements (such as a well-controlled ABX test with <1% probability of guessing), I would give your statements much more weight, but as is, I'm forced to dismiss them as being insufficiently supported to overturn accepted audibility thresholds.


 
  
 On that note I can't disagree with you... and I would certainly suggest that anyone who seriously cares find out for themselves. However, I have seen enough "standards" and "accepted facts" come and go over the years that I also don't place an awful lot of overall weight on them either - and many of the papers and studies on which these claims are based are themselves rather flawed. Honestly, if you actually accept all the "accepted wisdom" as fact, then you should forget all this audiophile "stuff", and go buy an iPod, and be done with it. On the other side of the "discussion", since I don't find the differences I hear (or, if you prefer, think I hear) to be especially _important_ anyway, I probably won't bother to ever perform a formal test to prove them one way or the other. (It would have made a great subject for a term paper. I think it would also make a neat "audiophile workshop" - but currently the company I work for doesn't sponsor or run those.)
  
 However, I still stand by one of my initial statements - that, to be entirely precise, you can almost never prove a negative completely. At best you can state that a certain test sample, using a certain test protocol and certain test equipment, was unable to detect a difference.... and provide enough information for concerned individuals to determine whether the conditions apply to them. (Neither one of us can know if next year a company will introduce a new speaker - on which the differences between filters are obvious to both of us, or which is able to reproduce transients so accurately that we can say for a fact that the speaker is playing them correctly, yet nobody can hear the difference, so it really is inaudible. At most, at the moment, we can state that it hasn't been demonstrated yet.)


----------



## KeithEmo

cjl said:


> ABX doesn't care about preference. All it asks is that you listen to sample A (known), you listen to sample B (known) and then you try to determine whether sample X (unknown) is the same as A or B. It doesn't matter what your preference is - if you can hear a difference, you should be able to get a statistically significant result. In addition, if one person can repeatably pass a well-controlled ABX, that would mean that the difference is audible to them. Even if 99% of the population couldn't hear the difference (and therefore couldn't pass the ABX), that would be a useful and interesting data point, and would go a long ways towards justifying the need for the better-performing component. To answer your comment about the color tiles, ABX testing doesn't require any particular method of comparing. You could sit down and listen to A for two hours one evening, B for two hours the next, and X for two hours on the third evening, then repeat this process over a couple months. That would be just as valid as an ABX as a fast switch method would (though fast-switch level matched comparison of short audio sections is the most sensitive method according to everything I've read, as well as in my own testing).
> 
> All this having been said, if the difference is as obvious as many claim (to quote you, "I find the differences between my various DACs to be clearly audible with my Koss ESP950's"), passing an ABX should be relatively trivial, right?


 
  
 You're actually mixing two different test protocols. ABX specifically determines whether you can associate a certain characteristic of multiple samples. .. which is useful... but which is also not what I'm specifically talking about.
  
 I'm specifically _NOT_ making a claim that significant, and I'm not claiming that, at a given instant, I could tell you whether "filter A" or "filter B" is playing; I'm specifically stating that, if you switch from one to the other, a perceptible _difference_ will be heard (equivalent to saying that two tiles aren't the same color). This is a much simpler requirement than that on which an ABX test is based.
  
 Now, in order to validate that specific claim, it is _NOT_ required that I be able to identify which is which. 
  
 And here's the (simpler) protocol I would use to test that specific claim.
  
 We can agree upon two filters which only differ in terms of their transient response, which is what I claim matters, and which I claim I can tell as being different from each other. Someone else can then play a series of samples, switching between the filter being used half way through each sample. If we call the filters chosen A and B, then a given "test play" may be A:A, B:B, A:B, or B:A. My claim is that I will be able to accurately identify the instances in which the filter has changed - as compared to the instances where the "switch" really just re-selected the same filter. If I can do this, then I will have proven that I can hear when the filter changes from one to another (without necessarily knowing, caring, or being able to identify which filter is playing at any given time).
  
 That was all I ever actually claimed.....


----------



## icebear

Some useful info on tests :
  
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
 and on ABX in particular:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test
  
 quote:
 [ABX test
 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
 An *ABX test* is a method of comparing two choices of sensory stimuli to identify detectable differences between them. A subject is presented with two known samples (sample *A*, the first reference, and sample *B*, the second reference) followed by one unknown sample *X* that is randomly selected from either A or B. The subject is then required to identify X as either A or B.] unquote
  
 It seems not even this is common ground here


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> You really don't have a clue what you're talking about here and it is abundantly clear that you have no real understanding of ABX testing. So until you do, I would suggest you just make no further mention of it (hint: it has nothing to do with preference testing).
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> ...


 
  
 Gee... sigh.... every test tests what it was designed to test.
  
 An ABX test determines whether a human test subject can identify which of two reference samples an unknown test sample most resembles.
 From the results of this, with proper analysis, you can learn some stuff.
  
 I was using the term "preference" (somewhat inaccurately) in the perjorative....
 An audio ABX test only tells you whether certain test subjects can hear certain things under certain conditions.
 (However, it lumps them all together into a single mass of unknowns, which are then "tested" as a group.)
 You are basically testing the abilities of a known flawed test instrument (a human being) to do a rather complicated test under specific conditions.
 Therefore, you are _NOT_ testing actual differences; you are testing what a human observer can _PERCEIVE_ as differences.
  
 They give a rather nice analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of this particular form of test here....
  
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test
  
 Luckily I've designed and run enough actual tests (for other industries) that I have a pretty good perspective on how the audio industry in general treats "testing".


----------



## cjl

keithemo said:


> You're actually mixing two different test protocols. ABX specifically determines whether you can associate a certain characteristic of multiple samples. .. which is useful... but which is also not what I'm specifically talking about.


 
 No. ABX simply detemines whether two sample are distinguishable from each other. It doesn't care about any particular characteristic. It simply says "given sample A and sample B, are they perceptibly distinct from each other?".


----------



## cjl

keithemo said:


> Therefore, you are _NOT_ testing actual differences; you are testing what a human observer can _PERCEIVE_ as differences.


 
 Isn't that all that matters for audio? I don't care if a difference exists between a file and theoretical perfection, as long as I can't perceive it.


----------



## StanD

> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 +1. There's plenty enough test/lab equipment to determine what is above and beyond what we can perceive. In this case, we're trying to find what matters to us humans, not electronic instrumentation and spec sheets.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> Gee... sigh.... every test tests what it was designed to test.
> 
> An ABX test determines whether a human test subject can identify which of two reference samples an unknown test sample most resembles.
> From the results of this, with proper analysis, you can learn some stuff.




Ok.




> I was using the term "preference" (somewhat inaccurately) in the perjorative....




Somewhat inaccurately? Since ABX has absolutely nothing to do with preference, how is it even "somewhat" inaccurate even as a perjorative?




> An audio ABX test only tells you whether certain test subjects can hear certain things under certain conditions.




Yes. And that's critically important if we wish to actually improve our knowledge and understanding.




> (However, it lumps them all together into a single mass of unknowns, which are then "tested" as a group.)




No idea what you're trying to say here. All ABX does is establish whether there is an actual audible difference. That's it. Just a simple answer to a simple question. So I don't know where this mass of unknowns and tested as a group is coming from. 




> You are basically testing the abilities of a known flawed test instrument (a human being) to do a rather complicated test under specific conditions.




And it is _precisely_ because humans are a flawed test instrument that we use tools like ABX. That's what it was developed for. Otherwise, we're just left with a bunch of empty, hand-waving claims. But that's all "high end audio" is about. In the scientific realm, it is the equivalent of Theodoric of York. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

And what exactly is so complicated about the test? How is it any more complicated than someone buying a new piece of gear and comparing it to their old gear? People do this all the time. I don't see anyone throwing their hands up and screaming at the sky "WHY DOES THIS HAVE TO BE SO COMPLICATED!?"




> Therefore, you are _NOT_ testing actual differences; you are testing what a human observer can _PERCEIVE_ as differences.




Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

That's _EXACTLY_ what ABX does, test for _actual differences_. It does this by providing a control with which to separate actual audible differences from perceived differences which can be due to other subjective factors.

Seriously, you are just utterly, completely out of your depth here. You don't even have a firm grasp of even the most basic concepts.

So you can either swallow a little pride and vanity and actually learn something, or continue with the bloodletting to release the evil humors. Your choice.




> Luckily I've designed and run enough actual tests (for other industries) that I have a pretty good perspective on how the audio industry in general treats "testing".




I certainly hope those other industries didn't involve any risk to life or safety based on your tests.

se


----------



## KeithEmo

cjl said:


> Isn't that all that matters for audio? I don't care if a difference exists between a file and theoretical perfection, as long as I can't perceive it.


 
  
 Yes, and no.... and you bring up a very interesting distinction.
  
 As an individual, you may only care whether _you_ can hear a difference or not.
 And, as an individual, I only care whether_ I_ can hear it.
 However, as an employee of Emotiva, I care how many of our customers and potential customers can hear it, and care enough that it will influence their buying decision.
 And, if I worked for the iTunes store, I would only be interested in how the results affected sales of music downloads for the year.
  
 If I were designing a turntable, I might be perfectly happy with a speed accuracy of 0.1%.
 That might also be perfectly good enough (and totally inaudible) to you.
 However, somewhere out there is a guy with perfect pitch and, to him, it would sound awful.
 As a designer, I might be perfectly happy if 9,999 of my 10,000 customers thought my turntable worked well.
 However, as a scientist, I couldn't say that a 0.1% speed error was "below the limits of human audibility" - because at least one human proves that claim to be false.
  
 I seem to recall that, back when vinyl and magnetic tape were considered to be "low distortion sources", somebody "determined" that "the limit of audibility for THD" was about 0.5% .
 Now, when we consider neither vinyl or tape to be a "clean source", I wonder if that result was based on bad data - or, rather, underrated test equipment.
 And, is someone still quoting that 1954 AES paper as "established fact".
  
 When it comes to things like DACs, I'm not actually aware of any "overwhelming evidence" about what is and isn't audible.
 We have whole new, never seen before, varieties of inaccuracies.
 And a lot of what I see constitutes people _inferring_ that they _must_ be inaudible based on measurements and data that are not actually equivalent.
 Dolby Labs thinks that pre-ringing sounds different than post-ringing; so do Texas Instruments, and Wolfson (at least they all sell products that claim selectable filters as a selling feature.)
 And the list of "entities" who seem to believe that jitter is quite audible in relatively small quantities is even longer.
 Yet we're presented with a paper, done several years ago, where less than two dozen test subjects were unable to identify even relatively high levels of simulated jitter (not even real jitter), using their own chosen - yet unspecified - sample material, and their own stereo equipment, and I'm supposed to consider that to completely debunk the claims of all those who claim that it is audible.
  
 I also agree that virtually everyone who is insisting that those differences exist has a good reason to want to believe just that, or to convince their customers that it's true.
 Therefore, I'm not necessarily going to believe them entirely either.
  
 And, while I may be too lazy to do those tests myself, I'll be very interested in hearing the results of legitimately run tests - especially if they're properly run, using appropriate test equipment, and test procedures that have themselves been proven to be able to do the job. (Unfortunately, due to the way industry in general works, most of the people with the resources to actually do proper testing have little motivation to do so - and in some cases a lot of motivation to _NOT_ do so.)
  
 So, yes, the day that someone tests "the audibility of pre-ringing and post-ringing in audio DACs", by first creating a set of clean test signals, then passing them through several DACs to produce the various errors to be tested, then playing them through speakers or headphones and, with a test microphone, determining that the errors are indeed cleanly reproduced in such a way that, if the test subjects can in fact hear them, they will be there to be heard, I will be very eager to hear the results. However, as of now, I haven't seen any results of a single properly designed and run test, so I remain skeptical - and so willing to consider my own (anecdotal) evidence to be (relatively) credible.
  
 I actually have devised and run lots of "formal" tests in the past - mostly for high-end computer networking products (testing things like packet delay and fault rates).
 (Believe me, it's a lot easier to test something when you can measure the results with something more accurate that "what the test subject says he heard".)
 Therefore I am well aware of how tests can be manipulated deliberately to show whatever someone wants them to.
 And I am also aware how poorly designed tests can (deliberately or accidentally) both show things that aren't there and fail to show things that are.
 It would take a well designed A/B test to prove conclusively that any difference between different DACs was due to different filter designs (in terms of transient performance).
 However, it would also take a well designed and well documented test to show that they aren't (showing that two pieces of equipment sound the same under one condition isn't even close).
  
 A "perfectly devised and run" ABX test can, at best, show that, under certain conditions, and using certain test equipment, two devices were "audibly identical".
 However, unless you try every piece of equipment on earth, and enlist every human as a test subject, it cannot ever prove the general case in the negative.
 (No matter how many people don't hear anything, you can't know whether the next person will or not, or whether you would have with a different sample, or different speakers.)
  
 However, as you pointed out, if you test _ENOUGH_ equipment, under _ENOUGH_ conditions, and with _ENOUGH_ test subjects, you can probably consider the results a fair indication about what you yourself can expect... which is all we normally ask for when it comes to audio equipment. However, I don't think we're anywhere near that point yet with DACs. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 ; but, as an individual, it only matters to me whether I can hear a difference or not; and, as a representative of Emotiva, it matters to me how many of our potential customers can hear a difference, and how many will consider it important enough to buy our product - or not. So, for each, the answer may be different.
  
 And this is why I have problems with "accepted wisdom". I don't doubt that someone several years ago found out that a bunch of people they tested, using a certain music sample, certain amplifiers, and certain speakers, determined a certain threshold of audibility for this or that distortion. However, I don't have a lot of confidence that, under different conditions, the result might not have been different. For example, many of the so-called "thresholds of audibility" that I keep hearing quoted were determined when "a low distortion sample" was sourced from either vinyl or magnetic tape - which, by today's standards, have quite unacceptably high amounts of phase shift, THD, and frequency response aberrations. 
  
 that a certain thresI could test several hundred people and find out that none of them notice if the pitch at which I play a file is off by 0.5%, but the one guy in 10,000 out there with perfect pitch would still make it incorrect for me to claim that the threshold of human hearing for pitch error is 0.5%. However, if I were selling files, and


----------



## StanD

Looks like Steve has had enough, somebody's gonna kiss the donkey.


----------



## bigshot

There were an awful lot of words there. Can someone give me a readers' digest version?


----------



## KeithEmo

cjl said:


> No. ABX simply detemines whether two sample are distinguishable from each other. It doesn't care about any particular characteristic. It simply says "given sample A and sample B, are they perceptibly distinct from each other?".


 
  
 That was my understanding. However, another poster says that you can only use ABX to compare different things once you've determined that a difference exists, and that you cannot use it to determine whether a difference exists, and "a null result" (which is what we would almost certainly both call what happens if you don't find a difference) "isn't possible".
  
 Clearly, as has already been observed, there is some dispute here as to what an ABX test actually is.


----------



## ferday

bigshot said:


> There were an awful lot of words there. Can someone give me a readers' digest version?




"Unless the results of the tests help me sell stuff, I don't believe the results or I believe the test was conducted wrong"


----------



## bigshot

ferday said:


> "Unless the results of the tests help me sell stuff, I don't believe the results or I believe the test was conducted wrong"


 
  
 Oh... I've read that before. Thanks!


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> That was my understanding. However, another poster says that you can only use ABX to compare different things once you've determined that a difference exists, and that you cannot use it to determine whether a difference exists, and "a null result" (which is what we would almost certainly both call what happens if you don't find a difference) "isn't possible".
> 
> Clearly, as has already been observed, there is some dispute here as to what an ABX test actually is.




Who exactly said that? Sounds like you're mischaracterizing what I had said earlier about if a listener isn't confident that they're perceiving a difference when comparing A and B on an ABX test, the test can't continue.

se


----------



## cjl

keithemo said:


> However, as a scientist, I couldn't say that a 0.1% speed error was "below the limits of human audibility" - because at least one human proves that claim to be false.


 
 I agree.
  
 Where's the one person who can consistently and reliably pass a well-designed ABX between DACs?


----------



## StanD

cjl said:


> I agree.
> 
> Where's the one person who can consistently and reliably pass a well-designed ABX between DACs?


 
 I think his name is Yoda. You can see why his hearing is so extra special. _Listen to the darkside of the DAC_.


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> Who exactly said that? Sounds like you're mischaracterizing what I had said earlier about if a listener isn't confident that they're perceiving a difference when comparing A and B on an ABX test, the test can't continue.
> 
> se


 
  
 I don't recall who said it.
  
 I said that, if the subject of the ABX test was unable to discern any difference, then that was a null result.
 Someone else replied that null results weren't valid in ABX tests.
  
 My overall response there is that, whether you continue the test or not, or prefer to call it an ABX test or something else later, if they are unable to discern a result then the test has indeed failed to show that they were able to discern a result (which seems to be self evident).
 In other words, if you set out to perform an ABX test, and were unable to complete it because the subject couldn't make up their mind, then that counts as a "result of no audible difference observed".
  
 I personally would probably enter the results as something like: We started to perform an ABX test, but the subject was unable to detect any difference between the test samples, so we take this to mean that, to that subject, there was no audible difference.
  
 There seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether an ABX test "can be used to show that there is no difference" or not.
 I personally consider that to be "a validation phase" of the ABX test.
 However, most formal statements of how an ABX test works suggest that failing to pick an answer is simply not an option.
 Depending on who you ask, the fact that this will tend to force the subject to guess is either:
 a) a weakness of ABX testing because the guesses will dilute the results
 b) a perfectly legitimate response because the guesses will statistically cancel out
  
 Personally, I would tend to consider "whether the subject could hear a difference or not" to be paramount.
 Although I can see how someone might suggest that, even if the subject THOUGHT they were guessing, their "guesses" might be statistically valid. (Even though consciously they are sure they can't hear a difference, possibly some subconscious cue might enable them to guess accurately a statistically significant part of the time - and we won't find out unless we compel them to guess.)
 I leave determining the value of such things to the psych department.


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> Ok.
> Somewhat inaccurately? Since ABX has absolutely nothing to do with preference, how is it even "somewhat" inaccurate even as a perjorative?
> Yes. And that's critically important if we wish to actually improve our knowledge and understanding.
> No idea what you're trying to say here. All ABX does is establish whether there is an actual audible difference. That's it. Just a simple answer to a simple question. So I don't know where this mass of unknowns and tested as a group is coming from.
> ...


 
  
 I really do give up.
  
 If someone hears a difference in your ABX test, then we can consider it proven that there is some difference, but we have no idea what it is.
  
 If they don't hear a difference, then we can presume that either:
 a) no difference exists
 b) a difference exists, but no human can hear it
 c) a difference exists, and some human might hear it under other conditions, but the test is inadequate
  
 My AP test set gives me a lot more detailed information than that.
 Therefore, I prefer to use the AP first, to determine what all the differences are.
 That way I have a good idea what to test for - and so how to do the right tests.
 (And, yes, since we're designing for humans, one of those tests will be to determine if the difference is audible.)
  
 For example, if I have two DACs, and their THD, frequency response, and S/N are very similar, but their impulse responses are very different, I might conclude that it is reasonable to test for the audibility of impulse response variations FIRST


----------



## KeithEmo

cjl said:


> I agree.
> 
> Where's the one person who can consistently and reliably pass a well-designed ABX between DACs?


 
  
 Perhaps we should look for one 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I can think of a few people who might be enticed to participate and find out - if it was local - myself included.


----------



## KeithEmo

ferday said:


> "Unless the results of the tests help me sell stuff, I don't believe the results or I believe the test was conducted wrong"


 
  
 How about the "House" version......
  
 Everybody lies.
  
 Unfortunately, at least so far, all of the people with the resources and the motivation to do a proper test also have the most motive to lie. Of course, they still might be telling the truth, but they don't have much incentive to pay for a test that even might show that their products are not especially useful.
  
 Also unfortunately, most of the people who oppose their claims also have a reason to lie - mostly because they're paranoid and so assume that anything the other guys say must be a lie - or that everybody is making all this up to cheat them. Also unfortunately, since all of the "accepted wisdom" is based on outdated tests, improperly run, and not conducted using modern equipment, most of that isn't especially credible either.
  
 Which sort of leaves us back at square one - either test for ourselves, try to analyze the anecdotal evidence as best we can, or simply decide who we find most credible and go with what they say.
  
 Fair nuff.


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> Who are you talking about? I don't know anyone who is shoving double blind listening tests down anyone's throat with regard to preference. When blind testing is brought up here, it typically concerns establishing an actual audible difference between things that no one has established audible differences for, like cables. So I don't know what your complaint is here.




No one in particular here. I've heard people on audio forums push the results of DBT testing as proof that A is always better than B, when DBT testing is good for that particular comparison, not as a generalization, IMO.


----------



## cel4145

keithemo said:


> I said that, if the subject of the ABX test was unable to discern any difference, then that was a null result.




That's because you think there should always be a difference. Thus if a difference can't be determined, you think it's the null result. 

But many of us think that there is no difference, and we are testing for that. So it's not the null result


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> I don't recall who said it.
> 
> I said that, if the subject of the ABX test was unable to discern any difference, then that was a null result.
> Someone else replied that null results weren't valid in ABX tests.




I was speaking to the situation where when the listener initially compares A to B, which are known to the listener, and they are not able to confidently perceive any difference. On this instance, the test can't actually be performed. There isn't a null result, there's simply NO result because the trial wasn't completed.




> My overall response there is that, whether you continue the test or not, or prefer to call it an ABX test or something else later, if they are unable to discern a result then the test has indeed failed to show that they were able to discern a result (which seems to be self evident).




If the listener isn't confident they're perceiving a difference between A and B, then there's no point going any further.




> In other words, if you set out to perform an ABX test, and were unable to complete it because the subject couldn't make up their mind, then that counts as a "result of no audible difference observed".




If you're unable to complete it, I wouldn't count it as any sort of result. The test itself has never been performed.




> I personally would probably enter the results as something like: We started to perform an ABX test, but the subject was unable to detect any difference between the test samples, so we take this to mean that, to that subject, there was no audible difference.




I wouldnt take it as anything. The test was never completed. Just toss it in the trash and move on.




> There seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether an ABX test "can be used to show that there is no difference" or not.




An ABX test can't show that there is no difference. It can only show that there is (positive result) or that its indeterminate (null result). A null result says nothing one way or the other. That's why it's called a null result instead of a negative result.




> Personally, I would tend to consider "whether the subject could hear a difference or not" to be paramount.
> Although I can see how someone might suggest that, even if the subject THOUGHT they were guessing, their "guesses" might be statistically valid. (Even though consciously they are sure they can't hear a difference, possibly some subconscious cue might enable them to guess accurately a statistically significant part of the time - and we won't find out unless we compel them to guess.)
> I leave determining the value of such things to the psych department.




If the listener isn't confident that they're perceiving a difference when they're initially comparing A and B (before even comparing to X), then they shouldn't be allowed to continue with the test. It's just a waste of time.

se


----------



## icebear

keithemo said:


> I don't recall who said it.
> 
> I said that, if the subject of the ABX test was unable to discern any difference, *then that was a null result.*
> Someone else replied that *null results weren't valid in ABX tests.*
> ...


 
  
 Keith, on the previous page I posted links to wikipedia on statistics and ABX testing and I beat you to it by a moment.
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/5760#post_11601030
 In your post you show the exact same link to the wikipedia article on ABX testing. I thought that was very funny. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




What is pretty obvious to me is that you either didn't read the article yourself, or at least have a very different interpretation on testing and how a result should look like. If you test something with a proper test design and statistically enough people than you can have various valid results.
  
 The test under specific conditions with a specific group of test participants shows either that there is a significant level of difference and the statistical analysis will exactly tell the so called confidence level of the result. Or the test shows that there is no significant difference between the samples.
  
 The latter result does NOT show that the test failed or that the subjects were unfit to detect a difference or unable to make up their minds. Usually the test requires you must pick one and the chance level of that being the right answer is taken care of by the statistical analysis.  There is no reason to stop the test before all participants have finished, unless you want a specific result and the test shows early on that it's going in the "wrong direction" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  
 A test is a tool to verify a hypothesis. It can have different results ... the nature of the beast.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> I really do give up.




Perhaps you should. 




> If someone hears a difference in your ABX test, then we can consider it proven that there is some difference, but we have no idea what it is.




No, ABX won't necessarily tell you what's behind any audible difference it might uncover, but if you don't understand why it's requisite that an actual audible difference be established FIRST, then you should indeed just give up.

Without first establishing an actual audible difference, then you just end up wasting your time chasing your tail.

And that's what "high end" audio has been doing for decades. Making all manner of claims, spinning all sorts if hairbrained theories, but never following through on anything. And as I've said before, they don't have to. All that tail-chasing is enough to impress just enough people to part with their money. So why spoil a good thing? A bunch of rhetoric and hand-waving doesn't cost a dime, whereas expanding our knowledge and understanding takes some real work and can be a bit costly.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

cel4145 said:


> No one in particular here. I've heard people on audio forums push the results of DBT testing as proof that A is always better than B, when DBT testing is good for that particular comparison, not as a generalization, IMO.




Mmm. I've been on some forums in my life but have never encountered that. Maybe I'm just looking in all the wrong places.

se


----------



## castleofargh

I see ABX as toxicology.
 if too little differences are found, even if it doesn't really prove a null(and it cannot), it gives a good incentive to say that the difference isn't "dangerous" and that we don't need to be wary of it..
 and with the same idea, all it takes is 1 guy acing it all or having a toxic reaction to justify a warning to everybody else.
  
 now where is that 1 guy? can we make him pass a good prepared test(only the parameter tested would change) a number of times big enough to get far away from probable guessing?
 that's really all there is to it right? no need for 500guys successfully passing the test with 99.9% right answers. that would reveal something else in the magnitude of the difference and how many people can hear it, but it wouldn't change the fact that one guy already could.
  
  
  
  
 now it wouldn't change the fact that I myself had a hell of a time trying to discriminate 3 DACs.  so I don't care much about DACs and filters in general for my own use. no test from others would really change how I fail to find them significant myself.
 just like if FFbookman ended up being able to always tell the mp3 and AAC apart from the lossless, that wouldn't make me stop using those compressed files in my DAPs.
  
 still if differences are audible, it should be pretty easy to find a few dudes acing the tests.


----------



## bigshot

I love it when people focus on testing instead of sound quality.
  
 ABX is a useful way to determine IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AT ALL.
  
 If there is no difference, BY DEFINITION, it doesn't matter.
  
 Do two amps/cables/DACs sound different? No. Well, then it doesn't matter, does it? Compare one of those two to another... still no difference. Nope, no difference. Then that doesn't matter either.
  
 This is what I do all the time with my tests of my equipment. Everyone should.
  
 If I find a difference, THEN I will move on to the next question, which is "which one is more accurate"? So far, I haven't needed to ask that question.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I love it when people focus on testing instead of sound quality.
> 
> ABX is a useful way to determine IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AT ALL.
> 
> ...




That doesn't sell product. The key to selling product is to make up some Bogey Man, make people afraid of it, and then convince people that you have the best Bogey Man repellent.

se


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> That doesn't sell product. The key to selling product is to make up some Bogey Man, make people afraid of it, and then convince people that you have the best Bogey Man repellent.




Or you make up some fools' gold. Then convince everyone you have the most real gold to sell


----------



## Steve Eddy

cel4145 said:


> Or you make up some fools' gold. Then convince everyone you have the most real gold to sell




That works too. Though what's the price difference between fool's gold and Bogey Men? Might want to check that out first. 

se


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> That works too. Though what's the price difference between fool's gold and Bogey Men? Might want to check that out first.
> 
> se




The Bogey man with fool's gold added to overcome it: 



> Pure Oil Silver CD Hi-End RCA Audio Cable 1M Pair
> 
> In by the high-purity oxygen-free copper silver-plating lay-up knitting, in the pipeline fills the antivibration oil to isolate the air, makes the vacuum transmission simple and beautiful, the acoustic fidelity refined, divides the clear strength to be high, makes the acoustic fidelity to be more expressive.




http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pure-Oil-Silver-CD-Hi-End-RCA-Audio-Cable-1M-Pair-/380375398741

I think I gotta make me up some audio science and sell me some products on Ebay to help build my retirement! :evil:


----------



## Steve Eddy

cel4145 said:


> The Bogey man with fool's gold added to overcome it:
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pure-Oil-Silver-CD-Hi-End-RCA-Audio-Cable-1M-Pair-/380375398741
> 
> I think I gotta make me up some audio science and sell me some products on Ebay to help build my retirement! :evil:




I thought of doing that once. But I decided I liked sleeping well at night much more. 

se


----------



## headwhacker

cel4145 said:


> The Bogey man with fool's gold added to overcome it:
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pure-Oil-Silver-CD-Hi-End-RCA-Audio-Cable-1M-Pair-/380375398741
> 
> I think I gotta make me up some audio science and sell me some products on Ebay to help build my retirement!


 
  
 Build quality looks decent. At $30 it's far from insane as other cables being offered out there. I guess you got to attach catchy name to your product to attract attention.


----------



## Roly1650

headwhacker said:


> Build quality looks decent. At $30 it's far from insane as other cables being offered out there. I guess you got to attach catchy name to your product to attract attention.



I agree, if a $30 pair of eBay interconnects, that probably perform no worse than any other $30 eBay interconnect, is the most egregious rip-off you can find, you're not looking very hard. I have zero time for @analogsurviver, but this cable may actually be his only worthwhile suggestion.


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> I was speaking to the situation where when the listener initially compares A to B, which are known to the listener, and they are not able to confidently perceive any difference. On this instance, the test can't actually be performed. There isn't a null result, there's simply NO result because the trial wasn't completed.
> If the listener isn't confident they're perceiving a difference between A and B, then there's no point going any further.
> If you're unable to complete it, I wouldn't count it as any sort of result. The test itself has never been performed.
> I wouldnt take it as anything. The test was never completed. Just toss it in the trash and move on.
> ...


 
  
 However, that final statement of yours is _NOT_ "widely accepted" as being a requirement of an ABX test. (Instead, they would say that the test was a washout only if the subject _REFUSED_ to answer, but consider low confidence answers, and even out-and-out guesses to be perfectly valid.)
  
 I even read one interesting test where, after one subject informed the test operators that he was totally unable to tell one device from another, he was told to "make his best choice - even if you have to guess". Interestingly, it turned out that he chose correctly about 80% of the time. Since the actual result was statistically significant, the researchers interpreted this to mean that, even though he was consciously unable to tell the two choices apart, some difference between the choices still caused him to have a "subconscious preference", which was clearly shown in his "guesses" - even though he wasn't consciously aware of it.
  
 One way that someone specifically suggested that this might be useful would be in testing audio CODECs. (For example, what if a group of listeners were unable to accurately identify a difference between a 256k AAC compressed file and an uncompressed WAV file in ABX tests, yet, when allowed to listen to either for as long as they liked, consistently turned off the music much sooner when listening to the AAC file? This would constitute evidence that, even though the subjects couldn't consciously discern the difference, there was something about the compressed files that caused the test subjects to not want to listen to them for the same period of time (perhaps the compressed file causes "fatigue") - which would constitute an actual measurable difference that the ABX test failed to detect.


----------



## KeithEmo

icebear said:


> Keith, on the previous page I posted links to wikipedia on statistics and ABX testing and I beat you to it by a moment.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/5760#post_11601030
> In your post you show the exact same link to the wikipedia article on ABX testing. I thought that was very funny.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I agree with everything you said 100% (and WikiPedia is a handy reference that most people are inclined to accept).
  
 One problem is that many people in this thread seem to be determined to use the results of an ABX test to "prove that there is no difference" - when the results actually only show that no differences were consciously detected by the specific sample of observers tested, using the specific test protocol, equipment, and samples used for the test.


----------



## dazzerfong

keithemo said:


> I even read one interesting test where, after one subject informed the test operators that he was totally unable to tell one device from another, he was told to "make his best choice - even if you have to guess". Interestingly, it turned out that he chose correctly about 80% of the time. Since the actual result was statistically significant, the researchers interpreted this to mean that, even though he was consciously unable to tell the two choices apart, some difference between the choices still caused him to have a "subconscious preference", which was clearly shown in his "guesses" - even though he wasn't consciously aware of it.


 
 Ever heard of _p<0.05_? I guess not. Pretty crappy test if they had to accept 0.8 rather than 0.95.


keithemo said:


> One way that someone specifically suggested that this might be useful would be in testing audio CODECs. (For example, what if a group of listeners were unable to accurately identify a difference between a 256k AAC compressed file and an uncompressed WAV file in ABX tests, yet, when allowed to listen to either for as long as they liked, consistently turned off the music much sooner when listening to the AAC file? This would constitute evidence that, even though the subjects couldn't consciously discern the difference, there was something about the compressed files that caused the test subjects to not want to listen to them for the same period of time (perhaps the compressed file causes "fatigue") - which would constitute an actual measurable difference that the ABX test failed to detect.


 
 Correlation != causation. You can't use something as tenuous as 'turning off music' to associate it with 'sub-par' quality.


----------



## StanD

keithemo said:


> I agree with everything you said 100% (and WikiPedia is a handy reference that most people are inclined to accept).
> 
> One problem is that many people in this thread seem to be determined to use the results of an ABX test to "prove that there is no difference" - when the results actually only show that no differences were consciously detected by the specific sample of observers tested, using the specific test protocol, equipment, and samples used for the test.


 
 The point is that whether a human can percieve a difference and hence determine if there is any practical value for us carbon units. This has been pointed out to you a number of times. You can go ahead and use test equipment for measurments that do not mean anything to human hearing but might satisy your questions.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> However, that final statement of yours is _NOT_ "widely accepted" as being a requirement of an ABX test. (Instead, they would say that the test was a washout only if the subject _REFUSED_ to answer, but consider low confidence answers, and even out-and-out guesses to be perfectly valid.)




I don't know anyone who feels that would be a requirement. 




> I even read one interesting test where, after one subject informed the test operators that he was totally unable to tell one device from another, he was told to "make his best choice - even if you have to guess". Interestingly, it turned out that he chose correctly about 80% of the time. Since the actual result was statistically significant, the researchers interpreted this to mean that, even though he was consciously unable to tell the two choices apart, some difference between the choices still caused him to have a "subconscious preference", which was clearly shown in his "guesses" - even though he wasn't consciously aware of it.




80% of the time out of how many trials? What was the P value? Simply saying "statistically significant" doesn't really say much. I once flipped a quarter 10 times and it came up heads 10 times by my "willing" it to come up heads. Does that mean I have telekinetic powers? I guess you would have to concede that I do. But the next trial of 10 it only came up heads 6 times. And the next only 4. So I would need to know more specifics. 




> One way that someone specifically suggested that this might be useful would be in testing audio CODECs. (For example, what if a group of listeners were unable to accurately identify a difference between a 256k AAC compressed file and an uncompressed WAV file in ABX tests, yet, when allowed to listen to either for as long as they liked, consistently turned off the music much sooner when listening to the AAC file? This would constitute evidence that, even though the subjects couldn't consciously discern the difference, there was something about the compressed files that caused the test subjects to not want to listen to them for the same period of time (perhaps the compressed file causes "fatigue") - which would constitute an actual measurable difference that the ABX test failed to detect.




I await your results of just such a test. 

In the meantime, as I've said before, talk is cheap and what ifs are less than a dime a dozen.

se


----------



## icebear

keithemo said:


> I agree with everything you said 100% (and WikiPedia is a handy reference that most people are inclined to accept).
> 
> One problem is that many people in this thread seem to be determined *to use the results of an ABX test to "prove that there is no difference"* - when the results actually only show that *no differences were consciously detected* by the specific sample of observers tested, using the specific test protocol, equipment, and samples used for the test.


 

 Indeed ... as this is "_sound science_" here, the arguments about _sound_ should be sound as well 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
  
 For all testing to be discussed it is crucial to reveal all details. That means how had the participants of the test been recruited (selection criteria: "off the street"?) and how was it verified that the participants comply to these criteria (self assessment by ticking boxes on a questionaire?).
  
 ALL tests are only valid within their specific design parameters.
 And all the fuzz only arises when people start taking results of such a test and generalize beyond the test parameters.
 One single ABX test doesn't proof anything - it also doesn't disproof anything
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  
 People are not making any buying decisions on sound ABX testing, then there would be only one car type being sold as it will most likely get you from A to B. If there is no detectable sound differences for the average consumer between a $200 DAC and $2000 DAC on his kitchen desktop system, he will most likely resort to other criteria than sound alone to make a decision - most likely leave it to his better half to point to "that one looks cute".


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> I agree with everything you said 100% (and WikiPedia is a handy reference that most people are inclined to accept).
> 
> One problem is that many people in this thread seem to be determined to use the results of an ABX test to "prove that there is no difference" - when the results actually only show that no differences were consciously detected by the specific sample of observers tested, using the specific test protocol, equipment, and samples used for the test.




Would you care to actually quote where someone here said that an ABX test proves there is no difference? 

se


----------



## KeithEmo

stand said:


> The point is that whether a human can percieve a difference and hence determine if there is any practical value for us carbon units. This has been pointed out to you a number of times. You can go ahead and use test equipment for measurments that do not mean anything to human hearing but might satisy your questions.


 
  
 I see you didn't actually read all of what I wrote.
  
 My point there was that the best ABX test can _ONLY_ show that no differences were observable with specific test subjects, with specific test equipment, and under specific test conditions. There is no even theoretically possible ABX test you can run that will "prove" whether test subjects would hear a difference under different conditions. (And you need to test a lot of people, under a lot of different conditions, with a wide variety of different source material and equipment, before you can reasonably make that inferential jump from "our test subjects didn't hear it in our test" to "it is inaudible to all human beings under all conditions")
  
 You are also assuming that what the test subjects consciously hear is the _ONLY_ useful data... 
 - What if your subjects can't hear any difference, but most of them end up with a headache after listening to Product A, but not after listening to Product B? 
 (Did the results of your ABX test include the results of a survey about how they were feeling later - after they completed the test?)
 - To take it to the absurd limit, what if everyone who listens to Product C drops dead an hour later?
 - Or, more likely, what if you let them listen to each as long as they like, and, on average, they listen to Product A five times as long as they listen to product B?
 (If that happened, then any competent researcher would conclude that there was some difference present that the test subjects weren't reporting.)
  
 My point is that ABX tests are one of a wide variety of test protocols.
 They are useful, but they also have limits, and are not the "prove all" that some people seem to want to believe.


----------



## StanD

keithemo said:


> I see you didn't actually read all of what I wrote.
> 
> My point there was that the best ABX test can _ONLY_ show that no differences were observable with specific test subjects, with specific test equipment, and under specific test conditions. There is no even theoretically possible ABX test you can run that will "prove" whether test subjects would hear a difference under different conditions. (And you need to test a lot of people, under a lot of different conditions, with a wide variety of different source material and equipment, before you can reasonably make that inferential jump from "our test subjects didn't hear it in our test" to "it is inaudible to all human beings under all conditions")
> 
> ...


 
 What if the person measuring THD in a lab test slips on a bannana peel an hour later, hits his head and ends up in a coma? I'll bet that you are also disputing that NASA landed astronauts on the moon. One can argue anything, and it appears that you are willing to do so.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> My point is that ABX tests are one of a wide variety of test protocols.
> They are useful, but they also have limits, and are not the "prove all" that some people seem to want to believe.




No, they do not "prove all." But they can prove a positive, at least to a high degree of confidence. 

Yet after decades, "high end" audio is still left just flapping their gums.

The real point here should be that it's time to either Schiit or get off the pot instead of wasting yet more time running around in circles and waving hands. It's like Groundhog Day. Every day it's Sonny & Cher, and every day "high end" audio has gotten no closer to increasing our knowledge and understanding than they were 30 years ago.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> No, they do not "prove all." But they can prove a positive, at least to a high degree of confidence.
> 
> Yet after decades, "high end" audio is still left just flapping their gums.
> 
> ...


 
 Keep in mind that Keith works for a company that makes Amps, DACs, etc. Is he willing to admit that there isn't much of a reason to buy the top end of their product line? Unlikely.


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> No, they do not "prove all." But they can prove a positive, at least to a high degree of confidence.
> 
> Yet after decades, "high end" audio is still left just flapping their gums.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I agree with you there...
  
 (Actually, I would say that we understand a lot more than we did thirty years ago, but we've also raised enough new questions and broken enough new ground that the proportion of what we know and don't know is probably about the same but I do believe that "typical" audio equipment today does deliver better overall sound quality, more conveniently, and for less cost, than equivalent equipment thirty years ago.)
  
 But, beyond that, it does all still come down to commercial economics....
  
 A $6 Amazon Basics USB cable will deliver a USB audio signal as well as any $200 "audiophile USB cable" sold by anyone. However, considering who they sell to, and the profit Amazon makes from the sale of that $6 cable, _THEY_ aren't going to pay for a proper test to prove that fact. And, even if they really think they'll win, the risk of a null result is going to be more than enough to make sure that the guys selling the $200 audiophile version aren't going to run a proper test either. And running an ABX test, using a certain few test subjects, and a certain few computers, and a certain few DACs, isn't going to be compelling proof either (although it's probably better than nothing at all).
  
 The same situation applies to most magazines. Other than a very few "user supported" ones, most magazines live on advertising. Therefore, no magazine is going to spend the money to perform a test whose conclusions may well "suggest" that some of their advertisers are selling snake oil - because, in the end, they can't afford to insult their advertisers. A little controversy is good, and sells magazines, but they aren't going to come out and say that one of their advertisers is just plain lying, or sells products that aren't worth buying. (And, honestly, the market isn't big enough these days that any magazine I know can afford to turn away paid advertising unless it is downright fraudulent...)
  
 Therefore we're left with a sort of vacuum where none of the entities with the budgets to run a proper test have any incentive to do so, and none of the "real people simply looking for the truth" has the budget or the inclination to do anything more than a "quick informal test".


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Keep in mind that Keith works for a company that makes Amps, DACs, etc. Is he willing to admit that there isn't much of a reason to buy the top end of their product line? Unlikely.




Well, I sell expensive cables, so there's hope. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> I agree with you there...
> 
> (Actually, I would say that we understand a lot more than we did thirty years ago...




Perhaps, but often it's just rediscovering what was learned many years ago. 




> ...but we've also raised enough new questions and broken enough new ground that the proportion of what we know and don't know is probably about the same...




What new questions and what new ground? Keep in mind I'm talking about specialty "high end" audio here. 




> ...but I do believe that "typical" audio equipment today does deliver better overall sound quality, more conveniently, and for less cost, than equivalent equipment thirty years ago.)




Sure. But virtually all of that has some from the big Japanese companies. Again, I'm talking about specially "high end" audio, which seems to exist in its own little bubble.




> But, beyond that, it does all still come down to commercial economics....
> 
> A $6 Amazon Basics USB cable will deliver a USB audio signal as well as any $200 "audiophile USB cable" sold by anyone. However, considering who they sell to, and the profit Amazon makes from the sale of that $6 cable, _THEY_ aren't going to pay for a proper test to prove that fact. And, even if they really think they'll win, the risk of a null result is going to be more than enough to make sure that the guys selling the $200 audiophile version aren't going to run a proper test either. And running an ABX test, using a certain few test subjects, and a certain few computers, and a certain few DACs, isn't going to be compelling proof either (although it's probably better than nothing at all).
> 
> ...




Well, my bottom line is, if you can't substantiate the claims being made, then don't make the claims in the first place. That's ultimately the problem with the "high end" industry. Making all manner of claims with regard to audibility but never substantiating them.

So instead of going on about how much work and expense is involved to do properly controlled tests, _*just stop making the damned claims!*_.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Well, I sell expensive cables, so there's hope.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Not incredibly expensive and you don't make crazy claims of audio nirvana.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Not incredibly expensive and you don't make crazy claims of audio nirvana.




Yes. And that goes to my last post to KeithEm. Just don't make the claims in the first place and you won't have people on Sound Science (rightfully) demanding substantiation. How simple is that? I don't make any unsubstantiated claims, and I make no secret of my feelings on the issue of cables. Yet I'm able to earn a living at it. So it _can_ be done.

se


----------



## KeithEmo

dazzerfong said:


> Ever heard of _p<0.05_? I guess not. Pretty crappy test if they had to accept 0.8 rather than 0.95.
> Correlation != causation. You can't use something as tenuous as 'turning off music' to associate it with 'sub-par' quality.


 
  
 As for whether it's reasonable to "associate quality with turning music off" - that's not as simple a question as it sounds.
 In fact, whenever humans are concerned, you often end up with unanticipated complications.
  
 I agree that you can't infer "inferior audio quality" from "the average listener turns it off sooner" - but you can most certainly infer that _some_ difference exists. I can think of several possible causes for this result, and "something different in the sound quality" is definitely one of them, although the idea that the one people listen to for less time is the inferior one is not a given even then. (Perhaps our samples contain some sort of nasty ultrasonic distortion, and only the superior product reproduces that distortion with enough fidelity to allow it to be annoying.)
  
 Let's assume I have two products which any number of subjects are unable to distinguish in any way in any ABX test I run. However, when I place subjects in identical rooms where one or the other is playing, they consistently listen to Product A for several hours, and equally consistently switch Product B off after ten or fifteen minutes. Anyone observing this result would have to recognize that a correlation of some sort exists; clearly there's something about either Product A or Product B or both that makes people prefer to listen to Product A for longer periods of time. And, if we're positing that the two products are "audibly the same", then we need to determine where that correlation is coming from, so we can show that it is or isn't related to the audio performance.
  
 Based on my knowledge of human perception, I might theorize that Product B is producing some sort of ultrasonic noise or distortion that, while not consciously audible, is found "fatiguing" or "uncomfortable" by many listeners. Of course, it could be something not at all related to the audio performance - it could simply be that the indicator lamps on Product B are an annoying color, or that Product A has a nicer feeling Volume control. Luckily, these are all things we can test for. However, we can't reasonably decide to accept the results of our ABX test and ignore the obvious correlation that our other test turned up. We must find the cause - or at least prove that it is the result of some flaw in our test procedure.


----------



## AudioBear

A test can only answer the question it was designed to test.  Valid tests usually test one variable at a time.  The test situation you describe has too many possible confounders as you yourself note in the last paragraph.  Shows how hard it is to do an unbiased test. 
  
 One possibility you left out is that people listen for only 15 minutes because the music is so good they only need 15 minutes to be satisfied.  The ABX test asked a different question and has answered the question that was posed.  There is no audible difference that people can identify.  You have to design another test to evaluate each potential reason that the listening time was different one by one.
  
 I think the example is rather contrived but if it ever happened it would certainly be a reason for further research.   This whole notion of listener fatigue is a tough nut to evaluate since there are so many factors that go into turning the off switch.  It has become a good obstruction to objectivism about audio.


----------



## cjl

dazzerfong said:


> Ever heard of _p<0.05_? I guess not. Pretty crappy test if they had to accept 0.8 rather than 0.95.
> Correlation != causation. You can't use something as tenuous as 'turning off music' to associate it with 'sub-par' quality.


 

 To be fair, you can have a p value of way less than 0.05 with an 80% correct identification of samples. Stating that someone isn't guessing with 95% certainty is different from stating that they get 95% of their trials correct.


----------



## cjl

keithemo said:


> Perhaps we should look for one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 OK. When you find that person, you can make claims about the audibility of differences in dac filters (and the like). Until then, though, you really can't expect any of us to believe your unsupported anecdotes.
  
 (Besides which, weren't you just claiming to hear the difference yourself a while ago? Why not do the test yourself then?)


----------



## AudioBear

keithemo said:


> I agree with you there...
> 
> (Actually, I would say that we understand a lot more than we did thirty years ago, but we've also raised enough new questions and broken enough new ground that the proportion of what we know and don't know is probably about the same but I do believe that "typical" audio equipment today does deliver better overall sound quality, more conveniently, and for less cost, than equivalent equipment thirty years ago.)
> 
> ...


 
 The business of making claims you can't or don't substantiate and which may in fact not be true (or at least untested) is called modern marketing.  High end audio is but a microcosm of what is going on in many market sectors.  Dietary supplements, natural and organic foods are another a good example.  There are many others.  There is simply no accountability and no penalty for saying anything you think will sell products. Let the buyer beware.  As long as that is true people will make up all sorts of claims.  Fear-based marketing is reinforced by confirmation bias.  Adding to do that is that people self-associate into tribes of like-minded people who reinforce tribal delusions.  It is more rewarding to say what other tribe members say than it is to disagree with them and argue that the science proves you're wrong. Decisions are for the most part not made scientifically.  In fact scientific knowledge and expertise have been so marginalized in the public psyche that they are essentially irrelevant.  This could come back to bite us as a society.  Take global warming as an example, everybody has an opinion one way or the other but none of them (including myself) are expert enough to really come to a reasoned conclusion.  I'd wager that 99.99999% haven't read the peer-reviewed literature on climate change and couldn't understand it if they did.  So why do they think they should have an opinion?
  
 What does this have to do with testing?  Simple, as was mentioned above no objective tests of any kind are usually done on product categories and while manufacturers publish specifications (which some say all lie), for most products the differences in specs are so small it's hard to see how they could result in an audible difference.  Of course it could be they are measuring the wrong parameters. You'd almost think so when you look at something like DACs or amps performance. They are all essentially the same from $100 to $100,000 per unit.  I have never blind tested myself but I am not sure I could tell a $100 DAC from a $10,000 DAC which I have never heard.  Yet we read users and sellers saying this one is bright, that one is dark which is essentially describing differences in frequency response for gear that all have flat frequency responses within the resolving power of human hearing.  Audiophiles are a strange tribe indeed.
  
 Which leads me to comment on ABX testing and what it can and cannot show. Let me restate the obvious.  We all hear differently (dynamic range, sensitivity, frequency response, etc).  There is a normal distribution of responses to any biological test.  It's basically a Gaussian distribution if we plot response numbers versus increasing stimulus. If we test one gram of a drug on 1000 people with a headache and ask the respondents in an hour if the headache is gone, their responses will test the hypothesis that one gram is sufficient to cure a headache (assuming headaches don't go away in an hour and granting that a control group fed a sugar placebo will give a 35% cure rate--every test needs to be carefully controlled).  If 950 people say their headache is cured that will be highly significant but it still means that 50 people have a headache.  In ABX testing terms this means that while there is no difference to the vast majority, a few may hear a difference.  Audiophiles are the ones who claim they can hear the difference--most can't. Note that if you pool responses you will arrive at the conclusion that the test overwhelmingly indicates we cannot hear the difference.  
  
 A comment on using statistics.  To  oversimplify, P=0.05 means that 1 in 20 times we do the test we get a different result than the other 19. Yes, a quarter can land on heads 10 times out of 10 every now and then (actually we can predict how often assuming the quarter and the toss is unbiased). In most cases of ABX testing none of the respondents does much better than the mean but it happens now and then just as probability would predict.  Often the people with statistically significant differences from the norm are not musicians and have little audio experience.  This suggests that they are the one out of 20 that randomly falls at the ends of the curve.
  
 Even if we grant that there are super-ears out there that can hear a difference who cares?  What makes a difference is only if you as an individual can hear a difference.  I use an ABX test to get a sense of how likely I am to tell a difference; if nobody else can tell the difference between one power cord or another I am also unlikely to be able to tell and I am therefore unlikely to buy an audiophile power cord. We can also use science to inform us if the ABX results are reasonable.  The test cannot prove that nobody can tell the difference.   In fact, I have always wondered if the engineers who develop audio products get good enough to use their hearing to tell what changes improve and what changes degrade a product's performance.  They think they can. But when I read an advertisement or a review that says that the developer has voiced a product to be sweet or warm or tube-like or whatever, I just turn the page and mark the product off my list. I want neutral and transparent--just the music please.  And let's not get started on why it's ok to buy a tube-amp or an earphone because it is voiced in a certain way but not use DSP or equalization.  This borders on pride in one's ignorance.
  
 With most complex technologies we often consult experts in the field.  The science and the experts say we shouldn't worry much about our power cords as long as they are adequate to serve the power demands of the equipment but audiophiles will pay hundreds if not thousands for cords that they claim make a huge difference.  We each have to decide for ourselves.  The ABX test shows that power cords shouldn't be very high on most of our shopping lists, no more no less.  You can never use them to prove to an audiophile that they are wrong--nor should you.  This is an argument that can't be resolved with an ABX test.
  
 It's also worth noting that a significant statistical difference is not necessarily a significant biological difference.  The fact that I might be able to tell an 320 MP3 from a ALAC file on a consistent basis doesn't mean I care or even that I notice the difference when listening to music--there's a difference between an ABX test and a leisure activity.  I don't get fatigued listening to streamed low-res music, to standard CD play-back, or to Hi-Res so the fatigue faster argument doesn't work for me.  I can't deny it might be important to others but most people just don't care.  People have been trained to accept distorted, compressed music and they seem quite happy with that.  Audiophiles being the exception I suppose.  
  
 Something tells me this is an endless debate.  Nobody with resources enough to do a test has an interest in doing research which might blow their products out of the water and the few independent tests that have been done are rejected by audiophiles who know they can hear a difference so they focus on trying to debunk the testing rather than understanding the results.  Science and engineering gets trashed in the process.


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> (Actually, I would say that we understand a lot more than we did thirty years ago, but we've also raised enough new questions and broken enough new ground that the proportion of what we know and don't know is probably about the same but I do believe that "typical" audio equipment today does deliver better overall sound quality, more conveniently, and for less cost, than equivalent equipment thirty years ago.)


 
  
 Most of the fundamentals of sound reproduction had been researched and were well understood by the early 1920s. The limitation was the electronics of the day. With the introduction of transistors, then digital processing, the electronics had caught up with the fundamentals.
  
 Whenever someone starts saying, "We don't know everything there is to know, so we can't know for sure." it's pretty obvious that they are just blowing smoke. If you don't know, there is a golden invitation to get to work and find out. If we can design one DAC or amp that meets and exceeds our ability to hear, then why don't ALL DACs and amps do that? It isn't like the manufacturing would cost any more. Most of the parts in electronics are off the shelf components anyway. It's just a matter of proper design.
  
 Oh wait... we already did that. Just about all DACs and amps *DO* sound perfect. The ones that don't are DESiGNED to sound different. If you find one that sounds "warmer" or "more detailed" there is probably something wrong with it.


----------



## bigshot

Why do manufacturers not just rely on objective measurements to market their products? If they are producing a product that is audibly perfect, wouldn't it be a good idea to let customers know that?
  
 No. Because making audibly perfect electronics isn't difficult at all. The second you post your specs showing that your amp or DAC exceeds all of the aspects of human hearing, some guy is going to come along with their own DAC or amp and show that their specs are a little bit better... and try to make customers think that maybe they can hear a difference even though they can't. They'll confuse their customers by relying on flowery descriptions like "tighter bass" and "more defined inner detail" and "clearer transients" even though there is no audible difference at all.
  
 Oh wait... that's what they actually do...


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> :
> Oh wait... we already did that. Just about all DACs and amps *DO* sound perfect. The ones that don't are DESiGNED to sound different. If you find one that sounds "warmer" or "more detailed" there is probably something wrong with it.


 
 Or marketing spin. Some of the audio elite cherish "warmer or more detailed." There's always something to bark about.


----------



## bigshot

bread and butter... jinx! you owe me a coke!


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> Well, my bottom line is, if you can't substantiate the claims being made, then don't make the claims in the first place. That's ultimately the problem with the "high end" industry. Making all manner of claims with regard to audibility but never substantiating them.
> 
> So instead of going on about how much work and expense is involved to do properly controlled tests, _*just stop making the damned claims!*_.




+1

Nothing wrong with selling expensive, high end audio equipment that may or may not be audibly different from less expensive equipment, as long as it's not being marketed as if it is. 

Now one thing to give Emotiva credit for is that they do provide measurements of their DACs. For example, 
https://emotiva.com/resources/media/Stealth/DC1_AP_Report.pdf
https://emotiva.com/resources/media/xda2/xda2_asrcdisabled.pdf


----------



## AudioBear

Can't deny looks, style, dimensions, and pride of ownership--even mine is more expensive than yours-- as reasons to buy one gizmo over another.   Just because it isn't worth $10,000 to most of us, doesn't mean it is without value to someone who has that kind of money.
  
 I was going to say it didn't sound any different, but it does, it's been voiced to sound like $10K. Warm, tubey, lush, emotional, with perfect PRaT.


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> Can't deny looks, style, dimensions, and pride of ownership--even mine is more expensive than yours-- as reasons to buy one gizmo over another.   Just because it isn't worth $10,000 to most of us, doesn't mean it is without value to someone who has that kind of money.




Like the $179 million someone recently paid for that Picasso? 

se


----------



## KeithEmo

cjl said:


> To be fair, you can have a p value of way less than 0.05 with an 80% correct identification of samples. Stating that someone isn't guessing with 95% certainty is different from stating that they get 95% of their trials correct.


 
  


audiobear said:


> A test can only answer the question it was designed to test.  Valid tests usually test one variable at a time.  The test situation you describe has too many possible confounders as you yourself note in the last paragraph.  Shows how hard it is to do an unbiased test.
> 
> One possibility you left out is that people listen for only 15 minutes because the music is so good they only need 15 minutes to be satisfied.  The ABX test asked a different question and has answered the question that was posed.  There is no audible difference that people can identify.  You have to design another test to evaluate each potential reason that the listening time was different one by one.
> 
> I think the example is rather contrived but if it ever happened it would certainly be a reason for further research.   This whole notion of listener fatigue is a tough nut to evaluate since there are so many factors that go into turning the off switch.  It has become a good obstruction to objectivism about audio.


 
  
 Your second point is excellent... and points up one area where we would need to be very specific about what we're testing. If we were testing how intelligible a public address system was, then we might expect people to leave the area sooner because the more intelligible system allowed them to understand the announcement sooner, and so get on with their day - in which case we would expect people to move away from the "better performing system" sooner. I personally tend to feel that music is "a pleasant way to fill time" - and so the music I listen to for a longer time is "being more effective"... but perhaps we could also use a study to determine how many people evaluate music in which of those ways.
  
 Actually the example I gave isn't contrived at all - it's historic.
  
 Back in the early days of FM, when stereo FM was just becoming common, many tuners would leak the 19 kHz stereo subcarrier into the audio at significant levels (especially mono FM tuners, which weren't specifically designed to avoid doing so). Some people hear 19 kHz as a distinct tone; some experience it more like a pressure - sort of like air blowing into your ear; still others don't notice it at all. Also, especially back then, many speakers simply didn't reproduce 19 kHz, and so failed to play it anyway. Back then, the 19 Khz frequency was chosen for the subcarrier because it was believed to be either totally inaudible, or inaudible enough that a slight amount of leakage wouldn't annoy anyone. As a result, some listeners found themselves unable to listen to certain tuners for a significant length of time without feeling uncomfortable or getting a headache - even though they were unable to say precisely why. (Since some people could hear the tone quite clearly, and it was easy to measure, it was relatively simple to correlate high levels of subcarrier leakage with people's complaints, and so the problem was fixed quite easily.)
  
 I agree that it would be somewhat difficult to "accurately test and characterize" listener fatigue... but that doesn't give us license to ignore claims by those who claim to experience it.
  
 I also don't agree that it would be prohibitively difficult to test in specific instances. You could, perhaps, arrange a contrived situation where a subject has the choice of two different but identical "waiting rooms", each of which has one of your devices under test playing, and measure (and correlate) how much time each subject spends in each room. You could randomly distribute your subjects between the two rooms, record how many move, and in which direction. If you keep them waiting for a long enough period of time, or provide other reasons for the people to move around, you could then correlate how much time each subject spends in each room.This should give you a whole bunch of data to analyze about the average time spent in each room, and the percentage of subjects who remained in their initial room vs those who switched rooms. If the devices are equal, then you would expect no statistically significant asymmetries to occur; if they aren't equal, then you would expect a disproportionate number of people to leave one room, or leave one room_ sooner_.
  
 Once you establish even a rough correlation, you can then analyze the differences between your supposedly "audibly equivalent" devices, see where those differences lie, then test each of them individually to try and determine which of the differences is actually correlated to people's reaction when listening to the device.
  
 I also agree that there's sometimes a fine line between being accurate and "being obstructive".... and I tend to take the side against claims made with no factual basis - such as many made for various types of cables. However, when a claim is based on measurable fact, and the only point in question is whether that measurable fact is audible or not, and a significant number of people claim that it is audible, I'm inclined to want to see substantial evidence before I consider the matter to be closed.


----------



## bigshot

I hear that the $17,000 iWatch performs to higher standards than the regular iWatch. The chips inside that run the watch are manufactured with the finest grade of unobtanium so it keeps time to within a gazillionth of a second better, and the screen is able to render the blackest blacks as a little bit more black than the regular iWatch!!


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> I agree that it would be somewhat difficult to "accurately test and characterize" listener fatigue... but that doesn't give us license to ignore claims by those who claim to experience it.


 
  
 Good news! Listener fatigue has actually been solved!
  
 Isolating subjective issues, listener fatigue is a combination of two things... comfort and fit of headphones over extended periods of time, and frequency response imbalances- particularly narrow high frequency spikes that are not wide enough to be perceived as part of the overall tone.
  
 Glad I could clear that up for you!


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> when a claim is based on measurable fact, and the only point in question is whether that measurable fact is audible or not, and a significant number of people claim that it is audible, I'm inclined to want to see substantial evidence before I consider the matter to be closed.


 
  
 Good news! The thresholds of human perception have been studied for a much longer time and more thoroughly than measurements of DAC and amp specs!
  
 Frequency response, phase shift, noise floors, distortion... on all of these there are VERY clearly defined thresholds. In fact, whenever there is a new aspect of recorded sound, like for instance jitter, the FIRST thing that scientists do is conduct controlled testing to determine the JDT (just detectable threshold). In the case of jitter, it's pretty clear that it isn't anywhere near audible, even in very inexpensive home audio products.
  
 Science is hard at work, helping you know what matters and what doesn't! I'm glad to help you clear this up!


----------



## KeithEmo

stand said:


> Keep in mind that Keith works for a company that makes Amps, DACs, etc. Is he willing to admit that there isn't much of a reason to buy the top end of their product line? Unlikely.


 
  
 I was waiting for that - thank you.
  
 All of our products deliver excellent technical performance - and at quite reasonable prices. We're quite satisfied to have our products compared to more expensive ones, and not at all unhappy when someone finds out that the extra money other companies charge isn't buying them anything important. Our more expensive amplifiers deliver excellent sound quality, and excellent specifications... and the main difference between them and our less expensive models is output power. We encourage comparisons between our products and our competitors - ABX or not - as you like.
  
 Likewise, our new portable DACs will offer selectable digital filters - but I certainly _WOULD NOT_ suggest that you buy one for that reason. Ignoring that feature, they are very competitive, in terms of both specifications and sound quality (for those who believe they can hear a difference). For those who consider a choice of filters a plus, or who simply want to see (hear) for themselves whether there's any difference, we've also included that feature - but it won't hurt our feelings if you tape over the button and don't use it.
  
 Oh, yeah.... we also offer a 30 day return policy - just in case you don't like what you hear (or your test results). 
  
 And, if you find another cheaper product that sounds just as good to you, or comes out better on your tests, then we agree that you'd be silly not to buy it (I certainly would).


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> Good news! The thresholds of human perception have been studied for a much longer time and more thoroughly than measurements of DAC and amp specs!
> 
> Frequency response, phase shift, noise floors, distortion... on all of these there are VERY clearly defined thresholds. In fact, whenever there is a new aspect of recorded sound, like for instance jitter, the FIRST thing that scientists do is conduct controlled testing to determine the JDT (just detectable threshold). In the case of jitter, it's pretty clear that it isn't anywhere near audible, even in very inexpensive home audio products.
> 
> Science is hard at work, helping you know what matters and what doesn't! I'm glad to help you clear this up!


 
  
 Excellent....
  
 Could you please direct me to those studies... the ones where someone demonstrated that a significant sample of listeners were unable to hear jitter, using a wide variety of headphones and speakers (to rule out the possibility that they were the limiting factor), and a wide variety of listening material (to rule that out as a limiting factor). Since it is quite well known that different types of DACs produce very different amounts and types of distortion products when presented with jitter, the test should have been done with several of each different type of DAC (Delta-Sigma, ladder, etc). If not, then they must at least tell us which type of DACs they used, so we know to only consider the results valid for that type. Of course, the study should include both sine wave jitter at various frequencies and random jitter, and must include audio samples at various different sample rates (since the same amount of jitter will produce different distortion products when applied to audio signals at different sample rates). Since various commercial DACs include mechanisms for reducing or eliminating jitter, it would be nice if the test included both DACs which claim to be immune to jitter and those that do not - so we can eliminate that variable as well.
  
 If you can direct me to three or four studies that rise to that level, properly documented, I would be very interested... 
  
 However, let's skip that one study where they used about two dozen volunteers, using (unspecified) DACs, and (unspecified) speakers or headphones, and (unspecified) source material, and simulated (fake) jitter. I've already read that one and I don't find it to be especially compelling.


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> Good news! Listener fatigue has actually been solved!
> 
> Isolating subjective issues, listener fatigue is a combination of two things... comfort and fit of headphones over extended periods of time, and frequency response imbalances- particularly narrow high frequency spikes that are not wide enough to be perceived as part of the overall tone.
> 
> Glad I could clear that up for you!


 
  
 I wonder how that works out for the people not wearing headphones... or are you suggesting that only headphone wearers experience (or claim to experience) listener fatigue....
  
 Yes, it's very lucky that you know everything, so we can all just ask you....


----------



## StanD

> Originally Posted by *StanD*
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that Keith works for a company that makes Amps, DACs, etc. Is he willing to admit that there isn't much of a reason to buy the top end of their product line? Unlikely.
> ...


 
 Actually I am familiar with Emotiva and as you say they do offer a wide range of nice products at non stratospheric prices. But I had to tease you. That doesn't mean at times your are not a BS artist.


----------



## cjl

audiobear said:


> The business of making claims you can't or don't substantiate and which may in fact not be true (or at least untested) is called modern marketing.  High end audio is but a microcosm of what is going on in many market sectors.  Dietary supplements, natural and organic foods are another a good example.  There are many others.  There is simply no accountability and no penalty for saying anything you think will sell products. Let the buyer beware.  As long as that is true people will make up all sorts of claims.  Fear-based marketing is reinforced by confirmation bias.  Adding to do that is that people self-associate into tribes of like-minded people who reinforce tribal delusions.  It is more rewarding to say what other tribe members say than it is to disagree with them and argue that the science proves you're wrong. Decisions are for the most part not made scientifically.  In fact scientific knowledge and expertise have been so marginalized in the public psyche that they are essentially irrelevant.  This could come back to bite us as a society.  Take global warming as an example, everybody has an opinion one way or the other but none of them (including myself) are expert enough to really come to a reasoned conclusion.  I'd wager that 99.99999% haven't read the peer-reviewed literature on climate change and couldn't understand it if they did.  So why do they think they should have an opinion?
> 
> What does this have to do with testing?  Simple, as was mentioned above no objective tests of any kind are usually done on product categories and while manufacturers publish specifications (which some say all lie), for most products the differences in specs are so small it's hard to see how they could result in an audible difference.  Of course it could be they are measuring the wrong parameters. You'd almost think so when you look at something like DACs or amps performance. They are all essentially the same from $100 to $100,000 per unit.  I have never blind tested myself but I am not sure I could tell a $100 DAC from a $10,000 DAC which I have never heard.  Yet we read users and sellers saying this one is bright, that one is dark which is essentially describing differences in frequency response for gear that all have flat frequency responses within the resolving power of human hearing.  Audiophiles are a strange tribe indeed.
> 
> ...


 
 This is a fantastic post, and I would like to expand a bit more on this statement in particular (since it is so important to proper testing):
  
 "A comment on using statistics.  To  oversimplify, P=0.05 means that 1 in 20 times we do the test we get a different result than the other 19. Yes, a quarter can land on heads 10 times out of 10 every now and then (actually we can predict how often assuming the quarter and the toss is unbiased). In most cases of ABX testing none of the respondents does much better than the mean but it happens now and then just as probability would predict.  Often the people with statistically significant differences from the norm are not musicians and have little audio experience.  This suggests that they are the one out of 20 that randomly falls at the ends of the curve."
  
 P=0.05 means that we got a result that we would expect to get only 0.05 of the time (or 5% of the time) if the null hypothesis is true. Yes, this does mean that 1/20 of the time, you will get a false positive with a detection threshold of P=0.05, but that's why a lot of us asking for ABX test results ask for repeatability. If someone passes an ABX with P = 0.05, and then passes it again the next time they take it, that has effectively dropped the P value to 0.0025 (1/400 probability if the null hypothesis is true). As you say, if someone passes once and does not (or can not) repeat the result, it really doesn't mean much unless the P value is much, much better than 0.05 (or even 0.01, since one in a hundred still is a pretty significant chance of a false positive). Fortunately, the P value drops rather dramatically with more trials (as long as they are correct), so if someone is actually hearing a difference, it really shouldn't be hard to reject the null hypothesis with a probability of one in a million (or better).


----------



## cjl

cel4145 said:


> +1
> 
> Nothing wrong with selling expensive, high end audio equipment that may or may not be audibly different from less expensive equipment, as long as it's not being marketed as if it is.
> 
> ...


 
 Honestly, there's a lot to be said for that. For all that I'm giving Keith a hard time about his claims, and as much as I dislike a lot of the high end "audiophile" companies and industry in general, I do wish more companies posted transparent, comprehensive measurements and performance statistics like this. This kind of comprehensive test sheet matters a lot to me as a consumer, and having this available makes me far more likely to consider a product vs a similarly priced one without the available data.
  
 (In fact, I'm now eyeballing some of Emotiva's products for the HT system I'd like to set up in my basement at some point, but that's a whole separate matter...)
  
 Of course, I'm an engineer who likes data and statistics, so I'm a fairly weird person...


----------



## Steve Eddy

cjl said:


> This is a fantastic post...




Yeah it is. He's been registered since 2007. Where's he been hiding. 

se


----------



## KeithEmo

stand said:


> Actually I am familiar with Emotiva and as you say they do offer a wide range of nice products at non stratospheric prices. But I had to tease you. That doesn't mean at times your are not a BS artist.


 
  
  





 Maybe just a little bit... at times....


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> Excellent.... Could you please direct me to those studies.


 
  
 Happy to help!
  
 SPECIFICATIONS OF THE HUMAN EAR
 Thresholds of Perception
  
 FREQUENCY RESPONSE
 20 Hz to 20 kHz (optimal hearing)
 20 Hz to 15 kHz (over 50)
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range
  
 DYNAMIC RANGE
 Peak volume 130 dB (threshold of pain)
 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/earsens.html
 Noise floor 30 dB for (quiet listening room)
 http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html
  
 GROUP DELAY (PHASE SHIFT)
 Threshold of Audibility 1 to 3 ms (500Hz to 8kHz)
 http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm
  
 DISTORTION
 Just Detectable Threshold: 1% (Non Linear Distortion)
 http://www.audioholics.com/education/acoustics-principles/human-hearing-distortion-audibility-part-3
 http://www.alpsadriaacoustics.org/archives/Full%20Papers/Furdek_Harmonic%20Distortion%20Perception%20Threshold.pdf
  
 JITTER
 Just Detectable Threshold in Music 20ns
 http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=8354 (needs subscription)
  http://www.nanophon.com/audio/1394_sampling_jitter.pdf (cited in section 2.2)


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> I wonder how that works out for the people not wearing headphones... or are you suggesting that only headphone wearers experience (or claim to experience) listener fatigue.... Yes, it's very lucky that you know everything, so we can all just ask you..


 
  
 Frequency response spikes that are too narrow to register as sound can occur in speaker systems too! Ultra sonic frequencies as well. In fact, high volume ultrasonics have been used for crowd control to induce headaches in rioters.
  
 Glad I could be of help!


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Frequency response spikes that are too narrow to register as sound can occur in speaker systems too! Ultra sonic frequencies as well. In fact, high volume ultrasonics have been used for crowd control to induce headaches in rioters.
> 
> Glad I could be of help!




Time for spring cleaning here. Do you do windows? 

se


----------



## AudioBear

Thanks.  Glad you liked the post.  I don't post here much because I have been busy doing overtime in my professional life trying to inject a little sanity into public understanding of science.  My focus has moved from explaining science, facts and logic to learning the underlying psychology of fear, science denialism, neo-tribal behavior (see Kahan at Yale) and something called moral purchase.  There is so much nonsense out there today I fear the whole country is going to sink under the sheer weight of the BS.  Don't believe me?, watch Dr. Oz.
  
 I recently started reading the forum more actively because I am putting together a new desktop system.  I have 1964Ears A12s in hand (awesome), Emotiva Airmotiv 4s (another awesome performer--great performance/cost ratio--chalk one up for @keithemo), and I have a Cavalli Liquid Carbon amp on order.  Now I'm shopping for phones and a desktop DAC.  Emotiva DC-1 is on the list.  Oppo PM-2 home trial should be here this coming week.  I learned about all these products on the forum and by tossing away a lot of BS and unbelievable ignorance, arrogance, and science denialism was able to find some gear that really satisfies me.  I use a FiiO X5 as a portable player and at the moment it's my DAC for the Airmotivs--sounds pretty good.  Do you think I'll be buying a $10K dac?


----------



## cel4145

keithemo said:


> Likewise, our new portable DACs will offer selectable digital filters - but I certainly _WOULD NOT_ suggest that you buy one for that reason. Ignoring that feature, they are very competitive, in terms of both specifications and sound quality (for those who believe they can hear a difference). For those who consider a choice of filters a plus, or who simply want to see (hear) for themselves whether there's any difference, we've also included that feature - but it won't hurt our feelings if you tape over the button and don't use it.




I didn't catch that you guys were doing a portable DAC. That's great. Are there any specs on the website yet?


----------



## AudioBear

cjl said:


> This is a fantastic post, and I would like to expand a bit more on this statement in particular (since it is so important to proper testing):
> 
> "A comment on using statistics.  To  oversimplify, P=0.05 means that 1 in 20 times we do the test we get a different result than the other 19. Yes, a quarter can land on heads 10 times out of 10 every now and then (actually we can predict how often assuming the quarter and the toss is unbiased). In most cases of ABX testing none of the respondents does much better than the mean but it happens now and then just as probability would predict.  Often the people with statistically significant differences from the norm are not musicians and have little audio experience.  This suggests that they are the one out of 20 that randomly falls at the ends of the curve."
> 
> P=0.05 means that we got a result that we would expect to get only 0.05 of the time (or 5% of the time) if the null hypothesis is true. Yes, this does mean that 1/20 of the time, you will get a false positive with a detection threshold of P=0.05, but that's why a lot of us asking for ABX test results ask for repeatability. If someone passes an ABX with P = 0.05, and then passes it again the next time they take it, that has effectively dropped the P value to 0.0025 (1/400 probability if the null hypothesis is true). As you say, if someone passes once and does not (or can not) repeat the result, it really doesn't mean much unless the P value is much, much better than 0.05 (or even 0.01, since one in a hundred still is a pretty significant chance of a false positive). Fortunately, the P value drops rather dramatically with more trials (as long as they are correct), so if someone is actually hearing a difference, it really shouldn't be hard to reject the null hypothesis with a probability of one in a million (or better).


 
  
 You are absolutely correct that independent repetition is powerful. At the end of the day though it doesn't make a bit of difference how small the P value is because while it means there is less chance of the null hypothesis being true, P is always >0 which means there is always a small chance that one or more subjects could appear to hear the difference in an ABX test.  The audiophile believes they are one of the outliers who is able to hear the differences the rest of the test population couldn't hear.  Hence they are called "Goldenears" 
  
 A lot of people abuse statistics which is surprising since there are many pages on the web that try to demystify simple stat.  For example
  
 http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/how-to-correctly-interpret-p-values
 http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/understanding-hypothesis-tests%3A-significance-levels-alpha-and-p-values-in-statistics
  
 Just Google how to understand p values for a page full of sites with good explanations.  People often chose to misinterpret statistics to prove their point.  Learning the proper and improper use of statistics won't help solve that problem.  Remember Mark Twain's famous attribution of a quote to British PM Disreali  that "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics".  That attribution turns out to be mistaken, see: http://www.twainquotes.com/Statistics.html
  
 All of this said, the best experiments are sometimes those that don't take statistics to understand.  Here's a great example aimed at the old "can you hear the difference  between 16 bit versus 24 bit recordings" debate :
  
 http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html
  
 Notice the very thorough analysis of the data with no real need to use statistics to prove a point because the results are so clear.  Make sure and read the fair and balanced discussion. And I'm sure you will notice that the expert hearers did not fair well in this test.
  
 The other aspect of this is of course what the science tells us.  @bigshot has done a nice job of pointing to articles about audibility of various parameters that are bandied about in these pages.  Most of what audiophiles worry about is inaudible to humans.  They typically counter that this that or the other thing causes fatigue, or harshness, or graininess, or blurring, timing problems, or whatever that have not been measured but which they are sure exist.  Those are good examples of an hypothesis.  Until experiments are done that prove any of these are actually taking place, they remain an untested hypothesis.  An untested hypothesis cannot be used as an explanation or a rebuttal--especially for a phenomenon that has no physical data to support its existence.


----------



## dazzerfong

cjl said:


> To be fair, you can have a p value of way less than 0.05 with an 80% correct identification of samples. Stating that someone isn't guessing with 95% certainty is different from stating that they get 95% of their trials correct.


 
 Fair point, I'll concede that one. But, as you said before, it heavily depends on sample size.


----------



## castleofargh

> Originally Posted by *AudioBear* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 this should be pinned at the top of sound science. no at the top of any audio forum and blog. if people interested in audio could read and understand all this, the audio community would improve by 800000000002% (value gathered by asking a guy who's really good at percentage from his own opinion.)
  
 edit: put into spoiler to avoid taking a full page for each quote ^_^


----------



## castleofargh

cjl said:


> cel4145 said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...


 

 that's the only reason why I bought an odac/o2. I wasn't short on money, I never thought it was superior to anything, and at the time I didn't really had an opinion on nwavguy. but when you can find everything you look for and when you don't the guy was answering without ever trying to evade a subject. then see from other people that the measurements are indeed the right ones. well didn't think I was buying the best stuff ever, but at least I knew that I wasn't paying for a D in a box.
 been my problem with most audio products,headphones that don't even try to tell what signature they have, or how much distortions. DAPs without even a max output into a few load and no impedance output. devices showing only the specs of the DAC chip instead of the specs of the output.
 we're at a point where we need to be real idiots to buy most products without trying them. yet the market doesn't look in bad shape, so I guess we're idiots.
  
 so nice one emotiva and whoever shows with specs, that they're more than just marketing. it may not be what's selling, but it's certainly a more honest way to try.


----------



## bigshot

I wasn't short of money, I bought an iPod. Everything all in one. I take it and plug it in my car. I dock it in my stereo at home. Super functional and perfect sound. iPods aren't cheap, but if you can work it out with headphones that don't require amping, it comes out super cheap, because there is no need for an external DAC or amp at all.


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> that's the only reason why I bought an odac/o2. I wasn't short on money, I never thought it was superior to anything, and at the time I didn't really had an opinion on nwavguy. but when you can find everything you look for and when you don't the guy was answering without ever trying to evade a subject. then see from other people that the measurements are indeed the right ones. well didn't think I was buying the best stuff ever, but at least I knew that I wasn't paying for a D in a box.
> been my problem with most audio products,headphones that don't even try to tell what signature they have, or how much distortions. DAPs without even a max output into a few load and no impedance output. devices showing only the specs of the DAC chip instead of the specs of the output.
> we're at a point where we need to be real idiots to buy most products without trying them. yet the market doesn't look in bad shape, so I guess we're idiots.
> 
> so nice one emotiva and whoever shows with specs, that they're more than just marketing. it may not be what's selling, but it's certainly a more honest way to try.




There's a nice trend among some of the Internet audio vendors to provide some measurements. We don't see it with the headphone industry, but it's common with speakers/home audio. In addition to Emotiva, HSU Research, SVS Sound, Ascend Acoustics, Philharmonic Audio, and Power Sound Audio are few that either do provide some measurements or else submit their products to publications that will test. These companies are building a good following as a result.


----------



## bigshot

With speakers, published specs tell you much less than with DACs or amps, because the room is as much of the sound as the speakers are. I don't find speaker specs to be terribly useful.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> With speakers, published specs tell you much less than with DACs or amps, because the room is as much of the sound as the speakers are. I don't find speaker specs to be terribly useful.




If you don't know how your room measures, the best practice is to choose neutral speakers so that the room influence doesn't amplify any of the modes or peaks that the speakers have, thus making it more difficult to EQ. Need measurements for that. 

If you DO know how your room measures, you can choose speakers that help to offset room modes. This is particularly done in the HT enthusiast crowd with subwoofers. 

However, I guess if you view in room measurements as magic pixie dust for configuring speakers, I guess that measurements in general would seem pretty useless to you.


----------



## bigshot

I find as long as transducers can reproduce any frequency band loud without distorting, they can always be made to work.
  
 By the way, the magic pixie dust isn't my choice of a note under my name. Currawong got made at my post count and status in the forum and put that there to punish me. I am not able to change it.
  
 Employing logic is a lot more dangerous than pixie dust.


----------



## castleofargh

cel4145 said:


> There's a nice trend among some of the Internet audio vendors to provide some measurements. We don't see it with the headphone industry, but it's common with speakers/home audio. In addition to Emotiva, HSU Research, SVS Sound, Ascend Acoustics, Philharmonic Audio, and Power Sound Audio are few that either do provide some measurements or else submit their products to publications that will test. These companies are building a good following as a result.


 
 my favorite guys are the amp manufacturers, a great many I talked to were open about specs(not all obviously, but most of them).


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> *I find* as long as transducers can reproduce any frequency band loud without distorting, they can always be made to work.




Yes, we know. Your conclusions about this topic are based on subjectivist, anecdotal experience. This is the sound science forum. Sorry about your preconceptions 

As it is, there is no speaker that can reproduce any frequency band _at any volume_ without distorting. So what you seem to be advocating is to simply spend more money for speakers with higher SPL ratings and potentially more money on amplification that can be eq'd to handle room modes with significant dips. That can get much more expensive very fast in designing a home audio setup depending on the size of the room and/or the distance from the listening position. Seems silly to spend that extra money if you ask me when one can simply use measurements to assist in making an appropriate speaker purchase.


----------



## bigshot

You should work on being a more pleasant person. I am doing that myself.
  
 If published specs are enough to tell you how a speaker is going to sound in your living room, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din! I have to do it the hard way, by bringing the speaker into the room and listening to it.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> You should work on being a more pleasant person. I am doing that myself.




Now way a minute. You have repeatedly argued against the value of using measurements for multichannel speaker setup, instead championing that one should do it by ear. The evidence that you offer that your process is superior? That it sounds good, and anyone can come listen to it. That's the standard subjectivist's argument for why measurements don't matter. Now, once again, you have poo-pooed the value of measurements for audio setup design. Don't get huffy just because someone calls you out on it, just as you have others in different discussions in this thread when measurements are quickly disregarded. 



bigshot said:


> If published specs are enough to tell you how a speaker is going to sound in your living room, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din! I have to do it the hard way, by bringing the speaker into the room and listening to it.




That's a bit of a different argument, bit of a strawman. Let's get back to what I said: 



cel4145 said:


> As it is, there is no speaker that can reproduce any frequency band _at any volume_ without distorting. So what you seem to be advocating is to simply spend more money for speakers with higher SPL ratings and potentially more money on amplification that can be eq'd to handle room modes with significant dips. That can get much more expensive very fast in designing a home audio setup depending on the size of the room and/or the distance from the listening position. Seems silly to spend that extra money if you ask me when one can simply use measurements to assist in making an appropriate speaker purchase.




Now interestingly enough, suppose we take your approach. How is one supposed to buy those non-neutral speakers that have enough SPL to deal with the room modes without consulting some kind of measurements? First, you need to know what the room modes are, which requires measurements. Second, manufacturer specs are often vague things like RMS ranges or max wattage, and they are often unreliable when specified that way. To determine max SPL and know where distortion is starting to go up, measurement plots like these at SoundStage for the Revel Concertos (see charts 3 and chart 4) can help a lot, so that one can get an idea if the speakers will have enough SPL for the listening position: http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/revel_concerta_f12/. Or how about these subwoofer charts and measurements from data-bass.com for the SVS SB12-NSD: 
http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=80&mset=86
http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=80&mset=86
http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=80&mset=86

To someone who understands their room (having measured it), those measurements could be invaluable.


----------



## bigshot

A helpful attitude is a lot better than an aggressive and critical one. I've been discouraged by your posts in the past and I really don't read more than the first line or two of them any more. I'm always open to reading your posts again, but a more friendly attitude would make me more likely to do that. Stick to the topic on point. Don't drag up old posts to rehash all over again. Adopt a helpful spirit instead of a jealous natured one. We are all friends here in Sound Science. I know you haven't been around here long, but eventually you'll figure it out and be part of the gang of "regulars" too.


----------



## AudioBear

Glad you said that @bigshot
  
 I'm new here and I find it more than mildly amusing that two members with over 28K posts between them are struggling to be nice and communicate effectively. t  I always enjoy reading content dense posts that keep negatives to a minimum.  Personal stories and anecdotes, humor, and all that are fine but none of us come here for conflict.  We can get that at home or in the office.
  
 That said it is sometimes hard not to make fun of something you think is really silly or which deserves a good chiding.  We've all done it.  And we have all bitten our tongues when cables, power cords, and magic fog lifters are discussed.  Some personal stuff is inevitable; it's how we talk to one another.  Some of it is even meant in a friendly way--at least I tease and poke fun at my friends from time to time.  If you're my friend it's best not to be too sensitive.
  
 Let's cut one another a little slack as long as it's not deliberately hurtful.  And let's mellow out, this is a hobby.  
  
 One more thing.  You're both right.  Does that make it feel better?
  
 That's my two cents.


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> That said it is sometimes hard not to make fun of something you think is really silly or which deserves a good chiding.  We've all done it.  And we have all bitten our tongues when cables, power cords, and magic fog lifters are discussed.  Some personal stuff is inevitable; it's how we talk to one another.  Some of it is even meant in a friendly way--at least I tease and poke fun at my friends from time to time.  If you're my friend it's best not to be too sensitive.








se


----------



## AudioBear

Love it.  Great graphic.


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> Love it.  Great graphic.




I should probably just make it my avatar here. :veryevil:

se


----------



## bigshot

audiobear said:


> Let's cut one another a little slack as long as it's not deliberately hurtful.  And let's mellow out, this is a hobby.


 
  
 Happy to!
  
 I filter the group and spend my time reading and responding to things that are worth my while. I guess all of us do that. Nice to have you around AudioBear.
  
 You need an audio bear avatar! Here's my suggestion...


----------



## AudioBear

I admit, that is cute.  Those look like bear earphones to me alright.  I had a great head shot of a koala that I took near Adelaide that was priceless.  The forum took it down for some reason some time ago and i never put it back up.  If I can't dig it out of historical photos, I'll borrow yours.


----------



## AudioBear

Under the category of devil made me do it. This post from the Schiit Yggdrasil Impressions thread.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/766347/schiit-yggdrasil-impressions-thread/45#post_11607771
 He should have moved the post over here.  I'm sure there'd be someone here that might have something to say.


----------



## bigshot

audiobear said:


> I admit, that is cute.  Those look like bear earphones to me alright.  I had a great head shot of a koala that I took near Adelaide that was priceless.  The forum took it down for some reason some time ago and i never put it back up.  If I can't dig it out of historical photos, I'll borrow yours.


 

 this one?


----------



## bigshot

audiobear said:


> Under the category of devil made me do it. This post from the Schiit Yggdrasil Impressions thread.


 
  
 Kind of like shooting fish in a barrel though...


----------



## AudioBear

Both posts are priceless.  I love the bear.  Mine was, however, a real Koala.  Of course they are not really bears, but never mind that.
  
 The fish barrel really made me laugh.  I'm tempted to write in and ask him what cables, powercords, fuses, etc he is using since I am not getting the same results.  That whole thread is all about how long it takes to really break one in -- hundreds off hours.  And of course that you should never turn it off because it takes hours if not days to warm up and come to equilibrium.   I suppose there is some truth to needing  time to warm up and just leaving it on being better.
  
 Oh yeah, the devil is restless today.


----------



## castleofargh

audiobear said:


> Under the category of devil made me do it. This post from the Schiit Yggdrasil Impressions thread.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/766347/schiit-yggdrasil-impressions-thread/45#post_11607771
> He should have moved the post over here.  I'm sure there'd be someone here that might have something to say.


 

  we need psychology webinars for audiophiles, some clearly missed out on the all "I'm a human being" thing.


----------



## Steve Eddy

castleofargh said:


> we need psychology webinars for audiophiles, some clearly missed out on the all "I'm a human being" thing.




Good luck. Audiophile hubris is a tough, if not impossible nut to crack.

se


----------



## bigshot

We should study it at a distance, like other communicable diseases!


----------



## aphex27

bigshot said:


> We should study it at a distance, like other communicable diseases!


 

 What is your field of study? You must be an acoustic or electrical engineer, yes? It would be hilarious if you weren't.


----------



## cel4145

audiobear said:


> That said it is sometimes hard not to make fun of something you think is really silly or which deserves a good chiding.  We've all done it.  And we have all bitten our tongues when cables, power cords, and magic fog lifters are discussed.  Some personal stuff is inevitable; it's how we talk to one another.  Some of it is even meant in a friendly way--at least I tease and poke fun at my friends from time to time.  If you're my friend it's best not to be too sensitive.




There is quite a significant difference, though, between attacking someone's beliefs and ideas about audio, versus changing the conversation to make it about another poster. One can often be an appropriate line of discussion in an audio forum; one almost never is.


----------



## AudioBear

Agreed.  I put that under my being hurtful is never appropriate.


----------



## dazzerfong

audiobear said:


> Agreed.  I put that under my being hurtful is never appropriate.


 
 Attack the idea, not the person. Unfortunately, some people confuse the two and take offense, while others misunderstand the two and attack the person.


----------



## bigshot

aphex27 said:


> What is your field of study? You must be an acoustic or electrical engineer, yes? It would be hilarious if you weren't.


 

 I work with artists!


----------



## StanD

audiobear said:


> Under the category of devil made me do it. This post from the Schiit Yggdrasil Impressions thread.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/766347/schiit-yggdrasil-impressions-thread/45#post_11607771
> He should have moved the post over here.  I'm sure there'd be someone here that might have something to say.


 
 We have a new technical term, "Bass Grunt." Where do they come up with this BS?


----------



## StanD

Here's another example of an overactive audiophile imagination at work. I fail to understand how people actually believe they are hearing this. I don't think for the most part that they are purposefully imagining this.Or at least I hope not. But challenge this and they attack like a pack of dogs. I feel sorry for the innocent newbie that is easily influenced due to naivety and mob based suggestion.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/711824/hifiman-he-560-impressions-discussion-thread/13065#post_11609354


----------



## Hudson

Cable induced "treble etch". My worst nightmare.......


----------



## Mr Rick

hudson said:


> Cable induced "treble etch". My worst nightmare.......


 
 They make a salve for that.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Here's another example of an overactive audiophile imagination at work. I fail to understand how people actually believe they are hearing this. I don't think for the most part that they are purposefully imagining this.Or at least I hope not. But challenge this and they attack like a pack of dogs. I feel sorry for the innocent newbie that is easily influenced due to naivety and mob based suggestion.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/711824/hifiman-he-560-impressions-discussion-thread/13065#post_11609354




Just realized while reading that that Draug spelled backwards is Guard. 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Just realized while reading that that Draug spelled backwards is Guard.
> 
> se


 
 Sounds like a Beatle thing, backwards satanic messges. I heard that David Carradine was found hanging in a closet in Bangkok using one of those cables. Now that was a serious case of Treble Etch.


----------



## AudioBear

The forums are full of those sorts of descriptions.  What's amazing is how many there are and how it is perfectly accepted with cans and IEMs in particular that you have to find the right $500 or $1000 cable for your $300 can.   There are some pretty good marketers out there.
  
 It is impossible to have a discussion with these people.  I don't want to back over 400 pages but I'm sure it's been discussed dozens of times.  Is there a good article or link that objectively discusses why wires aren't circuits that we can refer them to?  Will they read it?  Good question.
  
 When I made my long post a couple of days ago I mentioned how buying into commonly held beliefs is part of neo-tribal behavior.  It's worse than that.  One can hold such beliefs in spite of clear evidence that they are not true.  In fact, it is a defining characteristic of the tribe that people believe things that are clearly not true.  It is almost like a test of your sincerity.
  
 Question.  Are some of these people hearing real differences caused for example by placing the cans in a different position or sitting in a slightly different position or something like that or are they all just imagining that wires can act like complex filter circuits?


----------



## StanD

audiobear said:


> The forums are full of those sorts of descriptions.  What's amazing is how many there are and how it is perfectly accepted with cans and IEMs in particular that you have to find the right $500 or $1000 cable for your $300 can.   There are some pretty good marketers out there.
> 
> It is impossible to have a discussion with these people.  I don't want to back over 400 pages but I'm sure it's been discussed dozens of times.  Is there a good article or link that objectively discusses why wires aren't circuits that we can refer them to?  Will they read it?  Good question.
> 
> ...


 
 Wires are circuits, very simple passive circuits. Unfortunately the uninitiated romanticize them with all sorts of magic. To answer your question, they are imagining all sorts of Schiit.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Sounds like a Beatle thing, backwards satanic messges. I heard that David Carradine was found hanging in a closet in Bangkok using one of those cables. Now that was a serious case of Treble Etch. :veryevil:




Hehehe.

Just got off the phone with Trevor over at Norne. Was telling him about the Draug/Guard thing. He was joking saying maybe he should do a cable called Guard. And then it hit me. I said he should do a variation and call it Guard Draug. It's both a pun and a palindrome! Genius! 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Hehehe.
> 
> Just got off the phone with Trevor over at Norne. Was telling him about the Draug/Guard thing. He was joking saying maybe he should do a cable called Guard. And then it hit me. I said he should do a variation and call it Guard Draug. It's both a pun and a palindrome! Genius!
> 
> ...


 
 Now that's what I call marketing genius. I actually got asked to code a palindrome detection routine in a job interview.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Now that's what I call marketing genius. I actually got asked to code a palindrome detection routine in a job interview.




Ha! No kiddin'?

se


----------



## cel4145

dazzerfong said:


> Attack the idea, not the person. Unfortunately, some people confuse the two and take offense, while others misunderstand the two and attack the person.




True. It's impossible sometimes for it not to be perceived as personal, though, when it comes to discussing subjectivist vs objectivist views on audio. In the sense that individual subjectivist views are _sometimes_ based on a belief in one's own infallibility at observation, and using inductive reasoning, someone may have built up a set of personal theories about audio. Objectivism often requires that one confront one's own potential for fallibility, and in doing so, will often take down those theories like the house of cards that they are. 

Note that I said "sometimes" above because I do not want to imply that all people take objectivist criticism personally. I also don't want to imply that people arguing objectivist positions don't get cranky when their beliefs are challenged. But I do think objectivist criticism can be more likely to be a perceived attack on one one's ego, and also the person may be subconsciously conflicted with the paradigm shift of objectivist thinking. When we face internal conflicts within ourselves which creates doubt, we often redirect that discomfort and lash out. If someone feels themselves to be a reasonable and logical person, it's sometimes hard to come to terms with the idea that their reason might be failing them. 

So conversations about audio ideas and beliefs and where they come from will definitely get heated sometimes. That's why it's important to try to not cross the line from making it about audio beliefs and ideas and to making it about the person. That will escalate the discussion to making it more personal, and of course it's off topic. The topic of this forum is not about other individual posters. It's about audio science.


----------



## bigshot

aphex27 said:


> What is your field of study? You must be an acoustic or electrical engineer, yes? It would be hilarious if you weren't.


 
  
 Actually, I'm a producer in the entertainment business. I work with both creative and technical folks.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Actually, I'm a producer in the entertainment business. I work with both creative and technical folks.




All one has to do is listen to your voicing of Yogi Bear to know that you're a man to be reckoned with. 

se


----------



## bigshot

Ha! The biggest complement I got on that was a big cartoon fan who said, "I never even realized that it was a different person doing the voice... it was just Yogi." It's nice to be anonymous!


----------



## AudioBear

cel4145 said:


> True. It's impossible sometimes for it not to be perceived as personal, though, when it comes to discussing subjectivist vs objectivist views on audio. In the sense that individual subjectivist views are _sometimes_ based on a belief in one's own infallibility at observation, and using inductive reasoning, someone may have built up a set of personal theories about audio. Objectivism often requires that one confront one's own potential for fallibility, and in doing so, will often take down those theories like the house of cards that they are.
> 
> Note that I said "sometimes" above because I do not want to imply that all people take objectivist criticism personally. I also don't want to imply that people arguing objectivist positions don't get cranky when their beliefs are challenged. But I do think objectivist criticism can be more likely to be a perceived attack on one one's ego, and also the person may be subconsciously conflicted with the paradigm shift of objectivist thinking. When we face internal conflicts within ourselves which creates doubt, we often redirect that discomfort and lash out. If someone feels themselves to be a reasonable and logical person, it's sometimes hard to come to terms with the idea that their reason might be failing them.
> 
> So conversations about audio ideas and beliefs and where they come from will definitely get heated sometimes. That's why it's important to try to not cross the line from making it about audio beliefs and ideas and to making it about the person. That will escalate the discussion to making it more personal, and of course it's off topic. The topic of this forum is not about other individual posters. It's about audio science.


 
  
 I'd like to pick up and extend your comments.  I hope we all agree that making hurtful personal attacks is over the line.  When we attack irrational beliefs we have a dilemma.  As you point out, it can be hard to separate an attack on unscientific or irrational conclusions from an attack on the person making them.  You are if nothing else criticizing their methodology which is part of their persona.
  
 There is another aspect of this that leads to hard feelings.  Objectivists understand the difficulty in being objective, scientists adhere to a set of principles they call the scientific method to help them keep their prejudices and intuitions out of the process of seeking truth, engineers have their own toolkit and logic for problem solving, doctors are taught a method for diagnosis that helps them kept out of the trap of faulty assumptions.  Believers have no roadmap for arriving at an unbiased answer.  They freely admit they trust their senses and they are proud of how well their senses work.  They also have a liturgy of facts that have been discovered through their approach to inquiry.  It includes beliefs about wires, fuses, balanced circuits, and its own vocabulary (harshness, grit, bass grunt, warm, dark, bright, voiced, etc).  Their belief system has many of the characteristics of a cult, if not a religion.
  
 And we all know what happens when you attack someone's religion.  It's worse than attacking them, and they react strongly because it is an attack on what they believe.  What do facts have to do with it?  Not much.  Psychology research on the consequences of confirmation bias shows that when you cite contrary evidence to someone who strongly believes something that is demonstrably untrue, they not only don't believe the evidence, having heard it actually reinforces the strength of their beliefs.  Let me say that again, trying to prove them wrong makes them believe their erroneous conclusion even more strongly!  That's what the research shows.  Humans are indeed a very perverse species.  So when you tell someone who has spent $1000 on an IEM cable because it really brings out the bass grunt and smooths the mid-treble grit, that blind studies show they can't tell one cable from another, what you do is make them hear the differences more clearly and make them angry at you for suggesting they are wrong.  They are absolutely sure the cable makes a big difference and they are indignant and offended that you say it doesn't even when you prove to them they cannot tell one from another in a test. 
  
 Some of us are ready to be proved wrong if we're wrong. Others seem to get great ego satisfaction by bandying around terms in a way that proves they are a member of an elite group of savants.  It's like mixing oil and water.


----------



## StanD

@AudioBear The one thing about the religeous audiophiles that bothers me the most is how they influence the lay person down a false road at that person's expense and wasted time. IMO that is the worst.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Ha! The biggest complement I got on that was a big cartoon fan who said, "I never even realized that it was a different person doing the voice... it was just Yogi." It's nice to be anonymous!




Yeah. I'm very sensitive when cartoon characters I grew to know and love get voiced by someone other than those who originated the voice. But I'd wager even Daws Butler would be hard pressed to tell the difference. That's the first thing that really stood out to me when I first watched the short. Boo Boo was obvious. Ranger Smith was a bit closer, but Yogi was nailed.

I wonder how The Simpsons will fare if they're not able to entice Shearer back. 

se


----------



## AudioBear

I  just find them generally annoying.  But yes, they do influence the innocent.  I just went through a conversation like that where the newcomer asked about interconnects and you know what happened.  I and another poster recommended Monoprice and Blue Jeans. A couple of snooty cable recommendations were made.  Monoprice was characterized as junk.  When respondents said that Monoprice isn't junk, then we heard that they are copying and infringing on patents.  On and on.  The OP decided to buy Mogami.  I have nothing against Mogami, they make good stuff and it's not outrageously priced but it's cleat the OP was confused and retreated to the relative security of the more expensive Mogami product. I suspect a lot of decent quality labels come out of the same Chinese factory.  Many sure look alike but prices vary  great deal.
  
 There are lots of suppliers of perfectly good cables as for example Emotiva (for @KeithEmo) and other brands don't overcharge or sell boutique cables, but one has to wonder how many people have paid for exotic cables they don't need just because of what they read in the forums and in fear-based marketing pieces. 
  
 I  have to cut a break for one kind of subjectivist that I find to be very reasonable.  They usually are not offended by objectivists.  The call their conclusions and preferences _opinions_ and are very clear that others may prefer something else.  Their basic argument is go listen to stuff and buy the one you like after taking it home and trying it in your system.  They don't measure of test.  They listen at different times to different sources when they are in different moods and if they like something they buy it.  Some admit to owning several different cans or dacs or amps and playing the one they are in the mood for. Who can argue with that? For them it's not religion and they are very tolerant of other people's preferences.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Here's another example of an overactive audiophile imagination at work. I fail to understand how people actually believe they are hearing this. I don't think for the most part that they are purposefully imagining this.Or at least I hope not. But challenge this and they attack like a pack of dogs. I feel sorry for the innocent newbie that is easily influenced due to naivety and mob based suggestion.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/711824/hifiman-he-560-impressions-discussion-thread/13065#post_11609354


 
 I've the HE-560's. I wanted an extension so I went to Radio Shack. The inexpensive cable etched my bass slam and undermined my grunt!   If only it had gold alloy! Actually the copper Radio Shack cable does a fine job.
  
 Where I hear the difference is with tube rolling (this from a confirmed SS fan)  I'll give you a specific example. Mahler Symphony 8, MTT San Francisco Symphony, SACD or CD. #5. "Gloria Patri Domino"- last 10 seconds or so and on and off during the entire passage. When the three soprano's, two mezzo Soprano's, strings, massive choir, brass, and pipe organ crescendo all at once. It can all *blend* into a painful screeching sound. With a few specific pairs of tubes- the voices and instruments tend to "separate" somewhat and the painful screech diminishes.The high organ note, brass, voices and strings can be distinguished as harmonizing-but separate sounds. 
  
  Is this improved phase response due to closely matched triodes? Not a clue-but it is audible. I'm an Analytical Scientist of some 30 years experience-so I am well familiar with using measurements. My question to the more knowledgeable- is WHAT measurement will delineate this effect. My SS headphone AMP (OppoBDP-105D measures absurdly low THD) and it does not separate the instruments and voices in this passage as well as the Lyr with specific tubes. All triode 6992, 7308, 6DJ8 types that SHOULD all be the same.
 In my work when measurements are the same- yet the products are NOT equally efficacious in their intended use- I consider that there must be a physical property I was NOT measuring.
 I've enough Physics to be familiar with square waves, ringing, harmonic distortion, frequency response, etc.
 The triodes are active circuits-not wires. I am also familiar with expectation bias-and in the case of the hybrid tube amp my expectation was negative. I ordered an SS Amp and Amazon sent me the Lyr instead.I tried-I Liked!
  
 I realize this audience primarily focuses on chortling at absurdist claims. So I can contribute some to that later with my favorite= "Brilliant Pebbles!"


----------



## StanD

Not enough of the tolerant well meaning types, there are far too many mean spirited ones.


----------



## StanD

@Exacoustatowner You may find that some open loop (not using negative feedback) tube designs will color the sound by tube rolling and biasing. I prefer clean, hence a good SS product. Of course comparable clean tube products exist, however, they can get somewhat pricey.


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> I  have to cut a break for one kind of subjectivist that I find to be very reasonable.  They usually are not offended by objectivists.  The call their conclusions and preferences _opinions_ and are very clear that others may prefer something else.  Their basic argument is go listen to stuff and buy the one you like after taking it home and trying it in your system.  They don't measure of test.  They listen at different times to different sources when they are in different moods and if they like something they buy it.  Some admit to owning several different cans or dacs or amps and playing the one they are in the mood for. Who can argue with that? For them it's not religion and they are very tolerant of other people's preferences.




Yes. As I've said before, problems only arise when people try and pass off their subjective experience as something more than that. And when they do, I don't consider them a subjectivist of any kind. What you describe is not "one kind of subjectivist." They're a subjectivist. Period. And as much as the term "subjectivist" gets bandied about, subjectivists are actually pretty rare.

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

audiobear said:


> I  just find them generally annoying.  But yes, they do influence the innocent.  I just went through a conversation like that where the newcomer asked about interconnects and you know what happened.  I and another poster recommended Monoprice and Blue Jeans. A couple of snooty cable recommendations were made.  Monoprice was characterized as junk.  When respondents said that Monoprice isn't junk, then we heard that they are copying and infringing on patents.  On and on.  The OP decided to buy Mogami.  I have nothing against Mogami, they make good stuff and it's not outrageously priced but it's cleat the OP was confused and retreated to the relative security of the more expensive Mogami product. I suspect a lot of decent quality labels come out of the same Chinese factory.  Many sure look alike but prices vary  great deal.
> 
> There are lots of suppliers of perfectly good cables as for example Emotiva (for @KeithEmo) and other brands don't overcharge or sell boutique cables, but one has to wonder how many people have paid for exotic cables they don't need just because of what they read in the forums and in fear-based marketing pieces.
> 
> I  have to cut a break for one kind of subjectivist that I find to be very reasonable.  They usually are not offended by objectivists.  The call their conclusions and preferences _opinions_ and are very clear that others may prefer something else.  Their basic argument is go listen to stuff and buy the one you like after taking it home and trying it in your system.  They don't measure of test.  They listen at different times to different sources when they are in different moods and if they like something they buy it.  Some admit to owning several different cans or dacs or amps and playing the one they are in the mood for. Who can argue with that? For them it's not religion and they are very tolerant of other people's preferences.


 
 Cables are fairly simple. I look for good quality builds-and Blue Jeans fit the bill. I hate seeing people snookered into buying boutique cables costing hundreds of dollars based on hype.  Someone said that their Monoprice had a high failure rate? I asked for details and pointed out that I had been using freebie low quality RCA cables for many years and had ZERO failures. They never responded.
 I allign all my cables with magnetic north and have an elaborate system to move them as the magnetic pole shifts. It prevents the electrons from being influenced by paranormal phenomenon. Poltergeists can wreak havoc on Bass Grunt!


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Cables are fairly simple. I look for good quality builds-and Blue Jeans fit the bill. I hate seeing people snookered into buying boutique cables costing hundreds of dollars based on hype.  Someone said that their Monoprice had a high failure rate? I asked for details and pointed out that I had been using freebie low quality RCA cables for many years and had ZERO failures. They never responded.
> I allign all my cables with magnetic north and have an elaborate system to move them as the magnetic pole shifts. It prevents the electrons from being influenced by paranormal phenomenon. Poltergeists can wreak havoc on Bass Grunt!


 
 You can treat your cables to improve their SQ by leaving them ovenight in a pyramid. If you also leave some razor blades in there, they will be sharpened by morning.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

steve eddy said:


> Yes. As I've said before, problems only arise when people try and pass off their subjective experience as something more than that. And when they do, I don't consider them a subjectivist of any kind. What you describe is not "one kind of subjectivist." They're a subjectivist. Period. And as much as the term "subjectivist" gets bandied about, subjectivists are actually pretty rare.
> 
> se


 
  I am aware through education and experience how much emotion and bias can affect our experiences. After all hearing is partly in the ear and partly in the brain. Audio memory is very short. I tend to use the same few seconds of a very familiar piece and compare over and over again. On different days-before making a conclusion. Unless the differences are major-such as my example with Mahler. Even then I did different day comparisons.The easiest is between my SS and Hybrid. I also adjusted the volumes to match. Nice to have a decibel meter. Then it comes down to "can I hear the French horns as separate from instrument X?"  In the case of Mahler I have the benefit of hearing the same Symphony, and conductor in the same place as my recording. I also took photos of the instrument placement which MTT arranged the same in his recording session as in the live performance. 
 With my best tubes I hear a remarkable illusion of correct placement. I can verify it from the many photos I took-so as not to allow malleable memory to give me the response I expect-and or desire. 
 One thing-this is all entertainment for me-so a difference of opinion is fine. I do apply my science background as much as possible-hence testing on different days.
 I do understand Stan's desire to rely on measurements-I just don't think we are measuring enough. What for instance, makes a live performance different from the best recording-particularly if it is a binaural recording that more closely matches our experience? If distortion and frequency response are NOT factors-what is?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> You can treat your cables to improve their SQ by leaving them ovenight in a pyramid. If you also leave some razor blades in there, they will be sharpened by morning.


 
 Now that's why I ask the experts! I can get more use out of my pyramid hat! Do I take the aluminum foil out first?
 And I see some may have already been exposed to the wonderment of Brilliant Pebbles! http://www.head-fi.org/t/193748/brilliant-pebbles-first-impressions
 Someone actually FELL for it-and was astounded they made no difference.


----------



## StanD

@Exacoustatowner The thing about placement might be incorrect in the recording and erroneously resolved by the use of a tube amp. Many hybrod amps have a tube stage designed to have increased THD by having no negative feedback and biasing, by rolling tubes perhaps this case worked for you. Just a theory. On your closing statement, can you suggest a property that gave this effect for you?


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> One thing-this is all entertainment for me-so a difference of opinion is fine. I do apply my science background as much as possible-hence testing on different days.
> I do understand Stan's desire to rely on measurements-I just don't think we are measuring enough. What for instance, makes a live performance different from the best recording-particularly if it is a binaural recording that more closely matches our experience? If distortion and frequency response are NOT factors-what is?




You're assuming ideal transducers. While we have been able to produce audibly transparent electronics for some time, transducers aren't there yet. 

se


----------



## headdict

stand said:


> You can treat your cables to improve their SQ by leaving them ovenight in a pyramid. If you also leave some razor blades in there, they will be sharpened by morning.


 

 You should know that pyramids can cause severe upper mids itch. You can counter the effect by wrapping the cables in oil-soaked CD mats, but the mids can get swirly if you overdo the oil part. And beware of the pharaoh or you may be in for a mid bass plunge curse. In that event all the razor blades will be gone too.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> @Exacoustatowner
> The thing about placement might be incorrect in the recording and erroneously resolved by the use of a tube amp. Many hybrod amps have a tube stage designed to have increased THD by having no negative feedback and biasing, by rolling tubes perhaps this case worked for you. Just a theory. On your closing statement, can you suggest a property that gave this effect for you?



All good but I have photos of the placement from my seat. Most conductors have a "seating chart" for the various sections. For this one it's bass section left rear, bells, etc center/ back. Tympani back-center right, first violin front center left, etc. This corresponds to my previous and post experience of the recording. I commented on this to my companion.


----------



## castleofargh

what I learned from headfi this week:
  anywhere outside of sound science it is forbidden to talk about blind testing or pretty much any kind of scientific method. so that's removing a good 99% of intelligent ways to demonstrate a point about audibility in practice. brilliant for an audio forum!
 want to explain the scientific theory behind a claim? well be super short and be dumb, else people will tell you to go back to sound science and leave them alone. then most likely your post will vanish.
  
 there is one thing we're free to do, and really only one, it's empty claims. every hours is happy hour for empty claims. no TOS against saying BS all day long.
 so how can we show why we have that opinion and believe it true? well obviously you can't explain the science, and you can't suggest any rational testing method as it's a TOS abuse. so instead, you just have to be the most popular, use demagogy, abuse straw man arguments and fallacies. because that's how we role and we pretty much never get moderated for that.
  
  
 so whatever attempt to substantiate a claim, good luck with that.
 I suggest to say "I know what I heard" at all times, and when the guy get annoyed and starts explaining why you're wrong, just ask why he hates you or whatever device you were arguing about, and report him for being off topic and outside sound science. oh and of course, start a science vs anti science fight, or an objectivist vs subjectivist and pretend that your point of view is the subjective one. that way even if you're full of crap, many people will defend you because they feel like they belong.
  
  
  
  
  
  
 now practical exercise:
  
 go say that abx is BS(no reason!!!!!!!!) anywhere in headfi. who's going to stop you? nobody.
 now I answer to you why I believe ABX is a nice method and explain how it has massively better accuracy than sighted test, now I'm kicked in the butt by the TOS and anybody can report me and get my post removed.
  
 go say that the gold cable is warmer. all clear!
 now I answer to you with electricity rules and methods to test if it's really audible. booom headshot!
  
 you get the idea. enjoy a website where truth has no factual value in every day conversations, and where it's pretty much impossible to explain something or substantiate a point because of the rules.
 and how do I know all that? well I see it with my own eyes and we all have different eyes, so don't tell me what I'm subjectively reading! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
 ps: I take all that knowledge from getting inspired by my respected BS master, but the TOS wouldn't allow me to give his name. I guess that would be a personal attack. too bad because again it's true.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

exacoustatowner said:


> All good but I have photos of the placement from my seat. Most conductors have a "seating chart" for the various sections. For this one it's bass section left rear, bells, etc center/ back. Tympani back-center right, first violin front center left, etc. This corresponds to my previous and post experience of the recording. I commented on this to my companion.



RE "Property" only that phase accuracy can affect placement. What is it in hearing that gives us location cues? Probably a good starting point


----------



## Exacoustatowner

exacoustatowner said:


> RE "Property" only that phase accuracy can affect placement. What is it in hearing that gives us location cues? Probably a good starting point



Note: I noticed the small number of microphones suspended above.
Really curious about the mastering process used. Slight delay added for the rear mics?


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> RE "Property" only that phase accuracy can affect placement. What is it in hearing that gives us location cues? Probably a good starting point


 
 But amps have little if no problem with phase. That would be more in the realm of headphones, speakers and acoustics. Sometimes changing the treble response, i.e., EQ, can fool one into perceiving spacial cues differently.


----------



## StanD

exacoustatowner said:


> Note: I noticed the small number of microphones suspended above.
> Really curious about the mastering process used. Slight delay added for the rear mics?


 
 To artificially expand space? I seen delay lines used at outdoor rock concerts for sound to come out of speakers that are placed further back to be in synch with sound that travels from the frontal areas. Don't you love technology.


----------



## AudioBear

@castleofargh 
  
 Hilarious, or sad but true.  Take your pick.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> You're assuming ideal transducers. While we have been able to produce audibly transparent electronics for some time, transducers aren't there yet.
> 
> se


 
 Although I do agree that any electronics is better than even state of the art transducers, it is equally true the difference in electronics can be heard on Xiaomi Pistons 2 (around 25$ delivered ).


----------



## AudioBear

stand said:


> But amps have little if no problem with phase. That would be more in the realm of headphones, speakers and acoustics. Sometimes changing the treble response, i.e., EQ, can fool one into perceiving spacial cues differently.


 

 Recording live performances from multiple mikes and laying down multiple tracks is an art and a science.  Very hard to do well enough so that when the mixing is done in the studio something that resembles a live performance with a sound stage and instrument placement can be heard correctly.  The only way it happens is with a lot of expertise at processing and tweaking.  Another alternative is to stereo mike and let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes it works, most times not.
  
 The mechanisms, physics, anatomy, and brain-processing of hearing are often over-looked by audiophiles.  For example, I am amazed that people describe the vertical image they perceive when they hear a recording through one DAC that isn't there when they hear it through another.  Animals with ears located on the same vertical plane don't perceive vertical auditory information unless they tilt their head.  So are they hearing a tall soundstage with one DAC, or are they leaning their head differently? Not saying that there aren't imbedded clues about vertical images in music but if people are hearing them it's because they've moved their ears. There are so many examples like this we ought to write a review of how hearing works and make it sticky on every page.  We could for example turn our attention to a statement i just read which I think was "as jitter is lowered you get more bass and smoother trebles" (http://www.head-fi.org/t/766347/schiit-yggdrasil-impressions-thread/45#post_11609682).  Jeez, I didn't know that, somewhere I read that the jitter present in modern digital equipment was inaudible.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> But amps have little if no problem with phase. That would be more in the realm of headphones, speakers and acoustics. Sometimes changing the treble response, i.e., EQ, can fool one into perceiving spacial cues differently.


 
 False.
  
 Amplifiers that have zero degree error within the 20Hz-20 kHz  band will invariably be with -3dB cutoff poiunt VERY low (far below 20 Hz ) as well as FAR above 20 kHz. And relative difference will stand in comparison with more babdwidth limited designs - even if listening to speakers or headphones that are way inferior in specs than any of the amps being tested.
  
 The biggest culprit in amps normally is LF filtering. It reduces bass dynamic range - and sounds wooly at worst. It is sooooo prevalent in usual AC coupled amps that most grew to accept it as "standard" - and will initially react negatively to an amp with accurate response - due to being exposed to music being reproduced trough such limited response amps - practically for life.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> Although I do agree that any electronics is better than even state of the art transducers, it is equally true the difference in electronics can be heard on Xiaomi Pistons 2 (around 25$ delivered ).




Just a reminder, this is Sound Science. Please point me to the controlled listening tests that have demonstrated this.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> The biggest culprit in amps normally is LF filtering. It reduces bass dynamic range - and sounds wooly at worst. It is sooooo prevalent in usual AC coupled amps that most grew to accept it as "standard" - and will initially react negatively to an amp with accurate response - due to being exposed to music being reproduced trough such limited response amps - practically for life.




Huh?

Any decently designed AC coupled amp will have an F3 at a few Hertz. What loudspeakers are you using that get anywhere near this? And if they don't, how can you possibly say it's the amp that's responsible?

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

audiobear said:


> Thanks.  Glad you liked the post.  I don't post here much because I have been busy doing overtime in my professional life trying to inject a little sanity into public understanding of science.  My focus has moved from explaining science, facts and logic to learning the underlying psychology of fear, science denialism, neo-tribal behavior (see Kahan at Yale) and something called moral purchase.  There is so much nonsense out there today I fear the whole country is going to sink under the sheer weight of the BS.  Don't believe me?, watch Dr. Oz.
> 
> I recently started reading the forum more actively because I am putting together a new desktop system.  I have 1964Ears A12s in hand (awesome), Emotiva Airmotiv 4s (another awesome performer--great performance/cost ratio--chalk one up for @keithemo), and I have a Cavalli Liquid Carbon amp on order.  Now I'm shopping for phones and a desktop DAC.  Emotiva DC-1 is on the list.  Oppo PM-2 home trial should be here this coming week.  I learned about all these products on the forum and by tossing away a lot of BS and unbelievable ignorance, arrogance, and science denialism was able to find some gear that really satisfies me.  I use a FiiO X5 as a portable player and at the moment it's my DAC for the Airmotivs--sounds pretty good.  Do you think I'll be buying a $10K dac?


 
 "My focus has moved from explaining science, facts and logic to learning the underlying psychology of fear, science denialism, neo-tribal behavior (see Kahan at Yale) and something called moral purchase.  There is so much nonsense out there today I fear the whole country is going to sink under the sheer weight of the BS.  Don't believe me?, watch Dr. Oz."
  
 This irrational tribal based view of reality drives me nuts. Take Global Climate Change. I am neither FOR nor Against either outcome. But I can't deny that the vast majority of those who have a better grasp on the relevant sciences think it's real.My work lies in the biosciences- analytical chemistry primarily  
 It seems that it has become Rebublicans (who KNOW its fake) vs. Democrats(who accept it as Gospel). Obviously there are exceptions.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

steve eddy said:


> You're assuming ideal transducers. While we have been able to produce audibly transparent electronics for some time, transducers aren't there yet.
> 
> se


 
 All true. A real Symphony orchestra playing has at least a hundred different instruments producing sound through brass valves, strings, impact, and voice. We require our speakers and headphones to reproduce that- what at best we reproduce is the vibrations transduced by the microphone diaphragms into electrical signals.


----------



## AudioBear

Strange that the majority of discussion of these forums is about how various electronic gear and cables can be selected to play nice with certain transducers.  There is an implicit understanding by some but the irony of this escapes most.  It's all about the transducers.  Starting with mikes, and pickups on instruments.  A lot has been done to optimize pickups to instruments but they don't capture room acoustics.  This should really be the center stage of how to get better sound--make better transducers and use them to make better recordings and playback transducers.  Duh.


----------



## cel4145

audiobear said:


> I'd like to pick up and extend your comments.  I hope we all agree that making hurtful personal attacks is over the line.  When we attack irrational beliefs we have a dilemma.




I'm not sure we have much of dilemma. If someone is getting their feelings hurt when talking on the Internet about a controversial topic, such as religion, politics, or audio science vs. subjective evaluations, sounds like a personal problem to me. These topics often hit close to home personally. And invariably, there will often be some amount of jabs thrown in on occasion and conversation may get a little heated, too. This is the Internet. Gotta develop a little bit of a thick skin in life anyway, but especially on Internet forums when discussing controversial issues. If the water is too hot for someone and it makes them upset all the time, the logical thing to do is get out of the water 



audiobear said:


> There is another aspect of this that leads to hard feelings.  Objectivists understand the difficulty in being objective, scientists adhere to a set of principles they call the scientific method to help them keep their prejudices and intuitions out of the process of seeking truth, engineers have their own toolkit and logic for problem solving, doctors are taught a method for diagnosis that helps them kept out of the trap of faulty assumptions.  Believers have no roadmap for arriving at an unbiased answer.  They freely admit they trust their senses and they are proud of how well their senses work.  They also have a liturgy of facts that have been discovered through their approach to inquiry.  It includes beliefs about wires, fuses, balanced circuits, and its own vocabulary (harshness, grit, bass grunt, warm, dark, bright, voiced, etc).  Their belief system has many of the characteristics of a cult, if not a religion.
> 
> And we all know what happens when you attack someone's religion.  It's worse than attacking them, and they react strongly because it is an attack on what they believe.  What do facts have to do with it?  Not much.  Psychology research on the consequences of confirmation bias shows that when you cite contrary evidence to someone who strongly believes something that is demonstrably untrue, they not only don't believe the evidence, having heard it actually reinforces the strength of their beliefs.  Let me say that again, trying to prove them wrong makes them believe their erroneous conclusion even more strongly!  That's what the research shows.  Humans are indeed a very perverse species.  So when you tell someone who has spent $1000 on an IEM cable because it really brings out the bass grunt and smooths the mid-treble grit, that blind studies show they can't tell one cable from another, what you do is make them hear the differences more clearly and make them angry at you for suggesting they are wrong.  They are absolutely sure the cable makes a big difference and they are indignant and offended that you say it doesn't even when you prove to them they cannot tell one from another in a test.
> 
> Some of us are ready to be proved wrong if we're wrong. Others seem to get great ego satisfaction by bandying around terms in a way that proves they are a member of an elite group of savants.  It's like mixing oil and water.




While I know it's possible to draw parallels, I don't necessarily agree with calling it a religion because I think there are factors about it that are not religious. For instance, in our daily lives we make observations and use inductive reasoning to create our own heuristics for decision making. This, to a certain extent, is some of what's happening with subjectivist beliefs. It is, after all, based on individual loose application of empirical methods. They are just flawed due to the unreliability of sensory perception in this regard. I also think some resistance to audio science rests in cognitive dissonance. People don't want to believe that their $500 DAC is not any better than the $100 DAC they could have bought, either because it was significant money to them or because they have some kind of pride in it as a status symbol. Finally, calling it a religion is perceived as a slight, and I think it's often being used that way as well. 

I do think that perhaps we take the wrong approach pointing to scientific methods and saying they are necessarily better. The key, I think, is to get people to see the infallibility of their human perception. One of the low risk factors for this is the mp3 vs. lossless ABX testing with Foobar. Those who think that they can hear a difference, then try it, and learn first hand that their sensory perception was flawed. From there, the individual might be more receptive to understanding that similar things happen with dacs and amps and other equipment. But that's the thing you have to convince people first: not that science is right, but that their perception is flawed.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> @AudioBear
> The one thing about the religeous audiophiles that bothers me the most is how they influence the lay person down a false road at that person's expense and wasted time. IMO that is the worst.




The big issue there is when they convince people for whom the extra expense is a burden to waste their money. There are people with plenty of money who are buying $15K audio setups that would probably still buy expensive DACs and cables because of the status symbol. But it is infuriating when I see college kids on the intro/recommendations forums being persuaded to spend $600 on an amp/dac for $300 headphones when that money means a lot more to them.


----------



## AudioBear

exacoustatowner said:


> "My focus has moved from explaining science, facts and logic to learning the underlying psychology of fear, science denialism, neo-tribal behavior (see Kahan at Yale) and something called moral purchase.  There is so much nonsense out there today I fear the whole country is going to sink under the sheer weight of the BS.  Don't believe me?, watch Dr. Oz."
> 
> This irrational tribal based view of reality drives me nuts. Take Global Climate Change. I am neither FOR nor Against either outcome. But I can't deny that the vast majority of those who have a better grasp on the relevant sciences think it's real.My work lies in the biosciences- analytical chemistry primarily
> It seems that it has become Rebublicans (who KNOW its fake) vs. Democrats(who accept it as Gospel). Obviously there are exceptions.


 

 One of the things Dan Kahan at Yale has done is study liberal and conservative biases,religious based biases, racial biases,  and other factors that might lead people of one  persuasion or another lean one way or another on issues.  His findings are that no party or point of view has a monopoly on science denial when it goes against their tribal belief. On some issues there are no correlations with any party or value and on others like climate change there is clear identification of positions with groups.  We're a weird animal.   Anti-vaxers and pro-organic folks are largely liberal while people who don't believe in man-made climate change are mostly conservative.  What's that about?  All I can say is I have a degree in chemistry and a PhD in biochemistry and have spent  a lot of my life trying to design good experiments and think objectively. It's getting to be a very lonely feeling to be scientific.
  
 The really key problem as I see it is the death of the expert and expert knowledge.  Everybody has an opinion.  We have some people right from the industry and academe on this forum who know what they are talking about because they are very well trained and can design the stuff we are talking about.  Some idiot who wouldn't know which end of transistor was up comes in and says the jitter is lower thru an unobtainium wire that costs $2000 which caused my bass to grunt and my treble to bloom and everybody runs out and buys the wire.  I have been taught that when someone knows more than you do about something you give their opinion a lot of weight.
  
 This has made me think of a great study.  I wonder if the subjectivists and objectivists here fit into any political, social, psychological or demographic group.  Don't know where I would get the data though.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

audiobear said:


> One of the things Dan Kahan at Yale has done is study liberal and conservative biases,religious based biases, racial biases,  and other factors that might lead people of one  persuasion or another lean one way or another on issues.  His findings are that no party or point of view has a monopoly on science denial when it goes against their tribal belief. On some issues there are no correlations with any party or value and on others like climate change there is clear identification of positions with groups.  We're a weird animal.   Anti-vaxers and pro-organic folks are largely liberal while people who don't believe in man-made climate change are mostly conservative.  What's that about?  All I can say is I have a degree in chemistry and a PhD in biochemistry and have spent  a lot of my life trying to design good experiments and think objectively. It's getting to be a very lonely feeling to be scientific.
> 
> The really key problem as I see it is the death of the expert and expert knowledge.  Everybody has an opinion.  We have some people right from the industry and academe on this forum who know what they are talking about because they are very well trained and can design the stuff we are talking about.  Some idiot who wouldn't know which end of transistor was up comes in and says the jitter is lower thru an unobtainium wire that costs $2000 which caused my bass to grunt and my treble to bloom and everybody runs out and buys the wire.  I have been taught that when someone knows more than you do about something you give their opinion a lot of weight.
> 
> This has made me think of a great study.  I wonder if the subjectivists and objectivists here fit into any political, social, psychological or demographic group.  Don't know where I would get the data though.


 
 That would be very interesting!


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> We have some people right from the industry and academe on this forum who know what they are talking about because they are very well trained and can design the stuff we are talking about.




But those from the industry here have to watch what they, even on basic matters of physics lest they violate the rules for Members of the Trade. I've joked that even Ohms Law is off topic for MoTs lest it trouble some other MoT.




> This has made me think of a great study.  I wonder if the subjectivists and objectivists here fit into any political, social, psychological or demographic group.  Don't know where I would get the data though.




I'm about the only real subjectivist here when it comes to enjoying reproduced music (as opposed to those I call "pseudo objectivists") but on knowledge and understanding, I'm an objectivist. So how would you define me? 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> All true. A real Symphony orchestra playing has at least a hundred different instruments producing sound through brass valves, strings, impact, and voice.




Don't know why you make it sound so complicated. At the end it all adds up to a singular continuous waveform. 




> We require our speakers and headphones to reproduce that- what at best we reproduce is the vibrations transduced by the microphone diaphragms into electrical signals.




Yes. As I said, the electronics are already taken care of. It's the transducers that still need work.

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

audiobear said:


> Recording live performances from multiple mikes and laying down multiple tracks is an art and a science.  Very hard to do well enough so that when the mixing is done in the studio something that resembles a live performance with a sound stage and instrument placement can be heard correctly.  The only way it happens is with a lot of expertise at processing and tweaking.  Another alternative is to stereo mike and let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes it works, most times not.
> 
> The mechanisms, physics, anatomy, and brain-processing of hearing are often over-looked by audiophiles.  For example, I am amazed that people describe the vertical image they perceive when they hear a recording through one DAC that isn't there when they hear it through another.  Animals with ears located on the same vertical plane don't perceive vertical auditory information unless they tilt their head.  So are they hearing a tall soundstage with one DAC, or are they leaning their head differently? Not saying that there aren't imbedded clues about vertical images in music but if people are hearing them it's because they've moved their ears. There are so many examples like this we ought to write a review of how hearing works and make it sticky on every page.  We could for example turn our attention to a statement i just read which I think was "as jitter is lowered you get more bass and smoother trebles" (http://www.head-fi.org/t/766347/schiit-yggdrasil-impressions-thread/45#post_11609682).  Jeez, I didn't know that, somewhere I read that the jitter present in modern digital equipment was inaudible.


 
 The recordings I've mentioned won Grammy's for best Classical Recording of the year. I think they did an amazing job of recreating the experience and I'm fortunate enough to have been present- approximately 6 rows back for the live performance! From the specs (stage depth about 34 feet) I'd estimate the rear of the orchestra was- about 60-70 feet back. At 1100 fee per second that is about 60 milliseconds. Within the limits of perception. So I imagine some delay was added to the rear microphones in the mix. I could be wrong-but I wonder if there is any way I could find out.
  The mics could also pick up reflected sound. I've no idea if there are mics other than those suspended over the stage.
  
 If you bring reality based knowledge into the discussion you will cause an explosion of righteous anger. 
 This! " There are so many examples like this we ought to write a review of how hearing works and make it sticky on every page." 
 http://sfwmpac.org/system/attachment/attachment/5/dsh_final14.pdf


----------



## AudioBear

steve eddy said:


> But those from the industry here have to watch what they, even on basic matters of physics lest they violate the rules for Members of the Trade. I've joked that even Ohms Law is off topic for MoTs lest it trouble some other MoT.
> I'm about the only real subjectivist here when it comes to enjoying reproduced music (as opposed to those I call "pseudo objectivists") but on knowledge and understanding, I'm an objectivist. So how would you define me?
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Tragic, they probably know more than most of the rest of the people around here.  So how would i define you? Not much different than me or most of the rest of us here. Enjoyment of music is emotional--at least it is for me.  I don't try to over-analyze it.  I get technical and analytical when buying gear, but once I've bought it, I don't test it or analyze it or worry about it. I don't think you are so alone.  Being gagged as you are would bother me more than pseudo-objectivism.


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> Strange that the majority of discussion of these forums is about how various electronic gear and cables can be selected to play nice with certain transducers.  There is an implicit understanding by some but the irony of this escapes most.  It's all about the transducers.  Starting with mikes, and pickups on instruments.  A lot has been done to optimize pickups to instruments but they don't capture room acoustics.  This should really be the center stage of how to get better sound--make better transducers and use them to make better recordings and playback transducers.  Duh.




Thing that gets me is that the audiophiles tend to all say that the goal is to accurately capture and reproduce the experience of a live musical event. Personally I just don't see what the big deal is about "live." Personally I'm more interested in the music rather than an event. I say leave that experience for an actual event. I think the studio is the better canvas upon which to "paint" the music than some event venue which comes with a lot of compromises.

It's funny how music changed depending on how many people that had to be "fed." It was the desire to present music to a large public audience that led to the large symphony orchestra. You needed multiple instruments playing in order to fill such large venues with sufficient volume levels. But I digress.

If you want to realistically capture and reproduce a live event, I think you're just going to have to forget about loudspeakers, except for the most expensive, custom multichannel systems in the wealthiest of homes. The ideal would be to capture the sound in the ear canal just before the eardrum, and then play it back through some in ear monitors. 

While binaural, dummy head recordings have been made, they're using dummy heads with generic pinnae, even though different pinnae can have rather profound effects on the sound they're funneling into our ear canals. Short of making individual recordings of the event with each listener's pinnae used in the dummy head, the only solution I can see would be similar to custom IEMs where they take custom molds of your ear and produce a custom in ear monitor that's an exact fit.

You would have custom molds made of your ears including the pinnae. These would be used to make duplicates of your pinnae that could be used to analyze their filter function and then you would be provided with a custom DSP algorithm that you would feed into the playback device to be applied to the music you and only you listen to.

On the recording side, they would be made without any pinnae.

And loudness is vitally critical as well if you truly want to accurately record and reproduce a live event. There would need to be some sort of reference level established to insure that the level at your eardrums would be precisely the same as it would have been at the live event. 

And then there's the problem of the IEM itself.

Let's say you are able to entirely accurately capture and reproduce the sound at the output of the IEM. Well, once those sound waves leave the IEM, they're simply not going to behave exactly the same as they would in an ear canal that was open to the air and didn't have an IEM shoved into it. Now what? More DSP? Perhaps, but DSP can't deal with everything, like resonances and whatnot.

That's why I think the audiophile's goal of accurately capturing and reproducing the sound of a live event is just a huge Sisyphusian folly and is really just a huge distraction. Audiophile's tend to be much more obsessed about SOUNDS, than what it should be about, and that's MUSIC.

Just my opinion of course.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> Tragic, they probably know more than most of the rest of the people around here.




Don't be so sure. But I can't comment any further. 




> So how would i define you? Not much different than me or most of the rest of us here. Enjoyment of music is emotional--at least it is for me.




Well, I think that when it comes to enjoying reproduced music, most here tend to be utilitarians who are informed by their objectivist side, rather than what I would call a true subjectivist. My subjectivism is purely hedonistic, and I place something of a premium on aesthetics. 

se


----------



## AudioBear

@Steve Eddy
  
 Point well taken about other members of the trade.  I made an unjustified assumption.  Will say many that I have met are pretty sharp--but on reflection certainly not all. 
  
 This thread of thought is interesting.  I think there's a paradox.  It seems to me a lot of subjectivists really aren't that passionate or emotional about the music, they are too busy evaluating equipment with which to perfect the listening experience and too busy listening to the equipment instead of the music.  That's my impression anyway.
  
 For many objectivists the point of proving that there are no audible differences between types of gear or file types or whatever allows them to listen to music rather than obsess about collecting the perfect system.  I would grant your point, I suppose I am utilitarian.  I'm informed by things like price and other practicalities.  And I've already confessed I just like music, so I will stream 128 if that's what's available.  Can I tell it from a real well recorded 44.1 uncompressed file?  Almost always but that doesn't make me not listen and it gives me no pain, in fact the same songs that give me goosebumps on a great system can do the same thing when it 's played while I'm waiting in a dentist waiting room listening to background music.  I do prefer the better recording and I like nice gear.  Heresy, but I guess am not a music or gear gourmet.  Does that make me a utilitarian objectivist?  It sure makes me easier to satisfy than a lot of people around here.
  
 Which leads me to your post on the next step in binaural recording.  I'll grant you describe might be an excellent way to capture the sound that falls on our ears but as you also point out there are lots of technical challenges to actually doing it and if we could, the recording would only be perfect for the anatomy on which it was modeled.
  
 The myth of a live event is interesting.  I play (poorly) a couple of acoustic instruments and like to jam every week with friends.  I also go to house concerts, or listen to performers in restuarants and bars,  or just sit around listening others play all without electronic assistance.  It's not a matter of better or worse than recordings but the sounds I hear in these kinds of settings are different from what I  hear on electronically recorded and reproduced music.  I like both and don't get all hot bothered trying to figure out which is better because they are just different.  I do have a bias though.  Best explained with a story.  My guitar teacher is one of those people who can pick up just about anything with strings including a $30 plastic ukulele and make it sound incredibly good if not magic. When he plays acoustic guitar the sound is captivating.  I have never had that same experience listening to a recording including some of his recordings.  When he performs around town he plays an electric guitar through an amplified system. It's not the same sound.  My brain tells me it's just as valid as the live acoustic sound but my prejudice and biases tell me the live acoustic performance is better.  Can't explain it.
  
 In the forums reproduction of live performances have become more like the search for the Holy Grail than simply a pursuit of a pleasant sound.  I like the the phrase you came up with.  Sisyphusian folly is a great way to put it.


----------



## dprimary

exacoustatowner said:


> Note: I noticed the small number of microphones suspended above.
> Really curious about the mastering process used. Slight delay added for the rear mics?


 

 It is hard to say why there would be more then a pair of microphones used. Possibly a surround recording. If for some reason they are being mixed together the microphones closest to the instruments would be delayed to blend with the farthest microphones. If that answers your question.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

steve eddy said:


> Thing that gets me is that the audiophiles tend to all say that the goal is to accurately capture and reproduce the experience of a live musical event. Personally I just don't see what the big deal is about "live." Personally I'm more interested in the music rather than an event. I say leave that experience for an actual event. I think the studio is the better canvas upon which to "paint" the music than some event venue which comes with a lot of compromises.
> 
> It's funny how music changed depending on how many people that had to be "fed." It was the desire to present music to a large public audience that led to the large symphony orchestra. You needed multiple instruments playing in order to fill such large venues with sufficient volume levels. But I digress.
> 
> ...


 
 I'm convinced! I'm giving up my silly partially successful attempts at recreating what I hear at the symphony. Sure it's closer than what I get from a portable radio-but heck-I enjoyed MUSIC from an old mono cassette deck-taped from FM radio- and  THIS system held me in it's thrall. Ah, the sound of the 8 track changing tracks! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG0ndcu0sFs
 Actually, I'm joking-but that really WAS it. Just don't go spouting such nonsense as V=I/R or trouble will ensue!  Finding 8 Tracks in working order will be the hard part.


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> I'm convinced! I'm giving up my silly partially successful attempts at recreating what I hear at the symphony. Sure it's closer than what I get from a portable radio-but heck-I enjoyed MUSIC from an old mono cassette deck-taped from FM radio- and  THIS system held me in it's thrall. Ah, the sound of the 8 track changing tracks! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG0ndcu0sFs
> Actually, I'm joking-but that really WAS it. Just don't go spouting such nonsense as V=I/R or trouble will ensue!  Finding 8 Tracks in working order will be the hard part.




Shut up you Sisyphusian folly you. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries. Now go away or I'll taunt you a second time.

(Knows at least one participant whose head that won't fly over)

se


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Just a reminder, this is Sound Science. Please point me to the controlled listening tests that have demonstrated this.
> 
> se


 
 I know this is Sound Science.
  
 No, I can not lead you to the controlled listening test - yet. I will try - eventually - to come up with something *specified to the last electrical element *- real hardware, simple enough for anyone with the rudimentary knowledge of soldering and basic electrotechnics  to build, yet inexpensive enough to try even for the most frugal of audiophiles. The very same circuit (equal nominal electrical gain) build with "industry standard" parts - and one built with very high, but not premium grade parts - powered by two power supplies, one "good enough" and other "lavishly over-engineered" - for everyone to even better see/hear/understand how actual execution of the same electrical circuit affects its SQ in practice.
  
 Then you will, using whatever existing source and whatever existing amplifier driving your existing headphones and/or loudspeakar, using a simple switch ( either taking the output of both circuits to your existing (pre)amplifier line level inputs and taking the output from the tape out sockets - or better yet, 
 This box is inexpensive at $/EUR 10 level, is available off ebay if not locally, and although it is nothing but a switch among three inputs and two parallel outputs *WITHOUT* any proper shielding ( it is plastic ), it allows for ABX among line level (CD level) devices that are level matched to below 0.1 dB.
  
 By using, in addition, two power supplies, there are 4 combinations possible - and you should find, by listening alone, that specifying say Xiaomi Pistons 2 or 3 IEMS (25 or 30 $, delivered) I was _specifiying waaaaaay tooooo high quality IEMs _- because there are $5 Chinese IEMS that would have absolutely no problems whatsoever with clearly allowing you to hear an audible difference in each of the 4 combinations possible.


----------



## dprimary

steve eddy said:


> Shut up you Sisyphusian folly you. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries. Now go away or I'll taunt you a second time.
> 
> (Knows at least one participant whose head that won't fly over)
> 
> se


 
Ni!


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> @Steve Eddy
> 
> 
> Point well taken about other members of the trade.  I made an unjustified assumption.  Will say many that I have met are pretty sharp--but on reflection certainly not all.




Oh there are some sharp ones out there alright. Just depends on who you meet. And in so-called "high end" audio, the sharp ones are a bit thin on thr ground.




> This thread of thought is interesting.  I think there's a paradox.  It seems to me a lot of subjectivists really aren't that passionate or emotional about the music, they are too busy evaluating equipment with which to perfect the listening experience and too busy listening to the equipment instead of the music.  That's my impression anyway.




As I've said many times over the years, I think there tends to be two kinds of people. Those for whom their equipment serves as a means to connect with their music, and those for whom their music serves as a means to connect with their equipment. 




> For many objectivists the point of proving that there are no audible differences between types of gear or file types or whatever allows them to listen to music rather than obsess about collecting the perfect system.  I would grant your point, I suppose I am utilitarian.  I'm informed by things like price and other practicalities.  And I've already confessed I just like music, so I will stream 128 if that's what's available.  Can I tell it from a real well recorded 44.1 uncompressed file?  Almost always but that doesn't make me not listen and it gives me no pain, in fact the same songs that give me goosebumps on a great system can do the same thing when it 's played while I'm waiting in a dentist waiting room listening to background music.  I do prefer the better recording and I like nice gear.  Heresy, but I guess am not a music or gear gourmet.  Does that make me a utilitarian objectivist?  It sure makes me easier to satisfy than a lot of people around here.




I'd still put you in the utilitarian camp. Perhaps borderline subjectivist. But not even close to hedonist. 

But you make the very good that it takes quite a lot to REALLY get in the way of the MUSIC. I have a cheap Sony table radio I listen to in the shower. But the right song comes on and I'm bouncing just as much as if I were listening on my main system.




> Which leads me to your post on the next step in binaural recording.  I'll grant you describe might be an excellent way to capture the sound that falls on our ears but as you also point out there are lots of technical challenges to actually doing it and if we could, the recording would only be perfect for the anatomy on which it was modeled.
> 
> The myth of a live event is interesting.  I play (poorly) a couple of acoustic instruments and like to jam every week with friends.  I also go to house concerts, or listen to performers in restuarants and bars,  or just sit around listening others play all without electronic assistance.  It's not a matter of better or worse than recordings but the sounds I hear in these kinds of settings are different from what I  hear on electronically recorded and reproduced music.  I like both and don't get all hot bothered trying to figure out which is better because they are just different.  I do have a bias though.  Best explained with a story.  My guitar teacher is one of those people who can pick up just about anything with strings including a $30 plastic ukulele and make it sound incredibly good if not magic. When he plays acoustic guitar the sound is captivating.  I have never had that same experience listening to a recording including some of his recordings.  When he performs around town he plays an electric guitar through an amplified system. It's not the same sound.  My brain tells me it's just as valid as the live acoustic sound but my prejudice and biases tell me the live acoustic performance is better.  Can't explain it.




Oh sure. But typically in a studio recording, the last thing they want is for it to sound like it does in a restaurant or bar. Or even what it would sound like with the musician just playing in a nice quiet room. Close micing plays a big role in that. And of course the engineers have a hard time not using every knob on their mixer and justify all those expensive boxes that fill their racks. A lot of times the engineer is looked at as the second artist on the recording. And I'm not saying that's not justifiable or desirable. Just that typically, the goal is not to capture the sound of a live performance.

And you mention electric guitar. I'd say electric guitarists are a lot like "audiophile's." They are all about "tone." And a lot of times they can be just as neurotic and fall into all kinds of mythical beliefs just like audiophiles. It's an interesting parallel. And I say that as someone who noodles on guitar himself and has known many other guitarists over the years.




> In the forums reproduction of live performances have become more like the search for the Holy Grail than simply a pursuit of a pleasant sound.  I like the the phrase you came up with.  Sisyphusian folly is a great way to put it.




Glad you like it. After some 30 years being involved in all this one way or another, it's the most succinct way of putting it I think.

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

steve eddy said:


> Shut up you Sisyphusian folly you. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries. Now go away or I'll taunt you a second time.
> 
> (Knows at least one participant whose head that won't fly over)
> 
> se


 
 HAHAHA! You made my day-or night as it is. "Run away Run away." When danger reared its ugly head the Sisyphusian Fart bravely turned his tail and fled…"
 I'm going back to my oxygen free micro encapsulated  extruded gold alloy headphone cables wrapped in spiral wrapped camel hair! It's beyond your understanding and has a frequency response from NEGATIVE 100,000 HZ to Infinity! Bass Slam! No Crunchy Treble! Chocolate sound with a hint of Strawberry!


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> I know this is Sound Science.
> 
> No, I can not lead you to the controlled listening test - yet.




Then the statement shouldn't have been made in the first place. Not until you actually had something with which to substantiate it. You can't just make a claim and then say "No, I can't substantiate it, but some day I will."




> This box is inexpensive at $/EUR 10 level, is available off ebay if not locally, and although it is nothing but a switch among three inputs and two parallel outputs *WITHOUT* any proper shielding ( it is plastic ), it allows for ABX among line level (CD level) devices that are level matched to below 0.1 dB.




How exactly does it allow for ABX? I don't see any provision for that. Sure you know what ABX means?

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

dprimary said:


> [COLOR=252525]Ni![/COLOR]




No no, "nee"! 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> HAHAHA! You made my day-or night as it is. "Run away Run away." When danger reared its ugly head the Sisyphusian Fart bravely turned his tail and fled…"
> I'm going back to my oxygen free micro encapsulated  extruded gold alloy headphone cables wrapped in spiral wrapped camel hair! It's beyond your understanding and has a frequency response from NEGATIVE 100,000 HZ to Infinity! Bass Slam! No Crunchy Treble! Chocolate sound with a hint of Strawberry!




HA! I'm just about to pack it in for the night. Glad I was able to see your reply so I wouldn't have a restless night worrying whether or not it flew over your head. 

Monty Python's pretty easy. Just beware though. I'm liable to get a bit more abstruse on your ass and fling some Firesign Teater at you. 

se


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Then the statement shouldn't have been made in the first place. Not until you actually had something with which to substantiate it. You can't just make a claim and then say "No, I can't substantiate it, but some day I will."
> How exactly does it allow for ABX? I don't see any provision for that. Sure you know what ABX means?
> 
> se


 
 Oh, I've been there so many times by now ( in real audio hardware, not a school textbook example ) that I know no ABX is really required for that. But, I will present a circuit(s) that anyone with reasonable knowledge can build by his/herself and ABX check - last time I checked, The Almighty Computer (and mouseclickers attempting to emulate audio with it ) was still not capable of transmitting the real hardware around the globe - with a click on the mouse. 
  
 Yes, I know what ABX is. Even with this bottom of the line switchbox, it is possible to do a proper DBT/ABX - if another person is connecting the DUTs out of your sight that are level matched to within 0.1 dB - which the proposed circuit I have in mind should have no problem in achieving.
  
 You can always opt for the ABX box from say Van Alstine ( that allows for level matching within 0.1 dB for differently loud sources ) - at $ 999.-  - if so desired. I merely want to make it accessible to anyone remotely interested in DBT/ABX - while some might/may want to shy off such test due to the results that might/may undermine their credibility, others might/may feel reluctant to shell out a grand for a box that does "nothing" ( in a sense, it has no functionality in audio besides ABXing - it can do nothing on its own, it is not a preamp or anything ).
  
 There are three inputs on this switchbox - and you can always have A, B, and either A or B as X - connected in any permutation of possibilities. It is also the cheapest way you can test interconnect cables - by having a Y RCA adaptor(s) at the source and doing an ABX of cables. For this, the level of componentry used in this box may well be too low - but in principle it works.


----------



## castleofargh

objectivism and subjectivism, just like anything in audio are 2 words that have been stripped of their meaning, and abused for so many years that them being used for what they mean is but a rare occurrence.
 to me objectivism should be about how we would rather trust some facts than baseless marketing and snake oil. but I never felt the need to reject my feelings and my ears at the end.
 and subjectivism should be something like accepting that maybe I don't hear stuff like others, and don't share their tastes, so what sounds nicer to me doesn't have to always be what measures best. also I accept that my other senses are important in audio.
 it never meant that I had to spit onto anything made with the use of rational thinking.
  
 and when I look at it that way, aren't we all both at all times? we're not machines so we just don't know how to be objective at all time(I sometimes wish I could). and we're not cockroaches so we tend to react thinking a little past "hey what was that wind I just felt? I should run!!!".
 good luck pretending like someone who wasn't risen by a family of fishes can actually separate both.
  
  
  I never liked what people have been calling neutral for the past 10years, so must I call myself a subjectivist for EQing my sound system to the signature I like best?
 and when an ignorant fool is cornered and out of cheesy argument, but still can't stand to ever admit to being wrong. when that guy starts mentioning his "I'm a subjectivist" joker as a mature way of saying "I'm god inside my own head and I can't hear you! lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala.....". obviously at that moment if you let me pick a side I would be ashamed to call myself a subjectivist.
 when those terms are used on headfi they're either flag waving BS to appeal to the prejudice of other members, or the guy admitting to his own ignorance and hiding being the idea that it's ok to be full of crap as long as there is a fancy name for it.
 it's not a fight of 2 nations, it's not even the fight of 2 ideas. it's just that an audiophile has respect for nothing but his own ego, and certainly not for the meaning of words. but it comes to no surprise as he usually learned those words like he learned his sound, he didn't!
 audio terms like objectivism and subjectivism are just a package you tend to randomly insert in your post so that you look like yo know what you're talking about.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

Can someone explain what a "forward sounding amp" is? I see someone saying it's needed to compensate for a headphone that is "too neutral". I'm puzzled. I don't know of any quality amps that boost midrange audibly.
Why not use a pro EQ? I've got the Rane DEQ60L for that if needed.


----------



## Dobrescu George

exacoustatowner said:


> Can someone explain what a "forward sounding amp" is? I see someone saying it's needed to compensate for a headphone that is "too neutral". I'm puzzled. I don't know of any quality amps that boost midrange audibly.
> Why not use a pro EQ? I've got the Rane DEQ60L for that if needed.


 
 A good EQ is better suited for your needs.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

dobrescu george said:


> A good EQ is better suited for your needs.



My thoughts exactly George! My question is more along the lines of wondering where the poster would find an amp +5 db between say 500-2000 hz?


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> I know this is Sound Science.
> 
> No, I can not lead you to the controlled listening test - yet. I will try - eventually - to come up with something *specified to the last electrical element *- real hardware, simple enough for anyone with the rudimentary knowledge of soldering and basic electrotechnics  to build, yet inexpensive enough to try even for the most frugal of audiophiles. The very same circuit (equal nominal electrical gain) build with "industry standard" parts - and one built with very high, but not premium grade parts - powered by two power supplies, one "good enough" and other "lavishly over-engineered" - for everyone to even better see/hear/understand how actual execution of the same electrical circuit affects its SQ in practice.
> 
> ...


 
 Yes as you stated this is Sound Science, yet all too often you have a penchant to post Science Fiction. More silly promises have been made, once again.


----------



## Dobrescu George

exacoustatowner said:


> My thoughts exactly George! My question is more along the lines of wondering where the poster would find an amp +5 db between say 500-2000 hz?


 
 That would be a very defective amp. It is supposed to amp the signal without degrading the frequency response. I know that some amps can alter, but by +-5DB it is a lot to change in response, i would not think that any amp producers would really make one that is so distant from the perfect linear frequency response.


----------



## KeithEmo

cel4145 said:


> I didn't catch that you guys were doing a portable DAC. That's great. Are there any specs on the website yet?


 
  
 We're working on the website right now - and we're still finishing up some details on the metalwork and packaging. We showed them at Axpona Chicago, and they should be up on the website in a few weeks. The first two will be the "Big EGo" and "Little EGo". Both are USB only (and USB powered); both support PCM only - up to 24/384; both have a nice (chip-based) headphone amp; and both have three selectable digital filters and a headphone blend mode; and both can either be used in UAC2 mode (which required drivers on a PC) up to 24/384, or in UAC1 mode (driverless) up to 24/96. Both have a row of blue LEDs that show you the sample rate (and a red LED for UAC1 mode).
  
 The Little EGo, which only has a single headphone output, is about 4-3/4 x 1-3/4 x about 1/2 inches, and will be priced at $169; the Big EGo, which also has separate line and Toslink outputs, is a tiny bit bigger, and will be priced at $219. Both are solid black-anodized aluminum, and are made here in the USA. The EGo Trip will be a lot smaller, have less features, and be priced at $119.


----------



## StanD

keithemo said:


> We're working on the website right now - and we're still finishing up some details on the metalwork and packaging. We showed them at Axpona Chicago, and they should be up on the website in a few weeks. The first two will be the "Big EGo" and "Little EGo". Both are USB only (and USB powered); both support PCM only - up to 24/384; both have a nice (chip-based) headphone amp; and both have three selectable digital filters and a headphone blend mode; and both can either be used in UAC2 mode (which required drivers on a PC) up to 24/384, or in UAC1 mode (driverless) up to 24/96. Both have a row of blue LEDs that show you the sample rate (and a red LED for UAC1 mode).
> 
> The Little EGo, which only has a single headphone output, is about 4-3/4 x 1-3/4 x about 1/2 inches, and will be priced at $169; the Big EGo, which also has separate line and Toslink outputs, is a tiny bit bigger, and will be priced at $219. Both are solid black-anodized aluminum, and are made here in the USA. The EGo Trip will be a lot smaller, have less features, and be priced at $119.


 
 If Emotiva learns to promote on HeadFi as Schiit does, the cash register should be ringing all day long.


----------



## KeithEmo

castleofargh said:


> objectivism and subjectivism, just like anything in audio are 2 words that have been stripped of their meaning, and abused for so many years that them being used for what they mean is but a rare occurrence.
> to me objectivism should be about how we would rather trust some facts than baseless marketing and snake oil. but I never felt the need to reject my feelings and my ears at the end.
> and subjectivism should be something like accepting that maybe I don't hear stuff like others, and don't share their tastes, so what sounds nicer to me doesn't have to always be what measures best. also I accept that my other senses are important in audio.
> it never meant that I had to spit onto anything made with the use of rational thinking.
> ...


 
  
 Interesting - however, I wouldn't consider you to be a subjectivist at all. You seem quite willing to agree that there is such a thing as flat, that it can be measured and quantified, but that you simply don't prefer it. All of those statements seem objective to me. I would simply call that "exercising preference and free will". To me, a "subjectivist" is the person who insists that "neither version is more accurate than the other because it's all just a matter of opinion".


----------



## KeithEmo

dobrescu george said:


> That would be a very defective amp. It is supposed to amp the signal without degrading the frequency response. I know that some amps can alter, but by +-5DB it is a lot to change in response, i would not think that any amp producers would really make one that is so distant from the perfect linear frequency response.


 
  
 Back in the old days of tube preamps, a power amp that was a few dB out of flat wouldn't have been that surprising - but, yes, today any variation more than a fraction of a dB in a power amp would almost certainly have to be deliberate. However, phono preamps have significant equalization, and may still vary by as much as a few dB


exacoustatowner said:


> Can someone explain what a "forward sounding amp" is? I see someone saying it's needed to compensate for a headphone that is "too neutral". I'm puzzled. I don't know of any quality amps that boost midrange audibly.
> Why not use a pro EQ? I've got the Rane DEQ60L for that if needed.


 
  
 I think you need to take that in the context of headphones. Modern solid state "speaker amplifiers" should all be flat within a fraction of a dB unless deliberately designed to be otherwise, but preamps, especially phono preamps, include equalization which can vary (while you may agree with me that they should all aspire to match the actual standard, many add a bit of "voicing"  one way or the other). However, modern tube power amps still sometimes vary by several dB from flat, and, if an amp makes audible amounts of distortion, the spectra of that distortion can affect "how forward it sounds" (for one thing, the second harmonic distortion that adds a lot of what we call "tube sound" is actually known to make voices more intelligible, which could be described as a "more forward sound".)
  
 Headphones, however, are a slightly different matter. For one thing, because of how they interact with our ears, headphones themselves aren't usually designed to be flat - and measure rather differently depending on how you measure them - and there is an accepted frequency response curve that they typically use which makes them sound "perceptually flat". To go along with this "uncertainty", many headphone amp manufacturers seem to deliberately make their amps sound one way or the other to complement particular headphones and tastes. For example, if you listen to a Schiit Asgard and a Schiit Lyr, they sound very different, with the Lyr sounding distinctly what many of us would call "tubey". (On the Lyr, headphones that sound harsh on other amps tend to sound smoother and mellower, and voices sound very smooth, but sounds like cymbals sound blurry and dulled; I assume it's due to a combination of a slightly rolled off high frequency response, and a solid dose of added second harmonics, but I've never actually measured it to confirm that).
  
 Headphone amps are usually characterized as sounding "analytical" (accurate - like the Asgard, or like the headphone amps in EMo products), or "euphonic" (nice sounding but not especially accurate - like the Lyr).


----------



## StanD

keithemo said:


> Back in the old days of tube preamps, a power amp that was a few dB out of flat wouldn't have been that surprising - but, yes, today any variation more than a fraction of a dB in a power amp would almost certainly have to be deliberate. However, phono preamps have significant equalization, and may still vary by as much as a few dB
> 
> I think you need to take that in the context of headphones. Modern solid state "speaker amplifiers" should all be flat within a fraction of a dB unless deliberately designed to be otherwise, but preamps, especially phono preamps, include equalization which can vary (while you may agree with me that they should all aspire to match the actual standard, many add a bit of "voicing"  one way or the other). However, modern tube power amps still sometimes vary by several dB from flat, and, if an amp makes audible amounts of distortion, the spectra of that distortion can affect "how forward it sounds" (for one thing, the second harmonic distortion that adds a lot of what we call "tube sound" is actually known to make voices more intelligible, which could be described as a "more forward sound".)
> 
> ...


 
 Well, if you havent measured the FR and THD of the Lyr2, the specs are below. I understand that Schiit is careful and conservative in their specifications. So where would the  slightly rolled off HF response and added dose of second harmonics some from? Certainly the 2nd harmonic should fall within the 0.01% spec which is far below what we can hear. I do not subscribe to the chanting of the forum mobs.
  
 Frequency Response: 20Hz-20Khz, -0.1db, 2Hz-500KHz, -3dB
 THD: < 0.01%, 20Hz-20KHz, at 1V RMS, gain = 8 mode (worst case)


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> Oh, I've been there so many times by now ( in real audio hardware, not a school textbook example ) that I know no ABX is really required for that.




It's required in Sound Science.




> But, I will present a circuit(s) that anyone with reasonable knowledge can build by his/herself and ABX check - last time I checked, The Almighty Computer (and mouseclickers attempting to emulate audio with it ) was still not capable of transmitting the real hardware around the globe - with a click on the mouse.




I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.




> Yes, I know what ABX is. Even with this bottom of the line switchbox, it is possible to do a proper DBT/ABX - if another person is connecting the DUTs out of your sight that are level matched to within 0.1 dB - which the proposed circuit I have in mind should have no problem in achieving.




That's not double blind. Double blind is what the DB stands for in DBT.




> There are three inputs on this switchbox - and you can always have A, B, and either A or B as X - connected in any permutation of possibilities. It is also the cheapest way you can test interconnect cables - by having a Y RCA adaptor(s) at the source and doing an ABX of cables. For this, the level of componentry used in this box may well be too low - but in principle it works.




As long as the person administering the test has to set which device is to be X, then it's no longer double blind.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> For example, if you listen to a Schiit Asgard and a Schiit Lyr, they sound very different...




Just a reminder that this is the Sound Science forum.




> ...with the Lyr sounding distinctly what many of us would call "tubey". (On the Lyr, headphones that sound harsh on other amps tend to sound smoother and mellower, and voices sound very smooth, but sounds like cymbals sound blurry and dulled; I assume it's due to a combination of a slightly rolled off high frequency response, and a solid dose of added second harmonics, but I've never actually measured it to confirm that).




Slightly rolled off high frequency response? What's the -3 dB of the Lyr? And what headphones/loudspeakers are you using that are flat all the way out to where the Lyr starts rolling off?

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Frequency Response: 20Hz-20Khz, -0.1db, 2Hz-500KHz, -3dB




Wonder where Keith is getting these transducers that are flat out to 100 kHz? Must be classified military technology. 

se


----------



## cel4145

keithemo said:


> We're working on the website right now - and we're still finishing up some details on the metalwork and packaging. We showed them at Axpona Chicago, and they should be up on the website in a few weeks. The first two will be the "Big EGo" and "Little EGo". Both are USB only (and USB powered); both support PCM only - up to 24/384; both have a nice (chip-based) headphone amp; and both have three selectable digital filters and a headphone blend mode; and both can either be used in UAC2 mode (which required drivers on a PC) up to 24/384, or in UAC1 mode (driverless) up to 24/96. Both have a row of blue LEDs that show you the sample rate (and a red LED for UAC1 mode).
> 
> The Little EGo, which only has a single headphone output, is about 4-3/4 x 1-3/4 x about 1/2 inches, and will be priced at $169; the Big EGo, which also has separate line and Toslink outputs, is a tiny bit bigger, and will be priced at $219. Both are solid black-anodized aluminum, and are made here in the USA. The EGo Trip will be a lot smaller, have less features, and be priced at $119.




That sounds great! I'll look forward to seeing reviews about them.


----------



## KeithEmo

audiobear said:


> Recording live performances from multiple mikes and laying down multiple tracks is an art and a science.  Very hard to do well enough so that when the mixing is done in the studio something that resembles a live performance with a sound stage and instrument placement can be heard correctly.  The only way it happens is with a lot of expertise at processing and tweaking.  Another alternative is to stereo mike and let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes it works, most times not.
> 
> The mechanisms, physics, anatomy, and brain-processing of hearing are often over-looked by audiophiles.  For example, I am amazed that people describe the vertical image they perceive when they hear a recording through one DAC that isn't there when they hear it through another.  Animals with ears located on the same vertical plane don't perceive vertical auditory information unless they tilt their head.  So are they hearing a tall soundstage with one DAC, or are they leaning their head differently? Not saying that there aren't imbedded clues about vertical images in music but if people are hearing them it's because they've moved their ears. There are so many examples like this we ought to write a review of how hearing works and make it sticky on every page.  We could for example turn our attention to a statement i just read which I think was "as jitter is lowered you get more bass and smoother trebles" (http://www.head-fi.org/t/766347/schiit-yggdrasil-impressions-thread/45#post_11609682).  Jeez, I didn't know that, somewhere I read that the jitter present in modern digital equipment was inaudible.


 
  
 If you think about it logically, the most (only) accurate way to record something should be to use a pair of microphones in the ears of a simulated head (a binarual recording) - since the microphones should then be recording exactly what our ears would hear if we were there. Of course, this only works if you then play the recording through headphones (with speakers you get an extra stage of mixing of left and right between your speakers and your ears).
  
 However, there are several very good reasons for doing it other ways. First, with a binaural recording, you have no opportunity to "adjust" the recording later - you can't turn one instrument or another up or down, and you certainly can't re-record one or another later to "fix a problem". Second, some instruments just don't seem to come out sounding right when you do it that way. (And, again, you have no way to adjust things. When you record a drum set using several microphones, you can alter the balance in the mix between the microphone near the cymbal, which records more "bite", and the one near the bass drum head, which records more "thump" - you can use the ability either to deliberately make the sound different, or to "adjust" it to sound more like it really did to begin with.) Finally, each of our ears, and even the shape of our heads, is different. So a binaural recording made using a perfect copy of my head and ears may not deliver the right cues to you - because your head and ears are different than mine. Our brains have a remarkable ability to "figure out" what all those cues mean - which means that we have an equally remarkable ability to notice when they're wrong.
  
 "Where we hear a sound as coming from" seems to be based on a complex combination of frequency response and phase. A sound that you hear that actually originates from "up and to the left" arrives at each of your ears at different times, and the frequency response is altered as it wraps around your head. However, even that is an oversimplification. In fact, the sound reaches your left ear directly, after passing the curves of your ear, and some of it reaches your right ear after wrapping around your head, while some of it reaches your right ear after bounding off the wall to your right - and the proportions, delays, and frequency response of each varies - and all of those things are different for me than you because our head and ear shapes are different.
  
 One very well know way in which this complicates things concerns the delay times associated with reverberance. If we hear a sound, followed by echoes of that same sound, how our brains interpret those echoes depends on how long the delay is. Echoes that arrive within a few millisecods are not identified as echoes - our brains hear them as "a live room"; echoes that arrive after a long time sound like distinct echoes; and our brains use this information both to judge whether a room is "live" or "dead", and to get an idea how large the room is. Most of us can figure out a lot about the size and shape of a room by listening to the echoes.
  
 The subject is actually very complex - and it is _NOT_ perfectly understood yet.  
  
 In the context of DACs, different DACs produce different outputs. With the same impulse signal, one DAC may produce 2 mS of post-ringing and no pre-ringing, while another may produce 1 mS of pre-ringing  and 1 mS of post-ringing. In both of those cases, you have extra signal - the ringing - that "doesn't belong" - which counts as distortion of some sort. We now have to introduce another concept called "masking". What that means is that, if a very quiet noise happens just before or just after a loud noise, we don't hear the quiet noise (we say "the quieter noise is masked by the louder noise"). However, how masking works is very complicated. How well a louder noise masks a quieter one depends on how the frequencies of the noises relate, their relative loudnesses, and their relative timing - and all that depends on frequency range in which they occur. So, for example, a 1 kHz noise at a certain level will entirely mask a 500 Hz noise that occurs within a certain number of milliseconds of it, and is a certain number of dB quieter. And masking is not symmetrical in time; a loud noise masks a quiet noise of similar frequency that occurs _AFTER_ it much better, and for a longer period of time, than one that occurs before it.
  
 So here's the theory about how those two DACs could produce different "height information"...... Both DACs produce some extra ringing that shouldn't be there. However, with some particular signal, one of those DACs produces 1 mS of ringing before the signal, and 1 mS of ringing after it, while the other DAC produces 2 mS of ringing after the signal, and none before it. Since it is known that masking works better when the quiet signal is after the loud one, this means that, due to masking, the ringing on the DAC with 2 mS of post-ringing is _LESS AUDIBLE_ than the ringing on the DAC with 1 mS of pre-ringing and 1 mS of post-ringing.
  
 (Just to be perfectly clear, the fact that this ringing exists, and that it is different for different DAC filters, is not at all in question. It is easy to measure, and easy to demonstrate, and is shown and spelled out on most DAC chip spec sheets. It can also be deliberately exaggerated to the point where it is clearly audible to anyone. The *ONLY* question is whether specific differences present in specific real-world DAC chips are audible or not.) 
  
 Now, assuming that our brain interprets the sound of that ringing as "height information" - perhaps because it mimics the reverberance information of a high ceiling - the DAC with the less well-masked ringing makes music sound like the source has more height. (So, even if we don't hear the ringing as a sound, the differences in the ringing on the two DACs produces a signal that tricks the "height calculators" in our brains to perceive different room sizes or instrument locations.) And, yes, this is one of those situations where the claim is that a cue that we can't "hear" still influences our "experience" in other ways. Unfortunately, this is a very complicate subject and, contrary to what some people seem to want to think, it is not perfectly understood yet.
  
 (Note that I'm not necessarily saying that the theory is correct - however, that IS the theory, and nobody has proven that it is _NOT_ correct yet.)
  
 To test this theory, we would have to compare not only whether people hear a difference between those filters, but whether the people who claim to hear a difference claim that one "always produces a higher image than the other" or not...
  
 It's easy enough to prove to yourself that the situation is very complex. Just put one finger or earplug in one of your ears. You will find that, even though it may not be accurate, you _WILL_ still have  a strong sense of where music and other sounds are coming from - the world does not "turn into mono" like you may think it would when you can only hear with one ear, so there are obviously lots of cues that your brain is using besides the relative timing and levels between your two ears.


----------



## KeithEmo

audiobear said:


> snip->
> 
> The really key problem as I see it is the death of the expert and expert knowledge.
> 
> snip->


 
  
 There's your subject for a study. We are in the middle of a huge move towards what some people call "democratization" - which is a nice way of saying that we are moving towards caring more about what "most of our friends think" than what "experts" think. (We don't trust "the experts" so, instead, we just follow the herd.)
  
 Is Product A better than Product B? Don't ask an expert; see which one is "trending" or which one "has better reviews".... both ways of saying "see what everyone else is doing".  Unfortunately, this is a strategy that works far better in some situations than in others, and is relatively easily exploited. Asking your friends how well they liked Product X, or Restaurant Y works pretty well - as long as their tastes are similar to yours (and as long as the "500 great reviews" weren't really just fakes put there to trick you). Likewise, you're much safer getting medical advice from a _real_ doctor, but you're a lot better off trusting your doctor to the one who is being paid to do the TV commercial, and you really should avoid trusting the actor on TV who just _looks_ like a doctor.
  
 In today's world, it's become really difficult to tell which experts you can trust, and even which proclaimed experts really are experts at all. There's also the slight problem of timeliness - reality may not change, but science does, because science is actually "only" our current knowledge _about_ reality. so you have to consider how current a "fact" is, and how current the knowledge of your "experts" is.


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Wonder where Keith is getting these transducers that are flat out to 100 kHz? Must be classified military technology.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Area 51. Hey, that sounds like a great name for a company that makes Audiophile products.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> (Note that I'm not necessarily saying that the theory is correct - however, that IS the theory, and nobody has proven that it is _NOT_ correct yet.)




It's not someone else's job to prove that the theory is _NOT_ correct. It is the job of the person proposing the theory to prove that it _IS_ correct. 

And just because the theory hasn't been disproved doesn't give it any greater chance of it being correct. 

You can sit churning out theories until the cows come home. They don't mean _SQUAT_ until someone actually shows them to be correct. 

Tthat's all the "high end" has to offer. A huge pile of rotting, unsubstantiated theories. But that's ok, because theories alone are enough to impress those the industry is trying to sell product to. It's disgusting.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Area 51. Hey, that sounds like a great name for a company that makes Audiophile products.




It may already have been taken. 

se


----------



## cel4145

keithemo said:


> There's your subject for a study. We are in the middle of a huge move towards what some people call "democratization" - which is a nice way of saying that we are moving towards caring more about what "most of our friends think" than what "experts" think. (We don't trust "the experts" so, instead, we just follow the herd.)
> 
> Is Product A better than Product B? Don't ask an expert; see which one is "trending" or which one "has better reviews".... both ways of saying "see what everyone else is doing".  Unfortunately, this is a strategy that works far better in some situations than in others, and is relatively easily exploited. Asking your friends how well they liked Product X, or Restaurant Y works pretty well - as long as their tastes are similar to yours (and as long as the "500 great reviews" weren't really just fakes put there to trick you). Likewise, you're much safer getting medical advice from a _real_ doctor, but you're a lot better off trusting your doctor to the one who is being paid to do the TV commercial, and you really should avoid trusting the actor on TV who just _looks_ like a doctor.
> 
> In today's world, it's become really difficult to tell which experts you can trust, and even which proclaimed experts really are experts at all. There's also the slight problem of timeliness - reality may not change, but science does, because science is actually "only" our current knowledge _about_ reality. so you have to consider how current a "fact" is, and how current the knowledge of your "experts" is.




To a certain extent I agree. Online customer reviews on sites like Amazon with social moderation (e.g., thumbs up/thumbs down voting) have a lot of weight with consumer purchases now. And that's good for the many consumer products for which there were often no reviews easily available in a print-only media age. And they do come in handy sometime for audio equipment purchases. But one has to know how to evaluate the credibility of the individual poster. It does seems like many users gravitate toward these over professional reviews, and tend not to know how to weight and evaluate them. Ironically, many consumers seem to trust amateur YouTube reviewers, even though they have no professional experience nor may have very little long term experience with the type of product. One popular youtube reviewer I know of has primary credentials that he helped his father install home theater systems (lol). 

That being said, in the pre-Internet age, what reviews did we have to rely on? Magazine reviews, right? What necessarily made those reviewers expert? Some were journalist/writers who specialized in doing reviews that may or may not have any audio science training or knowledge, and you can tell some are better than others. And then because magazines require ads for revenue and free equipment for reviews, audio reviews in magazines are often highly questionable. Many audio reviewers have been criticized for always being positive, for not pointing out negatives. This is still true for some now Internet based audio review publications. And then we KNOW many of the professional reviewers love to "hear" differences between equipment that measures accurate, transparent, where any distortion should be inaudible. 

So was there ever an easily found, reliable base of "experts" to listen to for reviews on audio equipment? I think you guys might be lamenting a guilded age in which people paid attention to audio experts that never was.


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> Area 51. Hey, that sounds like a great name for a company that makes Audiophile products.


 
  
  


steve eddy said:


> It may already have been taken.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 And it's staffed by little green emoticons.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Yes as you stated this is Sound Science, yet all too often you have a penchant to post Science Fiction. More silly promises have been made, once again.


 
 And even more silly comment from your part.
  
 Obviously, you will have - personally -  to learn it the hard way. Smoldering soldering iron in hand, not  a computer and mouse.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> And even more silly comment from your part.
> 
> Obviously, you will have - personally -  to learn it the hard way. Smoldering soldering iron in hand, not  a computer and mouse.


 
 I'm an EE that was a technician with a soldering iron when in high school. I may have learned a bit more than yourself. That doesn't change the fact that you keep on making weird claims and never backing it up with fact. Just keeping on with the same pattern. Why do you do that?


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> I'm an EE that was a technician with a soldering iron when in high school. I may have learned a bit more than yourself. That doesn't change the fact that you keep on making weird claims and never backing it up with fact. Just keeping on with the same pattern. Why do you do that?


 
 Because you are the most stubborn one claiming that "nothing" is audible.
  
 I have much better things to do than to fiddle with those who would do anything to defend the status quo. I can not help if good equipment is - and will remain to be - costly, I can not help if manufacturers keep cutting corners in subsequent models ( that is why the very first of the breed,  where the goal was to show something works, was made best it could be - and later it is skimped on everything that can reduce cost ). And can not help if most recordings available are not up to the task of revealing the differences I can hear on daily basis.
  
 But I can not keep quiet regarding "this is not audible, that is not audible, you have to be bat in order to perceive it, etc - just look at your own posts for the entire list.
  
 I was recording last Monday (acoustic guitar), last Thursday and Wednesday ( modern music festival), on Thursday I was literally charging batteries - for recordings on Saturday ( organ and harp in that little chapel ) and Sunday ( mixed choir in a large church ). In between I went to Munich High End 2015 - 650 km by train overnight in both directions - the only day open to public I could afford to attend.
  
 You'll get everything promised - ASAP. I can not possibly afford to put this thread in front of authoring the CDs from these and previous recordings from this month and end of April.


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Because you are the most stubborn one claiming that "nothing" is audible.




Do you deny that expectation bias is a potential problem in observing difference between electronics? If not, how do you know that what you claim is true?


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Do you deny that expectation bias is a potential problem in observing difference between electronics? If not, how do you know that what you claim is true?


 
 No, I do not deny the potential effects of expectation bias. That is why try to "employ" as many people not "electronically scientifically affected" - utterly incapable of any expectation bias of whatever origin. They simply say which is the closest to the real thing - end of story.
  
 It is NOT fun to listen to, switching among while recording, to :
  
 1. Mike feed
 2. Recorder A
 3. Recorder B
  
 I try to get the levels as equal as possible - but not at the cost of having to record at reduced level just to get the same output from a recorder that has higher output for the same nominal level of recording and no output level control. Louder _*should *_be better - right ? But if the lower output recorder trounces  the louder one - it must be doing something a lot better - wouldn't you agree ?
  
 This has been confirmed by others - clients for my recordings. They only listen to their performances - and will, with a delay ( a CD gets out approx half to one year after the recording ), respond to any changes I made to the equipment. They have mostly absolutely no idea about the technicalities - only the end result counts.  It is good it is on CDs only (so far...- due to financial constraints) - any hirez would highlight these differences even further.


----------



## KeithEmo

cel4145 said:


> To a certain extent I agree. Online customer reviews on sites like Amazon with social moderation (e.g., thumbs up/thumbs down voting) have a lot of weight with consumer purchases now. And that's good for the many consumer products for which there were often no reviews easily available in a print-only media age. And they do come in handy sometime for audio equipment purchases. But one has to know how to evaluate the credibility of the individual poster. It does seems like many users gravitate toward these over professional reviews, and tend not to know how to weight and evaluate them. Ironically, many consumers seem to trust amateur YouTube reviewers, even though they have no professional experience nor may have very little long term experience with the type of product. One popular youtube reviewer I know of has primary credentials that he helped his father install home theater systems (lol).
> 
> That being said, in the pre-Internet age, what reviews did we have to rely on? Magazine reviews, right? What necessarily made those reviewers expert? Some were journalist/writers who specialized in doing reviews that may or may not have any audio science training or knowledge, and you can tell some are better than others. And then because magazines require ads for revenue and free equipment for reviews, audio reviews in magazines are often highly questionable. Many audio reviewers have been criticized for always being positive, for not pointing out negatives. This is still true for some now Internet based audio review publications. And then we KNOW many of the professional reviewers love to "hear" differences between equipment that measures accurate, transparent, where any distortion should be inaudible.
> 
> So was there ever an easily found, reliable base of "experts" to listen to for reviews on audio equipment? I think you guys might be lamenting a guilded age in which people paid attention to audio experts that never was.


 
  
 Oh, no, I agree with you entirely.....
  
 The audio industry never had very many of what I would call "credible experts"......


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Because you are the most stubborn one claiming that "nothing" is audible.
> 
> I have much better things to do than to fiddle with those who would do anything to defend the status quo. I can not help if good equipment is - and will remain to be - costly, I can not help if manufacturers keep cutting corners in subsequent models ( that is why the very first of the breed,  where the goal was to show something works, was made best it could be - and later it is skimped on everything that can reduce cost ). And can not help if most recordings available are not up to the task of revealing the differences I can hear on daily basis.
> 
> ...


 
 I never said that nothing is audible, where do you come up with that? That would mean everyone is deaf. All I'm saying that human beings as all things have limitations, something that you want to stretch beyond reality and fail to substantiate. We've all read your posts as well.


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> Just a reminder that this is the Sound Science forum.
> Slightly rolled off high frequency response? What's the -3 dB of the Lyr? And what headphones/loudspeakers are you using that are flat all the way out to where the Lyr starts rolling off?
> 
> se


 
  
 Hmmmmmm.  Let's see. I've actually compared how the Lyr and the Asgard sound - and I say they sound different. The manufacturer says they sound different. Virtually everyone I know who owns either, but has auditioned both, agrees that they sound different. Yet you, who don't even claim to have actually heard either one, "just know" that they "can't possibly" sound different based on the specs (which neither one of us has confirmed anyway).
  
 That's really impressive.... but it's getting to be a bit boring.
  
 Perhaps it's not really rolled off - and it's some other sort of "psychoacoustic effect" - or perhaps their specs are just wrong (I didn't measure it).


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> Happy to help!
> 
> SPECIFICATIONS OF THE HUMAN EAR
> Thresholds of Perception
> ...


 
  
 I'm kind of assuming you didn't actually read these, right?
  
 For example, the Wikipedia article states that "the commonly accepted range of human hearing is 20 Hz to 20 kHz" (it also cites some textbooks that say that) - but then it goes on to state that human hearing has actually been shown to extend to 12 Hz. (So am I supposed to accept your conclusion as accurate - or what the source article actually says?)
  
 I haven't got the enthusiasm to see how many of the others seem credible to me....


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> I never said that nothing is audible, where do you come up with that? That would mean everyone is deaf. All I'm saying that human beings as all things have limitations, something that you want to stretch beyond reality and fail to substantiate. We've all read your posts as well.


 
 I wish you had the access to the High Quality version (requires Korg DSD capable DAC or MR series DSD recorder in order to authorize the software in High Quality - free is only Light Load version, which sounds considerably worse )
 http://www.korg.com/us/products/audio/audiogate3/page_6.php
 You can change playback resolution of PCM from 192/24 down to 44.1/16 - during the playback.  Even in Light Load version, there should be no problem to hear the deterioration of SQ as one plays back native PCM 192/24 or DSD (it converts it on the fly to PCM - unless a Korg DSD capable DAC is connected ) - you need another person to prevent sighted test. 
  
 If you can not hear the difference...


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> No, I do not deny the potential effects of expectation bias.




And yet you continue to make claims in this forum that you could only know to be true if you are not susceptible to expectation bias. 

I *think* my NFB-11 sounds a bit (and just a bit) better than my ODAC/Asgard 2 dac/amp setup did. But I *know* that I can not know it to be true without ABX testing, and I could easily be perceiving difference that is not there. That is the application of understanding expectation bias. 

So you seem conflicted about what you know based on some of your statements that A sounds better than B. To accept the "potential effects of expectation bias" is to accept that your sighted subjective evaluations are flawed. This does not mean A sounds the same as B. It just means you do NOT know.


----------



## cel4145

keithemo said:


> Oh, no, I agree with you entirely.....
> 
> The audio industry never had very many of what I would call "credible experts"......




And that's why we need vendors (and reviewers) to publish measurements, like Emotiva does (which I'm sure you'll agree). It's one of the reliable things we can count on to help consumers make audio purchases


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> And yet you continue to make claims in this forum that you could only know to be true if you are not susceptible to expectation bias.
> 
> I *think* my NFB-11 sounds a bit (and just a bit) better than my ODAC/Asgard 2 dac/amp setup did. But I *know* that I can not know it to be true without ABX testing, and I could easily be perceiving difference that is not there. That is the application of understanding expectation bias.
> 
> So you seem conflicted about what you know based on some of your statements that A sounds better than B. To accept the "potential effects of expectation bias" is to accept that your sighted subjective evaluations are flawed. This does not mean A sounds the same as B. It just means you do NOT know.


 
 Oh - compared to music heard live, to live mic feed, I should not be able to tell - instantly - which recorder is better ?


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> I wish you had the access to the High Quality version (requires Korg DSD capable DAC or MR series DSD recorder in order to authorize the software in High Quality - free is only Light Load version, which sounds considerably worse )
> http://www.korg.com/us/products/audio/audiogate3/page_6.php
> You can change playback resolution of PCM from 192/24 down to 44.1/16 - during the playback.  Even in Light Load version, there should be no problem to hear the deterioration of SQ as one plays back native PCM 192/24 or DSD (it converts it on the fly to PCM - unless a Korg DSD capable DAC is connected ) - you need another person to prevent sighted test.
> 
> If you can not hear the difference...


 
 Just back to another tangential diversion. Sound deteroration due to poor on the fly conversion or any of this has nothing to do with the human limits of hearing,


----------



## cjl

keithemo said:


> For example, the Wikipedia article states that "the commonly accepted range of human hearing is 20 Hz to 20 kHz" (it also cites some textbooks that say that) - but then it goes on to state that human hearing has actually been shown to extend to 12 Hz. (So am I supposed to accept your conclusion as accurate - or what the source article actually says?)


 
 To be fair, the required SPL to hear <20Hz is pretty high, and not very many people have transducers that can cleanly output 100+dB of 15Hz. Also, nearly all amps and DACs are flat down to the single digit Hz anyways, so it doesn't particularly matter that much whether hearing extends to 20 or 12 (except for the transducer requirement - it's quite difficult to get high output levels of 12Hz, as I said).


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Just back to another tangential diversion. Sound deteroration due to poor on the fly conversion or any of this has nothing to do with the human limits of hearing,


 
 Well, I can not stash a real piece of hardware into a computer , click the mouse and miraclously it will turn up in the home of anyone interested to listen ?
  
 I  present the easiest way to hear the differences among 44.1/16 and better resolutiuon(s)  - and if this is for you tangential diversion, fine with me.
  
 I do not advocate the five figures DACs - but not $50 ones either.


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> To be fair, the required SPL to hear <20Hz is pretty high, and not very many people have transducers that can cleanly output 100+dB of 15Hz. Also, nearly all amps and DACs are flat down to the single digit Hz anyways, so it doesn't particularly matter that much whether hearing extends to 20 or 12 (except for the transducer requirement - it's quite difficult to get high output levels of 12Hz, as I said).


 
 True.
  
 Yet we can _*sense *_the sound well below 12 Hz - sound pressure levels have to be very high in those low frequencies for us to perceive  -  and the efficiency of normal cone woofers drops off to nothing just below 20 Hz in most cases. For really deep and palpable bass, there is only one subwoofer :
  
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_woofer
  

  
 http://www.rotarywoofer.com/


----------



## icebear

LOL
 that link to the Korg website [features 1] is for sure seriously making a point there :
 quote:
 [The AudioGate software *uses the power of the computer* to perform the calculations necessary for D/A conversion, as opposed to slower external hardware. This allows for ideal processing, retaining the audio’s original quality.]
  
 Further down at bottom it shows a specially developed headphone for 1DS-DAC products with a link the headphone company
 and here the appropriate snake oil : 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 http://phonon-inc.com/portfolio/phonon-liquid/?lang=en
  
 I didn't see any ABX evidence that is does work as advertised:


----------



## maverickronin

keithemo said:


> We're working on the website right now - and we're still finishing up some details on the metalwork and packaging. We showed them at Axpona Chicago, and they should be up on the website in a few weeks. The first two will be the "Big EGo" and "Little EGo". Both are USB only (and USB powered); both support PCM only - up to 24/384; both have a nice (chip-based) headphone amp; and both have three selectable digital filters and a headphone blend mode; and both can either be used in UAC2 mode (which required drivers on a PC) up to 24/384, or in UAC1 mode (driverless) up to 24/96. Both have a row of blue LEDs that show you the sample rate (and a red LED for UAC1 mode).
> 
> The Little EGo, which only has a single headphone output, is about 4-3/4 x 1-3/4 x about 1/2 inches, and will be priced at $169; the Big EGo, which also has separate line and Toslink outputs, is a tiny bit bigger, and will be priced at $219. Both are solid black-anodized aluminum, and are made here in the USA. The EGo Trip will be a lot smaller, have less features, and be priced at $119.


 
  
 Hey Keith, do you know what the output impedance on those is?


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Oh - compared to music heard live, to live mic feed, I should not be able to tell - instantly - which recorder is better ?




I have no idea if you are talking about the recording electronics or the mic. 

But yes. If measurements indicate two devices may have inaudible levels of distortion, you should put your hubris aside.


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> It's not someone else's job to prove that the theory is _NOT_ correct. It is the job of the person proposing the theory to prove that it _IS_ correct.
> 
> And just because the theory hasn't been disproved doesn't give it any greater chance of it being correct.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I honestly can't imagine where you learned that....
  
 In science class, what we learned was that science was a process....
  
 1) you make observations
 2) you discuss your observations and come up with a theory to explain them
 3) you devise and run experiments to test those theories
 4) either the experiments confirm your theories or not
 5) if not, then you modify your theories based on your results
 6) then you run new experiments to test your new theories
 (basically repeat until the results of your experiments agree with the results your theories predicted)
  
 I've NEVER seen a science book that claimed science consisted of "deciding something" - then ignoring any observations that seem to disagree with it.
  
 And, in real-world science, it is often NOT the person or group that first comes up with a theory that ends up running the experiments (although it also often is).


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I can not stash a real piece of hardware into a computer , click the mouse and miraclously it will turn up in the home of anyone interested to listen ?
> 
> I  present the easiest way to hear the differences among 44.1/16 and better resolutiuon(s)  - and if this is for you tangential diversion, fine with me.
> 
> I do not advocate the five figures DACs - but not $50 ones either.


 
 I will agree with you about the pricing of DACs, however, will not agree with you about the limits of human perception. Enough testing has been done over and over about the myths surrounding hires.


----------



## analogsurviver

icebear said:


> LOL
> that link to the Korg website [features 1] is for sure seriously making a point there :
> quote:
> [The AudioGate software *uses the power of the computer* to perform the calculations necessary for D/A conversion, as opposed to slower external hardware. This allows for ideal processing, retaining the audio’s original quality.]
> ...


 
 Interesting - I NEVER saw any advertisement(s) on the Korg Audiogate website ( selections on the PC ? ) . Nt for any headphones - and certainly not for contact treatment products.
  
 BTW - contact treatment stuff comes from military - they can hardly risk a glitch in electrical transmissions - as quite a few pilots of then new fly by wire system incorporated in the then new F-16 had to pay for that experience with - life... 
  
 There were software, etc, glitches too - but plain old loss of contact did bring a certain percentage of them down too.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> Hmmmmmm.  Let's see. I've actually compared how the Lyr and the Asgard sound - and I say they sound different.




How many times do I have to remind you that this is the Sound Science forum?

What, did you take a wrong turn at Albuquerque and think you ended up a one of the DBT-Free forums here?

That's right, there are other forums here where you can say whatever you want without anyone pestering you to actually substantiate your claims. But in Sound Science, it's precisely the opposite. Such claims demand that they be substantiated. 

I'm not quite to the point of believing that you're just too thick to understand this. So I have to ask, why do you keep doing it?




> The manufacturer says they sound different.




So? Their claim is just as unsubstantiated as yours. But unlike you, they're not making that claim here in the Sound Science forum. _You are_.




> Virtually everyone I know who owns either, but has auditioned both, agrees that they sound different.




And _everyone_, not "virtually everyone," but literally _every one_ of those people were human beings. And while we don't know everything, one thing we do know, and gave for a very long time, is that human subjective perceptions are embarrassingly unreliable when it comes to things like this. That's why, when measurements don't show any obvious flaws that are within know audible thresholds, we need to use adequate controls to separate fact from fiction. Or to put it a better way, separate fact from simply being human




> Yet you, who don't even claim to have actually heard either one, "just know" that they "can't possibly" sound different based on the specs (which neither one of us has confirmed anyway).




Now you're just flat out lying about me. I'm not even going to be so kind as to call it being disingenuous. You're a flat out liar. I never said any such thing. Not literally or figuratively. 

All I did was poke some fun at your claim that the Lyr was rolled off in the high end when it specs out to 500 kHz. 




> That's really impressive.... but it's getting to be a bit boring.




What's impressive is your lying about someone and then sarcastically saying "That's really impressive." 




> Perhaps it's not really rolled off - and it's some other sort of "psychoacoustic effect" - or perhaps their specs are just wrong (I didn't measure it).




Or perhaps you're just human and your subjective perceptions aren't nearly what your vanity and ego would lead you to believe that they are.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> I've NEVER seen a science book that claimed science consisted of "deciding something" - then ignoring any observations that seem to disagree with it.




Nothing was decided. At least not on my part and that was my post you are replying to. The "deciding something" is only part of your fevered imagination which no doubt caused you to flat out lie previously about what I have said.

I'm sorry to say, but you are _not_ an honorable person. Get lost.

se


----------



## KeithEmo

maverickronin said:


> Hey Keith, do you know what the output impedance on those is?


 
  
 They use the TI TPA6130A2 amplifier - and there is a 4.7 ohm "safety resistor" in series with the output for each channel.
 I suspect that the output impedance of the chip itself is low enough that, for all practical purposes, the 4.7 ohms of the series resistor is the output impedance.


----------



## maverickronin

keithemo said:


> They use the TI TPA6130A2 amplifier - and there is a 4.7 ohm "safety resistor" in series with the output for each channel.
> I suspect that the output impedance of the chip itself is low enough that, for all practical purposes, the 4.7 ohms of the series resistor is the output impedance.


 
  
 That's too bad.  4.7 ohms is too high for most BA IEMs...


----------



## StanD

keithemo said:


> They use the TI TPA6130A2 amplifier - and there is a 4.7 ohm "safety resistor" in series with the output for each channel.
> I suspect that the output impedance of the chip itself is low enough that, for all practical purposes, the 4.7 ohms of the series resistor is the output impedance.


 
 Which side of that resistor is the negative feedback taken from? Or is all of that cooked into the chip?


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> How many times do I have to remind you that this is the Sound Science forum?
> 
> What, did you take a wrong turn at Albuquerque and think you ended up a one of the DBT-Free forums here?
> 
> ...


 
  
 I don't know - perhaps we are from different planets.
  
 Where I come from, when there are a whole bunch of observations that say one thing, and none that contradict it, we generally start out with a theory based on the observations being correct - at which point we figure out a theory to explain those observations - and then see about proving or disproving it. Just because a certain methodology is subject to doubt by no means suggests that any results based on it are necessarily wrong. Personally, I would welcome any observations from anyone who had actually heard a Lyr and an Asgard, and had the opportunity to compare them, under any circumstances, as the basis of a discussion, which could then lead to a theory, which could then be tested. You're the one who seems to think that any such discussion would be "a waste of time" or "unscientific" somehow.
  
 I agree that the idea that the Lyr sounds the way it does is based on a simply high-frequency roll off sounds doubtful.... so I'd love to hear other theories that we might test. 
  
 However, my point stands - this forum is supposed to be about science.....
 Which includes observations, and discussions, and experiments, and discussions of experiments....
 It is not limited to discussion of things that have already been theorized, tested, and proven by experiment.


----------



## KeithEmo

cjl said:


> To be fair, the required SPL to hear <20Hz is pretty high, and not very many people have transducers that can cleanly output 100+dB of 15Hz. Also, nearly all amps and DACs are flat down to the single digit Hz anyways, so it doesn't particularly matter that much whether hearing extends to 20 or 12 (except for the transducer requirement - it's quite difficult to get high output levels of 12Hz, as I said).


 
  
 I agree entirely, and I personally consider using "20 Hz to 20 kHz" as "the practical limitation of human hearing" to be perfectly reasonable.
  
 I really just wanted to point out that, just because something is "widely accepted", doesn't mean that it is necessarily true - nor that we can safely ignore any observation that it appears to contradict. Since ringing in a DAC, by definition, consists of output signal that occurs when no input is present, whether it is audible or not becomes a matter of how effectively it is masked by the desired signal, which falls under the topic of psychoacoustics, which is far from "well understood" or "a done deal".


----------



## KeithEmo

maverickronin said:


> That's too bad.  4.7 ohms is too high for most BA IEMs...


 
  
 I would agree that 4.7 ohms is a bit high to rule out any possibility of interaction between the output of the amp and the IEMs. I've heard it through quite a few different headphones, and it seems to do pretty well with all of them, but the output drive is also limited to +/- 5V, which limits you to relatively efficient headphones in general. The DAC itself sounds really good, both through its own headphone amp of an external one. I've only heard it personally through one pair of IEMs, and it did sound quite nice, and was also surprisingly quiet. (These were "prototype" IEMs, with one dynamic driver and one BA per ear, and I don't know their efficiency - or much else about them.)
  
 Anyone who wants more output drive, or a lower output impedance, would probably want to get the Big EGo and use it with their own separate headphone amp. (Although I would still try it by itself first - you might be surprised.)


----------



## uchihaitachi

Could somebody recommend me a good book to read about the science behind audio?


----------



## analogsurviver

uchihaitachi said:


> Could somebody recommend me a good book to read about the science behind audio?


 
 Good starting point : http://www.scribd.com/doc/44298994/Leo-L-Beranek-Acoustics#scribd


----------



## AudioBear

I am not over-joyed at the superfluous negativity from both of you but the dialog is an excellent opportunity to review some basic critical thinking skills and the methodology of science.   Let me ask both of you to comment on the following.
  
 Occam's razor says among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected (to test first).  How does each of your positions stack up against the razor?
  
 As a practical matter, it's often the case that we test several hypotheses and often pick the easiest or least expensive or least time consuming first for obvious but illogical reasons.  My question to you both is:
  
 1.  what are all the reasonable available hypotheses that explain the facts available to us?
  
 2.  which has the least assumptions?
  
 3.  How can we test it?
  
 Let's stick to the logical analysis of the phenomenon at hand, I really don't care which planet either of you comes from.


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> Could somebody recommend me a good book to read about the science behind audio?


 
  
I thought this was pretty good.


----------



## StanD

audiobear said:


> I am not over-joyed at the superfluous negativity from both of you but the dialog is an excellent opportunity to review some basic critical thinking skills and the methodology of science.   Let me ask both of you to comment on the following.
> 
> Occam's razor says among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected (to test first).  How does each of your positions stack up against the razor?
> 
> ...


 
 One must be careful as I can make something sound simple that is completely wrong but looks good to many people that might not have the proper knowledge. I do happen to like our dear friend Occam.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

dobrescu george said:


> That would be a very defective amp. It is supposed to amp the signal without degrading the frequency response. I know that some amps can alter, but by +-5DB it is a lot to change in response, i would not think that any amp producers would really make one that is so distant from the perfect linear frequency response.


 
 Exactly!


----------



## Exacoustatowner

keithemo said:


> I honestly can't imagine where you learned that....
> 
> In science class, what we learned was that science was a process....
> 
> ...


 
  I am a working scientist- and that is my modus operandi.


----------



## AudioBear

+1


----------



## Exacoustatowner

keithemo said:


> Hmmmmmm.  Let's see. I've actually compared how the Lyr and the Asgard sound - and I say they sound different. The manufacturer says they sound different. Virtually everyone I know who owns either, but has auditioned both, agrees that they sound different. Yet you, who don't even claim to have actually heard either one, "just know" that they "can't possibly" sound different based on the specs (which neither one of us has confirmed anyway).
> 
> That's really impressive.... but it's getting to be a bit boring.
> 
> Perhaps it's not really rolled off - and it's some other sort of "psychoacoustic effect" - or perhaps their specs are just wrong (I didn't measure it).


 
  That is a conundrum. How are the tools used to measure calibrated? In analytical biochemistry we have some standards we use to make sure that a measurement taking by person A on day one is the same (within excepted variation) with the measurement taken by B on another. And depending on how critical the sample is- possibly across labs.
 Is there a universal standard that all instruments use? If you take 5 such devices for measuring the usual suspects do they all give the same value? First order, second order, third order harmonic distortion at 1000 hz (obviously measuring the 2nd harmonic of 12 Khz is outside of audibility) . Intermodulation distortion? Group delay? What else? Even vs. Odd harmonics? Square wave response? Ringing?
 Are we measuring everything that can affect the quality of sound?


----------



## AudioBear

Following on, all the measurements we make are important.  It's sometimes not hard to show what happens or doesn't happen when one or more of them is way out of line.  Tke 10% distortion at 1KHz for example.  Most of us would notice that (another assumption). But there are a lot of instances where specs aren't all that different yet people claim they hear a difference between two pieces.  In this case it's two pieces of Schiit.
  
 This thread has been down this path many times.  I can't tell you how many times I have evaluated stuff before buying it and had a different reaction to that of others who reviewed it.  This points to a need for objective testing. Since we know some of the numbers that tell us important things about gear, it's valuable to have them even if we can't explain why we hear a difference.  To go back to Occam's razor, the first and most obvious question to ask is "is there a difference in sound better the two (even if everyone agrees there is)?" 
  
 You know where this is going.  If you don't do a DBT of some kind, maybe ABX, maybe not--there are other designs that can be used, you don't really know if the gear sounds  different, or how it sounds different.  Another way to say this is if you make the assumption that all the reports are correct and they are not, you will never ask the next right question that will lead you to why they are different.
  
 In the case being discussed I don't think it's unlikely that there is a difference in sound between the two pieces.  I'm not contesting that.  Just saying that good methodology is to independently verify that listeners can tell the two pieces of gear apart.

 Why do we always end up here?  And why is this so seldom done?  Why can we only talk about this here?  Life has so many imponderables.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

audiobear said:


> Following on, all the measurements we make are important.  It's sometimes not hard to show what happens or doesn't happen when one or more of them is way out of line.  Tke 10% distortion at 1KHz for example.  Most of us would notice that (another assumption). But there are a lot of instances where specs aren't all that different yet people claim they hear a difference between two pieces.  In this case it's two pieces of Schiit.
> 
> This thread has been down this path many times.  I can't tell you how many times I have evaluated stuff before buying it and had a different reaction to that of others who reviewed it.  This points to a need for objective testing. Since we know some of the numbers that tell us important things about gear, it's valuable to have them even if we can't explain why we hear a difference.  To go back to Occam's razor, the first and most obvious question to ask is "is there a difference in sound better the two (even if everyone agrees there is)?"
> 
> ...


 
 " In the case being discussed I don't think it's unlikely that there is a difference in sound between the two pieces.  I'm not contesting that.  Just saying that good methodology is to independently verify that listeners can tell the two pieces of gear apart.

 Why do we always end up here?  And why is this so seldom done?  Why can we only talk about this here?  Life has so many imponderables."
 Well said!


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> I am not over-joyed at the superfluous negativity from both of you...




Who asked you? 




> Let me ask both of you to comment on the following.




Sure.




> Occam's razor says among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected (to test first).  How does each of your positions stack up against the razor?




Sorry, I don't buy Occam's razors. I belong to Dollar Shave Club. Their razors are less expensive and they have much better commercials. 




> As a practical matter, it's often the case that we test several hypotheses and often pick the easiest or least expensive or least time consuming first for obvious but illogical reasons.  My question to you both is:




Ok.




> 1.  what are all the reasonable available hypotheses that explain the facts available to us?




Given history, given what we know about the unreliability of human subjective perception, and what we know about the two amplifiers in question, I can't think of a reasonable hypothesis that explains all of the facts other than humans being human. 

The only other hypothesis put forward has been a rolloff at high frequencies and second harmonic distortion.

However the amp in question has a spec'd F3 of 500 kHz. THD+N is spec'd at what, 0.01%? Second harmonic is pretty well masked at levels much higher than that.




> 2.  which has the least assumptions?




Humans being humans.




> 3.  How can we test it?




Properly controlled listening tests.

se


----------



## kevin gilmore

exacoustatowner said:


> Is there a universal standard that all instruments use? If you take 5 such devices for measuring the usual suspects do they all give the same value? First order, second order, third order harmonic distortion at 1000 hz (obviously measuring the 2nd harmonic of 12 Khz is outside of audibility) . Intermodulation distortion? Group delay? What else? Even vs. Odd harmonics? Square wave response? Ringing?
> Are we measuring everything that can affect the quality of sound?


 
  
 This is something I have been working on very hard of late. The short answer is no. But it depends on how stuff is measured.
  
 I had an antique sound technology 100A.  Absolutely filled with opamps.  made thd measurements completely analog
 with complex filters to remove the fundamental. Even though it could go down to .001%, it always generated much
 higher numbers than the digital things.
  
 A while back lots of people were measuring stuff with audio sound cards that were 16 bit and getting numbers that
 could not have possibly been real. (it should be obvious why)
  
 But I am getting pretty close now, getting everything to agree.
  
 1) spice synthesis of the circuit, with my own spice models for the parts generated by a network analyzer
  
 2) QuantumAsylum 400  (basically a 24 bit sound card)
  
 3) brand new Audio Precision system 2 cascade dual domain
  
 I have now been able to get all 3 to agree to within about 1db which is as close as I ever hope to get.
  
 The idea is that I can test out my new designs and be sure that when I actually build them, the numbers
 will be close to the calculations. I can do 2nd harmonic vs frequency and 3rd harmonic vs frequency
 calculations that are very close to the sweep numbers of the audio precision.
  
 Getting pretty happy with this.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

kevin gilmore said:


> This is something I have been working on very hard of late. The short answer is no. But it depends on how stuff is measured.
> 
> I had an antique sound technology 100A.  Absolutely filled with opamps.  made thd measurements completely analog
> with complex filters to remove the fundamental. Even though it could go down to .001%, it always generated much
> ...



Hi. I'm not quite sure about paragraph 2. I think you are upgrading Opamps and testing the results with an old analog tester and a new digital tester?


----------



## castleofargh

exacoustatowner said:


> keithemo said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmmmm.  Let's see. I've actually compared how the Lyr and the Asgard sound - and I say they sound different. The manufacturer says they sound different. Virtually everyone I know who owns either, but has auditioned both, agrees that they sound different. Yet you, who don't even claim to have actually heard either one, "just know" that they "can't possibly" sound different based on the specs (which neither one of us has confirmed anyway).
> ...


 

 I really wonder what the manufacturers use, I suspect(more like I hope) that big houses get anything they need, but what about all the smaller brands? some stuff are expensive and only useful for 1 kind of test. so I really wonder who bothers spending on those stuff and making sure they stay calibrated?
 on my poor consumer level, I can't get to know the max power output@1%THD into the load of my headphones for a good 90% of the DAPs I'm interested in. meaning I just cannot know if the stuff I will buy exclusively to drive my headphone is able to drive it. pretty funky level of "you don't need to know" IMO. so obviously good luck making hypothesis about why a device sounds different.


----------



## bigshot

I think people spend WAY too much time on refining the measurements of sound their ears can't hear, instead of getting realistic measurements that relate to the sound they CAN her.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

bigshot said:


> I think people spend WAY too much time on refining the measurements of sound their ears can't hear, instead of getting realistic measurements that relate to the sound they CAN her.


 You are the Bigshot- tell ME! Sorry could not resist. Did you ever post a picture of the said outfit?


----------



## dprimary

uchihaitachi said:


> Could somebody recommend me a good book to read about the science behind audio?


 
 Sound systems and general electroacoustics
  
https://books.google.com/books/about/Sound_System_Engineering.html?id=9mAUp5IC5AMC&hl=en
  
  
https://books.google.com/books?id=8BLwBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=handbook+for+sound+engineers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mstaVauAD4OYNoaygEg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=handbook%20for%20sound%20engineers&f=false
  
 Basic acoustics
  
https://books.google.com/books?id=6tiJ1cwnwxoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=master+handbook+of+acoustics&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CcxaVZHiGMXYggT-joEg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=master%20handbook%20of%20acoustics&f=false
  
 Grounding and interfacing
  
https://centralindianaaes.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/indy-aes-2012-seminar-w-notes-v1-0.pdf


----------



## maverickronin

dprimary said:


> Grounding and interfacing
> https://centralindianaaes.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/indy-aes-2012-seminar-w-notes-v1-0.pdf


 
  
 Thanks for the interesting link.  I found this little tidbit on page 193...
  


> I found 13 A flowing in a water pipe under the stage in a rehearsal hall.


 
  
 Who needed wires anymore?  We'll just let the plumbing do double duty.


----------



## KeithEmo

audiobear said:


> Following on, all the measurements we make are important.  It's sometimes not hard to show what happens or doesn't happen when one or more of them is way out of line.  Tke 10% distortion at 1KHz for example.  Most of us would notice that (another assumption). But there are a lot of instances where specs aren't all that different yet people claim they hear a difference between two pieces.  In this case it's two pieces of Schiit.
> 
> This thread has been down this path many times.  I can't tell you how many times I have evaluated stuff before buying it and had a different reaction to that of others who reviewed it.  This points to a need for objective testing. Since we know some of the numbers that tell us important things about gear, it's valuable to have them even if we can't explain why we hear a difference.  To go back to Occam's razor, the first and most obvious question to ask is "is there a difference in sound better the two (even if everyone agrees there is)?"
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think I can answer your last question - about why we always end up discussing this yet nobody seems to actually do the tests...
  
 The most obvious reason is that most of the people who have the budget and technical ability to run well designed and documented tests rarely have the motivation to do so. A company that sells expensive cables has little reason to run tests that might show their product is totally devoid of technical merit (even a test that shows their claims are exaggerated, or that some, but only a few, customers can hear a difference is going to cost them sales). Spending the money on more advertising is simply more likely to sell more product for them - and they are in the business of selling product, not of pure science, nor of educating the public. And their competitor, who sells cheap cables, which might well be just as good as the expensive ones, doesn't have the advertising budget to run the tests. And, since they sell a lot of those cheap cables, which are the default choice for most people anyway, they really can't expect to sell a lot more cables if they can prove theirs are as good as their more expensive competitor. (Losing a dozen customers might cost the company that sells expensive cables thousands of dollars; winning those dozen customers isn't going to make the company who sells $10 cables much at all.) Can you honestly imagine Amazon spending thousands of dollars to prove that their $9 USB cable is as good as someone else's fancy $200 one?
  
 Even when it comes to magazines (and web sites), discussing how cables sound, and arguing about how they sound, will generate a lot more site traffic than publishing a single study that actually answers the question. Besides which, they would lose a lot of advertising if they were to even suggest that the products being sold by many of their advertisers weren't worth buying. (Just as I'm sure the wine industry makes a lot more on "wine tasting" than they would on selling "the one really best brand of wine".) Some few sites feel the opposite, and count on being educational for their audience, and they DO sometimes run and publish this sort of tests.... like audioholics.)
  
 Besides all that, industry courtesy prevents many companies from even considering attacking their competitors products (more so in some industries than others).
  
 I've joked that audio technology would make a good subject for a college term paper, but even there it would really probably be viewed as a "silly and unimportant topic" if you were to want to do so.


----------



## KeithEmo

exacoustatowner said:


> That is a conundrum. How are the tools used to measure calibrated? In analytical biochemistry we have some standards we use to make sure that a measurement taking by person A on day one is the same (within excepted variation) with the measurement taken by B on another. And depending on how critical the sample is- possibly across labs.
> Is there a universal standard that all instruments use? If you take 5 such devices for measuring the usual suspects do they all give the same value? First order, second order, third order harmonic distortion at 1000 hz (obviously measuring the 2nd harmonic of 12 Khz is outside of audibility) . Intermodulation distortion? Group delay? What else? Even vs. Odd harmonics? Square wave response? Ringing?
> Are we measuring everything that can affect the quality of sound?


 
  
 Someone else commented that many of the "test instruments" used by audiophiles are indeed not necessarily reliable or accurate, but I would say that, at the commercial level, the opposite is true. (They are indeed correct when it comes to "affordable" test equipment, and sound cards, many of which simply don't meet spec.) However, if you take any Audio Precision test set (which is the industry standard), and run the same test, it will give you similar answers. (And, when you spend $50k on a piece of test equipment, you keep it in good repair and calibration - although I don't think the APs require much maintenance.) Likewise, if you look at a waveform to see what the ringing looks like, it will look the same on any AP printout, or on the output from any good quality oscilloscope. (You may get slight variations in what you rad or observe, but I don't think those variations have even been mentioned... nobody here is arguing a few percent either way.)
  
 Someone else wondered what the smaller companies - who can't afford a $50k AP test set - use, and the answer there is that it varies anywhere between "lower cost but still reasonably accurate test equipment" and nothing at all. (There are several companies out there making expensive "audiophile USB cables" that don't work well at all, and don't even meet the minimum standards of a cheap data cable - presumably partly because the companies that make them don't own the equipment necessary to test them properly. Likewise, many boutique amplifier companies simply "play by ear" and don't actually test their designs or products at all. After all, the chef at your favorite restaurant probably doesn't send every new dish he creates out to a lab to be analyzed, right?) In the case of DACs, even an oscilloscope costing a few thousand dollars, and probably even a test run on a sound card, will usually allow you to see things like ringing. (Besides which, the chip manufacturers publish specs and oscilloscope images and, while people may question the scientific knowhow and ethics of an audio cable or DAC manufacturer, I don't think anybody is accusing Texas Instruments or Wolfson of publishing inaccurate or falsified data on the data sheets for their chips.)
  
 Unlike with chemical processes, I also don't think lack of calibration standards, or equipment inaccuracies, are much of a factor at the level of these discussions. Most of the recent discussions are qualitative rather than quantitative. We're not arguing about whether 1 mS of ringing on a DAC sounds audibly different than 2 mS, or whether only the longer period is audible, we're arguing about whether it's audible _AT ALL_. Likewise, nobody is disputing about how significant the difference is between speaker cables; the discussion is "Is there a difference, or is it all snake oil?"
  
 Unfortunately, the audio industry has a long history of claims with no scientific basis at all, and claims based on downright false science, which has caused some people to get so frustrated that they automatically assume that everything for which they don't understand or agree with the science must be fraudulent. This is why you see reactions like:"Unless you can prove it's real, I don't even want to discuss it." (Note that, when I say history, I'm not suggesting that it is past... a significant percentage of products sold today make unrealistic or false claims - or claims that are based solely on "subjective opinions".) Also, unfortunately, as it is whenever the topic is very small differences in what humans perceive, psychological actors like the placebo effect have such a major effect on the results that they can sometimes be the ONLY actual cause of those results. (The huge market in snake oil is "powered" by the desire of people to hear what you can convince them they think they hear, or want to hear.) 
  
 A lot of the problem is also that many audiophiles simply don't have a good grasp of the science involved. This makes them easy to fool with pseudo-science, but it also renders them unable to understand legitimate science when it's presented to them.... as with ringing.
  
 When you see ringing in the output of an amplifier, it is a sign of instability, and implies certain flaws in circuit design. (Ripples or tilts in the top of a square wave generally result from errors in frequency response, and can be used to detect them.) In an amplifier, ringing is strictly energy at audio frequencies that doesn't belong there, usually caused by an instability in the circuit itself, and will show up in distortion figures.
  
 However, ringing in a DAC occurs for wholly different reasons, and has different implications. In a DAC, the ringing normally seen is a result of the oversampling filter, and consists of energy that _DOES_ belong there, but has been shifted to appear at the wrong times by the filter. This means that, if you take any sort of steady state distortion measurement, which sums and compares "the energy that belongs" and "the energy that doesn't belong" over some time interval, the energy the ringing contains doesn't count as an error (the energy sums correctly). This is how a DAC which shows very visible ringing can still measure with very low THD numbers; with a steady state signal the ringing won't be visible at all; with a transient signal, the ringing is part of the "legitimate signal" and in fact must be there for the total to sum correctly.
  
 This being the case, for example, if you were to send a 5 mS burst of 1 kHz sine waves into a typical DAC, the output waveform would show something resembling your input signal, with ringing occurring both before and after it. If you were to test that DAC for THD, you would find that it measured very low - because that ringing is part of the signal that belongs there, so any test that sums the energy over time will not consider it to be distortion. However, if you were to instead measure the output at a whole series of instantaneous points in time before and after your input signal had stopped, you would find ringing present (and, if you considered that result "instantaneously", for those instants you would have 100% ringing and 0% "legitimate signal" - so, if you looked at it that way, at a point 1 mS after your impulse input was stopped, you would have 100% THD at the output.
  
 Since the ringing in a DAC "really is" parts of the signal being "distorted" by being shifted in time, whether we can hear the ringing or not (or whether it sounds different if it happens before or after the impulse) becomes a matter partly of physiology and partly of psychoacoustics. (We have signal occurring at times where it shouldn't, quite near in time to when it should occur, so the question is whether the main signal masks us from hearing the signal that shouldn't be there or not. This masking could occur physically, in our ear, or psychoacoustically, in our brain.) Therefore, arguing that the steady state THD is so low it can't possibly be audible is a red herring. The real question is of whether the ringing is masked by the main signal, and if it is, whether it always is or only under some circumstances. (The proponents of "apodizing filters" are quite convinced that post-ringing is better masked than pre-ringing, and so that mathematically shifting some of the ringing from before the impulse to after it makes the signal "sound better" - at least with certain signals, and claim to have demonstrated this. I personally believe that I've heard differences that are consistent with this claim. Since the subject of masking is still not "thoroughly understood", I consider this to be something worth testing.)
  
 (To me, since this is consistent with the science, I don't see it as especially unlikely to be true - and so it's clearly worth testing. Other folks here seem to find the science not to be credible, and so seem to require that time first be spent proving that there's something there worth testing - or even discussing.)


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> (To me, since this is consistent with the science, I don't see it as especially unlikely to be true - and so it's clearly worth testing. Other folks here seem to find the science not to be credible, and so seem to require that time first be spent proving that there's something there worth testing - or even discussing.)




When can we expect to see your response to AudioBear's request?

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/5985#post_11613824

Here's mine.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/6000#post_11614332

se


----------



## KeithEmo

audiobear said:


> I am not over-joyed at the superfluous negativity from both of you but the dialog is an excellent opportunity to review some basic critical thinking skills and the methodology of science.   Let me ask both of you to comment on the following.
> 
> Occam's razor says among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected (to test first).  How does each of your positions stack up against the razor?
> 
> ...


 
  
 This all hinges on a single assumption:
 We have a situation where a lot of people, including myself, claim to hear a difference.....
 (We also have science that clearly shows that a significant difference does exist - so the only question is whether that difference is audible.)
  
 Therefore it all hinges on which assumption you choose:
 a) "Maybe they all claim to hear a difference because an audible difference really exists" or
 b) "They're all either mistaken - or lying - for whatever reasons".
  
 Considering both the science and the "state of the audio industry" I personally don't consider either assumption unreasonable....
  
 Logically, it might seem to make sense to run two separate tests; first testing whether any audible difference exists; then, if that test shows a difference, testing what the difference is.
  
 However, logistically, since it requires the same resources, test subjects, and test setup to test both of those assumptions, I think it's simpler to simply assume that the difference exists, and test for that. (If our test of the difference shows that the difference is in fact "none", it will answer the first question; and, if the test shows an audible difference, then we can go on to learn some details about that difference.)
  
 (We also seem to have slightly different goals. Since_ I_ already expect a difference to be there, and am quite convinced from my interpretation of the science and my personal experience that it is audible,_ I _might hope to learn some details about how audible it is, and under what circumstances. I'm pretty sure some folks here are actually neutral, and simply want to learn the truth, while others are already convinced that there is no difference, either from _their_ own personal experience or _their_ interpretation of the science, and so their primary goal is to prove that those of us who claim to hear a difference are "imagining it".)


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> This all hinges on a single assumption:
> We have a situation where a lot of people, including myself, claim to hear a difference.....




Science relies on logic and reason. Yet your single assumption here is a logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity.




> Logically, it might seem to make sense to run two separate tests; first testing whether any audible difference exists; then, if that test shows a difference, testing what the difference is.
> 
> However, logistically, since it requires the same resources, test subjects, and test setup to test both of those assumptions, I think it's simpler to simply assume that the difference exists, and test for that. (If our test of the difference shows that the difference is in fact "none", it will answer the first question; and, if the test shows an audible difference, then we can go on to learn some details about that difference.)




Translation: Screw logic, I'm too lazy.

And I also note that you did not provide answers to the specific questions AudioBear put to us.

1. What are all reasonable available hypotheses that explain the facts available to us?

2. which has the least assumptions?

3. How can we test it?

se


----------



## KeithEmo

audiobear said:


> I am not over-joyed at the superfluous negativity from both of you but the dialog is an excellent opportunity to review some basic critical thinking skills and the methodology of science.   Let me ask both of you to comment on the following.
> 
> Occam's razor says among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected (to test first).  How does each of your positions stack up against the razor?
> 
> ...


 
  
 I already responded to the part about assumptions....
  
 My hypothesis is that different DAC filters really do sound different - specifically that there are audible differences that are due to their ringing characteristics.
  
 And here are the things we need to do to test that:
  
 1) Establish that a measurable difference actually exists. (We could use a specific DAC chip, and accept that the impulse response images provided by the manufacturer are legitimate, or we could run a quick test to verify that we do indeed get different ringing patterns with different switch settings - we specifically want to confirm that we can select two filters which have equally flat frequency response and low distortion, but one of which exhibits "symmetrical ringing" and the other "all post-ringing and no pre-ringing" since this is claimed to be the most audible difference).
  
 2) Design a test set to play our test signals to our test subjects. (We need to ensure that our test set can deliver our test signals reasonably accurately. I suspect that many speakers and headphones, probably due to mechanical ringing in the transducers, will simply mask the differences in the signals. Therefore, we need to ensure that the differences actually "play into the air" with the test speakers or headphones we choose. We can do this by recording the output with a good quality microphone and confirming that the differences are visible on an oscilloscope. We also MIGHT invalidate the entire procedure at this point if we're unable to find or create a transducer capable of accurately reproducing our test signals. Also note that it is NOT a requirement that our test speakers or headphones "sound good" as long as they are capable of reproducing our test signals.)
  
 We will, of course, need some way to switch our signal to play through one or the other of the DAC filters. Since a slight tick or discontinuity when we switch filters is probably unavoidable, it makes sense to separate EVERY set of samples with a similar tick to avoid test subjects "learning" that a slightly different sounding tick does or does not signify a filter change. Since we're testing a sound characteristic of DAC filters, it also makes sense to do the test "live"; we can't simply record samples and play then through a DAC - because the filter of THAT DAC will contaminate our samples.
  
 3) Select some test signals (music) which can be shown to demonstrate our different test characteristics. (Since we now have test speakers which we know can accurately render our test signals, and a microphone that can be used to document that those differences are "reaching the air", we have to select sample material that provides the type of stimulus to allow those differences to be visible/audible. For example, if we see the differences in ringing - on an oscilloscope trace - with recorded cymbals, but not with recorded bass drums, then we need test samples with cymbals - where we can document that the differences actually exist in our test samples.)
  
 4) Now we actually test.
  
 4a) I would use paired samples to determine if the difference is audible. Assuming we call one filter "A" and the other "B", we make up a series of test samples, each of which consists of two short clips of music separated by a brief pause. For each sample, the music before the pause, and the music after the pause, will each be played through a randomly chosen filter. Therefore, each sample will randomly be either  "A,A" "A,B" "B,A" or "B,B". The test subject will be presented with a reasonable number of test sample pairs, and asked whether they believe "the two halves were played through the same filter or not" in each case. Statistical analysis of the results will show if the subjects were indeed able to hear a difference.
  
 4b) We could now also do a more standard ABX test to determine if test subjects were able to recognize one or the other filter. I would want to do this regardless of the results of the first part (so we don't need to wait for the results of the first part). We might find that, even though they claim not to hear a difference, subjects still "guess" correctly more often than statistically likely - which might suggest that they actually hear a difference but find it too slight to consider it reliable.
  
 So, in this stage, we get to test two things:
 a) whether the subjects claim to hear a difference and, if so, whether their claim is validated
 b) whether they claim NOT to hear a difference, yet their guesses suggest that they really are expressing a "weak preference"
 (if they say they don't hear a difference, yet guess correctly a statistically significant percentage of the time, then we can deduce that they are subconsciously reacting to a difference)
  
 4c) Finally, since we've already collected our test subjects and equipment, I would run some sighted/interview tests - and I would probably do two phases there as well:
  
 a) I would tell the subject what filter they were listening to and ask them to describe "how it sounds"
 b) I would do a blind test, where I would have each subject write down their impressions of each filter without knowing which is which
  
 This will give us additional information both about any real differences they hear (and the character of those differences), and about any differences that may be based on their expectations. (For example, if a lot of subjects describe the apodizing filter as "smoother" when they know they're listening to it, but describe one as "darker" and one as "brighter" when they don't know which is which, then we may conclude that they are biased to expect the apodizing filter to sound "smoother" when, in reality, while there is some difference audible, it is less well defined.)
  
 If we wanted to test public perceptions and marketing success, we might even deliberately MIS-inform some subjects and record their reactions. (It would be very informative, for example, if test subjects described what they THOUGHT was the apodizing filter as being smoother, even if that wasn't really what they were listening to: it would provide statistical proof that their expectation was actually a more compelling reason to hear a difference than the actual difference, and that they had somehow come to expect "apodizing filters to sound smoother". This is something that the marketing department would very much like to know! 
  
 I'm sure someone else can add some more things worth including - but there's a start....


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> I already responded to the part about assumptions....




First of all, this has to do with the Schiit amps, not DACs. 

Answer the questions. Particularly number two.

1. What are all reasonable available hypotheses that explain the facts available to us?

Your answer here:___________________________________________

2. which has the least assumptions?

Your answer here:___________________________________________

3. How can we test it?

Your answer here:___________________________________________

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

keithemo said:


> Someone else commented that many of the "test instruments" used by audiophiles are indeed not necessarily reliable or accurate, but I would say that, at the commercial level, the opposite is true. (They are indeed correct when it comes to "affordable" test equipment, and sound cards, many of which simply don't meet spec.) However, if you take any Audio Precision test set (which is the industry standard), and run the same test, it will give you similar answers. (And, when you spend $50k on a piece of test equipment, you keep it in good repair and calibration - although I don't think the APs require much maintenance.) Likewise, if you look at a waveform to see what the ringing looks like, it will look the same on any AP printout, or on the output from any good quality oscilloscope. (You may get slight variations in what you rad or observe, but I don't think those variations have even been mentioned... nobody here is arguing a few percent either way.)
> 
> Someone else wondered what the smaller companies - who can't afford a $50k AP test set - use, and the answer there is that it varies anywhere between "lower cost but still reasonably accurate test equipment" and nothing at all. (There are several companies out there making expensive "audiophile USB cables" that don't work well at all, and don't even meet the minimum standards of a cheap data cable - presumably partly because the companies that make them don't own the equipment necessary to test them properly. Likewise, many boutique amplifier companies simply "play by ear" and don't actually test their designs or products at all. After all, the chef at your favorite restaurant probably doesn't send every new dish he creates out to a lab to be analyzed, right?) In the case of DACs, even an oscilloscope costing a few thousand dollars, and probably even a test run on a sound card, will usually allow you to see things like ringing. (Besides which, the chip manufacturers publish specs and oscilloscope images and, while people may question the scientific knowhow and ethics of an audio cable or DAC manufacturer, I don't think anybody is accusing Texas Instruments or Wolfson of publishing inaccurate or falsified data on the data sheets for their chips.)
> 
> ...


 
 THANKS- this is very interesting!Off to work so I'll delve into this later!


----------



## AudioBear

@KeithEmo
  
 Thank you for the experimental design above!
  
 Brilliant start!  Even if it is not about amps, your response goes far beyond what I ever hoped to capture with my question and turns the light on how we can use science to answer questions.  I'll read and re-read it before I comment further.  At first read it sounds like a pretty darn solid approach.  I've always wanted to do false testing to expose how much is real and how much is expectation.  Great example of how we should be thinking even if there are things over-looked(not much) or which need to be changed or added.
  
 You do touch on a problem we need to crack. What you have outlined is a pretty good plan for a couple of doctoral dissertations.  It's going to take resources and time.  As you have pointed out it is not in the interests (or budgets) of the industry to do this kind of analysis although you would hope that people who design DACs are worrying about the answers to these questions.
  
 You have given us much to think about.  You deserve some constructive responses.


----------



## icebear

For any ABX test you can ask the test participants to describe the difference, if they perceive any.
 That of course requires a large enough number as in the analysis for the description of the difference you will only count the results from people who were correct in finding the odd one out. Of course you can also do a descriptive analysis, using a trained panel comparing only two samples - which will be more expensive.
  
 As with ANY measurement you can increase the level of sensitivity of your method to the edge of what is technically possible. You can analyse the level of gold in sea water (which is surprisingly high). You can also screen the participants that you pick for the ABX testing. Getting people off the street fro $20 will yield a different level of accuracy in detecting any difference than recruiting classical musicians and paying them $500 for 1hrs test. The type of music program used for the test will strongly influence the result. There are certain examples of acoustic music that will easily reveal low quality mp3 (e.g. brush on cymbal). Heavy guitar rock with 10% added distortion on purpose is not likely to reveal any difference.
  
 Basically this discussion will get no where because no one will be able to present whatever kind of proof (either way) that goes beyond the exact parameters of how that particular test has been carried out. The results are ONLY valid in the given scope of the test.
 It's close to what applies to statistics : "Never trust any statistics you haven't made up yourself" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 As for measuring the performance of hifi gear ... of course measurements can reveal any defect but measurements can not positively predict good sound.
 How do you measure the ability of equipement to accurately reproduce a 3D like soundstage with acoustic instruments being played live in a real room?


----------



## AudioBear

> Originally Posted by *icebear* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> ...
> 
> Basically this discussion will get no where because no one will be able to present whatever kind of proof (either way) that goes beyond the exact parameters of how that particular test has been carried out. The results are ONLY valid in the given scope of the test.
> ...


 
 It all depends on the objective or the research as captured in the hypothesis to be tested.  One can in fact design experiments that produce conclusions that apply universally. If you want to compare brand x amp y to brand w amp z your claim that the scope of the test is limited to the test might be true.  If the test was being done to determine how much ringing on a square-wave was required to be audible, once independently verified and accepted by peers as solid research, the result contributes to our basic knowledge of auditory perception.
  
 I don't think anyone who believes that scientific inquiry can help us understand the world around us would accept the claim that measurements can't predict good sound.   Most measurements are in fact used in the opposite sense as for example making sure inter-modulation distortion is low will help minimize a negative attribute. No, we can't at the moment say what will sound good, largely we have focused on what sounds bad.  There is also the subjective problem that what sounds good to you may not sound good to me; some people like analog and tubey sounds, some don't but we do agree they can (not must) sound different.  None of us likes the sound of fingernails scratching on a blackboard.  The purpose of doing the kind of research we are discussing is to further our understanding to the point that we will in fact be able to say what it is that reproduces soundstages etc.  It is totally within the realm of possibility that we can figure that out.  
  
 As KeithEmo pointed out a few posts back, it just hasn't been in the industry's interest to do this research nor has there been support for independent investigators to do very much of it.
  
 You have in effect issued an interesting challenge for researchers:  "How do you measure the ability of equipement to accurately reproduce a 3D like soundstage with acoustic instruments being played live in a real room?"  Good question.  How do we do that?  I think science can be used to answer that question.  I hope you're not suggesting it can't be answered.


----------



## icebear

audiobear said:


> ...
> You have in effect issued an interesting challenge for researchers:  "How do you measure the ability of equipement to accurately reproduce a 3D like soundstage with acoustic instruments being played live in a real room?"  Good question.  How do we do that?  I think science can be used to answer that question.  *I hope you're not suggesting it can't be answered.*


 
*Positively not *for the future - my crystal ball is a little fuzzy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 but for the time being I haven't heard of anything that can be measured that directly relates to how a human brain perceives the soundstage, the positioning of sound sources in the recording room.


----------



## cel4145

audiobear said:


> *There is also the subjective problem that what sounds good to you may not sound good to me* ; some people like analog and tubey sounds, some don't but we do agree they can (not must) sound different.  None of us likes the sound of fingernails scratching on a blackboard.  The purpose of doing the kind of research we are discussing is to further our understanding to the point that we will in fact be able to say what it is that reproduces soundstages etc.  It is totally within the realm of possibility that we can figure that out.




But that "subjective problem" is really BIG when you understand that it's about aesthetic experience. Science doesn't do so good at explaining at why one person likes one piece of art over another, or one song over another. Given that the preference for frequency response is tied to an aesthetic experience, we may never know how to predict that well. It's like trying to find out why some people would choose one temperature of light for viewing a painting over another. And the preference could be culturally derived, such as the current popularity of bassy consumer headphones. Is that based on human physiology? Or does it come from music preference? Or is it about shared experience?


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> But that "subjective problem" is really BIG when you understand that it's about aesthetic experience. Science doesn't do so good at explaining at why one person likes one piece of art over another, or one song over another. Given that the preference for frequency response is tied to an aesthetic experience, we may never know how to predict that well. It's like trying to find out why some people would choose one temperature of light for viewing a painting over another. And the preference could be culturally derived, such as the current popularity of bassy consumer headphones. Is that based on human physiology? Or does it come from music preference? Or is it about shared experience?


 
 I thought we're dealing with SQ.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> I thought we're dealing with SQ.




I thought we were dealing with audible differences?

I guess the smokescreens have worked.

se


----------



## AudioBear

All of that is true. We will be a long time looking if we try to answer the question of why people have different musical preferences.   I guess we have to answer a fundamental question.  Is the first principle of a sound reproduction system to reproduce as faithfully as possible the signals a listener would have heard at a live performance, or which were intended by the artist or mixer in a recording studio (realizing that some music is never heard live but is laid down electronically)?  That's a big question because it includes room acoustics at both ends of the chain as well as a recording and playback chain and transducers at both ends which are of course quite variable.  If the idea is to supply the listener with the best possible analog reproduction of what was recorded (again assuming that we can't do much about how the source material was recorded), then we are trying to build an accurate, neutral and transparent system whose analog output corresponds to the meaning of -- I hate this term -- bit perfect in the digital realm.  
  
 I have just expressed a personal bias.  Many others on these forums prefer to use their gear as instruments that shape the sounds to their personal preference.  I don't have a problem with that. Music is a aesthetic experience as was pointed out above.  My preference in reproduction allows me to filter the outcome as I choose using analog and/or digital paintbrushes to as a palette to produce the art and experience I desire.  I prefer one source player, one dac, one amp, and a few transducers ( as I write I am listening to Livingston Taylor/Get Here through a pair of Oppo PM-2's but I could also plug in my CIEMs or turn on the desk top speakers-- each would be a different listening experience).  What this allows is that I have control over how I listen and how I choose to paint the sound on any given day.
  
 The alternative is to mix and match all sorts of gear that colors the music, each in its own way. to arrive at the sound you like.  Either approach can get you the emotional experience you want.  I prefer mine.  I get to play with software and knobs to adjust my experience.  From where I sit gear-heads spend their time fretting over which gear has just the right inaccuracy to fit best with other inaccurate gear; rolling tubes is a great example.  I don't know, maybe I'm on a control trip.  My argument is that we can use science to answer questions about how measurable differences in various gear parameters change our perceptions; ultimately we can design experiments that tell us why they work that way.  That's just the researcher in me talking....


cel4145 said:


> But that "subjective problem" is really BIG when you understand that it's about aesthetic experience. Science doesn't do so good at explaining at why one person likes one piece of art over another, or one song over another. Given that the preference for frequency response is tied to an aesthetic experience, we may never know how to predict that well. It's like trying to find out why some people would choose one temperature of light for viewing a painting over another. And the preference could be culturally derived, such as the current popularity of bassy consumer headphones. Is that based on human physiology? Or does it come from music preference? Or is it about shared experience?


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> I thought we're dealing with SQ.




SQ is judged in the context of an aesthetic experience, right?


----------



## Steve Eddy

This is Sound Science, not Sound Philosophy. And the specific subject of _this thread_ is "Testing audiophile claims and myths."

Can we return the discussion back to that? I'm not asking too much am I?

se


----------



## bigshot

stand said:


> I thought we're dealing with SQ.


 

 Sound Quality of Recorded Music in the Home... that is what often gets lost in the shuffle in these discussions. It isn't anechoic chambers and frequencies we can't hear. It's Dark Side of the Moon sounding good in your living room.
  
 I think that theoretical scientific principles that don't get you any closer to a nice evening with a CD playing are just as derailing as subjective poetry about the liquid smooth sound emanating from the speaker wires.
  
 There are ways to apply science to spending a nice evening with music, but sometimes folks get too wrapped up with absolutism when it comes to accuracy and concern over barely perceptible differences that they lose sight of the overall goal. Taken to the extreme, that can be as counter productive as hoodoo. In fact, some stuff like jitter is more hoodoo on the science side than it is on the subjective side.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Sound Quality of Recorded Music in the Home... that is what often gets lost in the shuffle in these discussions. It isn't anechoic chambers and frequencies we can't hear. It's Dark Side of the Moon sounding good in your living room.




Think I'll go through my Pink Floyd/Roger Waters catalog and check back later and see if things are back on track.

se


----------



## bigshot

This classic bit of lyric mongering!
  

   


 Is There Anybody Out There? (Waters)

 Is there anybody out there?
 Is there anybody out there?
 Is there anybody out there?
 Is there anybody out there


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> This is Sound Science, not Sound Philosophy. And the specific subject of _this thread_ is "Testing audiophile claims and myths."
> 
> Can we return the discussion back to that? I'm not asking too much am I?
> 
> se




Sound science has to understand the limits of what it can test and what it cannot easily account for, aesthetic experience being part of that. Aesthetic experience is also the subject of psychological experimentation, even though it is difficult--if often--impossible to quantify. The field of psychoacoustics must necessarily confront this problem, whether or not engineers who think only in terms of what can be measured easily with equipment see it as relevant to their research in sound science.


----------



## Steve Eddy

cel4145 said:


> Sound science has to understand the limits of what it can test and what it cannot easily account for, aesthetic experience being part of that.




The subject that was at hand, before the smokescreen was released, was audible differences. Not aesthetic preferences.




> Aesthetic experience is also the subject of psychological experimentation, even though it is difficult--if often--impossible to quantify. The field of psychoacoustics must necessarily confront this problem, whether or not engineers who think only in terms of what can be measured easily with equipment see it as relevant to their research in sound science.




Then start a thread on psychoacoustics.

se


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> SQ is judged in the context of an aesthetic experience, right?


 
 No.


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> I thought we were dealing with audible differences?
> 
> I guess the smokescreens have worked.
> 
> se


 
 That's what a meant by SQ. Can one tell the difference in SQ. I should have been more specific.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

bigshot said:


> This classic bit of lyric mongering!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hear something.... Ah, mp3! Can't quite make it out...something lost in the missing bits...where is NyQuist when I need him?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

exacoustatowner said:


> I hear something.... Ah, mp3! Can't quite make it out...something lost in the missing bits...where is NyQuist when I need him?



Is th... .ny...dy...out (p?)..th..re?


----------



## cel4145

audiobear said:


> All of that is true. We will be a long time looking if we try to answer the question of why people have different musical preferences.   I guess we have to answer a fundamental question.  Is the first principle of a sound reproduction system to reproduce as faithfully as possible the signals a listener would have heard at a live performance, or which were intended by the artist or mixer in a recording studio (realizing that some music is never heard live but is laid down electronically)?  That's a big question because it includes room acoustics at both ends of the chain as well as a recording and playback chain and transducers at both ends which are of course quite variable.  If the idea is to supply the listener with the best possible analog reproduction of what was recorded (again assuming that we can't do much about how the source material was recorded), then we are trying to build an accurate, neutral and transparent system whose analog output corresponds to the meaning of -- I hate this term -- bit perfect in the digital realm.




This a good question. Particularly when it comes to a live performance. Is one's goal to feel like they are on stage listening to the Rolling Stones as the Stones hear themselves play? Or perhaps in a bar venue 5ft from the stage? Or the stadium show? These are different acoustical experiences. And particularly the stadium show. If the crowd noise is part of the experience (I think it is), then soundstage becomes important. I even think bluray with speakers is the best way to try to accomplish that. 

And do we ever hear the accuracy of what is recorded with commercially produced music? It's always "filtered" after the fact during the mastering process by someone else's idea of how the raw recordings should be manipulated. There's something more authentic about those grateful dead bootleg tapes then there is with commercial live albums.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> That's what a meant by SQ. Can one tell the difference in SQ. I should have been more specific.




Yeah. I see SQ as a bigger concept than just a binary of difference/not difference. That's certainly one thing to look at, but it seems this discussion has veered beyond that.


----------



## KeithEmo

bigshot said:


> Sound Quality of Recorded Music in the Home... that is what often gets lost in the shuffle in these discussions. It isn't anechoic chambers and frequencies we can't hear. It's Dark Side of the Moon sounding good in your living room.
> 
> I think that theoretical scientific principles that don't get you any closer to a nice evening with a CD playing are just as derailing as subjective poetry about the liquid smooth sound emanating from the speaker wires.
> 
> There are ways to apply science to spending a nice evening with music, but sometimes folks get too wrapped up with absolutism when it comes to accuracy and concern over barely perceptible differences that they lose sight of the overall goal. Taken to the extreme, that can be as counter productive as hoodoo. In fact, some stuff like jitter is more hoodoo on the science side than it is on the subjective side.


 
  
 Unfortunately, we all make compromises based both on practicality and on personal preferences....
  
 We listen to that Roger Waters concert at our favorite concert hall - and now we want to "accurately reproduce it" - but what do we really mean by that?
  
 1) When you say that, do you want what you hear in your living room to sound exactly like what you heard in the concert hall - or do you want it to sound like Roger is playing in your living room? Since your living room is always going to contribute its own sound to whatever you play there, that first choice is off the table - unless you want to either convert your living room into an anechoic chamber (and so "delete" its characteristic sound altogether) or you want to use headphones (and so avoid the sound of the living room). The usual problem is that the original recording has some characteristics of the original venue "embedded in it" (the reverberance and echoes in the recording are specifically associated with the particular room in which it was recorded), yet your living room, not being an anechoic chamber, has its own (different) characteristics. As a result, playing that recording in your living room is something like trying to project a picture onto a wall that has a picture already painted on it; the two rooms are "superimposed" on each other, and so "interfere" with each other. In theory, playing a binaural recording via headphones would be the best choice here - but most concerts aren't recorded that way - and not everyone likes using headphones all the time.
  
 2) Someone already mentioned the quite common situation where a recording was multi-tracked in a studio and there is no original room at all... and so all of the "room cues" like reverberence are essentially faked - and so may not agree with each other or your room.
  
 3) I also frequently encounter a third possibility. Most of the bands I listen to are "electronic" and "amplified" - meaning that, when I listen to them in a club or concert venue, I'm basically listening to the sound system at the venue (there is no such thing as "the real live version"). And, at many of the venues where my favorite bands play, _THEIR_ equipment isn't all that good. Therefore, when I play one of those recordings, I do _NOT_ want to precisely reproduce what I heard at the club; instead I want to produce what_ I WOULD HAVE HEARD AT THE CLUB_ if their equipment was better. (In practice this means that I'm trying to "render" the recording I have as accurately as possible, but there is no reference to compare it to. And without a reference, all I can hope to do is to ensure that my equipment introduces as little error as possible while it reproduces the electronic recording I have, and cross my fingers that the recording itself is reasonably well produced - but, without that reference, all I have to go on is "numbers" vouching that my equipment is adding as little coloration and damage as practical.
  
 4) A lot of the thing I've read that were written by "subjectivists" seem to suggest yet a fourth option... They have a notion of "what a live performance _SHOULD_ sound like", and their goal is to assemble an audio system that "makes what they play sound like that". Essentially they want the audio equivalent of one of those programs where you feed in a photograph and it turns your photo into something that looks like a painting. They want a system that "makes their recordings sound like a live performance", and whether it is accurately rendering the original recording, or whether the original recording even sounded like that to begin with, is secondary. (People who feel this way are often quoted saying things like "it just doesn't sound like live" - as if this was solely a characteristic of the playback system and whether the recording sounded like that to begin with really doesn't matter. I frequently suspect that many people who like tube equipment do so because the second harmonic distortion it adds makes a lot of music "sound more live" - whether it is actually enhancing accuracy or simply applying an audio special effect that our minds interpret as "live sound".)
  
 Since I'm usually working with 3), my goal is generally to secure equipment that adds as little coloration as possible.
  
 However, as someone else mentioned, we are each more or less sensitive to particular types of coloration. Personally, even the occasional record tick or pop drives me nuts, while other people I know profess not to notice them. Other folks are especially sensitive to imaging and sound stage, which I don't find that important, while yet others find variations in frequency response especially annoying. Therefore, whenever compromises are called for, there is never going to be total agreement on which compromise is best.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Someone ping me when we get back on topic.

se


----------



## Opportunist

KeithEmo:
 So the real myth is that the "perfect" equipment would place one in the best seat in the concert hall? For the reasons you give, that is and will remain an unrealisable goal. I have been around long enough and spent enough money to have come to the conclusion that you should stop worrying when you enjoy what you hear _and _realise the limitations necessarily inherent in the recording process.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Yeah. I see SQ as a bigger concept than just a binary of difference/not difference. That's certainly one thing to look at, but it seems this discussion has veered beyond that.


 
 Isn't that the same? SQ has many properties.


----------



## bigshot

This thread has encouraged me to add a disclaimer to my sig file.


----------



## bigshot

opportunist said:


> So the real myth is that the "perfect" equipment would place one in the best seat in the concert hall?


 
  
 I listen to Mercury Living Presence and Living Stereo CDs rechannelled to 5.1 and I get that kind of perfection. But you have to have a perfect recording and a good 5.1 speaker system to do that.


----------



## analogsurviver

opportunist said:


> KeithEmo:
> So the real myth is that the "perfect" equipment would place one in the best seat in the concert hall? For the reasons you give, that is and will remain an unrealisable goal. I have been around long enough and spent enough money to have come to the conclusion that you should stop worrying when you enjoy what you hear _and _realise the limitations necessarily inherent in the recording process.


 
 Yes. 
  
 And it is not - nor will remain - an unrealisable goal.
  
 Binaural recording, reproduced over *earspeakers **(not headphones ) *, properly processed, preferably/mandatory with personal HRTF of the listener taken into account, supported by a good subwoofer  ( system - there may be more than a single sub required ) - once gone that far, it will be easier to understand WHY I insist so much on frequencies above 20 kHz to be properly recorded and reproduced.
  
 I am doing this - without the subwoofer part - for some time now. 
  
 My recordings are often refered to as "better than live" - because in each and every given real venue, there is only ONE optimum listening seat/stand - and only one seating/standing position removed either way no longer yields the same sound heard live. Like it or not . You can be at any of those concerts - but is extremely unlikely you will be able to get a "comparably sounding" seat/stand. That is particularly true for any concerts given in catholic churches - there are no benches to seat in the middle/center of church; you can be closer to the performers, ending either too far to the left or right - or, if you go way further back, you can be "in the middle" - but by then you are simply too far. Only two "guys" get to hear it right: a conductor (if present/applicable ) - and MICROPHONE. And nobody else. 
  
 And you can bet this "perfect" spot (or one that gives the listener the impression of "being there" ) WILL be occupied by my microphone(s).
  
 REMEMBER: Whenever I say "music heard live" - I mean it; acoustical instruments and voices, no amplification on stage, no man made or man decided "how it should be mixed/sound". 
  
 Above degree of realism is a MUCH tougher nut to crack than merely DSOTM sounding good in our home - it should not only sound good, but ACCURATE - in timbre, 3D, dynamic range,..., -  you name it. 
  
 When the above best approaches the reality, it becomes (nearly) perfect time machine.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Ironically, I notice this thread is currently on page 404.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Ironically, I notice this thread is currently on page 404.
> 
> se


 
 But I thought the answer to the question is 42, "The answer to life, the universe and everything." Some of the posts to this thread remind me of Vogon poetry.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> But I thought the answer to the question is 42, "The answer to life, the universe and everything." Some of the posts to this thread remind me of Vogon poetry.




HA!

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Here on the west coast, Turner Classic Movies is airing The Subject Was Roses. So how 'bout we get back to The Subject Was Actual Audibility.

Before the smoke machines were dragged out, we had two empty-handed claims of actual audibility on the table made by KeithEmo, one concerning digital filters and the other concerning two different Schiit amps.

KeithEmo seems to want to start out assuming the differences are actually audible.

I say the most reasonable thing to do is not make such assumptions and establish whether there are any actual audible differences in the first place and if so, we can move on to figuring out the cause.

KeithEmo doesn't want to bother with the mess of controlled listening tests.

Ok.

So can anyone tell my why a relatively simple null test wouldn't resolve this for both claims?

se


----------



## AudioBear

I won't talk for KeithEmo but I believe his point was that one should do the controlled listening tests but that as long as you have a system set up and subjects being recruited and measured, you might as well try to answer a few more questions.
  
 Makes sense to me.


----------



## StanD

audiobear said:


> I won't talk for KeithEmo but I believe his point was that one should do the controlled listening tests but that as long as you have a system set up and subjects being recruited and measured, you might as well try to answer a few more questions.
> 
> Makes sense to me.


 
 Ask the questions on another run as not to influence the main thrust of the test, "Can you hear a difference or not."


----------



## AudioBear

We have two candidate amps and we want to know what percent of the population can tell them apart, if any. Is that the question?
  
 I'd love to do the experiment but I don't have any audiophiles around.  You don't find a lot of those is rural Northern ID.  I can do the part of the study where naive subjects are asked to do an ABX test on the amps.
  
 That means I have to buy some amps, set up a proper testing space, put together a blinded ABX system, etc. 
  
 As Arnold said in the movie "I'll be back...."


----------



## Roly1650

audiobear said:


> We have two candidate amps and we want to know what percent of the population can tell them apart, if any. Is that the question?
> 
> I'd love to do the experiment but I don't have any audiophiles around.  You don't find a lot of those is rural Northern ID.  I can do the part of the study where naive subjects are asked to do an ABX test on the amps.
> 
> ...



There's more than one way to skin a cat, even in rural Northern ID.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/13415-null-difference-testing.html

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/what-wrong-null-testing-12330/

@Steve Eddy hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> We have two candidate amps and we want to know what percent of the population can tell them apart, if any. Is that the question?
> 
> I'd love to do the experiment but I don't have any audiophiles around.  You don't find a lot of those is rural Northern ID.  I can do the part of the study where naive subjects are asked to do an ABX test on the amps.
> 
> ...




Who's question?

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

roly1650 said:


> @Steve Eddy hit the nail on the head.




If you only knew how close it came to being my thumb. 

se


----------



## Roly1650

steve eddy said:


> If you only knew how close it came to being my thumb.
> 
> se



No, I guessed, I've been following the agonies, bandaids at the ready.........


----------



## Steve Eddy

roly1650 said:


> No, I guessed, I've been following the agonies, bandaids at the ready.........




What about the morphine? 

se


----------



## Roly1650

steve eddy said:


> What about the morphine?
> 
> se



One bourbon, one scotch and one beer ok instead? Ice on the thumb or in the bourbon, your call.


----------



## Steve Eddy

roly1650 said:


> One bourbon, one scotch and one beer ok instead? Ice on the thumb or in the bourbon, your call.




I take it you've never had an IV push of morphine. 

se


----------



## jcx

> We have two candidate amps and we want to know what percent of the population can tell them apart, if any. Is that the question?


 
 a lot of time could be saved by reading up on Clark's Amplifier Challenge - $10k on the line and no winners https://www.google.com/#q=richard+clark+amplifier+challenge
  
 or the Stereophile Carver Challenge - their own selection of "STOA Tube Amp" and idiosyncratic speakers in their own listening room versus a tweaked for frequency response null $600 Caver SS amp - any want to guess the outcome - or why Stereophile never adopted the style of testing as a standard?


----------



## Roly1650

steve eddy said:


> I take it you've never had an IV push of morphine.
> 
> se



No, just a shot in the arse for tetanus, not a thrill....

But my ex brother in law did try to top himself with his morphine patches, which gave the EMT's a good laugh...... Would have been a long, but pleasant wait. 
My sister said she could have saved him some trouble if he'd have stepped in front of her car.....


----------



## Steve Eddy

roly1650 said:


> No, just a shot in the arse for tetanus, not a thrill....
> 
> But my ex brother in law did try to top himself with his morphine patches, which gave the EMT's a good laugh...... Would have been a long, but pleasant wait.
> My sister said she could have saved him some trouble if he'd have stepped in front of her car.....




Ha!

For me it was a kidney stone. I was racked with pain for hours, and then hours more while waiting at the ER. When I arrived, they gave me something for the pain but it didn't even touch it. After a CT scan to verify that it was in fact a kidney stone, they gave me an IV push of morphine. All of the pain literally melted away in seconds and I floated out of the ER.

I'd been up all night and immediately went to sleep when I got home. Thankfully by the time I woke up the stone had passed and I continued to be pain free.

I'll never forget that experience.

se


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> I take it you've never had an IV push of morphine.


 
  
 Oh man! I have a story on that one. Don't read it if you are squeamish! I was in the hospital and my surgeon decided to take the packing out of my 2 1/2 foot long surgical incision. But she hadn't let the nurses know she was coming so they weren't prepared. She looked at the incision and held her hand up for the hypo of morphine. The nurse looked all flustered and excused herself to run and get it. My surgeon smiled at me and said, "I have another surgery to get to in half an hour. Looks like you are going to get your packing removed without morphine." She went to work and I was seeing black blobs and stars in front of my eyes from the exquisite pain. She said, "Just one more..." and I gritted my teeth and let out a sigh of relief. Then she said, "Now the other half..." I almost blacked out. As she was leaving the nurse arrived with the hypo. She grabbed it, jabbed it in right next to the incision and said, "No more problems." WAVE of relief. Liquor may be quicker, but morphine does the trick.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Oh man! I have a story on that one. Don't read it if you are squeamish! I was in the hospital and my surgeon decided to take the packing out of my 2 1/2 foot long surgical incision. But she hadn't let the nurses know she was coming so they weren't prepared. She looked at the incision and held her hand up for the hypo of morphine. The nurse looked all flustered and excused herself to run and get it. My surgeon smiled at me and said, "I have another surgery to get to in half an hour. Looks like you are going to get your packing removed without morphine." She went to work and I was seeing black blobs and stars in front of my eyes from the exquisite pain. She said, "Just one more..." and I gritted my teeth and let out a sigh of relief. Then she said, "Now the other half..." I almost blacked out. As she was leaving the nurse arrived with the hypo. She grabbed it, jabbed it in right next to the incision and said, "No more problems." WAVE of relief. Liquor may be quicker, but morphine does the trick.




Got that right! And without the hangover! 

se


----------



## castleofargh

Spoiler: off topic morphine #my-life #carebear



got morphine just once when I was a kid, people said that I insulted my grandmother for 15mn(she was the kind of lady very unfamiliar with that. to her saying you were bored was the pinnacle of a daring insult). now all I personally remember is that I was tracking the red led on the turned off TV. that red led was moving all over the room and it was very important for me not to lose sight of it. that's really the only thing I remember doing that afternoon, that and sleeping. I actually didn't know my grandma came in the room so I guess I was really just talking to the red led. we'll never know.
  
 all in all, I can't say that it was any fun, but it did make me forget my pain.


----------



## AudioBear

jcx said:


> a lot of time could be saved by reading up on Clark's Amplifier Challenge - $10k on the line and no winners https://www.google.com/#q=richard+clark+amplifier+challenge
> 
> or the Stereophile Carver Challenge - their own selection of "STOA Tube Amp" and idiosyncratic speakers in their own listening room versus a tweaked for frequency response null $600 Caver SS amp - any want to guess the outcome - or why Stereophile never adopted the style of testing as a standard?


 

 Not quite!  Neither of those tests is exactly comparable to the question (or questions, or whose question--let's just say challenge) we are dealing with here.  Whether you believe him of not because he never showed his data and results.  Clark's challenge was to identify A or B 12 times in a row twice.  That is a much tougher test. Clark is asking for you to be able to spot the difference every time because he didn't want someone to win by random chance (10 heads in a row in a coin toss).  I think we would all loved to see his data. It's worth noting that peer reviewed scientific publications would not accept a claim that was unaccompanied by the data.  If memory serves, Clark also reserved the right to equalize the challenger's amp.  The trend of this thread is a direct comparison of two stock models, not a test to see if one can be matched to another.
  
 Which leads to Bob Carver's challenge.  While very ingenuous, it doesn't answer the question we are confronting here (it's been so many pages I can't remember which two amps we were comparing.  I think it was some Schiit with tubes against some solid state amp).  Carver tweaked his amp to sound like another amp.  He clearly proves that a mass market solid state amp can be modified to sound like a very expensive tube amp which in the day was probably considered heresy by the audiophile community.  I think we are talking about a stock out of the box comparison.
  
 I don't believe these two products have been compared by any kind of testing other than looking at specs and listening to them (which is of course what they were designed for).


----------



## jcx

the rational, "scientific" version of "all amps sound alike" has always been subject to the caveats that they have the same frequency response into the same load (include output Z effects)
  
 amps can sound different - most often because you are listening at different volume, frequency responses differ by greater than known thresholds, rarely because of distortion, maybe more often from clipping at different power levels, audible hum, noise differences...


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> Not quite!  Neither of those tests is exactly comparable to the question (or questions, or whose question--let's just say challenge) we are dealing with here.




Challenge would be the better term.

An unsubstantiated claim was made that the two Schiit amplifiers are audibly different.

The challenge has been to substantiate that claim. 

There have been dozens of posts made since then, and after all of that, the claim is no closer to being substantiated than when it was first made.




> I don't believe these two products have been compared by any kind of testing other than looking at specs and listening to them (which is of course what they were designed for).




Nope.

And since it was KeithEmo who made the claim, the onus is upon him to substantiate it. We're still waiting.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

castleofargh said:


> Spoiler: off topic morphine #my-life #carebear
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ha!

The only time I had to enjoy my morphine high was the rather short ride home from the hospital. I just remember being very talkative as if I were drunk.

se


----------



## upstateguy

audiobear said:


> jcx said:
> 
> 
> > a lot of time could be saved by reading up on Clark's Amplifier Challenge - $10k on the line and no winners https://www.google.com/#q=richard+clark+amplifier+challenge
> ...


 
  
 And don't forget, there was David Clark's original Stereophile article:  "Do all Amplifiers sound the same?" Where 25 golden ears couldn't tell the difference between a $219. Pioneer receiver and a pair of $12000. Futterman monoblocks.


----------



## AudioBear

@Steve Eddy
  
 Fair enough. Let's let @KeithEmo respond.


----------



## AudioBear

upstateguy said:


> And don't forget, there was David Clark's original Stereophile article:  "Do all Amplifiers sound the same?" Where 25 golden ears couldn't tell the difference between a $219. Pioneer receiver and a pair of $12000. Futterman monoblocks.


 
 While I am generally inclined to believe that as long as there's no clipping and no unique interactions with the speakers, there are still many who don't.  I don't suppose it's our role in life to enlighten them.  Unfortunately there have been many critics of the study, including small sample size etc.  And the study really doesn't respond to @Keith Emo's claim that the two amps sound different.  I guess we have to ask him if he'll accept the studies you and other have cited. 
  
 It seems pretty clear several of us here accept that amps sound pretty much alike when they are just loafing along on normal source material.


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> @Steve Eddy
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Let's let @KeithEmo respond.




Ok. Let's hope it's not just another large, multi paragraph smoke screen.

se


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> Ok. Let's hope it's not just another large, multi paragraph smoke screen.


 
  
 That first paragraph better be a good one!


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> I guess we have to ask him if he'll accept the studies you and other have cited.




Irrelevant. A null result proves nothing one way or another. That's why, as I've saw before its called a null result instead of a negative result. Citing these other tests is meaningless.

KeithEmo has made a specific claim about two specific amplifiers. The ONLY thing that matters here is that he substantiate that claim. Anything else is a distraction.

se


----------



## bigshot

audiobear said:


> Unfortunately there have been many critics of the study, including small sample size etc.


 
  
 Do you think there is any way to satisfy manufacturers who are trying to get a leg up on the competition?


----------



## AudioBear

roly1650 said:


> There's more than one way to skin a cat, even in rural Northern ID.
> 
> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/13415-null-difference-testing.html
> 
> ...


 

 Null testing has a lot going for it.  Hard to believe that if you can't hear (or see on an instrument) a difference on a null test that you would hear one on an A-B test.  Skeptics, which includes many audiophiles, do come up with all sorts of arguments against null testing and what is and isn't audible.  Not sure if the two amps under discussion do or don't pass a null test, but, more importantly, not sure if the person who made the claim that they could hear a difference would accept a null test.  I would assume that because they heard a difference the test wouldn't tell them anything.  I don't know that my testing approach would either.  Someone who heard a difference could say to me that they didn't care if 200 people couldn't hear a difference, they can.  I didn't stop to think when we got into this whole discussion that it's pretty hard to prove to someone they don't hear something....


----------



## raulromanjr

A good critique of Clark's article
  
http://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-leading-deaf-letter-why-amplifiers-sound-same


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> That first paragraph better be a good one!




Indeed. 

se


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> KeithEmo has made a specific claim about two specific amplifiers. The ONLY thing that matters here is that he substantiate that claim. Anything else is a distraction.


 
  
 I'm concerned about your health and well being... Are you holding your breath? If so, I would encourage you to breathe deeply and bring all that life giving oxygen in!


----------



## AudioBear

steve eddy said:


> Irrelevant. A null result proves nothing one way or another. That's why, as I've saw before its called a null result instead of a negative result. Citing these other tests is meaningless.
> 
> KeithEmo has made a specific claim about two specific amplifiers. The ONLY thing that matters here is that he substantiate that claim. Anything else is a distraction.
> 
> se


 

 Not irrelevant.  They may convince him that he didn't hear a difference.


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> Null testing has a lot going for it.  Hard to believe that if you can't hear (or see on an instrument) a difference on a null test that you would hear one on an A-B test.  Skeptics, which includes many audiophiles, do come up with all sorts of arguments against null testing and what is and isn't audible.  Not sure if the two amps under discussion do or don't pass a null test, but, more importantly, not sure if the person who made the claim that they could hear a difference would accept a null test.  I would assume that because they heard a difference the test wouldn't tell them anything.  I don't know that my testing approach would either.  Someone who heard a difference could say to me that they didn't care if 200 people couldn't hear a difference, they can.  I didn't stop to think when we got into this whole discussion that it's pretty hard to prove to someone they don't hear something....




But it's not anyone's job to prove someone didn't hear something. It's the job of the person who said they did to prove it, with something more than empty hand-waving, jumping up and down and other obfuscations.

That's what's so frustrating for me. KeithEmo is throwing up smoke screens and everyone else is running around in circles instead of keeping focus and simply put the onus on KeithEmo to substantiate his claim.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I'm concerned about your health and well being... Are you holding your breath? If so, I would encourage you to breathe deeply and bring all that life giving oxygen in!




I look like I'm holding my breath, but I'm cheating. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> Not irrelevant.  They may convince him that he didn't hear a difference.




And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass hopping.

se


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> That's what's so frustrating for me. KeithEmo is throwing up smoke screens and everyone else is running around in circles instead of keeping focus and simply put the onus on KeithEmo to substantiate his claim.


 
  
 I've personally done very careful tests, and I haven't found ANYTHING that sounds different than anything else. That goes from the Oppo HA-1 all the way down to a Coby DVD player that cost under $40.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I've personally done very careful tests, and I haven't found ANYTHING that sounds different than anything else. That goes from the Oppo HA-1 all the way down to a Coby DVD player that cost under $40.




Great. But KeithEmo says that he has. So again, the focus should be on his substantiating that claim.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

While we're waiting for the next installment of War and Peace, here's a thread I came across over in the cables etc. forum that probably should have been posted over here. It resulted in my doing a little experiment last night that might be of interest.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/767362/symmetrical-audio-cable-over-single-wire-cable#post_11611386

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> While we're waiting for the next installment of War and Peace, here's a thread I came across over in the cables etc. forum that probably should have been posted over here. It resulted in my doing a little experiment last night that might be of interest.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/767362/symmetrical-audio-cable-over-single-wire-cable#post_11611386
> 
> se


 
 How would the resistance of a single common ground wire in the cable affect crosstalk when using a low impedance headphone? I would think that a high impedance headphone would be able to tolerate a higher single ground lead resistance. In this case, not thinking about any capacitance.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> How would the resistance of a single common ground wire in the cable affect crosstalk when using a low impedance headphone? I would think that a high impedance headphone would be able to tolerate a higher single ground lead resistance. In this case, not thinking about any capacitance.




Hmmm... The answer to that would have to take other things into consideration like the voltage sensitivities of the headphones. 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Hmmm... The answer to that would have to take other things into consideration like the voltage sensitivities of the headphones.
> 
> se


 
 Also the voltage drops (audio) due to the common lead. I think that might be more inportant than capactitance, unless it's severe capacitance. Depending on the headphones I would think that the crosstalk might be affected more by the impedance curve of the headphones affecting the FR of the crosstalk. Some like planars are resistive and some dynamics are relatively flat which mitigates the FR of the crosstalk.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Also the voltage drops (audio) due to the common lead.




That's a given. But the voltage drop is going to be a function of current, and current, if we're going to use some reference SPL, is going to depend on sensitivity. See what I'm saying? 




> I think that might be more inportant than capactitance, unless it's severe capacitance. Depending on the headphones I would think that the crosstalk might be affected more by the impedance curve of the headphones affecting the FR of the crosstalk. Some like planers are resistive and some dynamics are relatively flat which mitigates the FR of the crosstalk.




It would depend on the resistance of that common resistance. Just take some simple math to work it out.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> That's a given. But the voltage drop is going to be a function of current, and current, if we're going to use some reference SPL, is going to depend on sensitivity. See what I'm saying?





> It would depend on the resistance of that common resistance. Just take some simple math to work it out.
> 
> se


 
 As a simple model, if one thinks at a particular frequency, the voltage drop would be as a resistive voltage divider network, both channels. Sensitivity would be how it manifests in SPL.
 The common resistance in addition to the rest forms a resistve mixer manifesting in crosstalk. Assuming one doesn't get into the reactances and impedance curves. I doubt that this is much of a problem with 300 Ohm cans.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> As a simple model, if one thinks at a particular frequency, the voltage drop would be as a resistive voltage divider network, both channels. Sensitivity would be how it manifests in SPL.
> The common resistance in addition to the rest forms a resistve mixer manifesting in crosstalk. Assuming one doesn't get into the reactances and impedance curves. I doubt that this is much of a problem with 300 Ohm cans.




Or the 60 ohm cans I was using.

se


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> Here on the west coast, Turner Classic Movies is airing The Subject Was Roses. So how 'bout we get back to The Subject Was Actual Audibility.
> 
> Before the smoke machines were dragged out, we had two empty-handed claims of actual audibility on the table made by KeithEmo, one concerning digital filters and the other concerning two different Schiit amps.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yes.
  
 The reason "a simple null test" won't resolve these questions is that we're talking about whether something is _audible_ or not.
  
 In the specific case of DAC filters, we already know the results of an electrical null test.... the outputs of the filters are quite obviously electrically different, which is easily seen on an oscilloscope trace, so those differences will show up on a null test. I don't think it takes a huge leap of faith to assume that, if you subtract two different electrical signals that look different on an oscilloscope trace, you will end up with some sort of difference (they won't null to zero). The only way that could fail to be true would be if all the chip vendors who make DACs with multiple filter choices (like Texas Instruments and Wolfson), and all the vendors who sell audio technology that offers multiple filters (like Dolby Labs), were deliberately publishing falsified graphs in their data sheets - which seems rather doubtful. (Find yourself a copy of the Texas Instruments PCM5102a DAC chip data sheet, and compare the Interpolation Filter Impulse Response graphs of the various filters; it's pretty obvious that they are quite different. Of course, since we're talking about impulse response, which only affects signals containing transient (non-steady-state) content, a pure sine wave should be identical when played through the various filters, but non-steady-state signals will not be.)


----------



## Head Injury

keithemo said:


> Yes.
> 
> The reason "a simple null test" won't resolve these questions is that we're talking about whether something is _audible_ or not.
> 
> In the specific case of DAC filters, we already know the results of an electrical null test.... the outputs of the filters are quite obviously electrically different, which is easily seen on an oscilloscope trace, so those differences will show up on a null test. I don't think it takes a huge leap of faith to assume that, if you subtract two different electrical signals that look different on an oscilloscope trace, you will end up with some sort of difference (they won't null to zero). The only way that could fail to be true would be if all the chip vendors who make DACs with multiple filter choices (like Texas Instruments and Wolfson), and all the vendors who sell audio technology that offers multiple filters (like Dolby Labs), were deliberately publishing falsified graphs in their data sheets - which seems rather doubtful. (Find yourself a copy of the Texas Instruments PCM5102a DAC chip data sheet, and compare the Interpolation Filter Impulse Response graphs of the various filters; it's pretty obvious that they are quite different. Of course, since we're talking about impulse response, which only affects signals containing transient (non-steady-state) content, a pure sine wave should be identical when played through the various filters, but non-steady-state signals will not be.)


 

 But you can listen to the non-zero results of the null test between two different DACs or filters to roughly judge whether the differences would be audible in the real world, without a controlled listening test.


----------



## KeithEmo

audiobear said:


> While I am generally inclined to believe that as long as there's no clipping and no unique interactions with the speakers, there are still many who don't.  I don't suppose it's our role in life to enlighten them.  Unfortunately there have been many critics of the study, including small sample size etc.  And the study really doesn't respond to @Keith Emo's claim that the two amps sound different.  I guess we have to ask him if he'll accept the studies you and other have cited.
> 
> It seems pretty clear several of us here accept that amps sound pretty much alike when they are just loafing along on normal source material.


 
  
 Really simple answer.
  
 I agree entirely that, under certain circumstances, most amplifiers will sound quite similar.
  
 However, take two amplifiers, similar in THD and noise specs, but one with a damping factor of 10 (typical of most tube amps), and one with a damping factor of 500 (typical of most solid state amps), and connect both to a speaker with a moderately reactive impedance, and the interactions between the amplifiers and that speaker will cause the frequency response of the speaker to vary by as much as several dB, which even most folks here agree is clearly audible - so, in that situation, those two amplifiers will in fact sound very different. (And we haven't even mentioned things like distortion spectra yet...)
  
 Therefore, I don't doubt at all that you could find plenty of situations, using any number of specific speakers and source material, where none of a good sized sample of test subjects could tell the difference between any of several amplifiers.... but that doesn't prove the general case of "all amplifiers" and "all conditions".
  
 (If you want to claim that "all amplifiers that measure the same sound the same" you will first have to find two amplifiers that measure the same in every measurable way. If you ever do, let me know. The actual fact is that most tube amps measure very different from most solid state amps in all sorts of ways - which is probably why they usually sound different 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 )


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> Yes.
> 
> The reason "a simple null test" won't resolve these questions is that we're talking about whether something is _audible_ or not.




How so? If the residual isn't audible, how can there be an audible difference?




> In the specific case of DAC filters, we already know the results of an electrical null test.... the outputs of the filters are quite obviously electrically different, which is easily seen on an oscilloscope trace, so those differences will show up on a null test. I don't think it takes a huge leap of faith to assume that, if you subtract two different electrical signals that look different on an oscilloscope trace, you will end up with some sort of difference (they won't null to zero).




Never said there would be a zero null. It's whether or not the residual is audible. If the residual isn't audible, how can there be an audible difference?

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

head injury said:


> But you can listen to the non-zero results of the null test between two different DACs or filters to roughly judge whether the differences would be audible in the real world, without a controlled listening test.




I guess he doesn't have much familiarity with null testing with respect to establishing audible differences. 

se


----------



## bigshot

keithemo said:


> Really simple answer. I agree entirely that, under certain circumstances, most amplifiers will sound quite similar. However, take two amplifiers, similar in THD and noise specs, but one with a damping factor of 10 (typical of most tube amps), and one with a damping factor of 500 (typical of most solid state amps), and connect both to a speaker with a moderately reactive impedance, and the interactions between the amplifiers and that speaker will cause the frequency response of the speaker to vary by as much as several dB


 
  
 I think most of us are talking about Solid State amps when we say that all decent amps should sound the same. There are tube amps that are audibly as accurate as solid state ones, but there are plenty that aren't too.
  
 Over the past 40 years in this hobby, I've had a lot of amps, and I have compared all of them. Only one was audibly different. It had a very high noise floor. But it was a cheap receiver I bought in high school in the mid-1970s, so it's long gone now. Since, then every amp I've owned has sounded audibly identical. That is very important to me because I carefully EQ my systems and I want to be able to swap new components in without recalibrating all over again.
  
 By the way, a null test can TOTALLY tell you if something is audibly identical. If you take two sound samples and null them out and result with a tiny bed of sound down at -60dB, you can bet dollars to doughnuts that the two samples are audibly identical.
  
 It all comes down to having a basic understanding of the thresholds of human hearing.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> If you want to claim that "all amplifiers that measure the same sound the same"...




You're being disingenuous again and mischaracterizing the argument.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> How so? If the residual isn't audible, how can there be an audible difference?
> Never said there would be a zero null. It's whether or not the residual is audible. If the residual isn't audible, how can there be an audible difference?
> 
> se


 
 Perhaps we should send him to the forest to hear that tree fall.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Perhaps we should send him to the forest to hear that tree fall.






se


----------



## bigshot

In space no one can hear you scream.
  
  
  
 ...but what about the space between ears?!


----------



## cjl

steve eddy said:


> You're being disingenuous again and mischaracterizing the argument.
> 
> se


 

 Although the statement isn't wrong - all amplifiers that measure the same will sound the same, assuming you took a complete set of measurements. If two amplifiers sound different, they will measure different in some way as well.


----------



## Steve Eddy

I wonder if @KeithEmo could pass Bill Waslo's Sousa band test? 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

cjl said:


> Although the statement isn't wrong - all amplifiers that measure the same will sound the same, assuming you took a complete set of measurements. If two amplifiers sound different, they will measure different in some way as well.




Yes. I just hate people like KeithEmo mischaracterizing the argument as "all amplifiers sound the same." This has been a canard that audiophile's have used for years. 

se


----------



## KeithEmo

steve eddy said:


> How so? If the residual isn't audible, how can there be an audible difference?
> Never said there would be a zero null. It's whether or not the residual is audible. If the residual isn't audible, how can there be an audible difference?
> 
> se


 
  
 That sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> That sounds reasonable to me.




Ok. So now we have a starting point.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

In the meantime, you, or anyone else interested, might want to read Bill Waslo's AES preprint on the subject.

http://libinst.com/AES%20Audio%20Differencing%20Paper.pdf

Bill has also written a program called Audio DiffMaker which allows you perform nulling using two WAV files. Might want to play around with it. 

http://libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

se


----------



## bigshot

cjl said:


> Although the statement isn't wrong - all amplifiers that measure the same will sound the same, assuming you took a complete set of measurements. If two amplifiers sound different, they will measure different in some way as well.


 
  
 I take the practical approach. All amps should sound the same. If they don't something is wrong with them.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I take the practical approach. All amps should sound the same. If they don't something is wrong with them.




Was about to pounce until I noticed the "should." 

se


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I take the practical approach. All amps should sound the same. If they don't something is wrong with them.


 
 "Should" does not equal "do".


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> "Should" does not equal "do".


 

 True. However, the great majority of modern solid state amplifiers, when operated within their designed power limits into their designed load, will sound absolutely identical (and audibly perfect).


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> True. However, the great majority of modern solid state amplifiers, when operated within their designed power limits into their designed load, will sound absolutely identical (and audibly perfect).


 
 Not so easy. I agree that great majority of modern solid state amps, when operated within their designed power limits into designed load, _*should *_sound absolutely identical .  (but not necesary audibly perfect ).
  
 But they simply - don't. However, it takes DIY approach - as commercial designs have to take care about economics first, quality second. A two inch thick gold plated front plate is no guarantee of superiour parts inside ...
  
 Two amps, that are completely equal on paper, can be built VASTLY differently - and will NOT sound the same. Trouble is the fact that the same as in any measurements apply : the rest of the system should be at least one order of magnitude better than device under test. In audio practice, it is GREAT if the rest of the system is even in the same ballpark with the two amps - therefore it IS difficult to hear any difference in lesser systems. Again, there will be no commercialy available units of this grade.


----------



## RRod

@analogsurviver
 The question a newbie would want answered is basically "Will an O2 sound the same as a Magni2 if they're driving the HD800 to the same volume on normal musical material, everything else being equal?" If someone said "yes", would you disagree with them?


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> "Should" does not equal "do".




Yes. Because the "all amplifiers sound the same" has been a huge mischaraterization that audiophiles have been making for years. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> Not so easy. I agree that great majority of modern solid state amps, when operated within their designed power limits into designed load, _*should *_sound absolutely identical .  (but not necesary audibly perfect ).
> 
> But they simply - don't. However, it takes DIY approach - as commercial designs have to take care about economics first, quality second. A two inch thick gold plated front plate is no guarantee of superiour parts inside ...
> 
> Two amps, that are completely equal on paper, can be built VASTLY differently - and will NOT sound the same. Trouble is the fact that the same as in any measurements apply : the rest of the system should be at least one order of magnitude better than device under test. In audio practice, it is GREAT if the rest of the system is even in the same ballpark with the two amps - therefore it IS difficult to hear any difference in lesser systems. Again, there will be no commercialy available units of this grade.




Again a reminder that this is the Sound Science forum. Empty claims don't fly here.

se


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> @analogsurviver
> The question a newbie would want answered is basically "Will an O2 sound the same as a Magni2 if they're driving the HD800 to the same volume on normal musical material, everything else being equal?" If someone said "yes", would you disagree with them?


 
 I have not personally heard an O2 or Magni2 ( IIRC "Cosa Nostra Americana" ) driving the HD800 to the same volume on normal musical material, everything else being equal.
  
 If I had access to the same recording being played on both - and found it "nothing special", I would have no ground disagreeing with those claiming no difference.
  
 When the going gets tough, the tough get going. It is a bit hard to push the amp to anything like audible difference when playing a frequency response limited, compressed pop or deliberately distorted rock track. Anything acoustic with great dynamic range recorded as well as possible stands far greater chance of differentiating among amps.
  
 I am not saying an amp is more important than say a transducer ( although it CAN be - in case of electrostatics at least ), saying they all sound the same is simply not true. I am not going to pretend this difference is easy to DBT/ABX ( we run into the same set of problems described numerous times before ) - yet it would be hard for anyone on this thread to believe the SQ of a refurbished/modified Technics amp can sound THAT much better than its stock counterpart - even if stock unit is refurbished to original spec.
  
 They can sound WORLDS apart.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Again a reminder that this is the Sound Science forum. Empty claims don't fly here.
> 
> se


 
 I will post a "simple circuit" anyone with basic soldering kit can duplicate. Once in basic form, once in "whatever still remotely reasonable" form. And then ZBT the two - if so desired.
  
 It goes way above what ABX can teach one. Yes, ABX is a great tool - but does not explain where the audible differences are coming from.


----------



## RRod

So the next question is then: "What test would you consider adequate to show that two amps are inaudibly different for a specific set of headphones under music-listening conditions?"
  
 ^Posted this before I saw your response to se.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> So the next question is then: "What test would you consider adequate to show that two amps are inaudibly different for a specific set of headphones under music-listening conditions?"
> 
> ^Posted this before I saw your response to se.


 
 I will present/upload another such test - at the moment, it is the high season for recordings and I can not afford the time required for those test(s).
  
 In summer (july/august), there is usually standstill - everybody (musicians ) is on vacation, and will not "gear up" till mid september. Then I will have time for these things.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> I will present/upload another such test - at the moment, it is the high season for recordings and I can not afford the time required for those test(s).
> 
> In summer (july/august), there is usually standstill - everybody (musicians ) is on vacation, and will not "gear up" till mid september. Then I will have time for these things.


 
  
 Not asking you to run them, just describe them.


----------



## analogsurviver

rrod said:


> Not asking you to run them, just describe them.


 
 NO - on purpose. I want to leave you all completely in the dark, to root out any possibility of expectation bias - be it positive or negative. Only sound samples, DBT/ABX - without knowing what are you listening to. Is there a difference or not; if there is one -  which is better. To make it easier (but a bit less effective), this time in 44.1/16.
  
 You will, unfortunately, have to wait.


----------



## davidsh

So what happened to cd mats?


----------



## bigshot

cjl said:


> However, the great majority of modern solid state amplifiers, when operated within their designed power limits into their designed load, will sound absolutely identical (and audibly perfect).


 
  
 I don't see why people even argue this. Why would anybody want an amp that isn't flat and clean? If they don't sound the same, take them back and demand your money back!


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> I will post a "simple circuit" anyone with basic soldering kit can duplicate. Once in basic form, once in "whatever still remotely reasonable" form. And then ZBT the two - if so desired.
> 
> It goes way above what ABX can teach one. Yes, ABX is a great tool - but does not explain where the audible differences are coming from.




YOU HAVEN'T EVEN ESTABLISHED THAT THERE ARE ANY AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES!!!

se


----------



## analogsurviver

davidsh said:


> So what happened to cd mats?


 
 They are still doing great - and will be used in burning CD-Rs of the CDs I am authoring while typing this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
  
 Will get those samples uploaded. I might even decide to do a direct real time digital output from a CD player as uploaded to a PC - but I do not own a PVC with S/PDIF input.
 I will have to go to a friend to do that - and as it is time consuming to "rip" the same song 10 times ...


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> YOU HAVEN'T EVEN ESTABLISHED THAT THERE ARE ANY AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES!!!
> 
> se


 
 Oh - are you saying I can not detect - say - the temperature difference of the same amount of freshly made coffee after one hour - half of it in some super thermo bottle, the other half in an empty Cola bottle, at -10 degrees Centigrade air temperature ?


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> Oh - are you saying I can not detect - say - the temperature difference of the same amount of freshly made coffee after one hour - half of it in some super thermo bottle, the other half in an empty Cola bottle, at -10 degrees Centigrade air temperature ?


 
 You can demonstrate that's possible in a test. You could also demonstrate it by measuring their respective temperatures and looking at human sensitivity to temperature differences.
  
 Where has the equivalent been done for audio?


----------



## analogsurviver

cjl said:


> You can demonstrate that's possible in a test. You could also demonstrate it by measuring their respective temperatures and looking at human sensitivity to temperature differences.
> 
> Where has the equivalent been done for audio?


 
 If it has not been already, it will be - in these pages. Please see the post or two above regarding time etc


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I don't see why people even argue this. Why would anybody want an amp that isn't flat and clean? If they don't sound the same, take them back and demand your money back!


 
 Not so easy.
  
 I did not say that I deliberarately want an amp that isn't flat and clean in order to produce an audible difference.
 But I will try to prove that even flatter and even cleaner, but above all, more DYNAMIC amp - does sound better. Even if  the circuit diagram is the same for both.


----------



## AudioBear

Explsin dynamic in an amp-- what's that about. Also fast is another adjective i dont get. Arent all signals from music sources dyamic and as fast as they need to be to reproduce the right frequency. More importantly, if not please explain in physical terms.


----------



## GrindingThud

What specifically is "more DYNAMIC"? Do we mean SFDR, dynamic range, slew rate? What are the units of more dynamic....


----------



## bigshot

The only way an amp can affect dynamics is if it is underpowered for the job. If you put in a signal that is at peak level and one that is -60dB, it should come out the other end with a 60dB difference too. If it doesn't there is something wrong with the amp.


----------



## analogsurviver

grindingthud said:


> What specifically is "more DYNAMIC"? Do we mean SFDR, dynamic range, slew rate? What are the units of more dynamic....


 
 In principle, dB.
  
 SFDR - please explanation (not a native English speaker ) !


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> The only way an amp can affect dynamics is if it is underpowered for the job. If you put in a signal that is at peak level and one that is -60dB, it should come out the other end with a 60dB difference too. If it doesn't there is something wrong with the amp.


 
 Correct. In principle - and up to a point. 
  
 Trouble is, very few people realize the core of the SQ problem lies at low levels  - at -60 dB and below. An amp that is OK down to at least -100 dB will be better than one that is only OK say to -70 dB. Remember, static noise with no signal present is NOT the true indication that the said amp will work well all the way down in level to its published spec for noise level.


----------



## GrindingThud

Ah, ok. SFDR is spur free dynamic range.

When you day dB, what are you comparing...dB relative to what? dB is just a ratio of two things on a logarithmic scale.



analogsurviver said:


> In principle, dB.
> 
> SFDR - please explanation (not a native English speaker ) !


----------



## cjl

analogsurviver said:


> If it has not been already, it will be - in these pages. Please see the post or two above regarding time etc


 
 OK, great. When you have conclusive test results, then by all means, make whatever claims you can support. Until then, stop spamming every thread in Sound Science with them.


----------



## bigshot

Inaudible is inaudible. -60dB and below is inaudible under music.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> Inaudible is inaudible. -60dB and below is inaudible under music.


 
 Except for our bud AS. Looking at some recent posts, I'm starting to think he listens to noise.


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> Correct. In principle - and up to a point.
> 
> Trouble is, very few people realize the core of the SQ problem lies at low levels  - at -60 dB and below. An amp that is OK down to at least -100 dB will be better than one that is only OK say to -70 dB. Remember, static noise with no signal present is NOT the true indication that the said amp will work well all the way down in level to its published spec for noise level.




Remember, the instantaneous dynamic range of human hearing is only about 30-40 dB.

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

bigshot said:


> I've personally done very careful tests, and I haven't found ANYTHING that sounds different than anything else. That goes from the Oppo HA-1 all the way down to a Coby DVD player that cost under $40.


 
  That should provide you with an extraordinarily cheap audio system. I envy that.


----------



## bigshot

Do the legwork and save the money yourself!
  
 But I have to warn you, my transducers aren't cheap


----------



## Exacoustatowner

bigshot said:


> Do the legwork and save the money yourself!
> 
> But I have to warn you, my transducers aren't cheap



Sony Walkman CD via free RCA cables to $200 A/V and lamp cord to high end Magnepans? Or computer with mp3?  Close?


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Except for our bud AS. Looking at some recent posts, I'm starting to think he listens to noise.


 
 In a way, you are - correct.
  
 Except it is the noise of the music - reflections off the walls of the venue the music is being performed/recorded in - and as faithful reproduction of these as it gets in the home. It adds a whole new dimension towards achieving "you are there" sensation.
  
 For that, electronics has to be OK at least an order of magnitude better than "required" -60 dB dynamic range for music - and that is -80 dB ( voltage logarithmic scale ).
 That 60 dB dynamic range ( or instantaneous 30-40 dB dynamic range perception of humans ) is questionable - and I think it can be trained to much better figures - similar to the difference between a "normal" human being and a professional musician. Most of my audio buddies listen at higher AVERAGE levels than me - yet the peaks they are getting are far lower in amplitude. And are consistently startled at how loud acoustic music can be heard live - no volume control to turn up or down as per personal liking during a real concert ...
  
 It never ceases to amaze me to experience young yuppies to jump/jolt at loud(er) parts during a live performance of a dynamic classical work 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
 It must be quite a shock - after listening to the same work at home as a "preparation" to the concert -  from a _*tamed (CD)  *_recording...


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> In a way, you are - correct.
> 
> Except it is the noise of the music - reflections off the walls of the venue the music is being performed/recorded in - and as faithful reproduction of these as it gets in the home. It adds a whole new dimension towards achieving "you are there" sensation.
> 
> ...


 
 Noise of music, a new distraction. Training humans to exceed their limitations. All conjecture. Now youre picking on yuppies. I doubt that many of the younger headbanging crowd listens to much classical music or even care for it. I'll agree and widen the scope that many if not most people listen to compressed music with louder average listening levels and lower peaks, however, I do not have any supporting evidence.


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> It never ceases to amaze me to experience young yuppies to jump/jolt at loud(er) parts during a live performance of a dynamic classical work
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 No sh**, we're not as deaf as you guys. Exactly the same reason why when I scream at old people, they can hear me just enough, but the opposite will make me angry.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Noise of music, a new distraction. Training humans to exceed their limitations. All conjecture. Now youre picking on yuppies. I doubt that many of the younger headbanging crowd listens to much classical music or even care for it. I'll agree and widen the scope that many if not most people listen to compressed music with louder average listening levels and lower peaks, however, I do not have any supporting evidence.


 
 Now - would you not - even once - want to hear the music in the venue it was intended for ? Many people have told me it is hard to understand Bruckner - until you step into the church where he spent most of his life as a organ player. It is ENOUGH - even with no music playing - they all say. 
  
 I did pick on yuppies - because back in the days of my CD retail, it was always a good practice to have in stock what was coming up on concert programmes. And quite a few of the customers were - yuppies. Nothing wrong with that - commendable even - but I did describe the reaction that is customary to the difference between music "canned usual style" and live music. And in no way only yuppies react that way - I merely singled out them as the most numerous group that fits this description.
  
 I agree there is not much that can be done about headbanging crowd - but then again, where else in pop music are you going to hear so much Bach as in - metal ? OK, easier stuff - but still - Bach. If at least few percent of these metal listeners turn to real Bach later in their lives - Mission still accomplished.
  
 No supporting evidence of compressed classical recordings ? Pick up any DG catalogue - and if you can dig more than 10% out that was not compressed, I am - Pope. Or whoever or whatever I can not possibly be in real life.
  
 Then play some well recorded Telarc of the same work .  There is your evidence.
  
 Which, unfortunately, does not bode well with the ways this world is turning in commercial $en$e. As far as I know, Telarc went belly up - and DGG caravan will continue marching, barking the likes of me notwithstanding.
 Like Madonna is singing : Man with the cold hard ca$h is always right - and DGG always pays the musicians on spot.
  
 Regarding training people to above their expected limitations - would you not agree that a musician can "endure" more dynamic range in sound than a person pulled out of the street at random ? If that person was per chance a lumberjack - would you not agree he would have had better "dynamic range in cutting down trees" than a "common" musician ?
  
 It all depends - once Emerson Fittipaldi ( famous car driver, Formula 1 world champ, etc, etc ) took his mum for a spin with a Porsche 917 (a two seater ) IIRC in Interlagos. Slow, gentle spin in _his _view.
  
 His mum did not say a - word. Because she passed out - in the first few corners ... - and came back to her senses once the car was already parked in the pit.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> :
> I agree there is not much that can be done about headbanging crowd - but then again, where else in pop music are you going to hear so much Bach as in - metal ? OK, easier stuff - but still - Bach. If at least few percent of these metal listeners turn to real Bach later in their lives - Mission still accomplished.
> 
> :
> ...


 
 Wendy/Walter Carlos, Switched on Bach. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've known Walter and Wendy, before and after the conversion.
 Many musicans can endure higher volume because they have damaged hearing and have trouble with lower volumes so I'm not sure they have a truly enhanced DR.
 Lets leave race cars out of this, not a good analogy for audio. I'll bet that Madonna's mother would have passed out if she saw her daughter's antics on stage, yes another irrelevant statement.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Wendy/Walter Carlos, Switched on Bach.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Fair enough answer. I also know a few musicians whose hearing at lower volumes is gone due to too loud gigs - but not in the acoustic genres.
  
 Yet there are musicians with enhanced DR - and they are quite keen on saving/preserving their hearing, exposing themselves to loud sound only if and when absolutely unavoidable.
  
 I'm no fan of Madonna, but that statement of Mr. Cold Hard Ca$h unfortunately does stand any scrutiny.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Fair enough answer. I also know a few musicians whose hearing at lower volumes is gone due to too loud gigs - but not in the acoustic genres.
> 
> Yet there are musicians with enhanced DR - and they are quite keen on saving/preserving their hearing, exposing themselves to loud sound only if and when absolutely unavoidable.
> 
> I'm no fan of Madonna, but that statement of Mr. Cold Hard Ca$h unfortunately does stand any scrutiny.


 
 How is it that a person can enhance their DR? This is not related to muscle growth. Preservation, yes.
 I wonder how Madonna's daughter is going to or does handle the inevitable teasing from classmates. The source material is endless.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> How is it that a person can enhance their DR? This is not related to muscle growth. Preservation, yes.
> I wonder how Madonna's daughter is going to or does handle the inevitable teasing from classmates. The source material is endless.


 
 Hard to tell - but if you subject a non expecting person to a really high DR, he/she will , inevitably, react negatively at first. In time, the "acceptance" DR becomes larger. 
  
 I would not like it being in Madonna daughter's shoes - but who knows, she might decide to _significantly outdo _her mother 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## cjl

steve eddy said:


> Remember, the instantaneous dynamic range of human hearing is only about 30-40 dB.
> 
> se


 

 I think it's a little better than that - running tests on my own, I've successfully a/b'd samples with distortion added down to about -54dB or so, and -40dB was pretty easy to hear on certain samples. Of course, that was carefully chosen samples, specific types of especially obnoxious distortion, and a fairly high (but not excessively high) listening level.
  
 Of course, 60ish dB is well within the capability of cheap electronics and 16/44 PCM.


----------



## Roly1650

analogsurviver said:


> Hard to tell - but if you subject a non expecting person to a really high DR, he/she will , inevitably, react negatively at first. In time, the "acceptance" DR becomes larger.
> 
> I would not like it being in Madonna daughter's shoes - but who knows, she might decide to _significantly outdo _her mother  .




The acoustic reflex (also known as the stapedius reflex, middle-ear-muscles (MEM) reflex, attenuation reflex, or auditory reflex) is an *involuntary muscle contraction that occurs in the middle ear in response to high-intensity sound stimuli or when the person starts to vocalize.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_reflex

From this, I would infer that the yuppies jump because their hearing and defense mechanism is better than yours, as @dazzerfong has already intimated. It's an involuntary reflex, that would imply that if resistance to loud sounds is building up hearing ability is going down. I can't see how you can have it both ways. I'm pretty sure an audiologist would tell you, whatever your hearing ability is today it'll be worse tomorrow, particularly if you continue to subject yourself to loud sounds.

On a similar note, Sean Olive et al at Harmon report that they train their listening panels, but this is to improve listening ability, not hearing ability, two completely different things.

You keep citing musicians as your gold standard, but the evidence I've seen doesn't support you. Most seem to show that musicians have no better ability than the general population in blind tests when asked to pick A from B and I've seen a study which shows musicians, recording engineers and audio reviewers may actually be worse than the general population. Maybe the continual exposure to loud sounds is responsible, the science tends to indicate there may be some truth in that.

Here's the first one I found, there are others : http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html*


----------



## analogsurviver

roly1650 said:


> The acoustic reflex (also known as the stapedius reflex, middle-ear-muscles (MEM) reflex, attenuation reflex, or auditory reflex) is an *involuntary muscle contraction that occurs in the middle ear in response to high-intensity sound stimuli or when the person starts to vocalize.
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_reflex
> 
> ...


 
 Good post - and thank you for the links. I will go trough them ASAP.


----------



## Steve Eddy

cjl said:


> I think it's a little better than that - running tests on my own, I've successfully a/b'd samples with distortion added down to about -54dB or so, and -40dB was pretty easy to hear on certain samples. Of course, that was carefully chosen samples, specific types of especially obnoxious distortion, and a fairly high (but not excessively high) listening level.
> 
> Of course, 60ish dB is well within the capability of cheap electronics and 16/44 PCM.




You did this double blind? And I wasn't referring to signal-correlated distortion. I was referring to noise. The issue was dynamic range. 

se


----------



## Speedskater

Many of us think of 'noise' as something that is not related to the musical signal.


----------



## Steve Eddy

speedskater said:


> Many of us think of 'noise' as something that is not related to the musical signal.




I think of it as my mother in law. 

se


----------



## bigshot

cjl said:


> I think it's a little better than that - running tests on my own, I've successfully a/b'd samples with distortion added down to about -54dB or so, and -40dB was pretty easy to hear on certain samples. Of course, that was carefully chosen samples, specific types of especially obnoxious distortion, and a fairly high (but not excessively high) listening level.


 
  
 He was talking about dynamics there... When you listen to music at a loud volume, and immediately switch to a low volume, you are less able to hear the low volume than after your ears have had time to adjust to listening at a low volume. It's kind of like walking from a dark room to a fully lit one. You're blinded for a moment. People generally can only listen to about 40dB of dynamics at a time. Anything down below -40 tends to fade away under the peaks.
  
 In the silence between tracks or quiet passages you are more likely to hear things below -40 because there's no dynamics covering them up.


----------



## cjl

steve eddy said:


> You did this double blind? And I wasn't referring to signal-correlated distortion. I was referring to noise. The issue was dynamic range.
> 
> se


 
 Yes, I did, though my detection threshold for distortion depended highly on the type of distortion, the type of the music, and the volume level of the main signal. The lowest I could reliably detect was around -54dB (around 0.2%, if I did the math right), but for most types of distortion, the threshold was significantly above that.


----------



## StanD

Here's a good theory on DACs, NOT.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/551345/hifiman-he-500-he-as-in-high-end-proving-to-be-an-enjoyable-experience-in-listening/16185#post_11622787


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> He was talking about dynamics there... When you listen to music at a loud volume, and immediately switch to a low volume, you are less able to hear the low volume than after your ears have had time to adjust to listening at a low volume. It's kind of like walking from a dark room to a fully lit one. You're blinded for a moment. People generally can only listen to about 40dB of dynamics at a time. Anything down below -40 tends to fade away under the peaks.
> 
> In the silence between tracks or quiet passages you are more likely to hear things below -40 because there's no dynamics covering them up.


 
 Yes, and I'm talking about hearing a signal 54dB below the main signal while the main signal is playing (since that's effectively what distortion is). If you listen at a loud volume and immediately switch to a low volume, I'd bet it'd be even a bit higher than that, though nowhere close to the ~100dB that 16/44 is capable of.


----------



## Steve Eddy

cjl said:


> Yes, I did, though my detection threshold for distortion depended highly on the type of distortion, the type of the music, and the volume level of the main signal. The lowest I could reliably detect was around -54dB (around 0.2%, if I did the math right), but for most types of distortion, the threshold was significantly above that.




Ok. Yes, distortion is a different matter. Because you're not just dealing with harmonic distortion but intermod as well which spreads out the distortion product so they're not as easily masked and because of the averaging of our ears allows us to actually hear things that are below the noise floor. 

Though my response had to do with dynamic range, which involves noise rather than signal correlated distortion.

se


----------



## bigshot

Well, I just do like everyone else on HeadFi... whenever a threshold is mentioned, I decide that I can hear a little bit beyond that threshold!


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Well, I just do like everyone else on HeadFi... whenever a threshold is mentioned, I decide that I can hear a little bit beyond that threshold!




Exactly what threshold are we talking about here? You two may be talking at cross purposes.

se


----------



## bigshot

EVERY threshold! I HEAR THE UNHEARABLE!


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> EVERY threshold! I HEAR THE UNHEARABLE!


 
 Wiseguy.


----------



## bigshot

If you can't beat em, join em!


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> If you can't beat em, join em!


 
 Does that mean you've become a cable guy? Silver or Unobtanium?


----------



## bigshot

I'm tapping my foot to hyper audible frequencies as we speak!


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> I'm tapping my foot to hyper audible frequencies as we speak!


 
 Are you sitting on a CD Mat as you listen?


----------



## bigshot

My ears have been colored by green marker pens!


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Does that mean you've become a cable guy? Silver or Unobtanium?


 
 Opening his _long _coat :
  
 Psst - audio cables 2die4 ? Silver, Nonexistium , Unobtainium ?


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Opening his _long _coat :
> 
> Psst - audio cables 2die4 ? Silver, Nonexistium , Unobtainium ?




what you talkin' about? oil filled cables!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> what you talkin' about? oil filled cables!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 
 Just preparing for the worst - if friend's olive orchard goes under
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





...


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Opening his _long _coat :
> 
> Psst - audio cables 2die4 ? Silver, Nonexistium , Unobtainium ?


 
 You forgot Craplastic jacketing.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> You forgot Craplastic jacketing.




How about clearview ribbon interconnects!


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> Just preparing for the worst - if friend's olive orchard goes under:rolleyes: ...




Better not try using it on your salad. Might be mineral oil instead of olive oil :basshead:


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Better not try using it on your salad. Might be mineral oil instead of olive oil


 
 According to the manufacturer, it IS olive oil, refined to n-th degree ...http://www.head-fi.org/t/466253/olive-oil-injected-rca-cable/45 post # 48
  
 Of course it was a joke - I'm not going to use cable oil - whatever it really is - on my salad ...


----------



## cel4145

analogsurviver said:


> According to the manufacturer, it IS olive oil, refined to n-th degree ...http://www.head-fi.org/t/466253/olive-oil-injected-rca-cable/45 post # 48
> 
> Of course it was a joke - I'm not going to use cable oil - whatever it really is - on my salad ...




Yuck. Rancid olive oil on your salad (it ain't gonna keep forever) would be foul, too :etysmile:


----------



## analogsurviver

cel4145 said:


> Yuck. Rancid olive oil on your salad (it ain't gonna keep forever) would be foul, too


 
 I think we're about to share Nobel Prize - for actually inventing Perpetuum Mobile on these Oil Filled Cables


----------



## AudioBear

cel4145 said:


> Yuck. Rancid olive oil on your salad (it ain't gonna keep forever) would be foul, too


 

 Although mineral oil would have been a better choice, if the plastic case is high Oxygen barrier film the olive oil will not oxidize and go bad. Even if it wasn't sterilized before they put it in there there are many microbes that would grow in it.  Thus the oil would probably not get yucky and would be a reasonable choice for an insulator.  But why? This defies the wire is a wire mantra more than any silver coated unobtainium wire I have ever seen.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

I think a gas impermeable sleeve of 100% HELIUM  around the wire would make sure it _remains _Oxygen Free. This eliminates the NEED for Cable Lifts to prevent the cable from touching the floor since the cable would FLOAT in mid-air. Slam Dunk! It might have to be a large diameter sleeve to provide enough lift-but that just makes it more enticing.,


----------



## castleofargh

and now audio will become expensive mostly because of the insurance policy.
 "are you wireless?"   YES/NO
 if you check NO the policy cost 50 times as much and includes olive oil poisoning and hindenburg's cabling mishap.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> and now audio will become expensive mostly because of the insurance policy.
> "are you wireless?"   YES/NO
> if you check YES the policy cost 50 times as much and includes olive oil poisoning and hindenburg's cabling mishap.



Hah hah.
The well known Hindenburg Cabling mishap involved a cheap knockoff of my Helium Lift Cables using the cheaper Hydrogen and cheap oxidized copper-which catalyzed a conflagration! Tragically, the cables ignited in midair!


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> Hah hah.
> The well known Hindenburg Cabling mishap involved a cheap knockoff of my Helium Lift Cables using the cheaper Hydrogen and cheap oxidized copper-which catalyzed a conflagration! Tragically, the cables ignited in midair!




You're both wrong. It was simply because they weren't cryo treated and properly broken in.

se


----------



## AudioBear

They didn't lay the cables straight and let the crystals align properly.


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> They didn't lay the cables straight and let the crystals align properly.




Speaking of crystals, how about crystals for business success?








se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

steve eddy said:


> You're both wrong. It was simply because they weren't cryo treated and properly broken in.
> 
> se


 
 Slaps self on forehead! Of course!


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> Slaps self on forehead! Of course!




Don't see how you guys overlooked it. Perhaps it was just too obvious.

se


----------



## cel4145

audiobear said:


> Although mineral oil would have been a better choice, if the plastic case is high Oxygen barrier film the olive oil will not oxidize and go bad. Even if it wasn't sterilized before they put it in there there are many microbes that would grow in it.  Thus the oil would probably not get yucky and would be a reasonable choice for an insulator.  But why? This defies the wire is a wire mantra more than any silver coated unobtainium wire I have ever seen.




You ruined my fun with your science explanation. 

But wait. Now we know why exotic cable lovers and people that swear more expensive dac/amps are better get upset with audio science--we ruin their fun!


----------



## bigshot

cel4145 said:


>


----------



## OddE

steve eddy said:


> Speaking of crystals, how about crystals for business success?


 
  
 -Note the exquisite language: 'some people believe...' '...is reputed to...', etc, etc - from the looks of it, someone knows how to not make claims which will open for claiming they make unsubstantiated claims...


----------



## analogsurviver

Ну погоди...


----------



## StanD

Olive oil filled cables, what a stroke of marketing genius. Once the oil goes rancid, one must buy a new cable or the treble goes flat and the soundstage shrinks. Each cable should come with an expiration date. That date could be used to forecast sales. EVOO could demand a premium price.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Olive oil filled cables, what a stroke of marketing genius. Once the oil goes rancid, one must buy a new cable or the treble goes flat and the soundstage shrinks. Each cable should come with an expiration date. That date could be used to forecast sales. EVOO could demand a premium price.


 
 Well, it appears the manufacturer of oil filled silver(plated copper) has really missed an opportunity. Five years and counting -  NO change whatsoever. Still works flawless ...
  
 They must have run out of expiration date tags prior delivery. How does one write "bummer" in Chinese ?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

steve eddy said:


> audiobear said:
> 
> 
> > They didn't lay the cables straight and let the crystals align properly.
> ...


 

 JUST GREAT!...is it good for audio?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

I think the many Head-Fi members have the problem described here http://www.paranormalsocieties.com/articles/emf-and-the-paranormal.cfm


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> Well, it appears the manufacturer of oil filled silver(plated copper) has really missed an opportunity. Five years and counting -  NO change whatsoever. Still works flawless ...
> 
> They must have run out of expiration date tags prior delivery. How does one write "bummer" in Chinese ?


 
 They printed the tags on fortune cookie papers and couldn't figure out how to get then to stick to the cables. The message is, "Bummer, your cable will expire on......"


----------



## Exacoustatowner

audiobear said:


> They didn't lay the cables straight and let the crystals align properly.



And they were not aligned with Magnetic North. That makes a huge difference when the Spring constellations are visible!


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> And they were not aligned with Magnetic North. That makes a huge difference when the Spring constellations are visible!


 
 Guys - you will, eventually, outdo Vivaldi himself (3 concerts in 400 variations, or 4 in 300 variations ) - on one SINGLE cable design
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





!


----------



## KeithEmo

exacoustatowner said:


> And they were not aligned with Magnetic North. That makes a huge difference when the Spring constellations are visible!


 
  
 Just to be technically accurate here, by that do you mean "when you can actually see the constellations" or "when the constellations are 'visible in the current night sky' ". This could make a huge difference when, for instance, it is the proper season for a given constellation to be visible, but it is overcast - so you can't see it _at the moment_, or if you happen to be listening in the daytime. In fact, does that mean that maybe you should use different cables depending on the season, or for daytime and nighttime listening? This stuff is important!


----------



## bigshot

My consternation is visible!


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> My consternation is visible!




*averts his eyes*

se


----------



## wink

That's a sight that cannot be unseen........


----------



## castleofargh

keithemo said:


> exacoustatowner said:
> 
> 
> > And they were not aligned with Magnetic North. That makes a huge difference when the Spring constellations are visible!
> ...


 

 obviously the stars are at the other side of the planet during daytime. else we would see them.
 (we're not helping the IQ of the forum much, but I have a lot of fun reading this topic)


----------



## Steve Eddy

wink said:


> That's a sight that cannot be unseen........   :blink:




Or as my business partner likes to say, it's like seeing grandma naked. 

se


----------



## bigshutterbug

That was a fantastic post, and I applaude you for taking the time to research and put all of that together. What I have concluded with such comparisons is that the chances of being able to accurately pick out slight changes increases dramatically if you are listening to a system you are very familiar with, along with listening to recordings you are also familiar with. Subtle changes are easier for me to hear in my personal system of course.  Listening for slight changes in systems I have not spent a lot of time with can be much more difficult for me. Changes in tone with different cables is common, and my personal taste in cables has a lot to do with how they change the tone for better or worse, regarding my own personal preference for tone and what tens to be pleasing to me. Everyone has different preference...Some like things up-front and lively, and want to be "on the edge of their seats" when listening, others can prefer more relaxed. I can easily hear tone changes with interconnects, speaker wire, AC cables, digital cables and even fuses in my system. 
 I have met MANY audiophiles that have poor hearing, or a hard time hearing music at normal, live acoustic levels. I have been to dozens of people's houses in our local audiophile group (around 100 members), and noticed that many of them listen at very high SPL levels, to the point of doing serious hearing damage. I asked them if this was a"normal" level for them, and it usually was. Quite a few of them have hearing damage from constant exposure to 100db+ listening, and when turned down to 70 or 80db, they can not even tell what music is playing. They have a very hard time hearing subtle tonal, detail or soundstage details, but may of them have $50k+ systems in beautifully designed, dedicated rooms. Most of the members have an equal love for music, be it concert level rock, classical, jazz etc... Listening preferences, systems, and budgets vary wildly, and We have heard some fantastic sounding $1k systems, along with both excellent and very poor sounding $50k+ systems. Our goals of acheiving pleasing sound is often very personal, and differ greatly.


----------



## bigshot

bigshutterbug said:


> What I have concluded with such comparisons is that the chances of being able to accurately pick out slight changes increases dramatically if you are listening to a system you are very familiar with, along with listening to recordings you are also familiar with.


 
  
 What info in the original post are you basing that conclusion on?


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshutterbug said:


> That was a fantastic post, and I applaude you for taking the time to research and put all of that together. What I have concluded with such comparisons is that the chances of being able to accurately pick out slight changes increases dramatically if you are listening to a system you are very familiar with, along with listening to recordings you are also familiar with. Subtle changes are easier for me to hear in my personal system of course.  Listening for slight changes in systems I have not spent a lot of time with can be much more difficult for me. Changes in tone with different cables is common, and my personal taste in cables has a lot to do with how they change the tone for better or worse, regarding my own personal preference for tone and what tens to be pleasing to me. Everyone has different preference...Some like things up-front and lively, and want to be "on the edge of their seats" when listening, others can prefer more relaxed. I can easily hear tone changes with interconnects, speaker wire, AC cables, digital cables and even fuses in my system.
> I have met MANY audiophiles that have poor hearing, or a hard time hearing music at normal, live acoustic levels. I have been to dozens of people's houses in our local audiophile group (around 100 members), and noticed that many of them listen at very high SPL levels, to the point of doing serious hearing damage. I asked them if this was a"normal" level for them, and it usually was. Quite a few of them have hearing damage from constant exposure to 100db+ listening, and when turned down to 70 or 80db, they can not even tell what music is playing. They have a very hard time hearing subtle tonal, detail or soundstage details, but may of them have $50k+ systems in beautifully designed, dedicated rooms. Most of the members have an equal love for music, be it concert level rock, classical, jazz etc... Listening preferences, systems, and budgets vary wildly, and We have heard some fantastic sounding $1k systems, along with both excellent and very poor sounding $50k+ systems. Our goals of acheiving pleasing sound is often very personal, and differ greatly.




The late Tom Nousaine set up ABX comparators in a number of audiophiles' homes, so that they could use their own equipment, listen for as long as they wanted, test whenever they wanted, etc.

Nada.

The wait continues...

se


----------



## Ruben123

Why buying cables for different sound as you could also buy better speakers?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

keithemo said:


> Just to be technically accurate here, by that do you mean "when you can actually see the constellations" or "when the constellations are 'visible in the current night sky' ". This could make a huge difference when, for instance, it is the proper season for a given constellation to be visible, but it is overcast - so you can't see it _at the moment_, or if you happen to be listening in the daytime. In fact, does that mean that maybe you should use different cables depending on the season, or for daytime and nighttime listening? This stuff is important!  :rolleyes:



Good catch Keith. Cables should be rotated at least seasonally. They need a rest to drain any free electrons that tend aggregate otherwise forming electron balls. These powerful foci of negative charge can disrupt the natural flow of music-which makes the music sound congested


----------



## jodgey4

bigshot said:


>




I bet you didn't even use sustainably sourced fish on organic diets for cleaner transients. Disgusting, bigshot!


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> My consternation is visible!


 
 Is that next to the CD Mat Globular Cluster?


----------



## bigshutterbug

I was just stating the above from my own personal experience, of trying such comparisons on other systems that I was not too familiar with sonically.


----------



## bigshot

You realize of course that this thread is all about controlled testing not just informal impressions, right?


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> You realize of course that this thread is all about controlled testing not just informal impressions, right?


 
 Not uncontrolled imagination? True Audiophiles will be sorely dissapointed.


----------



## bigshutterbug

Yes. I am very familiar with the scientific method and testing. Unfortunately, the enjoyment of music is not a science as you know. I was just stating that listening and the perception of sound varies quite a bit between individuals. Humans are all biased, sonically speaking.


----------



## StanD

bigshutterbug said:


> Yes. I am very familiar with the scientific method and testing. Unfortunately, the enjoyment of music is not a science as you know. I was just stating that listening and the perception of sound varies quite a bit between individuals. Humans are all biased, sonically speaking.


 
 I prefer reality to the realization of biased expectations. I've learned to listen properly and compare properly.


----------



## bigshot

bigshutterbug said:


> Yes. I am very familiar with the scientific method and testing. Unfortunately, the enjoyment of music is not a science as you know. I was just stating that listening and the perception of sound varies quite a bit between individuals. Humans are all biased, sonically speaking.


 
  
 But accurate sound reproduction *is* measurable and quantifiable. We aren't talking about enjoyment or individual subjective impressions, we're talking about accurate sound reproduction.


----------



## dazzerfong

bigshutterbug said:


> Yes. I am very familiar with the scientific method and testing. Unfortunately, the enjoyment of music is not a science as you know. I was just stating that listening and the perception of sound varies quite a bit between individuals. Humans are all biased, sonically speaking.


 
 We know, but this is the wrong place to talk about it, unfortunately. No-one here is daft enough to say musical enjoyment is purely science.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshutterbug said:


> Yes. I am very familiar with the scientific method and testing. Unfortunately, the enjoyment of music is not a science as you know. I was just stating that listening and the perception of sound varies quite a bit between individuals. Humans are all biased, sonically speaking.




Yes, but whether or not something is actually audible doesn't depend on the individual. That's something that holds true for everyone.

se


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


>




So this means fish oil would be better than olive oil for interconnects, right? :etysmile:


----------



## Exacoustatowner

Ok, I'm new to the thread but "Power Cord upgrades???" I can imagine the benefit of filtering voltage spikes, etc. But the wire conducting 120 (or 240 I suppose) volts alternating current? Audiophile Power Cords? 
I'm going to suggest the poster have an audiophile power plant built with Silver transmission lines and audiophile transformers all the way! Gold Sockets?


----------



## castleofargh

exacoustatowner said:


> Ok, I'm new to the thread but "Power Cord upgrades???" I can imagine the benefit of filtering voltage spikes, etc. But the wire conducting 120 (or 240 I suppose) volts alternating current? Audiophile Power Cords?
> I'm going to suggest the poster have an audiophile power plant built with Silver transmission lines and audiophile transformers all the way! Gold Sockets?


 

 and obviously the guy should move to live very close to a power plant. shorter cable is always better. if you're even a little serious about audio you have to move closer. "everybody" knows that much.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> and obviously the guy should move to live very close to a power plant. shorter cable is always better. if you're even a little serious about audio you have to move closer. "everybody" knows that much.


 
 And if you live VERY close they can send DC instead of AC since the losses will be reasonable when living right next to the Nuclear Power Plant.This can reduce distortion due to transformers. The other option is using "oversampling" and increase the A/C frequency from 50 or 60 hz to say 8X- "then downsampling" to 50 or 60 hz at the end! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Sorry- a poster is insisting that the $449 Lyr needs a $350  POWER cable to sound right. IF you have bad wiring, etc, I could imagine a power conditioner being helpful, 
 I'm going to do a search-I'm sure this has been discussed here already….


----------



## Exacoustatowner

cel4145 said:


> So this means fish oil would be better than olive oil for interconnects, right?


 
 It's obvious-is it not?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

ruben123 said:


> Why buying cables for different sound as you could also buy better speakers?


 
 Now that's just crazy talk!


----------



## bigshutterbug

Yes, I can see where this is going now. I am new to this forum, and appologize for not understanding the goal of this discussion.


----------



## jodgey4

bigshutterbug said:


> Yes, I can see where this is going now. I am new to this forum, and appologize for not understanding the goal of this discussion.


 
 It's not going anywhere, and there are no goals... this thread is nearly a lost cause. You're okay .


----------



## castleofargh

people are very serious most of the time around here, but we do experience some nervous breakdown for a few pages from time to time.
 I know I blame the aliens when it happens to me.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> people are very serious most of the time around here, but we do experience some nervous breakdown for a few pages from time to time.
> I know I blame the aliens when it happens to me.


 
 Bigshutterbug- I don't see *your *posts as pseudoscience. Hard or impossible to MEASURE?
 I DO think there *may be *some properties of the reproduction chain we are not measuring-that MAY affect the final sound. Mostly in the realm of image localization. My "belief" was that this is primarily in the area of phase changes/group delay. But if "all properly designed modern amps-don't introduce audible group delay"-then what needs measuring? If I "hear" *qualitative* differences -how do we *quantify* them? I'm a big fan of measurements. Most here stick to the idea that if THD, IM, FR are the same-then the amp is the same-no matter what the design. If measurements are the same between two devices-and yet there are perceptible differences in some characteristic of sound-then I wonder if A) the measurements were done properly- and or B) are we missing something in terms of measurements.
  
 Sorry-the pressure got to me. I'll try and behave. I spend my days as an Analytical Scientist- and sometimes pseudoscience goes so far off the deep end that my *magic crystals *are not strong enough to absorb my reactions and spurious silliness leaks out. Last night someone was announcing that it was a waste of time trying different tubes on the Lyr2 thread-until you spend AT LEAST $350 on a Power Cord. I did a little online search and found some 6 foot power cord going for $7000 USD. My Silliness Limiter was overcome.


bigshutterbug said:


> Yes, I can see where this is going now. I am new to this forum, and appologize for not understanding the goal of this discussion.


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> I DO think there *may be* some properties of the reproduction chain we are not measuring-that MAY affect the final sound. Mostly in the realm of image localization. My "belief" was that this is primarily in the area of phase changes/group delay. But if "all properly designed modern amps-don't introduce audible group delay"-then what needs measuring?




Y'ever see the group delay plot of a typical loudspeaker?

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

steve eddy said:


> Y'ever see the group delay plot of a typical loudspeaker?
> 
> se


 
 One reason I lean towards planars- Maggie or Electrostatic! But from the table below-a few inch difference in the plane of the tweeter or woofer won't be audible. If my simple math is correct then (1100 feet/sec)(0.002 sec)= 2.2 feet to be audible.I've no idea how much delay is added by the various components in the typical crossover network.
"Group delay has some importance in the audio field and especially in the sound reproduction field. Many components of an audio reproduction chain, notably loudspeakers and multiway loudspeaker crossover networks, introduce group delay in the audio signal. It is therefore important to know the threshold of audibility of group delay with respect to frequency, especially if the audio chain is supposed to provide high fidelityreproduction. The best thresholds of audibility table has been provided by Blauert & Laws (1978).


Frequency​Threshold​500 Hz3.2 ms1 kHz2 ms2 kHz1 ms4 kHz1.5 ms8 kHz2 ms

Flanagan, Moore and Stone conclude that at 1, 2 and 4 kHz, a group delay of about 1.6 ms is audible with headphones in a non-reverberant condition.[1]


----------



## Steve Eddy

Then start looking elsewhere, because you're not going to find it in the electronics.

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

steve eddy said:


> Then start looking elsewhere, because you're not going to find it in the electronics.
> 
> se



Magic crystal lattices?


----------



## bigshutterbug

Yes, I agree that there must be some things that we are not measuring (or have not discovered a valid way of testing) when it comes to perceived sound. I was also schooled in the research field, and have a lot of faith in measurment and testing in other branches of science. What looks good on paper, does not always sound good unfortunately. If there were only a foolproof formula for measuring components, cables and speakers, it sure would make our hobby easier and more affordable. As most of us have learned, high price does not mean high sound quality.


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> Magic crystal lattices?






You know, I was just thinking. 2015 marks the 30th year since I bought my first PC, got "online" and started talking about audio on forums like this.

In those 30 years I've seen countless claims of audibility. But not one of them so far has ever been substantiated, except in cases where rather trivial measurements showed deviations that were within already known audible thresholds.

This isn't aimed at you. Was just doing some musing.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshutterbug said:


> Yes, I agree that there must be some things that we are not measuring (or have not discovered a valid way of testing) when it comes to perceived sound. I was also schooled in the research field, and have a lot of faith in measurment and testing in other branches of science. What looks good on paper, does not always sound good unfortunately. If there were only a foolproof formula for measuring components, cables and speakers, it sure would make our hobby easier and more affordable. As most of us have learned, high price does not mean high sound quality.




Why _must_ there be something we are not measuring? Since when have all other possibilities been ruled out, like the embarrassing unreliability of human subjective perception?

se


----------



## StanD

Hey Steve, get your soldering iron heated up. Some notch filtlers, matching badpass filters wth adjustable delay lines and you can put together a new product for audiophiles seeking group delays.


----------



## bigshot

bigshutterbug said:


> What looks good on paper, does not always sound good unfortunately. If there were only a foolproof formula for measuring components, cables and speakers, it sure would make our hobby easier and more affordable.


 
  
 It really is pretty foolproof. The wild card is the acoustics of your particular living room or the limitations/peculiarity of your personal hearing and subjective biases. Measuring equipment is easy.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Hey Steve, get your soldering iron heated up. Some notch filtlers, matching badpass filters wth adjustable delay lines and you can put together a new product for audiophiles seeking group delays.



Don't fall to the Dark Side. I was telling an Engineer friend about the Audiophile Power Cable scam


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> Hey Steve, get your soldering iron heated up. Some notch filtlers, matching badpass filters wth adjustable delay lines and you can put together a new product for audiophiles seeking group delays.



I want one!


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Hey Steve, get your soldering iron heated up. Some notch filtlers, matching badpass filters wth adjustable delay lines and you can put together a new product for audiophiles seeking group delays.




Nah, I'm getting the gold soldering iron and retiring. 

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

steve eddy said:


> Nah, I'm getting the gold soldering iron and retiring.
> 
> se



If you build it they will buy.


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> If you build it they will buy.




Nah. I've grown rather fond of sleeping well at night. 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Nah, I'm getting the gold soldering iron and retiring.
> 
> se


 
 What happened to that amp you were fiddling about with? Who's going to terminate those cables of yours? You can't retire.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> What happened to that amp you were fiddling about with?




Taking my time. Still have to finish the owner's manual. Actually I've decided that I'm not going to "sell" it. By that I mean I'm not going to be taking orders and then build to order.

Have some friends who want one and once I get them taken care of, I'll build one when I feel like it, put it up for sale. When it sells, I'll build another one when I feel like it and put it up for sale, etc.




> Who's going to terminate those cables of yours? You can't retire.




Well, this guy's out of work and came around looking for a job a while back.




se


----------



## castleofargh

exacoustatowner said:


> Bigshutterbug- I don't see *your *posts as pseudoscience. Hard or impossible to MEASURE?
> I DO think there *may be *some properties of the reproduction chain we are not measuring-that MAY affect the final sound. Mostly in the realm of image localization. My "belief" was that this is primarily in the area of phase changes/group delay. But if "all properly designed modern amps-don't introduce audible group delay"-then what needs measuring? If I "hear" *qualitative* differences -how do we *quantify* them? I'm a big fan of measurements. Most here stick to the idea that if THD, IM, FR are the same-then the amp is the same-no matter what the design. If measurements are the same between two devices-and yet there are perceptible differences in some characteristic of sound-then I wonder if A) the measurements were done properly- and or B) are we missing something in terms of measurements.
> 
> Sorry-the pressure got to me. I'll try and behave. I spend my days as an Analytical Scientist- and sometimes pseudoscience goes so far off the deep end that my *magic crystals *are not strong enough to absorb my reactions and spurious silliness leaks out. Last night someone was announcing that it was a waste of time trying different tubes on the Lyr2 thread-until you spend AT LEAST $350 on a Power Cord. I did a little online search and found some 6 foot power cord going for $7000 USD. My Silliness Limiter was overcome.


 
 we don't assume exact similarities under all circumstances. and that's probably a point as important as placebo in the audiophile world.
 can you find an amp that will sound different? sure! you can even get one that we will call transparent, pair it badly enough for it to lose it's transparency. in the process you might even end up with some cable actually "helping" and audibly changing the sound. when something is badly used, there is no telling to how bad it can get.
  
  
 -easy stuff: impedance.
 the impedance value is almost never dead flat across the frequency range for any device. we only use the value @1khz in measurements assuming that:
 1/ the manufacturer wouldn't make a mess that leads to having several hundred times more impedance at 15khz or some funny stuff like that. and in any competent design it will not happen. but it could.
 2/ that impedance matching will be good enough to make almost all those impedance changes across FR to become inconsequential. like having a headphone with impedance going from 200 to 600ohm, if the amp is a 1ohm source, then the headphone variation will not be able to make an audible change. but find yourself a 120ohm amp and now things might be different.
 do you blame "something we didn't measure" because the impedances were only given @1khz or do you blame the guy using a 120ohm amp on a 300ohm headphone when it's been designed for impedance bridging?
  
  
 -another easy stuff: volume matching.
 most of the people making testimonies about audible differences don't know that "louder is better" and at best try to volume match stuff by ear. but most of the time they just do nothing. if the DAC outputs 2.5V instead of 2V, that's almost 2db louder, clearly enough to feel better, but maybe not enough for me to notice it's louder and not "better bass, better soundstage, more details...".
 the impedance and power output of an amp can of course also change those stuff so without volume matching testimonies about sound differences should get an instant delete action if we were to care a little about facts instead of misinterpreted feelings.
 but of course I wouldn't expect that from moderators who themselves make reviews about the sonic differences of headphone cables where they didn't care at all about impedance or possible loudness changes. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
 -more tricky stuff: sighted evaluation.
 anything goes really, paint the box pink and people will start telling you how the sound changed. increase the price tag and all becomes so much more details and "natural".
 once again, if we don't try to reduce those biases even by a little, what's the point of talking about sound at all? it will never be accurate under sighted evaluation so why do it at all?
 obviously I'm talking about people who wish to know what is really happening. all those who can find happiness from placebo are very welcome to keep the dream alive and avoid any kind of test. happiness and truth are certainly not always walking hand in hand.
  
  
 so as you can see, 2 out of 3 could make actual audible changes if not properly prepared. and measurement are indeed incomplete most of the time. you can see me complain about that all day long on the forum. they only show the best expected results under a particular load at a particular loudness and for most measurements at a particular frequency. so once again, the design could suck bad, and look good only under those conditions, probably not too easy but it might just happen.
 still, as long as you keep the same kind of design and get the same kind of measurements, you're usually pretty safe that it will sound about the same.
  
  
  
 about timing/phase/group delay/jitter and all the stuff going on there, yes we don't know a lot about it. and the reason why is pretty simple, it's because every time some tests are done, they show that we barely care for values that are bigger than what we usually get in modern gears. tests also they show that FR matters to us a lot more than some slightly improved timing.
 you can get some of those devices that are "anti time smear" and "phase mastazzz". but most of the time they will not actually sound any different. and when they do, they usually have very measurable FR and distortions impacts due to some impedance problem, or the fact that it didn't use feedback for stability and other stuff.
  it might sound super nice and different, no denying that. but does it measure better overall? probably not they usually pay in distortions money. it's just a game of sacrificing one to get the other.
  
  
  
 so as the others said, what's the point of saying that measurements aren't enough when nobody cared to first take care of the elephants in the room? when I see matched level blind tests that show audible differences of stuff measuring the same, I will start asking for more measurements. but somehow I feel like I'll have some time to spare before it happens ^_^.


----------



## AudioBear

+1
  
 Great post.  Sighted evaluations are just so wrong but there's really very little but that on the forums.


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> Great post.  Sighted evaluations are just so wrong but there's really very little but that on the forums.




Yes, because the other forums are actually DBT-Free zones, where any mention of controlled listening tests are prohibited. It's only in Sound Science that they can be discussed.

se


----------



## AudioBear

That too is just so wrong. What are they afraid of?  Don't answer that.  We all know.
  
 BTW, don't retire, you'll end up working harder than ever, at least I did.


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> That too is just so wrong. What are they afraid of?  Don't answer that.  We all know.
> 
> BTW, don't retire, you'll end up working harder than ever, at least I did.




Oh no, won't really be retiring. But I do have my sights set on moving more and more into the less neurotic side of audio.

se


----------



## AudioBear

Where exactly would that be? Most audiophiles are certifiable.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> we don't assume exact similarities under all circumstances. and that's probably a point as important as placebo in the audiophile world.
> can you find an amp that will sound different? sure! you can even get one that we will call transparent, pair it badly enough for it to lose it's transparency. in the process you might even end up with some cable actually "helping" and audibly changing the sound. when something is badly used, there is no telling to how bad it can get.
> 
> 
> ...



Nice post. I'll delve in more later. As far as impedance changes with frequency there is not much with my HE-560's. Look up some measurements.
I do use a db meter when setting levels. Even so I also try making A a little louder than B and vice versa


----------



## Steve Eddy

audiobear said:


> Where exactly would that be? Most audiophiles are certifiable.




It's a market I've had my eye on for some years. It's what I've called "the broader market." It's the market that I see exists between the mass market and the so-called "high end" audio market.

They're people who love music, appreciate high quality, have the disposable income to pay for it, but are not aware of the "high end" market, and if they were, wouldn't have any interest in what they have to offer. 

se


----------



## Audio-Omega

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/
  
 I wonder about other branches of science.


----------



## cel4145

audio-omega said:


> http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/
> 
> I wonder about other branches of science.




I wonder about that website.


----------



## upstateguy

audio-omega said:


> http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/
> 
> I wonder about other branches of science.


 
  
 I would think any science is better than making it up.
  
 The good thing about science is that it is based on being repeatable and reproducible.  If something doesn't pass that muster, it might indeed be false.


----------



## Roly1650

audio-omega said:


> http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/
> 
> I wonder about other branches of science.



Typical anti-science, as soon as the hoary old "flat earth" bovine excrement surfaced in the article, I knew it was bollocks. Don't these journalists do any research on easily established facts?


----------



## Dobrescu George

Is it scientifically real that DACs and AMPs do burn in over a certain limit?
  
 I read in threads that yes and in other threads that not... i want to know...


----------



## limpidglitch

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/23/6-ways-to-stay-mindful-during-mercury-retrograde/
  
 I wonder about the Mercury retrograde.
 As a Taurus I'm already not the greatest communicator, and that the great messenger and one of my detriments attains a greater influence, right now in the middle of the exam period, is of course of great worry.


----------



## Steve Eddy

upstateguy said:


> I would think any science is better than making it up.




But when you make it up, you can make the world as you would _like it_ to be. And that's quite a powerful drug for us vainglorious humans. So while I don't agree with it, I can certainly understand it.

se


----------



## richard51

limpidglitch said:


> http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/23/6-ways-to-stay-mindful-during-mercury-retrograde/
> 
> I wonder about the Mercury retrograde.
> As a Taurus I'm already not the greatest communicator, and that the great messenger and one of my detriments attains a greater influence, right now in the middle of the exam period, is of course of great worry.


 

 very courageous...or perhaps very sarcastic... to put that remark here .....i dont know yet ....


----------



## limpidglitch

richard51 said:


> very courageous...or perhaps very sarcastic... to put that remark here .....i dont know yet ....


 
  
 You must be a Capricorn. Always the doubter.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

limpidglitch said:


> http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/23/6-ways-to-stay-mindful-during-mercury-retrograde/
> 
> I wonder about the Mercury retrograde.
> As a Taurus I'm already not the greatest communicator, and that the great messenger and one of my detriments attains a greater influence, right now in the middle of the exam period, is of course of great worry.


 
 Here we go again-more silly fun.
 Even more on topic- do you rotate your audio cables according to Astrological tables? I envision some enterprising Snake Oil purveyor coming up with Cables for use during different Astrological events- "when the Moon is in the Seventh House-and Jupiter Aligns with Mars…" use our camel hair wrapped Oxygen Free Copper.


----------



## richard51

limpidglitch said:


> You must be a Capricorn. Always the doubter.


 

 youre wrong ,being in the expectative mood because of your remark is not to doubt.... i wait for the  splashing effect of this peeble of yours  in this pound water.... by the way i am not a capricorn... and the astrological sign are too large general issues to classify people, way better to glance the complexities of  the aspectual chart....


----------



## limpidglitch

richard51 said:


> youre wrong ,being in the expectative mood because of your remark is not to doubt.... i wait for the  splashing effect of this peeble of yours  in this pound water.... by the way i am not a capricorn... and the astrological sign are too large general issues to classify people, way better to glance the complexities of  the aspectual chart....


 
  
 I have Mercury unaspected (24°), which isn't really helpful.


----------



## richard51

limpidglitch said:


> I have Mercury unaspected (24°), which isn't really helpful.


 
 i will not go
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 on in astrology here .... this  is science forum they say.....i wishes you the best by the way


----------



## AudioBear

cel4145 said:


> I wonder about that website.


 

 I don't know about that website but there is in fact a serious discussion going on in many branches of science about a couple of serious issues. One is inappropriate use of statistics in data dredging papers.  The second it sloppy and inadequate peer-review that lets papers that shouldn't be published get published.  50% of what is published is junk.
  
 If you're interested you might look at
  
 http://acsh.org/2015/05/science-publication-is-hopelessly-compromised-say-journal-editors/
  
 and
  
 http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2015/02/17/a-conversation-with-john-ioannidis-the-superhero-poised-to-save-medical-research/
  
 The good news is that specialists in a field can figure out what's junk and what isn't.  The problem comes when non-experts read the flawed stuff and run with it.  A few pages back we talked about the death of expertise and how everybody who doesn't know Jack Schiit about a topic thinks they are entitled to make an opinion.  That's the real problem.


----------



## StanD

audiobear said:


> :
> The good news is that specialists in a field can figure out what's junk and what isn't.  The problem comes when non-experts read the flawed stuff and run with it.  A few pages back we talked about the death of expertise and how everybody who doesn't know *Jack Schiit* about a topic thinks they are* entitled to make an opinion*.  That's the real problem.


 
 You certainly came to the right website to find plenty of that. Which topics are the most entertaining? Cables, Amps or DACs?


----------



## richard51

audiobear said:


> I don't know about that website but there is in fact a serious discussion going on in many branches of science about a couple of serious issues. One is inappropriate use of statistics in data dredging papers.  The second it sloppy and inadequate peer-review that lets papers that shouldn't be published get published.  50% of what is published is junk.
> 
> If you're interested you might look at
> 
> ...


 

 My best friend is a world class expert in physics and think exactly
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 that ...


----------



## Bytor123

Not much scope, but a lot of horror...


----------



## limpidglitch

audiobear said:


> I don't know about that website but there is in fact a serious discussion going on in many branches of science about a couple of serious issues. One is inappropriate use of statistics in data dredging papers.  The second it sloppy and inadequate peer-review that lets papers that shouldn't be published get published.  50% of what is published is junk.
> 
> If you're interested you might look at
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm not in a field with anything near the amount of money and prestige involved as there is in medicine, but even I come across some outright non-sense at times.
  
 Sometimes it's clearly due to a predatory journal, but even reputable journals make mistakes. Particularly the peer reviewers work under a lot of pressure.


----------



## upstateguy

steve eddy said:


> upstateguy said:
> 
> 
> > I would think any science is better than making it up.
> ...


 
  
 Can you really make the world as you would like it to be, or does it remain how it is regardless of what you think? 
  
 Vainglorious...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  


exacoustatowner said:


> <snip>
> Here we go again-more silly fun.
> Even more on topic- do you rotate your audio cables according to Astrological tables? I envision some enterprising Snake Oil purveyor coming up with Cables for use during different Astrological events- "when the Moon is in the Seventh House-and Jupiter Aligns with Mars…"* use our camel hair wrapped Oxygen Free Copper.*


 
  
 Hey don't knock the camel hair !!!!!!
  


bytor123 said:


> Not much scope, but a lot of (horror) humor......


 
  
 FIFY


----------



## Exacoustatowner

upstateguy said:


> Can you really make the world as you would like it to be, or does it remain how it is regardless of what you think?
> 
> Vainglorious...
> 
> ...



Everyone knows the Camel hair can lead to a drier sound due to their desert origins!


----------



## Steve Eddy

upstateguy said:


> Can you really make the world as you would like it to be, or does it remain how it is regardless of what you think?




Oh it remains how it is regardless. There are limits. But we can alter our perceptions an beliefs of it and that can give great comfort to some.




> Vainglorious...




Hehehe. Thought you'd like that. I was going to use my usual "vanity and ego," but thought I'd go with something a bit different this time. And after I chose vainglorious, I immediately thought of you. 

se


----------



## castleofargh

like anything else, the fact that we know how the real world works is not a reason to be pleased with it.
 of course mistakes, bribes, and all forms of pressure are at play to mess with what should be. if it works on passing laws and picking the most powerful men on earth, there is no doubt it will also come to science. even more so when money is involved, and money is always involved.
  
 but that's a different problem IMO. the main plague in audio is from everybody talking all day long about how they know stuff when they clearly don't. a little like I think I know it all at 1AM dead drunk in a pub talking about changing the world with a total stranger. "all the poor people who don't have water in their villages, we should send them beer!!!! that would save them I say!!!!" and all the super clever stuff one can come up with at those times.
  
 but then when talking to most random guys, they would say to me:

  
  
 now in audio somehow it's like 99% of the people you talk to are just as drunk as you are all day long, and they all have have their own "very unique" understanding of ... well everything. they all think they've ******* discovered how to make sound better on their own because they listened to more than 1 piece of equipment. but somehow no manufacturer could have a clue about it...
   it's a 365days per year oktoberfest where you struggle to find one guy who can still apply simple logic.
 and as you would suspect, most of them believe they're not drunk, else it's no fun.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

castleofargh said:


> like anything else, the fact that we know how the real world works is not a reason to be pleased with it.
> of course mistakes, bribes, and all forms of pressure are at play to mess with what should be. if it works on passing laws and picking the most powerful men on earth, there is no doubt it will also come to science. even more so when money is involved, and money is always involved.
> 
> but that's a different problem IMO. the main plague in audio is from everybody talking all day long about how they know stuff when they clearly don't. a little like I think I know it all at 1AM dead drunk in a pub talking about changing the world with a total stranger. "all the poor people who don't have water in their villages, we should send them beer!!!! that would save them I say!!!!" and all the super clever stuff one can come up with at those times.
> ...



This deserves a "sticky" as a reference post.


----------



## markanini

What did you say about my mother?!
 =
 Are you telling me I can't hear the improved quantum entanglement from my power cable upgrade?
 ?


----------



## StanD

markanini said:


> What did you say about my mother?!
> =
> Are you telling me I can't hear the improved quantum entanglement from my power cable upgrade?
> ?


 
 According to ancient alien theorists such cables were found at Atlantis.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> According to ancient alien theorists such cables were found at Atlantis.



Indeed! Atlantean NOS cables- once you remove the calcium encrustations of coralline algae, use Quantum Entanglement to teleport the music with zero group delay or time delay. In some cases the signal arrives before it is sent. Also sound is best if they are kept submerged in salt water
"I played Mozart Piano Concerto 22 through my 13000 BCE cable and heard Mozart himself play Live via patented Time Travel Effect!"


----------



## Exacoustatowner

markanini said:


> What did you say about my mother?!
> 
> =
> Are you telling me I can't hear the improved quantum entanglement from my power cable upgrade?
> ?



The Quantum Entanglement is great for cable runs rendering speed of light limits moot. 
Our best cables convert your signal into a Tachyon Stream and boost the speed to several times c.


----------



## prot

exacoustatowner said:


> Indeed! Atlantean NOS cables- once you remove the calcium encrustations of coralline algae, use Quantum Entanglement to teleport the music with zero group delay or time delay. In some cases the signal arrives before it is sent. Also sound is best if they are kept submerged in salt water
> "I played Mozart Piano Concerto 22 through my 13000 BCE cable and heard Mozart himself play Live via patented Time Travel Effect!"




What are you talkin about!? Atlantis was 100% wireless & telepathic .. that's why 'they' cannot find anything 

castleofargh
that's a worderful drunken audio rant .. and so true (unfortunately)


----------



## Exacoustatowner

prot said:


> What are you talkin about!? Atlantis was 100% wireless & telepathic .. that's why 'they' cannot find anything
> 
> castleofargh
> that's a worderful drunken audio rant .. and so true (unfortunately)



Prot- EVERYBODY knows that was Lemuria/Mu!
Jeez, have you even aligned your Shakras with your Reference Rose Quartz?


----------



## KeithEmo

exacoustatowner said:


> It's obvious-is it not?


 
  
 Perhaps lemon oil or citrus oil would work well at removing "gunk" from your sound (and I don't think it spoils)


----------



## StanD

keithemo said:


> Perhaps lemon oil or citrus oil would work well at removing "gunk" from your sound (and I don't think it spoils)


 
 How about a glass bottle of Hydrofluoric acid?


----------



## drich14

Hello audiophiles,
  
 I am brand new to this forum so feel free to tell me if I'm doing something wrong.
  
 I am a high school senior in AP Statistics, and for my final project I have to perform a hypothesis test. I decided to test if people can tell the difference between 128kbps mp3 and lossless wav music. I made a website to run my experiment and all I need now is some data. Someone who works with my parent suggested this website for getting a lot people to take my test.
  
 It would be greatly appreciated if some of you who read this visit my website and take the test. I am very open minded, so if anyone has any constructive criticism I would be happy to hear what you have to say.
  
 Here is the url: http://www.audioexperiments.com
  
 Thanks for your time,
 drich


----------



## bigshot

Can't just about anyone tell the difference between 128 MP3 and lossless?


----------



## drich14

Actually what I've found so far is that people don't get any better scores than just guessing randomly.


----------



## maverickronin

drich14 said:


> Actually what I've found so far is that people don't get any better scores than just guessing randomly.


 
  
 If the headphones/speakers they're using are bad enough that might be the case.  You don't need anything too fancy though.


----------



## RRod

maverickronin said:


> If the headphones/speakers they're using are bad enough that might be the case.  You don't need anything too fancy though.


 
  
 Probably depends on music selection too. I have some tracks I can truncate down to 8-bit and not successfully ABX; I wouldn't be surprised if 128k were sufficient for them.


----------



## drich14

I tried to put a variety of genres into the test to see if there is any correlation between genre and ability to see a difference in quality.


----------



## Dobrescu George

drich14 said:


> I tried to put a variety of genres into the test to see if there is any correlation between genre and ability to see a difference in quality.


 
 .. From where do you get the original FLAC?
  
 I think that if the music is very bad recorded, or the equipment used is very bad you cannot tell.
  
 I was able to tell using 200$ speakers and under 100$ headphones FLAC from mp3 at 128kbps. 
  
 In fact, I am able to tell them apart using my laptop speakers, just tested, and i am totally able. The cutoff is way too early made to not be noticeable, 128 mp3 is too muffled in mids too, i cannot hear parts of female voices and guitars. 
  
 Something seems wrong for you to get such results.


----------



## KeithEmo

drich14 said:


> Actually what I've found so far is that people don't get any better scores than just guessing randomly.


 
  
 I've never had trouble telling the difference with at least some content, however it will probably depend on the source material, the speakers and headphones being used, and the hearing of the person taking the test. Generally things with lots of high frequency content makes it more obvious that simple vocals, and complex music involving lots of instruments suffers more from the MP3 compression than solo instruments. Different encoders also have different priorities in terms of what they omit, so certain encoders may cause more damage to certain types of music and favor others. (The decoder is standard, so all decoders should play the same encoded file pretty much the same way, but the encoders have significant flexibility in terms of deciding how to analyze the incoming music, and of deciding what to omit.)
  
 You will also find that people tend to respond differently depending on how you phrase the question. (For example, some people interpret "can you hear any difference" as meaning "can you hear a significant difference" rather than the question you actually asked. Those people may then fail to mention subtle differences that they can hear but don't consider important to them.) Some people also simply don't pay attention, and/or don't try very hard, and so only report very obvious differences.
  
 What I would love to see is a comparison.... Ask one group to do an ABX and see how many they get right, just as a "normal survey", then have a second group perform the exact same test, but offer them$20 if they can get 15 out of 20 correct and see if they do a better job - because they really concentrate and pay attention. I would be very interested to see if a little motivation helps (or not). You should also be very careful not to imply that the MP3 will necessarily be worse. (I read of at least one survey where a significant minority actually heard a difference - and preferred the MP3 files.)


----------



## prot

exacoustatowner said:


> Prot- EVERYBODY knows that was Lemuria/Mu!
> Jeez, have you even aligned your Shakras with your Reference Rose Quartz?




Guess you are right about Mu, my mistake. In my defense it is pretty hard to differentiate between invisible ghosts. Maybe if I had better cables...


----------



## drich14

keithemo said:


> What I would love to see is a comparison.... Ask one group to do an ABX and see how many they get right, just as a "normal survey", then have a second group perform the exact same test, but offer them$20 if they can get 15 out of 20 correct and see if they do a better job - because they really concentrate and pay attention. I would be very interested to see if a little motivation helps (or not). You should also be very careful not to imply that the MP3 will necessarily be worse. (I read of at least one survey where a significant minority actually heard a difference - and preferred the MP3 files.)


 
  
 That's very interesting and a great idea! I actually made a bet with one of my friends that they wouldn't get above a certain score. He ended up winning the bet so it appears that concentration and motivation is a big part in hearing a difference.


----------



## cjl

drich14 said:


> Hello audiophiles,
> 
> I am brand new to this forum so feel free to tell me if I'm doing something wrong.
> 
> ...


 
 This test would be more accurate if rather than simply saying "which sounds better", you had a reference file to compare to. So, for each song, you'd have a lossless file, a sample A, and a sample B, and you had to see if people could tell which one matches the lossless.


----------



## drich14

cjl said:


> This test would be more accurate if rather than simply saying "which sounds better", you had a reference file to compare to. So, for each song, you'd have a lossless file, a sample A, and a sample B, and you had to see if people could tell which one matches the lossless.


 
 Yeah I bet that probably would have been a better solution now that I think about it.


----------



## cjl

That's pretty much the standard way to tell if people can hear the difference, since it doesn't require them to make a subjective judgment of which "sounds better", it merely asks them if they can hear which one matches the reference. In the way your test is laid out, it's entirely possible for someone to clearly hear the difference between the two, prefer the lossy, and then get the answer "wrong" because of it.


----------



## drich14

I'll have to talk about this alternate design in my paper.


----------



## bigshot

drich14 said:


> I tried to put a variety of genres into the test to see if there is any correlation between genre and ability to see a difference in quality.


 

 Genre makes no difference... it's types of sound. I've found complex masses of sounds are the hardest to compress... audience applause, certain textures of massed strings. Also pure high tones like flutes. It really doesn't matter if the recording is stereo or mono, digital or analogue, certain types of sounds will cause more problems than others. I have one track from the 1950s that is extremely hard to compress without artifacting. It will clearly reveal artifacts all the way up to 192.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> Genre makes no difference... it's types of sound. I've found complex masses of sounds are the hardest to compress... audience applause, certain textures of massed strings. Also pure high tones like flutes. It really doesn't matter if the recording is stereo or mono, digital or analogue, certain types of sounds will cause more problems than others. I have one track from the 1950s that is extremely hard to compress without artifacting. It will clearly reveal artifacts all the way up to 192.


 
 I find that 320 mp3's are pretty safe to use. I'll bet that 256 is probably good enough.


----------



## bigshot

Yes, and AAC is a notch better than MP3 in most cases.


----------



## thelostMIDrange

Have you guys seen those reports and studies that show many people actually prefer (pick in blind testing), compressed files over Non compressed? I suspect it's because digital files and digitally recorded music tends to have a strident upper mid and an overall flat presentation and the mp3 softens this and is a possible reason the common man may pick an mp3 out as being more pleasurable a listen. This of course if true is not any justification for compression, only more evidence of the failings of digital of which anyone who spins vinyl (original pressings or selected modern) can attest to. Music if it was analog recorded and kept that way till final listening, would likely reveal that compression actually takes away enjoyment because the analog infomation does not have the strident flatness and doesn't benefit from softening compression. Just a personal theory and one's personal experience.
  
 The entire hobby would be better off if it recognized analog vs digital as different beasts and did not criss cross this stuff. Jimmy page putting zeppelin's original analog master tapes into the digital realm so they could be manipulated, then putting them back to analog for a vinyl press is a joke. Go listen to one of those 2014 remasters and compare to a Pallas or an orignal or even 2nd or 3rd pressing from the 70's. It's no comparison. Steve hoffman does good work as well and there are other decent modern presses but they are few and far between. Once it goes to digital, (or if it was digitally recorded), all the good stuff is lost. The ambience, the detail, the ability to hear the tone from 360 degrees around etc. I feel headphones and amps and DAC's and even speakers should be designed for one or the other. This would keep things neat and orderly and end up in better gear for both those who listen to digital and those who listen to vinyl. For example, a DAC or a headphone can be designed to deal with and try and compensate for the digital stridency and flat dynamics (and in fact I feel alot of gear is trying to do this, but it's not done intentionally). By designing for one medium vs the other, it can be made intentional and whenever something is cosncious and intentional, it has more potential for positive end results generally speaking.


----------



## maverickronin

thelostmidrange said:


> Have you guys seen those reports and studies that show many people actually prefer (pick in blind testing), compressed files over Non compressed?


 
  
 I've never looked to deeply into it but I'd suspect it's just because they preferred what they were used to.
  
 As to your other point, there's a link in the OP that does a pretty good job of refuting it.
  


prog rock man said:


> 9 - Boston Audio Society, an ABX test of Ivor Tiefenbrun, the founder of Linn. August 1984
> 
> 
> A rather complex testing of Ivor Tiefenbrun himself, who at that time was very pro vinyl and anti digital (the opposite almost of how Linn operate now!). There are various different tests and the overall conclusion was
> ...


----------



## StanD

@drich14 Why are you using 128 kbps mp3 files?


----------



## thelostMIDrange

@maverick I've not the time to look into it. But I can say it's possible and quite easy to make a vinyl setup sound like a digital setup. And many modern turntables, carts, phono pres actually tend in the digital sounding direction and so in that case, it may be possible to setup an A/B that makes it hard to discern. There's so many points and variables that could be compromised in testing sessions that it's a waste of time imo. All I know is I had many Cd's of the same album as I have on album and they where totally different. But all my collection is classic recordings that where meant for vinyl the the CD was an afterthought. Still I feel analog tape recording of music is the only way to go. Whether you then play it back on digital or analog is less important. But then again I'm only referring to classic instruments, wind, strings, percussion, etc. Once you add any digital info the whole thing changes and it's a different thing. I'm what's called a purist and believe that music made by people with instruments should be recorded one way and everything else, can be done in another. Have you ever heard coltrane or miles, or hendrix on a vintage vinyl setup? and compared that to a CD? That's the kind of basic thing I'm talking about. Apart from that things can get super messy and I'm sure it's possible to get digital sounding good somehow. All I'm saying apart from the importance of analog recording, is that those records should then be played on gear designed specifically for them specifically. i.e. the designer of such a headphone should only use vinyl as his tuning reference. I'd suggest he use a mix of tables and gear of course, but all analog. He shouldn't use any digital recordings or music at all and should not try and make his gear sound good with such stuff and in fact I think it's impossible because digital music has no reference to the real world and has no limits or boundaries as to what sounds natural. How would an engineer know when he's got a digital sample of a computerized sound, sounding natural? never. But you can have a reference for a saxpophone or acoustic guitar or electric guitar and you'll know when the recording reflects it naturally or not.
  
 Think about it, what companies design gear specifically for analog recordings explicitely? I'm sure some do, but it should be much more prominent and intentional, and marketed as such imo. I predict vinyl and analog recording of music will make a strong comeback in the future, and this divide of analog will become more explicit. I've got a buddy who's got an all analog studio and records local bands through it for example and he's dedicated to keeping this particualar sound and technique pure and alive. Id recommend some headphone designers to the same


----------



## KeithEmo

cjl said:


> This test would be more accurate if rather than simply saying "which sounds better", you had a reference file to compare to. So, for each song, you'd have a lossless file, a sample A, and a sample B, and you had to see if people could tell which one matches the lossless.


 
  
 Actually, if you specifically want to see if they can detect a difference, then you should present them with pairs of files, some of which are both one or the other, and some of which consist of one of each, and simply ASK if they can hear a difference. After that, once you determine that people can hear a difference, THEN you go on to ask them which one they prefer.
  
 (If you were trying to test whether people could tell whether two tiles of slightly different colors were the same color or not, you would present pairs of tiles side by side and ask whether they were the same color or not directly - you would NOT add the extra complication of asking people to match tiles to other tiles.)
  
 The only purpose that would be served by complicating the test would be to test the effect of complicating factors. For example, if people could distinguish a difference between files played sequentially, but were still unable to tell which file matched which other file, you might argue that the difference was "audible but inconsequential".


----------



## drich14

stand said:


> @drich14 Why are you using 128 kbps mp3 files?


 
 Just to increase the gap in quality. I didn't think 320 kbps would offer a big enough difference between mp3 and flac/wav.


----------



## bigshot

Personally, I don't see any more point to comparing things that are obviously different than I do comparing things that clearly sound the same. It's more interesting to determine the line where audible transparency begins. But I've already done a test like that, and I know pretty much where the line is.


----------



## limpidglitch

drich14 said:


> Just to increase the gap in quality. I didn't think 320 kbps would offer a big enough difference between mp3 and flac/wav.


 
  
 It makes sense as purely an exercise in statistics, but there are avenues you could have taken to answer a few additional questions. But I guess that would have been beyond the scope of your assignment.


----------



## StanD

drich14 said:


> Just to increase the gap in quality. I didn't think 320 kbps would offer a big enough difference between mp3 and flac/wav.


 
 You might want to express this on your web page.


----------



## maverickronin

thelostmidrange said:


> I can say it's possible and quite easy to make a vinyl setup sound like a digital setup. And many modern turntables, carts, phono pres actually tend in the digital sounding direction and so in that case, it may be possible to setup an A/B that makes it hard to discern.


 
  
 If such a thing is possible then doesn't it seem more likely any differences you might be hearing are attributable to differences besides the playback format?


----------



## thelostMIDrange

no, because once you hear a proper vinyl (and proper is not necessarily $$) you know what it is and how it's different. It's not something that can be measured and explained. It's got to be experienced first hand, and I submit, that human beings are not all the same, and not all nervous systems are of the sensitivity type that allows for this difference to be heard. It's not that one is better than the other, but if one doesn't have experience of analog music, either playing and/or listening, then to armchair theorize about how they may be the same of different is not productive use of time imo. Trust us, (those who love vinyl) there is a difference. Whether it's meaningful or preferred by everyone is for debate and but the difference is categorical not a matter of degree. it's apples and oranges imo


----------



## maverickronin

thelostmidrange said:


> no, because once you hear a proper vinyl (and proper is not necessarily $$) you know what it is and how it's different. It's not something that can be measured and explained. It's got to be experienced first hand, and I submit, that human beings are not all the same, and not all nervous systems are of the sensitivity type that allows for this difference to be heard. It's not that one is better than the other, but if one doesn't have experience of analog music, either playing and/or listening, then to armchair theorize about how they may be the same of different is not productive use of time imo. Trust us, (those who love vinyl) there is a difference. Whether it's meaningful or preferred by everyone is for debate and but the difference is categorical not a matter of degree. it's apples and oranges imo


 
  
  
 So basically, you  don't really care what the data says then?


----------



## thelostMIDrange

data is very corruptable, just as much as first hand subjective experience is. both are fraught with trouble and potential meaning
  
  
 all I know is I grew up spinning vinyl. loved it. then trashed it all for CD's and over a decade lost my love for music listening, didn't know why. then got another table and started spinning again and have been loving it like a kid again all over. It's so much more nutritious for this nervous system which has much more processing power than any supercomputer


----------



## bigshot

The interesting thing is that you can take the best sounding LP in the world and capture it to redbook audio, burn it on a CD and play it back alongside the original LP and it is absolutely impossible to tell the difference. I know. I've done it with one of the best recorded LPs ever made and a very good turntable and preamp.


----------



## jodgey4

bigshot said:


> The interesting thing is that you can take the best sounding LP in the world and capture it to redbook audio, burn it on a CD and play it back alongside the original LP and it is absolutely impossible to tell the difference. I know. I've done it with one of the best recorded LPs ever made and a very good turntable and preamp.




Was somebody disputing that possibility?


----------



## thelostMIDrange

me too, I've archived all my vinyl's and I agree it's quite close. I wouldn't agree it's the same however. I've got about ten years of doing this and thousands of hours of comparison fwiw. but i'd agree it's quite good and that is the point I tried to make, it's not the digital playback it's more to do with the recording and mastering. This is a great topic for discussion elsewhere.
  
  
 and I agree (if you are saying this) that 44 redbook is fine to capture an analog signal. I've never tried more because I am a technically challenged luddite and cannot figure how to use the software to do it, but i do suspect (wonder) if higher sampling would capture more and be hearable, but I'm content with the lowly redbook capture. All this upsampling of digital sources is like putting lipstick on a pig imo. I'd rather have an mp3 rip of a vinyl


----------



## bigshot

I did it with one of the best sounding LPs ever made and it was EXACTLY the same. Perhaps your digitizing box isn't the best. It doesn't matter how good the record sounds if the box converting from analogue to digital isn't up to snuff.


----------



## thelostMIDrange

well this gets into the whole ADC debate. I owned about a dozen till I found one that sounded most like the vinyl (tascam cdrw700) But none of them where over a grand so who knows somewhere might be a better ADC, but as I said, I am totally content with the rips. The interesting part is as you suggest, how good they do sound. I don't want to debate whether they are exact (i feel certain mine are not) that is all I know. There are many who would think a digital rip of a vinyl would sound digital. I do hear a bit of flatness to the dynamics and not quite a much depth compared to striaght vinyl but compared to a pure CD of said album, I'd take the vinyl rip any day.


----------



## bigshot

Are you talking about a CD player that records? That's consumer stuff. I'm talking about an analogue to digital converter... and there are plenty of them for under $200 that can do the job perfectly.
  
 Here is a little bit of logic to wrap your head around... If a CD rip of a record can contain everything an LP can without any compromise, then how can the CD format itself be inferior? The answer is it can't. The problem isn't the CD format. It's the quality of the recording and mastering.


----------



## thelostMIDrange

yes, I use the ADC in the CD player. I rip it onto disk then stick that beast in the puter and rip it to WAV. Dude, i told you i'm not into tech. I cannot figure how to go from the phono to puter directly because the software is too overwhelmingly complex and i've got a life to live. As far as cost, i'm on a tight budget. If you claim there's gear that 100% captures an analog signal I will defer to your pocket book. I've got to make dinner but I enjoy these discussions, I'll check back in afterwards.


----------



## bigshot

Consumer CD recorders aren't the best way to judge what digital audio is capable of. It doesn't cost a lot of money to come up with great sound. You can put together a fantastic home studio for under a grand. But it does take the will to learn how to use your tools. My advice is to leave that to others if you aren't interested in learning about it. Just let engineers do their job and focus on what you are interested in.


----------



## thelostMIDrange

please lay out this system you've designed for $1000. I'll be glad to look into it.


----------



## richard51

my system cost me 1000 bucks , stax included , all used...and is audiophile, perhaps the low level audiophile but satisfying


----------



## thelostMIDrange

I think bigshot was referring to recording setup but he packed up his toys and went into his lab.  but good for you. how'd you sneek a set of stax in there for under that budget! well done. My listening rig is around a grand as well. includes turntable(300), headphone amp(50), headphones(30), cartridge(300) phono pre (300)


----------



## richard51

Congratulations ! very good to have almost the best for fewer bucks......Very simple and no thinking required to buy the best if you had illimited budget....Most difficult to read study and discovering ....


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> The interesting thing is that you can take the best sounding LP in the world and capture it to redbook audio, burn it on a CD and play it back alongside the original LP and it is absolutely impossible to tell the difference. I know. I've done it with one of the best recorded LPs ever made and a very good turntable and preamp.


 
 Here we go again ...


----------



## thelostMIDrange

with a name like analog survivor, I gotta know what your view is on this ! am I finally going to get some support in this hostile forum? or maybe not?  Was this discussed previously ad aseum? fill me in survivor....do you rip vinyl? what's your experience? do tell


----------



## Exacoustatowner

prot said:


> Guess you are right about Mu, my mistake. In my defense it is pretty hard to differentiate between invisible ghosts. Maybe if I had better cables...


 
 It's an easy mistake to make. If you lack a pack of Brilliant Pebbles tied to your audio cables-and power-your music is likely full of SPIRITUAL ARTIFACTS from Ghosts captured by your lack of Energy Grounding.
  
  Brilliant Pebbles will ward off any accidental Ghost Contamination-or Worse- DELIBERATE Possession of your audio system. 
 Nothing worse than kicking back to listen to music and getting blasted with the smell of brimstone- and evil laughter manifesting in the quiet parts of your music.  Science people will TELL you it's Radio Frequency Interference- but WE know the TRUTH!  My friend's Tonearm picks up Mexican Polka Radio!
  
  True Story: When I was 12, my Electric Heater Elements started talking in OLD CB Radio Lingo.I was enough of a science kid to figure out someone nearby had an illegally powerful transmitter.


----------



## castleofargh

thelostmidrange said:


> no, because once you hear a proper vinyl (and proper is not necessarily $$) *you know what it is and how it's different. It's not something that can be measured and explained.* It's got to be experienced first hand, and I submit, that human beings are not all the same, and not all nervous systems are of the sensitivity type that allows for this difference to be heard. It's not that one is better than the other, but if one doesn't have experience of analog music, either playing and/or listening, then to armchair theorize about how they may be the same of different is not productive use of time imo. Trust us, (those who love vinyl) there is a difference. Whether it's meaningful or preferred by everyone is for debate and but the difference is categorical not a matter of degree. it's apples and oranges imo


 
  I read it like "what I don't know doesn't exist", and obviously I can't say I'm a huge fan of that typical "allegory of the cave" kind of false statement.
  it really shouldn't come too much as a surprise that you end up faced with some matter of animosity, when you post a false claim in the sound science section. some would call it a troll.
 you take the electrical signal from the turntable, and your claim is that this signal digitalized will sound different but can't be measured... do you see the irony of that? 2 electrical signals can't be measured, but you somehow can hear the difference at the output of a speaker...
 space aliens, space aliens everywhere! those day I keep coming across people with obvious superhuman abilities, I really thought only analogsurviver was an alien with how he's so focused on ultrasounds. I guess the invasion has finally started.
  
 and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there will not be any difference at all from the ADC/ DAC process, but first if it's done ok with transparent devices, I really doubt it would be audible for anybody but aliens. and second, of course any difference can be measured! it's a fracking analog electrical signal at the end, amplitude/time, if you can measure volts precisely and have a nice clock you know it all.
  
 say that you love vinyls, say that you prefer the way some are mastered compared to some very crappy mastering for CD. but please pretty please, don't come making such an obviously false claim, or at least put a big "I feel like" instead of writing it as a statement.
 if a well digitalized recording of the vinyl sounds different, then you're doing something wrong, or you simply are biased by your idea that vinyl has to sound better. so it can be measured and explained both.


----------



## dazzerfong

thelostmidrange said:


> with a name like analog survivor, I gotta know what your view is on this ! am I finally going to get some support in this hostile forum? or maybe not?  Was this discussed previously ad aseum? fill me in survivor....do you rip vinyl? what's your experience? do tell


 
 Oh God, please no..........................................
  
 You reckon this forum is hostile because people don't agree with you. There's a reason you don't make claims unless you can substantiate it yourself: people _are_ going to rip it to shreds if it isn't.


----------



## bigshot

Where do these people come from? The world seems to be an inextinguishable source of self admitted ig.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

the great thing with vinyl is that.. EVERY time you play it, it sounds different... and IS different...


----------



## MacacoDoSom

hey *survivor*, how much until we can listen to the CD mats....


----------



## bigshot

hold your breath until you turn blue. that might make the trolls deliver.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

already blue... and turning greenish... I think I'm gonna throw up...


----------



## bigshot

Oh my! I'm worried about you! Keep healthy!


----------



## thelostMIDrange

regarding vinyl sounding different from each play....what does this mean? wear from the stylus?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

thelostmidrange said:


> regarding vinyl sounding different from each play....what does this mean? wear from the stylus?


 






 keep thinking about it...


----------



## thelostMIDrange

don't be a jackass. is that what you meant or not? No amount of thinking about your short remarks will substitute from you getting out of twitter mode and stringing more than two sentences together. I'm trying to have a dialogue here


----------



## bigshot

Whaaa whaha waaa! Get ready for the thread lock due to dumbassery


----------



## thelostMIDrange

what are you talking about? Do you guys have some inside converstation going revolving around the member analog survivor?


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> hey *survivor*, how much until we can listen to the CD mats....


 
 Well - I am man of *continuous *action . Example:
  
 Recording the male choir this weekend spawned a wholly new project - because I travelled to the site by a museum train ! Which got my mind running in high gear how to make an unique recording of this fantastic choo choo ride !
  http://www.slo-zeleznice.si/sl/potniki/slovenija/na-izlet/De%C5%BEela_celjska_muzejski_vlak
 I originally planned to do it this saturday - but there came a request to record the yearly concert by our premier student choir, hatching place of many, if not all our singers that later in their musical careers make mark as outstanding - almost by default. Saying no would be - ahem - in the very least - "unwise".
  
 I just woke up from recording a harpsichord concert yesterday - accompanied by a guest, classical guitar, in two pieces. As the acoustics of a smallish church with stone floor and wooden clad walls and high ceiling proved to be fantastic for guitar, the spontaneous "recording after the recording" (with the 21 year old guitarist/student I met for the first time only 3 hours before ...) ended up in - the vee hours of the day. He shocked me by the mature attitude towards the  recording, surpassing in seriousness that from most of his colleagues twice (or more..) his tender age...
  
 Now, the first thing to do is to make a duplicate copy of files from DSD recorders to my RAID array.
  
 Second, I have to finish authoring of the CDs from three live concerts recorded in about last month or so - all of those long enough to require a double CD of each - that is to say 6 CDs. They are in various stages between raw DSD file and finished CD disc.
  
 And the deadline is the end of the month.
  
 The guy, who promised me to help recording of the "train", is the same whom I will have to bug regarding real time recordings of CD player with and without the mat - directly into his computer with S/PDIF digital input.
  
 And I am pissed like hell - because the very SAME - mildly put - SOB beat me in vee hours of the day - for the 10+ th time !!!!! - on an ebay auction for the best Stax product - ever. The guy is obviously loaded with infinite amount of money - we both end up consistently offering CONSIDERABLY more than the "honorary mention third bidder".
  
 It is not a  screw**g headphone - but a phono cartridge. That would make
 @bigshot 
 eat any words regarding vinyl he ever wrote ... - if he only had a chance to listen to it.
 It does NOT require any ABX to demonstrate its vast superiority, either - unless you enjoy ABX scientific approach more than actual sound being achieved.


----------



## bigshot

For some reason I keep getting notifications that this thread has replies, when no replies are here.


----------



## analogsurviver

thelostmidrange said:


> what are you talking about? Do you guys have some inside converstation going revolving around the member analog survivor?


 
 *something* like that.


----------



## bigshot

ANOTHER empty reply. What is going on? Don't blocks work both ways like on Facebook?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll


----------



## thelostMIDrange

macoco. do you find that conversation style of yours any hindrance to communicating with others? I don't follow a thing you say so far, but would like to understand your perspective. Regarding that vinyl comment, could you flesh that out so we can discuss it?


----------



## bigshot

crickets. would someone like to highlight the worthwhile commentary here?


----------



## thelostMIDrange

we're working on it biggie, just trying to get macoao to come out of his twitter mode and begin a discussion. How can a forum discussion develop into anything worthwhile if no one responds to each other's ideas and questions? or if he does it's obtuse or related to some inside joke from 30 pages ago in the thread?


----------



## bigshot

Why am I continually asked to look at comments in this thread when there are no new comments to read?


----------



## thelostMIDrange

biggie are you high? what's goin' on over there? we're talking about vinyl and rips and such. Let's get this train back on track....why are you so concerned with blocking and stuff? what's the problem. What do you think about those WAV vs flac ideas?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bigshot said:


> crickets. would someone like to highlight the worthwhile commentary here?


 
  
  
 please! don't feed the troll...


----------



## thelostMIDrange

maco, what did you mean with that vinyl wear comment? come on flesh it out bud, could be a fun topic......are you trying to explain that you are trolling by dropping obtuse comments regarding vinyl wear and vinyl sounding different after each play and then ignoring the guys who want to discuss your comments? For sober scientists, both you and biggie are acting very loopy. It makes it hard to discuss anything and is a very odd communication style.


----------



## prot

thelostmidrange said:


> don't be a jackass. is that what you meant or not? No amount of thinking about your short remarks will substitute from you getting out of twitter mode and stringing more than two sentences together. I'm trying to have a dialogue here




to me it looks more like you are trying to sell snake oil in a research clinic .. but that's just my opinion. 
And btw, when I dont like what I hear I usually blame the Mu telepaths..works very well for everyone.


----------



## bigshot

Ha Ha! Is he still at it? Thankfully, the powers that be at Head-Fi have given the the power to silence his nonsense! Thanks Mods!


----------



## thelostMIDrange

what are you guys talking about? I don't have any business venture or sales? I think there's a huge misunderstanding going on but it's all good. I've got no hard feelings, just trying to have a chat and get some ideas flowing. I don't know why there's so much resistance but I came into this thread late and do not know exactly how this ball got rolling....I still wonder what maco meant with vinyl sounding different after each play. that was an odd comment to make and not explain...


----------



## bigshot




----------



## thelostMIDrange

What? what's that got do do with anything? Let's try and keep things on track. It's hard enough to discuss anything even if we are trying. To interject odd and uninformative posts makes it even harder. Do you know what maco meant with that vinyl wear comment by chance biggie? I'm unable to get him to sit still and focus a question and answer session


----------



## Dobrescu George

This thread lived past it's usage time. Maybe it is time for it to be locked down, to dissipate the anger.
  
 EDIT: I had un-subscribed from it starting now.


----------



## MacacoDoSom




----------



## prot

dobrescu george said:


> This thread lived past it's usage time. Maybe it is time for it to be locked down, to dissipate the anger.
> 
> EDIT: I had un-subscribed from it starting now.




ppl can have fun and vent a little, even in a science forum ... no need to get dramatic about it

thelostMIDrange
sounds like this is your first attempt to post in a science forum ... it can be a lot more brutal than your usual audiophile board and there may be a lot of irony/sarcasm ... try to read between the lines.
E.g. noone suggested that you are literally selling anything ... but you came in with a few pretty strong "vynil sounds better" posts and that is so *not* science ... first of all, a generic 'better' does not mean anything, you have to say precisely what you find better. If you are talking about the "more relaxed/enjoyable" kind of better, I could partially agree with you ... but that is a pure matter of preferences and not science. Other than that, vinyl loses in pretty much any scientific, measurable way: THN, S/N, etc..
Anyway, sorry if you felt offended and dont get scared so easy


----------



## bigshot

I think someone should take the links in the first post, clean out the dead links and repost it. Too many people post to the thread without bothering to read what it is about. It's about controlled test results of audio myths


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I think someone should take the links in the first post, clean out the dead links and repost it. Too many people post to the thread without bothering to read what it is about. It's about controlled test results of audio myths




Very good idea. 

se


----------



## ferday

thelostmidrange said:


> I still wonder what maco meant with vinyl sounding different after each play. that was an odd comment to make and not explain...


 
  
 playing vinyl is a destructive process.  the groove after a play is not identical to what it was before a play.  this is an unavoidable result of friction.  
  
 i have my doubts that it would sound noticeably different after a single play but it sure could if the record wasn't clean or any of the assembly was damaged or worn


----------



## bigshot

ferday said:


> playing vinyl is a destructive process.


 
  
 I have a 100 year old acoustic phonograph. No electricity involved. It uses a steel nail to play the record and the tonearm weighs about a pound. That means that the point of the nail and the groove come together with tremendous force. I came across a mint copy of a record, so I decided to do a test. I transferred the record with an electronic turntable. Then I played it 100 times on my acoustic phonograph. I was sick of that song by the time I was done. Then I transferred it electronically again and compared the before and after. They were identical.
  
 The truth is that records are *designed* to be played. If your turntable is in proper alignment, you will get sick of the music long before the record shows any signs of wear. The thrashed LPs out there in junk stores are messed up because they were abused and played on turntables that were so far out of alignment, they could cut their own grooves. It's not because the records were worn out by proper playing and handling.


----------



## ferday

I'm sure it's true!

But it's still "a destructive process". Science doesn't allow for otherwise, regardless of how small the changes really are

I was simply pointing out the likely reason for the comment (other then pure antagonism that is)


----------



## castleofargh

one of the surfaces has to give for the other one to last longer. but even then physic is still physic, even water drops end up making holes in rocks if you give them enough time.
 the needle needs to handle the heat and constant friction, so it cannot be really soft and fragile in a way that would preserve vinyls very well the best.
 my analogy to this is my wacom ^_^. the tip of the pen get eaten away pretty fast and I have to change it several times a year, but that way the surface of the tablet itself still looks perfectly fine after years of abuse.


----------



## bigshot

Actually, on an acoustic phonograph the needles wear out so the record doesn't. The needles are soft nickel plated steel with a rounded point, and the shellac of the record contains abrasives that wear the steel needle down so it fits snugly in the groove after the first couple of spins. You change steel needles with every record you play and throw away the old ones. If you keep using the same steel needle over and over, the abrasives sharpen the needle until it starts gouging into the bottom of the groove instead of riding on top of it.
  
 Clever counter-intuitive system, but it works.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Actually, on an acoustic phonograph the needles wear out so the record doesn't. The needles are soft nickel plated steel with a rounded point, and the shellac of the record contains abrasives that wear the steel needle down so it fits snugly in the groove after the first couple of spins. You change steel needles with every record you play and throw away the old ones. If you keep using the same steel needle over and over, the abrasives sharpen the needle until it starts gouging into the bottom of the groove instead of riding on top of it.
> 
> Clever counter-intuitive system, but it works.


 

 cool didn't know about that. but it sure makes sense.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Actually, on an acoustic phonograph the needles wear out so the record doesn't. The needles are soft nickel plated steel with a rounded point, and the shellac of the record contains abrasives that wear the steel needle down so it fits snugly in the groove after the first couple of spins. You change steel needles with every record you play and throw away the old ones. If you keep using the same steel needle over and over, the abrasives sharpen the needle until it starts gouging into the bottom of the groove instead of riding on top of it.
> 
> Clever counter-intuitive system, but it works.




Sounds interesting. Is there any published literature on the subject?

se


----------



## Dobrescu George

bigshot said:


> Actually, on an acoustic phonograph the needles wear out so the record doesn't. The needles are soft nickel plated steel with a rounded point, and the shellac of the record contains abrasives that wear the steel needle down so it fits snugly in the groove after the first couple of spins. You change steel needles with every record you play and throw away the old ones. If you keep using the same steel needle over and over, the abrasives sharpen the needle until it starts gouging into the bottom of the groove instead of riding on top of it.
> 
> Clever counter-intuitive system, but it works.


 
 This is very nice to know if I am ever planning to get vinyl. 
  
 Then how many records can a single needle play before it needs to be changed? Or there are more than one type, and some can play more and some less?


----------



## limpidglitch

dobrescu george said:


> This is very nice to know if I am ever planning to get vinyl.
> 
> Then how many records can a single needle play before it needs to be changed? Or there are more than one type, and some can play more and some less?


 
  
 Notice he said "acoustic phonograph" and "shellac", not turntable and vinyl.
 Similar, but I suspect vinyl, being a bit softer, should wear a bit faster, and the styli hold a bit longer.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> It is not a  screw**g headphone - but a phono cartridge. That would make
> @bigshot
> eat any words regarding vinyl he ever wrote ... - if he only had a chance to listen to it.
> It does NOT require any ABX to demonstrate its vast superiority, either - unless you enjoy ABX scientific approach more than actual sound being achieved.


 
  
 It's really not.. CLICK.... difficult to point out... POP... a vinyl record in ... POP.... a vinyl v digital.... CLICK... test. But you won't be able to tell apart a... CLICK... vinyl playback from a high-end digital recording of... POP... the same


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> Sounds interesting. Is there any published literature on the subject?


 
  
 Published specs and everything!
  
 http://www.victor-victrola.com/Soundbox%20Article.htm


----------



## bigshot

dobrescu george said:


> This is very nice to know if I am ever planning to get vinyl.  Then how many records can a single needle play before it needs to be changed?


 
  
 I'm referring to shellac 78s, not vinyl LPs by the way. Each steel needle is good for one record side (4 minutes). After you use it you throw it away. I buy needles in batches of 300 at a time. There are three kinds of needles which each produce a different volume level... soft tone, medium tone and loud tone. Acoustic phonographs don't have volume controls. The dynamics are a straight line from record to the horn. The natural volume level that they heard when it was being recorded.
  
 The acoustic recording chain is the same on both ends, just inverted. The singer sings into a horn > vibrates a diaphragm > cuts grooves in beeswax > record is played > vibrates a diaphragm > sound comes out a horn. In essence you are hearing 100 year old vibrations.
  
 Nice video limpid! I have that record. It's a good one. That is an Orthophonic Credenza in that video, the top of the Victor line. Saturday, I am getting the main competition for the Credenza, a Brunswick Cortez. The cabinet looks about the same, but the Credenza has a re-entrant folded horn and the Cortez has a huge straight horn made of carefully molded spruce. The Credenza has a little bit more bass, but the sound is a little bit muffled. The Cortez isn't quite as full but the overall sound present and very clear. Cortez's are very rare, because not many of them were made. I'll post a video when I get it.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Published specs and everything!




Thanks, but I was referring to abrasives used in the shellac and needle wear.

se


----------



## bigshot

Here are the articles on needles...
  
 http://www.victor-victrola.com/Needles.htm
 http://www.victor-victrola.com/Needle%20Article.htm
  
 This one talks about the makeup of the records...
  
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record#78_rpm_materials


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> It's really not.. CLICK.... difficult to point out... POP... a vinyl record in ... POP.... a vinyl v digital.... CLICK... test. But you won't be able to tell apart a... CLICK... vinyl playback from a high-end digital recording of... POP... the same


 
 Well, there is no digital gizmo at present that is totally indistinguishable from vinyl played on top gear live. DSD128 is NOT fast enough - maybe DSD256, but more likely DSD512 - or its "approximate counterpart" in PCM. WELL north of 300 kHz sampling frequency.
  
 Ironically, a digital copy of vinyl is most easily discernible from the real thing by - clicks and pops. They no longer sound "natural and effortless" - particularly in PCM, and even more so in CD redbook. It is WAY more noise than the record played live... 
  
 The bandwidth from great analog gear makes even TOTL present digital look like a kindergarten level.  Even if it is a product of the imperfections of tracking the groove - extending well into the MHz range. These frequencies make digital go berserk most of the time.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Here are the articles on needles...
> 
> http://www.victor-victrola.com/Needles.htm
> http://www.victor-victrola.com/Needle%20Article.htm
> ...




Thanks! That's what I was looking for. I'll give 'em a read after dinner.

se


----------



## Dobrescu George

bigshot said:


> I'm referring to shellac 78s, not vinyl LPs by the way. Each steel needle is good for one record side (4 minutes). After you use it you throw it away. I buy needles in batches of 300 at a time. There are three kinds of needles which each produce a different volume level... soft tone, medium tone and loud tone. Acoustic phonographs don't have volume controls. The dynamics are a straight line from record to the horn. The natural volume level that they heard when it was being recorded.
> 
> The acoustic recording chain is the same on both ends, just inverted. The singer sings into a horn > vibrates a diaphragm > cuts grooves in beeswax > record is played > vibrates a diaphragm > sound comes out a horn. In essence you are hearing 100 year old vibrations.
> 
> Nice video limpid! I have that record. It's a good one. That is an Orthophonic Credenza in that video, the top of the Victor line. Saturday, I am getting the main competition for the Credenza, a Brunswick Cortez. The cabinet looks about the same, but the Credenza has a re-entrant folded horn and the Cortez has a huge straight horn made of carefully molded spruce. The Credenza has a little bit more bass, but the sound is a little bit muffled. The Cortez isn't quite as full but the overall sound present and very clear. Cortez's are very rare, because not many of them were made. I'll post a video when I get it.


 
 Phonographs seem a very fun way to spend time.
  
 Though I think that buying so many needles might be too expensive in the end.


----------



## bigshot

a little more than a penny apiece


----------



## Dobrescu George

bigshot said:


> a little more than a penny apiece


 
 Ah. then i guess that price is not a great problem. 
  
 I think that it would be so much fun owning a phonograph. I have no ideea how one sounds though. I guess that it is a nice experience hearing one.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> a little more than a penny apiece




Not for the cryo treated ones. 

se


----------



## jcx

bandwidth and amplitude limiting are required in the analog domain for any ADC
  
 and most flagship audio multibit delta sigma ADC today naturally oversample in the front end by as high factors as DSD - and capture 5-7 bits at each time DSD just decides one bit
  
  
 of course if you could in fact prove your claim in listening tests then you can buy successive approximation "full bit depth" 400 ks/s 18 bit ADC or  up to 4 Ms/s 16 bit ADC chips developed for medical imaging - ADC SOTA is a bit beyond any "audio" design for a while now


----------



## StanD

jcx said:


> bandwidth and amplitude limiting are required in the analog domain for any ADC
> 
> and most flagship audio multibit delta sigma today naturally oversample in the front end by as high factors as DSD - and capture 5-7 bits at each time DSD just decides one bit
> 
> ...


 
 Now you're going to get the ultrasonic types all worked up.


----------



## bigshot

dobrescu george said:


> I think that it would be so much fun owning a phonograph. I have no ideea how one sounds though. I guess that it is a nice experience hearing one.


 
  
 I've found that because of remastering errors, it's usually better to play early recordings on the type of machine they were designed for. It depends on the era though. Acoustic sounds MUCH better on acoustic. Early electrical sounds better on modern turntables, because they didn't have the bugs worked out yet. mid 40s stuff sounds really good on a contemporary jukebox. 50s LPs can often sound better on a good 50s hifi system. 60s and 70s, it's hit or miss whether it sounds better on LP or CD. By the time it gets to the late 70s, just about everything is better on CD than LP because of the oil crisis and vinyl recycling.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> The bandwidth from great analog gear makes even TOTL present digital look like a kindergarten level.  Even if it is a product of the imperfections of tracking the groove - *extending well into the MHz range*. These frequencies make digital go berserk most of the time.


 
  
 And this... ladies and gentlemen... is why no-one takes AS seriously in this forum.


----------



## thelostMIDrange

I've got to disagree. I'm right there with surviver. Dynamic range is better on a CD but real world dynamics in terms of how the ear seems to hear things is more alive and not by a small degree. This is beyond debate for anyone whose spent time enjoying vinyl on a decent setup, and it doesn't have to be over $1000. I don't know the science behind it and it does seem counter to the facts, but it is what it is. People who don't take this seriously are shooting themselves in the foot in terms of music enjoyment. The level of joy I get from vinyl is night and day over digital music. It might just be a personal thing and some people value different aspects of sound. In fact I do firmly believe this is what is at the bottom of the debate. But I nearly stopped listening to music a decade or so ago for a few months during my post vinyl days and the digital interum and when I dug out the vinyl again all the joy back. That's my kind of science. Irrefutable.


----------



## thelostMIDrange

@biggie's 70's comment...... man I couldn't agree less with this statemtent regarding 70's vinyl vs CD. 70s and 80's vinyl is all I listen to and used to have many of the same albums on CD and the discs have long since been in the trash. the vinyl did get recycled but still much prefer it over CD equivalent album


----------



## jcx

have you tried, beat a half decent bypass test? - put even a $140 ESI Juli@ class prosumer soundcard in series, level matched outputs and done a properly blinded ABX with statistical significant discrimination between the raw RIAA preamp analog out and the ADC-DAC chain?
  
 that's really the only evidence any here will pay any attention at all too - otherwise it is just story telling
  
 most likely your unconscious expectations telling the stories, shaping your conscious perception - this is simply a human limitation - all of us as humans suffer from - nothing to do with "intellectual honesty"
  
 even those with reasons for claiming skilz get surprised when they try controlled listening - real audio pros, mixing engineers


----------



## thelostMIDrange

you can disregard it, understood....I've taken into account all the things you suggest, and others, and will take a wager bet from anywhere anytime to do a AB. the higher the bet the better! but i'm not interested in buying gear or learning new software to prove to anyone what's obvious. This get's into the whole problem of communication and sharing personal subjective experience which is nearly impossible in any aspect of living, so headfi is no different. I recommend vinyl to any kid out there who loves natural dynamic music and tone. I just wish the modern presses where all great...maybe pono is filling this digital gap for vinyl lovers? I don't know


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> And this... ladies and gentlemen... is why no-one takes AS seriously in this forum.


 
 Ahem - have you EVER measured what comes out of a turntable ? Using good ANALOG oscilloscope - or digital one that is good to say at least 100 MHz ?
  
 If you did, such a blatant display of ( lack of understanding/lack of experience/lack of desire to improve things further/ etc - take your own pick ) simply would not have been possible.
  
 Before you EVER make similar statement again - time to do your homework on this matter, perhaps ?
  
 I have sprinkled more than enough clues in my previous posts already, do not expect me to react to any type of comment on this post - other than the one that genuinely is meant to help improving the present state of affairs and not as derogatory - as usually from you.


----------



## lamode

thelostmidrange said:


> I've got to disagree. I'm right there with surviver. Dynamic range is better on a CD but real world dynamics in terms of how the ear seems to hear things is more alive and not by a small degree. This is beyond debate for anyone whose spent time enjoying vinyl on a decent setup, and it doesn't have to be over $1000. I don't know the science behind it and it does seem counter to the facts, but it is what it is. People who don't take this seriously are shooting themselves in the foot in terms of music enjoyment. The level of joy I get from vinyl is night and day over digital music. It might just be a personal thing and some people value different aspects of sound. In fact I do firmly believe this is what is at the bottom of the debate. But I nearly stopped listening to music a decade or so ago for a few months during my post vinyl days and the digital interum and when I dug out the vinyl again all the joy back. That's my kind of science. Irrefutable.


 
  
 It's perfectly ok to like vinyl, and even to prefer it, but if we are talking about "high fidelity", or the ability to reproduce as accurately as possible the original master tape, then vinyl just can't compete and is inferior in every metric.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> Ahem - have you EVER measured what comes out of a turntable ? Using good ANALOG oscilloscope - or digital one that is good to say at least 100 MHz ?


 
  
 It's amazing to me that on the one hand you claim to have superhuman hearing which extends past 1MHz (and apparently you listen to a one-off audio system capable of reproducing that) but at the same time you listen to gypsy orchestras playing wildly out of time, and you apparently can't hear that.


----------



## thelostMIDrange

fidelity is what vinyl does best and is exactly what i'm referring to when I express my preference... if fidelity means accurate and natural instrument reproduction (traditional instruments)
  
 btw, what's your vinyl setup that has it taking second place to your digital setup? what cart, arm, table, pre?


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> It's amazing to me that on the one hand you claim to have superhuman hearing which extends past 1MHz (and apparently you listen to a one-off audio system capable of reproducing that) but at the same time you listen to gypsy orchestras playing wildly out of time, and you apparently can't hear that.


 
  I have - never - claimed I can hear past 1 MHz. 
  
 But, yes, I can hear the havoc inferiour styli misbehaving in the groove at approx that frequency range are doing well within the audible band. And it has been a well documented back in the 80s, when A.J. Van den Hul developed and published his stylus profile. Citing the relatively quite massive reduction of this waaaaay ultrasonic garbage as one of the most significant improvement over the previous designs.
  
 And, after getting used to the VdH and similar TOTL stylus tip profiles as per default for the last 30 or so years,
 got annoyed recently by a hyperelliptical design - which, although superb on most other counts, brought this high frequency garbage back - instantly audible as added noise and haze to the sound I have by now taken as granted to be free of such vices. 
  
 Correction - ONE gypsy orchestra. Poorly recorded at that - live they are much better.


----------



## Steve Eddy

"Fidelity," in the context of reproduced music means fidelity to the recording that's being reproduced. 

se


----------



## thelostMIDrange

that too.


----------



## MacacoDoSom




----------



## MacacoDoSom

there is a virus plaguing the science forum... any cure on sight?


----------



## DreamKing

thelostmidrange said:


> *fidelity is what vinyl does best* and is exactly what i'm referring to when I express my preference... if fidelity means accurate and natural instrument reproduction (traditional instruments)
> 
> btw, what's your vinyl setup that has it taking second place to your digital setup? what cart, arm, table, pre?


 
  
 but how is this the case when you take into account vinyl's surface noise levels (audible by anyone) in comparison with noise levels found in competent CD or digital? And noise is a main factor in measuring fidelity. Note however that I can enjoy vinyl as a source too but show no preference.


----------



## jcx

so that would be a no, you've never made the experiment but you are sure of the result and want to come to the sound science forum to boast, blather, bloviate? - there are other sub forums at head-fi where you wouldn't be getting the troll label
  
 Quote:


thelostmidrange said:


> you can disregard it, understood....I've taken into account all the things you suggest, and others, and will take a wager bet from anywhere anytime to do a AB. the higher the bet the better! but i'm not interested in buying gear or learning new software to prove to anyone what's obvious. This get's into the whole problem of communication and sharing personal subjective experience which is nearly impossible in any aspect of living, so headfi is no different. I recommend vinyl to any kid out there who loves natural dynamic music and tone. I just wish the modern presses where all great...maybe pono is filling this digital gap for vinyl lovers? I don't know


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> there is a virus plaguing the science forum... any cure on sight?


 
 No.
  
 The reason is that the Science - at least within this thread - has satisfied itself with easy and safe - while ignoring anything that might threaten the conclusions it has been capable of reaching and proving in scientifically accepted manners (DBT, ABX, peer reviewed, and everything else along these lines ) - carved in stone.
  
 I am intentionally provoking - all of you - into thinking beyond the usual box. I am not going to hide that considerable improvements in analog have been spawned by acknowledging certain parameters of digital - even my "darling" CD redbook - being inherently superiour to analog ; and each and every step and measure possible to at least approach the perfection of digital *in some parameters *has been and/or will be tried to hopefully make the gap tolerably small , or even inaudible.
  
*Exactly the same can be said about digital **- *it, too, does have certain parameters that are inherently inferiour to analog.
  
 My goal is to, eventually, come up with something that could both record and play back music in such a way to be (almost) indistinguishable from the real thing. And pros and contras of analog and digital, when executed optimally, SHOULD produce exactly the same result in the end.
  
 I have absolutely no illusion that digital capable of achieving it is going to be MUCH more affordable than its analog counterpart. Yet, it is likely that analog will get there first - teaching in the process everybody with enough open mind a thing or two - which could have been overlooked in "digital only" approach.
  
 But say anything you want - CD redbook is FAR from enough.


----------



## castleofargh

thelostmidrange said:


> fidelity is what vinyl does best and is exactly what i'm referring to when I express my preference... if fidelity means accurate and natural instrument reproduction (traditional instruments)
> 
> btw, what's your vinyl setup that has it taking second place to your digital setup? what cart, arm, table, pre?


 

 you're really on all the front lines trying to force your incomplete point of view. fidelity... is that a late april fool?
 usable dynamic? nope
 reproduction of accurate dynamic? no, there can be several db differences in the trebles. and that's on vinyls that were already mastered for vinyls. try pressing a record with the CD master and enjoy the fidelity.
 crosstalk? lol
 distortions? multi combo lol, several % of distortion on high end well tuned devices.
 noise? ahahahahahahahahahahah
  
 but I guess that's fidelity for you.
 nobody would want a DAC with specs like that, not even for free. but you come here and tell us fidelity is what vinyl does best... you really have no idea what you're talking about. when I look up a definition, there is always a part specific to audio and it looks very clear to me. just like it's very clear that vinyl ain't it.
  
 if you're going to continue posting in sound science, please start looking stuff up before you make totally false statements like this one. you have all the rest of headfi to post nonsense like you believe it. and what's best, admins will stop us from calling you a fraud over there, so go and enjoy yourself. but in here, truth still has some small matter of value. thanks for trying to stick to it from time to time.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > there is a virus plaguing the science forum... any cure on sight?
> ...


 
 But say anything you want - CD redbook is *more than enough*.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> you're really on all the front lines trying to force your incomplete point of view. fidelity... is that a late april fool?
> usable dynamic? nope
> reproduction of accurate dynamic? no, there can be several db differences in the trebles. and that's on vinyls that were already mastered for vinyls. try pressing a record with the CD master and enjoy the fidelity.
> crosstalk? lol
> ...


 
 While you obviously have some correct knowledge of limitations of the vinyl, most of vinyl distractors will have a VERY tough pill to swallow :
  
 It is frequency response related. It can be measured - either as sine sweep or square wave response. Provided JVC had ever made their non plus ultra pulse test disc available outside its labs, it could establish the performance of analog even better.
  
 DR of CD redbook is 96.xy dB - in theory. Its rise time is 14.xy microseconds. 96 dB divided by 14 microseconds give us  6.857 dB/microsecond maximum possible change of SPL over certain amount of time.
  
 DR of analog record as we usually know it is - under the best circumstances - 78 dB. Rise time of best cartridges available today is approximately 7 microseconds. 
 which gives us 11.142 dB/microsecond maximum change of SPL over certain amount of time.
  
 From the above, it is clear that in optimally recorded music, both to vynil and CD, vinyl outperforms the CD by 1,625 times - or, it is at least 60 % faster in responding to sudden changes in music - which is NOTHING BUT - you've guessed it - an never ending stream of sudden changes (unless your musical diet is exclusively composed of listening to organ ).
  
 Now - do you remember the prototype cart I've mentioned a while ago - and its 3 (in a word: three) microsecond rise time ? As the textbooks are fond of saying, calculations on this one will be left as an exercise to the reader...
  
 Even if we allow for the DR of analog record to be only say 68 dB ( noise can creep in pretty easily ...) - it still allows for this - call it "apparent dynamic range", "crest factor" "whatever you want to call it" - to be better than CD redbook.  And is the reason a good analog recording on vynil, let alone direct to disk recording, can *NEVER*
 be duplicated to CD redbook without this instantly audible loss/difference. Period.
  
 It is not only to be able to listen - when they say "Jump". And not only asking "How high?".
  
 It is also important to ask "How high and HOW FAST ?"


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> But say anything you want - CD redbook is *more than enough*.


 
 Please see the reason why it is not - or ever can be enough - post # 6418, just above.
  
 It is inherently limited by 44.1 kHz sampling. It has limited itself by its very own definition of Redbook.
  
 It is MUCH more audible if something is missing entirely - then if there is some noise and distortion added to the correct signal. Analog does have higher distortion, lower channel separation, etc - but at least DOES reproduce (somewhat imperfectly...) what is available in live music. And, like it or not, anything limited to 20 kHz response will NEVER sound realistic - even if me ( the first to admit it - several dozens of times by now ) or (presumably) you can no longer hear pure sine wave 20 kHz signal .
  
 There is digital well beyond CD - and as it begins to dawn, well beyond what analog could ever hope to achieve. And that was no slouch - up to approx 120 kHz from microphone capsule to output from the phono preamplifier - right down to the ribbon tweeter capable of response to 150 kHz.
 Current state of the art crop of digital recorders ( or ADCs and DACs, if you prefer )  is roughly equalling it - and there ARE ways to get even better - where analog has reached its (un)reasonable limits.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > But say anything you want - CD redbook is *more than enough*.
> ...


 

 ...there we go again... YOU can't hear it...YOU just say YOU can!... but you CAN hear the distortion, the wow and flutter, the background noise, the clics and pops...and so on...


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> ...there we go again... YOU can't hear it...YOU just say YOU can!... but you CAN hear the distortion, the wow and flutter, the background noise, the clics and pops...and so on...


 
 Yes, those unfortunate artifacts of analog are real... - but can be brought down to bearable level.
  
 EXACTLY so is its superiority over CD redbook when it comes to the correct soundstage - which CD can not match, despite lower distortion, total absence of wow and flutter, zero clicks and pops, and so on. CD lacks response over 20 kHz (for nitpickers : above 22.050 Hz ) - which is preventing it - EVER - to attain anything like decent soundstage with anything like reasonable depth of image. CD is usually as flat as a pancake, without any depth perspective - and at the very best is capable of some relief on that pancake.


----------



## DreamKing

analogsurviver said:


> Please see the reason why it is not - or ever can be enough - post # 6418, just above.
> 
> It is inherently limited by 44.1 kHz sampling. It has limited itself by its very own definition of Redbook.
> 
> ...


 
  
 How is it not realistic if its within the boundaries of established human hearing limits? You even admit to this fact in the next sentence. It can't get any realer than that. If you can't hear it, why make arguments for frequencies higher than Nyquist's?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > ...there we go again... YOU can't hear it...YOU just say YOU can!... but you CAN hear the distortion, the wow and flutter, the background noise, the clics and pops...and so on...
> ...


 

 I would like to see a plot of your ultrasonic recordings and at what levels frequencies above 16Khz can reach, does the Equal Loudness contours have no meaning to you?
  
  
 just do this test and tell me about it...
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html


----------



## RRod

dreamking said:


> How is it not realistic if its within the boundaries of established human hearing limits? You even admit to this fact in the next sentence. It can't get any realer than that. If you can't hear it, why make arguments for frequencies higher than Nyquist's?


 
  
 Lately the argument put forward has been that the non-linearity of the ear's response engenders actual audible content due to the presence of the higher frequencies.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

rrod said:


> dreamking said:
> 
> 
> > How is it not realistic if its within the boundaries of established human hearing limits? You even admit to this fact in the next sentence. It can't get any realer than that. If you can't hear it, why make arguments for frequencies higher than Nyquist's?
> ...


 

 unsubstantiated argument...you mean...


----------



## thelostMIDrange

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_16_4_radin_2.pdf


----------



## analogsurviver

dreamking said:


> How is it not realistic if its within the boundaries of established human hearing limits? You even admit to this fact in the next sentence. It can't get any realer than that. If you can't hear it, why make arguments for frequencies higher than Nyquist's?


 
 For  anyone's sake, who matters to you - go get yourself a good demo of  turntable fitted with an extended frequency response approx to 50 kHz cartridge (any decent MC cart today fits into this category ) vs CD - with an originally analog recording that was not brick wall filtered above 20 kHz to begin with ; with both as originally issued LP and its CD counterpart. It will convince you that you do not require hearing capability of pure sine waves  to 20 kHz in order hear/experience the difference in soudstage.
 The analog should have broader/larger lateral spread than the digital - despite having less channel separation. And it should absolutely trounce CD in depth perceptive. And please DO note - I am NOT refering to"ambience" falsely added to the signal by lesser stylus tip profiles due to pinch effect producing out of phase vertical component NOT existing on record; stylus of the cartridge should have minor scanning radii equal to or less than 5 micrometers in order to avoid this type of distortion.
  
 I am using turntables since my mid teens - and any one of them now in my possession  is capable of blowing the CD out of the ring with a K.O. - after only couple of seconds. 
  
 If the rest of the system is up to the ta$k.  Processing the signal above 20 kHz is not - nor ever will be - cheap. But it can be kept reasonable.
  
 HiRez ( for real, not upsampled CD redbook ) can do similar at MUCH lower prices .
  
 Currently listening to a harpsichord recital I recorded two days ago - it has >35 dB dynamic range between 20 and 30 kHz, with usable output past 50 kHz. Harpsichord is the instrument I found to be consistently VERY active above 20 kHz - only second to a _very common _sound usually heard at the concert -
 applause
 ( which IS the real sound having the most beyond 20 kHz HF content of them all - and is not something anyone can possibly say to be unfamiliar with - AND is easily replicated at home - you can clap hands, I suppose ? )


----------



## RRod

macacodosom said:


> unsubstantiated argument...you mean...


 
  
 Hey what do you think this is, a science forum?


----------



## MacacoDoSom

rrod said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > unsubstantiated argument...you mean...
> ...


 

 that was what I thought, back when... now I can see the light... it's a paranormal 'science' forum...
  
 hopefully I will be banned to...


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> I would like to see a plot of your ultrasonic recordings and at what levels frequencies above 16Khz can reach, does the Equal Loudness contours have no meaning to you?
> 
> 
> just do this test and tell me about it...
> http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html


 
  


macacodosom said:


> I would like to see a plot of your ultrasonic recordings and at what levels frequencies above 16Khz can reach, does the Equal Loudness contours have no meaning to you?
> 
> 
> just do this test and tell me about it...
> http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html


 
 I will post the plots - AFTER I get some video software to upload to YT or something. Or I could send you a few seconds of the NORMAL, not ultrasonic recordings - a microphone does not and can not have a brick filter above 20 kHz ( unless it is a leftover from the folly days when mic manufacturers were greedy enough to force you to buy a mic with ADC built in ... ) - that on paper 20 kHz only spec'd mic can - and does - go MUCH beyond that I have already explained before.
  
 I am familiar with the link above - and my pure sine wave hearing capability is 13-14 kHz.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> I will post the plots - AFTER I get some video software to upload to YT or something. Or I could send you a few seconds of the NORMAL, not ultrasonic recordings - a microphone does not and can not have a brick filter above 20 kHz ( unless it is a leftover from the folly days when mic manufacturers were greedy enough to force you to buy a mic with ADC built in ... ) - that on paper 20 kHz only spec'd mic can - and does - go MUCH beyond that I have already explained before.
> 
> I am familiar with the link above - and my pure sine wave hearing capability is 13-14 kHz.


 
 so...I can hear faintly the 16kHz at 0dbs and it's painfully enough... at what level are the 20's ? if you could hear them? and why would ultrasonic garbage affect us?, only in a very very painfully way....
  
 glad we can't...


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> so...I can hear faintly the 16kHz at 0dbs and it's painfully enough... at what level are the 20's ? if you could hear them? and why would ultrasonic garbage affect us?, only in a very very painfully way....
> 
> glad we can't...


 
 Noise floor of this recording is , according to Voxengo Span FFT , at - 84 dB (or so). 
  
 Applause hits 20 kHz mark up to - 30 dB.
  
 Harpsichord reaches up to - 40 dB @20 kHz - and some 5 dB higher at approx 16 kHz. 30 kHz is at - 60 dB or so. According to the same FFT, the peak of this recording is approx @ -12 dB - so that you have to correct the above figures if you want to have "normalized" values.
  
 I have yet to hear of somebody that finds listening to the harpsichord - painful. De gustibus ... - but literally physically painful - no.


----------



## DreamKing

analogsurviver said:


> For  anyone's sake, who matters to you - go get yourself a good demo of  turntable fitted with an extended frequency response approx to 50 kHz cartridge (any decent MC cart today fits into this category ) vs CD - with an originally analog recording that was not brick wall filtered above 20 kHz to begin with ; with both as originally issued LP and its CD counterpart.* It will convince you that you do not require hearing capability of pure sine waves  to 20 kHz in order hear/experience the difference in soudstage.*
> The analog should have broader/larger lateral spread than the digital - despite having less channel separation. *And it should absolutely trounce CD in depth perceptive.* And please DO note - I am NOT refering to"ambience" falsely added to the signal by lesser stylus tip profiles due to pinch effect producing out of phase vertical component NOT existing on record; stylus of the cartridge should have minor scanning radii equal to or less than 5 micrometers in order to avoid this type of distortion.
> 
> I am using turntables since my mid teens - and any one of them now in my possession  is capable of blowing the CD out of the ring with a K.O. - after only couple of seconds.
> ...


 
  
 Why would this sense of depth or soundstage perception be due to the extra kHz beyond your hearing and not what's audible in the master? HF notes that are "felt" more than heard in a music passage still leave an audible imprint to anyone's ear unless its beyond human hearing limits.
  
 A simple ABX test would be samples of your harpsichord recital in redbook and whatever format you feel is superior. Actually, I'd listen to them too if you provided links.


----------



## StanD

analogsurviver said:


> I will post the plots - AFTER I get some video software to upload to YT or something. Or I could send you a few seconds of the NORMAL, not ultrasonic recordings - a microphone does not and can not have a brick filter above 20 kHz ( unless it is a leftover from the folly days when mic manufacturers were greedy enough to force you to buy a mic with ADC built in ... ) - that on paper 20 kHz only spec'd mic can - and does - go MUCH beyond that I have already explained before.
> 
> I am familiar with the link above - and my pure sine wave hearing capability is 13-14 kHz.


 
 Why not post the long overdue study on CD Mats first? I think some folks may want to duplicate/verify that.


----------



## dazzerfong

stand said:


> Why not post the long overdue study on CD Mats first? I think some folks may want to duplicate/verify that.


 
 You honestly think he's gonna give it to us now? Red herring after red herring has been deployed, I'll be surprised if there are even any left for me to eat.


----------



## StanD

dazzerfong said:


> You honestly think he's gonna give it to us now? Red herring after red herring has been deployed, I'll be surprised if there are even any left for me to eat.


 
 By then it will have turned foul and not be suitable for consumption.


----------



## RRod

stand said:


> By then it will have turned foul and not be suitable for consumption.


 
  
 Audiophiles love surströmming!


----------



## jnorris

I've often read that soundstage depth and "air" are somehow related to very high and even ultrasonic frequencies.  I, for one, think it's bull.  Soundstage, depth, air are all a result of maintenance of correct phase relationships (generally implying minimal audio processing), mic placement, flat frequency response (nothing will kill soundstage like bloated bass and mid-bass), cleanliness of the audio chain and the ability of drivers and tranducers to stop moving once an electrical signal is removed.  To say that CDs are incapable of reproducing depth due to limited high frequency response is just wrong - there are too many other factors at play.


----------



## Dobrescu George

jnorris said:


> I've often read that soundstage depth and "air" are somehow related to very high and even ultrasonic frequencies.  I, for one, think it's bull.  Soundstage, depth, air are all a result of maintenance of correct phase relationships (generally implying minimal audio processing), mic placement, flat frequency response (nothing will kill soundstage like bloated bass and mid-bass), cleanliness of the audio chain and the ability of drivers and tranducers to stop moving once an electrical signal is removed.  To say that CDs are incapable of reproducing depth due to limited high frequency response is just wrong - there are too many other factors at play.


 
 ...
  
 Soundstage is between 10 khz and 18 khz. And all of the things posted by you above.  I think that adding from 10 to 18 khz by EQ can actually improove soundstage, and recordings which have more data around those numbers result in better soundstage. But this theory might be wrong, as I heared very spatial recordings that have no data in these ranges. Like good jazz recordings. The best soundstage I heared was in jazz on high resolution, recorded with biaural+ by doctor chesky.
  
 CD resolution is not enough because of absence of samples, it is connected to how digital audio works, not ultrasonics. Ultrasonic information is inaudible, but more samples helps. 
  
 There is much more to it than simply saying this, but using high resolution can bring better than CD soundstage, this is a fact, but this does not mean it will. Placing of microphones, and recording correctly, in a great room is much much more important. 
  
 Having thick mids and bloated bass does not help with soundstage, and if it is done in the source file domain it is very detrimental. But there are headphones / iems that have lots of soundstage and very much bass. Like sennheiser ie8/80. They are more open than half of headphones, regardless of open/closed criteria. 
  
 I think that people reading what they like sometimes. All factors help with soundstage and clarity, but the most important factor after all is the headphne's ability to reproduce it. And the amplifier's ability too. If it is transparent, without hiss or any problems, you will have amazing soundstage. 
  
 Cd/High resolutin differences can help to a certain length, but it is limited to what headphones can achieve. Test HQplayer for example. It gets more soundstage without affect frequency response. It upsamples data on spot, so by all means if you keep Redbook CD and use a correct algorithm, CD is more than enough for listening purposes.
  
 Also you can try high resolution versions of your favourite bands, they all should sound better.


----------



## RRod

Funny that I have CDs that I'd say have too much soundstage (hard-panned guitars and such); guess I must not hear well.


----------



## Dobrescu George

rrod said:


> Funny that I have CDs that I'd say have too much soundstage (hard-panned guitars and such); guess I must not hear well.


 
 I woudl not name hard panning soundstage. It is forced. Soundstage is when you can actually hear a certain sound coming from a certain distant area, which you are able to point, and it sounds realistic. 
  
 I have CDs that have data that sounds more distant than I would had wanted, but in the end, headphones makes the most difference.


----------



## RRod

dobrescu george said:


> I woudl not name hard panning soundstage. It is forced. Soundstage is when you can actually hear a certain sound coming from a certain distant area, which you are able to point, and it sounds realistic.
> 
> I have CDs that have data that sounds more distant than I would had wanted, but in the end, headphones makes the most difference.


 
  
 I have CDs of orchestral recordings where the basses are nice and to the right and the violins are nice and to the left, and it sounds perfectly fine on speakers and headphones. I have ones where I can play air conductor and cue the trumpets, then move my hand just a bit to the right and cue the trombones, and there they are. What technical aspects of CDs in your quoted frequency range are making this less of an enjoyable experience than I might otherwise have?


----------



## StanD

dobrescu george said:


> ...
> 
> Soundstage is between 10 khz and 18 khz. And all of the things posted by you above.  I think that adding from 10 to 18 khz by EQ can actually improove soundstage, and recordings which have more data around those numbers result in better soundstage. But this theory might be wrong, as I heared very spatial recordings that have no data in these ranges. Like good jazz recordings. The best soundstage I heared was in jazz on high resolution, recorded with biaural+ by doctor chesky.
> :


 
 EQ will not alter the phase and delay characteristics of the recording in a meaningful way It may change the perception a bit, but not change soundstage in any real way.


----------



## analogsurviver

stand said:


> Why not post the long overdue study on CD Mats first? I think some folks may want to duplicate/verify that.


 
 Hehe - I was on the phone with the harpsichordist in question while your post came in; she decided which parts of the live performance should be converted to MP3 - for airing them on the national radio. I will do it ASAP - and then will ask her for permission for some short clips of the master recordings with >20 khz content to be posted here.
  
 She is a young student - and ALL she has at the moment for listening is a - laptop. I tried - within reason - to promote some inexpensive but decent headphones - and she seems interested. Today, I ordered Philips SHP-9500 headphones
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/717690/philips-shp9500-discussion-thread
 with this/similar case(s) in mind ; not everyone is thrilled at stuffing their ears with IEMs - or shelling out K$ for some serious stuff requiring  dedicated amplifiers.
 I am trying (within reason ) to promote and educate about the importance of the SQ - you would be appalled at HOW many musicians are actually listening to recorded music...
  
 That CD mat test is something I want to do for a LONG time; but pressing affairs are putting delay upon delay upon delay. And it is NOT interesting to me personally - because I know the outcome in advance. But I will do it ASAP my friend with PC with S/PDIF input will have time - as I want to present the effects of mat in real time playback on the CD player - not ripping, which can repeat scanning the disc many times - until "satisfied" with the result.
  
 In real time playback, player gets only one chance. The SAME with real time burning of CD-Rs - which is my primary application for the use of CD mat.
  
 I would be glad to see the similar test(s) done by others - the more experience gained, the merrier. The goal is to have as good music reproduction as it (reasonably) can get.


----------



## KeithEmo

From the recent arguments about vinyl vs digital, it seems obvious (to me) that there are a few very common (and very "well established") misconceptions involved in a lot of the statements that are getting most of the attention.)
  
 1) There is _NO SUCH THING_ as "sound stage" as a discrete characteristic, entity, or measurable quantity. Audio signals, whether analog or digital, contain information - specifically a recording of air pressure over time. In the context of audio equipment, this recording is in the form of "voltage over time". You can express this information as voltage/time, or as spectrum/time, or as a list of sine wave frequencies and how they relate to each other in time and amplitude... but it's still the same two-dimensional information. When you add one or more additional channels, then you can express how the two channels relate to each other. However, again, each of the two channels are two-dimensional - each consists of a simple voltage that varies over time. _WHAT YOU PERCEIVE AS DEPTH OR SOUND STAGE IS SIMPLY HOW YOUR BRAIN INTERPRETS THIS INFORMATION._ When you "hear" "good sound stage" or "depth" in a recording, what you are hearing is the result of your brain analyzing the signals in each channel, and the relationship between them, and using that information to "figure out" the original locations of the instruments and the acoustics of the room. When you play back a recording, it may seem to have a wide sound stage if the original sound stage really was wide, the recording accurately captures all the information your brain uses to determine such things, and your playback equipment is reproducing all that contained information accurately. It could also sound like it has a wide sound stage if the entire process is horribly flawed, but some of those flaws are such that they _TRICK_ your brain into misinterpreting the remaining information as if it were a recording of an original with a wide sound stage . (A properly photographed and reproduced picture taken on a sunny will accurately convey to your brain that it was indeed a sunny day. However, a poorly calibrated photo, or one taken on a cloudy day, will also superficially appear "sunny" if you're wearing bright yellow sunglasses.) This is why some equipment seems to make everything sound like it has more depth, or a wider sound stage, than other equipment (even if you have no way of knowing if the original was actually like that or not). However, the final point here is that, if both (or all) channels are individually reproduced accurately, and the relationship between them is also accurately reproduced, then things like "depth" and "sound stage" will automatically be _CORRECT_ (meaning accurate). It is not a separate characteristic; merely an indication that everything else is working correctly. (And, if "the sound stage is wrong", then there must be some error in the reproduction of the individual channels; and, if the individual channels are indeed being reproduced accurately, then the "sound stage " _MUST_ be accurate - at least to the original.)
  
 2) I've read several claims that "digital audio or Red Book CD can't accurately reproduce the sound of a vinyl recording"... and they're all missing _THE_ point here. The goal of a recording is to accurately reproduce _THE ORIGINAL EVENT_, and is _NOT_ to reproduce the result of playing back some other recording. _ALL_ methods of recording and reproduction introduce some alteration of the signal; the real question is whether a good quality digital recording introduces more or less alteration than vinyl - to which the answer is almost certainly less. Complaining that a digital reproduction of a vinyl recording isn't perfect is meaningless unless your goal is to reproduce a vinyl recording. If your goal is to reproduce the original, then the sole worthwhile metric is how far each strays from that original. Many comments I've read here seem to suggest that the author is confusing the output of a turntable with the actual original.
  
 To pick one particular example, someone commented that the ticks and pops common on records sound worse when you record them to a CD. Interestingly, in actual fact, record ticks and pops contain a very high percentage of high-frequency content (at some very high ultrasonic frequencies). One popular click-remover appliance (I think Garrard made it) leveraged this well known situation to remove ticks and pops; it "listened" to the output of your phono preamp, "assumed" that any loud transient with a lot of ultrasonic content "must" be a tick, and deleted it. (Based on the "well known fact" that, since ultrasonic content was always filtered out as part of the mastering process, any transients with a high percentage of ultrasonic content "must be a tick" - the result of mechanical damage after the recording and pressing process.)
  
 Assuming you make a digital recording of your damaged record, and that the audio signal is properly filtered before being converted to digital, this extra ultrasonic information should have been removed before the conversion process, and the remaining (audible) portion should be recorded correctly. (And, if you try to run that click-and-pop remover on a red Book CD recording, it shouldn't work, because the ultrasonic portion of the noise spike necessary for it to work should have been eliminated by the pre-filter, and cannot be reproduced by the DAC if it has properly configured filters anyway.) It wouldn't surprise me at all if some other equipment in the playback chain might respond differently to the click (as reproduced by the record directly) and the click (as reproduced on the digital recording) - because they are indeed different; it also wouldn't surprise me if some less than perfect digital conversion might mis-handle an unexpected ultrasonic noise spike; however, the important thing (at least to me) is that the click _SHOULDN'T BE THERE AT ALL_. Rather than discussing how the analog or digital system reproduces music, we are now talking about how the digital system reproduces a distortion that is the result of something broken on the analog system. (And, if we want to go that far afield, then perhaps we should discuss how well an analog vinyl recording is able to reproduce the ringing caused by a digital oversampling filter.)
  
 If you want to discuss how digitally recorded record pops sound wrong, then the subject there is: How mechanical flaws in records may sometimes cause errors in A/D conversions - which may then be audible.
  
 Back to my original point, though.... If we're going to incessantly discuss how a digital recording "fails to accurately reproduce an _ANALOG RECORDING_", then perhaps we should also try to find out how well a vinyl album can reproduce a digital recording. If you want to nit-pick about the tiny differences between a vinyl album and the 24/192 digital recording of it, then it only seems fair to also discuss how closely a vinyl recording of a 24/192 digital original reproduces that original.
  
 The "logic gap" in most of these discussions is the very idea that the vinyl _RECORDING_ is itself an _ORIGINAL_.
  
 Of course, if your goal is to accurately archive a vinyl recording, _INCLUDING ANY FLAWS THAT EXIST IN THAT REPRODUCTION_, then it is perfectly fair to simply consider how accurately the archiving process reproduces what comes off the vinyl. (In which case I would agree that any reproduction, including the best possible digital one, will introduce some changes - and we're back to whether those changes are audible or not.)
  
 What I'm urging here is a bit of perspective......
  
 If a 24/192 recording of an original introduces tiny frequency response and distortion errors, and some ringing that's visible on an oscilloscope, you need to compare those to the similar (and otherwise) errors introduced by the vinyl mastering and recording process if you want to evaluate whether the differences introduced by the digital processes are _SIGNIFICANT_ in proportion to the original errors. If the digital recording process introduces a 0.1 dB frequency response aberration, but the "analog original" was already inaccurate by +/- 3 dB, and your cartridge already added ten times as much ringing as the filter in your ADC and DAC, then you can't reasonably categorize the "digital errors" as "significant" - even if they are audible.
  
 And, if your goal really is "to listen to what vinyl sounds like - with _ZERO_ changes or alterations" - then you'd better just listen to vinyl.
 (Although, since every phono preamp and cartridge is different, often audibly, you'd better specify precisely which version you're talking about.)


----------



## prot

thelostmidrange said:


> I've got to disagree. I'm right there with surviver. Dynamic range is better on a CD but real world dynamics in terms of how the ear seems to hear things is more alive and not by a small degree. This is beyond debate for anyone whose spent time enjoying vinyl on a decent setup, and it doesn't have to be over $1000. I don't know the science behind it and it does seem counter to the facts, but it is what it is. People who don't take this seriously are shooting themselves in the foot in terms of music enjoyment. The level of joy I get from vinyl is night and day over digital music. It might just be a personal thing and some people value different aspects of sound. In fact I do firmly believe this is what is at the bottom of the debate. But I nearly stopped listening to music a decade or so ago for a few months during my post vinyl days and the digital interum and when I dug out the vinyl again all the joy back. That's my kind of science. Irrefutable.




There is only one kind of science and apparently not yours. Yours is just a personal preference. Good for you but there is *zero* science in there. And actually that preference of yours is exactly the kind of audio-myth that is refuted in this thread. 

P.S.
why did bigshot get a big ban? I liked him & his posts.


----------



## analogsurviver

keithemo said:


> From the recent arguments about vinyl vs digital, it seems obvious (to me) that there are a few very common (and very "well established") misconceptions involved in a lot of the statements that are getting most of the attention.)
> 
> 1) There is _NO SUCH THING_ as "sound stage" as a discrete characteristic, entity, or measurable quantity. Audio signals, whether analog or digital, contain information - specifically a recording of air pressure over time. In the context of audio equipment, this recording is in the form of "voltage over time". You can express this information as voltage/time, or as spectrum/time, or as a list of sine wave frequencies and how they relate to each other in time and amplitude... but it's still the same two-dimensional information. When you add one or more additional channels, then you can express how the two channels relate to each other. However, again, each of the two channels are two-dimensional - each consists of a simple voltage that varies over time. _WHAT YOU PERCEIVE AS DEPTH OR SOUND STAGE IS SIMPLY HOW YOUR BRAIN INTERPRETS THIS INFORMATION._ When you "hear" "good sound stage" or "depth" in a recording, what you are hearing is the result of your brain analyzing the signals in each channel, and the relationship between them, and using that information to "figure out" the original locations of the instruments and the acoustics of the room. When you play back a recording, it may seem to have a wide sound stage if the original sound stage really was wide, the recording accurately captures all the information your brain uses to determine such things, and your playback equipment is reproducing all that contained information accurately. It could also sound like it has a wide sound stage if the entire process is horribly flawed, but some of those flaws are such that they _TRICK_ your brain into misinterpreting the remaining information as if it were a recording of an original with a wide sound stage . (A properly photographed and reproduced picture taken on a sunny will accurately convey to your brain that it was indeed a sunny day. However, a poorly calibrated photo, or one taken on a cloudy day, will also superficially appear "sunny" if you're wearing bright yellow sunglasses.) This is why some equipment seems to make everything sound like it has more depth, or a wider sound stage, than other equipment (even if you have no way of knowing if the original was actually like that or not). However, the final point here is that, if both (or all) channels are individually reproduced accurately, and the relationship between them is also accurately reproduced, then things like "depth" and "sound stage" will automatically be _CORRECT_ (meaning accurate). It is not a separate characteristic; merely an indication that everything else is working correctly. (And, if "the sound stage is wrong", then there must be some error in the reproduction of the individual channels; and, if the individual channels are indeed being reproduced accurately, then the "sound stage " _MUST_ be accurate - at least to the original.)
> 
> ...


 
 GREAT post. Please remind me to get back to it  - too much on the plate at the moment for me to give an answer fitting this great post.


----------



## jnorris

"Soundstage is between 10 khz and 18 kHz."
  
 Soundstage is due to the interaction of the sounds of the instruments (at ALL frequencies) and the characteristics of the room they're in.  It is also a result of mic placement and/or placement of the instruments by the engineer.  It is NOT only between 10k and 18kHz.
  
 "EQ will not alter the phase and delay characteristics of the recording in a meaningful way It may change the perception a bit, but not change soundstage in any real way."
  
 EQ _obliterates_ phase and delay characteristics and overuse will destroy whatever semblance of soundstage existed.  In many, many cases I have noticed that even an awful recording sounds better without EQ, once your ear acclimates to it.


----------



## markanini

jnorris said:


> EQ _obliterates_ phase and delay characteristics and overuse will destroy whatever semblance of soundstage existed.


 
 Delays are all the rage in modern pop production.


----------



## jnorris

True, but modern pop production maintains little concern for high-fidelity sound reproduction.


----------



## interpolate

It depends on what "sound" gets used. A rock producer might feed all his sounds through analogue equipment and sum it with high-end digital equipment. A dance producer may well do everything "in the box" and send the stems to a mastering engineer; so one would expect the final stage of mixing to be done on the best equipment and experienced non-bias ears.
  
 So this is my argument for MP3 and other lossy formats killing the sound quality. Regardless whether most "people" only hear certain frequencies and defining parts of their life, that is no excuse for mass produced reduction in sound quality. 
  
 OK audiophiles have a different perception of music than the average listener alas they may be a better candidate for the artists appreciation than some spotty teenager with no concern for quality.


----------



## Dobrescu George

rrod said:


> I have CDs of orchestral recordings where the basses are nice and to the right and the violins are nice and to the left, and it sounds perfectly fine on speakers and headphones. I have ones where I can play air conductor and cue the trumpets, then move my hand just a bit to the right and cue the trombones, and there they are. What technical aspects of CDs in your quoted frequency range are making this less of an enjoyable experience than I might otherwise have?


 
 Exactly this is what I am trying to prove. CDs are enough for most uses. High resolution might help to make this experience even better. Have you gotten around trying hqplayer?


----------



## Dobrescu George

jnorris said:


> True, but modern pop production maintains little concern for high-fidelity sound reproduction.


 
 Modern pop sounds very nice if you listen it for it's sake. If you compare it to other types of music, it sounds different. I think that judging and comparing generes is wrong. Pop has it's own unique sond that some love, some not so much. I, for one, fiind good bands in every genere.


----------



## StanD

@KeithEmo I agree with your statement, "There is _NO SUCH THING_ as "sound stage" as a discrete characteristic, entity, or measurable quantity." Most of the audiohile herd don't understand what it is and make up all sorts of stories. They don't seem to understand that it's not the amp in the chain but the far end, headphones or speakers and room that affect it the most. How do they expect that an amp will introduce time and phase delays for individual instruments being played back when it doesn't introduce time delays or noticable phase delays at all?


----------



## RRod

dobrescu george said:


> Exactly this is what I am trying to prove. CDs are enough for most uses. High resolution might help to make this experience even better. Have you gotten around trying hqplayer?


 
  
 I'll let you keep on working on the proof then. I'll try the player once I remember to try it. Mucking around with players to try different up-sampling algorithms is exactly the kind of thing that learning about this stuff has helped me avoid, so it feels all counter-intuitive now.


----------



## Dobrescu George

rrod said:


> I'll let you keep on working on the proof then. I'll try the player once I remember to try it. Mucking around with players to try different up-sampling algorithms is exactly the kind of thing that learning about this stuff has helped me avoid, so it feels all counter-intuitive now.


 
 I get your point. 
  
 I will come back to this place from time to time.
  
 Just so that I post a short ideea of what I wirte, I do consider that CDs are extremely good for most listening, but I also consider that it can get better with better technology and better, new algorithms. 
  
 Most people in sound science forget that a continous function cannot be sampled perfectly. Regardless of the technology used, it is a mathematical impossibility. The curve produced after sampling and interpolationg the samples cannot be exactly the same as the one of the continous time one. But it comes close enough to be considered good to use in practice. Getting closer to the ideal is a step forward.


----------



## Gr8Desire

stand said:


> @KeithEmo I agree with your statement, "There is _NO SUCH THING_ as "sound stage" as a discrete characteristic, entity, or measurable quantity." Most of the audiohile herd don't understand what it is and make up all sorts of stories. They don't seem to understand that it's not the amp in the chain but the far end, headphones or speakers and room that affect it the most. How do they expect that an amp will introduce time and phase delays for individual instruments being played back when it doesn't introduce time delays or noticable phase delays at all?


 
  
 Correct. 

Also: Since stereo headphones drivers are essentially facing each other, any small amount of time delay information present in the original stereo content, will result in a perception of *wider separation,* and *NOT* forward / back placement!  

And: Unless the recording microphone (binaural or just plain old cardioid) was placed directly _between_ all instruments while recording two stereo tracks, any forward and back time delay information encoded in the original stereo content would be reproduced incorrectly as left and right content.
  
 Discretely mastered  5.x and 7.x content is more interesting. It can encode lots of stage depth information. But that won't help Stereo HP listeners. Content needs to be mixed down to 2 channels. You are left with the same problem as depth information present in a stereo recording.  And this is:  

*It is IMPOSSIBLE for two conventional drivers facing each other to INTENTIONALLY induce forward and back sounds i.e., it is impossible to generate lateral sounds with respect to driver movement*****.*  When you do hear such sounds, you are hearing the deflections in the driver cone (more common with large drivers), variations in driver surface (more common with planars) or some other type of induced sound (a.k.a., distortion).

*excluding reflections inside the headphone cups which need to be modelled separately for each listener.  

 (I LOL every time I hear audiophiles describe stage depth in stereo headphones.  Next thing you know they will tell wires do more that carry current...)


----------



## MacacoDoSom

gr8desire said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > @KeithEmo I agree with your statement, "There is _NO SUCH THING_ as "sound stage" as a discrete characteristic, entity, or measurable quantity." Most of the audiohile herd don't understand what it is and make up all sorts of stories. They don't seem to understand that it's not the amp in the chain but the far end, headphones or speakers and room that affect it the most. How do they expect that an amp will introduce time and phase delays for individual instruments being played back when it doesn't introduce time delays or noticable phase delays at all?
> ...


 

 is not that I disgree, I simply didn't understood
 "And: Unless the recording microphone (binaural or just plain old cardioid) was placed directly _between_ all instruments while recording two stereo tracks, any forward and back time delay information encoded in the original stereo content would be reproduced incorrectly as left and right content."
  
 one mic? 2 mics? incorrectly as left and right? is the more in a stereo recording?
  
  
 and "*forward and back sounds"* ... can you explain what you mean?
  
 P.S. and yes wires carry more than current, they carry (sometimes a lot of) $$$...


----------



## KeithEmo

stand said:


> @KeithEmo I agree with your statement, "There is _NO SUCH THING_ as "sound stage" as a discrete characteristic, entity, or measurable quantity." Most of the audiohile herd don't understand what it is and make up all sorts of stories. They don't seem to understand that it's not the amp in the chain but the far end, headphones or speakers and room that affect it the most. How do they expect that an amp will introduce time and phase delays for individual instruments being played back when it doesn't introduce time delays or noticable phase delays at all?


 
  
  


macacodosom said:


> is not that I disgree, I simply didn't understood
> "And: Unless the recording microphone (binaural or just plain old cardioid) was placed directly _between_ all instruments while recording two stereo tracks, any forward and back time delay information encoded in the original stereo content would be reproduced incorrectly as left and right content."
> 
> one mic? 2 mics? incorrectly as left and right? is the more in a stereo recording?
> ...


 
  
 Inside your ear there is a single eardrum - which detects pressure against it (or movement of the air towards and away from it). Your eardrum itself has no way of detecting what direction a sound is coming from. Your BRAIN is what figures this out, by using things like the differences in relative amplitude and time delay between when the same sound reaches your two ears, and how the signal reaching each ear is altered by having to wrap around your head. Everything from the shape of your ear itself, to the shape of your head, to your haircut,  alters the characteristics of the sound that reaches each ear. When a sound is coming from "ahead and to the right" your brain determines this by using the fact that that same sound arrives at your right ear a tiny bit sooner than the left, and the frequency response of the version reaching your left ear is altered a bit differently than that reaching the right ear by having to travel around your head, and the sound reaching your left ear consists of a tiny bit more reflected sound from the left wall than that reaching the right ear. "Height" information is derived from the differences that the sound curving around the top of your ear instead of the bottom makes, and in how sound that reflects more off the ceiling and less off the floor sounds different than sounds that reflect more from the floor (because their source is lower). Your brain utilizes various combinations of this information to localize where sound sources are in space.
  
 Now. let's assume you record that sound with a pair of microphones. Since the microphones don't have heads, or earlobes, or that curly outside part of your ear, they don't have access to the information about how the sound wraps around your head. However, they can record the relative loudness with which that sound appears in the left and right channels, and the relative time delay BETWEEN them - which is often enough for your brain to "decipher" the correct information. (Since the speakers are NOT located at the positions where the sound originated, any information about how the sound from the speakers is wrapping around your head will be somewhat wrong, even if it was "perfect" in the recording. Luckily, your brain can operate quite effectively with certain combinations of cues, even if others are missing or disagree - within reason.)
  
 In the case of forward and backward information, your brain can only recognize slight differences in time between when the same signal arrives at each ear. So, for example, you can tell if the same sound from the drum reaches your left ear a tiny bit sooner than your right ear - because it's closer to your left ear. However, you can't tell if the drum is three feet closer to you (because it's at the front of the stage), or three feet further away (at the back of the stage), because you have nothing to compare it to. (You can compare the SAME sound arriving at slightly different times, but you can't accurately discern DIFFERENT sounds arriving at slightly different times nearly as well. You won't notice if I were to delay the sound of the drums the same 3 milliseconds the delay would be increased if the drum were three feet further back in the sound stage. You can tell how far away a thunderstorm is because the distances are much greater, and so the differences are more audible. You're not going to be able to tell if the drum is three feet closer or further away than the guitar because your brain can't pick out those tiny timing differences between dissimilar sounds.)
  
 Also, in fact, many microphones do have different frequency response characteristics depending on what angle the sound hits them - sort of like your ears do - but those differences for microphones vary with the type of microphone, and don't particularly match up with the differences in how sound reaches your ears from different directions (so they're either useless or confusing to your brain, which is used to calculating using data about your ears).
  
 In many modern multi-track recordings, the situation is even worse - because a whole bunch of different microphones, often with very different characteristics, are used. If I record a drum set and, as is common, put one microphone on the bass drum, another on the cymbals, and another on the snare, each of those microphones will be recording DIFFERENT cues about things like how far it is from the floor and ceiling. When those tracks are mixed together, the recording engineer is counting on using the "important" cues, like the relative level of the instrument in each channel, and the fact that the microphone for the cymbals is picking up ceiling and floor reflections that are consistent with a greater height, to convince your brain where it is located, and hoping that your brain will ignore the fact that there are a few discrepancies and some missing information. (Some of the sound from the cymbal is going to reach the microphone for the snare drum at a different time than it reaches the microphone for the cymbal; when you mix those together you're going to get the audio equivalent of a double exposure; he's going to do his best to minimize that so your brain doesn't have a problem trying to figure out how the same cymbal can be in two different places at once - just as you can make a convincing photographic double exposure if you know what you're doing and are real careful with the lighting. In my example, he'll probably do that by using a filter to reduce the amount of "cymbal" in the snare drum microphone channel to the point where you don't notice it, and so it doesn't conflict with the cymbal sound that's in the cymbal channel. Issues like this are part of why recording is still as much an art as a science.)


----------



## DreamKing

gr8desire said:


> Correct.
> 
> Also: Since stereo headphones drivers are essentially facing each other, any small amount of time delay information present in the original stereo content, will result in a perception of *wider separation,* and *NOT* forward / back placement!
> 
> ...


 
  
 If you go by the common definition of the term, top to bottom or horizontal, depth can be perceived from stereo as well. It doesn't only pertain to back and forward sounds. Still being all perception and a subjective term just like the "sound stage" described by KeithEmo, I find it irrelevant in explaining "sound science".


----------



## Gr8Desire

macacodosom said:


> is not that I disgree, I simply didn't understood
> "And: Unless the recording microphone (binaural or just plain old cardioid) was placed directly _between_ all instruments while recording two stereo tracks, any forward and back time delay information encoded in the original stereo content would be reproduced incorrectly as left and right content."
> 
> one mic? 2 mics? incorrectly as left and right? is the more in a stereo recording?
> ...


 

 FWIW: I like simple terms like _forward and back_ rather than loaded audiophile terms.  It resonates with a wider range of people and also discourages dissenters from formulating arguments exclusively via Google.  Changing terms randomly means that participants might need to know something about the topic 

_Forward and back_ sounds in a HP are essentially what audiophiles perceive as _soundstage depth. _ For me, _soundstage depth _is a good thing if that's what was encoded in the original content. _Soundstage depth_ is great for room loudspeakers because they can reproduce it.  Conventional headphones cannot reproduce _soundstage depth _from source material. They can only manufacture it from what's _not there_.
  
*What you say?*
  
 Recording engineers know all about stage depth. It is a bit different. (BTW: For this explanation think of mono, one channel recordings if you wish. Everything that follows applies to both stereo and mono content).
  
Stage depth is the difference in distance (from the recording mic) of the nearest and furthest physical instrument. If you have a single microphone and a large *physical *stage, you get depth information - instruments that are further away will have their sounds arrive a fraction of second later. This information is real and will exist in any mono track (stereo and higher too). You can use a single mic or you can use multiple microphones that record discrete tracks that you mix down to get a final result*. 

*You can use multiple tracks and delay individual tracks to get the same effect.  It is not always natural but you can create quite a bit of simulated distance between instruments.
  
 Here is the key point: ALL DISTANCE information is _non_ directional. It simply represents instruments that are further away.  
  
 Therefore  - AUDIOPHILES PLEASE NOTE - stage depth (or distance to instruments)  is REPRODUCED in the direction of playback driver movement.  With loudspeakers, you can point speakers forward, and they will induce small amounts of forward and back sounds a.k.a., _soundstage depth_ induced by delayed sounds in the direction of driver movement.
  
 When you play such content through stereo headphones, the headphones will also represent DELAYED sounds in the direction of driver movement. Since drivers face each other, _far away sounds_ can only induce what audiophiles call a _wider soundstage_**_.   And that requires a BIG LOL if you ask me._

**All disclaimers from my previous post still apply.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

Quote:Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
   





stand said:


> @KeithEmo I agree with your statement, "There is _NO SUCH THING_ as "sound stage" as a discrete characteristic, entity, or measurable quantity." Most of the audiohile herd don't understand what it is and make up all sorts of stories. They don't seem to understand that it's not the amp in the chain but the far end, headphones or speakers and room that affect it the most. How do they expect that an amp will introduce time and phase delays for individual instruments being played back when it doesn't introduce time delays or noticable phase delays at all?


 
  
  


macacodosom said:


> is not that I disgree, I simply didn't understood
> "And: Unless the recording microphone (binaural or just plain old cardioid) was placed directly _between_ all instruments while recording two stereo tracks, any forward and back time delay information encoded in the original stereo content would be reproduced incorrectly as left and right content."
> 
> one mic? 2 mics? incorrectly as left and right? is the more in a stereo recording?
> ...


 
  
 Inside your ear there is a single eardrum - which detects pressure against it (or movement of the air towards and away from it). Your eardrum itself has no way of detecting what direction a sound is coming from. Your BRAIN is what figures this out, by using things like the differences in relative amplitude and time delay between when the same sound reaches your two ears, and how the signal reaching each ear is altered by having to wrap around your head. Everything from the shape of your ear itself, to the shape of your head, to your haircut,  alters the characteristics of the sound that reaches each ear. When a sound is coming from "ahead and to the right" your brain determines this by using the fact that that same sound arrives at your right ear a tiny bit sooner than the left, and the frequency response of the version reaching your left ear is altered a bit differently than that reaching the right ear by having to travel around your head, and the sound reaching your left ear consists of a tiny bit more reflected sound from the left wall than that reaching the right ear. "Height" information is derived from the differences that the sound curving around the top of your ear instead of the bottom makes, and in how sound that reflects more off the ceiling and less off the floor sounds different than sounds that reflect more from the floor (because their source is lower). Your brain utilizes various combinations of this information to localize where sound sources are in space.
  
 Now. let's assume you record that sound with a pair of microphones. Since the microphones don't have heads, or earlobes, or that curly outside part of your ear, they don't have access to the information about how the sound wraps around your head. However, they can record the relative loudness with which that sound appears in the left and right channels, and the relative time delay BETWEEN them - which is often enough for your brain to "decipher" the correct information. (Since the speakers are NOT located at the positions where the sound originated, any information about how the sound from the speakers is wrapping around your head will be somewhat wrong, even if it was "perfect" in the recording. Luckily, your brain can operate quite effectively with certain combinations of cues, even if others are missing or disagree - within reason.)
  
 In the case of forward and backward information, your brain can only recognize slight differences in time between when the same signal arrives at each ear. So, for example, you can tell if the same sound from the drum reaches your left ear a tiny bit sooner than your right ear - because it's closer to your left ear. However, you can't tell if the drum is three feet closer to you (because it's at the front of the stage), or three feet further away (at the back of the stage), because you have nothing to compare it to. (You can compare the SAME sound arriving at slightly different times, but you can't accurately discern DIFFERENT sounds arriving at slightly different times nearly as well. You won't notice if I were to delay the sound of the drums the same 3 milliseconds the delay would be increased if the drum were three feet further back in the sound stage. You can tell how far away a thunderstorm is because the distances are much greater, and so the differences are more audible. You're not going to be able to tell if the drum is three feet closer or further away than the guitar because your brain can't pick out those tiny timing differences between dissimilar sounds.)
  
 Also, in fact, many microphones do have different frequency response characteristics depending on what angle the sound hits them - sort of like your ears do - but those differences for microphones vary with the type of microphone, and don't particularly match up with the differences in how sound reaches your ears from different directions (so they're either useless or confusing to your brain, which is used to calculating using data about your ears).
  
 In many modern multi-track recordings, the situation is even worse - because a whole bunch of different microphones, often with very different characteristics, are used. If I record a drum set and, as is common, put one microphone on the bass drum, another on the cymbals, and another on the snare, each of those microphones will be recording DIFFERENT cues about things like how far it is from the floor and ceiling. When those tracks are mixed together, the recording engineer is counting on using the "important" cues, like the relative level of the instrument in each channel, and the fact that the microphone for the cymbals is picking up ceiling and floor reflections that are consistent with a greater height, to convince your brain where it is located, and hoping that your brain will ignore the fact that there are a few discrepancies and some missing information. (Some of the sound from the cymbal is going to reach the microphone for the snare drum at a different time than it reaches the microphone for the cymbal; when you mix those together you're going to get the audio equivalent of a double exposure; he's going to do his best to minimize that so your brain doesn't have a problem trying to figure out how the same cymbal can be in two different places at once - just as you can make a convincing photographic double exposure if you know what you're doing and are real careful with the lighting. In my example, he'll probably do that by using a filter to reduce the amount of "cymbal" in the snare drum microphone channel to the point where you don't notice it, and so it doesn't conflict with the cymbal sound that's in the cymbal channel. Issues like this are part of why recording is still as much an art as a science.) 

  
 There are some mixed ideas in your post... the first part is a lesson on how people hears... good. On the second part I don't know if you are talking about live or studio recordings, but in either case there are very good, good, not so good and bad engineers, on "You're not going to be able to tell if the drum is three feet closer or further away than the guitar because your brain can't pick out those tiny timing differences between dissimilar sounds.)" - there are 2.664 ms between them and the room reverb will show those cues... and if they are much further apart and don't look at the conductor it will show like those gypsy guys in the AS recording... and yes recording and mixing is as much an art as a science.... and I think that nobody (well, some are...) is trying to replicate what ears can hear in some part of a venue... usually people are more concerned in making art... where you can stand in any musical event is worst than listening at home... but you have mostly visual cues and the emotion of being there and that cannot be recorded...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

dobrescu george said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > I'll let you keep on working on the proof then. I'll try the player once I remember to try it. Mucking around with players to try different up-sampling algorithms is exactly the kind of thing that learning about this stuff has helped me avoid, so it feels all counter-intuitive now.
> ...




On the contrary, George, a continuous function *can* be sampled discretely perfectly provided that it does not contain frequencies above f and the sampling rate of the discrete sampler is of frequency 2f and above. It's called the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. That's why ADCs designed for 44.1kHz sampling have a brickwall filter slightly below 22.05kHz, to eliminate all sounds above 22.05kHz.

Of course, the complaints come in that the downsampled signal rings near the cutoff frequency, and that the brickwall filter may introduce phase distortions (two somewhat contradictory complaints, by the way). But the downsampled continuous signal itself is sampled perfectly, modulo a tiny bit of quantization noise.

If you're building a filter to improve on CD playback, you need to understand what are its limitations first. I suggest you read up on "(blind) spectral band replication", that's mostly what you want to try to do.


----------



## RRod

Yes, it would be more technically correct to say that a *finite* continuous signal cannot be reproduced exactly within a system that requires band-limiting. Whether the inexactness is audible is another question.


----------



## KeithEmo

dobrescu george said:


> I get your point.
> 
> I will come back to this place from time to time.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I agree with what you said entirely - but I think many people tend to misinterpret the meaning. It is indeed true that a continuous signal cannot be sampled "perfectly" - however it is also true that most other aspects of sounds reproduction are also imperfect. Specifically, we don't have an analog technology that is able to "reproduce a continuous function perfectly" either. A digital recording will be limited to the amount of detail (information) that can be stored using the sample rate and bit depth used. However, analog recording methods are also limited - although their limitations are sometimes less "intuitively obvious" and so tend to be ignored. For example, the best analog recording equipment - tape or vinyl - has less dynamic range than a CD. So, while a CD simply "runs out of resolution when you reach a single bit", with a tape or record you instead reach a point where "the signal disappears below the noise floor". The signal recorded on a CD must, as a requirement of the process, be band-limited to about 22 kHz, and a 24/96 recording is limited to about 45 kHz. But very few (if any) analog mastering tape machines reach 40 kHz, and records, while technically capable of storing something at 50 kHz, don't really do so very well. ("CD4" quad albums used a subcarrier that extended to about 50 kHz; they required a special stylus, were notorious for literally having that high-frequency subcarrier "worn right off" after thirty or forty playings at most, and were also notorious for dropouts and errors on that subcarrier.)
  
 Luckily for all of us, our ears are far more limited in most cases than either of these systems. (It's not actually luck at all. Each system is "good enough" to exceed "the limits of human hearing" _AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME THEY WERE DEVELOPED_.) However, at this point in history, we still have a clear and simple upgrade path for digital recording..... If 90 dB of dynamic range isn't enough, then use 24 bits (and get over 130 dB of dynamic range); if reproducing frequencies above 45 kHz really matters, then use 24/192 (which can reproduce frequencies up to 90 kHz). In contrast, vinyl is "topped out". (Even if a polycarbonate platter, spinning at 199 rpm, and played with a blue LASER, might theoretically be able to match the dynamic range and frequency response of a 24/192 digital file, nobody is developing that "better record technology" - while upgrading from 16/44 to 24/192 digital recordings is trivial by comparison.)


----------



## analogsurviver

macacodosom said:


> There are some mixed ideas in your post... the first part is a lesson on how people hears... good. On the second part I don't know if you are talking about live or studio recordings, but in either case there are very good, good, not so good and bad engineers, on "You're not going to be able to tell if the drum is three feet closer or further away than the guitar because your brain can't pick out those tiny timing differences between dissimilar sounds.)" - there are 2.664 ms between them and the room reverb will show those cues... and if they are much further apart and don't look at the conductor it will show like those gypsy guys in the AS recording... and yes recording and mixing is as much an art as a science.... and I think that nobody (well, some are...) is trying to replicate what ears can hear in some part of a venue... usually people are more concerned in making art... where you can stand in any musical event is worst than listening at home... but you have mostly visual cues and the emotion of being there and that cannot be recorded...


 
 Hey , MacacoDoSOM - those gypsy guys is NOT MY RECORDING. Please read the posts correctly - mine and eveybody else's. 
  
 I did state I pulled the best sounding recordings on YT.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

analogsurviver said:


> macacodosom said:
> 
> 
> > There are some mixed ideas in your post... the first part is a lesson on how people hears... good. On the second part I don't know if you are talking about live or studio recordings, but in either case there are very good, good, not so good and bad engineers, on "You're not going to be able to tell if the drum is three feet closer or further away than the guitar because your brain can't pick out those tiny timing differences between dissimilar sounds.)" - there are 2.664 ms between them and the room reverb will show those cues... and if they are much further apart and don't look at the conductor it will show like those gypsy guys in the AS recording... and yes recording and mixing is as much an art as a science.... and I think that nobody (well, some are...) is trying to replicate what ears can hear in some part of a venue... usually people are more concerned in making art... where you can stand in any musical event is worst than listening at home... but you have mostly visual cues and the emotion of being there and that cannot be recorded...
> ...


 

 sorry for the misunderstanding I was just saying (thinking about) the one you posted, my sincere apologies...
  
 and I was not talking about the recording but the execution...


----------



## Dobrescu George

joe bloggs said:


> On the contrary, George, a continuous function *can* be sampled discretely perfectly provided that it does not contain frequencies above f and the sampling rate of the discrete sampler is of frequency 2f and above. It's called the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. That's why ADCs designed for 44.1kHz sampling have a brickwall filter slightly below 22.05kHz, to eliminate all sounds above 22.05kHz.
> 
> Of course, the complaints come in that the downsampled signal rings near the cutoff frequency, and that the brickwall filter may introduce phase distortions (two somewhat contradictory complaints, by the way). But the downsampled continuous signal itself is sampled perfectly, modulo a tiny bit of quantization noise.
> 
> If you're building a filter to improve on CD playback, you need to understand what are its limitations first. I suggest you read up on "(blind) spectral band replication", that's mostly what you want to try to do.


 
 Thanks for the subject to read.
  
 I am trying to build a software for music playback. The method I will use for making music sound better is more or less experimental. I have seen music sounding better using bicubic resampling algorithms. IT sounds with more soundstage, but the treble is smoother. This has been constant. I am working at the moment at understanding why.
  
 My other article, about recovery of transients is experimental too. 
  
 All I know is that I have been unhappy with softwares because of one reason or another, and I work towards solving the problems. My experimental features come more as bonuses at the moment. 
  
 I want music to sound closer to natural. If I can improve, I am working on it. But I think that I am going to stay with using more samples and adding bit depth, just for enabling better use of DSPs. I understand how DSP algorithms work, and adding bit depth, and good quality dithering might in fact be very good for most people. 
  
 I do know that I have been promising better SQ, but I think that a better experience for the users of a product is more important. Better SQ is pretty much subjective, and getting closer to the original wavem is, in my view, somethingh that having more samples help for. Though, as you stated, Nyquist-shanon sampling theorem states that we already have enough samples to recover the signal completley.
  
  
 I still am learning, I am sorry if I am wrong at times.
  


keithemo said:


> I agree with what you said entirely - but I think many people tend to misinterpret the meaning. It is indeed true that a continuous signal cannot be sampled "perfectly" - however it is also true that most other aspects of sounds reproduction are also imperfect. Specifically, we don't have an analog technology that is able to "reproduce a continuous function perfectly" either. A digital recording will be limited to the amount of detail (information) that can be stored using the sample rate and bit depth used. However, analog recording methods are also limited - although their limitations are sometimes less "intuitively obvious" and so tend to be ignored. For example, the best analog recording equipment - tape or vinyl - has less dynamic range than a CD. So, while a CD simply "runs out of resolution when you reach a single bit", with a tape or record you instead reach a point where "the signal disappears below the noise floor". The signal recorded on a CD must, as a requirement of the process, be band-limited to about 22 kHz, and a 24/96 recording is limited to about 45 kHz. But very few (if any) analog mastering tape machines reach 40 kHz, and records, while technically capable of storing something at 50 kHz, don't really do so very well. ("CD4" quad albums used a subcarrier that extended to about 50 kHz; they required a special stylus, were notorious for literally having that high-frequency subcarrier "worn right off" after thirty or forty playings at most, and were also notorious for dropouts and errors on that subcarrier.)
> 
> Luckily for all of us, our ears are far more limited in most cases than either of these systems. (It's not actually luck at all. Each system is "good enough" to exceed "the limits of human hearing" _AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME THEY WERE DEVELOPED_.) However, at this point in history, we still have a clear and simple upgrade path for digital recording..... If 90 dB of dynamic range isn't enough, then use 24 bits (and get over 130 dB of dynamic range); if reproducing frequencies above 45 kHz really matters, then use 24/192 (which can reproduce frequencies up to 90 kHz). In contrast, vinyl is "topped out". (Even if a polycarbonate platter, spinning at 199 rpm, and played with a blue LASER, might theoretically be able to match the dynamic range and frequency response of a 24/192 digital file, nobody is developing that "better record technology" - while upgrading from 16/44 to 24/192 digital recordings is trivial by comparison.)


 
 I consider that you are right. Developing technology should be the first priority.
  
 But my expertise area is in mathematics. As a general rule of thumb, the more points you have to define a graphic, it will look closer to what it should look like. 
  
 I am trying to build a software, with everything a software should have, fule type support, user interface, hardware compatibility. I can say that where I try to improve SQ is mostly a bonus experimental feature of what I am working on.


----------



## Steve Eddy

keithemo said:


> If 90 dB of dynamic range isn't enough, then use 24 bits (and get over 130 dB of dynamic range);




You'd first want to show that 90 dab of dynamic range isn't enough.



> if reproducing frequencies above 45 kHz really matters, then use 24/192 (which can reproduce frequencies up to 90 kHz). In contrast, vinyl is "topped out".





You'd first have to show that 45 kHz matters.

But everyone who keeps shouting that they do, aren't terribly keen on actually demonstrating it. Because there will always be a percentage of people who will accept that it does based on empty claims alone. And if you can carve out a niche within that percentage that allows you to make good money, there's simply no incentive.

se


----------



## castleofargh

gr8desire said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > @KeithEmo I agree with your statement, "There is _NO SUCH THING_ as "sound stage" as a discrete characteristic, entity, or measurable quantity." Most of the audiohile herd don't understand what it is and make up all sorts of stories. They don't seem to understand that it's not the amp in the chain but the far end, headphones or speakers and room that affect it the most. How do they expect that an amp will introduce time and phase delays for individual instruments being played back when it doesn't introduce time delays or noticable phase delays at all?
> ...


 
 again with that?  you already went at it on that topic http://www.head-fi.org/t/764579/have-you-ever-heard-sound-coming-from-the-front-with-headphones/150 without much success.  you want to impose on us the idea that just changing the signal each ear will receive isn't the same as changing the placement of the drivers, but in the end we locate stuff with the sound we get inside our ears, so sound is what matters, not driver placement. you seem to think like somehow we have stereo in each ear or something. at least that's how I understand what you write.
  
 and, no depth on headphones? just try different levels of crossfeed, or some binaural stuff, or play any game even with some old bad doppler effects, and come back telling that again.
  
 headphone space sucks because the artificial space done at the mastering was set with speakers. so the only way to get about the same experience the sound engineer had, without DSP, is to also use good speakers in a room that hopefully has properties close to where the mastering was done.  it has nothing to do with drivers being 180degree or not. if the record is a binaural one, then it's the opposite and you'll get closer to the original sound and space with headphone instead of speakers.
  
 I can't tell if you reduce the possibilities on purpose to make a point about some bent drivers, or if you really don't understand how sound localization works?


----------



## interpolate

The source is only good as the input,  the output is only good as the input source. So what/who is at wrong here?


----------



## StanD

interpolate said:


> The source is only good as the input,  the output is only good as the input source. So what/who is at wrong here?


 
 What about the stuff between the input and the output?


----------



## DreamKing

castleofargh said:


> again with that?  you already went at it on that topic http://www.head-fi.org/t/764579/have-you-ever-heard-sound-coming-from-the-front-with-headphones/150 without much success.  you want to impose on us the idea that just changing the signal each ear will receive isn't the same as changing the placement of the drivers, but in the end we locate stuff with the sound we get inside our ears, so sound is what matters, not driver placement. you seem to think like somehow we have stereo in each ear or something. at least that's how I understand what you write.
> 
> and, no depth on headphones? just try different levels of crossfeed, or some binaural stuff, or play any game even with some old bad doppler effects, and come back telling that again.
> 
> ...


 
  
 +1 on the binaural recommendation. It is for sure the most convincing source if one wants to challenge their depth perception with headphones. A 5.1/7.1 source with a competent dsp for headphones is the second best thing I've tried in comparison.


----------



## Gr8Desire

castleofargh said:


> I can't tell if you reduce the possibilities on purpose to make a point about some bent drivers, or if you really don't understand how sound localization works


 
  
 I reduce concepts to fundamental elements to cutout the audiophile bafflegab and other crap that just isn't there. 

 I challenge you to re-read my last two posts in this thread and *find even a single error*.  Don't change the topic, don't bring your preconceptions and don't tell me what I don't understand._ You have no idea._  Try creating an argument and not innuendo. 

*Just to be clear: *I am not saying you don't hear forward and back elements. _Everyone does._ These elements just aren't the same as in those present in the source recording.

 BTW: Don't bother with binaural recordings. If lateral sound elements (soundstage depth) are impossible to reproduce in conventional headphones, the recording method doesn't matter. Discrete 5.1, 7.2 , 14.8 or a theoretical 64.20 recordings have at least as much depth content. None of these sources can create soundstage depth in conventional headphones.

 BTW: If discrete 5.1, 7.2 , 14.8 or a theoretical 64.20 content can't  create soundstage depth in conventional headphones, a DSP will not help. DSP only simulates other forms of content.  Since no content can create soundstage depth in conventional headphones, DSPs are non sequitur.  

_Go ahead.  Have at me.    _


----------



## MacacoDoSom

gr8desire said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > I can't tell if you reduce the possibilities on purpose to make a point about some bent drivers, or if you really don't understand how sound localization works
> ...


 

 ????????? what are you talking about?


----------



## Steve Eddy

What exactly is the question that's trying to be answered here?

se


----------



## interpolate

I love arguments on the interwebs.


----------



## KeithEmo

dobrescu george said:


> Thanks for the subject to read.
> 
> I am trying to build a software for music playback. The method I will use for making music sound better is more or less experimental. I have seen music sounding better using bicubic resampling algorithms. IT sounds with more soundstage, but the treble is smoother. This has been constant. I am working at the moment at understanding why.
> 
> ...


 
  


castleofargh said:


> again with that?  you already went at it on that topic http://www.head-fi.org/t/764579/have-you-ever-heard-sound-coming-from-the-front-with-headphones/150 without much success.  you want to impose on us the idea that just changing the signal each ear will receive isn't the same as changing the placement of the drivers, but in the end we locate stuff with the sound we get inside our ears, so sound is what matters, not driver placement. you seem to think like somehow we have stereo in each ear or something. at least that's how I understand what you write.
> 
> and, no depth on headphones? just try different levels of crossfeed, or some binaural stuff, or play any game even with some old bad doppler effects, and come back telling that again.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I've heard some binaural recordings that were pretty convincing. Of course they aren't actually delivering a directional source; they're simply providing an accurate reproduction of the cues that your brain would be receiving _IF_ the source was really directional, and interacting with your ears, your head, and the room. Your brain is then interpreting those cues as a directional source.
  
 I would add, however, that it is indeed possible to outright _FAKE_ this information rather than reproduce it. The old Carver Sonic Hologram Generator could do a pretty convincing job of processing a stereo input signal to make it sound like some sounds were coming from behind you (since there was no actual information there to begin with, they were simply applying specific phase shifts and delays at certain frequencies to create the illusion that certain - random - sounds were behind you). I have also heard that there are some new processor boxes that take surround information (from existing multi-channel files) and "encode" it into a binaural signal that then tricks your brain into hearing "directional" sounds... but, again, they are taking actual directional information and converting it into cues that can then be delivered by a stereo source to your ears, and not delivering actual "directional sound". 
  
 I do think we must also remain very clear on the fact that upsampling does _NOT_ add information. As per Nyquist and Shannon, the amount of information contained in a digital audio file is limited by the sample rate and bit depth. However, no amount of processing after the fact, even if it produces a file at a much higher sample rate, can "restore" or "recreate" whatever information is lost beyond that limit. If a certain 16/44 file, when properly converted and filtered, produces an analog audio output that is accurate to within certain limits, upsampling it to a higher sample rate cannot and will not produce a more accurate output. (While "adding more dots to the dotted line" may intuitively seem like it ought to produce a more accurate output, the math shows that this isn't true.)  If accuracy is your goal, then the sole legitimate reason for upsampling is to allow the use of less intrusive, and easier to design and build, reconstruction filters. (In other words, you get the best possible result with less work, and less opportunity to make mistakes that degrade the quality, but you don't actually improve the quality.) Now, at a 44k sample rate, where the required filter would be flat to 20 kHz, yet down by 80 dB or so at 22 kHz, this is a huge benefit - but it is simply allowing you convert your 44k sample rate signal more accurately - it is not improving on the actual information present. (A 44k music sample upsampled to 96k, when played back, may give you a more accurate conversion of the original 44k content, but it cannot give you more than that.)  
  
_HOWEVER_, if your goal is _NOT_ strictly accuracy, but rather "making something sound better", then there are all sorts of ways in which the signal can be altered in the hope that it will sound better to some people. It's even possible that, by adding information that makes the actual signal less accurate, you might create "phony cues" that might trick the brain of the listener into finding (subjectively) that the result "sounds more accurate" or "sounds more real". A lot of research has been done into how the response of DAC oversampling filters can be altered in such a way that the output, while technically no more accurate than the original, is considered by some listeners to "sound better" or "sound more natural". (I'm not interested in restarting the argument about whether this actually works or not, but it is certainly an active subject of research.) 
  
 Similar, and quite serious, research has been done into the pyschoacoustics of how we perceive things (for example, by adding the correct mix of harmonics, you can trick the listener's brain into thinking that a small speaker or pair of headphones are producing more low bass - even if they cannot actually do so). It's simply the acoustic version of an optical illusion. 
  
 The one word of warning I would offer, however, is that virtually every sample rate conversion process involves some filtering, and every filter alters the signal to some degree. Therefore, you need to be very careful to differentiate between "legitimate" differences in sound, and those that are simply the by-product of the filters used in the particular sample rate conversion performed by the particular software you used. (For example, if I were to convert a 16/44 signal to 24/96 using Audacity, Adobe Audition, and Weiss Saracon, there will be tiny, but quite possibly audible, differences between the output files - but they will simply be due to variations in how the conversion process and filtering was carried out, and not necessarily either improvements or related to the new higher sample rate. And so they won't be "any better" than the oversampling performed internally by every Delta Sigma DAC already.)
  
 If your goal is to create software that actually "makes the music sound better", then do as much research as you can into how our brains work, and how they can be tricked... rather than concentrating on a relative dead end like upsampling. (Personally I consider this to be a separate topic from "accurate reproduction" - although I do consider psychoacoustics to be a science of its own.)
  
 I happen to have heard a demo of one such software application at a recent headphone meet. Unfortunately, the link offers a demo download, but doesn't provide much information. I can tell you that, at least on the cheap headphones they were demoing it with, it did make make several MP3 files sound much "nicer" - with the subjective change of sounding smoother, and seeming to have deeper and cleaner bass. Since the actual headphones they used had limited low bass capabilities, this was clearly due to a relatively effective "psychoacoustic trick".   (Note that the specific "tricks" they employ are custom "tuned" for a given make and model of headphone.)
  
 http://www.appjenny.com/Android/App/com.mindmagic.mm3


----------



## Dobrescu George

keithemo said:


> I've heard some binaural recordings that were pretty convincing. Of course they aren't actually delivering a directional source; they're simply providing an accurate reproduction of the cues that your brain would be receiving _IF_ the source was really directional, and interacting with your ears, your head, and the room. Your brain is then interpreting those cues as a directional source.
> 
> I would add, however, that it is indeed possible to outright _FAKE_ this information rather than reproduce it. The old Carver Sonic Hologram Generator could do a pretty convincing job of processing a stereo input signal to make it sound like some sounds were coming from behind you (since there was no actual information there to begin with, they were simply applying specific phase shifts and delays at certain frequencies to create the illusion that certain - random - sounds were behind you). I have also heard that there are some new processor boxes that take surround information (from existing multi-channel files) and "encode" it into a binaural signal that then tricks your brain into hearing "directional" sounds... but, again, they are taking actual directional information and converting it into cues that can then be delivered by a stereo source to your ears, and not delivering actual "directional sound".
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks for the advice. 
  
 I think that reproducing the sound with better acuracity was my original intent. 
  
 I think that using DSPs is where it is headed, and a pshychoacoustic effect is pretty good if it can do this. Having a button to disable it at any time, and the software being very good for doing more than music listening should ensure it's success.
  
 I also wanted to add upsampling to be able to add as many DSPs as possible without adding artifacts. But now that I think it deeper, just making data from 16 bits to 24 bits might be a better approach as DSP processing with 192Khz of samples would be too much for most processors. But making samples longer should not affect pricessing too much. 
  
 I am working a lot more on designing how to build a very good software that will please users nowdays, so I must admit that I might had rushed with deciding how it will make everything sound better. I also had thought about implementing some protocols with C++ to have higher priority, but use a single cpu thread for playback, and other cpus thread for DSPs. This way I can manage to use less processing power than other protocols, to avoid slowing the computer down by using all of the processing power. 
  
 I am designing a lot of things, I cannot really write about all of them, most are in experimental phase, and until I am convinced I am going to keep each thing, I avoid posting about them, as some of them are not good ideeas and I change them.


----------



## interpolate

If anyone thinks cables make a real difference to the average user then that's just a placebo effect and a marketing ploy if you ask me. In higher end equipment, higher grade cable would be sensible although on average cans normal OFC should suffice. Come to think of it all my headphone cables are relatively good quality...even the cheap Sony's.


----------



## interpolate

Of course, this is merely a "stranger looking in opinion" rather than a "I was there and got the t-shirt view".


----------



## Steve Eddy

interpolate said:


> If anyone thinks cables make a real difference to the average user then that's just a placebo effect and a marketing ploy if you ask me. In higher end equipment, higher grade cable would be sensible although on average cans normal OFC should suffice.




How is OFC of any benefit over ETP?

se


----------



## StanD

interpolate said:


> If anyone thinks cables make a real difference to the average user then that's just a placebo effect and a marketing ploy if you ask me. In higher end equipment, higher grade cable would be sensible although on average cans normal OFC should suffice. Come to think of it all my headphone cables are relatively good quality...even the cheap Sony's.


 
 SQ wise, brown zip cord used in the power cord of an electric lamp is as good as a $1K headphone cable. And dat be 'da truth.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> DR of CD redbook is 96.xy dB - in theory. Its rise time is 14.xy microseconds. 96 dB divided by 14 microseconds give us  6.857 dB/microsecond maximum possible change of SPL over certain amount of time.
> 
> DR of analog record as we usually know it is - under the best circumstances - 78 dB. Rise time of best cartridges available today is approximately 7 microseconds.
> which gives us 11.142 dB/microsecond maximum change of SPL over certain amount of time.
> ...


 
  
 Wow, what a fantasy... The fastest rise time ever required by a system is to achieve maximum output (0dB) at the limit of human hearing. This is easily achieved by Redbook. Any faster rise times are pure fantasy - not needed unless you are listening to ultrasonics with your batty friends.


----------



## lamode

dobrescu george said:


> ...
> 
> Soundstage is between 10 khz and 18 khz.


 
  
 Is this another one of your personal theories? Because to be honest I don't think one of your personal theories so far has been correct.


----------



## Exacoustatowner

stand said:


> SQ wise, brown zip cord used in the power cord of an electric lamp is as good as a $1K headphone cable. And dat be 'da truth.



A healthy bit of Copper in lamp cord. I used it for speaker cables for years.
What is your take on whisper thin cables such as those used in free RCA cables such as those given away with CD players? The kind with 3 or 4 strands of copper for positive and negative?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

lamode said:


> Wow, what a fantasy... The fastest rise time ever required by a system is to achieve maximum output (0dB) at the limit of human hearing. This is easily achieved by Redbook. Any faster rise times are pure fantasy - not needed unless you are listening to ultrasonics with your batty friends.



Interesting please provide references! A little Calculus is OK. Measurements of the audibility of rise time with double blind testing is best. I'm curious as I've read little on the subject and you clearly have the info! Simple dX/dT where X is rise ant T is time?


----------



## Exacoustatowner

steve eddy said:


> You'd first want to show that 90 dab of dynamic range isn't enough.
> You'd first have to show that 45 kHz matters.
> 
> But everyone who keeps shouting that they do, aren't terribly keen on actually demonstrating it. Because there will always be a percentage of people who will accept that it does based on empty claims alone. And if you can carve out a niche within that percentage that allows you to make good money, there's simply no incentive.
> ...



It baffles me how 45 KHz would affect the audible spectra. Are we talking NEGATIVE 3rd harmonics? I recall discussion of cheap cutoff filters on CD players causing roll off at the high end of the spectrum. But who would notice a roll off at 19 KHz?


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> What is your take on whisper thin cables such as those used in free RCA cables such as those given away with CD players? The kind with 3 or 4 strands of copper for positive and negative?




To use for what, headphone cables?

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> It baffles me how 45 KHz would affect the audible spectra. Are we talking NEGATIVE 3rd harmonics? I recall discussion of cheap cutoff filters on CD players causing roll off at the high end of the spectrum. But who would notice a roll off at 19 KHz?




Don't know. But it would be nice if those who believe it matters actually demonstrated that it matters.

se


----------



## Exacoustatowner

steve eddy said:


> Don't know. But it would be nice if those who believe it matters actually demonstrated that it matters.
> 
> se



I hear you (not that I can prove it). Every time I see that an amp is down 3 db at 100 KHz I wonder if that means a Bat would think it's slightly "warm?"


----------



## Exacoustatowner

steve eddy said:


> To use for what, headphone cables?
> 
> se



More on the order of using as interconnects between CD, preamp etc as compared to shielded inexpensive cable such as sold by Blue Jeans Cable.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> Don't know. But it would be nice if those who believe it matters actually demonstrated that it matters.
> 
> se


 
 In due time. I have at least two sources that offer, quite intentionally and by design, slightly or not-so-slightly different  frequency response within the officially accepted audible band up to 20 kHz. 
  
 Not to mention undisclosed number of phono cartridges. With responses crooked within 20 kHz - up to "almost" flat past 67 kHz. To be exact  - up to the upper limit of the 50 kHz test record intended to be played at 33 1/3 RPM actually played at 45 RPM - please do the math.
  
 Of course I can record any of these to DSD128 and/or PCM192/24. 
  
 None of the above can be *accurately *represented by the recording limited to CD redbook.
  
 But it is CD mat test first ( or maybe the harpsichord recording of the Bat Concerto ) that will come first.


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> I hear you (not that I can prove it).




That's the thing. There's just been 30 years of talk. 




> Every time I see that an amp is down 3 db at 100 KHz I wonder if that means a Bat would think it's slightly "warm?"




Ha!

se


----------



## analogsurviver

exacoustatowner said:


> I hear you (not that I can prove it). Every time I see that an amp is down 3 db at 100 KHz I wonder if that means a Bat would think it's slightly "warm?"


 
 That is EXACTLY what a Bat would - and DOES - think.
  
 But it takes an experienced Bat ... one that DID try most of the options available.


----------



## analogsurviver

steve eddy said:


> How is OFC of any benefit over ETP?
> 
> se


 
 I did answer that already - Copper Oxide was the first form of a semiconductor. And any oxygen means there will, eventually, be oxydation of the crystal copper, yielding what should be conductor to become an unending series of diodes connected in random directions.
  
 To test this theory, Japanese went to the most extreme possible of extremes - mercury cables. ZERO crystals (as mercury is liquid - except at terminations ), sealed from the atmosphere, whatever oxygen still entering the equation, would not be enough to "rot" anything but the surface of the mercury. These cables allegedly sounded superb - out of this world superb.
  
 Practical realization was oxygen free copper with as long crystals as possible (on the order of half a metre or so...) - all intended to approximate the performance of the impractical (not to mention poisenous...) holy grail of cables - the mercury cable.


----------



## Steve Eddy

exacoustatowner said:


> More on the order of using as interconnects between CD, preamp etc as compared to shielded inexpensive cable such as sold by Blue Jeans Cable.




No problem there. You're driving a very high impedance.

se


----------



## lamode

exacoustatowner said:


> Interesting please provide references! A little Calculus is OK. Measurements of the audibility of rise time with double blind testing is best. I'm curious as I've read little on the subject and you clearly have the info! Simple dX/dT where X is rise ant T is time?


 
  
 It's not rocket science. The fastest rise time will be required at the highest frequency at maximum amplitude. Redbook has no problem with that.


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> To test this theory, Japanese went to the most extreme possible of extremes - mercury cables. ZERO crystals (as mercury is liquid - except at terminations ), sealed from the atmosphere, whatever oxygen still entering the equation, would not be enough to "rot" anything but the surface of the mercury. These cables allegedly sounded superb - out of this world superb.


 
  
 Complete nonsense, as usual. Copper (I) oxide on the surface (which does not form easily) has no effect on the cable as an audio conductor. Same goes for copper (II) oxide.
  
 And no, a mercury cable doesn't sound any more "superb" than a $5 copper cable.
  
 The only thing which is "out of this world" is your dedication to trolling.


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> Complete nonsense, as usual. Copper (I) oxide on the surface (which does not form easily) has no effect on the cable as an audio conductor. Same goes for copper (II) oxide.
> 
> And no, a mercury cable doesn't sound any more "superb" than a $5 copper cable.
> 
> The only thing which is "out of this world" is your dedication to trolling.


 
 Now please go and get yourself two Audio Technica phono MM cartridges - one with PC/OCC wire and one older, regular copper wire version. Use the same stylus with both. There are MANY possible cartridges to choose from - use whatever you find most easily obtainable.
  
 And then get back to me if you can not hear a difference ...


----------



## lamode

analogsurviver said:


> Now please go and get yourself two Audio Technica phono MM cartridges - one with PC/OCC wire and one older, regular copper wire version. Use the same stylus with both. There are MANY possible cartridges to choose from - use whatever you find most easily obtainable.
> 
> And then get back to me if you can not hear a difference ...


 
  
 I headed straight to my bat cave and played my favourite 25kHz test tone LP meant to be played back at 33 rpm, at 78 rpm. You do the math!!!
 I did this with both the Chiroptera Diamond+ cartridge without OFC, and of course the same cartridge retrofitted with pure OFC in a secret laboratory in Japan (where they joke all day long about the nincompoops working at CERN)
  
 43 bats took part in the test. (The others were sleeping). 37 of them voted a clear preference for the OFC version!!! A clear win!!!


----------



## Steve Eddy

analogsurviver said:


> I did answer that already - Copper Oxide was the first form of a semiconductor. And any oxygen means there will, eventually, be oxydation of the crystal copper, yielding what should be conductor to become an unending series of diodes connected in random directions.




Nope. Sorry my friend but you don't know what you're talking about. Just more audiophile mythology based on ignorance. 

First, Cu/CuO/Cu, which is the scenario you're describing here, does not make a diode. For that you need Cu/CuO and then something OTHER than Cu to make a diode. Look up the construction of a real copper oxide diode. I believe lead was pretty commonly used. 

Second, you clearly don't even understand how a diode works. I'll spare you the solid state physics behind it and just leave it this.

Even if the scenario you give above did create a bunch of copper oxide diodes, what you have to understand about semiconductor diodes, even before they will begin to conduct current in the direction they're supposed to conduct current (in other words the opposite of the direction that it isn't supposed to conduct current and be "off"), the voltage across the diode must equal or exceed its forward conducting voltage. In the case of copper oxide, this is about 0.3 volts. In the case of silicon, about 0.7 volts.

In the microscopically small span of these diodes you're talking about, there would never be a voltage across that micro diode that equaled or exceeded 0.3 volts. So there would never be any current flowing through them in either direction, let alone current flowing in one direction and being blocked in the other, which is what happens when a real diode is functioning.

Third, ETP copper, while an "oxygenated" copper, only uses very small (on the order of 0.04%), very precisely controlled amounts of oxygen. ETP starts out with pretty pure copper to begin with. At least 99.95%. The purpose of the oxygen is to scavenge the remaining impurities and remove them from solution. The result is a copper with a higher conductivity. In other words, a copper with the same percentage of impurities, has a lower conductivity than the same copper employing oxygen scavenging. And with the oxygen bound to the impurities, it can't react with the copper to form the copper oxide you're so deathly afraid of.




> To test this theory, Japanese went to the most extreme possible of extremes - mercury cables. ZERO crystals (as mercury is liquid - except at terminations ), sealed from the atmosphere, whatever oxygen still entering the equation, would not be enough to "rot" anything but the surface of the mercury. These cables allegedly sounded superb - out of this world superb.




That's the problem when people are ignorant of the facts, fantasize about "problems" that don't exist, and then come up with a "cure" for those non-existent problems. But because they're convinced that the "cure" must result in a cable that's "better," then those subjective biases will tend to "confirm" that it sounds better. 

To "test this theory" would have required nothing more than a simple distortion test. Diodes are nonlinear. So any diodic action going on in the cable will produce harmonic and intermodulation distortion.

Several years ago I provided a number of cables to Bruno Putzeys, currently with Hypex but at the time was with Philips.

He found no distortion down to about -145 dB, which was the noise limit of the measurements. And one of the cables I sent him was a cheap cable I'd bought at Radio Shack that was about 10 years old. And I'd bet if I pulled out some of the 60+ year old AC wiring from my walls, cleaned off the ends and soldered some connectors to it, you would get the same result. The "theory" is based on a complete lack of understanding. 



> Practical realization was oxygen free copper with as long crystals as possible (on the order of half a metre or so...) - all intended to approximate the performance of the impractical (not to mention poisenous...) holy grail of cables - the mercury cable.




Pure nonsense.

The only "problem" with ETP copper is when you heat it in a reducing atmosphere, such as hydrogen as you might find in a hydrogen annealing furnace, like my transformer guy uses to anneal his transformer laminations. The hydrogen can penetrate the copper and react with the oxygen which can embrittle the copper and cause it to fail.

That's what oxygen free copper is for. But it was latched onto by a bunch of audiophiles many years ago as a "superior" copper and has been a meaningless buzzword ever since. At least until they latched onto OCC. 

If you want to learn about materials properties, the absolute LAST place you should go to get it is a bunch of neurotic audiophiles and "high end" audio manufacturers. Get a REAL materials properties text. I recommend Hummel's _Electronic Properties of Materials_ as a good place to start. Otherwise, all you're doing is embarrassing yourself by perpetuating all this mythological nonsense.

se


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> I headed straight to my bat cave and played my favourite 25kHz test tone LP meant to be played back at 33 rpm, at 78 rpm. You do the math!!!
> I did this with both the Chiroptera Diamond+ cartridge without OFC, and of course the same cartridge retrofitted with pure OFC in a secret laboratory in Japan (where they joke all day long about the nincompoops working at CERN)
> 
> 43 bats took part in the test. (The others were sleeping). 37 of them voted a clear preference for the OFC version!!! A clear win!!!


 
 Damn - you're fast ! Procuring so rare a cartridge on so short notice, in no less than two versions, aligning both accurately in two identical interchangeable arm wands to facilitate ABX - 
 and still have time to write up the stats... Everything in say 10 minutes. If you CAN atest to the fact you need no more nutrition than one medium sized grain of rice per day, you're HIRED !
  
 You are becoming bat keeper. That is good - there is still hope for you !!!


----------



## Steve Eddy

​


lamode said:


> The only thing which is "out of this world" is your dedication to trolling.




He may be completely misguided, but his beliefs are sincere. I had a rather lengthy telephone conversation with him a while back and I can assure you he is not a troll. So could you please not call him one?

Thanks.

se


----------



## lamode

steve eddy said:


> He may be completely misguided, but his beliefs are sincere. I had a rather lengthy telephone conversation with him a while back and I can assure you he is not a troll. So could you please not call him one?


 
  
 I believe that you believe that he believes, but believe me, I will believe what I believe!


----------



## analogsurviver

lamode said:


> I believe that you believe that he believes, but believe me, I will believe what I believe!


 
 I could have not expressed myself better than watching this excerpt from The Jackal - from 0:46:30 to 0:48:38 : 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OI7Mb90puw


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Ironically, it seems the temptation is greater for one of a scientific mindset to resort to name-calling--because it's so much easier and quicker for someone to pull another ill-formed argument, anecdote, etc. out of his hat than for the scientific representative to rebut it with properly backed arguments. To this I say, rebut the arguments you have time to rebut when you have time, leave the rest of the torrent of "arguments" alone, and leave it to the audience to see for themselves who has the better points. Those readers who cannot tell the wheat from the chaff are not those you can hope to win over to your side anyway. 

Do not in any case attempt to match the other guy's post rate--you'll run out of arguments in no time, whereas their "arguments" are inexhaustible.


----------



## Dobrescu George

lamode said:


> Is this another one of your personal theories? Because to be honest I don't think one of your personal theories so far has been correct.


 
 sorry, until now no theories I posted are mine
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Most are just read. My own theories are not open, and I am testing them very deep. In fact, right now I am discussing these facts just because I wanted to make sure if it is worth my time for even trying to test such ideeas. Most of what I truly belive are what I post on my project's page.  
  
 I think that soundstage is everywhere on the frequency charts, spatial sounds are not in a certain frequency, in my view. I do belive that even bass can be more enveloping around the user or more directional, coming from a certain area.


----------



## James-uk

Only a handful of people predicted the CD’s downfall way back in 1982. German computer engineer Dieter Seitzer, the forefather of the MP3, immediately considered the CD “a maximalist repository of irrelevant information, most of which was ignored by the human ear,” 

Interesting read this , thought I would share it with you guys. 
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/may/28/how-the-compact-disc-lost-its-shine?CMP=fb_gu


----------



## Singleton

Do you agree with Ethan Winer's opinion in these two video's below?


----------



## James-uk

singleton said:


> Do you agree with Ethan Winer's opinion in these two video's below?




Yes


----------



## Singleton

james-uk said:


> Yes


 

 Do you agree with all the points he raised or part of it?


----------



## castleofargh

singleton said:


> james-uk said:
> 
> 
> > Yes
> ...


 

 yes!


----------



## James-uk

+1 . I agree with all of his points.


----------



## Singleton

james-uk said:


> +1 . I agree with all of his points.


 
  
 Me too... looks like great minds do think alike.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I have been a victim of the fake EQ he mentioned too many times...


----------



## interpolate

Sound is merely airwaves and no high-end system or low-end one will ever take that away.


----------



## DreamKing

joe bloggs said:


> I have been a victim of the fake EQ he mentioned too many times...


 
  
 I've got a vague idea of what's meant by 'fake EQ'. At which point in the video is this discussed? interesting in hearing this.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dreamking said:


> I've got a vague idea of what's meant by 'fake EQ'. At which point in the video is this discussed? interesting in hearing this.




He means an engineer spending time EQing a track only to realize that the EQ isn't patched into the board.

I think Ethan interjects it when jj is talking about setting up the tube/solid state switch that actually did nothing. Comes after Poppy Crum's talk which is the first talk given.

se


----------



## castleofargh

that happened to me so many times. with the EQ bipassed and me starting to change some value by 1 or 2db thinking I just needed a little something there ^_^. 
 I even spent time with the hd650 on my head, trying to EQ it, and the sound coming from the speakers
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
 I'm such a pro.


----------



## dazzerfong

analogsurviver said:


> Now please reconsider; just because of similar "carved in stone" beliefs ( which are as safe as can be, being backed by enough papers and peer reviews and whatnots of the scientific world ) -
> 
> are YOU 100% sure
> 
> ...


 
 No such thing as 100% sure. But it's better than something which I'm 0.01% sure about. Improve that, and we'll entertain you. Or do you suggest you're better than the peer-reviews and all?
  
 BTW, CD mats and the recorcdings? And I swear to God, if you don't have them...........


----------



## analogsurviver

dazzerfong said:


> No such thing as 100% sure. But it's better than something which I'm 0.01% sure about. Improve that, and we'll entertain you. Or do you suggest you're better than the peer-reviews and all?
> 
> BTW, CD mats and the recorcdings? And I swear to God, if you don't have them...........


 
 In due time. In half an hour I will be in the concert hall, recording "a" choir.
  
 And the recording IS available - in "glorious YT sound" ( derived from MP3 192 kbps made for airing on the national radio ) :
  

  
 When I have time sometime next week , I will upload exactly this piece in BOTH original simultaneuosly recorded masters - DSD128 and 192/24 .


----------



## Steve Eddy

upstateguy said:


> So are you going to say you can't tell if he's trolling or just pretending to be stupid. :evil:




Since when is being ignorant or wrong considered "trolling"?

I really don't think most people who accuse others of being trolls even know what the word means. It seems to have devolved into a general epithet hurled at anyone they just don't like or disagree with. 

se


----------



## DreamKing

steve eddy said:


> He means an engineer spending time EQing a track only to realize that the EQ isn't patched into the board.
> 
> I think Ethan interjects it when jj is talking about setting up the tube/solid state switch that actually did nothing. Comes after Poppy Crum's talk which is the first talk given.
> 
> se


 
  
 Thanks Steve,
  
 A similar thing happened to me where I thought my parametric EQ was active on my system for weeks. Then a particular song's sound made me realize values were reset to null through some mishap or update to the system. I can see that happening again because slight EQ is just what it is _slight_ and it's easy enough to forget to check settings after system changes. 
  
 I've never EQ'ed a track though but could see that happening too if I did.


----------



## lamode

steve eddy said:


> Since when is being ignorant or wrong considered "trolling"?


 
  
 Since the person in question disregards all the evidence offered as to why he is wrong and persists in re-posting the same nonsense over and over without any evidence of his own.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I have done a little update, fixed some broken links, pointed out where the links are broken and I cannot find the original and added and taken away some bits and pieces. There is nothing I can find now that overturns the conclusions I reached back when I started the meta study.
  
 That is why my head-fi set up is the same now as it was four years ago, the only change is a new laptop from which I still stream Spotify (Premium to get the better bit rate) to my various headphones.


----------



## sonitus mirus

prog rock man said:


> I have done a little update, fixed some broken links, pointed out where the links are broken and I cannot find the original and added and taken away some bits and pieces. There is nothing I can find now that overturns the conclusions I reached back when I started the meta study.
> 
> That is why my head-fi set up is the same now as it was four years ago, the only change is a new laptop from which I still stream Spotify (Premium to get the better bit rate) to my various headphones.


 
  
 I am essentially in the same boat, but with Google Music instead of Spotify.  I've toyed around with the idea of using Tidal with the military discount and purchasing Roon to make the interface better.  This would have meant getting a more powerful laptop, too.  Though, I'm sure I can't hear any difference and the point of getting Roon would be to make Tidal more like Google Music's interface.  It would be a total waste of money for me, as I only pay $7.99 each month for Google, which gets me access to YouTube Red as well.
  
 The best thing I did was to get powered speakers.  I very rarely listen to music at home with headphones anymore.  Powered speakers and a nice, reasonably priced USB DAC is my end game unless my financial situation drastically changes to the point where tens of thousands of dollars would simply be disposable hobby money.  For now, I just get a cheap laptop every 4-5 years to keep the operating system up to date.  I don't use it for anything other than a music streaming device. 
  
 Hoping that this will be a viable method to listen to music for years to come.  This is bliss for me.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I think and hope streaming is my last format, having been through vinyl, cassettes, CDs and downloading from iTunes. The blind tests show that above 320kbpm the SQ is fine.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

prog rock man said:


> The blind tests show that above 320kbpm the SQ is fine.


 
 Last years the quality of CDs has risen too by my ears.
  
 I suppose it happened due high resolution in music production.
  
 I.e. potencial of CD used better way now.


----------



## StanD

sonitus mirus said:


> I am essentially in the same boat, but with Google Music instead of Spotify.  I've toyed around with the idea of using Tidal with the military discount and purchasing Roon to make the interface better.  This would have meant getting a more powerful laptop, too.  Though, I'm sure I can't hear any difference and the point of getting Roon would be to make Tidal more like Google Music's interface.  It would be a total waste of money for me, as I only pay $7.99 each month for Google, which gets me access to YouTube Red as well.
> 
> The best thing I did was to get powered speakers.  I very rarely listen to music at home with headphones anymore.  Powered speakers and a nice, reasonably priced USB DAC is my end game unless my financial situation drastically changes to the point where tens of thousands of dollars would simply be disposable hobby money.  For now, I just get a cheap laptop every 4-5 years to keep the operating system up to date.  I don't use it for anything other than a music streaming device.
> 
> Hoping that this will be a viable method to listen to music for years to come.  This is bliss for me.


 

 For a better UI for using Google Music on a laptop or PC try "Google Play Music Desktop Player" as it's free open source. I have a Google All Music subscription and use it at home on a small cheap 11 inch laptop that's got a measly dual core weakling processor and it works perfectly with an external USB DAC, etc. I dedicated the laptop as my listening station source, it has a touch screen.
https://www.googleplaymusicdesktopplayer.com/


----------



## sonitus mirus

stand said:


> For a better UI for using Google Music on a laptop or PC try "Google Play Music Desktop Player" as it's free open source. I have a Google All Music subscription and use it at home on a small cheap 11 inch laptop that's got a measly dual core weakling processor and it works perfectly with an external USB DAC, etc. I dedicated the laptop as my listening station source, it has a touch screen.
> https://www.googleplaymusicdesktopplayer.com/


 
 Outstanding!  I was looking to get a cheap all-in-one PC with a touchscreen to act as a "jukebox".  The one I was looking at had a 24" monitor and full HD (1920x1080) touchscreen.  I didn't want to get too small of a screen, as I typically force the screen to stay on so I can easily check to see what is playing without having to wake it.
  
 I'll try the desktop player tonight. (or now at the office)
  
 Thanks again!


----------



## watchnerd

prog rock man said:


> I think and hope streaming is my last format, having been through vinyl, cassettes, CDs and downloading from iTunes. The blind tests show that above 320kbpm the SQ is fine.


 
  
 Next format will be augmented reality based.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

All I am looking for are improvements in SQ and until something radical happens with speakers, I do not think it will happen.
  
 There is one area which could already make a difference, but it is not being used much, are the effects which expand where the music sounds like it is coming from. This is a recording of a motorcycle and the way the sound moves around as the bike does is amazing.
  

  
 Recording bands with speakers that mean the sound stage is wider and a few effects are thrown in would be interesting at least.


----------



## watchnerd

prog rock man said:


> Recording bands with speakers that mean the sound stage is wider and a few effects are thrown in would be interesting at least.


 
  
 This has been tried many times for music (quadraphonic sound, DVD-A), and it has always failed.
  
 It's gimmicky and music doesn't sound like that in real life.


----------



## StanD

I think that the biggest problem for speaker systems are room acoustics. That'll be a tough nut to crack, especially since there is a certain aesthetics to the placement of furniture and that SQ changes with the change of a listener's position in the room.


----------



## watchnerd

stand said:


> I think that the biggest problem for speaker systems are room acoustics. That'll be a tough nut to crack, especially since there is a certain aesthetics to the placement of furniture and that SQ changes with the change of a listener's position in the room.


 
  
 In order of impact:
  
 1. Quality of recording
 2. Speakers
 3. Acoustics of the room
 4. Level of sobriety
 ....
 10. Electronics


----------



## StanD

watchnerd said:


> In order of impact:
> 
> 1. Quality of recording
> 2. Speakers
> ...


 

 The quality of the recording affects all forms of listening, GIGO.


----------



## gregorio

prog rock man said:


> [1] There is one area which could already make a difference, but it is not being used much, are the effects which expand where the music sounds like it is coming from. This is a recording of a motorcycle and the way the sound moves around as the bike does is amazing.
> 
> [2] Recording bands with speakers that mean the sound stage is wider and a few effects are thrown in would be interesting at least.


 
  
 1. I strongly disagree. Rather than "not being used much", it's being used a huge amount, pretty much constantly and has been for many decades. In film and narrative/dramatic TV, positioning such as your example is fundamental part of the re-recording mixer's role.
  
 2. Again, this was quite commonly done at one time in film, it was called "worldising". However, it's much less common today because we have digital reverb, EQ, volume and panning automation which in combination gives us access to all parameters needed to fool the brain's positioning perception, to place a sound wherever we want and even having it move around. And, technology is becoming available which can automatically manipulate all these parameters. Have a look at this, from about 11:14 to the end:
  

  
 In music, the use of positioning (panning, reverb, EQ and volume) is also entirely common/standard. Even before digital processing, things like echo chambers, reverb plates and other physical tools were employed. Although, having sounds dynamically moving around is much less common (and virtually unheard of in some genres) in music than in film/TV.
  
 G


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I am not saying it is not used, or asking it be used to an extreme, just that I think more use could be made of it so the soundstage is bigger than it is now.
  
 Or, somehow, the user can alter it to suit, like bass and treble can be altered.


----------



## gregorio

prog rock man said:


> I am not saying it is not used, or asking it be used to an extreme, just that I think more use could be made of it so the soundstage is bigger than it is now.


 
  
 5.1 has been the film standard for about 20 years and in effect provides a 360deg soundstage, how much bigger than that do you want it to be? Film is now moving on to the vertical plane as well, rather than just 360deg in the horizontal plane, with systems such as Dolby Atmos. But the fact remains that despite it's availability, even the 360deg of 5.1 has not taken off.
  
 When the change from mono to stereo occurred, the music industry evolved to take advantage of this new format, musicians and producers changed what they were doing and new genres evolved which relied on stereo. Despite various experimental albums over the last decade or so, the same thing hasn't happened with 5.1 though. No musicians or music producers have developed a genre, style or found any other way to take advantage of the 360deg soundstage which has engaged consumers. So far as music is concerned, consumers want standard stereo and nothing more.
  
 We also have to consider that the soundstage with headphones is already far bigger/wider than the music is designed to be. Stereo speakers give us effectively ~90deg width, headphones artificially increases that to effectively 180deg. So if you're talking about headphone use, the soundstage is already extreme and you're asking for it to be even bigger, while at the same time asking for it not to be "used to an extreme", which is a contradiction that makes no sense to me. To be honest, I don't really get this thing which some audiophiles seem to have for an unnaturally wide stereo imagine or how they can equate it with higher, rather than lower, SQ.
  
 G


----------



## peterinvan

watchnerd said:


> Next format will be augmented reality based.


 

 Agree.
  
 I can imagine VR goggles showing me where all the musicians are placed on the sound stage. 
  
 This will reinforce the sonic images being pumped into my ears.


----------



## KeithEmo

Formats with more "extensive immersion" and "wider soundstage"....
 Absolutely.... been there... done that.
  
 Surround sound made an appearance once as "quadrophonic" - which was sort of popular for a while and then flopped.
 Then it came back as "surround sound" - with 5.1 and 7.1 - which seem to have stuck.
 Then it came back again as Atmos.....
  
 In fact, if you like that sort of thing, and find positioning in the sound stage, and the apparent height or size of each instrument important, then Atmos _COULD BE_ a huge step forward. Atmos is _OBJECT ORIENTED. _This means that, at least in principle, rather than simply position each instrument in the sound stage by controlling how loud it is in the mix, you can actually specify a location for each. In the Atmos mastering mixer, you can literally point to each track/instrument, position it in 3D space on a virtual 3D screen, and then set the size it should occupy. (It actually shows a 3D representation of a room and, for each mixed "object", you get to position a red blob in 3-space and dial up a size for it.)
  
 The decoder then reads that information, looks at the speakers you have in your particular system, and controls how much signal is going to each speaker to position the instrument correctly in the mix. In principle, this should be able to ensure that the sound stage is correct even if your speakers aren't in standard locations. At the very leas it can position each instrument separately in space.... or position a section, like the string section, in one area, and then single out the position of a soloist... and even move them around. The fact that its ability to do this includes information about the vertical position of each entity is really just an added detail. 
  
 It is interesting that Atmos is being heavily promoted for home theater, but nobody is even talking about "Atmos encoded music discs". Obviously, just as there are audio-only Blu-Ray discs in Dolby TrueHD or the DTS equivalent, there_ COULD_ be Blu-Ray discs with just music - recorded in Dolby Atmos or DTS-X. However, for whatever reasons, the home theater and audio markets seem to have split quite completely.
  
 As for your final comment..... some audiophiles seem to prefer to be "sitting in the middle of the orchestra", or "front row center".... rather than a few rows back with the orchestra clearly in front of them. (Personally, I prefer neither to be sitting in the center of the orchestra, nor in the front row of a movie theater, looking up at the screen.)
  
 Quote:


gregorio said:


> 5.1 has been the film standard for about 20 years and in effect provides a 360deg soundstage, how much bigger than that do you want it to be? Film is now moving on to the vertical plane as well, rather than just 360deg in the horizontal plane, with systems such as Dolby Atmos. But the fact remains that despite it's availability, even the 360deg of 5.1 has not taken off.
> 
> When the change from mono to stereo occurred, the music industry evolved to take advantage of this new format, musicians and producers changed what they were doing and new genres evolved which relied on stereo. Despite various experimental albums over the last decade or so, the same thing hasn't happened with 5.1 though. No musicians or music producers have developed a genre, style or found any other way to take advantage of the 360deg soundstage which has engaged consumers. So far as music is concerned, consumers want standard stereo and nothing more.
> 
> ...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

My problem is my inability to describe what it is I mean. I prefer it when I hear the music as if it coming from around me and not inside my head. I am not making that makes SQ better as a matter of fact. It is just something I like. A format which allows some adjustment to suit personal taste would be great.
  
 Another way to try and describe what I mean is from the 360 degree videos that are appearing. So if you are say watching a motorcycle, you can chose to look forwards, to either side or behind.


----------



## KeithEmo

You're talking about what most people call something like "synthesizing spatial content" or something like that.
 There are (and have been) several attempts at doing exactly that.... like SRS and "Dolby Headphone".
 If you look, I think you'll find several plugins for various music players that do this sort of thing.
 You might also check out something called Ambisonics (which is a synthesizer for "simulating binaural content on stereo speakers").
  
 (I seem to recall one that used a "wrapper" to use the commercial Dolby Headphone DLL inside FooBar2000 to give you the ability to play surround sound content through stereo headphones, and adjust both the levels and the apparent positions in space of the various channels.)
  
 The problem seems to be simply that, while many of them produce pleasant effects that some people like, none of them has succeeded in becoming widely accepted.
 Therefore, without wide acceptance and some sort of "standard", none of them individually lasts very long.
  
 Quote:


prog rock man said:


> I am not saying it is not used, or asking it be used to an extreme, just that I think more use could be made of it so the soundstage is bigger than it is now.
> 
> Or, somehow, the user can alter it to suit, like bass and treble can be altered.


----------



## StanD

@KeithEmo When I've listened to many of these spatial effects tricks and have often felt that they alter the timbre of musical instruments, which to me is a non-starter.


----------



## RRod

Y'all just need a wave field synthesis rig:

  
  
 Hopefully enough proliferation of VR headsets will help standardize audio virtualization formats. There was recently a standard for 3D audio formats that came out (I'd have to search for link), so ostensibly there has already been some progress, but a standard isn't anything if nobody uses it. Reading up on virtualization I actually see a lot of stuff in the Ambisonics formats, but for some reason we keep getting new surround formats for movies :shrug.jpg: ($$$$$) My hope is that headphone virtualization technologies will get a boost from the VR world, because headphones seem to go hand-in-glove (ear-in-can?) with wearing a Virtual Boy. We need someone coming up with a svelt way to account for our ears, because people seem averse to sticking mics in their soundholes.


----------



## watchnerd

rrod said:


> Y'all just need a wave field synthesis rig:


 
  
 What the hell is that?


----------



## RRod

watchnerd said:


> What the hell is that?


 

 A WFS setup here, evidently.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree.....
  
 To be honest, I tend to prefer speakers over headphones.
 However, when I use headphones, I'm used to their not delivering a "normal" sound stage, and it doesn't bother me that much.
  
 The closest thing I've heard to "real speaker sound through headphones" is probably the SPL Phonitor headphone amp. It includes several settings for simulating "real speakers in a real room" on headphones - and, to me, they sound quite natural. (Note that it only does stereo - it doesn't do anything to enhance the sound stage past "natural speaker sound". Unfortunately, as a headphone amp, it is quite expensive.)
  
 In exact contrast, the old Carver Sonic Holography seemed to produce an interesting "3D effect" with speakers, although I would NOT classify it as "natural sounding". (I never heard it with headphones). That feature was available in their separate C9 box, and in several of their preamps. (They still turn up pretty cheap on eBay if you wanted to check it out.)
  
 The reason most of the effects alter the timbre is that they use phase shift and phase relationships both to select which sounds go where, and to simulate sounds coming from different directions. And, whenever you deal with phase cancellations, thus cancelling out sounds at certain frequencies, you tend to alter the overall tonal balance as well.
  
 I know some people who quite like PLIIx - although I personally don't find it very satisfying. Note that, if you want to play with different options, there are various ways of using surround sound decoders to synthesize and enhance multi-channel surround sound.... which can then be mixed back into two channels for headphone listening. There are a lot of options like this which can be implemented in Foobar2000 via various plugins (for example, you can run your two-channel source through a PLIIx decoder, or through the Dolby Headphone DLL, then through a mixer to adjust the relative levels, and then convert it back to two channels, and then play the result in stereo through your headphones). I don't recall the specifics, but I've seen several detailed - and somewhat complicated - descriptions about how to do this.
  
 Quote:


stand said:


> @KeithEmo When I've listened to many of these spatial effects tricks and have often felt that they alter the timbre of musical instruments, which to me is a non-starter.


----------



## spruce music

rrod said:


> Y'all just need a wave field synthesis rig:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully enough proliferation of VR headsets will help standardize audio virtualization formats. There was recently a standard for 3D audio formats that came out (I'd have to search for link), so ostensibly there has already been some progress, but a standard isn't anything if nobody uses it. Reading up on virtualization I actually see a lot of stuff in the Ambisonics formats, but for some reason we keep getting new surround formats for movies :shrug.jpg: ($$$$$) My hope is that headphone virtualization technologies will get a boost from the VR world, because headphones seem to go hand-in-glove (ear-in-can?) with wearing a Virtual Boy. We need someone coming up with a svelt way to account for our ears, because people seem averse to sticking mics in their soundholes.


 

 Don't know where the above came from, but wavefield synthesis is an old concept going back at least to the 1930s Bell Labs research.  Front of the hall the idea is put up a row of microphones (Bell used as many as 128), then have speakers at each mic position for playback.  In a perfect world you recreate the whole room's wavefield with proper delays and such with no processing.  Bell concluded you could get some of the effect with as few as 3 speakers across the front.  The above extends that idea to all sides of the room.  Various approaches have been developed upon the idea.  Some allowing fewer speakers etc. etc.  None have become standard.  As usual practice and theory are not quite the same.


----------



## RRod

spruce music said:


> Don't know where the above came from, but wavefield synthesis is an old concept going back at least to the 1930s Bell Labs research.  Front of the hall the idea is put up a row of microphones (Bell used as many as 128), then have speakers at each mic position for playback.  In a perfect world you recreate the whole room's wavefield with proper delays and such with no processing.  Bell concluded you could get some of the effect with as few as 3 speakers across the front.  The above extends that idea to all sides of the room.  Various approaches have been developed upon the idea.  Some allowing fewer speakers etc. etc.  None have become standard.  As usual practice and theory are not quite the same.


 

 I've always associated wave-field with the row-of-mics technique and Ambisonics with the minimal-speaker setup. They seem to differ in how they simplify the underlying wave equations, but they aim to do the same thing. Smart people have been working on this stuff for a while, yet I still stream GoT in stereo


----------



## watchnerd

spruce music said:


> Don't know where the above came from, but wavefield synthesis is an old concept going back at least to the 1930s Bell Labs research.  Front of the hall the idea is put up a row of microphones (Bell used as many as 128), then have speakers at each mic position for playback.  In a perfect world you recreate the whole room's wavefield with proper delays and such with no processing.  Bell concluded you could get some of the effect with as few as 3 speakers across the front.  The above extends that idea to all sides of the room.  Various approaches have been developed upon the idea.  Some allowing fewer speakers etc. etc.  None have become standard.  As usual practice and theory are not quite the same.


 
  
 Man, I would love to hear such a thing...


----------



## castleofargh

I've seen that most VR skull crushers are associated with the dolby atmos thing(logic as they need vertical cues). if gamers carry the tech on their weak shoulders and necks for a few more years, maybe it could come out as a solid standard? I don't believe it will, but I hope for a standard, any standard really. so we can stop with the scorched earth marketing strategy to render everything obsolete before it's even born.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> I've seen that most VR skull crushers are associated with the dolby atmos thing(logic as they need vertical cues). if gamers carry the tech on their weak shoulders and necks for a few more years, maybe it could come out as a solid standard? I don't believe it will, but I hope for a standard, any standard really. so we can stop with the scorched earth marketing strategy to render everything obsolete before it's even born.


 
 Man, you're bad for business. These guys want to enjoy picking the pockets of unsuspecting consumers for as long as they can get away with it.


----------



## gregorio

> [1] It is interesting that Atmos is being heavily promoted for home theater, but nobody is even talking about "Atmos encoded music discs".





> [2] ... some audiophiles seem to prefer to be "sitting in the middle of the orchestra", or "front row center".... rather than a few rows back with the orchestra clearly in front of them.


 
  
 1. As I mentioned, no one has really come up with a musical genre/style which even takes full advantage of/relies on 5.1 yet. So a format which extends the capabilities of 5.1 even further is even more superfluous. No doubt we'll see the odd experimental album/track in Atoms at some stage but I can't see it becoming any sort of standard for music. The Object Oriented nature of Dolby Atmos is great for film, where we have a lot of moving sound sources (most of which are established/supported visually) but that's not the case with music, where all the sound sources are expected to be stationary and obviously with a music recording there are no visuals to support any illusion we may wish to create contrary to this stationary expectation. The fundamental problem though is economics. It costs more to build a good 5.1 mixing environment (and more still for a Dolby Atmos mix room/stage) and it takes more time to record/create the additional music/sound to put in those additional channels, considerably more time because with music there are no conventions to inform the arrangement/mixing. So, that's a lot more time, at a higher cost per hour, with a greater risk of failure and all during a time of decreasing revenues from music sales.
  
 2. I agree that's what "some audiophiles seem to prefer", I'm not disputing they have that preference, what I'm saying is that what they appear to prefer is a fallacy which doesn't exist. Orchestral recordings are designed from the perspective of some distance from the orchestra. Actually sitting in the middle of an orchestra sounds completely different to just massively widening the stereo image of a distant orchestra. Just as recording a car in stereo from some distance and then massively widening that stereo image does not result in playback which sounds anything like actually sitting in that car. Maybe those audiophiles just have no idea what sitting in the middle of an orchestra sounds like or maybe they just don't care because they're into the sound of their equipment rather than the music. Either way, it makes a bit of a nonsense of their demands for higher SQ.
  


prog rock man said:


> I am not making [saying] that makes SQ better as a matter of fact. It is just something I like. A format which allows some adjustment to suit personal taste would be great.


 
  
 There's one of the big problems with audiophilia. What some of the more extreme audiophiles "like" doesn't necessarily have any direct correlation with SQ, however, because they are typically unable to make any distinction between what they like and SQ, we end up with all kinds of ridiculous claims and then ludicrous explanations to justify/rationalise those claims. Fortunately, you now seem to be making that distinction but unfortunately it doesn't really matter because what you want/would like: 1. Isn't really possible and even if it were, 2. There isn't enough of a demand for it.
  


stand said:


> @KeithEmo When I've listened to many of these spatial effects tricks and have often felt that they alter the timbre of musical instruments, which to me is a non-starter.


 
  
 I've never really understood what audiophiles mean by "soundstage", I'm presuming a combination of what we in the pro audio world call stereo image and depth/presence or audio perspective? To create depth/presence actually requires a change in frequency response and therefore the opposite of what you're saying is actually true. What you're really saying is that you want the FR of the instruments to change in line with how the brain expects the FR to change with distance/position, so that the change appears natural and therefore the brain's illusion of timbre is maintained. Unfortunately that's not really possible, it's like trying to change the ingredients in a cake after it's already been baked. With stereo we've effectively got two elements rather than just a single whole cake, which presents opportunities to unpick and rearrange the mix but, we can only unpick it to a limited extent and even what is unpicked can only be rearranged to a limited extent. Mostly this is accomplished by changing phase relationships, which as KeithEmo stated produces fairly unpredictable FR interactions rather than the FR interactions and other transfer functions actually appropriate to the instruments' new spatial positions. The results are surprisingly good, on a superficial level but fall apart on closer inspection. What's interesting about the "Indoor" tool I posted a video to (post #6525) is that it heralds a new generation of pro audio tools which automatically takes care of all the FR, phase, early reflection and reverb interactions (within a 360deg space) from different audio perspectives. In other words, it is now possible to automatically create a convincing transfer function appropriate to different/new spatial positions. However, it requires individually processing each element of the mix and therefore only solves half of this particular problem, as we can't yet un-mix a stereo mix and get at all those individual elements.
  
 G


----------



## KeithEmo

I think you've got it pegged.....
  
 Many audiophiles are quite convinced that "sound stage" is a "thing" - separate from things like phase and frequency. They think of each entity in the original experience as a separate physical object in the recording, so they talk about things like "an instrument sounding too big" or "the sound stage being spread too wide" - as if a speaker can actually position a specific instrument in the wrong place. (And, as you noted, the reality would be much more complex. Even with a system like Atmos, if you wanted to treat "the drum" as an "object", you would still have to first combine all the separate microphones used to record the drum set into a cohesive "drum as entity" - before you could even consider "positioning the drum or moving it around". And this would be a massively complicated undertaking, with very limited benefits.)
  
 This misunderstanding seems to be why many people say things like that "this or that piece of equipment delivers a detailed and exact sound stage - with lots of depth" - when the reality is more like "it produces some interesting phase and frequency response anomalies that seem to simulate what I imagine a real performance sounds like quite well". They have an audible image in their head of what they expect a live performance to sound like, and then look for equipment that delivers something that is close to that expectation, with no actual understanding of what's involved. (It's kind of like someone critiquing how the tint of the sunlight, and the falloff of the shadows, aren't quite perfectly rendered on their monitor in a particular movie scene - when we happen to know that it was recorded in an indoor studio, at midnight, and the sunlight was indoor spotlights, and half of the shadows were added later with CGI.)





  
 To me, the problem is that they're conflating _ACCURATE REPRODUCTION_ with reproduction that simply produces a pleasant result similar to what they expect.
 (They decide what they expect, then rate playback equipment on how well it meets those expectations - and reality often has very little to do with it.)
  
 Quote:


gregorio said:


> 1. As I mentioned, no one has really come up with a musical genre/style which even takes full advantage of/relies on 5.1 yet. So a format which extends the capabilities of 5.1 even further is even more superfluous. No doubt we'll see the odd experimental album/track in Atoms at some stage but I can't see it becoming any sort of standard for music. The Object Oriented nature of Dolby Atmos is great for film, where we have a lot of moving sound sources (most of which are established/supported visually) but that's not the case with music, where all the sound sources are expected to be stationary and obviously with a music recording there are no visuals to support any illusion we may wish to create contrary to this stationary expectation. The fundamental problem though is economics. It costs more to build a good 5.1 mixing environment (and more still for a Dolby Atmos mix room/stage) and it takes more time to record/create the additional music/sound to put in those additional channels, considerably more time because with music there are no conventions to inform the arrangement/mixing. So, that's a lot more time, at a higher cost per hour, with a greater risk of failure and all during a time of decreasing revenues from music sales.
> 
> 2. I agree that's what "some audiophiles seem to prefer", I'm not disputing they have that preference, what I'm saying is that what they appear to prefer is a fallacy which doesn't exist. Orchestral recordings are designed from the perspective of some distance from the orchestra. Actually sitting in the middle of an orchestra sounds completely different to just massively widening the stereo image of a distant orchestra. Just as recording a car in stereo from some distance and then massively widening that stereo image does not result in playback which sounds anything like actually sitting in that car. Maybe those audiophiles just have no idea what sitting in the middle of an orchestra sounds like or maybe they just don't care because they're into the sound of their equipment rather than the music. Either way, it makes a bit of a nonsense of their demands for higher SQ.
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

isn't that what's all the audiophiles do? thinking that if they prefer something, then it's the real sound.


----------



## StanD

gregorio said:


> 1. As I mentioned, no one has really come up with a musical genre/style which even takes full advantage of/relies on 5.1 yet. So a format which extends the capabilities of 5.1 even further is even more superfluous. No doubt we'll see the odd experimental album/track in Atoms at some stage but I can't see it becoming any sort of standard for music. The Object Oriented nature of Dolby Atmos is great for film, where we have a lot of moving sound sources (most of which are established/supported visually) but that's not the case with music, where all the sound sources are expected to be stationary and obviously with a music recording there are no visuals to support any illusion we may wish to create contrary to this stationary expectation. The fundamental problem though is economics. It costs more to build a good 5.1 mixing environment (and more still for a Dolby Atmos mix room/stage) and it takes more time to record/create the additional music/sound to put in those additional channels, considerably more time because with music there are no conventions to inform the arrangement/mixing. So, that's a lot more time, at a higher cost per hour, with a greater risk of failure and all during a time of decreasing revenues from music sales.
> 
> 2. I agree that's what "some audiophiles seem to prefer", I'm not disputing they have that preference, what I'm saying is that what they appear to prefer is a fallacy which doesn't exist. Orchestral recordings are designed from the perspective of some distance from the orchestra. Actually sitting in the middle of an orchestra sounds completely different to just massively widening the stereo image of a distant orchestra. Just as recording a car in stereo from some distance and then massively widening that stereo image does not result in playback which sounds anything like actually sitting in that car. Maybe those audiophiles just have no idea what sitting in the middle of an orchestra sounds like or maybe they just don't care because they're into the sound of their equipment rather than the music. Either way, it makes a bit of a nonsense of their demands for higher SQ.
> 
> ...


 
 I never expected to be pleased as the mix is made and done with. I've noticed that many times as an instrument changes pitch as a melody is played, it's spatial position changes or seems fractured. I find that dissatisfying and for obvious reasons I don't expect that to be conquered. Once the novelty wears off (quickly) I find the results unpleasant and switch it off.


----------



## Eric Devonshire

i am in my 88th year 7 ihave been a music lover since early 60,s .ihave tried many cables over the years from basic 79 strand to several Nordosts. i still use what i did 40 years ago 1.5 mm solid core mains. i & my grand children could no appreciable difference in any of them.


----------



## GuyUnder

My sighted expectation bias appears to be on the fritz.

Yesterday I received my Anticables 6.2 ABSOLUTE Signature RCA interconnects which cost $600 after cryo treatment and 3-day burn in option. Right away I noticed the sound was cold and lacking in depth and detail. Sure enough, my no-name 15-year-old interconnects I found laying around the basement which was around $20 and made from pro cable stock as I recall, was not only much warmer but more detailed as well.

Anticables included an information sheet with the cables that warned that they need at least 100 hours of burn in before the start sounding as they should, and furthmore may improve with up to 500 hours. 3 days is more than a day short of the minimum 100 hours, so I let them run for another day. The result was that the Anticables lost much of coldness and resolution more-or-less caught up. My no-names from the basement are still warmer and fuller, while now sounding a bit more veiled in comparison. As of today the $600 cables are at best a side-grade.

If my bias doesn't improve the Anticables' sound significantly soon I will be making use of the 30 day return policy.


----------



## sonitus mirus

guyunder said:


> My sighted expectation bias appears to be on the fritz.
> 
> Yesterday I received my Anticables 6.2 ABSOLUTE Signature RCA interconnects which cost $600 after cryo treatment and 3-day burn in option. Right away I noticed the sound was cold and lacking in depth and detail. Sure enough, my no-name 15-year-old interconnects I found laying around the basement which was around $20 and made from pro cable stock as I recall, was not only much warmer but more detailed as well.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Interesting that you use the adjective "cold" to describe the sound from the cryo-treated cable.  Does it smell like cow manure?


----------



## roadcykler

A more accurate warning would be, "Anticables (and any other cable/speaker/amp, etc that recommends burn-in) need at least 100 hours for your hearing to become accustomed to the sound that you think has changed in order for them to sound their best". But that wouldn't sell many cables, now would it?


----------



## GuyUnder

sonitus mirus said:


> Interesting that you use the adjective "cold" to describe the sound from the cryo-treated cable.  Does it smell like cow manure?




You're not helping my bias improve my $600 purchase sound quality.


----------



## StanD

guyunder said:


> You're not helping my bias improve my $600 purchase sound quality.


 

 That money would be best spent at the bottle shop. That would dull your expectation bias and everything would sound the same.


----------



## NoMythsAudio

I know this thread is old but I have to say thank you for the efforts put into this post with all the references (link). I have been lurking around this forum reading reviews and posts but never contributed. This post actually inspired me to register and contribute which I hope to continue doing.
  
 As for the results in this post, for me, I believe it all boils down to common sense and people with a lot of disposable income (sadly some simply lives on credit). At what point do you perceive a discernible and credible difference between a $500 amplifier or $3000 one? To me it's more psychological and self-importance on the part of some so called audiophiles. The one I've never understood is paying $1800 for a headphone and then spending another $600 on cable upgrade!!! What kind of jobs are these people into? I'm a professional and makes me wonder if I'm doing something wrong with my life because while I will spend that much on a headphone, it just boggles my mind to even contemplate upgrading the cable. If a headphone cost that much and comes with a silly cable, why would I even consider it.
  
 Having said all these, some of the cost of these audio equipment has to do with the quality of the item not just the sonic difference. Call me shallow but I care a lot about aesthetics as much as sonic output. So if two products have no conclusive advantage over each, I will readily pay good money (of course not in thousands) for the build quality in deciding which to choose.
  
 Once again, thank you for this post and let's hope some of these self-important audiophiles exercise more common sense. I also believe the audiophile community have failed to hold these companies accountable, if anything, they have encourage these companies in fleecing the public by shunning out unjustifiably expensive rigs with outlandish claims.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm inclined to agree with you.
  
 However, I believe we all need to maintain perspective. Lots of people will spend $100k on a car that won't really get them to work any faster or more reliably than a $20k car. And I've also known people who spent more than $500 on a single concert ticket - which they only get to use for a few hours. And people spend an awful lot of money on a big screen TV or on other equipment. So, if someone spends more hours of their day listening to their headphones than they spend in their car, or watching TV, then who are we to say it's foolish to spend a few thousand dollars on them?
  
 I would agree, however, that people spend way too much on cables. For one thing, I've never experienced major _audible_ differences between cables (except for really poor quality ones that didn't work right). And, while there may indeed be small measurable differences, they more often amount to slight electrical differences rather than qualitative differences. (Just because two wires may be slightly different electrically, and may even sound a tiny bit different, that doesn't mean that one or the other is better. I personally prefer certain brands of wine, and may enjoy one $20 bottle a lot more than another one from a different brand, but that won't convince me to pay $500 for the $20 bottle that I happen to like slightly better... I'll find one I like equally well somewhere else for $20. So, while some cables may in fact sound different, I'm not at all convinced they sound significantly _better_.)
  
 I'm also inclined to carry your philosophy to the aesthetics of cables. I've definitely paid a few dollars extra for cables that looked nicer, or that were less prone to tangling, or, especially for headphones, that were flexible and soft and avoided making mechanical noises in the ear-cup when you move them around.
  
 I will say, though, that headphones do sound very different from one another, so the fact that someone may subjectively prefer one rather strongly over another doesn't seem especially surprising to me.
  
 However, one thing that I find surprising and annoying is that the headphone cable industry exists at all. I personally feel that, at that price point, the headphone manufacturer should include an appropriate cable to begin with. (I purchased a pair of relatively expensive headphones several years ago, and they came with a pair of rather stiff cables, with solid conductors with teflon sleeving, braided together. They were most certainly "audiophile approved", but in practical terms they were awful; every time you moved they would mechanically rub together, making noises that were annoyingly audible in the ear cups. I ended up replacing them with a "cheap" pair of cables that didn't have that problem. Yes, sometimes things get downright silly.)
  
 Quote:


nomythsaudio said:


> I know this thread is old but I have to say thank you for the efforts put into this post with all the references (link). I have been lurking around this forum reading reviews and posts but never contributed. This post actually inspired me to register and contribute which I hope to continue doing.
> 
> As for the results in this post, for me, I believe it all boils down to common sense and people with a lot of disposable income (sadly some simply lives on credit). At what point do you perceive a discernible and credible difference between a $500 amplifier or $3000 one? To me it's more psychological and self-importance on the part of some so called audiophiles. The one I've never understood is paying $1800 for a headphone and then spending another $600 on cable upgrade!!! What kind of jobs are these people into? I'm a professional and makes me wonder if I'm doing something wrong with my life because while I will spend that much on a headphone, it just boggles my mind to even contemplate upgrading the cable. If a headphone cost that much and comes with a silly cable, why would I even consider it.
> 
> ...


----------



## watchnerd

nomythsaudio said:


> Call me shallow but I care a lot about aesthetics as much as sonic output. So if two products have no conclusive advantage over each, I will readily pay good money (of course not in thousands) for the build quality in deciding which to choose.


 
  
 There is nothing wrong with paying more to get something that is better built, looks cool to you, feels nice, gives you pride of ownership, measures better, and/or is massively over-engineered.  
  
 It's when people conflate these attributes with audibly better sound quality that things become problematic.
  
 I like to use mechanical watch collecting as an analogy, because that's one of my other hobbies.  Watch collectors buy mechanical watches for many different reasons (history, provenance, craftsmanship, looks, status symbol, etc.).  But Patek Phillipe does not claim that their watches are more accurate than a cheap Casio G-shock or the clock in your cell phone.


----------



## watchnerd

keithemo said:


>


 
  
 I would go a step further:
  
 The headphone designer voiced the headphone with the supplied cable.
  
 If cables *don't* make an audible difference, swapping cables is moot for sound quality reasons.
  
 If cables *do* make an audible difference, then you're deviating from the intended voicing and design.
  
 Seems like a paradox to me.  Better off just not playing the game.


----------



## watchnerd

nomythsaudio said:


> Once again, thank you for this post and let's hope some of these self-important audiophiles exercise more common sense.


 
  
 One egregious example I've seen lately:
  
 Several high-end DACs with asynchronous inputs have very good built-in internal clock generation / clock management systems, with amazingly low jitter specs in stock form (well below audible). That's part of what you're paying for with that high price.
  
 And yet...
  
 I've seen multiple times when owners of $2000+ DACs with internal clock generation spend another $300+ to add an external re-clocker into the chain.  Totally superfluous, just as likely to do harm (via extra noise) as be neutral, and certainly doesn't make the internal jitter of DACs with good internal clock generation any better.
  
 If questioned about it, I've heard the equivalents of "I don't care what the engineering / science says, I know it sounds better."  It's just willful ignorance.


----------



## castleofargh

the actual value of things isn't a simple objective equation. if you want to see an object instantly losing all value, just come at one of my birthdays when someone gives me a present. in his hand it's worth what he paid for it, in mine it's rubbish I might not even bother to forget in the attic(give money to the ones you love not BS presents because you feel you have to!).
  
 also how much I own, totally changes the scale of what I deem affordable. this can't really be rationalized. the guy with thousands of $ each months will get no benefit from spending consciously and dying rich.
  
 let people buy what they want, but do not let them convince you that it's the best thing since sliced bread if it's not.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

Premium cars is not significantly faster than cheaper ones for me


----------



## watchnerd

yuri korzunov said:


> Premium cars is not significantly faster than cheaper ones for me


 
  
 On the street?  Or on the track?


----------



## KeithEmo

That makes perfect sense to me.
  
 Quote:


watchnerd said:


> I would go a step further:
> 
> The headphone designer voiced the headphone with the supplied cable.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

And, at least to me, it's even more problematic when people end up spending a lot of extra money for things that _DON'T_ have any of those benefits, simply because they've been sold on the latest fad. I absolutely unconditionally want to know _WHAT_ I'm spending my money on, so I can decide whether it's worth it or not. (I have very little respect for someone who buys an expensive mechanical watch because he actually believes that it is more accurate than the cheap digital one; and even less for the company that convinces him to believe it.)
   Quote:


watchnerd said:


> There is nothing wrong with paying more to get something that is better built, looks cool to you, feels nice, gives you pride of ownership, measures better, and/or is massively over-engineered.
> 
> It's when people conflate these attributes with audibly better sound quality that things become problematic.
> 
> I like to use mechanical watch collecting as an analogy, because that's one of my other hobbies.  Watch collectors buy mechanical watches for many different reasons (history, provenance, craftsmanship, looks, status symbol, etc.).  But Patek Phillipe does not claim that their watches are more accurate than a cheap Casio G-shock or the clock in your cell phone.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

watchnerd said:


> On the street?  Or on the track?


 

 I auto reviews I hear discussions like "7.1 second to 100 km/h (60 mph) vs. 7.5 second".


----------



## watchnerd

yuri korzunov said:


> I auto reviews I hear discussions like "7.1 second to 100 km/h (60 mph) vs. 7.5 second".


 
  
 That's not a very premium car if the faster one is only 7.1 seconds. 
  
 I think auto review magazines are the model that audio magazines should strive for.  They mix actual test data about acceleration, braking, skid-pad G-forces, etc, with subjective comments about the interior and how the ride felt.
  
 I *wish* more audio reviews had that much data.


----------



## watchnerd

keithemo said:


>





> And, at least to me, it's even more problematic when people end up spending a lot of extra money for things that _DON'T_ have any of those benefits, simply because they've been sold on the latest fad.


 
  
 See my comment regarding superfluous re-clocking devices.


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

watchnerd said:


> That's not a very premium car if the faster one is only 7.1 seconds.
> 
> I think auto review magazines are the model that audio magazines should strive for.  They mix actual test data about acceleration, braking, skid-pad G-forces, etc, with subjective comments about the interior and how the ride felt.
> 
> I *wish* more audio reviews had that much data.


 

 I'd like more detailed measurements with subjective perceptions.
  
 Of course, perceptions should be written before measurements are done.
  
 For modern hi-fi design and usability is important part too, in my opinion.


----------



## watchnerd

yuri korzunov said:


> Of course, perceptions should be written before measurements are done.


 
  
 Because you think the measurements will taint the listening results?
  
 I'm sure they will.  But would that be a good or bad thing for consumers?


----------



## Yuri Korzunov

watchnerd said:


> Because you think the measurements will taint the listening results?


 
  
 Absolutelly. Known price, exterior of tested device too.
  


watchnerd said:


> I'm sure they will.  But would that be a good or bad thing for consumers?


 
  
 Useful test results contains many figures. As example, right in my opinion, TDH should be measured across full band including ultrasound. Dynamic range may be measured different ways. Etc.
  
 But analysis of results may be realy complicate without special knowledges, because there are many details.
  
 However, sometimes we can see these figures. As example, I like Archimago's blog http://archimago.blogspot.ru


----------



## watchnerd

yuri korzunov said:


> However, sometimes we can see these figures. As example, I like Archimago's blog http://archimago.blogspot.ru


 
  
 Yes, I agree.
  
 Archimago is one of the best.  He is doing a great job.


----------



## pioferro

watchnerd said:


> There is nothing wrong with paying more to get something that is better built, looks cool to you, feels nice, gives you pride of ownership, measures better, and/or is massively over-engineered.
> 
> It's when people conflate these attributes with audibly better sound quality that things become problematic.
> 
> I like to use mechanical watch collecting as an analogy, because that's one of my other hobbies.  Watch collectors buy mechanical watches for many different reasons (history, provenance, craftsmanship, looks, status symbol, etc.).  But Patek Phillipe does not claim that their watches are more accurate than a cheap Casio G-shock or the clock in your cell phone.


 
 So very well said!


----------



## teb1013

watchnerd said:


> There is nothing wrong with paying more to get something that is better built, looks cool to you, feels nice, gives you pride of ownership, measures better, and/or is massively over-engineered.
> 
> It's when people conflate these attributes with audibly better sound quality that things become problematic.
> 
> I like to use mechanical watch collecting as an analogy, because that's one of my other hobbies.  Watch collectors buy mechanical watches for many different reasons (history, provenance, craftsmanship, looks, status symbol, etc.).  But Patek Phillipe does not claim that their watches are more accurate than a cheap Casio G-shock or the clock in your cell phone.




The watch analysis is perfect. My Rolex Datejust and Tudor Black Bay both keep great time, for a mechanical watch. I went out of my way to get an excellent quartz watch, a Grand Seiko, which is beautiful and absolutely accurate, but it doesn't tell better time than my iphone or my sons Apple Watch. The fact is, I get some intangible pleasure out of these things. I guess i could say the same thing about my tube amp or my Senn HD 600 headphones, except I do think, no know, that there is a difference in sound that even I with my somewhat deteriorated hearing can appreciate. I have a Senn HD558 which I like but there is no question that they sound better. I have never been able to tell expensive cables from cheap ones. Some will undoubtedly claim that it's because my relatively cheap tube equipment or my comparatively cheap HD600s aren't good enough to "tell the difference" my lousy ears too. I guess it's the law of diminishing returns, I have a level at which each thing I have reaches the upper level I am willing to spend.


----------



## StanD

@KeithEmo Based on your description of the stock cable, I'll ask, did you get an HE-500?


----------



## KeithEmo

This was a while ago, and I think it was the HE-400 (the original one - before there were variations).
 I ended up salvaging the connectors from the original cable and building my own out of Canare StarQuad cable (which is nice and soft and flexible - and costs about 50 cents a foot).
  
  
 Quote:


stand said:


> @KeithEmo Based on your description of the stock cable, I'll ask, did you get an HE-500?


----------



## StanD

keithemo said:


> This was a while ago, and I think it was the HE-400 (the original one - before there were variations).
> I ended up salvaging the connectors from the original cable and building my own out of Canare StarQuad cable (which is nice and soft and flexible - and costs about 50 cents a foot).


 
 Amongst my cans are a pair pf HE-500's. I thought they were the only ones that Hifiman made that came with a stiff microphonic cable made of twisted Teflon insulated silver wire. Silver or copper I don't care, however, the ergonomics suck. I really like the HE-500's, yes I have a strong weight bearing neck.


----------



## KeithEmo

I didn't mind the weight. The problem was that the wires were so stiff that, when you moved your head, they would literally clatter as they bumped together. Then, because they were so stiff, the sound would be transmitted through the wires and into the ear cup, and was clearly audible. (So, when you moved your head, you heard little rattling noises - a lot.)
  
 I seem to recall seeing cables that looked like that as aftermarket additions, but I don't recall HiFiMan making a point about what cables they included with the headphones, and I don't recall seeing a picture of the cables before I bought the phones. I suppose they made some sort of deal with some cable maker and imagined they were doing us a favor by including a "high end" cable with the headphones. (I would have been a lot happier if they'd offered a choice of ordinary flexible cables with soft rubber sheaths.)
  
 Cables aside, I thought the headphones themselves, while quite heavy, were really VERY comfortable. I finally sold them because, while they sounded very smooth, they were also very laid back - the high end and midrange were very clear, but the high end was very recessed, which is not the sound that I favor.
  
 I would also throw something out there to anyone thinking of making their own cables. Unless it's changed, HiFiMan used to use those nice little gold plated screw on connectors at the ear cups (I forget what they're officially called). If you want to make your own cables, you can buy the connectors separately from some high end shops for about $20 each. However, if you look around, you'll find that those same connectors are used for WiFi antenna signals.... and can be bought under that description on eBay and elsewhere - for around half that price or a bit less. Note that they are tiny, and are a real nuisance to solder.
  
 Quote:


stand said:


> Amongst my cans are a pair pf HE-500's. I thought they were the only ones that Hifiman made that came with a stiff microphonic cable made of twisted Teflon insulated silver wire. Silver or copper I don't care, however, the ergonomics suck. I really like the HE-500's, yes I have a strong weight bearing neck.


----------



## StanD

keithemo said:


> I didn't mind the weight. The problem was that the wires were so stiff that, when you moved your head, they would literally clatter as they bumped together. Then, because they were so stiff, the sound would be transmitted through the wires and into the ear cup, and was clearly audible. (So, when you moved your head, you heard little rattling noises - a lot.)
> 
> I seem to recall seeing cables that looked like that as aftermarket additions, but I don't recall HiFiMan making a point about what cables they included with the headphones, and I don't recall seeing a picture of the cables before I bought the phones. I suppose they made some sort of deal with some cable maker and imagined they were doing us a favor by including a "high end" cable with the headphones. (I would have been a lot happier if they'd offered a choice of ordinary flexible cables with soft rubber sheaths.)
> 
> ...


 
 That's what I meant by microphonic, but in a mechanically sonic conductive manner, not like tubes. You know brown zip cord is cheap and I'm sure we can find something that is reasonably flexible. Which cable thread is the right one to ask about this?


----------



## castleofargh

yeah, microphonic somehow has been so misused that I'm inclined to accept and use it as the legit term for mechanical cable noises now. it's one of those "when everybody's wrong, it's just faster to change the definition". ^_^


----------



## KeithEmo

For headphone cable, Canare StarQuad is absolutely my choice(in 20 gauge). It's very flexible and rubbery, feels very nice, costs about fifty cents a foot, and even comes in assorted colors. The only downside is that it is a little heavy - but I like a cable that has a bit of heft to it. (It's available at most serious parts suppliers by the foot.)
  
 Quote:


stand said:


> That's what I meant by microphonic, but in a mechanically sonic conductive manner, not like tubes. You know brown zip cord is cheap and I'm sure we can find something that is reasonably flexible. Which cable thread is the right one to ask about this?


----------



## StanD

> For headphone cable, Canare StarQuad is absolutely my choice(in 20 gauge). It's very flexible and rubbery, feels very nice, costs about fifty cents a foot, and even comes in assorted colors. The only downside is that it is a little heavy - but I like a cable that has a bit of heft to it. (It's available at most serious parts suppliers by the foot.)


 
 I see that listed a microphone cable. As long as the gauge/resistance  and capacitance are low, it's probably good to go. I walk past B&H twice a day, they have it in 200m reels that are far more than I need. Does it come without foil shielding?


----------



## KeithEmo

The thinner 24 gauge starquad cable is foil shielded and is considered to be "microphone cable".
  
 The heavier Canare 4S6 is 20 gauge and unshielded and is considered to be "speaker cable". That's the one I used (20 gauge is somewhat heavy for headphones - and way too thin for speakers).
  
 They also make a super-flexible in-between one which is said to be "super flexible" but is shielded and is considered to be high-end microphone cable. The shielding will make terminating it slightly more difficult, but the capacitance really shouldn't be a significant issue. (If it isn't capacitive enough to be a problem for a microphone, I doubt a headphone amp would have trouble.)
  
 http://www.canare.com/ProductItemDisplay.aspx?productItemID=53
  
 I've only listed a few, there seem to be quite a few variations of Canare Starquad.
 (They're all pretty standard, widely available, and come in assorted colors.)
  
  
 Quote:


stand said:


> I see that listed a microphone cable. As long as the gauge/resistance  and capacitance are low, it's probably good to go. I walk past B&H twice a day, they have it in 200m reels that are far more than I need. Does it come without foil shielding?


----------



## StanD

> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The thinner 24 gauge starquad cable is foil shielded and is considered to be "microphone cable".
> 
> ...


 
 I didn't expect capacitance to be an issue as headphones tend to be lower impedance than microphones (excluding the 600 Ohm variants) and can tolerate more capacitance, especially when driven by a low impedance amp which deals with the load, yes to much can make the amp unstable. The cable I saw online was 20 GA but had a foil shield. I'll look for the 4S6 type that you mentioned. Thanks.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Hi all. One of my occasional visits to edit the OP, check links, add some more stuff I have found. 

I am still listening with the set up I ended up with a few years back, Spotify on a laptop (Toshiba now) with an expensive USB to Firestone DAC and PSU, linked with an expensive IC to my MF X-CAN V8P to my trusty collection of headphones, primarily the AKG K271 Mk II (plus some decent Russ Andrews power cords and a Silencer). Proper blind testing still tells me that the premium bit rate on Spotify and the headphones are the only parts of the set up that make an audible difference!


----------



## bigshot

Thanks for the update! This is an important post. Come back and visit with us every once in a while.


----------



## amirm

That is an incredible archive of blind tests performed in OP!  Well done.

It is missing this ABX test of amplifiers which I unearthed a few years ago, by advocates of ABX testing: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/


----------



## richard51

Great site indeed...Congratulations, I only read one article about dac measurement and it was more than clear, then I 
subscribed to your site thanks very much....​




amirm said:


> That is an incredible archive of blind tests performed in OP!  Well done.
> 
> It is missing this ABX test of amplifiers which I unearthed a few years ago, by advocates of ABX testing: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/


----------



## SilverEars (Jan 21, 2018)

Z-Reviews are entertaining I will admit.  Compared to all the bull-crap reviews out there, his is not bad.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 21, 2018)

I don't think it should be surprising that a vastly overpriced audiophile woo amp might sound different. I bet it measures terrible too.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> I don't think it should be surprising that a vastly overpriced audiophile woo amp might sound different. I bet it measures terrible too.



Some people are really into distortion, and a weirdly designed amp can certainly provide that for you... and that's before you even get into the tubes...


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting..... and I also find your choices about where to spend money somewhat unusual.

For example pairing "an expensive DAC, PSU, and cables" with Spotify - which uses lossy compression (the premium service just uses _BETTER_ but still lossy compression), and AKG K271 MkII (which I have owned and did NOT find to be especially good at delivering fine detail).
Without starting another lengthy discussion about what "should" be audible, I wonder if you might notice more differences with a higher quality source (like CD or high-res files), or more detailed headphones.
(From your description, I would definitely expect Spotify to be the limiting factor with your system, followed by the AKG K271 MkII's.)



Prog Rock Man said:


> Hi all. One of my occasional visits to edit the OP, check links, add some more stuff I have found.
> 
> I am still listening with the set up I ended up with a few years back, Spotify on a laptop (Toshiba now) with an expensive USB to Firestone DAC and PSU, linked with an expensive IC to my MF X-CAN V8P to my trusty collection of headphones, primarily the AKG K271 Mk II (plus some decent Russ Andrews power cords and a Silencer). Proper blind testing still tells me that the premium bit rate on Spotify and the headphones are the only parts of the set up that make an audible difference!


----------



## bigshot

As long as compressed audio has a high enough bitrate to not artifact, better headphones will ALWAYS make for better sound. Most halfway decent midrange amps and DACs are audibly transparent. Headphones are not. The three ways to really hear an improvement in sound quality are 1) to use better headphones, 2) to put together a good speaker system (because really good speakers sound better than really good headphones), and 3) to listen to better recorded and engineered music.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> As long as compressed audio has a high enough bitrate to not artifact, better headphones will ALWAYS make for better sound. Most halfway decent midrange amps and DACs are audibly transparent. Headphones are not. The three ways to really hear an improvement in sound quality are 1) to use better headphones, 2) to put together a good speaker system (because really good speakers sound better than really good headphones), and 3) to listen to better recorded and engineered music.



Or if you don't want to spend money, you can EQ your existing headphones a bit.  Won't help any with detail of course...


----------



## bigshot

It will help with detail. Detail has a lot to do with response imbalances... frequency masking. Distortion is rarely an issue with decent cans.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> It will help with detail. Detail has a lot to do with response imbalances... frequency masking. Distortion is rarely an issue with decent cans.



Fair point.  I was thinking more like impulse response / sensitivity.  IR will of course be affected by EQ also, but in a pretty limited way.


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> Interesting..... and I also find your choices about where to spend money somewhat unusual.
> 
> For example pairing "an expensive DAC, PSU, and cables" with Spotify - which uses lossy compression (the premium service just uses _BETTER_ but still lossy compression), and AKG K271 MkII (which I have owned and did NOT find to be especially good at delivering fine detail).
> Without starting another lengthy discussion about what "should" be audible, I wonder if you might notice more differences with a higher quality source (like CD or high-res files), or more detailed headphones.
> (From your description, I would definitely expect Spotify to be the limiting factor with your system, followed by the AKG K271 MkII's.)



He did mention that Spotify and his headphones were the only part of his system that made an audible difference, but I disagree that the audio format would be a greater limiting factor than the transducers. With speakers, I am not able to hear any difference with music between a good lossy file and lossless file at any quality level.  I haven't seen a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise, but I don't want to start an argument about it.  If there is a difference to be heard, it can't be much.   

I just wanted to note that at least for me, I could still benefit from better speakers and an improved listening environment using lossy music services (certainly Google Music, but probably with others).  I could spend $20K on speakers and the necessary amplification required to power them and still feel confident that I was hearing great quality sound playing MP3 or AAC using a modern encoder with the highest quality settings.  The differences speakers can make or simply moving the speakers' positions around a bit would have a much greater impact on the sound. I mean, I can hear a difference when I toe-in my speakers 5 degrees or move them out from the wall 12 inches, but I can't identify a difference between a 320 kbps MP3 and a 24/96 file with any consistency that might suggest I am not simply guessing.


----------



## jnorris

bigshot said:


> It will help with detail. Detail has a lot to do with response imbalances... frequency masking. Distortion is rarely an issue with decent cans.


Detail is a function of driver/amp responsiveness.  EQ will not add detail at all.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 24, 2018)

Google frequency masking jnorris. An imbalance in one place can cancel out frequencies an octave above. It isn't intuitive, but I had it vividly demonstrated to me by a sound mixer friend. It's real.


----------



## pinnahertz

jnorris said:


> Detail is a function of driver/amp responsiveness.  EQ will not add detail at all.


This is a lot of audiophile nonsense, though.  Past a certain point the amp is driving the driver just fine, and has no more effect.  EQ actually can emphasize detail that is already in the recording, but perhaps obscured by the rather massive response errors in acoustic transducers.  EQ cannot add anything, though, it only changes frequency and phase response.  If it's not there to begin with nothing will add it, not EQ, not amps, not anything. 

One of the bigger audiophile misconceptions is that EQ is someone impure or bad, but ignoring the fact that every speaker, room or headphone already modifies frequency response.  Proper EQ actual reverses much of that negative effect...hence it's name.


----------



## jnorris

Sorry, but the truth is that the phase errors and additional processing involved in equalization are detrimental to the sound, serving to mask rather than reveal details.  If the amp/speakers cannot delineate fine detail, like the individual voice in a choir, then no amount of EQ will bring it out.


----------



## pinnahertz

jnorris said:


> Sorry, but the truth is that the phase errors and additional processing involved in equalization are detrimental to the sound, serving to mask rather than reveal details.  If the amp/speakers cannot delineate fine detail, like the individual voice in a choir, then no amount of EQ will bring it out.


Again, this is audiophile nonsense.  "Phase errors" are already present, and have absolutely nothing whatever to do with "detail".  The audibility of phase shift has been tested conclusively, and it's been shown that for phase "error" to become clearly audible it must be massive, non-linear, and mid-band.  That's not what an equalizer does.  You don't seem to understand that every single transducer known to man already includes pretty huge phase and amplitude response errors.  This is easily measurable.  An equalizer, if properly set to counter these, reduces phase error and corrects amplitude response.  

Claiming an amplifier can do anything to improve detail is equally nonsense.  The amount of change to the signal passing through any good amplifier connected to a transducer is minimal as compared to what the transducer itself does.  Any change is below audibility (again, this is provable), so long as the amplifier is operating correctly and of good quality.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would agree..... in order to be audible, phase errors would have to be many orders of magnitude greater than you'll see in pretty much any modern equipment. And, while different amounts of phase shift between channels could certainly affect sound stage, again, they would have to be many orders of magnitude greater than you'll see on most modern equipment. Most speakers introduce huge amounts of phase shift across the audio band, some up to several hundred degrees, which might conceivably be audible..... but electronic equipment is usually down in the fractions of a degree, which isn't. 



pinnahertz said:


> Again, this is audiophile nonsense.  "Phase errors" are already present, and have absolutely nothing whatever to do with "detail".  The audibility of phase shift has been tested conclusively, and it's been shown that for phase "error" to become clearly audible it must be massive, non-linear, and mid-band.  That's not what an equalizer does.  You don't seem to understand that every single transducer known to man already includes pretty huge phase and amplitude response errors.  This is easily measurable.  An equalizer, if properly set to counter these, reduces phase error and corrects amplitude response.
> 
> Claiming an amplifier can do anything to improve detail is equally nonsense.  The amount of change to the signal passing through any good amplifier connected to a transducer is minimal as compared to what the transducer itself does.  Any change is below audibility (again, this is provable), so long as the amplifier is operating correctly and of good quality.


----------



## jnorris

pinnahertz said:


> Again, this is audiophile nonsense.  "Phase errors" are already present, and have absolutely nothing whatever to do with "detail".  The audibility of phase shift has been tested conclusively, and it's been shown that for phase "error" to become clearly audible it must be massive, non-linear, and mid-band.  That's not what an equalizer does.  You don't seem to understand that every single transducer known to man already includes pretty huge phase and amplitude response errors.  This is easily measurable.  An equalizer, if properly set to counter these, reduces phase error and corrects amplitude response.
> 
> Claiming an amplifier can do anything to improve detail is equally nonsense.  The amount of change to the signal passing through any good amplifier connected to a transducer is minimal as compared to what the transducer itself does.  Any change is below audibility (again, this is provable), so long as the amplifier is operating correctly and of good quality.




You're big on this "audiophile nonsense" thing.  Fact is, all this stuff is "Audiophile Nonsense" to a non-audiophile.  Your willingness to screw up a perfectly linear signal with wanton equalization, your decided lack of acknowledgement that additional signal processing is not a good thing, and your arrogance to assume that you can properly tune out all the phase and amplitude errors introduced by "every single transducer known to man" with an audiophile-grade equalizer, indicate to me that you are indeed a non-audiophile.

Do all your tweaking, tuning, and adjusting and listen to some well recorded stuff, then pull out the EQ and tell me if the music doesn't sound better - more dynamic, cohesive and transparent.  You might even hear the detail that your equalizer is hiding.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would also add that we humans do have a tendency to misinterpret and incorrectly describe what we hear.
And audiophiles, especially lately, have a further tendency to use flowery adjectives to inaccurately describe what they're hearing.
For example, boosting frequencies around 6-8k won't improve detail, but many people will _describe_ the result as "_sounding more detailed_".
And a speaker with a dip at those frequencies may tend to de-emphasize the lack of detail in a poor quality recording, while one that boosts those frequencies may emphasize the flaw.

Another totally bogus term that's used a lot lately is "rhythm and pace".
Both of those terms refer to the speed at which a piece of music is played.
The reality is that the musicians in the orchestra could play the piece at the wrong pace, and a turntable, being mechanical, could be running at the wrong speed, and the mixing engineer could have deliberately shifted either....
_HOWEVER_, neither DACs, nor preamps, nor speakers, nor amplifiers, nor CD players, _EVER_ alter the speed at which music is rendered to any possibly audible degree.
We humans can only hear speed differences of a significant fraction of a percent.... the clocks on even a low quality CD player or computer are accurate to a few ten-thousandths of a percent.
(In order to audibly shift the speed, a CD player or computer would have to have a badly flawed clock, and it's simply impossible for an amplifier or preamp.)
Therefore, none of them can ever alter the rhythm, pace, or tempo of the music.

But what they can do, by altering frequency response, or introducing some sort of timing blur, is to make the music "sound more lively" or "sound less peppy", which we humans _MISINTERPRET_ as a change in the pace.
(A real alteration in the "rhythm and pace" would change the play time of the track..... which doesn't happen.)



bigshot said:


> Google frequency masking jnorris. An imbalance in one place can cancel out frequencies an octave above. It isn't intuitive, but I had it vividly demonstrated to me by a sound mixer friend. It's real.


----------



## jnorris

KeithEmo said:


> I would also add that we humans do have a tendency to misinterpret and incorrectly describe what we hear.
> And audiophiles, especially lately, have a further tendency to use flowery adjectives to inaccurately describe what they're hearing.
> For example, boosting frequencies around 6-8k won't improve detail, but many people will _describe_ the result as "_sounding more detailed_".
> And a speaker with a dip at those frequencies may tend to de-emphasize the lack of detail in a poor quality recording, while one that boosts those frequencies may emphasize the flaw.
> ...



I don't think an audio reviewer's reference to "rhythm and pace" (PRAT as some British reviewers call it) is related to the actual speed of a piece of music, but rather the ability of a speaker or headphone to keep up with the music.  I think this is where driver speed and control comes in - where a driver may still be reacting to one sound when another comes in.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree with what you're saying about amplifiers in general..... but you do have to accept the part that says "past a certain point" (and where that point lies may not be where you expect).

For example, many speaker drivers store energy (you see it on that waterfall plot).
This is an undesirable mechanical property of speaker transducers.
(It's not a "flaw" per-se; it's simply a property of virtually all mechanical moving systems that we might prefer to minimize.)
But, because electrical damping tends to suppress this unwanted motion, the amount you get will depend on the damping factor of the amplifier at the frequencies involved.
(If you measure the waterfall plot of a woofer when connected to a solid state amp with a damping factor of 500, and of the same woofer when connected to a tube amp with a DF of 10, the plots will be different, and the difference may be very audible.)
Therefore, that woofer may indeed sound "more blurred" with the tube amp.... because its energy storage characteristics, which can be seen clearly in that waterfall plot, are in fact different.

However, I think you're overstating the case a bit for equalizers.
While it's true that a theoretically perfect equalizer would have no "side effects" - that is often not true for the real world versions.
The idea that "EQ is bad" has legitimate historical justifications.

With physical circuitry, every single component introduces some small amount of noise and distortion...
Equalization circuits are complex, and require a significant number of components, which means that, in practice, they tend to introduce noise and distortion.
Because of this, in practice, most equalizers do in fact introduce some (hopefully small) amount of signal degradation when they're in circuit.
And, even beyond that, due to component tolerances, actually setting the controls so they're really flat is often problematic.
(In hardware from thirty or fifty years ago, like those vintage "ten band graphic equalizers", various side effects and flaws were often quite audible and unpleasant.)

A similar situation exists for equalizers that are implemented in DSP software.
Because of everything from differences in how the math is implemented, to rounding errors, to actual programming errors, the result doesn't always match the theory exactly.
Because of this, while it might be fair to suggest that "a theoretically perfect equalizer would change the frequency response and nothing else" - this often is not the case in practice.
(And, to be blunt, some EQ features in devices like phones, that are poorly or sloppily coded, still sometimes sound audibly odd.)

However, of course, many modern EQ implementations are quite close to perfect - and, if a major error can be corrected, and there are no obviously audible side effects, then the trade-off is well worth it.
(It's also worth noting that, with modern recordings, it's virtually certain that every track has been through multiple stages of equalization and processing already anyway... so trying to be a "true purist" is a losing battle anyway.)



pinnahertz said:


> This is a lot of audiophile nonsense, though.  Past a certain point the amp is driving the driver just fine, and has no more effect.  EQ actually can emphasize detail that is already in the recording, but perhaps obscured by the rather massive response errors in acoustic transducers.  EQ cannot add anything, though, it only changes frequency and phase response.  If it's not there to begin with nothing will add it, not EQ, not amps, not anything.
> 
> One of the bigger audiophile misconceptions is that EQ is someone impure or bad, but ignoring the fact that every speaker, room or headphone already modifies frequency response.  Proper EQ actual reverses much of that negative effect...hence it's name.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree entirely.

However, if you look them up in a dictionary, that's not what those words mean. 
What the reviewer probably really meant was that "it failed to properly convey the _sense_ of rhythm and pace".  
And, by making up new meanings for words, or using them in a way that only insiders know what you really mean, they make it a virtual certainty that many readers will misinterpret their statement.

The whole object of communications is to convey meaning and information accurately.
This only works if we all agree that certain words mean certain things.
By making up a whole new language (by using normal words in new ways) they are (deliberately or not) creating a gap between "people who understand them and people who don't".
This may make "the insiders" feel cool, but it leaves the non-insiders trying to figure things out without much guidance.....
And, from what I read here and elsewhere, the result is often somewhere between misinformation and total confusion.
(For example, it would be natural for someone who doesn't read between the lines to believe that a device with "poor PRAT" had a clock that was running at the wrong speed.)

The proper way to describe that "PRAT" would be to say that "the speaker fails to convey a proper sense of rhythm on fast paced content, presumably due to excess energy storage at certain frequencies, which causes the output to continue after the input signal has stopped".
It may not sound nearly as poetic... but it's a lot more informative.
Stating it this way in fact serves several distinct and valuable purposes.
First, it is an accurate description that you can understand without asking an audio expert what the words mean (well, mostly).
Second, it tells a moderately informed person that they can probably see this as a quantifiable measurement - and they'll find it on the waterfall plot.
Third, it even tells an informed person where to look for a solution.... in this case, by looking for causes of excess energy storage and ways to correct them.
(Buying a speaker with a more solidly constructed cabinet, or a more well-damped cone, has a shot at reducing this problem; upgrading the clock in your CD player does not.)



jnorris said:


> I don't think an audio reviewer's reference to "rhythm and pace" (PRAT as some British reviewers call it) is related to the actual speed of a piece of music, but rather the ability of a speaker or headphone to keep up with the music.  I think this is where driver speed and control comes in - where a driver may still be reacting to one sound when another comes in.


----------



## jnorris

KeithEmo said:


> I agree entirely.
> 
> However, if you look them up in a dictionary, that's not what those words mean.
> What the reviewer probably really meant was that "it failed to properly convey the _sense_ of rhythm and pace".
> ...





I agree with you also.  Especially about the elitist terminology.  It took a while to figure out that PRAT was Pace, Rhythm and Timing.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jan 24, 2018)

Yep just wanted to chime in and say that, yes in theory EQ could improve perceived detail on the same transducer, if something was being hidden by masking effects before.  Cut an unwanted peak at 500hz and suddenly something at 2Khz is audible?  Plausible, although with any decent headphones or speakers, probably not a major effect to look for.  Sensitivity / resonance / overall IR of the transducer should be expected to have a much, much larger effect. But let's not dismiss the masking effect, it's one of the major principles behind MP3 compression. 

I also tend to agree that phase distortion introduced by (any reasonably implemented digital) EQ is very unlikely to be audible.  It's very true that phase distortion introduced by all the mechanical components of the system should be expected to be orders of magnitude worse.  Unless you're using extremely narrow bands at extremely high gain, I don't worry about it.  

EQ is notorious as a source of placebo effect too.  Many of us have sat adjusting an EQ for several minutes before realizing it was switched to "bypass".  So switching the EQ in and out might also be expected to create a placebo effect with regard to expected audible changes in phase-related effects.  Being subject to placebo effect doesn't mean you're a poor listener, it means you're human.  

I do, in a philosophical sense, agree that less DSP is preferable, all else held equal.  However, if you're confident enough that you have a problem with your headphone's or loudspeaker's frequency response that you can correct with EQ, I've come around to the idea that it can be worth the "decrease" in fidelity to the original signal.


----------



## pinnahertz

jnorris said:


> You're big on this "audiophile nonsense" thing.  Fact is, all this stuff is "Audiophile Nonsense" to a non-audiophile.  1. Your willingness to screw up a perfectly linear signal with wanton equalization, 2. your decided lack of acknowledgement that additional signal processing is not a good thing, and 3. your arrogance to assume that you can properly tune out all the phase and amplitude errors introduced by "every single transducer known to man" with an audiophile-grade equalizer, indicate to me that you are indeed a non-audiophile.


1. Show me a "linear signal" coming out of a transducer.
2. You refer to equalization, and now any "additional signal processing" as if it's an on/ off thing.  It's completely variable, and applicable as an inverse function. If EQ is so horrible, then perhaps we should eliminate it when playing records, tapes of all types, FM, AM, analog TV, every major recording studio, mixing desk, film dubbing stage, cinema....because they're all wrong?
3. What you think of as arrogance is actually engineering and science.  Sorry.  Yes, I'm proud to say I'm not an audiophile.


jnorris said:


> Do all your tweaking, tuning, and adjusting and listen to some well recorded stuff, then pull out the EQ and tell me if the music doesn't sound better - more dynamic, cohesive and transparent.  You might even hear the detail that your equalizer is hiding.


Well, if turning off the EQ is an improvement, then it's set wrong. If you think "EQ" is a 1-octave or 1/3 octave graphic, then sure, but it's impossible to ever set those correctly, they're the wrong tool.  I'm talking about precision EQ, IIR and better, FIR filters. I have found a rare situation when calibration accomplished little to nothing, but those are extremely rare, and well engineered systems.


----------



## pinnahertz

jnorris said:


> I don't think an audio reviewer's reference to "rhythm and pace" (PRAT as some British reviewers call it) is related to the actual speed of a piece of music, but rather the ability of a speaker or headphone to keep up with the music.  I think this is where driver speed and control comes in - where a driver may still be reacting to one sound when another comes in.


More misunderstandings here: driver speed and control. For a driver to operate at any desired combination of frequency and amplitude, speed is already defined. Those parameters are inseparable. Resonance and, and the related properties of overshoot and damping, are more a function of driver and cabinet design and to a much lesser extent,amplifier interface.  However, the concept of driver reacting to one sound when another comes in causing a problem is nonsense. The composite signal doesn't demand anything from a driver that any single signal within its design pass band demands. Velocity, frequency and amplitude are inseparable.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 24, 2018)

jnorris said:


> Sorry, but the truth is that the phase errors and additional processing involved in equalization are detrimental to the sound, serving to mask rather than reveal details.  If the amp/speakers cannot delineate fine detail, like the individual voice in a choir, then no amount of EQ will bring it out.



This may have been the case for a cheapie five band graphic equalizer back in the early 60s, but it isn't at all true for a halfway decent digital EQ. Equalization is essential to any speaker system. It can make midrange headphones sound as good as high end ones. Every mixing board I've ever seen has EQ on every channel and they studio engineers wouldn't use it if it did what you say. If you're dead set against EQ, you can spend a whole lot of money on your system, but odds are, it will still sound mediocre.

My AV receiver allows me to switch to "Direct" which cuts out all signal processing... DSPs and EQ. I can switch from my default calibrated position and direct back and forth very easily. The difference isn't subtle at all. My signal processing makes the sound more detailed, more dynamic and more natural sounding than playing the signal direct. The reason for that is because my signal processing has been carefully applied to correct for imbalances in my speakers and my room. The purity of the signal isn't a problem with modern solid state and digital home audio equipment. The problem is how that purity is translated to real world sound waves that you can hear. Tranducers and room are the key to a good speaker system.



jnorris said:


> I don't think an audio reviewer's reference to "rhythm and pace" (PRAT as some British reviewers call it) is related to the actual speed of a piece of music, but rather the ability of a speaker or headphone to keep up with the music.  I think this is where driver speed and control comes in - where a driver may still be reacting to one sound when another comes in.



PRAT is one of those terms that you can safely use to discern if someone knows what they're talking about or not. If I hear someone use those terms, I know that I'm going to have to limit my responses to Audio 101 topics. Pinnahertz, I doubt he understands anything you're saying. If he's using PRAT, he's not going to understand many of the technical terms you're using.

I'm taking it one step at a time... Jnorris, have you googled "frequency masking" yet? What did you find? See the post just below this one if you want an example of what it means.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 24, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> Yep just wanted to chime in and say that, yes in theory EQ could improve perceived detail on the same transducer, if something was being hidden by masking effects before.  Cut an unwanted peak at 500hz and suddenly something at 2Khz is audible?  Plausible, although with any decent headphones or speakers, probably not a major effect to look for.



You would be surprised. I have a friend who is a sound engineer who gave me a vivid example of it once. He stood to block what he was doing on the equalizer and asked me to listen and tell him what I heard. I listened and I heard the high end of the cymbals going in and out. Muffled, sharp, muffled, sharp. I told him the treble was going in and out. He turned away from the equalizer and showed me the band he was adjusting. It was a midrange frequency, and the adjustment he was making in the midrange was quite small and almost inaudible. In music there are certain narrow bands that are very important... especially in the high end- consonants on vocals, high end on cymbals, etc. If there is an imbalance in the wrong place in the midrange, it can obliterate one of those narrow bands and the treble can be greatly affected. Treble is a big part of what people describe as "detail".

If you have an equalizer, try to isolate the frequencies of the sisss sound of the cymbal and then adjust a narrow spike one octave below it. You'll find the spot. It's really quite amazing. Not at all intuitive.



Zapp_Fan said:


> EQ is notorious as a source of placebo effect too. Many of us have sat adjusting an EQ for several minutes before realizing it was switched to "bypass".



I've never done that. I've waffled with a small correction back and forth, but that is usually because one piece of music I'm listening to is engineered a little different than another. When I find myself going into parallel park mode on a setting, I split the difference and live with it.

I think headphone users don't always understand what DSPs and EQ are for. It's easier to get a pair of headphones relatively flat than it is speakers in a room. And with headphones you don't really need DSPs to correct for room acoustics. With a speaker system, and particularly with a multichannel speaker system, DSPs and EQ are indispensable. If you get a really good set of headphones, you can get by without them.


----------



## castleofargh

jnorris said:


> Sorry, but the truth is that the phase errors and additional processing involved in equalization are detrimental to the sound, serving to mask rather than reveal details.  If the amp/speakers cannot delineate fine detail, like the individual voice in a choir, then no amount of EQ will bring it out.


it's a misguided idea relying on the delusion that everything else isn't already altering the signal. and it's also IMO a vision of only one type of EQ which makes it a little dishonest. even objectively once you have defined an ideal target response, an EQ can improve the fidelity of the signal coming out of the headphone. it would probably become obvious to you if you went and measured a few situations for yourself.

@bigshot is right because it is strongly suggested that the best way to perceive the most information in music is a flat response(flat as in how our head would compensate for the response if the sound came from somewhere in front of us, so a subjective flat for headphone use). auditory masking alone fully justifies saying that we can get more details with a more balanced signature. so as far as we know, that is factual.

your stuff about phase errors, is hardly audible most of the time and when it is, it's usually because the FR compensation had to be drastic. which implies the sound would be crap without EQ anyway. 
I'm not telling you anything new when I say that frequency response is a major aspect of how we perceive and interpret sound. IMO the very existence of crossover designs in most speakers is evidence that when presented with the choice, most designers went for tuning FR at the cost of phase and they didn't lose sleep over it given how for decades people have been very fine that way. the reason was that one single driver couldn't properly handle the entire audible range, but the fix ended up being several drivers and EQ in the form of an analog crossover. so speakers don't have flat phase response and music didn't die. because phase isn't the big thing some DAC manufacturers make it to be. 

my hd650 doesn't have a flat phase response, I guess I should throw it away. and same with most of my IEMs(how I love reading a guy with a 1000+$ multidriver IEM saying that EQ degrades the sound). you're just presenting to yourself some idealistic vision where you can only see 2 options: ruining the phase response or not. so of course with that model you never see EQ as am improvement. but humans happen to care about FR a lot, and no headphone is fully flat for a user(well I guess it does happen at a statistical level for a few dudes somewhere). so you point of view is not the truth, because you look at the bad consequences of EQ and fail to notice how there are good consequences too and they often can result in overall improved sound.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with everything you said - except for one detail.

In speaker design, the basic intent of the crossover is _NOT_ considered to be EQ.
The function of routing each range of frequencies to the correct driver is _NOT_ considered to consist of "equalizing the sound going to each driver".
The _BASIC_ purpose of the crossover is to send the right frequency to the right driver.... and, in its simplest form, it does _NOT_ include EQ.
You are not "making it so the driver can handle more frequencies"; rather you are "preventing the driver from trying to handle frequencies it should not".
(The assumption is that the sum of all of the individual pieces will add up to the same unaltered total.)

In real life speaker designs, the crossover very often does _ALSO_ includes EQ corrections applied to the individual drivers, or to the total.
However, this is considered to be a different operation than the basic function of separating the frequency content to the appropriate drivers.



castleofargh said:


> it's a misguided idea relying on the delusion that everything else isn't already altering the signal. and it's also IMO a vision of only one type of EQ which makes it a little dishonest. even objectively once you have defined an ideal target response, an EQ can improve the fidelity of the signal coming out of the headphone. it would probably become obvious to you if you went and measured a few situations for yourself.
> 
> @bigshot is right because it is strongly suggested that the best way to perceive the most information in music is a flat response(flat as in how our head would compensate for the response if the sound came from somewhere in front of us, so a subjective flat for headphone use). auditory masking alone fully justifies saying that we can get more details with a more balanced signature. so as far as we know, that is factual.
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I agree with everything you said - except for one detail.
> 
> In speaker design, the basic intent of the crossover is _NOT_ considered to be EQ.
> The function of routing each range of frequencies to the correct driver is _NOT_ considered to consist of "equalizing the sound going to each driver".
> ...


I guess we're in a definition conflict here. to me a crossover even in it's most basic use applies a low pass or high pass filter, which to me is but one type of EQ.


----------



## bigshot

I would consider crossover to be EQ, but here's an even better one... A lot of audiophools who are vehemently opposed to EQ think vinyl LPs are the cat's pajamas. Do you suppose that they object to a phono preamp that applies the RIAA curve?


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jan 24, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> I guess we're in a definition conflict here. to me a crossover even in it's most basic use applies a low pass or high pass filter, which to me is but one type of EQ.



I'd have to come down on the other side of that semantic debate.  The purpose of the EQ is to give the user the ability to adjust FR, crossovers sometimes kinda fit this definition, (when they're the adjustable type) but usually don't, especially when built into loudspeakers or headphones.  I guess it's not that big of a debate though.  We all know the purpose of each device.


----------



## castleofargh

Zapp_Fan said:


> I'd have to come down on the other side of that semantic debate.  A single filter (or even a few) does not comprise an EQ.  An EQ is a series of filters designed to be user-adjustable, and has to have adjustable gain.  Crossovers sometimes kinda fit this definition, (when they're the adjustable type) but usually don't, especially when built into loudspeakers or headphones.  I guess it's not that big of a debate though.  We all know the purpose of each device.


ok, I can live with that . the term crossover is clearly defined and it doesn't need to be called EQ. I was just implying that it does the same thing any analog EQ would do, alter FR and shift phase in the process. along with that idea, bigshot's vinyl is pretty good too, and the FR change of a colored amp(dismissing the distortion parts), is also showing the same behavior. which is why it can be so easy to correct both FR and phase by going the other way with the right digital filter or with an analog EQ.


----------



## VandyMan (Jan 24, 2018)

I think that one of the issues with EQ is that most people have a poor understanding of what different frequency ranges contribute. I'm personally still learning. For example, it is widely believed on Head-Fi that "brightness" comes from the frequency extremes. I'm in my late 40s and I can't hear over 16.5K, but I can still perceive a "bright" headphone. The HD-800, a notoriously "bright" headphone, sounds that way due to the 8K peak, not because it has excess energy at say 20K. The problem is that if someone takes the HD-800, for example, and tries to fix it via EQ, they might roll-off the highest frequencies and be dissatisfied with the result. You need to understand certain fundamentals to do a proper EQ. That is why I'm looking forward to tools like the Realizer A-16 that will allow you to measure a headphone and automatically create the EQ curve.


----------



## b0ck3n

I'd never heard of masking frequencies before today but I am familiar with the phenomenon, truly fascinating stuff. The validity of EQ is beyond question but I've always had difficulties with its implementation when purely for music playback - I'm curious how do you guys use it? Do you ever listen to a recording and go "oh these Sennheisers totally mask the crap outta the snares on this recording" and adjust EQ accordingly?


----------



## KeithEmo (Jan 24, 2018)

According to the definition most people I know go by......

The purpose of a crossover is to limit the frequencies reaching the driver to the range of frequencies it is designed to handle - which we might consider to be "the intended passband".
At a very high level, a theoretically ideal crossover would be a brick wall filter; all frequencies inside the specified range would pass with no alteration; all frequencies outside the band would be totally blocked.
It would be "an infinitely sharp filter, with no attenuation or phase shift inside the pass band, and total attenuation outside the pass band".
In short, there is no range of frequencies which our theoretically ideal crossover would "pass WITH some alteration".
As it turns out, there is no known circuit or programmatic method which achieves this goal, so we are going to have to choose our compromise.
However, the fact that the filter does in fact pass a wide range of frequencies with some alteration is a deviation from the theoretical perfect "crossover function".

The popular phraseology usually hinges on the _INTENT_.
A crossover is _INTENDED_ to steer each range of frequencies to the appropriate driver without otherwise altering it....
While an equalizer is_ INTENDED_ to alter the frequency response of something....
(So, for a crossover, altering the frequency response in other ways would be a "side effect" whereas, for an EQ, it would be the intended purpose.)

Of course, the reality is that all crossovers do introduce at least some unintended alteration of frequency response inside their pass band - and often quite a lot.
And, as I mentioned, many loudspeaker crossovers _ALSO_ specifically and intentionally include circuitry that is intended to provide equalization for the individual drivers.

Since I've designed a few speakers, and been involved in the design process for lots of them, I can even provide a bit of insight into how the design process often progresses.....
(anyone who finds this boring please ignore it).

1)
You choose your drivers and characterize them - I might choose a folded ribbon tweeter that "works well for frequencies from 500 Hz to 20 kHz" and a woofer that "works well up to 2 kHz or so".
The important part here is that I choose drivers that cover the entire frequency range with no gaps (gaps being both frequencies they cannot reproduce, and those that they reproduce with unacceptable distortion).
2)
Since we know that there's no such thing as a perfectly sharp crossover, and even somewhat sharp filters usually include compromises elsewhere, we choose drivers whose operating ranges overlap.
In this case, I would probably select an arbitrary crossover point of 1 kHz (so each driver has a usable response that extends one octave past it's arbitrary crossover point).
3)
I would then choose or design a pair of filters that would limit the low frequency response of the tweeter and the high frequency response of the woofer so they "overlap cleanly".
I want no dip or peak at the point where they overlap.
(Note that there are several different ways of doing this, and several different opinions about which is best.)
4)
Now, after doing the basic crossover design, and measuring the results, I would go back and alter the design or add parts to apply EQ to the individual drivers.
(If I was a really good designer, those alterations might be built in to my design already, in the form of deviations from the ideal design. For example, if I know that my woofer has a peak in its response at 1 kHz,
I might deliberately "mis-design" the low pass filter to roll off too early to compensate for it, while at the same time still accomplishing its primary function.)

Some designers prefer to reverse or combine the third and fourth steps.... and include circuitry to adjust each driver first, then apply the crossover calculations to each "corrected driver".
(Again, both methods have their benefits and drawbacks.)



castleofargh said:


> I guess we're in a definition conflict here. to me a crossover even in it's most basic use applies a low pass or high pass filter, which to me is but one type of EQ.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jan 24, 2018)

Adjusting EQ by ear is rather difficult, and doing it that way requires a lot of experience to get right.
It is more typical to measure the frequency response with a meter or spectrum analyzer and then correct it accordingly. 
Or, as a compromise, listen to something like pink noise, which makes it a little easier to hear when some frequencies are excessively boosted or cut.

Also, since many headphones have been thoroughly tested, and you don't need to worry about room interactions, headphones can often be "EQ'ed by wire".
If you have published measurements, and an equalizer with good controls, you can actually "look at the curve in the measurements and make a curve in your EQ settings such that they add up to a straight line".
This may actually work pretty well if you have good measurement data - and if your EQ provides you with good feedback so you can actually see the changes you're making from the settings on the controls.
For example, if you know your phones have "a 4 dB bump, one octave wide, centered at 2300 Hz", you can flatten it by dialing in "a 4 dB dip, one octave wide, centered at 2300 Hz".

Note that, in order to be able to do this, you need to know your equipment (meaning your EQ).
For example, with a common parametric EQ, that setting would be:
Frequency = 2300 Hz
Q = 0.7 (about)
Level = -4 dB

Remember that phenomena like unusual masking effects are symptoms of a specific problem.
You don't need to locate the specific cause of a specific problem, like finding out what sound is masking what other sound, in order to fix it....if the overall frequency response is correct then it won't happen.
So, if you're experiencing that problem, simply flattening your frequency response will probably get rid of it.



b0ck3n said:


> I'd never heard of masking frequencies before today but I am familiar with the phenomenon, truly fascinating stuff. The validity of EQ is beyond question but I've always had difficulties with its implementation when purely for music playback - I'm curious how do you guys use it? Do you ever listen to a recording and go "oh these Sennheisers totally mask the **** outta the snares on this recording" and adjust EQ accordingly?


----------



## bigshot (Jan 24, 2018)

b0ck3n said:


> I'm curious how do you guys use it? Do you ever listen to a recording and go "oh these Sennheisers totally mask the **** outta the snares on this recording" and adjust EQ accordingly?



I start out with a formal calibration using tone sweeps. You can start with one of those automated systems built into AVRs too. But you still probably need to tweak to make the compromises called for by different listening positions in your room and your room's particular acoustic characteristics. I don't know how you could really avoid doing some EQing by ear. I generally limit myself to 2 or 3dB modifications at a time and listen to a lot of reference recordings from different seating positions in the room. Over a period of a few weeks, I make small incremental corrections until I hit upon a balance that I like. The trick is to not make a lot of changes without listening to a few different recordings in-between each little change. Big swings can confuse you and you have to start over.

I think that anyone who wants to learn how to speak about sound and is interested in how it works should spend time working with an equalizer. All of us here in Sound Science throw around figures like 1kHz and 3dB, but only a few actually know what those things sound like. It's a lot more interesting to spend time optimizing calibrations than it is to just go shopping and buy another amp or another set of cans. It's closer to the heart of what they hobby's about too. All you need to understand is that in a real world living room listening to real world music, there is no perfect calibration. You have to make compromises that fit your particular circumstances and find a happy medium that works for your situation.


----------



## KeithEmo

I have to disagree with you here..... your statement is not incorrect, but it is _incomplete_.

You are absolutely correct that, for a given output, the movement of a driver is pretty tightly defined.
For example, if I have an 8" woofer, in a sealed cabinet, producing a 27 Hz sine wave at 96 dB SPL, the movement of the cone will be quite well defined.
We can calculate how far the cone will be moving, and its velocity and acceleration, if we want to.
(And, therefore, any amplifier that is producing that exact output with that speaker will essentially be "doing the same thing".) 

_HOWEVER_, with real world drivers, there is a phenomenon known as "energy storage".
(This is what happens when you whack a gong; it continues to make sound long after you've put down the hammer.)
Many speaker drivers actually continue to make sound long after the signal has stopped being applied.
(And, even worse, most speaker drivers do so to different degrees at different frequencies.)
With many speaker drivers this ringing is clearly audible (it may even extend to several full seconds, although tens or hundreds of milliseconds is more common).
And, yes, if the speaker is still making sound from the last note when the next note comes along, they will quite possible "audibly blur together".
And, yes, because this effect is limited by the damping effect applied to the speaker by the amplifier, it may be very different on the same speaker with different amplifiers.
(A waterfall plot of the speaker shows this very nicely.)

The degree to which resonance is controlled by the speaker driver materials, the cabinet, and the amplifier/motor interaction vary widely with different speakers.
However, certain combinations can indeed produce clearly audible - and unpleasant - results.
For example, start with a heavy woofer, with a powerful motor structure, but little internal suspension damping...
Put it in a lightly stuffed sealed cabinet... or a tuned bass reflex cabinet.
You will find that this particular speaker will sound _VERY_ different depending on the damping factor of the amp it is connected to.
With amplifiers with a low damping factor, when you play something with impulse type noises, the sound tends to sound sloppy and blur together....
(And , if you do a waterfall plot, you'll find it's very visible.)



pinnahertz said:


> More misunderstandings here: driver speed and control. For a driver to operate at any desired combination of frequency and amplitude, speed is already defined. Those parameters are inseparable. Resonance and, and the related properties of overshoot and damping, are more a function of driver and cabinet design and to a much lesser extent,amplifier interface.  However, the concept of driver reacting to one sound when another comes in causing a problem is nonsense. The composite signal doesn't demand anything from a driver that any single signal within its design pass band demands. Velocity, frequency and amplitude are inseparable.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> I start out with a formal calibration using tone sweeps. You can start with one of those automated systems built into AVRs too. But you still probably need to tweak to make the compromises called for by different listening positions in your room and your room's particular acoustic characteristics. I don't know how you could really avoid doing some EQing by ear. I generally limit myself to 2 or 3dB modifications at a time and listen to a lot of reference recordings from different seating positions in the room. Over a period of a few weeks, I make small incremental corrections until I hit upon a balance that I like. The trick is to not make a lot of changes without listening to a few different recordings in-between each little change. Big swings can confuse you and you have to start over.
> 
> I think that anyone who wants to learn how to speak about sound and is interested in how it works should spend time working with an equalizer. All of us here in Sound Science throw around figures like 1kHz and 3dB, but only a few actually know what those things sound like. It's a lot more interesting to spend time optimizing calibrations than it is to just go shopping and buy another amp or another set of cans. It's closer to the heart of what they hobby's about too. All you need to understand is that in a real world living room listening to real world music, there is no perfect calibration. You have to make compromises that fit your particular circumstances and find a happy medium that works for your situation.



for communication purposes, it certainly would work better than all the elite audiophile lingo, given how half the stuff they describe are actually interpretations of a frequency response. they just don't know it.



b0ck3n said:


> I'd never heard of masking frequencies before today but I am familiar with the phenomenon, truly fascinating stuff. The validity of EQ is beyond question but I've always had difficulties with its implementation when purely for music playback - I'm curious how do you guys use it? Do you ever listen to a recording and go "oh these Sennheisers totally mask the **** outta the snares on this recording" and adjust EQ accordingly?


- parametric EQ. it's the kind of toy you want to play with. a few sliders are simple and cool, but too limited for most jobs. 

 I'm still mostly garbage when it comes to EQ by ear. experience just made me a better quality of garbage so far, so I massively rely on references. my speakers are usually the go to reference as I did bother a good deal to measure them and try to get something ok-ish at my listening position. they're the closest to an idea of neutral I have at my disposition so of course I rely on them a lot.

I'm not too bad with sines and sine sweeps but it can take some getting used to as the default feeling of neutral will lead to equal loudness contour instead of neutral. I use that sometimes to find ugly spikes in the response by ear. for that specific purpose I find it to be a great tool.

then I have a reference song for overall signature balance, but it's more something I would use at a store to test gear rapidly and get a vague idea. I don't really EQ my gears with it anymore. it's just harder, longer and not as effective as a measurement. 

what Keith suggested, using measurement graphs can work if you indeed have an EQ clearly showing the resulting curve instead of just the multiple points overlapping. it's at least a nice way to start, then you can fine tune by ear for taste or simply because it doesn't feel right(never constrain yourself to some standard of neutral for headphones, you have your own ears and your own hearing, only you know what is neutral to you). personally I've used mostly innerfidelity's graphs over the years, so I got used to them. again it's a good starting point. just don't bother too much with stuff above 10khz.

or you can just go and try Sonarwork's app(they offer a demo trial). and if the result works for your ears, you then have a good starting point to try and set your own EQ to sound the same, and get used to the signature you now want to achieve. or it can be good end point if you decide to purchase ^_^.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

For EQing headphones I use 3 things. 

1) My listening test playlist, a set of carefully selected songs that I listen to every. single. time.  (consistency is key.) 

2) This: http://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/ - a tone generator that lets you do sine sweeps manually.  Great for going back and forth over a given region to try and delineate the dip / peak by ear, which is terribly hard listening to a fixed 20-20 sweep.  There are lots of these out there. 

3) This: APO EQ and ProAPO, a parametric EQ GUI for APO EQ. 

Going back and forth between music and tones and using the EQ to build & adjust a set of filters allows me to make pretty solid progress towards "good and/or flat according to my ear" over the course of a few hours.  Measurements are great but often don't match what you'll hear depending on program material.  For example some bass FR plots look more or less flat, but on some BT headphones the amps won't be able to keep up with sustained tones... creating strange and unwelcome implications for the proper EQ.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 24, 2018)

I learned to EQ because I collect 78rpm records. Before the introduction of the LP and the RIAA curve, there was no standard EQ curve for recordings. Each company had its own curve, and sometimes different recording studios with the same company would be different as well. I got a nice Rane 31 band graphic equalizer and patched it in to my turntable and went to town experimenting and trying to find and eliminate "wolf tones" (resonant peaks caused by the recording horn) and finding the proper balance to make the instruments sound natural. It was especially tough because the different companies recorded at speeds from 74rpm all the way up to 90rpm, so pitch wasn't standardized either. One of my biggest projects was to try to EQ electronic playback to simulate the response of my cabinet model Victrola.

All of this tweaking and experimenting gave me a pretty good ear for listening to sound and being able to hear imbalances within the response. It works best when you are systematic about it, focusing on an octave or two at a time and sweeping through the range in passes. The biggest wild card is that level can affect how you hear response, so I generally start at a low volume to avoid killing my ears with big spikes, and sweep through in a full pass at that volume, then up the volume to normal listening volume and do another pass. I check it by turning it up as loud as I can stand and listening for imbalances.


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> I have to disagree with you here..... your statement is not incorrect, but it is _incomplete_.


What, specifically, do you disagree with?


KeithEmo said:


> You are absolutely correct that, for a given output, the movement of a driver is pretty tightly defined.
> <snip!>
> 
> _HOWEVER_, with real world drivers, there is a phenomenon known as "energy storage".
> ...


Ok, so I don't see where you disagree....at all.   I mentioned resonance, overshoot and damping, so did you, in great and agonizing detail.  Yes, my post was short, simple, and technically  incomplete, but I was also considering the audience and the discussion at hand.  I do get the need to show off the tech chops with long technical dissertations, I'm probably guilty of that too, but we weren't talking about any of this, it goes off topic, and it's not helping of furthering the understanding of the core issue: how good or bad EQ is. 

The discussion was about EQ vs different amps, their respective effects.  Unless you're going to start down the tube-amp-low-damping-factor rabbit hole, and it's a deep one, you might want to mention how similar SS amps are in terms of damping factor, and that above about 200 it doesn't matter anymore.  And you don't find a lot of good amps below 200. 

I don't disagree with anything in your post, but I do take exception with excessive detail without scaling it to reality, and *mentioning an example that is just simply a bad speaker,* just for the sake of technical completeness.  Badly designed speakers are badly designed speakers. 

BTW, if part of a crossover's job is to adjust for the disparity in driver sensitivities so the result hits a target response curve, then it's working as an equalizer.  Not to mention any crossover element that adjusts time alignment.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> You would be surprised. I have a friend who is a sound engineer who gave me a vivid example of it once. He stood to block what he was doing on the equalizer and asked me to listen and tell him what I heard. I listened and I heard the high end of the cymbals going in and out. Muffled, sharp, muffled, sharp. I told him the treble was going in and out. He turned away from the equalizer and showed me the band he was adjusting. It was a midrange frequency, and the adjustment he was making in the midrange was quite small and almost inaudible.


If I were you and heard something as incredible as this, I would have tried to duplicate that on another equalizer before assuming what you heard, is what the equipment was really doing.  As it is, you were hearing artifacts of that equalizer and not what you are describing in this thread.



> In music there are certain narrow bands that are very important... especially in the high end- consonants on vocals, high end on cymbals, etc. If there is an imbalance in the wrong place in the midrange, it can obliterate one of those narrow bands and the treble can be greatly affected. Treble is a big part of what people describe as "detail".


Huh?  You have any kind of reference you can provide for this?

How about duplicating this effect for us on a snippet of music?


----------



## KeithEmo

As I said, the points where I disagree with you are minor.... but I also feel that sometimes a certain degree of detail, which you may find excessive, is necessary to convey the whole picture.

Taken in the context of your post.... You mentioned damping, overshoot, and resonance, in such a way that you seemed to be implying that they were a minor issue... As I recall, someone had suggested that a speaker might sound different "because it was still busy making the last sound when the new one arrived to be played". You replied, to paraphrase widely, that this couldn't happen because, for a given frequency and amplitude, the movement of the speaker cone is determined by the math, and so two woofers making the same tone will be moving the same way. I disagree in your weighting of the situation. I have personally heard many speakers that "sounded slow" - and the reason was because, thanks to a resonance or some other sort of energy storage going on, they did exactly what he suggested.... they continued to make short sounds after the signal had stopped, which caused the sounds to run together - and "because they were still making the previous sound when the next one arrived" seems like a perfectly explanation of why. Of course their movement could be modeled mathematically, but the simple model that shows cone velocity, frequency, and SPL isn't good enough to describe it at all accurately - and it also fails to provide an explanation for what he heard. (In other words, that other poster was correct.... many speakers do in fact "continue to play one sound after the signal has stopped". And, if you look at waterfall plots, you'll find that a lot of speakers do it to a significant and quite possibly audible degree.)

I agree with you absolutely that most solid state amps have an arbitrarily "high" damping factor, and so are likely to be equally affected by the parameters of a given speaker.
Likewise, most modern speakers are designed with such an amplifier in mind, and "being able to run well on an amplifier with a very low damping factor" is usually NOT a design requirement on modern speakers (unless they're sold specifically to go well with tube amps).
Note that many speakers, even "well designed" ones, do still have minor flaws.

I also disagree with your overall assessment that "my example is just a bad speaker". Many modern speakers are underdamped, because that design tends to yield "punchy bass" and high efficiency, and is an excellent way to make the bass response "seem" to extend lower. Their designer has simply chosen to trade poorer impulse response for higher efficiency at certain frequencies. I personally prefer a critically damped speaker, which has a smooth gradual roll off, but some designers do tune their bass reflex models with a slight rise before the low frequency drops off to extend their bass response a little bit. (And, as long as that bump stays within the target +/- spec for the speaker, it isn't "a bad design", but simply "a design choice".)

I also agree with you that "tube amps with low damping factors" are a pointless rabbit hole..... 
However, to many audiophiles, it seems more like a yawning chasm, in the middle of the highway, so I don't think it's safe to overlook it. 
As far as I'm concerned, all tube amps are denizens of a historical rabbit hole,from which the rabbit is long gone.....
However, I still don't find it unreasonable to explain the difference if it becomes relevant to a conversation.

As with words, the effect achieved by components is context dependent.
Adjusting the level of one driver in a speaker relative to the others may reasonably be considered "a form of equalization" in the context of the entire speaker.
However, for most people, a knob that alters the frequency response of the tweeter would be "a tweeter EQ control", while a knob that adjusts the level of the tweeter, while NOT explicitly altering the frequency response, would be a "tweeter LEVEL control".
Of course you're also correct that many crossovers also have components in them to correct for or adjust time alignment.
However, even though time alignment of the individual drivers can obviously affect the frequency response of all of them in aggregate, this is also usually described as a separate effect or correction.
Some components perform filtering, some perform EQ, some perform time correction, and many contribute to two or more of those individual adjustments. 

As I said, we all have differing priorities, and I prefer to risk providing "too much information" rather than "not enough".  



pinnahertz said:


> What, specifically, do you disagree with?
> 
> Ok, so I don't see where you disagree....at all.   I mentioned resonance, overshoot and damping, so did you, in great and agonizing detail.  Yes, my post was short, simple, and technically  incomplete, but I was also considering the audience and the discussion at hand.  I do get the need to show off the tech chops with long technical dissertations, I'm probably guilty of that too, but we weren't talking about any of this, it goes off topic, and it's not helping of furthering the understanding of the core issue: how good or bad EQ is.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jan 25, 2018)

amirm said:


> How about duplicating this effect for us on a snippet of music?



I'd be more motivated to go to the trouble of making examples to prove things to you if you had honestly answered our questions about whether you kept the volume at normal listening level at all times when you "heard" the noise floor of 16 bit... So I'll just suggest that you take a solo violin recording, figure out where the important upper sheen is, calculate one and two octaves below that, and try applying some notch filters.

At least I tell you how it's done.

* EDIT: I just thought of something that is important. You have to have a perfectly calibrated flat playback response for this demonstration to be clear. If you have imbalances in around the frequencies you're working with, or in even octaves above or below them, the effect can get muddled.


----------



## jnorris

KeithEmo said:


> As I said, the points where I disagree with you are minor.... but I also feel that sometimes a certain degree of detail, which you may find excessive, is necessary to convey the whole picture.
> 
> Taken in the context of your post.... You mentioned damping, overshoot, and resonance, in such a way that you seemed to be implying that they were a minor issue... As I recall, someone had suggested that a speaker might sound different "because it was still busy making the last sound when the new one arrived to be played". You replied, to paraphrase widely, that this couldn't happen because, for a given frequency and amplitude, the movement of the speaker cone is determined by the math, and so two woofers making the same tone will be moving the same way. I disagree in your weighting of the situation. I have personally heard many speakers that "sounded slow" - and the reason was because, thanks to a resonance or some other sort of energy storage going on, they did exactly what he suggested.... they continued to make short sounds after the signal had stopped, which caused the sounds to run together - and "because they were still making the previous sound when the next one arrived" seems like a perfectly explanation of why. Of course their movement could be modeled mathematically, but the simple model that shows cone velocity, frequency, and SPL isn't good enough to describe it at all accurately - and it also fails to provide an explanation for what he heard. (In other words, that other poster was correct.... many speakers do in fact "continue to play one sound after the signal has stopped". And, if you look at waterfall plots, you'll find that a lot of speakers do it to a significant and quite possibly audible degree.)
> 
> ...




KeithEmo, I'm the one that said "because it was still busy making the last sound when the new one arrived to be played" (paraphrased), and I've left this discussion behind due to pinnahertz's know-it-all attitude and his comment about "considering the audience", as well as bigshot calling people that prefer not to equalize "audiophools".  You will not get your point across with these people.  I do respect and enjoy your contributions to this forum, though.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> I'd be more motivated to go to the trouble of making examples to prove things to you if you had honestly answered our questions about whether you kept the volume at normal listening level at all times when you "heard" the noise floor of 16 bit...
> 
> At least I tell you how it's done.


So no references.  No verification what you thought was not an aberration on said equalizer.  And you won't recreate a sample for us to hear with said equalization.  



> So I'll just suggest that you take a solo violin recording, figure out where the important upper sheen is, calculate one and two octaves below that, and try applying some notch filters.


"Important upper sheen?"  What on earth is that?  Since you know, why won't you create that snippet for us so that we can hear the effect?

Have you ever tried to duplicate this phenomena anyway?



> * EDIT: I just thought of something that is important. You have to have a perfectly calibrated flat playback response for this demonstration to be clear. If you have imbalances in around the frequencies you're working with, or in even octaves above or below them, the effect can get muddled.


And you confirmed that how?  There is no way the system you heard was "perfectly flat" in-room response.  

Forgive me for being blunt but what you post has no basis whatsoever in audio science.  You were confused by bugs in the specific equalizer and jumped to some random conclusion.Frequency masking?  Please....


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> As I said, the points where I disagree with you are minor....


Please point out the points that you disagree with (and read the whole post first). 


KeithEmo said:


> but I also feel that sometimes a certain degree of detail, which you may find excessive, is necessary to convey the whole picture.


Conveying the "whole picture" wasn't my purpose, and is unnecessary in the context of this thread. 


KeithEmo said:


> Taken in the context of your post.... You mentioned damping, overshoot, and resonance, in such a way that you seemed to be implying that they were a minor issue...


In the context of the thread, they are not minor, they are tangential. 


KeithEmo said:


> As I recall, someone had suggested that a speaker might sound different "because it was still busy making the last sound when the new one arrived to be played". You replied, to paraphrase widely, that this couldn't happen because, for a given frequency and amplitude, the movement of the speaker cone is determined by the math, and so two woofers making the same tone will be moving the same way. I disagree in your weighting of the situation.


I stand by what I said, and you have not countered the point at all.  I have not weighted the situation, you've done that. 


KeithEmo said:


> I agree with you absolutely that most solid state amps have an arbitrarily "high" damping factor, and so are likely to be equally affected by the parameters of a given speaker.
> Likewise, most modern speakers are designed with such an amplifier in mind, and "being able to run well on an amplifier with a very low damping factor" is usually NOT a design requirement on modern speakers (unless they're sold specifically to go well with tube amps).


So, then why are we still talking about this?


KeithEmo said:


> Note that many speakers, even "well designed" ones, do still have minor flaws.


That's not the point at all, that's tangential and superfluous.  I'll hold back from calling a spade a spade, but seriously...why?


KeithEmo said:


> I also disagree with your overall assessment that "my example is just a bad speaker".


Well, it wasn't an example of a "good speaker", now was it?  And what is the point? 


KeithEmo said:


> I also agree with you that "tube amps with low damping factors" are a pointless rabbit hole.....
> However, to many audiophiles, it seems more like a yawning chasm, in the middle of the highway, so I don't think it's safe to overlook it.
> As far as I'm concerned, all tube amps are denizens of a historical rabbit hole,from which the rabbit is long gone.....
> However, I still don't find it unreasonable to explain the difference if it becomes relevant to a conversation.


Tube amps were never mentioned in the context of this thread until I brought them up as a path not to go down.  You really want to do this?  Start another thread.


KeithEmo said:


> As with words, the effect achieved by components is context dependent.
> Adjusting the level of one driver in a speaker relative to the others may reasonably be considered "a form of equalization" in the context of the entire speaker.
> However, for most people, a knob that alters the frequency response of the tweeter would be "a tweeter EQ control", while a knob that adjusts the level of the tweeter, while NOT explicitly altering the frequency response, would be a "tweeter LEVEL control".


OK, now, please tell us: how can any knob that adjusts the level of the tweeter NOT adjust the total response?  This is degenerating quickly into semantics, not science.


KeithEmo said:


> Of course you're also correct that many crossovers also have components in them to correct for or adjust time alignment.
> However, even though time alignment of the individual drivers can obviously affect the frequency response of all of them in aggregate, this is also usually described as a separate effect or correction.
> Some components perform filtering, some perform EQ, some perform time correction, and many contribute to two or more of those individual adjustments.


Time alignment is a form of compensation.  Compensation....equalization....if we get wound up in this, all value will be lost, if it isn't already.   Every heard of a "group delay equalizer"?  It's a real thing, very important, and I've had my hands on several. 


KeithEmo said:


> As I said, we all have differing priorities, and I prefer to risk providing "too much information" rather than "not enough".


Babies are fed milk.  When older, they get solid food.  When adults they can go to a Brazilian Steak House and eat until over-stuffed. If you take a baby to a steak house and force food into him, he'll puke, choke, or die.  When we're dealing with technology and science, and the audience are audiophiles who are just learning about both, and still clinging to myth, if you over-stuff them, they'll just puke, choke, or die.  How is that helping?



KeithEmo said:


> As I said, the points where I disagree with you are minor.... but I also feel that sometimes a certain degree of detail, which you may find excessive, is necessary to convey the whole picture.


I don't see any disagreement, major or minor, other than the philosophy of scaling the information so it can be assimilated vs displaying technical prowess.   If you could take your vast knowlege and simplify it so it is both applicable and easily understood, it would be actually valuable.  Otherwise it's just so many characters, and reads like "wubba wubba wubba....".  But if that fulfills you, or you feel that draws buyers to your products, knock thyself out.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 25, 2018)

Google auditory masking, champ. Read the tests using tones. Think about how that might apply to music. What sort of frequencies might exhibit the biggest effect? Then try it for yourself.

My yellow highlighter has gone dry I’m afraid. You’re going to have to do your own test. I’m not your personal geek squad.

As I noted before, this test requires a calibrated system. I could give you an audio file to demonstrate it, but if your system is unbalanced, it would likely be muddled up. The demonstration I heard was shared with me by a professional sound mixer on his own reference system. If your system isn’t flat, I would recommend finding an AV monkey in the yellow pages to calibrate your system for you. He might even be able to explain auditory masking to your satisfaction.


----------



## amirm (Jan 25, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Google auditory masking, champ. Read the tests using tones. Think about how that might apply to music. What sort of frequencies might exhibit the biggest effect? Then try it for yourself.
> 
> My yellow highlighter has gone dry I’m afraid. You’re going to have to do your own test. I’m not your personal geek squad.


Have *you* googled auditory masking?  Seems like you don't even have the benefit that much education.  It has nothing to do what you are describing.  It is a phrase you have heard about and thought it is the explanation for what is a poorly implemented EQ.

Really it is no different than what subjectivists do in attaching technical attributes to stuff that makes no sense.  "This USB cable sounds better because it has lower EMI."  Yes, there is such a thing as EMI.  No, it doesn't make your USB cable sound any better.

What you seem to be saying is that you can say whatever you want on a technical topic but when asked to demonstrate its correctness you are going to refuse to do so.  What kind of science discussion is this???

If there is science, point it out.  Just give a link and a quote.  Not hard.  Certainly a lot less work than writing these posts.



> As I noted before, this test requires a calibrated system. I could give you an audio file to demonstrate it, but if your system is unbalanced, it would likely be muddled up. The demonstration I heard was shared with me by a professional sound mixer on his own reference system. If your system isn’t flat, I would recommend finding an AV monkey in the yellow pages to calibrate your system for you. He might even be able to explain auditory masking to your satisfaction.[


I ask again: how do you know his system was "balanced" and "flat?"  You do understand that it takes herculean effort to even get to +- 3db in room response.  Yes?  Your friend's room is likely to be way, way outside of this range.

Genelec (top 3 manufacturer of professional/studio monitors) published this great AES paper, showing a survey of different recording rooms that used their speakers.  This was the result:






And these are with speakers that pre-calibrated prior to leaving the factory.  As you see, there is no such thing as "flat."  So no, your friend did not have such a room.  You are just assuming it did, or trying to say that now after the fact.

Going along with your argument anyway, if this requires a flat system, and nobody has it, why is it of any concern in these discussions?

Bottom line, this is a fish story.  We all have them.    But let's not confuse fantastical ones with reality.  You are totally confused by what auditory masking is.

Has anyone else heard what Bigshot is talking about here?  Who here is convinced of this and wants to explain why it is true?


----------



## castleofargh

jnorris said:


> KeithEmo, I'm the one that said "because it was still busy making the last sound when the new one arrived to be played" (paraphrased), and I've left this discussion behind due to pinnahertz's know-it-all attitude and his comment about "considering the audience", as well as bigshot calling people that prefer not to equalize "audiophools".  You will not get your point across with these people.  I do respect and enjoy your contributions to this forum, though.


 to EQ or not isn't the matter. you do whatever you like and listen to music however you enjoy it most. nobody but bigots would try to force you to do what you don't want to do with your music.
on the other hand when you present EQ as being wrong in general and claim it to be factual, now that's not something anybody should let pass. because this time you're pushing your reality onto others so it better be correct.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

amirm said:


> That is an incredible archive of blind tests performed in OP!  Well done.
> 
> It is missing this ABX test of amplifiers which I unearthed a few years ago, by advocates of ABX testing: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/



There is another thread for testing which did show a positive result.


----------



## pinnahertz

amirm said:


> I ask again: how do you know his system was "balanced" and "flat?"  You do understand that it takes herculean effort to even get to +- 3db in room response.  Yes?  Your friend's room is likely to be way, way outside of this range.


Strikes me that while it certainly was possible, even likely, the room was outside +/- 3dB, none of us actually _know_ that.  Lack of actual data doesn't necessarily prove anything wrong.


amirm said:


> Genelec (top 3 manufacturer of professional/studio monitors) published this great AES paper, showing a survey of different recording rooms that used their speakers.  This was the result:
> 
> And these are with speakers that pre-calibrated prior to leaving the factory.  As you see, there is no such thing as "flat."  So no, your friend did not have such a room.  You are just assuming it did, or trying to say that now after the fact.


Interesting...got a link to the paper?


amirm said:


> So no, your friend did not have such a room.  You are just assuming it did, or trying to say that now after the fact.


Seems like assumptions are flying here.  Nobody really knows what the room did.  But, did you notice what the "median" response was in the Genelec graph?  Who's to say the room in question wasn't in there somewhere? This whole line of argument seems more like a p---ing contest than a scientific discussion.


amirm said:


> Going along with your argument anyway, if this requires a flat system, and nobody has it, why is it of any concern in these discussions?
> 
> Bottom line, this is a fish story.  We all have them.    But let's not confuse fantastical ones with reality.  You are totally confused by what auditory masking is.
> 
> Has anyone else heard what Bigshot is talking about here?  Who here is convinced of this and wants to explain why it is true?


Sort of, though in much more general terms.  Altering one area of spectrum does change the way the rest of the spectrum is perceived.  Very generally speaking as an example, taking off some bass makes things sound brighter, etc.  I'm not sure that dipping out some area of the spectrum might not swing the general balance in some way, but we have no specifics as to frequency, Q, etc., so Bigshot's anecdote is just that.  But can't you just leave it at that?  You can't really prove or disprove an anecdote with no specifics, can you?


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> Strikes me that while it certainly was possible, even likely, the room was outside +/- 3dB, none of us actually _know_ that. Lack of actual data doesn't necessarily prove anything wrong.


Lack of data didn't stop bigshot from saying his friend's room had flat response.  Knowing that a flat response room is a pink elephant, we can certainly say his information is wrong and made up.


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> Interesting...got a link to the paper?


This paper has the same research (AES convention paper): _A Survey Study Of In-Situ Stereo And Multi-Channel Monitoring Conditions_
Aki V. Mäkivirta and Christophe Anet
Genelec OY
Olvitie 5, Iisalmi, Finland

My graph is in color and the one in there is in black and white so I think I got mine out of another paper but can't find it in the quick search.


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> Sort of, though in much more general terms. Altering one area of spectrum does change the way the rest of the spectrum is perceived. Very generally speaking as an example, taking off some bass makes things sound brighter, etc. I'm not sure that dipping out some area of the spectrum might not swing the general balance in some way, but we have no specifics as to frequency, Q, etc., so Bigshot's anecdote is just that. But can't you just leave it at that? You can't really prove or disprove an anecdote with no specifics, can you?


Huh?  He is saying that the effect is caused by auditory masking.  This is one of the most important principles in psychoacoustics.  You want some random story which has nothing to do with that left alone as fact?  You are not the least bothered by us bastardizing audio science to that degree?  

What you describe is not at all what he is saying.  Of course we change the tonal emphasis of music when we EQ it that way.  That goes without saying.  Seems like you are trying hard to defend him no matter what.  Whose side are we on, science or person???


----------



## bigshot

You should really see all the PMs I get about your posts.


----------



## pinnahertz

amirm said:


> Lack of data didn't stop bigshot from saying his friend's room had flat response.  Knowing that a flat response room is a pink elephant, we can certainly say his information is wrong and made up.


I don't believe we can actually say anything definitively.  Yes, it's unlikely it was flat, but as the Genelec graphs show, not one of them is really "flat" so it's a question of degree.  Because of that alone, we can't say much about the unknown room.  If it were even sort of flat in the 500 - 5K range, there _could_ still have been some audible effect.  Of course I don't need to tell you that real engineering usually includes variables. That's why I hesitate to say definitively "wrong" or "made up" without more data.  If you want to extrapolate from one data point...well, go nuts then.


----------



## pinnahertz

amirm said:


> Huh?  He is saying that the effect is caused by auditory masking.  This is one of the most important principles in psychoacoustics.  You want some random story which has nothing to do with that left alone as fact?  You are not the least bothered by us bastardizing audio science to that degree?


No, it's not masking, I think we know that.  But let's not blow this into something nuclear either.  Just fix it, and move on.


amirm said:


> What you describe is not at all what he is saying.  Of course we change the tonal emphasis of music when we EQ it that way.  That goes without saying.


I read between lines.  He's in production, I believe, and what I described is most likely what he was trying to relate.  He'll put us right if it matters.  I kind of think the anecdote is without enough data to really try to reverse-engineer.  


amirm said:


> Seems like you are trying hard to defend him no matter what.  Whose side are we on, science or person???


Do I have to pick?  Sheesh.  I pick science with a strong attempt to understand the person and the situation.  This in deference to blasting with no insight.  I think you're being difficult without understanding the case well.  Figure out what actually happened and it will align with science.  All you've done is tell him he's full of hahaha and relate scientific principles without probing for more info.


----------



## pinnahertz

amirm said:


> This paper has the same research (AES convention paper): _A Survey Study Of In-Situ Stereo And Multi-Channel Monitoring Conditions_
> Aki V. Mäkivirta and Christophe Anet
> Genelec OY
> Olvitie 5, Iisalmi, Finland
> ...


Thanks, got it.  Fig. 27 showing median, median variation, and German Surround Forum proposed limits doesn't tend to support your conclusion that the room in question couldn't be reasonably flat.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 25, 2018)

If you really need to know Amir, my friend is a professional sound mixer who is currently working on a project that involves being able to achieve a remarkably flat frequency response from 20 to 20 under a variety of conditions. He did the demonstration for me on his reference system in his shop. He had just spent hours precisely calibrating it to test some prototype speaker designs. He was explaining to me why a flat response is so important, and one part of that explanation was a demonstration of auditory masking using cymbals in a recording. I suppose he used cymbals because they have a lot of energy in a range of upper octaves, which I would imagine would make them easier to mask. He's been designing equipment, mixing music and tuning professional sound systems for nearly 40 years. I seriously doubt that his equalizers have a spill that spans multiple octaves. If they did, I'm sure he would be aware of it. Feel free to believe whatever you want. Go ahead and post a bunch of cut and paste text with yellow highlighter creating artificial contexts to prop up your ego. I really don't care. I don't think you'd last ten minutes with my friend. But I'm not as knowledgeable as he is... I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a week or two before I gave up on you.


----------



## KeithEmo

Sheeeeesh!

1)
Enough already with the statistics.
Nothing that talks about "most studios" in any way proves that a specific room in a specific studio, or in someone's basement, is or is not flat.

2)
I don't quite understand why so many people seem to take such exception to this idea.....
We all know that audible making is real - and it has been quite thoroughly documented.
And, based on well known masking theory, this claim does NOT seem to me to in any way conflict with the science.
Masking often occurs at a frequency or frequency range above the frequency that causes it.
And cymbals have a spectral distribution somewhat similar to white noise - with a lot of semi-random high frequency energy spread over a relatively wide spectrum.
Therefore, I would EXPECT a tone played at an upper midrange frequency to have a masking effect on part of the spectrum produced by a cymbal.
And that masking effect is going to alter the perceived tonal balance of what you hear.
If you play a tone added to white noise, you will hear the tone, and what you perceive of the white noise will be altered because some frequencies in it will be masked or partially masked by the tone.
If you then use an equalizer to alter the level of that tone, the masking effect produced by the tone will change accordingly, and I would also expect that change to be audible.
I see no reason to doubt that, by a careful choice of frequencies and levels, you could produce a demonstration where the sound of the cymbals might be changed drastically by using an EQ to alter the level of the masking tone.

3)
And, at a more general level, I see nothing whatsoever questionable about the claim that "the flatness of the overall frequency response will significantly AFFECT masking - which may produce unexpected interactions when you change that response using EQ"

While I doubt that, by doing so, you could "make the cymbals entirely disappear".....
It seems quite reasonable that you might alter their overall tonal balance enough to make them more or less noticeable...
Or even to cause them to become less obviously distinguishable than the rest of the mix (so the cymbals might "disappear into the mix")

I haven't heard this specific demonstration, so I can't confirm that it actually works or not.....
But I find nothing that makes it IMPLAUSIBLE, or that causes me to consider it unlikely to be true.



bigshot said:


> If you really need to know Amir, my friend is a professional sound mixer who is currently working on a project that involves being able to achieve a remarkably flat frequency response from 20 to 20 under a variety of conditions. He did the demonstration for me on his reference system in his shop. He had just spent hours precisely calibrating it to test some prototype speaker designs. He was explaining to me why a flat response is so important, and one part of that explanation was a demonstration of auditory masking using cymbals in a recording. I suppose he used cymbals because they have a lot of energy in a range of upper octaves, which I would imagine would make them easier to mask. He's been designing equipment, mixing music and tuning professional sound systems for nearly 40 years. I seriously doubt that his equalizers have a spill that spans multiple octaves. If they did, I'm sure he would be aware of it. Feel free to believe whatever you want. Go ahead and post a bunch of cut and paste text with yellow highlighter creating artificial contexts to prop up your ego. I really don't care. I don't think you'd last ten minutes with my friend. But I'm not as knowledgeable as he is... I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a week or two before I gave up on you.


----------



## castleofargh

I remembered a very simplified video and google was nice enough to show it to me immediately. watching it again, it's even more simplified than I remembered and despite him mentioning it, those really interested in this should go look for a paper or 2 on the subject. but as a starting point, it gets the main ideas across very clearly IMO.


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> I don't believe we can actually say anything definitively.  Yes, it's unlikely it was flat, but as the Genelec graphs show, not one of them is really "flat" so it's a question of degree.  Because of that alone, we can't say much about the unknown room.  If it were even sort of flat in the 500 - 5K range, there _could_ still have been some audible effect.  Of course I don't need to tell you that real engineering usually includes variables. That's why I hesitate to say definitively "wrong" or "made up" without more data.  If you want to extrapolate from one data point...well, go nuts then.


Yet he is insisting in post after post that to hear the same effect, the room must be "flat."



bigshot said:


> ** EDIT: I just thought of something that is important. You have to have a perfectly calibrated flat playback response for this demonstration to be clear. *If you have imbalances in around the frequencies you're working with, or in even octaves above or below them, the effect can get muddled.



That he doesn't know there is no such thing as a "perfectly flat" means is a crime in its own, no?  

Bottom line is what I said: he heard and EQ where if you modified the mid-range, the highs changed.  This is easily characteristic of poorly designed equalizers.  It could have low Q, distortion, etc.

It certainly is NOT the type of EQ we encourage people to use.  The best and main use of EQ in acoustics is to reduce resonances in low frequencies.  The modal bandwidth there can be as low as half a hertz!  As such, you need an ultra-narrow, high-Q parametric EQ to correct those.  No way, no how you want to use the poorly made EQ bigshot is talking about.

What to make of the fact that he has never tried to duplicate that results?  Not in his system or for us here?  It is all OK to say this is a scientific "fact" and we should just accept it???  Is that how it works?

If we are going to accept any and all anecdotal stories, what sets us apart from subjectivists?  You are picking on any and all people on the other side but want to give a pass to Bigshot because he is on our camp?  Where does that leave our credibility?

Bottom line is that you seem to be defending him just because.  That is not helpful.  What is helpful is to explain in plain language that what he describe has no relevance, includes serious mistake about room conditions even in best rooms, and has nothing whatsoever to do with "auditory masking."[/QUOTE]


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> Yes, it's unlikely it was flat, but as the Genelec graphs show, not one of them is really "flat" so it's a question of degree.


I want to make sure this important point about the measurements I showed in the Genelec paper is not lost:






As you see, they used 1/3 octave smoothing.  That is the wrong-headed system used to calibrate movie soundtrack recording studios to Dolby standards.  It completely smoothes out peaks and valleys in low frequencies, making the response far more flat than it is.  For bass region, smoothing should be limited to 1/12 octave.

This was the subject of a paper I wrote for Widescreen Review Magazine on this very topic.  See https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/target-room-response-and-cinema-x-curve.10/ 
And the deeper dive on "X-curve" here: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/validity-of-x-curve-for-cinema-sound.204/


----------



## amirm

castleofargh said:


> I remembered a very simplified video and google was nice enough to show it to me immediately. watching it again, it's even more simplified than I remembered and despite him mentioning it, those really interested in this should go look for a paper or 2 on the subject. but as a starting point, it gets the main ideas across very clearly IMO.



You are undeselling that video.  That is most excellent and best overview of frequency masking I have seen.  Definitely must watch.

I should not that there is another kind of masking: temporal masking.  That is responsible for such things as IEC weighting of WoW and Flutter in the analog days:






As we see there is a peak our hearing at around 4 Hz.  Inverting this, we get 0.25 seconds.  This is one of the reasons you want your room reverberation time to not be much above 0.25 as it can affect speech intelligibility.

On the topic of EQ, if you have room resonances, the peaks can cause time domain ringing.  This ringing can obscure other sounds well above bass frequencies.  A parametric EQ applied to these bass frequencies can indeed cause the higher frequencies to sound better even though they remain unchanged by the EQ.  Reducing those peaks reduces rigning and with it, the temporal masking.


----------



## castleofargh

maybe I'm indeed underselling it. it's just that it would be bad to have people assume those straight lines are a fair representation of the masking area, as they discount how in reality as it always is with human hearing, nothing is that linear. and also there is the issue of how the masking area tends to impact the frequencies above the tone more than the frequencies below it. and indeed there is also temporal masking to consider even more so when we're talking about room and speakers. 
but the way he explains masking is very clear indeed, which is probably why I remembered it so vividly.


----------



## pinnahertz

amirm said:


> Yet he is insisting in post after post that to hear the same effect, the room must be "flat."


And you are insisting, in post after oost, that it can't be.  Which of you knows the room and was there? 


amirm said:


> That he doesn't know there is no such thing as a "perfectly flat" means is a crime in its own, no?


There are many definitions of "flat".  Remember when +/- 3dB was "flat" for electronic devices?  And yet +/- .05dB is not actually perfectly flat.  "Flat" is a subjective term. "Perfectly" is an adjective on a subjective term.  That makes the entire term still subjective. 


amirm said:


> Bottom line is what I said: he heard and EQ where if you modified the mid-range, the highs changed.  This is easily characteristic of poorly designed equalizers.  It could have low Q, distortion, etc.


Perhaps, but you don't know what he heard.


amirm said:


> It certainly is NOT the type of EQ we encourage people to use.  The best and main use of EQ in acoustics is to reduce resonances in low frequencies.  The modal bandwidth there can be as low as half a hertz!  As such, you need an ultra-narrow, high-Q parametric EQ to correct those.  No way, no how you want to use the poorly made EQ bigshot is talking about.


I agree with the application of high Q parametric to mediate modal response, but it's not a cure of course.  I'm still not convinced you know what he's talking about.


amirm said:


> What to make of the fact that he has never tried to duplicate that results?  Not in his system or for us here?  It is all OK to say this is a scientific "fact" and we should just accept it???  Is that how it works?


I accept his comment as what it is: anecdotal.  It's not scientific, and doubtful it was intended to be. 


amirm said:


> If we are going to accept any and all anecdotal stories, what sets us apart from subjectivists?  You are picking on any and all people on the other side but want to give a pass to Bigshot because he is on our camp?  Where does that leave our credibility?


Our (and your) credibility is secure.  Our posts (usually) deal with substantiated scientific fact.  I'm not challenging that.  And one anecdotal post more or less doesn't change scientific fact.  However, as a scientist, we should also recognize where lack of data inhibits valid conclusion, and where drawing conclusion without sufficient data is just bad science.  In this instance we lack data, and it doesn't further the scientific cause to presume then conclude.  Nothing I've suggested validates the anecdote, but your attempts to invalidate it without complete data make scientists look egotistical and silly.


amirm said:


> Bottom line is that you seem to be defending him just because.  That is not helpful.  What is helpful is to explain in plain language that what he describe has no relevance, includes serious mistake about room conditions even in best rooms, and has nothing whatsoever to do with "auditory masking."


[
You haven't helped, though.  I'm defending someone's right to post an anecdote.  You can point out where data is missing, and point out the possibility that the observations were in error, but when you proclaim the observations false and draw hard conclusions that invalidate the observation without the ability to perform a complete analysis, it's just your opinion against his.  That's not scientific, helpful, or worth while.  It comes off as an outburst of ego.  Many people turn a deaf ear to egomaniacs, regardless of if they are right or wrong.

Now, if we could collect more data, go to the room, duplicate the situation, make some observations of our own, make some measurements if possible, we might be able to state with authority what was going on and explain what was heard.  If we can't do that, then we can explain why we can't be conclusive, and express doubt.  We cannot state anything definitively, and all of this is just so many characters on the page.


----------



## castleofargh

someone said something, someone else is skeptical and asking for evidence. nothing out of the ordinary. IMO bigshot was just providing an anecdote and as such wasn't asking the all planet to instantly accept it as law. 
as for what defines a flat setup, we all here know that we're not getting a flat at +/-1dB in the entire audible range at our listening position, no matter how expensive and calibrated our gear is. I personally took the statement of flat as meaning it was properly calibrated. so much closer to flat than uncalibrated stuff. nothing more. the rest is clearly a matter of how much content was to be found in the EQed area, and to make any sort of difference, I would assume it was fairly significant, or indeed there was a technical issue or an EQ a little too wide. but it's not like it contradicts the principle of masking. as for how that should feel, well it's an all different can of worms ^_^.


----------



## pinnahertz

amirm said:


> I want to make sure this important point about the measurements I showed in the Genelec paper is not lost:
> 
> As you see, they used 1/3 octave smoothing.  That is the wrong-headed system used to calibrate movie soundtrack recording studios to Dolby standards.  It completely smoothes out peaks and valleys in low frequencies, making the response far more flat than it is.  For bass region, smoothing should be limited to 1/12 octave.


Right, but then you also need spatial averaging, or you will chase your tail with the microscopic, single location excursions that are not actually audible.

What's the point?  That the room wasn't perfectly flat, and no room is?  We got it already.


----------



## bigshot




----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> And you are insisting, in post after oost, that it can't be. Which of you knows the room and was there?


You once again insist that if someone says they saw a pink elephant, we can't have an argument about that being impossible.  Bigshot said and I am quoting again: "*You have to have a perfectly calibrated flat playback response for this demonstration to be clear. "
*
That is a made up statement.  He didn't measure the room.  He is putting that sauce on top of the meal hoping it will make it palatable.  

If you are going to jump on the throat of any subjectivists comment about what they hear, you need to show the same here.

Nothing destroys audio science more than poor advocates of it.  

When someone says there is a magical EQ that when you change midrange the high frequencies change, you need to speak up.  When he says that is only heard in a "perfectly flat" response room, you need to doubly speak up.  When he then says auditory masking is in play,  then you need to speak up.  This is all made up nonsense that has no place in discussion of audio science much less in a thread about audio myths.  Or is it that the we are only interested in myths that subjectivists have and that we are so superior as to never be guilty of it?  

I mean how wrong can a self-appointed objectivists on a forum can be before we speak up against it?  I can't think of more egregious mistakes, myths and just plain nonsense than the above.  Yet you are arguing with me about it?  To what end?


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> Right, but then you also need spatial averaging, or you will chase your tail with the microscopic, single location excursions that are not actually audible.


Not really but that is for another topic.



> What's the point? That the room wasn't perfectly flat, and no room is? We got it already.


The point is that the Genelec graph that shows variations is actually much worse that it even looked.  You seem to be saying that what was shown was close enough to "flat" and I wanted to make sure you knew the measurements were highly filtered.  Reality is much worse and indeed there is an effort to ditch the whole X-curve thing in SMPTE due to usage of 1/3 octave measurement/filtering.

But sure, if you now agree that the room Bigshot heard was not flat, then why is he saying we won't hear the effect because our rooms aren't?  He should be able to replicate the experiment for us.


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> You haven't helped, though. I'm defending someone's right to post an anecdote.


Where would I find you doing that for subjectivists? 

And how was that story an anecdotes when members were schooled on googling auditory masking?



bigshot said:


> I'm taking it one step at a time... Jnorris, have you googled "frequency masking" yet? What did you find? See the post just below this one if you want an example of what it means.



Our kind moderator post this great wisdom yesterday:


castleofargh said:


> to EQ or not isn't the matter. you do whatever you like and listen to music however you enjoy it most. nobody but bigots would try to force you to do what you don't want to do with your music.
> on the other hand when *you present EQ as being wrong in general and claim it to be factual, now that's not something anybody should let pass. *because this time you're pushing your reality onto others so it better be correct.



We were presented with an EQ experiment with conclusions that are flat wrong.  And tied to audio science no less after the fact.  So as mentioned, I am not giving him a pass.  You seem to want to do that in a partisan way and I think that soils the reputation of our camp as a whole.


----------



## jnorris

Good Grief!  Do you people ever stop your knob twiddling, measuring, adjusting, arguing, soap-boxing, pontificating and bloviating long enough to listen to some MUSIC????  Does anyone even OWN an equalizer that will do 1/12 octaves?


----------



## pinnahertz

amirm said:


> You once again insist that if someone says they saw a pink elephant, we can't have an argument about that being impossible.  Bigshot said and I am quoting again: "*You have to have a perfectly calibrated flat playback response for this demonstration to be clear. "
> *
> !. That is a made up statement.  He didn't measure the room.  He is putting that sauce on top of the meal hoping it will make it palatable.
> 
> ...


Well, I see I aroused the beast. 

1. I don't think the experience was made up.  I think the anecdote lacks sufficient information for proper analysis.  Can we at least agree that "perfectly calibrated flat playback response" is open to interpretation, since there is no such thing?  If so, then can we agree that the statement provides no information as to what "perfectly calibrated flat playback response" means? 

2. I will decide when, and on whom to jump on, thank you. 

3. I disagree.  Nothing destroys audio science more than myth.  Myth is generated in several ways.  I've found that, regardless of how much science I apply, my efforts to bust myth have been largely futile.  But in this case we don't have myth, we have an observation without sufficient detail.  Know the difference.

4a. Let's go back to the original post in question:


bigshot said:


> I have a friend who is a sound engineer who gave me a vivid example of it once. He stood to block what he was doing on the equalizer and asked me to listen and tell him what I heard. I listened and I heard the high end of the cymbals going in and out. Muffled, sharp, muffled, sharp. I told him the treble was going in and out. He turned away from the equalizer and showed me the band he was adjusting. It was a midrange frequency, and the adjustment he was making in the midrange was quite small and almost inaudible.


Anything wrong there, outside of a complete lack of technical detail?  Do you not know that you actually can adjust an equalizer in one area of the spectrum and end up with a subjective change in the other with good quality equalizers?  Sure you can!  I don't know about his example, there's not enough information to replicate it, but the general principle is well known.  So I chose not to discount it on face value, it's just an anecdote with no detail. 

Then,  he added this:


bigshot said:


> In music there are certain narrow bands that are very important... especially in the high end- consonants on vocals, high end on cymbals, etc. If there is an imbalance in the wrong place in the midrange, it can obliterate one of those narrow bands and the treble can be greatly affected. Treble is a big part of what people describe as "detail".


Anything wrong there?  I would be drawn to "narrow bands" because bandwidth is not specified, and that causes a problem because we don't know what is meant by "narrow".  Is it 1 octave?  1/2 octave? Less?  It's not wrong, it's just not stated.  But if we ignore "narrow" the rest of the statement is actually fine, if again, missing a whole lot of detail. 
Then this:


bigshot said:


> If you have an equalizer, try to isolate the frequencies of the sisss sound of the cymbal and then adjust a narrow spike one octave below it. You'll find the spot. It's really quite amazing. Not at all intuitive.


Ok, still not enough data, but at least an invitation to experiment.  Have you tried this?  For real?

Then, unfortunately, this (the Edit is the unfortunate part):


bigshot said:


> I'd be more motivated to go to the trouble of making examples to prove things to you if you had honestly answered our questions about whether you kept the volume at normal listening level at all times when you "heard" the noise floor of 16 bit... So I'll just suggest that you take a solo violin recording, figure out where the important upper sheen is, calculate one and two octaves below that, and try applying some notch filters.
> 
> At least I tell you how it's done.
> 
> * EDIT: I just thought of something that is important. You have to have a perfectly calibrated flat playback response for this demonstration to be clear. If you have imbalances in around the frequencies you're working with, or in even octaves above or below them, the effect can get muddled.


If we take out the word "perfectly" and "flat", it starts to make sense though.  And since we all know there is no actual "perfectly flat", we pretty much have to take that out just to make it make sense.  Do you not agree that trying to EQ in a monitoring environment with poor response would, at very least, yield poor results?  Would you disagree that at least basic room cal to a reasonably flat target curve is essential for good judgement when applying EQ?  I believe that is the reality, it was just expressed in an exaggerated, and unrealistic way.  

That's why I don't specifically take exception to his post.  I recognize it as anecdote, and with a little understanding (he's not an engineer, or calibrator, he works in film sound production), and run the comments through that filter, his observation seems, at very least, to merit further investigation.  I see no need to myth-bust the post, and yet I hold science in sound to the highest esteem.  I would welcome the opportunity to investigate the observation.

But you go and accuse his friend of using a poor equalizer that is so sloppy as to have a reciprocal gain effect outside of its primary center frequency.  Seriously, when was the last time you saw that happen on a mixing desk?  Last time I was even aware of the phenomenon it was an ancient Baxandall tone control on a hifi device, and that problem was engineered out years ago.   And then you pick on him for saying "perfectly flat".  Come on, man, that's now just looking for a nit to pick.  He later detailed that the room was well calibrated, and that the engineer in question had years of calibration experience.  I might still have questions about that, like is he still using 1/3 octave EQ, or is he into PEQ, or perhaps something even better, like an FIR filter?  And what is his personal tolerance, target curve, etc.?  Well, we don't know, do we?  Do you think all of this silliness is going to somehow magically generate more data for you to chew on?  I doubt it.  Or is it really just that all-fire important for the big dog to bark?

And then, clearly out of desperation, you decide to pick on me for somehow loosing my calling as a sound science professional.  To that, I take strong exception, not that it will matter to you. 

I think someone needs to take a chill pill.  It might be me, or it might be someone else.  I'm betting it's not me.


----------



## pinnahertz

jnorris said:


> 1. Good Grief!  Do you people ever stop your knob twiddling, measuring, adjusting, arguing, soap-boxing, pontificating and bloviating long enough to listen to some MUSIC????  2. Does anyone even OWN an equalizer that will do 1/12 octaves?


1. I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive.  I do both every day, thanks.
2. Yes, several.  And they can be set to much higher Q than 1/12th, with precision Q, frequency and gain, multiple bands.  Not even expensive.  You could get one, if you wanted, for less than a garden variety power amp.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 26, 2018)

This conversation is ridiculous. I'm reminded of the Brobnigagians arguing over which side of an egg to break.

Making exists. It's possible to demonstrate it in music if you find something with energy across several upper octaves, like large cymbals and probably violins. Room acoustics have nothing to do with what I was talking about. Feel free to go try the experiment for yourself. Calibrate your system tightly or sloppily. I don't care. I'm with jnorris on this one.


----------



## castleofargh

jnorris said:


> Good Grief!  Do you people ever stop your knob twiddling, measuring, adjusting, arguing, soap-boxing, pontificating and bloviating long enough to listen to some MUSIC????  Does anyone even OWN an equalizer that will do 1/12 octaves?


what is this "MUSIC" you're mentioning? is it a new kind of sine sweep?
I use DMG Equilibrium as go to EQ for my headphones/IEMs. the Q value goes to 50 so I'm in. yeah!!!! did I win? is there an amateur category? because it's a little unfair to be lined up against the pros.


----------



## jnorris

castleofargh said:


> what is this "MUSIC" you're mentioning? is it a new kind of sine sweep?
> I use DMG Equilibrium as go to EQ for my headphones/IEMs. the Q value goes to 50 so I'm in. yeah!!!! did I win? is there an amateur category? because it's a little unfair to be lined up against the pros.




Winning assumes someone admits defeat.  Not happening here...


----------



## gregorio (Jan 27, 2018)

amirm said:


> Huh? He is saying that the effect is caused by auditory masking. This is one of the most important principles in psychoacoustics. You want some random story which has nothing to do with that left alone as fact? You are not the least bothered by us bastardizing audio science to that degree?



Oh dear, seems like you're at it again!

Some of what @bigshot states I disagree with, however his anecdote is not an isolated case! I've experienced the same thing on several occasions and most mix engineers with a lot of experience probably have too! I don't agree with the idea of a perfectly flat studio/room and I didn't take bigshot's comments to mean such, just "flat" as often described by sound engineers in reference to room responses, which is used as a relative term rather than an absolute one. I don't agree that one needs a flat room to perceive the effect he's described but one does need a room which provides a degree of clarity in the higher frequencies. For example, a room without excessive high frequency reflections.

Getting back to bigshot's anecdote, here's mine, with a little more detail: Let's say we have an electric lead guitar, several cymbal hits on different cymbals in fairly close proximity to each other and a snare drum. A very common scenario in many rock band based popular music genres. Adding an EQ boost in the mid frequencies to a cymbal can indeed, in some cases create the perception of more clarity in the high frequency band. So what's going on? First off, I can eliminate the possibility of a dodgy EQ, as I've experienced this phenomena with various different well coded DSP (non-emulating) EQs. I don't know for sure what's going on, all I have is a possible hypothesis:

Cymbals are categorised within the group of the un-pitched (or un-tuned) percussion instruments. They are called untuned/unpitched because unlike tuned/pitched instruments, they do not produce the clearly defined set of fundamental frequency + a mathematically related series of harmonics which allow for accurate pitch perception, instead they usually produce a mass of harmonics (particularly in the higher frequencies) of somewhat random frequencies and amplitudes and therefore their pitch is only perceived vaguely. In other words, after the initial transient, the sound of a cymbal is effectively perceived as somewhere between random (white) noise and a traditional musical pitch/note. Now what happens if we add an electric lead guitar to this equation? Some of the common types of distortion required by an electric guitar produce a very significant amount of content in the (roughly) 2kHz-7kHz range. This could easily mask quite a number of the middle harmonics of our cymbal and it's low harmonics are likely to be masked by other instruments in the mix or even deliberately removed (filtered). What we're left with, as far as the perceivable cymbal is concerned, is mostly just a mass of High mid/HF, with no audible (unmasked) related lower harmonics and which is therefore somewhat indistinguishable from band limited white noise. A fact which was sometimes taken advantage (particularly in the analogue days) to enhance cymbal "sizzle" by adding in some band limited white noise. By applying an EQ boost to our cymbal in the mid freqs we could raise the level of those harmonics to say just above the masking threshold. Now we have some lower harmonics which the brain could use to correlate with some of those higher harmonics. In other words, it may no longer be just a mass of HF harmonics indistinguishable from white noise, the brain may be able to correlate some of those HF harmonics to the lower harmonics now audible and create a perception of slightly more tonal "clarity" in those high freqs. This situation is not particularly common, a whole bunch of variables would have to align and it's entirely dependant on what else is in the HF band; other cymbals, snare, guitar distortion, transients, synths, harmonics from other instruments, etc. To deliberately produce this effect could take days, weeks or longer, I've no idea, I've only noticed it probably half a dozen times or so in the course of 25 years.

I've no idea if my explanation is correct. It's just a guess which aligns with what I know of psycho-acoustics and AFAIK there is no specific scientific evidence which absolutely contradicts it. If you know of any then please post it but I strongly suspect there simply isn't any, it's too rare and psycho-acoustics is still trying to explain some of the everyday basics of hearing perception. And, this is where we seem to run into problems amirm. You can't simply extrapolate from evidence which is only somewhat related (but does not account for the all the variables specific to this scenario) and come up with a definitive, absolute answer. And obviously (I would hope!), the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", a well documented fallacy. So unless you've got some specific evidence here, then it's you who are "bastardising audio science"!

G


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> 3. I disagree. Nothing destroys audio science more than myth. Myth is generated in several ways. I've found that, regardless of how much science I apply, my efforts to bust myth have been largely futile. But in this case we don't have myth, we have an observation without sufficient detail. Know the difference.


Nope, we have an observation followed with a bunch of made up reasons for why:



bigshot said:


> You would be surprised. I have a friend who is a sound engineer who gave me a vivid example of it once. He stood to block what he was doing on the equalizer and asked me to listen and tell him what I heard. I listened and I heard the high end of the cymbals going in and out. Muffled, sharp, muffled, sharp. I told him the treble was going in and out. He turned away from the equalizer and showed me the band he was adjusting. It was a midrange frequency, and the adjustment he was making in the midrange was quite small and almost inaudible. *In music there are certain narrow bands that are very important... especially in the high end- consonants on vocals, high end on cymbals, etc. If there is an imbalance in the wrong place in the midrange, it can obliterate one of those narrow bands and the treble can be greatly affected. *Treble is a big part of what people describe as "detail".



That is a myth being made up as I have underlined.  Yet you seem to not care because the dude is in our camp.  Or else you don't know how egregious of an error it is to say those things.

Really this is a fantastical story bigshot told.  If we don't correct that, then this is a Kangaroo court designed to chase off the subjectivists regardless of merit.

As to detail, we are asking and the poster refuses with straight face to provide any.  And you had no beef with that either.  If a subjectivist said they heard a difference in two cables we would hammer them to prove it or else we would ridicule them as audiophools, delusional, etc.  Where is that for Bigshot?  Oh "he didn't provide the detail."  That's it?  Free pass just like that?


----------



## bigshot (Jan 27, 2018)

To Gregorio

Who says I said the room was flat? I said the *system* was calibrated to flat. My engineer friend had me stand right in front of the speaker for the demonstration. The room has nothing to do with it. I wasn't listening to music in a living room from a normal seating position. I was listening to direct sound in a workshop used for designing, building and testing speakers standing right in front of a custom designed speaker that was 5 feet tall and five feet wide. Nothing to do with home systems. My friend designs pro systems for large venues. Amirim threw out an irrelevant straw man about rooms and everyone went down that rabbit hole with him.

I have no interest in responding to Amirim. His reputation preceded him and I gave him the benefit of the doubt for the first few weeks, but I've come to find that he totally lives up to everything I've been told. I'm convinced no one can help him. I'm moving on. If the folks I do have respect for want to engage with him, feel free. But understand that I skip happily past anything involving him, even your replies. I have a small favor to ask... If one of my posts isn't clear enough and you'd like clarification, please address me directly and ask. I have respect for you guys. I'm happy to converse with you guys. I'm just not interested in three way conversations when he's involved. That's fair isn't it?

As for jnorris's comment on equalizers, it was blatantly obvious that he was talking about a full spectrum 1/12th octave graphic equalizer. How many bands would that require? Over 100? This was another of Amirim's lobbed straw man hand grenades. Nothing is good enough. Nothing is correct. (Except him and the stuff highlighted in yellow.) Been there, had enough of that. I'm not here to fight with people. I'm here to learn things from people. Thanks!


----------



## Jazmanaut

I did blind test for speaker and powercables with my friend about year ago. They varied from lampchord to several thousand euros high end products, and behold! We did heard suprisingly big differences! Then we looked our results and they were totally random. Mind is wonderfull thing!
I write that on my blog, but thats in finnish. But i did some measurements as well, and you can see them on that blogpost as well. Differences were sooo miniscule, that it goes on measurement error. My mastering studio aint laboratory after all.
http://jazmanaut.blogspot.fi/2017/01/piuhoja-poikineen.html


----------



## amirm

gregorio said:


> And, this is where we seem to run into problems amirm. You can't simply extrapolate from evidence which is only somewhat related (but does not account for the all the variables specific to this scenario) and come up with a definitive, absolute answer.


Sorry no.  I asked clarifying questions including sample music for us to listen to. None was provided.  Not only that, conditions were put us to have perfectly flat calibrated systems to hear it. 



bigshot said:


> I'd be more motivated to go to the trouble of making examples to prove things to you if you had honestly answered our questions about whether you kept the volume at normal listening level at all times when you "heard" the noise floor of 16 bit... *So I'll just suggest that you take a solo violin recording, figure out where the important upper sheen is, calculate one and two octaves below that, and try applying some notch filters.*
> 
> At least I tell you how it's done.
> 
> * EDIT: I just thought of something that is important. You have to have a perfectly calibrated flat playback response for this demonstration to be clear. If you have imbalances in around the frequencies you're working with, or in even octaves above or below them, the effect can get muddled.



And this type of non-constructive response:



bigshot said:


> Google auditory masking, champ. Read the tests using tones. Think about how that might apply to music. What sort of frequencies might exhibit the biggest effect? Then try it for yourself.
> 
> My yellow highlighter has gone dry I’m afraid. *You’re going to have to do your own test. I’m not your personal geek squad.*
> 
> As I noted before, this test requires a calibrated system. I could give you an audio file to demonstrate it, but if your system is unbalanced, it would likely be muddled up. The demonstration I heard was shared with me by a professional sound mixer on his own reference system. If your system isn’t flat, I would recommend finding an AV monkey in the yellow pages to calibrate your system for you. He might even be able to explain auditory masking to your satisfaction.



Is this the style of communication in this forum that you are defending???  When asked for detail you say you are not my personal geek squad?  That I need to go and do my own googling?

Where we are now is that you all are trying to protect each other's back without provide any more data or insight that the rest of us can verify.  That is nonsense.  It is not my job to go and extrapolate what is most likely had other causes (leaky bands in EQ) for you all.

Let's clean up our house when it comes to myths and misstating audio science before we go after the other camp.  After all, we should know better.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> Who says I said the room was flat? I said the *system* was calibrated to flat. My engineer friend had me stand right in front of the speaker for the demonstration. The room has nothing to do with it.


First of all, you told us:


bigshot said:


> As I noted before, this test requires a calibrated system. I could give you an audio file to demonstrate it, but if your system is unbalanced, it would likely be muddled up. The demonstration I heard was shared with me by a professional sound mixer on his own reference system. If your system isn’t flat, I would recommend finding an AV monkey in the yellow pages to calibrate your system for you. He might even be able to explain auditory masking to your satisfaction.


What do you think an "AV monkey" would do to my DAC and amplifier to make them flat??? 

It is the speaker and room that deviate from flat.  Since they destroy any flatness in the system electronics, the notion that something has to be "flat" for the effect to work, is just nonsense.  From my article on room acoustics:







This is actual measurement of my own speaker in my own room.  We have a 20 db variation in bass frequencies.  Likewise the highs are rolling off (as they should).  How would calibrating the rest of the electronics -- whatever that means -- make a difference and give us a flat sounding system?

What this means is that if you heard any effect, it is audible without the sound that entered your ear to be flat.[/QUOTE]


----------



## amirm

Jazmanaut said:


> I did blind test for speaker and powercables with my friend about year ago. They varied from lampchord to several thousand euros high end products, and behold! We did heard suprisingly big differences! Then we looked our results and they were totally random. Mind is wonderfull thing!


It is indeed.  Only through verification as you did do we realize that.  Audiophiles go on forever without at least once performing the test that you did.  Kudos.

BTW, Google had a hell of a time translating your page but I got the message from reading it.    Thanks for documenting your experiment.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 27, 2018)

gregorio said:


> A fact which was sometimes taken advantage (particularly in the analogue days) to enhance cymbal "sizzle" by adding in some band limited white noise.



When I was doing mastering of 78s for CD release, and old time transfer guy told me a similar trick. I asked him how to reduce high frequency noise without making the recording sound dull. He said that high frequency noise is important with severely band limited recordings, because it tricks the brain into thinking it's hearing high frequency sounds when it really isn't. He suggested noise reduction right up to the top edge of the recording, then add a low level constant high frequency hiss to the entire track. He explained that the biggest problem with noise is that it's random. Every time it comes in and out with clicks and crackle, you notice it. But if it's constant, you get accustomed to it and it makes it easier for your brain to be tricked into hearing frequencies that don't actually exist in the recording. Dynamic noise reduction tends to punch holes in the quiet parts, providing a sharp contrast. A little hiss smooths it all out. I created my own set of various hiss loops that had just enough random grain to them to sound organic, but not enough variation to attract attention to themselves.

I couldn't avoid seeing his chart. Is he still talking about rooms?


----------



## bigshot

Jazmanaut said:


> I did blind test for speaker and powercables with my friend about year ago. They varied from lampchord to several thousand euros high end products, and behold! We did heard suprisingly big differences! Then we looked our results and they were totally random. Mind is wonderfull thing!



The sound mixer friend I've been mentioning told me that he once did an installation in an outdoor amphitheater that was out in the desert about 100 miles away. When he got there, he found that his assistant had loaded one of the cable runs for the speakers, but not the other. It was too far to drive back and get it in time for the show, so he sent his assistant to the local Home Depot to buy a whole spindle of lamp cord. He quickly wired up the connections and taped the lamp cord run to the concrete with duct tape so no one would trip over it. The show went on and the sound was fine. Not what one would normally want to do, but it worked in a pinch.


----------



## pinnahertz

amirm said:


> Nope, we have an observation followed with a bunch of made up reasons for why:


Exactly.  That's not "myth".



amirm said:


> That is a myth being made up as I have underlined.  Yet you seem to not care because the dude is in our camp.  Or else you don't know how egregious of an error it is to say those things.


But what you don't seem to understand is, if we ignore "narrow", because it's undefined, the statement is not a myth.  Every sound mixer worth his salt knows of this phenomenon.  You've already hear from 3.


amirm said:


> Really this is a fantastical story bigshot told.  If we don't correct that, then this is a Kangaroo court designed to chase off the subjectivists regardless of merit.


Those of us here with actual mixing experience don't see all that much to correct, except the lack of specific detail.


amirm said:


> As to detail, we are asking and the poster refuses with straight face to provide any.  And you had no beef with that either.  If a subjectivist said they heard a difference in two cables we would hammer them to prove it or else we would ridicule them as audiophools, delusional, etc.  Where is that for Bigshot?  Oh "he didn't provide the detail."  That's it?  Free pass just like that?


There's a big difference between someone posting that they hear a big difference between cables (which has been proven to satisfaction what limits there are to that!), and Bigshot posting an anecdote about a real phenomenon without technical detail.  Do you need an analogy?

1. The tornado dropped out of the sky and my house was gone in seconds.
2. I put a tornado repeller in the ground to the southwest of my house and it's never been hit.

In 1. we are missing a lot of detail, but that kind of thing can happen.  So what's wrong with that statement?  If you want detail like at 3:42p an F3 tornado touched down south west of my house and travelled at 25mph.  It too 10.6 seconds for it to obliterate my house.  You like that? You won't get it and don't need it.

In 2. we have a mythical and unspecified "tornado repeller" that cannot possibly function. 

1. is anecdote missing detal, and 2. is myth.

Know the difference.


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> There's a big difference between someone posting that they hear a big difference between cables (which has been proven to satisfaction what limits there are to that!), and Bigshot posting an anecdote about a real phenomenon without technical detail. Do you need an analogy?


Nope.  Don't need an analogy.  You are misstating the back and forth.  He stated the experiment and then ran off with a bunch of other specifics including masking.  It was that which prompted me to respond.  And further he did not position it as a anecdote.  Here it is again:



bigshot said:


> You would be surprised. I have a friend who is a sound engineer who gave me a vivid example of it once. He stood to block what he was doing on the equalizer and asked me to listen and tell him what I heard. I listened and I heard the high end of the cymbals going in and out. Muffled, sharp, muffled, sharp. I told him the treble was going in and out. He turned away from the equalizer and showed me the band he was adjusting. It was a midrange frequency, and the adjustment he was making in the midrange was quite small and almost inaudible. *In music there are certain narrow bands that are very important... especially in the high end- consonants on vocals, high end on cymbals, etc. If there is an imbalance in the wrong place in the midrange, it can obliterate one of those narrow bands and the treble can be greatly affected. Treble is a big part of what people describe as "detail".*



You see the bolded section?  That is no anecdote.  It is a bunch of random conclusions that is being pushed down the poster's throat with that "you would be surprised."  

This was followed with:



bigshot said:


> *Google auditory masking, champ. Read the tests using tones. Think about how that might apply to music. What sort of frequencies might exhibit the biggest effect? Then try it for yourself.*



What about this reads like a casual anecdote to you?

You can continue to be his PR person or you could stand up for science and objectivity without bias and prejudice.  Choice is yours. 

Bottom line is this: don't assume people don't know audio science in a public forum.  Be careful about what you know and don't know.  Don't take advantage of the other side with big buzzwords hoping he knows less than you.


----------



## pinnahertz

amirm said:


> You see the bolded section?  That is no anecdote.  It is a bunch of random conclusions that is being pushed down the poster's throat with that "you would be surprised."


I asked you two specific questions regarding this passage a few posts back. You have not answered them. I see no point in any further response until you do.


amirm said:


> This was followed with:
> 
> 
> 
> What about this reads like a casual anecdote to you?


I stated clearly a few posts ago that we agree the phenomenon is not masking. Miss that, did you?


amirm said:


> You can continue to be his PR person or you could stand up for science and objectivity without bias and prejudice.  Choice is yours.


You have the same choice, but you seen to have an awful lot of bias and prejudice for a self-professed scientist.


amirm said:


> Bottom line is this: don't assume people don't know audio science in a public forum.  Be careful about what you know and don't know.  Don't take advantage of the other side with big buzzwords hoping he knows less than you.


I'm going to cut you a bit of slack here and assume the above is not directed to me.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Just wanted to place a momentary pause in the action to say that, to many, this rather heated exchange may seem like a fight, but it is more about the process to understand and explain.  This is common for this forum and any others similar to it, and it is usually entertaining and educational.  Egos do sometimes get in the way of a proper discussion, but I sincerely believe that most of us that haunt this place are generally amiable and respectful towards one another.  I have truly learned a great deal from many of you, and I am grateful for the opportunity to learn.


----------



## bigshot

It just takes one bad apple to derail a thread!


----------



## gregorio

amirm said:


> bigshot: "_In music there are certain narrow bands that are very important... especially in the high end- consonants on vocals, high end on cymbals, etc. If there is an imbalance in the wrong place in the midrange, it can obliterate one of those narrow bands and the treble can be greatly affected._*" That is a myth being made up as I have underlined. Yet you seem to not care because the dude is in our camp. Or else you don't know how egregious of an error it is to say those things. Really this is a fantastical story bigshot told. If we don't correct that, then this is a Kangaroo court designed to chase off the subjectivists regardless of merit.*



1. Actually, the first half of what you've quoted is entirely correct/factual. It's correct for several reasons: A. It's something that every recording engineer knows; it's taught at university and experienced routinely in practice and B. It's entirely supported by the science! 
For example, there is indeed a "certain narrow band" (approx between 2.5kHz and 3.5kHz) which is very important for the comprehension of speech. Every engineer know this and so too does the science; as discovered by Fletcher/Munson, supported by anatomy, numerous subsequent studies, routinely implemented (noise-shaped dither for example) and routinely called the "critical hearing band". This is just one example and one which you yourself know because I've seen you use the term "critical hearing band"! Why then do you keep quoting/underlining/bolding it and calling it a myth?

2. The second part of your quote is rather speculative and maybe bigshot could have qualified it with "in my experience". It's speculative because he has not provided any evidence beyond a personal anecdote. HOWEVER, "Absence of evidence is *NOT* evidence of absence", a fallacy upon which you seem to repeatedly rely! Your analogy with "cable believers" is nonsense because it is not an analogous! In the case of "cable believers" we've got (A) an "absence of evidence" *AND* (B) an overwhelming amount of reliable "evidence of absence". "Myth", "fantastical" and particularly "egregious error" are emotive, potentially insulting and absolute adjectives, their use can ONLY be justified if we have both A and B together! So where is your overwhelming amount of reliable "evidence of absence"? You haven't presented even a single piece of reliable "evidence of absence", let alone an overwhelming amount! Without that, you've created your own "kangaroo court designed to chase off" someone who disagrees with your (apparently fallacy based) opinion, which makes your statement both irrational and hypocritical in the extreme! 



pinnahertz said:


> I stated clearly a few posts ago that we agree the phenomenon is not masking.



I'm not so sure, I believe it could be masking or maybe more precisely; a phenomena caused by masking (as explained in post #6677). 

G


----------



## gregorio (Jan 28, 2018)

bigshot said:


> [1] When I was doing mastering of 78s for CD release, and old time transfer guy told me a similar trick. I asked him how to reduce high frequency noise without making the recording sound dull. He said that high frequency noise is important with severely band limited recordings, because it tricks the brain into thinking it's hearing high frequency sounds when it really isn't. He suggested noise reduction right up to the top edge of the recording, then add a low level constant high frequency hiss to the entire track. He explained that the biggest problem with noise is that it's random. Every time it comes in and out with clicks and crackle, you notice it. But if it's constant, you get accustomed to it and it makes it easier for your brain to be tricked into hearing frequencies that don't actually exist in the recording. Dynamic noise reduction tends to punch holes in the quiet parts, providing a sharp contrast. A little hiss smooths it all out. I created my own set of various hiss loops that had just enough random grain to them to sound organic, but not enough variation to attract attention to themselves.
> 
> [2] I couldn't avoid seeing his chart. Is he still talking about rooms?



1. No that's not really the same thing at all. What you're describing is absolutely still routine, standard practice in Film/TV, the use of "room tone" to even out (randomise) the differences in the noise which was recorded between different takes for example. Your described trick is somewhat similar to dither in a digital system. The trick I'm describing was essentially the synthesising of a sound which sounds the same (or close enough) as a cymbal (in a mix) and then adding that synthesised sound to the cymbal in order to reinforce it/make it stronger. The reason I quoted that trick is because the synthesising of that sound can be accomplished with (very) band limited white noise, demonstrating the somewhat random, white noise like quality of a cymbal's HF component.

2. Seems to be. I assumed you were just using the term "flat" as music/sound engineers often do, to mean "not explicitely EQ'ed" or relatively flat when talking about acoustics. What you've more recently described is likely to be extremely/extraordinarily flat (with the typical engineer's usage as applied to acoustics) but I'm not convinced it would be perfectly flat in an absolute sense, although probably close enough not to make any material difference. My described experience occurred in a well treated room with professional monitors but it wasn't particularly flat, even as the term is used by engineers. So assuming we are talking about the same perception/phenomena then I don't believe a flat or perfectly flat (in any sense of the word "flat") is a requirement, although a fairly well controlled listening environment might well be.

G


----------



## amirm

gregorio said:


> 1. Actually, the first half of what you've quoted is entirely correct/factual. It's correct for several reasons: A. It's something that every recording engineer knows; it's taught at university and experienced routinely in practice and B. It's entirely supported by the science!
> For example, there is indeed a "certain narrow band" (approx between 2.5kHz and 3.5kHz) which is very important for the comprehension of speech. Every engineer know this and so too does the science; as discovered by Fletcher/Munson, supported by anatomy, numerous subsequent studies, routinely implemented (noise-shaped dither for example) and routinely called the "critical hearing band". This is just one example and one which you yourself know because I've seen you use the term "critical hearing band"! Why then do you keep quoting/underlining/bolding it and calling it a myth?


Because I am not taking it out of context of what he said as you are.  He was defending the conclusion of what he heard that changing mid-range, changes high-frequencies: "*In music there are certain narrow bands that are very important... especially in the high end- consonants on vocals, high end on cymbals, etc. If there is an imbalance in the wrong place in the midrange, it can obliterate one of those narrow bands and the treble can be greatly affected. "*

There is nothing in "science" that says if you mess with anything in mid-range frequencies of vocals, "the treble can be greatly affected." 

Of course if you mess with content of what is considered vocal frequencies, you can diminish audibility.  That wasn't the subject of discussion, nor anything disputed.  

It is like me saying because it rains a lot in Seattle, pink elephants like to live there and you arguing that "the first half of what I said is right."  

Bottom line is this: a ton of poorly implemented equalizers do not do what their dials says.  Changing one band can easily change another set of frequencies.  The way to know this is the problem or not is to run a simple sweep in there first, and make sure what is changed is what you think is changed.  Only then do you want to go and invent new psychoacoustic effects as Bigshot attempted to do.  Since this discussion was specifically about equalizers, this was even more important  to know before citing stories of magical things equalizers can do.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 28, 2018)

Gregorio, the way he was explaining it to me was that a balanced response was important because relatively small imbalances an octave below can cause masking in the octave above. I guess he had found the perfect recording and adjustment to reveal the effect. At the time, he was experimenting with methods of achieving flat output and quick ways to achieve a balanced response. He had just completed a prototype speaker and spent the previous couple of weeks just running tone sweeps and trying different strategies to get to where he wanted to be. The room would change with every venue he installed the speaker in, so he was just concerned with the output of the speaker. A lot of his work is with outdoor arenas so his interest is in creating highly directional sound so it doesn't bother the neighbors... particularly highly directional bass, because that is the biggest offender at outdoor venues in Southern California.


----------



## gregorio

amirm said:


> [1] There is nothing in "science" that says if you mess with anything in mid-range frequencies of vocals, "the treble can be greatly affected."
> [2] It is like me saying because it rains a lot in Seattle, pink elephants like to live there and you arguing that "the first half of what I said is right."



1. Correct. *BUT* there is ALSO "nothing in science that says if you mess with anything in the mid-range frequencies" it cannot affect the perception of high frequencies in some cases. So you are still basing your argument entirely on a common fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Where is your evidence of absence?
2. Not it is *NOT *even remotely like you saying that, because we have BOTH an absence of evidence for the existence of pink elephants living in Seattle AND overwhelming evidence for the absence of pink elephants living in Seattle!

I accuse you of basing your argument on a common fallacy and of using an analogy which is completely inapplicable because it is not analogous, and how do you respond? You respond by using an argument based on exactly the same common fallacy and a different but equally non-analogous/inapplicable analogy! Impressive!!



bigshot said:


> Gregorio, the way he was explaining it to me was that a balanced response was important because relatively small imbalances an octave below can cause masking in the octave above.



To the best of my knowledge, that is impossible. Masking only occurs with frequencies which are close to the frequency causing the masking, in musical pitch terms (at a guess) probably somewhere around a semi-tone or so but certainly not an entire octave. This phenomena might be caused by masking as I've described; mid-freqs causing the masking of other mid-freqs which are the lower order harmonics of a cymbal and unmasking those lower order harmonics might allow the brain to extract more tonal information in the HF. In other words, this phenomena might be a consequence of masking but is not masking per se.

G


----------



## KeithEmo

It makes sense to me....

Virtually all masking effects depend on both the amplitude and frequency of both tones involved.
(Usually we say that a certain tone of a certain frequency will mask another tone of a certain frequency if it is a certain number of dB louder than the tone it's masking.)
Therefore, it seems perfectly obvious and logical that anything that affects the relative amplitudes of the two tones - for example a frequency response that is far from flat - will alter the masking effect.
(The masking effect is based on the relative amplitudes of the tones IN THE ROOM; if we alter that then we alter the masking effect.)

The same argument is very relevant for all of the lively discussions about the audibility of lossy encoding.
If I have a file that has been lossy encoded, and part of the lossy encoding process involved omitting a certain harmonic "because it was masked by a 500 Hz tone at -32 dB SPL"......
Then it is clearly going to affect the results if your system has a +5 dB bump at 500 Hz, while mine has a -5 dB dip at 500 Hz.
The "masking tone" will be at a different amplitude; so how well it masks some other nearby tone will also be different.
So, for ALL lossy perceptual coding, we should be specifying both the "flatness" and the "absolute amplitude - in dB SPL" at which the test was conducted.... because it WILL (and should be expected to) alter the results.

In fact, since the frequency response of our ears varies with amplitude, a given masking effect will vary depending on the dB SPL the test is conducted at.
And any valid discussion of masking effects REQUIRES a statement of the db SPL the test was conducted at, and either specific in-room SPL measurements of both sounds, or a statement of how flat the test system is.
(This might even explain, at least in part, why people with different ears, and different test systems, seem to report different results with various "lossy perceptual CODECs".... simply because the test conditions are NOT the same.)



bigshot said:


> Gregorio, the way he was explaining it to me was that a balanced response was important because relatively small imbalances an octave below can cause masking in the octave above. I guess he had found the perfect recording and adjustment to reveal the effect. At the time, he was experimenting with methods of achieving flat output and quick ways to achieve a balanced response. He had just completed a prototype speaker and spent the previous couple of weeks just running tone sweeps and trying different strategies to get to where he wanted to be. The room would change with every venue he installed the speaker in, so he was just concerned with the output of the speaker. A lot of his work is with outdoor arenas so his interest is in creating highly directional sound so it doesn't bother the neighbors... particularly highly directional bass, because that is the biggest offender at outdoor venues in Southern California.


----------



## upstateguy (Jan 29, 2018)

*Hey, No One Puts Baby In The Corner !*


----------



## bigshot (Jan 29, 2018)

I'm not exactly sure what bands he was adjusting, I just know they were remote from each other, and they sounded like they were a couple of octaves apart. I tried to google to find more specific info, but a lot of this stuff is over my head, and a lot of it is studies on guinea pigs and goldfish!

It might have something to do with "psychophysical tuning curves"... I don't know exactly what all this means, but this chart seems like it might be illustrating something like what I heard.







The masking frequency was somewhere in the low treble range (2kHz?)  and the frequency being masked was in the treble range ssss around the cymbal (6kHz to 8kHz?). If this chart actually does represent what I was hearing, the masking band would have been there at the low point, and the masked frequency would have been right around this further two dots.

I remember somewhere reading that masking roughly followed octaves, but I can't find that right now. I'll see if I can google that up. Like I say, he was talking about masking and how it related to the balance of frequency response.


----------



## amirm

gregorio said:


> 1. Correct. *BUT* there is ALSO "nothing in science that says if you mess with anything in the mid-range frequencies" it cannot affect the perception of high frequencies in some cases. So you are still basing your argument entirely on a common fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Where is your evidence of absence?


That is a repeat of high-school debating tactic that was made earlier.  My answer remains the same: pink elephants don't exist even though there is no research on their existence.  

Here is a list of topics where there is zero research on them yet we say they can't be true:

1. USB cables sound different.

2. Power cables sound different.

4. Footers under electronics make them sound different.

5. Putting little dots on the walls makes the room sound better.

5. Fancy outlets and power cables make the sound better.

On and on.  So be careful you don't give away the farm in an empty attempt to defend one of our brothers.  The other camp can run with these things and bury us in our own hole!

That is beside the fact that a much simpler, backed by science/engineering explanation for what Bigshot heard: that the EQ was not properly designed and changing the mid-range changed the high-frequencies.  To ignore the obvious and search for the unknown especially when Bigshot did not even bother once to verify the accuracy of what he thought was happening, is reckless and oozes biased thinking.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> I'm not exactly sure what bands he was adjusting, I just know they were remote from each other, and they sounded like they were a couple of octaves apart. I tried to google to find more specific info, but a lot of this stuff is over my head, and a lot of it is studies on guinea pigs and goldfish!


Yet we were told to google this for ourselves....


----------



## amirm

KeithEmo said:


> It makes sense to me....
> 
> Virtually all masking effects depend on both the amplitude and frequency of both tones involved.
> (Usually we say that a certain tone of a certain frequency will mask another tone of a certain frequency if it is a certain number of dB louder than the tone it's masking.)
> ...


Masking is not the same as modifying the character and tone of frequencies as Bigshot said happened in the EQ experiment.

Even if it did, the effect in mid-frequencies has no chance of reaching the high-frequencies as he mentioned.  If you read my article on perceptual effects of room reflections you see that we can approximate the auditory filter bandwidth using a measure called ERB.  In doing so we get this kind of graph:






At 2500 Hz, the ERB is just a few hundred hertz.  No way it is going to reach out > 10,000 Hz and do anything there.

Again, the simplest explanation here and a common problem in EQs is that they don't do what their dials say.  Both analog and digital versions can easily bleed outside of the indicated band.


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> ...
> To the best of my knowledge, that is impossible. Masking only occurs with frequencies which are close to the frequency causing the masking, in musical pitch terms (at a guess) probably somewhere around a semi-tone or so but certainly not an entire octave. This phenomena might be caused by masking as I've described; mid-freqs causing the masking of other mid-freqs which are the lower order harmonics of a cymbal and unmasking those lower order harmonics might allow the brain to extract more tonal information in the HF. In other words, this phenomena might be a consequence of masking but is not masking per se.
> 
> G


I'm also thinking of something like that. or indeed an EQ spreading a little too far like Amirm suggested, although I'd like to think that an audio engineer doing such a demo would know his tools. but without much data, it's all conjecture anyway.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jan 29, 2018)

I just Googled "pink elephant" ........  and I got back hundreds of thousands of hits. Some of them looked to be Photoshopped, but a lot of them looked quite authentic to me. They included quite a few pink cement elephants, lots of pink stuffed elephants, several that looked to be plastic, and a massive number of pink cartoon elephants. There were even several live pink elephants - and, although most of them looked to be Photoshopped, several actually looked to me like a real live elephant who had an interaction with a can of spray paint.

And, even stranger, here's a news item that purports to include a picture of a real live naturally occurring pink elephant.......

https://www.catersnews.com/stories/...arade-meet-the-adorable-pink-albino-elephant/



The sound made by cymbals covers a very wide range of frequencies.... so it makes perfect sense to me that any sound that masks specific frequencies may make PART of the range covered by the cymbals less prominent, and so alter the overall tonal balance. I've also read many accounts of mixing engineers doing what seem to be odd things to manipulate the way cymbals sound (for example, mixing in some band-limited white noise to help "keep the cymbals from getting buried in the mix"). Therefore, to me, that puts cymbals firmly into the category of "things that sometimes exhibit unexpected interactions with other components of the recording". Therefore, while I haven't specifically heard of the example BigShot described, I wouldn't automatically assume that it doesn't exist either. Perhaps, when the primary frequencies of the cymbal are partly masked, our minds tend to interpret the harmonics as noise, and so "not notice the cymbals"..... I don't know if it's true - but it's certainly not unreasonable - and I sure don't know that it ISN'T true.

Perhaps, if we asked NICELY, someone might even come up with a sample recording to prove that it does.....



amirm said:


> Yet we were told to google this for ourselves....


----------



## amirm

KeithEmo said:


> The sound made by cymbals covers a very wide range of frequencies.... so it makes perfect sense to me that any sound that masks specific frequencies may make PART of the range covered by the cymbals less prominent, and so alter the overall tonal balance.



Let's review again what was said:


bigshot said:


> I have a friend who is a sound engineer who gave me a vivid example of it once. He stood to block what he was doing on the equalizer and asked me to listen and tell him what I heard. I listened and *I heard the high end of the cymbals going in and out. *Muffled, sharp, muffled, sharp. I told him the *treble was going in and out. *He turned away from the equalizer and showed me the band he was adjusting. It *was a midrange frequency, and the adjustment he was making in the midrange was quite small and almost inaudible.*



So an almost inaudible change to mid-range was causing the *high-end* of the cymbals to cut in and out.

You still think you are considering his example in your mind?  

He is trying to say a tiny change in a completely independent spectrum of music has an effect on another.  Nothing in masking works this way.  Let's not keep imagining scenarios for what is likely caused by other obvious causes.


----------



## bigshot




----------



## gregorio

amirm said:


> [1] That is a repeat of high-school debating tactic that was made earlier. [2] My answer remains the same: pink elephants don't exist even though there is no research on their existence.



1. Even a high-schooler should know what a fallacy is and what science is for!
2. And your answer remains *WRONG*! Dr. Mike Chase; "_We have been studying elephants in the region for nearly 10 years now, and this is the first documented evidence of an albino_ [pink] _calf that I have come across._" (Article from BBC Science Dept.). Isn't just repeating incorrect statements of fact a grade school or even pre-grade school debating tactic?

You are doing exactly what the more extreme subjectivists do. You've made up your mind about something and then are ignoring, simply ignorant of, misrepresenting or deliberately lying about the evidence in order to defend your opinion! ... "_Or else you don't know how egregious of an error it is to say those things_.". "_If we don't correct that, then this is a Kangaroo court designed to chase off the subjectivists regardless of merit._", ""*Be careful about what you know and don't know.*" - These are your words, thrown at bigshot and/or those who dared question your unsubstantiated opinion, which brings us right back to what I said previously, you're being "_hypocritical in the extreme_"! Stop making nonsense/inapplicable analogies and answer the question, where is your "evidence of absence"? Without any, you are making absolute determinations and public statements of facts, even to the point of being insulting, apparently based entirely on a fallacy. That is pretty much the exact opposite of "science", a term which you are invoking in defence of your unsubstantiated opinion?!



castleofargh said:


> I'm also thinking of something like that. or indeed an EQ spreading a little too far like Amirm suggested, although I'd like to think that an audio engineer doing such a demo would know his tools. but without much data, it's all conjecture anyway.



The handful of times I've observed the phenomena, I've been using different professional, industry standard EQ plugins; Sonnox EQ, DigiDesign/Avid EQ III, DMGAudio Equality and McDSP Filterbank. I'd be extremely surprised if all of them we're shown to have such a significantly different response than indicated by their settings. I can't absolutely rule this out as a possibility though and that's the problem we have here (again)! I agree that we lack data and "it's all conjecture anyway", which is why I take exception to amirm's absolute determinations and use of inflammatory/insulting language.



KeithEmo said:


> Perhaps, if we asked NICELY, someone might even come up with a sample recording to prove that it does.....



I do remember one specific instance from many years ago but I'm certain I could not get the copyright holder's permission to distribute/post it. I've observed it a few other times but can't remember exactly which tracks. This sort of thing is quite common, even after 25 years of doing this almost every working day, I still quite regularly encounter strange/surprising/unexpected phenomena. When necessary or when I have the time, I try to find a definitive explanation but often I don't have the time and I have to simply just accept the phenomena without explanation or change something to avoid the phenomena if I think it may cause an issue. Such is the case here. Furthermore, the instance I remember most clearly involved a splash cymbal, a snare drum and an electric guitar, a very common scenario but the phenomena I observed is very rare. This indicates a very specific set of variables are required. For example, a fairly exact balance between the instruments and a fairly exact frequency response/balance of harmonics of each of the instruments. Unless I'm just very lucky, it's likely to take an inordinate amount of time to discover and reproduce those variables. I might put it on my list of things to experiment with/investigate during studio downtime but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

G


----------



## castleofargh

well, amirm doesn't like empty claims and clearly considers direct masking which wouldn't go and impact massively a signal at frequencies far from the masker(the issue here is that we don't really know where the masker was, the amplitude, or how low the affected instrument was reaching). I can't disagree with expressed skepticism. I sure wish he would say it super nicely, but I put myself in his shoes. when someone comes talking about an anecdote where he heard night and day difference with the "added details" of highres, I often go crazy. and you're not exactly famous yourself for how you stay lovely and kind to people posting weird anecdotes.  
at the end of the day we are who we are. 
I think it's ok to reject bigshot's anecdote without any more information. it's the usual treatment of exceptional anecdotes in this sub section, and bigshot is a grown man, he'll survive having amirm doubt one of his stories. I have a few ideas in my head about how something like that might happen, but again without the exact circumstances, we're all shooting blanks anyway.


----------



## amirm

gregorio said:


> 1. Even a high-schooler should know what a fallacy is and what science is for!
> 2. And your answer remains *WRONG*! Dr. Mike Chase; "_We have been studying elephants in the region for nearly 10 years now, and this is the first documented evidence of an albino_ [pink] _calf that I have come across._" (Article from BBC Science Dept.). Isn't just repeating incorrect statements of fact a grade school or even pre-grade school debating tactic?
> 
> You are doing exactly what the more extreme subjectivists do. You've made up your mind about something and then are ignoring, simply ignorant of, misrepresenting or deliberately lying about the evidence in order to defend your opinion! ... "_Or else you don't know how egregious of an error it is to say those things_.". "_If we don't correct that, then this is a Kangaroo court designed to chase off the subjectivists regardless of merit._", ""*Be careful about what you know and don't know.*" - These are your words, thrown at bigshot and/or those who dared question your unsubstantiated opinion, which brings us right back to what I said previously, you're being "_hypocritical in the extreme_"! Stop making nonsense/inapplicable analogies and answer the question, where is your "evidence of absence"? Without any, you are making absolute determinations and public statements of facts, even to the point of being insulting, apparently based entirely on a fallacy. That is pretty much the exact opposite of "science", a term which you are invoking in defence of your unsubstantiated opinion?!


You are angry and protesting.  I get it.  Have to defend the camp at all costs.  The fact of the matter is that a subjective experience was had by bigshot.  A fantastical tale then created by him saying that changing mid-frequencies that are so small as to be barely audible, readily changed the upper part of cymbals.  When asked to reproduce the effect, he refused.  And rudely so.  You could have had the same chance to reproduce it, yet you are feeding us word salad instead.  He was also asked to provide scientific references and he had none.  And later says he doesn't even understand the research that he did see:



bigshot said:


> I'm *not exactly sure what bands he was adjusting*, I just know they were remote from each other, and they sounded like they were a couple of octaves apart. I tried to google to find more specific info, but a lot of this stuff is over my head, and a lot of it is studies on guinea pigs and goldfish!



Notice that now the fish story has changed to him not even knowing what bands were being adjusted!

If a subjectivists told such tales, we would drive them out of town.  We would demand proof, repeatability, blind testing, etc.  But since Bigshot is one of us, hey, let's defend him with any nonsense we could put forward. 

You are showing how nasty and miserable we can be when we are questioned.  Yet expect the other side to listen to use when we talk of science.


----------



## Strangelove424

I won't get involved in discussion with Amirm anymore because his posts give me a headache instantly now, but I suggest people don't react to his snide, personally disparaging and emotionally infantile ranting, and only respond to the minimal amount of actual statements he puts forth. In the above post, for instance, he literally says nothing. Amirm's posts are like graffiti defacing this sub forum. I always have to go back pages and pages just to figure out what he is arguing about so viciously, and I can't do it anymore. There's not enough Advil in my house for that.

I gather this has something to do with EQing mids effecting treble. Every audio professional I have worked with accepts that as fact, and checks treble after EQing any other part of the band. I can't see how this has taken up so many pages, and led to such personally inflammatory statements.


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> well, amirm doesn't like empty claims and clearly considers direct masking which wouldn't go and impact massively a signal at frequencies far from the masker(the issue here is that we don't really know where the masker was, the amplitude, or how low the affected instrument was reaching). I can't disagree with expressed skepticism. I sure wish he would say it super nicely, but I put myself in his shoes. when someone comes talking about an anecdote where he heard night and day difference with the "added details" of highres, I often go crazy. and you're not exactly famous yourself for how you stay lovely and kind to people posting weird anecdotes.
> at the end of the day we are who we are.
> I think it's ok to reject bigshot's anecdote without any more information. it's the usual treatment of exceptional anecdotes in this sub section, and bigshot is a grown man, he'll survive having amirm doubt one of his stories. I have a few ideas in my head about how something like that might happen, but again without the exact circumstances, we're all shooting blanks anyway.



I've been following the discussion and tend to agree with your stance. Still, I'd be super interested to know the test track and EQ band in question to try it for myself.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 30, 2018)

Strangelove424 said:


> I won't get involved in discussion with Amirm anymore because his posts give me a headache instantly now, but I suggest people don't react to his snide, personally disparaging and emotionally infantile ranting, and only respond to the minimal amount of actual statements he puts forth.



It's pretty obvious what is going on here. Amirim's behavior has gotten him banned from most of the science based sound forums out there. It's a pattern. He marches into a forum and announces that he's an expert, then he proceeds to challenge the "regulars" in the forum to a "duel" so he can puff himself up and cause chaos in the forum. I'm the obvious choice to focus on because of my post count and tenure here. I'm sure Gregorio and Pinnahertz will be next in line. We'll see the end game of all this soon... that will be him shilling to direct traffic away from this forum to his own forum where everything is "calm and rational and scientific". I refuse to play this game. I'll sit this dance out until he gets banned from Head-Fi (again). Then we can go back to normal around here again.


----------



## gregorio

amirm said:


> [1] You are angry and protesting. [1a] I get it.
> [2] Have to defend the camp at all costs.
> [3] The fact of the matter is that a subjective experience was had by bigshot. A fantastical tale then created by him saying that changing mid-frequencies that are so small as to be barely audible, readily changed the upper part of cymbals.



1. I'm angry and protesting because you're not only doing what you accuse others of, jumping to conclusions with no evidence, but even worse, you're falsely stating that science is on your side. [1a] All the evidence from your posts is in fact that you don't "get it" at all!
2. Another classic tactic of yours, misrepresenting information and what has been stated! I have not defended "the camp at all costs", in fact quite the opposite, I've disputed parts of bigshot's statements. Namely, those parts for which reliable evidence exists to rationally refute his explanation of the phenomena.
3. Yes, it is a subjective experience bigshot had, it's also a subjective experience I've had *BUT* being a "subjective experience" is NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF to call it a "myth" and an "egregious error", you need some reliable supporting evidence, which despite numerous requests you've FAILED to supply!! 



castleofargh said:


> [1] when someone comes talking about an anecdote where he heard night and day difference with the "added details" of highres, I often go crazy. and you're not exactly famous yourself for how you stay lovely and kind to people posting weird anecdotes.
> [2] I think it's ok to reject bigshot's anecdote without any more information.



1. True but then I can't recall ever having been so vicious, rude or insulting about audiophiles' experiences, just about their continued arguing for an explanation of those experiences which flies in the face of the science and/or known facts. That's not the case here, there is no science or known facts which contradicts Bigshot's subjective experience! And, there is no evidence that the basic explanation for that experience is incorrect (a phenomena caused by masking), just evidence against his exact choice of words. So, what is bigshot's experience/explanation "flying in the face of" which could justify such vitriol?
2. I'm of a somewhat different opinion. I don't think it's OK to outright reject bigshot's anecdote, for exactly the same reason as I don't think it's OK to accept his anecdote either! (lack of data/information). It's good to be sceptical and I am (!) but I'm just as sceptical of an absolute argument against an assertion as I am of an absolute argument for that assertion, unless that argument is supported by some reliable evidence. Furthermore, I find it highly objectionable to push such a completely unsupported, absolute argument so viciously.



Strangelove424 said:


> I gather this has something to do with EQing mids effecting treble. Every audio professional I have worked with accepts that as fact, and checks treble after EQing any other part of the band.



True but that's generally an issue of tonal balance. For example, boosting bass below a certain frequency is perceptually pretty much the same as cutting treble above that frequency provided the loudness is maintained. So boosting or cutting frequencies outside the treble freqs is likely to affect the perception of the treble and any pro sound engineer would know this. However, we're talking about a somewhat different phenomena, not tonal balance per se but clarity and masking, although it's entirely possible that tonal balance maybe a contributory factor.

G


----------



## james444

gregorio said:


> 2. I'm of a somewhat different opinion. I don't think it's OK to outright reject bigshot's anecdote, for exactly the same reason as I don't think it's OK to accept his anecdote either! (lack of data/information).



I'm just an interested bystander trying to learn from these discussions, so I have no skin in the game. But to me, it seemed that @amirm's first post was asking for more data/information:


amirm said:


> Huh?  You have any kind of reference you can provide for this?
> 
> How about duplicating this effect for us on a snippet of music?



To which @bigshot replied:


bigshot said:


> I'd be more motivated to go to the trouble of making examples to prove things to you if you had honestly answered our questions about whether you kept the volume at normal listening level at all times when you "heard" the noise floor of 16 bit... So I'll just suggest that you take a solo violin recording, figure out where the important upper sheen is, calculate one and two octaves below that, and try applying some notch filters.
> 
> At least I tell you how it's done.



After which the argument quickly escalated...

I've tried to reproduce the described effect with near flat measuring IEMs and Neutron's parametric equalizer, but so far without success. Personally, I'd really appreciate if the test track and EQ band in question were disclosed.


----------



## Whazzzup

I have long given up on sound science


----------



## bigshot

I only give up on individuals. I don't like to feed problems.


----------



## amirm

gregorio said:


> 3. Yes, it is a subjective experience bigshot had, it's also a subjective experience I've had *BUT* being a "subjective experience" is NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF to call it a "myth" and an "egregious error", you need some reliable supporting evidence, which despite numerous requests you've FAILED to supply!!


It wasn't just a subjective experience.  It was the claim that it was a solid example of auditory masking:






It is a myth and egregious error in the making that due to "auditory masking" you can barely change the mid-range frequencies and have the upper range of cymbals change.  Yes he heard what he heard. But he is jumping to a conclusion that is absolutely not supported by any science or we would have the references by now.  The reference to masking went on and on when I was not even part of the conversation and it was clear that it was an attempt to make it a fact.

It was this reference to auditory masking that prompted me to post and ask him to produce the experiment for us which has has refused to do so.  Neither have you or the others who have protested my asking of him.

This is no different than saying someone changed USB cables and due to reduction of EMI, it sounded better.  There are much more obvious and correct answers to why someone would perceive a USB cable to sound better than another which has nothing to do with reduction of EMI.  Indeed EMI may not have been reduced at all without measurements of such.  Same thing I asked bigshot, i.e. demonstrate that it was indeed the mid-frequencies and only mid-frequencies that were changed.


----------



## b0ck3n (Jan 31, 2018)

Ok i cant sit by anymore i want a piece of the action. Im gonna word this simply cause that is the way of the future, and your fancy words have accomplished little so far. BigShot had an experience (Ive already stated that Ive had similar as a recording artist, working on mixes with engineers) but may have termed said experience wrong, and he didnt provide proof of his experience (not that he in fact did not state that he saw Jesus). amirm thinks BigShot is mistaken and demands proof, not because he’s willing to accept BigShots experience as fact if given proof, but to be a pain in the ass because that is required of every poster in sound science.

Now Ive a suggestion for amirm: prove BigShot wrong or let go. Your opinion, and it is an opinion, is known to all at this point.

I love lurking here and soaking up the knowledge but I feel like this is totally killing the flow of the thread.


----------



## amirm

b0ck3n said:


> Ok i cant sit by anymore i want a piece of the action. Im gonna word this easy cause that is the future, and your fancy words have accomplished little so far. BigShot had an experience (Ive already stated that Ive had similar as a recording artist, working on mixes with engineers) but may have termed said experience wrong, and he didnt provide proof of his experience (not that he in fact not state that he saw Jesus). amirm thinks BigShot is mistaken and demands proof, not because he’s willing to accept BigShots experience as fact if given proof, but to be a pain in the ass because that is required of every poster in sound science.


Oh I fully accept that he heard what he is saying.  I am objecting to him saying it is a manifestation of auditory masking as opposed to much simpler explanation of an EQ which has bleeding from its EQ bands (i.e. you change one range but it also impacts another).

You rather I let it go and have people think a) they can eq the midrange and hear changes in high frequencies and b) think that is what auditory masking is?


----------



## bigshot

just hush


----------



## b0ck3n

amirm said:


> Oh I fully accept that he heard what he is saying.  I am objecting to him saying it is a manifestation of auditory masking as opposed to much simpler explanation of an EQ which has bleeding from its EQ bands (i.e. you change one range but it also impacts another).
> 
> You rather I let it go and have people think a) they can eq the midrange and hear changes in high frequencies and b) think that is what auditory masking is?



I wouldnt hold it against you if you do let go. Youve given your explanation of what you think happened and everyone is allowed to believe either theory, or come up with their own, until someone comes along and proves whatever (which isnt happening). 

Im not picking sides, im just saying that for the good of further discussion and sharing we let this dead horse lie.


----------



## HotIce

amirm said:


> It wasn't just a subjective experience.  It was the claim that it was a solid example of auditory masking:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a myth and egregious error in the making that due to "auditory masking" you can barely change the mid-range frequencies and have the upper range of cymbals change.  Yes he heard what he heard. But he is jumping to a conclusion that is absolutely not supported by any science or we would have the references by now.  The reference to masking went on and on when I was not even part of the conversation and it was clear that it was an attempt to make it a fact.



What is the proof of that being a myth and an egregious error? I think that part is missing here.
While his statement "barely change" does not give enough information about how much were actually changed, I am actually not too surprised with his statement.
Being mid frequencies the ones that our ears are more sensible to (that is, they tend to saturate it more), I can see that toning them down would bring higher frequencies forward.
Another part missing from his statement was how high the affected frequencies were, and how much.
These quantities were framed in words, but you certainly cannot claim myth or egregious error based on his statements.
And claiming myth without being able to provide proofs, does not seem the proper approach to me.
Your way of asking for more information was also somewhat confrontational IMO, which I think might have been the cause that triggered this drama.


----------



## amirm

HotIce said:


> What is the proof of that being a myth and an egregious error? I think that part is missing here.


It is a myth and egregious error to say that the experiment was *an example of auditory masking (see highlighted part you quoted from me). * I have explained and shown research based data that says auditory bandwidth (ERB) is only a few hundred hertz at mid-frequencies and as such, it cannot in any way explain high frequency changes.

As suggested, let's move on.  My apologies to members for causing this latest detour.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 31, 2018)

I've described the demonstration as fully as I can. I wasn't the one doing the experiment. It was just being shown to me by a professional sound mixer on his own reference rig with his own recording. I have no reason to think he was deliberately lying to me or that the equipment was faulty. It is what it is. I witnessed it. I can't explain it in any more detail than how it was explained to me, and I'm not motivated to dig any deeper on this subject right now. It would just feed the monster at this point.

There's stuff that preceded this discussion b0ck3n that I guess you're unaware of. No reason to go backwards. Water under the bridge. In any case, Prog Rock Man's original post is a fantastic resource. That's what should be discussed.

Apology accepted, Amirm


----------



## castleofargh

Whazzzup said:


> I have long given up on sound science


this forum section is only as good as the content posted in it, if you think you have better to say, do it. if you think somebody is wrong, explain why. and if more people do that, the section might serve its purpose. just complaining about what doesn't work is not going to fix it.
right now this section is like a private chat for a handful of people, it's obviously not ideal, but maybe if it wasn't always only the same handful of people answering questions, Sound Science wouldn't look like this. it's the same with Introductions, Help and Recommendation. always the same 5 or so doing most of the job and wasting their free time to try to help others. so of course their opinion is shaping the entire section and we end up with recurrent suggestions you and I might not agree with. that's when we're supposed to do something about it that's a little more productive than complaining.
having sections will always push people into their own respective boxes, it's not like all the appreciation topics were a model of behavior and facts. there too it's usually the same handful of guys speaking about the same stuff in a loop. and there too, most of the time it's because they're the ones willing to answer questions(correctly or not^_^). the only difference in here is that thinking we know, isn't considered a fact by others. it creates more conflicts, but also hopefully results in lower gullibility.

right here and now we have procedural argument leading nowhere because nobody has the means to reproduce precisely the specific event. so quite the waste of time. also personal baggage is muddying the water(so much for avoiding personal attacks). obviously the right approach right now is to






and if somebody gets some equivalent experience someday, please share it and the track used so that those interested can experiment.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jan 31, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> and if somebody gets some equivalent experience someday, please share it and the track used so that those interested can experiment.



Although I don't have a directly comparable anecdote, it occurred to me that maybe the engineer had a compressor in the signal path?  When you have compressor after the EQ, it actually does affect all other frequencies, by way of lowering everything you're not increasing. This could exaggerate any masking effect that might be in play.  Also, to be fair, we don't have any real Hz values for what was being changed, so I think masking is still a plausible mechanism for the experience described.  Can't rule it out from where I am sitting anyway.

I did have an experience recently where adding +3-5dB @ ~2700hz or so on a certain pair of headphones would make the vocal range (500-1000hz) sound weird and thin on Gimme the Loot (or it might have been Everyday Struggle) by Notorious BIG, if anyone wants to try that out.  But it wasn't anything like a magic trick where part of the mix actually disappeared.  It just had a counter-intuitive effect where adjusting something over an octave away sounded distinctly like it was removing energy from other parts of the mix.

I have an idea for another song that might create a real masking effect (because the mix is already kind of bad) and I'll report back if I can create a reproducible test.


----------



## HotIce

amirm said:


> It is a myth and egregious error to say that the experiment was *an example of auditory masking (see highlighted part you quoted from me). * I have explained and shown research based data that says auditory bandwidth (ERB) is only a few hundred hertz at mid-frequencies and as such, it cannot in any way explain high frequency changes.
> 
> As suggested, let's move on.  My apologies to members for causing this latest detour.



I think we should be able to continue the conversation with tones tuned down 

Still, we have to remember that testing with real music is different from the way masking is usually tested.
The latter involves playing the masking tone (1 single frequency - at a specific amplitude) and then for every testing frequency (1 single frequency) gradually increase the magnitude until the subject under test can pick it up.
So you have two single tones coming into play.

Real music contains much more frequencies, and a normal EQ is not suppressing a single frequency.
So if you EQ -6dB the mid range, the real masking effect is the combined -6dB effect on all the frequencies which, for that track, lies within that range.
IOW, saying "see, a -6dB on a laboratory tested masking test did not show any measurable effect at a given higher frequency", might not reflect reality when real music and EQs come into play.


----------



## KeithEmo

To me this sounds like a reasonable explanation.... and your description of how masking is defined and measured raises an interesting point....
When masking is normally measured, the measurement is essentially: "At what level will frequency A totally mask frequency B, at some specified level, so you can no longer hear it."
Therefore, I agree that, from the original description, I don't think we're technically talking about "just pure tonal masking".

HOWEVER, the sound cymbals make is quite similar to white noise that's been band limited - but to a relatively wide band.
Now, if I were to play pure white noise, and then add a single tone near or slightly below the range of frequencies involved, frequencies near that tone would be at least partially masked.
They might not "disappear" entirely, but their perceived level would be reduced by the degree to which the added tone partially masked them. 
(Note that, in reality, masking is not "an all or nothing proposition"; one tone may partially mask another, and so make it sound as if it's level was reduced.)

Now, if my new tone partially masks a range of frequencies in my white noise sample, the perceived effect will be the same as if the level of those frequencies had been reduced.
And, as a result, the OVERALL PERCEIVED TONAL BALANCE of the white noise would be altered.

Given that it seems widely agreed that cymbals are "difficult to record well" and, in some recordings, "may tend to get lost in the mix".....
It seems reasonable to suspect that, in some cases, altering the perceived tonal balance of the whole recording might make the cymbals seem to disappear.
(If you have a recording where the cymbals are already not very prominent, then even a slight alteration in tonal balance, either by an EQ or by your speakers, might tip the balance.)

I don't know if this is what's happening....
But it certainly seems like a viable THEORY to explain what bigshot says he heard.  


HotIce said:


> I think we should be able to continue the conversation with tones tuned down
> 
> Still, we have to remember that testing with real music is different from the way masking is usually tested.
> The latter involves playing the masking tone (1 single frequency - at a specific amplitude) and then for every testing frequency (1 single frequency) gradually increase the magnitude until the subject under test can pick it up.
> ...


----------



## bigshot

I'm not interested in going any further with this because it shifted from a discussion about response imbalances into an excuse to axe grind on me. But for those who are actually interested, I can only tell you what I heard and how it was explained to me. I  didn't fully understand what he was saying, so I'm going on my memory of what was demonstrated...

The sample played back was a large cymbal being hit several times in a loop on a CD player. I was standing directly in front of his prototype full range speaker. It was quite loud. My friend adjusted something on the equalizer and there was a slight change in overall sound, but the harmonics at the top of the cymbal ring totally disappeared. He asked me what I heard. I said it sounded like a high end roll off. He wiggled the pot (or pots? upper mids? lower high end? I dunno) that he had changed and it was clearly in a lower range than the sound I had heard disappear. I was told that the "masking" frequency (or frequencies? perhaps two) were at even (octaves? harmonics?) below the frequency being masked. Perhaps he was using the term "masked" loosely. I don't know, it was a casual conversation. His overall point was that imbalances in frequency response can affect more than just the frequency where the imbalance is. It can affect how we hear (octaves? harmonics?) above as well. He went on to explain that narrow spikes in the response in the upper range like the ones he had just demonstrated with can be barely perceptible, but at loud volumes, like in a concert setting, they can cut into your ear like a knife, causing your ears to ring for hours afterwards. He said that if there are no spikes like that in the response, volumes can be louder without inflicting pain on the audience and the high end sounds better too. He said that the acoustic of the venue is what it is. He wasn't taking that into account with the tests he was doing at that time, because every venue is different. He was trying to find a way to quickly and accurately guarantee that the output from his speakers was balanced first.

I don't know what kind of cymbal it was. I don't know what equipment was being used. I don't know what frequency or frequencies he was adjusting. This is all I know.


----------



## Strangelove424

gregorio said:


> True but that's generally an issue of tonal balance. For example, boosting bass below a certain frequency is perceptually pretty much the same as cutting treble above that frequency provided the loudness is maintained. So boosting or cutting frequencies outside the treble freqs is likely to affect the perception of the treble and any pro sound engineer would know this. However, we're talking about a somewhat different phenomena, not tonal balance per se but clarity and masking, although it's entirely possible that tonal balance maybe a contributory factor.



Thanks for the incisive run down. It seems to me then this argument has spiraled way out of proportion in the viciousness of its tone. Amirm was questioning Bigshot’s conclusion, not his perceptions. But he launched his attack in some very personal ways that undermined not only his own argument, but appeared to question the honesty of Bigshot’s observations, rather than the validity of his conclusions. As Bigshot just mentioned, I think there was some personal axe grinding going on, hence the level of hostility and duration of attack. 

In my fantasy Sound Science parallel universe, Amirm would have said something such as: "Say, Bigshot, are you sure it was auditory masking and not just tonal perception? How can you be sure?" Then, like the big happy Leave-It-To-Beaver family we are, we would have gone on to have an interesting discussion on auditory masking vs. tonal perception, and how band interaction can cause changes of perceived frequency balance in a variety of strange and fascinating ways. 

But there's still time for that.


----------



## Strangelove424

castleofargh said:


> this forum section is only as good as the content posted in it, if you think you have better to say, do it. if you think somebody is wrong, explain why. and if more people do that, the section might serve its purpose. just complaining about what doesn't work is not going to fix it.
> right now this section is like a private chat for a handful of people, it's obviously not ideal, but maybe if it wasn't always only the same handful of people answering questions, Sound Science wouldn't look like this. it's the same with Introductions, Help and Recommendation. always the same 5 or so doing most of the job and wasting their free time to try to help others. so of course their opinion is shaping the entire section and we end up with recurrent suggestions you and I might not agree with. that's when we're supposed to do something about it that's a little more productive than complaining.
> having sections will always push people into their own respective boxes, it's not like all the appreciation topics were a model of behavior and facts. there too it's usually the same handful of guys speaking about the same stuff in a loop. and there too, most of the time it's because they're the ones willing to answer questions(correctly or not^_^). the only difference in here is that thinking we know, isn't considered a fact by others. it creates more conflicts, but also hopefully results in lower gullibility.



For the most part I very much agree with what you said. We could use more interaction from level headed folks, and "just complaining about what doesn't work is not going to fix it" indeed. The more, the merrier. But the small handful we have do a good job of putting out rounded and eclectic opinions. I do not think that anyone asking questions here is getting a tunnel vision response, despite having only "5 or so" regulars, which itself is a bit of an exaggeration. We have different opinions ranging from content creators to engineers, and we don't see things exactly the same... all the better. I don't think we're wasting our time either. Some people have gotten genuine help, but you don't hear from them because they take the guidance and quietly go enjoy music with it, as they should. Getting those people to return for the sake of interaction would be beneficial for the forum as a whole. And to do that, a friendlier environment should be nurtured. A healthy forum, to a certain degree, does actually need to look a bit like a private chat room occupied by human beings in order for other human beings to get interested. We shouldn't be coldly robotic, or foster an environment of toxicity in here.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 31, 2018)

I think it also helps to focus on the practical application of the science rather than to descend so deep into theory that only three members understand what's going on any more. People want to know how to make good purchasing decisions and how to improve the sound of their systems. They don't necessarily need to know every little exception to info that doesn't relate to sound recording and playback. An example of that was the guy with a humble a/v system in his bachelor apartment. It started with a simple question about acoustic panels and ended up bogged down with stuff that became more and more esoteric and irrelevant as time went by.


----------



## KeithEmo (Feb 1, 2018)

I have to admit that I'm of two minds on this issue.

On the one side of it, I agree that a lot of people need "just the basic facts". They need to know the information that they're likely to have an immediate use for... like which pair of headphones is more accurate... or which one they'll like better... or even how to decide exactly what that means. However, as someone with a science and engineering background, I also believe that getting the details, and understanding the details, is an important part of getting the real benefit from that knowledge. Sometimes it really does help to understand the details and why things happen - in full detail. Specifically, when it comes to audio, where we get into so many "subjectivist vs objectivist arguments", sometimes it really does help to sort things out if you _DO_ know the theory in some depth. And, in some cases, unless you have some depth, you are not really going to be able to make informed decisions.... or to evaluate things like claims.... and whether other people's opinions ore "useful" or "valid" . (And, often, the lack of that depth of knowledge is what leads to these vitriolic arguments about the theory and the facts.)

I'm going to pick an example.... which is near and dear to everyone's heart here....
Question: "Do audio interconnects really sound different?"

The "subjectivists" will, of course, insist that: "interconnects sound very different".
And, of course, the "objectivists" will insist that: "it's all snake oil; wire is wire; and interconnects can't possibly sound different".
And, in the context of this discussion, the simplest and probably "best quick answer" for many newbies would be: "interconnects shouldn't sound any different; most expensive interconnects are snake oil; so it's silly to buy expensive wires hoping they'll make your system sound better".

However, then we run into the subjectivist who just insists that _HE_ upgraded his wires and heard a real difference....
At which point, the folks on the "cables are fun forum" welcome him with open arms... and proceed to discuss the exact flavor, texture, scent, and probably the color of the psychic aura of what he thinks he heard.....
While the people here castigate him for being such a gullible idiot that he imagines he's hearing things that can't possibly be there, and so it must clearly be due to some sort of bias.....
(And, in fact, a few of them seem deeply offended that someone would even dare to suggest such an absurd notion.)

Well, the reality is that _YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY SORT OUT ALL OF THE CLAIMS UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND ALL THE FACTS_....
The full and proper engineering answer would be: "Assuming you're connecting two well-designed modern pieces of equipment, and talking about reasonably well designed interconnects, then interconnects should all sound the same".
And, yes, I phrased that very carefully, and there are subtleties involved.

For example, we're talking about more or less modern equipment, and more or less standard equipment (and wires).
If you're looking at competently designed modern consumer equipment than that statement is true (even minus some of the picky qualifications).
However, if you look at mid-priced consumer preamps from the days when tubes were current technology, it's entirely wrong. 
Many tube preamps, especially inexpensive ones, have an output impedance of 100k Ohms or higher, and they absolutely _WILL_ sound different if you switch between interconnects with slightly different amounts of capacitance.
(Don't worry; the difference will also be easily measurable... and significant.)
And many modern interconnects do have quite different amounts of capacitance - because it shouldn't matter with modern equipment (which pretty well all has a much lower output impedance).
And it also probably won't matter with a high-priced tube preamp, which probably has a cathode follow or similar output buffer, so it also has a lower output impedance.
So, _IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TYPICAL VINTAGE TUBE PREAMPS_, different interconnects may actually sound quite different.
So.... my point... (for those of you who had the attention span to read this far) is that.....

Yes, the proper "short answer", for the guy who is in too much of a hurry to listen to the details, is: "Interconnects shouldn't sound different, and most of the claims made for the expensive ones are just bunk, so you shouldn't waste your money on them"...
_HOWEVER_, if the guy who does own a 1950's vintage Fisher tube preamp says he hears a difference, it's quite possible he _MIGHT_ actually be right...
Likewise, the guy who swears he hears a difference with his new Whooeee Fazoooie preamp, whose designers followed a vintage design instead of modern best practices, just might be right too...
When you actually _UNDERSTAND_ the science, you can understand why buying fancy interconnects is a waste of time and money, but not _ALL_ stories about interconnects sounding different are necessarily untrue.

And, as far as I'm concerned, and most real scientists agree, the whole point of science, is in understanding those details... and I believe that applies to a forum entitled "understanding audiophile claims and myths".
I believe that some people come here because they _DO_ want the full explanation.
(And I don't think all of them really want the discussion limited to the level of sixth-grade pop science.)

So, the next time someone asks whether they should buy those expensive interconnects, by all means tell them that "the facts, as revealed by science, indicate it's not a good idea"....
But also remember that you are stating a _GENERALIZATION_... and not the words of some God... written in stone... and beyond any possible dispute (or exception).

And, for anyone who wants to pop up and challenge my statement (about interconnects).....
And really would like to claim that "interconnects ALWAYS sound the same with _EVERY_ piece of equipment"......
Send me the schematic of your favorite preamp and I'll tell you how to modify it so it _DOES_ sound quite different with different interconnects (it will take about $2 worth of parts).



bigshot said:


> I think it also helps to focus on the practical application of the science rather than to descend so deep into theory that only three members understand what's going on any more. People want to know how to make good purchasing decisions and how to improve the sound of their systems. They don't necessarily need to know every little exception to info that doesn't relate to sound recording and playback. An example of that was the guy with a humble a/v system in his bachelor apartment. It started with a simple question about acoustic panels and ended up bogged down with stuff that became more and more esoteric and irrelevant as time went by.


----------



## HotIce

A resistor for $2? That must be an expensive one!


----------



## gregorio (Feb 1, 2018)

HotIce said:


> Still, we have to remember that testing with real music is different from the way masking is usually tested.





Strangelove424 said:


> Then, like the big happy Leave-It-To-Beaver family we are, we would have gone on to have an interesting discussion on auditory masking vs. tonal perception, and how band interaction can cause changes of perceived frequency balance in a variety of strange and fascinating ways.
> But there's still time for that.



One of the main things which has kept me so fascinated in my job for so long is the unique blend of art, science and technology. Furthermore, it's a unique rabbit hole of surprising interwoven complexity. For example, just taking music on it's own (and forgetting the science/technology of recording, mixing, etc.), there is an incredible amount going on "under the hood" which was not intended to be known/understood by listeners but which was well understood at a technical/theoretical level by those who created it.

Let me give an example: Music exploded into complexity when one line (melody/voice) was played/sung at the same time as another, there are complex interactions between each of the lines causing dissonances, consonances, tensions and resolutions. Then adding more lines/voices, typically 3 but sometimes 6 or even up to 12, multiplied that complexity and allowed all kinds of polyphonic interactions, harmonic implications and a whole bunch of structures, tools and numerous sub-divisions of each, each with it's own set of rules. For example "Cadences" are a compositional tool for ending a piece of music or separating sections, there are: Perfect, imperfect, and plagal cadences, sub-divisions such as the Lydian, Phrygian and Burgundian types of imperfect cadences, further variations of those, such as the Landini Cadence and then special case cadences such as the Upper Leading Note Cadence and the Tierce de Picardie. This is just one of numerous tools (suspensions, ornamentations, contrary motion, et al), then there are countless rules and regulations for all the different forms and structures and in addition, various mathematical solutions/models designed to solve problems of certain intervallic relationships with multi-line polyphony, the instability of the 3rd and 6th for example. Anyone still following me, does all this sound a bit complicated? It is complicated, very complicated! I spent months studying this stuff full time at music conservertoire and only got a little way beyond scratching the surface. On the other hand, EVERYTHING I've said so far in this paragraph describes the common knowledge/"state of play" of music composition as it was roughly about the mid 1500s!! Just to be clear, this isn't a modern technical analysis of what composers were doing unwittingly, just by intuition, this level of technical and theoretical understanding was documented, translated, disseminated and widely known throughout Europe by composers at the time (Zarlino, et al). And, as complex as all this had become by the mid 1500s, it still only represents little more than the starting point in the history/evolution of western music. There's a lot more going on "under the hood" than most could even imagine!

After 15 years of hard study and then being a professional classical musician, imagine my shock at discovering that none of it actually exists! Music, all of it, is just a perception, it exists only in our brain, take our brain out of the equation and there is no music, only noise. The problem I see so often on boards such as head-fi is caused by a polemical (or extremely polemical) understanding of what's going on under the hood, the hood not only of music but also of recording/mixing/production and of commercial audio in general. Nowhere is this typified more than in the categorisations of "subjectivists" and "objectivists" and there are extremists in both camps. Extreme subjectivists can happily dismiss even the most obvious, accepted facts/science and extreme objectivists can happily dismiss any fact or even the very existence of something if it hasn't been scientifically researched and published in a book/peer reviewed journal. This extremist objectivist approach is perfectly appropriate in scientific fields, such as chemistry, physics, maths, medicine, etc., but not appropriate for artistic fields. In artistic fields it's the practitioners who lead the way not the scientists (!) and in these fields the facts are often not published (for commercial or personal reasons), instead they are "passed along", deduced or interpreted. The difficulty for everyone who isn't an extremist is knowing when science is applicable and, when it isn't!!

G


----------



## bigshot (Feb 1, 2018)

Lately things have gone into long circular arguments with the same things being repeated over and over with slight variations in wording. Post after post of more of the same. No one is really required to reply if they've already answered that question before. And replying to every point in each and every post just encourages the people who are in love with their own words to post again... and again... and again...

To add to your point, Gregorio... People who aren't artists often have the misconception that creativity is some magical thing that defies objective analysis. They say "It's all taste and everybody is different." That isn't true. Creativity is a decision making process. You're building something... a painting, a recording, a sculpture... according to a defined set of aesthetic rules. It's possible to have a criterion for judging and compare one piece of art to another critically. One can appreciate how well a work of arts works on its own terms without it conforming to one's personal criteria. Objectivity and knowledge help you do that. Technique and aesthetics are wrapped around each other. You can't fully understand one without understanding the other.

It's always good to be able to look at things objectively from a position of knowledge and understanding... even art.


----------



## b0ck3n (Feb 1, 2018)

bigshot said:


> It's always good to be able to look at things objectively from a position of knowledge and understanding... even art.



It is also entirely possible to discern objectively what appeals to a person subjectively, in case someone would attempt to dumb it down to taste.

Edit: that said, not everyone needs an explanation as to why things are to accept that they are.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I have to admit that I'm of two minds on this issue.
> 
> On the one side of it, I agree that a lot of people need "just the basic facts". They need to know the information that they're likely to have an immediate use for... like which pair of headphones is more accurate... or which one they'll like better... or even how to decide exactly what that means. However, as someone with a science and engineering background, I also believe that getting the details, and understanding the details, is an important part of getting the real benefit from that knowledge. Sometimes it really does help to understand the details and why things happen - in full detail. Specifically, when it comes to audio, where we get into so many "subjectivist vs objectivist arguments", sometimes it really does help to sort things out if you _DO_ know the theory in some depth. And, in some cases, unless you have some depth, you are not really going to be able to make informed decisions.... or to evaluate things like claims.... and whether other people's opinions ore "useful" or "valid" . (And, often, the lack of that depth of knowledge is what leads to these vitriolic arguments about the theory and the facts.)
> 
> ...




I really like this post. Because it adressess real world equipment found in the field.

The reason being that Science Guys on this and similar threads are generally so prone to generalizations that they possibly can not see the smallest distance from their nose measurable today - with strictly CD  as the source and dynamic headphones/speakers as the final transducer of choice. OK, in such a simplistic case I agree that cable differences - audible ones - are minor or do not exist at all. Particularly not over bandwidth limited to 20 kHz - or just above that figure.

Try "one cable fits all/does not matter one bit" in a bit more specific and challenging environment - and above assumption gets busted to smitherins. NO, all cables do not sound alike, NO they do not perform equally and, YES, they DO sound differently under some real world circumstances. The most specific examples of "(in)/properly designed equipment" that can not be made so that cable will not AUDIBLY influence the performance ( which can be measured by any decent engineer and shown to deviate from the desired goal, as well as from cable to cable ) are moving magnet phono cartridges and any electrostatic speaker - and, particularly - electrostatic headphones. Both of these transducers have reactive impedance(s), FAR removed from simple ohmic nature of most CD players/DACs and dynamic speakers/headphones.

There are uses for different cables - supported by science, if properly applied - and such cables are NOT snake oil. And they absolutely need not to be expensive any more than necessary. However, one can not expect a custom cable ( because there REALLY is no off-the-shelf available cable offereing the same performance) that has to be custom ordered and usually produced in a minimum quantity for which the cable manufacturer is (at a price... ) willing to make/change tooling in order to produce the desired cable - to cost the same amount per foot as something the same manufacturer has been churning out in large quantities for ages. One such example is cable for electrostatic headphones - anything readily available is either mechanically too stiff, and/or does not provide sufficient insulation for safe operation with voltages required, and/or has just plain too much capacitance. 

Try today to source a low capacitance coax for turntable - next to Mission Impossible. But, in the past, there were such - exotic today - coaxes with 80 pF per metre and half; that is to say below 60 pF/m, something I can only dream about obtaining today. For the last batch of Technics SL-1200MKV, some 10 or so years ago, Matsushita ran out of cable they have been using since day one - and used a visually almost indistingushable coax cable for audio output. The "only" problem was increase of the capacitance - to up to well over 400 pF. This rendered the turntable unusable - audibly so - with most moving magnet cartridges on the market today - including Technics' own. 


I have cited two of the most obvious exceptions regarding inproper generalizations on cables. There are other, less critical applications for cables, which can also result in an audible difference.

For the reasons of impedance problems of tube gear cited, the solution has been found decades ago. The only way to drive a power amp by tube preamp is trough NO cable ( and its dreadful 100 or so pF of capacitance ) > integrated amplifier. Unless one wants to resort to cathode followers & other buffers, which according to purists affect the sound negatively. Listening to any tube integrated amp from the likes of Jean Hiraga and his "school" makes it awfully hard to disagree.

One of my preamps is ( modified, of course ) Technics SU-A60. Its output impedance is 4 ( in words : four ) ohms and it can drive any amount of interconnect cable to power amp - allowing far longer cable runs than can be used in domestic setting, without audible difference. I forgot where the - 3dB rolloff measured with a signal generator and oscilloscope is, even using 25 metres ( roughly 3000 pF) of cable - lower than with strictly ohmic load, but definitely not affecting the amplitude response below 100 kHz .

It is amusing but not funny - a cable specified as  say C117 can have one hell of a lot difference in electrical properties ( particularly coming from different manufacturers ). They look (almost) the same, they cost (almost) the same - but can have capacitance more than three times different from make to make. For the same length of cable to allow for the same above mentioned performance, a 1 1/3 ohm instead of 4 ohm output impedance preamp would be required - necessitating another, MUCH more costly preamp. 

Now, 25 m interconnect runs between pre and power amp are rare; then again, so are preamps with output impedance of 4 ohm or even less. 
With "normal" preamps and a interconnect run of 5 m and "C117" cable from brand A and Brand B differeing in capacitance by a factor of 3 there IS possible to affect the performance for the difference between the two "identical" cables to be audible. 

Please adjust the output imedance value of the "normal" preamp(DAC/whatever) to whatever value will affect the response to the level of difference YOU find audible .  The output impedance value(s) should be in the range found in "average spread" of the equipment in the field in use today.


----------



## b0ck3n (Feb 1, 2018)

I want to pose a question to you guys (as an alternative to continuing previous tedious discussion or getting into cables again): given that all variables are equal - direction of sound, all manner of distortion below audible levels, the exact same frequency response - will two different types of drivers be indistinguishable? Does anyone know of a blind test to support or disprove this?


----------



## castleofargh

b0ck3n said:


> It is also entirely possible to discern objectively what appeals to a person subjectively, in case someone would attempt to dumb it down to taste.
> 
> Edit: that said, not everyone needs an explanation as to why things are to accept that they are.


one person determines his/her own level of requirement to create a belief. it's when he/she/helicopter comes forcing those beliefs as factual onto the rest of the society that we have a problem. and TBH the answer to that issue isn't to have everybody show their doctorate on a topic before being allowed to post. the answer is much more obvious: when we don't have a clue about a topic, we shouldn't claim stuff.
we can express clear personal opinions, express doubt, suggest ideas. a lot of options really for the ones willing to participate. what we don't need is having audiophiles behaving like they're that drunk guy at the pub with the answer to fracking everything. I can tell for sure that if most claims weren't empty claims from outer space, I wouldn't have turned out to be so openly skeptical about everything on audio forums.




b0ck3n said:


> I want to pose a question to you guys (as an alternative to continuing previous tedious discussion or getting into cables again): given that all variables are equal - direction of sound, all manner of distortion below audible levels, the exact same frequency respone - will two different types of drivers be indistinguishable? Does anyone know of a blind test to support or disprove this?


I'm afraid that's one of those "who would win, Vegeta or Harry Potter?"  you're suggesting a situation that we can't test because it most likely cannot exist. we'll never get 2 different types of drivers giving the same measurable variables. but if you're asking if the same sound sounds the same, then I'm fairly confident the answer is yes ^_^.


----------



## b0ck3n (Feb 1, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> I'm afraid that's one of those "who would win, Vegeta or Harry Potter?"  you're suggesting a situation that we can't test because it most likely cannot exist. we'll never get 2 different types of drivers giving the same measurable variables. but if you're asking if the same sound sounds the same, then I'm fairly confident the answer is yes ^_^.



I want to establish a floor after which all improvements, regardless of how esoteric the measures taken to achieve them, are pointless. That would save alot of people alot of money (although, expensive placebo sounds way better than cheap placebo). I agree it's pointless to argue that same is same, so does anyone instead have an opinion on where that floor is?


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Feb 1, 2018)

b0ck3n said:


> I want to establish a floor after which all improvements, regardless of how esoteric the measures taken to achieve them, are pointless. That would save alot of people alot of money (although, expensive placebo sounds way better than cheap placebo). I agree it's pointless to argue that same is same, so does anyone instead have an opinion on where that floor is?



I think there are two ways to look at this.

One "endgame" for audio technology is being able to exactly reproduce a 3D field of sound in another space. Like a star-trek teleporter for audible information.  I imagine this would be accomplished with an effectively infinite array of microphones on one end, and an infinite array of transducers on the other, or fancy technology which transparently approximates them. The end result is you can walk around in your room and hear precisely what it was like in the recording studio, with all acoustic imperfections compensated for.

It's probably not productive to compare our pitiful technology to theoretically perfect gear.  So it's probably more useful to talk about just two "practically perfect" channels at a time.  I'd personally define that as - the system in question reproduces the original waveform stored in the recording with zero distortion (of any form) that is theoretically audible.  So if the lowest threshold of THD that's detectable by a human in a lab is XYZ% (I don't know this value myself) then this "practically perfect" system would be below that, whether or not you can really hear such distortion in typical music.  Since a perfect system should be perfect regardless of input, we would refer to the maximal / minimal theoretical values when judging the specs.

So I'd say you'd want to be below the audible "in the lab" threshold on:
THD, IMD, phase distortion, Impulse response, frequency response, SNR, directionality ... and I am probably missing quite a few important values here, but that's the gist of my "practically perfect" system.

Bottom line, if you have a channel that performs above / below the threshold at which any human can, under perfect conditions, detect a defect, then it's perfect and no more improvement is worth pursuing.  In other words, you'll never hear any distortion no matter how hard you try, so your quest is at an end.

(note: this is not where most audiophile debates come from.  Usually, it's because they're pursuing "improvements" that actually do nothing, or do so little that the difference is not audible.  So a more informative standard or rule of thumb might be "what is the just-noticeable-difference in a lab setting, for all relevant forms of distortion"? - this allows you to distinguish between "possibly worth it" and "snake oil" improvements.  Knowing what a theoretically perfect speaker is like only helps you know how far off a given piece of gear is.)

This is a bit of a literal-minded approach, but at least at that point you could say improvement is literally impossible.  In practice distortion is a lot harder to hear in real music than lab tests, so a "real world" perfect system would have looser standards.

Maybe we should start a new thread and compile such values for reference?

Now, even if we all had such systems, I think people would still want to play around with EQ and various pleasant forms of distortion, but if you want to talk objective perfection, total fidelity is a good place to start.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 1, 2018)

b0ck3n said:


> I want to establish a floor after which all improvements, regardless of how esoteric the measures taken to achieve them, are pointless. That would save alot of people alot of money (although, expensive placebo sounds way better than cheap placebo). I agree it's pointless to argue that same is same, so does anyone instead have an opinion on where that floor is?



The way to establish that is with basic blind listening tests. I compare every piece of electronics I buy to similar items I already have. So far, every amp, player and DAC all sound the same. I usually buy midrange consumer audio, not high end. For me, midrange is my line. When it comes to transducers, it's a different story, especially speakers. Room acoustics, equalization and quality of transducers always seem to have room for improvement.

The best advice I can give you is to not make random changes in the hopes that things will improve. Before you buy a new piece of equipment, identify the specific weakness in your system that you want to address. Research the best way to fix it. Then buy something and do a blind test to make sure you've fixed your problem. If it doesn't make any difference, return it. If everyone did that, sales of high end components would plummet.



Zapp_Fan said:


> Maybe we should start a new thread and compile such values for reference?



A few years ago I did this ballpark audible thresholds list. I imagine some of the citation links are dead now though.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear.645851/


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> The way to establish that is with basic blind listening tests. I compare every piece of electronics I buy to similar items I already have. So far, every amp, player and DAC all sound the same. I usually buy midrange consumer audio, not high end. For me, midrange is my line. When it comes to transducers, it's a different story, especially speakers. Room acoustics, equalization and quality of transducers always seem to have room for improvement.
> 
> The best advice I can give you is to not make random changes in the hopes that things will improve. Before you buy a new piece of equipment, identify the specific weakness in your system that you want to address. Research the best way to fix it. Then buy something and do a blind test to make sure you've fixed your problem. If it doesn't make any difference, return it. If everyone did that, sales of high end components would plummet.
> 
> ...


Guessing you are buying (used)stuff off the internet...i have dealt with the same dealer for 35 years or so...lets me take it home and try it...think i have returned 3 items in that time period...everything else has been a definate improvement.


----------



## amirm

KeithEmo said:


> Yes, the proper "short answer", for the guy who is in too much of a hurry to listen to the details, is: "Interconnects shouldn't sound different, and most of the claims made for the expensive ones are just bunk, so you shouldn't waste your money on them"...


Good post overall .  I just want to add that it is not always the expensive stuff that is a rip off, but also cheap stuff.  On another forum one of the guys without any technical depth would constantly tell people to buy Monoprice cables.  Then someone post that they went by that recommendation and found their speaker wire to be junk and far worse than the Radio Shack cable which cost a few more dollars.  Folks jumped on his throat saying wire is wire.  I look at the specs for their 12 gauge wire and notice that it is thinner than nominal.  So I decided to test it and a bunch of other 12 gauge speaker cables:  https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/when-12-gauge-wire-is-not-12-gauge.3/

Here are the measurements normalized to Belden cable:







As I suspected the Monoprice cable indeed had higher resistance per foot than Belden, Radio Shack, Canare, etc.

Not expected was the awful performance of generic cable from Fry's Electronics and BestBuy (major electronics retailers in US).

Yes I also tested a coat hanger because it was said that in some test it sounded the same as Monster cable (turned out to be a bit of fish story there).  With its much higher resistance, it would not be hard to create a test where it would change the response of the speaker and become audible.  Although don't ask me to make a 12 foot section of it.  

There is a tendency in us to promote garbage using overly simplified assumptions like "wire is wire."  Without data we could be promoting junk to people that can have audible consequences.  In the rush to sell cheaper and cheaper audio products, there are subpar components to avoid.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> A few years ago I did this ballpark audible thresholds list. I imagine some of the citation links are dead now though.
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear.645851/


In there, I see this:



bigshot said:


> Just Detectable Threshold in Music *20ns*
> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=8354 (needs subscription)
> http://www.nanophon.com/audio/1394_sampling_jitter.pdf (cited in section 2.2)



This is from your second reference:





Do you agree with the highlighted sections?  Also, have you read the first reference in your list (also referenced as [8] above)?


----------



## Strangelove424

Glmoneydawg said:


> Guessing you are buying (used)stuff off the internet...i have dealt with the same dealer for 35 years or so...lets me take it home and try it...think i have returned 3 items in that time period...everything else has been a definate improvement.



Last I heard, Bigshot snagged a pair of new KEFs on sale. But I don't see what's wrong with used speakers. I think that's actually the best place to find bang for the buck.


----------



## Strangelove424 (Feb 1, 2018)

amirm said:


> Here are the measurements normalized to Belden cable:



Those are comparisons. Cable measurements are in ohms/ft. Your lack of hard numbers makes it impossible to tell if the deviation is within an audible range, or what the effective difference may even be.

To present a different source of observations and actual hard measurements:

https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-speaker-cable/

AmazonBasics (16 AWG): 0.019 ohms, 15 pF

Monoprice 2748 (14 AWG): 0.011 ohms, 19 pF

RCA AH1450SR (14 AWG): 0.013 ohms, 22 pF

Pyle PSC1250 (12 AWG): 0.015 ohms, 21 pF

Monoprice 2747 (12 AWG): 0.010 ohms, 16 pF

Seems pretty competitive to me.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 1, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> Guessing you are buying (used)stuff off the internet.



Nope. I order most things from Amazon. They give me a 30 day return window. They even pay return shipping.



amirm said:


> In there, I see this



Note "with music". We listen to music, not worst case test tones. I can't tell the context of your second yellow highlighter. 24kHz? Who can hear that in music? A lot of people can't even hear the 17kHz worst case test tone.



Strangelove424 said:


> Last I heard, Bigshot snagged a pair of new KEFs on sale. But I don't see what's wrong with used speakers. I think that's actually the best place to find bang for the buck.



Damn straight! There were some great speakers made in the 70s before the cheap Chinese speakers flooded the market. If you frequent the Goodwill and take a chance, you can get some great sound for under $50. But you have to know what you're looking for.


----------



## amirm

Strangelove424 said:


> Those are comparisons. Cable measurements are in ohms/ft. Your lack of hard numbers makes it impossible to tell if the deviation is within an audible range, or what the effective difference may even be.
> 
> To present a different source of observations and actual hard measurements:
> 
> ...


You didn't click on the link I provided???  Here are the "hard" numbers:






As to you see measured results are worse for Monoprice but better for Belden and such.  And it is much more extensive and detailed than what is in your link.  

There is also no "control" in the other link.  I specifically tested Belden because that is the industry gold standard.  That way, if there are measurements errors, we would see it.  And at any rate, relative data to Belden cable remains correct even if the specific measurements have errors in them.

As to audibility, research allows us to determine that.  Do you know how before I explain?


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> Note "with music". We listen to music, not worst case test tones. I can't tell the context of your second yellow highlighter. 24kHz? Who can hear that in music? A lot of people can't even hear the 17kHz worst case test tone.


It is your reference, not mine, that you are complaining about.  Why did you reference that article if you disagree with the main point you wanted the reader to read(section 2.2)???

Here is the thing about masking: it is content dependent.  Since music can span infinite variations, you can't count on masking to always bail you out.

Do you know how many music samples were tested in reference [8] which you wanted people to read?


----------



## SilverEars (Feb 2, 2018)

amirm said:


> You didn't click on the link I provided???  Here are the "hard" numbers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting.  1 to 5 ohms per foot off of 12 awg?  Am I reading this right?  That's a lot.  Nice, you included coat hanger as well. LOL.

Thanks for going through the effort of actually measuring the cables and providing the results.

Explanation as to the cause of the differences in resistance?


----------



## amirm

SilverEars said:


> Interesting. 1 to 5 ohms per foot off of 12 awg?


Sorry those are all in milliohms (1/1000 of an ohm).  I need to update that table label.


----------



## amirm

SilverEars said:


> Explanation as to the cause of the differences in resistance?


In some cases they are thinner than they should be.  In other cases where the resistance is very high, it is thought that they are copper coated aluminum.  Or copper with very high impurity.  Hard to really know without analyzing the composition and knowing more about metallurgy than I do.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 2, 2018)

amirm said:


> It is your reference, not mine, that you are complaining about.  Why did you reference that article if you disagree with the main point you wanted the reader to read(section 2.2)??? Here is the thing about masking....



I'm not complaining about anything. It says that the JDD with music is 20ns. You just didn't highlight that part. Honestly, I don't know what's wrong with you. You're intent on mad dogging me. Go take a walk in the sunshine. Castle, can you do anything to help here?


----------



## castleofargh

b0ck3n said:


> I want to establish a floor after which all improvements, regardless of how esoteric the measures taken to achieve them, are pointless. That would save alot of people alot of money (although, expensive placebo sounds way better than cheap placebo). I agree it's pointless to argue that same is same, so does anyone instead have an opinion on where that floor is?


with transducers, it's likely that none are fully transparent. so there might not be such a thing as pointless improvement just yet from an objective point of view. but that's only because transducers are by far the worst part of a typical playback chain. with something like DACs, it's really not too hard to fail a blind test between 2 different models once level matched.
personally I assume that when things are kept below about -70dB for most variables, then I will fail to notice them in music under my usual listening conditions, or at the very least, what I could notice will not matter to me. but part of this is directly linked to the fact that I listen to music quietly in a never silent environment.




SilverEars said:


> Interesting.  1 to 5 ohms per foot off of 12 awg?  Am I reading this right?  That's a lot.  Nice, you included coat hanger as well. LOL.
> 
> Thanks for going through the effort of actually measuring the cables and providing the results.
> 
> Explanation as to the cause of the differences in resistance?


if you also consider the plugs, it's fairly easy to extra mess up the expected specs. cut half the wire while removing the insulator at the end. or use a plug with a soldering part so small and thin, that it doesn't matter how thick your wire was. personally I've been really pissed off at some IEM cables pins on custom IEMs for how they were so thick that any other cable coming after would have lose connection into the now forced female plug. and even if it doesn't lead to the signal cutting off, it certainly could lead to having a less than optimal contact surface. which in turn could increase the impedance. 
I imagine that having the ground running around as a shield would also increase the impedance a little. 



bigshot said:


> I'm not complaining about anything. It says that the JDD with music is 20ns. You just didn't highlight that part. Honestly, I don't know what's wrong with you. You're intent on mad dogging me. Go take a walk in the sunshine. Castle, can you do anything to help here?


what should I do? you guys don't think the same way, and don't care about the same things. this has been made very clear when we discussed audibility. if you don't notice something in your typical usage, you don't care. I'm a little like that too at a personal level. on the other hand, Amirm counts as audible anything that can be made audible no matter the signal and listening conditions. it's not like it's a false definition, just a different context. but of course your respective thresholds will be different and even the way to read papers will make you reach different conclusions. if you don't want to read his reactions to your posts, I would suggest the ignore option that comes up when you click on a name. that will very much reduce your need to interact with him when you don't want to.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Strangelove424 said:


> Last I heard, Bigshot snagged a pair of new KEFs on sale. But I don't see what's wrong with used speakers. I think that's actually the best place to find bang for the buck.[/
> my dealer also has a trade in policy....and i have bought used stuff off him....nothing wrong with used


----------



## SilverEars (Feb 2, 2018)

amirm said:


> Sorry those are all in milliohms (1/1000 of an ohm).  I need to update that table label.


Ok, I thought something was wrong because 12 awg is so damn thick!  I recently had a headphone cable made that was 10 ft, 8 strand, probably 4 strands per channel of thinner cables that was less than an ohm measured(but, close to an ohm).  Hypothetically, if they 4 strand out of 12 awg, it would be so much lower, but less than an ohm for full-sized headphone of more than 50 times in nominal impedance really shouldn't matter.  I would look into amp's output impedance is significant or not.

If it's 1/000 then .0048 ohm is the highest resistance?  Insignificant.  I wouldn't care about deviations from Belden then.  That's magnitudes low that it wouldn't matter in audio.  Speaker input impedance varies from as low as 4 ohms to about 8 ohms(I think I've heard of ones reaches higher)?​


----------



## gregorio (Feb 2, 2018)

b0ck3n said:


> It is also entirely possible to discern objectively what appeals to a person subjectively, in case someone would attempt to dumb it down to taste.



That's effectively what I was explaining in my last post. We have many centuries of music theory and analysis which was already very complex 500 years ago and upon which music creation was based. As all music is a perception, therefore all music theory and analysis is effectively an objective discernment of subjectivity!



Zapp_Fan said:


> One "endgame" for audio technology is being able to exactly reproduce a 3D field of sound in another space. Like a star-trek teleporter for audible information. I imagine this would be accomplished with an effectively infinite array of microphones on one end, and an infinite array of transducers on the other, or fancy technology which transparently approximates them. The end result is you can walk around in your room and hear precisely what it was like in the recording studio, with all acoustic imperfections compensated for.



I don't think that is an "endgame" or if it is, it's an endgame for certain rare/specialist situations, not for music and what happens in a recording studio. That idea of that "endgame" is based on an audiophile belief/myth of what occurs in a recording studio and of how commercial music recordings are made. A belief/myth apparently caused by audiophiles falling for the deliberately created illusion of a real performance occurring in a real space. In actuality, you really wouldn't want to "hear what it was like in the recording studio" and the artists/engineers wouldn't want you to either.



castleofargh said:


> [1] Amirm counts as audible anything that can be made audible no matter the signal and listening conditions. it's not like it's a false definition, just a different context.
> [2] but of course your respective thresholds will be different and even the way to read papers will make you reach different conclusions.
> [3] what should I do?



1. But it is a false definition because it is a different context! The context was made clear, it was music. Bigshot even re-iterated that context.
2. Only if one deliberately changes the context. The audibility thresholds of "worse case single tone audio signals" is inapplicable/irrelevant because the context is not a "worst case single tone audio signal" it's music and the paper was quite clear on the practical evidence discovered as far as music is concerned. @amirm then tries to conflate the two different contexts with the statement "_Since music can span infinite variations ..._" but of all the countless tens of millions of music creations in human history there isn't a single one which consists of only a 24kHz single tone intended to be listened to 120dB above hearing threshold.

3. It appears quite clear to me that amirm is deliberately changing the context and then using science which is inapplicable, irrelevant and/or fallacious (because it's out of context), in order to troll bigshot and anyone else who disagrees/questions him and, that he's doing it continually. We've seen this same tactic several times from amirm across several different threads and it's a tactic which not only derails the thread but in effect both misrepresents the science and misinforms those who may not realise it's not applicable to them. All of which is very much against the ethos and reason why this sub-forum exists and for this reason I think something needs to be done. If it were me, I would warn amirm that he is using science which is out of context and inapplicable (and therefore effectively off-topic) to badger another member and unless he can provide reasonable evidence that his argument is applicable then he should desist from that line of argument or have his ability to post to the thread revoked, which would be a shame because he does post other contributions which are valuable/useful/applicable. Of course, it's not up to me though, you're the mod and you have the difficult task of deciding where the line is and when it's in the best interests, of the thread and everyone reading it, to step in.

G


----------



## bigshot (Feb 2, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> what should I do?



All right. Just giving you a chance in case you had an idea. I can deal with it myself. Just wanted to throw up a flag before I start.



gregorio said:


> It appears quite clear to me that amirm is deliberately changing the context and then using science which is inapplicable, irrelevant and/or fallacious (because it's out of context), in order to troll bigshot and anyone else who disagrees/questions him and, that he's doing it continually.



I doubt that this has anything at all with disagreements. I'm sure in principle, we both are on the same page. This is an ego thing. He's trying to pick off Sound Science regulars one by one so he can be the top dog. The ego feeding aggression is just half of it. His ultimate goal is to direct people back to his websites. Jude banned him for doing these exact same things once before under his previous username. It's a pattern that has gotten him banned at multiple forums and earned him disrespect by some of the best online authorities in audio science. (Citations on request.)


----------



## bigshot

By the way, I think this thread and Gregorio's thread on high bitrates are the two most important threads in this forum. I hate to see them cluttered up with BS.


----------



## Arpiben

SilverEars said:


> Ok, I thought something was wrong because 12 awg is so damn thick!  I recently had a headphone cable made that was 10 ft, 8 strand, probably 4 strands per channel of thinner cables that was less than an ohm measured(but, close to an ohm).  Hypothetically, if they 4 strand out of 12 awg, it would be so much lower, but less than an ohm for full-sized headphone of more than 50 times in nominal impedance really shouldn't matter.  I would look into amp's output impedance is significant or not.
> 
> If it's 1/000 then .0048 ohm is the highest resistance?  Insignificant.  I wouldn't care about deviations from Belden then.  That's magnitudes low that it wouldn't matter in audio.  Speaker input impedance varies from as low as 4 ohms to about 8 ohms(I think I've heard of ones reaches higher)?​



Copper resisitivity: 1.72 x 10-8 Ω.m
Copper density: 8.92 g/cm3
Assuming a cable with a section of 12 AWG or 4mm2 the DC resistance is 4.3 Ω per Km and an equivalent weight of 35.7 Kg per Km ( without PVC ).

In conclusion, unless you will be dealing with very long length or very powerfull amplifiers & loudspeakers the added resistance to your amplifier output should not affect the damping factor.
Insignificant is also my point of view.

As a side note the cable section is choosen taking into account the cable dissipation (heating effect vs power)
S = 0.0172 x L x I / VL
With S=section in mm2 / L:length (2 times way&return) in m / I : intensity in A / VL: Voltage loss tolerated ( in general 3%)
_Example_: 48V 30A (1500W) VL=3%*48V=1.44V S=25mm2 -> L=70 meters or a maximum length of *35m* (one way).


----------



## KeithEmo

When you're dealing with heavy speaker wire, the resistances involved are very low, and this leads to several issues when attempting both to measure them and to evaluate the differences.
For example, the differences noted in that table of measurements, which could be due to non-standard diameter, or even differences in alloy, would probably be insiginficant over normal distances.
However, with resistance values that low, the quality of the contact at either end becomes very important.
And this, in turn, reflects both on how you use the product, and how you test it.

For example, if you're purchasing made-up wires with ends, like spade lugs or banana plugs on them......
- If you're using the sort of banana plugs where you screw down a collet, or use set screws, how tight you make those screws will alter the contact resistance, sometimes quite a bit, and may have a major effect on the total resistance.
- But, if the ends are soldered, then the resistance should be quite consistent, and quite low.
- And crimped connections can vary a lot depending on how they're crimped (hand crimp, machine pressure crimp, or ultrasonic weld/crimp).
(With hand crimps, you should always test multiple samples, preferably from multiple lots, because there may be considerable variation between individual cables).

There may also be issues with surface oxidation.....
A wire that tarnishes quickly due to being a poorer alloy is more likely to build up a higher resistance between the wire and the termination over time.
(So, if your wire is really bad, it makes sense to cut off the end, and re-strip it, every few years.)

I would also note that the DC resistance of most typical loudspeakers is usually in the range of a few ohms (often about half of the speaker's rated impedance - which is an AC measurement).
In order to avoid affecting damping, you want the resistance of the speaker cable, and the connections, to "not significantly increase the overall impedance"......
So, for a 4 Ohm speaker, with a 2 Ohm DC resistance, you would want your speaker cable to have a resistance one or two orders of magnitude LESS than that to avoid any possibility of significant interactions.
Anything past that is unlikely to make an audible difference.

Another thing to note is that there are two issues here:
1) power losses and lowered damping due to the resistance of the speaker wire
2) changes in frequency response due to an interaction between the impedance of the speaker and the resistance of the speaker wire

The power losses and differences in damping depend almost solely on the resistance of the wire....
Alterations in frequency response depend both on the resistance of the wire, and on the complex impedance of the speaker....
Therefore the latter depend heavily on the electrical characteristics of the particular speaker you're using (a speaker with a relatively even impedance will be less affected).




Arpiben said:


> Copper resisitivity: 1.72 x 10-8 Ω.m
> Copper density: 8.92 g/cm3
> Assuming a cable with a section of 12 AWG or 4mm2 the DC resistance is 4.3 Ω per Km and an equivalent weight of 35.7 Kg per Km ( without PVC ).
> 
> ...


----------



## Strangelove424

gregorio said:


> It appears quite clear to me that amirm is deliberately changing the context and then using science which is inapplicable, irrelevant and/or fallacious (because it's out of context), in order to troll bigshot and anyone else who disagrees/questions him and, that he's doing it continually. We've seen this same tactic several times from amirm across several different threads and it's a tactic which not only derails the thread but in effect both misrepresents the science and misinforms those who may not realise it's not applicable to them. All of which is very much against the ethos and reason why this sub-forum exists and for this reason I think something needs to be done. If it were me, I would warn amirm that he is using science which is out of context and inapplicable (and therefore effectively off-topic) to badger another member and unless he can provide reasonable evidence that his argument is applicable then he should desist from that line of argument or have his ability to post to the thread revoked, which would be a shame because he does post other contributions which are valuable/useful/applicable. Of course, it's not up to me though, you're the mod and you have the difficult task of deciding where the line is and when it's in the best interests, of the thread and everyone reading it, to step in.



Word


----------



## amirm

gregorio said:


> but of all the countless tens of millions of music creations in human history there isn't a single one which consists of only a 24kHz single tone intended to be listened to 120dB above hearing threshold.


That is an incorrect read of the research cited by Bigshot.  Here is the quote again:





I have highlighted the key point: the frequencies mentioned, i.e. 24 Khz are for *jitter not music.  *Since jitter can have any electronic source, it can readily be at any frequency it wants.  

Indeed the only way we can determine the effect of masking is to know the jitter spectrum.  The higher the frequency of jitter, the more distance it has from our main tone and the less masking occurs.  And at some point masking becomes completely inoperational resulting in the much lower jitter requirement quoted above.

We can confirm all of this by going to reference [7] from Julian Dunn's paper: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERFACING DIGITAL AUDIO EQUIPMENT TO THE STANDARDS AES-3, AES-5, AES-11

There we are told to look at the graph in Appendix for this computation:





As I have highlighted, it clearly states this is the jitter frequency we are talking about, not that of music as you say.  And Bigshot mentioned earlier.

As to 120 db, that is for full music spectrum not that of jitter itself.  It defines the resolution of audio we have and impact jitter can have in annihilating its low order bit.  The graph shows other dynamic ranges.  We can use 96 db and arrive at just 100 picoseconds.  That is a hell of a lot lower than what Bigshot mentioned which was 20 nanoseconds or 20,000 picoseconds.



gregorio said:


> 3. It appears quite clear to me that amirm is deliberately changing the context and then using science which is inapplicable, irrelevant and/or fallacious (because it's out of context), in order to troll bigshot and anyone else who disagrees/questions him and, that he's doing it continually.


That is pretty strange criticism since I nicely asked some questions about references Bigshot himself provided.  So far he has said he doesn't agree with what I quoted exactly from his second reference, word for word.

I asked him twice if he knows how many music pieces were tested in the Dolby paper.  He has not responded.  Have you read his first reference and can comment on that?

Here it is again:


bigshot said:


> Just Detectable Threshold in Music *20ns*
> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=8354 (needs subscription)
> http://www.nanophon.com/audio/1394_sampling_jitter.pdf (cited in section 2.2)


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> I doubt that this has anything at all with disagreements. I'm sure in principle, we both are on the same page. This is an ego thing. He's trying to pick off Sound Science regulars one by one so he can be the top dog. The ego feeding aggression is just half of it. _His ultimate goal is to direct people back to his websites._ Jude banned him for doing these exact same things once before under his previous username. It's a pattern that has gotten him banned at multiple forums and earned him disrespect by some of the best online authorities in audio science. (Citations on request.)



He uses our forum as an advertisement for his own. He'll post a reference to his own site, and then criticize you if you didn't click on it.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 2, 2018)

Strangelove424 said:


> He uses our forum as an advertisement for his own. He'll post a reference to his own site, and then criticize you if you didn't click on it.



That's what Jude banned him for last time when he was using his other username. His shenanigans go back years.

I don't see any value to responding to him when he is disingenuous and aggressive like that. I'm going to speak past him to the lurkers. Maybe I'll do screen caps of posts related to him in other forums and highlight the relevant parts.


----------



## SilverEars (Feb 2, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> When you're dealing with heavy speaker wire, the resistances involved are very low, and this leads to several issues when attempting both to measure them and to evaluate the differences.
> For example, the differences noted in that table of measurements, which could be due to non-standard diameter, or even differences in alloy, would probably be insiginficant over normal distances.
> However, with resistance values that low, the quality of the contact at either end becomes very important.
> And this, in turn, reflects both on how you use the product, and how you test it.
> ...


Something I'd like to see.  Measurement values based on connections you describe.  I've seen speaker impedance responses. There are variations and hump like the high ohm dynamic driver headphone.


----------



## HotIce

1) Seems to me that BigShot mentioned "with music" ... and I have not seen anything in the cut&paste you posted, that contradicts that.
2) We are not all the same in hearing. Even if ones does a 100K (and no one went even close to that) individual testing which will result in a 20ns mean, you will still have population spread quite wide around the mean.

You may want to step back one second and reconsider the approach you are using.


----------



## Strangelove424

amirm said:


> You didn't click on the link I provided???  Here are the "hard" numbers:
> 
> As to you see measured results are worse for Monoprice but better for Belden and such.  And it is much more extensive and detailed than what is in your link.
> 
> There is also no "control" in the other link.  I specifically tested Belden because that is the industry gold standard.  That way, if there are measurements errors, we would see it.  And at any rate, relative data to Belden cable remains correct even if the specific measurements have errors in them.



I will not follow links to your forum. This is the forum I frequent. Make your point in our forum or don't make it at all.

You do not understand what a control group is. This is not an experiment, there is no treatment or process that varies. It is a measurement. There is no control group.  

If that's DC resistance in ohms (I don't know what else it would be, but you failed to indicate a unit) then your numbers don't match up with others who have tested this, and are extraordinarily high. Measure again and put the decimals in the right place. Your capacitance and inductance do seem to correlate with other sources, and they indicate that there isn't nearly as much difference as you state.

With a 50ft cable run, none of this would make 1db of difference.


----------



## amirm

SilverEars said:


> If it's 1/000 then .0048 ohm is the highest resistance? Insignificant. I wouldn't care about deviations from Belden then. That's magnitudes low that it wouldn't matter in audio. Speaker input impedance varies from as low as 4 ohms to about 8 ohms(I think I've heard of ones reaches higher)?


You are close to the right answer.  One foot obviously is not an issue with just about every cable.  Question is what is the typical length considering that the resistance needs to be computed round trip.  That is, a 20 foot cable is actually 40 feet since that is the total resistance (and impedance) seen by the source (plus the speaker).

The above then says we need two pieces of data here: length of cable and speaker impedance.  Speaker impedance unfortunately is NOT the marketing number that is provided in spec sheets.  We need to know the actual waveform measurements to know the minimum it hits (same is true of headphones).  Stereophile is a great source of such measurements.  Here are the measurements for my own speakers for example:  https://www.stereophile.com/content/revel-ultima-salon2-loudspeaker-measurements







We see that it hits about 3.5 ohms or so below 100 Hz.  Let's round that to 3 ohms and put in a pin in it for a second.

The other important bit is audibility.  Research/controlled listening tests performed by Dr. Toole/Olive into audibility of resonances shows that for broad resonances in low frequencies, the threshold is as low as 0.5 db.

So now what we have to do is figure out at what cable length we cause a 0.5 db drop in our speaker response.  Assuming we have a DC resistance of 4.016, this becomes 44 feet.  Dividing that by 2 we get 22 feet of actual length.

22 Feet is pretty good length that should cover most scenarios.  For this reason my recommendation is to always use proper 12 gauge wire.  If you do, then you are in business.

To the extent some wire is not 12 gauge, then it upsets this shortcut and you have to do the math.  And without actual measurements of the wire -- which is non-trivial to do -- this becomes hard.

So use a proper 12 gauge cable and you are good to go.  If you use thinner gauge, you risk changing the frequency response of your speaker.

You all are pretty familiar with impact of output impedance of headphones amps doing the same on on headphones.  Same is true here with respect to speaker cables and the much lower impedance we could find in speaker.


----------



## amirm

Strangelove424 said:


> I will not follow links to your forum. This is the forum I frequent. Make your point in our forum or don't make it at all.


I provided the data.  You turned that into an accusation that somehow by magic I had figured out the relative impedance of each wire to Belden without "hard data."  If you are going to accuse me of something, then you better know your facts and what is being put in front of you.  What I post here was perfectly sufficient if you had read and understood it properly.


----------



## amirm

Strangelove424 said:


> You do not understand what a control group is. This is not an experiment, there is no treatment or process that varies. It is a measurement. There is no control group.


This is a absolutely an experiment.  You don't seem to understand the nature of such tests.

Measuring a thousands of an ohm is not a trivial thing.  The meter probes or even the tension put between the meter probes and wire changes the measurements.  If you just take one wire with some random spec from a chinese company, you have no idea if you are measuring the right things or not.  So  you go to a respected company like Belden and see how your measurements match theirs.  By comparing my results to Belden, you can see the deviation and level of trust you can put in there.

I went one step further and used the Belden number as reference.  That results in factoring out fixed inaccuracies to good extent.

The article you pointed at on the other hand, did not at all follow proper protocol.  For one thing, their meter was not sensitive like mine.  So they used a 10 foot piece of wire to increase its resistance.  Problem with that is that you have to coil that wire every which way to get the two ends to meet the short probes of the meter.  No two wires would then be coiled the same way.  Those long wires also act like antennas for low frequency emissions around you and feed whatever they pick up to the meter.

The proper protocol calls for a short piece clamped flat which is precisely what I did.  

Even with everything I did variations existed especially since we are talking about stranded wires and how they compress and make contact varies at such small resistances.

My wife used to be a lab technician at the hospital.  Every morning they would run sugar water through the gear to make sure they got the expected results before testing patient blood and such.  That is a control.  

Here is the definition of control from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

"A *scientific control* is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable.[1] This increases the reliability of the results, often through a comparison between *control measurements *and the other measurements. Scientific controls are a part of the scientific method."​


----------



## amirm

Strangelove424 said:


> If that's DC resistance in ohms (I don't know what else it would be, but you failed to indicate a unit) then your numbers don't match up with others who have tested this, and are extraordinarily high.


Nope.  Here is the data again:





Look at the Belden cable.  Advertised value by Belden is 1.56 milliohms.  My measurement was 1.15.  So actually lower, not higher.  And pretty close given the challenges for measuring such things as I just explained.

In comparison the claimed DCR by Monoprice was 2.19 and I got 2.30.  Pretty close actually to what they advertised.  Using their number alone against Belden, 2.19 vs 1.56 shows you that it is a thinner wire/higher resistance.  You don't even need my measurements for that!

So there is nothing extraordinarily high.  You are just not reading the data in front of you.


----------



## Strangelove424

amirm said:


> ....
> 
> The proper protocol calls for a short piece clamped flat which is precisely what I did.
> 
> ...



Your results are inaccurate and poorly documented, so I won't speak anymore to the validity of your findings on these measurements. However, I want to make it clear to you the difference between calibration and experimentation. Your wife was calibrating her glucose gear, not experimenting with it. She knew exactly how much sugar was in the water (probably from measuring it out before hand) and was testing to see if the machine would accurately detect it, so that when the machine was in the field testing a patient's blood level, she could count on the results. This is called calibration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration 

Now, if she then used her calibrated glucose meter to test two groups of patients, one experimental group who ate candy that day, and another control group of people who did not eat candy that day... THAT would be an experiment.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 2, 2018)

I think he's beginning to break a sweat. "With music" was never acknowledged, but I've seen that several times in the past few weeks. He just shifts to another subject and attacks on that until he gets boxed in a corner again.

I like to keep an eye on the Users Who Are Viewing This Thread at the bottom of the page. It shows me that the audience is out there with their popcorn in hand enjoying the show.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I think he's beginning to break a sweat. "With music" was never acknowledged, but I've seen that several times in the past few weeks. He just shifts to another subject and attacks on that until he gets boxed in a corner again.
> 
> I like to keep an eye on the Users Who Are Viewing This Thread at the bottom of the page. It shows me that the audience is out there with their popcorn in hand enjoying the show.




I'm just surprised that members are still willing to engage knowing the history.  I still see some of the posts in replies - exactly as predicted...


----------



## amirm

Strangelove424 said:


> our results are inaccurate and poorly documented, so I won't speak anymore to the validity of your findings on these measurements.


I had full details of the experiment including measurement gear, setup, etc. 






Let's compare that to data/article you put forward: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-speaker-cable/





The 14 gauge monoprice cable they measured came out to 11 milliohms.  My measurement of the 12 gauge monoprice cable was just 2.03 milliohms or 6 times lower!!!  So if you want complain about someone's numbers being high, it is in your own reference.  Likely though their measurements in error.  This is all they say about it:





In other words, there is no there there.    Nothing remotely close to care I put in my measurements.

They also say this:





You stand by what he says here?


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> I think he's beginning to break a sweat. "With music" was never acknowledged, but I've seen that several times in the past few weeks. He just shifts to another subject and attacks on that until he gets boxed in a corner again.
> 
> I like to keep an eye on the Users Who Are Viewing This Thread at the bottom of the page. It shows me that the audience is out there with their popcorn in hand enjoying the show.


Sadly hardly anyone is here based on that list.  

Anyway, I am trying to get to the music bit but you refuse to answer how many tracks and their nature was used in your first reference.  Have you even read that AES paper?


----------



## SilverEars

bigshot said:


> I like to keep an eye on the Users Who Are Viewing This Thread at the bottom of the page. It shows me that the audience is out there with their popcorn in hand enjoying the show.


I come here for the cross-feed discussions.  Get a beer out of the fridge and just enjoy.


----------



## Strangelove424

amirm said:


> The 14 gauge monoprice cable they measured came out to 11 milliohms.  My measurement of the 12 gauge monoprice cable was just 2.03 milliohms or 6 times lower!!!  So if you want complain about someone's numbers being high, it is in your own reference.  Likely though their measurements in error.  This is all they say about it:



Amirm, I will not continue with you anymore until you put your decimals in the right place, and learn the metric system. The Wire Cutter tested to 11 centi-ohm (.0X) not milli-ohm (.00X)!

I will not address your numbers until you learn the correct words for place values in the metric system AND put your decimals in the right place.


----------



## castleofargh

I don't know the history here, my knowledge of amirm before the last month on headfi was limited to people quoting him on Hydro where he didn't seem dearly loved. from my very limited experience, all I see is someone who is a little too obsessed with the fine print(which can be annoying as hell but not illegal), and people treating him like crap. 
I'm clearly not the right guy to rule on this matter so don't expect me to. if someone believes there is only one correct ending(starts with "ba", last letter "n") and the sooner the better, I strongly advise to go over me and discuss this with admins who know the all story. in the meantime headfi still has a rule against personal attacks. and I assume, against a mob ganging up on one guy.


----------



## KeithEmo

Excellent point...... (and also an excellent example of how understanding the theory helps one to understand what's going on).

Whenever you connect a load (like headphones) to a source (like an amplifier), the two will interact based on how the source impedance of your source interacts with the load impedance of your load.
If you draw a proper model of the circuitry, what you will have is a "perfect amplifier" (zero output impedance), connected to the load, through a "black box" that represents the output impedance of the amplifier (typically modeled as just a  resistor).
If you then add a cable between the amplifier and the load, that cable is modeled as being in series with, and added to, the output impedance of the amplifier.

So, if your amplifier has an output impedance of 10 Ohms, and your speaker cable has a pure resistance of 0.1 Ohms, then in the model it raises the output impedance of the amplifier from 10.0 Ohms to 10.1 Ohms.... which is a rather small difference.
However, if your amplifier has an output impedance of 0.1 Ohms, and your speaker cable has a pure resistance of 0.1 Ohms, then in the model it raises the output impedance of the amplifier from 0.1 Ohms to 0.2 Ohms.... which is quite significant.

It is the ratio of this output impedance to the impedance of the speaker at a particular frequency that determines how the two interact.
As an approximation, if you were to start with an amplifier with an output impedance of 8 Ohms, and a speaker with a load impedance of 8 Ohms at a given frequency.....
If the impedance of that speaker dips to 4 Ohms, or rises to 16 Ohms, at certain frequencies, the frequency response will be varied by several dB at those frequencies - which will quite probably be quite audible.

Note that many real world headphones may have an impedance of 20 - 30 Ohms over most of their range, which may jump to double that at resonance.
I'll leave it to the interested reader to calculate how much difference that would cause in frequency response under each of the conditions I described. 

And, yes, common RATED speaker impedances are usually between 4 Ohms and 8 Ohms (with typical speakers mostly ranging between about 3 Ohms and about 10 Ohms).
The real issue, however, is that most speakers have an impedance that varies over a significant range over the range of frequencies they cover.
However, sharply tuned bass reflex speakers often reach as high as 20 Ohms to 30 Ohms at or near their tuned frequency.... and far wider ranges occur in a few.
And some electrostatic speakers are notorious for having an impedance that dips as low as 1 Ohm at very high frequencies (one notorious Martin Logan model measures 0.9 Ohms at 20 kHz)



SilverEars said:


> Ok, I thought something was wrong because 12 awg is so damn thick!  I recently had a headphone cable made that was 10 ft, 8 strand, probably 4 strands per channel of thinner cables that was less than an ohm measured(but, close to an ohm).  Hypothetically, if they 4 strand out of 12 awg, it would be so much lower, but less than an ohm for full-sized headphone of more than 50 times in nominal impedance really shouldn't matter.  I would look into amp's output impedance is significant or not.
> 
> If it's 1/000 then .0048 ohm is the highest resistance?  Insignificant.  I wouldn't care about deviations from Belden then.  That's magnitudes low that it wouldn't matter in audio.  Speaker input impedance varies from as low as 4 ohms to about 8 ohms(I think I've heard of ones reaches higher)?​


----------



## bigshot (Feb 2, 2018)

Strangelove424 said:


> I will not address your numbers until you learn the correct words for place values in the metric system AND put your decimals in the right place.



My list of things for him to improve upon is longer than yours!

It's easier to just not reply to him. I'm happy to do that, but last time I tried to do that he just kept on replying and ratcheting up the invective.


----------



## Don Hills

bigshot said:


> ...
> It's easier to just not reply to him. I'm happy to do that, but last time I tried to do that he just kept on replying and ratcheting up the invective.



Best to carry on as if he's not here, then. If he "ratchets up the invective" he'll be banned.


----------



## analogsurviver

Electrostatic transducers are notorious for amplifier requirements. I will show just how much this is a real world problem - in the frame of the my forthcoming review of iFi Audio Pro iESL "energizer"  ( audio transformer & bias supply ) driven by a 75 W/8ohm power amp vs Stax SRM1MK2 electrostatic amplifier. And, yes, under no circumstances I am not going to fail to show just how important  His Majesty - _*The Cable *_- is in this case. Measurably, audibly, ... , you name it !

Above mentioned Martin Logans belong to the _Milde Sorte _as far as ESLs can go. 0.9 ohm @ 20 kHz is quite an easy load - at least compared to some of the true brutes. Try King's Audio King or King III ( one of the very best loudspeakers, regardless of price ) ... - and, since normal ESLs are in the end pure capacitance, they have VERY large impedance "span" across the 20-20kHz range ( and even more so above 20 kHz ... ) ; sometimes around 100 ohm in the bass, around bass resonance, gradually falling to that dreaded 1 ohm or less in the treble. To make things a bit easier for the amp, many have tried to make this extremely large impedance variation to be more constant vs frequency. 

The most success in this regard - at least to my knowledge - has had Audio Exclusiv from Germany. VERY constant impedance, indeed - variation no more than 2,5 times from the lowest to the highest impedance within 20 Hz-20kHz range.

The only trouble is the actual value of that said impedance : 0.2 ohm @20Hz , gradually rising to just below 0.5 ohm @20 kHz. That is NOT a misprint, it really does have one fifth of an ohm in the range where there is the most energy in music. Necessitating "welding amplifiers" - with almost limitless current drive capability.

Needless to say - speaker cable in this application HAS to be low, low, low resistance type ... - or audible differences will certainly occur.


----------



## Strangelove424 (Feb 2, 2018)

bigshot said:


> My list of things for him to improve upon is longer than yours!



Well, I'll just add that it's a whole lot more important to have his heart in the right place!


----------



## HotIce

A low impedance at 20KHz is not huge concern for an amp, current wise, as power (hence voltage, hence current feed) at that frequency is very low.
I'd be more concerned with phase, as any resistance within the feedback loop, paired with sub Ohm capacitive load, can create some trouble to stability.


----------



## analogsurviver

HotIce said:


> A low impedance at 20KHz is not huge concern for an amp, current wise, as power (hence voltage, hence current feed) at that frequency is very low.
> I'd be more concerned with phase, as any resistance within the feedback loop, paired with sub Ohm capacitive load, can create some trouble to stability.


Well, if you have practical experience with ESLs, then you know it is not that easy. Most amps - even VERY powerful ones, sometimes in excess of 500W/ch, will simply fall apart into ESL load. It can range audibly from soft, ill defined sound - to heavy distortion, once protection circuitry kicks in. The only amplifier I have heard that can drive ESLs really well was Acoustat TNT 200 - because it is made for ESL load and has a most unusual circuit design allowing such good performance into load that would bring most of the rest to their knees.

Even better performance into low impedances should have Gamut range of amps - basically, one single pair of VERY large MOSFETs as the output stage, capable of current large enough not to require any protection circuitry (except perhaps for excessive DC at the output ) even into extremely difficult load(s).

OK, low impedance @20khz is rather easily manageable - for the reasons mentioned.

That ESL speaker with 0.2 ohm impedance in the bass ( even if phase is nearly constant/flat ) , where lion's share of amplifier power is required, is entirely different matter ...


----------



## SilverEars (Feb 3, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> So, if your amplifier has an output impedance of 10 Ohms, and your speaker cable has a pure resistance of 0.1 Ohms, then in the model it raises the output impedance of the amplifier from 10.0 Ohms to 10.1 Ohms.... which is a rather small difference.
> However, if your amplifier has an output impedance of 0.1 Ohms, and your speaker cable has a pure resistance of 0.1 Ohms, then in the model it raises the output impedance of the amplifier from 0.1 Ohms to 0.2 Ohms.... which is quite significant.


Well, you'd still have to compare to the load. You won't find .2 ohms significant unless like you point out the exceptions(at the frequency points).  For headphone loads, insignificant.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> [1] all I see is someone who is a little too obsessed with the fine print(which can be annoying as hell but not illegal), and people treating him like crap.
> [2] I'm clearly not the right guy to rule on this matter so don't expect me to. if someone believes there is only one correct ending(starts with "ba", last letter "n") and the sooner the better, I strongly advise to go over me and discuss this with admins who know the all story.



1. I'm not so bothered about someone who is a little too obsessed with the fine print, in fact that can be very useful/valuable. I am bothered by someone who is too obsessed by certain selected bits of fine print while ignoring other fine print and the main print, because then it's all to easy to misrepresent that selected fine print. Worse still, is if that someone makes absolute assertions based on that selected fine print, while absolutely refusing to even acknowledge the other print and then viscously impugns anyone who challenges their erroneous assertions. "People treating him like crap" is a pretty much inevitable response to such behaviour!

2. I personally do not want to see him banned, highlighting the fine print can be a valuable contribution to this sub-forum, when it's in context/relevant of course! I'd much rather he was informed and deterred on those occasions when he gets fixated on some out of context/irrelevant/off-topic bit of "fine print", becomes vicious and derails the thread. I know that means more work for you and difficult or even impractical work at that, but I'd rather the nuclear option not be employed until the other options have been exhausted. Just my personal opinion of course.

G


----------



## Dulalala (Feb 3, 2018)

-Delete-


----------



## Dulalala (Feb 3, 2018)

amirm said:


> Let's compare that to data/article you put forward: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-speaker-cable/
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Strangelove424 said:


> Amirm, I will not continue with you anymore until you put your decimals in the right place, and learn the metric system. The Wire Cutter tested to 11 centi-ohm (.0X) not milli-ohm (.00X)!
> 
> I will not address your numbers until you learn the correct words for place values in the metric system AND put your decimals in the right place.



I have no prior context to this, so correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but I'm pretty sure 0.011=11x10^-3, which is 11 milli-ohm isn't it? Unless the quoted data above is wrong.


----------



## SilverEars (Feb 3, 2018)

Dulalala said:


> I have no prior context to this, so correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but I'm pretty sure 0.011=11x10^-3, which is 11 milli-ohm isn't it? Unless the quoted data above is wrong.


Yes.  -3 is the 3 zero places. 

.011 ohm is 11 milliohm since you move decimals 3 places to the right when you add(and multiply) milli which represents 10^-3  

11 centiohm would be .11 ohm.


----------



## Strangelove424

Dulalala said:


> I have no prior context to this, so correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but I'm pretty sure 0.011=11x10^-3, which is 11 milli-ohm isn't it? Unless the quoted data above is wrong.



Yes, I spoke wrongly. It would be 1.1 centi or 11 milli. My apologies for the screw up.


----------



## Strangelove424

gregorio said:


> 2. I personally do not want to see him banned, highlighting the fine print can be a valuable contribution to this sub-forum, when it's in context/relevant of course! I'd much rather he was informed and deterred on those occasions when he gets fixated on some out of context/irrelevant/off-topic bit of "fine print", becomes vicious and derails the thread. I know that means more work for you and difficult or even impractical work at that, but I'd rather the nuclear option not be employed until the other options have been exhausted. Just my personal opinion of course.



If moderation (which by definition is "avoidance of extremes") is only a choice between ban or don't ban then there isn't much moderation in that. I am not lobbying for a ban either, but in my opinion there are invective extremes that should also be addressed, and plenty of room between ban or no ban for other sorts of leadership actions. I know the job of a mod is not an easy one, however, and will leave my opinion at that.


----------



## istfleur

bigshot said:


> I'm not complaining about anything. It says that the JDD with music is 20ns. You just didn't highlight that part. Honestly, I don't know what's wrong with you. You're intent on mad dogging me. Go take a walk in the sunshine. Castle, can you do anything to help here?


I’ve been following the thread since a long time. I’m so surprised that you’re asking for him to be banned just because he’s not agree with you and asking for proofs. I thought this was science forum, with no snake oil nor anecdotes presenting as facts. I’m also very surprised that some members are supporting as if they were part of a club, so let’s defend our members no matter what.


----------



## Arpiben

In metrics, for copper cables between 11AWG to 14AWG the DC resistance varies between 4 Ohms and 9 Ohms per Km.
In other words, 1.2 mOhms to 2.7mOhms per feet.
Thewirecutter values are most probably  having a mistyping issue (factor 10)
@amirm values, whatever accuracy, are closer to expected ones.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 3, 2018)

istfleur said:


> I’ve been following the thread since a long time. I’m so surprised that you’re asking for him to be banned*
> 
> * account created in 2015, not activity using it until this week.



I didn't ask for him to be banned. I asked for him to stop personally attacking me. I explained multiple times what the demonstration consisted of and what I was told. I didn't conduct the experiment myself, so I'm not able to provide sound samples and instructions on how to do it. I thought that was clear. Maybe you missed it too.


----------



## Strangelove424

Arpiben said:


> In metrics, for copper cables between 11AWG to 14AWG the DC resistance varies between 4 Ohms and 9 Ohms per Km.
> In other words, 1.2 mOhms to 2.7mOhms per feet.
> Thewirecutter values are most probably  having a mistyping issue (factor 10)
> @amirm values, whatever accuracy, are closer to expected ones.



And would still be within 1db of difference on a 100ft cable run. His labeling of Monoprice as junk was gratuitous.


----------



## bigshot

Cables aren't the most effective things to focus on if you want to improve the sound of your stereo system. Audiophiles expend way too much time and money worrying about things that just don't matter when there are bigger fish to fry.


----------



## Arpiben

Strangelove424 said:


> And would still be within 1db of difference on a 100ft cable run. His labeling of Monoprice as junk was gratuitous.



Fully agreeing. 
I have to admit that since long I stopped wondering about the reasons for so much 'distortions and noise" in most of his posts.


----------



## skwoodwiva

Where have you been?
Prog Rock Man?
A real audiophile
Damz.
Wonderful, post look me up?


----------



## donunus

bigshot said:


> Cables aren't the most effective things to focus on if you want to improve the sound of your stereo system. Audiophiles expend way too much time and money worrying about things that just don't matter when there are bigger fish to fry.



I would say that cable upgrades are for people that love the cans being upgraded over any other cans and just want the most of them vs buying cables to try to fix certain problems that are almost unfixable.


----------



## SilverEars (Apr 1, 2018)

donunus said:


> I would say that cable upgrades are for people that love the cans being upgraded over any other cans and just want the most of them vs buying cables to try to fix certain problems that are almost unfixable.


There a bit of placebo involved in this hobby than people would like to admit.  Audiophiles fit the spectrum of people that HOPE stuff will provide improvements, and they are susceptible to expectation bias, and rather believe at face value rather than dig deeper.  The situation is that, it's more convenient for us all to not investigate, and realize the reality.  Take the red pill or the blue?


----------



## skwoodwiva (Apr 1, 2018)

There is an electrical reality known as dielectric absorption, where say, the poorest insulation-vinyl will accept electrons from the conductor. Then when the signal "pressure" drops it gives up these same elections.
" Smearing" is the result. That is why teflon is sought after. Your conscience mind may not even pick up what is going on but the simulation of a live musical experience is tarnished.


----------



## skwoodwiva

Too many variables cause havoc in trying to achieve anything. Music enjoyment is frought with a multitude...


----------



## skwoodwiva (Apr 1, 2018)

Jon Risch on DA

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-can-i-make-my-own-acoustic-materials other stuff

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/zip-cord-vs-cross-connected-coax-article.485/ ok, some

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~apm3/diyaudio/Connections.html bingo...

https://www.venhaus1.com/Audiolinks.html the mother load
Yet many dead links.

$ell a microwave cell phone hub could not function w/o teflon coax. The higher the frequency the more its effect.
While I know JR tests, being the most famous audiophile/ engineer. Most deduction comes from smarts, we all can extrapolate real effects, microwave technology to audio because they are related.


----------



## colonelkernel8

skwoodwiva said:


> Jon Risch on DA
> 
> https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-can-i-make-my-own-acoustic-materials other stuff
> 
> ...



Man, you are a plague on these forums. What is your purpose? You don't give a lick about science. Microwave "technology" starts at around 1 *GHz *up to 300 *GHz*. If you honestly believe there's any reasonable overlap there and audio technology, you're sorely mistaken. At these frequencies, trace and wire series inductance and parallel capacitance really are crucial, but not at audio frequencies, AT ALL.


----------



## skwoodwiva (Apr 2, 2018)

colonelkernel8 said:


> Man, you are a plague on these forums. What is your purpose? You don't give a lick about science. Microwave "technology" starts at around 1 *GHz *up to 300 *GHz*. If you honestly believe there's any reasonable overlap there and audio technology, you're sorely mistaken. At these frequencies, trace and wire series inductance and parallel capacitance really are crucial, but not at audio frequencies, AT ALL.


I noticed the Op here is showing Kimber wire what is that but OFC & a Teflon jacket.
Why wast money on an insulation about which its #1 feature is the lowest DA of any insulation?

Also I posted here as to avoid trolls as you make yourself.
I do agree the overlap I speak of is a conceptual conjecture, such ablilty may not exist in some few, yet central members mental arsenal.

 BTW, I can hear music much more transparently using foamed TFE it is phenomenal....


----------



## bigshot

The original post in this thread is great. Anyone reading at this point in the comments would do best by just going back to post one in the thread and reading it again.


----------



## skwoodwiva (Apr 2, 2018)

bigshot said:


> The original post in this thread is great. Anyone reading at this point in the comments would do best by just going back to post one in the thread and reading it again.


The sound cops are on the pa(troll)!
Lets let the Op respond
Is that not reasonable?
 I PMed him yet I fear he has abandoned the forum.


----------



## skwoodwiva (Apr 2, 2018)

Indeed




So one of this forums GREATEST members & a Fabulous audiophile has fled!
 Wow!


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Apr 2, 2018)

skwoodwiva said:


> The sound cops are on the pa(troll)!
> Lets let the Op respond
> Is that not reasonable?
> I PMed him yet I fear he has abandoned the forum.


It's not reasonable. Your rants and raves are not worthy of real consideration. I don't even know why I'm responding to you. But I guess if it raises awareness of the OP's *brilliant *post, job well done.


----------



## skwoodwiva

Hmm jan 28, maybe I was rash about this, I hope I am wrong...


----------



## bigshot

Don't feed the troll.


----------



## castleofargh

skwoodwiva said:


> Indeed
> 
> So one of this forums GREATEST members & a Fabulous audiophile has fled!
> Wow!


you praise him, but maybe you could also take his methodology for yourself.
OP is a simple guy, he doesn't try to pass as some expert, he doesn't claim too much, he just wondered about something and looked for many reasonable tests on the subject to form an opinion and hopefully get some facts out of it all. of course it's a very good method and he's certainly praiseworthy in a domain where others are so keen on jumping to conclusion no matter how little they actually know. we certainly agree that he's a cool dude. for doing all that work and research before making claims, and also for sharing it all with us instead of posting something like "audiophiles are wrong most of the time, lol". and leaving it at that.  the general idea is fairly similar but the way to reach the conclusions is not nearly as clear nor trustworthy.

 so far you've done the mostly the opposite of his first post. you've posted a great deal of empty claims and offered very little pieces of evidence to substantiate anything you said. and we know you didn't research some of the subjects too much, because some of your claims are just plain wrong and no measurement or blind testing is ever going to support them.
my point is. if you like the guy, please pretty please, be more like @Prog Rock Man when you post. provide evidence, explain experiences, rely on controlled test. and stop making empty claim about everything. the claim should come at the very end when all the knowledge has been gathered, when all the controlled experiences have been analyzed, then if we feel like we have enough elements, we draw some conclusion and perhaps claim something. if you don't care much about proving you claims, you should make them outside of this section. in the cable section, blind testing is a forbidden subject. nobody is going to annoy you with silly stuff like facts and your outstanding lack of evidence about the audibility of something when you post in the cable section. you say what you like, someone will agree, someone will disagree, and that's the end of it.
in here if you're making a claim, you better have solid evidence to back it up. nobody asks for you to make so many claims, we 'd rather you didn't. claims are something serious. but if you want to post them anyway, at least in the spirit of science and objective reality, prepare a shitload of evidence to try and convince the other members.
in short, be more like @Prog Rock Man. fewer claims, more data.


----------



## skwoodwiva

castleofargh said:


> you praise him, but maybe you could also take his methodology for yourself.
> OP is a simple guy, he doesn't try to pass as some expert, he doesn't claim too much, he just wondered about something and looked for many reasonable tests on the subject to form an opinion and hopefully get some facts out of it all. of course it's a very good method and he's certainly praiseworthy in a domain where others are so keen on jumping to conclusion no matter how little they actually know. we certainly agree that he's a cool dude. for doing all that work and research before making claims, and also for sharing it all with us instead of posting something like "audiophiles are wrong most of the time, lol". and leaving it at that.  the general idea is fairly similar but the way to reach the conclusions is not nearly as clear nor trustworthy.
> 
> so far you've done the mostly the opposite of his first post. you've posted a great deal of empty claims and offered very little pieces of evidence to substantiate anything you said. and we know you didn't research some of the subjects too much, because some of your claims are just plain wrong and no measurement or blind testing is ever going to support them.
> ...


What do you think Amirm's test thread is all about?
Truly the thing you ask for. 
Gulp for BS's comments, ahh yes a new nickname


----------



## castleofargh

skwoodwiva said:


> What do you think Amirm's test thread is all about?
> Truly the thing you ask for.
> Gulp for BS's comments, ahh yes a new nickname


it's certainly very good that you're curious enough to test things yourself. if only for that, you're already better than many audiophiles I know(seriously). but let's not kid ourselves, that alone doesn't legitimize all the empty claims you've already made. and you've made a bunch.
you came here, we don't know you, we have no reason to think you're better or worst than the next guy. yet in a very short period of time you've had several people getting "annoyed" by your posts, bigshot ignoring you which isn't a bad idea when dialogue fails, a few others reporting you to moderation for being a troll. there is like a pattern to all this and maybe, just maybe, it's a tiny bit your fault.

if I take the topic about headphone burn in as an example, you came claiming stuff, didn't bother justifying anything, and then went on to support and like any comment suggesting burn in mattered, no matter how relevant the post was. does that look to you like somebody concerned with facts? it would be hypocritical of me to say you're the only one behaving like that, but just because you're not alone doesn't mean you're doing a great job in the name of truth.
you introduced yourself to the burn in topic with this:


skwoodwiva said:


> Absolutely, leave em on 24/7, 2 weeks, very loud.


and this:


skwoodwiva said:


> Is
> *Breaking-in headphones needed.
> Yes 100 hrs min.*


so if you feel like what you do in general is in the same vein as what @Prog Rock Man does, take a deep long look at your posts and think again. because clearly you're doing it wrong.


----------



## bigshot

I'm standing on the dock wishing you well and waving as you take the cruise to crazy town!


----------



## skwoodwiva

bigshot said:


> I'm standing on the dock wishing you well and waving as you take the cruise to crazy town!


Words you do so well Sir, poetic reply.


----------



## pinnahertz

skwoodwiva said:


> There is an electrical reality known as dielectric absorption, where say, the poorest insulation-vinyl will accept electrons from the conductor. Then when the signal "pressure" drops it gives up these same elections.
> " Smearing" is the result. That is why teflon is sought after. Your conscience mind may not even pick up what is going on but the simulation of a live musical experience is tarnished.


There is also a difference between an "electrical reality" and a mechanism that has an audible impact on an electrical audio system.  DA isn't one of the latter, but clearly someone doesn't understand what dielectric absorption is!


skwoodwiva said:


> Jon Risch on DA
> 
> https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-can-i-make-my-own-acoustic-materials other stuff
> 
> ...


Actually, the motherload of dead links and inapplicable ones.  Nothing there has anything to do with DA.


skwoodwiva said:


> While I know JR tests, being the most famous audiophile/ engineer. Most deduction comes from smarts, we all can extrapolate real effects, microwave technology to audio because they are related.


I'd never heard of him, so I read his web site, and now I know why.  Audiophile, yes.  Engineer, not so much.  Deduction, seriously flawed, and the resulting interpolation is not valid.  His "tests" are rudimentary measurements of electrical parameters (big deal, anyone can do that), his audibility tests are complete nonsense, fully sighted and completely biased.  This guy is NOT a scientist at all.  I'd link to his page, but it doesn't deserve the traffic.


----------



## colonelkernel8

pinnahertz said:


> There is also a difference between an "electrical reality" and a mechanism that has an audible impact on an electrical audio system.  DA isn't one of the latter, but clearly someone doesn't understand what dielectric absorption is!
> Actually, the motherload of dead links and inapplicable ones.  Nothing there has anything to do with DA.
> 
> I'd never heard of him, so I read his web site, and now I know why.  Audiophile, yes.  Engineer, not so much.  Deduction, seriously flawed, and the resulting interpolation is not valid.  His "tests" are rudimentary measurements of electrical parameters (big deal, anyone can do that), his audibility tests are complete nonsense, fully sighted and completely biased.  This guy is NOT a scientist at all.  I'd link to his page, but it doesn't deserve the traffic.



QED.


----------



## Kerry56

I think you guys need to recruit a new member.  He's fighting the good fight over at Reddit:  https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/8d2h8g/with_sennheisers_hd_600_i_cant_tell_the/


----------



## castleofargh

Kerry56 said:


> I think you guys need to recruit a new member.  He's fighting the good fight over at Reddit:  https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/8d2h8g/with_sennheisers_hd_600_i_cant_tell_the/


https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wit...book-air-and-a-magni-3-in-an-abx-test.877611/  ^_^


----------



## bigshot

I'm sure the response is "either your equipment is lousy or your ears are". That's what people say when they just don't want to know.


----------



## progrockrob

Fantastic post by the OP.  Quick question: What's your favorite headphone setup for listening to Yes?


----------



## jnorris

If we're going to get into headphone setups per band I'm going to drop this hobby and move into something cheaper, like collecting exotic European motor cars...


----------



## pibroch (Apr 20, 2018)

some sort of posting stuff up


----------



## robthemac

I'm a big fan of statistics, and a huge part of my job is reading and interpreting randomized control trials. This amount of superstition and gratuitous self-aggrandizing that goes on in this field is scary. What's even scarier is the way people are treated when they question the prevailing wisdom.


----------



## fun4lyf

Prog Rock Man said:


> *(As I find more blind tests I will add them to the list here.)*
> 
> So, we love to have a good discussion/argument/rant here (and on all the other audio forums I have seen) about the many claims audiophiles make that others dismiss as myths. The arguments go round in circles; I hear a difference - but there cannot be a difference, it is all in your mind - have you tried different cables? - I don’t need to it is all in your mind etc etc, we all know how it goes.
> 
> ...






THIS sound was really epic actulayy for science bass testing


----------



## fun4lyf

Handberg said:


> Prog Rock Man, thank you for taking the time to put this summary together.


It's really appreciated


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 23, 2018)

robthemac said:


> I'm a big fan of statistics, and a huge part of my job is reading and interpreting randomized control trials. This amount of superstition and gratuitous self-aggrandizing that goes on in this field is scary. What's even scarier is the way people are treated when they question the prevailing wisdom.



I'm not really sure that there's much consensus on prevailing wisdom.  The percentage of people who think headphones make a difference is a lot higher than those who think cables make a difference, and DACs and amps are probably somewhere in between.

Seems to me that audio will inherently be polarizing.  What ultimately matters is the subjective listening experience, but subjective experience is somewhat unreliable as a measuring instrument.  On the other hand, particular sets of objective measurements may not tell the whole story about real differences in sound, and blind testing isn't really objective because it necessarily incorporates the subjective element.  Uncertainty can't be eliminated and there's no easy answer, so people tend to divide into the two camps, and the debates continue ad infinitum.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> I'm not really sure that there's much consensus on prevailing wisdom.  The percentage of people who think headphones make a difference is a lot higher than those who think cables make a difference, and DACs and amps are probably somewhere in between.
> 
> Seems to me that audio will inherently be polarizing.  What ultimately matters is the subjective listening experience, but subjective experience is somewhat unreliable as a measuring instrument.  On the other hand, particular sets of objective measurements may not tell the whole story about real differences in sound, and blind testing isn't really objective because it necessarily incorporates the subjective element.  Uncertainty can't be eliminated and there's no easy answer, so people tend to divide into the two camps, and the debates continue ad infinitum.



Subjective experiences are all that human's perceive.  We can't escape it.   Though, I put very little credence on cables, DACs, and amps creating any meaningful audible difference in normal situations where the equipment is used appropriately and it adheres to generally acceptable parameters with regards to impedance matching and power requirements.  

There are specific objective criteria that I attempt to verify, and then I listen to make sure nothing sounds out of sorts.  If something does sound out of sorts, I visually inspect the gear and connections to identify any obvious problems, take additional measurements where possible, attempt to blind test, and search the internet for evidence that might suggest an audible difference is possible.   I have not run into any gear that was different to my ears, but if I did, I would return it.   It would be the oddball, and I would consider it to be defective.


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes, the audiophile industry is of of the last bastions of superstition, rollicking subjectivism, and "creative interpretation of the facts".
The other thing I find is that the majority of audiophiles don't seem to have much of a grasp of how the test methodology relates to the results and their significance.



robthemac said:


> I'm a big fan of statistics, and a huge part of my job is reading and interpreting randomized control trials. This amount of superstition and gratuitous self-aggrandizing that goes on in this field is scary. What's even scarier is the way people are treated when they question the prevailing wisdom.





robthemac said:


> I'm a big fan of statistics, and a huge part of my job is reading and interpreting randomized control trials. This amount of superstition and gratuitous self-aggrandizing that goes on in this field is scary. What's even scarier is the way people are treated when they question the prevailing wisdom.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> Yes, the audiophile industry is of of the last bastions of superstition, rollicking subjectivism, and "creative interpretation of the facts".



I dunno, that seems endemic to politics and religion, which predate the audiophile industry and have a vastly larger social impact.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> ...politics and religion...



Bingo.


----------



## robthemac (Apr 23, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> Subjective experiences are all that human's perceive.  We can't escape it.




I completely agree. This is kinda my area of expertise, the human experience of subjectivity. All that matters, when it comes down to it, is that something sounds right to our ears.

I think the understanding of the placebo effect is also poor in the audio world, and greatly underestimated. The subjective experience of someone taking a placebo tablet is that they are getting a therapeutic benefit. What is less well understood is there actually* is *a therapeutic benefit that people get from placebo. You take a placebo that you are told lowers your cholesterol, and your cholesterol actually does go down.

Interestingly, this effect persists even with 'open label' placebo studies (i.e. when participants are aware they are taking a placebo).  Also, the more expensive they are told the placebo is, the more benefit they perceive to get, and in most studies, the more benefit they actually get. (Somewhat unrelated: the more expensive they believe a placebo to be, the more side effects they get from it. This finding was part of my fiance's Master's research).

How this related to audio is very debateable. It provides a hypothesis for why AB and unblinded tests often show significant results, but why ABX tests almost never do. I think whether or not it matters if one gets a subjective improvement from an expensive cable/amplifier is more of a philosophical question than anything else. What is more of a testable ('scientific') question is whether or not these differences can reliably be detected in a blinded setting. If the answer is 'no', then one has to admit the placebo effect is playing a very big role.


----------



## Phronesis

robthemac said:


> I completely agree. This is kinda my area of expertise, the human experience of subjectivity. All that matters, when it comes down to it, is that something sounds right to our ears.
> 
> I think the understanding of the placebo effect is also poor in the audio world, and greatly underestimated. The subjective experience of someone taking a placebo tablet is that they are getting a therapeutic benefit. What is less well understood is there actually* is *a therapeutic benefit that people get from placebo. You take a placebo that you are told lowers your cholesterol, and your cholesterol actually does go down.
> 
> ...



I personally don't have any doubt that placebo effects are involved in audio.  If a product is expensive, beautiful, and made by a highly regarded company, I would expect a significant placebo effect.  If such a placebo effect enables people to enjoy their equipment and music more, I suppose that's not entirely a bad thing, but IMO it's a different matter when someone is stretching financially to buy something which makes little or no difference, hoping and believing that it makes a significant difference.

But I think there are also some real challenges with objectively ruling out objective differences based on finite sets of objective measurements, or based on theoretical arguments.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Apr 23, 2018)

I take it as a given that placebo effect is very strong in audio.

Although we don't have a number like "40% of perceived sound quality is imaginary" or anything like that, one only need to look at studies of other markets to see how easily it can happen.

Wine with a higher price tag on it actually tastes better. It's still cheap wine, but people enjoy it more.  

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170814092949.htm

Food with interesting, cartoony packaging tastes better to children. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4488606/

If this effect *didn't* extend to audio equipment, it would be very odd. So, we might expect to see that more expensive (but physically identical) cables actually sound subjectively better (not that the signal improves, just that people experience better sound) and that's basically what we observe. 

This is probably why even the most staunchly performance-focused audio manufacturers also typically pay attention to fit, finish, materials, industrial design, packaging, etc... everything that affects your perception of and feelings about the gear also has the potential to affect how it sounds to you.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Phronesis said:


> I dunno, that seems endemic to politics and religion, which predate the audiophile industry and have a vastly larger social impact.


Yep....but just as polarizing...people vehemently defend their side of the argument....not many audiophiles come down in between the two sides.Much like politics and religion not many audio buffs are willing to consider  another path.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Zapp_Fan said:


> I take it as a given that placebo effect is very strong in audio.
> 
> Although we don't have a number like "40% of perceived sound quality is imaginary" or anything like that, one only need to look at studies of other markets to see how easily it can happen.
> 
> ...


Even beyond the sound quality...if you are gonna sell upmarket your product better be very well constructed and look great....this isn't exclusive to audio.


----------



## robthemac

Zapp_Fan said:


> I take it as a given that placebo effect is very strong in audio.



I agree, but I think that people underestimate its prevalence and power. Also, people think that the placebo effect is something that happens to others, not themselves. 

I also agree that visual aspects play a part. It is also reflected in studies on packaging and labelling of placebos. 

I also think there are other reasons for devices to look and feel good. It's a lot easier for me to get approval from my better half, for one....


----------



## bigshot

The whole point of placebo is that you aren't consciously aware of its effects. It makes sense that people ignore it, or try to underplay it. Combine that with the egotist's need to be infallible and you've got a stubborn brick wall defense that a donkey couldn't even muster up.


----------



## robthemac

bigshot said:


> Combine that with the egotist's need to be infallible and you've got a stubborn brick wall defense that a donkey couldn't even muster up.



And a horde of people with $500 cables....


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I personally don't have any doubt that placebo effects are involved in audio.  If a product is expensive, beautiful, and made by a highly regarded company, I would expect a significant placebo effect.  If such a placebo effect enables people to enjoy their equipment and music more, I suppose that's not entirely a bad thing, but IMO it's a different matter when someone is stretching financially to buy something which makes little or no difference, hoping and believing that it makes a significant difference.
> 
> But I think there are also some real challenges with objectively ruling out objective differences based on finite sets of objective measurements, or based on theoretical arguments.


of course placebo and preconceptions can make someone enjoy music more. no question about that. topics like this one and in general this entire section of the forum are for people who want to know if the magic is effectively in the sound or not. some like myself get very unhappy when there is doubt lingering around on that matter. it's an active decision to go look for that. we never force anybody to do it if they don't want to. 
what ends up having guys like me clashing with people happy in their own mind construct, is that those guys come push their subjective reality onto everybody else and call it fact. that wouldn't happen if they weren't so ignorant of their own condition. a great many audiophiles get offended when you doubt what they claim to have heard or what they remember about it. they take it as a personal attack because the only explanation they come up with in their mind is that we think they are mental, or lying. if they really understood how omnipresent biases are, how human senses cannot be consciously separated from each others, or how flawed our memory is, they wouldn't get mad. doubting their sighted tests would just be stating the obvious. 
sadly we have daily examples that people don't know, don't understand, or don't accept that could happen to them. 

 I conduct a lot of personal tests for myself(I think one a week is a conservative estimate). I don't post the results unless they become relevant for a topic and I really put serious efforts for them to be reliable, because I don't think of most of my tests as rigorous enough to be evidence of something other than for me on my gears for my use. also most of the time my tests are about trying to prove myself wrong. and luckily enough, a majority of time I fail to do it so my results are that I have no result. not something of much value to share with others. "hey guys, look here I have proof that my hearing sucks!", would be the main idea behind most of my experiment results. ^_^

 because I know all I've learned about sound and myself from doing those amateur experiments, I admit that I am biased in favor of other people who also conduct controlled tests. I assume they understand things better and can draw conclusions more in line with their data. on the other hand, for self proclaimed subjectivists doing only sighted tests, I basically trust nothing they say. maybe they're right, maybe they aren't, but as I can't tell and they also can't. so what is the point? better reject the all thing and wait for actual evidence IMO.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 24, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> of course placebo and preconceptions can make someone enjoy music more. no question about that. topics like this one and in general this entire section of the forum are for people who want to know if the magic is effectively in the sound or not. some like myself get very unhappy when there is doubt lingering around on that matter. it's an active decision to go look for that. we never force anybody to do it if they don't want to.
> what ends up having guys like me clashing with people happy in their own mind construct, is that those guys come push their subjective reality onto everybody else and call it fact. that wouldn't happen if they weren't so ignorant of their own condition. a great many audiophiles get offended when you doubt what they claim to have heard or what they remember about it. they take it as a personal attack because the only explanation they come up with in their mind is that we think they are mental, or lying. if they really understood how omnipresent biases are, how human senses cannot be consciously separated from each others, or how flawed our memory is, they wouldn't get mad. doubting their sighted tests would just be stating the obvious.
> sadly we have daily examples that people don't know, don't understand, or don't accept that could happen to them.
> 
> ...



The research on subconscious cognitive biases goes back decades, and I've been working to apply it to improve judgment and decision-making in engineering.  We're certainly all subject to these biases, and they can hugely impact our lives.  I like studying the lives of highly successful people, and my impression is that they tend to do a better than average job of detecting and mitigating biases (Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger are good examples in the world of investing).  And of course this is really important in science too.

The basic problem here is that, because these biases operate mainly at a subconsciously level, they're somewhat invisible - or at least cloaked - so it's inherently difficult to detect and mitigate them.  So I sympathize with people who sometimes make bad judgments and decisions because of these biases, since I surely do too!

Another complication is that it's somewhat natural and not entirely unreasonable for people to trust their perceptions and intuitions, and to sometimes have conviction about them.  So it can be very difficult to convince someone that something they heard wasn't real.

As far as gathering, accepting, and rejecting evidence, as I said in the other thread, I try to be pragmatic and scale my efforts based on what's at stake for me.  I don't feel a particular calling to try to enlighten others, but I help where I can.  I was in the audio shop a while back and a customer was struggling over how to allocated his headgear budget.  He was contemplating stretching to buying a $4500 McIntosh DAC/amp, and I suggested that he compare it with my $500 Mojo.  I sincerely told the sales guy that if the McIntosh sounds significantly better (which I hoped would be the case), I'll likely buy one.  We picked some good tracks on Tidal, matched levels as best we could, used a decent headphone (Utopia), and both compared (sighted tests).  Neither of us heard much (if any) difference, though I thought maybe the Mojo sounded a bit better.  I think I saved him a lot of money, and I don't think he cared about the McIntosh look or name.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

The power of the human mind to erroneously convince itself it's seen or heard something is hard to overstate.  If you've ever been to a hypnosis show, you can see the types of things people think they see / hear / feel when nothing more than a few laughs are at stake.  Now imagine what audiophiles can do when thousands of dollars and personal dignity are on the line!


----------



## Phronesis

Zapp_Fan said:


> The power of the human mind to erroneously convince itself it's seen or heard something is hard to overstate.  If you've ever been to a hypnosis show, you can see the types of things people think they see / hear / feel when nothing more than a few laughs are at stake.  Now imagine what audiophiles can do when thousands of dollars and personal dignity are on the line!



To provide some balance though, as Gerd Gigerenzer and others have argued, our biases are inherent to heuristic shortcuts which are wired into us from our evolutionary history.  These heuristics have been and still are necessary to make reasonably accurate judgments and decisions in real-world timeframes, given the finite limits of our cognitive processing capability.  We can't methodically deliberate through all of the situations we face in our daily lives.  The way our brains/minds work is in some ways a curse, but can also be a blessing, such as when we enjoy music.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

True enough, I am mostly being silly here.  Have you read Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahneman?  It's a great treatment of cognitive biases and how they're apparently meant to save time / effort.  He doesn't go much into perceptual bias (well, at least, not up to where I am in the book) but it's a very good general overview.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 24, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> True enough, I am mostly being silly here.  Have you read Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahneman?  It's a great treatment of cognitive biases and how they're apparently meant to save time / effort.  He doesn't go much into perceptual bias (well, at least, not up to where I am in the book) but it's a very good general overview.



Yup, that would be the first book I would recommend as an entry to this topic.  Kahneman is excellent and lives up to the hype (he's a rival of Gigerenzer to some extent, and Gigerenzer is worth listening to also).

I too would like to read more about perceptual biases, and will appreciate any recommendations.


----------



## castleofargh

if audiophiles can't find it in them to look up placebos and preconceptions in wikipedia despite how often they get to read it mentioned by annoying dudes, I doubt they would go read psychology books. 
I enjoyed a bunch of Kanhneman's books. all his seemingly random anecdotes often involving his buddy Amos something, and leading to cool observations and ideas. I felt that more than getting answer I was getting a different way to look at the world.
got the same impressions from a few light scientific books, like the one on Feynman life, I'm always shocked by how similar those people can be in how they simply look at the world from a different reference point. and just that changes everything. 
I'm usually an avid reader of the useless, mainly SF(I love original ideas), and had no particular interest in psychology. at least I thought so. turns out I love that stuff.^_^
not directly in the same vein of topics, but certainly interesting and with some ideas we can't help to project on audiophiles impulse purchases, I really learned a lot from The marshmallow test. also a pretty easy read for noobs like myself. 

I remember Gigerenzer from Ted talks or stuff like that but never looked for his books. what he said seemed much more obvious and as such less attractive to me. but maybe that's because he has to discuss simple stuff on such a platform? 


wow I don't think I've ever made so many off topic posts in one day. I blame you so that I don't have to reflect on it.


----------



## KeithEmo

Along with strictly psychological issues like cognitive bias, I find that many audiophiles seem to be either unwilling or unable to understand certain fine nuances of meaning.
And I find that this specifically seems to relate to many of the apparent disagreements in this particular forum.
In many of the tests I've read about, the protocols used are seriously limited, or actually flawed.

And, in MANY cases, people try to use the results of tests to bolster their arguments when the results themselves simply fail to do so.
For example, you could test a few dozen people, or even a few hundred, and conclude that "peanuts are not toxic to humans".
(The reality is that peanuts are perfectly safe for most people, cause slight allergic reactions in some people, and are quite lethally toxic to a very few.)

As an example of the problem.... to pick a subject that's a personal favorite of mine......
"Is there an audible difference between high-resolution and CD resolution audio files?"

This seems to be a very simple question, which suggests that a simple answer might in fact be found.... 
HOWEVER, actually designing a protocol to test it properly is rather complex, and the details of such a test will depend on your goals.

For example, let's say my goal is to determine: "If most people can tell the difference between 16/44k and 24/96k files."
(This would be the sort of question I would want to know if I sold high-res files, or a player that plays them, or even a magazine that reviews them.)
To test it, I would probably make up a group of ten files... composed of a random mix of different resolutions... 
Then I would pick a random sample of 100 people, ask each to rate which files they thought were high-resolution, and then correlate the results.
A good correlation between their guesses and the actual sample rates of the individual files would indicate that "most of them noticed a difference".
And a poor correlation (approaching random) would indicate that most of my test subjects hadn't been able to tell the difference.

However, you have to be _EXTREMELY CAREFUL_ to avoid "reading things into the results that aren't there".
Let's just assume, for the sake of our discussion, that, out of 1000 total guesses, 516 were correct and 484 were wrong (we required each person to pick one or the other).

From an "overall statistical view" our results would seem to show that "the majority of people cannot tell the difference most of the time".
(516/1000 is well within random variation for a sample of that size.)
And, so, if our goal was "to find out whether the majority of people could tell the difference" then we have probably got a usable result (the result being "no").

HOWEVER, have we proven that "there is no audible difference"?
Not at all.
What if it turned out that, out of our 100 participants, five of them (that's 5% of our sample) were right 90% of the time?
We would then have a very positive correlation with a specific portion of our test sample.
If even one person could tell with 90% accuracy, then we have a pretty good case to claim that "at least some people can probably tell the difference with good reliability"...
And, if five people guessed with 90% accuracy, we would have an even better case to claim that "a significant minority of people seem able to tell the difference with good reliability"...
(However, notice that, if we'd only looked at the overall number, we would have missed that significant portion of the result.)

Now, which result is "the correct one"?
The answer is: BOTH OF THEM.
However, which result might be more useful to you or I may depend on what we want to use it for.
- If I'm setting up a new "easy listening broadcast radio station" for the general public, I would probably conclude that "most of my intended audience won't notice the difference".
- BUT, if I was setting up "a new audiophile radio station for discerning listeners", I might decide that many of the members of my target audience would be among the 5% who notice.
- So, if the goal of my study was: "To find out if MOST people can hear the difference", I would have a result: NO.
- BUT, if the goal of my study was: "To find out if there was an audible difference", I would also have a result: YES (because I have several test subjects who rated very highly).
- AND, if I personally am trying to decide whether it's worth buying high-resolution files, then that result would be somewhat inconclusive.
    (If that's the case then my best bet is to take the test myself.)

Note also that our results would absolutely suggest further study.
After all, there is some statistical probability that, by random chance, some of my subjects will score far better than the random average.
(Flipping a coin and getting ten heads in a row by random chance is extremely unlikely, but the odds aren't actually 0%.)
Statistics tell us that, if only one person guessed with 90% accuracy, there's a good chance it's random; but, if five people guessed with 90% accuracy, the odds of that are lower.
We've also only determined our results with certain music samples, certain associated equipment, and under certain test conditions.

We always need to consider how our test conditions relate to real world usage conditions:
- perhaps, with a different set of speakers, the results would be the same - perhaps not.
- perhaps we would get different results with speakers - or with headphones
- perhaps the results would be different with different types of music.
- perhaps, if my new audiophile radio station is going to be dedicated to 70's and 80's era rock music, it might be a good idea to run a test specifically with those.
- and, if I'm hoping to attract 50 and 60 year old listeners, perhaps I should be more interested in what they hear than in what high-school students notice 
- (and perhaps people would score better after being "trained" by hearing both versions of all the files first)

As a "science oriented discussion area" it would be really nice if people would be, well, more detailed and scientific about both their claims and their conclusions


----------



## castleofargh

agreed. we could say that we're a good example of scientific vulgarization gone wrong. scientific research leads to myth and marketing tricks just as often as it leads to a better understanding of sounds or listeners. also the very first thing a person not familiar with science will do, is pass all the warnings, all the conditions for the test, and go straight for the conclusion. then he will tend to apply that conclusion to a lot of non applicable situations. the very concept of conditional truth is pretty foreign to the audiophile hobby. 
and that's when we have proper data to begin with. in practice people grab on to any random extraordinary anecdote they have, and run with it as if it was a new law of physics. that I find really scary. someone who misread a question and turns it into whatever he's interested in, it's wrong, but I get it. we're audiophiles, we're egoistic by nature. but that ability to turn any random accident into rules, that stuff is nasty. it pollutes all discussions.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> The research on subconscious cognitive biases goes back decades, and I've been working to apply it to improve judgment and decision-making in engineering.  We're certainly all subject to these biases, and they can hugely impact our lives.  I like studying the lives of highly successful people, and my impression is that they tend to do a better than average job of detecting and mitigating biases (Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger are good examples in the world of investing).  And of course this is really important in science too.
> 
> The basic problem here is that, because these biases operate mainly at a subconsciously level, they're somewhat invisible - or at least cloaked - so it's inherently difficult to detect and mitigate them.  So I sympathize with people who sometimes make bad judgments and decisions because of these biases, since I surely do too!
> 
> ...



What if your Mojo products aren't actually audibly superior to many other similar devices costing a fraction of the amount?   What biases are you gravitating towards that makes you believe the Mojo is any better than a McIntosh or a cheap Schiit product?  If there is a difference, it can't be much, can it?  I would think any differences should be insignificant, unless you really like to see a light turn on to confirm a specific format is playing.   I think I could save that same person even more money.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> I remember Gigerenzer from Ted talks or stuff like that but never looked for his books. what he said seemed much more obvious and as such less attractive to me. but maybe that's because he has to discuss simple stuff on such a platform?



From what I've seen, his books for the general reader are a bit light, and his books for specialists are quite dense.  I haven't yet found anything in between from him.


----------



## robthemac

@KeithEmo you're right, but with one small proviso. The more outcome measures you have, the higher the likelihood of some outcomes reaching statistical significance. This is called P-hacking, and is a big problem in medicine and psychology at present. If you use a P-value of 0.05 (i.e. there being a 5% chance of the result being due to chance), you only need to measure about ten outcomes to have a pretty high likelihood than one reaches statistical significance (chances are 1-(19/20)^10, I think...)

What is a better measure of significance in your example is having clusters of people at one end of the normal distribution curve.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> What if your Mojo products aren't actually audibly superior to many other similar devices costing a fraction of the amount?   What biases are you gravitating towards that makes you believe the Mojo is any better than a McIntosh or a cheap Schiit product?  If there is a difference, it can't be much, can it?  I would think any differences should be insignificant, unless you really like to see a light turn on to confirm a specific format is playing.   I think I could save that same person even more money.



For me, weighing the results of my listening against the cost of the Mojo (versus less expensive products), it was worth taking the "risk" of spending more on the Mojo.  As I said in another thread, I would need more scrutiny before spending $10K on the Dave.  It's all relative - for many people, the cost of the Dave is simply out of reach, for others it's peanuts, and many of us are somewhere in between.  I didn't actually encourage the other guy to buy a Mojo, I just suggested that the McIntosh may be a waste of money since similar performance can apparently be obtained for a fraction of the cost.


----------



## robthemac

PS: how much to ship your factory renewed BasX A-100 to NZ? Got an HE-6 that needs powering.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo, great post.  Totally agreed that tests need to be designed to answer specific questions, the results interpreted accordingly, and the limitations recognized related to generalizing from those results and the test conditions.  This is a good read from the medical setting:

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124


----------



## bigshot

If we're talking amps, power and impedance are more important to sound quality than the particular model or brand. Unless something is designed remarkably poorly or defective in manufacture, an amp should be audibly transparent. I've had a lot of amps in the past 40 years, and the only one I had that wasn't audibly transparent was from the late 1960s/early 70s.


----------



## KeithEmo

Shipping from the USA to NZ is expensive... and the A-100 has some weight to it.
I had our front office spot check the pricing - and shipping to NZ comes up around US$175
(that's NOT including the price of the amplifier itself and any possible import duties).



robthemac said:


> PS: how much to ship your factory renewed BasX A-100 to NZ? Got an HE-6 that needs powering.


----------



## robthemac

Bloody hell, almost cheaper to fly there myself....


----------



## KeithEmo

Absolutely.

I just wanted to point out that there's a distinct difference between statistical significance and a fact that can be generalized with absolute certainty... and many audiophiles in particular seem to miss that distinction.

The number of people with a potentially fatal peanut allergy is almost certainly "statistically insignificant".
And this even extends to the point that, if you see someone fall over after eating a peanut, the likelihood is that they DIDN'T collapse from a peanut allergy.
Yet neither of those statistical probabilities rules out the POSSIBILITY that he or she has a serious peanut allergy.

Unfortunately, many audio companies use less than credible science to sell their products, and many audiophiles seem too eager to believe what they read (or give in to their biases).
This leads to the quite reasonable suggestion that much of what audiophiles claim to hear much of the time probably is in fact the product of their own biases.

My point was basically that many people don't understand "how to read the statistics" and "how to design the tests".

For example, let's say I'm trying to prove that "the difference between FLAC and WAV files of the same bit depth and sample rate is inaudible".
(First off, the only real way to do this is to attempt to falsify that claim - attempt to prove that some people do hear a difference and then fail in that attempt.)
I could test a thousand people, with twenty files each, and perhaps produce a result that "there was no statistically significant correlation" when people attempted to tell which they were listening to.
However, by doing it that way, while I would have failed to prove that there IS a difference, or to PROVE that there isn't; I could only suggest that there is NO difference.
(And only on the particular test equipment, with the particular sample files, and under the particular test conditions, I chose.)

The test protocols often used in audio generally fail to pick out small groups of outliers (for example the small percentage of people who have "absolute pitch").

From a practical point of view, if I wanted much more conclusive results, here's how I would run the test....

I would advertise a public application for test subjects.
I would offer a prize of $500 to anyone who can "get 17 out of 20 correct" when trying to guess whether they're listening to a FLAC or a WAV file.
I would invite them to use the audio system of their choice.
(If I expected a lot of applicants, I might have a self-administered "screening round", to weed out those who obviously couldn't tell, before the "cash round".)

This protocol would:
- self-select for people likely to actually be able to hear a difference (at least by their own evaluation)
- provide those people an incentive to participate
- provide an incentive for them to try their hardest to succeed
- ensure that they were tested under optimal test conditions (within limitations)

I would now see if any of the applicants were INDIVIDUALLY able to distinguish which file was which format to a statistically significant degree.
And, if a statistically significant number of the participants "beat the odds" then I would conclude that I had a positive result.
And, if even a few participants "beat the odds", I would conclude that the result appeared significant, but statistically COULD still be due to random chance.
So I would RETEST my successful candidates - with a longer list of files.
And, if they were AGAIN able to "beat the odds" I would conclude that those few candidates were actually able to hear the difference.
And, if, UNDER CONDITIONS CHOSEN BY THE APPLICANTS, their guesses were still random, I would have a pretty solid justification for claiming that there was probably no audible difference.

In short, I would have offered every reasonable opportunity for a positive result...
All I need is one person who can consistently and reliably hear a difference to state with certainty that "at least some humans can hear a difference".
However, BECAUSE I PROVIDED EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR A POSITIVE RESULT, if I FAIL to produce a positive result, then my failure gives credibility to my claim that the negative result is probably correct.
(Note that it is impossible to ever prove a negative in most situations.)

I would still have failed to test against the possibility that there is some specific small group who could actually hear a difference but failed to participate (perhaps only children below the age of five can hear it........)
But that is probably a minor consideration.

However, I would have given every person who believes that there is in fact a difference to "win their point" under their chosen conditions.
Therefore, I can assert that "I have given everyone a fair opportunity to prove me wrong in my claim that there is no difference - and nobody has succeeded in doing so.)



robthemac said:


> @KeithEmo you're right, but with one small proviso. The more outcome measures you have, the higher the likelihood of some outcomes reaching statistical significance. This is called P-hacking, and is a big problem in medicine and psychology at present. If you use a P-value of 0.05 (i.e. there being a 5% chance of the result being due to chance), you only need to measure about ten outcomes to have a pretty high likelihood than one reaches statistical significance (chances are 1-(19/20)^10, I think...)
> 
> What is a better measure of significance in your example is having clusters of people at one end of the normal distribution curve.


----------



## KeithEmo

No kidding.

Shipping to NZ from the USA is _EXPENSIVE_. 
(I shipped a dozen CDs to NZ once, in jewel cases, without the commercial rates... it cost me almost $90.)



robthemac said:


> Bloody hell, almost cheaper to fly there myself....


----------



## KeithEmo

I would tend to agree with you in the practical sense.... although, to a degree, it depends on what you mean by "audibly transparent".

Here at Emotiva, I've had many opportunities to compare different amplifier models side by side....
And, in many cases, there are what I would call tiny differences.
However, in many situations, it's not a matter of one sounding obviously more transparent than another, but simply a slight difference.
(The gains were matched within a fraction of a dB, and the frequency response likewise were flat within a fraction of a dB.)
And, listened to, each by itself, both sounded "perfectly transparent".

When I discuss this with people, I tend to say something like: "if you switch back and forth there is a tiny difference - but, if I walked out of the room, and walked back in, I probably couldn't tell you which one was playing".

I suspect that the reality is simply that the commonly accepted numbers for "indistinguishably" aren't strictly true.
For example, if I were to play a pure sine wave, then increase the level by 0.1 dB, would that change really be inaudible?

I tend to compare the situation with sound to our perception of colors.
If I were to paint two squares both similar shades of red.... and show them to you on a white background.... separated by an inch of white space.... there is some threshold variation where you would identify them as different colors.
But, if I were to move the squares so they _TOUCH_, you would find that a much smaller difference between them would enable you to see a "seam" between them.
Likewise, compare two pieces of "transparent window glass" and you'll find that they are slightly different colors.

I note that you say "all those amps were audibly transparent"...... but did you actually switch directly back and forth between two of them?
(With NO pause, of even a second, between them.)

Note that I'm being very careful _NOT_ to claim that there are _SIGNIFICANT_ differences there. 



bigshot said:


> If we're talking amps, power and impedance are more important to sound quality than the particular model or brand. Unless something is designed remarkably poorly or defective in manufacture, an amp should be audibly transparent. I've had a lot of amps in the past 40 years, and the only one I had that wasn't audibly transparent was from the late 1960s/early 70s.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 24, 2018)

Audibly transparent means that the ability of the amp to reproduce the music exceeds the ability of human ears to hear differences. No coloration. Above the line where improvements can't be heard any more. An amp can't be "more transparent" than another amp. It either has audible coloration, distortion or noise, or it's audibly transparent.

Most amps, players, DACs and redbook, SACD, high bitrate lossy... all audibly transparent. If it isn't, then it's either poorly designed or a manufacturing defect. (If someone knows of an amp that is audibly different, I'd like to have information on it.)

I do direct A/B switched, line level matched comparisons of every piece of equipment I own. I haven't found anything that sounds different than anything else yet. If I do, I'll probably send it back for a refund, because my system is calibrated to a particular response and I don't want one thing to be colored differently than another. And in digital audio, I refuse to put up with audible noise or distortion.


----------



## Phronesis

Perhaps nothing is truly 100% "transparent," even if a given set of measurements don't show significant noise or distortion, so there could still be subtle (or not subtle) differences in sound.  Every form of measurement involves an interaction between the measuring apparatus and what is being measured, so measurements don't simply "tell us the way things are," and measurements are subject to their own errors.  Sometimes the process of measuring can even significantly influence the thing being measured.  Moreover, we can't get away from the fact that all measurements have to be interpreted in the context of (fallible) models.  I'm not comfortable with the assumption that measurements do or can tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

I don't intend offense to anyone, but my observation is that there can be a problem with dogmatism on _both_ sides of these debates.


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> I would tend to agree with you in the practical sense.... although, to a degree, it depends on what you mean by "audibly transparent".
> 
> Here at Emotiva, I've had many opportunities to compare different amplifier models side by side....
> And, in many cases, there are what I would call tiny differences.
> ...



Have you ever attempted to compare two amps of the same make and model?  Might there also be tiny differences just from the manufacturing tolerances?  I have seen informal test results where a listener appears to be able to identify a difference when quickly switching between test samples, though they were unable to pick a favorite.  In these situations, it was never fully determined what the exact differences were, or even if something in the test procedure was providing a cue that tipped off the listener.  

I suppose that I am the "walk in a room and walk out of a room" tester at this point.  In the past, I had resorted to ABX testing several dozens of times when I swore I heard a difference, only to fail miserably again and again.  Now I sit decidedly on the skeptical side of things, and even if others might have stupendous hearing, I know my limits and I have arrived.  

It's mp3 streaming for me, and to my half centenarian ears, it sounds simply fantastic.  I just don't hear much of any real difference that would trump the convenience and quantity of music I currently enjoy.  Though, I listen almost exclusively with stereo speakers at low volume levels, so I don't have many issues to contend with that might arise from headphone usage and/or louder listening levels.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 24, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Perhaps nothing is truly 100% "transparent," even if a given set of measurements don't show significant noise or distortion, so there could still be subtle (or not subtle) differences in sound.



That would be frequency response then. What sort of signal could an amp produce that wouldn't show up in measurements of frequency, amplitude, distortion or noise? Of course there is such a thing as 100% transparent. We can record and measure sound beyond the range of human hearing. The only part of audio that makes it impossible to reproduce sound (as opposed to signal) transparently are the errors in transducers and the effect of space and reflection on sound. That's all mechanical, not electronic.

But you seem to have missed the point I was originally making. Audible transparency has nothing to do with measurements. It has to do with two sounds directly compared in a blind, line level matched direct A/B switched comparison using human ears. Audible transparency means it sounds the same to your ears. You don't need to measure to determine that. A controlled listening test will do the trick.

I understand though that a lot of people have a bias against believing measurements... That is, until you ask them to compare in a controlled way using their ears. That's when they shift their bias to asking for measurements again! It's bias making a person's thinking process do flip flops. I see it all the time.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 24, 2018)

bigshot said:


> That would be frequency response then. What sort of signal could an amp produce that wouldn't show up in measurements of frequency, amplitude, distortion or noise? Of course there is such a thing as 100% transparent. We can record and measure sound beyond the range of human hearing. The only part of audio that makes it impossible to reproduce sound (as opposed to signal) transparently are the errors in transducers and the effect of space and reflection on sound. That's all mechanical, not electronic.



My understanding is that FR curves can be generated in various ways, and can't reflect timing errors.  Again, a measurement which can't tell the whole story.



bigshot said:


> But you seem to have missed the point I was originally making. Audible transparency has nothing to do with measurements. It has to do with two sounds directly compared in a blind, line level matched direct A/B switched comparison using human ears. Audible transparency means it sounds the same to your ears. You don't need to measure to determine that. A controlled listening test will do the trick.



Then we're back to the limitations of listening tests.  There can be both false positives which see differences which aren't there, and false negatives which miss differences which actually are there.  And some people may have better hearing ability than others, just as some have better vision than others.



bigshot said:


> I understand though that a lot of people have a bias against believing measurements... That is, until you ask them to compare in a controlled way using their ears. That's when they shift their bias to asking for measurements again! It's bias making a person's thinking process do flip flops. I see it all the time.



IMO, we should make use of both measurements and listening, recognizing the strengths and limitations of each.  Even when we do a good job of using both together, there will be uncertainty and we can get things wrong.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> Then we're back to the limitations of listening tests.  There can be both false positives which see differences which aren't there, and false negatives which miss differences which actually are there.  And some people may have better hearing ability than others, just as some have better vision than others.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, we should make use of both measurements and listening, recognizing the strengths and limitations of each.  Even when we do a good job of using both together, there will be uncertainty and we can get things wrong.



An ABX listening test is all about identifying ANY difference between two audio test samples.  If someone claims to hear something different, but we can't rationally show any measurement that would account for such a difference, an ABX is the best way I can think of to try and determine if an identifiable difference is actually being heard or if the difference is from some other bias not directly related to our hearing.

It is not a methodology to show that one test sample is audibly transparent from another.  I don't understand why we would care about false negatives with this type of testing.  If someone claims to hear differences, and nothing obvious is provided to account for such an audible difference, prove it.  When blinded and the difference vanishes, I will believe that "difference" was not real, and simply one of many common, known biases that we are all susceptible to experiencing.

Weren't you already participating in this forum before using a different username?  It seems so familiar, like we have been down this exact road many times before.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> My understanding is that FR curves can be generated in various ways, and can't reflect timing errors.  Again, a measurement which can't tell the whole story.
> 
> Then we're back to the limitations of listening tests.



Timing errors fall under the category of distortion.

Listening test are where the rubber meets the road. Where else are you going to judge whether one thing sounds different than another? Measurements are abstract representations of listening tests. Listening tests are the real deal. It's what you perceive.

Your bias is showing. Focus on the logic of the thing and you'll do better. "Flip flop" doesn't work.


----------



## analogsurviver (Apr 25, 2018)

Oh, dear... timing errors fall under the category of distortion ? Really ??? Nothing to do with frequency response, which is  a linear distortion ?

I'm 101% sure Bigshot would pull dozens of "peer revieved references" the second anybody claimed that timing is crucial - with each and every SEPARATE harmonic product  analyzed with down to 0.0000000.......................01 % accuracy, in an attempt to claim that it is NOT distorted at all. And, predictably, succeding in his attempt. Backed by who knows how many "peers".

True ... for each and every log, but not the forest.

I agree listening test are where rubber meets the road. Except that both road and rubber differ significantly between say US highway while driving according to the speed limitations - and a proper race track, anywhere in the world, driven to the max . Basically, he is defending the position that whatever is good enough for driving on the US highway, is good enough for everybody and for all times. While forgetting that speed and security of driving on the US highway today once was deemed neckbreaking and has been paid with many lives of those who have been willing and courageous enough to push the envelope. Although motor sport may well seem ludicrous to some most of the time, with passage of time the solutions first developed to gain that fraction of a second per lap in performance do trickle down to ( at least better ) cars used on the road in public traffic. Of course not bringing normal cars to the level of the latest hot rod - but a decent street legal car of today is faster than race car from XY years ago - not to mention anything about security and comfort.

Human perception of sound is of course a constant, subject to deterioration with age. It can not evolve, no matter the training, nearly as much as human driving skills that must - and can - follow each technological advance in cars while trying to squeeze the last ounce of performance. Then again, it is not frozen in time and carved in stone either... given a chance of a good demo, training/ practice, etc,  people do respond to the improvement(s) - even those so ferociously opposed in science threads on head-fi.


----------



## robthemac

None of us dispute that people respond to ''improvements'. The dispute is whether the perceived improvement is true or misperception. I certainly believe that people hearing improvements with expensive cables (and in many situations, amplifiers) are not hearing anything that can be reliably tested (as is backed up by the vast majority of blind tests conducted). 

None of that changes the fact that certain gear 'sounds better' to some people. The phenomenology is not in doubt.


----------



## 71 dB

Phronesis said:


> My understanding is that FR curves can be generated in various ways, and can't reflect timing errors.  Again, a measurement which can't tell the whole story.


If you "generate" frequency response calculating Fourier transformation (FFT) of the impulse response, you get _complex-valued spectrum_. From that you can get magnitude spectrum ("FR curve") and phase spectrum. From phase spectrum can be calculated group delay which means timing errors. Of course there are less sophisticated measurement methods, but impulse response describes completely a _linear _system. If a system has too much non-linearities to be measured accurately, there are methods (A. Farina's logarithmic sine sweep) to get a special impulse response where the linear part of the impulse response is separated in time from the non-linearities and one can analyse the "linear timing errors" of the system by windowing into the linear section only.


----------



## castleofargh

robthemac said:


> None of us dispute that people respond to ''improvements'. The dispute is whether the perceived improvement is true or misperception. I certainly believe that people hearing improvements with expensive cables (and in many situations, amplifiers) are not hearing anything that can be reliably tested (as is backed up by the vast majority of blind tests conducted).
> 
> None of that changes the fact that certain gear 'sounds better' to some people. The phenomenology is not in doubt.




the axiom is that there is a change because we're using a different device, cable, body lotion...

the questions we want to answer in blind listening test isn't if something measures differently, because for that we have measurements and they're way more accurate than our ears. instead we wish to know if the difference we perceive is sound(kind of relevant for so called audiophiles IMO).
when in a blind test dedicated to answer that question, we notice a change, then we can legitimately say that at least that change is sound and is relevant to us.
but if we fail to notice anything, we can reasonably conclude that the change we perceived on sighted listening was not a change in sound, and clearly wasn't something relevant to our own hearing.  

then what we do with that information is our problem. if something is pretty or famous and will impress our friends, I can understand buying it. it's the claiming that it makes night and day improvement in the sound that we shouldn't do if we were a little bit honest with ourselves.


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> Oh, dear... timing errors fall under the category of distortion ? Really ??? Nothing to do with frequency response, which is  a linear distortion ?



Distortion is anything that makes the output signal of a system different from input signal apart from amplification and constant delay at all frequencies. For example: If a system outputs the input amplified 20 dB and with 1000 ms delay at every frequency, it is undistorted. If the system has 19 dB amplification at 100 Hz but 21 dB amplification at 1000 Hz it has linear distortion. If the system generates 1011 ms delay at 100 Hz, but 993 ms at 1000 Hz it has linear distortion (timing errors). Linear distortions come in many shape and forms.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 25, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> An ABX listening test is all about identifying ANY difference between two audio test samples.  If someone claims to hear something different, but we can't rationally show any measurement that would account for such a difference, an ABX is the best way I can think of to try and determine if an identifiable difference is actually being heard or if the difference is from some other bias not directly related to our hearing.
> 
> It is not a methodology to show that one test sample is audibly transparent from another.  I don't understand why we would care about false negatives with this type of testing.  If someone claims to hear differences, and nothing obvious is provided to account for such an audible difference, prove it.  When blinded and the difference vanishes, I will believe that "difference" was not real, and simply one of many common, known biases that we are all susceptible to experiencing.
> 
> Weren't you already participating in this forum before using a different username?  It seems so familiar, like we have been down this exact road many times before.





bigshot said:


> Timing errors fall under the category of distortion.
> 
> Listening test are where the rubber meets the road. Where else are you going to judge whether one thing sounds different than another? Measurements are abstract representations of listening tests. Listening tests are the real deal. It's what you perceive.
> 
> Your bias is showing. Focus on the logic of the thing and you'll do better. "Flip flop" doesn't work.



LOL, I'm new here, but would appreciate knowing the usernames of others who shared my thought patterns, so I can do some reading and maybe predict what I'll be thinking a year from now!  I'm actually not just new to the forum, but also fairly new to paying real attention to headgear.

I was perhaps sloppy in my wording previously.

Generally, I agree that blind comparative testing is valuable.  But I think that such testing also has limitations in the sense of potentially not accurately revealing differences which are more subtle, may be perceived more subconsciously than consciously, and/or may have a more significant effect when listening durations are longer and more like real listening.

Now if a listener is unable to consciously perceive differences based on such a test, it could be the case that those differences are too small to be concerned with, so we could say that A and B are the same from a practical standpoint.  My only real reservation with that view is that subconscious effects of such differences during normal listening could affect our ability to enjoy music to an extent that we don't realize.  On the other hand, arguing against this, I can clearly tell the difference between my best equipment and my 'good enough' equipment if I consciously compare the sound quality, but when I get out of analytical mode and just immerse myself in the music, I generally forget what equipment I'm using and I'm not sure that the difference in equipment makes a significant difference in my enjoyment of the music (this would require a different type of test, which would be even more difficult to set up and would have more pitfalls).

I keep coming back to the idea that the biggest downside of being an audiophile may be that paying attention to equipment and sound quality may greatly interfere with becoming immersed in music and fully enjoying it.  To the extent that I may temporarily be an audiophile, I'm a reluctant audiophile.  When I visit my local audio shop, I like all the toys and their potential to make me happy, but I also ask myself why I'm wasting my time with this crap, instead of listening to music or doing something else more worthwhile.



analogsurviver said:


> Oh, dear... timing errors fall under the category of distortion ? Really ??? Nothing to do with frequency response, which is  a linear distortion ?
> 
> I'm 101% sure Bigshot would pull dozens of "peer revieved references" the second anybody claimed that timing is crucial - with each and every SEPARATE harmonic product  analyzed with down to 0.0000000.......................01 % accuracy, in an attempt to claim that it is NOT distorted at all. And, predictably, succeding in his attempt. Backed by who knows how many "peers".
> 
> ...



I admit that I don't fully grasp the analogy, but I like it, since I have a good bit of experience with motorsports. 



71 dB said:


> If you "generate" frequency response calculating Fourier transformation (FFT) of the impulse response, you get _complex-valued spectrum_. From that you can get magnitude spectrum ("FR curve") and phase spectrum. From phase spectrum can be calculated group delay which means timing errors. Of course there are less sophisticated measurement methods, but impulse response describes completely a _linear _system. If a system has too much non-linearities to be measured accurately, there are methods (A. Farina's logarithmic sine sweep) to get a special impulse response where the linear part of the impulse response is separated in time from the non-linearities and one can analyse the "linear timing errors" of the system by windowing into the linear section only.



The technicalities are beyond my expertise, but my impression is that this supports what I was saying, since we're taking a lot of procedural and calculation steps which go beyond simply comparing two real signals, point by point, to see if they differ only by an amplitude scaling factor and a constant time shift.  That isn't to say that all of this analysis isn't useful, only that it provides measurements which can't tell the whole story.


----------



## KeithEmo (Apr 25, 2018)

First off, let me say that I agree entirely with BigShot - that there's nothing subjective that _CANNOT_ be measured... and so, if two amplifiers sound different, and the difference is real, then you _WILL_ be able to measure it.
And, conversely, if there is no measurable difference - meaning that the two output signals are identical to the proverbial "many decimal places" - then you will not hear a difference.

_HOWEVER_, there are lots of different measurements, lots of different measurement conditions, and most measurements can be performed in many different ways.
I've measured a lot of amplifiers and, believe it or not, no two _EVER_ have_ EXACTLY_ the same measurements.
And, when you talk about audible differences, there are also what we would normally call "thresholds of audibility".
That's where we pick an arbitrary number and state, with presumed certainty, things like: "if the THD is less than 0.5% then nobody will be able to hear the difference".

For example, with amplifiers, THD is normally specified as a limit......

"This amplifier will deliver up to 100 watts with THD of less than 0.5% from 20 Hz to 20 kHz into 8 Ohms."
This is definitely useful information, and it tells us in a general sort of way the amplifier is relatively low in distortion - which is good.
However, if we were making an analogy to real estate, that would be equivalent to saying: "This house is less than 10,000 square feet."
For a given amplifier, at a given power level (say 10 watts), THD will vary with frequency..... so we could show a graph for that.
However, those graphs will vary, sometimes considerably, for different power levels..... so we need a bunch of different graphs showing THD vs frequency at different power levels.
And, of course, since we're talking about _TOTAL_ harmonic distortion, for each point on each of those graphs, the number we're seeing is a sum of all the harmonics involved.
So, in order to be "really complete", for each frequency, at each power level, we should be seeing a spectrum plot of how much of _EACH_ harmonic is present.

Also note that these differences are often_ NOT_ trivial.....
For example, a poorly designed Class B amplifier will have a lot of something called crossover notch distortion.
This will appear on the graphs as significant amounts of only _certain_ harmonics... and will actually _increase_ at lower power levels.
However, once you get below a certain power level, it will disappear again, because it will disappear below the noise floor.
Many people report being able to hear relatively low levels of this particular type of distortion....
(Especially since, unlike most other common types, it increases as the level is lowered.)

And, of course, we measure amplifiers with a resistive load.
Frequency response and distortion will be different with reactive loads (remember that load cube measurement).
So, now, if you want a "complete" set of measurements, you'd better run FR and THD graphs, at a lot of different power levels, and do ALL of that with a bunch of different loads....
(Of course, now we're talking about thousands of graphs, which nobody is going to bother with.... and, even if we did, nobody would be able to interpret directly.)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that, so far, we've been talking about taking these measurements using steady state sine waves.
Other waveforms contain multiple harmonics, which will each have some level of distortion, but which might also interact to produce more interesting variations.
And, yes, we do measure those interactions..... by measuring IM distortion.
But, we typically measure IM distortion using a particular pair of test frequencies.
And, while this is representative of an amplifier's performance, the IM distortion could really be quite different if we measured it using different frequencies.
And, how about if we use combinations of three or more frequencies?
And let's not forget that we're _STILL_ talking about sine waves in combination (all steady state waveforms can be expressed as combinations of sine waves).

But what about non-steady-state test signals - like music.
What if I test the THD of my amplifier, at 10 watts, at 1 kHz.... while playing bursts of a 129 Hz tone, at 100 watts, into an inductive load, through that same amplifier channel?
And, yes, the bursts of higher current _WILL_ alter the performance of several components in that signal path.
We might see some really odd changes in the THD of our 1 kHz text signal right when the louder tone cuts on and off.... or, with luck, and good design, we may not.
Doing that sort of test would be rather complicated, and it sure isn't a standard test, but it could well show up in a musical recording.
(In that drum solo with the Wurlitzer in the background, does the Wurlitzer warble a tiny bit when the drummer whacks the skin?).

And, so far, we're still "inside the amplifier".
Things get even more complicated when we connect a speaker.
Now the damping factor will come into play...
And, yes, even though we always quote it as a single number, damping factor in an amplifier also varies with frequency and power output level... and with reactive loads.

My point, which I've done my best to overstate - but reasonably - is that nobody ever takes "all the measurements" or even "all the useful measurements".
In real life, when we design an amplifier, we use "best practices" to avoid causing well known problems.
Then we do the standard tests... because they really do often point out other common problems we may have missed... and because they may point us to other weak spots in the design.
Then we listen to the amp and, if we think we hear something odd, we go back and do our best to figure out what it is - and how to measure it (or if we were just imagining it).
(And, at this point, some boutique companies who can't afford the test equipment, or don't know how to use it, resort to "tuning things by ear" to fix the problem.)

With some problems this is simple....
Crossover notch distortion has a characteristic sound, shows up on certain tests, and happens to be easy to see on an oscilloscope trace.
It's also usually relatively easy to fix with a minor adjustment to the bias circuitry.

While some problems are more... err... problematic....
If you've been around long enough you probably remember "Transient Intermodulation Distortion" (TIM) - although you haven't heard it mentioned lately.
As it turns out, TIM is a real thing, but it's very difficult to measure directly, and there's no real standard for measuring it.
Fortunately, it's also easy to _AVOID_ if you follow good design practices.
Also, if you know how to read those standard tests, there are indicators that give you an idea if you might have missed it.

I also don't entirely dispute the assertion that there may be subtle issues which take a while to notice... however, the other side of that problem is that such issues
are very difficult to test. (Is that amplifier really "fatiguing" - or are you simply tired that day? We could test it, but we'd need to have a whole bunch of people listen
for a long time, and survey how they felt the next day... which would be really expensive to arrange.)
I would say, though, from experience, that "subconsciously noticed differences" are more likely to be due to bias than to "really subtle differences".
(It really is more likely that your subconscious is reacting to an attractive face plate than to a subtle variation or obscure sort of distortion.)

*******

PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT trying to "throw a monkey wrench into objective testing".
Quite the opposite.
I am a firm believer that, if someone claims to hear a difference, the first step should be to _VERIFY THAT IT'S REAL USING SOME SORT OF DOUBLE BLIND TEST_.
However, I disagree that you can "know" that no such difference exists, under _ALL POSSIBLE CONDITIONS_, simply based on the result of a very few standardized measurements.
Sometimes there really are audible differences on products that "test pretty good on the easy standard tests".
(And, yes, I would agree that "on a well designed product" they shouldn't occur.....   but you can draw your own conclusion about what that means.)



Phronesis said:


> LOL, I'm new here, but would appreciate knowing the usernames of others who shared my thought patterns, so I can do some reading and maybe predict what I'll be thinking a year from now!  I'm actually not just new to the forum, but also fairly new to paying real attention to headgear.
> 
> I was perhaps sloppy in my wording previously.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Apr 25, 2018)

KeithEmo dropping some quality knowledge here, good post.

I just wanted to point out that while you would want to use logarithmic/dynamic IR sweeps and suchlike to catch nonlinear distortion, you certainly can catch timing errors with nothing more than a good old fashioned null test.

An aside - in this corner of the forum I think we want to be sure not to get into the "what if there's something we *can't* measure but it's still audible?"  This is audio homeopathy.  "Sure, there's nothing but water in there... according to your so-called "science"".   Everything from the electrical signal generated by the microphone, to the physical motion of a speaker cone is measurable (with the right equipment) beyond even the most outlandishly exaggerated range of human hearing.  The nice thing about audio signals is they're 2-dimensional and pretty simple to deal with compared to some things.

KeithEmo is completely right that there is usually no reason to measure *everything* or even most things.  When you're designing audio equipment or mixing a record, you work to a reasonable standard.  If it sounds and measures good enough or a little better than is called for by the project, then the project is done.

So the upshot is basically, yes, we *can* measure everything, but some things don't really need to be measured.

e.g. if you're worried about effective bit depth when your speakers only have an SNR of 75dB anyway, that's not a measurement that needs to be done.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 25, 2018)

KeithEmo, thank you for spelling out what I was only able to allude to.

Yes, in principle, we should be able to identify objective differences through measurements.  After all, objective differences mean physical differences, and ideally we can find a way to detect physical differences.  But in practice, tests have limitations, and a given set of measurements may miss a real physical difference (which may or may not be audible to some listeners), and some measurements may even have errors which suggest physical differences that aren't really there.  KeithEmo has illustrated well the enormous real-world complications in doing measurements/tests and the associated limitations.

It's analogous to tests doctors do for our health.  A hundred tests of a person can all come out 'normal', suggesting that the person is healthy, whereas the person doesn't feel well because there's really something biologically wrong which the tests have missed.  Individual tests are limited (hence paying attention to false positive and false negative rates), and even many tests together are limited.


----------



## Phronesis

Zapp_Fan said:


> So the upshot is basically, yes, we *can* measure everything, but some things don't really need to be measured.



I think the upshot is that standard measurements, combined with listening, are usually 'good enough', but those measurements can still miss things which some listeners can detect.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> I think the upshot is that standard measurements, combined with listening, are usually 'good enough', but those measurements can still miss things which some listeners can detect.


Why do you insist on this? Does there need to be some room for the supernatural here?


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 25, 2018)

colonelkernel8 said:


> Why do you insist on this? Does there need to be some room for the supernatural here?



There's no need for anything supernatural.  The point is that real signals can't be fully characterized by any measurement or set of measurements.  They could be characterized very well by measurements - hence the value of doing measurements - but not perfectly.  This point seems obvious to me, and KeithEmo has already fleshed it out very well.

Let me put it another way.  Two real signals could differ slightly in some way, but a given measurement or set of measurements may miss the difference and indicate that the signals are the same.  We don't even need to bring listeners into the picture.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Apr 25, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I think the upshot is that standard measurements, combined with listening, are usually 'good enough', but those measurements can still miss things which some listeners can detect.



I don't know if you're arguing against this point or not, but just for the usual sake of pedantry, if a human being can detect something, so can measurement equipment - if you have the time & budget to do the appropriate measurements.  There is often no good reason to do the measurements, but that doesn't mean they can't be done in principle.

Let me put it another way.  How could something be reproducible but not measurable?  Meaning - if it exists in a recording, it was "measured".  The signal passed through equipment that "measured" the signal, and came out the other end.   To say otherwise is like asserting people's eyes can see things in prints of photos that cameras can't detect.  

But the photo CAME FROM a camera.  So that would be a fairly silly thing to assert.

Is there maybe some aspect of live sound that is not reproducible in principle?  I don't think so, but I don't know enough about acoustics to rule it out, out of hand.  But we're talking about recorded audio, which in a real sense is sound that has been measured already.

Now if you want to argue that there is distortion that is so subtle that it's beyond reproducibility of any kind - with any equipment that exists on earth - you're basically at the point of saying you can hear things like quantum tunneling in your headphones, so at that point I get off the argument train and walk back to town by myself.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Generally, I agree that blind comparative testing is valuable.  But I think that such testing also has limitations in the sense of potentially not accurately revealing differences which are more subtle, may be perceived more subconsciously than consciously, and/or may have a more significant effect when listening durations are longer and more like real listening.



Measurements can definitely reveal things that are more subtle, but they can also reveal things that are totally inaudible. Unless you know where the line of threshold of perception lies, a measurement is just an abstract number with no practical context. We listen to music with our ears. It's just as important to measure our hearing as it is to measure the output of our stereo system. Ultimately, our ears are the last processing of the signal in the chain. There is no point pushing sound we can't hear through the chain. If we can't hear it, it isn't going to improve perceived sound quality. Our ears are what they are. We have to produce recorded sound to suit them.

Humans do not hear more discerningly over long periods of time. In fact, the longer you listen, the more your ears adjust to accommodate the sound. Auditory memory is notoriously short. For similar sounds, the length of time is just a couple of seconds. That's why controlled listening tests have direct A/B switching so the samples can be compared right next to each other.

We do not perceive subconsciously. Hearing is a mechanical process. You either hear something or you don't. How you *interpret* the sound might have some sort of subjective spin, but being able to hear a difference in a controlled comparison test is pretty much cut and dried. The purpose of blind testing is to remove subjective or subconscious bias. You can't apply bias if you can't tell which is which. And you can't apply bias if you can't hear it in the first place.

Subjective enjoyment of music is an intellectual process, not a mechanical one. You can enjoy very low fi recordings of great music as much as hi fi. If you want to improve your enjoyment of music subjectively, it isn't hard to do that. Create a comfortable space to use as a listening room. Read up about the musicians and history of the music you listen to. Expose yourself to a broad range of music of all styles and eras to gain a wider frame of reference. Think about what you listen to. All of these things will improve your "subconscious" perception of music more than inaudible sound.



Phronesis said:


> I think the upshot is that standard measurements, combined with listening, are usually 'good enough', but those measurements can still miss things which some listeners can detect.



What things are those? The way you would prove that would be with a controlled listening test. Do you know of any controlled listening tests where people were able to hear things that couldn't be measured? Or are you just assuming that there must be something because you want to believe that?

Human perception has been studied for centuries. Sound reproduction and measurements go back over 100 years. Most of the principles we're dealing with here were totally understood by the time of Bell Labs in 1920. If there is some aspect we're missing, I'm sure scientists would love to know about it so they can study it.

Analogsurvivor:

Response error = changes in tone
Amplitude error = changes in volume
Distortion = changes in the signal

It's possible for an error in one area to affect another I suppose. But timing error is changes in the signal. In its broadest definition any deviation is distortion. There are lots of different kinds of distortion.


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't disagree with anything you said there.... 

However, I think we are interpreting the semantics somewhat differently. 

I absolutely agree that there would be no point in reproducing sounds which we cannot hear or otherwise percieve. However, I don't agree that the "currently accepted standards" are always correct. For example, "everybody knows that the range of human hearing is from 20 Hz to 20 kHz"... except for at least one recent test which found out that "under certain lab conditions humans can hear frequencies as low as 10 Hz". Likewise, virtually every test I've read about that was performed to test "the range of human hearing" used continuous sine waves. Well, that is NOT conclusive.... because our hearing _MAY_ respond differently to non-continuous tones, or to various combinations of tones. You're actually talking about the results of one very simple, and very limited, test. That test was also designed to determine "the typical range of human hearing" - which is not the same as "the absolute limit". If you did a test for perfect pitch you would find that very few humans have it.... but a few really do. 

As for "subconscious differences"... here's an extreme example... 
Let's say I play a monaural music clip, centered exactly between the left and right channels. Now, I'm going to add to that a 21 kHz test tone, switching on and off at one second intervals, only from the left speaker. Will the apparent sound source of the music change due to the ultrasonic test tone (perhaps because it causes the gain in my left ear to shift slightly when it's on)? I don't know... and neither do you... because, at least as far as I recall, I've never read of anyone performing that test. And, if it turns out the result is perceptible, it will _ONLY_ work on systems capable of reproducing that ultrasonic 21 kHz tone... and we'll have to be very careful to choose an amplifier and speakers which don't introduce other differences - perhaps intermodulation products from that ultrasonic tone.

And, as for your comment that "we don't perceive subconsciously"....... 

Here's my claim.....

I'm going to play the exact same audio test signal or piece of music for you from two different amplifiers.
The amplifiers will be identical in every measurement - except that one will add a 21 kHz sine wave tone at 110 dB SPL.
I predict that both will sound exactly the same - except that, with the one with the ultrasonic noise added, you'll soon get a headache.
I would call that headache... as it relates to the music... to be "a subconscious effect" (you certainly cannot hear it).
It's a physical effect, but, since you can't hear the 21 kHz tone, all you'll know is that, with _THAT_ amplifier, you get a headache.

And, yes, I carefully chose that example to prove the point......
- a 21 kHz tone would be easy enough to verify by measurement
- but, being above 20 kHz, "it should not be audible and so shouldn't make any difference"
- it's not entirely implausible that an unstable amplifier might oscillate at 21 kHz

I also find that, with modern subwoofers, I can often _FEEL_ vibrations that are clearly subsonic.
So, is a music system that fails to reproduce those "inaudible but clearly _FELT_ vibrations" accurate or not?

I simply suggest that most tests are designed to determine "typical responses and averages".
I agree that MOST people can't hear sounds above 20 kHz...
But I would not be willing to say _with absolute certainty_ that nowhere on the planet is there a human who can hear 25 kHz.
Likewise, recordings and equipment are generally designed for "a typical user" - whatever that means to the designer.

Back when vinyl was still very popular, all turntables had some tiny speed variations.
However, the better models were designed so their speed variations were "totally inaudible to most listeners when listening to music".
But, from what I'm told, some of those few people out there with "perfect pitch" found those "inaudible" variations quite annoying.
And if, as your test signal, you play a continuous 3 kHz sine wave instead of music, most of us notice even tiny variations in pitch.

As "a scientist" I tend to think and define things in absolutes.
Peanuts are NOT "100% non-toxic" - because I know at least one person who (according to his doctor) would die if he ate one.
Therefore, peanuts are "non-toxic to the vast majority of humans" - but we cannot say "all".



bigshot said:


> Measurements can definitely reveal things that are more subtle, but they can also reveal things that are totally inaudible. Unless you know where the line of threshold of perception lies, a measurement is just an abstract number with no practical context. We listen to music with our ears. It's just as important to measure our hearing as it is to measure the output of our stereo system. Ultimately, our ears are the last processing of the signal in the chain. There is no point pushing sound we can't hear through the chain. If we can't hear it, it isn't going to improve perceived sound quality. Our ears are what they are. We have to produce recorded sound to suit them.
> 
> Humans do not hear more discerningly over long periods of time. In fact, the longer you listen, the more your ears adjust to accommodate the sound. Auditory memory is notoriously short. For similar sounds, the length of time is just a couple of seconds. That's why controlled listening tests have direct A/B switching so the samples can be compared right next to each other.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

And the best way to separate facts from "unsupported perceptions" is to do some sort of blind or double blind test.
Note that this is really not at all precluded by any of the normal arguments from "subjectivists".

A double blind test does _NOT_ have to last five minutes.
If you believe that "a certain product is more fatiguing" then, by all means, test each sample for a full week instead of five minutes.
Take your two products, set up ten one-week trial periods, randomly listen to one each week, and correlate the results.
And, if you believe that "the stress of the testing protocol" is affecting the results, then let people hit the button themselves, whenever they want to.

Pharmaceutical companies routinely run tests that run for weeks, or even months or years, to get long term results.
People in the audio industry tend to shy away from this sort of test because of the expense and time involved.
Nobody in the audio industry really wants to hand out 500 amplifiers.... and then quiz the recipients a month later to see who has had more headaches.

To be honest, it is my personal opinion that most of the differences people claim to hear with cables are psychosomatic.
Furthermore, in the situations where tiny differences are measurable and perhaps audible, they are most often random.
For example, different cables, with slightly different electrical characteristics, may actually sound (and measure) slightly differently when used with certain equipment.
_HOWEVER_, it then becomes a matter of perception and marketing for the manufacturer to convince you that one or the other is _BETTER_.
(From my experience, audiophiles have an above average tendency to be willing to accept that "different = better", based on vague or unscientific claims.)

I would also point out that it's not unreasonable to simply accept both types of "experience" for what they are.
I've certainly paid more for equipment that looks nice, or that's more fun to use... but, if I'm paying for aesthetics rather than performance, I'd like to know.
(And, in that context, does it really matter whether 'the music sounds better" or "I enjoy it more"?)



robthemac said:


> None of us dispute that people respond to ''improvements'. The dispute is whether the perceived improvement is true or misperception. I certainly believe that people hearing improvements with expensive cables (and in many situations, amplifiers) are not hearing anything that can be reliably tested (as is backed up by the vast majority of blind tests conducted).
> 
> None of that changes the fact that certain gear 'sounds better' to some people. The phenomenology is not in doubt.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2018)

Feel free to consider 10Hz significant, but it isn't needed for reproducing music and it can't really be heard- it can only be felt. It's the same with super audible frequencies. You can turn up a 28kHz squeal loud enough that you will be able to perceive it as sound pressure. But feeling and hearing are two different things. There's a point where frequencies no longer convey pitch. That point is well above 20Hz and well below 20kHz. Not to say that feeling an undefined sub bass thump isn't nice. It's just that the established thresholds are already overkill for listening to music. By 14 Hz or so, you're getting to about the limit that normal speakers can produce anyway.

Audiophiles focus on the extremes of the frequency range much more than they should. The difference between mediocre sounding music and great sounding music depends a lot more on the quality of the core frequencies than it does the extreme ends. If your core frequencies are clear and balanced, you could probably roll off the top and bottom octaves and music would still sound good.


----------



## KeithEmo

You really do have to consider the context... and that includes dates.

Human perception may have been studied for centuries.... 
But the equipment available to do so has changed considerably.
The best equipment in existence in 1920 could not generate what we would now call a "low noise" or "low distortion" test signal.
And, comparing what people considered to be "audible differences", while listening to music recorded on wax cylinders really was somewhat imprecise by today's standards.



bigshot said:


> Measurements can definitely reveal things that are more subtle, but they can also reveal things that are totally inaudible. Unless you know where the line of threshold of perception lies, a measurement is just an abstract number with no practical context. We listen to music with our ears. It's just as important to measure our hearing as it is to measure the output of our stereo system. Ultimately, our ears are the last processing of the signal in the chain. There is no point pushing sound we can't hear through the chain. If we can't hear it, it isn't going to improve perceived sound quality. Our ears are what they are. We have to produce recorded sound to suit them.
> 
> Humans do not hear more discerningly over long periods of time. In fact, the longer you listen, the more your ears adjust to accommodate the sound. Auditory memory is notoriously short. For similar sounds, the length of time is just a couple of seconds. That's why controlled listening tests have direct A/B switching so the samples can be compared right next to each other.
> 
> ...


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> My understanding is that FR curves can be generated in various ways, and can't reflect timing errors. Again, a measurement which can't tell the whole story.



Define the "whole story" or "whole truth". If you're talking about a measurement down to infinity, no we can't do that and therefore we don't know the whole story/truth but a measurement beyond or way beyond even the vaguest chance of audibility, yes, we can do that. If the "whole story" is the whole story of what our ears can respond to, then yes, we can get the whole story.



Phronesis said:


> The point is that real signals can't be fully characterized by any measurement or set of measurements.



So you're saying that Nyquist's theory was wrong, that Shannon's mathematical proof of that theory was wrong and consequently digital technology does not exist? This is a problem is that your "point" obviously seems entirely reasonable and logical to you but, because you don't know why it's wrong, you don't understand the consequences of what you're asserting, and those consequences are not in the slightest bit reasonable or logical. The consequences are, that for your assertion to be true, Shannon's proof must be wrong and Shannon's proof is the foundation of modern information theory. If modern information theory is in fact wrong, then all the digital devices which rely on it would not work; all mobiles, computers, laptops, tablets, digital TVs. So, without apparently realising it, you have made an assertion which is clearly ridiculous, presumably even to you.

But, there is an even more obvious reason why you're "point" is incorrect. If we can't measure it, then we can't record it and you can't reproduce it! So, even if there is something we cannot "characterise" (which there isn't) then it's irrelevant anyway because it does not exist in any recording you're trying to reproduce. You can't just keep making assertions, completely ignore the simple logic of why your assertion must be false and then keep repeating that assertion!



Phronesis said:


> Two real signals could differ slightly in some way, but a given measurement or set of measurements may miss the difference and indicate that the signals are the same.



I've already given you the details of a very old, well known and widely used test which is GUARANTEED to precisely indicate if two signals are the same. This is another example of you making an assertion, having that assertion proved incorrect, simply ignoring that proof and then repeating your original assertion again, although this time in a different thread! There's only one logical conclusion to draw if you continue to do this.

G


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> Human perception may have been studied for centuries....
> But the equipment available to do so has changed considerably.



If you haven't ever done any reading on Bell Labs, you should. It's amazing how many of the things we discuss every day in Sound Science come from research done at Bell Labs. And you'd be surprised at how advanced they were technologically. Just because something didn't exist in consumer audio at the time, it doesn't mean that it wasn't being worked with at Bell Labs. EMI also was involved in pioneering early research.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 25, 2018)

I agree with what KeithEmo said in his last two posts.

Measuring is good, but has limitations.  Listening tests are good, but they also have limitations and pitfalls, which aren't eliminated by 'rigorous' blind testing.  People may hear real things that particular measurements missed.  People may hear things that aren't really there physically.  Measurements may reveal real things which listeners didn't hear.  In the end, physical and psychological phenomena are complex beyond our full understanding (so we have to use models), and uncertainties can't be entirely eliminated (only reduced).

Are any of these points really controversial?


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2018)

What sort of real sounds can be heard that can't be measured? I'm interested to know. And can the things that can't be measured be recorded?

I know that we can measure things we can't hear, but that doesn't mean that the inverse is true. The way I see it is that measurements tell the whole story and listening tests tell you what part of that really matters.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree...
And I like your camera analogy...

However, especially when it comes to digital audio, the catch is often in what we choose to measure... and what we choose to claim "doesn't matter".
(And the difference between how machines "perceive things" and how humans do.)

I'll give you a really simple example.

Let's say that I generate two entirely separate monaural channels of "white noise" - just random noise.
I put one in the right channel of a stereo file and the other in the left channel.
This would technically be referred to as "uncorrelated white noise" - which simply means that the two channels aren't specifically related to each other.
If we compare those two channels, they will have the same frequency response, and the same frequency spectrum, but the actual bits will be randomly different.
And, if we listen to the stereo pair, we'll hear a nice gentle "hiss" spread across the sound field.

Now, instead of doing that, I'm going to generate a single channel of monaural white noise and copy it to _BOTH_ stereo channels.
This would be considered to be "monaural white noise" or "channel correlated white noise".
Now, if we compare those two channels, they will have the same frequency response, and the same frequency spectrum, but the actual bits will be the same.
And, if we listen to this pair of channels in stereo, we will hear a single white noise source centered between the speakers.

More to the point, if we compare our two samples, using most typical measurements, they will both appear simply as "stereo white noise".
Standard measurements will not indicate whether the noise in the two channels is correlated or not.... 
However, the two files will sound very different.

This sounds trivial....

However, as part of its process to minimize storage requirements, one of the early multi-channel CODECs would automatically eliminate duplicate high-frequency information.
So, with _EITHER_ of our files, this CODEC would recognize that "the high frequency portion of the spectrum was the same for both channels"....
And, based on that fact, in order to minimize storage space, it would simply store the high-frequency portion of one channel, and discard the other.
Then, when reconstructing the file, it would use the high-frequency portion of the spectrum of single channel it had stored to fill _BOTH_ reconstructed channels.

As a result, if you encoded and then decoded the sample with the monaural white noise, it would come out more or less the same as it went in.
However, if you encoded and then decoded the sample with the uncorrelated white noise, when you played it back it would play back as correlated white noise.
My point here is not that the CODEC "got it wrong".....
My point is that you would be _UNABLE_ to detect the error using almost all standard types of measurements.
The difference would be audible extremely obvious, but the normal measurements many people use when checking files for problems would overlook it.
(A "vectorscope" or "stereoscope" or "separation meter" would pick it up immediately... and mastering engineers use those... but not usually people "just checking files".)

My point is that, while this error would be easy to detect _if you were looking for it_...
And immediately audible to a human being...
It would probably be overlooked if you were "analyzing the file by meter alone".



Zapp_Fan said:


> I don't know if you're arguing against this point or not, but just for the usual sake of pedantry, if a human being can detect something, so can measurement equipment - if you have the time & budget to do the appropriate measurements.  There is often no good reason to do the measurements, but that doesn't mean they can't be done in principle.
> 
> Let me put it another way.  How could something be reproducible but not measurable?  Meaning - if it exists in a recording, it was "measured".  The signal passed through equipment that "measured" the signal, and came out the other end.   To say otherwise is like asserting people's eyes can see things in prints of photos that cameras can't detect.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Apr 25, 2018)

Good example, and I'm certainly not arguing that all audible differences are EASY to measure.  It's well known that measuring something as quotidian as high frequency response in headphones is at least very tricky to get right.  My point is simply that there's nothing out there in recorded sound that is audible and is also *literally impossible* to measure, or unknown to science altogether.  As you've explained quite well, there are many cases where the measurement to use is not obvious, obscure, difficult, or expensive to carry out.

The point as applied to audiophile stuff is simply that there is no hidden / mysterious thing about consumer audio gear (or even pro gear) that *can't* be measured, but can be heard.  I will concede that there is probably, once in a while, stuff that can be heard but nobody has bothered to measure on a given piece of gear.  And there are probably, (as in edge cases like in your example) many isolated cases of things that *really shouldn't* be audible, but are due to unusual circumstances.

But yeah, to say there is no way to measure something audible in a recording is like saying the recording contains something that is impossible to record, and you also heard it with your ears.  And then to make it even worse this is sometimes why people are spending money on things.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2018)

Everyone agrees that there are elements of sound in the real world (i.e. the effect of space on sound) that can't be captured or measured, but here we're talking about recorded sound. Let's keep focused on the point of this thread. We're tracing the degradation of the signal from the source (the original recording) through conversion from digital to analogue, through amplification. As far as I'm concerned, I demand that this part of the chain be audibly perfect, and in my experience, it isn't hard to achieve that. The transducers and space at the back end are the wild card.

You can say that you don't know of any people who can hear 26kHz, but you're keeping your mind open that someone like that might exist. That's fine. I can keep my mind open to the possibility of flying pigs and children that can distort space and time with the power of their will. That doesn't mean that it exists. We deal with the evidence we have. Rigorous scientific tests tell us people hear from 20 to 20. Measurements and listening tests tell us that modern amps and DACs are audibly transparent. You can believe that there may be an exception out there, and you may think that there may be some audible thing out there that a DAC produces that we can't measure. Great. Until there is evidence to show that, it isn't relevant.

Controlled listening tests and measurements are powerful tools. The only thing they can't help with is curing the wiggly logic of preconceived notions and bias. If we want to know the truth, we have to strive to eliminate that kind of thing, not embrace it.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 25, 2018)

Once again, I agree with KeithEmo's latest post.

I think there's an issue in this discussion with ideas being taken to extremes.  I don't think anyone is arguing that standard measurements are necessary and useful, and good enough for most audio purposes.

The issue is that there could be audible differences which aren't detected by standard measurements, because those particular measurements aren't able to detect those differences.  Those audible differences could be subtle - maybe too subtle for many or most listeners to consistently notice or care about - but they may significant to some listeners who are looking for the last increments in accuracy or fidelity, and can hear the difference.

I don't doubt that most of the differences that people claim to hear with DACs, amps, and cables aren't real physical differences, but I'm open to the possibility that _some_ of those differences are real physical differences which are audible to some people.  Blind testing is a good method to help judge if the reported differences are real, but it's not 100% conclusive, because there are issues with generalizing from the test conditions, and the statistics will only provide indications of probabilities (e.g., "there's only a 4% chance that he could really distinguish between A and B" isn't the same as a 0% chance).

And again, I would note that we don't have everything figured out about how the physical world works - this is why science evolves, rather than being static.  We have good models, but they're models, not mirrors of reality.  Can two decent cables sound different?  It's hard to believe based on our current models, but we can't rule out the possibility on that basis alone.  Similarly, we can't rule it out based on measurements either, since the measurements are also made in the context of those measurements ("all observation is theory-laden"), and they may not be sufficient sets of measurements anyway.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> Once again, I agree with KeithEmo's latest post.
> 
> I think there's an issue in this discussion with ideas being taken to extremes.  I don't think anyone is arguing that standard measurements are necessary and useful, and good enough for most audio purposes.
> 
> ...



In your first sentence you point out an issue with the discussion topics being taken to extremes, and then your last paragraph about cables seems to pull in some potentially pathological extremes to justify your position.  I mean, maybe in some extreme situation would 2 cables change the sound enough to be audible while still measuring similarly.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 25, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> In your first sentence you point out an issue with the discussion topics being taken to extremes, and then your last paragraph about cables seems to pull in some potentially pathological extremes to justify your position.  I mean, maybe in some extreme situation would 2 cables change the sound enough to be audible while still measuring similarly.



I'm a skeptic about cables making any difference at all.  It's hard for me to believe, based on the current theory/models.  I've never bought an expensive cable, and the cables that come with my Hugo 2 and LCD-3 seem pretty ordinary.  I used the example mainly because, even with something apparently as simple as a cable, there may be physics involved which we don't sufficiently understand, and therefore could affect accuracy in some way. 

Again, I doubt it, but I can't rule it out -- that's what I mean by not going to extremes.  It's ok to say 'I doubt it' or 'I strongly doubt it' or 'I'm pretty sure', but when people say things like 'I'm sure' or 'it's impossible', that often indicates dogmatic belief which isn't at all in the spirit of science.  It took open minds to develop quantum mechanics - which has some apparently 'crazy' ideas - yet it has a lot of applications in technology.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Once again, I agree with KeithEmo's latest post.
> 
> I think there's an issue in this discussion with ideas being taken to extremes.  I don't think anyone is arguing that standard measurements are necessary and useful, and good enough for most audio purposes.
> 
> ...


 you agreed previously that a controlled listening test was necessary to show that there is audible difference. so why make this sort of posts now? controlled listening tests define what is audible. that's how we define audible. 
the way you present things, it looks like you keep trying to leave a door open for people convinced that hey heard something they can't explain while under an uncontrolled experience. who cares if they really heard something. a listening test is about hearing a change in sound, if the test didn't isolate sound while removing or controlling the other variables, that person effectively doesn't know if what he perceived as change was sound or one of the other variables. his test is inconclusive for sound, his experience meaningless.
 I know how so many audiophiles and even professional reviewers base everything they believe in on crap tests, but that's not our problem. they're doing it wrong and what they come up with isn't knowledge.


----------



## KeithEmo (Apr 25, 2018)

In general I agree with you.
Anything that can be heard (or otherwise experienced) _CAN_ be measured... if you can determine what to measure and how to measure it.
(And I have to admit I really dislike arguing the opposite side of this issue... or seeming to.)

Obviously our experiences differ.
I _ABSOLUTELY_ agree with you that there is nothing about a signal which can be heard that cannot be measured.
I also absolutely agree that the room, and the transducers, and the mastering of the content itself, are far more significant than any differences we're talking about.
However, when it comes to recent tests purporting to "prove" what is and isn't audible, especially when it comes to differences between DACs, or audible differences between high-resolution and ordinary files,
or audible differences between amplifiers, or whether a given level of jitter is or is not audible, I'm afraid I can't recall ever reading about any "rigorous scientific tests" proving that they don't exist.
I've seen quite a few tests that, with certain equipment, and certain test content, failed to show that a difference was audible to a significant number of individuals.
However, from what I recall, virtually every test I've seen described in any detail suffered from one or more serious flaws.

For example, they played high-resolution and normal test files, and asked people if they could hear a difference.
But they FAILED to first take measurements with a test microphone - to prove that the "extra" high-frequency components were present in the content, and being delivered into the room by the speakers they chose.
(Any scientist knows that, if you want to test for whether a certain stimulus is  detectable, you first test your test setup itself to make sure it's presenting the stimulus to your test subjects.)
Likewise, if you want to test for "audible differences between amplifiers" you should use a variety of different loudspeakers and test material... in case the difference is only audible with certain speakers, or with certain content.

Incidentally....
Here's an article that references some recent testing....
According to this article, humans can hear sounds down to 8 Hz....
They report hearing the tones, and scans of the auditory portions of their brains show that they heard them.
So, I guess that, "according to the LATEST rigorous scientific testing the range of human hearing is now 8 Hz to 20 kHz".
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150710123506.htm
(That's the neat thing about science... as a process it admits for the possibility that errors happen and corrections sometimes need to be made.)

Personally, I haven't actually seen any evidence that there are no audible differences between DACs.
To be totally honest I haven't seen the results of what I would consider to be "a rigorous, comprehensive, and conclusive" test either way.
(I have seen a few tests that failed to produce results... but that is not the same thing.)
Therefore, since I and many associates believe that we have heard rather significant differences between certain DACs.
And those DACs did have significant measurable differences..... just not in regards to the particular parameters you prefer to use.
I'm inclined to believe that the subject could use a bit more study.
(I'm also willing to admit that I _MIGHT_ be wrong.)



bigshot said:


> Everyone agrees that there are elements of sound in the real world (i.e. the effect of space on sound) that can't be captured or measured, but here we're talking about recorded sound. Let's keep focused on the point of this thread. We're tracing the degradation of the signal from the source (the original recording) through conversion from digital to analogue, through amplification. As far as I'm concerned, I demand that this part of the chain be audibly perfect, and in my experience, it isn't hard to achieve that. The transducers and space at the back end are the wild card.
> 
> You can say that you don't know of any people who can hear 26kHz, but you're keeping your mind open that someone like that might exist. That's fine. I can keep my mind open to the possibility of flying pigs and children that can distort space and time with the power of their will. That doesn't mean that it exists. We deal with the evidence we have. Rigorous scientific tests tell us people hear from 20 to 20. Measurements and listening tests tell us that modern amps and DACs are audibly transparent. You can believe that there may be an exception out there, and you may think that there may be some audible thing out there that a DAC produces that we can't measure. Great. Until there is evidence to show that, it isn't relevant.
> 
> Controlled listening tests and measurements are powerful tools. The only thing they can't help with is curing the wiggly logic of preconceived notions and bias. If we want to know the truth, we have to strive to eliminate that kind of thing, not embrace it.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I can comfortably rule it out.   Then again, I don't buy lottery tickets either, and I'm sure my chances of winning are significantly more likely than some misunderstood properties causing 2 otherwise identical cables to sound different from one another in any meaningful way that mattered with regards to their intended purpose.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> you agreed previously that a controlled listening test was necessary to show that there is audible difference. so why make this sort of posts now? controlled listening tests define what is audible. that's how we define audible.
> the way you present things, it looks like you keep trying to leave a door open for people convinced that hey heard something they can't explain while under an uncontrolled experience. who cares if they really heard something. a listening test is about hearing a change in sound, if the test didn't isolate sound while removing or controlling the other variables, that person effectively doesn't know if what he perceived as change was sound or one of the other variables. his test is inconclusive for sound, his experience meaningless.
> I know how so many audiophiles and even professional reviewers base everything they believe in on crap tests, but that's not our problem. they're doing it wrong and what they come up with isn't knowledge.



I defer to KeithEmo's posts where he talks about designing and interpreting listening tests to answer specific questions.  I think we need to recognize that listening tests are a means to gather evidence, but no such test provides an absolutely conclusive means to answer all questions we might ask.

And (broken record) I agree with his latest post again.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> I can comfortably rule it out.   Then again, I don't buy lottery tickets either, and I'm sure my chances of winning are significantly more likely than some misunderstood properties causing 2 otherwise identical cables to sound different from one another in any meaningful way that mattered with regards to their intended purpose.



There are actually multiple questions to answer:

- Is there a difference?
- How big is the difference (effect size)?
- Is the difference of a kind that makes things sound better?

Even if cables made a difference, the differences could be very small ... and someone could think a more expensive cable sounds worse!


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I'm a skeptic about cables making any difference at all.  It's hard for me to believe, based on the current theory/models.



Here is the problem here... You're focused on what you *believe* and you keep pointing to what you *don't know* to speculate about what *might be*. None of that matters, and you aren't going to answer any questions about what is real by speculating on stuff like that. In fact, focusing on what you believe without evidence and what you don't know can point you in directions that are decidedly unreal. The way you get a glimpse of the truth is to look at the evidence and test your theories to see if they hold up. That is what we do here at Sound Science. If you approach audio like a philosophy or religion, you're going to chase straight down a gazillion rabbit holes, and you'll be taken in by swindlers and snake oil salesmen. They are selling a philosophy, not actual sound. If you want to improve the sound quality of recorded music in a concrete way, it's best to focus on proven facts and work from there.

I guess you don't have any examples of audible sound that isn't measurable. I'm afraid I'll wait for there to be evidence of that before I'll listen to that argument again. Just because you believe something might possibly exist, it doesn't mean that it does. Logic 101.


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> However, when it comes to recent tests purporting to "prove" what is and isn't audible, especially when it comes to differences between DACs, or audible differences between high-resolution and ordinary files, or audible differences between amplifiers, or whether a given level of jitter is or is not audible, I'm afraid I can't recall ever reading about any "rigorous scientific tests" proving that they don't exist.



I refer you to the first post in this thread. Perhaps you joined this thread late.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> There are actually multiple questions to answer:
> 
> - Is there a difference?
> - How big is the difference (effect size)?
> ...



I'm happy to answer these questions for you.

There is always a difference between two different things.
When it comes to cables, the difference in conductivity may be measurable, but it isn't audible.
If there is a difference, it's because of a defect of design or manufacture, so it would make it sound worse, not better.

The difference in cables is so small it doesn't come close to being audible... and there is absolutely no correlation between the price of a cable and how good it sounds.

I refer you to the first post in this thread too. You would do well to really study it.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 25, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Here is the problem here... You're focused on what you *believe* and you keep pointing to what you *don't know* to speculate about what *might be*. None of that matters, and you aren't going to answer any questions about what is real by speculating on stuff like that. In fact, focusing on what you believe without evidence and don't know about can point you in directions that are decidedly unreal. The way you get a glimpse of the truth is to look at the evidence and test your theories to see if they hold up. That is what we do here at Sound Science. If you approach audio like a philosophy or religion, you're going to chase straight down a gazillion rabbit holes, and you'll be taken in by swindlers and snake oil salesmen. They are selling a philosophy, not actual sound. If you want to improve the sound quality of recorded music in a concrete way, it's best to focus on proven facts and work from there.
> 
> I guess you don't have any examples of audible sound that isn't measurable. I'm afraid I'll wait for there to be evidence of that before I'll listen to that argument again. Just *because you believe something might possibly exist, it doesn't mean that it does.* Logic 101.



Sure, but some people here in Sound Science seem to believe to some things have been proven to not exist, when that is not the case.  There's uncertainty on both sides, which pushes us into the land of 'maybe'.  To move to one side or the other, you need evidence, but gathering evidence isn't a simple matter, since our models of physical reality may be wrong or incomplete in ways we don't understand, finite sets of measurement don't fully characterize reality, and subjective perception is prone to error.  As much as we may not like uncertainty, we need to learn to live with it, since good studies to reduce it can involve investing considerable time and money.

As a practical matter, I think we all need to make our own decisions regarding avoiding being swindled.  If someone buys expensive audio toys because it makes them feel good, and the cost is nothing to them, I don't really care.  If someone wants to buy an expensive cable because it looks beautiful and 'might' improve sound, that's up to them too.  In the scheme of things, the stakes aren't really all that high in audio, so IMO these aren't issues worth getting wound up about, but so far I'm finding many of the discussions to be entertaining and sometimes informative.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2018)

The only thing in Sound Science we believe has been proven not to exist is a human being who is immune to the effects of bias and placebo. We get people in here all the time claiming "IT'S TRUE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT!" and we patiently explain that the way to prove it's true is through evidence and testing. Then they start with the "SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW EVERYTHING!" argument, then they start arguing over minutia of testing procedure, then they start getting angry... and our eyes glaze over and we just wait for them to get a clue.

It's a good thing to recognize when you have resistance to finding out that what you *believe* to be true may not be true. Science is happy to consider that option. Philosophical audiophools fight it tooth and nail.

Personally, I am happy to allow people to spend money on audio equipment to make themselves feel good or because they believe it may theoretically make a difference (even if it doesn't in any sort of measurement or test). I'll fight to the death to allow them to do that... but I still think they're saps to allow themselves to be taken advantage of. And I know that if they are looking for happiness in buying shiny black boxes that light up, they are looking for happiness in the wrong place.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Phronesis said:


> I used the example mainly because, even with something apparently as simple as a cable, there may be physics involved which we don't sufficiently understand, and therefore could affect accuracy in some way.
> 
> Again, I doubt it, but I can't rule it out -- that's what I mean by not going to extremes.



Actually, in this case you really could rule it out if you really wanted to. 

You could record the voltages coming out of the cables with an ultra-high resolution bit of equipment (say a million dollar piece of lab gear) and compare the output.  You either have a difference that is somehow correlated with input, at the end or not.  If not, then you've ruled it out. 

If you wanted to check whether there was some exotic and unknown interaction with the speaker, you then go a step further (again with our putative million dollar lab gear) and take 100K+ FPS video of the transducer in motion and see if there is any tiny difference in its physical motion, applying the same principles of looking for signal-correlated differences. 

Now, nobody does this because it's insanely complex and expensive and has no plausible benefit to either the experimenter or society, but you could do it. 

Anyway I don't know why I'm pointing this out, except to make the point that audio is not as mysterious as certain vendors or forum posters would have you believe.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> The only thing in Sound Science we believe has been proven not to exist is a human being who is immune to the effects of bias and placebo. We get people in here all the time claiming "IT'S TRUE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT!" and we patiently explain that the way to prove it's true is through evidence and testing. Then they start with the "SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW EVERYTHING!" argument, then they start arguing over minutia of testing procedure, then they start getting angry... and our eyes glaze over and we just wait for them to get a clue.
> 
> It's a good thing to recognize when you have resistance to finding out that what you *believe* to be true may not be true. Science is happy to consider that option. Philosophical audiophools fight it tooth and nail.
> 
> Personally, I am happy to allow people to spend money on audio equipment to make themselves feel good or because they believe it may theoretically make a difference (even if it doesn't in any sort of measurement or test). I'll fight to the death to allow them to do that... but I still think they're saps to allow themselves to be taken advantage of. And I know that if they are looking for happiness in buying shiny black boxes that light up, they are looking for happiness in the wrong place.



There needs to be a balance between credulity and dogmatic scientism.  The tone of the above comments suggests a leaning towards the latter, and terms like "audiophool" are condescending.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I defer to KeithEmo's posts where he talks about designing and interpreting listening tests to answer specific questions.  I think we need to recognize that listening tests are a means to gather evidence, but no such test provides an absolutely conclusive means to answer all questions we might ask.
> 
> And (broken record) I agree with his latest post again.


I don't see the issue. acknowledging how it can be difficult to get conclusive evidence and reliable knowledge from controlled tests gives even more reasons to systematically reject uncontrolled tests and all ideas born from them. in short, reject typical audiophile wisdom as it comes almost entirely from casual listening which, while very enjoyable, is also a terrible audibility test.
there is no reason to bother with what doesn't come supported by evidence. I could, but I don't have to. and that includes all the funny ideas about stuff we can hear but can't measure, stuff we can hear but blind tests are too flawed to show, and of course Russel's teapot.
 an open mind without clear rules and limits is no different from a crazy person. I'd rather focus on what I know to be significant, and on learning more about what has been proved, instead of spending time on maybes. more so when the maybe is born from malpractice and logical fallacy as is so often the case with audiophile "open minded" theories.

controlled testing can provide evidence, not testing never will. it's as simple as that. all the "what if?" people, coming without control experiment, we don't need them. better, we shouldn't have to suffer them and their claims. that's what I think.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> I don't see the issue. acknowledging how it can be difficult to get conclusive evidence and reliable knowledge from controlled tests gives even more reasons to systematically reject uncontrolled tests and all ideas born from them. in short, reject typical audiophile wisdom as it comes almost entirely from casual listening which, while very enjoyable, is also a terrible audibility test.
> there is no reason to bother with what doesn't come supported by evidence. I could, but I don't have to. and that includes all the funny ideas about stuff we can hear but can't measure, stuff we can hear but blind tests are too flawed to show, and of course Russel's teapot.
> an open mind without clear rules and limits is no different from a crazy person. I'd rather focus on what I know to be significant, and on learning more about what has been proved, instead of spending time on maybes. more so when the maybe is born from malpractice and logical fallacy as is so often the case with audiophile "open minded" theories.
> 
> controlled testing can provide evidence, not testing never will. it's as simple as that. all the "what if?" people, coming without control experiment, we don't need them. better, we shouldn't have to suffer them and their claims. that's what I think.



My thinking is that there's enough complexity and uncertainty in these matters to keep the debates going forever.  So each person will have to make their own decisions about what to buy, relying on whatever combination of theory, measurements, uncontrolled listening, and controlled listening tests they choose to use.  On the positive side, at least there's consensus that transducers make a big difference, and we have a wide variety of good ones to choose from, spanning a broad price spectrum.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> There needs to be a balance between credulity and dogmatic scientism.  The tone of the above comments suggests a leaning towards the latter, and terms like "audiophool" are condescending.



I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but just to remind you... you're posting in the sound science forum. Everyone has to politely accept unsubstantiated subjective claims based on ignorance and bias in the other forums here on HeadFi, but this forum is different. We practice scientism. If it makes you uncomfortable. this might not be the place for you.



Phronesis said:


> My thinking is that there's enough complexity and uncertainty in these matters to keep the debates going forever.



No the facts are clear. Just read the first post in this thread. Study it. If you are interested in answers, they're all in there. The three links in my sig are good resources too. If you want to create never-ending circular arguments, the best way is to cling tightly to an incorrect idea and refuse to support it with evidence. Ignoring the contradictory evidence provided by others helps keep the pot boiling too.

This thread is a lightning rod. The reason it's "controversial" is the content of the first post in this thread. It's one of the clearest and strongest arguments against subjective audio mythogy and snake oil ever posted on the internet. We recently pinned this thread because it is very important to us here in sound science. People from the woo woo side of home audio seem to feel the need to come into this thread and stir up arguments and drama in an attempt to get it locked. That won't work.

Read the first post. It's all in there.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but just to remind you... you're posting in the sound science forum. Everyone has to accept unsubstantiated claims based on ignorance and bias in the other forums here on HeadFi, but this forum is different. *We practice scientism*. If it makes you uncomfortable. this might not be the place for you.



May want to read up on scientism before you proclaim that on behalf of the forum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Don't worry, my comment wasn't elicited by my feelings.


----------



## bigshot

Why are you posting anti-science stuff in a science forum? It seems to be a waste of time to me. Do you have a goal in mind here? I think your time would be better spent reading that first post.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 25, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Why are you posting anti-science stuff in a science forum? It seems to be a waste of time to me. Do you have a goal in mind here? I think your time would be better spent reading that first post.



Huh?  You used the term scientism.  Maybe you didn't know what it means?

Opposition to scientism isn't anti-science, it's anti misunderstanding and misuse of science.  But perhaps those distinctions are too philosophical for you?

I did read the first post.  Somewhat hodgepodge, and the results are what I expected: people often are likely wrong in what they're hearing, but sometimes some people may be right, for the people and equipment involved in these particular tests.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> Unless something is designed remarkably poorly or defective in manufacture, an amp should be audibly transparent.


How would you know either prior to purchasing it?


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> I've had a lot of amps in the past 40 years, and the only one I had that wasn't audibly transparent was from the late 1960s/early 70s.


A search for "headphone amplifier" brings 5000 listings on Amazon alone.  Let's discuss most of those as wrong categorization and say there are 1000 for sale.  What percentage of those have you evaluated thusly?


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2018)

amirm said:


> A search for "headphone amplifier" brings 5000 listings on Amazon alone.  Let's discuss most of those as wrong categorization and say there are 1000 for sale.  What percentage of those have you evaluated thusly?



You know my response by now... Please give me an example of an amp that is audibly different when playing recorded music in the home. I've been asking this for over six months and no one has cited one yet. I would REALLY like an example to point to. That would be a helpful service to people. "All amps sound the same... EXCEPT FOR... X, Y and Z." Then people would know to avoid those amps. We could make a FAQ listing all the non-transparent amps.

I'm Diogenes with my lamp searching the world for the last colored amp!



Phronesis said:


> Maybe you didn't know what it means?



No. It's more that I really don't care. When you start considering my comments, I'll reciprocate. Until then, I'm not interested in participating in the circular argument. I'll just keep restating my question until I get an honest answer. You remember my question right?


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> You know my response by now... Please give me an example of an amp that is audibly different when playing recorded music in the home. I've been asking this for over six months and no one has cited one yet. I would REALLY like an example to point to. That would be a helpful service to people. All amps sound the same... EXCEPT FOR... X, Y and Z. Then people would know to avoid those amps.



He's not the one making the sweeping generalization, you are.  That's not scientific, at best it's an assumption based on a theoretical (not empirical) argument.  If you care to share, do you have any scientific background?


----------



## bigshot

bigshot said:


> I'll just keep restating my question until I get an honest answer. You remember my question right?



You responded so quickly you might not have seen this. I edit my posts as I draft them. So I'm giving you another chance.


----------



## amirm

Phronesis said:


> IMO, we should make use of both measurements and listening, recognizing the strengths and limitations of each. Even when we do a good job of using both together, there will be uncertainty and we can get things wrong.


Correct.  So we then add the third leg of the stool which is the science and engineering of audio. Then we have high confidence picture of a product's performance.


----------



## bigshot

amirm said:


> Correct.  So we then add the third leg of the stool which is the science and engineering of audio. Then we have high confidence picture of a product's performance.



Great way of stating that. I agree totally and click like on your comment. If all three say the same thing, you are on the right track.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> Please give me an example of an amp that is audibly different when playing recorded music in the home.


I am reviewing one right now.  And it does this at even low volumes.  I will write it up in the next few days.  Look for it in ASR Forum if I forget to post it here.

For now, you didn't answer my question even though I keep asking it.  You have not listened to 0.01% of the amps out there if that.  Correct?

So it is clear, I have not evaluated 0.01% of the amps out there either.  As we correct this vacuum of knowledge more data will pop up.  

For now, you have a very naive notion of the percentage of audio products that are designed well.  Every person in the world seemingly is producing audio products given the feasibility of hardware design and manufacturing out there.  We need to weed out the ones that shouldn't get our money.  Your efforts to short-change the value of actual evaluation of audio product is a disservice to the audiophile hobby.


----------



## bigshot

I have done controlled comparisons of a few dozen amps. I've asked people on this forum to name audibly colored amps which expands the pool of potential amps exponentially. I look forward to finding the first amp that doesn't hold to the rule. That will give me a chance to figure out why someone would make an amp that isn't flat and clean sounding.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> Great way of stating that. I agree totally and click like on your comment. If all three say the same thing, you are on the right track.


Good.  Here is the reality of it.  We hardly have any controlled listening tests comparing products.  Even if we did, it would be valid for the ones tested.  So you can safely assume that factor won't exist in your buying evaluation. 

The measurements don't exist either but is one that I am determined to remedy.  Both through my own work and by shaming manufacturers to do the same.  Here is the latest ad from Schiit for example:







Good of them to say measurements matter (after saying so much they don't).  

Do you know if they are telling the truth and why?


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> I look forward to finding the first amp that doesn't hold to the rule.


It is not the first.  See this example: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/

I could count the total number of such controlled tests on one hand.  And many are very old.  Way before all the crazy designs to appeal to latest fads in audiophile world.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2018)

I can't read your scales. Too fuzzy and tiny. Do you have a clearer chart? Wiggly lines without a readable scale giving context don't communicate what you are trying to communicate.



amirm said:


> It is not the first.  See this example: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/



A turntable? Why if you are trying to isolate the amp as the problem would you use a noisy source? What is the date of that? I'm talking about modern solid state amps, particularly midrange consumer stuff.

Back in the late 70s I had a noisy amp. It hissed and popped. I haven't seen anything like that since then. When I replaced that amp in the early 80s, it was stone silent. And it was a Sanyo amp!


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> I can't read your scales. Too fuzzy and tiny. Do you have a clearer chart?


Look at the bottom of the ad.  It gives you a url to the actual measurements.


----------



## bigshot

-144 is absurd. No one needs to worry about stuff that low.


----------



## robthemac

amirm said:


> It is not the first.  See this example: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/



Just wanted to reiterate, the fact that one controlled test shows a significant result, does not mean that there is audible differences between amplifiers. The thing with statistics and random distribution is that enough people do enough tests, eventually some of them will show apparently significant results. 

Take twenty groups of people, each group flipping a coin ten times. The odds of one group having eight heads or tails out of ten is actually pretty high. If we look at just that test in isolation, it would then appear as if they had a statistically significant result. 

This is exactly why medicine uses meta-analyses of multiple different studies, increasing statistical power. It's also the idea behind 'p-hacking', that I described a couple of pages back.


----------



## amirm

robthemac said:


> Just wanted to reiterate, the fact that one controlled test shows a significant result, does not mean that there is audible differences between amplifiers. The thing with statistics and random distribution is that enough people do enough tests, eventually some of them will show apparently significant results.


The test is provided to counter the assertion that no such results have ever appeared in controlled testing.

As to statistics, this test's authors are the ones that popularized ABX testing.  Here is David's profile: http://www.aes.org/aes/davidcarlstrom

The other author is Arny whom I have known for years and asked him about the test.  He will tell you for sure there were audible problems with one amp.

So I would not bet against this one being an accidental success seeing how the total pool of such tests is so small to begin with.  There are NOT "enough people doing enough tests."  Nothing close.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2018)

How old is that test? Is that amp still being manufactured and sold?


----------



## robthemac

@amirm I don't doubt the results of that test. I just think it should be read in context of its statistical power, as should all tests. 

Especially tests which have struggled to be reproduced.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> Back in the late 70s I had a noisy amp. It hissed and popped.


So you are saying these guys published a study where they were merely testing to hear a noisy/hissy amp amongst the other?  Why do you think they could not detect the difference in some of the clips played?







This is why I say these statements about people running blind tests is a farce.  As soon as any are run whose results we don't like, we immediately make up reasons why we should not believe their outcome.  So why ask for the tests then?


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> -144 is absurd. No one needs to worry about stuff that low.


Didn't ask who has to or not worry about it.  I asked what is wrong with the measurements as they are selling to readers.

If you don't know how to read these graphs, then some learning is in order before critiquing their value.


----------



## bigshot

How old? Still made?


----------



## robthemac (Apr 26, 2018)

amirm said:


> This is why I say these statements about people running blind tests is a farce.  As soon as any are run whose results we don't like, we immediately make up reasons why we should not believe their outcome.  So why ask for the tests then?



That's disingenuous. There's a difference between making up reasons to not believe the results and interpreting them in the context of all other evidence. 

If one trial of a medication shows a significant improvement for a symptom, but there a multiple other trials showing no singificant difference, then a high degree of scepticism is required. That's not bias, it's caution.


----------



## robthemac

What is interesting is that this trial was one with a relatively rigorous protocol. That certainly gives more credence to it's outcomes.


----------



## Arpiben

amirm said:


> Didn't ask who has to or not worry about it.  I asked what is wrong with the measurements as they are selling to readers
> .


1. Not an independent lab with well defined protocols
2. Misleading when advertising new Generation USB and providing SPDIF measurement
3. Etc....

But honestly how many readers know how to interpret curves? How many cares about FFT samples/windowing/scaling or sampler clock settings?


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] Measuring is good, but has limitations. .... [2] People may hear real things that particular measurements missed.
> Are any of these points really controversial?



You're joking right? ... No, they are ridiculous nonsense rather than "really controversial"!

1. Measuring isn't "good", it's essential. Without measuring there is no recording and therefore nothing to reproduce! Additionally, that measurement has no "limitation"! This is a proven fact and not only is it a proven fact but the proof of this fact is the basis upon which ALL digital technology relies. In practise, we have to design equipment which physically implements this proven fact and this equipment does have limits but the "limitations" are those imposed by the laws of physics, which are obviously beyond the limitations of human hearing.

2. People may NOT hear real things that particular measurements missed. Although of course it depends on which "particular" measurements you're talking about. A particular measurement such as "Miles Per Hour" is going to miss pretty much everything as far as audio is concerned but a particular measurement of amplitudes is NOT! If we can't measure it, then we can't record it and you cannot reproduce it. So if our particular measurement does miss something, then it is not in whatever recording you are listening to and therefore you cannot reproduce it. This is a fundamental fact from which you CANNOT escape! Clearly, your flawed intuition is telling you something different but there are two reasons why your intuition MUST be flawed: Firstly, if it wasn't flawed then none of the billions of digital devices in constant use around the world would work and secondly, if you had anything more than your flawed intuition, where's your Field's Medal and why aren't you the world's most famous living mathematician?



Phronesis said:


> [1] The issue is that there could be audible differences which aren't detected by standard measurements, because those particular measurements aren't able to detect those differences.
> [2] And again, I would note that we don't have everything figured out about how the physical world works - this is why science evolves, rather than being static. We have good models, but they're models, not mirrors of reality.



1. You do realise that just repeating the same nonsense with different wording doesn't change the fact that it's still nonsense? What standard (or particular) measurements are you talking about? You seem unbelievably oblivious to the fact that digital audio is itself a measurement! A measurement of amplitudes during the process called "Quantisation". Without this standard measurement there is no digital audio in the first place and if this measurement is missing something, some "audible differences which aren't detected" by this standard measurement, then it does not exist in whatever digital audio you are trying to reproduce and obviously, if it doesn't exist then it CANNOT be audible! How many times are you going to ignore this fact?

2. And AGAIN (!), what has that got to do with anything? What has the real/physical world got to do with it? The "model" we have is called "digital audio", what we are reproducing is that model, NOT the real/physical world! If the real/physical world contains something which our model does not, then it is irrelevant because we are not reproducing the real world, ONLY our model! If you are going to continue to use such an irrelevant (to the point of silly) argument, then I'll do the same and ask: Do you believe that your DAC contains a bunch of miniature orchestras, rock bands and other musicians? My assertion is that It ONLY contains circuity which converts measurements into an electric current!

G


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> You're joking right? ... No, they are ridiculous nonsense rather than "really controversial"!
> 
> 1. Measuring isn't "good", it's essential. Without measuring there is no recording and therefore nothing to reproduce! Additionally, that measurement has no "limitation"! This is a proven fact and not only is it a proven fact but the proof of this fact is the basis upon which ALL digital technology relies. In practise, we have to design equipment which physically implements this proven fact and this equipment does have limits but the "limitations" are those imposed by the laws of physics, which are obviously beyond the limitations of human hearing.
> 
> ...



You missed my points, and I think you’ll continue to miss them, so I won’t continue to repeat them.  I know you have credentials, but you seem more bent on debating rather trying to really consider what others are saying.  That seems to be the modus operandi of many (not all) in this forum.  I know how you’re going to respond to this, it’s already in the script ...


----------



## KeithEmo

First, let me say that I absolutely agree with you... I don't believe in the supernatural either.
However, I think you're sort of missing the point.

There's a _HUGE_ gap between "the standard measurements" and "the supernatural".
There are a lot of things that can be measured.... and "the standard measurements" only cover a very few of them.
There are literally dozens of commonly used measurements.... and plenty more things that could easily be measured with a custom-designed test (if someone bothered to make one).

The other issue that, as technology changes, both the possible types of errors, and the technology available to measure them, changes. 
If you were testing camera lenses in 1920 you would worry about distortions like blurriness, and depth of field, and pincushion distortion.
But, once color film became popular, you suddenly had "new" distortions to worry about (and some of those really good lenses for B&W photography turned out to add some odd colors with COLOR film).
Now, with modern digital technology. and "AI correction systems", it's actually possible for your new model TV to "make George Clooney look a bit too much like Elvis" - because it actually redraws faces as part of its "picture clean-up routine".
Likewise, linear analog amplifiers can be characterized pretty well by measuring THD, IMD, frequency response, and S/N ratio.... because those were the major types of errors you were likely to see with those amplifiers.
However, with modern digital systems like DACs, we now have the possibility of seeing all sorts of "interesting" artifacts that don't fall into any of those categories.
Therefore, we need _NEW_ tests to measure them, new ways of describing them.... and we probably need to know a lot more in order to _UNDERSTAND_ them.

I guarantee you that, in 1925, Bell Labs did NOT test for the audibility of pre-ringing and post-ringing.
First off, they didn't have the equipment necessary to do so.
Second, since the equipment of those days didn't generally exhibit those sorts of differences, they had no specific need to do so.



colonelkernel8 said:


> Why do you insist on this? Does there need to be some room for the supernatural here?


----------



## Phronesis

I'm amazed that people believe that a finite set of standard measurements is guaranteed to tell you everything about a physical system that could ever possibly be known about it.  That's incredibly naïve.

Maybe this forum should be called Sound Ideology instead of Sound Science.


----------



## KeithEmo

Since this is a popular topic.... I'll add a bit to it....

Standard cables have a few well understood electrical characteristics - resistance, inductance, and capacitance.
There are also a few more complex things:
- like how well they are shielded (which varies by frequency)
- and dielectric non-linearities (which tend to be blown way out of proportion by audiophiles as a factor - but do really exist)
- (and we won't get into the specifically odd characteristics of some "specialty cables")

However, cables are one area where the associated equipment you use is a major factor.
On thing that tends to vary considerably between cables is capacitance... some cables have much lower capacitance than others... (a 10x difference would be _COMMON_).
_HOWEVER_, in general, a typical modern solid state preamp is designed to be able to drive a relatively low impedance load.
Also, even though cables may vary considerably between wire types, all of them have "pretty low capacitance" by modern standards.
Because of that, it is unlikely that there will be an audible difference between most interconnects when tested with a modern solid state preamp.

_HOWEVER_, most older tube equipment, and a lot of modern tube equipment, has a rather high output impedance (it is _NOT_ designed to drive a low impedance load).
So, if you connect various interconnects to a vintage tube preamp, there's a very good chance there will be audible - and measurable - differences.
(We're talking about a roll-off of several dB at 20 kHz with some particular combinations.... which is quite easily audible.)
This will be true of most but not all vintage tube preamps, some but not all modern tube preamps, and some very few other modern preamps (mostly passive ones).

So, in this case, we can say that "it's unlikely that there will be a significant difference with different interconnects and most modern equipment".
However, we also can't rule out the possibility that there will be a difference with certain combinations.
(And, yes, if you understand circuit design, and have the right information, you can predict which ones will and will not act in which way.)



sonitus mirus said:


> In your first sentence you point out an issue with the discussion topics being taken to extremes, and then your last paragraph about cables seems to pull in some potentially pathological extremes to justify your position.  I mean, maybe in some extreme situation would 2 cables change the sound enough to be audible while still measuring similarly.


----------



## KeithEmo (Apr 26, 2018)

I disagree with your dismissal of "the what if people".

On the one hand, audiophiles are overly prone to believe totally outlandish things, and to believe them very fervently. On the other hand, science only advances when someone poses a theory, which in turn is tested and found to be true - or when their initial theory is found to be false, but that knowledge then leads to a new theory.

I'm imagining some scientist in 1945 joking about Russel's teapot.... and about how we could never tell whether there was a two-foot metal sphere orbiting the Earth either.... but, a mere ten years later, after Sputnik I was launched, there really WAS a two-foot metal beach ball orbiting the Earth, and, not entirely by chance, our technology had also advanced far enough to be able to see it. (And now there's so much junk in orbit you need a map to avoid it.)

I absolutely agree that we should do our best to evaluate claims based on our current levels of knowledge. However, I'm not at all willing to accept the degree of dogmatism I see from may people on this forum. (For example, I keep seeing certain studies being cited as "proof" that this or that is inaudible, when the flaws and limitations of those studies are what I would consider to be glaringly obvious, and render them clearly unworthy of being considered to prove the general case.) 

There's a distinct difference between rejecting claims of fact and of rejecting theories and suppositions. There is a middle-ground, where we DO NOT accept such claims as facts, yet still consider the possibility that they might have some basis in fact. And, like it or not, investigating the silly claims that turn out not to be true is the price we pay for being sure not to miss the ones that DO turn out to be true that we find mixed in with them. 

I DO seem to recall the title of this thread being "Audiophile Claims and Myths" and not "audiophile science that has been conclusively proven by at least 42 peer-reviewed studies".



castleofargh said:


> I don't see the issue. acknowledging how it can be difficult to get conclusive evidence and reliable knowledge from controlled tests gives even more reasons to systematically reject uncontrolled tests and all ideas born from them. in short, reject typical audiophile wisdom as it comes almost entirely from casual listening which, while very enjoyable, is also a terrible audibility test.
> there is no reason to bother with what doesn't come supported by evidence. I could, but I don't have to. and that includes all the funny ideas about stuff we can hear but can't measure, stuff we can hear but blind tests are too flawed to show, and of course Russel's teapot.
> an open mind without clear rules and limits is no different from a crazy person. I'd rather focus on what I know to be significant, and on learning more about what has been proved, instead of spending time on maybes. more so when the maybe is born from malpractice and logical fallacy as is so often the case with audiophile "open minded" theories.
> 
> controlled testing can provide evidence, not testing never will. it's as simple as that. all the "what if?" people, coming without control experiment, we don't need them. better, we shouldn't have to suffer them and their claims. that's what I think.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Apr 26, 2018)

I also wanted to chime in about tube amps.  I personally don't own or have access to any (I'm allergic), but isn't the whole point of putting a tube in the signal path (other than to look cool) to add an audible difference?  Like tubes tend to add harmonic distortion - which is why they're so popular in both real and simulated form in music production.

I bet (I would not bet much) I could hear the difference between a cheap (hence probably full of cut corners) tube amp and a solidly designed solid-state amp with otherwise similar specs on the package.  Mostly because I imagine the tube amp would be specifically designed to add quite a bit of distortion and color.

I guess that doesn't really satisfy the real quest, which is nearly tautological - properly designed amps don't color the sound, so you can't find two properly designed amps that sound different.  But I agree with amrim on this, there are undoubtedly plenty of amps out there that don't fit the "properly designed" criterion.

For example the headphone amp in my (brand redacted) laptop has some insane distortion in the sub-bass region, it's impossible to ignore, let alone hard to hear.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree with you.... but I'm also going to take this opportunity to build on something I mentioned in another post.
_IN MANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS CONTEXT IS CRITICAL_.

I tell people every day that, with most modern equipment, and certainly with our Emotiva gear, all cables sound pretty much the same.
(And, if tiny differences exist and can be measured, they will almost certainly be both random and insignificant.)

_HOWEVER_, if they have a vintage tube preamp, or a modern tube preamp without an output buffer, or a passive preamp, then the opposite is true.
All of those products tend to have a high output impedance compared to most modern "active" solid state preamps...
And, because of this, they _WILL_ often interact with the amount of capacitance in a typical cable to produce an alteration in frequency response of up to several dB.
And, yes, it will be both audible and easily measured.



sonitus mirus said:


> I can comfortably rule it out.   Then again, I don't buy lottery tickets either, and I'm sure my chances of winning are significantly more likely than some misunderstood properties causing 2 otherwise identical cables to sound different from one another in any meaningful way that mattered with regards to their intended purpose.


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> I absolutely agree with you.... but I'm also going to take this opportunity to build on something I mentioned in another post.
> _IN MANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS CONTEXT IS CRITICAL_.
> 
> I tell people every day that, with most modern equipment, and certainly with our Emotiva gear, all cables sound pretty much the same.
> ...



I get it, but I thought this was already covered a few posts earlier when I made this statement:

_Though, I put very little credence on cables, DACs, and amps creating any meaningful audible difference in normal situations where the equipment is used appropriately and it adheres to generally acceptable parameters with regards to impedance matching and power requirements. 
_
When I talk about "appropriate usage", I am referring to technical parameters that you are discussing.   These situations are what I consider to be extreme, in the context that I was intending.

Hope this clears up my position a bit.
_
_


----------



## gregorio (Apr 26, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> You missed my points, and I think you’ll continue to miss them, so I won’t continue to repeat them.



You've repeated your points probably a dozen times or more. Each time you get an answer you simply ignore it and repeat your point. What is that going to achieve? If you think your points have been missed then change how you are explaining them, don't just keep repeating the same thing over and over until you get an answer that makes you look like a fool if you try to refute it and then say "you missed my point". That just indicates you realise you've backed yourself into a logical corner and need to escape by either simply leaving the discussion or moving the goal posts!!

G

EDIT: "_I'm amazed that people believe that a finite set of standard measurements is guaranteed to tell you everything about a physical system that could ever possibly be known about it._" And I'm amazed you don't even know the fundamental principles of digital audio and yet are so willing to argue yourself into the ground about it with those who do!


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> I'm amazed that people believe that a finite set of standard measurements is guaranteed to tell you everything about a physical system that could ever possibly be known about it.  That's incredibly naïve.
> 
> Maybe this forum should be called Sound Ideology instead of Sound Science.



No one is making that claim. But there exists no element of signal transmission through a cable at *audible frequencies* that cannot be measured. We can never measure anything perfectly, but we can measure this signal far, far beyond what could be ever considered audible.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> You've repeated your points probably a dozen times or more. Each time you get an answer you simply ignore it and repeat your point. What is that going to achieve? If you think your points have been missed then change how you are explaining them, don't just keep repeating the same thing over and over until you get an answer that makes you look like a fool if you try to refute it and then say "you missed my point". That just indicates you realise you've backed yourself into a logical corner and need to escape by either simply leaving the discussion or moving the goal posts!!
> 
> G



Spoken like someone who believes they have all the answers and is interested in _debating_ and 'winning', rather than in _discussing_ in good faith with an open mind and possibly learning something.  I don't waste time on such debates. 

Just because you missed my points, that doesn't mean everyone else did, and that's good enough for me.


----------



## Phronesis

colonelkernel8 said:


> No one is making that claim. But there exists no element of signal transmission through a cable at *audible frequencies* that cannot be measured. We can never measure anything perfectly, but we can measure this signal far, far beyond what could be ever considered audible.



I believe that you're sincere in your view rather than simply trying to debate, but I think you're still missing the point.  There's no disagreement that what's physical can be measured, the issue is that the particular measurements which are actually performed may not detect something which was physically there.  This has already been stated many times (not just by me), so forgive me if I discontinue repeating it.


----------



## KeithEmo

You've picked out the single biggest problem... there _AREN'T_ enough people doing enough _WELL DESIGNED AND PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED TESTS_.

The reason is pretty obvious.... money.

Pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars performing clinical trials.... but they stand to make a lot of money on the results.
(And they also have both legal and practical issues with selling drugs that they _CAN'T_ prove actually work).

The exact opposite is true of the audio industry.
Your local audio club doesn't have the funds to perform a large-scale test with rigorous protocols in place.... and neither do you or I.

As it sits now, a significant number of people believe that different brands and models of amplifiers sound quite different.
And, all claims to the contrary aside, a lot of amplifiers are in fact specifically designed to sound different to appeal to specific audiences.
(This is particular true of tube amplifiers. After all, tube amps are more expensive and harder to build than solid state ones, so why would anyone buy one if it didn't sound different?)

Now... thinking logically... what possible incentive would an amplifier manufacturer have to pay millions of dollars to fund a study?
- if it showed that their amplifiers were clearly better than lower cost alternatives it would simply confirm what their customers already believe to be true.
- if it FAILED to show that their amplifiers were better, it would hurt their business
- and, if it showed that their amplifiers were in fact better, but that the difference was small, it would STILL hurt their business
- (and the people who are convinced that no such differences exist either wouldn't read the study, or would claim that "it was fixed" anyway)

Likewise, most of the few remaining audio magazines make their money on product reviews and articles debating the issue.... and mostly on advertising.
For them, funding a proper test would be prohibitively expensive and also unlikely to deliver any benefit.
While it's true that their readers would become more informed, it would also actually reduce the amount of discussion on the subject, and reduce the options for articles about it.
It would also offend many of the advertisers who support them (most of whom buy ads in their magazine to sell expensive audio products).

The situation is even more clear when it comes to things like cables....
- A company like Audioquest has a lot of incentive to pay for advertising to convince you that their $500 cable will make your system sound better.
- Yet they have little incentive to fund a study that might prove the opposite (or even that the difference is real but insignificant)
- And a company like Amazon, who sells a $9 cable, has little incentive to spend a lot of money proving that their cable is equal to the $500 one 
(Amazon probably makes a few bucks on each of their cables; and very few of their customers would even consider a $500 cable; so they'd have to sell an awful lot more $9 cables to justify the cost of a study.)



amirm said:


> The test is provided to counter the assertion that no such results have ever appeared in controlled testing.
> 
> As to statistics, this test's authors are the ones that popularized ABX testing.  Here is David's profile: http://www.aes.org/aes/davidcarlstrom
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> I'm amazed that people believe that a finite set of standard measurements is guaranteed to tell you everything about a physical system that could ever possibly be known about it.  That's incredibly naïve.



You take a signal going into one end of a system and compare it to the signal coming out of the other end and look for differences.

It's good to try to raise your own level of knowledge up to the accumulated knowledge of science. It's not a good idea to try to drag science down to your level of ignorance. Personally, I find all the "science doesn't know everything" blather to be tiresome. If science doesn't know what you want to know about, go out and start doing some tests and make some measurements and get the ball rolling yourself. Don't just point at a gap in knowledge and say "SEE! I TOLD YOU!" Especially if the gap in knowledge is your own!


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> I believe that you're sincere in your view rather than simply trying to debate, but I think you're still missing the point.  There's no disagreement that what's physical can be measured, the issue is that the particular measurements which are actually performed may not detect something which was physically there.  This has already been stated many times (not just by me), so forgive me if I discontinue repeating it.



I'll be more direct then. *There is nothing being missed.* A transducer connected to an amplifier can only be manipulated by current flowing through the voice coil (assuming a dynamic driver, but the same notion applied to effectively every other transducer mechanism). There is no other missing element to this that amounts to anything. This current can be, as I stated, measured virtually perfectly, given the frequency constraints I stated.

Since I doubt this will satisfy you, I want you to name one phenomena that is transmitted through a wire that can in any way affect sound but cannot be measured or observed by an oscilloscope.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 26, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> I agree with amrim on this, there are undoubtedly plenty of amps out there that don't fit the "properly designed" criterion.



If you run across any that are improperly designed to the point of sounding different to human ears, please let me know. I'm making a list of them and I don't have any for my list yet. Amirm gave me one a long time ago, but the poor design didn't extend anywhere near audibility when using the amp for its intended purpose (listening to music in the home).

---

Colonel, I'm seeing an interesting thing in the comments here. It seems that people will vigorously defend things that *seem* true to them, even if they have no evidence or even personal anecdotal experience to back up their belief. "There must be amps that sound different out there, so I believe there are." "There must be sounds that science can't measure, so I believe there are." It's a slip in logic. Generally one would make an observation and then make a theory based on that, but in these cases, they're skipping over the first step and jumping straight to the theory. Since there is no evidence that the theory is based on, there's no way to disprove it other than to check every amp in the world or just take his word that there must be some sound that can't be measured. You can't prove the negative (who can test every amp in the world?) and they can't prove the positive with evidence, so it goes in circles. Interesting aspect of human nature here.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Apr 26, 2018)

Right, it can't be emphasized enough that if you're talking recorded sound, the performance of equipment relative to the signal can be characterized exhaustively, because the signal itself is *created* using similar equipment.   To put it another way - if measurement equipment misses some potentially audible phenomenon - so does the recording equipment.  They're basically two names for the same thing.  So if it's audible but not measurable, it's also not record-able.  Oh well.

There's a lot of uncertainty about the exact amount of water in the solar system, there is some uncertainty about the exact amount of water on earth, but there is no uncertainty about how much water is in your glass, because you put it there.  It's like that.



bigshot said:


> If you run across any that are improperly designed to the point of sounding different to human ears, please let me know. I'm making a list of them and I don't have any for my list yet. Amirm gave me one a long time ago, but the poor design didn't extend anywhere near audibility when using the amp for its intended purpose (listening to music in the home).



Not that it counts as "an amp" but I'm sure you could hear what's wrong with the headphone output on my laptop.  It's pretty shockingly bad.  Run a 50hz sine through it and see if you can keep your lunch down.  I can PM you the model if you want.

And I still agree that tube amps *ought* to sound markedly different, like Keithemo said, otherwise what's the point?  Maybe they don't, but that would be pretty disappointing.

Also, I just remembered, I had an old Radio Shack amp that was rated for about 50 watts or something.  It sounded like hell.  I am not sure if it was even meant for normal listening.  But it clearly exhibited a lot ( A LOT) more distortion than the other amp I used for the application.  Quite possibly not a 'properly designed' amp, and definitely not from this century.  Oh well.


----------



## skwoodwiva

Phronesis said:


> I'm amazed that people believe that a finite set of standard measurements is guaranteed to tell you everything about a physical system that could ever possibly be known about it.  That's incredibly naïve.
> 
> Maybe this forum should be called Sound Ideology instead of Sound Science.


Bingo. 
I am back. ...


----------



## gregorio (Apr 26, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> [1] Spoken like someone who believes they have all the answers and is interested in _debating_ and 'winning', rather than in _discussing_ in good faith with an open mind and possibly learning something. [1a] I don't waste time on such debates.
> 
> [2] Just because you missed my points, that doesn't mean everyone else did, and that's good enough for me.



1. True, I do not have an open mind that your intuition/belief could be correct while 70 years of proven maths is incorrect and none of the billions of devices which rely on it therefore work, but that's just me, I'm a bit close minded that way!
1a. That's exactly what your are doing and wasting our time as well!

2. Really, do you honestly think "everyone else" is agreeing with you? Maybe you need to try a more open minded forum, one which doesn't place any value in the most demonstrated of facts/science.

G


----------



## bigshot

Zapp_Fan said:


> Not that it counts as "an amp" but I'm sure you could hear what's wrong with the headphone output on my laptop.  It's pretty shockingly bad.



I totally believe you on that. All computers don't sound the same. Some are just designed for being computers and the sound aspect is just an afterthought. Playing music isn't their intended purpose. However my experience tells me that all Macs sound the same. I've had a few dozen Mac products over the years, and all of them are audibly transparent. I also can see how high end woo woo audio might have colored sound to create a "house sound". I'm most interested in finding a plain vanilla midrange solid state amp that doesn't sound like every other plain vanilla midrange solid state amp. I'm not convinced that animal exists. It seems to me like most solid state consumer equipment is made with the same basic designs and the same basic off the shelf parts to produce a product that performs in the same basic range... below the level of audible transparency.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I'm amazed that people believe that a finite set of standard measurements is guaranteed to tell you everything about a physical system that could ever possibly be known about it.  That's incredibly naïve.
> 
> Maybe this forum should be called Sound Ideology instead of Sound Science.


 you keep steering the discussion toward circumstances where our knowledge might not be enough or where we didn't test enough, or where we might misinterpret data. which looks like what @KeithEmo says from afar, except he clearly states that the alternative should be better tests and better standards to improve our interpretation of the results. while you only seem to care about saying that basically we never really know anything for sure. and while true most of the time, it's also uncomfortably similar to the argumentation some random audiophile would use to discredit the test methods which have previously discredited his own empty claims.
you've been clear about your message from the start, I don't think anybody misunderstood the general idea. but now IMO you need to be clear about where you're trying to go with it. something is flawed, sure, how do we improve on it? what would be the better alternative? just saying it's not reliable enough when everything else is way worst, that's not helping anybody and it looks pushed by some agenda.
don't get me wrong, I'm not one to oppose skepticism, if anything I want more of it, all the time. but you do need to look at the whole picture. the big problem in this hobby isn't excessive confidence in scientific methods and controlled data. this can only be read as a sarcastic joke. instead the big problem in this hobby is that we can't even get professional reviewers to consistently match volume levels or to simply use a damn switch. and just forget about conducting a blind test, you can count audiophiles doing it on a regular basis on your fingers.
we're facing a quasi systematic rejection of controlled listening tests. just talking about blind test outside of this section or in many audio forums is frowned upon or plain forbidden. keep that in mind.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 26, 2018)

"We don't know everything, so we can't know anything."

"Science doesn't know everything, so just trust your feelings."

"You don't know everything, so I am right."

"My subjective opinion is just as valid as your supported opinion."

"All opinions are equal."


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> Really, do you honestly think "everyone else" is agreeing with you?



You just illustrated my point.  I said "just because you missed my points, that doesn't mean everyone else did ..."  I did NOT say or imply that everyone else agreed with me.  The fact that you missed this obvious distinction illustrates that you're not trying to understand, you just want to debate.  It's unfortunate, because you're obviously smart and knowledgeable, and could be even more knowledgeable if you took a different attitude and considered that your understanding might be wrong or incomplete in some areas.


----------



## castleofargh

Zapp_Fan said:


> Right, it can't be emphasized enough that if you're talking recorded sound, the performance of equipment relative to the signal can be characterized exhaustively, because the signal itself is *created* using similar equipment.   To put it another way - if measurement equipment misses some potentially audible phenomenon - so does the recording equipment.  They're basically two names for the same thing.  So if it's audible but not measurable, it's also not record-able.  Oh well.
> 
> There's a lot of uncertainty about the exact amount of water in the solar system, there is some uncertainty about the exact amount of water on earth, but there is no uncertainty about how much water is in your glass, because you put it there.  It's like that.
> 
> ...


my laptop's headphone out is above 50ohm. it's easy to have unmistakable differences on more than half of my IEMs and headphones between it and a more typical low impedance amp. also I measure a crosstalk close to -40dB even when testing it unloaded, that's crap is no joke.


@KeithEmo, you quoted my post but wrote nothing. was it a mispost? I actually care about what you think about my extreme "we ain't got no time for empty claims" post. so if the answer got lost, I'd appreciate a rewrite please .


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 26, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> you keep steering the discussion toward circumstances where our knowledge might not be enough or where we didn't test enough, or where we might misinterpret data. which looks like what @KeithEmo says from afar, except he clearly states that the alternative should be better tests and better standards to improve our interpretation of the results. while you only seem to care about saying that basically we never really know anything for sure. and while true most of the time, it's also uncomfortably similar to the argumentation some random audiophile would use to discredit the test methods which have previously discredited his own empty claims.
> you've been clear about your message from the start, I don't think anybody misunderstood the general idea. but now IMO you need to be clear about where you're trying to go with it. something is flawed, sure, how do we improve on it? what would be the better alternative? just saying it's not reliable enough when everything else is way worst, that's not helping anybody and it looks pushed by some agenda.
> don't get me wrong, I'm not one to oppose skepticism, if anything I want more of it, all the time. but you do need to look at the whole picture. the big problem in this hobby isn't excessive confidence in scientific methods and controlled data. this can only be read as a sarcastic joke. instead the big problem in this hobby is that we can't even get professional reviewers to consistently match volume levels or to simply use a damn switch. and just forget about conducting a blind test, you can count audiophiles doing it on a regular basis on your fingers.
> we're facing a quasi systematic rejection of controlled listening tests. just talking about blind test outside of this section or in many audio forums is frowned upon or plain forbidden. keep that in mind.



My issue is with people making sweeping and absolute claims that they "know" that every non-defective DAC, amp, cable, etc. "must" produce objectively equal sound for "all" listeners under all conditions on the basis of assumptions, theoretical arguments, and limited and/or flawed testing.  It's on record that such claims have been made countless times.  Yes, we should ideally do testing to determine objective differences, but there are issues with designing tests and making inferences from test results, not to mention paying for the tests.  Yes, the answer is to do a lot more and better testing, but much easier said than done.  I'm all for skepticism, and that skepticism should include skepticism about our own beliefs and understanding!


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Apr 26, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> My issue is with people making sweeping and absolute claims that they "know" that every non-defective DAC, amp, cable, etc. "must" produce objectively equal sound for "all" listeners under all conditions on the basis of assumptions and theoretical arguments. It's on record that such claims have been made countless times. Yes, we should ideally do testing to determine objective differences, but there are issues with designing tests and making inferences from test results, not too mention paying for the tests. I'm all for skepticism, and that skepticism should include skepticism about our own beliefs and understanding!



This is getting tiresome. You claim our position is dogmatic, yet you can never supply the evidence that our easily falsifiable positions are incorrect. My claims aren't that sweeping. It boils down to this: devices that measure the same will sound the same. End of story. Prove me wrong. You can either specifically state what is missed in the measuring process (let's assume a full gamut of FR, THD+N, IMD, impulse response, output impedance, power, etc) that affects the audible range, or you can provide a DBT that proves audible differences. One doesn't need to perform a DBT in order to prove that a device is audibly transparent to everyone. It's why we measure things in the first place.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 26, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> My issue is with people making sweeping and absolute claims that they "know" that every non-defective DAC, amp, cable, etc. "must" produce objectively equal sound for "all" listeners under all conditions on the basis of assumptions, theoretical arguments, and limited and/or flawed testing.



Who is saying that?

I'm saying that for the purposes of listening to music in the home, you can go to Amazon and buy just about any regular amp, DAC or player they have on sale there and it will be audibly transparent. The best part of shopping at Amazon is if it isn't audibly transparent, returning it is a breeze. I've bought dozens and dozens of consumer audio products in the past decade or so, and I have checked every one of them out and they are audibly perfect for my purposes, which is listening to music in the home.

Transducers are a different story. Speakers and headphones are all over the map, and really good ones aren't necessarily cheap. Thankfully, I have made smart choices and I'm happy with my speakers and headphones now. A little EQ and they are perfect for my purposes.

When I first started out in this hobby it was different. Amps made noise. LPs had surface noise. Tapes had noise. Generation loss made noise. All of that noise stacked up and frequently crossed over into being audible under normal listening conditions. Digital has solved all those problems. We're living in a golden age of consumer electronics. You can go out and buy a $40 Walmart DVD player and it will produce sound that is audibly transparent. That is a thing to be celebrated!

The first post in this thread should be liberating to audio fans. It gives them a clear path to figuring out what they should worry about and what they shouldn't bother with. Sales pitch looks to magnify differences that don't matter to make one brand look better than another. When you know how to read specs, you have access to solid information, and you know the lay of the land quality-wise, you are armed and ready to make good decisions.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 26, 2018)

I will add, as I said in another thread, that I've heard significant differences in the sound of my DAC/amps, using various headphones and various tracks on many occasions.  This surprised me and was against my expectations.  Nor do I understand the reasons why.  I was as skeptical as any of you before those listening tests.  No, I haven't done blind testing for these particular comparisons due to difficulties in setting that up, but I intend to try.  I'm open to the possibility that none of the differences I've heard are real.  But I'm also open to the possibility that they're real, because of the consistency of my comparisons based on repeated listening.  I also don't automatically dismiss reports by others of the differences they hear, though I certainly don't automatically accept them either.  Hence my skepticism about some of the absolute claims made in this forum.

I'm not to trying to convince anyone that my observed differences are real, I'm just reporting my personal anecdotal experience.  Meanwhile, until I gather more evidence, I intend to keep an open mind about those apparent differences being objectively real or not.  For people who've done blind tests to make these types of comparisons, and haven't observed differences, I can understand that their skepticism would be heightened.  But there are plausible reasons why one person might hear real differences that another person doesn't.

Maybe this will at least better explain where I'm coming from.  If I had never heard the differences I did, I expect that my assumptions would be different.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] I did NOT say or imply that everyone else agreed with me.
> [2] The fact that you missed this obvious distinction illustrates that you're not trying to understand, you just want to debate.



1. I know you didn't, that's why I used a question mark, I was asking a question! If I were quoting you there would be no point in asking the question because you've already stated it. If everyone else is getting your points differently to me and no one else is agreeing with you either, then that's two sets of your point's everyone disagrees with. And you stated about that, "that's good enough for me". Impressive!

2. I didn't miss that distinction and so it does NOT illustrate what you are asserting. Furthermore, it's clear you being hypocritical because you are the one who is just using debating tactics, misrepresenting what has been stated, misrepresenting the context of what is being measured and/or ignoring the basic facts and carrying on anyway.

G


----------



## bigshot

Let us know what you find out when you find out when you start adding controls to your comparisons. And let us know how you plan to set up your tests. We can give you tips to avoid pitfalls. Bias is real and it’s powerful. I think you’re going to be surprised at what you find.


----------



## Phronesis

colonelkernel8 said:


> This is getting tiresome. You claim *our* position is dogmatic, yet you can never supply the evidence that our easily falsifiable positions are incorrect.



Why is it "our" position?  Do you guys agree on everything, and are reluctant to challenge each other because you're members of a group which must adhere to a dogma, lest you'll be banished from group?  In the world of actual science, real scientists challenge each other all the time, and that's part of how science evolves.  Same thing in applied fields like engineering and medicine.  Why should audio be different?  I've read through some of the other threads in this forum, and it's indeed telling how rarely you guys challenge each other an anything.

Yes, it's tiresome engaging with people who's real goal is just to debate with newcomers who don't agree with their dogma.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Apr 26, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Why is it "our" position?  Do you guys agree on everything, and are reluctant to challenge each other because you're members of a group which must adhere to a dogma, lest you'll be banished from group?  In the world of actual science, real scientists challenge each other all the time, and that's part of how science evolves.  Same thing in applied fields like engineering and medicine.  Why should audio be different?  I've read through some of the other threads in this forum, and it's indeed telling how rarely you guys challenge each other an anything.
> 
> Yes, it's tiresome engaging with people who's real goal is just to debate with newcomers who don't agree with their dogma.



Ok, substitute in "my" and then try not to deflect. We do challenge each other all the time. There're just certain items we have a consensus view on. This is one of those things. The reason that we don't argue too much on these cases is that there is usually a rock in the shoe, you in this case, trying to stir up a debate without providing evidence aside from subjective experience. In these cases what value would we bring to the table if we started arguing about something that we generally share a 99% consensus view on?

You aren't challenging my position without providing evidence and just saying "it could be that way".


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Apr 26, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I will add, as I said in another thread, that I've heard significant differences in the sound of my DAC/amps, using various headphones and various tracks on many occasions.  This surprised me and was against my expectations.  Nor do I understand the reasons why.



Hey just want to say I think this is turning more argumentative than it needs to be and you've been pretty reasonable so far IMO.  Thanks for being open-minded and being willing to actually discuss.

The sound science folks can get touchy because it's very common for "subjectivity > science" folks to swing through here and stir up resentment, toss around old, bogus arguments, get personal about it, and the leave. So many of the regulars are in defense-mode a lot of the time, because a lot of defending needs to be done as a rule.  I have found that most of these folks are pretty nice once they are satisfied you're not here to discredit the scientific method and prove the existence of magic.  

As far as hearing differences among dacs/amps, the most likely culprits that jump to mind would be impedance mismatches or not level-matching to a high standard (i.e. within a decibel or so).  Even positioning the headphones on your ears slightly differently could cause an audible difference - which highlights the difficulty of doing a "proper" test in a casual setting.

I say you deserve credit for any serious testing you're willing to do, it puts you ahead of 99% of people who treat audio as a hobby.


----------



## KeithEmo

The problem is that, tiresome or not, "that blather" about "science not knowing everything" is also true.
There are many things that science doesn't currently know... and every day we make corrections to "established knowledge" based on newer and more accurate information.

Also, just to be technically accurate here, you can almost never prove a negative.
The best you can do is to either prove the positive.... or _FAIL_ to prove the positive.
And, no, failing to prove the positive is not logically equal to proving the negative.

In the real world, the process of science almost always starts with someone making some sort of claim, or positing some sort of theory.
They then provide enough justification, either based on theory alone, or based on some preliminary measurements, to suggest that more study is worthwhile.
And, yes, there is always a balance between testing "ideas that are obviously silly" and failing to test ideas that "seem to be obviously silly but turn out to be true".
And, yes, that decision process is often heavily biased by plain old biases... or more often by money.
(You're more likely to get someone to finance a study if they stand to make a fortune if it succeeds.)

A while ago some scientists claimed to have run an experiment that seemed to prove that they had achieved "cold fusion".
This was a big news event because of the obvious commercial value of such a discovery.
After much debate, and much experimentation, it was found that their claims were untrue (or in error).
However, that did not "prove that cold fusion is impossible"; it simply proved that one particular theory about how to produce cold fusion was flawed.
We may never figure out how to achieve cold fusion in a water glass; or someone may find out tomorrow that a pinch of salt is all that's needed to make it work.
The world is full of really useful devices that seem exceptionally simple in hindsight.... LASERs, ANFO, and plasma cutters come to mind as obvious examples.

I would agree that it is most unlikely that anyone will even find that cables make an audible difference - at least not with most modern solid state equipment...
In contrast, I've heard differences between DACs which share excellent frequency response, THD, and noise specs...
However, since DACs often differ in terms of the results of several other measurements, it seems perfectly reasonable to suspect that I'm hearing the results of some of those other measurable differences...
And, as soon as someone gets around to testing the audibility of some of those other differences, we'll have a better idea of whether I'm right or not.

And, if someone ever gets the financing to do a real study, I'll be glad to help specify the parameters to give it the best chance of success...



sonitus mirus said:


> I get it, but I thought this was already covered a few posts earlier when I made this statement:
> 
> _Though, I put very little credence on cables, DACs, and amps creating any meaningful audible difference in normal situations where the equipment is used appropriately and it adheres to generally acceptable parameters with regards to impedance matching and power requirements.
> _
> ...





bigshot said:


> You take a signal going into one end of a system and compare it to the signal coming out of the other end and look for differences.
> 
> It's good to try to raise your own level of knowledge up to the accumulated knowledge of science. It's not a good idea to try to drag science down to your level of ignorance. Personally, I find all the "science doesn't know everything" blather to be tiresome. If science doesn't know what you want to know about, go out and start doing some tests and make some measurements and get the ball rolling yourself. Don't just point at a gap in knowledge and say "SEE! I TOLD YOU!" Especially if the gap in knowledge is your own!


----------



## Phronesis

Zapp_Fan said:


> Hey just want to say I think this is turning more argumentative than it needs to be and you've been pretty reasonable so far IMO.  Thanks for being open-minded and being willing to actually discuss.
> 
> The sound science folks can get touchy because it's very common for "subjectivity > science" folks to swing through here and stir up resentment, toss around old, bogus arguments, get personal about it, and the leave. So many of the regulars are in defense-mode a lot of the time, because a lot of defending needs to be done as a rule.  I have found that most of these folks are pretty nice once they are satisfied you're not here to discredit the scientific method and prove the existence of magic.
> 
> ...



Thank you, I appreciate those comments.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> In contrast, I've heard differences between DACs which share excellent frequency response, THD, and noise specs...
> However, since DACs often differ in terms of the results of several other measurements, it seems perfectly reasonable to suspect that I'm hearing the results of some of those other measurable differences...



This.


----------



## Bla4444

These are not easy things. I have tought that 1 test is hardly enough even if you compare two item side by side. I have noticed on my tests that comparing the same items sometimes brings different results. Once i tought my pro ject headbox is not much better then fiio e11k. On the other test i find it quite superior. I like beer. But no faves. I generally like pilsner urquell but sometimes i do not think it soo good. Other times it feels like the best beer of the world. Usually feel that way with my headphones too. There a better and worst ones but sometimes my short time impressions can be quite different than my long time impressions. If you want to test gear you should do it again and again to have a better view of it.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 26, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> The problem is that, tiresome or not, "that blather" about "science not knowing everything" is also true.



The tiresome part is when it's used to discredit established facts by people who refuse to provide any proofs themselves.

If you can hear differences between DACs and amps in controlled listening tests, and the reason isn't clear from the measurements, I would say that you owe it to everyone to do more testing and find out exactly why that is. It isn't typical. I would bet your controls aren't tight enough though. In fact, I bet the comparison wasn't blind or level matched.

If it was a clean comparison, I would be very interested to hear what aspect of sound would be different when frequency response, THD, and noise specs are all the same. Dynamics? If we're talking about digital audio, that would be highly unlikely I would think. Would the difference show up in the waveform as distortion?



Bla4444 said:


> These are not easy things. I have tought that 1 test is hardly enough even if you compare two item side by side. I have noticed on my tests that comparing the same items sometimes brings different results. Once i tought my pro ject headbox is not much better then fiio e11k. On the other test i find it quite superior..



We aren't talking about "better". That is a subjective judgement. We are talking about audibly different. The first step is to prove two similar sounding things are actually different and we aren't just imagining a difference that doesn't exist. If two things are audibly identical, then you don't need to worry about better or worse.


----------



## castleofargh

Bla4444 said:


> These are not easy things. I have tought that 1 test is hardly enough even if you compare two item side by side. I have noticed on my tests that comparing the same items sometimes brings different results. Once i tought my pro ject headbox is not much better then fiio e11k. On the other test i find it quite superior. I like beer. But no faves. I generally like pilsner urquell but sometimes i do not think it soo good. Other times it feels like the best beer of the world. Usually feel that way with my headphones too. There a better and worst ones but sometimes my short time impressions can be quite different than my long time impressions. If you want to test gear you should do it again and again to have a better view of it.


you're bringing up preferences, which is not necessarily the purpose of a listening test. usually the first order of business is "can I notice a change in sound?". that's what is being tested. afterward, which one you prefer and why, well that can come and go the same way we can love a song or become fed up with it after a week of playing it in a loop. the song and the gears can be rather innocent in that respect ^_^.


----------



## bigshot

bread and butter!


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Apr 26, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> The problem is that, tiresome or not, "that blather" about "science not knowing everything" is also true.
> There are many things that science doesn't currently know... and every day we make corrections to "established knowledge" based on newer and more accurate information.
> 
> Also, just to be technically accurate here, you can almost never prove a negative.
> ...



That's fine. But in the case of audio devices, how could we build something, literally design every part of it from scratch, without understanding *exactly* how certain measurements affect sound quality and which portions of the design affect those measurements? I'll assume Emotiva isn't just designing by iteration and then throwing on a pair of headphones or plugging in speakers. What are the odds that an effect *not *designed into, say, an amplification circuit would be beneficial to the sound in any way? Yet despite that, why is it always more expensive devices that seem to have these "effects", with them often being unmeasurable?


----------



## Phronesis

colonelkernel8 said:


> But in the case of audio devices, how could we build something, literally design every part of it from scratch, without understanding *exactly* how certain measurements affect sound quality and which portions of the design affect those measurements?



If the things being designed are physical (unlike, for example, software), they're subject to the laws of nature.  Just because we design them and they behave very close to our expectations (which reflects good models), that doesn't mean we _fully_ understand their behavior.  For people who design physical things for a living, as I do, this point is well recognized.


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> I would agree that it is most unlikely that anyone will even find that cables make an audible difference - at least not with most modern solid state equipment...
> In contrast, I've heard differences between DACs which share excellent frequency response, THD, and noise specs...
> However, since DACs often differ in terms of the results of several other measurements, it seems perfectly reasonable to suspect that I'm hearing the results of some of those other measurable differences...
> .


I can agree with everything you posted.  For those DACs that sounded different, can you explain what may have been the cause of the differences?  Was it, by chance, some filter settings or a specific design choice implementation that would explain the reason for the difference?   Just want to be clear that we are not discussing something currently unknown to science.  Some people jump on this stuff and conflate your responses out of context.


----------



## KeithEmo

All three measurements you mentioned (THD, FR, and S/N ratio) are steady state measurements... measured using a single frequency pure sine wave.
DACs, and all other digital audio technologies, have at least the potential to introduce time domain inaccuracies.

We are NOT talking about delay.
We are talking about the time response of filters and other digital processes.
For example, we send in a 100 mSec burst of a 400 Hz tone....
But the output shows ringing both before the 400 Hz tone begins and after it ends.

This error simply doesn't show up at all with a steady state sine wave... so it will NOT register on a standard THD test at all.
If you look at the signal on an oscilloscope, at individual times, you will find times where there is signal in the output, but there was no corresponding signal in the input.
However, because those "extra signals" are there for a very short amount of time, they will still barely affect the _AVERAGE_ THD measurement even if you do the calculations.
The only appropriate way to describe this is "pre-ringing and post-ringing"... which is simply not one of the three measurements you prefer to use.

Also note that some pre-ringing and post-ringing is an inevitable side effect of the conversion process.
So what we're talking about is differences in the amounts present in various DACs.

Note that there are a few other characteristics which, similarly, don't show up on the three basic analog measurements.



bigshot said:


> The tiresome part is when it's used to discredit established facts by people who refuse to provide any proofs themselves.
> 
> If you can hear differences between DACs and amps in controlled listening tests, and the reason isn't clear from the measurements, I would say that you owe it to everyone to do more testing and find out exactly why that is. It isn't typical. I would bet your controls aren't tight enough though.
> 
> ...





bigshot said:


> The tiresome part is when it's used to discredit established facts by people who refuse to provide any proofs themselves.
> 
> If you can hear differences between DACs and amps in controlled listening tests, and the reason isn't clear from the measurements, I would say that you owe it to everyone to do more testing and find out exactly why that is. It isn't typical. I would bet your controls aren't tight enough though. In fact, I bet the comparison wasn't blind or level matched.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Apr 26, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> If the things being designed are physical (unlike, for example, software), they're subject to the laws of nature.  Just because we design them and they behave very close to our expectations (which reflects good models), that doesn't mean we _fully_ understand their behavior.  For people who design physical things for a living, as I do, this point is well recognized.



Manufacturing tolerances on home audio electronics are generally far blow the threshold of human perception. For reasonably priced headphones, at worst, they are generally pretty close to the just detectable threshold when listening to music.



KeithEmo said:


> We are talking about the time response of filters and other digital processes.
> For example, we send in a 100 mSec burst of a 400 Hz tone....
> But the output shows ringing both before the 400 Hz tone begins and after it ends.



That wouldn't manifest an audible difference if you were listening to recorded music. I understand what you're saying now. I didn't realize you were talking about listening to test tones.


----------



## KeithEmo (Apr 26, 2018)

The reconstruction filters in the DACs involved are certainly not the same....

In this particular case, the Emotiva DC-1 DAC uses an Analog Devices AD1955 DAC chip, while the Wyred2Sound DAC2 uses a Sabre DAC chip (made by ESS).
Both chips are quite complex, and include their own digital filters, and some degree of what we might call "DSP processing".
Both also include digital processing intended to reduce or eliminate the audible effects of jitter...
We at Emotiva prefer the AD chip because, to us, it sounds more neutral and uncolored.
The designers of the Sabre chip originally stated that they chose which filter parameters to use from several options "based on the results of user focus groups".
Many people, including myself, seem to agree that the Sabre DAC chips (the entire line) have a characteristic "house sound".
However, note that both chips have VERY low levels of noise and THD, and very flat frequency responses.
While the specifics are extremely complex... the performance of both DAC chips is also heavily influenced by various external factors
(like how clean and stable the various power supplies are.)

To answer your question, however, neither Emotiva nor Wyred4Sound "literally designed the entire product from scratch"...
The main functionality in both units is performed inside a remarkably complex high-performance commercial DAC chip.
Both are complex, high-tech "black boxes"; we design the circuitry around them, and make lots of choices between available options,
but the companies who developed them spent literally millions of dollars on developing what's inside.

In the case of filters, most modern DACs offer the choice of several internal filters, or the option to connect your own custom-designed external filter.
Many companies go this route, but it's problematic whether we could actually do a better job than the people who designed it in the first place.

This is the way virtually all modern equipment is manufactured.....
Nissan built my car... but they didn't design every bolt they used... they bought bolts of the appropriate grade from a hardware manufacturer.
And you can bet that the company that made the bolt didn't mine the steel they used... they bought it from a metal refinery... who bought the ore from a mining company.
Even the guy who makes little hand-carved letter openers probably didn't grow the tree, and he certainly didn't make the DNA in the seed the tree grew from.
And nobody makes their own transistors either.

We take good quality commercial "building blocks", put them together carefully in ways that produce a good result, and sell the resulting product.

There are a many "niche companies" who actually do build their own DACs from separate parts.
However, in reality, their end results rarely compare in performance to those of chips produced by companies who design DAC chips for a living.
(Analog Devices already spent a fortune designing and building that chip - why would we want to duplicate their effort?)

To be fair, in some cases, it's possible that a company may be doing original research, and has actually discovered something for which no measurement yet exists.
However, in most cases, they probably simply can't think of a good excuse why you should be willing to pay their price.....
(Audiophiles also like "sciencey stuff" - so, rather than say "it sounds really good, even though we don't know exactly why, so it's worth the price",
it's usually better marketing to make up a plausible sounding explanation.)



sonitus mirus said:


> I can agree with everything you posted.  For those DACs that sounded different, can you explain what may have been the cause of the differences?  Was it, by chance, some filter settings or a specific design choice implementation that would explain the reason for the difference?   Just want to be clear that we are not discussing something currently unknown to science.  Some people jump on this stuff and conflate your responses out of context.





colonelkernel8 said:


> That's fine. But in the case of audio devices, how could we build something, literally design every part of it from scratch, without understanding *exactly* how certain measurements affect sound quality and which portions of the design affect those measurements? I'll assume Emotiva isn't just designing by iteration and then throwing on a pair of headphones or plugging in speakers. What are the odds that an effect *not *designed into, say, an amplification circuit would be beneficial to the sound in any way? Yet despite that, why is it always more expensive devices that seem to have these "effects", with them often being unmeasurable?


----------



## Phronesis

I'll add one more anecdote. 

A while back, I did blind testing to compare Spotify Extreme with Tidal Hi-Fi (my wife helped me).  The iPhone, DAC/amp, and headphones were the same, and levels were closely matched.  I did so poorly in distinguishing between them that we stopped recording the results.  So I'm tempted to conclude that I can't tell the difference between them, even if others can. 

_However_, I recognize that the results could be affected by the equipment I used, the tracks I selected, my hearing ability at the time, etc.  I also noticed that the duration of my listening samples, and the time interval between them, made the attempt to distinguish difficult and confusing.  One short sample was different from another short sample from the same track, and it was important to match those samples to have the same musical content, which wasn't so easy.  When using longer samples, memory became an issue. 

So I'm not quite ready to make a general statement that they will _always_ sound the same for me or other listeners.  But I'm willing to tentatively conclude that, at least for me, Spotify _probably_ doesn't sound much different or much worse than Tidal for music I listen and the equipment I'm using, so I don't worry much that I'm missing out when I use Spotify.  As I continue to listen to both Spotify and Tidal, no big difference jumps out to me, and both sound quite good -- good enough that I haven't looked into using a higher-res format.  This is a practical conclusion which doesn't require certainty to make decisions.

As a side note, I did compare one particular track between the two formats, unblinded, and the difference was so blatant that I concluded that the Spotify version was flawed for that particular track.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 26, 2018)

You'll need a way to adjust line level (a preamp or a pair of matched preamps) and a switch box. This stuff doesn't cost much and it will allow you to do more precise comparisons. You don't need to do comparisons to please us though. The purpose should be to determine whether you personally can recognize a difference. Once you figure that out, you can make a value judgement about whether it's important to you or not.

Once I started doing tight comparisons, I learned a great deal and it allowed me to parse sales pitch and subjective claims a lot better. It makes me a bit better at spotting biased results in other people's subjective claims. Sometimes I do informal comparisons too and compare the results. I always love it when I discover bias I wasn't aware of. DOH! Bias is like kudzu. It fills open spaces fast.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 26, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Manufacturing tolerances on home audio electronics are generally far blow the threshold of human perception. For reasonably priced headphones, at worst, they are generally pretty close to the just detectable threshold when listening to music.



I was referring to physical behavior having aspects not predicted by the model used for design, not manufacturing tolerances.

There seems to be a lack of understanding among some in this forum that models are simplifications of reality which are incomplete and inaccurate in ways that we don't and can't fully understand.  For those who are interested in science and haven't done so, I recommend doing some reading in the philosophy of science.  Before dismissing it as philosophy gibberish, keep in mind that some of the best philosophers of science have been scientists; Einstein credited his insights which lead to relativity theory partly to his study of philosophy (e.g., Kant).

In my field, where we design physical systems that cost millions of dollars and lives are at stake, modeling issues are widely discussed, and only (some) students make the mistake of thinking that models exactly match reality.  Experienced practitioners don't make that mistake.


----------



## analogsurviver

Why is it always more expensive devices that seem to have these "effects" despite them often being unmeasurable ?

That's the easiest answer there is. Because they are , usually, built to a much higher standard, with much better componentry, than the measuring equipment itself. Plain and simple.The basic rule of thumb in any measurements is that the measuring equipment has to be better for required parameter of the device under test to be measured accurately - at least an order of magnitude better than the device under test. If we want to measure say harmonic distorrtion to 0.1 %, the measuring equipment has got to have at least no more than 0.01 % distortion - and similar for frequency response, etc.

There were times in mid 80s when so-called super FM tuners from  Japan handily exceeded specs of the best American made FM generator from HP. So, in order to be able to verify the spec claims for those tuners, US labs had to import super FM generators from Japan.

There was a really super duper non plus ultra FM tuner - Tandberg TPT-3001 from Norway, the original silver one. To this day, there was nothing better. The only tuner that was spec'd at 70 dB channel separation - IF  and WHEN properly aligned. And it went out of alignment - a lot. Approx every six months... Which required shipping back ro factory in Norway, since no place else there were instruments precise enough to re-align it available.. As this created untold trouble, it was - eventually - decided to "downgrade" TPT-3001 a bit - down to "mere" 60 dB channel separation ( still the best ...) , thus creating TPT-3001A, the black one. This held its alignment for a MUCH longer time, requiring re-alignment for all practical purposes - next to never.

Tandberg used to produce one of the very best audio in the world. Using premium - everything, bean counters be damned. Their slogan has been : Quality remains long after the price has been forgotten. The last price in regular shop for TPT-3001A I can remember was 3500 British Pounds - at the time almost twice in US dollar ... Audio division of Tandberg went belly up three times; after third time they have been, basically, ripped off by their distributors across the globe, they called it quits. Otherwise, Tandberg could produce at this level of quality - WAY beyond US has been capable of producing or willing to admit to be able of producing - because Tandberg is still alive and well, building telecomunication gear for military -  and they never made their equipment available outside Norway, with the possible exception of recent years.

As always, it all boils down to - money. If there was enough money in audio in general, we would have the measuring equipment not only built with premium parts, but also capable of recording incomparably more measurements/data than we are getting today. Or, better said - NOT getting today. How many objective reviews, with measurements, as scarce and incomplete as one might look upon them, at least trying to mirror those from the 70s and 80s , can one see today , in reviews of today's equipment ? Answer - next to none. Because it costs - and not little. In US, back in the day, there were three labs doing these measurements; Hirsch-Houck for Stereo Review, one lab for High Fidelity ( it was the first to go .. ), one lab or group of people for Audio. Those were commercial, "slick" magazines - underground scene also did use objective tests in the beggining, which grew ever scarcer with time, with one notable exception - Peter Moncrieff of International Audio Review, originator of MANY novel test methods, focusing on transient performance first and foremost. In UK, similar situation - but, it was competition among magazines, they did compete who will publish also objective reviews. Europe had interesting approach; German HiFi Stereophonie initially did its own measurements, later, when it transformed into Stereoplay, the bulk of the measurements has been made by Instituto Alta Fedelta ( Institute for High Fifelity ) in Rome, Italy - for German and Italian edition of Stereoplay and several other italian magazines, most notably Suono ( Sound in English ). The bulk of work done at IAF Roma was on par with that done in the US - and often was more comprehensive and done to a higher level, sometimes even proposing new standards, as the direct result of the dissapointment of regularly accepted standards that could "clear" a piece of audio equipment as "perfect", where listening tests ( often blind ABs ) clearly indicated trouble(s). Italians did, IMO, navigate between the Scillas and Caribdas of objetive vs subjective testing better than any other nation - with the possible exception of Japan, due to language and culture barrier next to impossible to "monitor" by anybody not speaking the language and at least spending some time living in Japan. 

I remember good objective reviews both from Canada and Australia, but names elude me at the time.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> I was referring to physical behavior having aspects not predicted by the model used for design, not manufacturing tolerances.



A manufacturing tolerance is the limits to the amount of distortion/noise/imbalance that is admissible. If the tolerances are below the threshold of perception, then the unit is audibly transparent. Another unit can measure better, but to human ears they sound the same. This isn't theoretical. It's practical. It's how you judge whether an amp or DAC is good enough to do the job or not.


----------



## colonelkernel8

KeithEmo said:


> To answer your question, however, neither Emotiva nor Wyred4Sound "literally designed the entire product from scratch"...
> The main functionality in both units is performed inside a remarkably complex high-performance commercial DAC chip.
> Both are complex, high-tech "black boxes"; we design the circuitry around them, and make lots of choices between available options,
> but the companies who developed them spent literally millions of dollars on developing what's inside.
> ...



Well of course. When I say "we" I mean "humans" in general. The engineers at Analog designed the DAC chip from scratch, down to the silicon. I'm not saying that Emotiva mined the silicon and then built a whole wafer fab... But each step is built to a measurable specification. AD isn't just guessing what will cause less distortion.


----------



## amirm

analogsurviver said:


> That's the easiest answer there is. Because they are , usually, built to a much higher standard, with much better componentry, than the measuring equipment itself. Plain and simple.The basic rule of thumb in any measurements is that the measuring equipment has to be better for required parameter of the device under test to be measured accurately - at least an order of magnitude better than the device under test. If we want to measure say harmonic distorrtion to 0.1 %, the measuring equipment has got to have at least no more than 0.01 % distortion - and similar for frequency response, etc.


We actually have this today.  Using signal processing, we get massive gains in measurement accuracy beyond what the hardware can do.  Indeed using that same technology -- as I showed earlier in the Schiit Ad -- we can see signals at a whopping -144 dB.  No room temperature DAC can remotely produce such a signal correctly.  Nor can any ADC in the measurement gear.  Yet there we were, seeing not only the -144 dB signal but other distortion products next to it.  See https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...-yggdrasil-ads-on-stereophile-may-issue.2633/.

We can see all the distortion products with ease and can even separate their noise component (which using classical THD+N meters is impossible).    Here is a great example of measuring a state-of-the-art DAC (RME ADI-2 DAC) using my much older Audio Precision analyzer:







Notice the noise floor of the system at a whopping -165 dB to the right!

Indeed our instrumentation is so good that I have been able to measure the impact on the analog output of a DAC with respect to the length of the USB cable you use with it!

So while your general statement is correct with respect to traditional measurement gear, and how much better it needs to be compared to device under test, we are there already due to use of signal processing.  We can hunt down distortion in noise with ease


----------



## KeithEmo

The catch these days is that there are so many levels of abstraction.
Sure, somebody, somewhere, knows how every individual transistor in that integrated circuit performs...
But he may not know what the entire circuit does...
And the guy who wrote the computer code for the oversampling filter probably doesn't know much about the transistors.
And, to be honest, we pay most attention to making sure that the signals going into and out of the chip get handled correctly.
We also pay a lot of attention to things like the power supply - which can compromise the overall performance if not done properly.
But we've literally reached far past the point where any single person knows all about all of it.
(And it's even possible that some parts of the chip itself were designed by machine.)

The other issue comes back to some of those unknowns we've been discussing.

For example, the AD1955 chip uses oversampling... which we think is a good decision.
(Without oversampling it's impossible to avoid obvious frequency response issues when reproducing files at low sample rates like 16/44k.)
However, oversampling requires a filter, which, in turn, introduces time domain errors.
These are unavoidable; we can trade off between various errors, but we can't eliminate all of them completely.
And one of those unavoidable time domain errors will be some ringing before and after the signal when reproducing transients.
However, we (or AD), can choose a filter with equal ringing before and after the signal, or one where there is more ringing after the signal but none before it.
Neither of these errors will affect the normal THD measurement at all.
And, arguably, we're talking about similar amounts of error - but in different places in time.
However, in practice, many people claim to find one type to be audibly more objectionable than the other.
(But not everyone agrees on which one they prefer; and some folks claim to hear no difference at all.)

Each vendor handles these decisions differently....
Analog Devices has chosen a filter they believe to be the best compromise - and we find their choice quite reasonable.
Wolfson, on their top line DAC, allows the designer to choose... you get to choose between 21 different filter options
(and more than half of those options share the same extremely flat steady state frequency response and extremely low THD).
Some vendors who use the Wolfson DAC make the choice for you; others let the user of the DAC choose between several different choices.

However, the bottom line is that there are different options, each of which sounds slightly different, but many of which are "equally good". 
(And, some people will prefer the choice with the absolute lowest THD, while others prefer the one with the absolute least pre-ringing....)
But, of course, since they do sound slightly different, according to many people, including the manufacturer, they cannot possible "all be audible totally transparent".



colonelkernel8 said:


> Well of course. When I say "we" I mean "humans" in general. The engineers at Analog designed the DAC chip from scratch, down to the silicon. I'm not saying that Emotiva mined the silicon and then built a whole wafer fab... But each step is built to a measurable specification. AD isn't just guessing what will cause less distortion.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I was referring to physical behavior having aspects not predicted by the model used for design, not manufacturing tolerances.
> 
> There seems to be a lack of understanding among some in this forum that models are simplifications of reality which are incomplete and inaccurate in ways that we don't and can't fully understand.  For those who are interested in science and haven't done so, I recommend doing some reading in the philosophy of science.  Before dismissing it as philosophy gibberish, keep in mind that some of the best philosophers of science have been scientists; Einstein credited his insights which lead to relativity theory partly to his study of philosophy (e.g., Kant).
> 
> In my field, where we design physical systems that cost millions of dollars and lives are at stake, modeling issues are widely discussed, and only (some) students make the mistake of thinking that models exactly match reality.  Experienced practitioners don't make that mistake.


 results and conclusions are conditioned by the test and equipment being used. 
predictions from a model are reliable when we stay within the conditions for the model. if not the model sucks. 

there is no need for philosophy, it's all very practical IMO.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> results and conclusions are conditioned by the test and equipment being used.
> predictions from a model are reliable when we stay within the conditions for the model. if not the model sucks.
> 
> there is no need for philosophy, it's all very practical IMO.



I was referring to the difference between a model and the system it represents, not testing or measuring.  Related but different topics.


----------



## analogsurviver (Apr 26, 2018)

I am glad that you replied, Amirm. I admire your work - and, in whatever you said in your reply, you are right.

Now comes the - you've guessed it - BUT - a big one. Although I  purposedly used low quality level of having to have 0.01% distortion measuring device in order to measure correctly DUT down to 0.1% distortion, I did not - on purpose - specify any frequency response measurements.

Well, I most certainly do not accept 32 kHz limit featured in your graph as a serious measurement. I miss in most of your measurements of ADCs and DACs how do they behave at the very edge/limit of their frequency range - like IMD with 1:1 ratio of - say - 85kHz and 86kHz signal when testing 192kHz capable soundcard - for example. Or multitone test from ARTA ; one hell of a lot more difficult test than a single 1 kHz tone and whatever harmonics, as shown above. There, you can forget - 165dB s/n, -140 dB distortions, etc - not with today's equipment, with the possible exception of 384kHz - or even double that or higher -  capable soundcards .

Even so much more difficult tests than seen on your otherwise excellent site dwarf in comparison to real music signals in real time - no electronic device yet devised for music can process so much in real time, without creating more artefacts itself than already present in the analog output signal it is trying to process. At the time, best such machines should be DSD/DXD capable ADCs/DACs - Merging Horus and Hapi, Mytek Brooklyn ADC and DAC +, maybe more.

Yet, human being, to a certain point, CAN. It is damn hard to put this in even into qualitative words - much more so when we are trying to describe it also in quantitive way . But, musicians have to do it 100% of the time; I do not believe the normal listeners could not do at least few %, even if in single digit - still better than "zero"  from machines. Remember; In above case, best one can do is to measure either Merging device with itself , Mytek device with itself, Merging with Mytek, Mytek with Merging; but , in all of these cases, measuring equipment is - roughly - of the same quality of DUT, where in theory should be better by the factor of at least 10.

If we apply factor of 10 times greater frequency response for measuring equipment than for DUT, even with 384kHz capable soundcards it is questionable if we can truly capture "beyond any shadow of the doubt" even 20 kHz - not as a simple sine wave, but something complex around that frequency, something that should have zero time delay.

No, in that case we do not have a measuring machine that could do that - not with total aplomb, not yet. Until "something" of comparable calibre is available, there will be room for human "perceptions, if you will" - that, although many would be apprehensive about them, can not be totally ruled out as a real possibility.

And those few "troublemakers" might in the end  convience the rest to try and find with scientific methods what has been bothering them from the beggining ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan

analogsurviver said:


> I am glad that you replied, Amirm. I admire your work - and, in whatever you said in your reply, you are right.
> 
> Now comes the - you've guessed it - BUT - a big one. Although I  purposedly used low quality level of having to have 0.01% distortion measuring device in order to measure correctly DUT down to 0.1% distortion, I did not - on purpose - specify any frequency response measurements.
> 
> Well, I most certainly do not accept 32 kHz limit featured in your graph as a serious measurement. I miss in most of your measurements of ADCs and DACs how do they behave at the very edge/limit of their frequency range - like IMD with 1:1 ratio of - say - 85kHz and 86kHz signal when testing 192kHz capable soundcard - for example.



http://www.datel.com/new_products/ads-951-sampling-a-to-d-converter.php

Looks like you'll be shelling out for one of these bad boys then?  18 bits and 1Mhz sampling, should be enough to discover the flaws in anything that's handling even relatively high frequency ultrasound signals.  Probably they are not cheap as they're meant to go into jet fighters, apparently... but hey.  I imagine 1Mhz is enough to give you confidence that machine has bested man's perceptions?


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Apr 27, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Even so much more difficult tests than seen on your otherwise excellent site dwarf in comparison to real music signals in real time - no electronic device yet devised for music can process so much in real time, without creating more artefacts itself than already present in the analog output signal it is trying to process. At the time, best such machines should be DSD/DXD capable ADCs/DACs - Merging Horus and Hapi, Mytek Brooklyn ADC and DAC +, maybe more.
> 
> Yet, human being, to a certain point, CAN. It is damn hard to put this in even into qualitative words - much more so when we are trying to describe it also in quantitive way



[citation needed]

This is a load of bull. I’d love to hear where your fantasy of sampling at 10x Nyquist comes from.


----------



## bigshot

You can have him Amirm! I dismissed him long ago!


----------



## gregorio (Apr 27, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> [1] There seems to be a lack of understanding among some in this forum that models are simplifications of reality which are incomplete and inaccurate in ways that we don't and can't fully understand.
> 
> [2] In my field, where we design physical systems that cost millions of dollars and lives are at stake, modeling issues are widely discussed, and [2a] only (some) students make the mistake of thinking that models exactly match reality. Experienced practitioners don't make that mistake.



1. This appears to be your problem and has been in virtually every post in this and other threads. You are applying your experience of designing physical systems, which include the principle that models are incomplete/inaccurate, and applying it to audio reproduction. I don't know what it is you design and I am not an expert in science philosophy but in every case I'm aware of, I agree with you, the models are incomplete and inaccurate, except in one case! Now maybe there are other cases of which I'm not aware but in the case of an audio signal the model used is NEITHER incomplete nor inaccurate! It is both perfectly complete and perfectly accurate and this is not just a case of some poor confused soul who lacks real understanding and has been seduced by some marketing, it is a PROVEN fact, and that's the difference here. We have models which are weak but are the best we currently have, we have other models which work so well, are so well supported with evidence and so widely accepted, that we can ALMOST treat them as if they were real, even though science cannot prove them absolutely and provided the level of inaccuracy and/or incompleteness does not impact our particular application, and then we have numerous other models which lie somewhere between these two extremes. However, our "model" DOES NOT fit into ANY of these categories because it is a PROVEN fact, which is:

"_If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is *completely determined* by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart._" - Function x(t) is an audio signal btw and please note my added emphasis, "completely determined".

The "lack of understanding" here is yours, in this specific case our model/simplification of reality is NOT incomplete or inaccurate. To assert otherwise, in this specific case, is foolish because you have to disprove something that is already proven and your intuition, belief and even a vast practical expertise of other models is not even vaguely close to being enough! Therefore ...

2. In my field, this modelling issue is virtually never discussed. It's not only absolutely proven but is arguably the most practically employed/demonstrated fact in the history of humankind, so what's the point of discussing it? What is a cause for considerable discussion is the variations of technology to implement our perfect model.
2a. In my field, many students make the mistake of thinking the model does NOT exactly match reality, which is why all courses typically include a module specifically to eliminate it. Educated, experienced practitioners don't make that mistake.

G


----------



## analogsurviver

Zapp_Fan said:


> http://www.datel.com/new_products/ads-951-sampling-a-to-d-converter.php
> 
> Looks like you'll be shelling out for one of these bad boys then?  18 bits and 1Mhz sampling, should be enough to discover the flaws in anything that's handling even relatively high frequency ultrasound signals.  Probably they are not cheap as they're meant to go into jet fighters, apparently... but hey.  I imagine 1Mhz is enough to give you confidence that machine has bested man's perceptions?


Well, this one might be satisfactory - as far as " digitis", that is to say ADCs ( in this case )  and DACs (any suggestion for that - not really, me*can*goole_too ) go. 

However, ANY "digititis" can only be as good as the analogue signal it is being presented - and, even IF the perfection in "digititis" is only assumed or actually achieved, it still leaves the hardest part of any "soundcard" - the ANALOGUE SECTIONS.  These present far greater bottleneck than most people, particularly scientific oriented theoretics, are lead to believe. 

The problem, as always - money. Really decent electronic passive components are $$$$$$$ - and do not show up well or well enough on spec sheets, denying marketing department of any tangible "evidence" with which they may defend the (much) higher price. No manufacturer today can survive offering a device at three to ten times the price of the competitive product with - on paper - same specs.

This ointment everyone has been forced to use because of the economics has one, but fatal fly in it - it crashes and burns to the ground - once a truly good demo is made possible. And, please DO NOT FORGET - for the demo/measurement to be valid, the DUT has to be the weakest link in the chain - not equal and most certainly not the strongest .


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> [citation needed]
> 
> This is a load of bull****. I’d love to hear where your fantasy of sampling at 10x Nyquist comes from.


In theory, Nyquist works perfectly OK - no trouble there.

Practice is another matter. This thread would like make people to believe that 44.1kHz 16 bit is all that it takes. Even, if we assume that 20-20k frequency response is enough ( it is not, and it will be shown why in due time ), even if we asume the actual recording has been made with both higher sampling frequency and greater bit depth, real world performance of bounced down  44.1 16 bit file available to customer asumes, AGAIN,  the perfect 44.1kHz DAC - which simply does not exist.

To all the theoreticians - go out and get any decent "soundcard" - that is to say ADC and DAC combo - and start playing with various software available for measurements using soundcards. See for yourselves just what it means using this or that sampling frequency, this or that type of driver, this or that type of filtering, etc - you name it - and you will learn, THE HARD WAY, that rosy descriptions of theorethically achievable perfection simply do not hold water in real life situations.

I may have exaggerated 10x Nyquist a bit - but NO,  you can not have decent result up to frequency X if you are working with 2X sampling frequency - period. Not with real life devices, at least not yet today.

In practice , for a really decent result, you need 8X, for usable 4X. Just to stay on the safe side, or - "if you want to remove from realm any possibility of deviation from the original signal" , I said 10X. Which holds more true in real life situations than any 2X under even the most ideal laboratory conditions.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> 1. This appears to be your problem and has been in virtually every post in this and other threads. You are applying your experience of designing physical systems, which include the principle that models are incomplete/inaccurate, and applying it to audio reproduction. I don't know what it is you design and I am not an expert in science philosophy but in every case I'm aware of, I agree with you, the models are incomplete and inaccurate, except in one case! Now maybe there are other cases of which I'm not aware but in the case of an audio signal the model used is NEITHER incomplete nor inaccurate! It is both perfectly complete and perfectly accurate and this is not just a case of some poor confused soul who lacks real understanding and has been seduced by some marketing, it is a PROVEN fact, and that's the difference here. We have models which are weak but are the best we currently have, we have other models which work so well, are so well supported with evidence and so widely accepted, that we can ALMOST treat them as if they were real, even though science cannot prove them absolutely and provided the level of inaccuracy and/or incompleteness does not impact our particular application, and then we have numerous other models which lie somewhere between these two extremes. However, our "model" DOES NOT fit into ANY of these categories because it is a PROVEN fact, which is:
> 
> "_If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is *completely determined* by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart._" - Function x(t) is an audio signal btw and please note my added emphasis, "completely determined".
> 
> ...



No disagreement that the extent of modeling uncertainty and error will vary widely across domains.  And no disagreement that it's much less with electronics than with many other domains.  The question is whether it's truly ZERO with electronics, and therefore DACs, amps, and cables could not possibly sound different at all if they meet some basic design requirements.  I'm not convinced that's the case.  You gave a theoretical argument related to the function x(t) which I presume is based on math related to Fourier transforms, etc.  That's fine, but KeithEmo just gave the example that there are design choices in digital to analogue conversion which do affect the resulting analog signal, and therefore could potentially affect sound.  I expect that there are similar examples where the design choices made for amps, cables, and maybe other components could affect signals and therefore sound.

I'm not saying that the gap (in signals) between models and reality in the current state of audio electronics technology is large, I actually believe it's very small.  Therefore, I would expect that if there are improvements to be made in sound quality (I'm excluding mechanical aspects), they would also be subtle, and probably not noticeable at the mass consumer level.  But of course the audiophile ethos is to chase such subtle improvements, and I can't rule out the possibilities that such improvements are possible nor that some people can hear them.  If you can absolutely prove otherwise, I suggest writing up the proof, publishing it in a journal, and possibly getting a Nobel Prize in physics for the achievement.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> In theory, Nyquist works perfectly OK - no trouble there.
> 
> Practice is another matter. This thread would like make people to believe that 44.1kHz 16 bit is all that it takes. Even, if we assume that 20-20k frequency response is enough ( it is not, and it will be shown why in due time ), even if we asume the actual recording has been made with both higher sampling frequency and greater bit depth, real world performance of bounced down  44.1 16 bit file available to customer asumes, AGAIN,  the perfect 44.1kHz DAC - which simply does not exist.
> 
> ...


Again I say, cite your sources. Because this is utterly false. Not only mathematically (or theoretically as you put it) but in practice as well. You’ll need to prove to me that Nyquist is insufficient, mathematically, then in practice, before wasting anymore of my time.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> You gave a theoretical argument related to the function x(t) which I presume is based on math related to Fourier transforms, etc.



No, x(t) is the time domain function representing the original analog signal.


----------



## Phronesis

colonelkernel8 said:


> No, x(t) is the time domain function representing the original analog signal.



I understood that.  I was referring to the full quoted statement.


----------



## analogsurviver

I NEVER said Nyquist is theorethically/mathematically wrong.

My point is that most "academics" ASSUME that something proven mathematically correct also works perfectly in practice.

Most assumptions prove fatally wrong in real life - that "highly improbable whatever" seems to always find its way to throw monkey wrench in the works.

Do yourself a favor - and do some testing with your own real life physical soundcard prior to commenting further; the most hard hitting test is running everything in http://www.artalabs.hr/ at 44.1 an 48 kHz. After you ACTUALLY did that, you will PERFECTLY understand where I am coming from.

Unless you have access to a "soundcard" and computer any military in the world would kill for to be able to hold their hands on it ...

I could post my own results, using various soundcards - but nothing is more convincing than YOUR OWN first hand experience.


----------



## Phronesis

Theorems can only be "proven" to be true within theoretical frameworks, which always involve assumptions.  The physical world (which includes technology) does what it does, and has no obligation to conform to our assumptions.  If people can't agree on this, the discussion is a waste of time because people will always talk past each other.


----------



## KeithEmo

According to a (more or less) recent price list..... you can get a few of those to play with for about $415 each (in 100 quantities).

if you check out the data sheet you'll notice a few interesting things....
For example, the S/N ratio is less than 100 dB (a good consumer DAC should be above 115 dB)....
So, in terms of noise performance, it isn't even near the noise performance of a good $10 DAC chip.
And, as usual, precise PCB layout and high quality power supplies are essential if you want to achieve anywhere near its theoretical performance.
But it does have excellent temperature stability and a very fast settling time.... and all those MIL-SPEC requirements jack up the price a lot 



Zapp_Fan said:


> http://www.datel.com/new_products/ads-951-sampling-a-to-d-converter.php
> 
> Looks like you'll be shelling out for one of these bad boys then?  18 bits and 1Mhz sampling, should be enough to discover the flaws in anything that's handling even relatively high frequency ultrasound signals.  Probably they are not cheap as they're meant to go into jet fighters, apparently... but hey.  I imagine 1Mhz is enough to give you confidence that machine has bested man's perceptions?


----------



## analogsurviver

Phronesis said:


> Theorems can only be "proven" to be true within theoretical frameworks, which always involve assumptions.  The physical world (which includes technology) does what it does, and has no obligation to conform to our assumptions.  If people can't agree on this, the discussion is a waste of time because people will always talk past each other.


True - but, again, meaningful in real life in theory only.

Any listener claiming he/she can hear something science can not *yet* measure CAN NOT LISTEN TO THE THEOREM - but only to BEST PHYSICAL EXECUTION OF A DEVICE TRYING TO PERFORM THAT THEOREM BEST IT CAN. 

To put it as bluntly as it gets; assume you inherited a unique chinese vase from whatever dinasty the vases are the rarest - and the only "sister" vase just got destroyed in an earthquake half a world apart - making your vase the only one remaining, therefore practically priceless.

You live in an area to be flooded because of building a dam for enormous water reservoir on the nearby river ; that means you wil have to MOVE, besides everything else, also this priceless vase.

Now, you have to decide to do ONE of the the following : 

a) Your vase weighs 15487 grammes; according to VaseMover Theorem, a plastic bag capable of withstanding 2 times the weight of the object carried, in this case sufficient for 30974 grammes, is enough to prevent any damage to the object being transported carefully; said plastic bag is being custom ordered at certified manufacturer and used for the required move. You carry the bag with vase personally all the way from A to B, while exerting maximum caution at all times during the move.

b) You measure the vase, with all of its contours, and make a properly sized  wooden crate,  with all the padding, etc  - designed so that the vase can not get damaged, even if the crate is dropped from say 1 metre or so height to the round, from whatever side or angle.

Now, it would be hard for me to prove that any audio recording captured at less than optimum quality due to "so and so much is enough, anything more is overkill and wasteful" notion prevailing at the time,  costs, in financial terms, as much as destroyed single last vase remaining. 

However, both broken vase and recording captured at less than optimum resolution ( and later distributed at even less resolution ) have one thing in common : they happen only once.  You can not rewind back time, arriving at the precise time vase starts falling to the ground or conductor lifting his/hers baton before the music starts - to do it RIGHT for the second time.

I hope this has been clear enough.


----------



## Phronesis

analogsurviver said:


> True - but, again, meaningful in real life in theory only.
> 
> Any listener claiming he/she can hear something science can not *yet* measure CAN NOT LISTEN TO THE THEOREM - but only to BEST PHYSICAL EXECUTION OF A DEVICE TRYING TO PERFORM THAT THEOREM BEST IT CAN.
> 
> ...



Perhaps the fault is mine, but I didn't quite follow this.  My best guess is that we actually agree, but I'm not sure.


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't think anybody disputes the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem - as far as the math goes.
However, as has been pointed out, the practical aspects of the real world often fail to be anywhere near as perfect as the theorem, and this is more true for digital audio than for many other subjects.

For example, we're supposed to reconstruct that signal using, in part, a mathematical function called SinC.
However, real world DACs do not use a "mathematical SInC function".
In fact, they don't even use a good mathematical approximation of a SinC function.
Instead, they use a physical analog filter, made up of real world electronic components.
It produces an output response that's "pretty close to a SInC function over a limited range".

The theorem also says that you're supposed to band-limit the signal to below the Nyquist frequency (half the sample rate).
Any tiniest amount of signal above that frequency at the input of the ADC will produce aliasing.
Aliasing is a form of error which consists of small amounts of signal, inside the audible frequency range, that are harmonically unrelated to the original signal.
(Those alias frequencies are related mathematically to the input frequency, but not harmonically; unfortunately humans are more sensitive to additional noises if they're _NOT_ harmonically related to the desired content.)
Unfortunately, an infinitely sharp filter, which would be necessary to produce zero aliasing, would necessarily produce an infinite amount of ringing... so we have to compromise there.

If you look at the band-limiting filters available in various DACs you'll find that they share several characteristics:
- most DACs offer at least one band-limiting filter that provides theoretically near-perfect frequency response (but many of those introduce serious time or phase anomalies)
  (you'll also note that the output response of digital filters isn't as "simple" or "precise" as you might expect)
- most also offer options that are much LESS correct in the frequency domain - but have fewer or smaller errors of other types
  (they cut off a little less sharply, and allow a small amount of aliasing, but avoid some other undesirable characteristic like too much ringing).

Incidentally, errors like ringing can _ONLY_ be detected with transient signals (you don't get ringing on steady state sine wave signals).
The signal used to illustrate ringing usually involves "a single impulse"..... this is the "spike" you see in the center of those oscilloscope photos that show ringing on DACs.
We use this as a test signal because it serves the purpose very well...
Of course, that exact signal cannot exist in a real valid digital recording - because, in fact, it is "invalid" (that single sharp impulse _CANNOT EXIST_ in a recording that has experienced the _REQUIRED_ band-limiting).

Just to highlight the difference between theory and practice I've included a link to an excellent website that compares the performance of the sample-rate-conversion algorithms in _MANY_ different audio editors (software).
In digital terms, we're talking about a relatively simple process (converting a 96k sample to 44k).
The math involved in this process, and even the limitations and tradeoffs, are pretty well known.
In short, doing a well known mathematical process, in software, and getting it right, should be trivial.... 
We would _EXPECT_ that any competent programmer could get it right, and that virtually every piece of commercial software could do it with near theoretical perfection.
Now - go take a look at the results of various real-world products on the website.
In that first graph, you _SHOULD_ see a single bright line that sweeps up and to the right.... any extra lines or dots are _ERRORS_ from that theoretical perfect response.
These errors indicate some sort of aliasing - meaning "noises that are present in the output at frequencies that are non-harmonically related to the original input".
Note that some of those errors may simply be bad programming; others may be deliberate - caused by a choice to sacrifice that particular metric on order to improve a different one - perhaps sacrificing aliasing in return for lower phase error.

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

Another thing I should note is that a lot of people don't seem to fully understand some of the ramifications of the theories...... and of digital audio in general.

For example, one person mentioned the need to use a sample rate well above 44k "in order to preserve the complex shape of waveforms at high frequencies".
One obvious example here would be to suggest that we might be unhappy if we recorded a 13 kHz square wave and a 13 kHz sine wave - and both come out as like sine waves.
(It would intuitively sure seem as if "some details had gone missing or been omitted".)
HOWEVER......
That is exactly the result we would _EXPECT_ in a theoretically perfect recording at a sample rate of 44k.
A sine wave contains only a single frequency - so a 13 kHz since wave contains _ONLY_ 13 kHz.
However, _ANY OTHER WAVEFORM_ contains the original frequency - plus various harmonics, in various quantities, and in various phase relationships.
_Therefore, A 13 KHZ WAVEFORM OTHER THAN A SINE WAVE *MUST* CONTAIN HIGHER HARMONICS OF 13 KHZ._
However, as part of our input requirements, _WE HAVE SPECIFIED THAT ALL FREQUENCIES ABOVE 22 KHZ *MUST* BE FILTERED OUT_ before we can encode the audio.
Therefore, since the second harmonic of 13 kHz is 26 kHz, and all the other harmonics are at higher frequencies, _NONE OF THOSE HARMONICS MAY EXIST IN A 44 KHZ RECORDING_.
To put that another way, if we're making a recording at a sample rate of 44 kHz, and we apply the required input band-limiting filter, _THE ONLY 13 KHZ WAVEFORM WE CAN RECORD IS A SINE WAVE_.
Forget about your recording accurately storing that 13 kHz square wave - because it was already turned into a simple sine wave by the required band-limiting filter.
If you follow the rules, you can't have a 13 kHz square wave in a digital audio file with a sample rate of 44 kHz... period... end...

Of course, according to "the widely accepted theory", since your ears can't hear any of the harmonics either, a 13 kHz sine wave _MUST_ sound exactly the same as a 13 kHz square wave to a human anyway. 
And, if you claim to be able to hear the difference between a 13 kHz sine wave and a 13 kHz square wave, you are asserting some ability to detect harmonics at 26 kHz.
The only question then becomes of whether, under specific conditions, some humans can detect whether "information" at that frequency is "missing".
We have pretty conclusive data that the vast majority of humans cannot hear a continuous 26 kHz sine wave - from a lot of different studies.
Therefore, the question boils down to whether, even though we humans cannot hear continuous tones at that frequency, perhaps we can still detect when components of more complex waveforms at that frequency are missing.

One "side of the debate" insists that we can safely generalize that, since we can't hear continuos sine waves at that frequency, we can "safely assume" that limitation extends to all other possible conditions as well.
The other side suggests that we may percieve the difference in the context of complex waveforms - or even in the context of other characteristics.
For example, one study seemed to suggest that, when content was bandwidth limited to about 22 kHz, the apparent position on the sound stage of various instruments seemed to shift (compared to when it was not limited).
If it turned out to be valid, this would suggest that, even though those higher frequencies aren't "directly heard", they can have some other less direct effect on what we hear (and so omitting them alters what we hear).
I've only ever heard of one such study being performed, reported some time ago in the AES journal, and I would term the results as "suggestive but inconclusive".
(The results were statistically significant - but I didn't think they did a great job of controlling for other possible factors.)

My only real point here is that this is NOT "a simple subject"... and attempting to oversimplify it is bound to lead to errors and oversights.
As far as I know, no comprehensive testing has been done on the audibility of factors unique to digital audio systems, like ringing and aliasing.
These are characteristics which are not at all addressed by continuous sine wave measurement (because they didn't exist as a topic when those measurements became "the accepted standards").

I should also note that nowhere in the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem does it state what levels of errors or omissions will be audible to human beings.
Nyquist-Shannon can predict, with perfect accuracy, what the signal will look like - assuming your practical circuitry is also perfect - but it will NOT tell you whether you or I can hear something or not.

The confounding factors are:
1) practical circuitry never lives up to the theory (and even the theory imposes inherent limits - for example the tradeoff between accurate frequency response and precise time response)
2) very few (if any) thorough and complete tests have been performed to actually measure the human response to this sort of errors



analogsurviver said:


> I NEVER said Nyquist is theorethically/mathematically wrong.
> 
> My point is that most "academics" ASSUME that something proven mathematically correct also works perfectly in practice.
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 27, 2018)

Is there a way to give someone more than one Like per post? 

I now have a much better understanding of why my DACs *could* sound different, so this thread has been time well spent for me.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Apr 27, 2018)

@KeithEmo - fantastic post.

One of the problems with testing these sorts of things ("ultrasonics" in general) is that as far as I know it's difficult and expensive to get gear that actually reliably reproduces them.  For various (probably good) reasons, it's hard to put together a setup where you have a recording, a DAC, an amp, and a transducer that are all going to perform well above 22khz.  Meanwhile, I don't think it's uncommon for music producers to just roll off at 20khz for prudence's sake.  And a lot of so-called "high res" recordings don't have much / any information in the ultrasonic region either.  I've seen posts where it looks like they just filled in 20-44khz with noise.

So while you might dodge artifacts from reconstruction filters this way, often there is no "there" there when it comes to ultrasonics anyway.

To take it back a step - you have to rely on recording engineers making a point of recording with mics that perform well up to 40khz or beyond...  Hmm, not in the budget most of the time, I'd wager...  Not to mention there is still a lot of studio gear and software that isn't really built to behave well at 192khz, sometimes even 96khz is a stretch... and last time I checked, doing projects at 384khz among average musicians (can't speak to the Quincy Jones or John Williams of the world) was considered silly, more a way to show off your CPU power than for audio quality.

PS I just realized I have one of your lanyards from AXPONA here in the office.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm afraid there are actually a few "catches" there which you seem eager to ignore.
The theory does indeed specify that, if the stated conditions are met, then the resulting digital file will contain all of the information present.

However... in practice...

First, the conditions required for adherence to the theory itself are impossible to achieve in real life.
Let's take our standard CD sample rate of 44.1 kHz as an example (I'm going to round to 44 kHz).
The theory specifies "_if a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz"._
So, in order to meet that condition, your input signal must contain_ ABSOLUTELY NOTHING_ above 22 kHz.
To do so, for starters, the S/N ratio of your input signal, when limited to frequencies above 22 kHz, must be _INFINITE_ (otherwise it will contain some amount of noise above the Nyquist frequency).
Also, in order to meet that condition, your input signal must contain_ ABSOLUTELY NO CONTENT_ above 22 kHz; no primaries, no harmonics, no noise, and no distortion products.
If you fail to meet that requirement perfectly then the theory will no longer apply perfectly.
However, because real world signal sources always contain some noise, and some harmonics, outside the allowed bandwidth, we are obligated to use a band-limiting filter to remove them.
It is this band-limiting filter that introduces some of the artifacts we note (because we don't have the ability to design a perfect band-limiting filter).

Second, it's all well and good to posit that the digital signal itself does in fact contain all the information we need, but we can't listen to a list of numbers.
Therefore, whatever technology we choose to convert those numbers back into analog audio ALSO includes various limitations and trade-offs.
For example, the basic theory on which all current DAC designs rest requires that we convert the samples back into discrete voltages... 
The result of this process is a signal that looks like a series of steps - which contains both the information we want and a bunch of "extra junk" that results from the process itself.
Luckily, the math in the theory tells us that this output signal consists of _ONLY_ the signal we want _PLUS_ extra aliasing products that fall above the 22 kHz Nyquist frequency. 
Therefore, if we "simply" apply a filter that removes "everything" above the Nyquist frequency, what we have left will be a perfect representation of our original data.
So far; so good.
The only catch there is that, in order to do so, we will need a_ PERFECT_ low pass filter.... which removes _ALL_ content above 22 kHz while having _NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER_ on content below 22 kHz.
Again, sadly, we are technologically unable to produce an actual filter that meets this requirement (and other theory suggests that it may not actually be possible).
Therefore, the best we can do is to "get pretty close to what the theory requires".
(Oversampling is so useful in DACs because it significantly relaxes the requirements on the design of that filter.)

Note that the production of extra alias information during the D/A process, and the requirement to filter it out, is inherent in the way all current DAC technology works.
If you convert each number into a discrete voltage step, then the steps themselves constitute, an artifact, in the form of extra information, which must be removed.
In theory, there may be some other method for converting that list of number back into analog audio without the extra garbage.... but, if such a method exists, we haven't discovered it yet.

Likewise, in theory, it should be possible to generate electronic music that simply contains no content above the Nyquist frequency, and so has no need for a band-limiting filter on the input.
However, neither the sounds produced by almost all musical instruments, nor the signals produced by existing microphone preamps, meet this requirement completely.
Therefore. with very few exceptions, we are required to add that band-limiting filter at the input.
(And, since virtually every signal source currently in existence requires it, every ADC I know of has it built in - and unable to be bypassed.)

------------------------------

And, just to prove a point about how theory is almost never exactly aligned with fact.... a VERY simple question.

Q: 
Can you create a ten second long sample of an absolutely pure 440 Hz sine wave?

A: 
The answer, which might seem somewhat counter-intuitive, is that producing a ten second sample of an absolutely pure 440 Hz tone is impossible.
An absolutely pure tone contains a single frequency - with no components of any other frequency.
Your test tone will contain some component of 1/10 Hz (related to its own length).
It will also contain a short burst of higher frequencies components at the end points.... which will be components of "the process of stopping and starting". 
Therefore, by definition, a sample of "a pure 400 Hz sine wave" can only exist if it extends infinitely into the past and future... and so has no length and no ends.
Therefore, "a ten second long sample of an absolutely pure 440 Hz sine wave" is simply impossible.
(Of course, we can get "arbitrarily pretty darned close" - but not perfect.



gregorio said:


> 1. This appears to be your problem and has been in virtually every post in this and other threads. You are applying your experience of designing physical systems, which include the principle that models are incomplete/inaccurate, and applying it to audio reproduction. I don't know what it is you design and I am not an expert in science philosophy but in every case I'm aware of, I agree with you, the models are incomplete and inaccurate, except in one case! Now maybe there are other cases of which I'm not aware but in the case of an audio signal the model used is NEITHER incomplete nor inaccurate! It is both perfectly complete and perfectly accurate and this is not just a case of some poor confused soul who lacks real understanding and has been seduced by some marketing, it is a PROVEN fact, and that's the difference here. We have models which are weak but are the best we currently have, we have other models which work so well, are so well supported with evidence and so widely accepted, that we can ALMOST treat them as if they were real, even though science cannot prove them absolutely and provided the level of inaccuracy and/or incompleteness does not impact our particular application, and then we have numerous other models which lie somewhere between these two extremes. However, our "model" DOES NOT fit into ANY of these categories because it is a PROVEN fact, which is:
> 
> "_If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is *completely determined* by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart._" - Function x(t) is an audio signal btw and please note my added emphasis, "completely determined".
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

I get the theory, but is there any evidence that any of this is audible? I remember long convoluted descriptions of why jitter was a horrible thing, but when I started looking into audibility, it turned out that it was ridiculously below the threshold of being audible. Also, I've compared all kinds of digital players with all kinds of DACs... Sabre, Woolfson, cheapie South Korean, expensive high end, etc... and none of them have sounded different. What sort of DAC would have a filter that is audibly different? Which specific ones sound different? I'm a practical soul. I want to know what sounds different so I can avoid it.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 27, 2018)

I'm starting to think that part of the dynamic of a forum like this is that you have some people who have a lot of experience with music listening, they generally don't hear (real audible) differences between DACs, amps, etc., they believe no else can hear them either, and so then spend a lot of time constructing (mostly theoretical) arguments that it's not possible for such audible differences to exist.

If someone comes along and reports that they believe they heard differences, the reflex is challenge them to 'prove it'.  Well, people don't actually have to 'prove it' by spending a lot of time on rigorous blind testing in order to engage in a discussion of possible reasons for hearing the difference, including real audible differences in equipment, different hearing ability, misperception, faulty testing protocols, etc.  Just because something hasn't been 'proven', that doesn't mean it's not real - it's not disproven either.

If that kind of discussion is off limits, and the default assumption will always be that no such reported differences are objectively real until 'proven' otherwise, the forum will be inherently biased and its value reduced.  From a few days of participating in this thread, I can already see that there are arguments on both sides, but there's a strong bias in one direction.

I know the response that we have to default to being skeptical, burden of proof, etc., but in the absence of rigorous blind testing, I don't think it's reasonable to completely discount the widespread reports of audible differences.  I'm sure there's a ton of misperception going on, but I'm not so sure that it's _all_ misperception.  And yes, I don't completely discount what my own ears tell me, especially when they're telling me the same thing that other people's ears are telling them (btw, when I did poorly in distinguishing between Spotify and Tidal, I did NOT go into the blind testing thinking that I had previously heard a noticeable difference, so the testing didn't disprove a prior perception of a difference).


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I don't think anybody disputes the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem - as far as the math goes.
> However, as has been pointed out, the practical aspects of the real world often fail to be anywhere near as perfect as the theorem, and this is more true for digital audio than for many other subjects.
> 
> For example, we're supposed to reconstruct that signal using, in part, a mathematical function called SinC.
> ...


 Thank you for your long and detailed answer - much appreciated.

As you have said, it is NOT anything approaching an easy answer/solution.

The practical outcome, which anyone should be able to understand, at the present state of affairs, is the following :

Since we do not have *perfect* building blocks of the entire audio chain, even if we limit it to "soundcard" = ADC + DAC combo alone, it is wise to use OVERKILL - both in sampling frequency as well as bit depth - or, in case of DSD, going minimum to DSD256 ( commercially available for a few years now ). It allows for less perfect filters, less possibility of aliasing, les... of every possible defect you have mentioned, as well as any you might have missed.

To be blunt; it is FAR less expensive to make near perfect recording using say PCM 192/32 and then bouncing it down to whatever requred than insisting on *perfect* machine to record in the end format of lower resolution - whatever that might be. Thus, even the Supreme Sacred Cow of this thread - to prevent audiophiles to spend more money than absolutely necessary - no longer holds entirely true. It should also be treated with the obligatory "it depends ...". And, yes, I do recognize that most of the members on this thread approve 44.1k 16 as FINAL DELIVERY MEDIUM TO FINAL CUSTOMER only -  with all the implications and limitations this may mean.

You can all try what happens with sound on smartphones just by going from 44.1k to 48k sampling frequency; there is a free app for both iOS and Android by hiby music, that is if not actually the best, certainly is  among the best audiophile aps - specially for free. The app allows playback of PCM of  up to 192k and DSD up to DSD128; it will convert down to max sampling rate your phone supports internally, you can set it so that it will always upsample/downsample to a certain (usaually highest) sampling frequency your phone supports internally - and can play up to specified resolutions NATIVELY with external DAC capable of playback up to at least above mentioned resolution.

Regarding 13 kHz sine or square waves, 26 kHz sine wave hearing capability, etc - for the n-th time : it does not really matter, not in any of the contexts or meanings you noted.

You should really give yourself a good turntable demo; preferably in a relaxed atmosphere, playing music in casual manner over say weekend or holiday, not being pressured for time. That good turntable should have mounted a cartridge with EXTENDED frequency response - at least 40 kHz, preferably higher. Except for few exceptions, that would most normally mean a moving coil cartridge. Try to listen to ANALOGUE  recordings; the most blunt of "recipes" of how to make sure the recording - even if vintage, thus must have originally been recorded to analogue tape or disc - is ABSENCE of any barcodes on the jacket of the records; they simply did not exist back then ! Anything with a barcode is likely to be digitally remastered - even if it does not say explicitely on the jacket - except if and when it explicitely says it has been made from the original master analogue tapes.

Audio with frequency response up to at least 50 kHz or so - be it analogue or digital - will inevitably "image" better - despite the fact that channel separation of the CD is almost perfect and analogue is - to remain honest to reality in todays's market - limited to approx -35 dB  ( in everything but the most extreme cases ). Once accustomed to that kind of imaging precision - particularly depth - it is hard going back to CD quality. 

I know that now all the usual vinyl defects will be mentioned - YES, I ADMIT, they are real ... - but all can be sidelined well enough to be no longer bothersome trough the use of (admittedly very costly ) quality hardware and record hygiene, while preserving the imaging intact. CD ( or anything with sampling frequency this low ) will NEVER image even remotely at this level - and can have all the lack of noise, distortion, etc - to no avail, it does not help with well recorded real music.

I have yet to hear a digital recording of analogue record that is indistinguishable from the vynil being played live (and recorded at the same time, preferably using headphones for listening in order to prevent feedback from loudspeakers ) - neither PCM192/24/32 or DSD128 making it *quite* there. Perhaps DXD/DSD256 ... - but the opportunity has not presented itself yet.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 27, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> If someone comes along and reports that they believe they heard differences, the reflex is challenge them to 'prove it'.  Well, people don't actually have to 'prove it' by spending a lot of time on rigorous blind testing in order to engage in a discussion of possible reasons for hearing the difference, including real audible differences in equipment, different hearing ability, misperception, faulty testing protocols, etc.



Blind testing is vital. Bias is real... a LOT more real than jitter and different sounding amps and angels dancing on heads of pins and alien abduction. The way to separate real from imagined is to remove bias. Blind testing is very, very simple. All it takes is a friend. We all have at least one of those. It's notable that the people who claim to hear things that make no sense are also the people who refuse to participate in a comparison that removes the possibility of bias. Bias has a built in protection mechanism in every one of us. Our ego doesn't want to be wrong. We don't want to have to admit that we may not have the perception we think we have. If you want to really know, you have to resist that. Otherwise, you'll flail around and never know anything for sure.

But here is the absolute truth... If it's THAT difficult to objectively prove that a difference exists, it's probably so small it just doesn't matter. For all intents and purposes, there is no practical difference. We can go on and on arguing about it. You can point to your subjective impressions and refuse to do a simple blind test. I can keep pointing to my informal controlled tests. Amir can pull out his yellow marker and scribble all over his reference books. But for the purposes of listening to music in the home, one DAC is as good as any other DAC. If a difference exists, it's going to be so small, it has no impact on the sound quality of recorded music.

If you want to mention one problem with sound science, it's the tendency of people to keep pushing far beyond practical necessity. I see that in this forum every day.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> Thank you for your long and detailed answer - much appreciated.
> 
> As you have said, it is NOT anything approaching an easy answer/solution.
> 
> ...



A minimum of DSD256. Absolutely ludicrous. How do you even arrive at these numbers? Are you just speculating?

I'd love to see the kind of cartridge that can reproduce 40kHz. Or the vinyl that can actually "store" a 40kHz signal. Because that just ain't happening. Period. Better imaging at 50 kHz? bull.

But yes, let's keep building ungrounded, speculative arguments that are largely unfalsifiable to keep fools like this thinking this is a rational position to take.


----------



## colonelkernel8

KeithEmo said:


> I don't think anybody disputes the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem - as far as the math goes.
> However, as has been pointed out, the practical aspects of the real world often fail to be anywhere near as perfect as the theorem, and this is more true for digital audio than for many other subjects.
> 
> For example, we're supposed to reconstruct that signal using, in part, a mathematical function called SinC.
> ...



So let's work on confounding factor 2. You're absolutely correct in a lot of your assertions.

Although I think the Taylor series approximation of sinc used in these reconstruction filters is closer to the mathematically perfect sinc function than you may think, and I think the ability for a person to detect the difference between a 13 kHz sine wave and a 13 kHz square wave reproduced perfectly is very nearly zero. I'd double blind test that. I disagree with your assertion that these "are safe assumptions", but rather provable hypotheses.

My hypothesis is that effectively all in-built audio reconstruction filters will be indistinguishable in a double blind test.

I'm not trying to diminish the large amount of engineering here, but ears are *not *precision instruments by any means. Even at the very top percentiles of the bell curve.

Do you have that AES paper on soundstage shifts for bandwidth limited signals or a link to it?

Sorry for the somewhat disjointed reply. But this is somewhat stream of consciousness...


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I disagree with your dismissal of "the what if people".
> 
> On the one hand, audiophiles are overly prone to believe totally outlandish things, and to believe them very fervently. On the other hand, science only advances when someone poses a theory, which in turn is tested and found to be true - or when their initial theory is found to be false, but that knowledge then leads to a new theory.
> 
> ...


 just saw the response, thanks for that. 
I agree with you because you're pretty much discussing falsifiability and what we can or cannot conclude because of it. most universal statements can't be supported and shouldn't be made because they aren't falsifiable. I have zero problem with you or others opposing such statements, as to me, they're but more empty claims. 

in an experiment I want to try and account for all I know, and ideally, for all I might not. in a perfect world, I'll try to put controls even for stuff I think cannot happen. if only to confirm that I don't have to worry about it next time. I've proved myself wrong a bunch of times doing just that so I'm a believer of looking at all potential variables, setting up controls, and taking even the weirdest ideas seriously while conducting an experiment. 
but on the forum, I just want fewer empty statements from people asking to be taken seriously but doing nothing to deserve it. I think we must place people in a put up or shut up situation to limit the endemic issues caused by the lack of accountability and over the top self confidence on audio forums. hard skepticism is IMO the ideal starting point for that. 
if they never even bothered measuring anything before claiming objective improvement. if they never set up a blind test before discussing what is audible. if they never read on the topic they wish to "enlighten" us about. then I don't want to treat their ideas and arguments as if equally valid as those from people who put some work in theirs. not every non universally disproved idea is a legitimate idea. most of them are BS in the end, that's how they should be ranked when brand new and lacking any support of any kind. if later on, we find reasons to elevate the ideas's rating, of course we must do it and look it up. but open mindedness is just offering lazy people a status quo where they have no incentive to check anything because to them "not totally impossible" reads the same as " dude you were right all along". 

  which is why I'm on the fence barking my skepticism like I did in that other post. I want to reduce the noise on the forum, not find the next audio revolution. I leave you to work that out.^_^  but I absolutely agree about hypotheses and ideas being the starting point of everything, and I absolutely agree about falsifiability.


----------



## analogsurviver (Apr 27, 2018)

colonelkernel8 said:


> A minimum of DSD256. Absolutely ludicrous. How do you even arrive at these numbers? Are you just speculating?
> 
> I'd love to see the kind of cartridge that can reproduce 40kHz. Or the vinyl that can actually "store" a 40kHz signal. Because that just ain't happening. Period. Better imaging at 50 kHz? Bull****.
> 
> But yes, let's keep building ungrounded, speculative arguments that are largely unfalsifiable to keep fools like this thinking this is a rational position to take.


Oh dear... - do you REALLY do not know that cartridges can go, not only to 50 kHz, but BEYOND 100 kHz ? That "beyond" is admittedly achievable by cartridges that can be counted on the fingers of a single hand - but 50 kHz capable are far too many to even bother starting listing...

I will - INTENTIONALLY - leave out the list of any vintage test records with response up to 50 kHz ; whatever remaining NOS "stock", they are FAR too precious to be grabbed up by the likes of you, just to try to prove that 50 kHz is easily destroyable by the sad impersonations of phono cartridges you might be using...

Here you go, the modern current in print release of the 50 kHz test record.: https://www.ortofon.com/test-record-p-707

And, in case it has not occured to you yet - by playing back the record that should be officially played back at 33 1/3 RPM at 45 RPM, it is possible to test the response of phono cartridge up to - to be exact  - 67506.7506751 Hz. If  the turntable has pitch control, it is possible to go even faster with RPM/higher in frequency. The most widespread turntable  within diehard vynil community is Lenco idler drive models - with continously variable RPM, past 80 .... - thus allowing for testing even beyond 120 kHz ( frequency that happens to be the upper spec'd limit of the fastest phono cartridge ever made ).

Although I do not like block capitals ( = screaming ) very much, except where really needed, the following instructions should be written in block capitals/large letters/slanted/thick/glowing in the dark/fluorescent blinking in daylight :

PLAY 50 kHz TEST RECORDS ONLY WITH CARTRIDGES THAT HAVE UNDAMAGED STYLI, ARE SPECIFIED TO GO APPROXIMATELY UP TO 50 kHz AND HAVE BEEN PRIOR THOROUGHLY TESTED WITH OTHER TEST RECORDS FOR ALIGNMENT AND TRACKING WHILE  SHOWING EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD RESULTS.

PLAY 50 kHz TEST RECORDS INTENDED TO BE PLAYED BACK AT 33 1/3 RPM AT HIGHER RPM ONLY IF AND WHEN THE CARTRIDGE UNDER TEST PERFORMS  EXCEPTIONALLY WELL AT 33 1/3 RPM. BY DEFAULT DEFINITION; THOSE CARTRIDGES WILL BE OF EXTREMELY LOW STYLUS EFFECTIVE MASS; 0.2mg AND , PREFERABLY, BELOW THAT FIGURE.

BETWEEN EACH REPEAT PLAYBACK, EITHER AT 33 1/3, BUT SPECIALLY AT HIGHER RPM, ALLOW MINIMUM 15 MINUTES FOR THE RECORD TO COOL DOWN AND STABILIZE AGAIN.

This is all required because high frequencies ARE the most easily vulnerable in all of the vynil kingdom and a single playback with either worn or in any way inappropriate or inapropriately adjusted stylus will permanently damage and render the record useless.

Only the elite group of cartridges are really suitable - often commanding prices dwarfing the price of most DACs as an afterthought...
Luckily, there are few, VERY few exceptions to this unfortunate rule -  but they DO exist - even to this day. And I am grateful that they are still with us.

For the audible proof of all the above, you will have to arrange yourself a good demo. And, I am NOT bull.....ing you.

Happy now ?


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> No disagreement that the extent of modeling uncertainty and error will vary widely across domains. And no disagreement that it's much less with electronics than with many other domains.
> [1] The question is whether it's truly ZERO with electronics, and therefore DACs, amps, and cables could not possibly sound different at all if they meet some basic design requirements.  I'm not convinced that's the case.
> [2] You gave a theoretical argument related to the function x(t) which I presume is based on math related to Fourier transforms, etc.
> [3] That's fine, but KeithEmo just gave the example that there are design choices in digital to analogue conversion which do affect the resulting analog signal, and therefore could potentially affect sound.  I expect that there are similar examples where the design choices made for amps, cables, and maybe other components could affect signals and therefore sound.



1. No, it can never be zero with electronics due to the laws of physics which apply to electronics namely, thermal noise. Thermal noise creates an absolute limit to performance of electronics, in practice around 20bits is the maximum which can be attained by a DAC. However, neither DACS, amps Nor cables are the problem, the other problem which you consistently appear to miss is that you are REPRODUCING audio! We have a lot of factors which affect the sound before you ever get to reproduce it. In fact, there more factors before you get it than there is after. We've obviously got electronics in the analogue domain and therefore our signal is limited by the laws of physics before we even digitize it; mics, mic pre-amps, at least double and probably several times the length of cable which is carrying very low signals and are going to be massively amplified and last but certainly not least, we've got the problems and limitations in the acoustic domain; venue/studio noise floors, instrument dynamic ranges, frequency production, absorption and reflections. Even if you had a hypothetically perfect audio reproduction system still you would not get perfect reproduction because what you are reproducing is far from perfect!!

2. I assume Nyquist's theory was not entirely out of the blue and the same is true of Shannon's proof. However, the history of the theory and proof is not clear cut, there were various contributors (Fourier being one of them) and others who arrived at the theorem independently (from Nyquist or Shannon) at roughly the same time. Although Shannon's proof was far more wide ranging, as it was the foundation of information theory itself.

3. Yes, of course, any designer can do anything they want. They can deliberately colour (distort) the sound or inadvertent colour it, due to incompetence for example. However, DACs and cables in particular can be competently made which do not audibly colour the sound and cost peanuts, amps of course depend on the power required but are also relatively cheap for a level of accuracy which significantly exceeds audibility.



Phronesis said:


> I'm not saying that the gap (in signals) between models and reality in the current state of audio electronics technology is large, I actually believe it's very small.
> [4] Therefore, I would expect that if there are improvements to be made in sound quality (I'm excluding mechanical aspects), they would also be subtle, and probably not noticeable at the mass consumer level.
> [5] But of course the audiophile ethos is to chase such subtle improvements ...



4. Firstly, we cannot exclude the transducers. If we have speakers with say a dynamic range equivalent to 16 bits, then they can't even reproduce the 18bits of a high quality DAC. Now, let's say we improve the DAC to say 20 bits, what are you going to gain? The improvement would NOT be "subtle", there would be no improvement whatsoever! And secondly of course, even if you had hypothetically perfect speakers (or theoretically exclude them) you still wouldn't gain anything because what you are reproducing is the limiting factor.

5. Exactly and that's the problem! Those "subtle improvements" they're chasing are frequently no improvement whatsoever and, not uncommonly, are actually a decrease in fidelity!

G


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 27, 2018)

colonelkernel8 said:


> But yes, let's keep building ungrounded, speculative arguments that are largely unfalsifiable to keep *fools like this* thinking this is a rational position to take.



Question to moderator: is it ok for people to use personal attacks like what I bolded in this forum?  I know things get heated up, but let's face it, saying something like that in person could result in fists flying.  Should the standard when anonymously at a keyboard be vastly different?


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree.... and all of this inconsistency makes it very difficult to know exactly what's going on.
However, it can be overcome _WITH PROPER RIGOROUS TEST PROTOCOL DESIGN_.

As an example, I recall a recent, and pretty well thought out, test to determine "whether the difference between high-res files and CDs is audible".
The folks performing the test procured several "high-res samples", produced "standard res" equivalents of them, and then played them for their test subjects.
They also specified the source of their files, and the amplifiers and speakers they used.... which is only proper.

HOWEVER, in this sort of test, the specific assumption is that there is something present in the high-res files that is missing from the standard res files.
(The obvious assumption is that this would be either high frequency audio content or some sort of timing variations.....)
Now, since we're testing to see whether these differences are audible, it only makes sense to be sure that we are actually presenting these differences to our test subjects.
It isn't enough to say "we played high resolution files through good speakers so we assume they were reproduced accurately".
They should have first measured their files and demonstrated that the differences were present in the test files themselves... (a spectrum plot for each).
They should have then measured the IN ROOM response for each file, which would ensure that those differences were actually being played to the test subjects.
In general terms this is know as "validating the test protocol and test equipment".... and they FAILED to do it.

It's possible that their file player device, or their amplifiers, or more likely their speakers, were UNABLE to reproduce the differences they were testing for.
They should have used a calibrated test microphone to ensure that the differences they were testing for were actually present at the listening test position.
Microphones that can detect frequencies up to the low megahertz frequencies exist.... they should have rented one to confirm that their test equipment was working properly.
They basically needed to ensure that the differences whose audibility they were testing for were actually reaching THE EARS OF THEIR TEST SUBJECTS.

Without that validation of the test procedure they have limited the validity of the test.....
- if the subjects DID hear a difference we can conclude both that the difference was audible and that the test rig was accurately reproducing it
- if the subjects FAILED to hear a difference, we don't know if the difference was actually inaudible, or if the test equipment simply failed to present it at all
- (So, to put it bluntly, a positive result would have been meaningful, but a negative result is MEANINGLESS.)



Zapp_Fan said:


> @KeithEmo - fantastic post.
> 
> One of the problems with testing these sorts of things ("ultrasonics" in general) is that as far as I know it's difficult and expensive to get gear that actually reliably reproduces them.  For various (probably good) reasons, it's hard to put together a setup where you have a recording, a DAC, an amp, and a transducer that are all going to perform well above 22khz.  Meanwhile, I don't think it's uncommon for music producers to just roll off at 20khz for prudence's sake.  And a lot of so-called "high res" recordings don't have much / any information in the ultrasonic region either.  I've seen posts where it looks like they just filled in 20-44khz with noise.
> 
> ...





Zapp_Fan said:


> @KeithEmo - fantastic post.
> 
> One of the problems with testing these sorts of things ("ultrasonics" in general) is that as far as I know it's difficult and expensive to get gear that actually reliably reproduces them.  For various (probably good) reasons, it's hard to put together a setup where you have a recording, a DAC, an amp, and a transducer that are all going to perform well above 22khz.  Meanwhile, I don't think it's uncommon for music producers to just roll off at 20khz for prudence's sake.  And a lot of so-called "high res" recordings don't have much / any information in the ultrasonic region either.  I've seen posts where it looks like they just filled in 20-44khz with noise.
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

^ Which illustrates the importance of catching both false positives AND false negatives.


----------



## KeithEmo

colonelkernel8 said:


> So let's work on confounding factor 2. You're absolutely correct in a lot of your assertions.
> 
> Although I think the Taylor series approximation of sinc used in these reconstruction filters is closer to the mathematically perfect sinc function than you may think, and I think the ability for a person to detect the difference between a 13 kHz sine wave and a 13 kHz square wave reproduced perfectly is very nearly zero. I'd double blind test that. I disagree with your assertion that these "are safe assumptions", but rather provable hypotheses.
> 
> ...


----------



## robthemac

analogsurviver said:


> I have yet to hear a digital recording of analogue record that is indistinguishable from the vynil being played live (and recorded at the same time, preferably using headphones for listening in order to prevent feedback from loudspeakers ) - neither PCM192/24/32 or DSD128 making it *quite* there. Perhaps DXD/DSD256 ... - but the opportunity has not presented itself yet.



Really? You have blind tested that?

I can see that everyone is debating in good faith, and there is certainly stable ground to hold at each position. However, people are tending to drift away from the original question of this thread: what can be differentiated in blind tests? So what if vinyl has theoretical (or even proven) better stereo separation if our brains can't perceive it? As above for high-res audio, expensive amps, cables etc.


TLDR: great, there's a difference. What's the bloody point?


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> In theory, Nyquist works perfectly OK - no trouble there.
> [1] Practice is another matter.
> [2] This thread would like make people to believe that 44.1kHz 16 bit is all that it takes.
> [3] Even, if we assume that 20-20k frequency response is enough ( it is not, and it will be shown why in due time ),
> ...



1. No it's not, it's the same matter.
2. Good!
3. 20Hz - 20kHz is enough, it's been demonstrated to be enough and those attempting to show that it is not enough have failed, despite trying for 2 decades or more.
4. No, there is no assumption that consumer DACs are perfect, just competent.
5. I've had various pro ADC/DACs for 27 years and I have, along with other experienced music/sound engineering professionals, thoroughly tested and seen for myself what "this or that sample rate" does and I have learned that THE HARD WAY! I can only assume your "decent soundcard" is actually one of those prosumer toys, because historically, to keep the cost down, some/many were often optimised for 96kS/s and did not perform particularly well at other rates; 44.1 or 192kS/s. However, go out and get yourself an ADC/DAC which actually is decent and those differences disappear (except at 192, which always has issues).
6. That's complete nonsense, where did you even get that nonsense from? It's the exact opposite of the actual facts!

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan

KeithEmo said:


> I agree.... and all of this inconsistency makes it very difficult to know exactly what's going on.
> However, it can be overcome _WITH PROPER RIGOROUS TEST PROTOCOL DESIGN_.
> ...
> - (So, to put it bluntly, a positive result would have been meaningful, but a negative result is MEANINGLESS.)



100%.  And the acoustic point is a good one, losses of ultrasound in free air are higher and so the physical layout of the room is even more critical than usual.


----------



## KeithEmo

The short answer is that I don't know who, if anybody, has run specific tests.

Note that we're _NOT_ necessarily talking about differences between different DAC manufacturers here.
The Wolfson WM8741 DAC chip alone offers a selection of several different filter options (I believe there are 21 different filter choices in total).
The options vary in terms of frequency response, phase response, and frequency response ripple (and a few of them produce obvious roll-off below 20 kHz - but most do not).
And, yes, if you select between them, they generally deliver a tiny difference in "sound".

Quite a few other DAC units I've owned have offered a selection of several different filter choices.
And, yes, when you switch directly between them, there are usually small but audible differences between the various choices.
Most units offer a choice between various filters that have more or less ringing before and after the initiating impulse.
Filters with more ringing spread the energy of a very short duration impulse out... resulting in the output being more smeared in time.
Filters with greatly reduced ringing produce less time smear, but are generally overall slightly less accurate in frequency.
In general the difference is not visible in steady state frequency response.... it's more a matter of taking the same tiny amount of error involved and moving it around in time.
However, there is also a separate class of filter that specifically mathematically removes pre-ringing by shifting in after the initiating impulse.
For example, rather than have four cycles of ringing before the impulse, and four after it, you can end up with no ringing before the impulse, but ten cycles after it.
With an averaged steady state frequency response they are mathematically the same, but many people insist that the version without pre-ringing "sounds more natural"
(Personally, I hear a tiny difference, mostly in how "sharp" plucked strings and wire brushed cymbals sound, but I don't find either to be "better".)
Some, but not all, of that type of filter also roll the high frequency response off noticeably (as much as -3 dB at 20 kHz with a 44k sample rate)...
Sometimes that part of the effect can obscure any other differences or lack thereof.

Incidentally, our Ego DACs here at Emotiva offer a choice of three different filter options.
All three options measure the same - within the specs we publish - which are very good.
And, with certain speakers, and certain content, they sound a tiny bit different.
(I wouldn't honestly call the difference "significant", nor would I characterize any particular option as "obviously better", but it is audible to myself and most other people who've listened for it.)

To be honest, I would say that the majority of DACs sold these days offer more than one filter choice.....
And, no, I do NOT always find the options on all of them to sound audibly different.... but, some of them, yes. 



bigshot said:


> I get the theory, but is there any evidence that any of this is audible? I remember long convoluted descriptions of why jitter was a horrible thing, but when I started looking into audibility, it turned out that it was ridiculously below the threshold of being audible. Also, I've compared all kinds of digital players with all kinds of DACs... Sabre, Woolfson, cheapie South Korean, expensive high end, etc... and none of them have sounded different. What sort of DAC would have a filter that is audibly different? Which specific ones sound different? I'm a practical soul. I want to know what sounds different so I can avoid it.


----------



## sonitus mirus (Apr 27, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> The short answer is that I don't know who, if anybody, has run specific tests.
> 
> Note that we're _NOT_ necessarily talking about differences between different DAC manufacturers here.
> The Wolfson WM8741 DAC chip alone offers a selection of several different filter options (I believe there are 21 different filter choices in total).
> ...



Not to be rude, but this is all starting to blur into marketing blather to me.  If we stray away from Red Book and into high resolution files, which arguably offer no benefit to the listener, and we start using custom, boutique DAC filters, maybe there is a measurable difference that can be audible.  Though, I have yet to see any double blinded ABX results that indicate any differences are being heard in these scenarios, just anecdotal references.

Is it better, is it worse?  Who knows?  Is it more expensive?  Probably.  When someone is looking for assistance on a purchase to possibly improve their sound system's audio, DACs and cables are the last thing I would recommend to anyone unless these met a very specific requirement they were asking about.


----------



## analogsurviver

robthemac said:


> Really? You have blind tested that?
> 
> I can see that everyone is debating in good faith, and there is certainly stable ground to hold at each position. However, people are tending to drift away from the original question of this thread: what can be differentiated in blind tests? So what if vinyl has theoretical (or even proven) better stereo separation if our brains can't perceive it? As above for high-res audio, expensive amps, cables etc.
> 
> ...


I would have loved it was that close to require blind test ... sadly, not there yet.

Let me try to describe; the difference IS instantly audible - when switching between vinyl live and digital recording just being recorded. Small, but perceptible loss of "air" "bite" - whatever you want to call it, but the difference is there, mainly in the high frequencies. Provided the information is in the groove in the first place, of course; there are recordings containing not enough in the treble to make any audible difference between vinyl live and its digital counterpart at DSD128 or PCM 192. And, yes, level matched to within less than 0.5 dB. Matched even to absolute phase - not 100% given for each and every case of digital recording.

On the other hand, DSD128 version of any record, even those super well recorded in the treble, does sound entirely acceptable and satisfying a day or two after recording, provided it is NOT compared directly with live vinyl again. Certainly better than anything bounced down to CD quality, be it official CD release - which is also usually different mastering, rendering comparison impossible - or 44.1/16 bounce from the DSD128, where, of course, we are dealing with the very same master for vinyl, DSD128 and CD bounce. 

The bloody point - in all of the listening to music and audio - is the closest approximation to the live sound. If one *almost* gets me there - and the other *never* - I prefer the one that manages *almost* - any day in the week, except, of course, when out and about. 

Analog TT is - simply put - too cumbersome and sensitive for portable use. The most valiant attempt to promote the portability of a serious turntable is the quite succesful photo on the cover of the November 1979 issue of the Italian edition of Stereoplay ( link to a current  ad  for the magazine for sale ) of the otherwise perfectly real , then hot new Technics SL-10 :
https://www.subito.it/libri-riviste/rivista-stereoplay-71-novembre-1979-ferrara-120120608.htm
I own, among other TTs, also the SL-10 ; and, yes, the title of the review in the competing Italian magazine, Suono, at the same time,  read, literally :
"Il primo giradischi Kama Sutra - che suona in tutti i posizioni ! " ( The first Kama Sutra turntable - that plays in all positions ! ) 
The arm of this TT is dynamically balanced in all planes; at the time, it was THE ONLY turntable you can pick up AND CARRY ABOUT, while it is playing not only regular, music record - but 300 Hz test tracks at the highest possible level, which many TTs/carts can not play at all - and STILL NOT LOSING COMPOSURE ... You can turn it upside down, you can hang it on the wall ( many did ... ) - it doesn't give a damn... 
The only trouble for true portability is direct drive, which reacts violently to any movement in sense around the main bearing - either clockwise or counterclockwise - by introducing severe wow due to overcompensation, as it thinks it is starting from standstill. Later versions of Technics turntables featuring the same or essentially the same performing tonearm and servo belt drive could - in fact - be used by that fast lady on rollerskates, as belt drive is not sensitive to rotation of the entire TT ... without skipping a single beat or, heavens forbid, even groove ... 
12V DC required for power ( designed to work off car battery - MUCH better sound than when powered from the mains, with all the attendant troubles of mechanical vibration and electromagnetic radiation of inbuilt mains transformer ... ) can relatively easy be carried around the waist - even for 1979 battery standard. 

So - ENTIRELY doable. But, limited to a single record within the TT, or the addition of the usual LP  backpack with say 20 LPs, carrying also additional batteries - which would , quickly, amount to overall over 15 kg or so ( SL-10, although small, is quite heavy beast ) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technics_SL-10 - and the belt driven really portable capable models were not much lighter, maybe a kilo or so. Resulting in that lovely lady continuously using it on the go to become rather quckly - Schwarzenegerin ...


----------



## robthemac

analogsurviver said:


> I would have loved it was that close to require blind test ... sadly, not there yet.
> 
> Let me try to describe; the difference IS instantly audible -



None of us doubt that you hear differences between the two formats. The question is: where is the difference coming from? What makes you think that the subtlies of the technology outweigh perceptual biases?


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Apr 27, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> 12V DC required for power ( designed to work off car battery - MUCH better sound than when powered from the mains, with all the attendant troubles of mechanical vibration and electromagnetic radiation of inbuilt mains transformer ... ) can relatively easy be carried around the waist - even for 1979 battery standard.



“Survivor” indeed. I didn’t know this level of ignorance could live on in a connected world. Especially with someone who actively uses the internet. I guess people still choose to cling to their biases and find themselves echochambers to support themselves even when being pummeled with evidence.

I am guilty of bias. I’ll admit that. I’m trying to do better, to listen more, but it’s stuff like this that just makes me frustrated in a completely unhealthy, and yet completely avoidable way. Ugh. I need a drink.

You and @skwoodwiva should hang out. You’re perfect for each other.


----------



## bigshot

I can discern an LP in a blind test. That format does not achieve audible transparency. It can sound very good though. Other good, but not transparent formats I know about are audio cassettes, 8 tracks and R2R (although R2R gets very close to total transparency with dynamic noise reduction). The transparent formats I know about are AAC 256 VBR and up, MP3 LAME 320, Redbook, SACD (very hard to find a clear way to compare!) and all the various flavors of hi-resolution Dolby and DTS on blu-ray. I'm not sure about plain vanilla Dolby and DTS on DVDs because I'm not as familiar with those.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I don't think anybody disputes the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem - as far as the math goes.
> However, as has been pointed out, the practical aspects of the real world often fail to be anywhere near as perfect as the theorem, and this is more true for digital audio than for many other subjects.
> 
> For example, we're supposed to reconstruct that signal using, in part, a mathematical function called SinC.
> ...


I followed until the 13khz square wave. of course we can't have it on a 44.1khz signal, we can't have it on any band limited signal which is the prerequisite for Nyquist. it's an illegal signal so I fail to get how it can be relevant.
why not 13khz sine+26khz sine? those 2 once band limited to 44.1, will still show the imperfection of the filter but avoid all the suspicions coming from using an illegal signal to play outside of the normal playground as argument that the playground isn't big enough.


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> “Survivor” indeed. I didn’t know this level of ignorance could live on in a connected world. Especially with someone who actively uses the internet. I guess people still choose to cling to their biases and find themselves echochambers to support themselves even when being pummeled with evidence.
> 
> I am guilty of bias. I’ll admit that. I’m trying to do better, to listen more, but it’s stuff like this that just makes me frustrated in a completely unhealthy, and yet completely avoidable way. Ugh. I need a drink.
> 
> You and @skwoodwiva should hang out. You’re perfect for each other.


Well, if you EVER were listening to a decent turntable - and then to a cost no object one , you would be hard pressed not to notice that top TTs are ALWAYS using external power supplies, whenever appropriate - if and when their motors are DC and running at anything not appraching mains voltage ( like in practically all direct drive designs, like SL-10, a MUCH improved version of the audiophile version of the SL-1200 - which did not start its life as DJ deck ). The DC power for the SL-10, SL-15 and later less expensive SL-7 has indeed been provided with portable use in car in mind - yet, it works EXACTLY as well - that means better - when operated at home from a DC source and not using inbuilt mains transformer. 

You are biased to a point to require a couple days of dragging you out of the rabbit hole of your own choosing - just to get you in the light of the day. The level of your ignorance could only be comprehended by you after a rather lenghty course of actually listening to music - and then, gradually, to both reasonably matched decent quality of both digital and analog. And, finding you an appropriate "partner" on head-fi - or otherwise - would most probably be an entirely futile endeavour. Think about that for awhile ...


----------



## bigshot

I'll volunteer to be a music partner! No need for high end turntables though...


----------



## robthemac

analogsurviver said:


> Well, if you EVER were listening to a decent turntable - and then to a cost no object one , you would be hard pressed not to notice that top TTs are ALWAYS using external power supplies...



That's a perfect example of an argument by authority fallacy. Just because the top companies are doing external power supplies, doesn't mean that external power supplies are therefore proucing a better sonic experience.

These claims need to be tested on their own merits, not on the basis of authority.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Apr 27, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Well, if you EVER were listening to a decent turntable - and then to a cost no object one , you would be hard pressed not to notice that top TTs are ALWAYS using external power supplies, whenever appropriate - if and when their motors are DC and running at anything not appraching mains voltage ( like in practically all direct drive designs, like SL-10, a MUCH improved version of the audiophile version of the SL-1200 - which did not start its life as DJ deck ). The DC power for the SL-10, SL-15 and later less expensive SL-7 has indeed been provided with portable use in car in mind - yet, it works EXACTLY as well - that means better - when operated at home from a DC source and not using inbuilt mains transformer.
> 
> You are biased to a point to require a couple days of dragging you out of the rabbit hole of your own choosing - just to get you in the light of the day. The level of your ignorance could only be comprehended by you after a rather lenghty course of actually listening to music - and then, gradually, to both reasonably matched decent quality of both digital and analog. And, finding you an appropriate "partner" on head-fi - or otherwise - would most probably be an entirely futile endeavour. Think about that for awhile ...


“Bias”. Well, if understanding actual engineering and the physical limitations of vinyl counts as bias, then sure. I’m biased. But I bet I could design a switch mode power supply that has less noise than a battery.

Which car batteries sound the best? Optima? Duralast? Do they make audiophile car batteries?


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> I'll volunteer to be a music partner! No need for high end turntables though...


That sounds great!


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 27, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Blind testing is vital. Bias is real... a LOT more real than jitter and different sounding amps and angels dancing on heads of pins and alien abduction. The way to separate real from imagined is to remove bias. Blind testing is very, very simple. All it takes is a friend. We all have at least one of those. It's notable that the people who claim to hear things that make no sense are also the people who refuse to participate in a comparison that removes the possibility of bias. Bias has a built in protection mechanism in every one of us. Our ego doesn't want to be wrong. We don't want to have to admit that we may not have the perception we think we have. If you want to really know, you have to resist that. Otherwise, you'll flail around and never know anything for sure.
> 
> But here is the absolute truth... If it's THAT difficult to objectively prove that a difference exists, it's probably so small it just doesn't matter. For all intents and purposes, there is no practical difference. We can go on and on arguing about it. You can point to your subjective impressions and refuse to do a simple blind test. I can keep pointing to my informal controlled tests. Amir can pull out his yellow marker and scribble all over his reference books. But for the purposes of listening to music in the home, one DAC is as good as any other DAC. If a difference exists, it's going to be so small, it has no impact on the sound quality of recorded music.
> 
> If you want to mention one problem with sound science, it's the tendency of people to keep pushing far beyond practical necessity. I see that in this forum every day.



For the reasons already discussed, I think the reality is that we're never going to get enough large-scale rigorous blind tests to answer these questions in a conclusive way.  And we're not going to settle anything in this forum via discussion of the evidence currently available.

So, as a practical matter, I think each person needs to decide what evidence they want to gather to make their particular audio decisions - there's a lot of variation in amounts and types of music listening, budgets, interest in buying new stuff, concern for non-audio aspects of products, etc.  With that in mind, there are all kinds of potential evidence - listening impressions, blind testing, reviews, opinions of friends, considerations based on theory and technology, brand reputation, etc.  For example, if someone consistently hears a substantial difference between X and Y, they would naturally count that as stronger evidence than hearing an occasional smaller difference.  Once purchases are already made, I can understand a reluctance to do blind testing, since that might indicate less difference than expected and diminish enjoyment of the equipment.

I fully agree that there's a tendency among audiophiles to chase after differences which, if they exist, are too small to make a practical difference.  And I think the biggest downside of that is that paying too much attention to sound quality directly interferes with enjoying music; are you listening to the _sound_ or the _music_? - can't really do both simultaneously.  I've experienced this problem myself many times, and I hope to kick that habit once I'm satisfied that my inventory of equipment is good enough for my needs (I've been seriously shopping for headgear for less than a year).


----------



## bigshot (Apr 27, 2018)

No need for a large scale rigorous test. Just do a blind test for yourself and see if *you* can tell the difference with your particular ears and your particular equipment. Let me know how it comes out when you get around to it.

Colonelkernal and Phronesis, I'll start a music thread and we can share that kind of info too. I've been punished for venturing out into the music forum at HeadFi in the past, so we can have a Sound Science Music thread where we can share music in our own little hidey hole.


----------



## gregorio (Apr 28, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> [1] You are biased to a point to require a couple days of dragging you out of the rabbit hole of your own choosing - [1a] just to get you in the light of the day. The level of your ignorance could only be comprehended by you after a rather lenghty course of actually listening to music...



1. I'm biased that way too, thank god! The rabbit hole of my own choosing is the rabbit hole of actual facts!
1a. Your "light of the day" is in fact a rose-tinted, distortion of the "light of the day", which you apparently prefer to the actual "light of the day". That is of course fine, you can have any preference you choose BUT you can't just invert the actual facts to match or justify your preference. Most, if not every single one, of your stated facts are incorrect!! Which means that ...

2. The ignorance here is yours! And, you would comprehend this if you spent just a relatively short amount of time in a studio actually listening to music or if you learned the actual facts about the media you're making ridiculous assertions about!



Phronesis said:


> [1] I think the reality is that we're never going to get enough large-scale rigorous blind tests to answer these questions in a conclusive way.
> [2] And we're not going to settle anything in this forum via discussion of the evidence currently available.



1. Again, that depends on what we're talking about. For example, the current world record for the 100m sprint is 9.58 secs. We haven't tested/measured every living human being and certainly can't test every human being who has lived or will live, so we don't know for sure exactly what the human limit is. However, from the testing we have done, plus what we know of the sciences of anatomy and physics, can we not say "in a conclusive way" that running 100m in 0.009 secs is impossible? If not, then what is "conclusive" and can anything ever be conclusive? Bigshot used the example of jitter, which typically is around 1,000 times or so less than anyone has been shown to be able to detect in testing and let's not forget, that the first published test (I'm aware of) for jitter discrimination was in 1974, so we've been testing a long time. However, some audiophiles are claiming jitter detection abilities down in the femto second range, which is very roughly 100,000 times or so beyond any test result, even under the most highly specifically manufactured/favourable test conditions! I assert that level of claimed jitter discrimination is humanly impossible and, that this assertion is about as "conclusive" as it gets.

2. That depends on what you mean by "settle". If you mean; "align everyone's beliefs to the actual facts", then no, there's always going to be some people with irrational beliefs which no evidence, regardless of how "conclusive", is going to change. But, if you mean to settle beyond any reasonable/rational doubt, then yes a lot can be and has been settled in this forum. Mainly due to the fact that discussion of the evidence often reveals the true scale or context of an issue which the audiophile industry has deliberately obfuscated/misrepresented. For you personally though, with your beliefs, it does appear likely that your statement is true.

G


----------



## analogsurviver (Apr 28, 2018)

robthemac said:


> That's a perfect example of an argument by authority fallacy. Just because the top companies are doing external power supplies, doesn't mean that external power supplies are therefore proucing a better sonic experience.
> 
> These claims need to be tested on their own merits, not on the basis of authority.


Correction - the part about mocking DC powering of TTs is meant for the member colonelkernel8 - the rest more or less stands as written. My apologies, robthemac !

Oh... you are THAT new to turntables ? Born ACD ( After introduction of CD ) ?

Sorry, to any turntable user seasoned enough is clear - for decades - that any AC coming into proximity of a sensitive phono cartridge is not a good thing - AC hum coupling, before the turntable starts spinning ... before the stylus is lowered into the groove. Plug it out of the AC mains  - no longer GfNTftG ( short for:  Greetings from Nikola Tesla from the Grave; seasoned by hum 60 Hz in the US and 50 Hz ( and their harmonics ...)  in most of the rest of the world - something I could definitely do without ... ).

Assume - no, not THAT hated expression - approximate the near insensitivity to electromagnetic hum by using a cartridge that uses for transducing an entirely different principle - optical.
https://www.vinylengine.com/library/aurex-toshiba/c-100p.shtml  As this superb cart from 1969 is in an extremely short "supply", one can resort to today's, unfortunately simplified, but recently appreciably improved version, made with modern semiconductors: the http://www.analogueseduction.net/ds-audio-cartridges/ds-audio-ds-w1-optical-cartridge.html
I am "hypothetically using" this cartridge only to allow you to easier understand the following : TT with internal AC mains power supply , connected to AC mains outlet, fitted with cartridge that is totally insensitive to electromagnetic radiation from AC  field, is only lowered to the surface of the record placed on the STATIONARY turntable platter. What do you think you would be able to hear and be able to measure ?

You've guessed it - GfNTftG !  - hum, 50 or 60 Hz ( and its harmonics ) , depending where in the world you live !
Mechanical transmission from the AC transformer ... - no matter how well decoupled, some of it WILL  come trough !

( And, no, optical cartridge not really required - an ordinary MM Audio Technica AT-95, something that should never set you back for more than 50 Euro/dollars/pounds, is perfectly adequate for the conclusion that transformer mechanical vibrations DO make it to the cartridge - I only "used" optical cartridge so that anyone of naysayers has no ground to accuse me of not being able to differentiate from AC coupled/induced hum and that structurally borne one . )

Turntables have reached the level of excellence regarding rumble ( only a part of the entire S/N story with TTs ) exceeding the quality of most ( but not all )  recording lathes from mid 70s on. With the spectral analysis now at the fingertips of any owner of a computer, it is easy to measure each and every component of the figure lumped into a single rumble figure ... - and in quality machined TTs, AC motor vibration, AC transformer, etc - everything AC related - will be shown up mercilessly.

Old school guys, who would not touch computer with a barge pole, can accomplish the very same feat using ordinary stetoscope and a little imagination and deduction - they ( WE ) do not really need any graphs. Only really required for evidence as required by the rules of this thread - and, more important, for optimizing any mods done, also bearing in mind cost vs performance ratio, where measurements/graphs not only help, but are indispensable.

Mechanical rumble in turntables has long ago exceeded whatever best a normally produced vinyl record can possibly achive - by some 20+ dB; that's why devices  like  http://www.theanalogdept.com/measures.htm came into being . Lately, TTs that use magnetic repelling/levitating in order to allow main bearing to no longer have vertical support surface upon which most normal bearings rotate ( and are the main source of rumble ) are pushing rumble figures approaching 100 dB ... Clearly, any AC intrusions are WAY higher in amplitude - and feel in such designs as sore thumbs, to be eliminated ASAP.
REMEMBER : that almost 100dB is referenced to the 0dB recording; unlike digital, where 0 dB is the end of the world, analog record can be modulated in theory above +20dB, is usually made not to exceed +18 dB, with the play-it-safe approach of most commercial records reducing that to approx +10 to +12 dB.

Most analogue vynil lovers will tell you the main reason why they are prefering belt drive turntables over direct drive is - less noise . True, a decent belt driven TT with AC motor ( AR, Thorens, Linn, etc ) WILL outperform most DD driven decks - which are, unfortunately almost always, extremely noisy in electrical sense, almost in the same vein as soundcard built into the desktop computer, with switching PS, vibrating hard disks, fans, etc ... - only worse still.
But, if you throw the offending AC noisemakers out ...

That external power supplies in turntables are better than internal,  has been clearly demonstrated more than 30 years ago - and the difference is big enough not to require any AB - either sighted, blind, double blind, triple blind, ... - all the way to the number of blindfolding that does not outright kill you. That the number of commercially available TTs with external power supplies is scarce and limited to top models, is simply due to the fact they are exactly that - COMMERCIAL turntables. As with any other aparatus, in order to get THAT desired function, you will most likely be forced to buy the top of the line - or, if you are lucky and manufacturer has some mercy - second best model. Now, TTs predate the later established practice of most manufacturers to  produce a SINGLE model for the complete line. Say DVD recorders; it takes them actually MORE work with lower priced models, as this require unchecking/disabling MANY features, which are all enabled only in the flagship model - which , goes without saying, sells at the premium price. The TOTL may well have better made box, remote, etc - but the mainboard is THE SAME, from the lowest to the highest priced model. TTs were actually build as different models - bigger/higher/heavier platters, better/closer tolerance bearings, better plinth, better electronic controls, etc - all within the same line of TTs.

There was a line of relatively inexpensive TTs built well enough to warrant commercially available modification(s) - including external power supply. Harman Kardon TT40/50/60 - and Frank Van Alstine of https://avahifi.com/ back in the 80s. It more than earned the much deserved praise - Blue Collar Linn Sondek.  If you can still locate any of these TTs ( Cosa Nostra da America, outside US VERY hard to get, never saw one in flesh ...), if it is  basically in sound order, asking Frank if he would still be willing to get it modified for you might not hurt ...

Now... IF you knew all that before mocking the use of DC powering for the SL-10 ( one of the very few TTs that let you use it with DC power, without any modification required, for the price of a sealed acid 12V 9Ah battery ( TT draws approx 500-600 mA, performance can become erratic below certain voltage, that capacity - fully charged - is about right, proven in practice for a long weekend listening session) with charger - and a DIY cable - say 30 $ all together ? ) - would you still do it ?


----------



## robthemac

I don't think that made much grammatical sense (let alone linear structure), but I think I get the gist of what you're trying to say. 

I also don't think that we disagree wherever you think we do. I don't doubt that there are differences between certain products (even if I am highly skeptical in most cases). I was pointing out your fallacious reasoning in the previous post. I would still be extremely interested to find anyone willing to put these assertions to the test.


----------



## analogsurviver

robthemac said:


> That's a perfect example of an argument by authority fallacy. Just because the top companies are doing external power supplies, doesn't mean that external power supplies are therefore proucing a better sonic experience.
> 
> These claims need to be tested on their own merits, not on the basis of authority.


Oh... you are THAT new to turntables ? Born ACD ( After introduction of CD ) ?

Sorry, to any turntable user seasoned enough is clear - for decades - that any AC coming into proximity of a sensitive phono cartridge is not a good thing - AC hum coupling, before the turntable starts spinning ... before the stylus is lowered into the groove. Plug it out of the AC mains  - no longer GfNTftG ( short for:  Greetings from Nikola Tesla from the Grave; seasoned by hum 60 Hz in the US and 50 Hz ( and their harmonics ...)  in most of the rest of the world - something I could definitely do without ... ).

Assume - no, not THAT hated expression - approximate the near insensitivity to electromagnetic hum by using a cartridge that uses for transducing an entirely different principle - optical.
https://www.vinylengine.com/library/aurex-toshiba/c-100p.shtml  As this superb cart from 1969 is in an extremely short "supply", one can resort to today's, unfortunately simplified, but recently appreciably improved version, made with modern semiconductors: the http://www.analogueseduction.net/ds-audio-cartridges/ds-audio-ds-w1-optical-cartridge.html
I am "hypothetically using" this cartridge only to allow you to easier understand the following : TT with internal AC mains power supply , connected to AC mains outlet, fitted with cartridge that is totally insensitive to electromagnetic radiation from AC  field, is only lowered to the surface of the record placed on the STATIONARY turntable platter. What do you think you would be able to hear and be able to measure ?

You've guessed it - GfNTftG !  - hum, 50 or 60 Hz ( and its harmonics ) , depending where in the world you live !
Mechanical transmission from the AC transformer ... - no matter how well decoupled, some of it WILL  come trough !

( And, no, optical cartridge not really required - an ordinary MM Audio Technica AT-95, something that should never set you back for more than 50 Euro/dollars/pounds, is perfectly adequate for the conclusion that transformer mechanical vibrations DO make it to the cartridge - I only "used" optical cartridge so that anyone of naysayers has no ground to accuse me of not beig able to differentiate from AC coupled/induced hum and that structurally borne one . )

Turntables have reached the level of excellence regarding rumble ( only a part of the entire S/N story with TTs ) exceeding the quality of most recording lathes from mid 70s on. With the spectral analysis now at the fingertips of any owner of a computer, it is easy to measure each and every component of the figure lumped into a single rumble figure ... - and in quality machined TTs, AC motor vibration, AC transformer, etc - everything AC related - will be shown up mercilessly. Old school guys, who would not touch computer with a barge pole, can accomplish the very same feat using ordinary stetoscope and a little imagination and deduction - they ( WE ) do not really need any graphs. Mechanical rumble in turntables has long ago exceeded whatever best a normally produced vinyl record can possibly achive - by some 20+ dB; that's why devices like  http://www.theanalogdept.com/measures.htm came into being . Lately, TTs that use magnetic repelling/levitating in order to allow main bearing to no longer have vertical support surface upon which most normal bearings rotate ( and are the main source of rumble ) are pushing rumble figures approaching 100 dB ... Clearly, any AC intrusions are WAY higher in amplitude - and feel in such designs as sore thumbs, to be eliminated ASAP.
REMEMBER : that almost 100dB is referenced to the 0dB recording; unlike digital, where 0 dB is the end of the world, analog record can be modulated in theory above +20dB, is usually made not to exceed +18 dB, with the play-it-safe approach of most commercial records reducing that to approx +10 to +12 dB.

Most analogue vynil lovers will tell you the main reason why they are prefering belt drive turntables is - less noise . True, a dece

That external power supplies in turntables are better than internal,  has been clearly demonstrated more than 30 years ago - and the difference is big enough not to require any AB - either sighted, blind, double blind, triple blind, ... - all the way to the number of blindfolding that does not kill you. That the number of commercially available TTs with external power supplies is scarce and limited to top models, is simply due to the fact they are exactly that - COMMERCIAL turntables. As with any other aparatus, in order to get THAT desired function, you will most likely be forced to buy the top of the line - or, if you are lucky and manufacturer has some mercy - second best model. Now, TTs predate the later established practice of most manufacturers to  produce a SINGLE model for the complete line. Say DVD recorders; it takes them actually MORE work with lower priced models, as this require unchecking/disabling MANY features, which are all enabled only in the flagship model - which , goes without saying, sells at the premium price. The TOTL may well have better made box, remote, etc - but the mainboard is THE SAME, from the lowest to the highest priced model. TTs were actually build as different models - bigger/higher/heavier platters, better bearings, better plinth, better electronic controls, etc - all within the same line of TTs.

There was a line of relatively inexpensive TTs built well enough to warrant commercially available modification(s) - including external power supply. Harman Kardon TT40/50/60 - and Frank Van Alstine of https://avahifi.com/ back in the 80s. If you can locate any of these TTs ( Cosa Nostra da America, outside US VERY hard to get, never saw one in flesh ...), if it is still basically sound, asking Frank if he would still be willing to get it modified for you might not hurt ...


----------



## robthemac

I think you're talking to yourself, champ.


----------



## analogsurviver

robthemac said:


> I don't think that made much grammatical sense (let alone linear structure), but I think I get the gist of what you're trying to say.
> 
> I also don't think that we disagree wherever you think we do. I don't doubt that there are differences between certain products (even if I am highly skeptical in most cases). I was pointing out your fallacious reasoning in the previous post. I would still be extremely interested to find anyone willing to put these assertions to the test.


Now, I certainly could record all of the things discussed.

I have a LARGE library of performance of various turntables, tonearms, preamplifiers, cartridges, etc - both music and technical test signals, normally up to 50 kHz, but also few above.. Recorded in DSD128 - as anything less simply does not cut it. One look at the 1 kHz square wave output from the phono cartridge on an analogue oscilloscope is enough to prefer DSD128 over PCM192 - and even that IS NOT ENOUGH.

Now, I know for any processing on computer in order to generate graphs, etc, conversion to PCM192/24/32 ( sigh... ) is inavoidable ... Do you know of any software that could be used for graphs, etc, that could work with at least 192kHz  sampling - which means, in theory, response to 96 kHz, but is in practice limited to -3dB point to appreciably lower frequency, which is dependant on the very soundcard used ? Most software for measurement with soundcard uses both ADC and DAC for the measurement, acting also as signal generator, both being driven from the same clock - but I would need something capable of analyzing already recorded wav file. 192kHz files are LARGE , too large for most software that accept usually comparably very low amount of data as already recorded wav. For easier management and archival purposes, I keep a DFF file from an entire test LP "in one piece", sometimes side A and side B are recorded as one piece, further fragmentation is usually due to more haphazard reasons, like answering the door, phone, etc. I can, of course, break these in proper tracks - but, it is quite lot of work.


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> “Bias”. Well, if understanding actual engineering and the physical limitations of vinyl counts as bias, then sure. I’m biased. But I bet I could design a switch mode power supply that has less noise than a battery.
> 
> Which car batteries sound the best? Optima? Duralast? Do they make audiophile car batteries?


Well, this only goes to show you are speaking from theory.

Yes, a switching power supply could be designed to have lower nose than a battery.

However - ANY switching power supply I have so far encountered in audio, had at least one detrimental effect.  And nothing will go haywire as much as a turntable can; because phono cartridge impedances vary across a VERY vast range, sooner or later you WILL stumble upon the combination of cart/cable/preamp that WILL start resonating - ranging from soft distorted radio reception up to full gas "kabooom" , taking your speakers to ever hounting grounds in the process. You simply can not test for each and every combination likely to be used in the field. 

Using battery, nothing of the sort can happen. Being from another continent, I am not familiar with any of the brands mentioned - but I tend to use batteries with as low as possible internal resistance, capable of supplying the largest current possible. Not that would be needed or even critical for the aplication of powering a TT ( very constant load, except during starting and, in case of servo motor driven linear tonearm, cueing ), but because such batteries perform better in other audio applications  I drive with DC and have them available. 

Sorry for being conservative - but things tend to work better and longer that way.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 28, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. Again, that depends on what we're talking about. For example, the current world record for the 100m sprint is 9.58 secs. We haven't tested/measured every living human being and certainly can't test every human being who has lived or will live, so we don't know for sure exactly what the human limit is. However, from the testing we have done, plus what we know of the sciences of anatomy and physics, can we not say "in a conclusive way" that running 100m in 0.009 secs is impossible? If not, then what is "conclusive" and can anything ever be conclusive? Bigshot used the example of jitter, which typically is around 1,000 times or so less than anyone has been shown to be able to detect in testing and let's not forget, that the first published test (I'm aware of) for jitter discrimination was in 1974, so we've been testing a long time. However, some audiophiles are claiming jitter detection abilities down in the femto second range, which is very roughly 100,000 times or so beyond any test result, even under the most highly specifically manufactured/favourable test conditions! I assert that level of claimed jitter discrimination is humanly impossible and, that this assertion is about as "conclusive" as it gets.
> 
> 2. That depends on what you mean by "settle". If you mean; "align everyone's beliefs to the actual facts", then no, there's always going to be some people with irrational beliefs which no evidence, regardless of how "conclusive", is going to change. But, if you mean to settle beyond any reasonable/rational doubt, then yes a lot can be and has been settled in this forum. Mainly due to the fact that discussion of the evidence often reveals the true scale or context of an issue which the audiophile industry has deliberately obfuscated/misrepresented. For you personally though, with your beliefs, it does appear likely that your statement is true.
> 
> G



Reading through much this thread, IMO not much has been 'conclusively' settled on the basis of the available theory, 'facts', and evidence.  And again, there are many kinds of evidence.  Anecdotal evidence and listening impressions can be unreliable, but controlled tests (especially small-scale) can also produce both false positives and false negatives, as well as raising questions about generalizing the test results beyond the test conditions and even to individuals who participated in the tests (medical example: a cancer medicine which produced no improvement in median survival could still be very beneficial [or detrimental] for _some_ patients who participated in a trial, even if they couldn't know for sure if the difference was due to the medicine).

FWIW, I'm currently open to the idea that 'adequately designed' DACs can sound different, with those differences being significant for some people but not others.  This working conclusion seems to have some support from theory, anecdotal reports, and my own listening impressions.  Others may reach a different working (or final) conclusion, which is fine, and it wouldn't be the first time 'rational' people reached different conclusions.  Such is life when evidence isn't truly conclusive.

Now can we please get past this controversy and talk about more straightforward things like religion and politics?


----------



## bigshot (Apr 28, 2018)

I personally own tens of thousands of records. I think “rekkid collectin’“ is great. But I’m not so far gone that I refuse to believe that CD is the superior format. Records have only two advantages over CDs... The covers are big enough to read the liner notes without glasses, and there's a lot of music on records that never made it to CD release.

The only frequencies above 15 to 17kHz on an LP record consist of noise.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> Reading through much this thread, IMO not much has been 'conclusively' settled on the basis of the available theory, 'facts', and evidence.



READ THE FIRST POST IN THE THREAD! Sorry for the all caps, but when I have to say it four times because you keep ignoring it so you can repeat your goalpost shifting again, it gets tiresome.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> READ THE FIRST POST IN THE THREAD! Sorry for the all caps, but when I have to say it four times because you keep ignoring it so you can repeat your goalpost shifting again, it gets tiresome.



As I noted in a previous post (you may have missed it), I've read it.  IMO, those tests aren't sufficient to 'settle' things.  No question that people often hear differences that aren't really there, but not all conclusive that none of the heard differences are real.  Broad conclusions need large-scale studies which are carefully designed, and even then there always questions about how far the conclusions can be generalized.  If it can't be sufficiently settled based on theory, you need empirical data, and the empirical data we have is both insufficient and inconclusive.

FWIW, I had a conversation this morning with a guy who worked in pro audio for many years (recording and mixing).  I asked him whether people in his world think DACs can sound different.  He said that they do think so (and he personally does), but the differences generally aren't large.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 28, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> As I noted in a previous post (you may have missed it), I've read it.  IMO, those tests aren't sufficient to 'settle' things.



No true Scotsman. Feel free to set your goalposts far enough out that your preconceived bias can't be contradicted. I think you're in the wrong group here though. You would get a lot more support out in the rest of HeadFi with your audiophilosophy. That is the way they think.

Ask your pro audio friend specifically which DACs sound different than each other. And ask him whether he would use DACs that sounded audibly different in his work.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> No true Scotsman. Feel free to set your goalposts far enough out that your preconceived bias can't be contradicted. I think you're in the wrong group here though. You would get a lot more support out in the rest of HeadFi with your audiophilosophy. That is the way they think.



So if we look at the same information and draw a different conclusion, you're automatically right and I'm automatically wrong?  When you say I'm in the wrong group, are you an authorized rep for the whole group?  Does the group require homogeneity of beliefs and opinions to participate in the discussion?  Leave the group if you don't think like us?  I don't know if you realize how dogmatic that sounds.  But you may be right that this group isn't a good fit for me.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> So if we look at the same information and draw a different conclusion, you're automatically right and I'm automatically wrong?  When you say I'm in the wrong group, are you an authorized rep for the whole group?  Does the group require homogeneity of beliefs and opinions to participate in the discussion?  Leave the group if you don't think like us?  I don't know if you realize how dogmatic that sounds.  But you may be right that this group isn't a good fit for me.


If I say yes will you go away?


----------



## Phronesis

colonelkernel8 said:


> If I say yes will you go away?



Every vote counts!


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> Every vote counts!


What I mean is we’ve all encountered your mindset before. Clinging to a mixture of ambiguity and the downright impossible to continue to justify your own preconceptions. I don’t think there is ever going to be satisfactory evidence for you, either mathematical, biological, or in practical electrical engineering.

Of course, merely performing a double blind test on yourself may cure you of that, but it will definitely make you uncomfortable.

The same goes for Mr. Survivor. If you can tell the difference between DSD128 and DSD256 in a double blind test, I’ll give you $500.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> So if we look at the same information and draw a different conclusion, you're automatically right and I'm automatically wrong?  When you say I'm in the wrong group, are you an authorized rep for the whole group?  Does the group require homogeneity of beliefs and opinions to participate in the discussion?  Leave the group if you don't think like us?  I don't know if you realize how dogmatic that sounds.  But you may be right that this group isn't a good fit for me.



I don't know where you live, but I live in Los Angeles and today is a beautiful day. Sunshine, a nice cool breeze, blue skies and birds chirping. My tree is full of sweet ripe oranges. When I find myself feeling like you seem to feel, I grab the dog and park myself in a chair the back yard with a bowl of quartered oranges and I soak up the sun and eat oranges. I find that it really helps me find focus and allows me to let go of pointless aggression and stubbornness. I learned this from watching W.C. Fields in "It's A Gift" (except I don't use as much vodka!)







Maybe you don't have an orange tree or a congenial pooch. But I'm sure you can find something to help you shift your focus from drilling down on nothing to enjoying the moment a little. I bet when you're done, you'll decide that it just isn't worth all the time and effort to dig your trenches and deflect all the contradictory evidence to defend a position that is based on purely theoretical stuff that probably doesn't matter in practice. Life is too short to focus on the hairs of gnats. Get out and live! That's my advice.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I don't know where you live, but I live in Los Angeles and today is a beautiful day. Sunshine, a nice cool breeze, blue skies and birds chirping. My tree is full of sweet ripe oranges. When I find myself feeling like you seem to feel, I grab the dog and park myself in a chair the back yard with a bowl of quartered oranges and I soak up the sun and eat oranges. I find that it really helps me find focus and allows me to let go of pointless aggression and stubbornness. I learned this from watching W.C. Fields in "It's A Gift" (except I don't use as much vodka!)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Doing very well here on the other coast, life is good.  You may want to take your own unsolicited rhetorical advice, rather than arguing with people like me and racking up thousands of posts!


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> Doing very well here on the other coast, life is good.  You may want to take your own unsolicited rhetorical advice, rather than arguing with people like me and racking up thousands of posts!


It’s a forum. I can’t think of a more appropriate venue to issue unsolicited advice.


----------



## robthemac

colonelkernel8 said:


> It’s a forum. I can’t think of a more appropriate venue to issue unsolicited advice.



Forums, the Jehovah's Witnesses of the internet. 


@Phronesis, your cancer study analogy is apt, but you draw the wrong conclusions. If a medicine is causing a major benefit for some but not causing a benefit overall, then (if your study had reasonable statistical power) it is usually because there is a negative effect on other participants. It's not particularly difficult to get statistical significance if there is major benefit for some while the rest are simply unaffected.


----------



## robthemac

If you're really fancy with statistics, you can look at whether or not there is a significant bimodal distribution. In the cancer analogy, instead of there being a bell-shaped normal distribution curve of response to the medicine, there are two separate peaks (like a camel's humps), one for the non-responders and one for the responders. This happens with a number of medications, including codeine and certain antidepressants. Certain genetically-coded enzyme structures will cause one population to respond well to a medication, and others to not respond at all, with not many people in between. 

I wonder if these questions around whether or not there is a difference between individual audio components would fall into a bimodal curve. Perhaps the first and larger hump is a majority of people who can't tell the difference in blind tests, but there could be a smaller second group of people who can. This could be easily tested, and I plan on doing so after my exam in August!


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Apr 28, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> As I noted in a previous post (you may have missed it), I've read it.  IMO, those tests aren't sufficient to 'settle' things.  No question that people often hear differences that aren't really there, but not all conclusive that none of the heard differences are real.  Broad conclusions need large-scale studies which are carefully designed, and even then there always questions about how far the conclusions can be generalized.  If it can't be sufficiently settled based on theory, you need empirical data, and the empirical data we have is both insufficient and inconclusive.
> 
> FWIW, I had a conversation this morning with a guy who worked in pro audio for many years (recording and mixing).  I asked him whether people in his world think DACs can sound different.  He said that they do think so (and he personally does), but the differences generally aren't large.


I came in here a few months ago with the same opinion on DACs....after trying to differentiate between my very expensive stand alone DAC and my moderately expensive cd/blu ray player,i have to agree with Bigshot.Something very freeing about eliminating a component from the need to upgrade.Pretty easy experiment my friend.IF there is a difference to be found it will likely be found in the output electronics of very cheap players,not the DAC


----------



## Phronesis

robthemac said:


> @Phronesis, your cancer study analogy is apt, but you draw the wrong conclusions. If a medicine is causing a major benefit for some but not causing a benefit overall, then (if your study had reasonable statistical power) it is usually because there is a negative effect on other participants. It's not particularly difficult to get statistical significance if there is major benefit for some while the rest are simply unaffected.



Understood, that's why I said the effect could be beneficial or detrimental (or none).  And don't read too much into the example, even if there's a gain in median survival of a few months, statistical significance is shown, and the drug is approved, the point remains the same that the effect of the drug _on each individual patient_ can't generally be determined from the study, since the study is looking at differences between groups. An increase in median survival of say 3 months obviously doesn't mean that each person taking the drug gained 3 months.

Regarding your other post, I don't know about the bimodal aspect, but it's certainly plausible that some people can hear things others can't (we already know that ability to hear some frequencies varies across individuals and with age).


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> As I noted in a previous post (you may have missed it), I've read it.  IMO, those tests aren't sufficient to 'settle' things.  No question that people often hear differences that aren't really there, but not all conclusive that none of the heard differences are real.  Broad conclusions need large-scale studies which are carefully designed, and even then there always questions about how far the conclusions can be generalized.  If it can't be sufficiently settled based on theory, you need empirical data, and the empirical data we have is both insufficient and inconclusive.
> 
> FWIW, I had a conversation this morning with a guy who worked in pro audio for many years (recording and mixing).  I asked him whether people in his world think DACs can sound different.  He said that they do think so (and he personally does), but the differences generally aren't large.


again, your argumentation isn't wrong per se, but in practice you're mostly muddying the water IMO.
someone makes a universal claim he can't ever hope to prove because he would have to go test all the devices ever sold. isn't it self evident that his claim is not supported by facts? just reject it and move on. that's absolutely enough.  
and if you can't because somehow the world needs to know the truth, then stop trying to find a hundred different ways to say the same sentence, and go disprove the claim yourself through experiment. it's the easiest stuff in the world to disprove the claim that all DACs or all cables or all whatever are audibly the same. you only need 1 test confirming the opposite, and the all idea is debunked. 1 reasonably set blind listening test with 2 DACs where you can conclusively discriminate them, and you won. the claim was indeed false like everybody already knew all along, the world can go to bed satisfied that truth was served. 

that would be doing something slightly constructive. or you could also try to ask what guys like bigshot really mean or ask them to be more specific about the conditions for their claims. because if you discuss with him, his idea of a proper DAC is that it is audibly transparent to his ears. so of course he's going to say that all proper DACs are transparent, that's his definition of proper DAC. if he bought a DAC with obvious differences in sound, I bet he'd probably send it back thinking it's a defective product. I know I would(after measuring it a little).


----------



## robthemac (Apr 28, 2018)

@Phronesis   Yep, agree with all of above.

In regards to some subset of a population having a benefit even if there is no benefit on average, that is certainly true, but this becomes problematic in practice when combined with people's tendency to overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes while underestimating the likelihood of negative outcomes. Everyone thinks that they're gonna be the responder to the medication, or that they're the one who can hear the difference in the $200 USB cable.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 28, 2018)

robthemac said:


> @Phronesis   Yep, agree with all of above.
> 
> In regards to some subset of a population having a benefit even if there is no benefit on average, that is certainly true, but this becomes problematic in practice when combined with people's tendency to overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes while underestimating the likelihood of negative outcomes. Everyone thinks that they're gonna be the responder to the medication, or that they're the one who can hear the difference in the $200 USB cable.



I think that's an important point.  If your buddy bought an expensive cable and can really hear a difference, that doesn't mean you can hear the difference and should buy the cable too.  Of course, this complicates things, but it's also good, because it gives people a reason to pause before buying something just because other people say it sounds better (to them).


----------



## sonitus mirus

If my friend was nice and Santa brought them an expensive gift, it doesn't mean that I will get an expensive gift if I am nice, too.  The hell with it, I'm going to be naughty.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> again, your argumentation isn't wrong per se, but in practice you're mostly muddying the water IMO.
> someone makes a universal claim he can't ever hope to prove because he would have to go test all the devices ever sold. isn't it self evident that his claim is not supported by facts? just reject it and move on. that's absolutely enough.
> and if you can't because somehow the world needs to know the truth, then stop trying to find a hundred different ways to say the same sentence, and go disprove the claim yourself through experiment. it's the easiest stuff in the world to disprove the claim that all DACs or all cables or all whatever are audibly the same. you only need 1 test confirming the opposite, and the all idea is debunked. 1 reasonably set blind listening test with 2 DACs where you can conclusively discriminate them, and you won. the claim was indeed false like everybody already knew all along, the world can go to bed satisfied that truth was served.
> 
> that would be doing something slightly constructive. or you could also try to ask what guys like bigshot really mean or ask them to be more specific about the conditions for their claims. because if you discuss with him, his idea of a proper DAC is that it is audibly transparent to his ears. so of course he's going to say that all proper DACs are transparent, that's his definition of proper DAC. if he bought a DAC with obvious differences in sound, I bet he'd probably send it back thinking it's a defective product. I know I would(after measuring it a little).



I think these threads tend to conflate different things: (a) what is generally true vs (b) how people should make their purchasing decisions based on the evidence available to them and their evaluation of it. 

The first one is more in a scientific spirit, and is more difficult.  We've talked about it at length.  Making general statements based on theory and limited evidence has some problems.

The second one need not be scientific or even rigorous.  When people say go do blind tests to determine something, the results of those tests would be specific to me and may not be of use to others, and I would only do those tests if they had value to me, not to 'prove' anything in this forum.  I haven't done blind tests comparing DACs, and have never claimed to be sure they sound different.  I've only reported my impressions based on sighted uncontrolled listening, which may involve misperception, and I'm not suggesting that anyone besides me give those impressions any weight.

I honestly don't understand what all the fuss is about.  If people have made their arguments and I don't find them convincing, just write me off as a lost cause and move on.  No need to be frustrated about it.  A bit weird how people feel compelled to respond to everything they don't agree with, as though it's heresy about something sacred.


----------



## bigshot

At some point you have to shift from not knowing if something might actually exist somewhere to wanting to see proof that it does. For me it is the audibility of properly designed and manufactured DACs and amps. For you that line might be flying pigs. All it takes to prove me wrong is one reproducible controlled test that shows that someone can tell the difference between typical DACs. For you it would take some fancy avian swinology.

The oranges were great and the dogs are all tired out from running around.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> At some point you have to shift from not knowing if something might actually exist somewhere to wanting to see proof that it does. For me it is the audibility of properly designed and manufactured DACs and amps.



For me, with audio, that point is when the cost expenditure reaches a level that I haven't yet reached.  But I may get there, at which point there will indeed be more rigor.  For the stuff I've bought so far, I don't have any concern that it may not sound better to the extent that I thought when tested properly.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> For me it is the audibility of properly designed and manufactured DACs and amps.


And you can tell that how?  Just looking at the product description tells you it is properly designed and manufactured?


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> I think  these threads tend to conflate different things: (a) what is generally true vs (b) how people should make their purchasing decisions based on the evidence available to them and their evaluation of it. ...





Phronesis said:


> I haven't done blind tests comparing DACs, and have never claimed to be sure they sound different.  I've only reported my impressions based on sighted uncontrolled listening, which may involve misperception, and I'm not suggesting that anyone besides me give those impressions any weight.



I think people like you conflate different things in these threads.  The DACs probably don't sound different, at least from a perspective of listening to some music, if you were to try a blind test.  What evidence can you provide to question what is generally true?


----------



## bigshot (Apr 28, 2018)

amirm said:


> And you can tell that how?  Just looking at the product description tells you it is properly designed and manufactured?



Audible transparency is something that I expect from DACs, amps and players. With dozens and dozens of different pieces of gear purchased, I've never been disappointed yet. Speakers and headphones are a different story. Mechanical stuff that works well can be expensive. Transducers are the wild card. Everything else should just perform to spec. If something isn't performing to Redbook spec, why not? Two reasons... either it's broken or it was designed in a way that makes it inferior.



Phronesis said:


> For me, with audio, that point is when the cost expenditure reaches a level that I haven't yet reached.



With electronics, I've found absolutely no correlation between cost and quality. If a 40 dollar Walmart DVD player can perform audibly the same as an Oppo HA-1 when playing an identical CD and AIFF file, then there's no reason why every other DAC or player shouldn't be audibly transparent too.

You don't have to have fancy equipment to do controlled listening tests. You said you were planning to do one with your equipment. Have you thought about how you are going to set up that test? Let us know your plans. We can help you avoid problems. Most of us have done more tests like this than we can count.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Apr 28, 2018)

amirm said:


> And you can tell that how?  Just looking at the product description tells you it is properly designed and manufactured?


By looking at your measurements If all noise and distortion products fall way below -100 dB (with some measure of leniency depending on the frequency), I’d consider that audibly transparent.

I should say, thank you for the wonderful service you provide!


----------



## bigshot

colonelkernel8 said:


> By looking at your measurements If all noise and distortion products fall way below -100 dB (with some measure of leniency depending on the frequency), I’d consider that audibly transparent.



For the purposes of listening to recorded music, Redbook specs are already well into the range of overkill. If they can just play a CD faithfully, they are perfect.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> For the purposes of listening to recorded music, Redbook specs are already well into the range of overkill. If they can just play a CD faithfully, they are perfect.


Redbook, as far as I can tell, isn’t a playback specification, but a specification for data storage on a compact disc. If the criteria I outlined is met, then yes, a CD being played back will be done so completely transparently.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> I think people like you conflate different things in these threads.  The DACs probably don't sound different, at least from a perspective of listening to some music, if you were to try a blind test.  *What evidence can you provide to question what is generally true?*



I don't have anything to add to what's already been said.  But I appreciate the discussion, it's been interesting and I learned some things.


----------



## bigshot

coulda fooled me!


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] Reading through much this thread, IMO not much has been 'conclusively' settled on the basis of the available theory, 'facts', and evidence.
> [2] And again, there are many kinds of evidence. Anecdotal evidence and listening impressions can be unreliable, but controlled tests (especially small-scale) can also produce both false positives and false negatives, as well as raising questions about generalizing the test results beyond the test conditions and even to individuals who participated in the tests....



1. That statement effectively agrees with what I stated, it's your opinion, based on what you mean by "conclusively settled" and what you personally know of the theory, facts and evidence.

2. Yes, there are many kinds of evidence and anecdotal evidence is certainly one kind but this raises two points: Firstly, the point I've just mentioned, "what you personally know" of the anecdotal evidence. What I personally know appears to be quite different, namely, both the audiophile world AND the pro audio world and the anecdotal evidence of the pro audio world does NOT agree with the segment of the audiophile world who report audible differences. Secondly, anecdotal evidence is flawed, so is blind/double blind testing, however they are not equally flawed. This brings us to how we weigh the evidence we have to draw a conclusion, in science anecdotal evidence has the lowest of all weighting because it's so highly unreliable and you keep bringing up medical comparisons but there, double blind testing is mandatory, why? If double blind testing is flawed and anecdotal evidence is flawed, what's the point of double blind testing? If we're going to get flawed evidence either way, why go to all the bother, time and expense of doing double blind testing? In science, we have very good, demonstrated reasons to give double blind tests far more weight than anecdotal, in audiophilia the reverse is typically true. Furthermore, I personally tend to give pro audio anecdotal evidence more weight than audiophile anecdotes because the pro audio community depends on it's critical listening skills for it's livelihood rather than it just being a hobby, it has far better critical listening systems/environments in the first place and, although not published as scientific papers, it also conducts a great deal of controlled testing.

It's clear you have a relatively limited understanding of the theory and of the facts, or at least of the context and/or of how the facts scale. It's also clear that you are significantly influenced by (give significant weight to) audiophile anecdotal evidence (which has been manipulated by marketing), even when it completely conflicts with the actual facts/theory/science and is therefore impossible. It's entirely up to you of course to keep an open mind to the possibility, using my previous example, of a claim that some people can run 100m in 0.009 secs. I can have an open mind that say 7 secs might be possible, given circumstances manufactured to be the most favourable but I don't have an open mind that 0.009secs is possible. I would see such a claim as extraordinary (in the extreme) and therefore requiring of extraordinary evidence, which certainly excludes any/all anecdotal evidence.

G


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> 1. That statement effectively agrees with what I stated, it's your opinion, based on what you mean by "conclusively settled" and what you personally know of the theory, facts and evidence.
> 
> 2. Yes, there are many kinds of evidence and anecdotal evidence is certainly one kind but this raises two points: Firstly, the point I've just mentioned, "what you personally know" of the anecdotal evidence. What I personally know appears to be quite different, namely, both the audiophile world AND the pro audio world and the anecdotal evidence of the pro audio world does NOT agree with the segment of the audiophile world who report audible differences. Secondly, anecdotal evidence is flawed, so is blind/double blind testing, however they are not equally flawed. This brings us to how we weigh the evidence we have to draw a conclusion, in science anecdotal evidence has the lowest of all weighting because it's so highly unreliable and you keep bringing up medical comparisons but there, double blind testing is mandatory, why? If double blind testing is flawed and anecdotal evidence is flawed, what's the point of double blind testing? If we're going to get flawed evidence either way, why go to all the bother, time and expense of doing double blind testing? In science, we have very good, demonstrated reasons to give double blind tests far more weight than anecdotal, in audiophilia the reverse is typically true. Furthermore, I personally tend to give pro audio anecdotal evidence more weight than audiophile anecdotes because the pro audio community depends on it's critical listening skills for it's livelihood rather than it just being a hobby, it has far better critical listening systems/environments in the first place and, although not published as scientific papers, it also conducts a great deal of controlled testing.
> 
> ...



I agree with much (not all) of this. And I’m open to changing my views over time as I see more evidence and think about the topic (not a pressing issue for me, since this is a hobby without high stakes). I don’t claim to “know” much on the question of some of the potential audible differences, due to the uncertainties involved, and that uncertainty prevents conclusively ruling things either in or out. 

Going back to the medical example, I’ll add that doctors don’t gain their knowledge simply by studying biomedical theory and reading results of controlled studies. Their development of clinical judgement and expertise also relies heavily on clinical experience, which is largely anecdotal in character.  And in my area of engineering, controlled studies don’t really have any application - we rely on theory, modeling, monitoring, experience, and risk management methods.


----------



## robthemac

Phronesis said:


> Going back to the medical example, I’ll add that doctors don’t gain their knowledge simply by studying biomedical theory and reading results of controlled studies. Their development of clinical judgement and expertise also relies heavily on clinical experience, which is largely anecdotal in character.  .



Ok, I'm nit-picking here, but the knowledge doctors gain from experience is mostly related to pattern recognition. Personal/anecdotal experience might mould clinical practice slightly, but it shouldn't change the view of 'what is' as defined by established theory and empirical evidence. That would be bad doctoring, and I think it is analogous to being a bad judge of audio equipment too!


----------



## 71 dB

The ideal 13 kHz squarewave signal doesn't contain 26 kHz or any other even harmonics. 
Only odd harmonics: 39 kHz (-9.54 dBref), 65 kHz(-13.98 dBref), 91 kHz (-16.90 dBref),…


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> Going back to the medical example, I’ll add that doctors don’t gain their knowledge simply by studying biomedical theory and reading results of controlled studies. Their development of clinical judgement and expertise also relies heavily on clinical experience, which is largely anecdotal in character.



Agreed and the same is true of commercial music/sound engineers. If you've got to choose whether to give your child the MMR vaccine, whose evidence are you going to give more weight to, the medical profession or the medical hobbyists' evidence that it causes autism?

G


----------



## Phronesis

robthemac said:


> Ok, I'm nit-picking here, but the knowledge doctors gain from experience is mostly related to pattern recognition. Personal/anecdotal experience might mould clinical practice slightly, but it shouldn't change the view of 'what is' as defined by established theory and empirical evidence. That would be bad doctoring, and I think it is analogous to being a bad judge of audio equipment too!



We may be using words differently. I see that pattern recognition as coming largely from experience, which could be called largely personal/anecdotal in character.  I should have clarified that I meant anecdotal to include one’s own experience.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 29, 2018)

gregorio said:


> Agreed and the same is true of commercial music/sound engineers. If you've got to choose whether to give your child the MMR vaccine, whose evidence are you going to give more weight to, the medical profession or the medical hobbyists' evidence that it causes autism?
> 
> G



For me, it depends on the situation.  I use the cancer example because, for many cancers, the standard treatments aren’t very effective for the vast majority of patients, so as a practical matter it can make sense try a non-standard treatment approach.  Sometimes orthodoxies are too limiting. 

With the audio hobby, the stakes are only high if expenditures are enough to involve significant financial strain or opportunity cost.  Otherwise, it’s not generally a big deal to ‘waste’ money on equipment which people enjoy having (looks good, pride of ownership, etc.) and only ‘might’ sound better.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> I use the cancer example because, for many cancers, the standard treatments aren’t very effective for the vast majority of patients ...



Exactly, so how is that valid analogy? We're talking about the opposite situation (!), where ALL the objective evidence and controlled testing demonstrates unequivocally that the standard treatment is always effective, there is absolutely no conflicting controlled testing or objective evidence whatsoever and the ONLY contrary evidence is completely uncontrolled amateur anecdotes!

G


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 29, 2018)

gregorio said:


> Exactly, so how is that valid analogy? We're talking about the opposite situation (!), where ALL the objective evidence and controlled testing demonstrates unequivocally that the standard treatment is always effective, there is absolutely no conflicting controlled testing or objective evidence whatsoever and the ONLY contrary evidence is completely uncontrolled amateur anecdotes!
> 
> G



The example was brought up as an illustration that a controlled study to determine effects at the group level doesn't say much about effects at the individual level.  There was no suggestion that the analogy applies in *all* respects to audio.  Honestly, if you get out of debate mode and just try to discuss in good faith, I'm sure you'll be much more able to understand what others are saying and not saying.

Edit: *missed this previously*


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] The example was brought up as an illustration that a controlled study to determine effects at the group level doesn't say much about effects at the individual level.
> [2] Honestly, if you get out of debate mode and just try to discuss in good faith ...



1. But at the individual level are audiophiles all so rich they just can't be bothered to claim the $1m James Randi cable prize? Why isn't there any objective evidence at all to support the claim?

2. You're the one who introduced an invalid analogy and I'm the one in debating mode and not discussing in good faith???

G


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 29, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. But at the individual level are audiophiles all so rich they just can't be bothered to claim the $1m James Randi cable prize? Why isn't there any objective evidence at all to support the claim?
> 
> 2. You're the one who introduced an invalid analogy and I'm the one in debating mode and not discussing in good faith???
> 
> G



Since this is a fun hobby for most people (which can turn into obsession in the search for some sort of sonic nirvana), I suspect that most audiophiles aren't too concerned with truth, evidence, proof, etc.  I see the same thing with other hobbies, and it probably just comes down to human nature, but these issues do seem to be intensified with audio, perhaps because there's a combo of (a) the lure of sonic nirvana being so strong and (b) our perception of sound being so inconsistent and fallible.

I may have incorrectly claimed that you're intentionally not discussing in good faith.  If so, I apologize.  Perhaps debate mode is triggered because you've been frustrated by prior discussions on this topic - I myself get a bit irritated when people throw out claims that a $300 cable will transform the sound of a $300 headphone.  FWIW, I do acknowledge and respect your knowledge, and I recognize your efforts to present detailed information to back up your arguments.

When I was younger, I had the usual experiences of debating with people about religion, politics, philosophy, etc., and I learned that such debates usually go in circles with no one changing their minds, no one learning anything, and it all being a waste of time.  I would like to think I'm a bit wiser now, so I try to stay away from circular debates on both the internet and in real life.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 29, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Since this is a fun hobby for most people (which can turn into obsession in the search for some sort of sonic nirvana), I suspect that most audiophiles aren't too concerned with truth, evidence, proof, etc.



That's why they don't need to come into the Sound Science forum! Here, we are interested in high fidelity sound. That's a different thing that subjective woo woo and audiophoolery. Those sorts of things are designed like fairy tales to seem logical because "silver should sound brighter than gold" and "wires are like pipes the music flows through". I find stuff like that to be ignorant but if they enjoy that, they can feel free to remain ignorant. When they're ready to find out how things really work and if they're interested in making their system *really* sound better, they can start applying science to their hobby.

Subjectivism is solipsist. It can mean an awful lot to the person imagining all that stuff, but it may have absolutely no relation to my personal experience. Science isn't like that. Everyone lives in the world of physics.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Here, we are interested in high fidelity sound.



Theory, truth, etc. aside, IMO we're fortunate that we live in a time when that's neither difficult nor expensive to achieve. 

Whether or not there are significant audible differences in DACs, amps, cables, etc., I think all of the 'decent' ones are good enough to produce quality sound, and any differences aren't important if the goal is to enjoy music.  When I say I perceive differences in the sound my DACs, I don't think they're pivotal differences, and certainly none of them sound 'not good' (except where the amps are underpowered).

Transducers are obviously more of a weak link and widely variable, but even there, quality headgear is available for well under $1K, and even good speakers can be found at reasonable prices.  My $150 Klipsch computer speakers with subwoofer actually sound pretty good and are more than loud enough for an office.

If people want to spend much more, it amounts to playing with toys and chasing sound quality improvements which aren't necessary to enjoy music, and it would be good for people to at least be aware that that's what they're doing (I'm aware of it with my purchases).  I've made comments along these lines in other parts of Head-Fi, and it hasn't gotten me in big trouble yet, but it's still early ...


----------



## bigshot (Apr 29, 2018)

I'm only concerned with sound that human ears can hear. I'm not interested in going further to try to split atoms and worry about sound humans can't hear. That's why I call myself a hifi nut not an audiophile. This isn't the right format to talk about audio equipment as jewelry. That approach doesn't play well here.

With speakers, the room is just as important as the speakers. You can buy the best speakers in the world, but they won't sound that good in a room that doesn't suit them. However with speakers, even the quality of the transducers and the room are trumped by the advantages of multichannel sound. That is the easiest way to make huge improvements in sound quality. If someone wants to spend a lot of money on sound quality and has time to finesse the details of picking speakers, fixing room acoustics and arriving at a good EQ curve, I'd recommend that they pass on headphones and two channel and work on setting up a multichannel rig. That will give them plenty of stuff to fuss over that will actually make a big improvement on sound quality. And even a midrange multichannel rig sounds better than a bells and whistles headphone one. And if you enjoy tweaking to squeeze better sound out, a multichannel setup provides lots of opportunities for that.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> With speakers, the room is just as important as the speakers. You can buy the best speakers in the world, but they won't sound that good in a room that doesn't suit them. However with speakers, even the quality of the transducers and the room are trumped by the advantages of multichannel sound. That is the easiest way to make huge improvements in sound quality. If someone wants to spend a lot of money on sound quality and has time to finesse the details of picking speakers, fixing room acoustics and arriving at a good EQ curve, I'd recommend that they pass on headphones and two channel and work on setting up a multichannel rig. That will give them plenty of stuff to fuss over that will actually make a big improvement on sound quality. And even a midrange multichannel rig sounds better than a bells and whistles headphone one. And if you enjoy tweaking to squeeze better sound out, a multichannel setup provides lots of opportunities for that.



Interesting, I may need to explore multichannel at some point.  For now, I'm focused on headgear because of the convenience of being able to listen pretty much anywhere without disturbing others.  I have speakers, but haven't been using them much lately (I'm familiar with issues of placement, room damping, etc.).  I'm not really a fan of the 'imaging' of headphones, but I'm getting used to it.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> I'm only concerned with sound that human ears can hear. I'm not interested in going further to try to split atoms and worry about sound humans can't hear. That's why I call myself a hifi nut not an audiophile. This isn't the right format to talk about audio equipment as jewelry. That approach doesn't play well here.
> 
> With speakers, the room is just as important as the speakers. You can buy the best speakers in the world, but they won't sound that good in a room that doesn't suit them. However with speakers, even the quality of the transducers and the room are trumped by the advantages of multichannel sound. That is the easiest way to make huge improvements in sound quality. If someone wants to spend a lot of money on sound quality and has time to finesse the details of picking speakers, fixing room acoustics and arriving at a good EQ curve, I'd recommend that they pass on headphones and two channel and work on setting up a multichannel rig. That will give them plenty of stuff to fuss over that will actually make a big improvement on sound quality. And even a midrange multichannel rig sounds better than a bells and whistles headphone one. And if you enjoy tweaking to squeeze better sound out, a multichannel setup provides lots of opportunities for that.


The only problem there is the severe lack of source material...unless we're talking extrapolating some kind of 5 channel audio from a stereo recording.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 1. But at the individual level are audiophiles all so rich they just can't be bothered to claim the $1m James Randi cable prize? Why isn't there any objective evidence at all to support the claim?
> 
> 2. You're the one who introduced an invalid analogy and I'm the one in debating mode and not discussing in good faith???
> 
> G


It is threads and people like you that make it so hard to prove ANY cable, for ANY application in audio, could possibly make a change big enough to be measuable and audible to even untrained listeners "pulled randomly from the street". That Randi fella included.

Now go and play in your studio with CDs - after you've made sure you've got nothing there that could possibly respond to anything outside 20-20k band, everything runs at 2VRMS or higher, but limited say below 150VRMS, you've found the way for a perfectly resistive piece of wire to act as a loudspeaker -  and so on and so forth.

Because you ( as a group ) - ALWAYS - choose "conviniently" to ignore anything outside your extremely idealistic narrow minded view that could cause a chink in your armor . Like the proverbial "dogs are barking, the caravan gets trough".

Well, those camels are in a shock of their lifetime


bigshot said:


> I'm only concerned with sound that human ears can hear. I'm not interested in going further to try to split atoms and worry about sound humans can't hear. That's why I call myself a hifi nut not an audiophile. This isn't the right format to talk about audio equipment as jewelry. That approach doesn't play well here.
> 
> With speakers, the room is just as important as the speakers. You can buy the best speakers in the world, but they won't sound that good in a room that doesn't suit them. However with speakers, even the quality of the transducers and the room are trumped by the advantages of multichannel sound. That is the easiest way to make huge improvements in sound quality. If someone wants to spend a lot of money on sound quality and has time to finesse the details of picking speakers, fixing room acoustics and arriving at a good EQ curve, I'd recommend that they pass on headphones and two channel and work on setting up a multichannel rig. That will give them plenty of stuff to fuss over that will actually make a big improvement on sound quality. And even a midrange multichannel rig sounds better than a bells and whistles headphone one. And if you enjoy tweaking to squeeze better sound out, a multichannel setup provides lots of opportunities for that.


Miracle - a post I can - at least partially - agree with you.

The importance of room is more pronounced as you try to portray here. Room is more important than speakers. Multichannel sound can be very , very good - but very few people have the required room, even if and when they are willing to explore it.

A really good multichannel rig and a really good binaural headphone rig with subwoofer(s) could be made to sound almost identical ( when fed with the appropriate recordings, of course ) - with binaural headphone rig obviously being far less dependant on room acoustics. There is a multitude of software available that converts 5.1 surround into binaural ( forcing one to go to PCM/DSP...) - as there are relatively few commercially available recordings. For the last two decades or so, many recordings are actually made as 5.1 and stereo 2 channel version is usually mixed from them. Many SACDs ( or, more appropriately - DSD64s ) are 5.1, as well as available downloads - all the way to 5.1 DSD256. You can always check  https://www.nativedsd.com/ for some free test samples, also multichannel - usually in at least 3-4 resolutions for the same music/track, the lowest usually being PCM 96/24.

The problem with surround is that genres of music that benefit from it the most are primarily classical, and, to a far lesser extent, jazz - with next to nothing everything else. That "nothing" includes the likes of live Pink Floyd ( pretty meh IMO as far SQ is concerned ) and one on Blueray that was surprisingly astonishingly good - George Michael.

At the time, there is a new book with much on this subject, by the man behind the AIX records ( surround, mainly jazz label ) http://musicandaudioguide.com/


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Apr 29, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> It is threads and people like you that make it so hard to prove ANY cable, for ANY application in audio, could possibly make a change big enough to be measuable and audible to even untrained listeners "pulled randomly from the street". That Randi fella included.
> 
> Now go and play in your studio with CDs - after you've made sure you've got nothing there that could possibly respond to anything outside 20-20k band, everything runs at 2VRMS or higher, but limited say below 150VRMS, you've found the way for a perfectly resistive piece of wire to act as a loudspeaker -  and so on and so forth.
> 
> ...



_"Because you ( as a group ) - ALWAYS - choose 'conviniently' to ignore anything outside your extremely idealistic narrow minded view that could cause a chink in your armor"_

You're like Baptist preacher barking at an evolutionary biologist about how humans came to be. They use the same childish insults and never any evidence other than their own belief.


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> _"Because you ( as a group ) - ALWAYS - choose 'conviniently' to ignore anything outside your extremely idealistic narrow minded view that could cause a chink in your armor"_
> 
> You're like Baptist preacher barking at an evolutionary biologist about how humans came to be. They use the same childish insults and never any evidence other than their own belief.


Since you are rather late to this party and most likely do not know what went on before, I will - in your personal case - let it pass. 

There will be no such leniancy towards  the older members that - at least should - know exactly what my post you quoted is all about.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> Here, we are interested in high fidelity sound.


Not that I have seen.  Your mission is to win some talking points, fidelity be damned.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> I'm only concerned with sound that human ears can hear.


For someone so focused on this, you have done next to nothing to learn about such abilities.  Repeating stuff you have read online by people who have done as little as you have done to learn about this topic, is not any type of serious effort.

Spend some time reading proper research in this topic, conduct experiments on yourself and others, post such results for feedback, etc. and maybe you start to learn the topic properly.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> For now, I'm focused on headgear because of the convenience of being able to listen pretty much anywhere without disturbing others.



That is a big consideration. When I went to buy a house, one of my top priorities was to find a place that had a suitable room for putting in a home theater / listening room. It's great because my house extends far back into the lot and my theater is adjoined by back yards on all sides. It's heaven.



colonelkernel8 said:


> The only problem there is the severe lack of source material...unless we're talking extrapolating some kind of 5 channel audio from a stereo recording.



Yes. I use a really amazing stereo to 7.1 DSP designed by Yamaha. It extracts the phantom center and channels it to the middle speaker, then it creates a feeling of space in the rear. It doesn't spread everything evenly all around you. It keeps everything focused up front. It just makes the soundstage bigger and gives the room a feeling of space. The way I've arranged my speakers in the room has made a big difference in the focus of the soundstage too. When everything works together, it creates a very realistic sound.



analogsurviver said:


> A really good multichannel rig and a really good binaural headphone rig with subwoofer(s) could be made to sound almost identical ( when fed with the appropriate recordings, of course ) - with binaural headphone rig obviously being far less dependant on room acoustics.



The problem with headphone surround is that we locate sound by moving our head. If you keep your head rigid, it might sound the same, but without being able to move your head relative to the sound source, it still seems flat. With me, I can't determine whether something is in front of me or behind unless I move my head. When I listen to binaural recordings things snap from front to back. Very irritating.

There's a wide variety of multichannel music out there in just about every genre. The medium has hit a plateau lately, but there's still plenty of good recordings coming out. The problem is more a matter of engineering. Not all multichannel releases are very good. I find about a quarter of them are amazing and justify the format, half of them are just meh, and a quarter of them are horrible and the CD is better. Not a very good batting average.

By the way colonelkernal is an old timer here. He just recently returned from after the diaspora.


----------



## bigshot

amirm said:


> For someone so focused on this, you have done next to nothing to learn about such abilities.  Repeating stuff you have read online by people who have done as little as you have done to learn about this topic, is not any type of serious effort. Spend some time reading proper research in this topic, conduct experiments on yourself and others, post such results for feedback, etc. and maybe you start to learn the topic properly.



Yadayadayada. I have a suggestion for improving your hearing. They say this technique can help dislodge micro dirt from your ear canals... Go soak your head.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> Yadayadayada. I have a suggestion for improving your hearing. They say this technique can help dislodge micro dirt from your ear canals... Go soak your head.


I will do that.  Meanwhile tell us what you know about human hearing in this latest measurement I made:







One product has distortion that is some 10X higher in one channel versus another.  The worse channel distortion rises to almost 5%!

What does your bible of human hearing tell you about this product?  

Does it fit the definition of "high fidelity?"


----------



## bigshot

I'm not that experienced with headphone amps, but I guess it would depend on how much power the headphones require. I have Oppo PM-1s, which are 32 ohm with a sensitivity rating of 102dB. I'm spitting in the wind, because I'm too lazy to do the math, but I would think that all three of these would be safe with my cans to ear splitting levels. Other less efficient cans might need cleaner ratings at a higher power. It's interesting how the red and yellow are so different. Did you test more than one copy of that amp to see if it wasn't a manufacturing defect?


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> That is a big consideration. When I went to buy a house, one of my top priorities was to find a place that had a suitable room for putting in a home theater / listening room. It's great because my house extends far back into the lot and my theater is adjoined by back yards on all sides. It's heaven.



We plan to put in a good home theater, but it will mainly be for the wife.  I like listening in diverse locations - real office, home office, bedroom, living room, deck, etc.  Listening to great music with great hi-fi sound while sitting outside and looking at nature is a unique experience!


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> Did you test more than one copy of that amp to see if it wasn't a manufacturing defect?


I plan to do that since I was offered the loaned unit at the same time that I had ordered one.  Will post the results when done.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> Since you are rather late to this party and most likely do not know what went on before, I will - in your personal case - let it pass.
> 
> There will be no such leniancy towards  the older members that - at least should - know exactly what my post you quoted is all about.


I’ve been at this party for over a decade. I really, REALLY want to leave, but there’s always someone spouting off their experience as revolutionary new discoveries in physics that begs to be slapped down. It’s like the drunk guy who keeps trying to drive home from the party and I’m the one who has to take his keys away.


----------



## Phronesis

colonelkernel8 said:


> I’ve been at this party for over a decade. I really, REALLY want to leave, but there’s always someone spouting off their experience as revolutionary new discoveries in physics that begs to be slapped down. It’s like the drunk guy who keeps trying to drive home from the party and I’m the one who has to take his keys away.



Then why not just leave?  What are you really protecting people against?  Audio is just a hobby, we're not talking about poverty, health, etc. here in this forum.  You have your beliefs, why do you care what other people think and how they spend their money?  I just don't understand hanging around to be on the lookout to tell others they're wrong, and getting heated up in the process too.  Political and religious zealots do that, but I find it odd to see that sort of thing in the audio world.  Some people here really need to take a chill pill and get some perspective.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> I'm not that experienced with headphone amps, but I guess it would depend on how much power the headphones require. I have Oppo PM-1s, which are 32 ohm with a sensitivity rating of 102dB. I'm spitting in the wind, because I'm too lazy to do the math, but I would think that all three of these would be safe with my cans to ear splitting levels. Other less efficient cans might need cleaner ratings at a higher power. It's interesting how the red and yellow are so different. Did you test more than one copy of that amp to see if it wasn't a manufacturing defect?


I’m going to go with Schiit likely having terrible QC and pretty awful manufacturing processes. Maybe the distortion adds some of that fabled audiophile “charm”. That said, I do have a Schiit Loki tone control that is just lovely.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> Then why not just leave?  What are you really protecting people against?  Audio is just a hobby, we're not talking about poverty, health, etc. here in this forum.  You have your beliefs, why do you care what other people think and how they spend their money?  I just don't understand hanging around to be on the lookout to tell others they're wrong, and getting heated up in the process too.  Political and religious zealots do that, but I find it odd to see that sort of thing in the audio world.  Some people here really need to take a chill pill and get some perspective.


1. Audio is my hobby, and I like to talk with people about it.
2. This is the “sound science” forum, not the “subjective personal experience is gospel” forum.
3. Spouting lies like you need “at least DSD256 or 8x Nyquist” or some such nonsense hurts the hobby, and I want my hobby to thrive.


----------



## Phronesis

colonelkernel8 said:


> 1. Audio is my hobby, and I like to talk with people about it.
> 2. This is the “sound science” forum, not the “subjective personal experience is gospel” forum.
> 3. Spouting lies like you need “at least DSD256 or 8x Nyquist” or some such nonsense hurts the hobby, and I want my hobby to thrive.



OK, but how big is the audience here?  How much impact does discussion in Sound Science have on the hobby?  In the scheme of things, this isn't overly important stuff, so why not approach the discussions with some levity?


----------



## castleofargh

modo ON, sort of: 
let's all ease up on the "us vs them", or telling people what their priorities should be for the hobby. when did defending the truth changed into being judgmental because people don't share our priorities? if someone wants to buy only gears with screens glowing in blue, that's his prerogative.
the Sound Science section is supposed to be focused on facts and technology. is something real(objective real)? is it actually sound related? is it of higher fidelity? how can I tell? how can I demonstrate it to others? science has by far the most effective tools for people trying to get closer to correct answers. so let's use those tools. 
defend your claims with evidence, not rhetoric and logical fallacies. when in doubt about what should be done, consider who has the burden of proof. who made the claim? how extraordinary is that claim? that person is responsible for providing evidence. failing to do so will be his failure. no need to go crazy, just ask the guy making a statement for evidence. that's the concrete difference with the rest of the forum. in here you are allowed to demand evidence or demonstration for a claim. you are allowed to demand that hearing claims be based on blind tests. the guy claims to know something we don't? how did he discover that? just ask him. he'll provide relevant information, we'll learn something and discuss, or he won't and we'll just reject his empty claim for what it is. don't legitimize baseless claims with a debate. we all do that too often, me probably more than most, but it's my optimistic mistake. I always assumed that people coming to brag were still interested in facts, turns out it's rarely the case. 

- can we hear ultrasounds?  humans are said to hear from 20hz to 20khz, so it seems pretty fair that those claiming to hear a difference from high ultrasonic content should be the ones to demonstrate it. even more so when the average audiophile is a middle aged guy who probably doesn't remember what 20khz sounded like back in the days. let alone frequencies above that. 

- are all XXXX the same? can anybody even know that for a fact? of course not. it's impossible to prove, so why claim that stuff? 

it's not that hard. and if you don't have solid evidence for something, maybe don't make a fool of yourself with a claim about it. it might surprise people, but we don't have to pretend to know everything.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 29, 2018)

^ Even within those parameters, a few days participating in this thread already shows plenty of disagreement. People give different weight to different kinds of evidence, and science doesn't rigidly prescribe a single methodology for how to gather and interpret evidence.  Seems like some people here want to define 'rules' for science which favor the conclusions they've already reached.  That's not how real science works, doesn't resemble any version of scientific inquiry I've seen before, looks a lot more like religion than science to me.

Genuine question: how many regulars in this forum are actual practicing scientists?  Without compromising privacy, some background on where people are coming from would be helpful.  As I've stated, I'm a practicing engineer, not in the audio or electrical field.  Have dabbled in audio off and on for four decades, getting back into it lately.  Designed and built an amp in high school, so not totally unfamiliar with the technicalities.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> ^ Even within those parameters, a few days participating in this thread already shows plenty of disagreement. People give different weight to different kinds of evidence, and science doesn't rigidly prescribe a single methodology for how to gather and interpret evidence.  Seems like some people here want to define 'rules' for science which favor the conclusions they've already reached.  That's not how real science works, doesn't resemble any version of scientific inquiry I've seen before, looks a lot more like religion than science to me.
> 
> Genuine question: how many regulars in this forum are actual practicing scientists?  Without compromising privacy, some background on where people are coming from would be helpful.  As I've stated, I'm a practicing engineer, not in the audio or electrical field.  Have dabbled in audio off and on for four decades, getting back into it lately.  Designed and built an amp in high school, so not totally unfamiliar with the technicalities.


it's hard not to think you're trolling me on purpose right now. I ask to stop the "us vs them" ugliness, you reply right under by doing exactly that.


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> - can we hear ultrasounds?  humans are said to hear from 20hz to 20khz, so it seems pretty fair that those claiming to hear a difference from high ultrasonic content should be the ones to demonstrate it. even more so when the average audiophile is a middle aged guy who probably doesn't remember what 20khz sounded like back in the days. let alone frequencies above that.



Speaking of which, reading this study ("Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback") gave me a good chuckle. Not because it showed that people can't detect a 16-bit/44.1-kHz bottleneck in a high-resolution playback scenario. I was pretty much expecting that. It was in fact this little side-aspect, that I found pretty funny: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






> Those subjects able to hear tones above 15 kHz got 116 in 256 trials, for 45.3% correct; listeners aged 14–25 years old (*who were, as it turned out, the same group*), also got 116 correct in 256 trials, 45.3%.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> I suspect that most audiophiles aren't too concerned with truth, evidence, proof, etc. I see the same thing with other hobbies, and it probably just comes down to human nature, but these issues do seem to be intensified with audio, perhaps because there's a combo of (a) the lure of sonic nirvana being so strong and (b) our perception of sound being so inconsistent and fallible.



I would add the most important/influential part of that "combo": And (c) the industry that makes and sells audiophile equipment. - This is the most important part of that combo because the "truth, evidence, proof, etc." provides little/no opportunity for expensive, boutique products and therefore "truth, evidence, proof, etc." has to be contradicted, misrepresented and discredited. This financial incentive results in significant marketing budgets to convince audiophiles not be too concerned with truth, evidence, proof, etc., while there is no financial benefit/incentive and therefore no marketing budgets available to counter all this marketing BS!! To the casual audiophile observer, this marketing BS is the ONLY truth/evidence/proof they ever come across, except very occasionally for a few crazy conspiracy theorists armed with nothing more than nonsense graphs and made-up tests which are therefore banned in the real audiophile forums!! 



analogsurviver said:


> [1] Now go and play in your studio with CDs - after you've made sure you've got nothing there that could possibly respond to anything outside 20-20k band,
> [2] everything runs at 2VRMS or higher, but limited say below 150VRMS, you've found the way for a perfectly resistive piece of wire to act as a loudspeaker - and so on and so forth.
> [3] Because you ( as a group ) - ALWAYS - choose "conviniently" to ignore anything outside your extremely idealistic narrow minded view that could cause a chink in your armor .
> [4] Well, those camels are in a shock of their lifetime



1. That's a nonsense statement because I've tested and am sure that lot's of things respond to content outside the 20-20k band. How does that make any difference though, as human ears are NOT one of those things?

2. Yep, all my mics run between 2VRMS and 150VRMS, so do all the electric guitars, synths and headphones I use in my studio <extreme sarcasm>! Where do you get all this utter nonsense, do you just completely make it up yourself or is there some audiophile nonsense database you use?

3. Thanks for demonstrating EXACTLY what I stated in my last response to you! You've again just completely inverted the actual facts. It's extremely "convenient" just to sit in front of an expensive box and proclaim a "night and day" difference, while it's very inconvenient to properly test and measure that box. Instead of just spouting complete nonsense and insulting me (as a group), why don't you do the inconvenient thing and learn some actual facts??!!

4. Yes, yes, the end of the world is nigh; And the lord shall raineth down vinyl disks and wax cylinders upon all the world's foul unbelievers, bla, bla bla. I think I get your user name now! 

G


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 30, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> it's hard not to think you're trolling me on purpose right now. I ask to stop the "us vs them" ugliness, you reply right under by doing exactly that.



Not at all, I wouldn’t waste any of our time by doing that, and am not a fan of needless aggravation of anyone.  I’m trying to understand the dynamic of the forum, since it doesn’t fit my expectations of a science forum.  The dynamic is more like if this was called a religion forum, but the regulars are all atheists who attack any whiff of a religious idea because it lacks their definition of ‘proof’ (ps - I'm not religious).  Nothing wrong with having an atheism forum, just don’t call it a religion forum.  That said, I struggle to come up with a good alternate name for this forum.  It’s anti something, but hard to put a name to it.

Addendum:

Another analogy is the frontiers of science itself, for example the search in physics for a 'theory of everything' which unifies the fundamental forces and brings quantum theory and relativity theory together without contradictions.  I haven't read about this topic in a while, but as of a few years ago, there were heavy debates among respected physicists about various hypotheses, the limits and capability of theory and math, the value of 'elegance' and unification of ideas, validity of different kinds of evidence, what to do when empirical testing isn't possible in practice or even in theory, etc.  For example, there are several books like this: https://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wro...preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

With audio, the situation is perhaps at least as messy, since the processes underlying perception and their fallibility are central to the topic.  Brain science and psychology are murkier than physics, and when you bring consciousness and mind into the picture, we're getting into rather uncertain and speculative territory.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> I would add the most important/influential part of that "combo": And (c) the industry that makes and sells audiophile equipment. - This is the most important part of that combo because the "truth, evidence, proof, etc." provides little/no opportunity for expensive, boutique products and therefore "truth, evidence, proof, etc." has to be contradicted, misrepresented and discredited. This financial incentive results in significant marketing budgets to convince audiophiles not be too concerned with truth, evidence, proof, etc., while there is no financial benefit/incentive and therefore no marketing budgets available to counter all this marketing BS!! To the casual audiophile observer, this marketing BS is the ONLY truth/evidence/proof they ever come across, except very occasionally for a few crazy conspiracy theorists armed with nothing more than nonsense graphs and made-up tests which are therefore banned in the real audiophile forums!!



No doubt that there's lots marketing BS and it has some influence.  But I suspect that there's even more influence from reviews, opinions expressed in forums like this, opinions expressed by friends, etc.  Other influencing factors would be product specs, product aesthetics, brand reputation and heritage, etc.  All of those factors are big-time influential with performance cars, and I think these issues are general to the consumer mindset.

My current thinking is that the biggest issue with audiophilia isn't inaccurate or incomplete objective understanding of how different things affect sound quality, but rather the relentless search for better sound quality far past the point when 'plenty good enough to enjoy music' was reached.  If people truly 'trust their ears' and recognize that what they have is good enough, the question of what makes sound better won't come up because people won't care about it.  As I've said, I'm not immune to this problem myself.  Does something like an Audioholics Anonymous exist?


----------



## pibroch (Apr 30, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> No doubt that there's lots marketing BS and it has some influence.  But I suspect that there's even more influence from reviews, opinions expressed in forums like this, opinions expressed by friends, etc.  Other influencing factors would be product specs, product aesthetics, brand reputation and heritage, etc.  All of those factors are big-time influential with performance cars, and I think these issues are general to the consumer mindset.
> 
> My current thinking is that the biggest issue with audiophilia isn't inaccurate or incomplete objective understanding of how different things affect sound quality, but rather the relentless search for better sound quality far past the point when 'plenty good enough to enjoy music' was reached.  If people truly 'trust their ears' and recognize that what they have is good enough, the question of what makes sound better won't come up because people won't care about it.  As I've said, I'm not immune to this problem myself.  Does something like an Audioholics Anonymous exist?


Nonsense. Aren't you a guitarist (or former one)? As such you strive for ever more ecstasy-inducing sound. To reproduce that level of ecstasy from recordings we need a system capable of resolving as much of the nuances of timbre as possible - way past the "good enough to enjoy music" level. This especially applies to non beat driven music where lack of timbral detail produces quite sub optimal listening pleasure.

I don't see any problem in the noble pursuit of joy!


----------



## Phronesis

pibroch said:


> Nonsense. Aren't you a guitarist (or former one)? As such you strive for ever more ecstasy-inducing sound. To reproduce that level of ecstasy from recordings we need a system capable of resolving as much of the nuances of timbre as possible - way past the "good enough to enjoy music" level. This especially applies to non beat driven music where lack of timbral detail produces quite sub optimal listening pleasure.
> 
> I don't see any problem in the noble pursuit of joy!



LOL, hit from both sides, I may have found the moderation Aristotle recommended!

I think it's a question of how good is 'good enough'.  With today's technology, we're lucky that it's possible to get excellence at reasonable cost.  My argument has been that too much attention to sound quality interferes with enjoyment of music.  It's like watching a great movie and focusing on judging how good the acting is - that will inhibit getting lost in the characters and the story.

The guitar analogy is interesting.  I find that some guitarists these days have incredible chops (far beyond what I can dream of) and tone, but their music is formulaic, unimaginative, and lacks overarching themes.  It's as though the focus on technique has made them more like athletes than musicians/artists.  Fortunately, other guitarists have the whole package (e.g., Plini), and give me hope that the future is good hands with the younger generation.  Won't be everyone's cup of tea, but this blew me away when I first heard/saw it and made me happy:


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> LOL, hit from both sides, I may have found the moderation Aristotle recommended!
> 
> I think it's a question of how good is 'good enough'.  With today's technology, we're lucky that it's possible to get excellence at reasonable cost.  My argument has been that too much attention to sound quality interferes with enjoyment of music.  It's like watching a great movie and focusing on judging how good the acting is - that will inhibit getting lost in the characters and the story.
> 
> The guitar analogy is interesting.  I find that some guitarists these days have incredible chops (far beyond what I can dream of) and tone, but their music is formulaic, unimaginative, and lacks overarching themes.  It's as though the focus on technique has made them more like athletes than musicians/artists.  Fortunately, other guitarists have the whole package (e.g., Plini), and give me hope that the future is good hands with the younger generation.  Won't be everyone's cup of tea, but this blew me away when I first heard/saw it and made me happy:



I love Plini. Saw him in St. Paul, MN last year and actually I think 2 weeks from now I'm seeing him open for Tesseract in Minneapolis. Sorry, off topic.


----------



## KeithEmo

I was kind of thinking the same thing. Most of the pros I know are even more prone to various preferences in equipment than a lot than the rest of the audiophile community. For example, I know several who absolutely insist on using their favorite model of Neumann microphone... and no amount of proof will convince them that any good $100 microphone can, with proper adjustment and EQ, sound "just the same for 1/10 the price". Likewise, from an engineering standpoint, it's dead simple to design a perfectly neutral microphone preamp... yet the market is flooded with hundreds of different, and often quite expensive, models. Now, obviously, many of them simply have some sort of coloration that some pros or performers like. And I'm sure some just have a preference for one or another style of controls or readouts. But, oddly, many pros seem to insist that even the ones with excellent specs, which "should" sound exactly the same, really don't. Ditto for ADCs and other equipment. In fact, I don't know many real pros who say things like: "It all sounds the same; I'll use whatever you've got". (I would agree that, when it comes to cables, most pros acknowledge that there isn't a significant difference in _sound_.)

I still remember back when people were insisting that "nobody could tell the difference between a tube amp and a solid state amp - as long as the THD was below 0.5% and the S/N was better than 80 dB". However, nowadays, most people I know acknowledge that, at least if you connect both to a speaker without a lot of mechanical damping, the difference between the tube amp's damping factor of 5 and the solid state amp's damping factor of 500 will be rather obvious. The big pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars every year on product testing, and individual studies still often arrive at conflicting conclusions... sometimes because of errors, sometimes because of bias, and sometimes simply due to minor differences in protocol. And, as I've mentioned before, every "major study" I've seen where the test protocol was fully documented, suffered from what I would call significant weaknesses.... like not even confirming that the sounds whose audibility we're supposed testing for are actually arriving at the ears of the test subjects. And, to be honest, very few of them are properly documented to begin with, which makes it impossible to even guess where the flaws are or may be. Also bear in mind that most oversights and variables _CAN_ be controlled for - if you're willing to expend the effort. 

I posted a link to a study about "whether people could hear the subsonic noises made by wind turbines" (it was apparently prompted by a number of complaints from people who claimed to be "disturbed" by living close to wind farms). Since there's always going to be some question whether, at below 10 Hz, someone actually_ heard_ a sound or _felt_ it as a vibration, after confirming that many of their test subjects claimed that they heard sounds as low as 8 Hz, they confirmed the fact using an fMRI machine. By doing so, they not only confirmed that their subjexts claimed to hear the sound, but confirmed that activity in the auditory portion of their subject's brains actually "lit up" - which shows that they did in fact _hear_ sounds as low as 8 Hz rather than felt them. 

I've noted that many people, especially in this group, fail to grasp the difference between statistics and statistical studies and actual measurements. For example, if you're designing a new turntable for the consumer market, and you want to know how accurate the motor has to be to satisfy most of your intended customers, you can use statistics to analyze whether "the majority of people can hear if a musical note is off-pitch by +0.01%"... however, if your goal is to determine, once and for all, "whether humans can hear a speed variation of 0.01%", using a statistical analysis will probably fail to note the one person in a thousand with perfect pitch, who finds that variation, which is inaudible to most of us, totally unacceptable. To find that out, you're going to have to either test a whole lot of people, or offer some sort of incentive for people with perfect pitch to join your study.Which of those results you're actually looking for will depend on whether you're doing a marketing study or a full scientific study. Many people involved in this group seem to habitually conflate "no difference audible to a human being" with "no significant difference" and "no difference big enough to matter to most people". This difference is important - especially in areas like audio - where there's a huge difference between what people usually notice, what they notice if they're paying close attention, and what they consider important enough to pay extra for. 



Phronesis said:


> As I noted in a previous post (you may have missed it), I've read it.  IMO, those tests aren't sufficient to 'settle' things.  No question that people often hear differences that aren't really there, but not all conclusive that none of the heard differences are real.  Broad conclusions need large-scale studies which are carefully designed, and even then there always questions about how far the conclusions can be generalized.  If it can't be sufficiently settled based on theory, you need empirical data, and the empirical data we have is both insufficient and inconclusive.
> 
> FWIW, I had a conversation this morning with a guy who worked in pro audio for many years (recording and mixing).  I asked him whether people in his world think DACs can sound different.  He said that they do think so (and he personally does), but the differences generally aren't large.


----------



## KeithEmo

Unless, of course, you're playing one of the hundreds of CD4 format vinyl albums produced... 
In addition to the standard stereo audio content, each of those also has a pair of ultrasonic analog audio carrier waves recorded on the audio tracks.
These carriers are centered at 30 kHz, with harmonics from 18 kHz to 45 kHz, and require the appropriate special CD4 phono cartridge to play.
Each carrier stores an AM modulated difference signal, one each for left and right, which are processed to recover the four discrete channels stored on the record.
(And, yes, CD4 phono cartridges have response up to at least 45 kHz.)



bigshot said:


> I personally own tens of thousands of records. I think “rekkid collectin’“ is great. But I’m not so far gone that I refuse to believe that CD is the superior format. Records have only two advantages over CDs... The covers are big enough to read the liner notes without glasses, and there's a lot of music on records that never made it to CD release.
> 
> The only frequencies above 15 to 17kHz on an LP record consist of noise.


----------



## KeithEmo

OK.....

So, all DACs produce some ringing, which is exactly what it sounds like - the DAC continues to produce audio energy at its output after the input signal has stopped.
However, because it is a transient phenomenon, ringing only appears with non-steady-state signals, and so does not show up at all in standard frequency response, THD, or S/N measurements.

Just to be clear, you are claiming that, if I have two DACs, one of which produces 0.1 milliseconds of ringing, while the other produces 10 _SECONDS_ of ringing, they will sound identical.
(Since both will show the same low steady state noise and THD, and the same flat steady state frequency response.)

You wouldn't be willing to consider that, just maybe, there was an important measurement you'd missed?



colonelkernel8 said:


> By looking at your measurements If all noise and distortion products fall way below -100 dB (with some measure of leniency depending on the frequency), I’d consider that audibly transparent.
> 
> I should say, thank you for the wonderful service you provide!


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> Many people involved in this group seem to habitually conflate "no difference audible to a human being" with "no significant difference" and "no difference big enough to matter to most people". This difference is important - especially in areas like audio - where there's a huge difference between what people usually notice, what they notice if they're paying close attention, and what they consider important enough to pay extra for.



And the hearing ability of an individual can change too.  I started with guitar, and a few years later I added drums.  After a while playing drums, I heard music differently.  I noticed details in the sound of the drum kit that I never noticed before, and never could have noticed before.  My perceptual ability increased through experience.  Similarly, in my more recent foray into headgear, my ability to hear differences has unquestionably increased as I've tried a lot of gear and actively listened to its sound quality.  Meanwhile, my wife wonders why I'm wasting money on this stuff, because it all sounds "good" and about the same to her.  I'll wager that no one in this forum finds that all "good" headgear sounds essentially the same.


----------



## colonelkernel8

KeithEmo said:


> OK.....
> 
> So, all DACs produce some ringing, which is exactly what it sounds like - the DAC continues to produce audio energy at its output after the input signal has stopped.
> However, because it is a transient phenomenon, ringing only appears with non-steady-state signals, and so does not show up at all in standard frequency response, THD, or S/N measurements.
> ...



Sure. If someone can't design a reconstruction filter or at least just use a built in one, I'd also look at the transient response. But ringing is generally speaking, above the audible range frequency-wise, and there aren't too many dirac-delta level impulses in recorded music...


----------



## Phronesis

colonelkernel8 said:


> I love Plini. Saw him in St. Paul, MN last year and actually I think 2 weeks from now I'm seeing him open for Tesseract in Minneapolis. Sorry, off topic.



Common ground on music, I dig it!  My fault for taking us OT, but good discussions do wander ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I think you're right.....
And that's where the difference between "the hobby" and "the science" comes in.

The differences between how various albums are mastered usually far exceed the differences between various high quality audio components - and this is especially true of DACs and amplifiers. Likewise, the single biggest factor is almost always the speakers, and how they interact with the room. Therefore, if the discussion was about "whether there are _significant_ differences between amplifiers or DACs", I would probably agree that, in most cases, there are not. And, of course, each of us has a different list of the factors we individually consider significant, and in what order of priority. While I can notice the location of various instruments in the sound stage, I simply don't find it to be terribly important, while others find it to be very important to their listening enjoyment. In contrast, I tend to notice small differences in the attack characteristics of struck cymbals and drums, while other people may not find those to be especially important at all. I also find any added pitch variation - vibrato - in voices to be especially annoying, but my overall sense of accurate pitch is average at best.

However, that's all what I would consider "practical engineering"... 

But, if we're talking about real science, then we should stick to the rules for real science.
And, in real science, if you make a generalization, you should be able to prove it _FOR ALL CASES_ - and, if not, then you should not phrase it as a generalization.
If you mean "most of the time" or "for most people" - then you should be concise and phrase your claim in that language.

I am quite certain that, with _most_ well designed preamps and amplifiers, if you connect them together using various different interconnect cables, there will be no audible difference.
And, if I chose to, I could _falsely_ claim that was true with _ALL_ well designed preamps and amps and all well designed cables.... 
(I would simply claim that any equipment for which that wasn't true wasn't "well designed". However, in practice, that's just a creative form of circular logic.)
The reality is that certain older tube equipment, which was considered in its day to be well designed, had a very high output impedance.
And, over the years, a certain number of interconnect cables, also considered to be well designed, have had significantly different amounts of capacitance.
Because of this, when you combine certain equipment with certain cables, there is a clearly audible - and easily measurable - difference in frequency response.
This does _NOT_ in any way suggest that, for _MOST_ people, and _MOST_ equipment, and _MOST_ cables, there will be an audible difference.
It simply means that, just as my friend with the peanut allergy must avoid peanuts, the owners of certain specific equipment may notice audible differences between cables.
(And, yes, for most everyone else, they can safely assume that most or all cables will sound exactly the same with their equipment.)

I _DO_ apologize to the people whose lives this makes more difficult.... 
And for those whom it deprives of a cherished life-simplifying generalization....
And it in no way suggests that _MOST_ people should worry about which cable they buy.
(Just as most people I know don't bother to read the fine print on food labels to check for traces of peanuts.)

And, no, as long as MOST audiophiles believe such differences exist, that belief will drive the product sales market...
And, as long as that remains true, there is no need or incentive for manufacturers to even attempt to prove it...
(Remember that, even if they were to prove a difference, but it turned out to simply be less significant than anticipated, it would still be bad for business.)



Phronesis said:


> No doubt that there's lots marketing BS and it has some influence.  But I suspect that there's even more influence from reviews, opinions expressed in forums like this, opinions expressed by friends, etc.  Other influencing factors would be product specs, product aesthetics, brand reputation and heritage, etc.  All of those factors are big-time influential with performance cars, and I think these issues are general to the consumer mindset.
> 
> My current thinking is that the biggest issue with audiophilia isn't inaccurate or incomplete objective understanding of how different things affect sound quality, but rather the relentless search for better sound quality far past the point when 'plenty good enough to enjoy music' was reached.  If people truly 'trust their ears' and recognize that what they have is good enough, the question of what makes sound better won't come up because people won't care about it.  As I've said, I'm not immune to this problem myself.  Does something like an Audioholics Anonymous exist?


----------



## Zapp_Fan

colonelkernel8 said:


> Sure. If someone can't design a reconstruction filter or at least just use a built in one, I'd also look at the transient response. But ringing is generally speaking, above the audible range frequency-wise, and there aren't too many dirac-delta level impulses in recorded music...



I got into this on another thread where I made a bit of a fool of myself, but there are plenty of dirac-impulse like sounds in certain electronic recordings. (Ryoji Ikeda makes a lot of use of such sounds.)  Enough out there that you can't call it irrelevant to music listening in general.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Zapp_Fan said:


> I got into this on another thread where I made a bit of a fool of myself, but there are plenty of dirac-impulse like sounds in certain electronic recordings. (Ryoji Ikeda makes a lot of use of such sounds.)  Enough out there that you can't call it irrelevant to music listening in general.


Fair enough. My point on its frequency still remains relevant.


----------



## KeithEmo

Quite so......

But, if you switch rapidly between the various filters offered by certain DAC vendors, using certain types of content, and listening on certain types of speakers and headphones which seem to either accurately reproduce or even exaggerate those differences, you will notice certain consistent differences. Ringing not only constitutes extra content, which may or may not be audible, but also a time-shift in energy distribution, which may be what's audible. 

I tend to notice these sorts of differences most significantly with well-recorded wire brush cymbals - which consist of a complex series of many separate short sharp taps of metal on metal - each with its own overlapping pattern of ringing. What I tend to notice is that, on some recordings, the strike of a wire brush on a cymbal sounds like a simple burst of white noise (like a steam valve hissing), while on others it seems to sound more distinctly like a series of separate small metallic taps. My _THEORY_ is that my brain is able to make some sort of sense of the semi-random pattern of sharp taps, slightly separated in both position and time; that some recordings reproduce this sense of distribution more accurately than others; and that, on recordings that do it especially well, some DACs tend to also reproduce it better than others. I do not purport to notice this distinction on all speakers, nor with most recordings... but, with certain speakers, and certain recordings, different DACs seem to reproduce it with slight differences. 

I'll even suggest that, in a typical multi-track recording, the cymbal resides on a single track; so, in the final mix, the cymbal sounds all occur at a single physical position.  However, if the cymbal itself is recorded in stereo, or using multiple microphones, the fact that the wires actually strike the cymbal in slightly different locations, spread out in both time and space, somehow allows my brain to more easily identify them as separate events... even though they are very closely spaced in time. (To use an optics analogy, something like the difference between a single point source and a specular highlight.)

As I said, this is a theory.... perhaps someday I or someone else will test it.

Incidentally, in case anyone does want to try and duplicate my results, I'll give specifics......
I notice that this track sounds different when played through many different filter choices on many different DACs....
- I notice it with most strongly with the recent HDTRacks 24/192k re-master of the song Hotel California 
- I notice it with Koss ESP/950 electrostatic headphones
- I notice it with Emotiva Airmotiv 5 speakers (with the folded ribbon "AMT" tweeter)
(both headphones and speakers have their own built-in amplifiers and electronics)
- I did NOT notice it with AKG K240 MKII headphones (using the headphone amp in my Emotiva DC-1 DAC)



colonelkernel8 said:


> Sure. If someone can't design a reconstruction filter or at least just use a built in one, I'd also look at the transient response. But ringing is generally speaking, above the audible range frequency-wise, and there aren't too many dirac-delta level impulses in recorded music...


----------



## bigshot (Apr 30, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Then why not just leave?  What are you really protecting people against?



We're here to help people get great sound for a reasonable price by doing things the smart way. The fact that some people don't want to do things the smart way doesn't mean that we can't help the ones that do. The people who should go away are the ones who are more interested in the sound of their own words than communicating with others. But that isn't just a problem in this forum. That is common all over internet forums. There are always people who become overly argumentative or take deliberately contrary opinions and repeat them over and over to grandstand. I usually stop reading their posts after a few lines and skip over them. Other people enjoy slapping them down over and over. That is fine with me too. But I don't have the patience for it.



Phronesis said:


> OK, but how big is the audience here?



There are many more people who lurk than there are ones who post. And google searches bring in many more. I've noticed when I google certain keywords, my own posts get pulled up at the top of the list. HeadFi gets good traffic.



Phronesis said:


> how many regulars in this forum are actual practicing scientists?



Many of us are professionals working in various areas of production sound or engineering. Some folks here have experience as statisticians. Others have degrees in electrical engineering. Still others are music lovers and hobbyists. Everyone contributes to the mix to help find practical scientific applications to the problem of achieving high fidelity sound in the home.



Phronesis said:


> I’m trying to understand the dynamic of the forum, since it doesn’t fit my expectations of a science forum.



The best way to understand is to lurk and figure out the personalities and point of view of the posters. Not everyone here is interested in science. Some are just here to be contrarians. But the purpose of this group when it was created wasn't really to create a place for science discussion. When they created this group, they banned any discussion of expectation bias, blind testing and placebo effect from the rest of the site. Those subjects were making the subjectivists on the rest of the site very upset and they knew all of us objectivists would get along fine in our own group. So they walled off discussion of scientific testing from the rest of the site and put us in our own playpen so we could play nice without making other people cry.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Not at all, I wouldn’t waste any of our time by doing that, and am not a fan of needless aggravation of anyone.  I’m trying to understand the dynamic of the forum, since it doesn’t fit my expectations of a science forum.  The dynamic is more like if this was called a religion forum, but the regulars are all atheists who attack any whiff of a religious idea because it lacks their definition of ‘proof’ (ps - I'm not religious).  Nothing wrong with having an atheism forum, just don’t call it a religion forum.  That said, I struggle to come up with a good alternate name for this forum.  It’s anti something, but hard to put a name to it.
> 
> Addendum:
> 
> ...


this section is obviously focused around a few leading concepts. if you wonder why, it's in the TOS: 





> If what you want to post includes words/phrases like "placebo," "expectation bias," "ABX," "blind testing," etc., please post it in the Sound Science forum


 this section is the only place where we can really discuss such ideas instead of being stopped after 2 posts. so of course all the people with similar ideas about the dire need to stop calling a sighted test a "listening test", are gathering here. by force as much as by choice. you think the name of the section doesn't properly reflect this, go ask the admins to change the name. I didn't pick it nor did I make the rules of this forum.

now if you cooled down your philosoraptor arguments in a topic about testing stuff, and focused on one audio question or idea at a time, you may come to realize that there are plenty of things we can test, and plenty of knowledge to be had from those tests.
you may also notice how you preach for caution when drawing conclusions on the most skeptical section of the forum. you argue about flaws in methodology in pretty much the only section of the forum that tries to control variables in a test. I'm not trying to get away with all we do wrong, we have people of all kinds with opinions of all kinds and various ways of thinking. plus we're still just lowly humans, so BS will be claimed and hypocrisy will be used in stead of argument. but maybe instead of comparing what you read here with some ideology of ultimate proper science, you could just look at the rest of the forum and put things in perspective about claims and their legitimacy? just so that it doesn't look like you have a 2 tier kind of righteousness.
I don't mind that you hit me on the head when I do something wrong, TBH I hope you will do it because I can't learn if I don't know that I'm wrong. but I'll find it very frustrating if the guy next to me does much worst and you leave him be as if he did nothing wrong. and that's the vibe I've been getting for a while now. I haven't seen you posting tens of messages in the cable section to tell people about how to reach a conclusion correctly, or blaming them for some of the most ludicrous claims you'll ever get to read about electricity(did you know that gold sounds warm?^_^). anyway you got the idea, I don't think this section deserves to be the bad guy of your story. nor do I think that 3 guys with the same views represent the Sound Science section entirely. 



also, modo again, stop it with the religious analogies. discussing religion is not allowed on Head-fi for the most obvious reasons.


----------



## amirm

KeithEmo said:


> OK.....
> 
> So, all DACs produce some ringing, which is exactly what it sounds like - the DAC continues to produce audio energy at its output after the input signal has stopped.
> However, because it is a transient phenomenon, ringing only appears with non-steady-state signals, and so does not show up at all in standard frequency response, THD, or S/N measurements.


An impulse is an "illegal" audio signal.  It is a pulse that goes from zero to max in one sample.  This requires infinite bandwidth.  Digital audio by definition requires that the source be bandwidth limited.  An impulse is not bandwidth limited and therefore "can't happen."

Of course it is trivial to create one in digital domain using software.  But again, it is not representative of what is supposed to be there.

The usefulness of an impulse is to characterize a linear system (e.g. a filter). That is the proper use of it.  It is NOT characteristic of music reproduction and what we "hear."  That ringing you see will vanish if make you limit the bandwidth for example.

The audio energy you talk about is ultrasonic and hence not an audible concern.

That said, pre-ringing can be an issue if its energy is in-band.  But I don't want to get into that and confuse this issue.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 30, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> this section is obviously focused around a few leading concepts. if you wonder why, it's in the TOS:
> this section is the only place where we can really discuss such ideas instead of being stopped after 2 posts. so of course all the people with similar ideas about the dire need to stop calling a sighted test a "listening test", are gathering here. by force as much as by choice. you think the name of the section doesn't properly reflect this, go ask the admins to change the name. I didn't pick it nor did I make the rules of this forum.
> 
> now if you cooled down your philosoraptor arguments in a topic about testing stuff, and focused on one audio question or idea at a time, you may come to realize that there are plenty of things we can test, and plenty of knowledge to be had from those tests.
> ...



Thanks for that info and context.

I do think Sound Science has value, and I do see much nonsense spewed in other parts of the forum.  I don't talk about that latter much here, but I do talk it about it there - at least until they tell me I need to stop.

If I come across as too outspoken in Sound Science, it's because some things here have really surprised me, particularly the rigidity of some views.  But if people are quite sure of their beliefs, I suppose that comes with the territory.  I'm more of a 'degree of belief' person, rather than a certainty person.  Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer certainty, but if we're _truly_ skeptical, certainty is difficult and perhaps impossible to achieve.

If you take the 'average' what's said around here, I suspect that it's not too far from the truth, and there's probably more common ground than the debates suggest.  IMO, it's when we take extreme positions - DACs never make any audible difference, cables and DACs make a huge difference, etc. - that we're probably off the mark.

I'm all for testing, but when the measuring device is the human mind, I think there are a lot more complications than when testing only involves objective measurements.  For example, when I did my own blind testing and asked whether I can hear a difference between A and B, or can pick whether it's A or B, the answer was more often "I'm not sure" rather than Yes or No.  A while back, I myself challenged some audiophiles to do blind testing to support their claim that expensive cables made a worthwhile difference.  But after I did my own blind testing, I realized that it's not quite that simple.

Anyway, I've found the discussion to be stimulating, and will try to avoid making statements which unnecessarily aggravate or offend anyone.  If I go out of bounds, don't hesitate to let me know (I've been a moderator also, and know it's not always an easy job).


----------



## KeithEmo

An impulse is indeed an invalid signal - at least in a digital audio file. Impulses are used in audio measurements for two very different reasons.
1) 
In certain types of measurements, the desired output is "the response of the system to an impulse".
In those measurements, certain calculations are performed on "the output signal you get when you send in an impulse".
One very popular such test is to apply an "impulse" to a room, then analyze the returning audio signals over time.
Therefore, for those sorts of measurements, the proper test signal is "as close as you can practically get to a real impulse".
2)
The same exact logic applies when testing DACs.
The impulse signal itself is invalid in a digital audio file.
However, how the DAC responds to that signal tells us a lot about its filter and time response.
(And, whether technically valid or not, it's a nice standard test signal, so it's simple to compare the results you get with it.)

HOWEVER, there are quite a few natural sounds that resemble an impulse... such as a drumbeat.
Virtually all natural transient sounds involve some ringing - which we might hope a DAC can reproduce accurately.
But some DACs may add enough ringing to significantly change the ringing that belongs there....
And some DACs may do the opposite...
For example, DACs that have extra processing to eliminate pre-ringing might actually remove pre-ringing that BELONGS there.
Seeing the transient response with an impulse lets us predict pretty accurately what will happen with music.

The other thing to remember is that ringing isn't generally extra added energy.
It is energy that has been "moved" from somewhere else.

To pick the simplest possible example......
If I start with a 10 mSec pulse with a roughly rectangular envelope.... than add 20 mSec of ringing to its beginning, and 20 mSec of ringing to its end, I now have a 50 mSec pulse containing as much energy as the original 10 mSec pulse. This new pulse will have a very different envelope shape than my original pulse, and that difference may well be audible.

The ringing will NOT vanish when you limit the bandwidth.
In fact, ringing will appear as a RESULT of limiting the bandwidth.
The only question is whether alteration of that ringing will be audible or not.



amirm said:


> An impulse is an "illegal" audio signal.  It is a pulse that goes from zero to max in one sample.  This requires infinite bandwidth.  Digital audio by definition requires that the source be bandwidth limited.  An impulse is not bandwidth limited and therefore "can't happen."
> 
> Of course it is trivial to create one in digital domain using software.  But again, it is not representative of what is supposed to be there.
> 
> ...


----------



## amirm

KeithEmo said:


> HOWEVER, there are quite a few natural sounds that resemble an impulse... such as a drumbeat.


Well, let's look at that.  Here is a Chesky reference drum track.  I have selected the attack of one such note:






Looks like an impulse as you say.  But let's zoom in and see what is really there:





As you see, it is nothing like an impulse, i.e. zero sample to max.  

It has to look the way because it is frequency limited.  The enemy of impulse is lack of high frequencies.  Take those away and the change cannot be sudden.

Spectrum analysis of that segment shows this clearly:






We see that the energy drops like a rock as frequencies increase.  

The net results is that this does NOT generate the ringing you see in measurement graphs.  Those impulses again assume infinite bandwidth (and energy).

And oh, the above is from a 192 kHz audio sample so it has a lot more high frequency content than a CD would (sadly much of it is wasted due to noise shaping).


----------



## amirm

KeithEmo said:


> The other thing to remember is that ringing isn't generally extra added energy.
> It is energy that has been "moved" from somewhere else.


Nobody said it was.  Indeed the cause is that you are removing energy from an infinite energy signal, i.e. impulse, and hence, it can no longer have its infinite slew rate.  That is what a DAC reconstruction filter does.  It is supposed to create that "ringing."  To the extent that removal is above your hearing range, then what it looks like on a scope is immaterial.  

The point was that if you don't stick that infinite energy into your filter, then you don't have that large ringing that you see in your graphs.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with your observations...

Excessive generalizations are often a disservice for several reasons.
First, simply because they're sometimes wrong, which can cause errors to occur, and can lead to bad decisions.
And, second, because, when they're found to be wrong, they tend to raise doubt about the validity of science in general.

"Peanuts are NOT poisonous"; tell that to my buddy who's allergic to peanuts.
"All speaker wires sound the same"; except that, if you attach a set of Vampire Wires to a Threshold 400b amplifier, it will blow its fuse.
It's more accurate to say: "Peanuts are healthy for most people, except for the few who happen to be allergic to them".
And to say: "Most normal modern amplifiers don't sound any different with different speaker cables - unless there's something really odd about the cables".

I might even go a bit further on that last one.....
"Most modern amplifiers have a relatively low output impedance, and are relatively insensitive to the amounts of capacitance and inductance found in a typical piece of wire."
"Therefore, with most modern amplifiers, most speaker wires, made with regular wire, and having typical amounts of capacitance and inductance, all sound the same".

Interconnect cables are even more entertaining...... with both sides acting more like sports fans than either scientists or intelligent humans in general.
- The capacitance of MOST interconnect cables falls into a certain range.
- MOST modern preamps have a very low output impedance; and will sound the same when connected to an amplifier using interconnects whose capacitance falls within that range.
(I consider a preamp with a high output impedance to be "badly designed" - but that's just my opinion. Most people would agree with me today; in 1950 most would not.)
- MANY vintage tube preamps had a much higher output impedance; and their frequency response WILL vary significantly depending on the capacitance of your cables.
- MANY modern passive preamps share this characteristic, and their frequency response WILL also vary significantly depending on the capacitance of your cables.
- And, finally, moving magnet phono cartidges are usually sensitive to cable capacitance, and their frequency response WILL also vary significantly due to cable capacitance.

Therefore, if you make a generalization about interconnect cables sounding the same, without properly qualifying it, then you are spreading false information.
(Your claim may help more people than it hurts - but it could be more helpful, to more people, if you qualified it more carefully.)

If the purpose of this thread is to discuss "testing audiophile myths"........
Then the validity of claims in both directions is surely fair game.......



Phronesis said:


> Thanks for that info and context.
> 
> I do think Sound Science has value, and I do see much nonsense spewed in other parts of the forum.  I don't talk about that latter much here, but I do talk it about it there - at least until they tell me I need to stop.
> 
> ...


----------



## upstateguy

Phronesis said:


> Not at all, I wouldn’t waste any of our time by doing that, and am not a fan of needless aggravation of anyone.  I’m trying to understand the dynamic of the forum, since it doesn’t fit my expectations of a science forum.  The dynamic is more like if this was called a religion forum, but the regulars are all atheists who attack any whiff of a religious idea because it lacks their definition of ‘proof’ (ps - I'm not religious).  Nothing wrong with having an atheism forum, just don’t call it a religion forum.  That said,* I struggle to come up with a good alternate name for this forum.* It’s anti something, but hard to put a name to it.



From it's inception, this is and always has been the* Objectivist Forum.*  Early on, as Big Shot said, objectivists views were banned from the main forum because it upset the prevailing subjectivistism.  There were many discussions about what to do with us.  Ultimately, it was decided to corral us in the Ghetto you are now posting in and the name "Sound Science" was chosen to represent the Objectivist point of view, *that was allowed to be spoken only here*.  In retrospect I guess it would have been better to just call it the "Objectivist Forum", because if that was the case you wouldn't have a problem understanding what goes on here.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 30, 2018)

I've changed the way I think about the banishment. I see us as the "outside" and the rest of HeadFi as being "in a box". When you limit what can be discussed, you limit what you can do.

Also, I want to make it clear that I don't get angry with people here. I just don't have the patience for tortured logic like "we can't know everything so we can't know anything", so at some point I won't entertain discussions like that any more. I don't waste my time adding footnotes to everything I say because everything I talk about is in relation to listening to recorded music in the home. That is the context we are discussing- home audio. Sometimes people interpret the science aspect to mean that they have to split atoms and consider things that can't be heard in a normal home music listening environment. I'm too busy improving audible sound to spend my time on thinking about theoretical sound. It isn't that I'm not aware of this stuff. I just don't care about it because it has no use to me.

A lot of people wander in here from the inside of HeadFi. Perhaps they believed the subjective poetry they heard in there and got burned buying a high end DAC or fancy cable that didn't make any real difference. When they hear objective opinions for the first time, I think it's important to keep your eye on the prize. Doubling down on details just muddies the water and accomplishes the same thing that snake oil salesmen do when they dump a carload of irrelevant technical information on clueless customers- complex charts and diagrams illustrating jitter or distortion at levels that they never reveal are totally inaudible. I don't see a purpose in confusing people with too much useless information.


----------



## upstateguy

bigshot said:


> I've changed the way I think about the banishment. I see us as the "outside" and the rest of HeadFi as being "in a box". When you limit what can be discussed, you limit what you can do.



+1


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree....  you see much less.
The purpose of using that extreme test signal is in part to exaggerate the results to make them easier to see.
As an excessively broad generalization, with a sine wave signal, errors and distortions must reach several percent before a human can even see them on an oscilloscope screen.
That's one reason why we use things like spectrum analysis and various types of numerical analysis to make certain distortions easier to visualize.

However, I'll bet that, if you feed that same signal through a Wolfson 8741 DAC, and select each of its 21 different oversampling filters in turn, 
you'll see a slightly different result with each one.... then we're right back where we started.... to the question of which of the differences between them will be audible. 
(With music, I'll also bet it would be much more difficult to see the differences with the naked eye, but it would still measurably exist.)

Also, I'm looking at your spectrum plot.....
The most energy seems to be at a relatively low frequency .... and to hit -35 dB.
Interestingly, it doesn't hit the point that's 60 dB below that (-95 dB) until about 36 kHz.
So, at least to me, it sure looks like there is significant energy there well past 20 kHz.
(I also wonder why they used such aggressive noise shaping... it seems excessive for a 24/192k file... unless that one was upsampled.)

Please note that I am _NOT_ making an assertion as to which filter responses would be audibly different from which others.
I would also note that, very often, the characteristics of various filters are too complex to allow for simple audible comparisons.
For example, many "apodizing" filters that exchange pre-ringing for post-ringing _ALSO_ include a slow high roll-off.
Because of this, the fact that their response is - 3 dB at 20 kHz makes it difficult to determine whether you're hearing the time effect of the filter or just the HF roll off.
This is why I suggest that a LOT more testing would be necessary to "make complete sense" of what's going on with DACs and filters (in terms of audibility).
(And, sadly, as I've said, I don't think anybody has the incentive necessary to do it properly.)



amirm said:


> Nobody said it was.  Indeed the cause is that you are removing energy from an infinite energy signal, i.e. impulse, and hence, it can no longer have its infinite slew rate.  That is what a DAC reconstruction filter does.  It is supposed to create that "ringing."  To the extent that removal is above your hearing range, then what it looks like on a scope is immaterial.
> 
> The point was that if you don't stick that infinite energy into your filter, then you don't have that large ringing that you see in your graphs.


----------



## bigshot

As far as I'm concerned if timing is good enough to create a perfect 20kHz tone, it's more than good enough to reproduce the fastest transient in music... by several magnitudes.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> As far as I'm concerned if timing is good enough to create a perfect 20kHz tone, it's more than good enough to reproduce the fastest transient in music... by several magnitudes.



The fastest transient in music is an illegal signal / dirac impulse as others have pointed out, so for those of us who bother with electronic music, the quality of the transient response even out of "realistic" boundaries is a material question.  this song is one I really actually enjoy listening to, but it also happens to be a very difficult stress test for audio codecs as well as transient response in a system, it's chock full very sharp transients.

I guess since I spent so much of my life listening to almost nothing but "IDM" I don't see "within the boundaries of music" being a useful distinction, since those guys will commit pretty much any sound that CAN be synthesized to a record and call it music - as do their fans.  In other words, almost all conceivable signals count as "music" if your taste happens to run that way.


----------



## upstateguy

bigshot said:


> A lot of people wander in here from the inside of HeadFi. Perhaps *they believed the subjective poetry* they heard in there and *got burned buying a high end DAC or fancy cable that didn't make any real difference*.
> 
> *When they hear **objective opinions for the first time, I think it's important to keep your eye on the prize. *
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## Phronesis

upstateguy said:


> From it's inception, this is and always has been the* Objectivist Forum.*  Early on, as Big Shot said, objectivists views were banned from the main forum because it upset the prevailing subjectivistism.  There were many discussions about what to do with us.  Ultimately, it was decided to corral us in the Ghetto you are now posting in and the name "Sound Science" was chosen to represent the Objectivist point of view, *that was allowed to be spoken only here*.  In retrospect I guess it would have been better to just call it the "Objectivist Forum", because if that was the case you wouldn't have a problem understanding what goes on here.



I get that, but if you limit the scope of the forum to objective stuff (physics and technology) and ignore subjective aspects, you have a limited definition of _sound_ science, and issues of psychoacoustics, blind testing, etc. have no relevance.  From what I've seen so far, the discussions aren't by any means limited to objective aspects.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I agree with your observations...
> 
> Excessive generalizations are often a disservice for several reasons.
> First, simply because they're sometimes wrong, which can cause errors to occur, and can lead to bad decisions.
> ...


Finally some reason in this thread ... - you've missed one or two applications for cables in audio that are at least as critical as those mentioned, but, it is a start.

Without this post, practically everything else by other members defending the almost blind faith - not science - conforms to the below intentionally caricatured generalizations that went way beyond any reason many full moons ago : 

" 20-20k/infinitely low source impedance / pure resistive load / perfect digital filters / perfect everything / zero audible differences / mp3 is enough / CD is overkill / .... - everything else is heresy / everything else is snake oil and rip-off / our Sacred Duty is to prevent people from buying anything not sanctioned by our Blind Faith "

The fitting graphic comment to the above would be a farm of ostriches, each and every one of them trying to outdo the other just how deep he/she can stick the head into the sand ...


----------



## upstateguy

Phronesis said:


> I get that, but if you limit the scope of the forum to objective stuff (physics and technology) and ignore subjective aspects, you have a limited definition of _sound_ science, and issues of psychoacoustics,* blind testing,* etc. have no relevance.  From what I've seen so far, the discussions aren't by any means limited to objective aspects.



LOL!   First time I ever heard someone refer to *blind testing* as a *subjective* aspect.

Btw,  that's a very interesting sentence you wrote.  See how it reads if we switch subjective and objective.

If you limit the scope of the forum to _subjective_ stuff (hearsay and anecdotes) and ignore _objective_ aspects (physics, technology and science), you have a limited definition of *sound *......


----------



## Phronesis

upstateguy said:


> LOL!   First time I ever heard someone refer to *blind testing* as a *subjective* aspect.



Blind testing involves listeners, hence the subjective aspect.  Isn't the question whether people can *hear* certain objective differences?


----------



## sonitus mirus (Apr 30, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> "Peanuts are NOT poisonous"; tell that to my buddy who's allergic to peanuts.
> "All speaker wires sound the same"; except that, if you attach a set of Vampire Wires to a Threshold 400b amplifier, it will blow its fuse.
> It's more accurate to say: "Peanuts are healthy for most people, except for the few who happen to be allergic to them".
> And to say: "Most normal modern amplifiers don't sound any different with different speaker cables - unless there's something really odd about the cables".



Maybe in follow-up responses some of the minutiae is omitted, but generally there is an attempt to claim that in most normal situations, barring some obvious and some not so obvious problems, speaker wires sound the same.

Unless a person has some medical condition or related food allergy, peanuts are typically safe for humans to consume, and would not be generally categorized as a poison.  Yet, you would have some talking about speaker wire as if everyone was at least a little bit allergic to peanuts, and peanuts impact everyone in a different way, based on the particular person that eats them.  Some peanuts are not as poisonous as others.  Now we have folks conflating peanut allergies across the board to everyone, and now we need to be aware of where we get our peanuts because no peanut is the same.

Nobody seems to be making the claim that every single DAC, amp, and interconnect are exactly the same in every single measurable parameter.  That also does not mean that a few people can hear differences with some Hugo DAC and a cheap Audioengine DAC.  This is where direct evidence would be needed to be convincing. Referring back to slight variances between certain DACs under some pathological situations to pave the way for proof that all DACs can sound different to one another is not correct.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> As far as I'm concerned if timing is good enough to create a perfect 20kHz tone, it's more than good enough to reproduce the fastest transient in music... by several magnitudes.


Unfortunately, it is not. There are tons of instruments with overtones way past 20 kHz, which can be sensed by humans - even if we do not hear them with our ears as pure sine waves, they are perceived in other ways. Some people are more sensitive to this, some less, some not at all - but stating that response above 20k does not matter is just plain wrong.

PCM itself is not NEARLY as perfect and foolproof with regards to timing as its proponents would like us to believe. I will have to do quite some more testing in order to isolate just what causes the trouble - but, if and when that defect does show up, it IS directly proportional to the sampling rate. Upsampling from 44.1 to higher frequency does not, of course, magically add missing information above 22050 Hz - but it DOES improve the mentioned trouble, one that should not have been there in the first place and/or should have not been allowed to develop later "somewhere" from the microphones to the final output of one's speakers or headphones.

DSD is inherently free from this defect that can and does occur at least sometimes with PCM - and may be the primary reason as to why I prefer it   - BY FAR -  to any PCM.


----------



## KeithEmo

I just wanted to chime in here with a _BIG THUMBS UP_ for BigShot.

I just wanted to make it clear that I absolutely agree with what BigShot is trying to do.
There is a massive amount of misinformation floating around the audiophile world.
It ranges from superstition, to what I would term pseudo-science, to outright snake oil, often created strictly to sell useless products.
I also understand that many audiophiles either aren't willing, aren't able to, or just plain aren't interested enough, to absorb all of the sometimes annoying details.

However, my science background leads me to be very leery of making or accepting general statements unless they are incredibly well substantiated.

So, for example, I consider the "well substantiated fact" that "humans hear from 20 Hz to 20 kHz when tested using steady state sine waves" to be well substantiated - but limited.
And, for most combinations of preamps and interconnect cables, there won't be an audible difference - but for certain few combinations the difference are both audible and measurable. 
But, as far as I'm concerned, I'll agree that nobody has conducted any studies to determine the audibility of differences between DACs, but anecdotally I'm quite convinced I can.
On that last one, while I am personally convinced that I hear differences, at least between some DACs, I'm not making and specific claims on that subject.
However, I'm equally convinced that a lot of people probably won't hear a difference, and would never suggest that someone buy a specific DAC because of what I claim to hear.



bigshot said:


> I've changed the way I think about the banishment. I see us as the "outside" and the rest of HeadFi as being "in a box". When you limit what can be discussed, you limit what you can do.
> 
> Also, I want to make it clear that I don't get angry with people here. I just don't have the patience for tortured logic like "we can't know everything so we can't know anything", so at some point I won't entertain discussions like that any more. I don't waste my time adding footnotes to everything I say because everything I talk about is in relation to listening to recorded music in the home. That is the context we are discussing- home audio. Sometimes people interpret the science aspect to mean that they have to split atoms and consider things that can't be heard in a normal home music listening environment. I'm too busy improving audible sound to spend my time on thinking about theoretical sound. It isn't that I'm not aware of this stuff. I just don't care about it because it has no use to me.
> 
> A lot of people wander in here from the inside of HeadFi. Perhaps they believed the subjective poetry they heard in there and got burned buying a high end DAC or fancy cable that didn't make any real difference. When they hear objective opinions for the first time, I think it's important to keep your eye on the prize. Doubling down on details just muddies the water and accomplishes the same thing that snake oil salesmen do when they dump a carload of irrelevant technical information on clueless customers- complex charts and diagrams illustrating jitter or distortion at levels that they never reveal are totally inaudible. I don't see a purpose in confusing people with too much useless information.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 30, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> So, for example, I consider the "well substantiated fact" that "humans hear from 20 Hz to 20 kHz when tested using steady state sine waves" to be well substantiated - but limited.



Because most people can't hear all the way up to 20kHz. That is much more of an important thing to mention if you are going speak of exceptions to the rule, not that there was one 12 year old once who was able to detect sound pressure from a 23kHz tone. It doesn't matter though because those frequencies aren't really important to the sound quality of recorded music anyway.



analogsurviver said:


> Unfortunately, it is not. There are tons of instruments with overtones way past 20 kHz, which can be sensed by humans - even if we do not hear them with our ears as pure sine waves, they are perceived in other ways.



None of those other ways are relevant to the appreciation of sound quality in recorded music. In fact, I read a study once where they filtered off the whole top octave and even though some people could detect that a filter had been applied, they didn't think it impacted the quality of the sound at all. Take an equalizer and try it yourself and you'll see what I'm talking about.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Because most people can't hear all the way up to 20kHz. That is much more of an important thing to mention if you are going speak of exceptions to the rule, not that there was one 12 year old once who was able to detect sound pressure from a 23kHz tone. It doesn't matter though because those frequencies aren't really important to the sound quality of recorded music anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> None of those other ways are relevant to the appreciation of sound quality in recorded music. In fact, I read a study once where they filtered off the whole top octave and even though some people could detect that a filter had been applied, they didn't think it impacted the quality of the sound at all. Take an equalizer and try it yourself and you'll see what I'm talking about.


And I have read the report on the blind testing of the Ionovac tweeter eons of years ago - where live mike feed has been used as source ( nothing that could store significantly above 20 kHz back in those days ) to a group of random chosen people, with the only question whether they can hear any difference or not - without telling them what is being tested. The difference was that the response to 20 kHz was always kept at the same level - the filter just above 20 kHz at 6 dB/octave ( or was it 12 ? ) was being switched on and off. The result was NOT in the 50:50 "guessing" range - people clearly preferred the unfiltered version.

The above I have heard and confirmed - not using Ionovac, as it is too far ago and on the wrong continent for me, but other devices with > 20 kHz response, too many times to even bother noting. 

One might say - rightly so - that frequencies above 20 kHz are not relevant for the appreciation of music. Ignoring many great instrument builder along the way... - but, OK,  if all that is required are the right notes, than I can agree with you.

I will NEVER agree on unimportance of frequencies above 20 kHz as far as recreation of space and original acoustics of the venue, where music is performed or has been recorded is concerned; 
NEVER -  EVER !!!

Although even stereo 2 channel DSD128 ( do not know for DSD256, have yet to use it for recording by myself ) does not manage to give quite the impression of surround at 96/24 as far as the depth, etc go -  it IS  infinitely better than glass plate flattnes of a CD. 

One does approach the sensation of live - while the other is flat out dead. 

And that - for this doozy - is more than worth fighting for.

Then again, I have yet to hear a proper demo of 5.1 - in DSD256 ... - it does exist, unfortunately way out of my reach at the time.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> The fitting graphic comment to the above would be a farm of ostriches, each and every one of them trying to outdo the other just how deep he/she can stick the head into the sand ...



That's my typical method of filtering my HD800.


----------



## bfreedma

Phronesis said:


> The post refers to you, not the entire forum ("us") - too late to hide in the crowd.  I don't need your permission to call out your personal attack to the moderator and forum.  We're not talking about a moderator editing your posts, we're talking about what you posted.



If you feel the need to report a post, there’s a link for that purpose.

IMO, the passive aggressive approach of posting in a thread asking a moderator to review something isn’t the best option.  You can always PM and hash it out - that’s worked well for me in the past when I thought a post might have been a little over the line or when someone else thought a post of mine was.


----------



## bigshot

The acoustics of a recording venue are a matter of delays caused by reflection of sound, the effect the walls have on the sound, and directionality. The first two fit within 20-20. The last one is best reproduced with a multichannel speaker setup. Upper harmonics beyond a certain point are inaudible due to masking and the fact that each order of harmonics is usually at a lower level than the previous one. Music engineers usually just worry about the first three orders of harmonics. At least for acoustic musical instruments, nearly every instrument fits within 20kHz including all the important upper harmonics, with the exception of gamelan gongs and perhaps a triangle or cymbals close miked.

The yellow in this chart represents harmonics. https://www.audio-issues.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/main_chart.jpg


----------



## upstateguy

Phronesis said:


> Blind testing involves listeners, hence the subjective aspect.  Isn't the question whether people can *hear* certain objective differences?



I'm Sorry.  You're Wrong.  Blind testing is an objective test.


----------



## analogsurviver

Well, that chart is as old as the hills - and does not represent the true state of affairs. Remember, gear that does allow for proper recording to approx 100 kHz is commercially available only few years - less than five. Prior to that, it had to be a study on a university level, using one of a kind prototypes - and therefore there are not many of those around. This one is : https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

I have many DSD recordings with content above 20 kHz - and I NEVER  use close miking ( with the exception of - say - couple of minutes of recording of a particularly interesting lecture on harpsichord tuning, where I did use "close miking" , say some 500kB - compared to some >>10 TB of other DSD masters done from "afar" ) . Among the instruments that have most content above 20 kHz, on continous basis, is harpsichord - bar none. And even that varies - wildly so - among various harpsichord builders. Like it or not - the harpsichord I do get to record most frequently is super alive and kicking, well above 20 kHz - and DOES sound differently if chopped off with the brick filter of the CD; despite its level above 20 kHz in dB or % of overall sound is admitedly still small. 

The most fitting analogy is with soup; you can put all the best ingedients in it, you can simmer it real ultra slow olden style, etc - without that pinch of salt it just will not taste good. 
Or, in case of sound, it will not sound convincingly live, you will *know* it is a recording .


----------



## amirm

upstateguy said:


> I'm Sorry.  You're Wrong.  Blind testing is an objective test.


He is correct actually.  Any listening test is subjective.  It involves "subjects" whose opinion can change even in the same test taken in sequence.  I

We can draw objective conclusions from the test results but the test itself remains subjective.

Take Dr. Sean Olive who is famous for all of his controlled, blind tests. This is from his bio:






That said, it is a common mistake to call it objective.  So let's not have a fight over it.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 30, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Remember, gear that does allow for proper recording to approx 100 kHz is commercially available only few years - less than five.



Human ears haven't changed in the past five years. I'm talking about audible sound.



amirm said:


> He is correct actually.  Any listening test is subjective.  It involves "subjects" whose opinion can change even in the same test taken in sequence.



It depends on the test. If you ask them which sample they prefer, it's subjective. If you ask them to let you know when they hear a tone, it's perceptual and objective. They either hear it or they don't. They aren't being asked to make any determination on their own. Controls are designed to reduce subjectivity so you can focus on the objective result.


----------



## upstateguy (Apr 30, 2018)

amirm said:


> He is correct actually.  Any listening test is subjective.  It involves "subjects" whose opinion can change even in the same test taken in sequence.  I
> 
> We can draw objective conclusions from the test results but the test itself remains subjective.
> 
> ...



Good luck trying to wag that dog in the main forum.   

I should have labeled it as an objectivist's tool.


----------



## castleofargh

@bigshot please try to play nice with our new friends. I don't have the ability to edit so I end up deleting entire posts for one sentence. 
@Phronesis if a post offends you or is counter to the terms of service, use the report button at the bottom of the post. we're not supposed to discuss moderation(again those are the rules).


----------



## bigshot

Let me know if you want me to delete something and I will. I'm not aware of anything I'm doing that isn't nice. I'm doggone cute, in fact!


----------



## Zapp_Fan

@bigshot - I think being able to produce a 20khz tone in a steady state doesn't *necessarily* prove the transient response is any good. (does it?  It proves something but I'm not sure what off the top of my head)  And Wendy Carlos was (AFAIK) mostly working with analog gear, which would produce band-limited signals naturally.  Whereas a lot of today's musicians are completely in-the-box and produce all sorts of transients that are unnatural, as a result. 

I demand unrealistic impulse response performance!!


----------



## castleofargh

blind tests use objective methods to perform subjective tests, eheh. or are objective tests done on subjects.  

seriously, to me it's a subjective test, but half the time I got labelled as a pesky objectivist, it was for trying to discuss blind testing. so yup, whatever.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Human ears haven't changed in the past five years. I'm talking about audible sound.
> 
> Neither did instruments .
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

We can feel frequencies we can't hear at both ends of the spectrum. The range of musical pitch is even narrower than the range of human hearing.

Zapp_Fan, please post some unrealistic music in the Sound Science Music thread. I'm interested to hear what it sounds like. I only know the old school synth guys... Mort Garson, Tomita, Jarre, etc.


----------



## RRod

Guh the pseudo-pedantry gets too much at times. If I give subjects a drug and am interested if they die within 24 hours, that isn't a 'subjective' test. Same with 'can you hear this 20kHz test tone'.


----------



## bigshot

I went to design school and in Design 101 on the first day, the professor said, "Today we are going to discuss the topic 'What is art?'" All of us blathered on with our theories for about 20 minutes and finally it started to peter out. The instructor interrupted us and said, "Good! Now that we've gotten that out of our system, we can start talking about how to MAKE art." We never discussed what art was again. We just discussed how to make it.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

RRod said:


> Guh the pseudo-pedantry gets too much at times. If I give subjects a drug and am interested if they die within 24 hours, that isn't a 'subjective' test. Same with 'can you hear this 20kHz test tone'.


Agreed....but i have to wonder if you have human remains in your fridge?...its ok ...i totally understand if you do.


----------



## RRod

Glmoneydawg said:


> Agreed....but i have to wonder if you have human remains in your fridge?...its ok ...i totally understand if you do.



Xiph hired me to off anyone who could ABX 128k Opus (subjectively, of course).


----------



## bigshot

Glmoneydawg said:


> Agreed....but i have to wonder if you have human remains in your fridge?



I do but they're pretty picked over.. you're welcome to have leftovers if you want...

OH! You said HUMAN REMAINS! I thought you said PICKLED HERRINGS!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I went to design school and in Design 101 on the first day, the professor said, "Today we are going to discuss the topic 'What is art?'" All of us blathered on with our theories for about 20 minutes and finally it started to peter out. The instructor interrupted us and said, "Good! Now that we've gotten that out of our system, we can start talking about how to MAKE art." We never discussed what art was again. We just discussed how to make it.


My daughter did the university art thing....subjective??....one prof hated her stuff....others sent it on a tour of canadian museums and universities....art is the place science can never go.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> It depends on the test. If you ask them which sample they prefer, it's subjective. If you ask them to let you know when they hear a tone, it's perceptual and objective. They either hear it or they don't. They aren't being asked to make any determination on their own. Controls are designed to reduce subjectivity so you can focus on the objective result.


Nope.  Just no.

What do you mean they "either hear it or they don't?"  We have no idea what they are hearing.  The only input we get is what they are saying.  That involves hearing, perception and giving an answer.

Take me playing the same content for them as A and B.  I then ask if A and B are different.  You are telling me they will say they are the same?  If so, you are in dire need of some actual experience in this domain.

The listeners can actually "hear" differences in A and B even though they are identical.  All they have to do is pay different attention when listening to B versus A.  All of a sudden they hear detail in one that they did not hear in the other.

Let's say they did not hear a difference.  They wonder though, "was there a difference and I was too deaf to say there was a difference?'  Result: they say they are different even though they heard otherwise!

Inversely let's assume there are differences in A and B that are audible.  I play them and ask if there is a difference.  Listener hears the difference but thinks, "hmmm, I wonder if this is a trick and I am imagining there is a difference."  So they say no, there is no difference!

Or there is an audible difference and they truly can't perceive it as being the same.  You know, how the general public would act if you asked about high fidelity content versus not.  It is all "music" to then and they don't know why you ask them if they are different.

Due to all of these variabilities because we involved humans in evaluation, these tests are always, always considered subjective.  Unlike measurements where we can repeat them and the same very precise answers, listener tests have vagaries that dismiss them from being such.

And don't confuse gathering objective conclusions from subjective data.  They are two different things.

Please, please spend some time conducting real blind tests.  Have a loved one test you that way.  Have them change nothing versus doing so.  Get some first-hand experience of what it is like to take these tests instead of relying on lay intuition.


----------



## Phronesis (Apr 30, 2018)

amirm said:


> Nope.  Just no.
> 
> What do you mean they "either hear it or they don't?"  We have no idea what they are hearing.  The only input we get is what they are saying.  That involves hearing, perception and giving an answer.
> 
> ...



Well put.

We humans aren't simple measuring instruments when it comes to hearing.  Music perception occurs at both subconscious and conscious levels, and the conscious mind tries to evaluate and report on what was heard.  But, by definition, the conscious mind has limited awareness of what was perceived at the subconscious level, so there's already a disconnect there (this is why we have great difficulty detecting our own cognitive biases in action).

Moreover, music perception is highly affected by the level of attention, and where attention is being directed (details, stage, bass, sibilance, etc.) - like memory, perception is an active process, it's not passive like a recording going on tape or an image being developed on film.

Music perception is also variable from moment to moment, is affected by the unreliability of memory, fatigue, adaptation to sounds, etc.  It can also be affected by the artificial conditions of a listening test, which may be unrepresentative to some degree of how music perception occurs in normal extended listening for enjoyment.

In other words, as 'measuring instruments' for music perception, we humans have considerable 'measurement error' with each 'measurement' (the questions posed to listeners).  This complicates blind testing because, for example, if you're comparing the sound of two different DACs, lack of detecting an objective difference could be due to unreliability of the listener, and likewise for detecting a difference which isn't objectively there - we're dealing _simultaneously_ with potential differences (or not) in the sound objectively produced and with variability in the listener's perception of the sound.

Moreover, there are various ways to design the tests, such as asking listeners to rate differences on a scale (say 0 to 10) so that it's not just binary, and asking listeners to focus on a specific aspect of the sound (e.g., level of detail or amount of bass) rather than just 'does it sound the same or different'.  As already discussed in this thread, the answers and information you get from tests depend on the questions you design tests to answer, and it can be a mistake to generalize findings well beyond the testing protocol.  For example, we can't hear a DAC alone, apart from a signal chain, so whether or not a difference is heard could depend on which headphones are used, which music is played, etc.  When you do 'controlled' tests so that only one variable is changed, by definition you don't know what the effect of changing the other variables would be unless you do more tests.

If there are threads where these aspects of blind testing have already been discussed, I'd appreciate someone pointing me to them.


----------



## amirm

RRod said:


> If I give subjects a drug and am interested if they die within 24 hours, that isn't a 'subjective' test.


If they die, you have objective data without them saying anything.  In listening test we have to rely on judgement of listeners on what they heard.  We don't get that objective data point.

Indeed in medicine much instrumentation is used to determine efficacy.  A tumor can be monitored for size during treatment for example.  A rash can be seen to disappear.  A fever coming down.  We don't have any of these tools in listening tests.



> Same with 'can you hear this 20kHz test tone'.


When I went to my audiologist last, he played fainter and fainter tones.  It got to a point where I was wondering, "did he play something?"  "Did I really hear something?"  You know what I did?  I guessed.  Darn it if the audiologist did not have poker face, not letting me know if I was or was not wrong.  

So even in the cases of inaudibility, we still can get unreliable answers.  This is why we use statistical analysis to determine the likelihood of any conclusions we want to draw.


----------



## RRod

amirm said:


> If they die, you have objective data without them saying anything.  In listening test we have to rely on judgement of listeners on what they heard.  We don't get that objective data point.
> 
> Indeed in medicine much instrumentation is used to determine efficacy.  A tumor can be monitored for size during treatment for example.  A rash can be seen to disappear.  A fever coming down.  We don't have any of these tools in listening tests.
> 
> ...



If you're in a quiet room and I suddenly play loud white noise in it, you'll either startle or you won't. Having sensation as the outcome of the test doesn't necessarily make the test subjective. As you say, it's those tests where the signal-to-noise ratio gets low where we need some kind of method for dealing with uncertainty due to human confounding. I guess I don't view leaning on probability to handle part of that task as suddenly making things 'subjective', but rather uncertain.


----------



## Phronesis

RRod said:


> If you're in a quiet room and I suddenly play loud white noise in it, you'll either startle or you won't. Having sensation as the outcome of the test doesn't necessarily make the test subjective. As you say, it's those tests where the signal-to-noise ratio gets low where we need some kind of method for dealing with uncertainty due to human confounding. I guess I don't view leaning on probability to handle part of that task as suddenly making things 'subjective', but rather uncertain.



If someone jumps out of their chair due to a loud noise, that's an objective manifestation of what's still a subjective perception.  If they're just verbally telling you what they heard, or think they heard, you have to go by what they say.  If they're not sure about what they heard, and therefore not sure about what to say, the 'uncertainty' is in their subjective perception.  The fact that they objectively said some words about their perception doesn't change that perception being subjective.

If you want more objectivity about perception itself, you can do brain measurements during the testing.  But then you still have to deal with the problem of trying to relate any observed brain changes to subjective music perception.

Can't do 'sound science' which deals with music perception unless you go past the ear drum and address psychological aspects of perception.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 30, 2018)

What the heck are you guys talking about? Even plain English gets a quibble out of you! "Black is actually white!" Please put whatever you want me to read in the first few sentences. I'm not motivated to mine through that verbal deluge.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> Can't do 'sound science' which deals with music perception unless you go past the ear drum and address psychological aspects of perception.



So now we have to be neurologists/psychologists in order to identify high fidelity or define high fidelity?

So where exactly the does the bar stop rising?


----------



## james444

amirm said:


> Nope.  Just no.
> 
> What do you mean they "either hear it or they don't?"  We have no idea what they are hearing.  The only input we get is what they are saying.  That involves hearing, perception and giving an answer.





bigshot said:


> What the heck are you guys talking about? Even plain English gets a quibble out of you! "Black is actually white!" Please put whatever you want me to read in the first few sentences. I'm not motivated to mine through that verbal deluge.



Actually, his first few sentences should be enough to understand where he's coming from. Regardless of what they perceive, the only information you get is what they tell you. This involves a subjective choice, because what they choose to tell you might or might not match their perception. 

For instance, they might just choose to give random answers at some point, because they got bored of the test. Granted, not a likely scenario, but sufficient to illustrate that what they tell you is not necessarily equivalent to objective information.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> What the heck are you guys talking about? Even plain English gets a quibble out of you! "Black is actually white!" Please put whatever you want me to read in the first few sentences. I'm not motivated to mine through that verbal deluge.



Yeah I'm done as well. It's going where it always goes: everything human is unknowable and thus everything matters as much as anyone wants.


----------



## Phronesis (May 1, 2018)

colonelkernel8 said:


> So now we have to be neurologists/psychologists in order to identify high fidelity or define high fidelity?
> 
> So where exactly the does the bar stop rising?



Absolutely.  Perception occurs in the brain/mind, not the ear.  And think of how complex music (not just sound) perception is.  We’re not talking about whether the ear can transduce given frequencies, it’s about what signals go down the auditory nerves AND how the brain interprets them.

When you guys talk about our perception being biased (at the brain level), it would be more accurate to say that it’s subject to inconsistent errors - and those errors will occur during a blind testing procedure itself.

We have to use whatever science pertains to the questions we’re asking.  If the questions are about objective sound in the air, we don’t need to know about ears and brains.  If you want to know what nerve signals the ear is transmitting, you need to know about ear anatomy and physiology.  If the questions are about sound and music perception, you need to know the relevant brain science and psychology; that’s a complex process and topic which isn’t fully understood.  

We can try to make it easier by asking people to describe what they hear, but that will be a limited and sometimes erroneous description of what’s perceived.  Think of the person who says ‘it sounds good’ or ‘it doesn’t sound good’ but struggles to articulate in what way and why it sounds good or not good.  Emotions elicited by music are also an aspect of perception (a key reason we listen to music!), yet think of how limited our ability is to get a handle on our emotions at the conscious level.


----------



## gregorio (May 1, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I tend to notice these sorts of differences most significantly with well-recorded wire brush cymbals - which consist of a complex series of many separate short sharp taps of metal on metal - each with its own overlapping pattern of ringing. What I tend to notice is that, on some recordings, the strike of a wire brush on a cymbal sounds like a simple burst of white noise (like a steam valve hissing), while on others it seems to sound more distinctly like a series of separate small metallic taps. My _THEORY_ is that my brain is able to make some sort of sense of the semi-random pattern of sharp taps, slightly separated in both position and time; that some recordings reproduce this sense of distribution more accurately than others; and that, on recordings that do it especially well, some DACs tend to also reproduce it better than others. I do not purport to notice this distinction on all speakers, nor with most recordings... but, with certain speakers, and certain recordings, different DACs seem to reproduce it with slight differences.
> 
> I'll even suggest that, in a typical multi-track recording, the cymbal resides on a single track; so, in the final mix, the cymbal sounds all occur at a single physical position.



On a typical multi-track recording the cymbals will NEVER reside on a single track. With the exception of the Hi-Hat, the cymbals in a drum kit are rarely spot mic'ed and even if they were, there would still be very significant spill into the other mics. So, you get the cymbal sound from nearly all the individual mics but most particularly the stereo overheads (which of course also contain all the other instruments in the kit). In practise, at the small time-scales we're talking about, a drum kit recording is ALWAYS a terrible mess! Typically we would have: 1 (sometimes 2) kick drum mics, 2 snare drum mics (top and bottom heads) but sometimes only 1, a Hi-Hat mic, a mic for each of the toms and a stereo overhead pair. The distance between the kick mic and the overhead mics is going to be around 6ft, so the time difference is going to be in the order of 5-6ms (as sound travels just over 1ft in a ms). The smallest time difference between kit mics will be about 0.7ms, while the biggest is about 5-6ms (if we ignore the likelihood of a room mic, which will have a delay of around 20ms or so) and of course, we're not just talking about time differences between various mics and the overheads (which all vary between about 2-5ms) but also time differences between each individual mic, of which there'd be a minimum of 5 but probably 8-10. So the recording is a mess to start with and then we use compression and other processors, such as EQ and reverb (with a pre-delay of around 15ms and decay of 1-3 secs) which messes with the transients' shapes and timing even further. So, do you hear this terrible mess on pretty much every rock/pop recording in the last 60 years, or do you hear a generally pretty tight/punchy drum kit? If you can't hear this terrible mess, then how can you hear the relatively minor/insignificant filter ringing buried within that terrible mess?

We're used to talking about nano, pico and even femto secs here and sure, we can discriminate a difference caused by timing errors down into a few hundred nano-secs range but we can't actually hear those timing errors as timing errors, our ears are nowhere near that sensitive. In fact, even with the ideal circumstances, we can't discriminate timing much below about 2ms, we hear it as a variation of phasing/frequency, not as separate events in time and, a drum kit recording is hardly the "ideal circumstances"! The common problem in the audiophile world and even here in the sound science forum, is that we don't consider what it is we're actually reproducing. There is a general ignorance of music itself, of it's performance, of it's perception, of the recording and production of music and therefore of how measurements, the science and tested limits of human hearing actually apply in practise (in terms of scale and context) to what it is we're trying to reproduce!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] However, if the cymbal itself is recorded in stereo, or using multiple microphones, the fact that the wires actually strike the cymbal in slightly different locations, spread out in both time and space, somehow allows my brain to more easily identify them as separate events... even though they are very closely spaced in time.
> 
> [2] As I said, this is a theory.... perhaps someday I or someone else will test it.



1. Again, the cymbal itself would be recorded both with a stereo (overhead) pair and multiple mics and it would be spread across both time and space, as would ALL the instruments in the kit and not only the cymbal/s. If you can hear it in the cymbals why can't you hear it in the even more distinct snare drum or hi-hats? You've taken theory and/or the tested limits of discrimination, ignored the actual practicalities/realities of music recording and production and come up with your own theory which sounds perfectly plausible to you and anyone else unaware of the actual practicalities/realities. What you're suggesting is not absolutely impossible but A) Is very unlikely and B) Is typically very undesirable anyway! And C) There's a much more likely explanation you're ignoring. Have you ever heard of a "Sizzle Cymbal"? Sizzle cymbals are not uncommon and could easily account for what you're hearing, with no need to resort to magic or the most extreme hearing thresholds. The individual taps of the rivets can be heard quite distinctly under some practical/realistic circumstances, given accurate or emphasised HF response speakers or HPs but often it's quite near the edge of audibility and therefore slight differences in level could cause it to become inaudible or even small differences in sitting position (relative to the speakers) or HP placement.

2. It has been tested, everyday for about 50 years by thousands of music engineers all over the world!

Additionally, as amirm has correctly stated, there is nothing in real sound which is anything like an impulse used for testing. Sure, there are transient peaks which can be very slightly similar but then real sound never contains ONLY a transient, there are ALWAYS other components to the sound after the transient.

G


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Absolutely.  Perception occurs in the brain/mind, not the ear.  And think of how complex music (not just sound) perception is.  We’re not talking about whether the ear can transduce given frequencies, it’s about what signals go down the auditory nerves AND how the brain interprets them.
> 
> When you guys talk about our perception being biased (at the brain level), it would be more accurate to say that it’s subject to inconsistent errors - and those errors will occur during a blind testing procedure itself.
> 
> ...


 of course it's about what the ear can transduce the signal. that's all it does. pressure to mechanical movement back to vibrations then into electrical signal. treating that as if it's a given that we're getting the signal to our brain is just wrong. 
because if the signal doesn't register, or if it does but in a way that can only activate with extreme stimuli, then that would be absolutely enough to conclude that people are making crap up when discussing the audibly better high res. 
even with a pure tone our sensitivity goes down rapidly in the high freqs, that is a fact. just like it's a fact that with music, our brain tends to notice less, not more than with nominal test signals. same as anything getting more complex, the brain's performance collapses as soon as there are many things to focus on at the same time. it's logical and follows practical experiments of our daily lives. 
when we test pretty much anything, we get some hearing threshold with nominal test signals, and we get lower success when playing music. but somehow we test pure tones, most people can't notice 20khz, yet, discuss music and they all start to claim noticing signals missing at even higher frequencies like analogsurvi and his 2 DSD resolutions.  it's slightly suspicious. 

my personal hypothesis is simple. rolling off frequencies has little to no impact(aside from the amount of aliasing it might create and other gear related issues with ultrasonic content), simply because our ears are applying their own series of low pass starting at lower frequencies than what redbook or most DACs will do it. so it's like cutting again to remove the markings from the first cut. even if for some people(I expect youngsters to be it, not veteran audiophiles), their own low pass is not enough to remove all the "markings" from the format's brickwall low pass, it's still going to be something attenuated a good deal, at the edge of their audible range.
I don't see why some people(kids) couldn't notice that difference, the same way I can notice the attenuation in the trebles from gears that start the low pass so soon you're already down by 2db at 14khz. but is that significant? is it what makes my music real? when some of my IEMs roll off like crazy starting 10khz, I still subjectively feel like most of the music is there. but those guys are talking significant differences at the edge of what's audible, where nobody has much sensitivity to begin with.

 if blind tests have told me something, it's that most audiophiles claiming to hear something are fooling themselves. I cannot say that nobody can hear changes from high res, but I can absolutely say that most audiophiles are unable to identify the oh so obvious superiority of highres in blind test. which brings another question, would this even be a debate if everybody was required to first pass a blind test before running his mouth about the audible superiority of high res? if we had the numbers of people noticing something, and the numbers of the people purchasing highres, everybody would have to admit that high res is mostly something for .... lol .... objectivists. 

guys, we really have some rebranding to do. we demand subjective blind tests and don't care for the superior objective fidelity of highres. let's just admit it, we're the subjectivist sub section of this forum.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> I get that, but if you limit the scope of the forum to objective stuff (physics and technology) and ignore subjective aspects, you have a limited definition of _sound_ science, and issues of psychoacoustics, blind testing, etc. have no relevance. From what I've seen so far, the discussions aren't by any means limited to objective aspects. ...
> If the questions are about sound and music perception, you need to know the relevant brain science and psychology; that’s a complex process and topic which isn’t fully understood.



Since you started posting here you keep making the same mistake. It's been explained to you several times but after debating it once or twice, you just ignore the explanation and then carry on repeating that same mistake. Then, when accused of repeating the same mistake, you respond by repeating the same mistake again???!

Again, the job of audio reproduction equipment is to reproduce the audio signal which has been produced. This is NOT a hard concept to grasp! Questions of how we perceive sound/music is relevant and part of sound science but is NOT relevant to audio reproduction equipment! It's ONLY relevant to what we put in that signal in the first place (the artists and engineers) and to what happens to the signal after reproduction. To measure the performance of audio equipment all we need is objective measurements, does the output signal match the input signal within the limits of audibility, that's it, no subjective aspects involved.



analogsurviver said:


> [1] Unfortunately, it is not. There are tons of instruments with overtones way past 20 kHz, which can be sensed by humans - even if we do not hear them with our ears as pure sine waves, they are perceived in other ways. Some people are more sensitive to this, some less, some not at all - but stating that response above 20k does not matter is just plain wrong.
> [2] PCM itself is not NEARLY as perfect and foolproof with regards to timing as its proponents would like us to believe. ...
> [3] DSD is inherently free from this defect that can and does occur at least sometimes with PCM - and may be the primary reason as to why I prefer it   - BY FAR -  to any PCM.
> [4] I will NEVER agree on unimportance of frequencies above 20 kHz as far as recreation of space and original acoustics of the venue, where music is performed or has been recorded is concerned; NEVER - EVER !!!



1, 2 & 3. You didn't answer my question, where do you get all this utter nonsense, do you just make it up yourself or do you use some audiophile nonsense database?

4. Fortunately, the facts do not depend on when, or even if, you ever agree with them. If you want to contradict the actual facts then no problem but you MUST back up your claims with something other than just your belief. Otherwise we have no option other than to treat your claims as pure ignorance based assumptions and complete nonsense/falsehoods and, if you keep doing it, as trolling!!

G


----------



## upstateguy (May 1, 2018)

gregorio said:


> *Since you started posting here you keep making the same mistake. It's been explained to you several times but after debating it once or twice, you just ignore the explanation and then carry on repeating that same mistake. Then, when accused of repeating the same mistake, you respond by repeating the same mistake again???!*
> 
> Again, the job of audio reproduction equipment is to reproduce the audio signal which has been produced. This is NOT a hard concept to grasp! Questions of how we perceive sound/music is relevant and part of sound science but is NOT relevant to audio reproduction equipment! It's ONLY relevant to what we put in that signal in the first place (the artists and engineers) and to what happens to the signal after reproduction. To measure the performance of audio equipment all we need is objective measurements, does the output signal match the input signal within the limits of audibility, that's it, no subjective aspects involved.
> 
> ...



+1
*"we have no option other than to treat your claims as pure ignorance based assumptions and complete nonsense/falsehoods and, if you keep doing it, as trolling!!"*


----------



## upstateguy

RRod said:


> *Yeah I'm done as well. It's going where it always goes: everything human is unknowable and thus everything matters as much as anyone wants*.



+1


----------



## upstateguy

bigshot said:


> *What the heck are you guys talking about? Even plain English gets a quibble out of you! "Black is actually white!" Please put whatever you want me to read in the first few sentences. I'm not motivated to mine through that verbal deluge*.



+1


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> On a typical multi-track recording the cymbals will NEVER reside on a single track. With the exception of the Hi-Hat, the cymbals in a drum kit are rarely spot mic'ed and even if they were, there would still be very significant spill into the other mics. So, you get the cymbal sound from nearly all the individual mics but most particularly the stereo overheads (which of course also contain all the other instruments in the kit). In practise, at the small time-scales we're talking about, a drum kit recording is ALWAYS a terrible mess! Typically we would have: 1 (sometimes 2) kick drum mics, 2 snare drum mics (top and bottom heads) but sometimes only 1, a Hi-Hat mic, a mic for each of the toms and a stereo overhead pair. The distance between the kick mic and the overhead mics is going to be around 6ft, so the time difference is going to be in the order of 5-6ms (as sound travels just over 1ft in a ms). The smallest time difference between kit mics will be about 0.7ms, while the biggest is about 5-6ms (if we ignore the likelihood of a room mic, which will have a delay of around 20ms or so) and of course, we're not just talking about time differences between various mics and the overheads (which all vary between about 2-5ms) but also time differences between each individual mic, of which there'd be a minimum of 5 but probably 8-10. So the recording is a mess to start with and then we use compression and other processors, such as EQ and reverb (with a pre-delay of around 15ms and decay of 1-3 secs) which messes with the transients' shapes and timing even further. So, do you hear this terrible mess on pretty much every rock/pop recording in the last 60 years, or do you hear a generally pretty tight/punchy drum kit? If you can't hear this terrible mess, then how can you hear the relatively minor/insignificant filter ringing buried within that terrible mess?
> 
> We're used to talking about nano, pico and even femto secs here and sure, we can discriminate a difference caused by timing errors down into a few hundred nano-secs range but we can't actually hear those timing errors as timing errors, our ears are nowhere near that sensitive. In fact, even with the ideal circumstances, we can't discriminate timing much below about 2ms, we hear it as a variation of phasing/frequency, not as separate events in time and, a drum kit recording is hardly the "ideal circumstances"! The common problem in the audiophile world and even here in the sound science forum, is that we don't consider what it is we're actually reproducing. There is a general ignorance of music itself, of it's performance, of it's perception, of the recording and production of music and therefore of how measurements, the science and tested limits of human hearing actually apply in practise (in terms of scale and context) to what it is we're trying to reproduce!
> 
> ...


Well, I could not have described the typical situation regarding audibility of various aspects of recording and playing back the musiic than you just did.

For the sake of simplicity and not to burden the readers with any additional information, I will concentrate on this one thing - multimiking. 

You have, quite correctly, described just what havoc it creates with timing - and what terrible, hopeless mess it ultimately coneys to the listener - instead of the real sound as would be heard by a person attending the real music event  played live. 
With errors in milisecond - up to half ( - gulp ! ) second range, ANY difference/superiority of DSD vs PCM ( microsecond range ) would be lost - so, if you actually do record music in your studio as you have described above - then yes, DSD sounds just the same as PCM...

There ARE recording techniques that do preserve time cues, down to infinitesimaly low amounts of time, intact. The simplest and most effective of them is binaural - and it WILL , mercilessly so, show the superiority of DSD over PCM. 
Not to mention the effect of so made recording -  even if recorded in MP3 -  will have on the listeners accustomeed to only the multitracking diet, once  they hear anything of the sort for the first time.

Now, you can decide to stick to what everybody has been doing for the last 50 years - wrongly so, IMO - or try to grasp an idea how it could possibly be made better.

An analogy that has nothing ( on a second thought, it DOES .... *think*... ) with sound:

Only you can decide whether you are still going to continue to "cook" scrambled eggs, no matter which of many recipes ( due to the willing or unwilling inability to leave the eggs as intact as it gets , deliberate decision to have them always scrambled, possibility to still use not-so-fresh-eggs-anymore and other practical concerns, such as economics of using the existing recording equipment that paid for itself long ago ) 
- 
or you will try your first shot at just - plain and simple - fried eggs; the effort and expense required to do so be damned. 

With as little frills as possible being the ultimate goal.


----------



## Phronesis (May 1, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> of course it's about what the ear can transduce the signal. that's all it does. pressure to mechanical movement back to vibrations then into electrical signal. treating that as if it's a given that we're getting the signal to our brain is just wrong.
> because if the signal doesn't register, or if it does but in a way that can only activate with extreme stimuli, then that would be absolutely enough to conclude that people are making **** up when discussing the audibly better high res.
> even with a pure tone our sensitivity goes down rapidly in the high freqs, that is a fact. just like it's a fact that with music, our brain tends to notice less, not more than with nominal test signals. same as anything getting more complex, the brain's performance collapses as soon as there are many things to focus on at the same time. it's logical and follows practical experiments of our daily lives.
> when we test pretty much anything, we get some hearing threshold with nominal test signals, and we get lower success when playing music. but somehow we test pure tones, most people can't notice 20khz, yet, discuss music and they all start to claim noticing signals missing at even higher frequencies like analogsurvi and his 2 DSD resolutions.  it's slightly suspicious.
> ...



Fully agreed that if there's no difference in the signal transmitted by the auditory nerves, there can be no audible difference in perception (aside from effects on perception through other senses, like LF vibration).

I don't know if high-res produces any audible difference, and have no opinion on it.  If it does, I'm open to the possibility there could be other factors involved besides frequency content.

Going to back to some of the recent discussion, I think it's important to make the distinction that the question we're really asking is whether listeners can have a different musical experience due to potential auditory differences between physical systems A and B during normal listening; and if so, what is the nature and extent of those differences?  That's not quite the same as asking whether a listener's ear can consistently detect differences in a test protocol, nor whether the listener's brain can consistently perceive and report on such differences in the test protocol.  There can be differences in perception, especially at the subconscious level, which the listener has limited conscious awareness of, and limited ability to reliably report.  Maybe such differences would be too subtle to matter, but for me that's an open question also.  There's a ton of cognitive processing going on at the subconscious level which shapes how we experience music.  Researchers have made some progress in understanding it, but the field is still in an early stage.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> Since you started posting here you keep making the same mistake. It's been explained to you several times but after debating it once or twice, you just ignore the explanation and then carry on repeating that same mistake. Then, when accused of repeating the same mistake, you respond by repeating the same mistake again???!
> 
> Again, the job of audio reproduction equipment is to reproduce the audio signal which has been produced. This is NOT a hard concept to grasp! Questions of how we perceive sound/music is relevant and part of sound science but is NOT relevant to audio reproduction equipment! It's ONLY relevant to what we put in that signal in the first place (the artists and engineers) and to what happens to the signal after reproduction. To measure the performance of audio equipment all we need is objective measurements, does the output signal match the input signal within the limits of audibility, that's it, no subjective aspects involved.



This has already been discussed at length.  I don't think you're getting my points (which have also been noted by others), but that's ok, you don't have to.  We need not keep going in circles ...


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> Since you started posting here you keep making the same mistake. It's been explained to you several times but after debating it once or twice, you just ignore the explanation and then carry on repeating that same mistake. Then, when accused of repeating the same mistake, you respond by repeating the same mistake again???!
> 
> Again, the job of audio reproduction equipment is to reproduce the audio signal which has been produced. This is NOT a hard concept to grasp! Questions of how we perceive sound/music is relevant and part of sound science but is NOT relevant to audio reproduction equipment! It's ONLY relevant to what we put in that signal in the first place (the artists and engineers) and to what happens to the signal after reproduction. To measure the performance of audio equipment all we need is objective measurements, does the output signal match the input signal within the limits of audibility, that's it, no subjective aspects involved.
> 
> ...


Since this a science forum and you guys insist on claims being backed by some proof, I have decided to stop you all even thinking of me as a troll. 

For good.

It did take quite some time to obtain the required evidence, to learn how to present them, etc.  They do not grow on trees, they can not be pulled off some reference from some AES paper - at least not easily. One has to make them by him/herself - using equipment one also, in most cases, can not obtain commercially, even if it does not mean building it entirely from scratch.

I will present evidence for each and every claim I ever made - along with the required explanations. Some of the claims are so far fetched in minds of many among you - due to the limited understaning and lack of thinking outside of the box - to have labeled  me a troll; - repeatedly so.

An analogy - cars this time. Suppose I wanted to design a sport supercar, something in - broadly speaking - category a la Ferrari etc. 

I would NEVER  go and study - in the first place, other than not to "reinvent" or  use any already patented solutions, etc - how did a particular problem got solved by Ferrari, Koenigsberg, Lamborghini, Zonda, etc - but would instead set myself the following goals :
- how much acceleration from nil to xy - and so on
- how much decceleration in a SAFE mode
- how much sustained acceleration in a curve
- how much ....
- autonomy radius required
- max speed attainable
etc ... - resulting most probably in  different solutions to the known ones offering appreciably improved performance, simply because being driven by the best attainable performance - cost be damned.
Quite sure, some of the new solutions found this way could be trickled down to normal everyday cars, benefiting more people and making car transport better and safer in the forseeable future.

Remember -  Ferrari got him/itself an arch nemeseis  by dismissing and ridiculing the proposed modifications to Ferrari cars by Ferruccio Lamborghini ... Should he had accepted the well meant modifications and him as an employee and/or a partner, both companies should not have to use the very same roads for testing, encountering themselves on the road on a daily basis...


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> You have, quite correctly, described just what havoc it creates with timing - and [1] what terrible, hopeless mess it ultimately coneys to the listener - [1a] instead of the real sound as would be heard by a person attending the real music event played live.
> [2] With errors in milisecond - up to half ( - gulp ! ) second range, ANY difference/superiority of DSD vs PCM ( microsecond range ) would be lost - so, if you actually do record music in your studio as you have described above - then yes, DSD sounds just the same as PCM...
> [3] There ARE recording techniques that do preserve time cues, down to infinitesimaly low amounts of time, intact.
> [4] Now, you can decide to stick to what everybody has been doing for the last 50 years - wrongly so, IMO - or try to grasp an idea how it could possibly be made better.



1. No I did not describe this, the listener does not hear that mess because the mess occurs under circumstances which makes it inaudible!
1a. And this is obviously complete nonsense because multi-miking is used at live rock/pop gigs too!! How is it even possible that you don't know this, have you never been to a live gig?

2. So, you're saying that the timing errors of say 16/44.1 are audible because they're tens of millions of times smaller than the millisecond range where they'd "be lost"? And that somehow sounds reasonable/rational to you does it?

3. No there are no stereo/multi-mic techniques which preserve timing down to infinitesimally low amounts, you just completely made that up! The closest would be a near coincident pair but they can only ever be NEAR coincident and therefore never perfectly accurate, there will be phase issues in the very high freqs.

4. Absolutely I'll stick to what everybody has been doing for 50 years, because what everybody has been doing for 50 years is experimenting, evolving and refining the recording and production techniques. Now maybe some audiophile will come along who knows nothing about those techniques (or the evolution/history of them) and figure out something that tens of thousands of music engineers over 50 years have failed to notice but I'm not holding my breath!!

Again, it's all a bunch of complete and utter nonsense which, as you haven't answered, I assume you've just made up. Back your claims up with something other than just your belief/assumption or stop trolling!!

G


----------



## bigshot

Well, regardless of how silly this end of the thread has gotten, the first post is still great.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] This has already been discussed at length.
> [2] We need not keep going in circles ...



1. So why are you still ignoring it?

2. Which is what I keep telling you. If, like I dearly wish, you don't want to go around in circles, then stop going around in circles! Apply psychoacoustics and the perception of music where they belong, to either the creation of the audio signal (the composition, recording, production of music recordings) or to what happens after the signal is reproduced, not to the reproduction equipment!!!

G


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> 1. So why are you still ignoring it?
> 
> 2. Which is what I keep telling you. If, like I dearly wish, you don't want to go around in circles, then stop going around in circles! Apply psychoacoustics and the perception of music where they belong, to either the creation of the audio signal (the composition, recording, production of music recordings) or to what happens after the signal is reproduced, not to the reproduction equipment!!!
> 
> G



Please consider the additional possibilities that (a) I don't agree with some things you say, (b) you may not be sufficiently understanding what I'm saying, and (c) you could be wrong about some things.  I recently worked on a high-profile project with engineers recognized as being among the best in the world in their specialities; they were all open-minded and humble about their knowledge, which is quite the opposite of some of the regulars in this forum.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> An analogy - cars this time. Suppose I wanted to design a sport supercar, something in - broadly speaking - category a la Ferrari etc.



OK then, let's use a supercar analogy shall we: You'd contradict or invert every fact about engine design, aerodynamics, safety, handling, etc., that Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren and all the other supercar makers have discovered and invent something which applied none of those principles would you? That's nonsense, please do NOT attempt to make a supercar!!

G


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> OK then, let's use a supercar analogy shall we: You'd contradict or invert every fact about engine design, aerodynamics, safety, handling, etc., that Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren and all the other supercar makers have discovered and invent something which applied none of those principles would you? That's nonsense, please do NOT attempt to make a supercar!!
> 
> G



The analogy isn't useful because it's already a proven fact that Porsche makes the best sports cars.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> Please consider the additional possibilities that (a) I don't agree with some things you say, (b) you may not be sufficiently understanding what I'm saying, and (c) you could be wrong about some things.
> [2] I recently worked on a high-profile project with engineers recognized as being among the best in the world in their specialities; they were all open-minded and humble about their knowledge, which is quite the opposite of some of the regulars in this forum.



A. The facts do not require your agreement but if you want to disagree with them, here in this forum, then you've got to provide something to back it up beyond just a belief/hunch based on what you know of fields other than audio.
B. If you're not talking about audio reproduction equipment but about music production or the perception of music (for example) then you need to make that clear but if you are talking about audio reproduction equipment then whether I've sufficiently understood what your saying or not, is irrelevant! The basic principle I've stated applies to audio reproduction equipment period, regardless of what you are trying to say about it.
C. Then ask for clarification of what I've stated, in case you've misunderstood what I've said or misunderstood it's context, or go and check what I've said for yourself.

2. That's a different matter entirely. I'm humble and appear open-minded about my knowledge with clients and those with whom I work as well, it's more conducive to client relations and the smooth running of a project. That's the main reason I don't post under my real name here. I can state the actual facts and contradict nonsense bluntly, without having to figure out sneaky, long term ways of getting clients to arrive at the actual facts and thinking it's their own idea!

G


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> OK then, let's use a supercar analogy shall we: You'd contradict or invert every fact about engine design, aerodynamics, safety, handling, etc., that Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren and all the other supercar makers have discovered and invent something which applied none of those principles would you? That's nonsense, please do NOT attempt to make a supercar!!
> 
> G


 No, I am not going to contradict anything any of the supercar makers did get right - there are solutions you just have to accept as being the best ( and pay royalties, etc, if you want to use them incorporated in your own design - if they are available at all ). But I would not try to copy anything that can be improved upon. I have no intention of making a supercar, it was just an analogy. 

Regarding multimiking : yes, I have been to a live amplified gig - once or twice - hundred or thousand times. It is, unfortunately, inavoidable as far as the public adress system ( or how is the correct term in English ) goes -  but complete and utterly total carnage of the recording can be at least ameliorated trough NOT using multimiking for the recording itself. Unfortunately, it usually IS subject to total carnage trough multimiking - on the request of the performers themselves. They usually want their voice or their guitar or whatever to be the top dog, with most or all of the rest reduced to an afterthought. Because of this ( and later compression due to radio station requirements and loudness wars ), recordings of amplified music rarely sound anything like the sensibly amplified live concerts as heard by the listener at approx the best spot in given venue; with amplified music, that is usually close to the mixing desk position.

Acoustic music recordings do not necessitate ANY multimiking as default - which came into being simply because "artist man hour" costs can be appreciably reduced by using the usual "minefield" of many microphones/channels, with all the mastering and editing possible to be done at a later date, without necessitating the presence of the artists and attendant costs.


----------



## analogsurviver

Phronesis said:


> The analogy isn't useful because it's already a proven fact that Porsche makes the best sports cars.


Haha - try to tell that to Ferrari - or any of the other makers of supercars.

The same goes for piano makers - it is a fact that Steinway got Rachmaninov to be their artist - and that they will give him money, the best piano possible, etc. 
He, after quite some consideration, accepted in the end 

Next day, in his living room stood a spanking new Steinway. Rachmaninow tried to find his trusted Beckstein, which he brought with him from Europe, tucked into some corner of his very large living room. No Beckstein in sight... That got him quite excited, to say the very least !

He phoned to Steinway HQ, asking as to whereabouts of his beloved Beckstein :

"We burnt it ..."


----------



## bigshot

I pick D!


----------



## skwoodwiva

Phronesis said:


> The analogy isn't useful because it's already a proven fact that Porsche makes the best sports cars.


Lol
Does the 917(the latest hybrid )  still hold the German track record? 

My opinion,
Yet the analogy  to cars is poor.  
Food might be better. ..


----------



## Phronesis

skwoodwiva said:


> Lol
> Does the 917(the latest hybrid )  still hold the German track record?



That record belongs to the latest GT2 RS, and the latest GT3 RS also just beat the 918 at the Nurburgring.  But part of the steady lap time decreases is better tires.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Fully agreed that if there's no difference in the signal transmitted by the auditory nerves, there can be no audible difference in perception (aside from effects on perception through other senses, like LF vibration).
> 
> I don't know if high-res produces any audible difference, and have no opinion on it.  If it does, I'm open to the possibility there could be other factors involved besides frequency content.
> 
> Going to back to some of the recent discussion, I think it's important to make the distinction that the question we're really asking is whether listeners can have a different musical experience due to potential auditory differences between physical systems A and B during normal listening; and if so, what is the nature and extent of those differences?  That's not quite the same as asking whether a listener's ear can consistently detect differences in a test protocol, nor whether the listener's brain can consistently perceive and report on such differences in the test protocol.  There can be differences in perception, especially at the subconscious level, which the listener has limited conscious awareness of, and limited ability to reliably report.  Maybe such differences would be too subtle to matter, but for me that's an open question also.  There's a ton of cognitive processing going on at the subconscious level which shapes how we experience music.  Researchers have made some progress in understanding it, but the field is still in an early stage.


but if the experience isn't controlled, how are we supposed to know that it's not placebo? not that I'm against placebo or whatever other variable coming into play, but statements are being made about sound, so they better be about sound. 
how do we know somebody's impressions are about sound in a non controlled situation? do we ask the guy "hey did you experience placebo?"? ^_^


----------



## Phronesis (May 1, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> but if the experience isn't controlled, how are we supposed to know that it's not placebo? not that I'm against placebo or whatever other variable coming into play, but statements are being made about sound, so they better be about sound.
> how do we know somebody's impressions are about sound in a non controlled situation? do we ask the guy "hey did you experience placebo?"? ^_^



I don't know if we can ever know for sure.  Maybe the best we can do is to conduct lots of large well-designed studies with careful interpretation of the results, though we know that won't happen.  When the 'measuring instrument' is the subjective, unreliable, and time-variable perception and reporting of a person, I think we inherently have a tough nut to crack.

That's why instead of searching for a 'truth' which may be unattainable, I try to take a pragmatic situational approach.  When I bought the $500 Mojo, I didn't need to scrutinize the purchase much (bought it without even hearing it), because the cost wasn't too high, I was confident the sound at least wasn't significantly worse than other products in the price range, and I like the portability, power, looks, and functionality.  I plan to try the $10K Dave, and there the bar will be set VERY high in terms of the level of scrutiny and skepticism - even if there seems to be a SQ difference I accurately perceive, it would need to be substantial to justify the cost.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> I don't know if we can ever know for sure.  Maybe the best we can do is to conduct lots of large well-designed studies with careful interpretation of the results, though we know that won't happen.  When the 'measuring instrument' is the subjective, unreliable, and time-variable perception and reporting of a person, I think we inherently have a tough nut to crack.
> 
> That's why instead of searching for a 'truth' which may be unattainable, I try to take a pragmatic situational approach.  When I bought the $500 Mojo, I didn't need to scrutinize the purchase much (bought it without even hearing it), because the cost wasn't too high, I was confident the sound at least wasn't significantly worse than other products in the price range, and I like the portability, power, looks, and functionality.  I plan to try the $10K Dave, and there the bar will be set VERY high in terms of the level of scrutiny and skepticism - even if there seems to be a SQ difference I accurately perceive, it would need to be substantial to justify the cost.



You're skepticism is channeled in the wrong arena to be of much use to you when comparing equipment.  It seems like you are trolling.  Seriously.  How would you know any difference would not be substantial to somebody, if not you.  Why would you risk the Dave not sounding significantly superior?  You may as well just get it.   You don't know all there is to know, better be safe and just get the more expensive DAC that many claim to be spectacular.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] No, I am not going to contradict anything any of the supercar makers did get right ...
> [2] Regarding multimiking : yes, I have been to a live amplified gig - once or twice - hundred or thousand times. It is, unfortunately, inavoidable as far as the public adress system ...
> [3] Unfortunately, it usually IS subject to total carnage trough multimiking - on the request of the performers themselves.



1. Then it's an utterly invalid analogy because you are not only contradicting the audio facts, you're actually completely inverting many of them!!

2. So if you know multi-miking is unavoidable at live gigs and multi-miking causes "carnage", why did you state "_.. instead of the real sound as would be heard by a person attending the real music event played live_." - A person attending a live gig will also hear this multi-mic'ing carnage. Your statements don't even make any logical/rational sense relative to each other, let alone to the facts! Either you're trolling or the alternative is worrisome/sad.

3. Clearly, you're in severe need of some basic education on mic'ing! Firstly, it does NOT cause "total carnage" it causes some relatively minor timing issues. Secondly, ALL mic'ing techniques have their advantages and disadvantages. Multi-miking schemes are chosen because it's advantages outweigh it's disadvantages and the advantages/disadvantages of other schemes in a particular circumstance. Also, it is NOT on the request of the performers themselves, unless maybe they're dealing with a complete noob engineer! And, why would the performers employ an engineer who knows less about engineering than they do? Again, what you're saying doesn't even make sense with itself, let alone the facts.



analogsurviver said:


> Acoustic music recordings do not necessitate ANY multimiking as default - which came into being simply because "artist man hour" costs can be appreciably reduced by using the usual "minefield" of many microphones/channels ...



Again, not only complete nonsense which you've just made-up but the exact opposite of the actual facts! How does a "minefield of mics/channels" reduce time and costs? Whether you've got 1 mic or 30 mics makes no difference whatsoever to the amount of time required of the artist but OBVIOUSLY, it requires a great deal more time (and equipment) to setup, test, record, edit and mix 30 mics than it does 1!! There are many reasons we use milti-mic'ing but reducing cost is NOT one of them, because it costs more. You plainly don't even know the fundamental basics of recording/mic'ing, you must be aware you've got little/no experience or knowledge and I'm obviously aware you don't, so what do you hope to achieve? Why keep posting nonsense, here of all places, that we both know you're just making-up and why argue with someone who deals with mic'ing for a living. It doesn't make any sense unless you're trolling or are very seriously delusional, what other option is there?

G


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> I don't know if we can ever know for sure.



Again, you're just going round in circles. Before you used the term "settled" and now you're just saying the same thing again with the term "know for sure". You never answered my question, do you know for sure that someone can't run 100m in say 0.09secs? If so, how?

G


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 1, 2018)

G

"
1. Then it's an utterly invalid analogy because you are not only contradicting the audio facts, you're actually completely inverting many of them!!

2. So if you know multi-miking is unavoidable at live gigs and multi-miking causes "carnage", why did you state ".. instead of the real sound as would be heard by a person attending the real music event played live." - A person attending a live gig will also hear this multi-mic'ing carnage. Your statements don't even make any logical/rational sense relative to each other, let alone to the facts! Either you're trolling or the alternative is worrisome/sad. 
"

If I  may venture, I am sure P meant a non amplification setting of passive instruments .


You need to be less accusatory , Sir


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> Again, you're just going round in circles. Before you used the term "settled" and now you're just saying the same thing again with the term "know for sure". You never answered my question, do you know for sure that someone can't run 100m in say 0.09secs? If so, how?
> 
> G



I'm extremely confident that no one can do it.  That's as close to "sure" as I need to be on that question.  I'm a lot less confident that there are no differences between 'decent' DACs which could make real audible differences that some people would consider significant.  See how that works?  We don't actually have to have certainty to make decisions and function in the world.

There was a time when everyone thought time is absolute in the universe, and passes the same way for all observers.  It was quite a leap for someone to imagine that the observed passage of time could be relative in a way that respective clocks wouldn't remain synchronized.  Sometimes things which seem impossible based on our current understanding turn out to be possible when we have a better understanding.  Audio isn't necessarily an exception.


----------



## bigshot (May 1, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I try to take a pragmatic situational approach.  When I bought the $500 Mojo, I didn't need to scrutinize the purchase much (bought it without even hearing it), because the cost wasn't too high, I was confident the sound at least wasn't significantly worse than other products in the price range



So in other words you took it on faith.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> I'm extremely confident that no one can do it. That's as close to "sure" as I need to be on that question.



Thanks for answering, now what about the second question: How/Why are you extremely confident and as close to sure as you need to be? The 100m world record (9.58 secs) is not conducted under the most favourable conditions (unlike many audibility tests), say with a very strong following wind and a downhill course and not everyone has been tested, so why do you feel "sure" 100m in 0.09secs is impossible?

G


----------



## bigshot

I'm extremely confident that we are being trolled.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> Thanks for answering, now what about the second question: How/Why are you extremely confident and as close to sure as you need to be? The 100m world record (9.58 secs) is not conducted under the most favourable conditions (unlike many audibility tests), say with a very strong following wind and a downhill course and not everyone has been tested, so why do you feel "sure" 100m in 0.09secs is impossible?
> 
> G



It's a quick intuitive judgment.  I didn't try to construct a rational argument for it.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> So in other words you took it on faith.



Partly.  The consistently glowing anecdotal reports/review also tipped me in favor of the Mojo over other products in the price range.

Even science relies to some extent on 'faith' by making working assumptions which can't be 'proven'.  Nothing wrong with that, we don't really have any other good choice.


----------



## bigshot

This is turning into a Monty Python sketch!


----------



## Phronesis

A hypothesis: one of the key factors which segregates people in this forum is tolerance for uncertainty.  Some people often refer to facts, logic, proof, objectivity, etc.  Others think and talk more in terms of evidence, complexity, uncertainty, limits of knowledge, evolution of ideas, subjectivity, etc. 

IMO, each mode has situations where it should be the dominant mode, but of course there will be disagreement about that when it comes to audio, along predictable lines ...


----------



## bigshot

Do you try to dominate the discussion like this at the dinner table too? What does your family think of that?


----------



## gregorio (May 1, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> It's a quick intuitive judgment.



So, you've made a quick intuitive judgment that it's impossible for someone to run 100m one hundred times below what has ever been measured under non-optimal conditions but your same intuitive judgment is that you're not sure if someone can hear one THOUSAND times (or more!) below what has ever been measured under OPTIMAL conditions. How do you explain that? Seems to me you must have a problem/contradiction with your intuitive judgment.

G


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 1. Then it's an utterly invalid analogy because you are not only contradicting the audio facts, you're actually completely inverting many of them!!
> 
> 2. So if you know multi-miking is unavoidable at live gigs and multi-miking causes "carnage", why did you state "_.. instead of the real sound as would be heard by a person attending the real music event played live_." - A person attending a live gig will also hear this multi-mic'ing carnage. Your statements don't even make any logical/rational sense relative to each other, let alone to the facts! Either you're trolling or the alternative is worrisome/sad.
> 
> ...


2. You clearly misunderstood - or did not grasp to differentiate - my mentioning the multimiking of amplified musical event for TWO purposes
a) multimiking so that the band can be amplified in order that mix to be played over public adress system for the audience to be able to hear it 
b) same or additional multimiking used to make live recording

One can not avoid a) - 
but b) can be completely avoided and can be recorded with any stereo or surround ( these tend to be relatively small "point" microphones, size appoximately similar to that of the real/artificial head ) microphone. It requires more preparation and more skill, as this involves, to a much greater degree, also the acoustics of the venue, which is largely ignored by the a), which is usually close multimiking on the stage and will typically involve artificial reverb, etc.

Regarding requests from the performers - listen to most, if not all/any Rubinstein piano recordings - or opera recordings in general. The piano live does not sound larger/bigger than an orchestra, which is even more true for most opera recordings - no singer can overpower an entire orchestra with choir in real life, yet on most opera recordings the Soloist Singer is sooo much larger and louder than in real life that it causes shock for anybody accustomed to listening to opera recording - once heard live for the first time. Similar out of proportion demands ARE made by pop/rock/whatever performers also  - something you should have come in contact by now.  

Placing a stereo microphone in order to capture the entire group/choir/orchestra in any given acoustics is a TEDIOUS and TIME CONSUMING process. You can not fix anything in post production - your "mix" ( balance among instruments and voices, stereo "spread", depth, etc, etc ) - HAS  to be made there and then, before the actual music recording begins.  You can not make any instrument or group of instruments louder or quieter in post, the same goes for "stereo spread", panorama, whatever you may wish to call it - it just is not possible. Usually, it does take a test recording with the same music as intended for the actual recording date - and that means repositioning the musicians, somethimes quite drastically, numerous times, in order to try and find the best "spot" for everything in any given venue. It usually does not go without additional acoustical tratment of the venue - as churches, most appropriate for the choir recordings, can have drastically different acoustics ( reverberation is the first thing that comes to mind ...) with or without audience - and you just can not expect "fake" audience to be quiet and not move in their chairs during extended recordings that may involve numerous repetitions of songs/compositions or parts of those same songs/compositions - you have to "somehow/anyhow" change the acoustics towards the desired goal using the appropriate acoustics treatment. ALL THIS TAKES TIME - and you can be as experienced and prepared as possible, each venue will teach you something new. AND IT REQUIRES PERFORMERS TO BE PRESENT TROUGHOUT THE PROCESS - which can be expensive as hell.
This allows for the test recordings - from various positions-  to be heard by anyone involved over the next days, with the input of all remarks/suggestions used to achieve the best possible sound on the date of recording proper.

Try to do above with any American professional classical orchestra ... - their hour is so costly that they have - almost - effectively excluded themselves from the recording bussiness. Thus, it IS cheaper to set up as big and large "microphone minefield" as available, recording its output to as many channels as required , having to book the venue and pay the orchestra for a single session ONLY ONCE AND THEN FIX EVERYTHING IN THE MIX  - then having to find the perfect spot for a stereo mike over more numerous sessions and paying orchestra's time. 

I hope that does make some sense to you now.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I'm extremely confident that we are being trolled.





bigshot said:


> This is turning into a Monty Python sketch!



Relax, breathe ...


gregorio said:


> So, you've made a quick intuitive judgment that it's impossible for someone to run 100m one hundred times below what has ever been measured under non-optimal conditions but your same intuitive judgment is that you're not sure if someone can hear one THOUSAND times (or more!) below what has ever been measured under OPTIMAL conditions. How do you explain that? Seems to me you must have a problem with your intuitive judgment.
> 
> G



That's not what I've claimed, nor do I dispute that.  Gotta get some work done, so heads up that I'll be pausing on the back and forth for a while.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> That's not what I've claimed ...



That's exactly what you've claimed, repeatedly! You repeatedly said nothing has been settled (extremely confident, "know for sure" or whatever) but we've discussed differences which are 1,000 times below what's ever been demonstrated under optimal conditions and one time, something 100 billion times below and still you weren't sure/extremely confident??!!

G


----------



## colonelkernel8

gregorio said:


> That's exactly what you've claimed, repeatedly! You repeatedly said nothing has been settled (extremely confident, "know for sure" or whatever) but we've discussed differences which are 1,000 times below what's ever been demonstrated under optimal conditions and one time, something 100 billion times below and still you weren't sure/extremely confident??!!
> 
> G


Is that the Rob Watts nonsense? I think we need to be clear in which claim is being addressed. We can't just blanket statement everything. Yes, the stuff thousands of times below the threshold of audibility is fine to completely disregard, but we can't say the same for everything. Some devices measure very poorly, and it has little to do with price.

I'm the last one to want to muddy the water, but we can draw some distinctions between completely invalid claims and the reasonable ones.


----------



## gregorio (May 1, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> 2. You clearly misunderstood - or did not grasp to differentiate - my mentioning the multimiking of amplified musical event for TWO purposes
> a) multimiking so that the band can be amplified in order that mix to be played over public adress system for the audience to be able to hear it
> b) same or additional multimiking used to make live recording
> 
> ...



2a. You're joking right? Again, you stated that the audience would hear the real sound instead of multi-mic'ed carnage at a live amplified gig but now you're saying that the audience at a live gig cannot avoid multi-mic'ing carnage. Either you're trolling or you have a serious problem.

2b. Again, this is absolutely nuts!! If you record an amplified gig say with a stereo or binaural pair or soundfield mic, then what you're recording is what's coming out of the PA system, which is your multi-mic'ed carnage! And, in the case of an acoustic gig, say an orchestra or smaller ensemble, then it is NOT close mic'ed, venue acoustics are definitely NOT largely ignored, it requires more preparation and skill to position say 30 mics than it does to position 2 and if artificial reverb is used it requires considerable skill as it has to match the real reverb (acoustics) which have been recorded across multiple mics. And again, you're accused of making up utter nonsense and your response is to just make-up even more utter nonsense, why? Do you really want to continue confirming your ignorance and making yourself look like a fool, what do you gain from that?

G

EDIT: I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the nonsense in that post. I might as well just lie and agree I've never heard the piano in a piano concerto or an opera singer with an orchestra. And btw, I have tried it with several american orchestras (the LA Phil and National Symphony Orch to name just two), plus around 30 or so other top class orchestras, about 600 professional live performances in total, all over the world, what about you?


----------



## gregorio

colonelkernel8 said:


> [1] Is that the Rob Watts nonsense?
> [2] I think we need to be clear in which claim is being addressed. We can't just blanket statement everything. Yes, the stuff thousands of times below the threshold of audibility is fine to completely disregard, but we can't say the same for everything. Some devices measure very poorly, and it has little to do with price.
> [3] I'm the last one to want to muddy the water, but we can draw some distinctions between completely invalid claims and the reasonable ones.



1. Yes, that's one of them, the Rob Watts 100 billion times below audibility nonsense you concluded wasn't settled and you were going to keep an open mind about.

2. Why thousands of times below audibility when your intuitive judgement for the 100m was only 100 times below and not even 100x below the optimum threshold? Nevertheless, with thousands of times below the threshold of audibility we can still "completely disregard" quite a few audiophile myths, jitter being a problem, the timing inaccuracies analogsurvivor is going on about and 32bit audio files just to name a few off the top of my head. Now, if you're willing to apply your 100x intuitive judgement as you do for the 100m, we can "completely disregard" a whole bunch more; cables, 24bit audio files and competently designed DACs, just for starters!

3. Hallelujah brother, I think you might be starting to get it!

G


----------



## bigshot

Whenever you establish a line, there's always a joker who wants to go beyond it to double down on "just to be safe". As soon as he does that, his new line becomes the established line and another joker shows up wanting to go a bit further "just to ease his mind about possible exceptions to the rule". It's never ending!

I took a digital equalizer and a sound editing program and a few test files from here and there and figured out my own thresholds. I discovered that the established thresholds already have plenty of wiggle room left in them. CD sound is all I need. A regular amp and digital player is perfect. I could have an "open mind" but it would just cost me more and wouldn't provide any sound quality benefit. I focus on things like convenience and features instead. That way if I spend more, at least I'm getting something for it.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> Whenever you establish a line, there's always a joker who wants to go beyond it to double down on "just to be safe".


Joker?  How about the online personality who has not even researched the line but shouts some random one from top of the mountain?

You need to replace your insecurities with confidence that the audio science has researched such lines.  And that we can defend the corrects ones.  With research.  With psychoacoustics.  We engineering.

The ones the few of you have made up?  Good luck defending those....



bigshot said:


> I took a digital equalizer and a sound editing program and a few test files from here and there and figured out my own thresholds.


There is a guy playing doctor on TV, wanting to prescribe medication to rest of us....


----------



## bigshot

Ad hominem non contentus


----------



## Phronesis

amirm said:


> You need to replace your insecurities with confidence that the audio science has researched such lines.  And that we can defend the corrects ones.  With research.  With psychoacoustics.  We engineering.



It has taken me only a few days to see that some of the regulars in this forum have a misguided understanding of what science is and how it works, and they force fit that misunderstanding to the audio field.  They post frequently within this secluded forum bubble, for years, and just reinforce their misguided understanding.  These dynamics of groupthink and confirmation bias are well known.

When someone struggles to even grasp that perception of music is subjective, and therefore any testing of music perception will fundamentally involve a subjective component - exactly what they themselves argue causes misperception! - there's really no hope that a productive discussion can get off the ground.  I'm frankly astonished that such a basic misunderstanding can persist in a forum which purports to be scientific.

Now watch as they pounce on this post and label me a troll ...


----------



## sonitus mirus

gregorio said:


> EDIT: I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the nonsense in that post. I might as well just lie and agree I've never heard the piano in a piano concerto or an opera singer with an orchestra. And btw, I have tried it with several american orchestras (the LA Phil and National Symphony Orch to name just two), plus around 30 or so other top class orchestras, about 600 professional live performances in total, all over the world, what about you?



Sarcasm noted; though, I think anyone that is somewhat familiar with this forum understands your respectable history and credentials, even without knowing your private information or any specific details, but your edit seems a bit pointless to me.  I won't give that statement any more influence than someone's claim to hobnob with C-level executives for companies that collaborate and provide audio components/software for an industry giant such as Microsoft.


----------



## bigshot (May 1, 2018)

I can't believe that someone can type so many words in this thread and still not realize that we aren't discussing "subjective perception of music", we're discussing "objective reproduction of sound fidelity". The tests we're talking about aren't asking "which sounds better?" They're asking "is the sound the same when it goes in as when it comes out?" We do that with measurements and controlled listening tests.

There's been absolutely no attempt to discuss things with other people here or to make an effort to understand what other people are saying. We are witnessing a solipsist interior dialogue feedback loop chasing its own tail over and over. We may have discovered perpetual motion.

In the meantime, I think I'm just going to address the people in this thread who are listening to me and talk past the people who aren't.


----------



## colonelkernel8

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, that's one of them, the Rob Watts 100 billion times below audibility nonsense you concluded wasn't settled and you were going to keep an open mind about.
> 
> 2. Why thousands of times below audibility when your intuitive judgement for the 100m was only 100 times below and not even 100x below the optimum threshold? Nevertheless, with thousands of times below the threshold of audibility we can still "completely disregard" quite a few audiophile myths, jitter being a problem, the timing inaccuracies analogsurvivor is going on about and 32bit audio files just to name a few off the top of my head. Now, if you're willing to apply your 100x intuitive judgement as you do for the 100m, we can "completely disregard" a whole bunch more; cables, 24bit audio files and competently designed DACs, just for starters!
> 
> ...


I think you have me confused with someone else. 1x below the level of audibility is enough for me. I was merely making a point.


----------



## robthemac (May 1, 2018)

amirm said:


> He is correct actually.  Any listening test is subjective.  It involves "subjects" whose opinion can change even in the same test taken in sequence.  I
> 
> We can draw objective conclusions from the test results but the test itself remains subjective.
> 
> That said, it is a common mistake to call it objective.  So let's not have a fight over it.



Objective and subjective are relative terms. They exist on a continuum of relative objectivity to relative subjectivity. Calling all listening tests 'subjective' is an unhelpful generalization. Tests can be designed to limit subjectivity. 



Phronesis said:


> Even science relies to some extent on 'faith' by making working assumptions which can't be 'proven'.



That's a very popular claim which has rightly been highly criticized. The scientific method has been highly effective at increasing the accuracy of our view of reality and how the universe works. Applying a scientific method to testing of audio gear will bring us closer to understanding the realities of current technology. ''Faith" doesn't need to come into it.



Phronesis said:


> I  These dynamics of groupthink and confirmation bias are well known.



You know what is humanity's best way of eliminating bias? Standardised blind testing. You should try it out sometime.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I can't believe that someone can type so many words in this thread and still not realize that we aren't discussing "subjective perception of music", we're discussing "objective reproduction of sound fidelity". The tests we're talking about aren't asking "which sounds better?" They're asking "is the sound the same when it goes in as when it comes out?" We do that with measurements and controlled listening tests.



Limiting discussion to what's objectively measurable is fine, but then you can't make of use blind testing and deal with issues of 'how it sounds' and misperception.  Can't have it both ways.  Most audiophiles are interested in 'how it sounds'.  If you want to be scientific, you need to be clear about what you're trying to figure out, then develop methods to try to figure it out.


----------



## robthemac

@Phronesis if you're gonna throw our Orwellian terms, remember the origin of 'groupthink'. It referred to the process of automatically aligning with popular opinion in the face of objective evidence to disprove those beliefs. 

Kinda like what you're doing.


----------



## amirm

robthemac said:


> Objective and subjective are relative terms. They exist on a continuum of relative objectivity to relative subjectivity. Calling all listening tests 'subjective' is an unhelpful generalization.


Just like law, the use of English language in audio science means specific things and they are not subject to debate, intuition, etc.  Listening tests are always called subjective tests.  Here are some quick examples from my research library papers:






























I can go on forever.   

Calling these tests anything else means one has not read any research papers performed using listening tests.  I hope you agree none of us should go there.


----------



## Phronesis

robthemac said:


> That's a very popular claim which has rightly been highly criticized. The scientific method has been highly effective at increasing the accuracy of our view of reality and how the universe works. Applying a scientific method to testing of audio gear will bring us closer to understanding the realities of current technology. ''Faith" doesn't need to come into it.



Certainly agreed on the effectiveness of science.  I use science in my work every day, and I think it's achievements are incredible.  But that doesn't eliminate the element of 'faith' - i.e., our working assumptions - and those assumptions do change as science evolves, hence the term scientific 'revolutions'.


----------



## amirm

robthemac said:


> @Phronesis if you're gonna throw our Orwellian terms, remember the origin of 'groupthink'. It referred to the process of automatically aligning with popular opinion in the face of objective evidence to disprove those beliefs.
> 
> Kinda like what you're doing.


Group think exists identically on the extremes of objectivity and subjectivity.  We are seeing the former in spades in this subforum.  

You say objective evidence.  What objective evidence has been put forward by the vocal posters here?  Tons of posts on threshold of audibility.   Where is the research to back any of it?  Clearly what is said is repeating what is read online.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> Ad hominem non contentus


Thanks for demonstrating half of what I said (being an online personality).  For the other half, can you point to three pieces of peer reviewed audio research that talk about thresholds of hearing that you have read?  You have filled this thread with tons of words.  They are in dire need of authoritative references.


----------



## robthemac

amirm said:


> Just like law, the use of English language in audio science means specific things and they are not subject to debate, intuition, etc.  Listening tests are always called subjective tests.



I agree with all of that. But there is certainly a continuum of subjectivity. A test asked to differentiate tones based on loudness is less subjective (or more objective) than one based on ranking preferred tunings of a snare drum. Dismisisng all tests as merely subjective is therefore unhelpful. 




Phronesis said:


> Certainly agreed on the effectiveness of science.  I use science in my work every day, and I think it's achievements are incredible.  But that doesn't eliminate the element of 'faith' - i.e., our working assumptions - and those assumptions do change as science evolves, hence the term scientific 'revolutions'.



Clearly differentiating the facts from assumptions is certainly important. If you can suggest a better way to do so other than rigorous, blinding testing, I'd be interested to hear it.


----------



## Phronesis

robthemac said:


> Objective and subjective are relative terms. They exist on a continuum of relative objectivity to relative subjectivity. Calling all listening tests 'subjective' is an unhelpful generalization. Tests can be designed to limit subjectivity.



No, objective is objective, and subjective is subjective.  Let's not confuse things further.  There's not continuum here, they exist as separate categories, but they can interact and mix with each other, as is the case with listening tests.  You can't 'limit' the subjectivity of the tests, but you can try to parse out the contributions of objective and subjective aspects by carefully designing the tests and doing statistical analysis of the results.


----------



## robthemac

Phronesis said:


> No, objective is objective, and subjective is subjective.  Let's not confuse things further.



Sorry to disappoint you, champ, but real life is a little more complicated than that. Between black and white there is something called grey. Scientific tests exist on a continuum of more and less objective/subjective. A blood pressure is relatively objective, but more so when measured by a machine than by a stehoscope and an ear.


----------



## robthemac

amirm said:


> Group think exists identically on the extremes of objectivity and subjectivity.



Agreed!


----------



## robthemac

amirm said:


> You say objective evidence.  What objective evidence has been put forward by the vocal posters here?  Tons of posts on threshold of audibility.   Where is the research to back any of it?  Clearly what is said is repeating what is read online.



Look at the front page of this forum. No, the tests aren't perfect. No, they're not peer-reviewed. However, it is a cumulative evidence base that I think is greater than arguments to the contrary.


----------



## Phronesis

robthemac said:


> Sorry to disappoint you, champ, but real life is a little more complicated than that. Between black and white there is something called grey. Scientific tests exist on a continuum of more and less objective/subjective. A blood pressure is relatively objective, but more so when measured by a machine than by a stehoscope and an ear.



No, blood pressure is entirely objective and is a function of the state of the body.  I can't decide in my mind that my blood pressure is different from what it actually is.  When a person measures it using their ear, the _testing procedure_ involves a subjective element, which interacts with the objective blood pressure.  (BTW, my internist trusts his stethoscope/ear much more than the machines in his office.)

Bringing it back to audio, it can be argued that the physical brain state (or sequence of states) corresponding to music perception _is_ objective.  But we have the problem that we don't know how to relate brain states to subjective perception in any useful way, and we may never be able to do so.  This is tied to the 'mind/body problem' and how subjective consciousness relates to the physical brain, but this forum is clearly _not_ the place to go into that, lest some objective brains and subjective minds will explode!


----------



## amirm

robthemac said:


> I agree with all of that. But there is certainly a continuum of subjectivity. A test asked to differentiate tones based on loudness is less subjective (or more objective) than one based on ranking preferred tunings of a snare drum. Dismisisng all tests as merely subjective is therefore unhelpful.


No.  They are all far, far away from objective data like measurements.  

Both examples of what you say are purely subjective anyway.  In both cases you are asking subjects to give you answer.  What the question is, is immaterial. That same subject using identical blind test in another round could very well give you the opposite answer.

Here are the answers from listeners to audibility of Jitter in a test Dolby conducted:



 

This is very close to the type of test you mention using tones.  Look at the "error bars" showing variations of answers in one person's.  And then look at the subject to subject variation.  Nothing about this is remotely objective.

As I said, listening tests are always subjective.  Conduct a few formal ones and you will see.


----------



## robthemac (May 1, 2018)

amirm said:


> No.  They are all far, far away from objective data like measurements.
> 
> Both examples of what you say are purely subjective anyway.  In both cases you are asking subjects to give you answer.



Ah ok, I think we actually largely agree on this. We have a terminological difference in the meaning of subjective, in that you're using it quite literally as 'as defined by a subject', whereas I'm using in a broader sense of 'open to interpetation'. If I use your apparent definition (which is a very good one), I think we agree on subjectivity versus objectivity. Mine is used in my areas of expertise, medicine and psychology. I understand that it may not be appropriate for this topic. Than for clearing that up.

Out of interest, could you describe an idealized test to determine whether or not whether sonic differences between two ampifiers are measurable by human subjects? I think despite all the discussion, we'd describe the same test.


----------



## amirm

robthemac said:


> Out of interest, could you describe an idealized test to determine whether or not whether sonic differences between two ampifiers are measurable by human subjects?


It takes a while to describe that.  For now, here is a sample test of amplifiers with positive outcome: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/


----------



## robthemac

Yep, I have read that one. Do you have any issues with them using subjective measures?


----------



## robthemac

Phronesis said:


> No, blood pressure is entirely objective and is a function of the state of the body.
> 
> Bringing it back toaudio....



Nope, not gonna let you get away from your claim  that objective and subjective are absolutes.

Blood pressure varies between vessels, between areas within the same vessel, between different measuring devices, between different observers. In other words, its measurement is highly subject a multitude of factors, i.e. subjective. Of course, on the spectrum between objectivity and subjectivity, it's much closer to the objective than subjective end of the spectrum.

In regards to your doctor trusting his stethoscope, I suspect he's not using it for accuracy's sake. People like their doctors to wear coats and use stethoscopes. They feel like they are getting better care that way.


----------



## amirm

Sorry, I don't understand your question.  What subjective measures?


----------



## robthemac

Wasn't the test an ABX where the listener tried to identify which of three amps was being used to drive speakers?  I can't find an original copy of the article and don't have journal access away from home.


----------



## robthemac

[or more accurately an ABCX test]


----------



## bigshot (May 2, 2018)

Semantic arguments bore me silly. The thresholds of perception have been studied objectively and documented. Go ahead and come up with a different definition for objective. It still doesn't mean that you can hear 21kHz. If you want to claim that, you can prove that to me... using a objective testing methods.

Driving an amp into clipping and showing that it clips differently than another amp is no great feat. They aren't designed to be overdriven. They're designed to play music at normal listening levels. Discern a difference between amps in circumstances they've been designed to deal with and then I'll start listening again.


----------



## amirm

robthemac said:


> Wasn't the test an ABX where the listener tried to identify which of three amps was being used to drive speakers?


No, just two amplifiers:


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> The thresholds of perception have been studied objectively and documented.


Please provide those documents that you have read.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> Driving an amp into clipping and showing that it clips differently than another amp is no great feat. They aren't designed to be overdriven. They're designed to play music at normal listening levels.


What wasn't normal about it?  The listening level was reported to be 90 dB [SPL].


----------



## dprimary

amirm said:


> Please provide those documents that you have read.



Most of those studies are pre-internet.
Fechner, G., 1860. _Elements of psychophysics_. 
BRUCE MASTERTON, HENRY HEFFNER, AND RICHARD RAVIZZA ,1968. _The Evolution of Human Hearing. _ 
Hirsh I J.,1952. _The Measurement of Hearing. _
Fletcher, H. and Munson, W.A. "Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation", _Journal of the Acoustical Society of America_ 5, 82-108 (1933)

I think one of these describes the instrumentation created to measure hearing thresholds and perception. I believe it is the one from Gustav.

The sensitive range of human hearing is about 100Hz to 12KHz, even in young adults the median hearing threshold for 19KHz is 70dB  higher then 12KHz.

There is high amplitude ultrasonic threshold studies as well, duplication is not recommended for anyone that wants to listen to music anymore.
_
_


----------



## dprimary (May 2, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> 2. You clearly misunderstood - or did not grasp to differentiate - my mentioning the multimiking of amplified musical event for TWO purposes
> a) multimiking so that the band can be amplified in order that mix to be played over public adress system for the audience to be able to hear it
> b) same or additional multimiking used to make live recording
> 
> ...



All orchestras rehearse. You work out  your microphone selection and placement by going to as many rehearsals as possible. Once you know the room you don't need do it all over again the next time. After the first time start at the fine tuning stage.

Recording a drum kit it does not matter if I am using one microphone or twenty, it will always start with the room mic, preferably a stereo pair, though I have done mono drum recordings. For many styles the room is all I need,for others I fill in from there depending on the music.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 2a. You're joking right? Again, you stated that the audience would hear the real sound instead of multi-mic'ed carnage at a live amplified gig but now you're saying that the audience at a live gig cannot avoid multi-mic'ing carnage. Either you're trolling or you have a serious problem.
> 
> 2b. Again, this is absolutely nuts!! If you record an amplified gig say with a stereo or binaural pair or soundfield mic, then what you're recording is what's coming out of the PA system, which is your multi-mic'ed carnage! And, in the case of an acoustic gig, say an orchestra or smaller ensemble, then it is NOT close mic'ed, venue acoustics are definitely NOT largely ignored, it requires more preparation and skill to position say 30 mics than it does to position 2 and if artificial reverb is used it requires considerable skill as it has to match the real reverb (acoustics) which have been recorded across multiple mics. And again, you're accused of making up utter nonsense and your response is to just make-up even more utter nonsense, why? Do you really want to continue confirming your ignorance and making yourself look like a fool, what do you gain from that?
> 
> ...


2a. Which part of what I wrote you are not getting ? I did say that multimiking of an amplified event is indispensable - no way otherwise  yet invented that could result in a signal feeding the PA system , so that the public can hear it. This is the only "real sound" that can be heard by public - the best that can be achieved given the circumstances.

2b. Of course you can not record with a stereo or binaural mic anything else that what is coming from the PA system ! Which can be, if the sound enginner is good, MUCH better than the multichannel recording from the mixing desk, being fed from the same set of multiple mikes used in order to get 2a ( the way it is usually done ) or another /additional  mikes used just for the recording sake ( very rarely used ). 

OK, please remember once and for all - whenever dealing with me, FORGET the use of any form of signal processing during recording - no nothing whatsoever ! Of course I am picking all the venue acoustics, that is the whole point of two channel recording - if the goal is to get rid of the timing issues of multimiking ! 
You can have all the preparation and skill not only of this planet, but this universe - no way it is possible to get as time coherent signal from multimike setup as can be provided from 2 mike stereo or binaural setup. 

Which part of the cost of the orchestra being larger than the cost of recording/mastering/editing you are not getting ?


----------



## SoundAndMotion (May 2, 2018)

amirm said:


> Just like law, the use of English language in audio science means specific things and they are not subject to debate, intuition, etc.  Listening tests are always called subjective tests.


I’m a fan of Amir and we agree most of the time, but not always.
The use of the English language in _any_ science can mean specific things…but not always and therefore some words are avoided unless used in an unambiguous way. “Always”, “never”, “proved”, “debunked” require extreme care and it doesn’t hurt to not use them. “Beautiful”, “immense”, “sublime” are to be avoided in scientific writing.

“Blind perceptual discrimination test” or “blind listening preference test” cannont be shortened without losing a critical piece, and adding “subjective” or “objective” clarifies nothing. I have never used either in any paper I’ve written, with no complaints. The fact that intelligent, well read, native speakers can argue about a term should indicate a non-rigid understanding of what is meant.

I agree with Kingdom and Prins:






... followed by 2 pages of examples with arguments for/against using those terms...
...and finally:


----------



## bigshot (May 2, 2018)

dprimary said:


> Most of those studies are pre-internet



Ears have existed for an awful long time. We've had plenty of time to study them!



dprimary said:


> Recording a drum kit it does not matter if I am using one microphone or twenty, it will always start with the room mic, preferably a stereo pair, though I have done mono drum recordings. For many styles the room is all I need,for others I fill in from there depending on the music.



My experience is that the drums are the hardest thing to mike and maintain the energy. When you put the ambience of the room they are recorded in over them, they get dulled. It's better to keep them clean and let the listening room apply its own ambience. The division between men and boys in engineering is how they handle drums. Steven Wilson seems to be very good at it today



analogsurviver said:


> Which part of the cost of the orchestra being larger than the cost of recording/mastering/editing you are not getting ?



Uh... I think he's been involved in recording and mastering some of the best orchestras in the world. You might do better to listen rather than lecture.


----------



## analogsurviver

dprimary said:


> All orchestras rehearse. You work out  your microphone selection and placement by going to as many rehearsals as possible. Once you know the room you don't need do it all over again the next time. After the first time start at the fine tuning stage.
> 
> Recording a drum kit it does not matter if I using one microphone or twenty, it will always start with the room mic, preferably a stereo pair, though I have done mono drum recordings. For many the room is all I need,for others I fill in from there depending on the style of music.


Yes, all orchestras rehearse. To death, if required. There is, unfortunately, ONE particulary nasty fly in that ointmment.
They, most usually, do not rehearse in the same venue as the concert or recording will take place. Reason is , as you might have guessed, the cost. Which renders any rehearsal time spent at rehearsals, as far as recording requirements are concerned, pretty much useless - except for getting a rough idea which part of music is at the loudest - in case of new works/premieres, there is absolutely no other way to tell or know for sure. And even these loudest parts are only relative to the venue in which they have been rehearsed - you can expect that the levels in the final venue will be different - sometimes VERY different. 

Not to even mention  the placement of the orchestra and the mic(s) - once in the venue that will be used for real, you are back to  square once again.

Of course, notes, pictures, etc, anything that might be useful for any further work in any given venue are always taken - as they are great help.

I agree with your approach of recording the drum kit. I remember using an extremely realistically sounding basically drum kit solo track as demo track for showing off the capabilities of turntable/tonearm/cartridge combinations back in the day ( still sounds as amazing as it ever did ) ; I  would have to check the title of the track, but it is the music from Pentangle and although the rest of the whole album is in stereo, this particular track is MONO.


----------



## bigshot (May 2, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, all orchestras rehearse. To death, if required. There is, unfortunately, ONE particulary nasty fly in that ointmment.
> They, most usually, do not rehearse in the same venue as the concert or recording will take place.



Huh? The rehearsals of the orchestra for a concert tour might take place in a home court, but rehearsals for a recording are usually in the same venue and they are usually on the same day or close to it with the same engineers. Do you have experience recording yourself? If so, did you do test recordings in a different venue? I never have. What drum kits have you recorded?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Huh? The rehearsals of the orchestra for a concert tour might take place in a home court, but rehearsals for a recording are usually in the same venue and they are usually on the same day or close to it with the same engineers. Do you have experience recording yourself? If so, did you do test recordings in a different venue? I never have. What drum kits have you recorded?


Quite true - as you have said. And, yes,  I do have experience recording myself - otherwise I would not have more than 20 CDs under my belt.
As much as I hate it, few times I have been forced to do test recordings in other venues than used in the end. There simply was not any other option. 

Rehearsal on the same day, with no provision to check the results on decent loudspeaker system between the rehearsal and the concert/recording itself ( such as recording enough away from home to render the possibility to listen to test tracks at home and returning to the venue in time for the recording being impractical/impossible ), can be a VERY double edged sword. Because in the retrospect, moving that microphone by ( intentionally censored how much/little) "X" would yield a spectacular result - against the one really achieved, leaving "from something to much" to be desired. 

Conditions for recording "microphone placing rehearsals" vary - A LOT. Even with known orchestra/choir/conductor - let alone musicians I have never worked with before. Even those who are familiar with my way of doing things will - almost always - give the precedence during rehearsals to themselves ( how many times have you been leaving the rehearsal witnessing muttering to yourself : ... hope they pull it trough at the concert in the evening ... ) - and only IF and WHEN they are happy with the result achieved in rehearsal, they may be willing to allow you to change the position of the microphone and/or move "themselves" - as required for the best capture in the recording. It is infinitely better if test recording can be done at least few days before the real thing, so that not only me, but entire orchestra, conductor and producer can give their input/feedback.

Although I could go very specific about this, I have absolutely no desire to share hard way learned knowledge, that is not available anywhere else, for free; one has to pay studies with various schools/programmes in order to learn the common knowledge of multimiking, etc, such as endorsed by Gregorio. This is far from saying that this "common knowledge" is easy to master - on the contrary; it is hard and takes lot of work and time - and I respect that. Since I was never satisfied with the vast majority of whatever went on before in the first place ( and multimiking in particular, which I find most problematic of all ), I was forced to find, develop and hone different way of recording - NO OTHER THAN HARD WAY - that had to display level superior to "average" from the day one, being steadily improved over the years, from each recording session to the next, all under extremely hard financial conditions. In retrospect, I should not have released at least few recordings, which have been done under particularly bad conditions - nothing I had any way of influencing them. But, one has to eat ...

I could achieve the best reasonably achievable conditions for the recording of a choir from Italy last november. A four day recording "session". I arrived in the morning, we got to borrow in advance selected and agreed upon loudspeaker system, which I had to install in the biggest room of the musical school the choir usually rehearses in. It took me more than two hours to get the acoustics of the room respectable, before I could install and adjust the speakers. Long story short - after EQing the speakers to better than within + or - 2 dB from 40 to 16 kHz, you should have seen the face of the choir president - after I played few of my demo DSD tracks ... In the evening, we did the test recordings in the church - with about 2/3rds of the approx 40 member choir present, with all the acoustic treatments of the church required, with all the positioning of the choir and microphone, etc - till past midnight.
The following morning we listened to the test tracks, selected the best choir/mic positioning -  and decided and agreed upon some really minor adjustments for the recording proper. 
All done in the next three days in the evening, because the church is busy with its normal activities during the day.
Of course, we did listen to the recordings made previous evening the next morning - but it was for artistic reasons only, for the conductor ( and in some cases also composer ) to decide if a song or part of the song needs repeat recording to correct for any error(s) in singing - not technical reasons.

That setup allowed for the most brutally revealing superiority of DSD over PCM to date - with 4 ( most relevant/important conductor/composer, choir president/singer ( otherwise electronics engineer, familiar with DSD ) and two lead singers) members of the choir present, they simoultaneously turned around and asked, appalled, WHY did the sound quality all of a suddenl took a nosedive - with two of the lead singers not even hearing DSD mentioned ever before ... they simply reacted to what they just heard. 
Quick answer: Korg DSD recorders do allow markers to be made during the recording - so that one can make them at the beginning/end of a song/movement/whatever. Recording session might require over an hour for a 2 minute song to be recorded the way artist are satisfied with - and I do not wish to make each take a separate file, as often, after the mistake, musicians may well start again faster than I can stop the previous file and start another - for the fear of missing THE take musicians may like the best. 
Unfortunately, only Korg hardware and software used in unison can read those markers while playing back the DSD files in native DSD. I do not have Korg DAC - and Korg Audiogate software can work with other DACs only by converting DSD to PCM ( selectable from 44.1 to 192k in Windows, only up to 96k in Mac ) - even if and when the other DAC is otherwise capable of native DSD playback. I have been playing native DSD from PC using iFi iDSD Micro BL DAC most of the time - but, when the request to find a particular take of a particularly difficult passage recorded within an over hour long file came along, I had no other option than to resort to DSD > PCM in order to be able to reach that particular spot in "reasonable" time trough markers. 

I know this "evidence" will be labeled as anecdotal, not being strictly speaking AB test, as changing the playback software and opening a file in it takes infinitely more time than flick of a switch in ABX ( although it HAS BEEN BLIND - they have all been sitting in chairs in front of me, looking towards the speakers, concerned with their own performance, not sound quality - they turned around back to me only to ask what the hell went wrong with the sound all of a sudden ), the levels might have been off by few tenths of a dB ( try to adjust whatever 2 different software you are using with a single DAC to play both PCM and DSD natively to be within 0.2dB or less with both PCM and DSD - good luck with that one ... )  - but in real life, you will be hard pressed to come up with better DSD vs PCM comparison. 
Looking forward to this CD - but still avaiting the selection of the files to be used for the final editing/mastering - conductors/composers can only do such "chores" with no other work around. 
Sadly, as much as I would have preferred,  the money to do a proper DSD mastering simply was not available this time .

I did a very interesting test recording session with drum kit about two years ago - in an even more interesting "venue". Unlike anything I have ever seen or heard before - or since. Using simoultaneously three separate recording techniques, resulting in overall four simoultaneous different recordings. We did agree we will be making a recording for real there, once enough new music is made/written, so that the resulting recording would not be only showcase in sound, but will also have musical significance. I did already make the required changes to the equipment in order to accomodate the conditions that vary - by quite a large amount - from those I usaually work with. I am really looking forward to this one !


----------



## Phronesis

robthemac said:


> Nope, not gonna let you get away from your claim  that objective and subjective are absolutes.
> 
> Blood pressure varies between vessels, between areas within the same vessel, between different measuring devices, between different observers. In other words, its measurement is highly subject a multitude of factors, i.e. subjective. Of course, on the spectrum between objectivity and subjectivity, it's much closer to the objective than subjective end of the spectrum.
> 
> In regards to your doctor trusting his stethoscope, I suspect he's not using it for accuracy's sake. People like their doctors to wear coats and use stethoscopes. They feel like they are getting better care that way.



My point is that the physical state of the body is objective.  Subjectivity comes into play when the mind is part of the system, as when the ear is part of the BP measurement process.  We have to distinguish between the physical system vs the measurement process, which may or may not involve subjective aspects. When we rely on subject responses in listening tests, the subjective element is there. 

And no, my doc very much finds that his manual measurement of BP is better than the machines.  We’ve discussed it explicitly.


----------



## robthemac (May 2, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> My point is that the physical state of the body is objective.  Subjectivity comes into play when the mind is part of the system, as when the ear is part of the BP measurement process.
> 
> And no, my doc very much finds that his manual measurement of BP is better than the machines.  We’ve discussed it explicitly.



Well,  the perception of audio is nothing more than a physical state of the body. I'd be interested to hear a formulation of audio perception that doesn't boil down to the physical state of the body. 

Your doc may believe that, but unfortunately it's likely that he's misleading you. I work and live with a published author on the subject of the value of clinical examination versus machine-based measurement. Heads up: we don't trust our stethoscopes any more. That's because we respond to the evidence in front of us. Kinda like people should with audio.


----------



## Phronesis (May 2, 2018)

robthemac said:


> Well,  the perception of audio is nothing more than a physical state of the body. I'd be interested to hear a formulation of audio perception that doesn't boil down to the physical state of the body.



As I said before, we could measure objective brain states during listening tests, but the problem is that we don’t know how to relate them to subjective perception in a useful way. In the end, we’re trying to use perception to determine if there are _perceivable_ differences in the objective sound. But therein lies the problem - perception can be quite unreliable both during normal listening and during testing.

If the potential 'measurement error' (based on subjective perception) is of the same order of magnitude as the potential difference in what we're measuring (potential objective difference in physical sound), blind testing will tend to be inconclusive, and there could be audible differences in sound which the test misses.  If the measurement error is much smaller than what's being measured - i.e., the physical sound is objectively quite different - the blind test should conclusively show that difference, but then you shouldn't need a blind test anyway.  Bottom line, I think it will generally be difficult to pick up _small_ audible differences in blind tests.  This would be the case even if you do many small blind test studies.  My understanding is you would need a rather large (and carefully designed) study to pick up a small 'effect size'.


----------



## KeithEmo

Brain state is an excellent way to objectively measure "whether something is audible or not".
I posted a link about a week ago to a test someone ran to determine whether the noise generated by wind turbines was audible.
They placed their subjects into an MRI machine, played various test tones, and watched to see if the portion of their brains associated with hearing "lit up".
Apparently, their subjects reported hearing tones as low as 8 Hz, and the MRI showed that the hearing portions of their brains actually DID receive the input (confirming that they heard it rather than felt it).
Unfortunately this sort of test is less practical to determine differences between two different sounds - both of which are audible.
(It also brings up the interesting possibility that we can now determine if your brain registers hearing something - even if you are not consciously aware of hearing it.)

As far as I know the MRI can also actually register "how much you enjoy something" - because the locations of the pleasure centers of the brain are also known.
(But I suspect that the result you get is affected by so many factors as to be useless for detecting small differences.)



Phronesis said:


> As I said before, we could measure objective brain states during listening tests, but the problem is that we don’t know how to relate them to subjective perception in a useful way. In the end, we’re trying to use perception to determine if there are _perceivable_ differences in the objective sound. But therein lies the problem - perception can be quite unreliable both during normal listening and during testing.
> 
> If the potential 'measurement error' (based on subjective perception) is of the same order of magnitude as the potential difference in what we're measuring (potential objective difference in physical sound), blind testing will tend to be inconclusive, and there could be audible differences in sound which the test misses.  If the measurement error is much smaller than what's being measured - i.e., the physical sound is objectively quite different - the blind test should conclusively show that difference, but then you shouldn't need a blind test anyway.  Bottom line, I think it will generally be difficult to pick up _small_ audible differences in blind tests.  This would be the case even if you do many small blind test studies.  My understanding is you would need a rather large (and carefully designed) study to pick up a small 'effect size'.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> Brain state is an excellent way to objectively measure "whether something is audible or not".
> I posted a link about a week ago to a test someone ran to determine whether the noise generated by wind turbines was audible.
> They placed their subjects into an MRI machine, played various test tones, and watched to see if the portion of their brains associated with hearing "lit up".
> Apparently, their subjects reported hearing tones as low as 8 Hz, and the MRI showed that the hearing portions of their brains actually DID receive the input (confirming that they heard it rather than felt it).
> ...



Measuring brain state could be the future for this sort of testing, if we can get good enough at it.  It has the advantage of more objectivity, and also potentially picking up subconscious effects that a listener/subject is experiencing but unable to verbally report.  The challenge may be in picking up effects which matter to the listener's enjoyment, but are small enough that they're difficult to detect.


----------



## KeithEmo

On the subject of multi-tracking.......

Let's assume a VERY simple situation to start.
We have a symmetrical concert venue.... fifty feet square, moderately "live", with a stage at one end.
A drummer sits stage center playing on his snare drum.
You sit part way back in the audience, also centered between left and right.
The sounds of the drum reach your left and right ears at the same amplitude.
The tonal balance of those sounds is altered as they wrap around your head and the pinnae of your ears, also symmetrically.
The echoes from the walls, floor, and ceiling, are also symmetrical between left and right.
Your brain integrates all this information and decides where the drum is located (center in front of you).

Now, let's physically move the drum set to your left.
The drum is now about six inches closer to your left ear than your right... 
- so the drum now sounds louder in your left ear than your right
- the drumbeats also arrive at your left ear about 0.5 mSec sooner than they arrive at your right ear
- the drum sounds now arrive more directly at your left ear, while having to wrap around more of your head to reach your right ear, which makes the tonal balance heard by each ear different
- the various echoes of the drum from the left wall arrive at your position sooner, while those from the right wall arrive later (the difference in signal path will be many milliseconds; the actual pattern will be very complex)

A binary recording, recorded with a "dummy head", will record all of these cues more or less accurately.

Now, instead of using a binary microphone, let's do this as a multichannel recording.
We have one microphone, or a set of microphones, all located above and on the drum set.
And we "move" the drum set to the left or right when we make the mix - by adjusting the relative amplitude of that track in the left and right channel.
Note that the ONLY one of the several "position cues" we have adjusted this time is the relative amplitude between the channels.
I don't know of any mixing consoles that adjust the timing to account for the difference in delays, or that adjust the transfer function for sound wrapping around the head (although I'm sure a few do).
There also isn't going to be any adjustment for the relative delays of the echoes from the various walls in the room.
(Although, on a typical close mic'ed track, the room ambience will be almost entirely lacking, and so will either be mixed back later from another track, or faked altogether using a plugin.)

Note that many of the differences here fall easily into the "audible range of things".......
Delays of multiple milliseconds, and alterations in the tonal balance within the "commonly accepted range of audible frequencies".
How these "conflicting cues" affect our PERCEPTION of what we hear is a matter of brain science rather than of acoustics.
However, since many of them fall within the clearly audible range of frequencies and delays, we can't simply discount them as "inaudible".


----------



## KeithEmo

I've never personally done any large-scale multi-track recordings....
But so far all of the discussion has been about what I would consider commercial recordings (someone is paying and willing to put some effort into the process).

However, I've recorded several choir performances in churches, and a few bands in similar situations, which were somewhat less well thought out. 
("My group is performing tonight; in about three hours; could you drop by and record it; we'd sure like to have a copy.")

And, in those sorts of situations, the problems you encounter are rather different.
For example, in several I've done, the choir and orchestra was already set up to play....
And one requirement was that they NOT be rearranged or even asked to accommodate the recording.
It was literally a situation of: "We didn't think of this before; they're tuning up now; find a place to put the microphones where they and the wires won't get in the way."
Even worse, the only opportunity to set levels and EQ was in the few minutes before the doors opened - in an empty room.
Then, the band finishes tuning up, the doors open, the seats fill..... and the acoustics of the room entirely change.

In those situations, it would have been great to have a dummy head I could just park in a seat, and trust to record more or less what someone in the audience heard.



analogsurviver said:


> Yes, all orchestras rehearse. To death, if required. There is, unfortunately, ONE particulary nasty fly in that ointmment.
> They, most usually, do not rehearse in the same venue as the concert or recording will take place. Reason is , as you might have guessed, the cost. Which renders any rehearsal time spent at rehearsals, as far as recording requirements are concerned, pretty much useless - except for getting a rough idea which part of music is at the loudest - in case of new works/premieres, there is absolutely no other way to tell or know for sure. And even these loudest parts are only relative to the venue in which they have been rehearsed - you can expect that the levels in the final venue will be different - sometimes VERY different.
> 
> Not to even mention  the placement of the orchestra and the mic(s) - once in the venue that will be used for real, you are back to  square once again.
> ...


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> 2a. Which part of what I wrote you are not getting ? I did say that multimiking of an amplified event is indispensable - no way otherwise  yet invented that could result in a signal feeding the PA system , so that the public can hear it. This is the only "real sound" that can be heard by public - the best that can be achieved given the circumstances.
> 
> 2b. Of course you can not record with a stereo or binaural mic anything else that what is coming from the PA system !
> 2c. Which can be, if the sound enginner is good, MUCH better than the multichannel recording from the mixing desk, being fed from the same set of multiple mikes used in order to get 2a ( the way it is usually done ) or another /additional  mikes used just for the recording sake ( very rarely used ).
> ...



2a. The part I'm not getting is the part where you said the audience would experience the real sound INSTEAD of the multi-mic carnage and now you're saying that the audience is going to hear the multi-mic carnage.

2b. You're so lacking in knowledge I can't even work out if you're being sarcastic. You do know that you can record stereo without going through the PA, obviously not binaural stereo though.
2c. Again, more complete nonsense. What do you think is coming out of the mixing desk to feed the PA system? It's that multi-mic carnage, so it's that multi-mic carnage you are going to record, either direct out from the desk or through the PA system!

3. What do you mean please remember you don't know anything about recording or signal processing, I already know that, I'm the one who told you!

4. OK, let's go back to some absolute basics. You do know that 2 is more than 1? That stereo mic'ing does NOT get rid of the timing issues of using more than 1 mic. You've got two mics, those two mics cannot occupy the same position in space and therefore there will be some gap between them. As there is a gap between them then any sound waves not coming from directly between the mics will arrive at one mic before the other, so you will have a timing issue, no way to avoid it if you use more than one mic!! This is rule one, lesson one of using more than one mic, how can you not know this and still carry on arguing as if you have some understanding. Again, are you trolling or delusional?

5. The part where you said multi-micing an orchestra is cheaper than doing a simple (amateur) stereo recording!

G


----------



## colonelkernel8

gregorio said:


> 2a. The part I'm not getting is the part where you said the audience would experience the real sound INSTEAD of the multi-mic carnage and now you're saying that the audience is going to hear the multi-mic carnage.
> 
> 2b. You're so lacking in knowledge I can't even work out if you're being sarcastic. You do know that you can record stereo without going through the PA, obviously not binaural stereo though.
> 2c. Again, more complete nonsense. What do you think is coming out of the mixing desk to feed the PA system? It's that multi-mic carnage, so it's that multi-mic carnage you are going to record, either direct out from the desk or through the PA system!
> ...


Will you two drop it already? Good grief.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would like to note something at this point......

I didn't previously mention it, but I have in fact heard real live wire-brush cymbals played many times.
I noted that, in some recordings, the wire-brush cymbals seem to be rendered much more realistically than in others (they sound closer to what the ones I've heard in real life usually sound like).
I offered MY THEORY as to why this might be the case (and it involved a difference in how some multi-track recordings are done).
I could be wrong..... that's how science works..... and being proven wrong also adds to our knowledge.
(But simply saying: "I think your theory is wrong, so you must be imagining what you think you hear" is not an answer.)

I would also like to point out a very common situation where the current theory does NOT seem to sufficiently explain the experience.
Have you ever walked past an open window to a room in which music was playing?
Have you noticed that, when this happens, it is usually more or less obvious whether you're listening to a stereo system or to a live band or performer?
(It may not be obvious in all cases, but, in many cases, it seems subjectively easy to tell one way or the other.)
My THEORY of this, at least in part, is that, under some conditions, our brains are VERY good at singling out directionality and phase.
With a stereo system, you have all sound originating from two distinct points.... 
With a band, playing instruments, you have many different sound sources, each with different mechanical characteristics.
Each single instrument may radiate different frequency ranges with different directional patterns.... 
- with a piano, some sounds come from the strings, and bounce off the cover; others cause the cabinet to vibrate.
- with a guitar, some sounds we hear directly from the strings, others from the vibrating cabinet, and yet others out of the opening.
Therefore, as you walk past the window, with a pair of stereo speakers, the direction in which the various sounds reach you varies in a relatively simple way (the geometry of your ears, the two speakers, and the window).
However, when it's a live band inside, the three-dimensional pattern of sound radiation inside the room is far more complex, and the way that pattern SHIFTS as you walk past the window is also more complex.
I suspect that our brains can easily pick out this difference.

A very similar situation has been noted with modern 4k TV monitors and specular highlights and metallic textures.
A specular highlight is what you see when light reflects off a shiny metal surface.
The situation is this.....
Let's start with three spheres - one colored "flat red"; one colored "shiny metallic red"; and one colored "glittery red".
Let's assume they all have the same basic "color, tint, and saturation" - they're all "the same color red".
Now let's illuminate them all with a light..... coming from more or less over our left shoulder.
On the "flat red ball" we'll see a more or less uniform color red - slightly brighter towards the center.
On the "metallic red ball" we'll see something somewhat similar, but there will be a smaller brighter point towards the center (our brain will interpret this as "a metallic shine").
And, on the "glitter ball" we'll see the same color red, but there will be a bunch of tiny bright points of irregular shapes and sizes.
Notably, if we MOVE our head, or our eyes, each ball will look quite different.
Also, notably, if we wish to take a still image that retains the visible difference, we will have to use a resolution far higher than we might expect.
If we use too low a resolution, for example "one pixel to represent each bright or dark point", we will find that, while the "overall image looks close", our perception of the TEXTURE is lost.
This effect has been noted with reference to 4k video screens.....

We compare video screens of equal size, one with HD resolution (1920 x 1080), and the other 4k (3840 x 2160).
We place the viewer far enough from both that they are ABSOLUTELY UNABLE to distinguish individual pixels on each.
And, when we ask them to compare two more or less typical still images of landscapes or people, they notice no difference between the two screens.
Likewise, the flat finish red sphere appears the same flat red color on both.
And, quite possibly, when we display a STILL IMAGE of the metallic and glittery spheres they also appear the same on both screens.
HOWEVER, when we display a moving image of the camera moving past the spheres, the image on the 4k screen looks "more real" to most viewers.
(Apparently, even though we cannot see the individual pixels, our brains can detect and differentiate the pattern caused by the interaction with the pixels on the screen and in the image.)



analogsurviver said:


> 2. You clearly misunderstood - or did not grasp to differentiate - my mentioning the multimiking of amplified musical event for TWO purposes
> a) multimiking so that the band can be amplified in order that mix to be played over public adress system for the audience to be able to hear it
> b) same or additional multimiking used to make live recording
> 
> ...





gregorio said:


> On a typical multi-track recording the cymbals will NEVER reside on a single track. With the exception of the Hi-Hat, the cymbals in a drum kit are rarely spot mic'ed and even if they were, there would still be very significant spill into the other mics. So, you get the cymbal sound from nearly all the individual mics but most particularly the stereo overheads (which of course also contain all the other instruments in the kit). In practise, at the small time-scales we're talking about, a drum kit recording is ALWAYS a terrible mess! Typically we would have: 1 (sometimes 2) kick drum mics, 2 snare drum mics (top and bottom heads) but sometimes only 1, a Hi-Hat mic, a mic for each of the toms and a stereo overhead pair. The distance between the kick mic and the overhead mics is going to be around 6ft, so the time difference is going to be in the order of 5-6ms (as sound travels just over 1ft in a ms). The smallest time difference between kit mics will be about 0.7ms, while the biggest is about 5-6ms (if we ignore the likelihood of a room mic, which will have a delay of around 20ms or so) and of course, we're not just talking about time differences between various mics and the overheads (which all vary between about 2-5ms) but also time differences between each individual mic, of which there'd be a minimum of 5 but probably 8-10. So the recording is a mess to start with and then we use compression and other processors, such as EQ and reverb (with a pre-delay of around 15ms and decay of 1-3 secs) which messes with the transients' shapes and timing even further. So, do you hear this terrible mess on pretty much every rock/pop recording in the last 60 years, or do you hear a generally pretty tight/punchy drum kit? If you can't hear this terrible mess, then how can you hear the relatively minor/insignificant filter ringing buried within that terrible mess?
> 
> We're used to talking about nano, pico and even femto secs here and sure, we can discriminate a difference caused by timing errors down into a few hundred nano-secs range but we can't actually hear those timing errors as timing errors, our ears are nowhere near that sensitive. In fact, even with the ideal circumstances, we can't discriminate timing much below about 2ms, we hear it as a variation of phasing/frequency, not as separate events in time and, a drum kit recording is hardly the "ideal circumstances"! The common problem in the audiophile world and even here in the sound science forum, is that we don't consider what it is we're actually reproducing. There is a general ignorance of music itself, of it's performance, of it's perception, of the recording and production of music and therefore of how measurements, the science and tested limits of human hearing actually apply in practise (in terms of scale and context) to what it is we're trying to reproduce!
> 
> ...


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] Yes, all orchestras rehearse. To death, if required.
> [2] They, most usually, do not rehearse in the same venue as the concert or recording will take place.



1. Oh good, more utter nonsense. Professional orchestras have very little rehearsal time, typically one or two days (2-4 sessions) before the performance and then a rehearsal on the day of the performance. "Rehearse to death" is complete nonsense!
2. What is this, a competition to see how much nonsense you can invent in one post? Orchestras pretty much ALWAYS have a rehearsal in the concert venue, this rehearsal even has it's own name, it's called a "Dress Rehearsal". I get that you're ignorant and don't know anything about orchestras, concerts, rehearsals or recording but what I don't get is why you just make up lies and nonsense?!



analogsurviver said:


> I have absolutely no desire to share hard way learned knowledge ..



What hard earned knowledge? The only thing you've demonstrated is a complete lack of of even the most basic knowledge ... and the ability to make-up complete nonsense!

Again, it's just not worth going through each and every nonsense point in your posts. It's (more than) enough now, STOP with all your completely made-up nonsense and trolling!

G


----------



## Phronesis (May 2, 2018)

Another point to add/emphasize is that our perception is not simply a passive process of receiving and recording sense data, like a recording of music or a simple objective and consistent measurement process.  Our perception is an active process in which a large amount of sense data is filtered and actively processed to synthesize what is effectively a 'simulation' of reality.  When we 'see' things, the images in our minds seem so 'real' that we may think they 'mirror' reality in a complete and undistorted way, but that's not the case, as perceptual illusions demonstrate.

The same applies to hearing, and this why, for example, people can perceive headgear as providing a precision of imaging which isn't and can't objectively be there - our brains/minds 'fill in the blanks' to create it, just as they fill in other blanks to create the perceptual musical experience (this is an argument for becoming a 'better' listener by listening to more live music, playing instruments, etc. rather than just trying to buy better equipment).

The active nature of our perception is part of the reason why it can vary from one time to another for a given person, why it can change and improve for a given person with training and experience, and why it can vary between people.  This is also why our perception can be influenced by factors such as subconscious biases.  In many ways, the active nature of our perception is a gift, but it also greatly complicates the issue of testing perception.


----------



## skwoodwiva

analogsurviver said:


> Quite true - as you have said. And, yes,  I do have experience recording myself - otherwise I would not have more than 20 CDs under my belt.
> As much as I hate it, few times I have been forced to do test recordings in other venues than used in the end. There simply was not any other option.
> 
> Rehearsal on the same day, with no provision to check the results on decent loudspeaker system between the rehearsal and the concert/recording itself ( such as recording enough away from home to render the possibility to listen to test tracks at home and returning to the venue in time for the recording being impractical/impossible ), can be a VERY double edged sword. Because in the retrospect, moving that microphone by ( intentionally censored how much/little) "X" would yield a spectacular result - against the one really achieved, leaving "from something to much" to be desired.
> ...


What a great wealth of recording knowledge  you have. 
Thank, you, not only for this wonderful  elucidation but as suporting my claims about the superiority  of 2 Mike recordings .


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I would like to note something at this point......
> 
> I didn't previously mention it, but I have in fact heard real live wire-brush cymbals played many times.
> I noted that, in some recordings, the wire-brush cymbals seem to be rendered much more realistically than in others (they sound closer to what the ones I've heard in real life usually sound like).
> ...


don't know if this is nitpicking or massively important, but as we play wannabee scientists all the time, it would be better if you said "my hypothesis" instead of "my theory".


----------



## skwoodwiva

gregorio said:


> 1. Oh good, more utter nonsense. Professional orchestras have very little rehearsal time, typically one or two days (2-4 sessions) before the performance and then a rehearsal on the day of the performance. "Rehearse to death" is complete nonsense!
> 2. What is this, a competition to see how much nonsense you can invent in one post? Orchestras pretty much ALWAYS have a rehearsal in the concert venue, this rehearsal even has it's own name, it's called a "Dress Rehearsal". I get that you're ignorant and don't know anything about orchestras, concerts, rehearsals or recording but what I don't get is why you just make up lies and nonsense?!
> 
> 
> ...


@analogsurviver
I got all this too. ..just by claiming  I,could spot  a multmiked recording  anytime, on a good system .


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I've never personally done any large-scale multi-track recordings....
> But so far all of the discussion has been about what I would consider commercial recordings (someone is paying and willing to put some effort into the process).
> 
> However, I've recorded several choir performances in churches, and a few bands in similar situations, which were somewhat less well thought out.
> ...


Been there, done that ... God only knows how many times !

What usually comes out of it - both for the artist and recording engineer - is what is called in our language "medvedja usluga" 
( litteral translation : bear's service ) - meaning, rougly, "to do someone an ill turn/disservice ". 
And because of that, I no longer do it - PERIOD !!!

That's what I actually do for since a couple of years now - for  the "first scouting" ( the first assesment if a particular venue would be interesting/usable for recording of such and such musical formation ) - turning myself into unartificial binaural - not only head, but entire human being. 
Packs a whole lot more processing power than any artificial one/can even pick the best sounding row - but has to stay awake ( hey...you're snoring...), has to learn a super quiet breathing technique - AND choose one point "somewhere" on stage to look /point at troughout the entire duration of the concert. Needless to say, any applause from myself has to be kept silent - I call it "playback applause". It takes herculean effort not to burst into laughter if something funny enough happens to crack the entire contents of the audience - but "microphone" has to stay silent ...


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> don't know if this is nitpicking or massively important, but as we play wannabee scientists all the time, it would be better if you said "my hypothesis" instead of "my theory".



If we want to get the terminology right, agreed on your distinction.


----------



## KeithEmo

Just to play Devil's advocate here, I'm going to suggest a _VERY_ simple test that you can do yourself.
I'm going to tell you how to make two audio test tracks....
They will measure as "the same" by all the standard metrics.
But they will AUDIBLY SOUND VERY DIFFERENT.

Pick your favorite audio editor....

Use it to generate 180 seconds of "pure white noise"....
Divide that up into three equal 60 second segments of "pure white noise".... (we'll call these #1, #2, and #3).
NOTE: You CANNOT simply copy the same sixty second segment into three separate files.
Perform any tests you like to confirm that you have three exactly equal segments of white noise (I would suggest a detailed spectral analysis).

Now, using your favorite audio editor again, create a STEREO audio file with #1 as the left channel and #2 as the right channel.
This is what we call "uncorrelated white noise"..... each channel contains a different stream of totally equivalent random numbers.
Now, again using your favorite editor, create a STEREO audio file with #3 as BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT CHANNELS.
This is what we call "correlated white noise"..... and each channel contains the SAME stream of random numbers.
You now have two test tracks, one with "60 seconds of correlated white noise" and one with "60 seconds of uncorrelated white noise".

Now LISTEN to those two tracks.

You will find that the "correlated white noise" sounds like a single noise source centered between the speakers.
While the "uncorrelated white noise" sounds like randomly located white noise spread across the sound stage.
Note that, if you use a "vectorscope" or a "separation meter" it will clearly show the difference between the two test tracks.
However, to every measurement that fails to specifically compare the content in the two channels, they will "measure as the same".
The point, which should be obvious, is that....
Determining the difference between those two test signals by measurement requires VERY SPECIFIC TESTS....
Yet, to our human brains, the difference is quite obvious....

Also note that the audibility is only apparent with very specific tests performed using a specific protocol.
You will NEVER hear or measure a significant difference between the individual channels involved by listening to or measuring them one at a time.
The clearly audible difference only exists as a relationship between them.


----------



## KeithEmo

Honestly, while that example illustrates your point admirably, it doesn't say much about how audible jitter is.....

- what test samples were used?
- what playback equipment was used?
- what were the demographics of their test sample?
- EXACTLY what sort of jitter test signal did they use?

Jitter is not a single monolithic "characteristic"......
Jitter describes variations in the clock frequency over time.......
Therefore, jitter has a frequency, and amplitude, and a waveform (or, if random in nature, it has a frequency distribution and a peak amplitude).
Jitter can also be "data correlated" or not.

This is not a trivial distinction.....
For example, I suspect that the audibility of 3 kHz jitter would be far different than that of 0.1 Hz jitter.... both of which commonly occur in various systems.



amirm said:


> No.  They are all far, far away from objective data like measurements.
> 
> Both examples of what you say are purely subjective anyway.  In both cases you are asking subjects to give you answer.  What the question is, is immaterial. That same subject using identical blind test in another round could very well give you the opposite answer.
> 
> ...


----------



## RRod

KeithEmo said:


> Determining the difference between those two test signals by measurement requires VERY SPECIFIC TESTS....
> Yet, to our human brains, the difference is quite obvious....



While 'check the phase difference between channels' is a specific test, it isn't SO out there right?


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Let's assume a VERY simple situation to start.
> We have a symmetrical concert venue.... fifty feet square, moderately "live", with a stage at one end.
> A drummer sits stage center playing on his snare drum.
> ...
> ...



1. Assuming a VERY simple situation can sometimes be useful to illustrate some specific point but most situations are NOT simple and therefore a simple example often ends up being misleading or entirely wrong because it does not take into account the practical complexities and interactions at play! ... I don't recall ever working in a perfectly symmetrical concert venue that's the size of a bathroom, with a stage at one end and where the whole concert is just a drummer playing a snare drum. Let's take something a little more realistic/practical shall we? Say a drummer playing a drum kit with a band in a proper sized concert venue. 

2. Yes, all those timing cues will be recorded more or less accurately (for some people), but so what? The kick will sound like a can of beans being played in a noisy cave, the hi-hat will be inaudible, the toms will sound like an empty packet of cornflakes (if you can hear them at all in the mix) and the snare drum will probably just sound like a little drum rather than a snare drum. But hey, we've got all those little timing cues so essential for audiophiles, who cares that the drum kit actually sounds like half a broken kid's toy? 
2a. Yep, we loose/mess up those subtle little timing cues with a typical multi-mic kit setup but at least we can make the drum kit actually sound like a drum kit (or rather, what a drum kit is expected/desired to sound like)!! Which would you rather have?



KeithEmo said:


> I didn't previously mention it, but I have in fact heard real live wire-brush cymbals played many times.
> I noted that, in some recordings, the wire-brush cymbals seem to be rendered much more realistically than in others (they sound closer to what the ones I've heard in real life usually sound like).
> I offered MY THEORY as to why this might be the case (and it involved a difference in how some multi-track recordings are done).
> I could be wrong..... that's how science works..... and being proven wrong also adds to our knowledge.
> (But simply saying: "I think your theory is wrong, so you must be imagining what you think you hear" is not an answer.)



I agree that's not an answer but that is NOT the answer I gave you, your quote is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what I actually said!
I gave you reasons for why your hypothesis was probably wrong and a far more likely alternative for what you were hearing, which had nothing to do with your imagination.



skwoodwiva said:


> What a great wealth of recording knowledge you have. Thank, you, not only for this wonderful elucidation but as suporting my claims about the superiority of 2 Mike recordings .



Yep, in the audiophile land of the blind, a man claiming to have one eye is king!!

@castleofargh maybe this thread's title should be changed from "testing audiophile myths and claims" to: "let's invent as many nonsense audiophile claims as we can"? If not, then maybe it's time to start doing something about what can only be trolling? (It must be trolling because I can't believe this amount of ignorance and delusional assertions is even possible)!

G


----------



## bigshot (May 2, 2018)

I can see if you're recording in a "fly by the seat of your pants" situation that keeping it simple is the only way to get decent results. I've always worked on projects that had the budget for studio time or soundstage rental. The scale and technique of that is different than a situation where you have to record live in a venue you've never worked in before.

When we start talking about brain scans we enter the twilight zone where I zone out. I'm only interested in ways to make my audio system sound better. When it comes to abstract theory, there are other subjects that interest me more.



gregorio said:


> Yep, in the audiophile land of the blind, a man claiming to have one eye is king!!



Shouldn't that be one ear? Lately the emperor's new clothes keeps coming to mind too. There's an awful lot of naked parading about going on!

My recommendation to discourage trolling is to not quote their posts. That’s what they want and the site sends out an email alert letting them know you’ve replied to them. It’s better to talk past them to the general audience of lurkers. Don’t engage them. Just answer the nonsense for the benefit of the rest of the audience.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> When we start talking about brain scans we enter the twilight zone where I zone out. I'm only interested in ways to make my audio system sound better. When it comes to abstract theory, there are other subjects that interest me more.



If 'sound science' refers to the sound perceived by music listeners, there are areas of science (and technology) involved which go well beyond considerations of equipment, rooms, etc.  The science relevant to _listeners_ has to address ears and brains, and maybe we can't entirely avoid talking about 'minds' too.  Interesting stuff for those who want to try to look at the whole picture.


----------



## bigshot

I'm interested in using science to make my home audio system sound better. I have no need to split atoms or enter into purely theoretical discussions. Feel free to do that, but you're going to have to forgive me if you catch me yawning and stretching.


----------



## MacacoDoSom (May 2, 2018)

...and now something completely different...
Hi *analogsurviver...*
Where are the CD Mats testing files, due to be ready 2015?
...have I missed them?


----------



## bigshot

Sound Science never forgets!


----------



## gregorio (May 2, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I can see if you're recording in a "fly by the seat of your pants" situation that keeping it simple is the only way to get decent results.



Sure, if I were an amateur and flying by the seat of my pants, a simple stereo pair is just about the only way to go. But a world class orchestra costs around $300k a day for distributable recording and so there would never be any "flying by the seat of your pants" or amateurs involved! My only explanation, if analogsurvivor is actually telling the truth about having some orchestral recording experience, is that he's somehow gained permission to record some rehearsals, maybe even some performances (as long as he's completely unobtrusive to both the musicians and audience) or, he's is bootlegging.

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan (May 2, 2018)

Not to backseat mod or whatever, but I think this thread could take to heart the "principle of charity", meaning when arguing with someone you should interpret their argument in the strongest / most charitable way you can, (i.e. give the benefit of as much doubt as you can on the part of the argument and arguer).  For one thing it keeps things more civil, it also forces you to use your strongest arguments as well.

There are more than a few posts ITT where I read something significantly less ignorant or controversial in the post, than other commenters did.

We're all on the same team here, which is the team that wants to rationally and methodically approach better sound, rather than throwing money at the problem and crossing our fingers 

I think the only fundamental point of difference there ought to be is basically between someone like me and @bigshot  - he only cares about what's actionable for his home setup, which is quite reasonable.  I personally find the outer limits of theory and measurement to be pretty interesting, regardless of whether I can use them at home or work. 

This can also lead to arguments and misunderstandings - I actually want to know if there are ANY predictable/repeatable exceptions to the "ultrasonics are inaudible" rule, others find this to be worse than a waste of time and muddying the waters, to the detriment of the community.

But being that this is the sound science section, I think having a lot of arguments over semantics is a bad sign.


----------



## bigshot

There has been an organized effort over the years to get this thread locked. Now that it’s pinned, that is a meaningless effort. It’s here and not going away.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (May 2, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> If 'sound science' refers to the sound perceived by music listeners, there are areas of science (and technology) involved which go well beyond considerations of equipment, rooms, etc.  The science relevant to _listeners_ has to address ears and brains, and maybe we can't entirely avoid talking about 'minds' too.  Interesting stuff for those who want to try to look at the whole picture.


I'm going to go with "a complete waste of time". We cannot control sound once it has been converted into firing neurons...unless we're going to become the substance abuse forum. Pointless.

This is also not the place for "tree-falling-in-the-woods" naval-gazing, pseudo-philosophy.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Disagree, psychoacoustics are very fundamental to the design of lossy codecs (heresy to even mention here, I know), and can be relevant to loudspeaker design also, both of which are firmly within our grasp here.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 1. Oh good, more utter nonsense. Professional orchestras have very little rehearsal time, typically one or two days (2-4 sessions) before the performance and then a rehearsal on the day of the performance. "Rehearse to death" is complete nonsense!
> 2. What is this, a competition to see how much nonsense you can invent in one post? Orchestras pretty much ALWAYS have a rehearsal in the concert venue, this rehearsal even has it's own name, it's called a "Dress Rehearsal". I get that you're ignorant and don't know anything about orchestras, concerts, rehearsals or recording but what I don't get is why you just make up lies and nonsense?!
> 
> 
> ...


Well, you describe an ideal situation. That is how it should have been - and if you and the orchestras you work with have the privilege of always rehearsing in the venue the concert will be held in, than consider yourself more lucky then some.

Think about the way it is done here; the subscription concerts are both on thursday and friday - in the large hall. The first rehearsal on monday morning is in a much smaller hall - with any section rehearsals likely to be held in the afternoon. This gets repeated on tuesday and wednesday - but normally without the section rehearsals. The first time the orchestra is in the big hall where the concert(s) are to be held, is thursday morning; that would - or not - be your Dress Rehearsal ( each work on the concert programme played in one piece, without any interruptions or corrections, just like in a real performance, with break(s) as most appropriate ). The real dress rehearsal is most likely to be held on friday morning - IF it has not been held already on thursday. Varies according to a plethora of reasons and conditions. 

The above described holds true for the best possible scenario - that of Slovenian Philharmonics. Even the national radiotelevision symphonic orchestra has already worse conditions - not to mention anybody else. If and when they do get to perform in the big hall, the rehearsal it is most likely in the morning before the concert , break for lunch, then again "sort of dress rehearsal- abridged, short fast version"  in the afternoon - and that's it. Concert in the evening ... 
I have heard not a single concert played worse than during the rehearsals as a direct result of this - due to the fact that musicians, particularly young(er) with less experience, simply could no longer hold the concentration towards the end of the concert .


----------



## colonelkernel8

Zapp_Fan said:


> Disagree, psychoacoustics are very fundamental to the design of lossy codecs (heresy to even mention here, I know), and can be relevant to loudspeaker design also, both of which are firmly within our grasp here.


However, we can clearly measure the differences between lossy and lossless audio, so it's merely redundant.


----------



## MacacoDoSom (May 2, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> Not to backseat mod or whatever, but I think this thread could take to heart the "principle of charity", meaning when arguing with someone you should interpret their argument in the strongest / most charitable way you can, (i.e. give the benefit of as much doubt as you can on the part of the argument and arguer).  For one thing it keeps things more civil, it also forces you to use your strongest arguments as well.
> 
> There are more than a few posts ITT where I read something significantly less ignorant or controversial in the post, than other commenters did.
> 
> ...



"ultrasonics are inaudible", I hope so because in this 'Audiophile' recording "John Coltrane - Alternate Takes - Giant Steps 192 kHz 24 bit" I can see this:


----------



## bigshot

Zapp_Fan said:


> Disagree, psychoacoustics are very fundamental to the design of lossy codecs (heresy to even mention here, I know), and can be relevant to loudspeaker design also, both of which are firmly within our grasp here.



Psychoacoustics operates on scientific principles like auditory masking and response curves. Discussion of that sort of thing is different than philosophical semantic arguments about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. I'd love to hear someone talk about psychoacoustics who knows something about the subject. Maybe someday someone with experience there will stop by and chat with us.


----------



## bigshot

MacacoDoSom said:


> "ultrasonics are inaudible", I hope so because in this 'Audiphile' recording "John Coltrane - Alternate Takes - Giant Steps 192 kHz 24 bit" I can see this:



Holy cow! The other day I got a little gadget at Amazon that is designed to make dogs stop barking. It emits a loud super audible squeal. I've had it three days now and I've only pressed the button twice. My dogs are quiet as a mouse. I bet this album would work the same way.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> Psychoacoustics operates on scientific principles like auditory masking and response curves. Discussion of that sort of thing is different than philosophical semantic arguments about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. I'd love to hear someone talk about psychoacoustics who knows something about the subject. Maybe someday someone with experience there will stop by and chat with us.



With you all the way on that one.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bigshot said:


> Holy cow! The other day I got a little gadget at Amazon that is designed to make dogs stop barking. It emits a loud super audible squeal. I've had it three days now and I've only pressed the button twice. My dogs are quiet as a mouse. I bet this album would work the same way.


I think my speakers don't reproduce very well those frequencies and I don't have a dog to try it, maybe I'll try it with the cat...


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


> I'd love to hear someone talk about psychoacoustics who knows something about the subject. Maybe someday someone with experience there will stop by and chat with us.


I doubt your sincerity. You and a small number of copious posters seem to want to drive such people away.
For example:


bigshot said:


> I don't see any benefit from engaging with him. He has an agenda here that doesn't interest me. I have my own purpose.


----------



## bigshot (May 2, 2018)

Hang it up on the hearth at Christmas.



MacacoDoSom said:


> I think my speakers don't reproduce very well those frequencies and I don't have a dog to try it, maybe I'll try it with the cat...



Poor cat! When I push the button on my bark stopper, the pups skid across the floor and run under a bed to hide. Maybe your cat will have the same reaction to Coletrane!


----------



## castleofargh

if we're looking to determine the limits of human hearing(within a reasonable margin), we should consider all test signals under all conditions with results from the guy achieving the very best result. and whatever that best result is, that's the new limit until someone beats it. those are the stuff
@amirm is looking for. and obviously it's a vast subject where each and any variable needs to be tested independently and then maybe mixed with other stuff to answer different questions. 

if we're looking to determine what the average Joe(or ourselves)will notice while listening to his favorite song at normal listening level, then the blind tests should be performed using their favorite music at their preferred listening levels in a reasonably quiet but not anechoic room. everything else is irrelevant because it's dealing with a different question.
to be clear there is nothing wrong with trying to answer a different question, but then it should have been that question from the start, a very clear one with context and all. all those conversations where someone is contently changing the question and moving the conditions or even the definition of words... that's super lame and never ever constructive. 


in any case, nothing is going to be proved until a proper listening experiment demonstrates it. that much is a fact. so all of you with the mega ears or mega gears, or just the mega ego that let you think you perceive what I consistently fail to notice. I'm waiting for you guys to set up some irreproachable listening test and pass it, so that even if scientists come to look at it, have questions about the protocol and wish to replicate it, you will always be able to follow through instead of the usual "I heard it, I don't have to prove anything to you" that we are all too used to read.
then replicating such a test will let us know more about everything. like maybe if your gear is special, if your ears are special, or if maybe we could all do it all along and we only needed the right test. 
that kind of stuff would absolutely have the power to convince me and many others. clear questions, organized rigorous diagnostic, serious job on isolating and controlling any potentially relevant variables(so never sighted!!!), that's how we demonstrate the practical audibility of something and find out what really caused it. why is another question, often a really hard one. 

but to all the proponents of something audibly different who lack the clear means to demonstrate it. as far as I'm concerned, you have no fact. so making claims about your beliefs is just wasting everybody's time. that's my personal opinion.




gregorio said:


> @castleofargh maybe this thread's title should be changed from "testing audiophile myths and claims" to: "let's invent as many nonsense audiophile claims as we can"? If not, then maybe it's time to start doing something about what can only be trolling? (It must be trolling because I can't believe this amount of ignorance and delusional assertions is even possible)!



I think the issue here is very clear. most of the time the *testing* aspect went out the window with the bathwater like a hot potato that killed the cat since sliced bread.
 empty claims in an argumentation are like Dirac pulses in a band limited signal, illegal concepts.


----------



## KeithEmo

Absolutely.....

It's one of several dozen common tests - but it's also one of the tests most people don't bother to run.
In fact, it probably wouldn't occur to most people to run it until AFTER listening to the recording and noting that it sounded unusual.
And, to anyone who didn't happen to include that particular test on their list, those two files would "measure the same - within the limits of audibility".
Although most people who've actually listened to a similar pair of files would cheerfully say: "It's so obvious I really don't need a test to prove to me that it's real".

And THAT was my point.

To people who routinely work with and measure DACs, those impulse response graphs that show ringing ARE "standard measurements for DACs".
Manufacturers of DAC chips routinely publish them; reviewers routinely publish them; and they often differ significantly between different products.

Now, to be honest, I don't recall ever seeing any big study PROVING that the differences are audible.
The catch there seems to be that some of the filters, along with the differences in ringing response, also introduce obvious variations in frequency response.
Therefore, it becomes a matter of: 
"Some of the filters probably sound different, at least in part, because they significantly alter the frequency response."
"But there hasn't been much study to determine whether there is an audible difference between the filters that have a similar frequency response."



RRod said:


> While 'check the phase difference between channels' is a specific test, it isn't SO out there right?


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> if we're looking to determine the limits of human hearing(within a reasonable margin), we should consider all test signals under all conditions with results from the guy achieving the very best result. and whatever that best result is, that's the new limit until someone beats it. those are the stuff
> @amirm is looking for. and obviously it's a vast subject where each and any variable needs to be tested independently and then maybe mixed with other stuff to answer different questions.
> 
> if we're looking to determine what the average Joe(or ourselves)will notice while listening to his favorite song at normal listening level, then the blind tests should be performed using their favorite music at their preferred listening levels in a reasonably quiet but not anechoic room. everything else is irrelevant because it's dealing with a different question.
> ...



With all of that in mind, as the moderator, it would be appreciated if you could give those of us who aren't forum regulars more idea of what 'belongs' and 'doesn't belong' in the forum discussions.  There seem to be different ideas about what the scope of the forum is intended to be in terms of whether we're talking physical sound vs perceived sound, and what areas of science are considered relevant.  From a personal standpoint, the topics that interest me and my perspectives on those topics should be evident by now (and are fairly broad), and if my participation in the forum is a net negative for the forum, I'll move on with no hard feelings.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> I'd love to hear someone talk about psychoacoustics who knows something about the subject.


Love it?  You hate it.



> Maybe someday someone with experience there will stop by and chat with us.


I do and I have.  There has been nothing but disdain for the few of you.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> Sure, if I were an amateur and flying by the seat of my pants, a simple stereo pair is just about the only way to go. But a world class orchestra costs around $300k a day for distributable recording and so there would never be any "flying by the seat of your pants" or amateurs involved! My only explanation, if analogsurvivor is actually telling the truth about having some orchestral recording experience, is that he's somehow gained permission to record some rehearsals, maybe even some performances (as long as he's completely unobtrusive to both the musicians and audience) or, he's is bootlegging.
> 
> G


Well, partially you are right. I did gain the permission to record some rehearsals, I did get permission to some performances - both of which I am not allowed to share/distribute to a third party.

But NEVER completely unobtrusive to either the musicians or audience - always in plain sight, even if and when doing only binaural recording. 
You just can not hide either Jecklin Disk, artificial head, call it "MisteryMike" - or me.

Above goes for the total of two concerts, both held in the "big hall" -  The Gallus Hall of Cankarjev Dom in Ljubljanahttps://www.cd-cc.si/sl/ostalo/dvorane/gallusova-dvorana

I have been recording with full permission, with direct streaming over internet, as well as supplying audio for the live broadcast of the national radio. 

Below are my recordings of orchestra, which are available on Youtube. The first one is from the "small hall for rehearsals" - the large hall of the Slovenska Filharmonija ( Slovenian Philharmonics ), after the restoration of SF made smaller ( now perfect for chamber music ),  nowadays called The Hall of Marjan Kozina http://filharmonija.si/sub/236/dvorani-/dvorana-marjana-kozine



The second is from the Grand Hall of Hotel Union - one of the very few halls with so exquisite acoustics - far and wide. Just few days ago it has been renamed The Hall of Vaclav Talich - as a tribute to the Czech conductor who started his young career here in Ljubljana and brought the slovenian orchestra playing to a much higher level than before - when everything culture related has been tightly controlled by the Germans - who were naturally not fond of the fact that our orchestra became equal to their hitherto far superiour orchestra : https://marijanzlobec.wordpress.com...-obelezje-tam-kjer-je-zacel-svetovno-kariero/

This concert has been streamed live ; it has been the first concert in a series recorded here, and is my only live recording that ever experienced any technical difficulties. Due to the difficulty of the organizers to in time decide - whether the mike should be on a stand or suspended from the side balcony fences ( as used in the end ) - there came to the damage to the right channel of the mike cable - no way to replace it prior to the beggining of the concert. It held by the thread - literally - , but there is noise/distortion starting at some point. Still, it should give you the idea what - and how - can be captured with only two mics. 



ALL SUBSEQUENT LIVE RECORDINGS in this beautifully sounding hall have been technical glitch free - but only from one there are snippets available on YT, the most interesting being this superb rendition of Concerto for Strings by Nino Rota, performed by  Mladi Ljubljanski Solisti ( Young Soloists of Ljubljana ), a 16 member string orchestra that plays without the conductor 
- on all others there were too many mistakes - not mine, but in playing - to be allowed for publicly issuing them. 



In 2008, when Slovenia has been presiding the EU, Wiener Philharmoniker decided to honour this occasion by playing a concert - in beetween their scheduled normal routine - in the "big hall". Soloist has been our world renowned mezzo-soprano Bernarda Fink, conductor has been  Ivan Fischer. On programme , there were some Mozart arias, Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra and a Johann Strauss "kind of medley". I got the permission to record the whole rehearsal - in contrast with the national radio, who got the permission for only 15 minutes of audio recording. I have been recording using two artificial heads ( of far lesser quality than now ... ), one recording directly to CD-R and another to Sony HD Minidisc - from two VERY different locations, with next to zero time for setting everything up. No DSD yet available to me at that time, it came about a year later...

That rehearsal I will remember for the rest of my life... - one does not get to hear softly spoken " Leise " ( quietly ) by a conductor to clearly overpower ALL  members of the orchestra playing the opening bars of Bartok - in a hall of this size - very seldom, if at all. After all, such playing IS the hallmark og WP/VPO ...

I promised NOT  to do a bootleg of that concert ( despite being asked and offered money ) - but, above all, I do keep promises . If a recording of this concert does exist - it has not been done by me. No official permission for recording has been granted by the VPO - to anybody. 
I have been invited to the after concert party, meeting both Konzertmeister and conductor - and playing them some parts of the recordings made during the rehearsal, using the AKG K-1000 earspeakers ( FAR more appropriate name than headphones for this extraordinary device ) . Interestingly, neither of the two has been familiar with the K-1000 ( at the time; lately I have seen pics of Mr. Fisher listening to DSD recordings of Jared Sachs for Channel Records using K-1000s, made with Budapest Festival Orchestra ) - and you might imagine what smile did the binaural recording reproduced to the highest standard possible make on their faces...

I have been recording Bernarda Fink since twice, as soloists with two different choirs - both recordings on commercially available CDs.

By nature, I am frank - and to claim I never did a bootleg recording would be a lie. Once - or maybe twice, can no longer remember if I did obtain the permission or not in the second case.. However, it NEVER left my premises and has not been , in any shape or form,  available to a third person. And so it will remain - because I am serious with my proffession, where trust is everything. 

I do recording for living - if and when I have a in advance signed contract with all the possible permissions - or I do nothing at all.  

The last finished recording of mine available on YT - this time from the bulk of my work, the choir - from the forthcoming CD, recording still in progress. This choir with this conductor just won the coveted award "Naša pesem" ( Our Song ) 2018 competition in Maribor, with the conductor, the young but VERY dedicated Petra Grassi, being nominated The Person of the Week by the poll of the national radio:


----------



## bigshot (May 2, 2018)

Bare feet this time!

It's not easy to stream live. I've been playing around with that for a non-profit I volunteer for and there are a million pitfalls.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> With all of that in mind, as the moderator, it would be appreciated if you could give those of us who aren't forum regulars more idea of what 'belongs' and 'doesn't belong' in the forum discussions.  There seem to be different ideas about what the scope of the forum is intended to be in terms of whether we're talking physical sound vs perceived sound, and what areas of science are considered relevant.  From a personal standpoint, the topics that interest me and my perspectives on those topics should be evident by now (and are fairly broad), and if my participation in the forum is a net negative for the forum, I'll move on with no hard feelings.


outside of the official rules I don't think there is anything that can't be discussed. my remarks were personal and more a matter of pure logic. claims about anything shouldn't come before evidence of it has been gathered. that I hope is obvious to everybody. the issue we have here is what constitutes evidence or fact for somebody. on that subject it's a real mess because most people start with the assumption that casual enjoyment of music does provide conclusive evidence of... pretty much everything according to what I get to read on the forum. and obviously that's false. there is nothing to say that we can't get the right idea sometimes from an uncontrolled sighted experience. but how can we confirm anything without any form of control? how could such a situation be considered evidence? not being able to know what is correct and what is placebo or due to poor testing conditions, that's a crippling issue for sighted impressions and lack of controlled variables. so impressions from casual listening are not conclusive evidence about sound or audibility. for the same reason school exams aren't conducted with the answer already written next to the question. maybe the guy knew the answer, but how do you know when only relying on such a test? 

all in all if we were all better organized, everything from discussing to testing would improve drastically. that's why I mentioned settling on a clear question or idea, not some non falsifiable generality, and not a question so vague that it means 10 different things for the 10 people reading it. there is a need for context, a need for conditions, and the clearer the question, the easier it will be to answer it or to disprove an idea about it. in short, we'd be more likely to go somewhere. that much is what I believe and wish for, but the forum is the forum and discussions will be made about whatever people in it wish to talk about. I'm not yet the supreme leader.


----------



## Phronesis

^ Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## pibroch (May 2, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Psychoacoustics operates on scientific principles like auditory masking and response curves. Discussion of that sort of thing is different than philosophical semantic arguments about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. I'd love to hear someone talk about psychoacoustics who knows something about the subject. Maybe someday someone with experience there will stop by and chat with us.


Agree wholeheartedly. And I love the old adage: "There's nothing as practical as a good theory."

By the way, there's an article in Nature Communications published 10 April 2018 which could help enhance our enjoyment of music, whether live or reproduced. Google: DOI:10.1038/s41467-018-03660-8

Although the main focus of the study is on visual perception it may also apply to sound perception. The measurements indicate that for close-to-threshold [weak] visual signals, the signal to noise ratio in the visual cortex of the brain (and likely as well, that of the auditory and somatosensory cortices) likely peaks around 8 pm and 8 am.

So for those who value the perception of fine detail in their music this could be useful.

(P.S. A fairly accurate layperson's summary of the article - I've read both - appears in the 14 April edition of New Scientist.)


----------



## Phronesis

pibroch said:


> By the way, there's an article in Nature Communications published 10 April 2018 which could help enhance our enjoyment of music, whether live or reproduced. Google: DOI:10.1038/s41467-018-03660-8
> 
> Although the main focus of the study is on visual perception it may also apply to sound perception. The measurements indicate that the signal to noise ratio in the auditory cortex of the brain (as well as that of the visual and somatosensory cortices) likely peaks around 8 pm and 8 am.
> 
> ...



Sort of fits my experience.  I find that I best perceive detail in the late evening, before bed and before I'm sleepy, with lights off.  Second best is in the morning.


----------



## Phronesis

Have only read the abstract so far, so no opinion on it, but wanted to share:

https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548

If the findings are valid, seems to be an important study.


----------



## RRod

Oh man, Ōhashi. It was only a matter of time.


----------



## Phronesis

colonelkernel8 said:


> I'm going to go with "a complete waste of time". We cannot control sound once it has been converted into firing neurons...unless we're going to become the substance abuse forum. Pointless.



Agreed that we can't control perceived sound once neurons are firing.  But we would like know how variations in equipment and physical sound affect that firing of neurons.


----------



## pibroch (May 2, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Agreed that we can't control perceived sound once neurons are firing.  But we would like know how variations in equipment and physical sound affect that firing of neurons.


For double blind equipment tests I'd like to know how the following might influence test results
a) the equipment used
b) the other physical aspects of the methodology (room acoustics, measuring equipment used and measurement methodology)
c) social psychological aspects of the methodology
d) psychological aspects for individual subjects:
    (i) cognitive
    (ii) physical, from head/external ear shape, to inner ear physiology, to nerve pathways/brain processing, hormones, time of day effects and whatever else.
e) the comparative validity of the particular statistics used/not used


----------



## amirm

pibroch said:


> Agree wholeheartedly. And I love the old adage: "There's nothing as practical as a good theory."


I don't think he agrees with you at all.   



> By the way, there's an article in Nature Communications published 10 April 2018 which could help enhance our enjoyment of music, whether live or reproduced. Google: DOI:10.1038/s41467-018-03660-8


I read through it.  The application to audio is really not there.  fMRI type studies of audio thresholds have been performed but they are essentially discredited as producing any useful data.

Also, one can imagine that visual acuity changes with the amount of available light, i.e. sunrise/sunset, as a means of adaptation.  There is no parallel for auditory cortex.


----------



## pibroch

amirm said:


> I don't think he agrees with you at all.
> 
> 
> I read through it.  The application to audio is really not there.  fMRI type studies of audio thresholds have been performed but they are essentially discredited as producing any useful data.
> ...


References please.
(I think you must be confusing me with someone else)


----------



## bigshot (May 3, 2018)

I haven't found any particular time of day when my hearing is better or more focused. But I have to work with the schedules of the sound houses. I've done work at all hours of the day and night, and even if I'm tired, I have to pull it through and make it work. Perhaps that study is measuring enjoyment, not perception.


----------



## pinnahertz

pibroch said:


> For double blind equipment tests I'd like to know how the following might influence test results
> a) the equipment used


If you refer to the equipment used to perform the comparison, it must be properly engineered as to present as little as possible impact on the compared signals, and at very least, affect both A and B equally, as well as present identical switching characteristics regardless of the comparison being made.   If you refer to the equipment being compared, that's what ABX attempts to discover: if audible differences between DUTs exist.


pibroch said:


> b) the other physical aspects of the methodology (room acoustics, measuring equipment used and measurement methodology)


ABX is subjective testing, no measurements are made as part of that test, though certainly measurements may be made of any part of the system including the room as a reference.  However, anything held constant for A, B and X is by definition equally applied to all choices and is not a differential.


pibroch said:


> c) social psychological aspects of the methodology
> d) psychological aspects for individual subjects:
> (i) cognitive
> (ii) physical, from head/external ear shape, to inner ear physiology, to nerve pathways/brain processing, hormones, time of day effects and whatever else.


All of the above affect individual test results, hence the need for a statistically significant number of tests and testers.  A single individual making a few comparisons is not significant data. 


pibroch said:


> e) the comparative validity of the particular statistics used/not used


Not sure what you mean here.  If you collect enough data statistics present enough resolution for trends to fall out clearly. Extremely polarized results can be included without significant skewing of the results.  Typically, amateur ABX tests contain too few data points for even basic accuracy.  The more data points collected and analyzed, the higher the S/N ratio of the results.  Data taken from ABX testing is binary, a successful match of A or B to X, or not.  Positive (correct) matches are deterministic, and likely the result of an audible difference (the "signal" in the statistics) whereas random results, or result not related to the thing tested for are the "noise" component.  You improve the test signal to noise ratio by increasing the number of trials, but since this type of testing is exhausting, it's only really practical to expect any one tester to accomplish 16 trials at a time.  Several test sessions will likely be required.  

The validity of the data can be improved in several ways.  Level match of the choices is critical, noiseless choice switching that is instantaneous and seamless (at least under 20ms), using the same sample of audio, presenting and identifying an exaggerated difference as a form of "training", fully randomized X programming, unknown to anyone prior to data collection, and of course a system to log comparison results that doesn't depend on human memory or interpretation.  There are a few others too, but that's the basics of it.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I haven't found any particular time of day when my hearing is better or more focused. But I have to work with the schedules of the sound houses. I've done work at all hours of the day and night, and even if I'm tired, I have to pull it through and make it work. Perhaps that study is measuring enjoyment, not perception.


I have found when my hearing is better and more focused - but as you have said, the work comes at all hours of day and night, and one has to learn to pull iit trough and make it work. 

But, if I have to evaluate an amplifier modification ( is it better than before ? is it different ? is it worse than before ; our own "children" HAVE to be the best - right?, it IS damn hard to be objective when judging your own work... ), then I will do it ANYTIME I really feel like it; stepping any work, no matter how pressing, aside - because I know if I loose that moment I do feel "up enough" for such work, another might not come up for a month or more - even IF pressed to do it "right now, deadline tomorrow".

Although rare, I do get to experience the objectively same audio experience in a diametrally different way; when rested, in good mood, etc or when it was a hard day and now, to top it all, I MUST listen to this or that becaise of some deadline. Most extreme results I get from listening to vinyl; objectively same everything ( except maybe electricity, who knows what kind of electrical horror story might have the next door neighbour just plugged in ... ) - but in good mood, I can brush aside all the noise, ticks and pops - concentrating on and enjoying only the music ( and/or evaluating turntable/tonearm/cartridge/preamp/whatever using familiar records ) . When pressed, sometimes there remains nothing but ticks and pops - the very last signal it is time to either go and do something else - or go to sleep.

Tomorrow is another day.


----------



## swesko

bigshot said:


> I haven't found any particular time of day when my hearing is better or more focused. But I have to work with the schedules of the sound houses. I've done work at all hours of the day and night, and even if I'm tired, I have to pull it through and make it work. Perhaps that study is measuring enjoyment, not perception.



try waking up at 2 in the morning and resuming the track or album you were listening to before, keeping the same volume and you will notice a huge difference, its because you have not been polluted by noise/sound etc. i just tried it this morning


----------



## analogsurviver

swesko said:


> try waking up at 2 in the morning and resuming the track or album you were listening to before, keeping the same volume and you will notice a huge difference, its because you have not been polluted by noise/sound etc. i just tried it this morning


True. If I have the time later in the morning, I may well go to sleep earlier than usual, setting the alarm clock at about 2AM - and proceeding with listening session into the vee hours or WELL past that ( if really possible, no obligations in the morning ) , to go to sleep for the "second halftime" at around 9 AM. Of course, such a luxury can oviously be only an exception - and not the rule.

The requirement for loudness varies troughout the day - it is the highest around noon/early afternoon, the lowest past midnight. About 2-3 dB difference - which is one hell of a lot difference OBJECTIVELY with combinations of amp/transducer that are just below the clipping point at "after midnight" setting - and already in the "red" with "after noon" setting. No more appearent than with certain combinations of electrostatic headphones and amplifiers - where one would "kill" for just 3-4 dB SPL more, to stay safely below the clipping point troughout the whole day.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> Well, you describe an ideal situation. That is how it should have been - and if you and the orchestras you work with have the privilege of always rehearsing in the venue the concert will be held in, than consider yourself more lucky then some.



No, I am NOT describing an ideal situation. That's just another lie you've made-up, to try and escape from being called out on a previous lie!! Why am I absolutely certain you're lying?:
I first played in an orchestra when I was 15, with around 20 different youth and amateur orchestras as a music student, then with various London orchestras (Royal Opera, London Philharmonic, etc.) as a professional orchestral musician and then later as a sound engineer with 30+ different city/national orchestras (Lisbon, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Hong Kong, Graz, Singapore, Oslo, Beijing, Tokyo, Washington, Winnipeg, Berlin, Warsaw, Paris, Dublin, Milan, Gothenburg, Riga, many of the pro orchs in Britain and various others besides). I've probably done well over 500 orchestral performances, in about 50 different countries, across 4 continents, covering a period of 30+ years. In all that time I cannot recall even a single occasion where we did not have a dress rehearsal in the concert venue. Sure, general rehearsals we're sometimes in smaller halls but there was ALWAYS a dress rehearsal in the concert venue. I do NOT consider myself "lucky" or "privileged" to have always had dress rehearsals in the concert venues, in fact, I don't consider it at all, I take it completely for granted! 

Now *maybe* they do things differently in Slovenia to every other country in the world but YOU stated: "_Yes, all orchestras rehearse. To death, if required. There is, unfortunately, ONE particulary nasty fly in that ointmment. They, most usually, do not rehearse in the same venue as the concert or recording will take place. Reason is , as you might have guessed, the cost._":

1. Even you now appear to be saying that Slovenian orchestras do often/usually have a dress rehearsal in the concert venue.
2. You made assertions about ALL orchestras, now, for the first time, it appears you're ONLY talking about some Slovenian orchestras. The only specific orchestras you've mentioned previously were American orchestras, have you ever even seen an American orchestra live, let alone actually worked with any?
3. The youth and amateur orchs I played with as a student essentially had no money, yet they still always had dress rehearsals in the concert venues. The reason you invented for not having such dress rehearsals is nonsense. In fact, your "Reason" doesn't even make any sense with your own statement! If a professional orchestra cannot afford even a single rehearsal in the concert venue, how can it afford to rehearse "to death" in a smaller/cheaper venue?

At best (!), you seem to have some amateur recording experience of a couple of provincial orchestras and from that you're making up all kinds of utter nonsense which is so nonsensical it even contradicts itself. There is already far too much misconception and ignorance of what it is audiophiles are actually trying to reproduce and you are DELIBERATELY trying to make it even worse and doing it in this sub forum of all places.
*STOP TROLLING*!!!!!

G


----------



## Phronesis

pibroch said:


> For double blind equipment tests I'd like to know how the following might influence test results
> a) the equipment used
> b) the other physical aspects of the methodology (room acoustics, measuring equipment used and measurement methodology)
> c) social psychological aspects of the methodology
> ...



Good list.  

I think that a lot of headgear users don’t appreciate how much head/ear geometry affects the sound of the headgear. With IEMs, I’ve found that tips make a BIG difference, and inconsistency in tip positioning will result in inconsistency in sound quality.  To some extent the mind adapts and reduces the perceived variation, but the effect is still there.


----------



## gregorio (May 3, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Pick your favorite audio editor.... Use it to generate 180 seconds of "pure white noise"....
> Divide that up into three equal 60 second segments of "pure white noise".... (we'll call these #1, #2, and #3). ....
> You will find that the "correlated white noise" sounds like a single noise source centered between the speakers. While the "uncorrelated white noise" sounds like randomly located white noise spread across the sound stage. Note that, if you use a "vectorscope" or a "separation meter" it will clearly show the difference between the two test tracks.
> [1] *However, to every measurement that fails to specifically compare the content in the two channels, they will "measure as the same".*
> ...



1. That is simply not true. Just sum the left and right channels together of each test signal and then use a basic level meter. The uncorrelated noise will sum at +3dB and the correlated will sum at +6dB. OR ...
2. No it doesn't! One of the most widely used (not specific) tests, which I've recommended numerous times here, will determine a difference between your two test signals in less time than it took to create the test signals in the first place, a NULL test!!

Surely you must know this? I can't believe you don't, but then why would you post what you have if you do know???? Mmmm ....

G


----------



## Phronesis (May 3, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. That is simply not true. Just sum the left and right channels together of each test signal and then use a basic level meter. The uncorrelated noise will sum at +3dB and the correlated will sum at +6dB. OR ...
> 2. No it doesn't! One of the most widely used (not specific) tests, which I've recommended numerous times here, will determine a difference between your two test signals in less time than it took to create the test signals in the first place, a NULL test!!
> 
> *Surely you must know this? I can't believe you don't, but then why would you post what you have if you do know???? Mmmm ....*
> ...



What value does the bolded add to the post and the discussion?  Does it not get unnecessarily personal?  Is the purpose rhetorical, for debating purposes?  I bet the writer doesn't write such things in work communications, nor dare to say them in face to face communications.  Unfortunately, the perceived anonymity of sitting at a keyboard under an assumed name gives some people a feeling of license to be rude, not unlike the way people behave when driving on the road, giving each other the finger and such.  Then they get in the close quarters of an elevator and shy from even making eye contact.


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting.

So, in other words, the same person might, under otherwise identical conditions, find something audible at 10 PM that they would find totally inaudible at 10 AM.......



pibroch said:


> Agree wholeheartedly. And I love the old adage: "There's nothing as practical as a good theory."
> 
> By the way, there's an article in Nature Communications published 10 April 2018 which could help enhance our enjoyment of music, whether live or reproduced. Google: DOI:10.1038/s41467-018-03660-8
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

So, just to be completely clear here, you're saying that....

Even though the two signals may have identical frequency response, THD, and S/N, they may indeed sound audibly different.
And you're suggesting that, SINCE THOSE THREE CRITERIA ARE NOT ENOUGH TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TWO TEST FILES ARE AUDIBLY THE SAME, we need to add at least a fourth test.
And, in fact, we might even encounter other situations where even more tests might be necessary.
That sounds a lot like what I've been saying all along 



gregorio said:


> 1. That is simply not true. Just sum the left and right channels together of each test signal and then use a basic level meter. The uncorrelated noise will sum at +3dB and the correlated will sum at +6dB. OR ...
> 2. No it doesn't! One of the most widely used (not specific) tests, which I've recommended numerous times here, will determine a difference between your two test signals in less time than it took to create the test signals in the first place, a NULL test!!
> 
> Surely you must know this? I can't believe you don't, but then why would you post what you have if you do know???? Mmmm ....
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

That is incorrect..... or, more accurately, incomplete.....
Because it depends on the stated goal of your tests.

If you want to test whether "most people notice a difference between A and B", or whether "most people prefer A over B", then you need "a statistically significant number of tests.

However, if you're testing "whether SOME people can smell cyanide" - then all you need to prove the claim is to produce _ONE SINGLE PERSON_ who proves the case.
Because, if at least one person can do it, then you can NOT claim that "nobody can do it".
Likewise, it was perfectly valid to state that "a human being can run the mile in less than 4 minutes" after the very first time a single person did it.

To re-phrase that, if your question is whether something is possible, or whether it exists,_ A SINGLE VERIFIED CASE IS IN FACT "STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT_".



pinnahertz said:


> If you refer to the equipment used to perform the comparison, it must be properly engineered as to present as little as possible impact on the compared signals, and at very least, affect both A and B equally, as well as present identical switching characteristics regardless of the comparison being made.   If you refer to the equipment being compared, that's what ABX attempts to discover: if audible differences between DUTs exist.
> ABX is subjective testing, no measurements are made as part of that test, though certainly measurements may be made of any part of the system including the room as a reference.  However, anything held constant for A, B and X is by definition equally applied to all choices and is not a differential.
> All of the above affect individual test results, hence the need for a statistically significant number of tests and testers.  A single individual making a few comparisons is not significant data.
> 
> ...


----------



## RRod

My problem with the statistics underlying ABX is that you rarely get estimates in the 0.6-0.8 range. At least when I do testing, either:
a) I find a 'tell' between A and B and then get 100% right or maybe just miss one
b) I find no tell, and get around 50%

Put another way, if I were to put a prior distribution on the probability of discerning, it would be a U-shaped density between 0.5 and 1, which just expresses my prior belief that people aren't really 'flipping a biased coin' when they do these tests.


----------



## Phronesis (May 3, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> That is incorrect..... or, more accurately, incomplete.....
> Because it depends on the stated goal of your tests.
> 
> If you want to test whether "most people notice a difference between A and B", or whether "most people prefer A over B", then you need "a statistically significant number of tests.
> ...



I think the confusion often stems from people mixing up testing equipment vs testing listeners.  In a blind listening test, you can't avoid testing both simultaneously, and statistical analysis is needed to try to figure out what's going on.

But the general principal remains that caution must be exercised in generalizing findings beyond the test conditions.  If a listener in a test was likely able to perceive sound differences between two equipment systems, that doesn't mean that lots of other people can.  Likewise, if a _group_ of listeners in a study was likely unable to perceive a sound difference, that doesn't mean that none of the _individuals_ in the study were able to do so, nor that no individual who didn't participate in the study can do so.  It would be wrong to assume that people are all homogenous in their perceptual ability, and therefore findings for _some_ people apply to _all_ people.  We can't even say that the findings for an individual at a given time always apply to that individual, since the perceptual ability of an individual isn't time-invariant.


----------



## Phronesis

RRod said:


> My problem with the statistics underlying ABX is that you rarely get estimates in the 0.6-0.8 range. At least when I do testing, either:
> a) I find a 'tell' between A and B and then get 100% right or maybe just miss one
> b) I find no tell, and get around 50%
> 
> Put another way, if I were to put a prior distribution on the probability of discerning, it would be a U-shaped density between 0.5 and 1, which just expresses my prior belief that people aren't really 'flipping a biased coin' when they do these tests.



Makes sense to me.  In my limited experience with blind testing, I was definitely trying to 'beat the test', which of course isn't the way I normally listen.


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting.....

fMRI studies are pretty routinely used to test and prove - or disprove - various theories in brain science.
As far as I know, I've never heard the validity of the science itself questioned in a very long time.
The fMRI shows brain activity; increased activity in a certain portion of the brain, correlated with a specific stimulus, indicates that the brain is in fact reacting to that stimulus.

However, in a given situation, it's possible that a bad choice of test conditions or detection thresholds could call the results of a _SPECIFIC_ study into question.
(For example, if it becomes difficult to determine which stimulus provoked the response, or if the threshold is set so low that it falls well into the noise.)
I would like to see exactly who claims that "those studies produce no useful data" and. more importantly, their reasoning behind that claim.

Of course, another interesting question is of whether some questions _REQUIRE_ subjective answers.
For example, if a person _DOES NOT_ claim to hear something, but the fMRI indicates that the auditory portion of their brain has responded to it - it it fair to say that "they heard it" or not?.
And, how about if both the auditory center, and the pain or pleasure center responded, but they claimed _CONSCIOUSLY_ to have heard nothing?
(That would seem to suggest that the auditory center responded, and triggered a response in the pain or pleasure center, but the conscious mind "wasn't sent the message".)

A similar question would apply to testing pain medication.
What if, when you test a certain pain medication, the majority of subjects subjectively report "no effect", yet you find that their blood pressure and other "stress indicators" have dropped lower.
You would seem to have proven that your pain medication _PHYSICALLY_ worked, but produced no subjective result.
Is that a "successful test" or not?
If your company sells over-the-counter headache remedies, it's probably a failure... because nobody will believe your product works if it doesn't make them feel noticeably better.
However, if you are a "pain management specialist", and your goal is to expedite patient recovery by reducing stress that slows healing, then it would be considered a success.
(And whether a doctor would prescribe it would depend on which of those goals he or she considers to be their priority.)

Likewise, what if we really did have two products: A and B?
And, statistically, virtually everyone agrees that they hear no difference?
Yet, statistically, a much higher percentage of listeners "are in a good mood" after listening to Product A?
Or subjectively (but measured objectively), when given the choice, a statistically significant number of listeners choose to listen to Product A _LONGER_ than Product B before leaving the room?
_
A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE_ summary would be that:
- "statistically, listeners don't believe that Product A sounds better, but more listeners rate their relative happiness as being higher after listening to Product A."
- or "statistically, listeners don't believe that Product A sounds better, but, when allowed to listen as long as they like, they statistically listen to Product A much longer before leaving".

And, yes, such questions sometimes make the world a bit more complicated to figure out.
They are also _VERY_ relevant when it comes to studying forms of art or entertainment.

For example, a certain "ruthlessly revealing" speaker may make a certain selection of music sound_ LESS PLEASANT_ because it emphasizes the flaws in the performance.
However, I may personally find the overall experience "more satisfying" because I know I am being presented with the most accurate rendition of the original performance.
Yet another audiophile may prefer to listen to a speaker that fails to reproduce the flaws as accurately - because, to him, they distract from the performance.



amirm said:


> I don't think he agrees with you at all.
> 
> 
> I read through it.  The application to audio is really not there.  fMRI type studies of audio thresholds have been performed but they are essentially discredited as producing any useful data.
> ...


----------



## Phronesis (May 3, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Interesting.....
> 
> fMRI studies are pretty routinely used to test and prove - or disprove - various theories in brain science.
> As far as I know, I've never heard the validity of the science itself questioned in a very long time.
> ...



Excellent points.

I sometimes prefer to listen to headphones which reveal less detail because the listening experience is more laid back, maybe due to having less 'information' to process.  And sometime that also suits tracks which don't seem to have been recorded/mixed well (to my ears).

IMO, the distinction between conscious and subconscious effects is hugely important.  We tend to view conscious experience as being the majority or entirety of our experience because that's what, by definition, is what's readily accessible to us.  But the bulk of our cognitive processing is at the subconscious level, and subconscious effects influence our conscious experience through influencing our moods, emotions, intuition, judgment, decision-making, etc.  I know that some people finding this stuff uninteresting, too abstract, too mushy, etc., but if we want to understand how the sound we create influences our experience of music, we need to look at both what reaches the auditory nerves and what's happening past the auditory nerves - the whole system which creates the musical experience.


----------



## KeithEmo

Very nice summary.....

I would add one thing.... just because many audiophiles seem to sometimes ignore it.

Sometimes "holding all the control constants constant" can be more difficult than it seems... and that is in large part due to the fact that many are far from obvious.
For example, it is well known to product testers that timing and position are critical in subjective perception.
If we were trying to determine whether people could taste the difference between three different brands of soda, we would all use three identical glasses.
But it is also a well known fact (in marketing studies) that, if the glasses are in a row, people tend to prefer the one in a certain position (usually on the right).
And they may express a preference for the first one they taste, or the last one, or the one in the middle.... or which of those is true may depend on what sort of soda it is.
You may also be surprised to know that, statistically, if you sit the bottle next to the glass, people will express a preference for the glass next to the EMPTIEST BOTTLE.
(When sampling products, if you offer identical products, people will routinely "prefer" the one which seems to be more popular... 
so they will "prefer" the cookies in the emptiest box, and the soda from the emptiest bottle.) 
And they may prefer a different brand after eating a box of salty popcorn....
And, regardless of how they feel about the first glass they taste, they may find the second one less refreshing (because they aren't thirsty now).
Likewise, someone may find the first tune they hear in the morning to be especially satisfying.
Or they may find the first loud song they hear in the morning to sound especially discordant.
Or, if you play a song they like, but haven't heard in a while, they will probably express a preference for the first test unit it is played on.

This may seem trivial, but it can make running "fair tests" quite complicated.
Ask people to listen to too many music samples and they get bored, or tired, and their hearing actually changes over time.
But, ask them to listen to too few samples, and what they were doing before they started may well influence the results.
Let them listen to two minutes of each song and they'll feel that they were "stressed" - which might affect their perception.
But, allow them to listen as long as they like to each sample, and they may only listen to one test unit a day.
(In which case, their day-to-day mood will affect the results.)
Ask them to listen to a song they really like and they may concentrate on the song - and miss differences in the equipment.
Play a song they're not familiar with and they'll probably prefer the first piece of equipment you play it on.
And, play a song they're very familiar with, and play often at home, and they'll prefer the piece of equipment that sounds most like their equipment at home.

Even in a simple ABX test, where you're supposedly "JUST" trying to determine whether there is an audible difference, this can be a factor.
(If they're too busy concentrating on the great guitar playing they may be less likely to notice exactly how the decay on the string plucks differs.)

Altogether, it's far more complex to do tests with music than simple tests like "are the two red squares the same color or not?"



pinnahertz said:


> If you refer to the equipment used to perform the comparison, it must be properly engineered as to present as little as possible impact on the compared signals, and at very least, affect both A and B equally, as well as present identical switching characteristics regardless of the comparison being made.   If you refer to the equipment being compared, that's what ABX attempts to discover: if audible differences between DUTs exist.
> ABX is subjective testing, no measurements are made as part of that test, though certainly measurements may be made of any part of the system including the room as a reference.  However, anything held constant for A, B and X is by definition equally applied to all choices and is not a differential.
> All of the above affect individual test results, hence the need for a statistically significant number of tests and testers.  A single individual making a few comparisons is not significant data.
> 
> ...


----------



## sonitus mirus

A major issue that causes consternation in these forums is that one side of the conversation is discussing differences that have no evidence suggesting a difference is heard that is independently verified or repeatable.  Then real, but often slight differences are mentioned that no longer meet the requirements that were initially being discussed by one side, and this is often used by the opposing side to justify the original claims. 

It is a non-stop, circular exercise.


Initial discussion: No difference where all rational things are the same with regard to audibility.
Opposition claim: In a specific situation, often extreme to the point of pathological, some things can be different, and maybe some people can hear this difference.
Counterpoint: This particular situation is not relative to what was initially intended in the previous statement. (the typical "nonsense" retorts)
Off-topic rambling with some dreamy psychobabble about general human perception and philosophical abstracts referencing some indirect correlation to hearing potential.
Cries about trolling!
Topic is lost in the bickering, denigrating exchanges that follow 
Cooler heads eventually prevail or boredom or bans result
Silence for a period of time
Repeat, ad nauseam


----------



## Zapp_Fan

sonitus mirus said:


> A major issue that causes consternation in these forums is that one side of the conversation is discussing differences that have no evidence suggesting a difference is heard that is independently verified or repeatable.  Then real, but often slight differences are mentioned that no longer meet the requirements that were initially being discussed by one side, and this is often used by the opposing side to justify the original claims.
> 
> It is a non-stop, circular exercise.
> 
> ...



QFT


----------



## colonelkernel8

sonitus mirus said:


> A major issue that causes consternation in these forums is that one side of the conversation is discussing differences that have no evidence suggesting a difference is heard that is independently verified or repeatable.  Then real, but often slight differences are mentioned that no longer meet the requirements that were initially being discussed by one side, and this is often used by the opposing side to justify the original claims.
> 
> It is a non-stop, circular exercise.
> 
> ...



Yep, just chilling in the "Silence for a period of time" phase.


----------



## Phronesis (May 3, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> A major issue that causes consternation in these forums is that one side of the conversation is discussing differences that have no evidence suggesting a difference is heard that is independently verified or repeatable.  Then real, but often slight differences are mentioned that no longer meet the requirements that were initially being discussed by one side, and this is often used by the opposing side to justify the original claims.
> 
> It is a non-stop, circular exercise.
> 
> ...



To take it further, I think you have differences in (a) assumptions, (b) opinions about how plausible, likely, or significant some phenomena are, (c) weight given to different types of evidence, and (d) interest in various topics.  In other words, people come to the discussions with different perspectives.  It can seem that these perspectives fall into two polarized camps, but that doesn't have to be case, and isn't always the case (and IMO, _shouldn't_ be the case - this isn't politics).

If this forum is to be about general inquiry into 'sound science', I think messiness due to differences in perspectives is to be expected, consensus won't be reached, and the needed common ground would be normal courtesy in discussions to prevent unnecessary and counterproductive conflict.

The other option is for the discussions to be steered by a cohort of like-minded people (possibly a vocal minority), with those who persistently deviate from and challenge their consensus being pushed out of the discussions.

Both options can 'work', but they result in different kinds of forums.  What I've seen in my short time so far is a tension between these two options.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Even though the two signals may have identical frequency response, THD, and S/N, they may indeed sound audibly different.
> [2] And you're suggesting that, SINCE THOSE THREE CRITERIA ARE NOT ENOUGH TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TWO TEST FILES ARE AUDIBLY THE SAME, we need to add at least a fourth test.



1. No, they absolutely do NOT have an identical frequency response! White noise is a RANDOM signal, NOT a constant signal and therefore at any point in time two different white noise signals will have a DIFFERENT peak frequency response. Two different white noise signals will only be identical in terms of their average power over the whole spectrum. If white noise were a constant signal and therefore your two test signals actually had an identical frequency response, then your test would not work because both signals would measure the same, actually be the same and therefore sound the same!

2. No, that is the opposite of what I'm suggesting!! We don't even need three tests, let alone a fourth! We only need one test; peak freq response at any point in time. We don't need to measure THD or S/N, as they would change our freq response anyway. It literally could not be any easier to see all this for yourself: Once you've loaded your two different (uncorrelated) bits of white noise in to the left and right channels of your audio editor, just look at those two waveforms (you might need to zoom in a bit), they're different! Do that with the two identical (correlated) bits of white noise and obviously they'll be the same.

I'm nearly speechless at this point, do you not know what white noise is, did you not see the waveforms as you were loading them into your editor for your test, have you never played a white noise signal and looked at a peak meter at the same time? If your answer is "no" to all these questions, how is that possible? And if your answer is "yes" to any of them, then why are you posting assertions which you must know are false?

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan

gregorio said:


> I'm nearly speechless at this point, do you not know what white noise is, did you not see the waveforms as you were loading them into your editor for your test, have you never played a white noise signal and looked at a peak meter at the same time? If your answer is "no" to all these questions, how is that possible? And if your answer is "yes" to any of them, then why are you posting assertions which you must know are false?
> 
> G



Actually this is a great example of the confliction mentioned in the recent post.  Clearly Keith knows how white noise works, it's very uncharitable to suggest he's ignorant on that point.

The issue is you're talking about two different types of FR test and then rather than spending a post on clarifying the point, you are launching into not just a further argument, but invective.

Clearly Keith is talking about taking the average frequency spectrum of white noise averaged over a lengthy clip, which of course will come out to very nearly the same result on both channels (equally distributed, a flat "frequency response").  You then attack him on the basis of not knowing that the FR will of course vary on an instantaneous basis, which is actually more or less another way to state the same point he's already made.

I totally agree that we all need to take a step back and look for as many points of agreement as we can, before we identify disagreements.


----------



## colonelkernel8

gregorio said:


> 1. No, they absolutely do NOT have an identical frequency response! White noise is a RANDOM signal, NOT a constant signal and therefore at any point in time two different white noise signals will have a DIFFERENT peak frequency response. Two different white noise signals will only be identical in terms of their average power over the whole spectrum. If white noise were a constant signal and therefore your two test signals actually had an identical frequency response, then your test would not work because both signals would measure the same, actually be the same and therefore sound the same!
> 
> 2. No, that is the opposite of what I'm suggesting!! We don't even need three tests, let alone a fourth! We only need one test; peak freq response at any point in time. We don't need to measure THD or S/N, as they would change our freq response anyway. It literally could not be any easier to see all this for yourself: Once you've loaded your two different (uncorrelated) bits of white noise in to the left and right channels of your audio editor, just look at those two waveforms (you might need to zoom in a bit), they're different! Do that with the two identical (correlated) bits of white noise and obviously they'll be the same.
> 
> ...



You need to chill a bit.


----------



## Phronesis

Zapp_Fan said:


> I totally agree that we all need to take a step back and look for as many points of agreement as we can, before we identify disagreements.



+1

That's the difference between discussion in good faith with a shared goal, versus debate (arguing for the sake of arguing or 'winning').  For me, life is too short for the latter, and it's definitely not scientific (but common with religion and politics).


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> To take it further, I think you have differences in (a) assumptions, (b) opinions about how plausible, likely, or significant some phenomena are, (c) weight given to different types of evidence, and (d) interest in various topics.  In other words, people come to the discussions with different perspectives.  It can seem that these perspectives fall into two polarized camps, but that doesn't have to be case, and isn't always the case (and IMO, _shouldn't_ be the case - this isn't politics).
> 
> If this forum is to be about general inquiry into 'sound science', I think messiness due to differences in perspectives is to be expected, consensus won't be reached, and the needed common ground would be normal courtesy in discussions to prevent unnecessary and counterproductive conflict.
> 
> ...



I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I came to this forum only after attempting to participate in other forums on this site where people were asking for feedback on a product purchase.  Asking for evidence to back up a claim that a $500 cable was a solution for sonic bliss only got me into trouble with the moderators and many other members.   

This site is about people coming together and sharing ideas about the hobby that interests them, except that only in this one sandbox are we allowed to even bring about the notion that some of the marketing claims and anecdotal reviews might not be accurate.  That makes perfect sense to me when I consider that the regular members that participate on these forums are actually the product that is being sold.


----------



## gregorio

Zapp_Fan said:


> Clearly Keith knows how white noise works, it's very uncharitable to suggest he's ignorant on that point.



If he knows how it works then why is he stating that we require some "VERY SPECIFIC TESTS"? We just need a pair of eyes and an audio editor, both of which are needed to accomplish his test in the first place! Heck, just a peak meter would be enough. The suggestion that we can hear things that we can't measure or cant measure without "very specific tests" or special tools like a vectorscope, is false and just adding to audiophile myth!

G


----------



## Phronesis (May 3, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I came to this forum only after attempting to participate in other forums on this site where people were asking for feedback on a product purchase.  Asking for evidence to back up a claim that a $500 cable was a solution for sonic bliss only got me into trouble with the moderators and many other members.
> 
> This site is about people coming together and sharing ideas about the hobby that interests them, except that only in this one sandbox are we allowed to even bring about the notion that some of the marketing claims and anecdotal reviews might not be accurate.  That makes perfect sense to me when I consider that the regular members that participate on these forums are actually the product that is being sold.



I similarly decided to check out Sound Science because evidence, etc. weren't discussed in other parts of Head-Fi.  Things can definitely go to extremes there.  IMO, it would be nice if this forum didn't go to the other extreme of aggressively blocking even discussion of hypothesis unless a high supporting level of evidence is presented which isn't available and may never be available.  In the absence of sufficient evidence, sometimes speculation/hypothesizing about plausibility or likelihood is the best we can do, and that can still have value if we keep the associated uncertainty in mind.  We don't necessarily have to be sure or almost sure of things to have a worthwhile discussion, but the key is for people to not get heated up and bent out shape (mixed metaphor intended!) when other people say things they disagree with.


----------



## bigshot (May 3, 2018)

Once you're formulated a hypothesis, there isn't anything left to discuss. The next step is testing the hypothesis and gathering evidence. A theory doesn't have a lot of meaning until it's tested. If folks would like advice for pitfalls that might skew their test results when they are testing their theories, we can certainly help with that. How to best test is the most productive thing to discuss at this stage.

If there is no way to test the theory, then there is even less to say. It's pure pie in the sky and might be amusing from a theological or creative writing viewpoint, but it doesn't add up to a hill of beans if it can't be tested in the real world. Arguments need to be supported, not just entertained.


----------



## KeithEmo

I skimmed the main text - and skipped to the results.

To summarize those results.....
They played samples of a specific type of music to several test subjects.
In some trials the music was band-limited to below 26 kHz; in other trials it was not band-limited.
They used proper protocol - and, among other things, confirmed that their test equipment was actually producing frequencies above 26 kHz.

They compared the results when the test music was band limited to "below 26 kHz" and when it as NOT band limited.
A statistically significant number of test subjects reported that subjectively the non-band-limited music "sounded more pleasurable".
Both EEG and PET scans indicated that the subjects brains reacted DIFFERENTLY to the band- limited and non-band-limited versions.

Assuming there are no serious flaws in their test protocol or their statistical analysis of the results....
They would SEEM to have proven that, with some test samples, some test subjects ARE able to hear the difference when the music is or is not band limited to 26 kHz.
Furthermore, the differences are not only "subjectively audible", but show up as PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES on brain measurements.



Phronesis said:


> Have only read the abstract so far, so no opinion on it, but wanted to share:
> 
> https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548
> 
> If the findings are valid, seems to be an important study.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Once you're formulated a hypothesis, there isn't anything left to discuss. The next step is testing the hypothesis and gathering evidence. A theory doesn't have a lot of meaning until it's tested. If folks would like advice for pitfalls that might skew their test results when they are testing their theories, we can certainly help with that. How to best test is the most productive thing to discuss at this stage.
> 
> If there is no way to test the theory, then there is even less to say. It's pure pie in the sky and might be entertaining from a theological or creative writing viewpoint, but it doesn't add up to a hill of beans if it can't be tested in the real world. Arguments need to be supported, not just entertained.



Ideally, yes, I absolutely agree, empirical testing is where the rubber hits the road.  As we've discussed, to do the testing properly requires real expertise in study design and stats, larger scale, careful expert interpretation of study results (there are lots of pitfalls in interpretation), and serious funding.  I'm skeptical that meaningful testing of that kind is going to happen at the hobbyist level, and it will probably be limited at a better-funded level too, because of the disincentives involved.  In the absence of such testing, unfortunately, we're just left with discussing on the basis of theory, anecdotal evidence, and the limited testing which has already been done.  I would LOVE to pin down answers to all of the questions which have been discussed here lately, but I'm not optimistic that we'll be able to do it any time soon.


----------



## amirm

pibroch said:


> References please.


Sure.  Please see the ICA paper: Psychological and Physiological Acoustics: Paper ICA2016-219 Investigation of hearing perception at ultrasound frequencies by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG)

In a nutshell, the research looks into audibility of ultrasonic sounds starting from 14 kHz and going to 24 kHz.  Initial method is traditional listening test with this outcome (which agrees with a number of other studies):






We see that ultrasonics are audible but require pretty high levels.  And that there is an odd rolling off at the top end.

The test was then repeated using both MEG and fMRI.  With the latter, the only activation of auditory cortex was at 14 kHz.  Above that, there was no statistically valid outcome.





The "0" line is the threshold for each listener's detection of that specific tone (as per part 1 of the test).  We see that even increasing the level by 5 dB did not create a reliable indication in fMRI test above 14 kHz.

Surprisingly to the fans of fMRI is that this occurred even though the subject indicated hearing said tones!  

In other words, when we are talking about thresholds of hearing or anything even remotely close to it, fMRI is not of any help.  It is far less sensitive than simply testing the subject using traditional means.






> (I think you must be confusing me with someone else)


Actually, I have no idea who you are.    But I know who Bigshot is and chances of him being interested in a) psychoacoustics, b) the content of the paper you cited is as good as a vegetarian appreciating a reference for a good steak house.


----------



## Phronesis

amirm said:


> Surprisingly to the fans of fMRI is that this occurred even though the subject indicated hearing said tones!
> 
> In other words, when we are talking about thresholds of hearing or anything even remotely close to it, fMRI is not of any help.  It is far less sensitive than simply testing the subject using traditional means.



I think we need to be careful with the conclusion here.  Just because the particular fMRI approach used in this study didn't show a change in brain activity, that doesn't mean there was no change in brain activity, only that nothing was detected.  I'm not trying to argue that 'anything is possible despite test results', but we do need to be careful about what specific measurements can and can't detect, and the associated potential for false negatives.  'Absence of evidence is not (always) evidence of absence.'


----------



## amirm

Phronesis said:


> I think we need to be careful with the conclusion here.  Just because the particular fMRI approach used in this study didn't show a change in brain activity, that doesn't mean there was no change in brain activity, only that nothing was detected.  I'm not trying to argue that 'anything is possible despite test results', but we do need to be careful about what specific measurements can and can't detect, and the associated potential for false negatives.  'Absence of evidence is not (always) evidence of absence.'


You are stating the obvious.  Of course the brain perceived the ultrasonic tones.  The listeners voted such in controlled testing.  

The question was validity of fMRI as a more accurate way of detecting audio thresholds and that dog simply don't hunt.  It is a super crude indication of what the brain is really doing.


----------



## sonitus mirus

amirm said:


> Sure.  Please see the ICA paper: Psychological and Physiological Acoustics: Paper ICA2016-219 Investigation of hearing perception at ultrasound frequencies by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG)
> 
> In a nutshell, the research looks into audibility of ultrasonic sounds starting from 14 kHz and going to 24 kHz.  Initial method is traditional listening test with this outcome (which agrees with a number of other studies):
> 
> ...



Three people under the age of 34 could hear a 24.2 kHz monaural, digitally synthesized sinusoidal tone-burst (three (3) 400 ms bursts with 100 ms pauses in between) at 115 dB using this contraption:






Great, now some people might think we all need to have a system that allows for playback of 24.2 kHz to be able to fully enjoy music.


----------



## colonelkernel8

sonitus mirus said:


> Three people under the age of 34 could hear a 24.2 kHz monaural, digitally synthesized sinusoidal tone-burst (three (3) 400 ms bursts with 100 ms pauses in between) at 115 dB using this contraption:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, now some people might think we all need to have a system that allows for playback of 24.2 kHz to be able to fully enjoy music.



I'm already annoyed.


----------



## RRod

sonitus mirus said:


> Three people under the age of 34 could hear a 24.2 kHz monaural, digitally synthesized sinusoidal tone-burst (three (3) 400 ms bursts with 100 ms pauses in between) at 115 dB using this contraption:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, now some people might think we all need to have a system that allows for playback of 24.2 kHz to be able to fully enjoy music.



No wonder I'm not hearing anything, it's an EAR tip.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548
> 
> If the findings are valid, seems to be an important study.



As @RRod effectively stated, Oh no, not the Oohashi again! The operative word in your quote is "if" and the answer is "no" the findings aren't valid. There's plenty of threads in this sub forum if you want the full details, if you go a few years. Try this one for example. In a nutshell, it doesn't qualify as valid scientifically because the results cannot be repeated, despite several attempts. Actually, similar results were achieved in one attempt to replicate the experiment, by a different group of Japanese scientists if I remember correctly. However, they identified the cause as IMD. I believe Oohashi eventually accepted the peer reviews which invalidated his study (anyone have a link to verify this?).

Despite being thoroughly debunked, it nevertheless still rears it's ugly head every so often, usually by extremist subjectivists trying to demonstrate some objectivity, hence RRod's response.

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan

115dB is pretty loud, (hopefully) way beyond normal listening levels.  I guess this lends credence to there being some exceptions to "no audible ultrasonics" but it's also a bit of a departure from normal music listening. 

To put it another way, if your 24Khz content is at 115dB, your 1Khz content is probably at least 10-20dB above that, which means your ability to pick out the ultrasonics is probably diminished by the blood shooting out of your ears.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm going to be courteous and explain the entire exchange.

It was asserted that "you can know everything you need to know about a DAC if you know its frequency response, THD, and S/N ratio".
It was specifically asserted that, as long as those three specific measurements were "arbitrarily very good" for two different devices, then there could not possibly be an audible difference between them.
I provided a specific example where that would be untrue - in order to prove that particular assertion is not necessarily true.
(At least sometimes there are situations where a clearly audible difference may exist yet not show up on those three specific measurements.)

Here at Emotiva, where I work, we do our testing using the latest $65k Audio Precision test sets.
They're capable of performing a long list of different tests.... all I have to do is to check the boxes.
And, if I check the boxes for "THD", "frequency response", and "S/N", the test set will perform the tests I ask it to, and present the results in an attractive report.
And, if the white noise we're talking about was the noise floor of the device under test, it would be presented as a numerical result (S/N > xx dB for each channel under test).
And, if I were to check an additional box, it would present me with a spectrum analysis of that noise floor for each channel.
However, unless I specifically requested the information, it would _NOT_ tell me whether the noise floor was correlated or uncorrelated (or the degree of correlation).
And, since amplifiers rarely exhibit correlated noise, nobody would check that box until and unless someone noticed the oddity in a listening test.
No box would pop up saying: "Operator, you really want to look at this, it's really strange.... the noise is correlated between the channels".
Therefore, that fact would _NOT_ be brought to my attention as part of the results of those three tests.

I never said that correlation would be difficult to measure.
I simply offered it as an example of one of the many common and easily performed tests which are not routinely run.
In other words, I provided a relatively glaring example of "something odd and clearly audible that would be missed if you stopped after performing the basic FR, THD, and S/N measurements".
And, just as at least some people would look at noise correlation when testing an analog system, most DAC experts would also look at the impulse response when examining a DAC.
(And, if either decided to rest their entire analysis on "the basic three measurements", they might well miss something obvious or significant.)

I never specifically suggested that there was anything we can hear that was especially difficult to measure....(although I'm not ruling it out either).
I'm simply asserting that there are things which are audible which routinely are NOT measured....
For example, when mixing several tracks, I might look at my vector meter to check on the separation of the useful content in each track, and in the mix.
However, I'm _probably NOT_ going to isolate several segments of the noise floor and analyze them for correlation...
I'm simply going to _LISTEN_ to the mix... because I know that's the easiest and best way to detect any problems of that sort.
(And I'm also not going to assume that "it must sound perfect as long as all the measurements are good".)



gregorio said:


> If he knows how it works then why is he stating that we require some "VERY SPECIFIC TESTS"? We just need a pair of eyes and an audio editor, both of which are needed to accomplish his test in the first place! Heck, just a peak meter would be enough. The suggestion that we can hear things that we can't measure or cant measure without "very specific tests" or special tools like a vectorscope, is false and just adding to audiophile myth!
> 
> G


----------



## KeithEmo

gregorio said:


> As @RRod effectively stated, Oh no, not the Oohashi again! The operative word in your quote is "if" and the answer is "no" the findings aren't valid. There's plenty of threads in this sub forum if you want the full details, if you go a few years. Try this one for example. In a nutshell, it doesn't qualify as valid scientifically because the results cannot be repeated, despite several attempts. Actually, similar results were achieved in one attempt to replicate the experiment, by a different group of Japanese scientists if I remember correctly. However, they identified the cause as IMD. I believe Oohashi eventually accepted the peer reviews which invalidated his study (anyone have a link to verify this?).
> 
> Despite being thoroughly debunked, it nevertheless still rears it's ugly head every so often, usually by extremist subjectivists trying to demonstrate some objectivity, hence RRod's response.
> 
> G


----------



## Phronesis

amirm said:


> You are stating the obvious.  Of course the brain perceived the ultrasonic tones.  The listeners voted such in controlled testing.
> 
> The question was validity of fMRI as a more accurate way of detecting audio thresholds and that dog simply don't hunt.  *It is a super crude indication of what the brain is really doing*.



If you go back to my previous comments, you'll see that I actually agree with you.  Knowing that some part of the brain 'lights up' doesn't generally tell us much in detail about what the brain is doing.  But IMO imaging can have value if a part of the brain associated with hearing or something else associated with experiencing music (e.g., emotion) shows activing during a test, especially if the listener isn't consciously aware of such activity and can't verbally report it.  And I anticipate that what we can learn through imaging will improve over time.  The relative objectivity of imaging also has value.


----------



## KeithEmo

I guess I'm missing the part where it was "thoroughly debunked"....

First off, since their study seemed to be quite well documented, I would like to see equally thorough documentation on the "debunking".
Since the original study chose music with specific characteristics, I would like to see that study repeated both EXACTLY, and with a variety of different test samples.

Second off, in the post you linked to, the author seems to acknowledge their results that the ultrasonic stimulus produced an increase in alpha-waves, and so "a relaxing effect".
However, _THAT AUTHOR_ seems to consider the fact that the ultrasonic content produced an obvious effect to be "invalid" because that effect wasn't directly related to hearing.
My personal opinion is that, if the ultrasonic content caused the subjects to _FEEL_ different, and so to experience the music differently, then that qualifies as "an audible effect".
To me, suggesting that "the presence of the ultrasonic content causes a physiological reaction that makes the subjects feel more relaxed" seems suggestively like when some
audiophiles claim that "they don't hear an audible difference between two products - but one is more fatiguing than another".

Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry on the subject - which is also interesting.....     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_effect

Note _CAREFULLY_ that many of the studies claimed to contradict Oohashi's results were the results of different studies performed using different test conditions and different test stimuli. 
In other words, they did _NOT_ repeat the same test, under the same exact conditions, and find results that were different.
They simply tried to test the same things, using slightly different methods, and were unable to confirm the original findings.
(One test whose summary I read in fact confirmed "effects on brainwave activity by ultrasonic sound" - but suggested that the effects were physiological rather than auditory.)

I would also be curious to see the _DETAILS_ about the study which suggested that the cause for the distinction was IMD.
(If it was due to IMD in the test equipment, then I would consider it to be experimental error. However, if it was due to IMD in the subject's ears, 
produced by the presence of the ultrasonic content, then it was a valid "auditory effect" of the differences in the content itself.)

To me, results like this are especially intriguing......

What if it turned out that we couldn't _HEAR_ any difference between a high-res file and the CD version.....
but if, after listening to each for one hour, we walked away _FEELING MORE RELAXED_ after listening to the high-res version?
I'm not sure what category I'd place that result in..... but I would sure find it significant (and quite possibly a reason to buy the high-res file).



gregorio said:


> As @RRod effectively stated, Oh no, not the Oohashi again! The operative word in your quote is "if" and the answer is "no" the findings aren't valid. There's plenty of threads in this sub forum if you want the full details, if you go a few years. Try this one for example. In a nutshell, it doesn't qualify as valid scientifically because the results cannot be repeated, despite several attempts. Actually, similar results were achieved in one attempt to replicate the experiment, by a different group of Japanese scientists if I remember correctly. However, they identified the cause as IMD. I believe Oohashi eventually accepted the peer reviews which invalidated his study (anyone have a link to verify this?).
> 
> Despite being thoroughly debunked, it nevertheless still rears it's ugly head every so often, usually by extremist subjectivists trying to demonstrate some objectivity, hence RRod's response.
> 
> G


----------



## bigshot

"Brain lighting up" might mean any kind of perception. It doesn't necessarily mean "hearing". Sound pressure can be felt even when sound can't be heard if it is loud enough. Cranking it up to the threshold of pain and jamming it straight in your ears is probably the best way of going to extremes like that without getting slapped with a bunch of lawsuits for hearing damage. It doesn't mean that it makes a lick of difference to the way music sounds on your stereo at home.


----------



## danadam

KeithEmo said:


> In other words, they did _NOT_ repeat the same test, under the same exact conditions, and find results that were different.


I wonder how far you are willing to take this? If they did the same test, but for example the temperature during the test was different by 5°C, or the pressure by 5 hPa, would you accept the results? Or would that count as not the same exact conditions?


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> "Brain lighting up" might mean any kind of perception. It doesn't necessarily mean "hearing". Sound pressure can be felt even when sound can't be heard if it is loud enough. Cranking it up to the threshold of pain and jamming it straight in your ears is probably the best way of going to extremes like that without getting slapped with a bunch of lawsuits for hearing damage. It doesn't mean that it makes a lick of difference to the way music sounds on your stereo at home.



Neuroscientists who research this area have been increasing their understanding of which parts of the brain are associated with hearing and music perception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience_of_music


----------



## bigshot

Beyond about 15kHz, it's impossible to discern sound as a pitch. It's just sound pressure past that point. Sound pressure isn't necessarily music.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> Note _CAREFULLY_ that many of the studies claimed to contradict Oohashi's results were the results of different studies performed using different test conditions and different test stimuli.
> In other words, they did _NOT_ repeat the same test, under the same exact conditions, and find results that were different.


I agree to this if you agree that the meta analysis by Reiss can be dismissed for the same reason.


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> That is incorrect..... or, more accurately, incomplete.....
> Because it depends on the stated goal of your tests.
> 
> If you want to test whether "most people notice a difference between A and B", or whether "most people prefer A over B", then you need "a statistically significant number of tests.


 Deja Vu, huh?  No, it's not incorrect or incomplete.  The purpose of an ABX test is to determine the statistical audibility of a difference, if any.  It's never to choose a preference, that's a different test entirely, and was not addressed in the original question.


KeithEmo said:


> However, if you're testing "whether SOME people can smell cyanide" - then all you need to prove the claim is to produce _ONE SINGLE PERSON_ who proves the case.
> Because, if at least one person can do it, then you can NOT claim that "nobody can do it".
> Likewise, it was perfectly valid to state that "a human being can run the mile in less than 4 minutes" after the very first time a single person did it.


Incorrect, unless you redefine "some" as 1, which would not be the universally accepted definition of "some".


KeithEmo said:


> To re-phrase that, if your question is whether something is possible, or whether it exists,_ A SINGLE VERIFIED CASE IS IN FACT "STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT_".


No, a single case is "noise" in data, and would be offset by another single case data point of the opposite polarity.  Neither is proof of anything.

Again, seriously, Deja Vu.  I'm NOT going down this pot-hole ridden road with you yet again.   Those are not the "questions" answered by an ABX/DBT, and this is now clearly just an effort to troll.

The results of a properly controlled ABX test is a set of data that can be statistically analyzed.  The results are rarely 100% in either polarity unless the test conditions are deliberately manipulated to produce that sort of result.  Under your protocol, how would you state the results of an ABX test where A and B are identical, but one listener matches X to A more often, and another matches X to B?  It's controlled, and verified, but is it good data or noisy data?  

With "statistical significance", we can reduce the impact of such noisy data, such as someone who just picks A=X for every one of his tests, and the X randomizer for those tests happens to be slightly skewed to X=A.  What he's done is generate noise.   However, other data from "honest" testers, if "significant", will keep that noise under control.  If you have enough data, you can reduce the noise floor to where it's useful.


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> The results are rarely 100% in either polarity unless the test conditions are deliberately manipulated to produce that sort of result.


What do you mean manipulated?  Once I find a difference in ABX tests, I will be able to hear and identify it in every iteration:

44.1 versus 96 Khz
---------------------------------

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/09 06:32:02

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling band resolution limited 4416 2496.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling full band 2496.wav

06:32:02 : Test started.
06:33:07 : 01/01 50.0%
06:33:17 : 02/02 25.0%
06:33:24 : 03/03 12.5%
06:33:36 : 04/04 6.3%
06:33:47 : 05/05 3.1%
06:33:58 : 06/06 1.6%
06:34:12 : 07/07 0.8%
06:34:15 : Test finished.

---------- 
Total: 7/7 (0.8%)

-------

These files were presented as a challenge and I ran the precisely as proposed.

You seem to be thinking that no ABX test can be passed.  That makes no sense.


----------



## KeithEmo

1) 
First, even a single case disproves the claim that "there are NO cases".
The only statistic involved is "zero or not zero".
Second, logic strongly suggests that, if I can find one person out of a moderately sized sample, then it is reasonable to assume that, out of the entire human race, there are probably more.
(What are the odds that, in my small test sample, I've managed to include the one unique mutant out of all humans on the entire planet?)

2)
By the definition most people use for a FACT, once something has happened, even once, then it has happened.
So, for example, the moment a runner ran a mile in under four minutes, it was PROVEN THAT A HUMAN COULD RUN THE FOUR MINUTE MILE.
(I'm at a loss to imagine a logic system where something actually happening fails to prove that it is possible.)
This is NOT a matter of statistics.... it is simply a matter of fact.... statistics is simply way of visualizing facts... it does NOT define them.

I'm afraid you've "fallen into the mathematician's rabbit hole"...... you cannot "statistically prove" that something that's sitting right in front of you is not there.
(And, if you seem to have succeeded, then obviously either your model or your math is flawed.)



pinnahertz said:


> Deja Vu, huh?  No, it's not incorrect or incomplete.  The purpose of an ABX test is to determine the statistical audibility of a difference, if any.  It's never to choose a preference, that's a different test entirely, and was not addressed in the original question.
> Incorrect, unless you redefine "some" as 1, which would not be the universally accepted definition of "some".
> 
> No, a single case is "noise" in data, and would be offset by another single case data point of the opposite polarity.  Neither is proof of anything.
> ...


----------



## pinnahertz

amirm said:


> What do you mean manipulated?


Manipulate: To control or influence.  In this case, an ABX test with a deliberately obvious difference significant enough that most if not all listeners would be able to detect it.


amirm said:


> Once I find a difference in ABX tests, I will be able to hear and identify it in every iteration:


I doubt that is exactly true, apart from some rather specific examples.  There are certain types of test signals that are more or less revealing of certain types of distortions.  Your statement is about as polarized as the stuff we get from certain other members.


amirm said:


> 44.1 versus 96 Khz
> ---------------------------------
> 
> foo_abx 1.3.4 report
> ...


You've fallen a bit shy of "statistically significant", though.  I assume the test signal was the same for ever comparison?  If so, the test is rather specific, and not indicative of any general trend.


amirm said:


> You seem to be thinking that no ABX test can be passed.  That makes no sense.


No ABX test CAN be "passed", as "passing" is not the object, nor is there any possibility of failure.  The goal of ABX testing is data collection for analysis.  The very notion that an ABX test can be passed or failed is a form of bias.


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> You've fallen a bit shy of "statistically significant", though.


Come again?  How is that?  That was 99.2% chance of NOT guessing.  Well above 95%.

But I can give you a lot more:

(AVS Forum test of high-res vs CD):

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 21:01:16

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Just_My_Imagination_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Just_My_Imagination_B2.wav

21:01:16 : Test started.
21:02:11 : 01/01 50.0%
21:02:20 : 02/02 25.0%
21:02:28 : 03/03 12.5%
21:02:38 : 04/04 6.3%
21:02:47 : 05/05 3.1%
21:02:56 : 06/06 1.6%
21:03:06 : 07/07 0.8%
21:03:16 : 08/08 0.4%
21:03:26 : 09/09 0.2%
21:03:45 : 10/10 0.1%
21:03:54 : 11/11 0.0%
21:04:11 : 12/12 0.0%
21:04:24 : Test finished.

---------- 
*Total: 12/12 (0.0%)*

----

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 18:50:44

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_B2.wav

18:50:44 : Test started.
18:51:25 : 00/01 100.0%
18:51:38 : 01/02 75.0%
18:51:47 : 02/03 50.0%
18:51:55 : 03/04 31.3%
18:52:05 : 04/05 18.8%
18:52:21 : 05/06 10.9%
18:52:32 : 06/07 6.3%
18:52:43 : 07/08 3.5%
18:52:59 : 08/09 2.0%
18:53:10 : 09/10 1.1%
18:53:19 : 10/11 0.6%
18:53:23 : Test finished.

---------- 
*Total: 10/11 (0.6%)*
*
[320kbps MP3 vs orignial]
*
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/19 19:45:33

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\*keys jangling 16 44.wav*
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\*keys jangling 16 44_01.mp3*

19:45:33 : Test started.
19:46:21 : 01/01 50.0%
19:46:35 : 02/02 25.0%
19:46:49 : 02/03 50.0% << dog barked in my ear wanting to go out 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




19:47:03 : 03/04 31.3%
19:47:13 : 04/05 18.8%
19:47:27 : 05/06 10.9%
19:47:38 : 06/07 6.3%
19:47:46 : 07/08 3.5%
19:48:01 : 08/09 2.0%
19:48:19 : 09/10 1.1%
19:48:31 : 10/11 0.6%
19:48:45 : 11/12 0.3%
19:48:58 : 12/13 0.2%
19:49:11 : 13/14 0.1%
19:49:28 : 14/15 0.0%
19:49:52 : 15/16 0.0%
19:49:56 : Test finished.

---------- 
*Total: 15/16 (0.0%)*



> I assume the test signal was the same for ever comparison? If so, the test is rather specific, and not indicative of any general trend.



You don't recognize the output of foobar ABX tool?  Of course the "test signal was the same."  I pulled the files into foobar ABX tool and performed the listening tests.



pinnahertz said:


> No ABX test CAN be "passed", as "passing" is not the object, nor is there any possibility of failure. The goal of ABX testing is data collection for analysis. The very notion that an ABX test can be passed or failed is a form of bias.


What?  All of the above tests were performed as standard online challenge: "can you pass a double blind ABX test that you can tell A from B?"  Answer, yes, here are the results.

Between your last post and this one, it seems that you have no experience with ABX tests.  How many have you run exactly?  Can you link to any that you have posted online?


----------



## skwoodwiva

pinnahertz said:


> Manipulate: To control or influence.  In this case, an ABX test with a deliberately obvious difference significant enough that most if not all listeners would be able to detect it.
> 
> I doubt that is exactly true, apart from some rather specific examples.  There are certain types of test signals that are more or less revealing of certain types of distortions.  Your statement is about as polarized as the stuff we get from certain other members.
> You've fallen a bit shy of "statistically significant", though.  I assume the test signal was the same for ever comparison?  If so, the test is rather specific, and not indicative of any general trend.
> ...


For evidance of the ability to detect 96k vs 44k the test is valid (peroid) .


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> 1)
> First, even a single case disproves the claim that "there are NO cases".
> The only statistic involved is "zero or not zero".


First of all, no ABX test could produce results that would back up a "there are no cases where" statement, and that's not the goal, never was.  Secondly, single case, stated without any other parameters such as (but not limited to) the number of trials proves nothing other than further data should be collected.  The case could be a "lucky guess".  Without more specific (as in NOT hypothetical) information, it shouldn't even be under discussion.


KeithEmo said:


> Second, logic strongly suggests that, if I can find one person out of a moderately sized sample, then it is reasonable to assume that, out of the entire human race, there are probably more.
> (What are the odds that, in my small test sample, I've managed to include the one unique mutant out of all humans on the entire planet?)


Might be true IF, and this is where it counts, you can show a statistical trend with multiple trials with multiple stimuli that that one person is, in fact, able to discern a particular difference.  But, since ABX can never state that "there are no cases" anyway, the entire line of logic is just ridiculous.

You're nit-picking.  This is not helpful.


KeithEmo said:


> 2)
> By the definition most people use for a FACT, once something has happened, even once, then it has happened.
> So, for example, the moment a runner ran a mile in under four minutes, it was PROVEN THAT A HUMAN COULD RUN THE FOUR MINUTE MILE.
> (I'm at a loss to imagine a logic system where something actually happening fails to prove that it is possible.)
> This is NOT a matter of statistics.... it is simply a matter of fact.... statistics is simply way of visualizing facts... it does NOT define them.


The problem here is you really don't have FACT by just stating that something has happened.  There are many ways that perception of an event may be altered, many ways the resulting single data point could be invalid, and let's not forget that it's a single data point.  That translates to 100% noise in data!  There is actually an entire profession that exists and makes a living on the distortion of perceived fact, and most will freely admit that they are illusionists. 


KeithEmo said:


> I'm afraid you've "fallen into the mathematician's rabbit hole"...... you cannot "statistically prove" that something that's sitting right in front of you is not there.
> (And, if you seem to have succeeded, then obviously either your model or your math is flawed.)


Well, I'm absolutely not doing that, so I don't think it's me that's down the rabbit hole.  But this is actually a prime example of how a single data point can be invalid because of perception.  Bingo...you've proven my point.


----------



## pinnahertz

amirm said:


> Come again?  How is that?  That was 99.2% chance of NOT guessing.  Well above 95%.


The data set was too small. 


amirm said:


> But I can give you a lot more:
> 
> (AVS Forum test of high-res vs CD):
> 
> ...


Beside the point, but of course I do.  Point?


amirm said:


> Of course the "test signal was the same."


Unless clearly stated, no assumptions can or should be made.  You should know that, Mr. Science.


amirm said:


> I pulled the files into foobar ABX tool and performed the listening tests.
> 
> 
> What?  All of the above tests were performed as standard online challenge: "can you pass a double blind ABX test that you can tell A from B?"  Answer, yes, here are the results.


I really don't care.  You've presented more data, you're getting the idea of what statistical significance is.


amirm said:


> Between your last post and this one, it seems that you have no experience with ABX tests.


Sorry to disappoint, but that's not true at all.  Been running ABX tests since the 1980s.


amirm said:


> How many have you run exactly?


Lost track a few decades ago.  I didn't think the number mattered, and still don't.  I have a hardware ABX comparator, it's been applied to quite a number of projects.


amirm said:


> Can you link to any that you have posted online?


No, and there's no point anyway.  I never published them that way, most were done for specific clients.

Look, I'm not going to stroke of flog your ego.  I never said your results were invalid or inconclusive, did I?  The first posting of them was shy of enough data, that's it.

Read the following paper, this is where I come from (no I didn't write it). 
"High Resolution Subjective Testing Using A Double Blind Comparator", David Clark, JAES Vol 30 No 5 May 1982


----------



## pibroch (May 3, 2018)

amirm said:


> Sure.  Please see the ICA paper: Psychological and Physiological Acoustics: Paper ICA2016-219 Investigation of hearing perception at ultrasound frequencies by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG)
> 
> In a nutshell, the research looks into audibility of ultrasonic sounds starting from 14 kHz and going to 24 kHz.  Initial method is traditional listening test with this outcome (which agrees with a number of other studies):
> 
> ...


Thanks for all that amirm. The fact that perceptions of high frequencies at the threshold of high frequency perception were not registered in the fMRI measurements is extremely interesting.

However I don’t understand how this has any significant relevance to the enjoyment of music.

As you would recall, the study I referenced was not looking at thresholds of light frequency perception: the subjects reported when they saw a low contrast flashing orange cross hair  (< 1 lux) in the middle of a black screen. The auditory analog of the study would be looking at low volume sound in the mid range near the threshold of perception and reporting instances of hearing the sound. As all of us know we are most perceptually sensitive to mid range sounds which form the most important part of human speech and music and our interaction with the environment in general.

If you, or anyone else, can provide any information about whether or not mid range frequencies near the threshold of hearing register in the auditory cortex in BOLD fMRI measurements I would be grateful.


----------



## pinnahertz

skwoodwiva said:


> For evidance of the ability to detect 96k vs 44k the test is valid (peroid) .


No, that's not what the test shows.  It's the generalization in your statement that makes the statement inaccurate about what the test shows.  The test is valid, but specific to a particular set of conditions which aren't even included.  Are all soundcards/DACs equal? Was there a "tell" when sampling rates were changed?   Is the difference audible on a wide variety of test signals?  Headphones?  Speakers/rooms?  And the all-important one, audible across what population segment?  I assume the tester was "trained", but it's also not a stated condition. 

All you can say is the test seems to indicate one individual with a specific set of conditions heard a difference.  The reason for the difference, it's repeatability or general audibility are all not part of the controlled conditions or results.


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> Read the following paper, this is where I come from (no I didn't write it).
> "High Resolution Subjective Testing Using A Double Blind Comparator", David Clark, JAES Vol 30 No 5 May 1982


Read it?  Here is the copy of it my library:





And that is the date I copied it to my current laptop, not when I first acquired it.

Since you imply you have read it, do you know why this statement is totally incorrect as a matter of basic statistics?







pinnahertz said:


> I have a hardware ABX comparator, it's been applied to quite a number of projects.


Oh?  What projects were those and did you try this to maximize a positive outcome:





What specific test signals did you use and why?


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> Look, I'm not going to stroke of flog your ego. I never said your results were invalid or inconclusive, did I?


Boy, you play a good game of Calvinball:

*Calvin*: Dad, are you vicariously living through me in the hope that my accomplishments will validate your mediocre life and in some way compensate for all of the opportunities you botched?

*Dad*: If I were, you can bet I'd be re-evaluating my strategy.

*Calvin* (later, to his mother): Mom, Dad keeps insulting me.​This was not about me proving I can pass or not pass ABX tests.  It was about you saying the outcome of ABX tests is never at one extreme or the other.  So I post results that conclusively show that to be wrong.  You then complained about them not being statistically valid (which was again wrong).  The subsequent test results showed the same possibility of getting all or almost all the trials right.  Clearly this notion is incorrect and indicates lack of understanding of such tests:



pinnahertz said:


> The results are rarely 100% in either polarity unless the test conditions are deliberately manipulated to produce that sort of result.



Trained listeners for example routinely find exact audibility issues with very high success rates.  That you haven't seen such outcomes tells me you are unfamiliar with use of important tools such as positive controls in blind tests.

So can we conclude what you said above is incorrect?


----------



## Phronesis (May 3, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Beyond about 15kHz, it's impossible to discern sound as a pitch. It's just sound pressure past that point. Sound pressure isn't necessarily music.



Independent of discerning pitch, there's still the possibility that higher frequencies result in signals sent down the auditory nerves which influence the musical experience in some way.  It seems plausible to me that the brain has evolved to make use of those higher frequencies, even if there's little or no conscious awareness of that happening, because those frequencies were present in human evolutionary history and registering them at least subconsciously could have had some adaptive value.

I don't know if the evolutionary perspective has been discussed much in this forum previously, but it's certainly science, and it seems to offer an interesting and relevant perspective on these questions.


----------



## bigshot (May 3, 2018)

pibroch said:


> I don’t understand how this has any significant relevance to the enjoyment of music.



Neither do I. I remember reading a study- I think it was at AES before their papers went behind a paywall- it indicated that there was no correlation between super audible frequencies and sound quality in music. In fact, as part of the test, they rolled off everything above 10kHz and even though a few people could hear a difference, they didn't think one sample had better sound quality than the other. They didn't care. None of this should be surprising because musical content above 10kHz is minimal, and super audible frequencies don't really exist in recorded music at a level that makes a difference. Yes, there is a theoretical possibility that the triangle hits may convey super audible harmonics to the microphone, but it's likely masked and it certainly doesn't make music sound any better.

If you care about sound quality, the core frequencies are infinitely more important to how good music sounds, not the bleeding edges of hearing.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Neither do I. I remember reading a study- I think it was at AES before their papers went behind a paywall- it indicated that there was no correlation between super audible frequencies and sound quality in music. In fact, as part of the test, they rolled off everything above 10kHz and even though a few people could hear a difference, they didn't think one sample had better sound quality than the other. They didn't care. None of this should be surprising because musical content above 10kHz is minimal, and super audible frequencies don't really exist in recorded music at a level that makes a difference. Yes, there is a theoretical possibility that the triangle hits may convey super audible harmonics to the microphone, but it's likely masked and it certainly doesn't make music sound any better.
> 
> If you care about sound quality, the core frequencies are infinitely more important to how good music sounds, not the bleeding edges of hearing.


Ok gotta draw the line here....are you sure you would be happy with speakers ect with a high frequency cut off at 10k?


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Phronesis said:


> Independent of discerning pitch, there's still the possibility that higher frequencies result in signals sent down the auditory nerves which influence the musical experience in some way.  It seems plausible to me that the brain has evolved to make use of those higher frequencies, even if there's little or no conscious awareness of that happening, because those frequencies were present in human evolutionary history and registering them at least subconsciously had some adaptive value.
> 
> I don't know if the evolutionary perspective has been discussed much in this forum previously, but it's certainly science, and it seems to offer an interesting and relevant perspective on these questions.


High frequencies are the most directional and gave our ancestors the sense of space and distance required to avoid being eaten by whatever carniverous mofo was around.....space and distance hmm...sounds pretty useful for enjoying music right?


----------



## bigshot (May 3, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> Ok gotta draw the line here....are you sure you would be happy with speakers ect with a high frequency cut off at 10k?



I don't care above about 16kHz or so because I can't hear above that myself, but I can't speak for my dogs. When I tweak my EQ to refine something, it's always in the sweet spot, never at the ends.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I don't care above about 16kHz or so because I can't hear above that myself, but I can't speak for my dogs.


Lol im old so 16k seems legit to me .....but you said 10k....i think goldfish bark higher than that my friend


----------



## bigshot

Grab a digital equalizer and your favorite music and try rolling it off yourself. You'll find that there really isn't much up there. Remember that the frequency range isn't a fixed scale. From 10kHz to 20kHz is only an octave. It's a small slice of what we can hear, and it's the least important slice.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Grab a digital equalizer and your favorite music and try rolling it off yourself. You'll find that there really isn't much up there. Remember that the frequency range isn't a fixed scale. From 10kHz to 20kHz is only an octave. It's a small slice of what we can hear, and it's the least important slice.


Agreed its "only" an octave,but its the octave that gives imaging,soundstaging ect to our music....i guess it depends how important it is to be able to locate the musicians in your room(yep i know an engineer artificially produced this effect)I personally find imaging to be a great source of realism and musical importance to me.


----------



## sonitus mirus

White noise, not music, but still interesting.

https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_frequency.php?frq=10


----------



## amirm

pibroch said:


> If you, or anyone else, can provide any information about whether or not mid range frequencies near the threshold of hearing register in the auditory cortex in BOLD fMRI measurements I would be grateful.


It is a major challenge to conduct such tests due to scanner noise interfering with detection of any such faint signals.  The closest I have seen to what you ask is a study of 300 hz tones in mid levels (61 to 91 db).  See Journal of ASA paper, _Functional magnetic resonance imaging measurements of sound-level encoding in the absence of background scanner noise_

In case you don't have access to it, here is the punchline:


----------



## amirm

sonitus mirus said:


> White noise, not music, but still interesting.
> 
> https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_frequency.php?frq=10


It is interesting because the labels are backward!  Regardless, here is my first trial:





It is pretty easy test to pass.  And this is with my ears plugged up big time from working in the yard and making my allergies go nuts.


----------



## bigshot (May 3, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> Agreed its "only" an octave,but its the octave that gives imaging,soundstaging ect to our music.



No it doesn't. It has absolutely nothing to do with either imaging or soundstage. It's just upper harmonics on a handful of musical instruments, and only then if they are close miked. Grab an equalizer and experiment. It's good to know what the numbers represent to your own ears.


----------



## dprimary

amirm said:


> It is interesting because the labels are backward!  Regardless, here is my first trial:
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty easy test to pass.  And this is with my ears plugged up big time from working in the yard and making my allergies go nuts.



It is ridiculously easy, the one filtered at 10k has a higher apparent loudness as expected.


----------



## Phronesis (May 3, 2018)

dprimary said:


> It is ridiculously easy, the one filtered at 10k has a higher apparent loudness as expected.



Assumption: My equipment was actually delivering the higher frequencies from my earphones.

It was easy for me to get everything or nearly everything right up to 13k.

14k was interesting.  I started out getting almost everything right for numerous trials, but then started to get tired of the test and forget what clues to listen for, so I dropped to basically just guessing.  I then took a break, listened to the sample tones with more concentration, noticed what struck my ear as a subtle HF component, then was able to get almost everything right by using that as my clue.  Then eventually I started getting fatigued again and my concentration decreased, so my performance dropped somewhat, though still I got the vast majority right.  If I had continued a lot longer, I suspect that I would have eventually resorted to guessing.

At 15k, I couldn't distinguish between the sample sounds, so I expected that I'd just be guessing.  And that's what happened when I did the trials.

On sound level, my threshold was 0.5 dB.

On pitch, my limit was 5 c.


----------



## danadam

amirm said:


> It is interesting because the labels are backward!


What do you mean? Which labels?



amirm said:


> It is pretty easy test to pass.


True. At the top there are links to tests with cut off at higher frequencies 

But @dprimary is right, up to 15 kHz I can choose by perceived loudness (or maybe that's how it's supposed to work?)


----------



## amirm

danadam said:


> But @dprimary is right, up to 15 kHz I can choose by perceived loudness (or maybe that's how it's supposed to work?)


No, it is a crappy test.  It does a browser check and either selects mp3 or in my case ogg compressed files.  I downloaded the full bandwidth one and the filters and peak amplitude is about 2 dB different:










This could be an error in his filtering or Ogg not being level accurate between encode and decode.

He should be using .wav file.  Even there, this is a difficult test to run online because it doesn't use exclusive mode.  In my case my sound card was set to 48 kHz whereas the native rate of the above files 44.1.

It is a fun exercise but that is it.

Good to see you jump on it by the way.    It seems hardly anyone online dares to run such tests.


----------



## skwoodwiva

Phronesis said:


> Assumption: My equipment was actually delivering the higher frequencies from my earphones.
> 
> It was easy for me to get everything or nearly everything right up to 13k.
> 
> ...


;
I be ".5 db, 10c, 12k (sad 61 now, oh well), 2 ms & 65 db dynamic range."
61 years old


----------



## dprimary

amirm said:


> No, it is a crappy test.  It does a browser check and either selects mp3 or in my case ogg compressed files.  I downloaded the full bandwidth one and the filters and peak amplitude is about 2 dB different:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is good example of errors in prepping the test samples. Since it is white noise and they filtered it at 10k  they removed a fair amount of energy, likely noticeable in the apparent level. So they tried to level match. The problem was the measurement tool they decided to use, maybe they just matched voltages. Maybe they tried to normalize to a selected level. Anyway as you move the filter up in frequency the error is reduced. So are you detecting the frequency change or the level change? So yes you are detecting a change but which change? Maybe testing your acoustic memory? I just decided if it louder or soft each time. The level change was distracting enough to me that I could not concentrate enough to notice the bandwidth changes.

These are the types of flaws that show up in many of the well intentioned tests.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> No it doesn't. It has absolutely nothing to do with either imaging or soundstage. It's just upper harmonics on a handful of musical instruments, and only then if they are close miked. Grab an equalizer and experiment. It's good to know what the numbers represent to your own ears.


i probably should have said" sense of space"


----------



## RRod (May 4, 2018)

danadam said:


> What do you mean? Which labels?
> 
> 
> True. At the top there are links to tests with cut off at higher frequencies
> ...



If all you do is take a file of full-scale white noise and filter out part of the audible spectrum, the RMS an loudness should naturally decrease. It would seem wrong to then manipulate the loudness to match, as that is removing one of the effects of the filter.

Edit: gah, dprimary beat me to it


----------



## Phronesis (May 4, 2018)

RRod said:


> If all you do is take a file of full-scale white noise and filter out part of the audible spectrum, the RMS an loudness should naturally decrease. It would seem wrong to then manipulate the loudness to match, as that is removing one of the effects of the filter.
> 
> Edit: gah, dprimary beat me to it



That nicely illustrates the ambiguity involved here and the need to be precise about the question being asked.  I can see rationale for both adjusting and not adjusting the level. And I wonder how much difference the overall level makes on the results.  At a minimum, we at least need to be sure the user’s equipment isn’t substantially rolling off the higher frequencies.

I definitely did NOT enjoy taking the tests, and because the experience is so different from normal music listening, that increases my skepticism about how representative these tests are of what’s experienced consciously and subconsciously during normal listening.  Very interesting...


----------



## Phronesis

Is there a synopsis somewhere of testing done to determine the highest frequencies which result in signals being transmitted by the auditory nerves and auditory brain centers being activated?  That may give a bettter indication of what limit of frequencies could potentially influence the musical experience, as compared to asking people if they can consciously discern higher frequencies - the brain may respond to higher frequencies which the listener didn’t think they ‘heard’.


----------



## Phronesis (May 4, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Assumption: My equipment was actually delivering the higher frequencies from my earphones.
> 
> It was easy for me to get everything or nearly everything right up to 13k.
> 
> ...



I tried this other test, and could _easily_ hear 16k: https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencycheckhigh.php.  I tried the corresponding 16k white noise test and couldn't distinguish between the sounds, and likewise when I re-tried the 15k white noise test.  So the two types tests are definitely not giving consistent results.  My hypothesis is that, in the white noise test, the frequencies below 15 or 16k are masking my ability to hear the content just above 15 or 16k - literally drowned out by the noise.  The relevance of the white noise test to music listening is also questionable, since real music is nothing like white noise, and such masking may not occur (or could be much less) with real music.


----------



## Phronesis (May 4, 2018)

Here's a 2014 paper on the 'hypersonic effect':

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095464

From the intro paragraph:

"The hypersonic effect is induced only when HFCs are presented to the listener's entire body surface but not when presented exclusively to the listener's ear."​
I think I need to read this paper ...


----------



## RRod

Phronesis said:


> I tried this other test, and could _easily_ hear 16k: https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencycheckhigh.php.  I tried the corresponding 16k white noise test and couldn't distinguish between the sounds, and likewise when I re-tried the 15k white noise test.  So the two types tests are definitely not giving consistent results.  My hypothesis is that, in the white noise test, the frequencies below 15 or 16k are masking my ability to hear the content just above 15 or 16k - literally drowned out by the noise.  The relevance of the white noise test to music listening is also questionable, since real music is nothing like white noise, and such masking may not occur (or could be much less) with real music.



Why not just make some of your own bandpassed noise to test things out, e.g.

sox -b 32 -r 44100 -n -b 24 white14-18k.wav synth 10 whitenoise gain -1 sinc -n 4097 14k-18k


----------



## Phronesis

Sorry if all this stuff has already been posted and discussed.

Another one from 2014: https://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abstract/2014/06180/High_resolution_music_with_inaudible.4.aspx

"High-quality digital sound sources with inaudible high-frequency components (above 20 kHz) have become available because of recent advances in information technology. Listening to such sounds has been shown to increase the α-band power of an electroencephalogram (EEG). The present study scrutinized the time course of this effect by recording EEG along with autonomic measures (skin conductance level and heart rate) and facial electromyograms (corrugator supercilii and zygomaticus major). Twenty university students (19–24 years old) listened to two types of a 200-s musical excerpt (J. S. Bach’s French Suite No. 5) with or without inaudible high-frequency components using a double-blind method. They were asked to rate the sound quality and to judge which excerpt contained high-frequency components. High-α EEG power (10.5–13 Hz) was larger for the excerpt with high-frequency components than for the excerpt without them. This effect was statistically significant only in the last quarter of the period (150–200 s). Participants were not able to distinguish between the excerpts, which did not produce any discernible differences in subjective, autonomic, and facial muscle measures. *This study shows that inaudible high-frequency components have an impact on human brain activity without conscious awareness. Unlike a standard test for sound quality, at least 150 s of exposure is required to examine this effect in future research*."​


----------



## Phronesis

RRod said:


> Why not just make some of your own bandpassed noise to test things out, e.g.
> 
> sox -b 32 -r 44100 -n -b 24 white14-18k.wav synth 10 whitenoise gain -1 sinc -n 4097 14k-18k



I unfortunately don't currently have the tools to do that sort of thing, just a hobbyist with an interest in the scientific aspects.


----------



## RRod

Phronesis said:


> I unfortunately don't currently have the tools to do that sort of thing, just a hobbyist with an interest in the scientific aspects.



The tool is SoX, which is free to download.


----------



## danadam

Phronesis said:


> My hypothesis is that, in the white noise test, the frequencies below 15 or 16k are masking my ability to hear the content just above 15 or 16k - literally drowned out by the noise. The relevance of the white noise test to music listening is also questionable, since real music is nothing like white noise, and such masking may not occur (or could be much less) with real music.


True, but I'd say it is also not very common in real music to have a single high frequency tone at high level (or amplitude, or loudness). So it's possible that hearing, or noticing lack of, high frequencies in real music is even more difficult than with white noise.


----------



## KeithEmo

There's a very famous quote, which I'm too lazy to look up.... I believe it's credited to someone like Einstein.....
It goes something like: "Any explanation or theory should be as simple as possible - but no simpler".

How far would I take this.....?

Well, in the original test (if you read the entire paper), they specifically chose music that had a very particular_ TYPE_ of high-frequency content.
To me, their description seemed somewhat cryptic, however, since they DID name the actual recordings they used, we could analyze them and find out.
According to their description:
- the music contained a lot of quite high frequency content... extending well past 50 kHz
- the number and type of high frequency harmonics were typical for the instruments involved
- their test subjects were familiar with how those instruments and that type of music was supposed to sound
- they described some sort of characteristic that I interpreted as meaning that the high frequency content was not static
(I forget the words they used, but I interpreted them to mean that the high frequency content "moved around rather than simply being static".
To me this suggested that, perhaps, our brains might respond to the movement of the image, or even the frequency or pattern of that movement, rather than the tone itself.
For example, perhaps an ultrasonic tone moving back and forth in position between the left and right channels at 5 Hz might induce brain activity at similar frequencies.)

As to how far I would go......

For starters, if I wanted to validate or challenge their results, I would initially try to reproduce their test conditions _EXACTLY_, or as close to exactly as possible.
That means to perform the test using _THE SAME EXACT TEST FILES, THE SAME EXACT TEST EQUIPMENT, THE SAME EXACT PROTOCOL, AND A SIMILAR TEST SETTING_.
After all, getting different results, under different conditions, may fail to validate their theory, but it doesn't suggest that the results themselves are incorrect.

Their results indicated that there was brain wave activity that was apparently caused by their test procedure.....
This could have been simple experimental error... in which case, in order to prove that to be the case, we would need to determine that we simply failed to obtain the result under exactly the same conditions
It could also be that their results were valid, but their theory was wrong, and so the results were real, but due to something else. 

In general, when trying to validate someone else's _RESULTS_, you start by duplicating them _EXACTLY_.....
And, yes, that does include the same music, the same speakers, and quite possibly the same temperature, the same time of day, the same color paint on the walls, and even the same meal the same number of hours before the test.
(In another post, someone already mentioned that it has apparently been shown that we humans test differently at different times of day.......)
Perhaps we are more perceptive in the morning than the afternoon; or perhaps it follows a curve based on the number of hours we've been awake; or maybe we hear better when our blood sugar levels are higher..... 
If you are unable to duplicate their results under exactly the same conditions, then either you have proven that their results are due to experimental error, or that you have failed to duplicate some factor you didn't anticipate.
And, if you replicate their results under those exact same conditions, but fail to replicate similar results under other similar conditions, you may conclude that their theory is wrong.
(However, their results may indicate something else.)
And, yes, if I failed to get the same result in a room that was 5 degrees warmer, I would want to try it at exactly the same temperature to rule that out as a factor.
(In scientific parlance that's called "controlling for the unknowns". I personally doubt that temperature would make a difference; but I can't know that to be true until I test it.)

In simplest terms, if you can duplicate the result of seeing very different brain wave activity in subjects who claim not to hear an audible difference, then you have clearly demonstrated _SOME_ result.
And, yes, if it turns out that nobody can hear the slightest difference between high-res files and regular files, but the people who listened to the high-res versions were more relaxed an hour later....
Then you will have demonstrated both an interesting result, a valid reason why "high-res files are better in some way other than sound quality", and the basis for a great new business in "relaxation therapy".
(If you can prove, with scientific experimental results, that I'm going to _FEEL BETTER_ an hour after listening to that high res file, then I'll be happy to pay $5 more for the file that makes me feel better - whether I can consciously _HEAR_ the difference or not.)

Incidentally, if you really believe that "ultrasonic content cannot produce an audibly significant result" check out this link:
https://www.holosonics.com/technology/

It's a product that uses a beam of ultrasonic energy to project standard audio precisely over long distances.
Basically, it produces a beam of ultrasonic energy (I believe somewhere around 60 kHz), which is then modulated.
The modulated beam interacts with the nonlinearity of the air to produce sound waves at audible frequencies at specific locations.
Because ultrasonic frequencies can be directed with high precision, it acts as a sort of "spotlight for sound", which can be directed very precisely at specific targets.
(You point the beam at someone; they can hear what you're saying; but the person next to them can't.)

While, technically, the listener is not "hearing 60 kHz", they _ARE_ hearing a sound as a direct result of a beam of ultrasonic energy.
(If you were to record their signal and play it back, the listener would hear the original content if your recording extended to above 60 kHz, and_ FAIL_ to hear it with a standard CD-quality recording of the same content.)

And, in case you were wondering, this is _NOT_ science fiction, it is a real working commercial product.
(You can buy one for about $1000 ... and it's been demonstrated on various TV shows and YouTube videos.)



danadam said:


> I wonder how far you are willing to take this? If they did the same test, but for example the temperature during the test was different by 5°C, or the pressure by 5 hPa, would you accept the results? Or would that count as not the same exact conditions?


----------



## Phronesis

danadam said:


> True, but I'd say it is also not very common in real music to have a single high frequency tone at high level (or amplitude, or loudness). So it's possible that hearing, or noticing lack of, high frequencies in real music is even more difficult than with white noise.



I can't guess which would be more difficult, but I agree that it's a valid point. 

These technicalities reinforce my feeling that we need to be really careful about drawing general conclusions from tests which are fairly contrived relative to normal music listening.  Even 'normal music listening' isn't really well defined or consistent, since listening to music attentively is different from having it as background, different kinds of music may be processed differently by the brain, etc.  Ugh, this is complicated stuff ...


----------



## RRod

Phronesis said:


> I can't guess which would be more difficult, but I agree that it's a valid point.
> 
> These technicalities reinforce my feeling that we need to be really careful about drawing general conclusions from tests which are fairly contrived relative to normal music listening.  Even 'normal music listening' isn't really well defined or consistent, since listening to music attentively is different from having it as background, different kinds of music may be processed differently by the brain, etc.  Ugh, this is complicated stuff ...



Yes but often the claim made on here is specific: 'I can hear the difference between a given track in two different formats on a given system in a given environment'. Suddenly you throw in "ok, now make sure you don't know which track is which", and suddenly people can't discriminate.

I'd also like to note, that listening to music in your normal listening environment is not the same as listening to it with you head in an MRI machine...


----------



## Phronesis

RRod said:


> Yes but often the claim made on here is specific: 'I can hear the difference between a given track in two different formats on a given system in a given environment'. Suddenly you throw in "ok, now make sure you don't know which track is which", and suddenly people can't discriminate.
> 
> I'd also like to note, that listening to music in your normal listening environment is not the same as listening to it with you head in an MRI machine...



IMO, such anecdotal reports need to be treated as unreliable - may or may not have some validity (and we know some of the reasons why).

Agreed on the importance of listening environment.  When I've tried headgear in my local audio shop, I've also done an extended demo at home also, because I think it makes a difference that, at home, I'm unrushed and more relaxed (and can also better control background noise).


----------



## RRod

Phronesis said:


> IMO, such anecdotal reports need to be treated as unreliable - may or may not have some validity (and we know some of the reasons why).
> 
> Agreed on the importance of listening environment.  When I've tried headgear in my local audio shop, I've also done an extended demo at home also, because I think it makes a difference that, at home, I'm unrushed and more relaxed (and can also better control background noise).



Well all forum-based results should be considered unreliable, really. I have absolutely no way of verifying that someone isn't doing a test with a live spectrogram running at the same time.


----------



## Phronesis

RRod said:


> Well all forum-based results should be considered unreliable, really. I have absolutely no way of verifying that someone isn't doing a test with a live spectrogram running at the same time.



Though there are surely exceptions, I generally give people on forums the benefit of the doubt in terms of honestly stating what they believe and not lying.  To me, the main question is the validity of the beliefs (not just other people's - my own too!).  Where I'm quite unsure about things, I try to convey that in my wording.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] It was specifically asserted that, as long as those three specific measurements were "arbitrarily very good" for two different devices, then there could not possibly be an audible difference between them. I provided a specific example where that would be untrue - in order to prove that particular assertion is not necessarily true.
> [2] I never said that correlation would be difficult to measure.I simply offered it as an example of one of the many common and easily performed tests which are not routinely run.
> [3] In other words, I provided a relatively glaring example of "something odd and clearly audible that would be missed if you stopped after performing the basic FR, THD, and S/N measurements".



1. No, you provided a specific example where that would be untrue FOR YOU.
2. You mean which you personally don't routinely run on your AP test set.
3. You provided a glaring example of something odd and clearly audible that YOU would miss if you stopped after performing YOUR basic measurements.

I do not have a $65k Audio Precision test set, just an audio editor, freq analyser, peak meter and a few other tools. My basic measurement routine starts by loading audio signals into my audio editor and looking at the waveforms (as do many others). That alone would have been enough. I also often perform a null test, which I realise is not "routine" for many here but it should be; it's easy, quick, reveals a lot and would help dispel some of the myths.in audiophilia. This test too would have revealed the difference. So too would just looking at a stereo peak meter and that is a basic, routine measurement commonly used by many (many more than use a standard test on a $65k AP, that's for sure!).

G


----------



## pinnahertz

amirm said:


> Read it?  Here is the copy of it my library:
> 
> And that is the date I copied it to my current laptop, not when I first acquired it.


Anyone who pays their annual AES membership or pays for individual papers could do the same.  Having something in one's library doesn't indicate it's been read.


amirm said:


> Since you imply you have read it, do you know why this statement is totally incorrect as a matter of basic statistics?


I'm not going to burn time debating a paper written in 1982.


amirm said:


> Oh?  What projects were those and did you try this to maximize a positive outcome:
> 
> What specific test signals did you use and why?


Pointless to respond.  If I asked you how many ABX/DBTs you've done with more than 50 testers doing more than 32 trials, what number do you think would satisfy me?  See, this is a dead end.


amirm said:


> This was not about me proving I can pass or not pass ABX tests.


You're the one who said he passed an ABX test.  There is no "pass" or "fail" in an ABX, only data.  Analysis can establish thresholds.


amirm said:


> It was about you saying the outcome of ABX tests is never at one extreme or the other.  So I post results that conclusively show that to be wrong.


The data in the post was granular.  You could have posted test results with one or two trials and gotten similar results.


amirm said:


> The subsequent test results showed the same possibility of getting all or *almost all the trials right*.  Clearly this notion is incorrect and indicates lack of understanding of such tests.


Well, you just made my point fairly well.


amirm said:


> Trained listeners for example routinely find exact audibility issues with very high success rates.


That depends almost entirely on training and specific stimulus.  There is a wide range of stimuli that remains inaudible regardless of training.  


amirm said:


> That you haven't seen such outcomes tells me you are unfamiliar with use of important tools such as positive controls in blind tests.


I don't care what it tells you.  You've missed the point completely turning everything into a lame attempt to discredit someone.  Fine, discredit the heck out of me!  My work has been done and paid for, so I'm good.


amirm said:


> So can we conclude what you said above is incorrect?


Conclude, yes (please!).  But stand by what I've posted.  However, I will not respond further.  You have far more free time than I do to argue and turn everything into a p*ssing match without contributing anything helpful.  

Done.


----------



## KeithEmo

I wanted to take a moment to point out something that seems to be confusing to a lot of people......

"Statistics" are a way of _INTERPRETING_ data or observations.
Statistics are _NOT_ facts, they are simply a way in which we can _VIEW_ facts, and which can often help us_ INTERPRET_ facts more accurately.
Statistics can never "prove" a fact or observation to be untrue (at most they can suggest that there might have been an error).
How useful statistics are, and in what context, depends on many things... and often depends on the goal of your experiment.
Part of knowing how to design a test that provides accurate and useful results is in understanding how to design tests.

If you're selling soda, then knowing how many people like your new flavor, or how many people notice that it's different from the flavor of your competitor, is really useful information to know.
Likewise, if you're trying to determine "whether most people notice a difference with high-res audio files".
Those are situations where statistics are very useful in terms of "putting the data in the form you want".
However, other situations are better served by direct observation, and _DIRECT OBSERVATION ALWAYS TRUMPS STATISTICS_.

Statistics are also often useful for evaluating data at other levels.
For example, if someone claims that "they can hear a difference between high-res and normal audio files", you may be able to use statistics to analyze their claim.
(If there is some degree of uncertainty, you can have them guess with twenty different files.... and use statistics to compare their results to what would be expected by random chance.)

_HOWEVER_, statistics are not at all appropriate for visualizing_ OTHER SORTS_ of data.
In 1954, a fellow named Roger Bannister became the first human to officially run the mile in under four minutes. 
Before 1954, as far as we know, no human had run the mile in less than four minutes (although we'll never know of someone did it when nobody was watching).
The fact that his time was a statistical outlier in no way suggests that it "wasn't true" or "wasn't valid".
(It was a _FACT_, verified by many witnesses, and measured and recorded.)

His achievement _COULD_ be examined statistically in several different ways.
We could describe it as a discontinuous step function..... where, on that day, the number of humans known to have run the mile in under four minutes changed from "0" to ">0".
(Since we're describing discrete events we should constrain that to whole numbers... and the number of times something has occurred cannot be less than zero either.)
Note, however, that none of these _LEGITIMATE_ ways of analyzing what he did involve distributions or correlations.
"A human being has now been confirmed to have run the four minute mile."
Any data we may have about the average time run by other people is irrelevant.
The fact that we may test a million other people, and none of them can run a mile in under four minutes is irrelevant.
It doesn't _MATTER_ how likely it was to happen; or whether it has happened before; or if it ever happens again.
In fact, if we test Roger fifty more times, and he is never again able to run the mile in less than four minutes, that would also be irrelevant to our discussion.
_BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE EVENT - AND THE VALIDITY OF THAT SINGLE EVENT CAN BE DETERMINED BY DIRECT FACTUAL OBSERVATION.
_
Now, what if Roger had been out running _ALONE_ that morning - and had come back and _CLAIMED_ that he'd run the mile in under four minutes?
In that situation, we might use statistics to gain some insight into the situation.
We might note that, statistically, no human had so far run the mile in under four minutes (which might lead us to question his claim).
We might also note that, on the last dozen times someone had been timing Roger, his times had been gradually improving, and suggest that it was "perfectly reasonable that he'd passed the four-minute mark this time".
We might also note that his average time was very near that already, and that a four minute mile was well withing the variation in times normally observed with runners.
(That's where we would say that 3:58 was within 0.1 standard deviations of his average, and so seemed probable within some percentage.)_

HOWEVER, AGAIN, AS A GENTLE REMINDER_, if someone was standing there with a stopwatch, and _OBSERVED_ him running a mile in under four minutes, then all those statistics become "interesting but irrelevant".
(Unless you wish to use statistics to bolster a case that the observer was lying or in error because the results were very far from the norm.)_

To get back to OUR discussion, however.....
_
Let's assume we have _ONE PERSON_ who claims to be able to hear a continuous 30 kHz tone - and we wish to test _THAT SPECIFIC CLAIM_.
The way we would do that would be to play a series of samples and ask him to identify when the 30 kHz tone was present.
(We could ask him a whole bunch of times "do you hear something now?"; or we could have him push the button when he hears something.)
We could then use statistical analysis to determine the outcome of his specific run of tests.... and only accept that "he actually was able to hear 30 kHz" if he scored far above random.
In fact, with statistical analyses, there's always going to be a second order function which defines the likelihood of the result being in error.
(So, in our example, we might say "he got 19/20 right, which is statistically highly significant, but there is also a 0.01 probability that _THAT RESULT_ could have occurred by random chance".)

However, in most cases,_ IF YOU DESIGN THE TEST PROPERLY_, it's pretty simple to cause those error probabilities to "blow up" or "shrink to nothing" pretty easily.
And, point blank, how you do this tends to come down to common sense.

The thing that is so obviously missing from most of the analyses of audio testing is follow-up.
If I test 100 people to see if they can tell the difference between two files.... and the results come up random..... _EXCEPT FOR THREE PEOPLE WHO SCORE FAR ABOVE RANDOM_. 
Then we may well conclude statistically that "there's a good chance that three people out of a hundred would score that way".
_HOWEVER_, wouldn't it make more sense to invite those three people back for another round of testing?
This is called "practical science".

If I have three guys who "seem" to be able to hear a difference far beyond what random chance would suggest.
The obvious solution is _NOT_ to sit there wringing my hands about how to analyze the statistics.
The obvious solution is to perform another round of testing, focusing on the three subjects that the first round has pointed out as "likely".
(That is, of course, if our goal is _REALLY_ to determine if any humans, no matter how few, can reliably hear the difference.)

This is exactly how you_ NORMALLY_ test for any uncommon characteristic.
For example, if I was actually trying to find people with "perfect pitch".
First I would post a "quick and dirty" online test that would single out people who had "at least pretty good pitch acuity".
Then I would invite the top 5% of scorers in for a more comprehensive and more carefully controlled test.
Than, if a few of those scored very highly, I would perform further tests to confirm my results.

This is the sort of thing you learn if you actually go to school and take a course for "designing and performing scientific testing".


----------



## ev13wt

Glmoneydawg said:


> Lol im old so 16k seems legit to me .....but you said 10k....i think goldfish bark higher than that my friend





10KHz is really darn high!


----------



## KeithEmo (May 4, 2018)

Exactly....... (well, technically, the example will be true for anyone, but the context is quite narrow)

And, presumably, someone who followed _YOUR_ standard test routine would have noticed the difference (as would someone who simply listened to the files).

_HOWEVER_, I was responding to a very specific assertion: that "as long as the frequency response, THD, and S/N are the same then the two must sound the same".
(That assertion _specifically_ excluded any subjective listening _or other tests_ as being necessary.)
In response to that assertion I provided a very specific example showing that it is in fact not _universally_ true.

I would also note that a peak meter might or might not show the difference.... depending on how its averaging period and sample time were configured.... and whether it included a separate "bar" for channel difference.



gregorio said:


> 1. No, you provided a specific example where that would be untrue FOR YOU.
> 2. You mean which you personally don't routinely run on your AP test set.
> 3. You provided a glaring example of something odd and clearly audible that YOU would miss if you stopped after performing YOUR basic measurements.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

For anyone who's interested.....
Here's a link to a complete article which details another study following on Oohashi.......
(Showing that small but significant differences in brain activity result form listening to band-limited and non-band-limited versions of the same audio content.)

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00093/full


----------



## Phronesis

ev13wt said:


> 10KHz is really darn high!




And terribly unpleasant for me as a constant sound.

I can easily hear 15 kHz even with my built-in computer speaker, and it's also unpleasant.  If I turn down the volume so that it's harder to hear, after a while I don't really 'hear' it as much as notice it, and it continues to be unpleasant.  When I pause the sound, I notice a difference, but it's subtle and it's as though my mind imagines that the sound is still there for a while, based on a memory of the sound.  But when I turn the sound back on, it's immediately obvious and the full unpleasantness returns.  It seems that we need to be specific about what we mean by 'hearing' something, since what's perceived both consciously and subconsciously is a function of the sound signal, it's duration, it's loudness, etc.

I also tried the 20 kHz tone, and perceived no difference with or without the sound, but with the sound running I could sometimes here a faint click which would likely enable me to cheat on a blind test.  I also don't know if my system is delivering 20 kHz to my eardrums.


----------



## bigshot (May 4, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> i probably should have said" sense of space"



Nope. Not that either. All you have to do is take some music and start filtering frequencies and you'll see exactly what they do.

White noise is not the same as music. Neither are tones. Music is music. Try rolling off at 10kHz using some of your favorite music and see what you all think. You'll be able to tell a little difference, but it won't really matter. Keep raising the rolloff and you'll find that it becomes totally inaudible pretty quickly.



Phronesis said:


> Though there are surely exceptions, I generally give people on forums the benefit of the doubt in terms of honestly stating what they believe and not lying.



You are a very trusting soul. I'm afraid I've seen too many examples of that not being the case to take something like that at face value. The ego is a very powerful thing. Some people will do anything to protect it.


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> Anyone who pays their annual AES membership or pays for individual papers could do the same.


Sadly vast majority of you all don't pay for AES membership to support the very audio science and research we consider important.  Instead you waste time online misquoting research and not understanding the proper aspects of it as detailed in the papers, as opposed to PR lines we make up for audio objectivity online.



> Having something in one's library doesn't indicate it's been read.


I guess anything is possible like the earth being flat since you have not seen it from space.  Here is more:






And an important article I have written on the topic: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> I don't care what it tells you. You've missed the point completely turning everything into a lame attempt to discredit someone. Fine, discredit the heck out of me! My work has been done and paid for, so I'm good.


You posted a clearly incorrect statement: that results of ABX tests are in the middle and have no distribution at either end.  This is flat wrong.  I have shown you personal evidence of this.  You have shown nothing to back yours.  Or even why that could occur.  If someone can hear a difference, they can hear a difference and can nail that.   Here is the result just posted from another member last night:






Of course if your tests are not revealing of differences because of incorrect protocol, you get lower success rate.  Or none at all.  If you charged people for such tests, I don't know what to say about that.

But I will repeat:  you made a wrong statement as a matter of fact and audio science.  I don't know or care who you are.  If you are going to keep debating the point,  you need to acknowledge that.


----------



## amirm

pinnahertz said:


> I'm not going to burn time debating a paper written in 1982.


Oh?  In a thread that started with a bunch of such tests, you are unwilling to discuss how we read statistics of ABX tests?  This, after you made specific statements about what those outcomes should be?

Let me do that for you:






We have a binomial distribution here (either wrong answer or right).  In such a distribution, assessing probability of someone guessing depends on *two factors:* the number of correct answers per above *and *the total number of trials.  The more trials you have, the less the percentage needs to be for typical 95% confidence (see my paper, statistics of ABX testing).  Using a set of examples we get:






As we see, at 10 trials, 80% of the answers need to be right.  Increase the number of trials to 80 though, and the percentage right required for 95% confidence drops to just 59%. 

For these reasons, we must not talk about percentage of right answers.  That number by itself is not prescriptive.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> _HOWEVER_, I was responding to a very specific assertion: that "as long as the frequency response, THD, and S/N are the same then the two must sound the same".
> [1] In response to that assertion I provided a very specific example showing that it is in fact not _universally_ true.
> [2] I would also note that a peak meter might or might not show the difference.... depending on how its averaging period and sample time were configured.... and whether it included a separate "bar" for channel difference.



1. No you didn't. You did NOT show that the FR, THD and S/N of both signals measure the same but sound different, all you demonstrated was your inability to/choice not to measure easily measurable FR differences. If that's all it takes, then I can state: Roger Bannister did NOT run a sub 4 minute mile. ... On my $64k stopwatch watch, which I set incorrectly, he did it in about 5 minutes!
2. Pretty much any stereo digital peak meter would do the trick!

G


----------



## amirm (May 4, 2018)

bigshot said:


> You are a very trusting soul. I'm afraid I've seen too many examples of that not being the case to take something like that at face value.


Oh, you are even more trusting than him.  All someone has to do is say they failed to tell the difference between two samples and you hail them as being right.  If it fits your audio religion, the person can do no wrong.

Now if someone passes such a test, then hell breaks loose.  No amount of evidence is necessary to convince you, a person posting under an alias online, that they performed the test as stated.

Compare that to the couple of us who passed a blind test online last night, but were quick to find flaws in it and reason it was easy to pass.  *This is objectivity.*


----------



## Phronesis (May 4, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> "Statistics" are a way of _INTERPRETING_ data or observations.
> Statistics are _NOT_ facts, they are simply a way in which we can _VIEW_ facts, and which can often help us_ INTERPRET_ facts more accurately.
> Statistics can never "prove" a fact or observation to be untrue (at most they can suggest that there might have been an error).
> How useful statistics are, and in what context, depends on many things... and often depends on the goal of your experiment.



Yep, the 'facts' of an experiment are the details of how it was conducted and the resulting observations (aside from inaccuracies in observations and reporting).  Once we have experimental results (data), statistics are a tool for a interpretation - 'what is the data suggesting to us about what's going on here?' -  and there are lots of ways to do statistics (hence the great potential to mislead with statistics).  Statistics will generally give probabilities, not conclusive answers.  It would be nice to have simple yes/no answers to our simple questions, but reality is often not accommodating, and we sometimes find that we started off on the wrong foot by being ambiguous or fuzzy about our questions, resulting in 'garbage in, garbage out'.  We also sometimes find that the way experiments were set up or run was flawed, or didn't match our assumptions, so we can draw incorrect conclusions regardless of how carefully the statistical analysis is done.


----------



## bigshot (May 4, 2018)

I think my point was clear. People in a forum can say whatever they'd like. They're free to fudge results, withhold information, and skew interpretation. All that is fair game. We are in an internet forum, not a court of law. I'm just going to take claims made in an internet forum with a 20 pound salt lick. I also will consider the source. We all establish an identity through our posts. Some of us have online identities that reflect our real identity, and some people manufacture false ones to have fun or make them feel more important. Sometimes you associate with people in forums that you couldn't tolerate in real life. It's all good. No skin off my nose. It's my job as the reader to sort all that out. The speaker isn't required to adhere to any standard. Even if we tried to apply one, there would be no way of enforcing it. Caveat emptor... or more precisely Caveat lector.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> I think my point was clear. People in a forum can say whatever they'd like.


As sadly we see in your posts.



> They're free to fudge results, withhold information, and skew interpretation. All that is fair game.


No, many of us have high ethics, post under real name and identity so being truthful is super important.  

So it is clear, I have never, ever, ever , monitored the output of my ABX trials.  The only input I get is from what enters my ears.  I fire up foobar2000 ABX, drag the files into its playlist and start the test.

The output of later versions of foobar ABX tests actually has a cryptographic hash which can be verified online to guard against its manipulation.

My experience is as I mentioned: folks who don't want to believe the answers are the ones complaining about cheats while they welcome the most incorrectly run blind tests that matches their audio religion.  You have demonstrated this time and time again.  Not once have I seen you contest a negative outcome from someone's ABX test.  Objectivity be damned.


----------



## dprimary

RRod said:


> If all you do is take a file of full-scale white noise and filter out part of the audible spectrum, the RMS an loudness should naturally decrease. It would seem wrong to then manipulate the loudness to match, as that is removing one of the effects of the filter.
> 
> Edit: gah, dprimary beat me to it



I understand how they ended up where they ended up. I quickly tried a few things with SPL meters, weightings, band limiting and could not get the measurement levels to match. To demonstrate the audibility of the band limiting they did need to match the levels. But, something went wrong in the measurement process. To keep equal power you might have to calculate an offset. I don't have enough time to put much thought into it. 
It this case they seemed to trust their measurements and not their ears. It happens the other way around just as often. You need to know the limitations of your test equipment, signal and device under test.

When I run acoustical tests I have a calibration procedure that I do every time. When I'm teaching others to make the measurements they ask if the equipment drifts that much. I tell them no it hardly drifts at all if anything the small amount of change is likely from temperature, barometric pressure and humidity. But the important part is when it way off in calibration, most likely I overlooked a setting. The calibration is check to reduce the possibility of a measurement error.


----------



## bigshot

If people can't hear a difference with their own music and their own home audio equipment, the difference doesn't matter. Music matters a lot. Test tones and pink noise are only useful to the extent that they can help to make music sound better. It's important to have your eye on the prize. Here, the goal is better sounding music in the home.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> If people can't hear a difference with their own music and their own home audio equipment, the difference doesn't matter. Music matters a lot. Test tones and pink noise are only useful to the extent that they can help to make music sound better. It's important to have your eye on the prize. Here, the goal is better sounding music in the home.


I could not disagree more.

Why ? Because it takes one hell of a lot more time  for the people to "do" anything with music than with ( test signal(s)  + final few %  music ).  Setting the loudspeakers in order to image correctly - which, BTW, is THE thing to be corrected first in 99+% of the real audio systems - will take an experienced pink noise user max 20 minutes, whereas  one could fiddle with music preffered by the host and unlikely to be familiar to experienced pink noise user the whole day ... BEFORE any real work that takes properly positioned speakers for granted can even begin. And I have yet to encounter any case when the host has not remarked that his or her system does not image better than ever before after my (max) 20 minutes of pink noise - allowing to listen to MUSIC both for more time, but above all, to a much higher standard of sound quality than before. Sometimes, the changes can be measured in a few degrees and/or centimetres - to the uninitiated, the pictures of the speakers in the room taken "before" and "after" might appear exactly the same.

Pink/White/Brown/Khaki Green with Pink Dots/ Noise is a preety benign form of technical signal - as far as the human ear is concerned. Listeners not accustomed to the sound of the square wave would, typically, react with discomfort, disgust or downright - protest. Just a little less irritating to the unaccustomed ear is the triangle wave; but both DO allow to pinpoint the problems, MUCH quicker than various forms of noise - let alone music - IF one is experienced.

Again, allowing to arrive at better reproduction in shortest possible amount of time - which equals better music in the home. 

P.S:For some who might want to latch to the "Khaki Green with Pink Dots Noise" bone; 
that is just me being sarcastic. No such technical signal that I am aware of.


----------



## RRod (May 4, 2018)

dprimary said:


> I understand how they ended up where they ended up. I quickly tried a few things with SPL meters, weightings, band limiting and could not get the measurement levels to match. To demonstrate the audibility of the band limiting they did need to match the levels. But, something went wrong in the measurement process. To keep equal power you might have to calculate an offset. I don't have enough time to put much thought into it.
> It this case they seemed to trust their measurements and not their ears. It happens the other way around just as often. You need to know the limitations of your test equipment, signal and device under test.
> 
> When I run acoustical tests I have a calibration procedure that I do every time. When I'm teaching others to make the measurements they ask if the equipment drifts that much. I tell them no it hardly drifts at all if anything the small amount of change is likely from temperature, barometric pressure and humidity. But the important part is when it way off in calibration, most likely I overlooked a setting. The calibration is check to reduce the possibility of a measurement error.



True, the filter you use should keep the power constant below the threshold. The ones in SoX seem to have the math right on that. If I'm not mistaken, for white noise at 44.1k, 10-20k has about half the power of the whole signal?


----------



## KeithEmo

I would say that this is both absolutely true and totally untrue - depending on the context.

In the one context, obviously the goal for most of us is to have our music sound as good as possible.
Therefore, in that context, anything that makes it sound better _RIGHT NOW, IN MY LIVING ROOM_ is all that matters.

However, there is another context, and that is the future.
In pretty much any system, there are one or two "weakest links" that limit the overall performance.
Let's assume that I currently have a relatively low quality amplifier, driving a relatively poor quality pair of speakers.
They're reasonably well matched - so upgrading either one will probably not make much difference.
But, if I have an opportunity to buy a better pair of speakers next year, will my current poor quality amplifier prevent me from hearing the improvement I might otherwise hear with them?
And, will my current poor quality speakers be unable to take advantage of the benefits I might have gotten with a better amplifier?
In other words, by buying some components that are better than I actually need today, I am making for an easier and less costly upgrade path later.

I think cars and gasoline make a fair analogy.
My current car runs on regular gas; and, to be honest, I doubt that it would run one bit better on premium.... so it makes no sense at all to fill up at the gas station with premium.
However, if I was buying a million-gallon tanker of gasoline, would it be a good idea to buy a lifetime supply of regular?
What if, next year, I decide I want a high performance sports car - which really does run noticeably better on premium?

I've known quite a few people who bought 128k AAC files from iTunes, only to experience "buyer's remorse" later, after buying better equipment.
Those low quality AAC files sounded fine on the system they had last year; but, now, on their new system, the difference is obvious.
And, so, they end up buying their favorite albums all over again on CD.
(When they could have simply bought them on CD to begin with, for a little more money, "in case the situation changed".)

Obviously this all depends on the actual situation.....
If you're streaming music, then it makes perfect sense to buy exactly the quality you benefit from today.
You can always upgrade your service later if your equipment changes and it becomes justified.

However, for many of us, both our equipment, and our music itself, constitute an investment.
And, just like buying a house that's slightly larger than you need today, sometimes "overbuying" really does make sense.
And, yes, especially with audio equipment and content, there is a serious risk of spending money on "upgrades" you'll never need, or that are only imaginary to begin with.
However, you cannot reasonably ignore the entire range of possible benefits because of the risks either.
You really need to carefully consider how the situation applies to you personally.

(I'm personally pretty sure that I'll never buy a performance sports car that needs premium gas; but I'm not so sure that I might not upgrade my amplifier, or my DAC, or my speakers, next year.)



bigshot said:


> If people can't hear a difference with their own music and their own home audio equipment, the difference doesn't matter. Music matters a lot. Test tones and pink noise are only useful to the extent that they can help to make music sound better. It's important to have your eye on the prize. Here, the goal is better sounding music in the home.


----------



## RRod

KeithEmo said:


> I've known quite a few people who bought 128k AAC files from iTunes, only to experience "buyer's remorse" later, after buying better equipment.
> Those low quality AAC files sounded fine on the system they had last year; but, now, on their new system, the difference is obvious.
> And, so, they end up buying their favorite albums all over again on CD.
> (When they could have simply bought them on CD to begin with, for a little more money, "in case the situation changed".)



This is one of those things that's hard to just accept. Without the baseline of the lossless version, they should only be really hearing errors that are absolutely obvious, which isn't what 128 AAC dishes out except for the odd killer sample.


----------



## KeithEmo

Oddly enough, many of the people I talk to don't seem to have made the determination all that formally.
(Note that I work for a company that manufactures audio equipment in several price ranges.)

This usually comes to my attention as a service request...
I hear from someone who has been listening quite happily to iTunes on their current system for some time....
Then, one day, they go to a buddy's house, and notice that his stereo sounds better than theirs, so they buy a new amplifier, and perhaps some better speakers, so their system will sound like his.
They then end up calling us for advice as to why their system_ still_ doesn't sound as good as they'd hoped.
In many cases, it doesn't even occur to them that the quality of their music itself might be in question. 

It frequently turns out that they've been listening to standard quality iTunes files...
And, when that happens, I always inform them that they've been listening to lossy compressed music, which is not exactly the same as the lossless version they would hear when playing a CD.
And, frequently, I do end up speaking to them again....
And, when I do, I am almost universally informed that they hear the quality they were expecting after buying CDs, or re-ripping their CDs in WAV format, or subscribing to a lossless streaming service like Tidal.

Now, obviously, this is "anecdotal information"...
And also, obviously, I don't have statistics about how many people are perfectly satisfied with their iTunes music, and so don't end up calling us for help.
But I can tell you that the experience with those who notice a difference... and find it significant... has been repeated many times over the last five years.



RRod said:


> This is one of those things that's hard to just accept. Without the baseline of the lossless version, they should only be really hearing errors that are absolutely obvious, which isn't what 128 AAC dishes out except for the odd killer sample.


----------



## castleofargh

what I don't understand is why some of you want ultrasounds to be so important to music and our appreciation of it? open mindedness is good and all, but we have so many reasons to consider that we're just not very sensitive to ultrasounds if at all. we have many listening tests showing how people hardly notice any difference. do you stop to consider why you're not satisfied with the result and still want ultrasounds to matter? nobody has that kind of obsession about vision and ultraviolet below 310nm or so. not only do we accept that we don't see much, we generally try to filter it out of all our gears if it's not done naturally by our gears. you won't see some dude claiming that a picture sucks because it doesn't have all of the sun spectrum. but discuss audio and all of a sudden we need it all. why it is allegedly so important to some people to have as much ultrasonic content as possible? I don't get it.

we know that from the cochlea to the brain, things are massively tonotopic(a frequency is associated with a place). we know that the high freqs are the ones stimulating the fewest cells as they tend to excite only the entrance of the cochlea. then the energy gets dissipated very rapidly, not going very far and almost immediately reaching irrelevant amplitude. while low freqs will vibrate almost all the way into the cochlea. this alone suggests that ultrasounds won't activate many nerves, suggesting in turn that ultrasounds are not as important as some want them to be.
this also agrees with what we know of masking, a frequency will mask more other higher freqs than it will mask lower frequencies. most likely because to reach that masking frequency, the vibrations already excited the higher freq censors a little, giving as a result a lower sensitivity for that region. by the same logic on complex musical content, the highest frequency area is already very busy even without high frequency content. it's another argument for less interest in ultrasounds.
 we know that the higher the frequency, the fewer the sensory cells will activate. so while I can agree with concerns about the exact limit of our hearing, and how maybe we could all move on to IDK... maybe 50khz PCM and be done with it so that even kids can have high fidelity audio, I can't help but think that any argument pushing for as much ultrasonic content as possible is nothing but a profound misunderstanding of human hearing.

then of course there is the tiny practical detail where I will listen to a 18khz test tone at about 80dB SPL and perceive nothing. 20khz? OMG all the nothing I perceive. 22khz? yup, still nothing. I'm not alone having tried that, and call me stupid, but my first reaction to that experience wasn't to go look for reasons to still consider ultrasounds as significant to my experience of music. instead my first reaction was, OK I'm not young anymore, and I've lost those freqs. bubye!

so then I read about transients. and almost all audiophile find perfectly normal to consider that they fail to notice let's say 20khz and above. then in the same line, find it perfectly rational that if you low pass a transient response and attenuate or remove content above 20khz, then it will be audible. and once more I wonder why? the 20khz and above content is still made of those frequencies that we failed to detect in the most ideal conditions using a single tone. so now people decide they can hear it all because on a graph they see a straight rising line instead of sines?
at every step along the way I see reasons to give up on ultrasounds and at every step there are many people taking a situation and turning it on it's head to find a reason why ultrasounds are relevant. why? because casual listening drowned in placebo and biases made them feel that the format they knew to have higher resolution felt better? that's pretty much it right? it can be proved anytime how easy it is to suggest things to somebody and fool him into feeling something that isn't there, but we don't want to look ourselves in the mirror and accept that we're very flawed. so we reject anything suggesting we are wrong, and instead we pursue ultrasounds, something, anything, must explain why I liked it when knowing that it was superior. well anything but preconception. but otherwise anything.

please, pretty please, if there is another reason why people cultivate that obsession toward ultrasounds, let me know.  I agree that some people may be young enough to notice filters for 44.1 signal. not for a second do I believe it matter or makes a big change in audio, but young people can hear pretty high, maybe up to 25khz. I'm really not sure we have any mean in our auditory system to perceive anything above 25khz.  I also accept the evidence that with burst type signals, a human can detect delays pretty short. not frequencies!!!!! but to reach impressive timing, it's necessary to use a pretty loud signal with an ultra wide range of frequencies, and proceed in all or nothing changes. so such tests involve all hair cells at the same time and stop at the same time, making for the most ideal situation ever. with music, we never get remotely close to such stimulation.
as for the 5µs delay for interaural cues, it's important to understand that we're discussing delays between "channels", not a frequency with a period of 5µs(what's that? 200khz?). it also has not much to do with the delay between 2 samples of a digital file, and understanding  what is going on for us makes it all more obvious. we get a sound in one ear, that sound will be what we can register, so not much ultrasonic content for my ears, that sound reaches the other ear with a delay(out of phase). we're not hearing anything extraordinarily fast, it's later in the brain that he opens up his equivalent of audacity or whatever DAW, looks at the signal on the left, looks at the signal on the right, and goes: "hey those patterns are similar on each channel but with a delay!". I must tell you that the brain is a real boss when it comes to pattern recognition.
so is this a problem with 44.1khz recording? turns out it isn't because you can record a signal with a delay much more precise than the delay between 2 samples. so long as the playback gears don't mess things up too much, we're pretty good.
but even then I feel that I must add something. let's say it isn't enough in some cases, let's say your instrument feels like it's 25° on the left instead of 25,3°, do we really want to be the guys who have spent decades pushing for at least DXD resolution because we couldn't stand to have the guitar almost at a slightly different place?

this all ultrasonic thing has been blown out of proportion for too long IMO. and all the stuff I discuss become even less relevant when you start to look at your headphone, your speakers and room. complaining about the lack of ultrasonic content is one of those "because we can" movement. solve that and they'll all go complain about something else "ruining" their music at a level they're not sure they can register. meanwhile I'm here with my headphone and if I turn off all my processing, I end up with a mush of stuff inside my head and mostly on a line oriented through my ears. I think it sucks, nobody ever contested that it wasn't audible. everybody knows that we could make the sound so very much better if it felts more speaker like, but hey, let's focus on ultrasounds and stuff at -200dB in a file or a DAC. those must be our real problems stopping us from "having the sound like the artist intended blablablah".

we're in section for people curious out many things, and I'm not telling you guys to stop discussing if we can notice something on a moonlight in an anechoic chamber with ice on our feet. if you're curious about that, you should ask and hopefully people will have some evidence based idea about it. but please let's all agree to stop pretending that tiny possibly inaudible stuff are massively important. we have sensors, they work like any sensor. stimuli for the sensor are captured while stuff outside of the censor's range aren't. small stuff hardly register, big stuff register strongly. something hardly registering is not very likely to be at the same time the most important part of the music. stuff are relative, magnitudes do matter.


ps: I hope I didn't write too much crap, I'm not in the most relaxed state of mind ATM.


----------



## bigshot (May 4, 2018)

Standard quality iTunes is AAC256 VBR. That is totally transparent.

Super audible frequencies have never been shown to be necessary for high fidelity reproduction of recorded music. You can pack a lot of stuff you can't hear in, but you still can't hear it.


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> Oddly enough, many of the people I talk to don't seem to have made the determination all that formally.
> (Note that I work for a company that manufactures audio equipment in several price ranges.)
> 
> This usually comes to my attention as a service request...
> ...



The entire scenario runs parallel to someone getting new speakers or headphones and hearing unpleasant variances until their ears adjust to the new FR.   Maybe you could have proposed a 200-hour burn-in? Ha!


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> The entire scenario runs parallel to someone getting new speakers or headphones and hearing unpleasant variances until their ears adjust to the new FR.   Maybe you could have proposed a 200-hour burn-in? Ha!



I tend to agree that making change X, because someone perceived as credible recommended it, is likely to create a placebo effect in terms of making things seem to sound better.  That's not to say that there couldn't an objective improvement, but IMO it's very likely that there's at least some placebo effect there.

Sort of related side note: consumers typically continue to research products they've purchased _after_ they purchase them, focusing on information which casts those products in a favorable light.  It has been shown that this tends to cause them to enjoy the products more.  Moral of the story: if you've already bought expensive equipment, don't risk blind testing, just read favorable reviews!


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> Sort of related side note: consumers typically continue to research products they've purchased _after_ they purchase them, focusing on information which casts those products in a favorable light.



Do they? Weird. I never do that. The only time I look at equipment reviews is when I'm shopping.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> what I don't understand is why some of you want ultrasounds to be so important to music and our appreciation of it? open mindedness is good and all, but we have so many reasons to consider that we're just not very sensitive to ultrasounds if at all. we have many listening tests showing how people hardly notice any difference. do you stop to consider why you're not satisfied with the result and still want ultrasounds to matter? nobody has that kind of obsession about vision and ultraviolet below 310nm or so. not only do we accept that we don't see much, we generally try to filter it out of all our gears if it's not done naturally by our gears. you won't see some dude claiming that a picture sucks because it doesn't have all of the sun spectrum. but discuss audio and all of a sudden we need it all. why it is allegedly so important to some people to have as much ultrasonic content as possible? I don't get it.



I think it's because good music delivered with good sound quality produces a sort of high, and we're always searching to maintain that high or for a higher high.  Besides drugs, consumerism in general, and strong need for status with some people, I can't think of many other phenomena besides music which have this effect on people.

Personally, I'm not giving much importance to ultrasonics at this point, but I'm intrigued by the general possibility of significant subconscious effects on the musical experience - inherent in the physical sound - which aren't discerned at the conscious level.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I would say that this is both absolutely true and totally untrue - depending on the context.
> 
> In the one context, obviously the goal for most of us is to have our music sound as good as possible.
> Therefore, in that context, anything that makes it sound better _RIGHT NOW, IN MY LIVING ROOM_ is all that matters.
> ...


It is amusing but definitely not funny that we did have an entire system - from phono cartridge to loudspeakers - with response below 20 Hz to above 100 kHz - circa 1979.

Then came the CD - and EVERYTHING went nosedive. 20 years on, when the SACD appeared just before the turn of the millenium, companies were "boasting" pre, power and integrated amps with 100-150kHz babdwidth - as something new, latest scream in R&D, etc... There were MHz bandwidth audio amps from about 80s on... - and, yes, given good source, their superiority has been audible - even if entire audio contents, with noise and distortion together, did not stretch even to "mid-bass" of their capabilities.

With best digital today, we are getting approx to the standard of reproduction once already achieved by analogue - the improvement being in lower distortion, higher channel separation and of course, lower noise - but the main thing, IMO at least, frequency response, is about equally matched - from about 50 to about 100 kHz, depending on particular combination of both analogue and digital recording and playback equipment. But the digital became even more fiddlier than setting up a turntable; before one tells the computer just what type of file should be played trough just desired soundcard/DAC/whatever, using exactly this and not the other software player, filters set this and not the other 5 or so ways - one might well (re-)discovers the - compared to just the before mentioned digital vagaries - the relative ease of vinyl playback. TT does not "forget" almost all the settings -  like the computer - after each and every powering off ...

Aready existing PCM 384kHz and DSD256 should tip the scales of quality towards the digital - for good. But for the time being, there is very little programme natively recorded in either of the formats mentioned; steadily growing, but it will be decades before the library of NATIVE recording in these HD formats will grow enough to be able to claim the secure foothold.

Please do understand that we are in the transition period; there can be no true HR recordings in whatever medium from the artists who are no longer with us for more than 20 years and whose recordings are now being transferred from analogue tape, recorded in many cases 50 or more years ago, to "whatever HR". Any such HR, if spectrum analyzed above 50 kHz, will not show the true potential of the whatever HR, but can - at best - reproduce whatever the equipment used at the time of actual recording could muster; there were no 100kHz microphones (at least not used for music; later, the best recording engineers started to use B&K measuring mikes, starting around 1970 - but those can be counted on the fingers of a single, maybe both hands ), there certainly were no recorders capable reaching 100kHz either... - top analog R2R were good to about just below or above 40kHz, and even that was reached in 80s, etc. So, to test how - exactly - a true HR recording might scare bigshot's cat ( whose behaviour should mimic much the same if exposed to live music - me being a cat lover myself ), you'll have to use a modern day recording ... - and, if it is any good, should display - accordingly to the instrument(s) just playing - pretty much more lively and equal display of activity between 20 and at very least 50 kHz in the spectrum analysis - without "constant steady state peak(s).


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Do they? Weird. I never do that. The only time I look at equipment reviews is when I'm shopping.



Yup, it's established by marketing research to be a common phenomenon.  I notice that I do it too, under the guise of wanting to learn more about what I bought, but maybe the other mechanism is subconsciously involved also.  If you're not the norm in this regard, that's not necessarily a bad thing!


----------



## analogsurviver

Phronesis said:


> Yup, it's established by marketing research to be a common phenomenon.  I notice that I do it too, under the guise of wanting to learn more about what I bought, but maybe the other mechanism is subconsciously involved also.  If you're not the norm in this regard, that's not necessarily a bad thing!


I have recently developed the habit of getting the reviews of an interesting thing I might consider for purchase searching the internet far and wide - preferrably being reviewed in a foreign "hostile country" - like japanese speakers reviewed by the british, italian amplifier by the french, british turntable by the germans, american amp by the japanese, etc. - in order to get as much info, good or bad, on the product I am interested in.

But, yes, I admit I would check reviews after the purchase - and that the ones that might be tarring and feathering  my latest acquisition do not get as much time as those praising its qualities.


----------



## bigshot

I guess I'm a practical soul. I don't spend a lot of time focused on my tools. I spend time using them. I'll do all sorts of research on movies and music and art. But video equipment and audio equipment don't interest me any more than their intended purpose. For the past three days I've been reading reviews on the Oculus Go that is on its way to me. But once it arrives, I'll be too busy playing with it to read reviews.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I guess I'm a practical soul. I don't spend a lot of time focused on my tools. I spend time using them. I'll do all sorts of research on movies and music and art. But video equipment and audio equipment don't interest me any more than their intended purpose. For the past three days I've been reading reviews on the Oculus Go that is on its way to me. But once it arrives, I'll be too busy playing with it to read reviews.



Being a practicing engineer, I also have a practical bent, but I do allow myself some 'wasteful' indulgences.  With audio, I kind of straddle the boundary between practical and wasteful (my wife would say more on the wasteful side, but she has indulgences too!).  I once thought $300 was an expensive headphone, now I have to laugh at my former self - the power of financial rationalization is strong with audio.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I guess I'm a practical soul. I don't spend a lot of time focused on my tools. I spend time using them. I'll do all sorts of research on movies and music and art. But video equipment and audio equipment don't interest me any more than their intended purpose. For the past three days I've been reading reviews on the Oculus Go that is on its way to me. But once it arrives, I'll be too busy playing with it to read reviews.


Just quickly checked Oculus Go. Is this device playback only - or can it record too ?


----------



## bigshot

It doesn't have a camera, just a microphone. It's more of a single player entry system to established VR worlds. There is a camera called the Ricoh Theta S that records 360 degree video. I have one of those too and it's a lot of fun. Theta videos can be uploaded to youtube or Facebook and the Oculus Go can make them into environments you can get inside of. There is a thing called Oculus Rooms where you can create a room and invite your Facebook friends with Go's in and watch TV together or look at a slideshow or play chess... You can also turn a Theta 360 image into a bubble in the center of the room and people can walk in and out of your 360 photos.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> I once thought $300 was an expensive headphone, now I have to laugh at my former self - the power of financial rationalization is strong with audio.



I've spent an awful lot of money on my system and especially my collection of music and movies over the years. I don't regret spending so much. But I like to get my money's worth. If I can buy a $500 amp and it will perform the same as a $1500 one, that frees up a grand to spend on movies and music. I'd rather do that. I don't look at my equipment as status symbols or jewelry. In fact, I keep most of it hidden behind the bar in my screening room. The only thing I can't hide is the speakers.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> It doesn't have a camera, just a microphone. It's more of a single player entry system to established VR worlds. There is a camera called the Ricoh Theta S that records 360 degree video. I have one of those too and it's a lot of fun. Theta videos can be uploaded to youtube or Facebook and the Oculus Go can make them into environments you can get inside of. There is a thing called Oculus Rooms where you can create a room and invite your Facebook friends with Go's in and watch TV together or look at a slideshow or play chess... You can also turn a Theta 360 image into a bubble in the center of the room and people can walk in and out of your 360 photos.


Thank you for the reply... I expected something of the sort. This field is changing so fast ....


----------



## KeithEmo

I think I can actually tell you why this is such a _CONTENTIOUS_ subject..... and it has little to do with the technical details.

On one side of the argument we have a faction actively promoting the massive benefits of high-resolution audio. They insist that high-res recordings obviously sound better, and, of course, you should immediately run out and buy your entire collection all over again in high-res versions. Obviously, virtually every studio or other company who owns an archive of recordings belongs to this group. After all, it's yet another opportunity to sell you yet another remaster. Of course, there are also many people who are actually convinced that they do hear a difference. Since so many people already believe that high-res recordings are better, this group sees no reason whatsoever to finance studies to prove the point (and risk proving that either it's altogether untrue - or that it is true, but so insignificant as not to matter).

On the other side of the argument are the people who are absolutely convinced either that THEY don't hear a difference, or that there is so much proof that no human being could POSSIBLY hear a difference that it isn't even worth the effort to find out. The members of that group find themselves relieved that they won't have to decide whether to spend the money to buy all their favorite albums over again. And, since they're convinced the differences don't really exist, they're also convinced that the whole idea is just another scam, promulgated by the record companies, to sell stuff. Therefore, in good faith, they're determined to enlighten everyone else to protect them from being taken advantage of by the evil empire. Of course, for more personal reasons, they would really hate to be proven wrong (nobody likes to be proven wrong).



castleofargh said:


> what I don't understand is why some of you want ultrasounds to be so important to music and our appreciation of it? open mindedness is good and all, but we have so many reasons to consider that we're just not very sensitive to ultrasounds if at all. we have many listening tests showing how people hardly notice any difference. do you stop to consider why you're not satisfied with the result and still want ultrasounds to matter? nobody has that kind of obsession about vision and ultraviolet below 310nm or so. not only do we accept that we don't see much, we generally try to filter it out of all our gears if it's not done naturally by our gears. you won't see some dude claiming that a picture sucks because it doesn't have all of the sun spectrum. but discuss audio and all of a sudden we need it all. why it is allegedly so important to some people to have as much ultrasonic content as possible? I don't get it.
> 
> we know that from the cochlea to the brain, things are massively tonotopic(a frequency is associated with a place). we know that the high freqs are the ones stimulating the fewest cells as they tend to excite only the entrance of the cochlea. then the energy gets dissipated very rapidly, not going very far and almost immediately reaching irrelevant amplitude. while low freqs will vibrate almost all the way into the cochlea. this alone suggests that ultrasounds won't activate many nerves, suggesting in turn that ultrasounds are not as important as some want them to be.
> this also agrees with what we know of masking, a frequency will mask more other higher freqs than it will mask lower frequencies. most likely because to reach that masking frequency, the vibrations already excited the higher freq censors a little, giving as a result a lower sensitivity for that region. by the same logic on complex musical content, the highest frequency area is already very busy even without high frequency content. it's another argument for less interest in ultrasounds.
> ...


----------



## sonitus mirus (May 5, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I think I can actually tell you why this is such a _CONTENTIOUS_ subject..... and it has little to do with the technical details.
> 
> On one side of the argument we have a faction actively promoting the massive benefits of high-resolution audio. They insist that high-res recordings obviously sound better, and, of course, you should immediately run out and buy your entire collection all over again in high-res versions. Obviously, virtually every studio or other company who owns an archive of recordings belongs to this group. After all, it's yet another opportunity to sell you yet another remaster. Of course, there are also many people who are actually convinced that they do hear a difference. Since so many people already believe that high-res recordings are better, this group sees no reason whatsoever to finance studies to prove the point (and risk proving that either it's altogether untrue - or that it is true, but so insignificant as not to matter).
> 
> On the other side of the argument are the people who are absolutely convinced either that THEY don't hear a difference, or that there is so much proof that no human being could POSSIBLY hear a difference that it isn't even worth the effort to find out. The members of that group find themselves relieved that they won't have to decide whether to spend the money to buy all their favorite albums over again. And, since they're convinced the differences don't really exist, they're also convinced that the whole idea is just another scam, promulgated by the record companies, to sell stuff. Therefore, in good faith, they're determined to enlighten everyone else to protect them from being taken advantage of by the evil empire. Of course, for more personal reasons, they would really hate to be proven wrong (nobody likes to be proven wrong).



How can it not be obvious to a rational person that any audible benefits to HR audio are tiny, if any exist at all?   Based on the various forms of HR audio that are currently in use, I simply do not see any possible reason to ever "have" to decide whether to spend money to purchase my library of music again.  I know that any potential differences do not matter to me.

The infamous Meyer & Moran "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback" test should be enough to proclaim that any differences between CD-Standard and HR Audio are insignificant.   The best albums at that time were suggested to be used in this test.  Albums that were supposedly clearly superior sounding and would be obvious to all but the deafest of listeners.  Turns out nobody could statistically prove that any difference was heard with any confidence to suggest it wasn't just guessing.  In the end, many of the albums that were touted as being HR audio masterpieces were actually NOT HR at all.  Nobody even knew until later, after the results of the study were made public.

What possible changes would any non-audiophile seriously expect would make any significant difference?  

The issue between HR Audio and Red Book is closed for me, on a personal level. 

Things are wonderful for me.  I could not have dreamed of a better scenario than I currently enjoy with regards to the quality, quantity, and amazing accessibility with music.  My only worry is the profit mongering music industry giants and the absolutely deplorable history with their consumer and artist relationships.


----------



## Phronesis (May 4, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I've spent an awful lot of money on my system and especially my collection of music and movies over the years. I don't regret spending so much. But I like to get my money's worth. If I can buy a $500 amp and it will perform the same as a $1500 one, that frees up a grand to spend on movies and music. I'd rather do that. I don't look at my equipment as status symbols or jewelry. In fact, I keep most of it hidden behind the bar in my screening room. The only thing I can't hide is the speakers.



What has surprised me a bit is the substantial number of people on head-fi who 'save up' for a long time to buy rather expensive gear, when gear costing a fraction of the price is plenty good also.  People can of course spend their money how they want, but IMO it does indicate a degree of obsession if someone is seriously straining themselves financially because they feel they 'need' to buy a head/earphone costing thousands of dollars.  To me, there's a difference between 'wasting' money that won't be missed versus money that was needed for something else.  But I see this sort of thing with sports cars also - another area where passion is involved - with people straining to buy cars that cost well into six figures (and then hardly driving them, because they want to reduce depreciation and don't expect to keep them long-term).


----------



## bigshot

When I first started out, I saved up a lot of money to buy a good turntable- a nice Thorens. That made sense because I wanted a turntable I could keep my whole life and wouldn't beat the heck out of my record collection. In retrospect, it really didn't matter because I don't use LPs any more. Now, I won't spend a lot on an amp at all, because technology keeps changing. I spent too much on my player, but it's region free and it plays every format known to man, so it was worth it.


----------



## rule42

RRod said:


> Yes but often the claim made on here is specific: 'I can hear the difference between a given track in two different formats on a given system in a given environment'. Suddenly you throw in "ok, now make sure you don't know which track is which", and suddenly people can't discriminate.
> 
> I'd also like to note, that listening to music in your normal listening environment is not the same as listening to it with you head in an MRI machine...



I had my head in an MRI machine a couple of days ago. As well as being a claustrophobic and uncomfortable environment it also hits nearly 110dB when the currents get flowing!


----------



## amirm

sonitus mirus said:


> The infamous Meyer & Moran "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback" test should be enough to proclaim that any differences between CD-Standard and HR Audio are insignificant. The best albums at that time were suggested to be used in this test. Albums that were supposedly clearly superior sounding and would be obvious to all but the deafest of listeners. Turns out nobody could statistically prove that any difference was heard with any confidence to suggest it wasn't just guessing. In the end, many of the albums that were touted as being HR audio masterpieces were actually NOT HR at all. Nobody even knew until later, after the results of the study were made public.


The M&M test is probably the most flawed of these listening tests.  A lot of mistakes were made in there as to put doubt in its outcome.  It is directionally correct mind you, it is just that in the specific in falls apart for the most part.

A much more recent test, _The audibility of typical digital audio Filters in a high-fidelity playback system, _did show audibility of high-resolution content when downsampled to CD rate.  It is a much more professionally conducted test than M&M.

Back to M&M test, one tester did get 8 out of 10 answers right.  That almost, almost meets the bar for statistical significance at 95%.  So it is not correct to say everyone was guessing.

See my analysis of both papers here: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/statistics-of-abx-testing.170/


----------



## bigshot (May 5, 2018)

I did a careful comparison test of a Pentatone DSD SACD against the CD layer. I couldn't discern any difference. My sound mixer friend couldn't either. I could tell the difference on several rock SACDs, but that was because the mastering on the SACD layer was different than the CD layer. On one of them it was a totally different mix.


----------



## gregorio

amirm said:


> [1] A much more recent test, _The audibility of typical digital audio Filters in a high-fidelity playback system, _did show audibility of high-resolution content when downsampled to CD rate. It is a much more professionally conducted test than M&M.
> 
> Back to M&M test, one tester did get 8 out of 10 answers right. That almost, almost meets the bar for statistical significance at 95%. So it is not correct to say everyone was guessing.



1. A problem I see here on head-fi quite commonly is absolute statements without conditions or context. Conditions are vital because without conditions pretty much everything is audible. Can random jitter noise be heard down at -140dB, yes, easily, just amplify it by 100dB or so. Can hi-res be differentiated from CD, yes, it's trivially easy, can differences between cables be heard, what about a 30kHz audio signal, or a 16Hz signal? Yes, yes and yes, all can be differentiated and trivially easily, given the right conditions. Can an anti-alias/anti-imagine digital audio filter be audible? Again, yes, trivially easily. The question of whether something is audible or inaudible is therefore typically irrelevant, what's relevant is the conditions under which something is audible/inaudible. What's relevant about the conditions required to hear random jitter noise at -140dB is that amplifying it by say 100dB in the context of listening to music for pleasure is atypical and unreasonable to the point of being dangerous. I have no problem with how the tests of the paper you reference were conducted and would agree that they were conducted more professionally than the M&M paper. My problem with it is more fundamental than that, the very title of the paper is a lie. They did NOT test typical digital audio filters, they tested extremely ATYPICAL filters!
Virtually all tests of this type have one or more flaws or varying importance/significance. That doesn't mean they are all useless, they can still provide valuable information but it does mean that we virtually always have to interpret the studies/papers and assign a level of confidence to each of it's assertions. That's a problem of course because it's based on our personal interpretations and as such is influenced by our own biases and background experience and knowledge. You clearly have higher confidence in the assertions of digital filters paper than those of the M&M paper, I'm of the opposite opinion/interpretation and apparently so too is sonitus mirus and you cannot prove us wrong, all you can do is disagree at a personal interpretation level.

2. It's perfectly valid to say everyone was guessing as there was no evidence proving that some we're not guessing. One tester getting 8 out of 10 or even 9/10 or 10/10 does not prove they were not guessing. If I randomly toss a coin 10 times there is a possibility I'll throw 8 heads, a smaller possibility of throwing 9 and an even smaller possibility of throwing 10 but there is still a possibility of throwing 10/10 completely by chance. Moreover, the more times I do 10 sets of tosses, the higher the probability of one of those sets being an 8/10 (or 10/10). If I did many hundreds of such 10 toss trials, it would probably be "statistically significant" if at least one of them were NOT 8/10! That is , I believe, essentially what pinnahertz was trying to explain to you and you incorrectly disagreed. Of course, we do not know for certain if that 8/10 individual was guessing, just that he/she probably was. I'd have liked to have seen further testing with that individual.But, it is incorrect for you to state/imply that there was a tester who could differentiate (was not guessing).

G


----------



## Glmoneydawg (May 5, 2018)

ev13wt said:


> 10KHz is really darn high!



yep...very clearly audible though. Youtube brickwalled at16khz if you try the other tones.


----------



## Phronesis (May 5, 2018)

I'd like to delve a little deeper into some aspects of blind testing which have been touched on in the recent discussion.

If the difference between A and B is obvious (e.g., the 10 kHz white noise example), blind testing isn't really needed.  It will just confirm what's already known, and the trials will be close to 100% correct even if many trials are done.

If the listener is pretty sure he can't distinguish between A and B, he _knows_ he'll just be guessing in the trials, so there's no value in doing the trials.  If he did better than chance, he and we would already know it was due to luck.

If the listener thinks he notices a subtle difference between A and B, let's say we do the trials and the listener does somewhat better than chance, but the p-value isn't particularly low (say 0.35).  Does that mean we can't be confident that he can tell the difference between A and B?  Not necessarily.  From my own experience with blind testing, I saw that my skill in discriminating varied over the course of the trials, so the issue was that I wasn't consistent.  Sometimes I was tired or bored with the test, or hadn't listened to the sample sounds in a while (I generally didn't do it before each trial, which in retrospect is a flaw in the way I conducted the test), so I knew I was guessing.  In other trials, I had heard the sample sounds more recently and my concentration was better, and I'm pretty sure I got the correct answers based on merit rather than luck.

So let's consider a scenario where the listener is guessing in 80% of the trials (and knows it) and gets 50% correct.  In the other 20% of the trials, his concentration is better, he's not just guessing and gets 85% correct.  The p-value wouldn't be impressive, so we'd be tempted to conclude that he probably can't discriminate between A and B based on statistical analysis, but this would be the wrong conclusion, because we didn't account for the variability/inconsistency of his skill level as he does the trials.  Most of the time, he really can't discriminate between them, but some of the time he really can.  The stats don't make this distinction, and this illustrates that stats alone don't give answers - we need to have a correct model of the situation in order to do and interpret the stats and reach valid conclusions.

To make an analogy where the issue of guessing isn't a factor, consider this question: can this pro tennis player do legal serves at 125+ mph?  We do trials and 15% of the time he's over 125 mph.  If you did a statistical analysis, you may conclude that he got over 125 mph due to luck, but obviously that's not the case, because it's a matter of skill rather than luck.  The fact that he can only do it 15% of the time is only because of inconsistency in performance.  Trying to run something like a p-value in this case would be a misapplication of statistics; we already have the main stat that's relevant - he can probably serve over 125 mph about 15% of the time (this percentage will likely change over time due to fatigue, training, etc., so again the need for caution about generalizing study findings).

A broader issue is how well an ABX test using short music fragments represents some type of normal music listening.  I think there are some rather substantial differences there, so I would be reluctant to say that A and B couldn't produce a different normal music listening experience just because an ABX test seems to have failed to show an ability to discriminate.  If we really want to know how A vs B affects normal music listening, we may need to test that more directly, using conditions much closer to normal listening, and I like the idea of using brain imaging to add some objectively to reports of subjective impressions.

Even more broadly, I'm still of the opinion that if we're chasing differences in sound quality which are quite subtle, they may not make a meaningful difference as far as enjoyment of music.  My experience is that I tend to adapt to whatever sound quality I have, and in the end it's the musical content which has the dominant impact on my experience of music.


----------



## amirm

bigshot said:


> I did a careful comparison test of a Pentatone DSD SACD against the CD layer. I couldn't discern any difference.


What was "careful about it?"  I bet nothing.  

Now that doesn't mean there was an audible difference.  It is just that if you don't know how to setup such tests, small differences easily get lost.


----------



## amirm

gregorio said:


> 2. It's perfectly valid to say everyone was guessing as there was no evidence proving that some we're not guessing.









Why don't we dismiss all blind tests regardless of outcome then by assuming so?

No, it is not perfectly valid to say such things.  It is not remotely valid to say so.  We never know what is in someone's head.  You don't know if someone is guessing unless you have direct evidence of it (e.g. them telling you).

The poster said everyone was guessing in M&M tests because that is the one-liner that gets talked about online.  If he knew someone got 8 out of 10 right, I suspect he would not be saying so.


----------



## Phronesis (May 5, 2018)

amirm said:


> You don't know if someone is guessing unless you have direct evidence of it (e.g. them telling you).



This raises the point that tests may be better designed if the protocol requires that the subject is required to not guess (and can be trusted to do so), instead taking a break and doing whatever else is needed to be able to answer with some 'reasonable level of confidence'.  If the subject can't ever reach that level of confidence, and would just continue guessing, then maybe don't proceed further with the test and assume they can't tell the difference under the test conditions (which doesn't rule the possibility of being able to tell the difference under different conditions or experiencing a difference which isn't consciously recognized).


----------



## sonitus mirus (May 5, 2018)

amirm said:


> The poster said everyone was guessing in M&M tests because that is the one-liner that gets talked about online.  If he knew someone got 8 out of 10 right, I suspect he would not be saying so.



If you are referring to me, I stand by my initial statement.  A single 8 of 10 result out of multiple tests is not significant enough for me to suggest it isn't just guessing.  Really, though, my point was that any differences would be trivial, especially to me, but from everything I have found about the subject, this probably goes for nearly everyone and no clear evidence has been provided to suggest otherwise.

Edit:  I ran an experiment in Excel where I created 10,000 individual 10 trials of randomly generated A or B.  In the results, I had 14 perfect 10/10 scores and 12 0/10 scores.  The 8/10 score came up randomly 457 times.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Phronesis said:


> This raises the point that tests may be better designed if the protocol requires that the subject is required to not guess (and can be trusted to do so), instead taking a break and doing whatever else is needed to be able to answer with some 'reasonable level of confidence'.  If the subject can't ever reach that level of confidence, and would just continue guessing, then maybe don't proceed further with the test and assume they can't tell the difference under the test conditions (which doesn't rule the possibility of being able to tell the difference under different conditions or experiencing a difference which isn't consciously recognized).


The structure of all the perceptual tests I’ve done is a bit different from an ABX: I always control the parameter I’m testing and can vary it from “everyone can tell the difference” to B=A, so guessing is required. I instruct the subjects to go ahead and guess, and I inform them of the fact that their data usually show a statistically significantly better than chance result for some stimuli where they are sure they are guessing. I tell them to not have a special strategy, like “always A” or “alternate A and B” when they guess, rather just do their best each trial.
This type of data fits well to a psychometric function (link). Many subjects state they are guessing even when their data is up on the rising part of the curve.




Subjects can always take a break, whenever they don’t feel they are able to focus, and I force a break after a certain number of trials. Boredom and “zoning out” is a big problem that I address with frequent communication and the breaks.


----------



## RRod

sonitus mirus said:


> If you are referring to me, I stand by my initial statement.  A single 8 of 10 result out of multiple tests is not significant enough for me to suggest it isn't just guessing.  Really, though, my point was that any differences would be trivial, especially to me, but from everything I have found about the subject, this probably goes for nearly everyone and no clear evidence has been provided to suggest otherwise.
> 
> Edit:  I ran an experiment in Excel where I created 10,000 individual 10 trials of randomly generated A or B.  In the results, I had 14 perfect 10/10 scores and 12 0/10 scores.  The 8/10 score came up randomly 457 times.



Or in R:

```
> table(rbinom(10000, 10, 0.5))

   0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10
  10  106  446 1166 2110 2380 2067 1161  429  114   11
```


----------



## Phronesis

SoundAndMotion said:


> The structure of all the perceptual tests I’ve done is a bit different from an ABX: I always control the parameter I’m testing and can vary it from “everyone can tell the difference” to B=A, so guessing is required. I instruct the subjects to go ahead and guess, and I inform them of the fact that their data usually show a statistically significantly better than chance result for some stimuli where they are sure they are guessing. I tell them to not have a special strategy, like “always A” or “alternate A and B” when they guess, rather just do their best each trial.
> This type of data fits well to a psychometric function (link). Many subjects state they are guessing even when their data is up on the rising part of the curve.
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting, makes sense.


----------



## castleofargh

abx is popular because it's simple and accessible. obviously there is nothing stopping us from trying a bunch of abx tests where the variable we're looking at is changed on purpose(when possible). I've done that myself a bunch of time, trying to find out when I was starting to notice a low level sound within an album. I'd try to find when I start to have a hard time noticing the extra sound, and make a few files with that extra sound at different amplitude levels, then abx to try and really find out when I stop noticing it exactly. 
I've done that sort of stuff for low pass filters and a few other things where I knew how to manufacture the test tracks myself. in the end a tool is a tool. I don't suspect myself of trying to lie to myself so I usually leave it at that ^_^. but if I had test subjects and was considering dishonesty as a variable, I'd try as often as possible to also involve such elements with variable levels for the ... variable I want them to notice. and maybe some other sounds at similar levels just to mess with them and make it obvious if they just reply randomly or fail on purpose. 
but here despite how I trust nobody about nothing because... it's internet! I still assume that a guy presenting an experiment he run, was sincerely trying to pass and didn't cheat. it surely will happen, but if we even have to be suspicious about that all the time, we're never going to do anything or trust anybody. we trust the AES papers, but why? we don't know most of those guys, they tell us they did test something, but for all I know it could all ave been one guy making stuff up. at some point we do need to have a little bit of trust in our fellow humans trying to do the right thing. 

also a guy giving results here, to me that's a nice anecdote, but I'm never taking that as a final take on a subject. we're not researchers(at least most of us aren't). we mostly try to check for ourselves what others have known for 50years. there is value in doing it, but we're not getting a nobel price anytime soon for our amateur experiments on group subjects of 1.


----------



## amirm

sonitus mirus said:


> If you are referring to me, I stand by my initial statement. A single 8 of 10 result out of multiple tests is not significant enough for me to suggest it isn't just guessing. Really, though, my point was that any differences would be trivial, especially to me, but from everything I have found about the subject, this probably goes for nearly everyone and no clear evidence has been provided to suggest otherwise.
> 
> Edit: I ran an experiment in Excel where I created 10,000 individual 10 trials of randomly generated A or B. In the results, I had 14 perfect 10/10 scores and 12 0/10 scores. The 8/10 score came up randomly 457 times.


First, I am glad to see you digging in and generating data .

On your experiment, each tests was part of a pool of independent events with exact same conditions (assuming Excel random function is truly random).  In the case of M&M and audio testing in general, that was not the case.  They used multiple venues, equipment and of course listeners with different abilities.  These results cannot be pooled as you have done in your experiment.  An issue which the author accepted as being faulty.  From my article/analysis of their test:  https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-does-it-matter.11/

5. Meyer and Moran tests was performed using multiple sets of playback hardware, content and source equipment. These make for different tests whose outcomes cannot be combined into one statistic. This violates basic principles of statistics. This failing was raised in a letter to the Journal of AES by Dr. Dranove. Meyer and Moran respond by accepting the criticism in their response:

_*Dr. Dranove has set requirements for our engineering report that were not part of our plan, and then dismissed it for failing to meet them. In hindsight it probably would have been better for us not to cite the total number of trials as there are issues with their statistical independence, as well as other problems with the data. We did not set out to do a rigorous statistical study, nor did we claim to have done so. Accordingly it may not mean much to do a more detailed data analysis, though we have done further work on it that we will discuss later.*_

And:

_*We did not know in advance what source material, what type of system, or which subjects would be the most likely to reveal an audible difference.
*_​The other issue is the "Simpson's paradox."  I explain that in the article.  Briefly, this says that sum total of statistics may lead to incorrect conclusions.   Let's say we are testing MP3 at 128 kbps against the CD.  I participate in the test and we recruit another 99 people from general population.  Due to my training, I nail the difference but the other 99 people (more or less) can't hear the difference.  Would you say you should dismiss my results as chance because it is just 1 out of 100?

Given this, we cannot conclude the person that got 8 out of 10 right was guessing.  His independent data has only 5.5% chance of being a guess, and 94.5% of not being so.

To erase doubt, M&M should have pulled out such individuals and have them run the test again.  If they managed to continue to score so high, then we would know the truth.

Indeed, the protocol for proper testing for small differences calls for pre-screening of the testers.  A positive control is put in there (in the form of much exaggerated distortion) and anyone who can't hear that, is booted out.  In this case M&M could have filtered everything down to say 16 kHz, and if someone still could not tell the difference, they would be excluded from the test.

The positive control would have caught some of the major issues with M&M test such as not knowing to this date whether their set up indeed presented high-res music as high-res (they used a pass-through in a CD-recorder and assumed it doesn't down sample with no measurements to confirm).  Or use of content that was upsampled CD and they assumed it was high-res.

All of this said, I want to repeat that their outcome is directionally correct.  Audiophiles are notoriously bad at hearing such small differences.  They are no better than the general public I am afraid.  So we can say that M&M results do match 99% of the listeners out there -- audiophiles or not.  That last bit of confidence though, requires much more due diligence in testing than was applied in M&M test.


----------



## amirm

Phronesis said:


> This raises the point that tests may be better designed if the protocol requires that the subject is required to not guess (and can be trusted to do so), instead taking a break and doing whatever else is needed to be able to answer with some 'reasonable level of confidence'.  If the subject can't ever reach that level of confidence, and would just continue guessing, then maybe don't proceed further with the test and assume they can't tell the difference under the test conditions (which doesn't rule the possibility of being able to tell the difference under different conditions or experiencing a difference which isn't consciously recognized).


Per my other post this is done sometimes using positive controls.  That is, if some testers do hear the positive control and others do not, they are thrown out of the lifeboat.  

This was done for example in Dolby's listening test of jitter: 
Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality 4826 (p- 1)
Eric Benjamin and Benjamin Gannon
Dolby Laboratories Inc.







This also avoids Simpson's paradox to some extent as I explained in my previous post.


----------



## sonitus mirus (May 5, 2018)

amirm said:


> First, I am glad to see you digging in and generating data .



Using Microsoft products, too. 




amirm said:


> On your experiment, each tests was part of a pool of independent events with exact same conditions (assuming Excel random function is truly random).  In the case of M&M and audio testing in general, that was not the case.  They used multiple venues, equipment and of course listeners with different abilities.  These results cannot be pooled as you have done in your experiment.  An issue which the author accepted as being faulty.  From my article/analysis of their test:  https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-does-it-matter.11/
> 
> 5. Meyer and Moran tests was performed using multiple sets of playback hardware, content and source equipment. These make for different tests whose outcomes cannot be combined into one statistic. This violates basic principles of statistics. This failing was raised in a letter to the Journal of AES by Dr. Dranove. Meyer and Moran respond by accepting the criticism in their response:
> 
> ...


  I have read about how you perform the ABX tests, and I'm not fully convinced the differences that you identify are actually with the sound in the files being tested.  Are you still switching back and forth repeatedly and rather quickly?  Are you sure what difference you are identifying is not simply something with the process you are using?  Have you attempted to ABX 2 files that should be audibly identical, but with some parameters altered that you would not expect to change anything?  You are the 1 out of 100 already.  But, no, my confidence in your abilities based on what appears to be an agenda to prove something would not be satisfactory, and I would probably dismiss your results. 

I'm not stating that there was conclusive evidence of guessing, only that the evidence could not reasonably rule out guessing.  There is a distinct difference. 



amirm said:


> To erase doubt, M&M should have pulled out such individuals and have them run the test again.  If they managed to continue to score so high, then we would know the truth.
> 
> Indeed, the protocol for proper testing for small differences calls for pre-screening of the testers.  A positive control is put in there (in the form of much exaggerated distortion) and anyone who can't hear that, is booted out.  In this case M&M could have filtered everything down to say 16 kHz, and if someone still could not tell the difference, they would be excluded from the test.
> 
> ...



Yes, M&M seemed to have their own agenda/bias, one that would not benefit from further research on a few individuals with higher scores on some of the tests.  Though, there is plenty of money that stands behind HR music, so why haven't we seen a new, conclusive test to end the debate once and for all?

If the Reiss Meta-Analysis is supposed to be the answer, then I firmly maintain my stance that any difference is most likely not important when compared to everything else.


----------



## amirm

sonitus mirus said:


> Though, there is plenty of money that stands behind HR music, so why haven't we seen a new, conclusive test to end the debate once and for all?


There is not a lot of money in high-res or by now Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. would be streaming it.  Indeed there is not much money in it at all. 

As to your question, why are you asking me?  I am not in charge of what research gets done.   *Battle of high-res vs CD no longer makes sense. * Digital downloads are happening and there is no barrier to their adoption given the Internet.  Folks here can jump up and down and complain but outside in real world, high-res has arrived as a valid option for audiophiles to consume and that is that.  No one owes the people here a "conclusive test."

People are confused thinking they are fighting format launches like SACD and DVD-A which came with baggages of patent royalties, higher cost, etc.  With Internet distribution that is no longer the issue.

Personally I see huge value in high-resolution audio not because it is high-resolution, but because it is NOT targeted at mass market.  That means we have some shot at getting content that is NOT loudness compressed unlike the CD rate one that is so commonly is compressed.  I am happy to pay the premium the labels want for it.

So I see the battle against high-res as one that is against what we as audiophiles we should want.  We are caught up some vortex due to social dynamics which has lost its relevance and is doing us harm.

Let's advocate non-CD-mastered high-res content that is free of dynamic compression, has real good ultrasonic content (as opposed to noise and junk right now) and make life better for us.


----------



## amirm

sonitus mirus said:


> I have read about how you perform the ABX tests, and I'm not fully convinced the differences that you identify are actually with the sound in the files being tested.


That is because you don't have any training in this field so you think what I do is an impossibility.  

Click on Bigshot's signature and read the article from Monty.  In there it says this:






You can't do that, right?  Yet he can because his ears were trained.

Similarly I formally trained myself to tell very small differences that allude vast majority of people.  I would routinely compete with many others and would find issues that my team would then fix.  That was proof positive that I could detect small differences.

Even though it is now more than a decade later, I still know what to listen for in a 3 minute song given what is being tested.  Others do not and get lost in the comparison.

And yes, I take full advantage of the tools necessary to find those differences as heavily advocated in international standards for conducting blind tests of small differences.  See for example:

Rec. ITU-R BS.1116-1 1
RECOMMENDATION ITU-R BS.1116-1*
METHODS FOR THE SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF SMALL IMPAIRMENTS
IN AUDIO SYSTEMS INCLUDING MULTICHANNEL SOUND SYSTEMS





Where have you seen a blind audio test where this was followed?  You have not, right?  Yet here we have that as the first bullet in how to conduct such tests correctly.

Or this:













Where is such an analysis and hunt in all the ABX tests?  No, "audiophile recordings" do not satisfy here.  You must, must find content that is revealing.

So what the few of you call "cheating" is actually recommended practices.  If there is an audible difference, we want to find it.  We don't want a test that misses that.

We used to pay tens of thousands of dollars for companies to conduct blind tests for us using BS1116 recommendations.  Such things are known in the industry but unfortunately not in audio forums.



sonitus mirus said:


> Are you still switching back and forth repeatedly and rather quickly?


Still?  That is the requirement for proper testing of small differences.  Our short-term/echoic memory is most sensitive.  So of course we want to maximize its ability to keep both A and B in memory for comparison.

*Any test that doesn't use instant switching is immediately dismissed as not being scientific. * It is exceedingly simple to get negative outcome by simply lengthening the switching time.



sonitus mirus said:


> Are you sure what difference you are identifying is not simply something with the process you are using?


Of course.  Take Ethan's generational test.  We "know" that the signal is modified by running it through ADC/DAC multiple times.  So the fact that I am able to detect the difference is objectively proven.  Ditto for any test of high-res against CD.

Think about it though: if we are dismissive of people running full, double blind tests, what type of evidence will we ever accept?  And why do we keep asking people to run blind tests if we are dismissive of any results that are positive?


----------



## pibroch

“Still?  That is the requirement for proper testing of small differences.  Our short-term/echoic memory is most sensitive.  So of course we want to maximize its ability to keep both A and B in memory for comparison.”

Amirm, what can you tell me about who “we” refers to. Are you able to provide evidence, please, of who does and does not consider switching back and forth quickly to be generally necessary?

*“Any test that doesn't use instant switching is immediately dismissed as not being scientific.”*

That claim sounds like nonsense to me. What evidence, Amirm,  do you have of the universality of this view amongst research scientists about this?


----------



## 71 dB

amirm said:


> Personally I see huge value in high-resolution audio not because it is high-resolution, but because it is NOT targeted at mass market.  That means we have some shot at getting content that is NOT loudness compressed unlike the CD rate one that is so commonly is compressed.  I am happy to pay the premium the labels want for it.
> 
> So I see the battle against high-res as one that is against what we as audiophiles we should want.  We are caught up some vortex due to social dynamics which has lost its relevance and is doing us harm.
> 
> Let's advocate non-CD-mastered high-res content that is free of dynamic compression, has real good ultrasonic content (as opposed to noise and junk right now) and make life better for us.


I'm not suffering much from compression with my CDs. Most of them are classical music which is not compressed and the other stuff is music that is kind of supposed to be compressed such as pop. I don't listen to much rock music which seems to be the biggest victim of loudness war. King Crimson is pretty much all rock I listen to and to my ears that's dynamic stuff. Modern pop music works well with small dynamic range, because modern music production uses that dynamic range very skillfully. So, Kesha (yes, Kesha formelly know as Ke$ha who is a genius of pop music and if you think otherwise you are an ignorant besserwisser who judges people without properly getting to know who they are) at DR 6 sounds much more dynamic than an old Pink Floyd track compressed to DR 6. Old rock wasn't produced for loudness war. Modern music is and 21st century music technology has given the tools to do that. 

We don't need hi-res to have large dynamic range. All we need is the will to not compress too much.


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 6, 2018)

pibroch said:


> “Still?  That is the requirement for proper testing of small differences.  Our short-term/echoic memory is most sensitive.  So of course we want to maximize its ability to keep both A and B in memory for comparison.”
> 
> Amirm, what can you tell me about who “we” refers to. Are you able to provide evidence, please, of who does and does not consider switching back and forth quickly to be generally necessary?
> 
> ...


Let me be A's advocate, 
Have you tried ABing alone? 
I have.  Enjoyment is of the music  is necessary , once  reved up a quick zeroing in on an anomaly needs be quick, you are a fox & you found your hit, so to speak. 
Your adrenaline is helping you but not for long. ..


----------



## analogsurviver (May 6, 2018)

For all of those who find it hard to believe that a phono cartridge could retrieve from an analogue record MUSIC ( not ONLY noise and distortion, as naysayers would lead one to believe ) well above 20 kHz, here a decent ( but not perfect ) recording https://www.analogplanet.com/content/which-10000-cartridge-do-you-prefer of two of top tier of phono cartridges, both being mounted on a top tier tonearm and turntable. Recorded, unfortunately, only with 96kHz sampling rate - which can not do justice to cartridges of this calibre. Download the files and run a spectrum analysis of the two files 96/24 files , all the way up to the limit of 48kHz. I could post a screenshot of Voxengo SPAN - but, it really takes a real time video to convince even the hard core Doubting Thomases that the output above 20 kHz is no "static noise", does not have "static peaks" and that it really follows the music. I have seen peaks at approx 30 kHz up to -40 or so dB; you will have to adjust whatever spectrum analyzer you use to the shortest averaging time possible, to the highest block size that does not slow the reaction time on your computer undully - and, needless to say, set the upper frequency limit of the display to minimum 48 kHz.

The reservations I do have about Mr. Fremer's recordings in order to compare analog gear is the absence of including the reference levels for output and channel separation at 1 kHz. Both are important,  sheer output for obvious reasons, but, in analogue world FAR more important channel balance/phase/symmetry - documenting that the cartridge is really perfectly aligned and adjusted - and above all, that it is not defective in one way or another. Such 1 kHz tracks ( 4 required : L ch, R ch, R ch + Lch lateral, R ch - Lch vertical ) should accompany ANY musical tracks - as well as one additional track, that for indication of the absolute phase. All these mandatory test tracks could be made under 1 minute long, but would allow for perfect level matching, if required. As both phono cartridges output and phono preamp gain can vary across vast range, it is practically impossible to achieve recordings that would be within 0.2dB or less at reference 1 kHz. With PCM, that could be then adjusted to 0.2dB or less in foobar for the usual ABX.

Please note it is in no way necessary to use so high end and expensive analog gear as used here by Mr. Fremer in order to have a reasonably flat frequency response in phono cartridge past 50 kHz; waaaaaaaay back in history, over 50 years ago, Denon started producing its DL-103 moving coil cartridge - which remained, UNCHANGED, in production ever since and costs today around 300 $. Denon made during the years a plethora of (better ) versions of the venerable 103, all denoted with various suffixes, which came and went; the original is still going strong !


----------



## gregorio (May 6, 2018)

amirm said:


> There is not a lot of money in high-res or by now Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. would be streaming it. Indeed there is not much money in it at all.



Relatively, there is a lot of money behind HR. Have you ever seen any commercial advertising for HR and HR products, as being better than standard res? Have you ever seen any commercial advertising that HR is not better than standard res? Even if your answer is "yes" to both questions, what's the proportion between the two and why?



amirm said:


> [1] Personally I see huge value in high-resolution audio not because it is high-resolution, but because it is NOT targeted at mass market. That means we have some shot at getting content that is NOT loudness compressed unlike the CD rate one that is so commonly is compressed. I am happy to pay the premium the labels want for it.
> [1a] So I see the battle against high-res as one that is against what we as audiophiles we should want. We are caught up some vortex due to social dynamics which has lost its relevance and is doing us harm.
> [2] Let's advocate non-CD-mastered high-res content that is free of dynamic compression, [2a] has real good ultrasonic content (as opposed to noise and junk right now) and make life better for us.



1. Firstly, we absolutely do NOT want to get rid of loudness compression, just the over application of it. Secondly, in theory yes, I would agree and in fact I made a similar argument 15 or more years ago: SACD was not intrinsically any better or higher performance than CD but in practise it was relatively expensive, non-rippable, non-portable and therefore almost exclusively used in relatively high quality, critical listening scenarios. This meant that we could create masters aimed EXCLUSIVELY at high quality, critical listening scenarios. So, SACDs almost always sounded higher resolution than CDs, even though that same higher sounding resolution could have easily been put on a CD. Nevertheless, SACD (and HR in general) were valuable in that they provided the circumstances to justify masters aimed exclusively at audiophiles.
1a. What I've just stated seems to agree with what "you see" but in practise it doesn't because that's not the end of the story! Unlike CD, HR is not a static specification. Today you can't even buy standard res DAC chips and even mobile phones are all pretty much capable of HR (96/24 or higher) as standard. HR is no longer exclusively restricted to high quality, critical listening scenarios. Increasingly, we've got to look at formats like 384/24 or 768/32 which are exclusively high quality, critical listening scenarios and "standard high resolution" becoming increasingly standard and therefore, the mastering will follow suit!! This is a vicious circle which will never end as long as audiophile equipment manufacturers need to introduce new products and record companies want to maximise the value of the rights catalogues. And ultimately of course, it's all ridiculous because whatever we do with 768/32 (or whatever we have in the future) we could put on a CD with exactly the same sounding resolution. So no, the battle against HR is NOT against what audiophiles should want, unless of course audiophiles want to have to keep upgrading their equipment and their record collection just to achieve what they could already be achieving with CD!

2. Why would you want to advocate for the end of popular music genres?
2a. And how do you suggest we engineers (who create the recordings) achieve that goal? Much/Most of what's in the ultrasonic range is just noise and junk to start with AND, as it's ultrasonic we engineers can't hear ANY of it at all, let alone hear it well enough to judge what's junk/noise and what's "real good" content!

G


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> All these mandatory test tracks could be made under 1 minute long, but would allow for perfect level matching, if required. As both phono cartridges output and phono preamp gain can vary across vast range, it is practically impossible to achieve recordings that would be within 0.2dB or less at reference 1 kHz. With PCM, that could be then adjusted to 0.2dB or less in foobar for the usual ABX.



? How can it allow for perfect level matching if it's impossible to achieve recordings within 0.2dB? And, if PCM is less accurate than your phono cartridges/pre-amp, how can it be adjusted more accurately?

You really would benefit from some actual facts about vinyl and digital, otherwise you're going to continue to make assertions which contradict themselves (and the facts of course).

G


----------



## Phronesis (May 6, 2018)

The discussion about audibility and potential significance of higher frequencies prompted me to do some species comparisons:





We've all heard about the HF hearing ability of dogs, but I was surprised that cats and mice can go up to nearly 80 kHz!  We have a lot of horses in our area, and I likewise never would have guessed that they can hear up to about 33 kHz.  I don't know the details of what sounds are being generated in nature at such high frequencies, nor the adaptive benefits of being able to perceive them, but I don't doubt that there are evolutionary reasons for these big variations across species.  For example, there's this from Wikipedia:

"Mice have large ears in comparison to their bodies. They hear higher frequencies than humans; their frequency range is 1 kHz to 70 kHz. They do not hear the lower frequencies that humans can; they communicate using high frequency noises some of which are inaudible by humans. The distress call of a young mouse can be produced at 40 kHz. The mice use their ability to produce sounds out of predators' frequency ranges: they can alert other mice of danger without also alerting the predator to their presence. The squeaks that humans can hear are lower in frequency and are used by the mouse to make longer distance calls, as low frequency sounds can travel farther than high frequency sounds.[23]"​
That increases my suspicion that humans have evolved to perceive relatively high frequencies (above 10 kHz), and the presence or absence of them could affect how music is experienced, even if we aren't consciously aware of perceiving them.  Absence or distortions related to higher frequencies in music may be perceived as 'unnatural', at least at a subconscious level.

The variation across species also makes me think about the variation across humans.  Just as I can't imagine the experience of a horse, dog, cat, or mouse in perceiving very high frequencies, maybe some humans who have 'less hearing ability' can't imagine what others are perceiving that they can't themselves perceive.  If so, better/different equipment could be worthwhile for some people, but not others, and maybe there's a tendency for people to gravitate towards equipment that produces what they genuinely perceive as better sound _for them_.

But frequency range is only one aspect of auditory perception, and this is an interesting finding in that regard: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080401095216.htm

"Summary: Do humans hear better than animals? It is known that various species of land and water-based living creatures are capable of hearing some lower and higher frequencies than humans are capable of detecting. However, scientists have now for the first time demonstrated how the reactions of single neurons give humans the capability of detecting fine differences in frequencies better than animals."

"Interestingly, when the patients in the study were presented with "real-world" sounds -- including dialogues, music (from "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" soundtrack) and background noise -- the neurons exhibited complex activity patterns which could not be explained based solely on the frequency selectivity of the same neurons. This phenomenon has been shown in animal studies but never before in humans."

"Thus, it can be seen that in contrast to the artificial sounds, behaviorally relevant sounds such as speech and music engage additional, context-dependant processing mechanisms in the human auditory cortex."​Tying it back to the thread topic, in doing testing, it seems essential that we account for the variation in human auditory perception.  What's true for some people won't be true for other people, so overly general conclusions could be quite misleading.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> ? How can it allow for perfect level matching if it's impossible to achieve recordings within 0.2dB? And, if PCM is less accurate than your phono cartridges/pre-amp, how can it be adjusted more accurately?
> 
> You really would benefit from some actual facts about vinyl and digital, otherwise you're going to continue to make assertions which contradict themselves (and the facts of course).
> 
> G


Now, it really looks like: 
1. You have either absolutely zero experience with analog
2. You are trying, desperately, to undermine everything I ever write/say - by twisting and spinning words, etc - after all, you ARE native english speaker. Think how it would be if the situation was reversed ... - and you would have to communicate in my native language. 

For the LAST time, I will allow it is the 1. and not 2.  - and will explain, EXACTLY, what was meant regarding setting levels for a digital recording of any analog record as being next to impossible to equalise to within 0.2 dB or less.

Let's say that cartridge A has output of 4.9 mV /5cm/sec and cartridge B has 4.5mV/5cm/sec - which are both perfectly normal voltage output levels of most MM phono cartridges - or MC cartridges amplified by either step up transformers SUT ) or active head amps ( yes, term "head amp" - active electronic device for amplification of MC cartridges to the MM level, with gain usually in the 20-30 dB range, without any equalization , predates the term "head amp" - as an amplifier for headphones - by at least two, if not 3 or even 4 decades  ). The same levels are also perfectly normal for a MC cartridge being amplified by a single stage RIAA preamp with the required gain.

For the sake of simplicity, I will concentrate here ONLY on the output from the cartridges in ideal conditions - both channels of both cartridges have perfect channel balance, both cartridges display perfectly symmetrical channel separation, with both cartridges having the residue of channel separation in perfectly equal amplitude and phase relative to its other channel. BTW,  such cartridges, although they do exist, are < 1% of any given production - with the possible exception if and when you cross the 5 figure level , well to the north, to get such a cartridge "for granted".

OK, , proceed with the ideal case described above; the difference in voltage output level beetween cart  A and cart B is 20logx( 4.9 / 4.5 ) = 0.73967132506 = 0.74 dB . Most digital recorders/soundcards/recording software/whatever have, most usually, FIXED STEPS in whatever attenuation/volume control arrangement they are using. Usually, it is 1 dB steps - and, at best, it goes to 0.5dB  digital attenuators. Although there are devices using analogue potentiometers that do allow for continous, stepless volume/gain controls, these are more rare , are very prone to introducing yet another form of channel imbalance - and thus have to be monitored by either a voltmeter or oscilloscope. As any digital metering likely to be on devices that are reasonably expected to be available to any but pro studio gear user will also not be accurate below 0.5 dB or so . Audition CC does have 0.2 dB resolution metering - which can get VERY iffy when one wants to adjust the levels using normal RIAA preamp; the effects of record warps, etc ( theme far too vast to discuss here ) vastly exceed 0.2dB - if one is trying to set the levels using peak hold or, in Audition CC speak, static peaks.

Real world cartridges DO have channel imbalances, real world phono preamps do have channel imbalances and/or frequency response deviation, real world recorders/soundcards/etc DO have channel imbalances ( they still contain analogue input and output sections - don't they ? ) - 3 or four times or five times 0.2 dB ( either way up or down ) IS HOW MUCH IN THE END ?

Real world phono cartridges DO have voltage output varyiing from 0.04 mV/5cm/sec to approx 10mV/5cm/sec - or the range of 47.9588001734 dB= 47.96 dB; from the most exquisite electro magnet moving coil to the most heavy duty back cueing DJ high output moving magnet. No one can expect that so vast gain range will be adjustable to within 0.2 dB; the presence of any switches, let alone potentiometers for gain in phono preamps is, in the long run, asking for trouble - BIG TIME. The best solution without soldering required are various forms of jumpers ; but this also requires removing the preamp from the system, opening the box, referring to the manual, etc -  and is "practical and beloved" accordingly.  Let's say one wants to make a digital recording using a cartridge that has too much output for the otherwise superb fixed gain preamp AND that sensitivity of the soundcard can not be lowered below certain level ( without fabricating DIY attenuators ) - mission impossible as far as level goes, will probably cause digital clipping with anything but really quietly cut records... Equally, a very low level cart will not be able to drive the same otherwise superiour preamp to the whatever "0 dB" point you have decided to use for analogue records - even if and when you max out the gain available on the recorder/soundcard/whatever.

In the end, practical real world vagaries of both analogue and digital is about 0.2 dB  or more - unless you operate with really $$$$$$$ gear. And - I DO mean $$$$$$$ .

You may well be more experienced in other fields, but any knowledge and understanding on analogue phono you *might* have is at a very amateurish, "theorethical"  level. Having worked in a phono cartridge production with main focus on QC goes "slightly" above recording engineer - no matter how experienced otherwise - competence.


----------



## castleofargh (May 6, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> The discussion about audibility and potential significance of higher frequencies prompted me to do some species comparisons:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



even more misleading if you can't stop bringing back subconscious as your full time joker for everything. it's a variable you don't control, you are not supposed to be aware of it, so clearly bringing it up is only serving as a free pass against auditory tests and their various conclusions. if you like a result, it can be legit. if you don't, well maybe there is more happening at a subconscious level. it's convenient for sure but how is that helping anybody to know anything? next you'll say that placebo has value and that we shouldn't try to remove it when we test audibility? we try to learn stuff by studying variables individually, if all you're going to do is ask to include some random stuff we can't have any control over, once again, I can only interpret that as an active desire to just do nothing and believe anything we want.

let's say subconsciously some sounds make us happier. how do you test that? you try various stuff and try to find a pattern in how happy you are at the end with whatever mean we have to try and detect that. what are the odds of something making us happier and us not being consciously aware of it? if something like high res triggers more of some chemicals in the brain or whatever, how do we decide that it's good or bad? what if it's good for a short period, but then like anything else, coming down from the experience is making us feel worst? I know a lot of very bad stuff making us feel better for a moment. so how do we determine if something is good or not?
what if it makes music oh so very slightly better, but the extra money spent to have high res everything has deprived us from doing some super cool stuff? what if the expense is there in our mind, *subconsciously*? it's a silly game because we can turn anything into anything and conclude that it's whatever we want, philosophy style.

you shouldn't involve subconscious if you have absolutely no idea where it's going and no idea how to control any of it. do we go ask ourself about the subconscious impact of everything we do and every food we purchase? let's come down to earth and try to first deal with the variables we can control and test. then if you wish to convince yourself that 192khz is better subconsciously, go ahead, have a blast. but until you have evidence of it, it's like the super special power cables and the crystals capturing bad waves that you put on your sound system. maybe they do something mysterious that matters at a subconscious level, but we all know how believing they do is in itself making most of the brain work to change how we perceive things. I'm so very sure that believing in anything is making a bigger conscious and subconscious impact than high res does. I have that opinion from how easy it is to trick someone into thinking 2 identical stuff are different. while it is so hard to get people to pass a blind test about high res. doesn't mean high res can't have some impact of course, but once again I come down to my views that whatever potential impact, it's really not the big deal some people want it to be.


----------



## skwoodwiva

colonelkernel8 said:


> Man, you are a plague on these forums. What is your purpose? You don't give a lick about science. Microwave "technology" starts at around 1 *GHz *up to 300 *GHz*. If you honestly believe there's any reasonable overlap there and audio technology, you're sorely mistaken. At these frequencies, trace and wire series inductance and parallel capacitance really are crucial, but not at audio frequencies, AT ALL.


The plauge that got this thread pinned, lol.


----------



## amirm

pibroch said:


> “Still?  That is the requirement for proper testing of small differences.  Our short-term/echoic memory is most sensitive.  So of course we want to maximize its ability to keep both A and B in memory for comparison.”
> 
> Amirm, what can you tell me about who “we” refers to. Are you able to provide evidence, please, of who does and does not consider switching back and forth quickly to be generally necessary?
> 
> ...


"We" means those of us who work in the industry and research community professionally.  You know, when the results and reliability of your blind tests directly impacts your paycheck, company's fortunes (or lack thereof) and personal reputation.  Not people on forums whose arguments if wrong, matters not.

As for reference, I already provided it.  The ITU Recommendation BS1116 which is the bible of proper protocol for performing blind testing of small differences.  See this paragraph:





For further evidence, please see this paper for example that demonstrated the importance of fast switching: Ten Years of ABX Testing, by David Clark: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5549

If you don't have AES membership, you can read my digest of it here: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/

The results were that the Long Island group *[Audiophile/Take Home Group] was unable to identify the distortion in either of their tests. *SMWTMS's listeners also failed the "take home" test scoring 11 correct out of 18 which fails to be significant at the 5% confidence level. However, *using the A/B/X test, the SMWTMS not only proved audibility of the distortion within 45 minutes, but they went on to correctly identify a lower amount.* The A*/*B*/*X test was proven to be more sensitive than long-term listening for this task.​
There is plenty more such as this Journal of AES paper (peer reviewed) on issues related to audio testing from one of our luminaries, Søren Bech
_On Some Biases Encountered in Modern Audio Quality Listening Tests—A Review*_
SŁAWOMIR ZIELIN´ SKI, AES Member, AND FRANCIS RUMSEY, AES Fellow
Institute of Sound Recording, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK
Søren Bech, AES Fellow





[...]





I can keep going but you get the picture.

Note that if the differences are large, then longer switching time can be tolerated since your long term memory is capable of remembering some of those characteristics.  To wit, Harman's speaker preference tests have a switching time of one speaker versus another at 4 seconds.  Having taken that test, I can tell you while it does generate good results, 4 seconds is pretty long.  You struggle at times to remember what the last speaker sounded like relative to the current one and wished for instant switching (Harman also uses binaural testing) which allows for that.

During my professional career, I took hundreds of blind tests.  I can tell you that switching time that even approaches 1 second makes you not be able to find distortions that are objectively there.

Let's remember again that when we put people in a blind test situation with small differences, the subject is liable to second guess himself often.  We need to counteract this tendency with maximizing the correct data  which relies on echoic/short-term memory.  Otherwise I can make almost any difference disappear by lengthening the switching time.

Let me turn the tables around on you: on what basis and experience are you saying this is nonsense?  You have any references on that?


----------



## amirm

gregorio said:


> Relatively, there is a lot of money behind HR. Have you ever seen any commercial advertising for HR and HR products, as being better than standard res? Have you ever seen any commercial advertising that HR is not better than standard res? Even if your answer is "yes" to both questions, what's the proportion between the two and why?


It is a niche, inside of a niche effort (high-res digital audio in audiophile market). Mass market for music doesn't care about CD quality let alone high-resolution. 

And don't confuse "*music market*" with hardware market.    This was the original statement that I questioned: _Though, there is plenty of money that stands behind *HR music*, so why haven't we seen a new, conclusive test to end the debate once and for all?_

So you tell me if there is plenty of money behind distribution of music in high-resolution, why we don't have a single streaming company doing so.


----------



## analogsurviver (May 6, 2018)

amirm said:


> It is a niche, inside of a niche effort (high-res digital audio in audiophile market). Mass market for music doesn't care about CD quality let alone high-resolution.
> 
> And don't confuse "*music market*" with hardware market.    This was the original statement that I questioned: _Though, there is plenty of money that stands behind *HR music*, so why haven't we seen a new, conclusive test to end the debate once and for all?_
> 
> So you tell me if there is plenty of money behind distribution of music in high-resolution, why we don't have a single streaming company doing so.


Correction - we do. https://primeseat.net/en/ https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/primeseat-launches-dsd-streaming-audio/

Certain live streamings may be limited to certain countries, but in general - it exists. Concergebuow, Tokio, etc orchestras, some free, some payable. Most are available for a cerain period only, usualy a month or so. Requires fast internet connection, DSD256 requires approx 26 mb/s or above for the playback to be without stopping ( it does not "hiccup", but either works or stops ), with appropriately slower internet requirements for lower resolutions.

It is not much at the moment, but it is a beggining.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> even more misleading if you can't stop bringing back subconscious as your full time joker for everything. it's a variable you don't control, you are not supposed to be aware of it, so clearly bringing it up is only serving as a free pass against auditory tests and their various conclusions. if you like a result, it can be legit. if you don't, well maybe there is more happening at a subconscious level. it's convenient for sure but how is that helping anybody to know anything? next you'll say that placebo has value and that we shouldn't try to remove it when we test audibility? we try to learn stuff by studying variables individually, if all you're going to do is ask to include some random stuff we can't have any control over, once again, I can only interpret that as an active desire to just do nothing and believe anything we want.
> 
> let's say subconsciously some sounds make us happier. how do you test that? you try various stuff and try to find a pattern in how happy you are at the end with whatever mean we have to try and detect that. what are the odds of something making us happier and us not being consciously aware of it? if something like high res triggers more of some chemicals in the brain or whatever, how do we decide that it's good or bad? what if it's good for a short period, but then like anything else, coming down from the experience is making us feel worst? I know a lot of very bad stuff making us feel better for a moment. so how do we determine if something is good or not?
> what if it makes music oh so very slightly better, but the extra money spent to have high res everything has deprived us from doing some super cool stuff? what if the expense is there in our mind, *subconsciously*? it's a silly game because we can turn anything into anything and conclude that it's whatever we want, philosophy style.
> ...



Good points, and good questions for which I generally don't have answers.  But IMO we shouldn't be too pessimistic about the potential to make progress in getting answers.  If we don't try - and design experiments accordingly - we're pretty much assured of _not_ making progress.

As discussed in recent posts, subconscious effects may be observable in a relatively objective way through brain imaging.  We may also be able to get a sense of those effects using other methods already used in experimental psychology, including asking people to report how they feel at various times during and after listening to music.  There's also the possibility of taking more of an 'observational study' approach and tracking how people are affected by various conditions in the more 'naturalistic' setting of listening to music in their homes.  The interesting example was also given in a recent post where people can get correct answers on blind tests at a statistically significant level even when they consciously think they're guessing, which indicates that subconscious processing is guiding those guesses without the conscious mind being aware of that guidance, so this issue has direct relevance to testing itself.

To me, the bottom line is that if we focus only on conscious aspects of music perception, we're looking at only the tip of the iceberg.

Regarding hi-res, I'm agnostic at this point about what difference it makes, if any, for me or for people in general.  I go back and forth between Spotify 320K and Tidal 1.4M, and I don't notice enough difference that it's a concern for me.  But the difference I notice between head/earphones and tracks is huge, and I also *perceive* more of a consistent difference between my DACs than I do between Spotify and Tidal.


----------



## RRod

analogsurviver said:


> Correction - we do. https://primeseat.net/en/ https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/primeseat-launches-dsd-streaming-audio/
> 
> Certain live streamings may be limited to certain countries, but in general - it exists. Concergebuow, Tokio, etc orchestras, some free, some payable. Most are available for a cerain period only, usualy a month or so. Requires fast internet connection, DSD256 requires approx 26 mb/s or above for the playback to be without stopping ( it does not "hiccup", but either works or stops ), with appropriately slower internet requirements for lower resolutions.
> 
> It is not much at the moment, but it is a beggining.



What a way backwards. You've got Opus doing transparency at stupid-low bit-rates with much material and it has the ability to support 256 channels. Be nice to have people trying to deliver the future rather than the past.


----------



## amirm

gregorio said:


> 2a. And how do you suggest we engineers (who create the recordings) achieve that goal? Much/Most of what's in the ultrasonic range is just noise and junk to start with AND, as it's ultrasonic we engineers can't hear ANY of it at all, let alone hear it well enough to judge what's junk/noise and what's "real good" content!


Create a low noise environment to eliminate such junk and use objective measurements to find them.

See an example here were we had a very nice high-resolution recording of the music but the vocals were botched (watch full screen in HD):



There are small independent labels that do a very good job here.  Look at their example and follow.


----------



## gregorio

amirm said:


> So you tell me if there is plenty of money behind distribution of music in high-resolution, why we don't have a single streaming company doing so.



You didn't answer the questions. How much marketing have you seen marketing promoting HR over standard res and how much promoting standard res over HR? (music or equipment)



amirm said:


> [1]Create a low noise environment to eliminate such junk and [2] use objective measurements to find them.
> [3] See an example here ...



1. You can't create a low noise environment! Regardless of how low noise your environment is, musicians and their instruments make unwanted noise/junk.
2. There are no objective measurements for what's "real good" and what's junk.
3. Yep, thanks for that example, which demonstrates my point, although not very clearly.

G


----------



## analogsurviver

RRod said:


> What a way backwards. You've got Opus doing transparency at stupid-low bit-rates with much material and it has the ability to support 256 channels. Be nice to have people trying to deliver the future rather than the past.


And - "quality" of transparency aside - just what could - possibly - require 256 channels ?  Multimiking with 256 microphones ?  

If anyone has forgotten - this is HEAD-FI - where there should be - mostly - about headphones. We only have two ears, we do not exchange them for another pair when going to a significantly differen genre concert, that may well differ in frequency, dynamic range and ultimate sound pressure levels - yet, we have to make do with what nature gave us - troughout the evolution. We may well not know each and every aspect how we perceive music - and it is not trough our ears only. Now, it is questionable how Beethoven coped withhis loss of hearing towards the end of his life - but Evelyn Glennie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Glennie  makes pretty good music for someone with profound  loss of hearing in the traditional sense  - throuh the use of ears...Now, I do not claim to possess anything the sensitivity of any other part of my body anything even approching that of Evelyn Glennie - but the reproduction without the content above 20 kHz  has always sounded dull and lifeless to me, with going from MM cartridge ( that usually, but not always, rolls off highs just above 20 kHz - mine was "filtering type" ) straight to Supex 900 Super MC cartridge - at 18 or so of age, when my hearing in traditional sense was of course better than today at 57 - with my audible ear response  to approx 14 kHz. NOTHING  has changed regarding the I like/I do not like - if it is the later, it has some form of > 20 kHz filtering inbuilt mechanism, either digital or analog. And have been alternating with extended response MM and MI cartridges ( and speakers or headphones ) ever since - anything "filtered" did not last in my system more than a week - max. Living in a block, with a desire to maintain good relationship with neighbours, I basically stopped listening with loudspeakers at the time I changed listening mainly to classical music - which, with its large dynamic range, is more annoying/irritating to neighbours than other less dynamic genres. And  I made. in 1986, an electrostatic earspeaker system that is still more or less unmatched - at any price. You can bet it did - and does > 20kHz , all the way to 50k and above, in exemplary fashion.

On that system, CD felt/feels like a loss of time - litteraly. And I never did listen to CD as a quality medium, it was grundgingly "accepted" if there really was no other way to listen to the music I was interested in. Since the amp really was/is lethal if *anything* goes wrong , I stored the beast in 1999 - and, grungingly, downgraded to Stax Lambda Pro/SRM1MK2 combo - which, although far less in everything, still is no slouch either.

Now, with HR, we are - gradually - getting basically what we already had back in the day. Yes, it does take > 20 khz to get us there - and I can not accept that anyone would say with any authority that > 20 kHz does not matter because he/she has not experienced better, has read who knows how many peer reviewed papers on the subject saying it does not matter, etc, etc. I have a relatively very poor sense of smell - but, I will not for that reason ( I can not, therehore OTHERS should not be allowed even to try... ) proclaim people spending serious money for parfume are nuts - and try to find some scientific papers claiming that any smell below or above such and such level is "insmellable" and therefore start a crusade against anybody or anything claiming otherwise. 

Like I do not spend money on parfumes, anybody who does not perceive > 20 kHz could in all tranquility further enjoy the CD - if that makes him/her happy, OK with me. But I will not stand the notion that if something is not being perceived by others, even if they are the majority, I and people like me must be deprived of whatever makes us happy - as long we are not harming the others, of course.


----------



## sonitus mirus

amirm said:


> "We" means those of us who work in the industry and research community professionally.  You know, when the results and reliability of your blind tests directly impacts your paycheck, company's fortunes (or lack thereof) and personal reputation.  Not people on forums whose arguments if wrong, matters not.
> 
> As for reference, I already provided it.  The ITU Recommendation BS1116 which is the bible of proper protocol for performing blind testing of small differences.  See this paragraph:
> 
> ...



Fast switching is critical, but maybe not machine gunning every second back and forth with the volume level much higher than normal.  I've read a ton of heated conversations regarding your methods and results.  There were a lot of questions about the methodology and your intentions.  What equipment are you using, have you tried repeating the tests with completely different equipment and software?  One thing that is evident to me is that you seem to crave attention and everyone must know about your supposed hearing superiority and training. 

I have posted a few ABX tests in the SS forum in the past using Foobar, and both test files were made available to anyone that wanted to check them, along with the checksum of both files and the checksum of the test log.  Why aren't you using the latest version?  It should only take you 5 minutes to repeat many of your tests and post the relevant data with a verifiable ABX log.  Has anyone ever verified that you results are legitimate?  Did you ever try a test proctored by someone else?  I know that you have a bench filled with expensive test equipment that could be used to assist in identifying differences, and you seem hell-bent on letting the world believe that you are some messiah with regards to hearing.  

I'm simply repeating what many respected industry experts have already stated across the internet on numerous blogs and forums, even on your own site.  I didn't just stumble onto Head-Fi.  I've been around for a very long time, too, and I have been researching and trying to learn as much as I can.  You were a point of interest a few years ago, but I  dug into everything I could about what your were doing, and I left convinced that unless something new was brought forward, the results were unique and did not appear reliable.  

It may not be fair, but your directed passion and delivery method will always be a hurdle to convince the skeptics.  Your efforts should be a curiosity that others might like to research further, but any move forward always seems to end with a clash of egos.


----------



## bigshot

I think it's fine to establish thresholds that reflect the absolute extremes. That is useful in a theoretical way and I'm sure that engineers and scientists want to know all about the extreme edges of perception to further their knowledge. But for me, the thresholds that matter are real world ones... the ones that show us what makes a difference to us when we listen to music in the home. I don't have any particular interest or experience in theoretical physics and electrical engineering. My focus is on properly presenting recorded music.

There are mistakes that many audiophiles make that hobble their ability to achieve the best sound possible, but the worst mistake is the obsession with the bleeding edges of perception. Every time they improve a spec in their system by 10%, they begin to feel a nagging suspicion that 10% might not be quite enough. They pour all their energy and money into achieving 14% and then 19% and then 22%... it's a never-ending cycle like compulsive hand washing or constantly checking to see if the front door is locked. But what if the difference was inaudible before you even started down that rabbit hole? The difference between decent sound and fantastic sound doesn't lie at the bleeding edges of hearing. It's smack dab in the middle where we hear with the most clarity and detail. It's in the balance of the sound. It's in the space *around* the sound. It's in the quality of the music we are listening to.

If you are looking at a differences that are so small you have to set up tests with tones and switching and lots of trials to establish the odds and strain to hear the difference, it probably isn't a big enough difference to worry about if your purpose is just listening to music. And focusing on things that don't matter just drag your attention away from things that do. I see people here in head-fi talking about "the last 5% of sound quality being the most difficult and expensive to achieve". Every time I see that I shake my head, because I know they haven't even come close to addressing the other 95% yet.

I applaud the efforts of real live scientists to define and get the measure of the world around us. But I'm a music lover and hifi nut, I'm not a scientist. I am interested in what science can teach me about improving recorded music in a way that is significant. The original post in this thread is one of the best articles I've ever read on that subject. The comments that have followed it don't always live up to the same standard, even if the posters intended for them to do that. That's OK. No one is perfect and no one knows everything there is to know. We're all learning until the day we die.


----------



## gregorio (May 6, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> 2. You are trying, desperately, to undermine everything I ever write/say...
> [3] Most digital recorders/soundcards/recording software/whatever have, most usually, FIXED STEPS in whatever attenuation/volume control arrangement they are using. Usually, it is 1 dB steps - and, at best, it goes to 0.5dB digital attenuators. Although there are devices using analogue potentiometers that do allow for continous, stepless volume/gain controls, these are more rare , are very prone to introducing yet another form of channel imbalance - and thus have to be monitored by either a voltmeter or oscilloscope. As any digital metering likely to be on devices that are reasonably expected to be available to any but pro studio gear user will also not be accurate below 0.5 dB or so . Audition CC does have 0.2 dB resolution metering - which can get VERY iffy when one wants to adjust the levels using normal RIAA preamp; the effects of record warps, etc ( theme far too vast to discuss here ) vastly exceed 0.2dB - if one is trying to set the levels using peak hold or, in Audition CC speak, static peaks.
> [3a] In the end, practical real world vagaries of both analogue and digital is about 0.2 dB or more - unless you operate with really $$$$$$$ gear. And - I DO mean $$$$$$$ .



2. No, I am NOT trying to undermine "everything you ever write"! What I'm trying to do is make sure that incorrect facts and assertions are refuted and the actual facts promoted, this is the science forum where the actual facts trump myth. If you don't want me to undermine what you write then the solution is simple, don't post incorrect facts and assertions to this forum in the first place!

3. Again, I'm not going to go through all your post but this point is a good example. I don't know where you got this from but it is ALL incorrect! Pro ADCs and DACs do NOT have any "attenuation/volume controls", they are calibrated to a fixed level (line level). Even cheap pro audio software has fader gain/attenuation steps of 0.1dB and steps of 0.01dB in most plugins. The peak metering of even cheap pro audio kit typically also has a resolution of 0.1dB. And, yes, record warps, channel imbalances, cross talk etc., are all relatively serious issues with vinyl but they are all absolutely tiny and inaudible with digital, which is one of the main reasons why digital was invented in the first place.
3a. No, even with relatively cheap digital gear!



analogsurviver said:


> And - "quality" of transparency aside - just what could - possibly - require 256 channels ? Multimiking with 256 microphones ?



Films can use well over 1,000 channels and 256 channels is a bare minimum. Even just the music on some big budget productions use over 300 channels. As far as consumer audio formats are concerned, 8 channels is a fairly common consumer format and being able to contain sets of channels (in say different languages) is a useful feature for international distribution, so having dozens of channels available in a consumer audio format is both practical and useful.

G


----------



## bigshot

I'm always amazed at how few channels we used to have to make do with back in the mag strip and full coat days. Three dial, three fx, three stereo pairs in the music. Three gang moviolas. It was a lot of work for the mixer because stuff was jumping between the three tracks a lot. I worked primarily on commercials back then, but the dubbing stages at the studios that did features had banks of mag machines all chained together.


----------



## amirm

gregorio said:


> 1. You can't create a low noise environment! Regardless of how low noise your environment is, musicians and their instruments make unwanted noise/junk.


Of course you can.  I have a number of such recordings that are pristine with no unwanted idle tones and such.  Reference Recordings from my friend Keith Johnson comes to mind.

Simple filtering of ultrasonics from an equipment/mike feed would solve many of such problems.  As is removing sources of ultrasonic noises like motion detections, computers, etc.


----------



## amirm

sonitus mirus said:


> Fast switching is critical, but maybe not machine gunning every second back and forth with the volume level much higher than normal. I've read a ton of heated conversations regarding your methods and results. There were a lot of questions about the methodology and your intentions. What equipment are you using, have you tried repeating the tests with completely different equipment and software? One thing that is evident to me is that you seem to crave attention and everyone must know about your supposed hearing superiority and training.


My hearing "superiority" is due to simple training.  I started with no ability to hear such artifacts despite being an audiophile for 40 years at that time.  Then I trained myself and managed to hear these artifacts.  I can teach anyone how to do that.  And indeed plan on doing a video on it.  It takes work to get there but what you are questioning is a fact of audio science.  Training is a given and you will always lose to those who have training.  Indeed the diagnostic power of a trained listener is as much as 10X of an untrained listener.  Here is the results of study Harman did on this topic:







I have taken the same test and a bit of the training.  I could get up to level 6 whereas Sean Olive went way past me and said their trained listeners go up to level 11 or 12 I think.  Search for "how to listen" from Harman.  Run the software.  Train yourself.  And then compare your results before and after and as compared to others.

Fact remains that training works and because it was part of my job, I am able to outperform many listeners even though in the absolute at my age, a lot of my hearing sensitivity is gone in high frequencies.  So please don't keep questioning what is known as a matter of science and facts.  Any insecurities you have regarding my inability is a human emotion you need to deal with and not mine to keep proving over and over again.  I have taken tests exactly as presented to me and others. 



sonitus mirus said:


> I have posted a few ABX tests in the SS forum in the past using Foobar, and both test files were made available to anyone that wanted to check them, along with the checksum of both files and the checksum of the test log. Why aren't you using the latest version? It should only take you 5 minutes to repeat many of your tests and post the relevant data with a verifiable ABX log.


I have posted such results:





As I have marked, there are the cryptographic hashes that can be verified.  The above is actually from a forum posting so it has been out there for a good number of years. 

I don't like to use that version because it violates best practices for blind tests as I have been noting.  That is, they took the information away that would tell you if you are on the right track or not. They did this specifically because they didn't like people coming up with so many positive outcomes they did not expect.  This is not the way to write a tool.  A tool needs to be created without bias or prejudice.  

You can continue to question why your doctor knows more about medicine than you do. But at some point, it becomes obvious that it is just insulting.


----------



## amirm

sonitus mirus said:


> I'm simply repeating what many respected industry experts have already stated across the internet on numerous blogs and forums, even on your own site.


Vast majority of research on audio does NOT exist on the Internet.  They are behind paywalls of the various organizations that accept the research presented.  Until you go and study those, you will have an incorrect view of what the audio science is.   This is why when you challenge me, I quote research and I bet vast majority of them are being seen for the first time for many.

This is by far the most important message I like to convey.   You will always lose the battle of what you have read online, versus what exists in real, professional world of audio research. 

I created ASR Forum precisely for that reason: to get past the incestuous, information-free but argument-rich discourse that goes on in audio forums and blogs.  It is for that reason that you hardly see any luminaries from audio science participating in it.  Can you imagine one of those people being at the receiving end of what you just dished out to me in this one post alone?  Direct accusation of cheating and editing the output of foobar tool?  Are  you kidding me? 

Ultimately I am not here to please everyone especially those that continue to challenge audio science while keep wearing the flag of such.  I will be direct with them.  I will provide actual references and data as to why the audio science/engineering is not as they say.  I have gotten too old and cranky to try to appease everyone online.


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 6, 2018)

@amirm | Headphone Reviews and Discussion - Head-Fi.org

Skwoodwiva  said
"
Let me be A's advocate, 
Have you tried ABing alone? 
I have. Enjoyment is of the music is necessary , once reved up a quick zeroing in on an anomaly needs be quick, you are a fox & you found your hit, so to speak. 
Your adrenaline is helping you but not for long. ..
"


Adrenaline 
A Mixed Blessing for Memory: Stress and the Brain - Brain Connection
https://brainconnection.brainhq.com/2008/08/26/a-mixed-blessing-for-memory-stress-and-the-brain/
Memory references


----------



## gregorio

amirm said:


> [1] Of course you can. ... Simple filtering of ultrasonics from an equipment/mike feed would solve many of such problems.
> [2] I have a number of such recordings that are pristine with no unwanted idle tones and such.



1. I know you can ... not allowing musicians to enter the studio and play their instruments in the first place solves the problem but that's not very practical. By far the best way is exactly as you say, simply choose say 44.1kHz sample rate and most of the ultrasonics are filtered to start with!

2. It's not possible to have pristine (without any junk/noise) recordings of acoustic music/musicians but given the right circumstances (inc. filtering for example) one can get quite close.

G


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 2. No, I am NOT trying to undermine "everything you ever write"! What I'm trying to do is make sure that incorrect facts and assertions are refuted and the actual facts promoted, this is the science forum where the actual facts trump myth. If you don't want me to undermine what you write then the solution is simple, don't post incorrect facts and assertions to this forum in the first place!
> 
> 3. Again, I'm not going to go through all your post but this point is a good example. I don't know where you got this from but it is ALL incorrect! Pro ADCs and DACs do NOT have any "attenuation/volume controls", they are calibrated to a fixed level (line level). Even cheap pro audio software has fader gain/attenuation steps of 0.1dB and steps of 0.01dB in most plugins. The peak metering of even cheap pro audio kit typically also has a resolution of 0.1dB. And, yes, record warps, channel imbalances, cross talk etc., are all relatively serious issues with vinyl but they are all absolutely tiny and inaudible with digital, which is one of the main reasons why digital was invented in the first place.
> 3a. No, even with relatively cheap digital gear!
> ...


2. OK - that is good and appreciated.

3. I did say gear OUTSIDE pro environment - didn't I ? Not only pro ADCs and DACs are calibrated to a fixed, line level - but "whatever" does control recording level and is not necessirily connected to a computer, will not feature 0.1dB , let alone 0.01 dB precision. And even if the software does allow for vthe nominal 0.01dB at the input to the ADC - where do you have the guarantee that at the actual output from ADC the channel balance will be 0.00 dB and not exceed 0.2dB ?  It is true that SMT allows for a pretty small tolerances by default - but, when one wants to get below certain tolerance limits, things are either unavailable - or the price go trough the roof. I may be wrong - but I do not believe manufacturers would take say 1% tolerance resistors that set the gain in the analog stages of the ADC or DAC and measure/select "pairs" with say 0.1% tolerance - as has been done with through hole components, in order to overall save money. Closer tolerances cost dearly; only in recent years it became possible to commercially produce R2R  DACs, the price of so precise resistor manufacturing is still too high for less critical use.

Regarding films - OK, I understand now. I understand it is necessary to get so many channels - but then again, for a really good surround ( Ambiosonics ) one does not nearly need so much channels. No, I do not believe anyone can make realistically sounding movie with surround in different languages - most sinchronizations of films suck even in mono, let alone with who knows how many channels.

Still, this is head-fi; two ears, headphones. Binaural recording of music takes 2 channels only - why not have them in quality that removes any deviation from the perception of the sound live from the realm of possibility ?


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 1. I know you can ... not allowing musicians to enter the studio and play their instruments in the first place solves the problem but that's not very practical. By far the best way is exactly as you say, simply choose say 44.1kHz sample rate and most of the ultrasonics are filtered to start with!
> 
> 2. It's not possible to have pristine (without any junk/noise) recordings of acoustic music/musicians but given the right circumstances (inc. filtering for example) one can get quite close.
> 
> G


2. It IS possible. Choosing a remote enough location, with no ( other than absolutely required ) computers anywhere near, with ligting checked not only for mains hum, but also ultrasonics, movement detectors, etc. For this reason, I try to eschew switched power supplies whenever I possibly can - they can create havoc, particularly with DSD. Batteries can not hum, can not create ground loops and do not turn into radios/oscillators. 

Believe me, I am NOT looking forward to yet additional work prior the usual 44.1 sample rate recording could already begin ( and increasing the time BEFORE any of the musicians arrive, which is next to incoprehensible to a person that has to open, say, a church ... ) - but having recorded ultrasonic "buzz" a few times,  I know and am convinced it is a must and ultimately pays off. And it is the only real need for me to use the PCM - so that will be able to look at the spectrum analysis without time consuming conversion of DSD to PCM. Once the ultrasonics are clean with nobody in the hall/venue/church, the usual work can begin for real.


----------



## Phronesis

amirm said:


> Vast majority of research on audio does NOT exist on the Internet.  They are behind paywalls of the various organizations that accept the research presented.  Until you go and study those, you will have an incorrect view of what the audio science is.   This is why when you challenge me, I quote research and I bet vast majority of them are being seen for the first time for many.
> 
> This is by far the most important message I like to convey.   You will always lose the battle of what you have read online, versus what exists in real, professional world of audio research.
> 
> ...



@amirm, I appreciate the professional perspective and information you bring to the discussion.  I've found it educational.


----------



## gregorio (May 6, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> 3. I did say gear OUTSIDE pro environment - didn't I ?
> [4] "whatever" does control recording level and is not necessirily connected to a computer, will not feature 0.1dB , let alone 0.01 dB precision.
> [5] And even if the software does allow for vthe nominal 0.01dB at the input to the ADC - where do you have the guarantee that at the actual output from ADC the channel balance will be 0.00 dB and not exceed 0.2dB ?
> [6] Regarding films - OK, I understand now. I understand it is necessary to get so many channels - but then again, for a really good surround ( Ambiosonics ) one does not nearly need so much channels. No, I do not believe anyone can make realistically sounding movie with surround in different languages - most sinchronizations of films suck even in mono, let alone with who knows how many channels.
> [7] Still, this is head-fi; two ears, headphones. Binaural recording of music takes 2 channels only - why not have them in quality that removes any deviation from the perception of the sound live from the realm of possibility ?



3. No, you said "Most digital recorders/soundcards/recording software/whatever have", the only thing you excluded was expensive pro audio gear. But, for example, Reaper is DAW software used by some pros, many aspiring pros and countless tens of thousands of amateurs, it has all the features I mentioned and is free. There are also thousands of free plugins which operate at 0.01dB resolution.

4. What controls the recording level input into an ADC and the DAC output level to speakers/HPs are analogue amps (mic pre-amps into the ADC and power amps at the other end).

5. The output from the ADC is astonishingly accurate, even from pretty cheap ($100 or so) ADCs, same with channel balance and cross talk. Tens or hundreds of times better than even the best turntables and vinyl.

6. Because of the way film mixes are created, one can achieve excellent quality foreign language dubs but of course the lip sync isn't going to be good. But, some countries demand foreign language dubs while others prefer the original language mix and subtitles, there's advantages and disadvantages both ways.

7. Binaural recordings only record the sound waves entering the ears, NOT the perception of the live sound.

G


----------



## bigshot

Reality is overrated


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Hi @amirm,

I like many of your posts here and elsewhere. We agree on many things.
You say people shouldn’t overgeneralize. I agree.
You say people shouldn’t post as “fact”, incorrect information they don’t understand enough or know at all. I agree.
You point out that listening tests are inherently different from pleasure listening, but listening tests are nevertheless important to answer certain questions. I agree that context is relevant, but not everything.

I haven’t seen it here, but elsewhere you have admitted that like the rest of us, you are human and can make mistakes. You have an impressive ability to remain civil and informative, even in the face of criticism, some hostile…. _up to a point_. When you lose your patience, you begin to commit the same transgressions you criticize in others, and you mention your background in a fairly naked appeal to (your own) authority. Your background is impressive (link), but let’s put it in perspective.
According to Google Scholar, you are one of the authors on 4 patents and you wrote a book on Unix optimization. But you have not published any peer-reviewed scientific work. You are not a scientist. You are an engineer with experience as a team/group leader/manager. Yes, your team included scientists, but that doesn’t make you one. I am and will remain anonymous, so it makes no sense to give you my background or publications… it could simply be challenged. I will just say, without proof, that I am a scientist in a relevant field.

The recent discussion on listening tests and switching times is useful.


amirm said:


> *Any test that doesn't use instant switching is immediately dismissed as not being scientific.*


There are few rigid rules in science that always apply. It is very important to ask, and keep in mind the question, “what are you trying to do?”.
Echoic memory is 1 of at least 3 types of auditory memory, and therefore it is very important to understand it, _when applicable_. You ask others to read up… you should read Nelson Cowan’s work.
BS.1116 describes ABC/HR, not ABX. The sections from which you quote describe setting up the listening test aspects and are therefore useful for ABX, but it is not a “bible” for ABX. You should not use the term “instantaneous switching”, because that has problems as described in Note 1, that you omitted. It is right below the part you quoted. “Near-instantaneous switching” is the key… depending on your the question you're asking.

It is not my goal to start a fight and criticize anything and everything you write. It is my goal to encourage you to go back to your civil and informative mode.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 3. No, you said "Most digital recorders/soundcards/recording software/whatever have", the only thing you excluded was expensive pro audio gear. But, for example, Reaper is DAW software used by some pros, many aspiring pros and countless tens of thousands of amateurs, it has all the features I mentioned and is free. There are also thousands of free plugins which operate at 0.01dB resolution.
> 
> 7. Binaural recordings only record the sound waves entering the ears, NOT the perception of the live sound.
> 
> G


3. Am I missing something here? What's the problem? In free software Audacity I can simply write:

(mult (db-to-linear -0.001) s)​
in the Nyquist Prompt and the sound gets attenuated by 0.001 dB.


7. The sound waves entering the ears is a big part of what perception of the live sound is made of.


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> Regarding films - OK, I understand now. I understand it is necessary to get so many channels - but then again, for a really good surround ( Ambiosonics ) one does not nearly need so much channels. No, I do not believe anyone can make realistically sounding movie with surround in different languages - most sinchronizations of films suck even in mono, let alone with who knows how many channels.



This is really confusing stuff I am afraid. Modern movies have hundreds of tracks, because the sound is so sophisticated and multi-layered. Let's assume there's a scene in a cafe. You have all kind of sounds from people talking everywhere, coffee cup jingle, car sounds from outside entering the cafe, coffee machine, cash register, chairs moving and god know what other sounds. All this must be mixed so that it sounds realistic, details can be heard and it isn't too loud to make dialogue difficult to follow. You can do this only using tons of individual tracks to control everything.

Number of channels sound not affect foreign language synchronization. So weird claim...


----------



## Phronesis

I can understand why people would mention credentials in a forum like this, since we’re trying to get closer to the truth with questions that are mostly scientific, but people here are anonymous and can’t be assumed to have relevant background unless they mention their background. 

It’s certainly helpful to be a scientist, but I think a person can understand and apply scientific approaches if they have sufficient relevant knowledge and research experience.  That said, it would be helpful for scientists to chime in to set things straight when non-scientists are being non-scientific.  I’ve had the experience of seeing non-engineers (journalists) misrepresent engineering work I was involved with, and it was frustrating...


----------



## KeithEmo

I would agree with you that the differences are tiny.... however, what is tiny to one person is important to another.

I would say that the differences between my $25k Nissan and a $100k Mercedes are "tiny". I'll be I could devise any number of practical tests that would show, conclusively, that I wouldn't get to work one second faster with the Mercedes than I do with my Nissan, and the mileage is about the same. And, being able to accelerate more rapidly is about as useful as being able to accurately reproduce 30 kHz - I can measure it, but I doubt I'll ever be able to floor either one on my way to work. People routinely pay a lot of money for expensive cars, expensive bicycles, and expensive wrist watches that aren't technically any better than cheaper ones. (I'll also bet a $25 quartz Timex keeps more accurate time than a $1 million hand made mechanical Rolex. To ME, that means the Timex is better, which is why I don't own a Rolex... but clearly other people don't all agree.)

I absolutely agree that the difference between high-res and CD quality audio is small, that many people will probably never notice it, and that some few who will notice it probably won't care. I also listen to Sirius XM in my car, even though I find the reduction in quality caused by their particular choice of compression to be noticeable... because, in that context, convenience is more important to me, and their programming choices work pretty well for me while driving. I would even go further and suggest that, even though I've found many high-res albums where I thought the difference was quite obvious, it could simply have been different because the mastering was better. I bought the high-res copy of the Grateful Dead studio albums; and, to me, most of the albums in the set sounded clearly better than the previous versions I've owned; however, I never bothered to confirm if they sounded the same when I down-sampled the 24/192k version I purchased to 44k. I had to buy the new set again anyway to get the re-mastering..... so, it wasn't worth the $9 I would have saved to buy the 44k version instead of the 192k version, and then having to wonder if there would have been a slight additional benefit. (I should note that, in the marketing world, it's a well known phenomenon that, if there are "three different levels of the same product".... a few people will buy the "premium" version, many will buy the "regular version", but very few will choose the "economy version". Apparently, across a broad range of products, people simply assume that "the bargain brand" or "the lowest end model" will be inferior... and manufacturers do their best to support this assumption by deliberately removing features from the bargain model.)



sonitus mirus said:


> How can it not be obvious to a rational person that any audible benefits to HR audio are tiny, if any exist at all?   Based on the various forms of HR audio that are currently in use, I simply do not see any possible reason to ever "have" to decide whether to spend money to purchase my library of music again.  I know that any potential differences do not matter to me.
> 
> The infamous Meyer & Moran "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback" test should be enough to proclaim that any differences between CD-Standard and HR Audio are insignificant.   The best albums at that time were suggested to be used in this test.  Albums that were supposedly clearly superior sounding and would be obvious to all but the deafest of listeners.  Turns out nobody could statistically prove that any difference was heard with any confidence to suggest it wasn't just guessing.  In the end, many of the albums that were touted as being HR audio masterpieces were actually NOT HR at all.  Nobody even knew until later, after the results of the study were made public.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with most of what you said... except... "If the listener is pretty sure he can't distinguish between A and B, he _knows_ he'll just be guessing in the trials, so there's no value in doing the trials."

Apparently there have been plenty of well documented cases where, even though test subjects insisted they were guessing between Product A and Product B, the results of the tests themselves indicated that their "guesses" were more accurate than random chance would account for. In other words, even if the test subject themself is so uncertain that they consider their choice to be a guess, there may be an unrecognized bias that causes them to guess correctly. For example, test subjects may insist that they cannot tell the difference between Soda A and Soda B, or that they don't prefer one over the other, but still end up selecting one more often than the other when forced to pick one. This may mean that they have a very weak preference - but it still occurs a statistically significant percentage of the time. (This makes testing accurately very difficult; for example, if you fail to mix up the position of the samples, you may never know if there is a REAL bias for Product A over Product B, or if more people selected it because you always put in in the cup on the subject's right.... and it is pretty well known that, all else being exactly equal, right handers are more likely to pick up the cup nearest their right hand. Of course, in a different context, this is VERY useful; it tells you to put the soda you want to sell more of on the right side of the dispensing machine.)

This could apply if there was some question of whether "high-res music was less fatiguing". You may find that people fail to distinguish one way or the other when asked. However, the best way to test this would be to set up a pair of "waiting rooms"... one quiet, and one with music playing. You would then seat your test subjects in the "loud room" and see how long, on average, each remained there before getting up and moving to "the quiet room". You may find that, when you play high-res music in the "loud room", subjects remain there for longer on average before getting up and moving to the other room than they do when you play CD-quality music.... or that may not be the case. (These sorts of tests are routinely used to test, for example, whether people are more likely to stay longer in rooms with certain colors on the walls, or with certain levels or colors of lighting.) 



Phronesis said:


> I'd like to delve a little deeper into some aspects of blind testing which have been touched on in the recent discussion.
> 
> If the difference between A and B is obvious (e.g., the 10 kHz white noise example), blind testing isn't really needed.  It will just confirm what's already known, and the trials will be close to 100% correct even if many trials are done.
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis (May 7, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I agree with most of what you said... except... "If the listener is pretty sure he can't distinguish between A and B, he _knows_ he'll just be guessing in the trials, so there's no value in doing the trials."
> 
> Apparently there have been plenty of well documented cases where, even though test subjects insisted they were guessing between Product A and Product B, the results of the tests themselves indicated that their "guesses" were more accurate than random chance would account for. In other words, even if the test subject themself is so uncertain that they consider their choice to be a guess, there may be an unrecognized bias that causes them to guess correctly. For example, test subjects may insist that they cannot tell the difference between Soda A and Soda B, or that they don't prefer one over the other, but still end up selecting one more often than the other when forced to pick one. This may mean that they have a very weak preference - but it still occurs a statistically significant percentage of the time. (This makes testing accurately very difficult; for example, if you fail to mix up the position of the samples, you may never know if there is a REAL bias for Product A over Product B, or if more people selected it because you always put in in the cup on the subject's right.... and it is pretty well known that, all else being exactly equal, right handers are more likely to pick up the cup nearest their right hand. Of course, in a different context, this is VERY useful; it tells you to put the soda you want to sell more of on the right side of the dispensing machine.)
> 
> This could apply if there was some question of whether "high-res music was less fatiguing". You may find that people fail to distinguish one way or the other when asked. However, the best way to test this would be to set up a pair of "waiting rooms"... one quiet, and one with music playing. You would then seat your test subjects in the "loud room" and see how long, on average, each remained there before getting up and moving to "the quiet room". You may find that, when you play high-res music in the "loud room", subjects remain there for longer on average before getting up and moving to the other room than they do when you play CD-quality music.... or that may not be the case. (These sorts of tests are routinely used to test, for example, whether people are more likely to stay longer in rooms with certain colors on the walls, or with certain levels or colors of lighting.)



Understood and agreed.  Someone made this point in another recent post also, and I think it's a very important point.

When I did the blind tests, I was often in a gray area regarding the extent to which I thought I was guessing, so it would be wrong to simply say I was guessing or not guessing.  I'd prefer simplicity, but it seems that many/most things in audio are a matter of degree.


----------



## KeithEmo

To me, the reason none of the major players has chosen to finance large-scale testing is pretty obvious: They DO NOT expect such testing to produce a result which will economically benefit them.
Note, however, that this is NOT the same as saying that "They don't expect tests to prove that people can hear a difference."

As of now, MANY consumers believe that there is an audible difference.... and that belief extends beyond the people who actually buy them.
Just as many people who don't own a Mercedes still believe that it's probably better than the car they do own, many people who don't buy high-res files still consider them to be "a premium product".
(And these people are still potential customers; they may buy high-res files in the future, or buy them for their audiophile friends for Christmas.)

The only way the industry would benefit from testing would be if it INCREASED the perception that high-res files are better.
A test that FAILED to find an audible difference at all would hurt business (it probably wouldn't hurt business because it would probably never be published).
However, even a test that showed that a small percentage of people could obviously tell the difference would STILL be bad for business if it determined that the difference was LESS OBVIOUS than most people already believe.
(Imagine what would happen if some car company were to run a test and find out that only 5% of the drivers who tried it thought their premium sports car was actually better.)

At the moment, whether a test showed that nobody could tell the difference, or that a few people noticed only a slight difference, either way it would REDUCE the expectations people have about high-res files.
And, of course, there isn't a single company out there who would BENEFIT by convincing people NOT to buy high-res files....
And, since the various magazines "live on controversy", none of them would benefit by attempting to end the debate either.
(A magazine could "get some mileage" by publishing the tests.... but, in the end, producing clear-cut results would not be in their best interest either.)
Therefore, there's really nobody who has much of an economic interest in running those tests.



sonitus mirus said:


> Using Microsoft products, too.
> 
> 
> I have read about how you perform the ABX tests, and I'm not fully convinced the differences that you identify are actually with the sound in the files being tested.  Are you still switching back and forth repeatedly and rather quickly?  Are you sure what difference you are identifying is not simply something with the process you are using?  Have you attempted to ABX 2 files that should be audibly identical, but with some parameters altered that you would not expect to change anything?  You are the 1 out of 100 already.  But, no, my confidence in your abilities based on what appears to be an agenda to prove something would not be satisfactory, and I would probably dismiss your results.
> ...


----------



## Phronesis (May 7, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> To me, the reason none of the major players has chosen to finance large-scale testing is pretty obvious: They DO NOT expect such testing to produce a result which will economically benefit them.
> Note, however, that this is NOT the same as saying that "They don't expect tests to prove that people can hear a difference."
> 
> As of now, MANY consumers believe that there is an audible difference.... and that belief extends beyond the people who actually buy them.
> ...



The situation is actually similar to the situation with complementary/alternative medicine (CAM).

There's anecdotal, animal study, and clinical trial evidence that _some_ natural compounds can be helpful to _some_ people for _some_ health conditions to _varying_ degrees, but natural compounds generally can't be patented, so there's no incentive for anyone to spend the big money needed to do clinical trials sufficient to get FDA approval. 

Like audio, CAM is also quite polarizing, with some people being very skeptical and dismissive of it (and will immediately roll their eyes at the mere mention of CAM), others naively and gullibly overestimating the general effectiveness CAM options (and wasting money and hope in the process, sometimes also bypassing good options from conventional medicine), and some people being more moderate and trying to do the difficult work of separating the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## 71 dB

Phronesis said:


> I can understand why people would mention credentials in a forum like this, since we’re trying to get closer to the truth with questions that are mostly scientific, but people here are anonymous and can’t be assumed to have relevant background unless they mention their background.
> 
> It’s certainly helpful to be a scientist, but I think a person can understand and apply scientific approaches if they have sufficient relevant knowledge and research experience.  That said, it would be helpful for scientists to chime in to set things straight when non-scientists are being non-scientific.  I’ve had the experience of seeing non-engineers (journalists) misrepresent engineering work I was involved with, and it was frustrating...



I don't care about credentials or who says something. I care about what is said. Sure, having a higher education and having done science or whatever makes it more probable to actually know what you are talking about instead of just saying something ignorant. Especially digital audio seems to be an subject which almost requires one to have a suitable academic background to truly understand what it is about. Most people seem to think they "get" digital audio while in reality they hold pretty silly beliefs about it based on intuition and misconceptions. When I think about it, I must say I would definitely have these silly opinions too without my university studies.


----------



## gregorio (May 7, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> amirm said:
> 
> 
> > Vast majority of research on audio does NOT exist on the Internet. They are behind paywalls of the various organizations that accept the research presented. Until you go and study those, you will have an incorrect view of what the audio science is.
> ...



While I too find much of the information amirm quotes useful, we have a fundament disagreement on this point. While I agree that the vast majority of research is not on the internet, I disagree that it can be found behind paywalls. While the majority of scientific papers are behind paywalls, scientific papers do NOT represent the vast majority of research, it represents a very small portion of it. There is a great of research carried out by other organisations, major national broadcasters and commercial corporations for example, only a tiny fraction of which ever gets released, even behind a paywall. For example, the basis of digital audio itself was information released by AT&T, Harry Nyquist was an AT&T R&D employee. In addition, there is/has been a great deal of testing by music/sound engineers, maybe not up to the standards required for scientific publication but more reliable than many/most would be able to achieve. Extremely little of this is available either in front of or behind paywalls. And then there's all the informal testing at universities, not for publishing studies but for educating students. We used to test the discrimination abilities of our 350 student a year intake for high freq detection, jitter and many other types of audio distortions/phenomena and my colleagues in other universities did the same. That's many thousands of subjects a year for many years and none of it is available anywhere.



analogsurviver said:


> 2. It IS possible. Choosing a remote enough location, with no ( other than absolutely required ) computers anywhere near, with ligting checked not only for mains hum, but also ultrasonics, movement detectors, etc.
> [3] I know and am convinced it is a must and ultimately pays off.
> [4] Once the ultrasonics are clean with nobody in the hall/venue/church, the usual work can begin for real.



2. I think we must have very different ideas on what clean, noise and junk mean! Let me give an example; in the analogue days, we sometimes used to reconstitute the high frequencies of cymbals, lost in the analogue bouncing/mixing process, with (about) 4kHz-20kHz white noise and no one, not even the musicians themselves, could tell. This is because if done right, white noise and the sound a cymbal makes are audibly the same. In this modern digital HR era, where there is no HF loss and we can record a cymbal up to nearly 100kHz, is this the "real good" ultrasonic content amirm was talking about or would it just be audibly indistinguishable from noise (if we could hear it)?

All acoustic instruments produce noise/junk if you mic closely enough; brass instrument valves, woodwind keys, fingers sliding on strings, drum rattles and then of course musicians breathing, their clothes rustling, singers' lip smacks, teeth whistles, tongue clicks, sibilance and numerous other types of "junk" besides and nearly all of it has a great deal of ultrasonic content, much more than the actual harmonics which are the whole point of the exercise in the first place! Mic from further away and all this "junk" reduces into the noise floor, along with most or all of the actual ultrasonic harmonic content! Of course, the SPL of the sound we do want also decreases dramatically, so we have to add many dB of mic pre-amp gain, which increases the venue noise floor and the self noise of the mic by a commensurate number of dB. How can you tell if what you're seeing in that visual freq analysis contains any ultrasonic musical harmonics or is just junk and noise ,if you can't hear it? All you can see is that there is sound in the ultrasonic range and that some of it correlates rhythmically with the music but without hearing it you can't tell if it's instrument/musician junk, if it's harmonic content or, if it's both, what the proportions are!

3. What you think you know and what you're convinced of, is irrelevant here!

4. Yes, ideal circumstances ... as long as you don't have any musicians or audience in the venue and you don't use any mics!!



71 dB said:


> 7. The sound waves entering the ears is a big part of what perception of the live sound is made of.



Yes but still only a part.

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> *001.* How can you tell if what you're seeing in that visual freq analysis contains any ultrasonic musical harmonics or is just junk and noise ,if you can't hear it? All you can see is that there is sound in the ultrasonic range and that some of it correlates rhythmically with the music but without hearing it you can't tell if it's instrument/musician junk, if it's harmonic content or, if it's both, what the proportions are!
> 
> *002.* Yes but still only a part.
> 
> G



*001. *One could play the music at much lower samplerate such as 44.1 kHz instead of 96 kHz and have the ultrasonic content fall within the bandwidth of human hearing. Of course violins would become weird basses and the music would be very slow, but at least one can hear the ultrasonic content.

*002.* Yes but that's better than nothing, especially because binaural recordings tend to be free of excessive spatial information (ILD and ITD values are limited to natural levels).


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> I would agree with you that the differences are tiny.... however, what is tiny to one person is important to another.



To some people, even inaudible levels of improvement are important. Importance is purely subjective. The point is, tiny differences that require extreme circumstances to be barely audible do not impact sound quality when you sit down to listen to a CD in your living room. There is a standard of stringency that is required for medicine or research or professional recording that isn't at all required for normal casual playback of music.

I think the most valuable thing to have a solid grasp of is proportion. I know a lot of people have OCD, but checking whether your front door is locked five times doesn't make it any more locked than it already is. That sort of thing is wasted energy. If you can focus yourself enough to sort out the proportions of unimportant from maybe important from very important, you can prioritize your efforts to make more effective improvements to the sound quality of your home audio system.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> To some people, even inaudible levels of improvement are important. Importance is purely subjective. The point is, tiny differences that require extreme circumstances to be barely audible do not impact sound quality when you sit down to listen to a CD in your living room. There is a standard of stringency that is required for medicine or research or professional recording that isn't at all required for normal casual playback of music.
> 
> I think the most valuable thing to have a solid grasp of is proportion. I know a lot of people have OCD, but checking whether your front door is locked five times doesn't make it any more locked than it already is. That sort of thing is wasted energy. If you can focus yourself enough to sort out the proportions of unimportant from maybe important from very important, you can prioritize your efforts to make more effective improvements to the sound quality of your home audio system.


That said, to those with OCD (I and some members of my family suffer from compulsions), please don't hesitate to get therapy. The QoL improvements alone make it worth it.


----------



## 71 dB

Unless you are an oil sheik, it is beneficial to think about the rule of diminishing returns and the relevance of perceptual quality:






These curves are different for different things, but the principle is the same. It's beneficial to have a basic understanding at which price point perceptual quality gets near to 100 %. To know that it's better to listen to expensive speakers with cheap speaker cables than the other way around.


----------



## sonitus mirus (May 7, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I would agree with you that the differences are tiny.... however, what is tiny to one person is important to another.
> 
> I would say that the differences between my $25k Nissan and a $100k Mercedes are "tiny". I'll be I could devise any number of practical tests that would show, conclusively, that I wouldn't get to work one second faster with the Mercedes than I do with my Nissan, and the mileage is about the same. And, being able to accelerate more rapidly is about as useful as being able to accurately reproduce 30 kHz - I can measure it, but I doubt I'll ever be able to floor either one on my way to work. People routinely pay a lot of money for expensive cars, expensive bicycles, and expensive wrist watches that aren't technically any better than cheaper ones. (I'll also bet a $25 quartz Timex keeps more accurate time than a $1 million hand made mechanical Rolex. To ME, that means the Timex is better, which is why I don't own a Rolex... but clearly other people don't all agree.)
> 
> I absolutely agree that the difference between high-res and CD quality audio is small, that many people will probably never notice it, and that some few who will notice it probably won't care. I also listen to Sirius XM in my car, even though I find the reduction in quality caused by their particular choice of compression to be noticeable... because, in that context, convenience is more important to me, and their programming choices work pretty well for me while driving. I would even go further and suggest that, even though I've found many high-res albums where I thought the difference was quite obvious, it could simply have been different because the mastering was better. I bought the high-res copy of the Grateful Dead studio albums; and, to me, most of the albums in the set sounded clearly better than the previous versions I've owned; however, I never bothered to confirm if they sounded the same when I down-sampled the 24/192k version I purchased to 44k. I had to buy the new set again anyway to get the re-mastering..... so, it wasn't worth the $9 I would have saved to buy the 44k version instead of the 192k version, and then having to wonder if there would have been a slight additional benefit. (I should note that, in the marketing world, it's a well known phenomenon that, if there are "three different levels of the same product".... a few people will buy the "premium" version, many will buy the "regular version", but very few will choose the "economy version". Apparently, across a broad range of products, people simply assume that "the bargain brand" or "the lowest end model" will be inferior... and manufacturers do their best to support this assumption by deliberately removing features from the bargain model.)



We have a different understanding of the use of "tiny" in the context I was using.  You talk about 2 cars that would be clearly different in style and performance, probably grossly so based on the prices mentioned.  I'm equating the differences with the cars to that of the stitching used for the rear floor mats being either gray or charcoal.  If someone walks into a room and music starts playing, will it make a difference to the listener if the files are originally 24/192 or converted to 16/44.1, provided that they were not aware of which files were being played?


----------



## RRod

sonitus mirus said:


> We have a different understanding of the use of "tiny" in the context I was using.  You talk about 2 cars that would be clearly different in style and performance, probably grossly so based on the prices mentioned.  I'm equating the differences with the cars to that of the stitching used for the rear floor mats being either gray or charcoal.  If someone walks into a room and music starts playing, will it make a difference to the listener if the files are originally 24/192 or converted to 16/44.1, provided that they were not aware of which files were being played?



So much this. I have always viewed the real Pepsi challenge as: if I snuck in your house and converted all your files to 16/44.1, would you notice anything?


----------



## Phronesis (May 7, 2018)

71 dB said:


> Unless you are an oil sheik, it is beneficial to think about the rule of diminishing returns and the relevance of perceptual quality:
> 
> 
> 
> These curves are different for different things, but the principle is the same. It's beneficial to have a basic understanding at which price point perceptual quality gets near to 100 %. To know that it's better to listen to expensive speakers with cheap speaker cables than the other way around.





sonitus mirus said:


> We have a different understanding of the use of "tiny" in the context I was using.  You talk about 2 cars that would be clearly different in style and performance, probably grossly so based on the prices mentioned.  I'm equating the differences with the cars to that of the stitching used for the rear floor mats being either gray or charcoal.  If someone walks into a room and music starts playing, will it make a difference to the listener if the files are originally 24/192 or converted to 16/44.1, provided that they were not aware of which files were being played?





RRod said:


> So much this. I have always viewed the real Pepsi challenge as: if I snuck in your house and converted all your files to 16/44.1, would you notice anything?



I'll take that further and continue to argue, or at least speculate, that too much attention to _sound_ quality may take attention and enjoyment away from listening to _music_.  In other words, it may not just be diminishing returns, but rather a counterproductive effect past some point.  I'm not saying that crappy sound quality is good enough, just that 'great' rather than 'best possible' sound quality may be the optimum target (and is affordable for most people).  At least in principle, this is something which could be studied (look at the relationship between time and dollars invested in improving sound quality, and objective parameters to measure sound quality, vs enjoyment of music).


----------



## gregorio (May 7, 2018)

71 dB said:


> *001. *One could play the music at much lower samplerate such as 44.1 kHz instead of 96 kHz and have the ultrasonic content fall within the bandwidth of human hearing. Of course violins would become weird basses and the music would be very slow, but at least one can hear the ultrasonic content.
> *002.* Yes but that's better than nothing, [2a] especially because binaural recordings tend to be free of excessive spatial information (ILD and ITD values are limited to natural levels).



1. Yes, I've done that, played 192kHz much slower but then it's all pretty unrecognisable and I've also tried pitch shifting it down 3 octaves and maintained the speed, which gives a lot of distortion. It's not totally useless but not much help and not practical either.
2. Well obviously! 
2a. In a sense, your statement is backwards. Assuming the binaural recording does achieve the correct distance (phase relationship) between the mics for the individual listener (which is not always the case), one of the problems with binaural is that it does indeed record the what goes into the ears, the natural amount/level of reverb. This is a problem because in a live concert hall one of the things the brain tends do is emphasise the direct sound/lower the level of reverb. With the reproduction of an audio recording you don't have that situation and therefore the correct/natural amount or reverb is in fact too much spatial information! Plus of course with a binaural recording you're limited to listening ONLY with headphones. The preferred solution is to multi-mic, including room mics, and therefore the balance between the direct sound and the reverb can be finely adjusted, even variably adjusted where necessary, in the studio. In other words, we can tailor the recording to human perception, which we can't with a binaural recording.

G


----------



## bigshot

Too much focus on sound quality can cheat you out of being exposed to some amazing music. (i.e. pre-hifi era)


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Too much focus on sound quality can cheat you out of being exposed to some amazing music. (i.e. pre-hifi era)


Unfortunately, true.

I can not stand listening to old mono recordings with headphones - Mission Impossible for me - but they can be very enjoyable with speakers.


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't disagree with you at all.... but I also believe that many people here _DO_ consider this to be a forum for discussing "audio science".
(I'm seeing that it was originally envisioned specifically as being a forum for debunking myths that contradicted scientific facts... which is something slightly different.)

I am, however, going to dispute your analogy with "checking the front door five times to see if it's locked".
For one thing, there is a very simply way to determine whether the door is locked or not.... so the only thing in doubt is the memory of the person who is unsure they locked it.
Since nobody is perfect, you can't claim that it's impossible that they actually did forget to lock the door; all you really disagree about is the risk involved in that possibility.
And, if that person were to suggest that buying a $10 gadget that actually lit an LED next to their bed that showed whether the door was locked or not, and insisted that "it would make them feel better", I wouldn't try to discourage them.

I'm also going to question the motivations of _MANY_ of the people in this forum.

If all you _REALLY_ want to do is to figure out whether high-resolution files sound significantly better _TO YOU_, then the way to do so is trivial.
Find a friend who is convinced that high-res files sound better, get him or her to bring a few files over to your house, listen to them, and see if you notice a significant difference.
Either you do or you don't and, either way, you will have the answer as it applies to you.... which is what you really want, right?
So what's the big deal?
And why do you care if other people claim to hear a difference, and, if they claim to, whether they're imagining it or not?
Could it be that some of us are looking for _VALIDATION_ of our opinions?
(Assuming that you've tested yourself, and confirmed that YOU don't hear a difference, why do you really care if other people do or not?)
Of course, some of us MAY just like to teach and inform others.... and some of us may just like to show off.

My personal stand on the subject is simply that, when the option is offered, I always prefer to have "the best" or "the most accurate" copy available.
From everything I've heard, all of the arguments suggesting that there is an actual drawback to higher resolution are completely specious.
None of my audio equipment is especially sensitive to IMD at 96 kHz...
Space is so cheap that the extra amount of space it takes to store a 24/192k file instead of a 16/44k file is totally unimportant to me.
And, since virtually every high-quality modern DAC supports 24/192k anyway, I didn't have to pay extra for a DAC that will play them.
Therefore, all I'm left with is the question of whether I want to pay an extra $9 to avoid wondering if the other version would have sounded better.

I'm guessing that, if I had a tape recorded 0.1% fast, there might be one person in 10,000 who has "perfect enough pitch" to notice the flaw and be annoyed by it.
So, is maintaining a speed accuracy of 0.1% on a digital recording "significant or not"?
I guess that depends on whether you're one of the 9,999 or the one guy who notices it.
Likewise, with those odds, how much effort would you go to in order to find out?

Clearly, if enough audiophiles really cared, someone would be setting up "neighborhood listening parlors" where you could find out for yourself.
Note, however, that:
- no seller of high-res or standard-res files has seen fit to sponsor such a demonstration
- there don't seem to be enough audiophiles who really want to find out for themselves to justify opening a business for that purpose
(instead, the VAST majority of audiophiles, like most religious believers, seem quite content to believe what they've already chosen to believe... and to argue about it when they're in the mood.)



bigshot said:


> I think it's fine to establish thresholds that reflect the absolute extremes. That is useful in a theoretical way and I'm sure that engineers and scientists want to know all about the extreme edges of perception to further their knowledge. But for me, the thresholds that matter are real world ones... the ones that show us what makes a difference to us when we listen to music in the home. I don't have any particular interest or experience in theoretical physics and electrical engineering. My focus is on properly presenting recorded music.
> 
> There are mistakes that many audiophiles make that hobble their ability to achieve the best sound possible, but the worst mistake is the obsession with the bleeding edges of perception. Every time they improve a spec in their system by 10%, they begin to feel a nagging suspicion that 10% might not be quite enough. They pour all their energy and money into achieving 14% and then 19% and then 22%... it's a never-ending cycle like compulsive hand washing or constantly checking to see if the front door is locked. But what if the difference was inaudible before you even started down that rabbit hole? The difference between decent sound and fantastic sound doesn't lie at the bleeding edges of hearing. It's smack dab in the middle where we hear with the most clarity and detail. It's in the balance of the sound. It's in the space *around* the sound. It's in the quality of the music we are listening to.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> I don't disagree with you at all.... but I also believe that many people here _DO_ consider this to be a forum for discussing "audio science".
> (I'm seeing that it was originally envisioned specifically as being a forum for debunking myths that contradicted scientific facts... which is something slightly different.)



This forum was created to get all mention of controlled listening tests out of the rest of the forum. It's since become the real world to the rest of head fi's bizarro world.


----------



## KeithEmo

I disagree.... the use of the term "tiny" is almost purely dependent on context.... and is also quite subjective.

You were equating "tiny" with "unimportant". For example, I find the difference between an original Rembrandt and a good copy to be tiny; but I'm sure many art experts would find it huge. However, because I used to collect exotic mineral specimens, I find the difference in color between natural amethyst and heat-treated amethyst to be significant, while you may not notice it at all. My mother would have absolutely hated a $100k sports car - because it was noisy and so low you have to climb down into it. I would go as far as to say that, once you acknowledge that a difference exists, then whether it's "tiny" or "major", or even positive or negative, is often quite subjective. And, yes, I know people who would throw out their entire set of floor mats if they discovered that the stitching on one didn't match the rest... whereas I'm pretty sure I wouldn't notice at all.

However, semantics aside, I'm inclined to agree with your assertion. In most cases, most people would almost certainly _NOT_ notice whether a file they were listening to was high-res or CD quality most of the time. Furthermore, in many cases, there are other differences which are far greater. For example, Pat Benatar's Album - In the Heat Of the Night, which is one of my favorites, has been remastered and re-released many times. I found that the DCC Gold CD re-master, and the more recent one issued by EMI Japan, sounded rather different than the original CD... yet the 24/192k high-res remaster, at least to me, sounds more like the original CD than either of those CD quality re-masters. Clearly the differences in how the various versions were mastered are far more significant to how they sound than the sample rate. 

I would personally never assume that a high-res file will sound better than the CD-quality equivalent; but I would also never assume that it won't; and I certainly would judge whether I noticed any difference at all on a case by case basis. (From personal experience, I've heard many high-res re-masters that sound significantly better than their CD-quality counterparts, whether due to the sample rate, or the mastering, or both; I've also heard ones that sounded exactly the same; and a few that sounded worse. Therefore, I try to avoid generalizations whenever possible.)



sonitus mirus said:


> We have a different understanding of the use of "tiny" in the context I was using.  You talk about 2 cars that would be clearly different in style and performance, probably grossly so based on the prices mentioned.  I'm equating the differences with the cars to that of the stitching used for the rear floor mats being either gray or charcoal.  If someone walks into a room and music starts playing, will it make a difference to the listener if the files are originally 24/192 or converted to 16/44.1, provided that they were not aware of which files were being played?


----------



## Phronesis (May 7, 2018)

I agree that whether a 'small' difference matters is subjective and depends on the listener.

The problem we seem to run into here is that it's not easy to determine whether a perceived small difference is objectively real.  I'm increasingly moving towards the conclusion that blind testing has problems in ruling it in or out (because blind testing has questionable 'external validity'), a selected set of objective measurements may not give us the answer either, and there's the possibility of misperception.  In the end, we may just have to resort to trusting our somewhat untrustworthy ears/brains.


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> I disagree.... the use of the term "tiny" is almost purely dependent on context.... and is also quite subjective.
> 
> You were equating "tiny" with "unimportant". For example, I find the difference between an original Rembrandt and a good copy to be tiny; but I'm sure many art experts would find it huge. However, because I used to collect exotic mineral specimens, I find the difference in color between natural amethyst and heat-treated amethyst to be significant, while you may not notice it at all. My mother would have absolutely hated a $100k sports car - because it was noisy and so low you have to climb down into it. I would go as far as to say that, once you acknowledge that a difference exists, then whether it's "tiny" or "major", or even positive or negative, is often quite subjective. And, yes, I know people who would throw out their entire set of floor mats if they discovered that the stitching on one didn't match the rest... whereas I'm pretty sure I wouldn't notice at all.
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you posted.  Though, you appear to be talking about potentially different masters.  I fully understand that some HR formats can have superior mastering or even inferior mastering to some listeners.  I was talking about converting an HR file to a lower bit/sample rate.  And, yes, I am aware that conversions are not all equal, and there have been research papers that used an uncommon dither that were not ideal and differences were apparent and even audible.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> I agree that whether a 'small' difference matters is subjective and depends on the listener.



Does it matter for anyone if you can only discern it using test tones? I think there is such a thing as too small to matter. It might bother you subjectively if you know about it, but if in practice it can't be heard, I don't see how that could be a problem with anyone. And being told something is wrong might bother you subjectively even if there isn't anything wrong.

I've found that the quality of mastering on SACD varies as much as CDs. Actually, I've probably gotten more bad sounding HD music than I have Redbook. The drop dead worst recording I've ever heard is a highly regarded audiophile blu-ray audio disc.


----------



## KeithEmo

I sort of agree with your conclusion - but not with your reasoning.

I really have a problem with the concept of "external validity" - and, yes, I understand exactly what the term means.
As far as I'm concerned, there is only one reality, and so one validity.
I absolutely agree that a given test may simply fail to properly test what it was designed to test (giving a false negative or a false positive).
However, I have a strong aversion to terms like "external validity" - which suggest that there is some vague and abstract "separate world inside your head".

As far as I'm concerned, some stimulus may or may not cause a response that is measurable by certain methods.
A stimulus might also produce a result that is not consciously noticeable.
For example, you could have two samples that "sound identical", while one gives you a headache, but the other does not.
Or, you could have a sample, and listening to it under one condition makes you feel good, while listening to it under a difference condition may make you feel badly.
However, I would still consider them to both "have external validity".
(They produce a result which could be measured if you were looking in the right place.)

In other words, I firmly believe that,_ IF A PERCEIVED DIFFERENCE IS REAL THEN A WAY CAN BE DEVISED TO MEASURE IT_.
(I do not specifically believe that there is any objective fact which _CANNOT_ be measured using _some sort_ of blind protocol... )




Phronesis said:


> I agree that whether a 'small' difference matters is subjective and depends on the listener.
> 
> The problem we seem to run into here is that it's not easy to determine whether a perceived small difference is objectively real.  I'm increasingly moving towards the conclusion that blind testing has problems in ruling it in or out (because blind testing has questionable 'external validity'), a selected set of objective measurements may not give us the answer either, and there's the possibility of misperception.  In the end, we may just have to resort to trusting our somewhat untrustworthy ears/brains.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I sort of agree with your conclusion - but not with your reasoning.
> 
> I really have a problem with the concept of "external validity" - and, yes, I understand exactly what the term means.
> As far as I'm concerned, there is only one reality, and so one validity.
> ...



I agree with all of that, we're definitely of like mind on this. 

I was using 'external validity' as referring to how far experimental findings can be generalized beyond the experimental test conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_validity.  So, for example, if I have difficulty detecting a difference in the contrived circumstances of a blind test, I'm not sure that means that I wouldn't experience a meaningful difference during normal listening, at conscious and/or subconscious levels.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with you..... mostly..... but the principle falls short of the reality.
In the world we currently live in, I'm not sure I can conceive of a test tone which _COULD NEVER POSSIBLY OCCUR IN A PIECE OF MUSIC_.
Whatever tone or sound I generate, using whatever piece of test equipment or software, how can you know, with 100.0% certainty, that some modern composer won't sample it and use it in a song?

A very long time ago I thought MP3 was a pretty cool concept.
I found one encoder which I thought sounded just fine with a bunch of files.... 
But, then, I heard a funny noise on a particular song and... dang it... it wasn't there in the original. 
Obviously my encoder had failed.
To make a long story short, I never succeeded in finding an encoder that didn't _FAIL_ to encode at least one of the songs I tried perfectly.
Eventually, after several tries, I decided that none of them seemed able to encode_ EVERY_ file I wanted to listen to without audibly altering it.
And, rather than carefully comparing each and every file after encoding it, I decided it was simpler just not to bother.

I know that the original is the same as the original - and I can confirm that by using a checksum.
To be blunt, _ANYTHING ELSE_ is going to be a gamble, and just isn't worth it to me.

My guess is that the reason there is so much variability in SACD and HD mastering is a determination on the part of the producers to "make sure it sounds different".... to avoid the risk that some customer will complain that "it _DOESN'T_ sound any different".
They are altering the master to sound like what they imagine "their audiophile customers expect it to sound like".
And, yes, I agree that this is a problem.



bigshot said:


> Does it matter for anyone if you can only discern it using test tones? I think there is such a thing as too small to matter. It might bother you subjectively if you know about it, but if in practice it can't be heard, I don't see how that could be a problem with anyone. And being told something is wrong might bother you subjectively even if there isn't anything wrong.
> 
> I've found that the quality of mastering on SACD varies as much as CDs. Actually, I've probably gotten more bad sounding HD music than I have Redbook. The drop dead worst recording I've ever heard is a highly regarded audiophile blu-ray audio disc.


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> As far as I'm concerned, some stimulus may or may not cause a response that is measurable by certain methods.
> A stimulus might also produce a result that is not consciously noticeable.



Perception is not necessarily hearing. Hearing is not necessarily listening.

If you have the track that wouldn't compress without artifacting, let me know what it was. I bet you were using a very old codec. I'm sure that AAC can compress everything transparently. I've encoded thousands of CDs without a single problem track.


----------



## pinnahertz

Phronesis said:


> I agree that whether a 'small' difference matters is subjective and depends on the listener.
> 
> The problem we seem to run into here is that it's not easy to determine whether a perceived small difference is objectively real.  I'm increasingly moving towards the conclusion that blind testing has problems in ruling it in or out (because blind testing has questionable 'external validity'), a selected set of objective measurements may not give us the answer either, and there's the possibility of misperception.  In the end, we may just have to resort to trusting our somewhat untrustworthy ears/brains.


My experience is that a well controlled DBT with adequate sampling of trained and untrained testers making an adequate number of trials does indeed reveal what audible, but too often the analysis tries to reduce the results to a binary yes/no answer when there's so much more to be learned. Most also eliminate the "control" test where A,B, and X are identical. Pretty important. You'll actually get a slight skew in that data if you don't do enough trials.


----------



## Phronesis

pinnahertz said:


> My experience is that a well controlled DBT with adequate sampling of trained and untrained testers making an adequate number of trials does indeed reveal what audible, but too often the analysis tries to reduce the results to a binary yes/no answer when *there's so much more to be learned*. Most also eliminate the "control" test where A,B, and X are identical. Pretty important. You'll actually get a slight skew in that data if you don't do enough trials.



Very interesting, would love to read a full paper for a study which really mines the test data.


----------



## skwoodwiva

Phronesis said:


> Very interesting, would love to read a full paper for a study which really mines the test data.


May I praise  you for your defense  of our audiophile position in the "audiophile ...tick" thead? 
You dealt  so well with the @evils of "science"


----------



## pinnahertz (May 8, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Very interesting, would love to read a full paper for a study which really mines the test data.


Yeah, me too!  The thing is, a real scientific ABX test study is difficult, massive, and thus expensive.  You really have to decide what it is you're trying to learn, and then, it's very specific to what kinds of devices or mechanisms you're comparing.  A single study generates a lot of data which then needs to be compiled and analyzed.  It's not a point and click kind of thing.  And what you get is statistical data which you can chart against a couple of known variables in a test pertaining to two different DUTs.  While pretty revealing, it's also very tightly specific, and thus hard to make a "study" out of because of the specificity.  The tendency is to draw sweeping general conclusions, but that's actually not a valid thing to do.  For example, many of my tests were contracted and paid for by a client who needed to know about some very specific things which related to design work or legal case work.   Sometimes more than two DUTs were involved, which expands the test geometrically, yet remains very specific to those particular DUTs. 

I expect I'll get shot at for this, but I'll say it anyway: there's no such thing as a *simple* ABX test that proves that high-res digital formats provide clearly audible differences.  That's because each one of those types of tests end up comparing unique test conditions combined with changes in resolution.  It's a monster of a problem with no easy solution.

I think it's a darn shame that so much focus and contention is placed on something that remains in question while the obvious things that anyone can hear, like the difference between 2-channel stereo and multi-channel, remain, by comparison, unimportant.


----------



## pinnahertz

skwoodwiva said:


> May I praise  you for your defense  of our audiophile position in the "audiophile ...tick" thead?
> You dealt  so well with the @evils of "science"


How sad that's all you got out of all of this.


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 8, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> How sad that's all you got out of all of this.


Do you think because I read that thread last night, and a was promped to make this comment, I did not get more out of it? 
What a @igoted statement you make. 
I share what I please.  I am a man of few words, Sir.  Dyslexia I do have to some degree. 
Why are you behaving in such a


 
manor?


----------



## 71 dB

Phronesis said:


> I'll take that further and continue to argue, or at least speculate, that too much attention to _sound_ quality may take attention and enjoyment away from listening to _music_.  In other words, it may not just be diminishing returns, but rather a counterproductive effect past some point.  I'm not saying that crappy sound quality is good enough, just that 'great' rather than 'best possible' sound quality may be the optimum target (and is affordable for most people).  At least in principle, this is something which could be studied (look at the relationship between time and dollars invested in improving sound quality, and objective parameters to measure sound quality, vs enjoyment of music).



That's why I am happy with my 179,00 € Sennheiser HD 598 headphones. Better headphones exist. So what?
Hifi is a hobby itself. It's complicated...


----------



## pinnahertz

skwoodwiva said:


> Do you think because I read that thread last night, and a was promped to make this comment, I did not get more out of it?
> What a @igoted statement you make.


It wasn't intended to be bigoted, sorry if you took it that way.  I was genuinely sad at the limited and polarized take-away from the discussion.


----------



## skwoodwiva

pinnahertz said:


> It wasn't intended to be bigoted, sorry if you took it that way.  I was genuinely sad at the limited and polarized take-away from the discussion.



Good,  I was suprised, gladly I be wrong.


----------



## Phronesis

skwoodwiva said:


> May I praise  you for your defense  of our audiophile position in the "audiophile ...tick" thead?
> You dealt  so well with the @evils of "science"



Thanks, but nothing to praise really, I was thinking out loud and not trying to defend any particular view.  To the extent that I'm an an audiophile at all, I'm a reluctant one.



pinnahertz said:


> Yeah, me too!  The thing is, a real scientific ABX test study is difficult, massive, and thus expensive.  You really have to decide what it is you're trying to learn, and then, it's very specific to what kinds of devices or mechanisms you're comparing.  A single study generates a lot of data which then needs to be compiled and analyzed.  It's not a point and click kind of thing.  And what you get is statistical data which you can chart against a couple of known variables in a test pertaining to two different DUTs.  While pretty revealing, it's also very tightly specific, and thus hard to make a "study" out of because of the specificity.  The tendency is to draw sweeping general conclusions, but that's actually not a valid thing to do.  For example, many of my tests were contracted and paid for by a client who needed to know about some very specific things which related to design work or legal case work.   Sometimes more than two DUTs were involved, which expands the test geometrically, yet remains very specific to those particular DUTs.
> 
> I expect I'll get shot at for this, but I'll say it anyway: there's no such thing as a *simple* ABX test that proves that high-res digital formats provide clearly audible differences.  That's because each one of those types of tests end up comparing unique test conditions combined with changes in resolution.  It's a monster of a problem with no easy solution.
> 
> I think it's a darn shame that so much focus and contention is placed on something that remains in question while the obvious things that anyone can hear, like the difference between 2-channel stereo and multi-channel, remain, by comparison, unimportant.



To me, that makes total sense and summarizes the situation well.

Maybe there's something about the way the brain works which makes better sound quality alluring and creates a never-ending search for 'realism' in sound.  Right now, the birds are chirping outside my house, and there's an appeal to the sound - with or without the window open - which I think is due to its realism (because it's real!) which I would like my sound system to be able to simulate, but it always falls at least a little short.  Realism in producing higher frequencies could be part of that, but there's surely more to it than that.



71 dB said:


> That's why I am happy with my 179,00 € Sennheiser HD 598 headphones. Better headphones exist. So what?
> Hifi is a hobby itself. It's complicated...



FWIW, I've found higher-end headgear to be a worthwhile investment, and more so than higher-end DACs.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Does it matter for anyone if you can only discern it using test tones? I think there is such a thing as too small to matter. It might bother you subjectively *if you know about it*, but if in practice it can't be heard, I don't see how that could be a problem with anyone. And *being told something is wrong might bother you subjectively even if there isn't anything wrong*.



These are interesting points.  Depending on the circumstances, knowledge can both add and detract from our enjoyment of music, and likewise for ignorance (lack of knowledge).  Maybe we need some prudence and skill in our 'knowledge management' to enhance our enjoyment of music.


----------



## pinnahertz

Phronesis said:


> These are interesting points.  Depending on the circumstances, knowledge can both add and detract from our enjoyment of music, and likewise for ignorance (lack of knowledge).  _Maybe we need some prudence and skill in our 'knowledge management' to enhance our enjoyment of music._


Excellent idea.  Probably where most of the issues lie.


----------



## gregorio (May 9, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Maybe there's something about the way the brain works which makes better sound quality alluring and creates *a never-ending search for 'realism' in sound.* Right now, the birds are chirping outside my house, and there's an appeal to the sound - with or without the window open - which I think is due to its realism (because it's real!) which *I would like my sound system to be able to simulate, but it always falls at least a little short*. Realism in producing higher frequencies could be part of that, but there's surely more to it than that.



This crops up time and time again and is the root of so many audiophile evils. The problem is, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for your sound system, any sound system or even a hypothetically perfect sound system to be able to achieve "realism" because it is a reproduction system and even if it were able to reproduce absolutely perfectly, what it is reproducing is NOT "real" to start with!!

Let's take an extreme analogy to illustrate the point: A Picasso (cubist) painting is clearly nothing like reality, it's all about perception and triggering perception, not about actual reality. The same is ALWAYS true, to varying degrees, of ALL commercial audio; music, film, TV and radio. So, here's the question: What eye glasses can we invent/create, which will make our Picasso painting look like "reality"? The answer is of course, "none" and even if it were possible, we'd need a different pair of eye glasses for Van Gogh, Turner and each other artist! This analogy is extreme because with commercial audio we're not usually departing so hugely and obviously from reality. We're typically aiming for something which is somewhat believable as reality but *deliberately departs from reality* in order to manipulate audience perception/emotion (that's what makes it art in the first place)! Sometimes this deliberate departure from reality is pretty obvious and sometimes it's subliminal but it's ALWAYS there and therefore if you listen carefully and specifically, then you can hear it. This then is the audiophile problem; they do listen carefully, they do hear it BUT they think it's some fault/weakness with their reproduction system rather than something which is deliberately supposed to be there! In other words, audiophiles are in a "never-ending search" for a camera which will make a Turner or Picasso painting look like "reality" and when they can't find such a camera they come up with all sorts of nonsense theories to explain this apparent failure of the camera: Maybe if the camera were able to capture some ultra violet light frequencies, which we can't see, it still might affect us subconsciously and bring us closer to reality? Maybe if the camera had 500 megapixel resolution instead of just 50? Maybe if it had 100 times more dynamic range contrast than the eye can see we'd achieve that perfect simulation of reality? Maybe if the anti-aliasing were a billion times below visibility, instead of just 1,000 times? Maybe the science of how we see and of how cameras work is incomplete/missing something? And so on and so on!!

Time and again we come back to this apparently unquestioned fallacy: An audio reproduction system is designed to reproduce audio, it cannot reproduce a "reality" which (deliberately!) does not exist in what it is you're are trying to reproduce!

G


----------



## Phronesis (May 9, 2018)

gregorio said:


> This crops up time and time again and is the root of so many audiophile evils. The problem is, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for your sound system, any sound system or even a hypothetically perfect sound system to be able to achieve "realism" because it is a reproduction system and even if it were able to reproduce absolutely perfectly, what it is reproducing is NOT "real" to start with!!
> 
> Let's take an extreme analogy to illustrate the point: A Picasso (cubist) painting is clearly nothing like reality, it's all about perception and triggering perception, not about actual reality. The same is ALWAYS true, to varying degrees, of ALL commercial audio; music, film, TV and radio. So, here's the question: What eye glasses can we invent/create, which will make our Picasso painting look like "reality"? The answer is of course, "none" and even if it were possible, we'd need a different pair of eye glasses for Van Gogh, Turner and each other artist! This analogy is extreme because with commercial audio we're not usually departing so hugely and obviously from reality. We're typically aiming for something which is somewhat believable as reality but *deliberately departs from reality* in order to manipulate audience perception/emotion (that's what makes it art in the first place)! Sometimes this deliberate departure from reality is pretty obvious and sometimes it's subliminal but it's ALWAYS there and therefore if you listen carefully and specifically, then you can hear it. This then is the audiophile problem; they do listen carefully, they do hear it BUT they think it's some fault/weakness with their reproduction system rather than something which is deliberately supposed to be there! In other words, audiophiles are in a "never-ending search" for a camera which will make a Turner or Picasso painting look like "reality" and when they can't find such a camera they come up with all sorts of nonsense theories to explain this apparent failure of the camera: Maybe if the camera were able to capture some ultra violet light frequencies, which we can't see, it still might affect us subconsciously and bring us closer to reality? Maybe if the camera had 500 megapixel resolution instead of just 50? Maybe if it had 100 times more dynamic range contrast than the eye can see we'd achieve that perfect simulation of reality? Maybe if the anti-aliasing were a billion times below visibility, instead of just 1,000 times? Maybe the science of how we see and of how cameras work is incomplete/missing something? And so on and so on!!
> 
> ...



Yes, I understand and agree (we’ve already had this discussion).

I’m referring to a somewhat different distinction: does the sound seem to be coming from a sound system with transducers, or does it seem to be coming from ‘real’ things in the physical world like live voices and acoustic instruments?  In my experience, really good sound systems can sound close to ‘real’, but there’s usually something about their sound which reveals that it’s not ‘real’.  The example was given in a previous post of walking past a building with doors and windows closed and being able to tell whether the music coming from inside is live vs a sound system.  Somehow, most of us can quickly tell the difference, there are apparently some acoustic and maybe other sensory clues being presented to us which we can reliably perceive.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] Yes, I understand and agree (we’ve already had this discussion).
> [2] I’m referring to a somewhat different distinction: does the sound seem to be coming from a sound system with transducers, or does it seem to be coming from ‘real’ things in the physical world like live voices and acoustic instruments? In my experience, really good sound systems can sound close to ‘real’, but there’s usually something about their sound which reveals that it’s not ‘real’.
> [3] The example was given in a previous post of walking past a building with doors and windows closed and being able to tell whether the music coming from inside is live vs a sound system. Somehow, most of us can quickly tell the difference, there are apparently some acoustic and maybe other sensory clues being presented to us which we can reliably perceive.



1. Yes, we have already had this discussion but it obviously doesn't seem to be sinking in, which I why I apparently need to repeat it! So, here we go again ...

2. What different distinction, what "real things in the physical world", the real things in a Turner or Picasso painting? If you had a hypothetically perfect sound system, that "something about their sound which reveals that it's not real" would be accuracy/fidelity! What you would hear with this perfect sound system (and good listening ability) is the reality of the situation; that what you're trying to reproduce is actually an "unreality" to start with. It doesn't matter how good or accurate your camera, it's not going to make a Turner or Picasso look like reality, a good camera is actually going to reveal the "unreality"! Yes, you have a "real" orchestra and you have a "real" concert hall but you do not have 10-30 different ears spread over a 50ft or more area. Yes, the singer on your pop/rock song is a "real" singer (sort of!) but there's little/no "physical real world" recorded, whatever "real physical world" you think you're hearing is actually a flawed, completely artificially generated one!

3. Yes, but that's a different scenario. Yes, some of us can tell the difference and there are even some of us who can not only tell the difference but understand enough about how it's different that we can process music to fool a listener into believing it's either a recording or live music coming from inside a closed room. A film Re-Recording Mixer does this sort of thing all the time for a living! ... Someone comes up with an example and suggests something which makes logical sense because no one knows any better and before you know it, you've got mystical sensory clues and a nonsense audiophile myth! Does that someone not know any better themselves, or do they really know but want to sow the seed of some mystical sensory clues or properties, so they can imply their product addresses this myth?

G


----------



## Phronesis (May 9, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, we have already had this discussion but it obviously doesn't seem to be sinking in, which I why I apparently need to repeat it! So, here we go again ...
> 
> 2. What different distinction, what "real things in the physical world", the real things in a Turner or Picasso painting? If you had a hypothetically perfect sound system, that "something about their sound which reveals that it's not real" would be accuracy/fidelity! What you would hear with this perfect sound system (and good listening ability) is the reality of the situation; that what you're trying to reproduce is actually an "unreality" to start with. It doesn't matter how good or accurate your camera, it's not going to make a Turner or Picasso look like reality, a good camera is actually going to reveal the "unreality"! Yes, you have a "real" orchestra and you have a "real" concert hall but you do not have 10-30 different ears spread over a 50ft or more area. Yes, the singer on your pop/rock song is a "real" singer (sort of!) but there's little/no "physical real world" recorded, whatever "real physical world" you think you're hearing is actually a flawed, completely artificially generated one!
> 
> ...



I thought of another way to explain it.

With virtual reality (and for that matter, artforms like movies and novels), we can create alternate realities - and we know they're not the reality we normally inhabit - but they still vary in how 'real' they seem.  So there's a sense of reality which is different from correspondence to our actual reality.  It can be difficult to discern how this sense of reality is created, but with music, I think there are aspects of sound quality involved.  For example, when I compare my headphones across a wide variety of tracks, I find that some of them consistently create a greater sense of reality than others, and this is the case even with music which is created, recorded, and mixed in a way that one wouldn't think to compare the music with a live performance.

When audiophiles say 'that sounds real!', I think that what they often mean is this more general sense of realism, rather than correspondence to being at a live performance which never existed.  I suspect that a lot of people will know what I'm trying to get at here, even though I'm struggling to articulate it.

By the way, would you agree that this statement could be perceived as condescending and not in the spirit of respectful discussion?  I would like to think you didn't intend it that way.

"Yes, we have already had this discussion but it obviously doesn't seem to be sinking in, which I why I apparently need to repeat it! So, here we go again ..."​


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 9, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I thought of another way to explain it.
> 
> With virtual reality (and for that matter, artforms like movies and novels), we can create alternate realities - and we know they're not the reality we normally inhabit - but they still vary in how 'real' they seem.  So there's a sense of reality which is different from correspondence to our actual reality.  It can be difficult to discern how this sense of reality is created, but with music, I think there are aspects of sound quality involved.  For example, when I compare my headphones across a wide variety of tracks, I find that some of them consistently create a greater sense of reality than others, and this is the case even with music which is created, recorded, and mixed in a way that one wouldn't think to compare the music with a live performance.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Phronesis, you have  opened up the direction in a way I agree with.  What does it take to bring a level of enjoyment that satisfies oneself. 
For me it must be void if noticeable manipulation. This is/are many things.  The most glaring being multi miking / mixing.  When I hear Bach in a 2 miked recording its depth of imagery is far more realistic than a typical multi miked version.  Even the non stereo cut From  the same producer. 
It started with my own A/B' ing of different sourcre materal. Cd vs vinyl vs DSD etc.  As well as label vs label.  I could go on & on. 

Yes it IS a condesending stance in the last quote.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (May 9, 2018)

I think the reason you don't get "really real" recorded audio is mostly from acoustics.  It's analogous to the lighting in a movie.  The objects in the movie do not appear to be in your room (no matter how good the TV) because the lighting in your room and the lighting as it was on set don't match. The best you can hope for is for your TV to appear to be a clear window into another space with different lighting.  But with today's technology anyway, you can't make it look like Tom Cruise is physically in the room with you.

Same with recorded audio.  The audio has its own acoustics baked-in, and then that is further subjected to the acoustics in your room.  Regardless of how good your transducer is, recorded music will always have this "double-dose" of acoustic information, which nearly always prevents something from seeming like it's physically in the room with you.  

The quality of the audio (distortion, ultrasonics etc.) can't do much to overcome this barrier.  And while high frequencies do help encode spatial information, it will never be the "right" spatial information. 

On headphones you really only get a single "dose" of acoustics, but for a variety of reasons it also doesn't approximate a physical presence of the sound source.  But, the tech on that front is much closer to being able to simulate it.


----------



## Phronesis (May 9, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> I think the reason you don't get "really real" recorded audio is mostly from acoustics.  It's analogous to the lighting in a movie.  The objects in the movie do not appear to be in your room (no matter how good the TV) because the lighting in your room and the lighting as it was on set don't match. The best you can hope for is for your TV to appear to be a clear window into another space with different lighting.  But with today's technology anyway, you can't make it look like Tom Cruise is physically in the room with you.
> 
> Same with recorded audio.  The audio has its own acoustics baked-in, and then that is further subjected to the acoustics in your room.  Regardless of how good your transducer is, recorded music will always have this "double-dose" of acoustic information, which nearly always prevents something from seeming like it's physically in the room with you.
> 
> ...



I suspect that there's much truth to this.  Particularly with headgear, IEMs bypass the acoustic effects of the ear structure outside the ear canal, so there's a significant loss/distortion of sonic 'information' right there.  And even with an over-ear headphone, that portion of the ear isn't used the way it naturally is for spatial localization (I continue to suspect that perception of precise imaging from headgear is generated more by the mind than the gear).  I do find that I get more sense of realism with speakers, but as you note, room acoustics with speakers won't match 'real' sound sources, so there are significant distortions involved there too.

The unavoidability of these acoustic issues, which cause a departure from a sense of realism, is perhaps one of the stronger arguments for avoiding getting caught up in an endless quixotic search for relatively small sound improvements via source resolution, DACs, amps, cables, etc., even if there are real differences in those areas.  Maybe recognizing the _impossibility_ of a true sense of realism would motivate some people to focus their efforts and money on things which make a more significant difference.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with you.... and I do understand exactly what you mean.

We humans accumulate experience... and so we accumulate a huge and complex "internal list" of features, characteristics, and criteria we use to judge things. Over and over again I hear people talk about "how real a recording sounds" - when, obviously, they never attended the original concert, or, if it's a multi-track recording, there may never have been "a real original event" at all. When this happens, what's really happening is that _we are comparing the recording to what we know of the characteristics of real concerts we are familiar with, and noting the similarities and discrepancies between them_. In essence, and the reference to virtual reality is an excellent example, we listen to the recording, form a "thought model" in our head of what it would sound like _if it was a perfect recording of what we imagine the real concert sounded like_, and then compare what we have to our model - and look for how well they match. (And we then filter the discrepancies based on our own internal set of priorities.)

What makes it complicated is that each of us has our own list of criteria, and the priorities we assign to them... and the distinctions often involve an astonishing amount of detail. For example, one person might note that "vinyl is plenty quiet because I've never been in a concert hall where there wasn't a lot of background noise anyway", while another person might decide that they find the difference between the foot-shuffling at a concert and the hiss and crackle of vinyl surface noise to be jarring. A third person might be especially cognizant of where each musician is sitting, and notice that the sound stage in the recording is rendered incorrectly, but not notice the noise at all. And a fourth person may never be satisfied with a recording because she doesn't smell the smells that were present in the original concert hall.

To use the example of the Picasso..... When we look at a Picasso, we don't expect it to look like the person who posed for the painting, but we do have distinct expectations about how Picasso would paint that person. For example, if I were to show you a high-resolution photograph of a Picasso painting, you would probably notice immediately that it was a photo - because you expect to see brush strokes on a painting. And, if you were an art expert, you would probably notice the difference between the particular style of brush strokes used by Picasso, and the brush strokes used by a good forger. However, again, each of us has different priorities. One person might notice the brush strokes, another might notice that the colors were inaccurate, while a third might even suggest that "Picasso would never have painted that subject in that way".

In general, we humans are very sensitive to what we perceive as things that are out of place. You could look out at a mountain range through a picture window, and not notice that the glass is there, but put one squished bug on that window, and it is "suddenly glaringly obvious that there's glass there". And, since each of us has different priorities, and those priorities may even be different in different situations, the flaws that "kill the illusion" for each of us will be different as well. What people need to remember is that we humans are remarkably capable of picking out really tiny details if we're watching for them; and equally remarkably able to ignore huge discrepancies if we're _NOT_ looking for them, or have simply grown accustomed to them. 

We also have a tendency to incorporate expectations into the model. When you look at a picture hanging on the wall, you expect to see the picture, but, if you're like most of us, it's also part of your expectation that it will be protected by glass. So, for the most part, unless the situation is extreme, you don't "see" the occasional reflection from the glass, or the slight color tint imparted by it... your brain filters them out as "useless information". Likewise, in audio, we expect to hear some slight background hiss, but we may find another different sort of error somewhat jarring. This is why people who are used to vinyl don't seem to notice the hiss and clicks and pops, but seem to be so sensitive to certain digital artifacts, while those of us who are used to digital audio may be willing to overlook a few digital artifacts on occasion, but find continuous surface noise, and the occasional tick or pop, to be incredibly distracting... it's simply a matter of what you're used to and how it "sets the filters in your brain". You and I quite probably have very different priorities there.... and so do the engineers who master different albums.



Phronesis said:


> I thought of another way to explain it.
> 
> With virtual reality (and for that matter, artforms like movies and novels), we can create alternate realities - and we know they're not the reality we normally inhabit - but they still vary in how 'real' they seem.  So there's a sense of reality which is different from correspondence to our actual reality.  It can be difficult to discern how this sense of reality is created, but with music, I think there are aspects of sound quality involved.  For example, when I compare my headphones across a wide variety of tracks, I find that some of them consistently create a greater sense of reality than others, and this is the case even with music which is created, recorded, and mixed in a way that one wouldn't think to compare the music with a live performance.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Good point about room acoustics.....

When you play a recording of a concert:
- are you trying to make it sound like you're sitting in the concert hall?
- or are you trying to make it sound like the band is playing in your living room?

In reality, you're getting something in-between.....
Because you can't eliminate all acoustic contributions from your room and speakers.
And much of the ambience of the original venue is embedded into the recording.
(And, if it's a multi-track recording, there may actually be conflicting ambience recorded in the various tracks, or the "room ambience" you hear may be entirely artificial.)
Headphones bypass most of this... but not all.

It would seem that the most accurate rendition would be a binaural recording, recorded using some sort of system that added no HRTF (head transfer function), heard through IEMs, with your personal HRTF added back using some sort of processing. Of course, that would still only be an accurate reproduction of what you would have heard from that particular seat... and you'd better not move your head so much as an inch while you're listening to it.



Phronesis said:


> I suspect that there's much truth to this.  Particularly with headgear, IEMs bypass the acoustic effects of the ear structure outside the ear canal, so there's a significant loss/distortion of sonic 'information' right there.  And even with an over-ear headphone, that portion of the ear isn't used the way it naturally is for spatial localization (I continue to suspect that perception of precise imaging from headgear is generated more by the mind than the gear).  I do find that I get more sense of realism with speakers, but as you note, room acoustics with speakers won't match 'real' sound sources, so there are significant distortions involved there too.
> 
> The unavoidability of these acoustic issues, which cause a departure from a sense of realism, is perhaps one of the stronger arguments for avoiding getting caught up in an endless quixotic search for relatively small sound improvements via source resolution, DACs, amps, cables, etc., even if there are real differences in those areas.  Maybe recognizing the _impossibility_ of a true sense of realism would motivate some people to focus their efforts and money on things which make a more significant difference.


----------



## gregorio (May 9, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> ... [1] but they still vary in how 'real' they seem. [2] So there's a sense of reality which is different from correspondence to our actual reality. [2a] It can be difficult to discern how this sense of reality is created, but with music,
> [2b] I think there are aspects of sound quality involved. For example, when I compare my headphones across a wide variety of tracks, I find that some of them consistently create a greater sense of reality than others, and this is the case even with music which is created, recorded, and mixed in a way that one wouldn't think to compare the music with a live performance.
> [3] When audiophiles say 'that sounds real!', I think that what they often mean is this more general sense of realism, rather than correspondence to being at a live performance which never existed. I suspect that a lot of people will know what I'm trying to get at here, even though I'm struggling to articulate it.



1. Yes, but that is a function of how "real" we make them seem.
2. Yes, an illusion of whatever reality we are trying to create.
2a. Depending on the circumstances and what illusion we're trying to create it is usually relatively easy to discern that it is an illusion and have a pretty good idea of how it's been created. I'm obviously in a different situation to the vast majority because I've been creating these illusions professionally for several decades, I know what I'm listening for and I have a system which is far more accurate than the vast majority of audiophiles and probably all audiophiles.
2b. Certainly there are aspects of sound quality involved. You're essentially saying that some headphones make you fall for the illusion better than others. A lower fidelity reproduction system could do that, as it's inability to render the very fine details could hide the tell tail signs that it is an illusion. It's a bit like asking the question: What quality of TV, size and resolution will make a magician's magic trick look more like real magic?
3. I think I know what you are trying to get at but it's difficult for me to appreciate. I don't believe there are real magicians and real magic, I know all magicians are actually illusionists and all magic is an illusion, some illusionists are better than others and some illusions work better than others depending on both the individual circumstances and who's viewing them.



skwoodwiva said:


> [1] For me it must be void if noticeable manipulation.
> [2] The most glaring being multi miking / mixing. When I hear Bach in a 2 miked recording its depth of imagery is far more realistic than a typical multi miked version.



1. All music is a manipulation, so therefore it comes down to what you personally are able or care to notice.
2. There are many basic mic'ing schemes, all of them have both advantages and disadvantages, there is no one perfect mic scheme, just one which is better in a certain circumstances than another. Whether a stereo mic scheme is the best choice therefore depends on the exact circumstances. With some stereo mic schemes the coherence of the acoustic information is the advantage but particularly with larger ensembles (and even usually with just one or a few musicians), the disadvantage is clarity and balance. For virtually all listeners, clarity and balance are way more important than very small differences in the level of acoustic coherency. In fact I would say "all listeners" except for the fact there appears to be some audiophiles listening for these relatively tiny details while ignoring the much more obvious ones. For the best illusion of imagery with acoustic music, I personally find multi-mic'ed surround far superior to any stereo mic'ing scheme but that's just my personal preference.

G


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> Of course, that would still only be an accurate reproduction of what you would have heard from that particular seat... and you'd better not move your head so much as an inch while you're listening to it.



And, it would only sound the same as you would have heard in that particular seat if you had no other sensory input (eyes closed the WHOLE time for example) and you didn't know you were in a concert hall listening to a live orchestra!

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan (May 9, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Good point about room acoustics.....
> 
> 
> It would seem that the most accurate rendition would be a binaural recording, recorded using some sort of system that added no HRTF (head transfer function), heard through IEMs, with your personal HRTF added back using some sort of processing. Of course, that would still only be an accurate reproduction of what you would have heard from that particular seat... and you'd better not move your head so much as an inch while you're listening to it.



Yep.  Although Waves apparently has a plugin with motion tracking for your head to help with that also.  There is tech that can get you pretty close to a "you are there" experience but it seems fairly inconvenient.

I think acoustics are DRAMATICALLY underappreciated as a confounding factor in the audiophile world.

Take as an example of this, any "high end listening suite" section of an audio trade show (AXPONA, CES).  You invariably see many $100K+ turntable/speaker setups placed in $500 hotel rooms with no acoustic treatment at all.  (not everyone does this, but it's disturbingly common.) While you can tell they have good transducers and amps and whatever - the experience is always dominated by a woofy, boxy, crap-sounding room.  So you're mostly left to guess what the real potential of the system is.  Acoustics (even though most sound reaching your ear is reflected, not direct) are totally ignored by ostensibly expert purveyors of gear.

To me this is like serving a fine filet mignon, but seasoning it with expired mayonnaise.  You can certainly tell something is good in there, but there's a lot of crap surrounding it.


----------



## analogsurviver

Phronesis said:


> I suspect that there's much truth to this.  Particularly with headgear, IEMs bypass the acoustic effects of the ear structure outside the ear canal, so there's a significant loss/distortion of sonic 'information' right there.  And even with an over-ear headphone, that portion of the ear isn't used the way it naturally is for spatial localization (I continue to suspect that perception of precise imaging from headgear is generated more by the mind than the gear).  I do find that I get more sense of realism with speakers, but as you note, room acoustics with speakers won't match 'real' sound sources, so there are significant distortions involved there too.
> 
> The unavoidability of these acoustic issues, which cause a departure from a sense of realism, is perhaps one of the stronger arguments for avoiding getting caught up in an endless quixotic search for relatively small sound improvements via source resolution, DACs, amps, cables, etc., even if there are real differences in those areas.  Maybe recognizing the _impossibility_ of a true sense of realism would motivate some people to focus their efforts and money on things which make a more significant difference.


Well, I have been waiting for a similar post for a while. 

All the  *we just can't reproduce the reality because reality does not exist* narrative of Gregorio has - at best - a chance of a snowflake in Hell - if the recording is well done binaural and reproduced on the appropriate headgear. One without any pads, tips, cushions - whatever that obstructs and precludes the natural hearing by any modification of or insertion into the pinna and preventing the natural acoustic crossfeed between our two ears.

It is precisely for the reasons you stated that I have been interested in AKG-K1000 - have been familiar with it from its introduction and use a pair for over 10 years now. Naturally, I have been - and still am - interested in its successor - the MySphere : https://www.head-fi.org/threads/mys...gn-build-quality.819658/page-34#post-13763893 - posts # 504 and #549


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> All the *we just can't reproduce the reality because reality does not exist* narrative of Gregorio has - at best - a chance of a snowflake in Hell - if the recording is well done binaural and reproduced on the appropriate headgear.



That is NOT my narrative, it's a narrative you've invented and ascribed to me. What I've actually stated is the exact opposite!!

G


----------



## analogsurviver (May 9, 2018)

@ Gregorio : Oh - have you not stated that multimiking is the way to go, dismissing 2 channel whatever, including binaural,  as inadequate/amateurish, then stating than reality can not be attained because of multimiking, due to necessity to use 50 or so mics to capture all the balance , etc, stating that the majority people are not bothered by time distortion all this inherently and inevitably brings ? Now, please do not latch on each and every word I may well have put a bit wrong - but the general idea remains the above described.

Binaural done well does NOT fake reality AT THE LISTENING POSITION ( including, of course, acoustics of the venue ),  it does NOT introduce any time errors,  and CAN  be reproduced properly using appropriate gear. It will also show, mercilessly so, the advantages of HR. It is not yet totally perfect, but it is the closest approach to live sound yet.

I will disect the pros and cons of multimiking and binaural down to n-th degree once I find the time available.

But one thing is certain; multiminng is inherently something fabricated to begin with, with the innumerable of possibilities to artificially shape the sound, yielding something strongly affected by the taste and decision(s) of the sound engineer, ultimately yielding a result that is appreciably different from the sound impression any  listener, at  any position,  could obtain at the live performance. It can be described as an art form in itself - and is - but can not ever reflect reality, regardless from which real point that reality is observed.
Oh - have you not stated that multimiking is the way to go, dismissing 2 channel whatever, including binaural,  as inadequate/amateurish, then stating that the reality can not be attained because of multimiking, due to necessity to use 50 or so mics to capture all the balance , etc, claiming that the majority people are not bothered by time distortion all this inherently and inevitably brings ? Now, please do not latch on each and every word I may well have put a bit wrong - but the general idea remains to this effect described above.

Binaural done well does NOT fake reality AT THE LISTENING POSITION ( including, of course, acoustics of the venue ),  it does NOT introduce any time errors,  and CAN  be reproduced properly using appropriate gear. It will also show, mercilessly so, the advantages of HR. It is not yet totally perfect, but it is the closest approach to the live sound yet.

I will disect the pros and cons of multimiking and binaural down to n-th degree once I find the time available.

But one thing is certain; multimiking is inherently something fabricated to begin with, with the innumerable of possibilities to artificially shape the sound, producung  something strongly affected by the taste and decision(s) of the sound engineer, ultimately yielding a result that is appreciably different from the sound impression any  listener, at  any position,  could obtain at the live performance. It can be described as an art form in itself - and is - but can not ever reflect reality, regardless from which real point that reality is observed.


----------



## james444

analogsurviver said:


> Binaural done well does NOT fake reality AT THE LISTENING POSITION ( including, of course, acoustics of the venue )



As an IEM user, I'd agree that listening to a good binaural recording with close to neutral IEMs gives me the most compelling illusion of "being there".

Though I tend to think the "sense of realism" we experience is mostly due to pattern recognition, i.e. our brain matching what we hear to something we've experienced in the past (in a real setting). For me personally, if recording and reproduction chain deliver a close enough match, that "realistic" feeling might simply kick in, regardless of the miking.

Most recent example being King Crimson's "Radical Action." album. I've seen their live show and this recording from the same tour (pretty sure it's multi-miked) manages to transport me back to the concert hall every single time.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> It can be described as an art form in itself - and is - but can not ever reflect reality,



Exactly, that's the whole point! In the case of an acoustic music performance, the point is to reflect a perception of a reality, a perception which occurs at the live event but not sitting in your bedroom listening to your speakers or wearing your HPs. That's the big weakness of binaural, even if it were flawless (which it isn't), that all you could get is the reality of the sound waves entering the ears, not the perception of those sound waves which one would experience. Binaural recording is easy, no art involved, no consideration of perception and is therefore favoured by amateurs. Large ensemble professional recording moved away from stereo mic'ing starting the mid 1950's for this reason. That's not to say there aren't any potential professional applications for binaural, there may be circumstances where it is appropriate but it's not typically viable for commercial artistic releases, which is why there are hardly any of them!

G


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 9, 2018)

9





gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, but that is a function of how "real" we make them seem.
> 2. Yes, an illusion of whatever reality we are trying to create.
> 2a. Depending on the circumstances and what illusion we're trying to create it is usually relatively easy to discern that it is an illusion and have a pretty good idea of how it's been created. I'm obviously in a different situation to the vast majority because I've been creating these illusions professionally for several decades, I know what I'm listening for and I have a system which is far more accurate than the vast majority of audiophiles and probably all audiophiles.
> 2b. Certainly there are aspects of sound quality involved. You're essentially saying that some headphones make you fall for the illusion better than others. A lower fidelity reproduction system could do that, as it's inability to render the very fine details could hide the tell tail signs that it is an illusion. It's a bit like asking the question: What quality of TV, size and resolution will make a magician's magic trick look more like real magic?
> ...


While you add to my knowledge.  I know the reason for multi vs single : equal balance between insturments. 
I throw them out, they are so boring. .


----------



## gregorio

skwoodwiva said:


> I know the reason for multi vs single : equal balance between insturments.



No, it is not equal balance or rather it is partly equal balance and partly the opposite. In say a violin concerto you obviously don't want an equal balance, you mostly want the violin soloist to be louder/clearer. This is achieved partly by the composer's orchestration, partly by the conductor and partly by the audience's own perception because if you're looking and focusing on the soloist your brain will emphasise the soloist, make him/her appear louder, clearer and/or more present, while somewhat reduce the level/clarity of the accompanying orchestra. When reproducing a music recording you obviously cannot see the soloist, you obviously know the soloist is not actually there in your listening environment and the brain does not therefore perform it's role as it does in the live performance. So, the music producer will slightly alter the balance (and possibly clarity, presence) to perform the role that the brain would perform in the live situation, thereby hopefully re/creating the experience, rather than the actual sound waves. This can ONLY be achieved with multi-mic'ing, not with just a stereo pair, regardless of what type of stereo pair.

I'm just using a concerto as an obvious example but it applies to other classical forms too. In a symphony for example, we don't have a soloist, we effectively have a bunch of different soloists, at any one time there may not be any soloists but at another the soloist might be the violins and at another point it maybe the flutes, oboe, cellos or whatever and the music producer can dynamically change the level/clarity throughout the piece accordingly.

G


----------



## james444

gregorio said:


> ... if you're looking and focusing on the soloist your brain will emphasise the soloist, make him/her appear louder, clearer and/or more present, while somewhat reduce the level/clarity of the accompanying orchestra. When reproducing a music recording you obviously cannot see the soloist, you obviously know the soloist is not actually there in your listening environment and the brain does not therefore perform it's role as it does in the live performance.



Are you sure the visual stimulus is essential for the brain to focus on the soloist? Has there been any scientific work done on that?

From subjective experience, I'd think the visual stimulus rather just makes it easier to focus. But when consciously focussing on the soloist during headphone/IEM reproduction, I seem to be able to achieve the same effect without the visual stimulus (soloist slightly louder/clearer, orchestra relegated to the background).


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Exactly, that's the whole point! In the case of an acoustic music performance, the point is to reflect a perception of a reality, a perception which occurs at the live event but not sitting in your bedroom listening to your speakers or wearing your HPs. That's the big weakness of binaural, even if it were flawless (which it isn't), that all you could get is the reality of the sound waves entering the ears, not the perception of those sound waves which one would experience. Binaural recording is easy, no art involved, no consideration of perception and is therefore favoured by amateurs. Large ensemble professional recording moved away from stereo mic'ing starting the mid 1950's for this reason. That's not to say there aren't any potential professional applications for binaural, there may be circumstances where it is appropriate but it's not typically viable for commercial artistic releases, which is why there are hardly any of them!
> 
> G



Strangely negative attitude toward binaural recordings. Of course binaural recordings aren't flawless. Other kind of recordings aren't either. Recordings are almost always made for speakers, not for headphones. Since binaural recordings don't work well at all with speakers, it's no wonder there are hardly any released.

Binaural recording is too easy? Really? Then why is it so "flawed" if it's so easy? Isn't the end result more important than how it was achieved?


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> Strangely negative attitude toward binaural recordings. Of course binaural recordings aren't flawless. Other kind of recordings aren't either. Recordings are almost always made for speakers, not for headphones. Since binaural recordings don't work well at all with speakers, it's no wonder there are hardly any released.
> 
> Binaural recording is too easy? Really? Then why is it so "flawed" if it's so easy? Isn't the end result more important than how it was achieved?


I would say binaural isn't "too easy", but rather "too simple". It's not easy to do binaural well, but the process is very simple.  Binaural is extremely limited both in recording and playback, and that limits its application to a relatively small set of conditions, which in turn limits its marketability.  In fact, to make a recording universally marketable you'd need "dual inventory", a binaural version and a conventional version, and there have been a few like this. 

I hope we don't need to expand on the limitations of binaural here, but we can.


----------



## james444

Here's a pretty detailed article on the German history of binaural ("Kunstkopf") recordings and the challenges involved:
https://binauralrecording.wordpress...d-the-introduction-of-dummy-head-microphones/


----------



## Phronesis

I've been thinking about the role of memory in music perception, listening tests, etc.

We can't hear music without the time dimension, and we need memory to create a sense of continuity through time, otherwise we'd always be trapped in the present moment and musical experiences couldn't exist.

This seems to have serious implications for testing.  If we're comparing A and B, or judging whether X is A or B, at least one of the items being compared to is based entirely on memory, since we can't generally hear and compare two things simultaneously.  Comparing a memory of something with something we're currently hearing is a bit apples and oranges, and presents a reliability issue.  Moreover, since the thing being currently heard also involves memory, that's an added source of unreliability.

It seems important to devise listening tests which aren't as potentially impacted by these memory-related issues.


----------



## RRod

Binaural is perhaps easy because it's allowed to be wrong. The only head/torso it actually properly works for is the one used for recording. For any other physiology, it is by definition wrong. Even then, you have to filter out the effects of the headphones you are using. And even then, it can still not sound right, due to the missing visual cues.


----------



## analogsurviver

RRod said:


> Binaural is perhaps easy because it's allowed to be wrong. The only head/torso it actually properly works for is the one used for recording. For any other physiology, it is by definition wrong. Even then, you have to filter out the effects of the headphones you are using. And even then, it can still not sound right, due to the missing visual cues.


In theory, you are right regarding the physiology. And, yes , it ONLY works correctly with the earspeakers a la AKG-K-1000; other, more common types of headphones require yet additional processing, with IEMs requiring the most powerful processing - and any processing will be an approximation, degrading the reproduction even further. .

In practice, it is my experience that the most "neutral" dummy head - with the most "neutral" pinna - yields the best "acceptance" from larger group of listeners. Although not exactly the same if the same event was recorded by the very listener's head and torso using headworn binaural mics, it still manages to - EVERY  single time - elicit from the listener  who hears binaural reproduced by K-1000 for the first time, comments to this effect : 

".....woOOOWW  ..... ! ...that... feels like being THERE !!!

No other recording technique can claim such realism and fidelity to live sound using headphones - for loudspeakers, surround 5.1 comes close, but the ultimate for speakers would probably be the Ambiosonics, which can also reproduce the height correctly. Compared to these three recording techniques, any multimiking is so fake that can not be even mentioned in a single sentence with the former three.

I have found a really well done recording using the combination of both multimiking ( necessary because of the electric instruments ) and artificial head; together, this approach works welll, both on headphones and speakers :


----------



## KeithEmo

To me the philosophical difference is obvious... and, once you think of it that way, then the rest of the question falls into place.

Producing a compelling illusion of reality is complicated... and involves a lot of factors.
When you make a binaural recording, or a simple stereo recording, you are attempting to replicate a very specific reality.
In a multi-track recording, you are building a reality rather than simply recording one.
In simple terms, when you make a multi-track recording, you are not actually "recording a reality".
Rather, you are producing a bunch of building blocks which can then be used to "create" a reality.

Creating your own reality obviously gives you a lot more flexibility to create just the reality you want.
However, the drawback is that it also requires more effort to create a reality instead of simply recording one, and there is a lot more opportunity to mess it up.

This divergence is so complete that, if your goal is simply to reproduce a reality that already exists, it's much easier, and you'll probably get a better result, if you simply reproduce it.
(But most people these days are NOT satisfied to simply reproduce an existing reality.)



gregorio said:


> Exactly, that's the whole point! In the case of an acoustic music performance, the point is to reflect a perception of a reality, a perception which occurs at the live event but not sitting in your bedroom listening to your speakers or wearing your HPs. That's the big weakness of binaural, even if it were flawless (which it isn't), that all you could get is the reality of the sound waves entering the ears, not the perception of those sound waves which one would experience. Binaural recording is easy, no art involved, no consideration of perception and is therefore favoured by amateurs. Large ensemble professional recording moved away from stereo mic'ing starting the mid 1950's for this reason. That's not to say there aren't any potential professional applications for binaural, there may be circumstances where it is appropriate but it's not typically viable for commercial artistic releases, which is why there are hardly any of them!
> 
> G


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't follow binaural technology all that closely.... 

But, from what I've heard, there is a more or less well known way to go past "a standardized neutral head simulation".
It seems you can actually determine the HRTF (head related transfer function) for an individual.
You can then make the recording with a relatively neutral, and known, HRTF.... 
You can then apply a correction to remove the difference between "the generic base HRTF" and that of the individual listener.
(It's sort of like taking a picture with a calibrated camera, and then adding a color profile to it in Photoshop to match it to something else.)

Of course, this involves "having your individual HRTF professionally measured", and some sort of playback device designed to calculate the corrections.
(You could think of it as "making a generic binaural recording, then playing it back through a device that is calibrated with the correction factors for your personal head".)

For those interested, there is also a device called "The Smyth Realiser".....
It's sort of a virtual reality device for sound.
It includes a processor, as well as a tracking device that attaches to your headphones, and tracks your head movements, adjusting the sound in the headphones accordingly.
It essentially profiles your room, and your speakers, and you can then walk around the room wearing headphones, and it will provide "a VR experience of listening to speakers".
I believe they include simulation profiles for certain specific speaker models.... so, for example, you can "experience owning a set of Model X speakers" via your headphones.

I've never personally heard one, but one person who heard it at a show told me that it works pretty well.



analogsurviver said:


> In theory, you are right regarding the physiology. And, yes , it ONLY works correctly with the earspeakers a la AKG-K-1000; other, more common types of headphones require yet additional processing, with IEMs requiring the most powerful processing - and any processing will be an approximation, degrading the reproduction even further. .
> 
> In practice, it is my experience that the most "neutral" dummy head - with the most "neutral" pinna - yields the best "acceptance" from larger group of listeners. Although not exactly the same if the same event was recorded by the very listener's head and torso using headworn binaural mics, it still manages to - EVERY  single time - elicit from the listener  who hears binaural reproduced by K-1000 for the first time, comments to this effect :
> 
> ...


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> In theory, you are right regarding the physiology. And, yes , it ONLY works correctly with the earspeakers a la AKG-K-1000; other, more common types of headphones require yet additional processing, with IEMs requiring the most powerful processing - and any processing will be an approximation, degrading the reproduction even further. .
> 
> In practice, it is my experience that the most "neutral" dummy head - with the most "neutral" pinna - yields the best "acceptance" from larger group of listeners. Although not exactly the same if the same event was recorded by the very listener's head and torso using headworn binaural mics, it still manages to - EVERY  single time - elicit from the listener  who hears binaural reproduced by K-1000 for the first time, comments to this effect :
> 
> ...




I dislike how everything is a ridiculous absolute with you. It "needs" to be this, or it can "only" be that. It's just silly and complete bull. You need a K1000 to enjoy binaural recordings? bull.


----------



## bigshot

colonelkernel8 said:


> I dislike how everything is a ridiculous absolute with you.



It's a trend around here!


----------



## castleofargh

technically there is a contradiction born from using binaural tracks in a speaker like(k-1000) configuration with fairly significant levels of left channel bleeding into the right channel and vice versa. a binaural recording is already supposed to pick all the sounds the left ear would get at the recording position(minus differences between dummy head and the listener's respective HRTFs). so that to me is a dysfunctional way to use binaural instead of some sort of only way that is right like @analogsurviver seems to state.  



Phronesis said:


> I've been thinking about the role of memory in music perception, listening tests, etc.
> 
> We can't hear music without the time dimension, and we need memory to create a sense of continuity through time, otherwise we'd always be trapped in the present moment and musical experiences couldn't exist.
> 
> ...


 of course blind test standards try to be optimized for those stuff (you might want to look up echoic memory and the research on it). most of the boring stuff we repeat all year long about how to set up a listening test weren't randomly added so that we can look smart saying them and annoy the hell out of audiophiles. ^_^ 
unless you know exactly what you're looking for and there is a clear reason to have long samples or pauses between the samples, short samples and as instantaneous switching(the switching itself needs to be as noise free as possible too) have consistently given more reliable results than other forms of listening tests. and of course way more consistent results than any sighted tests(having to still say that captain obvious information in an audio forum is what's wrong with listening tests).

and if some noname dude on the web saying that some testing protocol matters isn't convincing, there is always the standard mentioned not long ago https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf  with some good suggestions.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> of course blind test standards try to be optimized for those stuff (you might want to look up echoic memory and the research on it). most of the boring stuff we repeat all year long about how to set up a listening test weren't randomly added so that we can look smart saying them and annoy the hell out of audiophiles. ^_^
> unless you know exactly what you're looking for and there is a clear reason to have long samples or pauses between the samples, short samples and as instantaneous switching(the switching itself needs to be as noise free as possible too) have consistently given more reliable results than other forms of listening tests. and of course way more consistent results than any sighted tests(having to still say that captain obvious information in an audio forum is what's wrong with listening tests).
> 
> and if some noname dude on the web saying that some testing protocol matters isn't convincing, there is always the standard mentioned not long ago https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf  with some good suggestions.



Understood on echoic memory.  But it doesn't really change the issue, which is that echoic memory may not be good enough to reliably distinguish a subtle (or even not subtle) audible difference between A and B which would affect perception.  From the Wikipedia article on echoic memory:

"This echoic sound resonates in the mind and is replayed for this brief amount of time shortly after the presentation of auditory stimuli. Echoic memory encrypts only moderately primitive aspects of the stimuli, for example pitch, which specifies localization to the non-association brain regions."​I'm not suggesting that this type of testing shouldn't be done, just that its considerable limitations need to be recognized.  Something like fMRI while someone is listening to A and B would bypass the memory issue, but presents its own issues related to correlating imaging with subjective music perception.


----------



## bigshot

Subtle differences are easy for the brain to acclimate to. If you have a gentle EQ difference between two samples and compare them using long term listening, they will both sound correct because your brain will correct for the imbalance. However a subtle EQ difference is very likely to show up in direct A/B switching, because you have a clear reference to compare. However it's probably also true that if a difference is that subtle, odds are that it doesn't matter for the purposes of listening to music in the home. By the time you get to the point where the difference is very small, you've already passed the point where it's important.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Understood on echoic memory.  But it doesn't really change the issue, which is that echoic memory may not be good enough to reliably distinguish a subtle (or even not subtle) audible difference between A and B which would affect perception.  From the Wikipedia article on echoic memory:
> 
> "This echoic sound resonates in the mind and is replayed for this brief amount of time shortly after the presentation of auditory stimuli. Echoic memory encrypts only moderately primitive aspects of the stimuli, for example pitch, which specifies localization to the non-association brain regions."​I'm not suggesting that this type of testing shouldn't be done, just that its considerable limitations need to be recognized.  Something like fMRI while someone is listening to A and B would bypass the memory issue, but presents its own issues related to correlating imaging with subjective music perception.



thing is, in that model of human memory, the other steps are significantly less reliable, and still seem to rely on the data from the echoic phase anyway(as far as we know). and in practice if you know the variable you're testing, you can just try a bunch of methods and see how well short samples and rapid switching works. the answer is usually: pretty good. 

MRI tech is absolutely amazing, but yes it comes with it's own issues, a bunch of them in fact. my favorite question is about what information the brain discards. everything seems to align with the idea that we simply get too much information at all time and that we'd go mad if we couldn't filter out most of it. some mental conditions like some forms of autism seem to be in part related to that, and lead to the person being unable not to take everything head on. making it a nightmare to try and focus or simply to have the peace of mind to think while anything is going on outside. 
so if we do perceive a change that registers as a change in the electrical signal sent to brain(meaning that the magnitude of change, despite being small, was big enough to trigger a different electrical signal going to the brain), are we able to tell if something is registered and dismissed, or if it's taken into account to form an impression? we already know that humans senses respond in a kind of logarithmic way(more or less) to the strength of a stimulus. big stimulus and big change will trigger big reactions, small stimulus or small changes will trigger small reaction. the ear breaks this model a little if only with the stapedius reflex, but the general idea still holds. small stuff are small.
but then sometimes, something pretty loud in amplitude is still lost to us, for purely physical reasons(masking). but also for the part I'm really curious about, when we do register something, but the brain decides to get rid of it before giving us conscious feedback(as part of avoiding overflow or whatever). or when we do register something but rule it out after a while to help focus on what the brain decides is more relevant. like how we can pretty much remove room echo from our perception after a while in the room, but we'd still use those cues in the dark to know we're getting closer to the wall while talking or hearing other sounds. I wonder if we can tell them apart on a FMRI aside from asking the person what he notices and trying to make a map based on listening test anyway? 
the very idea of something making a difference is pretty tricky. intuitively I'd assume that anything extra is a nuisance that will limit our perception of what we're focused on. but many test signals differences can't simply be classified as "extra" sound. I sure would love to know more about all that. 
until then I personally stick mostly to "small stimulus is small". so far this didn't let me down.


----------



## KeithEmo (May 10, 2018)

There are MANY complexities involved when it comes to humans.

I read a recent article in Stereophile (I won't mention the author) - where the author was noting that he heard a difference between certain power cords.
He had upgraded his power cord, then listened to a re-master of an album he was familiar with... and found that the re-master sounded far better.
Then he went back and listened to the original version of the recording, using the new power cord, and "was surprised to note that even the original version sounded better with the new power cord".
He took this as proof that the power cord was actually improving the sound of his system....
I personally suspect that, _AFTER LISTENING TO THE NEW REMASTER, WHICH MADE CERTAIN DETAILS EASIER TO RECOGNIZE_, he was able to discern more detail in the original recording (because now he knew it was there).
(So the old version really sounded better to him after hearing the remaster... because his brain integrated new details he heard in the new re-master into the listening experience.)

However, this emphasizes the "catch" with testing using metrics like an MRI.....
If you were to listen to multiple runs using different music samples, of course they aren't the same, so you would expect different results.
However, if you use the same exact content for multiple runs, the situation is STILL not the same.... because, each time you hear it, you note more details... which then alter your experience the next time you listen to that piece of music.
Many people note that, each time you listen to a piece of music, it "seems to get better" because you recognize more details, which then enhances your experience the next time you listen to it.
(Or, sometimes the opposite occurs, and you start to notice more and more flaws, or it starts to become boring.)

However, most of us have also noticed how drastically what you seem to hear is affected by things like your mood, how tired you are, and how relaxed you are... and most of those factors are very difficult to control for.
(For example, you really might get very different results depending on what's outside the window of your test lab, or what season it is, or how brightly lit the lab is, or what color of lights it uses, or what time of day you run the test.)



castleofargh said:


> thing is, in that model of human memory, the other steps are significantly less reliable, and still seem to rely on the data from the echoic phase anyway(as far as we know). and in practice if you know the variable you're testing, you can just try a bunch of methods and see how well short samples and rapid switching works. the answer is usually: pretty good.
> 
> MRI tech is absolutely amazing, but yes it comes with it's own issues, a bunch of them in fact. my favorite question is about what information the brain discards. everything seems to align with the idea that we simply get too much information at all time and that we'd go mad if we couldn't filter out most of it. some mental conditions like some forms of autism seem to be in part related to that, and lead to the person being unable not to take everything head on. making it a nightmare to try and focus or simply to have the peace of mind to think while anything is going on outside.
> so if we do perceive a change that registers as a change in the electrical signal sent to brain(meaning that the magnitude of change, despite being small, was big enough to trigger a different electrical signal going to the brain), are we able to tell if something is registered and dismissed, or if it's taken into account to form an impression? we already know that humans senses respond in a kind of logarithmic way(more or less) to the strength of a stimulus. big stimulus and big change will trigger big reactions, small stimulus or small changes will trigger small reaction. the ear breaks this model a little if only with the stapedius reflex, but the general idea still holds. small stuff are small.
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> thing is, in that model of human memory, the other steps are significantly less reliable, and still seem to rely on the data from the echoic phase anyway(as far as we know). and in practice if you know the variable you're testing, you can just try a bunch of methods and see how well short samples and rapid switching works. the answer is usually: pretty good.
> 
> MRI tech is absolutely amazing, but yes it comes with it's own issues, a bunch of them in fact. my favorite question is about what information the brain discards. everything seems to align with the idea that we simply get too much information at all time and that we'd go mad if we couldn't filter out most of it. some mental conditions like some forms of autism seem to be in part related to that, and lead to the person being unable not to take everything head on. making it a nightmare to try and focus or simply to have the peace of mind to think while anything is going on outside.
> so if we do perceive a change that registers as a change in the electrical signal sent to brain(meaning that the magnitude of change, despite being small, was big enough to trigger a different electrical signal going to the brain), are we able to tell if something is registered and dismissed, or if it's taken into account to form an impression? we already know that humans senses respond in a kind of logarithmic way(more or less) to the strength of a stimulus. big stimulus and big change will trigger big reactions, small stimulus or small changes will trigger small reaction. the ear breaks this model a little if only with the stapedius reflex, but the general idea still holds. small stuff are small.
> ...



Lots of good points.  The general conclusion I come to is that the brain is a highly complex and variable 'measuring instrument', which greatly complicates issues of designing and interpreting tests, relying on our perceptions, etc.  I 'trust my ears' to only a limited degree, but I trust the tests which have been done so far also to only a limited degree.  Theory can help answer some questions, but theory also has limitations and practice is often messier than theory.


----------



## RRod (May 10, 2018)

When I'm 'actually there', the sound changes when my head moves. No question there are good binaural recordings, but I've personally heard great recordings from all kinds of configurations. I also sometimes WANT to use speakers, because frankly having sh** on/in your ears for hours sucks.


----------



## Phronesis (May 10, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> However, this emphasizes the "catch" with testing using metrics like an MRI.....
> If you were to listen to multiple runs using different music samples, of course they aren't the same, so you would expect different results.
> However, if you use the same exact content for multiple runs, the situation is STILL not the same.... because, each time you hear it, you note more details... which then alter your experience the next time you listen to that piece of music.
> Many people note that, each time you listen to a piece of music, it "seems to get better" because you recognize more details, which then enhances your experience the next time you listen to it.
> (Or, sometimes the opposite occurs, and you start to notice more and more flaws, or it starts to become boring.)



Yup, I was thinking the same thing when I gave the fMRI example.  As with the effect of memory, the time dimension complicates things because perception is affected by what came before, and also by expectations about what's anticipated to happen.  Sort of related: http://mp.ucpress.edu/content/35/1/94


----------



## Phronesis

james444 said:


> Are you sure the visual stimulus is essential for the brain to focus on the soloist? Has there been any scientific work done on that?
> 
> From subjective experience, I'd think the visual stimulus rather just makes it easier to focus. But when consciously focussing on the soloist during headphone/IEM reproduction, I seem to be able to achieve the same effect without the visual stimulus (soloist slightly louder/clearer, orchestra relegated to the background).





RRod said:


> Binaural is perhaps easy because it's allowed to be wrong. The only head/torso it actually properly works for is the one used for recording. For any other physiology, it is by definition wrong. Even then, you have to filter out the effects of the headphones you are using. And even then, it can still not sound right, due to the missing visual cues.



http://mp.ucpress.edu/content/33/4/457


----------



## analogsurviver (May 10, 2018)

colonelkernel8 said:


> I dislike how everything is a ridiculous absolute with you. It "needs" to be this, or it can "only" be that. It's just silly and complete bull****. You need a K1000 to enjoy binaural recordings? Bull****.


Well, if you had any experience with binaural - and with either Jecklin Float ( electrostatic, less dynamic models ), MB Quart electrostatics ( Jecklikn "clone", just a tad more "closed" design ), K-1000 , Sony PV-R ( may have gotten the model wrong, in essence Sony's attempt at K-1000 theme for  a lot less, but still not little money ) - you would have not had any other chance but to agree . And K-1000 , in the group mentioned, with binaural recording IS the king of the hill. Its successor, MySphere 3.1 and 3.2, should be considerable improvement ( I have not heard the production models yet ).

Stax have made a very good attempt with Lambda Pro and ED-1 Monitor diffuse field equalizer ( tailor made for Lambda Pro , developed in Germany, the home of the Kunstkopf ) - but, it is a notch below the above group with binaural. I had a chance to try Omega I with binaural - unfortunately, completely useless when compared to Lambda Pro, let alone the group mentioned above. It really offers so poor binaural playback to make anyone who ever listened to binaural on Omega only that binaural itself is a complete BS.

Whether the above is BS or not, you will have to decide for yourself. I could not have described better WHY is the K-1000 (and basically same/similar designs ) superior with binaural.

AFTER experiencing any of the above for yourself -  NOT trough assumptions of whatever nature.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I don't follow binaural technology all that closely....
> 
> But, from what I've heard, there is a more or less well known way to go past "a standardized neutral head simulation".
> It seems you can actually determine the HRTF (head related transfer function) for an individual.
> ...



You are right - it could and should have been done that way. Recording with "neutral" dummy head and then correcting individual HRTF for each listener's head.

I remember when AKG K-1000 and its accompanying processor/amplifier came out ( at first, ONLY offered as a set - those K-1000s have no serial number but "assume" the serial number of the BAP-1000 ) - it was expensive, very expensive - and way above what I could afford. The individual HRTF measurement also cost considerable money - in today's money, between 100 and 200 $ IIRC. Offered at only few specialized centres.

Smith Realiser is, in a way, succesor to the original BAP-1000, offering much more possibilities, made possible by 30+ years of time during which DSP progressed immensely.

But, try it as it might, it is unlikely to be capable of correcting for distortion of our hearing due to pads, tips etc modifying our natural hearing and preventing natural crosstalk between our two ears as well as a design like K-1000 does automatically - in a totally natural way, for every listener. Even such open "headphones" have to take into account the correction for individual HRTF - if the full benefit of binaural recording is to be realized in practice.


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> technically there is a contradiction born from using binaural tracks in a speaker like(k-1000) configuration with fairly significant levels of left channel bleeding into the right channel and vice versa. a binaural recording is already supposed to pick all the sounds the left ear would get at the recording position(minus differences between dummy head and the listener's respective HRTFs). so that to me is a dysfunctional way to use binaural instead of some sort of only way that is right like @analogsurviver seems to state.



+1



Phronesis said:


> http://mp.ucpress.edu/content/33/4/457



Thanks! The abstract looked interesting, but reading through the full paper, it doesn't seem to apply to our topic.

https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/50004/457.full.pdf?sequence=3


----------



## analogsurviver

RRod said:


> When I'm 'actually there', the sound changes when my head moves. No question there are good binaural recordings, but I've personally heard great recordings from all kinds of configurations. I also sometimes WANT to use speakers, because frankly having sh** on/in your ears for hours sucks.



I agree that when one is actually "there", the sound changes when one moves the head. I agree with your remark that having sh** on/in your ears for hours sucks.

Now, please go and look at the new MySphere design - NOTHING is either not only on and in, but also not around your ear. And that "girlie" headband actually does distribute the pressure due to weight very evenly across the entire skull - allowing not only listening sessions, but WORK ( mixing, editing ) for hours at a time - without usual headphone fatigue. Please note I DO NOT want tp "push" the Mysphere in any way ( I did note in MySphere "review" that K-1000 sucks in comfort department, and sucks BIG TIME )  -  and that one is still tied to a cable ( ok, some kind of bluetooth with higher SQ might become available in the future, but one equalling normal amp and cable while not increasing weight of the headphones too much = Mission Impossible ).

But, it is the best that can be - comfort wise - reasonably achieved with headphones. Beyond that are louspeakers - IF and when one has large enough listening room to make the required investment justifiable.


----------



## castleofargh

james444 said:


> +1
> 
> 
> 
> ...


there has been controversies for years about piano competitions and the impact of the judges looking at the participants. of course anytime someone wins while many people preferred someone else as a musician, that controversy is brought back to life as the cause for the "erroneous" ranking.
I'd imagine this is also true for other instruments and they must all have some moments when they need to ponder if they should judge the all live performance or only sound. at least there is one competition that figured it all out:


----------



## skwoodwiva

bigshot said:


> It's a trend around here!


"
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Joined: Nov 16, 2004
Location: Hollywood USA
Posts: 17,524
Likes: 1,837
colonelkernel8 said: ↑
I dislike how everything is a ridiculous absolute with you.
It's a trend around here!
"
Just leave it be! 

Why you all must behave like 7 th graders ? SMH. ..


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> In fact, to make a recording universally marketable you'd need "dual inventory", a binaural version and a conventional version, and there have been a few like this.



One of my only binaural recordings is Zenph Re-Performance of Glenn Gould playing Bach's Goldberg Variations, 1955 performance (SACD). That release is what you suggest. Tracks 1-32 are for speakers (SACD layer multichannel) and 33-64 for headphones. Very smart disc. With this music (solo piano) I can't hear limitations. Sounds great with headphones without crossfeed. No excessive ILD or ITD to whine about. All good! 





pinnahertz said:


> I hope we don't need to expand on the limitations of binaural here, but we can.



Those limitations probably concern more sound engineers (who want to "play with the mics") than typical music listeners (who don't even know how music is produced - and don't care). It's not as if mankind suffered badly from the technical limitations of binaural. On the contrary, the real limitation of binaural is how rare binaural releases are.


----------



## 71 dB

skwoodwiva said:


> Why you all must behave like 7 th graders ? SMH. ..



Maybe because the internet is a perfect place to behave like 7th graders?


----------



## gregorio (May 11, 2018)

james444 said:


> [1] Are you sure the visual stimulus is essential for the brain to focus on the soloist?
> [2] From subjective experience, I'd think the visual stimulus rather just makes it easier to focus. But when consciously focussing on the soloist during headphone/IEM reproduction, I seem to be able to achieve the same effect without the visual stimulus (soloist slightly louder/clearer, orchestra relegated to the background).
> [3] Has there been any scientific work done on that?



1. No, using the word "focus" was an over simplification of the complex blend of elements which are combined in the brain to produce the perception we call "hearing". "Focus" is one of those elements, the actual sound waves themselves of course is another and so are various cognitive biases. On top of this, there's also another layer of brain processing which combines the perception of all the other senses, plus more cognitive biases, to create the overall perception which we call "an experience" .

2. We can of course consciously focus our hearing on what we're listening to (without the need or involvement of visual stimulus) and the brain will also increase the clarity of what we're focusing on and reduce everything else. But, there's two points here: Firstly we have to consciously focus, whereas sight can cause this "focus" subconsciously and secondly, as I've just mentioned, focus is just one of the elements of the experience, albeit an important one, so although you can consciously focus your hearing, that's still not necessarily the same experience as what you'd perceive at the live event. Adding sight to the equation not only modifies our perception of what we hear but can completely override what we hear (change it into something completely different) and the reverse is also true; what we hear can affect/alter what we see.

3. Yes, a great deal of research has been done on various aspects of the above, also on how those aspects combine and what the process of perception actually is. I personally don't have the time or resources to follow it, just the odd bit now and again. I'm essentially a layman as far as this latest scientific research is concerned and not even a well informed layman! My expertise is in the practical application of the vagaries of perception/experience, rather than in the scientific understanding of exactly how and where in the brain all this complex processing is accomplished. For example, film makers have known since the beginning of the 1930's that sound affects what we see (how we interpret what we see) and employing this fact has been a standard part of film making ever since. That sight can completely change/override what we hear is perfectly demonstrated by the McGurk Effect for example.



71 dB said:


> Strangely negative attitude toward binaural recordings. Of course binaural recordings aren't flawless.



Yes, I do have a slightly negative attitude towards binaural recordings. It's technical flaws are part of it but not the only part. My main objection is that it's a technique RESTRICTED to documenting the sound waves, of an individual acoustic event, which would enter the ears. It therefore effectively eliminates all popular music genres of the last 50 years or so and it also eliminates all the artistic development/evolution of music production across all music genres. We're not creating a sonic documentary, we're creating art! And, we're doing this even with individual acoustic events because a sonic documentary does not replicate the experience/perception of the live event anyway.

G


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> One of my only binaural recordings is Zenph Re-Performance of Glenn Gould playing Bach's Goldberg Variations, 1955 performance (SACD). That release is what you suggest. Tracks 1-32 are for speakers (SACD layer multichannel) and 33-64 for headphones. Very smart disc. With this music (solo piano) I can't hear limitations. Sounds great with headphones without crossfeed. No excessive ILD or ITD to whine about. All good!


Well sure.  It's binaural!  All that whiney ILD/ITD stuff is already done.  But binaural fails on speakers.



71 dB said:


> Those limitations probably concern more sound engineers (who want to "play with the mics") than typical music listeners (who don't even know how music is produced - and don't care). It's not as if mankind suffered badly from the technical limitations of binaural. On the contrary, the real limitation of binaural is how rare binaural releases are.


Yeah, that's what we do: "play with the mics".  Oh brother.

Here's the problem: Good binaural depends on several things like positioning the recording head in a good room, right distance from all performers, and right height.  That position is usually not even an audience seat because they are all compromised in some way.  Then, for binaural to work really well broad spectrum, the recording head and it's HRTF must match that of the listener.  Have fun with that one.  Binaural fans tend to minimize this, but it's actually very significant.  Individual HRTFs don't track well above 1kHz, simple fact.  So use your own head and ears to record?  Nope.  It's almost impossible to get mics down into the ear canal far enough, and when you do, you block your own hearing so there's no reference for you to compare to, AND end up with a recording made for an audience of one.   Then there's playback.  Real binaural playback is not only limited to headphones but further limited to extra-aural headphones.  IEMs fail to provide the full experience, circumnaural do the job either.  Then if the headphone response is at all off target, you have another failure to provide the real experience.  How's that for narrowing the play conditions?  Sure, you can have a sense of binaural with any headphones or IEMs, but it's not the experience intended.  Since binaural's goal is very specific, you don't even have the same wiggle-room of mastering to playback mismatch you would with normal stereo, which is a synthetic creation in the first place. 

Ask yourself again...If binaural is so great, why has it failed in the market?  And it has, totally. It's a niche at best, and less than that in reality.  All attempts to refine it end up with the same basic issues.  Double-inventory dual format recordings are actually impractical as the dickens, double the production time/cost, but the market isn't increased to match.


----------



## Phronesis

Getting back to testing, an aspect I'm thinking about is the magnitude of false positive and false negative error due to misperception, vs the magnitude of difference between A and B.  If the misperceptions errors are substantially larger than the potential difference between A and B, and the misperception errors go roughly equally in both directions (imagining differences that aren't really there, and missing differences which are really there), that could also contribute to a test giving a null result even though the difference between A and B could affect music perception under normal listening conditions.  When I did blind testing, I did seem to be making misperception errors in both directions.


----------



## james444

gregorio said:


> 2. We can of course consciously focus our hearing on what we're listening to (without the need or involvement of visual stimulus) and the brain will also increase the clarity of what we're focusing on and reduce everything else. But, there's two points here: Firstly we have to consciously focus, whereas sight can cause this "focus" subconsciously and secondly, as I've just mentioned, focus is just one of the elements of the experience, albeit an important one, so although you can consciously focus your hearing, that's still not necessarily the same experience as what you'd perceive at the live event.



So, if sound engineers do compensate for the lack of visual stimulus on CD, by emphasizing the soloist in the mix, does that mean for a CD + DVD production, that two different stereo mixes are made? I own some classical CD + DVD boxes and tbh, it never even crossed my mind that the stereo mixes might be different.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Getting back to testing, an aspect I'm thinking about is the magnitude of false positive and false negative error due to misperception, vs the magnitude of difference between A and B.  If the misperceptions errors are substantially larger than the potential difference between A and B, and the misperception errors go roughly equally in both directions (imagining differences that aren't really there, and missing differences which are really there), that could also contribute to a test giving a null result even though the difference between A and B could affect music perception under normal listening conditions.  When I did blind testing, I did seem to be making misperception errors in both directions.


I don't want to abuse my math super powers that I don't have anymore anyway, but if random guessing leads to about 50/50, and whatever you call misperception or simply manipulation error(like you have the right one but you click wrong) are also more or less random in favor or against the right answers, then you still end up with about 50/50. 
now if in that mix you do pic up some correct answers that you clearly heard, only half of those should have been right on a random occurance, so you're clearly tilting the results on the "hearing it" side. 
depending on how many trials you run and how soon you lose focus, you can of course get results that minimize what you're really able to hear. mistakes will do that. but if your mistakes become more statistically significant than what you can answer properly, you're not hearing properly or you need to practice more to get used to that type of tests, or simply change the way you do things. 

try to abx 2 different songs. if you have a hard time getting 17/20, fire yourself. ^_^


----------



## bigshot

I’m beginning to wonder about the effectiveness of head tracking to get across sound from the rear. With my new VR headset there’s programming with dimensional sound that utilizes head-tracking. I haven’t found anything that really works to place sound clearly in the rear.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> I don't want to abuse my math super powers that I don't have anymore anyway, but if random guessing leads to about 50/50, and whatever you call misperception or simply manipulation error(like you have the right one but you click wrong) are also more or less random in favor or against the right answers, then you still end up with about 50/50.
> now if in that mix you do pic up some correct answers that you clearly heard, only half of those should have been right on a random occurance, so you're clearly tilting the results on the "hearing it" side.
> depending on how many trials you run and how soon you lose focus, you can of course get results that minimize what you're really able to hear. mistakes will do that. but if your mistakes become more statistically significant than what you can answer properly, you're not hearing properly or you need to practice more to get used to that type of tests, or simply change the way you do things.
> 
> try to abx 2 different songs. if you have a hard time getting 17/20, fire yourself. ^_^



Yes, that's my thinking also.  A listener should still be able to do better than 50/50 if there's a real audible difference, but the perceptual errors in both directions would increase the number of trials needed to get a decent p-value, and the listener may get fatigued before reaching that number of trials.  All of this would increase the likelihood of a null result.

My intention in raising these points isn't to undermine blind testing.  I'm just applying the same skepticism and scrutiny to blind testing as I do to subjective perception.  I started with the straightforward view that blind testing should readily reveal real audible differences, otherwise they don't exist or are too small to matter.  But as I look into the details of blind testing, and have gained some firsthand experience with blind testing, I increasingly feel that the issue isn't straightforward at all, and that conclusion may not be valid. 

The only conclusion I feel confident about is that if substantial differences are consistently heard in back to back comparisons without trying too hard to hear them, those differences are likely real.  Whether they matter will still depend on the listener - type of music listened to, volume level, level of attention when listening to music, etc.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I’m beginning to wonder about the effectiveness of head tracking to get across sound from the rear. With my new VR headset there’s programming with dimensional sound that utilizes head-tracking. I haven’t found anything that really works to *place sound clearly in the rear*.




I think you're wearing it wrong....

Bad jokes aside, I haven't ever heard headphones effectively place information directly behind the listener.  Waiting to get a chance to hear the Smyth Realizer to see if they have solved that challenge.

If it gets anywhere close to simulating what can be done with ATMOS or even 7.x MCH, I'll be picking one up when/if the A16 actually hits the market.


----------



## bigshot

My Oculus go has head tracking, so it should at least do a primitive job of what the Smyth Realizer does. But it doesn't.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> My Oculus go has head tracking, so it should at least do a primitive job of what the Smyth Realizer does. But it doesn't.



At the risk of using price as a technical spec, I can't say I'm surprised.

None of the VR headsets I've tried have done a great job of placing sound directly "behind".  I wonder if adding small external transducers in the rear of the headset might work


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> My intention in raising these points isn't to undermine blind testing.  I'm just applying the same skepticism and scrutiny to blind testing as I do to subjective perception.


  I don't have any problem with this statement, in general, but others have made this same claim and then went on to suggest that any subjective perception was just as valid as any blind listening test for identifying differences.  This is not a position I can support.



Phronesis said:


> I started with the straightforward view that blind testing should readily reveal real audible differences, otherwise they don't exist or are too small to matter.  But as I look into the details of blind testing, and have gained some firsthand experience with blind testing, I increasingly feel that the issue isn't straightforward at all, and that conclusion may not be valid.


  If no differences are identified in a blind listening test, what would you suggest might be significant enough to matter?  How could the sound be altered enough to matter where you were unable to hear the difference?


----------



## Phronesis (May 11, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> I don't have any problem with this statement, in general, but others have made this same claim and then went on to suggest that any subjective perception was just as valid as any blind listening test for identifying differences.  This is not a position I can support.
> 
> If no differences are identified in a blind listening test, what would you suggest might be significant enough to matter?  How could the sound be altered enough to matter where you were unable to hear the difference?



I agree that the issues with blind testing don't change the issues with subjective perception.  I'm reluctant to say which is more valid in general, but I think blind testing isn't needed if the differences are consistently obvious based on subjective perception.

The best hypothesis I can offer on the second point is that *maybe* there would be aspects of sound which are picked up mainly at a subconscious level during normal listening, and which affect music perception, but they're difficult to pick up from blind testing.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> My Oculus go has head tracking, so it should at least do a primitive job of what the Smyth Realizer does. But it doesn't.



Could be the dynamic cues just don't match up well enough with your physiology. See here, starting p.62, for more info on reversals.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> I agree that the issues with blind testing don't change the issues with subjective perception.  I'm reluctant to say which is more valid in general, but I think blind testing isn't needed if the differences are consistently obvious based on subjective perception.
> 
> The best hypothesis I can offer on the second point is that *maybe* there would be aspects of sound which are picked up mainly at a subconscious level during normal listening, and which affect music perception, but they're difficult to pick up from blind testing.



Any listening test is subjective.  I'm not reluctant to say which is more valid in general.  When testing for audible differences, blind listening tests are much more reliable than sighted evaluations.  In fact, there even seems to be differences that can only be detected in certain blind listening tests that may not actually make any difference when listening to music normally.

The only way to definitively validate if the differences are consistently obvious would be to blind test or double blind test.  If  any difference is consistently obvious while sighted, why would it not be obvious in a blind test?  Are you suggesting that the blind test will not show any difference where the sighted test is supposedly showing an obvious difference?

Blind testing can be normal listening, too.


----------



## RRod

sonitus mirus said:


> Blind testing can be normal listening, too.



Yep, like when I sneak in your house and change the format of all your digital files.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> Any listening test is subjective.  I'm not reluctant to say which is more valid in general.  When testing for audible differences, blind listening tests are much more reliable than sighted evaluations.  In fact, there even seems to be differences that can only be detected in certain blind listening tests that may not actually make any difference when listening to music normally.
> 
> The only way to definitively validate if the differences are consistently obvious would be to blind test or double blind test.  If  any difference is consistently obvious while sighted, why would it not be obvious in a blind test?  Are you suggesting that the blind test will not show any difference where the sighted test is supposedly showing an obvious difference?
> 
> Blind testing can be normal listening, too.



I generally agree with what you're saying, though I leave room for the possibility that there could be subtle differences which aren't picked up based on the way blind tests are typically conducted and interpreted.


----------



## RRod

Phronesis said:


> I generally agree with what you're saying, though I leave room for the possibility that there could be subtle differences which aren't picked up based on the way blind tests are typically conducted and interpreted.



I could just as easily say there are subtle differences that blind tests make easier to identify.


----------



## Phronesis

RRod said:


> I could just as easily say there are subtle differences that blind tests make easier to identify.



Both could be true, depending on the differences.  My view is that both blind testing and normal listening each have their strengths and weaknesses, so it would be best to use both to gather a broader evidence base.  It doesn't have to be an either/or decision.


----------



## bigshot

In general, controlled testing is better at identifying subtle differences than casual listening. Often by an order of magnitude. If you can't hear something with a direct A/B switched comparison, you're very unlikely to hear it in your living room.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Both could be true, depending on the differences.  My view is that both blind testing and normal listening each have their strengths and weaknesses, so it would be best to use both to gather a broader evidence base.  It doesn't have to be an either/or decision.


with blind testing you can use controls to check what is really going on in the test. be it pros or cons, you can usually verify the reality of it with a blind test designed for that purpose. with normal sighted listening on the other hand, you have your gut feelings and that's about it in most cases. so they're absolutely not equally relevant, nor equally flawed. 
if you care about how you feel then casual listening is all you need. if you care about what small details you can notice in sound then you can only go with blind test. you keep looking at controlled method with a microscope while ignoring how fundamentally flawed a sighted experience really is.
casual sighted situations simply don't offer the required elements for a test to become conclusive. so who cares what people can or think they can notice under such circumstances. nobody can demonstrate anything. nobody can verify anything without also proceeding to a blind test. where is the strength in that? that we agree with ourselves and that for many people it's really all they care about.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> Well sure.  It's binaural!  All that whiney ILD/ITD stuff is already done.  But binaural fails on speakers.



Did you lose your ability to read? The SACD disc I was talking about has got separate tracks for speakers (both stereo and multichannel!) and headphones. I have myself stated that binaural doesn't work well with speakers so why are you lecturing? As if I didn't know that? 



pinnahertz said:


> Yeah, that's what we do: "play with the mics".  Oh brother.
> 
> Here's the problem: Good binaural depends on several things like positioning the recording head in a good room, right distance from all performers, and right height.  That position is usually not even an audience seat because they are all compromised in some way.  Then, for binaural to work really well broad spectrum, the recording head and it's HRTF must match that of the listener.  Have fun with that one.  Binaural fans tend to minimize this, but it's actually very significant.  Individual HRTFs don't track well above 1kHz, simple fact.  So use your own head and ears to record?  Nope.  It's almost impossible to get mics down into the ear canal far enough, and when you do, you block your own hearing so there's no reference for you to compare to, AND end up with a recording made for an audience of one.   Then there's playback.  Real binaural playback is not only limited to headphones but further limited to extra-aural headphones.  IEMs fail to provide the full experience, circumnaural do the job either.  Then if the headphone response is at all off target, you have another failure to provide the real experience.  How's that for narrowing the play conditions?  Sure, you can have a sense of binaural with any headphones or IEMs, but it's not the experience intended.  Since binaural's goal is very specific, you don't even have the same wiggle-room of mastering to playback mismatch you would with normal stereo, which is a synthetic creation in the first place.
> 
> Ask yourself again...If binaural is so great, why has it failed in the market?  And it has, totally. It's a niche at best, and less than that in reality.  All attempts to refine it end up with the same basic issues.  Double-inventory dual format recordings are actually impractical as the dickens, double the production time/cost, but the market isn't increased to match.



Ok, you had a bad day and needed to vent a little bit. I understand. I could make similar rant about the problems of non-binaural recordings on headphones but it's 1:25 am and need to  sleep...


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Yes, I do have a slightly negative attitude towards binaural recordings. It's technical flaws are part of it but not the only part. My main objection is that it's a technique RESTRICTED to documenting the sound waves, of an individual acoustic event, which would enter the ears. It therefore effectively eliminates all popular music genres of the last 50 years or so and it also eliminates all the artistic development/evolution of music production across all music genres. We're not creating a sonic documentary, we're creating art! And, we're doing this even with individual acoustic events because a sonic documentary does not replicate the experience/perception of the live event anyway.
> 
> G


Eliminates all popular music genres of the last 50 years or so? Did I demand that everything is made binaural? I don't expect new binaural Kanye West album, but if you release say Fauré's Nocturnes or J.S. Bach Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin why not go binaural?


----------



## pinnahertz (May 11, 2018)

71 dB said:


> Did you lose your ability to read?


No, and that kind of remark is entirely uncalled for.


71 dB said:


> The SACD disc I was talking about has got separate tracks for speakers (both stereo and multichannel!) and headphones. I have myself stated that binaural doesn't work well with speakers so why are you lecturing? As if I didn't know that?



Extolling the virtues of a fundamentally flawed recording method will likely get a response out of me. You aren't the only one reading the thread, are you?



71 dB said:


> Ok, you had a bad day and needed to vent a little bit. I understand. I could make similar rant about the problems of non-binaural recordings on headphones but it's 1:25 am and need to  sleep...


I had a perfectly fine day working on a studio build. It wasn't a vent or a rant, if anything it was a reality check.

Binaural has had more than half a century to win its market, but even in an age with more headphones in regular use than ever, binaural is a failure. You can claim its benefits all day, the marketplace has voted. Why do _you_ think that is?


----------



## colonelkernel8

pinnahertz said:


> Binaural has had more than half a century to win its market, but even in an age with more headphones in regular use than ever, binaural is a failure. You can claim its benefits all day, the marketplace has voted. Why do _you_ think that is?


Because it’s harder to record and much much harder to edit and it limits your playback options to pretty much only headphones. It’s simple really.


----------



## bigshot (May 11, 2018)

Binaural is hit and miss. Some people (like me) get very inconsistent results from it. I don't think recording engineers, labels or musicians want to mess with it. The hassle takes away from getting the music heard and appreciated by the widest audience. Just get a 5.1 system if you want that.


----------



## pinnahertz

Well, at least someone gets it.


----------



## gregorio (May 12, 2018)

james444 said:


> [1] So, if sound engineers do compensate for the lack of visual stimulus on CD, by emphasizing the soloist in the mix, [2] does that mean for a CD + DVD production, that two different stereo mixes are made? I own some classical CD + DVD boxes and tbh, it never even crossed my mind that the stereo mixes might be different.



1. It wouldn't be the sound engineers making that decision, it would be the music producer. Also, they're not just compensating for the lack of visual stimulus but the entire difference of perception. I don't know of any music producers who are particularly well informed about the actual process/processes of hearing perception, or at least, of the state of scientific knowledge on hearing perception. What happens in practise is the music producer just applies their own subjective perception. It's a similar situation as equal loudness contours: I've sometimes seen people on head-fi suggesting that we should EQ our playback system to compensate for the roll-offs and peak of the loudness contours, to match human hearing. However, that would in fact be detrimental because the music/audio has been mixed/produced by humans, who also have loudness contours and therefore the mixes/masters have in effect already been compensated.

2. It's impossible to say for sure, you'd have to look at each individual case. DVDs almost always contain audio in the AC3 (Dolby Digital) format, so a music mix can be in 5.1, which is then downmixed to stereo by the Dolby chip inside your DVD player if you choose or if you don't have a 5.1 system. Another advantage of milti-mic'ing is that from the same raw recording you can create different mixes in both 5.1 and stereo. The couple of times I've been involved in CD + DVD production this is what was done (two different mixes, 5.1 on the DVD and then a separate CD mix) but I can't say if that's always the case with other productions, there are cost implications of doing two different mixes of course. As far as perception is concerned, there ideally wouldn't be any difference between the CD mix and the 5.1 downmix to stereo (during listening while watching the video), but "ideal" never exists and there's no particular effort to make sure the two mixes sound identical (even were that possible), just reasonably close.



Phronesis said:


> [1] The only conclusion I feel confident about is that if substantial differences are consistently heard in back to back comparisons without trying too hard to hear them, those differences are likely real. ...[and] I think blind testing isn't needed if the differences are consistently obvious based on subjective perception.
> [2] The best hypothesis I can offer on the second point is that *maybe* there would be aspects of sound which are picked up mainly at a subconscious level during normal listening, and which affect music perception, but they're difficult to pick up from blind testing.



1. We have to be very careful here IMO. The McGurk Effect provides a glaring demonstration of something that would easily pass your criteria; it's a substantial and easily perceived difference which is far more consistently heard than any audiophile myth. You would therefore have to conclude, with very high confidence, that the difference between "baa" and "faa" was "likely real" but clearly, that conclusion would be incorrect!

2. That's not the best hypothesis I can offer though, because there's no reliable evidence to support it! The best hypothesis I can offer is that there are aspects OTHER THAN sound which are picked up mainly at a subconsciously level which affect perception and consequently inaudible differences are not in fact heard (consciously or subconsciously) but are perceived. This is a far better hypothesis IMO, because it has a great deal of reliable evidence to support it!

Again: Yes, blind and even ABX testing has flaws, they are not perfect and the results of such tests can never provide 100% confidence, even published scientific tests/studies, let alone home made tests with a sample size of one. However, the flaws of blind, double blind and ABX testing are relatively insignificant compared to the flaws of sighted testing. Virtually without exception, the flaws of blind testing also exist in sighted testing, in addition to a bunch of far more significant flaws. In other words, the whole point of blind testing is to eliminate the biases which cause differences in perception where actual differences in the sound, if there are any, are inaudible. Blind testing is therefore identical to sighted testing except with fewer biases/flaws! Double blind and ABX testing eliminates even more potential flaws than blind testing and therefore provides even more confidence in the result but still they're not perfect, just MUCH better. They do not provide proof, just more reliable evidence.

G


----------



## pinnahertz

Phronesis said:


> I agree that the issues with blind testing don't change the issues with subjective perception.  I'm reluctant to say which is more valid in general, but I think blind testing isn't needed if the differences are consistently obvious based on subjective perception.


If you take any particular distortion type that could be varied in its degree of effect, you could create a graph that would indicate how detectable it is as the distortion was incrementally increased up from zero.  In fact, this is what distortion audibility studies attempt.  At some point certain distortion types have enough audible effect that they can be reliable identified without any comparison at all, and that seems to indicate that there may be a point where that type of distortion becomes detectable enough to surmount sighted test biases.  However, and where we get into trouble is that audibility of distortion depends entirely on what specifically that distortion is and how well it can be masked by a complex musical signal.  In David Clark's paper he describes testing with a distortion "chamber of horrors" circuit that deliberately created several types of harmonic distortion.  If, in a sighted test, you told testers that B had 5% harmonic distortion, they would likely agree and confirm that.  But in ABX testing Clark found that high levels of certain types of harmonic distortion were not reliably detectable.  There was a point however when distortion was increased and the musical test content was of a certain type that it could always be heard, and that forced agreement with sighted and uncontrolled tests.  Other distortion types like large spectrum response variations are positively identified at low to moderate levels in sighted tests, but identified at even lower levels with ABX.  One thing we can say is, ABX and sighted or single blind tests reliably agree once the differences are large enough, but what "large enough" means is highly variable and specific to special cases.  We would also have to say that consistency of detection of an unknown difference is not reliably correlated between ABX and any uncontrolled test.


Phronesis said:


> The best hypothesis I can offer on the second point is that *maybe* there would be aspects of sound which are picked up mainly at a subconscious level during normal listening, and which affect music perception, but they're difficult to pick up from blind testing.


I do not agree, in fact, it's more the reverse.  One of the things that anti-ABX folk shoot at is the demand for an answer within a time limit.  If the test is correctly structured, however, there is no time limit.  The ABX comparison could take weeks or months with extended periods of listening to each choice.  While an answer is still demanded, and therefore the tester is still under at least some pressure to decide, that pressure is low enough to approach that of a long-term uncontrolled test.  There is some validity to length of exposure having an effect on audible threshold, but the problem is your reference is based on very short-term auditory memory which fades within milliseconds.  Once the reference choice is taken away, detection ability is strongly reduced as well.  Long interval ABX testing is not generally done as a result, but could be to satisfy the nay-sayers.  

But your hypothesis has already been proven false in actual testing.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> No, and that kind of remark is entirely uncalled for.



Thanks for your opinion. I disagree. 



pinnahertz said:


> Extolling the virtues of a fundamentally flawed recording method will likely get a response out of me. You aren't the only one reading the thread, are you?



Extolling? Binaural doing well with ILD and ITD on headphones is extolling? Saying binaural doesn't work well with speakers is extolling? Ok, Whatever… …you have an attitude problem man. 



pinnahertz said:


> I had a perfectly fine day working on a studio build. It wasn't a vent or a rant, if anything it was a reality check.
> 
> Binaural has had more than half a century to win its market, but even in an age with more headphones in regular use than ever, binaural is a failure. You can claim its benefits all day, the marketplace has voted. Why do _you_ think that is?



Yeah, because the best solutions always are commercially most successful. The best movies make most money, commercial music is best ever and laymen understand everything about mic set ups to choose the best ones… …what is wrong with you?


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> Thanks for your opinion. I disagree.





71 dB said:


> .....…you have an attitude problem man.
> …what is wrong with you?


Tell you what, let's try to keep it civil and not personal, ok?  The personal comments are really not appropriate, and don't help your position either. 


71 dB said:


> Extolling? Binaural doing well with ILD and ITD on headphones is extolling? Saying binaural doesn't work well with speakers is extolling? Ok, Whatever… …you have an attitude problem man.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because the best solutions always are commercially most successful. The best movies make most money, commercial music is best ever and laymen understand everything about mic set ups to choose the best ones… …what is wrong with you?


That's not at all what I'm saying.  I didn't say anything about the "best" being the most commercially successful, and clearly, a polarized view like that is naive.  But if a particular style is barely static in the figures, it's definitely not successful.  And that applies to any of the above, not even discussing the best.  There are thousands upon thousands of examples of this.   Performances and recordings of them are rarely free, post is rarely free, and if it's intended to be a self-supporting effort, distribution is rarely free either. If something is not funded, it never reaches an audience, and what's the point of that?  If a particular recording style isn't supported by listeners, it doesn't get produced.  It no longer matters if a small group like it or not.

Please answer my question from the previous post: Binaural has had more than half a century to win its market, but even in an age with more headphones in regular use than ever, binaural is a failure.  Why do _you_ think that is?


----------



## james444

gregorio said:


> 2. It's impossible to say for sure, you'd have to look at each individual case. DVDs almost always contain audio in the AC3 (Dolby Digital) format, so a music mix can be in 5.1, which is then downmixed to stereo by the Dolby chip inside your DVD player if you choose or if you don't have a 5.1 system. Another advantage of milti-mic'ing is that from the same raw recording you can create different mixes in both 5.1 and stereo. The couple of times I've been involved in CD + DVD production this is what was done (two different mixes, 5.1 on the DVD and then a separate CD mix) but I can't say if that's always the case with other productions, there are cost implications of doing two different mixes of course. As far as perception is concerned, there ideally wouldn't be any difference between the CD mix and the 5.1 downmix to stereo (during listening while watching the video), but "ideal" never exists and there's no particular effort to make sure the two mixes sound identical (even were that possible), just reasonably close



Thanks for your detailed answer! I think at least some of my music DVDs have both, 5.1 AC3 and 2.0 PCM audio. Might be an interesting experiment to rip the 2.0 audio from DVD and compare it to the CD version...



pinnahertz said:


> Binaural has had more than half a century to win its market, but even in an age with more headphones in regular use than ever, binaural is a failure.  Why do _you_ think that is?



To me, the explanation given in the article I linked earlier, seems pretty reasonable:

https://binauralrecording.wordpress...d-the-introduction-of-dummy-head-microphones/


----------



## pinnahertz

james444 said:


> To me, the explanation given in the article I linked earlier, seems pretty reasonable:


Thanks.  I was trying to get a response out of a particular member on this.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Thanks.  I was trying to get a response out of a particular member on this.


If  by particular member on this refers to me, I am preparing a rather lengthier response.

Binaural is not perfect (yet), but it is nowhere as impractical or unmarketable as some would like us to believe. I DO NOT want to sound like a broken record by repeating what I already said/wrote over the years - so, for some info, it will be necessary to go back in time.

The shift of practically all research and development in audio from speakers to headphones goes back only a couple of years, maybe a decade old now - in comparison to "speaker" period spanning - roughly - 100 years. Any novelty needs its time to get "digested" by the general public; the mere notion that recording for speakers and that for headphones need to be different is next to incomprehensible to most people, musicians included. And whatever binaural will end up with, will have to include cracking the toughest nut - IEMs - IF it is to be accepted by enough people to create enough traction in commercial sense.


----------



## jgazal

pinnahertz said:


> Please answer my question from the previous post: Binaural has had more than half a century to win its market, but even in an age with more headphones in regular use than ever, binaural is a failure.  Why do _you_ think that is?



System and method for producing head-externalized 3D audio through headphones


----------



## RRod (May 12, 2018)

jgazal said:


> System and method for producing head-externalized 3D audio through headphones



What's the main gist behind the claim it works well for everyone without having them measured? I'm confused because I see some reference to having actual head measurements from people, so it seems there's some element of 'well if you go whole hog then you get the best results'. Also, I don't see an inverse filter for the HP in there.

I agree though that all these 'cancel then apply' methods have much more chance of working well than typical dummy-head binaural recordings.


----------



## jgazal (May 13, 2018)

RRod said:


> What's the main gist behind the claim it works well for everyone without having them measured? I'm confused because I see some reference to having actual head measurements from people, so it seems there's some element of 'well if you go whole hog then you get the best results'. (...)
> 
> I agree though that all these 'cancel then apply' methods have much more chance of working well than typical dummy-head binaural recordings.



I believe that claim comes with a caveat. There won’t be absolute precision while matching image and audio.

There is a difference between emulating virtual speakers through headphones with this method:



jgazal said:


> > Jose Luis Gazal on September 4
> > @Smyth Research: Would it be possible to implement an optional function that allows the user to experiment a playback mode in which the signals assigned to left side speakers are not played back at the right headphone driver and vice versa?
> >
> > Stephen Smyth Collaborator on September 4
> > ...



And emulating virtual speakers through headphones with. Dr. Choueiri “special kind of crosstalk cancellation (XTC) filter”.

I think it is Dr. Choueiri algorithm to solve this question:



> Jose Luis Gazal on November 26
> @Mike Smyth, @Stephen Smyth, once I asked if it would be possible to implement an optional function that allows the user to experiment a playback mode in which the signals assigned to left side speakers are not played back at the right headphone driver and vice versa and the answer was yes. I am sorry to bother once again, but I have just noticed that sometimes an instrument track is fully assigned to one channel and that could sound odd. I’ve read in the Realiser A8 manual that one can blend channels in the mix block with 0.1 increments until full 1.0 mix. But I just can’t figure out if such function is equivalent to adding less crossfeed than the crosstalk measured in the room the PRIR was acquired. So in the end my new question is: would it be possible to mix individual channels or add lower dB of crossfeed than one would find in the real PRIR into the ipsolateral channels all at once, but with finer increments then 0.1?
> 
> https://www.kickstarter.com/project...16-real-3d-audio-headphone-processor/comments



How the Bacch xtc filter for speakers differs from the “special kind of crosstalk cancellation (XTC) filter” for headphones?

I am not sure. Perhaps is exactly the fact that the personal binaural room impulse responses are in a way transformed into HRTF by removing reflected sound:



> Step 3: Before designing the required SU-XTC filter, the 4 IRs in the SRbIR measured (or constructed) in Step 1 are windowed using a time window that keeps the direct sound (typically up to the 2-3 ms that represent the temporal extent of the speaker's main time response) and excluding all reflected sound (all sound after that window) to remove all, or most, of the reflected sound from each of the four IRs in the SRbIRs so that the SU-XTC is designed with what is essentially the anechoic (i.e. direct sound) part of the SRbIR. An example of such a time window is shown as the dashed curves in Figure.
> 
> Step 4: The design of the required SU-XTC filter proceeds as described in PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2011/50181, entitled “Spectrally uncolored optimal crosstalk cancellation for audio through loudspeakers”, using for input the windowed SRbIR obtained in Step 3.
> 
> System and method for producing head-externalized 3D audio through headphones





RRod said:


> (...) Also, I don't see an inverse filter for the HP in there. (...)





> Step *2*: The SRbIR can then optionally be processed (but this processing can be skipped for reasons explained in the next paragraph) to optimize its head-externalization capability and, if needed, reduce the storage and CPU requirements of the final filter. Such processing may include smoothing (in the *time* or frequency domains) and equalization using standard techniques for inverse filtering that would remove (or compensate for) the spectral coloration of the in-ear microphones used in Step *1* *and that of the intended headphones*. Such an equalization filter can be designed by measuring the impulse response of the headphones in each ear while the listener is wearing both the in-ear microphones and the intended headphones, and using it to produce an equalization filter through any inverse IR filter design technique
> 
> In certain embodiments the step of processing the SRbIR to optimize the head-externalization capability may be skipped if the in-ear microphones have a flat frequency response (or are equalized to have one) and the intended headphones are of the “open” type (like the Sennheiser HD series, or electrostatic and magnetic planar type headphones). Open headphones (i.e. whose enclosures are largely transparent to sound) have relatively low impedance between the transducers and the entrance to the ear canals, which allows skipping the equalization step without incurring a significant penalty in degrading the effectiveness of the final SU-XTC-HP filter.
> 
> System and method for producing head-externalized 3D audio through headphones





> *BACCH-hp*
> 
> The BACCH-dSP is the first product to use the newly developed BACCH-hp headphones technology, which resulted from a 4-year research project at Princeton University.
> 
> ...



The brave new world of ubiquitous DSP...


----------



## RRod

jgazal said:


> I believe that claim comes with a caveat. There won’t be absolute precision while matching image and audio.
> 
> There is a difference between emulating virtual speakers through headphones with this method:
> 
> ...



Thanks for that. Seems a bit like running the Realiser without having a PRIR measured. What would you say is the superiority of Choueiri's method? And I so want those in-ear mics.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> If  by particular member on this refers to me, I am preparing a rather lengthier response.


It wasn't referring to you.


analogsurviver said:


> Binaural is not perfect (yet), but it is nowhere as impractical or unmarketable as some would like us to believe. I DO NOT want to sound like a broken record by repeating what I already said/wrote over the years - so, for some info, it will be necessary to go back in time.


Sorry, I guess you will have to go back in time and explain why it's not impractical or unmarketable.  I've experimented with binaural for decades, including using purpose-made heads with embedded mics, real ears, etc.  I've round binaural to be completely impractical for general use, for many reasons.  The entire method dictates a specific end-to-end process that doesn't fit with most of the music recorded today. 

I just don't think I can agree, so if you have evidence to the general practical and marketable nature of binaural, please show me.


----------



## jgazal (May 12, 2018)

RRod said:


> Thanks for that. Seems a bit like running the Realiser without having a PRIR measured. What would you say is the superiority of Choueiri's method? And I so want those in-ear mics.



The Realiser is not intended to 3d, but only to emulate current stereo and surround formats. They don't care that much about crosstalk and that option is an afterthought for them. They promised an ambisonic decoder, but only in the long term...

What Dr. Choueri claims is that binaural with crosstalk cancellation is a more practical option than high order ambisonics or wavefield synthesis.

I am afraid I am not able to answer which one is superior.

I just cannot afford Dr. Choueiri system (my country currency is strongly devaluating) and there is not that much HOA content available to test the future A16 decoder...



pinnahertz said:


> Sorry, I guess you will have to go back in time and explain why it's not impractical or unmarketable.  I've experimented with binaural for decades, including using purpose-made heads with embedded mics, real ears, etc.  I've round binaural to be completely impractical for general use, for many reasons.  *The entire method dictates a specific end-to-end process that doesn't fit with most of the music recorded today*.



I  couldn't agree more with that conclusion.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

pinnahertz said:


> It wasn't referring to you.
> Sorry, I guess you will have to go back in time and explain why it's not impractical or unmarketable.  I've experimented with binaural for decades, including using purpose-made heads with embedded mics, real ears, etc.  I've round binaural to be completely impractical for general use, for many reasons.  The entire method dictates a specific end-to-end process that doesn't fit with most of the music recorded today.
> 
> I just don't think I can agree, so if you have evidence to the general practical and marketable nature of binaural, please show me.


Right!....an entire recording,engineering, production,manufacturing chain just for headphones is unlikely enough...but this is for a niche market within the headphone market.That market is not big enough to support that kind of commitment.There is barely enough interest to support little "audiphile recording" outfits ...and those are playable on speakers and headphones.


----------



## jgazal (May 12, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> Right!....an entire recording,engineering, production,manufacturing chain just for headphones is unlikely enough...but this is for a niche market within the headphone market.That market is not big enough to support that kind of commitment.There is barely enough interest to support little "audiphile recording" outfits ...and those are playable on speakers and headphones.



I would say it may be the other way around.

The VR and gaming market may become orders of magnitude bigger than the audio industry. See @bigshot review about the FB Oculus Go (Virtual Reality: A new kind of A/V experience).

There is a trend to develop hardware ready to 3d audio in the VR and gaming industries.

It is not difficult to imagine gaming users with a gaming console and a soundbar, VR headsets or smartphones with headtracking.

Once they realize that such hardware can also play their music content, perhaps the audio industry will be encouraged to mix stereo content paying attention to ITD and/or mix with binaural synthesis and/or mix with HOA.

But as @castleofargh said, it may take “some" time to happen:



castleofargh said:


> albums are mastered with speakers in general so the assumed playback tools should be speakers too. we agree on this much but it could change at some point, or we can always try to get atypical material like binaural albums, and @jgazal is very interested in the next step and getting beyond the limitations of speakers. */me goes to find a  "we're living in 2018 while he's in 3018" meme*.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

jgazal said:


> I would say it may be the other way around.
> 
> The VR and gaming market may become orders of magnitude bigger than the audio industry. See @bigshot review about the FB Oculus Go (Virtual Reality: A new kind of A/V experience).
> 
> ...


Gamers are more interested in hearing where their opponents are than music(if you have ever played ut3 duel,ctf or tdm chances are i have killed you lol) .I agree it would be usefull in the gaming market,but again it would be a niche product for duelers ect....most people would neither appreciate it or pay for it.


----------



## jgazal (May 12, 2018)

Gamers may one day use their headset to watch a Netflix movie just because someone is watching tv and then realize that such headset is emulating atmos through headphones...

Cinephiles that bought a surround soundbar to simplify their atmos setup may one day play binaural content and then realize their music also has 3d cues.

FB users at FB spaces using oculus to chat with a group may realize that the headset has a virtual auditorium:



bigshot said:


> (...)
> I can see a huge potential for live music. There is a virtual auditorium where you can buy tickets to see regularly scheduled live performances. There are free immersive concert films too. Joan Jett and the Blackhearts have an app where you are in the middle of the band onstage as they perform. It's shockingly present.
> (...)



Of course all that is speculative... I don’t know how consumers will behave...

I am the worst gamer you will ever know!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

jgazal said:


> Gamers may one day use their headset to watch a Netflix movie just because someone is watching tv and then realize that such headset is emulating atmos through headphones...
> Cinephiles that bought a surround soundbar to simplify their atmos setup may one day play binaural content and then realize their music also has 3d cues.
> Of course all that is speculative... I don’t know how consumers will behave...
> I am the worst gamer you will ever know!


All true....i have watched too many superior products fail though in my 57 years....fail because of a lack of appreciation or understanding...or an unwillingness to get their wallets out to support superior tech.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> Please answer my question from the previous post: Binaural has had more than half a century to win its market, but even in an age with more headphones in regular use than ever, binaural is a failure.  Why do _you_ think that is?


- Regular people (even I myself some years ago) tend to be deaf to excessive spatiality
- More headphones doesn't necessorily mean music is suddenly produced differently.
- Modern music production has a lot of other tools.
- Binaural "immersive" sound is not priority to people (see the first point)

Binaural is "failure" in the way that so little has been released, but it provides immersive sound with headphones unlike most other methods.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> If a particular recording style isn't supported by listeners, it doesn't get produced.  It no longer matters if a small group like it or not.



How do you "support" recording styles? Is there 10 different versions of Madonna's albums out there, one of those being done binaurally? Maybe in classical music you can prefer recordings of Beethoven's fifth piano concerto done a certain way, but I think people mostly prefer the quality of performance rather than if is't binaural or not.

I have a question for you: What is in your opinion the most "supported" and succesful recording style?


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> Eliminates all popular music genres of the last 50 years or so? [1] Did I demand that everything is made binaural? [2] I don't expect new binaural Kanye West album, but if you release say Fauré's Nocturnes or J.S. Bach Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin why not go binaural?



1. So, you're demanding that a tiny fraction of 1% of all audio is recorded in binaural?
2. This has already been explained: With a binaural recording you eliminate any mixing possibilities/options, eliminate or reduce mastering options and what you record is effectively what you're stuck with. It can't be remixed and it can't be re-versioned for any purpose except playback on HPs.

A common problem with audiophiles is that they are only able to see the world of audio from the perspective of an audiophile and worse still, often a perspective limited to only a niche within the already niche audiophile world! Audio recordings of acoustic music genres is already a very tiny niche within the audio world, audiophiles buying/listening to those recordings are a niche within that niche, audiophiles listening to those recordings only on HPs is a niche within the audiophile world and audiophiles demanding specifically binaural recordings is a niche within that niche. That's simply too small a market to warrant the cost of commercial production, especially at a time when consumers are demanding the cost of commercial music production be slashed to just a fraction of what was economically viable in the past.



james444 said:


> I think at least some of my music DVDs have both, 5.1 AC3 and 2.0 PCM audio. Might be an interesting experiment to rip the 2.0 audio from DVD and compare it to the CD version...



It's certainly technically possible to have both 5.1 AC3 and 2.0 PCM on a DVD. In practise that's virtually never done because 2.0 PCM requires about 3-4 times the data bandwidth and storage space of AC3 and there's no justification for storing both when AC3 can provide nearly the same as 2.0 PCM anyway. The more bandwidth and storage required for by the audio, the less is available for the video, which is the real data hog here. Typically therefore, if a DVD gives the choice of Dolby 5.1 or stereo (2.0 PCM), typically that is actually a choice between Dolby 5.1 and a downmix of that 5.1 to stereo. Without getting into the guts of the raw video codec data actually stored on the DVD, I don't know how you could be sure you're actually getting a separate stereo mix rather than one generated from the AC3 mix. 



analogsurviver said:


> Binaural is not perfect (yet), but it is nowhere as impractical or unmarketable as some would like us to believe.



It's been clearly explained why binaural recording is impractical, both in previous replies and above. If binaural recording were practical and marketable why wouldn't the industry be using it all the time and why would it want you to believe that it wasn't practical, especially as it's much simpler, quicker, requires fewer skilled personnel, far less resources and is therefore cheaper to produce?

Again: You cannot simply ignore the facts and make-up your own to suit your agenda. If binaural is "nowhere near as impractical" as has already been explained, then provide some logical reasons and facts for why it isn't. Your opinion and what you think "some would like us to believe" is worthless in this sub-forum without some supporting evidence!



jgazal said:


> [1] I would say it may be the other way around. The VR and gaming market may become orders of magnitude bigger than the audio industry.
> [2] Once they realize that such hardware can also play their music content, perhaps the audio industry will be encouraged to mix stereo content paying attention to ITD ...



1. The gaming market will not become bigger than the audio industry because the gaming market is part of the audio industry! Also, it could NOT be the other way around. Game audio production is initially similar to popular/non-acoustic music genres, TV and film audio production. There is no single event which can be recorded binaurally, there are many separate events and elements which are all recorded individually and then edited and mixed together. In fact this is even more the case with game audio because the time-line is non-linear. With games, some/much of "the mix" does not exist, it is created dynamically "on the fly" by the programming code, in response to the gamer's actions. The only instance where binaural recording might be appropriate would be a VR documentary.

2. How can the audio industry be encouraged "to mix stereo content" in a way which is both artistically undesirable and technically impossible?

G


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> [1] How do you "support" recording styles? [2] Is there 10 different versions of Madonna's albums out there, one of those being done binaurally?



1. You buy one thing in one recording style, in preference to another thing in another recording style. 
2. Maybe some people would buy a horse and cart which can fly, in preference to a Porche 911 but it's not a sensible question because it's impossible to make a flying horse and cart!

G


----------



## jgazal (May 13, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. The gaming market will not become bigger than the audio industry because the gaming market is part of the audio industry! Also, it could NOT be the other way around. Game audio production is initially similar to popular/non-acoustic music genres, TV and film audio production. There is no single event which can be recorded binaurally, there are many separate events and elements which are all recorded individually and then edited and mixed together. In fact this is even more the case with game audio because the time-line is non-linear. With games, some/much of "the mix" does not exist, it is created dynamically "on the fly" by the programming code, in response to the gamer's actions. The only instance where binaural recording might be appropriate would be a VR documentary.
> 
> 2. How can the audio industry be encouraged "to mix stereo content" in a way which is both artistically undesirable and technically impossible?
> 
> G



Perhaps we should call all VR, social media, gaming, movie and audio industries just entertainment industry.

Anyway, I was based on the following links/data:



jgazal said:


> The US video game industry generated a record $36 billion in revenue in 2017. In 2016, global recorded music revenues totalled US$15.7 billion. I also bet methods for quick and discreet calibrations and virtual sound reconstruction of real sound fields will have more demand in gaming  products.



It could be just a wrong assumption, but I see sound effects recording engineers more aiming to develop works on immersive audio/sound for gaming. But that is just my biased opinion and I might be completely off in this one.

@gregorio, how would you mix a music intended to be played within virtual speakers in a virtual chat room? And how would you mix a music intended to be played in a virtual auditorium described by @bigshot? And how would you mix a music intended to be played at a “virtual headphone” that some other virtual user drops in your head for you to try? How would you mix several remote musicians rehearsing in a common virtual environment? Those are all very different presentations possible in VR environments.

I agree that object based audio is appropriate for games. But objects can be rendered by converting them on the fly (with head tracking) into (I) binaural with binaural synthesis or (ii) into Ambisonics and them into binaural. And both can use a generic HRTF or a PRIR. In the first case the sound field rotation is done before the conversion, in the second case the sound field rotation relies on Ambisonics panning. I don’t know which one is better. But my gut felling says that if you have a high density HRTF or PRIR, the first method would be more precise.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. So, you're demanding that a tiny fraction of 1% of all audio is recorded in binaural?


No, I am not. I may talk about what I consider would be a perfect world, but that doesn't mean I demand it a gun in my hand.


gregorio said:


> 2. This has already been explained: With a binaural recording you eliminate any mixing possibilities/options, eliminate or reduce mastering options and what you record is effectively what you're stuck with. It can't be remixed and it can't be re-versioned for any purpose except playback on HPs.



Binaural should be used only in projects were the mixing possibilities are least important. Of course binaural can be tinkered with the same way you tinker with any stereo track. I was planning to test what happens if you do anti-crossfeed for binaural. Does it become something that works well with speakers? If it works, you could record binaurally and produce speaker version from it using anti-crossfeed and put both versions on the disc.



gregorio said:


> A common problem with audiophiles is that they are only able to see the world of audio from the perspective of an audiophile and worse still, often a perspective limited to only a niche within the already niche audiophile world! Audio recordings of acoustic music genres is already a very tiny niche within the audio world, audiophiles buying/listening to those recordings are a niche within that niche, audiophiles listening to those recordings only on HPs is a niche within the audiophile world and audiophiles demanding specifically binaural recordings is a niche within that niche. That's simply too small a market to warrant the cost of commercial production, especially at a time when consumers are demanding the cost of commercial music production be slashed to just a fraction of what was economically viable in the past.


So the common problem with audiophiles is that they are self-centered human being like everybody else? I have the option to listen to Dua Lipa and be not so niche or listen to Nicolaus Bruhns' cantatas and be super-niche. Looks like I should consult you audio engineers about what to do… …if I make my own decisions I am only a problem for you.



gregorio said:


> It's certainly technically possible to have both 5.1 AC3 and 2.0 PCM on a DVD. In practise that's virtually never done because 2.0 PCM requires about 3-4 times the data bandwidth and storage space of AC3 and there's no justification for storing both when AC3 can provide nearly the same as 2.0 PCM anyway. The more bandwidth and storage required for by the audio, the less is available for the video, which is the real data hog here. Typically therefore, if a DVD gives the choice of Dolby 5.1 or stereo (2.0 PCM), typically that is actually a choice between Dolby 5.1 and a downmix of that 5.1 to stereo. Without getting into the guts of the raw video codec data actually stored on the DVD, I don't know how you could be sure you're actually getting a separate stereo mix rather than one generated from the AC3 mix.



DVDs of music concerts, operas etc. contain often both 2.0 LPCM and 5.1 DTS or DD. The 2.0 track seems to be a downmix, because the only difference I hear is in the level when using headphones and downmixing in the player.




gregorio said:


> 2. How can the audio industry be encouraged "to mix stereo content" in a way which is both artistically undesirable and technically impossible?
> 
> G


"Artistically undesirable" is a subjective thing. What is undesirable to you might be desirable to someone else. Considering the advances of digital sound manipulation it's hard to believe there are many technically impossible things in music production these days...


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. You buy one thing in one recording style, in preference to another thing in another recording style.
> 2. Maybe some people would buy a horse and cart which can fly, in preference to a Porche 911 but it's not a sensible question because it's impossible to make a flying horse and cart!
> 
> G


1. Call me crazy, but usually people purchase music to support the music they like rather than recording styles. People just don't want to invest money on "crappy" music just because it's recorded correctly.
2. Binaural recordings aren't _impossible_.


----------



## james444

gregorio said:


> Without getting into the guts of the raw video codec data actually stored on the DVD, I don't know how you could be sure you're actually getting a separate stereo mix rather than one generated from the AC3 mix.



I wasn't referring to playback on a DVD player, but to extraction of the audio track with a software tool. It's been a long time since I've ripped and transcoded some of my music DVDs (for use on portable players), but I remember having been given the option of selecting either the 5.1 or 2.0 audio track on some occasions.


----------



## gregorio (May 13, 2018)

jgazal said:


> how would you mix a music intended to be played within virtual speakers in a virtual chat room? And how would you mix a music intended to be played in a virtual auditorium described by @bigshot? And how would you mix a music intended to be played at a “virtual headphone” that some other virtual user drops in your head for you to try? How would you mix several remote musicians rehearsing in a common virtual environment? Those are all very different presentations possible in VR environments.



No idea, it would depend on the individual circumstances but as each of your examples asks "how I would mix", binaural recording could not be an option.



jgazal said:


> [1] Anyway, I was based on the following links/data: The US video game industry generated a record $36 billion in revenue in 2017. In 2016, global recorded music revenues totalled US$15.7 billion.
> [2] Binaural should be used only in projects were the mixing possibilities are least important.
> [3] Of course binaural can be tinkered with the same way you tinker with any stereo track.
> [4] I was planning to test what happens if you do anti-crossfeed for binaural. Does it become something that works well with speakers? If it works, you could record binaurally and produce speaker version from it using anti-crossfeed and put both versions on the disc.



1. Which is the game industry vs the recorded music industry, NOT the audio industry.
2. It's either one OR the other. Binaural recording OR mixing possibilities, not both.
3. Yes but then you loose/damage what makes it binaural, the phase relationship between the left/right and/or the coherency/accuracy of the recorded spatial information.
4. No, that wouldn't work very well because the difference with binaural recordings isn't just the crossfeed, it's also, as one example, the phase between left/right channels.



71 dB said:


> 1. Call me crazy, but usually people purchase music to support the music they like rather than recording styles.
> 2. Binaural recordings aren't _impossible_.
> [3] "Artistically undesirable" is a subjective thing. What is undesirable to you might be desirable to someone else.
> [4] Considering the advances of digital sound manipulation it's hard to believe there are many technically impossible things in music production these days...



1. But the music they like dictates the recording style! Because ...
2. Of course they are! How would you record your Madonna example in binaural? There was no single event to record with binaural, just a bunch of different takes on different days with individual musicians which were edited and mixed together along with some generated sounds (samples and synths).

3. I agree. But, if someone likes Madonna (or virtually any popular/non-acoustic music of the last several decades), then they have no choice but to like the recording techniques which made the creation of that music possible in the first place, and eschew recording techniques/styles which would make the creation of that music impossible!

4. I have no idea what you believe or are able to believe but the reality is that there's still an enormous amount which is still technically impossible. And, even many of the absolute basics are only technically possible to a very limited extent and achieving even this relatively poor/mediocre result requires the considerable subjective intervention of a sound/music engineer. An example for each of these (and there are countless more); 1. It is impossible to deconstruct a music mix and 2. Spacial information can only be removed from a recording to a limited extent and under certain circumstances.



james444 said:


> I remember having been given the option of selecting either the 5.1 or 2.0 audio track on some occasions.



Yes but are you sure there's actually a 2.0 track on the DVD itself or just the option to rip to 2.0 and if there really is 2.0 track actually on the DVD, is it just a downmix of the 5.1? I'm not saying it's impossible that there's both an AC3 5.1 and separate 2.0 PCM mix but it would be uncommon and sometimes difficult to tell for sure.

G


----------



## james444

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes but are you sure there's actually a 2.0 track on the DVD itself or just the option to rip to 2.0
> 
> 2. and if there really is 2.0 track actually on the DVD, is it just a downmix of the 5.1? I'm not saying it's impossible that there's both an AC3 5.1 and separate 2.0 PCM mix but it would be uncommon and sometimes difficult to tell for sure.
> 
> G



1. Yes, the ripping software shows the physical tracks available on the DVD.

2. That would be irrelevant for my test. I'd just be interested in comparing 2.0 DVD audio to 2.0 CD audio of the same performance, to see whether (and in which way) the CD mix might be different (to compensate for lack of visual stimulus).


----------



## Phronesis (May 13, 2018)

Thinking about all this discussion, I put on my skeptic hat and compared my Mojo and Hugo 2 again last night and this morning, _with the aim of convincing myself that they sound the same_, and that any differences I've heard in the past were due to misperception.  No dice.  The differences I hear are the same as I've always heard, and are very similar to those reported by many other people who've compared both: the Hugo 2 gives a sense of stronger and better defined bass, more overall detail and clarity, and a larger stage.  Overall, the sound of the Hugo 2 is more 'alive' and intense, whereas the Mojo sounds more 'laid back' by comparison.  The FR of both DACs is essentially flat, so FR wouldn't explain the perceived differences.  Volume level isn't an explanation either, since the same differences are there even if I switch which one is a little louder.  I don't know why they sound different, and we don't need to recapitulate the theory debate again ...

I know skeptics will be dismissive of this anecdotal report and ask for blind tests, etc., but, if you have the opportunity, I suggest that you listen to these particular DACs and compare for yourself - maybe you'll be surprised, as I initially was.  I'm _not_ saying that all DACs sound different, I'm saying these two sound different from each other, to me and many others who've heard them.  And the differences don't seem to depend much at all on the headphones used, which has been my experience as well.

I was looking online for blind testing equipment suitable for comparing DACs, but I'm not sure I see the point of bothering any more.  I think I have enough evidence from my own experience and intersubjective consensus to call it a day on this question, and I see substantial problems with blind testing anyway, as we've been discussing.  But while looking for blind testing equipment, I did run across this article, which IMO makes some good points about subconscious effects:

https://tapeop.com/blog/2017/08/08/subconscious-auditory-effects/


----------



## pinnahertz (May 13, 2018)

71 dB said:


> How do you "support" recording styles?


You buy them.  That's why the last dual-format audio recordings swung to the later, but more popular style: stereo.  There were many years where you could buy a mono or stereo version of the same record.  Stereo won, mono ended.


71 dB said:


> Is there 10 different versions of Madonna's albums out there, one of those being done binaurally? Maybe in classical music you can prefer recordings of Beethoven's fifth piano concerto done a certain way, but I think people mostly prefer the quality of performance rather than if is't binaural or not.


Sure, it's always about content, performance, etc.  However, if the result is negative on the most common playback method, it won't be favored.  Binaural presents negatively on speakers, stereo presents positively on both speakers and headphones.


71 dB said:


> I have a question for you: What is in your opinion the most "supported" and succesful recording style?


Um...that's a tough one... let me thing now...<scratches head....> I'm going to go with conventional two-channel stereo mixed from multiple mics.  It dominates the market, it's broadcast on radio, streamed, downloaded, purchased, collected....yeah, that's it: Conventional stereo.  It beat mono, quad, binaural, and 5.1(+).


----------



## RRod

james444 said:


> 1. Yes, the ripping software shows the physical tracks available on the DVD.
> 
> 2. That would be irrelevant for my test. I'd just be interested in comparing 2.0 DVD audio to 2.0 CD audio of the same performance, to see whether (and in which way) the CD mix might be different (to compensate for lack of visual stimulus).



Just do it!


----------



## RRod

jgazal said:


> The Realiser is not intended to 3d, but only to emulate current stereo and surround formats. They don't care that much about crosstalk and that option is an afterthought for them. They promised an ambisonic decoder, but only in the long term...
> 
> What Dr. Choueri claims is that binaural with crosstalk cancellation is a more practical option than high order ambisonics or wavefield synthesis.
> 
> ...



When I think XTC I think what you have to do to use speakers as the delivery mechanism for virtualization. Is there something more than that going on here?


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Thinking about all this discussion, I put on my skeptic hat and compared my Mojo and Hugo 2 again last night and this morning, _with the aim of convincing myself that they sound the same_, and that any differences I've heard in the past were due to misperception.  No dice.  The differences I hear are the same as I've always heard, and are very similar to those reported by many other people who've compared both: the Hugo 2 gives a sense of stronger and better defined bass, more overall detail and clarity, and a larger stage.  Overall, the sound of the Hugo 2 is more 'alive' and intense, whereas the Mojo sounds more 'laid back' by comparison.  The FR of both DACs is essentially flat, so FR wouldn't explain the perceived differences.  Volume level isn't an explanation either, since the same differences are there even if I switch which one is a little louder.  I don't know why they sound different, and we don't need to recapitulate the theory debate again ...
> 
> I know skeptics will be dismissive of this anecdotal report and ask for blind tests, etc., but, if you have the opportunity, I suggest that you listen to these particular DACs and compare for yourself - maybe you'll be surprised, as I initially was.  I'm _not_ saying that all DACs sound different, I'm saying these two sound different from each other, to me and many others who've heard them.  And the differences don't seem to depend much at all on the headphones used, which has been my experience as well.
> 
> ...



seems like you meant "I put on my overly self confident audiofool hat". this post is everything you've been pretending not to be all this time. you know your test isn't properly controlled, but it doesn't matter because you trust yourself so all of a sudden it's good enough to draw whatever conclusions about the sound and then randomly pick up the plausible explanation about subconscious so that you can reinforce your own opinion. forget missing a proper test which is already a fatal flaw, you also assaulted reasoning a bunch of times. 
don't get me wrong, I have no idea if those 2 devices sound the same, that is not what I'm disputing! in fact I don't remember a line out for the mojo or hugo, so unless I'm terribly wrong, how can you say anything about the DACs? 
you can't be all careful, skeptic and say "we can't know for sure" as a reply to all research and blind tests for pages and pages. tell people that they shouldn't discuss 90% confidence as if it's 100%, like you're the voice of reason and proper science. and then write that load of nonsense with a straight face. do you just turn off your critical thinking the second something is directly about you? 
if so, you need method and controls in your listening experiments even more than I do.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> seems like you meant "I put on my overly self confident audiofool hat". this post is everything you've been pretending not to be all this time. you know your test isn't properly controlled, but it doesn't matter because you trust yourself so all of a sudden it's good enough to draw whatever conclusions about the sound and then randomly pick up the plausible explanation about subconscious so that you can reinforce your own opinion. forget missing a proper test which is already a fatal flaw, you also assaulted reasoning a bunch of times.
> don't get me wrong, I have no idea if those 2 devices sound the same, that is not what I'm disputing! in fact I don't remember a line out for the mojo or hugo, so unless I'm terribly wrong, how can you say anything about the DACs?
> you can't be all careful, skeptic and say "we can't know for sure" as a reply to all research and blind tests for pages and pages. tell people that they shouldn't discuss 90% confidence as if it's 100%, like you're the voice of reason and proper science. and then write that load of nonsense with a straight face. do you just turn off your critical thinking the second something is directly about you?
> if so, you need method and controls in your listening experiments even more than I do.



Predictable response, but I put the anecdote out there anyway, because it is what it is.  Am I 100% sure the difference I hear is real?  No, but at this point, I'm >90% confident (based on judgement of the evidence I have), which is good enough for me.  I encourage others to listen for themselves and see what they find - don't just assume, theorize, and speculate, get relevant empirical data.  Some may find, like me, that the difference is substantial and consistent enough that a blind test isn't needed (I perceive the difference consciously, subconscious effects don't need to be invoked in this case).  I know that perception is proven to be fallible, but I'm not willing to go to the IMO overly skeptical extreme of assuming it's totally unreliable.  I don't simply 'trust my ears', but when my ears keep telling me the same thing for months, under varying conditions, and tell me the same thing other people's ears tell them, that does increase my trust in what I'm hearing.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> Predictable response, but I put the anecdote out there anyway, because it is what it is.  Am I 100% sure the difference I hear is real?  No, but at this point, I'm >90% confident (based on judgement of the evidence I have), which is good enough for me.  I encourage others to listen for themselves and see what they find - don't just assume, theorize, and speculate, get relevant empirical data.  Some may find, like me, that the difference is substantial and consistent enough that a blind test isn't needed (I perceive the difference consciously, subconscious effects don't need to be invoked in this case).  I know that perception is proven to be fallible, but I'm not willing to go to the IMO overly skeptical extreme of assuming it's totally unreliable.  I don't simply 'trust my ears', but when my ears keep telling me the same thing for months, under varying conditions, and tell me the same thing other people's ears tell them, that does increase my trust in what I'm hearing.



This line of thinking is similar to religion.  Believe what you want, but your requirements for satisfactory proof may not be the same for everyone.  If you are looking for a miracle, you will find it.


----------



## Phronesis (May 13, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> This line of thinking is similar to religion.  Believe what you want, but your requirements for satisfactory proof may not be the same for everyone.  If you are looking for a miracle, you will find it.



That's a rhetorical argument.  But following that analogy, the opposite would be a sort of universal atheism, which has its own problems ...

I'm a pragmatist, I go in the direction the available evidence takes me, attaching a judgment to the degree of uncertainty based on the quality and quantity of that evidence.  That leads to doubting or not doubting things to various degrees, I'm not generally a black and white thinker.  And level of skepticism needs to balance risk of both false positives and false negatives - in some circumstances, the pole of extreme skepticism (or very high bar for evidence) isn't always the 'safe' option.

People reading my anecdote of course can and should attach as much or as little weight to it as they judge appropriate.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 2. It's either one OR the other. Binaural recording OR mixing possibilities, not both.
> 3. Yes but then you loose/damage what makes it binaural, the phase relationship between the left/right and/or the coherency/accuracy of the recorded spatial information.
> 4. No, that wouldn't work very well because the difference with binaural recordings isn't just the crossfeed, it's also, as one example, the phase between left/right channels.


Not by jgazal, but me!

2. Yeah, but what mixing possibilities you need with binaural? It is what it is.
3. Yeah, that's life.
4. Phase/delay is a part of crossfeed and we can have any phase/delay for anti-crossfeed too. With speakers "logical" relationship between ILD and ITD isn't as important as it is with headphones. In extreme cases (ping pong stereo) ILD is "infinite" and ITD doesn't even exist (undefined). Room acoustics make some sense to it. With headphones room acoustics doesn't exist and the recording itself needs to contain ILD and ITD information that makes sense. XY-mic set up creates zero (or extremely small) ITD while AB-mic set up may create HUGE ITD. Both can make sense with speakers. With speakers ILD is more important. The room creates ITD that makes sense. That's why I believe binaural recordings can be "widened" for speakers. Maybe the result isn't jaw-dropping, but good nevertheless if a proper anti-crossfeed filtering is used.



gregorio said:


> 1. But the music they like dictates the recording style! Because ...
> 2. Of course they are! How would you record your Madonna example in binaural? There was no single event to record with binaural, just a bunch of different takes on different days with individual musicians which were edited and mixed together along with some generated sounds (samples and synths).
> 
> 3. I agree. But, if someone likes Madonna (or virtually any popular/non-acoustic music of the last several decades), then they have no choice but to like the recording techniques which made the creation of that music possible in the first place, and eschew recording techniques/styles which would make the creation of that music impossible!
> ...



1. Music style dictates what they like rather than recorrding style.
2. Old school method: Take a dummy head to an anechoic chamber and record every track (pre-recorded in any suitable way) positioning a loudspeaker around the dummy head in desired positions. New school method: Take someones HRTFs and convolute the tracks with them. These methods are hardly _impossible_.
3. This is more of the question of what is considered practical/easy/cheap/familiar rather than possible.
4.1. Impossible to do 100 %. However to some extent it is possible. Multichannel sound has been created for example for the movies of Hitchcock starting from mono sound! Sound elements are separated based on spectral structure. The result is "good enough" to fool hearing. This is certainly difficult as hell, but not impossible.
4.2. Whaaat??? Simply summing left and right channels removes spatial information completely. I write myself Audacity nyquist-plugins with my very limited LISP skills for thinkering with spatial information and I feel can achieve quite a lot. Perhaps I see the possibilities better, because my background is in signal processing?


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> 1. You buy them.  That's why the last dual-format audio recordings swung to the later, but more popular style: stereo.  There were many years where you could buy a mono or stereo version of the same record.  Stereo won, mono ended.
> 
> 2. Sure, it's always about content, performance, etc.  However, if the result is negative on the most common playback method, it won't be favored.  Binaural presents negatively on speakers, stereo presents positively on both speakers and headphones.
> 
> 3. Um...that's a tough one... let me thing now...<scratches head....> I'm going to go with conventional two-channel stereo mixed from multiple mics.  It dominates the market, it's broadcast on radio, streamed, downloaded, purchased, collected....yeah, that's it: Conventional stereo.  It beat mono, quad, binaural, and 5.1(+).


1. Stereo not only has a technological advantage over mono but was also hyped and people fall for hype even when a lot of early stereo recordings were abysmal in their style of maximazing stereo separation so that they don't sound that good even on speakers. People were excited nevertheless.
2. Most stereo recordings don't present positively on headphones (excessive ILD/ITD) and some not even with speakers (ping pong etc.) so this claim is completely false. People have "learned" to ignore the problems of stereo.
3. As I expected, thanks. You seem to just accept this. I don't just accept things. I question them. How good of an compromise this "conventional stereo" actually is? Can we make it even better? Bring the best parts of other formats into it?


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> 1. Stereo not only has a technological advantage over mono but was also hyped and people fall for hype even when a lot of early stereo recordings were abysmal in their style of maximazing stereo separation so that they don't sound that good even on speakers. People were excited nevertheless.


The difference between mono and stereo was and is clearly obvious to everyone, and is very easy to demonstrate.  It's also in the sweet spot for the number of speakers conveniently placed in a room.  


71 dB said:


> 2. Most stereo recordings don't present positively on headphones (excessive ILD/ITD) and some not even with speakers (ping pong etc.) so this claim is completely false. People have "learned" to ignore the problems of stereo.


As you know from our previous battle about crossfeed, I completely disagree with the above, and your made-up statistics about this.  But it doesn't matter, stereo on headphones is fully accepted, and very few object to anything excessive, even a few desire the excessive nature.  You can say it's wrong, but the masses don't care.


71 dB said:


> 3. As I expected, thanks. You seem to just accept this. I don't just accept things. I question them.


What part of stereo's success do you not accept?


71 dB said:


> How good of an compromise this "conventional stereo" actually is?


It's not a compromise, it's the result of choice to create a new reality.  It's not intended to be a replication of an acoustic event (mostly, there wasn't one anyway), a stereo mix is it's own reality, and therefore not a compromise.


71 dB said:


> Can we make it even better? Bring the best parts of other formats into it?


What specifically are you talking about?


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] ... at this point, I'm >90% confident ...
> [2] I'm a pragmatist, I go in the direction the available evidence takes me
> [3] I'm not willing to go to the IMO overly skeptical extreme of assuming it's totally unreliable.
> [4] I see substantial problems with blind testing anyway, as we've been discussing ...



1. I should be shocked but I'm hardly even surprised. How did I know something like that was coming?
2. You are not a pragmatist, you are just another audiophile "believer" who goes in the direction of their belief against all the available evidence. You've been given plenty of reliable evidence but you choose to completely ignore it and go with completely unreliable evidence instead, that's a "believer". Case in point:
3. It is NOT an "overly sceptical extreme", it's proven fact that's been demonstrated countless times and with a wealth of scientific evidence. Which you choose to ignore because your belief trumps all known fact. Is a magician overly sceptical that magic doesn't exist or simply well educated/practised in how to fool audiences' perceptions?
4. Ah yes and now the old audiophile chestnut rears it's head, a complete misunderstanding of scale, as already pre-empted many pages ago and yet you play the dud card anyway. Why bother? Yes, double blind testing is flawed, yes sighted testing is flawed and as they're both flawed why bother with double blind testing? Answer: It's a different scale of flaw. A football is tiny compared to the sun, the earth is tiny compared to the sun and therefore the earth and a football are roughly the same size because they're both tiny. It's wonderful for you that you can be happy with that logic but it's not acceptable here in the science forum, which should be obvious but for some reason isn't?!

G


----------



## james444

RRod said:


> Just do it!



I'm a 1000km away from my DVD collection atm, but I'll definitely look into it when I get the chance.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> 1. I should be shocked but I'm hardly even surprised. How did I know something like that was coming?
> 2. You are not a pragmatist, you are just another audiophile "believer" who goes in the direction of their belief against all the available evidence. You've been given plenty of reliable evidence but you choose to completely ignore it and go with completely unreliable evidence instead, that's a "believer". Case in point:
> 3. It is NOT an "overly sceptical extreme", it's proven fact that's been demonstrated countless times and with a wealth of scientific evidence. Which you choose to ignore because your belief trumps all known fact. Is a magician overly sceptical that magic doesn't exist or simply well educated/practised in how to fool audiences' perceptions?
> 4. Ah yes and now the old audiophile chestnut rears it's head, a complete misunderstanding of scale, as already pre-empted many pages ago and yet you play the dud card anyway. Why bother? Yes, double blind testing is flawed, yes sighted testing is flawed and as they're both flawed why bother with double blind testing? Answer: It's a different scale of flaw. A football is tiny compared to the sun, the earth is tiny compared to the sun and therefore the earth and a football are roughly the same size because they're both tiny. It's wonderful for you that you can be happy with that logic but it's not acceptable here in the science forum, which should be obvious but for some reason isn't?!
> ...



I’m probably even less surprised by your reaction. But it’s ok, people have disagreed about these things for many years, and that’s not likely to change any time soon.  I simply don’t accept the premise that sighted normal listening never has any evidentiary value because it can sometimes be wrong - that’s too extreme a position for me.


----------



## pinnahertz

Phronesis said:


> I’m probably even less surprised by your reaction. But it’s ok, people have disagreed about these things for many years, and that’s not likely to change any time soon.  I simply don’t accept the premise that sighted normal listening never has any evidentiary value because it can _*sometimes*_ be wrong - that’s too extreme a position for me.


The problem is with "sometimes".  Sometimes sighted tests can be completely wrong, and it's really quite easy to get that result by injecting a bias.  But sure, sighted testing can also be right, especially of the difference between choices is large enough.  The problem we run into all the time is sighted testers claim a result with conviction and in deference to any DBT methodology.  And that would not be correct.  A bias controlled DBT will always produce more reliable results.  So long as everyone realizes that sighted test results can easily be skewed, and recognizes that a good DBT cannot, we're actually good.  When those of us who do a lot of ABX testing take shots at the sighted claims is because they are presented as definitive.  The results themselves may actually be ok so long as the potential for bias induced errors are acknowledged and the results are not presented as absolute.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> 2. Yeah, but what mixing possibilities you need with binaural? It is what it is.
> 3. Yeah, that's life.
> 4. Phase/delay is a part of crossfeed and we can have any phase/delay for anti-crossfeed too.



2. Exactly and what it is, is therefore useless for almost all commercial audio content because almost all commercial audio content needs mixing!
3. No it's not, not when there are alternatives which are not almost useless!
4. Of course you can't, you can only have one phase/delay not all the different phase/delay information in a mix. In fact, it's not even possible to identify all the phase/delay of every element in a mix, let alone: Identify it, deconstruct a mix, remove that phase/delay, create a new phase/delay for each element and then remix it.



71 dB said:


> 1. Music style dictates what they like rather than recorrding style.
> 2. Old school method: Take a dummy head to an anechoic chamber and record every track (pre-recorded in any suitable way) positioning a loudspeaker around the dummy head in desired positions. New school method: Take someones HRTFs and convolute the tracks with them. These methods are hardly _impossible_.
> 3. This is more of the question of what is considered practical/easy/cheap/familiar rather than possible.
> 4.1. Impossible to do 100 %. However to some extent it is possible. Multichannel sound has been created for example for the movies of Hitchcock starting from mono sound! Sound elements are separated based on spectral structure. The result is "good enough" to fool hearing. This is certainly difficult as hell, but not impossible.
> 4.2. Whaaat??? Simply summing left and right channels removes spatial information completely. ... my background is in signal processing?



1. You cannot ignore the fact that musical style dictates the recording style and neither can you just make up nonsense to get round the fact as you have here ...
2. That is not an old school method, it's a method you've just completely made-up which could not work in practise and no one would even bother trying for that reason. Have you ever even been inside an anechoic chamber let alone tried to record in one? You're new school method has nothing whatsoever to do with binaural recording or mixing!
3. No it's not, you haven't explained how it's possible.
4.1. All movies start from mono sound, even the Dolby Atmos ones! If you're talking about upmixing, then I'm shocked your hearing can be so easily fooled.
4.2 Shame your background did not seem to cover even the most fundamental basics of signal processing. The only way anything is removed completely by summing left and right channels is if the information in the left and right channels is 180deg out of phase. Are you really trying to say that all reverb, delay based effects and spatial information is exactly 180deg out of phase between channels on all stereo recordings or do you just not understand the signals to which you're listening?

Honestly, what is going on here? You can't just make up whatever you want for each and every point and pass it off as fact, you are in completely the wrong forum for that!

G


----------



## Phronesis

pinnahertz said:


> The problem is with "sometimes".  Sometimes sighted tests can be completely wrong, and it's really quite easy to get that result by injecting a bias.  But sure, sighted testing can also be right, especially of the difference between choices is large enough.  The problem we run into all the time is sighted testers claim a result with conviction and in deference to any DBT methodology.  And that would not be correct.  A bias controlled DBT will always produce more reliable results.  So long as everyone realizes that sighted test results can easily be skewed, and recognizes that a good DBT cannot, we're actually good.  When those of us who do a lot of ABX testing take shots at the sighted claims is because they are presented as definitive.  The results themselves may actually be ok so long as the potential for bias induced errors are acknowledged and the results are not presented as absolute.



I don't take issue with any of that (I read it three times to make sure!).  I don't like extreme claims in either direction.  And I would be interested in seeing the results of proper blind testing of the Mojo and Hugo 2.


----------



## gregorio (May 13, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> [1] I’m probably even less surprised by your reaction.
> [2] I simply don’t accept the premise that sighted normal listening never has any evidentiary value because it can sometimes be wrong ...



1. Why on earth would you be surprised? My position has not changed, it's logical and consistent.

2. Neither do I, in fact as I've stated numerous times previously, my work almost entirely relies on sighted listening but what has that got to do with the question? I'm not saying a football is not tiny compared to the sun, it is tiny and so is the earth, I'm saying the earth and a football are different scales of tiny, the earth and a football are NOT roughly the same size. Sighted and DB tests are both evidence but different scales of evidence. I'm not sure how to explain it any clearer than that, if you want to believe a football and the earth are the same size that's up to you of course but such a statement is not acceptable in this forum.



Phronesis said:


> I don't like extreme claims in either direction.



Then why have you made one?


G


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> I don't take issue with any of that (I read it three times to make sure!).  I don't like extreme claims in either direction.  And I would be interested in seeing the results of proper blind testing of the Mojo and Hugo 2.



What are you possibly expecting to learn about the two DACs from an ABX?   There doesn't appear to be any design flaw in the measurements available from reviews and tests with either device.  This clearly isn't some end game to find the ultimate tweak in sound quality.  Any sound quality difference is the last thing to be concerned about with these DACs.  I'm confident they will both perform perfectly well if the features and specifications meet the requirements for your system.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> What are you possibly expecting to learn about the two DACs from an ABX?   There doesn't appear to be any design flaw in the measurements available from reviews and tests with either device.  This clearly isn't some end game to find the ultimate tweak in sound quality.  Any sound quality difference is the last thing to be concerned about with these DACs.  I'm confident they will both perform perfectly well if the features and specifications meet the requirements for your system.



Somehow, they sound different, in the ways I described.  It would be interesting to see what differences, if any, would be found in blind testing.  I wouldn't necessarily limit such testing to ABX.  For those who assume that my perception of a difference is entirely due to misperception, I note that it doesn't appear that such blind testing has been done to show null results.  I don't want to get into burden of proof arguments, since I don't claim to have 'proven' anything.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Predictable response, but I put the anecdote out there anyway, because it is what it is.  Am I 100% sure the difference I hear is real?  No, but at this point, I'm >90% confident (based on judgement of the evidence I have), which is good enough for me.  I encourage others to listen for themselves and see what they find - don't just assume, theorize, and speculate, get relevant empirical data.  Some may find, like me, that the difference is substantial and consistent enough that a blind test isn't needed (I perceive the difference consciously, subconscious effects don't need to be invoked in this case).  I know that perception is proven to be fallible, but I'm not willing to go to the IMO overly skeptical extreme of assuming it's totally unreliable.  I don't simply 'trust my ears', but when my ears keep telling me the same thing for months, under varying conditions, and tell me the same thing other people's ears tell them, that does increase my trust in what I'm hearing.


I stand by my previous post.  it doesn't matter that your gears sound different or not, wrong testing method is wrong. and claims about the results without evidence in the Sound Science section is even worst. can you at least confirm if they have an actual line out before making DAC claims?
all I see here is a monumental double standard. you went from zealot skeptic when discussing blind tests, to using this stereotype of bad subjectivism when discussing your own claim based on sighted impressions. it's an untenable contradiction.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> I stand by my previous post.  it doesn't matter that your gears sound different or not, wrong testing method is wrong. and claims about the results without evidence in the Sound Science section is even worst. can you at least confirm if they have an actual line out before making DAC claims?
> all I see here is a monumental double standard. you went from zealot skeptic when discussing blind tests, to using this stereotype of bad subjectivism when discussing your own claim based on sighted impressions. it's an untenable contradiction.



I'm using the headphone outputs, so DAC+amp, not just the DACs.  As I've said, I'm skeptical of both blind tests and sighted listening, but that doesn't mean I'm entirely dismissive of either.  If anecdotal reports aren't allowed in Sound Science, duly noted.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 2. Exactly and what it is, is therefore useless for almost all commercial audio content because almost all commercial audio content needs mixing!
> 3. No it's not, not when there are alternatives which are not almost useless!
> 4. Of course you can't, you can only have one phase/delay not all the different phase/delay information in a mix. In fact, it's not even possible to identify all the phase/delay of every element in a mix, let alone: Identify it, deconstruct a mix, remove that phase/delay, create a new phase/delay for each element and then remix it.



2. If you record solo piano playing with a dummy head what is there to mix? Farts? Bird singing?
3. -
4. You can't do it that "correctly", but you can do what you can and hope it fools hearing. Crossfeeders have technically one operational phase/delay, but in reality the summing of channel create various phase/delay combinations depending on the phase differencies. For example, if you sum two sinewaves of equal amplitude with phases 0° and 90°, you end up with sinewave with amplitude square root 2 times the amplitudes of the originals and phase 45°.



gregorio said:


> 1. You cannot ignore the fact that musical style dictates the recording style and neither can you just make up nonsense to get round the fact as you have here ...
> 2. That is not an old school method, it's a method you've just completely made-up which could not work in practise and no one would even bother trying for that reason. Have you ever even been inside an anechoic chamber let alone tried to record in one? You're new school method has nothing whatsoever to do with binaural recording or mixing!
> 3. No it's not, you haven't explained how it's possible.
> 4.1. All movies start from mono sound, even the Dolby Atmos ones! If you're talking about upmixing, then I'm shocked your hearing can be so easily fooled.
> ...


1. I don't ignore and I haven't made up nonsense.
2. Probably more than you. I worked for years in the laboratory of acoustics and signal prosessing that had 3 anechoic chambers, one large and 2 smaller. At one point I was involved in the renovation process of these chambers (done to change unhealthy wedges to safer ones). I measured hundreds of loudspeakers and dozens of subwoofers in there for hifi magazines and together with another worker we developed measuring system to approximate power response from multiple impulse responses measured turning the speakers around on two axis. Could be that you don't know how these things work, but I do. The larger room had HRTF measuring system and my HRTF was also measured. I don't know why you think the dummy head recording would not work in practise. Sure, it far from a common method, but so what? Yes, new school method has "nothing to do with…" but so what? If it sounds good it sounds good and that's what matters. When I talk about binaural sound, I don't mean you HAVE TO use dummy head. I mean the sound has natural ILD and ITD for headphones and is "immersive", has feel of realism. Even Jecklin disks give quite binaural sound. Schneider disks even more so.
3. On the contrary, you haven't explained why it's impossible. 
4.1. Hearing is fooled quite easily, but even this is demanding. You need to have enough consistent spatial information.
4.2. If you have content say 170° out of phase, most of it is canceled and the rest becomes monophonic information (at level -15.2 dB). Reverb, etc. have in phase and out of phase components and summing channels removes the out-of-phase components so that for example the in-phase component of reverb remains after the summing.


----------



## jgazal (May 13, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. Which is the game industry vs the recorded music industry, NOT the audio industry.
> G



Now I see what you mean and I agree. 

Edit: The other claims are not mine (2 to 4 below).


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> As you know from our previous battle about crossfeed, I completely disagree with the above, and your made-up statistics about this.  But it doesn't matter, stereo on headphones is fully accepted, and very few object to anything excessive, even a few desire the excessive nature.  You can say it's wrong, but the masses don't care.


Stereo is so vague term. Binaural is one type of stereo sound. Ping Pong is another type. Stereophonic recordings are produced for speakers using different methods of creating spatiality: Microphone set ups, panning, effects, etc. The mentality is "no natural spatiality needed", because the room transforms (acoustic crossfeed) the spatial information into something natural. So, we have ILDs and ITD beyond natural values on our stereo recordings. With crossfeed we fix this for headphones. Where in the hell does this logic fall apart in your opinion? 

I don't care if 99.99 % of population accepts something stupid. If they are wrong they are wrong! I was wrong myself years ago.




pinnahertz said:


> 1. What part of stereo's success do you not accept?
> 2. It's not a compromise, it's the result of choice to create a new reality.  It's not intended to be a replication of an acoustic event (mostly, there wasn't one anyway), a stereo mix is it's own reality, and therefore not a compromise.
> 
> 3. What specifically are you talking about?


1. The part that ignores headphone listening.
2. Well, one count modulate the acoustic event into ultrasonic frequencies and create a new reality for dogs…
3. "Omnistereophonic" sound that is really smart so that it doesn't have excessive ILD/ITD for headphones, but sounds "wide" enough on loudspeakers unlike binaural sound.


----------



## castleofargh (May 13, 2018)

I feel stuck in the middle of this binaural argument. I despise the idea that headphone users are fine with music mastered for speakers. but I got mostly poor results with binaural records(Chesky and a bunch of other stuff from the time when I thought binaural would save my headphone experience). I tried to test if I preferred stuff involving a dummy head or just 2 mics side by side, strangely(or not?) records from dummy heads felt worst for me. I'm guessing it's because my head is just not good at following the average human design? or maybe it's simply that those mics are no good aside from measurement purposes? IDK, but I haven't been lucky with that.
also for the vast majority of my favorite bands, I'd rather have a good mixing and mastering job done, and multi mic or mix of several takes, to make pleasing well balanced music, than get "real" sound from a live play. that's totally a matter of personal taste, obviously. but it's true for me.




Phronesis said:


> I'm using the headphone outputs, so DAC+amp, not just the DACs.  As I've said, I'm skeptical of both blind tests and sighted listening, but that doesn't mean I'm entirely dismissive of either.  If anecdotal reports aren't allowed in Sound Science, duly noted.


so already we're not talking about DACs anymore but 2 different DACs+amps. who claimed that they would sound the same? at best we believe that fine DACs should sound the same once level matched. for amps already it's much more complicated without clearly knowing the load used and how they measure under those loads. the old you would probably have found this to be a reasonable cause for not drawing your conclusions about those devices in general. 
you don't need a blind test to notice very clear differences, I listen to music just fine without a blind test, obviously. but then many audiophiles will describe small or even non existent differences as night and day. so we end up in a position where we can't really trust anything because we can never tell when somebody is full of crap without involving a controlled test to confirm the results.
having many people with the same opinion about differences could be that they're all correct, and it often will be so. but sometimes it's just that people all saw the first review from some e-famous guy who described the differences that way, and since, everybody has just been parroting, often without even realizing it. I've witnessed this too many times not to consider the possibility when a group agrees on something. so once more, how can people tell when it's a correct feedback and when it's not? you wouldn't let things like that go if we were discussing blind tests.

you take away from my 2 posts that I'm against anecdotal reports, which is certainly nice deflecting but has nothing to do with my posts. we're not against subjective impressions as long as they're clearly expressed as such and don't serve to draw objective conclusions. we're not against anecdotal experiments, this topic is pretty much all about doing and sharing some. but we're certainly against drawing audio conclusions from sighted tests. as you already knew.


----------



## jgazal (May 13, 2018)

RRod said:


> When I think XTC I think what you have to do to use speakers as the delivery mechanism for virtualization. Is there something more than that going on here?



I am not sure if you are asking what I am going to write, but I will try my best.

What are the differences between what Smyth calls a personal/head/binaural room impulse response and a HRTF head *related* impulse response - HRIR?

AFAIK:

1. PRIR/HRIR/BRIR are impulses with a time window long enough to measure room reflections, usually with low density. Dr. Choueiri used to advocate two positions and Smyth 16 or even 32.

2. HRTF HRIR are impulses at anechoic chambers, usually with high density.

With a HRIR/HRTF and objects you can skip panning and place an object at a given azimuth and elevation.

With a PRIR/HRIR/BRIR you must rely on panning and that introduces crosstalk artifacts.

But Dr. Choueiri relies on a trick/shortcut (or a kind of wormhole  ) to use only two speakers. He uses binaural synthesis at delivery, because:



> The practical application, universality and success of the method is further assured by its reduction of the problem of reproducing the location of (often) multiple sound sources in the recording, whose locations are generally unknown, to simply emulating the sound of crosstalk cancelled speakers whose position is fixed in space in the front part of azimuthal plane, which allows taking advantage of the well-documented psychoacoustic fact that localization of sound sources in the front part of the *azimuthal plane* is largely insensitive to differences between individual head related transfer functions (HRTF).
> 
> Taking advantage of this last fact allows the system and method of the present invention to produce *non-individualized* (i.e. universal) filters that effectively externalize 3D sound from headphones for all listeners. It is an important experimentally-verified feature of the present invention that these non-individualized filters are practically as effective as individualized ones.
> 
> System and method for producing head-externalized 3D audio through headphones



But to do that you must have crosstalk “cancellation” (in fact is a reduction) and head tracking. The caveat as I said before is that spectral cues may differ a lot so elevation will suffer. It is fine for music, but imprecise for VR... That is why Dr. Choueiri also measures high density HRIR/HRTF in his lab, is researching HRTF modeling and offers state of the art high order ambisonics processing with Bacch-dsp...

Smyth Realiser just emulate the standard stereo image with soundstage between the speakers, unless you hit the optional button I mentioned before. And then there is no reduction, but absolute cancellation.

Is that what you were asking?

Edit: thank you very much @RRod for explaining the precise concepts of HRIR and HRTF!


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> so already we're not talking about DACs anymore but 2 different DACs+amps. who claimed that they would sound the same? at best we believe that fine DACs should sound the same once level matched. for amps already it's much more complicated without clearly knowing the load used and how they measure under those loads. the old you would probably have found this to be a reasonable cause for not drawing your conclusions about those devices in general.
> you don't need a blind test to notice very clear differences, I listen to music just fine without a blind test, obviously. but then many audiophiles will describe small or even non existent differences as night and day. so we end up in a position where we can't really trust anything because we can never tell when somebody is full of crap without involving a controlled test to confirm the results.
> having many people with the same opinion about differences could be that they're all correct, and it often will be so. but sometimes it's just that people all saw the first review from some e-famous guy who described the differences that way, and since, everybody has just been parroting, often without even realizing it. I've witnessed this too many times not to consider the possibility when a group agrees on something. so once more, how can people tell when it's a correct feedback and when it's not? you wouldn't let things like that go if we were discussing blind tests.
> 
> you take away from my 2 posts that I'm against anecdotal reports, which is certainly nice deflecting but has nothing to do with my posts. we're not against subjective impressions as long as they're clearly expressed as such and don't serve to draw objective conclusions. we're not against anecdotal experiments, this topic is pretty much all about doing and sharing some. but we're certainly against drawing audio conclusions from sighted tests. as you already knew.



I was imprecise with my language, and assumed it was implied that I meant the DAC+amp of those two Chord products.  My impressions in comparing them are based on various headphones ranging from inefficient (e.g., LCD-3) to efficient (e.g., 99 Classics), at various volume levels, with various tracks.  I agree that many/most of the claims of night and day differences are likely way overblown, if those differences exist at all; it can be irritating to hear those claims, but I've come to accept that it's part of the audio world.  I've considered the possibility that people's impressions are similar because of parroting, but my impression of the Hugo 2 was formed before I read reviews of it (I expected it to sound the same as the Mojo, hence being able to rule out a justification for spending more than the Mojo), and I've read numerous impressions with particular headphones that are strikingly similar to my own (e.g., the 99 Classics can sound boomy with the Hugo 2, but that issue is noticeably less with the Mojo).

It occurs to me that, since I'm using headphones, it shouldn't be difficult to set up a blind test to compare these DACs.  All I should need is a simple switching box with two input jacks and a single output jack.  If anyone can provide a recommendation, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## RRod

jgazal said:


> I am not sure if you are asking what I am going to write, but I will try my best.
> 
> What are the differences between a personal/head/binaural room impulse response and a HRTF?
> 
> ...



Thank you, that clears it up a bit. It's hard to keep track sometimes given all the terms and the varying philosophies of what each system is trying to deliver. Thanks for you patience! The only thing I'll note here is that typically I've thought of the HRTF as being the Fourier transform of the HRIR.


----------



## jgazal (May 13, 2018)

RRod said:


> Thank you, that clears it up a bit. It's hard to keep track sometimes given all the terms and the varying philosophies of what each system is trying to deliver. Thanks for you patience!



What Dr. Choueiri does is to take an stereo recording with ILD and ITD and expand the sound stage in 180 degrees in the azimuthal plane, no matter the speakers in a room or the virtual speakers are.

The Realiser only emulates the standard stereo effect with 2 speakers.

Thank you to you too, you were also patient with my questions over the years.



RRod said:


> The only thing I'll note here is that typically I've thought of the HRTF as being the Fourier transform of the HRIR.



Yes, I am wrong.

Perhaps a more precise definition would be that the HRTF is Fourier transform of binaural set of impulses made in an anechoic chamber?

Thanks for clarifying that also!


----------



## jgazal (May 13, 2018)

Now I see where I am failing. What defines HRTF is not the number of sources measured, but the fact that it is transformation from a head related impulse response.

What I was trying to say before is how what Smyth call personal room impulse response PRIR or binaural room impulse response BRIR which are limited from 1 to 16 sources are different from HRIR, that usually are measured with a great number of sources.

So the reference to the HRTF was wrong. It is a pitty I cannot strike the text. Does anyone know how to strike the text?


----------



## castleofargh

I'm kind of curious too. to know if there are clear definitions for stuff like HRIR and if we're using them wrongly when in situations of a non anechoic room. my assumption about HRIR was originally like RRod's, the actual impulses recorded in the anechoic chamber we then use to make the HRTF. so when used in the context of consumer room, do they simply make the impulse short enough that reflections are assumed to have no yet reached the ear, and it's still technically kind of a HRIR? or is it just a broader use of the term because we don't really have a word for what we're talking about? I admit that I've been throwing those terms left and right over the years without even thinking of looking up if I was participating in typical audiophile appropriation of words for something else.


----------



## castleofargh

jgazal said:


> Now I see where I am failing. What defines HRTF is not the number of sources measured, but the fact that it is transformation from a head related impulse response.
> 
> What I was trying to say before is how what Smyth call personal room impulse response PRIR or binaural room impulse response BRIR which are limited from 1 to 16 sources are different from a HRIR that usually are measured with a great number of sources.
> 
> So the reference to the HRTF was wrong. It is a pitty I cannot strike the text. Does anyone knows how to strike the text?


the "insert" button between the video icon and the floppy disc. it opens a list with strike option for the selected part of text.


----------



## jgazal

castleofargh said:


> the "insert" button between the video icon and the floppy disc. it opens a list with strike option for the selected part of text.



Thank you very much. Now it is much better!


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> Somehow, they sound different, in the ways I described.  It would be interesting to see what differences, if any, would be found in blind testing.



Since you are the one who heard the difference, you are the perfect person to conduct the blind test. I’m willing to bet I know the outcome. Aside from defects of manufacture or design, they should sound identical. Do the test and let us know what you find out. People here will help you figure out how to do it if you ask.


----------



## Malfunkt

castleofargh said:


> I feel stuck in the middle of this binaural argument. I despise the idea that headphone users are fine with music mastered for speakers. but I got mostly poor results with binaural records(Chesky and a bunch of other stuff from the time when I thought binaural would save my headphone experience). I tried to test if I preferred stuff involving a dummy head or just 2 mics side by side, strangely(or not?) records from dummy heads felt worst for me. I'm guessing it's because my head is just not good at following the average human design? or maybe it's simply that those mics are no good aside from measurement purposes? IDK, but I haven't been lucky with that.
> also for the vast majority of my favorite bands, I'd rather have a good mixing and mastering job done, and multi mic or mix of several takes, to make pleasing well balanced music, than get "real" sound from a live play. that's totally a matter of personal taste, obviously. but it's true for me.



Been trying to find a way to interject myself into this conversation, as I have a fair bit of experience - as a listener! - for binaural, but also perspective as gamer. 

I agree with you Castle, that it is better to just have a great mix, quality recording and production for music, and at the present this is preferred over most binaural recordings for even live music. This goes for whether listening on headphones or speakers.  The Chesky recordings are neat, and can be immersive, but it is going to be very dependent on the overall room space and mic placements. 

Our current technology is still limited in what mics can pick up and what speakers can reproduce. DSP will eventually help us simulate real world playback tailored to our own biology, but we aren't there yet. Binaural recording is still an approximation, and a creative recording technique. 

I've actually been spending a good chunk of the day listening to music that integrates binaural field recording along with conventional stereo mix-down. This is actually very common in electronic music. Also, you will hear bits of binaural mixed in with pop production. So many listeners are using headphones, that using a bit of binaural can work creatively. And yes, while we all have different HRTF, a general HRTF model will still work to create spatial effect. 

Also, for gamers out there, some of the top games like Overwatch use Dolby for Headphones. The emulation is incredible and easy to hear information above, below and behind you.

Here is a list of some music titles I've been checking out today:



Cryo Chamber Label, an entire label of dark ambient





http://cryochamber.bandcamp.com

Some other binaural:





straight up binaural recordings (the newer ones are great using the DPA mics) http://saamleng.bandcamp.com/album/bkkw



My favourite app and some of the best binaural nature recordings I've heard: http://www.naturespace.org/

Gordon Hempton who is capturing the sound of our disappearing habitats: https://www.soundtracker.com/


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> Stereo is so vague term.


It's actually not vague at all, it's well defined but includes more than one method.  Stereo is derived from the Greek word "stereós", which has the meaning of dimensionality (literally "solid", as in 3D).  We commonly have the two-channel version which we generally refer to as "stereo".  I see no problem with term at all.


71 dB said:


> Binaural is one type of stereo sound. Ping Pong is another type. Stereophonic recordings are produced for speakers using different methods of creating spatiality: Microphone set ups, panning, effects, etc.


Agreed.


71 dB said:


> The mentality is "no natural spatiality needed", because the room transforms (acoustic crossfeed) the spatial information into something natural.


No, that's your own incorrect exaggeration.  That's not the "mentality" of the creators at all, especially the part about no spatial information needed.


71 dB said:


> So, we have ILDs and ITD beyond natural values on our stereo recordings. With crossfeed we fix this for headphones. Where in the hell does this logic fall apart in your opinion?


As I've said more than once before, the recording and reproduction of sound creates an entirely new thing, not a replication of a reality, but an artistic and acceptable representation capable of communicating the musical idea of the original, or in the case of most contemporary music where the recording is the original, creating something that expresses the idea and emotion well, including spatially, given the reproduction methods our audiences have access to.  That means that "natural" often goes out the window on both speakers or headphones, but that doesn't me it's wrong.  

We all pretty much know for certain what your opinion of headphone cross feed is, and that you feel it will save the audio world, but your opinion is not shared widely at all, not by listeners or content creators.


71 dB said:


> I don't care if 99.99 % of population accepts something stupid. If they are wrong they are wrong! I was wrong myself years ago.


Well, I could be curt and say "what do you mean 'was'?, but I doubt the point would get across.  You have a very strong opinion that you insist, even after months and months, in presenting as fact, true and correct. It's your opinion!  Everyone has one, and no, 99.998% of the population isn't stupid, deaf, or wrong just because you have a a strong opinion!  

(Does _ANY_ of this sound familiar to you?)



71 dB said:


> 1. The part that ignores headphone listening.


It's pretty safe to say that today headphone listening is not ignored, it's just that content creators don't agree with your opinion.  You'll likely say that any mix with unnatural ILD is ignoring headphones, but such is not the case because that's a parameter _you_ have defined and strongly weighted.  Others do not weight that parameter in the same way.  To think that a mix would not be checked on headphones is naive.  The fact that the result is what it is simply indicates the creators were satisfied with the results, compromised or not.  Again, there have been many recordings produced with headphone listening in mind that shatter *your* rules of what is right.  But they are only *your rules.*


71 dB said:


> 2. Well, one count modulate the acoustic event into ultrasonic frequencies and create a new reality for dogs…


Now you're being obtuse.


71 dB said:


> 3. "_Omnistereophonic_" sound that is really smart so that it doesn't have excessive ILD/ITD for headphones, but sounds "wide" enough on loudspeakers unlike binaural sound.


[/quote]You're asking to place artificial limits on the creative process, with the end result being the ultimate compromise!   Nobody's going to do that for you.  Just go ahead and cross feed. To expect creators to yield to your demands is unlikely at best.  And making up words doesn't help.

As I've stated, I've tried several types of cross-feed, I find it works well on some recordings, not well on most, and is completely unnecessary on the bulk of recordings made in the last 40 years (that's the bulk of all stereo recordings, BTW).   But I'm not going to say someone is wrong for using it on everything just because I don't care for cross-feed!   I can say the exact same thing about binaural: I've recorded in that format using several different mic configurations (have you?), I've played recordings I've made, and those of others on several different types of headphones and speakers.  I feel it works well only in a tiny set of conditions, which for me was mics shoved into my own ears and played back on extra-aural headphones on my own ears.  I find the effect ranges from shocking to surprising to disturbing, but haven't found the sweet spot for truly entertaining binaural past the novelty of the effect.  Given the difficulty of producing a good binaural recording, and the necessity to produce a recording that works well on all types of playback systems, it's plain to me why binaural has been a failure, even though it's been tinkered with for 40+ years.  

So, 71, do you really want to do this again?  Last time one of us got really upset and discouraged, and I don't think you had much fun.  In case you can't recall, my issue with what you're doing is not that you have an opinion or wish to express it, but that you state it as immutable fact and denigrate others who don't share it.  I still have that problem with what you're doing, and your'e still at it.  So, we can go another round if you like, or just drop it.  Your choice.


----------



## pinnahertz

Malfunkt said:


> Been trying to find a way to interject myself into this conversation, as I have a fair bit of experience - as a listener! - for binaural, but also perspective as gamer.
> 
> I agree with you Castle, that it is better to just have a great mix, quality recording and production for music, and at the present this is preferred over most binaural recordings for even live music. This goes for whether listening on headphones or speakers.  The Chesky recordings are neat, and can be immersive, but it is going to be very dependent on the overall room space and mic placements.
> 
> ...



Until the nature recordings I didn't hear anything specifically "binaural" in those, though they do have some interesting spatial effects.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> It's actually not vague at all, it's well defined but includes more than one method.  Stereo is derived from the Greek word "stereós", which has the meaning of dimensionality (literally "solid", as in 3D).  We commonly have the two-channel version which we generally refer to as "stereo".  I see no problem with term at all.
> 
> Agreed.


That's good. 



pinnahertz said:


> 1. No, that's your own incorrect exaggeration.  That's not the "mentality" of the creators at all, especially the part about no spatial information needed.



2. As I've said more than once before, the recording and reproduction of sound creates an entirely new thing, not a replication of a reality, but an artistic and acceptable representation capable of communicating the musical idea of the original, or in the case of most contemporary music where the recording is the original, creating something that expresses the idea and emotion well, including spatially, given the reproduction methods our audiences have access to.  That means that "natural" often goes out the window on both speakers or headphones, but that doesn't me it's wrong. 

3. We all pretty much know for certain what your opinion of headphone cross feed is, and that you feel it will save the audio world, but your opinion is not shared widely at all, not by listeners or content creators.

4. Well, I could be curt and say "what do you mean 'was'?, but I doubt the point would get across.  You have a very strong opinion that you insist, even after months and months, in presenting as fact, true and correct. It's your opinion!  Everyone has one, and no, 99.998% of the population isn't stupid, deaf, or wrong just because you have a a strong opinion! [/QUOTE]
1. I get that you may see it exaggarated, but incorrect? As if the creators were superhumans who do everything right and don't have any kind of occupational biases/traditions/conventions affecting mentality. Everyone gets criticized for what they do. 
My suggestion has been to limit ILD to 6 dB at low frequencies, say below 500 Hz. That's it! This is based on the fact that you don't get larger ILD values at low frequencies unless the sound source is near the head. The original musical idea hardly is to have the band play a feet from your ears, is it? People seem to want "wide" sound with headphones. Control ILD and you'll have wider sound.
2. I believe with classical music the goal is to mimick the reality as closely as possible. When it comes to commercial music all bets are off. However, it is iffy to have musical ideas having to do with excessive ILT/ITD, because with loudspeakers you don't have those unless you run a crosstalk cancellation system. Loudspeakers sound always natural because of the room acoustics and HRTF of the listener forcing it natural. Even monophonic recordings create a natural diffuse soundfield in the room, spatially flat, but natural nevertheless. With headphones we "lose" this forcing to natural process and we should be careful about what we feed into the ears.
3. Many listeners prefer crossfeed. I'm not alone with my views.
4. Before winter 2012 my views were close to yours, but then I realized I had been ignorant about the problems of excessive ILT/ITD. So, I do understand why this ignorance is common among people.

(Does _ANY_ of this sound familiar to you?)



pinnahertz said:


> 1. It's pretty safe to say that today headphone listening is not ignored, it's just that content creators don't agree with your opinion.  You'll likely say that any mix with unnatural ILD is ignoring headphones, but such is not the case because that's a parameter _you_ have defined and strongly weighted.  Others do not weight that parameter in the same way.  To think that a mix would not be checked on headphones is naive.  The fact that the result is what it is simply indicates the creators were satisfied with the results, compromised or not.  Again, there have been many recordings produced with headphone listening in mind that shatter *your* rules of what is right.  But they are only _*your rules.*_



2. You're asking to place artificial limits on the creative process, with the end result being the ultimate compromise!   Nobody's going to do that for you.  Just go ahead and cross feed. To expect creators to yield to your demands is unlikely at best.  And making up words doesn't help.[/QUOTE]
1. Some content creators seem to agree with me because some recordings don't need crossfeed.
2. There are other limits too, for example the product must usually be marketable. Or how about loudness wars? Doesn't that limit content creators?



pinnahertz said:


> As I've stated, I've tried several types of cross-feed, I find it works well on some recordings, not well on most, and is completely unnecessary on the bulk of recordings made in the last 40 years (that's the bulk of all stereo recordings, BTW).   But I'm not going to say someone is wrong for using it on everything just because I don't care for cross-feed!   I can say the exact same thing about binaural: I've recorded in that format using several different mic configurations (have you?), I've played recordings I've made, and those of others on several different types of headphones and speakers.  I feel it works well only in a tiny set of conditions, which for me was mics shoved into my own ears and played back on extra-aural headphones on my own ears.  I find the effect ranges from shocking to surprising to disturbing, but haven't found the sweet spot for truly entertaining binaural past the novelty of the effect.  Given the difficulty of producing a good binaural recording, and the necessity to produce a recording that works well on all types of playback systems, it's plain to me why binaural has been a failure, even though it's been tinkered with for 40+ years.
> 
> So, 71, do you really want to do this again?  Last time one of us got really upset and discouraged, and I don't think you had much fun.  In case you can't recall, my issue with what you're doing is not that you have an opinion or wish to express it, but that you state it as immutable fact and denigrate others who don't share it.  I still have that problem with what you're doing, and your'e still at it.  So, we can go another round if you like, or just drop it.  Your choice.


I have recorded using mics in my ears (true binaural) and I also have DIY Jecklin disk which makes binaural-like sound. Too bad binaural is such a failure bacause it works so well with headphones.


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 14, 2018)

7





71 dB said:


> 1. Call me crazy, but usually people purchase music to support the music they like rather than recording styles. People just don't want to invest money on "****ty" music just because it's recorded correctly.
> 2. Binaural recordings aren't _impossible_.


AP demos can be fabulous , like 1-5 vol of Woman , XRCD.  I would buy but its  free. 
You csn be stunned by 1 pc is an otherwise  boring Fone record . That Neuman mike is close to the best I have heard short of binaural


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> 2. If you record solo piano playing with a dummy head what is there to mix?
> 3. -
> 4. You can't do it that "correctly", but you can do what you can and hope it fools hearing.



2. Nothing, and that's exactly the problem/limitation!!
3. Exactly!
4. Dealt with in 4.1 below.


71 dB said:


> 1. I don't ignore and I haven't made up nonsense.
> 2. I don't know why you think the dummy head recording would not work in practise. [2a] Sure, it far from a common method, but so what?
> 3. On the contrary, you haven't explained why it's impossible.
> 4.1. Hearing is fooled quite easily, but even this is demanding. You need to have enough consistent spatial information.
> 4.2. If you have content say 170° out of phase, most of it is canceled and the rest becomes monophonic information (at level -15.2 dB). Reverb, etc. have in phase and out of phase components and summing channels removes the out-of-phase components so that for example the in-phase component of reverb remains after the summing.



1. You have made up nonsense, it's nonsense for several reasons:
2. Here's what you stated: "_Old school method: Take a dummy head to an anechoic chamber and record every track (pre-recorded in any suitable way) positioning a loudspeaker around the dummy head in desired positions. New school method: Take someones HRTFs and convolute the tracks with them. These methods are hardly impossible._" - What do you mean "pre-recorded in any suitable way"? We're talking about binaural recording, so either it's recorded binaurally or it's some other recording technique/method/style. What do you mean "a loudspeaker"? How does "a loudspeaker" reproduce a binaural recording, do you mean two loudspeakers? Either way, you're taking a binaural recording and re-recording it binaurally which will ruin/mess-up the spatial information of the original binaural recording, plus impart the response characteristics of your speaker/s and for what benefit, why not just use the original binaural recording and avoid the whole anechoic chamber thing? What you suggest is therefore effectively Impossible; it's more time, effort and cost to ruin the advantages of recording binaural in the first place! As this is clearly nonsense, you're presumably talking about "pre-recorded" as being typical individual, mono mic, multi-track recordings which you then output from a speaker one at a time and record binaurally in an anechoic chamber? If so, then this is nonsense too! Firstly, it would obviously NOT be binaural recording, it would be a typical individual, mono-mic, multi-tracked recording! Secondly, the whole point of a binaural recording is to capture the sound waves as they would enter your ears, which obviously includes the natural spatial information (reflections/reverb of the venue). What natural spatial information are you going to record from a bunch of individually mono mic'ed recordings which you are then re-recording in an anechoic chamber? What you'd actually end-up with is a bunch of nearly flat, dead recordings which are about as far from "immersive" and a "feel of realism" as it's possible to imagine (on HPs or speakers)! And, how could you possibly deal with a drumkit using your no school method? Whichever way you did it you'd just end-up with a mess, due to mic spill and/or not being able to separately process the instruments in the kit. There's other reasons it's nonsense but this is enough to demonstrate the point. And lastly, your "new school method" is not impossible but it is irrelevant because again it is NOT binaural recording, it is traditional/typical recording to which you then just apply HRTFs!
2a. What do you mean "so what"? "Far from a common method" is an understatement, "never" would be closer to the actual truth! How many music recording studios have you seen that even have an anechoic chamber, let alone re-record binaurally in them how you've suggested? I can't say for certain that no one has ever tried it but I can say for certain that it's never been a school/movement. The "so what" is that you just made-up all this "old school"/"new school" nonsense, there was no such school!
3. How is all the above NOT already patently obvious to you?
4.1 You can't have it both ways! Either we need to record binaurally to capture all that spatial information accurately/precisely or, the ears are easy to fool and we can multi-mic (in the case of acoustic music) or individually mono-mic (in the case of non-acoustic genres) and manufacture a mix to fool the ears? Answer this: If the ears are that easy to fool, what would be the difference between a binaural recording and a typical recording/mix but with all the elements psycho-acoustically panned (instead of normal, level based panning)?
4.2. Exactly! As you now seem to agree, much of the reverb/spatial information is NOT removed completely, it remains after the summing in the mono information. This is trivially easy to test for yourself, with natural or artificial reverb, you could even just take your solo piano recording and sum it to mono, job done in just a few seconds! What you're now saying, what trivially easy testing would clearly demonstrate and what I've already stated, ALL completely contradicts your assertion: "_Whaaat??? Simply summing left and right channels removes spatial information completely._" It's bad enough just making a false statement of fact in the first place but worse still, you compounded your error by asserting it so absolutely and incredulously and even implied that I had no idea what I was talking about and you were the educated one. Anyone here can run such an simple/easy test and see for themselves that your assertion is wrong, even assuming that they don't already know! If you're unsure of a fact, then ask or at least state that you're unsure. That way you might learn something or a least cover your ass somewhat if you are mistaken and avoid the assumption that yet another delusional audiophool is just making-up nonsense to support some ridiculous belief/agenda!

G


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> 1. I get that you may see it exaggarated, but incorrect? As if the creators were superhumans who do everything right and don't have any kind of occupational biases/traditions/conventions affecting mentality. Everyone gets criticized for what they do.


It's exaggerated and incorrect because you're saying that those who created the work are wrong.  It's a creative work they have made, how can it be wrong? 


71 dB said:


> My suggestion has been to limit ILD to 6 dB at low frequencies, say below 500 Hz. That's it! This is based on the fact that you don't get larger ILD values at low frequencies unless the sound source is near the head. The original musical idea hardly is to have the band play a feet from your ears, is it? People seem to want "wide" sound with headphones. Control ILD and you'll have wider sound.


Yes, I know precisely what you suggest.  Do it if you like it, but STOP PROCLAIMING IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS IGNORANT!  It's an OPINION, not a FACT.  For example, you keep claiming that cross-feed widens the sound with headphones, but in my experience the opposite is true.  A


71 dB said:


> 2. I believe with classical music the goal is to mimick the reality as closely as possible.


Here's an excerpt from "Sound Reproduction" by Floyd Toole, ch 1, pg 6:_ "The point here is that “reproduction does not really separate copies from originals but instead results in the creation of a distinctive form of originality: the possibility of reproduction transforms the practice of production” (Sterne,2003, p. 220). Knowing that the production process will lead to a reproduction liberates a new level of artistic creativity. *Capturing the total essence of a “live” event is no longer the only, or even the best, objective. *Movies have taken this idea to very high levels of development. It is more than “high realism”; it includes aspects of extreme fantasy. If something can be done, someone will do it. A harpsichord, a feeble instrument, can be made to sound competitive with a 75-piece orchestra. During a recording, microphones can sample only a tiny portion of the complex three-dimensional sound fi eld surrounding musical instruments in a performance space. What is captured is an incomplete characterization of the source. During playback, a multichannel reproduction system can reproduce only a portion of the complex three-dimensional sound field that surrounds a listener at a live performance. What is reproduced will be different from what is heard at a live event."_


71 dB said:


> When it comes to commercial music all bets are off. However, it is iffy to have musical ideas having to do with excessive ILT/ITD, because with loudspeakers you don't have those unless you run a crosstalk cancellation system. Loudspeakers sound always natural because of the room acoustics and HRTF of the listener forcing it natural. Even monophonic recordings create a natural diffuse soundfield in the room, spatially flat, but natural nevertheless. With headphones we "lose" this forcing to natural process and we should be careful about what we feed into the ears.


Read the quote again


71 dB said:


> 3. Many listeners prefer crossfeed. I'm not alone with my views.


Not alone, but in the minority.


71 dB said:


> 4. Before winter 2012 my views were close to yours, but then I realized I had been ignorant about the problems of excessive ILT/ITD. So, I do understand why this* ignorance is common among people.*


*This is offensive.  Elevating an amateur above the entire mass of professionals is arrogant and egocentric. *
(Does _ANY_ of this sound familiar to you?)


71 dB said:


> 1. Some content creators seem to agree with me because some recordings don't need crossfeed.


No!  Their choices just happen to satisfy you!  Their resulting art is not evidence they've joined your religion.


71 dB said:


> 2. There are other limits too, for example the product must usually be marketable. Or how about loudness wars? Doesn't that limit content creators?


Those are choices, the entire binaural method imposes limits.  There is a difference.


71 dB said:


> I have recorded using mics in my ears (true binaural) and I also have DIY Jecklin disk which makes binaural-like sound. Too bad binaural is such a failure bacause it works so well with headphones.


I'll bet you love your own recordings!


----------



## 71 dB

Sorry about my bad post. I got very bad news about my mother and I can't consentrate on posting. Maybe it's best to take a break and come back later.


----------



## KeithEmo (May 14, 2018)

I think your last claim would be disputed by a lot of people....

For example, I'm not at all a connoisseur of "fine art", and I'm especially not at all fond of renaissance painters, so, TO ME, the difference between an original Rembrandt and a good $5000 forgery is quite small. However, to someone who enjoys fine art, I suspect the difference might be "major" or even "glaring". Likewise, I can tell the difference between a $5 glass of wine and a $50 glass of wine, although I don't find it important. Incidentally, even though I probably couldn't tell the difference between the original Rembrandt and the forgery at the moment, I'm told it's something I could LEARN to recognize (apparently Rembrandt used certain brush strokes and colors you can learn to recognize - if you pay careful attention - once someone points out to you what they are).

Therefore, you can perhaps determine what is distinguishable to a human, and what even what is distinguishable to a trained human but not an untrained one, but the matter of what's "important" is always going to be a matter of opinion. I'm not about to make a blanket claim that the $5000 Rembrandt reproduction I might buy at a mid-level art gallery is "absolutely, positively, just as good as the original".



bigshot said:


> Subtle differences are easy for the brain to acclimate to. If you have a gentle EQ difference between two samples and compare them using long term listening, they will both sound correct because your brain will correct for the imbalance. However a subtle EQ difference is very likely to show up in direct A/B switching, because you have a clear reference to compare. However it's probably also true that if a difference is that subtle, odds are that it doesn't matter for the purposes of listening to music in the home. By the time you get to the point where the difference is very small, you've already passed the point where it's important.


----------



## KeithEmo

I've heard INDIVIDUAL examples of binaural recording where the placement of objects behind the head is extremely effective (there's an old recording of a barber cutting your hair that turns up from time to time which seems very effective - but I don't know the original source). That particular recording works almost perfectly for me, and for most people I know, though it isn't customized with my HRTF. It's also notable that it is a demo that was created with the sole intent of showing off the technology, which means that the content itself is DESIGNED to position well. So, for example, because you are placed in the context of someone sitting in a barber chair, with the barber moving around you, it's quite possible that your brain interpolates or makes up some of the experience based on what it expects. (If the barber says "I'm going to go over and cut your hair on the right side now", it's possible that your perception of his walking around your back to the right is partially cued in, or at least reinforced, because you expect to hear that. Although, equally, I guess someone listening to a classical orchestra also has an expectation of where the instruments should be positioned in the orchestra.)



bigshot said:


> I’m beginning to wonder about the effectiveness of head tracking to get across sound from the rear. With my new VR headset there’s programming with dimensional sound that utilizes head-tracking. I haven’t found anything that really works to place sound clearly in the rear.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm afraid I can answer your question - in the context of commercial content.

Binaural content requires special equipment, special preparation, and a particular type of expertise to produce. Assuming that your biggest market segments are conventional stereo and surround sound, you can record a single set of raw tracks using multiple microphones that can be used to produce both, but you would need to produce a whole separate master recording for the binaural version (assuming you want a real binaural recording instead of one "faked up" in a studio). Even worse, the actual requirements and setup might be different. Therefore, unless the market for your binaural recording version would be sufficient to justify the additional cost and bother, nobody is going to do it.



71 dB said:


> Eliminates all popular music genres of the last 50 years or so? Did I demand that everything is made binaural? I don't expect new binaural Kanye West album, but if you release say Fauré's Nocturnes or J.S. Bach Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin why not go binaural?


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I think your last claim would be disputed by a lot of people....
> 
> For example, I'm not at all a connoisseur of "fine art", and I'm especially not at all fond of renaissance painters, so, TO ME, the difference between an original Rembrandt and a good $5000 forgery is quite small. However, to someone who enjoys fine art, I suspect the difference might be "major" or even "glaring". Likewise, I can tell the difference between a $5 glass of wine and a $50 glass of wine, although I don't find it important. Incidentally, even though I probably couldn't tell the difference between the original Rembrandt and the forgery at the moment, I'm told it's something I could LEARN to recognize (apparently Rembrandt used certain brush strokes and colors you can learn to recognize - if you pay careful attention - once someone points out to you what they are).
> 
> Therefore, you can perhaps determine what is distinguishable to a human, and what even what is distinguishable to a trained human but not an untrained one, but the matter of what's "important" is always going to be a matter of opinion. I'm not about to make a blanket claim that the $5000 Rembrandt reproduction I might buy at a mid-level art gallery is "absolutely, positively, just as good as the original".



The question of what counts as an 'important' difference is an interesting one.  Beyond being subjective in general, I think it depends on what the listener is in the habit of paying attention to, and therefore has difficulty ignoring.  Maybe there's something to be said for training ourselves to listen in a way which enhances our enjoyment of music using the systems we have, rather than simply trying to improve our hearing acuity, as though 'more' is always better.  If we keep noticing where we find our systems lacking, I don't see how that can be a good thing (except in contexts like recording).


----------



## Malfunkt

pinnahertz said:


> Until the nature recordings I didn't hear anything specifically "binaural" in those, though they do have some interesting spatial effects.



Yes. I should have been more specific. The label incorporates field recordings some of them truly binaural as quoted from the article below. 

http://www.side-line.com/new-god-bo...rs-fate-released-on-cryo-chamber-listen-here/

While strict binaural is a commercial failure it is still being used creatively. Actually, there are a ton of ASMR videos on YouTube so perhaps it has found a renaissance (though rather odd). 

I definitely agree that the majority of today’s mastered music has found a balance for headphone and speaker listening. Mastering for speakers is the norm and if a headphone listener really wants that experience they have a number of more advanced options than crossfeed including Dolby Atmos for Headphones (especially effective on multichannel) and quite inexpensive.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with you there.

My background is in science and engineering, so I'm inclined to believe that "accepted scientific facts" are more likely to be true than subjective experiences, especially those that are more consistent with bias or mis-perception than science.
However, if enough anecdotal experiences seem to suggest that there's something going on, I'm not going to dismiss it all out of hand without at least investigating it.
(After all, aspirin was discovered after someone investigated a bunch of anecdotal claims that chewing the bark of a certain tree made headaches go away.)

For example, if hundreds of people report seeing a similar UFO, at the same time, on a certain day, then I'm at least going to consider that something happened.
There may have been something flying around that they all saw, or perhaps something prompted everyone to have the same hallucination, or maybe it was "just mass hysteria". 
However, I'm not just going to say: "The radar showed nothing so I know for a fact that they're just imagining it". 

Likewise, if a bunch of people claim that a certain DAC sounds better than another, and especially if they all describe the difference the same way, I'm going to investigate why.
(Even if it turns out that everyone imagines that particular DAC sounds better because of the shape of the control buttons..... well, THAT would be interesting too.... but, either way, I don't actually have any evidence that they AREN'T experiencing something different.)



Phronesis said:


> That's a rhetorical argument.  But following that analogy, the opposite would be a sort of universal atheism, which has its own problems ...
> 
> I'm a pragmatist, I go in the direction the available evidence takes me, attaching a judgment to the degree of uncertainty based on the quality and quantity of that evidence.  That leads to doubting or not doubting things to various degrees, I'm not generally a black and white thinker.  And level of skepticism needs to balance risk of both false positives and false negatives - in some circumstances, the pole of extreme skepticism (or very high bar for evidence) isn't always the 'safe' option.
> 
> People reading my anecdote of course can and should attach as much or as little weight to it as they judge appropriate.


----------



## Malfunkt

KeithEmo said:


> I'm afraid I can answer your question - in the context of commercial content.
> 
> Binaural content requires special equipment, special preparation, and a particular type of expertise to produce. Assuming that your biggest market segments are conventional stereo and surround sound, you can record a single set of raw tracks using multiple microphones that can be used to produce both, but you would need to produce a whole separate master recording for the binaural version (assuming you want a real binaural recording instead of one "faked up" in a studio). Even worse, the actual requirements and setup might be different. Therefore, unless the market for your binaural recording version would be sufficient to justify the additional cost and bother, nobody is going to do it.



To add (points which may have already been beaten to death)

1. There actually is a massive market for headphone listening. Yet that doesn’t mean binaural recording is the most ideal or preferred method for artists to make their music as...

2. The majority of today’s music is not recorded in a live venue in a single take but is an artistic process in itself of engineering, mixing and multtracking using DSP. 

3. Some of the spatial and other DSP effects used translate well to both speakers and headphones. So it’s a win win. Most music doesn’t necessitate musical ‘objects’ flying around your head - perhaps for the odd effect. 

4. All is not lost, surround sound and multichannel processing is still developing. Should VR ever take off in a major way, we may see some changes to the music medium.


----------



## KeithEmo (May 14, 2018)

I'm sorry, but the whole thing against "anecdotal evidence" is getting to be almost as old as the problems with subjective claims.

A significant portion of scientific discovery starts out as anecdotal claims.... which themselves are often based, at least partially, on actual observations.
For example, aspirin wasn't discovered because someone decided to test the bark of every tree on the planet for medicinal properties.
It was discovered because someone decided to confirm (or fail to confirm) anecdotal claims that chewing the bark of one particular tree tended to cure headaches.

Therefore, while anecdotal claims shouldn't be accepted at face value, neither should they be dismissed "at face value", because they appear to contradict "established science".
Sometimes the anecdotal reports do end up pointing to an exception to the established science, or something entirely different, and sometimes the science is wrong.

In the current situation, established science has established that certain things, like THD, do cause audible differences when present above certain levels.
And, at least so far, it has failed to establish that certain other things produce audible differences.
However, virtually all of the "negative findings" are just that - failures to produce positive findings.
(Just because chewing on the bark of the tree in your front yard doesn't help your headache, you cannot claim to have proven that "tree bark doesn't cure headaches".)
There's nothing whatsoever "wrong" with anecdotal evidence... as long as it is clearly identified and treated as such.



castleofargh said:


> I feel stuck in the middle of this binaural argument. I despise the idea that headphone users are fine with music mastered for speakers. but I got mostly poor results with binaural records(Chesky and a bunch of other stuff from the time when I thought binaural would save my headphone experience). I tried to test if I preferred stuff involving a dummy head or just 2 mics side by side, strangely(or not?) records from dummy heads felt worst for me. I'm guessing it's because my head is just not good at following the average human design? or maybe it's simply that those mics are no good aside from measurement purposes? IDK, but I haven't been lucky with that.
> also for the vast majority of my favorite bands, I'd rather have a good mixing and mastering job done, and multi mic or mix of several takes, to make pleasing well balanced music, than get "real" sound from a live play. that's totally a matter of personal taste, obviously. but it's true for me.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with you - but only to a point.

In other contexts I've frequently experienced a situation where an experience was less than satisfying, but I wasn't able to determine exactly why. And, in those situations, training can help us figure out what's going on. To use my example of painting, an untrained observer might note that "copies just don't usually look as vibrant as real Rembrandts"; but, with training, they might be able to be more specific, and say that they find the colors of the pigments used on most copies to be less fully saturated. This extra knowledge might well enable them to enjoy paintings more, perhaps by enabling them to choose reproductions specifically rated by reviewers as having "accurate and fully saturated colors", rather than being limited to choosing those that "look good". Understanding the details often gives us an opportunity to make better choices, or even to consciously choose to avoid things that annoy us. 

For example, I happen to know that, for me personally, accurate sound stage is not a high priority. Therefore, if a certain recording is described in the reviews as "having excellent tonality but a compressed flat sound stage", I may well enjoy it anyway, while someone for whom sound stage is a critical priority probably will not. And, when choosing loudspeakers, I place greater emphasis on flat frequency response and low distortion, and less on "imaging", while they may use very different priorities.



Phronesis said:


> The question of what counts as an 'important' difference is an interesting one.  Beyond being subjective in general, I think it depends on what the listener is in the habit of paying attention to, and therefore has difficulty ignoring.  Maybe there's something to be said for training ourselves to listen in a way which enhances our enjoyment of music using the systems we have, rather than simply trying to improve our hearing acuity, as though 'more' is always better.  If we keep noticing where we find our systems lacking, I don't see how that can be a good thing (except in contexts like recording).


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I agree with you - but only to a point.
> 
> In other contexts I've frequently experienced a situation where an experience was less than satisfying, but I wasn't able to determine exactly why. And, in those situations, training can help us figure out what's going on. To use my example of painting, an untrained observer might note that "copies just don't usually look as vibrant as real Rembrandts"; but, with training, they might be able to be more specific, and say that they find the colors of the pigments used on most copies to be less fully saturated. This extra knowledge might well enable them to enjoy paintings more, perhaps by enabling them to choose reproductions specifically rated by reviewers as having "accurate and fully saturated colors", rather than being limited to choosing those that "look good". Understanding the details often gives us an opportunity to make better choices, or even to consciously choose to avoid things that annoy us.
> 
> For example, I happen to know that, for me personally, accurate sound stage is not a high priority. Therefore, if a certain recording is described in the reviews as "having excellent tonality but a compressed flat sound stage", I may well enjoy it anyway, while someone for whom sound stage is a critical priority probably will not. And, when choosing loudspeakers, I place greater emphasis on flat frequency response and low distortion, and less on "imaging", while they may use very different priorities.



I don't disagree.  I think it depends on the context.  When recording and making purchasing decisions, being able to discern 'problems' is certainly important.  When demoing equipment, I always include tracks which I know well and consider 'challenging' in various ways to see how the equipment copes with them.  My point was mainly in the context of enjoying the equipment we already have, rather than continually noticing excess or lack of X or Y, and thereby reducing enjoyment of the music.  And certainly, when the equipment is good, noticing the positive aspects of sound quality can enhance our enjoyment, as long as appreciation of _sound_ doesn't interfere with appreciation of _music_.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I'm sorry, but the whole thing against "anecdotal evidence" is getting to be almost as old as the problems with subjective claims.
> 
> A significant portion of scientific discovery starts out as anecdotal claims.... which themselves are often based, at least partially, on actual observations.
> For example, aspirin wasn't discovered because someone decided to test the bark of every tree on the planet for medicinal properties.
> ...



where do you draw the line? for one anecdote that ends up having some partial significance, how many BS will you waste your life looking into because some guy didn't bother testing things properly before running his mouth?
as I hinted in a previous post, we're usually discussing small variations, which is mostly the reason why people disagree on hearing them or them being significant in the first place. nobody needs a blind test to tell a red car apart from a dark cat. but if testimony of change is meant to become a fact for the community, I'll want some sort of evidence first and as much specification as possible in case replication is available to me. in this section it seems pretty natural IMO. we're not trying to discover the next miracle drug, we're here to try and reduce the amount of urban legends in audio circles. so again IMO, rejecting empty handed claims and random anecdotes seems perfectly adequate for that specific job.
and yes it means rejecting a number of relevant anecdotes, and a massive number of almost correct claims, like hearing the right stuff but attributing it to the wrong cause, or having the right measurable effect but only thinking we're hearing it because we know it's there... I'm personally very fine with this sacrifice. I'd rather dismiss some correct observations than accept false ones as factual. even more so when outside of this section, it's empty claim paradise. so people can take interest in the craziest feedbacks over their if they so wish and investigate to their hearts' content. it's not like I'm killing discoveries, we're not even a research section. I'm just trying to have a place a little more focused on evidence based discussions.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> where do you draw the line? for one anecdote that ends up having some partial significance, how many BS will you waste your life looking into because some guy didn't bother testing things properly before running his mouth?
> as I hinted in a previous post, we're usually discussing small variations, which is mostly the reason why people disagree on hearing them or them being significant in the first place. nobody needs a blind test to tell a red car apart from a dark cat. but if testimony of change is meant to become a fact for the community, I'll want some sort of evidence first and as much specification as possible in case replication is available to me. in this section it seems pretty natural IMO. we're not trying to discover the next miracle drug, *we're here to try and reduce the amount of urban legends in audio circles*. so again IMO, rejecting empty handed claims and random anecdotes seems perfectly adequate for that specific job.
> and yes it means rejecting a number of relevant anecdotes, and a massive number of almost correct claims, like hearing the right stuff but attributing it to the wrong cause, or having the right measurable effect but only thinking we're hearing it because we know it's there... I'm personally very fine with this sacrifice. I'd rather dismiss some correct observations than accept false ones as factual. even more so when outside of this section, it's empty claim paradise. so people can take interest in the craziest feedbacks over their if they so wish and investigate to their hearts' content. it's not like I'm killing discoveries, we're not even a research section. I'm just trying to have a place a little more focused on evidence based discussions.



To me, the bolded reflects a bias.  Personally, I'm interested in getting closer to the truth and avoiding both Type 1 and Type 2 errors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors).  Regarding what evidence should get what weight, I think each person needs to make their own judgments, and there obviously isn't a consensus on clear and simple standards for what counts as valid or invalid evidence in the audio domain.


----------



## bigshot (May 14, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I've heard INDIVIDUAL examples of binaural recording where the placement of objects behind the head is extremely effective (there's an old recording of a barber cutting your hair that turns up from time to time which seems very effective - but I don't know the original source).



That is the Chesky demo disc. I've heard that and the forward back thing only works when it is a few inches from your head, and even then it keeps snapping back and forth between front and back. In short, it sucks. That same Chesky disc has a jazz combo that sounds like it was recorded in a men's room at grand central station. Just about every binaural recording I've heard sucks. The only one I ever heard that sounded decent was a Japanese classical record, but the binaural effect was so minimal, it could just as well have been mono.

If anyone knows any really effective binaural recordings of acoustic music, please let me know. I'm not interested in electronic simulations because that sort of Pink Floyd stuff can be done without all the trappings of head dummies with microphones in the ears.



Phronesis said:


> To me, the bolded reflects a bias.



Perhaps you don't have experience dealing with the business of high end audio. Being on the lookout for snake oil isn't a bias, it's like playing Missle Command. The crap just keeps falling down on all sides.


----------



## Phronesis (May 14, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Perhaps you don't have experience dealing with the business of high end audio. Being on the lookout for snake oil isn't a bias, it's like playing Missle Command. The crap just keeps falling down on all sides.



I agree.  But debunking audio falsehoods is practical matter which is similar to, but not quite the same as, scientifically and impartially trying to figure out what's true in the audio world.  I think the former can overextend itself and fall prey to bias due to setting the filter such that too many false negatives are generated in the process of trying to limit false positives - there's usually a tradeoff involved here.


----------



## sonitus mirus (May 14, 2018)

I've chewed on tree bark and I notice an obvious difference with my headaches.  Well, the headache might still be there, but on a subconscious level it may be beneficial to soothing the pain in a manner that science may not be able to test for yet.  Any double-blind trial differs from an actual treatment as the expectations are not the same for the patients.  Additionally, it is possible for a placebo to be active.  The myriad problems with double-blind trials suggests that we can't give any more credence to the results over an anecdotal observation after licking the trunk of an oak tree.

Unless we have tested every known bark on every person that has ever had a headache, we won't know if bark chewing is a remedy.  Though, I think tree bark may have some studies to indicate that a few of the chemicals could help relieve headache pain. 



Phronesis said:


> To me, the bolded reflects a bias.  Personally, I'm interested in getting closer to the truth and avoiding both Type 1 and Type 2 errors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors).  Regarding what evidence should get what weight, I think each person needs to make their own judgments, and there obviously isn't a consensus on clear and simple standards for what counts as valid or invalid evidence in the audio domain.



You really do seem to have an agenda to disprove ABX testing in audio.  Most of the measurements are orders of magnitude below what is considered to be audible in most modern audio equipment.  What parameters are you concerned about that would require more stringent standardization?  ABX is still going to be the better option when listening for a difference.   Most sighted judgement has zero merit without measurements and a basic attempt to remove bias.


----------



## RRod

Better to use the 'true/false positive/negative' lingo, as Type I and Type II errors have specific statistical meaning and exist even if your model is a completely accurate depiction of the data.


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 14, 2018)

RRod said:


> Better to use the 'true/false positive/negative' lingo, as Type I and Type II errors have specific statistical meaning and exist even if your model is a completely accurate depiction of the data.


Analogies,
Ok
There is a well known old Chinese herbal mix , a (re)  vitalizer. 
I contains pasturized squrrel dung. 
FDA band it. 

Moral
If it exists with some at least valid evidentiary support, try it.


----------



## RRod

skwoodwiva said:


> Analogies,
> Ok
> There is a well known old Chinese herbal mix , a (re)  vitalizer.
> I contains pasturized squrrel dung.
> ...



Dunno what that has to do with error rates, but ok.


----------



## skwoodwiva

RRod said:


> Dunno what that has to do with error rates, but ok.


All about what evidence you let effect your judgment


----------



## RRod

skwoodwiva said:


> All about what evidence you let effect your judgment



I can come up with testimonials for getting kicked in the testes. Personally I want some modicum of control from the results I let drive my actions.


----------



## skwoodwiva

RRod said:


> I can come up with testimonials for getting kicked in the testes. Personally I want some modicum of control from the results I let drive my actions.


This! 
It is a medical fact a cayanne pepper blast does no harm & can improve eye sight. That is much afterword.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> I agree.  But debunking audio falsehoods is practical matter which is similar to, but not quite the same as, scientifically and impartially trying to figure out what's true in the audio world.  I think the former can overextend itself and fall prey to bias due to setting the filter such that too many false negatives are generated in the process of trying to limit false positives - there's usually a tradeoff involved here.



There can't be more false negatives than the horse poop that gets shoveled on a regular basis in the audio business. Just go around to various audiophile websites and start trying to verify the claims there. You'll find that out pronto. The proof of the pudding for false negatives is simply asking for one verifiable example of a positive result. I have a standing request for one single example of an amp that is properly manufactured and designed that sounds different than any other amp. So far... crickets. By the way, we aren't in a science lab where we investigate general science. We're talking about the science behind home audio. It's important to keep that in mind or you lose track of the context.


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 14, 2018)

bigshot said:


> There can't be more false negatives than the horse poop that gets shoveled on a regular basis in the audio business. Just go around to various audiophile websites and start trying to verify the claims there. You'll find that out pronto. The proof of the pudding for false negatives is simply asking for one verifiable example of a positive result. I have a standing request for one single example of an amp that is properly manufactured and designed that sounds different than any other amp. So far... crickets. By the way, we aren't in a science lab where we investigate general science. We're talking about the science behind home audio. It's important to keep that in mind or you lose track of the context.


I must respond,
So you think a vast or at least some
(please clarify how much of HF is a problem? ) 
 part of the forum here, outside of SS.  Is poop? 
That seems to be what you are are saying.  Please clarify if I take you wrong.


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting question.....
And I guess the answer always comes down to a combination of evaluating the current level of scientific understanding, my own personal experience, and anecdotal claims (partly based on the credentials of who is making those claims).

For example, the scientific data about cables, what they do, and their electrical characteristics, is pretty well known.
That evidence also agrees quite well with my own extensive experience.
The evidence suggests that, in the vast majority of situations, differences between the electrical characteristics of interconnect cables will probably be inaudible.
It also describes, quite precisely, what conditions are likely to pose an exception to that statement (one of which is interactions between device outputs with very high impedances and cables with very high levels of capacitance).
My experience on the subject, which is quite extensive, has shown BOTH of those predictions, based on the model of the situation defined by my understanding of it, to be correct.
(When you connect cables with high levels of capacitance to tube preamps and passive preamps with unusually high output impedances, they both measure and sound quite different; but, when connected to more typical equipment they do not.)

However, when we come to examine "possible audible differences between DACs", the situation is somewhat different.
There are several characteristics of DACs which affect factors other than frequency response, THD, and S/N.
Many of these factors are easily visible on an oscilloscope and easily measured in other ways (filter response is the most well-known one).
Furthermore, as far as I know, nobody has actually done any significant peer-reviewed research on this particular subject.
(And the idea that the results of some poorly conducted tests, on characteristics which are only somewhat related to the one in question, does not seem at all compelling to me.)
Although, however, several commercial companies, including Dolby Labs, have done more specific research which tends to support the claim that differences are audible.
My own personal anecdotal experience, as well as that of several people I consider credible, also seems to support this possibility.
On the other side of the coin, some other folks, based on their anecdotal evidence, and on a very specific interpretation of some scientific data which is not directly relevant, are quite convinced that it cannot possibly be true.
(I'm noting here that nobody has presented any records of a full scale properly conducted study on this question showing any results one way or the other.)

As it sits, if someone were to presents me with evidence, collected via a properly designed and conducted test, that I am incorrect, then I'd be happy to concede the point.
Unfortunately, such evidence does not exists, and we have no results to provide actual evidence either way.
And, LACKING THAT, I'm inclined to assign some reasonable credibility to my current anecdotal results.

And, yes, if the inhabitants of some obscure island were to tell me that "for centuries, when they've gotten a headache, their ancestors have eaten a specific type of monkey poop, and their headaches went away", I would be willing to expend a little effort to either confirm or deny whether there just might be something in that monkey poop that cures headaches. The fact that I may feel that it sounds silly doesn't exclude the fact that, at least part of the time, large amounts of anecdotal evidence often lead to some sort of useful information. And, yes, if a significant number of people claim to hear the same sort of difference, then that does pose justification for turning that information into a hypothesis which can be tested, and then testing it. And, yes, it WOULD make me very unhappy if I missed an important scientific discovery because someone convinced me "not to bother to check the facts" because "it was obviously silly".

If this thread is really about "debunking audiophile myths" rather than "discussing" or "testing" them, then we need to both stop talking about whether differences exist between DACs, 
AND STOP CLAIMING THAT SUCH DIFFERENCES DO NOT EXIST, until and unless someone produces some actual test results to support EITHER claim.



castleofargh said:


> where do you draw the line? for one anecdote that ends up having some partial significance, how many BS will you waste your life looking into because some guy didn't bother testing things properly before running his mouth?
> as I hinted in a previous post, we're usually discussing small variations, which is mostly the reason why people disagree on hearing them or them being significant in the first place. nobody needs a blind test to tell a red car apart from a dark cat. but if testimony of change is meant to become a fact for the community, I'll want some sort of evidence first and as much specification as possible in case replication is available to me. in this section it seems pretty natural IMO. we're not trying to discover the next miracle drug, we're here to try and reduce the amount of urban legends in audio circles. so again IMO, rejecting empty handed claims and random anecdotes seems perfectly adequate for that specific job.
> and yes it means rejecting a number of relevant anecdotes, and a massive number of almost correct claims, like hearing the right stuff but attributing it to the wrong cause, or having the right measurable effect but only thinking we're hearing it because we know it's there... I'm personally very fine with this sacrifice. I'd rather dismiss some correct observations than accept false ones as factual. even more so when outside of this section, it's empty claim paradise. so people can take interest in the craziest feedbacks over their if they so wish and investigate to their hearts' content. it's not like I'm killing discoveries, we're not even a research section. I'm just trying to have a place a little more focused on evidence based discussions.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> There can't be more false negatives than the horse poop that gets shoveled on a regular basis in the audio business. Just go around to various audiophile websites and start trying to verify the claims there. You'll find that out pronto. The proof of the pudding for false negatives is simply asking for one verifiable example of a positive result. I have a standing request for one single example of an amp that is properly manufactured and designed that sounds different than any other amp. So far... crickets. By the way, we aren't in a science lab where we investigate general science. We're talking about the science behind home audio. It's important to keep that in mind or you lose track of the context.



I think you may be missing the distinction between false negatives and false positives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positives_and_false_negatives.  In audio, a false positive would be a conclusion that A and B sound different when they actually don't (or sound more different than they actually do).  A false negative would be conclusion that they don't sound different when they actually do.  The issue you're referring to is the likely high rate of false positives in audio marketing and forum babble (which I agree with).  I'm also concerned with prematurely reaching conclusions which result in too many false negatives.  But we can each set our filter on this according to our judgment and the decisions we're making.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> You really do seem to have an agenda to disprove ABX testing in audio.  Most of the measurements are orders of magnitude below what is considered to be audible in most modern audio equipment.  What parameters are you concerned about that would require more stringent standardization?  ABX is still going to be the better option when listening for a difference.   Most sighted judgement has zero merit without measurements and a basic attempt to remove bias.



My only agenda is to improve my understanding of these issues.  My participation in the discussions amounts to thinking out loud, and my views have evolved in the short time since I joined this forum.  My views may be different next week ...


----------



## skwoodwiva

@Phronesis ,
I wish I had included such a qualifier
"In audio, a false positive would be a conclusion that A and B sound different when they actually don't (or sound more different than they actually do). A false negative would be conclusion that they don't sound different when they actually do. The issue you're referring to is the likely high rate of false positives in audio marketing and forum babble (which I agree with). 
" to BigShot.  Thanks


----------



## Zapp_Fan

I think we are all in agreement that false positives are a much bigger problem in audiophilia than false negatives, that's basically why this section exists. 

However, I am with @KeithEmo in the feeling that false negatives (when some improvement is possible but dismissed on shaky theoretical grounds) are a real shame.  What we really need is better testing of these things.  There's no mystery as to why audio companies don't stand to gain much by advancing the average level of knowledge on audio quality.  But there would be quite a bit of benefit to generating new *public* research on some of these topics. 

Maybe a crowdfunding campaign could raise the funds to put to bed some myths once and for all.


----------



## Malfunkt (May 14, 2018)

bigshot said:


> That is the Chesky demo disc. I've heard that and the forward back thing only works when it is a few inches from your head, and even then it keeps snapping back and forth between front and back. In short, it sucks. That same Chesky disc has a jazz combo that sounds like it was recorded in a men's room at grand central station. Just about every binaural recording I've heard sucks. The only one I ever heard that sounded decent was a Japanese classical record, but the binaural effect was so minimal, it could just as well have been mono.
> 
> If anyone knows any really effective binaural recordings of acoustic music, please let me know. I'm not interested in electronic simulations because that sort of Pink Floyd stuff can be done without all the trappings of head dummies with microphones in the ears.



I can see where the discussion went obtuse earlier with prescribing that binaural should be a preferred way of recording but it is pretty easy to hear. Close your eyes and listen to any of these. This is just a casual search... so music and recordings may not be the best. 

Whether or not one likes it is a matter of taste, or head-shape, or inner-ear wax...

Personally, I recognize the limitations of using only 2-mics. They can only pick up (attenuate) a limited range of dynamics. If we had mics as sensitive as our ears..well then binaural would be much different. Well maybe we will one day (same argument goes for camera lens/sensors). Recording arts are only a bit over a century old.

(Shostakovich)


BBC1...






What was the particular myth or claim about binaural again? Whether it was effective or commercially viable?


----------



## castleofargh

skwoodwiva said:


> I must respond,
> So you think a vast or at least some
> (please clarify how much of HF is a problem? )
> part of the forum here, outside of SS.  Is poop?
> That seems to be what you are are saying.  Please clarify if I take you wrong.



let's not mix up everything . the only way to have impressions is to have them. the only way to measure something is to measure it. the only way for people to make sure that something is real, is to set up a way for them to verify that it happened, or when possible let them replicate the event. just "dude trust me" is not how we demonstrate the reality of anything.  
people enjoying their gears casually will have opinions on them and some of those opinions have obvious value for other consumers wondering if they'll be interested in those products. for that the various sections about impressions are clearly of value. 
but if what we want is a specific fact on a specific subject, and we want solid evidence so that we can put our full confidence into the idea that the information is reliable, then we obviously need some means to verify that information. anecdotal feedback and empty claims do not offer any tool to verify anything. so for that specific objective, yes anecdotal impressions from sighted tests are mostly useless. and a great deal of them are just plain false. simply because when you have no mean to verify if something is true, you get no incentive to wonder if you're wrong.

because humans lie all the time. because humans are wrong all the time. because our memory is very far from the ideal storage area that most people think it is. because we tend to assume that our feelings of reality is reality despite having demonstrated the great many flaws in that way of thinking. because we have a very fast heuristic way to solve questions that is mostly good at being fast more than it is at being right. because we want to be right and always instinctively look for the fastest easiest way out of a problem. for all those reasons, considering that most people say false stuff is not an insult. it's more like an obvious depiction of reality. 
the scientific method was developed to provide guidance against several of those human limitations and instincts.  deciding that one of the best way to confirm that something is true, is to try our best to disprove it. to put controls between the event and us, to have blind tests so that our biases can't interfere as much as they usually do. but also guidelines on how and when we should draw a conclusion. and if you take those guidelines and go see how close you get with a typical audiophile feedback, I don't know how you wouldn't become highly skeptical of what is said on a daily basis. 

most people talk about experiences that wouldn't even qualify as an experiment, then they take that malpractice of an experience and try to draw conclusions about many things. often people will draw general conclusions from that one anecdote. something the scientific method would never let you do for good reason. so yes when strictly looking for proper demonstration and evidence based data, most audiophile feedback is poop as far as proven material is concerned. for the same reason that me discussing foreign politic at lunch doesn't qualify as facts about foreign politic and will be seen as poop by most diplomats informed on the situation I'd discuss. it's not an insult to recognize that we don't know much and aren't qualified to claim stuff on certain subjects. any guy with ears and a bunch of gears tries to pass as an audio expert and tell others how everything is based on his first hand experience at never setting up one proper listening test. that's really not far from poop. most audiophiles have very little care for facts, very limited knowledge about most aspects of sound, electricity, psychoacoustic, or simply knowledge on how to set up a valid listening test for whatever they're trying to find out. yet many audiophiles will have something to say about any subject and will make claims about anything. so my personal method is to reject everything until the person comes with some sort of evidence. then I'm usually willing to listen and discuss. I wouldn't and do not behave that way in most of my other hobbies. but audiophiles are so full of crap and so pretentious that they made me a skeptic. 




bigshot said:


> There can't be more false negatives than the horse poop that gets shoveled on a regular basis in the audio business. Just go around to various audiophile websites and start trying to verify the claims there. You'll find that out pronto. The proof of the pudding for false negatives is simply asking for one verifiable example of a positive result. I have a standing request for one single example of an amp that is properly manufactured and designed that sounds different than any other amp. So far... crickets. By the way, we aren't in a science lab where we investigate general science. We're talking about the science behind home audio. It's important to keep that in mind or you lose track of the context.


you have to very clearly define the conditions for this. otherwise I can make an example right now where I can identify 2 of my amps with my hd650 with some concentration, and can identify them without even having to think about it if you let me pick my IEM. I can also just use a test track with very low signal amplitude and demonstrate a difference by pushing the noise floor. plenty of ways to meet your request because it's an all inclusive nonsense request. and most people reading it will think you're out of your mind, just because you didn't bother with testing conditions and a range of specs for the amps. 

even for DACs this idea can't stand if you keep saying it without very clear conditions.


----------



## skwoodwiva

castleofargh said:


> let's not mix up everything . the only way to have impressions is to have them. the only way to measure something is to measure it. the only way for people to make sure that something is real, is to set up a way for them to verify that it happened, or when possible let them replicate the event. just "dude trust me" is not how we demonstrate the reality of anything.
> people enjoying their gears casually will have opinions on them and some of those opinions have obvious value for other consumers wondering if they'll be interested in those products. for that the various sections about impressions are clearly of value.
> but if what we want is a specific fact on a specific subject, and we want solid evidence so that we can put our full confidence into the idea that the information is reliable, then we obviously need some means to verify that information. anecdotal feedback and empty claims do not offer any tool to verify anything. so for that specific objective, yes anecdotal impressions from sighted tests are mostly useless. and a great deal of them are just plain false. simply because when you have no mean to verify if something is true, you get no incentive to wonder if you're wrong.
> 
> ...


Ever wonder why he is the Mod? 

Sometimes waiting or formulating but the Mod!  He is.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> Interesting question.....
> And I guess the answer always comes down to a combination of evaluating the current level of scientific understanding, my own personal experience, and anecdotal claims (partly based on the credentials of who is making those claims).
> 
> For example, the scientific data about cables, what they do, and their electrical characteristics, is pretty well known.
> ...


oh I'm absolutely for not claiming that differences can't occur in general. on that we're absolutely in agreement. in fact, I'm overall against claims. I'd be a happy camper if we could actually discuss things like the scientists do, with degrees of confidence, something more probable than something else, and experiences that suggest something.
it would make discussing topics so much easier(and probably more interesting).
I observed the same things about cables, it's in fact pretty easy to manufacture situations where cable specs can make a noticeable difference in sound. they're just not situations we are likely to meet or should try to achieve.
I have a harder time with DACs but it's still very much possible if we put our mind to it.
I would not eat monkey poop for my headache and would instead go get a drug from my doctor. if he and the medical community come to the conclusion that monkey poop is the crap for headaches, then give me some. but I wouldn't go for it on my own and wouldn't research it because I'm not a doctor. I get what you're saying, and yes in many instances, where there is smoke there is fire. but as this section isn't a research group, I'd rather let the researchers do what they do best, and have us focus on the serious tests resulting from their efforts. that way even if the results are not very clear, or the testings were not done on enough people to draw conclusions, at least we're discussing evidence based data and we're learning something we can count as being knowledge. even if that something is about not being able to draw any conclusions just yet. 

I get that you and a few others are way past general consumer knowledge in your respective disciplines. but our ambitions here need to be more modest. 
perhaps I'm wrong and many members would love to go beyond typical knowledge to investigate stuff, but realistically it can be challenging to get someone to setup a simple A/B test with volume matched and not give up after 15 trials. most audiophiles on the forum probably never participated in a double blind listening test and never learned how to measure stuff on their gears. so I believe our role is closer to audio for noobs, trying to centralize existing knowledge, than it is to being the crew of the starship USS Enterprise of audio.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> you have to very clearly define the conditions for this. otherwise I can make an example right now where I can identify 2 of my amps with my hd650 with some concentration, and can identify them without even having to think about it if you let me pick my IEM. I can also just use a test track with very low signal amplitude and demonstrate a difference by pushing the noise floor.



Do you usually use IEMs with an amp that wasn't designed to be used with them? No. Tools have defined purposes. You don't expect a phono cartridge to work on a CD player, and you don't expect a transducer that needs a ton of juice to run well on a small amp.  Do you usually listen to music that is normalized down below -40dB? No. I've never run across a commercial CD that has been normalized down far enough to reveal the noise floor of an amp, have you?

Talking about extreme situations like this just confuses people. Amps are a tool. You use the tool for its intended purpose and every amp will perform to spec, which means it's audibly transparent.

Everyone says there are high end amps that are deliberately designed to roll off high ends to provide a "house sound". But no one has ever provided evidence that this is even based in fact. When we get evidence than in normal practice there are amps that sound different than the rest, I'll happily admit that, and I'll list the make and model numbers as the exception to the rule. But until I get evidence of one actually existing in the wild, I'm going to assume that they all sound the same. Every amp I've ever bought has sounded the same. Many people here in this group has found the same thing. That is the general rule of thumb.


----------



## bigshot (May 14, 2018)

Malfunkt said:


> Close your eyes and listen to any of these. This is just a casual search... so music and recordings may not be the best.



I'm happy to give you a quick review of what I think of those... The Shostakovich has so much room reflection, I can't pinpoint anything. The solo violin and woodwinds are bouncing off the walls and seem to be coming from all directions. It's got a sound like scrambled eggs. I can't even tell clearly that the violins are on the left. Nasty distortion in the peaks too. If I got a CD that sounded like that, I'd be tempted to pack it back up and send it back to Amazon. The Snakecharmer video is recorded in a terrible acoustic that muddles up the sound. I get no sense at all that the musician in the foreground of the video is behind me and the balances on in general are dull and recessed. This is what amateur recordings made in someone's apartment or garage generally sound like. The other two are so closely miked that I get no sense of depth or distance at all- no soundstage. They go flat left to right just like any normal stereo recording. The Lucy one is very well engineered though. Is that really binaural? I see mikes all over the stage.

When I play a 5.1 recording, I get a MUCH more defined soundstage and directionality than that. Maybe binaural works for some people and not others. I get no sense of direction from this. All I get is slathered on room ambience or just a normal flat left to right plane of sound.

I think binaural recording might be good with a string quartet perhaps. You want a little distance and room ambience with that, and it's easy to pick out individual instruments when there are only four of them. But it certainly isn't suitable for all kinds of music. It's a very limiting technique in a dozen different ways.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Do you usually use IEMs with an amp that wasn't designed to be used with them? No. Tools have defined purposes. You don't expect a phono cartridge to work on a CD player, and you don't expect a transducer that needs a ton of juice to run well on a small amp.  Do you usually listen to music that is normalized down below -40dB? No. I've never run across a commercial CD that has been normalized down far enough to reveal the noise floor of an amp, have you?
> 
> Talking about extreme situations like this just confuses people. Amps are a tool. You use the tool for its intended purpose and every amp will perform to spec, which means it's audibly transparent.
> 
> Everyone says there are high end amps that are deliberately designed to roll off high ends to provide a "house sound". But no one has ever provided evidence that this is even based in fact. When we get evidence than in normal practice there are amps that sound different than the rest, I'll happily admit that, and I'll list the make and model numbers as the exception to the rule. But until I get evidence of one actually existing in the wild, I'm going to assume that they all sound the same. Every amp I've ever bought has sounded the same. Many people here in this group has found the same thing. That is the general rule of thumb.


simply for how different designs will handle different loads at different frequencies, you can find audible differences and different behavior depending on the load. even with a flat impedance headphone. if we go for tube amps, with the right tube rolling game you can still get well above 3% THD on some amps and hear a clearly colored sound. many really powerful amps have audible hiss... 
just because you and I aren't purchasing that kind of gear, doesn't mean they stop existing.

you know my position on this, I'm a measurement and magnitude guy. DACs can measure real good, and even cheap DACs measure pretty well. amps can measure almost as good but on average they're not as good as DACs. plus the various loads and gain needs may make things more challenging when it comes to achieving a stable result. transducers are crap so getting twice the same sound is already a challenge. I expect the magnitude of changes to also follow that trend with the lowest achievable fidelity showing the most changes from gear to gear.
 I'm very fine living in that area where I consider the choice of DAC to be almost irrelevant(I still care about the voltage output and the inputs/outputs available, and if it will be noisy when plugged into crappy usb). but I'm also fine with the idea that some DACs probably sound different. because of some specific conditions perhaps avoidable, or simply because they were made to sound different, IDK. I don't see any incompatibility between those 2 ideas. there is a place where both can be true and don't need to always be at war with each other.


----------



## analogsurviver (May 14, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I'm happy to give you a quick review of what I think of those... The Shostakovich has so much room reflection, I can't pinpoint anything. The solo violin and woodwinds are bouncing off the walls and seem to be coming from all directions. It's got a sound like scrambled eggs. I can't even tell clearly that the violins are on the left. Nasty distortion in the peaks too. If I got a CD that sounded like that, I'd be tempted to pack it back up and send it back to Amazon. The Snakecharmer video is recorded in a terrible acoustic that muddles up the sound. I get no sense at all that the musician in the foreground of the video is behind me and the balances on in general are dull and recessed. This is what amateur recordings made in someone's apartment or garage generally sound like. The other two are so closely miked that I get no sense of depth or distance at all- no soundstage. They go flat left to right just like any normal stereo recording. The Lucy one is very well engineered though. Is that really binaural? I see mikes all over the stage.
> 
> When I play a 5.1 recording, I get a MUCH more defined soundstage and directionality than that. Maybe binaural works for some people and not others. I get no sense of direction from this. All I get is slathered on room ambience or just a normal flat left to right plane of sound.
> 
> I think binaural recording might be good with a string quartet perhaps. You want a little distance and room ambience with that, and it's easy to pick out individual instruments when there are only four of them. But it certainly isn't suitable for all kinds of music. It's a very limiting technique in a dozen different ways.


From the above comments,  it is quite clear you are not familiar with and accustomed to listening to binaural recordings. But, since this includes the vast majority of listeners accustomed to listening with headphones to the stereo recordings made primarily for listening with speakers, this makes you a close to ideal "guinea pig " for binaural.

Before proceedenig any further, I would first like you to listen particularly to this video highlighting the importance of placing the binaural microphone :



followed by yet more mic placement :



following with a live recording of a string quartet :



finishing off with a rehearsal of an entire symphonic orchestra. Binaural aka artificial or dummy head is , for the most part, REALLY  properly called Kunstkopf ( Stereophonie ) - because the vast majority of research on binaural has been done and is ongoing in Germany, despite the first documented use of an artificial head being done in the Bell labs in the USA. And no other place in Germany is more connected with Kunstkopf as Aachen - both trough its university and binaural microphone manufacturer https://www.head-acoustics.com/eng/index.htm .

IMPORTANT : since the replay gain for this video has really to be set way above the usual level, it might be required to play it back in foobar 2000 ( where replay gain can be brought up the required amount ), using appropriate plugin(s) . I have no idea as to why the level of this upload is so low - but I have heard rather great deal of Kunstkopf recorded peaking way below 0dBFS.
My guess is that in this case so low level has been chosen in order to  "fly under the radar" of Youtube algorithm for copyrighted music - it might be that said algorithm does no longer work reliably at so low levels - or at all. I remember uploading PRIVATE video to YT with some Sibelius recordinng of mine for the sole purpose of evaluation of SQ for the planned live streaming, normalized to -2dB; in less than a minute, I got a strike... Pity for the recording/upload, though ; the microphone used ( depending on the exact model ) can have up to 120 dB dynamic range - at a cost ... :



Please review and comment the above - it may well prove to be a steep learning curve,  both for yourself and all the participants in this thread regarding binaural.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (May 14, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> From the above comments,  it is quite clear you are not familiar with and accustomed to listening to binaural recordings. But, since this includes the vast majority of listeners accustomed to listening with headphones to the stereo recordings made primarily for listening with speakers, this makes you a close to ideal "guinea pig " for binaural.
> 
> Before proceedenig any further, I would first like you to listen particularly to this video highlighting the importance of placing the binaural microphone :
> 
> ...



Ok so as expected binaural is great with small scale acoustic stuff.I am mostly listening to my speakers and its a dogs breakfast....i do see the attraction with my headphones...but still can't get past the idea of buying 2 different recordings for speakers or headphones...also not sure how the musicians are able to hold it together with the comically ridiculous faux head in the studio


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> but audiophiles are so full of crap and so pretentious that they made me a skeptic.



Overconfidence bias is very common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect.  Even respected 'experts' in technical fields routinely fall prey to it.  The remedy is a deliberate attitude of humility.


----------



## analogsurviver

Glmoneydawg said:


> Ok so as expected binaural is great with small scale acoustic stuff.I am mostly listening to my speakers and its a dogs breakfast....i do see the attraction with my headphones...but still can't get past the idea of buying 2 different recordings for speakers or headphones.


Well, I did say the previous post has been meant as a kind quality, but GENTLE introduction to binaural - or, at least, that was the intent. 

Furthermore, I discovered the videos by Matthew Lien only "today" ( 03:10 AM here ...) - and decided to use them as a vehicle to demonstrate the better aspect(s) and possibilities of binaural. I do not do video ( yet ... - for plethora of reasons, the prime one being the lack of finances to have it even near the quality of audio ) - so, for obvious reasons, I chose to use his videos. His and my views and ideas regarding the binaural are really quite close and any discrepancies are of minor importance to the listener only plunging into binaural waters for the first time.



While the above is pretty self explanatory ( if the Audio Reality feture is neglected for a moment and we concentrate only on the genuine binaural recordings ), nothing could be further from the truth than saying that binaural is great only with small scale acoustic stuff. Quite on the contrary; the bigger acoustic stuff, the better. It can range from a normal regular church mass - trough various other stuff - right all the way up to a mega stadium open air rock concert . 

Please note that any inclusion of religious spaces , such as churches of whatever denomination, are used regularly for their acoustic properties - where both the music played there and recordings played back at home complement binaural at its best. Personally, I would love to have a chance to record binaural in great sounding places of ALL the religions of the world - spreading the universal language of music across different nations, cultures and religions - in order to create better understanding and appreciation of differences among people - so that the world might end up just a little a little better place trough such endavours.

I finish off before finally going to sleep with some definitely NOT small scale acoustic stuff - large organ. Now, you could say "OK, where is the big orchestra, with a big choir, some mega organ, tubular bells and what not?" Remember, such things require money - LOTS of it. Although I do have binaural recordings from a rehearsal for the ( finale of ) Mahler's 2nd ( with all the above plus 4 soloist singers ), I do not have the permission to share it with a third party - sorry. Knowing what a truly extreme binaural can sound like, I find this organ recording a bit on the reserved side; this is nothing to detract from its qualities, just meant for you to easier understand the real world limitations of a "one man band approach" - Mr. Matthew Lien is really a remarkable man, being musician, audio recording engineer, researcher and developer of binaural related stuff, etc - all in a single person. 



As the appreciation in cycling is expressed, even in English : Chapeau !


----------



## Malfunkt (May 14, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I did say the previous post has been meant as a kind quality, but GENTLE introduction to binaural - or, at least, that was the intent.
> 
> Furthermore, I discovered the videos by Matthew Lien only "today" ( 03:10 AM here ...) - and decided to use them as a vehicle to demonstrate the better aspect(s) and possibilities of binaural. I do not do video ( yet ... - for plethora of reasons, the prime one being the lack of finances to have it even near the quality of audio ) - so, for obvious reasons, I chose to use his videos. His and my views and ideas regarding the binaural are really quite close and any discrepancies are of minor importance to the listener only plunging into binaural waters for the first time.




*This example is rather excellent*. And shows how binaural recording is being used to create Convolution Reverbs (what they call Audio Reality) from an Impulse Response. Just as an aside, this type of DSP reverb is now used extensively in studio productions.

And since this is sound science, here is an article discussing a bit of the technique shown in the video:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18181

@bigshot, While I understand where you are coming from, I think you are being a bit harsh towards the medium. There are significant and obvious psychoacoustic properties that come with this type of recording.

While I disagree that binaural sounds poorly (it can sound poor/good just like any type of micing), I do agree that binaural is not practical by in-large as a medium for both recording purposes and playback for reasons already covered on voluminous treatise here earlier.




analogsurviver said:


> Well, I did say the previous post has been meant as a kind quality, but GENTLE introduction to binaural - or, at least, that was the intent.
> 
> While the above is pretty self explanatory ( if the Audio Reality feture is neglected for a moment and we concentrate only on the genuine binaural recordings ), nothing could be further from the truth than saying that binaural is great only with small scale acoustic stuff. Quite on the contrary; the bigger acoustic stuff, the better. It can range from a normal regular church mass - trough various other stuff - right all the way up to a mega stadium open air rock concert .




@analogsurviver,  I can understand your passion for this, but there are number of reasons why binaural recordings won't be adopted into regular-widespread use - at least not yet, or in it's present form. I think a combination of what we learn from binaural recordings, physics, and mathematics will help us create the future of recording devices and media.

The posts in this sub are often so long-winded, I feel sometimes the essence of the argument is lost. Is there anything left to discuss on the binaural debate? what was the debate about anyhow?

But thank you very much for sharing these videos. Actually quite enjoyable.

I'm off to work and some stereo classical and field recording listening on HD540 and HD800.


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Please review and comment the above - it may well prove to be a steep learning curve,  both for yourself and all the participants in this thread regarding binaural.



I'll check those videos out when I get a chance, but for the life of me I don't know why there should be a steep learning curve for how to listen to the sound of music. I can see that understanding music itself might be challenging, but sound mixes should be clear and present the music directly.

I'm beginning to think that binaural is like 3D images. It works better from a very close perspective. The further away you get, the flatter it gets. If you shove something right into the mike or camera, it starts to get the effect. If you shoot or record at a distance, it evens out to flat. That's why 3D tends to cheat long shots by moving the lenses further apart to accentuate the 3D effect and make things seem smaller.

It also may be that this effect just doesn't work on me. When I hear real surround sound, I can pinpoint  sources all around me. When I listen to binaural, it flattens out and shapes all around my head randomly. I'm playing with my new Oculus Go which has head tracking and directional sound, and it doesn't work well either. Stuff right behind me to one side or the other pops to one ear or the other. Tonight I heard a live Steely Dan song playing in a chat room and the sax solo was directly in back of me, but I'm sure it wasn't supposed to do that. It seems awfully random.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> oh I'm absolutely for not claiming that differences can't occur in general. on that we're absolutely in agreement. in fact, I'm overall against claims. I'd be a happy camper if we could actually discuss things like the scientists do, with degrees of confidence, something more probable than something else, and experiences that suggest something.
> it would make discussing topics so much easier(and probably more interesting).



If we don't do that, we think and speak with more certainty than the evidence supports.  That can lead to substantial mistakes, ideological thinking and polarization, and pointless debates which are more about 'winning' than sincerely trying to figure out what's true and false.


----------



## pinnahertz

I'll pop in with a review here too, following what Bigshot did:

Shostakovich

Clearly an amateur attempt.  This illustrates what I mean about binaural being difficult to do well.  The listener/mic position is terrible, and while it may sort of represent what was heard at that position, what was heard is not acceptable from a recording standpoint.  Not a good recording.  The room has swamped localization of instruments into one big homogenous mess.

BBC1...

The binaural localization demo at the beginning illustrates what I'd probably call HRTF failure.  I got zero sense of front vs back with the match box shake.  I should have gotten that sound to circle my head very believably, and I've actually done that same type of recording and achieved it.  However, if the recording head's HRTF doesn't match the listener really well, you get this kind of localization failure.  The music was basically distant and vague as a result.

Snakecharmer

Another prime example of how difficult it is to do binaural well.  The localization works just ok, and we sure do get a sense of the room, but it's an non-involving perspective, distant and somewhat vague.  Yes, it's binaural, but not compelling or involving.  Yes, binaural is simple, but not easy.

Campfires and Constallations

Actually, besides suffering from a few basic technical hiccups, the perspective is better, and localization is adequate.  The composite recording has big problems, but the binaural perspective is one of the better ones, IMO.


Malfunkt said:


> What was the particular myth or claim about binaural again? Whether it was effective or commercially viable?


I think the examples fail in illustrating anything actually commercially viable from the reasons above.  The better ones are curiosities, the lesser ones just plain failures.  This is why binaural recordings can never stand alone, the must be accompanied by a really good conventional stereo mix.


Malfunkt said:


> From the above comments, it is quite clear you are not familiar with and accustomed to listening to binaural recordings.


I can't say if your comment above, directed to Bigshot, reflects his experience or not, but it doesn't apply to me at least.  I'm very familiar with what can and cannot be done with binaural, done it first hand for quite some time.  Those are not great examples, some completely fail.  The fact that they work well for someone (you?) as a demonstration of good binaural simply illustrates one of binaural's prime failures: uniform playback to all listeners.  I don't have time not to listen to the next ones right now, so.....later....


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> I'll check those videos out when I get a chance, but for the life of me I don't know why there should be a steep learning curve for how to listen to the sound of music. I can see that understanding music itself might be challenging, but sound mixes should be clear and present the music directly.


When binaural recording/playback is working right there is no learning curve, it just works and is astounding.  Nobody needs to learn anything except for the new awareness of the technology.  The previous examples didn't work well for you and me, and no amount of "learning" would change that. 



bigshot said:


> It also may be that this effect just doesn't work on me. When I hear real surround sound, I can pinpoint  sources all around me. When I listen to binaural, it flattens out and shapes all around my head randomly. I'm playing with my new Oculus Go which has head tracking and directional sound, and it doesn't work well either. Stuff right behind me to one side or the other pops to one ear or the other. Tonight I heard a live Steely Dan song playing in a chat room and the sax solo was directly in back of me, but I'm sure it wasn't supposed to do that. It seems awfully random.


The fact that 5.1 works for you indicates your binaural hearing is just fine.  The issues you're hearing are the real problems with binaural in general.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I'll check those videos out when I get a chance, but for the life of me I don't know why there should be a steep learning curve for how to listen to the sound of music. I can see that understanding music itself might be challenging, but sound mixes should be clear and present the music directly.
> 
> I'm beginning to think that binaural is like 3D images. It works better from a very close perspective. The further away you get, the flatter it gets. If you shove something right into the mike or camera, it starts to get the effect. If you shoot or record at a distance, it evens out to flat. That's why 3D tends to cheat long shots by moving the lenses further apart to accentuate the 3D effect and make things seem smaller.
> 
> It also may be that this effect just doesn't work on me. When I hear real surround sound, I can pinpoint  sources all around me. When I listen to binaural, it flattens out and shapes all around my head randomly. I'm playing with my new Oculus Go which has head tracking and directional sound, and it doesn't work well either. Stuff right behind me to one side or the other pops to one ear or the other. Tonight I heard a live Steely Dan song playing in a chat room and the sax solo was directly in back of me, but I'm sure it wasn't supposed to do that. It seems awfully random.


It was not without reason why I *chose* you to embark on the steep learning curve regarding for how to listen to the sound of music - using binaural example only as a vehicle. For a plethora of reasons that are - according to your comments so far - way above your scope of understanding and/or appreciation at the time of this writing.

The period of time people are capable of or willing to invest into *something* has dwindled to really small amount - in this day and age of worshipping the instant gratification. On purpose I have not made any mentions regarding the recording and playback hardware for binaural - and, it is NOT, by any stretch of imagintion, a trivial matter. I have yet to figure out how to lead you trough this learning curve in a way that would not be found too overwhelming. I hope to find it soon enough.

For the necessary scale of time frame sometimes required for *something* to progress from the original idea into a product actually capable of realizing the benefits of the said idea in practice, I will present a case of a recently introduced phono cartridge. http://topwing.jp/RedSparrow-en.html  The designer of this cartridge worked for Grace ( Shinegaewa Musen Co.Ltd ) in late 70s/early 80s, being responsible for the iconic F-8 and even more iconic F-9 series of MM cartridges. He went on to design the record centering turntable ( 2 models ) for Nakamichi. These developments took place at the introduction of the CD - which crushed ANYTHING in its wake, sadly  Grace phono products included ( there were 2 times a limited ordered and paid for in advance limited small runs of these cartridges, by then in its F-14 version, have been made available after the official stop ). A similar coreless MM cartridge design has been developed and marketed late70s/early80s by Mitachi Corporation of Japan - under various brands; in US it was Astatic, in most of the rest of the world Glanz and there were rebranded versions for italian distributor Esoter and danish loudspeaker manufacturer Jamo. The Mitachi design unfortunately did not solve the impedance related issues - sensitivity to cable variations, sensitivity of picking up ANY form of electromagnetical noise from the environment ( it is all but unusable with the direct drive turntables towards the end of the record side, as it picks up any/all electrical pulses DD motors emit ) and, compared to more standard MM cartridges, lower/poorer ultimately achievable S/N ratio  - the real world limitations that only few of the end users were capable of addressing well enough in order to be able to enjoy the primary benefits of an air core design transducer at all - the lack of hysteresis distortion. It is a WONDERFUL sounding cartridge - but only IF everything that it is sensitive to is being sufficiently suppressed or eliminated altogether. 

The new cartridge design has no such limitations - but, taken together, it took some 40 years for everything to be favourable enough to allow the cartridge to be made commercially available. This fact is sadly reflected in the retail price - in US, north of 10 K ...

Compared to binaural, phono cartridge is a piece of cake. So, do not expect the matter can possibly be put ad acta in a couple of posts - but I promise that I will not be boring about it for the next 40 years ... - when it will,  hopefully and eventually, really become a matured way to record music - even if only applicable for genres that by default require the greatest realism achievable


----------



## Malfunkt (May 15, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> these are not great examples, some completely fail.  The fact that they work well for someone (you?) as a demonstration of good binaural simply illustrates one of binaural's prime failures: uniform playback to all listeners.  I don't have time not to listen to the next ones right now, so.....later....



Check out the more recent examples by Analog Survivor, they are better from a recording quality perspective. Also you misattributed one of the quotes to myself.

While I don’t categorize the examples as complete failure, I do agree that binaural in its present form isn’t commercially viable.


----------



## pinnahertz

Malfunkt said:


> Check out the more recent examples by Analog Survivor, they are better from a recording quality perspective.


Yes, later when I can devote the time.


Malfunkt said:


> Also you misattributed one of the quotes to myself.


Sorry!



Malfunkt said:


> While I don’t categorize the examples as complete failure, I do agree that binaural in its present form isn’t commercially viable.


The problem of individual HRTF is extremely difficult to get around, yet seems key to successful binaural. That, combined with low market drive may inhibit binaural permanently.


----------



## gregorio (May 15, 2018)

Malfunkt said:


> [1] Personally, I recognize the limitations of using only 2-mics. They can only pick up (attenuate) a limited range of dynamics. If we had mics as sensitive as our ears..well then binaural would be much different.
> [2] What was the particular myth or claim about binaural again? Whether it was effective or commercially viable?



1. Actually, I see mic dynamic range/sensitivity as one of the least of binaural's problems. The Shostakovich 5 you linked to for example is probably an accurate capture of the sound waves (including the dynamic range): The noise of the audience is very present and relatively loud, the orchestra is rather distant, poorly defined and separated and with a rather small dynamic range. But, this is NOT a limitation/problem with mics, the mic's have done their job and captured the sound waves. The problem is with perception or rather, the lack of it! As I've stated before, although this may be an accurate representation of the sound waves, it is NOT an accurate representation of what one would likely experience, due to human perception, which binaural recording cannot represent at all. As a consequence of human perception (the brain's processing), the actual experience sitting in this same location would likely have been; much less audience noise, less room reverb, more clarity, definition and separation of the orchestra and a somewhat larger dynamic range. We can represent this experience using multi-mic recording and mixing but we can't with a binaural recording.

The other recordings display other typical binaural recording problems, due to relatively close binaural mic'ing, poor balance and also accurate but undesirable positioning (hard panning). That hard panning could of course be alleviated by moving the mics further away from the musicians but then you run into the greater distance Shostakovich recording problem again; too much noise/reverb and loss of clarity, separation, etc. This highlights the problem of any (near) single point stereo pair recording, namely, that there often is no single point which solves these problems. The only solution is typically multi-mic'ing, which allows a mixer/producer to correct for positioning, separation, clarity, balance between the instruments, dynamic range and the balance between the direct and reflected sound, to more accurately represent what we would experience, expect or desire.

2. As explained above, typically neither!



analogsurviver said:


> [1] Before proceedenig any further, I would first like you to listen particularly to this video highlighting the importance of placing the binaural microphone :
> [2] Please review and comment the above - it may well prove to be a steep learning curve, both for yourself and all the participants in this thread regarding binaural.



1. Mic placement is always of vital importance, whatever mic'ing scheme is being employed, binaural is no different to any other mic'ing scheme/technique in this regard.

2. Hmm, are you sure the steep learning curve isn't yours? Have you really listened or are you only concentrating on certain aspects of the binaural effect? Really listening and evaluating ALL the aspects is a MUCH steeper learning curve! For example, while some of the mic positions in the piano vids are better than others, they all have their strengths AND weaknesses, can you hear them all? Even more difficult, can you identify them? Sometimes the piano is effectively a single mono sound source, sometimes it's a wide stereo sound source, sometimes we get a great deal of room noise, sometimes we get noises created by the the pianist, sometimes we get too little room reverb, sometimes a bit too much, sometimes the balance and/or clarity between the high and low end of the piano is not quite right, etc. Probably there is no single point the binaural mic could be placed which would be ideal. A professional would take advantage of the strengths of the various positions and minimise the weaknesses: So for example, a stereo pair close to or actually inside the piano would allow for excellent balance and clarity between the high and low end of the piano, as much or little stereo width as desired from the piano itself and inside the piano would reduce room and musician noise and then another stereo pair (probably an A/B pair) much further away to record the room ambience/reverb and also avoid musician noise. Then of course all these mic's would be mixed together with an appropriate balance. We would gain; lower noise, better balance and more clarity/separation and we would loose what? Some small amount of absolute spatial coherency which could only be perceivable on headphones and will only be perceived as a fatal flaw by a tiny fraction of extreme headphone users who value absolute spatial coherency above lower noise, better balance and more clarity.

Surely you've made a simple error about the "binaural" orchestral recording (Arturo Marquez), like posting a link to the wrong video? Despite there being a dummy head right next to the conductor, presumably with binaural mic's attached, the sound on the video is OBVIOUSLY not from those binaural mics, it's from a stereo mic on or connected to the camera! This is a video of an orchestra rehearsing with a dummy head, not the actual recording from that dummy head! To be honest, I'm at a loss for words, I can't even imagine how is it possible to be so sensitive to the relative minutiae of absolute spatial coherency and yet so completely insensitive to massive differences in balance, positioning and aural perspective? Please tell me you've made a mistake, otherwise your learning curve is shockingly steeper than I could even have guessed!!

G


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> I'll check those videos out when I get a chance, but for the life of me I don't know why there should be a steep learning curve for how to listen to the sound of music. I can see that understanding music itself might be challenging, but sound mixes should be clear and present the music directly.
> 
> I'm beginning to think that binaural is like 3D images. It works better from a very close perspective. The further away you get, the flatter it gets. If you shove something right into the mike or camera, it starts to get the effect. If you shoot or record at a distance, it evens out to flat. That's why 3D tends to cheat long shots by moving the lenses further apart to accentuate the 3D effect and make things seem smaller.
> 
> It also may be that this effect just doesn't work on me. When I hear real surround sound, I can pinpoint  sources all around me. When I listen to binaural, it flattens out and shapes all around my head randomly. I'm playing with my new Oculus Go which has head tracking and directional sound, and it doesn't work well either. Stuff right behind me to one side or the other pops to one ear or the other. Tonight I heard a live Steely Dan song playing in a chat room and the sax solo was directly in back of me, but I'm sure it wasn't supposed to do that. It seems awfully random.



Isn't one of the 800 lb white gorilla-elephants in the room that pretty much any speaker, when placed somewhere, will sound like it's coming from there, unless you do some really specific stuff to the signal? I highly doubt that I could go into the mixing/mastering room of a label that regularly does surround, put sound in the back speakers, and think 'eh, that doesn't sound really behind me'. Ditto with the front speakers. The philosophy calibrates the environment for everyone.


----------



## analogsurviver (May 15, 2018)

[QUOTE="gregorio, post: 14241699,



1. Mic placement is always of vital importance, whatever mic'ing scheme is being employed, binaural is no different to any other mic'ing scheme/technique in this regard.

2. Hmm, are you sure the steep learning curve isn't yours? Have you really listened or are you only concentrating on certain aspects of the binaural effect? Really listening and evaluating ALL the aspects is a MUCH steeper learning curve! For example, while some of the mic positions in the piano vids are better than others, they all have their strengths AND weaknesses, can you hear them all? Even more difficult, can you identify them? Sometimes the piano is effectively a single mono sound source, sometimes it's a wide stereo sound source, sometimes we get a great deal of room noise, sometimes we get noises created by the the pianist, sometimes we get too little room reverb, sometimes a bit too much, sometimes the balance and/or clarity between the high and low end of the piano is not quite right, etc. Probably there is no single point the binaural mic could be placed which would be ideal. A professional would take advantage of the strengths of the various positions and minimise the weaknesses: So for example, a stereo pair close to or actually inside the piano would allow for excellent balance and clarity between the high and low end of the piano, as much or little stereo width as desired from the piano itself and inside the piano would reduce room and musician noise and then another stereo pair (probably an A/B pair) much further away to record the room ambience/reverb and also avoid musician noise. Then of course all these mic's would be mixed together with an appropriate balance. We would gain; lower noise, better balance and more clarity/separation and we would loose what? Some small amount of absolute spatial coherency which could only be perceivable on headphones and will only be perceived as a fatal flaw by a tiny fraction of extreme headphone users who value absolute spatial coherency above lower noise, better balance and more clarity.

Surely you've made a simple error about the "binaural" orchestral recording (Arturo Marquez), like posting a link to the wrong video? Despite there being a dummy head right next to the conductor, presumably with binaural mic's attached, the sound on the video is OBVIOUSLY not from those binaural mics, it's from a stereo mic on or connected to the camera! This is a video of an orchestra rehearsing with a dummy head, not the actual recording from that dummy head! To be honest, I'm at a loss for words, I can't even imagine how is it possible to be so sensitive to the relative minutiae of absolute spatial coherency and yet so completely insensitive to massive differences in balance, positioning and aural perspective? Please tell me you've made a mistake, otherwise your learning curve is shockingly steeper than I could even have guessed!!

G[/QUOTE]
1.) Of course the mic placement is of paramount importance, with any recording technique possible. I  simply chose the best "off the shelf" recordings available on YT that could be found in reasonable time; after all, people who have not been at the recording and have no visual cue, will usually have trouble guessing in just what kind of acoustical environment the binaural recording has been made - UNLESS they heave a considerable experience under their belt. I was quite amazed with the precision of descriptions of my binaural recordings by @hrklg01 - during my visit to him, particularly of the recording he liked the best; best possible without showing him the photos or videos of the actual recording - which actually confirmed his initial impression to the letter. So, for the uninitiated, video helps a lot - and I used the best I could find without recording/filming/uploading it by myself..

2.)  The same answer as the last sentence from 1.)
Regarding miking an acoustical piano - MANY  possible choices. DPA used to distribute CD/SACD ( obviously, CLEARLY  feeling the CD not being capable of accurately conveying the differences among various DPA mikes used for the same positioning ) with the same piano being recorded simultaneously with quite a few ( 8 or 16 ...? ) different microphone pairs and/or positions - and you can multiply that by the number of the better mic manufacturers, divide by say 4 to cater for actual "average" number of models suitable for piano recording by each respective mic manufacturer, multiply by the number of studios/recording engineers using said microphones ... in short, very BROAD selection to choose from, without even counting binaural as an option.

I may have most likely the same magnitude of experience with positioning the binaural as you may have in multimiking and consequent "mixing". By no stretch of imagination were the positions of the binaural mic shown in video all possible or even merely the most desirable - but they did convey the general idea of the importance of mic positioning very effectively.

Yes, you can - most definitely - count me into the group of extreme headphone users who value absolute spatial coherency above lower noise - but not necessary  this does always mean we have to sacrifice better balance and more clarity; my opinion is that exactly the opposite to what you claim can also be achieved trough binaural recording.

Regarding the Arturo Marquez recording; again, I chose one that most closely corresponded to the intent of my  post. If you check their YT channel, there are all kinds of various possible uses for binaural recording - even recorded within the orchestra, etc. With all due respect to the basic R&D research in binaural/Kunstkopf by the Germans, they - on the other side - are not *exactly* champions of its practical usage. I will check the recording again, as it has been like 04:00 AM at the time of posting.I will try to find a better example of binaural symphonic orchestra recording already available online.

I do have binaural recordings from within the various sections of the symphonic orchestra - strings, wodwinds, brass, percussion, etc ; to the regular listener/concert goer, such recordings come as a shock - and surely raise the question how the hell they can make so good music given the sound they have available on stage.

I also have binaural recordings of various orchestras recorded in  large churches ( far better place to record the binaural than say the hall used in the Marquez recording ) - and wish I had the permission to share those. Regrettably, I do not ; since I am a free lance recording engineer, the recordings are owned by whoever paid for them.


----------



## bigshot

Castle, I'm not talking about oddball tube amps. Everyone knows that. And if you have IEMs with specific impedance requirements, of course you need an amp designed to meet that requirement. Used with the headphones the amp was designed to work with, it will be transparent. I'm talking about is your typical solid state amp used by people here on head fie that they have properly matched with the impedance of their own particular cans. You can go to Amazon and buy an amp and not be at all out of line to expect it to perform transparently for the purpose it was created for.

Constantly pointing to largely irrelevant exceptions to the rule just confuses people. It's great to let people know that impedance matters. But that is a factor that is 100% the IEMs, not the amp. An impedance mismatch doesn't mean the amp isn't transparent. It just means you're using it wrong.

Used for the situation it was designed to be used with, I think you would have a very hard time finding a headphone amp that isn't transparent. If a manufacturer is making one that isn't transparent, people deserve to know about it. Point one out and we'll do that.


----------



## bigshot

RRod said:


> Isn't one of the 800 lb white gorilla-elephants in the room that pretty much any speaker, when placed somewhere, will sound like it's coming from there, unless you do some really specific stuff to the signal?



Yeah, that is the point. 5.1 isn't doesn't have to synthesize directionality and depth. It has natural directionality and depth.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

I think if the message that's heard is "all amps are audibly transparent" that people will be disappointed... as you've acknowledged, there are conditions that need to be met, and it's not actually rare for them to not be met.  Keep in mind that the average listener actually doesn't understand impedance matching at all, and so is likely to run into a situation where (from their point of view) a headphone amp isn't audibly transparent.  Take it from someone who has worked customer service for a mainstream consumer audio company... people using things wrong is more the rule than the exception.


----------



## Phronesis

A thought: given the variability in people's hearing ability and how important they perceive differences to be, there may be a self-selection process where people tend to gravitate towards products where they perceive significant differences which are real.  This doesn't rule out high false positive rates due to bias and misperception but, if valid, the hypothesis should lower our estimates of those rates.


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> I think if the message that's heard is "all amps are audibly transparent" that people will be disappointed... as you've acknowledged, there are conditions that need to be met, and it's not actually rare for them to not be met.  Keep in mind that the average listener actually doesn't understand impedance matching at all, and so is likely to run into a situation where (from their point of view) a headphone amp isn't audibly transparent.  Take it from someone who has worked customer service for a mainstream consumer audio company... people using things wrong is more the rule than the exception.



I agree. I just think it's being more useful to focus advice to people on using their amp correctly, not making them think that there is something wrong with the amp because they aren't. That is what confuses people in forums where one guy who is using his amp correctly says "this amp sounds great!" and someone using it incorrectly says "this amp sucks, avoid it at all costs". The truth is that the amp is just fine. The problem is how the user is using it. Better to correct that than correcting the statement that amps are almost always audibly transparent. Because used properly, they are.



Phronesis said:


> A thought: given the variability in people's hearing ability and how important they perceive differences to be, there may be a self-selection process where people tend to gravitate towards products where they perceive significant differences which are real.  This doesn't rule out high false positive rates due to bias and misperception but, if valid, the hypothesis should lower our estimates of those rates.



I tend to gravitate towards dealing with issues I perceive to be real, and I don't waste my time dealing with problems I can't hear. I think that is a very practical way of addressing problems. Deal with the big stuff first, and don't sweat the little stuff that doesn't matter.

The goal is achieving a kick ass home audio system. It's beyond me how people can drift away from that simple goal, but audiophiles seem to fly off into pointless tangents at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

I would agree with the headline message being "If your amp isn't transparent someone (probably you) has screwed up somehow".


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

OK. That is good. I'll use that. I just added it to my sig.


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> It was not without reason why I *chose* you to embark on the steep learning curve regarding for how to listen to the sound of music - using binaural example only as a vehicle. For a plethora of reasons that are - according to your comments so far - way above your scope of understanding and/or appreciation at the time of this writing.



Before I embark on this course, I would like to see the syllabus. The course outline isn't doing much to convince me that it's worth taking. Frankly, it reeks of hot air.

If you want to teach, please be clear, be organized and be concise. That is how you communicate effectively. Irrelevant sidetracks into phono cartridges won't help. Neither will resorting to overblown elocution designed to puff up your own ego. Just cut to the chase and tell me what I need to do to get the effect to work and when I have experienced it and I'm impressed with it, explain to me why it wasn't working for me before. That should be two nice clear concise paragraphs. Easy peasy.

One quick question before I listen to those clips.... Just the preview image makes me wonder who the hell is engineering this stuff. If your head shape and shoulders can affect the way sound works, WHY IN THE LOVE OF GOD WOULD YOU PUT A HIGHLY DIRECTIONAL MIKE SETUP SQUARELY RIGHT BEHIND THE CONDUCTOR'S BACK? Is this conductor audibly transparent? Maybe the reason it's so quiet is because someone is standing right in front of the mike and blocking the sound!


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I tend to gravitate towards dealing with issues I perceive to be real, and I don't waste my time dealing with problems I can't hear. I think that is a very practical way of addressing problems. Deal with the big stuff first, and don't sweat the little stuff that doesn't matter.
> 
> The goal is achieving a kick ass home audio system. It's beyond me how people can drift away from that simple goal, but audiophiles seem to fly off into pointless tangents at the drop of a hat.



I fully agree with your general point.  At the same time, it's possible that some other people may be hearing and caring about things which you and I don't hear or care about, hence their buying products which seem like a waste of money to us (but not for them).  I have no idea how common that might be, but I think it's a factor worth considering. 

My own improvement in hearing acuity since I got back into audio several months ago tells me that hearing acuity can improve through training and experience, and I'm also open to the idea that there can be significant genetic differences in both hearing acuity and ability to improve it.  In the motorsports world, we commonly see this kind of variability and improvement (or lack thereof) with vision.  Another example from medicine is the pattern recognition radiologists develop through their training and experience - and I wonder what the correlation is between doctors having a natural knack for radiology vs going into that field.


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

If they can hear it clearly in a controlled test and care about it, that's fine. But that doesn't include inaudible stuff that's a result of sloppy comparison tests or expectation bias. No one can really hear stuff that only exists on paper or in their head, and no one should waste their time caring about meaningless or imaginary stuff.

I don't believe in "improvements in hearing acuity". Your ears hear what they hear and that's it. You can be paying more attention now than you used to, or perhaps you have expectation bias to make you think that straining to hear better actually will make you hear better. But if you do actually hear something you didn't hear before, that just means that your earlier impressions were due to sloppy comparison tests and something got by you. When I get a new piece of equipment I make the effort to do a careful comparison test right away. If it passes the test, I don't worry about it any more. So far, I haven't run across any amp, DAC or player that doesn't pass the test.


----------



## sonitus mirus (May 15, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I fully agree with your general point.  At the same time, it's possible that some other people may be hearing and caring about things which you and I don't hear or care about, hence their buying products which seem like a waste of money to us (but not for them).  I have no idea how common that might be, but I think it's a factor worth considering.



The differences we are debating about are small enough that we don't even know if anyone actually is hearing things that nobody else can.  Don't assume any conclusion that differences are being heard to then trying to determine how common it might be.  Where is the evidence to suggest a difference is being heard?  Where is the math to suggest it is even likely?   I tend to follow the evidence.  Some say that Bigfoot exists, but it would seem silly to suggest how much of a factor bigfoot make on any particular environment when it is not clear they exist at all.


----------



## Phronesis (May 15, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> The differences we are debating about are small enough that we don't even know if anyone actually is hearing things that nobody else can.  Don't assume any conclusion that differences are being heard to then trying to determine how common it might be.  Where is the evidence to suggest a difference is being heard?  Where is the math to suggest it is even likely?   I tend to follow the evidence.  Some say that Bigfoot exists, but it would seem silly to suggest how much of a factor bigfoot make on any particular environment when it is not clear they exist at all.



How do we 'know' the differences are small, to all listeners?  That kind of sweeping generalization is speculative, not scientific.

The evidence is anecdotal reports and our personal experiences, which are obviously of varying reliability and subject to biases, but I don't dismiss the entire category for those reasons.  I believe some people have also done well on some blind tests, which is strong evidence that it's not all false positives.

And where is the evidence to the contrary?  A handful of small studies, usually conducted by hobbyists or amateurs in an amateurish way, which had null results, don't really tell us much, IMO.  While biases generate false positives, we don't have good data from which to estimate the false positive rate.  If someone says 'I've done lots of blind tests and always got null results', that's sort of anecdotal too.

If we don't *know* things, we should start by admitting that, rather than making assumptions about things we don't know and then going down potentially wrong paths.


----------



## gregorio (May 15, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> [1] Yes, you can - most definitely - count me into the group of extreme headphone users who value absolute spatial coherency above lower noise - but not necessary this does always mean we have to sacrifice better balance and more clarity; my opinion is that exactly the opposite to what you claim can also be achieved trough binaural recording.
> [2] Regarding the Arturo Marquez recording; again, I chose one that most closely corresponded to the intent of my post.



1. Not necessarily "always" but nearly always and particularly with an orchestra in a church, which you mention specifically, due the the high levels of reverb and very long RT60. So, yes, you would appear to be a member of that tiny group of extremist HP audiophiles who value absolute coherency above lower noise, clarity, balance and apparently various other soundstage basics, as demonstrated below.

2. You're joking, it wasn't a mistake? This was a video recording in stereo, NOT the binaural recording you've ASSUMED from seeing the dummy head next to the conductor. When the camera angle changes the whole position and perspective of the orchestra changes with it. The balance changes entirely, the brass section virtually disappears as if in a different room in one shot, instruments and entire sections of the orchestra which in one shot are positioned in the right side of the stereo image jump to being in completely the opposite side in another shot, etc, etc. None of this you even noticed??? Yet you noticed a spatial coherency which wasn't actually coherent because the entire soundstage kept changing with every camera angle??? And you had the nerve to suggest to bigshot and all us other participants in this thread that we had a "steep learning curve" for listening to recording details?? Geez, what a case study!

I can't see how this choice of recording "corresponded to the intent of your post" but it couldn't have demonstrated my point any more perfectly!!!

G


----------



## gregorio

sonitus mirus said:


> The differences we are debating about are small enough that we don't even know if anyone actually is hearing things that nobody else can.



What do you mean "small enough", the differences are massive, night and day differences, you've got to be deaf if you can't hear them or have a really crappy sound system compared to mine, what about some pebbles or just a green marker pen for god sake, surely you can afford one of those? 

G


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

We've got two convos going at once here, Gregorio. SM was referring to the "if you hear differences between amps, you're probably doing something wrong" argument.



Phronesis said:


> How do we 'know' the differences are small, to all listeners?  That kind of sweeping generalization is speculative, not scientific.



Is an ant small to all human viewers?

You don't seem to understand the purpose of a blind listening test. It's not to determine the size of the difference. There's no point doing a controlled listening test of a whisper vs a scream. They are self-evidently different. The point of a controlled listening test is to determine if there is a difference at all between two samples that sound very close to being identical. If the difference wasn't small, there would be no reason to do the listening test at all. Of course the difference is small. We all have human ears, and to human ears, small for me is small for you. It might be a big deal to you and not important to me, but that has nothing to do with listening tests or science. That is simply preference. Audibility is different than preference, and most of the stuff we argue with audiophiles about here is definitely small. Usually it's so small, it's only measurable, not audible. That would fit the definition of "small" for me.


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 15, 2018)

@Phronesis ...

"
Another example from medicine is the pattern recognition radiologists develop through their training and experience - and I wonder what the correlation is between doctors having a natural knack for radiology vs going into that field.
" Great point, there is what may seem to be an "easy learning " in such fields.  Reading a radiograph is very hard to teach.  This is a fact of medical  training analysis . A quick dash at google scholar might be informative ....


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> We've got two convos going at once here, Gregorio. SM was referring to the "if you hear differences between amps, you're probably doing something wrong" argument.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure it's that simple.  Large perceived differences may not be real, and small audible differences may not be perceived unless a listener is paying extra attention and/or has above-average hearing acuity.  And why wouldn't we look at 'effect size' in blinded studies?


----------



## Zapp_Fan (May 15, 2018)

bigshot said:


> OK. That is good. I'll use that. I just added it to my sig.



I'm honored!

I do want to avoid forgetting that the *someone* that messed up could be the amp manufacturer.  Especially on the lowest end of the market, defects, tolerance issues, and design problems could all crop up.  I do wonder if the "properly designed" criterion is as universally satisfied as one might think.

For example, I have know of two pairs of Bluetooth headphones which share a driver and DAC, but the amp section is different.  The bass response varies audibly, (nothing severe, but the difference is easy enough to notice and "quantify" by ear.) it could be because of acoustics but I'm inclined to attribute some to the amp as well, since the difference is not surmountable via EQ.

Now, this probably falls outside of what you would call "an amp", and on this forum you'd be right.  But in the universe of consumer audio, there are probably a lot more integrated (flawed) amps in use than there are properly designed, transparent, outboard ones.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> We've got two convos going at once here, Gregorio. SM was referring to the "if you hear differences between amps, you're probably doing something wrong" argument.



Yes I know. I was just joking, using a few of the old favourite audiophile descriptions and explanations for what are actually inaudible differences, the "night and day", your gear is no good, your ears aren't working, etc. Hence the smiley at the end of my post. I wasn't referring at all to the other convo, my discourse with analogsurvivor.

G


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

A veil has been lifted! I understand now.



Zapp_Fan said:


> For example, I have know of two pairs of Bluetooth headphones which share a driver and DAC, but the amp section is different.  The bass response varies audibly, (nothing severe, but the difference is easy enough to notice and "quantify" by ear.) it could be because of acoustics but I'm inclined to attribute some to the amp as well, since the difference is not surmountable via EQ.



Could they be compensating for something in the transducers? If you know the amp is only going to be used with one specific transducer, I can see that they might rob Peter to pay Paul figuring no one will ever know.



Phronesis said:


> Large perceived differences may not be real, and small audible differences may not be perceived unless a listener is paying extra attention and/or has above-average hearing acuity.  And why wouldn't we look at 'effect size' in blinded studies?



Huh? What large differences in the sound quality of recorded music aren't real? Too small to be perceived likely doesn't matter unless you are obsessed with it. That falls outside the area of perception and strays into the area of OCD. I don't believe in super human hearing. I think there is normal optimal hearing and then there are degrees of degradation. The purpose of a blind listening test is to determine whether a difference exists at all between two very similar samples. Once you've proven that a difference exists, then you can move on to quantifying it.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> A veil has been lifted! I understand now.



That's a shame, a joke never really has the same impact if you have to explain it! 

G


----------



## bigshot

There are micro dynamics of humor.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> There are micro dynamics of humor.



<joke>Yes but you can only hear them in a sighted test!</joke> 

G


----------



## Phronesis (May 15, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Huh? *What large differences in the sound quality of recorded music aren't real?* Too small to be perceived likely doesn't matter unless you are obsessed with it. That falls outside the area of perception and strays into the area of OCD. I don't believe in super human hearing. I think there is normal optimal hearing and then there are degrees of degradation. The purpose of a blind listening test is to determine whether a difference exists at all between two very similar samples. Once you've proven that a difference exists, then you can move on to quantifying it.



I was referring to large _perceived_ differences, like the famous night and day differences people think they hear.  I think you would agree that many of those perceived differences likely aren't real.

Given the considerable variation of people on most traits, plasticity and learning ability of the brain, etc., I would be surprised if there wasn't considerable variation in hearing acuity, but I haven't looked into that topic specifically.  Maybe someone can chime in who's looked into it.

Based on a quick Google search, sort of relevant: https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.4988456


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> How do we 'know' the differences are small, to all listeners?  That kind of sweeping generalization is speculative, not scientific.
> 
> The evidence is anecdotal reports and our personal experiences, which are obviously of varying reliability and subject to biases, but I don't dismiss the entire category for those reasons.  I believe some people have also done well on some blind tests, which is strong evidence that it's not all false positives.
> 
> ...



In situations where we take what is currently known about hearing perception and compare this data to the math, when it does not seem plausible that any difference might be heard, some proof with a blinded listening test is required.  The lack of evidence suggesting any differences are being heard is not surprising.  If there is any difference, especially obvious differences to some, there should be bountiful, uncontroversial evidence available that rational people would find it difficult to deny.   Where is this evidence?

You are suggesting there is some outside chance that there may even be a difference and then going on about how significant this difference might be to individuals.  It seems ridiculous to me.  It is not really a gray area.  The science is fairly conclusive that neither you nor anyone else is hearing a difference when the measurements suggest you should not hear any difference.  There is nothing for me to prove about this, that would be backwards. 

If you have a specific example, let's explore this further.   You might be talking about something else.   I want a specific example so neither of us gets confused about the other's intent or conflates one isolated situation with a broader discussion.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> I was referring to large _perceived_ differences, like the famous night and day differences people think they hear.  I think you would agree that many of those perceived differences likely aren't real.



I think that is more a problem with inability to express relative size in words than it is ability to hear. People make mountains out of molehills. But they're still molehills. People just want to validate their own bias, so they overstate things. I don't have time for that stuff.

I've done a bit of research into the thresholds of perception. It's been well studied and the upper limit is pretty much a brick wall. Variation exists downward into degrees of degradation, but there aren't people out there with Superman X Ray vision or the ability to hear voices from a mile away. Human perception either is what it is, or it is degraded.


----------



## skwoodwiva

I am going to leave this as a gem for those who do know there is a real decernment  within the audiophile movement.  There is much debate as is here but in this mid-thread area the APs have leaning to what is valid testing (terms searched:  "effect size" "blinded studies"auditory acuity audiophile) 
Only result. 
http://forums.audioreview.com/cables/wire-no-wire-proof-you-decide-3531-post27021.html#post27021


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

no line level matching, the samples weren't randomized- they were numbered 1 or 2 which gives them a 50-50 chance of guessing each time.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> In situations where we take what is currently known about hearing perception and compare this data to the math, when it does not seem plausible that any difference might be heard, some proof with a blinded listening test is required.  The lack of evidence suggesting any differences are being heard is not surprising.  If there is any difference, especially obvious differences to some, there should be bountiful, uncontroversial evidence available that rational people would find it difficult to deny.   Where is this evidence?
> 
> You are suggesting there is some outside chance that there may even be a difference and then going on about how significant this difference might be to individuals.  It seems ridiculous to me.  It is not really a gray area.  The science is fairly conclusive that neither you nor anyone else is hearing a difference when the measurements suggest you should not hear any difference.  There is nothing for me to prove about this, that would be backwards.
> 
> If you have a specific example, let's explore this further.   You might be talking about something else.   I want a specific example so neither of us gets confused about the other's intent or conflates one isolated situation with a broader discussion.



I'm thinking of differences which measure small, or are missed by the standard measurements performed, but are perceived as substantial by some (not all) listeners.  An example would be the difference I mentioned perceiving between the Mojo and Chord 2 (as I said, I'm not 100% sure it's real, but am >90% convinced).

I dislike the word 'proof' in these discussions.  We can prove things within mathematical or logical systems, but with physical systems the best we can do is to try to improve our models.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> I'm thinking of differences which measure small, or are missed by the standard measurements performed, but are perceived as substantial by some (not all) listeners.  An example would be the difference I mentioned perceiving between the Mojo and Chord 2 (as I said, I'm not 100% sure it's real, but am >90% convinced).



How can you be 90% convinced when you know the power than bias holds over people and you've made no effort to do any controlled test? There's no reason to believe those two sound different. They measure pretty much the same don't they? It seems that you're just going on your gut instinct, which is probably bias, over facts.

This is why all of us in Sound Science do controlled tests. We KNOW we are subject to bias.


----------



## skwoodwiva

bigshot said:


> no line level matching, the samples weren't randomized- they were numbered 1 or 2 which gives them a 50-50 chance of guessing each time.


Can anyone tell who bigshot is responding to?


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> How can you be 90% convinced when you know the power than bias holds over people and you've made no effort to do any controlled test? There's no reason to believe those two sound different. They measure pretty much the same don't they? It seems that you're just going on your gut instinct, which is probably bias, over facts.
> 
> This is why all of us in Sound Science do controlled tests. We KNOW we are subject to bias.



It's a judgment call, can't be more than that.  And I make a distinction between 100% and 90% - that still leaves plenty of room for misperception.  I'm not trying to write a peer-reviewed paper or tell the audio world about a great discovery, just discussing in a forum.  If I do blind testing and get more evidence either way, that will be worthwhile.  Can you recommend a simple passive headphone switching box (two inputs, one output)?


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

Audibility can't be expressed in percentages. Either you can hear it or you can't. The percentage you are quoting there isn't related to audibility. It is your degree of certainty that your impression isn't being affected by bias. I know enough about bias to know that it's really good at fudging the percentages! I do controlled testing for myself, not for others. Asking your own biased self to come up with a percentage of certainty is like asking a convicted felon who has been thrown in prison whether he is innocent or not. >90% of them are going to say they were wrongly convicted. The real percentage is much, much smaller than that. If you really want to know and aren't just interested in talking in endless loops about the possibilities, you'll take an afternoon and do a controlled test. But I'm not particularly interested in discussing your degree of certainty for three or four weeks if you aren't interested in spending three or four hours to find out for sure.

What kind of ins and outs do you want? If you are going to compare line out, you need preamps. That's what I usually do. That bypasses the impedance variables.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Audibility can't be expressed in percentages. Either you can hear it or you can't. The percentage you are quoting there isn't related to audibility. It is your degree of certainty that your impression isn't being affected by bias. I know enough about bias to know that it's really good at fudging the percentages! Asking your own biased self to come up with a percentage of certainty is like asking a convicted felon who has been thrown in prison whether he is innocent or not. >90% of them are going to say they were wrongly convicted. The real percentage is much, much smaller than that. If you really want to know and aren't just interested in talking in endless loops about the possibilities, you'll take an afternoon and do a controlled test. But I'm not particularly interested in discussing your degree of certainty for three or four weeks if you aren't interested in spending three or four hours to find out for sure.



A subjective probability is what it is - subjective - and the number can't be viewed as having much precision. My 90% attempts to account for bias, otherwise it would be closer to 100%.  Again, it's _my_ subjective probability, not something we can even debate about.

Can you tell the difference between your headphones?  How confident are you about that?  If you say 'fairly confident', you can put a number like 'about 75%' confident on it to be more precise about what you mean, and there won't be any misunderstanding if the context is understood.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> I'm thinking of differences which measure small, or are missed by the standard measurements performed, but are perceived as substantial by some (not all) listeners.  An example would be the difference I mentioned perceiving between the Mojo and Chord 2 (as I said, I'm not 100% sure it's real, but am >90% convinced).
> 
> I dislike the word 'proof' in these discussions.  We can prove things within mathematical or logical systems, but with physical systems the best we can do is to try to improve our models.



My use of proof was directly related to showing that a difference was actually being identified within a statistical significance that would suggest it was not guessing.   Whether or not the differences identified are from an outside tell or with the actual sound of the files is a separate issue, but it could provide clear evidence that a difference is being identified.

Back to your example between the Mojo and Chord 2.  Were you listening with music, movies, test tones, noise?  Was it just a pair of headphones using the built-in amp or were you using a separate amp with the line level output of the DACs?  

What I am getting at is that perhaps there is something obvious in the manufacturer specifications of your gear that could explain any differences.  If nothing obvious is discovered, it would probably be a good idea to make an attempt to volume match and see if the perceived difference is still prevalent.   Hopefully by this point the difference is not so obvious or even impossible to identify.  But, without an attempt to ABX for a difference, you can't claim to hear a difference that would mean anything to anyone reading your post.  There isn't a better way to verify if you are actually hearing a difference.  

If you were able to conduct an ABX test, and you didn't hear a difference, that should satisfy the question of whether a difference was actually being heard.  If you can show that you are hearing a difference, then the next step is to explore what might be creating the difference.  We need to examine the likely reasons, such as the test itself.   Can improvements be made to the test to rule out possible causes for the differences being identified?  

As we continue the process, the evidence gets stronger that perhaps there is something being heard that is different enough to be identified when the measurements suggest otherwise.  

But you pass all of this up and go straight to the notion that maybe this supposed difference that you can't even be certain you are actually hearing is on a subconscious level or that specially trained or experienced humans need to be considered when choosing equipment, even when the specs are orders of magnitude below the threshold of human hearing. 

Billions of people (me included) believe in lots of irrational things, but that doesn't make those irrational things any more likely to be true.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> no line level matching, the samples weren't randomized- they were numbered 1 or 2 which gives them a 50-50 chance of guessing each time.


I'm not sure the so called test went beyond asking the listeners for their opinion. reading the first post in the topic linked, it doesn't look like they actually tested the listeners in any way. there are other things to say about the test itself but already it lost all credibility in my eyes.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Before I embark on this course, I would like to see the syllabus. The course outline isn't doing much to convince me that it's worth taking. Frankly, it reeks of hot air.
> 
> If you want to teach, please be clear, be organized and be concise. That is how you communicate effectively. Irrelevant sidetracks into phono cartridges won't help. Neither will resorting to overblown elocution designed to puff up your own ego. Just cut to the chase and tell me what I need to do to get the effect to work and when I have experienced it and I'm impressed with it, explain to me why it wasn't working for me before. That should be two nice clear concise paragraphs. Easy peasy.
> 
> One quick question before I listen to those clips.... Just the preview image makes me wonder who the hell is engineering this stuff. If your head shape and shoulders can affect the way sound works, WHY IN THE LOVE OF GOD WOULD YOU PUT A HIGHLY DIRECTIONAL MIKE SETUP SQUARELY RIGHT BEHIND THE CONDUCTOR'S BACK? Is this conductor audibly transparent? Maybe the reason it's so quiet is because someone is standing right in front of the mike and blocking the sound!


Well, I will try to be as clear, organized and concise as possible. But - be warned; once you progress long enough, some beliefs about audio you present as irefutable truth will not only be shown to be incorrect, but standing directly in the way of further improvement of as realistic reproduction of sound as possible.

The mentioning of the phono cartrifge was NOT  a sidetrack. It has been presented as one of the MANY examples in audio - when the theory that is basically sound and correct can not be made into a viable product/procedure either at all -  the practical realization leaves a LOT to be desired due to the  limitations of either the technology at the time , necessity to design to a certain price point - or "force majeure" - like the emergence of the CD in the beginning of the 80s. Although any theorethical considerations regarding said phono cartridge were as relevant then as are today, the situation in the audio market in the early 80s for any analogue equipment looked pretty grim at best - if not totally hopeless. Today, the tables have turned - and phono equipment is not only viable commercial proposition again, but probably enjoys renaissance and sales in excess of anything that went before - IF high quality gear is concerned. The sheer volume of records and players sold in times record was for all practical purposes the only show in town can never be repeated - but the survival of analogue turntable and vinyl records is guaranteed.

Binaural has few basic requirements; and a whole lot of - at first glance - less important ones, but without which it can never achieve the required level of realism in order to be convincing enough to the listener. I will start the binaural/Kunstkopf journey pretty much where I started it - with Sennheiser test single record 
https://www.discogs.com/Unknown-Artist-Kunstkopf-Stereofonie-Dummy-Head-Stereo-/release/1777050

I present both English and German spoken demonstration; beginning, for obvious reasons, with the English. However, once you familiarize yourselves with the basic impression, please DO listen also to the German Version; because the star of the show is not the speech, but various "random environmental  noises" that of course could possibly not be exactly equal at a somewhat different time the original recordings of both versions in the same venue took place. I have - again intentionally - started with the two versions of this recording available on Youtube - for the reasons to be disclosed at a later date. Now, please listen to both of the versions USING YOUR OTHERWISE PREFERRED OR "GO TO " HEADPHONES - whatever that might be.


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

Music please. I am interested in properly presenting recorded music, not effects. And I'm still waiting for on point, concise and clear.

I sampled the first batch of videos.

The piano mike placement tests were interesting, but pianos throw out sound in all different directions. Every direction sounds different. I couldn't discern any difference there from any normal two channel recording, except for the fact that a two channel recording would probably have better balances because you could mix multiple perspectives together. There was no startling realistic placement of the sound. It sounded pretty ordinary.

The Vivaldi was recorded way too far away. The instruments had lost a lot of their character because the mike was too distant. It doesn't matter though because the quality of the playing was abysmal. I would have placed the mike in an entirely different country. That was a real clam chowder!

That orchestral one made no sense to me. I closed my eyes and tried to pick out location for the sound, but it was impossible. One second the violins were on the left the way they were supposed to be and the next minute they would be on the opposite side. Some of the horns moved in the middles of notes. How can anyone listen to something like that? It was a mess. No sense of surround at all. Not even a definable "headstone" because the perspective seemed to keep changing.

The organ recording again sounds not that much different than a stereo recording. I heard shifts front to back a tiny bit sometimes but it seem related to frequency. Higher frequencies came forward and midrange receded. It seemed kind of "open" sounding (for lack of a better word) so there was some sense of space. It's just that there was no organized "front" or "back" The ambience of the cathedral was mixed in with everything. Sound wasn't bouncing off the rear as I would expect. That's how I get it in 5.1 recordings. Overall this sounds pretty nice, but I have multichannel ones that have much more organized surround presence, and I have CDs that present the different voices and ranks with a better degree of clarity and separation. The bass wasn't nearly as clear and engulfing as with my speakers either. But that is just because headphones aren't able to do that.

I skipped the spoken ones for the reason I already mentioned. I think I hit all of the examples.

I think the problem here is that the people making these recordings seem to be using room ambience to substitute for real binaural sound. If it sounds all echoey, your mind smears sound all over. If they record too close, it turns into ping pong stereo with stuff placed hard left and hard right. Do you have an example of a string quartet or jazz combo that is recorded clean and clear at just the proper distance? I think sounds that spread out all over a room, like a piano, an organ, or a full orchestra aren't suited for this technique. You need individual sounds that you can pick out without a lot of room ambience smearing it all over.


----------



## Phronesis (May 15, 2018)

bigshot said:


> What kind of ins and outs do you want? If you are going to compare line out, you need preamps. That's what I usually do. That bypasses the impedance variables.



I want to compare the DAC/amps, so just need two A and B 1/8" or 1/4" input jacks, A/B switch, and one 1/8" or 1/4" output jack.



sonitus mirus said:


> My use of proof was directly related to showing that a difference was actually being identified within a statistical significance that would suggest it was not guessing.   Whether or not the differences identified are from an outside tell or with the actual sound of the files is a separate issue, but it could provide clear evidence that a difference is being identified.
> 
> Back to your example between the Mojo and Chord 2.  Were you listening with music, movies, test tones, noise?  Was it just a pair of headphones using the built-in amp or were you using a separate amp with the line level output of the DACs?
> 
> ...



I don't want to go in circles, but I'll summarize again.  I've compared them on many occasions over the past few months, with various headphones, with various tracks, at various volumes (sometimes matching reasonably closely, sometimes letting one be a little louder and switching that), using the built-in amps.  The difference on these occasions has been consistent (and perceived consciously), even when I listened to one, tried to remember some traits of the sound, and then tried to convince myself that the other sounded the same to help mitigate bias (usually couldn't convince myself).  Bias can certainly have a role here, but that doesn't _necessarily_ mean that I'm getting it wrong.  Consistency of my observations with what others have reported is also a factor in my subjective probability.

Perhaps the distinction needs to be made here that I didn't attempt to conduct a formal scientific experiment, I just made a judgment based on evidence gathered over a period of time, and happened to report it here in this forum.  If people give no weight to that judgement, I certainly understand, given that they haven't been exposed to same evidence as me, and may be more doubtful due to concern about the effects of bias.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Music please. I am interested in properly presenting recorded music, not effects. And I'm still waiting for on point, concise and clear.


Sorry - unfortunately, it does not work that way. Not if you want to learn why something does - or does not - work as desired/intended. 

This Sennheiser test record does not present effects - but tries to present real world sounds anybody should be familiar with  and can be recreated at home with a relatively high degree of similarity to the sounds from the recording. One can not - usually  - recreate anything similar in the home with music ( other than some solo instruments or voices ).

The journey will, inevitably, lead to some music recorded in binaural. But, since the playback equipment for binaural DOES influence the outcome TO A FAR GREATER DEGREE than case is with other recording techniques,  I must first ensure you are not trying to plough the field using a Ferrari F1 car - or trying to win  F1 race sitting in a tractor. I would like to present also how does it sound when it does NOT  function propery - because you will then be familiar, trough some clues you can learn from listening to the "effects", how to avoid the equipment that does not lend itself well for binaural.

And, yes, I do know Ferrari started with the production of tractors following the end of WW II.

P.S.: For the younger generations - this record is from 1973, that is to say it is 45 years old by now ( if anyone is perplexed as to why people are having wooden logs in their living room ).


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

If you're going to compare from the headphone output, you'll want to make sure that both ADC/amps have the same impedance characteristics. If they don't, you're comparing apples and oranges. Here is a headphone switch box at Amazon. https://amzn.to/2IpzKdA

Level matching is of paramount importance. It has to be done right or your test won't show you what you are trying to find out. Someone here can give you advice on how to do that.


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> The journey will, inevitably, lead to some music recorded in binaural.



I don't want to take a journey.  I'm not convinced that your mind can move in a straight line. I'm not going to let you drive. Sorry. Reel yourself in. I just asked you to give me a good example of binaural music and answer my questions when I've had a chance to listen to it. I've given you my reaction to your first examples. They were not good. Cut to the chase. Show me the best.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> If you're going to compare from the headphone output, you'll want to make sure that both ADC/amps have the same impedance characteristics. If they don't, you're comparing apples and oranges. Here is a headphone switch box at Amazon. https://amzn.to/2IpzKdA



Thanks for the link.  It has a volume control with resistors.  I wonder if that could affect the sound and compromise the experiment?


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

That depends on how crazy you want to get and how much you want to spend. The difference in impedance is more apt to be a problem than the volume pot. I have an old simple headphone switch box and two matching headphone amps to adjust levels. I've checked and even if I only have a headphone amp on one side, it doesn't make a difference. I wouldn't expect a simple volume pot to be a problem. I would just set it at full blast and adjust the outputs from the amps. For line level I have two matching preamps with headphone output, or I patch into my main speaker system. I do a lot more line level tests than I do headphone output tests. I don't worry about doing comparison tests with transducers, because they are all going to be different. I just calibrate for each one individually with EQ.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I don't want to take a journey.  I'm not convinced that your mind can move in a straight line. I'm not going to let you drive. Sorry. Reel yourself in. I just asked you to give me a good example of binaural music and answer my questions when I've had a chance to listen to it. I've given you my reaction to your first examples. They were not good. Cut to the chase. Show me the best.


OK - although it is not the question of life and death as in the example I will present below, the intention of both the proposed journey and the following example are both meant well. 

The first in order to get a grasp how and why binaural does work (and why it can not, even if given *perfect* binaural recording) , the second to prevent you from getting killed due to sheer lack of experience.

Suppose you want to start competing in bicycle racing. Because some watchful eye spotted you on a "regular" , heavy bike, with fat tires, maybe even tires that can not ever get puncture ( and are slow as hell due to this fact ) - yet you still manage to equal or even best guys on special road bikes rolling on tubular tires.

Would you STILL be insisting on "show me your best" , insisting on me skipping to  inform you how to properly, but above all SAFELY,  ride on tubular tires ? 

Because nobody would take a particular pleasure and satisfaction in scraping your remnants from some rocks after you found - the hardest way possible - that you can not brake on  steep descent with tubular tires as you have always been doing with other more robust counterparts. 

You need not to reply whether you want to embark on this journey immediately. Take your time - I am still willing to do it.  But reght this moment, I am going to bed - 02:23 AM here.


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2018)

Why do I need experience or safety lessons to listen to binaural sound? It's supposed to be real sounding. I have had a whole life of experience with real sounding sound. I don't want a 12 course meal. I want to see an example of binaural recording done well. So far, the examples given don't come close to living up to the hype. I don't need technical explanations. I REALLY don't need flowery poetry or hippie dippy philosophy. No cute analogies necessary either. Just give me something to listen to with headphones that you think shows the technique off to its best advantage. If I can see a concrete example of what it is you are talking about, I'll have more patience. When people can't just put up a clear example of what they're talking about, I tend to think they're talking through their hat.

Put up or... well, you know.


----------



## jgazal (May 15, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. Actually, I see mic dynamic range/sensitivity as one of the least of binaural's problems. The Shostakovich 5 you linked to for example is probably an accurate capture of the sound waves (including the dynamic range): The noise of the audience is very present and relatively loud, the orchestra is rather distant, poorly defined and separated and with a rather small dynamic range. But, this is NOT a limitation/problem with mics, the mic's have done their job and captured the sound waves. The problem is with perception or rather, the lack of it! As I've stated before, although this may be an accurate representation of the sound waves, it is NOT an accurate representation of what one would likely experience, due to human perception, which binaural recording cannot represent at all. As a consequence of human perception (the brain's processing), the actual experience sitting in this same location would likely have been; much less audience noise, less room reverb, more clarity, definition and separation of the orchestra and a somewhat larger dynamic range. We can represent this experience using multi-mic recording and mixing but we can't with a binaural recording.
> 
> The other recordings display other typical binaural recording problems, due to relatively close binaural mic'ing, poor balance and also accurate but undesirable positioning (hard panning). That hard panning could of course be alleviated by moving the mics further away from the musicians but then you run into the greater distance Shostakovich recording problem again; too much noise/reverb and loss of clarity, separation, etc. This highlights the problem of any (near) single point stereo pair recording, namely, that there often is no single point which solves these problems. The only solution is typically multi-mic'ing, which allows a mixer/producer to correct for positioning, separation, clarity, balance between the instruments, dynamic range and the balance between the direct and reflected sound, to more accurately represent what we would experience, expect or desire.
> 
> G



Also:



gregorio said:


> 1b. This brings us back to my initial point, that even when we're recording in a real acoustic space, that's not what we're trying to create. We're NOT trying to recreate the best seat in the house! And the reason we're not trying to recreate the best seat in the house is because we're talking about an audience member, NOT a seat! In other words, the actual sound waves which would enter an audience member's ears is substantially different to what that audience member would perceive. What we hear is always a perception, a combination of our senses and our expectations. This perception is potentially constantly changing as we decide consciously and subconsciously what to focus on and just as importantly for recording/mixing purposes, what not to focus on! For example, in reality (the actual sound waves), the audience is making constant noise, however as we're looking at (say) the orchestra the brain will decide that constant noise is irrelevant/unimportant/an unwanted distraction and reduce it's perceived level or even eliminate it entirely, unless something non-constant occurs (such as a loud cough for example) or we consciously decide to override what our brain is doing by focusing our attention on that audience noise instead of the orchestra. This is only one of tricks our perception is constantly playing in order to better hear and make sense of the world. Our hearing can also reduce some of the reflections, the number, duration and/or levels of those reflections, it will also even reduce parts of the orchestra itself, the parts we're not concentrating on. For example if the lead violin gets a solo, our brain will match that sound with our eyes and the combination will reinforce the focus of attention on that violin and reduce everything else. On the face of it, this all appears to be pretty unnatural but of course it's actually the exact opposite, it's how our hearing has evolved to work and it's the only thing we've ever experienced as individuals, from even before we're born, so it actually sounds ENTIRELY natural. There's an obvious problem here; with a music recording our sight is contradicting our hearing, we're seeing say our living room but hearing an orchestra in a concert hall and there is little/no reinforcement effect between our sight and hearing which would result in the real life scenario of our brain manipulating, subconsciously reducing and amplifying, the various elements of what is entering our ears in favour of other elements. Assuming we're talking about an actual acoustic event, such as a symphony concert for example, then what we're doing with the recording and mixing is NOT trying to capture and recreate the actual audio reality but create a sort of generalisation of what we would have perceived. This effectively means applying those reducing/amplifying brain manipulations to the recording itself, because our brain will not perform those manipulations when we're listening in our sitting rooms. There is no algorithm for this, there's too many variables at play and ultimately it all comes down to the skill/technique, perception and subjective opinion of the engineers/producer. Also, this is in addition to any creative intent! For example, with our violin solo above, we might decide to make the lead violin a tiny bit louder and more present in the recording to emulate what we would likely have perceived had we been there (and our sight and hearing had combined to create this perception). Artistically though, we might decide that what we would have perceived is still not quite right or could be subjectively better, maybe we would make the violin even louder or maybe quieter again or maybe tweak some other aspect of the sound.
> 
> G



I am still trying to process your arguments.

I will wait until I am able to test binaural recordings made in my own ears, but played back with head tracking and xtc.

Preliminarily, I have to agree that several times that I play back binaural that I recorded I think “that noise was not there while I was recording”. But it was and my brain was effectively paying attention to what I was considering important at that moment.

At the time of my response to your first post, I was thinking how the perception of blind people work. Now I am not so sure.

With those premises, I assent that it makes sense to reinforce acoustically at sole audio playback something that would be naturally reinforced by all our senses and thus by our complete perception in a real event and that is not fully functioning at restricted music playback.

I don’t have a 3D 360 degrees camcorder to test binaural recording with VR and won’t have in the short or mid term... life sucks... 

Edit: very hard to put those ideas into words...


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry - unfortunately, it does not work that way. Not if you want to learn why something does - or does not - work as desired/intended.
> 
> This Sennheiser test record does not present effects - but tries to present real world sounds anybody should be familiar with  and can be recreated at home with a relatively high degree of similarity to the sounds from the recording. One can not - usually  - recreate anything similar in the home with music ( other than some solo instruments or voices ).
> 
> ...


Ah yes, the old Sennheiser 414 headphones and the Sennheiser head.  I've played extensively with both.  I don't have 414s anymore, and all I have left of the head is the case for the mics (and I bored out its ears to insert better mics anyway).  But both the headphones and mic/head combo were really not great.  

That thing never really did a great job, even with my mic upgrade.  There were lots of refinements to heads and pinna in the years that followed.  I don't know why anyone would start with recordings done with this stuff unless they wanted to give binaural bad representation.

But I don't get it.  What exactly are you trying to do here? "Teach" binaural listening?  Look, if it's working right, and I have heard binaural work right, you don't have to "teach" anything!  The cheesy old demo record is amusing at best, and shows a bit of what binaural can do, but not really very well.  The Sennheiser head had a very poor HTRF and as a result front/back localization was often iffy.  Whispering in the ear always works, any head, any mics, so big deal.  Palpable image? That's a different task, and Sennheiser always sort of failed.   Got any Kemar recordings?  Holophonics/Zuccarelli?  

Car analogies never work for audio! I think I must have typed that one a bunch of times by now.  Demo the good stuff first!  It can't hurt listeners, and it might hook a few.  If it's good, no learning curve, no teaching, it works, and anyone will know it.  You can't actually pull that one off with any one binaural system, but the attempts to teach slowly with hobbled material won't get to "good" very well, if ever.


----------



## bigshot

Pinnahertz, the only things I've heard that really work (sort of) is stuff miked really close. The more distant stuff gets all diffused and the room ambience swamps the clarity. What did you hear that worked well?


----------



## pinnahertz (May 16, 2018)

You mean like the "haircut"?  Yeah, that sort of stuff is easy and obvious.  The more distant you get the more critical the HRTF match becomes.  But it can work to the point that you get a sense of the size of the space, even elevation works, but all of that requires a really good match between the listeners HRTF and the recording HRTF.  My experiments with mics in my own ears showed sources at relatively large distances could be localized. 

 Where binaural has trouble is in two critical areas.  The Sennheiser demo mentions their "open air" headphone design, basically extra-aural, as be essential, and they're correct.  When you use closed headphones or IEMs the subtle distance cues get messed up, and only the huge localization cues work, which is why everyone loves the "haircut" piece.   The other important aspect I keep hitting is the recording/play HRTF match.  Turns out it's not just the head, but also the chest, so when I see heads on mic stands I know it's not going to work well.  Sennheiser ""KUNSTKOPF" MKE-2002 pinna was less detailed that a real one, and molded of the same hard material as the head, so the HF part of its HRTF could never be right, and the mics didn't actually penetrate the pinna very far at all.   *Kemar* has soft interchangeable pinna molds with more detail, which works better.  I don't recall what Zuccarelli was doing, but I think it was a soft flesh-like pinna too.  Even the head density matters. Sennheisers mics were a kind of headset arrangement that you could put on the head or put into your own ears, but they didn't go very far into the ear canal.  There's a good part of HRTF that gets lost that way, and that's why I drilled out the Sennheiser  head and implanted a couple of tiny condeners capsules down the canal.  That's works a bit better.  When your recording HRTF and listener HRTF don't match (by degree of course) you loose the ability to create tangible localization, and the more vague distance cues fall apart first.  At some point  you also drop clear front/back differences and elevation.  Eventually you just have bad stereo, and at that point ORTF mics and the Jeklin disc work better, but are not binaural, so no elevation, no palpable front/back.

Edit: forgot to mention the Neumann KU 100 Dummy Head Microphone, sorry.  Great detail in the pinna mold, and they got the head density right.  I somehow remember someone making custom pinna molds for that thing.  You can buy one today if you have $8K burning a hole in your pocket.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> [1] That orchestral one made no sense to me. I closed my eyes and tried to pick out location for the sound, but it was impossible. One second the violins were on the left the way they were supposed to be and the next minute they would be on the opposite side. Some of the horns moved in the middles of notes. How can anyone listen to something like that?
> [2] I think the problem here is that the people making these recordings seem to be using room ambience to substitute for real binaural sound. If it sounds all echoey, your mind smears sound all over. If they record too close, it turns into ping pong stereo with stuff placed hard left and hard right. Do you have an example of a string quartet or jazz combo that is recorded clean and clear at just the proper distance?



1. I've no idea how anyone can listen to something like that. Sure, as just a cheap, simple informational video, the fact that it's aurally completely inconsistent/incoherent isn't the end of the world but presented as a demonstration of the superiority of binaural and it's coherency benefits is just utterly bizarre because it actually demonstrates the exact opposite! Yes, the violins and indeed the entire soundstage jumps all over the place but perhaps the clearest, most obvious element to concentrate on is the claves and then guiro in the first 2 mins; left/right position, balance and distance all change massively/shockingly.

2. Well, that's the problem! Often, "the proper distance" simply does not exist, which is why multi-mic'ing was invented in the first place! That doesn't mean to say that binaural recordings are always crap, I have heard a few good ones but they are extremely rare because music performance scenarios are the scenarios where "the proper distance" most commonly does not exist. This is why most binaural demonstrations typically use recordings of sound environments rather than recordings of music and even when they are musical demonstrations, they're most commonly some ambient music genre employing musique concrete principles (sound environments again). 



analogsurviver said:


> [1] I must first ensure you are not trying to plough the field using a Ferrari F1 car - or trying to win F1 race sitting in a tractor.
> [2] Sorry - unfortunately, it does not work that way. Not if you want to learn why something does - or does not - work as desired/intended. ... The first in order to get a grasp how and why binaural does work (and why it can not, even if given *perfect* binaural recording) , the second to prevent you from getting killed due to sheer lack of experience.



1. OK, let's run with your analogy (sorry pinnahertz): You posted a tractor as a prime example of a Formula 1 car, clearly demonstrating that you do not understand and are completely insensitive to the difference between a tractor and a F1 car! And:

2. No, I'm the one who is sorry. I'm sorry because I do not want to learn how NOT to understand the difference between a tractor and a F1 car! You've clearly demonstrated that you are incapable of hearing/noticing the most massive/obvious inconsistencies in all aspects of soundstage and you're effectively saying that we lack the education and experience required to be as incapable and insensitive to those massive/obvious inconsistencies as you are, huh? First, you post two videos demonstrating the moderate differences just a few feet of mic placement can make and immediately afterwards, you post another video where the mics are completely reversed, placed in positions 50ft or more different, at completely opposite sides of the orchestra, all of which resulted in massive jumps/differences throughout the entire soundfield and YOU DIDN'T NOTICE ANY OF IT AT ALL (?!!) and even presented it as a paragon of binaural coherency which would require a steep learning curve for others to fully appreciate. I cannot even imagine how you've arrived at your current position, it's just so unimaginably self-contradictory and self-delusional!



jgazal said:


> Preliminarily, I have to agree that several times that I play back binaural that I recorded I think “that noise was not there while I was recording”. But it was and my brain was effectively paying attention to what I was considering important at that moment.



Yes, exactly! Furthermore, as you gain more opportunity to compare live experiences with the recordings of those events and develop more acute/objective listening abilities, you'll start to notice other differences, apart from just the perceived noise level, caused by your brain "paying attention to what you considered important at that moment". This process is vastly accelerated in the profession, you've got a great deal more of that "opportunity", plus you start as an assistant and therefore have someone with vastly more knowledge/experience to not only point out those differences but to almost constantly actually demonstrate them. A very different proposition to trying to discover all this on your own, not least because it's often not at all clear what it is that you need to try and discover in the first place!

Without this instruction/experience it's all too easy, especially for audiophiles, to hear differences between the perception of a live gig and a recording, assume it's actually differences between reality and recording and therefore search for a cure to make recordings more "real". This "search" will often lead audiophiles down all sorts of snake oil roads; super high sample rates, wide DSD, silly bit depths or the opposite, analogue, vinyl, tubes or whatever. What they actually need to be doing is searching for the exact opposite (!), a cure to make recordings less "real", or more precisely: A cure which is more like the reality of perception and less like actual reality! Unfortunately, most of these amateur audiophile recordists are so blinkered they simply cannot or will not even entertain the possibility that they've got it backwards and therefore, 1. They'll always remain effectively an amateur and 2. As their position is contrary to the logic of the actual facts, they'll end up making all kinds of deflections and various false, illogical or irrational attacks and assertions, even to the point of self-contradictory utter nonsense, as evidenced in some of the posts going back over many pages!

G


----------



## Phronesis

Phronesis said:


> Thinking about all this discussion, I put on my skeptic hat and compared my Mojo and Hugo 2 again last night and this morning, _with the aim of convincing myself that they sound the same_, and that any differences I've heard in the past were due to misperception.  No dice.  The differences I hear are the same as I've always heard, and are very similar to those reported by many other people who've compared both: the Hugo 2 gives a sense of stronger and better defined bass, more overall detail and clarity, and a larger stage.  Overall, the sound of the Hugo 2 is more 'alive' and intense, whereas the Mojo sounds more 'laid back' by comparison.  The FR of both DACs is essentially flat, so FR wouldn't explain the perceived differences.  Volume level isn't an explanation either, since the same differences are there even if I switch which one is a little louder.  I don't know why they sound different, and we don't need to recapitulate the theory debate again ...
> 
> I know skeptics will be dismissive of this anecdotal report and ask for blind tests, etc., but, if you have the opportunity, I suggest that you listen to these particular DACs and compare for yourself - maybe you'll be surprised, as I initially was.  I'm _not_ saying that all DACs sound different, I'm saying these two sound different from each other, to me and many others who've heard them.  And the differences don't seem to depend much at all on the headphones used, which has been my experience as well.
> 
> ...



Looking back at my post #7666 above, I believe I wasn't clear enough about what I was saying, and I can see why the post caused some irritation.  I should have noted at the outset that I wasn't 100% confident that the difference I perceived is real, that I couldn't be 100% confident based on the evidence available, and that I was about 90% subjectively confident based on the evidence available to me.  A confidence level of 90% reflects high confidence, but also leaves room for doubt.

I've ordered equipment for blind testing and will make a go of it.  If the blind testing provides strong evidence that I misperceived, that will show that I was overconfident, despite trying to recognize and compensate for biases.  OTOH, if the blind testing provides strong evidence that the difference is real, that will be an interesting outcome too.

In general, I think we need to be clear about what people are 'claiming'.  Claiming to subjectively perceive differences is common and such claims aren't strong claims.  Claims that perceived differences are objectively real are strong claims which need strong evidence.  IMO, anecdotal claims of perceived differences can add up to meaningful evidence if they have large scale and consistency, but I certainly agree with others that testing which eliminates potential effects of biases is needed to produce strong evidence.  That said, I still have concerns with the quality and external validity of the blind tests which are typically performed, so IMO we still have a bit of dilemma in settling these questions.


----------



## KeithEmo

Personally, I'm not so sure that I specifically agree that "the end game isn't to find the ultimate tweak"..... 

I personally have _TWO_ similar but different end games.....

One is simply to get all of my music to sound good enough to me that I feel I have eliminated the likelihood that I can get it to sound better by changing something.
And, yes, that means that, if there is a $500 tweak that actually will make an audible difference, I want to know about it - so I can _DECIDE_ if it's worth $500 to me or not.

My other goal is a more abstract version of the same thing.
I _DO_ have a bit of OCD about how my system sounds....
Therefore, I find uncertainty to be "emotionally unpleasant"...
And that means that, sometimes, I will pay a little extra to "purchase a little extra insurance" to avoid that uncertainty...
So, for example, If I was unsure whether the minimum amount of THD that was audible _FOR ME_ was 0.5% or 0.2%, I would pay extra to get 0.01%-  "just so I don't have to wonder".
In other fields of endeavor we call that a safety margin... and it's the same reason why so many people buy a car that can go 80 mph - even the ones who never drive over 55.

Yes, most DACs can deliver THD down in the triple-digits, and frequency response that's flat within a tiny fraction of a dB, and a S/N well over 100 dB.
And, yes, according to some generalizations, mostly made long before DACs existed, and many poorly tested to begin with, those numbers seem to be "perfect".
However, the fact remains that, to many people, many of those "perfect" DACs manage to sound quite different - sometimes significantly so.

Now, it also happens to be a fact that, by the very act of bandwidth-limiting a signal, which is necessary to convert it to digital, several characteristics of the waveform are altered.
And, beyond that, different DACs add significantly _DIFFERENT_ alterations to those initial changes, due to differences in the parameters chosen for their internal filters.
Therefore, to put it as bluntly as possible, if you put the same signal into several DACs, what comes out is _NOT_ exactly the same.
While most of us know that the impulse signals used to make those differences easy to compare on an oscilloscope image are unrealistic, the differences do apply to _ALL_ signals.
It has been widely agreed - for a very long time - that differences as large as 5% can be impossible to see on an oscilloscope trace... which is why we use odd test signals to see them.
It should also be noted that not only audiophiles, but DAC chip manufacturers, claim that those differences are at least sometime audible.
And, of course, we all know that no serious testing has been done on that particular aspect of the technology.
(Note that ringing, which is a situation where there is output when no corresponding input existed, is actually infinite distortion, but for a very short period of time.) 

Therefore, at least to me, it seem that "what we might learn about two DACs from an ABX test" is whether those differences are audible or not.
And... two very different questions... we might learn if most people can hear them most of the time... and if at least a few people can reliably hear them under specific conditions.

And, yes, since we have no actual data about the "necessary specifications", I would like to actually know what they are...
Instead of just assuming or guessing... based on information that is only tangentially applicable to the question.



sonitus mirus said:


> What are you possibly expecting to learn about the two DACs from an ABX?   There doesn't appear to be any design flaw in the measurements available from reviews and tests with either device.  This clearly isn't some end game to find the ultimate tweak in sound quality.  Any sound quality difference is the last thing to be concerned about with these DACs.  I'm confident they will both perform perfectly well if the features and specifications meet the requirements for your system.


----------



## KeithEmo

Now _THAT_ is a truly excellent suggestion.

While there are few companies who have a financial motivation to learn the truth, or conduct any sort of serious research, on many of these issues....
And there's a distinct possibility that there will never be enough academic interest to conduct a comprehensive and thorougn study.
Perhaps there are enough audiophiles, who would be willing to chip in $50 each on a Kickstarter campaign, to get some actual test results - instead of just incessantly arguing about it.

Here are a few suggestions:

1) High resolution files vs CD quality
1a) Determine if, under ANY test conditions, we can find at least one or two test subjects who can reliably tell the difference.
1b) Assuming that 1a) produces a positive result, statistically determine what percentage of the general population can reliably tell the difference, and under what conditions

2) The audibility of different DAC filters
2a) Determine if, under any test conditions, we can find at least one or two test subjects who can reliably recognize the difference between filters that produce symmetrical ringing, only pre-ringing, and only post-ringing
2b) Assuming that 2a) produces a positive result, statistically determine what percentage of the population can reliably tell which is which, and statistically determine which is preferred and under which conditions 

We will, of course, have to test each using a variety of reproduction equipment, a variety of both loudspeakers and headphones, and a variety of test material.
I'm guessing that at least a few manufacturers would be interested enough to donate equipment and content - especially with the promise that, if their equipment is found to sound significantly better, the results WILL be published.



Zapp_Fan said:


> I think we are all in agreement that false positives are a much bigger problem in audiophilia than false negatives, that's basically why this section exists.
> 
> However, I am with @KeithEmo in the feeling that false negatives (when some improvement is possible but dismissed on shaky theoretical grounds) are a real shame.  What we really need is better testing of these things.  There's no mystery as to why audio companies don't stand to gain much by advancing the average level of knowledge on audio quality.  But there would be quite a bit of benefit to generating new *public* research on some of these topics.
> 
> Maybe a crowdfunding campaign could raise the funds to put to bed some myths once and for all.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with you there - at least in principle.

However, specifically in regards to headphone amps, the manufacturers often FAIL to publish those specifications... or standards simply don't exist for stating them.

For example, very few headphone amps say things like:
The output impedance of this amplifier is 0.1 Ohms or lower from 20 Hz to 20 kHz..
Therefore, you should expect to see a frequency response flat to +/-0.1 dB if you use it with headphones whose impedance is 32 Ohms or higher.
But, if you use it with headphones whose impedance dips below 32 Ohms at any frequency, then the frequency response variation may be wider.

The fact is that the output impedance of MANY headphone amplifiers is high enough that it will cause significant frequency response variations with MANY common headphones.
(And, to be blunt, most manufacturers of consumer equipment aren't going to state specs that seem to narrow the range of headphones their amplifier will work well with.)
This could be easily determined by measuring the output of the amp with dummy loads that simulate the impedances of common headphones.
However, figuring out how to measure the results of the differences in electro/mechanical damping on various headphones at various frequencies would be more difficult.
And, since no standard exists for measuring either, it would require a lot of education to make the subject anything other than "complex and confusing to some people"..

You may be right that "talking about extreme and unusual conditions just confuses people".
However, making sweeping generalizations that disagree with many people's personal experiences also confuses them - and adversely affects the credibility of even otherwise reasonable claims.



bigshot said:


> Do you usually use IEMs with an amp that wasn't designed to be used with them? No. Tools have defined purposes. You don't expect a phono cartridge to work on a CD player, and you don't expect a transducer that needs a ton of juice to run well on a small amp.  Do you usually listen to music that is normalized down below -40dB? No. I've never run across a commercial CD that has been normalized down far enough to reveal the noise floor of an amp, have you?
> 
> Talking about extreme situations like this just confuses people. Amps are a tool. You use the tool for its intended purpose and every amp will perform to spec, which means it's audibly transparent.
> 
> Everyone says there are high end amps that are deliberately designed to roll off high ends to provide a "house sound". But no one has ever provided evidence that this is even based in fact. When we get evidence than in normal practice there are amps that sound different than the rest, I'll happily admit that, and I'll list the make and model numbers as the exception to the rule. But until I get evidence of one actually existing in the wild, I'm going to assume that they all sound the same. Every amp I've ever bought has sounded the same. Many people here in this group has found the same thing. That is the general rule of thumb.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I personally have _TWO_ similar but different end games.....
> 
> One is simply to get all of my music to sound good enough to me that I feel I have eliminated the likelihood that I can get it to sound better by changing something.
> And, yes, that means that, if there is a $500 tweak that actually will make an audible difference, I want to know about it - so I can _DECIDE_ if it's worth $500 to me or not.
> ...



Very good points, which illustrate the difference between doing science (not a main interest of audiophiles) vs making practical purchasing decisions which account for costs, benefits, uncertainties, risks, perception, etc.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> Now _THAT_ is a truly excellent suggestion.
> 
> While there are few companies who have a financial motivation to learn the truth, or conduct any sort of serious research, on many of these issues....
> And there's a distinct possibility that there will never be enough academic interest to conduct a comprehensive and thorougn study.
> ...


I waited till the approximate right moment regarding this  -  and that moment is now.

Yesterday, I finally found a video featuring one of the men I truly respect in audio : Frank Van Alstine. I could have bored you to tears regarding what he did and how important he is to the improvment of all things audio, but sharing this video should be enough for anyone to check more about him out. And, yes, he does produce ( and use ... since from who knows how many years/decades , for checking of his own new ideas - which turn into new productds only if and when DBABXed against the present product and proven audibly superiour ) the only commercially available high quality ABX comparator box.



This box could be "Kickstarted" - as it offers FAR better possibility with true ABX ( for example,it is impossible to use foobar 2000 ABX  for DSD vs PCM , among other limitations ).


----------



## KeithEmo

In principle, your "test and validation methodology" is very sound... and quite sensible...

However, it only has two flaws, which are quite closely related, and which are to a degree unavoidable.
Conditions change, and your ability to test a particular device under a wide variety of conditions is usually limited.

What if you hear a difference today that you didn't hear yesterday _BECAUSE YOU'RE USING EQUIPMENT TODAY THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE YESTERDAY_?
What if you hear differences today _ON A RECORDING THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE YESTERDAY_?

And, at the risk of being contentious, I'm only going to accept the claim that "you can't possibly hear something different with a different set of headphones or pair of speakers" if you're prepared to claim that you currently own an "audibly PERFECT" set of either, and so have ruled out the possibility of ever owning a set that will be "better" and so reveal things that your current set have failed to... or if you have a "perfect quality and perfectly comprehensive test file", and so have ruled out the possibility of ever having one that is better, and so requires something additional in the playback signal chain to reproduce it "audibly perfectly". (I've certainly heard differences that seemed obvious on one set of speakers, but totally inaudible on another, or obvious on headphones, but totally inaudible with speakers, or obvious on one piece of music, and not noticeable with another.)



bigshot said:


> If they can hear it clearly in a controlled test and care about it, that's fine. But that doesn't include inaudible stuff that's a result of sloppy comparison tests or expectation bias. No one can really hear stuff that only exists on paper or in their head, and no one should waste their time caring about meaningless or imaginary stuff.
> 
> I don't believe in "improvements in hearing acuity". Your ears hear what they hear and that's it. You can be paying more attention now than you used to, or perhaps you have expectation bias to make you think that straining to hear better actually will make you hear better. But if you do actually hear something you didn't hear before, that just means that your earlier impressions were due to sloppy comparison tests and something got by you. When I get a new piece of equipment I make the effort to do a careful comparison test right away. If it passes the test, I don't worry about it any more. So far, I haven't run across any amp, DAC or player that doesn't pass the test.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Looking back at my post #7666 above, I believe I wasn't clear enough about what I was saying, and I can see why the post caused some irritation.  I should have noted at the outset that I wasn't 100% confident that the difference I perceived is real, that I couldn't be 100% confident based on the evidence available, and that I was about 90% subjectively confident based on the evidence available to me.  A confidence level of 90% reflects high confidence, but also leaves room for doubt.
> 
> I've ordered equipment for blind testing and will make a go of it.  If the blind testing provides strong evidence that I misperceived, that will show that I was overconfident, despite trying to recognize and compensate for biases.  OTOH, if the blind testing provides strong evidence that the difference is real, that will be an interesting outcome too.
> 
> In general, I think we need to be clear about what people are 'claiming'.  Claiming to subjectively perceive differences is common and such claims aren't strong claims.  Claims that perceived differences are objectively real are strong claims which need strong evidence.  IMO, anecdotal claims of perceived differences can add up to meaningful evidence if they have large scale and consistency, but I certainly agree with others that testing which eliminates potential effects of biases is needed to produce strong evidence.  That said, I still have concerns with the quality and external validity of the blind tests which are typically performed, so IMO we still have a bit of dilemma in settling these questions.


to me 90% is already way too optimistic, but then again I haven't tried the hugo2 and maybe the differences are indeed very clear and didn't need controlled testing. you probably know better than I do how significant the difference really is, and it's very likely that an AB switch and matched levels isn't going to change much of anything(well it's always good to have and does have the effect of bringing rapid switching to you, which is often good to have). 
in my case, I got troubled, not by your results, but by how you thought the way you reached that conclusion was reasonable. sighted experience never actually challenges you to discover or notice anything. it's not a test, all along you have known what was used at any time and your brain was free to apply any preconception and agree with itself in the "findings".  when differences are really massive, it's all right, even mixed with placebo and distorted by expectations, big changes still tend to come out in a sighted test. but if the differences are small, then knowing what you use at all time is too much of a bias. you're always worried about hypothetical biases, well this one is very real and as old as humanity. 
if the 2 products are aiming at high fidelity like those 2 are supposed to, then the sound coming out should be rather close and the differences rather subtle(unless your headphone has challenging impedance/sensi specs). else it would just mean that at least one device is not as high fidelity as it claims to be. we agree on that much, right? one original signal, only one way to perfectly reproduce it and anything with rather high fidelity should come close to the same target. that's why my assumption was on small variations and why conclusions based on sighted experience seemed unacceptable. 

but in general as I've said a bunch of times, I will simply refuse to accept a sighted experience as conclusive of anything audio related. a listening test should be something done using our ears, not our eyes and all the stuff we already know about the gears. bias bias, bias bias bias, bias! ^_^


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> if the 2 products are aiming at high fidelity like those 2 are supposed to, then the sound coming out should be rather close and the differences rather subtle(unless your headphone has challenging impedance/sensi specs). else it would just mean that at least one device is not as high fidelity as it claims to be. we agree on that much, right? one original signal, only one way to perfectly reproduce it and anything with rather high fidelity should come close to the same target. that's why my assumption was on small variations and why conclusions based on sighted experience seemed unacceptable.



The magnitude of difference I've perceived has depended on the headphones, the track, the volume, and most of all how much attention I was paying.  These factors have sometimes lined up to make the perceived difference seem substantial, but other times I would characterize it as relatively small and of significance only if being picky and listening criticality to sound quality more than music. 

I added the Hugo 2 to the Mojo because I wanted another DAC/amp and I didn't mind paying more because I perceived some difference and it was largely a 'just in case there's really a difference' decision (I was never 100% confident there's really a difference).  But when people who have a Mojo have asked for opinions on whether upgrading to the Hugo 2 is worth it, if they say they'd be stretching financially to do so, I've usually opined that the difference is incremental and they'd likely be better off spending the money on upgrading headphones.


----------



## RRod

Re binaural:
Got this disc recently. Has three versions of the music, which is written to come out of 10 channels:
1) An HRTF version where each channel has had a binaural filter applied
2) A dummy-head version, where they played the channels here and recorded
3) A 5.0 mix

Shows kind of the weird mishmash you can get when trying to get this kind of stuff. So here we get no stereo speaker mix but 2 headphone versions. I ordered a trio of other albums recently with a stereo and a binaural mix but no multichannel mix.


----------



## KeithEmo

Here's an interesting thought to consider....

It's already been mentioned that, when we are at a real live event, part of what we experience is determined by the way in which our BRAIN focuses its attention on various details. For example, we are able to focus on the lead performers and exclude or reduce the impact of audience noise and room acoustics. This occurs by the "processing" that goes on in our brains, which is almost certainly based on visual cues, like seeing the person playing the instrument we're focusing our attention on. There also seems to be a significant element of "time" and "knowledge" to the process. The fact that we "know" who we're listening to, even if we're not looking at them, seems to enable our brains to focus on the sound, and exclude the extraneous noises, more easily. It's sort of the same way we're able to focus on listening to what one person is saying in a group (the famous "cocktail party effect").

All of this suggests an interesting thing.... perhaps the "missing element" of why a recording of a concert almost always fails to seem "convincingly realistic" is that the other elements, especially the visual ones, are missing. Perhaps, when the human brain is involved, the "fidelity" of the recording actually _DEPENDS_ on being able to see the performance and, without the visual aspect of the performance, it's just not ever going to "sound like you're really there". 



jgazal said:


> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> Here's an interesting thought to consider....
> 
> It's already been mentioned that, when we are at a real live event, part of what we experience is determined by the way in which our BRAIN focuses its attention on various details. For example, we are able to focus on the lead performers and exclude or reduce the impact of audience noise and room acoustics. This occurs by the "processing" that goes on in our brains, which is almost certainly based on visual cues, like seeing the person playing the instrument we're focusing our attention on. There also seems to be a significant element of "time" and "knowledge" to the process. The fact that we "know" who we're listening to, even if we're not looking at them, seems to enable our brains to focus on the sound, and exclude the extraneous noises, more easily. It's sort of the same way we're able to focus on listening to what one person is saying in a group (the famous "cocktail party effect").
> 
> All of this suggests an interesting thing.... perhaps the "missing element" of why a recording of a concert almost always fails to seem "convincingly realistic" is that the other elements, especially the visual ones, are missing. Perhaps, when the human brain is involved, the "fidelity" of the recording actually _DEPENDS_ on being able to see the performance and, without the visual aspect of the performance, it's just not ever going to "sound like you're really there".



I think that hypothesis is likely to be true.  A live concert experience is processed based on all of our senses, even things like the discomfort of standing too long, smells, enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of people around us, and light shows.  I don't see how sound alone can simulate that kind of experience, unless our brains do a lot of imaginative work to actively try to fill in the sensory blanks.

With my home sound system, I've noticed that my perception of the sound/music is affected by whether I look at the speakers, close my eyes, etc.  I've also had the experience of hearing a track, not initially remembering who the artist is, forming an impression of the music, then noticing that my perception changed when I recalled who the artist is and heard the music in that different context.

When we get into the cognitive psychology/neuroscience of perception, things get really interesting - and complex!  And I think we need to try to understand and address these aspects if we want to optimize our experience of music, rather than just optimizing 'sound quality'.


----------



## bigshot (May 16, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> However, specifically in regards to headphone amps, the manufacturers often FAIL to publish those specifications... or standards simply don't exist for stating them. For example, very few headphone amps say things like: The output impedance of this amplifier is 0.1 Ohms or lower from 20 Hz to 20 kHz.. Therefore, you should expect to see a frequency response flat to +/-0.1 dB if you use it with headphones whose impedance is 32 Ohms or higher. But, if you use it with headphones whose impedance dips below 32 Ohms at any frequency, then the frequency response variation may be wider.



That isn't a fault of the amp. The amp is audibly transparent by a fair margin. It's your fault for using the wrong headphones with it. I can try to screw in a phillips head screw with a slot screw driver and it won't work well. But that doesn't mean it doesn't work for its intended purpose- screwing in phillips head screws. (I repeat this over and over and no one listens.)



Phronesis said:


> Very good points, which illustrate the difference between doing science (not a main interest of audiophiles) vs making practical purchasing decisions which account for costs, benefits, uncertainties, risks, perception, etc.



You totally missed the second part of what he said, where he admitted that he made buying decisions based on changes in his system that made him "comfortable". That is neither scientific nor practical. It doesn't even succeed at making him comfortable, because OCD isn't cured by giving in to it. If you do, it just comes up with another hoop to jump through to be comfortable again.



KeithEmo said:


> Conditions change, and your ability to test a particular device under a wide variety of conditions is usually limited.



I have absolutely no doubt that my system functions perfectly fine for the purposes I bought it for. My system is audibly perfect for my purposes. I have nothing on my "wish list" right now. No need to upgrade anything. But if there is an option for a totally new format, I make that decision when something burns out. For instance, when my stereo amp bit the dust, I considered the possibility of going 5.1. That option didn't exist when I bought my stereo amp. It did by the time the stereo amp died. That's the best time to change horses. I may go Atmos at some point. Not ruling that out. Just not right now.

When you're at the point where improvements are largely not noticeable, that's the time to start investing in music instead of equipment.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> Here's an interesting thought to consider....
> 
> It's already been mentioned that, when we are at a real live event, part of what we experience is determined by the way in which our BRAIN focuses its attention on various details. For example, we are able to focus on the lead performers and exclude or reduce the impact of audience noise and room acoustics. This occurs by the "processing" that goes on in our brains, which is almost certainly based on visual cues, like seeing the person playing the instrument we're focusing our attention on. There also seems to be a significant element of "time" and "knowledge" to the process. The fact that we "know" who we're listening to, even if we're not looking at them, seems to enable our brains to focus on the sound, and exclude the extraneous noises, more easily. It's sort of the same way we're able to focus on listening to what one person is saying in a group (the famous "cocktail party effect").
> 
> All of this suggests an interesting thing.... perhaps the "missing element" of why a recording of a concert almost always fails to seem "convincingly realistic" is that the other elements, especially the visual ones, are missing. Perhaps, when the human brain is involved, the "fidelity" of the recording actually _DEPENDS_ on being able to see the performance and, without the visual aspect of the performance, it's just not ever going to "sound like you're really there".


there is no doubt about that. vision is clearly the dominating sense and one we will rely on instead of our ears when the information from both senses are conflicting. even worst, we will in the long run recalibrate our hearing to fit what we see. not the other way around. 
and to make sure that it's an absolute mess, it seems like not everybody has the same overwhelming sight domination over other senses. it's the leading sens for all, but so when some people start to be fooled by correct audio cues, a few others will still not feel like the sound is right so long as their visual cues don't also confirm the original of the sound. 
personally, just watching a video clip on TV with the headphones clearly improves my impressions of distance after maybe 15mn. even more so when I've had months placed at the same distance with the same configuration. I learned to feel right under those circumstances over time. in my bedroom, I have a speaker on each side of my computer screens, and they clearly help feeling a better placement when I use crossfeed. but of course I did set up the crossfeed so that full panned sounds would be in the direction of the speaker in the first place, so I manufactured a relation to help being fooled. 
I tried removing the speakers while listening to this crossfeed with the headphone and I honestly feel like it's not as good. 

 my most extreme example of learning and recalibrating, was a few years ago with my laptop. I was using a secondary keyboard and another screen, while the laptop was on the side. and for a few months, I still used the laptop's integrated tweeters for sound when not using headphones. it was limited to watching utube videos and maybe a few animes from time to time. in the beginning having the sound on my right was really weird and annoying, so I relied on headphones a lot. but after a few months, when I was watching someone talking on the screen, if I didn't think about it, I was hearing the voice coming from the screen. my brain had recalibrated for that use. as soon as I put on a headphone or went to watch TV(or experience any real life sounds), center was real center again. this didn't offset my senses in general. just for that specific situation clearly identified by my brain. 

so yes to everything. training, plasticity, mixing of senses, sight>hearing for us. maybe like hypnosis, having the will to be fooled/influenced may help, but for many things, knowing we may be fooled doesn't stop us from being fooled. in some cases it's the opposite. and a few people will just never get into it because of who they are, how they think... 
you can see this with people who really grew up on headphones. a few of them actually prefer their albums on headphones/IEMs instead of listening to those albums on speakers. we're pattern recognition machines, what experience was fed to us for a long time will have the ability to impact how we feel and what we prefer. that's intuitive enough IMO.


----------



## bigshot (May 16, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> The magnitude of difference I've perceived has depended on the headphones, the track, the volume, and most of all how much attention I was paying.
> 
> With my home sound system, I've noticed that my perception of the sound/music is affected by whether I look at the speakers, close my eyes, etc. I've also had the experience of hearing a track, not initially remembering who the artist is, forming an impression of the music, then noticing that my perception changed when I recalled who the artist is and heard the music in that different context.



You just threw in a whole bunch of variables there that have absolutely nothing to do with the sound the DACs are producing. I'm becoming >90% certain that your two DACs sound identical and the way your are comparing them is skewing the results. This is EXACTLY why we apply some controls to our test to eliminate subjective bias before we come to a conclusion.



castleofargh said:


> there is no doubt about that. vision is clearly the dominating sense



I'm playing around with the perspective sound with head tracking in my Oculus Go, and I'm coming to the conclusion that the ability to perceive directionality in sound is much more complicated than the general theories would indicate. I don't think it's one or two or several things that affect how we perceive sound direction. I think it's a very complex blend of lots and lots of things. I suspect that it may be one of those things that is just so individual, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. I used to be interested in the Smyth Realizer. I'm beginning to be skeptical if it will even work.


----------



## Phronesis (May 16, 2018)

bigshot said:


> You totally missed the second part of what he said, where he admitted that he made buying decisions based on changes in his system that made him "comfortable". That is neither scientific nor practical. It doesn't even succeed at making him comfortable, because OCD isn't cured by giving in to it. If you do, it just comes up with another hoop to jump through to be comfortable again.



I interpret "I _DO_ have a bit of OCD about how my system sounds...." as more a figure of speech about being picky rather than a diagnosis of mental illness.  If something generally makes someone more comfortable, I'd say it generally has practical value.  It doesn't help to read too much into this and split hairs.


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> Personally, I'm not so sure that I specifically agree that "the end game isn't to find the ultimate tweak".....



I meant that there were clearly many other things that would greatly impact the sound quality over the DAC change in this scenario.  The DAC was probably the best piece of gear in the system, and probably would be the last device to swap out in any pursuit to improve the sound quality.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> You just threw in a whole bunch of variables there that have absolutely nothing to do with the sound the DACs are producing.



DACs alone don't produce sound, they produce a signal which goes down a chain and becomes the sound reaching our eardrums.  The interaction of those other variables with the DACs is certainly relevant to the magnitude of perceived audible sound differences, just as a given headphone may sound too bright with some tracks but not others.


----------



## bigshot (May 16, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I interpret "I _DO_ have a bit of OCD about how my system sounds...." as more a figure of speech about being picky rather than a diagnosis of mental illness.  If something generally makes someone more comfortable, I'd say it generally has practical value.  It doesn't help to read too much into this and split hairs.



I'm not diagnosing illness. I'm pointing to a decision making process that has no relation to practical reality. Everyone is irrational to one degree or another. But some of us resist those irrational impulses by applying logic to our decision making processes.

One person chooses his system according to science and practicality. Another person with the exact same criteria for sound quality chooses his system according to science, practicality and things that make him feel confident. A third person comes in and listens to both systems and decides that they sound basically the same. The only difference is, the "feel good" guy spent thousands of dollars on silver cables and jitterless electronics that didn't improve the audible sound quality one iota.

I think we should all be open to opportunity for improvement, but we shouldn't let ourselves waste energy doing things "just to be on the safe side". That sort of thing is never ending. Once you do it once, you're tempted to do it again to be a little *more* safe... and a little *more* safe... and on and on. That is what causes some people here in Head-Fi to churn through equipment for no purpose. If a tool does the job, there's no reason to chuck it and get a more expensive tool that does the job exactly the same. That makes no sense.

It's most obvious with compressed audio. Ask someone what file format they use. Odds are they'll say FLAC. Ask them if they can tell the difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless. If they have actually done a careful comparison test, they'll say no, they sound the same. Then ask them why they use FLAC instead of high bitrate lossy... They'll tell you that they use lossless because they are worried about losing potential sound that they can't hear. They sleep better at night knowing they have every bit and binary digit of the music. That has no relation at all to sound quality nor practicality. It's a pure subjective preference based on doubt created by OCD.

If I told you that I was buying a car that gets 15 miles per gallon even though there is a model of car that is exactly the same (performance, price, appearance) that gets 35 miles per gallon, you would wonder why I don't just buy the more efficient car, and you'd be right. But when it comes to music, people's emotions overtake them and they don't know how to separate rational and irrational biases.

I apologize to Pinnahertz for the car analogy.



Phronesis said:


> DACs alone don't produce sound, they produce a signal which goes down a chain and becomes the sound reaching our eardrums.  The interaction of those other variables with the DACs is certainly relevant to the magnitude of perceived audible sound differences, just as a given headphone may sound too bright with some tracks but not others.



You are wrong there. If you are going to include your own personal subjective bias as part of the chain between source and ears, then you're in the wrong forum. Your bias has not impact on my impression of the sound produced by the equipment. If you're comparing DACs using different volume levels, different headphones and different situations like that, you haven't established a baseline for comparison. You've rolled out a red carpet for bias to make its entrance. I couldn't tell one way or the other with that many variables at play. I don't expect you to have any way of knowing either. However you are >90% confident you can. That is a red flag right there.

If some tracks sound bright with a set of headphones and others sound dull, the problem isn't the headphones... it's the engineering of the music. Music should be calibrated for a flat response. I calibrate my headphones with EQ to produce a balanced flat response. If music sounds imbalanced, it's because the music is imbalanced. Not because of my cans.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> I'm playing around with the perspective sound with head tracking in my Oculus Go, and I'm coming to the conclusion that the ability to perceive directionality in sound is much more complicated than the general theories would indicate. I don't think it's one or two or several things that affect how we perceive sound direction. I think it's a very complex blend of lots and lots of things. I suspect that it may be one of those things that is just so individual, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. I used to be interested in the Smyth Realizer. I'm beginning to be skeptical if it will even work.



Well the Realiser requires you do the exact opposite of a 'one-size-fits-all' solution to get the best effect...


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I'm not diagnosing illness. I'm pointing to a decision making process that has no relation to practical reality. Everyone is irrational to one degree or another. But some of us resist those irrational impulses by applying logic to our decision making processes.
> 
> One person chooses his system according to science and practicality. Another person with the exact same criteria for sound quality chooses his system according to science, practicality and things that make him feel confident. A third person comes in and listens to both systems and decides that they sound basically the same. The only difference is, the "feel good" guy spent thousands of dollars on silver cables and jitterless electronics that didn't improve the audible sound quality one iota.
> 
> I think we should all be open to opportunity for improvement, but we shouldn't let ourselves waste energy doing things "just to be on the safe side". That sort of thing is never ending. Once you do it once, you're tempted to do it again to be a little *more* safe... and a little *more* safe... and on and on. That is what causes some people here in Head-Fi to churn through equipment for no purpose. If a tool does the job, there's no reason to chuck it and get a more expensive tool that does the job exactly the same. That makes no sense.



I agree in general, but am reluctant to prescribe a universal definition of what's 'practical' with audio stuff.  If someone is X% confident that something sounds better, spending $Y more for it isn't a big deal for them, and it makes them more comfortable to 'play it safe' and spend the money, I can't fault that.


----------



## bigshot

RRod said:


> Well the Realiser requires you do the exact opposite of a 'one-size-fits-all' solution to get the best effect...



Then I guess its effectiveness depends on how well you can program it for your own personal auditory peccadilloes.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> Then I guess its effectiveness depends on how well you can program it for your own personal auditory peccadilloes.



Once binaural microphones are in your ears, you've got on the spaceship. I'm looking forward to mine. Will be nice to see how well it sounds with my own stereo setup but substituting the bass response of the headphones.


----------



## bigshot (May 16, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I agree in general, but am reluctant to prescribe a universal definition of what's 'practical' with audio stuff.



That part is easy!

Does a change in the system make an audible difference that you can clearly hear in a controlled listening test?
If there is a difference, is it clearly audible enough to improve the sound quality of recorded music?
Does it produce the best sound quality possible for the circumstances, considering the limitations of budget and the room you have to work with?

If you can answer yes to all three questions, you have achieved practical nirvana.

I am most impressed by people who put together kick ass systems without spending an inordinate amount of money. That means that they are using their brains to achieve great sound. I'd enjoy chatting with them and hearing their theories. If someone just goes to a high end audio store and tells the salesman "money is no object" and hands them a credit card and leaves it to the salesman to decide for him, I don't have any respect at all. I've auditioned systems owned by people like that. They didn't even sound all that good because no one really cared.

The point of participating in a Hi-Fi forum is to share practical information about ways to make our systems sound better. But some people use it to feed their ego by showing off their status symbol equipment in their sig file. Other people want to write vague poetry about their subjective impressions. Some folks post to validate their own bias. Still others want to argue about irrelevant inaudible numbers on a page. A lot of people want to sell you something and they'll lie to make a sale. None of that is practical and it all bores me stiff. But I plow through it waiting for a nice juicy nugget of information I can use from knowledgeable posters. I get that all the time here in Sound Science. Practicality with audio stuff is *real*. It's here right in front of your face. You just have to resist being dragged into subjective smoke and mirrors, sales pitch and absolutist OCD.



RRod said:


> Once binaural microphones are in your ears, you've got on the spaceship. I'm looking forward to mine. Will be nice to see how well it sounds with my own stereo setup but substituting the bass response of the headphones.



I think it's also going to depend on the synthetic room ambience you create. That's the wild card in speaker systems. There really isn't such thing as a "perfect room". I could see adjusting that more than the interface with the ears.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> You just threw in a whole bunch of variables there that have absolutely nothing to do with the sound the DACs are producing. I'm becoming >90% certain that your two DACs sound identical and the way your are comparing them is skewing the results. This is EXACTLY why we apply some controls to our test to eliminate subjective bias before we come to a conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm playing around with the perspective sound with head tracking in my Oculus Go, and I'm coming to the conclusion that the ability to perceive directionality in sound is much more complicated than the general theories would indicate. I don't think it's one or two or several things that affect how we perceive sound direction. I think it's a very complex blend of lots and lots of things. I suspect that it may be one of those things that is just so individual, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. I used to be interested in the Smyth Realizer. I'm beginning to be skeptical if it will even work.


well the A16 will now go for 4000$+tax, so it's good for your wallet if you don't want one. 
the Realiser is still approximating a bunch of things when it comes to the head tracking job. as you don't calibrate for tens of positions, only when looking straight and when looking directly at one speaker will get you the correct compensation. when looking everywhere else, they use some model to take you from one measured impulse to the next. but it goes very far in term of having your custom sound. so the auditory cues should be pretty close to the correct real life ones measured from your speakers in your room. 
what can still create limitations is doing a correct calibration, not using a garbage headphone that may cover some cues with distortions, not being too influenced by the lack of tactile bass, and obviously vision. it's not a visual simulation, and if your brain is really all in on sight, then the result will probably not be as good as it could/should. just being in the right room seeing the speakers is probably greatly improving the sense of reality when using the headphones. 
but a Realiser+VR googles seems to me like one of the very best virtual trip anybody could hope to try at this point. maybe add a woofer or some vibrating vest thingy, and you're in the zone.


----------



## bigshot (May 16, 2018)

Can you get up and walk around or lean forward or back? VR comes in two flavors... 3DoF (three degrees of freedom): left right up down 360 degrees, and 6DoF left right up down 360 degrees move in move out. The experience of 6DoF is quite different than 3DoF I'm told. The extra degrees are what convey scale and size. I wonder if there is a similar thing with the SR.

Would the SR head piece interfere with a VR headset? Would it be possible to wear both at once? I can wear headphones with my Go, but I don't know if it would work to add another headpiece.


----------



## castleofargh

for the Realiser it's your headphone and a little thing on top of it for head tracking. the Realiser's head tracking only deals with 3D rotations, not actual movements in a direction. also it's purpose is to simulate speakers and a room so what you can do will be limited to those physical speakers and using a classic multichannel signal to create space. to me it's already a lot, but there is actually more in a fully virtual space. the question then becomes how to properly calibrate a fully virtual space without relying on fixed speaker positions? that I don't know.


----------



## RRod (May 16, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Can you get up and walk around or lean forward or back? VR comes in two flavors... 3DoF (three degrees of freedom): left right up down 360 degrees, and 6DoF left right up down 360 degrees move in move out. The experience of 6DoF is quite different than 3DoF I'm told. The extra degrees are what convey scale and size. I wonder if there is a similar thing with the SR.
> 
> Would the SR head piece interfere with a VR headset? Would it be possible to wear both at once? I can wear headphones with my Go, but I don't know if it would work to add another headpiece.



How it would work is you have the audio out to the SR from the VR. When you step forward in the VR, it changes the sound going to the surround channels, and the SR will process that to the headphone virtualization. You're using the VR's head tracking here.


----------



## KeithEmo

1) The only problem there is that not all headphone amplifiers actually state their output impedance, even fewer state it over the full range of frequencies, and very few at all state what impedance headphones they recommend their amplifier to work with. And, while there are a few sites that offer impedance plots of various headphones if you know where to look, that isn't generally printed on the package either. Are we really supposed to expect those relatively novice users, who we're trying to avoid confusing, to know how much frequency response variation they're likely to expect with an amplifier that has an output impedance of 10 Ohms when they connect it to a pair of AKG 240 MKII headphones, and what that variation will sound like?

2) I don't disagree on your second point. I talk to people all the time who are embarked on a continuing attempt to try different equipment in the random hope of finding some sort of improvement, who seem simply to have to find some way to dispose of a tax refund, who seem to simply be looking for something to do to cure their boredom, or even who just plain enjoy playing with different pieces of equipment. I've also met people who move every five years because they get bored with their current home. In that situation, even though OCD won't be cured by giving in to it, I assume that the very act of giving in provides some sort of satisfaction... it just isn't based on sound quality or performance. Presumably, for the person with that sort of OCD, the very act of "jumping through a hoop a day" is what provides the satisfaction, or at least reduces the agitation of not doing so. 

You also neglected to mention that, for some people, it is simply lack of confidence.... they honestly fear that they've failed to accomplish their goal and so continually seek ways to get closer to it. This is what many snake-oil salesmen play on to great benefit...... the fear of "missing something".

3) On that last point I'm truly impressed. However, I am curious what speakers you have that are so close to perfect that you can't imagine ever owning a pair that might be more capable of revealing any possible sort of limitation in your other equipment. I personally consider all of my current equipment to be quite adequate to my needs, and that I would have to spend more than I'm willing to to achieve any currently available improvements to it.... but I'm not absolutely convinced that nothing exists that I would prefer if cost were no object.... or that there's no possibility that a new product will come out next year that I might find clearly preferable to something I have now.

And, feel free to disagree, but I have occasionally experienced new things and thought: "This is really great... and it's been around for years. I sure wish I'd tried it a lot sooner." In fact, I gave away a very nice DVD player that still worked perfectly when I finally upgraded to Blu-Rays. (And, before that, I even recall purchasing a few Blu-Ray discs before I got the player - because it seemed to make more sense than purchasing yet more DVDs that I knew would soon be obsolete.)



bigshot said:


> That isn't a fault of the amp. The amp is audibly transparent by a fair margin. It's your fault for using the wrong headphones with it. I can try to screw in a phillips head screw with a slot screw driver and it won't work well. But that doesn't mean it doesn't work for its intended purpose- screwing in phillips head screws. (I repeat this over and over and no one listens.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (May 16, 2018)

RRod said:


> How it would work is you have the audio out to the SR from the VR. When you step forward in the VR, it changes the sound going to the surround channels, and the SR will process that to the headphone virtualization. You're using the VR's head tracking here.



I haven't found the sound head tracking in VR to be particularly realistic. It doesn't give any sense of things being behind you at all. Maybe VR needs some sort of customization to match the individual. It's terribly complicated I guess.



KeithEmo said:


> Are we really supposed to expect those relatively novice users, who we're trying to avoid confusing, to know how much frequency response variation they're likely to expect with an amplifier that has an output impedance of 10 Ohms when they connect it to a pair of AKG 240 MKII headphones, and what that variation will sound like?



My advice to them would be to avoid headphones and IEMs that require very specific kinds of amping. I have Oppo PM-1s and I can plug them into just about anything and they work. I don't even need an amp at all. My Sennheiser HD-590s were like that too. If they do insist on buying headphones that are specific like that, they should check with the manufacturer to find out what amp is recommended for it and get that. I sure wouldn't tell a newbie that there was something wrong with their amp because they were using it improperly. That doesn't help them understand what they're doing wrong. Their headphones are fine. Their amp is transparent with proper use.

If I bought a pair of Florsheim shoes that were two sizes too small, I wouldn't tell people that Florsheim shoes don't fit. I wouldn't say that my feet are too big either. I'd just get shoes that fit.



KeithEmo said:


> I am curious what speakers you have that are so close to perfect that you can't imagine ever owning a pair that might be more capable of revealing any possible sort of limitation in your other equipment.



I've been gathering up the best speakers I can find since the late 70s. My system is a combination of custom made 6 way 15 inch classic JBL studio monitors with the JBL bullet tweeters, a pair of JBL towers, a really good Klipsch center channel speaker, a 12 inch Sunfire True Sub and KEFs in the rear. It's a frankenstein setup, but the way I've implemented and calibrated it, it is as good as I've ever heard anywhere. But I'm judging it based on how it presents recorded music, not how it reveals limitations in the system. I only care about how music sounds, not theoretical shortcomings that don't affect music playback.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> I haven't found the sound head tracking in VR to be particularly realistic. It doesn't give any sense of things being behind you at all. Maybe VR needs some sort of customization to match the individual. It's terribly complicated I guess.



The main issue with tracking should be latency. If it's feeding into a generic HRTF (or whatever we want to call it on here), then even good tracking might not convince. One day they'll have some kind of scan on these things to adjust for your ears, and that day may be pretty soon.


----------



## KeithEmo (May 16, 2018)

Thank you... and, yes, that's what I meant.

I will also specifically plead mea-culpa to being slightly obsessive about strongly preferring high levels of certainty over lower ones.
For example, if a circuit calls for a 5% part, but a 1% part is only a few cents more, I'll probably choose the 1% part - because I "feel more comfortable" choosing the part that offers me the greater safety margin - even if it's unnecessary.
There is some vague notion that, even if the part is off-spec, an off-spec 1% part will probably be closer than an off-spec 5% part, but the reason is mostly the notion that "it's good policy to use better parts when the extra cost difference is insignificant".

Likewise, if I'm offered the choice between high-res and CD quality versions of an album...
Knowing that there might really be a tiny audible difference because of the sample rate, which I might be able to hear on my current equipment, or on future equipment...
And also acknowledging that there might be a slight difference because they're mastered differently, or because the process used to make one from the other was imperfect...
And taking into account that the difference in price and the amount of storage space they occupy is negligible....
I may choose to pay $5 more for the high resolution version...
Note that I am NOT asserting that the high-res version definitely, or even probably, sounds better...
I'm simply paying an extra $5 to assure myself that I'm getting the best version... rather than saving $5 at the cost of some degree of uncertainty.
(I find uncertainty to be "uncomfortable", and I'm willing to pay a small amount to avoid discomfort, whether it's in the form of uncertainty about a file, or a lumpy couch cushion.)

I would absolutely agree that someone who purchases the high-res version of the file WITH THE CERTAINTY THAT IT WILL SOUND BETTER is being foolish.

However, I would classify people who do so into several groups:
- some, like myself, simply consider it to be a form of insurance
- others may actually be convinced that it really will definitely sound better
- yet others may combine the two (the real reason is some vague notion of discomfort; but they RATIONALIZE it by claiming they expect to hear a difference)

I should add to that final one the concept that, lacking actual facts, it is the job of a good salesman to reinforce the notion that you will be stuck with some level of uncertainty if you fail to buy his product... and that you can remove or reduce that uncertainty by purchasing it.



Phronesis said:


> I interpret "I _DO_ have a bit of OCD about how my system sounds...." as more a figure of speech about being picky rather than a diagnosis of mental illness.  If something generally makes someone more comfortable, I'd say it generally has practical value.  It doesn't help to read too much into this and split hairs.


----------



## bigshot (May 16, 2018)

I guess I don't take stuff on faith. I want to hear for myself that something makes an audible improvement. I won't accept file sizes 5 or 10X bigger or price tags that cost hundreds more just for peace of mind. I get peace of mind from knowing for myself if something makes a difference or not.

When I go to upgrade my audio equipment, I have a specific aspect I'm trying to improve. I don't just upgrade because I can afford to. When I choose a replacement, I swap it in and make sure that I've achieved the improvement I'm aiming for. Otherwise I pack it back up and return it. My last couple of upgrades have offered small improvements. I can't think of anything else that needs fixing, so I'm happy where I am. At this point the only thing I may replace someday is a speaker that fell in an earthquake and damaged its cabinet. But that is just cosmetic.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> You are wrong there. If you are going to include your own personal subjective bias as part of the chain between source and ears, then you're in the wrong forum. Your bias has not impact on my impression of the sound produced by the equipment. If you're comparing DACs using different volume levels, different headphones and different situations like that, you haven't established a baseline for comparison. You've rolled out a red carpet for bias to make its entrance. I couldn't tell one way or the other with that many variables at play. I don't expect you to have any way of knowing either. However you are >90% confident you can. That is a red flag right there.



The independent variable was the DAC/amps.  The other variables were generally the same on each occasion when the comparison was made.  Those other variables differed from one occasion to another, not during each comparison.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> ... I should add to that final one the concept that, lacking actual facts, it is the job of a good salesman to reinforce the notion that you will be stuck with some level of uncertainty if you fail to buy his product... and that you can remove or reduce that uncertainty by purchasing it.


very true. it's a massive part of modern marketing(and modern politic TBH).
@Phronesis you're already a champ at telling people that they can't be sure about anything. all you need is something to sell while arguing that with it, people can know, and you'll be unstoppable.


----------



## bigshot

OK, Phronesis. You're absolutely correct according to your particular mindset. I don't have the same set of criteria, and I work to eliminate my biases and try to think practically and objectively about things, so it's expected that I would come to a different conclusion.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> @Phronesis you're already a champ at telling people that they can't be sure about anything. all you need is something to sell while arguing that with it, people can know, and you'll be unstoppable.



Not my thing, I'm more comfortable being a fox rather than a hedgehog.


----------



## bigshot

I'm the elephant in the corner!


----------



## jgazal (May 16, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I'm playing around with the perspective sound with head tracking in my Oculus Go, and I'm coming to the conclusion that the ability to perceive directionality in sound is much more complicated than the general theories would indicate. I don't think it's one or two or several things that affect how we perceive sound direction. I think it's a very complex blend of lots and lots of things. I suspect that it may be one of those things that is just so individual, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. I used to be interested in the Smyth Realizer. I'm beginning to be skeptical if it will even work.



I gave my best trying to describe the theories. But I also think it's a very complex blend of lots and lots of things.

So this is definitely something to be tested experimentally and not to be endorsed or refuted theoretically.

So being skeptical if will even work before experimentation is not being neutral.


----------



## bigshot

Tonight I decided to go to Amazon and search for binaural recordings of music to see what all these folks recommending binaural are listening to.... Do you guys all REALLY listen to self hypnosis CDs all day? What the heck are you guys talking about?! What are you basing your glowing opinions of binaural recording techniques on? Do you really have "Stop Your Drug Addiction Binaural Beats", "Emotional Trauma Release" and "Raise Your Vibrational Frequency" in your CD collection? Man! What a load of horse droppings. Why am I wasting my time seriously discussing a total fraud?


----------



## jgazal

RRod said:


> Re binaural:
> Got this disc recently. Has three versions of the music, which is written to come out of 10 channels:
> 1) An HRTF version where each channel has had a binaural filter applied
> 2) A dummy-head version, where they played the channels here and recorded
> ...



Please tell us your impressions.


----------



## bigshot (May 16, 2018)

Are you familiar with that music, jgazal? Here is a hint...


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Tonight I decided to go to Amazon and search for binaural recordings of music to see what all these folks recommending binaural are listening to.... Do you guys all REALLY listen to self hypnosis CDs all day? What the heck are you guys talking about?! What are you basing your glowing opinions of binaural recording techniques on? Do you really have "Stop Your Drug Addiction Binaural Beats", "Emotional Trauma Release" and "Raise Your Vibrational Frequency" in your CD collection? Man! What a load of horse droppings. Why am I wasting my time seriously discussing a total fraud?


If there was ever a post that epitomizes your mode of operation to the letter, this must be the crown jewel.

Geez - you obviously are oblivious to the fact that there are TWO - very different - things described by the same word/term/whatever-is-the-correct-grammar- expressin in English. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural

One thing is Binaural Beats ( see above )

Another is Binaural Recording ( also see above )

And, one probably could record binaural beats using binaural recording technique ( probably the last thing world needs, but likely doable - although not applicable to any real musical content )


----------



## jgazal (May 17, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Are you familiar with that music, jgazal? Here is a hint...



No, I have my own recordings and this one:



I don’t get externalization with them. They immediately collapse.

Please don’t be angry with me.

I am not saying binaural is the right technique in the current scheme of things. It demands a really specific playback environment (externalization with convolution of personal binaural head impulse responses, crosstalk cancellation and head tracking).

But it is an option as far as immersive audio is concerned.

I still believe a) objects + personal binaural synthesis (computing intensive) or b) high order ambisonics + personal binaural convolution are better than fixed binaural content.

It is just that I don’t have the right instruments to test it myself so I can’t discard binaural immediately.


----------



## bigshot

Is there any real music well recorded in binaural to be had at Amazon? Their search just brings up hippie dippy stuff. I'm interested in it, but I don't want to waste my time if no one knows of any recordings they can recommend.


----------



## jgazal

They are very rare compared to the standard. 

That is why gregorio and pinnahertz insisted they are not commercially attractive. 

The Neumann is a huge head and not very compatible with my head. Not having response to head movements is also a problem. 

That’s also why your search returns only “binaural beats” which are, well, strange... 

I feel Mozart do more to alter my brain waves than all that “beats”...


----------



## jgazal

bigshot said:


> Is there any real music well recorded in binaural to be had at Amazon?



You can try Pearl Jam Binaural:

 

I don’t get externalization with this one also...


----------



## jgazal

The only thing I object about @gregorio view is that I believe, with no proof, that:

1) objects in distribution + binaural dynamic convolution at playback;
2) close mics and hoa mixing before distribution + binaural dynamic convolution at playback;
3) close mics and binaural synthesis before distribution + binaural dynamic convolution at playback;

All allow certain instruments, frequencies, harmonics or reverberations to be reinforced or softened.

So even without virtual reality headsets, those chains would allow him to apply his creative art, in other words, being different than the real event to compensate for the lack of visual perception. 

But that is something I will have to wait to be sure.


----------



## bigshot

I'm looking for something that uses it to recreate a real perspective with acoustic instruments. Pearl Jam is going to be electronic instruments and using it for effect isn't it?


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> I'm looking for something that uses it to recreate a real perspective with acoustic instruments. Pearl Jam is going to be electronic instruments and using it for effect isn't it?


You can try it out for free on YouTube, pretty much the whole record.  

I'll hold my opinion until you've heard a bit.


----------



## pinnahertz

jgazal said:


> No, I have my own recordings and this one:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t get externalization with them. They immediately collapse.


 Lack of "externalization" is a typical binaural problem.


jgazal said:


> Please don’t be angry with me.
> 
> I am not saying binaural is the right technique in the current scheme of things. It demands a really specific playback environment (externalization with convolution of personal binaural head impulse responses, crosstalk cancellation and head tracking).
> 
> ...


Application of personalized HRTF to a generic recording is anything but simple, and while technically possible, even less practical than plain old binaural recordings. 

I just don't see binaural, in any form, ever capturing more than a small niche.  It follows the profile of all immersive audio-only methods in that way, possibly a bit worse off.  Remember, Quad/4-channel failed (market confusion, multiple incompatible formats, and a rather difficult demand for speaker/listener placement and gear). 5.1 music has never gained traction, even though there are millions of well-suited pre-installed home audio systems capable of playback.   Binaural demands less from the listener in terms of equipment, just the right headphones, but then doesn't work well very often, and even when it does it's not applicable to many recordings.  If you place another demand on the listener (full HRTF impulse response profiling, for example) it will just go ignored except, again, for the hard-core niche. 

For anything to rapidly and fully penetrate the market it must offer a 3-5-fold perceived improvement over it's proceeding competition.  That's easy when there is no predecessor, but binaural has very strong, very well established proceeding competition.  As an example of the 3-5-fold improvement winning, CDs did that offering quality, durability, recording time, size, and handling advantages.  Stereo did that over mono.  But binaural doesn't even offer perceived improvement for all listeners, cannot be heard on speakers (easily), and is limited in application to specific recording and music types and styles.  Those combined with the other limitations place it in a negative perceived improvement position, a position which never wins any markets to speak of.


----------



## pinnahertz

Even in niche markets there are strong proponents.  Here's possibly the strongest current one for Binaural, Bob Schulein and ImmersAV.  He's pushing hard on binaural audio, and you'd expect he'd have some of the finest and best-ever recordings on his site to sample. 

Well, there are some actual music recordings to sample, and a bit of reading and info too...*right here.*  Even an intro video.  Bob even has his own special binaural recording head: D.E.X.T.E.R., and I really wonder how long it took to come up with _that_ acronym!

I think his recordings illustrate the state of the art, both good and bad, advantages and disadvantages, pretty well.  There is one there I really like.   You guys can probably guess which one it is.  Then there are...um..well... there are the others.  

I guess the point is, here's a guy committed to the concept, working hard to promote it, theoretically doing the best that can be done with current technology.  You wanted binaural music...here it is in all of it's binaural glory.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> Looking back at my post #7666 above, I believe I wasn't clear enough about what I was saying, and I can see why the post caused some irritation. I should have noted at the outset that I wasn't 100% confident that the difference I perceived is real, that I couldn't be 100% confident based on the evidence available, and that I was about 90% subjectively confident based on the evidence available to me. A confidence level of 90% reflects high confidence, but also leaves room for doubt.



You did make it clear that you had a confidence level of 90% and not 100%. However, as 0% would mean no confidence whatsoever and 100% = absolute confidence, then 90% is very high confidence. The known facts, of both human hearing perception and the state of modern technology, indicates a confidence level below 10% and probably well below. Your stated confidence level therefore indicates that you either do not know or do not appreciate the known facts. If you pass your blind test, that would affect the confidence level only by say a percentage point or maybe not at all, because even though you *may* demonstrate that you are able to detect an audible difference, you would have to demonstrate the audible difference was actually caused by what you claim and not something else, a simple volume or impedance difference/mismatch for example.

I've stated this many times before but personally I cannot and do not rely solely on the results of a blind or even double blind test and I do not subscribe to the common advice here of performing one. Why rely solely on the results of a testing method which is based on subjectivity and is also very difficult to control all the variables which can affect or invalidate the results, when there's an entirely objective and cheap/easy to perform alternative? Personally, I would loop-back the outputs of both DACs (into an ADC) and record and compare them. A null test gives us a difference file and free software tools can not only break the differences down further but also ensure that some other inadvertent errors are avoided, such as a volume mismatch for example. Only then, and only if the objective measurements indicate there's a difference which might be audible, would a blind test be warranted and, you could use the recorded files with free ABX software rather than more expensive and difficult to operate hardware comparators. 

As you're getting a hardware comparator anyway, then by all means use it, BUT, before (or after) you do, loop-back and record the output of both DACs with exactly the same settings as you used for the blind test. This would help explain why you did or did not detect a difference with your blind test. 



KeithEmo said:


> [A] While there are few companies who have a financial motivation to learn the truth, or conduct any sort of serious research, on many of these issues....
> 1) High resolution files vs CD quality ...



A. That is not true! There are many companies that have been motivated to "learn the truth" and have conducted serious research of these issues and have indeed learned the truth. Admittedly, relatively little of that research is available publicly or even behind paywalls but it's been done and the truth is known. The notion that the truth is not known and that we still need to learn it has been manufactured by and exists only within the tiny niche of the audiophile world and the reason for this is that without this "notion" much of the audiophile world effectively ceases to exist! It's only by implying (or even outright stating) that the truth has not yet be learnt, that the makers of audiophile equipment have something they can market to justify the significant price premium they need to charge to be profitable. Outside of this small audiophile world, the truth has been settled, often many, many years ago. As just one example, the audible effects of jitter was "seriously researched" by a company (the BBC in this case) in 1974 and the conclusion was that a jitter figure of 35ns would cover every eventuality of commercial digital audio (Film/TV sound and music recordings). That's nearly a decade before consumers could even buy digital audio products and yet here we are 44 years later (!) and as far as the audiophile world is concerned it's still a question we need to learn the truth about and therefore still a marketable feature of digital interconnects, USB purifiers, digital audio protocols and codecs and DACs, and presumably something still requiring testing to settle beyond doubt. And, this is despite the fact that none of the "serious research" that has been carried out since 1974, mainly in response to audiophile claims, has ever challenged or contradicted the truth that was already known 44 years ago!

1. And what are you going to compare with CD quality, another CD? Within the audible range CD is the highest resolution file type that exists or that even could exist! Therefore the only "high resolution files" you could compare with CD quality is another CD quality! Obviously, this is highly inconvenient for audiophile manufacturers, who need to develop and sell new products that need marketability beyond just the same old CD quality. They therefore have to question the truth of both CD quality resolution itself and the conditions of it, such as "the audible range" for example.

I understand that you represent an audiophile manufacturer and therefore sowing the seeds of us not knowing the truth is an existential requirement. Fortunately though, this is the science forum where the actual facts can be discussed and where we're not only limited to a narrative effectively dictated by marketing requirements!

G


----------



## skwoodwiva

gregorio said:


> You did make it clear that you had a confidence level of 90% and not 100%. However, as 0% would mean no confidence whatsoever and 100% = absolute confidence, then 90% is very high confidence. The known facts, of both human hearing perception and the state of modern technology, indicates a confidence level below 10% and probably well below. Your stated confidence level therefore indicates that you either do not know or do not appreciate the known facts. If you pass your blind test, that would affect the confidence level only by say a percentage point or maybe not at all, because even though you *may* demonstrate that you are able to detect an audible difference, you would have to demonstrate the audible difference was actually caused by what you claim and not something else, a simple volume or impedance difference/mismatch for example.
> 
> I've stated this many times before but personally I cannot and do not rely solely on the results of a blind or even double blind test and I do not subscribe to the common advice here of performing one. Why rely solely on the results of a testing method which is based on subjectivity and is also very difficult to control all the variables which can affect or invalidate the results, when there's an entirely objective and cheap/easy to perform alternative? Personally, I would loop-back the outputs of both DACs (into an ADC) and record and compare them. A null test gives us a difference file and free software tools can not only break the differences down further but also ensure that some other inadvertent errors are avoided, such as a volume mismatch for example. Only then, and only if the objective measurements indicate there's a difference which might be audible, would a blind test be warranted and, you could use the recorded files with free ABX software rather than more expensive and difficult to operate hardware comparators.
> 
> ...


With your knowledge & experience you paint picture of merit about the issues.
Yet fail to mention the key progress by Sony as a maverick that makes me ask why you do not at least see this ?
As a DSD fanboy I see  it is the Elephant here!


----------



## pinnahertz

skwoodwiva said:


> With your knowledge & experience you paint picture of merit about the issues.
> Yet fail to mention the key progress by Sony as a maverick that makes me ask why you do not at least see this ?
> As a DSD fanboy I see  it is the Elephant here!


Lets take a look at that elephant.  Here's some comment from two guys who should know what they're talking about.  One designs high-res ADCs and DACs, the other uses high-res to make his living.  *They cover DSD here. 
*
DSD might be an elephant, but one or more of its legs are broken.


----------



## Phronesis (May 17, 2018)

gregorio said:


> You did make it clear that you had a confidence level of 90% and not 100%. However, as 0% would mean no confidence whatsoever and 100% = absolute confidence, then 90% is very high confidence. The known facts, of both human hearing perception and the state of modern technology, indicates a confidence level below 10% and probably well below. Your stated confidence level therefore indicates that you either do not know or do not appreciate the known facts. If you pass your blind test, that would affect the confidence level only by say a percentage point or maybe not at all, because even though you *may* demonstrate that you are able to detect an audible difference, you would have to demonstrate the audible difference was actually caused by what you claim and not something else, a simple volume or impedance difference/mismatch for example.
> 
> I've stated this many times before but personally I cannot and do not rely solely on the results of a blind or even double blind test and I do not subscribe to the common advice here of performing one. Why rely solely on the results of a testing method which is based on subjectivity and is also very difficult to control all the variables which can affect or invalidate the results, when there's an entirely objective and cheap/easy to perform alternative? Personally, I would loop-back the outputs of both DACs (into an ADC) and record and compare them. A null test gives us a difference file and free software tools can not only break the differences down further but also ensure that some other inadvertent errors are avoided, such as a volume mismatch for example. Only then, and only if the objective measurements indicate there's a difference which might be audible, would a blind test be warranted and, you could use the recorded files with free ABX software rather than more expensive and difficult to operate hardware comparators.
> 
> As you're getting a hardware comparator anyway, then by all means use it, BUT, before (or after) you do, loop-back and record the output of both DACs with exactly the same settings as you used for the blind test. This would help explain why you did or did not detect a difference with your blind test.



It doesn't make sense to say that someone else's subjective confidence/probability level is wrong without knowing (a) the truth of the particular situation in question and (b) their personal track record with respect to their confidence level.  If someone was right 60% of the time when they said they were 90% confident, they tend to be overconfident.  If they were right 97% of the time when they were 90% confident, they tend to be underconfident (at least in cases where they were about 90% confident).  You don't know either (a) or (b).  But generally, I'm very aware and wary of the risks of overconfidence, due to my professional experience in this area over many years (literature review, professional committees, conference presentations, peer-reviewed papers, project designs, forensic investigations, etc.).

I agree with not relying solely on blind tests, due to issues of false negatives, false positives, and external validity.

I also agree with the idea of comparison by objective analysis of signals, but there are pitfalls there too, and I have neither the resources nor motivation to undertake something like that.

Given that no single evaluation method is without pitfalls, I favor gathering evidence and performing evaluation using multiple methods, to an extent warranted by resources and the importance given to the evaluation.


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 17, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Lets take a look at that elephant.  Here's some comment from two guys who should know what they're talking about.  One designs high-res ADCs and DACs, the other uses high-res to make his living.  *They cover DSD here.
> *
> DSD might be an elephant, but one or more of its legs are broken.


You make my argument easier 

"
 Shh! Please don’t use the PCM word! But OK yes, it is probably safe to say for about 99% of the DSD projects that have been done. There may be a few exceptions where somebody set up a microphone to a DSD direct to disc project and have done nothing with it. No processing, no level changes, no filtering, no mixing or have used that for archiving an analog tape…or archiving a vinyl disc.

MW: Those are rare.

JS: Yes. We’re going to do multichannel recording,… .
"

Multichannel, need I say more… 
My 2 TBs is all stereo, as are most rips. Audiophiles know not to rip PCM content from an iso.

If it be not a DSD directly transcribed, ever wonder why it be noted(?), I ignore them.


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> ... it seems like not everybody has the same overwhelming sight domination over other senses.



I think I belong to this category, because from my personal experience, I can't relate much to the described effects of vision on a live concert experience. I'm a regular concert-goer (mostly classical in the past, and jazz in recent years) who likes to listen with eyes closed for fairly long stretches during a live performance. Never felt it makes much of a difference for my musical experience, except that I tend to get less distracted by things going on among the audience in front of me.



castleofargh said:


> ... we're pattern recognition machines, what experience was fed to us for a long time will have the ability to impact how we feel and what we prefer.



+1

And it took me a very long time to realize that this might be the simple reason why I can't really get into the sound of balanced armatures.


----------



## pinnahertz

skwoodwiva said:


> You make my argument easier
> 
> "
> Shh! Please don’t use the PCM word! But OK yes, it is probably safe to say for about 99% of the DSD projects that have been done. There may be a few exceptions where somebody set up a microphone to a DSD direct to disc project and have done nothing with it. No processing, no level changes, no filtering, no mixing or have used that for archiving an analog tape…or archiving a vinyl disc.
> ...


So your "elephant" is around 1% of an already minuscule segment if the music available? Sounds more like an ant. 

Pure DSD is about as dead as binaural. There's really no point if what you want to listen to is not available on your favorite pet format, is there? It's the hires problem only about 100X worse.


----------



## skwoodwiva

pinnahertz said:


> So your "elephant" is around 1% of an already minuscule segment if the music available? Sounds more like an ant.
> 
> Pure DSD is about as dead as binaural. There's really no point if what you want to listen to is not available on your favorite pet format, is there? It's the hires problem only about 100X worse.


All true, the solutions are revealed in the mountains Sony climbed…. 

Where is the Analog Dude?


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> Here's an interesting thought to consider.... All of this suggests an interesting thing.... perhaps the "missing element" of why a recording of a concert almost always fails to seem "convincingly realistic" is that the other elements, especially the visual ones, are missing. Perhaps, when the human brain is involved, the "fidelity" of the recording actually _DEPENDS_ on being able to see the performance and, without the visual aspect of the performance, it's just not ever going to "sound like you're really there".



You mean "all of this SUGGESTED an interesting thing"? You do realise that you're talking about pretty ancient recording history? Your "thought to consider"/"interesting thing" has been known and ROUTINELY employed in music recording, starting over 70 years ago! It maybe an "interesting thought to consider" for some audiophiles though, audiophiles who've been lead to believe by marketing that "realistic" or "sounds like you're really there" is even desirable in the first place, let alone achievable by a music recording. But for those of us who create the commercial audio content, it's a "thought" so ingrained and fundamental that we take the consideration of it for granted!



castleofargh said:


> vision is clearly the dominating sense and one we will rely on instead of our ears when the information from both senses are conflicting. even worst, we will in the long run recalibrate our hearing to fit what we see. not the other way around.



Hmm, that's somewhat true or true under certain circumstances. I'd prefer to say that perception is a construct/interpretation manufactured by the brain from the input of all our senses + our knowledge + our past experience. And, that any one of these factors can be altered or even overridden by any other. In other words, the brain makes an evaluation of all this data and comes up with a perception which is effectively a best guess combination. It's not really a case of one sense, say vision, dominating another sense, our hearing for example, it's a combination of all the factors which the brain calculates on a case by case basis. There are therefore many circumstances where hearing affects vision and even some where hearing can completely override vision but this isn't an accurate characterisation of the issue because never are hearing and vision the only factors! The McGurk Effect is interesting, even shocking to those who've never considered perception to be different from reality, but, it's even more interesting than it at first appears: The McGurk Effect appears to demonstrate vision overriding hearing and even overriding hearing + knowledge (the knowledge that we're only ever hearing "baa") but actually that's NOT what it demonstrates! It's actually demonstrating; hearing + knowledge being overriden by vision + past experience. The past experience being that the "Faa" shaped movement of the mouth will result in a "Faa" type sound. This has been tested by replacing the "Faa" visuals with a "Thaa" visual, and globally this is far less effective because many languages do not contain the "th" sound we have in English, so there is not the past experience to support the visual "thaa" and then vision does not override hearing (only "baa" is heard)! This would tend to indicate that past experience is actually the dominant factor (and not vision) but that wouldn't be entirely correct either, as past experience can be overridden by a combination of other factors, it is certainly an important and probably the single most important factor though. There are quite a few implications to this, if you think about it. As one example, how past experience can override hearing + knowledge. A DB test which demonstrates no audible difference and even the fact that science dictates that there could be no audible difference, can therefore both be overridden. And, we quite commonly see exactly this, the assertion that both the validity of DB tests and of scientific knowledge itself must be wrong or missing something, because past experience dictates that more expensive is better than cheaper.

Much of the above is only starting to be fully explained by science but has actually been well known for a century or so! The film world is effectively; the manipulation of audiences through the marriage of independently created visuals and sound, and therefore the relationship between vision and sound has been explored extensively. That vision can be altered by sound and thereby the overall perception itself manipulated, was discovered very shortly after the first introduction of sync sound to film over 90 years ago (1927), has therefore been a fundamental requirement of narrative filmmaking ever since and of course has developed/advanced significantly over the last 90 years. Furthermore, narrative film is predicated on what is termed "the suspension of disbelief", essentially the bypassing or manipulation of knowledge and past experience. 



Phronesis said:


> If someone is X% confident that something sounds better, spending $Y more for it isn't a big deal for them, and it makes them more comfortable to 'play it safe' and spend the money, I can't fault that.



I can fault that, on three fronts! Firstly, that X% confidence is frequently incorrect and it turns out they've spent $Y on something that is no better and surprisingly commonly, actually inferior! Secondly, they are therefore commonly in effect rewarding and encouraging snake oil products/salesmen! And thirdly, some of them will come to sites like this one and encourage others, often very vociferously, to also reward and support snake oil (albeit inadvertently in some cases).



jgazal said:


> The only thing I object about @gregorio view is that I believe, with no proof, that:
> 
> 1) objects in distribution + binaural dynamic convolution at playback;
> 2) close mics and hoa mixing before distribution + binaural dynamic convolution at playback;
> 3) close mics and binaural synthesis before distribution + binaural dynamic convolution at playback;



Hang on, that is NOT the view I have expressed in this thread!

1 & 2. I'm not sure what you mean by "objects in distribution" but I have not mentioned anything at all about binaural convolution at playback! The only thing I've argued about is the binaural microphone recording technique (vs other mic recording techniques).

3. Again, I haven't mentioned this previously, and again I'm not quite sure what you mean, binaural synthesis on the master + binaural convolution on playback would equal a mess wouldn't it? Wouldn't binaural convolution of something already processed binaurally mess-up that original binaural processing? Either way, I'm not in favour of binaurally processing the mix/master (before distribution) because: A. You're again limiting the product to HPs only, B. I'm unimpressed with the current solutions I've heard which profess to accomplish this task and C. I can't see how such a process could work well anyway, the master would be one specific set of parameters, it couldn't account for different presentations, such as IEMs or over the ear HPs and it couldn't account for the individual differences in HRTFs. Playback would therefore seem to be the logical place for this type of processing. ..
Having said all this, I obviously don't know what the future holds as far as technological innovation is concerned, so my view could change but I'd need some considerable convincing of a technology designed for use pre-distribution and of course clients who'd also been convinced and had the budget to pay for it!

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan

gregorio said:


> A. That is not true! There are many companies that have been motivated to "learn the truth" and have conducted serious research of these issues and have indeed learned the truth. Admittedly, relatively little of that research is available publicly or even behind paywalls but it's been done and the truth is known.



Right, everyone has some incentive to learn the truth, but most audio companies don't have a consistent incentive for anyone else to learn the truth.  When the facts make your product look good, you emphasize the facts.  When the facts expose a deficiency in your product (true of all products on some level) you don't. 

This is true in every industry, in fact it's a tenet of basic economic theory - if every consumer knows everything about the market and can rationally apply this knowledge to a purchase decision, in the long run nobody will make any profits.  

Fortunately, (?) we do not live in a perfect-information, perfect-rationality world, and there is plenty of room for opinion in what counts as good sound, so many companies are able to produce products that are worth a premium and make people happy.


----------



## Phronesis (May 17, 2018)

Some info on variability across individuals in susceptibility to the McGurk effect:

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/31/39/13963.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4580505/

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep30423

In general, I believe it's unwise to assume that people are essentially the same in their 'hearing ability', susceptibility to auditory illusions, effects of biases, etc.  I suspect that arguments that A and B sound the same often come from people who don't hear differences themselves, and incorrectly _assume_ that others can't either.  I can't imagine what it might be like to have the hearing of a dog, but I don't assume that dogs can't hear things that I can't hear.


----------



## Phronesis (May 17, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> Right, everyone has some incentive to learn the truth, but most audio companies don't have a consistent incentive for anyone else to learn the truth.  When the facts make your product look good, you emphasize the facts.  When the facts expose a deficiency in your product (true of all products on some level) you don't.
> 
> This is true in every industry, in fact it's a tenet of basic economic theory - if every consumer knows everything about the market and can rationally apply this knowledge to a purchase decision, in the long run nobody will make any profits.
> 
> *Fortunately, (?) we do not live in a perfect-information, perfect-rationality world, and there is plenty of room for opinion in what counts as good sound, so many companies are able to produce products that are worth a premium and make people happy*.



Though, to be fair, I think we have acknowledge that a lot of perceived differences likely aren't objectively real, especially when we're talking about things other than transducers and music tracks.  I would prefer to have perfect information in this domain, but unfortunately, as a practical matter, it can be quite difficult to reduce uncertainties about whether differences are real, especially when perceived differences are relatively small.


----------



## KeithEmo (May 17, 2018)

It must be nice to know everything.... that way we can send all the scientists and engineers home and just buy absolutely perfect fifty year old equipment. I seem to recall, back when I was in high school, that someone proved that cassettes were perfect... probably Memorex... so I guess we didn't really need CDs either. Just for nostalgia, I'm pretty sure I heard a recording once of someone cheerfully declaring that their new Edison cylinder phonograph "sounded just like real life"; of course the recording itself was transcribed from an Edison cylinder (and it didn't sound very realistic at all to me). It's funny how "what we _know_" changes over time.

I think you will also find that most studies done by folks like the BBC, and Sony, are based on "market priority".... which is a nice way of saying that what they're looking for is the level which will satisfy most of their market and not the limit of current technology. They're looking at family cars; not sports cars or luxury cars; and certainly not racing cars. The other thing is that, if you're going to quote what "those big companies" are saying, then it's not fair to cherry pick. Sony did all that great research showing that "CDs were audibly perfect". Then, oddly, a few years later they were saying that audiophiles needed to move on to SACDs - because CDs weren't good enough after all. And Dolby Labs, the same big company who insisted that the sound quality of Dolby Digital, which is lossy, was plenty good enough, now insists that, if you want to have the new releases of your old DVD videos sound their best, you really need to up-sample all your 48k masters to 24/96 PCM so you can process them through a filter that eliminates the pre-ringing. Coincidentally, their latest mastering software happens to have just that feature as a processing option. So, if you're going to insist that Sony figured out the truth decades ago, you need to decide which truth you prefer. Likewise, you can bet that, in a few years, Dolby Labs will be quite sure that their latest technology from 2018 is "not quite adequate".

Please note that I'm not at all disputing that most studies conducted by companies have a vested interested in determining that their current product, or that the new product they're promoting, is the one that delivers "quality that is quite sufficient for their market". Obviously they do. But, just as obviously, Sony wasn't going to publish a study that stated that, with the technology currently available, they were going to have to choose between making CDs too short to hold an entire album, or reducing the sound quality to a level that was a bit marginal. They'd have to be total idiots to publish a study that said their latest and greatest product was "a bit marginal". And, equally obviously, they didn't stop trying to improve it - even after supposedly "getting it just right".

Now, folks like the BBC look at it from the other direction. They are developing specifications for _buying_ equipment. So, recognizing that their customers - the audience - expects a certain level of sound quality, and that equipment that delivers higher performance costs more, they're going to figure out the minimum level of quality that will satisfy the majority of their audience... then they're going to add a bit of a safety margin. However, they're going to be somewhat careful not to "overbuy". Hertz rent-a-car doesn't buy Ferraris, and the BBC isn't going to specify audiophile equipment if the majority of their audience isn't likely to notice the difference, or simply isn't likely to _care_ about the difference.

Nobody disputes that "most people think CDs sound just fine".

I should also point out that, while a null test is an excellent idea, it's really better to do that using an actual analog amplifier with a true differential input.
The software currently available for comparing signals digitally is extremely convenient, but your comparison is then limited by the conversion quality of the ADC you use.
If you want to perform accurate measurements, you want your test equipment to be much more accurate than the devices being tested, and high quality ADCs are expensive.
(This is more of an issue when comparing digital devices like DACs because the flaws present in ADCs are the exact same flaws you're trying to compare between different DACs.)

Incidentally, jitter is not a single thing...
Jitter has a frequency, an amplitude, and either a waveform or a random distribution, and may be correlated with the data itself to varying degrees.
All of those factors affect the easily measurable distortion sidebands it will create... and presumably how audible it is.
Here's a paper (presented to the AES in 1992) that describes how the audibility of sine wave jitter varies depending on the frequency:
http://www.nanophon.com/audio/jitter92.pdf
It indicates that measurable distortion at potentially audible levels occurs with high-frequency sine wave jitter at well below 100 picoseconds.
I wonder what jitter frequency the BBC used for their tests... it would be interesting to see their test results and the criteria they used for audibility.



gregorio said:


> You did make it clear that you had a confidence level of 90% and not 100%. However, as 0% would mean no confidence whatsoever and 100% = absolute confidence, then 90% is very high confidence. The known facts, of both human hearing perception and the state of modern technology, indicates a confidence level below 10% and probably well below. Your stated confidence level therefore indicates that you either do not know or do not appreciate the known facts. If you pass your blind test, that would affect the confidence level only by say a percentage point or maybe not at all, because even though you *may* demonstrate that you are able to detect an audible difference, you would have to demonstrate the audible difference was actually caused by what you claim and not something else, a simple volume or impedance difference/mismatch for example.
> 
> I've stated this many times before but personally I cannot and do not rely solely on the results of a blind or even double blind test and I do not subscribe to the common advice here of performing one. Why rely solely on the results of a testing method which is based on subjectivity and is also very difficult to control all the variables which can affect or invalidate the results, when there's an entirely objective and cheap/easy to perform alternative? Personally, I would loop-back the outputs of both DACs (into an ADC) and record and compare them. A null test gives us a difference file and free software tools can not only break the differences down further but also ensure that some other inadvertent errors are avoided, such as a volume mismatch for example. Only then, and only if the objective measurements indicate there's a difference which might be audible, would a blind test be warranted and, you could use the recorded files with free ABX software rather than more expensive and difficult to operate hardware comparators.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

There is another flaw - or more properly an unconsidered fact - in that basic economic theory... and that is preference.

I happen to really enjoy Brussels Sprouts...
My friend doesn't like them at all...

Therefore (even if we are both fully aware of the market):
1) The "fair market price" for a plate of Brussels Sprouts is different for him than for me.
2) If he were to sell me a plate of Brussels Sprouts for $1 we would _BOTH_ profit.

In the context of audio, and specifically audiophile equipment, you need to spell out the differential VALUE of various factors.
One person could fail to hear any difference between a 128k MP3 file and a CD; a second person might be willing to pay $10 extra for the CD; but a third person may hear the difference but simply not care.
Note that none of those situations is invalid... it's simply a matter of preference or priority.




Zapp_Fan said:


> Right, everyone has some incentive to learn the truth, but most audio companies don't have a consistent incentive for anyone else to learn the truth.  When the facts make your product look good, you emphasize the facts.  When the facts expose a deficiency in your product (true of all products on some level) you don't.
> 
> This is true in every industry, in fact it's a tenet of basic economic theory - if every consumer knows everything about the market and can rationally apply this knowledge to a purchase decision, in the long run nobody will make any profits.
> 
> Fortunately, (?) we do not live in a perfect-information, perfect-rationality world, and there is plenty of room for opinion in what counts as good sound, so many companies are able to produce products that are worth a premium and make people happy.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

@KeithEmo  Right, that was what I was getting at with room for opinion, I may be a basshead, you might not be, and so there is room for more than one set of headphones in the market. 

Still, if you hold to the "perfect information and rationality" assumption (which I hopefully don't need to point out is wildly unrealistic in real life), you could segment the market into "rational people who like brussels sprouts" and "rational people who don't like brussels sprouts" who are able to price in their preferences perfectly, and again eliminate profits from a competitive market.  Anyway, this is a side-track into Econ 101 that nobody ITT wants or needs, but you get the idea. 

@Phronesis When it comes to "room for opinion" I do mean in terms of things that are definitely audible.  If you don't care about distortion and instead favor faster dynamic response, and I prefer the opposite, we will buy different gear.  There could be a large audible difference in two or more factors, but the worthy trade-off is a matter of opinion.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> It doesn't make sense to say that someone else's subjective confidence/probability level is wrong without knowing (a) the truth of the particular situation in question and (b) their personal track record with respect to their confidence level. ... You don't know either (a) or (b).
> [2] I also agree with the idea of comparison by objective analysis of signals, but there are pitfalls there too, and I have neither the resources nor motivation to undertake something like that.



a. The truth of the particular situation is usually that the difference they think they're hearing is significantly below audibility.
b. Is irrelevant if A is below audibility.
So yes, it does make sense.

2. A. What pitfalls? B. You don't have an ADC? C. Your level of motivation does not alter the actual facts, only potentially your personal belief in them. 



Phronesis said:


> [1] In general, I believe it's unwise to assume that people are essentially the same in their 'hearing ability', susceptibility to auditory illusions, etc. (other than effects of degradation in FR of hearing ability).
> [2] I suspect that arguments that A and B sound the same often come from people who don't hear differences themselves, and incorrectly _assume_ that others can't either.



1. The McGurk Effect is not intended for any test regarding hearing ability, it's a demonstration of perception not hearing ability. I can't speak for anyone else here but I don't assume other people have essentially the same hearing ability as me. In fact, I know that many people, particularly younger people have much better hearing ability than me. However, most people have poorer listening ability than me.

2. I don't suspect that and I don't assume that if I can't hear it, then no one else can. I don't even assume that if I can't hear it, then I can't hear it! Because like most here, I know that in one listening scenario I might not be able to hear something but in another I might and, it's got nothing to do with how good or bad that listening scenario is. I can sometimes hear things on my laptop speakers that I can't hear in my several hundred thousand dollar studio.

G


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> In general, I believe it's unwise to assume that people are essentially the same in their 'hearing ability', susceptibility to auditory illusions, effects of biases, etc.  I suspect that arguments that A and B sound the same often come from people who don't hear differences themselves, and incorrectly _assume_ that others can't either.  I can't imagine what it might be like to have the hearing of a dog, but I don't assume that dogs can't hear things that I can't hear.



I can state the same thing about people being able to go without oxygen for 10 days.  I know, it seems unlikely, but you can't assume.  I saw a magician lock themselves in an airtight box for a long time, and some animals can live for months in a frozen state.  Just because I can't do it, doesn't mean that somebody else might not be able to do it.   I guess we will never know until we test every single human on the planet.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> I can state the same thing about people being able to go without oxygen for 10 days.  I know, it seems unlikely, but you can't assume.  I saw a magician lock themselves in an airtight box for a long time, and some animals can live for months in a frozen state.  Just because I can't do it, doesn't mean that somebody else might not be able to do it.   I guess we will never know until we test every single human on the planet.



We already know, empirically, that humans vary in many traits, including aspects of hearing ability.  It's not simply a matter of speculation.


----------



## KeithEmo

There are a lot of situations like this that complicate things....

For example.... training vs bias.
I play the same song through two different DACs for you, and you notice no difference.
Then I say: "Listen carefully to the cymbals; they sound a little clearer on Unit B".
Now you hear it too.
Is that difference now really audible because you know what _detail_ to pay attention to?
Or is it just expectation bias because now you_ expect_ to hear it?
In that case, we should be able to reliably figure out which it is using some sort of blind test.

However, many folks on this forum seem to have a serious hang-up about statistics vs a simple yes/no proposition.
I've personally never met anyone who claimed to have "perfect pitch"; but it seems to be accepted that such people do exist.
Therefore, if I have some audio device, like a turntable, that has the ability to be "off speed", how do I assess the required speed accuracy for it to be "audibly perfect"?
Do I test my new model with 100 people and assume that, if it sounds "audibly perfect" to them then it's good enough?
Or do I advertise for "someone with perfect pitch" to come listen to it?
The "correct" answer there probably depends on who I hope to sell it to.
The trick there is that not all markets are equal.
When Apple was deciding whether AAC128 was "good enough" I suspect they were quite satisfied if 95% of the general public thought that their product "sounded audibly perfect".
However, if I'm hoping to sell "$50 audiophile recordings", I may be satisfied is only 1% of the general public notices a difference; because I can do a brisk business selling my files to 1% of all the people on the planet.   
(And, to be quite honest, I can make a good living if 1% of the people on the planet even imagine they can hear a difference.)

This is one of the reasons you need to be so careful to set your test parameters to match your actual requirements.
(And, if you're going to sell a super-expensive super-precise piano tuner, you shouldn't assume that the one guy in the neighborhood with perfect pitch_ ISN'T_ going to be the one who's considering buying it.)
I suspect that magician was really just very good at fooling us; however, scientists have been working on suspended animation for a long time, so I wouldn't bet that someday they won't figure it out; and, at that point, the answer will change.




sonitus mirus said:


> I can state the same thing about people being able to go without oxygen for 10 days.  I know, it seems unlikely, but you can't assume.  I saw a magician lock themselves in an airtight box for a long time, and some animals can live for months in a frozen state.  Just because I can't do it, doesn't mean that somebody else might not be able to do it.   I guess we will never know until we test every single human on the planet.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] It must be nice to know everything....
> [2] I think you will also find that most studies done by folks like the BBC, and Sony, are based on "market priority" ...
> [3] Sony did all that great research showing that "CDs were audibly perfect". Then, oddly, a few years later they were saying that audiophiles needed to move on to SACDs - because CDs weren't good enough after all.
> [4] the BBC isn't going to specify audiophile equipment ...
> ...



Nice try but all you've really done is proven my point!

1. Oh good, let's start by using a tried and trusted old audiophile marketing fallacy! The truth is of course that we don't need to know everything, just a great deal about a few things, the properties of an electric current for example and in digital audio, just amplitude and time. An inconvenient truth I know, hence why audiophile marketing fallacies are so commonly used and recycled!

2. No, I wouldn't find that, I can understand (and have already explained) why you would want to make that insinuation though!

3. What's "oddly" about that? It's the exact opposite of "oddly"!! It is in fact PRECISELY in line with what I stated, baring in mind that Sony is also an audiophile manufacturer. Your statement should actually read: "_Then, 100% predictably, nearly two decades later they were saying that audiophiles needed to move on to SACD...._"

4. No serious commercial studio or organisation is "going to specify audiophile equipment", because it's overpriced nonsense that's typically inferior to even just decent quality pro-audio equipment! However, the BBC does specify some very high-end pro-audio equipment and it definitely does consider the MOST discerning of listeners and has done for decades.

5. No, the ADC's quality of conversion is largely irrelevant for most things. Whatever weaknesses/inaccuracies the ADC has will be the same on both recordings and therefore NOT a difference.

6. True but irrelevant, another classic old audiophile marketing tactic, thanks for playing the game! 

G


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> So your "elephant" is around 1% of an already minuscule segment if the music available? Sounds more like an ant.
> 
> Pure DSD is about as dead as binaural. There's really no point if what you want to listen to is not available on your favorite pet format, is there? It's the hires problem only about 100X worse.


"About" equals "almost" - and almost NEVER caught a hare.

That's why, being - not only ignored but suppressed by, whenever and wherever given a chance - mainstream recording engineers like @gregorio, we had no choice but to start creating our own binaural content. I started with a portable cassette recorder - and, after discovering what a wonderful machine Technics RS-AZ 7 is, although not portable, used that in stock form for a very short while. Within a year, I had it modified and running in its purest mode possible - with noise reduction being taken care of with Nakamichi High Com II. And I would not even consider using the Naka in its stock form - I had to purge the two units ( one required for recording, one for playback if monitoring while recording is necessary ) of all the Kinderkrankheiten Nakamichi has  - clearly - re-wrote and re-used and therefore inherited directly from the Telefunken High Com unit , obviously without any critical assesment by either measurements or AB listening to the source and recording. Those differences being audibly so large that it NEVER  occured to me to do a blind test - and if somebody is willing to try that one with High Com II, he or she will have to bring two stock Naka High Com II units ( preferably restored, BUT ONLY TO STOCK CONDITION ) - in a live, in front of audience, double/triple/x..le blind ABX. Making an ABX box that can accomodate switching of one analogue tape recorder and two pairs of two noise reduction machines would have also to be designed - no trivial task, but in principle doable. 

Of course, Naka High Com II can also be paired with R2R , not only cassette recorder - if somebody *feels* cassete is not good enough. On a HIGH quality headphone setup, - let's say Stax Lambda Pro with mandatory ED-1 Monitor diffuse field equalizer + "some quality amp" - because it is relatively widespread and known to be specifically good with binaural recordings. And, if somebody would be foolish enough to claim that a 44.1/16 PCM is better than either the cassette or R2R, he/she *might* meet the ultimate analogue nemesis of the RBCD PCM - (S)VHS ( or beta) VIDEO recorder used exclusively in audio mode. The only trouble is that today really good (S)VHS tapes for audio are - unfortunately - history; so, in commercial sense, this point is moot. But such a comparison could still be arranged - I do have a few still sealed premium quality tapes.

And , guess what ? Many musicians themselves, after being treated with a lifelong diet of multimiking only, will light up as little suns - after finally being able to hear themselves WITHOUT the inevitable "editorial comment"  of multimiking and subsequent subjective interventions during mixing/mastering by the likes of @gregorio. The same - or even more - that goes for the concert goers; after all, all that they can ever experience live is certainly closer to binaural than to any version of multimiking - as per default, the skill and experience of the recording engineer playing here - at best - next to no role. The less intervention on the part of the multimiking engineer, usually the better - in most, but not all cases.

But, not all musicians/listeners prefer 2 channel stereo/binaural to multimiking - that's why I always tell the prospective customer/musician what I do and what he/she can - or can not - expect and get from me. Thus I will always allow for an informed decision.

Since with 2 channels recorded, without the possibility to do after the fact ANYTHING but splicing the various takes of same song/composition recorded under exactly the same conditions/mic placement ( valid for both direct to tape and direct to DSD, if you will call it that way ), there lies the knowledge/skills/experience a multimiking recording engineer has never been required to do. Getting as good balance and separation as possible while scrupolously maintaining spatial coherence  is no trivial matter - and does require more time in preparation than with multimiking, where  "we can fix everything in the mix" notion usually prevails. 

The 2 channel only  recording "mix", either stereo or binaural, has to be get  right - there and then, BEFORE the first note that will eventually land on a released recording can be played.

Fast forward to binaural recorded in native DSD. Yes, it is rare, it is a niche within an already small niche - but it DOES exist and DOES fullfill the needs and expectations of at least a small portion of listeners. And, it is being steadily increased in numbers of the binaural recordings available. More and more native DSD recordings available on https://www.nativedsd.com/ feature, besides stereo and multichannel ( usually 5.1 ) also binaural version. Recording machines ( usually Merging Horus/Hapi ) feature 8 channels of up to DSD256 - and, with six channels being required for the surround 5.1 ( from which then stereo is usually derived ), two channels remain free - so WHY waste them, and not put to a good effect  - the BINAURAL ? The customer then decides which version of the recording of the same music he/she will buy - based on preferences, listening habits and, last but not least, equipment available. There are also convinient "bundles" and, in some cases, discounts available to those who have bought in the past say stereo version, but during time decided to add surround and/or binaural version of the same music - it will not be "full" price as to the first time customer for a particular album.

The cruelest price range for the playback equipment is with surround DSD 5.1 ; if one satisfies him/herself with DSD ( all the way to native DSD256 5.1 available ) converted to PCM ( normally 192/24, 5.1, but usually user selectable all the way down to 44.1/16 ), some 300 EUR ( price of a new "DAC/Soundcard" ) will get you a decent playback. If you want all the way to native reproduction of DSD256 5.1, the price can quickly go to approx 11K . 

There ARE MANY choices in DAC that will play 2 channel native DSD , all the way up to DSD256 - starting at around 200 $/euro/pound. All that is required for stereo - or binaural.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (May 17, 2018)

With regard to binaural recording, and totally eschewing multi-mic setups, it's almost impossible to do with rock music.  Ever listened to a sound check with the guitars or vocals un-amped?  You can't hear them over the drums.  At these concerts the "live" audio is already, in a very real sense, recorded, mixed, and played back over speakers.  Add to that the fact that many venues have somewhat undesirable acoustics to begin with, and I can easily see why binaural recording is not as popular as one might expect.

The multi-mic setup is, generally speaking, actually a fairly good approximation of what bands would *hope* the audience would hear in a live venue.

With classical / acoustic and probably even Jazz music (any music where amplification is not integral to the sound) there's a clear logic to binaural recording, but the majority of music listening doesn't fall into these categories.


----------



## bigshot (May 17, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> That's why, being - not only ignored but suppressed by, whenever and wherever given a chance - mainstream recording engineers like @gregorio, we had no choice but to start creating our own binaural content.



So there's no professional binaural content? The way you were talking about it, I thought there was. I'm primarily interested in the music. The method of delivery is secondary to that. So if everything in binaural is amateur content, it doesn't really interest me. Maybe I'll listen to the Pearl Jam, but it really isn't my thing. I was hoping there was some really good string quartet or orchestral recordings in binaural. The ones that were posted as examples were abysmal- beyond bad, and if that's all there is, there's nothing here for me I'm afraid.

As for DSD... I've already done plenty of research into that. It's completely superfluous... like teats on a bull hog. I've always thought that SACDs without 5.1 are completely pointless.

Thanks anyway!


----------



## bigshot (May 17, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> I can state the same thing about people being able to go without oxygen for 10 days.  I know, it seems unlikely, but you can't assume.  I saw a magician lock themselves in an airtight box for a long time, and some animals can live for months in a frozen state.  Just because I can't do it, doesn't mean that somebody else might not be able to do it.   I guess we will never know until we test every single human on the planet.



Best post ever!



Phronesis said:


> We already know, empirically, that humans vary in many traits, including aspects of hearing ability.  It's not simply a matter of speculation.



How much time have you spend researching the thresholds of human auditory perception? Based on your comments, I suspect that you haven't spent much time at all. To me, only focusing on the equipment measurements and specs and not focusing on the context- specifically whether or not humans can hear it- is a great way to avoid the obvious truths. Humans are fallible. We have basic perception and the optimal range is pretty much a brick wall. You can't hear the unbearable unless you are waiting for some random genetic mutation to crop up like monkeys with typewriters coming up with a Shakespere play.

If you know a little bit about what humans can and can't hear, you can put measurements and specs into context. If you don't you can bend the "range of possibilities" to justify and validate whatever personal bias you want. That isn't scientific. That's why when I hear someone saying something that seems to be outside my understanding of the thresholds, I ask for an example. Show me an amp or DAC that sounds different. What SACD sounds better than redbook? Will someone please show me an Amazon link to a well recorded binaural music CD,..

The silence is deafening. This is how I can tell if people really know what they're talking about or whether they are citing monkeys with typewriter possibilities. I don't have time to wait for human evolution to advance to the next level. I want to listen to music now.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> And, if somebody would be foolish enough to claim that a 44.1/16 PCM is better than either the cassette or R2R, he/she *might* meet the ultimate analogue nemesis of the RBCD PCM - (S)VHS ( or beta) VIDEO recorder used exclusively in audio mode.



Accused of ridiculous assertions, your response is to make up assertions which are even more ridiculous. I tell you what, 44/16 PCM is inferior to the old wax cylinder and horn arrangement. OK, that's as utterly ridiculous as we can get, so what have you got left to say now we've reached the end of your; "let's make the most ridiculous assertion I can think up" tactic? What do you hope to gain from all this, do you honestly think there's anyone reading your post who doesn't recognise it as ridiculous? 

And, how can you be surprised that people like me refute your assertions or just ignore you as too ridiculous to even bother? And for the latter reason, I can't be bothered to respond to all the rest of the nonsense in your post. It's inconceivable you actually believe all that nonsense yourself, which leaves as the only option that you're trolling, which is against this forum's rules!!

G


----------



## bigshot

Reductum ad absurdum


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> So there's no professional binaural content? The way you were talking about it, I thought there was. I'm primarily interested in the music. The method of delivery is secondary to that. So if everything in binaural is amateur content, it doesn't really interest me. Maybe I'll listen to the Pearl Jam, but it really isn't my thing. I was hoping there was some really good string quartet or orchestral recordings in binaural. The ones that were posted as examples were abysmal- beyond bad, and if that's all there is, there's nothing here for me I'm afraid.
> 
> As for DSD... I've already done plenty of research into that. It's completely superfluous... like teats on a bull hog. I've always thought that SACDs without 5.1 are completely pointless.
> 
> Thanks anyway!


Of course, there IS professional binaural content. On  www.nativedsd.com, in the post you've just quoted. On the silver platter solution :  
http://help.nativedsd.com/high-reso...erences-between-stereo-and-binaural-listening
https://www.nativedsd.com/homepage/binaural_dsd_music

If you are so pro surround 5.1 - then WHY you did not find 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2013/03/listen-up-binaural-sound.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2913JxRtQl3ZTvw0wz5C4D1/bbc-proms-in-binaural-sound ? 

- ages ago ? Now, I do not consider BBC's approach to be anything approaching pinnacle, but it is a start - if  "professional" is what you require.

Hint - THE page with *anything* remotely connected with recording and reproduction of the sound of the music in anything beyond conventional stereo - from 5.1 through ambiosonics to binaural and everything-too-new-to-be-yet-named - where I first learned about BBC's binaural while searching for other "spatial stuff" is  - ....... ?

Although automotive comparisons are not exactly your cup of tea - here another one:

Multimiking/PCM/stereo or 5.1 is a Cadillac, where you and your family can dress up for some festive ocassion, cruising on the motorway at some leisurly speed.

Binaural - specially if it is recorded in native DSD - is a single seat F1 car, racing suit and integral helmet mandatory; one with the potential to beat anything else, given half a chance - if the ultimate goal is being fastest on the race track. Or in musical recording terms, being the most realistic approach to the sound of the ACOUSTICAL musical event heard live.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> Accused of ridiculous assertions, your response is to make up assertions which are even more ridiculous. I tell you what, 44/16 PCM is inferior to the old wax cylinder and horn arrangement. OK, that's as utterly ridiculous as we can get, so what have you got left to say now we've reached the end of your; "let's make the most ridiculous assertion I can think up" tactic? What do you hope to gain from all this, do you honestly think there's anyone reading your post who doesn't recognise it as ridiculous?
> 
> And, how can you be surprised that people like me refute your assertions or just ignore you as too ridiculous to even bother? And for the latter reason, I can't be bothered to respond to all the rest of the nonsense in your post. It's inconceivable you actually believe all that nonsense yourself, which leaves as the only option that you're trolling, which is against this forum's rules!!
> 
> G


Sorry, if you did have enough experience with binaural, you would have known what exactly 44.1/16 lacks compared even to a cassette - in order for it to really work as it should and could. 
Let alone R2R or video recorder used for audio only. And not to even mention DSD.

The differences in preferences to listening as described are real - if you like it or not. The same goes for me. 
But, I do recognize the merits of your work which can be perceived and preffered by few/some/majority of listeners ( depending on one's perspective ) , whereas you have been trying to torpedo any other approach than the one you use  - as less worthy and even no-ball.

And if you even once again even mention trolling, you *might* get much more than you ever even dreamed of as being possible of bargaining for in return. So, chill down !!!


----------



## bigshot (May 17, 2018)

Can you recommend a well recorded professional binaural recording with acoustic instruments? It can be an SACD. Fine. One that you own and have heard. Last call for an answer. I’ve wasted too much time on this already.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> Multimiking/PCM/stereo or 5.1 is a Cadillac, where you and your family can dress up for some festive ocassion, cruising on the motorway at some leisurly speed.
> Binaural - specially if it is recorded in native DSD - is a single seat F1 car



Using that analogy again, you've already demonstrated that you can't hear the difference between a tractor and a F1 car. So what are you trying to say, that binaural in DSD is a tractor? PCM is worse than a wax cylinder remember, so that would make it a bicycle or a horse rather than a cadillac wouldn't it? So now we have a horse vs a tractor, how very agricultural! See, I can play this ridiculous nonsense game too!

G


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] Sorry, if you did have enough experience with binaural,
> [2] you would have known what exactly 44.1/16 lacks compared even to a cassette



1. Sorry you didn't have enough experience of a soundstage that you couldn't tell when it was completely reversed, numerous times!!

2. Ahh but I do know what an elephant lacks compared to a Christmas tree. You know what, this is quite fun, I'm starting to see what you get out of making up utterly ridiculous nonsense!!

G


----------



## gregorio

Hey @bigshot listen to this and then tell me it doesn't sound just like you're there, listening to the real thing:



G


----------



## bigshot (May 17, 2018)

Did you listen to that string quartet video? More clams than in chowder!

Honestly, I'm getting to the point where I'm getting exhausted reading paragraph after paragraph of text that doesn't even attempt to address my questions. I refuse to be led around by the nose and fed psycho babble. I have too short of an attention span for "what ifs" and "bear with me a moments". The analogies are getting pretty strained too. All I want is people who can speak on point about subjects they know something about, while not being quite so in love with their own words. This isn't Creative Writing 101. I'll be instituting my "only read the first couple of sentences" rule again soon.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Did you listen to that string quartet video? More clams than in chowder!



Yep, I think they'd loose in a contest with the Portsmouth Sinfonia though. Also try this one "", another all time classic! Go to youtube and read the comments, it's worth it, For example: "Is mayonnaise an instrument?" and "I'm playing this loudly while my roommate has sex."

G


----------



## KeithEmo (May 17, 2018)

I'm sorry.... which fallacy was that?
The one about how, quite often, things that are "widely believed to be true" are later found to be wrong?
I've been around to hear a whole long list of things that "were obviously true"......
Until, after a little more research, someone found out that they weren't true after all.

I though it was obvious that I was being sarcastic.... of course it was predictable.
When Sony's new product was the CD, their tests managed to show that CDs were clearly superior to previous products, but were "the pinnacle of audio technology".
Then, when their new product was the SACD, their new tests showed that IT was clearly superior, and was the pinnacle of technological achievement.
Yet, for some reason, you seem to choose to believe their first test results but not their later ones.
I'm personally inclined to believe that their scientists were smart enough to figure out a test procedure to show that, whatever their new product was, it was worth buying.

And, yes, every company who sells high-res content, and every record company who gets another license fee when a re-master of any sort is sold, has a vested interest in convincing you that high-res files are better.
And, yes, every company who sells CDs, and everyone who already owns a large collection of CDs, is biased to prove that their CDs are plenty good enough (otherwise they wasted a bunch of money).
And, yes, every scientist on the entire planet is biased to run "a significant test" that "produces interesting results" - so he can get his paper published.

Of course no commercial venture or organization is going to specify audiophile equipment...
They're going to specify the cheapest equipment that will satisfy most of their customers...
(But that sounds an awful lot like what I said.)

I can't speak for "most things".....
But, more specifically, when you're testing something, your test equipment must be "better" than what you're testing... so that it doesn't obscure or just plain miss the data you're looking for.
So, for example, if you're trying to compare the distortion on two amplifiers, both of which have a THD less than 0.1%, the equipment you use for your test must have much lower than 0.1% THD to avoid obscuring the results.
Likewise, if you're hoping to determine what amount of ringing is audible on a DAC, you must start with test equipment that has less ringing than the DACs you're testing.

As for jitter....
I consider actually knowing what I'm talking about to be quite relevant.....
(I was simply pointing out that, if the BBC says jitter levels below 45 nS are inaudible, then their results are either incomplete or incorrect.... most likely they simply tested one particular type at one particular frequency.)



gregorio said:


> Nice try but all you've really done is proven my point!
> 
> 1. Oh good, let's start by using a tried and trusted old audiophile marketing fallacy! The truth is of course that we don't need to know everything, just a great deal about a few things, the properties of an electric current for example and in digital audio, just amplitude and time. An inconvenient truth I know, hence why audiophile marketing fallacies are so commonly used and recycled!
> 
> ...





gregorio said:


> Nice try but all you've really done is proven my point!
> 
> 1. Oh good, let's start by using a tried and trusted old audiophile marketing fallacy! The truth is of course that we don't need to know everything, just a great deal about a few things, the properties of an electric current for example and in digital audio, just amplitude and time. An inconvenient truth I know, hence why audiophile marketing fallacies are so commonly used and recycled!
> 
> ...





gregorio said:


> Nice try but all you've really done is proven my point!
> 
> 1. Oh good, let's start by using a tried and trusted old audiophile marketing fallacy! The truth is of course that we don't need to know everything, just a great deal about a few things, the properties of an electric current for example and in digital audio, just amplitude and time. An inconvenient truth I know, hence why audiophile marketing fallacies are so commonly used and recycled!
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> I was simply pointing out that, if the BBC says jitter levels below 45 nS are inaudible, then their results are either incomplete or incorrect.... most likely they simply tested one particular type at one particular frequency.




It really doesn't matter because I've never seen a piece of home audio equipment that has anywhere near that level of jitter. And I've never seen a cite pointing to a single home audio component that has audible levels of jitter at all.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> I'm sorry.... which fallacy was that?
> The one about how, quite often, things that are "widely believed to be true" are later found to be wrong?


 No, the one about how, even more often, things that are "widely believed to be true" are in fact true but are advertised to be wrong for some financial gain!

G


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Can you recommend a well recorded professional binaural recording with acoustic instruments? It can be an SACD. Fine. One that you own and have heard. Last call for an answer. I’ve wasted too much time on this already.


Now - BBC not professional enough for you ? 

Did not care to check even for the free binaural dsd downloads  from www.nativedsd.com ?

Anything from Stax binaural CD series. These are actually originally analogue tape (some of the last in the series maybe the very first digital recordings ) originally issued in Germany on LP - I would have to check for the exact name of the label in the back Bilefelder catalogue(s) . But, then again, the Germans are NOT nearly as good in using their own equipment compared to making it - and I do generally NOT recommend the "Stax" series. 

Most of the binaural recordings from which excerpts have been issued on this Deutsche Gramophon  LP  sampler to showcase Sennheiser Unipolar electret headphones should still be available on CD - just check for the works/performers : ( Saint Saens 3 is really great ...)
https://www.discogs.com/Various-Sennheiser-Demonstration-unipolar/release/11586768

There is even a thread on head-fi on binaural recordings : https://www.head-fi.org/threads/awesome-binaural-albums.511850/
( with @pinnahertz  Glen Gould recording from 1955, no less ) - 
It is as sparse as it is BECAUSE binaural - searched online - would, in reality, look something like this :

"Kunstkopf" , "Kunstkopf Stereophonie", "Kunstkopf Musik Aufnahme" , etc, etc - and use Google Bablefischlator in order to read whatever you find.

https://www.amazon.de/Kunstkopf-Musik-CDs-Vinyl/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n:255882,k:Kunstkopf

https://www.cybele.de/gesamtkatalog/3d-binaural-stereo-kunstkopf-aufnahmen

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mNlHUj1ioP_cfGLzXiTdMVOjblMoj3pmdTkwM6RgSbY/edit

THE site : https://www.scoop.it/t/binaural/p/4047274799/2015/07/08/jokan-kunstkopf-stereophonie

The above should point you in the right direction ...


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> How much time have you spend researching the thresholds of human auditory perception? Based on your comments, I suspect that you haven't spent much time at all. To me, only focusing on the equipment measurements and specs and not focusing on the context- specifically whether or not humans can hear it- is a great way to avoid the obvious truths. Humans are fallible. We have basic perception and the optimal range is pretty much a brick wall. You can't hear the unbearable unless you are waiting for some random genetic mutation to crop up like monkeys with typewriters coming up with a Shakespere play.
> 
> If you know a little bit about what humans can and can't hear, you can put measurements and specs into context. If you don't you can bend the "range of possibilities" to justify and validate whatever personal bias you want. That isn't scientific. That's why when I hear someone saying something that seems to be outside my understanding of the thresholds, I ask for an example. Show me an amp or DAC that sounds different. What SACD sounds better than redbook? Will someone please show me an Amazon link to a well recorded binaural music CD,..
> 
> The silence is deafening. This is how I can tell if people really know what they're talking about or whether they are citing monkeys with typewriter possibilities. I don't have time to wait for human evolution to advance to the next level. I want to listen to music now.



If you think that auditory perception is simply about thresholds based on simple tests, you're greatly oversimplifying how it actually works and there's no point in our attempting to discuss the topic further.


----------



## bigshot

Audibility of noise, imbalances and distortion in home audio equipment is all about thresholds. If you don't address that, you'll never be able to look at measurements and know how a component is going to sound.

I'm really not interested in discussing the philosophy of perception or how changes in the weather make us feel about being alive. I'm here in this forum because I am interested in learning new ways to apply scientific principles to achieving better performance out of my home audio equipment.


----------



## bigshot (May 17, 2018)

Analogsurvivor, I asked a very simple and direct question, and for some reason you are not answering it simply and directly. I'm not interested in randomly sampling output from various labels. I don't want to be pointed in a direction or have to mine through threads full of other people's recommendations. I don't want organ music with heavy cathedral ambience muddling up the binaural effect. And I'm not interested in bleeding chunks "demonstration samplers".  All I want to know is...

*Do you have an orchestral or chamber music recording in your own collection that you can recommend that you think is 1) a good composition, 2) a good performance of it, and 3) a good recording in effective and realistic binaural?*


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Audibility of noise, imbalances and distortion in home audio equipment is all about thresholds. If you don't address that, you'll never be able to look at measurements and know how a component is going to sound.
> 
> I'm really not interested in discussing the *philosophy of perception* or how changes in the weather make us feel about being alive. I'm here in this forum because I am interested in learning new ways to apply scientific principles to achieving better performance out of my home audio equipment.



We don't need to get into philosophy of perception, but we do need to get into psychology and neuroscience of perception, if we want to be scientific and understand the issues.  That's central to the question of whether there are _audible_ differences under various circumstances.  Perception needs perceivers.  As has already been discussed ad nauseum even during my short time here, these questions can't be settled only by looking at gear and objective measurements.


----------



## bigshot

A simple controlled listening test will determine if something is audible or not. That is the easiest way and it doesn't even use up a lot of words doing it. The only words necessary are yes or no.


----------



## analogsurviver (May 17, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Analogsurvivor, I asked a very simple and direct question, and for some reason you are not answering it simply and directly. I'm not interested in randomly sampling output from various labels. I don't want to be pointed in a direction or have to mine through threads full of other people's recommendations. I don't want organ music with heavy cathedral ambience muddling up the binaural effect. And I'm not interested in bleeding chunks "demonstration samplers".  All I want to know is...
> 
> *Do you have an orchestral or chamber music recording in your own collection that you can recommend that you think is 1) a good composition, 2) a good performance of it, and 3) a good recording in effective and realistic binaural?*


Yes, on all 3 counts.

The only problem is that I no longer own these recordings and/or am not at liberty to distribute them to a third party. I could post 30 seconds ( or whatever is allowed according to law to pass as sampler, without infringing any rights ) - but that is, effectively, too short to demonstrate the recording properly.

My very first ever ( binaural or otherwise ) recording released commercially was of the female choir Čarnice titled "Še ptičice so snivale" ( also in a more phonetically proper version as seen in the link ) ( roughly translated:  When Birds Still Dreamed ) - with arrangements of slovenian folk songs ( in numerous dialects ) by the composer Ambrož Čopi. It got issued as release with both original binaural and "translation" for loudspeaker version - as double CD. Recorded originally to a heavily modified CD-R, 12 years ago. That "translation" has been done without my presence and consent, while still frenetically searching for the best sounding device or  procedure to make binaural enjoyable also on speakers. The solution did arrive eventually, but would have postponed the release of the album far too much. Here the title song of the album :



No other subsequent binaural releases with which I would be truly satisfied have been released so far - which is not to say that none are in the works or planned. The biggest issue  that still needs to be worked on is the proper diferentiation of the front to back localization. Recent trend(s) in vocal music is to work with the "spatialized" choir; instead of the usual two positions of the choir in a church ( either on the choir ( organ )  or in front/behind of the altar ), the singers are  dispersed across the entire floor of the church, with the conductor being in or close to the centre of the church floor. Soloist(s) ( both vocal and instrumental ) might/may  be not only in the same flloor, at whatever angle from the conductor, but also displaced in vertical direction - with some compositions tailor-made to the architecture of a certain church. The position of both the choir and the solists can be, but usually is not, static - sometimes, a whole ritual ,including procession(s), is taking place - further adding to the challenge of the recording engineer.


----------



## KeithEmo

That is absolutely correct..... this has nothing to do with the _philosophy_ of perception.

However, if the thresholds at which things can be perceived are different under different conditions, then those conditions_ DO_ need to be taken into account.
In simplest terms, if the "final test apparatus" is a human being, then anything that affects that human being, in the context of the results, is indeed part of the test conditions.
If some external factor, even a psychological one, _actually alters the threshold of perception_, then you cannot simply ignore it.

For example, if your runners "feel faster" in their flashy new red uniforms, than that's quite possibly meaningless.
However, if, when you time them with a stopwatch, they really _DO_ run faster in those new uniforms, then it becomes significant data.
And, yes, our ability to pick out details and patterns is in fact often influenced by things like our mood.
Those red uniforms may have less air resistance - or those runners may have more adrenaline in their systems because they feel more appreciated - or something else altogether.
And, if that ends up actually affecting their performance, then it is legitimate _physical_ data.
Some meters become more sensitive when they're heated, or refrigerated; perhaps some listeners become more sensitive to THD when they're in a good mood, or a bad mood.

What we may PREFER to think of as "simple thresholds" may in fact be quite complex - and may vary depending on sometimes unexpected things.
There's a famous quote about "the best explanation is the simplest one _that actually covers all the facts_".
The human mind is a very complex measurement instrument... and sometimes its performance can vary quite oddly.
For example, we humans can detect a steady sine wave tone, even if it is several dB _BELOW_ a noise floor of random white noise.
Apparently our brains can "filter out" the random noise and "pick out" the non-random information below it.
In other words, the threshold at which we can detect the signal varies depending on what the signal is, and how _meaningful_ it is to our brain.
It seems our brains have certain specific "built-in" algorithms that are very sensitive to certain specific patterns.
(So, for those specific patterns, the "normal thresholds of perception" don't apply.)
One well known visual example of this is faces.
We humans are "programmed" to detect faces in visual patterns.
With the same information, a typical human is more able to pick out partly obscured faces than ANY machine intelligence yet developed.
And, probably as a side effect of this, we are also more likely to "see" faces that aren't there in truly random data - like the inter-station noise on a TV screen.
However, you can't simply disregard this data because it's "messy" or prevents you from developing a nice neat theory that covers everything simply and in one dimension.



Phronesis said:


> We don't need to get into philosophy of perception, but we do need to get into psychology and neuroscience of perception, if we want to be scientific and understand the issues.  That's central to the question of whether there are _audible_ differences under various circumstances.  Perception needs perceivers.  As has already been discussed ad nauseum even during my short time here, these questions can't be settled only by looking at gear and objective measurements.


----------



## bigshot (May 17, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, on all 3 counts.



If you can't even point me to a single good composition/performance/recording using acoustic instruments, there's nothing for me here. I don't want organ or choir music. They are almost always slathered over with room acoustics and have no single point of origin. I can't determine directionality with that kind of sound. I want strings or brass or woodwinds or even acoustic guitars so I can pick out individual instruments. I also specifically said that I wanted complete works, not bleeding chunks. I ask you for a recommendation for a recording and by the time you reach your sixth word, you're off talking about something else- yourself. We aren't talking about you here. We're talking about specific recordings that I can go out and buy. You are holding a conversation with yourself in your own head. You aren't hearing anything I say to you. The fact that you seem incapable of registering anything I say is frustrating and it makes me tend to discount the things you say. It also makes me want to just ignore you. Just being honest here. Your communication skills could use some work.



KeithEmo said:


> However, if the thresholds at which things can be perceived are different under different conditions, then those conditions_ DO_ need to be taken into account.



That is VERY simple to accommodate. You can be very confident if something is inaudible with tones, it's going to be an order of magnitude *more* inaudible under music. The most important condition to take into account when you're determining thresholds of audibility is the condition that we are most interested in... listening to music on our home audio system in our living room. That is drop dead easy to determine. All you have to do is set up a simple controlled test in your own living room with your own music and your own equipment. If you can't hear it. It flat out *doesn't matter*. I do this all the time. So does Gregorio and Pinnahertz. The only people here who *don't* do that are you, phronesis and analoguesurvivor. Is it any wonder why the three of us are fairly confident with the range of perceptual thresholds and you three aren't?


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> That is VERY simple to accommodate. You can be very confident if something is inaudible with tones, it's going to be an order of magnitude *more* inaudible under music. The most important condition to take into account when you're determining thresholds of audibility is the condition that we are most interested in... listening to music on our home audio system in our living room. That is drop dead easy to determine. All you have to do is set up a simple controlled test in your own living room with your own music and your own equipment. If you can't hear it. It flat out *doesn't matter*. I do this all the time. So does Gregorio and Pinnahertz. The only people here who *don't* do that are you, phronesis and analoguesurvivor. Is it any wonder why the three of us are fairly confident with the range of perceptual thresholds and you three aren't?



Reality is a lot more complex than your oversimplified models of it.  We're not talking about audibility thresholds of tones, we're talking about different perceptions of music when comparing systems.  You can't just will things to be simple and homogenous because you want them to be simple and homogenous.  I asked you previously - do you have any formal education or training in science or engineering?  Lack of not even knowing the difference between a false positive and false negative suggests you might benefit from doing some reading of the professional literature rather than just talking in forums.


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> Yep, I think they'd loose in a contest with the Portsmouth Sinfonia though. Also try this one "", another all time classic! Go to youtube and read the comments, it's worth it, For example: "Is mayonnaise an instrument?" and "I'm playing this loudly while my roommate has sex."
> 
> G



no Patrick, Mayonnaise is not an instrument. 

somehow this music got me thinking about the old Dawn Of The Dead movie. but I realize it could really go with anything. it's universal.
thank you for this very special experience.


----------



## analogsurviver

I can understand your position. Pretty much better than you might think.

IF you allowed me to "walk" you trough binaural, you could have learned some things any regular recordings buyer will usually not even think of as being of any concern/importance - BUT would protest and object the first second to any noises on the recording - that audience WILL , inevitably, be making during live performance. Save for extremely rare occasions ( when the performance is so good that the audience, in effect, becomes NUMB - no squeking, no programme sheets turning, no nothing; did happen once or twice ), this rules out any live binaural recording with the intentions to release it commercially. There is nothing as disconcerting as people commenting - no matter how hush-hush - say two or three seats/isles from the position of either artificial or real head with microphones. One single word is enough to ruin the whole recording. You would not - ever - believe some comments caught on the recordings...
Multimiking is, compared to binaural, almost completely "audience noise free"  -  it has to be something really loud from the audience to be captured as individually intelligible.

If the binaural is to work as intended, it HAS to have as good phase response as possible. That rules out 44.1kHz sampling ( at least twice that required ) - and can, under many real life scenarios, mean total ban on PCM. There is no guarantee that PCM  will, after going through "everything", at your final end, that is to say at the output to your headphones, allow for both channels not to lag in phase. Usually, if this error occurs, that means one channel will still be at zero output/volume until the other has already reached its full output - or, to be exact, the square wave response between the two channels will be delayed, exactly for the rise time. The error is getting proportionally better to increase in sampling rate - and it would take infinite sampling rate frequency for the error to reach zero. Some "PCM signal paths" have this error, some do not - depending on trough whatever equipment and how set up the signal has gone trough. DSD is inherently free from this error - and will, if PCM went wrong, mop the floor with it. Timing with binaural is EVERYTHING - but DSD has its share of troubles too, because of which I am proponent of so high sampling rates as stated on numerous ocassions.

Most audio available online is lossy - and very few allow the content above 16 kHz at all. So, any YT and similar can only be regarded as an information - NOT the ultimately achievable quality of the recording. So, I have/have not heard it on YT , at least at present, is absolutely no guaurantee that the HR version will not sound differently and improve upon whatever is available online. That is why labels distributing HR are often issuing lossy versions on YT and similar platforms - as information to the prospective buyers for them to be able to check if the music is to their liking and recording does not deviate too much from whatever expectations or preferences they might have.

DSD mastering is rare even in US - now consider my 2M population country. Two facilities, one of which is actually capable of doing it properly. I really hope to be able to convience everybody to splurge for the DSD mastering for the NEXT  project of baroque music - but given the current financial climate, that may well turn out as a wishfull thinking only. 

Believe me, it is NOT a picnic if you know how to do it, know how it could have been improved, etc - but you do not have the financial means to pull it trough. Of course I do have many binaural DSD recordings - and if they were done on my own head, you can pretty much understand that listening to a playback immediately after the concert does yield the best possible comparison to live sound. It DOES work - pretty well indeed - astonishingly well under the right conditions.

But you should be reasonable enough to understand if I could not bring you even to listen to various samples in order for you to understand that binaural does require open headphones, how harder still it is to convince a musician to part with 4k for MySphere ... so that to give him/her a solid proof why  also release (and finance...) the binaural version. Hopefully, in not too distant future the technology from present flagship(s) will trickle down to more affordable models of headphones.

I am really curios HOW the imminent problem of binaural bootlegging will be dealth with - as binaural mics that work at present only with iphones or small digital recorders have already appeared on the market - with those for android devices probably also already being just around the corner, most likely to be released towards the end of the year.


Certainly, none of the above mics can match more pro models - with Neumann KU-100 costing 8k and the "big" HEAD model over 30k, feeding proper recording devices.  But listen to whatever you might have in your library - and the SQ obtainable with the above three mics ranging from 100 to 300 $ feeding the iphone becomes a VERY tempting preposition to most people. 

Remember, by default these devices record with your own HRTF ... - something any artificial head will, eventually, have to solve in one way or another in order to be truly compatible with your own head. And they do it, on average, for the price of say 10 official binaural albums, be it in physical or downloadable form. 

This will be "fun" ...

I hope that you do understand the whole situation a bit better now .


----------



## bigshot (May 17, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Reality is a lot more complex than your oversimplified models of it..



I don't care about people's differing ideas of reality. I know already that there are some totally distorted concepts of that being thrown around here already. I'm talking about something straightforward-- the ability of audio equipment to reproduce sound with high fidelity. That is all about WHAT you hear, not what you THINK you hear. If you are unable to control your solipsism enough to discern what you hear without consulting Kant and Wittgenstein, then there's nothing I can say to help you. There is a point where subjectivity ends and reality begins. If you're interested, folks around here can help you find that line so you can get on the right side of it. That involves measurements and controlled testing. If you aren't interested in objective reality, you're in the wrong forum.



analogsurviver said:


> I can understand your position. Pretty much better than you might think.



Then you know that I'm going to just look at the first line of your reply to see if you've answered my question. If there's a ton of words explaining a bunch of stuff I didn't ask, I'm just going to cheerfully ignore everything you say. Now you understand my position a little better. I'm not going to be led around by the nose. I'm not here for you to try out your creative writing on. I'm happy to engage in discussion, but that means back and forth, not you going on and on and not listening to anything I say. If you ignore my questions, I'm going to ignore your answers... and enjoy every minute of it!

Have a fabulous day, you two!


----------



## Phronesis (May 17, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I don't care about people's differing ideas of reality. I know already that there are some totally distorted concepts of that being thrown around here already. I'm talking about something straightforward-- the ability of audio equipment to reproduce sound with high fidelity. That is all about WHAT you hear, not what you THINK you hear. If you are unable to control your solipsism enough to discern what you hear without consulting Kant and Wittgenstein, then there's nothing I can say to help you. There is a point where subjectivity ends and reality begins. If you're interested, folks around here can help you find that line so you can get on the right side of it. That involves measurements and controlled testing. If you aren't interested in objective reality, you're in the wrong forum.



I'm interested in what I perceive, not just the air vibrations in front of my eardrums.  Perception always involves both objective and subjective (cognitive) aspects.  This is all in the domain of science, philosophy isn't needed.

If you're familiar with a hundred voices, have you noticed how easy it is to tell the difference between them and quickly identify the speaker?  That's an example of perceiving differences, rather than just detecting things relative to thresholds.  The former is much more complex than the latter (otherwise you can't even bring in factors like biases).  We have to account for that complexity when we ask whether A 'sounds' different from B for a given person at a given time.  You can't reduce perception of music produced by a sound system to a simple scalar measurement.


----------



## bigshot (May 17, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I'm interested in what I perceive, not just the air vibrations in front of my eardrums.



Well that's great. I'm afraid what you perceive doesn't hold much fascination for me. I'm more interested in finding out what matters objectively and what doesn't when it comes to audio fidelity. That's what this thread is all about. (See post 1) You should probably create your own thread about your own perceptual philosophy. It's drifted way beyond the topic of this particular thread.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> "About" equals "almost" - and almost NEVER caught a hare.


No, "about" means "approximately", not "almost.  Duh.  And is close enough.  You want to vary this stat? Sure, go ahead, change it, it's SO FAR from being a viable format it's ridiculous.


analogsurviver said:


> That's why, being - not only ignored but suppressed by, whenever and wherever given a chance - mainstream recording engineers like @gregorio, we had no choice but to start creating our own binaural content.


You say this as if an engineer stood between you and binaural content.  Simply and utterly ridiculous!  Economics and lack of market is the problem.  Believe me, many of us engineers gave binaural more chances than it deserved.


analogsurviver said:


> I started with a portable cassette recorder - and, after discovering what a wonderful machine Technics RS-AZ 7 is, although not portable, used that in stock form for a very short while. Within a year, I had it modified and running in its purest mode possible - with noise reduction being taken care of with Nakamichi High Com II. And I would not even consider using the Naka in its stock form - I had to purge the two units ( one required for recording, one for playback if monitoring while recording is necessary ) of all the Kinderkrankheiten Nakamichi has  - clearly - re-wrote and re-used and therefore inherited directly from the Telefunken High Com unit , obviously without any critical assesment by either measurements or AB listening to the source and recording. Those differences being audibly so large that it NEVER  occured to me to do a blind test - and if somebody is willing to try that one with High Com II, he or she will have to bring two stock Naka High Com II units ( preferably restored, BUT ONLY TO STOCK CONDITION ) - in a live, in front of audience, double/triple/x..le blind ABX. Making an ABX box that can accomodate switching of one analogue tape recorder and two pairs of two noise reduction machines would have also to be designed - no trivial task, but in principle doable.


Well, I own that ABX box, but that comparison would be stupid.  Nobody cares.  We've moved on. The description here of an amateur recording system reads like a study in failed ideas.  High Com?  Really?  People blame its failure on cost and the proliferation of Dolby, but the real problem was that straight compander noise reduction just doesn't work for mediums with variable frequency response, causing severe encode/decode mistracking. High Com was somewhat better than any dbx method, but left its audible tracks all over the place.  It's only virtue was relatively cheap (compared to real professional noise reduction systems) and better specs than Dolby B/C.  Once you've heard compander mistracking you can never not hear it.  Odd you didn't bother to mention the one late development in cassette recorders (which was included on that deck) that made a significant audible improvement: Dolby's HX Pro.  But no matter, it's all gone now.


analogsurviver said:


> Of course, Naka High Com II can also be paired with R2R , not only cassette recorder - if somebody *feels* cassete is not good enough.


I don't "feel" cassette is not good enough, I know it.  You can't get flat response over the full audio band above -20dB (re: ref level).  Guidance is crap, wow, flutter and scrape-flutter was lousy unless you had a dual capstan deck (yours wasn't).  Tape types vary so much even within a single type/brand you need to re-cal the deck for every cassette.  You've got poor S/N because the tracks are too narrow, and you don't have enough dynamic range.  But fine, if you like it, go nuts.


analogsurviver said:


> On a HIGH quality headphone setup, - let's say Stax Lambda Pro with mandatory ED-1 Monitor diffuse field equalizer + "some quality amp" - because it is relatively widespread and known to be specifically good with binaural recordings.


RIght. Sure.  Stax Lambdas.  Great.  If those are necessary for optimum binaural, you've just nailed the binaural coffin shut.


analogsurviver said:


> And, if somebody would be foolish enough to claim that a 44.1/16 PCM is better than either the cassette or R2R, he/she *might* meet the ultimate analogue nemesis of the RBCD PCM - (S)VHS ( or beta) VIDEO recorder used exclusively in audio mode. The only trouble is that today really good (S)VHS tapes for audio are - unfortunately - history; so, in commercial sense, this point is moot. But such a comparison could still be arranged - I do have a few still sealed premium quality tapes.


 You're kidding, trolling, or have never tried VHS or Beta in "audio only" mode.  It's a pair of AFM carriers that get hit with rotary head switching, and SERIOUS companding NR just to make it work.  Put up a 3kHz tone and listen to what you get.  Geez!  Absolutely insane.  As to PCM 44/16 being better, I must assume you either have never hard a live stereo mix out of the desk, or have deliberately chosen the full pallet of distortions afforded by analog tape as someone improving the pure signal coming out of the desk.  Look, it's really simple: if the goal is to replicated the analog signal coming out of the mixing desk, then analog anything falls quite short, both objectively and subjectively.  44/16 however, replicates that signal so exactly that mixing engineers have been fooled into thinking they were monitoring the 2-mix bus when they were actually hearing the return from 44/16 ADC and DAC.  Tape never fooled anyone like that, except possibly 1/4" 15ips on a Studer deck running with Dolby SR.  Besides than, a simple "no" is the answer.


analogsurviver said:


> And , guess what ? Many musicians themselves, after being treated with a lifelong diet of multimiking only, will light up as little suns - after finally being able to hear themselves WITHOUT the inevitable "editorial comment"  of multimiking and subsequent subjective interventions during mixing/mastering by the likes of @gregorio. The same - or even more - that goes for the concert goers; after all, all that they can ever experience live is certainly closer to binaural than to any version of multimiking - as per default, the skill and experience of the recording engineer playing here - at best - next to no role. The less intervention on the part of the multimiking engineer, usually the better - in most, but not all cases.


Not been my experience.  Every musician I know who's heard binaural says something to the effect of "Interesting.  Now can we record for real?" 


analogsurviver said:


> But, not all musicians/listeners prefer 2 channel stereo/binaural to multimiking - that's why I always tell the prospective customer/musician what I do and what he/she can - or can not - expect and get from me. Thus I will always allow for an informed decision.
> 
> Since with 2 channels recorded, without the possibility to do after the fact ANYTHING but splicing the various takes of same song/composition recorded under exactly the same conditions/mic placement ( valid for both direct to tape and direct to DSD, if you will call it that way ), there lies the knowledge/skills/experience a multimiking recording engineer has never been required to do. Getting as good balance and separation as possible while scrupolously maintaining spatial coherence  is no trivial matter - and does require more time in preparation than with multimiking, where  "we can fix everything in the mix" notion usually prevails.
> 
> ...


I spoke with a friend of mine today who is director of engineering for a classical label and asked if they'd ever considered binaural.  He said absolutely not, the cost of producing another version that couldn't support itself has kept them out of binaural and 5.1.  Double-inventory of a record is just a cost hog.  In other words, you guys don't buy enough product to support it's production.


analogsurviver said:


> The cruelest price range for the playback equipment is with surround DSD 5.1 ; if one satisfies him/herself with DSD ( all the way to native DSD256 5.1 available ) converted to PCM ( normally 192/24, 5.1, but usually user selectable all the way down to 44.1/16 ), some 300 EUR ( price of a new "DAC/Soundcard" ) will get you a decent playback. If you want all the way to native reproduction of DSD256 5.1, the price can quickly go to approx 11K .
> 
> There ARE MANY choices in DAC that will play 2 channel native DSD , all the way up to DSD256 - starting at around 200 $/euro/pound. All that is required for stereo - or binaural.


DSD is completely unnecessary, never has penetrated the market significantly at all, and will always be a niche at best.  Binaural has nothing to do with it, but has the same issue only a bit worse.  Combine the two, you've got a niche of a niche of a niche.  But you go for that and let us know how that works for you.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> If the binaural is to work as intended, it HAS to have as good phase response as possible. That rules out 44.1kHz sampling ( at least twice that required ) - and can, under many real life scenarios, mean total ban on PCM. There is no guarantee that PCM  will, after going through "everything", at your final end, that is to say at the output to your headphones, allow for both channels not to lag in phase. Usually, if this error occurs, that means one channel will still be at zero output/volume until the other has already reached its full output - or, to be exact, the square wave response between the two channels will be delayed, exactly for the rise time. The error is getting proportionally better to increase in sampling rate - and it would take infinite sampling rate frequency for the error to reach zero. Some "PCM signal paths" have this error, some do not - depending on trough whatever equipment and how set up the signal has gone trough. DSD is inherently free from this error - and will, if PCM went wrong, mop the floor with it. Timing with binaural is EVERYTHING - but DSD has its share of troubles too, because of which I am proponent of so high sampling rates as stated on numerous ocassions.


Hate to break it to you, but PCM is inherently free from this problem too!  There is no phase misalignment between channels of PCM, zero, none at all.  Historically there was one combination of specific equipment that led to this myth, recording on the EIAJ/Sony PCM-F1 family of semi-pro video-based PCM converters, then directly transferring the data to CD without a dub to PCM1620/30 or using one of the timing correction boxes of the time.  The PCM-F1 family of ADCs sampled Left and Right alternately, and played back that way too, so within the system there was no interchannel phase or timing error.  However, PCM1620/30, which was Sony's pro video-based PCM converter, and an integral part of CD authoring, sampled L and R simultaneously, as does the CD format.  There was a potential for uncorrected F1 material to play from a CD with on channel delayed 1/2 sampling clock cycle.  The error was so small it could be corrected with an analog all-pass filter (and was!), but that's THE ONLY combination that resulted in that error.  DAT machines eliminated alternate channel sampling, and so did everything after that. You can prove it easily with basic testing, which I would suggest you do before posting nonsense like this.

The entire argument as to the inefficacy of PCM to handle binaural is myth based fabrication.


analogsurviver said:


> Most audio available online is lossy - and very few allow the content above 16 kHz at all. So, any YT and similar can only be regarded as an information - NOT the ultimately achievable quality of the recording. So, I have/have not heard it on YT , at least at present, is absolutely no guaurantee that the HR version will not sound differently and improve upon whatever is available online. That is why labels distributing HR are often issuing lossy versions on YT and similar platforms - as information to the prospective buyers for them to be able to check if the music is to their liking and recording does not deviate too much from whatever expectations or preferences they might have.


Yes, YouTube audio is lossy compression, but that's not an on/off parameter, there are degrees and codecs.  However, once the codec is high quality enough and the bit rate high enough, certainly possible on YouTube, there's full binaural information present.  The bulk of binaural cues occur below 5kHz, and that's not a challenge at all.


analogsurviver said:


> DSD mastering is rare even in US - now consider my 2M population country. Two facilities, one of which is actually capable of doing it properly. I really hope to be able to convience everybody to splurge for the DSD mastering for the NEXT  project of baroque music - but given the current financial climate, that may well turn out as a wishfull thinking only.
> 
> Believe me, it is NOT a picnic if you know how to do it, know how it could have been improved, etc - but you do not have the financial means to pull it trough. Of course I do have many binaural DSD recordings - and if they were done on my own head, you can pretty much understand that listening to a playback immediately after the concert does yield the best possible comparison to live sound. It DOES work - pretty well indeed - astonishingly well under the right conditions.


Yes, but DSD had nothing whatever to do with it.  Binaural, using your own HRTF, is the key.  It just won't work well for anyone else.


analogsurviver said:


> But you should be reasonable enough to understand if I could not bring you even to listen to various samples in order for you to understand that binaural does require open headphones, how harder still it is to convince a musician to part with 4k for MySphere ... so that to give him/her a solid proof why  also release (and finance...) the binaural version. Hopefully, in not too distant future the technology from present flagship(s) will trickle down to more affordable models of headphones.


Perhaps you don't understand something really basic about marketing.  The cost of something must be perceived as in line with it's benefit at very least, and below it's benefit at best.  You've suggested now both Stax Lambda as mandatory, now MySphere headphones.  Ask yourself this: how many copies of a recording are you going to sell if the only ones who buy it must have Stax Lambdas or MySphere? 

Nobody's being unreasonable.  If you state that open headphones are required, at least some of us own those and will try the samples with them.  I know I did, and the samples were terrible.  I've heard good binaural on my open headphones, I know what it sounds like, you don't need to convince me.  But if you're promoting binaural, then please post some good samples that are compelling and show off the concept to best advantage.  You have not done anything like that.


analogsurviver said:


> 1. I am really curios HOW the imminent problem of binaural bootlegging will be dealth with - as binaural mics that work at present only with iphones or small digital recorders have already appeared on the market - with those for android devices probably also already being just around the corner, most likely to be released towards the end of the year.
> 
> 2. Certainly, none of the above mics can match more pro models - with Neumann KU-100 costing 8k and the "big" HEAD model over 30k, feeding proper recording devices.  But listen to whatever you might have in your library - and the SQ obtainable with the above three mics ranging from 100 to 300 $ feeding the iphone becomes a VERY tempting preposition to most people.


I disagree on several points. 1.  Bootlegging is bootlegging and would be dealt with regardless of binaural or not. 
2. Poor sound quality is always the problem.  Good mics are not expensive, you can even make your own easily at very little cost.  Mic position is a huge problem that can't be surmounted.


analogsurviver said:


> Remember, by default these devices record with your own HRTF ... - something any artificial head will, eventually, have to solve in one way or another in order to be truly compatible with your own head.


Someone with even a basic knowlege of what makes up an HRTF would know without question that getting an artificial binaural head to match everyone's HRTF is impossible.  The incompatible HRTF problem cannot be solved at the recording head.  The only possibility exists by profiling a listeners HRTF and applying a correction to a standard head mic.  Profiling a listener's HRTF is just not going to happen. 


analogsurviver said:


> And they do it, on average, for the price of say 10 official binaural albums, be it in physical or downloadable form.
> 
> This will be "fun" ...
> 
> I hope that you do understand the whole situation a bit better now .


Yeah.  But I wish you did.


----------



## gregorio (May 18, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> [1] We're not talking about audibility thresholds of tones, we're talking about different perceptions of music when comparing systems.
> [2] We don't need to get into philosophy of perception, but we do need to get into psychology and neuroscience of perception, if we want to be scientific and understand the issues. That's central to the question of whether there are _audible_ differences under various circumstances. Perception needs perceivers.



1. You are just repeating a fallacy which we've ALREADY discussed at length. The job of an audio reproduction system is to reproduce audio, that's it, nothing more. Perception of music is the job of those creating the audio that is to be reproduced, NOT the job of an audio reproduction system! This is not a difficult concept to grasp and yet you not only apparently fail to grasp it but just keep repeating the same fallacy over and over again, why?

2. No, "if we want to be scientific and understand the issues" then we need to understand perception ONLY to the point of eliminating it! Perception does need perceivers but we are NOT trying to measure perception, we are trying to do the exact opposite, eliminate perception and determine ONLY what is actually audible! All these pages, dozens of posts later and you're still stuck exactly where you started. That's difficult to comprehend, unless you are here purely to promote a preconceived agenda and therefore have no choice but to contradict, misrepresent or ignore the actual facts.



analogsurviver said:


> [1] If the binaural is to work as intended, it HAS to have as good phase response as possible.
> [2] That rules out 44.1kHz sampling ( at least twice that required ) - and can, under many real life scenarios, mean total ban on PCM.
> [2a] ... to be exact, the square wave response between the two channels will be delayed, exactly for the rise time.
> [3] IF you allowed me to "walk" you trough binaural, you could have learned some things ...


 
1. OK, so now you're demonstrating that you don't even understand the format you are trying to promote! Binaural absolutely relies on a difference in phase response and NOT "as good phase response as possible", it relies on a difference in phase response dictated by the distance between the ears. Once we have that difference in phase response recorded, then we do need an accurate reproduction of that phase response and that means:

2. PCM is the perfect choice because, as pinnahertz explained, phase response between channels with PCM is perfect, there is ZERO phase discrepancy!
2a. What do you mean "to be exact"? The only sense in which your statement is "exact" is that it is exactly the opposite of the actual facts! Additionally, there is no rise time for a square wave, that's one of the defining features of a square wave and why a square wave is an illegal digital signal, cannot exist as an analogue signal or as a sound wave and even if it could, the ear could not respond to it! So in a sense, you are actually inadvertently correct, the two channels WILL be delayed relative to each other by exactly the rise time of a square wave, which is zero! This is seriously impressive, you've gone SO far round the route of ridiculous nonsense that you've actually gone full circle and ended up at semblance of the truth!! This really is very funny, I didn't even realise it was possible, clearly I'm a rank amateur at this whole "making up ridiculous nonsense" thing and humbly concede defeat in light of your demonstrated mastery.

3. Despite my brief foray, I have no interest in learning those utter nonsense "some things" you want to "walk us through" and, this is neither the thread nor the sub-forum for such nonsense "some things" anyway. This would all be hilarious if it wasn't also troubling. You demonstrated yourself that you are incapable of noticing massive inconsistencies in soundstage, is it even possible to be so convinced of utter nonsense and SO self-deluded that you can ignore even your own demonstration/evidence? This is literally INCREDIBLE, unless of course this isn't the situation and you're just trolling. Either way, if you're going to continue to make assertions such as the ones quoted (and all the others) then you MUST back them up with some form of reliable evidence, otherwise I'm going to start reporting your posts as trolling.

G


----------



## Phronesis (May 18, 2018)

Here's something my wife shared with me which is illustrative of the issues we've been discussing related to perception:



I hear Laurel, and can't imagine how anyone hears Yanny.  My wife is the opposite, she hears Yanny and can't imagine how anyone hears Laurel.  People who heard it on the internet are apparently split about half and half between hearing Laurel and Yanny, and it shifts between the two words for some people.  For some people, it also depends on which system they hear it on (that doesn't make a difference for me so far, and my wife and I heard it on the same system when we compared our perceptions). When my wife and I talk with each other and say Laurel and Yanny, neither of us has any difficulty distinguishing between them.

The sound is a recording of a speaker actual intending to say Laurel, not a synthesized sound.  To figure out why people hear it differently, you need to study the objective sound content, processes and variations in listener perception, and interactions between the objective and subjective aspects.  If making the sound 'better' means getting listeners to consistently hear it as Laurel, you won't be able to determine why some people hear it as Yanny, and what to objectively change/improve in the objective sound, without considering the subjective aspects and understanding the reasons for the variation in hearing it as Yanny vs Laurel.  Here are attempts to get some understanding of it:





There are likely strong parallels here to music, since research shows that there are many parallels and shared pathways in how brains process language vs music.


----------



## gregorio

@Phronesis I asked you why you keep repeating the same fallacy over and over again and your response is to ignore the question and just repeat the same fallacy yet again! How can that be interpreted as anything other than trolling?

The issue of audio reproduction systems is not one of perception, it's one of reproducing an audio signal!! Why is this not self-evident to you? Why, even after it's been explained numerous times, is it still not self-evident to you? Again, what is the only logical conclusion?

G


----------



## Phronesis (May 18, 2018)

gregorio said:


> @Phronesis I asked you why you keep repeating the same fallacy over and over again and your response is to ignore the question and just repeat the same fallacy yet again! How can that be interpreted as anything other than trolling?
> 
> The issue of audio reproduction systems is not one of perception, it's one of reproducing an audio signal!! Why is this not self-evident to you? Why, even after it's been explained numerous times, is it still not self-evident to you? Again, what is the only logical conclusion?
> 
> G



@gregorio Why do you keep repeating the same fallacy over and over again and your response is to ignore the question and just repeat the same fallacy yet again! How can that be interpreted as anything other than trolling?

The issue of audio reproduction systems involves both perception and reproducing an audio signal!! Why is this not self-evident to you? Why, even after it's been explained numerous times, is it still not self-evident to you? Again, what is the only logical conclusion?


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> Again, what is the only logical conclusion?



That you are indeed a troll and your last post appears to confirm that conclusion. 

The issue of an audio reproduction system is to reproduce audio. The issue of your perception is an issue for those who created that audio signal and your personal perception, it is NOT an issue of the audio reproduction system whose ONLY job is to reproduce that audio signal! If you're going to keep repeating a fallacy, then I'm going to keep repeating the facts!

G


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> That you are indeed a troll and your last post appears to confirm that conclusion.
> 
> The issue of an audio reproduction system is to reproduce audio. The issue of your perception is an issue for those who created that audio signal and your personal perception, it is NOT an issue of the audio reproduction system whose ONLY job is to reproduce that audio signal! If you're going to keep repeating a fallacy, then I'm going to keep repeating the facts!
> 
> G



I won't respond in kind this time.  Crying troll because you can't deal with someone disagreeing with you is childish.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> Crying troll because you can't deal with someone disagreeing with you is childish.



It's got nothing to do with you disagreeing with me, it's got everything to do with you repeatedly posting a fallacy which is contrary to the facts. I made that perfectly clear and your response is to misrepresent that fact and add an insult, which just further confirms that the only logical conclusion for your responses is trolling!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

_ABOUT PERCEPTION....._

As often seems to be the case, there are two _DIFFERENT_ arguments going on here - masquerading as one.

1) _PERCEPTION_ of reproduced music. The goal of audio reproduction is to reproduce the audio signal... and how that signal is perceived isn't really part of that discussion. If I play the exact same signal through two copies of the exact same amplifier, and people all seem to like the red one better, then that is simply an observation on human perception. You can debate about how "the perception of the total experience" is different between them, but that really is a discussion about human perception, and not about the equipment involved. (Of course, it may still suggest that painting your amplifier red is an excellent idea.)

2) _PERCEPTION_ as a factor when performing tests. However, when you are performing tests, the human listener becomes part of the test equipment, so there is no way to separate _THEIR PERCEPTION_ from the results. There is some test hardware whose accuracy or sensitivity actually changes after it warms up... and it is quite common for electronic gear to be adjusted after a half hour warm-up. And, if you use that equipment before it is fully warmed up, then your results will be incorrect or not fully accurate. The problem with humans as test equipment is that we are subject to a whole slew of complicating factors, not all of which are well known, and many of which vary from person to person. This now becomes an issue of _TEST EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION AND PERFORMANCE_. 

For example, human perception apparently varies depending on our state of alertness and awakeness. This means that, if you get up at 8 AM, the threshold at which you can notice THD may actually be measurably different at 8:30 AM than at 5 PM (because you are more alert at 8:30 AM). Likewise, our brains adjust to stimulus around us, and become more of less sensitive to certain things. 

Start with the parameter that some folks seem to keep insisting is "dead simple" - the range of frequencies over which we can hear. Let's test the range of frequencies you can hear, with a continuous sine wave, in one ear at a time, at 85 dB SPL. _HOWEVER_, let's test it once 30 minutes after you wake up on Sunday morning, on a nice quiet day. _NOW_, go out and mow the lawn and trim the sidewalk with that noisy gas-powered weed whacker, and take the test again. My guess is the results will be different. Of course, most of us realize that our ears adjust to loud noises, and so actually mechanically perform differently for several hours after being subjected to high sound levels. 

But, if you actually read any work on "brain science", you'll also know that what we notice and perceive can also be affected by the state of our brain. Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility that, for example, our hearing thresholds actually are different when we're "focused" than when we're "distracted".... or when we're "tired" than when we're "alert". So, yes, it is actually possible that the measurable threshold of some seemingly simple metric like "how much THD is audible" may be different at different times of day, or even depending on what's going on outside the window at the test facility. Perhaps we are more relaxed, and so more perceptive, and more able to detect lower levels of THD, when there are tress outside the window instead of city traffic. And perhaps it's the exact opposite. Even worse, it may affect different people differently, or affect the same person differently at different times. 

And, to make matters even more complicated, we humans vary physically over time. Caffeine is a drug which stimulates our central nervous system... and produces all sorts of easily measurable changes in our performance. Do you really believe it's reasonable to assume that the range of frequencies you can hear at 85 dB SPL is exactly the same after one cup of coffee and after three cups? After that third cup there will be easily measurable differences in things like your reaction time, and your ability to complete simple dexterity tests; so why would you assume there is no effect on your hearing acuity? Likewise, there are easily measurable differences in our performance when we are tired and when we are alert, and even when we are happy or depressed, or when we are focused or distracted. Since the human being is the test equipment here, it seems foolish to ignore factors that affect the accuracy and sensitivity of that test equipment. (And, yes, since the criteria is "what's audible to a human being", by definition the human being is the test equipment.)

If you want to determine some sort of "minimum threshold", with any degree of absolute accuracy, then at the very least you need to perform the test under optimum conditions.
And, yes, that means you'd also better document things like time of day, room temperature, lighting conditions, and other environmental factors in your test results. 
And, yes, I guess that does mean that a lot of seemingly "simple threshold measurements" may not be so simple after all.
And, while you may choose to exclude "human perception" as a factor, the best you can possibly do is to control as well as you can against variations.



Phronesis said:


> @gregorio Why do you keep repeating the same fallacy over and over again and your response is to ignore the question and just repeat the same fallacy yet again! How can that be interpreted as anything other than trolling?
> 
> The issue of audio reproduction systems involves both perception and reproducing an audio signal!! Why is this not self-evident to you? Why, even after it's been explained numerous times, is it still not self-evident to you? Again, what is the only logical conclusion?


----------



## Phronesis

I don't know why it's hard for some people to understand.  Whether a difference is audible and whether an audible difference matters depends on the listener.  Listeners aren't all the same, and each listener isn't the same at one time versus another.  And audibility of differences isn't simply a matter thresholds, since we're talking about music, not just pure tones (reference to simple thresholds won't be helpful in the Yanny/Laurel example).


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> As often seems to be the case, there are two _DIFFERENT_ arguments going on here - masquerading as one.
> 1) _PERCEPTION_ of reproduced music. The goal of audio reproduction is to reproduce the audio signal... and how that signal is perceived isn't really part of that discussion. If I play the exact same signal through two copies of the exact same amplifier, and people all seem to like the red one better, then that is simply an observation on human perception. You can debate about how "the perception of the total experience" is different between them, but that really is a discussion about human perception, and not about the equipment involved. (Of course, it may still suggest that painting your amplifier red is an excellent idea.)
> 2) _PERCEPTION_ as a factor when performing tests. However, when you are performing tests, the human listener becomes part of the test equipment, so there is no way to separate _THEIR PERCEPTION_ from the results.



1) Yes, I agree entirely.

2) This point I don't really agree with. What we actually hear and what we perceive are two different things. Perception is the identification, organisation and then interpretation by the brain of what we hear but as we know (and hopefully agree), this "interpretation" is a combination of all sorts of factors (sight, knowledge, past experience, biases, etc) and may have a lot, some, little or nothing at all in common with what our ears are actually hearing, which explains the difference between perception and hearing and therefore why they are two different things. When we perform hearing threshold tests, the goal is to discover the hearing threshold, NOT the perception threshold. This is why we need "controlled" tests, because "controlled" effectively means; to eliminate perception, thereby leaving us with only "hearing". In addition to the biases, sight and other factors which differentiates perception from hearing in the first place, there is another class of other factors which can affect our hearing thresholds/ability itself; fatigue (or it's opposite), temporary threshold shifts and conditions such as having a cold or hearing damage/deterioration for example. Regardless of this other class of factors, the goal is for perception NOT to be a factor when performing hearing threshold tests.

As @Phronesis was talking about audio reproduction systems then we are both agreed, perception is NOT part of the equation. But also, even when discussing hearing threshold tests, I believe that perception is still not part of the equation. In fact, the only time when perception should be part of the equation is when actually testing perception (or some aspect of it).

G


----------



## bigshot (May 18, 2018)

He isn't a troll. It's a combination of being in love with the sound of his own words, the inability to really respond to anyone else's challenges to his arguments, and a desperate attempt to find a way to validate his audiophile solipsism. I think he actually believes what he says. He's just built a wall of rhetoric and logical fallacies around his misconceptions to defend them. There's really no reason to argue with him. He'll just go right back to his hippy dippy "we don't actually hear sounds- we perceive ideas about sound" argument again and it will all go in circles. I chalk him up as someone who is well spoken, but devoid of analytical thinking processes. We've seen the type here before. They are usually the loudest and most oblivious ones.

The mistake is his refusal to address audio fidelity. Is sound accurate and properly conveyed? Perception is great, but a DAC or amp or headphones can't change perception as much as a comfy chair and a glass of wine can. Taken to the next level, we wouldn't be discussing audio equipment at all any more, because "they just produce sound, they don't affect our perception". It's solipsism. And solipsism is an entertaining way to create circular arguments in Introduction to Philosophy 101. Mental monkey spanking is a time honored tradition in first year college students.

The thrust of his argument goes back to the Greek philosopher Gorgias who said...

1) Nothing exists.

2) Even if something exists, we can't know anything about it.

3) Even if we can know something about it, we are unable to communicate it with others.

Why do people talk about Socrates and Plato all the time, and you never hear about Gorgias? Well, that's simple. It's because his whole philosophy is based on an argumentative trick. The purpose of the idea is to shut down conversation. People use arguments like this when they don't have a real argument. They lob a solipsist bomb into the midst of discussion and let it explode and make everyone shut up, or at least divert them off into discussing purely solipsist matters.


----------



## Phronesis

If you're going to make a distinction between hearing and perception, you'll need to explain what you mean (please cite references).  Obviously, both involve processing by the brain because hearing/perception need to be registered by a listener.  When judging whether Systems A and B 'sound different' to listener when playing music (not simple test tones), I don't see how we aren't talking about differences in _perception_.  System A could have measurably more distortion of some type than System B, but they may not sound different to a given listener at a given time for some particular music content, either consciously or subconsciously.  Conversely, the two systems could sound different because there are real audible differences under the given conditions, and a particular set of measurements which are performed may or may not be indicative of why they sound different.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> He isn't a troll. It's a combination of being in love with the sound of his own words, inability to really comprehend anyone else's challenges to his arguments, and a desperate attempt to find a way to validate his audiophile solipsism. I think he actually believes what he says. He's just built a wall of rhetoric and logical fallacies around his misconceptions to defend them. There's really no reason to argue with him. He'll just go right back to his hippy dippy "we don't actually hear sounds- we perceive ideas about sound" argument again and it will all go in circles. I chalk him up as someone who is well spoken, but devoid of analytical thinking processes. We've seen the type here before. They are usually the loudest and most oblivious ones.



The irony is that essentially the same (with a few modifications) could be said about you.  The difference is that I'll be tired of going in circles long before I rack up more than 17,000 posts.  Some people have posted things here lately which have made the time spent worthwhile, but eventually it'll be almost all repetition and for me it will be time to move on.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] I don't know why it's hard for some people to understand.
> [2] And audibility of differences isn't simply a matter thresholds, since we're talking about music, not just pure tones (reference to simple thresholds won't be helpful in the Yanny/Laurel example).



1. Is that rhetorical? If not, it absolutely should be!!

2. I'll ignore the obvious contradiction that the Yanni/Laurel example is not music but let's run with your example anyway. Should an audio reproduction system just reproduce the audio or should perception play a part in the reproduction system? If, as you assert, perception should play a part, then who's perception, yours or your wife's? Should it process the sound in some way so only Laurel is perceived or so that only Yanny can be perceived? How would it know which one, how would it achieve that result and how would this apply to music, maybe a DAC just for Mozart, a different DAC for the Prodigy, etc.? How does any of this make any sense to you? An audio reproduction system just reproduces audio, that's it, it can't and doesn't know what you perceive! Don't you think it's up to the creators of the audio file and you and your wife's perception, rather than the audio reproduction system?



Phronesis said:


> The difference is that I'll be tired of going in circles long before I rack up more than 17,000 posts.



Promise? Is it too much to ask that you'll stop going in circles before you rack up 388?

G


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> 2. I'll ignore the obvious contradiction that the Yanni/Laurel example is not music but let's run with your example anyway. Should an audio reproduction system just reproduce the audio or should perception play a part in the reproduction system? If, as you assert, perception should play a part, then who's perception, yours or your wife's? Should it process the sound in some way so only Laurel is perceived or so that only Yanny can be perceived? How would it know which one, how would it achieve that result and how would this apply to music, maybe a DAC just for Mozart, a different DAC for the Prodigy, etc.? How does any of this make any sense to you? An audio reproduction system just reproduces audio, that's it, it can't and doesn't know what you perceive! Don't you think it's up to the creators of the audio file and you and your wife's perception, rather than the audio reproduction system?



The answers are apparent from the example.  It's ideally supposed to sound like Laurel to all listeners, but some listeners are apparently hearing it as Yanny because of issues with distortion, noise, etc.  There needs to be better recording and/or fidelity.  Which one does it sound like to you?  I can't even say which listeners have 'better' hearing in this case, all I can say that they hear the same objective sound differently.  I think it's a fascinating case study and I look forward to reading a proper expert analysis of it.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Hate to break it to you, but PCM is inherently free from this problem too!  There is no phase misalignment between channels of PCM, zero, none at all.  Historically there was one combination of specific equipment that led to this myth, recording on the EIAJ/Sony PCM-F1 family of semi-pro video-based PCM converters, then directly transferring the data to CD without a dub to PCM1620/30 or using one of the timing correction boxes of the time.  The PCM-F1 family of ADCs sampled Left and Right alternately, and played back that way too, so within the system there was no interchannel phase or timing error.  However, PCM1620/30, which was Sony's pro video-based PCM converter, and an integral part of CD authoring, sampled L and R simultaneously, as does the CD format.  There was a potential for uncorrected F1 material to play from a CD with on channel delayed 1/2 sampling clock cycle.  The error was so small it could be corrected with an analog all-pass filter (and was!), but that's THE ONLY combination that resulted in that error.  DAT machines eliminated alternate channel sampling, and so did everything after that. You can prove it easily with basic testing, which I would suggest you do before posting nonsense like this.
> 
> The entire argument as to the inefficacy of PCM to handle binaural is myth based fabrication.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> The irony is that essentially the same (with a few modifications) could be said about you.



Oh that's a good one! Don't answer the points made, just turn them back around. Nice technique!


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with you absolutely.

The only catch on #2 is that, since we cannot "tap directly into the wires", we are always going to be stuck with some degree of interaction with human perception.
The closest we can come to controlling the situation would be to use the MRI and not ask the human involved at all.
But then we run the risk of considering something "audible" if everyone's brain reacts to the stimulus - even if nobody actually clams to perceive it at all.
Also, according to the latest brain research, there are actually be PHYSICAL interactions between our perceptions and other stuff going on in our brain.
In other words, the PHYSICAL threshold of what we can hear may actually vary depending on what we're thinking at the time (our brain can functionally alter the sensitivity of the physical apparatus).

I don't know if this has been shown to occur with hearing, but it most certainly has been shown to occur with our other senses, including sight... 
The eye actually PHYSICALLY sees or fails to see certain things depending on what the brain has "told it to look for".
The part of our brain that processes sight can actually be programmed to be more or less sensitive to specific patterns... at which point the threshold at which those patterns become "visible" changes.
Of course, this is only possible because every one of our senses involves processing in the brain... there is no such thing as "a sensory threshold independent of the brain".
Our ears DO NOT function "like a microphone connected to a meter"; it's more like "a microphone that is controlled by and sends its output to a really complicated computer".
So, if you really want to determine "an accurate minimum threshold of detection" for something, then you must determine the brain state that makes the individual most sensitive to that stimulus, and then ensure to test under that condition.



gregorio said:


> 1) Yes, I agree entirely.
> 
> 2) This point I don't really agree with. What we actually hear and what we perceive are two different things. Perception is the identification, organisation and then interpretation by the brain of what we hear but as we know (and hopefully agree), this "interpretation" is a combination of all sorts of factors (sight, knowledge, past experience, biases, etc) and may have a lot, some, little or nothing at all in common with what our ears are actually hearing, which explains the difference between perception and hearing and therefore why they are two different things. When we perform hearing threshold tests, the goal is to discover the hearing threshold, NOT the perception threshold. This is why we need "controlled" tests, because "controlled" effectively means; to eliminate perception, thereby leaving us with only "hearing". In addition to the biases, sight and other factors which differentiates perception from hearing in the first place, there is another class of other factors which can affect our hearing thresholds/ability itself; fatigue (or it's opposite), temporary threshold shifts and conditions such as having a cold or hearing damage/deterioration for example. Regardless of this other class of factors, the goal is for perception NOT to be a factor when performing hearing threshold tests.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

How do MRI scans relate to actual hearing in more than just a general way? Can we track the MRI pattern for an oboe, or a frequency response curve, or the sound of Mozart? We can do all of this by simply putting on a set of headphones.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> I can't even say which listeners have 'better' hearing in this case, all I can say that they hear the same objective sound differently.



All I care about is that the equipment I use reproduces the objective sound the same.


----------



## KeithEmo

At the simplest level that is exactly correct....
And, rather than being general, the results are quite specific....

I don't know if anyone has figured out how to interpret MRI scans precisely enough to tell the difference between when your brain hears an oboe and when it hears a flute.
But an MRI scan is the most specific and accurate way to determine "if the auditory centers of your brain have heard _SOMETHING_".
(Specifically an fMRI - which registers the actual level of activity in a specific area of your brain by measuring the amount of energy consumed by the resident brain cells as they "think".) 

You seem to insist that everything can and should be measured "at the lowest level, bottom line, physical level".
And, at that level, an fMRI scan will show exactly what you claim to be interested in.

For example, if I play a 22 kHz tone for you....
If the fMRI shows increased activity in the auditory center of your brain then "you heard it" (a signal indicating its presence has reached your brain).
And, if the fMRI shows no increased activity in the auditory center of your brain, then "you didn't hear it".
We have completely eliminated "perception" and all other "soft elements" from the question.
You may or may not "know" that you heard it, and you may or may not "perceive" that you heard it.
But we will know "at the hardware level" whether you did or not.

And, yes, if we do this at a bunch of different frequencies, then we will be able to create a graph of the frequencies that are audible to you.



bigshot said:


> How do MRI scans relate to actual hearing in more than just a general way? Can we track the MRI pattern for an oboe, or a frequency response curve, or the sound of Mozart? We can do all of this by simply putting on a set of headphones.


----------



## bigshot

sonitus mirus said:


> All I care about is that the equipment I use reproduces the objective sound the same.



I can't believe we're talking about the Yammi/Laurel meme... But lousy equipment is the reason it sounds different, not perceptual differences. If you listen to it with a full range speaker, the lows and low mids mask the upper frequencies and you hear Laurel, if you listen to it on a cheap speaker, the low end isn't reproduced and you hear the upper range saying Yammi. It's two band limited sounds layered over each other in two different frequency ranges. It has nothing to do with perception. It's all about the response of the speaker you are playing it back on.


----------



## bigshot (May 18, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I don't know if anyone has figured out how to interpret MRI scans precisely enough to tell the difference between when your brain hears an oboe and when it hears a flute. But an MRI scan is the most specific and accurate way to determine "if the auditory centers of your brain have heard _SOMETHING_



That is pretty vague, because pressure on the eardrum can show up as "something" without being actual sound. That is why the "evidence" that super audible frequencies are audible are wrong... Just because sound pressure creates a brain wave pattern, it doesn't mean that it is perceptible sound. I'd rather use the ears for what they are intended to do. Hear sound. It's much more sophisticated. I can discern the difference between Karjan conducting Beethoven and Toscanini conducting the exact same symphony. I can hear the difference between a kettle drum with hide from one with a synthetic covering. I can tell the difference between a TV set playing in the next room and someone speaking in the next room. And if you ask me to tell you the difference, I can explain why I came to those conclusions.

I think it's absurd to claim that we can't hear well enough to test hearing without hooking electrodes up to our skulls. When you've got to go that far, you're deep into the territory of trying to validate an argument that doesn't have a heck of a lot of evidence to back it up.



KeithEmo said:


> For example, if I play a 22 kHz tone for you.... If the fMRI shows increased activity in the auditory center of your brain then "you heard it" (a signal indicating its presence has reached your brain). And, if the fMRI shows no increased activity in the auditory center of your brain, then "you didn't hear it".



If I stick a jeweler's screwdriver deep into my ear and poke it through my eardrum, and there is a blip on my MRI, does that mean that I heard the jeweler's screwdriver?


----------



## KeithEmo (May 18, 2018)

Actually, the areas of the brain associated with _SPECIFIC_ types of stimuli are pretty well known....
So, yes, the fMRI _CAN_ differentiate actual sounds that are heard - as different from, say, pressure or pain.
There are specific areas of the brain associated with each, and many of them have been identified quite reliably... including hearing.
Many scientists have been busily mapping the areas of the brain lately... and I don't know exactly how far they've gotten with the hearing portions yet... or how our brain categorizes them.
With visual stimuli, different areas of the brain detect vertical lines, horizontal lines, and curves - so they can detect whether you're seeing a circle or a horizontal line.
Other areas activate when they detect motion in specific directions.

Unfortunately, if you don't want to look at things like MRIs, then you're stuck with "what the listener perceives".
Figuring out whether your brain can detect a "raw signal" like a 440 Hz sine wave occurs at one level...
Your brain identifying that tone, and the pattern of harmonics coming in as "an oboe", occurs in another portion of your brain...
And identifying that oboe as part of an orchestra conducted by Karajan occurs at yet another place...
And some of those things occur as a recognition of a complete pattern...
And many of them happen at more or less the same time...

This is how our brains have evolved to operate...

To use a visual example:
- one part of your visual cortex identifies a pattern of stripes
- another part identifies the colors black and orange in equal proportions
- another section notes that the pattern is moving horizontally
- another section notes that the movement is smooth and fast
- another section keys on the fact that there are two circles that look like eyes in a face
- and another section integrates all those inputs and signals "tiger"
- another section then looks up "tiger=?" and comes back with the response of THREAT!
- and that signal in turn prompts the control sections to crank up your breathing, and your heart rate, and your adrenaline production
- and another much higher level section decides that the best course of action is to run
- and yet another section reconsiders that action and decides whether it's smarter to run or hide

However, it's not quite possible to pick out "which part of your brain sees the tiger and tells you to run away".

And our brains are remarkably good at detecting what are known as "sparse patterns" - which is a fancy way of saying that we recognize patterns with lots of pieces missing.
That's how we can recognize our friend's voice.... even when we hear it on a low-fi telephone, with huge amounts of distortion and noise, and mixed in with other voices.
Our brains have evolved to be very adept at picking out the relevant parts and ignoring the other stuff.
We basically identify enough points and values in the pattern to assign it as "a probable match to our friend's voice".
(And even that amount may change if we happen to be expecting to see that particular friend this evening.)

So, exactly how much THD would there have to be before you could tell that Karajan was conducting?
The answer is that you aren't going to be able to identify a single specific threshold for that number.

However, there is no "signal cable you can tap into" to determine exactly what your ears by themselves are hearing...
And it may actually change depending on signals from your brain.
So it just isn't possible to "simply define the threshold of audibility" for complex information.



bigshot said:


> That is pretty vague, because pressure on the eardrum can show up as "something" without being actual sound. That is why the "evidence" that super audible frequencies are audible are wrong... Just because sound pressure creates a brain wave pattern, it doesn't mean that it is perceptible sound. I'd rather use the ears for what they are intended to do. Hear sound. It's much more sophisticated. I can discern the difference between Karjan conducting Beethoven and Toscanini conducting the exact same symphony. I can hear the difference between a kettle drum with hide from one with a synthetic covering. I can tell the difference between a TV set playing in the next room and someone speaking in the next room. And if you ask me to tell you the difference, I can explain why I came to those conclusions.
> 
> I think it's absurd to claim that we can't hear well enough to test hearing without hooking electrodes up to our skulls. When you've got to go that far, you're deep into the territory of trying to validate an argument that doesn't have a heck of a lot of evidence to back it up.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (May 18, 2018)

What brainwave pattern corresponds to an imbalanced frequency response or audible levels of distortion? That is what we're talking about here. It seems to me that looking at brain waves to determine whether your response curve is set wrong is a pretty convoluted way of solving the problem. Are we talking entirely in theory again?

Here is an example... DAC 1 and DAC 2 are said to sound different, but the difference is so small that people aren't sure if an audible difference exists. How do we answer this question by looking at brain waves? Is there a better way to determine this?

When you go to the audiologist, do they play tones for you and ask you if you can hear them, or do they attach electrodes to your noggin?

Is it possible to physically hear something, like words spoken by another person, and have them register on your MRI, but they still aren't heard? Why would that be? (this answer will be interesting!)


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> Is it possible to physically hear something, like words spoken by another person, and have them register on your MRI, but they still aren't heard? Why would that be? (this answer will be interesting!)



Isn't the vast majority of physically registered stimuli processed on a subconscious level in the brain, and only a small percentage on a conscious level? I'd assume that both types would show up in an MRI though.


----------



## bigshot

Some people have a conscious level that doesn't register stimuli from outside themselves at all.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (May 18, 2018)

Might be late to this, but:

Hearing = the raw neurological response, let's say hearing is the raw "signal" that enters your brain

Perception = what you think you hear.

So in the yanny / laurel thing, you HEAR *both yanny and laurel* unless you have some hearing loss.

Perception = you think you hear either yanny or laurel.

This is why controlled threshold tests using pure tones are useful - taking perception out of the equation allows us to establish minimum and maximums with less fuss.  Whatever you perceive a pure sine to be, at least we know you can't be HEARING anything more than a sine, so whatever you perceive is much easier to relate back to the actual stimulus.

Same as seeing vs. perceiving.  Whatever reaches your brain through your optical nerves counts as seeing.  What you actually think you see is perception.  So in that famous "gorilla basketball video", you almost definitely see the gorilla, but many people fail to perceive it.


----------



## bigshot

How about discerning a difference in sound between two amps or DACs, Zapp_Fan? Is that a matter of hearing or perception?


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> How about discerning a difference in sound between two amps or DACs, Zapp_Fan? Is that a matter of hearing or perception?



Perception, of course.

Or, you could discern the audible difference from marketing materials. 

In all seriousness though, I think your approach to audible differences is the most sensible, but I don't think it's invalid to say "These devices have a measurable difference that falls within a known threshold of perceptibility" and make a choice on that basis, even if the audibility is questionable in actual use.  In my mind, edge cases in music will tend to come from time to time, and it's not wrong to care about them as a listener. 

I'm in @KeithEmo's camp, where I tend to want a safety blanket of over-engineering to "guarantee" that any deficiency in the listening experience is down to the recording, or maybe an ache in my back, etc...


----------



## Phronesis (May 18, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> Might be late to this, but:
> 
> Hearing = the raw neurological response, let's say hearing is the raw "signal" that enters your brain
> 
> ...



I get what you're saying, though this isn't how I see these terms used in the literature (which usually equates hearing with auditory perception).  But using your definition, I don't think you can say we hear both yanny and laurel (which are percepts, not signals), we just transmit an auditory nerve signal which ends up being perceived as either yanny or laurel.

I'm still kind of shocked that something I hear so clearly as laurel is heard by others as yanny.  The words don't seem remotely similar to me.  I wouldn't have thought it possible until I saw the evidence ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't know if anyone has managed to identify specific patterns associated with things like distortion... and I suspect not.
However, they _HAVE_ managed to identify patterns that go with "happiness" and "sadness" and even "religious rapture" so who knows.
I guess that, perhaps, if the distortion ANNOYS you, then the happy center would be less activated.
(We can't always count on our brains to sort things into the categories we find convenient or significant.)

I would say that an fMRI would be good if you want to determine, once and for all, whether someone can hear a given range of frequencies or not.
Because that's a nice simple yes/no question and you either will or will not get a response on the fMRI.

As to audible differences, there are two ways that I know of.....

First, directly, you ask people whether they hear a difference (and do your best to control for or filter out the variations due to bias and perception).
You can determine whether people can actually detect a difference with an ABX test.... but, if they hear a difference, which one they _PREFER_ can be more complicated.

Second, you can measure their response itself - but indirectly.
One way this has been done is to set up two adjoining "waiting rooms", one of which has your "test system" playing music in it, and the other of which is quiet.
Now you find some excuse to usher people into the room where the music is playing to supposedly wait for something - perhaps an interview.
Now you watch them and see how long, on average, people remain in "the music room" before getting up and walking into "the quiet room".
Now, as an example, you repeat this with the music at the same level, but with various amounts of distortion added to the music in the music room.
You will probably find that, once you exceed some threshold amount of distortion, people leave the music room much more quickly on average.
At that point, you have determined the amount of distortion which AFFECTS people (makes them uncomfortable enough to want to avoid it).
And, if you want to look for finer points of "conscious vs unconscious" interview everyone afterwards and ask them why they got up and moved......
You may find that some actually heard the distortion... while others simply got a headache from it.
Note that this will give you a statistical result for how distortion affects people.... which is different than asking individuals to pick out tracks with specific levels of distortion in them.

Audiologists are generally testing for your conscious ability to identify that you have heard the tones - in other words your perception of having heard them.

As for that last question......
I would assume that it's possible that a barely heard voice might fail to be noticed consciously...
But might increase your stress level... which would show up on an MRI.
This isn't at all unlikely - because our brains are quite effective at blocking out our awareness of things when we are concentrating elsewhere.
Our subconscious actually processes the information and then discards it... much as you might step over a crack or obstacle on the sidewalk but not remember doing so afterwards.
Some estimates are that as little as 5% of what we see actually "reaches" our conscious mind, while much of it is "processed at a lower level".



bigshot said:


> What brainwave pattern corresponds to an imbalanced frequency response or audible levels of distortion? That is what we're talking about here. It seems to me that looking at brain waves to determine whether your response curve is set wrong is a pretty convoluted way of solving the problem. Are we talking entirely in theory again?
> 
> Here is an example... DAC 1 and DAC 2 are said to sound different, but the difference is so small that people aren't sure if an audible difference exists. How do we answer this question by looking at brain waves? Is there a better way to determine this?
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

.


Phronesis said:


> I don't know why it's hard for some people to understand.  Whether a difference is audible and whether an audible difference matters depends on the listener.  Listeners aren't all the same, and each listener isn't the same at one time versus another.  And audibility of differences isn't simply a matter thresholds, since we're talking about music, not just pure tones (reference to simple thresholds won't be helpful in the Yanny/Laurel example).


it's not hard to understand, you just create your own opposition with the unilateral way you approach most discussions. you spam that people are different and that we don't know anything. but you pretty much never mention limits, not even with a wide safety margin. when reading your posts it's like there simply are no known limits to anything, no maximum range for variations. maybe I'm going to live 500years eating only Pringles? maybe there is a giant taco on the moon? we shouldn't reject those ideas or any idea or any claim because we don't know enough to assume anything. that's been your systematic approach to all topics, so don't act surprised when people think you're a troll.
  I would consider that you understand reality and just forget to mention the obvious existence of limits in your arguments. but then I remember that you treated a claim to hear stuff at -300dB with about the same open mindedness I would use if someone had claimed to have eaten a pizza the week before. so clearly your way of considering events is flawed and most of your arguments seem to have an agenda toward "everything is always possible and unicorns are probably real". which is great for marketing people, but not so great for the average audiophile trying to make sense of things. 
yes people are different, they have different hearing abilities, they have different taste, they have different life experiences serving as database to interpret things, and probably they also have different wiring in the brain giving priority to different information. but nobody is feeling a difference at -300dB while playing music close to 0dB. nobody will go mad because the music is 0.02dB louder. nobody is actually feeling bad because he's missing 60khz and above in a song(maybe someone is feeling bad because he knows it's missing and has a nocebo effect, but that has nothing to do with sound). nobody runs the 100m race in 6seconds. at least not if you're human, but maybe with your way to never set a limit anywhere, you would argue that a Cheetah is human based on a lot of similar DNA and how they also have 2 eyes. 
so now I'm the troll, but this is the point I'm trying to make. if all you do weeks after weeks is arguing that we can't set any boundary, how is my cheetah example different from the stuff your defend? the cheetah can do 100M in 6s and maybe it can hear 60khz sounds clearly? IDK. so it's just a matter of how open minded we are about what's a human I guess. boundaries are relevant, your systematic kicking down of all limits is not helping us learn anything.

I've told you a bunch of times now, trying to reword the same issue again and again. if all you ever do is say that we can't conclude anything, that we don't absolutely know so maybe something something, you're not arguing for knowledge and truth. you're just another conspiracy theorist. 
and TBH if you were to apply that crap to your own daily life you couldn't even get out of your house. you'd go mad with paranoia and couldn't make any decision or do anything. stop pretending that everything needs to be an absolute certainty before we rely on it and accept it as factual. nothing in the world works that way(ok maybe some math).


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> I don't know if anyone has managed to identify specific patterns associated with things like distortion... and I suspect not.



I suspect there aren't identifiable patterns in brain scans for just about every metric of determining audio fidelity in home audio components. However, by comparing the results from controlled listening tests and measurements of various aspects of sound reproduction, it should be relatively simple to establish general thresholds of perception.

Guess what?! It's even been done!

Brain waves and solipsism are just red herrings to avoid the obvious conclusions one can draw from learning about objective testing and measurements. Brain waves might have some purpose in diagnosing brain disorders, but I don't see much purpose at all for solipsism.


----------



## KeithEmo

What gets sent to our brains is a series of tones and durations, which are initially processed into "sounds" (phonemes).
It is our brain that interprets those sounds as a word or name.

If you start out with a somewhat ambiguous set of sounds, then the slight differences we hear when listening through different speakers, or even our expectation bias, due to what we see, is more likely to "tip the balance one way or the other".
(And we all know that the small speakers common in cell phones are heavily biased towards higher frequencies.... and many of them also use artificial processing to further replace low frequencies with harmonics to improve the perceived sound quality.)

Notice that the McGurk effect works so well because it starts with a sound that is somewhat ambiguous..
Therefore, most of use would normally end up using a combination of context, and our observation of the lip movements, to resolve what sound we heard to begin with.
In the demo they removed the context (by saying the sound by itself).
This leaves ONLY the lip movement as a way to easily differentiate what is being said.

(Try the McGurk effect demo, only substitute "red" and "pet"... it won't work because the sounds there aren't ambiguous.)



Phronesis said:


> I get what you're saying, though this isn't how I see these terms used in the literature (which usually equates hearing with auditory perception).  But using your definition, I don't think you can say we hear both yanny and laurel (which are percepts, not signals), we just transmit an auditory nerve signal which ends up being perceived as either yanny or laurel.
> 
> I'm still kind of shocked that something I hear so clearly as laurel is heard by others as yanny.  The words don't seem remotely similar to me.  I wouldn't have thought it possible until I saw the evidence ...


----------



## bigshot (May 18, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> I'm in @KeithEmo's camp, where I tend to want a safety blanket of over-engineering to "guarantee" that any deficiency in the listening experience is down to the recording, or maybe an ache in my back, etc...



There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as you don't try to resort to twisted logic to try and show that the inaudible buffer you are building for yourself is somehow improving the sound audibly. The problem is when people apply buffers on top of existing buffers. CD sound is audibly transparent for. So is 24/96. So is DSD. To me, they're all the same because they all sound the same. Someone may just like the comfort that giant file sizes give them. That is fine as long as they realize what they're doing and don't try to convince themselves that they are getting better sound that way.

If I don't ever get into a situation where I'm on the "edge" because I don't listen to my stereo at 120dB, I have a normal noise floor in my listening room, and my ears fall within normal human range, there is nothing wrong with me not worrying about those "edge" situations. My sound isn't limited at all by not heaping on piles of overkill.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> .
> 
> it's not hard to understand, you just create your own opposition with the unilateral way you approach most discussions. you spam that people are different and that we don't know anything. but you pretty much never mention limits, not even with a wide safety margin. when reading your posts it's like there simply are no known limits to anything, no maximum range for variations. maybe I'm going to live 500years eating only Pringles? maybe there is a giant taco on the moon? we shouldn't reject those ideas or any idea or any claim because we don't know enough to assume anything. that's been your systematic approach to all topics, so don't act surprised when people think you're a troll.
> I would consider that you understand reality and just forget to mention the obvious existence of limits in your arguments. but then I remember that you treated a claim to hear stuff at -300dB with about the same open mindedness I would use if someone had claimed to have eaten a pizza the week before. so clearly your way of considering events is flawed and most of your arguments seem to have an agenda toward "everything is always possible and unicorns are probably real". which is great for marketing people, but not so great for the average audiophile trying to make sense of things.
> ...



Those are straw man arguments.  We've already been through the -300 dB thing, and I never claimed anyone is hearing anything at that level (nor did Rob Watts).  And of course there are limits to things.  The problem is that some people make absolute statements ruling things out completely (amps or DACs could sound different) based on theory or other bases which aren't conclusive, even when there's some evidence to the contrary.  Even allowing for the _possibility_ of small differences (which some people consider to be significant) is treated as heresy by some people around here.  If people want to pursue ideological agendas, that's fine, but don't say it's in the name of science.


----------



## bigshot (May 18, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Those are straw man arguments.
> 
> The problem is that some people make absolute statements ruling things out completely (amps or DACs could sound different) based on theory or other bases which aren't conclusive, even when there's some evidence to the contrary.



That is a straw man argument. I don't say that all amps sound the same. I say that every amp or DAC that I've ever bought has sounded the same, and I've made no effort to buy only high end equipment. I have a $40 Walmart DVD player that sounds just as good as my Oppo PM-1. My iPods, my blu-ray player, my Apple computers... they all sound the same. And I am confident about that because I have taken the time to prove it to myself by doing controlled tests.

As for evidence to the contrary, I have been waiting for someone to produce some solid evidence to prove that there are amps or DACs that sound different. Saying "I think there may be some out there." and "I think I may have heard a difference but I wasn't doing a controlled comparison" doesn't qualify as evidence. That is purely subjective and anecdotal.

Feel free to be the one who produces the evidence. I'll be as happy to learn about it as you are. I would love to tell people that every amp and DAC I know of sounds the same EXCEPT for the one Phronesis proved to me is audibly colored.

Just because there is a possibility that something exists, it doesn't mean that it does exist somewhere and we just don't know about it. If you want to prove a difference exists, you need to prove it with evidence, not speculation.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> OK, the first I want to reply to the part that PCM is perfect regarding the phase delay between the two channels
> 
> It is NOT.
> 
> Many, many generations of processors after those you've mentioned, such errors STILL occur. And, to the contrary of your claim, not only with the one historical combination, but MANY combinations that are in the use today.


Please be very, very specific, as in, lists the devices with such errors.


analogsurviver said:


> Want proof ? Record a square wave to any digital recording device in PCM - mono signal from a real hardware signal generator connected to both left and right channel input. You can check for the output using any oscilloscope fast enough not to introduce any error in phase coherence between the 2 channels by itself. Some slow digital (storage) oscilloscope might be not be good enough, but in general any oscilloscope should be suitable. Normally and usually, if the recording device is a soundcard and computer, the output of the DAC part of the soundcard will still be in sync at the output - IF you play back the recording ( or monitor the output during the recording ) using the very software as used for the recording in the first place.


Really?  You want to do this?  I have full capability for this pointless analysis, and could do it, but two things stop me.  1. It's more work than I usually put into a pointless test and 2. If you're already convinced, then even if I tested 4 different devices and showed they are perfectly compatible with each other, and play with no timing errors between L and R, you'd still take exception.

So, before I do even one bit of that, please post proof of this issue, it's magnitude, and specific test conditions, devices, etc.
Now store the PCM file just recorded to any storage you are normally using. Play back the PCM file loaded from this storage using the same soundcard with the same computer using ANOTHER playback software. You might still be lucky to still have the output in sync - but that is no longer guaranteed in all cases. It is perfectly possible for the error to occur as early as here.

Now send the same PCM file to a friend/acquaintance over the internet - which he/she will be playing on another computer with different settings, using yet another type of soundcard/DAC and yet another playback software. Of course, he/she still needs to check the output using an oscilloscope. He/she MIGHT get lucky to have the output of the both channels still in sync - but guaranteed is this definitely NOT.
[/quote]
Sure, I can do that, but see above.  I'm not going to just feed a troll.  When I see things like "send the PCM file to a friend over the internet", as if the internet causes timing errors, I get pretty suspicious of trolling.  

So, before I do any actual testing, let me ask if you'd accept this test protocol:

Generator: Wavetek function generator, capable of sine, square, triangle, and sweeps.
Test devices: I have available a Zoom H2, a Marantz digital recorder from the early 2000s, 3 different computers with sound cards, 3 external sound cards - and a couple of cassette decks. 

The analog function generator to generate test signals input to the recorders, both inputs connected together so they get identical signals, then the resulting files played back through a single high quality DAC and the output fed into a dual trace Tektronix oscilloscope to look for differences in timing.  The test signals could be square waves, but that really wouldn't be the best indicator of channel timing errors.  I'd suggest a high frequency log swept sine wave from say 5kHz up to 20kHz, and use the scope in X/Y mode.  That will be the most sensitive timing indicator.

Would any of that be valid, or do you have some other method?  This is NOT a promise to test, it's a request for more information.


analogsurviver said:


> Just because I did not post the evidence of such an error in this thread, that does not mean I did not do the basic testing.
> For details, you can read my review of the iFi Micro iDSD Black Label DAC at
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/users/335227/reviews .
> ...


So, your "proof" is a dead link, and you don't want to be bothered to post it all again?  Yeah...not going to work around here.

Oh...and one other thing... have you done the same square wave test on your cassette recorder and compared the results?  Would you like to see some of the interchannel timing errors typical of a cassette deck?


----------



## jgazal (May 18, 2018)

Imho, the areas where the industry can really improve are not in hardware, but in sound processing.

I would love to see a “pseudo blind test” using Dr. Choueiri Bacch-HOA with fourth-order High-Order-Ambisonics-to-binaural rendering with individualized HRTFs and 6-degree-of-freedom navigation of the rendered 3D sound field navigation:




I mean “pseudo” because the idea is to use a virtual reality headset with stereoscopic visual simulations that match the soundfield and evidently omits the hardware equipment.

Change dacs, amplifiers, speakers or headphones at your will. Just recalibrate the algorithm with his binaural microphone with any change.

How many users do you think will be able to detect any change in hardware?

Do you think the percentage of people detecting differences in transducers (speakers/headphones) will be higher than in dacs/amplifiers?

I am really curious to know.


----------



## bigshot

You don't need to do a blind test to determine if DSPs make a difference. They obviously do. All you have to do is try them and see if you like them. I like that. I'll try anything twice.


----------



## james444

KeithEmo said:


> I would assume that it's possible that a barely heard voice might fail to be noticed consciously...
> But might increase your stress level... which would show up on an MRI.
> This isn't at all unlikely - because our brains are quite effective at blocking out our awareness of things when we are concentrating elsewhere.
> Our subconscious actually processes the information and then discards it... much as you might step over a crack or obstacle on the sidewalk but not remember doing so afterwards.
> Some estimates are that as little as 5% of what we see actually "reaches" our conscious mind, while much of it is "processed at a lower level".



An example that probably many people can relate to is subconsciously processed background music in a supermarket. If you'd question me right after leaving one of these shops, I couldn't for the life of me say for sure, wherher they had music on or not, because I've been consciously focussing on gathering things in my shopping cart. Yet there's ample research showing that this (subconsciously processed) background music has a significant effect on our shopping habits.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> The answers are apparent from the example. It's ideally supposed to sound like Laurel to all listeners, but some listeners are apparently hearing it as Yanny because of issues with distortion, noise, etc. There needs to be better recording and/or fidelity.



You seem to be arguing against yourself and agreeing with my argument! Assuming that it is "supposed to sound like Laurel" and that it sometimes sounds like Yanni due to "distortion, noise, etc." then as you now appear to agree, it must be a function of the recording/audio creation and NOT a function of the reproduction equipment. If, as you've previously asserted, it should be a function of the reproduction equipment, then we end up with some nonsensical questions: You know it's supposed to sound like "Laurel" but how would say a DAC know? Even if it could somehow know, how would it know what is "distortion, noise, etc." and remove it to just leave the content pertaining to "Laurel" and how would such processing apply to music, where "distortion, noise, etc." is commonly not only a desirable but a vital component of music?

I've already effectively asked you these questions but you conveniently ignored them and just carried on arguing anyway. This implies your response to my question "How does any of this make any sense to you?" is effectively: "By conveniently ignoring any logic/facts which would invalidate or contradict your agenda." Which leads to what conclusion? Which in turn means you're just going round in circles, YET AGAIN!



KeithEmo said:


> I don't know if this has been shown to occur with hearing, but it most certainly has been shown to occur with our other senses, including sight... The eye actually PHYSICALLY sees or fails to see certain things depending on what the brain has "told it to look for".
> ... Our ears DO NOT function "like a microphone connected to a meter"; it's more like "a microphone that is controlled by and sends its output to a really complicated computer".



Is there any evidence there's a feedback mechanism from perception which actually changes the physical response of our ears? Sure, we have the example of TTS but isn't that an autonomic physiological response (to protect from damage) rather than a result of perception (which is defined as the organisation, identification and interpretation by the brain)? Assuming a microphone with the exact response of a human's ear, isn't that what is actually "heard" and then the brain processes (perceives) all that information, for example discards much it, depending on what we're focusing on?

I'm not sure the analogy with sight works here, the eye has a limited "field of vision" and a "blind spot" and in addition has a number of adjustable physiological features: We can move our eyeballs, the aperture of the iris can change size and the eye lens can change shape. It's entirely plausible therefore that the eye will physically see or not see things depending on what the brain has told it to look for. But what adjustable features does the ear have? Assuming healthy ears, there is no aural equivalent to a blind spot, no point within the "field of vision" where we physically hear nothing and no adjustable physiological feature within the ear to cope with such an aural blind spot anyway. The same is true for visual focus, if we focus on something close we cannot physically see (or see clearly) something in the distance, the eye lens has to change shape but this isn't the case with the ears and there's no adjustable physical feature of the ear to achieve this anyway  If there's nothing which is physiologically adjustable, what is there for perception to adjust? The only adjustable feature of the ear I'm aware of is the tension of the eardrum, which is perhaps somewhat comparable to the aperture of the iris, but again, as far as I know eardrum tension adjustment is autonomous, not linked to perception and simply adjusts overall level (like a pad on a mic).

My view on all this is not fixed, I'm perfectly willing to change it, given some reliable evidence.



analogsurviver said:


> OK, the first I want to reply to the part that PCM is perfect regarding the phase delay between the two channels ... It is NOT. .. Want proof ?



Yes, please provide some and it better be quite extraordinary, as you're contradicting well demonstrated/known facts! Like pinnahertz, I'd also advise you to use a legal signal, as using a signal which is illegal and cannot exist may affect your testing equipment/results. Again, actual evidence or you're just making up nonsense/trolling!!

G


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Please be very, very specific, as in, lists the devices with such errors.
> 
> Really?  You want to do this?  I have full capability for this pointless analysis, and could do it, but two things stop me.  1. It's more work than I usually put into a pointless test and 2. If you're already convinced, then even if I tested 4 different devices and showed they are perfectly compatible with each other, and play with no timing errors between L and R, you'd still take exception.
> 
> ...


Sure, I can do that, but see above.  I'm not going to just feed a troll.  When I see things like "send the PCM file to a friend over the internet", as if the internet causes timing errors, I get pretty suspicious of trolling. 

So, before I do any actual testing, let me ask if you'd accept this test protocol:

Generator: Wavetek function generator, capable of sine, square, triangle, and sweeps.
Test devices: I have available a Zoom H2, a Marantz digital recorder from the early 2000s, 3 different computers with sound cards, 3 external sound cards - and a couple of cassette decks.

The analog function generator to generate test signals input to the recorders, both inputs connected together so they get identical signals, then the resulting files played back through a single high quality DAC and the output fed into a dual trace Tektronix oscilloscope to look for differences in timing.  The test signals could be square waves, but that really wouldn't be the best indicator of channel timing errors.  I'd suggest a high frequency log swept sine wave from say 5kHz up to 20kHz, and use the scope in X/Y mode.  That will be the most sensitive timing indicator.

Would any of that be valid, or do you have some other method?  This is NOT a promise to test, it's a request for more information.
So, your "proof" is a dead link, and you don't want to be bothered to post it all again?  Yeah...not going to work around here.

Oh...and one other thing... have you done the same square wave test on your cassette recorder and compared the results?  Would you like to see some of the interchannel timing errors typical of a cassette deck?[/QUOTE]
OK, the answer to ALL of the above nin principle is : yes. 

I absolutely HATE uploading photos to the third party for posting in forums, but if there's no other chance, I'll do it again.

Except for the remark regarding the square wave - as displaying the rise time difference of BOTH channels can show not only the fact that there is an error, but how much this error actually is. And you will see that this error amounts to EXACTLY the rise time in whatever sampling frequency the PCM is. Any sweep is more difficult to asses, as it is then required that the sweep frequency range and sweep rate are the same. Unfortunately, I do not own anything comparable to Wavetek signal generator, mine being a Conrad ( something pretty equivalent to Radio Shack in USA, but from Germany, now operating in most of Europe ) kit build around XR2206  signal generator kit - from about 1985 - with no other than hand operated "sweep". And I still curse the day I spilled my tea on perhaps the most useful scopes for audio - the Hameg HM 203-5, a 20 MHz unit, which has a VERY user friendly X/Y setting - UNLIKE "better", higher up in line Hameg models . 
TBH, the Tektronix I replaced it with "reminded" me WHY I decided for the Hameg in the first place; first, it has usable sensitivity of 2mV/div (Tek 5mV/div, MUCH noisier ... ) - something that is ABSOLUTELY essential for the better phono cartridge channel separation measurements; second, I still did not figure out how to get the X/Y on Tek; third, sensitivity settings on Tek are a nightmare with anything but Tek probes; fourth - Tek, being a 100 Mhz analogue scope with *some* digital storage, absolutely requires fan for the operation - the noise of which I could not hate with a greater passion...  Needless to say, that Hameg model holds its price in the used market pretty well !

First, I admit is is a LOT of work. What folows is a LOOOONG description of similar work done in the past; although interesting reading with facts most do not know about, you might want skip to the very bootom regarding the proposed tests for PCM being out of sync. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, I am "spoiled" from channel sinchronization to be PERFECT with phono cartridges. I am the notorious nightmare to phono cartridge manufacturers in this regard - and will insist on getting a sample that does it *right*. I have accumulated enough experience to "see" from the measurement of a "turntable" to know how will it basically sound - as well as learned to use test records NOT for their nominally recorded signals, but for their ERRORS. If 2 or more test records display ALWAYS the same  error "in one direction or another" when tested by X cartridges ( X >> 10 ) and those X cartridges appear to be reasonably "fair and square" under the high powered microscope, there is no other conclusion but the test records are/were off. 
The only phono cartridge manufacturer that used to supply any proof of channel sinchronization ( and hence stylus tip alignment, generator symmetry, etc ) has been - once upon a time - Van den Hul. He used to supply a pink noise X/Y display from a test record - which "miracolously" dissapeared at some point in time. 

I had a chance to buy a relatively LARGE quantity of Technics RS-AZ 6 and, particularly, RS-AZ7 cassette decks when our Technics distributor went bankrupt. And, I DID test them - all of them. Why -  if not for the chanel sinchronization being *next to perfect* - did I select the only RS-AZ7 deck with non-functioning cassette compartment light for my actual recording ? The timing error of this particular sample is within less than 5 degrees at 20 kHz ... -  but, I agree, this is FAR above the "normal" quality even for R2R , let alone cassette decks. BTW, RS-AZ 6/7 feature Automatic Tape Clibration - and that ATC proved to work sooooo extremely well that I am not letting it do its magic only on each cassette used, but on EACH SIDE of any single given cassette ... If you are not familiar with the service manual for the RS-AZ6/7, be prepared for a shock - over 60 pages .... ; More electronics inside these decks than in most people's  entire audio systems ( if we exclude digital ). 
You are right in stating the transport is the Aichille's heel of the RS-AZ6/7D; I did consider transplanting heads and electronics from RS-AZ7 to either Revox or, even better, Eumig FL-1000 mechanics. With the advent of the DSD, no longer reasonable.
It was not funny to realize that Nakamichi resorted to cheating; Technics did approach Naka for the calibration tapes, and after Nakamichi realized just what the beast RS-AZ7 is, supplied to Technics calibration tapes that were approx 2 dB off in level - making Technics units less than optimal with any prerecorded cassette . I tested the whole bunch of my RS-AZs with the calibration tape made by the german Audio magazine - recorded in real time, on some 30 or so parallel running Revox top cassete recorders that have been additionally each calibrated in situ, to a BASF Type II cassete, known for the extremely low noise and tape sensitivity consistency. And - ALL  the RS-AZs tested "perfectly wrong" - for those 2 or so dBs - with differences among them being << 0.5 dB. If the cassette is recorded and played back on the stock adjusted/calibrated RS-AZ, this limitation of course no longer applies - but playing the cassette recorded on stock calibrated RS-AZs on another, properly calibrated cassette recorder will again be off. 
Hate it when something like this occurs ... and even more so if made deliberately.

If you go and test (S)VHS recorders for audio, you WILL find out that they test not *next to perfect* for channel sinchronization, but - PERFECT.  I am using Panasonic units NV-FS 90 and NV-FS100 - which have other model numbers in the USA IIRC - and were also available rebranded as Blaupunkt in Germany ( with - maybe - some slight totally umninportant change ). Compared to ANY "straight" tape machine, be it R2R or cassette, video recorders with rotary heads display not only much better, but perfect square wave response - also MUCH better than any 44.1/16 PCM device ever will. At least the above mentioned models with amorphous heads also display zero "head bumps" in the low frequencies ; -3dB at approx 5 Hz .

The assertion regarding the audibiility of the High Com action does hold for the original Telefunken CN-750 - for which there were MANY modifications regarding the RC constants that would make its operation acceptable. Nakamichi took it one whole level higher - High Coim II is  "two way" system, where RC constants that proved to be impossible to set satisfactory to cover the whole frequency and dynamic range in a full range system, are first divided into two way, similar to a loudspeakeer network, and within each way the setting for RC  constant now proves much more manageable. In short - High Com II  was - and still is - the most transparent noise reduction system. It is the only one that passes perfect square waves through the whole compander/expander process. Naka did copy the errors Telefunken originally made - mainly regarding the power supply ... - which does NOT work stable under the dynamic conditions - as presented by any music - EXACTLY at the point where the power supply should be absolutely rock stable; the High Com chip itself... The result is the pumping in rhytm with the music, which can be get rid of for good by introducing a well regulated power supply at each and every single High Com chip .

You are quite right regarding problems of rotating heads with video recorders. BUT - apply a modified High Com II from above to video recorder - and all the troubles get reduced by the at least ANOTHER 20 dB. ( all said and done spec : FR 5Hz - 23 kHz +0 - 3dB, 6dB/octave falling above 20 kHz, channel separation 20-20k > 80 dB, S/N >> 80 dB, perfect channel sinchronization, wow & flutter < 0.03% ) In the end, you should find that TEMPERATURE is the main enemy of video recorders used for audio - the solution being the biggest meanest model Panasonic ever made available, a two stories high ( compared to normal units, TWICE the height ) unit, with fans and, if required, "heating" - since that feared "frrr" modulation noise in the video recorder is, unfortunately, extremely temperature dependant. With just the right setting, it can be reduced below objectionability - but that holds then JUST for a certain, very small temperature range. In practice, it takes about half an hour - or more - for a video recorder to reach its operating temperature. No way a customer, either in a store or a service center (after complaint/repair) is likely to wait half an hour or more - so most video recorders were adjusted to work well just a few minutes after being switched on - to pass that initial test in a store or service center. Only to drift out of the optimum setting once actually reaching the operating temperature... I have only once seen that behemoth of Panasonic video recorder for sale on german ebay, it was STILL  priced waaaay above what video recorders sold then for (early 2000s) - which prompted me to investigate further to find the MSRP of the thing when new. 15000 German Marks - the apporox equivalent of $ 7500 - in about 1985 time. Ouchhhh ... And, I am still kicking myself for not getting that two stories beast at what proved to be the only chance I will ever likely have.

I recorded the first commercially avilable album with my recording using both highly modified CD-R and ( video recorder + modified High Com II ).  You should have seen the faces of the producer, conductor and singers - after listening to the CD-R, they *mercifully, out of the pity* listened to the "stoopid old fashioned video recording" .  You should have seen their jaws dropped ... And, yes, about a third of the recording actually released on the CD stems from the analogue video recording ... - the reason why there is no greater portion from video recording is the fact that "hunting" for JUST the right temperature in order to avoid the dreaded "frrr" proved too time consuming. 
But side by side, while listening to monitor from both CD-R and video recording , both fed from the same binaural mics during the actual recording, video recorder as described above ( AND with the premium tape for audio , now NLA ) - runs rings around the CD. No problems with that dreaded "frrr" modulation during monitoring of the just recorded signal... - if anything approaching stable reproduction of (pre)recorded video tapes could have been achieved , first at all, then at a reasonable price, I doubt 44.1/16 would EVER make it commercially. Of course, digital would still win in the long run for obvious reasons, but I do believe the mainstream digital that could sonically displace video recorder as described would run at least at 88.2 kHz sampling rate.

BTW - that super tape  (VHS, not SVHS) used to be made in the most advanced tape facility in the world ever - Swiis built RAKS in Turkey. Now sadly defunct. Compared to that tape ( admittedly, quite expensive ) , anything offered by TDK, Maxell, BASF, etc was - pathetic. It was a multilayer tape, with each layer optimized for its intended purpose, video and audio respectively.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So - I have 2 computers, each with soundcard (capable of recording PCM up to 48kHz/24bit - save for somewhat bumpy frequency response with few ripples, otherwise quite presentable ), 2 external USB soundcards ( aka ADC + DAC combinations ), one up to 48kHz, another up to 192kHz, Korg MR-1  ( records from MP3 192 kbps up to DSD64 and PCM192/24 ) , Korg MR-1000 ( records from PCM 44.1/16 to 192/24 to DSD128 ) - and MAYBE I will get one of the CD-R recorders going again. I can add the cassete deck and video cassete deck for comparison purposes - with or without the HighCom II. I have a Revox R2R ( IIRC a very early A-77 ) somewhere - but have not seen it in decade(s) and do not have tapes.

Whichever other recording/playback softwares used, one HAS to be included : Foobar2000, configured also for native DSD playback
( you might already guess where this might be eventually leading to ...). 

Other software I (ocassionally ) use for either recording and/or playback - AND - not to FORGET, for the conversion of DSD to PCM :
1.Korg Audiogate 2, 3 ( extremely rare, superseded for all practical purposesby 4 )  and 4 , 
2.Adobe Audition 1.5, ( well, I got to have something capable of still working with Sony HD Minidisc and its horribly slow SonicStage software; on the plus side, MD  is allegedly the most secure digital storage ever )
3.Adobe CC 2014,
4.Audacity ( experience with it : aboout 15 minutes ...  - because it does include RIAA filter, used on a laptop with external soundcard capable of taking signal from a MM cartridge in a pinch if there is no proper phono equalizer available ),
5.jRiver 19 ( which I found far too bothersome to install in my laptop, as it is a VERY "predatory" software - IF one does not uncheck practically every type of file to be opened in it, but particularly bothersome with DSD ( it then "usurps" any hardware capable of native DSD playback, meaning the same hardware has to be - again after each time opened in jriver ) - manually selected to be used in Fooobar2000 or any other software. Because of this, I did not proceed with upgrades, etc.

Question - HOW should be displays fom the analogue oscilloscope presented ? I have photo or video from the smartphone as the only possibility ... also because of this, the square wave - or better said, the rise or fall time portion of it, with time setting chosen to include any channel delay - SHOULD be the agreed upon signal of choice.  Could we agree on that ? 

Alternative could also be a file of some sweep - recorded say in a single channel, output from the playback device sent to both channels of the Device Under Test ( DUT in further test ) via Y  splitter - then " bussiness as usual " . The result on the scope presented as photo ? video ?


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> , as you're contradicting well demonstrated/known facts! Like pinnahertz, I'd also advise you to use a legal signal, as using a signal which is illegal and cannot exist may affect your testing equipment/results. Again, actual evidence or you're just making up nonsense/trolling!!
> 
> G



Well, I hope you agree that a square wave ( MUCH faster than any digital recorder yet made can possibly record ) from a signal generator is a legal signal to you.

Were it not for the fact that after the last big change on head-fi all previously photos uploaded directly to head-fi have gone poof, you would already have the evidence in the link that I only yesterday found was now dead. 

Before proceeding any further, I will re-upload the photos to some third party photo sharing site/service.


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 19, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I hope you agree that a square wave ( MUCH faster than any digital recorder yet made can possibly record ) from a signal generator is a legal signal to you.
> 
> Were it not for the fact that after the last big change on head-fi all previously photos uploaded directly to head-fi have gone poof, you would already have the evidence in the link that I only yesterday found was now dead.
> 
> Before proceeding any further, I will re-upload the photos to some third party photo sharing site/service.


You may use my mega Sir pm me for Pw
As long as you keep my elephant alive


----------



## james444

gregorio said:


> Sure, we have the example of TTS but isn't that an autonomic physiological response (to protect from damage) rather than a result of perception (which is defined as the organisation, identification and interpretation by the brain)?



It's probably a lot more sophisticated than just an autonomic damage protection response:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/tensor-tympani-muscle


----------



## skwoodwiva

james444 said:


> It's probably a lot more sophisticated than just an autonomic damage protection response:
> 
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/tensor-tympani-muscle


Not as many points a you have HPs, lol.
You expect people here to read thick stuff?

Thanks for more elephant food


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Question - HOW should be displays fom the analogue oscilloscope presented ? I have photo or video from the smartphone as the only possibility ... also because of this, the square wave - or better said, the rise or fall time portion of it, with time setting chosen to include any channel delay - SHOULD be the agreed upon signal of choice.  Could we agree on that ?


Rise time and channel synch are two different things.  One implies different bandwidth limitations, the other time differential.  However, both should be identical.  In the case of channel synch, the X/Y Lissajou type display would be the most sensitive to differential as small differences in time synch will cause phase differences at high frequencies.  If you pick 20kHz and standardize on that for all devices you can see tiny differences in time as what should be a straight 45 degree trace opens into a loop.  Hard to measure specific figures that way, but it's very clear that tiny ones are there.  I have a phase meter that reads out in degrees which can be translated to time if frequency is known.


analogsurviver said:


> Alternative could also be a file of some sweep - recorded say in a single channel, output from the playback device sent to both channels of the Device Under Test ( DUT in further test ) via Y  splitter - then " bussiness as usual " . The result on the scope presented as photo ? video ?


The reason I suggested a specific sweep was that it will show if the phase error is strictly time related or caused by some other fault.  Please don't use a full spectrum log sweep, we only care about the high end, so 1K-20K linear would be fine and shouldn't be hard to generate.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Rise time and channel synch are two different things.  One implies different bandwidth limitations, the other time differential.  However, both should be identical.  In the case of channel synch, the X/Y Lissajou type display would be the most sensitive to differential as small differences in time synch will cause phase differences at high frequencies.  If you pick 20kHz and standardize on that for all devices you can see tiny differences in time as what should be a straight 45 degree trace opens into a loop.  Hard to measure specific figures that way, but it's very clear that tiny ones are there.  I have a phase meter that reads out in degrees which can be translated to time if frequency is known.
> 
> The reason I suggested a specific sweep was that it will show if the phase error is strictly time related or caused by some other fault.  Please don't use a full spectrum log sweep, we only care about the high end, so 1K-20K linear would be fine and shouldn't be hard to generate.


O, damn "semantics" ... What I meant was to display the sreen of an oscilloscope with time/div selected in a such way to allow showing BOTH channels, with BOTH (equal ) rise(or fall) times - 
1. In case there is no sinchronization error, that would, of course, be a single trace. Time/div can be selected to display the rise/fall time across the whole width of the screen.
2. BUT, if there is sync error, there WILL  be two traces visible - and, since the delay in PCM  in this case is exactly the amount of the rise time, that mens time/div has to be selected at half the setting of the above. 

I know how the Lissajou patterns look like - no sync error means 45 degree straight line (whatever the signal shape ), but one channel delayed relative to the other looks similar to the hysteresis curve in magnetic materials. And how "thick" this "hysteresis" looks like, is directly proportionally dependant on the sampling rate.

There are sweeps available online that go at least to 96 kHz - and we can agree exactly which file to use for the sweep.

Although it is not possible to gain any frequency response from upsampling the 44.1kHz recording, it IS possible to gain audible improvement by upsampling if there has been any problem(s) with the synchronization. 

Searching my two computers and varios HDs and RAIDs at the time for the photos/files to be uploaded ... hope to find them soon. Had a major trouble with one disk of the RAID5 and had to "reshuffle" some/much content  - they must be somewhere, but it will take some time ...


----------



## analogsurviver

analogsurviver said:


> O, damn "semantics" ... What I meant was to display the sreen of an oscilloscope with time/div selected in a such way to allow showing BOTH channels, with BOTH (equal ) rise(or fall) times -
> 1. In case there is no sinchronization error, that would, of course, be a single trace. Time/div can be selected to display the rise/fall time across the whole width of the screen.
> 2. BUT, if there is sync error, there WILL  be two traces visible - and, since the delay in PCM  in this case is exactly the amount of the rise time, that mens time/div has to be selected at half the setting of the above.
> 
> ...


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> O, damn "semantics" ... What I meant was to display the sreen of an oscilloscope with time/div selected in a such way to allow showing BOTH channels, with BOTH (equal ) rise(or fall) times -
> 1. In case there is no sinchronization error, that would, of course, be a single trace. Time/div can be selected to display the rise/fall time across the whole width of the screen.
> 2. BUT, if there is sync error, there WILL  be two traces visible - and, since the delay in PCM  in this case is exactly the amount of the rise time, that mens time/div has to be selected at half the setting of the above.


Well, that's improper use of a dual trace scope, but whatever. Dual trace will be dual trace unless you change the vertical position so they're on top of each other.  But if you do that you won't know which came first.


analogsurviver said:


> I know how the Lissajou patterns look like - no sync error means 45 degree straight line (whatever the signal shape ), but one channel delayed relative to the other looks similar to the hysteresis curve in magnetic materials. And how "thick" this "hysteresis" looks like, is directly proportionally dependant on the sampling rate.


Thick?  No, it's a loop.  45 degree strait trace rising up to the right is in phase, 90 degrees out of phase is a circle, 180 is a 45 degree straight line rising to the left.  


analogsurviver said:


> There are sweeps available online that go at least to 96 kHz - and we can agree exactly which file to use for the sweep.
> 
> Although it is not possible to gain any frequency response from upsampling the 44.1kHz recording, it IS possible to gain audible improvement by upsampling if there has been any problem(s) with the synchronization.
> 
> Searching my two computers and varios HDs and RAIDs at the time for the photos/files to be uploaded ... hope to find them soon. Had a major trouble with one disk of the RAID5 and had to "reshuffle" some/much content  - they must be somewhere, but it will take some time ...


Before we dig it too far, why don't you state specifically what the least and worst PCM interchannel timing errors were that you've measured...even from memory.  I don't want to chase geese...either of us.


----------



## analogsurviver (May 19, 2018)

Ok, a loop - "semantics 2". How "hick" is this loop - or how "stretched" it is from the ideal straight line, is directly proportional to the sampling rate. So, for a 20 kHz bandwidth, the rise time is approx 14 microseconds ( 44.1 sampling is close to that , it is a bit slower ). The delay is ALWAYS exactly this amount of rise time - meaning that the other channel starts only after the first has already reched its full value.

And, I DO know WHICH CHANNEL IS WHICH AND WHICH IS FORWARD AND WHICH IS LAGGING - always use upper trace for the left and lower trace for the right channel, for over 30 years...


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Ok, a loop - "semantics 2". How "hick" is this loop - or how "stretched" it is from the ideal straight line, is directly proportional to the sampling rate. So, for a 20 kHz bandwidth, the rise time is approx 14 microseconds ( 44.1 sampling is close to that , it is a bit slower ). The delay is ALWAYS exactly this amount of rise time - meaning that the other channel starts only after the first has already reched its full value.
> 
> And, I DO know WHICH CHANNEL IS WHICH AND WHICH IS FORWARD AND WHICH IS LAGGING - always use upper trace for the left and lower trace for the right channel, for over 30 years...


Ok, 14uS.  Now, please calculate for me what that works out to as the difference in acoustic path length.

And please look up the definition of "rise time" while you're at it.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Ok, 14uS.  Now, please calculate for me what that works out to as the difference in acoustic path length.
> 
> And please look up the definition of "rise time" while you're at it.


Oh... - anyone can do that.

The catch is HOW does it sound. In case of IEMs, the transducers are at  fixed position relative to the actual ear drum as possible. With other headphone types, all it takes is  not to move the headphones on your head while comparing files with different lags - or the same file upsampled to different sampling rates. 
Provided that PCM chain actually has a time delay between the channels to begin with.

And I will give you a VERY easy test to try it for yourself - and you WILL hear how audible and disturbing this rise time ( or whatever you want to call it ) lag is - and how detrimental to the reproduction it really is.

I have been struggling to get it right my whole analogue life. Once you something you fought for long enough take for granted, you want to keep it - period. After you've heard it right, it will be really hard to settle for less.

If anything is preventing being both channels really in sync  - well, it won't be doing that for long - not at my place !


----------



## jthew

My take, based on the original post on this thread:

Equal loudness curves (Fletcher-Munson) are real and very powerful.  They have a HUGE and indisputable affect on the way things sound.  In fact, the effect is so big that it probably overwhelms most other differences in our music playback systems.  Sure folks TRY to volume compensate.  My suspicion is that many of the perceived differences in gear is just volume related.

And what do we all do when we get a new piece of audio gear?  Up goes the excitement, and up goes the volume, and yup, it sounds better.


----------



## Phronesis

jthew said:


> My take, based on the original post on this thread:
> 
> Equal loudness curves (Fletcher-Munson) are real and very powerful.  They have a HUGE and indisputable affect on the way things sound.  In fact, the effect is so big that it probably overwhelms most other differences in our music playback systems.  Sure folks TRY to volume compensate.  My suspicion is that many of the perceived differences in gear is just volume related.
> 
> And what do we all do when we get a new piece of audio gear?  Up goes the excitement, and up goes the volume, and yup, it sounds better.



I guess we can all save money by buying cheap transducers and turning the volume up.


----------



## gregorio (May 19, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I hope you agree that a square wave ( MUCH faster than any digital recorder yet made can possibly record ) from a signal generator is a legal signal to you.



What do you mean a square wave is much faster than any digital recorder yet made? You've apparently got all these years of experience yet you can tell when a soundstage keeps reversing and now it's clear you don't know what a square wave is, and bizarrely you still don't know even after it's been explained to you! Why do we always end up here, how is it possible to apparently have so much experience but so little ability to hear the basics and to get pretty much every single fact about audio and recording wrong? It's inconceivable!

Again, of course a square wave rise time is quicker than any digital recorder, it's infinitely quicker, because a square wave does not have a rise time, it's rise time is zero and is therefore quicker than everything, including the laws of physics themselves! It's quicker than electrons in an analogue signal can move, it's quicker than air molecules can move and it's quicker than an eardrum can move. For this reason, a square wave is an illegal digital signal and CANNOT EXIST in the real world, either as an analogue signal or as an acoustic sound wave. How many times do you need this explaining?

Answer this: In all your apparent years of live binaural recording, how many square waves have you recorded? If that's too difficult a question, I'll answer it for you: NONE AT ALL because square waves do not and cannot exist as acoustic sound waves and therefore you cannot record them! The only exception would be if you record in a different universe (one where Einstein was completely wrong) and have binaural mic's with capsule response times infinitely faster than the speed of light. To be honest, this sci-fi scenario is almost more believable than the actual scenario you present, of having done this for years but can't hear the basics and have pretty much every audio fact wrong or completely backwards! Before you just keep banging on with this nonsense, why don't you just go an find out the basics of what a square wave is, how one is generated (approximated) in the first place and how the ear responds to that approximation? While you're at it, some basic knowledge of digital audio theory would stop you from repeatedly making another whole bunch of factual errors and nonsense assertions!!

G


----------



## Phronesis (May 19, 2018)

I'd like to report some preliminary results of improved listening tests I did this morning.

I ran one iPhone X into my Mojo, and another iPhone X into my Hugo 2.  Each DAC/amp was run into a passive headphone switchbox, with the volume of the switchbox set to max (I would have preferred a switchbox which didn't have a volume pot, but I used what I have).  I first used tracks from Phronesis (jazz trio) using Spotify Extreme (320k), then a track from Jazz Pistols (another jazz trio) using Tidal Hi-Fi.  I initially matched volume by ear using a '2k noise' track, and then by ear using music.  With Spotify, I used Meze 99 Classics and Audeze LCD-3 headphones, and with Tidal the LCD-3.

The listening tests were sighted, though I sometimes forgot which was which, since I was frequently toggling the A/B switch back and forth.

I was listening for differences between the DAC/amps similar to the impression I've formed over the past few months: better defined bass, more detail, and larger stage for the Hugo 2.  I wasn't interested in miniscule differences, I was interested in differences which were fairly obvious.

My general finding based on this limited testing is that I did NOT hear the differences I expected to hear.  If there were any audible differences at all, I didn't notice them under my test conditions, so I don't really see a need to continue to blind testing.  Any such differences appeared too small to matter for me.  I was certainly 'stressed' when doing this testing, and not listening the way I normally would, but my *guess* is that this didn't substantially impair my ability to hear significant differences.  I suspect that the main reasons I didn't notice the differences in this testing, that I heard in previous comparisons, are: (a) I was able to instantly switch between A and B, rather than having seconds of delay, (b) I was better able to match the segments of music I listened to, and (c) I matched levels more closely than before.  So even with a sighted test, it's possible to have better or worse protocols, and the previous protocol was likely too uncontrolled.

I'm going to do further testing, but my _tentative_ working conclusions right now are that (a) I was overconfident in my assessment that I had heard a consistent difference and (b) at least for me, under conditions similar to my test conditions, the Mojo and Hugo 2 sound essentially the same.  I'm also willing to speculate that the differences which the vast majority of other listeners perceive they hear are mainly due to biases rather than real audible differences.

I'm not unhappy that I bought the Hugo 2, since I wanted an additional DAC/amp anyway, and the extra cost wasn't a big concern for me (plus I like the cross-feed feature).  Maybe I can even go on assuming that it offers subtle sound quality benefits which I missed in my testing so far, possibly at a subconscious level and/or under more normal listening conditions.

However, for people who would be straining their finances to 'upgrade' their DACs, amps, cables, and other components where difference in sound isn't as obvious as transducers, I recommend that they at least do back to back critical listening tests, even if they don't go on to do blind tests.  I think the type of testing I did actually has some advantages over blind testing and statistical analysis, because it's focused on comparing sound impressions back to back and judging how significant they are for the purpose of enjoying music, rather than trying to 'pass a test' at some level of statistical significance (which is prone to false positives associated with 'tells' in poorly conducted tests, and doesn't indicate anything about the significance of any detected differences).


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> What do you mean a square wave is much faster than any digital recorder yet made? You've apparently got all these years of experience yet you can tell when a soundstage keeps reversing and now it's clear you don't know what a square wave is, and bizarrely you still don't know even after it's been explained to you! Why do we always end up here, how is it possible to apparently have so much experience but so little ability to hear the basics and to get pretty much every single fact about audio and recording wrong? It's inconceivable!
> 
> Again, of course a square wave rise time is quicker than any digital recorder, it's infinitely quicker, because a square wave does not have a rise time, it's rise time is zero and is therefore quicker than everything, including the laws of physics themselves! It's quicker than electrons in an analogue signal can move, it's quicker than air molecules can move and it's quicker than an eardrum can move. For this reason, a square wave is an illegal digital signal and CANNOT EXIST in the real world, either as an analogue signal or as an acoustic sound wave. How many times do you need this explaining?
> 
> ...


G - enough of that, please. We are both describing the same thing from different perspective - and it is getting tiring you latching to any word I do put wrong here and there.

You are also - quite a bit - overconfident of what can and can not happen in real musical event, or to be precise, how a particular form of sound recorded to a real world sound carrier or file can - or can not - look like as a form displayed on an oscilloscope. You definitely can not have more experience than myself in these matters - only about equal , and here has to be added - at best.

Why? Because I have been FORCED to listen while observing the oscilloscope - or observing while listening, if you like it better this way - during the development phase for the amplifier that drives the electrostatic earspeaker system directly. LOTS of hours, with any music that seemed to be problematic at first. The more I listened, the more I saw on the scope, the better the amp has been becoming during the development. 

Say - over the period of 4 years ... - from about 1985 to 1989. And >> 20 kHz also stems from this research, I stopped only then when any possible improvement would mean yet another doubling the output power capability of the amp - with the thing I settled for already having a constant power consumption in excess of 500 VA. 

BEFORE you latch to the fact that "you can not possibly need such power for HEADPHONES" - read above again - and start to THINK.

And, guess what ? To my greatest astoinishment, I DID MANAGE TO FIND ALMOST PERFECT SQUARE WAVE ALIKE SIGNALS IN MUSIC FROM LP.  And, before you latch to the last ditch resort, those signals were well within the performance envelope, no electrical clipping and no mechanical mistracking. Just how "fiercely poisoneous" these signals must be, given the fact that a square wave on a vinyl record in reality has physical triangular shape (math..) - and has to be observed on the scope when played back by a velocity sensitive transducer (any cartridge that works with induction) with a LINEAR amplification, not trough the RIAA equalized phono stage - that is, if a bit oversimplified, a 6dB/octave low-pass filter above 3 kHz  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization. A square wave from a test record played with magnetic cartridge trough the  usual RIAA filter looks much like a shark's fin swimming into the  left direction, with the trailing edge looking to the right  being an almost straight steep line, but obviously NOT capable of going "backwards in time". 
Now imagine the amount of treble signal required to push that "shark fin" into an almost perfect square wave ... - hard to believe, yet true. But you won't find anything of the sort in nothing but the best of recordings. I specifically remember this record : https://www.discogs.com/Thelma-Houston-Pressure-Cooker-Ive-Got-The-Music-In-Me/release/1229176  I would have to "listen while watching scope" to pinpoint exactly where ( it has been over 30 years... ) those astonishingly close to square waves occur on this ORIGINAL DIRECT TO DISK recording ( and NOT on the LP-200 version cut from parallel analog tape recording, from which later an even milder sounding CD has been produced ). After first discovering such square wave alike signals on this record, I knew what to listen and look for in others; they are rare, but they DO exist.

The instrument(s) that can produce such almost square wave like signals ( of course, no such thing as PURE square wave in real music ) are usually brass (groups) - big band jazz or similar. It is amusing that the instrument that produces the purest sine wave like signal is also from the brass family - french horn ... - almost pure sine wave, with very little (if any at all ) harmonics. 

If an almost square wave looking signal can be recorded to an analog record in real time ( record cutter having flat response max to approx 27 kHz, depending on the cutter head model ) - what can then be recorded using HR - be it PCM or DSD ... Remember, Sheffield Lab WAS one of the very first  places where Bruel & Kjaer measuring mikes (modified to be compatible with studio gear - measuring mics NEVER use balanced XLR connection ... ) with response waaaaay above 20 kHz have been pressed into service of recording music - by now, over 40 years ago.

I have not been "listening/looking to a scope" for years - but maybe it is time for some "refreshment course". Otherwise, I am an almost exclusively audio person - I do NOT look at the performers on the stage during live concerts, unless there is some distraction similar to Lola Astanova - where one has to be almost dead NOT to notice and "switch on the video"- lol !


----------



## Phronesis

^ I didn't know we're allowed to post porn videos in this forum.


----------



## sonitus mirus

^^ She could have been playing Chopsticks or Chopin and it would have sounded great in that dress.


----------



## analogsurviver

Phronesis said:


> ^ I didn't know we're allowed to post porn videos in this forum.



I only wanted to use an extreme example when I might be tempted towards using sight over hearing/sensing in musical matters. 
So that I do not get accused of "looking to a scope instead of listening" .


----------



## analogsurviver

sonitus mirus said:


> ^^ She could have been playing Chopsticks or Chopin and it would have sounded great in that dress.


A friend - of course, a pianist, a male - has commented that her rendition of Chopin is lacking in musiciaship - the usual piano talk. 

I simply replied: She has still - at least - two decades left without having to worry about the rendition ...


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> ^^ She could have been playing Chopsticks or Chopin and it would have sounded great in that dress.





analogsurviver said:


> I only wanted to use an extreme example when I might be tempted towards using sight over hearing/sensing in musical matters.
> So that I do not get accused of "looking to a scope instead of listening" .



She was playing music?  I didn't notice ...


----------



## gregorio (May 19, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> [1] G - enough of that, please. We are both describing the same thing from different perspective - and it is getting tiring you latching to any word I do put wrong here and there.
> [2] You are also - quite a bit - overconfident of what can and can not happen in real musical event
> [3] I DID MANAGE TO FIND ALMOST PERFECT SQUARE WAVE ALIKE SIGNALS IN MUSIC FROM LP.
> [4] those astonishingly close to square waves occur on this ORIGINAL DIRECT TO DISK recording
> ...



1. I tell you what, I'll stop refuting your nonsense if you stop posting it! And, I tell you what's really tiring, is the fact that your "wrong words" are not "here and there", they are here, there, in between here and there and almost everywhere else, which is why almost every fact/assertion you make is nonsense.
2. Evidence or it's nonsense/trolling.
3. Evidence or it's nonsense/trolling.
4. Evidence or it's nonsense/trolling.
5. Evidence or it's nonsense/trolling.
6. Evidence or it's nonsense/trolling.
7. Evidence or it's nonsense/trolling.

The rest of your post was just rambling and irrelevant. You STILL haven't bothered to learn the very basics about square waves or about digital audio, so most of the above points are irrelevant anyway. What's the rise time of a 20kHz sine wave? Are you going to assert that rise time can't be perfectly captured at CD sample rate? And, what has rise time got to do with channel sync/phase in PCM anyway?

G


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Oh... - anyone can do that.


Please do it then!


analogsurviver said:


> The catch is HOW does it sound. In case of IEMs, the transducers are at  fixed position relative to the actual ear drum as possible. With other headphone types, all it takes is  not to move the headphones on your head while comparing files with different lags - or the same file upsampled to different sampling rates.


Please state the calculated worst-case equivalent acoustic path length difference so we can all see exactly how much or little we need to move our heads to accomplish the same path length difference.


analogsurviver said:


> Provided that PCM chain actually has a time delay between the channels to begin with.


The claim you make "sounds" like "all PCM has channel timing differeces that make all PCM inadequate for binaural recording." Is that correct?


analogsurviver said:


> And I will give you a VERY easy test to try it for yourself - and you WILL hear how audible and disturbing this rise time ( or whatever you want to call it ) lag is - and how detrimental to the reproduction it really is.


It's a shame someone making such a specific claim can't differentiate between the definitions  of rise time and interchannel delay.


analogsurviver said:


> I have been struggling to get it right my whole analogue life. Once you something you fought for long enough take for granted, you want to keep it - period. After you've heard it right, it will be really hard to settle for less.
> 
> If anything is preventing being both channels really in sync  - well, it won't be doing that for long - not at my place !


I've tracked interchannel time errors for quite a few decades as well, just in at different context. I cannot accept that your obcession for micro-second channel timing precision would lead you to reference analog tape, in particular cassettes.

Now, about that acoustic path length difference, and its effect on binaural recording and reproduction....


----------



## analogsurviver

@pinnahertz : found the files. The whole lot of square wave photos amounts to slightly above 1.5 GB - with the PCM "troublemakers" just below 500 MB. If you wish, I can send you the whole lot over wetransfer - and you choose to use whatever you find interesting. 

Or, I upload the most representative photos - say 44.1 and 192 kHz sampling and DSD128 to some third party fotosharing sites - your choice.


----------



## gregorio (May 19, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> [1] After you've heard it right, [2] it will be really hard to settle for less.



I nearly missed this beauty!

1. BUT, you've ALREADY PROVED that you cannot "hear it right"! You know that just ignoring that fact doesn't stop it from existing?
2. Essentially then, you'll settle for pretty much anything because there pretty much isn't anything "less" than cassette tape and a soundstage that reverses and jumps all over the place every 15 seconds!

G


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> @pinnahertz : found the files. The whole lot of square wave photos amounts to slightly above 1.5 GB - with the PCM "troublemakers" just below 500 MB. If you wish, I can send you the whole lot over wetransfer - and you choose to use whatever you find interesting.
> 
> Or, I upload the most representative photos - say 44.1 and 192 kHz sampling and DSD128 to some third party fotosharing sites - your choice.


Your choice, just do it so all can see them. That's either a ton of images or they need to be compressed to a practical size. Don't forget to include full test documentation.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Please do it then!
> Please state the calculated worst-case equivalent acoustic path length difference so we can all see exactly how much or little we need to move our heads to accomplish the same path length difference.
> The claim you make "sounds" like "all PCM has channel timing differeces that make all PCM inadequate for binaural recording." Is that correct?
> 
> ...



First, I  want to reply that not ALL of the PCM is affected by interchanel delay - IF  that is the correct definition. But it CAN appear under certain conditions and combinations of both software and hardware. 

In case this error of interchannel delay does develop, it is a considerable obstacle for the binaural recording. 

I merely stated that this interchannel delay in PCM  - if it occurs - amounts to exactly the rise time of the PCM at any given sampling rate. So, for 20 kHz BOTH the rise time is 14 or so microseconds AND the interchannel delay is the same 14 or so microseconds. I did not equate or confuse the two one for another.  From the first pic from the scope you would be clearly able to see exactly what is the problem with interchannel delay with SOME of the PCM. I did state where was the first stage at which I have seen it gone wrong - and will do whatever the amount of tests required in order to find if and when and under which conditions it can or does happen again. 

What I am trying to prove here has most likely been the reason why the MQA  has been born in the first place. I have NOT been listening to MQA for serius, I did not flush my DACs with new firmware that allows for MQA - yet. Because I would really like to come to the bootom of this PCM interchannel delay ( see - learning to use the correct expression ) . 

Well, I can not help IF I have been fortunate enough to score such a high performing cassette deck - selected among > 10 units, some of which would probably confirm your poor expectation for the medium.  I obviously knew what I have been looking for - haven't I ? And, I did mention I can measure the said cassete deck - didn't I ?

You have not mentioned video cassete recorder with a single letter - because you must know what I did state regarding the channel sinchronization - errr, interchannel delay - to be 100% true.

Remember, regarding the worst case acoustic path length difference, you have been - repeatedly - "pulling me by the tongue" ( as is colloquial expression for trying to get an answer from a person that would rather NOT give a straight answer - knowing that an honest answer could never please the one who is asking ... ). 

OK, I will punch the numbers - and this answer you will remember - for life. 

Because it CAN be - literally - the difference between life or death in real world.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Your choice, just do it so all can see them. That's either a ton of images or they need to be compressed to a practical size. Don't forget to include full test documentation.



Will upload the most representative and state exactly how the photos have been obtained. Full "path".

By a similar time tomorrow, probably earlier.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> I nearly missed this beauty!
> 
> 1. BUT, you've ALREADY PROVED that you cannot "hear it right"! You know that just ignoring that fact doesn't stop it from existing?
> 2. Essentially then, you'll settle for pretty much anything because there pretty much isn't anything "less" than cassette tape and a soundstage that reverses and jumps all over the place every 15 seconds!
> ...


Sorry, you are doing it again. Latching to the thing most likely to support your position - in this case, the cassette. I am sorry if you have such poor experience with cassettes - but Technics RS-AZ 6/7 does nothing of a kind you state. Walking in a room where either "6" or "7" is playing, you would NEVER recognize it - at least not immediately - that it is cassette and not some other source. Prior to having known the said machines, cassette was nothing but something portable I can run around with it and still make some kind of recording - and this includes  a few Nakamichi models, but not the 700/1000/Dragon class.

Be it as it may, the MAIN claim has always been that DSD is inherently free from interchannel delay - and PCM is NOT.  What I am trying to prove is to establish exactly under which conditions and which combinations of both software and hardware this interchannel delay in PCM does occur - and what could be done in order to prevent it. Remember, although I am an outspoken proponent of DSD, that does not mean I want the PCM  to be or remain a failure bigger than inherently necessary; on the contrary, by exposing its weaknes(es) I want to make it better in the end. 

NEVER FORGET THAT I AM PRO MUSIC FIRST, TECHNOLOGY SECOND. 
Played on whatever medium that can support sound in a way people can have satisfaction from, no matter how imperfect. Given a choice, I will, of course, tend towards the more accurate one.

Neither the DSD or PCM - even if PCM is delayed between channels - do not jump all over the place every 15 seconds. 
And, although not accurate to anything the level of digital, a really good cassete also maintains its interchannel delay ( azimuth in cassette speak ) FAR better than it has been your experience. - 
while offering better frequency/phase response above 20 kHz  than any 44.1/16 PCM machine - which HAS to resort to brick filtering. And that is what really counts with binaural..

Now *think* how accurate frequency and phase response DSD256 can offer - and interchannel delay is NEVER even an option.


----------



## bigshot

james444 said:


> An example that probably many people can relate to is subconsciously processed background music in a supermarket. If you'd question me right after leaving one of these shops, I couldn't for the life of me say for sure, wherher they had music on or not, because I've been consciously focussing on gathering things in my shopping cart. Yet there's ample research showing that this (subconsciously processed) background music has a significant effect on our shopping habits.



The other day I was in a market and they were playing a muzak version of The Ramones' "I Wanna Be Sedated". I listen to background music because it's really quite funny sometimes.


----------



## bigshot (May 19, 2018)

I like how easy it is to derail a thread. Someone throws out something completely irrelevant and wrong that they made up on the spot. People start answering it with chopped up answers that don't convey the context at all. Rinse and repeat. Pretty soon everything is like verbal scrambled eggs!

I guess since no one is talking about the best way to discern the difference between two similar sound samples, that means that we've all agreed that the best way to do that is a blind, direct A/B switched, line level matched listening test. And that if you are going to put any credence into claims by any individual, a person who does controlled tests is much more likely to be correct than someone who depends on uncontrolled subjective impressions.

If we all agree on that, you can put a bow on top of this thread and call it done, because that is the whole point of the first post in this thread.

Goodnight, Gracie.


----------



## Malfunkt (May 19, 2018)

On a short-hike with @slankoe I mentioned the recent discussion of the topic of 'binaural' on this thread with regarding the discussion surrounding binaural.

I think both of us were a bit amused/perplexed. When binaural is done properly it is so incredibly "obvious, life-like and amazing "! ? No? Maybe for some perhaps not or less so.

But, please, understand. I am more amazed! For myself, the some of the recordings I listen to can very much be truly and 'holographic binaural'.

Edited for bloat:

*So here is the challenge.*

Approach this academic. And again for fun.

I'm putting the following forward as benchmarks for attainable gear and a consistent way of recording and mastering binaural / stereo media.

1) Do you have a Focal Utopia or HD800*?

2) download http://www.naturespace.org/ to your iOS or Android phone. It is free but yes is funded with App in purchases. The app has been around for a decade and supported.
3) purchase (yes, for the cost of coffee!) one of the paid tracks 'Hansel  and Gretel', just start with this one.
4) sit in quite environment - some ambient natural noise can even be helpful.

I guess, for a number of reasons the effect may work better for others or not at all. For myself it works well. Of course, like any recording, it is an emulation. It requires our engagement.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] Sorry, you are doing it again. Latching to the thing most likely to support your position - in this case, the cassette.
> [2] Be it as it may, the MAIN claim has always been that DSD is inherently free from interchannel delay - and PCM is NOT.
> [3] What I am trying to prove is to establish exactly under which conditions and which combinations of both software and hardware this interchannel delay in PCM does occur - and what could be done in order to prevent it.
> [4] although I am an outspoken proponent of DSD, that does not mean I want the PCM to be or remain a failure bigger than inherently necessary ...
> ...



1. No, you're doing it again and I told you I will continue to refute your nonsense! And why should cassette support my position, you claimed cassette is more accurate than PCM to support your position. That is of course nonsense, support your claim with evidence or you are trolling! While we're at it, you're ignoring all the questions and requirement of evidence in post #4981 to back up your other claims. I take it you don't have any and are therefore admitting you're trolling.

2. Support that claim with evidence or you're trolling.

3. I have used all the main pro ADCs and pro DAWs over the last 20+ years. Prism, Digidesign/Avid, Apogee and others and all the main software, ProTools, Logic, Sadie and Cubase/Nuendo. This accounts for probably more than 95% of all  commercial music recordings during that period and none of it had even the slightest "inter-channel delay", as predicted by the way they work!

4. Evidence that PCM is a failure or you're trolling.

5. You haven't demonstrated that you know anything about pro music or the technology!

6. I'm confused, would that be cassettes or VHS tapes or maybe vinyl? By the way, you haven't covered two tins cans connected by a piece of string yet, is that better than PCM too?

7. How would you know, you've already demonstrated that you cannot tell when the soundstage jumps all over the place every 15 secs or so?

Again, answer the questions, present your evidence or you're TROLLING!

G


----------



## bigshot (May 19, 2018)

After striking out with analoguesurvivor, I am back on my quest...



Malfunkt said:


> For myself, the some of the music I listen to can very much be truly and 'holographic binaural'.



I would like to hear some holographic binaural recordings of acoustic instruments like strings and brass and woodwinds. Would you please post a link to a binaural CD that is 1) good music, 2) a good performance and 3) well recorded in holographic binaural? I'll buy it and listen to it and come back and let you know what I think. Thanks

By the way, I have Oppo PM-1s, which are in the same general quality level as HD-800s, so there should be no problem with me hearing the effect.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> First, I  want to reply that not ALL of the PCM is affected by interchanel delay - IF  that is the correct definition. But it CAN appear under certain conditions and combinations of both software and hardware.


Thats not what you implied at all. It is vital that you present facts and scale the degree to reality.


analogsurviver said:


> In case this error of interchannel delay does develop, it is a considerable obstacle for the binaural recording.


Again, rather than making alarmist statements, be specific. Every technical problem must be evaluated by impact and degree. That's not what you are doing!



analogsurviver said:


> I merely stated that this interchannel delay in PCM  -
> 
> What I am trying to prove here has most likely been the reason why the MQA  has been born in the first place. I have NOT been listening to MQA for serius, I did not flush my DACs with new firmware that allows for MQA - yet. Because I would really like to come to the bootom of this PCM interchannel delay ( see - learning to use the correct expression ) .


Ah, there it is: MQA. No, MQA doesn't fix interchannel delay.


analogsurviver said:


> Well, I can not help IF I have been fortunate enough to score such a high performing cassette deck - selected among > 10 units, some of which would probably confirm your poor expectation for the medium.  I obviously knew what I have been looking for - haven't I ? And, I did mention I can measure the said cassete deck - didn't I ?


So you've cherry-picked a good deck and a good tape. The medium as a whole fails your interchannel delay requirements completely, and many times worse if you interchange tapes between different decks!


analogsurviver said:


> You have not mentioned video cassete recorder with a single letter - because you must know what I did state regarding the channel sinchronization - errr, interchannel delay - to be 100% true.


I don't care how good interchannel delay is in s format fatally hobbled in other ways. Your use of it is unique, non-standard, incompatible with anyone else, not directly editable, a dead format...you need more?


analogsurviver said:


> Remember, regarding the worst case acoustic path length difference, you have been - repeatedly - "pulling me by the tongue" ( as is colloquial expression for trying to get an answer from a person that would rather NOT give a straight answer - knowing that an honest answer could never please the one who is asking ... ).


Its simple math. How could anyone not be pleased with the correct answer!


analogsurviver said:


> OK, I will punch the numbers - and this answer you will remember - for life.
> 
> Because it CAN be - literally - the difference between life or death in real world.


OMG!


----------



## bigshot

He's making stuff up and throwing in as many red herrings as he can to divert the conversation. He only cares about the destination. He doesn't care how he gets there. I might think he was a troll, but he doesn't seem organized enough to troll. I think he's like that Swedish guy who wrapped his whole stereo system in tin foil.


----------



## jthew

bigshot said:


> I like how easy it is to derail a thread. Someone throws out something completely irrelevant and wrong that they made up on the spot. People start answering it with chopped up answers that don't convey the context at all. Rinse and repeat. Pretty soon everything is like verbal scrambled eggs!
> 
> I guess since no one is talking about the best way to discern the difference between two similar sound samples, that means that we've all agreed that the best way to do that is a blind, direct A/B switched, line level matched listening test. And that if you are going to put any credence into claims by any individual, a person who does controlled tests is much more likely to be correct than someone who depends on uncontrolled subjective impressions.
> 
> ...



I just found this thread, and thought to myself, 'How can this thread possibly be 530 pages long'.  Can someone give me a guess for how long it would be if the thread only contained comments about the original post?


----------



## Malfunkt

bigshot said:


> After striking out with analoguesurvivor, I am back on my quest...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



@bigshot, I edited my post for bloat. Also, I shouldn't have put music per se. So I'll concede on all three 1)... 2)... 3)... 

The recordings I enjoy, that have the best spatial effect are from www.naturespace.org.



Perhaps this is a better use of the approach. And not familiar with PM1, but having heard the PM3, I'm sure it is sublime


----------



## bigshot (May 19, 2018)

If you can, please refer me to a published recording of acoustic instruments. That video comes up as unavailable because of privacy settings. Do you own any recordings of binaural music? I had LP records of Okifenokie Swamp with all the bullfrogs croaking and stuff like that. It's OK. But I am really looking for music.



jthew said:


> I just found this thread, and thought to myself, 'How can this thread possibly be 530 pages long'.  Can someone give me a guess for how long it would be if the thread only contained comments about the original post?



Thankfully, that first post is a really good one. I think people come to this thread to crap all over it because they don't like the quid pro quo of the first post.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> That part is easy!
> 
> Does a change in the system make an audible difference that you can clearly hear in a controlled listening test?
> If there is a difference, is it clearly audible enough to improve the sound quality of recorded music?
> ...


while i agree with a lot of the things you say in here....if you bring finances into it by suggesting admiration for people who don't post their equipment in their profiles...it cheapens ALL of your arguments.It suggests a dismissive attitude towards anyone that spends 1$ more than yourself on equipment.


----------



## bigshot (May 19, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> while i agree with a lot of the things you say in here....if you bring finances into it by suggesting admiration for people who don't post their equipment in their profiles...it cheapens ALL of your arguments.It suggests a dismissive attitude towards anyone that spends 1$ more than yourself on equipment.



I'm happy to explain it... The equipment I use isn't why my system sounds good. It sounds good because of the way I've implemented it. I've calibrated the EQ, dealt with room acoustics, experimented to find more effective placement of my speakers, combined different equipment to bring out the best in everything, etc. You could go out and buy the same equipment and it might sound awful because you haven't put it all together the way I have.  You can ask me what I use and I'll tell you. But a better question is, "What have you done to make your equipment sound better?"

I've auditioned systems that cost more than a house. Not all of them sounded great. There are lazy audiophiles who aren't interested in optimizing sound. They look at their system as a status symbol that they go out and put on display. They glow with the McIntosh aqua color and the equipment is smack dab in the middle of the front wall staring at you. If you walk into my listening room You won't notice any equipment other than the speakers. It's all in the back and the show is the music and movies up front. That's the way it should be. The whole point is music and movies.

I hired a guy to run wires for me, but I would never hire someone to put together my whole system for me. I've known people who have done that and the second the guy leaves, they pick up the remote control and tie the whole thing up in knots because they don't have the faintest idea how it all works together. I've built my system from the ground up for 40 years now. The learning and evolution is part of the process. You can't just hire someone else to jump you to the end game and think that you are going to be able to maintain it. The first problem you hit, you have to hire the guy to come out and fix it again.

There's very little correlation between sound quality and money in electronics. And in the proper sort of room, reasonably priced speakers work well too. If you're willing to EQ, you can save hundreds of dollars on headphones. That is the kind of smartness I admire... people who get the most out of their equipment and don't just throw money at it. If you spend a lot of money, I'll just hold you to a higher standard. I've been in screening rooms that cost a fortune. I would LOVE to live there! They do it right and they can play any format... film, video, audio. There is where I would spend more money if I was rich, not buying overpriced amps and DACs and sterling silver cables.

Is that clearer?


----------



## Phronesis

Glmoneydawg said:


> while i agree with a lot of the things you say in here....if you bring finances into it by suggesting admiration for people who don't post their equipment in their profiles...it cheapens ALL of your arguments.It suggests a dismissive attitude towards anyone that spends 1$ more than yourself on equipment.



Personally, I put my equipment in my sig so that people have context for my comments.  I find it odd to assume people would list their equipment in their sigs to show off, given that this gear generally doesn't add up to much money compared other things most of us spend money on (cars, houses, education, etc.).


----------



## bigshot (May 19, 2018)

I've spent more money on my movies and music than I have on my house and cars and education.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I'm happy to explain it... The equipment I use isn't why my system sounds good. It sounds good because of the way I've implemented it. I've calibrated the EQ, dealt with room acoustics, experimented to find more effective placement of my speakers, combined different equipment to bring out the best in everything, etc. You could go out and buy the same equipment and it might sound awful because you haven't put it all together the way I have.  You can ask me what I use and I'll tell you. But a better question is, "What have you done to make your equipment sound better?"
> 
> I've auditioned systems that cost more than a house. Not all of them sounded great. There are lazy audiophiles who aren't interested in optimizing sound. They look at their system as a status symbol that they go out and put on display. They glow with the McIntosh aqua color and the equipment is smack dab in the middle of the front wall staring at you. If you walk into my listening room You won't notice any equipment other than the speakers. It's all in the back and the show is the music and movies up front.
> 
> ...



Some people don't have an interest in spending a lot of time putting together a system and optimizing it, but they have money and don't mind delegating the decision-making to put together the system.  Nothing deserving of disrespect in that, IMO.  Moreover, a lot of people who have a lot of money to spend have it precisely because they're busy doing the things which generate that money - and that itself is usually worthy of some respect!


----------



## bigshot

If you have a hobby, I can't see paying someone else to do your hobby for you. The whole point of a hobby is the passion and discovery. If you pay someone else to do that, you've turned it into the same thing as going out and buying a dishwasher. I'll respect them for the things they have time to do.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> If you have a hobby, I can't see paying someone else to do your hobby for you. The whole point of a hobby is the passion and discovery. If you pay someone else to do that, you've turned it into the same thing as going out and buying a dishwasher. I'll respect them for the things they have time to do.



I'm not sure it's really a hobby for some people, more like consumption of luxury goods under the assumption that more expensive is generally better.  Expensive systems put together by others may be 'good enough' for their needs, and the fact that they're expensive (and attractive) may enhance their enjoyment of them.  Humans are interesting creatures ...


----------



## bigshot

I have a hard time mustering up respect for consumption of luxury goods.


----------



## Hooster

This thread has gone really weird. How about trying to discuss the Hugo2? There is plenty of space for other topics elsewhere. All the best.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> And, guess what ? To my greatest astoinishment, I DID MANAGE TO FIND ALMOST PERFECT SQUARE WAVE ALIKE SIGNALS IN MUSIC FROM LP.  And, before you latch to the last ditch resort, those signals were well within the performance envelope, no electrical clipping and no mechanical mistracking. Just how "fiercely poisoneous" these signals must be, given the fact that a square wave on a vinyl record in reality has physical triangular shape (math..) - and has to be observed on the scope when played back by a velocity sensitive transducer (any cartridge that works with induction) with a LINEAR amplification, not trough the RIAA equalized phono stage - that is, if a bit oversimplified, a 6dB/octave low-pass filter above 3 kHz  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization.


Whoa, big fella. So you've seen a "square wave" on an LP, but only when played without RIAA EQ?  Well, then...you haven't seen a square wave on an LP.  RIAA EQ, as you MUST know, is a two-ended, essentially encode/decode, pre-emphasis/de-emphasis system.  If you take one away, the entire response of the system is altered.  If you have to do that to see your square wave, then it's not actually recorded and reproduced _in the system, and what you have done is a cheat!
_


analogsurviver said:


> A square wave from a test record played with magnetic cartridge trough the  usual RIAA filter looks much like a shark's fin swimming into the  left direction, with the trailing edge looking to the right  being an almost straight steep line, but obviously NOT capable of going "backwards in time".
> Now imagine the amount of treble signal required to push that "shark fin" into an almost perfect square wave ... - hard to believe, yet true. But you won't find anything of the sort in nothing but the best of recordings. I specifically remember this record : https://www.discogs.com/Thelma-Houston-Pressure-Cooker-Ive-Got-The-Music-In-Me/release/1229176  I would have to "listen while watching scope" to pinpoint exactly where ( it has been over 30 years... ) those astonishingly close to square waves occur on this ORIGINAL DIRECT TO DISK recording ( and NOT on the LP-200 version cut from parallel analog tape recording, from which later an even milder sounding CD has been produced ). After first discovering such square wave alike signals on this record, I knew what to listen and look for in others; they are rare, but they DO exist.


I'm sorry, but this is nonsense unless we define, very carefully, what you mean by a "square wave".  We already know we cannot use the actual definition (because it's impossible), so you have clearly re-defined what you're calling a "square wave".  If you use a frequency low enough, but not too low, you can get something that sort of resembles some aspects of a square wave through an LP system, tape, and digital, but none of them actually can record and reproduce a real square wave.  All are bandwidth limited, some on both extremes.  But what you get out of any of those is not a real square wave.  But it doesn't matter a wit, since there are no square waves in actual audio.  Even the electronic instruments that actually generate them end up with a signal without much resemblance once it's been transduced--even once.


analogsurviver said:


> The instrument(s) that can produce such almost square wave like signals ( of course, no such thing as PURE square wave in real music ) are usually brass (groups) - big band jazz or similar. It is amusing that the instrument that produces the purest sine wave like signal is also from the brass family - french horn ... - almost pure sine wave, with very little (if any at all ) harmonics.


That's getting closer to what clearly is your own fictitious re-definition of a "square wave".  Put one of them side by side on your dual-trace scope with a REAL square wave, and none of the above will resemble anything like a square wave either in appearance or spectral content.  If your'e going to work with fictitious definitions, you will come to fictitious conclusions.  And you have.


analogsurviver said:


> If an _almost square wave looking signal_ can be recorded to an analog record in real time ( *record cutter having flat response max to approx 27 kHz*, depending on the cutter head model )


Stopping you right there...nope, you evidently don't understand the process nor the physical limitations of cutting a groove, and I'm starting to doubt you have a clear understanding of how the LP works at all. The *underlined statement* above cannot be correct without much more information.  You can cut signals way above 27kHz (it was done with CD4), but you can't even cut 27kHz at any reasonable modulation level.  And cutting square waves is physically impossible, though a rough approximation may be a semi-useful test signal in some way. However, the REAL problem here is the "almost square wave looking signal"...that's your ficticious re-definition.  Almost?  Sure, if you band-limit the top and bottom along with attendant slew limit, throw in some in-band resonances, distortions, and keep the level WAY down, but it's not a square wave!


analogsurviver said:


> - what can then be recorded using HR - be it PCM or DSD ... Remember, Sheffield Lab WAS one of the very first  places where Bruel & Kjaer measuring mikes (modified to be compatible with studio gear - measuring mics NEVER use balanced XLR connection ... ) with response waaaaay above 20 kHz have been pressed into service of recording music - by now, over 40 years ago.


What the heck means "waaaaay above 20kHz"?  Oh don't bother.  I've already checked the spectrum of LPs, that super ultrasonic crap you see in the spectrum are distortion products and just plain noise.  Confirmed.  All you have to do is check the spectrum of a high frequency, highest possible level sine wave, you'll see plenty of "ultrasonic content" up there, but it's not real, and not part of the original signal.


analogsurviver said:


> I have not been "listening/looking to a scope" for years - but maybe it is time for some "refreshment course".


Yeah.  Perhaps.


----------



## Phronesis

Hooster said:


> This thread has gone really weird. How about trying to discuss the Hugo2? There is plenty of space for other topics elsewhere. All the best.



This isn’t the Hugo 2 thread, I think you got it mixed up from the reference in the Hugo 2 thread.


----------



## bigshot (May 20, 2018)

Hooster said:


> This thread has gone really weird. How about trying to discuss the Hugo2? There is plenty of space for other topics elsewhere. All the best.



Read the first post in this thread. Buck the trend of most of the people posting in it!

He's making stuff up now Pinnahertz.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> He's making stuff up now Pinnahertz.



I dispute that he's making stuff up now ... he's been making stuff up all along! 

G


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> Read the first post in this thread. Buck the trend of most of the people posting in it!
> 
> He's making stuff up now Pinnahertz.


Or perhaps deluded?  Believing the stuff he's making up?  And yes, G, it's been going on quite a while.


----------



## james444

Malfunkt said:


> On a short-hike with @slankoe I mentioned the recent discussion of the topic of 'binaural' on this thread with regarding the discussion surrounding binaural.
> 
> I think both of us were a bit amused/perplexed. When binaural is done properly it is so incredibly "obvious, life-like and amazing "! ? No? Maybe for some perhaps not or less so.



What I've been gathering from this discussion is that recording pros seem to have entirely different priorities from me as an individual consumer. Maybe it's because I mainly use IEMs and listen predominantly to live albums, but the spatiality of binaural recordings I've heard felt amazingly lifelike to me. Like I mentioned earlier, there are also some multi-miked recordings that convey a good sense of spatial realism in my book, however those examples are rare. The vast majority of "traditionally" recorded stuff, when listend to with IEMs, conveys no "realistic" kind of soundstage to me.

Of course, multi-miked recordings tend to have a clearer and more separated sound than, for example, the binaural recordings I got from @analogsurviver. But here's where different priorities come in, because from my pov, that doesn't necessarily make them more realistic. Let me explain... as a (former) regular concertgoer, I love the room acoustics of venues like Vienna's Musikverein, or even a church. Personally I'm absolutely not averse to the reflected/reverberant/blended sound there. To the contrary, it still let's me focus on individual instruments if I want to, but most of the time, I can just relax and indulge in the blended/holistic concert experience.

So, to get back to the topic of priorities, for example an extremely clear and separated sound isn't that high on my personal list. To the contrary, it may even sound distracting/fatiguing to me, when overdone.

Bottom line, I've been following the discussion with interest and I got where the recording pros are coming from.But as an individual consumer with specific listening habits and preferences, I don't necessarily share their views on binaural.


----------



## bfreedma

pinnahertz said:


> Or perhaps deluded?  Believing the stuff he's making up?  And yes, G, it's been going on quite a while.




I just hope locating and posting the pictures he’s promised don’t once again hold up posting the result “proving” CD mats improve audio reproduction.  We’ve been promised those for years....


----------



## pinnahertz

CD mats have been conclusively proven ineffective as a contraceptive.


----------



## youngarthur (May 20, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> CD mats have been conclusively proven ineffective as a contraceptive.


By who?. I demand to see their data!. Was their a full moon at the time?. Was Mars in line with Venus, if not the data is useless.


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> I just hope locating and posting the pictures he’s promised don’t once again hold up posting the result “proving” CD mats improve audio reproduction.  We’ve been promised those for years....



"Enjoying" finding the most suitable photo sharing service at the moment ... one that will be ok for me and various forums. It may not be today, but soon. 

I would sure prefer to make some more recordings using various other hardware and software to find more ways to "arrive" at other ways PCM can develop interchannel delay ...


----------



## goodvibes (May 20, 2018)

james444 said:


> What I've been gathering from this discussion is that recording pros seem to have entirely different priorities from me as an individual consumer. Maybe it's because I mainly use IEMs and listen predominantly to live albums, but the spatiality of binaural recordings I've heard felt amazingly lifelike to me. Like I mentioned earlier, there are also some multi-miked recordings that convey a good sense of spatial realism in my book, however those examples are rare. The vast majority of "traditionally" recorded stuff, when listend to with IEMs, conveys no "realistic" kind of soundstage to me.
> 
> Of course, multi-miked recordings tend to have a clearer and more separated sound than, for example, the binaural recordings I got from @analogsurviver. But here's where different priorities come in, because from my pov, that doesn't necessarily make them more realistic. Let me explain... as a (former) regular concertgoer, I love the room acoustics of venues like Vienna's Musikverein, or even a church. Personally I'm absolutely not averse to the reflected/reverberant/blended sound there. To the contrary, it still let's me focus on individual instruments if I want to, but most of the time, I can just relax and indulge in the blended/holistic concert experience.
> 
> ...


Artificial is a my take but that's obviously only a concern if you're not looking for that live acoustic experience. Using ORTF mics on even something like a vocal sounds more natural than single mic-ing. That's in no way to imply that studio technics are wrong. They simply serve a different need. One that natural space recording also can't accomplish.


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> "Enjoying" finding the most suitable photo sharing service at the moment ... one that will be ok for me and various forums. It may not be today, but soon.
> 
> I would sure prefer to make some more recordings using various other hardware and software to find more ways to "arrive" at other ways PCM can develop interchannel delay ...




Based on your track record, I won't expect them any time soon (or ever).

Finding "the most suitable photo sharing service"?  Seriously?  There are dozens out there including hugely popular service like Dropbox and Box.  Pick one and post.


----------



## Arpiben (May 20, 2018)

@analogsurviver
Take your time also to familiarise again or not with phase,analogue phase measurements, oscilloscope settings and Lissajous' curves when dealing with two sinusoidal signals at same frequency.It should help.


----------



## gregorio (May 20, 2018)

james444 said:


> [1] What I've been gathering from this discussion is that recording pros seem to have entirely different priorities from me as an individual consumer.
> [2] Maybe it's because I mainly use IEMs and listen predominantly to live albums, [2a] but the spatiality of binaural recordings I've heard felt amazingly lifelike to me.
> [3] Let me explain... as a (former) regular concertgoer, I love the room acoustics of venues like Vienna's Musikverein, or even a church. Personally I'm absolutely not averse to the reflected/reverberant/blended sound there. To the contrary, it still let's me focus on individual instruments if I want to, but most of the time, I can just relax and indulge in the blended/holistic concert experience.
> [4] But as an individual consumer with specific listening habits and preferences, I don't necessarily share their views on binaural.



1. I wouldn't say "entirely different" but maybe somewhat different.

2. Yes, that would put you in a small minority. Live albums represent a tiny percentage of commercial music recordings to start with and then you're in a smaller group still, who listen to those recordings only on IEMs.
2a. That's one of the problems, as engineers we do not know your personal HRTF or even that you'll be using IEMs and nor do we know what feels "amazingly life like" to you, so in practice it's somewhat of a guess and largely pot luck if a binaural recording sounds "amazingly life like" to any particular individual.

3. The Musikverein has a lovely acoustic, which I've been lucky enough to experience as both a musician who's performed there and then years later as a music engineer. I'm absolutely not averse to it's acoustics and I doubt any other sane engineer would be either! However, many of those listening to a recording made in Musikverein will not only be hearing the Musikvererein's acoustics, they'll also be hearing the additional acoustics imparted by their listening environment and the combination of both will reduce clarity and separation, hence why we typically have to enhance clarity and separation, which is not possible with a binaural or any stereo only recording. But, we absolutely would not want to loose the Musikverein acoustics, we'd want as much of it (or the essence of it) as practically possible. This highlights the essential conflict and compromise of pretty much all commercial music recording and why it's called "The Art of Recording" and not the science or technical task of recording. This is also true with binaural recording because, as already mentioned, there's the issue of even a perfectly accurate recording not being what we would actually experience anyway (so it may, or may not, be close enough to fool/satisfy some listeners).

4. This is the root of many disputes and audiophile assertions: Firstly, their "specific listening habits and preferences" put them in a group which is so small that it's not economically viable to commercially cater specifically for them and Secondly, because of the first point, they're not comparing apples to apples. As I've also mentioned previously, binaural can sound "amazingly life like" compared to multi-mic'ed productions made primarily for speakers but that's an apples to oranges comparison. Would you still have your view of binaural vs multi-mic'ing if there were multi-mic productions made specifically for HPs? This would be an apples to apples comparison and I strongly suspect that most would prefer the multi-mic'ing or at least, not consider binaural to be as superior as they previously believed. Ironically, just last week I was involved in a project which comes quite close to this. While speaker compatibility was required, HP playback was a much higher priority than is typically the case. If I can get agreement from the rights holders to post an except and find a way to post it which preserves my anonymity then I will but it's going to take some time, more than a few days.



Malfunkt said:


> I'm putting the following forward as benchmarks for attainable gear and a consistent way of recording and mastering binaural / stereo media.
> 1) Do you have a Focal Utopia or HD800*?



There's two issues here. Firstly, you can't really master binaural or rather, the mastering options are extremely limited. Secondly, effectively the point I made above, how many people own Focal Utopia or HD800s? How many of those would want to buy whatever particular music genre I recorded/produced and how many of those would actually buy my specific recording? The answer almost certainly is: Not enough to justify the cost of professionally/commercially creating, marketing and distributing it in the first place.

G


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I'm happy to explain it... The equipment I use isn't why my system sounds good. It sounds good because of the way I've implemented it. I've calibrated the EQ, dealt with room acoustics, experimented to find more effective placement of my speakers, combined different equipment to bring out the best in everything, etc. You could go out and buy the same equipment and it might sound awful because you haven't put it all together the way I have.  You can ask me what I use and I'll tell you. But a better question is, "What have you done to make your equipment sound better?"
> 
> I've auditioned systems that cost more than a house. Not all of them sounded great. There are lazy audiophiles who aren't interested in optimizing sound. They look at their system as a status symbol that they go out and put on display. They glow with the McIntosh aqua color and the equipment is smack dab in the middle of the front wall staring at you. If you walk into my listening room You won't notice any equipment other than the speakers. It's all in the back and the show is the music and movies up front. That's the way it should be. The whole point is music and movies.
> 
> ...


Thanks...but my point is when you come in here from the "outside"and read SS  threads the first thing a lot of people do is check to see what equipment posters are using...for context.....when nothing is listed it's easy to assume posters are frugal or sour grapes ect.I think you might get more interest in here if "outsiders" could see thats not the case and perhaps even be familiar with reference equipment used by posters.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> "Enjoying" finding the most suitable photo sharing service at the moment ... one that will be ok for me and various forums. It may not be today, but soon.


Yeah, it's a tough thing to search for. Might take years. Or seconds. You pick.


analogsurviver said:


> I would sure prefer to make some more recordings using various other hardware and software to find more ways to "arrive" at other ways PCM can develop interchannel delay ...


What an odd pursuit. Searching for "more ways to "arrive" at other ways PCM can develop interchannel delay". It's like searching for more ways a disease can kill us, when the disease only kills one in 10 million.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Whoa, big fella. So you've seen a "square wave" on an LP, but only when played without RIAA EQ?  Well, then...you haven't seen a square wave on an LP.  RIAA EQ, as you MUST know, is a two-ended, essentially encode/decode, pre-emphasis/de-emphasis system.  If you take one away, the entire response of the system is altered.  If you have to do that to see your square wave, then it's not actually recorded and reproduced _in the system, and what you have done is a cheat!
> _
> I'm sorry, but this is nonsense unless we define, very carefully, what you mean by a "square wave".  We already know we cannot use the actual definition (because it's impossible), so you have clearly re-defined what you're calling a "square wave".  If you use a frequency low enough, but not too low, you can get something that sort of resembles some aspects of a square wave through an LP system, tape, and digital, but none of them actually can record and reproduce a real square wave.  All are bandwidth limited, some on both extremes.  But what you get out of any of those is not a real square wave.  But it doesn't matter a wit, since there are no square waves in actual audio.  Even the electronic instruments that actually generate them end up with a signal without much resemblance once it's been transduced--even once.
> That's getting closer to what clearly is your own fictitious re-definition of a "square wave".  Put one of them side by side on your dual-trace scope with a REAL square wave, and none of the above will resemble anything like a square wave either in appearance or spectral content.  If your'e going to work with fictitious definitions, you will come to fictitious conclusions.  And you have.
> ...



Sorry, should have said " approximation to the square wave" - with all the bandwidth limitation of ANY recording medium, there are better or worse approximations possible, never a mathematically perfect square wave, which in theory goes to infinite high frequency. Same as triangle wave, only the order of harmonics is different. And no nitpicking about the exact math formulas for either, please - anyone interested, please just use Google.

That said, for "approximation to the square wave" : good HR > analog >>> 44.1. You can twist and turn and spin as much as you'd like, the just written STANDS. Period. Google any square wave from a CBS STR 112 record ( but, FIRST you will have to learn just WHAT is really recorded on this test record ...) , played by any decent wide frequency response phono cartridge - and compare that to the pathetic 44.1 whatever. And, yes, CBS STR 112 does include 1 kHz square wave at the innermost grooves of the record, which, if played by high quality stylus and cartridge,  will STILL  be better approximation to the theorethically perfect square wave than 44.1 sampling of PCM.

And, please, do not try to teach me regarding analog record recording and frequencies that can be put on the analog disk master. READ what I wrote... - and you shoul find "recorded in real time ". That means recording to whatever the upper limit of the cutting head - and it is much the same as with the ultimate speed of the propeller driven aircraft - 800 and a few km/h, depending on temperature, air pressure, precision of measurement and willingness to listen to whatever lie you are more prone to believe - much more so than the actual aircraft itself. Once the propeller tips reach the speed of sound, its effectiveness plummets towards zero - and no amount of power would help a bit. If you stretch that "propeller driven" to turbo contrarotating props, you get the Tu-95 as the fastest propeller driven aircraft in regular service. It might be some prototype pips it in ultimate speed for a km or a mile or so, but that's it. Want go faster - jets and rockets.

With cutting heads, it is 27 kHz give or take a few Hz either way - which can be stretched by recording at lower speed than the one intended for playback. JVC did a special test record for developing the CD-4 phono cartridge - cut at 1/10 of the nominal 33 1/3 RPM, theorethically reaching flat response to 270 kHz. This test record has NEVER been available outside JVC walls - and is the reason why the very first generation of JVC CD-4 capable cartridges is so good and so much in demand - more than 40 years after their introduction. And JVC used this 1/10 speed recording to record a Dirac pulse or Delta function or whatever you want to call it - best approximation they could achieve - as seen in this link : https://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/x1.shtml

Be it as it may - the "approximations of the square wave in music" off the LP given in the link ARE far sharper/faster/call them whatever you like - than anything available on more normal records - not to mention the CD. 
If the record is cut at half speed and master recording, either analog or digital ( DSD ) does contain high frequencies above 20 kHz, the flat response  is about to 54 kHz. That and of course HR could still improve upon the direct to disk nachievement.

For "waaaay" above 20 kHz, please check Bruel & Kjaer measurement mics. I do not know specifically which model(s) have been used, but even if and when the least extended frequency response mics have been modified to interface with audio equipment, it is STILL  very high. In 1982 or so , there was the very first Bruel & Kjaer mic specifically made for music recording first  made available - the 4006, which remains in production, with relatively small modification to the electronics, to this very day as the DPA 4006 . And, there are other DPAs that sport considerably more extended response than the 4006.


----------



## bigshot (May 20, 2018)

james444 said:


> Maybe it's because I mainly use IEMs and listen predominantly to live albums, but the spatiality of binaural recordings I've heard felt amazingly lifelike to me.



Which binaural albums? I looked at Amazon and all I could find is one Pearl Jam album and a bunch of self hypnosis and sound effects records. Are there any binaural recordings of music with acoustic instruments you could recommend?



Glmoneydawg said:


> Thanks...but my point is when you come in here from the "outside"and read SS  threads the first thing a lot of people do is check to see what equipment posters are using...for context.....when nothing is listed it's easy to assume posters are frugal or sour grapes ect.I think you might get more interest in here if "outsiders" could see thats not the case and perhaps even be familiar with reference equipment used by posters.



If someone is going to make assumptions based on equipment brands and model numbers instead of what the poster is actually saying, they will be making a huge mistake. Inside the box of the rest of head-fi, brand name fan clubs and cults built around specific models are common. But in here, it's different. I've never asked specifically what kind of system the various Sound Science regulars have. I learn more by hearing what they have to say.

I think analogue survivor is sharing his creative writing skills with us. I'm not here for that kind of bluff and fluff, so I skip over most of what he says. But this bit I found interesting...



analogsurviver said:


> And, please, do not try to teach me regarding analog record recording and frequencies that can be put on the analog disk master.



Have you ever been involved with a project from recording on 24 track tape all the way through mastering and pressing on LP? Some of us here have. You might learn something if you listen to those of us who have.

Then comes the totally irrelevant digression into propeller planes and rockets... I think he finds it difficult to keep his thought process going in a straight line. And he assumes all of our brains are making the loopdeloops right along with him.


----------



## jgazal (May 20, 2018)

@bigshot. I am not sure if you are really looking for binaural recordings or if you are trying to say that there are very few binaural albums, which I agree.

Just in case, hdtracks sells binaural recordings from Chesky Records: http://www.hdtracks.com/binaural.

Try, for instance, Macy Gray.


----------



## bigshot (May 20, 2018)

Are there no albums to be bought in regular online stores? I'm averse to giving a site my credit card just to buy one album, and I use Apple Lossless, which most small download services don't support. (I don't do FLAC). I really prefer to just stick a disc in my player and not have to fire up my computer first.


----------



## jgazal

Don’t know where to buy the cds. Macy Gray Stripped is on Spotify. Elusive Disc has the LP.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, should have said " approximation to the square wave" - with all the bandwidth limitation of ANY recording medium ...



Again, a whole post of nonsense and/or irrelevancies. Where's the evidence to back up all your past claims? You can't just ignore it and post more nonsense, that's TROLLING. Put up or shut up!!

As you're introducing yet another new bit of nonsense to deal with, answer this: Generate a 12kHz square wave. Record it with: PCM 44.1kHz, PCM 192kHz and DSD (or DSD wide if you prefer) and anything else you want (cassette, VHS or vinyl for example). Which of these recordings will provide the best "approximation" of this "square wave"?

G


----------



## bigshot

ghazal, is this it? https://amzn.to/2rZvhHl


----------



## jgazal

That’s it!

Also:
https://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=9513906&style=music
https://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=10781747&style=music
https://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=10331194&style=music
https://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=10250472&style=music
https://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=10381511&style=music&msg=2
https://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=9356984&style=music
https://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=8891669&style=music
https://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=8802542&style=music
https://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=9218650&style=music
https://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=8792263&style=music


----------



## bigshot

I really don't want a laundry list. I want the best one to try out and see. Which one?

I have no dog in this fight yet. I just want to hear what the best sounds like. Then I may be interested in more.


----------



## jgazal

You will have to pick one.

This was @Tyll Hertsens opinion on some of those recordings: https://www.innerfidelity.com/conte...-chesky-ultimate-headphone-demonstration-disc.

The only thing I know is that those recordings were made with good microphones, by a renowned engineer with Dr. Choueiri advisory.

And having crosstalk cancellation may change radically your experience.


----------



## 71 dB

I have recently suffered a personal loss in my family and I'm not in a mood to argue online with strangers about squarewaves. There are so much more important things in life and this last week has reminded me of it. All I say for now is that *analogsurviver*'s attitudinal scepticism about 44.1 kHz PCM digital audio is comical. _Visual_ shape of waveforms is not a precise indication of the perceiced sound. Bandwidth limitations and non-linear phase shifts can shape waveforms unrecognizable yet the perceived sound can be identical or near-identical to the original waveform. On the other hand noise, flutter and distortion etc. typical to analog formats may not be _visually_ detectable, but are possibly perceiced by ears.

Even if we could reproduced near perfect acoustic sqaurewaves, by the time the sound enters our inner ear and stimulates the basilar membrane it doesn't "look" squarewave anymore. 

--------------------------------​
I won't be very active here in the near future, but I probably visit where to take my mind off my sadness. Take care of people important to you.


----------



## bigshot (May 20, 2018)

jgazal said:


> You will have to pick one.



You haven’t heard any of these?

I’m getting the feeling that no one actually listens to binaural recordings!


----------



## jgazal

Macy Gray or Casey Abrams yes.
I have linked Casey Abrams YouTube video clip in the first post of the immersive audio thread.
I haven't heard the others, except some sample excerpts.


----------



## Hooster

Phronesis said:


> This isn’t the Hugo 2 thread, I think you got it mixed up from the reference in the Hugo 2 thread.



Oops, yes, you are right. Apologies. No wonder it was weird.


----------



## bigshot

jgazal said:


> Macy Gray or Casey Abrams yes.




OK. I'll order Marcy Gray then. If I buy something no one has ever heard, it's kind of pointless because we can't discuss it.


----------



## james444

@bigshot: get the Chesky Demo 2CD set. If this doesn't work for you, probably nothing else will:

www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00TXZM3MQ

This German site offers acceptable quality preview of the tracks, so you don't even have to buy it to see whether the spatial cues will work for you:

https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/jazz/detail/-/art/dr-chesky-the-ultimate-headphone-demonst/hnum/6911270


----------



## RRod

I ordered these about a week ago:
http://skulpturenpark-waldfrieden.de/en/shop/cd-produktionen.html

Will report back once they arrive from this, um, label?


----------



## castleofargh

@analogsurviver. if you want to post pictures, what's wrong with using the "upload a file" button right next to "post reply"?

about samples, square waves, channel delay, whatev, maybe you feel like you've had all the practical evidence you will ever need to know that more samples make a clear audible improvement, even way up for various DSD rates. so you've moved on from proving the difference, to making up hypotheses about possible causes where fewer samples could alter sound audibly. but for most people who have conducted blind tests of 44.1khz vs higher sample rate files, looking for the cause of audible change is asking them to drink before opening the bottle because they did not hear any difference. 

you're not going to convince anybody of a reason why something is heard, before you can convince them that something is heard. and on that particular matter, you and an entire industry had years of failing to do so convincingly.
 you need to put some serious efforts toward being able to demonstrate a change or provide a way for us to finally hear the stuff you think you're hearing thanks to higher sample rate, before all that pointless argumentation about why I'm hearing something that I'm not hearing.

so far, just upsampling the 44.1khz file to 48 or 96khz has been enough to remove even the anecdotal circumstances where I could notice a change. suggesting to me that the differences I got in those situations, came from the DAC or playback software. and not from the lack of ultrasounds, or better inter channel delay, or prettier square waves, or any of the 1000 and 1 ways you have come up with to try and convince people that more samples must sound better.


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 20, 2018)

809





james444 said:


> @bigshot: get the Chesky Demo 2CD set. If this doesn't work for you, probably nothing else will:
> 
> www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00TXZM3MQ
> 
> ...


So Good  



Amber can be boring, but its mosty marvelous instrumentalists here

The choir is the best demo on the album for sound stage!



;;l


----------



## bigshot (May 20, 2018)

james444 said:


> @bigshot: get the Chesky Demo 2CD set.



As I said, I don't want a sampler. I'm interested in finding out if binaural is able to do a good job of conveying an album musically, not just as an effect. I wanted an album that is 1) good compositions, 2) skillfully performed on acoustic instruments, and 3) well engineered with binaural sound.

I remember the era of the "demonstration record". In the 60s, there were a whole bunch of LPs of trains passing by in stereo, bullfrogs croaking in swamps, bits and pieces of different kinds of music from honky tonk piano to bleeding chunks of symphonies to goofy ping pong stereo muzak. Duffers would buy these records to show off their hifi to their buddies. That isn't what I'm looking for. It showed off two channel as an effect, not what it could do musically. That came later with Culshaw's opera recordings and the Beatles' Sgt Pepper and the Living Stereo series.

Binaural has been described here as being like experiencing a musical performance in real life. I've had enough experience with live musical performances to recognize that when I hear it. I also have experience in knowing how a performance can be enhanced using multi miking techniques and mixing. My purpose here is to hear what the technique is capable of musically. That takes full length recordings of good music by good musicians. I guess that is a difficult concept to explain to some folks.


----------



## Malfunkt (May 20, 2018)

bigshot said:


> ...
> 
> 
> I would like to hear some holographic binaural recordings of acoustic instruments like strings and brass and woodwinds. Would you please post a link to a binaural CD that is 1) good music, 2) a good performance and 3) well recorded in holographic binaural? I'll buy it and listen to it and come back and let you know what I think. Thanks
> ...





bigshot said:


> As I said, I don't want a sampler. I'm interested in finding out if binaural is able to do a good job of conveying an album musically, not just as an effect. I wanted an album that is 1) good compositions, 2) skillfully performed on acoustic instruments, and 3) well engineered with binaural sound....
> 
> Binaural has been described here as being like experiencing a musical performance in real life. I've had enough experience with live musical performances to recognize that when I hear it. I also have experience in knowing how a performance can be enhanced using multi miking techniques and mixing. My purpose here is to hear what the technique is capable of musically. That takes full length recordings of good music by good musicians. I guess that is a difficult concept to explain to some folks.



A 1995 recording... sounds fine, and at the very least acceptable to its audience. Is it better than stereo recording techniques? In some ways yes, in some ways, perhaps not. Can we put this 'myth' that binaural is not a valid technique to bed yet? Sure it is not a widespread commercial success, but as a recording technique it has a niche application and is in use. Chesky Records is a commercial venture, and I imagine successful to have lasted this many years.

Also, we have Tyll (formerly of Innerfidelity), Steve Guttenberg and a host of others who acknowledge this approach for whatever it is worth.

I'm not sure what would make any of us - including @bigshot an authority - as this seems already have been open to a number of professional in the field to explore.

(corrected with examples of Binaural+ videos)






Probably better to get the actually CD or a newer one for even better recording quality. The sound is a bit - warm even right out of my HD540.

Also, music is not the only application. Nor should it be the only application used as a benchmark.

For myself I like binaural for field recording, particularly Naturespace. Again, free app to download.

http://www.naturespace.org/about-naturespace (watch video on this page to learn more). Check out some of the newer downloadable recordings, which have free previews. I feel that Naturespace have a higher quality and more fully immersive effect than the Chesky recordings. The video on their site shows the engineers approach (John Bueler - creator of Naturespace,  over two decades of industry exp, Berkee, etc). Should be of interest.

Personally, for myself, even though I am interested in binaural, I am not searching out binaural music. So to that @bigshot, I may share a similar preference for the traditional stereo recording techniques, even when listened through a headphone. I just don't feel that  the technique should be ... pooped on. At least objectively. We can have our subjective preference.

Lastly, another video. this time from the Verge showing one of the 3Dio binaural recording sets also contrasting it with 5.1, Atmos, discussing its history, Beck's (yes that major recording artist) usage, and the future applications including VR. You'll need to get to the minute mark when they switch to the 3Dio mic. I feel John Beuler's (naturespace) techniques are better, and requires more than just the straight recording. His technique seems more layered, artistic and produced.



More video, from Verge, just straight city ambience, no montage pretty cool


Also, their are *millions* of views / subscribers for binaural - under the guise of ASMR. Search YouTube for 'ASMR' and you are bound to find a number of husky sounding ladies doing barbershop skits - and it may give some a tingling sensation. Again, niche market, but a commercial market (YouTube ad spend) that never existed before.


----------



## jgazal

Malfunkt said:


>




@Malfunkt, are you sure those are binaural recordings?

There is a reason why Chesky is recently releasing the albums from the binaural+ series  with advisory from Dr. Choueiri.

His crosstalk cancellation algorithm really shines with binaural recordings and vice-versa, but solely they are not so compelling...

In the immersive audio thread I've described an easy (but not very practical for daily use) way to experience crosstalk avoidance...


----------



## Malfunkt

jgazal said:


> @Malfunkt, are you sure those are binaural recordings?
> 
> There is a reason why Chesky is recently releasing the albums from the binaural+ series  with advisory from Dr. Choueiri.
> 
> ...



Oops! Yes you are correct. I updated my post with proper examples from Chesky. Pretty easy to find examples from Chesky on Youtube. I just did a quick search.


----------



## bigshot

Just show me the good stuff. I’ve produced multi miked music and I’m open to something better, but you have to point to an example. Everything I’ve heard so far doesn’t impress me. But it seems that a lot of people who talk about binaural music don’t listen to very much of it.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, should have said " approximation to the square wave" - with all the bandwidth limitation of ANY recording medium, there are better or worse approximations possible, never a mathematically perfect square wave, which in theory goes to infinite high frequency. Same as triangle wave, only the order of harmonics is different. And no nitpicking about the exact math formulas for either, please - anyone interested, please just use Google.
> 
> That said, for "approximation to the square wave" : good HR > analog >>> 44.1. You can twist and turn and spin as much as you'd like, the just written STANDS. Period. Google any square wave from a CBS STR 112 record ( but, FIRST you will have to learn just WHAT is really recorded on this test record ...) , played by any decent wide frequency response phono cartridge - and compare that to the pathetic 44.1 whatever. And, yes, CBS STR 112 does include 1 kHz square wave at the innermost grooves of the record, which, if played by high quality stylus and cartridge,  will STILL  be better approximation to the theorethically perfect square wave than 44.1 sampling of PCM.


Several problems here, but the big one is attempting to evaluate a waveform visually.  There are so many aspects to consider, and the visual appearance doesn't correlate well with what is actually heard.  For example, your STR112 square wave.  Yeah, the pix are available, and even appear on the back of the record jacket.  However, what you consider as the best approximation relates only to the visual, and ignores other forms of distortion.  The STR112 groove is a very special case as it's actually a triangle wave, but when played by a velocity output cartridge it comes out square-ish, with some distortions from the rather instant change in velocity of the stylus by slamming into the groove wall at the peak of the triangle. . We can spin a square wave in many media using pre-distortion tricks similar to that.  For example, the massive overshoot of a multi-pole analog antialiasing filter can be compensated for with a specially tuned all-pass network with inverse phase response.  The STR112 "square wave" groove is a test of tracking ability, though, not a test of some other sort of quality, especially bandwidth.  A triangle wave will never be recorded like that in audio for two reasons - it doesn't exist in actual music, and the RIAA curve would be applied distorting the waveform.  So it will only exist on the STR112, and in no other place.  The second issue is what happens next: the transducer.  IF you could get a square wave, or similar, out of a preamp, and amp, you can't produce it acoustically all the way to the ears.  But none of it matters, because there are no square waves in audio apart from test signals.  Sure, the 44.1 1kHz filtered wave looks different from the STR112 signal (without RIAA, of course), but that's not a reasonable comparison at all.  With modern filters the waveform you see of a 1kHz square wave through a 44.1 system is identical to the theoretically perfect band-limited square wave.  The STR112  is a special case engineered signal, and the other (44.1) shows a deviation from square mandated by the removal of the infinite harmonic structure.  Please don't try to equate any of that to audibility in music!  And absolutely NONE of this has anything to do with binaural recording!


analogsurviver said:


> And, please, do not try to teach me regarding analog record recording and frequencies that can be put on the analog disk master.


It's clear that teaching you anything would be futile, so all I can do is point out errors and misconceptions.


analogsurviver said:


> READ what I wrote... - and you shoul find "recorded in real time ". That means recording to whatever the upper limit of the cutting head - and it is much the same as with the ultimate speed of the propeller driven aircraft - 800 and a few km/h, depending on temperature, air pressure, precision of measurement and willingness to listen to whatever lie you are more prone to believe - much more so than the actual aircraft itself. Once the propeller tips reach the speed of sound, its effectiveness plummets towards zero - and no amount of power would help a bit. If you stretch that "propeller driven" to turbo contrarotating props, you get the Tu-95 as the fastest propeller driven aircraft in regular service. It might be some prototype pips it in ultimate speed for a km or a mile or so, but that's it. Want go faster - jets and rockets.


Basic concepts. No issue.  Continue:


analogsurviver said:


> With cutting heads, it is 27 kHz give or take a few Hz either way - which can be stretched by recording at lower speed than the one intended for playback. JVC did a special test record for developing the CD-4 phono cartridge - cut at 1/10 of the nominal 33 1/3 RPM, theorethically reaching flat response to 270 kHz.


No doubt with a very special cutting stylus and cut at a very, very low level.


analogsurviver said:


> This test record has NEVER been available outside JVC walls - and is the reason why the very first generation of JVC CD-4 capable cartridges is so good and so much in demand - more than 40 years after their introduction. And JVC used this 1/10 speed recording to record a Dirac pulse or Delta function or whatever you want to call it - best approximation they could achieve - as seen in this link : https://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/x1.shtml


You're missing two very important bits here.  The HF limit of a cutter is NOT a single frequency!  Not 27kHz, not 20kHz, not 200kHz!  It's limited by the physical shape of the stylus and the velocity (and resulting amplitude) of the cut groove.  If the velocity is too high the back facet of the stylus hits the all of the groove just cut by the front facet and rips into it, creating a lot of distortion and a hard velocity limit.  But it's a _velocity_ limit, and therefore a function of both frequency and amplitude.  You simply cannot define the frequency response of the LP system without completely detailing amplitude as well.  You've missed this completely, your figures mean nothing.  It doesn't mean a thing that higher frequencies were cut in special or experimental conditions because that's not what we have, not what we use or ever used.  

There's the problem you're missing: Since the entire vinyl system has hard limits to stylus velocity the maximum output you can get of the system is a rather non-flat curve.  To put it another way, the entire system has limited ability to output high level high frequencies, unlike PCM which has a flat full output bandwidth.  If you had an amplifier that measured flat at 1W, but showed more and more roll-off of the high end the higher the output got, you'd say it was broken, right?  Welcome to the LP!  So that triangular groove producing a "square wave" like output only works up to a certain level, then the entire thing falls apart, even though you can still record above that point.  The PCM band-limited square wave is the same at all levels up to 0dBFS.  


analogsurviver said:


> Be it as it may - the "approximations of the square wave in music" off the LP given in the link ARE far sharper/faster/call them whatever you like - than anything available on more normal records - not to mention the CD.


Perhaps at some level, but as you increase recording level the system physical limits change the HF maximum output. No, it's not all that good.  The louder the signal, the more restricted HF becomes, and that means it's actually slower!  


analogsurviver said:


> If the record is cut at half speed and master recording, either analog or digital ( DSD ) does contain high frequencies above 20 kHz, the flat response  is about to 54 kHz. That and of course HR could still improve upon the direct to disk nachievement.


Half-speed mastering doesn't change the maximum velocity of the cutting stylus, though.  It's a physical limit imposed by the size and shape of the cutting stylus, and the groove it cuts.


analogsurviver said:


> For "waaaay" above 20 kHz, please check Bruel & Kjaer measurement mics. I do not know specifically which model(s) have been used, but even if and when the least extended frequency response mics have been modified to interface with audio equipment, it is STILL  very high. In 1982 or so , there was the very first Bruel & Kjaer mic specifically made for music recording first  made available - the 4006, which remains in production, with relatively small modification to the electronics, to this very day as the DPA 4006 . And, there are other DPAs that sport considerably more extended response than the 4006.


Yeah, I've used the 4006 and relatives, nice mics.  I have an Earthworks M30 that goes out flat to 30kHz.  But again, it doesn't matter.  The acoustic content above 20kHz is inaudible.  It's an interesting test to see the actual spectral energy in an acoustic signal (using the M30) vs the output of an LP.  Real ultrasonic energy is quite low, but the ultrasonic output of an LP is much higher.  Why? The output of an LP above 20kHz is all distortion products, not music, created by one of the biggest issues in LP playback: mistracking of high level, high frequency grooves!  It's not hard to get high levels of energy at 8kHz, but the third harmonic of that is 25kHz, and odd harmonics are generated by mistracking.  

I'm not saying that somewhat wider bandwidth of the entire system may not be a good thing, but you've completely over-valued this aspect without regard to actual recording capabilities which are severely limited at the high end. All those ultrasonic carriers from the CD4 days were recorded at extremely low levels.  They had to be, or they couldn't be cut.

You've failed to relate any of this to binaural recording, so I guess that's a dead horse now.  Fine with me.


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> As I said, I don't want a sampler.



No, you didn't say that. At least not in your post addressed to me:



bigshot said:


> Which binaural albums? I looked at Amazon and all I could find is one Pearl Jam album and a bunch of self hypnosis and sound effects records. Are there any binaural recordings of music with acoustic instruments you could recommend?



You may have said it elsewhere. But you post a lot here, and sorry, I don't have time to read and remember all of your posts.

Anyway, if you're still looking for binaural album recommendations, there are some solid ones, imo, in the first post of this thread (incidentally started by a sound engineer):

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/awesome-binaural-albums.511850/


----------



## james444

gregorio said:


> Would you still have your view of binaural vs multi-mic'ing if there were multi-mic productions made specifically for HPs? This would be an apples to apples comparison and I strongly suspect that most would prefer the multi-mic'ing or at least, not consider binaural to be as superior as they previously believed. Ironically, just last week I was involved in a project which comes quite close to this. While speaker compatibility was required, HP playback was a much higher priority than is typically the case. If I can get agreement from the rights holders to post an except and find a way to post it which preserves my anonymity then I will but it's going to take some time, more than a few days.



I'd love to hear this and have my view of binaural vs multi-mic'ing challenged, if you can make it happen!


----------



## KeithEmo

The "feedback mechanism" between our brains and what we see occurs at several levels. At one level, the brain tells our eyes which way to look, although that process is quite a bit more complex than you might think, and involves several different areas of the brain, which do different things at different speeds. At other levels, different areas of the brain are "programmed" to look for different patterns and shapes. So, for example, whether you can see a very dim speck of light will depend on the sensitivity of the cells involved in seeing dim light of that color, and, of course, in which direction your eye is looking and focused. However, whether you see a circle or not depends on whether the portion of your brain "tuned to detecting circles" is stimulated enough to exceed its own individual detection threshold, and that threshold depends on a wide variety of other brain activity. In other words, the physical sensitivity of your eye determines whether you can see "the pixels that make up part of the image of the circle".... but how much the portion of your brain keyed to detecting circles has been activated will in part determine whether you "see" those pixels as a circle or not. Your brain may recognize a certain number of pixels as 'a circle" one time, and not another, depending on other inputs. (This is related to the McGurk effect.... if you hear a roar you may actually be more able to see a tiger.) 

It's simple to suggest that, if the stimulus simply isn't powerful enough to cause a sensory neuron to fire, then we obviously can't perceive it. The only catch there is that our sensory neurons are_ ALWAYS_ firing at a sort of background level. There is never a moment when you aren't hearing _something_.... so there is _always_ raw information going into your brain from your ears. In order to claim that an incoming signal has no influence whatsoever you would need to show that it fails to influence the normal background firing rate of the neurons. (Akin to what you do when you search for small amounts of radiation by looking for statistical anomalies in the normal background level.) An example with audio relevant to music would be how sensitive your brain is to detecting harmonics. When your brain registers a certain tone, how strongly does it activate portions of the brain that detect and note harmonics of that frequency? If your brain has learned to be very sensitive to harmonics after detecting primary frequencies, then this would aid in being able to recognize different instruments by the variety of harmonics they produce. And, as a side effect, it would also make you more able to notice low levels of harmonic distortion. This would happen because your brain would be actively seeking the _PATTERN_ of "primary frequency plus related harmonics". If your brain wasn't actively seeking to identify that pattern it might ignore those same harmonics as "meaningless noise". As a result, one person might perceive THD present, while another might ignore it as noise.... or the same person might react one way or the other depending on other stimuli present.

What we're talking about is a feedback mechanism in how the information is processed..... it is not necessarily part of the physical mechanism of the ear.
However, trying to analyze the situation becomes very complex, because our sensitivity to certain patterns can be influenced by the presence of other patterns.
(So, for example, you might be more sensitive to THD with a certain instrument, and less so with another instrument that covers the same frequency range, once your brain identifies one or the other.)

However, to answer the questions about how much we know about how all this works.... the answer seems to be "not enough".
Most of the studies done seem to be about hearing loss and the loss of the ability to understand speech.
If you Google "the neuroscience of hearing" you will find many very general papers - and a few very detailed ones - but very few that address the entire process.

Here are a few interesting links.... which are about as close to "on pint" as I could find.

The first one addresses how the results of audiology type "hearing tests" don't correlate well with the ability to understand speech at all:
https://www.brainvolts.northwestern.edu/documents/KrausAnderson_ENT2014.pdf

This one talks about several interesting theories - but more serves to highlight how many of the details haven't been researched yet:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web1/Sancar.html



gregorio said:


> You seem to be arguing against yourself and agreeing with my argument! Assuming that it is "supposed to sound like Laurel" and that it sometimes sounds like Yanni due to "distortion, noise, etc." then as you now appear to agree, it must be a function of the recording/audio creation and NOT a function of the reproduction equipment. If, as you've previously asserted, it should be a function of the reproduction equipment, then we end up with some nonsensical questions: You know it's supposed to sound like "Laurel" but how would say a DAC know? Even if it could somehow know, how would it know what is "distortion, noise, etc." and remove it to just leave the content pertaining to "Laurel" and how would such processing apply to music, where "distortion, noise, etc." is commonly not only a desirable but a vital component of music?
> 
> I've already effectively asked you these questions but you conveniently ignored them and just carried on arguing anyway. This implies your response to my question "How does any of this make any sense to you?" is effectively: "By conveniently ignoring any logic/facts which would invalidate or contradict your agenda." Which leads to what conclusion? Which in turn means you're just going round in circles, YET AGAIN!
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver (May 21, 2018)

@james444 : I do not remember correctly, but I think you have been reffering to the recordings I did send to you as binaural.

Well, that is NOT  the case. I did send you the CDs  that feature Jecklin Disk recordings. In our PMs I did tell you some of the recordings I do both in Jecklin Disk AND, if there is enough time not to jeopardize the correct placement for JD, also the binaural version - both in parallel.

IF it is a really big recording and enough time, I do - in addition to the two already mentioned - a THIRD parallel recording. And that is binaural processed for loudspeaker reproduction before being fed to the recorder. This way, I can avoid doing another A/D and D/A conversion in order to arrive at the "binaural for speakers" version from a previously recorded binaural recording. This has been of paramount importance in days when I have been recording to CD-R, that is to say to 44.1 kHz sampling PCM - where second time going trough RBCD  recording lost simply too much of the binaural effect ( brick filtering yet another time brick filtered - yuck... ) . It is of far less importance with higher rates or DSD128 I am using now - but keeping the signal path as short and simple as possible is NEVER a bad idea.

@gregorio : back in the day, Sheffield Lab issued the same session recorded both with multimiking and with "simple" ( forgot exactly which type of low count, maybe even 2 mics only setup was used, far too many years to remember off the bat ) mic setup. It was one of my friends trying to impress me with the difference. I endured - politely - trough the first "halftime", when multimiking has been boring in the extreme - only to lit up with joy troughout the secomd "halftime", the same music recorded in simple recording technique.

I did state that I am not and will never be a multimike guy - but I can both see and understand why somebody could feel exactly the opposite. The most likely "perpetrators of - to me - unholly blasphemy" are either the composers ( who may have a very specific sound of their work in mind, OTHER than any person in the audience might ever hear during the live performance ) or musicians ( who would like to present their instrument or voice from THEIR perspective - again, considerably different from anything anybody in the audience might ever be able to hear during the live performance ).

Nothing wrong with either of the two approaches - unless presented as the ONLY right way.

However, due to the inherent time delays with multimiking ( orders of magnitude greater than whatever time error differences among any reasonable recording , be it analog, PCM or DSD ), two mike recording techniques will always provide superiour results with recording that preserves time cues the best.

For this, nothing can beat binaural DSD - which is also the only that can be personally verified, particularly with headworn mics. It is not only "being there at the recording", it is "being there where the exact microphones have been positioned during the recording".

A single seat removed from the "sweet spot" in any given venue may well mean make or break of the entire recording.
Above is the prime reason the seats in any given venue have VERY different prices - more in the middle and  more in the front-ish ( but not the front row...) rows, the higher the price. Leftish and rightish and far away-ish seats - the low-ish prices. Unless the acoustics are not approaching the newly built Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg - where, if the hearsay is to be believed, it does not matter nearly as much where do you seat - when compared to other venues.

Any other mic technique is - at least - one level removed from this direct as possible path, offered by binaural. And with each level of removal from the most direct path, there is the requirement for the recording engineer to provide more and more of his/hers input - ultimately requiring subjective decisions. And allowing more space to create the recording as an art form in itself.

Nothing wrong with either choice - as long as the listener can make an informed decision.

All of the above holds true for the pure acoustical music only.  With anything amplified, multimiking is usually - if not the only possible - securely the most convinient/usable way.


----------



## KeithEmo

As I recall, the whole idea about PCM having interchannel delay originated a long time ago.
It comes from misinterpreting the observation that the samples for the two channels as they are stored in a PCM digital audio signal alternate.
In the early days, many people who didn't understand how digital audio actually works ministerpreted this to mean that "the channels were one sample out of synch".
(I would say this qualifies as a legitimate _MYTH_.... and, of course, it isn't true.)




analogsurviver said:


> "Enjoying" finding the most suitable photo sharing service at the moment ... one that will be ok for me and various forums. It may not be today, but soon.
> 
> I would sure prefer to make some more recordings using various other hardware and software to find more ways to "arrive" at other ways PCM can develop interchannel delay ...


----------



## james444

analogsurviver said:


> @james444 : I do not remember correctly, but I think you have been reffering to the recordings I did send to you as binaural.
> 
> Well, that is NOT  the case. I did send you the CDs  that feature Jecklin Disk recordings. In our PMs I did tell you some of the recordings I do both in Jecklin Disk AND, if there is enough time not to jeopardize the correct placement for JD, also the binaural version - both in parallel.



Yeah, sorry for that. Anyway, even these JD recordings work very well for me with IEMs. Make me think I could pinpoint every member of the choir in 3D space.


----------



## bigshot

james444 said:


> You may have said it elsewhere. But you post a lot here, and sorry, I don't have time to read and remember all of your posts.



No problem. I understand. This thread is major league crapped up with irrelevant comments, and even the binaural stuff doesn't belong here. By the way, I'm not looking for general recommendations of binaural recordings. I'm looking for a recommendation by someone who has the album and is familiar with it so I can discuss it after I listen to it. I've explained that about five times now and my posts keep getting buried with piles of stuff and replies to stuff and more stuff.


----------



## jgazal (May 21, 2018)

bigshot said:


> No problem. I understand. This thread is major league crapped up with irrelevant comments, and even the binaural stuff doesn't belong here. By the way, I'm not looking for general recommendations of binaural recordings. I'm looking for a recommendation by someone who has the album and is familiar with it so I can discuss it after I listen to it. I've explained that about five times now and my posts keep getting buried with piles of stuff and replies to stuff and more stuff.



Some Chesky Recordings are on Spotify so you can discuss *now*.

“When the Saints Go Marching in” from Wycliffe Gordon is interesting because the musicians go literally marching in in the beginning and out at the end... I get mildly back externalization with headphones. I can’t right now use my crosstalk pillow cancellation with my speakers...




In that “you are surrounded” album there is a track from Javon Jackson (Walking in Circles) that is boring, I don’t perceive when he walks in front of the binaural head (only a mildly back externalization like the others). But the sax tone seems very lifelike to me. Is it a sax? 

This album has some binaural tracks:



In some recordings voices seem “underwhelming”. Perhaps some newer recordings use close mic to reinforce voices... I don’t know.
There is no Simon and Garfunkel, Janis Joplin, Elvis or Beatles in binaural...


----------



## gregorio (May 22, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> [1] I endured - politely - trough the first "halftime", when multimiking has been boring in the extreme - only to lit up with joy troughout the secomd "halftime", the same music recorded in simple recording technique.
> [2] The most likely "perpetrators of - to me - unholly blasphemy"
> [3] However, due to the inherent time delays with multimiking ( orders of magnitude greater than whatever time error differences among any reasonable recording , be it analog, PCM or DSD ), two mike recording techniques will always provide superiour results with recording that preserves time cues the best.



1. Your post is full of subjective opinion and no real evidence, do you even know what "evidence" is? Subjective opinion/observation is worth little in this sub-forum and your personal subjective observation with worth even less, after your demonstration of what you were able to observe!

2. "Perpetrators of unholy blaspheme"? You mean decades of the entire professional recording industry and you're the saint or prophet bringing the word of god to all us blasphemers? After being accused of ignorance, making up nonsense and self-delusion, you're doing a truly excellent job of proving the accusations beyond even the slightest doubt!

3. If time delays were the ONLY concern when recording, you would be correct but of course it is NOT, which is why your assertion is utter nonsense! Additionally, the stereo mic technique which "preserves time cues the best" is the near-coincident pair (XY for example), NOT binaural! So if your ONLY concern is to preserve timing cues why are you using the less accurate binaural or Jecklin pair/disk rather than a near-coincident pair?

So, instead of answering the questions and providing reliable evidence to support your claims, you simply post yet another bunch of irrelevancies and made up nonsense. You have repeatedly been made aware this is unacceptable here and that you're effectively trolling. I have therefore reported your post for trolling and will continue to report your future posts until you either: A. Post some supporting evidence and answer the questions or B. Stop making up nonsense/false assertions or C. You get banned. Hopefully others will start doing this as well and you'll stop or be stopped fairly quickly, we've already gone well beyond "more than enough".

G


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> As I recall, the whole idea about PCM having interchannel delay originated a long time ago.
> It comes from misinterpreting the observation that the samples for the two channels as they are stored in a PCM digital audio signal alternate.



Somehow related to this I have always wondered why CD wasn't engineered to support real mono and instead stores mono audio as double mono which is kind of dumb. Real mono would have allowed ~2.5 hours of mono audio stored on one dics.


----------



## KeithEmo

I suspect the reason was simply that CDs were always envisioned as a stereo format.
PCM offers all sorts of other options, including multi-channel, and lower sample rates for spoken word content like books.
However, by locking CDs in to a single format, they made it easier to avoid compatibility issues, and to ensure that every player could play every disc.
(It's basically the same reason you don't see too many black and white digital cameras these days.)



71 dB said:


> Somehow related to this I have always wondered why CD wasn't engineered to support real mono and instead stores mono audio as double mono which is kind of dumb. Real mono would have allowed ~2.5 hours of mono audio stored on one dics.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 3. If time delays were the ONLY concern when recording, you would be correct but of course it is NOT, which is why your assertion is utter nonsense! Additionally, the stereo mic technique which "preserves time cues the best" is the near-coincident pair (XY for example), NOT binaural! So if your ONLY concern is to preserve timing cues why are you using the less binaural or Jecklin pair/disk rather than a near-coincident pair?
> 
> G



Sorry, I don't fully get what you mean by this response. XY pair has mics VERY near each other (like an inch apart) and so the resulting ITD values become much smaller than what our hearing expects. So, I wouldn't say it preserves time cues the best. When the distance of mics in a "near"-coincident pair resembles the distance of human ears, the time cues are preserved the best (for example OSS and ORTF).


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I've spent more money on my movies and music than I have on my house and cars and education.


Yep...i have had friends with expensve gear and relatively small music collections...this was before downloading and streaming...makes no sense.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> XY pair has mics VERY near each other (like an inch apart) and so the resulting ITD values become much smaller than what our hearing expects. So, I wouldn't say it preserves time cues the best. When the distance of mics in a "near"-coincident pair resembles the distance of human ears, the time cues are preserved the best (for example OSS and ORTF).



A near co-incident pair has the mic capsules placed as near to each other as possible, thereby nearly eliminating time delays and best preserving phase coherency. With say binaural mic'ing, the idea is not to preserve time delay/phase coherency but to introduce a time delay/phase incoherency between the two mics which represents the distance between a listener's headphone drivers.

G


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> It comes from misinterpreting the observation that the samples for the two channels as they are stored in a PCM digital audio signal alternate.



Could it really be that simple, that analogsurvivor simply doesn't know what an interleaved file format is? It still doesn't explain all the nonsense about square waves and rise times though.



71 dB said:


> Somehow related to this I have always wondered why CD wasn't engineered to support real mono and instead stores mono audio as double mono which is kind of dumb.



Why is that dumb? "Real mono" can only be played back satisfactorily on a mono system or on a system like 5.1 with a centre speaker. If you playback mono on a stereo system, you get all the sound coming out of only one (the left OR the right) speaker. When CD was introduced there were no 5.1 systems and as mono was inferior to stereo, it had been in serious decline for some time.

G


----------



## bigshot (May 22, 2018)

If a single channel is perfect sound and real mono, why do you need to change anything? Just play one channel. I've never noticed a difference myself. But I do wonder why amps don't have mono buttons any more. It would help with fake stereo rechannels and mono recordings where the engineer doesn't bother to flatten to mono before mastering.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> [1] If a single channel is perfect sound and real mono, why do you need to change anything? Just play one channel. I've never noticed a difference myself.
> [2] But I do wonder why amps don't have mono buttons any more.



1. You don't need to change anything, if you've only got a single speaker system. If you've got a 5.1 system, the only thing you would need to change (if it's not set by default) is to route the mono channel to the centre speaker. If you have a stereo system and don't mind or don't notice that all the sound is only coming out of one side of the stereo setup then you don't need to change anything, otherwise you do, you need to split that mono channel into two channels, one for the left speaker and one for the right speaker.

2. All the consumer amps I recall which had a mono button, converted a stereo signal to dual/double/split mono (or whatever you want to call it), not mono. IE. Two (identical) signals, one for the left speaker and one for the right speaker.

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. A near co-incident pair has the mic capsules placed as near to each other as possible, thereby nearly eliminating time delays and best preserving phase coherency.
> 2. With say binaural mic'ing, the idea is not to preserve time delay/phase coherency but to introduce a time delay/phase incoherency between the two mics which represents the distance between a listener's headphone drivers.
> 
> G


1. Very true, but maximal phase _coherency_ is not a favorable thing in spatiality. Controlled phase difference is. For example, amplitude panoration preserves phase coherency perfectly, but is far from the best ways to create spatiality.
2. Yes, and such phase incoherency is exactly the kind of controlled difference we want with binaural recordings.


gregorio said:


> 1. Why is that dumb?
> 2. "Real mono" can only be played back satisfactorily on a mono system or on a system like 5.1 with a centre speaker.
> 3. If you playback mono on a stereo system, you get all the sound coming out of only one (the left OR the right) speaker. When CD was introduced there were no 5.1 systems and as mono was inferior to stereo, it had been in serious decline for some time.
> 
> G


1. Because we store the same information twice instead of having double maximum playing time.
2. Depends on what you mean by satisfactory. People listen to mono audio on stereo speakers all the time finding it more or less satisfactory. Having mono audio on a CD as real mono instead of double mono would not change this, because the CD player would output the audio on both channels anyway, as if it was double mono. So, having real mono CDs would not change the problem of listening to mono audio on stereo speakers. Only the maximum playing time would double. Furthermore, redirecting sound to center speaker in a 5.1, 7.1 etc. system would also be the same.
3. Mono audio is stored on CD as double mono and plays back on both channels (my whole damn point here!). I am talking about CD format, not your own studio system and how you have configured it to play back mono sound (that is your business). Mono is inferior to stereo, of course, but there are TONS OF historical monophonic recordings out there and people want them for the quality of performance despite of sonic inferiority. I am not a big fan of historical recordings, but a lot of people are. So, mono releases is a thing with CD, at least when it comes to classical music and jazz/blues.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> 1. Very true, but maximal phase _coherency_ is not a favorable thing in spatiality. Controlled phase difference is. For example, amplitude panoration preserves phase coherency perfectly, but is far from the best ways to create spatiality.
> 2. Yes, and such phase incoherency is exactly the kind of controlled difference we want with binaural recordings.



1. Again, you place spatiality as the absolute priority, it is not! It's a concern but NOT a priority. There are other higher priorities; sound quality, clarity, frequency content/response. balance, positioning, etc. For most music, binaural recording isn't even possible, let alone "favourable"! And, despite binaural recordings having been available for many years, consumers have voted overwhelmingly for amplitude panning because it's relatively consistent during playback, unlike time delay (psycho-acoustic) panning!! Are we not going round in circles for the umpteenth time??
2. That's one of the problems with binaural, you don't get "exactly" that difference! When recording, we don't know the size of the listener's head, whether they're using HPs or IEMs and therefore "exactly" what the distance should be. Hence why binaural recordings can be rather hit and miss for different individuals.



71 dB said:


> 1. Because we store the same information twice instead of having double maximum playing time.
> 2. Depends on what you mean by satisfactory. People listen to mono audio on stereo speakers all the time finding it more or less satisfactory. [2a] Having mono audio on a CD as real mono instead of double mono would not change this, because the CD player would output the audio on both channels anyway, as if it was double mono.
> 3. Mono audio is stored on CD as double mono and plays back on both channels (my whole damn point here!).
> [3a]. I am talking about CD format, not your own studio system and how you have configured it to play back mono sound (that is your business).



1. How many mono music recordings are there which require 160 instead of 80mins?
2. By satisfactory I do not mean all the audio coming out of the left speaker only, didn't I make that clear? I don't know anyone who would find that satisfactory. What most people listen to is is split mono and that they do find satisfactory and that's why CDs store audio that way!
2a. Do you know what all CD players would output throughout the 1980s?
3. No, that is not your whole damn point, your whole damn point was NOT to store mono on CD as split mono!
3a. I am not talking about my studio, I'm talking about the CD format.

G


----------



## pinnahertz

On a typical 5.1 system if the surround mode is set for decoding 5.1 digital bitstream decoding (Dolby Digital, or DTS, etc., ), the automatic fall-back mode is ProLogic.  If a mono CD is played through ProLogic all audio comes out of the center channel speaker only, aside from whatever bass management is going on.  Most AVRs store the surround mode with input selection, so if a listener has chosen something like "Stereo" or "Pure Direct" for his CD player, it will take the listener action of choosing ProLogic to get center-channel mono.  However, very few have a dedicated CD player these days, mostly it a DVD/BD player, and mostly the AVR will default to ProLogic if not 5.1 bitstream is detected. Kind of nice, actually...single speaker mono by auto-default.  When it doubt, check the surround mode. 

I agree with 71 dB that a true mono CD mode would have been nice, but given the era of development was never going to happen.  Nobody was thinking about mono back then, especially when the CD was all about quality upgrade from LP. It could have just a single bit flag in the PQ subcode.  But think about it...the playing time of the CD was chosen at 74 minutes, which is long enough to support most symphonic works (though not _because_ it could contain the entire Beethoven 9th, as legend would have it).  What recordings works would have required twice the playing time?  So the need was small, and the target was to blow away the LP..and so that's what they did.

There were a few preamps that had interesting mono modes that permitted selection of left channel into both outs, right channel into both outs, and L+R.  A few even had an L+R "Center" output that could have been used for a special mono-only speaker.  The Marantz 7T is one example that had both a mono-mode switch and a real mono L+R output, even had a mono level trim.   But preamps with these features were few, and pre-dated the CD.


----------



## james444

Real mono CD with double playtime would have been smart for audiobooks. However, that's all water under the bridge in 2018...


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. Again, you place spatiality as the absolute priority, it is not! It's a concern but NOT a priority. There are other higher priorities; sound quality, clarity, frequency content/response. balance, positioning, etc. For most music, binaural recording isn't even possible, let alone "favourable"! And, despite binaural recordings having been available for many years, consumers have voted overwhelmingly for amplitude panning because it's relatively consistent during playback, unlike time delay (psycho-acoustic) panning!! Are we not going round in circles for the umpteenth time??
> 2. That's one of the problems with binaural, you don't get "exactly" that difference! When recording, we don't know the size of the listener's head, whether they're using HPs or IEMs and therefore "exactly" what the distance should be. Hence why binaural recordings can be rather hit and miss for different individuals.


1. Why is say frequency content higher priority than spatiality? Most consumers don't understand anything about panning so how could they vote? They have simply paid for their favorite music and that's it. One could say people have been forcefed amplitude panning and out of ignorance they don't even realize it. Even the favorite music of a lot of people is forcefed to them and they like it out of ignorance of "better music." 
2. How exactly we need to have it? 1 % 10%? You demand perfection from binaural, but not from other methods. Whatever.



gregorio said:


> 1. How many mono music recordings are there which require 160 instead of 80mins?
> 2. By satisfactory I do not mean all the audio coming out of the left speaker only, didn't I make that clear? I don't know anyone who would find that satisfactory. What most people listen to is is split mono and that they do find satisfactory and that's why CDs store audio that way!
> 2a. Do you know what all CD players would output throughout the 1980s?
> 3. No, that is not your whole damn point, your whole damn point was NOT to store mono on CD as split mono!
> ...


1. Many operas for example are over 80 minutes and even more than 2.5 hours! Bach's WTC books I & II are both ~2 hours. You just can collect more on one disc: 6-8 cantatas by Bach instead of "just" 3-4 etc. Would you want 2 copies of 100 books in your bookshelf or 1 copy of 200 books taking the same space?
2. When I propose mono support for CD, I don't mean audio on left speaker only. I mean the mono signal copied to both channels. The player need to know it's mono. One bit can indicate that. Hopefully it's clear now. Please don't twist what I say. You know nobody would propose left channel only audio! 
2a. Well what? Madonna? Michael Jackson?
3. You are splitting hairs in a pointless way. You know what I mean. 
3a. whatever.


----------



## 71 dB

james444 said:


> Real mono CD with double playtime would have been smart for audiobooks.


You are so right. Good point!


----------



## gregorio (May 22, 2018)

71 dB said:


> 1. Why is say frequency content higher priority than spatiality? [1a] Most consumers don't understand anything about panning so how could they vote? [1b] They have simply paid for their favorite music and that's it. [1c] One could say people have been forcefed amplitude panning and out of ignorance they don't even realize it. Even the favorite music of a lot of people is forcefed to them and they like it out of ignorance of "better music."
> 2. How exactly we need to have it? 1 % 10%? [2a] You demand perfection from binaural, but not from other methods. Whatever.



1. Because without frequency content there is no "spatiality" anyway! And, ...
1a. They bought multi-mic'ed recordings in preference to stereo only or binaural recordings.
1b. Exactly.
1c. No they were not force fed amplitude panning, they chose music which could ONLY be created with multiple tracks/mics over older styles of music which could be recorded with a stereo/binaural pair. And, even with older styles which could be recorded in simple stereo, they bought multi-mic'ed recordings of those pieces in preference.

2. I don't know how "exactly" binaural needs to be to work, that's part of the problem! All I know is that quite a few binaural recordings don't work very well for me, I've heard many similar reports from others, plus some for whom it does work very well, so yes, it is rather hit or miss.
2a. No, I do not demand perfection from binaural recording, I just demand that it's superior to other available recording techniques, which it extremely rarely ever is.



71 dB said:


> 1. Many operas for example are over 80 minutes and even more than 2.5 hours! [1a] Bach's WTC books I & II are both ~2 hours. [1b] Would you want 2 copies of 100 books in your bookshelf or 1 copy of 200 books taking the same space?
> 2. When I propose mono support for CD, I don't mean audio on left speaker only. I mean the mono signal copied to both channels. The player need to know it's mono. One bit can indicate that.
> 2a. Well what? Madonna? Michael Jackson?
> 3. You are splitting hairs in a pointless way. You know what I mean.
> 3a. whatever.



1. If they're more than 160 mins, how would single channel of a CD be of benefit?
1a. Why would I want the Well Tempered Clavier in mono? If I'd wanted a lower quality recording of the WTC why would I have bought a CD/CD player in the first place?
1b. I'd want 1 copy of 100 higher quality books!

2. The player not only needs to know it's mono but include the circuitry to split the mono out to both channels. Why increase the cost to support a format (mono) which for music production had already been effectively dead for over a decade?
2a. Which were both stereo mixes (and incidentally could not have been created with binaural recording techniques)!

3. What do you mean I'm splitting hairs, you are the one who claimed it was the "whole damn point", no me!
3a. Yes, exactly, "whatever", so why did you state that?



71 dB said:


> You are so right. Good point!



Were there even audiobooks in 1980? Even if there were, why would someone buy an expensive, extremely high fidelity system/format for audiobooks instead of cheap cassette tapes?

G


----------



## bigshot

They make double length audio book and old time radio CDs. They tell you to use a splitter.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. Because without frequency content…..
> 
> G



gregorio, this has been going on too long. I mentioned an aspect about CD and it became this insane fight between us. I don't care if I lose this, I end this now. Some other posters seemed to get me and that's enough for me.


----------



## 71 dB (May 22, 2018)

71 dB said:


> gregorio, this has been going on too long. I mentioned an aspect about CD and it became this insane fight between us. I don't care if I lose this, I end this now. Some other posters seemed to get me and that's enough for me.


DAMN!


----------



## bigshot (May 22, 2018)

Frequencies and amplitudes are the fundamental elements of what sound is. It only makes sense that they are the most important aspects to recordings. Spacial cues and ambience are sweetening added usually in the mix.

I'm reserving my judgement of binaural until I hear the CD I ordered that is supposedly one of the best binaural music recordings out there. I'm very interested to hear how vocals work, because I know from experience that vocals are the part of traditional multi-miked recordings that is the most processed. I can't imagine that it's easy to record vocals clearly without close miking, amplification, noise gates and compression. Finessing the vocals is always one of the biggest jobs.


----------



## Phronesis

Can anyone recommend a good SPL meter suitable for use with IEMs, headphones, and rooms?  Max I'd like to spend is $200, preferably under $100.


----------



## bigshot

Some folks here will tell you that you can't get an accurate enough one in that price range. But I find that this one does what I need it to do. https://amzn.to/2IHfMuQ


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> Some folks here will tell you that you can't get an accurate enough one in that price range. But I find that this one does what I need it to do. https://amzn.to/2IHfMuQ


The problem with IEMs is that they are generally reliant on seal, so you’d need a specialized rig. I remember seeing such a device being used by a person in Sound Science trying to make cheap earbuds have more accurate frequency responses. I’m not sure who it was. I’ll do a little digging.


----------



## james444

colonelkernel8 said:


> The problem with IEMs is that they are generally reliant on seal, so you’d need a specialized rig. I remember seeing such a device being used by a person in Sound Science trying to make cheap earbuds have more accurate frequency responses. I’m not sure who it was. I’ll do a little digging.



https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chapter-2-–-anatomy-of-a-review-–-the-equipment.796996/


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> I mentioned an aspect about CD and it became this insane fight between us.



The problem with so many discussions with audiophiles is that they often focus on specific details, to the exclusion of other, far more important/relevant details, largely because they are unaware of the practicalities/realities of creating mixes/masters. It's like obsessing about a tiny (sometimes invisible to the naked eye or even non-existant) scratch on the trunk of a car and being oblivious to the fact that the front of the car has been crushed by a tank! That obsession and ignoring of the really important facts/details invariably results in assertions and statements which are ridiculous. "Spatiality" does not fall into the category of "invisible" or "non-existant", it is vitally important but it's still only one of the vitally important ingredients. Furthermore, absolute accuracy of "spatiality" is relatively unimportant and certainly does NOT take precedence over all the other ingredients, especially because in the vast majority of music recordings no "accurate spatiality" ever even exists in the first place and even when it does and could be recorded, only in a very tiny minority of circumstances could it be reproduced precisely enough to make much of a difference! 

I realise that you're sometimes in that "very tiny minority of circumstances" and seem to have become obsessed but you obviously don't realise that you are over obsessed or that you're making some assertions which are therefore effectively ridiculous. To you though, those assertions do not seem ridiculous, they seem like a perfectly logical explanations and justifications for being obsessed and therefore you do not see yourself as being over-obsessed. Instead, you see yourself as justifiably concerned and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be "unjustifiably unconcerned", their arguments must be invalid and they must be just twisting your words or trying to screw with you, which to you is very annoying/frustrating. In a sense, I am trying to screw with you, I'm trying to screw you out of the circular reasoning (logical fallacy) which has caused your over-obsession and resultant ridiculous assertions in the first place. Having said this, I realise that those convinced of their circular reasoning can almost never be persuaded to even slightly doubt it, let alone be persuaded that it's a fallacy and therefore all I'm doing is refuting the ridiculous assertions, just to "put the facts straight" for the possible benefit of this thread and those following it.

With regard to CD: It seems that a great number of head-fi members do not appreciate the context of CD (or the 44/16 CD audio format), what it was invented for, what it achieved, why it achieved it and what it still represents. It's a nearly 40 year old format/technology, in fact pretty much the first digital product widely adopted by the public, and for nearly the last 20 years we've been subject to an almost constant stream of marketing trying to convince us that it actually only represents medium or even low fidelity/resolution compared to some new product they want us to replace it with, which is supposedly higher fidelity/resolution. For what the physical CD was invented for, not providing directly for a single mono channel was not "dumb", it was logical and reasonable and still is!

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> The problem with so many discussions with audiophiles is that they often focus on specific details, to the exclusion of other, far more important/relevant details, largely because they are unaware of the practicalities/realities of creating mixes/masters. It's like obsessing about a tiny (sometimes invisible to the naked eye or even non-existant) scratch on the trunk of a car and being oblivious to the fact that the front of the car has been crushed by a tank! That obsession and ignoring of the really important facts/details invariably results in assertions and statements which are ridiculous. "Spatiality" does not fall into the category of "invisible" or "non-existant", it is vitally important but it's still only one of the vitally important ingredients. Furthermore, absolute accuracy of "spatiality" is relatively unimportant and certainly does NOT take precedence over all the other ingredients, especially because in the vast majority of music recordings no "accurate spatiality" ever even exists in the first place and even when it does and could be recorded, only in a very tiny minority of circumstances could it be reproduced precisely enough to make much of a difference!



What are the problems of the other issues? I don't know about you, but I don't have issues with "frequency content", because the frequency responce of microphones has been flat enough (much flatter than those of speakers and headphones) for decades. To me the "other" _ingredients_ have been dealt with long ago. There is only one issue left and it's spatiality. There is no be all end all solution for the problem of having fundamentaly differing spatiality requirements for loudspeaker and headphones listening. Well, personally I have solved this problem with crossfeeders, but only a small minority of people are like me. So, in that sense the problem still exists and that's why I am "obsessed" over it.



gregorio said:


> I realise that you're sometimes in that "very tiny minority of circumstances" and seem to have become obsessed but you obviously don't realise that you are over obsessed or that you're making some assertions which are therefore effectively ridiculous. To you though, those assertions do not seem ridiculous, they seem like a perfectly logical explanations and justifications for being obsessed and therefore you do not see yourself as being over-obsessed. Instead, you see yourself as justifiably concerned and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be "unjustifiably unconcerned", their arguments must be invalid and they must be just twisting your words or trying to screw with you, which to you is very annoying/frustrating. In a sense, I am trying to screw with you, I'm trying to screw you out of the circular reasoning (logical fallacy) which has caused your over-obsession and resultant ridiculous assertions in the first place. Having said this, I realise that those convinced of their circular reasoning can almost never be persuaded to even slightly doubt it, let alone be persuaded that it's a fallacy and therefore all I'm doing is refuting the ridiculous assertions, just to "put the facts straight" for the possible benefit of this thread and those following it.



It's good you yourself can't suffer from logical fallacies because you are a sound engineer, a superior being able to screw out acoustic engineers just like that. Sound engineers seem to be the most self-absorbent people on this planet (well, after Trump that is) thinking they know everything because they have talked with Elton John and produced a few hit albums. Yeah, Elton John clearly teaches you more about spatiality than acoustic engineers! I'm ready to learn from you about how music is produced, but you don't seem to think you could learn anything from me. I have failed in life quite dramatically if I have nothing to offer to others. Why have I spent a large portion of my life to understand these things if this is the feedback I get? The responses I get here makes me wonder if life makes any sense. What is my place and purpose on this planet? 



gregorio said:


> With regard to CD: It seems that a great number of head-fi members do not appreciate the context of CD (or the 44/16 CD audio format), what it was invented for, what it achieved, why it achieved it and what it still represents. It's a nearly 40 year old format/technology, in fact pretty much the first digital product widely adopted by the public, and for nearly the last 20 years we've been subject to an almost constant stream of marketing trying to convince us that it actually only represents medium or even low fidelity/resolution compared to some new product they want us to replace it with, which is supposedly higher fidelity/resolution. For what the physical CD was invented for, not providing directly for a single mono channel was not "dumb", it was logical and reasonable and still is!
> 
> G



I don't see why CD wouldn't have achieved the same (and even some more) it did if "double playing time mono" had been incorporated to it's specs.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Frequencies and amplitudes are the fundamental elements of what sound is. It only makes sense that they are the most important aspects to recordings. Spacial cues and ambience are sweetening added usually in the mix.
> 
> I'm reserving my judgement of binaural until I hear the CD I ordered that is supposedly one of the best binaural music recordings out there. I'm very interested to hear how vocals work, because I know from experience that vocals are the part of traditional multi-miked recordings that is the most processed. I can't imagine that it's easy to record vocals clearly without close miking, amplification, noise gates and compression. Finessing the vocals is always one of the biggest jobs.



Hmmm... then WHY did you request from me a binaural recording WITHOUT the vocals ( orchestra, chamber, aything without the vocals ) ?

Yes, it is precisely the vocal and choral music that is best served by simple two mike techniques and best sabotaged by anything that requires more processing - with single mixing desk used for multimiking, without any additional processing, usually enough to kill any decent choir recording. And that is precisely why the vast majority of my recordings and CDs issued to the public are vocal/choir.... since singers are fed up with the processed recordings well beyond what a person with an extended arm above the head can possibly be ever capable of showing. 

The cruel truth; ANY singer that has to rely on a particular mike to suit his/hers voice/genre  is usually totally useless for natural recording in a decent acoustic space. If asked to perform without the mike, they will usually try to hide this fact by a godzillion of excuses - and honor to whom the honor is due, namely to those few exceptions to this "rule" who admit it right away.

In most vocal recordings that have been recorded with anything but relatively distant placement simple mike arrangements in real acoustic space (preferably 2 channel, also 5.1 or, better yet, Ambiosonics ), what you hear is SINGER + MIKE SELECTED TO THE SPECIFIC VOICE AND/OR GENRE - to remain on the positive note. If you need a more graphic, *somewhat* exaggerated representation of what most recording engineers are - sooner or later, to a lesser or greater extent - REQUIRED to do, here the big one :


----------



## gregorio (May 23, 2018)

71 dB said:


> [1] What are the problems of the other issues?
> [2] I don't know about you, but I don't have issues with "frequency content" ...
> [3] To me the "other" _ingredients_ have been dealt with long ago.
> [4] There is only one issue left and it's spatiality.



You've actually managed to hit the nail squarely on the head but unfortunately you don't realise it and, you probably never will because you don't want to. To illustrate, though I doubt it will help:

1. Well exactly, you don't know and/or don't want to know "the problems of the other issues"!
2. Again, exactly! You don't know about me (or others like me) but more importantly, you don't know the issues with frequency content.
3. To an extent the other ingredients have indeed been dealt with long ago. They've been dealt with by multi-mic'ing which was introduced for that very reason, long ago!
4. Again, exactly! You're ignoring the other issues because you don't know, understand or want to know about them and so the ONLY issue left as far as you're concerned is "spatiality". That's pretty much exactly what I stated in my previous post and you couldn't have supported what I stated any better if you'd tried!



71 dB said:


> [1] Sound engineers seem to be the most self-absorbent people on this planet ... thinking they know everything because they have talked with Elton John and produced a few hit albums.
> [2] The responses I get here makes me wonder if life makes any sense.
> [3] I don't see why CD wouldn't have achieved the same ...



1. Again, you're proving my point exactly! Your tirade, the annoyance/frustration I mentioned in my previous post, is causing you to make even more ridiculous assertions. We professional music engineers/producers (collectively) have produced pretty much ALL of the hit albums, not just a few! And furthermore, for each one of those hit albums we've also produced countless hundreds which were not hits. For this reason, we have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't work and if we didn't we'd soon be passed over for someone else who did, the role of professional music or sound engineer is highly competitive. We have, collectively, the accumulated knowledge of tens of thousands of sound engineers from every corner of the globe covering many decades. There's so much accumulated knowledge in fact, that there are now numerous university courses all over the world dedicated specifically to teaching it to tens of thousands of students a year. But you, a hobbyist with no formal education or training in the subject are right, whereas all we engineers and universities are wrong and self-absorbed "know it alls"? If you were right, where's all your hits, why aren't you the most highly paid engineer and why wouldn't we all be trying to work out and copy what you're doing so we can stay in work? The problem with basing your belief entirely on a fallacy is that even logic which should smack you in the face as being obvious doesn't even register if it conflicts with your belief!

2. How can life make sense if you base it on a fallacy? Rather than asking how life can make sense, you'd be better off asking if you, yourself make any sense, if your belief itself could be wrong. All the evidence suggests you cannot or don't want to do that, and therefore all of us who actually do it for a living must be wrong and/or life itself doesn't make sense. You've got to start joining the dots, rather than just ignoring the ones which you don't understand and inventing new ones to fit your fallacy.

3. I know you don't!

G


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] Yes, it is precisely the vocal and choral music that is best served by simple two mike techniques and best sabotaged by anything that requires more processing - with single mixing desk used for multimiking, without any additional processing, usually enough to kill any decent choir recording. And that is precisely why the vast majority of my recordings and CDs issued to the public are vocal/choir.... since singers are fed up with the processed recordings well beyond what a person with an extended arm above the head can possibly be ever capable of showing.
> [2] The cruel truth; ANY singer that has to rely on a particular mike to suit his/hers voice/genre  is usually totally useless for natural recording in a decent acoustic space.
> [3] ... what you hear is SINGER + MIKE SELECTED TO THE SPECIFIC VOICE AND/OR GENRE - to remain on the positive note.
> [3a] If you need a more graphic, *somewhat* exaggerated representation of what most recording engineers are - sooner or later, to a lesser or greater extent - REQUIRED to do, here the big one :




1. And that's why you're the highest paid, most successful and greatest sound engineer who has ever lived and why all the rest of us engineers want to copy and be just like you.
2. That's not a "cruel" truth, in fact it's not any kind of truth! Why let the truth get in the way of a good story though?
3. A mic which auto-tunes? Which mic does that and where can I get one?
3a. Did you actually watch the video? Didn't you notice the engineer working away rather than the mic just auto-tuning it all? Obviously it's an exaggeration for comic effect but it's not a million miles from the truth, even to an extremely limited extent with great singers. But again, let's not allow the facts to get in the way of a nice dose of utter nonsense that you've put effort into making-up!

G


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> I don't see why CD wouldn't have achieved the same (and even some more) it did if "double playing time mono" had been incorporated to it's specs.


The double-play mono idea certainly wouldn't have hurt the CD, but it wouldn't have helped either.  You could point at its omission as short-sighted, but that's as moot a point as pointing to 44/16 as short sighted (which it wasn't), or my initial personal objection - it wasn't recordable (I let that go amost immediately).  There were very valid reasons for what they did, all of it, every single aspect! A tiny aspect someone personally would prefer that is viewed as an omission like double-play mono is really was really unimportant then, and remains now.  Why beat the dead horse?

As to what's important in recording methods, all recordings including binaural are works of art intended to represent something, but not replicate anything. How the artist gets there and what he's satisfied with is up to him, the tools available, and what he intends to do with the art (such as sell it).


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> Why beat the dead horse?



I wouldn't say I beat the dead . CD is my "to go to" format in music listening and the lack of "double playtime mono" support is not a serious issue for me.


----------



## pinnahertz

Dead as far as advancements and further changes to Redbook, and decline in sales of physical media.  My friend's record company sells very few CDs at all, though they still make them for every recording.  He says downloads beat CDs and streaming beats downloads.


----------



## analogsurviver

1.) Ye


gregorio said:


> 1. And that's why you're the highest paid, most successful and greatest sound engineer who has ever lived and why all the rest of us engineers want to copy and be just like you.
> 2. That's not a "cruel" truth, in fact it's not any kind of truth! Why let the truth get in the way of a good story though?
> 3. A mic which auto-tunes? Which mic does that and where can I get one?
> 3a. Did you actually watch the video? Didn't you notice the engineer working away rather than the mic just auto-tuning it all? Obviously it's an exaggeration for comic effect but it's not a million miles from the truth, even to an extremely limited extent with great singers. But again, let's not allow the facts to get in the way of a nice dose of utter nonsense that you've put effort into making-up!
> ...


1.) Yes, that is PRECISELY why I said that engineers like you would use any opportunity they possibly can to try to supress anything me or people working in the similar direction are trying to establish. And, NO, it was NOT an unwarranted accusation on my part - because, effectively, all your posting in this thread is leading exactly to the this very same conclusion. In the world according to you, anything not involving multimiking, processing at your own will, based on your objective and subjective decisions, simply would not exist.

2.) Try to listen to almost ANY singer performing live with the obligatory mike in one hand (or on the stand , removed by not more than a metre or so ) - in an acoustic space, without the mike and loudspeaker system - and you should hear what I meant. 
A real singer - one who normally performs without any mike so that the audience can hear him/her sing - would also be capable of a decent performance using mike if coached the basics and assisted by any decent sound engineer - in about one sound check time. 
Then try to achieve the vice versa - in ANY amount of time...

3.) Of course I DID watch the video - and, even if I were blind, could not not to hear the auto tuning, etc. This video is exageration to the max, but it does (over)employ most of the techniques, required by the studio multimiking recordings. 
Presenting all the possibilities a competent sound engineer has at his/hers disposition in order to ultimately produce a piece of sonic art - that is, usually, far removed from  anything that can be heard in a live performance. Which, ultimately, leads to a dissapointment of a concert goer, since the experience from a recording and live event could almost not have been more diametrally different.

It works the other way around, too. The last CD bought following the excitement after a grat sounding jazz concert ( amplified by the best possible mic/speaker setup in the whole wide world - NONE at all ) has "happened" some 2 decades or so ago - the live multimiked recording being soooo poor and unrealistically sounding in comparison that I have NEVER listened to it  in its entire running time. And, probably, never will. Which is a pity - playing on that CD ( I will spare you the explanation what the CD achronym really stands for ...) is no less inspired than the one I heard live. 

The *only* fly in this multimiked recording bussiness being the fact that I DID have the opportunity to hear this jazz combo in decent acoustic space and unamplified ...


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> I'm reserving my judgement of binaural until I hear the CD I ordered that is supposedly one of the best binaural music recordings out there. I'm very interested to hear how vocals work, because I know from experience that vocals are the part of traditional multi-miked recordings that is the most processed. I can't imagine that it's easy to record vocals clearly without close miking, amplification, noise gates and compression. Finessing the vocals is always one of the biggest jobs.



Again, I'd think that IEM / headphone users and people who listen primarily to speakers tend to have different priorities. From years of using IEMs and comparing that experience to speaker listening and live concerts, I can say that overdone / obtrusive / artificial sounding vocals with IEMs have been a much bigger problem for me than lack of vocal clarity.

Personally, I think it's pretty evident why, because clarity is also an important cue by which we judge distance. And while live concerts and speaker listening involve a real distance, room acoustics and blending of sounds, there's no such things on IEMs. As a result, if the album im question offers utmost vocal clarity, I end up with e.g. Diana Krall singing like half an inch in front of my nose, lol.

Now, this issue has been discussed on the portables forum for years, and many listeners don't mind, some even seem to love excessive vocal intimacy. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it creates an artificial spatiality, which doesn't resemble anything you'd experience as a concert goer, in real life.

Just my 2c...


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> You've actually managed to hit the nail squarely on the head but unfortunately you don't realise it and, you probably never will because you don't want to. To illustrate, though I doubt it will help:
> 
> 1. Well exactly, you don't know and/or don't want to know "the problems of the other issues"!
> 2. Again, exactly! You don't know about me (or others like me) but more importantly, you don't know the issues with frequency content.
> ...


1. Should I be aware of those problems? How does it affect my music consumption that I'm not aware of them?
2. Okay, now I know some people say there are such problems. Maybe I see them someday myself.
3. Very well then. Multi-mic'ing solves "frequency content problem". I _know_ this now thanks to you, but I don't _understand_ it at all. I don't have understanding of "frequency content problem" so I don't know what is needed to fix it or why multi-mic'ing is the solution.
4. Yeah, problems exists to you only if you are aware of them.


----------



## gregorio

pinnahertz said:


> The double-play mono idea certainly wouldn't have hurt the CD, but it wouldn't have helped either.



As far as I remember, CD was marketed at the latest thing, a whole new technology with fidelity which was clearly superior to anything else available at the time or which ever would be available. How would making it possible for it to be a mono double/play format, an already dead format at that time, fit with the narrative of CD being all about looking to the future? Probably you're right and it wouldn't have hurt but I'm not certain.



analogsurviver said:


> 1.) Yes, that is PRECISELY why I said that engineers like you would use any opportunity they possibly can to try to supress anything me or people working in the similar direction are trying to establish.
> 2.) Try to listen to almost ANY singer performing live with the obligatory mike in one hand (or on the stand , removed by not more than a metre or so ) - in an acoustic space, without the mike and loudspeaker system - and you should hear what I meant. ... A real singer - one who normally performs without any mike so that the audience can hear him/her sing ...
> 3.) Of course I DID watch the video - and, even if I were blind, could not not to hear the auto tuning, etc. This video is exageration to the max, but it does (over)employ most of the techniques, required by the studio multimiking recordings.
> Presenting all the possibilities a competent sound engineer has at his/hers disposition in order to ultimately produce a piece of sonic art - that is, usually, far removed from anything that can be heard in a live performance. Which, ultimately, leads to a dissapointment of a concert goer, since the experience from a recording and live event could almost not have been more diametrally different.



1. Ah, I've been found out, it's really jealousy on my part! I'm obviously jealous of your fame and reputation from all your hit albums and being single handedly responsible for bringing back cassette tapes. As far as self-delusion goes, how far is too far? "People working in the similar direction" to you have been trying establish it for decades and like you, they've achieved virtually nothing, so why would I want to follow that direction, I might as well just follow the Lemmings!

2. How much worse can it get? You honestly can't hear the difference between popular music singing and operatic singing, really? That's just shocking! And btw, I'd like to hear a "real singer" try to perform acoustically in a 10,000+ seat acoustic space, actually I have but you obviously haven't!

3. Ah, that's what it is, screams of disappointment from all the millions who attend live pop gigs and pay tens of millions for the privilege. I remember doing the live sound at Glastonbury and I had no idea the screams were of disappointment, silly me!

If you're not trolling, how on earth do you manage to be so completely wrong so much of the time? Even if you knew nothing and just guessed, you'd occasionally get something right!

G


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> 1. Should I be aware of those problems? How does it affect my music consumption that I'm not aware of them?
> 2. Okay, now I know some people say there are such problems. Maybe I see them someday myself.
> 3. Very well then. Multi-mic'ing solves "frequency content problem". I _know_ this now thanks to you, but I don't _understand_ it at all. I don't have understanding of "frequency content problem" so I don't know what is needed to fix it or why multi-mic'ing is the solution.
> 4. Yeah, problems exists to you only if you are aware of them.



1. It doesn't affect your music consumption if you're not aware of them. It only affects the nonsense you end up posting because you're posting about something that you're unaware of and don't understand!
2. Not unless you try to record or produce some music to commercial standards or learn some facts about it.
3. Exactly.
4. And problems don't exist if you're ignorant of them, right? Are you ignorant of building foundations, can we simply do without building foundations if you're not aware of them? Piling one fallacy on top of another doesn't suddenly make them not fallacies any more, it's still a fallacy!

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. It doesn't affect your music consumption if you're not aware of them. It only affects the nonsense you end up posting because you're posting about something that you're unaware of and don't understand!
> 2. Not unless you try to record or produce some music to commercial standards or learn some facts about it.
> 3. Exactly.
> 4. And problems don't exist if you're ignorant of them, right? Are you ignorant of building foundations, can we simply do without building foundations if you're not aware of them? Piling one fallacy on top of another doesn't suddenly make them not fallacies any more, it's still a fallacy!
> ...



I am not posting nonsense about "frequency content problem." I don't make claims about it because I don't know enough to make any! You don't say much either despite of claiming to understand the issue, maybe to avoid others to question your understanding? I make claims about spatiality and I expose my undertanding to others to evaluate. I can be ignorant of building foundations because I don't engineer or build them.


----------



## bigshot (May 23, 2018)

james444 said:


> From years of using IEMs and comparing that experience to speaker listening and live concerts, I can say that overdone / obtrusive / artificial sounding vocals with IEMs have been a much bigger problem for me than lack of vocal clarity



We’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about processing and I’m talking about balancing levels.



analogsurviver said:


> Hmmm... then WHY did you request from me a binaural recording WITHOUT the vocals ( orchestra, chamber, aything without the vocals ) ?



You weren't paying attention to what I was saying. I asked for something with acoustic instruments, not recordings of school choruses. Solo vocals along with a band are fine.

Solo vocals are usually close miked, which gives them a tremendous dynamic range- so broad that quiet consonants can get totally lost at normal listening volumes. One of the biggest and most important jobs in mixing is the vocal pass where you get the lyrics clear and make the vocals sit in a natural dynamic along with the other instruments. I can't imagine how you could control that with a single microphone but I'm interested to hear how they handle it. Keeping the sotto enunciation clear must be very difficult when you mike at a distance.

No one is deliberately suppressing techniques that work better than established techniques. That's just absurd. If someone doesn't have the experience to understand all of the variables that a sound engineer deals with in making a recording, and refuses to address the fundamental goal of recording music, then he's going to come off like a duffer trying to tell people who do it for a living how they should be doing their job.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> [1] I am not posting nonsense about "frequency content problem." I don't make claims about it because I don't know enough to make any!
> [2] You don't say much either despite of claiming to understand the issue, maybe to avoid others to question your understanding?
> [3] I make claims about spatiality and I expose my undertanding to others to evaluate.
> [4] I can be ignorant of building foundations because I don't engineer or build them.



1. So you didn't say that frequency response problems (and other issues) "have been dealt with long ago" or that it's less important than "spatiality"?
2. I've said plenty about it, you've just ignored it or failed to understand it!
3. We have evaluated your understanding and the reason it's nonsense is because you fail to consider any factor other than spatiality!
4. Exactly! So should we save a fortune and not make any compromises due to foundations by simply not bothering to build any in the first place, on the basis that because you're ignorant of foundations we don't need any?

G


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> I'm very interested to hear how vocals work, because I know from experience that *vocals are the part of traditional multi-miked recordings that is the most processed*.





bigshot said:


> We’re talking about two different things. *You’re talking about processing and I’m talking about balancing levels*.



Would you care to elaborate on why we're talking about two different things?


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. So you didn't say that frequency response problems (and other issues) "have been dealt with long ago" or that it's less important than "spatiality"?
> 2. I've said plenty about it, you've just ignored it or failed to understand it!
> 3. We have evaluated your understanding and the reason it's nonsense is because you fail to consider any factor other than spatiality!
> 4. Exactly! So should we save a fortune and not make any compromises due to foundations by simply not bothering to build any in the first place, on the basis that because you're ignorant of foundations we don't need any?
> ...


Whatever I write, you come back with these scomful remarks. So, please don't be surprised if I give up. Spatiality is pretty much the only issue I have when listening to music. If that makes me ignorant then so be it! I'm done with this. I have griecvings to do.


----------



## bigshot

You’re talking about processing with filters and reverb, I’m talking about processing with adjusting the balance of amplitude.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. So you didn't say that frequency response problems (and other issues) "have been dealt with long ago" or that it's less important than "spatiality"?
> 2. I've said plenty about it, you've just ignored it or failed to understand it!
> 3. We have evaluated your understanding and the reason it's nonsense is because you fail to consider any factor other than spatiality!
> 4. Exactly! So should we save a fortune and not make any compromises due to foundations by simply not bothering to build any in the first place, on the basis that because you're ignorant of foundations we don't need any?
> ...


You don't need to ignore anything just because I don't care. I'm not saying you can't care about "frequency content." Please do so, but these things shouldn't be mutually exlusive: Can't you care about "frequency content" AND spatiality both?


----------



## bigshot

Spatiality is best created in the mix, not baked into the recording.


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> You’re talking about processing with filters and reverb, I’m talking about processing with adjusting the balance of amplitude.



I wasn't talking about processing at all. I was talking about how close-miked vocals may sound unrealistically close when listened to with my IEMs (as compared to my speakers, or live vocals in a concert).


----------



## bigshot (May 23, 2018)

Ah, OK. You're talking about mike placement, not processing. Some pop artists accentuate that crawling up on the mike technique to sound "intimate". You don't have to be right on top of the mike for it to pick up everything. It gets problematic when it's more than a few feet away though. Unless you're an opera singer with a trained voice and know how to project your consonants. That's why I'm curious about this binaural recording. How do you record a jazz combo with a vocalist with a single mike? The vocalist should be a couple of feet away, while the other musicians should be further back. Balancing that and balancing different volume levels can't be easy.


----------



## pinnahertz

gregorio said:


> As far as I remember, CD was marketed at the latest thing, a whole new technology with fidelity which was clearly superior to anything else available at the time or which ever would be available. How would making it possible for it to be a mono double/play format, an already dead format at that time, fit with the narrative of CD being all about looking to the future?


It wouldn't have, and didn't.  That's why I think it wouldn't have helped with CDs success.


gregorio said:


> Probably you're right and it wouldn't have hurt but I'm not certain.


There were a few late additions to Redbook that added useful features, but never really got going.  CD Text is one that was late to the party, but actually would have been really nice to have even at the beginning.  But we didn't have good cheap alpha-numeric readouts yet, or the proliferation of computers that would make creating the data easy.  As a result, it never got any traction, and by the time we were ripping .mp3s, there were massive CD databases to do the work-around.  Had .jpg image compression been around, even album art could have been included, but again, no display tech, no image processing at all.  There might have been an option to flag several sampling rates too, as 50kHz recordings were being made several years before the CD, but that would upset the mastering chain a lot, so that stuff just got resampled. 

All these features might seem advantageous now, but they were anything but cost-effective then, and more importantly, none of that would have made any difference to the market penetration the CD enjoyed, even if they could have been utilized technically.  It's actually kind of silly to talk about any of it now, all those issues have been solved in one way or the other, just not with the CD. 



gregorio said:


> 1. Ah, I've been found out, it's really jealousy on my part! I'm obviously jealous of your fame and reputation from all your hit albums and being single handedly responsible for bringing back cassette tapes. As far as self-delusion goes, how far is too far? "People working in the similar direction" to you have been trying establish it for decades and like you, they've achieved virtually nothing, so why would I want to follow that direction, I might as well just follow the Lemmings!
> 
> 2. How much worse can it get? You honestly can't hear the difference between popular music singing and operatic singing, really? That's just shocking! And btw, I'd like to hear a "real singer" try to perform acoustically in a 10,000+ seat acoustic space, actually I have but you obviously haven't!
> 
> 3. Ah, that's what it is, screams of disappointment from all the millions who attend live pop gigs and pay tens of millions for the privilege. I remember doing the live sound at Glastonbury and I had no idea the screams were of disappointment, silly me!


Ha!  Stop! You're killing me!


gregorio said:


> If you're not trolling, how on earth do you manage to be so completely wrong so much of the time? Even if you knew nothing and just guessed, you'd occasionally get something right!
> 
> G


I'm gonna vote for "trolling".  Lots of talk, no substantiation/proof, can't seem to post a picture.


----------



## bigshot

I vote for generally wiggly thought processes.


----------



## skwoodwiva

skwoodwiva said:


> 809
> So Good
> Amber can be boring, but its mosty marvelous instrumentalists here
> 
> ...



Seriously, I cannot grasp how this one album is not demonstration enough for anyone on the fence about binaural.


----------



## castleofargh

skwoodwiva said:


> Seriously, I cannot grasp how this one album is not demonstration enough for anyone on the fence about binaural.


I have very average results with Chesky records. I'm in general not a fan of binaural recordings for various reasons, but those often feel off to me(I have no idea why, maybe it's the dummy head conflicting with my own head? IDK). if I EQ to have the center in front of me, things get a little better(obviously), but I rarely find that pleasing or realistic in the space I "see" in my head. I've had better result making some sort of advanced crossfeed+reverb on my own with random albums, suggesting that I probably just need something more customized. 

I have no doubt that people who really prefer the "real" sound of a band playing, and who also happen to have a head close enough to the dummy head(so the majority as that's how the dummy head was made), then the result should feel pretty convincing. and I know many people who really love Chesky's binaural stuff. but what I perceive isn't it.
also, and that's just personal taste, for the very vaste majority of albums(even most classical records), I'd rather have a well balanced one and mastered to sound nice, instead of something kind of realistic with some instruments overly loud, and too much dynamic for me to enjoy a casual listening. I've said it a few times, but I'm rarely impressed by live events. when I stop going crazy because I'm drunk, with friends, having a great time with a band I love, and spend a minute doing some critical listening, it's rarely good IMO. so between different people having more or less success with some specific binaural recording, and people having different views on how important it is to have the sound like the artist is in front of us, I'm not so surprised that different people will have different views on what's a great experience. I mean, Justin Bieber sold so many albums, if people shared my impressions and taste, he wouldn't have. ^_^


----------



## pinnahertz

skwoodwiva said:


> Seriously, I cannot grasp how this one album is not demonstration enough for anyone on the fence about binaural.


Yes, it demonstrates binaural quite well and shows why doesn't work.  For me I get a sense of acoustic space, but Macy is dead center in my head and dryer, and the other instruments just sound panned hard left or right, and very wet.  It's not like being at a live performance at all, more like an amateur recording with mics to distant and very little delay between the initial arrival and reverb.  In other words, the Chesky HRTF fails in my case. Completely. And that IS an excellent demo of binaural's issues.

Please try to understand, it's not that any of us who don't drool all over Chesky binaural are deaf or untrained, or in any way deficient, it's that binaural in all forms doesn't universally play well with peoples individualized HRTF, and thus fails...pretty often.


----------



## skwoodwiva

castleofargh said:


> I have very average results with Chesky records. I'm in general not a fan of binaural recordings for various reasons, but those often feel off to me(I have no idea why, maybe it's the dummy head conflicting with my own head? IDK). if I EQ to have the center in front of me, things get a little better(obviously), but I rarely find that pleasing or realistic in the space I "see" in my head. I've had better result making some sort of advanced crossfeed+reverb on my own with random albums, suggesting that I probably just need something more customized.
> 
> I have no doubt that people who really prefer the "real" sound of a band playing, and who also happen to have a head close enough to the dummy head(so the majority as that's how the dummy head was made), then the result should feel pretty convincing. and I know many people who really love Chesky's binaural stuff. but what I perceive isn't it.
> also, and that's just personal taste, for the very vaste majority of albums(even most classical records), I'd rather have a well balanced one and mastered to sound nice, instead of something kind of realistic with some instruments overly loud, and too much dynamic for me to enjoy a casual listening. I've said it a few times, but I'm rarely impressed by live events. when I stop going crazy because I'm drunk, with friends, having a great time with a band I love, and spend a minute doing some critical listening, it's rarely good IMO. so between different people having more or less success with some specific binaural recording, and people having different views on how important it is to have the sound like the artist is in front of us, I'm not so surprised that different people will have different views on what's a great experience. I mean, Justin Bieber sold so many albums, if people shared my impressions and taste, he wouldn't have. ^_^


Did you get to the " voices around you tracks? They are passed the music.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> [1] Whatever I write, you come back with these scomful remarks.
> [2] So, please don't be surprised if I give up.
> [3] Spatiality is pretty much the only issue I have when listening to music.



1. You make incorrect assertions about FR, then you state that you don't know anything about FR and therefore don't make any assertions about it. When I refute those incorrect assertions and point out the patently obvious contradiction of YOUR OWN posts, you then accuse me of "coming back with scornful remarks" on whatever you write. Clearly this latest assertion is also false, it is NOT "whatever you write", it's only the incorrect assertions/self-contradictions, which admittedly is quite a lot of what you write. You clearly don't like this situation but the solution (at least in this sub-forum) is not to complain or ask me nicely not to refute your incorrect assertions, the solution is not to make incorrect assertions in the first place!!

2.  I'm not surprised, I've seen it too often with audiophiles to be surprised by it any more. However, I should be surprised because the rational response shouldn't be to continue to believe in falsehoods/fallacies and simply give up/stop posting (to avoid being called out on those fallacies), the rational response would be to question those beliefs/fallacies! This typically very rarely happens though, because for some reason "audiophile" and "rational response" often appear to be mutually exclusive!

3. Obviously, without frequency response there is no sound in the first place and therefore no "spatiality" either. To be sensitive to "spatiality" you MUST, by definition, therefore also be sensitive to frequency response. The problem then, seems to be that you are not consciously aware that you are (must be) sensitive to FR and so ignore/dismiss it from the belief structure you have created for yourself. The only other alternative is that you're not very sensitive to FR and therefore not very sensitive to "spatiality" but have somehow convinced yourself that you are. Either way, "spatiality" being your "only issue" is a view you have created, a view which you might find convincing (and therefore believe) because it it explains many of the facts you are aware of (and your understanding of them) and the sensitivities you are consciously aware of. However, this view you have created is incorrect/fallacious because it clearly contradicts numerous actual facts, albeit actual facts that you personally are not aware of or do not understand. Of course though, the actual facts are the actual facts, they do not require you personal awareness or understanding to be the actual facts.  



71 dB said:


> You don't need to ignore anything just because I don't care. I'm not saying you can't care about "frequency content." Please do so, but these things shouldn't be mutually exlusive: Can't you care about "frequency content" AND spatiality both?



Whether you think spatiality and FR should or shouldn't be mutually exclusive is irrelevant, the actual fact is that in the vast majority of cases they are effectively mutually exclusive. However, I do ALWAYS care about both spatiality and FR (and the other essential factors)! As I've already mentioned though, recording (and mixing) is ALWAYS a compromise, which is effectively a subjective opinion on how we balance of all these factors, which in turn is influenced by our target audience (what is known, through trial and error over many decades by tens of thousands of us, to be attractive to the target audience). The problem with absolutely accurate spatiality is that it to achieve it requires having little/no control over FR or ANY of the other factors, this is virtually always an unacceptable balance of factors! Having a somewhat less than "absolutely accurate spatiality" does allow control of all these other factors and is an acceptable balance, especially as very few people could even tell the difference and very few of those very few have the playback circumstances to reproduce "absolutely accurate spatiality" anyway! It just doesn't make any logical sense to aim for perfection in one of those factors, at the expense of ALL other factors and when perfection of that factor is so rarely achievable in practice anyway. The only way this could make any sense is if you are one of those very few of the very few AND you are ignorant/not consciously aware of all the other factors! Even if this is the case, it still doesn't make logical sense from a practical point of view: There's no economic sense in making a recording specifically for such a tiny group of people and what about the other tiny groups of people? There's probably a tiny group of people who are completely ignorant/unaware of spatiality, who's "only issue" is say FR, do we make a different recording specifically for them as well? How many different tiny groups of people are there with a different "only issue" (or combination of issues) + other factors of which they're ignorant and how many dozens of different specific recordings should we therefore make? 

G


----------



## gregorio

skwoodwiva said:


> Seriously, I cannot grasp how this one album is not demonstration enough for anyone on the fence about binaural.



Me either! I can't grasp why anyone would still be on the fence, clearly with this demonstration binaural is a complete waste of time. However, I have heard other demonstrations which worked quite well, so I am still a bit "on the fence" with binaural recordings for certain things.

G


----------



## 71 dB

I'm not responding to gregorio's post except for this part, because I feel it is needed here:



gregorio said:


> 3. Obviously, without frequency response there is no sound in the first place and therefore no "spatiality" either.


Frequency response is a property of a system and describes how the system responses to input signals. In more detail for linear systems:

y(t) = h(t)＊x(t),​
where t is time, x(t) is the input signal, y(t) is output signal, h(t) is the impulse response of the system and ＊ denotes convolution. If we take Fourier transformation of this equation on both sides it becomes

Y(jω) = H(jω) · X(jω),​where j is imaginary unit, ω = 2ᴨf is angular frequency where f is frequency, X(jω) is the complex spectrum of input signal, Y(jω) is the complex spectrum of output signal and H(jω) is the transfer function of the system. Note that convolution ＊ has become multiplication. Frequency response is H(jω), often simplified as the magnitude (absolute value) of H(jω) whereas phase response is the angle of H(jω).
[/QUOTE]


----------



## 71 dB

Spectrum and spatiality are _weakly_ connected meaning they are far from mutually exclusive. For example, reducing ILD at low frequencies changes the perceiced amount of low frequencies a little bit, but this can be corrected by filtering low frequencies a little.


----------



## castleofargh

skwoodwiva said:


> Did you get to the " voices around you tracks? They are passed the music.


to get a small idea of how different heads can perceive things differently, you can try playing a few of those http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/salles/listen/sounds.html I suggest using the "repeat 1" play mode on your player so that you can really feel the passing in front of you which is pretty relevant IMO.
those are measures done in people's ears(each is a different person) with sound coming around them in circle at the same distance. on some I feel like stuff go far away on the sides(or sometimes on only one side), sometimes it's front or just back that get more of less in my head. I pretty much never feel an horizontal loop around me, the front image is mostly high up and often in my head, but on a few occasions it's actually below horizon. and same for sounds in the back. so basically aside from left sound feeling like they're somewhere on the left, almost anything else can end up wrong in the way I perceive it when based on other people's HRTF. and what's a dummy head if not a specific model of head that's obviously not mine given the poor results I get. 

all the demo with people going around and talking in your ears, from as old as the barbershop, none ever gave me the cues they were talking about in the demo. maybe they work for you because your head is close enough from the average model used for those dummy heads? and maybe your headphone is already EQed for the right frontal image, but for me those demos usually just show me that I really need custom stuff(hence the realiser A16).


----------



## Glmoneydawg

castleofargh said:


> to get a small idea of how different heads can perceive things differently, you can try playing a few of those http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/salles/listen/sounds.html I suggest using the "repeat 1" play mode on your player so that you can really feel the passing in front of you which is pretty relevant IMO.
> those are measures done in people's ears(each is a different person) with sound coming around them in circle at the same distance. on some I feel like stuff go far away on the sides(or sometimes on only one side), sometimes it's front or just back that get more of less in my head. I pretty much never feel an horizontal loop around me, the front image is mostly high up and often in my head, but on a few occasions it's actually below horizon. and same for sounds in the back. so basically aside from left sound feeling like they're somewhere on the left, almost anything else can end up wrong in the way I perceive it when based on other people's HRTF. and what's a dummy head if not a specific model of head that's obviously not mine given the poor results I get.
> 
> all the demo with people going around and talking in your ears, from as old as the barbershop, none ever gave me the cues they were talking about in the demo. maybe they work for you because your head is close enough from the average model used for those dummy heads? and maybe your headphone is already EQed for the right frontal image, but for me those demos usually just show me that I really need custom stuff(hence the realiser A16).


Ok...so you are suggesting getting my head remodeled? Im  not against it...just want to be sure before i waste money on the surgery


----------



## castleofargh

Glmoneydawg said:


> Ok...so you are suggesting getting my head remodeled? Im  not against it...just want to be sure before i waste money on the surgery









  Face Off.

lol. yeah that could be an idea. or just spend your life with a helmet with holes and fake standard ears, we would all wear that all the time to get used to it, and then the industry could record albums using the same helmet for binaural source. we would just take the helmet off when listening to music with IEMs that would have a specific signature. it's not so hard to get universally good binaural experience. 

there are less intrusive ways to approach the problem but they still require pretty extensive individual measurements and we typically lack the means to do that as a random consumer. or we could just start making all people based on the same clone. then a standard dummy head would work great for everybody. the downside being how easy it is for anybody to get rid of you and take your cool job and rich wife. but hey, good audio comes at a price.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> Frequency response is a property of a system and describes how the system responses to input signals. In more detail for linear systems:



None of that post was relevant because we are not dealing with linear systems! Acoustic instruments are not linear, the air through which sound waves travel is not linear, walls and other reflective surfaces do not have a linear response, microphones are not linear, digital conversion and storage is effectively linear, speakers/HPs are not linear, human ears are not linear and human brains, which create the perception that we "hear", are far from linear!



71 dB said:


> [1] Spectrum and spatiality are _weakly_ connected meaning they are far from mutually exclusive.
> [2] For example, reducing ILD at low frequencies changes the perceiced amount of low frequencies a little bit, but this can be corrected by filtering low frequencies a little.



1. How can you have "spatiality" (or indeed any sort of sound) without a spectrum? Your statement is a "fact" you've made-up to support your fallacious belief, which clearly contradicts the basic actual facts of sound/audio and is nonsense!
2. With binaural recording ALL the information is by definition recorded with two mics/channels (stereo), including obviously the spatial information. For clarity, spatial information ("spatiality") is: The reflections/reverb of the recording venue, plus the delay between the left and right mics, including the freq response (spectrum!), as defined by a HRTF. Clearly then, if we attempt to change the spectrum (freq content) of the instruments/sounds we've recorded, we CANNOT do so without also changing the spectrum/freq content of the spatial information and also obviously, if we do change the spectrum/freq content of our spatial information then it is no longer absolutely accurate spatial information. Furthermore, changing the freq content is done by applying filters/EQ, which causes changes not only in the freq content but also with the phase. Even with your own example, where you are "filtering low frequencies a little", you are also filtering the low frequencies of the spatial information (of the recording venue and HRTF) and it is therefore no longer accurate spatial information. As it's all recorded together, whatever "factor" we might desire, need or be able to control/change will also change the spatial information and therefore, if we want accurate spatial information we cannot change anything. Ergo, they ARE mutually exclusive, you either have accurate spatial information OR you have control over all the other factors but NOT BOTH! With multi-mic'ing we can overcome this to a certain extent, we can record the spatial information of the recording venue somewhat separately from the sound of the instruments, allowing us to change/control the sound of the instruments without affecting the spatial information of the recording venue. Obviously though, we're not going to get the other aspects of spatial information which relate to the HRTF of a dummy head, although we could approximate this to a degree if we choose. As I've stated several times, there is no perfect solution, only solutions which are less flawed than other solutions in a given set of circumstances.



Glmoneydawg said:


> Ok...so you are suggesting getting my head remodeled? Im not against it...just want to be sure before i waste money on the surgery



You personally might need surgery but that's not necessarily a course of action advisable for everyone. For example, some audiophiles wouldn't benefit from surgery because they already appear to have a dummy head!  

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> None of that post was relevant because we are not dealing with linear systems! Acoustic instruments are not linear, the air through which sound waves travel is not linear, walls and other reflective surfaces do not have a linear response, microphones are not linear, digital conversion and storage is effectively linear, speakers/HPs are not linear, human ears are not linear and human brains, which create the perception that we "hear", are far from linear!



Wow, what a lacklustre effort in discrediting someone's post! I'm surprised you descend to this level.

Acoustic instruments do not need to be linear, because they are the source of the signal. In many ways the non-linearities are responsible of why the sound of acoustic instruments is interesting in the first place. The air is linear enough for sound pressure levels below ~160 dB and even if it wasn't, the same non-linearities would be present when listening music live. Reflections are generally quite linear unless we have some nasty resonances causing surfaces to vibrate at so large amplitudes that structural non-linearities occur, but what kind of lazy ass sound engineer doesn't kill resonances when recording music? You? Again, same resonances are present live unless dealt with (attennuated). Microphones aren't linear? Rubbish, their are linear enough and so on. Human hearing is far from linear, but so what? We are talking about creating spatiality and spectral content. You seem to imply that because human ear is non-linear, we somehow must "choose" between spectrum and spatiality. Man, you have a long way to justify such a claim. To me at least.



gregorio said:


> 1. How can you have "spatiality" (or indeed any sort of sound) without a spectrum? Your statement is a "fact" you've made-up to support your fallacious belief, which clearly contradicts the basic actual facts of sound/audio and is nonsense!
> 
> 2. With binaural recording ALL the information is by definition recorded with two mics/channels (stereo), including obviously the spatial information. For clarity, spatial information ("spatiality") is: The reflections/reverb of the recording venue, plus the delay between the left and right mics, including the freq response (spectrum!), as defined by a HRTF. Clearly then, if we attempt to change the spectrum (freq content) of the instruments/sounds we've recorded, we CANNOT do so without also changing the spectrum/freq content of the spatial information and also obviously, if we do change the spectrum/freq content of our spatial information then it is no longer absolutely accurate spatial information. Furthermore, changing the freq content is done by applying filters/EQ, which causes changes not only in the freq content but also with the phase. Even with your own example, where you are "filtering low frequencies a little", you are also filtering the low frequencies of the spatial information (of the recording venue and HRTF) and it is therefore no longer accurate spatial information. As it's all recorded together, whatever "factor" we might desire, need or be able to control/change will also change the spatial information and therefore, if we want accurate spatial information we cannot change anything. Ergo, they ARE mutually exclusive, you either have accurate spatial information OR you have control over all the other factors but NOT BOTH! With multi-mic'ing we can overcome this to a certain extent, we can record the spatial information of the recording venue somewhat separately from the sound of the instruments, allowing us to change/control the sound of the instruments without affecting the spatial information of the recording venue. Obviously though, we're not going to get the other aspects of spatial information which relate to the HRTF of a dummy head, although we could approximate this to a degree if we choose. As I've stated several times, there is no perfect solution, only solutions which are less flawed than other solutions in a given set of circumstances.


1. If we have any kind of time-dependent signal, we have also a frequency-dependent spectrum of that signal. If there is no spectrum, there is also not a signal associated with. There is just silence, and nobody cares about the spatiality of silence because it is an undefined concept. I don't know if I hit the sweetpot of your ignorance, but you seem surprisingly lost my friend.

2. Ok, I think I get what you mean. Your way of thinking these things omits some aspect which give us "more room to work." In a linear (enough) system we can filter the signal at any point. If we "need" to cut 50-500 Hz band a little after reducing ILD, we could do the filtering as well to the microphone signal. In theory we could even modify the instruments recorded to have that cut in their sound, but that would of course be insanely difficult. Or we could do the filtering just before the sound enters out ear and modify the sound of our headphones! In theory it doesn't matter when we filter, but of course we do it at the point were it is the easiest to do: In the DAW software. And we do it after the ILD reduction, because only then we know how what kind of filtering we need to balance the sound. However, we _could_ filter first and then reduce ILD, because those are linear operations and modern DAWs are certainly linear enough (human hearing dictates what is linear enough, can we hear non-linearities or not)!

Another important thing to keep in mind is that spatial information is _relative_ in nature. ILD, ITD and ISD are literally about the differencies between two ears and those differencies remain intact when we filter channels the same way. Spectral cues are affected a bit. Filtering high frequencies makes the sound more distant for example. That's why I said spectrum and spatiality are weakly connected. We can't work with the two totally independently, but since the connection is only weak, there is room to work and find a good compromise. Producing music is FILLED with these weakly connected things so this should not freak out sound engineers. It only means you got to learn how to deal with spectral and spatial things in relation to each other and overcome the problems of weak connection.

Depends on the filtering how much it changes phase, possible very little and if phase is an issue, use linear phase filtering! A professional like you should know how to select proper filter types for each situation.


----------



## pinnahertz

gregorio said:


> You personally might need surgery but that's not necessarily a course of action advisable for everyone. For example, some audiophiles wouldn't benefit from surgery because they already appear to have a dummy head!
> 
> G


If there were a procedure that resulted in a standardized everyone's HRTF you might have something.  But it would be challenging.  You'd have to standardize pinna, spacing, head density (which I'm sure varies for some audiophiles), facial characteristics, and torso profile.  I don't know what you'd do about male/female torso variance...(viva la variance...if my French were any good).   

But perhaps there's a better way to make a stereo recording that works for everyone.  I heard about a guy who knows a guy who's working in his parent garage to create a mic technique that results in a uniform acceptable soundstage perception across all listeners.  He's using mics pointed at instruments, recording them on separate tracks and mixing them to stereo.  Oh...wait...

Or was it the fellow who's finally found a way to sample audio and quantize it so the data can be used to reconstruct a perfect replica.  Um...that....sounds kinda familiar too....

Maybe I was thinking of the guy who's trying to magnetize a strip of plastic with a magnetic coating so that it contains a sound recording....oh, darn it!  Must be I'm thinking of the dude cutting a groove in wax that represents sound.  Yeah, that's it.  I think he was using his own HRFT, though.  But he uses a row of recorders lined up in front of the band, and if you could play them all back in synch you'd have a respectable kind of multi-channel stereo.  I don't think he was working on that.


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> Another important thing to keep in mind is that spatial information is _relative_ in nature. ILD, ITD and ISD are literally about the differencies between two ears....


...and the differences between people.


----------



## gregorio (May 25, 2018)

71 dB said:


> [1] Wow, what a lacklustre effort in discrediting someone's post! I'm surprised you descend to this level.
> [2] Acoustic instruments do not need to be linear, because they are the source of the signal. In many ways the non-linearities are responsible of why the sound of acoustic instruments is interesting in the first place.
> [3] The air is linear enough for sound pressure levels below ~160 dB ...
> [4] Reflections are generally quite linear ...
> ...



1. Yep, I descended to the level of science and the actual facts. I'm not quite sure why that should be such a surprise to you though, especially here?
2. Exactly, so what was the point of you posting all that irrelevant info about freq response of a linear system?
3. Of course it's not. Again, you are just making up nonsense, really obvious nonsense in this case! Air absorbs frequencies and particularly higher frequencies. Have you never noticed that the further away from a sound source you get the quieter it is and the less HF it contains? It's hard to believe that you're completely ignorant of this basic fact of sound transmission in air but either you must be, or you're just ignoring it and making-up nonsense to support your belief.
4. Again, more complete and utter nonsense! Reflections are never linear, EVERY material has an absorption coefficient which varies at different frequencies. Geez, this isn't even new science, it's well over a century old! And, every room (except an anechoic chamber) has resonances, called "room modes".
5. Pretty much ALL acoustic instruments largely or entirely relies on resonances. For example, it's the resonance of a vibrating string or the resonance of a sound within a tube of a certain length which creates musical notes in the first place and therefore you would have to be a complete idiot to want to "kill resonances when recording music" because what you recorded would not be music! The "kind of lazy ass engineer" you're talking about is therefore the kind that has at least a grade school level of understanding of how musical instruments wiork!!! How much more ridiculous and ignorant of the actual facts are you prepared to go?
6. I mean how do you even arrive at such nonsense, don't you even think about what you're writing before you write it, or is it actually possible that you really are that ignorant? Even if you really are that ignorant of the facts, just think about the simple logic of it: If microphones really were all linear, then they'd all be exactly the same and there would be no point in different microphones even existing. There would only be one microphone and that one microphone is the only microphone commercial studios would ever use. On this planet though, there are numerous different microphones and all commercial studio have a large collection of these different microphones! How is it possible that you are ignorant of all this?
7. That is clearly not what I'm implying. Inventing complete nonsense isn't working out so well, so you've decided to throw in some misrepresentation of what I've clearly stated as well?
8. I've ALREADY clearly stated that trying to "justify" the actual facts to YOU is almost certainly a complete waste of time and I've even explained why. So, I'm not trying to justify anything to you, I'm just refuting the utter nonsense you're posting!



71 dB said:


> 1. If we have any kind of time-dependent signal, we have also a frequency-dependent spectrum of that signal. If there is no spectrum, there is also not a signal associated with. There is just silence, and nobody cares about the spatiality of silence because it is an undefined concept.
> [1a] I don't know if I hit the sweetpot of your ignorance, but you seem surprisingly lost my friend.
> 2. Ok, I think I get what you mean. Your way of thinking these things omits some aspect which give us "more room to work." In a linear (enough) system we can filter the signal at any point.
> [3] Filtering high frequencies makes the sound more distant for example.
> ...



1. Hallelujah brother. So now you agree that spectrum and spatiality are INEXTRICABLY LINKED, they are NOT separate things or "_weakly connected_" things, as you have implied and stated previously! Unfortunately though, you've just dug a deeper logical hole for yourself: If freq spectrum and spatiality are intrinsically linked, as you now seem to admit, how can you ONLY be concerned with spatial information and not freq spectrum?
1a. Actually you've got nowhere near my ignorance, let alone the sweet spot. You have however, appeared to perfectly hit a sweet spot of your own ignorance but what's amazing is that you don't seem to realise it or even realise that you've just contradicted your previous assertions, how is that possible?

2. Despite your previous denial of the facts, we are NOT dealing with a linear system! Pretty much nothing is the system is linear, except the digital recording/storage, and the most non-linear component is the brain/perception. Therefore, most of the rest of your post is irrelevant and/or nonsense!

3. If air transmission and reflections are linear (as you have erroneously asserted), how would filtering high frequencies make the sound appear more distant? You are again completely contradicting yourself but bizarrely, you again don't seem to realise it?!

4. You seem to be missing the fundamental fact, if you apply a filter to a binaural recording, you are not just filtering the sound of the instruments but ALSO the freq spectrum of all the spatial information and therefore it is no longer accurate spatial information, regardless of what filter phase type is employed!
4a. Shouldn't an amateur like you have at least some vague idea of what they're talking about BEFORE arguing with a professional???

Again, making up nonsense, misrepresenting the facts and contradicting yourself is NOT going to get you very far here, it's just going to make you look ignorant and foolish! You don't really want to make yourself look ignorant and foolish do you?  Assuming you don't, your ONLY option is to STOP posting nonsense, contradictions and misrepresentations!!!

G


----------



## bigshot (May 25, 2018)

I haven't had time to listen to the whole binaural Macy Gray album yet, but I listened to the first two tracks and I'm totally confused. What am I supposed to be listening for? This recording doesn't appear to have any more spacial indications than a multi-miked recording. It sounds like a strip of sound going through the center of my head- no depth, no rear. Everything except the drums is lined up in a straight line left to right just like the strip of sound that goes through your head when you listen to headphones. It doesn't sound at all like real sound or even speakers. Is this what binaural is supposed to sound like?

The guitar is amped with heavy reverb applied and is hard panned to the left. The vocals appear to have reverb added to them and are slightly off center to the right. The bass is WAY too close to the microphone and hard panned to the right. It's so close, it feels like it's clipping my eyebrows. The drums are very poorly recorded and are center/left. The heavy room ambience on the drums sounds totally different than the guitar and vocals They sound like they're in a different room- echoey, flat through my head, no dynamics, no balance at all, Nothing seemed to be at any distance, except for secondary depth cues like room reflections. And nothing sounded like it was coming from the rear *at all*.

I listened to this for about ten minutes and quit because I didn't know what was wrong. I was expecting something that sounded sort of like surround sound... or at least something that seemed a little distance in front of me like soundstage. But there was none of that. It just sounds like a typical recording, just with unimaginative and sloppy mike placement... plus the bad mike placement was the same in both songs. It sounds for all the world like an amateur recording of a live performance... a little too close to the bass, a little too far from the drums, stuff all on the right and left speaker and vocals in the middle. I can't see how anyone can get "spatial" out of that. Am I doing something wrong? Were my headphones on backwards or something?

I wonder if this sounds better on speakers? I'll try that this weekend.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I haven't had time to listen to the whole binaural Macy Gray album yet, but I listened to the first two tracks and I'm totally confused. What am I supposed to be listening for? This recording doesn't appear to have any more spacial indications than a multi-miked recording. It sounds like a strip of sound going through the center of my head- no depth, no rear. Is this what binaural is supposed to sound like?
> 
> The guitar is amped and hard panned to the left. The vocals appear to have reverb added to them and are slightly off center to the right. The bass is WAY too close to the microphone and hard panned to the right. The drums are very poorly recorded and are center/left. They sound like they're in a different room- echoey, flat through my head, no dynamics, no balance at all, Nothing seemed to be at any distance, except for secondary depth cues like room reflections. And nothing sounded like it was coming from the rear *at all*.
> 
> I listened to this for about ten minutes and quit because I didn't know what was wrong. I was expecting something that sounded sort of like surround sound... or at least something that seemed a little distance in front of me like soundstage. But there was none of that. It just sounds like a typical recording, just with unimaginative and sloppy mike placement... plus the bad mike placement was the same in both songs. It sounds for all the world like an amateur recording of a live performance... a little too close to the bass, a little too far from the drums, stuff all on the right and left speaker and vocals in the middle. I can't see how anyone can get "spatial" out of that. Am I doing something wrong? Were my headphones on backwards or something?



Is this the album : http://www.chesky.com/album/stripped   - song "Anabelle" ?


----------



## bigshot (May 25, 2018)

Yes, that's it. That is the album that was recommended for me to get to see what binaural is capable of. It's a Chesky recording.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Yes, that's it. That is the album that was recommended for me to get to see what binaural is capable of. It's a Chesky recording.



There are more songs from the said Chesky album on the YT available - I will have to check for the exact quality/codecs of these compressed uploads on my laptop ( loaned in a pinch to a friend till tomorrow ) - too much computer abrakadabra required to get youtube embedded into foobar2000 playable on my home PC again.

I will try to listen to these YT videos trough few of my cans to see if and what this can bring. Probably on sunday - a recording awaits tomorrow.


----------



## bigshot (May 25, 2018)

I bought the CD, so I’m hearing lossless. The YouTube video is 1080p, so it’s the maximum sound quality YouTube supports. AAC256.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I bought the CD, so I’m hearing lossless.



 I know... I will try to hear what can be done with whatever is available on YT, when there will be enough time. You might well guess what I might say regarding RBCD and binaural ...

There are headphones that are next to unusable for binaural - to the point the result trully makes the listener wondering what the hell it should be about in the first place. One that is otherwise pretty decent but no-go with binaural is Audioquest Nighthawk - and, quite surprisingly, Stax Omega SR-007 MKI .


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. Yep, I descended to the level of science and the actual facts. I'm not quite sure why that should be such a surprise to you though, especially here?
> 2. Exactly, so what was the point of you posting all that irrelevant info about freq response of a linear system?
> 3. Of course it's not. Again, you are just making up nonsense, really obvious nonsense in this case! Air absorbs frequencies and particularly higher frequencies. Have you never noticed that the further away from a sound source you get the quieter it is and the less HF it contains? It's hard to believe that you're completely ignorant of this basic fact of sound transmission in air but either you must be, or you're just ignoring it and making-up nonsense to support your belief.
> 4. Again, more complete and utter nonsense! Reflections are never linear, EVERY material has an absorption coefficient which varies at different frequencies. Geez, this isn't even new science, it's well over a century old! And, every room (except an anechoic chamber) has resonances, called "room modes".
> ...


1. You don't convince me you actually understand the science at hand.

2. It's not irrelevant, because the theory of LTI  (linear time independent) systems is fundamental in audio and without the understanding of it there is no chance in hell one can understand non-linear systems which are like 100 times more complex, so hard that only a sligthly non-linear systems are handled as linear to simplify things. If the error is much smaller than what we can hear, why not? I sensed that you are not familiar with this stuff so I brought it here. If you don't understand these basics you can't understand my arguments based on them (and that really shows in your replies).

Audio chain contains often linear enough blocks as well as non-linear blocks. While the theory of LTI systems doesn't apply well for the whole chain, it does apply to the linear enough blocks of the chain. The _order_ of linear blocks can be changed: The result is the same. Non-linearity makes order changes change the result too. You can change the order of linear blocks inside a chain of only linear blocks. So, you have this freedom of order within linear enough blocks.

3. As an acoustic engineer I am quite aware of how air absorbs differently at different frequencies. However, this is part of why increased distance makes high frequencies appear more attenuated. Another reason is that we move from near field to far field. Near field is more about direct sound than far field. So, far field is more about reverberation which as you may know is usually longer at low frequencies then high frequencies and that is mainly why frequency balance changes.

However, this doesn't make air non-linear! Non-linearity is not about different attenuation at different frequencies! Non-linearity is about different _amplitudes_ being attenuated differently! Air absorbs quiet sounds the same way it absorbs loud sounds. Non-linearity creates new frequencies, air absorption doesn't do that (as long as we are under ~160 dB). A linear system f satisfies the following properties.

f(x(t)+y(t)) = f(x(t)) + f(y(t))
f(k·x(y)) = k·f(x(y))​
4. Same as 3. By resonances I didn't mean reverberation, but things like a coffee cup + spoon resonating at certain frequencies because someone left it in the studio room. Or maybe a plywood panel on the wall is getting loose and resonates because of that. Perhaps a microphone pedestal resonates? There are tons of reasons for unwanted resonances and these resonances can happen even inside an anechoic chamber! I have experienced it.

5. Yes, but that's the source for the signal. In other words they are_ wanted_ resonances. I was talking about killing _unwanted_ resonances. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but please try not to straw man me.

6. Again, you demonstrate you don't know what linearity means! Linearity doesn't mean flat frequency response. Do your mics generate harmonics to the frequences you record? Do you get 200 Hz, 300 Hz, 400 Hz etc. harmonics when you record a 100 Hz sinewave? If not then your mics are linear, no matter how curvy frequency response they have. It means that if you recorded 6 dB louder sounds and then halved the mic signal you'd get exactly same result.

7. Think again why it is my posts appear complete nonsense to you?

8. You are entitled to refute my "utter nonsense" of course. Just don't blame me for not learning something new when given the change.



gregorio said:


> 1. Hallelujah brother. So now you agree that spectrum and spatiality are INEXTRICABLY LINKED, they are NOT separate things or "_weakly connected_" things, as you have implied and stated previously! Unfortunately though, you've just dug a deeper logical hole for yourself: If freq spectrum and spatiality are intrinsically linked, as you now seem to admit, how can you ONLY be concerned with spatial information and not freq spectrum?
> 1a. Actually you've got nowhere near my ignorance, let alone the sweet spot. You have however, appeared to perfectly hit a sweet spot of your own ignorance but what's amazing is that you don't seem to realise it or even realise that you've just contradicted your previous assertions, how is that possible?
> 
> 2. Despite your previous denial of the facts, we are NOT dealing with a linear system! Pretty much nothing is the system is linear, except the digital recording/storage, and the most non-linear component is the brain/perception. Therefore, most of the rest of your post is irrelevant and/or nonsense!
> ...


1. Weakly connected is what I think. What "weakly" means is pretty subjective.
1a. Because your straw manning doesn't affect me?
2. You are using some kind of "layman" linearity. I use the correct terminology.
3. What I have wrote above should clear this.
4. I'm not missing that point. Of course all information is filtered and it should be! What is "accurate" spatial information? If the sound of the instrument is filtered, it is only logical, that spatial information gets filtered too. If you play darker sounding guitar, the spatial information becomes darker too. To me that's accurate. It would be unnatural if spatial information remained bright when instrument turns darker. That would be a "wow, what the hell happened to the acoustics?" moment.
4a. Of course. Just as a professional should have at least some vague idea of what they're talking about before responding.

How much longer do I need to "make up nonsense" before you start to wonder just why I do it? I know I haven't always behaved well here and I have lost my temper a few times, but I try. Instead of asking others to stop posting I try to educate people on issues I sense I have something to offer. I have assumed too much people here know well what LTI systems mean and what linearity means.


----------



## skwoodwiva (May 25, 2018)

H





analogsurviver said:


> I know... I will try to hear what can be done with whatever is available on YT, when there will be enough time. You might well guess what I might say regarding RBCD and binaural ...
> 
> There are headphones that are next to unusable for binaural - to the point the result trully makes the listener wondering what the hell it should be about in the first place. One that is otherwise pretty decent but no-go with binaural is Audioquest Nighthawk - and, quite surprisingly, Stax Omega SR-007 MKI .


I am using my BW P7s they are stunning in revealing the sound stage here. 192k/ 24 playback.


----------



## danadam

bigshot said:


> I bought the CD, so I’m hearing lossless. The YouTube video is 1080p, so it’s the maximum sound quality YouTube supports. AAC256.


I think for some time now max bitrate of AAC streams on youtube is 128 kbps. For this particular upload the following streams are available at the moment (youtube-dl output):

```
]$ youtube-dl -F https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9423itVULU
...
[info] Available formats for d9423itVULU:
format code  extension  resolution note
140          m4a        audio only DASH audio  128k , m4a_dash container, mp4a.40.2@128k, 4.72MiB
160          mp4        256x144    144p  112k , avc1.4d400c, 30fps, video only, 4.09MiB
133          mp4        426x240    240p  251k , avc1.4d4015, 30fps, video only, 9.14MiB
134          mp4        640x360    360p  648k , avc1.4d401e, 30fps, video only, 22.44MiB
135          mp4        854x480    480p 1180k , avc1.4d401f, 30fps, video only, 42.58MiB
136          mp4        1280x720   720p 2352k , avc1.4d401f, 30fps, video only, 83.45MiB
137          mp4        1920x1080  1080p 4404k , avc1.640028, 30fps, video only, 153.19MiB
17           3gp        176x144    small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2@ 24k, 2.91MiB
36           3gp        320x180    small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2, 8.27MiB
18           mp4        640x360    medium , avc1.42001E, mp4a.40.2@ 96k, 27.34MiB
43           webm       640x360    medium , vp8.0, vorbis@128k, 31.03MiB
22           mp4        1280x720   hd720 , avc1.64001F, mp4a.40.2@192k (best)
```
For format 22 it says 192k but it is 128k really.

From what I can tell, if upload has enough views then also Opus @ 160 kbps is added and that's max audio quality you can get from youtube.

If you want more then that particular album is also available on spotify.


----------



## bigshot (May 25, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> There are headphones that are next to unusable for binaural - to the point the result trully makes the listener wondering what the hell it should be about in the first place. One that is otherwise pretty decent but no-go with binaural is Audioquest Nighthawk - and, quite surprisingly, Stax Omega SR-007 MKI .



I'm listening to this in a lossless format on $1000 headphones. If that isn't good enough, binaural is useless.

I'm beginning to think this is another "emperor's new clothes" thing like jitter and high data rate audio.


----------



## analogsurviver

danadam said:


> I think for some time now max bitrate of AAC streams on youtube is 128 kbps. For this particular upload the following streams are available at the moment (youtube-dl output):
> 
> ```
> ]$ youtube-dl -F https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9423itVULU
> ...



Thank you for taking the trouble to check this out. However, more than bit rate is interesting sampling rate. Some of the above possibilities do allow for the 48kHz sampling rate - but are rarely used by the uploaders. You can pretty much tell if and how much the uploader does care and does know how to upload the best SQ supported on YT by looking at a sampling rate used.

If whatever sound uploaded to YT is downladed ( or re-recorded) and checked for frequency content using spectrum analysis, the usual result is response to approx 16kHz with pretty much nothing above - similar to MP3. I will try to check some uploads with 48kHz sampling rate - if that improves the matters somewhat, given the time.
Although small, the increase from 44.1 to 48kHz sampling rate can have quite profound impact on the SQ of _*real world imperfect equipment - *_not everything is made to perfection, as testing any real world soundcard will reveal. 

For serious check of this binaural album, a HR version - at least 96/24 - is available : http://www.hdtracks.com/binaural/stripped-322462#?format=AIFF

Spotify is not officially available in my country and if not really absolutely indispensable (no other way...), I tend not to use proxy servers etc. Besides, it probably only has RBCD version. 
I am not streaming music on the go (yet..), but friends have good experience using Tidal. 
Streaming DSD on the go is really pushing it - stable, at least 24 mb/s connection required, is hard to achieve in anything but the most favourable urban conditions - and its regular use would make one a VERY valued customer by any IP provider ...


----------



## bigshot (May 25, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Although small, the increase from 44.1 to 48kHz sampling rate can have quite profound impact on the SQ of _*real world imperfect equipment*_



No it can't. If equipment is defective, either by manufacture or design, sound quality can be compromised; but that has absolutely nothing to do with 44.1 vs 48. 44.1 is for sound intended for CD release. 48 is for sound intended for video release. It has nothing to do with sound quality.

All of this is irrelevant to my original question though... Why is this recording which is said to be one of the best binaural recordings made so obviously inferior to traditionally produced recordings? I read the Amazon review and people say it sounds great. What are they smoking?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I'm listening to this in a lossless format on $1000 headphones. If that isn't good enough, binaural is useless.
> 
> I'm beginning to think this is another "emperor's new clothes" thing like jitter and high data rate audio.



It is not necessary about the price - but, yes, it DOES take good equipment. I will include Philips SHP-9500 over ear open headphones into my listening test(s) - which is approx $100 ( can vary wildly, depending on the time and location ... ) model. Properly EQed, it can be thought of as being poor man's HD-800 - now, do not expect it to equal its tenfold or so more expensive counterpart, but it is quite usable, if less refined. There are headphones >> 1000 $ that are totally unsuitable for binaural - and then, there is ( now, finally...) MySphere 3.1 & 3.2 ( diff in impedance/amp required ) - likely to be the end of the road, at least for binaural,  at 4K or so.

Hearing binaural on some really good open air headphones ( better yet, earspeakers a la K-1000 ) fed directly from the microphone has no trouble convincing one that > 44.1 kHz sampling is required. At least twice that, that is to say 88.2kHz. Since practically no one is offering 88.2 kHz sampling rate recordings, what can be had commercially will usually be 96/24 - and above. 

There is a nagging feeling regarding the :
https://www.wired.com/review/nuraph.../review/nuraphone-wireless-headphones-review/
Anyone had a chance to experience this anything but conventional yet intriguing headphone ? Above is the first review I could find, manufacturer's ads online aside.

Used judiciously, if it actually does achive at least close to what is claimed, this thing could become a game changer.  And I am really curious what this (IEM+over ears ) combo can do with binaural content ...

BTW - on purpose I did NOT comment on the recording in question - will listen with the available gear first - and comment later.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> 1. You don't convince me you actually understand the science at hand.
> .....
> [2] How much longer do I need to "make up nonsense" before you start to wonder just why I do it?



1. How many times do I have to tell you? I am not trying to convince you of anything, just refuting your nonsense!

The rest of your post is yet again irrelevant nonsense and not worth my time responding to every point. However, there is one point briefly worth addressing because it's just another ridiculous tactic to defend your belief, the attempt to create confusion and deflect from the actual issues: The term "linear"/"non-linear" obviously has different meanings in audio, it can mean linear/flat response, as in a linear amplifier, it can be used to mean sequential, as in a linear/non-linear audio editing system and it can have a mathematical meaning, where non-linearity results in some form of harmonic or intermodulation distortion. We are talking about the spectrum/frequencies and amplitudes of those frequencies produced by acoustic instruments and present in spatial information and why we need to manipulate them, we are not talking about IMD or THD! So while all that you're posting about LTI etc., is not nonsense per se, it's nonsense in this context because it's irrelevant!

How is it possible for you to know about the formulas for mathematically linear system and profess to be an acoustic engineer but know nothing about the absolute basics of acoustics and acoustic instruments? It's like knowing about some complex aerobatic manoeuvre but not knowing the basics of how a plane flies or how to land or take off! How do you not know what resonance means, how it affects instruments and reflections and, how it affects them differently because they both have different non-linear/non-flat responses? How can you be an acoustic engineer and not know about absorption coefficients/characteristics or any of the practicalities of modern acoustics?

2. I've not only wondered but long ago worked out both why and how you do it, and I've even explained it to you!!

G


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> Hearing binaural on some really good open air headphones ( better yet, earspeakers a la K-1000 ) fed directly from the microphone has no trouble convincing one that > 44.1 kHz sampling is required.



That is complete nonsense. You've already demonstrated that you can be convinced by a soundstage that jumps all over place and therefore that it's "no trouble convincing" you of almost anything BUT you didn't state it would have no trouble convincing you, you stated it would have "no trouble convincing one"! Either present some reliable evidence to support that claim or it's NONSENSE and you're just trolling again!!! HOW MANY TIMES???

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Regarding the Nuraphone, I did get to test them quickly at CES, but the calibration wasn't running at the time.  So really all I can say is that they do look pretty unusual in person and I think the calibration is necessary to enjoy them fully.  

However, reading the review, it seems it tests the response of your inner ear / cochlea, not your pinnae or head, so I don't think it solves our troubles with regard to HRTF.


----------



## Phronesis

In case this hasn't already been posted and discussed.  Much to think about here.

https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitst...High Resolution 2016 Published.pdf?sequence=1


----------



## analogsurviver

Zapp_Fan said:


> Regarding the Nuraphone, I did get to test them quickly at CES, but the calibration wasn't running at the time.  So really all I can say is that they do look pretty unusual in person and I think the calibration is necessary to enjoy them fully.
> 
> However, reading the review, it seems it tests the response of your inner ear / cochlea, not your pinnae or head, so I don't think it solves our troubles with regard to HRTF.



That is what I was afraid of. Measuring pinnae or head requires either anechoic room or open free space with low enough noise floor - both hard to come by at a reasonable cost. 
The individual HRTF measurement offered by AKG back  in the day of the K-1000/BAP-1000 launch has been quite costly - IIRC, somewhere between 100 and 200 $, Euro or GBP per person/measurement. To date, K-1000/BAP-1000 ( using the "best" of the factory loaded HRTFs , unfortunately did not decide to get my own HRTF measured - BAP-1000 I had only on loan for about a month ) is the closest I have heard headphones to come to the spatiality of say surround 5.1 - particularly in the most difficult FRONT localization. Backside localization is much easier achievable, not to mention that what should be forward can easily slip backwards - the most annoying obstacle binaural will have to somehow solve. 
K/BAP-1000 did the best in this regard - bar none, at least of what I have been able to audition.


----------



## jgazal

bigshot said:


> Why is this recording which is said to be one of the best binaural recordings made so obviously inferior to traditionally produced recordings?



In the context of immersive audio, binaural recordings are said to be an option to Ambisonics, Wave Field Synthesis or object based synthesis. 

But then you need two speakers plus a transparent crosstalk cancellation filter or headphones with a PRIR convolution that account crosstalk similarly to such crosstalk cancellation filter.

I am just saying that because I don’t want to be blamed of defending anything else than that, i.e, that binaural recordings are better than close mic recordings when played back without xtc.


----------



## RRod (May 25, 2018)

bigshot said:


> No it can't. If equipment is defective, either by manufacture or design, sound quality can be compromised; but that has absolutely nothing to do with 44.1 vs 48. 44.1 is for sound intended for CD release. 48 is for sound intended for video release. It has nothing to do with sound quality.
> 
> All of this is irrelevant to my original question though... Why is this recording which is said to be one of the best binaural recordings made so obviously inferior to traditionally produced recordings? I read the Amazon review and people say it sounds great. What are they smoking?



I remember when that came about and everyone was claiming eargasm. I too don't really get it, but that is at least partly due to the voice not being my particular cup of tea. But maybe I need to hear it *ON VINYL*.


----------



## old tech

Phronesis said:


> In case this hasn't already been posted and discussed.  Much to think about here.
> 
> https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/13493/Reiss A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution 2016 Published.pdf?sequence=1


Interesting that you post a reference to a widely discredited meta analysis which cherry picked the data to support some of the MQA marketing claims.  Even so, the results are not very convincing.

One of the studies omitted from the meta is the Boston study (I wonder why?), the most comprehensive controlled test that has been conducted.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> Hearing binaural on some really good open air headphones ( better yet, earspeakers a la K-1000 ) fed directly from the microphone has no trouble convincing one that > 44.1 kHz sampling is required. At least twice that, that is to say 88.2kHz. Since practically no one is offering 88.2 kHz sampling rate recordings, what can be had commercially will usually be 96/24 - and above.



So does that mean that a binaural recording is virtually unlistenable on analog playback, particulary vinyl?  After all 16/44 is a significantly higher res format.


----------



## skwoodwiva

analogsurviver said:


> Thank you for taking the trouble to check this out. However, more than bit rate is interesting sampling rate. Some of the above possibilities do allow for the 48kHz sampling rate - but are rarely used by the uploaders. You can pretty much tell if and how much the uploader does care and does know how to upload the best SQ supported on YT by looking at a sampling rate used.
> 
> If whatever sound uploaded to YT is downladed ( or re-recorded) and checked for frequency content using spectrum analysis, the usual result is response to approx 16kHz with pretty much nothing above - similar to MP3. I will try to check some uploads with 48kHz sampling rate - if that improves the matters somewhat, given the time.
> Although small, the increase from 44.1 to 48kHz sampling rate can have quite profound impact on the SQ of _*real world imperfect equipment - *_not everything is made to perfection, as testing any real world soundcard will reveal.
> ...


From my brief experience here, thread, I agree the 192/24 is a album is a great sound stage example. I even noticed an increase in depth in the 192 vs 96 albums


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> So does that mean that a binaural recording is virtually unlistenable on analog playback, particulary vinyl?  After all 16/44 is a significantly higher res format.



The above statement  is something that could possibly be not more wrong. 16/44 RBCD is by deafault limited bandwidth and is NOT a higher res format than a decent vinyl setup. Analog records have essentially flat response up to approx 25-27 kHz if cut in real time and up to aprox 54 kHz if cut at half speed. Good phono cartridges and phono preamps have no trouble in playing back this bandwidth up to at least 50 kHz - all the way back from 1962, when Denon introduced its immortal DL-103 phono MC cartridge, which remains in production UNCHANGED  for more than 55 years.

The real reason why there are so few binaural analogue recordings on vynil lies in an entirely different matter. RUMBLE - or, to be precise, the PERCEIVED vertical rumble. Which is, of course, far worse still when listening with headphones - which is, of course, absolutely required for binaural.

The fact that turntables ( turntable = motor that turns the analog vynil record - NOT  the whole machine that outputs the electrical signal for further amplification ) have surpassed any in reality achivable rumble figures for even mastering lacquer, let alone a pressed record that is the only mass produced form of vynil record, back in the late 70s - is nothing new. That necessitated to invent a test probe for turntable rumble - one that can measure past the limitations of pressed records: 

http://www.theanalogdept.com/thorens_history.htm

The difference in rumble figures - or signal to noise ratio - between a pressed record and probe is generally approx 20 dB - or more ...

But, wait, it gets even worse - MUCH worse. The seminal, #1, THE  mother of all things analogue record playback papers is this one :

http://www.theanalogdept.com/images/spp6_pics/TT_Design/MechanicalResonances.pdf

The fundamental resonance frequency of ANY phono playback ( save for the pure optical playback without the physical contact - so far sonically flawed enough to prevent the adoption of all but the most adamant or those who need it for archival purposes ( it allows for archiving records broken to pieces, something a physical stylus would never survive )), the resonance that occurs due to the compliance of the stylus suspension and the combined effective mass of the cartridge and tonearm ( ideally placed at 10 Hz ) - is the fundamental reason for practically ALL the troubles of vinyl playback. Just read trough all of the paper ...

If we reduce ( we definitely SHOULD NOT ) that to S/N only, the fundamental resonace can reduce the figure of the real world pressed records by the additional up to 20 dB, with the usual peak most frequently being encountered  approx 12 dB. So, whatever turntable/arm/cartridge combination (save for VERY few exceptions ) you have been listening to, the playback S/N CAN be improved by at least 10 or so dB - which is a MASSIVE improvement.

The sad fact most people do not understand, do not find it necessary to find the time to study the importance of achieving a good - if not perfect - phono cartridge/tonearm pairing, is unfortunately, THE sad fact of analog record playback. Not that the problem has not been solved ... FAR from it. But, it usually requires more from the end user ( or dealer, who SHOULD be able to and capable of adjusting the phono gear properly; after all, nowhere else in audio is the dealer margin higher than with phono cartridges - PRECISELY  because of the assumption the dealer will install and align and adjust the cartridge on the customer's arm/turntable ) than the vast majority of people is capable of or willing to do. 

Historically, there were only two practical solutions to the problem that were fool/bulletproof, WITHOUT the end user (or dealer ) having to add any additional effort towards achieving the best possible suppression of that ultra-pesky fundamental resonance around 10 Hz. The most elegant one was from the former Soviet Union; basically, a sphere within the sphere, coupled with just the right amount of viscosity of the liquid between the two spheres ( I will have to find the math behind it, a diploma paper by its author, THE perfect solution ). 
For plethora of reasons, from political/ideological ( it HAS been called/mocked Chernobyl Spinnaker in western forums ... ), to sheer dumbness of the western "critics", not to mention the very poor English of the author of the arm AND his volatility in communication ( on the order of at least two magnitudes of order worse than my own when under heavy flak ... ) - which resulted of him getting banned from each and every forum. 

Sad, but true. 

What follows is the result of his efforts. A piece of music played from the vinyl record from the early 60s. By his Korvet 038 turntable ( rare back then, almost unobtainium today ), with his Korvet GZM-128 phono cartridge. The Korvet GZM-128 itself has gained a formidable reputation worldwide - as one of THE handful of phono cartridges of all time, regardless of the principle of operation. Its performance puts most of the competition to shame - whatever its limitations, it NEVER  puts a foot wrong within its envelope. No other manufacturer in the world has EVER produced such a comprehensive User Manual as provided with this cartridge - of course, written in Cyrilic letters. 



The rumble/noise heard is ALL due to the record - a more recent recording, made on better lathe and with less noisy master, would yield a MUCH  better result.

Of course, with all the knowledge gained in the last 35+ years, both the Korvet  turntable and cartridge could be further improved today - BUT, as it stands, it is one of the VERY few "record players" that did get the fundamentals right. 

The other, less elegant and more prone to malfunction solution also dates to late 70s - Sony's Biotracer arms/turntables, with similar versions also being produced by JVC and Denon.

Sad, but true - NONE of the above is in the production today. And from what is in the market today, the only tonearm that does pay attention to supressing that fundamental resonance anything approaching the achievements from the past is the Well Tempered ( and , limited ONLY to the less critical lateral damping, The Dynavector arm ) - and maybe some others I am not - yet - familiar with. But, they can not be numerous ...


----------



## gregorio (May 27, 2018)

I just realised there's something else 71 dB posted which may be worth mentioning, for two reasons: Firstly, although it appears perfectly reasonable on the face of it, it contradicts the actual facts. Secondly, it highlights the actual practical concerns when recording (and mixing) and why binaural recording can be so problematic.



71 dB said:


> [1] If the sound of the instrument is filtered, it is only logical, that spatial information gets filtered too. [2] If you play darker sounding guitar, the spatial information becomes darker too. To me that's accurate. It would be unnatural if spatial information remained bright when instrument turns darker. That would be a "wow, what the hell happened to the acoustics?" moment.



It might APPEAR "only logical that spatial information gets filtered too" but it's not that simple in practice. If we applied say a high pass filter to an instrument we would expect that as the instrument is no longer producing low freqs then there is nothing to excite/cause low frequency reflections, so there would be no low freq spatial information and therefore it's not a problem that our high pass filter is removing LF from both the instrument and the spatial information. This is effectively correct, HOWEVER, that logic does NOT apply equally to other frequency changes/manipulations we might wish to apply and this is important because such other freq changes are extremely common, much more common than the example given of filtering out the low freqs of an instrument. In practice, it would be far more common to need to do the opposite, to boost low freqs rather than remove them, because our ears are relatively insensitive to low freqs. So, we boost the low freqs of our instrument and unavoidably with a binaural recording, we also equally boost the low freqs of our reflections/reverb/spatial information BUT, this causes two problems:

1. This is NOT what actually happens with acoustics, it contradicts the actual facts! It ignores the non-linear/non-flat freq response of musical instruments and reflective surfaces (such as walls). In practice, relatively little LF energy is reflected back into the room/venue, much of it simply passes through the walls (or is absorbed/dissipated in the case of a very well constructed/isolated venue). This is why incidentally, if you stand outside a closed room where music is playing, what you'll hear is almost entirely low freqs. In a real acoustic room/venue, If we boost the low freqs of an a low freq instrument is played louder, we do NOT get an equal boost in the low freqs of the reflections, we get less of a boost in the LF of the reflections as the instrument will produce relatively little more LF and much more of that LF energy simply passes through the boundaries (walls/reflective surfaces).

2. As anyone with practical experience of recording and mixing fairly quickly discovers, if you increase the amount of low freq reflections/reverb the result in practice isn't just more LF, the result is a mess, a more severe loss of clarity throughout the mix than expected and not just loss of clarity of the instruments themselves but also of the spatial information/reverb, very easily to the point of near total destruction of the coherency of the reverb.

So neither as far as the facts of acoustics nor as far as the practicalities of mixing are concerned, is equally boosting the LF of an instrument and the spatial information desirable, we need independent control. Additionally, this is NOT just a low freq issue, we have a non-flat freq response throughout the spectrum of the instruments themselves and a DIFFERENT non-flat freq response of the reflections/reverb/spatial information of the performance venue, due to absorption, reflection and resonant freqs of the reflective surfaces (rather than the transparency issue with low freqs). This might all sound rather esoteric but it is not, it's these factors which largely account for the difference in sound between different concert halls (for example) and therefore goes to the heart of the whole accurate/real/"feels like you're actually there" point of binaural recording in the first place! Furthermore, we MUST consider the role of the ear/brain in all of this. For example, we may wish to boost the mid freqs of an instrument in a binaural recording, to aid clarity, separation and/or presence, as the ear/brain would do at a live event. However, we can't of course just boost the mid freqs of the instrument, we're also going to increase the mid freqs of the reflections/reverb. This is effectively the exact opposite of what the ear/brain does, which is to increase clarity, separation and presence partly by reducing the perceived amount of reverb/reflections. Again, what we would get would be inaccurate freq content of the spatial information, which would be perceived as inaccurate/unnatural and it wouldn't achieve the intended goal anyway. And lastly, with an ensemble of instruments, we obviously have no control over any individual or group of instruments with a binaural recording. With an orchestra for example, we could not just boost say the low freqs of the double basses, we would also be boosting the low freqs of the timpani, tuba, orch bass drum, contra-bassoon and anything else which happened to occupy that boosted freq range.

With a binaural recording we effectively have no control over anything, we have virtually no mixing options because whatever we do affects everything equally. The answer to this by binaural fanboys is that you shouldn't do any mixing anyway, just accurately record what would enter the ears and job done. This does not however account for a number of factors, most importantly, how the ear/brain actually perceives the sound which enters the ears. And, we have ample evidence of what consumers prefer! Accounting for perception and therefore the requirement of multi-mic'ing acoustic performances didn't suddenly appear and all stereo only recording suddenly stop, it was a gradual process throughout the 1950's, 60's and into the 70's, it was a 20 or so year process driven entirely by what consumers preferred/bought. The industry itself would have preferred to stick with stereo and record straight to disk, it's much cheaper and quicker: You only needed to spend a couple of thousand or so on a pair of good mics, instead of tens/hundreds of thousands required for an array of multi-mics. You only needed a stereo recorder for a few thousand rather than a 100k or so of high quality multi-track. You didn't even really need a mixing desk at all, let alone the half a million or so a high quality multi-input desk would've cost and of course you wouldn't need the time, environment and personnel required to actually make the mix. The record industry has always been extremely competitive, a prime example of corporate greed and dodgy business practices, if they could have maintained/increased sales without spending millions on all the additional equipment, personnel and environments, they absolutely would have, without question!

G

EDIT: Point #1 was poorly/incorrectly worded and has been changed.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] The above statement is something that could possibly be not more wrong. 16/44 RBCD is by deafault limited bandwidth and is NOT a higher res format than a decent vinyl setup.
> [2] Analog records have essentially flat response up to approx 25-27 kHz if cut in real time and up to aprox 54 kHz if cut at half speed.
> [3] Good phono cartridges and phono preamps have no trouble in playing back this bandwidth up to at least 50 kHz - all the way back from 1962,



1. Utter nonsense. 16/44 is higher res partly because it is bandlimited! Again, absolute nonsense which is completely contrary to the actual facts!
2 and 3. Again, completely opposite to the actual facts.

I can't even be bothered to address any other nonsense/irrelevant points in your post, not least because it's essentially the same whole bunch of utter nonsense which has already been addressed, to you personally, on several/many occasions. And of course, you again present no evidence whatsoever to support your ridiculous claims, which you know is unacceptable here because you've had it explained to you, again, many times. You are therefore aware that you are effectively trolling, AGAIN!! And I've reported your post as such.

G


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 1. Utter nonsense. 16/44 is higher res partly because it is bandlimited! Again, absolute nonsense which is completely contrary to the actual facts!
> 2 and 3. Again, completely opposite to the actual facts.
> 
> I can't even be bothered to address any other nonsense/irrelevant points in your post, not least because it's essentially the same whole bunch of utter nonsense which has already been addressed, to you personally, on several/many occasions. And of course, you again present no evidence whatsoever to support your ridiculous claims, which you know is unacceptable here because you've had it explained to you, again, many times. You are therefore aware that you are effectively trolling, AGAIN!! And I've reported your post as such.
> ...



Sorry, I only replied WHY there are not more binaural recordings issued on vinyl. And, remember, everything reprinted as Stax binaural CDs has originally been on specialized German LP  label. The reason given ( that around 10 Hz resonance ) is PERFECTLY true - no matter what you might possibly say.

I consider brickwall filtering above 20 kHz a bigger departure from the original than a 1 dB or so variability of phono up to 20 kHz - if the phono then works "essentially flat, without high Q peaking" ( say + - 3 dB or less variation up to 50 kHz ). Such phono cartridges, although rare, DO exist. And are getting ever more numerous.

And the utter nonsense is claiming that a bandwidth limited format can be superior because of its bandwidth limitations. Yes, it CAN be - if the system downstream ( amplifiers, loudspeakers or headphones ) is itself prone to intermodelation distortion within the bandwidth provided by whatever source is feeding it. 

If the source ( remember, can be HR today ) is capable of competent performance of response >> 20 kHz AND the rest of the system is NOT prone to IMD within the bandwidth fed from the source, the DIFFERENCE products of >>20 kHz  sound that fall within the audio range will be missed - something a recording with no bandwidth above 20 kHz can not even start to capture, let alone reproduce. 


Finall, to EVERYBODY - do not forget, this is a HEADPHONE  forum - all the studies and papers presented regarding HR and human PERCEPTION of sound >> 20 kHz have been mainly working with loudspeakers. Like it or not, loudspeakers produce - at best - VERY limited listening window with ideal "everything" ; usually, this is reduced to a SINGLE seat/person . Higher up in frequency we go, the narrower/smaller this window becomes ... - and to claim that those reports regarding HR with speakers available are credible for large number of listeners is - at best - wishful thinking.

None of this applies to headsphones, of course. However, there is a practical limitation in handing out enough high quality headphones for such a survey; remember, one has then so and so many USED headphones - at, say, reasonable lower limit price of $ 500 or so a pop ...


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] I consider brickwall filtering above 20 kHz a bigger departure from the original than a 1 dB or so variability of phono up to 20 kHz - if the phono then works "essentially flat, without high Q peaking" ( say + - 3 dB or less variation up to 50 kHz ).
> [2] If the source ( remember, can be HR today ) is capable of competent performance of response >> 20 kHz AND the rest of the system is NOT prone to IMD within the bandwidth fed from the source, the DIFFERENCE products of >>20 kHz sound that fall within the audio range will be missed ...
> [3] Finall, to EVERYBODY - do not forget, this is a HEADPHONE forum - all the studies and papers presented regarding HR and human PERCEPTION of sound >> 20 kHz have been mainly working with loudspeakers.



1. What anyone "considers" has relatively little worth here. If what someone "considers" is contrary to the facts, then it's worth NOTHING AT ALL and is unacceptable here, unless they can provide some reliable supporting evidence. You know this, you've been told countless times and yet here you are yet again doing exactly what you know is unacceptable. That's TROLLING!

2. There are no difference or any other sort of products >20kHz which fall within the audible range and therefore nothing will be missed! If you disagree, no problem, provide some reliable evidence that there's differences >20kHz in music that are audible. You know you have to provide that reliable evidence, you've been told, so why haven't you?

3. Not true/relevant! There are quite a few papers regarding audibility of HF with headphones and they do not contradict the findings done with speakers. So even if it's true that there are more papers/studies done with speakers, it's irrelevant if the results the same any way. Are you a young child? If you are actually an adult, which isn't entirely clear but you've implied you're at least 40 years old, then your hearing probably reaches it's limit at 16kHz and probably lower and therefore nothing  >16kHz is going to be audible, let alone >20kHz!!! If you believe you can hear >20kHz when listening to music you are either: 
A. An unprecedented medical marvel. 
B. Listening at damaging levels.
C. Not a human being or 
D. Deluded! 
All the evidence of your posts very strongly suggests "D", although I can't rule out "C", you could be a troll bot!! Either way, stop with the nonsense already!

G


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> The above statement  is something that could possibly be not more wrong. 16/44 RBCD is by deafault limited bandwidth and is NOT a higher res format than a decent vinyl setup.


once again you went full Gollum on samples. to try and agree with you I would need to assume that ultrasonic content has the exact same value as signal in the audible audio band. which is nuts in the context of reproducing music for humans. properly reproducing a 1khz tone cannot ever count as being equally significant for the music as a 25khz tone of same amplitude. even from an objective point of view, thinking they're of equivalent value doesn't make sense because inaudible is not as significant as audible. it's that simple. 
so you'd need to have a gigantic amount of ultrasonic content and frequency range to even start considering that it could compensate for all the fidelity crippled by a vinyl playback. 

 in that context, I'd argue that 320kbps mp3 has higher fidelity for audible content than a vinyl playback. and I don't believe anybody would claim that the vinyl playback sounds closer to the high res version in a listening test, making a strong case as to why your obsession for more samples and higher frequencies is in practice really not as relevant as you want to believe it is.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. How many times do I have to tell you? I am not trying to convince you of anything, just refuting your nonsense!
> 
> 2. The rest of your post is yet again irrelevant nonsense and not worth my time responding to every point.
> 
> ...



1. Maybe instead of refuting my "nonsense" you should study closer what I actually say, because it seems we have misinterpreted each other. You just assume everything I say is nonsense if I don't just agree with you 100 % and use the terminology the same way you use it.

2. Please, don't be that dishonest to yourself intellectually. Just Google about LTI systems and verify what I wrote. I completely understand how difficult it is to respond for someone who is not familiar which this stuff and I would respect you more if you just confessed you are not familiar with it. We can't know everything. I studied years in university to learn this stuff. Instead you label knowledge and understanding you don't have "irrelevant" and not worth your time. I admit I have sometimes behaved the same way online and been called arrogant, for a good reason.

3. I apologize for not making clear I use the term "linear" in it's scientific/mathematical meaning. You are right, those other meanings do exist in their context. In editing the term "linear" has it's "safe" own meaning, but I'd use the expression "flat frequency response" instead "linear response" to avoid confusion.

I'm baffled about how my posts give anyone an impression of not knowing about acoustics and acoustics instruments. How on earth have I given an impression that I don't know what resonance means? Or that I don't know about absorption coefficients? Crazy! I mean the professors in my university seemed to think I know this stuff and let me graduate...


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 1. What anyone "considers" has relatively little worth here. If what someone "considers" is contrary to the facts, then it's worth NOTHING AT ALL and is unacceptable here, unless they can provide some reliable supporting evidence. You know this, you've been told countless times and yet here you are yet again doing exactly what you know is unacceptable. That's TROLLING!
> 
> 2. There are no difference or any other sort of products >20kHz which fall within the audible range and therefore nothing will be missed! If you disagree, no problem, provide some reliable evidence that there's differences >20kHz in music that are audible. You know you have to provide that reliable evidence, you've been told, so why haven't you?
> 
> ...


I *think* I have replied - in far too numerous occasions - my age and audible limit to HEARING sine wave already. You'll have to go and check my previous posts - WILL NOT repeat that for the upteenth time.

If you have not experienced yourselves that - even if only sometimes - bandwidth > 20 kHz is beneficial for music, it is not MY fault. Having been a musician turning into a recording engineer yourselves and having - at least occasionally - still contact with live sound, I find that both strange and suspicious; but will take your word for it. 
And even if I provided you samples of recordings that contain > 20 kHz, most probably whatever equipment you use (and has likely been purpose bandwidth limited ) would not yield the proper results. And so on and so forth, the time it would require to convince you and the likes of you would be too long - and can not be done online, for more reasons than stated above. 

There is a reason why MHz bandwidth amplifiers are used for audio ... - and why they produce more lifelike sound, 
IF properly applied ( oscillation(s) have to be kept out, no matter what - in some casess necessitating bandwidth limitations ).  

I do not have two or more decades left to play the "reference A from 2015" to "reference B from 2017" to ..., ..... , "reference X from 204Y" game - BEFORE any recording >> 20 kHz with the seal of approval of who knows how many peer revieved papers can be officially granted. Both myself and many musicians will be, by that time, if not dead, than certainly no longer capable or willing to make ANY recording...

You are actually trying to undermine anything that - eventually, in the long run - might prove to be equal or better to the RBCD multimiking approach.


----------



## Phronesis

I don't understand the rationale behind constantly accusing someone of trolling, yet spending a lot of time continuing to engage with them.  Seems a lot more sensible to make the accusation once or twice and then disengage discussion with that person.  Otherwise, seems to me that the person making the accusation has some issues of their own they need to address.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> I just realised there's something else 71 dB posted which may be worth mentioning, for two reasons: Firstly, although it appears perfectly reasonable on the face of it, it contradicts the actual facts. Secondly, it highlights the actual practical concerns when recording (and mixing) and why binaural recording can be so problematic.
> 
> It might APPEAR "only logical that spatial information gets filtered too" but it's not that simple in practice. If we applied say a high pass filter to an instrument we would expect that as the instrument is no longer producing low freqs then there is nothing to excite/cause low frequency reflections, so there would be no low freq spatial information and therefore it's not a problem that our high pass filter is removing LF from both the instrument and the spatial information. This is effectively correct, HOWEVER, that logic does NOT apply equally to other frequency changes/manipulations we might wish to apply and this is important because such other freq changes are extremely common, much more common than the example given of filtering out the low freqs of an instrument. In practice, it would be far more common to need to do the opposite, to boost low freqs rather than remove them, because our ears are relatively insensitive to low freqs. So, we boost the low freqs of our instrument and unavoidably with a binaural recording, we also equally boost the low freqs of our reflections/reverb/spatial information BUT, this causes two problems:
> 
> ...


1. This sounds weird to me. Hopefully I understand what you try to say. So, you are saying that if we boost the bass of the instrument by say +6 dB, the bass content in the reverberation is boosted less than +6 dB? That would mean that the acoustic properties of walls are non-linear, in other words they would pass through the larger percentage of acoustic energy the higher the sound pressure level was. It would also lead to a situation, were the reflected percentage of acoustic energy would be modulated by the pressure and the walls would generate harmonic and intermodulation distortion. While I think such walls could be possible to be constructed with really interesting structural solutions, it would make the studio completely useless. The acoustics would be horrible. It would be like the walls rattled with the sound! 

You hear "bass only" sound outside a room, because bass frequencies tend to pass through the wall more than higher frequencies. When you turn the music louder, the bass seems to leak even more, but that's because at low frequencies the equal loudness curve of human hearing are closer to each other. So, it's not the acoustics, it's human hearing.

2. Time for compromise. Boost LF less than intented to lose less clarity. Use Mid/Side prosessing to "isolate" bass content of the direct instrument sound and reverberation.


----------



## 71 dB

I think analogsurviver is too far gone with his delusions of the importance of above 20 kHz frequencies. 
I don't believe anyone can change his mind so I don't even try. 
His delusions are not away from me. 
They are only away from himself.


----------



## gregorio (May 26, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> [1] I *think* I have replied - in far too numerous occasions - my age and audible limit to HEARING sine wave already. You'll have to go and check my previous posts - WILL NOT repeat that for the upteenth time.
> [2] If you have not experienced yourselves that - even if only sometimes - bandwidth > 20 kHz is beneficial for music, it is not MY fault.
> [3] Having been a musician turning into a recording engineer yourselves and having - at least occasionally - still contact with live sound, I find that both strange and suspicious; but will take your word for it.



1. So you won't repeat some (hopefully) facts for the umpteenth time but you will repeat made up nonsense for the umpteenth time?
2. No, it's not your fault that I'm a human being who isn't completely deluded!
3. I don't want you to "take my word for it", I want you to learn and understand some science/facts. That's the point of this sub-forum and why so much of what you say is unacceptable here!!



71 dB said:


> [1] So, you are saying that if we boost the bass of the instrument by say +6 dB, the bass content in the reverberation is boosted less than +6 dB?
> 2. Time for compromise. Boost LF less than intented to lose less clarity. Use Mid/Side prosessing to "isolate" bass content of the direct instrument sound and reverberation.



1. Yes, because as you then state: "_You hear "bass only" sound outside a room, because bass frequencies tend to pass through the wall more than higher frequencies._". If more of the bass freqs "pass through the wall" then obviously that bass energy is passing through the wall and NOT being reflected back into the room/venue. Higher freqs do not pass through the wall, they are reflected back into the room/venue (depending of course on the absolution coefficient of the wall materials).
2. That would be a great idea IF M/S processing "isolated" the direct sound from the reverberation but as it doesn't, then it's useless! There is no way of isolating the reverb from the direct sound (or isolating different instruments from each other) without significant damage to one or both, even with today's technology, which is why multi-mic'ing was invented in the first place!

G


----------



## pinnahertz (May 26, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> The above statement  is something that could possibly be not more wrong. 1. 16/44 RBCD is by deafault limited bandwidth and is NOT a higher res format than a decent vinyl setup. 2. Analog records have essentially flat response up to approx 25-27 kHz if cut in real time and up to aprox 54 kHz if cut at half speed. 3. Good phono cartridges and phono preamps have no trouble in playing back this bandwidth up to at least 50 kHz - all the way back from 1962, when Denon introduced its immortal DL-103 phono MC cartridge, which remains in production UNCHANGED  for more than 55 years.


1. Yeah...don't think so.  16/44 has a lower noise floor and flat response at any level resulting in far lower distortion.  Beats anything vinyl can do.
2. Simply....wrong.  Here's why (from "Dynamic Range Requirements of Phonographic Preamplifiers" by Tomlinson Holman, Audio, July 1977):





Note that though the above doesn't go past 20kHz, you can easily extrapolate what happens higher than that.  Usable response to 50kHz?  Not a freaking chance.  Read the rest of the article, and stop proclaiming vinyl capable of this when it is physically not.


analogsurviver said:


> The real reason why there are so few binaural analogue recordings on vynil lies in an entirely different matter. RUMBLE - or, to be precise, the PERCEIVED vertical rumble. Which is, of course, far worse still when listening with headphones - which is, of course, absolutely required for binaural.


Nonsense, yet again.  Rumble is also dealt with in the quoted article above.  It's manageable, and filterable, and has nothing to do with the perception of binaural effects.


analogsurviver said:


> The fact that turntables ( turntable = motor that turns the analog vynil record - NOT  the whole machine that outputs the electrical signal for further amplification ) have surpassed any in reality achivable rumble figures for even mastering lacquer, let alone a pressed record that is the only mass produced form of vynil record, back in the late 70s - is nothing new. That necessitated to invent a test probe for turntable rumble - one that can measure past the limitations of pressed records:
> 
> http://www.theanalogdept.com/thorens_history.htm
> 
> ...


So, rumble is the reason?  And you want a solution without user action?  AND you expect them to listen to binaural...what, without special user action?  I just can't seem to smell what you're stepping in.

Hey, you know what medium doesn't have a rumble issue at all?  16/44!  And no FR change with level, no distortion...oooops, I forgot who I was quoting.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, because as you then state: "_You hear "bass only" sound outside a room, because bass frequencies tend to pass through the wall more than higher frequencies._". If more of the bass freqs "pass through the wall" then obviously that bass energy is passing through the wall and NOT being reflected back into the room/venue. Higher freqs do not pass through the wall, they are reflected back into the room/venue (depending of course on the absolution coefficient of the wall materials).
> 2. That would be a great idea IF M/S processing separated the direct sound from the reverberation but as it doesn't, then it's useless! There is no way of separating the reverb from the direct sound (or separating different instruments) without significant damage to one or both, even with today's technology, which is why multi-mic'ing was invented in the first place!
> 
> G


1. Yep, but that doesn't change the balance of direct sound and reverberation! If 1 % of the sonic energy is passed through the wall at bass, it means 99 % is reflected (assuming no absorption) no matter how loud the original sound is. So, if you play the instrument X dB louder, the reverberation will be X dB louder too! You have really weird (and interesting) ideas not shared by us acoustic engineers. We can try to figure out from where your misconception comes from. If your theory was true, walls would create distortion to the reverberation. Fortunately you are wrong and we can actually use studios and music halls for the purpose they were built for.

Note that even if higher frequencies don't pass through wall as much as lower frequencies, the absorption (air + acoustic panels etc.) is often larger and less reflection happens => reverberation time drops toward higher frequencies. 

2. Except direct sound is pretty much completely in the M-channel while reverberation is spread evenly to M- and S-channels. So, changing the balance of M and S will change the balance of direct sound and reverberation too.

Another (more advanced) trick is to measure the impulse response of the room with the dummy head (having the sound source where the recorded instrument was) and analyse room modes. Filtering these mode frequencies out and maybe boosting the frequencies between these mode frequencies changes the overall balance of direct sound and reverberation too.


----------



## old tech (May 26, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> The above statement  is something that could possibly be not more wrong. 16/44 RBCD is by deafault limited bandwidth and is NOT a higher res format than a decent vinyl setup. Analog records have essentially flat response up to approx 25-27 kHz if cut in real time and up to aprox 54 kHz if cut at half speed. Good phono cartridges and phono preamps have no trouble in playing back this bandwidth up to at least 50 kHz - all the way back from 1962, when Denon introduced its immortal DL-103 phono MC cartridge, which remains in production UNCHANGED  for more than 55 years.



To be honest, I'm not sure now whether you are deliberatly taking the *iss.  I asked a genuine question out of curiosity and you reply with this nonsense about vinyl having higher resolution than 16/44.  I don't have much to add to others here but note that this is a sound science forum so why would you post something that can be so easily dismissed.  I mean after all, with resolution (for the lack of a better word) we are talking about SNR and the associated noise floor and dynamic range.  16 bits has a SNR of close to 96db whereas the best available with viny is equivalent to 13 bits and only so under the most contrived conditions (ie perfect tracking on the outer edge of the record at 1khz, noting that resoluttion drops as the stylus moves towards the centre of the record and the frequency response of vinyl is increasingly inaccurate outside the midrange).

Then you go on about frequency response of vinyl being superior because records can be cut to higher frequencies than a 44.1 sample rate.  What you ignore though is the point about the increasing inaccuracy and the higher noise floor.  My Benz Wood cartridge also has impressive specs but what it can't do is make up for what is lost on the actual record.  For example, at 20khz a record would be significantly down in db compared to a CD and it is not a simple matter of bumping the higher frequencies up a few db either in production or playback because of the higher noise floor.  Not that it matters as we can't hear that high and even if we could, it would be swamped by masking effects of music in the range where our ears are more sensitive.  Put simply, 16/44 has a superior treble reproduction to vinyl in any frequency that matters to human beings.

To my mind, these are far more significant flaws than the mechanical issues you mention.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> I don't understand the rationale behind constantly accusing someone of trolling, yet spending a lot of time continuing to engage with them.  Seems a lot more sensible to make the accusation once or twice and then disengage discussion with that person.  Otherwise, seems to me that the person making the accusation has some issues of their own they need to address.



It’s easier to just say they don’t know what they’re talking about. Cluelessness isn’t uncommon on the internet. Anyone who understands even the most rudimentary aspects of sound reproduction knows that redbook is audibly transparent and LPs aren’t.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> It’s easier to just say they don’t know what they’re talking about. Cluelessness isn’t uncommon on the internet. Anyone who understands even the most rudimentary aspects of sound reproduction knows that redbook is audibly transparent and LPs aren’t.



I haven't been reading the discussion on binaural (or whatever is currently being discussed).  I just keep seeing reference to trolling, yet the discussion goes on and on, often with long posts.


----------



## GrussGott (May 26, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I haven't been reading the discussion on binaural (or whatever is currently being discussed).  *I just keep seeing reference to trolling, yet the discussion goes on and on, often with long posts.*



That's because there are people here who, for a decade, have been trying to convince others that the human sense of hearing is 100% understood and measurable by modern bing-bong devices and they are experts in interpreting said measurements.

Of course the simplest - and accurate - simulation of human hearing is human hearing itself.

Therefore any measurement device is only a crude reproduction of a limited aspect of hearing, and since we don't fully understand hearing, nor are perfect analyzers of data, we couldn't accurately interpret those measurements even if that weren't true.

Scientists already know all those things.

So the best way to use this forum is for observation of the human condition in all its ugly glory.


----------



## Phronesis

GrussGott said:


> So the best way to use this forum is for observation of the human condition in all its ugly glory.



LOL, maybe some truth to that!


----------



## jgazal

gregorio said:


> (...)
> With a binaural recording we effectively have no control over anything, we have virtually no mixing options because whatever we do affects everything equally. The answer to this by binaural fanboys is that you shouldn't do any mixing anyway, just accurately record what would enter the ears and job done. This does not however account for a number of factors, most importantly, how the ear/brain actually perceives the sound which enters the ears. And, we have ample evidence of what consumers prefer! Accounting for perception and therefore the requirement of multi-mic'ing acoustic performances didn't suddenly appear and all stereo only recording suddenly stop, it was a gradual process throughout the 1950's, 60's and into the 70's, it was a 20 or so year process driven entirely by what consumers preferred/bought. The industry itself would have preferred to stick with stereo and record straight to disk, it's much cheaper and quicker: You only needed to spend a couple of thousand or so on a pair of good mics, instead of tens/hundreds of thousands required for an array of multi-mics. You only needed a stereo recorder for a few thousand rather than a 100k or so of high quality multi-track. You didn't even really need a mixing desk at all, let alone the half a million or so a high quality multi-input desk would've cost and of course you wouldn't need the time, environment and personnel required to actually make the mix. The record industry has always been extremely competitive, a prime example of corporate greed and dodgy business practices, if they could have maintained/increased sales without spending millions on all the additional equipment, personnel and environments, they absolutely would have, without question!
> 
> G



I know that is something not that attractive in the short term, but, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would love to hear your experience with close mic steams and binaural synthesis in a daw. 

I wish such synthesis could allow you to emphasize what you usually emphasize in your mixings, but giving you the freedom to place sounds in a more immersive way.

I still have hope that is possible.


----------



## skwoodwiva

GrussGott said:


> That's because there are people here who, for a decade, have been trying to convince others that the human sense of hearing is 100% understood and measurable by modern bing-bong devices and they are experts in interpreting said measurements.
> This is a landmark post of yours Sir. Great perception of this wacky thread.
> Of course the simplest - and accurate - simulation of human hearing is human hearing itself.
> 
> ...


This has got to be one of your best observations, Sir.
Thanks for the chuckle


----------



## old tech

GrussGott said:


> That's because there are people here who, for a decade, have been trying to convince others that the human sense of hearing is 100% understood and measurable by modern bing-bong devices and they are experts in interpreting said measurements.
> 
> Of course the simplest - and accurate - simulation of human hearing is human hearing itself.
> 
> ...


I think you miss the point.  Human hearing is pretty well understood but not so subjective perception of sound which varies from person to person.  Even if we did have accurate measurements of subjective perceptions it would not be very helpful as an objective standard due to individual differences.

But that is not what is being discussed here.  When discussing transparency of equipment chains or media, measurements are very accurate and trivial to do.  Do you not beleive that we can measure an output signal and compare it with an input signal?  Do you not believe that we can say how a variation between the two affects the sound?  How any individual interprets the sound is irrelevant to the question of transparency.  If one person prefers a less transparent sound, say a mid bass bump or a roll-off in the top end that is a different matter, and a matter only for that individual, to the question of playback accuracy.


----------



## GrussGott

old tech said:


> Do you not beleive that we can measure an output signal and compare it with an input signal?  *Do you not believe that we can say how a variation between the two affects the sound?*  How any individual interprets the sound is irrelevant to the question of transparency.



Sure, I believe you can measure lots of stuff including the size of your ding-dong.  What I KNOW, is you don't know how accurate your measurement equipment must be to confirm "transparency". 

Life is all about approximations and guesswork.


----------



## RRod

"The sequence looks good, we're just overbudget on the amperage."

"By, how much?"

"3 or 4 amps."

"God, damn it, Gruss. Is it 3 or 4?"

"Life is all about approximations and guesswork."


----------



## GrussGott

RRod said:


> "God, damn it, Gruss. Is it 3 or 4?"
> 
> "Life is all about approximations and guesswork."



EXACTLY!

Well, with digital audio it's a bit (<- get it?? bit???) more granular than that ... like for 96dB of dynamic range we need 16 bits and 32 millionths of a volt:


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> If you have not experienced yourselves that - even if only sometimes - bandwidth > 20 kHz is beneficial for music, it is not MY fault. Having been a musician turning into a recording engineer yourselves and having - at least occasionally - still contact with live sound, I find that both strange and suspicious; but will take your word for it.
> And even if I provided you samples of recordings that contain > 20 kHz, most probably whatever equipment you use (and has likely been purpose bandwidth limited ) would not yield the proper results. And so on and so forth, the time it would require to convince you and the likes of you would be too long - and can not be done online, for more reasons than stated above.


But you don't even recognize the problem here. First of all, there is no substantiated evidence that music benefits from >20kHz.  All there is is strong opinion and discredited studies.  Your "samples" are not the problem, and many of us have equipment that is not bandwidth limited other than that of the media itself.  The problem is you really cannot simply compare samples of music recorded at two different sampling frequencies because you're not just comparing bandwidth effects, if any, you're comparing major changes in ADC and DACs too.  And while those things should be inaudible, they may not be if not correctly designed.  And the HUGE problem is provenance of the files.  No, there literally are almost zero files you can use for a comparison of bandwidth effects ONLY. 


analogsurviver said:


> There is a reason why MHz bandwidth amplifiers are used for audio ... - and why they produce more lifelike sound,
> IF properly applied ( oscillation(s) have to be kept out, no matter what - in some casess necessitating bandwidth limitations ).


MHz bandwidth amplifiers?  No, that's just naive.  And do you know exactly how you keep RF oscillations out of an amp?  You limit it's bandwidth.  As to producing more lifelike sound, ABX testing has largely revealed that amplifier differences are inaudible given similar design and proper application.  But your opinion is clearly expressed with at least +20dB of gain.


GrussGott said:


> That's because there are people here who, for a decade, have been trying to convince others that the human sense of hearing is 100% understood and measurable by modern bing-bong devices and they are experts in interpreting said measurements.


Nobody here has ever said  that the human sense of hearing (the mechanism and perception) is 100% understood, and if they did, many of us would correct him.  And measuring hearing and perception is monumentally difficult. 


GrussGott said:


> Of course the simplest - and accurate - simulation of human hearing is human hearing itself.


Yes, hearing is a great simulation of hearing. Duh.


GrussGott said:


> Therefore any measurement device is only a crude reproduction of a limited aspect of hearing, and since we don't fully understand hearing, nor are perfect analyzers of data, we couldn't accurately interpret those measurements even if that weren't true.


I don't know of a single measurement device that attempts reproduction of any aspect of hearing.  There are some highly accurate and detailed measurement devices that provide data as to the amount of alteration a signal goes through when passing through a system.  And interpretation is improving every day.


GrussGott said:


> So the best way to use this forum is for observation of the human condition in all its ugly glory.


Your entire post was typically snarky.  How is that helping?



GrussGott said:


> EXACTLY!
> 
> Well, with digital audio it's a bit (<- get it?? bit???) more granular than that ... like for 96dB of dynamic range we need 16 bits and 32 millionths of a volt:


The numbers are correct in theory, but no real world systems actually do anything like that.  Typical 24 bit ADCs, for example have around 18-20 bit noise performance depending somewhat on what weighting filter you use.  The same goes for DACs.  Even worse, any acoustic recording environment has noise at well above 16 bits, assuming proper reference calibration.  Very few microphones will do 20 bits or better either, and they're just part of a mix of many mics.   

BTW, stating a voltage in relation to this is ridiculous.  

Then there's the practicality...if we did have real 24 bit noise performance, and we put that noise at 0dB SPL, audio recorded and mastered normally would damage our hearing, and you'd never hear the 0dB part because your listening room is likely 20-40dB noisier than that.

Why on earth are we talking about this?


----------



## 71 dB

old tech said:


> 16 bits has a SNR of close to 96db whereas the best available with viny is equivalent to 13 bits and only so under the most contrived conditions (ie perfect tracking on the outer edge of the record at 1khz, noting that resoluttion drops as the stylus moves towards the centre of the record and the frequency response of vinyl is increasingly inaccurate outside the midrange).



Vinyl with 13 dB of SNR? Wow, that's something I have yet to experience! In theory this might (I'm very suspicious) be possible, but hardly in practise. Some off my used DJ vinyls are so bad SNR is like a few bits! Doesn't help those vinyl that theoretically the format can do much better. Try hunting down old DJ vinyls from the heydays of modern electronic dance music which are in fresh shape! Stuff that have 1000 copies ever released and everyone of those having been played 1000 times in various clubs before arriving to the shelves of "hard to find" record stores with a £30 price tag. At one point in my life (~20 years ago) I did spent my hard earned money on these because this music is not released on CD. Eventually I got fed up with transferring these scratchy discs on CD-R and cleaning them for hours in sound editors to reveal some music under the scratches. I decided to concentrate on music that is actually availalable on CD. That decision saved my sanity.

That's the crucial difference of analog and digital. Analog can be great in theory, but in practise you can't afford the best gear on the market and the media wears out with time compromising performance. Digital is able to get you close to the theoretical performance even with cheaper gear.


----------



## old tech

71 dB said:


> Vinyl with 13 dB of SNR? Wow, that's something I have yet to experience! In theory this might (I'm very suspicious) be possible, but hardly in practise. Some off my used DJ vinyls are so bad SNR is like a few bits! Doesn't help those vinyl that theoretically the format can do much better. Try hunting down old DJ vinyls from the heydays of modern electronic dance music which are in fresh shape! Stuff that have 1000 copies ever released and everyone of those having been played 1000 times in various clubs before arriving to the shelves of "hard to find" record stores with a £30 price tag. At one point in my life (~20 years ago) I did spent my hard earned money on these because this music is not released on CD. Eventually I got fed up with transferring these scratchy discs on CD-R and cleaning them for hours in sound editors to reveal some music under the scratches. I decided to concentrate on music that is actually availalable on CD. That decision saved my sanity.
> 
> That's the crucial difference of analog and digital. Analog can be great in theory, but in practise you can't afford the best gear on the market and the media wears out with time compromising performance. Digital is able to get you close to the theoretical performance even with cheaper gear.


Yes, that is why I qualified the 13bits with "under contrived conditions"

I read an article by an academic from St Andrews Uni saying that a dynamic range of up to 100dB is theoretically possible - if the record was made from diamond.


----------



## bfreedma

GrussGott said:


> Sure, I believe you can measure lots of stuff including the size of your ding-dong.  What I KNOW, is you don't know how accurate your measurement equipment must be to confirm "transparency".
> 
> Life is all about approximations and guesswork.



Are you suggesting that we not only don’t know the realistic limits of human hearing, but that we may be 10000x off in our current knowledge?  Because that’s the level of divergence between known hearing and some of the measured differences audiophiles claim to hear.

I go back to Gregorio’s post about a human running in the 100 meter dash in under one second.  Are any of the “we don’t know human limits” crew going to  support such an absurd claim as a possible human achievement?  Because that’s exactly what some posters here are doing when it comes to the physiological capabilities of human hearing.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> 1. Yep, but that doesn't change the balance of direct sound and reverberation! [1a] If 1 % of the sonic energy is passed through the wall at bass, it means 99 % is reflected (assuming no absorption) no matter how loud the original sound is. [1b] So, if you play the instrument X dB louder, the reverberation will be X dB louder too!
> [1c] You have really weird (and interesting) ideas not shared by us acoustic engineers. [1d] We can try to figure out from where your misconception comes from.
> [1e] If your theory was true, walls would create distortion to the reverberation.
> [1f] Note that even if higher frequencies don't pass through wall as much as lower frequencies, the absorption (air + acoustic panels etc.) is often larger and less reflection happens => reverberation time drops toward higher frequencies.
> ...



1. Yes, it does! ...
1a. That's an extremely unrealistic figure, it would be far higher than 1% plus, you cannot simply ignore absorption/dissipation of bass energy in the wall materials.
1b. If you play a (bass) instrument XdB louder, the LF reverberation will NOT be XdB louder! Yet again, you appear to simply not know (or are ignoring) some of the actual facts/practicalities AND those actual facts you do know, you seem to consider only in isolation, you repeatedly fail to "join the dots" and consider how those facts are interdependent. The facts and dependencies you are ignoring in this instance are the FR response of the instruments themselves and human hearing/perception, neither of which are linear (in these two cases they are "non-linear" in BOTH the mathematical sense AND the non-flat freq response sense). When a bass instrument is played louder you do NOT get proportionately more LF (!), you get somewhat more LF and disproportionately more higher frequencies (harmonics), even entirely new harmonics. This in turn is tied in with how we perceive loudness and other psycho-acoustic effects. At the risk of repeating myself, ALL of this (and other factors) is inextricably linked and needs to be considered, not just timing information and nothing else is "an issue".
1c. I cannot speak for your education as an acoustic engineer but most of the acoustic engineers I know understand the principles of acoustics and the interrelation with acoustic instruments pretty well.
1d. Initially from watching world class music engineers, then reading materials written by other world class music engineers and then from many years of actually recording and mixing commercial music myself. Where does your "misconception" of the actual practicalities of recording and mixing music come from?
1e. The disagreement specifically on wall transparency to LF is somewhat my fault. I worded a point in a previous post poorly/incorrectly, which may have implied that walls themselves changed their level of transparency to a frequency depending on the amplitude of the direct sound. I've since edited that point.
1f. What higher frequencies? The FR response of air and absorption characteristic of walls is NOT linear/flat, air absorption follows a curve where absorption increases with frequency and wall absorption is not a curve but a bunch of uneven curves (dictated by resonances of the materials and absorption coefficients). This is why classical music venues typically use a significant amount of wood/wood panelling and the stages are always wood. The overall result (very roughly) is quite severe attenuation of very high freqs, less attenuation in the mid freqs, enhancement of low-mids and attenuation of low freqs.

2. Even using your own idea of what's actually in the M and S channels, still it would not work! Even if all the direct sound were in the M channel and all the reverb were in the S channel, changing the balance between the M and S wouldn't only change the balance of direct sound and reverb, it would change the width of the stereo image! Less side channel/s relative to the mid channel results in a more mono, less stereo image and that's hardly "accurate spatiality"!  And, you don't get all the direct sound in the M channel and all the reverb in the S channel/s anyway, particularly in the case of medium or large ensembles which are not recorded from a great distance.
2a. That is not a "trick", you've just made that up! It might sound like a good idea to you in theory but it's unworkable in practice! Firstly, it's relatively rare to have just one recorded instrument, where do you put the sound source if you're recording an orchestra for example? Secondly, impulse responses simply don't work that well/accurately in practice, for starters you've got the colouration of the speaker/transducer to contend with. And lastly, acoustics and acoustic instruments is not just a simple case of direct sound and then reflections, there's a complex interaction of reflections and the direct sound. Some reflections are NOT perceived as reflections/reverb but as alterations in the FR of the instrument itself, alterations that are required, alterations which if removed will make the instrument not sound like that instrument (or as expected to sound). So even if we could create the perfect impulse response, you're idea still wouldn't work in practice!

G


----------



## gregorio

james444 said:


> gregorio said:
> 
> 
> > Ironically, just last week I was involved in a project which comes quite close to this. While speaker compatibility was required, HP playback was a much higher priority than is typically the case. If I can get agreement from the rights holders to post an except and find a way to post it which preserves my anonymity then I will ...
> ...



I have managed to make it happen!

I've started a new thread and posted an example of a multi-mic'ed recording I was involved in, which is more applicable for HPs: "Multi-Mic'ing and a Coherent Soundstage".

G


----------



## analogsurviver (May 27, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> 1. Yeah...don't think so.  16/44 has a lower noise floor and flat response at any level resulting in far lower distortion.  Beats anything vinyl can do.
> 2. Simply....wrong.  Here's why (from "Dynamic Range Requirements of Phonographic Preamplifiers" by Tomlinson Holman, Audio, July 1977):
> 
> 
> ...




Now, 16/44 has - or, at least, should have - ZERO response above 20 kHz - 22050 Hz, to be exact. And to accomplish that, it HAS to employ the brick filtering, even if we assume to be perfect (never is, at least not yet ) - per dafult HAVING  to ruin, abruptly,  the phase of the signal just above the 20 kHz.
Something that is crucial to be as any abberation free as possible - in nature, ie our everyday life, there are NO  filters above 20 kHz. And we owe our very survival to the ability to correctly locate the sound not only in 360 degree plain, also in height. That is something each individual human being has been forced to learn troughout the evolution - and those who did not, became food for the predators.

Sorry if you all do not have the experience of LISTENING with your own ears to the live binaral mic feed - and various resolutions of digital. You'd quickly stop quoting various papers saying 20 kHz is enough - once your very life depended on the ACCURATE sound localization - not in some computer game, but with your own butt and carrying a real rifle, being shot at with real bullets. You'd switch for the sample rate selector faster than you can blink... - and be praying to whatever god of choice for the invention of the DSD .

Regarding the Tomlinson Holman paper above - most likely I do have it in my library. Everything HE wrote was true - at the time of the publication. Only 10 years later, the definitive stylus tip profiles appeared on the regular factory produced cartridges on the market - first Van den Hul I, then Micro Line ( and everything that is essentially exactly the same and is called differently only in order to avoid paying license fees ) and finally Gyger FG-S. all of these can have the small scanning radius of 2.5 micrometers, that would then equal 0.1mil stylus. TWICE  better than possible in 1970, now available starting at as low as approx 300 $.

The above graph shows something NEVER used in real cutting - +20dB at approx 800 Hz. There are practically no cartridges capable of playing back at this level - any reasonable mastering engineer would keep it within the level at 300 and 2000 Hz . Also the phono preamp overload - almost 3 volts, that is 3000 mV - can only be - in real life - accomodated by tube RIAA circuits, which by default work with high enough voltages. There also were quite a few of solid state preamps operating from approx +- 40 to at least +- 90 V power supply rails - and there may be models with even higher power supply voltages, allowing for overload proof operation even under the most severe conditions .

As you obviously seem to know something about analogue records, here some more facts  : http://www.technicalaudio.com/pdf/B...Test_Records_4416_QR-2009_QR-2010_QR-2011.pdf

Due to the written above, there are ALMOST no test records with the response according to RIAA up to 20 kHz . The only commercially available record with sweep all the way to 30 kHz with the boost according to RIAA  is the Cardas https://www.discogs.com/No-Artist-Cardas-Frequency-Sweep-And-Burn-In-Record/release/4220052  Recorded by none other but the greatest analog record mastering engineer that ever lived, now sadly late Stan Ricker. This is the toughest challenge in all of the analog record world - some - well, make that most -  MC cartridges will probably wish to unscrew from the arm at the first sight of this record. Really only a handful of top MM cartridges from the golden age of analog (late70s/early 80s) can survive this torture - and, although to a lesser degree, that can be said about phono preamps. No idea of what current 5 figure phono preamps are capable of - way too much above my budget to investigate.

This record exceeds that Tomlinson criteria by - a lot. And, it CAN be played back - even if by a handful of cartridges.

However, everybody, but particularly @castleofargh should understand there is nothing in real music that has levels above 20 kHz even approaching 0dB - IN A LINEAR SYSTEM, without having to (re)learn the RIAA curve,  etc, etc of analog records. The peaks achieve approx -40, max -35dB around 30-40 kHz - and continue falling at approx 6dB/octave . This is well within the capabilities of quality analog phono gear, as well of course of HR.


----------



## bigshot

Humans can’t hear above 20kHz, so saying that recorded music should carry inaudible frequencies is like saying that photographs should include xrays


----------



## bigshot

GrussGott said:


> What I KNOW, is you don't know how accurate your measurement equipment must be to confirm "transparency".



That is called the thresholds of human perception, and it’s been studied and quantified for over a century. See google for more information.


----------



## GrussGott (May 27, 2018)

bigshot said:


> That is called the thresholds of human perception, and it’s been studied and quantified for over a century. See google for more information.



Hey, it's Mr Dunning-Kruger, welcome!  For anyone reading, if bigshot says it's true, that's your best clue it absolutely isn't.

But don't listen to either of us - if you here trying to understand digital audio science, DACs, cables, USB, or any of the like, I recommend Hans BeekHuyzen: sure, he's dry but it's solid info, and it'll give you the basics to understand how digital audio works and how to analyze the myths and claims for yourself.

Start here:


----------



## gregorio

GrussGott said:


> [1] Hey, it's Mr Dunning-Kruger, welcome! For anyone reading, if bigshot says it's true, that's your best clue it absolutely isn't.
> [2] I recommend Hans BeekHuyzen: sure, he's dry but it's solid info ...



1. Bigshot is old but not over a century old! Are you saying you can see x-rays then? What about gravity waves or dark matter? You could make a lot of money you know!
2. That info is about as solid as jello, clearly you don't know what solid means. Rather than a self-proclaimed "Audio Evangelist", why don't you try some science rather instead of religion, this is the science sub-forum after all!!

G


----------



## RRod

Speaking of this 'Stripped' album, What is going on in the HFs on this one track?


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, it does! ...
> 1a. That's an extremely unrealistic figure, it would be far higher than 1% plus, you cannot simply ignore absorption/dissipation of bass energy in the wall materials.
> 1b. If you play a (bass) instrument XdB louder, the LF reverberation will NOT be XdB louder! Yet again, you appear to simply not know (or are ignoring) some of the actual facts/practicalities AND those actual facts you do know, you seem to consider only in isolation, you repeatedly fail to "join the dots" and consider how those facts are interdependent. The facts and dependencies you are ignoring in this instance are the FR response of the instruments themselves and human hearing/perception, neither of which are linear (in these two cases they are "non-linear" in BOTH the mathematical sense AND the non-flat freq response sense). When a bass instrument is played louder you do NOT get proportionately more LF (!), you get somewhat more LF and disproportionately more higher frequencies (harmonics), even entirely new harmonics. This in turn is tied in with how we perceive loudness and other psycho-acoustic effects. At the risk of repeating myself, ALL of this (and other factors) is inextricably linked and needs to be considered, not just timing information and nothing else is "an issue".
> 1c. I cannot speak for your education as an acoustic engineer but most of the acoustic engineers I know understand the principles of acoustics and the interrelation with acoustic instruments pretty well.
> ...


1a. It wasn't supposed to be realistic, but simplistic. A realistic LF sound insulation figure is something like 40 dB meaning only 0.01 % passes through. How much is reflected depends on what kind of surface the wall has. For painted concrete block perhaps 90 % and if there happens to be plywood paneling, perhaps only 75 % is reflected.
1b. Agreed, but what I mean is if you have X dB more LF direct sound you have also X dB more LF reverb. You get more than X dB more HF direct and reverb sound of course because of timbral changes.
1c. Well, they should.
1d. Huh?
1e. That good! Appreciated!
1f. Yes, sounds quite accurate to me…
2. Yes, of course that would happen. There's downsides to things. It's called life. One has to make the best compromises.
2a. Just made it up? Really? I made research for Genelec in 2000-2004 based on that idea in another context (removal of room modes).


----------



## GrussGott (May 27, 2018)

gregorio said:


> That info is about as solid as jello, clearly you don't know what solid means. Rather than a self-proclaimed "Audio Evangelist", why don't you try some science rather instead of religion, *this is the science sub-forum* after all!!



Yuck, sounds like you like your Jello hard as a rock ... Well anyway, I'll quote @amirm  from May 17th since his website has "science" in the title and titles seem pretty important to you (I bet he even has a white lab coat!)

_*The people who make statements about inaudibility of jitter usually don't know what jitter is,* and that it is not one thing. It is infinite number of things. It is like saying that bacteria is dangerous to you. That is only true of some bacteria and certain amount of it.
https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/is-jitter-audible.3235/post-80190 _[ <- go here for sciencey stuff ]​
That is, of course, true, and just one example, and Amir can hook you up with enough science to blow out your o-ring, right at that link.

Although specific to jitter I like this 1990 article in stereophile as a good launching point if one would like to get into jitter "science":

_Nevertheless, these results tie in with work by others that indicates that 16-bit data jitter of any kind needs to be less than 200ps or so if it is not to produce measurable effects in the analog signal, which in turn means that even though the data are reclocked, the crystal clock in the CD player or the PLL in the processor that do that reclocking need to hold their word-to-word timing accuracy to better than 10 parts in a million. And that time precision needs to be preserved during the digital data's travails on its way to the DAC, something that in my opinion is, frankly, unlikely.

*The audible effect of jitter suggested by these simulations would be to add a signal-related grundge and lack of resolution as the analog signal's noise floor rises and falls with both the signal and the jitter, while any periodicity in the jitter—at the power-line frequency and its harmonics, for example—will throw up frequency-modulation sidebands around every spectral component of the music. The "clean" nature of the original analog signal will be degraded, "fuzzed up" if you like, to produce the typical, flat-perspectived, often unmusically grainy CD sound.*

Does anyone still feel that "bits is bits"?

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/1290jitter/index.html _[<- sciencey stuff here, but wear your safety goggles! ]​
Also, doesn't calling this sub-forum "science", and you judging "science", seem ... a bit ... aspirational?

Cause you know you're not a scientist, right?  Asking for a friend.


----------



## RRod

Chart in your first link doesn't show any intervals including anything lower than 3000ps for people hearing it, which is an order of mag. from the 200ps your article quote is talking about. Also note the numerous posts about how jitter is handled in other threads on your other science forum. Also, please feel free to provide one musical example where excessive jitter in the chain has caused issues.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Now, 16/44 has - or, at least, should have - ZERO response above 20 kHz - 22050 Hz, to be exact. And to accomplish that, it HAS to employ the brick filtering, even if we assume to be perfect (never is, at least not yet ) - per dafult HAVING  to ruin, abruptly,  the phase of the signal just above the 20 kHz.


Ruin what and how?


analogsurviver said:


> Something that is crucial to be as any abberation free as possible - in nature, ie our everyday life, there are NO  filters above 20 kHz.


Sure there are.  Our ears and hearing.  Even as a kid the absolute best I could do was 23kHz, and that was with a LOT of energy shoved into them.  Above 20kHz hearing is pretty much gone for any adult.


analogsurviver said:


> And we owe our very survival to the ability to correctly locate the sound not only in 360 degree plain, also in height. That is something each individual human being has been forced to learn troughout the evolution - and those who did not, became food for the predators.


While true that hearing and localizing in a 360 degree plane is clearly important to survival, accurate localization has nothing to do with hearing above 20kHz.  


analogsurviver said:


> Sorry if you all do not have the experience of LISTENING with your own ears to the live binaral mic feed - and various resolutions of digital.


How outrageously presumptuous!  How could you possibly know if I've heard live binaural?  I've been working at audio for a VERY long time, and binaural has been definitely an area of concentrated study!  So, emphatically YES I HAVE!  I've experienced a lot of odd things, like 1/2" two-track 30ips analog tape, to name one.  Want to guess why that one didn't make it?  Never mind, it doesn't matter, but show a little respect for those you don't even know.


analogsurviver said:


> You'd quickly stop quoting various papers saying 20 kHz is enough - once your very life depended on the ACCURATE sound localization - not in some computer game, but with your own butt and carrying a real rifle, being shot at with real bullets. You'd switch for the sample rate selector faster than you can blink... - and be praying to whatever god of choice for the invention of the DSD .


But, if you've taken the time and effort to actually study sound localization in humans then you already know that accurate and rapid localization does not depend on hearing anything above 20kHz.  If you're trying somehow to couple the theory of evolution of human hearing with surviving real gun fire, you'll quickly get shot down. .  

I've not once quoted any paper that stated that 20kHz is enough for anything.


analogsurviver said:


> Regarding the Tomlinson Holman paper above - most likely I do have it in my library. Everything HE wrote was true - at the time of the publication. Only 10 years later, the definitive stylus tip profiles appeared on the regular factory produced cartridges on the market - first Van den Hul I, then Micro Line ( and everything that is essentially exactly the same and is called differently only in order to avoid paying license fees ) and finally Gyger FG-S. all of these can have the small scanning radius of 2.5 micrometers, that would then equal 0.1mil stylus. TWICE  better than possible in 1970, now available starting at as low as approx 300 $.


Unless I've missed something, a Gyger FG-S refers to a playback stylus.  The issues are the physical limitations of _*cutting stylii. 
*_


analogsurviver said:


> The above graph shows something NEVER used in real cutting - +20dB at approx 800 Hz. There are practically no cartridges capable of playing back at this level - any reasonable mastering engineer would keep it within the level at 300 and 2000 Hz . Also the phono preamp overload - almost 3 volts, that is 3000 mV - can only be - in real life - accomodated by tube RIAA circuits, which by default work with high enough voltages. There also were quite a few of solid state preamps operating from approx +- 40 to at least +- 90 V power supply rails - and there may be models with even higher power supply voltages, allowing for overload proof operation even under the most severe conditions .


No, the graph shows the maximum possible groove modulation graphed against frequency.  And it is absolutely correct today as it ever was.  The data was used by Holman to design a preamp with adequate headroom and noise floor.  Your figures and calculations are wrong, but sort of forgivable.  The Y axis clearly contains typos.   The top of the graph is 10mv, so the next legend down can't be 1V, it must be 1mV, just as the bottom of the graph cannot possibly be set at 10V, now could it?  You can thank Audio magazine for that one, but a little careful study of the graph would put you in the correct range.


analogsurviver said:


> As you obviously seem to know something about analogue records, here some more facts  : http://www.technicalaudio.com/pdf/B...Test_Records_4416_QR-2009_QR-2010_QR-2011.pdf


You did read this, right? _"when making disc recordings, the upper frequency region is given the greatest gain and the lower th e least. However, if a test programme were recorded through the usual pre-emphasis network, the* reference level would be too low or recording of the high frequency part would be impossible.* On QR 2009 and QR 2010* it was decided to omit the treble boost and use constant level from 1 000 Hz."  *_So what you have there has no RIAA EQ on it, and therefore is not an evaluation of a complete phono system!


analogsurviver said:


> Due to the written above, there are ALMOST no test records with the response according to RIAA up to 20 kHz . The only commercially available record with sweep all the way to 30 kHz with the boost according to RIAA  is the Cardas https://www.discogs.com/No-Artist-Cardas-Frequency-Sweep-And-Burn-In-Record/release/4220052  Recorded by none other but the greatest analog record mastering engineer that ever lived, now sadly late Stan Ricker.


Did you not see the reference level for that sweep?  -14dB?  Why?  Because you cannot cut the groove up to 30kHz any other way!  Do you not see how the inability of the medium to physically record high frequencies imposes a rather severe bandwidth limit, or just because you can get output at some minuscule level you think it's more accurate?  This is getting silly now.


analogsurviver said:


> This is the toughest challenge in all of the analog record world - some - well, make that most -  MC cartridges will probably wish to unscrew from the arm at the first sight of this record. Really only a handful of top MM cartridges from the golden age of analog (late70s/early 80s) can survive this torture - and, although to a lesser degree, that can be said about phono preamps. No idea of what current 5 figure phono preamps are capable of - way too much above my budget to investigate.


I think the above illustrates the fanatic audiophile orientation you have.  Thanks, but no thanks.


analogsurviver said:


> This record exceeds that Tomlinson criteria by - a lot. And, it CAN be played back - even if by a handful of cartridges.


No, it doesn't.  Check the specific velocities and reference levels. 


analogsurviver said:


> However, everybody, but particularly @castleofargh should understand there is nothing in real music that has levels above 20 kHz even approaching 0dB - IN A LINEAR SYSTEM, without having to (re)learn the RIAA curve,  etc, etc of analog records. The peaks achieve approx -40, max -35dB around 30-40 kHz - and continue falling at approx 6dB/octave . This is well within the capabilities of quality analog phono gear, as well of course of HR.


Understood.  But you're also suggesting that something an entire octave about the top end frequency limit of human hearing, and 40dB below mid-band levels is audible.  It isn't.  If you think it is, then please present some sort of scientific data to back up that statement.


----------



## pinnahertz

GrussGott said:


> Hey, it's Mr Dunning-Kruger, welcome!  For anyone reading, if bigshot says it's true, that's your best clue it absolutely isn't.
> 
> But don't listen to either of us - if you here trying to understand digital audio science, DACs, cables, USB, or any of the like, I recommend Hans BeekHuyzen: sure, he's dry but it's solid info, and it'll give you the basics to understand how digital audio works and how to analyze the myths and claims for yourself.
> 
> Start here:


Is it sarcasm?  Is it a lame attempt at comedy?  Is it trolling?  Hey!  It's all of those and more!


----------



## gregorio

GrussGott said:


> [1] Well anyway, I'll quote amirm from May 17th since his website has "science" in the title and titles seem pretty important to you.
> [2]  _"It is like saying that bacteria is dangerous to you."_
> [3] That is, of course, true, and just one example,
> [4] I like this 1990 article in stereophile as a good launching point if one would like to get into jitter "science":
> [5] _Does anyone still feel that "bits is bits"?_



1. What on earth gave you that idea? Having "science" in the title means nothing whatsoever to me! Actually based on science and the facts is what is important to me (and this forum), not what someone puts in a title!
2. So do you think a bacteria is dangerous to you? If a bacteria was the size of a horse then I'd probably be worried but they are not, maybe you don't know that bacteria are actually very, very small? 
3. It is indeed true and it IS just one example. There are indeed many other examples just like it which demonstrate the exactly the same thing, that to be audible jitter would need to be hundreds or thousands of times worse than even cheap modern DACs actually achieve. What's particularly shocking is you don't seem to even realise that the evidence you, yourself have quoted actually completely contradicts what you're trying to say! How bizarre is that?
4. "Stereophile", a launching point for science? That's funny, do you even know what science is? What are you going to quote as a scientific source next, a Marvel comic, Playboy?
5. Only those who know what the word "Digital" means!

G


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Ruin what and how?
> Sure there are.  Our ears and hearing.  Even as a kid the absolute best I could do was 23kHz, and that was with a LOT of energy shoved into them.  Above 20kHz hearing is pretty much gone for any adult.
> While true that hearing and localizing in a 360 degree plane is clearly important to survival, accurate localization has nothing to do with hearing above 20kHz.
> How outrageously presumptuous!  How could you possibly know if I've heard live binaural?  I've been working at audio for a VERY long time, and binaural has been definitely an area of concentrated study!  So, emphatically YES I HAVE!  I've experienced a lot of odd things, like 1/2" two-track 30ips analog tape, to name one.  Want to guess why that one didn't make it?  Never mind, it doesn't matter, but show a little respect for those you don't even know.
> ...




Of course, hearing capability worsens with age. 

IF the capability of a human to accurately localize the sound in 360 degree plane does not depend on hearing beyond 20 kHz, then it must on phase difference, timing or whatever one might call it. Be it as it may, the system that delivers that, either analog or digital, always has been the one with the bandwidth extended above 20 kHz - at LEAST ONE OCTAVE, THAT IS TO SAY "FLAT" TO AT LEAST 40 kHz . In PCM, that can be and sometimes is dependant on the sample rate used. Please wait for the upload of pictures from the oscilloscope. In addition to that, I will post a test that anyone can use to hear for him/herself this effect. It IS  - very clearly - audible. I did no make it up - and I clearly wish it was not so. But - it IS.

I did not mean any disrespect. You have been recording bbinaural before I was born. Correctly stated would then perhaps be something like that :  " Clearly you did not have a chance to listen to direct feed from binaural microphone and digital media that should but can not preserve phase difference between the two channels " 

If you have not quoted any paper that stated that 20 kHz is enough for anything, I apologize. However, you have always maintained the position that anything beyond 20 kHz does not matter -. which boils down to pretty the same effect.

Yes, not only Gyger FG-S, but ALL mentioned 2.5 micrometer or 0.1 mil smaller tip radius styli are playback styli. And these have to be, by default, SLIGHTLY LESS SHARP than the cutting styli - or else they would ( tend to ) re-cut the record groove. That means that the best recording styli have smaller radius SMALLER THAN 2.5 micrometers or 0.1 mil. As always, the best diamond styli, either for recording or playback, come from Japan - and while the specs for the playback styli are known ( trough third party, if not directly from the manufacturer ), those for the recording styli are MUCH harder to obtain. But, it was JVC that originated CD-4 quadrophonics with approx 45 kHz carrier and it is Namiki that manufactures the best playback styli. The VdH I stylus manufactured in Japan ( allegedly by Namiki, allegedly without ever  paying license fees ) used on Audio Note IO cartridge from approx 20 years ago ( when the manufacture of the said cartridge moved from Japan to England ) looks in real life EXACTLY as "ship shape" as it does on the Van den Hul - brochure ... but NEVER  in real life. Those japanese styli are - simply - in another league entirely .

Truth to be told, 2.5 micrometer or 0.1 mil styli CAN be dangerous because of the possibility to re-cut the groove - if not aligned PERFECTLY ( particularly for azinmuth ) or if the actual recording stylus has been of higher small tip radius ( older records ). Because of this, many manufacturers do use 5 micrometer or 0.1 mil small tip radius styly . I have yet to encounter a problem with using 2.5 micrometer or 0.1 mil playback stylus - BUT  I DO make sure first that said styli are correctly mounted/aligned under thew microscope and second, that the cartridge is aligned and adjusted so that it passes a battery of tests from a large library of test records no phono cartridge manufacturer would ever want to see published. Needless to say, the tonearm has got to have each and every possible adjustment to allow for the precise alignmernt of the stylus in the groove.

Yes, I did see EVERYTHING  regarding levels, use or non use of the RIAA, etc - and that's why I posted that link, for everybody else that might not be so familiar with analog record characteristics. The test records for frequency response above 1 kHz are practically ALL recorded without the treble boost according to RIAA but are cut at constant level. That goes for every test record, including those going all the way to 50 kHz. Since observing the response from the phono cartridge output when playing such test record without the RIAA treble boost on an oscilloscope yields a flat response not only from 1 kHz, but already from 800 Hz up, this was the choice for the new Ortofon test record - https://www.ortofon.com/test-record-p-707 which is all that is currently available  for testing of phono cartridges above 20 kHz - unless one can locate and is willing to pay for the vintage test records. 

A caveat - Bruel & Kjaer test records are, unfortunately, useless for any serious work. Only available in boxes of five records of the same type, measuring each new, unplayed before record from the box using the same  reference cartridge would yield - you've guessed it - five different results. 

Well, me too would like to get to the bottom of this "question" - but, playing back original DSD128 or any PCM from 192/32 down ( and particularly 16/44) DOES sound different - particularly with the music that does contain >> 20 kHz signal, which would in my experience be the harpsichord as the instrument with the most HF energy that is constantly present. Otherwise, the sole instrument that covers the largest frequency response is - acoustic bass. Depending on playing technique, for sure - but, it covers from almost DC to at least 50 kHz (and probably above, but I can not verify that using equipment now in my possesion ). I can send some recorded samples for the above.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] IF the capability of a human to accurately localize the sound in 360 degree plane does not depend on hearing beyond 20 kHz, then it must on phase difference, timing or whatever one might call it.
> [2] Be it as it may, the system that delivers that, either analog or digital, always has been the one with the bandwidth extended above 20 kHz...
> [3] Clearly you did not have a chance to listen to direct feed from binaural microphone and digital media that should but can not preserve phase difference between the two channels
> [4] playing back original DSD128 or any PCM from 192/32 down ( and particularly 16/44) DOES sound different - particularly with the music that does contain >> 20 kHz signal.



1. You're joking right? "It must" depend on phase/timing difference? That's just unbelievable! All these pages of posts and assertions on binaural and you don't even know what binaural is? If it were just phase/timing then all you'd need is two mics placed the same distance apart as human ears, why would you need a Jecklin Disk or dummy head? Are you just ignoring all mention of HRTFs because you don't know what it means? 

2. That's a lie which you've just made up! If you have reliable evidence to the contrary, post it. Put up or SHUT UP!!! 

3. The only thing "clear" in your post is that you are immune/allergic to science and the actual facts and can only assimilate myth and the nonsense you, yourself have made up. "Clearly" you're delusional, trolling or both and "clearly" you are in completely the wrong forum!!!

4. As point #2, put up or SHUT UP! One thing I'm curious about though, what about music (or any sound) which does not contain anything >20kHz? According to your (nonsense) theory it would be impossible for a human to localise that sound/music. Why don't you try and see for yourself BEFORE spouting nonsense, it would take just the simplest of equipment and just a few minutes? 

G


----------



## bigshot

GrussGott said:


> Hey, it's Mr Dunning-Kruger, welcome!  For anyone reading, if bigshot says it's true, that's your best clue it absolutely isn't.



If you’re going to act like a horse’s ass in your first sentence, you shouldn’t expect me to read any further. Have some respect in a discussion or be prepared to be disrespected yourself.


----------



## pinnahertz (May 28, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Of course, hearing capability worsens with age.
> 
> IF the capability of a human to accurately localize the sound in 360 degree plane does not depend on hearing beyond 20 kHz, then it must on phase difference, timing or whatever one might call it. Be it as it may, the system that delivers that, either analog or digital, always has been the one with the bandwidth extended above 20 kHz - at LEAST ONE OCTAVE, THAT IS TO SAY "FLAT" TO AT LEAST 40 kHz .


So, you acknowledge that localization does not depend on hearing beyond 20kHz, and must depend on phase difference (yes, partially) timing (yes again, but only partially).  But you've completely left out a major portion of the HRTF!  Silly, but let's go on.  Then go on to say that the only system that can deliver that, analog or digital, must extend above 20kHz, flat, at least one octave to 40kHz.  Well, that lets out analog tape, LP, cassette, AFM audio on video...pretty much everything but high rate PCM.  However, you've clearly never looked at the capabilities of binaural microphones!  There is, quite literally, nothing to record at 40kHz because the mics won't do it.   In fact, very few mics of any kind can do that!   In other words, your definition of binaural cannot even exist because no binaural mics have adequate response and no release format does either.  Please!  All, and I do mean ALL localization capabilities happen below 20kHz.  You should probably review what HRTF is before we go another round.


analogsurviver said:


> In PCM, that can be and sometimes is dependant on the sample rate used.


"Can"?  "Sometimes is dependant on sample rate"?  You MUST be kidding.  PCM bandwidth is ALWAYS dependent on sample rate.  Always.


analogsurviver said:


> Please wait for the upload of pictures from the oscilloscope. In addition to that, I will post a test that anyone can use to hear for him/herself this effect. It IS  - very clearly - audible. I did no make it up - and I clearly wish it was not so. But - it IS.


You've been promising this for what now, a week?  Either you have the pics or you don't.  You do know that whatever you post I do have the full technical resources and equipment to verify them, right?  SO don't bother trying to fake them, I'll know!


analogsurviver said:


> I did not mean any disrespect. You have been recording bbinaural before I was born. Correctly stated would then perhaps be something like that :  " Clearly you did not have a chance to listen to direct feed from binaural microphone and digital media that should but can not preserve phase difference between the two channels "


What ARE you trying to say?  You still have no idea what I've heard.  I have, in fact, heard a binarual direct feed that matched, perfectly, the digital version to the extent that they were completely indistinguishable.  The sampling frequency was 44.1kHz.  I've heard the same with non-binaural material countless times.  And I have, in fact, heard binaural that localized very, very well.  I've already mentioned how that recording was made, and it did NOT involve >20kHz response.  However, no binaural signal, recorded or live, that I've experienced was in any way playable universally to all listeners, nor would any of it be commercially marketable.


analogsurviver said:


> If you have not quoted any paper that stated that 20 kHz is enough for anything, I apologize. However, you have always maintained the position that anything beyond 20 kHz does not matter -. which boils down to pretty the same effect.


No it does not!  The two are VERY different.  Citing a paper that documents the efficacy of >20kHz response via scientific and controlled testing would be one thing.  My opinion of the efficacy of >20kHz response is quite another.  I actually do believe that >20kHz response has a small advantage _in some specific cases_, but it's NOT because of the >20kHz audio it records!  The explanation is outside of the discussion of binaural, though.


analogsurviver said:


> Yes, not only Gyger FG-S, but ALL mentioned 2.5 micrometer or 0.1 mil smaller tip radius styli are playback styli. And these have to be, by default, SLIGHTLY LESS SHARP than the cutting styli - or else they would ( tend to ) re-cut the record groove. That means that the best recording styli have smaller radius SMALLER THAN 2.5 micrometers or 0.1 mil. As always, the best diamond styli, either for recording or playback, come from Japan - and while the specs for the playback styli are known ( trough third party, if not directly from the manufacturer ), those for the recording styli are MUCH harder to obtain. But, it was JVC that originated CD-4 quadrophonics with approx 45 kHz carrier and it is Namiki that manufactures the best playback styli. The VdH I stylus manufactured in Japan ( allegedly by Namiki, allegedly without ever  paying license fees ) used on Audio Note IO cartridge from approx 20 years ago ( when the manufacture of the said cartridge moved from Japan to England ) looks in real life EXACTLY as "ship shape" as it does on the Van den Hul - brochure ... but NEVER  in real life. Those japanese styli are - simply - in another league entirely .


Man, this is getting old.  Here's a research project for you, and I really hope you do it because I'm sick of trying to get it through to you: go find out exactly at what velocity (level) a CD4 carrier is recorded, and report back.  Thank you.


analogsurviver said:


> Truth to be told, 2.5 micrometer or 0.1 mil styli CAN be dangerous because of the possibility to re-cut the groove - if not aligned PERFECTLY ( particularly for azinmuth ) or if the actual recording stylus has been of higher small tip radius ( older records ). Because of this, many manufacturers do use 5 micrometer or 0.1 mil small tip radius styly . I have yet to encounter a problem with using 2.5 micrometer or 0.1 mil playback stylus - BUT  I DO make sure first that said styli are correctly mounted/aligned under thew microscope and second, that the cartridge is aligned and adjusted so that it passes a battery of tests from a large library of test records no phono cartridge manufacturer would ever want to see published. Needless to say, the tonearm has got to have each and every possible adjustment to allow for the precise alignmernt of the stylus in the groove.


No idea what your point is relative to the discussion.  Every tone arm must have full geometric adjustment.  Hardly new info, been doing it for 4 decades at least.


analogsurviver said:


> Yes, I did see EVERYTHING  regarding levels, use or non use of the RIAA, etc - and that's why I posted that link, for everybody else that might not be so familiar with analog record characteristics. The test records for frequency response above 1 kHz are practically ALL recorded without the treble boost according to RIAA but are cut at constant level. That goes for every test record, including those going all the way to 50 kHz. Since observing the response from the phono cartridge output when playing such test record without the RIAA treble boost on an oscilloscope yields a flat response not only from 1 kHz, but already from 800 Hz up, this was the choice for the new Ortofon test record - https://www.ortofon.com/test-record-p-707 which is all that is currently available  for testing of phono cartridges above 20 kHz - unless one can locate and is willing to pay for the vintage test records.


You've clearly cited test records as somehow proof that the vinyl system can record and reproduce 50kHz.  They are TEST RECORDS, and do not represent the entire LP/vinyl system at all!  You can cite them all day long, it's meaningless until you include RIAA pre and de-emphasis, after which the physical dimensions of the cutting stylus and the groove it cut put a hard limit on the maximum stylus velocity (a function of modulation and frequency) without the back facet of the cutting stylus colliding with the groove just cut!  It's not arguable, or variable, it's fact, and every lathe operator can and will run into that limit if they don't pay attention to it.


analogsurviver said:


> A caveat - Bruel & Kjaer test records are, unfortunately, useless for any serious work. Only available in boxes of five records of the same type, measuring each new, unplayed before record from the box using the same  reference cartridge would yield - you've guessed it - five different results.


I'm well aware of how useless they, and many (in fact most) test records, are.  You've cited useless examples as proof of a concept that does not exist.


analogsurviver said:


> Well, me too would like to get to the bottom of this "question" - but, playing back original DSD128 or any PCM from 192/32 down ( and particularly 16/44) DOES sound different


OK, so give us all, now, your examples of commercially available recordings at both DSD128 and PCM-anything that DOES sound different AND (and here's the most important point) has full and confirmed documentation that both versions were produced with no changes in mastering.  I'll be waiting for that information.  Every audiophile who claims he hears a difference between a CD and a 192kHz version or DSD version has absolutely no idea how each version was produced!  What if there were no difference?  Could a record company sell the DSD or 192K version for more money?  Nope.  It MUST sound different, or what's the point?  Now, there are those of us who actually have produced recordings and carefully controlled the entire process end to end.  I did a project in the mid 1980s where I had full control of both the CD and LP release, supervised the mastering of both, and demanded that there be no level or EQ changes other than what is absolutely required for the vinyl master (that's RIAA only, and verified the cutter curve). I'll just say that the differences on the first play of the LP were nearly zero, except for less separation, surface noise, and the beginnings of a bit of distortion.  Tiny differences that got worse with each play.  The CD was also compared to the master tape, and surprise surprise, no difference.  I've done some testing of different PCM rates too, and found that once you control the variables, the differences drop to zero.  I challenge anyone to produce samples to compare that are absolutely verified to have followed identical mastering > release paths, and yet still sound different in an ABX test.

Anyone that thinks the DSD or high-rate PCM versions are never deliberately manipulated to sound better is just burying his head deeply in the sand.  This is a commercial venture, and success and sales are based on perceived value. 



analogsurviver said:


> - particularly with the music that does contain >> 20 kHz signal, which would in my experience be the harpsichord as the instrument with the most HF energy that is constantly present.


That's content you can't hear, so how could you hear it as different?


analogsurviver said:


> Otherwise, the sole instrument that covers the largest frequency response is - acoustic bass. Depending on playing technique, for sure - but, it covers from almost DC to at least 50 kHz (and probably above, but I can not verify that using equipment now in my possesion ). I can send some recorded samples for the above.


I'd like to see a recorded sample of any instrument that produces DC.  And I'd like to see a recorded sample of an acoustic bass with content to at 20kHz (not 50) that is high enough to pop above the masking curve.  PLEASE post them!  Then I'd be glad to help you work out the problems you're having with your analysis equipment.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 1. You're joking right? "It must" depend on phase/timing difference? That's just unbelievable! All these pages of posts and assertions on binaural and you don't even know what binaural is? If it were just phase/timing then all you'd need is two mics placed the same distance apart as human ears, why would you need a Jecklin Disk or dummy head? Are you just ignoring all mention of HRTFs because you don't know what it means?
> 
> 2. That's a lie which you've just made up! If you have reliable evidence to the contrary, post it. Put up or SHUT UP!!!
> 
> ...



1. "Semantics". Correctly worded would be : " Using binaural microphone ( it does not matter if artificial head or real human head wearing mics - as long either of them is used both for recording and reproduction  ) , with ALL the HRTF being exactly equal and taken as granted, WHY does then recording done at a higher sampling rate sound closer to the original live mike feed than the one done at the lower sampling rate ". I take dummy head or Jecklin Disk , obviously, as too granted to even occuring to me I should mention that. My apologies for that.

2. I have NOT made that "just" up... - goes back few decades ago. Correction - make that almost 40 years ago - introduction of the CD, very early 80s. I brought my amp and Audio Technica ATH-7 electret headphones to the fair that had only the first two Philips and Hitachi CD players on active display - and all it took was a couple of seconds of listening. In that sense, 44/16 did not progress much since then. Probably the biggest audible difference - to me, at least - has been the efforts of Theta with its Legato Link, which is essentially trying to make the unavoidable phase shift of the usual brick filtering less abrupt, which has a necessary influence of the no longer so flat response all the way to 20 kHz. There were at least three generations of this filktering, the last one being featured in Pioneer PD-D6J CDS/SACD player. There IS a reason WHY did I choose this player over many much more expensive machines - I simply wanted something with more natural sound from the CD than it is usually the case. If that abrupt phase shift, necessary in 16/44, had not been objectionable to enough people, I do not believe as mainstream manufacturer as Pioneer would incorporate it in its products - would it ? Now, can you honestly claim that NO such phase shift close to the audible band would not allow for better reproduction of the original soundwave ? In digital PCM, that means at least doubling the sampling rate, that is to say to 88.2kHz .

This is difficult to assess online - I can not send you all the hardware required. Merely sending some sample recordings could well prove not to be enough.

3.  No comment.

4. O- oops. With this one, you have absolutely no idea just on how thin ice you are stomping with anger !!! 
Be glad I "put" you only on thin ice - and not in a minefield ...

EVERY audio component that does improve over the previous one WILL display one, but preferably more if not all of the following characteristics:

I. Lower noise floor - and that means primarily lower DYNAMIC noise floor. ( that DYNAMIC noise floor is a topic all by itself - generally not understood )
II. More extended frequency response/less phase shuft within or anywhere close to the audible band
III. Lower non linear distortion

Where is it this appearent the most, in the first second of the listening ? 

You've guessed it, BEFORE the music even begins. The sense of acoustics of the venue, BEFORE the first note is played, will already tell whether the new component is better, equal or worse than the one it is replacing - and VERY seldom is this first impression later proven incorrect.

Remember you claiming one can not have zero noise in a real concert venue with real musicians and real instruments - even if completely acoustic ? Well, that depends HOW you look at this "noise". If it is according to you, EVERY noise that is not written in the scores is noise that has to be removed/filtered/supresssed/whatever it takes for it to be gone . If it is according to me, even the tiny reflections off the walls from handling/operating instruments, musicians moving on the stage/within their seat, sound of breathing, inhaling and exhaling of singers, etc, etc - should ALL be included in the recording. Naturally, I always warn musicians to not make any more "noise" than absolutely necessary, will go to the details WHAT to wear - trouble is, the concert tuxedos, shoes, etc, not to mention jewelry - can be the ultimate nemesis of a live recording. On a rehearsal or during "studio" ( I never record in a studio, always on location ) conditions, people wear casual clothes and footwear, which is usully - silent enough.

Be it as it may - on any of my recordings, it is possible to hear the recording venue, before the music starts or between the  two movements, during pauses, etc - provided it is played back on quality equipment and that the type of file selected has reasonable sample rate. Currently available audio on YT is NOT enough for such minuscule, but important information - if realism.

I can post  some parts of the recordings long enough for anyone to grasp the idea just how it sounds what I have described above. Both in original recording format/resolution, then say in 16/44.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> 1. "Semantics".
> [2] 2. I have NOT made that "just" up... [2a] Probably the biggest audible difference - to me, at least ...
> 3. No comment.
> 4. O- oops. With this one, you have absolutely no idea just on how thin ice you are stomping with anger !!! Be glad I "put" you only on thin ice - and not in a minefield ...



1. The difference between stereo and binaural is semantics to you now is it? If it's just semantics then what are you arguing for it? How does what you're saying make sense to you?

2. You were told to "put up or shut up" you've done neither and just made up even more nonsense, that's trolling!
2a. Why would we have the slightest interest in what is audible to you, especially given what YOU'VE DEMONSTRATED is audible/inaudible to you!!!

3. Then why did you comment? Your whole post demonstrates this point!

4. You demonstrated metaphorically that you don't know the difference between a tractor and a Lamborghini and now that you don't know the difference between ice and a minefield. How did you ever manage to survive beyond childhood?

How do you possibly manage to believe that the response to accusations of making up nonsense is just to make up more nonsense? You must know, you've been told often enough, that it just makes you look ignorant and foolish. So, the question is: Why are you so determined to give the impression that you're ignorant and foolish?

G


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> 1. "Semantics". Correctly worded would be : " Using binaural microphone ( it does not matter if artificial head or real human head wearing mics - as long either of them is used both for recording and reproduction  ) , with ALL the HRTF being exactly equal and taken as granted, WHY does then recording done at a higher sampling rate sound closer to the original live mike feed than the one done at the lower sampling rate ". I take dummy head or Jecklin Disk , obviously, as too granted to even occuring to me I should mention that. My apologies for that.
> 
> 2. I have NOT made that "just" up... - goes back few decades ago. Correction - make that almost 40 years ago - introduction of the CD, very early 80s. I brought my amp and Audio Technica ATH-7 electret headphones to the fair that had only the first two Philips and Hitachi CD players on active display - and all it took was a couple of seconds of listening. In that sense, 44/16 did not progress much since then. Probably the biggest audible difference - to me, at least - has been the efforts of Theta with its Legato Link, which is essentially trying to make the unavoidable phase shift of the usual brick filtering less abrupt, which has a necessary influence of the no longer so flat response all the way to 20 kHz. There were at least three generations of this filktering, the last one being featured in Pioneer PD-D6J CDS/SACD player. There IS a reason WHY did I choose this player over many much more expensive machines - I simply wanted something with more natural sound from the CD than it is usually the case. If that abrupt phase shift, necessary in 16/44, had not been objectionable to enough people, I do not believe as mainstream manufacturer as Pioneer would incorporate it in its products - would it ? Now, can you honestly claim that NO such phase shift close to the audible band would not allow for better reproduction of the original soundwave ? In digital PCM, that means at least doubling the sampling rate, that is to say to 88.2kHz .
> 
> ...



You really are coming across as a crank with a fetish for frequencies we cannot hear.  But I'm not surprised your fetish doesn't extend to the other end of the frequency spectrum that we cannot hear, ie <20hz as that would conflict with your vinyl fetish.  Btw, you do realise that RIAA and vinyl playback more generally results in far more phase shifting at every frequency, and that it is much greater than any imaginary shifting from digital filters?


----------



## analogsurviver (May 28, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> So, you acknowledge that localization does not depend on hearing beyond 20kHz, and must depend on phase difference (yes, partially) timing (yes again, but only partially).  But you've completely left out a major portion of the HRTF!  Silly, but let's go on.  Then go on to say that the only system that can deliver that, analog or digital, must extend above 20kHz, flat, at least one octave to 40kHz.  Well, that lets out analog tape, LP, cassette, AFM audio on video...pretty much everything but high rate PCM.  However, you've clearly never looked at the capabilities of binaural microphones!  There is, quite literally, nothing to record at 40kHz because the mics won't do it.   In fact, very few mics of any kind can do that!   In other words, your definition of binaural cannot even exist because no binaural mics have adequate response and no release format does either.  Please!  All, and I do mean ALL localization capabilities happen below 20kHz.  You should probably review what HRTF is before we go another round.
> "Can"?  "Sometimes is dependant on sample rate"?  You MUST be kidding.  PCM bandwidth is ALWAYS dependent on sample rate.  Always.
> You've been promising this for what now, a week?  Either you have the pics or you don't.  You do know that whatever you post I do have the full technical resources and equipment to verify them, right?  SO don't bother trying to fake them, I'll know!
> What ARE you trying to say?  You still have no idea what I've heard.  I have, in fact, heard a binarual direct feed that matched, perfectly, the digital version to the extent that they were completely indistinguishable.  The sampling frequency was 44.1kHz.  I've heard the same with non-binaural material countless times.  And I have, in fact, heard binaural that localized very, very well.  I've already mentioned how that recording was made, and it did NOT involve >20kHz response.  However, no binaural signal, recorded or live, that I've experienced was in any way playable universally to all listeners, nor would any of it be commercially marketable.
> ...



Only to respond to the last paragraph. I never said any instrument to produce DC - but NEAR DC. Which is, essentially, still the same thing. I do have such a recording - it took me a while to be able to make it, and it will be posted.

The same goes for the acoustic bass ... - you'll be surprised HOW high above the masking curve the acoustic bass can actually go - WELL above the 20 kHz, all the way to the usable limit of my equipment, that is to say prior to onset of the quantization noise ( if this is the correct term ? ) from the ADC used - in this case, approx 55 kHz.

From the above, it should be clear I am not using any commercially available dummy head microphone. You have correctly stated they do not go much past 20 kHz .

*REGARDING MASTERING BEING DIFFERENT FOR CD OR HR OR DSD RELEASE  *

*I can not vouch for anybody else exactly what has been done. I do know for my work - and only here I can put my arm in fire stating nothing but conversion to ANOTHER  format took place. I do not have commercially available HR  or DSD available - yet. Hopefully, full native DSD mastering will be available for the next project(s). So far, CDs originating from DSD have been converted to 192/32float and mastered conventionally - and in most cases, that meant only splicing best parts of various takes of the same piece together, without any additional effects or transformations.  As I do not do mastering myself, I can not tell you down to the last detail; I do know that sometimes pitch had to be repaired, but none of such has ever been used on instrumental only CDs. In some cases, I even have the exact sequence which part(s) of which take(s) has been used in the finally released version - and within those, I can find portion(s) that underwent NOTHING but conversion from DSD to PCM. That may have been subjected to level change - and on none but one of the CDs issued has ever been any compression applied. That compression has only been used for the "storm" effects in Purcel's Dido & Aeneas CD release - as the original large metal plate used to create the said effect really was thunderous enough to be objectionable to more "traditional" listeners. Now - how many people you know who both could and would disclose so much with such openess ? *

I do not do fakes - EVER. It would have never even occured to me to insert pink/white noise in some signal in order to confuse someone into thinking it was a genuine recording using higher sampling rates. If I say I recorded something in DSD 1024 or even 2048 - you can take my word for it. But my current reality is DSD128 and, hopefully in not too distant future , DSD256. I am not a troll, much less am I a lier.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] From the above, it should be clear I am not using any commercially available dummy head microphone.
> [2] *I can not vouch for anybody else exactly what has been done.*



1. Not just from the above but from just about all your posts, you've made it abundantly clear that you are in fact using your own dummy head!
2. That's a pleasant change, nonsense in red. I'm just checking, but you do realise that posting it in red doesn't stop it still being nonsense?

You didn't answer the question: "_Why are you so determined to give the impression that you're ignorant and foolish?_"

G


----------



## 71 dB

*analogsurviver* is a typical vinyl nut. He has let himself been brainwashed with anti-CD propaganda for nearly 4 decades and instead of realizing/admitting himself for liking vinyl sound for the _distortions_ vinyl system introduces, he explains his preferences with the anti-CD propaganda to a comical effect. All these people need to do is to transfer a vinyl to (lossless) 16/44.1 digital format and do some blind testing to realize that they can't tell the digital transfer and original vinyl sound apart. We advocates of digital should come to the halfway and admit that  there is something about the distortions of vinyl. Maybe we don't want to always hear the pure original version of music, but a distorted version of it? Rock music is based on distorted guitars anyway… …so while CD (and 16/44.1 digital audio in general) is extremely transparent and vinyl is not, some music perhaps benefits from the distortions introduced by vinyl. I have wrote nyquist -plugins for Audacity simulating the distortion generated by vinyl and I use it to add richness to some tracks of the music I make. The important thing is to separate sonic effects from audio chain. The effects should be in the original audio and the audio chain should be as transparent as possible.


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> You really are coming across as a crank with a fetish for frequencies we cannot hear.  But I'm not surprised your fetish doesn't extend to the other end of the frequency spectrum that we cannot hear, ie <20hz as that would conflict with your vinyl fetish.  Btw, you do realise that RIAA and vinyl playback more generally results in far more phase shifting at every frequency, and that it is much greater than any imaginary shifting from digital filters?



I do realize that RIAA introduces phase shifting across the whole audible frequency range. I also realize it can be done to mirror/cancel this error if the whole (recording+playback) chain is observed - and not only recording or playback separately. That's why better phono preamps specify not only frequency response range and deviation in dB from the ideal RIAA curve, but also phase shift in degrees.

The effects of phase shifting in phono cartridges has been known for decades - and it is the main reason why listeners prefer "average" moving coil to "average" moving magnet cartridge . A typical MM cartrifge has RLC resonance placed WITHIN the audible range, which means that phase is affected either side of that resonance the larger spread in frequency the flatter the amplitude response. In addition to that, above RLC resonance there is an ellectrical rolloff - which is compensated for by introducing a mechanical resonance of effective stylus tip mass yielding against the elasticity of the vinyl groove. Designed properly and summed together, this approach can yield very linear response to just the mechanical resonance point, with a rather steep rollof above that.

Phono cartridges that are free from phase shifting due to electrical causes ( the most widespread is MC ,  better models can have as low electrical phase shift as 3 degrees at 20 kHz ) can also suffer in phase response due to excessive mechanical damping applied in order to flatten the frequency response. Ortofon developed what they termed Ortophase concept some 30 years ago - where it has been found by subjective listening that some compromise between amplitude and phase response sounded the best . This is the best available online short of resorting to scanning my archive  https://www.ortofon.com/mc-100-200-p-638 The response was allowed to be approx at +2dB at 20 kHz, but the soundstage of such a cartridge has been much better than the one with enough mechanical damping to bring the response at 20 kHz to 0 dB ref 1KhZ.

From the above it can be clearly seen that sympathetic combinations of phonocartridges and phono preamps with RIAA do exist - by cancelling the opposite errors out.. It is possible to find a combination that in the end does not deviate from the ideal by much. In any case, better phono combinations do not - at least not per default - introduce any abrupt phase shifts, such as brick filtering required in 16/44.

Phono equipment of certain level can not - by default - introduce interchannel delay; something that can happen with PCM.


----------



## old tech

71 dB said:


> *analogsurviver* is a typical vinyl nut. He has let himself been brainwashed with anti-CD propaganda for nearly 4 decades and instead of realizing/admitting himself for liking vinyl sound for the _distortions_ vinyl system introduces, he explains his preferences with the anti-CD propaganda to a comical effect. All these people need to do is to transfer a vinyl to (lossless) 16/44.1 digital format and do some blind testing to realize that they can't tell the digital transfer and original vinyl sound apart. We advocates of digital should come to the halfway and admit that  there is something about the distortions of vinyl. Maybe we don't want to always hear the pure original version of music, but a distorted version of it? Rock music is based on distorted guitars anyway… …so while CD (and 16/44.1 digital audio in general) is extremely transparent and vinyl is not, some music perhaps benefits from the distortions introduced by vinyl. I have wrote nyquist -plugins for Audacity simulating the distortion generated by vinyl and I use it to add richness to some tracks of the music I make. The important thing is to separate sonic effects from audio chain. The effects should be in the original audio and the audio chain should be as transparent as possible.


I agree with you in the main, except I believe the playback chain should, as far as possible, be a silent witness to the recording rather than be a participant.

Having said that, I have no problem listening to vinyl.  It is the format I grew up with and as far as physical media goes I have more LPs than CDs. 

Sometimes the best sounding mastering is on the LP (which of course can be digitised) and to be honest, I don't hear any material differences between well produced LPs and CDs except perhaps better nuanced bass.


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> *analogsurviver* is a typical vinyl nut. He has let himself been brainwashed with anti-CD propaganda for nearly 4 decades and instead of realizing/admitting himself for liking vinyl sound for the _distortions_ vinyl system introduces, he explains his preferences with the anti-CD propaganda to a comical effect. All these people need to do is to transfer a vinyl to (lossless) 16/44.1 digital format and do some blind testing to realize that they can't tell the digital transfer and original vinyl sound apart. We advocates of digital should come to the halfway and admit that  there is something about the distortions of vinyl. Maybe we don't want to always hear the pure original version of music, but a distorted version of it? Rock music is based on distorted guitars anyway… …so while CD (and 16/44.1 digital audio in general) is extremely transparent and vinyl is not, some music perhaps benefits from the distortions introduced by vinyl. I have wrote nyquist -plugins for Audacity simulating the distortion generated by vinyl and I use it to add richness to some tracks of the music I make. The important thing is to separate sonic effects from audio chain. The effects should be in the original audio and the audio chain should be as transparent as possible.



OK, been there, done that .

Then WHY does the vinyl transfer to digital ALWAYS sound better = closer to the original "live vynil" at higher sampling rates than it  does at 16/44 ? 

WHY, back in my CD retail days, did the customers who knew absolutely nothing about the technicalities keep coming back and asking me if I too thought the old recordings ( that could not possibly have originated as digital recording ) sound - better ? 

WHY, if the "perfect sound forever" really was that perfect, would a freshly pressed record  from DECCA catalogue trounce the DECCA CD with the same recording - for NOISE ? Not to mention overall SQ.

I certainly agree digital has lower distortion, lower noise, better channel separation, unmeasurable wow and flutter and so on. Hovever, if it is limited in sampling frequency to 44.1kHz, I will object to this to death. It sounds unnatural to me and many people I know. 

And although I do like to listen to rock music, my main diet is classical and, to a lesser extent, jazz - which is (or can be ) all purely acoustical music. And I try as hard as possible NOT to introduce any more richness or whatever effects of defects of analog record playback may be called - other than absolutely unavoidable. 

I am not the type who would choose his turntable/arm/cartridge with a deliberate desire of any form of colouration. I am not the type who would decline remaster on LP that is more faithful to the original analog master tape than the originally pressed LP - because it DOES SOUND "almost like CD" . I would comment "almost like CD - but BETTER ". 

I agree the audio chain should be as transparent as possible.  We (can) have it now - any PCM  with at least 88.2 kHz sampling and up  is better tha 16/44.1.


----------



## old tech (May 28, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> OK, been there, done that .
> 
> *Then WHY does the vinyl transfer to digital ALWAYS sound better = closer to the original "live vynil" at higher sampling rates than it  does at 16/44 ? *
> 
> ...


That is your claim despite overwhelming evidence otherwise. Perhaps it is the way you are doing it or, given your >20k beliefs, expectation biases and associated placebo.  When I did 16/44 transfers they sounded identical to the donor turntable, and we regularly verified this with double blind testing.  After all, 16/44 is a larger "container" than vinyl.

As an anecdote of how beliefs influence perception, take Dire Straits Brothers In Arms.  This was a mid 1980s 16/44 recording which would equal any 15 or 30 ips analog recording.  Yet, we have vinylphiles paying ridiculous amounts of cash for MFSL half speed LPs of this album when an original used CD can be purchased for a few dollars. Quite a few of those vinylphiles claim the LP versions sound better. Now there is no way a 16/44 master can sound better on a half speed LP by any objective criteria (or any other bitrate for that matter). Is it then expectation bias or do they just prefer less fidelity?


----------



## pinnahertz (May 28, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> 1. "Semantics". Correctly worded would be : " Using binaural microphone ( it does not matter if artificial head or real human head wearing mics - as long either of them is used both for recording and reproduction  )
> 
> 2. with ALL the HRTF being exactly equal and taken as granted, WHY does then recording done at a higher sampling rate sound closer to the original live mike feed than the one done at the lower sampling rate ".
> 
> 3. I take dummy head or Jecklin Disk , obviously, as too granted to even occuring to me I should mention that. My apologies for that.


1.  I think the problem here is that someone is using a dummy head for reproduction.

2. All HRTF is not equal, and if that isn't understood or assumed that all HRTF is equal, you will never understand why binaural doesn't work for every listener equally.

3. a Jecklin Disk recording is not binaural at all.  There is nothing approaching a real HRTF.


analogsurviver said:


> 2. I have NOT made that "just" up... - goes back few decades ago. Correction - make that almost 40 years ago - introduction of the CD, very early 80s. I brought my amp and Audio Technica ATH-7 electret headphones to the fair that had only the first two Philips and Hitachi CD players on active display - and all it took was a couple of seconds of listening. In that sense, 44/16 did not progress much since then. Probably the biggest audible difference - to me, at least - has been the efforts of Theta with its Legato Link, which is essentially trying to make the unavoidable phase shift of the usual brick filtering less abrupt, which has a necessary influence of the no longer so flat response all the way to 20 kHz. There were at least three generations of this filktering, the last one being featured in Pioneer PD-D6J CDS/SACD player. There IS a reason WHY did I choose this player over many much more expensive machines - I simply wanted something with more natural sound from the CD than it is usually the case. If that abrupt phase shift, necessary in 16/44, had not been objectionable to enough people, I do not believe as mainstream manufacturer as Pioneer would incorporate it in its products - would it ? Now, can you honestly claim that NO such phase shift close to the audible band would not allow for better reproduction of the original soundwave ? In digital PCM, that means at least doubling the sampling rate, that is to say to 88.2kHz .
> 
> This is difficult to assess online - I can not send you all the hardware required. Merely sending some sample recordings could well prove not to be enough.


The audibility of in-band phase distortion has been studied extensively, but all you've done is parrot audiophile nonsense.  The original generation of CD players did have sonic problems, many of them, and some were due to the filter design, but that's not at all the whole picture or complete explanation. 


analogsurviver said:


> 4. O- oops. With this one, you have absolutely no idea just on how thin ice you are stomping with anger !!!
> Be glad I "put" you only on thin ice - and not in a minefield ...
> 
> EVERY audio component that does improve over the previous one WILL display one, but preferably more if not all of the following characteristics:
> ...


Lets read the above carefully, again, maybe twice.  I can't believe my eyes!  Did you really mean to say that I. lower noise floor, II. Extended FR, and III> Lower distortion is audible before the music begins?  During silence? 

I.  Are you aware of what digital silence is on a CD...any CD?  It's all bits locked at the zero voltage value.  If a player of any kind has residual noise in that condition above theoretical, it's got an analog issue.  You'll see that issue if you're dealing with 24bit audio, because no DAC or ADC has 24bit noise performance, but that noise should still be below system noise.  And the room noise on any recording will be massively higher.

II.  How can you hear the effects of extended FR when there is no stimulus?  Magic?  Spider sense? 

III.  Distortion: the alteration of an original signal.  If you have no signal, what's distorted?



analogsurviver said:


> Remember you claiming one can not have zero noise in a real concert venue with real musicians and real instruments - even if completely acoustic ? Well, that depends HOW you look at this "noise". If it is according to you, EVERY noise that is not written in the scores is noise that has to be removed/filtered/supresssed/whatever it takes for it to be gone . If it is according to me, even the tiny reflections off the walls from handling/operating instruments, musicians moving on the stage/within their seat, sound of breathing, inhaling and exhaling of singers, etc, etc - should ALL be included in the recording. Naturally, I always warn musicians to not make any more "noise" than absolutely necessary, will go to the details WHAT to wear - trouble is, the concert tuxedos, shoes, etc, not to mention jewelry - can be the ultimate nemesis of a live recording. On a rehearsal or during "studio" ( I never record in a studio, always on location ) conditions, people wear casual clothes and footwear, which is usully - silent enough.
> 
> Be it as it may - on any of my recordings, it is possible to hear the recording venue, before the music starts or between the  two movements, during pauses, etc - provided it is played back on quality equipment and that the type of file selected has reasonable sample rate. Currently available audio on YT is NOT enough for such minuscule, but important information - if realism.


This is your personal obsession.  You've chosen to fixate on something, and make it vitally important, that doesn't have that value to any other listener. 


analogsurviver said:


> I can post  some parts of the recordings long enough for anyone to grasp the idea just how it sounds what I have described above. Both in original recording format/resolution, then say in 16/44.


<Yawn> Yeah.  Talk, talk, talk.  Do it man, before one of us dies.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> OK, been there, done that .
> 
> Then WHY does the vinyl transfer to digital ALWAYS sound better = closer to the original "live vynil" at higher sampling rates than it  does at 16/44 ?


Oh, that's easy.  It doesn't.  


analogsurviver said:


> WHY, back in my CD retail days, did the customers who knew absolutely nothing about the technicalities keep coming back and asking me if I too thought the old recordings ( that could not possibly have originated as digital recording ) sound - better ?


Many reasons, but the primary was that the vinyl versions were mastered by people who had long and deep experience and thorough education in what mastering is and should be.  The same people did not master the CD, and those that did were literally half their age, and nobody had any experience.  The two media have vastly different characteristics, and CAN be mastered identically, with certain trade-offs, but were not.  In fact, many early CDs were mastered from tapes that were a generation or more away from the master used for the vinyl.  You'd think that once these issues were understood the differences would go away, but they didn't, right down to today because CDs and vinyl are STILL mastered by different people with different objectives!  My "test" projects, mid 1980s, resulted in identical sounding vinyl and CDs, at least for the first few vinyl playings, if you allow for the vinyl noise floor.  That's because I supervised both, end to end!  


analogsurviver said:


> WHY, if the "perfect sound forever" really was that perfect, would a freshly pressed record  from DECCA catalogue trounce the DECCA CD with the same recording - for NOISE ? Not to mention overall SQ.


It's different for the reasons above.


analogsurviver said:


> I certainly agree digital has lower distortion, lower noise, better channel separation, unmeasurable wow and flutter and so on. Hovever, if it is limited in sampling frequency to 44.1kHz, I will object to this to death. It sounds unnatural to me and many people I know.


 You'd fail and ABX test.  Because everyone does if it's performed correctly.


analogsurviver said:


> And although I do like to listen to rock music, my main diet is classical and, to a lesser extent, jazz - which is (or can be ) all purely acoustical music. And I try as hard as possible NOT to introduce any more richness or whatever effects of defects of analog record playback may be called - other than absolutely unavoidable.


Got speakers?  Headphones?


analogsurviver said:


> I agree the audio chain should be as transparent as possible.  We (can) have it now - any PCM  with at least 88.2 kHz sampling and up  is better tha 16/44.1.


It depends on what you define as "better".  If you think higher bit rate=lower noise and distortion, that's wrong.  Higher frequency response, yes, different HF phase response, yes.  Audible?  The jury is still out, you're only one member.


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> You really are coming across as a crank with a fetish for frequencies we cannot hear.  But I'm not surprised your fetish doesn't extend to the other end of the frequency spectrum that we cannot hear, ie <20hz as that would conflict with your vinyl fetish.  Btw, you do realise that RIAA and vinyl playback more generally results in far more phase shifting at every frequency, and that it is much greater than any imaginary shifting from digital filters?



Hmm... you've obviously missed that I am concerned with response < 20 Hz - VERY MUCH SO, IN FACT.

I did post the link to the Bruel & Kjaer paper regarding the turntables, dealing mainly with the effect of the most troublesome mechanical resonance in turntables - that of stylus suspension compliance acting against the combined mass of the cartridge and the effective mass of the tonearm - din't I ?  The said resonance should - ideally - be placed at 10 Hz, but in practice it can be anything from approx 4 to 18 Hz, with the really acceptable range being from 8 to 12 Hz. If you are still wondering WHY this "inaudible" resonance is the alfa and omega of all things analog record, maybe it is time to read trough the paper in its entirety.

Exactly why should should my alleged but untrue non concern for < 20 Hz conflict with my so-called vinyl fetish ?

Did I not say that the response NEARLY  to DC is required in order to reproduce certain instruments properly ?

Even a turntable can be made to be "essentially linear, less than 3 dB deviation ref 1kHz" down to 5 ot so Hz. Not perfect, but close.

Even a recording ( both digital and analogue ) can be made to be "essentially linear" down to at least 5 Hz, if not even less .


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> OK, been there, done that .
> 
> Then WHY does the vinyl transfer to digital ALWAYS sound better = closer to the original "live vynil" at higher sampling rates than it  does at 16/44 ?
> 
> ...




WHY do you continue to confuse your opinions and anecdotal evidence with facts?


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Only to respond to the last paragraph. I never said any instrument to produce DC - but NEAR DC. Which is, essentially, still the same thing.


Near DC an DC are not the same thing at all. There is no such thing as near DC. It’s either DC, AC or AC with a DC component. There is no acoustic DC (unless you consider wind, but all we hear of wind is the associated AC component, turbulence). There is no analog audio record/play system that can record or reproduce DC, nor is that desirable.  Tape rolls off below 30hz, more or less, dependent strongly on linear speed. Vinyl cannot record or reproduce DC because there’s a mechanical high pass network built in. All attempts to force lower response extension have negative side effects.  PCM can theoretically record and reproduce DC, but doesn’t because it’s undesirable and detrimental.

Again: There is no such a thing as Near DC!


analogsurviver said:


> I do have such a recording - it took me a while to be able to make it, and it will be posted.


Your credibly is in jeopardy because you keep promising to post files, but have not posted a single one.


analogsurviver said:


> The same goes for the acoustic bass ... - you'll be surprised HOW high above the masking curve the acoustic bass can actually go - WELL above the 20 kHz, all the way to the usable limit of my equipment, that is to say prior to onset of the quantization noise ( if this is the correct term ? ) from the ADC used - in this case, approx 55 kHz.


The surprise would be if you actually posted any examples or images at all.


analogsurviver said:


> From the above, it should be clear I am not using any commercially available dummy head microphone. You have correctly stated they do not go much past 20 kHz .


What are you using? Please show us.


analogsurviver said:


> *REGARDING MASTERING BEING DIFFERENT FOR CD OR HR OR DSD RELEASE  *
> 
> *I can not vouch for anybody else exactly what has been done. I do know for my work - and only here I can put my arm in fire stating nothing but conversion to ANOTHER  format took place. I do not have commercially available HR  or DSD available - yet. Hopefully, full native DSD mastering will be available for the next project(s). So far, CDs originating from DSD have been converted to 192/32float and mastered conventionally - and in most cases, that meant only splicing best parts of various takes of the same piece together, without any additional effects or transformations.  As I do not do mastering myself, I can not tell you down to the last detail; I do know that sometimes pitch had to be repaired, but none of such has ever been used on instrumental only CDs. In some cases, I even have the exact sequence which part(s) of which take(s) has been used in the finally released version - and within those, I can find portion(s) that underwent NOTHING but conversion from DSD to PCM. That may have been subjected to level change - and on none but one of the CDs issued has ever been any compression applied. That compression has only been used for the "storm" effects in Purcel's Dido & Aeneas CD release - as the original large metal plate used to create the said effect really was thunderous enough to be objectionable to more "traditional" listeners. Now - how many people you know who both could and would disclose so much with such openess ? *


Ok, got it. Just opinion, no actual proof of anything,


analogsurviver said:


> I do not do fakes - EVER. It would have never even occured to me to insert pink/white noise in some signal in order to confuse someone into thinking it was a genuine recording using higher sampling rates. If I say I recorded something in DSD 1024 or even 2048 - you can take my word for it. But my current reality is DSD128 and, hopefully in not too distant future , DSD256. I am not a troll, much less am I a lier.


I believe you meant it by saying you do not do fakes. That’s true because you don’t post any files at all.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Near DC an DC are not the same thing at all. There is no such thing as near DC. It’s either DC, AC or AC with a DC component. There is no acoustic DC (unless you consider wind, but all we hear of wind is the associated AC component, turbulence). There is no analog audio record/play system that can record or reproduce DC, nor is that desirable.  Tape rolls off below 30hz, more or less, dependent strongly on linear speed. Vinyl cannot record or reproduce DC because there’s a mechanical high pass network built in. All attempts to force lower response extension have negative side effects.  PCM can theoretically record and reproduce DC, but doesn’t because it’s undesirable and detrimental.
> 
> Again: There is no such a thing as Near DC!
> Your credibly is in jeopardy because you keep promising to post files, but have not posted a single one.
> ...



Yes, vynil CAN reproduce down to 0.55 Hz if running at 33 1/3 RPM  - and direct to disk recording of organ  with a fundamental 6.XY Hz( I am not going to search for the record to tell the x-acto number ) has been made 
https://www.discogs.com/Lloyd-Holzgraf-The-Power-And-The-Glory-Volume-1/release/4537692
The following is the best version available online that I am aware of :



I am working on a tonearm that should allow - finally - to play back this most difficult low frequency test recording. So far, from the commercially available arms, the best results have been obtained with Dynavector arm(s) : http://www.dynavector.com/products/tonearm/e_507mk2.html

A-ha ... tape - as R2R - does roll off below 30 Hz. Tape as cassette can have -3dB point at 15 Hz ( modified Technics RS-AZ 7 ), and tape as video recorder extends that -3dB point down to 5 Hz ( Panasonic NV-FS90 ).

Digital is - obviously - limited in low frequencies solely by the analog input section to the ADC - and at the output, again by the analog output section. Can be in theory true DC.

I consider -3dB point at 5 Hz or lower to be "near DC" - at least good enough not to completely sabotage the assymetric waveform from certain (mainly brass) instruments , which already happens if -3dB point is at 10 Hz or so. 

With the advent of the rotary subwoofer, reproduction down to approx 2 Hz is possible - manufacturer even published a 2 Hz square wave from the said subwoofer  http://www.rotarywoofer.com/

The most "near DC" comes my beloved preamplifier - AGI 511. Depending on the impedance of the load it is driving,  but it is designed so that it can drive a 600 ohm load with 0.0dB AT 20Hz at specified voltage output - and that can quickly sink below 0.2 Hz with normal power amp input resistances. It is an AC coupled preamp, with final part of the feedback taken from the output of the output coupling capacitor/input of the power amp.

Now, as most of my recordings are in DSD - do you wish me to post them untouched or should I convert them to PCM - preferably 192/24?
For any spectral analysis, it has to be PCM . Your call .

Mics I am using are the same for the last 10 years - DPA 406X series, either 4060 or 4061, depending how loud is the source. I am eyeing the new CORE version of the same mics , which claim approx 12-14 dB improvement in the distortion figures.


----------



## 71 dB

We could define that in audio "near DC" means frequencies greater than 0 Hz, but less than 5 Hz.

DC < near DC < 5 Hz.

Of course others here will call this silly and my self-esteem gets a hit once again…


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> We could define that in audio "near DC" means frequencies greater than 0 Hz, but less than 5 Hz.
> 
> DC < near DC < 5 Hz.
> 
> Of course others here will call this silly and my self-esteem gets a hit once again…



I know it is kind of silly - but real microphones and their preamplifiers recorded with real world recorders available today actually do work exactly in this "no man's land" .


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, vynil CAN reproduce down to 0.55 Hz if running at 33 1/3 RPM



Why do you keep writing "vynil"? The rotational speed doesn't set lower frequency limits to 0.55 Hz. You can do 0.50 Hz for example, just at lower amplitude!


----------



## bigshot (May 28, 2018)

71 dB said:


> We advocates of digital should come to the halfway and admit that  there is something about the distortions of vinyl. Maybe we don't want to always hear the pure original version of music, but a distorted version of it?



I have over 20,000 records in my collection going back 100 years. I've got direct to disc, half speed mastered and "five eyes" and "shaded dogs". But if you offer me a faithful CD transfer off the master or a well mastered LP, I'll take the CD every time. Vinyl has advantages, but sound quality, distortion or otherwise, isn't one of them. Vinyl has an edge in album covers. They're big and beautiful and easy to read. LPs also contain music that never got re-released on CD. If you want that music, you have to buy vinyl. The last advantage is cost. You can pick up good quality used records for a dollar or two apiece. Prices for used CDs are dropping and that may no longer be an advantage in the not too distant future.

LPs playing .5Hz sound with accuracy is a joke. First of all, the majority of sound on LPs at the extreme high and low ends are mostly noise. Secondly, even if it was true, it wouldn't matter. I would like to see the transducer capable of reproducing .5Hz. Thirdly, even if you could find such a transducer, that frequency wouldn't register as musical sound at all.

It's absurd to waste time discussing made up stuff like this. It's duffer talk.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> 3. a Jecklin Disk recording is not binaural at all.  There is nothing approaching a real HRTF.


I call Jecklin Disk semi-binaural. It mimics some aspects of HRTF (general ILD / ITD / ISD structure), but also ignores a lot of detail of real HRTF. Jecklin Disk recordings "fool" the spatial hearing a bit and generate similar feeling of realism as real binaural recordings. I think the fact that Jecklin Disk ignores the finer details of HRTF makes it work more evenly on listeners. It doesn't work extremely  well or poorly for anyone, but instead well for everyone. It also works with speakers unlike real binaural. It's binaural for social justice warriors.


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> I call Jecklin Disk semi-binaural. It mimics some aspects of HRTF (general ILD / ITD / ISD structure), but also ignores a lot of detail of real HRTF. Jecklin Disk recordings "fool" the spatial hearing a bit and generate similar feeling of realism as real binaural recordings. I think the fact that Jecklin Disk ignores the finer details of HRTF makes it work more evenly on listeners. It doesn't work extremely  well or poorly for anyone, but instead well for everyone. It also works with speakers unlike real binaural. It's binaural for social justice warriors.



Well said.


----------



## gregorio (May 28, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> [1] I consider -3dB point at 5 Hz or lower to be "near DC" - at least good enough not to completely sabotage the assymetric waveform from certain (mainly brass) instruments , which already happens if -3dB point is at 10 Hz or so.
> [1a] I know it is kind of silly - but real microphones and their preamplifiers recorded with real world recorders available today actually do work exactly in this "no man's land" .



1. The lowest fundamental frequency ever written for an orchestral brass instrument (the bass tuba) was about 33Hz and that was just once! Slightly more common is a fundamental freq at about 40Hz but it's still very rare and that's two octaves higher than 10Hz. To get 10Hz out of a brass instrument you'd either need to build a tuba about the size of a house or take an existing tuba, drop a stick of dynamite down the bell and detonate it!!!
1a. How would you know, you don't inhabit the real world!

Not happy making up utter nonsense about >20kHz, now you're making up utter nonsense about <20Hz, at least you're consistent!!!



analogsurviver said:


> Then WHY does the vinyl  ...
> WHY, back in my CD retail days, ...
> WHY, if the "perfect sound forever" ...



And don't forget the other "why": "*WHY are you so determined to give the impression that you're ignorant and foolish?*"

G


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> Why do you keep writing "vynil"? The rotational speed doesn't set lower frequency limits to 0.55 Hz. You can do 0.50 Hz for example, just at lower amplitude!



That "vynil" I picked along from somebody here ( IIRC @pinnahertz  - but could be wrong ) - analogue record is the correct term, but it is getting a bit long to write every time, and "vinyl" , although innacurate, is the term everybody knows and understands....
Does it matter, in real life, if it goes to 0.55 or 0.50 Hz ? Enough is to show that it can go lower than analogue tape.
And, if nitpicking back, it can go to 0.50 Hz - but not at lower amplitude, but at lower RPM. It obviously can not record/playback at a lower frequency than set by the rotation speed ...


----------



## pinnahertz (May 28, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Well said.





71 dB said:


> I call Jecklin Disk semi-binaural. It mimics some aspects of HRTF (general ILD / ITD / ISD structure), but also ignores a lot of detail of real HRTF. Jecklin Disk recordings "fool" the spatial hearing a bit and generate similar feeling of realism as real binaural recordings. I think the fact that Jecklin Disk ignores the finer details of HRTF makes it work more evenly on listeners. It doesn't work extremely  well or poorly for anyone, but instead well for everyone. It also works with speakers unlike real binaural. It's binaural for social justice warriors.


Just as there is no such thing as “near DC”, there is no such thing as “semi binaural”. DC is not AC, they are entirely different things. Google the definitions if you need to. You cannot have anything “near DC”, because it is Alternating, and therefore is AC. The two are mutually exclusive.  Binaural recording, by definition, relies on HRTF. If the mic system does not have anything to produce HRTF, then it is not binaural.

I do not understand the propensity  to invent terminology just so one’s personal opinion can be underscored. That entire line of reasoning has no place here.  We already have a full and complete vocabulary that describes everything properly. Just use the proper terms! Making up new ones to fit ones own story is what children do.


----------



## bigshot

Just play a 45 at 16rpm and you’ll get all sorts of sub bass frequencies. It wouldn’t sound much like music, but I suppose for a person without an ounce of pragmatism or real world experience, that is good enough.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Just play a 45 at 16rpm and you’ll get all sorts of sub bass frequencies. It wouldn’t sound much like music, but I suppose for a person without an ounce of pragmatism or real world experience, that is good enough.



And why should one be playing a 45rpm record at 16rpm for listening ? Nothing musical about that.


----------



## sonitus mirus

analogsurviver said:


> And why should one be playing a 45rpm record at 16rpm for listening ? Nothing musical about that.



Alvin and the Chipmunks sound ok.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Just as there is no such thing as “near DC”, there is no such thing as “semi binaural”. DC is not AC, they are entirely different things. Google the definitions if you need to. You cannot have anything “near DC”, because it is Alternating, and therefore is AC. The two are mutually exclusive.  Binaural recording, by definition, relies on HRTF. If the mic system does not have anything to produce HRTF, then it is not binaural.
> 
> I do not understand the propensity  to invent terminology just so one’s personal opinion can be underscored. That entire line of reasoning has no place here.  We already have a full and complete vocabulary that describes everything properly. Just use the proper terms! Making up new ones to fit ones own story is what children do.



OK, I agree. To a point. 

There is no microphone that could operate down to true DC. And Jecklin Disc is actually rather accurately described in the way @71dB put it. There is also a Schneider Disk, which is even closer approximation to the binaural - yet it also does not use the full HRTF, but more than Jecklin Disk. . I have never heard a Schneider Disk recording nor seen a Schneider Disk in flesh - so can not comment on sound it captures.


----------



## analogsurviver

sonitus mirus said:


> Alvin and the Chipmunks sound ok.



velly funy !


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> It obviously can not record/playback at a lower frequency than set by the rotation speed ...


You are confused about how vinyl works. If we make the cutting needle move at 0.01 Hz, we can (in theory, not in practise!) record 0.01 Hz frequency and it doesn't matter how fast the disc is spinning. The disc just takes 55.555… rotations while the needle makes one 100 seconds long oscillation cycle.

Similarly weeks can exist even when they are 7 times slower than days and days are dictated by the rotation speed of the Earth.


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> You are confused about how vinyl works. If we make the cutting needle move at 0.01 Hz, we can (in theory, not in practise!) record 0.01 Hz frequency and it doesn't matter how fast the disc is spinning. The disc just takes 55.555… rotations while the needle makes one 100 seconds long oscillation cycle.
> 
> Similarly weeks can exist even when they are 7 times slower than days and days are dictated by the rotation speed of the Earth.


And then they call me impractical ...


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> Just as there is no such thing as “near DC”, there is no such thing as “semi binaural”. DC is not AC, they are entirely different things. Google the definitions if you need to. You cannot have anything “near DC”, because it is Alternating, and therefore is AC. The two are mutually exclusive.  Binaural recording, by definition, relies on HRTF. If the mic system does not have anything to produce HRTF, then it is not binaural.
> 
> I do not understand the propensity  to invent terminology just so one’s personal opinion can be underscored. That entire line of reasoning has no place here.  We already have a full and complete vocabulary that describes everything properly. Just use the proper terms! Making up new ones to fit ones own story is what children do.


Snowflake needs his safe space because I call Jecklin Disk semi-binaural and low frequencies "near DC".

By your definition DC electricity doesn't exist, because it requires that the constant current/voltage has existed infinite years and will exist another infinite years. If not, there is no true 0 Hz component present, only very low frequencies such as 0.001 Hz etc.


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> Snowflake needs his safe space because I call Jecklin Disk semi-binaural and low frequencies "near DC".
> 
> By your definition DC electricity doesn't exist, because it requires that the constant current/voltage has existed infinite years and will exist another infinite years. If not, there is no true 0 Hz component present, only very low frequencies such as 0.001 Hz etc.


You are not referencing my definition, not the accepted standard definition, but instead are making up your own.  I work in the real world. To communicate in that world effectively I must use terminology that others understand and accepted definitions. Use of the correct terms and definitions promotes understanding and respect. If those aren’t important, then you can make up any languages, terms and definitions you like. If you’re good enough at it you might write a literary Trilogy about a mythical land filled with functional characters.  But be warned: J.R. R. Did it before you, and was fairly good at it.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> You are not referencing my definition, not the accepted standard definition, but instead are making up your own.  I work in the real world. To communicate in that world effectively I must use terminology that others understand and accepted definitions. Use of the correct terms and definitions promotes understanding and respect. If those aren’t important, then you can make up any languages, terms and definitions you like. If you’re good enough at it you might write a literary Trilogy about a mythical land filled with functional characters.  But be warned: J.R. R. Did it before you, and was fairly good at it.



Making up, making up… …I wish I was that creative. I am parroting what I learned in the university.


----------



## bigshot (May 29, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> Alvin and the Chipmunks sound ok.



I tried to find a digital filter that could do it, but plain old VSO was the only way that sounded good. I had to keep cotton in my ears when I recorded though because my ears would ring after long playback sessions.



analogsurviver said:


> And why should one be playing a 45rpm record at 16rpm for listening ?



To squeeze sub bass frequencies below 40Hz out of an LP.


----------



## Merkurio (May 29, 2018)

I've a couple of questions that probably have been answered several times, but they really makes me think...

I'm looking for a mid-tier DAP that has low output impedance and good overall technical specifications for my IEMs. I consider myself as an objectivist and don't believe in audio miracles and huge diferences (other than the specifications implies), but really often I found people arguing with astonishing confidence about important sonical differences between DAPs (more warmer/detailed, bigger/intimate soundstage, great dynamics, etc.) compared with each others, then I look the frecuency response and in most DAPs is almost the same (flat as a board) no matter the DAC used, so I don't understand the point... Is there anything else involved apart from the frequency response that really changes the sound in that way, or it's just a bunch of lies and placebo that can't be demonstrated in a proper A/B test with volume matching?

Also, what are the "minimum" THD, crosstalk and SNR values to be considered "enough" from our ears? I asked this as I see a lot of manufactures fighting for the better specs and I don't know how much does them affect the sound quality after passing certain key/minimum/standard value.


----------



## castleofargh

Merkurio said:


> I've a couple of questions that probably have been answered several times, but they really makes me think...
> 
> I'm looking for a mid-tier DAP that has low output impedance and good overall measurements for my IEMs. I consider myself as an objectivist and don't believe in audio miracles and huge diferences (other than the specifications implies), but really often I found people arguing such a great sonical differences between DAPs (more warmer/detailed, bigger/intimate soundstage, great dynamics, etc.) compared with each others, but the frecuency response in most DAPs is almost the same (flat as a board) no matter the DAC used, so I don't understand the point... Is there anything else involved apart from the frequency response that really changes the sound in that way, or it's just a bunch of lies and placebo that can't be demonstrated in a proper A/B test with volume matching?
> 
> Also, what are the "minimum" THD, crosstalk and SNR values to be considered "enough" from our ears? I asked this as I see a lot of manufactures fighting for the better specs and I don't know how much does them affect the sound quality after passing certain key/minimum/standard value.


my weak attempt at considering one of the reasons why people get actual sound differences. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/feedback-about-gears-stop-doing-it-wrong-impedance.866714/
of course without blind testing and matched volume levels, the likelihood of subjective bias and made up crap is very high, and that makes most feedbacks irrelevant in my opinion. not because they're all wrong, but because we can't tell which ones are. that spoils the all basket of sighted experiences for me.  

crosstalk specs are irrelevant in most situations. because you'll pretty much never notice anything below maybe -40dB. and also because that value will change a good deal depending on the load used(lower impedance IEM leading to increased crosstalk). so you could have very nice crosstalk specs unloaded and really bad ones into a 8ohm IEM. in general, unless it's already pretty bad on the specs, you don't really have to care about that variable. 

SNR can be very relevant to estimate if we'll be annoyed by background hiss. but only if the measurement conditions are clearly explained. it's a ratio, but if we don't know which level was used, the ratio becomes meaningless. you may get some standard like 1V or 1.23V(+4dBu), but then you could also get the maxed out output of the DAP, whatever it is(some don't even reach 1V) at whatever gain setting gave them the best result. they could also give a weighted result without telling you. or tell you but you don't know what it is.
but if you get proper nomenclature, then you can estimate the voltage value of the noise floor and calculate how loud that would get into your IEM thanks to the sensitivity value. it's still not perfect because the noise could be concentrated at a more or less annoying frequency(subjectively), and SNR specs won't tell you that. but it's a good start. 
about the level you need, well that can really depend. your IEM's sensitivity being a mighty significant variable. I have some IEMs where almost nothing hisses, and a few where almost anything does. it might be more relevant to avoid overly sensitive IEMs, than to desperately try to find the lowest SNR.
also your listening habits mean a great deal. loud listeners almost never care about background hiss until they press pause.  

THD shouldn't really matter on a DAP. usually if the value becomes really wrong it will be because the DAP is really distorting or clipping and isn't something you'd miss even just by ear. a few DAPs have pretty bad IMD, which might be more relevant as it's not known to have any sort of euphony like THD can have sometimes. but usually a DAP will have much lower THD than your IEM, so I wouldn't worry about it at all. 

ok so I didn't actually answer for any spec ^_^. I don't really know about the lowest as it can depend on context and what someone defines as "enough". to me anything 80dB below music is not my concern. a lot of what is above also doesn't matter to me, but below never ever worries me.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> Making up, making up… …I wish I was that creative. I am parroting what I learned in the university.



Nice try but that ain't going to wash! Certainly some of the underlying facts you quote are likely to come from what you learned in university but how you join those facts up, the theories you come out with did not. For example, it's a fact that as ice-cream consumption increases so does the number of deaths from drowning, but then joining these facts up and stating "therefore consuming ice-cream causes drowning" is nonsense, it's a complete fallacy. Trying to defend such a fallacy invariably results in "parroting" the underlying facts, misrepresenting or ignoring other pertinent facts and making-up entirely new "nonsense" facts! Here's a classic example:


71 dB said:


> gregorio said:
> 
> 
> > Even if all the direct sound were in the M channel and all the reverb were in the S channel, changing the balance between the M and S wouldn't only change the balance of direct sound and reverb, it would change the width of the stereo image! [resulting] in a more mono, less stereo image and that's hardly "accurate spatiality"!
> ...



The "downside" is that what you're left with is NOT binaural! Your whole argument is based on the accuracy of "spatiality" even to the point of you repeatedly stating and defending your opinion that "spatiality is the ONLY issue". Your "downside" so damages the "spatiality" that what you're left with is hardly even stereo, let alone the combination of precise timings, levels and freq content (HRTFs) that define "Binaural" in the first place and differentiates it from ordinary/standard stereo. As Pinnahertz stated, either it's binaural or it's not! Your suggestion, in effect, of a "compromised binaural" is just nonsense you've invented. Taking it to the extreme to illustrate the point: Summing together the left and right mics/channels of a binaural recording would be, according to your (invented) definition, "compromised binaural" but in reality of course it would just be mono, it wouldn't even be some type of stereo, let alone the very specific type defined as binaural!!

Your last statement is true, one does have to make the best compromises. As we're going to loose the accuracy of spatial information either way, the best compromise is the one which provides more control, including control of the stereo image and therefore we don't have to also compromise stereo width as your suggestion does. The best compromise is therefore virtually always multi-miking! Of course, you're never going to accept this because you have a personal agenda which includes an irrational hatred of multi-mic'ing just on principle. So, you're simply going to "parrot" some actual facts, misrepresent, redefine or make up other facts to defend your agenda and then cry "semantics" or "why are you picking on me" when challenged.

And, what's all this nonsense about "near DC", it's the same nonsense as "compromised binaural". It's either DC or its AC. Hertz is cycles per second, therefore a current/wave has to actually have cycles per second in order to have ANY Hz value and therefore having a Hz value is what differentiates AC from DC by definition in the first place! "Near DC" is nonsense, it's either one OR the other. If a plane flies 6ft above the ground at 30mph is it nearly a horse?

G


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, *vynil* CAN reproduce down to 0.55 Hz if running at 33 1/3 RPM


Please provide proof.  Every bit of information I can find, or have found for decades, is in conflict with the above statement.  


analogsurviver said:


> - and direct to disk recording of organ  with a fundamental 6.XY Hz( I am not going to search for the record to tell the x-acto number ) has been made
> https://www.discogs.com/Lloyd-Holzgraf-The-Power-And-The-Glory-Volume-1/release/4537692
> The following is the best version available online that I am aware of :
> 
> I am working on a tonearm that should allow - finally - to play back this most difficult low frequency test recording. So far, from the commercially available arms, the best results have been obtained with Dynavector arm(s) : http://www.dynavector.com/products/tonearm/e_507mk2.html


A $5500 tone arm? Really?  What you're doing, rather consistently, is attempting to prove a point by citing unusual, exotic, special, or modified equipment or tests.  That is not reality at all.  They cite the Telarc 1812 as the ultimate LF tracking test, which was pretty difficult, but in one review of the DV arm the reviewer claims to never have had an arm and cart that would track that canon shot.  I'm puzzled, because the classical music radio station where I worked in the late 1970s, through 80s played that record, tracked the shots perfectly, with a Shure V15-IV and V15-V cart in an SMEIII arm.  No big deal.  So what we could do for a few hundred in 1980 you now have to spend thousands for?  The one thing the Telarc record did was prove you can cut a disc that is unplayable on most TT systems, yet could be played on a few specific ones.  Making records is not about stretching the limits, it's about getting every listener a playable and enjoyable product.  If you could record .55Hz (prove it), who do you think could play it?  If you're doing it to prove its possible with unusual effort and cost, then why not throw all the rules out?  Why not make your record with something other than the RIAA curve, a different groove size and shape, different speed, and so on?  You might then have a much improved record that you and you alone could play.  The industry will NOT follow you on that one!

As to the recording in the link, the problem is, there is no audio on that recording below 16Hz, which corresponds to the lowest pedal note on the organ.  Just to verify, I did a bit of spectrum analysis on it, and sure enough, the lowest frequency on that recording is 16Hz.  And it's down -38dBFS! 

But go back the the maximum level chart I posted from the Holman article.  You can't get strong sub-20Hz bass on and off a record.  There are physical limits.

And we have another ugly issue: record rumble and warp.  Compared the the maximum record/reproduce level at 20Hz, these are huge.  How do you deal with that one?  The cause is baked into vinyl, the turntable, and the environment. And using a super-arm to track the warp is a cheat at best, because unless you're making one record for yourself you've ignored nearly 100% of all possible playback situations.


analogsurviver said:


> Digital is - obviously - limited in low frequencies solely by the analog input section to the ADC - and at the output, again by the analog output section. Can be in theory true DC.


Digital can be FLAT at 0dBFS to whatever low frequency limit is chosen.  The LP/vinyl system has maximum physical limits that are quite extreme at the top and bottom.


analogsurviver said:


> I consider -3dB point at 5 Hz or lower to be "near DC" - at least good enough not to completely sabotage the assymetric waveform from certain (mainly brass) instruments , which already happens if -3dB point is at 10 Hz or so.


"



Direct Current (red line). The vertical axis shows current or voltage and the horizontal 't' axis measures time and shows the zero value.
*Direct current* (*DC*) is the unidirectional flow of electric charge. A battery is a good example of a DC power supply."

See, DC is completely different than AC.  You cannot have "near DC" because the definition is completely different. What could you do to AC to make it "near DC"?  It's not about frequency because DC has no frequency.

Can we please stop using made-up terminology?


analogsurviver said:


> With the advent of the rotary subwoofer, reproduction down to approx 2 Hz is possible - manufacturer even published a 2 Hz square wave from the said subwoofer  http://www.rotarywoofer.com/


Still not DC!  Have you actually seen and heard the rotary sub?  I have.  And spoken at length to the designer.  Again, you're attempting to verify an incorrect concept by citing an extreme example.  The rotary sub is around $20k-$30K, and requires special physical construction, baffling to keep the noise the fan generates down, and a back vent to a space outside the room.  The designer recommends a vent to outside the building!  Yes, it can produce some very low frequencies, but they are NOT MUSIC!!!!!!!  There is no music below 16Hz!


analogsurviver said:


> Now, as most of my recordings are in DSD - do you wish me to post them untouched or should I convert them to PCM - preferably 192/24?
> For any spectral analysis, it has to be PCM . Your call .


What do you think you should post that would convince most people to join your side? 

 And if you're imitating a typo I made on vinyl, well, geez man.  Fix it!


----------



## Phronesis (May 29, 2018)

Merkurio said:


> I've a couple of questions that probably have been answered several times, but they really makes me think...
> 
> I'm looking for a mid-tier DAP that has low output impedance and good overall technical specifications for my IEMs. I consider myself as an objectivist and don't believe in audio miracles and huge diferences (other than the specifications implies), but really often I found people arguing with astonishing confidence about important sonical differences between DAPs (more warmer/detailed, bigger/intimate soundstage, great dynamics, etc.) compared with each others, then I look the frecuency response and in most DAPs is almost the same (flat as a board) no matter the DAC used, so I don't understand the point... Is there anything else involved apart from the frequency response that really changes the sound in that way, or it's just a bunch of lies and placebo that can't be demonstrated in a proper A/B test with volume matching?
> 
> Also, what are the "minimum" THD, crosstalk and SNR values to be considered "enough" from our ears? I asked this as I see a lot of manufactures fighting for the better specs and I don't know how much does them affect the sound quality after passing certain key/minimum/standard value.



Unfortunately, our confidence in the accuracy of the differences we think we hear often isn’t a reliable indicator of the accuracy of that perception.  Perception is influenced by many factors at a subconscious level, and therefore those influences are difficult to detect. This is obviously a problem for uncontrolled listening comparisons, but IMO is also a problem for controlled listening tests to some extent.


----------



## analogsurviver (May 29, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Please provide proof.  Every bit of information I can find, or have found for decades, is in conflict with the above statement.
> A $5500 tone arm? Really?  What you're doing, rather consistently, is attempting to prove a point by citing unusual, exotic, special, or modified equipment or tests.  That is not reality at all.  They cite the Telarc 1812 as the ultimate LF tracking test, which was pretty difficult, but in one review of the DV arm the reviewer claims to never have had an arm and cart that would track that canon shot.  I'm puzzled, because the classical music radio station where I worked in the late 1970s, through 80s played that record, tracked the shots perfectly, with a Shure V15-IV and V15-V cart in an SMEIII arm.  No big deal.  So what we could do for a few hundred in 1980 you now have to spend thousands for?  The one thing the Telarc record did was prove you can cut a disc that is unplayable on most TT systems, yet could be played on a few specific ones.  Making records is not about stretching the limits, it's about getting every listener a playable and enjoyable product.  If you could record .55Hz (prove it), who do you think could play it?  If you're doing it to prove its possible with unusual effort and cost, then why not throw all the rules out?  Why not make your record with something other than the RIAA curve, a different groove size and shape, different speed, and so on?  You might then have a much improved record that you and you alone could play.  The industry will NOT follow you on that one!
> 
> As to the recording in the link, the problem is, there is no audio on that recording below 16Hz, which corresponds to the lowest pedal note on the organ.  Just to verify, I did a bit of spectrum analysis on it, and sure enough, the lowest frequency on that recording is 16Hz.  And it's down -38dBFS!
> ...



Now, first regarding the typo. I do not bloody care how it is correctly spelled - and could not possibly care less. Analogue record from now on, and I will be at least as bitchy about anyone who will use another term.

Second, 0.55 Hz abberation(s) can be observed to be coming off real world turntable playing real world 33 1/3 RPM record. In (m)any ways , including the B& K paper I linked a few posts back.

Third, regarding the Dynavector arm(s). True that the current incarnation, the DV-507 Mk2  costs what it costs - WHO cares ? I do not own it, I can not afford it at the moment, but what i DO KNOW is that it (or its older siblings, starting with the original DV-505) are the only tonearms available that
ACTUALLY CAN PLAY INFORMATION RECORDED IN LATERAL DIRECTION BELOW 20 Hz - WITH APLOMB.
Instead of looking for the MSRP and citing erronous information that DV-50X arm can not track bass from Telarc's recording of 1982 ( not only that it can; but does a better job than 99, if not 100% of all tonearms ever made available commercially - only the cartridge has to be capable of handling so large excursions in the lateral direction in the first place ) , you shoul read WHY did I single this tonearm out. Yes, Dynavector arm is expensive - DV-505 had a price around 700-800 $ when SME Series III  was around 300 $. But, there is a reason for that. This being a science /objective thread , you SHOULD go and read the description of the arm - again, and THOROUGHLY SO.
I believe DV-505 missed to be featured in the B & K paper by the narrowest of margins. It has been released just about the time all the work in preparation of the paper has already been done  - but the arm that did inspire the DV-505 has been featured - the exceptional and exceptionally well performing ( IF set up and adjusted correctly...) Transcriptors Vestigal. DV-505 can be regarded as a bit more conventional, infinitely more user friendly and easier to operate version for more normal cartridges, without absolutely requiring the highest compliance stylus suspensions that can not survive in any other arm than Vestigal. AND - that is the biggest AND - its eddy damping arrangement in the horizontal plane DOES manage to damp any resonance below 20 Hz not only to 0 dB ref 1 kHz, but slightly below that. The measurements of the DV-505 and its effectiveness in either freedom from resonance(s) < 20 Hz using various cartridges has been published in French audio press - and those testifiying its superiour tracking ( same cartridge and same test record, minimum VTF the arm can track without mistracking ) in the German audio press.

Ever seen the Miller & Kreisel direct to disk record with St. Ane de Beaupre track up close - or even played back by ANY tonearm that does not keep the tightest possible fist on lateral movement - once that famous tremolo kicks in ? Other arms either fail to play bass info at all ( if their resonance is above say 12 Hz ) - or go into violent oscilation - one that can be seen across the room - if their resonance ( for nitpickers : resonance caused by the compliance of the stylus suspension and mass of the cartridge and effective mass of the tonearm combined ) is below 12 Hz. Even band-aids like Shure Dynamic Stabilizer ( aka brush ) or Discwasher Disctracker can not help much - because the 6.5 Hz bass lasts for at least 30 seconds, and at that groove spacing /rate even those brushes have no other way but to follow the large groove excursions. So - no other way than to have the arm that does see to that it can remain a stable platform for the cartridge no matter what is going in the groove/on the record. And that is, at present , only the Dynavector arm.

Alternative commercially available ( long ago ) arms that can, with somewhat worse results, play this record are the  Korvet 038 ( all but unobtainium if you do not know somebody within Russia well connected enough to be able to get one for you ) and Sony Biotracer models, as well as corresponding JVC and Denon *clones*. Today, second hand only ( or $$$$$ as NOS ).

I posted the YT link as a reference ONLY. I did not require any analyzing to know the recording has been "moderated" - I have the record here, I know what havoc it can wreck if properly reproduced - and an EVEN BIGGER if the horizontal resonace of the arm is in the vicinity of that fundamental 6.5 Hz - such as in case of my otherwise beloved Eminent Technology ET2 and almost any reasonable compliance cartridge. The poor thing barely managed to plough trough ... I do have the recording of this horror show, going all the way down, but will never post it - only when done RIGHT. 

OK, agreed on the use of proper terminalogy.

Yes, I am aware of the price and requirements for the rotary woofer. Due to that fact, in Europe are only 3 known to exist - none in private hands. Used more for research than music.

OK, ( sigh...) PCM then.


----------



## bigshot (May 29, 2018)

Merkurio said:


> I'm looking for a mid-tier DAP that has low output impedance and good overall technical specifications for my IEMs. I consider myself as an objectivist and don't believe in audio miracles and huge diferences (other than the specifications implies), but really often I found people arguing with astonishing confidence about important sonical differences between DAPs (more warmer/detailed, bigger/intimate soundstage, great dynamics, etc.) compared with each others, then I look the frecuency response and in most DAPs is almost the same (flat as a board) no matter the DAC used, so I don't understand the point.



The point is that some people don't know what they're talking about, but their lack of knowledge doesn't restrain them from announcing their ignorance to the world. This thread has had some wonderful examples of that lately. Some people are in a bubble. They only hear the voices in their own head, and they ignore any outside input that contradicts their preconceived notions. It's common on the internet, particularly with certain conditions.



analogsurviver said:


> Third, regarding the Dynavector arm(s)...



I see no point spending a lot of money on esoteric equipment to squeeze inaudible sound out of a format that is inferior from the start. All this discussion about fancy tone arms is irrelevant to this thread, and I don't think anyone here is interested in that subject but you.


----------



## castleofargh

let's see if I follow the main discussion of the last few days: binaural->ultrasounds->vinyl->DC current->sub frequencies on vinyls.

what is going on? "why is Gamora?"  



Phronesis said:


> Unfortunately, our confidence in the accuracy of the differences we think we hear often isn’t a reliable indicator of that perception.  Perception is influenced by many factors at a subconscious level, and therefore those influences are difficult to detect. This is obviously a problem for uncontrolled listening comparisons, but IMO is also a problem for controlled listening tests.


casual listening has many massive flaws that we know of. we keep telling people not to rely on such experiences to draw conclusions about perceived sound because we have an alternative with much better reliability: blind tests! so it makes sense to explain the flaws of the lesser method and suggest the more accurate solution. because it's a progress.
blind tests also have flaws and limitations(I hate to break it to you, nothing is perfect in the real world), but what's the superior alternative providing more reliable results about listening impressions? can't you ever mention blind testing without making it look like a nirvana fallacy?


----------



## bigshot (May 29, 2018)

Blind testing with tight controls to make sure that apples are being compared to apples is the best way to remove bias. When you've got two sounds that are very similar- so similar that they may actually be identical- the best way to determine if a difference exists is to perform a controlled blind test. The only reason so many audiophiles blow smoke and try to convince themselves that blind testing is "fatally flawed" is because they don't like the results they get when they actually do controlled tests. They would rather just not know than to be convinced that they are wrong about something.

It's interesting to see people expend so much time and energy building complex philosophical arguments with the sole purpose of insulating themselves from the truth. The irony is that the grip that their mental machinations hold over them just proves the power of bias and the necessity of doing blind tests. Someone who has spend 100% of their time making sighted subjective comparisons and no time at all doing controlled blind comparisons isn't qualified to comment on the value of blind testing.


----------



## Phronesis (May 29, 2018)

Blind testing is good, makes sense to do it.  If there are big differences, blind tests should disclose them, though such differences should also be apparent for many/most listeners from sighted but otherwise reasonably controlled tests (matching volumes and short music segments, and having instant switching between A and B).  But blind tests do have possible issues with generalizability (external validity), picking up subtle differences which make a difference during extended listening, gauging the character and extent of differences (rather than just getting a p-value), and potential false positives (cheating).  No one approach is the royal road to Truth as long as human perception and memory are part of the system.  We shouldn't polarize and oversimplify the issue by going to extremes in either direction - whether we like it or not, the reality of this stuff is complex.  IMO, both objectivism and subjectivism are each misguided and incomplete, and reflect an overly ideological rather than 'scientific' evidence-based approach.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Second, 0.55 Hz abberation(s) can be observed to be coming off real world turntable playing real world 33 1/3 RPM record. In (m)any ways , including the B& K paper I linked a few posts back.


You’re hung up on the absolute to the exclusion of the practical and useful.


analogsurviver said:


> Third, regarding the Dynavector arm(s). True that the current incarnation, the DV-507 Mk2  costs what it costs - WHO cares ? I do not own it, I can not afford it at the moment, but what i DO KNOW is that it (or its older siblings, starting with the original DV-505) are the only tonearms available that
> ACTUALLY CAN PLAY INFORMATION RECORDED IN LATERAL DIRECTION BELOW 20 Hz - WITH APLOMB.


I didn’t say it couldn’t. Please read more carefully. My point was it’s an extremely expensive exception. The format in general can’t do it. The extreme cannot define a format targeted at mass release.



analogsurviver said:


> Instead of looking for the MSRP and citing erronous information that DV-50X arm can not track bass from Telarc's recording of 1982 ( not only that it can; but does a better job than 99, if not 100% of all tonearms ever made available commercially - only the cartridge has to be capable of handling so large excursions in the lateral direction in the first place ) , you shoul read WHY did I single this tonearm out.


You’ve misquoted me, that’s not what I said.


analogsurviver said:


> Yes, Dynavector arm is expensive - DV-505 had a price around 700-800 $ when SME Series III  was around 300 $. But, there is a reason for that. This being a science /objective thread , you SHOULD go and read the description of the arm - again, and THOROUGHLY SO.


Yeah, reading carefully and thoroughly would me nice.


analogsurviver said:


> I believe DV-505 missed to be featured in the B & K paper by the narrowest of margins. It has been released just about the time all the work in preparation of the paper has already been done  - but the arm that did inspire the DV-505 has been featured - the exceptional and exceptionally well performing ( IF set up and adjusted correctly...) Transcriptors Vestigal. DV-505 can be regarded as a bit more conventional, infinitely more user friendly and easier to operate version for more normal cartridges, without absolutely requiring the highest compliance stylus suspensions that can not survive in any other arm than Vestigal. AND - that is the biggest AND - its eddy damping arrangement in the horizontal plane DOES manage to damp any resonance below 20 Hz not only to 0 dB ref 1 kHz, but slightly below that. The measurements of the DV-505 and its effectiveness in either freedom from resonance(s) < 20 Hz using various cartridges has been published in French audio press - and those testifiying its superiour tracking ( same cartridge and same test record, minimum VTF the arm can track without mistracking ) in the German audio press.


All we have to do is give the DV arm to everyone playing LPs and we can then readjust how format limits are defined.


analogsurviver said:


> Ever seen the Miller & Kreisel direct to disk record with St. Ane de Beaupre track up close - or even played back by ANY tonearm that does not keep the tightest possible fist on lateral movement - once that famous tremolo kicks in ? Other arms either fail to play bass info at all ( if their resonance is above say 12 Hz ) - or go into violent oscilation - one that can be seen across the room - if their resonance ( for nitpickers : resonance caused by the compliance of the stylus suspension and mass of the cartridge and effective mass of the tonearm combined ) is below 12 Hz. Even band-aids like Shure Dynamic Stabilizer ( aka brush ) or Discwasher Disctracker can not help much - because the 6.5 Hz bass lasts for at least 30 seconds, and at that groove spacing /rate even those brushes have no other way but to follow the large groove excursions. So - no other way than to have the arm that does see to that it can remain a stable platform for the cartridge no matter what is going in the groove/on the record. And that is, at present , only the Dynavector arm.


This actually proves my point. If you cut a record that only one arm can play, what’s wrong? The record or how we define the acceptable limits?



analogsurviver said:


> I posted the YT link as a reference ONLY. I did not require any analyzing to know the recording has been "moderated" - I have the record here, I know what havoc it can wreck if properly reproduced - and an EVEN BIGGER if the horizontal resonace of the arm is in the vicinity of that fundamental 6.5 Hz - such as in case of my otherwise beloved Eminent Technology ET2 and almost any reasonable compliance cartridge. The poor thing barely managed to plough trough ... I do have the recording of this horror show, going all the way down, but will never post it - only when done RIGHT.


 Please read this carefully: The lowest music frequency on that recording is from the lowest pedal note on a pipe organ, which is 16Hz. That’s the lowest fundamental. There is none lower. Any modulation below that is noise. Noise is undesirable.



analogsurviver said:


> Yes, I am aware of the price and requirements for the rotary woofer. Due to that fact, in Europe are only 3 known to exist - none in private hands. Used more for research than music.


Intended for Home Theaters. The demo I heard was a movie. We had ceiling dust falling on us when it played. Made in Texas where everything is BIG.


----------



## bigshot (May 29, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Blind testing is good, makes sense to do it.  If there are big differences, blind tests should disclose them.



You’re not understanding the purpose of blind testing. Blatantly obvious differences are by definition blatantly obvious. You don’t need blind tests to prove that. However when you have two very similar sounds to compare, blind testing is the best way to make sure bias doesn’t creep in and skew the results. That is the purpose of blind testing. I understand that you cling to your bias about the best way to evaluate audio equipment on philosophical grounds, but because of that you don’t seem to be able to understand the basic purpose and need for blind testing. You’re trying to think up excuses for just going with your gut biases. I don’t need to address your points about too short listening times and all that stuff because we’ve already answered and dispatched those arguments and you didn’t listen.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> You’re hung up on the absolute to the exclusion of the practical and useful.
> I didn’t say it couldn’t. Please read more carefully. My point was it’s an extremely expensive exception. The format in general can’t do it. The extreme cannot define a format targeted at mass release.
> 
> You’ve misquoted me, that’s not what I said.
> ...



Have to run to catch the concert, only to reply regarding the lowest frequency limit.

I " agree " ( about similar meaning as "near DC" ) that the lowest frequency of music is approx 16 Hz. However, there ARE organs that, on purpose, play at 6.x Hz - by substraction from two large pipes, as otherwise a pipe with fundamental of 6.X Hz would simply not fit into available space - too long for anything but the largest cathedrals of the world. 
More recently, there ARE synthesized sounds at big venues that also are considerably lower than 20 Hz.

Please read the B & K paper again - and carefully. There is a reason WHY the tonearm/cartridge should display as little resonance as possible - preferably nil. An arm with the capability of DV-50X  is more than welcome - even if NEVER playing anything lower than say 100 Hz. Please look at just how  detrimental effects this resonance can and DOES lead. If more people relized this, there would be more tonearms at more affordable prices offering at least partially the performance of the DV-50X. Such an arm that has this fundamental resonance well sorted out would not produce "wow/flutter" on any normally warped record when playing back piano, for example. It can transform - literally - the listening experience from the entire record library. In that sense, it is NOT  expensive.
 Back in the day, there also was NAD 5120 turntable - which CAN  be adjusted to tune out practically any resonance in vertical direction . That one was always a near budget model, offering a superb replay of all normal records. Unfortunately, it did not do a thing regarding horizontal resonance.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> You’re not understanding the purpose of blind testing. Blatantly obvious differences are by definition blatantly obvious. You don’t need blind tests to prove that. However when you have two very similar sounds to compare, blind testing is the best way to make sure bias doesn’t creep in and skew the results. That is the purpose of blind testing. I understand that you cling to your bias about the best way to evaluate audio equipment on philosophical grounds, but because of that you don’t seem to be able to understand the basic purpose and need for blind testing. You’re trying to think up excuses for just going with your gut biases. I don’t need to address your points about too short listening times and all that stuff because we’ve already answered and dispatched those arguments and you didn’t listen.



I didn't realize I was here to "listen" to a few people who presume to have everything figured out, and my comment wasn't specifically directed to you or anyone else, so you're under no obligation to respond.  You might try toning down the condescension and seeing how that goes.  Maybe your messages would be better received, you would understand the point of view of others better, and might even learn something.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> The "downside" is that what you're left with is NOT binaural! Your whole argument is based on the accuracy of "spatiality" even to the point of you repeatedly stating and defending your opinion that "spatiality is the ONLY issue". Your "downside" so damages the "spatiality" that what you're left with is hardly even stereo, let alone the combination of precise timings, levels and freq content (HRTFs) that define "Binaural" in the first place and differentiates it from ordinary/standard stereo. As Pinnahertz stated, either it's binaural or it's not! Your suggestion, in effect, of a "compromised binaural" is just nonsense you've invented. Taking it to the extreme to illustrate the point: Summing together the left and right mics/channels of a binaural recording would be, according to your (invented) definition, "compromised binaural" but in reality of course it would just be mono, it wouldn't even be some type of stereo, let alone the very specific type defined as binaural!!



I'm not summing together left and right channels to mono of a binaural recording (who is?). I am for releasing it as it is. 



gregorio said:


> Your last statement is true, one does have to make the best compromises. As we're going to loose the accuracy of spatial information either way, the best compromise is the one which provides more control, including control of the stereo image and therefore we don't have to also compromise stereo width as your suggestion does. The best compromise is therefore virtually always multi-miking! Of course, you're never going to accept this because you have a personal agenda which includes an irrational hatred of multi-mic'ing just on principle. So, you're simply going to "parrot" some actual facts, misrepresent, redefine or make up other facts to defend your agenda and then cry "semantics" or "why are you picking on me" when challenged.



I don't hate multi-mic'ing.



gregorio said:


> And, what's all this nonsense about "near DC", it's the same nonsense as "compromised binaural". It's either DC or its AC. Hertz is cycles per second, therefore a current/wave has to actually have cycles per second in order to have ANY Hz value and therefore having a Hz value is what differentiates AC from DC by definition in the first place! "Near DC" is nonsense, it's either one OR the other. If a plane flies 6ft above the ground at 30mph is it nearly a horse?
> 
> G



Okay then. My bad. Never thought the term "near DC" is this poisonous.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> [1] I'm not summing together left and right channels to mono of a binaural recording (who is?). [1a] I am for releasing it as it is.
> [2] I don't hate multi-mic'ing.
> [3] Okay then. My bad. Never thought the term "near DC" is this poisonous.



1. You missed the part where I said I was taking it to "the extreme to illustrate the point". Your suggestion for editing/processing would in fact result in a narrowed, more mono mix, even if it offered the level of separation you seem to think, which in practice it does not.
1a. Which is NOT going to happen because without any editing or processing the recording is virtually always going to sound at least somewhat amateur, which is the VERY LAST THING any of the musicians, artists, engineers, producer or label want. This would be even more obvious if there were an edited, processed, multi-mic'ed, professional sounding version to compare it with!!

2. In that case, you've done a pretty convincing impression of someone who does.

3. Great, you're halfway there. Now all you've got to do is realise the same is true of "compromised binaural", it's either binaural or it's not.

G


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] I " agree " ( about similar meaning as "near DC" ) that the lowest frequency of music is approx 16 Hz. [
> [2] More recently, there ARE synthesized sounds at big venues that also are considerably lower than 20 Hz.



1. There are very few organs which have 16Hz pipes and except for those organs, the "lowest frequency of music" is about an octave higher (30+Hz) and even that is very unusual!
2. Evidence or it's nonsense!!

I don't get why you're even talking about all this nonsense anyway. 16/44 can virtually perfectly record down to any of these freqs *and much lower) and obviously doesn't suffer ANY of the problems with vinyl and tomearms!!

G


----------



## bigshot (May 29, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Back in the day, there also was NAD 5120 turntable - which CAN  be adjusted to tune out practically any resonance in vertical direction . That one was always a near budget model, offering a superb replay of all normal records. Unfortunately, it did not do a thing regarding horizontal resonance.



The grooves in LP records are lateral, not vertical. Cancelling out horizontal sound would cancel out the music in the grooves.



Phronesis said:


> I didn't realize I was here to "listen" to a few people who presume to have everything figured out



I noticed that.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Subharmonic synthesizers at clubs are definitely a thing, although getting any given club's gear list is probably not achievable with a quick google.  DBX makes (made?) at least 3 different subharmonic synthesizers which are meant for club use.  However, the specs I could find (on the 120 series) seem to indicate the frequency range bottoms at 26hz.  I didn't really feel like spending the time to see if there are sub-audio synths in use today.


----------



## bigshot

Perhaps Sensurround...


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> The grooves in LP records are lateral, not vertical. Cancelling out horizontal sound would cancel out the music in the grooves.


On mono records the stylus moves horizontally. With stereo records the left and right channels are coded as orthogonal ±45° movements and the stylus moves vertically too for channel difference signal. Canceling out horizontal sound would cancel out the music only with mono records while with stereo records only channel difference would remain.


----------



## bigshot

That isn't terribly desirable!


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. You missed the part where I said I was taking it to "the extreme to illustrate the point". Your suggestion for editing/processing would in fact result in a narrowed, more mono mix, even if it offered the level of separation you seem to think, which in practice it does not.
> 1a. Which is NOT going to happen because without any editing or processing the recording is virtually always going to sound at least somewhat amateur, which is the VERY LAST THING any of the musicians, artists, engineers, producer or label want. This would be even more obvious if there were an edited, processed, multi-mic'ed, professional sounding version to compare it with!!
> 
> 2. In that case, you've done a pretty convincing impression of someone who does.
> ...


1. Is "more mono" a thing? Maybe it's just mono or non-mono and more mono doesn't exist just as near DC doesn't. If a type of prosessing makes the sound worse then obviously you cancel the operation and try something else or do nothing.
1a. So how did Zenph do it? Doesn't sound amateurish to me.
2. I proposed multi-mic'ed + binaural versions on a double CD and to you that is somehow hating multi-mic'ed and loving binaural?
3. I'm halfway getting totally fed up with you. You don't give any slack do you? To you everything is black (binaural) or white (not binaural). I see *50 shades of gray* and tons of *colors*… …and you make me see red.


----------



## bigshot

I listened to a little more of the Chesky disc and it sounds pretty mediocre. I don't see what the purpose of binaural is actually. If this is an example of the best binaural has to offer, I won't be seeking out more. Doing a dual disc would be a waste of space to me.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> Blatantly obvious differences are by definition blatantly obvious. You don’t need blind tests to prove that.



I just wanted to point out that sometimes blatantly obvious differences with sighted listening evaluations are not necessarily audibly different at all when attempting to identify a difference blinded.  Although, this is where the blind testing is attacked for not being effective.   If the difference is no longer obvious when testing blind, the test must be the problem.


----------



## gregorio (May 29, 2018)

71 dB said:


> 1. Is "more mono" a thing? [1.1] Maybe it's just mono or non-mono and more mono doesn't exist just as near DC doesn't.
> [1.2] If a type of prosessing makes the sound worse then obviously you cancel the operation and try something else or do nothing.
> 1a. So how did Zenph do it?
> 3. I'm halfway getting totally fed up with you. [3a] You don't give any slack do you? [3b] To you everything is black (binaural) or white (not binaural).



1. As you're talking about M/S processing then yes "more mono" is a thing, as MS is effectively mono + stereo and one can reduce the stereo component and leave just the mono component.
1.1. Clearly, there is no DC component in AC, they are two different things. How can you not know this if you were educated as an acoustic engineer?
1.2. Really, I didn't know that. I've only been doing it almost everyday for over 25 years!

1a. As far as I'm aware, they don't!

3. Only halfway? Then you're halfway to how fed up I am with you!
3a. Not if it's contrary to the actual facts and is nonsense, no!
3b. Is this an indirect answer to my question: "_If a plane flies 6ft above the ground at 30mph is it nearly a horse?_" Are you effectively saying "yes, it is nearly a horse" because nothing is black and white and there's a grey area between a plane and horse? Binaural is a type of stereo defined by having a HRTF, therefore, if it doesn't have a HRTF then by definition it's just stereo and is no longer binaural. Do you really not know what binaural is, after all this time and your arguing for it?

G


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> I just wanted to point out that sometimes blatantly obvious differences with sighted listening evaluations are not necessarily audibly different at all when attempting to identify a difference blinded.  Although, this is where the blind testing is attacked for not being effective.   If the difference is no longer obvious when testing blind, the test must be the problem.



I have difficulty seeing how anything other than a subtle difference would be missed by a properly conducted blind test, unless the listener has particularly poor sound/music memory, and is therefore unable to accurately compare X with A and B, despite perceiving A and B differently in real time due to real audible differences.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> I have difficulty seeing how anything other than a subtle difference would be missed by a properly conducted blind test, unless the listener has particularly poor sound/music memory, and is therefore unable to accurately compare X with A and B, despite perceiving A and B differently in real time due to real audible differences.



I think you've misunderstood Sonitus Mirus. I believe he's trying to state that sometimes there are differences which appear to be "blatantly obvious" but in fact don't exist and are therefore not "audibly different at all when attempting to identify a difference blinded".


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> I have difficulty seeing how anything other than a subtle difference would be missed by a properly conducted blind test, unless the listener has particularly poor sound/music memory, and is therefore unable to accurately compare X with A and B, despite perceiving A and B differently in real time due to real audible differences.


That is the rub.  When someone claims to hear veils being lifted or night and day differences that are supposedly clear as a bell, yet nobody is able to show they hear a difference when performing an ABX test, the test is attacked.  It can only show a difference is being identified, nothing more.   The lengths some folks go to try and make ABX tests as fallible as sighted testing is mind boggling.  Just read some of your posts.


----------



## bigshot

sonitus mirus said:


> I just wanted to point out that sometimes blatantly obvious differences with sighted listening evaluations are not necessarily audibly different at all when attempting to identify a difference blinded.  Although, this is where the blind testing is attacked for not being effective.   If the difference is no longer obvious when testing blind, the test must be the problem.



The variable being tested for there is the degree of bias... How much bias does it take to be completely clueless about blind testing? We find that out on a daily basis!


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> I think you've misunderstood Sonitus Mirus. I believe he's trying to state that sometimes there are differences which appear to be "blatantly obvious" but in fact don't exist and are therefore not "audibly different at all when attempting to identify a difference blinded".



Yes, that was my understanding of what he meant.



sonitus mirus said:


> That is the rub.  When someone claims to hear veils being lifted or night and day differences that are supposedly clear as a bell, yet nobody is able to show they hear a difference when performing an ABX test, the test is attacked.  It can only show a difference is being identified, nothing more.   The lengths some folks go to try and make ABX tests as fallible as sighted testing is mind boggling.  Just read some of your posts.



These things are a matter of degree.  Totally uncontrolled sighted tests can be made more reliable by adding some control, even if they're still sighted.  And blind tests can also be more or less reliable, depending on how they're set up and interpreted.  We're liable to get tripped up if we make statements which are too absolute.


----------



## 71 dB (May 29, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. As you're talking about M/S processing then yes "more mono" is a thing, as MS is effectively mono + stereo and one can reduce the stereo component and leave just the mono component.
> 1.1. Clearly, there is no DC component in AC, they are two different things. How can you not know this if you were educated as an acoustic engineer?
> 1.2. Really, I didn't know that. I've only been doing it almost everyday for over 25 years!
> 
> ...


1. One can also reduce mono component… or reduce stereo component at low frequencies and increase at high frequencies… or perhaps even compress these components to make a more constant width for the sound… …the possibilities are huge if one is bold enought to try.
1.1 DC is something that has been constant for infinite years and will be constant for infinite years. Since the duration of our Universe is finite as far as we now, real DC is impossible. Everything we call DC is in reality a collection of very low frequency AC signals which together from something that looks DC to us, but if we looked the signal for infinite years, we would see that it is not real DC after all, because after a finite amout of time it would change, something that DC is not supposed to ever do. How can you not know that if you think you are so smart?
3b. No, I am not here to talk about horses. Defining stereo to have HRTF is not simple, because your HRTF is not the same as mine. So, the definition of binaural is not very accurately defined.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

The Placebo Effect can cure certain types of Asthma and is an effective treatment for Parkinson's - the fact that it can make people hear something (anything! Anything at all!) that isn't there should never come as a surprise.  Auditory hallucinations are also a thing - it's said that as many as 80% of people hear things that aren't there at some point in their lives.  If the brain can invent sound from whole cloth, no wonder that it does so very easily when we give it a little help. 

I can make my tinnitus seem quieter by concentrating on it when I have earplugs in.  If I can make a very distinct tone go away just by thinking, I imagine I can also make all sorts of sounds (and differences in sound quality) appear the same way.


----------



## Phronesis

Zapp_Fan said:


> The Placebo Effect can cure certain types of Asthma and is an effective treatment for Parkinson's - the fact that it can make people hear something (anything! Anything at all!) that isn't there should never come as a surprise.  Auditory hallucinations are also a thing - it's said that as many as 80% of people hear things that aren't there at some point in their lives.  If the brain can invent sound from whole cloth, no wonder that it does so very easily when we give it a little help.
> 
> I can make my tinnitus seem quieter by concentrating on it when I have earplugs in.  If I can make a very distinct tone go away just by thinking, I imagine I can also make all sorts of sounds (and differences in sound quality) appear the same way.



... which raises the idea that maybe it's not so unreasonable to deliberately create such placebo effects to enhance our enjoyment of music, as long as it doesn't involve marketing manipulation and fraud.  These audio systems are essentially audio-focused virtual reality systems, aimed at creating a worthwhile experience, not necessarily a sense of fidelity to a live event (which often never existed anyway).

Sort of related example: For the past few days, I've been trying a borrowed set of Focal Utopia headphones.  It's immediately apparent that they're sort of on the bright side.  If I ask whether the sound is 'realistic', I'm inclined to say there's clearly and consistently an artificial edge to vocals and acoustic instruments.  OTOH, if I ask myself whether I like the experience, the answer is increasingly yes, because there's a level of presence, resolution, and clarity which I'm finding unexpectedly addictive, and it doesn't seem to come at the expense of harshness, sibilance, or fatigue after longer listening sessions (it isn't just boosted treble, there's some clever engineering going on here).  So it may be a case where a bit of realism is worth intentionally trading for enhanced enjoyment.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (May 29, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> ... which raises the idea that maybe it's not so unreasonable to deliberately create such placebo effects to enhance our enjoyment of music, as long as it doesn't involve marketing manipulation and fraud.  These audio systems are essentially audio-focused virtual reality systems, aimed at creating a worthwhile experience, not necessarily a sense of fidelity to a live event (which often never existed anyway).
> 
> Sort of related example: For the past few days, I've been trying a borrowed set of Focal Utopia headphones.  It's immediately apparent that they're sort of on the bright side.  If I ask whether the sound is 'realistic', I'm inclined to say there's clearly and consistently an artificial edge to vocals and acoustic instruments.  OTOH, if I ask myself whether I like the experience, the answer is increasingly yes, because there's a level of presence, resolution, and clarity which I'm finding unexpectedly addictive, and it doesn't seem to come at the expense of harshness, sibilance, or fatigue after longer listening sessions (it isn't just boosted treble, there's some clever engineering going on here).  So it may be a case where a bit of realism is worth intentionally trading for enhanced enjoyment.



Well, there is always "reference vs. preference", which is another debate altogether. 

However, let me be clear in my view that fans of audio gear don't need any encouragement to seek out placebo effects - they seem to do that with great enthusiasm already.  The problem is that they're not recognized as placebo effects - that's sort of a key focus of this section.

I guess going after realism vs. enjoyment is also a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and I basically agree - fool yourself all you want, but fooling other people to get their money is something else.


----------



## bigshot (May 29, 2018)

71 dB said:


> One can also reduce mono component… or reduce stereo component at low frequencies and increase at high frequencies… or perhaps even compress these components to make a more constant width for the sound… …the possibilities are huge if one is bold enought to try.



Wouldn't that smear the individual instruments all over the soundstage like a finger painting?



Zapp_Fan said:


> fans of audio gear don't need any encouragement to seek out placebo effects - they seem to do that with great enthusiasm already.



And there's a whole industry built by high end audio snake oil salesmen to feed that desire!


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Blind testing is good, makes sense to do it.  If there are big differences, blind tests should disclose them, though such differences should also be apparent for many/most listeners from sighted but otherwise reasonably controlled tests (matching volumes and short music segments, and having instant switching between A and B).  But blind tests do have possible issues with generalizability (external validity), picking up subtle differences which make a difference during extended listening, gauging the character and extent of differences (rather than just getting a p-value), and potential false positives (cheating).  No one approach is the royal road to Truth as long as human perception and memory are part of the system.  We shouldn't polarize and oversimplify the issue by going to extremes in either direction - whether we like it or not, the reality of this stuff is complex.  IMO, both objectivism and subjectivism are each misguided and incomplete, and reflect an overly ideological rather than 'scientific' evidence-based approach.


if your test doesn't extend over a long period, then obviously it's not testing for long term impacts... the rest goes with the same idea. you test for something specific, if your test doesn't, you failed at setting it up. that's all.
but the added uncertainty from a sighted experience will always remain and screw with both your data and your confidence in it. because without controls, you have no evidence of anything, and it blows my mind how easily audiophiles can disregard that "detail". how can you treat both methods as if somehow similar in significance and flaws? it's the one case where talking about night and day differences is really legitimate for audio.

silly anecdote time: people can get hurt on a bike wearing a helmet, they can also get hurt holding a spoon while on the bike. so both tools are flawed. both premises are true, the conclusion is true. but approaching the problem that way is completely irrational and makes a joke of wearing a helmet for protection. it's the same thing when someone tries to argue that his sighted impressions are just as or sometimes even more relevant than a blind test for the same variable. even when the guy is right about his impression(after all, that happens), the simple concept of challenging a controlled test with a sighted one shows the deep misunderstanding about how legitimate data is acquired.


----------



## castleofargh

Zapp_Fan said:


> Subharmonic synthesizers at clubs are definitely a thing, although getting any given club's gear list is probably not achievable with a quick google.  DBX makes (made?) at least 3 different subharmonic synthesizers which are meant for club use.  However, the specs I could find (on the 120 series) seem to indicate the frequency range bottoms at 26hz.  I didn't really feel like spending the time to see if there are sub-audio synths in use today.


I had a stepfather who owned 2 night clubs. his quest for sub magic stopped with neighbors inviting him to the tribunal. he spent a fortune trying to improve isolation but there is only so much you can do for low freqs.


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> I see no point spending a lot of money on esoteric equipment to squeeze inaudible sound out of a format that is inferior from the start. All this discussion about fancy tone arms is irrelevant to this thread, and I don't think anyone here is interested in that subject but you.


Hmmm, I am also guilty of that.  However, I can attest to that, having spent over $6k on my cartridge and tone arm (audiophool, I know…) and hours of tedious alignment to the turntable and adjustments to the pre-amp.  You do quickly reach a point where it is not possible to get past the limitations of the actual LP.  Funnily enough, the better my turntable the more it sounded like good 16/44, particularly in the ability to discriminate between different masterings of the same album.  However, on the negative side, I also notice more the vinyl cutting inaccuracies in the lower and upper frequency registers, which varies from record to record which further illustrates that the vinyl record itself is the handicap no matter how good the turntable/cart/pre-amp setup.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Have to run to catch the concert, only to reply regarding the lowest frequency limit.
> 
> I " agree " ( about similar meaning as "near DC" ) that the lowest frequency of music is approx 16 Hz. However, there ARE organs that, on purpose, play at 6.x Hz - by substraction from two large pipes, as otherwise a pipe with fundamental of 6.X Hz would simply not fit into available space - too long for anything but the largest cathedrals of the world.
> More recently, there ARE synthesized sounds at big venues that also are considerably lower than 20 Hz.


I really don't care if you want to cite exceptional extremes.  I figured you'd cite the (very rare and unusual) organ with effectively 64' pipes, but seriously, the acoustic wavelength produced won't fit in the cathedral either.  You've nit-picked to something that is truly unusual, exceptional, and pretty much inaudible.  If you think an LP could reproduced the level required for 6Hz to be audible, even with the rotary sub, you're nuts.  Not a chance.  Synthesized sounds at big venues? Why on earth are you mentioning that?  Are you planning a direct-to-disc recording of them?  Please stop this nonsense posting!


analogsurviver said:


> Please read the B & K paper again - and carefully. There is a reason WHY the tonearm/cartridge should display as little resonance as possible - preferably nil. An arm with the capability of DV-50X  is more than welcome - even if NEVER playing anything lower than say 100 Hz. Please look at just how  detrimental effects this resonance can and DOES lead. If more people relized this, there would be more tonearms at more affordable prices offering at least partially the performance of the DV-50X. Such an arm that has this fundamental resonance well sorted out would not produce "wow/flutter" on any normally warped record when playing back piano, for example. It can transform - literally - the listening experience from the entire record library. In that sense, it is NOT  expensive.


I'm sorry, I simply can't get any of that from the B&K paper.  It's pretty much an application note for their 4416 unit and their test records.  Here's what I found:
93: describes the Type 4416 Test Unit, features and uses

94-95: block diagram of 4416, graphs of the various response curves available, description of inputs and uses, beginning of discussion of settings for specific applications: 1. LIN for use with preamplifiers with built in EQ
2. Measuring unequalized signals such as specific test records
3. Measurements using B&K test records that are neither unequalized, nor RIAA

Discussion of inputs for tape recorders, interconnection to other B&K devices such as level recorders, filters, analyzers, and control interface

96: Test record discussion, the need for special records resulting from the problem of using constant amplitude test signals with RIAA EQ, and why the QR 2009 and QR 2010 have different EQ.  Material the records are made of, and packaged in boxes of 5.

QR 2009 details, for production control of pick-ups, special modulation with level records sync signal.

97 QR 2010 test record discussion - designed for lab measurements on pick-ups, various bands and functions detailed, Bands 3 through 7 are intended to determine maximum velocity that a pick-up stylus can track a groove.  Band 10 and 12 are intended for crosstalk measurements.  The entire record is recorded using IEC Pub. 98, which is constant velocity above 1kHz (not RIAA), and requires the 4416 to “normalize” the results. This means the 45kHz signal will be extremely low level.  Page 97 discusses how to measure crosstalk.

Page 90, QR 2011 test record, designed for complete audio reproduction systems, including room acoustics.

Signals include 1/3 octave pink-weighted noise, phase check, sine sweep, wide range distribution.

Page 99 - chart of specs of the test records by band.

Page 100 - specification list for the 4416 device and QR 2009, QR 2010 and QR 2011 records.

I’m not too sure which page or specification you wanted to call my attention to.  Perhaps the 5-50kHz low level sweep?

Again I must point out, these are TEST RECORDS meant to be used either with the B&K 4416 and a level recorder, or a complete system using 1/3 octave band pink noise.  None of this illustrates what an entire real LP system can do for several reasons, not the least of which is the IEC R98 curve, and B&K’s own 75uS curve.

Not a word about tone arm resonance in any of that.  Did you perhaps link to the wrong document?


analogsurviver said:


> Back in the day, there also was NAD 5120 turntable - which CAN  be adjusted to tune out practically any resonance in vertical direction . That one was always a near budget model, offering a superb replay of all normal records. Unfortunately, it did not do a thing regarding horizontal resonance.


So, "back in the day" you've found one budget unit that did a half-baked job?  And THAT's what you want to use to substantiate your arguments? 

Come on now.  Be serious.  If you have an infinite budget, and want to record your own lacquer with your own record characteristic at your own speed, then play with your own arm, cart, stylus and preamp, fine. Go nuts.  I don't care, and neither would anyone else because we couldn't play your one-off record!  I'm surprised you haven't cited analog data recorders that have huge frequency response, including DC, used special tape, speed, and modulation techniques.  You could use one to record a one-off audio recording nobody but you could play, it'd be all analog, not duplicatable, editable, or releasable.  That doesn't prove anything. 

And, did I mention this before?  None of this has anything to do with binaural!


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> I really don't care if you want to cite exceptional extremes.  I figured you'd cite the (very rare and unusual) organ with effectively 64' pipes, but seriously, the acoustic wavelength produced won't fit in the cathedral either.  You've nit-picked to something that is truly unusual, exceptional, and pretty much inaudible.  If you think an LP could reproduced the level required for 6Hz to be audible, even with the rotary sub, you're nuts.  Not a chance.  Synthesized sounds at big venues? Why on earth are you mentioning that?  Are you planning a direct-to-disc recording of them?  Please stop this nonsense posting!
> I'm sorry, I simply can't get any of that from the B&K paper.  It's pretty much an application note for their 4416 unit and their test records.  Here's what I found:
> 93: describes the Type 4416 Test Unit, features and uses
> 
> ...



Sorry, my bad. Did not EVER occur to me that link to B&K paper you refer to might have even a 0.000...1 % importance/relevance compared to the paper from the same B&K, linked just a few posts before ; the link you refer to has been posted just as reference/refresh/reminder of analogue record facts that are either unknown or nearly forgotten by most in the digital age.

Here the correct link again : *Audible Effects of Mechanical Resonances in Turntables*
http://www.theanalogdept.com/images/spp6_pics/TT_Design/MechanicalResonances.pdf

Now, I would like to point out WHY  are the exceptional cases like this one with 6.x Hz organ - important. Because it opens the can of worms - or Pandora's box, if you prefer - that everything else is either completely unaware of tries to "conviniently" sweep everything under the rug. For analogue record playback, it sure is a quicker and infinitely easier solution to use subsonic filter - but, as you can see from the paper, the flapping woofers are only the tip of the iceberg - and by merely making them unvisible on the surface by "clipping away the part that raises above the water" , that does not mean our ship won't crash into the remainder of the iceberg still lurking just under the surface - and get sunk as a consequence.
( BTW, a turntable that has so stable performance that fooled ME into checking whether the signal on the oscilloscope is coming from the signal generator and not off the test record does exist - but based on your reaction to the price of the DV-507MK2 arm, the less said - the better ).

Digital has no such problems in the bass - it can go right down to DC, if so required.

Regardless of the medium 6.x Hz is - accurately - recorded to, it is meant for PRECISELY the same reason as in live music - to underline/increase the involvement of the listener by SENSING it.
Now, I did NOT perform any spectrum anylysis on the following recordings (probably shot with a camera or smartphone , rolled off way above what the instrument can really deliver )- but they ARE A REAL THING :



The organ with which the Miller & Kreisel direct to disk recording of the Purcell's The Bells of Anne de Beaupre has been recorded no longer exists. It has been dismantled and "merged" with yet another instrument of the same size (IIRC - some 6000+ pipes per each original instrument ...) . I forgot the names, places and years, but you can google if interested. I HIGHLY  doubt that the new "mergerorgan" did not inherit the 6.x Hz fundamental ...

The space for the 6.x Hz to develop is HUGE - and, no individual is likely to posses it. Compared to the price of such a building, the price of the rotary subwoofer is not even worth mentioning. However, staying within reasonable limits of us mere mortals, using good headphones and some form of "body shaker", one should get pretty close to the sensation of attending a live concert in a church or venue a continent apart. And the recording feeding those headphones and "body shaker" ( + conventional subwoofer + rotary subwoofer for the rich ) could just as well be - binaural.

A propos organ eccentricities hors d'categorie : browsing the records in a store couple of decades ago, I stumbled upon something so out of ordinary I could not but to buy the album - if nothing else, for the story. Some very rich American guy fell in love with "some" organ in Scotland. That organ was a part of a castle on the bank/cliff/seaside - by the sea. That infatuation with that particular instrument proved to be soooooo irresistible that - he bought the entire castle, dismantled it to the last piece and brick, numbering and cataloging everything - and rebuilt, brick by brick, piece by piece - the castle in reverse, on some similar location by the sea, back in America ...  The organist on that record is Richard Elsasser; haven't played that one for a while, might decide to give it a spin...

Regarding your request about CD-4 carrier amplitude - I did try to find it online, but the only paper with - presumably - the exact values is behind the paywall of the AES.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2152
 I did find this video that - despite the totally inadequate cartridge used ( CD-4 carrier is a VERY delicate thing ... and CD-4 records that preserved their HF carrier to this day too valuable to play them back using a conical (!) stylus ) does at least hint at the level(s) . Which are rather low/small - as predicted and expected.



I would try a quadradisk in a hearbeat using an equivalent setup IF I possesed a single one - but, quadro, and CD-4  in particular, was more or less American and Japanese Thing. I never even saw that CD-4 "rainbow pattern" ...
From quadro recordings I do possess but have listened to them only in conventional stereo, here one I could find its data on Discogs : 
https://www.discogs.com/Mahler-Czec...-Václav-Neumann-Symphony-No-7/release/5845181
And that is, as you can see, recorded in quadro using SQ - and like other quadro LPs in my collection, not in the CD-4.

Damn... " she said her stereo was four-way " : https://www.discogs.com/Frank-Zappa-And-The-Mothers-Overnite-Sensation/release/5689759
Being a Zappa fan, this might prove costly ... CD-4 decoder ( that means, for all practical purposes, importing used from the USA ), not to mention the record itself ( none quadradisc I could find for sale ... - all conventional stereo, which I already have ).





*
*


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Wouldn't that smear the individual instruments all over the soundstage like a finger painting?


Yes, if the original signal was on point, but why would we do anything if it was. The whole point of signal prosessing it to correct problems. You have a problem and you fix it if you can. Sometimes you can't fix it 100 % but only partially. You take it, because that's the best you can do. So, you smear if that fixes bigger problems.


----------



## Phronesis (May 30, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> if your test doesn't extend over a long period, then obviously it's not testing for long term impacts... the rest goes with the same idea. you test for something specific, if your test doesn't, you failed at setting it up. that's all.
> but the added uncertainty from a sighted experience will always remain and screw with both your data and your confidence in it. because without controls, you have no evidence of anything, and it blows my mind how easily audiophiles can disregard that "detail". how can you treat both methods as if somehow similar in significance and flaws? it's the one case where talking about night and day differences is really legitimate for audio.
> 
> silly anecdote time: people can get hurt on a bike wearing a helmet, they can also get hurt holding a spoon while on the bike. so both tools are flawed. both premises are true, the conclusion is true. but approaching the problem that way is completely irrational and makes a joke of wearing a helmet for protection. it's the same thing when someone tries to argue that his sighted impressions are just as or sometimes even more relevant than a blind test for the same variable. even when the guy is right about his impression(after all, that happens), the simple concept of challenging a controlled test with a sighted one shows the deep misunderstanding about how legitimate data is acquired.



It would be nice if audio testing had the same scale and rigor as the randomized placebo-controlled DBTs used in medicine, but realistically that's not going to happen.  So I look at audio testing from a practical standpoint, as far as what consumers can do and what they can get out of it.

Sighted A/B testing is easier than unsighted because a helper isn't needed and it can be more qualitative.  By adding controls like matching level and short music segments, a listener can do variations on the sequencing of A and B and the time gaps between A and B, can focus on specific attributes of the music segment (detail, stage, bass, decay, etc.), and can get a sense of how these things affect results.  For example, in comparing two DAC/amps, I found that the differences I sometimes perceived with a few seconds of gap between A and B pretty much disappeared when the gap was reduced to zero.  That's an interesting observation in itself, and generates hypotheses like "if I allow myself a few seconds to think about how I expect A or B to sound, maybe that influences how I perceive them, whereas if I switch instantly, maybe my perception is more accurate because I don't have time to prime it with expectations."

If you instead do blinded ABX, you eliminate the uncertainty associated with the influence of the test being sighted, but you add the complication of having to listen to and try to remember the sound of both A and B before trying to judge which one X is.  With all listening tests, whether sighted or not, we're stuck with the problem that we can never compare A and B directly, at the same time, instead having to sequence them and compare memories of sounds with what's being heard in the moment.  I think that's a fundamental problem and pitfall, and I'm surprised that people don't talk about it more.  Then add in contrast effects: how does what you just heard influence your perception of what you're hearing now?  For the past few days, I've been comparing two headphones, and I find that listening to one for a while greatly influences how the other initially sounds, and that influence diminishes over time according to something like an exponential decay over the course of seconds, minutes, and even hours.  An alternate blinded approach to possibly alleviate some of these issues would be listening to A and B back and forth in that order, for extended durations each, judging which one is liked more, the extent of liking it more, and the reasons why, and repeating that for multiple trials and seeing if A or B consistently comes out the winner.  You don't even need a p-value with this, since something perceived to sound better should consistently sound better, not just say 65% of the time.  (BTW, I don't see how blinding is possible with headphones, given that they feel different on the head.)

My point is that there are lots of variations on the tests we can do, and each test can have its own value.  Blinding has obvious advantages over sighted, but sighted also has some benefits from practical and other standpoints.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, my bad. Did not EVER occur to me that link to B&K paper you refer to might have even a 0.000...1 % importance/relevance compared to the paper from the same B&K, linked just a few posts before ; the link you refer to has been posted just as reference/refresh/reminder of analogue record facts that are either unknown or nearly forgotten by most in the digital age.
> 
> Here the correct link again : *Audible Effects of Mechanical Resonances in Turntables*
> http://www.theanalogdept.com/images/spp6_pics/TT_Design/MechanicalResonances.pdf


I will read the paper later.


analogsurviver said:


> Now, I would like to point out WHY  are the exceptional cases like this one with 6.x Hz organ - important. Because it opens the can of worms - or Pandora's box, if you prefer - that everything else is either completely unaware of tries to "conviniently" sweep everything under the rug. For analogue record playback, it sure is a quicker and infinitely easier solution to use subsonic filter - but, as you can see from the paper, the flapping woofers are only the tip of the iceberg - and by merely making them unvisible on the surface by "clipping away the part that raises above the water" , that does not mean our ship won't crash into the remainder of the iceberg still lurking just under the surface - and get sunk as a consequence.
> ( BTW, a turntable that has so stable performance that fooled ME into checking whether the signal on the oscilloscope is coming from the signal generator and not off the test record does exist - but based on your reaction to the price of the DV-507MK2 arm, the less said - the better ).
> 
> Digital has no such problems in the bass - it can go right down to DC, if so required.


So...lets see now...a turntable with a $5500 arm to attempt to solve a severe quality limitation of the medium, or a garden variety digital player.  Hmmm. 


analogsurviver said:


> Regardless of the medium 6.x Hz is - accurately - recorded to, it is meant for PRECISELY the same reason as in live music - to underline/increase the involvement of the listener by SENSING it.
> Now, I did NOT perform any spectrum anylysis on the following recordings (probably shot with a camera or smartphone , rolled off way above what the instrument can really deliver )- but they ARE A REAL THING :


No, "THEY" are not a real thing!  Didn't you see the title of the video?  It's "THE ONLY" one.  You've again found the extreme, and are again attempting to use it to validate an opinion. 


analogsurviver said:


> The organ with which the Miller & Kreisel direct to disk recording of the Purcell's The Bells of Anne de Beaupre has been recorded no longer exists. It has been dismantled and "merged" with yet another instrument of the same size (IIRC - some 6000+ pipes per each original instrument ...) . I forgot the names, places and years, but you can google if interested. I HIGHLY  doubt that the new "mergerorgan" did not inherit the 6.x Hz fundamental ...
> 
> The space for the 6.x Hz to develop is HUGE - and, no individual is likely to posses it. Compared to the price of such a building, the price of the rotary subwoofer is not even worth mentioning. However, staying within reasonable limits of us mere mortals, using good headphones and some form of "body shaker", one should get pretty close to the sensation of attending a live concert in a church or venue a continent apart. And the recording feeding those headphones and "body shaker" ( + conventional subwoofer + rotary subwoofer for the rich ) could just as well be - binaural.


The existence of a rare source of intended sound at 6Hz doesn't have anything to do with the capability of a practical reproducing device to reproduce it. 


analogsurviver said:


> Regarding your request about CD-4 carrier amplitude - I did try to find it online, but the only paper with - presumably - the exact values is behind the paywall of the AES.
> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2152


You didn't read it?  So you don't know?  You're not done then.  Find out the level a CD-4 carrier is recorded at.


analogsurviver said:


> I did find this video that - despite the totally inadequate cartridge used ( CD-4 carrier is a VERY delicate thing ... and CD-4 records that preserved their HF carrier to this day too valuable to play them back using a conical (!) stylus ) does at least hint at the level(s) . Which are rather low/small - as predicted and expected.


That's a tiny part of the story.   Keep digging.


analogsurviver said:


> I would try a quadradisk in a hearbeat using an equivalent setup IF I possesed a single one - but, quadro, and CD-4  in particular, was more or less American and Japanese Thing. I never even saw that CD-4 "rainbow pattern" ...


Been there, done that.  I have experienced CD-4.  There were HUGE problems. 


analogsurviver said:


> From quadro recordings I do possess but have listened to them only in conventional stereo, here one I could find its data on Discogs :
> https://www.discogs.com/Mahler-Czech-Philharmonic-Orchestra-Václav-Neumann-Symphony-No-7/release/5845181
> And that is, as you can see, recorded in quadro using SQ - and like other quadro LPs in my collection, not in the CD-4.


I hope you're not going to now extol the virtues of SQ.  I recorded, encoded and broadcast SQ!  Please....do NOT go there. 


analogsurviver said:


> Damn... " she said her stereo was four-way " : https://www.discogs.com/Frank-Zappa-And-The-Mothers-Overnite-Sensation/release/5689759
> Being a Zappa fan, this might prove costly ... CD-4 decoder ( that means, for all practical purposes, importing used from the USA ), not to mention the record itself ( none quadradisc I could find for sale ... - all conventional stereo, which I already have ).


And 4 identical speakers in the proper symmetrical room with your head locked in the exact center.

_*I've refuted every claim you've made so far, either in principle, practicality, or just with raw science. *_ Your arguments all hang on extreme or exotic examples and situations to prove a point that has no practical application in the real world.  That's every example, every point.  I have little doubt that the new B&K paper will be any different. 

You need to re-evaluate what you're trying to achieve here.   If being one of your "converts" demands exotic and expensive equipment to play back one record, I don't think you're going to get many followers. 

The existence of an extreme example doesn't validate the application or necessity that it be accommodated.  There are no speakers made that can reproduce .55Hz.  There is one speaker made that can reproduce 6Hz, and one or possibly two organs that might generate it.  You are not even dealing with the *level* of that 6Hz groove, or what else a 2Hz subwoofer is going to produce from an LP, the fact that an entire room must be built with special ducting to accommodate it, or that the turn table would likely have to be in a separate isolated building or you'd have sub-sonic acoustic feedback! 

If you recorded a 6Hz musical signal, I know of_* no studio or mastering lab*_ that could monitor it audibly, or even hear it at all.  If you could cut a 6Hz groove, *virtually nobody could play it. * If you put 6Hz on a digital recording it doesn't change the fact that* virtually nobody could reproduce it!*  DO NOT, now, GO OFF AND CITE EXTREME EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE THAT COULD!!!!!   I said "virtually nobody", and that is an absolutely correct statement!  I can also, correctly, state that virtually nobody can reproduce a 50kHz signal in a listening room!  Don't cite speakers or just tweeters that have response up there, you can't get it to the ears reliably! The ears are not structured to handle 50kHz.  

The fact that you could get 6Hz or 50kHz onto and off a record at extremely low levels doesn't prove the format is useful for recording and reproducing those signals at all, or that they are useful or reproducible acoustically!

Now, if you have real scientific data or information that actually substantiates even one of your audiophile claims and myths, post it.  Post the mythical pictures.  Post the mythical files.  Prove your point or just stop wasting our time.


----------



## gregorio (May 30, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Now, I would like to point out WHY are the exceptional cases like this one with 6.x Hz organ - important. [1a] Because it opens the can of worms - or Pandora's box, if you prefer - that everything else is either completely unaware of tries to "conviniently" sweep everything under the rug.
> [2] However, staying within reasonable limits of us mere mortals, using good headphones and some form of "body shaker", one should get pretty close to the sensation of attending a live concert in a church or venue a continent apart.



1. What exceptional cases? You've only mentioned one particular organ and that has apparently been dismantled, do you know of another? If not, then there are no exceptional cases!
1a. What can of worms or Pandora's box? Even if there is another extremely exceptional organ, does it's existence mean that all other musical instruments suddenly magically produce frequencies that low? How can "everything else" conveniently "sweep everything under the rug" if that "everything" doesn't exist?

2. What live concert, a live concert of a dismantled organ? If it's a live concert of say a choir then there's no musical content below about 80Hz or an orchestra, nothing below about 32Hz even then, only in exceptional circumstances.

Again, just more utter nonsense. It's off topic, not even related to the sub-discussion of binaural and most of it actually contradicts what you're arguing for, as 16/44 doesn't have any of the tone-arm/cartridge problems of vinyl! Either you're deliberately trolling or there's some fairly serious mental health issue being demonstrated. @castleofargh, don't you think it's time to step in?



71 dB said:


> 1. One can also reduce mono component… or reduce stereo component at low frequencies and increase at high frequencies… or perhaps even compress these components to make a more constant width for the sound… …the possibilities are huge if one is bold enought to try.
> 1.1 DC is something that has been constant for infinite years and will be constant for infinite years. Since the duration of our Universe is finite as far as we now, real DC is impossible. Everything we call DC is in reality a collection of very low frequency AC signals which together from something that looks DC to us, but if we looked the signal for infinite years, we would see that it is not real DC after all, because after a finite amout of time it would change, something that DC is not supposed to ever do. How can you not know that if you think you are so smart?
> 3b. Defining stereo to have HRTF is not simple, because your HRTF is not the same as mine.
> [3c] So, the definition of binaural is not very accurately defined.



1. If one is bold enough to try what, using some recording technique other than binaural in the first place? Everything you mentioned and pretty much all of those other "possibilities" damage or completely destroy/eliminate one or more of the fundamental elements of a HRTF. So it's no longer a HRTF and therefore it's no longer binaural!!!

1.1. Just to pre-empt any other silliness: DC doesn't exist because it's also affected by: Gravitational waves, interactions with weakly interacting particles such as neutrinos and dark matter and god only knows what dark energy does to DC. And, yes you are talking about horses because all matter on earth is an arrangement of atoms which were probably created in the same supernova and therefore a horse, a plane and a binaural mic setup are in fact all the same thing! Are we done with your silly arguments about DC yet or do you want to play some more?

3b. Defining stereo to have a HRTF is simple, just get a dummy head (or use your own) and a couple of decent mics, that's it! Whether that HRTF is the same as my HRTF is a different matter altogether! Obviously you can have different  Head Related Transfer Functions because people have different heads and just because a HRTF is different to another HRTF doesn't stop both still being HRTFs. What DOES stop it being a HRTF is if we apply some additional transfer function (processing) which results in a combined transfer function which is no longer a HEAD RELATED transfer function. And again, if there is no longer a HRTF then it is no "binaural"!
3c. Nonsense, the definition of binaural recording is very accurately defined; it's a stereo mic'ing technique which incorporates a HRTF. What's not well defined is precisely what values that HRTF should have. Surely you must know all this, given your claimed education, or are you just employing the old tactic of doing exactly what you've falsely accusing others of???



71 dB said:


> [1] The whole point of signal prosessing it to correct problems.
> [2] Sometimes you can't fix it 100 % but only partially. You take it, because that's the best you can do. So, you smear if that fixes bigger problems.



1. Absolutely it's not, you've just made that up!! Certainly correcting problems is one reason for signal processing but there are many other creative reasons for signal processing which have nothing to do with correcting problems, this has been true of signal processing for over 50 years!

2. Exactly but now you're contradicting what you've been arguing about for pages! I agree, "you smear" to fix the bigger problems but you've repeatedly stated and argued that there are no bigger problems, in fact no other issues/problems at all, the "ONLY issue" as far as you're concerned is timing/spatiality. Now you're saying the exact opposite!!

G


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> The grooves in LP records are lateral, not vertical. Cancelling out horizontal sound would cancel out the music in the grooves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> It would be nice if audio testing had the same scale and rigor as the randomized placebo-controlled DBTs used in medicine, but realistically that's not going to happen.  So I look at audio testing from a practical standpoint, as far as what consumers can do and what they can get out of it.
> 
> Sighted A/B testing is easier than unsighted because a helper isn't needed and it can be more qualitative.  By adding controls like matching level and short music segments, a listener can do variations on the sequencing of A and B and the time gaps between A and B, can focus on specific attributes of the music segment (detail, stage, bass, decay, etc.), and can get a sense of how these things affect results.  For example, in comparing two DAC/amps, I found that the differences I sometimes perceived with a few seconds of gap between A and B pretty much disappeared when the gap was reduced to zero.  That's an interesting observation in itself, and generates hypotheses like "if I allow myself a few seconds to think about how I expect A or B to sound, maybe that influences how I perceive them, whereas if I switch instantly, maybe my perception is more accurate because I don't have time to prime it with expectations."
> 
> ...


having 2 different listening experiences at the same time is impossible. we can play both at once, or listen to a null, but none of those are either of the independent experiences, so no luck there. and we don't discuss that for the same reason we don't discuss why we fail to levitate with our mind. it cannot be done.

about your anecdote. like last time, you lose your skepticism the very second it's about your own impressions. I don't know how you legitimize that in your head, but for someone always looking for flaws, you'll find the jackpot if you start digging there. how do you get conclusive information about sound from a sighted test? how do you even know that sound is the leading cause of your impression in a sighted test? how can you check? how do you demonstrate anything to other people without controls? it blows my mind that you of all people can be fine with such unforgivable limitations and argue in favor of the method(if by method we mean, no method).


----------



## KeithEmo

I strongly recommend that everyone read the actual study (at the link).

Here's one of the most interesting conclusions:
"Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel 
audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and
DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs— sometimes much better."

They concluded that this was almost certainly the case because, even though they didn't detect any audible 
differences when they ran a given recording through a 16/44k "processing loop", virtually all of the "high-resolution"
recordings had simply been mastered at higher quality to begin with.

In other words, their actual conclusion was that _most high resolution versions sounded better than the CDs_.....
just not BECAUSE of their higher sample rate. This would sure seem to suggest that, according to THEIR results,
while recording at a higher sample rate doesn't do anything to improve sound quality, most high-res recordings actually
DO sound better than their CD counterparts "for other reasons". 

In other words, _TAKEN AS A SURVEY OF THE QUALITY OF AVAILABLE CONTENT_, their study was actually a
solid endorsement of high-resolution audio as "usually being superior in sound quality to standard CD content". 



old tech said:


> Interesting that you post a reference to a widely discredited meta analysis which cherry picked the data to support some of the MQA marketing claims.  Even so, the results are not very convincing.
> 
> One of the studies omitted from the meta is the Boston study (I wonder why?), the most comprehensive controlled test that has been conducted.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> having 2 different listening experiences at the same time is impossible. we can play both at once, or listen to a null, but none of those are either of the independent experiences, so no luck there. and we don't discuss that for the same reason we don't discuss why we fail to levitate with our mind. it cannot be done.
> 
> about your anecdote. like last time, you lose your skepticism the very second it's about your own impressions. I don't know how you legitimize that in your head, but for someone always looking for flaws, you'll find the jackpot if you start digging there. *how do you get conclusive information about sound from a sighted test*? how do you even know that sound is the leading cause of your impression in a sighted test? how can you check? how do you demonstrate anything to other people without controls? it blows my mind that you of all people can be fine with such unforgivable limitations and argue in favor of the method(if by method we mean, no method).



I don't think we can get _conclusive_ information from _any_ of the methods.  Best we can do is use various methods and make a judgment, accepting that it involves uncertainty.  That also means that we can't "demonstrate" much to others, and we don't really need to, if the goal is making our own decisions rather than attempting to do science.  I know this section is called Sound Science, but the discussions aren't generally actual scientists doing actual science.  When people like me report observations in this kind of forum, it's not like people submitting papers documenting proper studies for peer review, and shouldn't be viewed as such.  When I want to read science stuff, I read stuff written by scientists in scientific books and periodicals, not forums.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> I will read the paper later.
> So...lets see now...a turntable with a $5500 arm to attempt to solve a severe quality limitation of the medium, or a garden variety digital player.  Hmmm.
> No, "THEY" are not a real thing!  Didn't you see the title of the video?  It's "THE ONLY" one.  You've again found the extreme, and are again attempting to use it to validate an opinion.
> 
> ...



Damn - a B&K paper from 1977 is NEW to you !?!
If so, READ IT. 
Only 41 years too late to the party, pretty shabby for someone who actually in those days did have the access to the making and supervision of also analogue record release. 
I got my real paper copy in 1979 or so - directly from the Bruel & Kjaer representative in what at the time still was Yugoslavia.

I agree with "virtually nobody" But, the recording studio that was CERTIFIED as flat down to 5Hz did exist - IIRC,  somewhere in Africa. The problem has been that the people did not feel comfortable with all the normally unheard - better said UNSENSED - infrasonics of normal handling of microphones, the noise of the heating/cooling/ventilation ( usually all sub/infrasonic ), etc - and has been since rather quickly reconfigured into more smaller recording studios or places with other(quiet) activities. But, in that studio, a proper reproduction of such an 6.x Hz organ - at one time - has been possible.

I agree that it is a hard call to reproduce 50kHz across the room in the vicinity of the listener ear(s) - but not impossible for a SINGLE  listener. However, more studies are required to determine the sensitivity of our skin for the ultrasound - particularly face and areas around the eyes are allegedly more sensitive areas for ultrasound.

A 50 kHz signal can be - easily - reproduced with headphones. Now I am not saying you will hear it directly as a sine wave tone of say - to be on sure side, 10 kHz  -  but the quality or effortlessness, if you will - in the treble you CAN hear will be AUDIBLY improved. Once you get accustomed to this level of quality, chopping off everything above 20 kHz will be perceived as a loss of quality. 

There is absolutely nothing low level at 6.x Hz organ direct to disk recording - and treble beyond 20 kHz up to 50 kHz in music generally also does not exceed the capability of the analogue record playback. However achieving both 6.x Hz and 50 kHz on the same analogue record is impossible - since real time analogue record mastering is limited to approx 27 kHz . And if the recording would be mastered to disk from another source other than live and recorded at lower speed, there is no analogue cutting system that can work well below say 6 Hz - and certainly not at 3 or so Hz, as it would then be required for the cutter head to operate at say half speed mastering.

Although I may come across as someone only interested in the extremes, nothing can be more distant from the truth. I have been citing those extremes only to underline that the entire chain should be as default free as possible to begin with - because, if you stretch the response across so large bandwidth, what you usually get is MUCH less problematic midrange than in case the extremes were simply ignored. The bulk of music and listening is between 100 Hz and 10 kHz.


----------



## KeithEmo

I suspect the effect you mentioned towards the end is largely responsible for what many people believe to be "burn-in" with many components.

Our brains have a sort of normalization function.... whatever we're experiencing eventually becomes "the norm"; after that, it seems normal, and any change seems like a difference.
This works with things like temperature (the old trick where you put your hand in warm water for a while, after which room temperature water feels cool, and vice versa).
It also works very strongly and quickly with light amplitude and color.
Sunlight is really yellow-white, fluorescent bulbs are bluish or greenish, incandescent bulbs are yellowish, and LED lamps vary a lot...
However, whatever light you experience for a while quickly starts to appear "white"; and, when you are exposed to a new color of light, you see it's color RELATIVE to the one you've become adjusted to.
(Just as "off white" paint in a room quickly becomes "your white reference"... and you start to experience the colors of other objects in the room relative to that color reference.)

A similar effect works with our hearing.
If you've ever built a set of speakers, and spent several days adjusting the way they sound, this always happens.
Unless you've been careful to take frequent breaks to listen to other reference speakers, your new ones start to sound "normal", and you start not noticing their quirks.
Then, after a few days, you go back and listen to other speakers, and are amazed at how different they sound that your new ones... and how different they sound from what you "remember" they sound like.
The effect is gradual and cumulative.
In other words, even if the equipment continues to sound exactly the same, your perception of it "burns in" (your "normal pointer" adjusts to match your current experience).



Phronesis said:


> It would be nice if audio testing had the same scale and rigor as the randomized placebo-controlled DBTs used in medicine, but realistically that's not going to happen.  So I look at audio testing from a practical standpoint, as far as what consumers can do and what they can get out of it.
> 
> Sighted A/B testing is easier than unsighted because a helper isn't needed and it can be more qualitative.  By adding controls like matching level and short music segments, a listener can do variations on the sequencing of A and B and the time gaps between A and B, can focus on specific attributes of the music segment (detail, stage, bass, decay, etc.), and can get a sense of how these things affect results.  For example, in comparing two DAC/amps, I found that the differences I sometimes perceived with a few seconds of gap between A and B pretty much disappeared when the gap was reduced to zero.  That's an interesting observation in itself, and generates hypotheses like "if I allow myself a few seconds to think about how I expect A or B to sound, maybe that influences how I perceive them, whereas if I switch instantly, maybe my perception is more accurate because I don't have time to prime it with expectations."
> 
> ...


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> I don't think we can get _conclusive_ information from _any_ of the methods.  Best we can do is use various methods and make a judgment, accepting that it involves uncertainty.  That also means that we can't "demonstrate" much to others, and we don't really need to, if the goal is making our own decisions rather than attempting to do science.  I know this section is called Sound Science, but the discussions aren't generally actual scientists doing actual science.  When people like me report observations in this kind of forum, it's not like people submitting papers documenting proper studies for peer review, and shouldn't be viewed as such.  When I want to read science stuff, I read stuff written by scientists in scientific books and periodicals, not forums.



It is unreasonable to suggest that a sighted listening test can be validated.  An ABX test can at least be validated and repeated to identify a difference.  One method is completely worthless to any discussion of whether the listener is actually hearing a difference, the other method offers a chance to confirm that a difference is actually being heard by the listener.  It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that on the surface. 

In the end, differences between modern DACs measure nearly the same and their purpose is identical and relatively trivial to implement.  Maybe there are some identifiable differences with a few specially trained listeners using a test signal or some pathological scenario, but even in these situations, it has never been shown that anyone is preferring one DAC to another and I have never seen a verifiable study to indicate that people are hearing differences and preferring one DAC over another with music.

Really, all modern DACs are similar if a modicum of reasonable research is conducted to make sure the device will work within the designed parameters with regards to the gear connecting to it and the source material being played.  Difference are so slight as to be meaningless in all but the most severely exaggerated situations.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (May 30, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> I had a stepfather who owned 2 night clubs. his quest for sub magic stopped with neighbors inviting him to the tribunal. he spent a fortune trying to improve isolation but there is only so much you can do for low freqs.



True isolation for bass below (say) 50hz is damn hard... rule of thumb is that if the building / room wasn't specifically constructed for soundproofing, forget it.  Yikes...


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I suspect the effect you mentioned towards the end is largely responsible for what many people believe to be "burn-in" with many components.



Totally agreed.  It would be an understatement to say that I'm skeptical of all the claims of large burn-in effects, extending up to hundreds of hours, for headphones and speakers, and even sometimes DACs, amps, and cables.



sonitus mirus said:


> It is unreasonable to suggest that a sighted listening test can be validated.  An ABX test can at least be validated and repeated to identify a difference.  One method is completely worthless to any discussion of whether the listener is actually hearing a difference, the other method offers a chance to confirm that a difference is actually being heard by the listener.  It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that on the surface.
> 
> In the end, differences between modern DACs measure nearly the same and their purpose is identical and relatively trivial to implement.  Maybe there are some identifiable differences with a few specially trained listeners using a test signal or some pathological scenario, but even in these situations, it has never been shown that anyone is preferring one DAC to another and I have never seen a verifiable study to indicate that people are hearing differences and preferring one DAC over another with music.
> 
> Really, all modern DACs are similar if a modicum of reasonable research is conducted to make sure the device will work within the designed parameters with regards to the gear connecting to it and the source material being played.  Difference are so slight as to be meaningless in all but the most severely exaggerated situations.



I guess it depends on what you count as validation, but generally I agree that sighted tests can't really be validated.  Nevertheless, from my own _sighted_ but better controlled comparison experience, I'm swayed towards the opinion that sensibly designed and built DACs will likely have audible sound differences which are subtle, at most.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Zapp_Fan said:


> True isolation for bass below (say) 50hz is damn hard... rule of thumb is that if the building / room wasn't specifically constructed for soundproofing, forget it.  Yikes...



While not being able to reduce the sound level of the bass frequencies, I was able to use some heavy-duty isolation pads to minimize the room vibrations.  The floor speakers upstairs would rattle the dishes in the kitchen below before the pads were in place.  While not sound isolation, in an apartment or town home which shares an adjacent wall with a neighboring dwelling, it might help a little to minimize the resonance with a subwoofer or large speakers.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> I guess it depends on what you count as validation, but generally I agree that sighted tests can't really be validated.  Nevertheless, from my own _sighted_ but better controlled comparison experience, I'm swayed towards the opinion that sensibly designed and built DACs will likely have audible sound differences which are subtle, at most.


  If a thousand sighted listeners all make the same claim, it still means very little.  If only one person states that there really doesn't appear to be any difference, that should give you pause.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (May 30, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> While not being able to reduce the sound level of the bass frequencies, I was able to use some heavy-duty isolation pads to minimize the room vibrations.  The floor speakers upstairs would rattle the dishes in the kitchen below before the pads were in place.  While not sound isolation, in an apartment or town home which shares an adjacent wall with a neighboring dwelling, it might help a little to minimize the resonance with a subwoofer or large speakers.



I used to sell acoustic treatment for a living, what I usually told people was that "if the sound will go through brick, it will also go through fiberglass, foam, etc." People would come to me for soundproofing and I could not usually sell them pieces of expensive foam in good conscience.  

Putting more mass between the speaker and your neighbors is never a bad idea, but bass frequencies contain so much more energy, and have such long wavelengths, that stopping them is disproportionately difficult.  I wonder if the dishes rattling was more from a mechanical coupling / resonance with the floor itself?  If the sound can pass through the floor from the air (rather than the speaker housing)  it's probably too loud to block entirely with consumer grade stuff.

And when you're talking about a nightclub where you may very well be north of 100 dB SPL at 30hz, you might as well try and block an earthquake with a down comforter.


----------



## bigshot (May 30, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Sighted A/B testing is easier than unsighted because a helper isn't needed and it can be more qualitative.



Sighted tests are more prone to the effects of expectation bias and placebo, so they are more apt to validate preconceived notions. That opens the door for the mind to concoct the kind of sound it thinks it wants to hear instead of what it actually hears. If that's what you mean by "qualitative" then I agree. Discernment of sound quality is something altogether different. That requires experience and analysis and applying criteria for judging. Blind testing can help sort out and focus discernment by helping to prevent bias from skewing analysis with purely subjective preference or expectations.

Sound reproduction is a fairly cut and dried thing. Either recorded sound is transparent, or it's colored in some way. Blind listening tests are a great way to determine if something is transparent or not. Bias can only muddle the results.

Music recording is a creative process. It involves subjective choices, but if someone is good at making those choices, they are doing it in an organized and consistent manner with carefully chosen criteria for judging. Bias can only muddle the results.

There is no "upside" to bias.



analogsurviver said:


> ...stuff...



If you cancel out both the horizontal and the vertical to try to eliminate noise, you'll end up cutting out a lot of the signal too.



Phronesis said:


> I don't think we can get _conclusive_ information from _any_ of the methods.



I think that blind testing can produce a great deal of useful information and is a lot better than depending on subjective impressions.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree entirely....

However, I should also point out that blind testing is _ALSO_ subject to bias... not all of which can be eliminated by the methodology.

Blind testing is quite good at eliminating or detecting a bias in favor of one product or another sounding a certain way.
It is also quite good at detecting a nonexistent difference that the listener may be imagining due to bias for one product over another (because they will fail to reliably recognize one product over the other).
However, blind testing does nothing to detect or eliminate a BIAS to _NOT_ recognize a difference between similar but different products.
Because we humans do have such short acoustic memories, it's not at all difficult to convince oneself that "I must be imagining something", if you seem to hear a minor difference, but your expectation is _NOT_ to hear a difference.

One way in which this can be partially overcome is by "requiring a choice".
To do this, you blind the subject to the identity of each device, but provide a label that remains consistent.
The user can't see what device he's listening to, but one is consistently labelled A, and the other is consistently labelled B.
Then, when the user insists that they don't hear a difference, you require them to choose: "Even though you say they sound the same, if I were to give you one, which one would you like?"
If the choice the user makes under this situation is statistically significant then it proves that they are EXPERIENCING a difference.... even if they may not be consciously aware of it.



bigshot said:


> Sighted tests are more prone to the effects of expectation bias and placebo, so they are more apt to validate preconceived notions. That opens the door for the mind to concoct the kind of sound it thinks it wants to hear instead of what it actually hears. If that's what you mean by "qualitative" then I agree. Discernment of sound quality is something altogether different. That requires experience and analysis and applying criteria for judging. Blind testing can help sort out and focus discernment by helping to prevent bias from skewing analysis with purely subjective preference or expectations.
> 
> Sound reproduction is a fairly cut and dried thing. Either recorded sound is transparent, or it's colored in some way. Blind listening tests are a great way to determine if something is transparent or not. Bias can only muddle the results.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Since we're talking about home audio, personally I think there is a point where it doesn't matter any more. If two things sound close enough that you can't tell if they're really different without a blind test, there's a good chance there isn't much reason to worry about it. There's even less reason to worry about false negatives because odds are even if a tiny difference exists, it doesn't make a lick of difference to the sound quality of your music. You have to remember that we're talking about differences so small we aren't able to consistently identify them. That is the definition of unimportant in my book.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Damn - a B&K paper from 1977 is NEW to you !?!
> If so, READ IT.
> 
> Only 41 years too late to the party, pretty shabby for someone who actually in those days did have the access to the making and supervision of also analogue record release.
> I got my real paper copy in 1979 or so - directly from the Bruel & Kjaer representative in what at the time still was Yugoslavia.


Knock off the personal insults. I’m not kidding.

While the paper is new to me the information is absolutely not. I’m a bit disappointed, I really hoped to learn something.

I do recommend the paper, though. It rather completely illustrates many of the serious in-built flaws in the LP system, and further emphasizes that the typical vinyl fan doesn’t stand a chance of getting his system optimized because the won’t have access to one critical bit of test kit. All the archaic B&K test gear and filters has modern equivalents, but most users won’t have test records, much less the knowledge of how to react to the measurements, ensuring that most record playback systems will have lots of problems that compromise the audible results.



analogsurviver said:


> I agree with "virtually nobody" But, the recording studio that was CERTIFIED as flat down to 5Hz did exist - IIRC,  somewhere in Africa. The problem has been that the people did not feel comfortable with all the normally unheard - better said UNSENSED - infrasonics of normal handling of microphones, the noise of the heating/cooling/ventilation ( usually all sub/infrasonic ), etc - and has been since rather quickly reconfigured into more smaller recording studios or places with other(quiet) activities. But, in that studio, a proper reproduction of such an 6.x Hz organ - at one time - has been possible.


The Land Speed Record stands at 760.3moh/1223.7kph. That doesn’t mean we need to redesign our roads. I’m sorry you don’t get it.


analogsurviver said:


> I agree that it is a hard call to reproduce 50kHz across the room in the vicinity of the listener ear(s) - but not impossible for a SINGLE  listener.


 Impossible, no. Impractical? Absolutely!


analogsurviver said:


> However, more studies are required to determine the sensitivity of our skin for the ultrasound - particularly face and areas around the eyes are allegedly more sensitive areas for ultrasound.
> 
> A 50 kHz signal can be - easily - reproduced with headphones. Now I am not saying you will hear it directly as a sine wave tone of say - to be on sure side, 10 kHz  -  but the quality or effortlessness, if you will - in the treble you CAN hear will be AUDIBLY improved. Once you get accustomed to this level of quality, chopping off everything above 20 kHz will be perceived as a loss of quality.


Please provide proof or it’s not true.



analogsurviver said:


> There is absolutely nothing low level at 6.x Hz organ direct to disk recording


The example posted had the highest 16Hz note at almost -40dBFS.  The physical amplitude limits I’ve posted confirm it’s not possible.  You’ve cited Test records using non-standard record characteristics as somehow “proof”, but the are not.  You’ve posted no proof that 6Hz at high levels is possible, and until proof is presented is audiophile myth.


analogsurviver said:


> and treble beyond 20 kHz up to 50 kHz in music generally also does not exceed the capability of the analogue record playback.


 Yes it does! Because one must go to extraordinary lengths to both record and reproduce 50kHz! And the maximum possibly groove amplitude is so low it’s barely above the noise floor. If you’d found the data on CD4 carrier level you’d know this, as well as how long any signal at 50kHz  holds up to wear.


analogsurviver said:


> However achieving both 6.x Hz and 50 kHz on the same analogue record is impossible - since real time analogue record mastering is limited to approx 27 kHz .


Yes, it’s impossible! But stating a maximum frequency without also stating a maximum level is totally meaningless!


analogsurviver said:


> Although I may come across as someone only interested in the extremes, nothing can be more distant from the truth. I have been citing those extremes only to underline that the entire chain should be as default free as possible to begin with - because, if you stretch the response across so large bandwidth, what you usually get is MUCH less problematic midrange than in case the extremes were simply ignored. The bulk of music and listening is between 100 Hz and 10 kHz.


All you’ve talked about is extremes, while providing no proof of their necessity or feasibility, other than to cite singular world-record level conditions. Not a single statement as to what’s important in the actual audible band. It’s like the ranting of a fanatic. Fanaticism is the redoubling of efforts once the primary goal is lost.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 1. What exceptional cases? You've only mentioned one particular organ and that has apparently been dismantled, do you know of another? If not, then there are no exceptional cases!
> 1a. What can of worms or Pandora's box? Even if there is another extremely exceptional organ, does it's existence mean that all other musical instruments suddenly magically produce frequencies that low? How can "everything else" conveniently "sweep everything under the rug" if that "everything" doesn't exist?
> 
> 2. What live concert, a live concert of a dismantled organ? If it's a live concert of say a choir then there's no musical content below about 80Hz or an orchestra, nothing below about 32Hz even then, only in exceptional circumstances.
> ...



G, you really should start reading what has been written. More than that, you should start thinking about what has been written. Bearing in mind you and me could not possibly be more different from each other. 
I will return to this topic in due time.

1. What Pandora's box ? IF you actually read what I have written and linked, you would have known that I have been referring to the Bruel & Kjaer paper regarding audible effects of mechanical resonances in turntables. Because it DOES take to understand what a "record player" capable of playing back this extraordinary recording of pipe organ has got to be capable of and what it has to avoid at all costs. Because simple subsonic filter would do zilch in order to address the real problem. In fact, phono preamp SHOULD be kept as linear in low frequencies as possible ( linear as adhering to the RIAA curve , with the same trend outside its officially specified frequency response limits, both below and above 20 kHz )  with all the filtering ( and pretty precise one at that...) being handled by the mechanics of the "record player" itself. 
In 1978, there was nothing else available that could record 6.x Hz - digital recorders came a year or two later, and have been used by Miller & Kreisel label in later years. Yet, sonically these digital recordings can not hold candle to their direct to disk predecessors - I am glad that this organ recording missed those early digital attrocities ... 

I wrote that the organ in question has been dismantled - and that it has been rebuilt/merged with ANOTHER instrument of about the same size ( about 6000+ pipes each ) . That would , of course, mean it still exists - wouldn't it ? 
I made a mistake - it has been a couple of years when I last read the liner notes on this album, which also decribe the instrument in much detail. The organ in question, from The First Congregational Church in Los Angeles, which has 13000 + pipes, has itself been assembled from two about 6000+ pipes instruments. It still exists and it is still the biggest organ in a church : http://theatreorgans.com/laird/top.pipe.organs.html

In addition to this organ, the one in Germany with YT video posted just a few posts back also has this low register. It is usually arrived at with DIFFERENCE between the two pipes, as a single pipe with 6.x Hz fundamental is simply too long a structure. So, there are at least TWO organs in the world that can reach to 6.x Hz;  one in California and one in Germany. There might be more, but I am not going to search the whole wide world now to find out. 
And, obviously, one can go for a live concert in these two venues.

2. See 1.

For reproducing certain instruments ( brass in particular ) , it is required for the entire recording /reproducing chain to support VERY low frequencies - WAY below the fundamental frequency these instruments produce. By very low frequency I mean < 20 Hz, the lower the better, but minimum requirement being approx 10 Hz @ - 3 dB. 

Now... - BEFORE you jump and start typing without thinking first - try to figure out why is supporting the  frequency response - ideally to DC - practically to just written above - important....
And why it is AUDIBLE.


----------



## bigshot

I think you should reel in your attitude a bit.


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> I strongly recommend that everyone read the actual study (at the link).
> 
> Here's one of the most interesting conclusions:
> "Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel
> ...


Keith, I don't think anyone with an interest in this subject has ever disputed that many SACDs and hi res releases sound better than the CD issue of the same album.  The key point of this discussion is that the sound difference is not the result of DSD or higher PCM bit rates, but the extra attention given to the remastering or choosing a better master to begin with.  The upshot is that the better mastering could have been released on CD (or even the ITunes store for that matter) and it would sound the same as the hi res version.  Interestingly though, what I'm finding these days is that a lot of the more recent hi res remasters do not sound as good as the early CDs of that album, and certainly not as crankable due to excessive compression and limiting.  Take for example Blondie's Parallel Lines hi res version that has a DR of 4 - it is ear bleeding stuff.  Likewise compare for example ELO's Discovery on hi res with the early Japan Jet CD.  Of course there are exceptions, for example the recent Neil Diamond hi res remasters are the best that I have heard to date.


----------



## bigshot (May 30, 2018)

When I first got an SACD player, I wanted to do a direct comparison of the Redbook to the SACD layer. I bought a few SACDs and quickly discovered that the mastering of the Redbook layer was sometimes different than the mastering of the SACD layer. In one case, not only was the mastering different, there was a completely different mix. I suspect that the Redbook layer is deliberately hobbled sometimes just to give the SACD layer an edge.

I finally discovered a Pentatone disc that was recorded DSD and had the exact same mastering on the Redbook as the SACD. I racked up two copies of the disc in two different players, level matched and aligned the playback and did a direct A/B comparison. I found absolutely no difference between them.

The only advantage that SACDs have over CDs is multichannel audio. That's it.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> For reproducing certain instruments ( brass in particular ) , it is required for the entire recording /reproducing chain to support VERY low frequencies - WAY below the fundamental frequency these instruments produce. By very low frequency I mean < 20 Hz, the lower the better, but minimum requirement being approx 10 Hz @ - 3 dB.


Even if we assume there is a reason to record something like brass down to <20Hz, what speaker system could play it?  Not the exotics, not the expensive, not the one-of-a-kind made of Grenadilla wood, those that the average audio enthusiast might have?


analogsurviver said:


> Now... - BEFORE you jump and start typing without thinking first - try to figure out why is supporting the  frequency response - ideally to DC - practically to just written above - important....
> And why it is AUDIBLE.


No, let's not.  I tire of your silly games.  YOU tell US why we need to start recording barometric pressure in our studios, and exactly how to reproduce that in any room.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Knock off the personal insults. I’m not kidding.
> 
> While the paper is new to me the information is absolutely not. I’m a bit disappointed, I really hoped to learn something.
> 
> ...



I apologize, I got carried away. Will not happen again.

If there was no new information to you in the paper, then you have a very good command on anlogue record playback.

The paper in question represents the single most important paper ever written on the subject. It spawned LOTS of attempts to ameliorate the "average" state of affairs - many new and better tonearm designs appeared as a direct result after its publication. I agree it is way beyond the capabilities and possibilities of a typical analogue record fan - and the lack of good test records does not exactly help either. 
However, the above does not describe me. I have probably more test records than some "audiophiles" have their Dire Straits On the Dark Side of the Moon Wishing They Were Not Here in the Pawnshop selling their Jazz records. 

I get your land speed / normal roads analogy - no problem.

I disagree regarding the 50 kHz impossibility/impracticability. Except if you expect me to furnish you with the speakers and/or headphones that can do that. 

Now... HOW many times I have to say that the video posted from YT has been "tampered with" ? I have found another - although it seems to be less processed after-the-fact, I have no idea which equipment has acually been used to record it ( arm/cartridge) - and which low frequency response is supported on YT ( and I have NOT checked it with spectrum analyzer ) :



As noted before, I will upload my recording of this LP  - but not before I am perfectly satisfied with the result achieved. You can probably find a better recording of this record  than on YT on various torrents, but that is something I never practice nor advocate to others.

Why are you constantly citing that high frequencies can only be of very low level, barely above the noise floor ? All test records, recorded without RIAA preemphasis, are usually recorded at 3.54 cm/sec @1 kHz - and that is at > 60 dB S/N ratio. Even if we deduct 20 db S/N ( or 19. something to be exact ), that still leaves S/N of 40 dB - quite far from being "barely above the noise floor ".
Yes, 50 kHz ( and CD-4 carrier )  are, unfortunately, prone to wear. A single play with a damaged or inappropriate ( conical...) stylus can destroy such test record for good. That's why I am EXTREMELY cautious for use of > 20 kHz test records. I will only allow the test with a cartridge I have previously personally checked and rechecked with the battery of other test records. And you can be Allearts, Carr, Ledermann, Lukaschek, Suchy, Sugano, Van den Hul ( to name, in alphabetical order, but a few of the top guys in this field ) - I will NOT use your cartridge directly on the > 20 kHz test records, without the possibility to check it first . Unless you have handy NOS sealed copy of the test record(s) on the table, with the promise the record, if damaged by your stylus, will get replaced by a NOS one.   Prior to introduction of the new Ortofon test record with signals up to 50 kHz, known to be good vintage NOS records were >> 500 $/EUR/GPP - and I have no idea how good the new Ortofon record really is. 

The record wear vs frequency is PARTICULARLY related to the mechanical resonance of the compliance of the vinyl groove and effective stylus tip mass. The greatest stress on the vinyl is, understandably, exactly at and around this mechanical resonant frequency. This can be from well within the audible range for low cost cartridges/styli - to waaaay above any normally encountered signal, 50 kHz included. For life, I can not find online the mechanical impedance graphs for various stylus tip effective massess - best I could do is this table, documenting the reduction of stylus tip effective mass over the years  - post to Lencoheaven, member Lynnot https://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=15919.0
Technics did achieve the lowest effective stylus tip mass ever, just a few years after 1979 - in its EPC-P100CMK4 cartridge : 0.055 mg . That figure allowed response past 120 kHz, with the resonance = wear inducing frequency range being well over 50 kHz ( around 85 kHz IIRC ) - and with a cartridge/stylus like that, even 50 kHz would last "forever" .

Best one can buy today is about 0.2mg effective stylus tip mass - regardless of $ or $$$$$$ . Due to the ecology, vapour depositioning of boron ( the process that did allow for so low effective stylus tip mass ) is no longer allowed . Shure V15V, one of the most widespread high quality cartridges,  had around 0.159 mg - no longer available for years, as berillium from which its cantilever was made, is (higly) cancerogenic material. 

OK, enough talk, I will upload first that >> 20 kHz acoustic bass and harpsichord samples. Sometime later today, here is 2AM - first sleep, then I have to locate those spots for bass and convert to PCM. Same for harpsichord, here the only problem finding some spots within Bach concerto where the harpsichord is silent, so that can be seen there is no (almost no other significant signal, with an ocasional burst from the violin ) other signal or environment noise when harpsichord is not playing.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Even if we assume there is a reason to record something like brass down to <20Hz, what speaker system could play it?  Not the exotics, not the expensive, not the one-of-a-kind made of Grenadilla wood, those that the average audio enthusiast might have?
> 
> No, let's not.  I tire of your silly games.  YOU tell US why we need to start recording barometric pressure in our studios, and exactly how to reproduce that in any room.



 I think the speaker system that could cover something described has been covered in this pages. It is out of reach to practically all at the moment. 

However, that does not mean we MUST not strive for recording it correctly. Particularly because we do have all the technology to do so and all it takes is to recognize it is important ; the only other concern is to provide for lower (environment) noise in the studio or recording venue - no ADC/DAC change as with >>20 kHz recording required.

Back in the mid/end 50s, when stereo has been emerging, they summoned together EVERYTHING they could in order to make a better product. That's why re-releases of these recordings are stil appearing - they are good>exceptional, to this very day. Only rather recently it became possible to play these recordings comparable to the master tape - be it from analogue original LPs and analogue or digital re-releases.

Who knows how a speaker will look like in 50 years time - and which frequency response will an "average high quality reasonable priced affordable to masses" speaker be capable of reproducing. So - WHY  limit something that costs us next to nothing to produce, just on the premise that loudspeakers can not reproduce it today ?

Again - this is a headphone forum. Not so few headphones are capable of the required low frequency response - today. 

Remember - all the losses are cumulative. Limit the response to say -3dB to 10 Hz several times ( microphone, microphone preamp, ADC, DAC, preamp, power amp, speakers ) the result will NOT  be -3dB @ 10Hz - but , at the very least, those 10 Hz with a 7- times steeper slope rolloff below that frequency - usually, at least 6 dB/ctave steeper with each additional "stage". That creates less than optimal transient response - and by improving/eliminating at least one link in the chain, there will be an improvement. 

There will be sample posted to illustrate this, for everyone to hear.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> However, that does not mean we MUST not strive for recording it correctly.


said the guy advocating for vinyl and thinking it's superior to CD. mind blown.


----------



## bigshot

You keep trying to steer the conversation to record players, but I really don't think any of us are impressed or interested in that subject. It's fine for a post or two, but you're getting tedious. You might want to consider moving on to something else.


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> There will be sample posted to illustrate this, for everyone to hear.




Unlikely based on track record.  Perhaps it would be best not to mention things you will share until you can actually make them available.

CD mat improvement validation measurements - never saw those
Recent measurements (Can’t remember for what anymore) - still waiting for you to find your Goldilocks internet file sharing site
And now this recording - I’m not staying up tonight waiting for it....


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> I disagree regarding the 50 kHz impossibility/impracticability. Except if you expect me to furnish you with the speakers and/or headphones that can do that.


Don't get into the exceptions.  As I said before, there are tweeters with capability of "output", but two specific problems exist.  One is if they are flat or not, and it's very difficult to get that measurement data to be accurate.  The other is their polar response, which as wavelengths get smaller, the dispersion angles get very very tight.  That's a big part of why getting 50kHz to the ear is a real problem, and impossible for the user to verify.  Then, acoustically speaking, everything is an ultrasonic absorber.  There is no opportunity for off-axis ultrasonic response, nor will the room help out at all.  It's a fools errand.


analogsurviver said:


> Now... HOW many times I have to say that the video posted from YT has been "tampered with" ?


You didn't say that until I analyzed it.  Besides...tampered with how?  The lowest note was there, there could be none lower.


analogsurviver said:


> I have found another - although it seems to be less processed after-the-fact, I have no idea which equipment has acually been used to record it ( arm/cartridge) - and which low frequency response is supported on YT ( and I have NOT checked it with spectrum analyzer ) :
> 
> 
> 
> As noted before, I will upload my recording of this LP  - but not before I am perfectly satisfied with the result achieved. You can probably find a better recording of this record  than on YT on various torrents, but that is something I never practice nor advocate to others.


Are you trying to say that the nearly continuous 6Hz on that record is coming from a note on the organ?  No way! It's nearly continuous!  The envelope doesn't follow any aspect of the music!  There are no organ pipes on that thing that can produce 6Hz, but there are record warps at 6Hz, and guess what? Resonances make it act exactly like what's on that record.  They're nearly continuous, varying only slightly and randomly!  Record warps and resonances are noise, not music.


analogsurviver said:


> Why are you constantly citing that high frequencies can only be of very low level, barely above the noise floor ? All test records, recorded without RIAA preemphasis, are usually recorded at 3.54 cm/sec @1 kHz - and that is at > 60 dB S/N ratio. Even if we deduct 20 db S/N ( or 19. something to be exact ), that still leaves S/N of 40 dB - quite far from being "barely above the noise floor ".


I'm saying it because it's real.  The ability to record high frequencies is progressively more limited as frequency goes up.  A real record uses RIAA EQ which progressively increases modulation velocity as frequency goes up.  In your analysis you forgot to extend the RIAA curve to 50kHz, which must happen or you can't actually get the proper response at 20kHz.  Sure, the RIAA curve is only specified to 20kHz, but every phono preamp designer knows you must take it more than an octave above that or it will be wrong in the audible band.  So, deduct another 9dB or so at 50kHz.  That puts us at 31dB.  And where do you think the noise floor is, exactly?  Have you looked at surface noise on a spectrum analyzer? And what happens if we try to raise the groove modulation/level at 50kHz?  As I've said a couple times already, the cut groove is ripped into by the back facet of the cutting stylus.  It's the combination frequency and amplitude that translate to velocity, then geometry of the cutting stylus and groove wall become hard limits. 


analogsurviver said:


> Yes, 50 kHz ( and CD-4 carrier )  are, unfortunately, prone to wear. A single play with a damaged or inappropriate ( conical...) stylus can destroy such test record for good. That's why I am EXTREMELY cautious for use of > 20 kHz test records. I will only allow the test with a cartridge I have previously personally checked and rechecked with the battery of other test records. And you can be Allearts, Carr, Ledermann, Lukaschek, Suchy, Sugano, Van den Hul ( to name, in alphabetical order, but a few of the top guys in this field ) - I will NOT use your cartridge directly on the > 20 kHz test records, without the possibility to check it first . Unless you have handy NOS sealed copy of the test record(s) on the table, with the promise the record, if damaged by your stylus, will get replaced by a NOS one.   Prior to introduction of the new Ortofon test record with signals up to 50 kHz, known to be good vintage NOS records were >> 500 $/EUR/GPP - and I have no idea how good the new Ortofon record really is.


Yes, but it's not just test records!  Any ultrasonic material, real or accidental, signal or noise, has the same problem - it's extremely fragile.  And there's another rather ugly problem: intermodulation distortion.  This is something that really hurt CD4.  Intermodulation distortion is where signals, in a nonlinear environment, modulate each other creating new spurious signals that correspond to the sum of the two, the difference of the two, and spurs at offset frequencies at the difference interval.  What this means is, ultrasonic CD4 carriers intermodulated with each other and with HF audio, with image frequencies being "folded down" into the audible range.  You could actually hear high frequency (below 20kHz) "tweets" as the stylus was placed in a CD4 groove.  With successive plays, it got worse, and that was with the special stylus intended for the purpose.  If you have ultrasonic information on any record today, you end up with the same problem.  The system is nonlinear at ultra high frequencies to begin with, then groove wear makes it much worse.  You get intermod products down into the audible range.  This is a big reason NOT to include ultrasonic information on a record! 


analogsurviver said:


> The record wear vs frequency is PARTICULARLY related to the mechanical resonance of the compliance of the vinyl groove and effective stylus tip mass. The greatest stress on the vinyl is, understandably, exactly at and around this mechanical resonant frequency. This can be from well within the audible range for low cost cartridges/styli - to waaaay above any normally encountered signal, 50 kHz included. For life, I can not find online the mechanical impedance graphs for various stylus tip effective massess - best I could do is this table, documenting the reduction of stylus tip effective mass over the years  - post to Lencoheaven, member
> <snip!>
> Technics did achieve the lowest effective stylus tip mass ever, just a few years after 1979 - in its EPC-P100CMK4 cartridge : 0.055 mg . That figure allowed response past 120 kHz, with the resonance = wear inducing frequency range being well over 50 kHz ( around 85 kHz IIRC ) - and with a cartridge/stylus like that, even 50 kHz would last "forever" .


 None of this matters because the average LP listener won't have the cartridge, stylus, or alignment tools to get it right.  He's far better off without ultrasonic content to begin with.


analogsurviver said:


> OK, enough talk, I will upload first that >> 20 kHz acoustic bass and harpsichord samples. Sometime later today, here is 2AM - first sleep, then I have to locate those spots for bass and convert to PCM. Same for harpsichord, here the only problem finding some spots within Bach concerto where the harpsichord is silent, so that can be seen there is no (almost no other significant signal, with an ocasional burst from the violin ) other signal or environment noise when harpsichord is not playing.


That would be nice.  Excuse me if I don't hold my breath, though.

What's been thoroughly proven in this exchange is that the LP is not ideal at all for recording either signals above 20kHz or signals below 20Hz.  The LP system can provide some output in those ranges, but it's severely limited, prone to problems with tracking, resonance, wear, and nonlinear distortion.  Now, those are but a tiny handful of problems with LPs.  There are SO many more.  You are welcome to cling to them as the perfect recording format if you like, but there's so far no scientific support of that argument.  

You've claimed that ultrasonic response is absolutely necessary for binaural recording.  That's clearly false.
You've claimed that vinyl/LP is capable of recording .55Hz.  No proof provided, and nothing so far to show anything but warp/noise is on vinyl below the lowest organ pedal note of 16Hz.  
You've claimed that vinyl/LP is capable of response up to 27kHz (improperly specified as no level is stated, so incorrect by means of being incomplete) then 50kHz (again, no level stated, so incorrect by means of being incomplete). 
You've claimed that even mid-frequency instruments must be recorded into the sub-audible range, but no proof is provided...down to the barometric level (DC), none of which could EVER be produced by any subwoofer known to man.
You've claimed that high frequencies above 20kHz are audible, or their effects are audible, but again, no proof is provided or even reasonable explanation of how that could be true.
Your substantiation arguments...all of them...have centered on the extreme, unusual, exception, and exotic and expensive equipment and unique conditions, even referencing modified recording methods that nobody else could ever play. 
You've promised for weeks now to post examples, pictures, files, etc., but nothing has happened.  You just promised again.  We'll see. 

And I've refuted every point, some several times.  

This is what I mean by "playing  your games".  I'm frankly sick of it.


----------



## pinnahertz (May 31, 2018)

I wasn't going to reply to this nonsense, but it's just so out there....


analogsurviver said:


> I think the speaker system that could cover something described has been covered in this pages. It is out of reach to practically all at the moment.


The rotary subwoofer is not a practical device except for the extreme installation.  It must also work with a standard subwoofer, as it has a limited top end at 20Hz or so.  And all that has to be calibrated and equalized.  How does that sound to the audiophile?  Cost alone disqualifies the thing.  So you cannot cite it as a real option!  You MUST work within reasonable parameters or you have an unplayable recording.


analogsurviver said:


> However, that does not mean we MUST not strive for recording it correctly. Particularly because we do have all the technology to do so and all it takes is to recognize it is important ;


"Correctly" is highly subjective.  Your definition is impractical.


analogsurviver said:


> the only other concern is to provide for lower (environment) noise in the studio or recording venue - no ADC/DAC change as with >>20 kHz recording required.


Any idea how big a problem low frequency noise is in any environment?  Every done any acoustic measurements?  I didn't think so, or you'd know that getting LF noised down is monstrously difficult, often impossible in some situations, and extremely expensive.  All large venues have big HVAC noise issues you just have to work around.


analogsurviver said:


> Back in the mid/end 50s, when stereo has been emerging, they summoned together EVERYTHING they could in order to make a better product. That's why re-releases of these recordings are stil appearing - they are good>exceptional, to this very day.


There are some very fine early stereo recordings, but from a performance standpoint only.  The technology was the best they could do at the time, but terrible by today's standards.  Do you know what Scotch 111 is?  Google it.  It was in it's day the best tape there was, also one of the only tapes there was.  And that also makes it some of the worst tape ever.  It's coercivity was low, noise high, resulting THD was terrible, it saturated easily, and distorted as a result.  You want to hear some run into saturation?  Listen to some of those early 1950s London records.  Absolutely intolerable, if it weren't for the likes of Fritz Reiner and the CSO playing beautifully.


analogsurviver said:


> Only rather recently it became possible to play these recordings comparable to the master tape - be it from analogue original LPs and analogue or digital re-releases.


No idea what you're talking about.  There's always been the good, the bad and the ugly.


analogsurviver said:


> Who knows how a speaker will look like in 50 years time - and which frequency response will an "average high quality reasonable priced affordable to masses" speaker be capable of reproducing. So - WHY  limit something that costs us next to nothing to produce, just on the premise that loudspeakers can not reproduce it today ?


Well, I know.  You've pretty much got it.  We're at the cost/dB/Hz point now, and the market is not improving. Music is downloaded, compressed, and loudness-war processed.  For audio demos people use movie soundtracks.


analogsurviver said:


> Again - this is a headphone forum. Not so few headphones are capable of the required low frequency response - today.


No, VERY FEW will reliably get to 20Hz, flat. Very, very few.


analogsurviver said:


> Remember - all the losses are cumulative. Limit the response to say -3dB to 10 Hz several times ( microphone, microphone preamp, ADC, DAC, preamp, power amp, speakers ) the result will NOT  be -3dB @ 10Hz - but , at the very least, those 10 Hz with a 7- times steeper slope rolloff below that frequency - usually, at least 6 dB/ctave steeper with each additional "stage". That creates less than optimal transient response - and by improving/eliminating at least one link in the chain, there will be an improvement.


Eliminate the worst link...the analog one where it's all going the the dogs.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> For reproducing certain instruments ( brass in particular ) , [1] it is required for the entire recording /reproducing chain to support VERY low frequencies - WAY below the fundamental frequency these instruments produce.
> [2] By very low frequency I mean < 20 Hz, the lower the better, but minimum requirement being approx 10 Hz @ - 3 dB.
> [3] BEFORE you jump and start typing without thinking first - [3a] try to figure out why is supporting the frequency response - ideally to DC - practically to just written above - important....
> [3b] And why it is AUDIBLE.



1. No it's not. Where's your supporting evidence for such a claim? There isn't any because it's more nonsense you've just invented!
2. Again, utter nonsense which is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of the actual facts! Again, because you are obviously incapable of understanding even the simple basics, the lowest fundamental MUSIC frequency a brass instrument ever produces is around 30Hz. Any freqs below that is NOT music, it's noise, UNWANTED noise such as distant traffic rumble and other inadvertent thumps and sounds caused by chair movements or instrument handling, etc. It's clear from some of your recordings that you actually seem to want all this rubbish in your recordings and that's one of the main reasons why they tend to sound so amateurish! The reality for any sane engineer though is the opposite, beyond the lowest fundamental music frequency, the "lower the worse"! 
3. What, should I do what you do and "think" in some sort of parallel universe or completely delusional fantasy land?
3a. And YOU should try to figure out why supporting a freq response down to and including NO frequency at all (DC) is so laughably ridiculous: How can you support a frequency response of no frequency?
3b. I'm curious, what do you think 0Hz sounds like?

So, your assertions are not just utter nonsense but 5 x utter nonsense: 1. 0Hz is not a wave, therefore it can't be a sound wave and therefore a mic can't record it. 2. Let's say we could record 0Hz or even say 2Hz, SO WHAT, it can't be reproduced! 3. Even if it could be reproduced it's WAY outside the audible range. 4. Even if it could be reproduced and was audible, it would all be non-musical, unwanted noise anyway. 5. You're arguing against yourself because 16/44 is FAR more accurate and does not have all the LF problems of vinyl!

Congratulations, quintuple utter nonsense in just 3 sentences is impressive, even the most deluded audiophiles would struggle to equal such a feat!! AND, I haven't even touched on all the utter nonsense in your other sentences, Is there some sort of audiophile prize I can nominate you for? 

G


----------



## 71 dB

_I'm taking a break from this thread/forum. I'm not sure if what I have said lately makes much sense. _
_It happens to me easily. I lose my temper and I can't post rationally. _
_This is the kind of forum where a minor mistake escalates into mutual insults. _
_I don't feelt that is healthy for my sanity or self esteem. _
_So, I take a break and concentrate on other things._


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> said the guy advocating for vinyl and thinking it's superior to CD. mind blown.



Well, this indicates you have yet to hear a really good turntable - set up correctly. 

No wonder France was the first major country to went "numerique" - in 1993, the last remnants of analogue record sold as new I found at FNAC.  There were/are GREAT shops selling used records.
And it is both sad and hard to understand, as France did have one of the best lacquer masters facilities in the world ( Pyral in Asnieres ), it did have BETTER vynil pressings than either british, german, dutch and italian releases on the same label etc, etc. - these pressings represent creme de la creme of analogue record.
Erato, Valois, Astree, Philiphs Aristocratic Series, EMI France, CBS France, etc .. ach, belles memoires du Centre Culturel Charles Nodier en Ljubljana.

I suggest you the hardest possible hitting test of analogue vs CD : https://www.discogs.com/Lily-Laskine-Charme-de-la-Harpe/release/11356995 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the recording of low frequencies, it was meant digital. Even the CD - hell, even MP3 for that matter - allows for the accurate very low frequency recording, down to DC  if required. Where they both fail is in the high frequency end. Any PCM with sampling equal to or higher than 88.2kHz would do - not to mention DSD.


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> Well, this indicates you have yet to hear a really good turntable - set up correctly.
> 
> No wonder France was the first major country to went "numerique" - in 1993, the last remnants of analogue record sold as new I found at FNAC.  There were/are GREAT shops selling used records.
> And it is both sad and hard to understand, as France did have one of the best lacquer masters facilities in the world ( Pyral in Asnieres ), it did have BETTER vynil pressings than either british, german, dutch and italian releases on the same label etc, etc. - these pressings represent creme de la creme of analogue record.
> ...


Your claim that vinyl does HF better than 16/44 is sheer fantasy, unless your definition of better is a rolling off in the top end as opposed to a high fidelity linear response.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Don't get into the exceptions.  As I said before, there are tweeters with capability of "output", but two specific problems exist.  One is if they are flat or not, and it's very difficult to get that measurement data to be accurate.  The other is their polar response, which as wavelengths get smaller, the dispersion angles get very very tight.  That's a big part of why getting 50kHz to the ear is a real problem, and impossible for the user to verify.  Then, acoustically speaking, everything is an ultrasonic absorber.  There is no opportunity for off-axis ultrasonic response, nor will the room help out at all.  It's a fools errand.
> You didn't say that until I analyzed it.  Besides...tampered with how?  The lowest note was there, there could be none lower.
> Are you trying to say that the nearly continuous 6Hz on that record is coming from a note on the organ?  No way! It's nearly continuous!  The envelope doesn't follow any aspect of the music!  There are no organ pipes on that thing that can produce 6Hz, but there are record warps at 6Hz, and guess what? Resonances make it act exactly like what's on that record.  They're nearly continuous, varying only slightly and randomly!  Record warps and resonances are noise, not music.
> I'm saying it because it's real.  The ability to record high frequencies is progressively more limited as frequency goes up.  A real record uses RIAA EQ which progressively increases modulation velocity as frequency goes up.  In your analysis you forgot to extend the RIAA curve to 50kHz, which must happen or you can't actually get the proper response at 20kHz.  Sure, the RIAA curve is only specified to 20kHz, but every phono preamp designer knows you must take it more than an octave above that or it will be wrong in the audible band.  So, deduct another 9dB or so at 50kHz.  That puts us at 31dB.  And where do you think the noise floor is, exactly?  Have you looked at surface noise on a spectrum analyzer? And what happens if we try to raise the groove modulation/level at 50kHz?  As I've said a couple times already, the cut groove is ripped into by the back facet of the cutting stylus.  It's the combination frequency and amplitude that translate to velocity, then geometry of the cutting stylus and groove wall become hard limits.
> ...



I am making the PCM  versions of the promised recordings at the time, only to reply regarding the 6.x Hz from the record : https://www.discogs.com/Lloyd-Holzgraf-The-Power-And-The-Glory-Volume-1/release/4537692

*Yes, it IS the recording - NOT  the warp !!! ( horizontal , in phase - not vertical warp excitable, end of side ... )*

And because the RECORDING  can - and will, as you may have noticed - excite, to a lesser or greater degree,  the almost any normal tonearm/cartridge combination, I stated that only Dynavector arm(s) (any model, sebsequent models were made physically shorter in order to be possible to use them with more "normal" turntables, with structural resonance improvements, better bearings, etc - but bassically, they all perform superbly below 20 Hz ) at the time can play back this record/recording ACCURATELY, without significantly altering either the fundamental 6.x Hz or its 2nd harmonic of 12.(2x) Hz - BOTH of which will wreak havoc with any normal tonearm, including any SME ever made.
Dynavector arm(s) produce somewhat subdued response below 20 Hz, a few dB below ref @ 1kHz, but it is "essentially flat" down to 4-5 Hz in the horizontal direction. Quite unlike any other normal tonearm, such as in the results from the B&K paper.


----------



## old tech

gregorio said:


> Congratulations, quintuple utter nonsense in just 3 sentences is impressive, even the most deluded audiophiles would struggle to equal such a feat!! AND, I haven't even touched on all the utter nonsense in your other sentences, Is there some sort of audiophile prize I can nominate you for?
> G


A gold plated dog whistle for a start.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> I am making the PCM  versions of the promised recordings at the time, only to reply regarding the 6.x Hz from the record : https://www.discogs.com/Lloyd-Holzgraf-The-Power-And-The-Glory-Volume-1/release/4537692
> 
> *Yes, it IS the recording - NOT  the warp !!! ( horizontal , in phase - not vertical warp excitable, end of side ... )*


Apparently you missed that bit in the B&K paper that warp and off-center hole can stimulate resonance at 6Hz.
[





analogsurviver said:


> And because the RECORDING  can - and will, as you may have noticed - excite, to a lesser or greater degree,


As I said, the envelope of the 6Hz signal is nearly constant, varying only a little, and in a non-musical period.  That's noise.


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> Your claim that vinyl does HF better than 16/44 is sheer fantasy, unless your definition of better is a rolling off in the top end as opposed to a high fidelity linear response.


 
Analogue record CAN  have better, MUCH better extension in the treble than CD. It CAN have linearity within less than 1 dB 20-20kHz - and beyond. It CAN  have extension over 100 kHz.

But if the analogue mastering engineer is either sheer sloppy or has not got the money or permission to use helium gas cooling during the cutting process, then he/she will have no other course but to limit the HF  content (compressing, rolling off, both - or even worse ...) - for the fear of burning up the coils of the cutter head, which, today, means he/she will be out of bussiness at least for a month... 
No such limitations imposed for the half speed mastering ( only 1/4 power required when compared to real time mastering, both cutterhead amps and cutterhead itself "loafing" ), but then low end may suffer ( a very extensive modificationn required for the cutting rig to accomodate the low end at half speed mastering ). Latest masters done by now sadly late Stan Ricker have been done because of this at 2/3rd speed mastering. Half speed mastering can produce, IF used properly, down to the finished record copy available to the consumer, BETTER HF playback than analogue master tape played back in real time. That's why half speed mastered LPs 

I linked a VERY  good recording of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Laskine, but one that is still *reasonably* available. And playable with most decent but still reasonably priced cartridges.


----------



## pinnahertz (May 31, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Analogue record CAN  have better, MUCH better extension in the treble than CD. It CAN have linearity within less than 1 dB 20-20kHz - and beyond. It CAN  have extension over 100 kHz.


Only at levels 20-30dB below reference.  And there's no musical content up there. 

<edit>Audio 20-30dB below reference in the presence of actual audible audio is masked anyway.

Regardless, why the LP love if you want HF extension and LF extension?  It takes SO much extra effort and is compromised anyway.  The fact that you could get these extensions slightly and at well-reduced maximum level ignores all the other compromises of the format, like noise, distortion, separation, wear, play time, etc.  So if somebody wanted LF extension to 5Hz at full output without extra effort, wanted lower distortion, lower noise, longer play time, better channel separation...you know, the whole enchilada...and had to sacrifice something like the inaudible >22kHz noise and distortion products, isn't that reasonable?  And every buyer/listener gets all of that for lower cost.  You want higher high end?  Download 24/96.

I would think all of the above would be glaringly obvious to everyone.  It's sad it isn't. 



analogsurviver said:


> I
> But if the analogue mastering engineer is either sheer sloppy or has not got the money or permission to use helium gas cooling during the cutting process, then he/she will have no other course but to limit the HF  content (compressing, rolling off, both - or even worse ...) - for the fear of burning up the coils of the cutter head, which, today, means he/she will be out of bussiness at least for a month...
> No such limitations imposed for the half speed mastering ( only 1/4 power required when compared to real time mastering, both cutterhead amps and cutterhead itself "loafing" ), but then low end may suffer ( a very extensive modificationn required for the cutting rig to accomodate the low end at half speed mastering ). Latest masters done by now sadly late Stan Ricker have been done because of this at 2/3rd speed mastering. Half speed mastering can produce, IF used properly, down to the finished record copy available to the consumer, BETTER HF playback than analogue master tape played back in real time. That's why half speed mastered LPs


Are these the norm or exceptions?


analogsurviver said:


> I
> I linked a VERY  good recording of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Laskine, but one that is still *reasonably* available. And playable with most decent but still reasonably priced cartridges.


Where's  the link?


----------



## jgazal (May 31, 2018)

71 dB said:


> _I'm taking a break from this thread/forum. I'm not sure if what I have said lately makes much sense. _
> _It happens to me easily. I lose my temper and I can't post rationally. _
> _This is the kind of forum where a minor mistake escalates into mutual insults. _
> _I don't feelt that is healthy for my sanity or self esteem. _
> _So, I take a break and concentrate on other things._



Now I feel the urge to jump in, at the risk of sounding as corny as Kansas in August...

While IMHO life is a pursue of truth, it is also an exercise of empathy and equilibrium.

Some here made audio their profession and really go deep into what technology can offer as a tool.

But in the end, I must agree with @gregorio, technologies are just tools and recordings are what they are, art and perception.

No matter the technique or support, what everybody wants is to transmit feelings. @bigshot brilliantly described how sometimes a given support can transmit by itself those feelings (for instance, vinyl album covers).

I believe, for instance, that the reproduction of complete soundfields may improve certain sensations.

But in the end, the ability to evoke certain emotions on the audience will always be on the artists and engineers side, even if (and perhaps because) they are deviating from objective reality. And that does not mean that professionals don't need to learn how to reproduce complete soundfields if the technologies someday allows.

I routinely find myself immersed into long debates in FB, WhatsApp and other fora sometimes without reaching a minimum consensus. Giving it a brake help to digest the plethora of arguments. Changing subjects and activites sometimes let your subconscious processing useful conclusions.

Although I think each of us have the duty to pursue the truth, we don't have to be so hard with ourselves and the mistakes we do. Each time we say something wrong and someone else point the error we all reach more meaningful conclusions. That is the beauty of communication, provided it is also based on evidence (evidence from acoustics, electronic and materials engineering, music theory, human perception etc).

Much of the disagreement sometimes is not in essence, but our minds paying more attention to one of those areas while painting a simplified model of the reality, which includes not only sound fields, but also the drivers that make people pay for entertainment in general.

And rude wording, while not of my taste, doesn't mean, in every case, a personal offense. It may indicate the emissor is passionate about the subject, sometimes is just rhetoric to make the recipient pay attention to a certain aspect or simply a bad day...

Cheers!


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Apparently you missed that bit in the B&K paper that warp and off-center hole can stimulate resonance at 6Hz.
> [As I said, the envelope of the 6Hz signal is nearly constant, varying only a little, and in a non-musical period.  That's noise.



Nope - I have not missed anything, either from the paper or from observing the playback of this record - it can be seen with naked eye. Unfortunately, I am anything but video freak, so expect no video of playing back this record from me.

It is the recording - 6.x Hz starts  at (check... ) sometime after the beggining of the Purcell piece - and there is none of it (at least not constant ) during Wagner piece. Both are on the very same copy of the record of the very same recording - so it is NOT record eccentricity stimulating 6.x Hz resonance , but it is 6.x Hz recorded SIGNAL , not noise, from the organ.

If you were a bit more familiar with choirs, you would be aware of the so called "bass phenomenon" - where bass singers APPEAR to be out of sync with the rest of the higher pitched voices  - IF they follow closely the timing conductor is conducting. You can tell experienced choirs/bass singers from those beggining in crafting their art for that in an instant - the experienced ones adjust their singing to come in time with the other higher pitched voices AT THE LISTENING POSITION OF AUDIENCE. If in doubt, you can check any choir forum for this.

Same thing is causing APPEARENT out of sync here - only due to the vawelength involved ( approx 60 metres ), it is much more pronounced than with male bass singers. And MUCH  more difficult for the organist (if not completely impossible ? ) to play this 6.x note so that it will come in sync with the rest "somewhere in the church" - which itself is large and long. 

Similar to the famous "turbo lag" in days of Porsche 917 30, the 900-1100 BHP beast used in Can Am series. One had to give full throttle before entering the curve, while, obviously, breaking and steering the car into the curve - as the turbo had in those days so long lag that it kicked in with full power only after exiting from the curve. No nitpicking for the exact timing, etc, please - but the principle of driving that still the most powerful/fast racing car ever is hopefully clear. Only a handful of drivers had the skill and guts to do it for real.


----------



## analogsurviver

Only t


pinnahertz said:


> Only at levels 20-30dB below reference.  And there's no musical content up there.
> 
> <edit>Audio 20-30dB below reference in the presence of actual audible audio is masked anyway.
> 
> ...




Only the link this time: https://www.discogs.com/Lily-Laskine-Charme-de-la-Harpe/release/11356995

But, seriously - is it SO hard to go a couple of posts back, say exactly to post #8303 ?


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Nope - I have not missed anything, either from the paper or from observing the playback of this record - it can be seen with naked eye. Unfortunately, I am anything but video freak, so expect no video of playing back this record from me.
> 
> It is the recording - 6.x Hz starts  at (check... ) sometime after the beggining of the Purcell piece - and there is none of it (at least not constant ) during Wagner piece. Both are on the very same copy of the record of the very same recording - so it is NOT record eccentricity stimulating 6.x Hz resonance , but it is 6.x Hz recorded SIGNAL , not noise, from the organ.


OK, so you have a copy of the score that tells the organist, "Play all the pedal notes I've written, but with your second left foot tromp on the nonexistent 64' C, and don't let up for the entire piece".  I'd like to see that score.


analogsurviver said:


> If you were a bit more familiar with choirs, you would be aware of the so called "bass phenomenon" - where bass singers APPEAR to be out of sync with the rest of the higher pitched voices  - IF they follow closely the timing conductor is conducting. You can tell experienced choirs/bass singers from those beggining in crafting their art for that in an instant - the experienced ones adjust their singing to come in time with the other higher pitched voices AT THE LISTENING POSITION OF AUDIENCE. If in doubt, you can check any choir forum for this.


Yup, I know that.  Out of synch is pretty different from random.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Only t
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh sorry.  I thought you meant an actual audio file.  I should have known better.


----------



## gregorio

old tech said:


> A gold plated dog whistle for a start.



I know we can't actually hear a dog whistle but we can sort of. So surely a gold plated dog whistle would sort of sound too warm, shouldn't it be an oxygen free silver dog whistle?

G


----------



## gregorio (May 31, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Oh sorry. I thought you meant an actual audio file. I should have known better.



That was a silly assumption. It's not an actual organ (it's been dismantled), so why would you assume it's an actual audio file? BTW, I did mention that you can get 6Hz out of a tuba, just put a stick of dynamite down the bell and detonate it. I'm not sure how musical that would be though? Tchaikovsky did something rather similar in his 1812 overture and maybe Cage or Stockhausen could make something "musical" out of it, not sure?

G

EDIT: I forgot to mention, I bet you could get a fairly accurate reproduction of that with vinyl and a turntable (and of course another stick of dynamite)!


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm inclined to agree with you.....

However, many other posters have repeatedly insisted that "we should be discussing issues here that are of practical interest to audiophiles and not just pure science".
And, taken in that context, it is in fact worth buying the 24/192k re-master of an album _if it sounds better than the CD_ - even if it just sounds better because of better mastering.
It's nice to know, as a matter of academic interest, that it doesn't sound better _because_ it's 24/192.... but that doesn't change the basic fact that it does sound better.
(It's great to know that they could have delivered a CD that sounded just as good - but, unless it is available for purchase, it really doesn't matter to me, the end user.)

I personally suspect that many high-res remasters sound really good... and many do... because of extra effort spend in mastering them.
I also suspect that, in some cases, they are mixed differently because they are "mixed for the audiophile market".
And, being cynical, I wonder whether sometimes the sound quality of the non-HD version is deliberately downgraded to make sure the premium version sounds better.
(It may also sometimes simply be that the high-res version is the original master, and so other versions have lost sound quality due to multiple format conversions.)
However, to some degree, this is all moot to the end user... who must always choose between the versions which we are offered.

I agree that people should not blindly purchase the high-res version, or the SACD version, based on the assumption that it is going to sound better.
It may or may not.
However, I'm not going to "punish the industry" by depriving myself of the best sounding version available "because it sounds better for the wrong reasons" either.



old tech said:


> Keith, I don't think anyone with an interest in this subject has ever disputed that many SACDs and hi res releases sound better than the CD issue of the same album.  The key point of this discussion is that the sound difference is not the result of DSD or higher PCM bit rates, but the extra attention given to the remastering or choosing a better master to begin with.  The upshot is that the better mastering could have been released on CD (or even the ITunes store for that matter) and it would sound the same as the hi res version.  Interestingly though, what I'm finding these days is that a lot of the more recent hi res remasters do not sound as good as the early CDs of that album, and certainly not as crankable due to excessive compression and limiting.  Take for example Blondie's Parallel Lines hi res version that has a DR of 4 - it is ear bleeding stuff.  Likewise compare for example ELO's Discovery on hi res with the early Japan Jet CD.  Of course there are exceptions, for example the recent Neil Diamond hi res remasters are the best that I have heard to date.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Well, this indicates you have yet to hear a really good turntable - set up correctly.



Hogwash.


----------



## bigshot (May 31, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> it is in fact worth buying the 24/192k re-master of an album _if it sounds better than the CD_ - even if it just sounds better because of better mastering.



It's been my experience that the mastering on SACDs is no better than on CDs. In many of the discs I've bought, the CD follows the same as the SACD mastering. That is especially true of classical recordings. In a handful of cases, the recording may be completely remixed, which is sometimes good and sometimes bad. I really don't think you can make any generalization about the quality of SACDs. The same is true of audiophile CDs, like MFSL. I bought a $35 MFSL release of an album I bought for $7 in regular CD release. They sounded exactly the same.

You have to talk to knowledgeable collectors to find out which release of a particular album sounds the best. It may be a 1980s CD, it may be a current remastered CD, it may be an SACD... It's a crapshoot. I mostly buy multichannel SACDs now because I've been burned so much, but even there, it's hit and miss. Just because it says "new and improved" on the cover, it doesn't mean that it's any better.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Since we're talking about home audio, personally I think there is a point where it doesn't matter any more. If two things sound close enough that you can't tell if they're really different without a blind test, there's a good chance there isn't much reason to worry about it. There's even less reason to worry about false negatives because odds are even if a tiny difference exists, it doesn't make a lick of difference to the sound quality of your music. *You have to remember that we're talking about differences so small we aren't able to consistently identify them*. That is the definition of unimportant in my book.



To me, this is a key point.  If the margin of variability (and therefore 'error') in our perception is much greater than the audible difference we think may be there, that seems to be a good argument for not worrying about such a relatively small audible difference.  And to my ears, the variability in sound quality and tonal balance of recordings varies over a rather wide range also.


----------



## bigshot

The other thing to keep in mind is just because something is slightly audible using test tones, that doesn't mean it will be audible at all when you listen to music. Tones are very unforgiving.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> The other thing to keep in mind is just because something is slightly audible using test tones, that doesn't mean it will be audible at all when you listen to music. Tones are very unforgiving.



… though there may also be aspects of music production which can be different but aren't captured by test tones.  We shouldn't be skeptical about perception, yet not skeptical about limitations and generalizability of tests.  The only things tests _factually_ tell are the test results (subject to measurement errors, etc.), under the conditions of the testing.  Drawing conclusions about what the test results tell us more generally is always a matter of interpretation, and interpretation is subject to various types of errors.


----------



## bigshot

If there is some sort of anomaly that is revealed better in music, I haven't ever run across it. I generally find that things that are audible in music are an order of magnitude more obvious with tones. The reason is that music has lots of contrasts to hide small defects. Tones are nice and even and controlled. It's easier to spot noise or distortion when the signal is smooth like that. If you can get clean with tones, you can be very confident that music will sound fine. The standard measures of sound quality are very good at quantifying fidelity. The overall concepts of frequency response, distortion and dynamics cover all the bases you need to reproduce music. This stuff really isn't a mystery. All you need is some sense of how the numbers on the charts represent real world sound.


----------



## jgazal

bigshot said:


> If there is some sort of anomaly that is revealed better in music, I haven't ever run across it. (...)



crosstalk.


----------



## bigshot

Crosstalk is most noticeable in a movie theater when you're trying to watch the movie and there's a chatty person next to you!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Crosstalk is most noticeable in a movie theater when you're trying to watch the movie and there's a chatty person next to you!


Thats what tazers are for bud.


----------



## jgazal (Jun 1, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Crosstalk is most noticeable in a movie theater when you're trying to watch the movie and there's a chatty person next to you!



That kind of crosstalk too. 

Have you tried the binaural recordings you have available with some rudimentary method of crosstalk cancellation like a mattress?

I know you will call me nuts and that is impractical. It is just to feel the sensation once.

The videoclip linked in the first post of the immersive sound thread is one you could use...


----------



## pinnahertz

gregorio said:


> That was a silly assumption. It's not an actual organ (it's been dismantled), so why would you assume it's an actual audio file? BTW, I did mention that you can get 6Hz out of a tuba, just put a stick of dynamite down the bell and detonate it. I'm not sure how musical that would be though? Tchaikovsky did something rather similar in his 1812 overture and maybe Cage or Stockhausen could make something "musical" out of it, not sure?
> 
> G
> 
> EDIT: I forgot to mention, I bet you could get a fairly accurate reproduction of that with vinyl and a turntable (and of course another stick of dynamite)!


Yeah. Silly me. 

I wonder about the advisability of such high level low frequency tones, though. Tesla’s experiments with resonance tables had some of his guests running for the bathroom because of the vibration induced laxative effect. I’ve heard some records that made me want to hurl, but not from low frequency resonance.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

pinnahertz said:


> Yeah. Silly me.
> 
> I wonder about the advisability of such high level low frequency tones, though. Tesla’s experiments with resonance tables had some of his guests running for the bathroom because of the vibration induced laxative effect. I’ve heard some records that made me want to hurl, but not from low frequency resonance.


The "brown note" ?


----------



## colonelkernel8

Glmoneydawg said:


> The "brown note" ?


I wish it were real, I could use some help now and then.


----------



## pinnahertz

colonelkernel8 said:


> I wish it were real, I could use some help now and then.


Sit on your subwoofer?  Subwoofer in the bathroom?  Perhaps one of *these* and a tone generator?  Please let me know what works best!

Greg, I believe the exploding tuba 1812 was only played once.  To hard to find a good tuba, or a volunteer to play it, so they scaled back the explosives and now we have *this* to put up with...


----------



## bigshot

buttshakers!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

pinnahertz said:


> Sit on your subwoofer?  Subwoofer in the bathroom?  Perhaps one of *these* and a tone generator?  Please let me know what works best!
> 
> Greg, I believe the exploding tuba 1812 was only played once.  To hard to find a good tuba, or a volunteer to play it, so they scaled back the explosives and now we have *this* to put up with...



Mount that to the side of a TOILET BOWL and see how goes.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I'm inclined to agree with you.....
> 
> However, many other posters have repeatedly insisted that "we should be discussing issues here that are of practical interest to audiophiles and not just pure science".
> And, taken in that context, it is in fact worth buying the 24/192k re-master of an album _if it sounds better than the CD_ - even if it just sounds better because of better mastering.
> ...


and that's how we play ourselves. same as with the environment, and so many other stuff, only a minority will give up the instant reward for maybe something better later. it's the marshmallow experiment.
the industry is working like this:
-"from now on, high res cars will have 2 extra gold letters on the back and be the same cars without downsampling at the end. while traditional redbook cars will have to be assembled in 1/10th of the time we thought was needed before to make a good car. at the end of that period, what's done is the final redbook car and if it has only 3 wheels, that's fine because people can always get the proper high res car when that happens."
each time we go get the nice high res version to get the nicer master, we confirm that they should keep their artificial segregation of content per format, despite how it's a money grabbing trick that's only detrimental to the consumer. 
I've given in more often than I like when it comes to high res PCM, but I've decided I would never give a cent to the DSD industry if I could avoid it. to the point that when looking for a DAP or a DAC, if it's DSD whatever and there is one that isn't and offers otherwise equivalent features, I'd go for the second one. and I'll do the same for MQA. no matter how some master might be amazing, they're never getting any of my money(no Tidal, no nothing) because to me they're anti consumer formats by nature. if more people were stubborn idiots like myself, I like to believe that the industry would go where we want. and I don't believe that because of some utopian idea about how being together makes us strong to fight the alien spaceships. no I believe it would work because the industry doesn't give a crap about what they're selling us so long as they have something to sell. it wouldn't actually change much for them to do it right, they just have no reason to bother. 
take something as dysfunctional as pricing music based on container's resolution. it has been accepted by the world right away. and even after almost everybody had, over the years, purchased upsampled music as high res, we didn't really stop purchasing more. we're so used to the idea of being powerless that we take scams as a matter of fact. and when we called them saying "I caught you selling a fake product to me", they answered "we sell what was given to us, sorry. please pick another album and GTFO". and we have all accepted that "resolution" of the issue when it happened to us. the record industry must think that we're the dumbest cattle of all the animal kingdom. so of course they keep trying any and all tricks to make 5 products out of one, sell nothing as an audible improvement, and to still push any crap format with DRM or anything limiting copy, even something as fundamentally impractical as a SACD. how that format didn't die 10 times over is incredible to me, until I think of it from the record industry point of view, then a SACD is the best fracking medium ever created.


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> I'm inclined to agree with you.....
> 
> However, many other posters have repeatedly insisted that "we should be discussing issues here that are of practical interest to audiophiles and not just pure science".
> And, taken in that context, it is in fact worth buying the 24/192k re-master of an album _if it sounds better than the CD_ - even if it just sounds better because of better mastering.
> ...


Yep agree with you.  Any audiophile in the true sense of the word should be format agnostic (up to a point, we're not talking about 8 track cartridges) and choose the best sounding mastering regardless whether it is CD, hi res or vinyl.

However, it is still worth fighting the misinformation as it is plainly wrong to charge consumers a higher premium for a file premises on falsehoods.  If consumers were more aware they would demand value if a label wanted to charge more for certain releases.  It would also create incentives for the labels to focus on the recording and mastering rather than marketing psuedoscience to earn their revenues.


----------



## old tech

jgazal said:


> crosstalk.


Gawd, don't say that while Anaologsurvivor is particpating in this thread!


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> Gawd, don't say that while Anaologsurvivor is particpating in this thread!



....too late ... analogsulvivol stubolln species ... analogsulvivol know make closstalk analog device dissapeal below noice flool ...


----------



## old tech

71 dB said:


> _I'm taking a break from this thread/forum. I'm not sure if what I have said lately makes much sense. _
> _It happens to me easily. I lose my temper and I can't post rationally. _
> _This is the kind of forum where a minor mistake escalates into mutual insults. _
> _I don't feelt that is healthy for my sanity or self esteem. _
> _So, I take a break and concentrate on other things._


Sorry to see you go.  I agree the insults are uncalled for but the debates are interesting - on both sides.


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> ....too late ... analogsulvivol stubolln species ... analogsulvivol know make closstalk analog device dissapeal below noice flool ...


Ha, I knew you would respond.

I actually agree with you in this instance - despite the poor crosstalk metrics of analog tape, much more so with vinyl, it doesn't matter for everyday listening.  But if you again want to get into extreme examples...


----------



## 71 dB

old tech said:


> Sorry to see you go.  I agree the insults are uncalled for but the debates are interesting - on both sides.



_People here won't get rid of me completely and forever. I'm just in a more passive mode at least for now._


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> Ha, I knew you would respond.
> 
> I actually agree with you in this instance - despite the poor crosstalk metrics of analog tape, much more so with vinyl, it doesn't matter for everyday listening.  But if you again want to get into extreme examples...



Wlong - analogue lecold CAN having bettel channell sepalation than any analogue tape ( possible exception : video lecoldel used fol sound ).

But seriously, this is the topic for the future next after the next thread following this one - to be precise, not Son of Testing Audiophile Claims.... , but the 

GRANDSON of Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths

And even that is an optimist's guesstimate how much time it would be required for some>most members participating in this thread to realize what can be done. And just how much of now firmly established and valiantly-fought-to-remain-unchanged thruths will have to be realized in the end as not being THAT truthful - or carved in stone. 
So, hereby I grant this topic a Sleeping Beauty status.


----------



## jgazal (Jun 1, 2018)

old tech said:


> Gawd, don't say that while Anaologsurvivor is particpating in this thread!





analogsurviver said:


> ....too late ... analogsulvivol stubolln species ... analogsulvivol know make closstalk analog device dissapeal below noice flool ...





old tech said:


> Ha, I knew you would respond.
> 
> I actually agree with you in this instance - despite the poor crosstalk metrics of analog tape, much more so with vinyl, it doesn't matter for everyday listening.  But if you again want to get into extreme examples...



I was not referring to electronic crosstalk.

I ment acoustic crosstalk and it was not related to the topics you were discussing, but it is related to the perception of certain recordings @bigshot was testing.

It was just that.

And IMHO it just make an audible and very noticeable difference.

Although it is a very unusual kind of playback DSP, I wish he could compare all his audio library with transparent acoustic crosstalk cancellation...

Just go to BH section of 3d 360 degrees stereoscopic video cameras and you are going to see that some VR content is going to be created in the near term.

I would like to know if @bigshot prefers for instance a Sennheiser Ambeo microphone, an eigenmike or simply closed microphones with, also for instance, Dr. Choueiri binaural synthesis to publish such content in YouTube (that accept first order Ambisonics).

Is it okay for the music industry to create a video clip in non interactive VR? Which recording and mixing technique is more suitable?

Those are very specific questions that, in my opinion, do not seem exoteric.

If audiophiles will like it, I don’t know. I am just asking.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Wlong - analogue lecold CAN having bettel channell sepalation than any analogue tape ( possible exception : video lecoldel used fol sound ).
> 
> But seriously, this is the topic for the future next after the next thread following this one - to be precise, not Son of Testing Audiophile Claims.... , but the
> 
> ...


No, not wrong.  Analog can have better channel separation than other analog (it doesn't beat digital) but doesn't.  That's because nearly all stereo analog was recorded on tape, or direct-to-disc, and both are limited in separation vs fequency)  But if a tape master is released on analog disc, separation is reduced by the combination of both.  The exceptions where the original master was analog, but not tape or disc (mag film, for example) still ended up on disc.

The mass of the analog catalog defines the formats capabilities, not the unique and incompatible one-offs.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> No, not wrong.  Analog can have better channel separation than other analog (it doesn't beat digital) but doesn't.  That's because nearly all stereo analog was recorded on tape, or direct-to-disc, and both are limited in separation vs fequency)  But if a tape master is released on analog disc, separation is reduced by the combination of both.  The exceptions where the original master was analog, but not tape or disc (mag film, for example) still ended up on disc.
> 
> The mass of the analog catalog defines the formats capabilities, not the unique and incompatible one-offs.



True - but it does not have to be made any worse during the reproduction than already present in the analogue master tape and/or analogue tape or disc copies sold to the public.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> True - but it does not have to be made any worse during the reproduction than already present in the analogue master tape and/or analogue tape or disc copies sold to the public.


Last I checked, separation at the cutter head was better than typical cartridge separation, and there was some loss in the manufacturing process of the disc.  Note "typical", read "reasonably priced".  I don't even look at the exotic ones machined from moon rocks and blessed by monks. 

Oh, and digital anything beats the vinyl LP in separation.  And tape.  Roundly, flatly, and in every way. 

So now we're arguing about _this_?


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Last I checked, separation at the cutter head was better than typical cartridge separation, and there was some loss in the manufacturing process of the disc.  Note "typical", read "reasonably priced".  I don't even look at the exotic ones machined from moon rocks and blessed by monks.
> 
> Oh, and digital anything beats the vinyl LP in separation.  And tape.  Roundly, flatly, and in every way.
> 
> So now we're arguing about _this_?



Correct. 

Up to the point of analogue tape, R2R to be more precise. No R2R ever made can compete with a competently cut analogue record, played back by a well designed and well made phono cartridge that has been perfectly aligned and adjusted in the tonearm. To be precise, that would mean 40 dB or better channel separation from about 100 Hz up to at least 5 kHz while not deteriotating to less than 35 kHz at 20 kHz. Admittedly, such performance does not come cheap - but does not have to be starched in virgin blood from maidenes from Venus either. 

More about this Sleeping Beauty when the time will be right to wake her up. For now, I will not reply to any further questions on this topic


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Correct.
> 
> Up to the point of analogue tape, R2R to be more precise. No R2R ever made can compete with a competently cut analogue record, played back by a well designed and well made phono cartridge that has been perfectly aligned and adjusted in the tonearm. To be precise, that would mean 40 dB or better channel separation from about 100 Hz up to at least 5 kHz while not deteriotating to less than 35 kHz at 20 kHz. Admittedly, such performance does not come cheap - but does not have to be starched in virgin blood from maidenes from Venus either.
> 
> More about this Sleeping Beauty when the time will be right to wake her up. For now, I will not reply to any further questions on this topic


Well, that’s kind of funny, because analog tape actually _does_ beat those separation figures! And many other performance specs, depending on tape speed, formulation, and track width.  Studer A80 separation spec is 45dB @ 1kHz, 40dB 80-12k. Those are minimums, real machines beat that.


----------



## pinnahertz

I still clearly remember the first time I did a check out on a Sony PCM-F1. And after years of aligning analog recorders, then trying that thing, I had to double check to make sure I actually had it connected to the test gear!


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree - although I would substitute test _signals_ for test _tones_. 

In general, when test tones are created or chosen, the test tones used are specifically intended to make what you're testing for more obvious.
So, for example, if you're testing for speed accuracy or speed fluctuations, you generally use a sine wave tone at a steady frequency.
However, if you're specifically testing to determine the _audibility_ of speed fluctuations, then you would use a test tone at the frequency at which it has been determined our human ears are most sensitive to speed fluctuations.
But, if you're using machine measurements, you might instead choose a frequency that your test equipment was designed to work optimally with.

I should also stress that, for many types of tests, especially those including time responses, steady state tones are not at all appropriate; and specific periodic or randomly timed test signals may be indicated.
One obvious example is speakers, which often exhibit mechanical resonances and damping that varies over time.
If you're going to test the damping on a speaker, a continuous sine wave is useless; you must use a test signal that switches periodically on and off to determine how the speaker responds to the _changes_ in signal.
Likewise, certain circuitry may exhibit one level of THD or some other distortion with a steady state signal, but may exhibit higher levels right after or during a change in operating state.
And, again likewise, if you want to test how a given piece of equipment responds to transient signals, or rapidly changing signal levels, then you must use a test signal that contains what you're testing for.
(You can't test the brakes on a car by driving it down a track at a steady 60 mpH; you must test how quickly it stops under a variety of different braking conditions.)
It should also be noted that some complex digital circuitry responds differently to periodically repeating signals than to those that vary randomly; in which case both conditions must be tested.
(For example, the audibility of data-correlated noise is different than the audibility of uncorrelated noise; data correlated noise occurs most often with digital audio, but also describes the "breathing effect" you hear on the noise floor caused by many analog or digital signal compressors.)



bigshot said:


> If there is some sort of anomaly that is revealed better in music, I haven't ever run across it. I generally find that things that are audible in music are an order of magnitude more obvious with tones. The reason is that music has lots of contrasts to hide small defects. Tones are nice and even and controlled. It's easier to spot noise or distortion when the signal is smooth like that. If you can get clean with tones, you can be very confident that music will sound fine. The standard measures of sound quality are very good at quantifying fidelity. The overall concepts of frequency response, distortion and dynamics cover all the bases you need to reproduce music. This stuff really isn't a mystery. All you need is some sense of how the numbers on the charts represent real world sound.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Well, that’s kind of funny, because analog tape actually _does_ beat those separation figures! And many other performance specs, depending on tape speed, formulation, and track width.  Studer A80 separation spec is 45dB @ 1kHz, 40dB 80-12k. Those are minimums, real machines beat that.



Agreed for the A-80.

Well, I stayed within "reasonable minimums" for really high quality cartridges, mounted to high quality arms, at "still reasonably crazy" prices. 
A-80 also isn't something given away as a free bonus when buying a lollipop either...

Now, please check online specs for the better Allearts http://users.telenet.be/jallaerts/ cartridges ... and you'll see why they are specified at so narrow vertical tracking force range - or why even the likes of Michael Fremer, who usually has to be begged, swindled or whatevered in order to review analogue gear so many manufacturers would like to have reviewed by him, has to place an order, pay in advance with his own money and waa......aaaii......iiit until it arrives - just to be able to review it. Those incredible and insane specs DO have a *misterious* influence on performance... that old
" I heard instruments/voices/details from my most familiar records I thought I knew by heart for the very first time " will be one of the first reactions. And an entirely different, more relaxed and more insightful, but totally listening fatigue free listening as the end result - not the quality that can be assessed and appreciated in a double blind ABX that lasts for seconds, minutes max at the time.

Needless to say, if one does not know in advance how to mount/align/adjust the cartridge of this calibre, no amount of instructions would help. Definitely not something for newbies.

But, I admit, the prices border on moon rocks and esoteric monks variety.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> I still clearly remember the first time I did a check out on a Sony PCM-F1. And after years of aligning analog recorders, then trying that thing, I had to double check to make sure I actually had it connected to the test gear!



That is the positive side of digital.


----------



## KeithEmo

Absolutely.....

And, as far as I'm concerned, MQA is a shining example of that.
Part of my job is to provide phone support to consumers purchasing home theater and stereo audio products.
MQA has been very enthusiastically promoted to audiophiles based on its (presumed) technical merits... and many audiophiles seem to have accepted those claims as fact.
However, it's amazing how many people are quite convinced that "they need it" and that "it's better" - even though they have no understanding of the technical discussion - one way or the other - and do _NOT_ understand the claims of why it's supposed to be better. .
They have simply read enough magazine articles claiming that it's wonderful that, even with no understanding of the actual explanation, they simply assume that "there must be some truth to all the claims".
The same is true for Dolby Atmos....
A remarkable number of people simply believe that "it's the latest thing and they must have it" - without even a clear understanding of what it is or how it might benefit them.

There is also a well-known consumer phenomenon that many customers will choose "the middle model", while certain ones will choose "the premium model", almost independent of any actual differences.
There is simply a human tendency to believe that "the premium model is better" - and to avoid "the low end model" because we assume "there must be something wrong with it".
Some folks will purchase "the top model" because they assume it's "the best"; others will choose the center model, avoiding both "the cheap model" and 'the luxury model".
However, in many cases, this has been shown over and over again to be largely independent of any actual differences between the various models - other that their positioning in the model line.



old tech said:


> Yep agree with you.  Any audiophile in the true sense of the word should be format agnostic (up to a point, we're not talking about 8 track cartridges) and choose the best sounding mastering regardless whether it is CD, hi res or vinyl.
> 
> However, it is still worth fighting the misinformation as it is plainly wrong to charge consumers a higher premium for a file premises on falsehoods.  If consumers were more aware they would demand value if a label wanted to charge more for certain releases.  It would also create incentives for the labels to focus on the recording and mastering rather than marketing psuedoscience to earn their revenues.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jun 1, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Agreed for the A-80.
> 
> Well, I stayed within "reasonable minimums" for really high quality cartridges, mounted to high quality arms, at "still reasonably crazy" prices.
> A-80 also isn't something given away as a free bonus when buying a lollipop either...


But the A80, it’s much cheaper brother the B67, and many others from other manufacturers formed the front end of nearly all analog recording. Once Dolby A was added the crosstalk got 10dB better. It wasn’t consumer product, because that wasn’t its role.


analogsurviver said:


> Now, please check online specs for the better Allearts


Thanks, but I’m not doing that. Common professional tape beats consumer disc playback. We’re done.


analogsurviver said:


> or why even the likes of Michael Fremer, who usually has to be begged, swindled or whatevered in order to review analogue gear so many manufacturers would like to have reviewed by him, has to place an order, pay in advance with his own money and waa......aaaii......iiit until it arrives - just to be able to review it. Those incredible and insane specs DO have a *misterious* influence on performance... that old
> " I heard instruments/voices/details from my most familiar records I thought I knew by heart for the very first time " will be one of the first reactions. And an entirely different, more relaxed and more insightful, but totally listening fatigue free listening as the end result - not the quality that can be assessed and appreciated in a double blind ABX that lasts for seconds, minutes max at the time.
> 
> Needless to say, if one does not know in advance how to mount/align/adjust the cartridge of this calibre, no amount of instructions would help. Definitely not something for newbies.
> ...


Michael Fremer?  No, I’m not going down that road with you either. It’s full of huge potholes. And you clearly don’t understand ABX testing And why fully subjective, biased, sighted testing is invalid, which is at least consistent, and fully expected.  But I’m not going to waste time on a debate on that one with you. Perceptual biases are known, understood, and not debatable.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 1, 2018)

jgazal said:


> I would like to know if @bigshot prefers for instance a Sennheiser Ambeo microphone, an eigenmike or simply closed microphones with, also for instance, Dr. Choueiri binaural synthesis to publish such content in YouTube (that accept first order Ambisonics).



I don't know if any of this stuff works for me. I can't perceive any advantage at all to the Chesky binaural album I bought- only the limitations of "one shot and one shot only" engineering techniques. I suspect that these techniques may work best with dummy heads instead of my noggin.




KeithEmo said:


> The same is true for Dolby Atmos....



Atmos is a little different. There are other formats that can do exactly the same thing as SACD and DSD at a lower cost and more efficiently. But there isn't a cheaper easier alternative to Atmos. The problem is that multichannel audio expands exponentially with each level of improvement. You have to double the number of channels to notice a significant improvement. For instance, mono to stereo and stereo to quad. Once you get to 4.0 it's only a little improvement to go to 5.1. The next best improvement would be 8 channels. This isn't easy to implement in a typical living room. But if you do get to 8 channels or above, it allows object oriented placement in three dimensional space. I don't have Atmos myself, but I can totally understand how adding an extra vertical dimension would make a big difference. To go beyond 8 channel you would need to implement 16 channel, which would bridge gaps and make object placement more precise. Controlling all this would be incredibly difficult in a home situation, but I don't doubt that if it was properly used, it would make a significant improvement to sound quality. I can't say the same about HD audio formats.



analogsurviver said:


> More about this Sleeping Beauty when the time will be right to wake her up. For now, I will not reply to any further questions on this topic



If you're planning to create a vanity thread based on this thread's topic where you expect us to give you rapt attention while you lead us by the nose through blatant boloney, I think Sleeping Beauty would do better to wake up in a castle in a completely different kingdom. We don't need a thread like that here. I do however encourage you to stop filling this valuable thread with your text walls of indulgent self gratification.


----------



## jgazal (Jun 1, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I don't know if any of this stuff works for me. I can't perceive any advantage at all to the Chesky binaural album I bought- only the limitations of "one shot and one shot only" engineering techniques. I suspect that these techniques may work best with dummy heads instead of my noggin.



Don’t worry.

Nobody can force anybody to do certain experiments.

I just wanted to make clear to anyone that reads your conclusion that if someone rules out something, he/she was based on certain premises and experiments.

Just change one premise and its correlated experiment (stereo two loudspeakers playback with xtc, for intance) and the conclusion might be different.

Sooner or later, if you are fond of VR, you will be exposed to xtc, binaural beamforming (with soundbars) and/or some sort of seamless personalized BRIR or HRTF convolution. Dr. Smyth believes that the latter will happen in the next 15/20 years (8 min):



I hope to be sooner...


----------



## RRod

jgazal said:


> I hope to be sooner...



Things like Creative's Super X-Fi have me hopeful for sooner. A smart headphone with frickin' laser beams measuring the pinnae is something that doesn't even sound like just a dream any more; yay technology.


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> Agreed for the A-80.
> 
> Well, I stayed within "reasonable minimums" for really high quality cartridges, mounted to high quality arms, at "still reasonably crazy" prices.
> A-80 also isn't something given away as a free bonus when buying a lollipop either...
> ...


Appealing to Michael Fremer, one of the most known audio cranks and digiphobes?  Now you are really stretching any shred of credibility you have left.

Actually, for others reading this thread, if you want a good laugh have a read of the letter he wrote to the editor of The Audio Critic on page 6 back in the early 1990s, and the excellent reply from the editor (yes, he was a well known crank even back then and seen as a complete nuisance to those with an audio engineering background. 

http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/mags/The_Audio_Critic_21_r.pdf


----------



## pinnahertz

Do you know what Mr. Fremer has proclaimed as the ultimate means of recording and playing music?  Analog tape!   And not first-generation masters with professional noise reduction either...just a copy several generations from the master, no NR,15 IPS (the speed is common, but rather bass-challenged).  
Heard him say it in person at Axpona in a tape symposium.  I only stayed about 20 minutes, much more than I could stand.  Those guys are all crazy.


----------



## old tech

pinnahertz said:


> Do you know what Mr. Fremer has proclaimed as the ultimate means of recording and playing music?  Analog tape!   And not first-generation masters with professional noise reduction either...just a copy several generations from the master, no NR,15 IPS (the speed is common, but rather bass-challenged).
> Heard him say it in person at Axpona in a tape symposium.  I only stayed about 20 minutes, much more than I could stand.  Those guys are all crazy.


Actually, 15 ips is less bass challenged than 30 ips though I suspect it is because bass is less accurate at 15 ips which has the effect of thickening the sound for a warmer tone, a bit like vinyl in a way.


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> Absolutely.....
> 
> And, as far as I'm concerned, MQA is a shining example of that. Part of my job is to provide phone support to consumers purchasing home theater and stereo audio products. MQA has been very enthusiastically promoted to audiophiles based on its (presumed) technical merits... and many audiophiles seem to have accepted those claims as fact. However, it's amazing how many people are quite convinced that "they need it" and that "it's better" - even though they have no understanding of the technical discussion - one way or the other - and do _NOT_ understand the claims of why it's supposed to be better. . . They have simply read enough magazine articles claiming that it's wonderful that, even with no understanding of the actual explanation, they simply assume that "there must be some truth to all the claims". The same is true for Dolby Atmos…. A remarkable number of people simply believe that "it's the latest thing and they must have it" - without even a clear understanding of what it is or how it might benefit them.



If people knew and understood all things, it would be very difficult to sell them products without real benefits. Commercialism is based on greating new needs for people so people can never be happy. Our weaknesses are used against us. Placebo is real for those who experience it and from philosophical point of view it might be that life without any placebo effects is boring and bland. I can't dream about a better sounding audio format, because I know 16/44.1 digital audio already is perfect for my ears. This is it, the CDs I listen to are as good as it gets in respect of format quality. People who think MQA/Hi-res audio offers something new have excitement in their lives. In that sense I envy them. I have to find my excitement elsewhere, like in discovering new exciting music while those other people can keep buying their favorite rock albums over and over again in new "better" formats without the need to discover great music. Who is happier? Me or them? 



KeithEmo said:


> There is also a well-known consumer phenomenon that many customers will choose "the middle model", while certain ones will choose "the premium model", almost independent of any actual differences.
> There is simply a human tendency to believe that "the premium model is better" - and to avoid "the low end model" because we assume "there must be something wrong with it".
> Some folks will purchase "the top model" because they assume it's "the best"; others will choose the center model, avoiding both "the cheap model" and 'the luxury model".
> However, in many cases, this has been shown over and over again to be largely independent of any actual differences between the various models - other that their positioning in the model line.


Product segmentation is a basic thing in marketing. The idea is to milk as much money from people as possible. If there was only one model, say the middle model, those who are willing to pay only for the low end model would walk away and those who would have bought the high end model maybe buy the middle model or walk away. So we lose a lot of business. Since these is different willingness to pay for a certain type of product, the best way is to offer a few models in differing price classes. Typically the higher prices models arent' that much pricier to manufacture, in some cases as cheap as the cheap model and some features are simply disabled to have an excuse to sell it cheaper and have the benefits of selling more units (unit cost goes down).

Product segmentation is used even with things like cookies! You can buy brand name (such as LU) cookies at full price and the exact same cookies from the same production line as cheapo cookies under non-brand name, typically as a market chain cheapo brand. Rich people want "real" brand name cookies while poor and smart people pay less for the exact same cookies.

Sometimes it is beneficial to pay for the high end model if it offers some useful functionalities lacking in cheaper models, but in general the cheapest/middle models might offer everything we need. Why pay more?


----------



## pinnahertz

old tech said:


> Actually, 15 ips is less bass challenged than 30 ips though I suspect it is because bass is less accurate at 15 ips which has the effect of thickening the sound for a warmer tone, a bit like vinyl in a way.


Yes, as speed goes up the LF response roll-off point goes up too. The advantage of higher speed is better HF response and the noise spectrum is bumped high so it actually sounds quieter. However, the widest response within the audible spectrum, at lease on a good machine with good tape, happens at 7.5ips. With wide tracks, not the consumer quarter track but half track, you get low end down to 20Hz, and high end flat to 20kHz. Slap on Dolby SR and it actually gives 16 bit PCM a good run for the money in some aspects.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 2, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Do you know what Mr. Fremer has proclaimed as the ultimate means of recording and playing music?  Analog tape!   And not first-generation masters with professional noise reduction either...just a copy several generations from the master, no NR,15 IPS (the speed is common, but rather bass-challenged).
> Heard him say it in person at Axpona in a tape symposium.  I only stayed about 20 minutes, much more than I could stand.  Those guys are all crazy.



That sounds like him.

Now, IF we go back to anything less than studio mastering, to anything that can be bought as music carrier/recording, there IS some logic behind it.

I can remember really well what transition from analogue to digital recording meant for the Philips classical releases. Same orchestra, same conductor, same venue, same recording engineer - the only difference being (one of ?) the last analogue recording vs (one of?) the first digital recording. Here I wish the puking emoticon was available - and that when comparing both on CD, let alone if analogue record vs those pesky Philiphs 80's is confronted. No, I would take reasonable generation analogue tape copy without NR at 15PSI over those first CDs any day.

Hmm... - I do not have much - make that ANY - experience with R2R, but you might be advised to check how things really are with bass and tape speed in R2R. 15 IPS is, IIRC, the best compromise between highs and lows - at 30 IPS, there is , of course, better treble - but at the expense of lthe ow frequency extension.
As I wrote before - any R2R ever made commercially available would lose for bass to the last generation of amorphous head equipped cassette decks - BADLY SO. Amorrphous heads have first been produced for video recorders, then for the short lived Philiphs Digital Compact Cassette DCC ( produced by Panasonic, because of  video experience ) and finally for the cassette recorders. There is no restriction for making the amorphous heads for the R2R format - only the demand is (still?) too low to consider tooling etc to be commercially viable.

Regardless of what anyone might say, CD never was enough for me. It should not be allowed to de facto become a standard for music. With that out of the way, selling digital  at least twice higher sampling rate than CD 16/44 as downloads is the first time the customer really does have a chance to get something that could be demonstrably better than analogue - either tape or disc.

Returning to Mr. Fremer - he did a good service to the analogue record crowd by making DVDs regarding the proper phono cartridge installation and setup available to public at large. A properly  set up turntable, with all the deficiences of the analogue, can have perfectly acceptable characteristics for music listening. The availability of this knowledge, previously mostly being kept as away from the consumer as possible, is a greater service to MUSIC than any recording engineer could have ever pulled trough.
Regardless how much you can not stand this guy otherwise - never forget this fact and give the credit when the credit is due. .

Even if we *suppose* to have the perfect recording equipment, DC to light with infinite S/N ratio - what we can not have is the artrist from the past. Some of the "young aspiring" artists ( described so on the LPs I grew up with ) are no longer with us. And the general momentum of the times following the WW II when people were joyous to remain alive, when there was commitment and dedication to be the best one can be taken for granted - that spirit, that passion you can hear on those, no matter how technically imperfect recordings. And, those recordings ARE on the LPs - for all but the most well to do, who can afford "just a copy several generations from the master, no NR,15 IPS".
You've mentioned tapes ... ; citing one of the old types, with low - generally speaking - "storage capability". Analogue tapes are loosing their properties exponentially with time ( extreme top end is the first to go ) - that's why Decca people have been on constant watch whenever a recording has been taking place and likelihood of a finished master tape was high - taxi drove the finished tape to be used for cutting the annalogue master disc IMMEDIATELY  after the tape has been completed. In the vee hours of the day, if required ... That's WHY is the first pressing of Decca SXL  _ _ _ _ ( 4 DIGIT NUMBER ) with dead vax inscription denoting the very first pressing SO highly sought after ( not to mention pricey ). No consequent re-release, no matter how more advanced either analog or digital gear has been used for later re-releases from that same, but ever more deteriorated master tape, can match those first pressings.
Funny thing is that later, better "storage capability" tapes ( more bass, more highs, less noise, less distortion, etc ), particularly from 80s, do not hold over time nearly as well as their older counterparts. In particularly bad cases, these tapes can - turn into dust, if merely touched ... In a bit more forgiving scenario, they may allow playback ( before clogging up the heads and tape transport ) for making a digital copy, say a song at each time - and can not be used for analogue record mastering, since the buildup of debris on tape heads and transport does not allow for 20-25 minutes of quality tape playback , such as required for analogue record mastering, where an entire side has to be recorded in one go.

True, records wear with each play - but both tapes and CDs are known to be capable of decay beyond usability. The same goes for HDDs and SDDs - hopefully, all of us are using backups. In case of downlads, it IS WISE to keep the proof of purchase/receipt; some vendors will let you download another time for free by presenting the proof of purchase, should the unthinkable really happen. Suitably kept, vinyl records can last centuries ... just look how big  a problem plastics polluting our oceans has become, with plastics taking so long to decompose ...  No sane person will "store" the records in baking sun/freezing gale, salty water, etc . In true sense of the word, analogue records are heritage.

We do not have the capability to record the Perfect Zombie Orchestra with our *supposedly* perfect DC to light with infinite S/N and zero distortion equipment. Just yesterday a friend of mine lamented on the facebook how dissapointing it was to experience the "proffessional" service of a highly respected instrumentalist who played at a concert that has been prepared, searched for sponsors, etc, ( almost half a year work ) - and that "pro" ruined almost everything by playing the concert at VERY prima vista ...  I had a similar, only yet more frustrating experience - with a highly respected pro turning up at the recording of a NEW work, to be recorded first time ever, in the presence of the composer - without EVER opening the scores prior to being in the recording venue - which became blantantly obvious to even the most amateurish among the amateurs in less than 2 minutes after recording began ...

I agree, much of the above veers off the strict course "testing myths/sound science" by quite a big bit - but, all of it is a fact of life.

P.S: Damn inches... in the comment above regarding tape speed above, I made a mistake. I meant 19 cm/s as having better bass than 38 cm/s (15 IPS ) - let alone 76 cm/s (30 IPS ). Still, when dealing with earlier originally analogue recorded content ( that does not have too much bass to begin with ) 15 IPS without NR ( another possibility of incompatibility at end user's end ) is likely to privide a copy that sounds closer to the original master tape - and that is most likely reason such copies that are increasingly becoming available are done at 15 IPS.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> With that out of the way, selling digital at least twice higher sampling rate than CD 16/44 as downloads is the first time the customer really does have a chance to get something that could be demonstrably better than analogue - either tape or disc.



Upon it's release CD demonstrated it was better than analogue tape or disc, which is why tape rapidly went extinct and vinyl hovered on extinction. Furthermore, not only did CD demonstrate this in practice, it was actually proven to be better by science. You know this though and therefore your statement is deliberate, outright lie and if that's not bad enough, you just keep repeating that lie over and over? AND, if that's not more than bad enough already, this is just one of the many outright lies in your post, which are again all repeats!! STOP TROLLING!

G


----------



## 71 dB

This constant anti-CD venting by *analogsurviver* is really tiresome and has contributed my decision to be less active on this board.

We know the story. Early CD releases where hit and miss, because it all was in it's infancy (similarly old 78's don't represent analog sound at it's best) and the sound was different because of the lack of the various distortions present in analog formats. Add some lunatic anti-digital "experts" lecturing about the "superiority" of analog formats and thousands of people were brainwashed to be like analogsurviver. Take some classical music recording done in the last 20 years, possibly some SACD recordings and listen to the downsampled CD layer. The sound quality is often breathtaking and totally transparent as it should, something that analog formats fail to achieve. How difficult it is to admit that vinyl adds distortions to the sound and you like those distortions compared to distortion free transparent digital sound?


----------



## bigshot (Jun 2, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> I can remember really well what transition from analogue to digital recording meant for the Philips classical releases. Same orchestra, same conductor, same venue, same recording engineer - the only difference being (one of ?) the last analogue recording vs (one of?) the first digital recording. Here I wish the puking emoticon was available - and that when comparing both on CD, let alone if analogue record vs those pesky Philiphs 80's is confronted. No, I would take reasonable generation analogue tape copy without NR at 15PSI over those first CDs any day.



Totally wrong. NEXT!

Just to let you know, when you start out with a paragraph like this, I don't bother to read any further. Your posts are long winded, repetitive and devoid of any content anyway, so I guess I'm not missing much.


----------



## old tech (Jun 2, 2018)

Remember back in the early days of CD when they carried a SPAR code?  Many of the earlier AAD CDs carried a disclosure on the rear cover alerting the listener that the CD may reveal the limitations of the analogue source tape, such is the higher resolution of 16bits.. And many did so, particularly the flat transfers from 15 ips tapes that had no NR. I have many of those CDs which preserved the tape hiss clearlly.  The LP releases did not have sufficient resolution to reveal the tape hiss anywhere near the same extent.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Jun 2, 2018)

old tech said:


> Remember back in the early days of CD when they carried a SPAR code?  Many of the earlier AAD CDs carried a disclosure on the rear cover alerting the listener that the CD may reveal the limitations of the analogue source tape, such is the higher resolution of 16bits.. And many did so, particularly the flat transfers from 15 ips tapes that had no NR. I have many of those CDs which preserved the tape hiss clearlly.  The LP releases did not have sufficient resolution to reveal the tape hiss anywhere near the same extent.


So vinyl can't  reproduce tape hiss now?Wow!What frequency is tape hiss at that vinyl can't reproduce it?I have albums that reproduce tape "bleed through" with no problem at all.....you might want to consider upgrading  your vinyl setup.


----------



## old tech (Jun 2, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> So vinyl can't  reproduce tape hiss now?Wow!What frequency is tape hiss at that vinyl can't reproduce it?I have albums that reproduce tape "bleed through" with no problem at all.....you might want to consider upgrading  your vinyl setup.



I said "to the same extent"... and I am talking about tape hiss not vinyl hiss.  It is also not about the frequency but the noise floor of CD v vinyl which increases the resolution and hence, hearing the tape hiss from the source.

My vinyl set up is quite good, having expensed a lot of time, money and effort into it over the past few decades - it certainly is better than any VPI, Project etc TT out of the box.

Are you sure the hiss you are hearing is not the surface noise of the record?  They do hiss you know, which any decent TT will reveal.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Jun 2, 2018)

old tech said:


> I said "to the same extent"... and I am talking about tape hiss not vinyl hiss.  It is also not about the frequency but the noise floor of CD v vinyl which increases the resolution and hence, hearing the tape hiss from the source.
> 
> My vinyl set up is quite good, having expensed a lot of time, money and effort into it over the past few decades - it certainly is better than any VPI, Project etc TT out of the box.
> 
> Are you sure the hiss you are hearing is not the surface noise of the record?  They do hiss you know, which any decent TT will reveal.


Bleed through is the sound of magnetic tape leaking the sound recorded from one layer of tape to the next(old tapes)...if vinyl can reproduce this i doubt it would have a problem with something as benign as tape hiss.


----------



## dprimary

Glmoneydawg said:


> Bleed through is the sound of magnetic tape leaking the sound recorded from one layer of tape to the next(old tapes)...if vinyl can reproduce this i doubt it would have a problem with something as benign as tape hiss.



Print though is substantially above the noise floor of any decent 1/2" 2 track or for that matter 2" 24 track.  Most of the time it is masked. If it was buried in the tape hiss we would have never worried about it so much.


----------



## old tech

dprimary said:


> Print though is substantially above the noise floor of any decent 1/2" 2 track or for that matter 2" 24 track.  Most of the time it is masked. If it was buried in the tape hiss we would have never worried about it so much.


Beat me to it... yes print through means the tape source is very poor and if significant and I have no doubt it that it can be heard even on a pre-recorded cassette tape with its lower SNR.  Tape hiss on the other hand generally cannot be heard with vinyl playback as it is likely to be buried underneath the noise floor of the record, unless of course the tape source is poor with very loud tape hiss.  The hiss that is heard on vinyl playback is more likely the surface noise of the record, it sounds exactly like tape hiss because it is tape hiss, ie random errors arising from the media and its playback apparatus.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> That sounds like him.
> 
> Now, IF we go back to anything less than studio mastering, to anything that can be bought as music carrier/recording, there IS some logic behind it.
> 
> I can remember really well what transition from analogue to digital recording meant for the Philips classical releases. Same orchestra, same conductor, same venue, same recording engineer - the only difference being (one of ?) the last analogue recording vs (one of?) the first digital recording. Here I wish the puking emoticon was available - and that when comparing both on CD, let alone if analogue record vs those pesky Philiphs 80's is confronted. No, I would take reasonable generation analogue tape copy without NR at 15PSI over those first CDs any day.


I don't agree.  The problems with early CDs were specific to certain releases, not a general overall problem.  Before I would take a 15ips copy, NR or not, I'd have to know what the master was.  All tape copes of tapes have 3dB noise gains, additional HF and LF rolloff, additional distortion, speed variation, and so on.


analogsurviver said:


> Hmm... - I do not have much - make that ANY - experience with R2R, but you might be advised to check how things really are with bass and tape speed in R2R. 15 IPS is, IIRC, the best compromise between highs and lows - at 30 IPS, there is , of course, better treble - but at the expense of lthe ow frequency extension.


Comic!  Very funny!  The guy who claims zero experience with reel to reel tape telling the guy with nearly 50 years to check on...well, anything.  You kill me, man!


analogsurviver said:


> As I wrote before - any R2R ever made commercially available would lose for bass to the last generation of amorphous head equipped cassette decks - BADLY SO. Amorrphous heads have first been produced for video recorders, then for the short lived Philiphs Digital Compact Cassette DCC ( produced by Panasonic, because of  video experience ) and finally for the cassette recorders. There is no restriction for making the amorphous heads for the R2R format - only the demand is (still?) too low to consider tooling etc to be commercially viable.


Oh my.  SO much not understood here.  Your assumption that the cassette is the definitive low-frequency tape format is based on measurements made of single specific machines playing their own tapes.  It's MUCH more complex than that.  LF response within a single deck can be optimized, but it's a certainty that same cassette played on a different machine will not have that response, probably not even close.  You should understand that low frequency tape calibration is very sloppy.  The "standard" is a test tape, but it's likely the LF response of that test tape is not actually flat.  Most cassette test tapes are recorded with wider track width than those of a cassette deck, so right away, fringing will cause LF errors.  The narrow tracks cause more issues, and the slow speed even more, both in the form of low frequency "head bumps".  What you see as a very nice flat response trace of a particular deck playing its own recording won't be reality in any other way.  You also ignore the fact that commercially available cassettes are all high-speed duplicated, either in-cassette or R-R pancake then loaded into shells.  The process compromises HF response and LF response, but is the only economical way to get the job done.  And lastly, all FR measurements of cassette decks are made at -20dB relative to reference fluxivity.  Do you know why?  It's because flat response is not achievable at reference level or even -10dB because of tape saturation.  So you might have a deck flat within itself down to 20Hz, but it won't do that at 0VU, not even close.


analogsurviver said:


> Regardless of what anyone might say, CD never was enough for me. It should not be allowed to de facto become a standard for music. With that out of the way, selling digital  at least twice higher sampling rate than CD 16/44 as downloads is the first time the customer really does have a chance to get something that could be demonstrably better than analogue - either tape or disc.


It doesn't matter, it's what we have, and just about all purchased music is 44/16. 


analogsurviver said:


> You've mentioned tapes ... ; citing one of the old types, with low - generally speaking - "storage capability". Analogue tapes are loosing their properties exponentially with time ( extreme top end is the first to go ) - that's why Decca people have been on constant watch whenever a recording has been taking place and likelihood of a finished master tape was high - taxi drove the finished tape to be used for cutting the annalogue master disc IMMEDIATELY  after the tape has been completed.


Complete nonsense!  I've run actual tests and measurements.  HF loss is simply a non issue if the tape is properly stored.  You have NO IDEA of what you speak.  I've even tested how an external magnetic field might erase a tape, and measured with a Bell Gauss Meter, the magnetic flux it takes to affect noise and HF response.  It's NOT SMALL!  It's HUGE, or tape couldn't store a signal.  Remember, we have the huge magnet we live on which could erase tapes...if they were formulated with low coercivity and low retentivity.  But they aren't and weren't, so we're good.


analogsurviver said:


> In the vee hours of the day, if required ... That's WHY is the first pressing of Decca SXL  _ _ _ _ ( 4 DIGIT NUMBER ) with dead vax inscription denoting the very first pressing SO highly sought after ( not to mention pricey ). No consequent re-release, no matter how more advanced either analog or digital gear has been used for later re-releases from that same, but ever more deteriorated master tape, can match those first pressings.


The story is apocryphal. It makes no sense for many reasons.  If tape were that bad it wouldn't be a viable storage medium at all, and the story implies absolutely no mastering at all...ridiculous.  Furthermore, If the HF on tape began to vanish immediately to the point there there was an audible difference in hours, you couldn't store anything for a year.  But there are 60 year old tapes with minimal degradation, so how do you explain that? 


analogsurviver said:


> Funny thing is that later, better "storage capability" tapes ( more bass, more highs, less noise, less distortion, etc ), particularly from 80s, do not hold over time nearly as well as their older counterparts. In particularly bad cases, these tapes can - turn into dust, if merely touched ... In a bit more forgiving scenario, they may allow playback ( before clogging up the heads and tape transport ) for making a digital copy, say a song at each time - and can not be used for analogue record mastering, since the buildup of debris on tape heads and transport does not allow for 20-25 minutes of quality tape playback , such as required for analogue record mastering, where an entire side has to be recorded in one go.


No, no NO!  You've got it all wrong again!  You admit to having no experience with R-R tape, right?  Why are you going on with spewing nonsense then?  Nothing "turned to dust", ever!  The problem with "sticky-shed", or more correctly known as "binder breakdown", is confined to a certain generation of back-coated tapes where the back coating, present as a static reduction measure, chemically breaks down the organic binders that hold the oxide on the tape.  The problem is remedied by baking that tape in a convection oven, then _*playing it without issue.  *_The problem will return, but can again be reversed temporarily as long as necessary for dubbing, mastering, digital capture, etc.  Tapes with corrected back-coating formulas, or tapes without back-coating at all are unaffected.


analogsurviver said:


> True, records wear with each play - but both tapes and CDs are known to be capable of decay beyond usability.


I'll give it to you, you're consistent...and wrong.  Records do wear, _*measurably and audibly from the first play on.*_  There were some manufacturing problems with some early CDs were they could degrade, but the problems have been fixed for decades.


analogsurviver said:


> The same goes for HDDs and SDDs - hopefully, all of us are using backups.


Correct on backups.  HDDs can degrade on a shelf if not used, but mounting them up every so often runs them through recal, and mostly corrects the issue.  Continuous use will eventually cause an HDD to fail. It's never been considered an archival media.  SSD (Solid State Drives) have a predicted storage lifespan of 100 years.


analogsurviver said:


> P.S: Damn inches... in the comment above regarding tape speed above, I made a mistake. I meant 19 cm/s as having better bass than 38 cm/s (15 IPS ) - let alone 76 cm/s (30 IPS ). Still, when dealing with earlier originally analogue recorded content ( that does not have too much bass to begin with ) 15 IPS without NR ( another possibility of incompatibility at end user's end ) is likely to privide a copy that sounds closer to the original master tape - and that is most likely reason such copies that are increasingly becoming available are done at 15 IPS.


Wrong yet again.  ALL Tape copies are easily audible degradations from the master.  ALL of them!   As to professional noise reduction, AGAIN, YOU have NO experience with any of it!  So knock it off already!  Dolby A has been a studio standard since the late 1960s!  Dolby SR, a rather major upgrade, was standardized but digital cut its life a bit shorter.  Both involve level calibration using a head-end tone, both are engineered tolerate the foibles of tape quite well, and both significantly improve on one of tapes biggest failings: signal to noise.  There is NO user compatibility issue, because the users and the equipment are of the professional category.

On the other hand, a 44/16 PCM copy of a 15ips non-NR tape is indistinguishable from the original.  

You are so out of your league here it must certainly be embarrassing.  I now MUST agree that you are trolling. Nobody would post this quantity of nonsense without purposefully trying to pick a fight.  I would think nobody would post this level of inaccuracy unknowingly, with all the resources avail to confirm facts and avoid embarrassment.  But I've been wrong before.  Perhaps you're just a glutton for punishment.

But I'm calling "Troll".


----------



## pinnahertz

Glmoneydawg said:


> So vinyl can't  reproduce tape hiss now?Wow!What frequency is tape hiss at that vinyl can't reproduce it?I have albums that reproduce tape "bleed through" with no problem at all.....you might want to consider upgrading  your vinyl setup.


Nah, vinyl can reproduce tape hiss just fine. It does a lot.  But there's also surface noise that tends to make it a bit less obvious.  It's there, though.  When you put digital silence between analog tape tracks it just happens to be a bigger contrast.

Most of what people heard as "more revealing" of mastering issues in early CDs was simply different mastering.  Remember, the entire path, analog master tape to lacquer vs master tape to PCM CD master was different and done by different people in different studios.


----------



## bigshot

LPs can sound good, just not as good as CDs. CDs are perfect for all intents and purposes for listening in the home.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> That sounds like him.
> 
> Now, IF we go back to anything less than studio mastering, to anything that can be bought as music carrier/recording, there IS some logic behind it.
> 
> ...


those 2 sentences sum up the very core of what you think. the rest is IMO just another gish gallop. 
now the facts: CD is superior to vinyl on about any measurable variable of fidelity, but because you think CD is inferior(subjective preference), you most likely ended up hanging on to the one variable where vinyl can arguably be better, a slightly more extended upper range. this is the only thing I've taken away from your obsession for ultrasounds after a few years of talking to you. never a convincing argument about that specific idea, only stuff you deduce from your premise that ultrasonic content does improve our experience. but who is going to care when what we contest is the premise itself? in the end, your one "advantage" supposed to trump all the ways in which vinyl is magnitudes inferior to CD, ends up not even being an idea supported by solid evidence. 
why should anybody agree with you? all the evidence prove the flaws of vinyl, and once again, I know that you know all about it. so I have a really hard time understanding what you're trying to do, trying to argue that the flaws aren't that bad, that stuff measured could be better if we were to change everything, surely there is a point where even you can see that this delusion is going too far?


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> those 2 sentences sum up the very core of what you think. the rest is IMO just another gish gallop.
> now the facts: CD is superior to vinyl on about any measurable variable of fidelity, but because you think CD is inferior(subjective preference), you most likely ended up hanging on to the one variable where vinyl can arguably be better, a slightly more extended upper range. this is the only thing I've taken away from your obsession for ultrasounds after a few years of talking to you. never a convincing argument about that specific idea, only stuff you deduce from your premise that ultrasonic content does improve our experience. but who is going to care when what we contest is the premise itself? in the end, your one "advantage" supposed to trump all the ways in which vinyl is magnitudes inferior to CD, ends up not even being an idea supported by solid evidence.
> why should anybody agree with you? all the evidence prove the flaws of vinyl, and once again, I know that you know all about it. so I have a really hard time understanding what you're trying to do, trying to argue that the flaws aren't that bad, that stuff measured could be better if we were to change everything, surely there is a point where even you can see that this delusion is going too far?



Analogue record does not have slightly more extended upper range; if done correctly, it can have the range extended to approx 50 kHz.  Even in its basic form, most often used real time recording, there is no brick filtering above the upper limit for flat response, that is to say approx 27 kHz, depending on the model of the cutterhead. Rollof above this frequency is nowhere as steep as required by RBCD.

HR has all the positives of CD - doesn't it ? And it is starting to approach frequency response no analogue - even the most extreme - can not possibly match. If it is DSD, there is no chance of interchannel delay that can creep up with PCM.

Of course I am aware of all the flaws of the vinyl. Probably better than anyone else. And of the CD. AND have been trying to squezze the most out of both mediums - for the love of music. The fact remains that CD is inherently limited by the Red Book - and, if compared side by side live sound vs either analogue record or CD on a high quality system, , a properly done analogue record would win  - it simply sounds closer to the original IF played back by a high quality record player with extended frequency response. I never said that good analogue is cheap or that it will ever be able to compete with digital within budget restraints - that can not be done. On the other hand, one can pour into a CD 16/44 based system infinite amount of money - for next to no improvement.

There are decent DACs and DAPs etc that support HR well - starting from say $200 or so. And that is the main point - IF  the recordings to be played are indeed HR and not upsampled PCM. I am OK with transfers from analogue tapes to HR - but do not own perhaps a single album re-released on another format, with the possible exception of being given a free sample of CD I already owned on LP during my CD retail days. Not even The Dark Side of the Moon ...

I am not the kind of guy who would insist on analogue record for the analogue record's sake if the master has been digital - and most certainly not if it has been RBCD master. This is the most stupid thing one can do - the worst of both worlds. Just get the CD ( and hope it will not rot to unplayability within your lifetime ). 

However, there are phono cartridges good enough to ALWAYS "ask" you if that digital master crap recorded into vinyl is really something you should be wearing their ( in more cases than not ) irreplaceable styli for. The resolution of such cartridges goes so much above RBCD that only an experienced and unbiased listener in constant contact with live sound using high quality rest of the system can trully appreciate. And for such cartridges, the records I play are almost exclusively analogue recorded. 
All hats off to a handful of digitally recorded ones that can escape that immediate "question" from a good cartridge - but do not think I would need the fingers of both hands in order to count them.

Various samples , including those >> 20 kHz are in preparation. I will see if I do not perhaps want to make it into double - in some cases make that TRIPLE - blind ABX test(s). 
Hate it like hell to be limited to PCM only - but Foobar 2000 ABX can only work with PCM ( in order to be able to do the ABX, it WILL convert DSD to PCM - even if the DAC used is capable of native DSD playback and F2K has been properly configured for native DSD playback ). - and that is most that can be expected of people to have at their dispposal.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jun 3, 2018)

old tech said:


> Beat me to it... yes print through means the tape source is very poor and if significant and I have no doubt it that it can be heard even on a pre-recorded cassette tape with its lower SNR.  Tape hiss on the other hand generally cannot be heard with vinyl playback as it is likely to be buried underneath the noise floor of the record, unless of course the tape source is poor with very loud tape hiss.  The hiss that is heard on vinyl playback is more likely the surface noise of the record, it sounds exactly like tape hiss because it is tape hiss, ie random errors arising from the media and its playback apparatus.


Print-through is a function of the magnetic flux of one layer of tape magnetizing another.  One factor that affects the result is the thickness of the tape, with thicker being better, hence professionals use 1.5mil, and watch levels very carefully if 1mil is required for record time.  .5 mil is never used professionally.  Print-through level with respect to noise is a function of the intensity of flux, so higher output tapes, like the old Ampex 456 for example, were capable of better S/N, but also worse print.  Another factor is storage time and conditions.  Higher storage temperature made it worse.  It's less a problem on cassette tape because the tracks are so narrow that residual noise is quite high, but consumer NR didn't help because Dolby B and C do not do much at all mid-band where print through is a problem.  It's mid-band because the thickness of a tape layer merges high frequency flux wavelengths. Pro NR like Dolby A and SR did help the situation.

When tape masters were prepared for cutting a lacquer master, often tracks were separated with paper leader tape, which is noiseless.  You can often hear the noise pop up at the beginning of a track on vinyl because of this, sometimes at the end, unless fades were assisted in mastering.  Mastering EQ also could bump up tape noise.  Tape noise and surface noise have different spectra, one does not completely mask the other.

But vinyl has it's own form of print-through too, adjacent high modulation grooves cross-talk into quieter ones for a pre/post echo.  Primarily this is a result of poor mastering choices in groove pitch, choosing tighter spacing, because someone tried to get more time on a side than optimal for the material.

A famous example of tape noise on record is Roberta Flack's "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face", from 1969.  Quiet, low mod recording, slathered with tape hiss.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Analogue record does not have slightly more extended upper range; if done correctly, it can have the range extended to approx 50 kHz.  Even in its basic form, most often used real time recording, there is no brick filtering above the upper limit for flat response, that is to say approx 27 kHz, depending on the model of the cutterhead. Rollof above this frequency is nowhere as steep as required by RBCD.
> 
> HR has all the positives of CD - doesn't it ? And it is starting to approach frequency response no analogue - even the most extreme - can not possibly match. If it is DSD, there is no chance of interchannel delay that can creep up with PCM.


Oh come on.  There is NO internchannel delay with PCM!  That's a legacy issue, it's over.  And HF response is the only aspect to be concerned with.


analogsurviver said:


> Of course I am aware of all the flaws of the vinyl. Probably better than anyone else. And of the CD.


Oh?  So you've recorded a master, mastered it to lacquer, had test pressings run for approval, evaluated the pressings and metal parts, chosen vinyl formulation....all of that, huh?  I say, not very darn likely.
And measured, first hand, cartridges, preamps, record wear, etc.?  I think "never" would be the correct answer to that one.  How about deferring to those that have done all of that?


analogsurviver said:


> AND have been trying to squezze the most out of both mediums - for the love of music. The fact remains that CD is inherently limited by the Red Book - and, if compared side by side live sound vs either analogue record or CD on a high quality system, , a properly done analogue record would win  - it simply sounds closer to the original IF played back by a high quality record player with extended frequency response. I never said that good analogue is cheap or that it will ever be able to compete with digital within budget restraints - that can not be done. On the other hand, one can pour into a CD 16/44 based system infinite amount of money - for next to no improvement.


And you don't think that vinyl is limited?  Well, I do.  I've had my recordings mastered and pressed and had the master to compare the vinyl too, along with a CD.  The CD is the identical copy, the vinyl absolutely not. 


analogsurviver said:


> Various samples , including those >> 20 kHz are in preparation. I will see if I do not perhaps want to make it into double - in some cases make that TRIPLE - blind ABX test(s).
> Hate it like hell to be limited to PCM only - but Foobar 2000 ABX can only work with PCM ( in order to be able to do the ABX, it WILL convert DSD to PCM - even if the DAC used is capable of native DSD playback and F2K has been properly configured for native DSD playback ). - and that is most that can be expected of people to have at their dispposal.


Post something.  Anything.  You can't "make" it into ABX and post it.  It won't work.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 3, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Analogue record does not have slightly more extended upper range; if done correctly, it can have the range extended to approx 50 kHz.  Even in its basic form, most often used real time recording, there is no brick filtering above the upper limit for flat response, that is to say approx 27 kHz, depending on the model of the cutterhead. Rollof above this frequency is nowhere as steep as required by RBCD.
> 
> HR has all the positives of CD - doesn't it ? And it is starting to approach frequency response no analogue - even the most extreme - can not possibly match. If it is DSD, there is no chance of interchannel delay that can creep up with PCM.
> 
> ...




"_The fact remains that CD is inherently 
limited by the Red Book - and, if compared 
side by side live sound vs either analogue 
record or CD on a high quality system, , a 
properly done analogue record would win  -
 it simply sounds closer to the original IF 
played back by a high quality record player
with extended frequency response. I never 
said that good analogue is cheap or that it 
will ever be able to compete with digital within 
budget restraints - that can not be done. On 
the other hand, one can pour into a CD 16/44 
based system infinite amount of money - for 
next to no improvement._"

You say CD is "limited" like it's crippled or something - it's not.

Redbook is capable of a flatter response, lower noise floor, purer stereo separation, and far superior dynamic range potential than a vinyl record.

The "limitations" you hear on a CD of the same album cut to vinyl are from engineers being forced to deliver the loudest product by artists, labels, and other clients in that chain.  Hotter than possible to achieve with vinyl.

Think of vinyl as a typical Cessna prop 172, and the CD as a Douglas F-15 fighter jet.

That poor fighter is forced to fly at just below maximum speed, in a straight line, constant altitude at close to it's ceiling, at all times, while the 172 is performing loops and hairpin turns at altitudes from  4,000 to 10,000ft, and moving at speeds from 80 up to 150mph.  Basically from a sedate state to nearly having its wings snapped off.  Pretty dynamic there, little Cessna!

Obviously, the F-15 in my example is capable of aerial stunts(audible stunts for the CD) that would permanently ground(if you know what I mean there!) the Cessna.

But CD is capable of reproducing only what is put on it -  compressed, loud steaming turd, or refreshing dynamic and spectrally rich musical ecstacy.  CD, and digital audio in general, impose _none_ of those things(the good or the bad), by themselves, on the sound of a recording.  Those things are entirely up to what goes on, and up to the individuals involved, from composition of the songs to the mastering stage, _before_ that glass master is made.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> if compared side by side live sound vs either analogue record or CD on a high quality system, , a properly done analogue record would win


see that doesn't make any sense to me. it might be close with old pro analog tape, but I can't seriously consider a vinyl playback as a competitor. the distortions will reach an audible level, the crosstalk will be at an audible level, the background hiss will probably not be far from noticeable too on quiet passages. but I should still believe that the sum of all the audible flaws will sound closer to the original signal? it's a contradiction. 
argue about the choices of mastering on CD, argue about the euphony of vinyl playback, but don't tell me that lower fidelity sounds closer to a reference signal. how am I supposed to even consider that idea as viable?


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> see that doesn't make any sense to me. it might be close with old pro analog tape, but I can't seriously consider a vinyl playback as a competitor. the distortions will reach an audible level, the crosstalk will be at an audible level, the background hiss will probably not be far from noticeable too on quiet passages. but I should still believe that the sum of all the audible flaws will sound closer to the original signal? it's a contradiction.
> argue about the choices of mastering on CD, argue about the euphony of vinyl playback, but don't tell me that lower fidelity sounds closer to a reference signal. how am I supposed to even consider that idea as viable?



Simply - go out and have a really decent turntable demonstrated, preferably with direct to disc records ( no intermediate storage format whatsoever involved, no analogue tape, no digital ) . You are STRONGLY advised to go to a live concert of approximately the same kind of music than played at turntable demo ( or, if you can, try to arrange for attending a direct to disc recording ( AND binaural and HR ) - rare, but NOT impossible, "currenttly" being done just across the Channel ) - both before and after the demo. 



Obviously, a direct ABX is impossible - you just can't cut the analogue disc master and listen to the pressed record at the same time. The fastest turnaround from master lacquer to a pressed record is likely to be more than 24 hours - somewhat shorter for Direct Metal Mastering ( less time consuming electroplating required ), but that imposes a limitation on amplitude it is possible to put on master in bass, particularly in the vertical direction - as the thickness of copper of the DMM process is lower than for lacquer acetate, which does allow for greater amplitude in vertical direction. Bass is the greatest limitation of the analogue record to begin with.

You can try Sheffield Lab records; in parallel to the main D2D recording, an analogue tape capture has always been made. Some of the releases exist as Direct to Disk analogue record, analogue record made from analogue tape master and as CD made from the same analogue tape master.

Then see if you will still prefer the CD 16/44 ... ( caution - may prove to be habit forming .. ).


----------



## Phronesis

Could someone point me to a thread or document which summarizes equipment and protocols available for blind testing?


----------



## Steve999

That's interesting, I didn't know they were running a tape at the same time they were doing D2D. That explains something I've always wondered about--

I've got this Sheffield Lab recording both on CD and LP:

https://www.amazon.com/Discovered-A.../ref=tmm_acd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I have the initial release D2D version of the LP.

I'm not going to take the time to compare them personally, but yeah, the LP had a very special sound quality to it, it caught my attention right away. The music wasn't all that great to me but the sound was cool for its day on LP.

I still like to listen to the CD just because I enjoyed the LP many moons ago. The CD sounds very nice too. To me this was a recording where the sound quality was the star of the show.

As to the technical details of what you are guys are saying, I am not competent to comment on them. It's interesting, though.




analogsurviver said:


> Simply - go out and have a really decent turntable demonstrated, preferably with direct to disc records ( no intermediate storage format whatsoever involved, no analogue tape, no digital ) . You are STRONGLY advised to go to a live concert of approximately the same kind of music than played at turntable demo ( or, if you can, try to arrange for attending a direct to disc recording ( AND binaural and HR ) - rare, but NOT impossible, "currenttly" being done just across the Channel ) - both before and after the demo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Could someone point me to a thread or document which summarizes equipment and protocols available for blind testing?


this is usually a good place to start: https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> this is usually a good place to start: https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf



Thanks, I've read that one.  I'm looking for something more comprehensive, which discusses a variety of test methods.  For example, a few pages back in this thread A/B "forced choice" was discussed, and I'd like to learn more about it.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Simply - go out and have a really decent turntable demonstrated, preferably with direct to disc records ( no intermediate storage format whatsoever involved, no analogue tape, no digital ) . You are STRONGLY advised to go to a live concert of approximately the same kind of music than played at turntable demo ( or, if you can, try to arrange for attending a direct to disc recording ( AND binaural and HR ) - rare, but NOT impossible, "currenttly" being done just across the Channel ) - both before and after the demo.


A live concert and a recording of any kind or two entirely different things, not comparable at all!



analogsurviver said:


> Obviously, a direct ABX is impossible - you just can't cut the analogue disc master and listen to the pressed record at the same time. The fastest turnaround from master lacquer to a pressed record is likely to be more than 24 hours - somewhat shorter for Direct Metal Mastering ( less time consuming electroplating required ), but that imposes a limitation on amplitude it is possible to put on master in bass, particularly in the vertical direction - as the thickness of copper of the DMM process is lower than for lacquer acetate, which does allow for greater amplitude in vertical direction. Bass is the greatest limitation of the analogue record to begin with.


But you can play a lacquer immediately after it’s been cut. In fact, you have to, the quality check the mastering job. And then a fresh lacquer is cut using the same profiles to create them the lacquer that is used for making the metal parts.

But that’s  not the comparison you want to make anyway. What you want, is to compare a live mix to live 44/16, and that can and has been done.  In our studio the tape return monitor was accidentally left on “tape” (which was the immediate return from PCM 44/16) many times and none of our golden ears could tell - until they looked at the switch!

 The other comparison you want to make is to compare a CD and a vinyl pressing cut from the same master. That’s impossible for most people, because they have no idea if the CD and lacquers were cut from the same master, Or what changes may have occurred, but I do! I personally supervised the mastering of two projects that went to both CD and vinyl. My goal was no changes between the mastering for each, and I absolutely confirmed that.  What I got back, was spectrally identical, with only the degradation of vinyl being the difference. The CD sounded like the master, the final sounded slightly degraded, but had none of the characteristics of people attribute to vinyl.

I’m quite sure you have not done this! So you have no business claiming anything about the difference.


analogsurviver said:


> You can try Sheffield Lab records; in parallel to the main D2D recording, an analogue tape capture has always been made. Some of the releases exist as Direct to Disk analogue record, analogue record made from analogue tape master and as CD made from the same analogue tape master.
> 
> Then see if you will still prefer the CD 16/44 ... ( caution - may prove to be habit forming .. ).



No fair, it’s an In valid comparison. The CD must have been cut from an analog tape, and probably second generation.

My direct and controlled Vinyl versus CD comparisons using identicle master throughout the entire chain has revealed vinyl as inferior. Other comparisons include uncontrolled variables in both trains, and cannot be valid.

Are you not aware of the preview problem and cutting the lacquer? True, it doesn’t occur with direct address, but everything else… And I mean everything! Even analog tape masters from the 1980s… involves a delay, which is (gasp!) PCM 44/16! Recent projects could be different, but there is a huge amount of the existing library that’s done that way.

All of your conclusions are based on lack of knowledge and experience, combined with extreme presumption.


----------



## Phronesis

Interesting article: https://www.soundstagexperience.com...pulse-menu/834-the-problem-with-blind-testing

"That experience involved setting up, conducting, and participating in a blind test of ten portable DAC-headphone amps, including such models as the AudioQuest DragonFly Red and the Oppo Digital HA-2. This test required a great deal more work and expense than a typical equipment review, including having to rebuild one of my testing switchers, setting up four PCs with matching software and test files, then running each of the panelists -- all very experienced audio-equipment reviewers -- through at least nine test rounds, using HiFiMan HE1000 V2 and Sony MDR-7506 headphones and Shure SE535 earphones.

Countless audio writers and forum participants have opined about the sound of the DAC-amps we tested. Considering the large amount of sometimes conflicting opinion, and the fact that the output impedances of headphone amps and the input impedances of headphones vary in ways that can significantly influence the sound, I had no preconceptions about the results we’d get.

*While we did hear more differences among the DAC-amps through the Shure earphones (which, because they use balanced armatures, exhibit a huge impedance swing as the frequency rises) than with the HiFiMan headphones (which have near-zero impedance swing), and we did end up agreeing on a couple of marginal favorites, we were all surprised by how elusive and insignificant the differences were, despite reviews we’d read describing large and important differences. One panelist typified the difference as being “maybe 0.5% between the best and worst.” Another wondered aloud, “Why would anybody care about this?”*

The difference between this test and most testing done for audio publications was that our test was blind, with documented, carefully measured and matched levels, and effectively identical testing conditions for each product. We knew which ten DAC-amps were being tested, but because in each test the listener used a handheld remote control to switch among three or four different DAC-amps, which were randomly grouped and identified only by number, the listener didn’t know what she or he was hearing. Even the test administrator had no way to tell which product any listener was hearing at any given moment. We really were, as so many audio reviewers insist they do, “trusting our ears” -- in this case, our ears could get no help from our eyes."​Besides the DF Red and HA-2, I don't know which other DAC/amps were tested.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> Interesting article: https://www.soundstagexperience.com...pulse-menu/834-the-problem-with-blind-testing
> 
> "That experience involved setting up, conducting, and participating in a blind test of ten portable DAC-headphone amps, including such models as the AudioQuest DragonFly Red and the Oppo Digital HA-2. This test required a great deal more work and expense than a typical equipment review, including having to rebuild one of my testing switchers, setting up four PCs with matching software and test files, then running each of the panelists -- all very experienced audio-equipment reviewers -- through at least nine test rounds, using HiFiMan HE1000 V2 and Sony MDR-7506 headphones and Shure SE535 earphones.
> 
> ...



I would like to know what data was used to determine that there were marginal favorites.  Were there any statistically significant results that were made public?  

The summary is spot on.

"Right now, we’re in a situation where most audio writers are free to make ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims about, say, one banana plug “sounding better” than another, or the “noise floor” of a passive speaker being audibly reduced through careful choice of internal wiring. This may give the writer the neurochemical boost that comes with any insight, true or false, but it doesn’t serve the reader or the future of the audio industry. Maybe we’ll never have the resources to do the kind of substantial, unbiased blind testing Olive and his colleagues conduct, but the audio media should aspire to reduce bias rather than cultivate it."


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> Simply - go out and have a really decent turntable demonstrated, preferably with direct to disc records ( no intermediate storage format whatsoever involved, no analogue tape, no digital ) . You are STRONGLY advised to go to a live concert of approximately the same kind of music than played at turntable demo ( or, if you can, try to arrange for attending a direct to disc recording ( AND binaural and HR ) - rare, but NOT impossible, "currenttly" being done just across the Channel ).



That's a lie, it is NOT "currently being done", it's hardly ever done, there are almost no direct to vinyl disc recordings being made, maybe one or two a year, if that! 

Even more ironically you post a video of a session in a world class studio: 
1. Have you ever even been in a world class studio, let alone have any idea how they work? I assume you've never visited the one in your video (Air Lynhurst) but ironically I've worked there quite a few times.
2. All your nonsense about stereo mic'ing but what they're actually cutting to disc is NOT even stereo of any sort but a mix of a Decca Tree and spot mic'ing, exactly how I've described on several occasions and you've argued against.
3. Having done it myself at Air Lyndhurst, their Decca Tree setup is excellent, using the fantastic (and fantastically expensive), original Neumann M50 mics, which have an upper frequency response specified to only 14kHz!! Where's all your essential ultrasonic frequencies coming from, you think maybe there's someone in another room playing along on a dog whistle?

Thanks for the video, which demonstrates how professional recording engineers do things and what utter nonsense you've been spouting. And, if that's not bad enough, this isn't even the first time you've done this, you've posted videos before that you didn't even realise demonstrated the exact opposite of what you're arguing for!!

I mean really, how ignorant and foolish do you want to make yourself look, because I can't think of a better way! Enough of the utter BS!

G


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> I would like to know what data was used to determine that there were marginal favorites.  Were there any statistically significant results that were made public?
> 
> The summary is spot on.
> 
> "Right now, we’re in a situation where most audio writers are free to make ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims about, say, one banana plug “sounding better” than another, or the “noise floor” of a passive speaker being audibly reduced through careful choice of internal wiring. This may give the writer the neurochemical boost that comes with any insight, true or false, but it doesn’t serve the reader or the future of the audio industry. Maybe we’ll never have the resources to do the kind of substantial, unbiased blind testing Olive and his colleagues conduct, but the audio media should aspire to reduce bias rather than cultivate it."



I'm going to try to get more info.  Noteworthy that whatever differences were observed may have been due to differences in amps rather than DACs, since the results varied with impedance characteristics of the headphones.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> I'm going to try to get more info.  Noteworthy that whatever differences were observed may have been due to differences in amps rather than DACs, since the results varied with impedance characteristics of the headphones.



They were testing DAC/amps with headphones, so they were testing the built-in amps.  If they were using the line out from the DACs with the same separate amplifier, any differences would have probably been even more difficult to identify, provided the amp chosen was up to the task.  They could get a big powerful amp that works great with large planar magnetic or electrostatic transducers, only to find out that the tiny, sensitive in-ear headphones have problems with noise.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 3, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> A live concert and a recording of any kind or two entirely different things, not comparable at all!
> 
> But you can play a lacquer immediately after it’s been cut. In fact, you have to, the quality check the mastering job. And then a fresh lacquer is cut using the same profiles to create them the lacquer that is used for making the metal parts.
> 
> ...



Ok, I DID say that the best would be to arrange attending the recording - didn't I ? Just to make things simpler to those who know music "conserves" ( any recording, in physical or virtual state ) only as consumers and have not done any themselves.  Still, better to go to a concert - than to be exposed strictly to RBCD diet.

No, you CAN NOT ( OK - make that WISH NOT TO ) play a lacquer of a DIRECT TO DISK recording - not if you want to make actual stamper etc from it ! If it is a lacquer you can cut from either analogue tape or digital source, then you have the luxury of checking the cut and cutting a fresh lackuer for metal parts.

Sorry, if you can not hear the difference betwen the live mic feed and 16/44, then in your studio you are in for a signal quality purge more severe than anything Stalin ever managed to come up with.

I expected you will try to pull "we can not be sure if the masters were exactly the same for the CD and LP release". Well, for Sheffield Lab they were - both the record and CD have been made from the same MASTER analogue tape, 1şt generation, recorded simoultaneously to the LIMITED edition of D2D analogue lacquer master. Once the metal parts from the original D2D lacquer are worn out, no other can be produced - at least not D2D. That's why it is necessary to either run more cutting lathes in parallel, to get more metal parts, allowing for more copies to be pressed - or simoultaneous recording to another medium, with attendant losses of quality. Sheffild Lab was a small company and could keep tight control over whatever they have been doing.

I do not have ANY experience in mastering the vinyl release - simply because there never has been a mastering facility in what is now Slovenia. The closest to it came late 70s/early 80s, when Neumann VMS 80 has been purchased and delivered - but never installed and sold new, newer out of box, IIRC somewhere to Africa. In former Yugoslavia, there were two mastering facilities ; RTB ( Rado Televizija Beograd ) Records in Belgrade, now Serbia, and Jugoton, now Croatia Records in Zagreb. And, can not remember, there may have also been mastering facility in Sarajevo, now Bosnia and Herzegovina. All we did have in Slovenia was a pressing plant - Helidon, located some 3 miles from my home - that closed its doors somewhere in mid/late 80s; the last vinyl issues of LPs on slovenian labels or license production (CBS) have been either pressed in Jugoton, Zagreb or Hungaroton, Hungary.

WHY, on earth, do you think people are frenetically trying to source older lathes, the ones tha CAN operate - or at least be possible to modify - to run 100% analogue, preview heads etc included ?

I do not have either the money nor market ( remember - 2M country ) to even from very afar consider analogue record mastering - one has to know his or her limitations - at least those that are beyond any reasonable dream or miracle.

If you recorded binaurally in 1955, that means you have to be - at least - some 15 years or more older than me; witnessing the birth of stereo in your prime, etc, etc -
You can consider yourself both lucky and blessed to be born at a MUCH more right time AND in an EVEN MUCH MORE adapt country for analogue record mastering than myself - and be thankful for that.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 3, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Analogue record does not have slightly more extended upper range; if done correctly, it can have the range extended to approx 50 kHz.



Up to 50kHz of surface noise. There's no music up there. NEXT!



sonitus mirus said:


> They were testing DAC/amps with headphones, so they were testing the built-in amps.  If they were using the line out from the DACs with the same separate amplifier, any differences would have probably been even more difficult to identify, provided the amp chosen was up to the task.  They could get a big powerful amp that works great with large planar magnetic or electrostatic transducers, only to find out that the tiny, sensitive in-ear headphones have problems with noise.



THIS. I keep saying it, but impedance differences are dependent on the headphones or IEMs, not the amp itself. The amp is designed to work within certain parameters. You should always use cans that are well matched to the impedance of the amp you are using. Otherwise you might as well blame a phillips head screwdriver for not doing a good job of driving a slot head screw.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Ok, I DID say that the best would be to arrange attending the recording - didn't I ? Just to make things simpler to those who know music "conserves" ( any recording, in physical or virtual state ) only as consumers and have not done any themselves.  Still, better to go to a concert - than to be exposed strictly to RBCD diet.
> 
> No, you CAN NOT ( OK - make that WISH NOT TO ) play a lacquer of a DIRECT TO DISK recording - not if you want to make actual stamper etc from it ! If it is a lacquer you can cut from either analogue tape or digital source, then you have the luxury of checking the cut and cutting a fresh lackuer for metal parts.


Correct, but direct to disc has problems, like each side is one continuous performance, and you’d need several master/performances to satisfy any real commercial quantity. 

Direct to disc is monstrously impractical.


analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, if you can not hear the difference betwen the live mic feed and 16/44, then in your studio you are in for a signal quality purge more severe than anything Stalin ever managed to come up with.


At least I was able to try the comparison, along with several other highly trained professionals. You cannot say that, so you cannot claim to hear the difference either!


analogsurviver said:


> I expected you will try to pull "we can not be sure if the masters were exactly the same for the CD and LP release". Well, for Sheffield Lab they were - both the record and CD have been made from the same MASTER analogue tape, 1şt generation, recorded simoultaneously to the LIMITED edition of D2D analogue lacquer master. Once the metal parts from the original D2D lacquer are worn out, no other can be produced - at least not D2D. That's why it is necessary to either run more cutting lathes in parallel, to get more metal parts, allowing for more copies to be pressed - or simoultaneous recording to another medium, with attendant losses of quality. Sheffild Lab was a small company and could keep tight control over whatever they have been doing.


I clearly said why the Sheffield comparison is not valid, perhaps you missed it. Have you ever even seen a lathe in person? Supervised cutting a master? Answer the question: yes or no.


analogsurviver said:


> I do not have ANY experience in mastering the vinyl release - simply because there never has been a mastering facility in what is now Slovenia.


Thank you for your honesty. But you’ve just invalidated a lot of your arguments. I have experience with mastering, lathes, lacquer, and vinyl pressing.  You are speaking with zero authority.



analogsurviver said:


> WHY, on earth, do you think people are frenetically trying to source older lathes, the ones tha CAN operate - or at least be possible to modify - to run 100% analogue, preview heads etc included ?


Again, your lack of knowledge is showing. The age of a lathe has nothing to do with how the preview signal is derived. The lathe must have automatic pitch control, either factory standard or one of the early add/one for Presto or Scully lathes. Any can be used with either analog or digital preview.



analogsurviver said:


> If you recorded binaurally in 1955, that means you have to be - at least - some 15 years or more older than me; witnessing the birth of stereo in your prime, etc, etc -
> You can consider yourself both lucky and blessed to be born at a MUCH more right time AND in an EVEN MUCH MORE adapt country for analogue record mastering than myself - and be thankful for that.


Where did you get that? I’ve never said or implied what I did in 1955.

I do have massively more experience in both analog and digital, apparently, than you. Yet you keep arguing!


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> THIS. I keep saying it, but impedance differences are dependent on the headphones or IEMs, not the amp itself. The amp is designed to work within certain parameters. You should always use cans that are well matched to the impedance of the amp you are using. Otherwise you might as well blame a phillips head screwdriver for not doing a good job of driving a slot head screw.


  Yes, it seems context is what creates the debates around here.  Someone jumps into the thread to cite contradicting examples and then refers to that tidbit of info to strengthen their argument to the broader discussion.  Like Keith explaining how some SACD music sounds better because it was mastered with more care and then some people using that to justify how the format is audibly superior to Red Book.  Same thing with mismatched gear, or boutique cables with wild specifications.


----------



## bigshot

Back when CDs were introduced, Doug Sax and Lincoln Mayorga wrote an article in the trades about how analogue was superior to digital. In fact, I think their article was the source of the whole "digital stair step" myth. They got their asses handed to them for not knowing what they were talking about, and eventually retracted their claims. At that point Sheffield Labs stopped producing direct to disk LPs and started releasing CDs derived from their 15ips back up tapes from the direct to disk sessions. I have both the original LPs and the CD releases of most of these albums. The CD is better sounding. The secret to Sheffield Labs wasn't the direct to disk technique. It was really good microphones/placement and first class live mixing (most of the time).


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, if you can not hear the difference betwen the live mic feed and 16/44 ...



And I'm sorry if you can! Because you've obviously got some serious problem with your hearing and/or perception. Again, you just keep arguing from a background of complete ignorance, you've never heard a live feed of a professional mic setup, never been in a world class studio, never been involved in commercial mastering and the list just goes on and on of what you've got zero practical knowledge or experience of and here you are, arguing with people who've not only got some experience but who've done it for a living, day in, day out for decades, it's NUTS!!!

G


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> That's a lie, it is NOT "currently being done", it's hardly ever done, there are almost no direct to vinyl disc recordings being made, maybe one or two a year, if that!
> 
> Even more ironically you post a video of a session in a world class studio:
> 1. Have you ever even been in a world class studio, let alone have any idea how they work? I assume you've never visited the one in your video (Air Lynhurst) but ironically I've worked there quite a few times.
> ...



This was the last D2D recording I am aware of - and I assume it will be repeated, IF and WHEN sales of the records and downloads at least break even. It took place appox 18 months or so ago. Compared to greatest surge of D2D in mid/late 70s, now 40 years ago, this does qualify as recently in my book.

G - I did listen to the recordings from this label, I do not like them ( except the binaural, some of which I may decide to buy both in double DSD and analogue record made from these very same files - in order to have the as relevant comparison as possible today. ) - for the PRECISE reasons you are pro and me against - or vice versa.

1. ) No - or yes, depending how you look at it. Yes. No.
2. ) I heard that on recording BEFORE watching the video ( there were some MP3s available for download a few months, maybe a year ago - no idea if they still are ) - and I DID watch the video in its entire length, months before posting it today.
3. ) Sorry, no idea regarding dog whistles ( cat guy myself, although love all animals ) - but you really should try some mikes that do not stop at 14 kHz. No matter how fantastic or fantastically expensive you find them. And, FYI, Ing. Stephan Peus, Former President of Development at Georg Neumann GmbH, Berlin, who retired in 2011, has since then actually started to use his own products for their intended purpose - and commented very positively on my "likely to be bat pleasing, dog whiste being played in adjacent room"  recordings" - done with the mics by the competing brand.

I only posted the above video because of D2D - from 40 years ago, all that remains online about D2D recording process pictures or videos is black and white copy of a copy of a copy of a copy  

Just how narrow minded and with beliefs carved in stone you want to make yourself realy look ?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Back when CDs were introduced, Doug Sax and Lincoln Mayorga wrote an article in the trades about how analogue was superior to digital. In fact, I think their article was the source of the whole "digital stair step" myth. They got their asses handed to them for not knowing what they were talking about, and eventually retracted their claims. At that point Sheffield Labs stopped producing direct to disk LPs and started releasing CDs derived from their 15ips back up tapes from the direct to disk sessions. I have both the original LPs and the CD releases of most of these albums. The CD is better sounding. The secret to Sheffield Labs wasn't the direct to disk technique. It was really good microphones/placement and first class live mixing (most of the time).



Of course, without decent microphones > 14 kHz, placed well, and good live mixing ( then again, good musicians mix themselves quite well ) , no good recording is possible. 
I do not agree that tape derived CDs sound better than original D2D records.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 3, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> I do not agree that tape derived CDs sound better than original D2D records.



Yes, I'm aware of that. But that has nothing to do with how the LPs and CDs actually sound. The easiest way to tell is to listen to the two CD set with all three Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues albums. One of them was sourced from a pristine test pressing transferred by a top mastering engineer because they hadn't run a backup tape at the session. The other two were derived from backup tapes. It doesn't take a lot of difficulty to tell which one comes from the LPs. All you have to do is listen for distortion, particularly towards the ends of the sides. I'm sure that if the LP sounded better, they would have mastered all three sessions from test pressings, not just the one where they didn't have a backup tape. Even Sheffield Labs knows that the tapes sound better than the direct to disk LPs. That's why they master from backup tapes whenever they can.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] Sorry, no idea regarding dog whistles ( cat guy myself, although love all animals ) - but you really should try some mikes that do not stop at 14 kHz.
> [2] Of course, without decent microphones > 14 kHz.
> [3] Just how narrow minded and with beliefs carved in stone you want to make yourself realy look ?



1. If you've no idea about dog whistles, then why should I try some mics that do not stop at 14kHz?

2. You post a video of a world class studio which disproves just about everything you've been trying to argue for and now you're arguing against the video which you, yourself posted as evidence? That world class studio is not using "decent microphones" but you, an amateur with NO experience of a world class studio, are? What's wrong with you?

3. That's funny, the master of utterly ridiculous, narrow minded beliefs carved in stone, saying that to me. Obviously you're not happy taking "utter nonsense" beyond the extreme and now you're trying to do the same with "hypocrisy"! Again, how ignorant and foolish do you want to make yourself look?

G


----------



## pinnahertz

_“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”_


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> I don't agree.  The problems with early CDs were specific to certain releases, not a general overall problem.  Before I would take a 15ips copy, NR or not, I'd have to know what the master was.  All tape copes of tapes have 3dB noise gains, additional HF and LF rolloff, additional distortion, speed variation, and so on.
> Comic!  Very funny!  The guy who claims zero experience with reel to reel tape telling the guy with nearly 50 years to check on...well, anything.  You kill me, man!
> Oh my.  SO much not understood here.  Your assumption that the cassette is the definitive low-frequency tape format is based on measurements made of single specific machines playing their own tapes.  It's MUCH more complex than that.  LF response within a single deck can be optimized, but it's a certainty that same cassette played on a different machine will not have that response, probably not even close.  You should understand that low frequency tape calibration is very sloppy.  The "standard" is a test tape, but it's likely the LF response of that test tape is not actually flat.  Most cassette test tapes are recorded with wider track width than those of a cassette deck, so right away, fringing will cause LF errors.  The narrow tracks cause more issues, and the slow speed even more, both in the form of low frequency "head bumps".  What you see as a very nice flat response trace of a particular deck playing its own recording won't be reality in any other way.  You also ignore the fact that commercially available cassettes are all high-speed duplicated, either in-cassette or R-R pancake then loaded into shells.  The process compromises HF response and LF response, but is the only economical way to get the job done.  And lastly, all FR measurements of cassette decks are made at -20dB relative to reference fluxivity.  Do you know why?  It's because flat response is not achievable at reference level or even -10dB because of tape saturation.  So you might have a deck flat within itself down to 20Hz, but it won't do that at 0VU, not even close.
> It doesn't matter, it's what we have, and just about all purchased music is 44/16.
> ...



Well, I have been in CD retail for about a decade. And I quit that in 2004 - 14 years from now, and man, you'll have to tell the ferrytales that CD problems have been fixed decades ago to someone else. I remember selling the entire Wagner Ring to a library - from which I eventually borrowed it after a few years. I had to use some 5 different CD players/recorders - before ANY of them would recognbize the discs. Universal Classics, Philiphs/DGG/Decca, no longer remember the exact version - on any Philiphs machine tried - NOTHING !

There were MANY cases that some - rather popular - CDs just would not play on certain brands/makes of CD players. To some stubborn customers, we have been replacing the CD copy for three, even four times - before they finally did grasp that the CD they wanted to purchase simply would not work with their player. Trying the same CD on  a different make we were selling in audio department was usually finally enough to convince them.  I have a friend who in the end had to ditch a super-duper precise Theta CD transport for some garden variety one - because, simply, Theta has been made for PRECISELY  made CDs - and rejected as defective or unrecognizable >70% of anything loaded to its transport. Perfect... yea, right !

I agree on everything you've said regarding tape copies.

Just because the standard for measuring cassette is specified at -20 dB ref 0 dB level, that does not mean that no one can not measure at other level(s). I have used my tape recorder strictly for doing masters - recording music with microphone. I don't recall making any tape copies - ever. 
And you would be surprised at which level and which frequency range/response this cassette recorder can work with good metal tape  -  besides that, cassette recorders are measured at -20dB more because of the treble and NOT bass. 
Allthough I did find a Type II tape that does work well, Technics RS-AZ 6/7 is de facto metal only tape machine if quality recording is required.  Too bad that its transport is nowhere near its head/electronics quality. 

I did mention the Decca story - because it is true. The tape is loosing the most in the first few hours - rather "exponentially", if you wish to call it that way. Then, its decay is getting ever slower - which explains why do tapes old 60 years and more still work OK. But - that is an important but - they no longer work as well, particularly in the treble, as they did new. And that new performance is being preserved in the first press ( 1A / 1B ) analogue vinyl records. 
Ever heard one ? I did ... Solti's Wagner, that storm ... it would wake up the dead. 

I have no idea how much mastering as we know it today has been employed back in the day. Certainly, it was less - but absolutely "direct to tape>record" it was most probaby not.

That's why I adore conductor Yevgeni Mravinsky - you'll have big trouble finding a non live recording - coughing in cold winter inescapable. But - music as it should have been, performed live in real time, in front of the real audience.

No, no Dolby A for me - never liked how it sounds, never worked with it. As said before, Telefunken High Com and High Com II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Com were better - but I did not work with pro version, the Telcom C4 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telcom_c4 The main advantage of Telefunken's High Com vs Dolby is in its ability to pass perfect square waves troughout its entire frequency and dynamic range. I do not know how "resistant" the Dolby A is/was regarding the calibration, I know that High Com is a bit more sensitive for this, that's why I wrote "possible issues at end user" ( or something to that effect). A well calibrated R2R machine using Telcom C4 NR could achieve almost 100 dB S/N ratio - as good if not better than CD, when used with quality tape.
Now, you are not going to dispute not having to care regarding the level etc for ANY NR is an advantage for the non proffessional user ( who are increasingly adopting R2R machines at home, used mainly as playback devices for prerecorded tapes without NR  - or are you ?

Regarding the record use/deterioration; yes, true, but can be helped in many ways. If you remember the B&K paper on audible effects of mechanical resonances in turntables, you should know what measures to reduce this inevitable wear are to be taken. Unfortunately, the industry went exactly the opposite way - because it is easier to produce low complkiance cartridges, tonearms with high inertia ( long - now they are pushing 14 inch and above pivoted arms ) - and because they are easier to adjust for the end user. Please go and check again what does that really mean not only for the quality achievable, but also for the record use and its expected lifespan.

Agreed on HDDs and backups. But for SSD, I have heard opinions it is best not to use for applications that write and rewrite many times. Good for OS in computer, potentially catastrophic for actual storage used to work on - audio file, for example, as this requires lots of rewriting. SSD is still developing, it may be wise to wait what will stand the test of time.

Thank you for expanding my english vocabulary - although not in exactly flattering way; glutton for punishment.


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I have been in CD retail for about a decade. And I quit that in 2004 - 14 years from now, and man, you'll have to tell the ferrytales that CD problems have been fixed decades ago to someone else. I remember selling the entire Wagner Ring to a library - from which I eventually borrowed it after a few years. I had to use some 5 different CD players/recorders - before ANY of them would recognbize the discs. Universal Classics, Philiphs/DGG/Decca, no longer remember the exact version - on any Philiphs machine tried - NOTHING !
> 
> There were MANY cases that some - rather popular - CDs just would not play on certain brands/makes of CD players. To some stubborn customers, we have been replacing the CD copy for three, even four times - before they finally did grasp that the CD they wanted to purchase simply would not work with their player. Trying the same CD on  a different make we were selling in audio department was usually finally enough to convince them.  I have a friend who in the end had to ditch a super-duper precise Theta CD transport for some garden variety one - because, simply, Theta has been made for PRECISELY  made CDs - and rejected as defective or unrecognizable >70% of anything loaded to its transport. Perfect... yea, right !
> 
> ...




Your knowledge of SSD and issues with bit flipping, sticking bits, and UBER (uncorrectable bit error) is several generations out of date.  Take a look at current enterprise storage and you’ll find that if there are any spinning platters left, they’re used as secondary storage for infrequently accessed or low access requirement data.  Tier 1 disc is almost exclusively SSD - your claim that it’s potentially catastrophic for frequently updated files is incorrect and either another bad assumption or based on seriously outdated information.  Current gen SSD is similarly superior to spinning disc for noncommercial applications including a having a significantly lower MTBF.  Like any storage media, it can fail, so backup is still required. 

Instead of venturing into other technical areas and making incorrect statements, how about investing that time into producing the supporting evidence you’ve claimed to have over the years?  How long can it take to setup a Box, Dropbox, or Google Drive account?


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I have been in CD retail for about a decade.



Standing behind the counter at Tower Records doesn't mean that you know the best way to record music. Does the guy at the big box store selling big screen TVs know how to make movies? You are way out of your league here and you don't have enough self awareness to realize that. There has to be a reason for that.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 3, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> They were testing DAC/amps with headphones, so they were testing the built-in amps.  If they were using the line out from the DACs with the same separate amplifier, any differences would have probably been even more difficult to identify, provided the amp chosen was up to the task.  They could get a big powerful amp that works great with large planar magnetic or electrostatic transducers, only to find out that the tiny, sensitive in-ear headphones have problems with noise.



Here's more info: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-portable-headphone-amp-with-built-in-dac/.  They limited the DAC/amps they tested to $400, which unfortunately only represents the low end of the market and doesn't support a conclusion that _all_ properly designed DAC/amps likely sound essentially the same.  Bummer that they went through all that trouble and didn't throw a couple of expensive units in the mix.  I haven't seen a paper or report which details their protocols, results, statistical analysis, etc.


----------



## 71 dB

The only CD player I have had problem with playing CDs in good condition was Bow Wizard. It struggled to play some Naxos CDs that were in perfect shape. This player has been the most expensive player I  have ever used (it was in the lab I was working at years ago) and the only "high end" player I have used. These overpriced players are what they are. Unreliable. Take a cheapo Philips, Sony or Denon/Marantz and everything just works.

Vinyl might actually be closer to live sound, because there's a lot of distortions present in both. Live sound has the distortion of PA speakers, air flow (wind etc.) affects how sound propagades creating chorus-like effects, the crowd is moving changing the acoustics of the environment etc. Dynamic distortions just like what you have with vinyl. CD can contain those distortions too, but not without someone actually adds (simulates) them there. The recordings from the mixer console is just so clean.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Oh come on.  There is NO internchannel delay with PCM!  That's a legacy issue, it's over.  And HF response is the only aspect to be concerned with.
> Oh?  So you've recorded a master, mastered it to lacquer, had test pressings run for approval, evaluated the pressings and metal parts, chosen vinyl formulation....all of that, huh?  I say, not very darn likely.
> And measured, first hand, cartridges, preamps, record wear, etc.?  I think "never" would be the correct answer to that one.  How about deferring to those that have done all of that?
> And you don't think that vinyl is limited?  Well, I do.  I've had my recordings mastered and pressed and had the master to compare the vinyl too, along with a CD.  The CD is the identical copy, the vinyl absolutely not.
> ...



Sorry, interchannel delay in PCM has not been put to rest for good. Not yet. It can still happen.

I did already mention I did not do any analogue masters, mastered it to lacquer, had test run for approval, evaluated the pressings and metal parts, or chosen vinyl formulations - because there simply was no facility within 150 km from where I live and although Zagreb and Belgrade were in what was then Yugoslavia, that were two different republics with different language and culture - more difference than say north and south of the USA; that makes for a pretty "distant" 150 km air distance from my town and Zagreb.

However, I DID measure cartridges, preamps, record wear, etc. And I am doing that on regular basis from about 1989. Who did get various prototype/preproduction cartridges for evaluation and approval - BEFORE any finished article has been sent out to any reviewer for formal test ? Who did - painstakingly so - insist on the ultimate quality possible, from sample to sample ? 
The only cartridge (types) I have yet not worked with are the optical  ( vintage Toshiba C-100P , today's simplified version by DS Audio ) , cantileverless MC ( Ikeda ) and strain gauge ( vintage Panasonic, today's Soundsmith )
You most likely have little idea what is  - ultimately - achievable with phono equipment. Do you know how to best AUDIBLY test a phono preamp - without using the cartridge ? 

I will have to *somehow* try to make graphs etc from analogue equipment using computer. The software I have seen so far that can use the analogue test records ( usually, a sweep has been "anounced" to the chart recorder by a 1 kHz sine wave pilot tone - and after this pilot tone ceased, simoultaneously the real sweep from the test record or tape and chart recorder would begin writing the curve. The pauses after the sweep ended ( in reality, empty grooves leading to the next test announced by another 1 kHz pilot tone ) would last long enough for the chart recorder to return to its starting position - and the cycle would repeat itself.) has been not precise enough when compared to B & K vintage equipment. I will investigate further in this direction ASAP. 

I do think analogue record is limited. Have said it, many times. The biggest problem is large vertical modulation = out of phase bass, which means below certain frequency, al, bass on record is essentially mono = horizontal recording only. We can argue to exactly which frequency and exactly how big amplitude this limitation holds true - but it is there and has to be scrupolously taken care of not to exceed it. It is the main reason why you experienced audible differences between master and CD - and vinyl version. 

At the introduction of the CD  to the market in early 80s,  at least German audio press did - usually - review new albums in both analogue record and CD  format - with "averaged" spectrum analysis for each release. Usually, CD had higher level in bass, much less usually so also in the treble - and they did report the audible difference(s), if any- in addition to the usual report on the quality of pressing, vinyl noise, etc on the analogue record.

There are genres in music that do not require anything in bass that would force analogue record mastering engineer to compromise the original master for vinyl release - those can be made to sound next to indistinguishable from the master. In those cases  this simple approach of basically doing nothing would not suffice, a really good analogue record mastering engineer can make quite a difference - by staying just below the edge of the available envelope, while packing in this limied space as much bass as possible.

There can be  a CONSIDERABLE difference among analogue record masters - same album, same generation copy of master, same playtime per side, releases from two countries, mastered by two different engineers :
1. One has still some 2-3 cm (or more..) "land" before the label ( to avoid end of side distortion ) , it has rather low signal level ( easying tracking, allowing lower distortion for less than stellar cartridges , compromising S/N ratio ), its bass response is weak>non existant, etc
2. Another has next to zero "land" before the label ( requiring precise geometrical alignment of the cartridge/stylus, as good as possible stylus tip profile in order not to increase end of side distortion too much ), it has quite high recording level ( necessitating good>very good>excellent tracking - without excessive distortion ; that usually means a very high quality cartridge , allowing for high S/N ratio ), its bass response is decent>good>excellent, etc

It is perfectly possible that the user that only has equipment available to play the record 1.) correctly, would complain that record 2.) is "defective" - as it overtaxes the capability of his equipment. In the same way, a user that has higher quality playback equipment that does allow for the proper playback of record 2.), would find the record 1.) underwhelming..

Some reasonable compromise is usually adopted in most cases - but records a la 1.) and a la 2.) actually do exist out in the market. No such problems with digital.

That is why the data WHO made the analogue record master is so important with vinyl. It is not an exact science, but requires a great deal of creativity and thinking out of the box to be trully succesful - it is a form of art in itself.


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> The only CD player I have had problem with playing CDs in good condition was Bow Wizard. It struggled to play some Naxos CDs that were in perfect shape. This player has been the most expensive player I  have ever used (it was in the lab I was working at years ago) and the only "high end" player I have used. These overpriced players are what they are. Unreliable. Take a cheapo Philips, Sony or Denon/Marantz and everything just works.
> 
> Vinyl might actually be closer to live sound, because there's a lot of distortions present in both. Live sound has the distortion of PA speakers, air flow (wind etc.) affects how sound propagades creating chorus-like effects, the crowd is moving changing the acoustics of the environment etc. Dynamic distortions just like what you have with vinyl. CD can contain those distortions too, but not without someone actually adds (simulates) them there. The recordings from the mixer console is just so clean.



Hehe, it was EXACTLY Philips/Marantz (together in about 2000 ) vs Sony players - some CDs would play on Philiphs/Marantz, and not on Sony - or vice versa. "Everything just works" unfortunately means more errors on the CD are tolerated; per this reasonong, party CD boomboxes ( that play anything but real pancake ) would be the best CD players on the market .

Again, live sound I am always referring to - UNLESS  expressly noted othervise - is acoustic, with no wind creating chorus effects, etc. It is true that distortion of analogue record increases with the level - but, better>best cartridges are capable of playing back any reasonable commercially available record without hard mistracking. Those peaks actually exceeding +15dB  300Hz  cover only the last 3 dB of the ultimately achievable dynamic range - and,are, since they are most likely to create audible distress, usually anoided by reducing the overall level by 3 dB. Furthermore, if you ever observed the PCM WAV form in any editor, it should be clear that any music with non compressed dynamics will be at anything approachin "full" levels ( say -2 dBFS in PCM ) only in less than 5 % of the time - usually even less. Under these conditions, analogue can be quie close to the master. 

I agree regarding amplified concerts. I find the recordings from the mixer console too dry and lacking in atmosphere of the live event. It is nowhere near what anyone in the audience can hear live. It takes a really good "mixing engineer" to create out of those a mix that is both artistically and sonically satisfying. I like what Mark Pinske has been doing for Zappa. - million light years from  pure acoustical approach, but a truly interesting audio sorcery that helped one of the best musicians ever really well.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 3, 2018)

I think we've created a perpetual motion machine. It generates reams of paragraphs without any real input at all. Maybe this is the first example of an audiophile bot!

Phronesis, I think you're probably right that if there is a DAC or amp that sounds different, it's likely to be a super high end model. That end of the market isn't particularly concerned with accuracy, and they are more apt to incorporate large frequency response imbalances and deliberate distortion to create a "house sound". I would label those sorts of things "defective by design".

Thankfully I'm not rich enough to have gotten burned by that con.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 3, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Here's more info: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-portable-headphone-amp-with-built-in-dac/.  They limited the DAC/amps they tested to $400, which unfortunately only represents the low end of the market and doesn't support a conclusion that _all_ properly designed DAC/amps likely sound essentially the same.  Bummer that they went through all that trouble and didn't throw a couple of expensive units in the mix.  I haven't seen a paper or report which details their protocols, results, statistical analysis, etc.



This is actually really cool. I have never seen what appears to be a serious and reasonable review of a range headphone amps with a serious conclusion before. Plus if they are owned by the New York Times anything they say must be true. I have a couple of headphone amps but the primary purposes they serve for me are 1) adjusting to the headphone's impedence, 2) tone controls, 3) crossfeed, and 4) volume. It's a rare headphone amp that ticks all four boxes but I have one and it is not a boutique type deal. Honestly I doubt the sound quality is first class but that doesn't bug me. I don't think I really take a black box (however fancy it may be dressed up) with just a volume control to go between your headphones and your device too seriously. I think it could be useful with a PC if the sound doesn't get out unscathed by bad wiring, grounding, etc. Apple I think is more careful with their audio in their computers so it's not as relevant. Now, reasonable as their analysis sounds, I would like to see the underlying data for the study. I have a vague feeling it wouldn't hold up to statistical scrutiny, that they are hiding the ball. But maybe that's a "me" problem.  : )


----------



## old tech

pinnahertz said:


> My direct and controlled Vinyl versus CD comparisons using identicle master throughout the entire chain has revealed vinyl as inferior. Other comparisons include uncontrolled variables in both trains, and cannot be valid.
> 
> Are you not aware of the preview problem and cutting the lacquer? True, it doesn’t occur with direct address, but everything else… And I mean everything! Even analog tape masters from the 1980s… involves a delay, which is (gasp!) PCM 44/16! Recent projects could be different, but there is a huge amount of the existing library that’s done that way.
> 
> All of your conclusions are based on lack of knowledge and experience, combined with extreme presumption.



Mr Asurviror is like some in the extreme end of vinylphiles - making things up, claiming the advantages of 16/44 as vinyl attributes, ignores all the technical facts, tests and measurements and real world practical experiences of those actually involved in the processes.

Firstly, it is not really possible to directly compare an LP production of an album with its CD counterpart. The best we can do is make a CD from the LP record, which many have done.  If done competently, it is not possible to distinguish the CD from the LP if played back on the same stereo chain as the donor TT.  Now if we had access to studio equipment to do the reverse, ie make a LP from a CD, it would not sound the same.  There is no need to go through the hassle though as basic logic would indicate we are comparing transferring from a smaller bucket (the LP) to a higher one (16/44), while the other is a transfer from a the larger bucket to a smaller one will change the sound somewhat.

Some other points to consider when we are reasonably sure the same master was used for both the LP and CD.  First the Telarc Holts the Planets, recorded with the London Philharmonic Orchestra.  Compare the 1987 CD with the earlier LP release - the CD captures the full dynamic range of the orchestra and the instruments sound more natural than the LP.  Exhibit no. 2 - the 1983 (non TO) "Black Triangle" CD release of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon.  This is a highly sought after CD, it was mastered by Sony under contract before the Toshiba plant was up and running in 1985.  Sony used the same 15 ips tape that was used for the highly regarded late 70s Pro Use LP prior to the EMI mastering used in the Toshiba plant.  I have both the CD and the Pro Use LP.  Comparing them side by side they sound remarkably similar but the CD is a tad cleaner and clearer, a bit more dynamic and is consistent all the way through whereas the LP does degrade somewhat towards the centre of the record (some call is IGD but it is more a thickening of the sound as the resolution always falls away on an LP towards the centre of the record.

Then there is the controlled peer reviewed study published in the music education journal _Geringer, J., Dunnigan, P. "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings." Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education. 1 Jul. 2000, Number 145: 1-13.  _The study was a blind test with university students (young and therefore better hearing than most of us posting in this thread) of an all analog recording of a live concert compared with an all digital CD recording of the same concert.  The analog chain used tape because they did not want any processing/mastering to influence the result (it is not possible to make a vinyl copy without some processing).  The result was the overwhelming majority preferred the CD rating it higher on attributes such as bass, treble, vocals and instrument separation.  There was a minority that preferred the all analog, not suprising given perception of sound is subjective, and perhaps represents listeners such as asurvivor.


----------



## old tech

Btw, if anyone wants to hear the 1983 Sony mastered DSOTM CD, I have uploaded "Money" in the link below.  This CD has pre-emphasis and the upload was de-emphasised using Foobar.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1t3wja6pc5wz4j4/Money.wav?dl=0


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I have been in CD retail for about a decade. And I quit that in 2004 - 14 years from now, and man, you'll have to tell the ferrytales that CD problems have been fixed decades ago to someone else. I remember selling the entire Wagner Ring to a library - from which I eventually borrowed it after a few years. I had to use some 5 different CD players/recorders - before ANY of them would recognbize the discs. Universal Classics, Philiphs/DGG/Decca, no longer remember the exact version - on any Philiphs machine tried - NOTHING !
> 
> There were MANY cases that some - rather popular - CDs just would not play on certain brands/makes of CD players. To some stubborn customers, we have been replacing the CD copy for three, even four times - before they finally did grasp that the CD they wanted to purchase simply would not work with their player. Trying the same CD on  a different make we were selling in audio department was usually finally enough to convince them.  I have a friend who in the end had to ditch a super-duper precise Theta CD transport for some garden variety one - because, simply, Theta has been made for PRECISELY  made CDs - and rejected as defective or unrecognizable >70% of anything loaded to its transport. Perfect... yea, right !


While I don’t disagree that CD rot is a problem, I need to see figures and statistics, not anecdote. You have called attention to a problem without any actual statement of degree.  “Many” isn’t going to cut it from someone who is credibility-challenged.  It makes it sound like “nearly all”, or something equally sensational in yet another blatant attempt to bad rap the CD, when the problem is more likely under 10%. 


analogsurviver said:


> Just because the standard for measuring cassette is specified at -20 dB ref 0 dB level, that does not mean that no one can not measure at other level(s).


Measure at any level you want, but if you want even sort of flat response you’ll be at -20 or lower. But here’s another idea: measure! I do, all the time, have for years, but clearly you never have. Do yourself a favor and do a little hands on learning.  You’ll be surprised at how very non-flat all analog systems are.


analogsurviver said:


> I have used my tape recorder strictly for doing masters - recording music with microphone. *I don't recall making any tape copies - ever.*


You should try that. Go several generations and listen, if not measure the results.


analogsurviver said:


> And you would be surprised at which level and which frequency range/response this cassette recorder can work with good metal tape  -  besides that, cassette recorders are measured at -20dB more because of the treble and NOT bass.


Yeah, but I actually have tested and measured, and optimized many cassette decks, so I know first hand exactly what they can and cannot do. You have no measurement experience, do you? Then why are you trying to tell me about the capabilities of cassettes?  Both bass and treble response are affected by level, though not equally.


analogsurviver said:


> I did mention the Decca story - because it is true. The tape is loosing the most in the first few hours - rather "exponentially", if you wish to call it that way. Then, its decay is getting ever slower - which explains why do tapes old 60 years and more still work OK.


The only time this might have been true was over 65 years ago before tape formula were worked out. Nothing in the last 50+ years suffers from immediate HR response loss, and only very slightly if improperly stored for many decades.  You story must either come from the very infancy of tape recording or be a myth.


analogsurviver said:


> But - that is an important but - they no longer work as well, particularly in the treble, as they did new. And that new performance is being preserved in the first press ( 1A / 1B ) analogue vinyl records.
> Ever heard one ? I did ... Solti's Wagner, that storm ... it would wake up the dead.


Complete nonsense.  There is no waking the dead with loud music, Solti or no.


analogsurviver said:


> I have no idea how much mastering as we know it today has been employed back in the day. Certainly, it was less - but absolutely "direct to tape>record" it was most probaby not.


Well, I agree with you having no idea.



analogsurviver said:


> No, no Dolby A for me - never liked how it sounds, never worked with it.


If you’ve never worked with it how can you know what it sounds like? Since you’re recording on cassette, are you thinking of Dolby B? Type A was the pro version, B was consumer, primarily used with cassette.


analogsurviver said:


> As said before, Telefunken High Com and High Com II were better - but I did not work with pro version, the Telcom C4.


Thats ok if you like High Com II, but it wasn’t accepted for pro use. I encountered C4 in analog satellite transmission.

Understand that no NR system is perfect.  The big issue is compander tracking (made quite difficult by analog recorders response and nonlinearities) and hiding the NR compander’s action.  Dolby did this first with Type A, a 4-band system that uses a level dependent compression ratio that reduces to a linear 1:1 as level increases past a certain point. This means the system does nothing where it would be most critical, high levels, yet still achieves its goal at low levels.  This basic concept is true in all types of Dolby NR, A,B,C, and SR, but similarities end there. The pro systems, A and SR are mult-band, and require level calibration to compensate for tape sensitivity differences. Consumer systems were HF band only, and  assumed tape sensitivity variation to be within acceptable range after general calibration, which turned out to be wrong as tape formulations advanced.


analogsurviver said:


> The main advantage of Telefunken's High Com vs Dolby is in its ability to pass perfect square waves troughout its entire frequency and dynamic range.


Really?  We're going to do the "prefect square wave" thing again? Ok. Fine.  _*Nonsense, it doesn't pass perfect square waves, especially with any analog recorder in between.*_


analogsurviver said:


> I do not know how "resistant" the Dolby A is/was regarding the calibration


+/-1dB for Dolby A and SR, B was looser, as was C.


analogsurviver said:


> , I know that High Com is a bit more sensitive for this, that's why I wrote "possible issues at end user" ( or something to that effect).


Highly doubtful. +/- 1dB is about as good as you can get anyway.


analogsurviver said:


> A well calibrated R2R machine using Telcom C4 NR could achieve almost 100 dB S/N ratio - as good if not better than CD, when used with quality tape.


Doubtful. The compression ratio for C4 is 1.5, so out of 60dB you get 90.  BUT...straight companding, even with 4 bands like C4, has big tracking issues when used with a medium that has non-flat response vs level, like tape.  The typical 2dB head bump becomes much bigger, HF loss bigger, dropouts huge.  Dolby knew this when he designed Dolby A, and designed something better.  dbx knew it too, but opted for low cost and higher NR at the expense of audible companding artifacts.  C4 has less artifact than dbx, but has enough that it was never adopted fully by professional studios in the UK or USA.  C4 made a few inroads in Europe, but never did well. Cost vs performance was the issue. 


analogsurviver said:


> Now, you are not going to dispute not having to care regarding the level etc for ANY NR is an advantage for the non proffessional user ( who are increasingly adopting R2R machines at home, used mainly as playback devices for prerecorded tapes without NR  - or are you ?


Yes.  A professional is ALWAYS concerned with level regardless of total dynamic range available, only amateurs don't care.


analogsurviver said:


> Regarding the record use/deterioration; yes, true, but can be helped in many ways. If you remember the B&K paper on audible effects of mechanical resonances in turntables, you should know what measures to reduce this inevitable wear are to be taken. Unfortunately, the industry went exactly the opposite way - because it is easier to produce low complkiance cartridges, tonearms with high inertia ( long - now they are pushing 14 inch and above pivoted arms ) - and because they are easier to adjust for the end user. Please go and check again what does that really mean not only for the quality achievable, but also for the record use and its expected lifespan.


No, I'm not doing that.  I've proven, years ago, that records wear, and there are audible changes after one play.  You can fool yourself all you want, but you're wrong.


analogsurviver said:


> Agreed on HDDs and backups. But for SSD, I have heard opinions it is best not to use for applications that write and rewrite many times. Good for OS in computer, potentially catastrophic for actual storage used to work on - audio file, for example, as this requires lots of rewriting. SSD is still developing, it may be wise to wait what will stand the test of time.


Looks like you still have some learning to do on SSD, then.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, interchannel delay in PCM has not been put to rest for good. Not yet. It can still happen.


There is no cause, so there is no resulting interchannel delay.  If you have proof, POST IT, or stop lying.


analogsurviver said:


> I did already mention I did not do any analogue masters, mastered it to lacquer, had test run for approval, evaluated the pressings and metal parts, or chosen vinyl formulations - because there simply was no facility within 150 km from where I live and although Zagreb and Belgrade were in what was then Yugoslavia, that were two different republics with different language and culture - more difference than say north and south of the USA; that makes for a pretty "distant" 150 km air distance from my town and Zagreb.


Then given your lack of experience, perhaps you might consider not posting statements about which you know nothing.


analogsurviver said:


> However, I DID measure cartridges, preamps, record wear, etc. And I am doing that on regular basis from about 1989. Who did get various prototype/preproduction cartridges for evaluation and approval - BEFORE any finished article has been sent out to any reviewer for formal test ? Who did - painstakingly so - insist on the ultimate quality possible, from sample to sample ?
> The only cartridge (types) I have yet not worked with are the optical  ( vintage Toshiba C-100P , today's simplified version by DS Audio ) , cantileverless MC ( Ikeda ) and strain gauge ( vintage Panasonic, today's Soundsmith )


That's fantastic experience!  I'm confused at the postings, then.


analogsurviver said:


> You most likely have little idea what is  - ultimately - achievable with phono equipment.


Well, I believe I do, and that's something I'm sure we'll never agree on.  Just stop with the insults.


analogsurviver said:


> Do you know how to best AUDIBLY test a phono preamp - without using the cartridge ?


Absolutely!


analogsurviver said:


> I will have to *somehow* try to make graphs etc from analogue equipment using computer. The software I have seen so far that can use the analogue test records ( usually, a sweep has been "anounced" to the chart recorder by a 1 kHz sine wave pilot tone - and after this pilot tone ceased, simoultaneously the real sweep from the test record or tape and chart recorder would begin writing the curve. The pauses after the sweep ended ( in reality, empty grooves leading to the next test announced by another 1 kHz pilot tone ) would last long enough for the chart recorder to return to its starting position - and the cycle would repeat itself.) has been not precise enough when compared to B & K vintage equipment. I will investigate further in this direction ASAP.


Ah, so you haven't make any measurements!  Interesting!


analogsurviver said:


> I do think analogue record is limited. Have said it, many times. The biggest problem is large vertical modulation = out of phase bass, which means below certain frequency, al, bass on record is essentially mono = horizontal recording only. We can argue to exactly which frequency and exactly how big amplitude this limitation holds true - but it is there and has to be scrupolously taken care of not to exceed it. It is the main reason why you experienced audible differences between master and CD - and vinyl version.


No it's not!  Didn't you read my post? Go try again and stop being so presumptuous!


analogsurviver said:


> At the introduction of the CD  to the market in early 80s,  at least German audio press did - usually - review new albums in both analogue record and CD  format - with "averaged" spectrum analysis for each release. Usually, CD had higher level in bass, much less usually so also in the treble - and they did report the audible difference(s), if any- in addition to the usual report on the quality of pressing, vinyl noise, etc on the analogue record.
> 
> There are genres in music that do not require anything in bass that would force analogue record mastering engineer to compromise the original master for vinyl release - those can be made to sound next to indistinguishable from the master. In those cases  this simple approach of basically doing nothing would not suffice, a really good analogue record mastering engineer can make quite a difference - by staying just below the edge of the available envelope, while packing in this limied space as much bass as possible.
> 
> There can be  a CONSIDERABLE difference among analogue record masters - same album, same generation copy of master, same playtime per side, releases from two countries, mastered by two different engineers


All old news.


analogsurviver said:


> 1. One has still some 2-3 cm (or more..) "land" before the label ( to avoid end of side distortion ) , it has rather low signal level ( easying tracking, allowing lower distortion for less than stellar cartridges , compromising S/N ratio ), its bass response is weak>non existant, etc
> 2. Another has next to zero "land" before the label ( requiring precise geometrical alignment of the cartridge/stylus, as good as possible stylus tip profile in order not to increase end of side distortion too much ), it has quite high recording level ( necessitating good>very good>excellent tracking - without excessive distortion ; that usually means a very high quality cartridge , allowing for high S/N ratio ), its bass response is decent>good>excellent, etc
> 
> It is perfectly possible that the user that only has equipment available to play the record 1.) correctly, would complain that record 2.) is "defective" - as it overtaxes the capability of his equipment. In the same way, a user that has higher quality playback equipment that does allow for the proper playback of record 2.), would find the record 1.) underwhelming..
> ...


Nice, but then why are you in love with vinyl when it has so many problems?


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> It is true that distortion of analogue record increases with the level - but, better>best cartridges are capable of playing back any reasonable commercially available record without hard mistracking.


Distortion still goes up with level though.  It doesn't with PCM.


analogsurviver said:


> Those peaks actually exceeding +15dB  300Hz  cover only the last 3 dB of the ultimately achievable dynamic range - and,are, since they are most likely to create audible distress, usually anoided by reducing the overall level by 3 dB.


You're ignoring RIAA eq again.  The maximum level is amplitude limited below 1kHz, and velocity limited above.  That seems to be a hard concept for you.


analogsurviver said:


> Furthermore, if you ever observed the PCM WAV form in any editor, it should be clear that any music with non compressed dynamics will be at anything approachin "full" levels ( say -2 dBFS in PCM ) only in less than 5 % of the time - usually even less.


Yes, as it should be for some types of music.


analogsurviver said:


> Under these conditions, analogue can be quie close to the master.


Just not as close to the master as PCM.  You won't win a dynamic range or maximum peak level contest with vinyl, it's just not possible.  If you think you can, POST PROOF!


----------



## bigshot

Steve999 said:


> I have a couple of headphone amps but the primary purposes they serve for me are 1) adjusting to the headphone's impedence, 2) tone controls, 3) crossfeed, and 4) volume. It's a rare headphone amp that ticks all four boxes but I have one and it is not a boutique type deal.



When you talk about tone controls and crossfeed, you're talking about features, not sound quality. When it comes to impedance and volume, that depends on the requirements of your headphones, not the amp itself.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 4, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Distortion still goes up with level though.  It doesn't with PCM.
> You're ignoring RIAA eq again.  The maximum level is amplitude limited below 1kHz, and velocity limited above.  That seems to be a hard concept for you.
> Yes, as it should be for some types of music.
> Just not as close to the master as PCM.  You won't win a dynamic range or maximum peak level contest with vinyl, it's just not possible.  If you think you can, POST PROOF!


1.) True. But the fact remains that distortion to be perceived as such or even excessive to the untrained ear usually has to last for longer time than usually encountered in most music. Typically, the problem would creep up audibly mostly with soprano, flute or piccolo - where the  loud sound is sustained for long enough time. The difference in bass is usually much lower than the deficiences in loudspeakers and headphones.
Still, no distortion at all is better.

2.) Would you please stop with the pointing out that maximum level in analogue record is amplitude limited below 1 kHz and velocity limited above each and every time ? Of course I know that, or else I could always be happy with the low(est)  model in the cartridge range ... in almost any cartridge line, the basic design/concept is the same from the lowest to the highest performing model. And tracking below 1 kHz is rather similar for all the carts in the same line/design, with not much difference among them. It's in the treble where almost all the action really is - precisely because of the RIAA curve that boosts the treble just shy of 20 dB (19.something ) at 20 kHz. Why else would I insist on using the handful of cartridges that actually can play RIAA equalized sweep all the way to 20 kHz - at a level above anything yet mentioned ? When you look at the actual stylus/cantilever, either with naked eye or under any reasonable magnification microscope, there will be the difference immediately appearent. And merely by looking at the stylus one can pretty accurately determine its MSRP.

3.) Agreed

4.) No, it is not possible to win with dynamic range or maximum peak level with analogue record. But, it IS possible to trounce the CD 16/44 for crest factor. And, that is in music much more important than ultimate dynamic range. To put it simply - by having better frequency response - with good stylus tip profile even in the innermost grooves at 33 1/3 RPM - the rise time, which limits the ultimately achievable crest factor, is better with analogue record than with CD. It is a fact, like it or not. And has been the main reason why the vinyl is still with us. If the digital camp did not shoot itself in both foots by adopting RBCD as standard for music, we most probably would not have this conversation. Analogue record played back by a decent phono cartridge will have rise time in the order of 10 micro seconds ( square wave on CBS STR 112, https://www.vinylengine.com/library/columbia-special-products/professional-test-records.shtml ) - and I have seen (and heard...) a prototype cartridge with the rise time of 3 ( in a word : three ) microseconds ... That cartridge sounded to normal cartridges like FM radio does to AM radio - not to mention the CD, which is, by default and definition, slower than both above mentioned figures. Better cartridges available today are pushing 8 microsecond rise times or even lower - and 16/44 simply can not react fast enough. For all the CD lovers to hear for themselves  just how hopelessly limited and slow  "perfect sound forever" actually really is, try this AAA Enja LP ( on a good quality TT, of course ) :
//www.discogs.com/Dusko-Goykovich-Soul-Connection-Vol-I/release/9852254    and compare it to its CD counterpart  https://www.discogs.com/Dusko-Goykovich-Soul-Connection/release/3317584 
One sounds much like real music, the other does not. And that is all that matters in the end.

It is precisely for this reason I stopped transferring analogue records to digital 16/44 - after the first few attempts. Too slow... - NEXT !


----------



## Glmoneydawg

old tech said:


> I said "to the same extent"... and I am talking about tape hiss not vinyl hiss.  It is also not about the frequency but the noise floor of CD v vinyl which increases the resolution and hence, hearing the tape hiss from the source.
> 
> My vinyl set up is quite good, having expensed a lot of time, money and effort into it over the past few decades - it certainly is better than any VPI, Project etc TT out of the box.
> 
> Are you sure the hiss you are hearing is not the surface noise of the record?  They do hiss you know, which any decent TT will reveal.


Does digital have a noise floor?Vinyl definitely does...but its not crazy ugly


dprimary said:


> Print though is substantially above the noise floor of any decent 1/2" 2 track or for that matter 2" 24 track.  Most of the time it is masked. If it was buried in the tape hiss we would have never worried about it so much.


only ever notice it it before a song starts....mostly music from the 70"s


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> 4.) No, it is not possible to win with dynamic range or maximum peak level with analogue record. But, it IS possible to trounce the CD 16/44 for crest factor. And, that is in music much more important than ultimate dynamic range. To put it simply - by having better frequency response - with good stylus tip profile even in the innermost grooves at 33 1/3 RPM - the rise time, which limits the ultimately achievable crest factor, is better with analogue record than with CD. It is a fact, like it or not. And has been the main reason why the vinyl is still with us. If the digital camp did not shoot itself in both foots by adopting RBCD as standard for music, we most probably would not have this conversation. Analogue record played back by a decent phono cartridge will have rise time in the order of 10 micro seconds ( square wave on CBS STR 112, https://www.vinylengine.com/library/columbia-special-products/professional-test-records.shtml ) - and I have seen (and heard...) a prototype cartridge with the rise time of 3 ( in a word : three ) microseconds ... That cartridge sounded to normal cartridges like FM radio does to AM radio - not to mention the CD, which is, by default and definition, slower than both above mentioned figures. Better cartridges available today are pushing 8 microsecond rise times or even lower - and 16/44 simply can not react fast enough. For all the CD lovers to hear for themselves  just how hopelessly limited and slow  "perfect sound forever" actually really is, try this AAA Enja LP ( on a good quality TT, of course ) :
> //www.discogs.com/Dusko-Goykovich-Soul-Connection-Vol-I/release/9852254    and compare it to its CD counterpart  https://www.discogs.com/Dusko-Goykovich-Soul-Connection/release/3317584
> One sounds much like real music, the other does not. And that is all that matters in the end.
> 
> It is precisely for this reason I stopped transferring analogue records to digital 16/44 - after the first few attempts. Too slow... - NEXT !



Oh boy. When you lose defending vinyl on all other fronts, you bring crest factor on the table as if it was relevant. We don't hear the way we see. We see pictures of squarewaves, but we don't hear squarewaves, only lowpass filtered versions on them. Our hearing has a rise time too around the same area as 16/44.1 digital audio. Our hearing also has temporal masking, even pre-masking which smears fine temporal structure of signals. Then of course we have the question of just how short risetime we need for music. Well, vinyl has got clicks and pops that definitely have short rise time, but I prever my music without those.

Are you sure you really hear the risetime difference of vinyl and 16/44.1 or is it just your imagination?


----------



## gregorio (Jun 4, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> 1.) Still, no distortion at all is better.
> 2.) Would you please stop with the pointing out that maximum level in analogue record is amplitude limited below 1 kHz and velocity limited above each and every time ?
> 4.) But, it IS possible to trounce the CD 16/44 for crest factor. And, that is in music much more important than ultimate dynamic range. To put it simply - by having better frequency response - with good stylus tip profile even in the innermost grooves at 33 1/3 RPM - the rise time, which limits the ultimately achievable crest factor, is better with analogue record than with CD. *It is a fact, like it or not.*
> [5] If the digital camp did not shoot itself in both foots by adopting RBCD as standard for music, we most probably would not have this conversation.
> [6] It is precisely for this reason I stopped transferring analogue records to digital 16/44 - after the first few attempts. Too slow... - NEXT !



1. Great, you agree then that 16/44 is better than vinyl.
2. Yes @pinnahertz stop pointing that out and for exactly the same reason, please do NOT point out that Santa Claus, Unicorns and the Tooth Fairy don't exist.
4. It is complete delusion, like it or not! And, there's stacks of proof to corroborate this but for your completely nonsense delusion, you've supplied not a single tiny weeny hint of any real evidence at all!
5. If RBCD hadn't shot vinyl and cassette in both feet and right between the eyes then we most probably would not be having such a ridiculous conversation which you've packed with nonsense and lies!
6. NEXT what? Next lie or next completely made-up bit of delusional nonsense?

G


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> There is no cause, so there is no resulting interchannel delay.  If you have proof, POST IT, or stop lying.
> Then given your lack of experience, perhaps you might consider not posting statements about which you know nothing.
> That's fantastic experience!  I'm confused at the postings, then.
> Well, I believe I do, and that's something I'm sure we'll never agree on.  Just stop with the insults.
> ...


1. ) Will post ASAP.
2. ) I know enough to be aware of the potential problems. Actual experience is of course better.
3. ) Nothing fantastic about it. Only what I could do, given the limited access, resources, etc.
4. ) Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this point then. I have always been ( and still am ) striving for the better sound ( even on CD ...), you decline even to click on the link provided regarding what can be achieved in analogue record playback. Sorry, no insults intended - if you experienced it that way, I apologize.
5. ) Nice.
6. ) What I said is that I do not have the hard copy on paper or its digital counterpart on computer of the results achieved - NOT that I have not done any measurements. The reason being simply the lack of money to do so. As long as I can see I can always use an oscilloscope to see what is going on. And I have been documenting the performance of phono cartridges since 2002 or 2003 - recording it to audio tracks of SVHS video recorder and in addittion to that, simoultaneous video of the oscilloscope display.  Which, in a way, together exceeds the information that can be recorded even with DSD128, something I have been doing for recording the performance of phono cartridges for the last 7 or so years. Now I am in the search for some software that will be capable of creating a computer graph display(s) from these files. I know I will first to have DSD converted to PCM, most likely to 192/24 or 192/32 floating point. 
7.) If you say so - you know how you did those analogue disc masters. I do not want to brush you off in this way, please refer again exactly to what bothers you in my response.
8.) Old, true. As valid as ever - also true.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

71 dB said:


> Oh boy. When you lose defending vinyl on all other fronts, you bring crest factor on the table as if it was relevant. We don't hear the way we see. We see pictures of squarewaves, but we don't hear squarewaves, only lowpass filtered versions on them. Our hearing has a rise time too around the same area as 16/44.1 digital audio. Our hearing also has temporal masking, even pre-masking which smears fine temporal structure of signals. Then of course we have the question of just how short risetime we need for music. Well, vinyl has got clicks and pops that definitely have short rise time, but I prever my music without those.
> 
> Are you sure you really hear the risetime difference of vinyl and 16/44.1 or is it just your imagination?




And the only reason the crest factor, of the same album on CD as on vinyl, would be lower on the CD is because it was heavily _peak-limited_ on the CD, compared to what went on vinyl.  Flat-top waveforms do not occur naturally in music, or the sounds of life itself for that matter.


----------



## Yuurei

Guys, I know there were many posts about cables and how they (do not) change the sound but I can't find anything about crosstalk. Since I recently saw this: "Cables - as proved pages ago do make a difference due to noticeable changes in cross-talk. It has been measured and confirmed." I'm wondering is this a true statement or another fairy tale?


----------



## Phronesis

There doesn't seem to be much professional literature which delves into the specifics of how cognitive biases can affect our auditory perception, but I did run across this recent paper on "Overcoming Bias: Cognitive Control Reduces Susceptibility to Framing Effects in Evaluating Musical Performance."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24528-3

The paper focuses on how bias can affect perception of quality of music performances, rather than perception of sound quality, but IMO it has some relevance to our topic. The basic finding was that, when a listener is told that a performance is by a professional musician rather than a student musician, listeners will tend to perceive the performance as being of higher quality, and this is a more consistent effect than whether the performance was actually by a professional vs student. They used fMRI to see what was happening with people's brains as they listened, and they found that telling a listener that a performer is a professional tended to cause brain responses within a few seconds which would cause the performance to be viewed more favorably, and those brain responses persisted through listening to 70-sec music excerpts, as well as after listening. These brain responses involved the listeners paying more attention. Once a listener was told that a performance was by a professional, it was difficult for listeners to conclude otherwise, even when the performance provided mounting evidence that it wasn't by a professional.

Here are some quotes from the paper:

"By modulating expectations and beliefs, contextual information can alter the enjoyability of stimuli as diverse as artworks, soda, and wine, influencing or even dominating actual sensory perception."

"... contextual information can contribute materially to positive perceptual experiences. Aesthetic experiences sometimes depend on the prior activation of a set of beliefs that dispose a person to perceiving this way—a “preparatory set” consisting of expectations and beliefs. For instance, even though listening to Joshua Bell perform a concert on the violin can cost $100 per ticket, an incognito performance by him at a subway station triggered very little interest. Generally, this evidence suggests that contextual information can affect preferences and perception in both nefarious and beneficial ways."

"Previous neuroimaging studies suggest that the influence of beliefs and expectations arises not merely from the sensory system, but from the particular sensitivity to contextual information of reward structures in the brain."

"Our analysis revealed that, when a piece was preferred, the professional pianist frame induced significantly more activity in the primary auditory cortex relative to the student pianist frame (see Fig. 2A). This suggests that beliefs regarding the quality of a performer engendered a bias in attention."

"We observed higher activation in the primary auditory cortex when the player was described as a professional pianist relative to when the player was described as a student. Moreover, this difference in activity remained consistent, exhibiting no significant changes across the 70 seconds of the excerpt. A panel regression of activity in the primary auditory cortex on time showed no significant linear slope (_b_1 = 0.0003, _z_ = 0.56, _p_ > 0.5). This supports the notion that a bias in attention began almost immediately (i.e. 4 sec) after the presentation of the framing information and remained stable throughout the evidence accumulation period. Contrary to the notion that more evidence should diminish any framing effects generating during the relatively short framing period (i.e. 4 sec), we found that the professional framing gave rise to a constant _attentional_ bias in favor of the professional player."

"...as information about the quality of the performance accumulated, participants needed to exert cognitive control in order to form and retain a negative evaluation for performances that had been framed as played by a professional compared to those that had been framed as played by a student. These data suggest that less cognitive effort was required to dislike a performance when it had been described as played by a student rather than a professional."

"... by expecting better performance from a professional, participants directed more attention toward professionally framed pianists compared to the student-framed performances, and therefore, exhibited a heightened tendency to gather more evidence that would confirm their prior expectation about the professional player’s performance."

"From the perspective of music psychology, these findings reinforce the notion that extrinsic factors—outside the borders of the notes themselves—can impact perception and evaluation as critically as the intrinsic characteristics of the acoustic signal."


----------



## TheSonicTruth

old tech said:


> Btw, if anyone wants to hear the 1983 Sony mastered DSOTM CD, I have uploaded "Money" in the link below.  This CD has pre-emphasis and the upload was de-emphasised using Foobar.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/1t3wja6pc5wz4j4/Money.wav?dl=0




Would love to hear it, but now it seems I need an account to access it!  Who's the communist twinkle-toed little - never mind! - over at Drop Box who made that dumb decision?  Same happy horsesh- as over in Pinterest. Need an 'account' there too, to view images.   Do I need to log in to flush my OWN TOILET?!


----------



## old tech

TheSonicTruth said:


> Would love to hear it, but now it seems I need an account to access it!  Who's the communist twinkle-toed little - never mind! - over at Drop Box who made that dumb decision?  Same happy horsesh- as over in Pinterest. Need an 'account' there too, to view images.   Do I need to log in to flush my OWN TOILET?!


Hmmm, that must have been recent. Previously an account was not required to view or listen to files.

I'm happy to upload again if you give me a link to another site.


----------



## pinnahertz

TheSonicTruth said:


> Would love to hear it, but now it seems I need an account to access it!  Who's the communist twinkle-toed little - never mind! - over at Drop Box who made that dumb decision?  Same happy horsesh- as over in Pinterest. Need an 'account' there too, to view images.   Do I need to log in to flush my OWN TOILET?!


No account required.  There's a tiny link at the bottom of the account sign-up page that lets you bypass it.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jun 4, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> 1.) True. But the fact remains that distortion to be perceived as such or even excessive to the untrained ear usually has to last for longer time than usually encountered in most music.


I disagree.  "Most" music today is saturated with distortion caused by loudness war processing, and the distortion is pretty much continuous and very audible.


analogsurviver said:


> Typically, the problem would creep up audibly mostly with soprano, flute or piccolo - where the  loud sound is sustained for long enough time.


While that's true, record groove related distortion shows up on solo piano attacks quite early.


analogsurviver said:


> Still, no distortion at all is better.


Like the CD does.


analogsurviver said:


> 2.) Would you please stop with the pointing out that maximum level in analogue record is amplitude limited below 1 kHz and velocity limited above each and every time ? Of course I know that, or else I could always be happy with the low(est)  model in the cartridge range ... in almost any cartridge line, the basic design/concept is the same from the lowest to the highest performing model.


It's not clear to me that you know it because you've refuted it several times and keep stating vinyl response as a single figure of 27kHz without regard to level.


analogsurviver said:


> And tracking below 1 kHz is rather similar for all the carts in the same line/design, with not much difference among them.


Huh.  The guys trying to track the Telarc 1812 cannon shots would disagree with you (and so do I).



analogsurviver said:


> Why else would I insist on using the handful of cartridges that actually can play RIAA equalized sweep all the way to 20 kHz - at a level above anything yet mentioned ?


You really don't want me to answer that one!


analogsurviver said:


> 4.) No, it is not possible to win with dynamic range or maximum peak level with analogue record. But, it IS possible to trounce the CD 16/44 for crest factor.


Not a chance!  Do you not understand what crest factor is?  The CD MUST win because of it's flat 0dBFS response!

<edit>Wow, I had a real brain fart here.  The above is incorrect, my bad.  Vinyl crest factor is often higher because of loudness war processing on CD.  However, thats an artistic choice, not endemic to the medium itself.   



analogsurviver said:


> And, that is in music much more important than ultimate dynamic range.


Wrong...and I simply don't have time to go into it.


analogsurviver said:


> To put it simply - by having better frequency response - with good stylus tip profile even in the innermost grooves at 33 1/3 RPM - the rise time, w_*hich limits the ultimately achievable crest factor*_, is better with analogue record than with CD.


Go google crest factor and think about the above again.  Dead wrong.

Rise time and bandwidth are tied, but only meaningful if the result falls within the audible spectrum, which invalidates your argument.



analogsurviver said:


> And has been the main reason why the vinyl is still with us.


No, there are other reasons, primarily the pseudo-nostalgic anti-new-tech crowd, the hipster-organic crowd, and the experience of play vinyl, which is very tactile and visual.  It has nothing to do with the resulting sound quality, except for a tiny handful of vocal and deluded audiophiles.


analogsurviver said:


> If the digital camp did not shoot itself in both foots by adopting RBCD as standard for music, we most probably would not have this conversation.


We would not be having this conversation if one of us were not posting complete mythological nonsense.  Shot itself in the foot?  Hmm...the market analysis doesn't support the shot, or the foot.  CD won.


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> Oh boy. When you lose defending vinyl on all other fronts, you bring crest factor on the table as if it was relevant. We don't hear the way we see. We see pictures of squarewaves, but we don't hear squarewaves, only lowpass filtered versions on them. Our hearing has a rise time too around the same area as 16/44.1 digital audio. Our hearing also has temporal masking, even pre-masking which smears fine temporal structure of signals. Then of course we have the question of just how short risetime we need for music. Well, vinyl has got clicks and pops that definitely have short rise time, but I prever my music without those.
> 
> Are you sure you really hear the risetime difference of vinyl and 16/44.1 or is it just your imagination?



Well, I wish you all could have witnessed just how a 3 microsecond rise time audio SYSTEM - from input to output - can sound. Big Maggies with true ribbon line source tweeter and amps with specs that would probably make @bigshot start petition against the use of so overspec'd electronics for audio. I had it at disposal at the Benz Micro Switzerland when I worked there , did not have to pay for it ( yikes - only TODAY I found out what it cost new back then ... ouch&yikes, again ) - so why not use it ?

OK, no one of you would probably contradict that sound travels in solids faster than it does in gassses. You might have - or might have not - had the chance to experience it live. In a concert hall with wooden floor, if you seat say at least 10 metres away from the orchestra, you can experience the whack on the tympani as felt trough the floor slightly faster than you can hear it with your ears. With concrete/stone floors, the energy of tympani is generally not enough to excite  the floor enough to feel it with your body  (legs, back). Before the renovation of our philharmonics building ( late 90s ), we had such wooden floor; now, they are sadly missed. And I have attended lots of concerts in that hall...

Be it as it may, that prototype cartridge was the first - and sadly, last time - I have heard ( better said first felt, then heard  ) the tympani being struck - from any audio system, from any storage medium. Replace the cartridge for the normal ( still faster than CD ) - POOF - that explosive sound that captivates and demands attention has , for the most part, gone.

After that - do you seriously think anyone would consider even mentioning the CD, let alone taking the trouble of connecting it to THAT system  ?

It is sad that the level of sound quality - or realism, if you prefer it called it this way, comes at so punishing price most of us will never be able even to afford, let alone justify the purchase. 
But, I did have the privilege to experience it - and report best I possibly can. 
No longer possible; the premises once occupied by Benz Micro Switzerland /Empire where this system has been set up in one of its  BIG halls, has been since sold and BMS itself sold to one of its former employees and relocated to approx 1 km away, in a much smaller building. At the apogee of analogue audio, Benz employed > 80 workers that occupied those big premises to the last corner ; by 1990, this numer has shrunk to less than 10 and it became no longer reasonable nor sustainable to stay in that large building. It had a large "listening room" - for free, so to speak.

Even if you do have the equipment required, at least a similar building is required - and that is beyond the possibilities of all but the really well to do. But I will not forget the experience as long as I live. 

The really succesfull analogue playback equipment has to be FASTER than the ticks and pops in the vinyl material itself. That means it has to pull every and any trick available - either mechanical or electrical - to keep itself as large bandwidth and as quiet as possible. What we USUALLY hear as tick and pop from the vinyl record is actually resonances in the stylus/cantilever/suspension/cartridge body/headshell/tonearm/tonearm bearings/tonearm support/turntable plinth on one side - and record itself/record support/platter/main bearing/turntable plinth. The most telling test of the analogue record player is - listening to it without being even plugged into phono preamp etc. Really good turntables are almost inaudible in operation - next to no "needle talk" that can be heard. Back in the day, Dynavector has introduced Karat series of cartridges - DV-100D and DV-100R. One with diamond cantilever, another with ruby cantilever. Otherwise, practically the same. Prices in 1980 : 1000 $ and 300$ respectively. There is a very quickly perceptible difference in sound and freedom from ticks and pops between the two - and both are generally in a class above anything else as far as audibility of ticks and pop goes to begin with. There were a few generations of both Diamond and Ruby Karats - and at one time, Ruby has been dropped altogether - not to even mention very short lived aluminium cantilever model. Diamond is so much better as cantilever material than ruby that it did not make any more sense to proceed with ruby model - once the price of diamond model D17D3 has more or less stabilized at some 1300 $, much less than the price of the original DV-100D if  adjusted for the inflation across the last 38 years. 

You can go and look for link for downloads of the diamond cantilevered carts I posted not so long ago - they are also extremely quiet in the groove, but unfortunately also extremely expensive..


----------



## pinnahertz

If you're going to use the numbered response format, please number the quoted item so it corresponds.  G does it right.



analogsurviver said:


> 1. ) Will post ASAP.


Just post it before one of us dies, some time this century.


analogsurviver said:


> 2. ) I know enough to be aware of the potential problems. Actual experience is of course better.


Your statements show you neither know the problems, nor accept them as real.  That reveals no experience.


analogsurviver said:


> 7.) If you say so - you know how you did those analogue disc masters. I do not want to brush you off in this way, please refer again exactly to what bothers you in my response.
> 8.) Old, true. As valid as ever - also true.


I can't tell what these are referring to.


----------



## pinnahertz

gregorio said:


> 2. Yes @pinnahertz stop pointing that out and for exactly the same reason, please do NOT point out that Santa Claus, Unicorns and the Tooth Fairy don't exist.


Normally, when I keep hitting a nail with a hammer it eventually goes in.  Some surfaces are pretty hard, though, and the hardest just bends the nail.  Then I get a hammer-drill. 


gregorio said:


> 6. NEXT what? Next lie or next completely made-up bit of delusional nonsense?
> 
> G


Can't wait!  I'm sure we won't have to!


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 4, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> I disagree.  "Most" music today is saturated with distortion caused by loudness war processing, and the distortion is pretty much continuous and very audible.
> While that's true, record groove related distortion shows up on solo piano attacks quite early.
> Like the CD does.
> It's not clear to me that you know it because you've refuted it several times and keep stating vinyl response as a single figure of 27kHz without regard to level.
> ...



1. ) I would certainly not bother with any of the loudness wars compressed and with distortion saturated recordings for the vinyl release. It is both amusing and sad to be forced to listen to anything approaching natural dynamics on  LP , while digital is many times not only saturated, but downright clipped, with dynamics approaching nil.
2.) Certainly, piano is next on the audibility of distortion vs time list as far as analog is concerned. But, it is a less often encountered in practice.
3.) Agreed
4.) One absolutely DOES NOT need to know that RIAA even exists - in order to be able to hear that better/lower mass styli perform better. If the absolute limits are required, there is no cartridge that can track the amplitudes below 1 kHz cutting head is capable of - nor there is any cutter head capable of recording in real time frequency range that could tax the HF capability of the best styli.
Here only a part of the whole Ortofon  literature on cutting I quickly found online; I have the whole enchilada in paper, for more than 30 years : http://www.torbenteknik.dk/Ortofon ...Manual - Part 1 - Fundamentals - 21111632.PDF Neumann can not be much different.
5.) Telarc 1812 is even much less "music" as is the 6.x Hz from organ. The SPL required to cover the gun blast exceeds anything anyone might want to have in the living room - and it is compressed/clipped to begin with, or else it would not be possible to engrave the amplitude required to the master disk lacquer - let alone finding a cartridge that could track that excursion. There are three different analogue masters for 1812 available - and they differ primarily how the cannon shots have been transfered from the digital master to the record release. The            recorded levels of any normal music are different,  without any such large amplitudes/excursions as required for the cannons. For anything of normallly encountered amplitudes below 1 kHz, most cartridges in the same line perform pretty much the same. Differences begin higher up in frequency range, where effective mass of the stylus related problems begin. 
6. ) No comment
7. ) No flat system capable of  0dBFS required for music. All acoustic music has falling levels above certain frequencies - and 0dBFS is theorethically required only to slightly above 2 kHz, with some reasonable "safety margin" that would then mean around 5 kHz. That does not mean chopping off anything above 20 kHz is allowed if the quality of the reproduction is required - no matter at how low levels these >>20 kHz components lie. They are no higher in live music and , in case of analogue record, the system can  record anything required - if not in real time, than in half speed mastering.  
8.) & 9. ) One could also put it this way - analogue record has higher change of level per amount of time than CD - so and so many dB/microsecond. Analog record wins.  And of course, everything about this if frequency response related. 
I disagree regarding this has to fall within audible band to be meaningful. When say a drummer hits his kit, there is no one preventing the soundwaves containing ALL  the spectra from reaching me. If I am at reasonable distance from the drum kit and there are no larger obstacles between the drum kit and me.
10.) I agree there are other reasons for analog record staying power, as stated.. However, I am not the hipster buying levitating turntable for the sheer appearence sake - nor giulty of other charges, with the exception of being loud.


----------



## castleofargh

TheSonicTruth said:


> Would love to hear it, but now it seems I need an account to access it!  Who's the communist twinkle-toed little - never mind! - over at Drop Box who made that dumb decision?  Same happy horsesh- as over in Pinterest. Need an 'account' there too, to view images.   Do I need to log in to flush my OWN TOILET?!


just replace the 0 at the end of the link by 1. it's an old joke on dropbox.


----------



## castleofargh (Jun 4, 2018)

Yuurei said:


> Guys, I know there were many posts about cables and how they (do not) change the sound but I can't find anything about crosstalk. Since I recently saw this: "Cables - as proved pages ago do make a difference due to noticeable changes in cross-talk. It has been measured and confirmed." I'm wondering is this a true statement or another fairy tale?


crosstalk becomes clearly noticeable for me when reaching louder than -40db. not an impossible number to get with say a really really low impedance IEM and an amp that already isn't amazing in the crosstalk department unloaded, otherwise it's really unlikely to reach such high numbers. sure cables with various threading methods and insulation thicknesses will result in pretty significant changes in crosstalk(as in clearly measurable), but unless you don't believe in hearing thresholds, I wouldn't worry much about that on IEMs and absolutely not for anything else from headphones to interconnects. here are my own 2 reasons why:
1/ for low impedance IEMs where it could matter and make a pretty noticeable change in perception in a worst case scenario, the real solution would be not to use very low impedance IEMs. that would have a much more massive impact on crosstalk compared to messing with cables while trying not to make a mess of the other electrical variables. also we're still talking IEMs, I personally wouldn't want to carry a big fat cable that doesn't flex to avoid twisting, just in the name of slightly reduced crosstalk. 
2/ subjectively I kind of like crosstalk when I can notice it. which so far has been mainly when testing gears with an extreme load, or when creating my own files with various levels of crosstalk. oh and I guess vinyls could count as louder than -40dB, but there is so much to notice that it would be hard to specifically identify crosstalk by ear for me.


----------



## Yuurei

Understood, thank you @castleofargh


----------



## pinnahertz

Just edited a previous post re: crest factor.  Too many dead brain cells this morning.  See the correction *here. *

Short story, yes vinyl mastering can result in higher crest factor than the CD master.  But there's no technical reason the CD couldn't have the same crest factor, and the fact that it doesn't is artistic choice.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> The paper focuses on how bias can affect perception of quality of music performances, rather than perception of sound quality, but IMO it has some relevance to our topic.



That seems to be about *introducing* bias, not eliminating it. It would relate to people who believe that high data rates "sound better" even though they sound exactly the same to human ears. A blind test would remove that bias.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> That seems to be about *introducing* bias, not eliminating it. It would relate to people who believe that high data rates "sound better" even though they sound exactly the same to human ears. A blind test would remove that bias.



Yes, the paper is mainly about how the bias works and its effects.  It's not a good title, because the paper doesn't focus on overcoming bias.  Still a fascinating and important paper though, IMO.


----------



## bigshot

It would be very useful to high end audio snake oil salesmen for perfecting their pitch!


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 4, 2018)

bigshot said:


> It would be very useful to high end audio snake oil salesmen for perfecting their pitch!



I don't know about that, the paper doesn't provide any special insights about how to create bias.  It just says that if someone is told that X is good, within seconds they'll change the way they perceive (by paying more attention) such that X is perceived to be good, and it will tend to be difficult for subsequent evidence to the contrary to change their minds.  So the part that's perhaps surprising is how quickly the bias kicks in and how persistent it is.  I've experienced that myself.  Even after gathering evidence that any difference in the sound of the Hugo 2 vs Mojo is negligible, I still feel a subconscious pull to wonder if my testing methodology is inadequate and I've missed a real and significant audible difference (the fact that we can't be 100% certain either way on something like this keeps the door open to that line of thinking, so in the end we have draw working conclusions and make decisions accordingly).


----------



## bigshot (Jun 4, 2018)

Every day I see reviews on the internet that do just that. They talk about the "musicality" of the sound when sound quality isn't responsible for musicality. They mention how wonderful certain albums sound on a set of speakers and end up spending more time discussing how great the music is rather than the speakers. They infer that other equipment may be fine for "common music" but this one is for connoisseurs. They make allusions to race cars, fine wine and masterpieces of art, when none of those have anything to do with a headphone amp or DAC.

The whole point of a lot of high end audio sales pitch is creating and controlling bias so the consumer doesn't notice that one amp or DAC is functionally pretty much the same as any other. They're usually selling bias, not sound quality. Without bias you discover quickly that the "gold standard" in home audio electronics isn't really any different than "run of the mill" when it comes to sound quality.


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I wish you all could have witnessed just how a 3 microsecond rise time audio SYSTEM - from input to output - can sound.



Yeah, but we are not bats and I doubts even they can _hear_ 3 microsecond rise time. My guess is what you think was short rise time is actually distortion caused by inadequate damping/resonances at high frequencies.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Every day I see reviews on the internet that do just that. They talk about the "musicality" of the sound when sound quality isn't responsible for musicality. They mention how wonderful certain albums sound on a set of speakers and end up spending more time discussing how great the music is than the speakers. They infer that other equipment may be fine for "common music" but this one is for connoisseurs. They make allusions to race cars, fine wine and masterpieces of art, when none of that has anything to do with a headphone amp or DAC.
> 
> The whole point of a lot of high end audio sales pitch is creating and controlling bias so the consumer doesn't notice that one amp or DAC is functionally pretty much the same as any other. They're usually selling bias, not sound quality.
> 
> The way you dispose of all that is to do a simple blind listening test. If you don't know what you're listening to, bias can't affect you.



To be fair, I find that some equipment, specifically speakers and headphones, tend to sound less artificial and more 'musical' than others, to my ears.  But I think that's mainly due to how recordings mesh with the transducers, given that both recording characteristics and transducer characteristics are all over the place.  To me, 'musicality' of transducers is about my being able to experience the music without the transducers distracting me and drawing attention to themselves - similar to what many people think of as 'transparency'.  An analogy is that if we notice how good the acting is, it's not good - we shouldn't notice the _acting_ at all, we should just get lost in the characters and story.

I don't think audio sales people need to do much in terms of sales pitches.  If the product looks good and has favorable reputation and buzz, it will tend to sell, and the sales can go like a runaway train.  Higher prices can also give the impression of quality and boost sales.  And it can work the other way too - products which look modest and/or are lower priced may be dismissed for those reasons alone. 

Example: I recently tried the $4K Focal Utopia for several days, then the $1K Focal Elear for several days, then both back to back for an hour.  I had almost dismissed the Elear because I assumed it had to be much inferior to the Utopia, which I liked, but I tried the Elear to at least satisfy my curiosity.  I found that the sound signature is very similar, and the difference in sound quality is incremental, much smaller than I would have guessed; for some tracks, the less bright Elear might even be preferred.  But if you share these findings with Utopia guys, they'll be upset, make accusations of poor hearing ability, and say that the gap between them is huge (hence the 4x greater price).  Meanwhile, the Elear may be losing sales to even competitors in its own price range because the potential Elear buyer wants the Utopia, finds it too expensive, and is unwilling to compromise and get the Elear because it's perceived as too big a step down.  Wacky stuff!


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Jun 4, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> 1.) True. But the fact remains that distortion to be perceived as such or even excessive to the untrained ear usually has to last for longer time than usually encountered in most music. Typically, the problem would creep up audibly mostly with soprano, flute or piccolo - where the  loud sound is sustained for long enough time. The difference in bass is usually much lower than the deficiences in loudspeakers and headphones.
> Still, no distortion at all is better.
> 
> 2.) Would you please stop with the pointing out that maximum level in analogue record is amplitude limited below 1 kHz and velocity limited above each and every time ? Of course I know that, or else I could always be happy with the low(est)  model in the cartridge range ... in almost any cartridge line, the basic design/concept is the same from the lowest to the highest performing model. And tracking below 1 kHz is rather similar for all the carts in the same line/design, with not much difference among them. It's in the treble where almost all the action really is - precisely because of the RIAA curve that boosts the treble just shy of 20 dB (19.something ) at 20 kHz. Why else would I insist on using the handful of cartridges that actually can play RIAA equalized sweep all the way to 20 kHz - at a level above anything yet mentioned ? When you look at the actual stylus/cantilever, either with naked eye or under any reasonable magnification microscope, there will be the difference immediately appearent. And merely by looking at the stylus one can pretty accurately determine its MSRP.
> ...



Pack it in chief. Just go back to your basement of solitude and satisfy yourself with your analog kit. I have a vinyl setup but I don't make ANY claims that it comes anywhere close to digital. The fact that I am able to see the technical specs (and in fact measure them myself if so inclined) and then confirm that with my ears is why this forum is called "Sound Science". You clearly have no business here if your goal is some kind of anti science tirade.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 4, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> To be fair, I find that some equipment, specifically speakers and headphones, tend to sound less artificial and more 'musical' than others, to my ears.



Musicality means applying talent and knowledge to making music. Headphones and speakers are inanimate objects. They can't be musical. They can only reproduce music with fidelity.

Transparency means that sound reproduction is achieved with no audible coloration. For instance, a high bit rate lossy file might be said to be audibly transparent, while a low bitrate one is not. Transparency is the highest degree of fidelity that is perceptible. Beyond that, it's only measurable.

The terminology relating to describing sound is pretty well established everywhere but in audiophile circles. The terms are used very loosely on audiophile sites and often are blended with analogies to the point of being meaningless... as in the case of the terms "veil", "darkness" and "soundstage". "Musicality" and "transparency" are two other terms that are often misapplied.

The most common device used by deceitful audio salesmen is to say that if you can't hear the difference between their product and the competition, either something is wrong with your equipment or your hearing. They are trying to plant doubt to create an "emperor's new clothes" situation. And there are plenty of audiophools out there who are more than happy to parrot them and share the deception with others.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> To be fair, I find that some equipment, specifically speakers and headphones, tend to sound less artificial and more 'musical' than others, to my ears.  But I think that's mainly due to how recordings mesh with the transducers, given that both recording characteristics and transducer characteristics are all over the place.  To me, 'musicality' of transducers is about my being able to experience the music without the transducers distracting me and drawing attention to themselves - similar to what many people think of as 'transparency'.  An analogy is that if we notice how good the acting is, it's not good - we shouldn't notice the _acting_ at all, we should just get lost in the characters and story.
> 
> I don't think audio sales people need to do much in terms of sales pitches.  If the product looks good and has favorable reputation and buzz, it will tend to sell, and the sales can go like a runaway train.  Higher prices can also give the impression of quality and boost sales.  And it can work the other way too - products which look modest and/or are lower priced may be dismissed for those reasons alone.
> 
> Example: I recently tried the $4K Focal Utopia for several days, then the $1K Focal Elear for several days, then both back to back for an hour.  I had almost dismissed the Elear because I assumed it had to be much inferior to the Utopia, which I liked, but I tried the Elear to at least satisfy my curiosity.  I found that the sound signature is very similar, and the difference in sound quality is incremental, much smaller than I would have guessed; for some tracks, the less bright Elear might even be preferred.  But if you share these findings with Utopia guys, they'll be upset, make accusations of poor hearing ability, and say that the gap between them is huge (hence the 4x greater price).  Meanwhile, the Elear may be losing sales to even competitors in its own price range because the potential Elear buyer wants the Utopia, finds it too expensive, and is unwilling to compromise and get the Elear because it's perceived as too big a step down.  Wacky stuff!



There are clear, measurable differences that impact our hearing with headphones and speakers.  Totally separate issue from your reply to what bigshot was talking about with regards to amplifiers.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Musicality means applying talent and knowledge to making music. Headphones are inanimate objects. They can't be musical. They can only reproduce music with fidelity.
> 
> Transparency means that sound reproduction is achieved with no audible coloration. For instance, a high bit rate lossy file might be said to be audibly transparent, while a low bitrate one is not.
> 
> ...



I personally don't have a big problem with the way audiophiles use the terminology, since the meaning can usually be inferred from the context.  When someone says 'veiled', I'm usually confident that I know what they mean.

The bigger issue I see is that misperceptions are rampant, and expressed with confidence, because people don't understand the influence of biases, expectations, unreliability of memory, etc.  Like recordings and transducers, perception is all over the place.  I don't really fault people for this natural human fallibility, but it does create a mess in the audio world, and results in wasting a lot of time and money.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I personally don't have a big problem with the way audiophiles use the terminology, since the meaning can usually be inferred from the context.  When someone says 'veiled', I'm usually confident that I know what they mean.
> 
> The bigger issue I see is that misperceptions are rampant, and expressed with confidence, because people don't understand the influence of biases, expectations, unreliability of memory, etc.  Like recordings and transducers, perception is all over the place.  I don't really fault people for this natural human fallibility, but it does create a mess in the audio world, and results in wasting a lot of time and money.



yes, and thank goodness, audiophiles have realized that biases and placebo are the same as kids. if you pretend like they don't exist, after a while they leave you alone and go annoy someone else. based on that solid theory, many audiophile forums and blogs simply forbid talking about those issues or anything related to blind testing, volume matching, using a switch... all the stuff for losers who don't already have decades of expertise in making up crap about how everything is always night and day different. 
and you can immediately tell when you're in front of such expert by how he'll treat you like an idiot for mentioning blind testing. he knows that you're screwed now that you've mentioned the subject. 
headfi has taken counter measures, they created this place where people will say all the forbidden words, which naturally creates a migratory effect, attracting all the biases, placebo, and fallacies that noticed we were talking about them. by keeping that area quarantined, the rest of the forum is cleaner, and has a place to send any member showing early signs of infection such as atypical care for facts and accountability.   
with clever systems like that, we can be sure that biases and preconceptions in audio feedbacks will be a thing of the past in 6 months. a year max.


warning, after checking this post, sarcasm appears to go over 9000! 
also if it comes afterward, it's not a warning. I got you good.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 4, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I personally don't have a big problem with the way audiophiles use the terminology, since the meaning can usually be inferred from the context.  When someone says 'veiled', I'm usually confident that I know what they mean.



Try and translate that into specifics... What aspect of sound does "veiled" refer to? Is it a frequency response imbalance? Is it distortion or noise? Does it have to do with dynamics or timing? It could be just about anything. As long as you don't try to pin down what these vague terms mean, you might understand the analogy... yes, a veil has a specific visual meaning. Think of a wedding dress. But how does that apply specifically to sound? How do you go about fixing it? It's so vague, it doesn't really mean anything.

Audiophiles use analogies to describe sound because they don't really understand how sound works. If they did, they could speak with much more precision and instead of just writing poetry, they might actually communicate and be able to solve problems.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> Try and translate that into specifics... What aspect of sound does "veiled" refer to? Is it a frequency response imbalance? Is it distortion or noise? Does it have to do with dynamics or timing? It could be just about anything. As long as you don't try to pin down what these vague terms mean, you might understand the analogy... yes, a veil has a specific visual meaning. Think of a wedding dress. But how does that apply specifically to sound? How do you go about fixing it? It's so vague, it doesn't really mean anything.
> 
> Audiophiles use analogies to describe sound because they don't really understand how sound works. If they did, they could speak with much more precision and instead of just writing poetry, they might actually communicate and be able to solve problems.


"Veiled" means not "V-shaped" enough. Simple.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 4, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Try and translate that into specifics... What aspect of sound does "veiled" refer to? Is it a frequency response imbalance? Is it distortion or noise? Does it have to do with dynamics or timing? It could be just about anything. As long as you don't try to pin down what these vague terms mean, you might understand the analogy... yes, a veil has a specific visual meaning. Think of a wedding dress. But how does that apply specifically to sound? How do you go about fixing it? It's so vague, it doesn't really mean anything.
> 
> Audiophiles use analogies to describe sound because they don't really understand how sound works. If they did, they could speak with much more precision and instead of just writing poetry, they might actually communicate and be able to solve problems.



Veiled = less bright, less clear, less detailed, muffled, etc.  We come to understand what we mean when we use words over time, based on how we use them in real life contexts.  Think of (the later) Wittgenstein's language games.  I think you may be taking an overly analytical approach on this issue - audiophiles aren't trying to be scientists and engineers, they're talking informally.  And words can be used with meanings other than their scientific meanings.  Think of words like energy, dynamic, stress, force, etc.  Precision isn't the only consideration in effective use of language.  In the world of sports cars, someone may use a description like 'thrilling' - it's a good word, conveys something even if it can't be reduced to measurements.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jun 4, 2018)

I tend to agree that the use of subjective language to describe sound quality doesn't bother me that much either.  That said, I am usually uncomfortable if I can't think of a way to objectively describe what I am hearing.  I also get uncomfortable if I can't translate someone else's subjective talk into something specific.

Sure, it may sound "veiled".  Generally I would say "veiled" to mean "decreased response in the 2-10khz region, probably by at least 2-3dB below neutral".  But I can't say for sure what someone else means when they say "veiled".  Maybe they mean slow transient response, in the treble region or not.  Who can say?

Example: Someone told me that he found a set of earphones "tinny" and that they had a lot of "static".  I was able to test his source in person and it turned out he was just unused to having much treble response so the earphones sounded strange to him. His go-to earphones were decidedly "veiled". But if I hadn't been there, maybe I would have assumed the bass driver was broken, or that there was some kind of interference in his setup causing "static" rather than just a more pronounced (in the treble region) noise floor.  I probably would have sent him a new set of earphones rather than just moving on.

When it comes to customer service, and people are describing sound quality issues, we almost always need to get them to provide a video unless the problem is extremely obvious.  It's just impossible to tell exactly what people mean from intuitive descriptions of the audio.  When someone says "muffled" or "crunchy" it's impossible to say what might be going wrong. 

Objective descriptions are not as fun, but they are certainly more reliable.


----------



## KeithEmo

I just wanted to point out that there are many factors other than "simple bias" that affect our perception.

This is somewhat in the context of the previous post about how the majority of people rated the same virtuoso violin performance as "better" when they were informed that it was being performed by a world-class violinist.
Other studies were cited where significant differences in fMRI readings were detected based on the expectations of the test subject.
At a minimum, these studies show quite conclusively that the test subjects are not simply "imagining a difference that they expect to hear"; they are in fact actually EXPERIENCING the event differently.
By all acceptable criteria the music _REALLY DOES SOUND BETTER TO THEM_ when they know that it is being played by a virtuoso performer.
I also wanted to relate this phenomenon to the common situation where a critic declares that "they heard more details in a familiar piece of music with one product or another".

I suggest that this may in fact be true - and can easily be explained by the situation.
If you were to play the same tune, first with product A, then with product B, you CANNOT POSSIBLY play that tune under "exactly the same conditions".....
The reasoning in trivial.... when you listened to Product A, you were listening to that song for the first time at that sitting, and, with Product B, you were hearing it for the second time within a short period.
And our brains often perceive things very differently based on familiarity - and even over minor factors like hearing it for the second time within a short period.

Quite simply, our brains tend to recognize and process a very small percentage of the sensory input we receive.
We also have a very poor ability to differentiate actual current experience from memory.
In other words, let's say you walk into a room, look around for sixty seconds, then leave....
Odds are you will observe a certain number of details - which are a fraction of the total information available.
You may notice the color of the drapes, and the carpet, but not of the chair, or the subject of the picture on the wall.
Now, let's say you walk back into the room for another sixty-second observation period.
You will again notice some fraction of all the information that is available.
However, two interesting things will occur.....
One is that what you observe will be "biased" or "shaped" by your prior experience.
For example, you may ignore the drapes, because you already know what color they are, but you may immediately look at that painting - because you are aware that you failed to note the subject the first time around.
This means that you will in fact "see things the second time that you didn't see the first time".
However, beyond even that, after the second viewing, you will be significantly unable to distinguish when you saw which features.
WHILE YOU ARE STANDING THERE THE SECOND TIME, the room you believe you see will be a composite of what you see that time and what you remember from the first time.

Likewise, if you hear a song once, then hear it a second time, while some acoustic memory of the first time remains, you will IMAGINE that you hear more details the second time...
This will happen because your brain will actually be "experiencing" a composite of what you hear the second time, and what you REMEMBER hearing from the first time.
What is happening is simply that your brain is "building a picture of the experience" by adding information each time you listen to the tune.
And, as the picture gets "filled in with information", your perception will interpret this as "you're hearing more details".
(But this will occur even if the various times you hear it are identical in detail and quality.)

There is a very simple way to demonstrate this phenomenon as it applies to visual memory. 
You can do this experiment with a friend holding a newspaper - or with an unfamiliar street sign.
The only requirement is that you use an UNFAMILIAR text - and that you start out too far away to read it or guess what it says.
Basically, start out looking at the text, and gradually walk closer to it.
At some distance you will find that it becomes legible and you can read what it says.
Note this spot carefully.
Now, start slowly backing away from the sign or text.
Logically, as soon as you back up a few feet, you should find yourself again unable to read it.
However, most people, will find that their eyesight has miraculously improved, and that they can continue to read that sign for some distance as they continue to back up.

This is not exactly "bias" - but more like an optical illusion.
What's happening is that your brain is "filling in the details" from memory.
Once you back up a few feet you are again unable to "purely read the sign" - but your brain is filling in details from memory.
However, no matter how hard you concentrate, you will probably find yourself unable to stop seeming to see the actual writing that you know is there.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 4, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I just wanted to point out that there are many factors other than "simple bias" that affect our perception.
> 
> This is somewhat in the context of the previous post about how the majority of people rated the same virtuoso violin performance as "better" when they were informed that it was being performed by a world-class violinist.
> Other studies were cited where significant differences in fMRI readings were detected based on the expectations of the test subject.
> ...



Yes, agreed, perception is a complex process which involves variations in overall attention, selective attention, use of contextual information, use of memory, use of information coming in from multiple senses, evaluation, active construction of a model of reality, etc.

To say that there's 'bias' only amounts to saying that there can be a tendency to depart from objective reality in a particular direction, but there can be multiple 'biases' operating at a given time with differing effects, and they can change over time.  We need to even consider the possibility that biases could cause us to _not_ perceive differences which are really there in a particular situation, when we could perceive those differences in other situations.

We're quite far from having anything like a comprehensive understanding of this stuff, but we do know that it's not a good analogy to think of our ears as microphones, and our brains as simple signal processing and recording devices.

Moreover, in the end, sound and music which we 'hear' are subjective experiences, and it may be better that we think of those experiences as occurring in or via minds, since we don't really understand how subjective experiences are related to physical brains.

Whether something subjectively 'sounds better' is indeed a function of both the physical sound in the air and what happens in the listeners brain/mind.  In order to enjoy things, it can make sense sometimes to adopt beliefs that help us enjoy them.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> Yes, agreed, perception is a complex process which involves variations in overall attention, selective attention, use of contextual information, use of memory, evaluation, use of information coming in from multiple senses, active construction of a model of reality, etc.
> 
> To say that there's 'bias' only amounts to saying that there can be a tendency to depart from objective reality in a particular direction, but there can be multiple 'biases' operating at a given time with differing effects, and they can change over time.  We need to even consider the possibility that biases could cause us to _not_ perceive differences which are really there in a particular situation, when we could perceive those differences in other situations.
> 
> ...


I don't care what your subjective experience might be.  If someone claims to hear an obvious difference and can't find a measurement to adequately explain the reason, a blind or double-blind listening test is going to be the best option to verify if a difference is being heard.  It doesn't matter how the sound makes me feel when we are discussing an audio format or equipment, because there will be as many subjective experiences as there are people, and these impressions are continuously changing from one moment to the next.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 4, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> Sure, it may sound "veiled".  Generally I would say "veiled" to mean "decreased response in the 2-10khz region, probably by at least 2-3dB below neutral".  But I can't say for sure what someone else means when they say "veiled".  Maybe they mean slow transient response, in the treble region or not.  Who can say?



It might also be distortion muddying up the sound, or noise thickening it up in a bad frequency range. It could also be dull dynamics making drums sound soft, or even some sort of resonance or reverb creating echoes. There... a veil could be frequency response, distortion, noise, dynamics or timing. It could mean anything.



Phronesis said:


> Veiled = less bright, less clear, less detailed, muffled, etc.



What aspect of sound? Frequency, distortion, dynamics, noise, etc. The answer is that it could be any one of those things, or a combination of several of them. By saying the sound is veiled, you're basically just saying that it isn't high fidelity. You aren't really describing anything about it in a way that is useful. Do you understand what I'm getting at here? This isn't overly scientific or overly analytic... It's practical. If you aren't able to accurately describe a problem, how are you going to solve it?

When I listen to a system that has a problem, I try to determine whether it's a response imbalance and what band the imbalance lies in. I determine if it's distortion of the signal, or if there is some sort of noise making the sound opaque. Since I can describe those things, I'm halfway to solving the problem. If you use vague poetic descriptions, it could be anything and all you can do is spend more money and swap something else in randomly, hoping it solves the problem. That is an extremely inefficient way to get great sound.



Phronesis said:


> Whether something subjectively 'sounds better' is indeed a function of both the physical sound in the air and what happens in the listeners brain/mind.  In order to enjoy things, it can make sense sometimes to adopt beliefs that help us enjoy them.



Of course when it comes to Head-Fi's Sound Science forum, a lot of that is irrelevant because we aren't dealing with perception... we're dealing with sound fidelity. We have a target sound that we are trying to create, and we have a collection of electronic and mechanical/acoustic equipment we use to produce that sound. If we can produce the target sound accurately enough that human ears can't determine a difference any more, that is all that matters. The only time perception comes into the equation is when it prevents us from recognizing whether our sound is accurate or not. That's why we do blind tests- to remove subjective bias from affecting our ability to perceive. All we are interested in is what we hear, not what we think we hear.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> What aspect of sound? Frequency, distortion, dynamics, noise, etc. The answer is that it could be any one of those things, or a combination of several of them. By saying the sound is veiled, you're basically just saying that it isn't high fidelity. You aren't really describing anything about it in a way that is useful. Do you understand what I'm getting at here? This isn't overly scientific or overly analytic... It's practical. If you aren't able to accurately describe a problem, how are you going to solve it?
> 
> When I listen to a system that has a problem, I try to determine whether it's a response imbalance and what band the imbalance lies in. I determine if it's distortion of the signal, or if there is some sort of noise making the sound opaque. Since I can describe those things, I'm halfway to solving the problem. If you use vague poetic descriptions, it could be anything and all you can do is spend more money and swap something else in randomly, hoping it solves the problem. That is an extremely inefficient way to get great sound.



If you communicate with people who sometimes use the word veiled, and relate that to your own experiences, over time you get a sense of what people mean when they say veiled, and you may start using the word yourself to convey that meaning.  That's generally how language works outside of technical contexts, where there isn't a need to be precise and define meanings in terms of measurement procedures, etc. 

I have headphones which I like, but the bass can sometimes be somewhat  'boomy' and 'loose'.  Other people use the same terms for those headphones, and I think we all have a decent sense of what we mean by those terms.  I don't see any need or value in trying to pin down precisely what those terms mean.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> I don't care what your subjective experience might be.  If someone claims to hear an obvious difference and can't find a measurement to adequately explain the reason, a blind or double-blind listening test is going to be the best option to verify if a difference is being heard.  It doesn't matter how the sound makes me feel when we are discussing an audio format or equipment, because there will be as many subjective experiences as there are people, and these impressions are continuously changing from one moment to the next.



That's fine, but not really what we were talking about ...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 4, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> That's fine, but not really what we were talking about ...



We aren't talking about subjective perception. We're talking about how to use science to make our home audio rig produce the highest fidelity sound possible. Blind testing is a very practical and efficient way to determine whether we have succeeded at that or not.



Phronesis said:


> If you communicate with people who sometimes use the word veiled, and relate that to your own experiences, over time you get a sense of what people mean when they say veiled, and you may start using the word yourself to convey that meaning



I've heard the word used to describe a bunch of totally different things. It's meaningless. The only reason it sounds right to you is because you have heard the term used a million times. You really should try to understand how things work and strive to communicate in a clear and precise manner. That is the best way to connect with other people, solve problems and avoid existing in a solipsist bubble.

One thing you don't seem to realize is that your perception is affected by the "common knowledge" that is spread around internet forums. It's just like the study you just quoted... Tell someone that this DAC sounds night and day more musical than that veiled one, and they start to hear that. The words are vague enough to convey a feeling without conveying a specific meaning. Common knowledge sometimes describes something real... there really may be a harsh bump in the upper mids, or the bass may be weak. But those are specific things you can point to in measurements and verify with your own blind testing. Veils and night and day and loose require you to be indoctrinated by means of repletion by your peers to convince you. When you say, "over time many people say it and I come to understand what they are saying", you are perfectly describing bandwagon bias.

Bias is real. I'm affected by it as much as anyone else. That's why I make an effort to minimize its effects in things that mean something to me, like my job, my hobbies and things I spend money on. If you lay down and give up and say, "we can't totally eliminate bias so why bother even trying" then you're defeated before you ever begin. There are also people who refuse to believe in subjective analysis because they don't like the answers it gives them. Those people are only fooling themselves. All of us at Sound Science can spot them a mile away.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 4, 2018)

bigshot said:


> We're talking about how to use science to make our home audio rig produce the highest fidelity sound possible.



There's a fundamental problem with this goal.  With the electronics part of the signal chain, we can talk about fidelity, because we can pretty much agree on what 'perfect' means, and we can pretty much rely on measurements to get a good idea of how close to perfect we are.

But when you talk about speakers in a room, you can't really talk about fidelity of speakers anymore because the sound is affected by all of the acoustic characteristics of the room, positioning of the speakers, and where the listener is, so there are unlimited variations there beyond the speakers.  The 'fidelity' of speakers alone doesn't mean anything, because speakers are only heard in rooms.  And even with headgear, everyone has their own head and ear geometry, which will affect the sound for each listener, so we can't talk about sound of headgear in isolation either.

Now consider the question of what you're trying to get fidelity to.  The sound that was produced during the recording, mixing, and mastering process?  Do you know which speakers and headgear they used?  The rooms that gear was in and where the listeners were?  Even setting aside subjective aspects, we generally don't know what objective sound was produced during the recording process which we could try to have fidelity to.  So the goal of 'fidelity' is _impossible_ when you bring transducers, rooms, heads, and ears into the picture (again, no consideration of subjective aspects involved here).

The best we can do is to listen to our equipment and judge whether we like what we hear for the tracks we're listening to.  If we're not satisfied, we need to make some changes, and there are lots of things which can be changed (EQ, speakers, headgear, room acoustics, speaker placement, etc.).  There are objective aspects involved, but in the end the judgment has to be subjective.  And yes, that does open the door to all of the problems with perception we've been talking about.  Those problems can be mitigated to some extent with good controlled testing, but there are still choices to be made which are matters of preference, rather than right or wrong.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jun 4, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> There's a fundamental problem with this goal.  With the electronics part of the signal chain, we can talk about fidelity, because we can pretty much agree on what 'perfect' means, and we can pretty much rely on measurements to get a good idea of how close to perfect we are.
> 
> But when you talk about speakers in a room, you can't really talk about fidelity of speakers anymore ...  So the goal of 'fidelity' is _impossible_ when you bring transducers, rooms, heads, and ears into the picture (again, no consideration of subjective aspects involved here).
> 
> The best we can do is to listen to our equipment and judge whether we like what we hear for the tracks we're listening to.  If we're not satisfied, we need to make some changes, and there are lots of things which can be changed (EQ, speakers, headgear, room acoustics, speaker placement, etc.).  There are objective aspects involved, but in the end the judgment has to be subjective.  And yes, that does open the door to all of the problems with perception we've been talking about.  Those problems can be mitigated to some extent with good controlled testing, but there are still choices to be made which are matters of preference, rather than right or wrong.



Sorry, but this is mostly pretty far off base.

Loudspeaker fidelity can be, and is, treated in much the same way as headphone fidelity, with anechoic measurements of more or less the same performance metrics.  One speaker can be definitively, quantitatively, and objectively said to have  higher fidelity (to the electrical signal) than another.

(Let's just leave aside the "there is no "reality" to represent in audio because of multi-micing, etc". etc. argument please)

While acoustics are a devilish problem, they don't obviate the idea of fidelity in loudspeakers - they simply present a separate issue to be considered alongside loudspeaker selection, placement, use case, preference, etc.

HRTFs and whatnot are actually almost entirely irrelevant to discussing loudspeaker fidelity.  They must be considered with regard to IEMs and headphones because you're *bypassing* them.  With loudspeaker design you basically get the luxury of ignoring those things.

While I agree that the subjective judgment of the listener is the final and most important one, to say that "fidelity" goes out the window because of acoustics is simply not correct.

It sounds like you're getting at the idea that there is no way to ensure that the electrical signal in someone's brain has any particular resemblance to the electrical signal represented in a recording.  I guess this is basically true in a philosophical sense.  But it's also not particularly relevant to the idea of fidelity in loudspeakers.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 4, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> Sorry, but this is mostly pretty far off base.
> 
> Loudspeaker fidelity can be, and is, treated in much the same way as headphone fidelity, with anechoic measurements of more or less the same performance metrics.  One speaker can be definitively, quantitatively, and objectively said to have  higher fidelity (to the electrical signal) than another.
> 
> ...



I understand that you can measure speakers to get an idea of their fidelity, but it doesn't follow that a particular measurement in an anechoic chamber is going to tell you what you want to know about how a speaker will sound in a particular room, positioned in a particular place, with the listener in a particular place.  Such measurements would only be an approximate proxy for fidelity.  Setting aside subjective aspects, what we need to really compare for acoustic fidelity is the sound reaching the eardrums of the people listening during the recording process versus the sound reaching the eardrums of listeners in their listening environments.  We have no real measurements for the former, and measuring speakers in anechoic chambers doesn't tell us the latter.  Even if the goal is to deal with only objective aspects, we don't have the means to truly determine whether the objective target has been hit, in part because there are major objective variables (eg, rooms) which objective measurements don't account for.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 4, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> There's a fundamental problem with this goal.  With the electronics part of the signal chain, we can talk about fidelity, because we can pretty much agree on what 'perfect' means, and we can pretty much rely on measurements to get a good idea of how close to perfect we are. But when you talk about speakers in a room, you can't really talk about fidelity of speakers anymore



Of course you can... You put the speakers in your room. Arrange the furniture to establish the optimal listening position and do whatever treatments you require, then you run some tones, take measurements and calibrate the last bit with EQ and timing corrections. That's what I did with my speaker system. You use measurements to tune the output of the system to suit the room. You won't be able to just buy something out of the box that just works, but that doesn't mean you can't make it right.

We know that professional sound studios mix music on studio monitors designed and calibrated to produce 20-20 flat. So if you calibrate your own system the same way, you're hearing the same thing they are. Music isn't generally mixed for headphones, so all bets are off there, but if you get cans that do 20-20 flat, you're in the ballpark. The only thing you're missing is the kinesthetic nature of the bass and normal room reflections.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jun 4, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I understand that you can measure speakers to get an idea of their fidelity, but it doesn't follow that a particular measurement in an anechoic chamber is going to tell you what you want to know about how a speaker will sound in a particular room, positioned in a particular place, with the listener in a particular place.   Setting aside subjective aspects, what we need to really compare for acoustic fidelity is the sound reaching the eardrums of the people listening during the recording process versus the sound reaching the eardrums of listeners in their listening environments.  We have no real measurements for the former, and measuring speakers in anechoic chambers doesn't tell us the latter.



If you use room correction you can actually get pretty close to what you are describing with "recording studio vs. home listening".   The recording itself can be considered like the "measurement" of what the recording engineers heard.  The engineers mix and master the album with the intention of it sounding good on a good home system.  So what they heard in the studio is not necessarily the ideal representation of the audio, although it's probably very close.

To put it another way, if you were somehow able to fully correct your room and limit the RT60 to something fairly short and frequency-neutral, generally that should be close to what they heard in the studio.

And, to the extent that you are able to characterize the room response as a convolution (a little advanced, but well within the reach of the enthusiast), measurements of a loudspeaker in an anechoic chamber are exactly what the doctor ordered. If you would like to find out what the fidelity will be at your ear, considering the anechoic measurements against your room's IR will tell you quite a lot about how it will sound.  I am not saying this is trivial to do, but you can certainly do it if you want.

All rooms are different, which is precisely why anechoic chamber measurements are so useful.

To belabor the point - they don't take photos of televisions in living rooms to give you a clear idea of what they look like.  They measure the color with a device coupled to the surface of the screen to eliminate outside influence.  Otherwise it would always be apples & oranges.  Anechoic measurements are similar to this.

To belabor it even further: You're right that an anechoic measurement of a speaker is not enough to predict the sound quality in your room.  You also need to know things about the room.  The anechoic measurements are half of what you need to know. However, measurements of a loudspeaker in a non-anechoic room are worthless for predicting fidelity anywhere else, they are not even half of what you want to know.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> That's fine, but not really what we were talking about ...



 Right, but then you continually bring up the topic of perception and how ABX tests are supposedly equally flawed as any sighted listening evaluation and therefore just as problematic.   

You started off talking about how much you were gushing about the Chord Hugo 2 and wondered how it might compare to a Chord Dave.   I can't imagine what might sound different between these DACs.  I wouldn't personally believe anyone claiming to hear any differences without providing some measurements to show a likely explanation.   I would strongly suggest to anyone making such a claim to do their best to ABX the DACs to see if the differences can still be identified.  

I don't follow the logic that a difference can be identified while listening sighted but this difference is no longer apparent when blinded.  This is where you usually and repeatedly go off on a tangent about human hearing perception and the complexities therein.  It is fascinating stuff, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything when discussing what is being recorded and reproduced.  The accuracy of the reproduction is not with the performance, but with what was recorded from the performance.  What happens with our psychological state while listening is not pertinent to identifying a difference.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> While I don’t disagree that CD rot is a problem, I need to see figures and statistics, not anecdote. You have called attention to a problem without any actual statement of degree.  “Many” isn’t going to cut it from someone who is credibility-challenged.  It makes it sound like “nearly all”, or something equally sensational in yet another blatant attempt to bad rap the CD, when the problem is more likely under 10%.
> Measure at any level you want, but if you want even sort of flat response you’ll be at -20 or lower. But here’s another idea: measure! I do, all the time, have for years, but clearly you never have. Do yourself a favor and do a little hands on learning.  You’ll be surprised at how very non-flat all analog systems are.
> You should try that. Go several generations and listen, if not measure the results.
> Yeah, but I actually have tested and measured, and optimized many cassette decks, so I know first hand exactly what they can and cannot do. You have no measurement experience, do you? Then why are you trying to tell me about the capabilities of cassettes?  Both bass and treble response are affected by level, though not equally.
> ...



I will only reply to the perfect square wave thing. If you actually did measure both Telefunken High Com ( does not matter which one, they differ mainly in number of bands used ) and actually measured ALL analog tape recorders, you would have known just how wrong you are on both counts. 

It is true that any cassette or R2R recorder are very poor at passing square waves - and some more mangling of the waveform by the Dolby ( does not matter which, Dolby  A to Dolby whatever ) perhaps does not matter much. I agree with the head bumps, HF loss and dropouts - but the machine I am using has no head bumps, its HF loss is minimal - leaving only dropouts to worry about.

Now please check how  decent (S)VHS recorders handle the square wave on their hi-fi stereo tracks - and you will find out why partnering it with at least High Com II is a perfectly sound idea. 

I have been using the Panasonic NV-FS 90 , NV-FS100 and NV-FS 200 SVHS recorders. The same machines were available in US under different designation. Here a link about just what you might wish to look for across the pond : https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/328082-How-much-is-a-Panasonic-NV-FS200-AG1980-worth-now


----------



## bigshot

Square waves ain't music. You don't need to be able to reproduce square waves at all.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Square waves ain't music. You don't need to be able to reproduce square waves at all.



I agree square waves are not music. They are OBJECTIVE TEST SIGNALS . Would you try to adjust/service a TV with a test pattern  - or your favourite TV show ? 



However, what they ARE is crucial to the faithful reproduction of music. Square wave tests for frequency response ( the shape is very sensitive to ANY deviation from perfectly flat response  - try once to see on an  oscilloscope what EQ does to square wave(s) and how small correction from dead centered on EQ is clearly visible ), it is the best possible signal to test any interchannel delay, you can pretty precisely determine -3dB points of DUT by observing the square wave form, etc, etc. It is the single most useful test signal waveform after establishing that DUT works anywhere near expected/published spec with a sine wave.  

Triangle wave also has its use in audio - despite sounding distinctly amusical - and like all technical signals, may well be objectionable to some if not all listeners.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Square waves ain't music. You don't need to be able to reproduce square waves at all.


I was under the impression square waves are the last thing your tweeters see before being roasted by an overdriven amp(clipping).So yeah...the opposite of music.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Square waves aren't music? YMCK would like a word.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> I agree square waves are not music. They are OBJECTIVE TEST SIGNALS . Would you try to adjust/service a TV with a test pattern  - or your favourite TV show ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Most people I've done video calibration for aren't initially impressed with the appearance of an accurate/calibrated picture.  Like I said somewhere on here, accuracy and fidelity of audio and video are not a priority in this century, at least.


----------



## analogsurviver

Glmoneydawg said:


> I was under the impression square waves are the last thing your tweeters see before being roasted by an overdriven amp(clipping).So yeah...the opposite of music.



Quite right - the classic case of too small ( too low power to be exact ) amp being driven into constant clipping, putting out constant its max possible output up to the very highest frequency amp is capable of. Guaranted to se off ANY tweeter. With the amp powerful enough not to ever ( or extremely rarely, fot very short amount of time ) enter into clipping, the twitter will only see its intended share of electrical power - which is quite minuscule and well within tweeter power rating, unlike clipped signal that due to the high content of THD ends up almost complety in the HF or tweeter range , with everything the amp can put out ending on the poor tweeter terminals. <POOF>


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Most people I've done video calibration for aren't initially impressed with the appearance of an accurate/calibrated picture.  Like I said somewhere on here, accuracy and fidelity of audio and video are not a priority in this century, at least.



I agree with the first sentence - as they have been accustomed to something else. Since this is - or tries to be - objective thread, I would think that people are interested to get the best out of their equipment - and that accuracy and fidelity are a priority. 

Although the above statement may well be contradictory to some who only see my fight for the analogue record vs CD, all I can say that I do try to get analogue as accurate and calibrated as it can be - and can pardon it its remaining defects for the extended frequency response it has compared to CD. 
As always, YMMV.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 4, 2018)

While the technical stuff here is way over my head, I am on board with this philosophically.

If you don't mind my saying so (and I imagine you do), while the fact that all things are possible is no excuse for thinking foolishly, in the words of John Maynard Keynes (_see_ The Makings of the Peace), I think it is also clear that there is no one objective reality. There is no beginning, there is no end, and "it's turtles all the way down" (to quote Terry Pratchett, I think). Or put in other non-original terms, we affect the properties of what we observe by the very act of perceiving or measuring them. I might not go so far as to say the cat is neither alive nor dead until I open the box and look at it though. I am an audio objectivist, but as a tool toward better results and to guide me in avoiding foolish pursuits, not as an end goal. When it comes to audio, I am very happy at less than perfect, in substantial part because I don't believe in perfect. I get to a sound I like, I keep an eye on meeting certain loose standards and staying in touch with reality as a hobby, and then I enjoy the music. Even if we could measure and reproduce sound perfectly, in the end I doubt anyone would agree on what was perfect, because at some point subjective perception comes into play, and everyone brings different equipment into the equation, physically, emotionally and intellectually. So we are not obliged to entertain the patently foolish, but nor are we the arbiters of what might be exactly correct, or, within a range of reason, what one thing is more correct than another thing. Believe me, if I perceive something unacceptable in the sound of my audio, I will absolutely not tolerate it and I will study up on it and eradicate it, and I will not engage in subjectivist foolishness in doing so.

So I am listening to my Marshall mono bluetooth speaker directly behind me which for me from where I am sitting right now is just about perfect. It has bass and treble controls and pretty good bass and I super-duper enjoy it. I hope you don't mind. But I can go out to the entertainment room and listen to my nicer equipment if you'd rather. It's a modest rig and doesn't look the part but I put it together very carefully and I think in terms of sound quality it's pretty darn good. : )

So that's my philosophical musing for the day.




Phronesis said:


> There's a fundamental problem with this goal.  With the electronics part of the signal chain, we can talk about fidelity, because we can pretty much agree on what 'perfect' means, and we can pretty much rely on measurements to get a good idea of how close to perfect we are.
> 
> But when you talk about speakers in a room, you can't really talk about fidelity of speakers anymore because the sound is affected by all of the acoustic characteristics of the room, positioning of the speakers, and where the listener is, so there are unlimited variations there beyond the speakers.  The 'fidelity' of speakers alone doesn't mean anything, because speakers are only heard in rooms.  And even with headgear, everyone has their own head and ear geometry, which will affect the sound for each listener, so we can't talk about sound of headgear in isolation either.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 4, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Most people I've done video calibration for aren't initially impressed with the appearance of an accurate/calibrated picture.



There isn't always a great deal of difference between calibrated and just using the detents on the monitor.

No one in their right mind would calibrate their stereo system with square waves. They have no purpose in home audio.



analogsurviver said:


> Although the above statement may well be contradictory to some who only see my fight for the analogue record vs CD, all I can say that I do try to get analogue as accurate and calibrated as it can be - and can pardon it its remaining defects for the extended frequency response it has compared to CD.



Yes, let's forgive audible noise, distortion and response imbalances for the sake of inaudible ultrasonic frequencies (that LPs don't even contain!)


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 4, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> I agree with the first sentence - as they have been accustomed to something else. Since this is - or tries to be - objective thread, I would think that people are interested to get the best out of their equipment - and that accuracy and fidelity are a priority.
> 
> Although the above statement may well be contradictory to some who only see my fight for the analogue record vs CD, all I can say that I do try to get analogue as accurate and calibrated as it can be - and can pardon it its remaining defects for the extended frequency response it has compared to CD.
> As always, YMMV.



My second sentence is also, unfortunately, correct also.  9/10 people do not care how accurate the picture is on their new 50" OLED.  If David Muir's face is as red as a stopsign, or if the overall picture is bright enough for commercial airline pilots to confuse for a directional beacon.  Most of them would'NT know what to do with an equalizer, parametric, graphic, or otherwise.  Just sayin..


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Steve999 said:


> While the technical stuff here is way over my head, I am on board with this philosophically.
> 
> If you don't mind my saying so (and I imagine you do), while the fact that all things are possible is no excuse for thinking foolishly, in the words of John Maynard Keynes (_see_ The Makings of the Peace), I think it is also clear that there is no one objective reality. There is no beginning, there is no end, and "it's turtles all the way down" (to quote Terry Pratchett, I think). Or put in other non-original terms, we affect the properties of what we observe by the very act of perceiving or measuring them. I might not go so far as to say the cat is neither alive or dead until I open the box and look at it though. I am an audio objectivist, but as a tool toward better results and to guide me in avoiding foolish pursuits, not as an end goal. When it comes to audio, I am very happy at less than perfect, in substantial part because I don't believe in perfect. I get to a sound I like, I keep an eye on meeting certain loose standards and staying in touch with reality as a hobby, and then I enjoy the music. Even if we could measure and reproduce sound perfectly, in the end I doubt anyone would agree on what was perfect, because at some point subjective perception comes into play, and everyone brings different equipment into the equation, physically, emotionally and intellectually. So we are not obliged to entertain the patently foolish, but nor are we the arbiters of what might be exactly correct, or, within a range of reason, what one thing is more correct than another thing. Believe me, if I perceive something unacceptable in the sound of my audio, I will absolutely not tolerate it and I will study up on it and eradicate it, and I will not engage in subjectivist foolishness in doing so.
> 
> ...


Right!...its about the enjoyment of music...i have been on the planet for 57 years and listened to a ton of music on everything from the crappiest radio imaginable(the 70's lol),awefull car stereos(aren't they all)to some really expensive gear i could never afford without remortgaging the house....i have loved listening to...and discovering new music on every one of them....our music systems are just a tool for musical enjoyment.Obsessing over the last nth degree of sound quality is a distraction.


----------



## bigshot

Glmoneydawg said:


> Obsessing over the last nth degree of sound quality is a distraction.



I only worry about optimizing sound quality I can actually hear. That's quite different than a lot of audiophiles who spend all their time and money chasing after inaudible sound quality..


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> There isn't always a great deal of difference between calibrated and just using the detents on the monitor.
> 
> No one in their right mind would calibrate their stereo system with square waves. They have no purpose in home audio.
> 
> ...




Uhm, have you ever gone through the process of either basic(5 settings) calibration or full-blown(5 settings plus gray scale)?    

#1. Most consumer TVs arrive at the stores in shop mode, or Vivid or Dynamic.  The basic 5 settings(Brightness, Contrast, Color, etc) are typically cranked, and every so-called 'enhancer' in the Advanced menus are on.  I must spend up to five minute scouting out all the 'flesh enhancers', dynamic contrast, and other crap, before I can even begin proper calibration adjustments.  Nothing is anywhere near a "detent" out of the box.

#2.  The element least considered in calibration: The room, the viewing environment.  How much ambient light is in the space determines where certain settings, particularly Brightness, will end up in order to properly display the test pattern.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> There isn't always a great deal of difference between calibrated and just using the detents on the monitor.
> 
> No one in their right mind would calibrate their stereo system with square waves. They have no purpose in home audio.
> 
> ...



Hey - what happened to your quest for accuracy ?

Please try to see what a good DSP can do for loudspeaker 
http://www.bodziosoftware.com.au/Square_Wave.pdf 
( crossovers ) - and how accurate such loudspeaker can then be.AT YOUR LISTENING POSITION. Then use the measuring mic and see what can best represent the undoubtedly superior performance ... 
But please note this can not and does not eliminate the need to first acoustically treat the room best you can.

I never claimed analog record is noiseless or free of distortion - but response inbalances can be kept VERY close to zero. Best cartridges can track their two channels to be almost within the line width of an oscilloscope - IF one knows how to adjust them properly in the first place.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Jun 4, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I only worry about optimizing sound quality I can actually hear. That's quite different than a lot of audiophiles who spend all their time and money chasing after inaudible sound quality..


I am guilty of being that guy....more than happy with my system as it sits now(finally)...off the audiophile merry go round!


----------



## bigshot

TheSonicTruth said:


> Uhm, have you ever gone through the process of either basic(5 settings) calibration or full-blown(5 settings plus gray scale)?



I use the Spears & Munsil calibration disc. Not sure what the name of their process is. But it took a while. I have a really good Epson projector, so room light isn't an issue. It's calibrated for pitch dark. It never seems to stray far from the detents.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Hey - what happened to your quest for accuracy ? Please try to see what a good DSP can do for loudspeaker



Are you speaking to me? It doesn't appear that you are.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Are you speaking to me? It doesn't appear that you are.


Yes, I do.


----------



## bigshot

Well your first sentence didn't seem to be replying to the post you were quoting, and the stuff about speakers is a simplified paraphrase of the sort of things I often post about. Then you finish up with something about calibrating oscilloscopes, which is a subject I don't think I've ever commented on. It's like a sandwich with me in the middle between two slices of non sequitur.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Well your first sentence didn't seem to be replying to the post you were quoting, and the stuff about speakers is a simplified paraphrase of the sort of things I often post about. Then you finish up with something about calibrating oscilloscopes, which is a subject I don't think I've ever commented on. It's like a sandwich with me in the middle between two slices of non sequitur.


It was my reply to your post # 8476


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 4, 2018)

[deleted--the thing speaks for itself]



analogsurviver said:


> . . . if you can not hear the difference betwen [sic] the live mic feed and 16/44, then in your studio you are in for a signal quality purge more severe than anything Stalin ever managed to come up with.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> My second sentence is also, unfortunately, correct also.  9/10 people do not care how accurate the picture is on their new 50" OLED.  If David Muir's face is as red as a stopsign, or if the overall picture is bright enough for commercial airline pilots to confuse for a directional beacon.  Most of them would'NT know what to do with an equalizer, parametric, graphic, or otherwise.  Just sayin..


Ahh - the "beauty" of  the real life...


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> Here is something I think we can seek to verify objectively, as reasonably verifiable or refutable. It will require some research and a longitudinal study.
> 
> According to my brief research (I apologize for any errors, they are solely my own), Stalin lived until 1953, so indeed it is not altogether implausible that he took part in some sort of severe signal quality purge.
> 
> ...


It was not @bigshot studio - but @pinnahertz . 
Stalin did none of the audio signal purging that I am aware of - his purges were a "bit" more severe and above all, irreversible. At least as perceived by the very subjects being subjected to said purges. 

As an interesting trivia, who has been the most ardent and up-to-date reviewer of the latest/greatest/most technologically advanced american audio gear ?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 5, 2018)

Hmm. . . I just reread your post. You specifically stated that if Pinnahertz could not hear the difference between live and 16/44 (and honestly, I only have a vague notion of what that means), his studio was in for a signal quality purge more severe than anything Stalin ever came up with.



analogsurviver said:


> It was not @bigshot studio - but @pinnahertz .
> Stalin did none of the audio signal purging that I am aware of - his purges were a "bit" more severe and above all, irreversible. At least as perceived by the very subjects being subjected to said purges.
> 
> As an interesting trivia, who has been the most ardent and up-to-date reviewer of the latest/greatest/most technologically advanced american audio gear ?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> It was not @bigshot studio - but @pinnahertz .
> Stalin did none of the audio signal purging that I am aware of - his purges were a "bit" more severe and above all, irreversible. At least as perceived by the very subjects being subjected to said purges. As an interesting trivia, who has been the most ardent and up-to-date reviewer of the latest/greatest/most technologically advanced american audio gear ?



Here you are straying from any relevant topic into free association. Your dialogue is fraying. Please take your meds.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> I will only reply to the perfect square wave thing. If you actually did measure both Telefunken High Com ( does not matter which one, they differ mainly in number of bands used ) and actually measured ALL analog tape recorders, you would have known just how wrong you are on both counts.


High Com, no, C4 yes, and enough professional analog tape recorders to have a good handle on the fact that none of the above will pass a perfect square wave.  And they don't have to either.


analogsurviver said:


> It is true that any cassette or R2R recorder are very poor at passing square waves - and some more mangling of the waveform by the Dolby ( *does not matter which, Dolby  A to Dolby whatever *) perhaps does not matter much.


It very much does matter.  Sorry you haven't experienced real, professional Dolby NR.


analogsurviver said:


> I agree with the head bumps, HF loss and dropouts - but the machine I am using has no head bumps, its HF loss is minimal - leaving only dropouts to worry about.


Your machine's lack of head bumps is because it's playing back it's own recordings.  Those recordings, and that machine *will not interchange with others from other manufacturers*  with the same result.  Again, you have chosen a single unique case to define everything globally.


analogsurviver said:


> Now please check how  decent (S)VHS recorders handle the square wave on their hi-fi stereo tracks - and you will find out why partnering it with at least High Com II is a perfectly sound idea.


I have, and Beta HiFi as well.  I consulted with Columbia Pictures tape duplication division, and tested many machines for audio performance, then assisted them in optimizing the duplicator line's audio distribution system.  None pass a "perfect square wave" to begin with. None.  And neither do yours.  POST A SCOPE PHOTO IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE, and I'll help you understand the photo.


analogsurviver said:


> I have been using the Panasonic NV-FS 90 , NV-FS100 and NV-FS 200 SVHS recorders. The same machines were available in US under different designation. Here a link about just what you might wish to look for across the pond : https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/328082-How-much-is-a-Panasonic-NV-FS200-AG1980-worth-now


Yeah, nice machines.  So?


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Hey - what happened to your quest for accuracy ?
> 
> Please try to see what a good DSP can do for loudspeaker
> http://www.bodziosoftware.com.au/Square_Wave.pdf
> ...


Yes, many of us know that.  But, PLEASE tell me the so-called "square waves" in that article are not what you're calling "perfect square waves"!  That would define our little problem here.


analogsurviver said:


> I never claimed analog record is noiseless or free of distortion - but response inbalances can be kept VERY close to zero. Best cartridges can track their two channels to be almost within the line width of an oscilloscope - IF one knows how to adjust them properly in the first place.


A "line width" of an oscilloscope can be pretty much anything depending on how the scope is set.  And while some cartridge and preamps can be lined up pretty well, you must understand that the process takes very, VERY special effort and equipment that is not accessible to the common user, and so the fact that the system _could_ be alined that well means nothing in terms of defining the format.

By comparison, the lowly CD requires nothing of any user to achieve it's basic performance that fully exceeds that of any vinyl system.  And that _does_ define the format.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> I agree square waves are not music. They are OBJECTIVE TEST SIGNALS . Would you try to adjust/service a TV with a test pattern  - or your favourite TV show ?


A test pattern for display calibration includes actual picture signals, real images, that include elements that any normal image would contain plus a few that go outside normal picture capabilities for calibration and test purposes.  A test pattern IS a real image.  A square wave is not real audio.


analogsurviver said:


> However, what they ARE is crucial to the faithful reproduction of music. Square wave tests for frequency response ( the shape is very sensitive to ANY deviation from perfectly flat response  - try once to see on an  oscilloscope what EQ does to square wave(s) and how small correction from dead centered on EQ is clearly visible ), it is the best possible signal to test any interchannel delay, you can pretty precisely determine -3dB points of DUT by observing the square wave form, etc, etc. It is the single most useful test signal waveform after establishing that DUT works anywhere near expected/published spec with a sine wave.


Complete nonsense.  Here's some examples, all generated in Adobe Audition:
Here's a decent (not perfect!) square wave, 300Hz, 192/24:






Here's another 300Hz wave form that started as square, but then was distorted by a fairly typical problem:




Pretty radically different, right?

Here's the two specra, the original is in green, the distorted is in red.  Notice the harmonic peaks are at identical levels, indicating identical "frequency response" spectrum and spectral energy distribution!




If anyone has a doubt about the harmonics being at identical levels, let me know, I'll post individual spectrums to prove it.

No, you can't use a square wave as a visual indicator of frequency response!  It's the wrong tool!


analogsurviver said:


> Triangle wave also has its use in audio - despite sounding distinctly amusical - and like all technical signals, may well be objectionable to some if not all listeners.


And, pray tell, what on earth would that use be?


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Quite right - the classic case of too small ( too low power to be exact ) amp being driven into constant clipping, putting out constant its max possible output up to the very highest frequency amp is capable of. Guaranted to se off ANY tweeter. With the amp powerful enough not to ever ( or extremely rarely, fot very short amount of time ) enter into clipping, the twitter will only see its intended share of electrical power - which is quite minuscule and well within tweeter power rating, unlike clipped signal that due to the high content of THD ends up almost complety in the HF or tweeter range , with everything the amp can put out ending on the poor tweeter terminals. <POOF>


Completely wrong again!  Tweeters are blown by heating, which is a result of the RMS value of the signal.  I've already posted the complete analysis of this, showing the RMS increase curve of a clipping amp vs one of identical gain but higher power to avoid any clipping.  The higher power amp ALWAYS delivers higher RMS energy!  Always.  Never an exception!  And thus, higher power will burn out tweeters first.  

Here's the spectrum of a 200Hz sine wave driven 10dB past the clipping point:




Notice the level of the highest harmonic, 600Hz, is already down 12dB, and progressive ones are down farther.  They don't sum to the same level as an equivalent unclipped wave.  Can't happen.


The RMS level of the unclipped sine wave is -3dBFS, the RMS level of the same wave clipped by 10dB is -10.3dBFS.  

Sorry, the clipping amp causing tweeter burn-out thing is a total myth.


----------



## bigshot

pinnahertz said:


> Completely wrong again!



At this point, I don't think any other reply would be as straightforward. This guy is totally wasting our time.


----------



## old tech

TheSonicTruth said:


> Most people I've done video calibration for aren't initially impressed with the appearance of an accurate/calibrated picture.  Like I said somewhere on here, accuracy and fidelity of audio and video are not a priority in this century, at least.


Yep. A long time ago I used to calibrate TV screens on the side.  Most of the time the customers were underwhelmed if not outrightly disappointed. Comments were often along the lines of "what happened to the vibrant colours, why are faces so pale". My standard reply was "the TV has been recalibrated but your brain has not. Give it a couple weeks and I'll come back". Inevitably after I returned and reset it back to the old settings for comparison, they did not want to go back.  In many ways this is very much the same with a transparent stereo compared to a treacly sounding set up, or a smiley faced recording to a balanced one.  The transparent stereo or recording does not have the initial "Wow" factor but it soon sounds off when you get used to balance and transparency.


----------



## castleofargh

@analogsurviver. Stalin, really? I know a Godwin point usually comes with that other guy, but I think you deserve one for that fine and measured analogy. 
quasi-modo ON: needless to say that it would be good to avoid that in the future. 






Phronesis said:


> If you communicate with people who sometimes use the word veiled, and relate that to your own experiences, over time you get a sense of what people mean when they say veiled, and you may start using the word yourself to convey that meaning.  That's generally how language works outside of technical contexts, where there isn't a need to be precise and define meanings in terms of measurement procedures, etc.
> 
> I have headphones which I like, but the bass can sometimes be somewhat  'boomy' and 'loose'.  Other people use the same terms for those headphones, and I think we all have a decent sense of what we mean by those terms.  I don't see any need or value in trying to pin down precisely what those terms mean.


what that does is add subjective interpretation of the message about an already subjective impressions of sound. if what you want is accuracy of the data and making sure your interlocutor understands your actual message, then subjective lingo can do as much damage as it can do good. some audiophile expressions are just unspecific and used to give that bourgeois twist to an otherwise dull feedback. a great deal of the lingo is basically ignorance, where they made their own words or stole them to use however they like, because they never learned that there was already a clearly defined vocabulary for technical stuff and for subjective description of music from... you know, musicians. 
now veil, it's one of those terms with no quantification and a hundred situations that could be described as such. just because you stick your clear idea of what it means onto what the guy said, doesn't actually mean it's what the guy was talking about. anytime veil could be described in a more specific way, obviously that should be preferred. if I have to chose between "this headphone is a little veiled", and "IMO this headphone would be more balanced with an extra 4dB around 5khz", it's not hard to know which one describes the situation more effectively and accurately. it's just a better communication method.

obviously subjective impressions need a subjective vocabulary, I'm not trying to turn everything objective. but the second someone starts describing a device with subjective terms instead of using them to describe his own impressions, we're back to the false assumption that anything I feel is how the gear and the world really is. bad idea.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> High Com, no, C4 yes, and enough professional analog tape recorders to have a good handle on the fact that none of the above will pass a perfect square wave.  And they don't have to either.
> It very much does matter.  Sorry you haven't experienced real, professional Dolby NR.
> Your machine's lack of head bumps is because it's playing back it's own recordings.  Those recordings, and that machine *will not interchange with others from other manufacturers*  with the same result.  Again, you have chosen a single unique case to define everything globally.
> I have, and Beta HiFi as well.  I consulted with Columbia Pictures tape duplication division, and tested many machines for audio performance, then assisted them in optimizing the duplicator line's audio distribution system.  None pass a "perfect square wave" to begin with. None.  And neither do yours.  POST A SCOPE PHOTO IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE, and I'll help you understand the photo.
> ...



1. ) I do not know how much better c4 is from High Com II, but that already is extremely good at passing square waves. Better than any proffessional analog tape recorder. And, please, be REASONABLE  with that elusive PERFECT square wave, as you attempted at creating in Adobe at 192/24; NO real world souncard, ADC or DAC , no matter how you might want to call that device, can do it. 
2. ) OK,  but then I have to take your word for it. The developers of High Com clearly thought otherwise.
3. ) Interchangeability of analogue tape has always been a problem. I never even considered analogue tape as a real option for anything prior accidentaly tripping over the RS-AZ 6/7 deck. Even the "6" if used with either Dolby B or C ( sorry it does not have HRX ) will usually see to jaws being dropped at either monitoring during recording from any other source or listening just after the recording from said source has just been completed. "7" if used in its "direct " playback mode (bypassing all the unnecessary bias filtering for playback only, obviously impossible to use during recording/monitoring ) with outboard NR takes that to yet another, most normally unheard of level. Both decks will also see to the jaws being dropped by the prerecorded cassettes.
Yes, giulty as charged, it most likely would not translate nearly as well on some other deck(s).
4. ) I will post  scope photos from the SVHS  machine , with and without the outboard NR. All that can be seen is nothing but the usual HF rollof above the 20 kHz at approx 6dB/octave, 20-20k within less than 1dB, LF -3dB around 5Hz, the whole thing behaves not much different than a straight amplifier. Those square waves look more perfect than any real 16/44 digital - period. 
Beta HIFI was the first to come up with hifi tracks for audio in video recorders, but in Europe that has always been used as pro equipment only. I have never even seen beta cassette outside the studio and even Sony distributor did not carry any stock - special order only.

Those Panasonics have been actually prosumer high end home models. Towards the end of analog video recorders era, other machines/makes boasted on paper 6 heads and performance and features "from another galaxy" . Lifting them up in their original shipping carton/box almost made me throw one into the ceiling - after being accustomed to lifting Panasonic units ... 
I tested few of those late designs ... funeral . Nowhere even approaching the frequency response and channel separation of Panasonic units - and, consequently, nothing approaching the SQ . I guess I have been lucky the first video recorder with HIFI sound has been NV-FS 90 from a friend  -  and although there were very few Sony and JVC (S)VHS that have been according to test reports even better in the sound department, the performance of relatively easy obtainable used but good Panasonics left most of the rest in dust.
But, again I have to agree this is not normal for "average" of majority units in the field and that machine to machine compatibility issues ( that dreaded "frrrrr" modulation from high frequencies... - to remain strictly within audio issues ) are even more pronounced than with conventional analogue tape recorders.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> A test pattern for display calibration includes actual picture signals, real images, that include elements that any normal image would contain plus a few that go outside normal picture capabilities for calibration and test purposes.  A test pattern IS a real image.  A square wave is not real audio.
> Complete nonsense.  Here's some examples, all generated in Adobe Audition:
> Here's a decent (not perfect!) square wave, 300Hz, 192/24:
> 
> ...


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> Completely wrong again!  Tweeters are blown by heating, which is a result of the RMS value of the signal.  I've already posted the complete analysis of this, showing the RMS increase curve of a clipping amp vs one of identical gain but higher power to avoid any clipping.  The higher power amp ALWAYS delivers higher RMS energy!  Always.  Never an exception!  And thus, higher power will burn out tweeters first.
> 
> Here's the spectrum of a 200Hz sine wave driven 10dB past the clipping point:
> 
> ...



I admit I have believed this myth. It sounds believable and logical so I haven't ever analysed it or doubted it. People have obviously blown their tweeters. Has it been because of too much or not enough power is another issue. I don't think this is as simple as this example shows. Music is much more than 200 Hz tones and amps don't clip "digitally." God know what they do, maybe even oscillate or something. Logarithmic frequency scale hides the fact that a tweeter operating fromm 2000 Hz to 20000 Hz handles 90 % of the bandwidth and if a lot of the energy is transfered to this range, the tweeter may experience a lot of rms power. So, I am openminded and undecided with this. This "myth" might have some credit.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> The RMS level of the unclipped sine wave is -3dBFS, the RMS level of the same wave clipped by 10dB is -10.3dBFS.



Aren't you thinking this wrong? You have to amplify the signal by 10 dB to have it clipped 10 dB so the RMS value of the clipped wave is -0.3 dBFS. If you clip a sinewave harder and harder, it will approach a squarewave that has RMS value of 0 dBFS.


----------



## analogsurviver

1) Well, I have answered the "perfect" 300 Hz 192/24 Adobe created square wave in another post.

2.) The "pretty radically different" square wave is nothing unusual - seen many times. You are also correct in stating harmonic peaks are at identical levels , etc.

Now , please be kind to YOURSELF and hook up a real oscilloscope and observe the action of the most usual bass and treble controls as found on most vintage (pre)amplifiers. Always start with SMALL deviations from neutral. You might wish to expand this at first with graphic, then parametric equalizers - and you WILL learn how to use square wave for ( rough at first, accuracy increases with experience ) frequency response evaluation. Of course, use of precise anylizers is , ultimately, better - but there is a HUGE trap most just don't realize.

3. ) If it did not occur to you HOW and for WHAT to use triangle wave in audio, a hint : you have too much measurement gear at your disposal and have not been forced, like myself, to learn how to use just analogue oscilloscope in order to achieve more accurate results than using all the measuring gear in the world - inappropriately.  
This is NOT meant as an insult, but consider it like a waiter passing by  the chess table game remarking : "Hey, watch out... you're about to be check-mated !!!" 

Clearly, I am hinting at some omission most, including you, have made; please try to figure it out by yourself.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 5, 2018)

71 dB said:


> I admit I have believed this myth. It sounds believable and logical so I haven't ever analysed it or doubted it. People have obviously blown their tweeters. Has it been because of too much or not enough power is another issue. I don't think this is as simple as this example shows. Music is much more than 200 Hz tones and amps don't clip "digitally." God know what they do, maybe even oscillate or something. Logarithmic frequency scale hides the fact that a tweeter operating fromm 2000 Hz to 20000 Hz handles 90 % of the bandwidth and if a lot of the energy is transfered to this range, the tweeter may experience a lot of rms power. So, I am openminded and undecided with this. This "myth" might have some credit.



True. The world is analog - and digital is only sampling of thereof. It is perfectly possible to fry the tweeter with 25w/ch power amp under gross clipping and everything that can and does happen in real life following gross overload - and that same tweeter would tweet happily ever after in a speaker system driven with say 400W/ch amp that is being played within its limits  before clipping, but to full undistorted power peaks.

Now, just go out checking some catalogs of raw driver manufacturers. Most tweeters do not exceed say 50 W RMS power rating ( and are spec'd usually at even less continous power, with better models spec'd for quite high power BUT for very short periods of time - LESS than a typical clipping resulting from the overload in the bass lasts for. ) - but even far less is enough for normal operation in a speaker SYSTEM - where lion's share of power for all dynamic speakers always goes to the driver handling bass and no amount of potentially dangerous energy would ever make it trough the crossover - UNLESS  the amp is putting out enough HF garbage that can only occur in real life by gross clipping/overload.

You can go out and ask any service station  regarding this - none will reply by a computer SIMULATION . They have real world fried tweeters to fix - and that is usually the major PITA with any speaker that is either rare by nature or old enough for the manufacturer no longer being legally required to carry spares.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 5, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Of course you can... You put the speakers in your room. Arrange the furniture to establish the optimal listening position and do whatever treatments you require, then you run some tones, take measurements and calibrate the last bit with EQ and timing corrections. That's what I did with my speaker system. You use measurements to tune the output of the system to suit the room. You won't be able to just buy something out of the box that just works, but that doesn't mean you can't make it right.
> 
> We know that professional sound studios mix music on studio monitors designed and calibrated to produce 20-20 flat. So if you calibrate your own system the same way, you're hearing the same thing they are. Music isn't generally mixed for headphones, so all bets are off there, but if you get cans that do 20-20 flat, you're in the ballpark. The only thing you're missing is the kinesthetic nature of the bass and normal room reflections.





Zapp_Fan said:


> If you use room correction you can actually get pretty close to what you are describing with "recording studio vs. home listening".   The recording itself can be considered like the "measurement" of what the recording engineers heard.  The engineers mix and master the album with the intention of it sounding good on a good home system.  So what they heard in the studio is not necessarily the ideal representation of the audio, although it's probably very close.
> 
> To put it another way, if you were somehow able to fully correct your room and limit the RT60 to something fairly short and frequency-neutral, generally that should be close to what they heard in the studio.
> 
> ...



Fair points, perhaps the situation isn't as bad as I portrayed.  But the kind of adjustments you guys are talking about with FR and timing will only get you part of the way there (and they involve steps which are far from trivial).  Even with those kinds of adjustments, it's still not possible to 100% replicate what was heard in the studio, nor to even know if we're close to 100% replicating it (and we may not want to replicate it anyway, if the studio mix isn't to our liking, but that's another discussion).

Simple example: I've tried my KEF LS50W speakers in several rooms in my house (highly recommended, btw).  They come with an app to make some adjustments to account for size and reflectivity of the room.  But there's absolutely no way you're going to get the speakers to sound exactly the same in every room, even if you do adjustments beyond what the app enables.  The rooms are just too different.



sonitus mirus said:


> Right, but then you continually bring up the topic of perception and how ABX tests are supposedly equally flawed as any sighted listening evaluation and therefore just as problematic.
> 
> You started off talking about how much you were gushing about the Chord Hugo 2 and wondered how it might compare to a Chord Dave.   I can't imagine what might sound different between these DACs.  I wouldn't personally believe anyone claiming to hear any differences without providing some measurements to show a likely explanation.   I would strongly suggest to anyone making such a claim to do their best to ABX the DACs to see if the differences can still be identified.
> 
> I don't follow the logic that a difference can be identified while listening sighted but this difference is no longer apparent when blinded.  This is where you usually and repeatedly go off on a tangent about human hearing perception and the complexities therein.  It is fascinating stuff, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything when discussing what is being recorded and reproduced.  The accuracy of the reproduction is not with the performance, but with what was recorded from the performance.  What happens with our psychological state while listening is not pertinent to identifying a difference.



I don't recall saying that ABX tests and sighted tests are equally flawed, and certainly didn't intend to give that impression.  What I've been trying to say is that limitations and potential pitfalls of all tests should be recognized, and blind tests aren't an exception to that.  We can't ignore the issues of test conditions being quite different from normal listening, unreliability of memory, potential for both false positives and false negatives, etc.  Not to mention the expertise and resources needed to do blind tests in a rigorous way which meets professional standards, and therefore impractical for audiophiles in their homes.

Based on the lack of difference I hear between the Hugo 2 and Mojo when I match volume, match music excerpt (2-5 secs), and do instant switching in a _sighted_ test, my prediction is that I wouldn't hear a significant difference between the Hugo 2 and Dave under those conditions either.  I've found that a blind test may not even be necessary if enough controls are used in a sighted test (discussed in detail elsewhere, PM me if interested).



Steve999 said:


> While the technical stuff here is way over my head, I am on board with this philosophically.
> 
> If you don't mind my saying so (and I imagine you do), while the fact that all things are possible is no excuse for thinking foolishly, in the words of John Maynard Keynes (_see_ The Makings of the Peace), I think it is also clear that there is no one objective reality. There is no beginning, there is no end, and "it's turtles all the way down" (to quote Terry Pratchett, I think). Or put in other non-original terms, we affect the properties of what we observe by the very act of perceiving or measuring them. I might not go so far as to say the cat is neither alive nor dead until I open the box and look at it though. I am an audio objectivist, but as a tool toward better results and to guide me in avoiding foolish pursuits, not as an end goal. When it comes to audio, I am very happy at less than perfect, in substantial part because I don't believe in perfect. I get to a sound I like, I keep an eye on meeting certain loose standards and staying in touch with reality as a hobby, and then I enjoy the music. Even if we could measure and reproduce sound perfectly, in the end I doubt anyone would agree on what was perfect, because at some point subjective perception comes into play, and everyone brings different equipment into the equation, physically, emotionally and intellectually. So we are not obliged to entertain the patently foolish, but nor are we the arbiters of what might be exactly correct, or, within a range of reason, what one thing is more correct than another thing. Believe me, if I perceive something unacceptable in the sound of my audio, I will absolutely not tolerate it and I will study up on it and eradicate it, and I will not engage in subjectivist foolishness in doing so.
> 
> ...



My working assumption is that I'm immersed in an objective reality, and what happens in my mind doesn't change that objective reality, other than through the physical actions I take.  So I assume that the way I perceive sound and music doesn't change the physical sound reaching my eardrums.  But what's done with that physical sound in the process of perception is quite complex, and is an active process which involves both variability and fallibility in the resulting perceptions.

The biggest reason I see for pursuing subjectively 'good' sound rather than some ideal of 'perfect fidelity' is that recordings vary widely anyway, so it's impossible to get anything like a perfect sound for all recordings we might listen to.  With any of my sound systems, some recordings sound better than others, and which ones sound better varies with the sound system.  If we assume the electronic chain is essentially perfect, we still have wide variance in how recordings were recorded, mixed, and mastered, how the same speakers sound in various room setups, how headphones interact with varying geometry of people's heads and ears, and how the sound of headphones compares with speakers in rooms.  In that regard, since this is head-fi, it should be noted that the way headphones present sound is unavoidably different from the way speakers present sound, no matter how 'good' the headphones are.  A similar frequency response may be possible, but generally the acoustics of headphones are _very_ different than speakers (e.g., very different sense of stereo separation and where the sound is perceived to come from).  In the studio, if the sound was optimized for speakers, it can't also be optimized for headphones, and if both speakers and headphones were used in the studio, the choices made in mixing/mastering had to involve tradeoffs.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> 1. ) I do not know how much better c4 is from High Com II, but that already is extremely good at passing square waves. Better than any proffessional analog tape recorder. And, please, be REASONABLE  with that elusive PERFECT square wave, as you attempted at creating in Adobe at 192/24; NO real world souncard, ADC or DAC , no matter how you might want to call that device, can do it.


Add "any analog recording device" to the list that cannot do it.  I just showed a picture of a "device" doing a pretty good square, but not perfect, wave.  Did you find an analog recording device that can do better? If so,* post the picture* like I did, or just stop lying. 


analogsurviver said:


> 2. ) OK,  but then I have to take your word for it. The developers of High Com clearly thought otherwise.


Post the picture.  


analogsurviver said:


> 3. ) Interchangeability of analogue tape has always been a problem. I never even considered analogue tape as a real option for anything prior accidentaly tripping over the RS-AZ 6/7 deck. Even the "6" if used with either Dolby B or C ( sorry it does not have HRX ) will usually see to jaws being dropped at either monitoring during recording from any other source or listening just after the recording from said source has just been completed. "7" if used in its "direct " playback mode (bypassing all the unnecessary bias filtering for playback only, obviously impossible to use during recording/monitoring ) with outboard NR takes that to yet another, most normally unheard of level. Both decks will also see to the jaws being dropped by the prerecorded cassettes.


I know of quite a few jaws that would not drop.  Post the pictures if you have proof.


analogsurviver said:


> Yes, giulty as charged, it most likely would not translate nearly as well on some other deck(s).


The, as I said, you haven't made any point with this nonsense at all.


analogsurviver said:


> 4. ) I will post  scope photos from the SVHS  machine , with and without the outboard NR. All that can be seen is nothing but the usual HF rollof above the 20 kHz at approx 6dB/octave, 20-20k within less than 1dB, LF -3dB around 5Hz, the whole thing behaves not much different than a straight amplifier.


Post the pictures.


analogsurviver said:


> Those square waves look more perfect than any real 16/44 digital - period.


How a wave looks doesn't indicate audible performance.


analogsurviver said:


> Beta HIFI was the first to come up with hifi tracks for audio in video recorders, but in Europe that has always been used as pro equipment only.


Beta HiFi was never used as pro equipment.  Never, not anywhere.  Beta machines were often used to record PCM with an adapter, but VHS was too. 


analogsurviver said:


> I have never even seen beta cassette outside the studio and even Sony distributor did not carry any stock - special order only.


Wrong!  One of Sony's most successful professional video tape formats is Betacam!  It used the same shell as consumer Betamax, but ran at a faster speed with lots of other differences.  We used thousands of case-lots of Betacam tape to record PCM on consumer Beta in the 1980s.  Betacam for TV/pro video was used world wide.


analogsurviver said:


> Those Panasonics have been actually prosumer high end home models. Towards the end of analog video recorders era, other machines/makes boasted on paper 6 heads and performance and features "from another galaxy" .


That's marketing, and refers to their video performance.  


analogsurviver said:


> But, again I have to agree this is not normal for "average" of majority units in the field and that machine to machine compatibility issues ( that dreaded "frrrrr" modulation from high frequencies... - to remain strictly within audio issues ) are even more pronounced than with conventional analogue tape recorders.


VHS HiFi (and Beta HiFi)both suffered from similar audio problems relating to switching FM carriers every time video heads were switched. Head switching happens every field in video recording, but with video there's a blanking interval during which things can happen without being visible.  For FM audio, it's continuous, no blanking, so every head switch made a glitch.  FM, frequency modulation, always presents a 3-way trade-off.  You trade RF bandwidth for noise and audio distortion.  Lower RF bandwidth=less noise, but higher distortion.  Higher bandwidth=lower distortion, higher audio bandwidth, but also higher noise.  You can't get away from it, the noise is in the transmission/storage medium.  Beta and VHS "solved" the noise issue with companding noise reduction, but they used simple single band systems, and the noise they were trying to eliminate is complex with LF and HF components because of the head switching glitch.  All you have to do is record a mid-frequency tone and listen, you'll hear all kinds of noise.  That noise is highly audible on program material of all kinds, even speech.  If you add High Com, you may improve the noise problem, but now you have a completely non-standard tape that can't be played anywhere else.  That's not a definition of a format, that's a personal tweak, and was never done in professional or consumer use of either format.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jun 5, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> 1) Well, I have answered the "perfect" 300 Hz 192/24 Adobe created square wave in another post.


Hardly.  I see no response at all.


analogsurviver said:


> 2.) The "pretty radically different" square wave is nothing unusual - seen many times. You are also correct in stating harmonic peaks are at identical levels , etc.
> 
> Now , please be kind to YOURSELF and hook up a real oscilloscope and observe the action of the most usual bass and treble controls as found on most vintage (pre)amplifiers. Always start with SMALL deviations from neutral. You might wish to expand this at first with graphic, then parametric equalizers - and you WILL learn how to use square wave for ( rough at first, accuracy increases with experience ) frequency response evaluation. Of course, use of precise anylizers is , ultimately, better - but there is a HUGE trap most just don't realize.


Done it...for years.  Don't need to now, I know what happens.  Of course I realize that response changes will alter the square wave!  What YOU don't seem to realize is that it is a terrible indicator of response because it can be fooled, and is completely unscaled, either in frequency or amplitude, of the response anomaly.  Wrong tool.  It can and will mislead you.  And it clearly did.


analogsurviver said:


> 3. ) If it did not occur to you HOW and for WHAT to use triangle wave in audio, a hint : you have too much measurement gear at your disposal and have not been forced, like myself, to learn how to use just analogue oscilloscope in order to achieve more accurate results than using all the measuring gear in the world - inappropriately.
> This is NOT meant as an insult, but consider it like a waiter passing by  the chess table game remarking : "Hey, watch out... you're about to be check-mated !!!"
> 
> Clearly, I am hinting at some omission most, including you, have made; please try to figure it out by yourself.


No, I am demanding that you defend your statement, otherwise we'll just add it to the growing list of your lies.  Tell us ALL what you use a triangle wave to test.


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> I admit I have believed this myth. It sounds believable and logical so I haven't ever analysed it or doubted it. People have obviously blown their tweeters. Has it been because of too much or not enough power is another issue.


If it's not too much power, it has to be high instantaneous peak and physical mechanical damage.  The reason that doesn't happen with a tweeter is because excursion is always very, very low.  You can't bottom out a tweeter because it will burn out first.


71 dB said:


> I don't think this is as simple as this example shows. Music is much more than 200 Hz tones and amps don't clip "digitally." God know what they do, maybe even oscillate or something.


If an amp oscillates when it clips that's a design flaw, and yes, I know of a few from the 1970s that would do that.  Perhaps that's where the myth came from, but it's not true and hasn't been true for a long time.  I used the 200Hz tone to show how it's clipped spectrum doesn't increase it's RMS power by summing harmonics like a square wave does.


71 dB said:


> Logarithmic frequency scale hides the fact that a tweeter operating fromm 2000 Hz to 20000 Hz handles 90 % of the bandwidth and if a lot of the energy is transfered to this range, the tweeter may experience a lot of rms power. So, I am openminded and undecided with this. This "myth" might have some credit.


Yes, the tweeter covers most of the audio bandwidth, but musical energy doesn't.  If it did, you'd have tweeters rated at 500W continuous rather than 30W or 20W. 



71 dB said:


> Aren't you thinking this wrong? You have to amplify the signal by 10 dB to have it clipped 10 dB so the RMS value of the clipped wave is -0.3 dBFS. If you clip a sinewave harder and harder, it will approach a squarewave that has RMS value of 0 dBFS.


Start with a sine wave, unclipped.  Set it at clipping threshold, then increase the gain 10dB.  That's the example I used.  It's compared to an identical sine wave set at the same amplitude but with gain raised 10dB without clipping.  A clipped sinewave doesn't approach the RMS value of a square wave until you hit over 40dB of clipping, but that's not the point.  Use the same reference power level for the unclipped and clipped amp, go 10dB up, then measure the power and spectrum.   That's what I did, and yes, it's real.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jun 5, 2018)

Here's the spectrum of a contemporary song, showing unclipped at the bottom, and then progressively more clipping in 2dB steps:






There's the RMS analysis of the same song.  The straight lines show level increase without clipping, the curved ones show the same level increases, but with clipping (scaling is in dB):






This is music, not tones.  You can clearly see that increasing power without clipping increases total RMS, not the other way around.

a
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



The above is a graph of progressive clipping's effect on spectrum.  It shows the difference between clipped and non-clipped spectrum.


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> Music is much more than 200 Hz tones and amps don't clip "digitally."


I’ve shown music as a test signal in my last post.  As to how amps clip, most SS amps present a very well defined hard clip point, and do resemble digital clipping. Other amps may present a softer clipping threshold which will slightly straighten out the RMS vs input level curve, but still provide far less power to the load than an equal gain, higher power, non-clipping amp.


71 dB said:


> Music is much more than 200 Hz tones an
> 
> God know what they do...


I’m sure He does, but once you’ve looked at a large sampling of different amps and driven them to clipping you do get a pretty good idea of  how amps clip.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 5, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Hardly.  I see no response at all.
> Done it...for years.  Don't need to now, I know what happens.  Of course I realize that response changes will alter the square wave!  What YOU don't seem to realize is that it is a terrible indicator of response because it can be fooled, and is completely unscaled, either in frequency or amplitude, of the response anomaly.  Wrong tool.  It can and will mislead you.  And it clearly did.


No, I am demanding that you defend your statement, otherwise we'll just add it to the growing list of your lies.  Tell use ALL what you use a triangle wave to test.[/QUOTE]

Ok. triangle answer first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_wave It is the most usable signal for equalizeng - either the headphones or loudspeakers. Obvious system requirement is a decent measurement microphone, some preamplification for this mike and an oscilloscope. Sine wave only tests for AMPLITUDE at test frequency - and nothing between the two test frequency points. Square wave can not quantify exact levels by eye - the waveshape might appear with reasonably flat "tops", but can still contain major irregularities or deviations from the perfectly linear response. . But triangle wave not only that does test for AMPLITUDE, it also tests for PHASE ( or time, or whatever you might want to call it ). If you do the manual "sweep" between any two chosen limit points ( for headphones reasonable from say from 10 Hz to 6-7 kHz, as third harmonic is stil enough to keep the signal shape reasonably triangular ), you CAN see if there is any discrepancy from the STRAIGHT lines between the maximum and minimum value on the oscilloscope screen. If that line is not only slightly curved ( towards the lower and upper frequency limit , it should be pretty straight in the midband ), if it displays any tendency to "crossover distortion" around the zero crossing, there IS a deviation in frequency response in that frequency range - and the more "crossover distortion", the higher the Q of that deviation.
Triangle is therefore THE  perfect signal to show why parametric EQ is better than graphic EQ. Just put on your headphones or IEMs or your loudspeakers and HEAR for yourself just how exactly sounds the music trough a transducer that has been EQed only at some (usually fixed) points, which is usual for graphic EQ - and compare those results with the settings obtained as I have described above. You can get MUCH more perfect "approaching straight line" triangle wave response  with a parametric EQ; any "crossover distortion", departure from straight lines is rather easily ironed out by using bandwidth and Q settings of the filter for each parametric EQ band. It is also the fastest method of setting the parametric EQ accurately. Once you learn how to do it right, either using real or virtual parametric EQ, you will no longer want to return to graphic - except in a pinch.

You can check just how sensitive human ear is for phase delays between the two channels. For this. TWO matched measuring microphones, two channel preamp and dual trace oscilloscope is required. It is perfectly possible to DELIBERATELY make an EQ setting that will produce almost axactly as flat response in both channels - but also create an interchannel delay between the two. Both deviations can be smaller than it is customary even in tightly matched premium priced commercially available headphones. If you listen to some music you are well familiar with, you can rather quickly grasp that it is more important for the headphones ( or speakers ) to have tightly matched phase than to have tightly matched frequency response.


----------



## KeithEmo

The problem here is that you're looking at things from two different angles.

Back in the days of tube amplifiers, before everyone had a spectrum analyzer, but most service folks had an oscilloscope, square waves were in fact used to "eyeball" frequency response.
(Remember that, back then, even a sine-wave oscillator that could maintain more or less the same level across the audio frequency band was considered to be "expensive test equipment".)
In those days, most people didn't bother to make detailed frequency response measurements of amplifiers...
(And an amplifier that didn't have more than a few dB of roll off at 20 Hz and at 20 kHz was considered to be "good".)
All they were concerned about was high-frequency roll off (caused by a variety of things), and low-frequency roll off (usually caused by too-small coupling capacitors somewhere or the LF response of the transformer).

You put a square wave into the amplifier and looked at the output on an oscilloscope (everyone had a frequency they preferred to use).
If the "corners" of the square wave were rounded off, that indicated a rolled off high-frequency response.
If the top of the square wave was tilted, then THAT indicated a rolled off low-frequency response.
In devices with adjustments, like oscilloscope probes, you "tuned" the high frequency response for the sharpest corners with little or no ringing...
And you adjusted the low frequency trims for the flattest top on the square wave.
(And, yes, this was usually how the service manual recommended that you do it - because it utilized test equipment that was in common use at the time.)

It wasn't at all precise like modern methods, and didn't yield actual numbers, but it was easy to see on a low cost oscilloscope...
And, yes, a reasonably sharp square wave with a flat top DID generally mean that you had a more or less flat frequency response... across a certain range of frequencies.
Also bear in mind that you were usually dealing with circuits that were reasonably flat when properly adjusted, and exhibited a simple "flat on top and down on the ends" overall frequency response.



pinnahertz said:


> Hardly.  I see no response at all.
> Done it...for years.  Don't need to now, I know what happens.  Of course I realize that response changes will alter the square wave!  What YOU don't seem to realize is that it is a terrible indicator of response because it can be fooled, and is completely unscaled, either in frequency or amplitude, of the response anomaly.  Wrong tool.  It can and will mislead you.  And it clearly did.
> 
> No, I am demanding that you defend your statement, otherwise we'll just add it to the growing list of your lies.  Tell us ALL what you use a triangle wave to test.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> 1. ) I do not know how much better c4 is from High Com II, but that already is extremely good at passing square waves.



Passing what square waves? There are no square waves in nature, which includes ALL acoustic instruments. You know this fact, you've even admitted it but here you are, a dozen or so pages later just repeating the same old lie yet again, WHY, what is wrong with you?

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 5, 2018)

gregorio said:


> Passing what square waves? There are no square waves in nature, which includes ALL acoustic instruments. You know this fact, you've even admitted it but here you are, a dozen or so pages later just repeating the same old lie yet again, WHY, what is wrong with you?
> 
> G



Headphone.com (or Headroom) uses 500 and 50Hz squares to test headphone performance.  Guess it's not necessary to do that either?  Pushing them beyond anything they would ever have to reproduce in real life?

Imagine what they design passenger jets to do, and be able to withstand.  Wanna come along for _that_ ride?  Probably have to carry you off on a guerney - after they extract you from the cabin overhead panels, lol!

Just an appetizer...



 Dem' dere' sum skwayer waives, ahh reckon..


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 5, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> The problem here is that you're looking at things from two different angles.
> 
> Back in the days of tube amplifiers, before everyone had a spectrum analyzer, but most service folks had an oscilloscope, square waves were in fact used to "eyeball" frequency response.
> (Remember that, back then, even a sine-wave oscillator that could maintain more or less the same level across the audio frequency band was considered to be "expensive test equipment".)
> ...



Not only in the old days of tubes and output transformers.

Really good amplifiers ( either solid state or hollow state ) with extended bandwidths can only be observed for square wave on an oscilloscope - IF you do not have access say to a 100MHz or above spectrum analyzer.

I have learned - pretty accurately - to either observe or EQ the frequency response of phono cartridges to 1kHz square wave from the test records - using either electrical cartridge loading ( there goes the myth that cables can not create audible difference ... - in MORE ways than any one of you can imagine ; learned it the hard way, across many decades ...) or, if loading alone can not produce adequate results, using actual hardware parametric EQ.

The LF response of the audio gear is still most easily assesed by observing the square wave as you have described. Any spectrum analyzer one might think of will NOT be capable of accurately describing the audible failures of AC coupled amps - because they always concentrate on one thing only ( admittedly, to the n-th degree of precision ) and lose the overall view of the problem. For that overall view and first warning about possible trouble(s), an analogue oscilloscope ( for LF measurements, obviously DC coupled; any decent amp with extended LF response should exceed the LF response of the AC coupled input of any osciloscope ) is the instrument of choice to this very day.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jun 5, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Fair points, perhaps the situation isn't as bad as I portrayed.  But the kind of adjustments you guys are talking about with FR and timing will only get you part of the way there (and they involve steps which are far from trivial).  Even with those kinds of adjustments, it's still not possible to 100% replicate what was heard in the studio, nor to even know if we're close to 100% replicating it (and we may not want to replicate it anyway, if the studio mix isn't to our liking, but that's another discussion).
> 
> Simple example: I've tried my KEF LS50W speakers in several rooms in my house (highly recommended, btw).  They come with an app to make some adjustments to account for size and reflectivity of the room.  But there's absolutely no way you're going to get the speakers to sound exactly the same in every room, even if you do adjustments beyond what the app enables.  The rooms are just too different.



This is very true - dealing with acoustics can be damn  hard and unless the rooms are physically identical, they won't sound identical.  Still, I think you can know if you're "close" to the "true" reproduction when your system measures pretty flat, you don't have any major resonances (lol, good luck), and your reverb (RT60) time is short enough.  E.g. if your room compares favorably to industry standards/norms for professional monitoring spaces, you're in the money.  Of course, this is expensive and difficult, (not to mention it generally ruins your decor) and even at that point, many people may prefer a different sound. 

In other words, you're definitely correct, but I think it depends on how literal you want to be about speakers sounding "exactly the same".  Well-treated spaces generally aim for similar acoustic characteristics, so more success in this area generally means the rooms sound more alike.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> Passing what square waves? There are no square waves in nature, which includes ALL acoustic instruments. You know this fact, you've even admitted it but here you are, a dozen or so pages later just repeating the same old lie yet again, WHY, what is wrong with you?
> 
> G



Hey - be a sport and read it trough - whatever I wrote - in entirety. 

But, since you are a CD lover, I *might* know your aversion to testing audio with square wave 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave

Because 16/44 RBCD is so poor at passing square wave 
( NOTE - I did NOT write PERFECT square wave , because "perfect square wave" and "real world digital audio" can not co-exist within the same sentence )
they tried to hide this fact by CHEATING - every early square wave display of a square wave from a CD ( in order to look anything alike to that of analogue record at 1 kHz ) had to be taken at lower frequency - usually 400 Hz. Every test record from CD player manufacturers tried to pull the fast one with this. This deliberate sugarcoating had to be finally put to an end by a third party : 
https://www.stereophile.com/content/istereophilei-test-cd-3-signals-testing-amplifiers-cd-players.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Headphone.com (or Headroom) uses 500 and 50Hz squares to test headphone performance.  Guess it's not necessary to do that either?  Pushing them beyond anything they would ever have to reproduce in real life?
> 
> Imagine what they design passenger jets to do, and be able to withstand.  Wanna come along for _that_ ride?  Probably have to carry you off on a guerney - after they extract you from the cabin overhead panels, lol!
> 
> ...




Well, the headphone testing using anything but pure sine wave ( for nitpickers - best possible approximations of : triangle, square, pulse ( Diracq ) )  as used by the now sadly retired Tyll Herstens is the best and most honest attempt in order to improve the sad, sad state of affairs headgear still is at. 

Compared to those atrocities called headphones, any phono cartridge selling nowadays for say $100 has infinitely superiour performance. Not to say anything of the good HR.

Any real world bag, certified for 10 lbs, has been de facto tested to withstand at least twice that... - if not more. Because they know customer will trip over something, will be able barely preventig falling harshly to the floor, will bump with that bag and its 10 lbs contents into something, etc, etc. 

This passenger plane is a perfect example. Shaking the passengers in this way to this extent most certainly is no one's conscious intention; but building the plane not to withstand even more, much more G's of acceleration prior falling to pieces midair would be deliberate murder.
Yes, the plane is overweight, yes, the plane consumes more fuel than an airliner built with ( 22050 :20000 ) safety margin without any redundance whatsoever would, yes, the plane is less profitable because of all that.
QUESTION : Would anyone in his/hers right mind put the rest of their families on a (22050 : 20000 ) safety margin built plane ? Praying that not even a bumblebee collides with that paperweight plane ?

Anything audio intended for music  is, fortunately, not deadly ( with the >140 dB SPL excepted ). But the general principles of the above airplane example still apply.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> Because 16/44 RBCD is so poor at passing square wave



Again, what square wave? There are no square waves, so until you show some evidence of square waves, your whole post and point about square waves is UTTER NONSENSE! I  asked you before, if we have a theoretical square wave, say at 12kHz, what records and reproduces it with the highest audible fidelity 16/44, DSD, vinyl or video cassette?



TheSonicTruth said:


> Headphone.com (or Headroom) uses 500 and 50Hz squares to test headphone performance. Guess it's not necessary to do that either? Pushing them beyond anything they would ever have to reproduce in real life?



That depends, are your ears and what's between them part of "real life"?

G


----------



## castleofargh

redbook is so bad at passing the ultrasonic content of a square wave. that's the fact, and my question is obviously, so what? it's ultrasonic content, why should I care when all my blind tests fail to show that I can perceive them in my listening conditions? we've gone full circle a few times, without actual evidence that missing those extra frequencies is detrimental for the listener, there is no argument to defend at all. 
if the game of arguing becomes so dishonest, I can play too and argue that ultrasonic content is likely to create instabilities in playback gears, so filtering them could improve sound quality. it's based on actual facts, in a way. 
I can argue that ultrasonic content is extra energy that we don't hear but it still impacts a part of the ears, helping premature hearing damage in the upper range if it's not already too late. that's why we should filter ultrasounds. again, it's not strictly false. 
also ultrasounds can damage hard drives, so that seems dangerous for speaker playback. quick filter out ultrasounds! based on recent funky research this is also partially factual. 
I'm sure I can make up such partially rational crap all day long, but it doesn't actually demonstrate anything because that's cherry picking objective arguments to fit my anti ultrasound agenda.at this point let's just pick any statistical data and present it in a way that agrees with our point of view, or let's just make up statistics, why bother with half lies. most of you know how easily that can be done, more so when apparently correlation equal causation in that new fake game of logic. 


those who believe that ultrasonic content changes our listening experience need to focus on demonstrating it instead of making up endless lists of crappy excuses using pseudo science on the premise of a strong gut feeling.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> Again, what square wave? There are no square waves, so until you show some evidence of square waves, your whole post and point about square waves is UTTER NONSENSE! I  asked you before, if we have a theoretical square wave, say at 12kHz, what records and reproduces it with the highest audible fidelity 16/44, DSD, vinyl or video cassette?
> 
> Out of those mentioned, DSD - the higher, the better . Followed by analogue record, followed by video cassette and finally CD.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> Well, the headphone testing using anything but pure sine wave ( for nitpickers - best possible approximations of : triangle, square, pulse ( Diracq ) )  as used by the now sadly retired Tyll Herstens is the best and most honest attempt in order to improve the sad, sad state of affairs headgear still is at.
> 
> Compared to those atrocities called headphones, any phono cartridge selling nowadays for say $100 has infinitely superiour performance. Not to say anything of the good HR.
> 
> ...




Thanks for that endorsement!  I missed the point of all those numbers(22,050 etc)  in your reply, though.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] Out of those mentioned, DSD - the higher, the better . Followed by analogue record, followed by video cassette and finally CD.
> [2] There are some people that can hear pure sine wave at 24 khz, but they constitute so small minority that it almost does not matter.



1. As expected, you've got it backwards. Congratulations you must feel very proud!

2. Oh dear, you seem to have forgotten that you're banging on about a square waves, NOT sine waves. Duh!!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> 1. As expected, you've got it backwards. Congratulations you must feel very proud!
> 
> 2. Oh dear, you seem to have forgotten that you're banging on about a square waves, NOT sine waves. Duh!!
> 
> G




I find it rather interesting Gregorio, about how everyone seems to have things "backwards" from the way you have them.  Just felt like mentioning it, that's all.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 5, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> True. The world is analog - and digital is only sampling of thereof.



All I ask of recorded sound is an accurate representation the original signal created by the musicians and engineers. That doesn't require reproducing square waves. I don't care if it's made of shellac or vinyl or magnetic tape or 0s and 1s. All I care about is sound. The plain fact is that digital recording trounces analogue on just about every measure you would care to judge by. It's absurd to point to frequencies you can't hear to claim that an obviously inferior format is better... especially when that particular format doesn't even contain those frequencies. Digital audio works and professionals and consumers alike realize that. Why don't you?

I'm going to be honest here... You're performing routines for us, making post after post of stuff that's only intended to entertain yourself. Sprinkle in some irrelevant technical words and model numbers of professional equipment that no one was discussing and maybe everyone will think you know what you're talking about. Lather, rinse and repeat. But internet forums aren't designed to work like that. Conversations are supposed to go two ways and both sides should be involved and interested in what the other person is saying. It's very difficult to engage in a real discussion with you because you're unable to discuss things with any kind of logical structure and you seem incapable of any kind of external input from others. I suspect that has something to do with the way you are wired, so I try to cut you some slack. I don't want to get mad at you for things you can't help. But when you post over and over with walls of words that are irrelevant to the discussion, ignore the points made by the people around you, and continually try to derail the conversation by circling back to your stock routines, it gets awfully difficult to be forgiving of your unique nature. It's not even possible any more to simply ignore you because you're so prolific in generating blocks of text.

You seem to think you are performing on a stage here and we are your audience. We aren't here to serve that purpose. I think it would be a good idea for you to take a walk in the sunshine and try to not focus so much on the internet. Interact with real people instead of using your fellow forum posters as your captive virtual audience. The real world is the sort of analogue world that would be better for you and you'll have more meaningful interaction with real people than you are having here.


----------



## bigshot

TheSonicTruth said:


> I find it rather interesting Gregorio, about how everyone seems to have things "backwards" from the way you have them.  Just felt like mentioning it, that's all.



Gregorio is a wealth of real solid knowledge and can be very helpful. That should already be self evident to you. But if you want to get the benefit of his knowledge, you have to address your conversation to him in the right way.


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> I find it rather interesting Gregorio, about how everyone seems to have things "backwards" from the way you have them.  Just felt like mentioning it, that's all.




Everyone?  How would you have reached that conclusion?  It's certainly not correct.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> I find it rather interesting Gregorio, about how everyone seems to have things "backwards" from the way you have them. Just felt like mentioning it, that's all.



There's been what, a handful of people that have publicly posted "things backwards" here? And there's what, 7.5 billion people on the planet? How is that handful "everyone"? What's "rather interesting" then, is that you've been one of those handful and you've made a statement about it which is itself backwards??!!

G


----------



## bigshot

Yes, but following the logic of some folks lately, you aren't allowed to say that the whole world doesn't think you're backwards unless you ask each and every one of them and they all say you're not! We can never know anything because we can't know everything.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Ok. triangle answer first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_wave 1. It is the most usable signal for equalizeng - either the headphones or loudspeakers. Obvious system requirement is a decent measurement microphone, some preamplification for this mike and an oscilloscope.
> 
> 2. Sine wave only tests for AMPLITUDE at test frequency - and nothing between the two test frequency points. Square wave can not quantify exact levels by eye - the waveshape might appear with reasonably flat "tops", but can still contain major irregularities or deviations from the perfectly linear response. .
> 3. But triangle wave not only that does test for AMPLITUDE, it also tests for PHASE ( or time, or whatever you might want to call it ). If you do the manual "sweep" between any two chosen limit points ( for headphones reasonable from say from 10 Hz to 6-7 kHz, as third harmonic is stil enough to keep the signal shape reasonably triangular ), you CAN see if there is any discrepancy from the STRAIGHT lines between the maximum and minimum value on the oscilloscope screen. If that line is not only slightly curved ( towards the lower and upper frequency limit , it should be pretty straight in the midband ), if it displays any tendency to "crossover distortion" around the zero crossing, there IS a deviation in frequency response in that frequency range - and the more "crossover distortion", the higher the Q of that deviation.
> ...


Well, that’s just fascinating. My initial reaction to this was to laugh hysterically, but after giving it some thought, and trying to understand why someone would apply such an archaic and highly inaccurate measurement technique, I must conclude you are facing some challenges that limit your capabilities to use computer equipment or tablets. That must be tough.  But google Room EQ Wizard, and see if one of his releases will run on whatever hardware you have. You only need a sound card with mic preamp, or the USBmic. Behringer makes a very inexpensive USB sound card that is quite good too, and you can use your own measurement mic.

A triangle wave is a terrible signal for response and EQ if speakers in rooms, and a scope is the wrong analysis tool.   Just move your mic a few inches while testing, you’ll get completely different results. The only steady-state signal appropriate for acoustic measurement is pink noise, and even that must be temporally and spatially integrated.  You can do pretty well with pink noise and a 12th or 24th octave RTA so long as a large listening window is integrated.

But most of us are using swept-sine:impulse response FFT tools, still integrated over multiple positions, but with the ability to filter the real from the anomalous measurement.  REW does all of that, and more, for free.  Check it out.

For EQ tools, 1/3 octave graphics went out decades ago, we use DSP-based parametric EQ now, or better, something like DIRAC and its FIR filters. 

The way you’re suggesting was never acceptable, it’s like doing brain surgery with an axe.

Now, some details:

1. Wrong, there are other far more “usable “ signals, but you also need more “usable” analysis tools (which are free).

2. Yes, but once you go to a swept sine, a whole new world opens up to you.

3. Time and phase are two different things linked by frequency. Very important to understand the difference. The test of your technique can work but has very low resolution, and in an acoustic environment will simply give you wrong information.

4.Not at all. Again, try REW.

5. But if you do it the right way, spatial average, impulse response, then EQ (can even be automatic with some EQ devices) and listen to that result, you’ll never look back at triangle waves.


analogsurviver said:


> You can check just how sensitive human ear is for phase delays between the two channels. For this. TWO matched measuring microphones, two channel preamp and dual trace oscilloscope is required. It is perfectly possible to DELIBERATELY make an EQ setting that will produce almost axactly as flat response in both channels - but also create an interchannel delay between the two. Both deviations can be smaller than it is customary even in tightly matched premium priced commercially available headphones. If you listen to some music you are well familiar with, you can rather quickly grasp that it is more important for the headphones ( or speakers ) to have tightly matched phase than to have tightly matched frequency response.


I think you’re getting confused her because you’re only speaking in genialities while stating no numbers. I could easily post counter-examples that refute your generalization, but there’s no point.

Speak with specific data, and I’ll be able to comment, otherwise you’ve posted alarmist nonsense. Yes


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> The problem here is that you're looking at things from two different angles.
> 
> Back in the days of tube amplifiers, before everyone had a spectrum analyzer, but most service folks had an oscilloscope, square waves were in fact used to "eyeball" frequency response.
> (Remember that, back then, even a sine-wave oscillator that could maintain more or less the same level across the audio frequency band was considered to be "expensive test equipment".)
> In those days, most people didn't bother to make detailed frequency response measurements of amplifiers...


Theres always been careless and sloppy tech work. The HP 600 series had an output meter you could use to verify level. The later HP 200 series was amplitude stabilized, even Heathkit oscillators I had in the early 1970s were stable and flat at any frequency. The earlier tube stuff had a meter.

I charted response by writing down the readings.  I looked for the 3dB corners and any other anomalies. Then I used a Tek 5L4n swept spectrum analyzer with tracking generator. Then I got the UREI response plotter. At no time would I or the companies I worked for be satisfied with the quick and dirty square wave test.


KeithEmo said:


> It wasn't at all precise like modern methods, and didn't yield actual numbers, but it was easy to see on a low cost oscilloscope...
> And, yes, a reasonably sharp square wave with a flat top DID generally mean that you had a more or less flat frequency response... across a certain range of frequencies.
> Also bear in mind that you were usually dealing with circuits that were reasonably flat when properly adjusted, and exhibited a simple "flat on top and down on the ends" overall frequency response.


Like I said, there’s always been sloppy tech work.


----------



## old tech

Hey asurvivor

Since you are so into square waves, here is good test for you from Archimago - square waves from 16/44

http://archimago.blogspot.com/


----------



## dprimary

First I want to see an acoustically generated square wave in a large hall. Then I want to see it captured with a stereo mic technique out in the hall. Then see the output of the recorded signal on 1/2" analog, direct to disk, PCM and DSD. I'll be impressed if anyone pulls off step one. If no one is willing to do the test I don't see the point of going around and around about square waves and ultrasonics.


----------



## Phronesis

Interesting article which addresses some issues we've talked about: https://tapeop.com/blog/2016/07/26/subconscious-auditory-effects/


----------



## bigshot (Jun 6, 2018)

We're talking about objective auditory analysis aren't we? The title of this thread is Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths and the original post is an extensive list of objective tests that disprove subjective misconceptions.


----------



## pinnahertz

dprimary said:


> First I want to see an acoustically generated square wave in a large hall. Then I want to see it captured with a stereo mic technique out in the hall. Then see the output of the recorded signal on 1/2" analog, direct to disk, PCM and DSD. I'll be impressed if anyone pulls off step one. If no one is willing to do the test I don't see the point of going around and around about square waves and ultrasonics.


Air is a first-order filter that absorbs high frequency energy.  For example, at 50kHz the loss is about .5dB/foot. If you are 10' away from a 50kHz source air will attenuate it by 5dB before it gets to your ears.  So, no square waves in a large hall even if there were a way to generate them in the first place.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 6, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Interesting article which addresses some issues we've talked about: https://tapeop.com/blog/2016/07/26/subconscious-auditory-effects/



It is an interesting article and it does address some of the issues discussed, but by "address" I don't mean "answer" or come to some valid conclusions/hypotheses, I just mean he's talking about the same area. There's a number of serious problems with his article, even starting from the very first sentence! "_Subconscious Auditory Effects (SAE) is a term I have cobbled together to encapsulate a broad range of phenomena in this barely-studied field of inquiry._" - This is completely incorrect, it's a highly-studied field of inquiry, it's been studied continuously for nearly a century by probably well over 100,000 people! While it is a barely-studied field of inquiry as far a science is concerned, he's addressing "audioworkers", who are the ones who've been doing all the study in the field! The biggest single problem with the article is that he constantly confuses his terms: Hear, perceive, discern and audible for example and then further confuses them by pairing them with conscious or subconscious. For example, it's not possible to train one's ears or one's hearing, it's only possible to train one's perception of what one is hearing.

This statement encapsulates the misconceptions in the article: "_yet we still bother to execute those small changes because* we believe that indiscernible changes in sound still impact listeners who can’t hear them*._" - This is absolutely NOT correct! We make those small changes precisely because we believe that listeners WILL hear them, although in most/all cases they may not be able to consciously discern them or even be consciously aware they are hearing them. We would NEVER bother to execute small changes if we believed listeners couldn't hear them, it would be a complete waste of our time and effort! Also, it is completely untrue that we audioworkers effectively rely on ABX. In practice our use of ABX is exceptionally rare and only in very specific circumstances. The vast majority of our daily work employs sighted A/B testing and occasionally blind A/B testing, where we're trying to find out if there's ANY audible difference (conscious, subconscious, discernible, indiscernable or whatever). ABX testing on the other hand tests discernibility, can we discern a difference between A and B well enough to match it to X. ABX testing is by far the best tool for investigating certain aspects of how we hear/perceive sound but not a good tool for other aspects, for example it is not the right testing tool for investigating hearing thresholds, for that we have other testing methodologies, double blind testing for instance.

G


----------



## pinnahertz (Jun 6, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Not only in the old days of tubes and output transformers.
> 
> Really good amplifiers ( either solid state or hollow state ) with extended bandwidths can only be observed for square wave on an oscilloscope - IF you do not have access say to a 100MHz or above spectrum analyzer.


That's silly.  Square waves can only be observed on an oscilloscope.  What else would you look at them with?  But you can't tell what an amplifier's response is with a square wave, only that it's changed.  Please show a photo of a square wave and define, _from the photo alone_, what the upper 3dB down point is.



analogsurviver said:


> I have learned - pretty accurately - to either observe or EQ the frequency response of phono cartridges to 1kHz square wave from the test records - using either electrical cartridge loading ( there goes the myth that cables can not create audible difference ... - in MORE ways than any one of you can imagine ; learned it the hard way, across many decades ...) or, if loading alone can not produce adequate results, using actual hardware parametric EQ.


I've also equalized things with square waves.  In my case it was telephone lines equalized flat to 20kHz.  However, I found adjusting for square wave response only got it sort of right, and if I wanted precision ( which I did) I needed to measure actual frequency response.  The same is true with your phono EQ testing.  A square wave gets to generally close, but you can't have precisions that way, and if that's how you're doing it, you wouldn't know that.

I think the shot at the cable myth is completely uncalled for.  Nobody's saying cables never make a difference!  When they apply a capacitive load to a cartridge, of course they can.  It's been well known for decades.  Some good photo preamps even had variable loading capacitance switches, and you could look up the total C load for a given cartridge, measure what you had in cable and dial in the remaining required C with the switch.  That's not what the cable myth is all about, though, because the cartridge is a high impedance driving source, and other line-level sources are not.


analogsurviver said:


> The LF response of the audio gear is still most easily assesed by observing the square wave as you have described. Any spectrum analyzer one might think of will NOT be capable of accurately describing the audible failures of AC coupled amps - because they always concentrate on one thing only ( admittedly, to the n-th degree of precision ) and lose the overall view of the problem. For that overall view and first warning about possible trouble(s), an analogue oscilloscope ( for LF measurements, obviously DC coupled; any decent amp with extended LF response should exceed the LF response of the AC coupled input of any osciloscope ) is the instrument of choice to this very day.


That's just crazy talk.  Again, show me a square wave that slows an LF response issue and_* from that picture alone, tell me what the 3dB down point is!*_  Swept measurements show you exactly what the roll off is, where it begins, the degree of roll off, the slope, and here's a new one for you: the phase shift of that roll off expressed in degrees!  Do THAT with a square wave.  And you'll also see what phase is doing in the so-called flat area...that would be the area where your square wave doesn't look quite right, but it's not all that bad either so you ignore it.

All you're doing is proclaiming your most familiar method as the best.  You've never even tried the alternatives.  And don't go whining about the cost of the software and hardware!  REW is FREE, a good USB sound card is $40, a USB measurement mic like the UMIK-1 is $75 with calibration curve.  Measure, get some REAL data, and you might actually advance your understanding instead of being so meat-fisted about square waves.  Everyone else has moved on, because the new methods provide better and more accurate information.  We no longer are living in the days of valve amps and inaccurate test equipment!  Let it go, join the group in 2018.  At least you could that stop promulgating audio mythology because your measurement technique is hobbled and from the 1960s.

But now I'm going to take a different tack.  I think it's been pretty clear that we are continuing to knock heads.  What we have is a difference in belief systems.  You want to believe that ultrasonic response is the ultimately important audio metric, and that sub-barometric LF response is also ultimately critical.  You're choosing those parameters over all others, especially those that actually affect audio in the highly sensitive mid-band.  You're biased against PCM, especially 44/16, and favor vinyl as the ultimate, DSD,  cassettes and High-Com modified AFM VCR tracks as good.  Have I got that right?  If so, your mission has been accomplished.  I'm not the only one that understands your position!  I respect your opinion, right up to the point where you state it as immutable fact that nobody can disagree with. 

I disagree with your opinion for many reasons, but I'll state my position here so you know what it is and how we differ.  I've produced and mastered vinyl projects in parallel with 44/16 CDs.  I have had a unique opportunity to compare them and isolate the vinyl effects without such variables as different mastering in place.  I know how good vinyl can sound, and I also know it has no sound of its own other than certain distortions and noise.  I've had a lifetime of searching for the ultimate in recording and reproducing sound, and have tested nearly all of your favorite methods in detail.  I order the preferences differently, and I do so having actually experienced all of them, both from testing and auditioning.  I think 44/16 may be a little shy of the ultimate, but it's good enough for most music.  It would have been nice if the sampling rate was just a bit higher, but 44.1 was chosen pragmatically based on the video hardware involved in early CD production, and it's not really a problem.  I don't hear audible differences between 44/16 and higher rates and depths, but it's SO difficult to make those comparisons under complete control that I'd have to say the results are inconclusive.  So there may or may not be wisdom to slightly higher sampling rates, but if taken to extreme, there are a lot of new issues that actually are harmful.  I don't know where the optimum is, but recording at 96/24 for release at other depths and rates seems not unreasonable, though not specifically beneficial in and of itself.  It just makes the work flow easier. 

But when we get to analog formats, everything is a problem.  Tape is something I've spent decades with, trying to extract the last fraction of a dB of quality out of, only to be hampered by physics and quality of materials.  No tape format or speed can match PCM in all aspects.  Some can come close to certain performance metrics, but at the expense of others.  For example, audiophiles moan about jitter (but don't actually know what it sounds like), then extoll 15ips tape.  Well, 15ips tape has jitter too!  It's called "scrape flutter", and results from tape passing over static components like guides and heads, setting up a longitudinal resonance that's a function of the length of unsupported tape adjacent to the fixed element.  That scrape flutter is a high frequency modulation component, essentially producing FM, which creates sidebands on either side of a signal that are audible as modulating noise content.  It's machine dependent as it's caused by mechanical tape path design, but never is gone.  It's worse than any jitter effects because the FM modulation index is much higher.  That's just one tape anomaly that audiophiles ignore, because they don't know or understand it.  It's real, not small, measurable, and audible.  That combined with other tape anomalies like intermodulation distortion and poor bass response and noise eliminate tape from competition with PCM.

Vinyl is an extremely frustrating means of reproducing sound.  It's difficult to master, very difficult to press, and the results are fragile and not permanent if played.  I spend 6 weeks auditioning different vinyl formulations, the exotics like Quiex II, the standards like Keiser blends, trying to find the lowest surface noise.   I found the vinyls with lower surface noise had the highest incidence of single bubble ticks.  There was no good compromise, each had something wrong.  However, the CDs came back matching the master perfectly.  I ended up with  excellent vinyl versions, but none were superior to the CD. 

Then I tried cutting a lacquer from a 44/16 master and looking at the spectrum.  You already know the spectrum of 44/16...no ultrasonics, right?  Guess what I found on the lacquer!  Ultrasonic content.  Where did that come from? Not the master, certainly.  It was intermodulation distortion and harmonic distortion from the top couple of octaves cut into the grooves.  Yes, the information was ultrasonic, went out to 40kHz, but it wasn't in the master, so it was created by the flaws of vinyl, specifically, distortion products. 

Because of the above, I rate vinyl far, far below PCM in every aspect, regardless of how exotic and exceptional efforts and equipment might extract a bit more from it.  I do not rate ultrasonic response high in importance because the real audio content is simply not there, but audiophiles are confusing distortion products for real content.

I've already discussed my experiences with VHS HiFi and Beta HiFi, no need to repeat.  They fall low into the consumer area.  They solved a problem: really bad linear tracks on very slow tape speed consumer video tape.  But they're not good enough for commercial recording. 

I also tested the dbx 700 digital recording system too, that was a unique system using "companded predictive delta modulation" sampled at 644kHz.  The idea was to sample high and avoid the brick wall filter.  They did do that, but delta mod by itself is very, very noisy, so they did what dbx does best: apply companding NR.  And it sort of worked, but typical of companded NR, you could detect the NR working as noise was modulated with desired sound.  They even made a preview delay for the system.  But serious recording couldn't tolerate the modulation noise, and the system didn't have a good way to release to the consumer anyway, so it failed. 

There's little point in listing every recording system I've evaluated over the years.  But it's been many, some really strange ones too.  The point is, it's not out of ignorance or lack of exposure that I've formed my opinions.  It's not because of bias either, my search was/is for the best regardless of what that is, but also with a view to practical application.

So I rate all analog recording methods below PCM categorically because of all of the above.  Now you'll disagree I know, but I think we've established each of our belief systems and how they differ.

I object to the posting of myth, fiction, or incorrect information in support of opinion, though, and feel an obligation to correct them.  Otherwise, if you don't like me constantly correcting your misconceptions, I encourage you to enjoy your private world of vinyl, cassette, and DSD, but don't expect too find converts here.


----------



## analogsurviver

dprimary said:


> First I want to see an acoustically generated square wave in a large hall. Then I want to see it captured with a stereo mic technique out in the hall. Then see the output of the recorded signal on 1/2" analog, direct to disk, PCM and DSD. I'll be impressed if anyone pulls off step one. If no one is willing to do the test I don't see the point of going around and around about square waves and ultrasonics.



This is a tough call. 

1.) Generating acoustic square wave should not be far away - if not already actually possible to do. Meyer https://meyersound.com/ have been claiming electrostatic speakers alike performance for their latest model, which by now should be on demo at the manufacturer and some other facilities. That one - or the next generation - could be actually capable of achieving the goal in a large hall. Say at least 20 -20K +- 2dB or better, high frequencies attenuated as appropriate by distance the sound has to travel in air. Using DSP,  this could and should be actually doable - if not already, in not too distant future.

2.) Please define stereo mic technique in the hall. AB, Blumlein, ORF , ORTF, Jecklin Disk, binaural, ... ? 

3.) Direct to disk is, if not impractical, then too expensive for location work. The whole system weighs approx half a ton - and this is not half a ton of potatoes, it has to be babied. 
There is (at least) one "have lathe-will travel" service in the USA - but I am in Europe. 
Small DIY cutterheads ( DJ style on the SL-1200 ) are not capable of recording the high frequencies correctly; after all, the true cutterheads work with peak input in excess of 400W/ch in order to cut the high frequency content with the required RIAA pre-emphasis (cymbals, percussion, muted brass & similar ) in real time, which is the only option in proposed case. Accordingly, for the best quality of the signal on the lacquer, they have to be cooled by gas. 

If we can exclude direct to disk because of financial reasons, I can contact Meyer and ask whether their last/best is already capable or near capable of the required performance - and we might proceed from there on.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> 1.) Generating acoustic square wave should not be far away - if not already actually possible to do. Meyer https://meyersound.com/ have been claiming electrostatic speakers alike performance for their latest model, which by now should be on demo at the manufacturer and some other facilities. That one - or the next generation - could be actually capable of achieving the goal in a large hall. Say at least 20 -20K +- 2dB or better, high frequencies attenuated as appropriate by distance the sound has to travel in air. Using DSP, this could and should be actually doable - if not already, in not too distant future.
> 2.) Please define stereo mic technique in the hall. AB, Blumlein, ORF , ORTF, Jecklin Disk, binaural, ... ?
> 3.) Direct to disk is, if not impractical, then too expensive for location work.
> [4] Small DIY cutterheads ( DJ style on the SL-1200 ) are not capable of recording the high frequencies correctly



1. How many large concert hall performances have you been to which consisted of nothing but a square wave being reproduced by the next generation of Meyer electrostatic speakers AND where the audience were all sitting just a few feet from those as yet unavailable speakers? Again, utter nonsense that doesn't exist which you've just made up, no surprise there then!!

2. Why, what's the stereo mic technique got to do with it? Let's say any stereo technique.

3. Not just impractical but pointless. 

4. Not just small DIY cutterheads but ALL cutterheads! And, recording what high freqs, the high freqs from the concert that has never happened with the speakers that don't yet exist?

G


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 1. How many large concert hall performances have you been to which consisted of nothing but a square wave being reproduced by the next generation of Meyer electrostatic speakers AND where the audience were all sitting just a few feet from those as yet unavailable speakers? Again, utter nonsense that doesn't exist which you've just made up, no surprise there then!!
> 
> 2. Why, what's the stereo mic technique got to do with it? Let's say any stereo technique.
> 
> ...



1.)  None.
 Please read - correctly - what I have written. Meyer has - according to their own words - been able to create with its latest model (s) ELECTROSTATIC ALIKE performance - nowhere did I write the speakers themselves operate on electrostatic principle.  Since these are dynamic speakers used for amplified concerts ("STAGE MONITOR"), the mere mentioning of "something efficient and loud enough to fill a large hall with the precision previously reserved only for electrostatics" ( not exact quote, my wording, but to that effect ) did raise my eybrows. Speakers exist and are on permanent demo display at the manufacturer's. They have announced (some four months ago, maybe more ) that additional permanent locations around the globe will be established "soon". I will contact them later today regarding all this, as I did like very much one of their older models, used for monitoring one of my choir recordings.

Would you please - at least try - to accept that a square wave is nothing but a test signal, from which lots of information about how accurately the signal is being recorded and then reproduced can be obtained ? I have been forced to learn how a 1 kHz square wave sounds - not something I would prefer listening to as music, probably never spent more than say half an hour listening to it - combined, over the span of more than 3 decades. It does have a quite good subjective corelation to the overall SQ, though - and that's why it is both useful and important.

2.) Lots. In effect, I have been asking how big would that hall be, how distant are side walls, ceiling, etc - in order to arrange the best possible direct signal capture, without the direct sound to be masked by too early reflections. Then, all kinds of misinterpretations are possible.

3. Impractical yes, pointless no. But the difference of the recording capabilities of 16/44 and cutting head/lathe can also be demonstrated by recording a fast enough source of square wave into both systems - and comparing the results.

4.) I have posted at least some info regarding the capabilities of analogue record mastering. 

Any speaker that can claim "electrostatic alike" ( or, to that effect ) performance, HAS - by default - good square wave response. For nitpickers : good APPROXIMATION TO the perfect square wave. In fact, QUAD actually uses null test for EVERY loudspeaker coming off the production line - against the reference speaker - as the final step in the QC.  In anechoic chamber, equidistant from the omnidirectional measuring mike, both reference and speaker just from the production line are precisely positioned. One of the speakers is fed with the absolute phase inverted; if the two speakers produce the same output, the output from the mike should be nil. And the signal of choice is - you've guessed it - square wave. That speaks volumes about both the quality and confidence of the manufacturer. 

Based on Meyer reputation, their new speakers can not possibly be bad. And they can not possibly claim "electrostatic alike" performance in a stage monitor without something backing it up -  they are a pro audio manufacturer, removed - from the audiophile only manufacturers likely to be poked at in this thread - as far as it gets. For the proposed goal of creating an actual acoustic square wave in a large hall, I can not - at the time - think of anything more suitable or better. And if that, already existing performance is still not good enough ( for whatever reason ), the next generation with any now remaining reservations removed SHOULD  be.

Satisfied with the extended answer ?  
I *guess* you would not mind a MUCH  improved SQ - as a direct consequence of the "troublemakers like me, always trying to push the envelope" - on the next amplified concert under your supervision .


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> *Air is a first-order filter* that absorbs high frequency energy.  For example, at 50kHz the loss is about .5dB/foot. If you are 10' away from a 50kHz source air will attenuate it by 5dB before it gets to your ears.


The bolded part is somewhat inaccurate expression. Air is a lowpass filter for each unit distance the sound propagades through it and the exact shape of the lowpass filter depends on temperature, humidity, pressure and the unit distance. The latter part of your post is correct except for the fact that these calculations are precise only in outdoor "free field" situations, not in diffuse soundfields experienced inside concert halls, althou I admit that in the case of ultrasonic frequencies the attenuation per foot is so large that we can do these calculations (the sound dies away before becoming that diffuse due to reflections and reverberation).


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> But the difference of the recording capabilities of 16/44 and cutting head/lathe can also be demonstrated by recording a fast enough source of square wave into both systems - and *comparing* the results.



Comparing how? Visually? Sonically? It is a well-known fact that bandlimited sampled versions of squarewave _look_ bad (because of how the look of a squarewave depends so much on the higher harmonics which gets filtered out in digital systems), especially when approaching the half of Nyquist frequency, but surprise surprise the bad looking squarewave will sound as it should, because we can't hear the ultrasonic harmonics missing. We can only SEE them missing when looking at the waveform. So, if you consume your music _looking_ at it, analog might be better in some aspects, but if you listen to it, 16/44.1 rules.


----------



## dprimary

pinnahertz said:


> Air is a first-order filter that absorbs high frequency energy.  For example, at 50kHz the loss is about .5dB/foot. If you are 10' away from a 50kHz source air will attenuate it by 5dB before it gets to your ears.  So, no square waves in a large hall even if there were a way to generate them in the first place.



Exactly and 10' would be considered close mic'ed. For a stereo recording in large hall my mic boom is taller then 10'


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 6, 2018)

gregorio said:


> It is an interesting article and it does address some of the issues discussed, but by "address" I don't mean "answer" or come to some valid conclusions/hypotheses, I just mean he's talking about the same area. There's a number of serious problems with his article, even starting from the very first sentence! "_Subconscious Auditory Effects (SAE) is a term I have cobbled together to encapsulate a broad range of phenomena in this barely-studied field of inquiry._" - This is completely incorrect, it's a highly-studied field of inquiry, it's been studied continuously for nearly a century by probably well over 100,000 people! While it is a barely-studied field of inquiry as far a science is concerned, he's addressing "audioworkers", who are the ones who've been doing all the study in the field! The biggest single problem with the article is that he constantly confuses his terms: Hear, perceive, discern and audible for example and then further confuses them by pairing them with conscious or subconscious. For example, it's not possible to train one's ears or one's hearing, it's only possible to train one's perception of what one is hearing.
> 
> This statement encapsulates the misconceptions in the article: "_yet we still bother to execute those small changes because* we believe that indiscernible changes in sound still impact listeners who can’t hear them*._" - This is absolutely NOT correct! We make those small changes precisely because we believe that listeners WILL hear them, although in most/all cases they may not be able to consciously discern them or even be consciously aware they are hearing them. We would NEVER bother to execute small changes if we believed listeners couldn't hear them, it would be a complete waste of our time and effort! Also, it is completely untrue that we audioworkers effectively rely on ABX. In practice our use of ABX is exceptionally rare and only in very specific circumstances. The vast majority of our daily work employs sighted A/B testing and occasionally blind A/B testing, where we're trying to find out if there's ANY audible difference (conscious, subconscious, discernible, indiscernable or whatever). ABX testing on the other hand tests discernibility, can we discern a difference between A and B well enough to match it to X. ABX testing is by far the best tool for investigating certain aspects of how we hear/perceive sound but not a good tool for other aspects, for example it is not the right testing tool for investigating hearing thresholds, for that we have other testing methodologies, double blind testing for instance.
> 
> G



I mostly agree with your critique. Though in his defense, there aren’t a lot of researchers (PhD kind) working in this area, and they also struggle with terminology, methodology, and reaching consensus on basic concepts (e.g., see https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2017/1/nix015/4107416). At the level of real research, the field is arguably in its infancy.  There isn't even agreement on use of the term subconscious, with the terms unconscious and non-conscious also being used for the same thing (I prefer subconscious).

I agree with the overall message of his article - that we shouldn’t dismiss subconscious effects and should be open to exploring them, rather than presuming that the only kind of perception which could matter is conscious perception.  I personally am interested in whatever could affect my experience of music.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 6, 2018)

71 dB said:


> Comparing how? Visually? Sonically? It is a well-known fact that bandlimited sampled versions of squarewave _look_ bad (because of how the look of a squarewave depends so much on the higher harmonics which gets filtered out in digital systems), especially when approaching the half of Nyquist frequency, but surprise surprise the bad looking squarewave will sound as it should, because we can't hear the ultrasonic harmonics missing. We can only SEE them missing when looking at the waveform. So, if you consume your music _looking_ at it, analog might be better in some aspects, but if you listen to it, 16/44.1 rules.



On the subject of looks:  It should be noted that, other than from square waves, or from synthesizer output, the sound of _life itself_, and not just music as performed or initially recorded, has spikes, and a 'jagged-edged' waveform.   Flat-topped waveforms simply do _not_ occur in nature, or in music for that matter.

Take a baseball or soft ball, and throw it straighter up into the air than you would normally, and observe the path the ball takes.  Last time I checked, it did not climb to a certain height, suddenly stop and move parallel to the ground below it, then after a few meters resume its parabolic descent back to Earth.   No, the ball ascribes a natural parabola, as do most musical tones, except maybe percussion, which creates spikes with sharply defined tips on top.

Very few of my original CD collection have tracks that produce flat-topped waves or truncated spikes on a DAW screen.  Mostly just the ones labeled "digitally remastered".

So no, the sound does NOT need the peaks sawed off in order to sound good on CD, which is what your comment above, about looking at analog, seemed to imply.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> That's silly.  Square waves can only be observed on an oscilloscope.  What else would you look at them with?  But you can't tell what an amplifier's response is with a square wave, only that it's changed.  Please show a photo of a square wave and define, _from the photo alone_, what the upper 3dB down point is.
> 
> I've also equalized things with square waves.  In my case it was telephone lines equalized flat to 20kHz.  However, I found adjusting for square wave response only got it sort of right, and if I wanted precision ( which I did) I needed to measure actual frequency response.  The same is true with your phono EQ testing.  A square wave gets to generally close, but you can't have precisions that way, and if that's how you're doing it, you wouldn't know that.
> 
> ...




First of all, I have to say that I really appreciate your answer. If anything, it proves you have done your homework. Be glad and thankful to live in a country that does allow for all these possibilities.

I know analogue cutting heads have problems above their specified frequency response limits. The catch is establishing exactly where and by how much, for each exact make/type/model, using exactly specified cutting stylus. 

No longer it can be said to be analogue anymore - but, analogue record mastering WITHOUT mechanical problems of traditional cutterheads and attendant stamper use etc problems is just around the corner :  https://hdvinyl.org/ https://consequenceofsound.net/2018...-real-thing-and-could-be-in-stores-next-year/
If nothing else, now it will be possible to produce better test records, with better ( approaching the ideal ) defined test signals - allowing to really test the better>best already existing phono cartridges.

I do no object or disagree of your ultimate intentions - with the exception of limited bandwidth of the PCM 16/44. 

For that, I categorically insist that any system (analog or digital ) with greater frequency range/bandwidth ( or one that does not absolutely must have brick filtering ) that is not totally flawed by any other conceivable imperfection, will sound more natural with most music to most listeners with live music listening background when played back on quality wideband system - 
than RBCD 16bit 44.1kHz PCM  ever will .


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> The bolded part is somewhat inaccurate expression. Air is a lowpass filter for each unit distance the sound propagades through it and the exact shape of the lowpass filter depends on temperature, humidity, pressure and the unit distance.


Temperature, humidity and pressure change the break point, not the slope of the curve.  I believe its close enough to first order, certainly not second.


71 dB said:


> The latter part of your post is correct except for the fact that these calculations are precise only in outdoor "free field" situations, not in diffuse soundfields experienced inside concert halls, althou I admit that in the case of ultrasonic frequencies the attenuation per foot is so large that we can do these calculations (the sound dies away before becoming that diffuse due to reflections and reverberation).


Nothing is reverberant at 50kHz, though.  Everything is an absorber.  You can assume basically free field anywhere.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jun 6, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> I categorically insist that any system (analog or digital ) with greater frequency range/bandwidth ( or one that does not absolutely must have brick filtering ) that is not totally flawed by any other conceivable imperfection, will sound more natural with most music to most listeners with live music listening background when played back on quality wideband system -
> than RBCD 16bit 44.1kHz PCM  ever will .


I know you insist on this, but I have been searching for definitive proof this is true for 20 years.  I've found people who swear it's true, but can't prove it.  I found people who swear it's not true, but can't prove it.  I've even found a few who don't think it's true but record wide-band anyway just to be safe. 

I still would like proof.

Just to add...there are many aspects of audio that are easily proven to be audible.  Things like the difference between mono and stereo, low-rate lossy compression and high-rate lossy compression, smooth response vs colored, to name a few.  These are easy, and repeatable comparisons with clear statistical fallout of a difference.  Then there are things in audio not easily shown to provide an audible difference, like power cords, demagnetizing CDs and records, audio bricks, green markers, etc. Look for real scientific data on how wide-band audio is audible, you wont' find it, other than a tiny handful of badly done, and widely discredited papers.


----------



## 71 dB

TheSonicTruth said:


> On the subject of looks:  It should be noted that, other than from square waves, or from synthesizer output, the sound of _life itself_, and not just music as performed or initially recorded, has spikes, and a 'jagged-edged' waveform.   Flat-topped waveforms simply do _not_ occur in nature, or in music for that matter.
> 
> Take a baseball or soft ball, and throw it straighter up into the air than you would normally, and observe the path the ball takes.  Last time I checked, it did not climb to a certain height, suddenly stop and move parallel to the ground below it, then after a few meters resume its parabolic descent back to Earth.   No, the ball ascribes a natural parabola, as do most musical tones, except maybe percussion, which creates spikes with sharply defined tips on top.
> 
> ...



I'm affraid you have interpreted my post in a wrong way. I'm not talking about "digital remastering" aka dynamic compression at all.


----------



## dprimary

analogsurviver said:


> This is a tough call.
> 
> 1.) Generating acoustic square wave should not be far away - if not already actually possible to do. Meyer https://meyersound.com/ have been claiming electrostatic speakers alike performance for their latest model, which by now should be on demo at the manufacturer and some other facilities. That one - or the next generation - could be actually capable of achieving the goal in a large hall. Say at least 20 -20K +- 2dB or better, high frequencies attenuated as appropriate by distance the sound has to travel in air. Using DSP,  this could and should be actually doable - if not already, in not too distant future.
> 
> ...




1. Getting any distance over 20k becomes challenging. In very large venues we battle physics to get 8 to 10k

2. Your choice.

3. Truck loads of heavy expensive audio equipment gets moved everyday. 


I'm headed to a conference till the week end.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

71 dB said:


> I'm affraid you have interpreted my post in a wrong way. I'm not talking about "digital remastering" aka dynamic compression at all.




Well, even it it wasn't your focus, such remastering seems to produce a lot of bloated, flat-top waveforms in my DAW, and an 'in-my-face' listening experience I rather disdain.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> I know you insist on this, but I have been searching for definitive proof this is true for 20 years.  I've found people who swear it's true, but can't prove it.  I found people who swear it's not true, but can't prove it.  I've even found a few who don't think it's true but record wide-band anyway just to be safe.
> 
> I still would like proof.
> 
> Just to add...there are many aspects of audio that are easily proven to be audible.  Things like the difference between mono and stereo, low-rate lossy compression and high-rate lossy compression, smooth response vs colored, to name a few.  These are easy, and repeatable comparisons with clear statistical fallout of a difference.  Then there are things in audio not easily shown to provide an audible difference, like power cords, demagnetizing CDs and records, audio bricks, green markers, etc. Look for real scientific data on how wide-band audio is audible, you wont' find it, other than a tiny handful of badly done, and widely discredited papers.



Yes, recordings of > 20kHz coming up. 

Well, I have never experienced analogue record demagnetizer(s - in case there is more than one available ). However, what I have read was that the ink that gives vinyl ( vinyl in natural state is transparent ) records their usually black colour actually contains iron(oxide) - and THAT does have the potential of getting magnetized. Most of the phono cartridges available today operate on magnetic induction principle ( MM, MI, MC, MF, etc - Msomething ) -and you would have been shocked just how good "magnetic particle vacuum cleaners" MC  cartridges really are. A peek trough a suitable magnification microscope of a used MC cartridge is nothing any analogue lover might appreciate ... - and magnetic particle debris ALWAYS found on supposedly plastic only records is among the primary reasons for many premature failures ( it , per good old Murphy, tends to get caught around where the magnetic field is at the strongest, that is to say around the moving coil - where it can quickly cause wire failure trough abrasion, etc ). One of the very recent innovations regarding this very REAL problem comes from Germany ; a MC cartridge with intentionally added "magnetic vacuum cleaner magnet(s)" - to pick up any magnetic debris before it can end up around the moving coil area of the cartridge and eventually lead to premature failure.

Making the test about the audibility of magnetized and demagnetized analogue records would of course be dependant on the type of the cartridge used. Optic, strain gauge, electrostatic and piezo cartridges would most likely be totally unaffected - but  POWERFUL magnet MC might well react by having its vertical tracking force reduced or increased during play ( relative close distance to magnetized "vinyl" record ) - similar to effects of static charge. I have no experience with this magnetic version to know anything about the magnitude of the problem, but static CAN and DOES play havoc with VTF - particularly noticeable with high compliance cartridges that track at 10 mN (around  1 gram ) , where statics can change VTF by > 50 %. Some of the latest generation MCs have magnets so powerful that is hard to believe - even for analogsurvivers ...

I did look for wide band audio papers - and I would not agree that they were all badly done. However, one can not but agree that  attempts at discrediting any such notion > 20 kHz is audible have been numerous.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, recordings of > 20kHz coming up.
> 
> Well, I have never experienced analogue record demagnetizer(s - in case there is more than one available ). However, what I have read was that the ink that gives vinyl ( vinyl in natural state is transparent ) records their usually black colour actually contains iron(oxide) - and THAT does have the potential of getting magnetized. Most of the phono cartridges available today operate on magnetic induction principle ( MM, MI, MC, MF, etc - Msomething ) -and you would have been shocked just how good "magnetic particle vacuum cleaners" MC  cartridges really are. A peek trough a suitable magnification microscope of a used MC cartridge is nothing any analogue lover might appreciate ... - and magnetic particle debris ALWAYS found on supposedly plastic only records is among the primary reasons for many premature failures ( it , per good old Murphy, tends to get caught around where the magnetic field is at the strongest, that is to say around the moving coil - where it can quickly cause wire failure trough abrasion, etc ). One of the very recent innovations regarding this very REAL problem comes from Germany ; a MC cartridge with intentionally added "magnetic vacuum cleaner magnet(s)" - to pick up any magnetic debris before it can end up around the moving coil area of the cartridge and eventually lead to premature failure.
> 
> Making the test about the audibility of magnetized and demagnetized analogue records would of course be dependant on the type of the cartridge used. Optic, strain gauge, electrostatic and piezo cartridges would most likely be totally unaffected - but  POWERFUL magnet MC might well react by having its vertical tracking force reduced or increased during play ( relative close distance to magnetized "vinyl" record ) - similar to effects of static charge. I have no experience with this magnetic version to know anything about the magnitude of the problem, but static CAN and DOES play havoc with VTF - particularly noticeable with high compliance cartridges that track at 10 mN (around  1 gram ) , where statics can change VTF by > 50 %. Some of the latest generation MCs have magnets so powerful that is hard to believe - even for analogsurvivers ...


You missed the point entirely and have functioned as a noise generator.  


analogsurviver said:


> I did look for wide band audio papers - and I would not agree that they were all badly done. However, one can not but agree that  attempts at discrediting any such notion > 20 kHz is audible have been numerous.


You have to look deeper.  The papers get published, the informal peer-reviews don't.  Yes, they've all been discredited. All we're left with is personal opinion.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Well, even it it wasn't your focus, such remastering seems to produce a lot of bloated, flat-top waveforms in my DAW, and an 'in-my-face' listening experience I rather disdain.



Let's leave the sad  end results ( flat tops - the best aproximations of perfect square wave in digital, obtained by heavilly clipping the signal ) of the loudness war out of it - shall we ?

I want the comparison of analog and digital to remain fair - I have never criticized the digital format for the misdeeds it does allow for during mastering. Digital can also be used to good effect.

But it is sad that soooo many do not realize that they may never be able to hear the true voice of say Adele - few CDs I did try to listen to have been sooo clipped to the square wave that I have permanently lost any interest in the artist. If she listened to those CDs and cared about how they sound, she would have never appoved their release. For me, case closed.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> Temperature, humidity and pressure change the break point, not the slope of the curve.  I believe its close enough to first order, certainly not second.



How does the air know how far we are listening to the sound to set the correct break point? Lets look at the figures:
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm

*+20°C
50 % RH*

2000 Hz gives 1 dB/100 m
4000 Hz gives 3 dB/100 m ("break point")
8000 Hz gives 10,5 dB/100 m

Now, for 300 m these figures become

2000 Hz gives 3 dB/300 m ("break point")
4000 Hz gives 9 dB/300 m
8000 Hz gives 31,5 dB/300 m

These become

2000 Hz gives 0,29 dB/28,6 m
4000 Hz gives 0,86 dB/28,6 m
8000 Hz gives 3 dB/28,6 m ("break point")

The slope is close to first order filter around breaking point, but not elsewhere. At higher frequencies the attenuation "explodes" beyond what first order filter would predict which is a result of "cascaded" filters. 



pinnahertz said:


> Nothing is reverberant at 50kHz, though.  Everything is an absorber.  You can assume basically free field anywhere.


Yeah, That's what I wrote.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> 1.)  None.
> Please read - correctly - what I have written. Meyer has - according to their own words - been able to create with its latest model (s) ELECTROSTATIC ALIKE performance - nowhere did I write the speakers themselves operate on electrostatic principle.  Since these are dynamic speakers used for amplified concerts ("STAGE MONITOR"), the mere mentioning of "something efficient and loud enough to fill a large hall with the precision previously reserved only for electrostatics" ( not exact quote, my wording, but to that effect ) did raise my eybrows.


I'm guessing you're referring to the Blue Horn series?  There's no published data....


analogsurviver said:


> Would you please - at least try - to accept that a square wave is nothing but a test signal, from which lots of information about how accurately the signal is being recorded and then reproduced can be obtained ? I have been forced to learn how a 1 kHz square wave sounds - not something I would prefer listening to as music, probably never spent more than say half an hour listening to it - combined, over the span of more than 3 decades. It does have a quite good subjective corelation to the overall SQ, though - and that's why it is both useful and important.


Everyone is so polarized on this.  Look, a square wave, by definition, has zero rise time, which means its' spectrum goes out to infinity.  We can't even generate that, but if we work within the audio spectrum a square wave that exceeds the audio band by several decades can be produced electrically.  However, no acoustic transducer can reproduce it without distortion.  So the question is, how much is it distorted?  And here's where we get into problems.  There's no way to quantify how much a square wave is distorted!  There are so many kinds of square wave distortions that become highly visible.  Some are simple, like rounded corners or tilt, some are complex, like those caused by phase anomalies. Mostly, theres a little of all kinds all mixed together to present a unique, almost fingerprint like square wave coming out of a transducer.  But the only way to look at it is through a second transducer which adds another layer of distortion.  There are qualities we'd like to see, like flat tops and bottoms and little overshoot and ringing, but we never get there because every transducer distorts the picture.  There's no means to visually quantify the distortion in terms of audibility until there are extremes, like a lot of tilt or a lot of rounding, but then we can't actually say anything about how much.  It's all subjective.  Subjective means: something depending upon human interpretation.  That means two humans might interpret the result differently.  Objective results are those measured and quantified by some uniform means.  An FFT-based response sweep will do that, is repeatable, and verifiable, not subject to human interpretation. 

What we can say is that no analog recording system or transducer can reproduce a perfect square wave.  So how good is good enough?  It becomes subjective, and that leads us all into these ridiculous circular arguments.


analogsurviver said:


> 3.  But the difference of the recording capabilities of 16/44 and cutting head/lathe can also be demonstrated by recording a fast enough source of square wave into both systems - and comparing the results.


Visual differences disturb some, but not others, and do not reliably reflect audibility because they are subjective.  Looking at it another way, you can show flatter response at all levels with 16/44 than any analog system.  Does that mean it should sound better? You can show lower distortion at all levels with PCM, lower noise, lower time-base problems, higher separation...all things every audio system strives for.  Put it all together and PCM should sound better, and does, subjectively, to most people.  And not to others.  "Subjective" is the problem, sighted testing is the influence along with strong personal bias.

One anecdote then it's off the the salt mines.  In the late 1980s I hosted a tour of our studios for a then-large high-end audio society.  Several in the group were rather rudely vocal about their opposition to digital audio, citing all the usual objections.  Part of the tour was a demo of some recordings, including some of our live orchestra concert recordings.  I played a demo tape, the group loved it (it was on tape).  I played a CD, the group hated it (it was on CD).  Then I played a few more CDs, got pretty much negative response from one very vocal listener.  Then I loaded up a recording and didn't tell him what it was, other than what orchestra it was.  He went nuts and loved it!  He said something like, "Now THAT's what I'm talking about!  That's the glorious analog sound I love!  Smooth, no stair-steps, no phase errors, just pure analog!"  I let him listen for a few minutes, not wanting to take away his moment.  Then I showed him what the recording was: recorded and played on a Sony PCM-F1 digital recorder, possibly one of the most rudimentary PCM devices.  It had never been analog past the mix. 

There's no point in obsessing about digital/analog/bandwidth/square waves.  Everything of importance has happened long before the storage method.  That's where the art is, that's where the skill is, and that's where differences can be made.  And, to that point, the largest number of satisfying recordings made in the last 30 years are available on CD.  I would suggest less time and energy be spend on the recording medium, and more be spend on enjoying the result.  And forget this square-wave nonsense. 

Gotta go, be good, don't kill each other.


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> But it is sad that soooo many do not realize that they may never be able to hear the true voice of say Adele - few CDs I did try to listen to have been sooo clipped to the square wave that I have permanently lost any interest in the artist. If she listened to those CDs and cared about how they sound, she would have never appoved their release. For me, case closed.


Personally I never got interested of the said artist, because everything I have heard from her is _musically_ boring as hell to me. Dynamic CD releases couldn't save much for me in her case.

That's why she is popular. She can sing and her music confuses nobody because it's so banal. That's why people like me find her boring.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> 1.) None.
> [2] Would you please - at least try - to accept that a square wave is nothing but a test signal,



1. Good that covers your absolute utter nonsense about recording square waves then. Hurah!

2. I've known and accepted that for decades, YOU are the one with the problem who is incapable of accepting YOUR OWN statement! The issue is the consumer format for the best reproduction of actual audio; actual sound/music which can actually be heard, NOT the best format for reproducing signals which do not exist, cannot be heard and are used solely for testing! If you're only interested in the latter, then fine but you're still contradicting yourself and talking nonsense because consumer analogue formats are certainly NOT the best formats even for just test signals!!

If you stopped being so obsessed with test signals which are inaudible and/or don't exist and instead concentrated on audio which does exist and can be heard then maybe you'd start making recordings which don't sound so amateurish!!!



analogsurviver said:


> For the proposed goal of creating an actual acoustic square wave in a large hall ...



What proposed goal, who wants a performance of just a square wave being reproduced by a speaker in a concert hall?



analogsurviver said:


> I categorically insist that any system (analog or digital ) with greater frequency range/bandwidth ( or one that does not absolutely must have brick filtering ) that is not totally flawed by any other conceivable imperfection, will sound more natural with most music to most listeners with live music listening background when played back on quality wideband system



You categorically ignore: What can be heard, what even exists, what is desirable and other factors such as IMD. So of course you categorically insist what you do, because you are categorically ignorant and delusional!!

G


----------



## 71 dB

TheSonicTruth said:


> Well, even it it wasn't your focus, such remastering seems to produce a lot of bloated, flat-top waveforms in my DAW, and an 'in-my-face' listening experience I rather disdain.



I am a wrong person to vent your frustrations. I'm not working in the business. I didn't invent loudness war nor do I support it. I listen to music genres that are not victims of this such as classical music. Some of the music I listen to having small dynamic range such as modern pop uses the little dynamic range skillfully and is an integral part of the sound design so it doesn't matter for me.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> I agree with the overall message of his article - that we shouldn’t dismiss subconscious effects and should be open to exploring them



Dismiss subconscious effects, who dismisses them? Show me a music/sound engineer who dismisses subconscious effects and I'll show you a complete newb/amateur! We spend a very large part of our time exploring and implementing subconscious effects, we have done for nearly a century and almost no commercial audio products do not deliberately include them! What we do dismiss is anything which is inaudible and therefore cannot be heard.

G


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> I know you insist on this, but I have been searching for definitive proof this is true for 20 years.  I've found people who swear it's true, but can't prove it.  I found people who swear it's not true, but can't prove it.  I've even found a few who don't think it's true but record wide-band anyway just to be safe



How do I prove that I don't mind my music without ultrasonics? It's like trying to prove you don't mind eating French fries without salt. Those who claim ultrasonics matter should demonstrate it in blind tests just as one could prove he/she can tell salted and unsalted French fries apart in a blind test.


----------



## KeithEmo

Indeed.... but you are also confusing "sloppy" with "limited"....

Various test equipment has different strengths and limitations.
Many of the early sine-wave generators could generate a very low distortion sine wave using some form of oscillator - but stabilizing the level on most types of oscillators is rather tricky.
Then, when solid state arrived, low cost signal generators that could generate a variety of waveforms, at a very stable level, became common (they were usually referred to as "function generators" - and there were several single-chip models).
However, the catch there was that most of those early "function generators" actually started with a triangle wave, and "synthesized" the sine wave output from the tri-wave (using some sort of "wave shaping circuit").
As a result, the THD on the sine waves put out by those early models was usually somewhere around 1% (adequate for frequency response measurements, but not at all good enough for THD measurements).
Therefore, for quite a while, most test labs would have both a clean sine wave generator, or an actual THD tester, for THD testing, and a more flexible function generator, which made excellent square waves, but not very good sine waves.
Both had serious limitations... but both performed very well within those limitations.

Likewise, before modern digital versions that include measurement capabilities, oscilloscopes were originally VISUAL test instruments.
Certain sorts of distortion are very easy to see on a screen - others are not.
For example, very slight clipping is easily visible, but the original accepted limitation was that "only THD over about 5% is likely to be clearly visible on a 'scope' screen".
This limitation is a combination of the thickness of the trace and the simple fact that you cannot visually recognize a slight variation from what the shape of the wave should look like.
(That's why, if you wanted to measure THD, you did NOT use an oscilloscope... you used the oscilloscope to look for gross distortion - like clipping.)

In those days, most amplifiers had a "hill shaped frequency response" - and what most people were concerned with was the -3 dB points on the slopes of the hill.
The slight variations along the top of the hill weren't considered to be important.
In most situations, people didn't bother with a full spectrum plot... they just "looked for the -3 dB points" and noted them. 

And, as a few people have noted, for that sort of testing, square waves are useful.
And, yes, you would often see published amplifier review tests where square waves were shown....
And, in those days, people would note "the square waves are a bit rounded, so the high frequency response isn't especially good" or "the square waves are slanted on top so the low frequency response is limited".
The point is that they were not _measuring_ frequency response..... 
They were treating it more as a qualitative test.
You knew what a 100 Hz square wave looked like on a piece of equipment that was flat to 20 Hz... so, if you saw one that was more slanted on top, you knew that the equipment you were looking at was NOT flat to 20 Hz...
Likewise, you knew how sharp a 1 kHz square wave normally looked on an amplifier that was flat to 20 kHz... so, if you saw a square wave that was significantly more rounded, you knew that the equipment you were looking at was NOT flat to 20 kHz.
And, if your amplifier produced a flat top on a 100 Hz square wave, and sharp corners on a 1 kHz square wave, it was deemed "pretty flat".
(In those days, most repair shops would have the THD meter, but hobbyists would usually make do with a low-cost oscilloscope.)

Likewise, if you look at the actual adjustments on oscilloscope probes....
On most you will find an adjustment to null out the capacitance of the cable.
It is a little screw you turn on a trimmer capacitor.
And you actually DO adjust it by turning it until a square wave on the screen looks "sharp and square but with minimal ringing".
And, yes, it is a VERY precise adjustment.
Based on the other constraints of the system, the frequency response of the probe WILL be flattest, up to its maximum rated frequency, when the specified square wave looks as specified.
You will find that exact same set of calibration instructions on a wide variety of test equipment... all using the shape of a square wave to determine when the adjustment is correct.

Remember that, in those days, an oscilloscope was a VISUAL tool... so it makes perfect sense to adjust it such that it produces an accurate PICTURE of a known test signal.
At one time, I have a very expensive MIL-SPEC oscilloscope... and it actually had a test point on the front panel that delivered a calibrated square wave, of precise frequency and "squareness", specifically for calibrating probes and other equipment.



pinnahertz said:


> Theres always been careless and sloppy tech work. The HP 600 series had an output meter you could use to verify level. The later HP 200 series was amplitude stabilized, even Heathkit oscillators I had in the early 1970s were stable and flat at any frequency. The earlier tube stuff had a meter.
> 
> I charted response by writing down the readings.  I looked for the 3dB corners and any other anomalies. Then I used a Tek 5L4n swept spectrum analyzer with tracking generator. Then I got the UREI response plotter. At no time would I or the companies I worked for be satisfied with the quick and dirty square wave test.
> 
> Like I said, there’s always been sloppy tech work.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> I'm guessing you're referring to the Blue Horn series?  There's no published data....
> Everyone is so polarized on this.  Look, a square wave, by definition, has zero rise time, which means its' spectrum goes out to infinity.  We can't even generate that, but if we work within the audio spectrum a square wave that exceeds the audio band by several decades can be produced electrically.  However, no acoustic transducer can reproduce it without distortion.  So the question is, how much is it distorted?  And here's where we get into problems.  There's no way to quantify how much a square wave is distorted!  There are so many kinds of square wave distortions that become highly visible.  Some are simple, like rounded corners or tilt, some are complex, like those caused by phase anomalies. Mostly, theres a little of all kinds all mixed together to present a unique, almost fingerprint like square wave coming out of a transducer.  But the only way to look at it is through a second transducer which adds another layer of distortion.  There are qualities we'd like to see, like flat tops and bottoms and little overshoot and ringing, but we never get there because every transducer distorts the picture.  There's no means to visually quantify the distortion in terms of audibility until there are extremes, like a lot of tilt or a lot of rounding, but then we can't actually say anything about how much.  It's all subjective.  Subjective means: something depending upon human interpretation.  That means two humans might interpret the result differently.  Objective results are those measured and quantified by some uniform means.  An FFT-based response sweep will do that, is repeatable, and verifiable, not subject to human interpretation.
> 
> What we can say is that no analog recording system or transducer can reproduce a perfect square wave.  So how good is good enough?  It becomes subjective, and that leads us all into these ridiculous circular arguments.
> ...



Just to reply to the speaker question. I have been searching the internet like crazy past two weeks or so - and the result being to question myself why did I not grow some 20 or so kidneys, to be able to sell off those surplus ... to get "some" gear.

a) I did find that  Audio Precision did put 100 kHz mics to the market - Sanken no longer being the sole provider of 100 kHz mics.
https://www.ap.com/analyzers-accessories/accessories/measurement-mics/

b) some 20 minutes ago I did manage to dig out some concrete data regarding Meyer Sound BlueHorn : https://westlakepro.com/product/meyer-sound-bluehorn-system/

c .)

to 

žnj. )  ( well, make that growing > 40 kidneys to sell...)
( ž is the very last letter in slovenian alphabet, following the z; žnj is colloquially used to describe something that goes even beyond that )

Now, I have to find your post with the square wave of an analog recorder - to see what did you manage to come up with. Then, I will take my video recorder out of storage and record 
5/10/20/40/100/200/400/1k/2k/4k/6k/8k/10k square and triangle waves . As both channels @ 0dB, only one channel driven ( for crosstalk ) , without and with High Com II. 
As photos from oscilloscope screen, as well as 192/24 PCM recording of the output.

And, prior to that, photos for both low and high frequency -3dB point on an oscilloscope using square wave as a signal.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 6, 2018)

Inaudible frequencies and subconscious sound are the least important things to consider in a home audio system. There should be enough to deal with whipping the audible sound into shape. Worrying about things you can’t hear just cheats attention away from the things you can. It’s like people who say that the last 2% of sound quality is the most important to them... Then you ask them if they use EQ or have a good speaker system and you discover that they haven’t even reached the midway mark on sound quality. There’s no point worrying about the period on the end if you haven’t even begun writing the sentence yet.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> Indeed.... but you are also confusing "sloppy" with "limited"....
> 
> Various test equipment has different strengths and limitations.
> Many of the early sine-wave generators could generate a very low distortion sine wave using some form of oscillator - but stabilizing the level on most types of oscillators is rather tricky.
> ...



Bull's eye ... thank you for saving me writing something along above lines. 

You have only missed out on describing how -3dB points, both low and high limits, can be pretty accurately measured using only signal generator and an oscilloscope ( for precise frequency, that should be augumented by frequency counter ). I will post pics from the actual scope display along with the explanation.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would like to suggest a VERY comprehensive but very simple test to confirm both the audibility of the difference between 16/44k digital audio and high-res audio AND THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF BIAS.
There are really two separate phases - and they can be arranged in various ways.

The first phase, which determines "conscious audibility" of differences would be simple.
Present a group of people with a random assortment of 16/44k and 24/96k files, ask them to state which ones they believe are high-resolution, and correlate their results with what the files really are.

The second phase will determine TWO things:
It will determine if the results are different when the subjects know whether the file is 16/44 or 24/96 to begin with (perhaps they really do listen more carefully to the 24/96 file and benefit from doing so).
It will ALSO determine, if there is a bias, how it actually affects the result.

In this phase, a group of people will again be presented with a group of files, BUT THE FILES WILL BE LABELLED AS BEING 16/44k or 24/96k.
HOWEVER, THE LABELS THEMSELVES WILL BE RANDOMIZED.

So, out of a group of 100 files:
- 25 will be 16/44k files LABELLED as 16/44k
- 25 will be 16/44k files LABELLED as 24/96k
- 25 will be 24/96k files LABELLED as 24/96k
- 25 will be 24/96k files LABELLED as 16/44k

This will produce data that can be analyzed in a number of ways - to determine a number of things.
For example, we may find no preference at all....
Or we may find that people really do prefer the 24/96k FILES - regardless of how they're labelled...
Or we may find that people prefer the files LABELLED 24/96k - which would suggest a bias based on the supposed "sighted information".
Or we may find that people prefer the 24/96k files - but only if they're labelled as 24/96k (which might suggest that people do in fact notice a difference - but only if "primed" to listen for it by the label).
   (That would be suggested if there is a statistically significant preference for the 24/96k files among the files labelled as 24/96k - but no significant preference among the files labelled 16/44k.)

It would also be interesting to run the test on different groups: audiophiles, professional musicians, and "disinterested victims".
(Where I used to live, there was a test facility at our local mall - they would bribe large groups of people, usually with free movie tickets, to participate in quick tests - testing the response to everything from movie trailers to soft drinks.) 



71 dB said:


> How do I prove that I don't mind my music without ultrasonics? It's like trying to prove you don't mind eating French fries without salt. Those who claim ultrasonics matter should demonstrate it in blind tests just as one could prove he/she can tell salted and unsalted French fries apart in a blind test.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Inaudible frequencies and subconscious sound are the least important things to consider in a home audio system. There should be enough to deal with whipping the audible sound into shape. Worrying about things you can’t hear just cheats attention away from the things you can. It’s like people who say that the last 2% of sound quality is the most important to them... Then you ask them if they use EQ or have a good speaker system and you discover that they haven’t even reached the midway mark on sound quality. There’s no point worrying about the period on the end if you haven’t even begun writing the sentence yet.



Both yes and no - wait why subsonics are important.

I agree regarding speakers - room treatment (first !!!), EQing (second ).  One can EQ till hell freezes over - to no avail, if there are gross room resonances.

However, my primary reference is Stax Lambda Pro / SRM1MK2 amplifier / ED-1 Diffuse Field Equalizer. A well known and documented reference headphone system


----------



## RRod

dprimary said:


> Exactly and 10' would be considered close mic'ed. For a stereo recording in large hall my mic boom is taller then 10'



It's always this kind of thing. 'Oh peak levels can reach 140dB!'... if I'm literally putting my ear a 1/2" above the drum head while the timpanist uses wooden sticks and is shouting at me at the same time. Same with all the high frequency cherry picking. "Hey if you put a microphone right in the middle of a gamelan ensemble, you can get neurons to fire in a dead salmon."


----------



## KeithEmo

If all you're claiming is that it doesn't matter to _YOU_, and you're not making claims for anyone else, then your word is plenty. 



71 dB said:


> How do I prove that I don't mind my music without ultrasonics? It's like trying to prove you don't mind eating French fries without salt. Those who claim ultrasonics matter should demonstrate it in blind tests just as one could prove he/she can tell salted and unsalted French fries apart in a blind test.


----------



## KeithEmo

Static is a real issue with vinyl.

Vinyl itself is not ferromagnetic.
However, while there are "magnetic paints" that act very much like solid metal, the amount of magnetic material in normal ink is tiny.
Therefore, assuming the ink were to become scraped from the label, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the magnetic in the cartridge could attract it.
However, the idea that the attraction between the magnets in the cartridge and the ink on the label could produce audible effects seems pretty far fetched.
(You're talking about magnetic attraction that would be FAR less, for example, than between the cartridge and the steel nails in your floor.)

For comparison, ordinary US currency is printed using magnetic ink.....
(Yet it takes a pretty impressive, and quite large, magnet to pick or even move a $20 bill.)



analogsurviver said:


> Yes, recordings of > 20kHz coming up.
> 
> Well, I have never experienced analogue record demagnetizer(s - in case there is more than one available ). However, what I have read was that the ink that gives vinyl ( vinyl in natural state is transparent ) records their usually black colour actually contains iron(oxide) - and THAT does have the potential of getting magnetized. Most of the phono cartridges available today operate on magnetic induction principle ( MM, MI, MC, MF, etc - Msomething ) -and you would have been shocked just how good "magnetic particle vacuum cleaners" MC  cartridges really are. A peek trough a suitable magnification microscope of a used MC cartridge is nothing any analogue lover might appreciate ... - and magnetic particle debris ALWAYS found on supposedly plastic only records is among the primary reasons for many premature failures ( it , per good old Murphy, tends to get caught around where the magnetic field is at the strongest, that is to say around the moving coil - where it can quickly cause wire failure trough abrasion, etc ). One of the very recent innovations regarding this very REAL problem comes from Germany ; a MC cartridge with intentionally added "magnetic vacuum cleaner magnet(s)" - to pick up any magnetic debris before it can end up around the moving coil area of the cartridge and eventually lead to premature failure.
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

RRod said:


> It's always this kind of thing. 'Oh peak levels can reach 140dB!'... if I'm literally putting my ear a 1/2" above the drum head while the timpanist uses wooden sticks and is shouting at me at the same time. Same with all the high frequency cherry picking. "Hey if you put a microphone right in the middle of a gamelan ensemble, you can get neurons to fire in a dead salmon."



Thanks for the reminder - will add binaural recording of gamelan among the samples ... ; 
otherwise, nothing I record could be described/classified as close miking, but in that gamelan recording I did come as close to the instrument as the musician playing it. 
Say 70 cm or so - but only for about 30 seconds in a > 2 hour concert. I will have to go trough entire recording to find that exact spot - but, eventually, will post it.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> Static is a real issue with vinyl.
> 
> Vinyl itself is not ferromagnetic.
> However, while there are "magnetic paints" that act very much like solid metal, the amount of magnetic material in normal ink is tiny.
> ...



Static is , of course, much bigger problem, known for decades.

I know ... still, it is plausible. Bearing in mind that stylus can easily resolve below -80 dB  signals, any magnetic interference might be enough to be, under extreme conditions, actually audible. Unfortunately, do not know anybody who has record demagnetizer to actually try this in person. 

Now... how "powerful" magnet is required to pull a wallet full of $20 ( or preferably bigger ) banknotes from one's pocket  ? 
(  And the reward for the world's most inefficient pickpocket of the year goes to... )


----------



## bigshot (Jun 6, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Both yes and no - wait why subsonics are important. I agree regarding speakers - room treatment (first !!!), EQing (second ).  One can EQ till hell freezes over - to no avail, if there are gross room resonances. However, my primary reference is Stax Lambda Pro / SRM1MK2 amplifier / ED-1 Diffuse Field Equalizer. A well known and documented reference headphone system



I don't know what you are referring to with subsonics. But frequencies below 20Hz are almost as irrelevant to music reproduction as those above 20khz.

I've seen people put home theaters in basements with concrete walls and floors and struggle to even get decent sound with room treatment. Some rooms just aren't suited to the purpose.

The best headphone system in the world doesn't even match a halfway decent speaker system. Music isn't meant to be shoved in your ears. It's meant to fill a room.


----------



## KeithEmo

You've brought up an important point.... 

The visual appearance of a waveform on a time vs amplitude plot (an oscilloscope screen) often doesn't correlate well at all with what's audible.
A sine wave "that looks fine" could have up to 5% of clearly audible THD....
While a complex waveform that is so altered that it is barely recognizable may sound audibly the same.

Other ways of visualizing the same data, like spectrum plots, and frequency response sweeps, and phase plots, often correlate far better with what we hear than "waveform shape".

I would, however, re-phrase something you said.
It is untrue that "there's no way to quantify how much a square wave is distorted".
Quite the contrary.... there are MANY ways to quantify how a square wave may be distorted.
The tricky part is figuring out which ones correlate with what we hear - and to what degree.

A standard FFT-based response sweep will give you a very accurate picture of the relative amplitudes of all the harmonics.
But it does _NOT_ describe the phase relationships between the various harmonics at all.

On that note, many people seem to have what I might call "a one-way way of looking at things".
For example, a high quality 50 Hz square wave will be composed of a very specific set of harmonics, each at a particular amplitude (and so will look a specific way on a spectrum plot).
HOWEVER, looking in the other direction, those same harmonics, at the exact same proportions, can be combined to produce an infinite number of different waveforms.
(Because you can vary the waveform by adjusting the phase relationship between the different harmonics - which is something the spectrum plot doesn't show.)
So, all perfect 50 Hz square waves will have the same spectrum plot; but that same spectrum plot may or may not be the result of a 50 Hz square wave.



pinnahertz said:


> I'm guessing you're referring to the Blue Horn series?  There's no published data....
> Everyone is so polarized on this.  Look, a square wave, by definition, has zero rise time, which means its' spectrum goes out to infinity.  We can't even generate that, but if we work within the audio spectrum a square wave that exceeds the audio band by several decades can be produced electrically.  However, no acoustic transducer can reproduce it without distortion.  So the question is, how much is it distorted?  And here's where we get into problems.  There's no way to quantify how much a square wave is distorted!  There are so many kinds of square wave distortions that become highly visible.  Some are simple, like rounded corners or tilt, some are complex, like those caused by phase anomalies. Mostly, theres a little of all kinds all mixed together to present a unique, almost fingerprint like square wave coming out of a transducer.  But the only way to look at it is through a second transducer which adds another layer of distortion.  There are qualities we'd like to see, like flat tops and bottoms and little overshoot and ringing, but we never get there because every transducer distorts the picture.  There's no means to visually quantify the distortion in terms of audibility until there are extremes, like a lot of tilt or a lot of rounding, but then we can't actually say anything about how much.  It's all subjective.  Subjective means: something depending upon human interpretation.  That means two humans might interpret the result differently.  Objective results are those measured and quantified by some uniform means.  An FFT-based response sweep will do that, is repeatable, and verifiable, not subject to human interpretation.
> 
> What we can say is that no analog recording system or transducer can reproduce a perfect square wave.  So how good is good enough?  It becomes subjective, and that leads us all into these ridiculous circular arguments.
> ...


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> The visual appearance of a waveform on a time vs amplitude plot (an oscilloscope screen) often doesn't correlate well at all with what's audible



To be honest, when people talk about judging sound quality by looking at waveforms, it makes me wonder if they know what they're talking about. I've never been able to tell anything but the most general and technical things from looking at a waveform. Also, there is a huge problem with scale. Looking at the waveform of a song where the entire song fits on the screen looks nothing like looking at the same song up close. Wave forms are handy, but some things can't be reduced to a simple graphical image,


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 6, 2018)

bigshot said:


> *Inaudible frequencies and subconscious sound are the least important things to consider in a home audio system.* There should be enough to deal with whipping the audible sound into shape. Worrying about things you can’t hear just cheats attention away from the things you can. It’s like people who say that the last 2% of sound quality is the most important to them... Then you ask them if they use EQ or have a good speaker system and you discover that they haven’t even reached the midway mark on sound quality. There’s no point worrying about the period on the end if you haven’t even begun writing the sentence yet.



It may or may not be true that subconscious effects are the least important effects to consider.  Without more science, we really don't know, and I keep an open mind on this.

Whether taking a subjective or objective approach to getting 'fidelity', the fact remains that there's a lot of variability in recording characteristics, transducers, perception, and preferences (even for the same person, at different times), so I don't see much value in continuing to try to seek fidelity past the 'good enough' point if the goal is the enjoy music, and these days it's not difficult or overly costly to get good enough sound.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> It may or may not be true that subconscious effects are the least important effects to consider.  Without more science, we really don't know, and I keep an open mind on this.
> 
> Whether taking a subjective or objective approach to getting 'fidelity', the fact remains that there's a lot of variability in recording characteristics, transducers, perception, and preferences (even for the same person, at different times), so I don't see much value in continuing to try to seek fidelity past the 'good enough' point if the goal is the enjoy music, and these days it's not difficult or overly costly to get good enough sound.



Again, the subconscious part of someone's mind is varying and impossible to be included as part of any chase with regards to fidelity.   The audio from a performance is captured with recording equipment and then playback equipment is used to reproduce that audio.  A faithful reproduction is what is important.  How anyone reacts subconsciously should not matter.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 6, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> It may or may not be true that subconscious effects are the least important effects to consider.  Without more science, we really don't know, and I keep an open mind on this. Whether taking a subjective or objective approach to getting 'fidelity', the fact remains that there's a lot of variability in recording characteristics, transducers, perception, and preferences (even for the same person, at different times), so I don't see much value in continuing to try to seek fidelity past the 'good enough' point if the goal is the enjoy music, and these days it's not difficult or overly costly to get good enough sound.



There have been many studies on the thresholds of human perception over the past century and a half. It's an area that is very well understood. You and I flat out can't hear super audible frequencies, and there's no indication that there is any subconscious perception of inaudible sound in music that affects perceived sound quality. You can feel free to keep an open mind about it, but the way we hear music is pretty well understood. It's not unreasonable to have an objective definition of what high fidelity reproduction of recorded music is. That's what we are all talking about here in Sound Science. We aren't discussing how music makes us feel or whether we might have subconscious urges that make us do things. That's irrelevant to what we do here. We are objectively using science to make our home audio systems sound better.

Now when it comes to "good enough"... now you're treading into the area that is 100% subjective. What was good enough sound quality for my mom isn't good enough for me. I see people around here every day compromising sound quality for convenience. I wouldn't want to make some of those compromises myself. But that's fine for them. They can define their own idea of "good enough".

I think it's better to keep an open mind about what "good enough" is than it is to keep an open mind about what we can and cannot hear.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> It may or may not be true that subconscious effects are the least important effects to consider.  Without more science, we really don't know, and I keep an open mind on this.
> 
> Whether taking a subjective or objective approach to getting 'fidelity', the fact remains that there's a lot of variability in recording characteristics, transducers, perception, and preferences (even for the same person, at different times), so I don't see much value in continuing to try to seek fidelity past the 'good enough' point if the goal is the enjoy music, and these days it's not difficult or overly costly to get good enough sound.


 music globally has a subconscious impact, it's something fairly easy to believe. but then so does eating a burrito, having shoes of a certain color, starting to kiss someone on the left or right cheek... we do all those things without trembling in fear at the possibility that something might have a significant impact(well maybe someone does, but what a crappy life he must have). we're mostly fine with stuff of more or less massive amplitudes concerning smell, hearing, vision, touch... affecting us all day long without us necessarily trying to stop of modify those stimuli. so it seems at the very least counter intuitive to suddenly become concerned when it's about sound that didn't trigger a response in blind tests. we're talking below Just Noticeable Difference, or inaudible frequencies. in short, small stimulation or lack of stimulation.not very scary.
unless we go for the homeopathic version of audio improvement where infinitesimal stuff are allegedly supposed to be the answer to big issues, there is little evidence or reason to assume that what we fail to notice consciously will trigger anything important at any level. including subconscious.it could probably happen for specific signals, maybe over a very long period of time so that the energy ends up meaning something, but we're far from a situation where it seems legitimate to worry about any and all little changes measured but not perceived in a blind test. 


about the relation between fidelity and music enjoyment. it's not linear, or even always clearly correlated. and with headphones and how it's basically the wrong tool for music mastered on speakers, the very notion of fidelity is debatable and requires to pick intermediary references instead of the original sound. the Harman guys like to talk about the circle of confusion in audio, and IMO it describes the issue quite well.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 6, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> Again, the subconscious part of someone's mind is varying and impossible to be included as part of any chase with regards to fidelity.   The audio from a performance is captured with recording equipment and then playback equipment is used to reproduce that audio.  A faithful reproduction is what is important.  How anyone reacts subconsciously should not matter.





bigshot said:


> There have been many studies on the thresholds of human perception over the past century and a half. It's an area that is very well understood. You and I flat out can't hear super audible frequencies, and there's no indication that there is any subconscious perception of inaudible sound in music that affects perceived sound quality. You can feel free to keep an open mind about it, but the way we hear music is pretty well understood. It's not unreasonable to have an objective definition of what high fidelity reproduction of recorded music is. That's what we are all talking about here in Sound Science. We aren't discussing how music makes us feel or whether we might have subconscious urges that make us do things. That's irrelevant to what we do here. We are objectively using science to make our home audio systems sound better.
> 
> Now when it comes to "good enough"... now you're treading into the area that is 100% subjective. What was good enough sound quality for my mom isn't good enough for me. I see people around here every day compromising sound quality for convenience. I wouldn't want to make some of those compromises myself. But that's fine for them. They can define their own idea of "good enough".
> 
> I think it's better to keep an open mind about what "good enough" is than it is to keep an open mind about what we can and cannot hear.



My guess is that we can address subconscious influences well enough by focusing on fidelity using the methods already available.  But that's a guess, there may be surprises in the future.

But I still think the chase for fidelity loses some importance when recordings vary so much anyway.  I listen to some genre stations on Spotify and Tidal, and find lots of variation in how they were recorded, with some sounding about perfect, others too much bass, others too much treble, etc.  Using EQ to address these kinds of issues would involve frequently fiddling with it, which doesn't interest me and would distract from enjoying the music, and EQ alone often doesn't the trick anyway.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> about the relation between fidelity and music enjoyment. it's not linear, or even always clearly correlated. and with headphones and how it's basically the wrong tool for music mastered on speakers, the very notion of fidelity is debatable and requires to pick intermediary references instead of the original sound. the Harman guys like to talk about the circle of confusion in audio, and IMO it describes the issue quite well.



Yes, I think that's what I've been trying to say.  If you have it handy, a link to the Harman stuff would be appreciated.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> Yes, I think that's what I've been trying to say.  If you have it handy, a link to the Harman stuff would be appreciated.



Here is a reference to the "Circle of Confusion".

https://pro.harman.com/insights/ent...e-monitoring-can-end-the-circle-of-confusion/


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> Here is a reference to the "Circle of Confusion".
> 
> https://pro.harman.com/insights/ent...e-monitoring-can-end-the-circle-of-confusion/



Good article, thanks. 

Until we have those kinds of standards and consistency, I think we're left with the problem of sometimes having to make choices which compensate for the flaws of recordings, rather than choosing fidelity which reveals the flaws and causes us to not enjoy the recordings.  And of course, if such standards are ever adopted, they won't retroactively fix the recording quality of the recordings already out there. 

When I try gear, I try a wide a variety of test tracks and judge whether I like what I'm hearing.  I haven't yet run across gear which leaves me satisfied with all of those test tracks, but some gear does better than other gear, and some gear shines with some tracks or genres while never being the gear I'd pick for other tracks and genres.  The nice thing about headphones is that you can have several of them, get to know their character, and get good at picking the one that will bring the most enjoyment with a given track.  Variety in headphones also provides options for presenting tracks in various ways, so that each track sort of becomes multiple versions of the track.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 6, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Until we have those kinds of standards and consistency, I think we're left with the problem of sometimes having to make choices which compensate for the flaws of recordings



That's what tone controls are for!

I have a system calibrated to as flat a response as I can get it. Just about everything I play on it sounds as good as it can. It's rare that I find CDs that are out of spec in sound. Most often lousy CDs are lousy because of the creative choices made by the mixer. It's rarely a problem with calibration.

I do admit though that it's taken me over 25 years to get to the point where my system is as accurate as it is now. The hard part to get right is the transducers. Happily, now I've got transducers that will satisfy me until the day I die.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 6, 2018)

bigshot said:


> That's what tone controls are for!
> 
> I have a system calibrated to as flat a response as I can get it. Just about everything I play on it sounds as good as it can. It's rare that I find CDs that are out of spec in sound. Most often lousy CDs are lousy because of the creative choices made by the mixer. It's rarely a problem with calibration.
> 
> I do admit though that it's taken me over 25 years to get to the point where my system is as accurate as it is now. The hard part to get right is the transducers. Happily, now I've got transducers that will satisfy me until the day I die.



I do miss the days of tone controls ...

I find recording quality and characteristics to vary a lot.  Newer recordings tend to be better than older ones, but not always.  EQ can help, but the problems often go beyond EQ to other aspects of the recording and mixing (sometimes garbage in, garbage out).

Let's take a test case, the album "Secret Song" by Georg Riedel, released this year.  How does it sound to you guys on your systems?


----------



## Steve999

castleofargh said:


> [T]he Harman guys like to talk about the circle of confusion in audio, and IMO it describes the issue quite well.



This thread is a circle of confusion.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 6, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I do miss the days of tone controls ...
> 
> I find recording quality and characteristics to vary a lot.  Newer recordings tend to be better than older ones, but not always.  EQ can help, but the problems often go beyond EQ to other aspects of the recording and mixing (sometimes garbage in, garbage out).
> 
> Let's take a test case, the album "Secret Song" by Georg Riedel, released this year.  How does it sound to you guys on your systems?



I have a Behringer DEQ2496 for my headphone setup--I can dial in tone control, crossfeed, just about anything.

But I must say, there is nothing quite like the charm of a bass and treble knob right in front of me. I won't buy a receiver without easily accessible bass and treble controls. I also always look to see at what frequencies they are centered.

Sorry for dragging this conversation down to my level. Continue on. . .


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Bull's eye ... thank you for saving me writing something along above lines.
> 
> You have only missed out on describing how -3dB points, both low and high limits, can be pretty accurately measured using only signal generator and an oscilloscope ( for precise frequency, that should be augumented by frequency counter ). I will post pics from the actual scope display along with the explanation.


Don't bother, I know how to do that.  My challenge was to find the -3dB down points using only a square wave and a scope, which is not possible.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 7, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> One can EQ till hell freezes over - to no avail, if there are gross room resonances.


Room resonances can be difficult to resolve.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jun 6, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Indeed.... but you are also confusing "sloppy" with "limited"....


Nope, not at all.  Doing the best you can with what you have is "limited".  Proclaiming something limited as definitive is sloppy.  Using something as ambiguous as a square wave on a scope to make specific qualitative statements about an amp that go outside the interpretive capabilities of that signal is sloppy when there are and always have been other  far better options.


KeithEmo said:


> Various test equipment has different strengths and limitations.
> Many of the early sine-wave generators could generate a very low distortion sine wave using some form of oscillator - but stabilizing the level on most types of oscillators is rather tricky.


Let's just end this right there. That's all in the past, the very distant past, and is not an excuse today, nor has it been for decades.  Amplitude stabilized sine wave generators have been around for more than 50 years, affordable for 45.  No need to talk about ancient history.


KeithEmo said:


> Then, when solid state arrived, low cost signal generators that could generate a variety of waveforms, at a very stable level, became common (they were usually referred to as "function generators" - and there were several single-chip models).
> However, the catch there was that most of those early "function generators" actually started with a triangle wave, and "synthesized" the sine wave output from the tri-wave (using some sort of "wave shaping circuit").
> As a result, the THD on the sine waves put out by those early models was usually somewhere around 1% (adequate for frequency response measurements, but not at all good enough for THD measurements).
> Therefore, for quite a while, most test labs would have both a clean sine wave generator, or an actual THD tester, for THD testing, and a more flexible function generator, which made excellent square waves, but not very good sine waves.


I know them well.  The 8038 and XR2206, for example, could be tweaked to below 2% across the audio band, which for FR is just fine, especially as they were extremely flat in amplitude.  The right tools for the right job, Use them for FR, not THD.  Use another oscillator for THD.


KeithEmo said:


> In those days, most amplifiers had a "hill shaped frequency response" - and what most people were concerned with was the -3 dB points on the slopes of the hill.
> The slight variations along the top of the hill weren't considered to be important.
> In most situations, people didn't bother with a full spectrum plot... they just "looked for the -3 dB points" and noted them.


Again...that's just being sloppy.  How long does it take to do a set of spot frequencies?  Geez.


KeithEmo said:


> And, as a few people have noted, for that sort of testing, square waves are useful.


NO, they're NOT useful for finding a 3dB down point!  That takes another approach that doesn't involve square waves.


KeithEmo said:


> Likewise, if you look at the actual adjustments on oscilloscope probes....
> On most you will find an adjustment to null out the capacitance of the cable.
> It is a little screw you turn on a trimmer capacitor.
> And you actually DO adjust it by turning it until a square wave on the screen looks "sharp and square but with minimal ringing".
> ...


Yes, I mentioned that, but what you're not getting is that adjusting the comp on a probe and scope is a closed system with specific results designed in and expected.  The designers already now that if you square up the wave, you've got the probe comped just fine.  That's nothing like testing a device with unknown response by looking at a distorted square wave!  Wrong tool.


KeithEmo said:


> Remember that, in those days, an oscilloscope was a VISUAL tool... so it makes perfect sense to adjust it such that it produces an accurate PICTURE of a known test signal.


Again, that's only true if the picture was anticipated, and the compensation designed specifically to do that.  Scopes are still visual only, and useful for some visually represented measurements.  But not all.  Understand the correct application of the tools.


KeithEmo said:


> At one time, I have a very expensive MIL-SPEC oscilloscope... and it actually had a test point on the front panel that delivered a calibrated square wave, of precise frequency and "squareness", specifically for calibrating probes and other equipment.


All scopes of any quality that used 10X probes have a square wave test point for compensating the probe. Even the cheap BK stuff.[/QUOTE]


----------



## bigshot (Jun 6, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I find recording quality and characteristics to vary a lot.  Newer recordings tend to be better than older ones, but not always.  EQ can help, but the problems often go beyond EQ to other aspects of the recording and mixing (sometimes garbage in, garbage out).



That's different than what the article was addressing though. Audio fidelity has advanced, and depending on the quality of the engineering, it can certainly vary. But the article was talking about calibration of the response in the main listening position. That is 100% EQ. Since I calibrated, I find very little problems with that. If someone has problems with their response and it comes and goes from recording to recording, odds are it's a boost in the sub bass causing the problem. Some recordings don't have sub bass, and they would sound fine, while others do, and they would sound boomy. The same sort of thing is true of imbalances in the treble.

Bad engineering is a lot more difficult to fix, because it's usually baked into the masters. That would be stuff like bad mixes, overdriven recordings, high noise or distortion, etc. That stuff can be made less objectionable, but it isn't something that would be corrected by proper calibration.

Just to clarify, when I said that almost all music I play on my system sounds correct, I was referring to the response, not the quality of engineering. I listen to recordings that are as old as a century, so I am used to taking the recording technology for what it is.


----------



## old tech

Steve999 said:


> This thread is a circle of confusion.


Not just that, but all this discussion on reproducing frequencies which we cannot hear rather on those that we can, particularly frequencies where the music magic is and our ears most sensitive, is astonishing.

No wonder (some) audiophiles are the laughing stock in the technical world from people that actually design and manufacture the gear.


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> I would like to suggest a VERY comprehensive but very simple test to confirm both the audibility of the difference between 16/44k digital audio and high-res audio AND THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF BIAS.
> There are really two separate phases - and they can be arranged in various ways.
> 
> The first phase, which determines "conscious audibility" of differences would be simple.
> ...


The problem is finding someone, or an organisation, to conduct such a test.  A well designed and properly implemented test such as the one you describe would need quite a bit of money and time resources.  Besides many consider the Boston study to be conclusive.  The other aspect is the virtue of the test.  When the micro-groove LP succeeded the shellac record, no-one claimed that there was no difference in sound quality.  Likewise, most people accept that LPs is a better sounding medium than cassettes or 8 track.  The fact that after some 30 years there is still unresolved debate whether 24/96 sounds different or better on playback than 16/44 would suggest to most reasonable people that even if it were, it must be so immaterial that our efforts are best used elsewhere.


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> You've brought up an important point....
> 
> The visual appearance of a waveform on a time vs amplitude plot (an oscilloscope screen) often doesn't correlate well at all with what's audible.
> A sine wave "that looks fine" could have up to 5% of clearly audible THD....
> ...


But that's the point: there are many ways to distort a square wave.  There's no way to quantify by a singe figure how much a square wave deviates from theoretical, and there's no way to quantify how much one distortion differs from another.


KeithEmo said:


> On that note, many people seem to have what I might call "a one-way way of looking at things".
> For example, a high quality 50 Hz square wave will be composed of a very specific set of harmonics, each at a particular amplitude (and so will look a specific way on a spectrum plot).
> HOWEVER, looking in the other direction, those same harmonics, at the exact same proportions, can be combined to produce an infinite number of different waveforms.
> (Because you can vary the waveform by adjusting the phase relationship between the different harmonics - which is something the spectrum plot doesn't show.)


I believe I posted that precise example in images.


KeithEmo said:


> So, all perfect 50 Hz square waves will have the same spectrum plot; but that same spectrum plot may or may not be the result of a 50 Hz square wave.


I think you've just proven my point, that a square wave doesn't relate well to spectrum, and vice-versa.  And, by extension, the square wave doesn't relate well to audibility. 

And here is an example of the lack of ability to quantify square wave distortion. 

These are two different square wave graphics.  Each has a -3dB down point at a different frequency, and not differing by just a tiny bit either, this would be significant.  While you should be able to tell which one has better LF response, I challenge anyone to state the -3dB point of either one just by looking at the graphics.











[/QUOTE]


----------



## bigshot (Jun 6, 2018)

old tech said:


> Not just that, but all this discussion on reproducing frequencies which we cannot hear rather on those that we can, particularly frequencies where the music magic is and our ears most sensitive, is astonishing. No wonder (some) audiophiles are the laughing stock in the technical world from people that actually design and manufacture the gear.



Sound Science folks get lured down theoretical rabbit holes on a regular basis too. The problem starts when you stop paying attention to what it sounds like to human ears. Once you pass that threshold... there's a sign post up ahead... The Twilight Zone.

Pssst! We're seeing that right now right above this post. Square waves are completely irrelevant, but even the people who know that they're irrelevant are still going back and forth over it.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> Pssst! We're seeing that right now right above this post. Square waves are completely irrelevant, but even the people who know that they're irrelevant are still going back and forth over it.


Just trying to make sure everyone has the opportunity to see, first hand, just how irrelevant they are. Seems to be a difficult concept for some.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 7, 2018)

RRod said:


> "Hey if you put a microphone right in the middle of a gamelan ensemble, you can get neurons to fire in a dead salmon."



[deleted]


----------



## bigshot

pinnahertz said:


> Just trying to make sure everyone has the opportunity to see, first hand, just how irrelevant they are. Seems to be a difficult concept for some.



Hopefully they haven't tuned out! I just reply with a one sentence dismissal. No point repeating what they won't listen to anyway.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Inaudible frequencies and subconscious sound are the least important things to consider in a home audio system.



No, I can't agree with that statement. "Inaudible freqs", absolutely, no question, not even a "least important thing to consider" more like; not worthy of any consideration whatsoever. But "subconscious sound", no, that's vitally important. Much/Most of western music is effectively "subconscious sound": Many/Most of the individual notes in a western music composition are not intended/expected to be consciously perceived, they're only intended to be perceived subconsciously. What the audience is intended to consciously perceive is the combination of those notes as a single/unified entity, a chord and a progression of chords, in other words, as "harmony". Trained musicians can of course deliberately focus in and consciously perceive each note individually but that's not what is intended for the audience (and this is effectively what the article was referring to when it was talking about "close discernment" and "global listening"). Obviously then, we must be very concerned with these subconscious notes/sounds because without them we don't have harmony and the whole piece of music largely or entirely ceases to exist. There are many other examples of subconscious sounds in both music construction itself and the mixing/engineering of it, some are absolutely vital, some are important but not absolutely vital and some aren't particularly important but are just effectively an enhancement.



Phronesis said:


> [1] It may or may not be true that subconscious effects are the least important effects to consider. Without more science, we really don't know, and I keep an open mind on this.
> [2] Whether taking a subjective or objective approach to getting 'fidelity', [2a] the fact remains that there's a lot of variability in recording characteristics, transducers, perception, and preferences (even for the same person, at different times), so I don't see much value in continuing to try to seek fidelity past the 'good enough' point if the goal is the enjoy music, and these days it's not difficult or overly costly to get good enough sound.



1. Subconscious effects absolutely are important, even without more science we already "really do know" and have really known for 600 years or so! But be careful NOT to confuse "inaudible" with "only subconsciously perceivable", they are two entirely different things. For something to be "subconsciously perceivable" it MUST be audible (except in some special "aural illusion" cases)! This is the mistake the author of the article makes and the same mistake you've repeatedly made.

2. We covered this when you first started posting here and here you are still going round in circles! There is ONLY an objective approach to getting fidelity!
2a. Yes, there is a great deal of variability in recording characteristics. However, that as nothing to do with reproduction fidelity! "Fidelity" is simply how accurately those recording characteristics (whatever they maybe) are reproduced.

G


----------



## Phronesis

^ If a sound, or difference in sound, at the eardrum causes a change in brain state, I would call it audible.  Otherwise, it’s truly inaudible.  That means that relying on verbal reports of whether someone ‘heard’ something isn’t a sufficient measure of audibility, though it could be considered a reasonable measure of whether something was consciously perceived. If it was audible but not consciously perceived, we could call it subconsciously perceived.  But we don’t have the technology to detect changes in brain states to arbitrarily precise resolution, and this definition of subconscious perception doesn’t tell us the effects and significance of that perception.  These aren’t simple issues, and we shouldn’t pretend that they are because we’d rather just focus on gear and physical sound.


----------



## gregorio

old tech said:


> [1] Not just that, but all this discussion on reproducing frequencies which we cannot hear rather on those that we can, particularly frequencies where the music magic is and our ears most sensitive, is astonishing.
> [2] No wonder (some) audiophiles are the laughing stock in the technical world from people that actually design and manufacture the gear.



1. Agreed, it is astonishing! Although we're all sick to death of this nonsense square wave debate, a square wave example does clearly illustrate your point and lead to an interesting experiment, if you haven't already tried it:

The fundamental wave form, the waveform from which all other wave forms (including square waves) are constructed is the sine wave. A square wave is simply a fundamental sine wave plus odd harmonics at a proportional level. So if we have a 10kHz sine wave (our fundamental/first harmonic), then add the third harmonic (30kHz) sine wave at a 1/3 of the level of the fundamental and then the fifth harmonic (50kHz) at a fifth of the level, the waveform will start to look VERY VAGUELY square shaped. To get a perfect square wave we'd need an infinite number of harmonics and therefore infinite bandwidth, which is obviously impossible in the real world and why a real square wave can't exist. If we generate our 10kHz "square" wave at a sample rate of say 192kHz, we can in theory have the 10kHz sine wave plus up to and including the 9th harmonic (90kHz) and this will look reasonably squarish. If we record that 10kHz squarish wave at 44.1kHz sampling rate though, all we'll get is a pure 10kHz sine wave because the 3rd harmonic is at 30kHz and beyond our 22kHz Nyquist limit, as are of course all higher harmonics. Obviously, a sine wave looks nothing like a square wave and so we have terrible fidelity with 44.1kHz. Clearly then, 192kHz is higher fidelity than 44.1kHz and using sample rates even higher than 192kHz will result in our squarish wave looking ever more square because we can have more odd harmonics. This is the basis of @analogsurviver's argument which appears reasonable until you take into consideration a basic fact, the human ear cannot respond to the 30kHz harmonic! 

It's simple enough to test, just set up your audio editor with a sample rate of 192kHz, pull up a signal generator and set it to 10kHz sine wave, then switch it to a 10kHz square wave, can you differentiate the square wave from the sine wave? Do it blind, double blind or ABX, all you'll hear is two identical 10kHz sine waves! Actually, that's all you SHOULD hear but in practice you *might* be able to differentiate the 10kHz square wave from the sine wave, particularly at a very loud level. This is because IMD is not uncommon and pumping 30kHz, 50kHz, 70kHz and 90kHz at even moderate levels into some equipment (some amps, HPs or speakers) can cause them to generate intermodulation distortion within the audible range. As far as audible fidelity is concerned, CD/44.1kHz would therefore result in the highest fidelity 10kHz square wave because it perfectly captures what we can hear! Higher sample rates will provide poorer audible fidelity than 44.1kHz, unless you've purchased a quality system capable of producing no audible IMD up to 90kHz, in which case well done, you've spent a lot more money to equal the audible fidelity of 44.1kHz!!

PS. Not sure if you already know all this, if so then maybe it will be of benefit to others.

2. Not just the people who design and manufacture the gear but also the laughing stock to those who create the content that audiophiles are using their gear to reproduce.

G


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> If a sound, or difference in sound, at the eardrum causes a change in brain state, I would call it audible. Otherwise, it’s truly inaudible. That means that relying on verbal reports of whether someone ‘heard’ something isn’t a sufficient measure of audibility, though it could be considered a reasonable measure of whether something was consciously perceived. If it was audible but not consciously perceived, we could call it subconsciously perceived. But we don’t have the technology to detect changes in brain states to arbitrarily precise resolution, and this definition of subconscious perception doesn’t tell us the effects and significance of that perception. These aren’t simple issues, and we shouldn’t pretend that they are because we’d rather just focus on gear and physical sound.



No. We use subconsciously perceived sounds to alter/manipulate the conscious perception. If it has no effect on conscious perception then it's as worthless as being inaudible/non-existant! Take the example from the same post in my response to bigshot. An audience would not consciously perceive the individual notes but it would consciously perceive the chord which results from the combination of those individual notes. If there were a subconsciously perceived note in there, which had no effect whatsoever on the conscious perception of the chord, then that note would be irrelevant, it makes no difference whatsoever and might as well be inaudible or not even played in the first place.

G


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> No. We use subconsciously perceived sounds to alter/manipulate the conscious perception. If it has no effect on conscious perception then it's as worthless as being inaudible/non-existant! Take the example from the same post in my response to bigshot. An audience would not consciously perceive the individual notes but it would consciously perceive the chord which results from the combination of those individual notes. If there were a subconsciously perceived note in there, which had no effect whatsoever on the conscious perception of the chord, then that note would be irrelevant, it makes no difference whatsoever and might as well be inaudible or not even played in the first place.
> 
> G



I don’t agree. Subconscious effects can change our emotions and moods, and affect us at an intuitive or ‘gut’ level, without registering as distinct conscious perception. Conscious experience isn’t the entirety of our ‘experience’, it’s the part of our experience we tend to focus on precisely because it’s most accessible due to being at the conscious level, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Have you ever had the feeling that ‘something just isn’t right’ without being able to pin it down at all?


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> I don’t agree. Subconscious effects can change our emotions and moods, and affect us at an intuitive or ‘gut’ level, without registering as distinct conscious perception.



How can you feel an emotion if you can't feel it?

G


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> How can you feel an emotion if you can't feel it?
> 
> G



Is a vague and subtle emotional feeling a conscious perception?  If you want to say yes, then we can agree that subconscious effects don’t matter, at least for enjoyment of music, but then we have to say that conscious perception has a fuzzy boundary.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> ^ If a sound, or difference in sound, at the eardrum causes a change in brain state, I would call it audible.  Otherwise, it’s truly inaudible.  That means that relying on verbal reports of whether someone ‘heard’ something isn’t a sufficient measure of audibility, though it could be considered a reasonable measure of whether something was consciously perceived. If it was audible but not consciously perceived, we could call it subconsciously perceived.  But we don’t have the technology to detect changes in brain states to arbitrarily precise resolution, and this definition of subconscious perception doesn’t tell us the effects and significance of that perception.  These aren’t simple issues, and we shouldn’t pretend that they are because we’d rather just focus on gear and physical sound.


and once again, how often do you expect to find a signal or a variation too small to consciously create a change in impressions that we could use to pass a blind test, yet at the same time expect it to become significant when treated subconsciously? it just doesn't seem very plausible to me. why would low level stimulation create a disproportionate reaction? whatever reaction, I still expect it to be smaller than the reaction from the same stimulus at a bigger magnitude that a listener would notice. like an EQ by 0.06dB isn't going to impact us more than an EQ by 1.5dB at the same position. conscious or not it wouldn't make much sense. if that isn't the general rule, I really don't understand anything about humans and animal senses.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] Is a vague and subtle emotional feeling a conscious perception? [2] If you want to say yes, then we can agree that subconscious effects don’t matter, at least for enjoyment of music, [3] but then we have to say that conscious perception has a fuzzy boundary.



1. Yes.
2. No we can't agree because subconscious effects can affect emotional feelings and are intrinsic to music enjoyment.
3. Yes, it does. Indeed it's even a trainable "boundary"!

G


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> and once again, how often do you expect to find a signal or a variation too small to consciously create a change in impressions that we could use to pass a blind test, yet at the same time expect it to become significant when treated subconsciously? it just doesn't seem very plausible to me. why would low level stimulation create a disproportionate reaction? whatever reaction, I still expect it to be smaller than the reaction from the same stimulus at a bigger magnitude that a listener would notice. like an EQ by 0.06dB isn't going to impact us more than an EQ by 1.5dB at the same position. conscious or not it wouldn't make much sense. if that isn't the general rule, I really don't understand anything about humans and animal senses.





gregorio said:


> 1. Yes.
> 2. No we can't agree because subconscious effects can affect emotional feelings and are intrinsic to music enjoyment.
> 3. Yes, it does. Indeed it's even a trainable "boundary"!
> 
> G



We're creating/perpetuating another circle of confusion here, by being vague and inconsistent in using terminology.  Where is the boundary between conscious and subconscious?  Can you have a perception without an effect?  Is all perception conscious, hence no such thing as subconscious perception?  Can you have subconscious perception without conscious perception?  Can there be subconscious effects which matter for musical enjoyment which aren't consciously perceived?  Are emotions a kind of perception? 

Gregorio is jumbling these things up so much that I don't know what he's trying to say.  If subconscious effects matter because they affect emotions, which he classifies as conscious effects, how can they be _sub_conscious?  Why not just say they're all conscious effects and what happens at the subconscious level has nothing to do with enjoyment of music?


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with you entirely.

Well, strictly speaking, you could calculate it from a full set of exact measurements of the square wave... 
For example, you actually can calculate the gain drop from the precise angle of the tilt and the frequency of the square wave.
(And, depending on the gain shift, the top will be curved.... ) but there sure are easier and more direct ways.
(It's like the guy who wanted to include a signal generator, a scope, and a frequency counter. If your generator and scope are well calibrated you don't need the counter.)

The point, however, is that I don't recall anyone ever using a square wave that way.
Things were _different_ in the old days.
Most low-cost oscilloscopes weren't calibrated very accurately along the time axis... and they tended to drift with time.
However, they were usually quite reliable in terms of amplitude (their amplitude response was flat.)
They were also specifically adjusted to reliably display those square waves (because they were adjusted using square waves).
The dial on most audio signal generators back then was basically an approximation - cheap equipment would often be as much as 5% or 10% off at certain frequencies.
Really high end equipment, which had been recently calibrated, might be within 1% or 2%.
(And, before modern DMMs, a really high quality meter was within 2% DC, within 3% AC at a specific frequency, and +/- 5% from perhaps 50 Hz to 500 Hz.)
And a frequency counter, when they became available, was very accurate for frequency, but didn't tell you much else.

Therefore, if you wanted to measure the -3 dB point on an amp......
- you would connect the signal generator and oscilloscope to your unit (and the frequency counter if you had one)
- you would set the generator to some middle frequency like 1 kHz
- you would set the level until the peaks of the waveform were at some easy-to-read level on the oscilloscope
- you would then figure out which line on the screen corresponded with "3 dB down"
- then you would turn the dial on the generator until the level displayed on the scope screen had dropped to that -3 dB point
- then you would calculate the frequency from the waveform and the time calibration on the scope (or, if you were lucky enough to have one, read it from your frequency counter)

Back when I went to school (we're talking the late 1970's), this was how you "measured frequency response".
Nobody bothered to take a bunch of measurements... and the graph paper you used to plot actual frequency response was something you only found in fancy drafting stores.
And, yes, the test equipment to do it right was out there...
But most repair techs in small shops, and most DIYers, had an oscilloscope and a signal generator.
Even the frequency counter was considered an expensive luxury that you either saved up for or bought surplus somewhere.
Spectrum analyzers were very expensive - and far out of the reach of even most repair shops.

The point is that those measurements were in fact good enough for most people.
When most people talked about frequency response - what they meant was "the 3 dB down points".

And, in those days, it was quite normal for the service manuals of even very expensive equipment to simply show a picture of a square wave.
And those instructions would literally say:
- set your generator to deliver a 1 kHz square wave
- it it looks like the picture then your device is optimally flat
- if the front edges are rounded, adjust the HF trim until they are as sharp as you can get them, without visible ringing
- if the tops are slanted, adjust the low frequency response until they are as flat as you can get them

And, assuming that the equipment is designed a certain way, and the adjustments do what they should, THIS ACTUALLY WORKS

And, yes, things have changed significantly....
However, along with that change sometimes comes a cost.
People have developed a habit of "just reading what the screen says and trusting it".
They assume that the voltage reading on their DMM is correct.... 
- and don't even bother to notice if it's accurate over the full range of audio frequencies
- of if it's peak reading or true RMS (or, if it's true RMS, what range of frequencies and crest factors it can measure before the accuracy is reduced)

(Back in the old days, everyone knew that your analog voltmeter wasn't accurate at high frequencies, and that, while your VTVM was accurate up into the megahertz range, it was only, at best, 5% accurate to begin with... and all of those specifications assumed a clean sine wave. Nowadays too many people simply "buy what they read" without much consideration of the limitations and accuracy of the equipment they're using or the limitations of the test method they're using.) 

And, yes, I much prefer the accuracy and wealth of information we get with modern equipment too.
(However, while you get a lot better and more accurate information, there are also more ways to get it wrong or misinterpret it.)



pinnahertz said:


> But that's the point: there are many ways to distort a square wave.  There's no way to quantify by a singe figure how much a square wave deviates from theoretical, and there's no way to quantify how much one distortion differs from another.
> I believe I posted that precise example in images.
> 
> I think you've just proven my point, that a square wave doesn't relate well to spectrum, and vice-versa.  And, by extension, the square wave doesn't relate well to audibility.
> ...


[/QUOTE]


----------



## KeithEmo

From what I understand, whether a "subconscious" exists at all has been disputed for centuries, and, for most of that time, opinions about where the dividing line is keep changing.
However, regardless of how you choose to term it, there are absolutely "things which we are not consciously aware of that affect what we experience".
These factors cover a very wide range of things... and are often somewhat difficult to quantify.
For example, your favorite restaurant may have specifically chosen chairs that are just uncomfortable enough that they encourage people to get up and leave when they finish eating.
(You don't want people to be uncomfortable while they're eating; but too many customers falling asleep in their comfy chairs is bad for business.) 
But how do you _measure_ that factor?

My real point here is that you _CAN_ measure and quantify it if you devise a test that is appropriate for that particular purpose.
In my example with the chairs.... 
- put a mix of several different chairs in your restaurant
- have someone WATCH your customers for a month
- correlate the results

If you notice that people simply avoid one type of chair, then those would be a bad choice.
However, if people choose equally between the red chairs and the green chairs...
But, on average, people sitting in green chairs hang around and chat on average for ten minutes after finishing their meal...
But people sitting in the red chairs only hang around for five minutes on average...
Then you have probably identified a factor relating to "the long term comfort of your red and green chairs".

Since they initially don't express a preference you can conclude that "there is no conscious preference for either chair".
But, since they clearly do behave differently over time, you must also conclude that some real difference exists.
(And, if you do enough proper research, you can learn if people who hang around an extra five minutes are really more likely to purchase an expensive dessert.)

Similarly.....

If you had two music systems...
Playing an identical assortment of music in identical rooms.
And you offer groups of people an opportunity to compare them...
You may find that none of your participants expresses a conscious preference for one or the other...
(You may even find that, in a double-blind test, nobody can tell them apart.)
HOWEVER, you may also find that, when offered free access to both, on average they listen to one more than the other...
Or, perhaps, they are equally likely to turn on System A or System B, but, once they turn the music on, on average they listen to System B LONGER.
THIS would suggest that "there is some sort of unconscious preference going on".
(This would be the proper way to test for claims of "one product being "more fatiguing" than another".)

And, yes, you must be incredibly careful to control for ALL the possible variables....
- you need to eliminate the possibility that people play System B longer because it's on the side of the room with the comfy chairs
- or because it's on the side of the room nearest the sunny window, or the air conditioning vent, or the attractive receptionist, or it's nearest the table with the donuts

We've all experienced a situation where a particularly unusual sounding speaker sounded "exciting" in the short term...
But, over time, came to be "annoying" instead...
There's no reason to believe that similar effects don't occur at a level of perception where we fail to consciously notice the cause directly.

Personally, rather than use terms like "subconscious", I think it's safer to refer to "effects which seem to be caused by factors we're consciously aware of"...
And simply leave everything else in the category of "effects which can be observed and tested for, but the cause of which is not well known or understood...



Phronesis said:


> We're creating/perpetuating another circle of confusion here, by being vague and inconsistent in using terminology.  Where is the boundary between conscious and subconscious?  Can you have a perception without an effect?  Is all perception conscious, hence no such thing as subconscious perception?  Can you have subconscious perception without conscious perception?  Can there be subconscious effects which matter for musical enjoyment which aren't consciously perceived?  Are emotions a kind of perception?
> 
> Gregorio is jumbling these things up so much that I don't know what he's trying to say.  If subconscious effects matter because they affect emotions, which he classifies as conscious effects, how can they be _sub_conscious?  Why not just say they're all conscious effects and what happens at the subconscious level has nothing to do with enjoyment of music?


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 7, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> From what I understand, whether a "subconscious" exists at all has been disputed for centuries, and, for most of that time, opinions about where the dividing line is keep changing.
> However, regardless of how you choose to term it, there are absolutely "things which we are not consciously aware of that affect what we experience".
> These factors cover a very wide range of things... and are often somewhat difficult to quantify.
> For example, your favorite restaurant may have specifically chosen chairs that are just uncomfortable enough that they encourage people to get up and leave when they finish eating.
> ...



There's no doubt that our brains do a lot of things which we're not consciously aware of - my conscious awareness is pretty limited as I sleep through the night, yet somehow I survive and wake up each morning.  And the whole idea of cognitive biases is that our perceptions, judgments, decisions, and actions can be skewed to depart from reality in some direction due to things happening in our brains, without our being consciously aware of that happening.  Moreover, we know that these biases can be influenced by factors like creating expectations, which can happen either consciously (e.g., someone credible tells us that A sounds better than B) or without our conscious awareness (e.g., we think a speaker is producing more bass because it's visually big).  We can refer to 'without conscious awareness' as subconscious, unconscious, non-conscious, etc., but regardless of terminology the phenomenon is there.

It's ironic that objectivists are quick to point out the fallibility of subjective perception due to biases - and therefore base their argument on cognitive factors 'outside of conscious awareness' - yet so reluctant to consider that such factors could influence our enjoyment of music and what we can infer from test results.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2018)

gregorio said:


> No, I can't agree with that statement. "Inaudible freqs", absolutely, no question, not even a "least important thing to consider" more like; not worthy of any consideration whatsoever. But "subconscious sound", no, that's vitally important.



You misread that... I'm talking about audio fidelity, not musical content. It's referring to the claim that even though we don't consciously hear certain frequencies, they have a subconscious effect on us. When I talk about musical stuff here, I usually flag it as that as opposed to discussions of sound fidelity.

Edit: I see Phronesis brought you back into what I was referring to.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Gregorio is jumbling these things up so much that I don't know what he's trying to say.



Not to speak for him, but I think he's trying to say that we don't have "unconscious perception", but we do have subconscious emotional reactions to sound. He's referring to expressive musical content, not the actual perception/hearing of sound on a purely  unconscious level. That doesn't exist.

Hearing is a mechanical process. Either we hear something or we don't. That's cut and dried. The subconscious comes in when we try to interpret what we hear.


----------



## Phronesis

^ Hearing stops being mechanical past the ear and becomes neurological, cognitive, emotional, psychological, etc.  Without perception in minds, there's no hearing or music, only physical sound in air.  And it's not just a matter of frequency response, there's a lot information in physical sound which tells where sounds are coming from.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2018)

Right. But we mostly talk about audio fidelity, which is what it is regardless of how mixed up people's emotional and cognitive processes are. Solipsism is an interesting thing to think about, but ultimately it's a mind game performing for an audience of one. Fidelity is something that can be appreciated by everyone with ears to hear. This particular thread is about controlled listening tests to determine fidelity.

Directionality is something entirely different. That is the area of sound reproduction that we aren't very good at yet. Multichannel and Atmos's object based mixing are steps towards improving that. Jgazal's thread on immersive sound has info on placing sound in space.


----------



## sonitus mirus (Jun 7, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> It's ironic that objectivists are quick to point out the fallibility of subjective perception due to biases - and therefore base their argument on cognitive factors 'outside of conscious awareness' - yet so reluctant to consider that such factors could influence our enjoyment of music and what we can infer from test results.


  Ultimately, some people are simply trying to point out that there is no reliable evidence to suggest there is any audible difference between some formats or some audio equipment where hordes of others suggest that there has to be based on nothing more than marketing jargon and sighted evaluations rife with bias.   That is where my discussion ends.  What I have read on the matter does not indicate that your position is valid or that there is any real mystery left unsolved.

Your statement make very little sense to me.  Nobody here seems to be making the claim that aesthetics, price, prestige, or reputation could not influence a listeners subjective impressions.  None of those things mean any more or less than someone enjoying music while eating peanut butter of sitting in a soft, comfortable chair.  This stuff does not need to be researched further to design a more accurate DAC.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] We're creating/perpetuating another circle of confusion here, by being vague and inconsistent in using terminology.
> [2] Where is the boundary between conscious and subconscious?
> [3] It's ironic that objectivists are quick to point out the fallibility of subjective perception due to biases - and therefore base their argument on cognitive factors 'outside of conscious awareness' - yet so reluctant to consider that such factors could influence our enjoyment of music and what we can infer from test results.



1. I'm not being inconsistent using terminology. At every moment in time, there are sounds/aspects of the sounds we hear which we're consciously aware we're hearing and there are sounds/aspects of the sounds we hear which we are not consciously aware we're hearing, this latter I have called "subconscious sound perception" but both form part of our overall perception (which also includes other factors, both conscious and subconscious).

2. The boundary between the two is highly fluid, it can change almost from moment to moment and it can be changed consciously or subconsciously and can be manipulated to change. The fact we can change it consciously is what allows us to have and to train listening skills.

3. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am NOT reluctant to consider that factors "outside of conscious awareness" can influence our enjoyment of music. In fact quite the opposite, the factors outside of conscious awareness (subconscious awareness/perception) is what enables music to exist in the first place, without those factors there would be no music, only sounds and noise. However, ALL cases of conscious awareness AND subconscious perception (or whatever you want to call them), relies on the sounds/aspects of the sounds actually being audible (again, except in special cases of "aural illusion")!!

We're going round in circles again because you're just doing what is your want: You argue a point, which is eventually explained and addressed and you realise this and drop it. Then, at a later date, you figure out a way to rephrase that same point and off we go again, on what is effectively the same old roundabout!

G


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> ^ Hearing stops being mechanical past the ear and becomes neurological, cognitive, emotional, psychological, etc.  Without perception in minds, there's no hearing or music, only physical sound in air.  And it's not just a matter of frequency response, there's a lot information in physical sound which tells where sounds are coming from.


We are discussing reproductions of sound.  A live acoustic performance is not the same as a recording of that performance.  Even physical sound in air is not what we are discussing.  This can be very different for many reasons.  The issue many of us are discussing is happening before it reaches the transducers and eventually affects the air and registers at your ears/brain.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> From what I understand, whether a "subconscious" exists at all has been disputed for centuries, and, for most of that time, opinions about where the dividing line is keep changing.
> However, regardless of how you choose to term it, there are absolutely "things which we are not consciously aware of that affect what we experience".
> These factors cover a very wide range of things... and are often somewhat difficult to quantify.
> For example, your favorite restaurant may have specifically chosen chairs that are just uncomfortable enough that they encourage people to get up and leave when they finish eating.
> ...


we have a few examples of that, people who when asked, didn't think they clearly found the perceived difference, but somehow got statistically significant results. there is always the funky part of statistics where someone can get great score at random, but with more people and more trials it's not too hard to differentiate luck from a pattern.
I personally often pass tests where all along I'm not really sure where the difference is. I end up going with my guts and get it right. which is what I assimilate as feeling a change but failing to clearly identify it. it's really rare thought, usually if I insist a little I end up finding the "thing" that changes and from there my results become pretty much 100% compared to just statistically significant. it's one of the reasons why I absolutely believe in training.




Phronesis said:


> There's no doubt that our brains do a lot of things which we're not consciously aware of - my conscious awareness is pretty limited as I sleep through the night, yet somehow I survive and wake up each morning.  And the whole idea of cognitive biases is that our perceptions, judgments, decisions, and actions can be skewed to depart from reality in some direction due to things happening in our brains, without our being consciously aware of that happening.  Moreover, we know that these biases can be influenced by factors like creating expectations, which can happen either consciously (e.g., someone credible tells us that A sounds better than B) or without our conscious awareness (e.g., we think a speaker is producing more bass because it's visually big).  We can refer to 'without conscious awareness' as subconscious, unconscious, non-conscious, etc., but regardless of terminology the phenomenon is there.
> 
> It's ironic that objectivists are quick to point out the fallibility of subjective perception due to biases - and therefore base their argument on cognitive factors 'outside of conscious awareness' - yet so reluctant to consider that such factors could influence our enjoyment of music and what we can infer from test results.


you're the one making the mistake of mixing testing preferences with testing audibility. nobody needs controlled tests or any solid fact to decide what he prefers. they sure could help but aren't prerequisites to having a preference. if you give someone plenty of data, he'll have a preference based on that or parts of it. if you give him nothing but a color, he'll still have a preference. we do with whatever we have, reality optional.
but testing audibility requires specific conditions and annoying test subjects. just like testing fidelity requires measurements. some people try to find objective methodologies to try and identify patterns to our preferences(marketing studies), but it's a tiny aspect of objective testing and they're usually concerned with big fat averaged results instead of looking at the matters you seem to care about, which are on the fringe of detection or below.

 it would really help if you tried focusing on one concrete case at a time(I guess that advice could work for a lot of us here). because when I read your assumptions or questions, I have to create a concrete case myself in my head and work through it. just to understand later on with your reply that you were thinking of something completely different. it's not efficient and TBH a little frustrating for me. plus it's supposed to be a topic about testing stuff, not debate club(that one definitely is addressed to everybody). it's real hard to test or find data on vague ideas and purely philosophical questions.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2018)

gregorio said:


> We're going round in circles again because you're just doing what is your want



Vocabulary word of the day! (Except it's spelled "wont")


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> At every moment in time, there are sounds/aspects of the sounds we hear which we're consciously aware we're hearing and there are sounds/aspects of the sounds we hear which we are not consciously aware we're hearing, this latter I have called "subconscious sound perception" but both form part of our overall perception (which also includes other factors, both conscious and subconscious).
> 
> 2. The boundary between the two is highly fluid, it can change almost from moment to moment and it can be changed consciously or subconsciously and can be manipulated to change. The fact we can change it consciously is what allows us to have and to train listening skills.
> 
> 3. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am NOT reluctant to consider that factors "outside of conscious awareness" can influence our enjoyment of music. In fact quite the opposite, the factors outside of conscious awareness (subconscious awareness/perception) is what enables music to exist in the first place, without those factors there would be no music, only sounds and noise. However, ALL cases of conscious awareness AND subconscious perception (or whatever you want to call them), relies on the sounds/aspects of the sounds actually being audible (again, except in special cases of "aural illusion")!!



I actually agree with all of this, so I propose that we call it a day on this topic and quit while we're standing on common ground.


----------



## KeithEmo

Actually I'm not confusing anything at all....

My point is simply that a lot of people, and especially in this forum, seem to be determined NOT to "try to differentiate luck from pattern"... because they're determined not to bother to look for the pattern.
I see an awful lot of "we just know that can't be true so we shouldn't waste time testing it" going on here... perhaps more than is prudent.

For example, if some listener were to claim that, "he finds System A more fatiguing than System B" then I would expect to be able to determine whether the effect is real or he is imagining it.
However, I'm not going to conclude that, "since both have a very flat frequency response, and low THD and noise, he must be imagining it."
I do  not find it implausible that there's something going on we may have overlooked.
_
HOWEVER_, the way to directly test his claim is _NOT_ to see if he (or a bunch of people) can tell one from the other in an A/B/X test... because that was _NOT_ the claim.
All that will tell you is whether the participants can consciously tell one from the other - _WHICH IS *NOT* THE QUESTION BEING POSED_.
If you attempt to do so, what you're doing is to infer one conclusion from the result of a test, which is testing another similar but _NOT_ identical factor.

The way to _DIRECTLY_ test whether one system "sounds more fatiguing than the other" is to actually devise a test that does so.
Our claimant seems to be suggesting that, even though System A and System B seem to sound identical in the short term, he believes he notices a difference over time.
_SPECIFICALLY_, he is NOT claiming to hear an audible difference, but is instead claiming to experience what we might call a physiological or a psychological effect (it could be either).
He is claiming what might reasonably be called "an out-of-band effect"; an effect _CAUSED_ by listening to music which affects something else.

Luckily, once we actually figure out what we're trying to test, actually devising a test to do so isn't especially difficult.

Set up two identical groups of people, in identical rooms, with identical music, with the _ONLY_ difference being whether System A or System B is being used. (Put a box over it so they can't see which system is playing.)
Arrange the situation to actually encourage people to only remain in the room as long as they're enjoying the music.
Actually _OBSERVE_ the subjects... and see if, on average, people really do get up and leave the room significantly sooner with one system or the other.
If we actually observe a statistically significant difference in the amount of time people stay and listen to each system, on average, before leaving, then we have established a pattern... which seems to support his claim.
(And, yes, if you suspect an anomalous result, repeat the test a number of times, varying other parameters.)
And, of course, if we see no such pattern, then we have a null result, which suggests that his claim is incorrect (or at least not correct for most listeners).

If it turns out that the statistics are very close to the same, and so aren't statistically significant, then we can conclude that "most people apparently do not find one system more enjoyable than the other".
However, if we find that, on average, people listen to System A for significantly longer than System B before leaving the room... then we can conclude that we have detected _SOME_ difference.
(Perhaps there is some distortion that test subjects cannot consciously notice, but that tends to degrade the experience over time; perhaps our assumptions are oversimplified, and even tiny levels of distortion become factors after a long period of time; perhaps not.)

We're NOT talking about a preference here in the sense you're using that term....
What we're testing for is simply "a response caused by so far unknown factors".

And, just to offer an example of how this COULD be true...
Perhaps the switching power supply in System A emits significant levels of ultrasonic noise while the power supply in System B does not...
If that were the case, I would expect to end up with a headache after listening to System A for a while...
And NOT to experience the same "listener fatigue" with System B...

And, before anyone claims that this is highly unlikely.... when is the last time you tested your equipment for ultrasonic emissions?

And, yes, taht's enough for me on this subject too   



castleofargh said:


> we have a few examples of that, people who when asked, didn't think they clearly found the perceived difference, but somehow got statistically significant results. there is always the funky part of statistics where someone can get great score at random, but with more people and more trials it's not too hard to differentiate luck from a pattern.
> I personally often pass tests where all along I'm not really sure where the difference is. I end up going with my guts and get it right. which is what I assimilate as feeling a change but failing to clearly identify it. it's really rare thought, usually if I insist a little I end up finding the "thing" that changes and from there my results become pretty much 100% compared to just statistically significant. it's one of the reasons why I absolutely believe in training.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 7, 2018)

^ @KeithEmo, very well stated.  That's what I've been attempting to say regarding limitations of tests.  No one test is likely to tell us everything we'd like to know, so we need to design test protocols to answer specific questions.  Blind ABX using short music segments is a useful test, but not the test I'd use to determine whether A and B affect listeners differently during longer-duration normal listening.  As you note, blind testing can still be designed for the latter, and in fact blinding may be even _more_ important for a long-duration listening test, since it may take some time for biases to fully kick in and exert their effects.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2018)

Generally, you do tests in order, from basic to more specific as you figure out the lay of the land. The first test is determining if there is an audible difference at all. If it doesn't pass that test, and the two samples prove to be audibly identical, then you really don't need to do any more listening tests. You can pretty much assume that the difference being observed is due to something other than the fidelity of the sound. Most of the time in the cases we get around here, that means bias and sloppy testing controls.

Phronesis, I think the reason that you don't understand the value of controlled testing is because you've never done one. I suspect you never will see the value, because if you try, you'll make the mistake of trying to come up with one single test to answer multiple questions. It doesn't work like that, and that sort of approach just leads to frustration... which may ultimately lead to the validation of your ideas about the uselessness of tests that you seem so hungry for.

It's a mistake to think that I have a dog in the race on the outcome of people's tests. I would LOVE to have definitive proof of something I don't understand. That is a first class learning opportunity. Other people have a vested interest in wanting tests to fail- especially if the prevailing trend isn't serving their preconceived notions. I totally get that, but that sure isn't how I put together a kick ass system. I was willing to make mistakes and learn from them. That's why I do tests.



Phronesis said:


> Blind ABX using short music segments is a useful test, but not the test I'd use to determine whether A and B affect listeners differently during longer-duration normal listening.



It's already been pointed out to you that studies have shown that long duration samples are a very poor way to judge whether two very similar samples are different. Auditory memory for similar sounds can be as short as a second or two, and the ear adjusts to sound over time, correcting for differences. However, long term listening is very good at allowing bias to enter into the determination. It's also been pointed out to you that if something is so close that it can't be determined in line level matched, direct A/B switched comparison. it probably doesn't matter. You can feel free to do long sample comparisons, but I seriously doubt it will get you the results you're expecting.


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> Well, strictly speaking, you could calculate it from a full set of exact measurements of the square wave...
> For example, you actually can calculate the gain drop from the precise angle of the tilt and the frequency of the square wave.
> (And, depending on the gain shift, the top will be curved.... ) but there sure are easier and more direct ways.
> (It's like the guy who wanted to include a signal generator, a scope, and a frequency counter. If your generator and scope are well calibrated you don't need the counter.)


That's technically true, but ridiculous.  If the tech isn't going to take the time to do spot frequencies he's never going to do those calculations either. 


KeithEmo said:


> The point, however, is that I don't recall anyone ever using a square wave that way.


Then why mention it?  Did that do something for you?


KeithEmo said:


> Things were _different_ in the old days.
> Most low-cost oscilloscopes weren't calibrated very accurately along the time axis... and they tended to drift with time.
> <snip!>
> 
> ...


Your personal experience isn't necessarily a reference for the universal experience.  I entered the world of pro audio engineering in 1974, and we had all the test gear we needed to make accurate measurements.  They were necessary and, in the case of broadcasting, legally required back then.  I recognize that's not the norm either, but let's not talk about ancient history and how crappy everything was is if that's the way it was for everyone.  There were good measurements being made every day by those who cared and needed to.


KeithEmo said:


> And, yes, I much prefer the accuracy and wealth of information we get with modern equipment too.
> (However, while you get a lot better and more accurate information, there are also more ways to get it wrong or misinterpret it.)


I don't know what you're trying to say here.  Sounds like the old ways were just fine, and the new ways are better but more mistakes can be made.  Look, it doesn't matter.  There is no excuse today to use archaic techniques and tools, and mistakes have been and always will be possible.  Excellent measurement software is free or cheap, the hardware is shockingly low cost for the quality you get, and if you run the built-in calibration procedure, whatever even small issues DACS and ADCs may have can be calibrated out.  We aren't in the old days anymore.  If some heads are still there, that's fine, but let's not delude ourselves or anyone into thinking that there's some crazy reason not to do the best we can with today's tools.


----------



## pinnahertz

Phronesis said:


> ^ @KeithEmo Blind ABX using short music segments is a useful test, but not the test I'd use to determine whether A and B affect listeners differently during longer-duration normal listening.


Of course not, because the ABX protocol is designed to discern audible differences only, not the comparative effect on a listener of two choices.  Please be aware that ABX does not specifically demand short music segments at all, but could be done using any length segment, with comparisons conducted over very long periods of time, like days, weeks, or months.  ABX is only a method of comparison to determine audible difference.


KeithEmo said:


> As you note, blind testing can still be designed for the latter, and in fact blinding may be even _more_ important for a long-duration listening test, since it may take some time for biases to fully kick in and exert their effects.


You'd want double-blind with control, similar to ABX but conducted differently. The "control" is essentially X, which could match A or B.  The primary difference is how data is collected.  The ABX test task is to match X with A or B.  Your test would observe the effect of A, the effect of B, and the effect of X, which must be consistent with whatever choice it is.  If not, you have uncontrolled variables in the test.  We did several ABX tests where A, B, and X were identical, just to verify the entire test and controls were working.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 7, 2018)

^ There can be other options besides ABX also, where the test isn't necessarily based on trials to try to match things.  For example:

- Listeners listen to A and B as desired and then pick which is preferred; they could also indicate the strength of preference.  Repeat the trials and see if one is preferred over the other enough to show a statistically significant difference.  In each trial, the listener wouldn't know which equipment is A or B, since it would be randomized for each trial and the listener knows it's randomized (i.e., A and B aren't the same for each trial, so the listener doesn't know if they're picking the same DUT in each trial).

- As Keith described, give listeners a choice of how long to listen, and see if A or B is listened to longer.

- Have listeners listen to A and B with matching volume, music, environment, listening duration, etc., then survey them on how A and B sounded to them with respect to various attributes (strength of bass, overall clarity, audible distortion, tonal balance, fatigue, etc.).  Have each listener do multiple trials to see if their survey responses are consistent.

- Do a 'fake' blinded test where listeners think they know which DUT they're listening to, but it's actually randomized, and they pick which they prefer.  This would result in four combinations of thinking it's A or B vs actually A or B (AA, BA, AB, BB), so this could actually measure strength of bias vs actual sound difference in the same experiment.

- Observe brain activity while listening (e.g., fMRI) and see if there are consistent differences between A and B.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 8, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> ^ There can be other options besides ABX also, where the test isn't necessarily based on trials to try to match things.  For example: Listeners listen to A and B as desired and then pick which is preferred



BZZZZT! That is a fantastic way to introduce subjectivity! It isn't about preference. Preference is subjective. It's about discerning a difference first. Once you have that down, you can move on to other things. But if you don't start at square 1, you'll never know for sure whether there really is a difference. I don't get why you can't seem to separate subjective reality from objective reality. Maybe it's like Jack Nicholson says in A Few Good Men.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> Actually I'm not confusing anything at all....
> 
> My point is simply that a lot of people, and especially in this forum, seem to be determined NOT to "try to differentiate luck from pattern"... because they're determined not to bother to look for the pattern.
> I see an awful lot of "we just know that can't be true so we shouldn't waste time testing it" going on here... perhaps more than is prudent.
> ...


now I'm the one confused ^_^. didn't you take my answer to @Phronesis for you? my answer to you was in no way trying to contradict or criticize your previous post. I was in fact agreeing with it.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 8, 2018)

No one is paying attention to anyone any more! We're all in our own cone of silences. I think this thread is a lightning rod that's like a burr under the saddle of people who refuse to think objectively. I don't care if everyone ignores me. I just wish they would read and study the first post in this thread. It's golden, and there is a very good reason we're all still commenting on it.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> ^ There can be other options besides ABX also, where the test isn't necessarily based on trials to try to match things.  For example:
> 
> - Listeners listen to A and B as desired and then pick which is preferred; they could also indicate the strength of preference.  Repeat the trials and see if one is preferred over the other enough to show a statistically significant difference.  In each trial, the listener wouldn't know which equipment is A or B, since it would be randomized for each trial and the listener knows it's randomized (i.e., A and B aren't the same for each trial, so the listener doesn't know if they're picking the same DUT in each trial).
> 
> ...


nobody suggested that blind testing was all encompassed within ABX. have fun testing anything you like, but you'll soon see how hard it can be to set up a specific blind test for a specific question. ABX for an audio amateur is like the ruler you have at home. the accuracy isn't outstanding but it gives a pretty reliable approximation for most practical needs. and compared to sizing up a distance by looking at it and guessing, a ruler has outstanding accuracy. if you can set up a test better than ABX, nobody here is going to complain. but if it's something that requires a lot of time, personnel, and money, obviously we're not going to adopt that testing method. even researchers might not do it if it's too demanding, so amateur audiophiles... 

you mention preferences again. there are ways to test for that, but just swapping preference and audibility freely is bad. more so when your argument is focused on ABX because ABX wasn't created as a preference test.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> nobody suggested that blind testing was all encompassed within ABX. have fun testing anything you like, but you'll soon see how hard it can be to set up a specific blind test for a specific question. ABX for an audio amateur is like the ruler you have at home. the accuracy isn't outstanding but it gives a pretty reliable approximation for most practical needs. and compared to sizing up a distance by looking at it and guessing, a ruler has outstanding accuracy. if you can set up a test better than ABX, nobody here is going to complain. but if it's something that requires a lot of time, personnel, and money, obviously we're not going to adopt that testing method. even researchers might not do it if it's too demanding, so amateur audiophiles...
> 
> you mention preferences again. there are ways to test for that, but just swapping preference and audibility freely is bad. more so when your argument is focused on ABX because ABX wasn't created as a preference test.



Actually, most of those tests for preference are _easier_ for me to set up in my home with the equipment I have, since there isn’t the same issue of ‘tells’ where I could match correctly based on a difference unrelated to sound quality, such as A and B not exactly matching lengths of music segments.  Preference gets away from the issue of tells, incorporates difference, and can give an indication of strength of difference (“I found that I did tend to slightly prefer A, but the preference was very small, and not consistent, so A and B are essentially the same for me and I’m not going to bother upgrading“).


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> BZZZZT! That is a fantastic way to introduce subjectivity! It isn't about preference. Preference is subjective. It's about discerning a difference first. Once you have that down, you can move on to other things. But if you don't start at square 1, you'll never know for sure whether there really is a difference. I don't get why you can't seem to separate subjective reality from objective reality. Maybe it's like Jack Nicholson says in A Few Good Men.



If someone prefers A over B to a statistically significant level in a blind test, that indicates an _objective_ difference in sound between A and B.  As far as the subjective aspect, _every_ test which requires choices by a listener has a subjective component, but the listener is still being used to detect if an objective difference is being _subjectively_ heard (some listeners will hear things others can’t, and what a given listener hears may vary from one time to another due to fatigue, concentration, etc.).


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> No one is paying attention to anyone any more! We're all in our own cone of silences.


What??


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] If someone prefers A over B to a statistically significant level in a blind test, that indicates an _objective_ difference in sound between A and B.
> As far as the subjective aspect, _every_ test which requires choices by a listener has a subjective component, [2] but the listener is still being used to detect if an objective difference is being _subjectively_ heard ...



1. True but irrelevant!

2. No, an A/B preference test is not the correct method for testing an audibility threshold. An A/B preference test is the correct tool for testing preferences, nothing else! A simple, quick, cheap and accurate method for testing for an objective difference was explained to you weeks ago, in response to exactly the same assertion phrased differently but here you are, exactly as predicted a dozen or posts ago, just going round and round in circles again, why?

G


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> No, an A/B preference test is not the correct method for testing an audibility threshold. An A/B preference test is the correct tool for testing preferences, nothing else!



Yes, and I'm interested in testing preferences, while taking out effects of biases.  I didn't say an A/B preference test is the test which should be used for testing audibility threshold.  As you acknowledge, someone can't have an unbiased preference unless there's a difference.


----------



## Music freak

Can clipping at the source damage or alter the sound of a headphone?
I was listening to music on Youtube. So I listened to this one metal song that had clipping. The song was loud and heavily distorted. So after listening to that song, I noticed this upper midrange crispiness on every song I listened. The tone was slightly off. I thought I was imagining stuff. So I let my 650s rest, after some hours - When I tried them on, the crispiness was still there. It is a subtle difference, but very annoying. Did the digital clipping slightly alter the sound? Is it possible?


----------



## bigshot (Jun 8, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Actually, most of those tests for preference are _easier_ for me to set up in my home with the equipment I have,



You probably don't need to do any kind of test at all to determine subjective preference.



Phronesis said:


> Yes, and I'm interested in testing preferences, while taking out effects of biases.



A preference *is* a form of bias.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 8, 2018)

bigshot said:


> You probably don't need to do any kind of test at all to determine subjective preference.
> 
> A preference *is* a form of bias.



You're creating another circle of confusion here ...

Say we test A and B, which are the same except that B has a lot of distortion added.  The testing is blind, and in ABX listeners can easily determine whether X is A or B.

Or instead we do another blind test where listeners are asked to indicate their preference.  The vast majority of listeners consistently prefer A, but a small minority consistently prefer B because they apparently prefer the distortion.  The test tells us two things: (1) all of the listeners can tell the objective difference between A and B, and (2) the vast majority of listeners, but not all of them, subjectively prefer not having the distortion.  Since the test is blinded, bias has _nothing_ to do with whether the listeners can tell the difference.  But we may be able to infer that a minority of listeners prefer having distortion, perhaps because that's what they're used to hearing with their sound systems; you can call that a type of 'bias' if you like, but it's still based on a preference regarding an objective difference, it's not simply 'in their heads'. 

You could even refine the test to ask listeners to rate their degree of preference on scale of say 0 to 5 (meanings have to be defined for the numbers), and then the test would give you further information about the distribution of preference for adding or not adding distortion in the test group.  For example, you might find that, on average, the group who prefers not having the distortion moderately prefers that, and the group which prefers the distortion has only a very slight preference for it, on average.  We might even discover a guy who strongly prefers the distortion, who could be pulled out of the line to receive audio counseling.

If we get away from the dogma of a single gold standard test, and instead design various tests to explore various questions, we can get a much better understanding of how we hear things, and how we perceive differences which aren't objectively there.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jun 8, 2018)

Music freak said:


> Can clipping at the source damage or alter the sound of a headphone?
> I was listening to music on Youtube. So I listened to this one metal song that had clipping. The song was loud and heavily distorted. So after listening to that song, I noticed this upper midrange crispiness on every song I listened. The tone was slightly off. I thought I was imagining stuff. So I let my 650s rest, after some hours - When I tried them on, the crispiness was still there. It is a subtle difference, but very annoying. Did the digital clipping slightly alter the sound? Is it possible?



If you were listening to the music at a very, very loud level (unsafe listening level) then... maybe.

It's more likely that you damaged your hearing somehow, or that you're simply imagining the difference because you suspect there is one.

This is not to say you're making things up or your ears aren't good or something... the power of suggestion is very strong.  Everyone is affected by it, even the greatest experts.

So the most likely explanation is your headphones sound the same, but you are experiencing the sound differently because you expect to hear a difference.

If your headphones were pretty new, there is also a slim chance that they experienced some level of 'break in' that was accelerated by listening to loud content, but if you are hearing an obvious change, I think this is extremely unlikely.  Break-in (if it happens at all, which not every headphone experiences much or any break-in) tends to cause very subtle changes. 

It's possible that there is some crap, like a hair or piece of lint in your headphone causing a buzzing/resonance or other interference at certain frequencies.  If you happened to drop the headphone that might also cause a change in the sound.  A while back, one of the wires in the coil in my HD555s got knocked out of place and made a horrible buzzing noise until I was able to poke it back into place.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 8, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Say we test A and B, which are the same except that B has a lot of distortion added.  The testing is blind, and in ABX listeners can easily determine whether X is A or B.



We aren't talking about preferences here in Sound Science. We're talking about whether differences exist and if bias is affecting our ability to discern whether there actually is a difference or not. For instance... Take two DACs. I tell you they both probably sound exactly the same. You say you can tell a difference between them, but you haven't done any controlled comparison. The test that needs to be done is an ABX to find out if there actually *is* a difference or not. It makes absolutely no sense to skip past that and decide which one you prefer when you haven't even proven that a difference even exists.

I've DONE this test with every DAC, DAP and player that I've ever bought. You haven't.

You don't need controlled tests to determine subjective preferences. You just make up your mind. Simple. A baby can do that. You can poll people and come up with a general consensus about preference, but that doesn't mean jack diddly to me if my personal preference is different than the consensus. It's subjective, so by definition it's right for me. And you can prefer something totally different and that's just as right. Go ahead and decide you like whatever you want to like. No need to don a lab coat and do tests for that. This isn't the realm of science. It's philosophy.

Naturally, it is going to be easier for you to determine your preferences with your equipment than a controlled listening test. You don't need any equipment at all to do that! The thing that is difficult is removing bias and preference from the equation to determine whether two very similar sounds are actually discernibly different or not. That's what we're talking about here.

Just to let you know... I'm skimming your posts now because you aren't responding to my points and you keep trying to change the discussion to a subject that is totally irrelevant to this thread and this forum.


----------



## bigshot

Zapp_Fan said:


> It's possible that there is some crap, like a hair or piece of lint in your headphone causing a buzzing/resonance or other interference at certain frequencies.  If you happened to drop the headphone that might also cause a change in the sound.  A while back, one of the wires in the coil in my HD555s got knocked out of place and made a horrible buzzing noise until I was able to poke it back into place.



I actually had that happen with a set of cans once. It drove me crazy until I peeled back the foam and realized what had happened. I had a speaker that was buzzing, and I thought it was a blown voice coil. But when I set my hand on top of it, the buzzing stopped. I searched around and discovered that a screw had come loose on the top penel.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> We aren't talking about preferences here in Sound Science. We're talking about whether differences exist and if bias is affecting our ability to discern whether there actually is a difference or not. For instance... Take two DACs. I tell you they both probably sound exactly the same. You say you can tell a difference between them, but you haven't done any controlled comparison. The test that needs to be done is an ABX to find out if there actually *is* a difference or not. It makes absolutely no sense to skip past that and decide which one you prefer when you haven't even proven that a difference even exists.
> 
> I've DONE this test with every DAC, DAP and player that I've ever bought. You haven't.
> 
> ...



You're continuing to miss the point.  If someone does a blind test of two DACs to determine preference, and the result is that there's no real preference for either, it can be inferred that either there's no objective difference, or any objective difference doesn't cause a significant preference either way.  From a practical standpoint, that's what most people want to determine, not whether there's a detectable difference of arbitrarily small magnitude or significance.  The blinding eliminates bias and limits the preference to what can be discerned from any objective differences.  There's no rule that a difference test needs to be conducted before a preference test, the choice on testing depends on the goal.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jun 8, 2018)

Yeah, for me the issue really isn't "is there a difference?"  The issue is "does one sound better than the other?"  In most cases if somebody tells me they can tell the difference between any 2 options in audio - whether it's cables, dacs, burned in vs not burned in, 320kb mp3 vs lossless, etc - all I really need to see for an experiment is a series of blind A vs B tests where they pick the version of two options they feel is the "best" quality.  If the end result is basically a 50/50 roll of the dice I know they are full of it or whatever the differences actually are, they are meaningless.

I often _think_ I hear differences and/or improvements when I try different things in the audio realm.  But I very rarely would be willing to stand strongly behind those feelings.  More often than not I assume they are illusions and I'd love to test my impressions out in blind A/B tests just for fun.  I'm pretty sure I know what the actual result of those tests would be though.


----------



## Music freak

Zapp_Fan said:


> If you were listening to the music at a very, very loud level (unsafe listening level) then... maybe.
> 
> It's more likely that you damaged your hearing somehow, or that you're simply imagining the difference because you suspect there is one.
> 
> ...


Thank you for replying back. 
It was not loud, it was moderate to loud, but the recording sounded loud and harsh. Let me say - It is a subtle change, I don't know If I am imagining it, but I hear it this way now. The upper midrange tone has been slightly altered and is not sounding completely natural. Like there is a coat of crispiness over it. I would not call it harsh, just a slight change in the tone.  I am sorry I am not good at describing sounds. I hope you get it.
The headphone is fairly new. It has only been 5 days. By break in - you mean burn-in, right? Maybe it is that, but the effect was reverse instead of getting better.


----------



## Music freak

bigshot said:


> I actually had that happen with a set of cans once. It drove me crazy until I peeled back the foam and realized what had happened. I had a speaker that was buzzing, and I thought it was a blown voice coil. But when I set my hand on top of it, the buzzing stopped. I searched around and discovered that a screw had come loose on the top penel.


I checked . There is no hair .


----------



## bigshot (Jun 8, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> You're continuing to miss the point.  If someone does a blind test of two DACs to determine preference, and the result is that there's no real preference for either, it can be inferred that either there's no objective difference, or any objective difference doesn't cause a significant preference either way.



We want to know if there's an actual difference between them or not. Your test doesn't answer that at all. If you can prove that there is a difference, then you can move on to deciding whether you care or not. The way you're doing it, you never know if there is a difference or not. You just know that you personally don't care. That is completely subjective and your results wouldn't mean anything to anyone else, especially if a difference DOES exist and someone else DOES care about it. If all you are trying to determine is if you have a preference, you don't need to do a blind test to determine that. Just decide. Your choice may be totally meaningless to everyone else, but if it makes you happy, go for it.

I'm not the one missing the point here.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Music freak said:


> I checked . There is no hair .





Music freak said:


> Thank you for replying back.
> It was not loud, it was moderate to loud, but the recording sounded loud and harsh. Let me say - It is a subtle change, I don't know If I am imagining it, but I hear it this way now. The upper midrange tone has been slightly altered and is not sounding completely natural. Like there is a coat of crispiness over it. I would not call it harsh, just a slight change in the tone.  I am sorry I am not good at describing sounds. I hope you get it.
> The headphone is fairly new. It has only been 5 days. By break in - you mean burn-in, right? Maybe it is that, but the effect was reverse instead of getting better.



I would definitely double check for any secondary mechanical issue (loose screws, loose earpads, etc) before assuming the coil or diaphragm has been damaged in some way.  Listening to a youtube video at normal volume would not damage the headphone unless it was badly defective in the first place.  But, if you 1) suspect there is a problem and 2) aren't sure if it is real ... there is a good chance that it is not real.  What is very common, is to hear something and then not be able to "un-hear it"  - even though it was there the whole time. 

Or, possibly some setting on your PC or DAC changed without your realizing it, although the circumstances in which that would cause an audible change in the upper midrange seem very unlikely to me.


----------



## bigshot

Music freak said:


> Like there is a coat of crispiness over it. I would not call it harsh, just a slight change in the tone.



Your description is too vague to know one way or the other. If it's just a tone change, like the treble is brighter than before, odds are your headphones and ears are fine. You've just become temporarily sensitive to upper frequencies. If there is distortion in the highs that sounds crackly, you might have blown your drivers.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> We want to know if there's an actual difference between them or not. Your test doesn't answer that at all. If you can prove that there is a difference, then you can move on to deciding whether you care or not. The way you're doing it, you never know if there is a difference or not. You just know that you personally don't care. That is completely subjective and your results wouldn't mean anything to anyone else, especially if a difference DOES exist and someone else DOES care about it. If all you are trying to determine is if you have a preference, you don't need to do a blind test to determine that. Just decide. Your choice may be totally meaningless to everyone else, but if it makes you happy, go for it.
> 
> I'm not the one missing the point here.



How can someone have a preference (to a statistically significant level) in a blind test without an objective difference?


----------



## Music freak

Zapp_Fan said:


> I would definitely double check for any secondary mechanical issue (loose screws, loose earpads, etc) before assuming the coil or diaphragm has been damaged in some way.  Listening to a youtube video at normal volume would not damage the headphone unless it was badly defective in the first place.  But, if you 1) suspect there is a problem and 2) aren't sure if it is real ... there is a good chance that it is not real.  What is very common, is to hear something and then not be able to "un-hear it"  - even though it was there the whole time.
> 
> Or, possibly some setting on your PC or DAC changed without your realizing it, although the circumstances in which that would cause an audible change in the upper midrange seem very unlikely to me.


You make sense. It is highly likely that I am imagining it. 
Before asking my doubt here, I googled about it and came across some posts that said that digital clipping can damage the coil. I can understand about the amp causing the damage, but what boggles my mind is how can a badly recorded digital file damage a headphone?
I am very new to this, and I have hardly any knowledge about how these things function internally. So can you explain it in a way I would understand?


----------



## Music freak

bigshot said:


> Your description is too vague to know one way or the other. If it's just a tone change, like the treble is brighter than before, odds are your headphones and ears are fine. You've just become temporarily sensitive to upper frequencies. If there is distortion in the highs that sounds crackly, you might have blown your drivers.


It does not sound crackly. Also, it is possible that I have become temporarily sensitive to them. Thank you.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jun 8, 2018)

Music freak said:


> You make sense. It is highly likely that I am imagining it.
> Before asking my doubt here, I googled about it and came across some posts that said that digital clipping can damage the coil. I can understand about the amp causing the damage, but what boggles my mind is how can a badly recorded digital file damage a headphone?
> I am very new to this, and I have hardly any knowledge about how these things function internally. So can you explain it in a way I would understand?



Clipping can sometimes damage speaker coils by sending so much energy through, at an unfavorable frequency range, that it actually damages the wires or diaphragm.  This is wildly unlikely to have happened just from a random heavy metal track, no matter how badly recorded it was.

Also, clipping in the digital file is not likely to produce this effect.  The DAC will interpret the waveform the way it is, and still transmit a normal, band-limited (meaning no crazy ultrasonic frequencies) signal to your headphones.

I don't think digital clipping actually presents any particular danger to headphones or speakers, ANALOG clipping where the amp itself is sending undesirable signals (with totally unreasonable harmonics) to the speakers and whacking the transducers back and forth in a very dramatic way, overloading the tweeters, causing over-excursion, etc... is said to be likely to damage the speakers.  

But digital clipping will always be filtered by the dac and amp, it's a totally different phenomenon on the electro-mechanical level, even if it sounds similar to your ear.  You're right to have your mind boggled, because I think "digital clipping damages speakers" is a myth.  Hey, the thread is back on topic again!


----------



## castleofargh (Jun 8, 2018)

Music freak said:


> Thank you for replying back.
> It was not loud, it was moderate to loud, but the recording sounded loud and harsh. Let me say - It is a subtle change, I don't know If I am imagining it, but I hear it this way now. The upper midrange tone has been slightly altered and is not sounding completely natural. Like there is a coat of crispiness over it. I would not call it harsh, just a slight change in the tone.  I am sorry I am not good at describing sounds. I hope you get it.
> The headphone is fairly new. It has only been 5 days. By break in - you mean burn-in, right? Maybe it is that, but the effect was reverse instead of getting better.


even more so if you only had them for a few days, I'd bet that's you're still overly focused and in discovery mode in your head.
the hair thing makes a buzzing noise and is usually really easy to notice if/when it happens.
about damaging the headphone with clipping, I don't see where that idea comes from. if it's too loud then maybe, but the main cause would be that it is too loud. there are people who use square waves in their headphones measurements(for the measurement itself or to have a visual aid while setting something up) and they don't damage anything. but obviously they also don't try to push the signal at 140dB.
it's hard to get from your description what you're really feeling, but just in case, you can change the signal around 10khz depending if you push the hd650 toward the front of your head or toward the back. there is usually a little headroom inside the cup before bumping into the ears, and a few people notice that.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 8, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> How can someone have a preference (to a statistically significant level) in a blind test without an objective difference?



I see what you’re getting at... I guess you could establish a difference. It seems like it would be more work that way because the controls would have to be on the person administering the tests and evaluating it, because you’re allowing the test subjects to engage in bias. You would need a lot of tests and a significant pattern of preference. It still wouldn’t mean anything to anyone else though, because another person might have a different preference or may not have a preference at all, even if a difference does exist. You could prove that a difference exists, but you couldn’t prove that one doesn’t exist that way. You’d have to go back and do a traditional test for that.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

bigshot said:


> We want to know if there's an actual difference between them or not. Your test doesn't answer that at all. If you can prove that there is a difference, then you can move on to deciding whether you care or not. The way you're doing it, you never know if there is a difference or not. You just know that you personally don't care. That is completely subjective and your results wouldn't mean anything to anyone else, especially if a difference DOES exist and someone else DOES care about it. If all you are trying to determine is if you have a preference, you don't need to do a blind test to determine that. Just decide. Your choice may be totally meaningless to everyone else, but if it makes you happy, go for it.
> 
> I'm not the one missing the point here.



I completely understand where you're coming from.  But I don't actually care if there is a difference if that difference doesn't result in an improvement in sound quality.  For all intents and purposes, if it's not possible to distinguish a difference in an A/B blind test, then there is no difference.  My results don't have to mean anything to anybody else, because I would never really suggest that my personal feelings on this stuff should be considered very reliable.  However, when someone DOES make a claim that they present as having some authoritative value, I would need to see some sort of blind A/B test to determine if their claims have any validity.  For instance, if a person tells me they have a particular audio cable that they insist improves the sound of their headphones, I pretty much assume its BS unless they have blind A/B'd that cable with a normal cable and actually selected that cable 7 out of 10 times or something.  If they do that, then I might be inclined to really consider their opinion of said cable has some sort of objective validity.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 8, 2018)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> For all intents and purposes, if it's not possible to distinguish a difference in an A/B blind test, then there is no difference.



Exactly. I think it’s more useful to know that there is no audible difference and know that they are objectively identical than it is to know that you didn’t have any preference one way or the other. But I guess if you wanted to, you could divide it into two tests. But without a definitive answer you’re opening the door for OCD to keep telling you that maybe there was a difference and you just didn’t care about it then, but you do now. Biases and preferences can change over time, and then you’re back to where you started from.

By the way, even with a preference test you’d still have to match line level before comparing


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

bigshot said:


> Exactly. I think it’s more useful to know that there is no audible difference and know that they are objectively identical than it is to know that you didn’t have any preference one way or the other. But I guess if you wanted to, you could divide it into two tests. But without a definitive answer you’re opening the door for OCD to keep telling you that maybe there was a difference and you just didn’t care about it then, but you do now. Biases and preferences can change over time, and then you’re back to where you started from.



yeah, unfortunately I think in cases like that there's almost no scientific test that will disuade a person from their biases.  In the end, arranging for this sort of testing of all the different products and accessories is pretty much impossible so we are always going to be left with people who absolutely believe whatever snake oil they have convinced themselves of...


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 8, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I see what you’re getting at... I guess you could establish a difference. It seems like it would be more work that way because the controls would have to be on the person administering the tests and evaluating it, because you’re allowing the test subjects to engage in bias. You would need a lot of tests and a significant pattern of preference. It still wouldn’t mean anything to anyone else though, because another person might have a different preference or may not have a preference at all, even if a difference does exist. You could prove that a difference exists, but you couldn’t prove that one doesn’t exist that way.



A benefit of this type of test is that you could see the pattern of preference for a given listener, and for a group of listeners, and also gauge the strength of preference.  For a given listener, if the preference is inconsistent and/or weak, that cuts to the chase and tells the listener that one DUT couldn't be viewed as an overall significant upgrade over the other, regardless of any objective differences (though it still remains possible that one DUT is preferred for some music tracks and not others, with the preferences cancelling out, but that could be checked by repeating some tracks in different trials and seeing if there's a consistent preference for one DUT over the other).  It's essentially a test for practical decision-making by an individual, rather than a test intended to advance audio science and support more general conclusions.

If A and B sound objectively the same, and the test is blind, there shouldn't be a concern about bias, nor a concern about preferences changing over time, since the sound is the same anyway.  If the sound is actually different (e.g., speakers), preferences could change over time, but the test is still useful because it captures the preference at the time of the test, which can help with making decisions ("I was going to upgrade to those speakers, but it turns out that I don't even like them as much as the ones I have").


----------



## Music freak

Zapp_Fan said:


> Clipping can sometimes damage speaker coils by sending so much energy through, at an unfavorable frequency range, that it actually damages the wires or diaphragm.  This is wildly unlikely to have happened just from a random heavy metal track, no matter how badly recorded it was.
> 
> Also, clipping in the digital file is not likely to produce this effect.  The DAC will interpret the waveform the way it is, and still transmit a normal, band-limited (meaning no crazy ultrasonic frequencies) signal to your headphones.
> 
> ...


I see. Thank you for answering my question. I feel relieved now.


----------



## Music freak

castleofargh said:


> even more so if you only had them for a few days, I'd bet that's your still overly focused and in discovery mod in your head.
> the hair thing makes a buzzing noise and is usually really easy to notice if/when it happens.
> about damaging the headphone with clipping, I don't see where that idea comes from. if it's too loud then maybe, but the main cause would be that it is too loud. there are people who use square waves in their headphones measurements(for the measurement itself or to have a visual aid while setting something up) and they don't damage anything. but obviously they also don't try to push the signal at 140dB.
> it's hard to get from your description what you're really feeling, but just in case, you can change the signal around 10khz depending if you push the headphone toward the front of your head or toward the back. there is usually a little headroom inside the cup before bumping into the ears, and a few people notice that.


I understand. I will conclude that I was imagining the change. Thank you for replying.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 8, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> A benefit of this type of test is that you could see the pattern of preference for a given listener, and for a group of listeners, and also gauge the strength of preference.



I guess I'm not that interested in scientifically testing preferences. There could be a strong preference among a large group of people for whether or not anchovies are good on pizza, but that wouldn't necessarily tell me if I like that or not. I'll just try a slice and I'll know.

When it comes to audio electronics, the thing I'm most interested in is, is it audibly transparent? Can I plug this into the chain and it will do its job without coloring the sound? If I just did your preference test on a piece of gear, if I got a clear preference one way or the other, I would know that it wasn't audibly transparent. That would mean I should return that piece of kit, even if I preferred it. But if I didn't have a preference, I still wouldn't know if it was transparent unless I did a line level matched direct A/B switched test. It's easier for me to just do the controlled different or not test. A preference test alone doesn't give me all the info I need.



Phronesis said:


> If A and B sound objectively the same, and the test is blind, there shouldn't be a concern about bias, nor a concern about preferences changing over time, since the sound is the same anyway.



That's the only test I need to do. If I did come up with something that sounded different, I'd be done and I could return it for a refund because it doesn't meet my specifications. Improving sound is the job of a DSP, not a DAC or amp. I just want them to accurately reproduce the sound. It would be chaos if they colored the sound euphonically. That needs to come at the end of the chain, not the beginning. Otherwise every source would sound different.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 8, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I guess I'm not that interested in scientifically testing preferences. There could be a strong preference among a large group of people for whether or not anchovies are good on pizza, but that wouldn't necessarily tell me if I like that or not. I'll just try a slice and I'll know.
> 
> When it comes to audio electronics, the thing I'm most interested in is, is it audibly transparent? Can I plug this into the chain and it will do its job without coloring the sound? If I just did your preference test on a piece of gear, if I got a clear preference one way or the other, I would know that it wasn't audibly transparent. That would mean I should return that piece of kit, even if I preferred it. But if I didn't have a preference, I still wouldn't know if it was transparent unless I did a line level matched direct A/B switched test. It's easier for me to just do the controlled different or not test. A preference test alone doesn't give me all the info I need.
> 
> That's the only test I need to do. If I did come up with something that sounded different, I'd be done and I could return it for a refund because it doesn't meet my specifications. Improving sound is the job of a DSP, not a DAC or amp. I just want them to accurately reproduce the sound. It would be chaos if they colored the sound euphonically. That needs to come at the end of the chain, not the beginning. Otherwise every source would sound different.



I assumed the discussion of testing methods was general and about any category of DUT, including transducers.  I agree that with electronics, the goal is fidelity without coloration, and we should all be able to agree on what that means.  Tube amp distortion is great for guitar amps, but not what I want with hi-fi.

I don't really think there's much prospect for the kind of testing we need to properly advance audio science and conclusively show that most of the things people think sound quite different actually sound essentially the same.  That would require funding and incentives which generally aren't there, and there are strong incentives _not_ to do it.  So I'm more focused on what I can personally do as far as testing to help me make my own purchasing decisions, and generally better understand the psychoacoustic factors which affect music perception.  I've found it informative and sometimes surprising to try different kinds of tests with different controls and see what the results are (though I generally find testing to be more tedious than fun).


----------



## bigshot (Jun 8, 2018)

Speakers are entirely different. They are the wild card of any system, as is the room. Every speaker and every room sounds different. So you keep your system transparent up to the last stage and you calibrate the EQ of the whole chain at once to make up for the deficiencies of the speakers and room.

It's important for hifi nuts to be aware of what their system is putting out. That means that they should ensure that they aren't unintentionally introducing coloration, and they are calibrating to suit their transducers.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> I entered the world of pro audio engineering in 1974.



Around that time I entered kindergarden  You must be retiring soon, aren't you?


----------



## bigshot

1974 is about the time I got my first Thorens turntable.


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> 1974 is about the time I got my first Thorens turntable.


1974 was about the time I bought my first two LP records, Beatles for Sale and David Essex All the Fun of the Fair (yes i know...).  It was the year when my older brother bought his first stereo, a large Kriesler 3 in 1 quadraphonic set up which he used a lot to play the SQ Dark Side of the Moon.  Up to that point I only listened to AM radio and microphone recordings from it.


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> Around that time I entered kindergarden  You must be retiring soon, aren't you?


Who wants to retire?


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 9, 2018)

I was 12. My step-father had a stereo with two Advent speakers and a pretty nice turntable and a pioneer receiver in our apartment. The receiver had bass and treble controls and loudness and mono buttons. I absolutely loved that stereo. It had a quite usable FM tuner also and back then listening to the radio was a much bigger deal. No presets of course. I had a single-unit turntable / speaker in my bedroom with a 100 lb tracking force and ruined all of our LPs with it. I had a lot of 45 rpm singles of my own. They were a dollar. . . Pretty expensive in today’s terms if you adjust for inflation. I loved music beyond words. We also had two cats. I was taking piano lessons but didn’t practice enough so sometimes I would hide when it was time for my lesson.



old tech said:


> 1974 was about the time I bought my first two LP records, Beatles for Sale and David Essex All the Fun of the Fair (yes i know...).  It was the year when my older brother bought his first stereo, a large Kriesler 3 in 1 quadraphonic set up which he used a lot to play the SQ Dark Side of the Moon.  Up to that point I only listened to AM radio and microphone recordings from it.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> Who wants to retire?


Isn't that a dumb question? Just because you love your multi-mic'ing work doesn't mean everyone enjoys their work. So, to answer your silly question: Everybody who doesn't enjoy their work wants to retire.


----------



## Steve999

I enjoy my work and I _still_ want to retire. I just should wait a few years so I get more out of it. 



71 dB said:


> Isn't that a dumb question? Just because you love your multi-mic'ing work doesn't mean everyone enjoys their work. So, to answer your silly question: Everybody who doesn't enjoy their work wants to retire.


----------



## bigshot

I made a deal with myself early on. I won't work in a career that I don't love and don't want to do for the rest of my life. I'll be doing what I've done for the past 35 years for as long as I can.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I made a deal with myself early on. I won't work in a career that I don't love and don't want to do for the rest of my life. I'll be doing what I've done for the past 35 years for as long as I can.


That is a great policy my friend.....having a purpose is a recipe for a longer and happier life.(hope i'm not wrong about this....could be really disappointing lol)


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I made a deal with myself early on. I won't work in a career that I don't love and don't want to do for the rest of my life. I'll be doing what I've done for the past 35 years for as long as I can.



Making deals with yourself is easy. Making deals with other people is trickier.


----------



## bigshot

No complaints about dealing with other people yet. I made a deal with myself not to lie down with dogs too.


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> Isn't that a dumb question? Just because you love your multi-mic'ing work doesn't mean everyone enjoys their work. So, to answer your silly question: Everybody who doesn't enjoy their work wants to retire.


You have SO little idea of what my work even is, its actually comic.  But I'll be doing it until I'm dead, and probably a few weeks after that. 

I've known many people who have retired.  They were sick within 6 months and died shortly after that.  I know very few that lived any amount of time past retirement.  

So, yeah...dumb question?  I don't think so.


----------



## Steve999

I've seen several people die right after they retire, including a close relative. It does make you step back and take stock of your own choices in a very serious way. You get one chance here, and there are no take twos.



pinnahertz said:


> You have SO little idea of what my work even is, its actually comic.  But I'll be doing it until I'm dead, and probably a few weeks after that.
> 
> I've known many people who have retired.  They were sick within 6 months and died shortly after that.  I know very few that lived any amount of time past retirement.
> 
> So, yeah...dumb question?  I don't think so.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> 1. You have SO little idea of what my work even is, its actually comic.  But I'll be doing it until I'm dead, and probably a few weeks after that.
> 
> 2. I've known many people who have retired.  They were sick within 6 months and died shortly after that.  I know very few that lived any amount of time past retirement.
> 
> So, yeah...dumb question?  I don't think so.


1. Why should I have a idea of what your work is? You keep telling how wonderful multi-mic'ing is so I used logic to deducted your work has to do with it at least. What you do at work wan't the point in my posti. The post was that some people enjoy their job, and other people do not. 

2. Sorry to hear about people dying around you when retired. I guess it's how you take the change in life and how you take care of yourself when retired.


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> You keep telling how wonderful multi-mic'ing is so I used logic to deducted your work has to do with it at least.



I think you'd be hard pressed to find a professional sound engineer who doesn't see the value in multi miking. It's how music is generally recorded for commercial release.


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> 1. Why should I have a idea of what your work is? You keep telling how wonderful multi-mic'ing is so I used logic to deducted your work has to do with it at least. What you do at work wan't the point in my post.


Then why mention it at all?  just needed to take a jab?


bigshot said:


> I think you'd be hard pressed to find a professional sound engineer who doesn't see the value in multi miking. It's how music is generally recorded for commercial release.


But we're all evil!  And our work is evil!  That makes most of the world of recorded sound EVIL!!!!

I don't embrace anything that's evil, but I think I might be OK with that one.


----------



## bigshot




----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I think you'd be hard pressed to find a professional sound engineer who doesn't see the value in multi miking. It's how music is generally recorded for commercial release.



I have difficulties to evaluate it myself, because I don't have clear picture of how all those mics are mixed together. How do you panorate a mono track from one mic? I have also hard time believing a typical Calvin Harris track is multi-mic'ed. Only vocals and some additional guitar riffs etc. are actually recorded so it's not as if you have 3 dozen mics all over the place.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 10, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I think you'd be hard pressed to find a professional sound engineer who doesn't see the value in multi miking. It's how music is generally recorded for commercial release.



Doesn't using two, even three, mics on a single source create sound that might be too clinical?  Afterall, my ears aren't less than three inches from each vocalist or instrument in a specific song.  I actually like fewer mics, some distance, and a little of the actual room mixed in!


----------



## bigshot (Jun 10, 2018)

Have you ever miked a band? I've tried a few times and I failed dismally- especially with the drums. I leave that to the pros now. I know enough about what I don't know to not tell them what to do!


----------



## colonelkernel8

TheSonicTruth said:


> Doesn't using two, even three, mics on a single source create sound that might be too clinical?  Afterall, my ears aren't less than three inches from each vocalist or instrument in a specific song.  I actually like fewer mics, some distance, and a little of the actual room mixed in!


They do both. They generally have room mics for catching the reverb and “room sound” that’s mixed in. The “clinical” sound is a perfect starting point from a mixing perspective.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> [1] I have difficulties to evaluate it myself, because I don't have clear picture of how all those mics are mixed together.
> [2] How do you panorate a mono track from one mic?
> [3] I have also hard time believing a typical Calvin Harris track is multi-mic'ed.
> [3a] Only vocals and some additional guitar riffs etc. are actually recorded so it's not as if you have 3 dozen mics all over the place.



1. Maybe you shouldn't make assertions if you "have difficulties evaluating it" yourself and don't have a clear picture of how it's done?

2. It's called a "Pan Pot", all mixing desks have one for every input.

3. How do you have a "hard time believing" something if you don't have a clear picture of how it's done in the first place?
3a. It's not "Only vocals and some additional guitar riffs", it's mostly only vocals, synths and samples. Don't you hear that? The vocals were almost certainly recorded with one mic, used multiple times and the samples were originally recorded with various other mics, maybe not 3 dozen but several.



TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] Doesn't using two, even three, mics on a single source create sound that might be too clinical? [2] Afterall, my ears aren't less than three inches from each vocalist or instrument in a specific song. [3] I actually like fewer mics, some distance, and a little of the actual room mixed in!



1. I can't think of any occasions where two or more mics are used on a single sound source.

2. But you do have two ears right?

3. How do you "mix in" a little of "actual room" if you don't separately record the "actual room" in the first place?

G


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 1. I can't think of any occasions where two or more mics are used on a single sound source.
> 
> 2. But you do have two ears right?
> 
> ...



1.) One of the acoustical instruments that multimikers love to mic using 2 microphones is harp;  one for the "bass column " ( I do not know how it is correctly called in English ) and the second one for the strings.

2.) Yes, not only that, but we don't have several pairs, denoted like "rock concert", "harpsaichord recital", "symphonic small ( up to and including Mozart)", symphonic large ( up to Mahler & Penderecki )", "jazz acoustic", "jazz amplified", etc, etc.  

3.) Simple. You don't ( CAN'T ) do it after the fact in your mixing desk - you have to make "mix in your head" , right in situ, BEFORE the actual music recording begins - by positioning both the performers and microphone(s) for the best possible result.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> 1. Maybe you shouldn't make assertions if you "have difficulties evaluating it" yourself and don't have a clear picture of how it's done?
> 
> 2. It's called a "Pan Pot", all mixing desks have one for every input.
> 
> ...



1. Snares and toms are often top/bottom miked.

3. Coincidental pair.  One of the closest configs. to how human ears pick up sound.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> 3.) Simple. You don't ( CAN'T ) do it after the fact in your mixing desk - you have to make "mix in your head" , right in situ, BEFORE the actual music recording begins - by positioning both the performers and microphone(s) for the best possible result.


Yes, that's done in a couple situations I can think of.  One is the rank amateur or "purist" who does all of that with the cooperation of the group because he's doing it for free (and it's worth every penny), and two is live broadcast where the engineer is very familiar with the room, likely a public space he's worked in many times, but he's not going to re-position performers at all, he's going to do the best he can with mic position, and not likely just a pair. 

However, anyone working with a commercial release in mind will set up lots of mics and track them all so the mix can be optimized later, when the pressure and cost of having a bunch of warm-bodied musicians standing around is off.  And in that situation you absolutely could mic the room separately, but not all rooms lend themselves to this at all.  I worked in a concert hall in the late 1970s that was home of a world-class orchestra, but there was no point in trying to get any useful "room" out of the space because some knucklehead sold them a bill of goods in the form of a renovation and dried up the acoustics in the hall.   We mixed multiple mics live to two-track for broadcast, but added a bit of artificial reverb too, which filled in what the knucklehead sucked out in the room.

As to more than one mic on a source, yes there are exceptions, but any instrument that produces a more or less point-source at a normal listening distance would get one mic in the mix. Harp, piano, vibes and other instruments where the location of the sound changes with pitch often get two or more.  Also, occasionally two different mics are tracked on a single source or voice, then one chosen as optimal later.

I think it's sort of sad that some people tend to categorize everything into extremes, the proclaim the actual practitioners wrong.  The recording world, even the entire world, doesn't work like that.  You should allow for the fact that your idealized concept of recording just doesn't function in every situation, and may even fail quite badly.  We really didn't end up with multi-mics and multi-tracks just because we suddenly could.  There is a point, a purpose, and a real need.


----------



## pinnahertz

TheSonicTruth said:


> 1. Snares and toms are often top/bottom miked.


Be careful there.  It's not that simple.


TheSonicTruth said:


> 3. Coincidental pair.  One of the closest configs. to how human ears pick up sound.


Pfft.  Not at all.  A coincident pair has a definite point, but it's not close to how ears pic up sound at all.  Strictly intensity stereo if the pair is really coincident, and that's NOT how we hear.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 11, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> 1.) One of the acoustical instruments that multimikers love to mic using 2 microphones is harp;  one for the "bass column " ( I do not know how it is correctly called in English ) and the second one for the strings.
> 
> 2.) Yes, not only that, but we don't have several pairs, denoted like "rock concert", "harpsaichord recital", "symphonic small ( up to and including Mozart)", symphonic large ( up to Mahler & Penderecki )", "jazz acoustic", "jazz amplified", etc, etc.
> 
> ...



1. That's not a single sound source then, is it? It's two sound sources, the "bass column" and the strings.
2. Exactly, which is why we have to create mixes in the first place!
3. Of course we can and do "do it" after the fact in a mixing desk! What do you think a mixing desk is for and why do you think that all professional/commercial music studios have one? You do know that all professional studios have a mixing desk? Honestly, some of the things you state are so ridiculous it's truly unbelievable!
3a. What, you think we don't do that where possible? Again, unbelievably ridiculous!



TheSonicTruth said:


> 1. Snares and toms are often top/bottom miked.
> 3. Coincidental pair.  One of the closest configs. to how human ears pick up sound.



1. Snare drums are often top and bottom mic'ed because a snare drum is NOT a single sound source, it's two sound sources; the top (batter) head where the impact sound occurs and the snare head, where the sizzle sound of the snares occurs. Toms are extremely rarely ever top and bottom mic'ed, although occasionally floor toms are, which again is to separate the sound sources; the impact on the batter head and the resonance from the drum body/floor.

3. Mix a coincident pair with what? Unless you actually have separate things to mix together, how do you mix?

G


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Yes, that's done in a couple situations I can think of.  One is the rank amateur or "purist" who does all of that with the cooperation of the group because he's doing it for free (and it's worth every penny), and two is live broadcast where the engineer is very familiar with the room, likely a public space he's worked in many times, but he's not going to re-position performers at all, he's going to do the best he can with mic position, and not likely just a pair.
> 
> However, anyone working with a commercial release in mind will set up lots of mics and track them all so the mix can be optimized later, when the pressure and cost of having a bunch of warm-bodied musicians standing around is off.  And in that situation you absolutely could mic the room separately, but not all rooms lend themselves to this at all.  I worked in a concert hall in the late 1970s that was home of a world-class orchestra, but there was no point in trying to get any useful "room" out of the space because some knucklehead sold them a bill of goods in the form of a renovation and dried up the acoustics in the hall.   We mixed multiple mics live to two-track for broadcast, but added a bit of artificial reverb too, which filled in what the knucklehead sucked out in the room.
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree with the wording you used to describe acoustic instruments requiring more than one mic in multimiking - the most obvious one, the piano, I took so granted for 2 mics capture as to simply think of it as "one mic" - but I can not remember any event that did not use 2 mics (in whatever configuration) for piano.

Well, I do not think only rank amateur doing it for free are using this approach as their prime choices - try Kavi Alexander of Water Lilly Acoustics, who is using a single pair of mics in Blumlein configuration. I do not have the time ( or am getting lazy to write it all by myself ), so I decided to use this : https://positive-feedback.com/Issue20/waterlily.htm 
Kavi has had a rather unique possibility to hone his Blumlein mic positioning during the time Philadelphia Orchestra had no recording contract with any of the majors - and he could hang around at the rehearsals as much as he pleased, provided he did not disturb the rehearsal in the first place. He would move his mics ever smaller bit with each next rehearsal - until finding the sweet spot in THAT hall. The first recording from this series http://waterlilyacoustics.com/main.htm I did get to hear was "The Philadelphia Orchestra - Nature's realm" - unfortunately, only on the CD version.

And it was THAT what I meant the two mike recording as being more expensive than using multimiking. With the pressure and cost of having a bunch of warm-bodied musicians standing around not only being turned ON - but being absolutely required to begin with. All the post production/mastering is reduced to in this case is pasting together the best parts of the various takes of the same song/piece/composition - no other mumbo jumbo not only undesired, but most of the time actually impossible to do.

It is self explanatory that recording with two mikes is impossible under conditions as mentioned by your experience regarding the acoustics of the venue in which you had to record - there is no other way than to fake it, using artificial reverb, etc, etc. It is the second THAT why I meant a two mike recording technique is more expensive than multimiking. 

Regarding categorizing in extremes; annoying, but, unfortunately, absolutely required. 
I will only cite one example from my practice. Same concert, same venue, same piano, same pianist, same microphone technique, same recorder, same recording engineer. The evening dedicated to exclusively piano music by Slovenian composers, most of them alive and quite a few of them present at the concert/live recording. After the composers received the recordings of their respective works, I had two, totally diametrally different feedbacks ... One composer puffing and ranting how i "mangled and massacred his work" ( not exact wording, but exact meaning ) , the other , almost in tears, thanking me  for the recording, as he never heard any of his work recorded so close to his intentions. 
The first guy would probably have preferred some extremely close miking of the piano ( FAR too many options to even approach this particular PianoPandora box here ) - the second guy, obviously, preffered the capture from a greater distance that also captures the acoustics of the room.

So, yes, there is a point, a purpose and real need for both approaches;  the only requirement being the fact that the artist IS informed what his/hers recording done in either way might sound like in the end - BEFORE he/she decides which way to go. 

At least in acoustical music that does not as default require close (multi)miking, the method that results in closest approximation to what a person attending the live event may hear, will be simple 2 mike technique ( Blumlein, AB, Jecklin Disk, binaural, other ? )  - provided there was enough time/expertise to position those 2 mikes correctly. Hard to do, time consuming, etc - but not impossible. I agree that multimiking approach does allow for the recording to be made under conditions that would otherwise preclude the use of  simple 2 mic techniques; but, it has to be added, at the cost of having to replace the true realism with faking something that should - ideally - be there in the first place.

And as I would not refer you to the Apple Eater's Guide in order to select the apples ( go out and try for yourself which taste better to YOU ), I suggest getting at least one/few of the recordings made using just two mike technique. Beside Water Lilly Acoustics/Blumlein, there are AB stereo with two omni Bruel & Kjaer 4006 recordings of entire Mahler symphony cycle  conducted by Eliahu Inbal on Denon - and so on.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jun 11, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, I agree with the wording you used to describe acoustic instruments requiring more than one mic in multimiking - the most obvious one, the piano, I took so granted for 2 mics capture as to simply think of it as "one mic" - but I can not remember any event that did not use 2 mics (in whatever configuration) for piano.


Interesting.  So you found a way to think of 2 mics as "one mic".  Well, ok.  Go head and plug that one mic into one preamp, then.


analogsurviver said:


> Well, I do not think only rank amateur doing it for free are using this approach as their prime choices - try Kavi Alexander of Water Lilly Acoustics, who is using a single pair of mics in Blumlein configuration. I do not have the time ( or am getting lazy to write it all by myself ), so I decided to use this : https://positive-feedback.com/Issue20/waterlily.htm
> Kavi has had a rather unique possibility to hone his Blumlein mic positioning during the time Philadelphia Orchestra had no recording contract with any of the majors - and he could hang around at the rehearsals as much as he pleased, provided he did not disturb the rehearsal in the first place. He would move his mics ever smaller bit with each next rehearsal - until finding the sweet spot in THAT hall. The first recording from this series http://waterlilyacoustics.com/main.htm I did get to hear was "The Philadelphia Orchestra - Nature's realm" - unfortunately, only on the CD version.


<HEAVEY sigh> True to form, you have, yet again, found an exception and are using it to define everything.  Please look up the definition of "exception".


analogsurviver said:


> It is self explanatory that recording with two mikes is impossible under conditions as mentioned by your experience regarding the acoustics of the venue in which you had to record - there is no other way than to fake it, using artificial reverb, etc, etc. It is the second THAT why I meant a two mike recording technique is more expensive than multimiking.


Seems to me that in most cases a two-mic recording would be vastly more expensive because it would be a commercial failure.


analogsurviver said:


> Regarding categorizing in extremes; annoying, but, unfortunately, absolutely required.
> I will only cite one example from my practice.


And there it is again!  The Mighty Exception provided as proof of a point.


analogsurviver said:


> Same concert, same venue, same piano, same pianist, same microphone technique, same recorder, same recording engineer. The evening dedicated to exclusively piano music by Slovenian composers, most of them alive and quite a few of them present at the concert/live recording. After the composers received the recordings of their respective works, I had two, totally diametrally different feedbacks ... One composer puffing and ranting how i "mangled and massacred his work" ( not exact wording, but exact meaning ) , the other , almost in tears, thanking me  for the recording, as he never heard any of his work recorded so close to his intentions.
> The first guy would probably have preferred some extremely close miking of the piano ( FAR too many options to even approach this particular PianoPandora box here ) - the second guy, obviously, preffered the capture from a greater distance that also captures the acoustics of the room.


You really don't get it.  You're thinking that there are only two final results: a minimalist two-mic recording an a close-mic'd multi-mic approach.  Wow.  I'm sure glad that's not true!  You can, thankfully, blend the two.  In fact, that's more typical.  A main pair, a distant spaced pair, spot mics...still at a respectable distance...could we possibly do any of that???? Not in the polarized world of the analogsurvivor!  However, if you'd bothered to produce a good blend of both highly generalized techniques, you actually might have satisfied everyone.  Just imaging that possibility the next time you completely reject all other techniques but your own.


analogsurviver said:


> So, yes, there is a point, a purpose and real need for both approaches;  the only requirement being the fact that the artist IS informed what his/hers recording done in either way might sound like in the end - BEFORE he/she decides which way to go.


No, we need all the approaches in between as well!  And the artist is mostly NOT informed of much of anything, but the producer certainly has that input.


analogsurviver said:


> At least in acoustical music that does not as default require close (multi)miking, the method that results in closest approximation to what a person attending the live event may hear, will be simple 2 mike technique ( Blumlein, AB, Jecklin Disk, binaural, other ? )  - provided there was enough time/expertise to position those 2 mikes correctly. Hard to do, time consuming, etc - but not impossible. I agree that multimiking approach does allow for the recording to be made under conditions that would otherwise preclude the use of  simple 2 mic techniques; but, it has to be added, at the cost of having to replace the true realism with faking something that should - ideally - be there in the first place.


I'm sorry, your viewpoint is so highly limited by your experience.  There's just no way I can agree to that.  You've categorized your own approach, once again, as definitive, and everything else is wrong.  Just not taking the time to refute this anymore.


analogsurviver said:


> And as I would not refer you to the Apple Eater's Guide in order to select the apples ( go out and try for yourself which taste better to YOU ), I suggest getting at least one/few of the recordings made using just two mike technique. Beside Water Lilly Acoustics/Blumlein, there are AB stereo with two omni Bruel & Kjaer 4006 recordings of entire Mahler symphony cycle  conducted by Eliahu Inbal on Denon - and so on.


Yeah, ok.  Somehow in my decades of experience I've never heard a Blumlein recording in a good hall.(I'm being sarcastic, in case that doesn't translate)  Is that what you seriously think?  How would that even be possible?   But, if he used a pair of omnis for the Blumlein pair, what he got was mono!  So I don't _think_ he did that.  What he likely did was (gasp!)* mix 4 mics!*


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 11, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Interesting.  So you found a way to think of 2 mics as "one mic".  Well, ok.  Go head and plug that one mic into one preamp, then.
> <HEAVEY sigh> True to form, you have, yet again, found an exception and are using it to define everything.  Please look up the definition of "exception".
> Seems to me that in most cases a two-mic recording would be vastly more expensive because it would be a commercial failure.
> And there it is again!  The Mighty Exception provided as proof of a point.
> ...



OK, I did not find a way to plug in two mikes into one preamp - nor intend to do so

Well, just because Kavi of Water Lilly Acoustics is the only known to have consistently being used Bluemlein recording on the commercially successful recordings, it does not mean there are no others doing the same or similar. I'm saving the BIG ONE  for Mr.G - following some particularly petulant frenzy reply pending from him. If you combine anything 2 channel only together, it is not that exceptional as you would have liked to present anymore.

Well, I never stated the two approaches can not be combined. Yet, to remain true to my form, would succumb to that approach only if doing it 2 channel only was completely impractical for any reason.
The total exclusion of my approach  as being amateurish, "can we record now for real",  etc came from whom again ? 

I do not think you should have been reminded microphones with which polar characteristics are required for Blumlein - or that you should not suppose which exact setup has been used by others, either.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> I'm saving the BIG ONE  for Mr.G - following some particularly petulant frenzy reply pending from him.


It’s as if you are saving ammunition in a war. The disrespect for professionals here is monumental.


analogsurviver said:


> I do not think you should have been reminded microphones with which polar characteristics are required for Blumlein - or that you should not suppose which exact setup has been used by others, either.


Didn’t you say that Blumlein was used with omnis? That’s either 4 separate mics or mono.  Really not assuming much here. So, what was it then?


----------



## KeithEmo

That depends on what you mean by "emotion" and what you mean by "feel"....
And, no, I'm not trying to be vague.

For example, listening to a given piece of music, or listening to a certain piece of equipment, might cause your blood pressure to go up, or cause your level of concentration to go up - or down.
In that situation, you may find that your objective experience when listening to Music A is different - depending on what song you listen to five minutes before running the test....
(You cannot simply classify the response as "physical" or "emotional" - because our emotions affect our physical state and vice versa.)

This effect is COMMONLY associated with drugs but can be the result of other stimuli as well.
In the most well know example, show several groups of people the same movie, and then ask them to rate "how funny the movie is" or "how exciting the movie is".
Only, before the movie starts, give the people in one group two cups of strong coffee - which contains caffeine - which is a CNS stimulant.
Most people, especially those who are coffee drinkers, will NOT notice or report and physiological effects from the coffee.
Yet, consistently, the group who drinks the coffee will, on average, rate the movie as "funnier", "more exciting", and even rate the acting and script as being better.
This occurs because, even though they fail to consciously recognize the fact, the drug in the coffee is affecting their emotional state.

There is no reason to specifically discount the possibility that a barely noticeable increase in the noise floor, or the presence of ultrasonic noise, or some other minor difference, might have a similar effect.
(For example, perhaps a slight different in the noise spectrum may cause us to be more - or less - able to distinguish some other type of distortion, or even low level harmonics which otherwise affect the listening experience.)




gregorio said:


> How can you feel an emotion if you can't feel it?
> 
> G


----------



## KeithEmo

My bad there.... I wasn't specifically replying to you....
I find the threading in this program to sometimes be a bit confusing.  



castleofargh said:


> now I'm the one confused ^_^. didn't you take my answer to @Phronesis for you? my answer to you was in no way trying to contradict or criticize your previous post. I was in fact agreeing with it.


----------



## KeithEmo

Music freak said:


> You make sense. It is highly likely that I am imagining it.
> Before asking my doubt here, I googled about it and came across some posts that said that digital clipping can damage the coil. I can understand about the amp causing the damage, but what boggles my mind is how can a badly recorded digital file damage a headphone?
> I am very new to this, and I have hardly any knowledge about how these things function internally. So can you explain it in a way I would understand?


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> It’s as if you are saving ammunition in a war. The disrespect for professionals here is monumental.
> 
> Didn’t you say that Blumlein was used with omnis? That’s either 4 separate mics or mono.  Really not assuming much here. So, what was it then?



Well, I do respect people who do desrve respect in the first place - even if I do not agree with them. Although crossing swords with you many times over, I do respect what YOU say - because you, at the very least, take the time to reply in a manner even layman can understand. That can not be said for everybody else.

No, if you read correctly, AFTER  writing about Blumlein for almost the whole bulk of the post, I only mentioned AB stereo recordings with two omni mics have been used by Denon for its Mahler cycle with conductor Eliahu Inbal in early 80s.- here a reprint of the whole thing https://www.amazon.com/Gustav-Mahler-Symphonies-Frankfurt-Orchestra/dp/B0000D1FDE , available also separately on Denon ( the first that came along ) https://www.discogs.com/Gustav-Mahl...a-Eliahu-Inbal-Symphony-No-1/release/11836438

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumlein_pair   No idea exactly which type of microphone ( stock or modified ? ) has been used, but electronics used on at least the first in the series were all tube gear designed by Tim de Paravicini and recorded onto analogue master tape, also modified electronics by TdP,  from which later CD and DVD  versions have been derived. Later, long time partnership between Kavi Alexander and Tim de Paravicini ended - one of the reasons being the portability and rugged dependability of the solid state DSD gear vs tube analogue tape.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 11, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> ..following some particularly petulant frenzy reply pending from him.



It's not petulant or a frenzy. I'm just doing what I promised to do, point out when you're posting nonsense as fact, which incidently is exactly what you're doing again! 

I've met many recording amateurs over the years and I have respect for them, they do the best they can with the resources they have and sometimes achieve pretty good results, considering. However, they do actually realise they're amateurs, that they don't make a living from it, that they don't have the knowledge, experience or resources of the top professionals and they certainly are not deluded enough to think that what they are doing is the absolute best way possible and that all the professional engineers for decades are wrong and have no idea what they're talking about!



analogsurviver said:


> I do respect what YOU say - because you, at the very least, take the time to reply in a manner even layman can understand.



Glad to see you actually admit it! I doubt it will make the slightest bit of difference though, because you clearly seem to think the body of expert professionals is ignorant/stupid, while you, a layman know far more.

G


----------



## KeithEmo

In general, it's very unlikely that you're going to damage a pair of HEADPHONES by playing a clipped signal through them. In general, speaker drivers, which includes headphones, are damaged by subjecting them to too much power for an extended period of time. However, the idea that clipped signal can damage SPEAKERS is well based in fact, and a remote possibility exists with headphones. here are a few of the considerations involved.

1) I have heard claims that specific speaker drivers may possibly be damaged by the mechanical movement caused by clipped musical signals. However, I've never heard of a proven case of this occurring. As someone noted previously, clipped musical waveforms contain slightly more power, but the increase is not huge.

2) We humans normally perceive distortion as being related to loudness; so signals which contain more distortion seem louder. Because of this, we habitually assume that "we're playing something too loud when it starts to distort"... so we "stop turning up the volume when it starts to distort". A signal that is intentionally distorted, or that is distorted at normal listening levels, will be missing this "cue"... so we may be more likely to overdrive the speakers because we simply don't notice when we cross the line between normal operation and being overdriven. (The opposite effect holds true with electrostatic headphones. Because certain models don't distort significantly, even when playing very loudly, it's easy to turn them up to dangerously loud levels without noticing that you've done so.)

3) LOUDSPEAKERS are quite often damaged by excessive clipping - even when the overall amplifier power is seemingly relatively low. The reason this occurs is mainly because of the crossover. Most music contains a more or less typical mix of frequencies, which includes much more power at lower frequencies than at high frequencies. Therefore, in a typical three-way speaker, designed to work with typical music, the woofer may be able to handle 200 watts continuously, the midrange 35 watts, and the tweeter 10 watts. So, that speaker could handle a 100 watt amplifier, playing cleanly, for long periods of time, with no problem. However, when an amplifier is driven heavily into clipping, because square waves contain a larger proportion of higher harmonics, proportionally more power is delivered to the tweeter, which may simply overload it over time. 

A 100 watt amplifier, playing cleanly, with normal music, won't be sending more than a watt or two to the tweeter in a typical three-way speaker; a 100 watt amplifier clipping heavily can easily send ten or twenty watts to the tweeter, and so may burn it out. The level of risk will depend on the drivers used in your particular speakers, where the crossover frequencies are situated, the design of the crossover itself, and the music you're playing. However, with some combinations, the risk is real.  



castleofargh said:


> even more so if you only had them for a few days, I'd bet that's you're still overly focused and in discovery mode in your head.
> the hair thing makes a buzzing noise and is usually really easy to notice if/when it happens.
> about damaging the headphone with clipping, I don't see where that idea comes from. if it's too loud then maybe, but the main cause would be that it is too loud. there are people who use square waves in their headphones measurements(for the measurement itself or to have a visual aid while setting something up) and they don't damage anything. but obviously they also don't try to push the signal at 140dB.
> it's hard to get from your description what you're really feeling, but just in case, you can change the signal around 10khz depending if you push the hd650 toward the front of your head or toward the back. there is usually a little headroom inside the cup before bumping into the ears, and a few people notice that.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> In general, it's very unlikely that you're going to damage a pair of HEADPHONES by playing a clipped signal through them. In general, speaker drivers, which includes headphones, are damaged by subjecting them to too much power for an extended period of time. However, the idea that clipped signal can damage SPEAKERS is well based in fact, and a remote possibility exists with headphones. here are a few of the considerations involved.
> 
> 1) I have heard claims that specific speaker drivers may possibly be damaged by the mechanical movement caused by clipped musical signals. However, I've never heard of a proven case of this occurring. As someone noted previously, clipped musical waveforms contain slightly more power, but the increase is not huge.
> 
> ...



Just remember: Synthesizer notes contain lots of squared edges.  It's amplitude of pure square waves you have to mind.

In general, during playback, I keep output(amplifier) high, and input(source gain) low, subject to noise floor.  Result, clear, loud sound, in that order.


----------



## bigshot

TheSonicTruth said:


> Just remember: Synthesizer notes contain lots of squared edges.



Just run it through a speaker. That will fix them right up.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. Maybe you shouldn't make assertions if you "have difficulties evaluating it" yourself and don't have a clear picture of how it's done?
> 
> 2. It's called a "Pan Pot", all mixing desks have one for every input.
> 
> ...



1. Maybe. Frankly I don't know anymore what I am supposed to do. What is my place in this World?

2. That much I know, but what does a "pan pot" do to the sound? Does it create excessive stereo separation or not?

3. Because I have mental images (to substitute clear picture). In fact I have watched Youtube videos about music production so I perhaps know _something_.

4. Of course synths and samples but you don't record those with mics.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> 1. Maybe. Frankly I don't know anymore what I am supposed to do. What is my place in this World?
> 2. That much I know, but what does a "pan pot" do to the sound? Does it create excessive stereo separation or not?
> 3. Because I have mental images (to substitute clear picture). In fact I have watched Youtube videos about music production so I perhaps know _something_.
> 4. Of course synths and samples but you don't record those with mics.



1. Maybe gain a clear picture before making assertions or don't make assertions to start with?
2. A pan pot doesn't do anything to the sound, it just moves that sound left or right in the stereo image. No, it does not create excessive stereo separation, it just moves sounds left or right, as intended by whoever is adjusting the pan pots.
3. Watching some youtube vids might give you bits and pieces of the puzzle but not the whole picture, A little knowledge can be dangerous, especially if you don't learn in practice how those bits of the puzzle actually fit together and just make assumptions!
4. What do you think those samples were originally recorded with, if not mics? Many/Most synths aren't aren't entirely synths, they're commonly based on samples, what do you think those samples were recorded with?

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. Maybe gain a clear picture before making assertions or don't make assertions to start with?
> 2. A pan pot doesn't do anything to the sound, it just moves that sound left or right in the stereo image. No, it does not create excessive stereo separation, it just moves sounds left or right, as intended by whoever is adjusting the pan pots.
> 3. Watching some youtube vids might give you bits and pieces of the puzzle but not the whole picture, A little knowledge can be dangerous, especially if you don't learn in practice how those bits of the puzzle actually fit together and just make assumptions!
> 4. What do you think those samples were originally recorded with, if not mics? Many/Most synths aren't aren't entirely synths, they're commonly based on samples, what do you think those samples were recorded with?
> ...


1. Gaining a clear picture of anything is hard. I hope I have a clear picture of _something_. I mean I have studied something in the university and I have do some kind of work. That should give me a clear picture of _something, _right? Maybe the discussion here never touch the area of my expertise since I constantly get these "don't make assertions" comments. It sucks and makes me feel an outsider and a useless person. It also seems that it's difficult to realize you don't have a clear picture while making assertions. Only afterwards you realize it when you see comments to them.

2. Well, you have to do _something_ to the sound in order to move it to the left or right. Otherwise it just stays in the center. That _something_ is for example creating ILD, ITD and ISD between left and right channels. At least that's what I do when I move a monophonic sound to the right or left. Maybe I do it wrong, but to me it seems to work nicely.

3. Bits and pieces courtesy of Youtube is all I have...

4. Yeah, maybe, but you don't need to record them_ yourself_. Someone else did it for you.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 11, 2018)

71 dB said:


> I have mental images (to substitute clear picture). In fact I have watched Youtube videos about music production so I perhaps know _something[_



I remember when I was just getting my feet wet in the film business, I was visiting with my Aunt and she asked what I was doing. I told her that I was working on TV commercials and she said, "Oh yes. I know all about that business..." I was surprised but she was a smart person, so I just smiled and nodded. then she finished her sentence... "Last Summer we took the Universal Studios tour."


----------



## KeithEmo

While some fancy plugins for adding reverberation do actually calculate reflection distances to various walls, what a normal pan-pot does is to allow you to position a single monaural track between the left and right main channels by adjusting the relative levels at which that track is mixed into the two channels (or, in a surround sound system, between multiple channels). It does _NOT_ adjust any L/R HRTF, or delays, or anything like that - it _STRICTLY_ adjusts the levels. Therefore, it does nothing to account for HRTF, and nothing to account for account for differences in reverberation times between that track and the left and right walls. The relative amplitude is the most significant cue, and it is simply assumed that, if you get that right, discrepancies between that and other less important cues will be ignored. I do wonder if this difference is why many people find that many multi-track mixes sometimes sound "unnatural".

(A similar discrepancy exists between current "3D" video formats, which are really just "stereoscopic", and a true full 3D image.) 



71 dB said:


> 1. Maybe. Frankly I don't know anymore what I am supposed to do. What is my place in this World?
> 
> 2. That much I know, but what does a "pan pot" do to the sound? Does it create excessive stereo separation or not?
> 
> ...


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> In general, it's very unlikely that you're going to damage a pair of HEADPHONES by playing a clipped signal through them. In general, speaker drivers, which includes headphones, are damaged by subjecting them to too much power for an extended period of time. However, the idea that clipped signal can damage SPEAKERS is well based in fact, and a remote possibility exists with headphones. here are a few of the considerations involved.


No, sorry, the idea the a clipped signal can damage speakers is well based in MYTH.  And, with this kind of post, you are perpetuating the myth.



KeithEmo said:


> 1) I have heard claims that specific speaker drivers may possibly be damaged by the mechanical movement caused by clipped musical signals. However, I've never heard of a proven case of this occurring. As someone noted previously, clipped musical waveforms contain slightly more power, but the increase is not huge.


This is actually where the myth begins, that clipped musical waveforms contain "slightly more power".  More power than what, exactly?  An unclipped signal?  No, that's not true.  Clipping limits power.
Here's a graph of what happens when you drive an amplifier into clipping, and the resulting RMS power VS an amplifier with the same gain but not clipping.  The test signal is music, the data shows several different RMS metrics, but all are RMS.





You also mentioned the "mechanical movement cause by clipped music signals" as being a factor.  But when you look at what's clipping (mostly LF), and what part of that result actually reaches the tweeter (nothing like a square wave at all), it becomes obvious that the actual music is far more challenging for a driver than clipping-induced harmonics. 


KeithEmo said:


> 3) LOUDSPEAKERS are quite often damaged by excessive clipping - even when the overall amplifier power is seemingly relatively low.


There's no proof of that.  Speakers, specifically tweeters, are not damaged by clipping amplifiers, they're damaged by heating caused by dissipating more power than they're capable of.  Recalling electronics theory, the RMS value is also called the "heating value", and is precisely what is causing voice coils to get hot.  As the above graph shows, you can force far more RMS power into a speaker with a non-clipping amp.


KeithEmo said:


> 1. The reason this occurs is mainly because of the crossover. Most music contains a more or less typical mix of frequencies, which includes much more power at lower frequencies than at high frequencies.


If anything, the crossover reduces the possibility of damage because clipping will happen mostly in bass frequencies, which won't make it to tweeters because of the crossover.  However, the key is the difference in RMS spectrum caused by clipping.  If the spectrum changes during clipping, then yes, we'd have an issue.  Below is a curve family of a rather loud-processed pop song driven into clipping progressively from the threshold to 10dB past the threshold of clipping, and the resulting spectra:





As you can see, the spectra are exactly parallel except for the region above 15kHz where the .mp3 filter sits, and reveals some low level ultrasonics.  The level of that content is far too low to burn tweeters.



KeithEmo said:


> 2. Therefore, in a typical three-way speaker, designed to work with typical music, the woofer may be able to handle 200 watts continuously, the midrange 35 watts, and the tweeter 10 watts.


A quick informal survey of tweeters available at Madisound showed no tweeters rated at 10W, a few at 30W many at  60W or higher.  You'll dig around and find a 10W tweeter, I have no doubt, but it's very much the exception today.


KeithEmo said:


> 3. So, that speaker could handle a 100 watt amplifier, playing cleanly, for long periods of time, with no problem. However, when an amplifier is driven heavily into clipping,4. because square waves contain a larger proportion of higher harmonics, 5. proportionally more power is delivered to the tweeter, which may simply overload it over time.


4. Clipping does not generate square waves, not even close.  The main reason is that exceeding the clipping threshold by as much as 10dB sounds absolutely terrible, but still isn't a square wave.
Here's what a sine wave looks like clipped 6dB past the threshold, and the unclipped version:




Now, what's that spectrum look like? Here's 200Hz, clipped 10dB past the threshold:




If that was a 100W amp, the first harmonic generated above the tweeter crossover (2K, conservatively) is down about -35dB, which is about .03 watts.  So, it's not the harmonics generated by clipping that burns up a tweeter.


KeithEmo said:


> A 100 watt amplifier, playing cleanly, with normal music, won't be sending more than a watt or two to the tweeter in a typical three-way speaker; a 100 watt amplifier clipping heavily can easily send ten or twenty watts to the tweeter, and so may burn it out.


No, not a chance.  See the second graph set, it shows the spectrum of actual music clipping starting at threshold and going up in 2dB steps to clip+10dB.  The spectrum doesn't change because clipping related harmonics are masked by music content.


KeithEmo said:


> The level of risk will depend on the drivers used in your particular speakers, where the crossover frequencies are situated, the design of the crossover itself, and the music you're playing. However, with some combinations, the risk is real.


Again, no.  The mechanism just simply isn't there at all. 

So, where did the "clipping amps burn out speakers" myth start?  In the early days of SS amps, several rather popular amplifiers didn't just clip, they broke into HF oscillation.  Some quite badly.  That meant that when driven past clipping they'd become an RF generator pumping nearly full amp power into the poor tweeter at ultrasonic frequencies.  Yes, that will burn a tweeter, and yes, if you put in a higher power amp that doesn't clip it won't happen.  But that was then.  Modern amps don't oscillate when they clip...at least none I'm aware of, and though I haven't tested yours, I seriously doubt they would.


----------



## bigshot

Clipped signals are chopped off. It makes sense that they couldn't damage drivers.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> 1. Gaining a clear picture of anything is hard. I hope I have a clear picture of _something_. I mean I have studied something in the university and I have do some kind of work. That should give me a clear picture of _something, _right? Maybe the discussion here never touch the area of my expertise since I constantly get these "don't make assertions" comments. It sucks and makes me feel an outsider and a useless person.
> 2. Well, you have to do _something_ to the sound in order to move it to the left or right. Otherwise it just stays in the center.
> 3. Bits and pieces courtesy of Youtube is all I have...
> 4. Yeah, maybe, but you don't need to record them_ yourself_. Someone else did it for you.



1. That doesn't make any sense, no one has a "clear picture" of everything! We go to university, study a subject, get some sort of picture, get a job and gain a clearer picture with experience. It's simply impossible to do that for every field of human endeavour. In fact, it would be extremely hard in practice to do that for every field which just covers music recording and reproduction because it encompasses a whole bunch of individual fields: Music composition, music performance, acoustics, psycho-acoustics, DSP programming, electrical/electronic engineering, music engineering, music production, mastering, music distribution and marketing, and furthermore, many of these fields have specialist sub-fields. That you don't have a clear picture of all these fields does NOT make you a "useless person", it makes you a normal human being! The solution to your problem is obvious and I don't understand why you can't see it: You realise that you don't have a clear picture of some/many of these fields, so don't make assertions (statements of fact) about those fields and certainly don't argue with those who do have a "clear picture" from doing it professionally every day for decades. That doesn't mean you can't participate, it just means in those areas where you don't have a clear picture you ask questions and/or phrase your statements more conditionally instead of making absolute assertions and then spend pages defending them!

2. With a pan pot, the sound, all the components of the sound, are completely unaffected, the only thing which is affected is where that sound is routed, which of the two output (L/R) channels the sound is sent to and in what proportion. KeithEmo is essentially correct.

3. Exactly and what you've done is taken those bits and pieces and invented your own "picture". We all have to do that to a large extent in many areas/fields, the difference is that many of us realise that we're only in possession of bits and pieces, that there are many other bits and pieces we don't have and that the "picture" we've invented is therefore likely to be somewhat, substantially or completely different to the actual "clear picture". For this reason we'd be very careful/reserved about making statements of fact (assertions) derived from our invented "picture", especially in a fact/science based forum, but for some reason, not you. You seem to accept that you have expertise in one small part of the jigsaw puzzle and no more than "bits and pieces" of the rest of the puzzle but you can't seem to accept even the possibility that the "picture" you've invented from these bits and pieces is somewhat or substantially different from the actual picture. All this, including point #1 above, has been pointed out to you many times across a number of different threads but you just keep doing the same thing over and over. 

4. What's that got to do with anything? You stated: "_I have difficulties to evaluate it myself, because I don't have clear picture of how all those mics are mixed together. How do you panorate a mono track from one mic? I have also hard time believing a typical Calvin Harris track is multi-mic'ed. Only vocals and some additional guitar riffs etc. are actually recorded so it's not as if you have 3 dozen mics all over the place._" - A typical Calvin Harris track is recorded vocals mixed exclusively or almost exclusively with samples and sample based synths and all those samples had to have been originally recorded. With the possible exception of any purely synthesised sounds, ALL the sounds in a Calvin Harris track have been "actually recorded" and multiple different mics must have been employed to record those samples. Therefore, Calvin Harris is effectively mixing a whole bunch of different mics together! It's irrelevant who originally recorded those samples/recordings or when.

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. That doesn't make any sense, no one has a "clear picture" of everything! We go to university, study a subject, get some sort of picture, get a job and gain a clearer picture with experience. It's simply impossible to do that for every field of human endeavour. In fact, it would be extremely hard in practice to do that for every field which just covers music recording and reproduction because it encompasses a whole bunch of individual fields: Music composition, music performance, acoustics, psycho-acoustics, DSP programming, electrical/electronic engineering, music engineering, music production, mastering, music distribution and marketing, and furthermore, many of these fields have specialist sub-fields. That you don't have a clear picture of all these fields does NOT make you a "useless person", it makes you a normal human being! The solution to your problem is obvious and I don't understand why you can't see it: You realise that you don't have a clear picture of some/many of these fields, so don't make assertions (statements of fact) about those fields and certainly don't argue with those who do have a "clear picture" from doing it professionally every day for decades. That doesn't mean you can't participate, it just means in those areas where you don't have a clear picture you ask questions and/or phrase your statements more conditionally instead of making absolute assertions and then spend pages defending them!
> 
> 2. With a pan pot, the sound, all the components of the sound, are completely unaffected, the only thing which is affected is where that sound is routed, which of the two output (L/R) channels the sound is sent to and in what proportion. KeithEmo is essentially correct.
> 
> ...


1. First you accuse me for not having a clear picture and then you say actually no one has! You don't seem to notice that what you say to me applies to you too. There are areas where you don't have a clear picture either, right? So shouldn't you also refrain in making assertions?

2. Setting proportion is affecting the sound. If you pan hard left, right channel is silent. That is completely different from center panned situation, hence sound is affected.

3. I have always known this. Since other people make assertion despite of not knowing the clear picture, I do it too. Why are assertions a bad thing when I make them but ok when other people make them? What's bad about incorrect assertions? Other people can always correct them and that's how we learn new things. Don't suppress my freedom of speech, just correct me when needed. You may say the discussions are about things within YOUR expertise, things YOU have a clear picture about, but isn't that claiming an unfair homefield advantage? The playing field should be fair so that everyone has an equal chance to participate and make assertions. 

4. I don't use much mics. I don't have good mics. They are expensive and I'm not rich. I have my DIY Jecklin Disk with dirt cheap electret mics (the whole JD cost me less than 100 euros to make). I also have Olympus LS-5 to record sounds. My experience with mics is mainly loudspeaker/impulse response measurements at work using (mostly 1/2") B&K mics. That's using one mic at the time. That is totally different from recording music with a multi-mic system. That is why I say I don't have a clear picture. I am being honest here. It isn't irrelevant (to Calvin Harris) who originally recorded the samples, because if someone else did it, Calvin Harris himself doesn't need to know how to use mics. He only needs to know how to mix them together.


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> 2. Setting proportion is affecting the sound. If you pan hard left, right channel is silent. That is completely different from center panned situation, hence sound is affected.


This seems like an argument for the sake of argument.  Do you know what G. is saying?  Sure you do! 

Just stop it.


----------



## pinnahertz

Just one more bit on the clipping/tweeters myth.  It's interesting to look at what signal would be applied to a tweeter, post cross-over, if an amp were severely clipping in the bass frequencies.  Here's a 200Hz sine wave 10dB past the clipping threshold, a sine wave being used because it makes the effects of clipping easy to see.  Note: no square waves anywhere.






Here's the waveform post cross-over (what is actually applied to a tweeter at 2kHz and up):






Also no square waves.  If this were a physical tweeter the above would be slightly different because of the interaction of the load on the amp, but this clinical example makes my point.  There's little there to stress a tweeter physically or thermally.


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> While some fancy plugins for adding reverberation do actually calculate reflection distances to various walls, what a normal pan-pot does is to allow you to position a single monaural track between the left and right main channels by adjusting the relative levels at which that track is mixed into the two channels (or, in a surround sound system, between multiple channels). It does _NOT_ adjust any L/R HRTF, or delays, or anything like that - it _STRICTLY_ adjusts the levels. Therefore, it does nothing to account for HRTF, and nothing to account for account for differences in reverberation times between that track and the left and right walls. The relative amplitude is the most significant cue, and it is simply assumed that, if you get that right, discrepancies between that and other less important cues will be ignored. I do wonder if this difference is why many people find that many multi-track mixes sometimes sound "unnatural".



I know what a normal pan-pot does. What I don't know is how much a normal pan-pot is used and how much other means are used.

Relative amplitude is not more important than other cues! Such assumption is in my (mind you, I do have an unclear picture according to many of you) opinion a result of the early days of stereophony and fixation to ping pong stereo sound that works _somehow_ thanks to what the listening room acoustics does to the sound (generates the missing cues!), but completely ignores headphone listening. ILD, ITD and ISD are all important for spatial hearing and their relative importance varies with frequency. ITD dominates at lower frequencies while ILD and ISD become dominant at higher frequencies for physical reasons. Amplitude panoration (alone) is in fact the simplest possible approximation of spatial hearing and as such far from an ideal solution. Evolution figured out how to do spatial hearing. We better humbly learn from that.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> Just one more bit on the clipping/tweeters myth. There's little there to stress a tweeter physically or thermally.



Just looked into this myself. I took a part of one of my own tracks. I calculated the energy of it: 0.771139. Then I high past filtered it (first order butterworth at 2000 Hz) to simulate a "worst case" scenario. The energy of that signal is 0.033884. Then, I overdrived the original signal by 12 dB and attenuated it by 12 to simulate a clipping amp. Now the energy was 0.554908. This is expected as a clipping amp can provide all the power it should. Finally I highpass-filtered this clipped signal to see the "treble tweeter load": The energy was 0.027127, which is _less_ than for unclipped situation! As the Mythbusters would say: BUSTED! I can't believe this kind of myth has prevaled all these years and how I have believed it blindly. Mind blown! Thanks pinnahertz for exposing this myth for me!

I guess in theory it's possible to make a situation were clipping causes increased power for the tweeter (music that lacks badly higher frequencies).


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> I know what a normal pan-pot does. What I don't know is how much a normal pan-pot is used and how much other means are used.


You must have some idea. You’re the cross-feed Guy!


71 dB said:


> I
> Relative amplitude is not more important than other cues! Such assumption is in my (mind you, I do have an unclear picture according to many of you) opinion a result of the early days of stereophony and fixation to ping pong stereo sound that works _somehow_ thanks to what the listening room acoustics does to the sound (generates the missing cues!), but completely ignores headphone listening. ILD, ITD and ISD are all important for spatial hearing and their relative importance varies with frequency. ITD dominates at lower frequencies while ILD and ISD become dominant at higher frequencies for physical reasons. Amplitude panoration (alone) is in fact the simplest possible approximation of spatial hearing and as such far from an ideal solution.


Aren’t you the guy who loves his cross-feed without any consideration for ITD? At all?? A pan pot can be built with a couple of contoured resistive elements in a single control. Now, please describe how a fully ILD/ITD capable pan pot would be built, and at what point in history that would have become possible much less practical to put on every channel strip of a mixing desk. Then, while you’re at it, please describe how the action of that control would function equally well for speaker vs headphone listeners.


71 dB said:


> Evolution figured out how to do spatial hearing. We better humbly learn from that.


Not to cross into “forbidden territory” here, but there is zero evidence of evolutions effect on spatial hearing.  We don’t have the “pre-evolutionary” reference.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 12, 2018)

71 dB said:


> 1. First you accuse me for not having a clear picture and then you say actually no one has! You don't seem to notice that what you say to me applies to you too. There are areas where you don't have a clear picture either, right? So shouldn't you also refrain in making assertions?
> 2. Setting proportion is affecting the sound. If you pan hard left, right channel is silent. That is completely different from center panned situation, hence sound is affected.
> 3. Why are assertions a bad thing when I make them but ok when other people make them? [3a] What's bad about incorrect assertions? [3b] Other people can always correct them and that's how we learn new things. [3c] Don't suppress my freedom of speech, just correct me when needed. [3d] You may say the discussions are about things within YOUR expertise, things YOU have a clear picture about, but isn't that claiming an unfair homefield advantage? The playing field should be fair so that everyone has an equal chance to participate and make assertions.
> 4. It isn't irrelevant (to Calvin Harris) who originally recorded the samples, because if someone else did it, Calvin Harris himself doesn't need to know how to use mics. He only needs to know how to mix them together.



1. Of course I notice it applies to me too and I absolutely do refrain from making assertions! I don't like making myself look ignorant, foolish or feeling like a "useless person", so I do NOT make assertions about brain surgery, astrophysics, body building and a huge range of other fields I don't have a "clear picture" of. If I were to engage in a public fact/science based forum dedicated to say brain surgery, it would be to ask questions and if I did make any assertions they would be extremely tentative and conditional. I would NOT make ANY absolute assertions and I definitely wouldn't argue with an actual brain surgeon!!

2. No, setting the panning does not affect the sound itself, only where that sound is sent (to which speaker/s).

3. It's not about who makes assertions, it's about whether those assertions are correct!
3a. This is a science/fact based sub-forum, it exists to promote the actual facts/science and refute myth, pseudo-science, marketing BS and other incorrect assertions. If you want to make incorrect assertions, that what all the other sub-forums are for and what makes this sub-forum different from all the others. So in this sub-forum, incorrect assertions are about as "bad" as it gets!
3b. Yes, we can always correct them but obviously that's NOT going to be "how we learn new things" if all you do is fight those "corrections" and continue arguing for your false assertion! There are far better ways of learning new things than simply making false assertions, especially in this sub-forum! You could ask questions instead, as just one example!
3c. I'm not suppressing your freedom of speech, you can write any complete nonsense you want but then of course I'm entitled (obligated even, in this sub-forum) to point out that it IS complete nonsense. If you keep repeating that same complete nonsense over and over again, without regard to the facts/science presented, then that's effectively trolling, which is not acceptable here.
3d. Everyone does have an equal chance to participate and make assertions but false/incorrect assertions will be refuted and constantly repeating the same false assertions will be viewed as an attack on this sub-forum's principles and an insult to it's members! Again, the most simple solution is not to make false assertions in the first place, ask questions instead or phrase assertions conditionally rather than absolutely and if someone does "correct them" then think about those corrections, research them yourself or ask questions about them, don't just blindly argue against them and keep repeating the same false assertion!!! Which is exactly what you are doing with point #2 and #4. How's it going to end? Are you going to end up feeling like a "useless person" again? If so, you must enjoy feeling like a "useless person" because it's so easy to avoid! How many times has this been explained to you? It's hardly rocket science!

4. Exactly. I have no idea how much Calvin Harris does or doesn't know about actually using mics himself but his tracks definitely do involve multiple recordings/samples in addition to the vocals and therefore must involve multiple mics. Most of, and probably all, the material in his tracks has been recorded and does involve multiple mics, which is the opposite of what you asserted and why I'm refuting your assertions!!

G


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> Just looked into this myself. I took a part of one of my own tracks. I calculated the energy of it: 0.771139. Then I high past filtered it (first order butterworth at 2000 Hz) to simulate a "worst case" scenario. The energy of that signal is 0.033884. Then, I overdrived the original signal by 12 dB and attenuated it by 12 to simulate a clipping amp. Now the energy was 0.554908. This is expected as a clipping amp can provide all the power it should. Finally I highpass-filtered this clipped signal to see the "treble tweeter load": The energy was 0.027127, which is _less_ than for unclipped situation! As the Mythbusters would say: BUSTED! I can't believe this kind of myth has prevaled all these years and how I have believed it blindly. Mind blown! Thanks pinnahertz for exposing this myth for me!


Thanks, it blew my mind too, but I always felt something was wrong with the whole clipping damages speakers thing.


71 dB said:


> I guess in theory it's possible to make a situation were clipping causes increased power for the tweeter (music that lacks badly higher frequencies).


Yes, of course, but that’s not the issue. It’s if you can get that power up to a damaging level with an under powered and clipping amp.  That’s the trick that doesn’t seem possible unless you find the magic combination of a very low dissipation tweeter and a high power clipping amp.


----------



## KeithEmo

I suspect the main explanation is the simplest.

Altering the relative level between channels is simple - and a pan-pot is just that - a simple two-gang potentiometer for adjusting level.
Adjusting for something like reverberence or HRTF is a lot more complicated - and wasn't really practical at all before DSPs bacame common.

A basic mixer is a very simple device to build....
And, whether you consider it the most important cue or not, for most people it does "work" (at least with speakers).




71 dB said:


> I know what a normal pan-pot does. What I don't know is how much a normal pan-pot is used and how much other means are used.
> 
> Relative amplitude is not more important than other cues! Such assumption is in my (mind you, I do have an unclear picture according to many of you) opinion a result of the early days of stereophony and fixation to ping pong stereo sound that works _somehow_ thanks to what the listening room acoustics does to the sound (generates the missing cues!), but completely ignores headphone listening. ILD, ITD and ISD are all important for spatial hearing and their relative importance varies with frequency. ITD dominates at lower frequencies while ILD and ISD become dominant at higher frequencies for physical reasons. Amplitude panoration (alone) is in fact the simplest possible approximation of spatial hearing and as such far from an ideal solution. Evolution figured out how to do spatial hearing. We better humbly learn from that.


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> I suspect the main explanation is the simplest.
> 
> Altering the relative level between channels is simple - and a pan-pot is just that - a simple two-gang potentiometer for adjusting level.
> Adjusting for something like reverberence or HRTF is a lot more complicated - and wasn't really practical at all before DSPs bacame common.


Still not practical even with all the DSP in the world. What HRTF do you use? Are we listening on headphones? If speakers, where are they relative to the LP? All this does is layer on more compromises. I’m fully ware of the failings of a pan pot, but it works,  and isn’t a horrible compromise for most listeners.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Not to cross into “forbidden territory” here, but there is zero evidence of evolutions effect on spatial hearing.  We don’t have the “pre-evolutionary” reference.



Well, the evidence is YOU - and everyone on this thread. If our grand grand .................................................................................. grand daddy did not learn to hear in pitch black darkness there is a snake at (pilot's jargon ) 7 o'clock and some wild cat at 2 o'clock and some hungry gator at 4 o'clock - leaving around 10 o'clok as the only possible room to escape - we would not be having this conversation.

The ones who did no learn this localization thing, ended up as food of the predators - and yoiu can bet describing last moments regarding sound localization into any "recorder" at the tyme was not high up in their priority list.


----------



## KeithEmo

I hate to disillusion you, but the "myth" started with a lot of dead speakers...
You're also making a lot of assertions that are sometimes, or even frequently, but not always, true.
Yes, if you turn the gain on an amplifier up A LOT, you can turn a sine wave into a square wave.
And, yes, that can happen on many analog devices, which often have 20 dB or more of "free gain" (gain that you don't normally use, but that's there if you turn the knob all the way up).

You might be surprised how many people are convinced that "they can't hurt their 200 watt speakers with their new 100 watt amplifier".
People frequently ask me on the phone: "what amplifier can I buy that will be safe for my new speakers; they're rated at 250 watts?"
They're really assuming that there's nothing they can do to hurt their "200 watt speakers" with their "100 watt amplifier".
(And, yes, we replace a lot of blown tweeters whose previous owners held that opinion.)

And, no, the major part of the danger isn't that there are square waves involved.
The major part of the danger is that normal music is rather dynamic.

So, assuming a typical 100 watt amplifier can deliver peaks up to 200 watts or so, if you turn it up until it just starts to clip, your peak output will be 200 watts, and your average will be fifteen or twenty watts.
And, yes, most speakers are rated with this in mind... (most "200 watt speakers" will not survive anywhere near 200 watts of solid continuous input power - at any combination of frequencies). 
However, if you ignore when your 100 watt amplifier starts to clip, and keep turning the Volume up, you'll have your own little version of the loudness wars.
The peak level will remain the same, but the average level will go up.... in theory, at pure clipping, with that 100 watt amp, your peak and average levels could meet at 100 watts.
This is not due to the shape of the individual waveforms involved - but because you are applying "a brick wall upwards level compressor" to the signal (the amplifier when it's clipping). 

And, at that point, the fact that what you've got is square waves just makes matters a tiny bit worse... because proportionally a bit more of that power ends up at the midrange and tweeter than usual. 
It is actually the operating point you've chosen for the amplifier - in terms of overall average output level - that poses the most risk.
(However, by avoiding "turning the amp up into clipping", you will also avoid that situation.)

If you want to look at it from an entirely different angle.
If you have an amplifier rated at 100 watts, and you're playing typical music, at the point where it just starts clipping, your AVERAGE level will be somewhere around 10 or 20 watts, which is safe for most speakers rated for use with a 100 watt amplifier.
However, if you turn your 100 watt amplifier up into solid clipping, your average level can reach 100 watts, which is almost certainly NOT safe for that speaker... and, yes, you are most likely to kill the tweeter first, and then the midrange.



pinnahertz said:


> No, sorry, the idea the a clipped signal can damage speakers is well based in MYTH.  And, with this kind of post, you are perpetuating the myth.
> 
> This is actually where the myth begins, that clipped musical waveforms contain "slightly more power".  More power than what, exactly?  An unclipped signal?  No, that's not true.  Clipping limits power.
> Here's a graph of what happens when you drive an amplifier into clipping, and the resulting RMS power VS an amplifier with the same gain but not clipping.  The test signal is music, the data shows several different RMS metrics, but all are RMS.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I should also point out that you've chosen very specific examples... which are reasonably typical, but do not at all characterize all, or even most, speakers.

Try those calculations with a speaker that has a tweeter that has a THIRD ORDER crossover, with the low cut set at 2500 Hz.
Now try the numbers with a 1500 Hz sine wave (where almost 100% of the energy goes to the midrange).
Now try it with a 1500 Hz square wave, where the first major harmonic, at 4500 Hz, is being sent to the tweeter.
(And remember to add that new extra harmonic content to the percentage of the music already being routed to the tweeter.)

However, as I mentioned in another post, in most cases, the major problem isn't actually the square waves... but the much higher AVERAGE level that tends to accompany them.



71 dB said:


> Just looked into this myself. I took a part of one of my own tracks. I calculated the energy of it: 0.771139. Then I high past filtered it (first order butterworth at 2000 Hz) to simulate a "worst case" scenario. The energy of that signal is 0.033884. Then, I overdrived the original signal by 12 dB and attenuated it by 12 to simulate a clipping amp. Now the energy was 0.554908. This is expected as a clipping amp can provide all the power it should. Finally I highpass-filtered this clipped signal to see the "treble tweeter load": The energy was 0.027127, which is _less_ than for unclipped situation! As the Mythbusters would say: BUSTED! I can't believe this kind of myth has prevaled all these years and how I have believed it blindly. Mind blown! Thanks pinnahertz for exposing this myth for me!
> 
> I guess in theory it's possible to make a situation were clipping causes increased power for the tweeter (music that lacks badly higher frequencies).


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jun 12, 2018)

Thanks to @pinnahertz and @KeithEmo  for shedding some more light on the clipping issue.

At least we all agree clipping in the recording, per se, is not an issue.  So digital clipping is also not an issue.

I think the myth probably comes from lack of clarity in where the clipping takes place, and exactly what happened to the speaker driver.

One thing we occasionally see in our returns department is the speaker surround actually tearing. The driver and amp are still fine but the speaker is "blown".  I guess this means the electronics performed fine, but exceeded the mechanical capabilities of the driver.  I wouldn't expect the customer to immediately grasp this, and I imagine you hear some pretty funky stuff that might sound like clipping as this terrible process concludes.

Then you have over-excursion in the tweeter which might sound like a particularly vicious type of clipping.  It may be a similar situation where the coil / amp are handling it but you still get physical impact of the diaphragm / coil into something.

Then you have the somewhat more rare actual overheating of the coil ... which as we've noted doesn't just happen because of clipping.

I have a question about that, maybe someone knows.

Does an analog filter (passive crossover) still operate correctly if you dramatically overload it - meaning is it still an 18dB/oct filter if you're sending way too much voltage through?  I'm thinking that maybe you overload the crossover itself, and so it passes too much energy to the tweeter because the filter stops working right?  I have no idea what happens to these types of filters when you overload them.

This would maybe (?) still sound like clipping to the listener, but it wouldn't be the AMP clipping.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jun 12, 2018)

To answer your question about the crossover....

Under normal circumstances, a passive analog filter will continue to function the same even if you overload it rather severely.
However, there are a few exceptions.

First, if you overload a metal-core inductor badly, you can saturate it, which can cause both distortion, and a change in its electrical properties.
This will only occur with a lot of power being applied at low frequencies, so usually happens to inductors associated with the woofer.
(This happens with metal-core inductors, but not with air-core inductors, and is most common with under-sized metal core inductors on the woofer.)

Second, resistors can change value if you overload them... and will often (but not always) return to their previous value once they cool down.
I've also seen inductors in crossovers actually burned out - with the wire actually burned through - but that is really rare.

Finally, if you apply really excessive voltage, crossover capacitors can fail.
This can be bad because, when a capacitor fails, it will often short, allowing low frequencies to go where they shouldn't.
If the main capacitor on the tweeter fails the resulting overload will often burn out the tweeter.
Metallized film capacitors are very reliable, but electrolytic caps fail much more often, especially when they get old.

Another failure that is common is for the voice coil in the driver to overheat - resulting in some or all of the windings coming loose from the former.
If this happens, you can end up with a driver that plays, but makes odd jangling noises, often only at certain frequencies.
This can be very difficult to locate because it may only occur occasionally... running a fast frequency sweep through the speaker is often the best way to track it down.
This can also happen if the glue simply fails mechanically, or simply dries out.
(This used to be rather common in the old days, but seems rather rare nowadays - I guess adhesives have gotten better.)



Zapp_Fan said:


> Thanks to @pinnahertz and @KeithEmo  for shedding some more light on the clipping issue.
> 
> At least we all agree clipping in the recording, per se, is not an issue.  So digital clipping is also not an issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jun 12, 2018)

Thanks, great info.

Thinking about this a bit more, I guess the one "half truth" to "clipped signals damage speakers" is that they tend to be high RMS on a peak vs. peak basis, i.e a square wave has a higher RMS than a sine wave at the same peak amplitude.  So if you were nearly overloading your system with a sine or otherwise normal program material, then you fed a 0dbFS square wave in, you might be in trouble.

Not that this pertains to the earlier question, but it would be wrong to say that a clipped signal is NEVER going to be more risky than a clean one - at an equal (previously said equivalent which is ambiguous) peak amplitude.  So "digital clipping damages speakers" is probably true sometimes, if you were already close to the RMS limit of your system.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Well, the evidence is YOU - and everyone on this thread. If our grand grand .................................................................................. grand daddy did not learn to hear in pitch black darkness there is a snake at (pilot's jargon ) 7 o'clock and some wild cat at 2 o'clock and some hungry gator at 4 o'clock - leaving around 10 o'clok as the only possible room to escape - we would not be having this conversation.



I'm sure paragraphs like this make sense to you, but to me it might as well be in Chinese. Clarity counts.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> 1. You must have some idea. You’re the cross-feed Guy!
> 
> 2. Aren’t you the guy who loves his cross-feed without any consideration for ITD? At all??
> 
> ...



1. Sure, I have _some_ idea.

2. Crossfeed incorporates the idea of ITD. Not at 100 % accuracy of course, but to an reasonable extent which is much better than non-existent ITD of pan-pots.

3. You use software. It's easier to code ILD/ITD/ISD effects than to build hardware doing it. You could have a "dummy" mixing desk which only controls a computer running the software. To serve both speaker and headphones listeners you create spatiality that works well for both (for example restricting ILD at low frequencies to 6 dB or less as I have suggested a few times). I call it _omnistrereophony_, but you don't like me creating my own terms.

4. Biologists (who know this stuff much better than we) say there is a lot of evidence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170858/
If evolution didn't affect spatial hearing then what did in your opinion?

5. Yes we have. It's a planet without life/just after abiogenesis. There was no hearing and much less spatial hearing.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I'm sure paragraphs like this make sense to you, but to me it might as well be in Chinese. Clarity counts.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_combat_manoeuvring https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-phrase-watch-your-six-originate

Describing the position relative to clock is the single most basic - and quick - way to communicate in an air battle. In real life, almost always limited to 12, 9, 6 and 9 "o'clock". Having somebody in your six position is anything but desired ... - even if it is just a mock fight with fellow pilots.

By the time you can say something as long as your statement above in order to warn your best friend instead of yelling "watch your six" - he will not be coming back. 

Standing on the firm ground, humans had to develop roughly 2 degree precision in 3D sound localization - based on typical distance/size/speed of the predators. A raging rhino from say 50 metres will be - speaking in degrees - about the same "size" threat as a snake 5 metres away, etc. Failing to evade in the only direction from my example that at least promises survival can have only one consequence.


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> I hate to disillusion you, but the "myth" started with a lot of dead speakers...


Show me real data. Ive looked,it’s just not there. What you’re looking for is hard evidence that a clipping amp blows a tweeter but a non clipping amp at the same gain does not. POST if you find it.


KeithEmo said:


> Yes, if you turn the gain on an amplifier up A LOT, you can turn  a sine wave into a square wave.
> And, yes, that can happen on many analog devices, which often have 20 dB or more of "free gain" (gain that you don't normally use, but that's there if you turn the knob all the way up).


Clearly you have not actually tried this. It takes 40+ dB if gain past clipping to eve approximate a pseudo-square wave. Not possible in the real world.


KeithEmo said:


> You might be surprised how many people are convinced that "they can't hurt their 200 watt speakers with their new 100 watt amplifier".
> People frequently ask me on the phone: "what amplifier can I buy that will be safe for my new speakers; they're rated at 250 watts?"
> They're really assuming that there's nothing they can do to hurt their "200 watt speakers" with their "100 watt amplifier".
> (And, yes, we replace a lot of blown tweeters whose previous owners held that opinion.)
> ...


Quite incorrect. A 100W amp driven past clipping will output more than 100W rms. Look at the first graph which shows exactly that.


KeithEmo said:


> And, at that point, the fact that what you've got is square waves just makes matters a tiny bit worse... because proportionally a bit more of that power ends up at the midrange and tweeter than usual.


 But that mid range and tweeter energy is insignificant compared to the music content there. Look at the graph that shows the spectrum change with clipping. These are actual measurements.


KeithEmo said:


> If you want to look at it from an entirely different angle.
> If you have an amplifier rated at 100 watts, and you're playing typical music, at the point where it just starts clipping, your AVERAGE level will be somewhere around 10 or 20 watts, which is safe for most speakers rated for use with a 100 watt amplifier.
> However, if you turn your 100 watt amplifier up into solid clipping, your average level can reach 100 watts, which is almost certainly NOT safe for that speaker... and, yes, you are most likely to kill the tweeter first, and then the midrange.



You’re clinging to the myth!  It’s like you never read my post or looked at the pictures!  All your objections have already been addressed. 

With 40dB of gain past clipping you still don’t get square waves.  You might just try it instead of posting more errors. 

If you drive your 100W amp 10dB past clipping you get more than 100W! But not more than the unclipped amp at the same gain. Look st the first graph again.

 Now, I’ve post a graphic proof of what I’m saying. You’ve posted nothing but opinion. If you like to post some actual proof, I’d be happy to look at it.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 12, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> air battle predators. A raging rhino.



You're not communicating well. I still have no idea what your point is because you put it in the pot with air pilots and rhinos and hit blend. An analogy can be helpful, but it only works if you've clearly set up the context first. And you don't want to mix metaphors.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 2. No, setting the panning does not affect the sound itself, only where that sound is sent (to which speaker/s).
> 
> 3. It's not about who makes assertions, it's about whether those assertions are correct!
> 3a. This is a science/fact based sub-forum, it exists to promote the actual facts/science and refute myth, pseudo-science, marketing BS and other incorrect assertions. If you want to make incorrect assertions, that what all the other sub-forums are for and what makes this sub-forum different from all the others. So in this sub-forum, incorrect assertions are about as "bad" as it gets!
> ...


2. Well if you think about channels separately, but you can't. You need all channels. You need the reference of other channels to know what is going on. Also, audio is not only "sound sent to speakers". It's also aiff/flac/wav/mp3 files etc.

3. Why do assertions need to be correct? Where is debate if only correct assertions are being made. Discussion boards would like this:

gregorio: 2 + 2 = 4
pinnahertz: Yes!
bigshot: Seconded!
Zapp_Fan: Agreed!
KeithEmo: I also agree!
analogsurviver: I agree with everyone else!
71 dB: Agreed, we can all go offline now.​
On some issues professionals don't even have an agreement!

3a. I don't think my assertions here have been completely wrong and I try to promote new ideas for sound engineers that would serve headphone listeners better. As an "outsider" who has not worked in music production (but has got insight for spatial hearing/signal prosessing etc.) I might notice things that professionals are blind about, too "close" to notice. From my perspective the philosophy of mixing is somewhat stucked in the past with all the pan-pot practices reflecting some sort of ping-pong mentality. Instead of welcoming my ideas and suggestions I am being mostly rejected as someone without a clear picture. The experience has been a bit disappointing.

3b. Perhaps the corrections aren't as correct as you assume?

3c. What if it's sometimes that I have to correct nonsense by others? Like analogsurvivor insisting vinyl is superior to 16/44.1? Are you sure you have it ALWAYS correct yourself? I'm ready to admit having been wrong. Just demonstrated it by thanking pinnahertz for bursting the myth of clipping weak amps burning tweeters for me.

3d. I'm sorry if my mind doesn't work as it should keeping up with corrected assertion. It's possible I forget about having been corrected already. That's just how my memory works. I sucks, but that's the "dummy" head I have. Also, you can't correct me just by telling me how it is. You need to make me UNDERSTAND why it is. My mind works by understanding rather than knowing (memorising) things. That's why I am a slow learner. Understanding takes time, but is also deeper than just knowing (memorising) stuff.

4. Sorry, I don't see how my assertion is in contradiction with this. You can have 200 tracks worth of recorded samples done using only one mic, recorded one sample after another. Maybe not the optimal solution in any way, but possible.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> You're not communicating well. I still have no idea what your point is because you put it in the pot with air pilots and rhinos and hit blend. An analogy can be helpful, but it only works if you've clearly set up the context first. And you don't want to mix metaphors.



Now.. should I take a 360 degree circle, mark where you are ( in the centre ) , mark within 2 degree tolerance where gator is, where snake is, where big cat is AND, where there is some room in the direction you might have some chance to save your own skin ? 

Even without the link to the reference(s)  posted by @71 dB just above, that should be clear to anyone who survived to this day. 
We don't have gators ( well, in Europe at least ) nor big cats nor snakes in urban areas - but there are cars, motorcycles, bicycles, etc - which can alo be deadly if we fail to evade them in time.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> If you drive your 100W amp 10dB past clipping you get more than 100W! But not more than the unclipped amp at the same gain. Look st the first graph again.



You get about 170 W. Squarewave would be 200 W.
That would be no less than 1000 W!


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> 1. Sure, I have _some_ idea.
> 
> 2. Crossfeed incorporates the idea of ITD. Not at 100 % accuracy of course, but to an reasonable extent which is much better than non-existent ITD of pan-pots.


Your favorite cross-feed circuit has nothing even close to the right ITD.


71 dB said:


> 3. You use software. It's easier to code ILD/ITD/ISD effects than to build hardware doing it. You could have a "dummy" mixing desk which only controls a computer running the software. To serve both speaker and headphones listeners you create spatiality that works well for both (for example restricting ILD at low frequencies to 6 dB or less as I have suggested a few times). I call it _omnistrereophony_, but you don't like me creating my own terms.


 I call it just a vastly larger group if compromises.


71 dB said:


> 4. Biologists (who know this stuff much better than we) say there is a lot of evidence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170858


But they have no actual evidence at all. There would have to be fossilized remains that completely represents the pre-evolutionary failed hearing system, like a bunch of one-eared apes. Soft tissue doesn’t fossilize well or at all, so they don’t have it.


71 dB said:


> 5. Yes we have. It's a planet without life/just after abiogenesis. There was no hearing and much less spatial hearing.


What planet is that and who has visited it?

Are you absolutely sure you want  to continue this? I think we’re pretty close t violating forum rules here.


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> You get about 170 W. Squarewave would be 200 W.
> That would be no less than 1000 W!


Exactly the point.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jun 12, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> Then you have over-excursion in the tweeter which might sound like a particularly vicious type of clipping.  It may be a similar situation where the coil / amp are handling it but you still get physical impact of the diaphragm / coil into something.
> 
> Then you have the somewhat more rare actual overheating of the coil ... which as we've noted doesn't just happen because of clipping.


Do you have data on this? Literature has thermal failure primary and overexcursion secondary for tweeters.

Does an analog filter (passive crossover) still operate correctly if you dramatically overload it - meaning is it still an 18dB/oct filter if you're sending way too much voltage through?  I'm thinking that maybe you overload the crossover itself, and so it passes too much energy to the tweeter because the filter stops working right?  I have no idea what happens to these types of filters when you overload them.

This would maybe (?) still sound like clipping to the listener, but it wouldn't be the AMP clipping.[/QUOTE]
A saturated iron core inductor will bring up harmonic distortion, but nothing like a hard clipping amp. There’s nothing in the tweeter part of a crossover that would cause a clipping-like effect, though components will burn out if design limits are exceeded.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jun 12, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> Thanks, great info.
> 
> Thinking about this a bit more, I guess the one "half truth" to "clipped signals damage speakers" is that they tend to be high RMS on a peak vs. peak basis, i.e a square wave has a higher RMS than a sine wave at the same peak amplitude.  So if you were nearly overloading your system with a sine or otherwise normal program material, then you fed a 0dbFS square wave in, you might be in trouble.


It would depend on the frequency. That’s not a real audio signal though.


Zapp_Fan said:


> Not that this pertains to the earlier question, but it would be wrong to say that a clipped signal is NEVER going to be more risky than a clean one - at an equal (previously said equivalent which is ambiguous) peak amplitude.  So "digital clipping damages speakers" is probably true sometimes, if you were already close to the RMS limit of your system.


Not a wrong statement, but the wrong set of conditions.   The comparison is between the hazard of a clipping amplifier and a non-clipping amplifier with the same gain.  The clipping amplifier does not, and cannot provide higher RMS or peak energy than the  unclipped higher power amp.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> 1. Your favorite cross-feed circuit has nothing even close to the right ITD.
> 2. I call it just a vastly larger group if compromises.
> 3. But they have no actual evidence at all. There would have to be fossilized remains that completely represents the pre-evolutionary failed hearing system, like a bunch of one-eared apes. Soft tissue doesn’t fossilize well or at all, so they don’t have it.
> 4. What planet is that and who has visited it?
> 5. Are you absolutely sure you want  to continue this? I think we’re pretty close t violating forum rules here.


1. What is the correct ITD?
2. You get rid of one compromise (headphone listening). I do this omnistereophonic sound when making music. I can manage it. Why couldn't others?
3. No evidence at all? Really? As if fossilized remains were the only possible evidence. How about DNA? I believe by the time apes emerged evolution had already found the benefits of two ears so that's why one-eared apes don't exist. Skulls do fossilize and they indicate the locations of ears.
4. Planet Earth. I don't know if aliens have visited here. Probably not.
5. What forum rules are we close to violating?


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Now.. should I take a 360 degree circle, mark where you are ( in the centre ) , mark within 2 degree tolerance where gator is, where snake is, where big cat is AND, where there is some room in the direction you might have some chance to save your own skin ?
> 
> Even without the link to the reference(s)  posted by @71 dB just above, that should be clear to anyone who survived to this day.
> We don't have gators ( well, in Europe at least ) nor big cats nor snakes in urban areas - but there are cars, motorcycles, bicycles, etc - which can alo be deadly if we fail to evade them in time.



What the hell are you talking about and what does any of this have to do with home audio? Is there a reason why you have trouble communicating clearly or are you deliberately obfuscating?


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> Exactly the point.


Actually I think the point is not much of that 170 W happens in the tweeter frequency range. At least that's were I was wrong.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 12, 2018)

71 dB said:


> 2. Crossfeed incorporates the idea of ITD. Not at 100 % accuracy of course, but to an reasonable extent which is much better than non-existent ITD of pan-pots.
> 3. You use software. It's easier to code ILD/ITD/ISD effects than to build hardware doing it. You could have a "dummy" mixing desk which only controls a computer running the software. To serve both speaker and headphones listeners you create spatiality that works well for both (for example restricting ILD at low frequencies to 6 dB or less as I have suggested a few times). I call it _omnistrereophony_, but you don't like me creating my own terms.



And off you go again, the same old nonsense repeated for the umpteenth time!!



71 dB said:


> 2. Well if you think about channels separately, but you can't. You need all channels. You need the reference of other channels to know what is going on. Also, audio is not only "sound sent to speakers". It's also aiff/flac/wav/mp3 files etc.
> 3. Why do assertions need to be correct? Where is debate if only correct assertions are being made. Discussion boards would like this:
> gregorio: 2 + 2 = 4 .. pinnahertz: Yes! .. bigshot: Seconded! .. Zapp_Fan: Agreed! .. KeithEmo: I also agree! .. analogsurviver: I agree with everyone else! .. 71 dB: Agreed, we can all go offline now.
> [3.1] On some issues professionals don't even have an agreement!



2. Huh? Did you even think about any of that before you started arguing nonsense?

3. That's a very good analogy and in some weird, parallel universe apparently justifies you and analogsurvivor arguing that 2+2=5. If you want to argue that 2+2=5 then go right ahead but not here in the sound science forum, it's nonsense and if you keep on arguing that 2+2=5 you will be treated as an ignorant troll!
3.1. Your joking right? Do you really know so little about the profession that you can't even work out the area/category that professionals don't agree about?



71 dB said:


> 3a. I don't think my assertions here have been completely wrong and I try to promote new ideas for sound engineers that would serve headphone listeners better. As an "outsider" who has not worked in music production (but has got insight for spatial hearing/signal prosessing etc.) I might notice things that professionals are blind about, too "close" to notice.
> 3b. Perhaps the corrections aren't as correct as you assume?
> 3c. What if it's sometimes that I have to correct nonsense by others? Like analogsurvivor insisting vinyl is superior to 16/44.1? [3c1] Are you sure you have it ALWAYS correct yourself? [3c2] I'm ready to admit having been wrong. Just demonstrated it by thanking pinnahertz for bursting the myth of clipping weak amps burning tweeters for me.
> 3d. I'm sorry if my mind doesn't work as it should keeping up with corrected assertion. It's possible I forget about having been corrected already. That's just how my memory works.
> ...



3a. So you've watched a few youtube videos and now you're going to try and tell the professionals how to do their job?! Are you that delusional with everything? As an "outsider" do you also argue with brain surgeons after watching a few surgery vids, what about particle physicists and film directors? Do you troll everyone or just sound engineers? You really are delusional if you think tens of thousands of professional sound engineers in every country on the planet for many decades are blind to something you just happen to have noticed! And lastly, it's not even close to a NEW idea in the first place! All of this has been explained to you more than once but here you are doing absolutely exactly what I predicted yet again? Why? You must like feeling like a "useless person".

3b. I'm not assuming, I'm basing corrections on known fact, science and decades of my own and my peers' knowledge and experience. You on the other hand have a few out of context facts, a "picture" you've invented and a few youtube vids you've watched.

3c. As I stated, I don't care what you state but if it's a false assertion then I'll challenge/refute it. I did not refute your assertions to analogsurvivor because they were not false.
3c1. How many times do I have to tell you? I do not make absolute assertions (or corrections) unless I'm certain, if I'm not certain, my assertions will be far more conditional.
3c2. But are you ready to admit you're wrong regarding your new idea which isn't new, that you've noticed but no professional in the history of professionals has ever noticed?

3d. Again, you're joking right? This is the Sound Science forum, not the forum where you repeat post any old nonsense as fact, just because you can't remember that you've already agreed that it was nonsense!
3d1. Unless you're paying me for lessons, it is NOT my job to make you understand anything! I'm just refuting your false assertions, if you can't understand the explanation of why they're false, that's your problem, not mine!!

4. If you have 200 different samples, each recorded at a different time and/or place, then you have 200 (multiple) mics worth of samples to mix together and of course, they have indeed all been recorded, not just a vocal and a guitar riff! Surely this isn't too difficult for you to grasp, is it? Why did you make such nonsense assertions in the first place and why on earth are you spending post after post trying to defend it?

G


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> What the hell are you talking about and what does any of this have to do with home audio? Is there a reason why you have trouble communicating clearly or are you deliberately obfuscating?



I am talking about he fact that evcolution taught us - the hard way - to be able to locate the sound within 2 degrees or so - in 3D, not just 360 degree plane. Regardless of what any paper might say, with better precision, peer reviews, etc.

What part of this you do not understand ?  And what does this have to do with audio ? - after finding binaural does not work for you.

In your shoes, I would try at least to follow what others have said about the binaural - it is perfectly OK to say that it is too complicated or costly to you, but dismissing it on the grounds that you failed at the first hurdle is simply not fair. Getting the surround right is even far more costly - you need decent ROOM to begin with ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan

pinnahertz said:


> It would depend on the frequency. That’s not a real audio signal though.
> 
> Not a wrong statement, but the wrong set of conditions.   The comparison is between the hazard of a clipping amplifier and a non-clipping amplifier with the same gain.  The clipping amplifier does not, and cannot provide higher RMS or peak energy than the  unclipped higher power amp.



I don't have data on tweeter over-excursion, that's more of speculation tbqh.  I think the tweeter would probably have to be designed wrong for that to happen. 

As far as the conditions - the original post was about digital clipping, not a clipping amp, but I acknowledge the conversation has moved on. 

However, I would point out that clipped signals at 0 dBFS and pure square waves are certainly signals that music producers would encounter with some regularity.  Most music listeners won't encounter these very often, but on the other side of the mixing desk it would be relatively common.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jun 12, 2018)

This is a pointless argument... your theoretical conditions do NOT encompass all the permutations commonly encountered in the real world.

I've owned plenty of analog preamps which had 20+ dB of "excess gain"... and so were able to deliver a fair approximation of a square wave with high-level inputs.

Also note that, while I don't know the conditions others were assuming, I never said that we should assume "the same amount of gain".
In real life, what we frequently encounter is that, when someone has an underpowered amplifier, they turn it up until it clips.
Then, when it still fails to play loudly enough, they turn it up FURTHER.
The result is a solidly clipped signal which is also loudness compressed (the peak level was limited by the amp but, by continuing to boost the gain, they're also significantly raised the average level).
As a result, the signal has both a much higher than normal average level, and, thanks to the clipping, a disproportionate amount of high frequency energy.

If you talk to anyone who has processed or repaired a significant number of damaged speaker...
You will find that damaged tweeters are disproportionately common...
You will also find that damaged tweeters are disproportionately common among users who have low-powered amplifiers.

I leave it to you to figure out how much of this is due to the facts I've described...
And how much is simply due to the possibility that the sort of people who buy underpowered amplifiers are also the sort who are more prone to turning them all the way up, ignoring obvious signs of distress with their speakers, and waiting for smoke to appear.

I should also note, however, that I can easily produce a very similar effect by deliberately causing excessive clipping on a digital audio editor, or by using "a brick wall limiter".
(That effect being to raise the average level, sometimes by as much as eight or ten TIMES, while the peak level remains the same.)
In fact, the theoretical ultimate result of applying massive amounts of gain, combined with hard limiting, would be to turn music into a series of full amplitude sine waves at various frequencies.... and I haven't seen many tweeters that could tolerate a 100 watt 5 kHz sine wave for very long.
(And, no, I wouldn't want to be in the room with one if it could.)

If you really require a "graphic example" of this...
Take any music file you like (choose one that is normalized so the peaks are at about -1 dB but are NOT clipped).
Analyze the average power level.
Now, boost the level of the entire file by 20 dB (ignoring any clipping that may occur).
Analyze the average power level again.
You will obviously find that the average power level is now significantly higher.
(And, if there is a lot of clipping, you will find that the average power level at higher frequencies is increased disproportionately.)



pinnahertz said:


> Show me real data. Ive looked,it’s just not there. What you’re looking for is hard evidence that a clipping amp blows a tweeter but a non clipping amp at the same gain does not. POST if you find it.
> Clearly you have not actually tried this. It takes 40+ dB if gain past clipping to eve approximate a pseudo-square wave. Not possible in the real world.
> Quite incorrect. A 100W amp driven past clipping will output more than 100W rms. Look at the first graph which shows exactly that.
> But that mid range and tweeter energy is insignificant compared to the music content there. Look at the graph that shows the spectrum change with clipping. These are actual measurements.
> ...





pinnahertz said:


> Show me real data. Ive looked,it’s just not there. What you’re looking for is hard evidence that a clipping amp blows a tweeter but a non clipping amp at the same gain does not. POST if you find it.
> Clearly you have not actually tried this. It takes 40+ dB if gain past clipping to eve approximate a pseudo-square wave. Not possible in the real world.
> Quite incorrect. A 100W amp driven past clipping will output more than 100W rms. Look at the first graph which shows exactly that.
> But that mid range and tweeter energy is insignificant compared to the music content there. Look at the graph that shows the spectrum change with clipping. These are actual measurements.
> ...


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> 1. What is the correct ITD?
> 2. You get rid of one compromise (headphone listening). I do this omnistereophonic sound when making music. I can manage it. Why couldn't others?


Perhaps you might give that just a little more thought?


71 dB said:


> 3. No evidence at all? Really? As if fossilized remains were the only possible evidence. How about DNA?


Foscilized DNA from which we can tell if the owner had acute spatial hearing? You’ve been watching too man movies.


71 dB said:


> I believe by the time apes emerged evolution had already found the benefits of two ears so that's why one-eared apes don't exist. Skulls do fossilize and they indicate the locations of ears.


Yes, we have the location of two ears . But we know nothing about the shape and size which affects localization.  We don’t have a single skull with only one ear. So we have no evidence there was any evolutionary change.



71 dB said:


> 4. Planet Earth. I don't know if aliens have visited here. Probably not.


You lost me. All the physical evidence we have points to the existence of two-eared humans with no change in hearing ability.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> I am talking about he fact that evcolution taught us - the hard way - to be able to locate the sound within 2 degrees or so - in 3D, not just 360 degree plane. Regardless of what any paper might say, with better precision, peer reviews, etc.



What peer reviewed papers are you referring to? Is there a specific context to your comment?

And yes, binaural doesn't work for me. Surround does. Atmos would probably be even better. Multichannel playback with object based spatial mixing shows a lot more potential than shoehorning everything into just two channels. With Atmos, you'd be more apt to get that 360 degree sound field you're talking about... the more channels, the more precise the location.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 4. If you have 200 different samples, each recorded at a different time and/or place, then you have 200 (multiple) mics worth of samples to mix together and of course, they have indeed all been recorded, not just a vocal and a guitar riff! Surely this isn't too difficult for you to grasp, is it? Why did you make such nonsense assertions in the first place and why on earth are you spending post after post trying to defend it?
> 
> G



What are we arguing about here? I agree with that. Now, I leave and do other things in my life.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 12, 2018)

71 dB said:


> What are we arguing about here? I agree with that. Now, I leave and do other things in my life.



Yes!  Put this thread out of its misery.  I'm sure a lot more was accomplished earlier today on Sentosa Island in Singapore than has been in over 8,750 posts here!


----------



## bigshot (Jun 12, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Yes!  Put this thread out of its misery.



The reason this thread gets crapped on so much is the first post. It's a smoking gun that disproves a lot of the myths that audiophiles cherish. Idiots with a chip on their shoulder and a hatred for controlled testing come in here and deliberately try to grandstand and spew bologna in the hopes of getting it locked. Others with huge egos and small intellects use it to try to hog the limelight and shift the attention to themselves. Neither of these tactics have worked. This thread is pinned and it's the most important thing in this whole forum in my opinion. If you want to know why this thread *isn't* going to be "put out of its misery", take an hour or two to carefully read the first post and follow the links for the citations. I guarantee you'll learn something. I did when it was first posted. ProgRockMan was kind enough to come back a month or two ago and update it. If you haven't read it since then, set your keyboard aside and read for a bit instead of posting. Send him a PM thanking him for his work. He deserves it.

I sit here and put up with clowns vomiting nonsense all over the comments here because this forum needs that first post. It's concise, well supported and jam packed with useful information. If the comments don't follow that model, it's up to the commenters to do a better job. It isn't the fault of the thread. Go raise the level of your own discourse and encourage others to do the same. If you can't raise the bar, then just step back and let the first post stand on its own. The part of this thread that isn't needed is the thread crapping.That's what should be put out of its misery.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> What peer reviewed papers are you referring to? Is there a specific context to your comment?
> 
> And yes, binaural doesn't work for me. Surround does. Atmos would probably be even better. Multichannel playback with object based spatial mixing shows a lot more potential than shoehorning everything into just two channels. With Atmos, you'd be more apt to get that 360 degree sound field you're talking about... the more channels, the more precise the location.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170858/ 
There is a lot of references in the end of this paper. It merely means that this topic has been scientifically reasearched.

In nature, all we have are 2 ears and whatever sound is surrounding us. I do not say surround does not work, but is potentially available to far lower number of people than binaural - simply because of the requirement of having a big enough listening room. That is why I feel binaural  is important and worth pursuing further.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 12, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> In nature, all we have are 2 ears and whatever sound is surrounding us. I do not say surround does not work, but is potentially available to far lower number of people than binaural - simply because of the requirement of having a big enough listening room. That is why I feel binaural  is important and worth pursuing further.



Yes, I know humans have two ears. I don't need a scientific paper to prove that. And I don't need studies about what kind of ears birds or centipedes have.

There are a lot of factors involved in directionality. Binaural recording only addresses a few of them. Actual physical sound surrounding you addresses all of them. Headphones are a compromise. They always will be a compromise. It's fine to try and push the envelope of what headphones might be able to do, but it's still going to sound more realistic if you physically create a sound field than if you synthesize it.

It really isn't that hard to set up a good surround system. A small bedroom is enough to do a pretty good sounding system. An average 5.1 speaker system kicks the pants off the best headphone rig there is. If you're really serious about dimensional sound, I would suggest not wasting your time trying to optimize compromises. Just do it the right way. If you're absolutely stuck with headphones, then you'd probably do better to embrace the things headphones do best, not try to shoehorn them into doing things they aren't as good at.

I do have to say... I'm glad we aren't talking about rhinos and jet pilots any more. It's better to talk about home audio systems.


----------



## jgazal (Jun 12, 2018)

bigshot said:


> There are a lot of factors involved in directionality. Binaural recording only addresses a few of them.



Stereo addresses fewer, but I agree that without dsp binaural is not realistic at all.



bigshot said:


> Actual physical sound surrounding you addresses all of them.



All is a very strong word. I would say surround also address a few of them (factors involved in directionality).



bigshot said:


> Headphones are a compromise. They always will be a compromise.



"They will always be a compromise" is a very strong statement. I would say "without dsp, headphones will always be a compromise" or "with dsp, headphones may achieve similar performance of speakers".



bigshot said:


> It's fine to try and push the envelope of what headphones might be able to do, but it's still going to sound more realistic if you physically create a sound field than if you synthesize it.



"Still going to sound more realistic" is a very strong statement.

I don't dare to say synthetic sound fields rendered on the fly might one day sound as good as reality. That is a lot of computing power.

But I wouldn't say surround will always sound more realistic than, for instance, high order ambisonics plus a personalized HRTF (either with headphones or beamforming phased array of transducers).

IMHO those are conclusions (either your or mine) that one would only state after testing all the technologies that are currently under development.


----------



## bigshot

I’ve never experienced headphones that came anywhere near my 5.1 system. Not even in stereo. If there’s something I can listen to to convince me, I’m all ears, but I don’t see anything practical at this point.


----------



## jgazal

bigshot said:


> I’ve never experienced headphones that came anywhere near my 5.1 system. Not even in stereo. If there’s something I can listen to to convince me, I’m all ears, but I don’t see anything practical at this point.



Now I agree completely.


----------



## skwoodwiva (Jun 12, 2018)

jgazal said:


> Stereo addresses fewer, but I agree that without dsp binaural is not realistic at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I 
 think you on the money about the pitfalls of computing “reality “ yet i have not heard anything as practical as binaural is, that is affordable while being satisfying at the same time


----------



## jgazal (Jun 13, 2018)

skwoodwiva said:


> I
> think you on the money about the pitfalls of computing “reality “ yet i have not heard anything as practical as binaural is, that is affordable while being satisfying at the same time



Without crosstalk cancellation (for speakers) or personalized BRIR convolution with headtracking (for headphones), I have to agree with @bigshot, @gregorio and @pinnahertz that surround or even stereo are more versatile to satisfy a broader audience. 

Free market and the amount of binaural content available prove their point "at this point".

There are other options under development. 

My objection to @bigshot opinion was related to the performance of future content chains and playback environments.


----------



## bigshot

I never try to predict the future. The last few weeks I've been installing Amazon Echoes and smart plugs all over my house. I would never have imagined that I could just say "Alexa it's movie time" and the screen would drop, the blu-ray would start playing and all the lights would go out. Lots of new ideas. They just have to be ready to fit into a lifestyle.


----------



## Don Hills

bigshot said:


> ... the blu-ray would start playing ...



 How do you get Alexa to change the disc?


----------



## gregorio (Jun 13, 2018)

71 dB said:


> [1] What are we arguing about here?
> [2] I agree with that.
> [3] Now, I leave and do other things in my life.



1. That's EXACTLY my point! You have this absolute obsession/agenda for one aspect of music recording/creation at the expense of all the other aspects and at almost every opportunity you spout this obsession as some new idea that you falsely state professionals are ignorant of and can't hear or appreciate. To support your misguided obsession you simply make-up false assertions and then blindly defend them. So blindly do you argue that you apparently even loose sight of what false assertions you're trying to defend! Presumably because it's only the argument itself which is important to you (the promotion of your obsession), not the nonsense you make-up to try and justify/promote it.

2. Unless you're going to disagree with the simple, demonstrable facts, then you have no choice but to agree. The problem (for you) is of course that by now agreeing, you are completely contradicting the false assertions you made in the first place! That's always the danger of making-up nonsense assertions; if challenged you've either got to make yourself look foolish by effectively admitting you've made-up nonsense or look even more foolish by making-up even more ridiculous assertions to defend the original made-up nonsense!

3. And so you follow exactly the same pattern as you always do! Having to effectively admit that your assertions were just made-up/false/nonsense you threaten to leave and then you either: 1. Do actually leave, for a while at least, until a new opportunity arises for you to promote your obsession with another round of made up nonsense or 2. You don't leave because you figure out some other nonsense assertion to continue the same argument, until of course you have to admit that too is just another false assertion and then you take option #1! Either way, you just go round and round in circles, making-up nonsense assertions in order to justify your misguided obsession. Bizarrely, you even go as far as to suggest that it's not nonsense if you don't remember that you've already admitted it's nonsense and even, that making-up nonsense is actually somehow desirable in this forum, rather than being an insult/perversion of what this sub-forum stands for!!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> I never try to predict the future. The last few weeks I've been installing Amazon Echoes and smart plugs all over my house. I would never have imagined that I could just say "Alexa it's movie time" and the screen would drop, the blu-ray would start playing and all the lights would go out. Lots of new ideas. They just have to be ready to fit into a lifestyle.



What the..?

I could do all that sh- by my self in under one minute!  Beats spending a half hour programming the thing! lol


----------



## 71 dB

My postings haven't been good lately so that's why I take a break to get my head together. 
I have to take responsibility of that fact people here consider what I write "made-up nonsense." 
I haven't made my case clear enough or presented it in a diplomatic enough way.


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> What the..?
> 
> I could do all that sh- by my self in under one minute!  Beats spending a half hour programming the thing! lol



Sure.  Of course, after using the voice command a few dozen time, Bigshot is now on the good side of the time investment.

Do you still use a physical encyclopedia for research since setting up a computer before using it for it’s initial Google search takes longer than one lookup in a book?


----------



## pinnahertz

Zapp_Fan said:


> I don't have data on tweeter over-excursion, that's more of speculation tbqh.  I think the tweeter would probably have to be designed wrong for that to happen.


Ok.  Well, you stated it clearly before that over-excursion was the most common form of failure.  Glad we agree it's not.


Zapp_Fan said:


> However, I would point out that clipped signals at 0 dBFS and pure square waves are certainly signals that music producers would encounter with some regularity.


Signals at 0dBFS or above, sure.  Pure square waves?  Never.  A common misunderstanding is that clipped audio produces square waves.  It does not, it produces clipped audio that has a spectrum nothing like a pure square wave, nor does it have a similar wave form.


Zapp_Fan said:


> Most music listeners won't encounter these very often, but on the other side of the mixing desk it would be relatively common.


Neither of those signals is ever found on the input side of the mixing desk, and square waves are never found on either side of the mixing desk.


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> This is a pointless argument... your theoretical conditions do NOT encompass all the permutations commonly encountered in the real world.


I welcome you to show, with data, how the actual measurements I posted do not encompass common conditions.  Just saying they don't doesn't count.


KeithEmo said:


> I've owned plenty of analog preamps which had 20+ dB of "excess gain"... and so were able to deliver a fair approximation of a square wave with high-level inputs.


Hmmm.....perhaps you need to check up on what a square wave actually is.  I've already shown what clipped audio looks like, and already given you actual levels of clipping at which you start to get pseudo-square waves with continuous sine waves as input, but you can't get a square wave at all out of actual music audio, nor does clipped audio approximate the spectrum of a square wave.  I've already shown proof of this.


KeithEmo said:


> Also note that, while I don't know the conditions others were assuming, I never said that we should assume "the same amount of gain".
> In real life, what we frequently encounter is that, when someone has an underpowered amplifier, they turn it up until it clips.
> Then, when it still fails to play loudly enough, they turn it up FURTHER.
> The result is a solidly clipped signal which is also loudness compressed (the peak level was limited by the amp but, by continuing to boost the gain, they're also significantly raised the average level).
> As a result, the signal has both a much higher than normal average level, and, thanks to the clipping, a disproportionate amount of high frequency energy.


But the claim of the myth is that if you changed to an amp that does not clip but provides adequate drive, you won't damage your tweeters.  To do that you need a higher power amp with similar gain.  Then, if you want to turn that amp up, you can.  But for comparison, we have to establish common factors, so with gain held constant we can then compare the effects of clipping on output power.  I've shown that in the initial graph where you can see without doubt that a higher power non-clipping amp provides more RMS power to the load.  Always. 


KeithEmo said:


> If you talk to anyone who has processed or repaired a significant number of damaged speaker...
> You will find that damaged tweeters are disproportionately common...


Agreed.


KeithEmo said:


> You will also find that damaged tweeters are disproportionately common among users who have low-powered amplifiers.


No, I don't have that data at all.  What I have is a lot of assumption based on unconfirmed data collected anecdotally.  Do you, as a speaker manufacturer, have actual test data that confirms anything?


KeithEmo said:


> I leave it to you to figure out how much of this is due to the facts I've described...
> 
> And how much is simply due to the possibility that the sort of people who buy underpowered amplifiers are also the sort who are more prone to turning them all the way up, ignoring obvious signs of distress with their speakers, and waiting for smoke to appear.


What I'm seeing these days is amplifiers have leveled at somewhere between 80 and 120 wpc, which lands pretty much every amp within a 1.8dB range of power output.  It's actually hard to buy an underpowered amp given today's typical speaker efficiency.  I would think a speaker/amp manufacturer would recognize this.  Before you go to the high end exceptions, note that in the above you're talking about "the sort of people who buy under-powered amplifiers". 


KeithEmo said:


> I should also note, however, that I can easily produce a very similar effect by deliberately causing excessive clipping on a digital audio editor, or by using "a brick wall limiter".
> (That effect being to raise the average level, sometimes by as much as eight or ten TIMES, while the peak level remains the same.)


PLEASE DO THAT! You may learn a few things rather quickly.


KeithEmo said:


> In fact, the theoretical ultimate result of applying massive amounts of gain, combined with hard limiting, would be to turn music into a series of full amplitude sine waves at various frequencies....


Absolutely NOT.  PLEASE TRY IT! 


KeithEmo said:


> and I haven't seen many tweeters that could tolerate a 100 watt 5 kHz sine wave for very long.
> (And, no, I wouldn't want to be in the room with one if it could.)


Nor have I.


KeithEmo said:


> If you really require a "graphic example" of this...
> Take any music file you like (choose one that is normalized so the peaks are at about -1 dB but are NOT clipped).
> Analyze the average power level.
> Now, boost the level of the entire file by 20 dB (ignoring any clipping that may occur).
> ...


OMG.  Would you PLEASE read my other posts and look at the graphs?  What, exactly, do you think I've been doing and posting????


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bfreedma said:


> Sure.  Of course, after using the voice command a few dozen time, Bigshot is now on the good side of the time investment.
> 
> Do you still use a physical encyclopedia for research since setting up a computer before using it for it’s initial Google search takes longer than one lookup in a book?



My point is do I need this thing I speak to, to do everything around the house?  'Alexa, order Chinese.'  'Alexa, weather forecast'. 'Alexa, flush the toilet!.'
Ave Maria purisima... !


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jun 13, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Ok.  Well, you stated it clearly before that over-excursion was the most common form of failure.  Glad we agree it's not.
> Signals at 0dBFS or above, sure.  Pure square waves?  Never.  A common misunderstanding is that clipped audio produces square waves.  It does not, it produces clipped audio that has a spectrum nothing like a pure square wave, nor does it have a similar wave form.
> 
> Neither of those signals is ever found on the input side of the mixing desk, and square waves are never found on either side of the mixing desk.



Sorry, I only meant to say it was one possible failure mode, I didn't mean to imply it was most common, or even relatively common.

When I said "on the other side of the mixing desk" I wasn't very clear, what I meant was what one might encounter in the production context vs. what a listener might encounter after recordings are released.

As far as square waves... I think you are taking an overly particular view of what counts as a Square Wave.

The majority of software synthesizers have a square wave generator which produces a theoretically perfect square wave inside the software.  Yes, it's band-limited when you output it, so it's not "A Square Wave" but for all *practical* purposes, of course it is.  And this type of software is used more or less universally by any musician that uses synthesizers... And even Queen used synthesizers eventually.

It seems like you're almost claiming square waves don't exist, but I don't think that's what's being said here.  And, I think we can all agree that a severely-enough clipped audio signal has a spectrum that, for some practical purposes, may as well be a square wave.  For a casual conversation I think it's acceptable to say "it's like a square wave" when something is clipped badly enough, even though we know it's not *technically* a square wave.


----------



## bfreedma (Jun 13, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> My point is do I need this thing I speak to, to do everything around the house?  'Alexa, order Chinese.'  'Alexa, weather forecast'. 'Alexa, flush the toilet!.'
> Ave Maria purisima... !



Then make your point more succinctly.  Either way, I think you are ignoring the reality of where technology is heading.  The IoT is already a reality.

Your choices may not reflect everyone else’s, so no need to denigrate people who choose to adopt new technology.  How many people have converted from physical media to media servers due to ease of use?

I used to have to wait for the news to get a weather forecast - now I use a smartphone or computer
I used to have to call a restaurant to place a takeout order or make a reservation  - now I use an app most of the time for accuracy.
Still flushing my own toilet at home, but who hasn’t seen an auto flush toilet in a public place or business?


----------



## pinnahertz

Zapp_Fan said:


> Sorry, I only meant to say it was one possible failure mode, I didn't mean to imply it was most common, or even relatively common.
> 
> As far as square waves... I think you are taking an overly particular view of what counts as a Square Wave.


What I'm looking at is the actual spectral energy content.  Clipped audio doesn't have the same spectral content as a square wave.  There's a huge difference.   I know it seems pedantic, but it actually changes how we think about the issue to recognize what that difference is.


Zapp_Fan said:


> The majority of software synthesizers have a square wave generator which produces a theoretically perfect square wave inside the software.  Yes, it's band-limited when you output it, so it's not "A Square Wave" but for all *practical* purposes, of course it is.  And this type of software is used more or less universally by any musician that uses synthesizers... And even Queen used synthesizers eventually.


Sure, software and analog synths have square wave generators, but they are hardly ever used that way, usually there are significant modifiers applied in the patch that scrambles their spectrum well away from that of a square wave.  Sure, soft synths are band limited, but the same principles exist.  Real square waves are not very musical.  And it's rare for any square wave synth patch to exist solo in a mix with no effects or other instruments.  That's more than enough to blow up it's match to a theoretical square wave, and change it's spectrum and RMS content.


Zapp_Fan said:


> It seems like you're almost claiming square waves don't exist, but I don't think that's what's being said here.  And, I think we can all agree that a severely-enough clipped audio signal has a spectrum that, for some practical purposes, may as well be a square wave.


No!  And that's what I've shown in the pictures.  There's one there that shows the spectrum of real audio, a loudness-war-processed pop tune, from non-clipped to 10dB clipped in 2dB steps.  The spectrum does not change!  Therefore, what's happening cannot be a change from non-clipped to square waves.  Really, the entire concept that clipping audio produces square waves is completely wrong from the standpoint of RMS vs spectrum, average level, and HF content.  


Zapp_Fan said:


> For a casual conversation I think it's acceptable to say "it's like a square wave" when something is clipped badly enough, even though we know it's not *technically* a square wave.


I have to disagree because a real square wave could present some serious issues that clipped audio never does.  That's a very important difference when talking about speaker damage.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jun 13, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> What I'm looking at is the actual spectral energy content.  Clipped audio doesn't have the same spectral content as a square wave.  There's a huge difference.   I know it seems pedantic, but it actually changes how we think about the issue to recognize what that difference is.
> Sure, software and analog synths have square wave generators, but they are hardly ever used that way, usually there are significant modifiers applied in the patch that scrambles their spectrum well away from that of a square wave.  Sure, soft synths are band limited, but the same principles exist.  Real square waves are not very musical.  And it's rare for any square wave synth patch to exist solo in a mix with no effects or other instruments.  That's more than enough to blow up it's match to a theoretical square wave, and change it's spectrum and RMS content.
> No!  And that's what I've shown in the pictures.  There's one there that shows the spectrum of real audio, a loudness-war-processed pop tune, from non-clipped to 10dB clipped in 2dB steps.  The spectrum does not change!  Therefore, what's happening cannot be a change from non-clipped to square waves.  Really, the entire concept that clipping audio produces square waves is completely wrong from the standpoint of RMS vs spectrum, average level, and HF content.
> 
> I have to disagree because a real square wave could present some serious issues that clipped audio never does.  That's a very important difference when talking about speaker damage.



Agree that pure square waves are almost never dropped into a final mix with no filtering.  But, "on the other side of the desk" they're quite common to hear while you're working on a new synth patch, at least intermittently.  Also, it's not uncommon to clip a signal by (say) 60dB while screwing around (especially if you are an amateur like me) so those spectra do start to look pretty rough.  I acknowledge that the overall spectrum is nothing like a square wave, but intermittently you can get a lot of unfriendly higher harmonics.  On an oscilloscope it does *look* pretty "square". 

I don't disagree with anything you're saying in theory, but of course a *true* square wave doesn't exist in nature any more than a perfect vacuum does.


----------



## pinnahertz

Zapp_Fan said:


> Agree that pure square waves are almost never dropped into a final mix with no filtering.  But, "on the other side of the desk" they're quite common to hear while you're working on a new synth patch, at least intermittently.  Also, it's not uncommon to clip a signal by (say) 60dB while screwing around (especially if you are an amateur like me) so those spectra do start to look pretty rough.


That's an odd definition of "not uncommon".  And really, as I'm sure you'll agree, if it doesn't make it out of the mix, it doesn't matter anyway.


Zapp_Fan said:


> I don't disagree with anything you're saying in theory, but of course a *true* square wave doesn't exist in nature any more than a perfect vacuum does.


Yes, but now that's pedantic.  We can get close enough to a real square wave, but clipped music _isn't_ close enough. 

Here's what I mean.  A square wave, peak and RMS are equal:






Now, the clipped audio I've been using in the other pictures.  Peak and RMS are 3dB apart.  That's a difference of half power.





And they differ spectrally as well. Remember, the above audio is a very extreme example of clipping, audibly distorted beyond recognition, wouldn't ever be tolerated.  The differences become much greater if we reduce the clipping level by only a few dB, down to what people would be doing with their home systems.  Sure, accidents happen.  But if we didn't clip that audio the peak and RMS would be MUCH higher.  Clipping is actually holding RMS power back.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

pinnahertz said:


> That's an odd definition of "not uncommon".  And really, as I'm sure you'll agree, if it doesn't make it out of the mix, it doesn't matter anyway.



I think the underlying point I was trying to make, but didn't actually successfully make is that home recording / production is actually a fairly common hobby, probably a few million people around the world participate at some level, not to mention gear that actually gets used in real professional contexts.  As such, "non-musical" audio is actually not rare at all.  If I was Beyerdynamic or M-Audio, I would have to assume my products would be frequently subjected to loud, raw square waves or ultra-clipped audio (your example is mild compared to some atrocities I've committed).


----------



## KeithEmo

You seem to insist on treating certain generalizations as facts - while discounting others disproportionately.

As a few other people have noted, you can't get a true square wave out of digital audio at all - due to band limiting.
However, in order to be potentially dangerous, you don't actually need an especially good approximation.
For example, many popular speakers have a crossover between 1 kHz and 3 kHz, and second order, and even third order high-pass filters, are actually quite common.
So, if I start with a 1.5 kHz tone, as a pure tone it will be handled by the midrange, but even the first harmonic present in a vague approximation of a square wave (the third harmonic - at 4.5 kHz), will fall squarely into the tweeter.
And, since it is also relatively common for tweeters that are used above 3 kHz, with a third order filter, to have rather low power handling capabilities, this can be significant.
And, yes, you do have to clip the signal "pretty hard" to generate any significant power in the harmonics... 
Because of this, it probably is far more likely that a speaker will be damaged by the high average power level of a heavily clipped signal than because of its spectral content.

The general way I've heard the assertion is "people with low powered amplifiers, who turn them up until they clip, in an attempt to get them to play loudly, are more likely to blow tweeters than people with more powerful amplifiers".
The assertion I'm familiar with is _NOT_ that people with more powerful amplifiers are less capable of blowing tweeters if they make bad decisions - just that they are statistically less likely to do so.
And, while that may not always, or even necessarily, be the case, most people in the industry agree that it often is.
Incidentally, most companies are not able to collect data about exactly why tweeters get blown (customers tend to avoid admitting that they drove their amplifier into hard clipping, because that would count as abuse, and might void their warranty).

The reality is that people routinely harbor the belief that "if they have a 100 watt amplifier and 200 watt speakers they don't have to worry about how loud they turn up the amp because it isn't powerful enough to hurt their speakers".
And this frequently ends up being proven wrong by the practical lesson of a blown driver.

I would also disagree with your assertion about amplifier power (unless you're simply suggesting that "most people have at least a reasonable amount of power these days - which I tend to agree with).
We still routinely see AVR and smaller amplifiers in the range between 20 watts/channel and about 50 watts/channel.
The amplifiers we currently make here at Emotiva range from 50 watts/channel to 650 watts/channel into 8 Ohms... up to about 1000 watts into 4 Ohms.

In discussions like this - test data ends up being not much better than anecdotal data.
I could easily find a specific example where a 100 watt amplifier, driven into hard clipping at a certain frequency, would burn out the tweeter in a certain speaker.
While a more powerful amplifier, operating cleanly with that same test signal, at a higher power level, would not.
However, since continuous sine waves aren't especially typical of music, it would prove very little - other than that the possibility exists.
(And, if it's simply a matter of boosting the average power level, without clipping, then the danger will always be to the driver handling the primary frequency of the test signal.)

The actual operation of various software limiters varies quite widely (and depends on how you set them).
Some will allow you to clip, or "soft clip"; others will absolutely prevent clipping, but will cheerfully allow you to turn music into a solid wall of full-amplitude sine waves.
However, since, statistically, with typical music, the average power level is usually around 10% of the peak power, raising the average power level significantly above that is going to increase the risk of overheating all the drivers in a speaker.
And, while tweeters often receive a relatively small percentage of the total power, they are also often only able to tolerate a very low average power level long-term.
(So, if your music has a lot of high frequency content, raising the average power level is going to be more likely to damage the tweeter than the other drivers, independent of any spectral shift due to the clipping itself.)
In the old days, various types of deliberate limiting were also commonly found in the "protection circuitry" of amplifiers - but most modern amplifiers avoid this because it tends to compromise sound quality unacceptably.



pinnahertz said:


> I welcome you to show, with data, how the actual measurements I posted do not encompass common conditions.  Just saying they don't doesn't count.
> 
> Hmmm.....perhaps you need to check up on what a square wave actually is.  I've already shown what clipped audio looks like, and already given you actual levels of clipping at which you start to get pseudo-square waves with continuous sine waves as input, but you can't get a square wave at all out of actual music audio, nor does clipped audio approximate the spectrum of a square wave.  I've already shown proof of this.
> But the claim of the myth is that if you changed to an amp that does not clip but provides adequate drive, you won't damage your tweeters.  To do that you need a higher power amp with similar gain.  Then, if you want to turn that amp up, you can.  But for comparison, we have to establish common factors, so with gain held constant we can then compare the effects of clipping on output power.  I've shown that in the initial graph where you can see without doubt that a higher power non-clipping amp provides more RMS power to the load.  Always.
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

do we all at least agree that to blow up a membrane or melt a coil(2 very different issues!), we need power reaching the limits for the driver, so obviously it's directly dependent on the specific driver and the specific output of the signal?
or are we really talking about a driver with specs giving, let's say 125dB for 4seconds as max output(or whatever way they have to define a working limit). and claim it will blow up without other defect because we played clipped music at 80dB? because I could be wrong but that seems silly to me and I certainly would like some evidence or nice electrical simulation showing me why it would happen.  

should we bring in drivers that aren't mostly resistive in behavior? just to add some fun to the conversation. is it alright if I use the same paranoia to argue that high amplitude ultrasounds hurt my drivers(and my ears). so much energy, such rapid changes in direction for the poor membranes. let's all sue High Res sellers.  (too far?)


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 13, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> You seem to insist on treating certain generalizations as facts - while discounting others disproportionately.
> 
> As a few other people have noted, you can't get a true square wave out of digital audio at all - due to band limiting.
> However, in order to be potentially dangerous, you don't actually need an especially good approximation.
> ...




Guys... - and  @pinnahertz in particular - have you EVER connected to the speaker output terminals of the power amplifier any real measurement setup , that can - actually - detect the clipping while playing music ? Like an oscilloscope and/or peak hold meter ?

If you did - or do - then you will have no other choice but to concur with the fact that at least some of the time most audio SPEAKER setups are driven into clipping.

After adjusting the listening level to the level that actually is below clipping point all of the time, most speaker system setups will simply play at insufficient loudnes ...

The cruel fact is hidden here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel_watt    Although no longer permitted to be used in SI measuring units system, it is no less relevant because of that - since it DOES give a real world perspective - because it expresses the power in direct proportion to hgow we perceive loudness from a dynamic driver ( vast majority ) speakers. . 

If you punch in the numbers, you get that 50 W amp has ( rounded to reasonable extent ) 17dBW, 100 W power amp has 20dBW,  200W amp has 23 dBW and 400 W has 26dBW . And 1000 W amp has 30 dBW . So, the difference in attainable SPL from these amp ( provided that the speakers can tolerate that much power ) is only 13 dB ...

Now... imagine you are in an audio shop. Say that all the amps with the above respective power ratings have identical sound quality ( they don't, as much as some would like you lead to believe ... ). I have no idea of the exact price of say Emotiva amps - but instead of the actual price in $, some ratio(s) would be enough. Long story short - MOST people do not have the money to purchase the amps they would actually really need for clipping free reproduction of uncompressed recordings. That's why in studios compressors/limiters are used - as most of the people simply do not have the capability to play them back on speakers at home. And if anyone is naive enough that this compessing/limitting bussiness does not apply to classical music on most major labels, should take off their rosy sunglasses and see the truth for a change.

Yes, people like Telarc's recording of Ouverture 1812 - but uncompressed/unclipped reproduction of those cannons exceed 130 dB. Only a handful of highly efficient igh power rating proffessional speakers can play this back correctly. And no one would enjoy just a smidge below real cannon fire levels in living room.

Now, let's say we use a speaker system with sensitivity of 88dB/W/m - a reasonable, if slightly above the average sensitivity speakers. . That means we need 100 W amp for 108 dB SPL from the speaker at 1m in an anechoic chamber. Room with normal reverberation adds to this another 3dB - and another speaker from the stereo pair another 3dB to the total of  114 dB SPL at 1 m from the speakers. As most dynamic speakers are approximately point sources, their SPL output falls off by the SQUARE of the distance from the speakers - so, at only 2 metres from the speakers, that means only 1/4 of the attainable SPL output at 1 m distance ... That can be compensated with both amps and speakers that can supply the necessary SPL at the listening position, which is hardly ever closer than 2 metres ...

If you followed to here, one can imagine a real world scenario : somebody has heard at his friend (boss ? ) a truly outstanding reproduction on speakers. Forget cannons, uncompressed recording of Mahler's 2nd symphony is more than it takes even best TOTL audio systems to clip. But let's say the system in question has been indeed capable of - just, by carefully checked well in advance of the "demo" that it stays below audible distress - playing back that recording - say, from a CD.

The person who heard this demo was thrilled with enthusiasm; bought the said CD ASAP. But, that person does not have the speakers as efficient as those of the boss, and instead of active driven speakers of the boss ( where bass clipping of the amp, even if and when it occurs, can not possibly bleed trough harmonics to tweeter ... ) only has a  mid tier speakers with say 85dB/W/m real ( not brochure...) sensitivity and a receiver of say 65 W/ch. And would like to hear the same majestic finale as heard in that other "just slightly better system"... requiring at least 114 dB CLEAN peaks SPL in the finale.

Now, please do the math ... and see for how much time the poor power amp section of the receiver would be required to perform way above any reasonable level.
And ask yourself if you would risk it with a vintage set of speakers with tweeters that are no longer in production and by now costlier than their weight in gold.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Jun 13, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> If you punch in the numbers, you get that 50 W amp has ( rounded to reasonable extent ) 17dBW, 100 W power amp has 20dBW,  200W amp has 23 dBW and 400 W has 26dBW . And 1000 W amp has 30 dBW . So, the difference in attainable SPL from these amp ( provided that the speakers can tolerate that much power ) is only 13 dB ...



There is literally no way this is true. This completely ignores gain and the dB/watt efficiency of the speaker.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 13, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> Then make your point more succinctly.  Either way, I think you are ignoring the reality of where technology is heading.  The IoT is already a reality.
> 
> Your choices may not reflect everyone else’s, so no need to denigrate people who choose to adopt new technology.  How many people have converted from physical media to media servers due to ease of use?
> 
> ...



Not denigrating anyone.  I just see *certain applications* of technology as 'reinventing the wheel' so to speak.  Look at the 2009 DTV transition:  was that just a ploy to sell more TVs or what?   We had a perfectly functional broadcast TV system for neary 70 years by that point!


----------



## Zapp_Fan

TheSonicTruth said:


> Not denigrating anyone.  I just see *certain applications* of technology as 'reinventing the wheel' so to speak.  Look at the 2009 DTV transition:  was that just a ploy to sell more TVs or what?   We had a perfectly functional broadcast TV system for neary 70 years by that point!



Not just TVs, (although I am sure the TV companies appreciated it,) the government's motivation was selling spectrum.  The FCC was able to re-sell rights the 700Mhz analog spectrum to new customers after the transition, IIRC the rights went for billions.


----------



## KeithEmo

In general, physically "breaking" a tweeter is quite uncommon... I've heard claims that occasionally certain particular metal dome tweeters can be overdriven badly enough to actually cause the dome to buckle - but I've never seen it happen.
(Since they dent very easily if you touch or bump them, which you might not even notice happening, I'm always inclined to take those stories with a grain of salt.)
Usually, with domes or cones, the voice coil will overheat and either burn through, fall apart into separate coils of wire, or separate from the rest of the driver (all fatal).
With planar ribbon drivers and folded ribbon drivers, the voice coil itself is a flat strip of foil covering most of the surface of the membrane.
It is a relatively common failure mode on those for part of the membrane to overheat and scorch or melt if the voice coil is overloaded.
When that happens, the metal may come loose from the membrane, or the membrane itself may melt and buckle, or both.
(The yellow plastic used in many planar tweeters is Kapton, which can stand a lot of heat; if you overheat it thoroughly enough, it will usually actually burn or blister.)

Drivers that actually move a significant distance can also fail because the flexible wire connecting the moving parts to the non-moving parts fails.
While this CAN happen with tweeters, it's much more common with woofers.)

In general, all of this damage results from heat.
Some tweeters, especially those with ferrofluid, and planar ones with a lot of area, can tolerate a lot of power for quite some time.
For those, a massive overload can burn them out in a few seconds, but less extreme overloads may be tolerated for many minutes, with the temperature rising gradually.
As a very wide generalization, older tweeters tended to be more susceptible to burning out more quickly, but it varies widely between individual drivers.
Also, because the amount of content in typical music drops rapidly as you go up in frequency, the crossover point makes a major difference.
Tweeters that are crossed over at a higher frequency, and those with a higher-order crossover (sharper filter), which more effectively keeps low frequencies out of the tweeter, are much more difficult to overheat.
The design of the speaker also plays a major role in other ways. 
For example, on some speakers, the tweeter is more efficient than the other drivers, so its level may be reduced in the crossover by a series resistor... 
(if so, 1/2 or 2/3 of the power you think is going into the tweeter, may be simply dissipated by that resistor).

I should also point out that the damage that results from "blasting the amp until it clips" is often not directly related to the fact that it's clipped.

A commonly used, and widely accepted, approximation is that, with typical music, unclipped, the average power level is usually between 1/10 and 1/20 of the peak level.
So, for example, if you have a 100 watt amplifier, which can deliver 200 watts peak, and you turn it up until clipping just starts, the average power output is probably between 10 and 20 watts.
However, if you ignore the clipping, or simply don't notice it, you can easily double or triple the AVERAGE output level by simply continuing to turn up the Volume.
How this affects our PERCEPTION varies between individuals.
In general, more distorted music is perceived as louder...
However, our ears adapt to loud sounds by reducing their sensitivity...

In combination, it is not uncommon for someone who "is trying to make the music play really loud" to turn it up until it distorts...
Then, after their ears adapt to the new level, it again "doesn't seem very loud", so they continue to turn it up...
Since they're already gone past the point where someone else would be warned by the onset of clipping that "they're playing it too loud"...
They can easily continue to turn the Volume up until finally something fails.

With few exceptions, the major factor is how much power reaches the voice coil of a given driver, and the time it continues (or the duty cycle).



castleofargh said:


> do we all at least agree that to blow up a membrane or melt a coil(2 very different issues!), we need power reaching the limits for the driver, so obviously it's directly dependent on the specific driver and the specific output of the signal?
> or are we really talking about a driver with specs giving, let's say 125dB for 4seconds as max output(or whatever way they have to define a working limit). and claim it will blow up without other defect because we played clipped music at 80dB? because I could be wrong but that seems silly to me and I certainly would like some evidence or nice electrical simulation showing me why it would happen.
> 
> should we bring in drivers that aren't mostly resistive in behavior? just to add some fun to the conversation. is it alright if I use the same paranoia to argue that high amplitude ultrasounds hurt my drivers(and my ears). so much energy, such rapid changes in direction for the poor membranes. let's all sue High Res sellers.  (too far?)





castleofargh said:


> do we all at least agree that to blow up a membrane or melt a coil(2 very different issues!), we need power reaching the limits for the driver, so obviously it's directly dependent on the specific driver and the specific output of the signal?
> or are we really talking about a driver with specs giving, let's say 125dB for 4seconds as max output(or whatever way they have to define a working limit). and claim it will blow up without other defect because we played clipped music at 80dB? because I could be wrong but that seems silly to me and I certainly would like some evidence or nice electrical simulation showing me why it would happen.
> 
> should we bring in drivers that aren't mostly resistive in behavior? just to add some fun to the conversation. is it alright if I use the same paranoia to argue that high amplitude ultrasounds hurt my drivers(and my ears). so much energy, such rapid changes in direction for the poor membranes. let's all sue High Res sellers.  (too far?)





colonelkernel8 said:


> There is literally no way this is true.


----------



## KeithEmo

Errrr... yes it is.
The sensitivity of our hearing is logarithmic.

Doubling the power increases the output by 3 dB... which, to most people, sounds "a little bit louder".
In order to make something "seem to be twice as loud" you typically require about ten times as much power (actually delivered to the air).

Note that this does NOT include accounting for the way the sensitivity of our hearing decreases when our ears are exposed to very loud noises for a period of time.
That effect tends to make the perceived difference of increasing the power even less.

And, yes, all else being equal, a speaker with 95 dB efficiency, playing at 10 watts, will be about as loud as a speaker with 95 dB efficiency, playing at 100 watts. 




colonelkernel8 said:


> There is literally no way this is true. This completely ignores gain and the dB/watt efficiency of the speaker.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> Errrr... yes it is.
> The sensitivity of our hearing is logarithmic.
> 
> Doubling the power increases the output by 3 dB... which, to most people, sounds "a little bit louder".
> ...




Errata corrige ( sure it was only typo ) 
: 
And, yes, all else being equal, a speaker with 95 dB efficiency, playing at 10 watts, will be about as loud as a speaker with 85 dB efficiency, playing at 100 watts.


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> You seem to insist on treating certain generalizations as facts - while discounting others disproportionately.


I've shown real data.  Nobody has shown any data at all that proves my assertions wrong, including yourself.



KeithEmo said:


> As a few other people have noted, you can't get a true square wave out of digital audio at all - due to band limiting.
> However, in order to be potentially dangerous, you don't actually need an especially good approximation.
> For example, many popular speakers have a crossover between 1 kHz and 3 kHz, and second order, and even third order high-pass filters, are actually quite common.
> So, if I start with a 1.5 kHz tone, as a pure tone it will be handled by the midrange, but even the first harmonic present in a vague approximation of a square wave (the third harmonic - at 4.5 kHz), will fall squarely into the tweeter.


True, but you haven't stated the power level, in RMS, of that harmonic.  That's the key.  Secondly, you're not EVER getting a square wave into the system at 1kHz without it being a complete accident.  You need to drop this square-wave nonsense, it's not working to your favor.


KeithEmo said:


> And, since it is also relatively common for tweeters that are used above 3 kHz, with a third order filter, to have rather low power handling capabilities, this can be significant.
> And, yes, you do have to clip the signal "pretty hard" to generate any significant power in the harmonics...
> Because of this, it probably is far more likely that a speaker will be damaged by the high average power level of a heavily clipped signal than because of its spectral content.


"Pretty hard" is not data.  So, here's how it actually works in real life.  The graph set below shows the RMS spectrum of a pop tune, fully loudness-war processed, driven into hard clipping in 2dB steps. 
NOTE:
1. Where's the highest amount of energy?  Below 1kHz.  That's true of most music, but in particular, that of the type that is processed enough to stay above clipping longer than a few peaks worth.
2. Does the spectrum chance with clipping, and if so, how much?  Answer: The spectrum does not change, except for ultrasonics that are made visible by the 15kHz mp3 filter.
3. If the amp clips at a voltage that corresponds to 100W, at what level are the "harmonics", inclusive of actual music content, above a 3kHz 3rd order crossover?  Answer: the energy at 3kHz and up is down at least 15dB from the highs energy area, or just over 3W. 





If anything you're saying were even slightly true, wouldn't we see it in graphs such as this?  The data is going the opposite direction of your assertions, and you still offer no data to support them.



KeithEmo said:


> The general way I've heard the assertion is "people with low powered amplifiers, who turn them up until they clip, in an attempt to get them to play loudly, are more likely to blow tweeters than people with more powerful amplifiers".
> The assertion I'm familiar with is _NOT_ that people with more powerful amplifiers are less capable of blowing tweeters if they make bad decisions - just that they are statistically less likely to do so.
> And, while that may not always, or even necessarily, be the case, most people in the industry agree that it often is.


So, now you're revising the myth?  Please review your original post regarding this.  Nothing has ever been said or implied that people with higher power amps make better operating decisions.  And I know of no professional that would agree with that at all, and I am acquainted with just a few.


KeithEmo said:


> Incidentally, most companies are not able to collect data about exactly why tweeters get blown (customers tend to avoid admitting that they drove their amplifier into hard clipping, because that would count as abuse, and might void their warranty).


So, you don't take a tweeter or three and put them in the lab, set up an amp for clipping, and just see what smokes?  You guys have more facility than anyone else to do this.  I guess perpetuating the myth must serve your company better than busting it.


KeithEmo said:


> The reality is that people routinely harbor the belief that "if they have a 100 watt amplifier and 200 watt speakers they don't have to worry about how loud they turn up the amp because it isn't powerful enough to hurt their speakers".
> And this frequently ends up being proven wrong by the practical lesson of a blown driver.


Proven wrong?  How?  Do you have proof or not?  If not, then stop making unsupported claims.  If so, post the proof.


KeithEmo said:


> I would also disagree with your assertion about amplifier power (unless you're simply suggesting that "most people have at least a reasonable amount of power these days - which I tend to agree with).
> We still routinely see AVR and smaller amplifiers in the range between 20 watts/channel and about 50 watts/channel.


Please post the model number of one...just one... 5.1 AVR from any of the big AVR companies (Denon, Pioneer, Sony, Yamaha) that has a maximum of 20WPC.  And if you do find one, you'll have found the exception.  I stand by my claim, anyone is welcome to check.


KeithEmo said:


> The amplifiers we currently make here at Emotiva range from 50 watts/channel to 650 watts/channel into 8 Ohms... up to about 1000 watts into 4 Ohms.


You're not making a single 50wpc AVR, are you?


KeithEmo said:


> In discussions like this - test data ends up being not much better than anecdotal data.
> I could easily find a specific example where a 100 watt amplifier, driven into hard clipping at a certain frequency, would burn out the tweeter in a certain speaker.
> While a more powerful amplifier, operating cleanly with that same test signal, at a higher power level, would not.


IF that's so incredibly easy to do, then you need to do it ASAP. 


KeithEmo said:


> However, since continuous sine waves aren't especially typical of music, it would prove very little - other than that the possibility exists.


Other than to illustrate the spectral change of a sine way caused by clipping, I've never cited sine waves.  My graphs were all made with actual music, and a hit record at that.


KeithEmo said:


> The actual operation of various software limiters varies quite widely (and depends on how you set them).
> Some will allow you to clip, or "soft clip"; others will absolutely prevent clipping, but will cheerfully allow you to turn music into a solid wall of full-amplitude sine waves.
> However, since, statistically, with typical music, the average power level is usually around 10% of the peak power, raising the average power level significantly above that is going to increase the risk of overheating all the drivers in a speaker.


Why are you now bringing software limiters into this discussion?  Nowhere have I mentioned or used a software limiter.  Amplifiers are not software, or hardware limiters.


KeithEmo said:


> And, while tweeters often receive a relatively small percentage of the total power, they are also often only able to tolerate a very low average power level long-term.
> (So, if your music has a lot of high frequency content, raising the average power level is going to be more likely to damage the tweeter than the other drivers, independent of any spectral shift due to the clipping itself.)


Reputable driver manufactures state power handling as a function of frequency, power and time.  My analysis includes all of those parameters.


KeithEmo said:


> In the old days, various types of deliberate limiting were also commonly found in the "protection circuitry" of amplifiers - but most modern amplifiers avoid this because it tends to compromise sound quality unacceptably.


Really?  Ever looked at current product from QSC?  Crown?  Any current professional amp?  Yeah, didn't think so.  Protection is not only built in, but configurable as to what level it operates, how it operates, etc.   All of those and many more have on-board DSP that does..well, a lot.  Built in.  And very effective.  And sounds better than clipping!


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Guys... - and  @pinnahertz in particular - have you EVER connected to the speaker output terminals of the power amplifier any real measurement setup , that can - actually - detect the clipping while playing music ? Like an oscilloscope and/or peak hold meter ?


Yes, but it's been a while, probably at least 48 hours ago.


analogsurviver said:


> If you did - or do - then you will have no other choice but to concur with the fact that at least some of the time most audio SPEAKER setups are driven into clipping.


Let me as you the same question, then.  Have YOU ever scoped an amp driving a speaker?  I didn't think so, your you'd know the above is nonsense.


analogsurviver said:


> After adjusting the listening level to the level that actually is below clipping point all of the time, most speaker system setups will simply play at insufficient loudnes ...


Well, these days, with AVRs hovering around 100wpc, and an industry-wide target reference SPL at the LP of 80dB SPL with 20dB of headroom, most decent speakers are designed so that at the typical listening distance they can come within 3dB of that reference level, and most hit it at all but extreme bass frequencies.  


analogsurviver said:


> The cruel fact is hidden here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel_watt    Although no longer permitted to be used in SI measuring units system, it is no less relevant because of that - since it DOES give a real world perspective - because it expresses the power in direct proportion to hgow we perceive loudness from a dynamic driver ( vast majority ) speakers. .
> 
> If you punch in the numbers, you get that 50 W amp has ( rounded to reasonable extent ) 17dBW, 100 W power amp has 20dBW,  200W amp has 23 dBW and 400 W has 26dBW . And 1000 W amp has 30 dBW . So, the difference in attainable SPL from these amp ( provided that the speakers can tolerate that much power ) is only 13 dB ...


Ok, let me punch in some real numbers for you.  In fact, you can do it yourself here: http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html
Speaker sensitivity of 90dB/W/m, LP at 8', amp at 100W, two speakers...DING!  you hit industry reference for maximum peak at 0dBFS.  How hard was that?? There are many 90dB speakers, some above that, a few below by a few dB.  It's not hard to make it loud enough without clipping your amp.


analogsurviver said:


> Now... imagine you are in an audio shop. Say that all the amps with the above respective power ratings have identical sound quality ( they don't, as much as some would like you lead to believe ... ). I have no idea of the exact price of say Emotiva amps - but instead of the actual price in $, some ratio(s) would be enough. Long story short - MOST people do not have the money to purchase the amps they would actually really need for clipping free reproduction of uncompressed recordings.


First of all, nobody in their sane mind would tollerate the nonsens in an "audio shop".  Horrible places.  I stay away.  Second, your coupling of price per watt makes no sense at all.  Keiths company does pretty well with the value of a watt.  But there are others the do even better.  It's absolutely not difficult at all for anyone to get what they need for clip-free sound.  I've not yet heard such a wild and meaningless assertion, though, so kudos on that.


analogsurviver said:


> That's why in studios compressors/limiters are used - as most of the people simply do not have the capability to play them back on speakers at home.


As a practitioner in this venue, I object to your completely wrong statement above.  That's NOT why compressors and limiter are used.  You have no idea of what you are speaking!


analogsurviver said:


> And if anyone is naive enough that this compessing/limitting bussiness does not apply to classical music on most major labels, should take off their rosy sunglasses and see the truth for a change.


Lets not go down this road.  There are examples of processed classical music, but the majority is minimally processed, or not at all.  You'll find most of the processed and limited classical music on vinyl, the processor was a Fairchild limiter...known industry wide.


analogsurviver said:


> Yes, people like Telarc's recording of Ouverture 1812 - but uncompressed/unclipped reproduction of those cannons exceed 130 dB. Only a handful of highly efficient igh power rating proffessional speakers can play this back correctly. And no one would enjoy just a smidge below real cannon fire levels in living room.


Wrong...again.  You cannot state the SPL of any sound source without including a distance to the source.  A nuclear explosion is inaudible if you're on the other side of the world, but the highest possible SPL on earth of you're down the street.


analogsurviver said:


> Now, let's say we use a speaker system with sensitivity of 88dB/W/m - a reasonable, if slightly above the average sensitivity speakers. . That means we need 100 W amp for 108 dB SPL from the speaker at 1m in an anechoic chamber. Room with normal reverberation adds to this another 3dB - and another speaker from the stereo pair another 3dB to the total of  114 dB SPL at 1 m from the speakers. As most dynamic speakers are approximately point sources, their SPL output falls off by the SQUARE of the distance from the speakers - so, at only 2 metres from the speakers, that means only 1/4 of the attainable SPL output at 1 m distance ... That can be compensated with both amps and speakers that can supply the necessary SPL at the listening position, which is hardly ever closer than 2 metres ...


Except for the anechoic chamber, that's fairly reasonable.


analogsurviver said:


> If you followed to here, one can imagine a real world scenario : somebody has heard at his friend (boss ? ) a truly outstanding reproduction on speakers. Forget cannons, uncompressed recording of Mahler's 2nd symphony is more than it takes even best TOTL audio systems to clip. But let's say the system in question has been indeed capable of - just, by carefully checked well in advance of the "demo" that it stays below audible distress - playing back that recording - say, from a CD.
> 
> The person who heard this demo was thrilled with enthusiasm; bought the said CD ASAP. But, that person does not have the speakers as efficient as those of the boss, and instead of active driven speakers of the boss ( where bass clipping of the amp, even if and when it occurs, can not possibly bleed trough harmonics to tweeter ... ) only has a  mid tier speakers with say 85dB/W/m real ( not brochure...) sensitivity and a receiver of say 65 W/ch. And would like to hear the same majestic finale as heard in that other "just slightly better system"... requiring at least 114 dB CLEAN peaks SPL in the finale.
> 
> ...


I'll have to address your peak/average SPL confusion at a later time, but it will throw you off.

I've already addressed the core of your last issue in a previous post.  You can always cherry-pick a situation that underscores your statement.  But how real is it?  Not very.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Yes, but it's been a while, probably at least 48 hours ago.
> Let me as you the same question, then.  Have YOU ever scoped an amp driving a speaker?  I didn't think so, your you'd know the above is nonsense.
> 
> Well, these days, with AVRs hovering around 100wpc, and an industry-wide target reference SPL at the LP of 80dB SPL with 20dB of headroom, most decent speakers are designed so that at the typical listening distance they can come within 3dB of that reference level, and most hit it at all but extreme bass frequencies.
> ...



1. Good for you.

2. Many times - but, most recently, for electrostatic amps and transformers. As ESLs are voltage and not power sensitive devices, different math is involved - but scope remains the same, only probes have to withstand the KVs required.

3. Well, the figures you posted are good enough for typical commercial compressed/limited releases. "Only" some 10-20 dB short of the real thing.

4. Where does one go to purchase audio ? Or, to be more precise, to listen to some gear that nowadays people then go shamelessly afterwards to order online, for a small difference in price - if not audio shop ?

5. Play some recordings from Telarc and Reference Recordings - which have not been squashed iinto something palatable on equipment of your description. And see if your whatever attached to the amp output does not show clipping ... 
But definitely do not try that with my demo pieces - at least if you want to retain any credibility that modern day amp/speakers combos do not clip - at least sometimes. 

For this reason, I absolutely hate any Magico or Avalon speaker - no way there is an amp powerful enough to coax anything approaching live dynamic range - even if they were actually capable of taking enough power.

6. You can spin why and how compressors and limiters are used any way you like - part of the reason is as I have stated. Remember, the 1812 record you like exists in 3 versions because of this - if no one but greatest fanatics can use and enjoy it, it is not a good commercial product. So, a moderated version had to be created.

7. Yes, VERY quickly into - let's call it "turntable research" - I figured out that all kinds of things better left unnamed have been done to records - for the precisely the samee reasons as above . I know analogue record is limited, but those limitations are nowhere as severe as in some commercial releases.

8. SPL vs distance is debatable ... that's why line source speakers are used for big rooms, as their SPL falls not by a distance squared ( as in point source ), but linearly - and so on and so forth.
A bomb on the other part of the world is - strictly speaking - not inaudible; only has to be big enough. The Tzar Bomb shockwave went 4 times around the globe ... and at least some effects of that were audible long, long away from the epicentre.


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> The reality is that people routinely harbor the belief that "if they have a 100 watt amplifier and 200 watt speakers they don't have to worry about how loud they turn up the amp because it isn't powerful enough to hurt their speakers".
> And this frequently ends up being proven wrong by the practical lesson of a blown driver.


The problem is perhaps that people don't realize the 200 W speaker rating is for peak power, which means the program power handling is maybe only 100 W and continuous power handling only 50 W. A clipping 100 W amp gives maybe 150 W which exceeds program power not to mention continuous power!


----------



## analogsurviver

Something for the Doubting Thomases : 

https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/sh-9020.shtml

https://kenrockwell.com/audio/technics/sh-9020.htm

The thing requires only _A SINGLE HALFWAVE UP TO 10kHz _
to display - correctly to within specs etc given in the link above - peak hold ; that peak is then held to within fraction of a dB - for hours ...

FAR more accurate than any oscilloscope could ever be; humans can see approx 40-60 frames per second as separate, non continuos image - at best. No way a human being can see on the scope a SINGLE halfwave of 10 kHz - clipped or unclipped - during normal music reproduction.

And it is THE reason why it is the most sought after component from the Technics' Proffessional Series; no serious analogue recordist can afford to be without one. And if you can't figure out why it is indispensable with digital recording too - it is your loss.

As you can see, it can monitor - with the very same accuracy - also output from power amp, up to 1000 W. Something EVERY person serious about quality reproduction should have - at least once in a lifetime - see with very own eyes, in very own system.  

The only comparable unit was from Aurex ( Toshiba ) . So rare that I never saw it anywhere else than on Japan Audio Heritage site  http://audio-heritage.jp/AUREX/etc/pm-55.html


----------



## bigshot




----------



## TheSonicTruth

Zapp_Fan said:


> Not just TVs, (although I am sure the TV companies appreciated it,) the government's motivation was selling spectrum.  The FCC was able to re-sell rights the 700Mhz analog spectrum to new customers after the transition, IIRC the rights went for billions.



I **knew** money had something to do with it!  lol

Still, I'd rather have increasing amounts of 'snow' than just drop off the digital 'cliff' when trying to pull in stations beyond a certain distance.  With digital, you get the whole signal or you get nothing.  Ones and Zeros. No in-betweens!


----------



## pinnahertz

@analogsurviver -  When you number your responses but fail to number the items you're responding to in the original posts, it's very hard to track what you're trying to respond to.  Notice how Greg does it.



analogsurviver said:


> 2. Many times - but, most recently, for electrostatic amps and transformers. As ESLs are voltage and not power sensitive devices, different math is involved - but scope remains the same, only probes have to withstand the KVs required.


Totally inapplicable, but nice you're doing that.  Don't get shocked.


analogsurviver said:


> 3. Well, the figures you posted are good enough for typical commercial compressed/limited releases. "Only" some 10-20 dB short of the real thing.


What's the "real thing", as you call it?  I'm working with industry standards, so that actually IS the real thing in that context, but please clarify your meaning.  Perhaps the standard I'm referencing isn't well adopted, since it's only the standard for every film dubbing stage, cinema, TV production, home theater, or home AVR-based system with any sort of calibration.  True, music recording studios do not adhere strictly to it, but they're a whole +/-2dB or so away generally.  So overall, that's only a few hundred million installations world wide.  But again, perhaps you a different reference, better accepted?


analogsurviver said:


> 4. Where does one go to purchase audio ? Or, to be more precise, to listen to some gear that nowadays people then go shamelessly afterwards to order online, for a small difference in price - if not audio shop ?


No point in commenting.  I hate audio stores, and barely tolerate audio expos. It's like I need full-on hip waders and 30dB ear plugs.


analogsurviver said:


> 5. Play some recordings from Telarc and Reference Recordings - which have not been squashed iinto something palatable on equipment of your description. And see if your whatever attached to the amp output does not show clipping ...


I'm pretty sure I've been playing those since they were originally published.  And no, my amps don't clip.


analogsurviver said:


> But definitely do not try that with my demo pieces - at least if you want to retain any credibility that modern day amp/speakers combos do not clip - at least sometimes.


Nope, no clipping.  You do know I own a volume control, right? So does everybody.


analogsurviver said:


> 6. You can spin why and how compressors and limiters are used any way you like - part of the reason is as I have stated.


No, you are wrong.  As I said, as a practitioner in the industry, as well as the broadcast industry, I can state with absolute certainty, that you are wrong.  And take just a little bit of pleasure saying so. Over and over.  "You are WRONG!" Wow, that was a good one.


analogsurviver said:


> Remember, the 1812 record you like exists in 3 versions because of this - if no one but greatest fanatics can use and enjoy it, it is not a good commercial product. So, a moderated version had to be created.


Your point?


analogsurviver said:


> 7. Yes, VERY quickly into - let's call it "turntable research" - I figured out that all kinds of things better left unnamed have been done to records - for the precisely the samee reasons as above . I know analogue record is limited, but those limitations are nowhere as severe as in some commercial releases.


Here's an example of "I have no idea what you're responding too".  But I disagree whole heartedly anyway.


analogsurviver said:


> 8. SPL vs distance is debatable


Really?  You're going to debate physics now?


analogsurviver said:


> ... that's why line source speakers are used for big rooms, as their SPL falls not by a distance squared ( as in point source ), but linearly - and so on and so forth.


They still follow the rules.  Sorry you can't see that.


analogsurviver said:


> A bomb on the other part of the world is - strictly speaking - not inaudible; only has to be big enough. The Tzar Bomb shockwave went 4 times around the globe ... and at least some effects of that were audible long, long away from the epicentre.


 But it wasn't heard on the other side of the world.  Detecting a blast and hearing it are two very different things. Thankfully!

Aren't we having fun now?  I think I'll get a beer to make this even better.  Or maybe it'll get up to barely tolerable after several.


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> And, yes, all else being equal, a speaker with* 95 dB efficiency, playing at 10 watts*, will be *about as loud* as a speaker with *95 dB efficiency, playing at 100 watts.*


Yup. About as loud.  If 10dB louder is "about as loud".  Did you goof here?


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Something for the Doubting Thomases :
> 
> https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/sh-9020.shtml
> 
> ...


Why is that old thing for the Doubting Thomases?


analogsurviver said:


> FAR more accurate than any oscilloscope could ever be;* humans can see approx 40-60 frames per second as separate, non continuos image* - at best.


Wrong... Wrong wrong!


analogsurviver said:


> No way a human being can see on the scope a SINGLE halfwave of 10 kHz - clipped or unclipped - during normal music reproduction.


I'm guessing you've never experience a storage oscilloscope then?  Fairly new devices, only been around for 50 years or so, both analog and digital storage versions.  Pretty fast.  Faster than the Technics device.


analogsurviver said:


> And it is THE reason why it is the most sought after component from the Technics' Proffessional Series; no serious analogue recordist can afford to be without one. And if you can't figure out why it is indispensable with digital recording too - it is your loss.


OK, now I'm going to be very serious for just a moment.  Is that really true?  Is that really the most sought aver component?  Because I've built the equivalent, with larger meters and faster response, presettable hold time, and log scale.  Would you guys like that? What would you pay for it?  I could whip a few up if you like.  Seriously, not kidding. 


analogsurviver said:


> As you can see, it can monitor - with the very same accuracy - also output from power amp, up to 1000 W. Something EVERY person serious about quality reproduction should have - at least once in a lifetime - see with very own eyes, in very own system.


The problem I have with it is the "accuracy" part.  10dB is squeezed into a very tiny span, yet 10dB is a loudness-double/half quantity.  I could make my meter have two scales, one just like the Technics, and one higher resolution around zero where it counts.  And user-settable hold time too.  Would you guys like that?


analogsurviver said:


> The only comparable unit was from Aurex ( Toshiba ) . So rare that I never saw it anywhere else than on Japan Audio Heritage site  http://audio-heritage.jp/AUREX/etc/pm-55.html


Am I really seeing a market-gap here?  My meter dates back a few decades, and modern parts would make it less expensive.  How about a digital read-out as well?  In dB? User-settable back-light color?  Color change on threshold cross?  Just a few ideas.....  The key is, what would you pay for exactly that only better?


----------



## bigshot

pinnahertz said:


> @analogsurviver -  When you number your responses but fail to number the items you're responding to in the original posts, it's very hard to track what you're trying to respond to.  Notice how Greg does it.



Or just write a coherent paragraph and put your statement in the first sentence and your recap in the last sentence with the evidence supporting your statement in the middle.


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> In general, all of this damage results from heat.


Thanks.


KeithEmo said:


> I should also point out that the damage that results from "blasting the amp until it clips" is often not directly related to the fact that it's clipped.


I'd change "not often" to "never", but I'll take it.  Thanks.


KeithEmo said:


> A commonly used, and widely accepted, approximation is that, with typical music, unclipped, the average power level is usually between 1/10 and 1/20 of the peak level.
> So, for example, if you have a 100 watt amplifier, which can deliver 200 watts peak, and you turn it up until clipping just starts, the average power output is probably between 10 and 20 watts.


Right.  But are you aware that amplifiers with 3dB of headroom are a fairly rare thing?  Usually, when it says 100W, it's right about 100W when it clips. Yours are likely an exception.


KeithEmo said:


> With few exceptions, the major factor is how much power reaches the voice coil of a given driver, and the time it continues (or the duty cycle).


And thanks again!


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> Are you aware that amplifiers with 3dB of headroom are a fairly rare thing?  Usually, when it says 100W, it's right about 100W when it clips.



"Rare" maybe among all amps on the market, but I think it's a brand thing, the choice of philosophy of how you design your amps. For NAD amps for example ~3 dB dynamic power headroom is pretty much a norm.


----------



## gregorio

Zapp_Fan said:


> [1] The majority of software synthesizers have a square wave generator which produces a theoretically perfect square wave inside the software.
> [2] And this type of software is used more or less universally by any musician that uses synthesizers...
> [3] Also, it's not uncommon to clip a signal by (say) 60dB while screwing around (especially if you are an amateur like me) so those spectra do start to look pretty rough.



1. Think about that for a minute. A theoretically perfect square wave requires an infinite number of odd harmonics (and therefore also an infinite bandwidth), it would therefore take your computer/software an infinite amount of time to calculate that infinite number of harmonics. When you set your software synth to generate a square wave do you have to wait an infinite amount of time for it to do so? In practice the software generates a squarish wave, limited to the bandwidth of whatever the designer/s of the software have programmed (which is probably 22kHz, could be 48kHz but I doubt is ever more than 96kHz) .

2. Some synth patches might start out with squarish waves (when employing subtractive synthesis for example), but what you end up with is not even vaguely squarish. Furthermore, I dispute that it's used "more or less universally by any musician that uses synths". The vast majority of musicians who use soft-synths, use soft-synths based on samples rather than purely synthesised signals and even those who do use purely synthesised signals mostly use built in patches, where the squarish wave (if the particular patch ever actually contained one) has already been affected/modulated and is not anything like a square wave by the time the musician uses it. It would be a very tiny minority of musicians who actually get into the guts of a modern soft-synth and start from scratch with a square wave. 

3. Obviously I don't know what a few million kids in their bedrooms with a laptop and a few soft-synths are all doing but clipping a signal by 60dB, by more than the entire dynamic range of the song/track they're trying to create? Would even a complete newb manage that "not uncommonly"? Even if they did, I still doubt what they'd actually be outputting would be a square wave.

I've got to agree with Pinnahertz.



analogsurviver said:


> [1] That's why in studios compressors/limiters are used - as most of the people simply do not have the capability to play them back on speakers at home.
> [1a] And if anyone is naive enough that this compessing/limitting bussiness does not apply to classical music on most major labels, should take off their rosy sunglasses and see the truth for a change.
> [2] Yes, people like Telarc's recording of Ouverture 1812 - but uncompressed/unclipped reproduction of those cannons exceed 130 dB.
> [2a] Forget cannons, uncompressed recording of Mahler's 2nd symphony is more than it takes even best TOTL audio systems to clip.



1. No, that is NOT why studios use compressors/limiters, you just completely made that up. Nothing out of character for you then!
1a. See what truth? The "truth" you just made-up, a "truth" based on your zero experience and apparently zero understanding/knowledge of either classical music or how "most major labels" produce recordings of it? Clearly you have little/no idea how, why, when or even if compression/limiting is used on commercial classical recordings, let alone "see the truth" of it! Avoiding being naive (or outright ignorant), taking off "rosy sunglasses" and seeing "the truth for a change" is good advice BUT, if you want to avoid epitomising a HYPOCRITE then it's advice you should try YOURSELF, before advising others!!!

2. And cannons are a standard member of a symphony orchestra are they? How many of the hundreds of thousands/millions of orchestral pieces composed in the history of orchestral pieces use cannons apart from the 1812 Overture? And, as Pinnahertz has told you, you're ignoring distance (amongst other things). Would an audience actually experience >130dBSPL during a performance of the 1812?
2a. Good idea forgetting the cannons. Not such a good idea making up nonsense about Mahler's 2nd Symph instead though! Sure, you can get >130dBSPL peaks in a big symphony, if you're sitting say in the back desks of the viola or cello sections but is that where the audience sits? You cite the inverse square law and the effect it has when sitting 2m away from speakers but then deliberately ignore the inverse square law when sitting 20m (or more) away from the loudest sections of a symphony orchestra! 

G


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Why is that old thing for the Doubting Thomases?
> Wrong... Wrong wrong!
> I'm guessing you've never experience a storage oscilloscope then?  Fairly new devices, only been around for 50 years or so, both analog and digital storage versions.  Pretty fast.  Faster than the Technics device.
> OK, now I'm going to be very serious for just a moment.  Is that really true?  Is that really the most sought aver component?  Because I've built the equivalent, with larger meters and faster response, presettable hold time, and log scale.  Would you guys like that? What would you pay for it?  I could whip a few up if you like.  Seriously, not kidding.
> ...



1.) At least one Doubting Thomas @colonelkernel8 could learn - the hard way - that what I wrote regarding loudness and power is true.

2.) For a movie to look as a moving picture and not a succesion of still frames, 25fps are accepted as enough. But for music videos, try to capture a drum solo at 25fps... - without being able to see frame-by-frame succesion of blurred image of sticks, for example. OK, I might not care enough to put it into kind of proper English - bur you should be able to understand what was really meant.

3.) A storage oscilloscope is a relatively new device to me - simply because anything affordable enough has been WAY too slow for my needs & desires.  And it takes one hell of work to set it up just right for the purpose of showing the peak hold over say 2 hour take. And my storage scope has a fan I hate with PASSION - and is therefore utterly unusable on any location recording, which is 98.7654321 % of my work ( with that number likely to be too low ) . Compare that to the simplicity of the 9020 ( power on, select input, select gain (which is ALWAYS at +20dB setting for recording ), select mode ( VU, Peak, Peak Hold ) - NO sensitivity, timebase, threshold, etc etc required to be set on the storage scope ) - and add to that the fact that very few scopes use DUAL INPUTS ( not to be confused with dual channel ) . I can monitor on 9020 signal feed coming from two mic setups - at the push of a button ... And, best of all, no FAN.

4.) Be serious as you can be. Just punch "Technics 9020 for sale" in your browser - and "marvel" at the results. I have been hunting mine for more than 3/4 of the year ( roughly 10 years ago, now they are much rarer still ), paid for it more than new, unused DSD recorder ( obviously, a prize on some tournament to a tennis player, who could only find the use for an USB cable, the only thing missing from the otherwise  untouched contents of the original box... ), went trough the roof when it finally arrived ... The seller only willing to part with a DEFECTIVE unit, which I had to fix pronto, as I had a scheduled recording in just day or two after getting it finally home. Some 10 years ago, there was no schematics online, I had to figure out that a relais has been the culprit and had to kludge another relais with different pinout so that I could have the meter available for the recording I knew in advance is going to be both loud and highly dynamic. 
After not slamming the seller with the negative feedback, couple of days later arrived a surprise package from him - some really nice bottle of adult beverages. Yet, I was so pissed for depriving me of time, sleep and concentration prior to the recording I really lusted for to be done well, that I put it in some remote corner, to be eventually passed forward as a gift to someone at a later date - by which I finally cooled off enough. 

5 - x . )  Well, the features you describe sound tempting. However, here KISS principle ( keep it simple, stupid ) is the one to follow.  If I do  not want to push the "digital loving objectivists without enough experience" into uproar yet unheard of and unseen in this thread, I can not disclose WHY adding anything digital would be - detrimental to the ultimately achievable SQ. All analog - or nothing ; if you want some $ out of it. Digital guys have tons of recording software that has some kind ( even more precise ) of metering built in - and are unlikely to be persuaded to hear what an analog rig ( or its best approximation, DSD128 and higher ) can actually sound like. Their loss.
Price ? I guess anything around 500$ and not exhorbitantely higher would be kind of acceptable.

Regarding "accuracy" part ; it does not really matter if the last, actually most important part is squeezed in that tiny 10dB span. What really counts is that this 10dB span is never exceeded ( although, in reality, everything still works OK even if metres are deflected to the mechanical limit ) .  No one is interested whether the peak is +5.6 or +5.4 dB - not while actually recording.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 14, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> 1.) At least one Doubting Thomas @colonelkernel8 could learn - the hard way - that what I wrote regarding loudness and power is true.
> 
> 2.) For a movie to look as a moving picture and not a succesion of still frames, 25fps are accepted as enough. But for music videos, try to capture a drum solo at 25fps... - without being able to see frame-by-frame succesion of blurred image of sticks, for example. OK, I might not care enough to put it into kind of proper English - bur you should be able to understand what was really meant.
> 
> ...




"_ I can not disclose WHY adding anything digital 
would be - detrimental to the ultimately achievable 
SQ. All analog - or nothing ; if you want some $ 
out of it._" 

Again, the difference you are hearing with the digital has nothing to do with the fact that something is in a digital format, but rather, the mastering.

Is that what you "could not" disclose?  Well there, I disclosed it.  I'm already on several M.E.s' bounty lists, lol!


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> "Rare" maybe among all amps on the market, but I think it's a brand thing, the choice of philosophy of how you design your amps. For NAD amps for example ~3 dB dynamic power headroom is pretty much a norm.



Hehe, gives me giggles; back in the day, a Carver ( or was it still Phase Linear back then ) power amp has been bench tested in a magazine - and slammed for failing to meet its spec power. A watt or two or something in between short of specified 100 or 200 W RMS/8ohms. Due to power transformer winding tolerances when driven by nominal AC voltage. Evers since then, all Carver amps ( regardless of brand for which they are built ) are specd at ( X+1) W - ie. , 100 W amp becomes 2x 101W RMS/8 ohms, 200 W amp 2x 201W RMS/8 ohms - and so on. Can't deny Bob Carver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver has  some nice humor  sense ! ( and, mother of all horrors - READ about what he did regarding the amps, clearly debunking the myth all amplifiers sound equal if not overdriven - he managed to duplicate the exact sound of amplifiers built with totally different technology !!! ) 

And back in the day, dynamic power headroom has been constantly measured - with some amps having > 3dB of dynamic headroom. But NAD is the one with the greatest staying power in this regard - and, usually, the most reasonably priced. It has been the key element why a NAD power amp has been among the first ( if not actually the first ) to receive the full THX certificate .

Due to the nature of average power requirements for music ( about 1/20 to 1/10 th of full output ), audio power amps use VASTLY UNDERSIZED HEATSINKING. That already creeps up on tests required by FTC - where some amps can not cope with - IIRC - 1/3rd of power both channels driven continous into nominal load for the prescribed time period. 
Since my middle name could be Capacitor, I have been asked by a capacitor factory if I have an amp capable of testing some new capacitors. Only handful of audio amps capable of driving capacitive loads ( where impedance can sink WELL below 1 ohm... ) are known to exist - and a friend carried   http://sanderssoundsystems.com/products/amplifiers at the time. I borrowed the biggest amp available and carried it to the capacitor factory. The amp had no trouble driving pure capacitive load at close to contionous max RMS output - for about 30 seconds ...  - then temperature protection shut everything down. You could fry eggs on those heatsinks ... - it took some 5 minutes for the amp to cool enough to  switch on again, only to be switched off in a matter of just few seconds when triving continous almost full power into pure capacitance. About 20 times the cooling capacity would be required for the desired test - no amount of fans can supply anything even approaching the cooling requirements with existing heatsinks. 
Yet, used for its intended purpose - driving electrostatic speakers with music - the said amp, although running warm>hot, would never overheat.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> "_ I can not disclose WHY adding anything digital
> would be - detrimental to the ultimately achievable
> SQ. All analog - or nothing ; if you want some $
> out of it._"
> ...



Nope - that about the usual mantra regarding mastering was most definitely not meant in this case. To phrase it more correctly :

An analogue recording monitored for level using all analog metering would end up sounding better than the same analogue recording using digital metering.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> Nope - that about the usual mantra regarding mastering was most definitely not meant in this case. To phrase it more correctly :
> 
> An analogue recording monitored for level using all analog metering would end up sounding better than the same analogue recording using digital metering.



Please elaborate.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> 1.) At least one Doubting Thomas @colonelkernel8 could learn - the hard way - that what I wrote regarding loudness and power is true.


Not with that meter, though.


analogsurviver said:


> 2.) For a movie to look as a moving picture and not a succesion of still frames, 25fps are accepted as enough. But for music videos, try to capture a drum solo at 25fps... - without being able to see frame-by-frame succesion of blurred image of sticks, for example. OK, I might not care enough to put it into kind of proper English - bur you should be able to understand what was really meant.


I understood you the first time.  60fps is about twice what's required, and only gamers seem to thing something higher is necessary. That's why I said you were wrong.


analogsurviver said:


> 3.) A storage oscilloscope is a relatively new device to me - simply because anything affordable enough has been WAY too slow for my needs & desires.  And it takes one hell of work to set it up just right for the purpose of showing the peak hold over say 2 hour take. And my storage scope has a fan I hate with PASSION - and is therefore utterly unusable on any location recording, which is 98.7654321 % of my work ( with that number likely to be too low ) . Compare that to the simplicity of the 9020 ( power on, select input, select gain (which is ALWAYS at +20dB setting for recording ), select mode ( VU, Peak, Peak Hold ) - NO sensitivity, timebase, threshold, etc etc required to be set on the storage scope ) - and add to that the fact that very few scopes use DUAL INPUTS ( not to be confused with dual channel ) . I can monitor on 9020 signal feed coming from two mic setups - at the push of a button ... And, best of all, no FAN.


Ok, thanks for the elaboration.


analogsurviver said:


> 5 - x . )  Well, the features you describe sound tempting. However, here KISS principle ( keep it simple, stupid ) is the one to follow.  If I do  not want to push the "digital loving objectivists without enough experience" into uproar yet unheard of and unseen in this thread, I can not disclose WHY adding anything digital would be - detrimental to the ultimately achievable SQ. All analog - or nothing ; if you want some $ out of it. Digital guys have tons of recording software that has some kind ( even more precise ) of metering built in - and are unlikely to be persuaded to hear what an analog rig ( or its best approximation, DSD128 and higher ) can actually sound like. Their loss.
> Price ? I guess anything around 500$ and not exhorbitantely higher would be kind of acceptable.


Nothing I would make would include digital audio technology.  There would be a tiny bit of timing logic, but no digitizing the audio or anything else. 

The Technics 9020 seems to bring about $1000.  You think a new unit with warranty and additional features should be half that price?  I couldn't do the project for that.  I'd have to sell a thousand copies just to recoup the development costs.  I could do single units for possibly $1500 or so.


analogsurviver said:


> Regarding "accuracy" part ; it does not really matter if the last, actually most important part is squeezed in that tiny 10dB span. What really counts is that this 10dB span is never exceeded ( although, in reality, everything still works OK even if metres are deflected to the mechanical limit ) .  No one is interested whether the peak is +5.6 or +5.4 dB - not while actually recording.


To me, the ultimate meter scaling isn't dB/log through it's entire range, but is expanded around the critical area.  So, like 10dB/increment up to -10, then 2dB/increment above that up to 0.  But it's hard to do that on a physical meter, so an LED string would be required.  I also kind of like the combination of peak and RMS on the same meter, bar for RMS, point for peak.  I can still do this without digitizing audio of course. 

I find it odd that the attack time with peak hold is what's important, but accuracy isn't.  Instant attack without accuracy is kind of pointless, but if that's what the market wants....  One of the things I like about the BBC's PPM is the attack time is deliberately slow and based on the audibility of distortion vs time.  It focuses on audible problems.  Every meter on DAWs and hardware-based digital recorders is true-peak at some point.  Once you hit true-peak, the measurement of analog attack time is meaningless. 

I know you hate all things digital, but are you aware of the free PC-based meter that does much if not all of what you want, by *Orban*? They also include 7.1 metering, and ITU BS.1770 short and long term, and even CBS loudness.  Could be calibrated to anything you please.  Did I mention it's free?  Yeah, but digital.  Oh well. It's part of why I think the market for a Technics clone is probably limited, but if you have more info I'll consider it.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Please elaborate.



THAT Pandora's Box ( and everything hiding in it )  would really throw spanner in the works of "bussiness as practioned and endorsed in this thread" ....

and, since I am - basically - repeating myself for the second time ( I have posted over several years before, got called troll many times, spilled far too much beans already ( from which a thinking person might figure out a thing or two ...), got banned from one ( this ? ) of SS threads after losing it after a pretty nasty barrage of fire from the opposite camp by calling  the opposition by off the limits name ( bigshot got banned from the entire head-fi for his personal attacks, after being repeatedly warned not to do so - only to be  amnestied by the last big change of head-fi ) -

I will not do any such thing. If companies as powerful as Sony ( with all their manpower and finances ) could not - clearly - document the superiority of DSD over PCM - what chances I have as an individual ? And to understand it all, it would take MUCH more than just DSD vs PCM. Each of those topics would require untold amount of time and money - both of which I can ill afford to  continue losing in participating in such threads instead of making new recordings -  or playing my vinyl, with all of its imperfect perfections, both for pure pleasure and R&D/bussiness - both of which are immensely more enjojable than polemize with people who would, in the  nutshell, want to preserve the status quo at the time - indefinitely, if possible.

I will deliver the promised photos, recording samples ( and CD mat AB test - thanks to continous reminder s by @ bfreedma , I did figure out how to make an AB test that can be made online using F2K ABX ), etc - but beyond that, I am more or less done. And have yet to post one - long overdue -  VERY big review

Time to hit the road on the bicycle again - many interesting ideas and solutions to the problems came during leisurly cycling, and although saying I did not learn anything on SS threads could not possibly be further from the truth, it has not been nearly as productive in idea/solution department as cycling.

As with teachers in schools - it is always the teacher that "maltreated" you the most, is the one that has also taught you the most. So - to all the brothers in arms and the " Bitter Opposition "


*THANK YOU !*​


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> THAT Pandora's Box ( and everything hiding in it )  would really throw spanner in the works of "bussiness as practioned and endorsed in this thread" ....
> 
> and, since I am - basically - repeating myself for the second time ( I have posted over several years before, got called troll many times, spilled far too much beans already ( from which a thinking person might figure out a thing or two ...), got banned from one ( this ? ) of SS threads after losing it after a pretty nasty barrage of fire from the opposite camp by calling  the opposition by off the limits name ( bigshot got banned from the entire head-fi for his personal attacks, after being repeatedly warned not to do so - only to be  amnestied by the last big change of head-fi ) -
> 
> ...



I shall see you in PM.


----------



## KeithEmo

Yup... bad typing.....

What I intended to say was that a speaker at 95 dB efficiency with 10 watts would be as loud as a speaker at 85 dB efficiency with 100 watts.
(So adding 10 dB in speaker efficiency is equivalent to adding 10 dB of power.) 



pinnahertz said:


> Yup. About as loud.  If 10dB louder is "about as loud".  Did you goof here?


----------



## Zapp_Fan

gregorio said:


> 1. Think about that for a minute. A theoretically perfect square wave requires an infinite number of odd harmonics (and therefore also an infinite bandwidth), it would therefore take your computer/software an infinite amount of time to calculate that infinite number of harmonics.



Hmm, this is not correct. Most (read: all subtractive) synthesizers generate the signal in the time domain, i.e. they simply output the samples directly.  It simply flips on and off at the frequency you tell it to.  This signal is a "perfect" square wave as represented in the audio buffer until it's band-limited by the DAC or another filter in the digital side. Or, it's at least as perfect a square wave as can be represented in PCM format. I don't know if the argument as to whether that counts as "perfect" is actually an academic or philosophical one... but you get my drift. 

Additive synthesizers operate in the frequency domain and don't (can't) output this type of signal, they're band-limited by nature, and in that case your objection of infinite harmonics would be correct.  However in practice you only need a few hundred harmonics at most to create a passible (in audible terms) approximation of one.  This type of synth is popular currently, but is still in the minority as far as how many of them use this method.  And, as you note, they certainly do not output perfect square waves or anything close. 



gregorio said:


> what you end up with is not even vaguely squarish. Furthermore, I dispute that it's used "more or less universally by any musician that uses synths". The vast majority of musicians who use soft-synths, use soft-synths based on samples rather than purely synthesised signals and even those who do use purely synthesised signals mostly use built in patches



I guess you missed my post of the YMCK track, a band that has obviously square-ish synths in every song they make.  Probably not in terms of dangerous harmonic content, but in terms of the audible sound, it's unmistakable.  They are a fun band if you have any personal nostalgia for the 8-bit era of gaming (certainly not a universal thing I admit!) 

Overall my point is not about what's normal or common, what I was trying to get at is that you have to design audio equipment to be able to handle arbitrary audio signals, because people will play whatever horrible sounds they want through them, not just music.  I think you would be surprised at what kinds of horrible audio people produce when messing around with soft synths.  Even if you exclude the (common) times when a bug in a free plugin wrecks the audio, there is a lot of messed up stuff that happens before a finished album comes out. 

As to whether musicians mostly only use patches and don't build their own - I guess you're probably right, but the pros (whose music we actually listen to) are much more likely to write their own, and therefore begin with raw waveforms.  You think Vangelis just scrolls through presets all day?


----------



## KeithEmo

I just wanted to elaborate on a few things... and take a step back on one or two...

First, Pinnahertz is quite correct in that the extra amount of energy you get in the harmonics from any reasonable level of clipping does not account for a huge amount of energy.
Therefore, it really shouldn't account for a significant number of  blown tweeters... and probably does not nowadays.
In the old days, it was quite common to see small low cost tweeters, used only for relatively high frequencies, and that actually could only handle two or three watts of continuous power.
And, yes, those could actually be killed by a few extra watts reaching them for too long.
However, most modern domes and planar tweeters can withstand a reasonable amount of power, so this really shouldn't be a problem.

I rather suspect that the cause of most blown tweeters today - especially with low powered amps - is more psychological....
For most of us, the onset of clipping serves as a sort of warning that we're playing things a bit too loud.

It is commonly accepted, as a rough approximation, that with pop music, the average level is usually around 10% of the peak level.
Therefore, if you have a 200 watt amplifier, that starts clipping at 300 watts, your average level will be only 20-30 watts at the onset of clipping.

However, if you have a less powerful amplifier, yet you insist on "playing it loud", it's going to start clipping at a much lower level.
For many people, the result of this seems to be that, without any warning provided by the ONSET of clipping, they just keep turning it up louder.
With an amplifier playing cleanly, the onset of clipping provides a warning that you're playing it too loudly.
With an amp that's ALREADY clipping, you don't get that warning... it just keeps sounding gradually worse as you turn it up.
(Rather like when people who burn the toast too often learn to ignore the smoke detector.)

A significant part of the problem could also be that a lot of people honestly believe that "they can't damage their 200 watt speakers with a 100 watt amplifier"... so they don't pay attention at all.
I talk to a lot of people on the phone who ask which amplifier they should purchase to use with a certain set of speakers.
Their question is OFTEN phrased in therms of "what amplifier they should get if they don't want to have to worry about damaging their speakers if they turn it up too high".
(They are literally looking for an amplifier that, even if they or the kids accidentally turn it up too high unintentionally, CAN'T hurt their speakers.)
The usual advice to them is that, in most cases, if they use common sense they won't have a problem, but most amplifiers can in fact damage most speakers if you ignore when they start to clip and keep cranking them up.

Also, on a side note, there is a reason why most modern amplifiers have limited dynamic power - and it has to do with efficiency and economics.

The maximum power a typical solid state amp can deliver before clipping is limited by the power supply rail voltage - which is fixed.
Once the output is swinging up to the rails it simply cannot go any further.
However, this is also the point of best efficiency for Class A/B amps.
(Remember that, in a Class A/B amp, the output devices must dissipate the difference between the voltage at the output and the rail voltage as heat.)
If you have a Class A/B amp that can deliver 200 watts peak, then it is MOST EFFICIENT at 200 watts output, and much less efficient at 100 watts output.
So, if I have a 100 watt amplifier that can deliver 200 watts of dynamic power, when running at 100 watts it will be less efficient and run hotter than a 100 watt amp that can really only deliver 100 watts maximum.
(Because, in order to enable it to deliver 200 watts peak, I had to use higher power supply rails, which means that, at 100 watts, the output devices are dissipating more power.)
How this actually affects the cost of manufacturing the amp will depend on the cost of the transformer and of the heat sinks.

Virtually all transformers can safely deliver far above their average ratings short term - so a 100 watt transformer will cheerfully deliver the power necessary for an amplifier rated at 100 watts continuous and 200 watts peak.
However, because I've raised the rail voltage to support the higher peak power, the amplifier will be less efficient at lower power levels, and so will run hotter and require bigger heat sinks.

The way the costs of the various parts balance out.... 
If you were going to make an amplifier that would be rated 100 watts continuous and 200 watts peak.... it doesn't cost much more to enable it to simply deliver 200 watts continuously.
It used to make sense in the old days - when a 200 watt transformer cost a lot more than a 100 watt transformer - and the transformer was a major portion of the total cost.
(Virtually all modern output transistors are capable of handling massive amounts of power - so they're not usually a limiting factor at all these days.)
However, today, this is not the case.

Another factor is simply that overall costs have dropped so much lately.....

Power has simply gotten so cheap lately that most people can easily afford that amp that can deliver 200 watts continuously...
So there's little incentive to save a few dollars and get one that can only deliver 200 watts short term... but has a lower continuous rating.
(And, because of the reasons I mentioned above, the price difference won't necessarily be much at all.)

Note that Class H addresses the efficiency trade off by allowing the amplifier to operate from lower supply rails when putting out lower power.
This eliminates a lot of the loss of efficiency when the amplifier is delivering less than full power.
However, it does result in more complex, and so more expensive, circuitry and design.

Many modern designers would simply say that:
"An amplifier that can deliver 100 watts continuous and 200 watts peak is really just a 200 watt amplifier with an undersized transformer and not enough heat sinks."



pinnahertz said:


> Thanks.
> I'd change "not often" to "never", but I'll take it.  Thanks.
> Right.  But are you aware that amplifiers with 3dB of headroom are a fairly rare thing?  Usually, when it says 100W, it's right about 100W when it clips. Yours are likely an exception.
> 
> And thanks again!


----------



## KeithEmo

You seem to be assuming that your device will be "building the waveforms from harmonics"... however that's not the way everybody would do it.
(Looking at the harmonics and summing them is one way of visualizing a square wave.... but far from the only way of creating one.)

1. 
I could create a square wave by summing the proper harmonics in the proper proportions and with the correct phase relationship.
And, yes, this would be a lot of work.

2.
But, if I was generating a square wave using hardware electronics, I would simply use an electronic switch to switch a DC voltage on and off.
I would use a digitally controlled clock to turn the switch on and off at the proper rate (that rate determines the frequency of my square wave).
Many signal generators and "discrete synthesizers" do it this way.
Two dollars worth of parts can switch cleanly enough that the harmonics will be correct up into the gigahertz range.
(And, since you are effectively "drawing the wave" rather than "assembling it" - the phase relationships and harmonic amplitudes simply "turn out right".)

Alternately, I could use some sort of oscillator to make a different waveform, like a sine wave, and then "clip" it into a square wave.
To do this I would use a twenty cent chip called a comparator... which is specially designed to convert variable voltages into on/off conditions.
And, yes, a typical low cost comparator has a gain rated in the MILLIONS and can switch in BILLIONTHS of a second... so it really can produce a fair approximation of a square wave.

3.
I can do something similar using a computer program.
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
That string of numbers represents a square wave.
It is "what a perfect square wave would look like if you digitized it" - except that we can skip most of the steps and simply "calculate what the values would be" directly.

For example, I can go into Abobe Audition and instruct it to "generate a square wave".
It will then produce the numbers that define what a perfect square wave would be, at the frequency I request, and within the limits of the sample rate and bit depth I tell it.
What comes out will be exactly what I would get if I actually had a perfect square wave, and then converted it into a digital signal, also perfectly within the limits I've chosen.
(Once you know what the picture should look like, you simply work backwards and figure out what numbers will make the picture you want.)

The programming is quite simple.... so any software synth can do it easily enough.... 

4.
I don't know how the majority of soft synths "handle" their samples.
However, a sample is simply a digital recording of a sound.
What I described in 3. is essentially "manufacturing" that recording directly - using math - without even having an original to record.
The reason most soft synths use samples is because they WANT to introduce the imperfections and limitations of the original physical source.
All "perfect 1 kHz square waves" at a given sample rate are exactly the same.... it is the flaws and variations that add "personality" to the different samples. 



gregorio said:


> 1. Think about that for a minute. A theoretically perfect square wave requires an infinite number of odd harmonics (and therefore also an infinite bandwidth), it would therefore take your computer/software an infinite amount of time to calculate that infinite number of harmonics. When you set your software synth to generate a square wave do you have to wait an infinite amount of time for it to do so? In practice the software generates a squarish wave, limited to the bandwidth of whatever the designer/s of the software have programmed (which is probably 22kHz, could be 48kHz but I doubt is ever more than 96kHz) .
> 
> 2. Some synth patches might start out with squarish waves (when employing subtractive synthesis for example), but what you end up with is not even vaguely squarish. Furthermore, I dispute that it's used "more or less universally by any musician that uses synths". The vast majority of musicians who use soft-synths, use soft-synths based on samples rather than purely synthesised signals and even those who do use purely synthesised signals mostly use built in patches, where the squarish wave (if the particular patch ever actually contained one) has already been affected/modulated and is not anything like a square wave by the time the musician uses it. It would be a very tiny minority of musicians who actually get into the guts of a modern soft-synth and start from scratch with a square wave.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan

KeithEmo said:


> essentially "manufacturing" that recording directly - using math - without even having an original to record.



Indeed, a synthetic audio signal from scratch.  You could almost say it's "synthesizing" the audio.  Hmmm...  Maybe they would call this program a "synthesizer"... more research is needed.


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> 3.
> I can do something similar using a computer program.
> 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
> That string of numbers represents a square wave.
> ...



That square wave signal is "illegal". If you bandlimit and sample a "perfect" analog squarewave, it doesn't give you this. This is what proper 4410 Hz square wave at 44100 Hz sampling rate looks like:


----------



## KeithEmo

You're exactly right... as an audio signal it is "illegal", and you should never encounter it in a digital audio device.
It will never be produced as the output of an A/D converter because the band-limiting filters at the input won't pass that signal.
No proper digital audio application would create it... and any normal editor would "fix" it if you imported it.

But, strictly speaking, nothing would prevent a computer program from generating it, and any DAC can technically play any stream of numbers you feed it.
However, it would be interesting to see what would come out if you played it through a DAC with filters specifically optimized for digital audio.
(Much as when you submit an impulse signal to a DAC, which is also an illegal signal, something would come out, and it would be informative, it just wouldn't be "legitimate" digital audio.)



71 dB said:


> That square wave signal is "illegal". If you bandlimit and sample a "perfect" analog squarewave, it doesn't give you this. This is what proper 4410 Hz square wave at 44100 Hz sampling rate looks like:


----------



## gregorio

Zapp_Fan said:


> [1] Hmm, this is not correct. Most (read: all subtractive) synthesizers generate the signal in the time domain,
> [2] This signal is a "perfect" square wave as represented in the audio buffer until it's band-limited by the DAC or another filter in the digital side.
> [3] Additive synthesizers operate in the frequency domain and don't (can't) output this type of signal, they're band-limited by nature, and in that case your objection of infinite harmonics would be correct.
> [4] However in practice you only need a few hundred harmonics at most to create a passible (in audible terms) approximation of one.



1. Yes my bad, I meant additive synthesis. But ...
2. If we are talking about subtractive synthesis then of course there MUST be a filter and not just "in the digital side" but in the soft-synth itself, as that is the very definition of subtractive synthesis.
3. And in practice a subtractive soft-synth must also be band-limited.
4. Correct but firstly, a "passable approximation" of a square wave is not a "theoretically perfect square wave" and secondly, with say a 1kHz square wave at 44.1kHz sample rate we do not get "a few hundred harmonics" we only get eleven and two or three of those are inaudible anyway!



Zapp_Fan said:


> [1] I guess you missed my post of the YMCK track, a band that has obviously square-ish synths in every song they make.
> [2] Overall my point is not about what's normal or common, what I was trying to get at is that you have to design audio equipment to be able to handle arbitrary audio signals, because people will play whatever horrible sounds they want through them, not just music.
> [2a] I think you would be surprised at what kinds of horrible audio people produce when messing around with soft synths.
> [2b] Even if you exclude the (common) times when a bug in a free plugin wrecks the audio, there is a lot of messed up stuff that happens before a finished album comes out
> [3] As to whether musicians mostly only use patches and don't build their own - I guess you're probably right, but the pros (whose music we actually listen to) are much more likely to write their own, and therefore begin with raw waveforms. You think Vangelis just scrolls through presets all day?



1. A square wave and something that sounds "square-ish" are two VERY different things! To sound square-ish you just need a few harmonics (as few as 3 or so) but of course in reality that's barely even square-ish, let alone a "theoretically perfect square wave".
2. No, we don't have to design audio equipment to handle arbitrary audio signals, only audio signals which are audible, and that doesn't include "theoretically perfect square waves" or anything even particularly close.
2a. I very much doubt I'd be surprised. I worked for a number of years with music technology students, a fair number of whom were into techno, hardcore and various other electronic sub-genres and were creating material which made "The Prodigy" sound like Mozart! While they often used square-ish sounding effects, in reality the waveforms they ended up with were not remotely square and it wasn't really any more surprising than what Stockhausen was doing 50+ years ago, just more consistently louder.
2b. Yes, there is a great deal of "messed up stuff" that happens before a finished album comes out. Therefore:  even if we did start with nothing but a square wave then it's going to be "messed up" and nothing like a square wave when the "album comes out" and if we don't start with a square wave, the "messing up" is not magically going to turn it into a square wave. So no square waves, why then the obsession with square waves?? 

3. I'm not sure you want to go there! I worked with Vangelis several times in the 1980's, so I don't have to guess, hypothesise or assume what he did all day. Obviously there weren't soft-synths back then but yes, Vangelis (or people who worked for him) often designed their own patches, as some pros do today but the starting point was often another patch and where the starting point was just a basic signal, it was fairly rarely a square and it never exited the synth as square wave, it was always modulated, filtered and processed in some other way first. So again, no square waves.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] You seem to be assuming that your device will be "building the waveforms from harmonics"... however that's not the way everybody would do it.



In effect, that IS the "way everybody would do it"! How many people who create digital audio music do you know (or have even heard of), who do not use an ADC, DAC, DAW, Audio Editor or any other "digital device"? As you admit, a square wave is an illegal signal and a digital device would alter it.



Zapp_Fan said:


> Indeed, a synthetic audio signal from scratch.  You could almost say it's "synthesizing" the audio.  Hmmm...  Maybe they would call this program a "synthesizer"... more research is needed.



You could in a sense call that "synthesizing" audio but that's NOT what a synthesizer actually is or does. A Synthesizer is a musical instrument, which requires at a minimum: Filters, envelope controls and audio oscillators! "This program" would essentially be a signal generator and would NOT be called a "synthesizer"!

Again, why the continuing obsession/nonsense with square waves?

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jun 15, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes my bad, I meant additive synthesis. But ...
> 2. If we are talking about subtractive synthesis then of course there MUST be a filter and not just "in the digital side" but in the soft-synth itself, as that is the very definition of subtractive synthesis.
> 3. And in practice a subtractive soft-synth must also be band-limited.
> 4. Correct but firstly, a "passable approximation" of a square wave is not a "theoretically perfect square wave" and secondly, with say a 1kHz square wave at 44.1kHz sample rate we do not get "a few hundred harmonics" we only get eleven and two or three of those are inaudible anyway!
> ...



Actually, acknowledged and agreed on the above, I didn't see anything I actually disagree with. (this must be a first on this forum... do I get a medal?)   Actually not sure why we're stuck on square waves right now, but it traces back to the earlier post where a user was worried his headphones were damaged by listening to a digitally clipped audio track.  We got into clipping, from there excessive harmonics, and then off to the races...

PS Good point on the fact that you only get some tens of harmonics at 44.1, in my head I was thinking of the additive synth Harmor which does (once all the filters and other effects get involved) output some hundreds of harmonics on a musically useful patch, but as you note, that's much more common than trying to use it as a signal generator.  Just goes to show that in real life you rarely spend much time on raw basic signals like that. 

PPS Jealous that you've got to work with Vangelis before, he's a total champ of the synth world.  Bladerunner soundtrack 4 lyfe.


----------



## bigshot

square waves, crossfeed, obscure LP cartridges that go to 30kHz, xeroxes from books with yellow highlighter, dynamic range measurements... these are a few of my least favorite things.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> square waves, crossfeed, obscure LP cartridges that go to 30kHz, xeroxes from books with yellow highlighter, dynamic range measurements... these are a few of my least favorite things.


does this mean you're more into raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> square waves, crossfeed, obscure LP cartridges that go to 30kHz, xeroxes from books with yellow highlighter, dynamic range measurements... these are a few of my least favorite things.



Err.... errata corrige ; cartridges that go (only) to 30 kHz are not obscure not at all; change the frequency to 50 kHz ... at least !

But, with that out of the way :


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 1. I worked for a number of years with music technology students, a fair number of whom were into techno, hardcore and various other electronic sub-genres and were creating material which made "The Prodigy" sound like Mozart!
> 2. While they often used square-ish sounding effects, in reality the waveforms they ended up with were not remotely square and it wasn't really any more surprising than what Stockhausen was doing 50+ years ago, just more consistently louder.
> 3. I worked with Vangelis several times in the 1980's,...
> 
> G



1. Hah! Liam Howlett is a genius so maybe that's why The Prodigy sounds like Mozart in comparison to some other technoheads?
2. All you have to do is to all-pass filter a "square-wave" to produce differing group delays to harmonics and the waveform doesn't look like square at all.
3. Wow. I'm more of a Tangerine Dream fan myself, but wow.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> Err.... errata corrige ; cartridges that go (only) to 30 kHz are not obscure not at all; change the frequency to 50 kHz ... at least !
> 
> But, with that out of the way :




I'd love to see the measurements on a 50kHz signal from a cartridge reading an actual vinyl record. It's just not happening. Ever.


----------



## bigshot

colonelkernel8 said:


> I'd love to see the measurements on a 50kHz signal from a cartridge reading an actual vinyl record. It's just not happening. Ever.



You was to know an interesting thing about vampire lore? A vampire can't come to someone late at night to attack them until they've been invited into the home first.


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> I'd love to see the measurements on a 50kHz signal from a cartridge reading an actual vinyl record. It's just not happening. Ever.



Hey... HOW many of them do you want ? 

Here a good primer - and one of the best among the good ( but FAR from the fastest ) goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-----------------------------------------AAAAAAAY back; 44 years back -

to 1974, to be precise ( JVC X-1, by now almost extinct, fetching silly money if and when it pops up for sale as NOS or still usable condition ( berillium for cantilevers no longer allowed for decades, due to impossibility to work with it for cartridges in a sealed atmosphere, where micro dust could be trapped - it is highly toxic, cancerogene material https://www.livescience.com/28641-beryllium.html) :

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=vinyl&m=1094587

Cartridges using other materials for the cantilever have been and are being produced today - all of which can play to 50 kHz and beyond.

I have MANY recordings up to 50 kHz ( various test records ) of various phono cartridges - for practical reasons in DSD128. Currently searching for some software that could from these files converted to 192/24 create graphs ( man, do I miss the ol' but precise & reliable Bruel & Kjaer chart recorder - still going strong at Benz Micro Switzerland, where I used to work... ), something at least comparable to B & K printouts. 

By 67500 Hz ( 50 kHz test record intended for playback at 33 1/3 RPM played at  45 RPM ) , which is the highest "reasonable" frequency for phono playback, there are quite a few cartridges that still perform well . Sorry, I do not have the fastest carts, which go past 100 kHz - to be tempted to spin that test record even higher, without causing irreparable damage to delicate high frequency information . 

By 67500 Hz and higher, no soundcard without 384kHz sampling could be thought of being linear enough - all 192 kHz soundcards trade ultimately achievable linearity for smoother somewhat falling response past approx 50 kHz (depending on make/model), without resorting to so brickwall type of filtering like necessitated by 16/44.1 RBCD . 

Would a 192/24 file recording from a phono cartridge playing a test record without any processing ( graphs, charts, etc ) be enough to convince you that dragging a stone in some vinyl canal can actually go to 50 kHz - and beyond  ?


----------



## bigshot




----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


>


I regret asking.


----------



## gregorio

colonelkernel8 said:


> I'd love to see the measurements on a 50kHz signal from a cartridge reading an actual vinyl record. It's just not happening. Ever.



You would measure something, unwanted noise/interference/distortion products. It's all just trash and therefore most of us would want to get rid of it but there's always someone for whom the old cliche applies, "One man's trash is another man's gold".



colonelkernel8 said:


> I regret asking.



Yep, that was a mistake baring in mind there's someone in this thread for whom trash is not only gold but is actually more important than all the stuff which isn't trash!! 

G


----------



## bigshot (Jun 17, 2018)

When my uncle was a young man, he was totally engrossed with hunting and fishing. The family would get together for Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner and the table would be full of people. As soon as there was the slightest gap in conversation, he would loudly interject... "Speaking of duck hunting..." and launch into an extended monologue on the subject. Of course no one actually *was* speaking of duck hunting. He was the only one interested in that subject and it consumed his full attention 24/7. For years afterwards it became a joke at the dinner table to say "Speaking of duck hunting..."  As soon as someone said that, it was the cue for everyone at the table to loudly shout him down. A big laugh. We have several people like my uncle in this forum. They don't need any excuse to launch into their own pet topics of discussion and they won't stop, even when they see that their conversation isn't engaging the interest of anyone else. It reminds me of holiday dinner with my family sometimes!


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 17, 2018)

That graph is astounding! Is that a Denon calibration or measurement graph? That it tracked on a record up to 50 khz is truly amazing.

Also the frequency response appears flat as a board until you get up into ultrasonic territory, if I am reading it correctly.
I am still not sure there is anything meaningful up there for someone like me to hear--my hearing is not so good to begin with, and that's way out of the conventionally accepted audible range. But just as a technical feat I am truly surprised. I suppose it's kind of like a fine watch--it keeps the same time, but only better.

That brings me to something more mundane. I had always noticed a difference between high frequency content from records and those from CDs. The records always seemed to have more emphasis in the upper frequencies. I had a Signet cartridge, which someone told me was a brand that often put some extra emphasis in the treble. I switched over to an Audio Technica, and that seemed to give flatter results in the treble when compared to CD recordings. These are purely uncontrolled subjective impressions on my part so they are not too reliable, but can anyone confirm this might or might not have been the case?

Also, perhaps this individual was asked a direct question and provided a direct answer? And the result does look kind of amazing. I'm not in a position to judge the technical merit of it though.

Thanks, everyone.




analogsurviver said:


> Hey... HOW many of them do you want ?
> :
> https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=vinyl&m=1094587
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 18, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> That graph is astounding! Is that a Denon calibration or measurement graph? That it tracked on a record up to 50 khz is truly amazing.
> 
> Also the frequency response appears flat as a board until you get up into ultrasonic territory, if I am reading it correctly.
> I am still not sure there is anything meaningful up there for someone like me to hear--my hearing is not so good to begin with, and that's way out of the conventionally accepted audible range. But just as a technical feat I am truly surprised. I suppose it's kind of like a fine watch--it keeps the same time, but only better.
> ...



Hehe, in that reply I tried to stick strictly to results published online and provided by a third party - not manufacturer - as much as possible. And, I did stick to the requirement of signal from the cartridge being read off real world pressed test record.

The most severe and most revealing test on phono cartridge frequency response - ever - has been conducted and published by Peter Moncrieff of International Audio Review. I have to tell to the less initiated; the mere mentioning of his name is most likely call to the arms in the "opposite camp" - for too many reasons to be discussed within this thread.

By simply putting the cartridge's stylus to a hard ( glass ) surface down, a step in vertical direction is generated; I do have the entire review, from the best - trough to the NR ( NOT RECOMMENDED ) (class of ) phono cartridges, which had - obviously - the response too mangled to be published.

 IAR  is the only audio magazine that does not accept any advertising - either back then in print , or today, online magazine. It does not do "paid for reviews", but is likely to work with the manufacturer in particularly interesting/promising products. That is why the subscriptions costs - dearly so, in fact  - unlike anything more conventional that does accept advertising..
http://www.iar-80.com/
 Copyright is meant VERY seriously here. Back in the day of printed magazine/newsletter, things as radical as printing dark green letters on dark violet paper have been enforced in later issues - to combat photocopying. For this reason, I will NOT provide any scans from this review; anyone interested enough still has the option to legally obtain the desired contents.  Bearing in mind how much do audio components cost - and how many costly mistakes could be avoided by reading a truly unbiased review - the price of admission is really low.

Here a link to the two of the best phono cartridges in the above mentioned survey; to my knowledge, the only way to see any of these tests
_*to beyond 100kHz ( 256kHz limit of the ADC used at the time (1980), cartridges go even higher ) *_online.

http://www.cieri.net/Documenti/Cataloghi/Altri marchi/Dynavector - Moving Coil Cartridge Test Reports and Reviews.pdf

Remember, the successor to the two original Dynavector Karat cartridges is still alive and kicking, an even better DV-17D3 - at around 1400 $; not exactly cheap, but not exorbitant either.

Regarding Signet and Audio Technica - they are the very same brand ! Signet used to be a "laboratory grade, built by hand" line of Audio Technica ( today's equivalent would be Toyota and Lexus ) - usually, it went another mile in what really counts - cantilever and stylus. To this day, the rare Signet TK-10ML (any of the three marks) and ultra uber rare TK-100LC represent, in more than one way, the pinnacle in moving magnet phono cartridge, exceeding anything ever offered by Audio Technica ( and most of the other manufacturers ) otherwise. As a matter of fact, in the above mentioned survey, one of the key reviews is that for the Signet TK-7"xy" phono cartridge. In Signet TK-7 series , Audio Technica pulled out all the stops; IIRC, four cantilever materials and three stylus tip profiles, making- effectively - 12 phono cartridges, 12 different stylus assemblies all using the same cartridge body. It is also a primer on proper electrical cartridge loading ... - as usual, DIFFERENT from the manufacturer specified - if the optimum response is to be achieved.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 18, 2018)

LP records usually have no signal above 17-18kHz, but they do have high frequency noise if your cart can reproduce it. That's fine because most people can't hear above that, and music doesn't generally contain frequencies above that.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> LP records usually have no signal above 17-18kHz, but they do have high frequency noise if your cart can reproduce it. That's fine because most people can't hear above that, and music doesn't generally contain frequencies above that.



And yes - and no.

There are, unfortunately, records that contain unbelievable levels of noise above  20 kHz. For these, a cartridge that does not extend much beyond  20k is preferable.

The quietest cartridge in the groove I have heard - bar none - is EXTREMISTICALLY ( extremistically > extremely ) flat to 40 kHz ( less than + - 1dB ); then it does something extremely unusual, something no other cart I have seen does. It has a rather sharp rollof above 40 kHz - not RBCD brickwall, of course, but FAR steeper than any other cartidge I have yet seen, worked with or heard. Long out of production, in order to achieve the above response used in a totally different way than usual, ever more rare and expensive on the used market if and when it does appear for sale. The amount of precise details it pulls out of the record really has to be heard to be believed. And the treble , although never etched or sharp, is so much more alive than RBCD that it really hurts to hear side by side record and CD of the same recording - PROVIDED the master is the same. 

I really did not like the way audio press treated this MM cartridge ( relatively inexpensive when new ) - postponing publishing the review ( even if hell bent on writing a negative review about it for whatever reason, it simply is not possible - not if the reviewer wants to retain any credibility or wants to be trusted again ) until it has been anounced by the manufacturer that the model in question is to be discontrinued shortly. I tried to order it immediately - but so did many, many others. A friend got one of the very last few, ordered just a day before me. I did get to try it in my system for a week - and I do not like to remember just how it swept aside the bad and present the recording in a clarity that has no equal. That thing reproduces 40 kHz like very few carts can reporoduce - 1 kHz ...

A well recorded analogue record mastered in real time can have flat response to 27 kHz or so - and half speed mastered double that, to 54 kHz or so. That is why half speed mastered records are sought after - even today. If played on quality turntable/arm/cartridge, they can audibly exceed anything possible on CD - as far as frequency response extension in the treble goes.  

However, it is not only about analogue records - HR , regardless if PCM or DSD, can also offer vsimilar listening experience, one that can not be equaled with RBCD.  HR does not require any more knowledge and experience than required for RBCD - and is only insignificantly more expensive than RBCD. Something it will NEVER be possible with analogue.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 18, 2018)

My brother had a very good Thorens turntable that he kept in good align. He also had a McIntosh system to go with it. He went out and bought an audiophile test record that had tones all the way up to 20kHz. The album warned on the cover that although the record contained very high frequencies, they would only be useable for a limited number of plays. Even with a good turntable, the normal wear and tear of tracking the groove tore up the delicate modulations required to reproduce 20kHz. Sure enough, the first time my brother played the 20kHz tone, it was stone silent. After 4 or 5 plays, it started to sound all crackly because the modulations in the groove were deteriorating. Eventually it was just noise. Midrange tones and below still sounded like new.

When I was first starting out in the business, I worked in a sound house next door to a fella who ran one of the very best quality LP cutting houses in Hollywood. We shared a parking lot and became friendly. He showed me his lathes and I asked him a million questions. He told me that LPs had a high end roll off to prevent premature groove wear. He said that it varied depending on the intended audience- classical music rolled off around 17kHz and popular music started rolling off as low as 14kHz. The degree of rolloff varied depending on how far into the side the cut was. Outer grooves had a higher rolloff and inner grooves had a much more drastic rolloff. He said that if he didn't do that, the record stores would get lots of returns for premature record wear.

But of course none of this matters, because super audible frequencies are irrelevant when it comes to sound quality, because humans can't hear them. More isn't better if your ears can't hear it.

I think I told you all this before. You must have forgotten.


----------



## Steve999

That's funny. So I left a higher-end cartridge for a mid-range cartridge by the same company.  Now that you mention it, I do remember the guy at the record store telling me that the styli were interchangeable.

I drive a Chevrolet and a Toyota.



analogsurviver said:


> Hehe, in that reply I tried to stick strictly to results published online and provided by a third party - not manufacturer - as much as possible. And, I did stick to the requirement of signal from the cartridge being read off real world pressed test record.
> 
> Regarding Signet and Audio Technica - they are the very same brand ! Signet used to be a "laboratory grade, built by hand" line of Audio Technica ( today's equivalent would be Toyota and Lexus ) - usually, it went another mile in what really counts - cantilever and stylus. To this day, the rare Signet TK-10ML (any of the three marks) and ultra uber rare TK-100LC represent, in more than one way, the pinnacle in moving magnet phono cartridge, exceeding anything ever offered by Audio Technica ( and most of the other manufacturers ) otherwise.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> My brother had a very good Thorens turntable that he kept in good align. He also had a McIntosh system to go with it. He went out and bought an audiophile test record that had tones all the way up to 20kHz. The album warned on the cover that although the record contained very high frequencies, they would only be useable for a limited number of plays. Even with a good turntable, the normal wear and tear of tracking the groove tore up the delicate modulations required to reproduce 20kHz. Sure enough, the first time my brother played the 20kHz tone, it was stone silent. After 4 or 5 plays, it started to sound all crackly because the modulations in the groove were deteriorating. Eventually it was just noise. Midrange tones and below still sounded like new.
> 
> When I was first starting out in the business, I worked in a sound house next door to a fella who ran one of the very best quality LP cutting houses in Hollywood. We shared a parking lot and became friendly. He showed me his lathes and I asked him a million questions. He told me that LPs had a high end roll off to prevent premature groove wear. He said that it varied depending on the intended audience- classical music rolled off around 17kHz and popular music started rolling off as low as 14kHz. The degree of rolloff varied depending on how far into the side the cut was. Outer grooves had a higher rolloff and inner grooves had a much more drastic rolloff. He said that if he didn't do that, the record stores would get lots of returns for premature record wear.
> 
> ...



I know all of the above. 

Unlike the CD, which is a unified thing ( with departure from dead neutral either way really small ), analogue record can be soooo multifaceted thing it is mind boggling. And, ultimately, it boils down to record wear. The biggest derstroyer that is quite well hidden is - inertia of all conventional tonearms. Inertia is the least well understood term in nall of analogue audio. The only man that got it right was the late David Gammon of Transcriptors. He is the only one to define what he termed the seesaw frequency. And that is the frequency at which a tonearm oscilates when set for zero vertical tracing force, when it is an equilibrium. 

Any normal length - say 9 inch, as the most common - oscilates REALLY SLOW - say 1 Hz or so. That is hopelessly inadequate if it wants to provide the essential function  - to present a firm yet stable platform WITHOUT FLUCTUATING vertical tracking force to the stylus. David Gammon set the most important criterion for analogue record playback :

*The seesaw frequency should, in theory, exceed 20000 Hz. Since that is impossible, it should - at the very least - exceed the fundamental mass/compliance resonance ( those (in)famous around 10 Hz ).
*
This is the reason behind his revolutionary Vestigal tonearm. And, in practice it can only be achieved by the lightest of phono cartridges - below 3 gram mass class, This can go as far as requiring plastic bolts and nuts hardware to mount the cartridge. That also means a very high compliance cartridge, if it should have the main mass/compliance resonance at 10 Hz and not too much higher. Of the cartridges available today, that means Ortofon OM (Super) series - but there were others, both MM and MC types, that had suitable specs.

Please check again the Fig.28 of http://www.theanalogdept.com/images/spp6_pics/TT_Design/MechanicalResonances.pdf - and it should be clear just about what it is all about above. Arm 1 is Vestigal - but, at that time, no cartridges of below 3 gram class were yet available. The results would have been otherwise much better still.

Vestigal was/is a strange mix - work of genious, work of art, testimony to the sloppiness of real human beings ( there were excessive variations of the quality of bearing adjustments ) - and is unlike most other tonearms ever made commercially available in actual daily use. A more robust,  "humane", if somewhat downgraded and upgraded at the same time , version is the Dynavector arm - at a MUCH  higher price.

All tonearms with as low effective length in vertical direction as Vestigal, and, to a lower extent, the Dynavector arm, suffer from warped records. There is no other way but to change vertical tracking angle when transversing warps - and that not only has as a consequence increase in distortion and decrease of channel separation, but also means change in the appearent pitch of the reproduction. When going up the warp, the pitch lowers - only to go higher than nominal on the downside stroke. And, that is anything but desired.

When I first encountered the Versa Dynamics turntable, all that I could utter was : " ... finally - a well made Vestigal ! " Versa is a SYSTEM  - an integrated turntable and linear tracking tonearm , both operating with air bearings. The most important feature : vacuum hold down for the record. It has inbuilt logic which would never allow the platter to start spinning unless the proper vacuum hold down for the record has been achieved. 

It is unfair to all those who have never heard a Versa table ( any model, of course the higher up the range, the better, but in principle all of them are the same, only execution is ever better ) with, at a first glance, FAR too low quality cartridge for a behemoth price TT - Ortofon OM 20 Super. Yet, properly aligned and with lowest mass Versa "headshelkl" and without Ortofon additional weight ( cartridge mass in this case 2.3 gram ), this combination FINALLY does achieve the seesaw criterion - the oscillation of the arm set to zero tracking force is in vertical direction finally higher - by the  tiniest of margins - than the mass/compliance resonant frequency.

What does it mean - really ? It means that the record can be - FINALLY - reproduced without/SIGNIFICANTLY reduced vertical modulation from the record warps. You can get fooled the signal is not coming off the record, but from a signal generator ... THAT MUCH better. No other analogue record player can pull this trick. I sincerely doubt any other player, be it analogue or digital, can play at this level; Callas was simply unbelievable - as was pretty much everything we threw at it.

It also means this player has the lowest vertical tracking force variations and hence lowest record wear. Of course, one can use better cartridge/stylus - as long it is lower in mass than 3 grams and has high enough compliance. That leaves an extremely small selection of almost exclusively vintage carts - the best of them all probably being Bang & Olufsen MMC1 . Never heard one, let alone on Versa.

Regarding stylus and vinyl groove interface - another , most important factor, but the one most manufacturers of phono playback equipment tend to "conviniently" "forget" to tell you about. The pressure at the actual contacts ( there are two, for left and right channel ) is enormously high - and actually almost liquify the vinyl immediately after the stylus passes that portion of the groove. The catch is to use the pressure that does not result in plastic deformation ( permanent damage to the groove, normally affecting the high frequencies at first ), but stays within elastic deformation of the vinyl. Shure has once termed that Indentation Factor, back in the day, Van den Hul did specify the maximum VTF that is still safe with his VdH I and VdH II profiles - the mention of both by both companies dissapeared in thin airover years. Shure allowed its phono detriorate to the point it was necessary to put it out of its misery some two moths or so ago for good - the "niceties" like Indentation Factor swept under the rug and forgotten long before that. VdH  does produce cartridge(s) that can operate at low enough VTF in order to stay well within the elastic deformation of the vinyl - but they are a minority and they cost an arm and a leg.

So... WHAT is the safe figure ? Less than 1 gram for elliptical ( does not exist today, at least not in current production ) , about 1.4 gram for VdH/Paratrace/ Micro Linear/SAS, slightly more for Shibata ( there are two Shibata profiles, differing in contact area ). 

Now... how many styli with safe vinyl deformation mounted in less than three gram mass cartridges mounted in Versa table tracked at safe vertical tracking force is out there ? Probably, something closely approaching - zero. Sad, but true.

I can get very close to/meet the above requirement - Transcriptors Vestigal, Ortofon OM40 Super ( FG II stylus = for all practical purposes  VdH II ) tracked at 1.4 gram - on a vacuum hold down turntable. This combination has the possibility to be "relatively widespread" - compared to Versa ( $$$, now more than new ) - but the number of serviceable Vestigals is slowly but securely sinking. An even rarer than both Vestigal and Versa that does allow for the requirements ( but without vacuum hold down ) is Transcriptors Transcriber - and one relatively widespread is the ReVox turntable, equally without the vacuum hold down. And at the low(er) end of the price spectrum, there was Aura turntable/arm from Czech(oslovakia?) Republic - an astonishingly good performer, regardless of price.

Bearing in mind with which "atrocities" some, if not most , analogue record users (ab)use their records, I am not surprised at your friend intentionally limitting HF for the commercoially released records. I still have a couple of used test records I brought from Benz Micro Switzerland - to some of them there are still attached the Bruel & Kjaer printouts of their frequency response, made with the reference phono cartridge - both as new record and after a certain number of plays. And the treble does go up in level above certain frequency - as does the distortion. 

Shure even documented increase in noise level after certain number of plays of the vinyl record.

ALL of the above detrimental effects regarding record use can be - significantly - reduced with wet playback ; almost forgotten art, that is and will be gaining some traction now ultrasonic record cleaners have come down in price enough for serious record users to consider them in large enough extent. Can be as low as 185 EUR+ shipping. 

What was written above is a primer how things should have been done under the ideal conditions. And, it IS perfectly possible. However, we do not live in an ideal world.

With all that said and done - high resolution digital, be it PCM or DSD, does not have the wear problems of analogue records. 

No, I have not forgotten any (almost any? ) of what you have told me. Both records ( regardless how imperfect they are ) and HR exceed RBCD in one important area RBCD can do anything about - frequency response, or if you prefer it that way, time domain.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> I know all of the above.
> 
> Unlike the CD, which is a unified thing ( with departure from dead neutral either way really small ), analogue record can be soooo multifaceted thing it is mind boggling. And, ultimately, it boils down to record wear. The biggest derstroyer that is quite well hidden is - inertia of all conventional tonearms. Inertia is the least well understood term in nall of analogue audio. The only man that got it right was the late David Gammon of Transcriptors. He is the only one to define what he termed the seesaw frequency. And that is the frequency at which a tonearm oscilates when set for zero vertical tracing force, when it is an equilibrium.
> 
> ...



Seems completely impractical for everything outside of a laboratory, which of course would just use digital and save themselves the ridiculous costs. You can't hear above 20kHz. 50kHz is completely useless for audio. Quit rambling.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> I know all of the above.
> 
> Unlike the CD, which is a unified thing ( with departure from dead neutral either way really small ), analogue record can be soooo multifaceted thing it is mind boggling. And, ultimately, it boils down to record wear. The biggest derstroyer that is quite well hidden is - inertia of all conventional tonearms. Inertia is the least well understood term in nall of analogue audio. The only man that got it right was the late David Gammon of Transcriptors. He is the only one to define what he termed the seesaw frequency. And that is the frequency at which a tonearm oscilates when set for zero vertical tracing force, when it is an equilibrium.
> 
> ...



yeah, yeah. find anything with the potential to make some sound above 20khz no matter the actual level of fidelity, and call it superior to CD. this fallacy could pretty much have your name now. when you argue about that for DSD and highres vs CD, I lack evidence that it makes an audible difference, but at least I can grasp why you'd desire always MORE samples and higher frequency limit as a fidelity principle. in a 'why? because we can' kind of way. but the second you put vinyl above CD as a reproduction medium, you shoot yourself in the foot with an atomic bomb. and you do it all the time.  
if only you could do like many folks here, just have your sample rate fetish on one hand, and your love of vinyl sound and turntable tweaks on the other, without foolishly trying to justify vinyls objectively with ultrasonic content. then you might start to make sense to us. several would still disagree, but in a "I think it's not audible" or "I don't like vinyl playback". that sort of disagreement. not the kind we have here where we can't help but question you sanity or honesty, because we have now pretty much ruled out the other options.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 19, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> I know all of the above.



Great! Then you know that upper frequencies don't exist in typical vinyl records or even in typical music, and you know that those frequencies have no impact on perceived sound quality. So therefore, it's very nice in theory if a cartridge can reproduce above 20kHz, but it has no practical reason to need to do that because those frequencies don't exist and they don't contribute to sound quality.

We're agreed! No reason to read or reply to anything more on this topic. Thanks!

Whew! This was beginning to seem like a cocktail party where one guy insists on dominating the discussion by going on and on about his own brand of religion or politics, when everyone else just wants to visit with each other and find out what's new. I'm glad we've gotten that out of our systems now.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 20, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> yeah, yeah. find anything with the potential to make some sound above 20khz no matter the actual level of fidelity, and call it superior to CD. this fallacy could pretty much have your name now. when you argue about that for DSD and highres vs CD, I lack evidence that it makes an audible difference, but at least I can grasp why you'd desire always MORE samples and higher frequency limit as a fidelity principle. in a 'why? because we can' kind of way. but the second you put vinyl above CD as a reproduction medium, you shoot yourself in the foot with an atomic bomb. and you do it all the time.
> if only you could do like many folks here, just have your sample rate fetish on one hand, and your love of vinyl sound and turntable tweaks on the other, without foolishly trying to justify vinyls objectively with ultrasonic content. then you might start to make sense to us. several would still disagree, but in a "I think it's not audible" or "I don't like vinyl playback". that sort of disagreement. not the kind we have here where we can't help but question you sanity or honesty, because we have now pretty much ruled out the other options.



Well, I DO have a fetish. It is called as close resemblance to the live sound. Analogue record just happened to be the first medium to start to approach it - under the best possible conditions, at a price.

You will not like the answer WHY I bought my first CD player. From my postings, it could - obviously - not been for music listening. What then ?  Well, try to buy a sine wave signal genereator for approx the outlay of an entry level CD - that has anything the THD spec as SINE WAVES from a test CD record played on said CD player. But, it is limited to 20 kHz, really usable to like 17 or so kHz, as back then CD players were not so nearly 100% linear all the way to 20 kHz as they are today.

I will post the DSD and some - rare in my case - 192/24 recordings. However - and that is a BIG HOWEVER - the way both you personally and most of the members on this thread react to "anything > 20 kHz is revelant" makes me more than a little bit hesitant to do so . Why ? I can not judge from afar, I have not listened to anyone's system ( be it loudspeaker or headphone based ) - but the notion ">20kHz does not matter" must have had some influence on selecting the components for anyone's system.

I can see - and hear, despite the age and attendant HF sine wave hearing capability loss - that a >20k or >>20K source would be lost on barely to 20 k - or even less - end transducer - be it speakers or headphone. Likewise, I can hear - when using everything wideband after the source - if the source is the limitting factor. And here the CD always fells short.  The most audible - to me - are the following two things :

1.) When the source has an unusually high rate changing its volume over VERY short periods of time
2.) Sheer capability to depict the acousics venue - including all dimensions/directions

I wish I could *somehow* stash analogue sound in this pile of silicium and send it over internet over to your piles of silicium - unfortunately, this is no go.

So, for the most acid test of analogue record ( or HR - if available ) vs RBCD heard "live", not over internet ( obvious impossibility )
 I would most probably use one of the songs by Lisa Gerrard - for the clarity ( no accompanying instruments or voices ) it would most probably be this one :



If that would not be convincing enough, this one is certain ( on high enough quality playback system ) to silence even the most rabid RBCD supporters :



The limited LP release ( from 1997 ) had the audacity to print  

aaa 

on the record jacket - a jab at the SPARSE codes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code printed on the early CD releases ( AAD, ADD, DDD ).

The reason WHY these two releases ( there are TWO volumes of Soul Connection, Vol.1 and Vol.2 ) have been afforded such lavish treatment in an othervise pretty rational catalogue of ENJA Records could not be simpler. The technique of trumpet playing of Dusko Goykowich is , if not unique, then cetrainly extraordinary - and you are NOT going to hear it on any RBCD.
What on analogue record ( I have to check if HR version exists ...) is brimming with life, is barely "meh" on the CD. Huge difference.

Or, in other words; the first one is the one that could fool you into thinking it is played live - as heard from the open window on the first floor on the pavement below. The second would have been DEFINITELY perceived as a recording.

Now... - was that honest enough for your taste ?


----------



## castleofargh

for vinyl I'll just conclude that you can't take your love googles off even for a second to see that it doesn't make sense at any level from measurement to engineering approach, to consider it superior in reproducing sound. just pressing a shape then have what are basically 2 transducers in series to turn the shapes into electrical signal, that should give anybody a clue that fidelity is not going to be great. in a playback chain, transducers are always the most drastic limiters in replicating a signal with high fidelity. anyway, we've discussed your belief to death, clearly evidences are never going to be worth anything against your subjective impressions and love story. 






for ultrasounds having an audible impact on our experience of music, at a personal level I just have a lifetime of failure to setup a test where I would be able to tell 16/44 from higher rates(not counting all the times I could because the DAC or the playback app was screwing around). I also have my limited(not a doctor!) understanding of the hearing mechanism. with the typical acoustic rules, like how higher frequencies are more likely to be attenuated when trying to pass through different materials, like a eardrum and all the cool/weird stuff in our ear. I learned about this:





 the accepted model of hearing so far has been pretty consistent and new discoveries only further confirm the basic principles. the vibrations that reach the cochlea enter in resonance at a given position depending on the frequency coming in, so the cells are more significantly triggered in the resonance area and our brain can deduce from which cells fired, the frequency and intensity of the sound. some frequencies are so slow that it is hypothesized that the brain relies more on the firing speed of the cells than just on the position, but for ultrasounds the cells simply can't follow the speed, so that's a dead end.

we're left with the position where the resonance occurs to perceive it. and that's the entrance for high freqs. the graph shows 20khz right on the base, that's not right and only is a simplified graph based on the assumption that 20khz is the limit of our hearing. in principle some cell can be triggered by even a very high frequency, the resonance point will just be right at the entrance and the energy will get almost totally dissipated by the rigidity of the bony stuff(not a doctor^_^) before it has traveled almost any distance inside the cochlea. but if there are cells there, some reaction can be expected with a high enough amplitude signal. it will still be a small reaction because the covered area will be tiny, and get tinier with a higher frequency up to the point where indeed we will simply have nothing to register the signal at all. but a reaction is possible for for freqs low enough to reach some cells. I wouldn't put much hope for anything above 25khz though. 
the tiny little problem with that ray of hope, is how the cells right at the entrance are stimulated by basically all sounds all the time. it won't resonate right there, but it also won't be attenuated much if at all. so the amount of false positive is obviously going to be tremendous, making it unlikely for the brain to strongly rely on them firing to deduce anything. also the cells in that area are notoriously the first ones to get damaged or plain broken in service of the sound nation. and it happens because they are the most stimulated in the all system. basic rule of wear. 
we have no reason to doubt that, it fits the acoustic and mechanical model. and is also clearly demonstrated by how kids can hear much higher than we do, and how the upper range is, outside of specific accidents, the first part to go in human hearing as we age and life goes on. so once you lose the few working cells in that high freq area with age, you're basically done with upper freqs. the chances for the smaller area with fewer cells receiving the most energy at the entrance to keep cells in working conditions, are really not something I would bet on, even if we did have them at birth. which is IMO a real issue when you wish to claim that you're perceiving the difference between having ultrasounds and not having them. 

this model does not contradict listening tests. it is confirmed by guys who literally plug themselves onto the nerves going to the hair cells and measure what comes out of it when sounds are sent into the ear. so we can all be pretty confident about this. the only stuff I couldn't find a clear answer to, is how the cells are somehow in small groups with like a loner on the side and I can't find if that loner has a specific role or is just somehow a physiological accident. that's my real mystery so far about hearing.  but I can't think of any excuse concept where that would explain ultrasounds being perceived. so here I am, with contemporary models following in a very intuitive way the known rules of acoustic and agreeing with listening tests, that we don't hear crap above a certain frequency. and that this threshold goes down with age as more cells are damaged at the entrance where high freqs are registered. 

even if we were to dismiss all this and only rely on the propagation of frequencies and how many cells will fire up when face with a given frequency, higher freqs are still the clear loser as they get the fewer number or activations out of all other sounds. which is yet another logical reason not to consider ultrasounds as important as the correctly called audible range, even for a kid for whom ultrasounds up to a point are still audible. 



and to oppose all that, I have your self confidence. please don't blame me for not placing much trust in that.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> I can see - and hear, despite the age and attendant HF sine wave hearing capability loss - that a >20k or >>20K source would be lost on barely to 20 k - or even less - end transducer - be it speakers or headphone. Likewise, I can hear - when using everything wideband after the source - if the source is the limitting factor. And here the CD always fells short.  The most audible - to me - are the following two things :
> 
> 1.) When the source has an unusually high rate changing its volume over VERY short periods of time
> 2.) *Sheer capability to depict the acousics venue - including all dimensions/directions*
> ...


Note the bold text above.  Let's just see....

Here's the actual spectrum of the above recording:






analogsurviver said:


> If that would not be convincing enough, this one is certain ( on high enough quality playback system ) to silence even the most rabid RBCD supporters :


And here's the actual spectrum of the second example which is, by the way, a MONO recording as posted.







analogsurviver said:


> The reason WHY these two releases ( there are TWO volumes of Soul Connection, Vol.1 and Vol.2 ) have been afforded such lavish treatment in an othervise pretty rational catalogue of ENJA Records could not be simpler. The technique of trumpet playing of Dusko Goykowich is , if not unique, then cetrainly extraordinary - and you are NOT going to hear it on any RBCD.
> What on analogue record ( I have to check if HR version exists ...) is brimming with life, is barely "meh" on the CD. Huge difference.
> 
> Or, in other words; the first one is the one that could fool you into thinking it is played live - as heard from the open window on the first floor on the pavement below. The second would have been DEFINITELY perceived as a recording.
> ...


Not a bit.  It's the usual audiophool nonsense. 

First, there is no way for a recording to replicate a live event, and that's NOT the goal.  Recordings have an entirely different purpose, which is to offer something which suggests the intentions of the producer, as heard via his monitors, which, in turn, represents the key characteristics of an event OR, more typically, represents an entirely unique sonic event that never has occurred anywhere before it was heard during the final mix. 

Second, if you weren't there for the actual Lisa Gerard concert, who the heck would you now what it sounded like?  You don't have any idea, so you have no frame of reference.  Nothing about what was delivered on that recording was challenging for any professional recording system of the last 50 years.

As to the Dusko Goykowich...something's gone wrong here.  You've posted a MONO recording to represent how the guy sounded live????  And check out THAT spectrum.  So, this was recorded on a cassette then? 

So...no evidence provided (as usual), argument failed.  Your point 1. is complete nonsense, your point 2. not illustrated by the examples. 

And, weeks and weeks after this pointless debate began, you have yet to post ANY ACTUAL DATA or EXAMPLES  to substantiate any of your ridiculous claims.  Not a single one.  Hardly what anyone would call being a "survivor"!  I'd use the term "fanatic" without reservation, though.  

We talk about Sound Science here.  Fanaticism has no place in the discussion.  Arguments must be substantiated with evidence and data.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> You will not like the answer WHY I bought my first CD player. From my postings, it could - obviously - not been for music listening. What then ?  Well, try to buy a sine wave signal genereator for approx the outlay of an entry level CD - that has anything the THD spec as SINE WAVES from a test CD record played on said CD player. But, it is limited to 20 kHz, really usable to like 17 or so kHz, as back then CD players were not so nearly 100% linear all the way to 20 kHz as they are today.


Based on that you must have purchased your first CD player in the mid 1990s when the cost came down substantially.  There have been perfectly fine sine wave generators available at less cost than CD players from the inception of the CD until then.  And there have always been inexpensive used test equipment for those who really needed something on a tight budget. Even in small European countries.


analogsurviver said:


> I will post the DSD and some - rare in my case - 192/24 recordings.


If I were a betting man, I'd bet against that.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Note the bold text above.  Let's just see....
> 
> Here's the actual spectrum of the above recording:
> 
> ...



Hey @pinnahertz  - since when is  Youtube video a high quality audio source ? It does NOT support even RBCD, let alone HR ; the highest it gets is 48kHz sampling in a few (one? ) compressed formats . Please stop mocking yourself with the spectral analysis of YT videos...

These samples were only posted as some information about the music. Here the real deal(s) :

https://www.discogs.com/Dead-Can-Dance-Toward-The-Within/release/518176

https://www.discogs.com/Dusko-Goykovich-Soul-Connection-Vol-I/release/9852254

About the mono thing on YT ... - for some inexplicabe reason(s?) , sometimes the YT upload will end in mono - no matter what. Did happen with one of my recordings, and after several attempts and re-uplads and whatnots things did not progress a single bit, I demanded to be removed from the credits. What ended on YT was not even a pale shadow of the 48/16 file I supplied for the video purpose, let alone the DSD128 master. 

The "joys" of digital - sometimes, we just can not make it work. Using the very same procedure for other YT videos worked just fine ...

I did took a delivery of a - to me new - used vintage turntable I have been eyeballing for almost a year. It is something still flying under the radar of all but the most determined. It entered a very rarefied group of TTs " Show me a TT that cost you less than the new currently in print NORMAL analogue record LP ( say no more than 30 $, prior to shipping ) with decent>excellent performance " .  Naturally, one can not expect a used TT at anything even approaching this price to still have a good functioning cartridge/stylus, so fitting a really decent  cartridge < 500 $ is allowed. And that is exactly what I am going to do right now - as I do have another sample of the cartridge needed currently not being precisely mounted to any other tonearm/headshell/turntable that can use the stylus that is still available and has been even improved recently. This sample I do have of this stylus has the most extended and most linear frequency response I have yet seen - IF helped a bit by a normal, smooth  treble control - since back in 1973, when this cartridge has been made and produced to ?, no magnetic material with for all practical purposes zero loss with increasing frequency did not exist yet. That came a couple of years later, but definitely by 1979. Stylus itself is Jico SAS, discontinued about a year ago but still available at some dealers. So, with the little help of tone control (smooth rise from 1kHz, approx +1 dB @20 KhZ, approx +4dB@60 kHz ( to compensate for the magnetic material loss ), this thing produces the closest approximation to the perfect square wave of any audio device I have yet seen - with the possible exception to the > 192kHz sampling . Its sccaning radius is 2.5 micron /0.1 mil , which means in practice less than 2 dB difference in level at 20kHz between the outer and innermost grooves of a 33 1/3 RPM record. This cart/stylus in the innermost grooves, where the performance of analogue record is at the lowest, still runs rings around the RBCD as far as frequency response is concerned.

I will record both frequency response from a test record up to 67500 Hz as well as samples from the two LPs mentioned above. Since the HR files are huge, I have yet to decide which upload provider to choose - DSD128 12 minutes 40 seconds is 1GB , and agreed upon for this thread 192/24 PCM is not much smaller either...


----------



## TheSonicTruth

High-Res Deliverables: Satisfying dogs around the world for nearly ten years!!


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> Hey @pinnahertz  - since when is  Youtube video a high quality audio source ? It does NOT support even RBCD, let alone HR ; the highest it gets is 48kHz sampling in a few (one? ) compressed formats . Please stop mocking yourself with the spectral analysis of YT videos...
> 
> These samples were only posted as some information about the music. Here the real deal(s) :
> 
> ...




Since YouTube isn't acceptable, why did you post it as evidence?  And blaming YouTube for mono rather than you, the uploader?  Considering track record, "the dog ate my homework" doesn't resonate for me. 

Still searching for a internet file storage site to post your evidence online?  Perhaps fewer long posts would allow you the time to find it and post the various "proof" you've been touting as having for several years.  I'm still staying up nights waiting for you to post the hard evidence you claimed to have around the measurable improvements made via using CD mats....


----------



## 71 dB

Ten years ago or so I recorded a vinyl record with 88200 Hz sample rate out of curiosity with Olympus LS-5. Here is the magnitude spectrum of the A-side track, 60 seconds section from 2 minute mark to 3 minute mark:



 

Now, The spectrum starts to drop fast at 10 kHz and at 20 kHz it's about 60 dB below the highest levels between 60-100 Hz.  It's ridiculous to think filtering frequencies above 20 kHz would make any kind of audible difference and in my case the age of 47 makes it impossible for me to hear much anything above 16 kHz. The vinyl in question is *The Beatmasters with Merlin* -_ Who's in the House - _LEFT 31T - Rhythm King Records 1989.


----------



## Steve999

Interesting. Is the stuff below 50 hz low frequency rumble? I thought LPs had trouble going below 50 hz. Has it gotten better?



71 dB said:


> Ten years ago or so I recorded a vinyl record with 88200 Hz sample rate out of curiosity with Olympus LS-5. Here is the magnitude spectrum of the A-side track, 60 seconds section from 2 minute mark to 3 minute mark:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, The spectrum starts to drop fast at 10 kHz and at 20 kHz it's about 60 dB below the highest levels between 60-100 Hz.  It's ridiculous to think filtering frequencies above 20 kHz would make any kind of audible difference and in my case the age of 47 makes it impossible for me to hear much anything above 16 kHz. The vinyl in question is *The Beatmasters with Merlin* -_ Who's in the House - _LEFT 31T - Rhythm King Records 1989.


----------



## 71 dB

Steve999 said:


> Interesting. Is the stuff below 50 hz low frequency rumble? I thought LPs had trouble going below 50 hz. Has it gotten better?



The stuff below 20 Hz is all rumble. It's easy to filter away, but this is raw recording.


----------



## KeithEmo

I am_ ABSOLUTELY_ going to avoid "yet another discussion about what cannot possibly be audible".....

_HOWEVER_, I feel obligated to point out something about the graph included here....

We have a single graph representing the energy spectrum summed over a 60 second period of the sample.
By definition, this means that what we see on that graph is an average, taken over that 60 second interval.
So, for example, the amount of energy in that sample at 20 kHz, _WHEN SUMMED OVER A SIXTY SECOND PERIOD_, is about 60 dB lower than the average for the entire audio spectrum.
This shows that the _average_ amount of energy at 20 kHz is quite low (and probably insignificant.).

However......
- by definition, averaging the result eliminates our ability to see short term variations
- we could get that result if the energy level at 20 kHz was a smooth consistent -60 dB over the entire 60 second period
- we could _ALSO_ get the _SAME_ result if the energy level at 20 kHz was -80 dB for 58 seconds, but our sample also included a 20 kHz tone at -20 dB for 2 seconds

If you want to suggest that "in the entire recording there is nothing significant at 20 kHz" then you need to show that the level of 20 kHz content never reaches a significant level _AT ANY SINGLE TIME DURING THE RECORDING_.
For that you would want to use a_ PEAK_ indicator of some sort. 
Most programs that offer signal analysis will offer the ability of tracking peaks....
- so you would want to show that "the highest peak level of signal content at 20 Khz _NEVER EXCEEDED_" some low number (maybe -60 dB).
- simply showing that the average is very low may suggest that "there isn't much there", but doesn't suggest that "there isn't occasionally something significant there for short periods of time".

In layman's terms, if I were to sit here and tap on my coffee mug with my pencil every few seconds, and record and analyze the resulting sound....
The _AVERAGE_ sound level would be very very low.... but the individual taps, each of which was quite loud, but only for a very brief interval of time, would be clearly audible.
So, if you were attempting to prove "whether there were audible sounds or not", a graph of the average would be the wrong tool for the job.

If the recording itself is limited to frequencies below 20 kHz, then we would expect the _PEAK_ level at 20 kHz to _NEVER_ significantly exceed the noise floor.
(Or, if it does exceed the noise floor on occasion, we would want to show that those excurssions were caused by noise spikes, perhaps caused by surface ticks, rather than by potentially useful musical content.)



71 dB said:


> Ten years ago or so I recorded a vinyl record with 88200 Hz sample rate out of curiosity with Olympus LS-5. Here is the magnitude spectrum of the A-side track, 60 seconds section from 2 minute mark to 3 minute mark:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, The spectrum starts to drop fast at 10 kHz and at 20 kHz it's about 60 dB below the highest levels between 60-100 Hz.  It's ridiculous to think filtering frequencies above 20 kHz would make any kind of audible difference and in my case the age of 47 makes it impossible for me to hear much anything above 16 kHz. The vinyl in question is *The Beatmasters with Merlin* -_ Who's in the House - _LEFT 31T - Rhythm King Records 1989.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 20, 2018)

Sorry to go OT here. I have not been feeling well the last couple of days and so have been posting a lot. I'll go away more probably starting tomorrow, nose back to the grindstone.

But _*Dusko Goykovich*_! He was _always_ being played on the Music Choice jazz audio channel on Comcast cable in its early days. And I'd sit there like, who the heck is this Dusko Goykovich? It became [edit: the subject of a significant amount of interest--thanks AnalogSurviver!].

As for signals over 20 khz having a perceptual effect on humans, I really, truly want to be open to new evidence, but right now I'd have to say I'm a non-believer. If someone showed me a controlled study showing the opposite or even tending to break some new ground I'd definitely take a good look. I can imagine reasons it could be otherwise, heck, I could make some up just for fun, but seriously, not based on what I've seen, read, and heard, I really don't think so. The posting of the ear diagram was great. I like learning. I also like being silly. And I'm also a professionally trained arguer. I'm legitimately sorry if the three come together in an unfortunate and disruptive way sometimes. I will try to use my powers for the forces of good instead of chaos.

Now that a cartridge might be able to track to 50 khz, color me impressed and fascinated. But it's not relevant to the audio chain based on my understanding of things.

I'd say the diagram of the ear structure and the corresponding frequencies, with the caveats provided, belong in first post of the sticky thread. People need to _see why _about these things, in an accessible form, not just that studies they don't understand are not consistent with their beliefs in cold and foreboding black fonts.

And bigshot's post about loudness controls yesterday, that belongs in the first post of the sticky thread too, IMHO. So much confusion and argument on that subject finally put to rest.



pinnahertz said:


> As to the Dusko Goykowich...something's gone wrong here.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Hey @pinnahertz  - since when is  Youtube video a high quality audio source ? It does NOT support even RBCD, let alone HR ; the highest it gets is 48kHz sampling in a few (one? ) compressed formats . Please stop mocking yourself with the spectral analysis of YT videos...


You are the one posting them as “evidence”.  Just look at the spectrum before the 15kHz LPF and extrapolate. You think that will make any difference at all?


analogsurviver said:


> About the mono thing on YT ... - for some inexplicabe reason(s?) , sometimes the YT upload will end in mono - no matter what. Did happen with one of my recordings, and after several attempts and re-uplads and whatnots things did not progress a single bit, I demanded to be removed from the credits. What ended on YT was not even a pale shadow of the 48/16 file I supplied for the video purpose, let alone the DSD128 master.


It’s operator error. YouTube doesn’t randomly change anything.m


analogsurviver said:


> The "joys" of digital - sometimes, we just can not make it work. Using the very same procedure for other YT videos worked just fine ...


No, you’ve made an error. YouTube does not change audio randomly, it’s fully predictable.


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> Sorry to go OT here. I have not been feeling well the last couple of days and so have been posting a lot. I'll go away more probably starting tomorrow, nose back to the grindstone.
> 
> But _*Dusko Goykovich*_! He was _always_ being played on the Music Choice jazz audio channel on Comcast cable in its early days. And I'd sit there like, who the heck is this Dusko Guykovich? It became a running joke for me. And here he is!
> 
> ...



Well, Duško Gojković (  English Dushko Goykovich ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duško_Gojković
NEVER was anyone's running joke - one of the few trumpet players endorsed by no smaller figures than Miles Davies .

As great as the ear diagram post by @castleofargh  is, I can not possibly find another difference in PERCEPTION of mentioned Dushko Gojkovich recordings in pure aaa format  or that converted to CD ( probably AAD ) to anything but frequency response and/or timing errors. Analog record reproduced on quality cartridge/arm/turntable mops the floor with the CD - like it or not. And although it has been decades since I have last heard him play live, I do remember him as being a truly exceptional trumpet player - something like this one does not forget easily.

Cartridge may - not might - be able to track to 50 kHz. I would call me impressed if given a chance to measure those carts ( few, maybe enough to need all fingers of one hand in order to count them ) that go to or exceed 100 kHz.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 20, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Cartridge may - not might - be able to track to 50 kHz. I would call me impressed if given a chance to measure those carts



Yes, I understand you have a theoretical interest in this sort of thing. But we've already agreed that a cartridge capable of tracking those frequencies doesn't have any practical use for the purposes of reproducing recoded music in the home. It doesn't have any interest to those of us who just want audible fidelity of sound.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree (except about Goykovich.... since jazz is not my thing at all).

Knowing the mechanics of how things work is crucial to - well - understanding how they work.

However, I would always advise care to "look at the entire picture" when examining complex topics.
It is widely agreed that different parts of our brains are used for "detecting sounds" and "interpreting sounds" and even "locating the positions of stimuli".
And sometimes the actual mechanisms involved differ.
This is important if you want to figure out things involving perception.

For example, it is widely agreed that our ears can only detect stimuli up to somewhere around 20 kHz (varying by age and other factors).
And a little bit of math will tell you that a 5 microsecond period of time "corresponds" to a frequency of about 200 kHz (5 microseconds is the period of a 200 kHz sine wave).
However, some studies have shown that we humans can detect a difference in arrival time of as small as 5 microseconds (when a sound arrives at one ear before the other).
It's trivial to look quickly at the numbers involved and declare "you can't possibly hear a 5 microsecond difference because, in order to do so, you would have to hear 200 kHz".
However, in point of fact, apparently the mechanism whereby we can determine the arrival time of a sound is not the same as the one whereby we simply "hear sounds".
(So, you don't _HAVE_ to be able to hear 200 kHz to be able to perceive a 5 microsecond difference in arrival times - because the mechanisms involved are different.)



Steve999 said:


> Sorry to go OT here. I have not been feeling well the last couple of days and so have been posting a lot. I'll go away more probably starting tomorrow, nose back to the grindstone.
> 
> But _Dusko Goykovich_! He was _always_ being played on the Music Choice jazz audio channel on Comcast cable in its early days. And I'd sit there like, who the heck is this Dusko Guykovich? It became a running joke for me. And here he is!
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> You are the one posting them as “evidence”.  Just look at the spectrum before the 15kHz LPF and extrapolate. You think that will make any difference at all?
> 
> It’s operator error. YouTube doesn’t randomly change anything.m
> No, you’ve made an error. YouTube does not change audio randomly, it’s fully predictable.



OK, like I learned to - strictly - use "analogue record" instead of "vinyls" or "vynils", from now on I will - strictly - label any YT video "for information purposes regarding music only" - the true recording available at ( link to purchase the recording provided ) !

I could pull ALMOST ANYTHING (including DSD recordings I was not even aware that already exist ) off various, predominantely Russian torrents. Since I am a recording engineer myself, I can not and will not endorse such wrongdoing - let alone propose it to others. I am 101% sure that both posted recordings from YT " FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES REGARDING MUSIC ONLY" exist on those torrents in God only knows how many times better technical quality. 

I did not upload any of the YT videos by myself - yet - but will have to bite into this sour apple, as more and more video is in demand. And will make sure that things are OK in the end.

And, FYI, YT DOES change audio - not randomly, but for the worse, as the time passes by. If the video is a bit older and does not generate enough clicks anymore, it will get "dequalified" - provided that it has been originally uploaded with 1080p (and correspondingly relatively high - for YT- quality audio ), it will get first reduced to 720p, then 480p, and so on - down all the way to 144p - with SQ that is only a sad joke when compared to any master. 

And you can not do a thing about it.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I agree (except about Goykovich.... since jazz is not my thing at all).
> 
> Knowing the mechanics of how things work is crucial to - well - understanding how they work.
> 
> ...



Agreed 100%. Arrival times ARE the crucial thing. That is what I truly meant with "timing errors" - or whatever I have termed them by now. 
I do not want to go in more details here, but everything from listening to recordings done by others using various playback equipment (which can differ - WIDELY so - in arrival times more than in anything else ) and my experience in recording have convinced me to pay the strictest of attention to timing errors. 

Back in the day, Peter Moncrieff has been comparing time domain response of two speakers - one British dynamic driver equipped monitor and one American electrostatic full range speaker driven by a direct high voltage amp. Although the steady state sine wave frequency response of the British dynamic driver speaker was really remarkably flat,  it changed its polarity from positive to negative - that is to say 180 degree phase error - within the 20-20k band for FIVE TIMES !!! The coherence of the direct driven ESL has been over some really small degree range ( if we neglect the inevitably large phase error in the low frequency region ) - and it did NEVER change its polarity ... - for insignificantly less linear steady state frequency response curve.

No prizes for "guessing" which one I would have chosen.

And, we will be getting back to those 5 microseconds as being audible - it is a reasonable, fair figure, beyond or better said below which further improvements no longer corresponds to the investment in gear or file size.

Interesting - even in genres I do generally not listen to, I did find likably things ... but, to each his/hers own. I have posted regarding Goykovich simply because I ( and no doubt enough others - or else there would be no analogue master tape and no analogue records ) can definitely PERCEPT the difference - whether it is by hearing, hairs in the nostrils, skin around the eyes or dontknowhat. That is something for the researchers of human perception to qualify and quantify etc - using scientific methods. 

All I do know - for certain - is the fact that I  dislike - to the point bof refusing to use it at all - any phono cartridge that has a interchannel time difference more than about 5 microseconds. It is easily visible on the scope with "best approximations to the perfect square wave" off test records. And putting the two and two together - why otherwise practically same performance carts, save for this few microsecond interchannel delay - from listening and observing square wave response of BOTH channels at the same time really did not took me long to figure this out.


----------



## bigshot

I'm interested in finding out more about debunking audiophile myths, like the first post in this thread and the links in my sig file. Have there been any good recent articles on the subject that I might have missed?

Perhaps we could assemble a list of links on different subjects. That would be helpful.


----------



## 71 dB (Jun 20, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I am_ ABSOLUTELY_ going to avoid "yet another discussion about what cannot possibly be audible".....
> 
> _HOWEVER_, I feel obligated to point out something about the graph included here....
> 
> ...



This is a fair point. So, here are the original and highpass-filtered (30th degree Chebyshev Type I  at 20 kHz with 0.05 dB riple) version:


----------



## Steve999

Point well taken! That is a deeply impressive bio. The guy was obviously a formidable artist. I will proceed forthwith out of bed to my computer and try to get a Duško Gojković piece up on our music thread, and I will listen to his music for at least one hour today as a form of repentance.



analogsurviver said:


> Well, Duško Gojković (  English Dushko Goykovich ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duško_Gojković
> NEVER was anyone's running joke - one of the few trumpet players endorsed by no smaller figures than Miles Davies .


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I agree (except about Goykovich.... since jazz is not my thing at all).
> 
> Knowing the mechanics of how things work is crucial to - well - understanding how they work.
> 
> ...


you're trying hard to play devil's advocate here.
that specific test and other interaural research(some 50 or 60 years old) did not test ultrasound audibility and *do not* demonstrate that we have proper receptors for ultrasounds, let alone that our brain cares. your presentation of the time delay as a frequency is fully fallacious in this case. and placing "corresponds" in quotation marks is IMO far from enough to compensate for the arm done by suggesting such a correspondence.
you know how audiophiles can jump on such a tempting and easy rational to draw the worst of conclusions.

as for CD, 16/44 fully possesses the means to register something like a 5µs phase delay between channels. because there too, converting the delay into frequency(MQA's BS marketing FTW) doesn't come close to presenting the facts.





analogsurviver said:


> Agreed 100%. Arrival times ARE the crucial thing. That is what I truly meant with "timing errors" - or whatever I have termed them by now.


I suggest vinyl, it's legendary for its amazing timing accuracy.


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> Point well taken! That is a deeply impressive bio. The guy was obviously a formidable artist. I will proceed forthwith out of bed to my computer and try to get a Duško Gojković piece up on our music thread, and I will listen to his music for at least one hour today as a form of repentance.



He still IS a formidable artist - but now at 87, it is questionable how long he will be able to continue to maintain high level of playing. The last report of his concert I could find is from - August 26, 2017 https://www.cdm.me/kultura/trg-od-muzike-u-znaku-dzez-velikana-duska-gojkovica/ 
He is scheduled to play in frame of his 2018 tour also in Tokyo, Japan.

I'm going to listen to his Soul Connection, Vol.1 - ASAP. No prize for guessing from which format ... - if you do have a decent record spinner or know someone who does, it might be worth giving it a try ... IF you can find it. Currently, 21 persons on Discogs after it - and none available for sale at the moment. 

Enjoy the music - whatever floats your boat !


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> I suggest vinyl, it's legendary for its amazing timing accuracy.



Well, for interchannel delay, there has not been - or will be - anything better;  it IS perfectly fixed in time, in the very groove. No additional delay between the two channels possible, provided the stylus/cartridge does not introduce one.

If you meant timing errors as wow and flutter, then you are correct. Not perfect. But it can be held at below 0.02% - which is about twice better than human being can perceive. Why the hell do you think I have been beating the drum of http://www.theanalogdept.com/images/spp6_pics/TT_Design/MechanicalResonances.pdf ad nuseaum - if not for timing inaccuracies caused by resonance(s) ? 

As for record eccentricity, which IS a real problem  https://positive-feedback.com/Issue33/tx1000.htm - the more voices raised about it, the better; today, building a TT with record centering capability would not necessary be soooo expensive as back in the day.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 20, 2018)

I found an interesting general article on the differences between LP records and CDs. It has a video on mastering for LPs I haven't had time to watch yet, but I will make time.

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/19/5626058/vinyls-great-but-its-not-better-than-cds

"if you're a vinyl collector, you also shouldn't go around telling your friends how much purer your audio is. First off, that's generally dickish behavior, but more to the point it's false. Digital recording just is more accurate. That's not the only thing worth considering by any means, but it does make the puritanism of some vinyl true believers look rather ridiculous."

"As a recording engineer, when I go to a digital recording, what I did is exactly what I get back," Metcalfe explains. "When you record in the analog domain, what you're hearing there is different from what you sent in."


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Well, for interchannel delay, there has not been - or will be - anything better;


Except any digital audio system currently in existence, of course.


analogsurviver said:


> it IS perfectly fixed in time, in the very groove. No additional delay between the two channels possible, provided the stylus/cartridge does not introduce one.


Clearly you’ve never looked at a 20kHz lateral on an X-Y scope!


analogsurviver said:


> If you meant timing errors as wow and flutter, then you are correct. Not perfect. But it can be held at below 0.02% - which is about twice better than human being can perceive.


Under some very ideal conditions.


analogsurviver said:


> As for record eccentricity, which IS a real problem  https://positive-feedback.com/Issue33/tx1000.htm - the more voices raised about it, the better; today, building a TT with record centering capability would not necessary be soooo expensive as back in the day.


Uh huh.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 20, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Except any digital audio system currently in existence, of course.
> Clearly you’ve never looked at a 20kHz lateral on an X-Y scope!
> Under some very ideal conditions.
> 
> Uh huh.





pinnahertz said:


> Except any digital audio system currently in existence, of course.
> Clearly you’ve never looked at a 20kHz lateral on an X-Y scope!
> Under some very ideal conditions.
> 
> Uh huh.



1. ) Ahem... I beg to differ. PCM can - and DOES - go south under certain conditions . For an entire rise/fall time !

2. ) An entirely unfounded assertion and accusation !!!  Why, on earth, do you think I am still doing R&D on analog record playback - in 2018 ?  Yes, I know the problem, seen it too many numerous times not to notice, last time some 4 hours ago while recording the performance of another cartridge I hate to throw off the TT in order to have that 67K5+ Hz cartridge mounted and recorded. To add insult to the injury, it requires mounting screws of EXACT length - and one of the last pair in required length fell prey to the Carpet Monster. Grrr !
This problem of the lateral high frequency "propeller" ( as Lissajou's "perfect line at 45 degrees" looks on the scope like one in good cases, turning into the figure-of-eight in really bad ones ) HAS BEEN FIXED - but will not comment upon any questions regarding this. Yep, it DOES make for the audibly better sounding music off analogue records ...

3. ) I have tried MANY possible solutions - and one produces incredible results. And there is STILL room for the improvement(s) !

4. ) Uh huh indeed. Currently , there is only one TX-1000 for sale - at a cool 32K Euro. Last known sales was for 29K Euro. Way beyond my reach. But the smaller Dragon CT might be within my PFC ( Peak Financial Capability ) - and it is a bit easier to fix for various issues than the TX-1000.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> 1. ) Ahem... I beg to differ. PCM can - and DOES - go south under certain conditions . For an entire rise/fall time !
> 
> 2. ) An entirely unfounded assertion and accusation !!!  Why, on earth, do you think I am still doing R&D on analog record playback - in 2018 ?  Yes, I know the problem, seen it too many numerous times not to notice, last time some 4 hours ago while recording the performance of another cartridge I hate to throw off the TT in order to have that 67K5+ Hz cartridge mounted and recorded. To add insult to the injury, it requires mounting screws of EXACT length - and one of the last pair in required length fell prey to the Carpet Monster. Grrr !
> This problem of the lateral high frequency "propeller" ( as Lissajou's "perfect line at 45 degrees" looks on the scope like one in good cases, turning into the figure-of-eight in really bad ones ) HAS BEEN FIXED - but will not comment upon any questions regarding this. Yep, it DOES make for the audibly better sounding music off analogue records ...
> ...



lol. That thing is the perfect audiophool dream. You should absolutely buy it.


----------



## bigshot

The way you fix a record pressed off center is to take a rat tailed file and open up the hole on the side you need to shift towards. I've never seen it on LPs, but there are occasionally 78s that need filing.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> The way you fix a record pressed off center is to take a rat tailed file and open up the hole on the side you need to shift towards. I've never seen it on LPs, but there are occasionally 78s that need filing.



It is not until one goes to linear tracking arm ( and vacuum hold down turntable ... ) that the eccentricity of PRACTICALLY ALL LP records becomes glaringly visually appearent ... - but, you can hear the deletrious effect of off- center pressed record exactly as well with a more common pivoted tonearm.

Here a video by my acquaintance - made practically to my request. I wanted him to showcase the tracking and tracing abilities of Jico SAS stylus for the vintage Technics EPC-P22 ( or EPC P-202 ; same thing ) P-Mount phono cartridge - at the innermost grooves of a LP, where the performance is at the lowest. The close shots of the short arm ( effective lengrth 115 mm ) clearly showcase eccentricity of the record; and I wanted him to present it as it is, with all the good - and few bad. 

DISCLAIMER : The following video(s) from YT are only information regarding the ultimately achievable quality of reproduction from analogue records - up to the best SQ  allowed by the YT at the time of the original upload.



You can "scan/sample" the entire contents of his YT channel - with all the limitations of the YT, it is still possible to discern the general type of sound a particular analogue record playback rig produces.

I do not have anything comparable to his video equipment ( and video skills ) - but what I do have is a plethora of MUCH improved Technics linear tracking decks ... - with solutions that all help an even better - audibly better - standard of reproduction from analogue records.


----------



## bigshot

I think we might have a difference of understanding what "glaringly apparent" is! And as for the video, because the label is off center, it doesn't mean the grooves are.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> 1. ) Ahem... I beg to differ. PCM can - and DOES - go south under certain conditions . For an entire rise/fall time !


And we’ve now circled around to the beginning again. Please post even on specific example of a current digital recording system that has any interchannel timing error at all, then if you must, post even one example of a digital recording system in history with interchannel timing error.  Just one specific example. Shouldn’t be difficult at all give your claim.


analogsurviver said:


> 2. ) An entirely unfounded assertion and accusation !!!  Why, on earth, do you think I am still doing R&D on analog record playback - in 2018 ?  Yes, I know the problem, seen it too many numerous times not to notice, last time some 4 hours ago while recording the performance of another cartridge I hate to throw off the TT in order to have that 67K5+ Hz cartridge mounted and recorded. To add insult to the injury, it requires mounting screws of EXACT length - and one of the last pair in required length fell prey to the Carpet Monster. Grrr !
> This problem of the lateral high frequency "propeller" ( as Lissajou's "perfect line at 45 degrees" looks on the scope like one in good cases, turning into the figure-of-eight in really bad ones ) HAS BEEN FIXED - but will not comment upon any questions regarding this. Yep, it DOES make for the audibly better sounding music off analogue records ...


 First you claim it’s an unfounded assertion, then you confirm it is founded and hard to fix!



analogsurviver said:


> 3. ) I have tried MANY possible solutions - and one produces incredible results. And there is STILL room for the improvement(s) !


Because of your messed up method of replying to posts I can’t tell what you’re replying too.



analogsurviver said:


> 4. ) Uh huh indeed. Currently , there is only one TX-1000 for sale - at a cool 32K Euro. Last known sales was for 29K Euro. Way beyond my reach. But the smaller Dragon CT might be within my PFC ( Peak Financial Capability ) - and it is a bit easier to fix for various issues than the TX-1000.


Is it possible and practical for everyone playing a record to fix an eccentric disc?  No, it’s not. That’s a serious flaw in the format.


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> lol. That thing is the perfect audiophool dream. You should absolutely buy it.



Correction - not audiophool dream. Unfortunately, an absolutely indespensable thing in view of the REAL WORLD pressed records.

I do remember how slamming was the editorial in The Audio Amateur ( or was it Speaker Builder ? ) back in the day the Nakamichi centering TT has been first introduced. 

Calling it "band aid" ... - and following on about how "just a little more patience on part of the pressing plant should have no trouble in PERFECTLY centered pressed records" . Or something to that effect.

Now... IMAGINE you are in charge of mounting the ONLY stamper from a direct to disk recording session to the press ... Costs of the recording to that stage were say - at least - 400K $ . There is NO POSSIBILITY TO PRODUCE ANOTHER STAMPER !!!! Yep, you have a real 400K $ responsibility in your very hands ...

Willl YOU risk demaging the irreplaceable stamper(s) - by innumerate attempts to perfectly center BOTH  stampers, for both A and B side ?. You CAN sneeze, some tiny piece of dandroof invisible to naked eye WILL be falling on the lower stamper, some flie(s) may join the party... - need I to go on ? Or will you try to do it as quickly as possible, reducing the risk of the damage to the minumum ( not to mention keeping the job and not risk getting sued for 400K $ because , despite all the best intentions, you managed to destroy at least one side of the stamper/record = all the efforts up to that point destroyed and wasted to zero ) ?

That editorial that flamed the mere idea of a record centering turntable could not have - in the retrospect -  barked up the more wrong tree. We ARE human after all - with all the failings of a man.
Real world is not fictionalized fairy tale - and if analogue records are pressed as they are ( not to mention the turntable spindle diameter / hole diameter tolerances ... ), being off center for BOTH sides ( no single perfectly round hole would accomodate both sides in this, vastly spread case ... ) - then record centering TT is NOT a band aid, but an absolute necessity.

Like the above link with the precise dimension / % of wow introduced by eccentricity is saying, the requirement for pitch stability is highly dependant on music genre. Pop/rock/percussion do not suffer from it - except in the most severe cases of eccentricity. But classical, particularly voice and piano, are entirely different story. I do have a shockingly good sounding live recording of a percussion group - on audio cassette. If I tried to push the audio cassette recording on any choir I usually work with, you would have been - long ago - spared of reading my posts ...

They would have probably hang me ... - they did not spend countless hours rehearsing for their constant tone to be randomly warbled by the cassette (recorder) wow & flutter. 

Likewise, I DID "accuse" a very known singer that he uses too much vibrato - only to find, red-faced, that this "vibrato" has been strangely connected with the warp in the record, that coincided precisely with the mass/compliance resonance of the tonearm/cartridge used for listening ...

Be it as it may - I ALWAYS strive for the best possible sound, regardless from which medium it is coming. Analogue record is pleagued perhaps with the greatest number of problems - but as Dr. Ferdinand Porsche used to be saying : " Every problem the Man can present himself with, can be solved " .( free translation from German )


----------



## bigshot

Is anyone actually interested in these rambling irrelevant posts? I know I'm not and I can clearly see that they seem to irritate other folks. I suspect the only person interested in all this malarky is the one who is speaking. But I also suspect he is unaware of it and even if he was, he wouldn't care what we think anyway.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Correction - not audiophool dream. Unfortunately, an absolutely* indespensable thing in view of the REAL WORLD pressed records.*


*Everybody got that?  
*


analogsurviver said:


> Be it as it may - I ALWAYS strive for the *best possible sound, regardless from which medium it is coming.*


...and *that* too?  Now, let's put it all together:


analogsurviver said:


> Analogue record is *pleagued perhaps with the greatest number of problems* ...


How do we solve off of these problems?  We throw money at them!  HUGE bags of money!  And some never get solved.  Logic and common sense would move anyone to conclude that to achieve the best possible sound in any practical and affordable system we would never consider records at all.  Instead, we'd look at other media that doesn't have as many problems to solve, doesn't require an extraordinary investment, and can achieve an exact copy of the final mix has heard by the engineer and/or producer.  Now you can pick your poison here, even choose something exotic,  but if the music you want isn't available in you ultimate choice of media, that media does no good at all no matter how adept you might think it.  Hardly anyone has the resources, ability or interest in making their own recording of the community band playing the Mahler 9th.  So what to do...what to do? 

Yes, I too have lost interest.  If it weren't for the fact that the sub-forum is "Sound Science", and this silly thread is "Testing Audiophile claims and myths", I'd have it all on 100% ignore.  As it is, this myth has been "tested" to the extent that the "Analogue record is *pleagued perhaps with the greatest number of problems", *some of which cannot be solved, even with bags of money.  That's the very definition of an inferior form of audio media.  The record has been tested, and has failed.  There's no point in continuing the debate, analogfanatic has reached part of the same conclusion, but refuses to accept the rest of it, even on the basis of his own statements. 

I think we're done!  Nothing more to read here.  Move along.


----------



## KeithEmo

You are obviously quite right... and the point I was attempting to make was precisely that... that it is fallacious.
The fact that our hearing only extends to 20 kHz doesn't specifically suggest that we can or cannot perceive a 5 uS difference in arrival time between channels.
So, for example, it does not specifically validate or disprove the claims made by the MQA folks.

And, yes, a RBCD, with its 44k sample rate, will in fact allow us to resolve a 5 uS difference in timing - with a continuous waveform.
(However, it will not allow a 5 uS time difference in a single-event that falls between sample periods to be accurately reproduced... but it's also doubtful that such a lack of accuracy would be audible.)

Just for the record, please note that I am not a fan of MQA, and I find their claims to be.... far from compelling.
(I've listened to a few MQA files and found them to sound slightly different, as I would expect if I used a radically unusual oversampling filter; however, I did not find them to be consistently _better_.)

And, yes, I do know how humans (not just audiophiles) can jump to conclusions....  
This often leads to balancing the risk of being technically accurate against the likelihood of confusing people and leading to more egregious misunderstandings.
Unfortunately, the risk runs both ways.
When you provide too much information, or the information is too complex, you risk confusing people (or having the data deliberately used to mislead).
However, when you provide too little information, you run the risk of "being caught out", which then makes people more likely to suspect your conclusions, and other useful data you may provide.

Tell a few smart kids that "we have high tides because the moon's gravity pulls up on the Earth's oceans" and some smart kid will eventually ask why, if that's true, there is also a high tide on the side of the Earth AWAY from the moon at the same time.
It can sometimes be tricky to decide whether the accurate explanation or the simplified one carries the most risk.



castleofargh said:


> you're trying hard to play devil's advocate here.
> that specific test and other interaural research(some 50 or 60 years old) did not test ultrasound audibility and *do not* demonstrate that we have proper receptors for ultrasounds, let alone that our brain cares. your presentation of the time delay as a frequency is fully fallacious in this case. and placing "corresponds" in quotation marks is IMO far from enough to compensate for the arm done by suggesting such a correspondence.
> you know how audiophiles can jump on such a tempting and easy rational to draw the worst of conclusions.
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> You are obviously quite right... and the point I was attempting to make was precisely that... that it is fallacious.
> The fact that our hearing only extends to 20 kHz doesn't specifically suggest that we can or cannot perceive a 5 uS difference in arrival time between channels.
> So, for example, it does not specifically validate or disprove the claims made by the MQA folks.
> 
> ...


we're on the same page with just about everything you wrote this time  .


----------



## bigshot

Whew! Who’s going to be the first one to pee in the pool today?


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 21, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> And we’ve now circled around to the beginning again. Please post even on specific example of a current digital recording system that has any interchannel timing error at all, then if you must, post even one example of a digital recording system in history with interchannel timing error.  Just one specific example. Shouldn’t be difficult at all give your claim.
> First you claim it’s an unfounded assertion, then you confirm it is founded and hard to fix!
> 
> Because of your messed up method of replying to posts I can’t tell what you’re replying too.
> ...



1.) The digital interchannel delay photos with precise signal path, software and hardware used,  etc - coming. There are more ways it can go wrong. Compared to learning how to make a cat land on its back ( works every time - with a cat not dangerous enough to kill a human being ),  this one was real easy. But, I wish it was NOT possible at all - unfortunately it is.
2.) Well, the HF lateral modulation problem in phono cartridges has been fixed - to my knowledge, sometime in mid seventies (!).  Forgotten in today's economic realm . And killed because of greed (literally). I do have a few working samples - "technology demonstrators" - if you prefer to call them this way. However, recently there was a breaktrough which - as of yet unconfirmed - offers a great deal of possibility to achieve the same result using commonly available "ingredients" - without having to resort to rather exotic technologies.
3.) OK, "messed up" reply was to wow & flutter in turntables. It is nowhere near as hard to do as some would think - or, depends on how one looks at things, it is. Definitely doable.
4.) I agree off center pressed analogue record is a serious flaw. But once upon a time ... ( no, not Nakamichi centering TTs ) - perhaps it is time to ressurect something ...


----------



## bigshot

Everybody out of the pool! We all knew who the culprit was anyway.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> 1.) The digital interchannel delay photos with precise signal path, software and hardware used,  etc - coming.


I'm sorry if I seem inpatient, but you've be saying this "evidence" is "coming" since *5/17/18 in this post.*  I think that most people would agree with me when I say if you actually had any evidence, more than a month is long enough to figure out how to post it.  Or, as I suspect, it simply doesn't exist at all.  Aren't you embarrassed?  Man, I would be if I were you.  



analogsurviver said:


> There are more ways it can go wrong. Compared to learning how to make a cat land on its back ( works every time - with a cat not dangerous enough to kill a human being ),  this one was real easy. But, I wish it was NOT possible at all - unfortunately it is.


I have no idea what you're talking about, but that's ok, I don't think you do either.  I don't mistreat animals by dropping them, and neither should you.


analogsurviver said:


> 2.) Well, the HF lateral modulation problem in phono cartridges has been fixed - to my knowledge, sometime in mid seventies (!).  Forgotten in today's economic realm . And killed because of greed (literally). I do have a few working samples - "technology demonstrators" - if you prefer to call them this way. However, recently there was a breaktrough which - as of yet unconfirmed - offers a great deal of possibility to achieve the same result using commonly available "ingredients" - without having to resort to rather exotic technologies.


Wrong.  Again.  But whatever, not caring as much anymore. Post proof. Post it, before one of us dies. Of boredom.  


analogsurviver said:


> 3.) OK, "messed up" reply was to wow & flutter in turntables. It is nowhere near as hard to do as some would think - or, depends on how one looks at things, it is. Definitely doable.


You're still "messed up", I don't know what you're' trying to say.  It's not hard to find a turntable with wow and fluter?  Agreed.  Typically wow.  


analogsurviver said:


> 4.) I agree off center pressed analogue record is a serious flaw. But once upon a time ... ( no, not Nakamichi centering TTs ) - perhaps it is time to ressurect something ...


You mean, "Once upon a time...." like the beginning of a fairy tale?  You go fix ALL of the vinyl flaws and do it without spending more than $1000, and come back.  Otherwise, go write that fairy tale.


----------



## bigshot

We just cleaned the pool!


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Everybody out of the pool! We all knew who the culprit was anyway.[/QUOTE





pinnahertz said:


> I'm sorry if I seem inpatient, but you've be saying this "evidence" is "coming" since *5/17/18 in this post.*  I think that most people would agree with me when I say if you actually had any evidence, more than a month is long enough to figure out how to post it.  Or, as I suspect, it simply doesn't exist at all.  Aren't you embarrassed?  Man, I would be if I were you.
> 
> I have no idea what you're talking about, but that's ok, I don't think you do either.  I don't mistreat animals by dropping them, and neither should you.
> Wrong.  Again.  But whatever, not caring as much anymore. Post proof. Post it, before one of us dies. Of boredom.
> ...



You have every right to be impatient. However, that evidence has been already posted to the head-fi before - only to be lost in last big change of head fi. And, I definitely DO have adversity to uploading on line - hopefully, in time, this will play out. However, in view of the fact that I did describe the defects of analogue record perhaps in greater detail than anyone else, you could, if you were a betting person, bet your last cent, your entire family including grandparents and the neighbour's hamster that this evidence does exist - and that you would get that last cent multiplied by whatever betting stake ratio at the time was.

I was replying that finding how PCM can and does get to produce channel delay was much easier than learning how to make a cat falling on its back. Don't panic, I am an all animal loving person, and making a cat falling on its back is only possible from a VERY low height - less, usually much less than half a metre. The trick is to make the cat to turn on its back in the air during play so low above the ground that it no longer has the time to turn around in order to land on the feet. And I ALWAYS did that with my cat, on soft, well padded surface - where any injury was most unlikely. Since I like and care for animals, I limit this little prank to fairly young cats - I would never intentionally harm any living being, not even a fly.

Regarding turntable wow & flutter : meant was 0.02 %, for which I said is about two times better as the human sensitivity to detect it. And, BTW - contrary to the popular belief, turntables can have a significant amount of  flutter - nor just wow.

"Once upon a time" really does sound as a fairy tale - but, this particular faity tale has been an actual commercially available product back in the day. 

No, making a new decent turntable/arm/cartridge with all the desired improvements over its ancestors without spending more than 1000 $ is simply not realistic. Even under the most rosiest of circumstances. I have been known to suggest for budget around a grand for "everything source" to go with digital. Particularly for young people, who have to start their record collection from scratch.

Analogue record makes sense on the other price side; there, pouring any amount into RBCD hits THE wall that can not be torn down - but will be beat by - talking about new MSRP - approx 5K cartridge/arm/turntable/phono preamp combination. And lower price, but not below 1K. If you have not noticed - during the last two-three years. EVERYTHING PHONO went up in price about a double - both new and used gear. The law of supply and demand ...

It takes an extraordinary extensive knowledge and experience about analogue phono gear and large amounts of time to be able to score really great deals>next to steals online for quality>outstanding vintage phono equipment. And one just can not get the experience required any other but the hard way. Reviews do help to a certain extent - but can not replace the first hand experience.

Don't forget - there is always HR digital. It does not cost - not anymore - appreciable above what is needed for RBCD. In some ways, it is inferior to analogue recod - in many ways it is superior. And it does, even in its lower resolutions, support > 20 kHz. It is the best bang for the buck.


----------



## skwoodwiva

”Don't forget - there is always HR digital. It does not cost - not anymore - appreciable above what is needed for RBCD. In some ways, it is inferior to analogue recod - in many ways it is superior. And it does, even in its lower resolutions, support > 20 kHz. It is the best bang for the buck.
”
Where most modern audiophiles in this (non SS) venue are.
Keep it up man you be our advocate


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> You have every right to be impatient. However, that evidence has been already posted to the head-fi before - only to be lost in last big change of head fi. And, I definitely DO have adversity to uploading on line - hopefully, in time, this will play out.


You've had over a month to get over your "adversity".  If you did figure out how to post images before, then you should still know how.  You've had "time" for this to play out already.  This line of excuses is clearly just a dodge to avoid reality.  And you're still dodging.  You cannot tell the entire forum audience that you don't know how to post an image!  You've managed to google just about every other hair-brained pseudo-scientific concept in audio, what's holding you back???


analogsurviver said:


> I was replying that finding how PCM can and does get to produce channel delay was much easier than learning how to make a cat falling on its back.


Apparently not.  Because you seem to be able to drop a cat easier than post your evidence.


analogsurviver said:


> "Once upon a time" really does sound as a fairy tale - but, this particular faity tale has been an actual commercially available product back in the day.


But this mythical product is now a fairy tale, so it doesn't matter if you could buy one long, long ago or not.  If it's so essential...where is it?


analogsurviver said:


> Analogue record makes sense on the other price side; there, pouring any amount into RBCD hits THE wall that can not be torn down - but will be beat by - talking about new MSRP - approx 5K cartridge/arm/turntable/phono preamp combination. And lower price, but not below 1K.


I acknowledge, and disagree with, your opinion. 


analogsurviver said:


> If you have not noticed - during the last two-three years. EVERYTHING PHONO went up in price about a double - both new and used gear. The law of supply and demand ...


No, I've noticed everything phono seems to be getting cheaper due to a perceived market increase and proliferation of competitive companies.


analogsurviver said:


> Don't forget - there is always HR digital. It does not cost - not anymore - appreciable above what is needed for RBCD.


Lack of content makes this a non-solution.  If you can't download your favorite tune in anything above 16/44.1, you are getting no HR/HD audio.


analogsurviver said:


> In some ways, it is inferior to analogue recod - in many ways it is superior. And it does, even in its lower resolutions, support > 20 kHz. It is the best bang for the buck.


You already know where I stand on this. 


skwoodwiva said:


> Where most modern audiophiles in this (non SS) venue are.
> Keep it up man you be our advocate


But if you want audiophile-grade quality in your content, he's advocating the wrong thing.  It's like suggesting that a dirt road full of pot-holes be improved with better lighting.  Fix the content!  Fix the loudness-war mastering!  Then it will sound better in any container, and will to everyone.  Instead, he's advocating spending a lot of money to play recordings made using an inferior method with limited material available. 

And, BTW, advocating better dynamics is impossible too, because the root cause of the war can't be addressed by an advocate. Loudness-processing has become part of the definition of recorded audio, and until it doesn't sell, production will continue.  Releasing anything on another esoteric format that is mastered better doesn't fix the problem because it will never out-sell the version most easily purchased by the unwashed masses.  Highly processed audio isn't objectionable to everyone, most don't even notice it, some actually like it, and that actually makes it more desired than hated statistically.  A few of "us" might hate it, but we literally don't count in the stats.


----------



## castleofargh

skwoodwiva said:


> ”Don't forget - there is always HR digital. It does not cost - not anymore - appreciable above what is needed for RBCD. In some ways, it is inferior to analogue recod - in many ways it is superior. And it does, even in its lower resolutions, support > 20 kHz. It is the best bang for the buck.
> ”
> Where most modern audiophiles in this (non SS) venue are.
> Keep it up man you be our advocate


the advocate of: it measures poorly but I like vinyl so I make up my own definition of fidelity. one where the only objective variable defining fidelity "happens" to be the only one where CD doesn't systematically crush vinyl as a reproduction format. nobody will notice. 

IMO the all thing could be summarized as "I want my personal opinion to have objective significance". the topics change, but the ideas are often the same. I feel something so it must be in the sound. I prefer something so it must be of higher fidelity. so many people start a discussion with that as their defective premise, and then go cherry picking any objective data that may appear to correlate with their belief. most will see this as a valid demonstration and that's where we get most of our audio myths. subjective stuff passing as objective, a all lot of cherry picking. and of course, forgetting that correlation does not imply causation.
pretty much textbook case on how not to approach something objectively while thinking we do.


----------



## skwoodwiva (Jun 22, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> the advocate of: it measures poorly but I like vinyl so I make up my own definition of fidelity. one where the only objective variable defining fidelity "happens" to be the only one where CD doesn't systematically crush vinyl as a reproduction format. nobody will notice.
> 
> IMO the all thing could be summarized as "I want my personal opinion to have objective significance". the topics change, but the ideas are often the same. I feel something so it must be in the sound. I prefer something so it must be of higher fidelity. so many people start a discussion with that as their defective premise, and then go cherry picking any objective data that may appear to correlate with their belief. most will see this as a valid demonstration and that's where we get most of our audio myths. subjective stuff passing as objective, a all lot of cherry picking. and of course, forgetting that correlation does not imply causation.
> pretty much textbook case on how not to approach something objectively while thinking we do.


What i agree with him about is VERY CLEAR.
I DO NOT CRITICISE HIS RAMBLINGS ABOUT HIS PASSION FOR ANALOG OVER RBCD.
He is the most extreme as any i have heard yet in all of his meanderings I get IT and appreciate his meaning.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 22, 2018)

The problem with AS's posts is that they don't ever address the points being made by other people. They just grab irrelevant bits of the other person's posts as a jumping off point to launch back into the rant over and over. No one here seems to have the slightest interest in high end turntables, but there's an ocean of words on that subject drowning out the conversation. Meanwhile, the specific points about the difference in audio fidelity between records and CDs get blown right past over and over. Even though that is directly related to the subject of this thread!

Internet forums attract people who have difficulty communicating with other people. People who are bottled up inside themselves feel more comfortable in anonymous non-face to face encounters. They'll hold long conversations with themselves, and the people around them in the forum are completely tangential. That sort of thing is fine for solipsists, but it isn't much fun for anyone else. like this. We've had several like this in the recent past.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 22, 2018)

*I would take issue with (b) of the second point of reasoning below, by the way.

solipsism*
[sol-ip-siz-uh m]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun

Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.
No great philosopher has espoused solipsism. As a theory, if indeed it can be termed such, it is clearly very far removed from common sense. In view of this, it might reasonably be asked why the problem of solipsism should receive any philosophical attention. There are two answers to this question. First, while no great philosopher has explicitly espoused solipsism, this can be attributed to the inconsistency of much philosophical reasoning. Many philosophers have failed to accept the logical consequences of their own most fundamental commitments and preconceptions. The foundations of solipsism lie at the heart of the view that the individual gets his own psychological concepts (thinking, willing, perceiving, and so forth.) from "his own cases," that is by abstraction from "inner experience."

This view, or some variant of it, has been held by a great many, if not the majority of philosophers since Descartes made the egocentric search for truth the primary goal of the critical study of the nature and limits of knowledge.

In this sense, solipsism is implicit in many philosophies of knowledge and mind since Descartes and any theory of knowledge that adopts the Cartesian egocentric approach as its basic frame of reference is inherently solipsistic.

Second, solipsism merits close examination because it is based upon three widely entertained philosophical presuppositions, which are themselves of fundamental and wide-ranging importance. These are: (a) What I know most certainly are the contents of my own mind - my thoughts, experiences, affective states, and so forth.; (b) There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between the mental and the physical. For example, there is no necessary link between the occurrence of certain conscious experiences or mental states and the "possession" and behavioral dispositions of a body of a particular kind; and (c) The experiences of a given person are necessarily private to that person.

These presuppositions are of unmistakable Cartesian origin, and are widely accepted by philosophers and non-philosophers alike. In tackling the problem of solipsism, one immediately grapples with fundamental issues in the philosophy of mind. However spurious the problem of solipsism _per se_ may strike one, these latter issues are unquestionably important. Indeed, one of the merits of the entire enterprise is the extent that it reveals a direct connection between apparently unexceptionable and certainly widely-held common sense beliefs and the acceptance of solipsistic conclusions. If this connection exists and we wish to avoid those solipsistic conclusions, we shall have no option but to revise, or at least to critically review, the beliefs from which they derive logical sustenance.


bigshot said:


> That sort of thing is fine for solipsists.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 22, 2018)

bigshot said:


> The problem with AS's posts is that they don't ever address the points being made by other people. They just grab irrelevant bits of the other person's posts as a jumping off point to launch back into the rant over and over. No one here seems to have the slightest interest in high end turntables, but there's an ocean of words on that subject drowning out the conversation. Meanwhile, the specific points about the difference in audio fidelity between records and CDs get blown right past over and over. Even though that is directly related to the subject of this thread!
> 
> Internet forums attract people who have difficulty communicating with other people. People who are bottled up inside themselves feel more comfortable in anonymous non-face to face encounters. They'll hold long conversations with themselves, and the people around them in the forum are completely tangential. That sort of thing is fine for solipsists, but it isn't much fun for anyone else. like this. We've had several like this in the recent past.



FYI -  I have been measuring/recording the performance of the turntable I wish to use with the very flat to very high frequency response cartridge - with another two styli that fit the cartridge in question. Do not like the idea of having to bring the antiskating spring "back to spec", as it presently maxes out at approx 1.3 gram real requirement - set to max of 3 gram antiskate. Known deterioration over > 30 years, but the stylus in question needs 1.9 gram for the proper operation. Will try to do it later today - 01:20 AM here at the time.

I did listen both to direct sound from phono and to the monitor from 192/24 while recording music from LP - both matched to within << 0.5 dB ( probably much better than that , within a trace width on the scope ) . It was quite interesting - as I first tried to equalize levels by ear. Soundcard I use has 1 dB steps for its various inputs and outputs - and by ear I ended up setting it 1 dB above the closest match to the direct out from phono as measured by 300 Hz ( level close to max = just a few dB below 0 dBFS, as 1kHz signal is approx - 15dB to 300 Hz signal used  ) from a test record. If set so that 300 Hz levels were within << 0.5 dB, the PCM 192/24 simply did not have the vividness of direct phono out in high(er) frequencies - percussion, strings, etc.  I did not even think of trying 44.1/16 .

Yes, the test was both sighted and switch operated by myself. I used Stax Lambda Pro / SRM 1 MK2 ( without otherwise obligatory diffuse field equalizer ED-1 Monitor ), as I wanted to have the shortest possible signal path for these tests. And no, it was not bias, imagination,  halucination, preconcieved expectation or whatever. It  was real - unfortunately.

If there was a reasonable way to equalize the levels also from my regular DSD recorder, I would have thrown it into the mix ASAP. There is unfortunately no output level adjustment, the only way to reduce the output level is by reducing the recording level - and this is a compromise I am absolutely not willing to make. 

I doubt anyone would care too much about philosophy - after a full day precision work with phono. It is a bit different than digital - oops does not mean you can go one step back in order to restore the last known condition under which digital worked. Scratching a test record or breakinig a stylus is irreversible - but above all, in most cases irreplaceable..
Definitely not fun - if you do not know how rewarding it is  later at listening to music if you are succesful at it.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 22, 2018)

I. Have. No. Interest. In. High. End. Turntables.

Steve999, here is a perfect example of _(b) There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between the mental and the physical._ There is no link between what I say and the response he types back to me. I've made it abundantly clear many times that I know all about records but I have no interest in them beyond the music that they contain. Yet he continues to hold this ongoing conversation about turntable minutia with me. There's no connection between me and him. I could say, "Asparagus is a fine vegetable." and within thirty seconds he'd be off on super audible frequencies and obscure phono carts again.

I'm stating it even more baldly here, but I doubt it will get through this time either. I've already made my guess as to why communication is so difficult, but I got scolded for saying it, so I'll hold my tongue.


----------



## analogsurviver

I could have said the same about RBCD - but did not. I did try any reasonable possibility to make it sound as good as it possibly can.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 22, 2018)

No no no... the thread has changed directions. We are talking about whether questioning the Cartesian concept of the mind-body duality undermines the philosophical underpinnings of solipsism. I think it does. I don't believe in the mind-body duality and therefore solipsism doesn't hold up logically for me. That's what this thread is about now. No matter what.



bigshot said:


> I. Have. No. Interest. In. High. End. Turntables.
> 
> Steve999, here is a perfect example of _(b) There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between the mental and the physical._ There is no link between what I say and the response he types back to me. I've made it abundantly clear many times that I know all about records but I have no interest in them beyond the music that they contain. Yet he continues to hold this ongoing conversation about turntable minutia with me. There's no connection between me and him. I could say, "Asparagus is a fine vegetable." and within thirty seconds he'd be off on super audible frequencies and obscure phono carts again.
> 
> I'm stating it even more baldly here, but I doubt it will get through this time either. I've already made my guess as to why communication is so difficult, but I got scolded for saying it, so I'll hold my tongue.


----------



## bigshot

Haha! I'm going to insist that my reality is the true reality then!


----------



## skwoodwiva

analogsurviver said:


> FYI -  I have been measuring/recording the performance of the turntable I wish to use with the very flat to very high frequency response cartridge - with another two styli that fit the cartridge in question. Do not like the idea of having to bring the antiskating spring "back to spec", as it presently maxes out at approx 1.3 gram real requirement - set to max of 3 gram antiskate. Known deterioration over > 30 years, but the stylus in question needs 1.9 gram for the proper operation. Will try to do it later today - 01:20 AM here at the time.
> 
> I did listen both to direct sound from phono and to the monitor from 192/24 while recording music from LP - both matched to within << 0.5 dB ( probably much better than that , within a trace width on the scope ) . It was quite interesting - as I first tried to equalize levels by ear. Soundcard I use has 1 dB steps for its various inputs and outputs - and by ear I ended up setting it 1 dB above the closest match to the direct out from phono as measured by 300 Hz ( level close to max = just a few dB below 0 dBFS, as 1kHz signal is approx - 15dB to 300 Hz signal used  ) from a test record. If set so that 300 Hz levels were within << 0.5 dB, the PCM 192/24 simply did not have the vividness of direct phono out in high(er) frequencies - percussion, strings, etc.  I did not even think of trying 44.1/16 .
> 
> ...


Can i anticipate DSD will tested aganst vinyl somhow.
That is the horse race I am waiting for.....


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 23, 2018)

Okay, okay, it can be about something else. I didn't mean to hijack the thread, I just meant for us to move on. But can we get away from the LP-is-better-than-CD (or DSD or whatever) topic? This a thread with a very broad scope and I think it is a rather modest proposition to state that the LP-is-better-than-CD (or DSD or whatever) argument has had its share of air-time for the time being,



Steve999 said:


> No no no... the thread has changed directions. We are talking about whether questioning the Cartesian concept of the mind-body duality undermines the philosophical underpinnings of solipsism. I think it does. I don't believe in the mind-body duality and therefore solipsism doesn't hold up logically for me. That's what this thread is about now. No matter what.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 23, 2018)

That sounds like an extension of Cartesian mind-body duality. I don't believe in mind-body duality, and for that reason I feel that your idea your reality is the true reality fails as a matter of logic. I believe your perception of who you are also depends on your physiology and all other things, of which you are an almost infinitesimally small part. I believe that you are one with all other things and that the reality of different parts of all other things is not the same as yours. I believe that the separateness of your mind and body is an illusion (which you as a thoughtful person in the current era have probably overcome) and that your separateness from all other things is an illusion. 



bigshot said:


> Haha! I'm going to insist that my reality is the true reality then!


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> FYI -  I have been measuring/recording the performance of the turntable I wish to use with the very flat to very high frequency response cartridge - with another two styli that fit the cartridge in question. Do not like the idea of having to bring the antiskating spring "back to spec", as it presently maxes out at approx 1.3 gram real requirement - set to max of 3 gram antiskate. Known deterioration over > 30 years, but the stylus in question needs 1.9 gram for the proper operation. Will try to do it later today - 01:20 AM here at the time.
> 
> I did listen both to direct sound from phono and to the monitor from 192/24 while recording music from LP - both matched to within << 0.5 dB ( probably much better than that , within a trace width on the scope ) . It was quite interesting - as I first tried to equalize levels by ear. Soundcard I use has 1 dB steps for its various inputs and outputs - and by ear I ended up setting it 1 dB above the closest match to the direct out from phono as measured by 300 Hz ( level close to max = just a few dB below 0 dBFS, as 1kHz signal is approx - 15dB to 300 Hz signal used  ) from a test record. If set so that 300 Hz levels were within << 0.5 dB, the PCM 192/24 simply did not have the vividness of direct phono out in high(er) frequencies - percussion, strings, etc.  I did not even think of trying 44.1/16 .
> 
> Yes, the test was both sighted and switch operated by myself. I used Stax Lambda Pro / SRM 1 MK2 ( without otherwise obligatory diffuse field equalizer ED-1 Monitor ), as I wanted to have the shortest possible signal path for these tests. And no, it was not bias, imagination,  halucination, preconcieved expectation or whatever. It  was real - unfortunately.


So, if I read this right:
1. You have no knowlege or ability to match levels
2. You have no capability to do a  real ABX/DBT
3. You have no idea that what you did was fully biased, subjective, and invalid?

Well...ok then.


analogsurviver said:


> If there was a reasonable way to equalize the levels also from my regular DSD recorder, I would have thrown it into the mix ASAP. There is unfortunately no output level adjustment, the only way to reduce the output level is by reducing the recording level - and this is a compromise I am absolutely not willing to make.


So, again, you can't figure out how to match levels outside of the unit?  Perhaps you might learn that first, then learn what a true DBT is, then try again.

Oh, let me re-order that.  Learn to post pictures/evidence first, learn to match levels second, learn what a DBT is and how to perform it third.  Come back and post real data, fourth.

And the fourth step is optional.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 23, 2018)

I tried. Please? For objectivists this is shooting fish in a barrel, and for subjectivists this is a kid in a candy store. And the whole LP thing is fried. And this is the most important thread in this part of head-fi.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 23, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> So, if I read this right:
> 1. You have no knowlege or ability to match levels
> 2. You have no capability to do a  real ABX/DBT
> 3. You have no idea that what you did was fully biased, subjective, and invalid?
> ...



1.) Not true.
2.) True. Save for the Foobar2000 ABX, which is limited to comparing two PCM files -  which is something VERY low on my priority list, as I generally work either with analogue or DSD.
3.) In a context valid on this thread, absolutely correct. However, if you think no improvements are possible to make even from these - technically speaking - invalid tests, you could possibly not be more wrong. If it is - arrived at subjectively - required to raise the level of 192/24 by 1dB in order to "match" it audibly to the source - then something IS wrong.
( same thing if it is a turntable playing analogue record or live mike feed; record has the advantage because it can be repeatedly played, live sound is a once in a lifetime only event and does not lend itself for any real ABX testing )

The only real answer to everything above would be something like this ( the only commercially available ABX box of high enough quality I am aware of ) :

https://avahifi.com/products/abx-switch-comparator 

That is > 1500 $ - after shipping and duties. I would have loved to have that money - but, my real needs have a MUCH different priority.
That is 3/4 of my planned, currently saving for next ADC -  ask yourself where would YOU have invested the money available yourself if in the same situation.

Just because I have written about some very high priced devices, that does not mean I own them. Only that I have worked with them and can appreciate the ultimate SQ  obtainable from them.
And those I did manage to obtain, are here to stay. Even in the worst nightmare, I can not see myself selling ANY of few really exceptionally high quality cartridge/styli that are meant to do  > 2000 LP  transfer to digital - as each is only good for approx 1000 LP playback.  Not for anything else in audio - even new ADC - let alone for the ABX box.

But, in context of this thread, you are absolutely right. I hope you understand it now a bit better - I do know how to do it right - abiding to all the SS rules; the only object is money.

YFI - I have 27 year old neighbour, who definitely can hear to higher frequencies than most>anyone on this thread. He objected to 20-20kHz sweep when the signal hit > 18 kHz, requesting me to stop the sweep - across the distance of say 3 metres, from IEMs lying on the table ! He is NOT an audiophile, he can not afford the equipment. Yet, he loves music - knows nothing about PCM and DSD, yet he picked DSD over PCM in an instant - a binaural recording of a live concert he also attended. An acquaintance of his gave him a pre-recorded audio cassette from 1988, of a music genre that really does not float my boat, but  he asked if it can be converted to digital. OK, I did it - but even me could not be more shocked by how much difference between the analogue cassette from 1988 and PCM 192/24 was - after hearing what 44.1/16 sounded like compared to the original, the young neighbour told me to stop, he's not going to give THAT to his acquaintance ...

You could apply all the rules and abide to the letter - but could not arrive at any different end result. True, you would have stats, etc, as required - but the end result would still stand.


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> OK, I did it - but even me could not be more shocked by how much difference between the analogue cassette from 1988 and PCM 192/24 was - after hearing what 44.1/16 sounded like compared to the original, the young neighbour told me to stop, he's not going to give THAT to his acquaintance ...



How could claims this crazy make any sense? C-casettes from 1988 better than PCM 192/24? Some people apparently are totally delusional about the superiority of analog sound. Makes me want to put Melanie's "I REALLY DON*T CARE, DO YOU?" jacket on...


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> How could claims this crazy make any sense? C-casettes from 1988 better than PCM 192/24? Some people apparently are totally delusional about the superiority of analog sound. Makes me want to put Melanie's "I REALLY DON*T CARE, DO YOU?" jacket on...



Please READ what I wrote ... - I did not say that cassette from 1988 was better - overall - than 192/24.

What I did say (and heard, confirmed by at least twice younger pair of ears ) was that , whatever the quality remained on that cassette tape, by re-recording it at 192/24 did NOT translate well into PCM. And monitoring was on Stax. It has not been a transparent audio facsimile - by a long shot. What digital did lack - audible immediately - was the lack of warmth and sheer failure to give the song the required bass foundation. It was possible to raise the level of digital by more than 2 dB compared to direct cassette output - and digital still could not match the drive in the song.  One could sway the lover of the genre into dancing - and the other definitely not.

I can not be described as a digital lover in anyone's dreams - and this was BY FAR the the worst case for digital I have yet heard to date. Came as a BIG surprise - and not a welcome one ...

Good measurements do not necessary translate into subjectively perceived good sound - they are only the first condition that has to be met.


----------



## skwoodwiva (Jun 23, 2018)

71 dB said:


> How could claims this crazy make any sense? C-casettes from 1988 better than PCM 192/24? Some people apparently are totally delusional about the superiority of analog sound. Makes me want to put Melanie's "I REALLY DON*T CARE, DO YOU?" jacket on...


I do belive it.
i had a Nackamichi cassette player, 3 heads  & all the bells too. in the  mid 80s it was stunning.

https://m.ebay.com/itm/Nakamichi-660ZX-3-head-auto-azimuth-cassette-deck-/222032230209

This is the demo cassette used at the HiFi shop .
https://www.discogs.com/Carol-Kidd-All-My-Tomorrows/release/10589748
I bought both!


----------



## analogsurviver

skwoodwiva said:


> I do belive it.
> i had a Nackamichi cassette player, 3 heads  & all the bells too. in the  mid 80s it was stunning.
> 
> https://m.ebay.com/itm/Nakamichi-660ZX-3-head-auto-azimuth-cassette-deck-/222032230209



This is my weapon of choice in cassette tape world : https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/rs-az7.shtml

You can gogle all day - and you won't be able to find a negative review. Its Aichille's heel is the tape transport - wow & flutter figures could ( and for otherwise superb quality, should ) have been better. Otherwise, I prefer it to any other cassette machine I have heard - that unfortunately excludes Nakamichi Dragon and Eumig FL-1000. None of them featured the playback heads used in RS-AZ 7 - which are also better than any proffessional R2R tape recorder ever got. There was a TEAC prosumer R2R deck equipped with said heads - but it was only spec'd down to 40 Hz. Rs-AZ 6/7 can record and play back 20 Hz at 0 dB VU level with approx - 1 dB @20 Hz. My modded "7" extends that to 15 Hz @ -3dB. These heads also feature greater channel separation than practically any proffessional R2R deck - IIRC around 45 dB across the most important midband. There are reviews and measurements floating online. I could confirm these  claims - using just an oscilloscope and signal generator, could not document it back then.

http://www.hifi-review.com/150205-technics-rs-az7.html

http://www.tapeheads.net/showthread.php?t=8817

The said 1988 tape was recorded with Dolby B - and that was used for the playback - on a stock, non modified "7".


----------



## Don Hills

KeithEmo said:


> ... And, yes, a RBCD, with its 44k sample rate, will in fact allow us to resolve a 5 uS difference in timing - with a continuous waveform.
> (However, it will not allow a 5 uS time difference in a single-event that falls between sample periods to be accurately reproduced... but it's also doubtful that such a lack of accuracy would be audible.)...



This is incorrect. Even events between sample periods are accurately reproduced.
The time resolution of a 16 bit, 44.1khz PCM channel is not limited to the 22.7µs time difference between samples. The actual minimum time resolution is equivalent to 1/(2pi * quantization levels * sample rate). For 16/44.1, that is 1/(2pi * 65536 * 44100), which is about 55 picoseconds. To put that in perspective, light travels less than an inch in that time.

Shannon and Nyquist showed that as long as you keep all components of the input signal below half the sampling frequency, you can reconstruct the original signal perfectly - not just in terms of amplitude, but in terms of temporal relationships too. They only addressed sampling, and assumed infinite resolution in amplitude. With a digital signal the precision is limited by the number of amplitude steps, leading to the above formula.

If you want to see a real world demonstration of a single event (the edge of a square wave) being accurately sampled between sample points, check out Monty's show and tell at the 20:55 mark. If anyone following this thread hasn't seen the video before, I strongly suggest you take the time to watch it all.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 23, 2018)

Descartes also invented Cartesian coordinatess, upon which we may plot data for the purpose of explaining tests of audiophile hypotheses.



Steve999 said:


> That sounds like an extension of Cartesian mind-body duality. I don't believe in mind-body duality, and for that reason I feel that your idea your reality is the true reality fails as a matter of logic. I believe your perception of who you are also depends on your physiology and all other things, of which you are an almost infinitesimally small part. I believe that you are one with all other things and that the reality of different parts of all other things is not the same as yours. I believe that the separateness of your mind and body is an illusion (which you as a thoughtful person in the current era have probably overcome) and that your separateness from all other things is an illusion.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> 1.) Not true.


You say that now, but your earlier post doesn't seem to agree.


analogsurviver said:


> 2.) True. Save for the Foobar2000 ABX, which is limited to comparing two PCM files -  which is something VERY low on my priority list, as I generally work either with analogue or DSD.


 Foobar is the wrong tool for this.


analogsurviver said:


> 3.) In a context valid on this thread, absolutely correct. However, if you think no improvements are possible to make even from these - technically speaking - invalid tests, you could possibly not be more wrong. If it is - arrived at subjectively - required to raise the level of 192/24 by 1dB in order to "match" it audibly to the source - then something IS wrong.
> ( same thing if it is a turntable playing analogue record or live mike feed; record has the advantage because it can be repeatedly played, live sound is a once in a lifetime only event and does not lend itself for any real ABX testing )


But conclusions arrived at subjectively are seriously flawed.  No, you can't use live sound for every kind of ABX, but you can for some.  I've done it.


analogsurviver said:


> The only real answer to everything above would be something like this ( the only commercially available ABX box of high enough quality I am aware of ) :
> 
> https://avahifi.com/products/abx-switch-comparator
> 
> ...


Already done.  I own an ABX system purchased new in the early 1980s.  Cited in the David Clark AES paper, and I have both switching modules for low/unbalanced and high level/balanced/ speaker level switching.  And totally worth the expense.  Not as elegant as the new box, but fully capable. 


analogsurviver said:


> Just because I have written about some very high priced devices, that does not mean I own them. Only that I have worked with them and can appreciate the ultimate SQ  obtainable from them.


You cite them as part of the universal capabilities of records when they are, by your own standards, the unaffordable extremes.


analogsurviver said:


> But, in context of this thread, you are absolutely right. I hope you understand it now a bit better - I do know how to do it right - abiding to all the SS rules; the only object is money.


I'm not sure what you know.  You say you know how to do it right, but then do it wrong and proclaim the results as immutable fact.


analogsurviver said:


> YFI - I have 27 year old neighbour, who definitely can hear to higher frequencies than most>anyone on this thread. He objected to 20-20kHz sweep when the signal hit > 18 kHz, requesting me to stop the sweep - across the distance of say 3 metres, from IEMs lying on the table ! He is NOT an audiophile, he can not afford the equipment. Yet, he loves music - knows nothing about PCM and DSD, yet he picked DSD over PCM in an instant - a binaural recording of a live concert he also attended. An acquaintance of his gave him a pre-recorded audio cassette from 1988, of a music genre that really does not float my boat, but  he asked if it can be converted to digital. OK, I did it - but even me could not be more shocked by how much difference between the analogue cassette from 1988 and PCM 192/24 was - after hearing what 44.1/16 sounded like compared to the original, the young neighbour told me to stop, he's not going to give THAT to his acquaintance ...


Nice anecdote, but it's meaningless without controls, and documentation of the complete test conditions. 


analogsurviver said:


> You could apply all the rules and abide to the letter - but could not arrive at any different end result. True, you would have stats, etc, as required - but the end result would still stand.


If I apply scientific methods (the "rules"?) to a test and get different results than fully sighted and biased subjective tests, does that tell us that science is wrong????  What if I did the test again but changed the bias input of the sighted test, and got different results, but the scientific test results remained the same?  It's been done, and that's exactly why we have ABX/DBT.  You can try to invalidate it all you want, it's never going to hold.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Please READ what I wrote ... - I did not say that cassette from 1988 was better - overall - than 192/24.
> 
> What I did say (and heard, confirmed by at least twice younger pair of ears ) was that , whatever the quality remained on that cassette tape, by re-recording it at 192/24 did NOT translate well into PCM. And monitoring was on Stax. It has not been a transparent audio facsimile - by a long shot. What digital did lack - audible immediately - was the lack of warmth and sheer failure to give the song the required bass foundation. It was possible to raise the level of digital by more than 2 dB compared to direct cassette output - and digital still could not match the drive in the song.  One could sway the lover of the genre into dancing - and the other definitely not.


A fully sighted and biased test.  Means nothing.


----------



## old tech (Jun 23, 2018)

First a couple on the outer here are claiming vinyl can deliver better sound quality than CD (or 16/44) or 24/96- despite all the measurements and majority subjective opinions

But now, C cassettes too?  If it is not a troll then there are some people that live in a world of their own to a very unhealthy degree.  What's next, analog 8 track is better, analog tin cans joined by a string? 

We all know that true hi fidelity sound is not universally appreciated, just a majority - that is why some people really do hear vinyl (or even cassette tape apprently) as better to CD or hi res digital.  I can respect that, sound is to a degree subjective, but when they deny the superior objective measurements as an accurate measurement of fidelity, I switch off.  

It also amazes me how these digiphobes are seemingly oblivious to the fact that the majority of people into hi fi or audiophiles (I'm excluding audiophools) prefer digital recordings and given equal mastering quality, certainly can hear the greater fidelity compared with analog audio - no different to digital video v analog , or analog broadcast v digital or analog phone v digital, need I go on? as if analog audio is somehow different, even though it is one of the easiest electrical signals to digitise.

This thread has degenerated from myth busting to giving oxygen to analog myths and analog cranks.  Does this thread really need to continue in the sound science sub-forum?


----------



## Steve999

In addition we can use Leibniz's and Newton's calculus to analyze the data we obtain to test hypotheses in the field of audio.



Steve999 said:


> Descartes also invented Cartesian coordinatess, upon which we may plot data for the purpose of explaining tests of audiophile hypotheses.


----------



## castleofargh

old tech said:


> First a couple on the outer here are claiming vinyl can deliver better sound quality than CD (or 16/44) or 24/96- despite all the measurements and majority subjective opinions
> 
> But now, C cassettes too?  If it is not a troll then there are some people that live in a world of their own to a very unhealthy degree.  What's next, analog 8 track is better, analog tin cans joined by a string?
> 
> ...


 we've had all the evidence needed decades ago. that myth has been repeatedly and objectively busted. it's not a debate, not a difficult thing to prove, those who keep claiming that vinyl has higher fidelity are wrong. it's as clear and simple as that.


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> Please READ what I wrote ... - I did not say that cassette from 1988 was better - overall - than 192/24.
> 
> What I did say (and heard, confirmed by at least twice younger pair of ears ) was that , whatever the quality remained on that cassette tape, by re-recording it at 192/24 did NOT translate well into PCM.



Should translate just fine. 192/24 PCM has theoretically double the dynamic range and 3-4 times wider frequency range so why wouldn't it translate well?[/QUOTE]


----------



## old tech

71 dB said:


> Should translate just fine. 192/24 PCM has theoretically double the dynamic range and 3-4 times wider frequency range so why wouldn't it translate well?


Exactly.  It goes back to my previous post that a digiphobe comes along and makes, or at least implies, a silly claim that cassette tape is better than 24/192 based on an anecdote.  And it is not even a trustworthy anecdote as it only shows that it was either an extremely incompetent transfer or extreme expectation bias, or just something made up to troll.

I first started digitising my LP collection back in the 1990s, before home PCs with sufficient power and sophisticated software were available.  I used equipment in a local studio associated with a colleague of mine.  I brought my TT and LPs along and we made CDs.   We even went to the trouble of doing double blind tests with other staff around the studio and no-one could pick the difference between our CDs and the LP.  The thing is, if there was a difference we would have investigated it further because technically 16/44 is higher resolution than LP so there should not be any.  Fast forward to today, I do needle drops at home and get the same results and I know many people who acheive the same results.  It is not rocket science,

I also have a large cassette tape collection and a nice 3 head deck. I did a lot of recordings before recordable CDs were available. I rarely, if ever, use it these days because I already have all the music on the tapes in my LPs and CDs.  If anything, the sound quality of cassette tape is closer to the LP than CD - not good enough for me.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 23, 2018)

Descartes was also a founder of the modern theory of sense perception, including sound, breaking away from the Aristotelian school that had held sway for centuries:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/#TheSenPer

*5. Theory of Sense Perception*

As the new “mechanical philosophy” of Descartes and others replaced the Aristotelian physics, the theory of sensory qualities had to undergo substantial change. This was especially true for what came to be known as the secondary qualities (in the terminology of Robert Boyle and John Locke). The secondary qualities include colors, sounds, odors, tastes, and tactile qualities such as hot and cold. The Aristotelians maintained that these qualities exist in objects as “real qualities” that are like instances or samples of the quality as experienced. A red thing possesses the quality red in just the same way it possesses a shape: it simply is red, and we experience that very redness when we see a red object (the “resemblance thesis” as mentioned in Sec. 3.5).

Descartes sought to replace “real qualities” with a mechanistic account of qualities in objects. He rendered light as a property of particles and their motions: it is a “tendency to move” as found in a continuous medium and radiating out from a luminous body. When light strikes an object, the particles that constitute light alter their rotation about their axis. “Spin” is what makes light have one color rather than another. When particles with one or another degree of spin interact with the nerves of the retina, they cause those nerves to jiggle in a certain way. This jiggling is conveyed to the brain where it affects the animal spirits, which in turn affect the mind, causing the mind to experience one or another color, depending on the degree of spin and how it affects the brain. Color in objects is thus that property of their surface that causes light particles to spin in one way or another, and hence to cause one sensation or another. There is nothing else in the surface of an object, as regards color, than a certain surface-shape that induces various spins in particles of light.



Steve999 said:


> In addition we can use Leibniz's and Newton's calculus to analyze the data we obtain to test hypotheses in the field of audio.


----------



## skwoodwiva (Jun 23, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> This is my weapon of choice in cassette tape world : https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/rs-az7.shtml
> 
> You can gogle all day - and you won't be able to find a negative review. Its Aichille's heel is the tape transport - wow & flutter figures could ( and for otherwise superb quality, should ) have been better. Otherwise, I prefer it to any other cassette machine I have heard - that unfortunately excludes Nakamichi Dragon and Eumig FL-1000. None of them featured the playback heads used in RS-AZ 7 - which are also better than any proffessional R2R tape recorder ever got. There was a TEAC prosumer R2R deck equipped with said heads - but it was only spec'd down to 40 Hz. Rs-AZ 6/7 can record and play back 20 Hz at 0 dB VU level with approx - 1 dB @20 Hz. My modded "7" extends that to 15 Hz @ -3dB. These heads also feature greater channel separation than practically any proffessional R2R deck - IIRC around 45 dB across the most important midband. There are reviews and measurements floating online. I could confirm these  claims - using just an oscilloscope and signal generator, could not document it back then.
> 
> ...


Another hunk of evidence in favor of the stance that most posters on SS are simply ignorant of the artifacts and missing data as a result of the acceptance of PCM as mainstream.

The pure DSD method with 2 mikes makes such a stunning contrast to PCM that I never needed any evidence other than my own hearing ability as proof for me.

I have enjoyed all your presentation of these many examples of esoteric and marvelously detailed ”what not”.

Thank you very much for all these deep details  I could never have found on my own. They are very satisfying as an avid audiophile,  I will simply stick with the DSDs as my economical standard.

As maybe my final word here,
If I am any kind of audiophile, I have read many kinds of testimony here that supports my opinion that true audiophiles are rare. Many are indeed here in the main forum and far more experienced and learned than I. 
However, it seems obvious that in concidering a practicing audio engineer In the role as an audiophile leads me to conclude nothing but ”oxymoron”.


----------



## pinnahertz

skwoodwiva said:


> Another hunk of evidence in favor of the stance that most posters on SS are simply ignorant of the artifacts and missing data as a result of the acceptance of PCM as mainstream.
> 
> The pure DSD method with 2 mikes makes such a stunning contrast to PCM that I never needed any evidence other than my own hearing ability as proof for me.


Just pointing out, the above is about as far from Sound Science as anyone can get, on so many levels it's silly.


skwoodwiva said:


> However, it seems obvious that in concidering a practicing audio engineer In the role as an audiophile leads me to conclude nothing but ”oxymoron”.


Well, "oxymoron" would be the wrong term (check the definition), but I think what you're trying to say is you can't be both an audiophile and an audio engineer.  I don't know many (ok, any)audio engineers who identify themselves as audiophiles, or the reverse.  I'm amused by the fact that one depends completely on the other, but not the reverse.  There would be nothing for audiophiles to, well, phile, without engineers making recordings.  But engineers exist quite happily without much concern for the audiophile.

The reason you won't find many engineers who claim to be audiophiles is that to be a successful engineer you must actually understand physics, electronics, acoustics, hearing, and information theory.  To be an audiophile you must ignore physics, electronics, acoustics, hearing and information theory.  Yup, those two aren't going to mix well. In discussions between the two, it inevitably gets down to the engineer saying, It's science" and the audiophile claiming "Science is (wrong, inadequate, incomplete) and cannot possibly explain everything we hear!"  These are mutually exclusive belief systems.  And scientific testing, ABX testing, heck ANY testing is out!  And that's because it just might throw a bucket of ice water on a beloved belief.  

It's also odd that, thinking of Engineers and Audiophiles, one is just a few people making recordings that are consumed and enjoyed by millions, the other leads to the expenditure of millions to enjoy just a few recordings (the hate most of the recordings made today, right?).  Though I really believe that audiophiles get some sick pleasure out of taking shots and the very technology that makes their passion possible.  For if not for the main stream, there would be no audiophile either, as there would be in gateway drug to get started, no mass market to sustain products, and thus no audiophiles.  You guys owe your opposition a bit of gratitude even if you hate the tools and records.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 24, 2018)

I'm sitting here thinking (not always a good thing) while I listen to some really nice music (always a good thing).

The title to this thread is really loaded, and it limits the scope of what we talk about.

Maybe something like "Testing Audio Claims and Hypotheses" would be a better title. Otherwise we are just showing "audiophiles" (and I do think you could have a rational audiophile, by the way) the door over and over again, and begging for an argument. We could be broader in scope and more innovative. The first post covers the standard-issue disputes between the subjectivist and objectivist camps. These standard arguments over many many years are very tired and worn ground. We stand largely in opposition to the general subjectivist tilt of head-fi. I'm all for that. But we need other things to do.



pinnahertz said:


> Just pointing out, the above is about as far from Sound Science as anyone can get, on so many levels it's silly.
> 
> Well, "oxymoron" would be the wrong term (check the definition), but I think what you're trying to say is you can't be both an audiophile and an audio engineer.  I don't know many (ok, any)audio engineers who identify themselves as audiophiles, or the reverse.  I'm amused by the fact that one depends completely on the other, but not the reverse.  There would be nothing for audiophiles to, well, phile, without engineers making recordings.  But engineers exist quite happily without much concern for the audiophile.
> 
> ...


----------



## old tech

skwoodwiva said:


> Another hunk of evidence in favor of the stance that most posters on SS are simply ignorant of the artifacts and missing data as a result of the acceptance of PCM as mainstream.
> 
> The pure DSD method with 2 mikes makes such a stunning contrast to PCM that I never needed any evidence other than my own hearing ability as proof for me.
> 
> ...


Right, so end listener is more skilled than the guy or gal that produced it?  That is almost as daft as pretending to know more about PCM than its inventors, or those that understand the math and implementation.  The reason why most producers and engineers don't think themselves as audiophiles is because that term has been sullied by audiophools - you know, the ones that believe less fidelity is more, that they know more about the subject than the real scientists and engineers that deliver the music and design playback equipment, substitute mostly mis-informed opinions and pseudo-science as facts and evidence. It is a it like expecting an astronomists to associate with astrologists or medical practitioners with homoeopaths.

The real question is why would you still post here? I mean there are other forums like Steve Hoffman that welcome audio woo.


----------



## skwoodwiva

I am here for A.S. I do not post much in SS anymore

 Now that Amirm is fed up and gone. I am following AS and a few more.
Will review the DAP and fini up my wire thread as well as acquire a good DSD player.

If Sony could not change commercial recording what can anyone do. It is all the bottom line.
The masses love PCM , CD or less.
There are tons of DSDs for free


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> Should translate just fine. 192/24 PCM has theoretically double the dynamic range and 3-4 times wider frequency range so why wouldn't it translate well?


[/QUOTE]

You got that RIGHT - boy, did you get this one right. Correct.

Theorethically.

Theorethically.Should.Translate.Just.Fine. 

And I have been expecting just that. That does NOT necessary mean it will be so in a real world practical case.

Sometimes, the higher eduacted people one has to deal with, the more down to earth means od delivering the message have to be used - IF the meassage is to sucessfully penetrate their "scientific- peer approved" position - which, in a perfect world, with perfect everything, would be perfectly adequate and irrefutably correct. 

Trouble is - there is NO such thing as perfect.

I do have an anecdote about  the "difference between theorhetical and real" - in the best tradition of Radio Yerevan  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan_jokes
that can - and DOES, tried and proven - penetrate the mind of even the most rabid scientific theorheticitian . Trouble is, it is against the policy of Head-fi.org .  

Question for our subforum moderator @castleofargh : Would it be appropiate for me to send you the anecdote in question via PM  and you can then send it to any member that asks you for it ?
I think ( to think is to know nothing in Slovenian ) - NO, I am CERTAIN  that the knowledge/common sense gained from this anecdote  would help this thread towards far less "back and forth" bickering between the two camps - and more co-operation and learning - in BOTH directions - for the benefit of 


                                                                                                                                             MUSIC


----------



## castleofargh

skwoodwiva said:


> Another hunk of evidence in favor of the stance that most posters on SS are simply ignorant of the artifacts and missing data as a result of the acceptance of PCM as mainstream.
> 
> The pure DSD method with 2 mikes makes such a stunning contrast to PCM that I never needed any evidence other than my own hearing ability as proof for me.
> 
> ...


no wonder you like his posts. what you both do is mix all the unrelated stuff you like together and consider you liking them as evidence of similitude and superior fidelity. if I like pizza and licking rocks, but I don't like salmon, have I demonstrated that rocks are superior food? 
when you guys associate DSD with tapes and vinyl, then put that team against CD, it makes just as little sense to me. first, they couldn't have less in common, whatever marketing you saw about DSD being close to analog really got you good. second, your personal preferences are not how you measure fidelity! never was, never will be.
enjoy what you enjoy, praise what you like for being what you like instead of claiming objective superiority you haven't and cannot demonstrate. this need to disguise anything you guys like as objectively superior, I don't know if it's motivated by your own insecurity? or maybe a form of sunk-cost fallacy where after years of investing in analog gears, you just can't stop to agree that they're now inferior techs? but your behavior and "arguments" are those of fanaticism, not those of men who give a crap about science and facts.


----------



## castleofargh (Jun 24, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> You got that RIGHT - boy, did you get this one right. Correct.
> 
> Theorethically.
> 
> ...


if your material goes against the rules, don't post it. but sure you can PM a member to provide something he requested. I fear that an anecdote is never going to be more than that to the parties of interest, but you can try and see.


----------



## castleofargh

Steve999 said:


> I'm sitting here thinking (not always a good thing) while I listen to some really nice music (always a good thing).
> 
> The title to this thread is really loaded, and it limits the scope of what we talk about.
> 
> Maybe something like "Testing Audio Claims and Hypotheses" would be a better title. Otherwise we are just showing "audiophiles" (and I do think you could have a rational audiophile, by the way) the door over and over again, and begging for an argument. We could be broader in scope and more innovative. The first post covers the standard-issue disputes between the subjectivist and objectivist camps. These standard arguments over many many years are very tired and worn ground. We stand largely in opposition to the general subjectivist tilt of head-fi. I'm all for that. But we need other things to do.


don't worry, those who take objective and subjective as if they were political parties, have already all the biases they can muster about the entire section.


----------



## analogsurviver

[QUOTE="pinnahertz, post: 14321208, member: 447

 You guys owe your opposition a bit of gratitude even if you hate the tools and records.[/QUOTE]

Yes, we do. 

With the very same remark as audiophile analog record users have to be grateful to their vinyl DJ counterparts - who actually kept enough demand for records in order for the record mastering facilities and vinyl press facilities to survive the digital onslaught.

Or like classical and jazz musicians owe gratitude to Madonnas, Beyonces, Lady Ga Gas  etc of this world - because record companies can only trough mega sales of poular music recording afford the luxury of actually losing money ( at least initially/short term ) on some lavish new classical recordings. True, pop music expiration date ( and mega sale period ) is as short as possible, but record labels can not survive on low volume/constant troughout years/decades  sales of classical. They can't receive payment for recordings sold after they went belly up ...

And what that remark is - in analogue record vs vinyls world ? Well, the styli for audiophile use and DJ use have in common only two things - they are made to play the same media and they can be - in many cases - used with the very same cartridge. There, all similarities end. An audiophile stylus would be a minimum possible mass affair, designed to track superbly at a minimum reasonable tracking force, with a relatively high compliance, with a stylus tip profile that would allow for perfect signal retrieval of even the highest frequencies that can be put on analogue record even at the innermost record grooves, all resulting in a minimal possible record wear - while being utterly incapable of back cueing / scratching . A DJ "needle" has to withstand back cueing / scratching, for that it has got to have low compliance, accompanied by a MUCH more robust cantilever, to which most usually a bushed (more mass than naked ) stylus is mounted, with almostnever any stylus tip profile better than elliptical, tracking at high tracking force, with frequency response sometimes not extended even to 20 kHz - and wearing the records FAST .
And most - but not all - proffesionals with analogue records tend to use cartridge/styli closer to DJ than to audiophile version. Radios even closer to DJ version.

Similar analogies ( far too numerous to list thewm all here ) apply in
Sound Science PCM ( and particularly RBCD ) "MINIMUM COMMON DENOMINATOR"  principle vs audiophile analogue whatever & HR ( and particularly DSD ) .

I cringe whenever I hear or read " IN A STUDIO" . For a reason. 

Beacause, except in those very few exceptions confirming the rule, "in a studio" is almost a guarantee for a sub-standard sound quality.


----------



## old tech (Jun 24, 2018)

You got that RIGHT - boy, did you get this one right. Correct.

Theorethically.

Theorethically.Should.Translate.Just.Fine.

And I have been expecting just that. That does NOT necessary mean it will be so in a real world practical case.

Sometimes, the higher eduacted people one has to deal with, the more down to earth means od delivering the message have to be used - IF the meassage is to sucessfully penetrate their "scientific- peer approved" position - which, in a perfect world, with perfect everything, would be perfectly adequate and irrefutably correct.

Trouble is - there is NO such thing as perfect.

I do have an anecdote about  the "difference between theorhetical and real" - in the best tradition of Radio Yerevan  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan_jokes
that can - and DOES, tried and proven - penetrate the mind of even the most rabid scientific theorheticitian . Trouble is, it is against the policy of Head-fi.org .[/QUOTE]

Question for you AS, seriously.  Don't you ever wonder why is it that you cannot get perfect or even excellent results when transferring vinyl or cassette tape to 16/44 or even 24/192?  Are you not curious given a/ in both cases you are going from a lower resolution to a higher one so while there will be no improvement it should not result in any degradation (bit like transferring analog vhs to digital dvd)?  Even if your beliefs that measurements lie or whatever, and so answer no to a/ are you not even the slightest bit curious how so many others are able to achieve a perfect transfer consistent with the measurements and validated through double blind tests?


----------



## bfreedma (Jun 24, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> You got that RIGHT - boy, did you get this one right. Correct.
> 
> Theorethically.
> 
> ...



Theoretically, you should realize the most rational reason for the difference in the two items in question is the failure of the person who made the transfer to do it correctly.  Likely a PEBKAC problem.

Theoretically, you should know by now that your continued failure to produce evidence of your claims over the years doesn't lead many to believe your claims.  At all.  Where is the evidence?  Either post it or explains the specifics of your situation that prevent you from using the multitude of storage options offered on the internet when you seem to be able to Google, get to sites located from your searching, and post here without issue.

Theoretically, this repeated word salad model of posting should be done with.

I do some work with advanced chatbots - I'm starting to wonder....


----------



## castleofargh

you guys need to remove the extra [/QUOTE] at the end of @analogsurviver's first line


----------



## 71 dB (Jun 24, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> You got that RIGHT - boy, did you get this one right. Correct.
> 
> Theorethically.
> 
> ...


Theorethically you should hear that digitazed analog recordings sound the same, but you don't because of bias and placebo.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 24, 2018)

old tech said:


> You got that RIGHT - boy, did you get this one right. Correct.
> 
> Theorethically.
> 
> ...



Question for you AS, seriously.  Don't you ever wonder why is it that you cannot get perfect or even excellent results when transferring vinyl or cassette tape to 16/44 or even 24/192?  Are you not curious given a/ in both cases you are going from a lower resolution to a higher one so while there will be no improvement it should not result in any degradation (bit like transferring analog vhs to digital dvd)?  Even if your beliefs that measurements lie or whatever, and so answer no to a/ are you not even the slightest bit curious how so many others are able to achieve a perfect transfer consistent with the measurements and validated through double blind tests?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am seriously aware of all you have stated.

Curiously, you mention analog vhs transferto digital dvd. I am not a videophile, I have cancelled TV completely over a decade ago - yet, last time I did check the "pancake" TV s ( plasma, LED, whatever ) some say 5 years ago, it was ONLY  the highest of high end models that did not bother me in a casual viewing test - just looking at picture of say a footbal match - or any other sport not practicing how much time one can be perfectly still. Likewise, a good S-VHS tape played on a GOOD
( that means modified TOTL ... - there never were such units available for sale, made possible only some 2 decades - or more, up to present time - after these units originally appeared on the market; only after electronic components of sufficint quality became available )
S-VHS player/recorder gives - to me - a better picture quality than most DVD players.

And, judging by your reply ( absolutely nothing wrong with it, it is perfectly in line with the current state of science and acceptance of pratices in the industry ) , you really should hear that anecdote...


----------



## bfreedma (Jun 24, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Question for you AS, seriously.  Don't you ever wonder why is it that you cannot get perfect or even excellent results when transferring vinyl or cassette tape to 16/44 or even 24/192?  Are you not curious given a/ in both cases you are going from a lower resolution to a higher one so while there will be no improvement it should not result in any degradation (bit like transferring analog vhs to digital dvd)?  Even if your beliefs that measurements lie or whatever, and so answer no to a/ are you not even the slightest bit curious how so many others are able to achieve a perfect transfer consistent with the measurements and validated through double blind tests?
> 
> Yes, I am seriously aware of all you have stated.
> 
> ...




Yet another claim that a hugely expensive and unobtainable device is better than some cheap consumer electronics.  Even if you were correct, how is this meaningful to video reproduction, let alone audio reproduction?

I find it interesting that you make these long convoluted posts yet won’t answer what’s preventing you from posting the “proofs” you claim to have to the internet.  If you can’t answer the question, then I can only assume you’re using it as an excuse and that the data you claim to have doesn’t exist.  So humor me - what are the specific technical, political, or domain knowledge issue(s) preventing you from posting them?  I’d be happy to help you resolve the problem if you actually have one.

Edit.  And for everyone’s benefit, learn how to reply correctly so I don’t have to edit responses because you can’t use the quote feature correctly.


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> Theorethically you should hear that digitazed analog recordings sound the same, but you don't because of bias and placebo.



Theorethically. But that has - so far - never been the case. Not even with DSD128. And I would have LOVED it if it was bias or placebo. In the mid/late 70s, I was a teenager and could not afford nearly as many direct to disc analogue records that were current then as I have wished; now, with the most desirable new/sealed or mint copies pushing a grand, it boils down to the same thing.

The reason(s) lie elsewhere.


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> S-VHS player/recorder gives - to me - a better picture quality than most DVD players.



I had an S-VHS player years ago and it certainly did not give_ better_ picture quality than what DVD is capable of (I have seen abyssmal DVDs such as Spielberg's "1941" in my life but that's because the sourse material has been really really bad). Not even closely! Anyway, we are a decade beyond "DVD-era" and people interested of picture quality use Blu-ray or/and 4K ultra HD Blu-ray.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 24, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Question for you AS, seriously.  Don't you ever wonder why is it that you cannot get perfect or even excellent results when transferring vinyl or cassette tape to 16/44 or even 24/192?  Are you not curious given a/ in both cases you are going from a lower resolution to a higher one so while there will be no improvement it should not result in any degradation (bit like transferring analog vhs to digital dvd)?  Even if your beliefs that measurements lie or whatever, and so answer no to a/ are you not even the slightest bit curious how so many others are able to achieve a perfect transfer consistent with the measurements and validated through double blind tests?
> 
> Yes, I am seriously aware of all you have stated.
> 
> ...




"_yet, last time I did check the "pancake" TV s 
( plasma, LED, whatever ) some say 5 years ago, 
it was ONLY the highest of high end models that did 
not bother me in a casual viewing test - just looking 
at picture of say a footbal match _"

Where did you view the ones that you did - in a store or at someone's house?  And were those displays calibrated, or at least taken out of 'Shop' mode or had their user settings adjusted to reasonable levels?


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> Yet another claim that a hugely expensive and unobtainable device is better than some cheap consumer electronics.  Even if you were correct, how is this meaningful to video reproduction, let alone audio reproduction?
> 
> I find it interesting that you make these long convoluted posts yet won’t answer what’s preventing you from posting the “proofs” you claim to have to the internet.  If you can’t answer the question, then I can only assume you’re using it as an excuse and that the data you claim to have doesn’t exist.  So humor me - what are the specific technical, political, or domain knowledge issue(s) preventing you from posting them?  I’d be happy to help you resolve the problem if you actually have one.
> 
> Edit.  And for everyone’s benefit, learn how to reply correctly so I don’t have to edit responses because you can’t use the quote feature correctly.



THAT is the core of it all. Because, like in cycling where light/durable/cheap can not exist at the same time in the same product ( but can in any combination of just two preperties ), you can not have some cheap consumer electronics AND quality. I am NOT delihted by this fact - but, it is, unfortunately, true. Video is perhaps even more illuminating than audio - because any person with reasonable eyesight would describe a picture relatively similar to other person, whereas in sound we do tend towards hearing subjectively different things than objectively presented.


TheSonicTruth said:


> "_yet, last time I did check the "pancake" TV s
> ( plasma, LED, whatever ) some say 5 years ago,
> it was ONLY the highest of high end models that did
> not bother me in a casual viewing test - just looking
> ...



This was in the official Sony distributor shop that since then moved to another location. How or in which mode - or not - were the TVs calibrated or whether the  user settings have been adjusted to reasonable levels I do not have the foggiest; I used to frequent that store in about half year period solely  because I have been using Sony's best Mini Disc ( full  RBCD ) to record some concerts where it has not been  either practical or worth carrying the S-VHS and/or CD-R recorder - some 100:1 difference in bulk. And 1GB Mini Discs were ONLY available in official Sony stores. That TV test was made more AS an afterthought/curiosity only - I was NOT in the market. If I were, you can bet I would be checking what is going on at the time, would try to check the reviews, would insist on properly set TVs, etc, etc. As it was, it is about the same type quality of observation as RBCD CD camp saying analog record is bad - without probably ever hearing what it can do under optimum conditions. Except that TV "test" has been carried on a whim and lasted for - maybe - 20 minutes.

OK, now I will have to turn into "submarine" till the end of month. First, today I will try to get the turntable with that HF cart going as it should be going. TBH, I should have used linear tracking arm ( I do know - from experience - that the stylus in question prefers, by not a small margin, linear arms ) - but both of my Eminent Technology ET2 armwands are "occupied" by another cartridges - and setting them both up to the same level if dimounted is approx 4 days work - each (ouch...) . That is too much just for the measurement(s) to be taken.

Then I have a very important recording on 27th - with, to me, even more important rehearsal the day before. I have to check and prepare the equipment - as it will be all out effort. And most likely another recording on 29th - again, rehearsal the day before.

Here, the shortest crash dive video I could find :


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> THAT is the core of it all. Because, like in cycling where light/durable/cheap can not exist at the same time in the same product ( but can in any combination of just two preperties ), you can not have some cheap consumer electronics AND quality. I am NOT delihted by this fact - but, it is, unfortunately, true. Video is perhaps even more illuminating than audio - because any person with reasonable eyesight would describe a picture relatively similar to other person, whereas in sound we do tend towards hearing subjectively different things than objectively presented.
> 
> 
> This was in the official Sony distributor shop that since then moved to another location. How or in which mode - or not - were the TVs calibrated or whether the  user settings have been adjusted to reasonable levels I do not have the foggiest; I used to frequent that store in about half year period solely  because I have been using Sony's best Mini Disc ( full  RBCD ) to record some concerts where it has not been  either practical or worth carrying the S-VHS and/or CD-R recorder - some 100:1 difference in bulk. And 1GB Mini Discs were ONLY available in official Sony stores. That TV test was made more AS an afterthought/curiosity only - I was NOT in the market. If I were, you can bet I would be checking what is going on at the time, would try to check the reviews, would insist on properly set TVs, etc, etc. As it was, it is about the same type quality of observation as RBCD CD camp saying analog record is bad - without probably ever hearing what it can do under optimum conditions. Except that TV "test" has been carried on a whim and lasted for - maybe - 20 minutes.
> ...





You misunderstood my post. DVD and Blu Ray players are cheap, available, reasonably durable, and outperform s-vhs for the vast majority of applications.  And that’s without beginning to discuss the long term stability of tape vs. disc based storage.

That you made a definitive statement comparing two video formats when you have no idea how the various displays you viewed them on were calibrated borders on comical.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Curiously, you mention analog vhs transferto digital dvd. I am not a videophile, I have cancelled TV completely over a decade ago - yet, last time I did check the "pancake" TV s ( plasma, LED, whatever ) some say 5 years ago, it was ONLY  the highest of high end models that did not bother me in a casual viewing test - just looking at picture of say a footbal match - or any other sport not practicing how much time one can be perfectly still.


You ave judged  ALL modern TVs based on one demonstration of one with an inferior source signal!  A huge part of making HD video work is compression, and like all forms of bit-rate reduction, lossy compression, there are many methods, data rates, and widely varying results. And TVs all vary in their ability to decode and process compressed video.  Sony, even of 5 years ago, should have been excellent.  But demo material is critical, and from your description, what you were watching was like trying to audition an audio system with a low-rate mp3.


analogsurviver said:


> Likewise, a good S-VHS tape played on a GOOD
> ( that means modified TOTL ... - there never were such units available for sale, made possible only some 2 decades - or more, up to present time - after these units originally appeared on the market; only after electronic components of sufficint quality became available )
> S-VHS player/recorder gives - to me - a better picture quality than most DVD players.


You are a riot!  Good thing you've never auditioned a wire recorder! Audio on a high-speed steel wire?  You'd LOVE it!

Seriously? There is no possible way S-VHS, modified (making it invalid for comparison of formats, BTW), or not, can beat a well-mastered DVD played through an up-converter (standard now) to an HD TV.  And who cares anyway?  We're WAY past DVD, and well into resolution that exceeds film with new high-efficiency codes.  The only way you could possibly think the above statement is true is to not have seen the right valid demonstration.  S-VHS is noisy, low bandwidth, limited to 480i, and loaded with time-base errors.  DVD, raw, is 480p (720x480), has no time-base errors, has variable bit-rate as needed, and because it's a fixed pixel format can be up-converted to a much larger frame with surprising improvements.  And that's the old, outdated DVD...as I said, we've moved on.

But, you need to understand technology like the DVD.  Compression on DVD is variable, depending on content.  And the degree to which the total maximum and minimum bit-rate is adjusted is highly variable.  You can master a DVD at 10.5 Mbp/s fixed, or you can set the maximum lower and make it automatically varied using two-pass (analysis/compression) AND drop in manual cues for the compressor to open up for critical high-motion sections. Early DVD authoring (think mastering)ignored much of this, and there are many bad examples, but they don't define the formation.

Again, all of that is about the DVD, and we've moved on.  The same principles apply, but now with Blu-ray we have data rates up to 30Mbp/s, highly efficient codecs that can deliver 3840×2160 at 60p in a 16:9 frame.  And we have moved on past that with files-based video.

But you're welcome to stick with VHS.  It is, after all, analog.


analogsurviver said:


> And, judging by your reply ( absolutely nothing wrong with it, it is perfectly in line with the current state of science and acceptance of pratices in the industry ) , you really should hear that anecdote...


Please, spare us any more anecdotes.  The will convince no one in SS.

Seriously, get your hands on a wire recorder.  Modify it.  Hey, get two and lock them together for stereo, and edit by tying knots!  And dub the result to a 45/45 wax cylinder.  It'll take some modification to do that, but then you'll have a stereo wax cylinder, all analog, mastered without tape, that nobody else can play...or would want to.


----------



## castleofargh

now VHS is also a superior media?
and watching the old tube telly was superior to watching modern TV too? talk about selective memory and old stuff fanaticism.
I need to call bull man for help


@analogsurviver, I think I've got it. forget about ultrasonic content sounding better, you don't know how to prove it most likely because you're wrong. forget about some false preconceptions on analog when in effect the output of a digital system is usually much better clocked than analog media played back.
no instead I have the true common denominator for the stuff you prefer and find superior. they all have a crippling amounts of noise. you weren't mad and you do probably hear the difference. it just was noise all along. mystery solved, you love noise. what do you think of my hypothesis? for DSD I'm guessing you found a way for all the noise shaping and filtering to fail on your system. or maybe just knowing that the original signal has only 1bit is enough to make your heart race thinking about all that quantification noise so the sound feel good? IDK. 
I'm not joking. doesn't this seem more rational than most of the stuff you say to justify the superiority of ultrasounds, vinyls, VHS, old CRTs, and soon, IDK, horse carriages? nothing would surprise me at this point.


----------



## Steve999

*Descartes promoted the development of a new science grounded in observation and experiment. . . Applying an original system of methodical doubt, he dismissed apparent knowledge derived from authority, the senses, and reason. . . *

René Descartes, (born March 31, 1596, La Haye, Touraine, France—died February 11, 1650, Stockholm, Sweden), French mathematician, scientist, and philosopher. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/340123941/Generalitati-Despre-Descartes




Steve999 said:


> Descartes was also a founder of the modern theory of sense perception, including sound, breaking away from the Aristotelian school that had held sway for centuries:
> 
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/#TheSenPer
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 24, 2018)

[




castleofargh said:


> now VHS is also a superior media?
> and watching the old tube telly was superior to watching modern TV too? talk about selective memory and old stuff fanaticism.
> I need to call Bull**** man for help
> 
> ...




Just at periscope depth - and What A Language ...



Noise is not such a lovable creature after all . It gives a false impression of acoustic space, among other things. Not good.  The only REALLY quiet recording (noise free) I have made was DSD128 converted to 192/32 float - but most commercially available DACs can not play this format back.

BTW - why do you think I am looking forward to DSD256 - or even higher - if not for getting the quantization noise down enough - say NEVER above -100dB , from very low (say 10 Hz) up to whatever the bandwidth the digital is limited to, but not lesss than 100kHz dead flat and some reasonable gentle rollof above ?

Proving the superiority of > 20 kHz is easy - IF you use wideband equipment - from the recording microphone through all locks and lambdas trough to the final transducer.. For the more enerpreneurish, that can be had even using bluetooth headphones. I do have such a thing - and the difference it makes on the face of every listener I have ever let him/her try it is always astonishment and positive surprise. My horse carriages travel in time - picking (mostly) the best each epoch has to offer.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Noise is not such a lovable creature after all . It gives a false impression of acoustic space, among other things. Not good.  The only REALLY quiet recording (noise free) I have made was DSD128 converted to 192/32 float - but most commercially available DACs can not play this format back.


Just a basic question or two....
1. What have you done about thermal noise, which is higher than 32bits, higher than 24 bits...etc.  Especially in a microphone.
2. What have you done about room noise?  Are you recording in the Microsoft "Quietest Room On Earth" in Redmond?  It's barely quiet enough for 24 bits, not even close to 32 bits.
3. Either you're playing this stuff back at Microsoft, or you've suffered irreversible hearing damage by increasing the maximum SPL to somewhere above the theoretical maximum SPL that air can transmit without distortion caused by air itself, and you're stone deaf.  Where are you playing your mythical recordings?
4. What nice musical sounding microphones are you using that have flat response to 100kHz and noise below molecular/thermal noise?  
5. Would you mind reducing your verbal noise to somewhere below average? (That means cease and desist). 


analogsurviver said:


> BTW - why do you think I am looking forward to DSD256 - or even higher - if not for getting the quantization noise down enough - say NEVER above -100dB , from very low (say 10 Hz) up to whatever the bandwidth the digital is limited to, but not lesss than 100kHz dead flat and some reasonable gentle rollof above ?


Oh I do have an answer for that!!!!


analogsurviver said:


> Proving the superiority of > 20 kHz is easy -


The one thing you have proven, beyond a doubt, is that it is *not* easy to prove superiority of > 20kHz, because you haven't proven it in 5 weeks of nonsense posting.  Not one tiny shred of evidence, nothing but wild and unsubstantiated statements that are opinions stated as fact without proof.  You have zero credibility.  It's all up from here, but you don't post proof even after dozens for reminders, requests and demands.  

You have nothing here but myth, and tons of it at that.


----------



## KeithEmo

The original marketing for SACDs (DSD) WAS in fact very good.

They showed a picture of a sine wave.
Next to it they showed a PCM signal - which, to the human eye, looks like a more or less random digital signal.
Next to that they showed the DSD version.
On the DSD version you could "see the shape of the sine wave in the pulses" (you can see that the pulses get closer together and further apart as the voltage goes up and down).
Therefore, clearly, even though both are digital, the PCM signal looked like random digital data, while the DSD version "looked sort of like the analog signal if you squint" - so "the DSD signal is more like analog"  

They actually ran ads and printed brochures with those pictures - and that justification for "why DSD was more like analog".

Also, to be fair, I've heard several cases where the Red Book CD layer and the DSD layer on a hybrid SACD sounded different...
And where the DSD layer sounded "smoother" - presumably because it was mastered "to sound more like audiophiles like".
(And, no, whenever I've converted from one to the other myself, in either direction, I've never noticed that sort of difference.)

I've also suspected that the main reason that MANY SACDs sound cleaner is simply because DSD is almost impossible to edit - and extremely difficult to mix.
(Until recently there were only one or two products capable of mixing DSD audio without converting to PCM.... and most current ones still involve an internal conversion of sorts.)
Therefore, most direct DSD recordings, and most SACDs, are the equivalent of "direct to disc recordings" - and lack most of the complicated, and often unfortunate, editing and effects that are almost always applied to PCM recordings.
And, likewise, almost all older SACD versions of pop and rock albums were converted to DSD after being mixed and mastered in analog.
As a result, the majority of DSD recordings are much simpler, or were actually recorded and mixed in analog rather than DSD, and many do in fact sound very good.




castleofargh said:


> no wonder you like his posts. what you both do is mix all the unrelated stuff you like together and consider you liking them as evidence of similitude and superior fidelity. if I like pizza and licking rocks, but I don't like salmon, have I demonstrated that rocks are superior food?
> when you guys associate DSD with tapes and vinyl, then put that team against CD, it makes just as little sense to me. first, they couldn't have less in common, whatever marketing you saw about DSD being close to analog really got you good. second, your personal preferences are not how you measure fidelity! never was, never will be.
> enjoy what you enjoy, praise what you like for being what you like instead of claiming objective superiority you haven't and cannot demonstrate. this need to disguise anything you guys like as objectively superior, I don't know if it's motivated by your own insecurity? or maybe a form of sunk-cost fallacy where after years of investing in analog gears, you just can't stop to agree that they're now inferior techs? but your behavior and "arguments" are those of fanaticism, not those of men who give a crap about science and facts.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 25, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> The title to this thread is really loaded, and it limits the scope of what we talk about.



No it doesn't. The loudest people in this thread aren't talking about testing to prove or disprove myths at all. Have you read the first post in this thread all the way through yet? That's the context, not the ridiculous comments.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

71 dB said:


> I had an S-VHS player years ago and it certainly did not give_ better_ picture quality than what DVD is capable of (I have seen abyssmal DVDs such as Spielberg's "1941" in my life but that's because the sourse material has been really really bad). Not even closely! Anyway, we are a decade beyond "DVD-era" and people interested of picture quality use Blu-ray or/and 4K ultra HD Blu-ray.


Yep vhs wasn't even the best format of that time period....sony wouldn't licence beta video to other companies...it killed the format.....tv, news ect continued to use beta because it was clearly superior......sony didn't make the same mistake twice...


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 25, 2018)

bigshot said:


> No it doesn't. The loudest people in this thread aren't talking about testing to prove or disprove myths at all. Have you read the first post in this thread all the way through yet? That's the context, not the ridiculous comments.[/SIZE]



I did actually! It's great! And you'll find few people more skeptical of unsubstantiated audio claims than I am. But it seems to me that the idea that we are going to "test myths" has a kind of built-in bias. Now actually it says we are testing audiophile claims and myths, which has a little more balance to it, but still we are saying, hey you, audiophile, you're on the spot. I just think the idea that we are testing _audio _claims and myths, or even better, _audio claims and hypotheses,_ would be less loaded and a broader and richer subject matter. That's all. The great majority of the stuff that gets tossed around after the first post in this thread is thoroughly addressed in the first post and was generally debunked 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. It's tired and worn territory. And then we go into yet other stuff that is even more off the wall with no testing at all.

I agree the loudest people in this thread are way OT. They are making some really wild and untrue audio claims, addressed in the initial post, which I believe are pretty much settled subjects, but not testing them, or somehow managing to go even further afield than that, into video etc. etc. If they were testing their unusual claims to a degree where I might think, now wait a minute, he's got something there, I would get it. A lot of times that's how progress is made, even if it doesn't end up hitting the mark on the first try or in the end.


----------



## bigshot

Isn't a myth an untrue claim that keeps getting raised over and over again, even when it's pretty much a settled subject? We've got some myth propagation right here. I've said it before... I think the reason this thread is the lightning rod is because that first post does such a good job of disproving the false claims.


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> Isn't a myth an untrue claim that keeps getting raised over and over again, even when it's pretty much a settled subject? We've got some myth propagation right here. I've said it before... I think the reason this thread is the lightning rod is because that first post does such a good job of disproving the false claims.


That's a very fair point, and it's not really worth quibbling around the edges. And we don't want to leave those things unaddressed when raised. I'll leave it there and let the reader consider both points of view.


----------



## bigshot

I think that perhaps after myths are raised for the umpteenth time by the same person who has been corrected a dozen times, they might better go unadressed.


----------



## KeithEmo

According to various dictionaries there are several slightly different common meanings for the word "myth".

One meaning is "a story or legend which is false".

However, the more common meaning is simply "a widely repeated folk story" or "a widely repeated story based based on unsubstantiated facts".
In other words, a myth is simply something that a lot of people repeat over and over, but barely research in detail.
However, it isn't specifically untrue, and may be true or not, and may or may not be partially based on actual facts or real history.
(For example, the stories of King Arthur are a popular myth - and it is still widely disputed exactly how much basis they have in reality and how much is simply made up.)

So, a myth is something that a lot of people believe, and that gets repeated over and over, _THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE OR BASED ON REAL FACTS_.
So, in the context of this forum, the goal would be to figure out whether a myth is or is not true, and to look for facts that either prove or disprove it, or that provide salient details to go with it.
NOTE that the title of the forum is "TESTING audiophile claims and myths" - and, obviously, you only need to test things if you don't know if they're true or not.
(It is NOT titled "debunking fairy tales and myths that have no basis in reality".)



bigshot said:


> Isn't a myth an untrue claim that keeps getting raised over and over again, even when it's pretty much a settled subject? We've got some myth propagation right here. I've said it before... I think the reason this thread is the lightning rod is because that first post does such a good job of disproving the false claims.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 26, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> The title to this thread is really loaded, and it limits the scope of what we talk about.
> 
> Maybe something like "Testing Audio Claims and Hypotheses" would be a better title. Otherwise we are just showing "audiophiles" (and I do think you could have a rational audiophile, by the way) the door over and over again, and begging for an argument. We could be broader in scope and more innovative. The first post covers the standard-issue disputes between the subjectivist and objectivist camps. These standard arguments over many many years are very tired and worn ground. We stand largely in opposition to the general subjectivist tilt of head-fi. I'm all for that. But we need other things to do.



The whole audio topic is sadly divisive and polarizing.  There shouldn't even be terms like objectivist and subjectivist, since subjective psychological perception of music and sound also obviously requires objective physical sound coming from an objective physical signal chain.  Unfortunately, people tend to simplify things by going to extremes, as happens with politics, religion, etc.  Hence, subjectivists make the mistake of thinking that their perceptions correspond precisely to an objective physical reality, failing to recognize that perceptions are actively filtered and constructed by the mind, and prone to variability and error.  Meanwhile, objectivists make the mistake of largely dismissing perception and overgeneralizing conclusions based on theoretical assumptions and models, and experimental tests which are small in scale, misinterpreted, and conducted under conditions quite different from normal listening.  The oversimplifications, overgeneralizing, and lack of recognition of potential for error pave the way for a lot of dogma and perpetuation of debates that just go in circles, not to mention a not insignificant amount of arrogance and lack of civility.

Since this post is in Sound Science, objectivists will naturally want to pounce on it and argue that the error lies just about entirely with subjectivists and the truth lies just about entirely with them ...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 26, 2018)

I see no point in focusing so hard on tiny exceptions to rules that you totally lose sight of the overall truth of it. That happens a lot around here. Whenever there's one post that is generally true, there are five or ten posts following it discussing extreme situations where it may not work that way. The balance of what is focused on is out of whack. It's like a book with one sentence and 300 pages of footnotes.


----------



## sonitus mirus

The context of it all is centered around folks looking to get the best sound quality for music listening, and predominantly focused on headphone setups, considering the site.  In that respect, there truly are some outrageous claims that make little to no practical sense.  I would hope that for some people reading this thread, it would provide at least a pause for questions before leaping in head first.


----------



## bigshot

That inability to focus on the goal is exactly what makes audiophiles prone to spend too much money on inaudible "improvements" to their systems. Not seeing the forest for the trees seems to be a common trait among all kinds of hifi nuts, even the scientific ones.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> That inability to focus on the goal is exactly what makes audiophiles prone to spend too much money on inaudible "improvements" to their systems. Not seeing the forest for the trees seems to be a common trait among all kinds of hifi nuts, even the scientific ones.



I have to ask you this, considering what you stated above - with which I happen to agree!

Do you feel that what goes on in the recording, mixing, and mastering stages of a project will have a far more audible impact during consumer playback than, for example, uprgrading from standard 16AWG speaker wire to 12AWG 'designer' wire costing ten times more per foot or meter?


----------



## bigshot (Jun 26, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Do you feel that what goes on in the recording, mixing, and mastering stages of a project will have a far more audible impact during consumer playback than, for example, uprgrading from standard 16AWG speaker wire to 12AWG 'designer' wire costing ten times more per foot or meter?



Yes but recording, mixing and mastering are out of the control of a person playing a stereo in their home. A better analogy would be some sort of advice that a consumer could actually use... like the quality of the transducers makes more difference than the quality of amps and DACs, or the balance of the core frequencies are more important to response than whether or not super-audible frequencies are reproduced, or whether on audibly transparent format is better than another one. These are the sorts of things that keep coming up again and again with claims of night and day differences where it's pretty clear that some things are important and other things are so trivial they don't need to be discussed at great length.

There is one truth that is similar to your analogy though... the way to eliminate problems with sound quality is to listen to better music. When you're listening to Caruso, it doesn't matter that it is played with a horn and needle on a wind up phonograph. It's Caruso.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 26, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Yes but recording, mixing and mastering are out of the control of a person playing a stereo in their home. A better analogy would be some sort of advice that a consumer could actually use... like the quality of the transducers makes more difference than the quality of amps and DACs, or the balance of the core frequencies are more important to response than whether or not super-audible frequencies are reproduced, or whether on audibly transparent format is better than another one. These are the sorts of things that keep coming up again and again with claims of night and day differences where it's pretty clear that some things are important and other things are so trivial they don't need to be discussed at great length.
> 
> There is one truth that is similar to your analogy though... the way to eliminate problems with sound quality is to listen to better music. When you're listening to Caruso, it doesn't matter that it is played with a horn and needle on a wind up phonograph. It's Caruso.



Or Rossini!   Barber of Seville and William Tell Overture are two of my favorites.  Scared last night's dinner out of my customers when I jacked Tell into a second hand karaoke machine we had for sale one day and cranked it up! lol

But better is subjective.  I hold Fleetwood Mac's 'Rumours' album(a relatively modern chart topper and Grammy winner) in the same regard as the aforementioned Rossini: they are both great sounding examples of their genres.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think there are several factors that complicate the issue....

First off, a lot of things in the modern world actually are quite complicated, and it's easy to find yourself in a situation where you are inundated by conflicting information. To make matters worse, many folks these days seem to be obsessed with what might reasonably be called "democratization". This simply means that they tend to believe that "what most people say is probably the truth". In short, they've learned to decide what restaurant to visit based on how many positive reviews it's gotten.... and then try to apply the same logic to everything.... which, of course, doesn't always lead to the correct answer when it comes to technical questions. (For example, if you were to try and find out whether speaker cables really sound different using Google, you will find that the majority of people _BELIEVE_ that they do. Which simply proves that, in this case, what the majority believes is not necessarily the truth.) Unfortunately, most people don't understand enough science to have a good chance of being able to tell what makes sense and what doesn't.

The other thing is that many people are frustrated... and we humans don't like to be frustrated. For example, if you buy a new CD, and it sounds awful, most people prefer to hope that it could sound great, if only their system was good enough, rather than to simply accept that it was mastered poorly and there's nothing they can do about it. Therefore, they would RATHER believe that, if they only added the right piece of equipment, everything would sound great, than believe that a lot of modern music is mastered badly and will never sound good. (So, much like someone with an incurable disease really wants to believe that the next bottle of snake oil will work they WANT to believe the wild claims about that next piece of audio equipment.)



bigshot said:


> That inability to focus on the goal is exactly what makes audiophiles prone to spend too much money on inaudible "improvements" to their systems. Not seeing the forest for the trees seems to be a common trait among all kinds of hifi nuts, even the scientific ones.


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes.... but what if you just plain don't_ LIKE_ Caruso....

And all the bands you do like are mastered like they're intended to be played on $5 ear buds?

If you want to listen to Beethoven's Fifth you have lots of options, by many orchestras, and many conductors, and in lots of different formats.
But, if you want to listen to Within Temptation's Dark Symphony, your only options are "the CD or the DVD".
And, with an unfortunate few albums, your only choice is the lossy AAC version on iTunes.

Besides which, to many of us, that wind up phonograph sounds so awful that it just sucks all the enjoyment out of the performance.
(Many of us, including myself, really do find that having to squint through scratched dirty glass really does ruin the beauty of _WHATEVER_ is behind it.)



bigshot said:


> Yes but recording, mixing and mastering are out of the control of a person playing a stereo in their home. A better analogy would be some sort of advice that a consumer could actually use... like the quality of the transducers makes more difference than the quality of amps and DACs, or the balance of the core frequencies are more important to response than whether or not super-audible frequencies are reproduced, or whether on audibly transparent format is better than another one. These are the sorts of things that keep coming up again and again with claims of night and day differences where it's pretty clear that some things are important and other things are so trivial they don't need to be discussed at great length.
> 
> There is one truth that is similar to your analogy though... the way to eliminate problems with sound quality is to listen to better music. When you're listening to Caruso, it doesn't matter that it is played with a horn and needle on a wind up phonograph. It's Caruso.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I think there are several factors that complicate the issue....
> 
> First off, a lot of things in the modern world actually are quite complicated, and it's easy to find yourself in a situation where you are inundated by conflicting information. To make matters worse, many folks these days seem to be obsessed with what might reasonably be called "democratization". This simply means that they tend to believe that "what most people say is probably the truth". In short, they've learned to decide what restaurant to visit based on how many positive reviews it's gotten.... and then try to apply the same logic to everything.... which, of course, doesn't always lead to the correct answer when it comes to technical questions. (For example, if you were to try and find out whether speaker cables really sound different using Google, you will find that the majority of people _BELIEVE_ that they do. Which simply proves that, in this case, what the majority believes is not necessarily the truth.) Unfortunately, most people don't understand enough science to have a good chance of being able to tell what makes sense and what doesn't.
> 
> The other thing is that many people are frustrated... and we humans don't like to be frustrated. For example, if you buy a new CD, and it sounds awful, most people prefer to hope that it could sound great, if only their system was good enough, rather than to simply accept that it was mastered poorly and there's nothing they can do about it. Therefore, they would RATHER believe that, if they only added the right piece of equipment, everything would sound great, than believe that a lot of modern music is mastered badly and will never sound good. (So, much like someone with an incurable disease really wants to believe that the next bottle of snake oil will work they WANT to believe the wild claims about that next piece of audio equipment.)



Making matters even worse, better fidelity combined with a crappy recording/mix can make the music _less_ enjoyable, because the fidelity highlights the crappiness.  IME, there are plenty of cases where lower fidelity can be preferred.  OTOH, some recordings/mixes are really good, and higher fidelity with them can make for a sublime experience.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 26, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> I hold Fleetwood Mac's 'Rumours' album(a relatively modern chart topper and Grammy winner) in the same regard as the aforementioned Rossini: they are both great sounding examples of their genres.



There's great stuff in all genres. By the way, the recent multichannel remasters of FM, Rumours and Tusk are pricey but they sound fantastic. Especially Tusk. That one sounded like a dog's breakfast when it first came out on LPs and the CD release wasn't much better. The new multichannel mix is like listening to a whole new album.



KeithEmo said:


> First off, a lot of things in the modern world actually are quite complicated, and it's easy to find yourself in a situation where you are inundated by conflicting information.



Yeah... general consensus isn't very reliable. What I do is I figure stuff out from myself and pick the brains of people who are smarter and have more experience than I do. I try to just talk about things that I know. That generally solves the problem. When it comes to horse sense about putting together a great sounding audio/video system, I've been doing that for nearly 40 years now, so I know at least enough to offer a useful general tip.



KeithEmo said:


> Yes.... but what if you just plain don't_ LIKE_ Caruso.... And all the bands you do like are mastered like they're intended to be played on $5 ear buds?



That's easy! You ask people who know more than you do about music for recommendations! If your music sounds crappy get better music.



Phronesis said:


> Making matters even worse, better fidelity combined with a crappy recording/mix can make the music _less_ enjoyable, because the fidelity highlights the crappiness.



That's true for headphones, but not necessarily true if you have the right kind of speaker system. My theater setup is like a Swiss army knife. I have tons of DSPs that can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. One example is the notoriously dry Toscanini NBC Symphony recordings. They were made in a radio studio that was too small for the orchestra. The sound is opaque and dry as a bone. Kind of strident too. I just play them through my Vienna Philharmonic concert hall DSP and it sounds almost as good as single miked stereo. It takes all the edge off and the sound blooms in the surrounds. The only thing missing is the definition within the middle of the soundstage since it's mono. I play stuff as old as a hundred years or more on my speakers and they sound fantastic with just about everything.


----------



## bagwell359

I go all the way back to the late 60's when you used zip cord, and nobody talked about interconnects.  I remember when Monster Cable and then AQ came out.  I thought $60 was nuts to retip my Sonus Blue, but two years later laid down $500 for a Fidelity Research MC cart and transformer.  So it seemed like buying fancy mats for your car, your expensive beloved car.  Did I mention while at school and after I sold "high end hi fi"?

I started getting a little more scientific about things when I stopped selling since I couldn't get stuff at 40-50% anymore.  I started to spend money on speakers, carts, tone arms, and ASC tube traps, and yes my ever stable and ever accurately sweet Pass X-150, replacing my Theshold Stasis 3.  Later in the 90's I got into the newsgroup covering this topic.  I can't say I went down to zip cord again but started using belden with high quality connectors.  I don't spend $300 on cables for $500 headphones.  I go balanced.  

I was done with the subjective "emperor has no clothes" camp forever when a dealer selling the epic Verity Parsifal speakers in his home showed me his 3 $5k a pop power cords.  I checked his home wiring, and the run to the transformer.  Next night I brought over 4 5' tall ASC 1/2 traps and 2 corner traps set them up and then did an AB blind with his cords and my belden.  Neither one of us could tell but we both could nail the traps every time.  

Spending money beyond whats needed doesn't  make you cool, or part of an exclusive club.  Means you trusted voodoo/hope over logic.  Hell I have fancy power cords, got them 20 years ago...

It's the music not the bling...


----------



## skwoodwiva

bagwell359 said:


> I go all the way back to the late 60's when you used zip cord, and nobody talked about interconnects.  I remember when Monster Cable and then AQ came out.  I thought $60 was nuts to retip my Sonus Blue, but two years later laid down $500 for a Fidelity Research MC cart and transformer.  So it seemed like buying fancy mats for your car, your expensive beloved car.  Did I mention while at school and after I sold "high end hi fi"?
> 
> I started getting a little more scientific about things when I stopped selling since I couldn't get stuff at 40-50% anymore.  I started to spend money on speakers, carts, tone arms, and ASC tube traps, and yes my ever stable and ever accurately sweet Pass X-150, replacing my Theshold Stasis 3.  Later in the 90's I got into the newsgroup covering this topic.  I can't say I went down to zip cord again but started using belden with high quality connectors.  I don't spend $300 on cables for $500 headphones.  I go balanced.
> 
> ...


What a breath of freshness you bring to this dribble of audiophilism.

The reason I joined is here.
I think you may have this affliction of hearing acuity
https://www.head-fi.org/posts/14143233/


----------



## skwoodwiva

bagwell359 said:


> I go all the way back to the late 60's when you used zip cord, and nobody talked about interconnects.  I remember when Monster Cable and then AQ came out.  I thought $60 was nuts to retip my Sonus Blue, but two years later laid down $500 for a Fidelity Research MC cart and transformer.  So it seemed like buying fancy mats for your car, your expensive beloved car.  Did I mention while at school and after I sold "high end hi fi"?
> 
> I started getting a little more scientific about things when I stopped selling since I couldn't get stuff at 40-50% anymore.  I started to spend money on speakers, carts, tone arms, and ASC tube traps, and yes my ever stable and ever accurately sweet Pass X-150, replacing my Theshold Stasis 3.  Later in the 90's I got into the newsgroup covering this topic.  I can't say I went down to zip cord again but started using belden with high quality connectors.  I don't spend $300 on cables for $500 headphones.  I go balanced.
> 
> ...


Not off topic but this the post I meant
https://www.head-fi.org/posts/14123962/


----------



## TheSonicTruth

An audiophile is more obsessed with how their system sounds when playing music.  A musophile/musicophile is more focused on how the _music itself_  sounds, regardless of what it's played over.

I think I fall into the latter group!


----------



## castleofargh

people can and shall be interested in anything they want. if they take pleasure in having all their gears of the same color, they should do just that. if they take more pleasure in knowing they have good gears than in finding a good album, why not? we're all different and we all have our own priorities. let's not fall into bigotry for a hobby focused on personal pleasure. 
TBH if I believed that placebo was accurately transferable and long lasting, I wouldn't even bother people when I know they're making BS claims. the only reason I act when I strongly believe something is false, is because I don't want plenty of people to read something unchallenged, take it as factual, and go waste money on things that will not deliver and will fail to make them happy.
because my taste and my priorities aren't the same as anybody else, I don't try to force that onto others and only discuss them when it's needed to explain my own views. which is probably why so many people think that I don't care about subjective stuff. I do, it's just that I don't need you guys for that and don't imagine anybody needs me either. instead I believe that reliable information is what we can never have enough of. with correct information, one will always be better armed to make his own decisions. no matter what they are and no matter the underlying motivation. 

and that brings us back to topics like this one. when something isn't clear and many people hold opposing beliefs about a subject, don't side with the guy who's got the bigger mouth, go test the stuff yourself! if your test is crap, don't come back making big universal claims. if your test is methodical, share the results and explain the test, that will have value for everybody else in here.  
in "testing audiophile claims and myths", the important idea is testing. playing philosoraptor over myth and audiophile is less relevant IMO. isn't it obvious that the all value of the first post lies in the testing? the conclusions are his own and they are debatable, but all the blind tests have some interesting information(if only about what could be improved if I was to set up my own). and all of them piled up, they indeed start to show a bigger picture. 
what we need here is more testing, to add to all the rest.


----------



## pinnahertz

TheSonicTruth said:


> An audiophile is more obsessed with how their system sounds when playing music.  A musophile/musicophile is more focused on how the _music itself_  sounds, regardless of what it's played over.
> 
> I think I fall into the latter group!


Sounds about right.  However, and this is where we have a problem here in SS, the Audiophile gets obsessed with something he sees as a "problem" without regard to audibility too.  The link below is a great example:


skwoodwiva said:


> Not off topic but this the post I meant
> https://www.head-fi.org/posts/14123962/


Dielectric absorption is real and measurable, but and audiophile takes the "real" and ignores "measurable" and "audible", and instead considers DA a binary condition that is always bad.  The reality is, DA is always present to some degree but it's contribution to audible distortion is conditional, and typically well below audibility.  The audiophile might say it's always audible unless eliminated with a huge expenditure of capital. 

This kind of distortion of reality translates to obsessions with things that do not matter to the exclusion of things that do, and the general rejection of any scientific explanation of either backed up with unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence, underscored and amplified with passion.  Meanwhile, the goal of Sound Science is to determine what things impact quality,  understand them and bring them under control to the benefit of sound quality.  But to the audiophile it matters not that a speaker cable has a bit of dielectric absorption that might impact a transient at 10mHz, while the listening room has a resonance that hangs on for 150ms shown in impulse response.  The audiophile will spend many hundreds or thousands to further reduce cable DA to a point below the already inaudible while rejecting DSP/FIR-based correction of something definitely audible - because that requires further digital process, which is "always bad".  Just a hypothetical example, but likely quite real, if not universally true.


----------



## skwoodwiva

TheSonicTruth said:


> An audiophile is more obsessed with how their system sounds when playing music.  A musophile/musicophile is more focused on how the _music itself_  sounds, regardless of what it's played over.
> 
> I think I fall into the latter group!


I can and do both modes 
Be a little OC (sans the D mind you) in equipment selection then

enjoy DSD for example.
Once  make some final equipment buys i will enjoy  for a long time my life beyond this enjoyable  obsession  demands it.


----------



## skwoodwiva (Jun 27, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Sounds about right.  However, and this is where we have a problem here in SS, the Audiophile gets obsessed with something he sees as a "problem" without regard to audibility too.  The link below is a great example:
> 
> Dielectric absorption is real and measurable, but and audiophile takes the "real" and ignores "measurable" and "audible", and instead considers DA a binary condition that is always bad.  The reality is, DA is always present to some degree but it's contribution to audible distortion is conditional, and typically well below audibility.  The audiophile might say it's always audible unless eliminated with a huge expenditure of capital.
> 
> This kind of distortion of reality translates to obsessions with things that do not matter to the exclusion of things that do, and the general rejection of any scientific explanation of either backed up with unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence, underscored and amplified with passion.  Meanwhile, the goal of Sound Science is to determine what things impact quality,  understand them and bring them under control to the benefit of sound quality.  But to the audiophile it matters not that a speaker cable has a bit of dielectric absorption that might impact a transient at 10mHz, while the listening room has a resonance that hangs on for 150ms shown in impulse response.  The audiophile will spend many hundreds or thousands to further reduce cable DA to a point below the already inaudible while rejecting DSP/FIR-based correction of something definitely audible - because that requires further digital process, which is "always bad".  Just a hypothetical example, but likely quite real, if not universally true.


No significant  DA in a phono cord?
How about a MC cord?
Come on  man we are talking about the beginning of the 90s wire craze. What about a 25 foot head phone cord  so can listen far from my amp,...

Not to mention a tube pTp wired phono stage there is Dam& little DA 
I could go on and on.


----------



## skwoodwiva (Jun 27, 2018)

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...ter-reference-amplifier-schematic-wanted.html

Nelsen Pass is asking here why lack of DA gets praises from his readers

Post 310 
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pass-labs/153832-pass-delite-amp-baf-post2158774.html


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Y'know I'd like reading this conversation a whole lot more if I know what 'DA' and 'MC' stood for! lol


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> people can and shall be interested in anything they want. if they take pleasure in having all their gears of the same color, they should do just that. if they take more pleasure in knowing they have good gears than in finding a good album, why not? we're all different and we all have our own priorities. let's not fall into bigotry for a hobby focused on personal pleasure.
> TBH if I believed that placebo was accurately transferable and long lasting, I wouldn't even bother people when I know they're making BS claims. the only reason I act when I strongly believe something is false, is because I don't want plenty of people to read something unchallenged, take it as factual, and go waste money on things that will not deliver and will fail to make them happy.
> because my taste and my priorities aren't the same as anybody else, I don't try to force that onto others and only discuss them when it's needed to explain my own views. which is probably why so many people think that I don't care about subjective stuff. I do, it's just that I don't need you guys for that and don't imagine anybody needs me either. instead I believe that reliable information is what we can never have enough of. with correct information, one will always be better armed to make his own decisions. no matter what they are and no matter the underlying motivation.



Another aspect of this which I've observed on head-fi is that, if you make negative comments about a piece of gear in a thread for that gear, some people will get bent out of shape.  Some people seem to come to threads mainly to reinforce their placebo effect, and anything that suggests that placebo effect is only placebo is unwelcome.  So even when it comes to subjective impressions, people can't truly really speak freely.  There may be a positive correlation between the cost of the gear and strength of the reaction against negative comments.


----------



## pinnahertz

skwoodwiva said:


> No significant  DA in a phono cord?
> How about a MC cord?
> Come on  man we are talking about the beginning of the 90s wire craze. What about a 25 foot head phone cord  so can listen far from my amp,...
> 
> ...


And there it is. I’m not going engage a debate in generalities.


----------



## pinnahertz

skwoodwiva said:


> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...ter-reference-amplifier-schematic-wanted.html
> 
> Nelsen Pass is asking here why lack of DA gets praises from his readers
> 
> ...



You’ve cherry-picked an example. I don’t disagree with it but it applies to one specific situation where a transformer is the alternative to a huge capacitor. How about eliminating both? 

Please..,this isn’t what the thread is about.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> You’ve cherry-picked an example. I don’t disagree with it but it applies to one specific situation where a transformer is the alternative to a huge capacitor. How about eliminating both?
> 
> Please..,this isn’t what the thread is about.



How symptomatic... whenever a case with reasonably believable subject ( I did NOT have time to read it now ) against the accepted faith and belief of Sound Science pops up, it gets cherry un-picked...


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Thank you all so kindly for explaining what DA and MC stand for!....





NOT!


----------



## drtechno (Jun 27, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Thank you all so kindly for explaining what DA and MC stand for!....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think they are referring: DA= dielectric absorption,  MC= magnetic coupling. Either way, AC coupling always induces a phase shift near its high frequency and low frequency roll off points. Impedance mismatches in these interconnected circuits will always shift the frequency response (I could go further into explaining this, but I would explain a lot here).  

When a coupling capacitor is always partly charged its dual effect (series inductance) is more present depending on its construction. This is why certain coupling capacitors different characters depending on this working voltage. For example: The wima mkp series, they seem to work best below 50V. In my experience, they  perform very poorly in plate coupling circuits because of the voltage potential.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Thank you all so kindly for explaining what DA and MC stand for!....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_absorption

MC ? Moving Coil ? Musical  Cassette ? Some 3rd ?


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> How symptomatic... whenever a case with reasonably believable subject ( I did NOT have time to read it now ) against the accepted faith and belief of Sound Science pops up, it gets cherry un-picked...


If you bothered to take the time to read my post #8961 you’d have noticed that it was not a dismal of DA (Dielectric Aborption), but rather it highlighted how certain real distortion mechanisms are treated by audiophiles as binary (on/off, good/bad) conditions with little regard for actual audibility.  The cherry-picked example is of one, relatively unique set of conditions where DA was both extreme and audible, and the distortions of a transformer was preferable. Those conditions are not relevant to DA in cable applications, or many others. 

And as you can see we’ve jumped down the rabbit hole.


----------



## pinnahertz

drtechno said:


> I think they are referring: DA= dielectric absorption,  MC= magnetic coupling. Either way, AC coupling always induces a phase shift near its high frequency and low frequency roll off points. Impedance mismatches in these interconnected circuits will always shift the frequency response (I could go further into explaining this, but I would explain a lot here).


Ok, but now please describe how in well designed circuits none of this is an issue.


----------



## drtechno

pinnahertz said:


> Ok, but now please describe how in well designed circuits none of this is an issue.



Ok, when the designer defines the working frequency range for a given operation of impedance voltage level and compensates (if needed) for any changes to the phase of the return current of the signal in the circuit in this operating range and parameters. I see you're thirsty today pennehertz.


----------



## drtechno

since this thread is about 
* Testing audiophile claims and myths*, 
Here is an electronic theory I came up with that should be an electronic law: 
"When an unbalanced signal path, regardless if the unbalanced signal path is an internal circuit or an interconnection between two devices, is altered to a balanced circuit, it will always have up to 40db lower noise than the unbalance circuit or unbalanced connection"  

I still have to prove this mathematically for them to adopt this to an electronic law, but its quite constant every time I compare this.

There you go pennehertz, prove or disprove this. (I can feel you need a challenge like this)


----------



## KeithEmo

All cables have some capacitance.... even two separate strands, spaced a foot apart, have some capacitance - but only a very tiny amount.
For example, there is a tiny, but carefully specified capacitance per-foot for 300 Ohm TV antenna wire. 
Likewise, all coaxial cable has capacitance, and it varies widely between different cables.
Likewise, all circuits have an output impedance.
What happens is that the output impedance counts as a resistor in series with the output, and the cable capacitance counts as a capacitor to ground, so all cables are actually low pass filters.
HOWEVER, in most situations, the effect is really trivial - at least at audio frequencies.
(A connection that is -3 dB at 28 mHz might be a problem for a ham radio operator - but not for audio equipment.)
The "trick" is to understand when a given amount is and is not a problem.

Here are a few common examples (very generally):

- speaker wires: other than some really goofy specialty cables, speaker cables rarely have enough capacitance to matter
- interconnects on a MOVING MAGNET phono cartridge (to the preamp): because of the electrical characteristics of MM phono cartridges, the capacitance of the cable CAN have audible impact, especially if the cable is longer than a few feet (cartridges usually specify total capacitance)
- interconnects on a MOVING COIL phono cartridge (to the preamp): MC cartridges have much lower impedance, and so are much less sensitive to cable capacitance (unless it is extremely high); however MC cartridges are fussy about other things
- interconnects between a solid state preamp and a solid state power amp: most solid state preamps have a relatively low output impedance, and so aren't very sensitive to cable capacitance at all
- interconnects between a TUBE preamp and a power amp: MANY tube preamps have a rather high output impedance, so many of them WILL roll off the high frequencies if your cables have too much capacitance (so short low capacitance cables are preferred)
- interconnects between a PASSIVE preamp and a power amp: passive preamps, especially simple potentiometers, DO have a somewhat high output impedance, and it varies depending on where they're set, so cables MAY matter to one of them
- headphone cables: depending on the headphone amp you have, and the impedance of your headphones, VERY high capacitance headphone cable may introduce a SLIGHT high-frequency roll off if you have really long cables
(However, again, to avoid that, just use the "expensive" 50 cent a foot stuff - like Canare StarQuad - instead of the "cheap" 25 cent a foot stuff.)
- electrostatic headphone cables: electrostatic headphones have special requirements so you should usually stick with manufacturer's recommendations there unless you understand all the engineering details yourself

You should also note that "low capacitance" cables are NOT inherently expensive or difficult to make - so they shouldn't cost more.
It's just a matter of picking the right ones (or avoiding ones that are obviously bad).
(Also note that RCA cables rated as "75 Ohm VIDEO cables", even low cost ones, usually have quite low capacitance and work very well for audio.)

Dielectric Absorption is a slightly different characteristic... 
Capacitance acts like a filter - and so can introduce a roll off of high frequencies.
DA is often NON-LINEAR... which means that, if there is a lot of it, it can introduce distortion.
HOWEVER, DA may or may not be non-linear and, if there is very little of it to begin with, it really doesn't matter.
Certain insulating materials, like Teflon, have a very low amount of DA.
The reality is that, in most audio applications, it isn't important.
It is also worth noting that wire with low DA - like Teflon - can be more expensive than "regular wire".
HOWEVER, we're talking about $1 a foot for top grade Teflon coax.... as against 25 cents a foot for the normal stuff.

- the DA is most interconnects is insignificant in most applications
- the DA in speakers cables is ALMOST ALWAYS TOTALLY NEGLIGIBLE (I have NEVER heard a significant effect of DA on a speaker cable; ever; with ANY combination of equipment)
- (and, just to be clear, the dielectric absorption between your speaker cables and the carpet they're sitting on is an excellent example of a problem THAT DOES NOT EXIST.... it is totally negligible on the scale of the signals involved)

Various types of capacitors also have very different amounts of dielectric absorption as well - and it CAN result in significant distortion.
This is why certain types of ceramic capacitors are considered to be "appropriate for power supply bypass but not for audio".
Again, however, the "good" ones usually cost a buck or two - and the "bad" ones cost half that much or less.
You need to be aware, however, that this is important for capacitors that are in the audio signal path - but not at all important for capacitors in the power supply.
(In fact, as it turns out, some capacitors which are terrible for audio work great in the power supply - which is why you have to watch out for people who want to "upgrade all your capacitors".)
And, yes, MOST modern equipment has very few capacitors in the audio signal path, and a lot of it has none at all (which avoids the question entirely).

- some capacitors do in fact work much better in certain applications.....
- HOWEVER, simply "upgrading all the capacitors to better ones" is no assurance of better overall performance and can even make the performance WORSE in some situations



pinnahertz said:


> Ok, but now please describe how in well designed circuits none of this is an issue.





drtechno said:


> I think they are referring: DA= dielectric absorption,  MC= magnetic coupling. Either way, AC coupling always induces a phase shift near its high frequency and low frequency roll off points. Impedance mismatches in these interconnected circuits will always shift the frequency response (I could go further into explaining this, but I would explain a lot here).
> 
> When a coupling capacitor is always partly charged its dual effect (series inductance) is more present depending on its construction. This is why certain coupling capacitors different characters depending on this working voltage. For example: The wima mkp series, they seem to work best below 50V. In my experience, they  perform very poorly in plate coupling circuits because of the voltage potential.


----------



## Steve999

It’s your hypothesis. The ball’s in your court to test it or provide reliable data to support it. If I understand correctly that’s standard-issue scientific method. I would very much welcome seeing your evidence. Then other people would try to replicate your results if they felt it merited the effort.

Meant in the best of spirits. . . Give it a shot!



drtechno said:


> since this thread is about
> * Testing audiophile claims and myths*,
> Here is an electronic theory I came up with that should be an electronic law:
> "When an unbalanced signal path, regardless if the unbalanced signal path is an internal circuit or an interconnection between two devices, is altered to a balanced circuit, it will always have up to 40db lower noise than the unbalance circuit or unbalanced connection"
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

drtechno said:


> since this thread is about
> * Testing audiophile claims and myths*,
> Here is an electronic theory I came up with that should be an electronic law:
> "When an unbalanced signal path, regardless if the unbalanced signal path is an internal circuit or an interconnection between two devices, is altered to a balanced circuit, it will always have up to 40db lower noise than the unbalance circuit or unbalanced connection"
> ...


easy with the pointless provocations. 
and please write people's names and nicknames properly. it's not too hard to type @  followed by the first letters of a name to get it right. or even better to discuss ideas without calling people out as a sport.


----------



## Steve999

castleofargh said:


> what we need here is more testing, to add to all the rest.



Agreed!

If I were in the other guy’s shoes, I would see “audiophile” and “myths” as the salient words in the title. So I just won’t use those word anymore. The word “testing” would look like an afterthought, and there is scant little testing done among this group. What I see here is mostly argument by authority with tests of others referenced. The relative merit of that line of thinking is a lot better than anecdotes based on pure sensory experience, but I wouldn’t over-rate what we have here. If one is not careful it can just turn into another belief system, with selective marshaling of third-party evidence, at least when viewed from afar by others. We are going to do the most good not as an echo chamber that pounds on those that invade our belief system but by showing by example (testing!!) and exercising effective communication and diligent and courteous efforts at persuasion and education. Now maybe my track record does not match my words. Then again I am simply not an expert in this area. But I do have the ability to step back and see what’s going on, or at least I think I do.


----------



## KeithEmo

I've got to grab that one....   

I work for Emotiva... and we make lots of equipment... a lot of which offers both balanced and unbalanced inputs and/or outputs.
A balanced connection is more immune to picking up induced noise in the cable which can occasionally be significant.

However, in terms of circuitry itself, the noise difference between balanced and unbalanced circuitry is typically 6 dB or less (theoretically the balanced version should be quieter by somewhat less than 6 dB).
In fact, depending on how the internal circuitry is designed, they may be equal, or the balanced version may even be a few dB noisier. 

There are also certain types of distortion that cancel out with a balanced AMPLIFIER... but distortion on most amps these days is so low these days that the difference may also be totally inaudible.

Now, on a particular piece of equipment, it's quite possible that the performance between the balanced and unbalanced inputs may be wildly different because the internal circuitry itself is very different.
But you can't make any generalizations there.




drtechno said:


> since this thread is about
> * Testing audiophile claims and myths*,
> Here is an electronic theory I came up with that should be an electronic law:
> "When an unbalanced signal path, regardless if the unbalanced signal path is an internal circuit or an interconnection between two devices, is altered to a balanced circuit, it will always have up to 40db lower noise than the unbalance circuit or unbalanced connection"
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 27, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Another aspect of this which I've observed on head-fi is that, if you make negative comments about a piece of gear in a thread for that gear, some people will get bent out of shape.  Some people seem to come to threads mainly to reinforce their placebo effect,



Self validation is one of the most powerful urges in humans. We want to know that we make good decisions, so we work to convince ourselves that we are. The myth part of this thread involves identifying and eliminating the variety of biases we're subject to so we can eliminate them from our test. Sound science folks don't tend to take words like bias or placebo as a personal insult. Most of the rest of the people in headfi do. That is probably the most defining difference between us. You hear all sorts of scientific principles being thrown around in audiiophool forums. Most of it has at least a basic root in the truth of the science behind it. As Pinnahertz points out, the problem is when you ask them to assign that to the thresholds of audibility. Auidiophools want to use science to self validate, but they don't want to use it when it comes to determining audibility. The science is fine. The myth is in where it gets applied and where it doesn't.

When it comes to listening to music in your home, it's all about audibility.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Self validation is one of the most powerful urges in humans. We want to know that we make good decisions, so we work to convince ourselves that we are. The myth part of this thread involves identifying and eliminating the variety of biases we're subject to so we can eliminate them from our test. Sound science folks don't tend to take words like bias or placebo as a personal insult. Most of the rest of the people in headfi do. That is probably the most defining difference between us. You hear all sorts of scientific principles being thrown around in audiiophool forums. Most of it has at least a basic root in the truth of the science behind it. As Pinnahertz points out, the problem is when you ask them to assign that to the thresholds of audibility. Auidiophools want to use science to self validate, but they don't want to use it when it comes to determining audibility. The science is fine. The myth is in where it gets applied and where it doesn't.
> 
> When it comes to listening to music in your home, it's all about audibility.



I mostly agree, but I think focusing on audibility and thresholds of audibility oversimplifies the issue.  The real question is, assuming there's *some* difference in physical sound waves, what are the implications of that for perception?  The answer to that will generally depend on a lot of factors, since perception is complex.  Since it's generally difficult to prove that physical sound waves (or electrical signals) produced by different gear are *exactly* the same, the door usually remains cracked open enough for unresolved debates to ensue.  Empirical testing can help reduce uncertainties, but it can't eliminate uncertainties.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 27, 2018)

If it's so small it isn't audible, it doesn't matter for the purposes of listening to commercial music in the home. If you want to quantify things further just for the sake of science, you can do some measurements to figure out what's going on beyond what we can hear, but I just want to buy stereo equipment, not split atoms. I just care about what I can actually hear.

The problem is that the old self validation bugaboo gets in there and makes people want to justify spending more on inaudible sound quality. That's the real problem, not stuff that's so tiny you can't hear it even if you try. Uncertainty is a psychological state. If that governs what you spend your money on when you buy audio equipment, odds are that the uncertainty is more of a problem than the sound quality.


----------



## skwoodwiva

TheSonicTruth said:


> Thank you all so kindly for explaining what DA and MC stand for!....
> 
> MC is moving coil phono cartrage wtih associated  step up circuit  or transformer.
> this would be most readily  effected dielectric adsorption into say a vinyl jacket or poly core.
> ...


----------



## pinnahertz

drtechno said:


> Ok, when the designer defines the working frequency range for a given operation of impedance voltage level and compensates (if needed) for any changes to the phase of the return current of the signal in the circuit in this operating range and parameters. I see you're thirsty today pennehertz.


Just trying to get you to keep it real.  The reply doesn’t show a lot of design experience but the idea is generally correct.


----------



## pinnahertz

drtechno said:


> since this thread is about
> *Testing audiophile claims and myths*,
> Here is an electronic theory I came up with that should be an electronic law:
> "When an unbalanced signal path, regardless if the unbalanced signal path is an internal circuit or an interconnection between two devices, is altered to a balanced circuit, it will always have up to 40db lower noise than the unbalance circuit or unbalanced connection"
> ...


Really? You think I “need” a challenge?

Since you said “always” and “up to 40dB”, I won’t take much exception other than to say 40dB of CMRR is pretty shoddy. “Up to” would depend entirely on the circuit providing the CMRR, the CMRR vs frequency, and the fact that the noise in question is indeed common mode.


----------



## KeithEmo

I can give you a really easy answer there - but it's also very general.

In "a well designed piece of equipment" the engineer who designed it should have fully analyzed and understood the situation, figured out which of these factors are and are not important in his particular circuit and application, and made sure that any of them that might significantly degrade the performance of his product have been reduced to levels low enough not to matter. So, in the case of audio equipment, if the equipment was well designed, the design engineer should have already taken all of these possibilities into account, and carefully avoided situations that would result in an audible reduction in sound quality. And, yes, there are situations where a manufacturer will use a less expensive part because it won't make _much_ difference, but costs a _lot_ less. 

The other aspect of this is the way many audiophiles think about the design. (Think of the story of The Princess And The Pea.) or example, to some "connoisseur audiophiles", the fact that their preamp sounds slightly different with different interconnect cables would suggest that "they have a very revealing system". However, to an experienced engineer, it would simply signify that the preamp isn't very well designed. (A well designed preamp should be able to deliver a high quality audio signal to your amplifier when connected using "normal cables"..... just as a well designed family car should run well on "regular gas station gas".... if it requires special cables, then the design is a little less than perfect, right?)

I'm forced to recall a scene from one of my favorite old time "bad movies"..... Barbarella....

In one scene, the scantily clad heroine crashes her spaceship in a sort of prison colony.
She is surprised to see the prisoners being fed orchids for food.
She turns to someone and asks why anyone would feed orchids to slaves.

The reply she receives is: 
"Orchids are expensive, difficult to grow, and have very little nutritional value. The great tyrant ENJOYS resenting the extra expense of feeding them to the slaves."

Likewise, some audiophiles seem to enjoy the extra effort of carefully matching  equipment, to find their own perfect solution....
These are the guys who cheerfully tell you that their speakers sound spectacular, except for a certain really awful flaw....
But, after years of careful research and experimentation, they've found this one unique speaker cable that just cancels out that flaw...



pinnahertz said:


> Ok, but now please describe how in well designed circuits none of this is an issue.


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> some audiophiles seem to enjoy the extra effort of carefully matching  equipment, to find their own perfect solution....
> These are the guys who cheerfully tell you that their speakers sound spectacular, except for a certain really awful flaw....
> But, after years of careful research and experimentation, they've found this one unique speaker cable that just cancels out that flaw...



When I was a kid the mom of a friend of mine was so afraid of driving that she would make three right turns to avoid a left. She thought she was a good driver because of that! All of us in the back seat were terrified of her driving.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

drtechno said:


> I think they are referring: DA= dielectric absorption,  MC= magnetic coupling. Either way, AC coupling always induces a phase shift near its high frequency and low frequency roll off points. Impedance mismatches in these interconnected circuits will always shift the frequency response (I could go further into explaining this, but I would explain a lot here).
> 
> When a coupling capacitor is always partly charged its dual effect (series inductance) is more present depending on its construction. This is why certain coupling capacitors different characters depending on this working voltage. For example: The wima mkp series, they seem to work best below 50V. In my experience, they  perform very poorly in plate coupling circuits because of the voltage potential.



Thanks for deciphering that alphabet soup!


----------



## drtechno

KeithEmo said:


> In fact, depending on how the internal circuitry is designed, they may be equal, or the balanced version may even be a few dB noisier.


yes, I forgot it was open loop gain circuits (without negative feedback). The difference between the two is that balanced circuits doesn't have psrr in its noise, because the signal is never referenced to and power supply rail(s) or ground. So yes, if you use negative feedback in the circuit it will reduce the noise as you reduce gain. So circuit considerations has to be employed here....


----------



## skwoodwiva (Jun 28, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Thanks for deciphering that alphabet soup!


As I posted MC as I used it is Moving Coil cartridge and associated circuit.
To note here DA is  a static phenomenon and smears high frequency most yet
Flattens dynamics as well. It is all about electrons being pulled from the signal wire by insulation activity. Vinyl and PVC are the worst Yet giving up the just absorbed ”pressure” as the voltage falls in the wire. So it is a like a persistent compression effect.
Point to point wiring, tubes, and quality transformers have nil of this.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

skwoodwiva said:


> As I posted MC as I used it is Moving Coil cartridge and associated circuit.
> To note here DA is  a static phenomenon and smears high frequency most yet
> Flattens dynamics as well. It is all about electrons being pulled from the signal wire by insulation activity. Vinyl and PVC are the worst Yet giving up the just absorbed ”pressure” as the voltage falls in the wire. So it is a like a persistent compression effect.
> Point to point wiring, tubes, and quality transformers have nil of this.



Well DA probably doesn't flatten dynamics as much as an over-compressed remaster, or modern pop master.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Well DA probably doesn't flatten dynamics as much as an over-compressed remaster, or modern pop master.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


>




What's your point?


----------



## skwoodwiva

TheSonicTruth said:


> What's your point?


You roused up the old master...


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> What's your point?



Well, the point is DA - and similar phenomenons of real world imperfect materials. Just as @KeithEmo quite correctly pointed out, manufacturers are forced - due to market competition - to use the lowest cost materials that still do produce MEASURABLY good results. Because ratio of price between "measurbly good" and "audibly excellent" electronic components with the same basic function can be - on average - approx 1 : 30. Sometimes you can get by merely 1:10 - but sometimes "nothing happens sonically" untill you hit north of 1:100 ...

There are extremely few commercially available audio components of this type - cost being the main reason. And what is sad, proffessional recording equipment ( >90% of everything you can see in a studio ) is BELOW the standard achieved by home components of high calibre. 

For example, back in the day @bigshot  went trough the roof when I said that most commercialy available recordings are compressed - even the finest clasical music releases. He argued there are no compressors being used in the recording chains - which is quite true IN A SENSE there is no box with inscription COMPRESSOR  on it in the signal path.

I could assemble as many Mumblys as there is - and it would simply not be enough of "hehes" if one wanted to mark EACH defect in audio chain/signal path that causes, among other things, also AUDIBLE compression - with a different one. That is also why I said people in studios would have to enforce signal path purge more thorough than some fella better left unnamed - if  they wanted to finally start hearing HR as better than RBCD.

Trouble, as usual - it sounds expensive ...


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> Well, the point is DA - and similar phenomenons of real world imperfect materials. Just as @KeithEmo quite correctly pointed out, manufacturers are forced - due to market competition - to use the lowest cost materials that still do produce MEASURABLY good results. Because ratio of price between "measurbly good" and "audibly excellent" electronic components with the same basic function can be - on average - approx 1 : 30. Sometimes you can get by merely 1:10 - but sometimes "nothing happens sonically" untill you hit north of 1:100 ...
> 
> There are extremely few commercially available audio components of this type - cost being the main reason. And what is sad, proffessional recording equipment ( >90% of everything you can see in a studio ) is BELOW the standard achieved by home components of high calibre.
> 
> ...



Are you kidding me?  Do you seriously believe that a little conductile hootchie-koo between a conductor and its insulator will mount to a hill a beans compared to a  poorly mixed or hotly mastered source?

And mid-paragraph, where you stated that bigshot went "through the roof" when you said that about some commercial recordings - well, you were RIGHT in that case - and someone like bigshot wouldn't have wanted such information out in the open.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 28, 2018)

skwoodwiva said:


> You roused up the old master...



Well someone has to! LOL.  Content - $hitty or sublime -  trumps minor conductile issues in a listening system any day.  Unless we're talking them cheapo 'Yorx' bookshelf stereos they used to sell at Caldors, or those Crosley repros with the plastic tonearms and built-in 2 inch speakers.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Are you kidding me?  Do you seriously believe that a little conductile hootchie-koo between a conductor and its insulator will mount to a hill a beans compared to a  poorly mixed or hotly mastered source?
> 
> And mid-paragraph, where you stated that bigshot went "through the roof" when you said that about some commercial recordings - well, you were RIGHT in that case - and someone like bigshot wouldn't have wanted such information out in the open.



What you term a "  little conductile hootchie-koo " manages to get - taken together and overall - to the greatest difference in SQ there possibly could be. 

LONG BEFORE  anyone can even start performing poor mixing and hot mastering ... - which of course can and usually does sound even worse.

There are many who would not have wanted such information out in the open... - FAR more than those who would.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> What you term a "  little conductile hootchie-koo " manages to get - taken together and overall - to the greatest difference in SQ there possibly could be.
> 
> LONG BEFORE  anyone can even start performing poor mixing and hot mastering ... - which of course can and usually does sound even worse.
> 
> There are many who would not have wanted such information out in the open... - FAR more than those who would.



Well, I don't exactly have a MONSTER budget for speaker wire - joke there! - especially for certain mfgs who don't print basic info like the AWG# on said wire.


----------



## KeithEmo

I've got to take the naysayer side here.

Yes, dielectric absorption is a real thing.
And, yes, if you're running a radio transmitter, at high power levels, through a wire with vinyl insulation, it may have a measurable, or even significant effect.
And, yes, it's possible that there would be enough dielectric absorption in a certain piece of wire in a certain circuit to produce audible effects.
And, yes, when used in certain ways, electrolytic capacitors often have enough of it to actually cause problems.
However, to be quite honest, I've never seen (or heard) it happening with a wire or circuit trace in an actual AUDIO circuit.

The most dramatic demonstration of DA occurs with large-value electrolytic capacitors and relatively high DC voltages.

Take a 100,000 uF electrolytic capacitor.
Charge it up to 50 VDC.
Now, connect a resistor across it for a few moments until the charge drains and the voltage drops to zero, then disconnect it.
Wait four or five minutes and measure it again with a sensitive meter.
Odds are you'll find that the capacitor you just drained "mysteriously" has a few volts on it again.
The charge will drain very easily under load... but it will keep coming back.
The capacitor is acting a little bit like a battery... and that's DA (the insulation is "returning" the charge that it's absorbed).
And, yes, under the right circumstances, even a small amount of this effect could produce some sort of time blur.

HOWEVER, if you apply that effect to an AC signal - which is what music is - the result will be some sort of attenuation of high frequencies.
The leading or trailing edge of each waveform will be "slowed down" because current absorbed by or supplied by the DA will prevent the voltage from changing as quickly as it should.
This will cause square waves to round off a bit... which is another way of saying that the high frequency harmonics will be attenuated.
Since this effect is time related, it will affect high frequencies more seriously; and, since it is often quite non-linear, it will tend to cause both distortion and a high-frequency roll off.

HOWEVER, and here's a major part of the claim, IF THERE IS ENOUGH DA TO SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE SIGNAL IT WILL ALSO BE EASILY MEASURABLE.
Yes, you want wire that has a really really low DA at audio frequencies.
However, in fact, MOST wire has a really low DA at audio frequencies.
And, if you happened to get that bad roll of wire, or have that odd circuit where DA is really critical, it would be EASY to detect the effect using measurements.
You're going to MEASURE a frequency response that rolls off significantly, and non-linearly at high (audio) frequencies.
And you're going to MEASURE high distortion at higher frequencies.... or an odd distortion that seems to be worse at lower signal levels.
Likewise, if you've got a really weird situation, and it's actually managing to affect the dynamics, that's going to be EASY to measure.

And, yes, this can be a real concern for someone building their own DIY tube amplifier.
- tubes tend to operate at high voltages and high impedances (which makes tube circuits somewhat sensitive to this)
- when people build their own gear they may use materials, like wire, from unknown sources, and of unknown provenance
- most people who build their own gear don't have access to te equipment they would need to measure and confirm that it isn't happening
Therefore, if you're building your own tube amp, by all means use Teflon wire......
You won't have to worry about DA, or about belting the wire while you're soldering it.......
HOWEVER, it's really unlikely that you're going to encounter a "problem" with DA in a commercial design.

Also, to be quite blunt, we humans aren't very sensitive to dynamic range at all....
Therefore, if a signal were to "have it's dynamics compressed" by a tiny fraction of a dB, it is NOT going to be audible.
In general, audible changes in dynamics are not subtle, and subtle differences in dynamics are not audible.
When we talk about recordings being audibly compressed.... 
We're talking about compression levels of tens of dB (applying compression of 2:1 or 1.5:1 over a range of several tens of dB).... 
Or peak limiting that applies infinite compression to peaks that exceed a certain level....
It is incomprehensible that a wire could have enough DA to produce this sort of effect without other more obvious and glaring problems showing up first.
(Like: "Gee... the high end is entirely gone...." and "Yikes, the high-frequency THD is through the roof". )

Incidentally, ALL transformers with cores have a characteristic called hysteresis... which is the magnetic equivalent of DA.
Some are better than others... and you can avoid the areas where it's worst by careful design... but all metal and ferrite core transformers have this problem.
So, if it worries you, then best to avoid them.



skwoodwiva said:


> As I posted MC as I used it is Moving Coil cartridge and associated circuit.
> To note here DA is  a static phenomenon and smears high frequency most yet
> Flattens dynamics as well. It is all about electrons being pulled from the signal wire by insulation activity. Vinyl and PVC are the worst Yet giving up the just absorbed ”pressure” as the voltage falls in the wire. So it is a like a persistent compression effect.
> Point to point wiring, tubes, and quality transformers have nil of this.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

analogsurviver said:


> There are extremely few commercially available audio components of this type - cost being the main reason. And what is sad, proffessional recording equipment ( >90% of everything you can see in a studio ) is BELOW the standard achieved by home components of high calibre.
> 
> For example, back in the day @bigshot  went trough the roof when I said that most commercialy available recordings are compressed - even the finest clasical music releases. He argued there are no compressors being used in the recording chains - which is quite true IN A SENSE there is no box with inscription COMPRESSOR  on it in the signal path.



Do you have a source for this idea that studio gear is technically deficient compared to consumer gear of a comparable price?  And that most studios are full of deficient gear? 

Also, you make the point that audio manufacturers don't use the highest-spec components possible because of cost - this is 100% right.  Mainly because we would go out of business if we didn't.  There is only room for a small number of "money is no object" companies in the market because there are only a handful of consumers who will patronize them. 

Secondly, I do understand your assertion that many parts of a signal path do not offer the same dynamic range as an instrument playing in free air. However, losing dynamic range (through normal use of e.g. microphones or preamps) is rarely referred to as compression (not sure if I have ever seen it phrased that way), and it's confusing to call it that.  Compressors compress, other things should be said to reduce dynamic range via some other phenomenon.  

The alternative is like saying "all recordings have EQ on them" because some microphones have a colored frequency response.  While the recordings are colored in a way that functinoally resembles EQ, the fact remains that mics are not EQs.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would say it is well known that _some_ studio gear may not perform as well as _some_ consumer gear in some ways (this most certainly was true in years past).
However, in most cases, this simply reflected different priorities.
For example, many older Ampex studio open reel recorders had relatively "modest" high frequency response (short of that offered by the best consumer models).
It reflected the fact that they were designed for reliable and consistent performance; as opposed to being able to provide slightly better performance - but only with frequent adjustment.
(They also offered "good" performance with a variety of tape formulations - rather than being optimized for peak performance - but only with a specific tape.)
This is probably far less common today than in the old days....

In general there is a difference in meaning between "compression" and "limited dynamic range".

A "compressor" typically reduces the dynamic range by lowering the gain on loud content while not doing so on quiet content.
Units that do the opposite, raising the level on low level content, while leaving high level content alone, are usually referred to as "upwards compmpressors".
Units that basically leave the gain alone until a certain threshold is reached, then limit the gain sharply beyond that, are usually referred to as "limiters".
All sorts of combinations and variations are possible (and there are units that "expand" or "compress" at all levels).
In general, however, compressors and limiters act by altering gain - but do their best to avoid clipping and other forms of "hard distortion".

Certain audio devices do produce a similar effect unintentionally....
- a microphone may have reduced output at very high sound levels
- a loudspeaker may experience "dynamic compression" if its efficiency drops at loud listening levels due to increased voice coil resistance
Both of these effects can be quite significant - and clearly audible - under some circumstances.

Some audiophiles, however, like to exaggerate the situation.
For example, many mixing panels are built using op amps and wire that "don't qualify as audiophile grade", simply because they meet the engineering requirements quite satisfactorily.
Likewise, most studios use "commercial quality" wiring simply because they fail to see any benefit to using more expensive "audiophile quality cable".
(They may also place a higher priority on other characteristics - like a cable being very flexible or very tolerant to being walked on repeatedly).

Most studio folks are realists....
- they'll pay thousands of dollars for some antique microphone because some of their customers just like the way it sounds. 
   (and, for that reason, most high end studios actually have a resume of all the microphones they have for their customers to use - and many major performers have favorites)
- and they'll pay extra for a wire that really holds up better or stands up to being stepped on better
- but they're not big on paying for extras that really don't make any difference (like fancy audiophile cables that really don't sound better)



Zapp_Fan said:


> Do you have a source for this idea that studio gear is technically deficient compared to consumer gear of a comparable price?  And that most studios are full of deficient gear?
> 
> Also, you make the point that audio manufacturers don't use the highest-spec components possible because of cost - this is 100% right.  Mainly because we would go out of business if we didn't.  There is only room for a small number of "money is no object" companies in the market because there are only a handful of consumers who will patronize them.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 28, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Are you kidding me?



Pssst! Consider the source.



TheSonicTruth said:


> And mid-paragraph, where you stated that bigshot went "through the roof" when you said that about some commercial recordings - well, you were RIGHT in that case - and someone like bigshot wouldn't have wanted such information out in the open.



Consider the source again. He's setting up a straw man. I never said that. I agree that most commercial recordings are compressed. Compression is a normal part of mixing music. He was saying that commercial music would sound better if it used no compression at all. That is what I was reacting to. Too many words, not enough experience behind them.

Now you're setting up a self validating straw man by defining "compression" as "hot mastering". Even if I did define it that way, I wouldn't say that most recordings are hot mastered... only certain kinds of pop/rock music, and even there there are plenty of recordings that aren't hot mastered.



Zapp_Fan said:


> The alternative is like saying "all recordings have EQ on them".



EQ is just as basic a mixing tool as compression. I wouldn't argue with that statement either. I can't think of a circumstance where you wouldn't use EQ.


----------



## analogsurviver

Zapp_Fan said:


> Do you have a source for this idea that studio gear is technically deficient compared to consumer gear of a comparable price?  And that most studios are full of deficient gear?
> 
> Also, you make the point that audio manufacturers don't use the highest-spec components possible because of cost - this is 100% right.  Mainly because we would go out of business if we didn't.  There is only room for a small number of "money is no object" companies in the market because there are only a handful of consumers who will patronize them.
> 
> ...




The source for this idea is both by reading thr audio and audio DIY press - and my own work. It is HIGHLY unlikely you'll ever see me working with the stock commercially available equipment - because I did learn trough experience what does - and what does not - work acceptably. Practically everything I use has been modified by me - to the best standard I can still afford or fit within the available volume of the device in question. One of the stock units I did leave in factory condition was my second sampčle of Korg MR-1000 DSD recorder - for portability & rugged dependability for work on the go. But not after the first, MUCH better sounding modified unit did succumb to the rigors of field use - and later underwent third, better yet final incarnation I am using normally nowadays for normal desktop use. Please no questions what it is and how it has been achieved - I will NOT answer to this type of questions.

The reason WHY it started, now more than 30 years ago, was the dissapointment with SQ of every studio I ever set foot in - and later, when it proved that they can not reproduce the finer portion of my recordings.

Your observations regarding electrical material quality and survival of electronics manufacturer in the marketplace are unfortunately totally correct. I did have " (bad?)luck, course ? / blessing ? " possibilities to audition quite some very high ( most likely highest at the time ) quality audio gear - with the corresponding price tag attached. I did not pass out at the mention of say $ 1000 phono cartridge in 1980 ( which I could not afford ), I do not pass out at the mention of $ 30000 cartridge today ( which I can not afford , yet know WHY such at first glance outrageous price can be fully justified ) , I do not pass out at seeing the price list for ( say ) FM Acoustics ( which I most bloody definitely can not afford ... ) - and I only recently found out HOW MUCH the preamp and power amp I had the pleasure to be using back in 1990 at Benz Micro Switzerland while working briefly there did cost ... ( which I could possibly not afford - but the specs sure looked like an overkill even for the likes of NASA ). However - and that is a BIG however, I did get to learn how really decent audio SHOULD sound like. And have tried to implement the most crucial/most audible mods to the basically well engineered equipment within my reach, that had to compromise in parts quality to lower the cost to normal consumer of "average" buying power.

Most would, after auditioning, double ABX or whatever comparison, NEVER believe that the stock and modified 
https://www.phonopreamps.com/tc750pp.html
is, actually, the same preamp in electrical sense - the circuit diagram remains the same. By pouring into this basic midget-but-well-designed-unit say another 50-200 $ ( depends how crazy you want to go, also taking into considertion the quality of your turntable/arm/cartridge - you DON'T necessarily want all the defects of your front end revealed by a preamp... ) into better electronic components, it IS possible. Which also kills "All amplifiers sound the same " myth beyond any shadow of a doubt.

However, there is a BIG, EVEN BIGGER than before HOWEVER - or better said - a caveat.

The quality of properly modified / improved TCC-750 will only be fully appearent if and when used with the anicilary equipment of at least comparable quality. 

And the above example holds true for ANY audio chain - those in the studios included. The mixing desk is the most complex - and therefore most vulnerable to signal quality degradation. As there is no mixing desk like no mixing desk, I NEVER use one; with two microphone recording techniques, none is actually required. 

In the last year, I did have the chance to observe work on several ( rather small-ish ) mixing desks from up close, side by side work ( binaural recording of a live amplified musical event, close co-operation with the sound engineer  ) - and the best sounding one had quite audiophile verging on audiophool type of specs ( certainly exceeding the criteria of Sound Science as practiced in this thread ). It is also why this by now discontinued and vintage mixing desk is still in high demand on the used market .

You are correct in saying "Compressors compress, other things should be said to reduce dynamic range via some other phenomenon." Equally, mics with certain response are not EQs. More about this : https://www.dpamicrophones.com/mic-university/acoustic-modification-accessories

However, in the end, I do not care 1 bit where does the compression of the dynamic range of an instrument or voice ( " Voice is the most beautiful instrument of them all " ) come from - either from losses in signal path and/or deliberate box with the inscription " Compressor " on it - I do not want it - PERIOD. If the compression is later required - for whatever the reason - one can always take uncompressed master and compress it as per requirement. 

It doesn't work in the reverse direction... low level information lost at the first stage, can not be retrieved later on.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

I guess I wouldn't dispute that most studio gear doesn't try to achieve the final small margins of performance that $30K+ consumer gear does.  And I won't try to convince you that you shouldn't care about them, but... nor would I try the opposite with other folks. 

On the other topic, taking the stance that all compression is bad is not uncontroversial to say the least.   If all you are doing is binaural recordings with no mixing, sure, you can do without it.  But you'll have to acknowledge that this is a much less common method of recording and mixing, for a variety of reasons.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I would say it is well known that _some_ studio gear may not perform as well as _some_ consumer gear in some ways (this most certainly was true in years past).
> However, in most cases, this simply reflected different priorities.
> For example, many older Ampex studio open reel recorders had relatively "modest" high frequency response (short of that offered by the best consumer models).
> It reflected the fact that they were designed for reliable and consistent performance; as opposed to being able to provide slightly better performance - but only with frequent adjustment.
> ...



I generally concur .

Only to comment on "dynamic compression" in normal dynamic loudspeakers with voice coils - that is why,  by far, the best dynamic contrasts are achieved using properly driven ( a really TOUGH call  for the poor amps looking into practically dead short and reactive nature of the electric load...) electrostatic speakers .


----------



## analogsurviver

Zapp_Fan said:


> I guess I wouldn't dispute that most studio gear doesn't try to achieve the final small margins of performance that $30K+ consumer gear does.  And I won't try to convince you that you shouldn't care about them, but... nor would I try the opposite with other folks.
> 
> On the other topic, taking the stance that all compression is bad is not uncontroversial to say the least.   If all you are doing is binaural recordings with no mixing, sure, you can do without it.  But you'll have to acknowledge that this is a much less common method of recording and mixing, for a variety of reasons.



It is OK - although I may well be perceived as a rabid zealot, deep down inside I am a realist ( or even more true : pesimist = well informed optimist ) .

I concur that taking the stance all compression is not uncontroversial - specially in the days of MP3s, loudness wars, etc. 
I do not do binaural only - there are more 2 mic only recording techniques, I use Jecklin Disk much more often than binaural - I have to eat, too. 
I am all too well aware of the fact that multimiking/mixing desk approach outnumbers 2 mics only approach by a factor of X : 1 - with X being some very frightening number .


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> The source for this idea is both by reading thr audio and audio DIY press - and my own work. It is HIGHLY unlikely you'll ever see me working with the stock commercially available equipment - because I did learn trough experience what does - and what does not - work acceptably. Practically everything I use has been modified by me - to the best standard I can still afford or fit within the available volume of the device in question. One of the stock units I did leave in factory condition was my second sampčle of Korg MR-1000 DSD recorder - for portability & rugged dependability for work on the go. But not after the first, MUCH better sounding modified unit did succumb to the rigors of field use - and later underwent third, better yet final incarnation I am using normally nowadays for normal desktop use. Please no questions what it is and how it has been achieved - I will NOT answer to this type of questions.
> 
> The reason WHY it started, now more than 30 years ago, was the dissapointment with SQ of every studio I ever set foot in - and later, when it proved that they can not reproduce the finer portion of my recordings.
> 
> ...




I offered to help you with whatever issue you were having finding an appropriate cloud storage solution to post the evidence you’ve been promising for months/years.  Evidence you’ve said that you already have.

You ignored the offer of help.  It’s painfully obvious why.


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> I offered to help you with whatever issue you were having finding an appropriate cloud storage solution to post the evidence you’ve been promising for months/years.  Evidence you’ve said that you already have.
> 
> You ignored the offer of help.  It’s painfully obvious why.



Sorry, I have been trough some few  rough days - a VERY important recording yesterday, with a rehearsal the day before ( with logistics I do not wish even an arch enemy ), with retrieving the equipment from the church today.

All on top of a BIG disapointment of discovering I managed to render the phono stylus with that fabolous frequency response past 60 kHz I wanted to make recording of frequency response with - inoperable. It happened most likely a year before - by cleaning the diamond using my electronic vibration type cleaner ( most similar modern one https://blog.audiot.co.uk/blog/2015/9/22/remember-the-audio-technica-at-637-stylus-cleaner.html ) - prior to placing into storage. I can remember that I just put the stylus to the cleaning pad moistened with a dilluted isopropyl alcohol - when a door bell rang and I was asked to urgently  assist my neighbour. In a hurry to offer help, I forgot to lift the stylus from the cleaner - as the time required is measured in single digit seconds. Before I knew it, it has been anywhere between 5 and 10 minutes. The cement/glue holding the stylus to the boron cantilever obviously softened - and later solidified again. Now, the stylus is off in all 3 directions by more than 5 degrees - as made painfully obvious first with test record, then under a miscroscope. I did contact the man that MIGHT help with removing and re-glueing the same stylus back immediately after this unpleasent discovery - and now have to take pics under the USB microscope. I do have pics of this very same stylus before the said stupid accident ( I always recommend any liquid cleaner use for seconds only, in order to prevent the exact damage that happened for the first time to me ) - and you can believe me that making photos of this now sordid state stylus will not be a pleasure. The stylus is now discontinued, and to make matters worse, this very sample is, trough off spec ( instead of 1.25 g vertical tracking force it requires 1.9 gram for full trackability ) capable of some things stylus conforming to 1.25 g tracking is uncapable of.  Besides, this very sample has proven crazy extended and flat frequency response. I intend to do this sad photo USB session tomorrow ... after I make first copies of yesterday recording from 3 recorders of 3 different parallel recordings and three cameras.

I have to establish my own cloud storage solution - and will have to improvise for the very near future. But thank you for the offer.

But make no mistakes - all the evidence I have been posting about do exist. And as I have said, I have figured it out how to make a meaningful CD mat test that can be made into an ABX using foobar2000; actual making it will take about one work day, as I will try to do it as fairly as possible - by using at least two (SA)CD drives/players under all realistic conditions said players experience in actual music listening at home.


----------



## bigshot

So! How's the weather in everyone's neck of the woods? It's starting to get hotter here in LA.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> So! How's the weather in everyone's neck of the woods? It's starting to get hotter here in LA.



Due to rain and lower than normal temperatures than usual for this time of year, tomorrow's gig at a place I record sometimes outside has been posponed to the end of August - but more worrying is the world premiere of Sfera Mundi - Voyage around the World 
http://www.ljubljanafestival.si/en/
http://www.ljubljanafestival.si/en/event/potovanje-okoli-sveta-la-fura-dels-baus/
as it has been transfered from today to tomorrow . Most of the action of the incredible Spanish troup is in the air, high above the ground - and rain and umbrellas are the last thing everyone wishes for - after a week of preparations for the premiere. 

Hope the weather will show some mercy ... a window of couple of hours of good weather required .


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, I have been trough some few  rough days - a VERY important recording yesterday, with a rehearsal the day before ( with logistics I do not wish even an arch enemy ), with retrieving the equipment from the church today.
> 
> All on top of a BIG disapointment of discovering I managed to render the phono stylus with that fabolous frequency response past 60 kHz I wanted to make recording of frequency response with - inoperable. It happened most likely a year before - by cleaning the diamond using my electronic vibration type cleaner ( most similar modern one https://blog.audiot.co.uk/blog/2015/9/22/remember-the-audio-technica-at-637-stylus-cleaner.html ) - prior to placing into storage. I can remember that I just put the stylus to the cleaning pad moistened with a dilluted isopropyl alcohol - when a door bell rang and I was asked to urgently  assist my neighbour. In a hurry to offer help, I forgot to lift the stylus from the cleaner - as the time required is measured in single digit seconds. Before I knew it, it has been anywhere between 5 and 10 minutes. The cement/glue holding the stylus to the boron cantilever obviously softened - and later solidified again. Now, the stylus is off in all 3 directions by more than 5 degrees - as made painfully obvious first with test record, then under a miscroscope. I did contact the man that MIGHT help with removing and re-glueing the same stylus back immediately after this unpleasent discovery - and now have to take pics under the USB microscope. I do have pics of this very same stylus before the said stupid accident ( I always recommend any liquid cleaner use for seconds only, in order to prevent the exact damage that happened for the first time to me ) - and you can believe me that making photos of this now sordid state stylus will not be a pleasure. The stylus is now discontinued, and to make matters worse, this very sample is, trough off spec ( instead of 1.25 g vertical tracking force it requires 1.9 gram for full trackability ) capable of some things stylus conforming to 1.25 g tracking is uncapable of.  Besides, this very sample has proven crazy extended and flat frequency response. I intend to do this sad photo USB session tomorrow ... after I make first copies of yesterday recording from 3 recorders of 3 different parallel recordings and three cameras.
> 
> ...




Sorry to hear about the stylus

Sincere question - are there restrictions to the common cloud storage solutions where you are due to government or other limitations?  I’m not sure what country is home for you. There are workarounds for that scenario if needed.

I can also set you up with a directory on my Box or Dropbox storage instances if you want something simple and cost free.  I give you my word that I will not alter what you post and will give you Admin access to your directory so you can upload/edit/delete as needed.


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> Sorry to hear about the stylus
> 
> Sincere question - are there restrictions to the common cloud storage solutions where you are due to government or other limitations?  I’m not sure what country is home for you. There are workarounds for that scenario if needed.
> 
> I can also set you up with a directory on my Box or Dropbox storage instances if you want something simple and cost free.  I give you my word that I will not alter what you post and will give you Admin access to your directory so you can upload/edit/delete as needed.



Thank you .

No government or other limitations in Slovenia. 

I will send you a PM explaining the situation within an hour.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> I would say it is well known that _some_ studio gear may not perform as well as _some_ consumer gear in some ways (this most certainly was true in years past).
> However, in most cases, this simply reflected different priorities.
> For example, many older Ampex studio open reel recorders had relatively "modest" high frequency response (short of that offered by the best consumer models).
> It reflected the fact that they were designed for reliable and consistent performance; as opposed to being able to provide slightly better performance - but only with frequent adjustment.
> ...



The Ampex open reel on the other specifications generally far exceeded the best consumer models. For many consumer models 30ips isn't even and option, most of them could not record at levels the later tape formulas could handle. Then how well do they hold up running 18 hours a day? What is the frequency response after millions of feet of tape has passed over the heads?

A studio designer won't use an "audiophile cable" because they do not have specifications. The specification for a cable is about a page long and not limited to -
Temperature Range, Storage and Operating, Crush Resistance, Min. Bend Radius, Jacket Material, Insulation, Conductor Material, AWG, Strand size, Strand count, Shield type, Shield Material, Drain wire AWG, Color, Overall Diameter, Abrasion Resistance, Voltage Rating, Twist Rate, Chemical Resistance, UV  Resistance, Moisture Resistance, Capacitance, Resistance, Impedance, Number of Conductors, Tensional Strength Flammability, Weight, Standards.

You want to see a very upset studio owner? Use spec-less "audiophile" (wonder if it works) cable and watch fire inspector force them to remove every bit of it.


----------



## castleofargh

dprimary said:


> You want to see a very upset studio owner? Use spec-less "audiophile" (wonder if it works) cable and watch fire inspector force them to remove every bit of it.


you think a cryogenic treatment and a certificate saying you cooked and burned in your audiophile cables, would convince the fire inspector that all is well?


----------



## Glmoneydawg

dprimary said:


> The Ampex open reel on the other specifications generally far exceeded the best consumer models. For many consumer models 30ips isn't even and option, most of them could not record at levels the later tape formulas could handle. Then how well do they hold up running 18 hours a day? What is the frequency response after millions of feet of tape has passed over the heads?
> 
> A studio designer won't use an "audiophile cable" because they do not have specifications. The specification for a cable is about a page long and not limited to -
> Temperature Range, Storage and Operating, Crush Resistance, Min. Bend Radius, Jacket Material, Insulation, Conductor Material, AWG, Strand size, Strand count, Shield type, Shield Material, Drain wire AWG, Color, Overall Diameter, Abrasion Resistance, Voltage Rating, Twist Rate, Chemical Resistance, UV  Resistance, Moisture Resistance, Capacitance, Resistance, Impedance, Number of Conductors, Tensional Strength Flammability, Weight, Standards.
> ...


Pretty sure the only cables the fire inspector might be interested in are the power cords...maybe.?....the other cables carry insignificant voltage/amperage to worry anyone.....cool story though bro..


----------



## Glmoneydawg

dprimary said:


> The Ampex open reel on the other specifications generally far exceeded the best consumer models. For many consumer models 30ips isn't even and option, most of them could not record at levels the later tape formulas could handle. Then how well do they hold up running 18 hours a day? What is the frequency response after millions of feet of tape has passed over the heads?
> 
> A studio designer won't use an "audiophile cable" because they do not have specifications. The specification for a cable is about a page long and not limited to -
> Temperature Range, Storage and Operating, Crush Resistance, Min. Bend Radius, Jacket Material, Insulation, Conductor Material, AWG, Strand size, Strand count, Shield type, Shield Material, Drain wire AWG, Color, Overall Diameter, Abrasion Resistance, Voltage Rating, Twist Rate, Chemical Resistance, UV  Resistance, Moisture Resistance, Capacitance, Resistance, Impedance, Number of Conductors, Tensional Strength Flammability, Weight, Standards.
> ...


If you don't  want to spend big bucks on cables, i totally get it!But if you are trying to suggest expensive cables arn't as good as cheap ones??  You need to rethink it.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Jun 29, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> you think a cryogenic treatment and a certificate saying you cooked and burned in your audiophile cables, would convince the fire inspector that all is well?


Would it be worse?Seeing some anti "audiophile"bias here..you guys are confusing expense with science.


----------



## bagwell359

Glmoneydawg said:


> Would it be worse?Seeing some anti "audiophile"bias here..you guys are confusing expence with science.



Experience is crucial.  Glamour is seductive.  If owning some Cardas Golden Section makes you feel better about your judgement and refinement what are the odds you won't find them better than lamp coed when they are visible to you?  Or what if you have audio nervosa/updatitis ?  Yeah yeah, get expensive everything, and its bound to make things better (that's called faith that's not based on observation but either pride/glamour or nervous neurosis.

I've heard difficult speaker loads (Scintilla, Dayton-Wright) that sounded much different and better with high capacitance cable.  But when you go to a "normal" speaker by comparison like ProAc EBS, Verity Parsifals, DQ-10's, Triangle Celius 202.  Back in the early 80's it was hard to find an amp that was stable enough to deal with those first two speakers, so amps were also easy to tell apart (if they didn't short out or shut down).  The Krell KSA-50 was the first amp I heard that could handle those loads.

Anyone that has high quality equipment with an amp with a fancy power cord - that goes in a 30 year old oxidized socket, has a 30' run to the fuse box, with more oxidized leads to the breaker, then a long run to a transformer that thinks that a $500 power cord is audibly different vs a $15 Belden is fooling themselves.  Want it better?  Clean the copper, and switch the plug (no not to the audiophile stuff), clean the copper off at the beaker box (BTW, if you aren't clued in enough to know you should shut your breaker down and then the whole house if you are going into the main - STOP now).

98% of audiophiles have very little idea how to improve their rooms.  Even with WAF acceptance issues, you can get your turntable into a closet, or at least a wall mount with the cover dismounted, speakers on spikes, woofers arranged to the room intersections to avoid dimensions like 1 x 1 x 2 - instead 1 x 1.67 x 3 to flatten your bass.  Toe in and speakers off the wall to help create a sense of depth.  Avoidance of thick carpets in favor of smaller throw rugs,  Not sitting on overstuffed chairs or worse couches - you need the near reflections to create a normal sound field and not eat up the treble in the furniture... I had 25 years of uninterrupted great rooms, just moved to smaller place which is awful, speakers stored away until I can try and fix it.  This is a place for effort, not cables.


----------



## dprimary

Glmoneydawg said:


> Pretty sure the only cables the fire inspector might be interested in are the power cords...maybe.?....the other cables carry insignificant voltage/amperage to worry anyone.....cool story though bro..



Good thing you don't build anything, buildings fail inspections all the time for low voltage cable issues. The studio story is true, the owner could not prove the cable was safe and had to remove it all before he could get a final inspection.


----------



## analogsurviver

Glmoneydawg said:


> If you don't  want to spend big bucks on cables, i totally get it!But if you are trying to suggest expensive cables arn't as good as cheap ones??  You need to rethink it.



I am NOT a very big user of audiohile cables - despite the notion by some. I am a rabid stickler for cable specification as required by the actual implementation - and that, usually, means as low ( idealy, NONE at all, an obvious impossibility ) capacitance as possible. MM phono cartridges and electrostatic speakers - and even more, by FAR more, elelctrostatic headphones are the prime considerations for using such cables. 

Yes, most audiophile cables are less safe than normal variety; too thick, too heavy for the connectors they inherently have to be terminated with, some being so stiff to have minimum bending diameter in - metres... etc, and so on. I am not going to dispute the fact that some audiophile cables used in some applications actually do sound better - but generally most of audiohile cables are impractical for studio work, even if price was no issue. In recording, 100 feet cable is not rare - now do the math how much it would cost to replace a good normal cable at say 2 $ a foot with something at 300 $ a foot  - for multiple runs ... You would need a serious truck just for the cable spools if asked to do a location recording - etc, etc. 

The only one I do know that does actually use audiophile grade cabling in recording is Jared Sachs of Channel Classics - he uses Van den Hul. There may well be others - but for lower cable runs and fewer microphones. When I tried to obtain one of VdH cables for my own use in recoding, NONE  of the authorized representatives/sellers in Europe had a spool on stock; the only one that had it was a man that is selling it fully terminated for phono use , in approx 1.5 metre per cable. And, quite predictably, was not interested in selling raw cable - as he can gain appreciable more by selling it terminated - at 1.5 metre piece at a time.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bagwell359 said:


> Experience is crucial.  Glamour is seductive.  If owning some Cardas Golden Section makes you feel better about your judgement and refinement what are the odds you won't find them better than lamp coed when they are visible to you?  Or what if you have audio nervosa/updatitis ?  Yeah yeah, get expensive everything, and its bound to make things better (that's called faith that's not based on observation but either pride/glamour or nervous neurosis.
> 
> I've heard difficult speaker loads (Scintilla, Dayton-Wright) that sounded much different and better with high capacitance cable.  But when you go to a "normal" speaker by comparison like ProAc EBS, Verity Parsifals, DQ-10's, Triangle Celius 202.  Back in the early 80's it was hard to find an amp that was stable enough to deal with those first two speakers, so amps were also easy to tell apart (if they didn't short out or shut down).  The Krell KSA-50 was the first amp I heard that could handle those loads.
> 
> ...




"expence" I think GImoney meant expen$e.  As in flushing money down the toilet on cabling that has less sonic effect than turning an EQ knob ten degrees clockwise.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

dprimary said:


> Good thing you don't build anything, buildings fail inspections all the time for low voltage cable issues. The studio story is true, the owner could not prove the cable was safe and had to remove it all before he could get a final inspection.


ok so audiophile cables are illegal now?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Glmoneydawg said:


> ok so audiophile cables are illegal now?




As I pointed out a page back or so, some so-called audiophile cables don't list all the specs on them.  I think they must list at minimum a blurb including the initials "U.L.".  Everyone knows what that stands for!


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 29, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> I am NOT a very big user of audiohile cables - despite the notion by some. I am a rabid stickler for cable specification as required by the actual implementation - and that, usually, means as low ( idealy, NONE at all, an obvious impossibility ) capacitance as possible. MM phono cartridges and electrostatic speakers - and even more, by FAR more, elelctrostatic headphones are the prime considerations for using such cables.
> 
> Yes, most audiophile cables are less safe than normal variety; too thick, too heavy for the connectors they inherently have to be terminated with, some being so stiff to have minimum bending diameter in - metres... etc, and so on. I am not going to dispute the fact that some audiophile cables used in some applications actually do sound better - but generally most of audiohile cables are impractical for studio work, even if price was no issue. In recording, 100 feet cable is not rare - now do the math how much it would cost to replace a good normal cable at say 2 $ a foot with something at 300 $ a foot  - for multiple runs ... You would need a serious truck just for the cable spools if asked to do a location recording - etc, etc.
> 
> The only one I do know that does actually use audiophile grade cabling in recording is Jared Sachs of Channel Classics - he uses Van den Hul. There may well be others - but for lower cable runs and fewer microphones. When I tried to obtain one of VdH cables for my own use in recoding, NONE  of the authorized representatives/sellers in Europe had a spool on stock; the only one that had it was a man that is selling it fully terminated for phono use , in approx 1.5 metre per cable. And, quite predictably, was not interested in selling raw cable - as he can gain appreciable more by selling it terminated - at 1.5 metre piece at a time.



"Van den Hul"?!?!?!?!

Are these audio wires or designer JEANS?  

Meanwhile, out where the buses don't run:  I'm a tale yoo whuut...  Ahh needed to wahr some spaykerz aaahhh joost took sum zip cord from an old layamp, strippd the ends off and thayat wuz thayat!  Sounded purty dang doodly dang good ta me!    Demz aww-dee-ohh-phools be morgajing the house just to wahr up thayr sound gear and whut-nawt.  That money could sure bahh a loada Merle Haggard cee-deez!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

TheSonicTruth said:


> As I pointed out a page back or so, some so-called audiophile cables don't list all the specs on them.  I think they must list at minimum a blurb including the initials "U.L.".  Everyone knows what that stands for!


right....if you market a product in the usa does it not have to pass UL inspection first?just asking....in canada that is the case with CSA approval.


----------



## 71 dB

Glmoneydawg said:


> ok so audiophile cables are illegal now?



Undocumented cables… …what can Trump do to stop them?


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> "Van den Hul"?!?!?!?!
> 
> Are these audio wires or designer JEANS?
> 
> Meanwhile, out where the buses don't run:  I'm a tale yoo whuut...  Ahh needed to wahr some spaykerz aaahhh joost took sum zip cord from an old layamp, strippd the ends off and thayat wuz thayat!  Sounded purty dang doodly dang good ta me!    Demz aww-dee-ohh-phools be morgajing the house just to wahr up thayr sound gear and whut-nawt.  That money could sure bahh a loada Merle Haggard cee-deez!



Please DO check the specs of those cables; some are exact geometries of normal cables, only built with better materials - both for conductor and dialectric materials. If nothing else, they are offering MUCH longer life with constant performance than copper variety - due to oxidation of copper over time. They are available IIRC in two qualities - as silver plated copper and as pure silver as conductor. 

Now, go out and pull say 10 years old copper cable in lengths used for recording - and compare it to new, broken in cable of the same brand/type( say at least one week of normal operation ). You won't be laughing anymore - and will have no other course than to admit VdH cables ( not ALL of them, though...) are anything but designer's jeans ... 

For all practical purposes, they take conductor degaradation over time out of the picture. This is unfortunately often "overlooked" - as the degradation is occuring slowly over time, unlikely to be heard from one recording session to another - and only direct comparison to a freshly produced copper conductor cable of the same type by the same manufacturer will show just how much did the cable degrade over time.
It is among the least desired things to do in a studio - as it would mean major surgery, under the wall/in canal cable removal, etc - LOTS of hassle and cost. But it is real thing - unless you have oxigen free atmosphere wherever you are using your cable.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 29, 2018)

Ok - I apologize for misunderstanding.  Although you gotta admit, Ricky Redneck was a hoot wih his assessment of the matter, lol! 

What you're referring to does matter, in production.  But for the 99%er - the rest of us average consumers(including Ricky Redneck!) listening at home or at work - 16AWG stranded zip cord is just fine for speakers.  The ends can also be tinned if in an environment that warrants it.  Same goes for RCA cables - no need for someone at home to pay as much for a 4ft pair of those as they would for a whole Blu-Ray machine.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Ok - I apologize for misunderstanding.  Although you gotta admit, Ricky Redneck was a hoot wih his assessment of the matter, lol!
> 
> What you're referring to does matter, in production.  But for the 99%er - the rest of us average consumers(including Ricky Redneck!) - 16AWG stranded zip cord is just fine for speakers.  The ends can also be tinned if in an environment that warrants it.  Same goes for RCA cables - no need for someone at home to pay as much for a 4ft pair of those as they would for a whole Blu-Ray machine.



I agree. But even in the home, these effects of oxidation can amount to audible over the years. And cables that won't just rot away can be had for reasonable prices - more than normal, much more - but not on the 4ft dwarfing the price of the Blue-Ray machine level.


----------



## castleofargh

Glmoneydawg said:


> ok so audiophile cables are illegal now?


getting on the defensive like this is not really clearing up anything. you need to be able to draw a line between the stuff you purchase and yourself when you discuss gears. there is a tutorial for that, called Fight Club. ^_^
for starters, how would you define an audiophile cable? what makes one "audiophile" grade, aside from a brand self proclaiming that it is so, and a usually high price as "proof" that it's different? because sticking strictly to some electrical standard is not what defines an audiophile cable. so what is?
the moment you start defending audiophile cables in general, you defend all the snake oil products that hide within that meaningless denomination, so I would suggest to be hyper specific if you want to defend something without getting chewed up by the gang.


----------



## pinnahertz

Cables....which sounds betters?

1. It's new, looks very high quality, uses "special" high performance materials, easily seen and felt high "build quality", comes with a story of why it's superior, costs a lot

2. It's old, standard materials, generic look and feel, comes with no story, costs very little.

The only comparison is sighted, and with the above bias.  

Choice 1. is defended by reiterating the bias, more in-depth, and confirming with anecdote, eventually followed by "you wouldn't understand unless you tried it" offered to opposers.  Electrical properties are usually cited, but not within any particular scale of impact.  Non-electrical properties are cited, like directionality, break-in, etc., but without actual measure proof other than sighted and biased opinion.  The preference for class 1. cables is strong, almost religious in nature.  

And the whole debate is pointless.  Nobody wins, nobody is convinced of the opposite view, no converts are made, and both cables are still used and sold to the satisfaction of everyone involved. 

I'm building a broadcast studio complex right now, just winding down.  Not a single exotic cable was used in the 15-20K feet of wire installed, though all was new.  The total budget was  not shared with me, but it's in the millions.   I can tell you what exotic able would have done to the project budget.   And that firmly proves points on both sides of the argument.


----------



## KeithEmo

Build a wall....

Sorry... just couldn't resist.



71 dB said:


> Undocumented cables… …what can Trump do to stop them?


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> Build a wall....
> 
> Sorry... just couldn't resist.


Fake Cables?


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes, and, amazingly, that good cable, that HAS all the specs, isn't all that expensive...
Because it's a readily available commercial product...

----------------

A buddy of mine used to collect vintage Ampex open reel recorders.
I guess they would be referred to as "portable studio equipment - although they were amazingly heavy.
They were the sort of studio equipment you would take on-site to record a live performance.
He had several of them... these were 7" open reel models - the ones that used separate tube-based electronic drawers for the record and playback amps and the meter bridge.
he always kept them properly calibrated and adjusted.
They were built like tanks... but their frequency response topped out around 15 kHz (by spec).
(And, yes, I had a Teac consumer model of similar or slightly newer vintage.)

I should also note that most of these limitations were not "because they couldn't do better".
At the time, frequency response to 15 kHz seemed to be considered to be "good" and so exceeding it simply wasn't considered to be as important as, for example, performing consistently with different tape formulations.

And, yes, the big 10" horizontal-spool models were usually quite a bit better - at least in terms of frequency response.
However, not many of them could match some of the specs of my old Teac A2300 SD (with Dolby noise reduction) - IF it was properly calibrated and IF it had a brand of tape it really liked (big "IFs" there)..



dprimary said:


> The Ampex open reel on the other specifications generally far exceeded the best consumer models. For many consumer models 30ips isn't even and option, most of them could not record at levels the later tape formulas could handle. Then how well do they hold up running 18 hours a day? What is the frequency response after millions of feet of tape has passed over the heads?
> 
> A studio designer won't use an "audiophile cable" because they do not have specifications. The specification for a cable is about a page long and not limited to -
> Temperature Range, Storage and Operating, Crush Resistance, Min. Bend Radius, Jacket Material, Insulation, Conductor Material, AWG, Strand size, Strand count, Shield type, Shield Material, Drain wire AWG, Color, Overall Diameter, Abrasion Resistance, Voltage Rating, Twist Rate, Chemical Resistance, UV  Resistance, Moisture Resistance, Capacitance, Resistance, Impedance, Number of Conductors, Tensional Strength Flammability, Weight, Standards.
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Cables....which sounds betters?
> 
> 1. It's new, looks very high quality, uses "special" high performance materials, easily seen and felt high "build quality", comes with a story of why it's superior, costs a lot
> 
> ...



Do you dismiss ANY sighted test ? Some are simply impractical in real life - or doable only with expense far above meaningful price point.

I agree regarding prices of normal vs audipohile cable in studios - the budget most usually does not allow for it. It is different for two mic recpording, though. 15-20k feet of wire is simply impossible to imagine in such a scenario - and the price of what is needed is not totally unmanegeable.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

pinnahertz said:


> Cables....which sounds betters?
> 
> 1. It's new, looks very high quality, uses "special" high performance materials, easily seen and felt high "build quality", comes with a story of why it's superior, costs a lot
> 
> ...




Exotic cable?  Even the Pentagon might have gone broke in your case, lol!


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Do you dismiss ANY sighted test ? Some are simply impractical in real life - or doable only with expense far above meaningful price point.


I dismiss any biased test because it's 100% provable that the bias skews results.  


analogsurviver said:


> I agree regarding prices of normal vs audipohile cable in studios - the budget most usually does not allow for it. It is different for two mic recpording, though.


Doesn't matter.  You're again focussed on <1% of all recordings. 


analogsurviver said:


> 15-20k feet of wire is simply impossible to imagine in such a scenario - and the price of what is needed is not totally unmanegeable.


We didn't use it all in one piece, thousands of shorter pieces, the bulk 30' or less.


----------



## Phronesis

pinnahertz said:


> I dismiss any biased test because it's 100% provable that the bias skews results.



That sounds kind of circular.  Isn't a biased test, by definition, going to bias (skew) results?  What really needs to be demonstrated is that a bias was present, and not cancelled by other factors, such that the results were significantly affected.  Demonstrating that could require two or more tests.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think you need to be clear on what you mean by "expensive ones" here.

For example, I doubt you'd hear a difference between speaker cables with Teflon insulation instead of PVC.... but Teflon certainly won't hurt anything.
(Well, Teflon has lower DA, and is very heat tolerant, but PVC is actually far more reliable under certain conditions, and Teflon tends to be stiffer... but either should work just fine for most people.)
And, sure, silver works fine for wire.... although it's only about 5% better than copper (so 10 gauge copper is equal to 11 gauge silver - but a _LOT_ cheaper).... and it does in fact oxidize in air (just not as quickly as copper).

_HOWEVER_, unfortunately, some of the very most expensive "audiophile cables" actually do have very _POOR_ performance specs.
Pure virgin combed Alpacca wool may sound like a very Zen sort of thing to use for insulation.... but it doesn't actually work very well.... and its electrical characteristics may change with the humidity.... not to mention weevils. 
(And, yes, there at least used to be a company actually selling a $3500 USB cable with "hand woven cotton insulation", and I'm pretty sure I have seen wool used, among many even more exotic and impractical materials.)
Many "audiophile cables" are just a good commercial cable in a fancy dress sleeve - and those probably work just fine.
And some may be well designed and actually work as well as you might expect.

Unfortunately, many of the very most expensive ones seem to have been designed by engineers with downright odd ideas, or seemingly not designed by engineers at all.
And some of them actually work really poorly.
They may have unreasonably high inductance or capacitance, or odd circuitry attached to them, or very strange internal ground wiring, or insulation with really odd properties.
For example, certain now-legendary brands of speaker cable had such high capacitance that they would routinely blow fuses on certain models of amplifiers by causing them to oscillate.
And, here at Emotiva, we've run into one or two brands of expensive interconnects that have some really odd ground arrangement that causes our amps to go into protect quite consistently.
(The design of simple cable has to be pretty far from the norm for "compatibility issues" to occur.)



Glmoneydawg said:


> If you don't  want to spend big bucks on cables, i totally get it!But if you are trying to suggest expensive cables arn't as good as cheap ones??  You need to rethink it.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think I would like to see that "much more" put into perspective......

For example, a really cheap interconnect is often actually free (remember the ones that came with your CD player).
However, you can purchase a pretty good one, with gold plating and everything, for between $5 and $20.
(And many of the $5 ones seem to work just fine.)



analogsurviver said:


> I agree. But even in the home, these effects of oxidation can amount to audible over the years. And cables that won't just rot away can be had for reasonable prices - more than normal, much more - but not on the 4ft dwarfing the price of the Blue-Ray machine level.


----------



## dprimary

Glmoneydawg said:


> ok so audiophile cables are illegal now?



Installing a non rated cable in a building as in studio yes is illegal. It is technically against code in any building. It would pretty rare for an inspector to bother looking what you ran up an down the wall of your house, unless you had a crazy amount of it or they are just having a bad day.


----------



## pinnahertz

Phronesis said:


> That sounds kind of circular.  Isn't a biased test, by definition, going to bias (skew) results?  What really needs to be demonstrated is that a bias was present, and not cancelled by other factors, such that the results were significantly affected.  Demonstrating that could require two or more tests.


There's a whole faction that doesn't think bias even exists, so no, it's not circular in this forum.

Control is built into a properly executed ABX/DBT.  You do several test rounds with identical A and B, results must be very close to 50%.  Then you do the rest with different A and B. 

The entire process is usually rejected because it's too difficult, too expensive, or invalid because of some other silly notion like pressure or time limitations. Everyone is just going to believe whatever they want, even those who claim to seek the truth.


----------



## KeithEmo

"UL" is Underwriters Laboratories....
They are a _PRIVATE_ testing company who you can pay to certify your products if you _want_ to. 
Nothing legally _has_ to be UL approved. 
(Although, of course, some particular company may choose to only purchase products that have been approved by them and bear the logo.)



Glmoneydawg said:


> right....if you market a product in the usa does it not have to pass UL inspection first?just asking....in canada that is the case with CSA approval.


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> "UL" is Underwriters Laboratories....
> They are a _PRIVATE_ testing company who you can pay to certify your products if you _want_ to.
> Nothing legally _has_ to be UL approved.
> (Although, of course, some particular company may choose to only purchase products that have been approved by them and bear the logo.)


Most pro audio gear is never even submitted to UL, it's mostly consumer gear.  Well designed audio gear has already addressed leakage current to the chassis.


----------



## pinnahertz

dprimary said:


> Installing a non rated cable in a building as in studio yes is illegal. It is technically against code in any building. It would pretty rare for an inspector to bother looking what you ran up an down the wall of your house, unless you had a crazy amount of it or they are just having a bad day.


It's an insulation related rating that pertains to what kinds of gasses are given off if the insulation melts or burns.  Class 2 is sufficient for residential use in a cavity that may have a relation to air distribution.  Commercial wiring has many more ratings levels (plenum rating is very common).  Non-rated wiring can be installed with a sealed wireway or conduit and not violate codes.

I have never yet seen an inspection, residential or commercial, where insulation ratings were checked.  Not impossible, though.


----------



## Phronesis

pinnahertz said:


> There's a whole faction that doesn't think bias even exists, so no, it's not circular in this forum.
> 
> Control is built into a properly executed ABX/DBT.  You do several test rounds with identical A and B, results must be very close to 50%.  Then you do the rest with different A and B.
> 
> The entire process is usually rejected because it's too difficult, too expensive, or invalid because of some other silly notion like pressure or time limitations. Everyone is just going to believe whatever they want, even those who claim to seek the truth.



I don't really fault people for it, it's part of human nature.  Operation of biases is hidden well enough at the subconscious level to make detection difficult, and we're wired to not change beliefs once they're rooted in our minds.  Often, the search for 'truth' is really just a search for evidence which confirms our existing beliefs, and contrary evidence will actually _reinforce_ those beliefs.  All fertile ground for development of ideology, dogma, fanaticism … and lots of audiophile myths.  We're amazing creatures - hence the wonders of science, technology, art, etc. - but also quite limited and fallible, and sometimes our own worst enemies.


----------



## pinnahertz

Phronesis said:


> I don't really fault people for it, it's part of human nature.  Operation of biases is hidden well enough at the subconscious level to make detection difficult,


Not difficult when using the proper testing protocol.  Rather easy, in fact.


Phronesis said:


> and we're wired to not change beliefs once they're rooted in our minds.  Often, the search for 'truth' is really just a search for evidence which confirms our existing beliefs, and contrary evidence will actually _reinforce_ those beliefs.  All fertile ground for development of ideology, dogma, fanaticism … and lots of audiophile myths.


There's where there's a difference between the search for truth without regard for the scientific method, and the real search for truth without regard or preference for the outcome.  For some, it's all about reinforcement of belief, for others, it's all about the real, reproducible results.


Phronesis said:


> We're amazing creatures - hence the wonders of science, technology, art, etc. - but also quite limited and fallible, and sometimes our own worst enemies.


It's the failure to recognize that last point that separates the two groups into warring factions.


----------



## Phronesis

pinnahertz said:


> Not difficult when using the proper testing protocol.  Rather easy, in fact.
> There's where there's a difference between the search for truth without regard for the scientific method, and the real search for truth without regard or preference for the outcome.  For some, it's all about reinforcement of belief, for others, it's all about the real, reproducible results.
> 
> It's the failure to recognize that last point that separates the two groups into warring factions.



But, again, it's human nature for people to follow the path of less resistance and not try hard to challenge their beliefs.  A scientific mindset is more the exception rather than rule, and is possible mainly because curiosity can motivate _some_ people to find ways to reduce effects of biases in order to figure how things work (truth).  But scientists and other truth seekers are still human, and are also prone to biases and sometimes even dogma and myth.  My personal view, speaking as a pragmatic engineer who designs real stuff, is that, while we can and should improve our models of reality, models are the best we can do and absolute Truth is unattainable.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Jun 29, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> getting on the defensive like this is not really clearing up anything. you need to be able to draw a line between the stuff you purchase and yourself when you discuss gears. there is a tutorial for that, called Fight Club. ^_^
> for starters, how would you define an audiophile cable? what makes one "audiophile" grade, aside from a brand self proclaiming that it is so, and a usually high price as "proof" that it's different? because sticking strictly to some electrical standard is not what defines an audiophile cable. so what is?
> the moment you start defending audiophile cables in general, you defend all the snake oil products that hide within that meaningless denomination, so I would suggest to be hyper specific if you want to defend something without getting chewed up by the gang.


that was kind of my point....the offending cable could be any grade


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 29, 2018)

Sighted tests are empirical evidence that should be given some consideration.

However, the question is whether sighted tests are reliable empirical evidence. This is a factual question that depends on what you are testing. In many instances controlled ABX testing will show that sighted tests are highly unreliable. In some instances ABX testing is not practical, such as, for example, with headphones. But that still does not mean that the sighted testing is reliable. In some cases it will be, and in others not. For example, I am not too convinced that if people were told that a top-notch $200 pair of headphones cost $1,000 and a $1,000 pair of headphones cost $200, that audio reviewers and consumers alike would not find reasons to prefer the $200 pair of headphones (said to cost $1,000). Now this is due to my own biased belief that headphone sound quality, without DSP, tops out and plateaus with the better $200-$300 headphones, largely based on my own sighted testing and looking at what are probably unreliable frequency response graphs. I would welcome reliable evidence to the contrary, but I think it may be hard to come by, and to complicate things even more personal taste and even differing informed opinions would come into play. I readily concede I do not have reliable evidence to back up my claim, and that it is heartily influenced by my own biases.

So that is my Philosophy 101 for the day.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 29, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> Sighted tests are empirical evidence that should be given some consideration.
> 
> However, the question is whether sighted tests are reliable empirical evidence. This is a factual question that depends on what you are testing. In many instances controlled ABX testing will show that sighted tests are highly unreliable. In some instances ABX testing is not practical, such as, for example, with headphones. But that still does not mean that the sighted testing is reliable. In some cases it will be, and in others not. For example, I am not too convinced that if people were told that a top-notch $200 pair of headphones cost $1,000 and a $1,000 pair of headphones cost $200, that audio reviewers and consumers alike would not find reasons to prefer the $200 pair of headphones (said to cost $1,000). Now this is due to my own biased belief that headphone sound quality, without DSP, tops out and plateaus with the better $200-$300 headphones, largely based on my own sighted testing and looking at what are probably unreliable frequency response graphs. I would welcome reliable evidence to the contrary, but I think it may be hard to come by, and to complicate things even more personal taste and even differing informed opinions would come into play. I readily concede I do not have reliable evidence to back up my claim.
> 
> So that is my Philosophy 101 for the day.



I've found that sighted tests can be probably made more reliable if volume is matched, music segments are matched (and short enough to be handled by echoic memory), and switching time is short (less than ~2 secs), preferably closer to instant.  I used that approach, combined with longer-term listening, to compare the $1500 Focal Clear with the $4000 Focal Utopia, and wound up confidently choosing the Clear as my preferred choice (independent of the cost difference).


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> Sighted tests are empirical evidence that should be given some consideration.
> 
> However, the question is whether sighted tests are reliable empirical evidence. This is a factual question that depends on what you are testing. In many instances controlled ABX testing will show that sighted tests are highly unreliable. In some instances ABX testing is not practical, such as, for example, with headphones. But that still does not mean that the sighted testing is reliable. In some cases it will be, and in others not. For example, I am not too convinced that if people were told that a top-notch $200 pair of headphones cost $1,000 and a $1,000 pair of headphones cost $200, that audio reviewers and consumers alike would not find reasons to prefer the $200 pair of headphones (said to cost $1,000). Now this is due to my own bias that headphone sound quality, without DSP, tops out and plateaus with the better $200-$300 headphones, largely based on my own sighted testing and looking at what are probably unreliable frequency response graphs. I would welcome reliable evidence to the contrary, but I think it may be hard to come by, and to complicate things even more personal taste and even differing informed opinions would come into play, and I readily concede I do not have reliable evidence to back up my claim.
> 
> So that is my Philosophy 101 for the day.



Well, I do not think we can throw electrostatic headphones to the mix at the prices mentioned. But once living with an electrostatic at least  over a weekend ( no pressure, no ABXing, no nothing except pure music listening from the highest quality format available ), things should be pretty clear. It is sad that pure electrostatics require such "power stations" for amplification to really shine - which does not come anywhere near as low as 1K for "amplifier". I do not think people would be likely to be lead to believe that a dynamic headphone at nominally 5 times the price actually sounds better than an electrostatic at nominally one fifth of the price - if the esl was driven properly and listeners were not allowed to see (wearing eye mask) and headphones placed on their heads by another person.

Headphones present another problem - how compatible they are with listener's HRTF. If you find inexpensive chinese IEM that - to your ear - sounds better than >>500 $ headphones of whatever make/type - buy a truckload of them, before they are discontinued...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 29, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> They were built like tanks... but their frequency response topped out around 15 kHz (by spec).
> (And, yes, I had a Teac consumer model of similar or slightly newer vintage.) I should also note that most of these limitations were not "because they couldn't do better".
> At the time, frequency response to 15 kHz seemed to be considered to be "good" and so exceeding it simply wasn't considered to be as important as, for example, performing consistently with different tape formulations.



Why record frequencies that aren't going to be reproduced in the grooves of the LP record? They were recording to suit the distribution format.



analogsurviver said:


> Do you dismiss ANY sighted test ?



Maybe not any sighted test, but I think I would suspect bias in just about any sighted test you did!



Phronesis said:


> But, again, it's human nature for people to follow the path of less resistance and not try hard to challenge their beliefs.



It's more than just avoiding challenges. Self justification is MUCH more powerful than just defending beliefs. People cherry pick and only consider the evidence that supports their preconceived idea. The place where sighted is a little less subject to bias is when the person has no dog in the fight and hasn't made their mind up what the outcome will be. But that isn't generally a good description of most audiophiles.

My favorite audio defense of a biased result is the argument... "Even my wife can tell the difference!" Whenever someone trots that out to defend a sighted test I have to laugh.


----------



## pinnahertz

A few things to keep in mind: 

Sighted testing does have validity, if for no other reason than to prompt a blind test.  It's also somewhat useful for selecting a preference, but should always be viewed as highly biased, and the results affected significantly by those biases.  

The fact that ABX becomes impractical does not further validate sighted testing.

Longer gaps in comparison choices decreases differential resolution very quickly.  Gapless switching is significantly better than even 50ms, 2000ms and up results in a significant reduction in the ability of a tester to resolve a difference.  True for sighted and blind testing, but the sighted tester generally won't believe or consider the reality of the situation.

Level-matching is critical to all comparisons, but in testing systems with non-flat response, only possible at some mid frequency, usually 1kHz.  

A biased, sighted test to determine preference usually does result in a high degree of satisfaction with the choice.  Satisfaction does include preference for certain biases, like how the thing looks and feels as well as sounds.  Two identical performing choices will still present choice preference if they look and feel differently.   

Economics is maximizing happiness, not maximizing value.   Some are happier with expensive materials and construction regardless of real performance.  I have no argument or issue with that.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Headphones present another problem - how compatible they are with listener's HRTF. If you find inexpensive chinese IEM that - to your ear - sounds better than >>500 $ headphones of whatever make/type - buy a truckload of them, before they are discontinued...


All headphones and IEMs bypass HRTF.


----------



## Steve999

pinnahertz said:


> Economics is maximizing happiness, not maximizing value.



Now there’s a can of worms if I ever saw one. It gives me a headache just to think about it so I am not going to think about it anymore. 

As to everything else you said, I strongly agree.

FWIW, I’ve always said economics is a means to an end, not an end in itself. That probably weaves in there somewhere.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 29, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> All headphones and IEMs bypass HRTF.



Not entirely true. Designs like AKG K-1000 do not.

I should have more properly worded the remark about headphones "fitting a person". Any tips or earpads are more or les haphazardly suitable for certain size and shape  of human ear canal and/or pinna. If the inexpensive headphone that per some wild chance fits you "as a glove" and does not exhibit too high THD and/or IMD and does not distort/compress at highj(er) levels, it is the one to buy in "truckload" quantities. That is why aftermarket IEM tips have developed into its own market - as they can allow much more ear/canal  shapes to be accomodated by the same IEM - without having to resort to expensive custom mouldings.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jun 29, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Not entirely true. Designs like AKG K-1000 do not.


Yes, they all bypass individual HRTF because the drivers present a single vector of arrival to the pinna.  Real HRTF includes a set of arrival vectors included in a 360 degree sphere.


----------



## pinnahertz

Steve999 said:


> Now there’s a can of worms if I ever saw one.


Why?  For some, maximizing happiness includes maximizing value. For the other polarity, value is not a factor.  And there's every other mix in between.  It's always about maximizing happiness/satisfaction.  Only the definitions change.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Yes, they all do because the drivers present a single vector of arrival to the pinna.  Real HRTF includes a set of arrival vectors included in a 360 degree sphere.



OK, agreed.

K-1000 and BAP-1000 combination does just that - and can be calibrated to each listener's HRTF.


----------



## bigshot

Have you ever personally heard one of those calibrated to your own HRTF, or are you just talking about it in the abstract?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Have you ever personally heard one of those calibrated to your own HRTF, or are you just talking about it in the abstract?



No - but CLOSE.

 A  friend does have one of these first combos - and I had it in my home for an extended audition - plus I can borrow it any time - with reasonable advance "warning".
And I DID like the preset #2 the best.

That's why I found it astonishing that the designer of the K-1000  and BAP-1000 , Heinz Renner or @hrklg01 on head-fi, has been obviously staring at my pinna during my visit to his home last year - stating we have very similar outer ears ! He told me that preset #1 was HRTF  of the marketing manager of the AKG at the time ( late 80s), preset #2 was his personal HRTF, etc. Obviously, not exact - but close.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/mysphere-3-1-unique-in-sound-design-build-quality.819658/page-37 , post #549


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> OK, agreed.
> 
> K-1000 and BAP-1000 combination does just that - and can be calibrated to each listener's HRTF.


No, that setup bypasses HRTF too.  What the BAP-1000 did (past tense) was to reprocess stereo into pseudo-binaural based on 9 generalized individual presets.  The reprocessing algorithm had to make many assumptions to do that, and the result was something entirely new that never existed outside of that processor.  Generalized HRTF was involved, but extremely imprecise processing was too.

Besides, that's an exception...you know, the kind you love to cite as evidence of principle


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 29, 2018)

Technically economics is about maximizing utility. Often times maximizing utility in an economics sense will not maximize happiness. Or in the words of the Beatles, I don’t care too much for money, money can’t buy me love.



pinnahertz said:


> Why?  For some, maximizing happiness includes maximizing value. For the other polarity, value is not a factor.  And there's every other mix in between.  It's always about maximizing happiness/satisfaction.  Only the definitions change.


----------



## pinnahertz

Steve999 said:


> Technically economics is about maximizing utility. Often times maximizing utility in an economics sense will not maximize happiness. Or in the words of the Beatles, I don’t care too much for money, money can’t buy me love.


If maximizing utility makes you happy.....

I guess it depends on who's defining it.  My economics professor defined it as I did, but what the heck did he know? It's about all I learned in his class.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 29, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> No, that setup bypasses HRTF too.  What the BAP-1000 did (past tense) was to reprocess stereo into pseudo-binaural based on 9 generalized individual presets.  The reprocessing algorithm had to make many assumptions to do that, and the result was something entirely new that never existed outside of that processor.  Generalized HRTF was involved, but extremely imprecise processing was too.
> 
> Besides, that's an exception...you know, the kind you love to cite as evidence of principle



Well, AKG did offer individual HRTF  measurements to be taken for this combo - and even the presets have not been generalized, but measurements of real persons taken. I agree that it was stereo > binaural alike type of processor - with all the attendant child illnesesses that accompany entirely new at the time concept.

I am not fond of exceptions, high prices or inconvinience - but, if they provide the closest approximation to the sound heard live, I greet my teeth and bite the bullet. Eventually, things get digested and technology does trickle down to more affordable and easier to use products. I never thought DSD256 would be available in a portable device - let alone one costing approx 200 $. And yet, the first backers should be receiving this gizmo as you read this...

Bearing in mind what is possible with DSP today, I firmly believe a really decent processor for MySphere ( which requires less additional processing than other types of headphones ) using individually measured HRTF could finally be made possible. But please note LB Acoustics, as the new enterprise is called, comprises very few people ( both original designers of the K-1000 team  back at the AKG of late 80s ) and investors - it may be awhile before they reach the point to be able to tackle the processor for their latest creation.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 30, 2018)

In theory utility can be quantified in dollars, or pounds, or your other currency or random types of units of choice. Maybe even something as ridiculous as a unit called “utils.” Otherwise there is nothing to test and nothing to measure. In my view you cannot say the same of happiness.



pinnahertz said:


> If maximizing utility makes you happy.....
> 
> I guess it depends on who's defining it.  My economics professor defined it as I did, but what the heck did he know? It's about all I learned in his class.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 29, 2018)

I wouldn't want a stereo to binaural processor. I get better sound with regular stereo mixes through my headphones.



Steve999 said:


> In theory utility can be quantified in dollars, or pounds, or your other currency or random types of units of choice.



There are so many sources of potential happiness in life, I don't know why anyone wouldn't just take the most direct and efficient path to it. That is quicker and it leaves you time to find more sources of happiness to mine.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Well, AKG did offer individual HRTF  measurements to be taken for this combo - and even the presets have not been generalized, but measurements of real persons taken.


But you're missing the point.  Sure, there may be 9 presets based on actual HRTF measurements of questionable quality, but they aren't yours.  Then 2 channel stereo of undetermined mix and mic technique is massaged into pseudo binaural.  There's NO CHANCE of accuracy here, and precise HRTF no longer matters because the whole process is in error. 


analogsurviver said:


> I agree that it was stereo > binaural alike type of processor - with all the attendant child illnesesses that accompany entirely new at the time concept.


Yup, and didn't that catch on well.


analogsurviver said:


> I am not fond of exceptions, high prices or inconvinience - but, if they provide the closest approximation to the sound heard live, I greet my teeth and bite the bullet. Eventually, things get digested and technology does trickle down to more affordable and easier to use products.


There's an old saying that if you want to understand what someone is really trying to say, just eliminate everything said before "but", and you'll find the truth of what they're saying is the inverse.


----------



## bigshot

Since we are living through a golden age of home electronics, there's no excuse for focusing on exceptions, high prices and inconvenience. The consistently high quality of home audio frees me up to focus on the music instead. I have a stack of movies and music taller than I am to watch. Every time I fire up my system, I am exposed to joy.


----------



## dprimary

pinnahertz said:


> Most pro audio gear is never even submitted to UL, it's mostly consumer gear.  Well designed audio gear has already addressed leakage current to the chassis.



I just looked at a stack of pro gear every one had an UL listing or equal.


----------



## dprimary

TheSonicTruth said:


> Ok - I apologize for misunderstanding.  Although you gotta admit, Ricky Redneck was a hoot wih his assessment of the matter, lol!
> 
> What you're referring to does matter, in production.  But for the 99%er - the rest of us average consumers(including Ricky Redneck!) listening at home or at work - 16AWG stranded zip cord is just fine for speakers.  The ends can also be tinned if in an environment that warrants it.  Same goes for RCA cables - no need for someone at home to pay as much for a 4ft pair of those as they would for a whole Blu-Ray machine.



The reality is - a change in humidity would change the sound more than swapping between different properly designed cables connecting properly designed equipment. It is pretty hard to spend more than $10 on a XLR and a $1.50 foot for the highest specification microphone cable even at retail prices.


----------



## pinnahertz

dprimary said:


> I just looked at a stack of pro gear every one had an UL listing or equal.


Very nice!  The stack I've been looking at all week was the reverse.  

Probably not worth any further discussion.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 29, 2018)

Deeply distressed by the incoherent ramblings of your former economics professor, I took some time to double-check myself.

The only thing I could find was the concept of *Gross National Happiness* (also known by the acronym: *GNH*), a philosophy that guides the government of Bhutan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness

My teenaged sons pointed out to me some time ago that, should your future plans involve travel from Bhutan, this is how you would obtain a Bhutanese passport:



Edit: I just found a remix! 



pinnahertz said:


> If maximizing utility makes you happy.....
> 
> I guess it depends on who's defining it.  My economics professor defined it as I did, but what the heck did he know? It's about all I learned in his class.


----------



## dprimary

pinnahertz said:


> Cables....which sounds betters?
> 
> 1. It's new, looks very high quality, uses "special" high performance materials, easily seen and felt high "build quality", comes with a story of why it's superior, costs a lot
> 
> ...




Your SMPTE 311 cables are far more exotic than any audio cable, in that case the connectors are very expensive and only a few companies can terminate them. The newer 12g SDI cables like Belden 4855R far more exotic then any of these audiophile cables, and nobody is making it in a garage. Even it is three dollars a foot.


----------



## dprimary

pinnahertz said:


> Very nice!  The stack I've been looking at all week was the reverse.
> 
> Probably not worth any further discussion.



Pro audio or Broadcast? I would think most broadcast gear is listed. I do remember some pro audio gear that I was not allowed to use in a project, because of some requirement it all had to be UL listed.


----------



## bigshot

I have to admit that I've never made a point of checking, but the stuff that I've noticed *isn't* UL listed is usually manufactured in Europe or built by small boutique companies that can't afford certification. I've never had anyone ask me if equipment is UL, but I can see when you're building a studio from scratch and a building inspector who isn't familiar with recording studios might ask a question like that.


----------



## skwoodwiva

https://catalog.belden.com/techdata/EN/1506A_techdata.pdf

To go on more into avoiding DA
this is one of the best coax cables used long before the cable craze


----------



## Arpiben

skwoodwiva said:


> https://catalog.belden.com/techdata/EN/1506A_techdata.pdf
> 
> To go on more into avoiding DA
> this is one of the best coax cables used long before the cable craze



By curiosity you are using this RG59 cable for which purpose: headphone connection or as a clothing's hanger?


----------



## analogsurviver

Arpiben said:


> By curiosity you are using this RG59 cable for which purpose: headphone connection or as a clothing's hanger?



Another way of saying why cables can be such a controversial and hot debate - they are not only electrical, bur mechanucal devices as well. There are no doubt other considerations - but nowhere is the mechanical properties of the "wire" as critical as in phono polayback. From moving coil cartridge ( where how the actual wire comes from the coil to the cartridge output terminals separates boys from men ) , trough tonearm wiring ( particularly at bearing position , where some designs deliberately use thicker/stiffer wire than absolutely necessary in order to control the mechanical resonance trough damping this thicker wire allows for ) and finishes with output cable between the suspended subchassis and plinth of a suspended design turntable.

I have seen many "audiophool" cable replacement in tonearm and output cable - not only rendering worse performance than with "original crappy old wire", but sometimes totally defeating the absolutely necessary mechanical function. Even if I agree that electrically better cable should (and can...) sound better, if it short-circuits the suspended turntable suspension ( increasing feedback by at least 20 dB ... ), it can not - overall - perform better than electrically and mechanically "suitably balanced" cable for this particular application. The same goes for increased tonearm bearing friction trough using mechanically inappropriate cables ( that targets teflon insulation - in most cases, FAR too thick and too stiff for the purpose. Thin teflon insulation tonearm wire does exist - at a price ...).

There is a solid mechanical reason why RG59 (despite its good electrical properties and low price ) is not used more for audio - it is simply too stiff ( minimum curvature radius too high for X-acto sticklers ) for most - but not all - audio applications. The common sense dictates that cable should dangle from the device it is connected to - not the other way around ...


----------



## castleofargh

cables are controversial because people with close to zero electrical knowledge decide that they don't need such knowledge to "educate" the world on how things really are. 
it's the eternal issue of audiophiles thinking that they can substitute any knowledge for 2 ears and a sighted anecdote. 

otherwise there is no controversy at all. cables far from the standard specs for a dedicated use can under many circumstances end up making audible differences and of course measurable ones. just like under many other circumstances, the only way to get a significant change from cables is to break one or start adding a passive circuit into it. but all those situations obey the laws of electricity just fine. I haven't seen much mystery in the audio cable world.  


now I agree that cable weight and stiffness are decisive factors for some audiophile uses and become the reason why a headphone cable for example won't have the exact specs it should ideally have for the electrical circuit. now how many of us would sacrifice everyday comfort for a tiny improvement in sound? a few for sure, and there is always someone to make stuff for them. but I for one will always pick a practical ok, over an annoying best. I remember some solid core wire for IEMs, they would have to pay me to use that horrible cable with my IEMs. and of course the price was as ludicrous as the rest. but hey, one thing I can testify to, it made a clearly audible change to sound on the IEM it was sold for(some multidriver with apocalyptic impedance curve).


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 30, 2018)

I woke up this morning seeing that no one was interested Gross National Happiness or Bhutan or how to get a passport to travel from Bhutan, and I realized I could competently add to one recent area of discussion in this thread, though I believe it has been beaten into the ground, but I really wanted to say something relevant.

Here is what I am competent to report on. I have two pro audio pieces of gear. They are actually stacked on top of one another so it is a whole stack of pro gear. I am not including the XLR cables that I need to hook the two up. My entire stack of pro audio gear is from Europe, and nothing in the whole stack is UL listed. Everything in my whole stack of pro audio gear has lots of interesting looking certification or other regulatory looking symbols on the top or the bottom or the back (but not the sides or the front), but nothing in my whole stack of pro audio gear has a UL cerification symbol.

Also I do not like stiff headphone cables. The Grado cables are inconveniently stiff and I do not like them.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Another way of saying why cables can be such a controversial and hot debate - they are not only electrical, bur mechanucal devices as well. There are no doubt other considerations - but nowhere is the mechanical properties of the "wire" as critical as in phono polayback. From moving coil cartridge ( where how the actual wire comes from the coil to the cartridge output terminals separates boys from men ) , trough tonearm wiring ( particularly at bearing position , where some designs deliberately use thicker/stiffer wire than absolutely necessary in order to control the mechanical resonance trough damping this thicker wire allows for ) and finishes with output cable between the suspended subchassis and plinth of a suspended design turntable.
> 
> I have seen many "audiophool" cable replacement in tonearm and output cable - not only rendering worse performance than with "original crappy old wire", but sometimes totally defeating the absolutely necessary mechanical function. Even if I agree that electrically better cable should (and can...) sound better, if it short-circuits the suspended turntable suspension ( increasing feedback by at least 20 dB ... ), it can not - overall - perform better than electrically and mechanically "suitably balanced" cable for this particular application. The same goes for increased tonearm bearing friction trough using mechanically inappropriate cables ( that targets teflon insulation - in most cases, FAR too thick and too stiff for the purpose. Thin teflon insulation tonearm wire does exist - at a price ...).


I just wanted to flag this post because it is significant.  It contains two consecutive paragraphs from analogsurvivor that I agree with.  Mark this day in history.


analogsurviver said:


> There is a solid mechanical reason why RG59 (despite its good electrical properties and low price ) is not used more for audio - it is simply too stiff ( minimum curvature radius too high for X-acto sticklers ) for most - but not all - audio applications. The common sense dictates that cable should dangle from the device it is connected to - not the other way around ...


And I almost agree with this one too.  The RG59 spec does not specifically dictate stiffness, and cables manufactured to that specification are available in a wide variety of flexibility, construction, even jacket color.  I actually use it a lot for audio, just not the huge quad-shielded, solid inner conductor type.  *Here's just one example, there are many others. *The reason I use it has nothing to do with electrical properties, though its just fine that way.  I use it because it's flexible and I can field terminate it to any custom length in a few seconds with compression connectors, which are highly reliable, moisture tight, fast and easy.  Using one color for audio and another for video/SDI/RF applications makes tooling less costly as well.

Notice, though, if you look through the Canare specifications or the Belden specifications linked previously, you'll find resistance per foot, capacitance per foot, inductance per foot, return loss, percent shield cover, lots of specs...but you won't find a word about dielectric absorption.  Hmmm.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> I just wanted to flag this post because it is significant.  It contains two consecutive paragraphs from analogsurvivor that I agree with.  Mark this day in history.
> 
> And I almost agree with this one too.  The RG59 spec does not specifically dictate stiffness, and cables manufactured to that specification are available in a wide variety of flexibility, construction, even jacket color.  I actually use it a lot for audio, just not the huge quad-shielded, solid inner conductor type.  *Here's just one example, there are many others. *The reason I use it has nothing to do with electrical properties, though its just fine that way.  I use it because it's flexible and I can field terminate it to any custom length in a few seconds with compression connectors, which are highly reliable, moisture tight, fast and easy.  Using one color for audio and another for video/SDI/RF applications makes tooling less costly as well.
> 
> Notice, though, if you look through the Canare specifications or the Belden specifications linked previously, you'll find resistance per foot, capacitance per foot, inductance per foot, return loss, percent shield cover, lots of specs...but you won't find a word about dielectric absorption.  Hmmm.



Well, - bit by bit - we actually might be gaining some progress... 

The Sound Science objectivist camp did come to a degree of common sense in the intervening years;  it used to be - almost - that RBCD is too much and better lossy formats good enough, Sennheiser has been - almost - accused of marketing headphones that extend beyond 20 K, as in doing music listeners thus a disservice - and , the unthinkable and unheard of CABLE ( ANY cable, for ANY application in audio ) debate as mere possibility that cable might be under the best conditions audible was greeted - at best - with something like this :



and has been dissed and dismissed ASAP. According to the belief/religion/dogma permeating Sound Science at the time, it was 20-20k. RBCD, 2V RMS line coax  cable world - EXCLUSIVELY.

It is amusing but not funny to see even the likes of @pinnahertz falling for seeking the culprit of DA rearing its ugly head ONLY  in the most usual of suspects - the cables...

DA is the physical property of - what ? Any other place it *might* be hiding, conviniently from the open view - and thus invisible to most ? That does not mean, however, that is just lying there - without harming the audio signal, doing nothing  - on the contrary, it works overtime ! And not to the benefit of SQ, I might add...

DA - and other detrimental effects of the cable, combined - are about only 1 % of the sonic degradation of a typical audio system most of the people - not only on this thread, but worldwide - are using. The same  goes also for almost any known recording studio. The rest 99 ( or so ) % of sonic degradation is neatly, quietly hidden from the view and thus attention of most - but not all.

Just a few days ( a week ? ) ago I have been accused of going backwards in time - next stage after BlueRaY > DVD > VCR: horse carriages. I did not mention video recorders out of the blue, without a reason  - because I did have hope that somebody will grasp the idea WHY I brought them up from the commercially dead. But giving the answer on a silver platter after such upheaval would not be exactly wise on my part...

Regarding specs ( for everything, not just cables ) ; they are closely linked to statistics. 

And what has statistics in common with the bikini ? It shows everything - EXCEPT the most important/interesting .


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 30, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Well, - bit by bit - we actually might be gaining some progress...
> 
> The Sound Science objectivist camp did come to a degree of common sense in the intervening years;  it used to be - almost - that RBCD is too much and better lossy formats good enough, Sennheiser has been - almost - accused of marketing headphones that extend beyond 20 K, as in doing music listeners thus a disservice - and , the unthinkable and unheard of CABLE ( ANY cable, for ANY application in audio ) debate as mere possibility that cable might be under the best conditions audible was greeted - at best - with something like this :
> 
> ...





I'm the same way with each new audio or video format.  2k, 4k, 8k, yet content is going in opposite direction in terms of depth/originality and production quality.


----------



## bigshot

When technology makes it easier to do something, the first rush of people exploiting it are folks without enough on the ball to be doing it when it was more difficult. Eventually that shakes out and the right people are left standing. That isn’t technology’s fault... it’s natural human incompetence rising to the top and sinking again.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Well, - bit by bit - we actually might be gaining some progress...
> 
> The Sound Science objectivist camp did come to a degree of common sense in the intervening years;  it used to be - almost - that RBCD is too much and better lossy formats good enough, Sennheiser has been - almost - accused of marketing headphones that extend beyond 20 K, as in doing music listeners thus a disservice - and , the unthinkable and unheard of CABLE ( ANY cable, for ANY application in audio ) debate as mere possibility that cable might be under the best conditions audible was greeted - at best - with something like this :
> 
> and has been dissed and dismissed ASAP. According to the belief/religion/dogma permeating Sound Science at the time, it was 20-20k. RBCD, 2V RMS line coax  cable world - EXCLUSIVELY.


Well, I for one don't have a clue what you're  on about.  You can misapply any technology, even cable, but it's pretty darn hard to do with cable.


analogsurviver said:


> It is amusing but not funny to see even the likes of @pinnahertz falling for seeking the culprit of DA rearing its ugly head ONLY  in the most usual of suspects - the cables...


I believe, or at least tried, to convey that cable DA is simply not an issue. 


analogsurviver said:


> DA is the physical property of - what ?


Nothing.  It's an electrical property.


analogsurviver said:


> Any other place it *might* be hiding, conviniently from the open view - and thus invisible to most ?


It's not hiding at all, it's easily measured.


analogsurviver said:


> That does not mean, however, that is just lying there - without harming the audio signal, doing nothing  - on the contrary, it works overtime ! And not to the benefit of SQ, I might add...


As usual, it's a question of degree.  Just like the fact that given enough wire length there will eventually be a measurable high frequency roll-off, DA exists but its effects aren't manifested in the audio band...pretty much at all...by cable.  The reason is fairly simple.  To have dielectric absorption you first must have a dielectric with capacitance.  The absorption effect is where a capacitor is discharged, then in an open circuit, re-charges itself without an external charging voltage.  Cables don't work into an open circuit, they're driven by a relatively low impedance driver.  That means there's no "open circuit" for their internal capacitance to self-recharge.  The other aspect, and this is the gorilla in the room here, is the total capacitance of a typical length of cable is in the 100s of pf range.  That means, if you charge up the cable, its discharge time constant into the load on the cable (a driving amp or a terminating load) is in the nanosecond range.  In a typical interconnect circuit where the driving amp source z is 1K, the cable C is 20pf/ft, a 10' cable has 200pf total C, and the 3dB down point of the system is just under 1mHz.  Notice, there's no open circuit, so the tiny bit of DA the cable might have is swamped by the driving amp, and its effects would be well above the 3dB down point anyway.

Now if you look at DA as a property of a very large value coupling capacitor where time constants are very long and capacitance values are huge, and DA is a particularly significant problem in large capacitors, you will find its effects do fall within range of the audible.  However, I must quickly point out that the use of large electrolytic coupling capacitors between amplifier stages and outputs is a practice that has been recognized as problematic for many decades and can easily be designed out of necessity.


analogsurviver said:


> DA - and other detrimental effects of the cable, combined - are about only 1 % of the sonic degradation of a typical audio system most of the people - not only on this thread, but worldwide - are using.


More like .001%.  This is measurable and provable.  Your value is not.


analogsurviver said:


> The same  goes also for almost any known recording studio. The rest 99 ( or so ) % of sonic degradation is neatly, quietly hidden from the view and thus attention of most - but not all.


Ok, Doctor, expose all those mean and nasty hidden effects for us.


analogsurviver said:


> Just a few days ( a week ? ) ago I have been accused of going backwards in time - next stage after BlueRaY > DVD > VCR: horse carriages. I did not mention video recorders out of the blue, without a reason  - because I did have hope that somebody will grasp the idea WHY I brought them up from the commercially dead. But giving the answer on a silver platter after such upheaval would not be exactly wise on my part...


So, if I understand you right...you're mentioning dead or inapplicable recording methods to prove a point, but you're holding back evidence because it would not be wise to give it?
Hmm....


analogsurviver said:


> Regarding specs ( for everything, not just cables ) ; they are closely linked to statistics.


Huh?  Specifications are performance metrics that can be objectively confirmed.  Statistics is the analysis of a set of datum. 


analogsurviver said:


> And what has statistics in common with the bikini ? It shows everything - EXCEPT the most important/interesting .


The bikini is designed to expose as much as desired or legally permissible while obscuring that which, if exposed in public, would break the law and/or make the wearer uncomfortable.   In other words, it's purpose is to obscure.

Statistical analysis of data is a means of revealing a trend or characteristic not visible from a single data point or small data set. Quite the inverse.

Statistical analysis of the posts on which we are in agreement would show a trend towards a very low number.  However, if one looked at only at post #9089, one might conclude we agree often.  That view, sans statistical analysis, would indeed be obscuring the truth.

As usual, you've got it all backwards.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 30, 2018)

To me this argument more resembles a practical application of the theory of dialectical materialism than a discussion of dialectric absorption.

Dialectical materialism, a philosophical approach to reality derived from the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: For Marx and Engels, materialism meant that the material world, perceptible to the senses, has objective reality independent of mind or spirit. They did not deny the reality of mental or spiritual processes but affirmed that ideas could arise, therefore, only as products and reflections of material conditions. Marx and Engels understood materialism as the opposite of idealism, by which they meant any theory that treats matter as dependent on mind or spirit, or mind or spirit as capable of existing independently of matter. For them, the materialist and idealist views were irreconcilably opposed throughout the historical development of philosophy. They adopted a thoroughgoing materialist approach, holding that any attempt to combine or reconcile materialism with idealism must result in confusion and inconsistency.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectical-materialism


----------



## skwoodwiva

analogsurviver said:


> Well, - bit by bit - we actually might be gaining some progress...
> 
> The Sound Science objectivist camp did come to a degree of common sense in the intervening years;  it used to be - almost - that RBCD is too much and better lossy formats good enough, Sennheiser has been - almost - accused of marketing headphones that extend beyond 20 K, as in doing music listeners thus a disservice - and , the unthinkable and unheard of CABLE ( ANY cable, for ANY application in audio ) debate as mere possibility that cable might be under the best conditions audible was greeted - at best - with something like this :
> 
> ...



Some shear enlightenment to the status quo of pro audio.
Thank you Sir


----------



## pinnahertz

skwoodwiva said:


> Some shear enlightenment to the status quo of pro audio.
> Thank you Sir


Actually, his "enlightenment" bespeaks a high degree of unfamiliarity.  All examples and references relate to expired or modified consumer equipment.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Actually, his "enlightenment" bespeaks a high degree of unfamiliarity.  All examples and references relate to expired or modified consumer equipment.



Well, sad - but true; about the time "expired" consumer equipment in question, things generally NOSEDIVED in quality - and starting with the studio equipment. Consumer has been spared by some delay, but has caught up decades ago.

A single glance to any open "box" ( whatever audio component , be it pro or consumer ) can tell if it is capable of decent audio or not - AND if it has at least real chance for getting it up to the performance manufacturer is promising in brochures ( oops, today : online ) - in real world.

An even more sad fact : the newer the gizmo, the less chances of the above being possible. I have - reluctantly, I must say - decided against quite a few otherwise promising "boxes" bucause of this - as, ultimately, they ARE limited in the SQ attainable.  There is a limit in miniaturization below which SQ - inherently - HAS TO  take a major hit. 

This has been either overlooked, accepted at face value, played down, swept under the rug, call it whatever you like - all in an understandable effort to survive in this competitive world.

I would like to illustrate this as ultimately perceived by an analogy - as the difference between the Tom and Jerry cartoon of olden days with the present time :

Olden days :


Present time :


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 1, 2018)

Okay, what’s going on here, substantively, never mind the rhetoric.

I think @pinnahertz was in large part noting that @analogsurviver had demonstrated a familiarity with older or modified consumer audio equipment rather than with current pro studio audio equipment. I’m sure @pinnahertz will correct me if I’m wrong.

I liked the original extremely well-crafted Tom and Jerry cartoons, which at a minimum bordered on highly labor-intensive art, better than the much less refined ones of later years. Even as a kid this was not lost on me. But I am straining to understand any analogy that would apply in this discussion, or any practical application of the technology at issue here that is germane to the comparison of old and new cartoons. If the idea is simply that the old cartoons are like the quality of the old technology and the new technology is like the newer cartoons, this entirely sidesteps @pinnahertz ’s point that @analogsurviver has not demonstrated familiarity with modern pro studio gear, and also would seem to me to be unsupported by evidence or example except as a bare assertion.

If one point is that the miniaturization of electronics has led to a decrease in sound quality of electronics, this still has nothing to do with @analogsurviver ’s apparent lack of familiarity with current pro studio gear, which goes unrebutted, and the point about miniaturization is not relevant and is nothing but a bare assertion without example or evidence.

If the point is that studio equipment has nosedived in quality, as is directly stated and emphasized by @analogsurviver, @pinnahertz ’s assertion that @analogsurviver has not demonstrated familiarity with modern pro gear still remains unrebutted, and undermines @analogsurviver ’s arguments just as a matter of logic. If one is not familiar with modern pro studio gear, he or she cannot have direct or reliable knowledge as to whether it has nosedived in quality. This is just logic.

I am trying really hard here from an analytical point of view, applying what few skills I have to bring to bear on the disagreement, I suppose as just a fleeting Intellectual exercise piqued by my own curiosity. I am getting the feeling I would have been better off not doing so. I do not think I will do it again.

As a layperson and a reader, I would want at this point to see that @analogsurviver has a familiarity with modern pro studio gear, since he directly stated and emphasized that studio gear has nosedived in quality. That would be a threshold issue. There are several problematic steps down the road, but that’s the first one I’d want to see addressed in order to facilitate a constructive discussion, if one is to be had.

Please note that @castleofargh has deemed me by the powers invested in him to have majored in @.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> Well, sad - but true; about the time "expired" consumer equipment in question, things generally NOSEDIVED in quality - and starting with the studio equipment. Consumer has been spared by some delay, but has caught up decades ago.
> 
> A single glance to any open "box" ( whatever audio component , be it pro or consumer ) can tell if it is capable of decent audio or not - AND if it has at least real chance for getting it up to the performance manufacturer is promising in brochures ( oops, today : online ) - in real world.
> 
> ...



how stupid do you expect people to be? your red herring festival only supports our idea that you're not rational when certain subjects come on the table. to you analog will typically be better than digital despite how measurements tend to clearly say the opposite. to you ultrasounds are very important, more important than accurate FR, linearity, low distortion, low noise floor, low crosstalk(else you wouldn't support vinyls as a better anything). but somehow control tests have a hard time even demonstrating that an adult guy can perceive ultrasounds unless they're blasted real loud right on the surface of his skin. and even the encouraging studies end up suggesting that ultrasounds are just noticeable events for some. certainly not something we would care about so much that we would sacrifice most other variables for it. 
but to you those aren't proving anything, you know better than measurements and controlled tests. and your approach is so clear that you'd better argue your point with turntables, VHS, CRT, an old anime, and your endless flow of muddy water.
based on your experience of humans, are those the typical actions of someone who cares about facts and has truth on his side?


----------



## Don Hills

TheSonicTruth said:


> ... The ends can also be tinned if in an environment that warrants it. ...



Do not tin the wire if it's going to be terminated in a screw or clamp. The solder will cold flow over time and the connection will loosen.


----------



## analogsurviver

Don Hills said:


> Do not tin the wire if it's going to be terminated in a screw or clamp. The solder will cold flow over time and the connection will loosen.



Correct.


----------



## skwoodwiva

Don Hills said:


> Do not tin the wire if it's going to be terminated in a screw or clamp. The solder will cold flow over time and the connection will loosen.


DeOxit is a great conductance improver  bare copper.
Goodby


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Don Hills said:


> Do not tin the wire if it's going to be terminated in a screw or clamp. The solder will cold flow over time and the connection will loosen.





skwoodwiva said:


> DeOxit is a great conductance improver  bare copper.
> Goodby



Advice well taken.   The only reason I bring up tinning the tips is for older folks like me for whom inserting a half-inch of stranded bare copper into a spring-loaded terminal is becoming more difficult by the day.


----------



## pinnahertz

_"Actually, his "enlightenment" bespeaks a high degree of unfamiliarity. All examples and references relate to expired or modified consumer equipment."
_
It's funny.  The above is quoted, then the below confirms that statement:


analogsurviver said:


> Well, sad - but true; about the time "expired" consumer equipment in question, things generally NOSEDIVED in quality - and starting with the studio equipment. Consumer has been spared by some delay, but has caught up decades ago.
> 
> A single glance to any open "box" ( whatever audio component , be it pro or consumer ) can tell if it is capable of decent audio or not - AND if it has at least real chance for getting it up to the performance manufacturer is promising in brochures ( oops, today : online ) - in real world.


Really?  So when you open up the box, what do you see that indicates it produces low SQ?


analogsurviver said:


> An even more sad fact : the newer the gizmo, the less chances of the above being possible. I have - reluctantly, I must say - decided against quite a few otherwise promising "boxes" bucause of this - as, ultimately, they ARE limited in the SQ attainable.


Because you've done a controlled DBT, and measurements, and you've arrived at a scientific conclusion?  I didn't think so.


analogsurviver said:


> There is a limit in miniaturization below which SQ - inherently - HAS TO  take a major hit.


Well, lets see now.  Miniaturization has given us nearly perfect transistor matching, extremely tight component tolerances, extremely short conductor paths which results in low stray capacitance and ....now wait for it.... capability of high bandwidth.  Older designs included poorly matched individual components, higher failure rates, longer conductors and PCB trails, higher heat generation which in turn raises failure rates and increases the possibility of noise...and there's no point in going on, you haven't a clue about electronics anyway.


analogsurviver said:


> This has been either overlooked, accepted at face value, played down, swept under the rug, call it whatever you like - all in an understandable effort to survive in this competitive world.


Or, how about this: Your entire viewpoint is baseless and synthesized by delusion.


analogsurviver said:


> I would like to illustrate this as ultimately perceived by an analogy - as the difference between the Tom and Jerry cartoon of olden days with the present time :


Your analogy is extremely poor.  It's taken a labor-intensive process that is highly impacted by its intended market to the extent that the end result could be altered and the goal still adequately accomplished.   The tools made the changes possible, the market made the changes necessary for the products survival.  The tools did not dictate the change in goal, the market did.  In fact, modern animation tools are vastly superior and capable of producing results far beyond previous techniques.  However, today's tools could exactly replicate the old results, if that goal was chosen. 

Tools always change and improve.  But tools don't dictate the goal, they are a means to an end.  Other things define the end.  Don't confuse the two.

You look at new audio products and just assume they can't be as good.  That attitude is endemic of a particular age group looking at modern product of any kind.  That's always been true at any point in history...the new is viewed as inferior because it's new and different.  Sometimes that's true, mostly not, but assumed to be true without any actual evaluation other than an awareness that there is a difference.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Jul 1, 2018)

Hello

Just wanted to pop by this thread to say thanks to all the great folks in here who have helped shed light on this ever so misleading hobby of mine. I am by no means a man who can contribute meaningful to this discussion as far as the science goes, but I gather you could use a pat on the back from time to time. Having read some 200+ pages it becomes quite obvious how much this discussion goes in circles... though mostly on account of people relying on magic not really understanding the science behind the given discussion. Even as a layman some of this thread feels absolutely absurd....but then again how would you feel if you'd spent the better part of your life on this hobby, as well as money you most likely could've bought a small island with, and then some fancy smoe with measuring equipment and an education tells you that it's all fake, fugazi, meatballs of air?
Well after reading this thread the obvious answer seems to be: fight back with whatever you have and doubt everything scientific unless it winds up suiting your claims.

I do however perfectly understand 'the other side' - hell I was over there just recently contemplating forking out 8000 danish kroners on a new amp and dac. I wanted that same experience as when I first tried on a good studio headphone and heard stuff I'd never heard before....in tunes I knew like the back of my hand no less.
I can vividly imagine myself 10 years from now with all kinds of ridiculously pricey gear - wondering why I never have enough dough to go on holiday or buy fresh fruit.

All of this started because I tried out my he500 on a more powerful headphone amp - absolutely certain it had revealed a whole new gear in the can. I tried it on two different occasions and was about to sell my old amp and spend next to three times its price on this new powerful critter. I then luckily got a chance to test it side by side with my own and...I couldn't for the life of me hear any noticeable difference between them. Sure this was all done sighted and I had to switch cables between listening, but I wanted to hear the 'new gear' again. I was completely certain I'd hear it too, but apart from me having to dial up the volume considerably on my Myryad Z40 vs the Violectric V200, I simply couldn't tell the difference.
On the back of that puzzling experience I started searching for audio myths, blind tests and so forth, and it very quickly lead me here and I opened my eyes to test persons closing theirs.

So once again thank you guys. It's as if I've shed this horrible nagging guy on my shoulder who kept shouting about inane upgrades to products that would go down a treat with certain animal members of the forest, but sadly I'd get evicted if owls and other such hearing champs suddenly decided to hang out in my apartment. No pets allowed.

I got back to why I love music and that is surely worth a small thank you in the vastness of the internet.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> _"Actually, his "enlightenment" bespeaks a high degree of unfamiliarity. All examples and references relate to expired or modified consumer equipment."
> _
> It's funny.  The above is quoted, then the below confirms that statement:
> 1.) Sorry, do not know what you are referring to here.
> ...


7.) No, I do not assume. I do give new things a fair chance. And if they are at least equal to whatever they are meant to replace and are less expensive, more reliable and more user friendly , they are wholeheartedly embraced. But after you get mostly negative results with upstarts, you can recognize the pattern. See 2.) above .


----------



## Steve999

From one layperson to another who finds this part of head-fi the most rewarding, welcome. 

I wanted to leave your post the last one up so as many people as possible would read it until there was an intervening post, which there is now.

Reading up in the threads you can learn a lot of cool stuff here, aside from dispelling of a lot of misinformation and learning how to get bang for your buck in audio. I got my foobar set up (though I see you have it already), I got the ABX comparometer in Foobar set up so I could do my own ABXs, and the encoder pack for foobar, including Opus.

You can also read about how mixes and masters are made and kind of get a feeling for what it's like in a recording studio and the evolution of audio recording and get a feeling of how to set up a home stereo or the pros and cons of crossfeed for headphones and the different types of crossfeed or what goes on with bluetooth streaming, how complex audio compression and mastering is, etc. etc. OR maybe you already have. 



Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Hello
> 
> Just wanted to pop by this thread to say thanks to all the great folks in here who have helped shed light on this ever so misleading hobby of mine. I am by no means a man who can contribute meaningful to this discussion as far as the science goes, but I gather you could use a pat on the back from time to time. Having read some 200+ pages it becomes quite obvious how much this discussion goes in circles... though mostly on account of people relying on magic not really understanding the science behind the given discussion. Even as a layman some of this thread feels absolutely absurd....but then again how would you feel if you'd spent the better part of your life on this hobby, as well as money you most likely could've bought a small island with, and then some fancy smoe with measuring equipment and an education tells you that it's all fake, fugazi, meatballs of air?
> Well after reading this thread the obvious answer seems to be: fight back with whatever you have and doubt everything scientific unless it winds up suiting your claims.
> ...


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Thank you for the warm welcome.
I must admit that my interest in electronics only goes as far as to ascertain...erm let's just say a better perspective on what exactly constitutes "better audio" and how best to avoid spending money on esoteric mumbojumbo. For me it's all about the music...and finding new ways of approaching it. That used to involve me thinking about new dacs, amps and cd players ultimately messing up my zen and the connection to the music. With everything I've read in this thread up until now I am very confident about my current set-up. If I want to sling money at the industry I'll buy a new (preferably used) headphone that sounds different. I never quite understood the folks who buy multiple headphones that all share the same signature. Sure Herbie Hancock's Sextant is great on a pair of K701 (never heard a jazz album sound less than stellar over the old AKG), but an Ultrasone hfi-2400 will do an amazing job as well.
I gather there is some placebo effect going on in headphones as well, but I embrace it. At least it feels more tangible with headphones if you will in that they all feel different on your head, pads, materials, all that good stuff that ultimately leads to a certain signature (and feel). 
Anyway I prefer spending my money on things I can actually hear...and sure it doesn't hurt if it looks nice as well. I currently own the Q701 which is the exact same headphone as the K701/2. The only reason I got it was the wonderful black colour scheme as well as the kinky green boa constrictor cables - one of which is so long that I now can enjoy my livingroom set-up in bed. Rrrraaauw! 
The fact that I got it second hand for less than what the original K701 costs didn't hurt either.

What more? Erm I remember synestesia being brought early in the thread as a possible candidate for enjoying gear that delivers in bat frequencies, and as someone who has a mild form of it (always have) I can safely say that it doesn't grant you superpowers and it is as much of a gift as it is a curse. In music it's wonderful and gives me beautiful vibrant colours, lights and shapes, but if 'it turns on' let's say late at night in bed, sleep is impossible. It's like going to bed in a noisy rainbow.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> 7.) No, I do not assume. I do give new things a fair chance. And if they are at least equal to whatever they are meant to replace and are less expensive, more reliable and more user friendly , they are wholeheartedly embraced. But after you get mostly negative results with upstarts, you can recognize the pattern. See 2.) above .


It’s your method of evaluation that is in question.


----------



## bigshot

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I never quite understood the folks who buy multiple headphones that all share the same signature.



I've never understood why someone would want headphones that sound different. I just find a headphone that is perfect and I stick with it. Recording studios don't have different response curves for different kinds os music. They just have a balanced response. That's what I want my headphones to have. It's OK to add coloration if I feel like it, but it's a lot more effective and precise to do that with an equalizer or DSP than it is to mix and match sloppy manufacturing tolerances in different sets of headphones.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Well, sad - but true; about the time "expired" consumer equipment in question, things generally NOSEDIVED in quality - and starting with the studio equipment. Consumer has been spared by some delay, but has caught up decades ago.



I think you just aren't as familiar with current equipment as you are old stuff. I know all about 70s technology. I've always had a good stereo system. I bought my first Thorens turntable with an Ortofon MC cart when I was fresh out of high school 40 years ago, and I have gone on to incrementally improve over my components over time. The system I have now kicks the stuffing out of any that I've ever owned. It has everything I could hope for, and the electronics are basic off the shelf midrange consumer models. The only thing I think was better in the past was the mid bass thump of old JBL 15 inch cloth surround woofers. That is a very distinctive sound and modern speakers don't match it... mostly because modern speaker designs are way more accurate than older ones. I just like that old bass sound.

I think we're living in a golden age of home media. I would never go back again to the fussiness of LPs and the constant battle to minimize distortion and noise. It's OK if people are fond of that old sound because of nostalgia or because they are used to it. But the whole time I was struggling to put a great sounding system together back in the day, the goal that I had in my head is what I can buy at Amazon today for a few hundred dollars.


----------



## Don Hills

TheSonicTruth said:


> Advice well taken.   The only reason I bring up tinning the tips is for older folks like me for whom inserting a half-inch of stranded bare copper into a spring-loaded terminal is becoming more difficult by the day.



I can appreciate that, I have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_tremor . 
Tinning indeed makes sense for spring-loaded terminals, but I am surprised that any speakers with pretensions to high fidelity would have them. 
My personal philosophy is that speaker wiring should be done to the same standards as mains wiring in terms of wire gauge and terminations.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 2, 2018)

Don Hills said:


> I can appreciate that, I have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_tremor .
> Tinning indeed makes sense for spring-loaded terminals, but I am surprised that any speakers with pretensions to high fidelity would have them.
> My personal philosophy is that speaker wiring should be done to the same standards as mains wiring in terms of wire gauge and terminations.



Uhm, NO.  It's not a matter of tremors as I get older, more like coordination.  I twist the strands as tight as possible, yet still manage to smash half of them outside of the little hole where they could arc into the opposite polarity neighbor.  And I'm not trying to jam 10-12AWG in there, just the OEM bookshelf 20gauge for a demo at the store where I work, or 16AWG at home.

So in your second paragraph you're suggesting screw-down terminals across the gamut of consumer, pro-sumer and pro?

Another anecdote: I recall seeing them starting about 25 years ago: terminals on consumer receivers that *look* like spring-loaded, but are just flip-open.  You have to close them yourself after inserting the strands.  WORST. SPEAKER TERMINAL. DESIGN.  EVERRRR!  At least spring-loads maintain constant pressure on the connection, good if you have to move something a couple inches.


----------



## 71 dB

Don Hills said:


> Do not tin the wire if it's going to be terminated in a screw or clamp. The solder will cold flow over time and the connection will loosen.


There is a very easy fix for that problem: Every now and then check that the screws are tight.


----------



## KeithEmo

I can only recall one recent headphone cable that i found to be audibly inferior.

I had purchased a new pair of HiFiMan planars (several years ago now), and they arrived wired with some sort of "audiophile cable" that appeared to be several strands of solid conductor cable with Teflon insulation braided together.
(It looked like a knockoff of Kimber Kable.)

The wire itself was so stiff that, when you moved, the wire actually _clattered_ together... and, also because it was so stiff, the sound was actually transmitted to the earcups.
As a result, every time you moved, you heard a sound rather like coils of wire rattling against each other in the earcups.
(I ended up removing the connectors and attaching them to a length of Canare StarQuad - at 50 cents a foot - which is nice and flexible, and soft and rubbery, and sounded just fine.)



dprimary said:


> Your SMPTE 311 cables are far more exotic than any audio cable, in that case the connectors are very expensive and only a few companies can terminate them. The newer 12g SDI cables like Belden 4855R far more exotic then any of these audiophile cables, and nobody is making it in a garage. Even it is three dollars a foot.


----------



## bigshot

I guess microphonics is probably more of a problem with headphone cables than conductivity.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

I had a set of hd560 headphones for years....was pretty happy with them but,rubbing your fingers on the cable was like running a bow over a violin string...purely mechanically induced noise though.Strangely the cable didn't need to be pulled tight for this phenomenon to happen.


----------



## pinnahertz

A friend of mine who used to design and manufacture high-end consumer audio equipment came across a pair of speaker cables he didn't like the sound of...because he left them at home when setting up a demo system at an audio show!  He ran out to a hardware store and bought an electric lawnmower extension cord, 3/12ga, and cut it to length. It sounded a whole lot better than no speaker cables at all.


----------



## Don Hills (Jul 4, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> ...
> 
> So in your second paragraph you're suggesting screw-down terminals across the gamut of consumer, pro-sumer and pro?
> 
> ...: terminals on consumer receivers that *look* like spring-loaded, but are just flip-open. ...



No, in my opinion, spring loaded is fine for low to mid fidelity.  As I said, on speakers with pretensions to high fidelity I prefer screw terminals. Banana plugs used to be OK so long as you got good ones, there are some bad ones around. Sadly, the safety wowsers have largely nixed them. Pro-sumer and especially pro should have speakons.

The flip-open terminals are spring loaded, at least the broken ones that I've seen the innards of. (I used to clean up thrift shop 3-in-1 systems and give them to nieces and nephews as birthday presents.)


----------



## Don Hills

71 dB said:


> There is a very easy fix for that problem: Every now and then check that the screws are tight.



Why not avoid the problem altogether and not tin the wires?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Don Hills said:


> No, in my opinion, spring loaded is fine for low to mid fidelity.  As I said, on speakers with pretensions to high fidelity I prefer screw terminals. Banana plugs used to be OK so long as you got good ones, there are some bad ones around. Sadly, the safety wowsers have largely nixed them. Pro-sumer and especially pro should have speakons.
> 
> The flip-open terminals are spring loaded, at least the broken ones that I've seen the innards of. (I used to clean up thrift shop 3-in-1 systems and give them to nieces and nephews as birthday presents.)



I _broke_ a Speakon connector in college once, as a media tech part time.  I was trying to connect it the speaker, or disconnect, I don't exactly recall, and the next thing you know I had a handful of parts and a little spring!  More like it came apart, not actually broke.

Thank heavens for powered speakers!  Just run XLR all over and make sure all speakers are on same circuit to avoid loops.


----------



## prescient (Jul 4, 2018)

Can someone explain why high end speakers don't use something like SpeakOn connectors? I'm not that familiar with them, but looking at them it seems you just plug them in and twist and then they lock? That makes way more sense to me versus spades or banana plugs. What am I missing here?

I'd move to active in my living room if I could get my wife past the look of Genelecs. Their ugliness is a non-starter especially when contrast with the Focals she is used to.


----------



## analogsurviver

prescient said:


> Can someone explain why high end speakers don't use something like SpeakOn connectors? I'm not that familiar with them, but looking at them it seems you just plug them in and twist and then they lock? That makes way more sense to me versus spades or banana plugs. What am I missing here?
> 
> I'd move to active in my living room if I could get my wife past the look of Genelecs. Their ugliness is a non-starter especially when contrast with the Focals she is used to.



SpeakOn connectors ( which are excellent, BTW ) would be a death sentence to 99+ % of audiophile speaker cable bussiness. They are UTTERLY incompatible with anything found on home oriented gear. I managed to place them on ONE DIY built power amp  for a friend, who - reluctantly - gave up whatever speaker cables he has been using before. On the other end - you've guessed it - it was the usual audiophile folklore in connectors. So "bring over to  try that super cable" is inherently out of the question - and some would rather die than have the freedom of choice of their own speaker cable (regardless how irrational ) taken away from them. 

Only a little less awkward / user unfriendly as LEMO connectors used on some vintage Mark Levinson electronics. Lemo-to-RCA cables ( EVERYTHING audio is nowadays on RCAs ( and XLRs) - save for some vintage European gear sporting DIN and some DIY ultra high end sporting mini DIN ) in itself cost a small fortune - and although LEMO connectors ( as well as quality mini DIN ) do sound better than RCAs, they are sooooooo big PITA the second you want to connect to your "hermetically sealed system for all times" any other normal component withg RCAs.

So, we're stuck with RCAs - like them or hate them, I do not see them replaced anytime soon.

Same with spade, banana and bare wire speaker cable connections - regretfully.


----------



## prescient (Jul 4, 2018)

Interestingly (maybe not) I had to use XLRs for my home workstation. I always have 3+ PC's running for a number of reasons, and when I tried to run RCAs to my monitors under my desk (~3ft) I couldn't get rid of a hum. I suspect the hum was an artifact of the myriad of electronics and cords all routed together under my desk so I don't have to see them. Switched to xlr out from my pre/dac and no more hum. The same doesn't happen in my "home theater" system, but my next processor will have XLRs based on that experience. So I can certainly see a need/want for XLRs if for no other reason than not having to deal with that situation even if under most circumstances a short run with RCAs won't cause issues.

As an aside minidsp (ddrc-88a) uses phoenix connectors instead of XLR which I assume is for form factor reasons. It is kind of irritating, but you can buy phoenix -> xlr and xlr -> phoenix connectors for reasonable money.


----------



## bagwell359

analogsurviver said:


> SpeakOn connectors ( which are excellent, BTW ) would be a death sentence to 99+ % of audiophile speaker cable bussiness. They are UTTERLY incompatible with anything found on home oriented gear. I managed to place them on ONE DIY built power amp  for a friend, who - reluctantly - gave up whatever speaker cables he has been using before. On the other end - you've guessed it - it was the usual audiophile folklore in connectors. So "bring over to  try that super cable" is inherently out of the question - and some would rather die than have the freedom of choice of their own speaker cable (regardless how irrational ) taken away from them.
> 
> Only a little less awkward / user unfriendly as LEMO connectors used on some vintage Mark Levinson electronics. Lemo-to-RCA cables ( EVERYTHING audio is nowadays on RCAs ( and XLRs) - save for some vintage European gear sporting DIN and some DIY ultra high end sporting mini DIN ) in itself cost a small fortune - and although LEMO connectors ( as well as quality mini DIN ) do sound better than RCAs, they are sooooooo big PITA the second you want to connect to your "hermetically sealed system for all times" any other normal component withg RCAs.
> 
> ...



RCA's do suck that's why anything I have that has audiophile pretensions are XLR.  For speaker cable if the distance is over 5' I go with 0 or 2 gauge computer server chasis cable terminated (yeah its aluminum) into gold over copper vampire spades.  For short runs Canare 4S11 or Mogami W3104 and go with rhodium spades if they are going to be disconnected and connected a lot.

bare wire and bananas for speaker wire termination I cannot understand.

Lemo's were cool but went nowhere.  Fathers Quad electronics had DIN... not in the US, cept turntables.  Ahh well, the less time spent on connectors the better.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bagwell359 said:


> RCA's do suck that's why anything I have that has audiophile pretensions are XLR.  For speaker cable if the distance is over 5' I go with 0 or 2 gauge computer server chasis cable terminated (yeah its aluminum) into gold over copper vampire spades.  For short runs Canare 4S11 or Mogami W3104 and go with rhodium spades if they are going to be disconnected and connected a lot.
> 
> bare wire and bananas for speaker wire termination I cannot understand.
> 
> Lemo's were cool but went nowhere.  Fathers Quad electronics had DIN... not in the US, cept turntables.  Ahh well, the less time spent on connectors the better.




In what respect do RCAs "suck"?


----------



## pinnahertz (Jul 4, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> In what respect do RCAs "suck"?


Beats me.  I've used them for many years.  The cheap ones do suck, but why would anyone base a condemnation of the category on the worst examples?  Lots of great RCA connectors out there now, including compression units that make perfect connections to high-flex RG59. 

I can't remember the last RCA connector problem I ran into.  Probably 30+ years ago, tin-plate jack and cheap tin plated plugs.  Who does that now?

Just a few examples:






What's not to like?

Now, if you like an XLR, or just any balanced interface for noise rejection/immunity, that's a different problem than connector quality.


----------



## bagwell359

TheSonicTruth said:


> In what respect do RCAs "suck"?



Suck is too strong a term, but I got won over by XLR about 15 years ago.  I found that Belden XLR's sounded like Nordost XLR's, and further found that they both crunched any of the RCA terminated cables on hand - Cardas Golden Section, Kimber PBJ, Silver streak, VandenHul silver, etc... having a 1.5 meter Belden XLR wipe out very expensive RCA's - with a Pass X-150 and a Pass P made a big impression.

These days using my Gumby, Ragnarok (both XLR'd), and various headphones that all started life with an RCA type wiring until I knew them, then wired them all 4 pin XLR.  Now the Rag puts out double the power into XLR, which explains a great deal of the improvement)  but as with the Pass combo earlier the noise floor is lower, and the treble is less hashy, imaging is more stable, and overtones are richer.  So its not the connections or the wire I find lacking, it's the audio delta with a different way of doing ground.  So RCA's are fine if you don't have gear that can take advantage of it.  I know I won't buy any gear that isn't XLR compatible, unless I can mod it.


----------



## pinnahertz

bagwell359 said:


> Suck is too strong a term, but I got won over by XLR about 15 years ago.  I found that Belden XLR's sounded like Nordost XLR's, and further found that they both crunched any of the RCA terminated cables on hand - Cardas Golden Section, Kimber PBJ, Silver streak, VandenHul silver, etc... having a 1.5 meter Belden XLR wipe out very expensive RCA's - with a Pass X-150 and a Pass P made a big impression.



How can you compare the "sound" of an RCA cable to an XLR cable when they use entirely different driving and receiving interfaces?

Perhaps you may not be aware than to drive an XLR cable there is typically more than twice the circuitry?  How is that inherently better, other than the noise immunity aspect?

Perhaps you and others may not be aware that the is a real potential for lower noise using RCA interconnects once grounding issues have been addressed properly. 


bagwell359 said:


> These days using my Gumby, Ragnarok (both XLR'd), and various headphones that all started life with an RCA type wiring until I knew them, then wired them all 4 pin XLR.  Now the Rag puts out double the power into XLR, which explains a great deal of the improvement)  but as with the Pass combo earlier the noise floor is lower, and the treble is less hashy, imaging is more stable, and overtones are richer.  So its not the connections or the wire I find lacking, it's the audio delta with a different way of doing ground.  So RCA's are fine if you don't have gear that can take advantage of it.  I know I won't buy any gear that isn't XLR compatible, unless I can mod it.


How do you perform your XLR "mod"? Do you add differential drivers and in-amp receivers?  Chips?  Discrete? Transformers?  OR just strap the output to pin 2, ground 1 and 3 and go nuts?


----------



## bagwell359 (Jul 4, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> How can you compare the "sound" of an RCA cable to an XLR cable when they use entirely different driving and receiving interfaces?
> 
> Perhaps you may not be aware than to drive an XLR cable there is typically more than twice the circuitry?  How is that inherently better, other than the noise immunity aspect?
> 
> ...



I'm talking about the results I've heard at the end of cables attached to electronics, how much circuitry each one entails, or the changes in impedance and such, I'm not prepared to judge or argue in any detail.  Since outside of my Schiit gear I've only owned pieces designed by Nelson Pass for many years, who is a hero to both the DIY/keep it simple school, and the high end audiophiles, I tend to assume he knows what he is doing - alhough the Aleph series of amps is a matter of taste and conjecture.

I have heard that RCA's can have lower noise floors, but, haven't come across any.  I'd try one if the potential is a reality.

No I meant modding headphones.  I'm OK at modding speaker xovers, headphones, building Dyna and Hafler kits back in the day, and sub woofer and woofer speaker cabinets - but that's it.  No real talents for modding electronics.


----------



## pinnahertz

bagwell359 said:


> I'm talking about the results I've heard at the end of cables attached to electronics, how much circuitry each one entails, or the changes in impedance and such, I'm not prepared to judge or argue in any detail.  Since outside of my Schiit gear I've only owned pieces designed by Nelson Pass for many years, who is a hero to both the DIY/keep it simple school, and the high end audiophiles, I tend to assume he knows what he is doing - alhough the Aleph series of amps is a matter of taste and conjecture.
> 
> I have heard that RCA's can have lower noise floors, but, haven't come across any.  I'd try one if the potential is a reality.
> 
> No I meant modding headphones.  I'm OK at modding speaker xovers, headphones, building Dyna and Hafler kits, and sub woofer and woofer speaker cabinets - but that's it.  No real talents for modding electronics.


Ok, fair enough.  But please realize that you are not, and cannot, compare an RCA to an XLR that way and expect to get any results other than what you expect to get.  The comparison is not of cable/cable or cable+connect to cable+connector, it's an entire topology, two completely different means of interconnecting devices.  

RCA cables themselves are not responsible for a lower noise floor, they can rather go the other way, but, in a carefully installed system where ground potentials have been equalized, the potential is there for slightly better performance out of a single-ended topology than the balanced topology, connectors and cables not withstanding.   People that swear by XLR cables think the lower noise performance they get was the result of the cable.  You could use unshielded Cat5 and get the same results (and in fact, professional installations do just that) so long as you're working with balanced/differential interfaces.  

The noise issues that those cables seem to improve on can usually be solved other ways for short interconnects, its just that nobody tries.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bagwell359 said:


> Suck is too strong a term, but I got won over by XLR about 15 years ago.  I found that Belden XLR's sounded like Nordost XLR's, and further found that they both crunched any of the RCA terminated cables on hand - Cardas Golden Section, Kimber PBJ, Silver streak, VandenHul silver, etc... having a 1.5 meter Belden XLR wipe out very expensive RCA's - with a Pass X-150 and a Pass P made a big impression.
> 
> These days using my Gumby, Ragnarok (both XLR'd), and various headphones that all started life with an RCA type wiring until I knew them, then wired them all 4 pin XLR.  Now the Rag puts out double the power into XLR, which explains a great deal of the improvement)  but as with the Pass combo earlier the noise floor is lower, and the treble is less hashy, imaging is more stable, and overtones are richer.  So its not the connections or the wire I find lacking, it's the audio delta with a different way of doing ground.  So RCA's are fine if you don't have gear that can take advantage of it.  I know I won't buy any gear that isn't XLR compatible, unless I can mod it.



Well you're the one who used that term to describe RCA connections.  I use RCA to connect my home components, no noise issue, great imaging.  The difference between their performance and that of XLR is probably nil compared to the difference between a good master and a toilet master of something.


----------



## bagwell359

pinnahertz said:


> Ok, fair enough.  But please realize that you are not, and cannot, compare an RCA to an XLR that way and expect to get any results other than what you expect to get.  The comparison is not of cable/cable or cable+connect to cable+connector, it's an entire topology, two completely different means of interconnecting devices.
> 
> RCA cables themselves are not responsible for a lower noise floor, they can rather go the other way, but, in a carefully installed system where ground potentials have been equalized, the potential is there for slightly better performance out of a single-ended topology than the balanced topology, connectors and cables not withstanding.   People that swear by XLR cables think the lower noise performance they get was the result of the cable.  You could use unshielded Cat5 and get the same results (and in fact, professional installations do just that) so long as you're working with balanced/differential interfaces.
> 
> The noise issues that those cables seem to improve on can usually be solved other ways for short interconnects, its just that nobody tries.



Yes I can see that I've collapsed the topology and cable configuration into one logical blob.  Natural enough shorthand when I could explain at a high level the difference between triode and cascode (or better yet Class A and Class AB), but, not know the implementation details.  Good presentation.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Ok, fair enough.  But please realize that you are not, and cannot, compare an RCA to an XLR that way and expect to get any results other than what you expect to get.  The comparison is not of cable/cable or cable+connect to cable+connector, it's an entire topology, two completely different means of interconnecting devices.
> 
> RCA cables themselves are not responsible for a lower noise floor, they can rather go the other way, but, in a carefully installed system where ground potentials have been equalized, the potential is there for slightly better performance out of a single-ended topology than the balanced topology, connectors and cables not withstanding.   People that swear by XLR cables think the lower noise performance they get was the result of the cable.  You could use unshielded Cat5 and get the same results (and in fact, professional installations do just that) so long as you're working with balanced/differential interfaces.
> 
> The noise issues that those cables seem to improve on can usually be solved other ways for short interconnects, its just that nobody tries.



In that sense, you can call me Mr.Nobody - the only way  I ever used balanced/XLR was when giving the audio to a third party - like for video, live radio broadast, etc - never for myself.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> In that sense, you can call me Mr.Nobody - the only way  I ever used balanced/XLR was when giving the audio to a third party - like for video, live radio broadast, etc - never for myself.


Huh.  I thought you recorded with microphones.


----------



## 71 dB

Don Hills said:


> Why not avoid the problem altogether and not tin the wires?



Filaments can broke, cause shortcuts etc. unless using tin.


----------



## pinnahertz

71 dB said:


> Filaments can broke, cause shortcuts etc. unless using tin.


If I recall correctly, the Federal Aviation Administration in the USA prohibits tinning wires in aircraft.  Crimp or compression is preferred because reliability is higher.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Huh.  I thought you recorded with microphones.



Err... does single end termination turn a microphone into a potato ?

Practially all microphones start life as a single ended device  - just sayin' .


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> If I recall correctly, the Federal Aviation Administration in the USA prohibits tinning wires in aircraft.  Crimp or compression is preferred because reliability is higher.



Fortunately my sound system is well-grounded.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> things generally NOSEDIVED in quality - and starting with the studio equipment. ...
> No, I do not assume. I do give new things a fair chance.



It's already been established and you even admitted earlier in the thread that you've got no personal experience of top class commercial music studios or the pro-audio equipment used by them. How then have you given studio equipment a "fair chance" or in fact any "chance" at all? Even if you had actually given studio equipment a "fair chance", you still seem to continually miss the most simple and basic fact, that this is the Sound Science forum, NOT the "analogsurviver gave it a fair chance" forum!

I have to agree on one part of your statement though, that you are not just "assuming". To assume something one has to have some knowledge and/or observations upon which to base an assumption. You clearly have neither and therefore you are not "assuming", what you are doing instead is just completely making-up whatever nonsense!!

This is just another embarrassingly frequent example of the actual truth being the exact opposite of what you are asserting. There has been no "nosedive" in the quality of pro-audio studio equipment, in fact the opposite, there's been a gradual general improvement. Having said this, the trend throughout history of generally improving sound quality has, over the last decade or more, somewhat stalled. Due to marketing demands, sound quality plateaued as pro-audio equipment manufacturers turned their attention to improving inaudible bandwidth instead of improving sound quality.



analogsurviver said:


> [1] ... the only way  I ever used balanced/XLR was when giving the audio to a third party - like for video, live radio broadast, etc - never for myself.
> [2] Err... does single end termination turn a microphone into a potato ?
> [2a] Practially all microphones start life as a single ended device  - just sayin' .



1. So except for video and live radio broadcast you must obviously record and monitor using consumer equipment.

2. No, worse than a potato because you can do something with a potato, cook it and eat it for example but there's nothing you can do with many/most professional microphones because they simply will not work with a single ended termination. Even forgetting about noise/interference issues with a signal that typically needs amplifying by 30 to 1000 times before you can even start working with it, how are you going to get any signal to start with, without phantom power? Again, this is more complete nonsense you've made-up, just sayin'!
2a. And practically all cars start life as just a pile of car parts, of course though, you can't actually drive an unassembled pile of car parts, just sayin'!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> It's already been established and you even admitted earlier in the thread that you've got no personal experience of top class commercial music studios or the pro-audio equipment used by them. How then have you given studio equipment a "fair chance" or in fact any "chance" at all? Even if you had actually given studio equipment a "fair chance", you still seem to continually miss the most simple and basic fact, that this is the Sound Science forum, NOT the "analogsurviver gave it a fair chance" forum!
> 
> I have to agree on one part of your statement though, that you are not just "assuming". To assume something one has to have some knowledge and/or observations upon which to base an assumption. You clearly have neither and therefore you are not "assuming", what you are doing instead is just completely making-up whatever nonsense!!
> 
> ...



The Party of NO, at it again.  Glad I'm not his only victim!


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> It's already been established and you even admitted earlier in the thread that you've got no personal experience of top class commercial music studios or the pro-audio equipment used by them. How then have you given studio equipment a "fair chance" or in fact any "chance" at all? Even if you had actually given studio equipment a "fair chance", you still seem to continually miss the most simple and basic fact, that this is the Sound Science forum, NOT the "analogsurviver gave it a fair chance" forum!
> 
> I have to agree on one part of your statement though, that you are not just "assuming". To assume something one has to have some knowledge and/or observations upon which to base an assumption. You clearly have neither and therefore you are not "assuming", what you are doing instead is just completely making-up whatever nonsense!!
> 
> ...



There is - perhaps? - one thing ONLY @gregorio and me would ever agree upon .  And it would have to be the World Championship in one of the most difficult to do disciplines:

" How big a spoon a person deems to be too large to drown their arch nemesis in "

No winner possible - as both would go well into nano > femto litres category - FAR too little for any human to actually drown in.

@ Everybody Else : I guess both gregorio and analogsurviver would go *kind of uncomfortable, but with mutual respect" - had we ever had a chance to get to know each other doing their thing, in their natural habitat. There ARE areas where these two habitats overlap.

Already running late for soundcheck for a VERY unusual festival : http://www.sajeta.org/#/home


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] The Party of NO, at it again.
> [2] Glad I'm not his only victim!



1. Yep, unfortunately you're not the only visitor who abuses this sub-forum by posting made-up nonsense asserted as fact!
2. Ah yes, the old abuser's ploy of playing the victim. Nice try but it's hardly an original tactic, you don't honestly believe anyone here is dumb enough to fall for it, do you?

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> 1. Yep, unfortunately you're not the only visitor who abuses this sub-forum by posting made-up nonsense asserted as fact!
> 2. Ah yes, the old abuser's ploy of playing the victim. Nice try but it's hardly an original tactic, you don't honestly believe anyone here is dumb enough to fall for it, do you?
> 
> G



It needs to be said.  And it's all over the place.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jul 6, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Practially all microphones start life as a single ended device  - just sayin' .


It doesn't matter how they start out, we're talking about interconnecting things.  But I'd hardly say "practically all", because I believe there are more dynamic mics out in the wild than any other type, most of which start out life balanced.  A mic circuit is one place you really need a balanced interface.  There are others.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> Already running late for soundcheck for a VERY unusual festival : http://www.sajeta.org/#/home



Unusual in the sense that they're using potatoes instead of microphones?
Glad to see you yet again ignoring that you've been called out on posting made-up nonsense, ignoring the actual relevant facts and just going off on another irrelevant tangent, at least you're consistent!



TheSonicTruth said:


> It needs to be said.  And it's all over the place.



Yes, made-up nonsense posted as fact is "all over the place" BUT no, it does not "need to be said", especially here in the Sound Science forum where it's effectively abusing/perverting the whole point of this forum!!

G


----------



## pinnahertz

TheSonicTruth said:


> The Party of NO, at it again.  Glad I'm not his only victim!


Victim?  Of what? 

If someone does something stupid and dies, like jumping out of a plane without a parachute, what are they the victim of?  Gravity?  Altitude?  The ground?  If someone comes to Sound Science and posts something that isn't scientific, what do you expect to happen? 

Get a parachute, post unscientific nonsense where people thrive on it.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> Unusual in the sense that they're using potatoes instead of microphones?
> Glad to see you yet again ignoring that you've been called out on posting made-up nonsense, ignoring the actual relevant facts and just going off on another irrelevant tangent, at least you're consistent!
> 
> 
> ...



The Party of No Is all over the place!


----------



## pinnahertz (Jul 6, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> The Party of No Is all over the place!


One man's "no" is another man's sanity check.

I'm sorry, I don't get the objection here.  We're here to discuss Sound Science.  If someone makes a wild, unsubstantiated, non-scientific claim, what the heck to you expect to happen here?   We all just agree, accept mythology as fact, and adopt it into our scientific beliefs?  Rather unrealistic, don't you think?


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> The Party of No Is all over the place!



If there were no people posting made-up nonsense as fact, then there would be no need to refute that nonsense. Surely this simple to grasp concept is not beyond you, is it?

G


----------



## pinnahertz

gregorio said:


> If there were no people posting made-up nonsense as fact, then there would be no need to refute that nonsense. Surely this simple to grasp concept is not beyond you, is it?
> 
> G


The worlds of science and mythology do not ever intersect well.  To believe something to be true without any evidence of it other than biased opinion requires something of the believer that science does not.  Science is about discerning the truth by examining evidence and proof, mythology is essentially the inverse.  

Perhaps mythologists post their nonsense here because they believe so strongly in their myths they've become like proven science to them.


----------



## gregorio

pinnahertz said:


> Perhaps mythologists post their nonsense here because they believe so strongly in their myths they've become like proven science to them.



Yes, it is bizarre. I can only assume that they don't know what science is, or that it was invented specifically to separate actual fact from mythology, superstition or any old nonsense someone decides to make-up. I don't get it, do they really not have the level of education expected of a child or do they know but just come here to troll?

G


----------



## bfreedma (Jul 6, 2018)

gregorio said:


> Yes, it is bizarre. I can only assume that they don't know what science is, or that it was invented specifically to separate actual fact from mythology, superstition or any old nonsense someone decides to make-up. I don't get it, do they really not have the level of education expected of a child or do they know but just come here to troll?
> 
> G



Or believe in "faith based audio" over science and their ego won't allow them to admit that their preconceived notions are incorrect.

At least AnalogSurvivor tries, rightly or wrongly, to explain his theories.  Others just seem to be full on trolling - sometimes the user name speaks volumes...


----------



## castleofargh (Jul 18, 2018)

people react to some arguments or claims, of course they can't start on their own by being against nothing. if posts in here were all cautious opinions and statements agreeing with a consensus on contemporary knowledge of the subject, there would be little to call false and to argue against. let's not reverse cause and consequence here. because everybody decides he's an expert about all aspects of audio, we have countless empty claims, countless untested claims, and of course countless claims which are absolutely false and can be proved as such. people simply react to that mess.

secondly, being skeptical, analytical, scrutinizing, those are normal and necessary for people concerned about properly demonstrating things to define what can be called a fact. one big idea of science is to look for mistakes, try to disprove ideas, and learn from that.
we all go with heuristic/gut feeling for most situations in our lives and it usually works out fine, but that's clearly not the most reliable method. it's just the fastest one. when we care about finding out the truth, it's normal to approach things differently.

third, many subjects discussed here and many disagreements, tend to be about small details. we make mountains of them, but for the most part they are actually irrelevant for our average audioeater. some small stuff feels important to some because they have the wrong idea, because marketing spammed their mind with fear about the small stuff having huge impacts. or sometimes simply because people have pretty much solved the rest, so the small stuff is now their biggest problem(lucky guys). but whatever the reason, if we take a step back and look at the typical magnitudes of change induced by whatever is being discussed, more time than not, it's no big deal. we can all at anytime push our chair back and see that the world doesn't really care.
 this section isn't life, it's a place to try and define with an objective approach, what is and what isn't in the audio world. so yes this is sort of an arena and our first reaction to many things is "I don't believe you". as it should when faced with empty claims.
personally I'm absolutely sure that I would have a great time at a pub with @analogsurviver. I can't for the life of me understand why he holds some of his beliefs, but I can't understand why my mother believes in homeopathy and that never stopped me from finding common grounds on most other stuff. I think perhaps people get the wrong idea that those discussions are a reflection of real life behaviors. we're in a very specific hobby talking about even more specific details. only that focus can make it all somehow important in context.



then comes the matter of this hobby and all the liberties it has taken with reality and good behavior. audiophiles have been way too eager to take what they have and decide that it was all they would ever need to know about sound and gears. I only have one pair of headphone so I'll assume that all other headphones of that model behave the same. I only have my subjective experience, so I'll decide that what I feel is how the headphone is and everybody with another experience is wrong. I measured one cable with ludicrous specs, or heard a big difference with a new fancy one? hey let me spend the rest of my life claiming that I have proof of how important it is to purchase expensive cables. that Sound Science modo is a complete moron? let's show pure xenophobia toward anything and anybody vaguely related to this section.
the entire hobby is satisfied with turning an anecdote into a universal rule. a subjective impression into an objective fact, and an idea into evidence. is it so incredible that we would mostly react by rejecting all that nonsense?

of course the average consumer will only have a handful of gears, and of course he's not going to buy 500 pairs of a headphones before making a review of statistical significance. nobody expects that. what some of us do expect in here and would love to see everywhere, audio related or not, is the awareness of how little facts people have when they talk. when we don't know, it's good to say I don't know. when we have some shaky anecdote, it's good to present it as such. basically keeping things real. not act like trying one device was enough for us to solve quantum mechanic once and for all. "it's a particle, it's a wave, no it's superman sitting in a chair and having a sighted experience with his new gear!". just because most people agree to nonsensical behavior and play pretend games where they're the expert, is no reason for us to play along with that farce.
and once again, I want to say that rigorous testing is key. it's not everything because people will still interpret stuff anyway they like and jump to conclusion. but when even the experience is crap, there really is nowhere to go from there. no testing at all is obviously not much better. we all have to start somewhere, and instantly turning an idea into a claim isn't how a conversation is supposed to start. we wouldn't all be wasting so much time if more people could just say "I feel like ..." instead of "it is so". basic honest caution.


----------



## pinnahertz

bfreedma said:


> Or believe in "faith based audio" over science and their ego won't allow them to admit that their preconceived notions are incorrect.
> 
> At least AnalogSurvivor tries, rightly or wrongly, to explain his theories.  Others just seem to be full on trolling - sometimes the user name speaks volumes...


Yes, persistent he is, but the theories are backed only by opinion.


----------



## bfreedma

pinnahertz said:


> Yes, persistent he is, but the theories are backed only by opinion.



No disagreement, but at least he tries to explain his position (even if they are only opinions) so it can be debated.  

I’ll take that any day vs. those who make an incorrect one sentence claim, then make multiple “woe is me” posts when it’s explained to them that their single sentence claim with zero attempt to support it is verifiably incorrect.

Regardless, I appreciate the patience and time investment of the professionals posting here. I’ve learned a lot and suspect the quiet/silent majority here also appreciate the detailed explanations provided.  Keep it coming!


----------



## bigshot

TheSonicTruth said:


> It needs to be said.  And it's all over the place.



It's not needed. You guys feed it. Give it a rest and talk about something else instead of hammering on the same repetitive routines over and over.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> It's not needed. You guys feed it. Give it a rest and talk about something else instead of hammering on the same repetitive routines over and over.



What is 'all over the place' are the experiences I have had with engineers here and on GearSlutz, Steve Hoffman, etc, denying everything I bring up, telling me "use your ears, ignore the meters", blah blah blah.  Average listeners out there need to hear about all the double talk and hypocrisy in the industry that produces the music they buy.


----------



## bfreedma (Jul 6, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> What is 'all over the place' are the experiences I have had with engineers here and on GearSlutz, Steve Hoffman, etc, denying everything I bring up, telling me "use your ears, ignore the meters", blah blah blah.  Average listeners out there need to hear about all the double talk and hypocrisy in the industry that produces the music they buy.




So all of the engineers with education and real world experience are wrong and you are right?  Try taking a step back and assess why that’s happening. No one here is telling you to “use your ears” or “ignore the measurements”.  Just the opposite, but you continually ignore responses as you desperately hold on to your preconceptions

Have you ever considered that the reason engineers and others with education on this topic are telling you that you are wrong is because you really are wrong?  Or is that beyond consideration?


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] What is 'all over the place' are the experiences I have had with engineers here and on GearSlutz, Steve Hoffman, etc, denying everything I bring up,
> [2] telling me "use your ears, ignore the meters", blah blah blah.  Average listeners out there ...



1. So all the engineers here, on Gearslutz, Steve Hoffman, etc., who are trained, have years of experiences and do it for a living are all wrong but you, with no training, no experience and apparently no knowledge are right? Are you honestly saying that? If so, how is that anything other than delusional?

2. How can you even write this without realising yourself that it's ridiculous? "Average listeners out there" are doing what? Are they listening or are they only examining waveforms, meters and other visual information? The answer, as you seem to have missed it, is that "average listeners" are listening!! ... Every engineer quickly learns that visual information (looking at meters, waveforms, equipment settings, etc.) is misleading, that what we think we're hearing is adversely influenced by the visual feedback from our equipment. Every engineer in history has fallen into this trap at some stage, hence why one of the oldest cliches in the business is "mix with your ears, not your eyes". Every student engineer is taught this and falling into this trap is a classic rookie mistake. Yet here you are, not only advocating for this classic rookie error but repeatedly advocating it, even though it's been explained to you at least twice by me and probably numerous more times by others, across a number of different forums. If you think you're right and ALL professional engineers are wrong, why don't YOU try mixing something by meters and see for yourself what garbage you churn out, instead of just keep repeating the same ridiculous nonsense which even a beginner should know is wrong?

G


----------



## bigshot

TheSonicTruth said:


> What is 'all over the place' are the experiences I have had with engineers here and on GearSlutz, Steve Hoffman, etc, denying everything I bring up, telling me "use your ears, ignore the meters", blah blah blah.



There's an old internet saying that I first heard on usenet before there was a WWW... "When everybody around you seems like asses, chances are, you're the ass."


----------



## pinnahertz

TheSonicTruth said:


> What is 'all over the place' are the experiences I have had with engineers here and on GearSlutz, Steve Hoffman, etc, denying everything I bring up, telling me "use your ears, ignore the meters", blah blah blah.


I would never say that, Greg would not either, and no real engineer I'm aware of would either.  Real engineering is about objective _and_ subjective evaluation, with an on-going effort to reconcile the two.  That means using meters (and much more sophisticated gear) along with ears.  Once you know what to measure and how, you do find there is impressive agreement between the two.  You also trip over the problems with bias in subjective evaluation, and bring that under control too.  It's just science, not really that hard.


TheSonicTruth said:


> Average listeners out there need to hear about all the double talk and hypocrisy in the industry that produces the music they buy.


It's likely someone posting double-talk is _not_ an engineer, or producing much music.  Remember, the Internet lets people hide behind their keyboard and take on any persona they wish.  You can usually tell an engineer because of the _complete lack_ of double-talk.

 But if you really think there's that much hypocrisy in the industry, then I suggest you buy only the music not produced by the music industry and avoid the problem by starving out the double-talkers.  

Have fun with that.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 7, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> It's likely someone posting double-talk is _not[_ an engineer, or producing much music.  Remember, the Internet lets people hide behind their keyboard and take on any persona they wish.  You can usually tell an engineer because of the _complete lack _of double-talk.



^ This. A million times this.

Internet forums are rife with armchair experts. The Brits have a term for it... "duffers". They think they know a lot more than they do and they really don't know what they don't know at all. That makes them very willing to offer up meaningless comments on just about any subject.

It's like that old commercial... "I'm not a doctor. I just play one on TV, but...." and then comes a load of blather.


----------



## taffy2207

You can usually tell them by the amount of expensive gear they have purchased


----------



## TheSonicTruth

taffy2207 said:


> You can usually tell them by the amount of expensive gear they have purchased



Oohh yeah, my gear is really expensive:  A mid-line JVC receiver, Sony CD carousel, and Technics direct drive turntable, all connected with ordinary RCA cables, and ordinary 16AWG strand to my speakers.  Realllly bou-teekey stuff - NOT.  Just a reasonably powerful average Joe living room stereo rig.  Nothing high-brow here, move along!


----------



## pinnahertz

TheSonicTruth said:


> Oohh yeah, my gear is really expensive:  A mid-line JVC receiver, Sony CD carousel, and Technics direct drive turntable, all connected with ordinary RCA cables, and ordinary 16AWG strand to my speakers.  Realllly bou-teekey stuff - NOT.  Just a reasonably powerful average Joe living room stereo rig.  Nothing high-brow here, move along!


What??? I suppose standard power cords too???? How do you stand all that veiling, smearing, flattening, lack of depth, light blacks, and time-blur?  You could buy one power cord for more than you paid for the entire system, and be shocked on how it lifts the veil and drops your bank balance!  

I got me a gross of green CD markers I can sell you....

I had a client once who put together a surround audio system worth $350K, $60K speakers, $50K monoblocks, etc.  The room was a brick walled basement with no seat in the center.  After hours of my tweaking, troubleshooting and calibration, he listened and was blown away at the improvement, but when he asked me what I thought I had to hold back from saying that for that budget I could have done better for much less than 1/10 the cost and gotten him a really nice summer home.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

pinnahertz said:


> What??? I suppose standard power cords too???? How do you stand all that veiling, smearing, flattening, lack of depth, light blacks, and time-blur?  You could buy one power cord for more than you paid for the entire system, and be shocked on how it lifts the veil and drops your bank balance!
> 
> I got me a gross of green CD markers I can sell you....
> 
> I had a client once who put together a surround audio system worth $350K, $60K speakers, $50K monoblocks, etc.  The room was a brick walled basement with no seat in the center.  After hours of my tweaking, troubleshooting and calibration, he listened and was blown away at the improvement, but when he asked me what I thought I had to hold back from saying that for that budget I could have done better for much less than 1/10 the cost and gotten him a really nice summer home.



I hope you're being facetious in that first paragraph.


----------



## pinnahertz

TheSonicTruth said:


> I hope you're being facetious in that first paragraph.


Well, looking over the kind of stuff I normally post, what do you think?


----------



## bigshot

The point that was being made, Sonic is that price is a terrible way to judge sound quality. It may have some affect on the quality of transducers, but when it comes to cables, amps, players and DACs, a high price tag is no guarantee of improved sound fidelity... at least within the audible range. Yesterday I was in the Head-Fi Facebook group and I read a guy saying, "If you think a $100 DAC and a $10K DAC sound the same, you are either deaf or on crack." That is the general consensus in high end audio. For every dollar you spend, you get better sound. They talk about the law of diminishing returns, but then they turn around and say that the difference between a good system and a truly great one is the last 2% that spending a lot of money will buy.

I've done controlled comparisons. I know the truth. The fact is that you can pretty much go to Amazon and randomly choose any cable, DAC, player or amp and as long as the amp has sufficient power, they will all sound the same to human ears. I've been searching for the elusive "different sounding component" in the wild for years. I've had people argue with me endlessly telling me that they believe that something out there is audibly different. But no one has been able to point to any clear examples.

Money can't buy you love. And when it comes to audio electronics, it can't buy you fidelity either.


----------



## prescient (Jul 9, 2018)

Mostly agree with the above. Your amp needs to have reasonable output impedance, but you can get that with an SMSL Idea for ~$80. If you look at some headphones like Campfire Audio's Andromeda you can see that output impedance does impact the frequency response.

On topic, to some extent I think the problem with head-fi is that people have anchored on the speaker hi-fi world. If I'm into speakers and I want great sound there is really only one way to achieve that. I need a dedicated listening room that is reasonably sized that has been acoustically treated. If I can't get that as a baseline I'm probably out of luck. In my living room I have hardwood floors, plaster walls and per my wife that is how it is staying. This room will never sound great no matter how much DSP I throw at it. I suspect many people face the same issue.

So what do speaker people do? In a quest to get a better sound I suspect most people just keep upgrading their gear in the hope that their system will become more resolving. Perhaps as resolving as the room in their local hi-fi dealer. The problem is that when I look at the rooms in my local dealer (very nice) they have been acoustically treated by professionals _*and*_ are filled with really nice gear. Knowing that you can't have the room you hope/assume that if you get the right combination of gear you'll be 80% of the way there. The problem is that the sound quality is 50% speakers, 45% room and 5% gear, and I might be overestimating the importance of the speakers as I obviously made this split up.

Back to head-fi I think the same thing happens, but a little differently. People run up against the limitations of headphones as device to convey music. I've never heard a pair of headphones that stacks up well against a good pair of speakers in an acoustically treated room. I suspect I never will despite the fact that I've listened to some nice headphones. So what happens when you run up against this wall? You start buying expensive cables, DACs, and amps in the hope that it'll make your headphones more resolving despite the fact that they are design limited. Better yet you've seen all the speaker guys with really high end setups do similar when their stereos aren't performing. They must know what they are doing so we should emulate them. Then I buy my $430 silver plated cable and placebo kicks in!

I highly doubt any of this is new or original thought. I'm really just piling on.

I suspect headphones won't get much better sounding until we start using DSP and constructing drivers differently. My wildly uninformed view is that we are attempting to use electrical/mechanical engineering to develop headphones with target frequency response curves. I suspect a more straight forward task from an engineering perspective would be to construct drivers (or multiple drivers!) that measure flat-ish and use DSP/active crossovers to match target frequency responses. Audeze notably (and Sonoma) has done this to some extent with their Cypher cable and it is a small step in the right direction.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 9, 2018)

prescient said:


> In my home living room I have hardwood floors, plaster walls and per my wife that is how it is staying. This room will never sound great no matter how much DSP I throw at it. I suspect many people face the same issue.



I solved that problem by not having a wife. My listening room is great! All my married friends come over to my house to listen to music and watch movies.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> I solved that problem by not having a wife. My listening room is great! All my married friends come over to my house to listen to music and watch movies.



Just remember: A spouse is what happens when you aren't seeking one.  

Advice I wish I could go back 25 years and warn my college age self of!


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I solved that problem by not having a wife. My listening room is great! All my married friends come over to my house to listen to music and watch movies.



You can never be sure when you bump into / step onto the "mine" ...


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> You can never be sure when you bump into / step onto the "mine" ...



LOL, dude, I was sooo afraid, at 22-23, of growing into an old bachelor, I pursued every girl on campus!  Until a grad student I had a fling with and ultimately went sour, called campus police on me.  That is what I would go back in time to tell 'myself' to knock it off!


----------



## KeithEmo

I think it depends on what you're looking for.

Headphones simply do not present the same sort of sound stage as speakers.
However, as far as resolving detail, I've never heard a pair of speakers at any price that could match a decent pair of electrostatic headphones.
(Even electrostatic speakers have serious limitations that electrostatic headphones don't have.) 



prescient said:


> Mostly agree with the above. Your amp needs to have reasonable output impedance, but you can get that with an SMSL Idea for ~$80. If you look at some headphones like Campfire Audio's Andromeda you can see that output impedance does impact the frequency response.
> 
> On topic, to some extent I think the problem with head-fi is that people have anchored on the speaker hi-fi world. If I'm into speakers and I want great sound there is really only one way to achieve that. I need a dedicated listening room that is reasonably sized that has been acoustically treated. If I can't get that as a baseline I'm probably out of luck. In my living room I have hardwood floors, plaster walls and per my wife that is how it is staying. This room will never sound great no matter how much DSP I throw at it. I suspect many people face the same issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Detail is useful for sound editing and applying noise reduction. I use headphones for those things. For listening to music, speakers sound much more natural and more engaging.


----------



## prescient

This is interesting. I feel like I can better hear details at my dealer’s room and sometimes on my home monitors (Genelec) than my headphones. 

I’ve had some ok headphones (lcd-3, esp 950, se535, w40s, hd580, etc.) typically using Oppo HA-1 as a source. If the answer is that I’d need to step up to Stax to hear the same details that’s probably a non-starter for me.

The answer could also be that my dealer’s speakers (Magico, Sonus Faber, B&W) have a FR that makes these details sound clearer.


----------



## bigshot

The reason for the detail isn't the amp or the quality of the cans. It's because with headphones, the sound is going straight into your ears. It isn't bouncing around in a room between the speakers and you. However the room is what gives music its dimension and bloom. Personally, I'd rather have the natural dimensional space around the music than to have direct clarity, but that's a personal choice. I imagine most people given the chance would pick speakers over headphones, but not everyone has a proper room for it. So they make up excuses for themselves to justify their situation and try to cherry pick to turn the detriment into some sort of positive. That's not a criticism by the way... that is just how human nature works.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I think it depends on what you're looking for.
> 
> Headphones simply do not present the same sort of sound stage as speakers.
> However, as far as resolving detail, I've never heard a pair of speakers at any price that could match a decent pair of electrostatic headphones.
> (Even electrostatic speakers have serious limitations that electrostatic headphones don't have.)



To a point, quite true.

Properly driven electrostatic speakers ( they are rare, and they are, unfortunately, VERY expensive - amp more than the speakers themselves - require rooms > 60 square metres to start singing properly ) can approach a decent pair of electrostatic headphones - or, to be more precise, electrostatic earspeakers. The only representative of this genre still commercially available is Jecklin Float Electrostatic, these days built no longer in Switzerland by Precide SA, but in Germany by Quad Atelier. JJ Float QA have their own thread on head-fi.

On the other hand, I did find a dynamic speaker that can be described as the closest approach to Stax Lambda Pro in speaker world : Technics SB RX-50 . It requires to be refurbished completely and driven by a VERY high damping factor amp ( and cables that do not significantly reduce inherent DF of the amp ). And it needs a very precise positioning in a room rather large compared to its size - particularly side walls have to be minimum 1.5 meres ( preferably more ) from the speakers.

ESL amps ( direct drive, high voltage, OTL ) are an entirely different arena than amps for dynamic transducers. For a number of reasons, forcing the designer to end up using nothing but the best electronic parts available -- and that can get pricey before you know it.


----------



## bigshot

I would much rather find headphones that sound like speakers than the other way around


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> The reason for the detail isn't the amp or the quality of the cans. It's because with headphones, the sound is going straight into your ears. It isn't bouncing around in a room between the speakers and you. However the room is what gives music its dimension and bloom. Personally, I'd rather have the natural dimensional space around the music than to have direct clarity, but that's a personal choice. I imagine most people given the chance would pick speakers over headphones, but not everyone has a proper room for it. So they make up excuses for themselves to justify their situation and try to cherry pick to turn the detriment into some sort of positive. That's not a criticism by the way... that is just how human nature works.



I agree the room is #1 - no dispute about it. It is #1 requirement for decent speaker listening. Many of us realize it and decide against investing in speakers. If the room is not good enough, one can DSP it to death and still not get the desired result.

Direct clarity vs room giving dimension and bloom is debatable. A person can prefer either one.

The fact that I disagree 1000 % with your assertion the reason for the detail isn't in the amp or the quality of the cans is not debatable. 
Given a chance for a direct comparison, you would NEVER say an amp that is, according to circuit diagram "the same" as the other, but built with better components, that they sound  the same - sometimes not even similar. 

It is amusing but not funny to read the circuit diagrams of vintage high quality Sansui gear; in some as remote corner of the diagram as possible, you will find  electronic components marked like this R11, C 37,  *

that * means "Japanese market only". And that * actually denotes each and every electronic component beyond the standard quality used in consumer electronics otherwise.

Remember, catalogues of audio equipment for export and Japan home market are VERY different - overlapping by only a few midrange models. From bottom to the midrange is export - and from midrange to TOTL is the Japanese home market. I did not care to read how much are the prices - as the only relevant figure is how many zeroes there are.... What a difference the first digit being 1 or 9 can make, if there is at least one ( usually more... ) zeroes too much behind it ?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I would much rather find headphones that sound like speakers than the other way around



Me too. What on earth do you think Jecklin Float Electrostatic, AKG K-1000, MySphere 3.1 and similar models are trying to achieve ? Did you audition any of these ?

Not quite there yet, but soon ...


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> The fact that I disagree 1000 % with your assertion the reason for the detail isn't in the amp or the quality of the cans is not debatable.
> Given a chance for a direct comparison, you would NEVER say an amp that is, according to circuit diagram "the same" as the other, but built with better components, that they sound  the same - sometimes not even similar.


Oh come on.  Really?   I know it's a total dead end, but....please post the data you obtained from doing a direct, ABX/DBT of two such amps.  Don't have it?  Then the above statement is completely without substance or verification. 

You can disagree 1000% if you like, but you can't back up your point even 0.1%.



analogsurviver said:


> It is amusing but not funny to read the circuit diagrams of vintage high quality Sansui gear; in some as remote corner of the diagram as possible, you will find  electronic components marked like this R11, C 37,  *
> 
> that * means "Japanese market only". And that * actually denotes each and every electronic component beyond the standard quality used in consumer electronics otherwise.


Again...you'll need to prove that.  Japanese versions of products made for export were also designed to run on a different line voltage, so certain component values would need to be change.  Japan is 100V, USA is 120V.  Pretty basic, and would, in fact, trigger a number of changes.



analogsurviver said:


> Remember, catalogues of audio equipment for export and Japan home market are VERY different - overlapping by only a few midrange models. From bottom to the midrange is export - and from midrange to TOTL is the Japanese home market. I did not care to read how much are the prices - as the only relevant figure is how many zeroes there are.... What a difference the first digit being 1 or 9 can make, if there is at least one ( usually more... ) zeroes too much behind it ?


Yes, that's called "marketing".  Change the market, you need to adjust the product to fit.  Japan's perceptions are different.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 9, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Me too. What on earth do you think Jecklin Float Electrostatic, AKG K-1000, MySphere 3.1 and similar models are trying to achieve ? Did you audition any of these ?



I have pretty good headphones... Oppo PM-1s. Good as they are, they're nowhere near my speaker system. No contest. I doubt headphones will ever be able to match a multichannel speaker setup in a good room... certainly not anytime soon. Headphones are a compromise. They're fine for editing, but not for serious listening unless you have no other option.



analogsurviver said:


> The fact that I disagree 1000 % with your assertion the reason for the detail isn't in the amp or the quality of the cans is not debatable.



It's not debatable because you don't debate. You throw out blatantly false statements, refuse to back them up with any evidence and fly off into irrelevant tangents to distract from the blatantly false statements. That isn't debate. That is some sort of inner conversation with yourself. I've gotten to the point where all I read of your posts is the first sentence of each paragraph. I do that because I know the sentences that follow are going to have nothing to do with the first one.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Oh come on.  Really?   I know it's a total dead end, but....please post the data you obtained from doing a direct, ABX/DBT of two such amps.  Don't have it?  Then the above statement is completely without substance or verification.
> 
> You can disagree 1000% if you like, but you can't back up your point even 0.1%.
> 
> ...



3 times NO. And I have never been more serious about anything on head-fi yet.

Have you ever designed an electrostatic high voltage amp yourself ? I did - and know damn well how critical componentry is. Good luck with ANY device for ABX/DBT of such amps - even if you could achieve safety, you would have created a SERIOUS degradation of sound for BOTH amps - due to increase of the capacitance of the load. THE LAST thing such amps need.

Would you STILL insist on ABX/DBT in case you were flying a Tiger Moth against - say - MiG 15 ? Geez, one flyby close enough would be all it takes - no weapons required...

The difference in Sansui equipment is not even most remotely limited to different voltages only - besides, in Europe it is 220>240 V AC.
Those 20 V diff from Japanese 100 V AC ( can be different in some locations ) and US 120 V AC can - almost - be regarded as slightly higher than normal variation in voltage; connect either to 240 V AC ...

No, that case is not "marketing". In Japan, TOTL Ameriacan Thresholds, Mark Levinsons, etc are "upper middle class" - at best. They had to cut corners in componentry for the export market - as otherwise the prices would simply be too high. And all the goodies in Sansui equipment that was not installed for export markets and is NOT related to mains voltage differences was - and mostly still is - of the pricier variety.

Ever heard the better>best japanese tube/valve products ? I managed to avoid the audition of most - but those I could not escape from made me really sad I can not possibly afford them.

How many examples of Japanese produced audio masquerading as - mainly American - western products do you want ? The western market simply would not accept that Japanese can not only equal, but EXCEED most of the western achievements; and would never agree to pay anything approaching the fair price. But with a western re-badged name on it, it usually is recognized  for its true quality - along with a hefty markup for the "middle man".

Japanese are the least known for good speakers. Undeservedly - because they have created, at the advent of both CD and later SACD, truly magnificient speakers., exceeding practically everything any audiophile has ever herd (of).  With the price that may well make even the millionaires balk. But - they DID it ! I never even saw them in flesh ... - rumor has it than less than 10 pairs of Mitsubishi Diatone ( the best model, forgot the exact type designation ) have ever left the japanese islands ...


----------



## old tech

Given that a powerful amp that is fully transparent can be built for less than $2k with quality components and a mark up for middle men, what is it in these amps that justify $20k plus price tags apart from audio jewelry which adds to the placebo effect?

Take for example good quality active speakers.  They generally have four amps to power each driver and built inside the enclosure.  With those speakers, they can have 250w amps just for driving the woofers.  The amps are small, powerful and transparent but as they are hidden inside the speaker enclosure they impart no placebo effects.  I'm willing to bet that a quality active set up will have superior fidelity than a Japanese Sansui driving speakers of equal value.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

analogsurviver said:


> 3 times NO. And I have never been more serious about anything on head-fi yet.
> 
> Have you ever designed an electrostatic high voltage amp yourself ? I did - and know damn well how critical componentry is. Good luck with ANY device for ABX/DBT of such amps - even if you could achieve safety, you would have created a SERIOUS degradation of sound for BOTH amps - due to increase of the capacitance of the load. THE LAST thing such amps need.
> 
> ...


One of my best buds builds tannoys exotic/ expensive speakers(including the Churchills)....a lot of them end up in Japan and Hong Kong. .high efficiency speakers and tube amps are the trend there.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> 3 times NO. And I have never been more serious about anything on head-fi yet.
> 
> Have you ever designed an electrostatic high voltage amp yourself ? I did - and know damn well how critical componentry is. Good luck with ANY device for ABX/DBT of such amps - even if you could achieve safety, you would have created a SERIOUS degradation of sound for BOTH amps - due to increase of the capacitance of the load. THE LAST thing such amps need.


I find it extremely odd that someone who claims to have designed such an amp, and must certainly have enough electronics background to do so successfully, cannot conceive of a method of ABX switching that does not increase capacitive load.  That is NOT a difficult design challenge...at all!   But to answer your question, no I have not designed a high voltage amp intended for electrostatic speakers.  I have worked with many high voltage amplifiers, though I'm not sure if 17kV plate voltage at 3.8A qualifies in the discussion or not. 

Oh yeah, and no trouble switching the output of that without a C problem.


analogsurviver said:


> Would you STILL insist on ABX/DBT in case you were flying a Tiger Moth against - say - MiG 15 ? Geez, one flyby close enough would be all it takes - no weapons required...


That one was so obtuse I had to google it.  So my answer would be "no", not anymore that I'd have to ABX a transistor radio against a pair of your electrostatic speakers.  Some things are different enough in purpose and design goals that they don't fit into the same category, which makes them so obviously different that such comparisons are not necessary to prove them.  But making up such a ridiculous doesn't exactly support your point, does it?


analogsurviver said:


> The difference in Sansui equipment is not even most remotely limited to different voltages only - besides, in Europe it is 220>240 V AC.
> Those 20 V diff from Japanese 100 V AC ( can be different in some locations ) and US 120 V AC can - almost - be regarded as slightly higher than normal variation in voltage; connect either to 240 V AC ...
> 
> No, that case is not "marketing". In Japan, TOTL Ameriacan Thresholds, Mark Levinsons, etc are "upper middle class" - at best. They had to cut corners in componentry for the export market - as otherwise the prices would simply be too high. And all the goodies in Sansui equipment that was not installed for export markets and is NOT related to mains voltage differences was - and mostly still is - of the pricier variety.


Look, seriously...I don't care.  What we have here, and what we always have from you, is your unsubstantiated, but firmly stated opinions.  I don't believe them to be correct.  You have every opportunity to provide evidence to back up your claims but you never prove anything, you just restate, ad nausium, your opinions with lengthy and pointless analogies.  Never once offering a tiny shred of scientific proof.

I guess you continually forget what forum this is.

Still waiting for proof of your claims from 6 weeks ago, as promised.  And all the other proof and evidence promised in between then an now. I hope you eventually understand that when you make a wild claim, back it with only opinion, then promise proof and never provide it, with excuses about how difficult it is to post an image, that we all can tell you're lying, or just delusional. 

And yet, the door of opportunity for you to post proof for any, heck just ONE of your nonsense claims, is still open.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> I find it extremely odd that someone who claims to have designed such an amp, and must certainly have enough electronics background to do so successfully, cannot conceive of a method of ABX switching that does not increase capacitive load.  That is NOT a difficult design challenge...at all!   But to answer your question, no I have not designed a high voltage amp intended for electrostatic speakers.  I have worked with many high voltage amplifiers, though I'm not sure if 17kV plate voltage at 3.8A qualifies in the discussion or not.
> 
> Oh yeah, and no trouble switching the output of that without a C problem.
> That one was so obtuse I had to google it.  So my answer would be "no", not anymore that I'd have to ABX a transistor radio against a pair of your electrostatic speakers.  Some things are different enough in purpose and design goals that they don't fit into the same category, which makes them so obviously different that such comparisons are not necessary to prove them.  But making up such a ridiculous doesn't exactly support your point, does it?
> ...



OK, 17 KV plate voltage at 3.8A definitely qualifies as high voltage amp that can be allowed into discussion. What was the purpose of such amp ( unless military/classified ) - audio  ?

But, regardless, IF you did design an audio high voltage amp for either speakers or headphones, you would have known just how maniacal attention to lowering ANY stray capacizance that is ultimately seen by the output of the amp is required/mandatory . You'll have chance, along everybody else, to see just how much important is this - in a forthcoming and long ovedue review of iFi Audio Pro iESL energizer - where for comparative purposes both measurememts AND re-recordings of music played trough the amp driving iFi Pro iESL and Stax SRM1MK2 amplifier, both driving Stax Lambda Pro, will be posted. Capacitance is THE worst enemy in the electrostatic headphones - because, usually, there is MORE capacitance in the CABLE than the transducer itself. I had the same idea as used by Sennheiser in their Orpheus 2 ( forgot the official name ) of incorporating the final active element of the electrostatic amplifier in the headphone "cup" itself and thus eliminating that pesky cable capacitance altogether - back in 1985. But then, no active elements of required voltage/power rating AND acceptable bulk/size have been available. 4 pcs of PL-519 tubes per channel ( 8 for stereo headset ) is a "bit" too heavy - disregarding the heat generation and safety entirely...
And you have to fight for every single pF reduction of capacitance you possibly can... now, that ABX/DBT switchbox would have to add less than 10 pF to the total - and I do not see that as a trivial task at all.

I am glad I finally suceeded with Tiger Moth/MiG analogy. Intentionally, two VERY different planes; although only about 2 decades removed between their first flights, they were removed by generations in technology. Because, as far as sound quality is concerned, the electronic components do behave very similar in high voltage amps; in short, high voltage amp for electrostatics WILL force one to use the best electronic components possible ( overkill is not strong word enough ) - because, in an electrostatic transducer, the "driver" ( either conventional amp + step-up transformer or high voltage amp ) is MUCH MORE important than the transducer itself. You really have to create a mess of an electrostatic transducer for it to sound poor - but it takes years to perfect a high voltage amp. First, that it works at all ( and measures kind of right ), then comes the tedious way to make it SOUND right. At one electronic component at a time... - which, ultimately,  sometimes leads to custom made components, as there simply is no componentry of the desired calibre available off the shelf.

As soon as I sort my cloud storage problems out, I will post everything promised.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> But, regardless, IF you did design an audio high voltage amp for either speakers or headphones, you would have known just how maniacal attention to lowering ANY stray capacizance that is ultimately seen by the output of the amp is required/mandatory . You'll have chance, along everybody else, to see just how much important is this - in a forthcoming and long ovedue review of iFi Audio Pro iESL energizer - where for comparative purposes both measurememts AND re-recordings of music played trough the amp driving iFi Pro iESL and Stax SRM1MK2 amplifier, both driving Stax Lambda Pro, will be posted. Capacitance is THE worst enemy in the electrostatic headphones - because, usually, there is MORE capacitance in the CABLE than the transducer itself. I had the same idea as used by Sennheiser in their Orpheus 2 ( forgot the official name ) of incorporating the final active element of the electrostatic amplifier in the headphone "cup" itself and thus eliminating that pesky cable capacitance altogether - back in 1985. But then, no active elements of required voltage/power rating AND acceptable bulk/size have been available. 4 pcs of PL-519 tubes per channel ( 8 for stereo headset ) is a "bit" too heavy - disregarding the heat generation and safety entirely...
> 
> And you have to fight for every single pF reduction of capacitance you possibly can... now, that ABX/DBT switchbox would have to add less than 10 pF to the total - and I do not see that as a trivial task at all.


Got it. No engineering at all involved. 


analogsurviver said:


> I am glad I finally suceeded with Tiger Moth/MiG analogy.


If your goal was a ridiculous analogy, then yes, you succeeded.  


analogsurviver said:


> Because, as far as sound quality is concerned, the electronic components do behave very similar in high voltage amps; in short, high voltage amp for electrostatics WILL force one to use the best electronic components possible ( overkill is not strong word enough ) - because, in an electrostatic transducer, the "driver" ( either conventional amp + step-up transformer or high voltage amp ) is MUCH MORE important than the transducer itself.


Here's your failure: what the heck is "best"?  If you were an engineer you'd already know it's all about context and application.  "Best" for one application could be "worst" for another.  There actually is no single "best electronic component" until the application is understood.  

Therefore, I believe you have no experience actually doing any amp design, but instead are living it vicariously through others experiences.  This is further underscored by your misunderstanding of the electrostatic transducer, capacitance, and the driving amplifier.  But, whatever myth makes you happy, just go for it.


analogsurviver said:


> You really have to create a mess of an electrostatic transducer for it to sound poor - but it takes years to perfect a high voltage amp. First, that it works at all ( and measures kind of right ), then comes the tedious way to make it SOUND right. At one electronic component at a time... - which, ultimately,  sometimes leads to custom made components, as there simply is no componentry of the desired calibre available off the shelf.


The above defines any real engineering, but whatever.


analogsurviver said:


> As soon as I sort my cloud storage problems out, I will post everything promised.


You lie again.  It doesn't take a single K of cloud storage to post a picture.  That's the most lame excuse ever.

And at this point, I'm done.  I've taken 100X the time these arguments are worth.  I'm literally arguing with someone entirely absorbed in mythology and delusion.  

Someone else can pick up the fight now.  Or not.  I really don't care.


----------



## bigshot

He's posted youtube videos and charts when it suits him.


----------



## 71 dB

pinnahertz said:


> And at this point, I'm done.  I've taken 100X the time these arguments are worth.  I'm literally arguing with someone entirely absorbed in mythology and delusion.



Yes, I think 100X is correct. AS is delusional beyond hope of recovery so I don't even read his posts anymore and responding to his post would be as productive as trying to teach differential equations to a monkey.



pinnahertz said:


> Someone else can pick up the fight now.  Or not.  I really don't care.



If someone does "pick up the fight", it's not me. I have better ways to use my time.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Got it. No engineering at all involved.
> If your goal was a ridiculous analogy, then yes, you succeeded.
> Here's your failure: what the heck is "best"?  If you were an engineer you'd already know it's all about context and application.  "Best" for one application could be "worst" for another.  There actually is no single "best electronic component" until the application is understood.
> 
> ...



Well, if the above it is no engineerring involved for you - what else can I say ?

OK, if the analogy was ridiculous, it had to be - as anything less would still be answered by "ABX/DBX absolutely required".

The "best" is ALWAYS in context with the application; there is no best turntable mat ( unless specified precisely for which material platter, etc ), no best capacitor ( unless for a specific place in the circuit ) - and so on. I agree with your statement here 100%. Shall we say from now on "best electronic component for the specific place in the circuit - BECFTSPITC for "short" ?

So, where do I misunderstand the electrostatic amps and transducers ? Just why both Sennheiser and Shure use in their top ES headphones the final active element that drives electrostatic transducer itself situated in the headphone "cup" itself - if not for the ability to drive to a higher frequency point with less power required than it would have been possible in a classic arrangement with cable ? Or legally allowed - EU has banned ES amps above certain voltage/current limit for safety.

OK, the old head-fi allowed to post pics directly, and I did post pics ( mainly in the turntable threads ) - now, you have to use URL - and that means it has to be first uploaded to some sharing/cloud/whatever - or am I missing something ? Calling me a liar is wrong in the extreme; digital fobic - yes, for me the best music/sound in the universe will always be whatever the noise a computer makes at switching off. I have quite a few friends who like to listen to the music - but would VICIOUSLY object to having to deal with computer in order to set it up for music playback - despite me demoing what can be achived by a very modest investments in digital audio. "Does it have to use a computer ? - If yes, NOT interested" is the usual answer ...

But I AM like that when having to deal with sharing/cloud/etc .


----------



## gregorio

pinnahertz said:


> And yet, the door of opportunity for you to post proof for any, heck just ONE of your nonsense claims, is still open.



Actually he did post proof for one of his nonsense claims. He was making some nonsense claims about high quality equipment and high levels of listening discernment with regards to binaural recordings and he posted proof in the form of a link to a Youtube video. Hilariously, it wasn't actually a binaural recording, it was a video of a binaural recording session in progress but the audio on video was actually standard stereo recorded by the camera. Every time there was a picture edit to a different camera angle, the stereo image changed, even to the point of complete reversal, reflecting the change in camera position relative to the orchestra. What he actually proved therefore was the exact opposite of his assertions and a shocking lack of listening discernment. In fact, such a shocking lack of listening discernment, it's indicative of a clinical hearing impairment! Although it's plausible that his listening discernment was overwhelmed by a strong bias caused by a cognitive delusion.



analogsurviver said:


> Well, if the above it is no engineerring involved for you - what else can I say ?



Why do you need to ask? Why don't you just "say" what you always do, just go off on a tangent and make-up another whole bunch of utter nonsense?

G


----------



## KeithEmo

As with most things, I find that it depends on what you're looking for. 

I agree that headphones are probably not "the best way to enjoy music" - at least for me. 
However, in the specific area of being able to distinguish fine details and textures in sounds, I do find electrostatic headphones to be far and away the best option.
And, no, I do NOT find the same to be true for dynamic headphones, even many that sound very good otherwise.

I have never heard a dynamic headphone at any price that allows me to hear as much detail as a sub-$1000 pair of Koss ESP-950's (which are considered to be relatively low-cost electrostatics).
Electrostatic headphones tend to have very wide frequency response, very low THD, and the ability to deliver very high SPL levels without a drastic increase in THD.
However, much like looking at things under a bright light with a magnifying glass, that's not to say that everyone will necessarily find the experience pleasing.
(I find all headphones to be somewhat distracting and uncomfortable in some way - which is one reason I prefer the _experience_ of listening with speakers.)




bigshot said:


> I have pretty good headphones... Oppo PM-1s. Good as they are, they're nowhere near my speaker system. No contest. I doubt headphones will ever be able to match a multichannel speaker setup in a good room... certainly not anytime soon. Headphones are a compromise. They're fine for editing, but not for serious listening unless you have no other option.
> 
> It's not debatable because you don't debate. You throw out blatantly false statements, refuse to back them up with any evidence and fly off into irrelevant tangents to distract from the blatantly false statements. That isn't debate. That is some sort of inner conversation with yourself. I've gotten to the point where all I read of your posts is the first sentence of each paragraph. I do that because I know the sentences that follow are going to have nothing to do with the first one.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think we agree there... about speakers sounding more natural.
(Although I'm not sure whether it's inherent or simply because most recordings are designed to be played through them.)

Likewise, if you've ever looked through a good quality stereo microscope.... the experience is not especially "natural" - but it can't be beat for distinguishing fine details.
(But that's not to say that you'd enjoy walking around looking through a stereo microscope.)

Whenever I've listened to music on electrostatic headphones - after hearing the same music on loudspeakers or dynamic headphones...
I always notice more fine details and textures.
To me, this can be really exciting, or just a bit distracting, depending on the content itself, how well it's recorded, and the mood I'm in.
You tend to notice things, like how the texture of the background noise changes when different tracks are patched in and out, whether you'd _LIKE_ to notice them or not.
I generally consider this to be a plus since I prefer to hear whatever's there in exact detail - and let it stand or fall on its merits - but not everyone agrees.
And that's not to say that, just because they tend to emphasize fine details, electrostatic headphones are necessarily _accurate_ - just as a good close-up lens isn't always accurate.
(I'm told that many of the original SONAR sets used electrostatic headsets.... )



bigshot said:


> Detail is useful for sound editing and applying noise reduction. I use headphones for those things. For listening to music, speakers sound much more natural and more engaging.


----------



## KeithEmo

The easiest way to avoid worrying about capacitance in an A/B/X switch would be to use two identical amplifiers to drive the headphones, playing from the same source, and so avoid switching the signal going directly to them at all.
Likewise, as someone already mentioned, designing a switch that could switch high voltage with low capacitance might be an interesting engineering challenge, but would be far from impossible.

I would also disagree - strongly - that "designing an amp for electrostatics would necessitate using the finest components available".
The reality is simply that, because most engineers who design audio equipment rarely work with those signal voltages, they tend to be unfamiliar with the design of those types of circuits.
And, being in unfamiliar territory, they tend to make mistakes, do some things the long way around, and fail to account for things they normally would.

At the risk of offending some "audiophile sensibilities" - look up a picture of the inside of the "energizer box" (amplifier) that is sold with Koss ESP/950 electrostatic headphones.
It is an excellent example of "good industrial design".
It performs quite well and sounds good (competitive with some far more expensive units).
However, it appears to be made using entirely low cost "commercial" parts... with nothing fancy or unique.
It's just designed well... by someone who apparently knew what they were doing.
(You really can make a 3kV amplifier output stage by stacking up a bunch of low-cost 500V transistors - and have it perform very well - if you are a competent design engineer.)



analogsurviver said:


> OK, 17 KV plate voltage at 3.8A definitely qualifies as high voltage amp that can be allowed into discussion. What was the purpose of such amp ( unless military/classified ) - audio  ?
> 
> But, regardless, IF you did design an audio high voltage amp for either speakers or headphones, you would have known just how maniacal attention to lowering ANY stray capacizance that is ultimately seen by the output of the amp is required/mandatory . You'll have chance, along everybody else, to see just how much important is this - in a forthcoming and long ovedue review of iFi Audio Pro iESL energizer - where for comparative purposes both measurememts AND re-recordings of music played trough the amp driving iFi Pro iESL and Stax SRM1MK2 amplifier, both driving Stax Lambda Pro, will be posted. Capacitance is THE worst enemy in the electrostatic headphones - because, usually, there is MORE capacitance in the CABLE than the transducer itself. I had the same idea as used by Sennheiser in their Orpheus 2 ( forgot the official name ) of incorporating the final active element of the electrostatic amplifier in the headphone "cup" itself and thus eliminating that pesky cable capacitance altogether - back in 1985. But then, no active elements of required voltage/power rating AND acceptable bulk/size have been available. 4 pcs of PL-519 tubes per channel ( 8 for stereo headset ) is a "bit" too heavy - disregarding the heat generation and safety entirely...
> And you have to fight for every single pF reduction of capacitance you possibly can... now, that ABX/DBT switchbox would have to add less than 10 pF to the total - and I do not see that as a trivial task at all.
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

headphones have the potential to offer higher fidelity in the context of signal sent in and signal measured out at the ear. it wouldn't be too surprising if room reverb and just usually higher harmonic distortions on speakers could end up masking some audio cues sometimes. 
but as a listener we can't easily remove the differences we perceive in stereo, FR, head movements, tactile bass(or lack of), and of course the added room for the speakers... so instead we judge as a whole and headphone can hardly challenge speakers under such unfavorable circumstances. even less so when the track has been made for speakers as is usually the case. 
we don't really have a simple mean to properly compare the difference in fidelity between headphone and speakers by ear.  personally I often can pass a blind test better with IEMs, simply because I can get better isolation from outside noises(but most well sealed IEMs have garbage upper response, so if the blind test is about trebles, I forget IEMs). between headphone and speakers, I still tend to get better results with Just Noticeable Differences on headphones so long as the FR isn't a total mess in the area I'm trying to notice. when the test allows for it(obviously), I like to use only one speaker as I really noticed an increase in my success rate that way for whatever reason(I can think of a few but have never properly tested them). 




about gears being as good as the "fidelity" or specs of each individual component, there is some truth to it obviously. once the signal gets a lot of extra garbage from something or gets affected in a non linear way, we will have a hard time taking that garbage out by simply compensating for the change. 
but it's also a concept that can easily lead to complete nonsense in the context of an electrical circuit where the interaction between components is often more relevant than the individual behavior of each individual component out of context. if the "better" component ends up affecting the specs significantly, chances are that other changes will be needed to balance things out. for example, IMO a fairly significant number of the DIYers just randomly replacing parts as incremental upgrades, are not in fact improving their gear. but of course they tend to absolutely believe they do. a few times I've discussed with guys who were all too eager to tell about their "upgrades" and how great it sounded, but several didn't even bother running some before/after measurements. needless to say that I'm puzzled by such behavior. the guy would bother working on the gears himself, research stuff and get the soldering gears and whatever else he needs. and once all the hard job is done, he doesn't measure the signal to confirm the positive impact of his so very objective work? I find this once again pretty revealing of the people following some ideology of things instead of the science of things. 
other times of course some clever dudes absolutely improve gears with their personal efforts and creativity. I'm at no point saying that DIY systematically makes things worst. or that using quality components is wrong(lol).


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> The easiest way to avoid worrying about capacitance in an A/B/X switch would be to use two identical amplifiers to drive the headphones, playing from the same source, and so avoid switching the signal going directly to them at all.
> Likewise, as someone already mentioned, designing a switch that could switch high voltage with low capacitance might be an interesting engineering challenge, but would be far from impossible.
> 
> I would also disagree - strongly - that "designing an amp for electrostatics would necessitate using the finest components available".
> ...




I agree that the easiest way to avoid worrying about capacitance in an ABX switch would be to use two identical-per-schematics-but-built-with-differenr-quality-parts amps, driving the same headphones playing from the same source in order to avoid switching the signal going TO them at all.
There is a fly in this ointment - of a size of an elephant. How are you going to switch the OUTPUT from either of the amps going TO the headphones ? Manually changing the plug from one amp to another requires the use of another person - and it is anything but instantaneous. It would also result in partial loss of the static charge on the ES driver - meaning that whenever the switch is being made, a few seconds after the change the sensitivity of the transducer would be slightly lower than after fully charged - here goes the < 0.2 dB output SPL matching down the drain, something that HAS TO BE scrupolously adhered to during ABX/DBT. No real world pair of ES headphones have the charging constant exactly equal between the right and left channel - leading during charging back to full charge also to balance issues. It does not matter during normal operation, but it precludes the true ABX as you have described.

The above goes for two "identical" amps. Things can get more complicated yet when trying to compare ABX between two DIFFERENT amps. As the absolute polarity of ES headphones and loudspeakers can - and DOES ( just chek Tyll's measurements on various Stax combinations of both headphone and amp models ) -  vary, that can also be the direct result of the polarizing voltage. It is specified in magnitude ONLY ( 580 V DC for Stax Pro models ) - but not in polarity. That means one amp can have stator voltages at + 580 V DC relative to ground and polarizing voltage/bias EITHER at ground potential - OR at + 1160 V DC relative to ground. ( actual voltages are different, stator voltage at zero signal is around +450 V DC depending on the exact model, bias difference of 580 V DC either way from +450 V DC also depending on the model ) . I know for fact that Stax SRM1MK2 and SRM-007t use DIFFERENT polarity bias - and after the change from one amp to another the poor headphone has to be re-biased in another direction/polarity - which means that at one moment after the change, the output from each transducer will be ZERO - and as the charging constant is never exactly alike ( Gohms involved, any slight difference in humidity from the human prespiration has greater effect on the surface resistance than the inherent resistance of the conductive coating on the diaphragm itself ), this would also lead to balance issues. This can take - at least - 10 seconds before the polarizing voltage and thus sensitivity of the transducers are again at the correct level after the change - making direct ABX switching not only impossible, but downright dangerous to both amps and headphone.

It is odd that you as the designer of amps for a commercially available brand are not familiar with the benefits of "as high quality parts as possible for high voltage applications". 

I agree that most people just do not grasp what KVs in audio designs actually mean. Energizer boxes ( including the one you mentioned ) are usually made approx as you have described, using entirely "low cost commercial parts" - that is to say, rather poorly. And they sound accordingly. The only exception to this rule I am actually aware of is iFi Audio Pro iESL energizer - my review of it pending.  It earned the distinction of being the first "transformer" ( to the use of which I usually most strongly object ) that can actually improve upon most of the active high voltage amps ( SRM1MK2 included ) - but not all . Which, deservedly, cost appreciable more - much more . Absolutely no way it is possible to have a cheap but superb electrostatic amp -  quite unlike in a dynamic driver world. 

Good luck with stacking up low voltage transistors to form a decent 3 KV ( roughly 1KV RMS ) amp ... - it is most unlikely to prove popular with the service department ... - or customers, for the very same reason.


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> Actually he did post proof for one of his nonsense claims. He was making some nonsense claims about high quality equipment and high levels of listening discernment with regards to binaural recordings and he posted proof in the form of a link to a Youtube video. Hilariously, it wasn't actually a binaural recording, it was a video of a binaural recording session in progress but the audio on video was actually standard stereo recorded by the camera. Every time there was a picture edit to a different camera angle, the stereo image changed, even to the point of complete reversal, reflecting the change in camera position relative to the orchestra. What he actually proved therefore was the exact opposite of his assertions and a shocking lack of listening discernment. In fact, such a shocking lack of listening discernment, it's indicative of a clinical hearing impairment! Although it's plausible that his listening discernment was overwhelmed by a strong bias caused by a cognitive delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I should actually thank you for the above insuniations - because they prompted me to try and re-find the exact post on YT you mention. I failed miserably ( and will have to go back in thread tto find it ...) - but as "collateral damage", I found a whole bunch of other intersting binaural recordings. This time, I WILL take time to disect each and every one of them - making each another post. Then it will be seen if my listening discernment was overwhelmed by a strong bias caused by a cognitive delusion ...


----------



## bigshot

No need to go to that trouble.


----------



## taffy2207 (Jul 11, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Oohh yeah, my gear is really expensive:  A mid-line JVC receiver, Sony CD carousel, and Technics direct drive turntable, all connected with ordinary RCA cables, and ordinary 16AWG strand to my speakers.  Realllly bou-teekey stuff - NOT.  Just a reasonably powerful average Joe living room stereo rig.  Nothing high-brow here, move along!



I have no idea why you reacted like that. Was I talking about you? No. Move along? Nah, think I'll stay.

It was obviously a generic statement (notice the word, _usually_?) about something I see becoming more prevalent on here as time goes by. People buying into hype or over zealous marketing (or downright lies). People believing something is better than everything else because it's expensive or because of group think or group influence. People using flowery language that means nothing (primarily in reviews). When people buy expensive gear they instantly become experts (in their own heads) without the merits of Science or logic. It's amazing how some head-fiers claim something is the 'best ever' and then sell it and move on within a year.

That's why I read posts here, to learn more about the science behind Audio and it's technology. I don't know much about the Science behind Audio, that's why I'm here. I think people get way too emotionally invested in wires and Electronics, personally. Then again, I'm a Music nut, have been for 42 years. Gear will always be secondary to the actual Music for me. I'm one of the rare Head-fiers that could happily sit and listen to Music on a £20 radio, tap my feet and not be overly critical about how it sounds.

No high brow equipment? Kudos. Kinda my point.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jul 11, 2018)

First... I guess I'm a little confused at your confusion.
Whenever comparing two different things, the general goal is to vary the thing you're comparing, while keeping everything else the same.

Using a single source, and simply using a splitter with it, takes care of using the same source for both devices under test.
You will then have several options for comparing amps:
1) use the same headphones but physically connect them to one amp or the other (this has the drawback of the time it takes to swap the connections)
2) use two different but identical pairs of headphones (that way you don't have to change the connections to either amp - but you will have to physically change headphones)

In the particular case of electrostatic headphones, specific amplifiers or energizers are often custom designed to work best with specific models of headphones.
In particular, the performance of either may be affected heavily by the design of the other... making evaluation of each separately less than entirely valid.
For example, not all energizers use the same bias voltage, which will affect both output level and distortion.
Therefore, with electrostatic headphones, I would be inclined to treat the headphones and amplifier as a system (a set to be used together).

Note that, if you _REALLY_ wanted to compare, for example, _JUST_ the characteristics of the amplifier....
You could make a modified version of your design that allowed separate control of the bias voltage and the driving audio signal.
That way, you could leave the bias supply connected to the headphones, and _ONLY_ switch the audio drive signal.
(If I were prototyping a design I would want to be able to experiment with different bias voltages and different amplifier circuitry independently.)

My problem with your phrasing is that you haven't defined what "a high quality part" actually is.
Every electrical and electronic component has a long list of functional characteristics...
And every circuit has a specific set of requirements for each part it contains...
Audiophiles have a tendency to assume that certain "magically good parts" are "great wherever you use them".
The reality is that some particular parts may perform exceptionally well in some applications - but poorly in others.
Likewise, some applications simply don't benefit at all from using "better parts".

And, while some "low cost commercial parts" perform poorly, some in fact perform very well.
While, in contrast, some low production volume parts do manage to effectively combine high price, and low availability, with _POOR_ performance.
(The boutique audio industry is rife with "custom" and "exclusive" parts that actually deliver performance far _WORSE_ than typical low cost commercial parts.)

I chose the Koss energizer box as an example because, in point of fact, it's performance isn't bad at all.
I've heard electrostatic energizers that were far more expensive, far more elegant, and used "much better parts", that sounded much worse.
Their choice to build a complex design, using a massive number of commercial grade parts, makes me wonder about long term reliability.
(And, yes, aesthetically it feels like a cheap piece of plastic.)
However, in point of fact, I have _NOT_ heard that they have a reputation for being more failure prone than expensive boutique amps that use "good parts".

Transformer-based designs have both benefits and drawbacks...
- a transformer should have a very low noise floor
- all transformers distort more than most well-designed solid state amplifiers
- transformers are also more prone to variations in frequency response (and often have a frequency response that is quite dependent on the load)

Your assertion about the reliability of using multiple low-voltage parts to operate together at high voltage is both true and absurd.
It is true because doing it that way does require more careful design and some reasonable degree of quality control if you want to avoid excessive failures.
However, when such designs are done properly, they can be far more reliable than those that use a single high-voltage part.

Many high-voltage components are comprised of "stacks" of lower voltage devices...
Most diodes over a few thousand volts rating are internally a stack of multiple lower-voltage rated silicon dies.
And most of the solid-state switching units used on multi-megavolt power grid switch systems are made up of "stacks" of switches that handle a few thousand volts each.
(So, obviously, such designs are both effective and reliable when done properly.)

If you're designing an electrostatic headphone amplifier...
It may seem more elegant to use a pair of 3 kV transistors instead of two totem-pole stacks of six 500V transistors each.
And it will certainly cost more (because 3 kV transistors are "a somewhat specialized part", while 500V transistors are "a cheap common commercial part").
However, none of that tells us which will _PERFORM BETTER_.

Incidentally, I haven't heard the iFi energizer you mentioned.... but I did look it up.
I like the variety of options they offered - especially the ability to select a variety of bias voltages.
Running the bias off of a capacitor bank is also a rather interesting - and somewhat unique - idea.
However, no matter how good they are, transformers always have significant distortion when compared to the distortion of a well-designed amplifier.
(Also remember that, with a transformer-based design, you still need to use an ordinary amplifier to drive it... and so the amplifier you use will affect the sound quality.)
I prefer units that actually include an active amplifier.

Now, here are some actual specs on a different solid-state powered headphone energizer - which is also an actual amplifier - and which look pretty good.....

Energizer/Amplifier:
Frequency response: 1.6Hz–50kHz ±3dB at 100Vrms differential output.
Input impedance: 100k ohms.
Input level: 1Vrms for full output.
THD+noise: 0.001% at 1kHz and 100Vrms differential output.
Voltage amplification: 60dB.
Channel separation: 80dB at 1kHz, 100Vrms differential output.
Audio output voltage: 600Vrms differential, 2300Vrms push-pull with soft limiting.
S/N ratio: 100dB at 100Vrms output.
Bias voltage: 600V DC.

Those are the specs on the little Koss energizer, made with "cheap commercial parts", that ships with the ESP/950's.
Note that the Koss headphones and the amplifier together cost less than the iFi energizer alone...
And that the iFi unit falls into the price range of many Stax energizers and amplifiers...



analogsurviver said:


> I agree that the easiest way to avoid worrying about capacitance in an ABX switch would be to use two identical-per-schematics-but-built-with-differenr-quality-parts amps, driving the same headphones playing from the same source in order to avoid switching the signal going TO them at all.
> There is a fly in this ointment - of a size of an elephant. How are you going to switch the OUTPUT from either of the amps going TO the headphones ? Manually changing the plug from one amp to another requires the use of another person - and it is anything but instantaneous. It would also result in partial loss of the static charge on the ES driver - meaning that whenever the switch is being made, a few seconds after the change the sensitivity of the transducer would be slightly lower than after fully charged - here goes the < 0.2 dB output SPL matching down the drain, something that HAS TO BE scrupolously adhered to during ABX/DBT. No real world pair of ES headphones have the charging constant exactly equal between the right and left channel - leading during charging back to full charge also to balance issues. It does not matter during normal operation, but it precludes the true ABX as you have described.
> 
> The above goes for two "identical" amps. Things can get more complicated yet when trying to compare ABX between two DIFFERENT amps. As the absolute polarity of ES headphones and loudspeakers can - and DOES ( just chek Tyll's measurements on various Stax combinations of both headphone and amp models ) -  vary, that can also be the direct result of the polarizing voltage. It is specified in magnitude ONLY ( 580 V DC for Stax Pro models ) - but not in polarity. That means one amp can have stator voltages at + 580 V DC relative to ground and polarizing voltage/bias EITHER at ground potential - OR at + 1160 V DC relative to ground. ( actual voltages are different, stator voltage at zero signal is around +450 V DC depending on the exact model, bias difference of 580 V DC either way from +450 V DC also depending on the model ) . I know for fact that Stax SRM1MK2 and SRM-007t use DIFFERENT polarity bias - and after the change from one amp to another the poor headphone has to be re-biased in another direction/polarity - which means that at one moment after the change, the output from each transducer will be ZERO - and as the charging constant is never exactly alike ( Gohms involved, any slight difference in humidity from the human prespiration has greater effect on the surface resistance than the inherent resistance of the conductive coating on the diaphragm itself ), this would also lead to balance issues. This can take - at least - 10 seconds before the polarizing voltage and thus sensitivity of the transducers are again at the correct level after the change - making direct ABX switching not only impossible, but downright dangerous to both amps and headphone.
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jul 11, 2018)

Certain people don't want to directly compare. They realize that it could make them look bad because they've invested themselves so deeply in a position, they've left no option for retreat from that position without losing face. The easiest way to avoid doing a simple comparison test is to over complicate it-- push so hard to dot every i and cross every t that the process becomes unwieldy and impractical. I can't tell you how common that was back when Head-Fi was all one big happy family and there was no Sound Science yet. People would focus all of their energy into thinking up reasons that a simple blind comparison was impossible. Then they would throw their hands in the air and conclude that their biased impressions were just as valid as controlled tests. It's a diversionary tactic.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> First... I guess I'm a little confused at your confusion.
> Whenever comparing two different things, the general goal is to vary the thing you're comparing, while keeping everything else the same.
> 
> Using a single source, and simply using a splitter with it, takes care of using the same source for both devices under test.
> ...



Great post. I will make a proper reply later in the day - 02:40 AM here, just returned from - let's call it that way - yet another demo of my work.


----------



## bigshot

No need to give us announcements in advance of your posts. If you're busy, we'll get along fine without you.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> No need to go to that trouble.



EVERY BIT not only needed, but required. I did it / saved all the links required ) - and will reply, point-by-point, later today.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> No need to give us announcements in advance of your posts. If you're busy, we'll get along fine without you.



Now, just WHAT might impede me at 02.40 AM, after a good day at usual work ( plus learning this old dog some new games ...), to reply to a really well prepared and thought-out post by @KeithEmo  ?  Going to sleep perhaps; anyone else on Sound Science thread(s) does that ? ABX/DBT required ?

Your reply is  typical once one feels ever more cornered and usual tactics that worked up to now are running out - fast.  And you are well aware of it.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jul 12, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Certain people don't want to directly compare. They realize that it could make them look bad because they've invested themselves so deeply in a position, they've left no option for retreat from that position without losing face. The easiest way to avoid doing a simple comparison test is to over complicate it-- push so hard to dot every i and cross every t that the process becomes unwieldy and impractical. I can't tell you how common that was back when Head-Fi was all one big happy family and there was no Sound Science yet. People would focus all of their energy into thinking up reasons that a simple blind comparison was impossible. Then they would throw their hands in the air and conclude that their biased impressions were just as valid as controlled tests. It's a diversionary tactic.



Certain people work in real world - and if all they can put together amounts to ONE amplifier ( that is built to  sonic EXPECTATIONS ) - there is no room/finance to build yet another amp using "standard quality" parts - just for the sake of comparison. I know it is against SS rules and all that jazz - but, I did just that back in 1986. Whenever I stumbled on a SONIC problem, I tried to, if not eliminate entirely, then to reduce its causes to the lowest possible level within my powers.

Trough careful evaluation, measurements, ABX/DBT, etc, it would have likely been possible to reduce the quality (and hence cost...) of SOME electronic parts of that huge amp. But most definitely not those contributing the lion's share of the cost. This amp is well past any reasonable safety limits - for SONIC reasons - and it would, now in 2018, never be allowed within EU - "standard quality"  or "boutique, custom made" parts notwithstanding.

Besides, those were the days of starting the breakup of Yugoslavia - hardly a time and a place for introducing something "finally good enough, price be damned". The microelectronics plant I worked at the time  was the first factory in the former Yugoslavia that had to close its doors - in 1989. And it was no picnic for a couple of years ...

Under different circumstances, you can bet I would have tried to reduce the cost(s) while preserving most ( if not all?) the quality of that huge amp. But it was not meant to be. However, remembering the sonic feats this amp allowed for and comparing the results achieved by commercially available amps, you can bet it is anything but light at my heart. And as much you would like to push "all amps sound the same ( if used within their envelope correctly)" agenda - it is simply not true.

The true statement should  read something like this :

Amplifiers - even if and when used well within their envelope - do AUDIBLY differ, even if SLIGHTLY, according to the quality level to which they are built.

That quality level may be several things : power transformer(s), power supply capacitance(s), number of box(es) the amp(s) are housed in, quality of electronic components ( even if reduced only to tighter matching ), etc, etc.

Any electrical circuit can be built with scrapping the barrel ( using already used before resistors, capacitors, tubes, semiconductors, chokes, etc ...) technique - just to test if it works at all. Such early attempts at prototypes are usually powered by standard test bench power supplies - and every other trick possible in order to see if the original idea works or not - at the minimal possible costs. And, it is almost ALWAYS a single channel (mono) unit at this early stage ( unless being some ambience type processor requiring at least two functioning channels ). By applying strict gain/phase principle, required for stereo, possible only trough the use of - say - 1% ( or better ) tolerance resistors AND capacitors, you can bet that such an amp would trounce the 5% tolerance resistor and 20% tolerance capacitor "standard quality" amp. Even if and when the basic quality of resistors and capacitors used in both amps were not only of similar quality, but actually from the very same types, the difference being only tolerance.

The same electrical circuit ( say a clasic preamp BCD - Before Compact Disk ) can be built with a barely adequate single power supply using a transformer that radiates LOTS of "garbage", high tolerance parts, poorly matched transistors, high deviation from the ideal RIAA curve, poorly tracking volume and balance controls, poor source switches, poor RCA jacks, relying for "master ground" on some screwed together arrangement ( different metals together form an galvanic circuit, deteriorating over time, prone to oxidation ...) that is deteriorating over time... This "master ground screw arrangement " deterioration is a very sneaky one - as it occurs gradually and reduces the SQ well before failing to the point it prompts even the most reluctant to open the box and see why it started to malfunction big time. All built into a light metal box prone to mechanical resonances ( can cause microphonic effect in active circuits... ) .

OR it can be built into SIX boxes :

- power supply with high power low garbage leaking transformer, high capacitance,  tight regulation, low noise, etc, etc
  - EACH channel in a well mechanically damped/non resonating separate metal box

- phono stage with tight tolerance active elements, even tighter tolerance passive elements of superiour quality, very low deviation from the ideal RIAA curve, high quality RCA jacks, some high grade power supply connector, high quality ground post
  - EACH channel in a well mechanically damped/non resonating separate metal box

- line stage with tight tolerance active elements, even tighter tolerance passive elements of superiour quality, high quality source switching, VERY TIGHT TRACKING MULTIPLE STEP        ATTENUATOR type volume control, some high grade power supply connector, high quality ground post with the possibility to lift the ground if required -
  - EACH channel in a well mechanically damped/non resonating separate metal box

Now, the two above described preamps built to two extreme quality levels sharing the same electrical diagram would sound VERY different - with a VERY different price tags attched to them. Most commercially available units try to pack as much they possibly can of that ideal 6 box approach into a single one using very carefully selected parts in order to keep the price still somehow reasonable while providing good>high quality.

Back in the day, there was at least one manufacturer offering the same electrical circuit built to three different standards of quality; Eidolon Research
IIRC, Salesia has been the TOTL, dual mono, tightest tolerance, highest quality parts version :
https://www.audiogon.com/listings/t...eamplifier-w-2-phono-2017-11-21-preamplifiers
https://www.audioasylum.com/messages/tubes/208711/vintage-eidolon-research-quot-salesia-quot-preamp

I have been dreaming about the bottom of the line, the Julia , back in time ( at say 20 years old, even that has been LOTS of $ for me back then ) - and in between the two, there was Mentat ; these two were stereo versions, IIRC Mentat having a separate power supply and tighter tolerance/better quality parts. If and when I get around to scanning my paper archives, Eidolon Reserch certainly will be among the more interesting rarities documenting attempts at perfection in audio over the decades.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jul 12, 2018)

Here's the thing...  I don't disagree with most of your general assertions...

For example, in at least many cases, there are benefits to be had by using parts that perform better in some way (although you have to be very specific in defining that).
And, likewise, in a lot of other cases, even if the improvement is slight or nonexistent, it certainly won't hurt anything to use overspecified parts.
And, yes, if you have a reasonable suspicion that this might be the case, it makes more sense to not bother to spend a lot of effort trying to save a few dollars.

The problem I have is that many audiophiles quite honestly have odd ideas about what constitute "better quality parts" or don't understand the basic engineering considerations involved in the choice. In other words, audiophiles, and boutique companies that cater to them, are prone to making decisions that aren't based on reality. In other words, they choose an expensive part that is "a really good part" in one particular way, and end up not only spending more money, but actually compromising performance in some other, and more relevant way.

I can throw a few specific examples out there....

- Everybody has a different idea about what constitutes "a high quality power transformer"... and the reality depends on the design involved. The reality is that toroids work better in some applications; other types work better in other applications; and there is a huge variance between different individual examples of each. I can't tell which would be better in a given application - and neither can you - without wading through a long list of design specs.

- Yes, the amount of power supply capacitance is important... because too little, or too much, can compromise the design. And, no, more is _NOT_ "always better". In some applications, there is a minimum amount that will do the job, and huge increases grant at least tiny improvements. But, in other situations, there is an actual optimum amount, and going too far below or above that causes problems - and reduces performance. And, yes, in certain applications, certain capacitors work better than others. And, in some applications, replacing a regular grade capacitor with a low ESR equivalent will lower noise. However, did you know that, in some designs, if you replace the standard grade caps in the power supply with larger, low ESR versions, you stand a serious risk of blowing out the power rectifiers and actually increasing the amount of low-frequency noise (because the rectifiers, snubbers, and capacitors, were chosen specifically to work well together)?.

- And, yes, isolating functions by putting the amplifier in one box, and the power supply in another box, can sometimes improve performance. However, unless you do it properly, you can also end up causing all sorts of problems. In many high performance applications the best design involves putting the power supply as close as possible to the circuitry it will be powering... and even fractions of an inch count. If you put the power supply several inches away in another box, it is well isolated, but now you have a whole bunch of new problems to solve because of the distance involved, and the impedance of the cabling and connectors between the boxes. And, if you're not an excellent engineer, you could end up with a much more complicated and expensive design that has worse performance, or entirely new performance issues.

- Likewise, if you're deigning a unit that will be sold as a "CD transport" or as a "DAC", it obviously makes sense to put those two functions in separate boxes. And, yes, there are potential benefits to designing them separately. However, in a single-box CD player, the digital signal is extracted by the transport mechanism, and that process itself involves a clock and a buffer. The signal is then passed directly to the DAC, either along short and carefully laid out foil traces on a single board, or through a short and carefully chosen ribbon cable. If you use separate boxes instead, each box may perform exceptionally well, but you've added a long list of problems which must now be solved because of the cable between them. (Anything over a few inches is going to require special cabling, special driver considerations, extra measures to eliminate the jitter caused by the long cable, extra considerations because your two boxes have separate grounds that need to be connected together.... the list goes on and on. (So, yes, a really well designed two-box design may in fact perform the best. But you're going to have to spend twice as much to overcome the drawbacks you've introduced, just to break even, before you have any hope of an actual improvement.)

- Believe it or not, in some applications, the parts quality really simply doesn't matter. In some audio circuits, the exact electrical characteristics of a coupling capacitor can have a huge effect on sound quality, and an expensive high-performance capacitor may actually sound the best. However, in other applications, the cheap ten cent mica cap, with the terrible audio distortion, may in fact be the best part (not just "as good" - the best). Some cheap parts are cheap because a lot of them are used - sometimes because they do one very specific thing remarkably well. Mica caps, and certain other cheap types, make absolutely wonderful high-frequency bypass caps for power supplies, eve though you would never use them in an audio application.

- Audiophiles also seem to have an obsession with the metals used in cables and transformers, and with things like "hand wound transformers". Yes, silver is a better electrical conductor than copper.... about 5% better. That means that a 12 gauge silver wire is slightly better than a 12 gauge copper wire. But a 10 gauge copper wire is better than a 12 gauge silver wire (and, yes, it also costs about twenty times less). There are several applications where silver has other advantages besides resistance, but none of the ones I know of involve audio. And, again, many boutique companies tout "hand wound transformers" - as if it implies more careful design and construction. I hate to break the news to you, but machines are far more precise than humans in many manufacturing processes...  so the only reason they had to resort to expensive and flawed human labor was that they weren't buying enough unit volume to justify setting up the machine.

- Likewise, in some circuits, carefully matched components can offer a major improvement; and, in some circuits, the improvement is slight. However, in other applications, there is no improvement at all... it simply doesn't matter. And, yes, different resistors have different benefits and drawbacks... so there is no resistor, at any price, that is "always the best".

Incidentally, a phono preamp is one of those applications where precisely matched components can produce a real benefit, and where certain types of components really do perform better than others - at least in certain circuit locations. However, yet again, you have to be more specific. The performance accuracy of the RIAA network is critical, and depends on the values of several critical parts, so using 0.1%, or even better, resistors there would make perfect sense... as well as expensive precision capacitors. However, if there's a bleeder resistor in the power supply, it won't affect the audio performance in the slightest whether you use a 0.1% resistor or a 10% resistor. (And, if you're worried about that level of precision, then you need to stop talking about tubes... because, setting aside whether you happen to like the way tubes sound, the performance characteristics of individual tubes vary far more than that, both from each other, and from day to day.)

From an aesthetic point of view I'm always a fan of using high quality parts... as long as you avoid using expensive boutique parts that really don't perform better... but you need to separate aesthetic considerations from practical ones. Rolex makes some really pretty mechanical watches.... and, as jewelry, they're really nice.... but a typical $30 Casio quartz watch keeps more accurate time than most if not all of them. Gears, no matter how much you pay for them, and how precisely they're crafted, just can't match the accuracy of a decent $5 quartz crystal.  (Analogsurvivor seems to view an amplifier as a work of art, or as a "labor of love", and, in that case, different criteria apply. In contrast, I tend to look at it as an engineering project, where optimum performance is the primary goal... and lowest cost, if it can be achieved without compromising performance, is a reasonable second goal.)



analogsurviver said:


> Certain people work in real world - and if all they can put together amounts to ONE amplifier ( that is built to  sonic EXPECTATIONS ) - there is no room/finance to build yet another amp using "standard quality" parts - just for the sake of comparison. I know it is against SS rules and all that jazz - but, I did just that back in 1986. Whenever I stumbled on a SONIC problem, I tried to, if not eliminate entirely, then to reduce its causes to the lowest possible level within my powers.
> 
> Trough careful evaluation, measurements, ABX/DBT, etc, it would have likely been possible to reduce the quality (and hence cost...) of SOME electronic parts of that huge amp. But most definitely not those contributing the lion's share of the cost. This amp is well past any reasonable safety limits - for SONIC reasons - and it would, now in 2018, never be allowed within EU - "standard quality"  or "boutique, custom made" parts notwithstanding.
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> First... I guess I'm a little confused at your confusion.
> Whenever comparing two different things, the general goal is to vary the thing you're comparing, while keeping everything else the same.
> 
> Using a single source, and simply using a splitter with it, takes care of using the same source for both devices under test.
> ...




First of all, I would like to congratulate you on great post. Although I do concur with most of it, I am going to destroy it to smitherins - as it is THE classic example of  "hide and seek, trying to fly below the radar without being caught" . And you personally are here both the victim and the perpetrator - at the same time.

Yes, I agree, only ONE thing should be compared at one time. Unfortunately, not always possible - due to lack of resources, time , or whatever. Giulty on that charge... 

Comparing two ewlectrostatic amps using a single source and Y splitter :
Using a single electrostatic headphone ( MUCH preferred - please see below ), it is necessary to physically remove the jack of the headphone from the socket of one amp to the socket of the another amp. IF you are really quick, that can be accomplished in below 5 seconds - but not less than approx 3 seconds. Clearly, NOT as desired for true ABX/DBT. Would actually require low capacitance switching arrangement - and even that is limited to " same polarity biasing " amplifiers - you DON'T want instantaneous bias reversal as seen by the headphone transducer ...

Using two headphones of the same type MIGHT seem advantageous at first glance - but is detrimental in the extreme if you look at it closely. First of all, it would require both pairs of headphones have both sensitivities and frequency response tracking within less than 0.2dB - which is almost impossible to achieve. Perhaps it would have been possible to measure each and every headphone made on the assembly line and have all the results stored into the data bank - and, eventually, over a longer period two pairs of the above mentioned reference quality might actually become available - at a price ...

Second, please check various Tyll measurements affecting performance of headphones due to SLIGHTLY different positioning on the head/ears . It can be easily seen these differences may well exceed 0.2 dB  volume matching requirement - and in case of two very close quality amps, the difference introduced by simply removing the same headphone and placing it back may well mask the difference among the amplifiers. 

So, for any true ABX/DBT, each listener has to use the same pair of headphone, NEVER removing them from ears/head while comparison between two amps is still in progress. Only in this way can we eliminate differences due to different samples of the same type of headphones, differences due to positioning, etc.

Yes, I agree - to the point - that the electrostatic headphone and "whatever is diving it" should be regarded as an unit to be used together. BUT Stax has made its both two bias levels - almost - de facto standards; and there is a plethora of both Stax designed and sold combinations of ES headphones, energizers  and amplifiers - as well as aftermarket high end amps, which are generally aimed at the very high end, exceeding any current Stax marketed offering. There are currently in production only two electrostatic headphone/amp combinations ( or three, depends how one looks at it ) that are REALLY usable as an unit only. These are Sennheiser Orpheus 2 ( official designation HE-1 ) and Shure KSE-1500 ( and KSE-1200, basically the same thing as its bigger sibling, but without the DAC ). Both Sennheiser and Shure use the final active element actually driving the electrostatic transducer placed in the closest vicinity to the said driver possible - within the headphone "cup" itself. The cable from "amplifier" to "headphone"  has additional wires that are actually a PART OF THE AMPLIFIER CIRCUIT. This, of course, precludes any use of these headphones with anything else but proprietary amplifiers. It is done because it is the only way to get rid of the cable capacitance from amp to headphone in every other more conventional arrangement ( ANY Stax, among everything else, falls into this "stuck with cable capacitance" category). 

The total capacitance of the Stax Lambda Pro is approx 145 pF - with the actual transducer having approx 62 pF( off the bat, real values may be a few pFs off, but ARE in this ballpark ) - meaning there are MORE losses driving the cable (which, obviously, does not or should not produce any sound output ) than driving the transducer itself ... And that requires CORESPONDINGLY MORE POWER to drive the es headphone to any given frequency that can be included into treble than it would have been required without the cable and having the last active element driving the transducer situated in the "cup" itself. Or, in other words, more than the half of whatever power your es amp is capable of - is wasted in the cable.

Notable exceptions to the almost-de-facto-standard-bias-voltages of Stax but still "stuck with cable capacitance" are Jecklin Float ( IIRC 1500 V DC ) and relatively new and with VERY different both amp and bias requirement Sonoma Acoustics Model One Headphone System https://www.innerfidelity.com/conte...-electrostatic-headphone-and-amplifier-system ( 1350 V DC ). 

Sennheiser older electrostatic, Koss, Stax, etc all have bias voltage(s) that can be accomodated in an universal energizer - such as iFi Pro iESL unit.

Yes, the way you described experimenting with different bias voltages and amplifier configurations etc is the best method - and the one I used back then.

I understand your problem with my phrasing "a high quality part". Let's put it this way : the part has to fulfill both electrical and mechanical properties BEST SUITED FOR THE ACTUAL APPLICATION in the circuit - which, of course, vary in a high voltage design much more than in low voltage ( my definition : below 100 V RMS ) designs. Or, put differently, represent the best compromise WITHIN THE AVAILABLE BUDGET - or  "sorcery", whichever can ultimately produce that desired but elusive qualities. It would leave you speachless what has actually been used in the final version - because such quality parts ( either custom ordered or "off the shelf prototypes - yet to be decided if going to be put into regular production " ) are otherwise only found in medical and military spec equipment. Did it sound better, even to an untrained, off the street listener ? Yep... 

I agree with your remark that some commercial parts are quite OK and some boutique audiophile parts are actually rubbish - the point is to try to find the best part for the particular place in any given circuit - no such thing as "universally best part", only " best part for this particular application".

Now, the Koss ... and the inevitable "roasting" I will have to put you trough because of it. As noted above, you are both the victim and the perpetrator - at the same time .

To most audiophiles and music lovers alike, the term "ENERGIZER" is not a particularly clear one. Manufacturers do tend to fish in these murky waters, too - and are FAR from being an innocent party in this case.

First, it has to be understood what an electrostatic transducer actually is. For sake of simplicity AND because it is the most common, only PUSH_PULL ELECTROSTATIC DRIVER will be described. 
http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/articles/static/
What has been described here by " Transformer/DC Bias Supply " is normally referred to as "energizer". Which is in turn driven by normal low voltage amp as normally used for dynamic speakers. It contains an audio transformer per channel and a DC bias power supply - the output of which gets connected to the central electrode/diaphragm trough a VERY high resistance, as the RC constant on the diaphragm has to be such as to prevent any electron migration on the surafce of the diaphragm within operating frequency range of the driver in order to allow for constant charge and thus distortion-free reproduction - and that means LONG RC constants, as ESL can follow quite well even below 1 Hz ( in a word : below one Hertz ). In practice, this resistor is usually incorporated into the membrane resistive coating - and that can be very quickly in the Gohm range. 

The second way is to use the actual high-voltage amplifier - fed from say a CD level source and delivering the required voltage swing to the stators and DC bias supply to the membrane. These amps can also be called "direct amplifiers" and whatnot else - as per various manufacturers' parlance.

Koss can not - as it seems from the specs - 
https://www.koss.com/media/productfileupload/ESP950.pdf 
decide which way to go. Technically, it is an AMP !!!

Aaaaand - they tried to pull a fast one. One of the most sincere "specs" to watch for in ANY electrostatic amp is - power consumption. Because it is directly proportional to the highest frequency an amp can still power the pure capacitive load of the electrostatic driver to full output. Koss' has 9V 1A external power supply; meaning that THEORETHICALLY there is maximum 4.5 W ( or VA, if you prefer ) available to each channel. I have never even saw Koss ESP 950 in person - but, it can not be much different electrical load than say Stax. That means slightly above 100-150 pF including that pesky cable. Stax SRM1MK2 has about 35W ( VA ) power consumption - meaning THEORETHICALLY 17.5 W ( VA ) available per channel. Or, just under 4 times more than the Koss' unit. And SRM1MK2 is specified for full output only to just above 4 kHz . Which leaves Koss with just above 1 kHz full output - which is, EVEN THEORETHICALLY,  at least two times too low to allow for distortion free reproduction from say good direct to disk records ( not to mention HR PCM and, in particular, the DSD ). 

For serious work, an electrostatic transducer with roughly 100-150 pF requires approx 

70 W ( VA) ( in words : seventy watts ( voltamperes) 

at its input terminals ( aka output from whatever is driving it ). Times two for stereo that means AT LEAST 140 W ( VA ) power consumption amp...

OK, I can understand Stax to succumb to the market pressure of delivering " less costly models for the "masses" ". And, they obliged - by a slew of small(er) amps, some of which do not power the stats any better than Koss' unit. BUT -  they are still marketing decent amps ( at a price...). Like Koss, they did have in programme battery operated amps for field use - but are now long discontinued. However, I can not understand Koss to offer ONLY ONE AMP/ENERGIZER - as it can not possibly present their own cans in proper light - let alone the best one.

An analogy everyone will be able to understand. For water skiiing, the towing boat has to develop at least the minimum speed at which the water skier will be able to rise to the surface of the water and glide/ski on the surface. That requires certain motor power of the towing boat - below that, the required speed will not be attained no matter what. That "minimum speed" in audio is approx 2.4 kHz at full amplitude - which Koss' and Stax' small/inexpensive models just are not capable of.

You can't buy a Ferrari with a 24.73 BHP motor - no matter how much pressure market is applying in order to do so to lower the price within the reach of "masses". Even the least powerful least expensive Ferrari is - still - a serious sports car; and so should be electrostatic headphones ( and speakers ).

Your observations regarding transformers are quite correct - everything written does hold water.

I also agree regarding HV parts; they may have actually become more reliable in recent years; did not work with HV for awhile, BUT everything > 700 volts screams - TUBES !!!

I agree there is no direct indication to tell whether a single 3KV transistor or 6x well matched 500 V transistors wil actually perform better ;  but, not being a factory buying transistors by the thousands and then measuring/selecting/matching them, I feel more comfortable with a single 3kV part. YMMV.

Which brings us to iFi Pro iESL ... - THE first transformer - EVER - I am likely to reccomend for passing trough an audio signal. You will have the chance to see the measurements - and although not that perfect as promised by the manufacturer, are nonetheless nothing but spectacular for a transformer. There is less frequency response variation with different load and different settings, less distortion, less noise, etc, etc, than in most active amps; you have to get - at least - to the Stax SRM 007t level to get comparable results. It is particularly good in the bass - where every other transformer in other energizers ( listed alphabetically: Audio Technica, Jecklin Float, Sennheiser ) have been due to core saturation traditionally, a sad joke. Still, a good amp will outperform it in the bass ( it does get into saturation under high enough level/low enough frequency combination - but that is VERY seldom present in most music ) . Where it does shine is in the treble - trough the complete absence of IMD and TIM distortion due to inevitable slew rate limitting in any commercially available high voltage amplifier.  After listening to a good choir recording on iFi powered by a decent amp , returning to the Stax SRM1MK2 is really a painful experience. If it is female only vocal group, the only recourse left is - powering the mentioned Stax unit down...
As noted above, Stax SRM 007t is the first "comparable" high voltage amp - anything less is hopelessly outclassed by the iFi . It is anything but inexpensive - but for those already in possession of a decent speaker amp ( reasonable, caution as above 100 W/ch it is possible to fry it if you forget to plug in the headphones and have setting on the iFi still to "headphones" and you are actually expecting the sound to come from the speakers ...) can thus add electrostatic headphone capability at a VERY high quality level for not unreasonable outlay of money. 

It was a sad day when I had to ship it back ... - but, I am - unfortunately - limited in resources and more interested in improving whatever deficiencies remain in my recording rig than coaxing the last drop out of the playback.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> Here's the thing...  I don't disagree with most of your general assertions...
> 
> For example, in at least many cases, there are benefits to be had by using parts that perform better in some way (although you have to be very specific in defining that).
> And, likewise, in a lot of other cases, even if the improvement is slight or nonexistent, it certainly won't hurt anything to use overspecified parts.
> ...



I agree with most of what you said here - and sometimes the most "dirty" ceramic or electrolytic capacitor will save the day. In THAT application it is the best - and I don't care one iota of a bit if it is at the very bottom of the "audiophile grade parts". Same for single box digital, etc, etc - all good engineering practices.

But I am NOT viewing an amp as a work of art or "labour of love" per se; only IF required. There is no other application for this more required than in high voltage amps. 

People look at me strangely when pushing for example for  1K phono MM cartridge/stylus paired with this $43.50 ( + shipping ) preamp https://www.phonopreamps.com/tc750pp.html 
instead of the usual reccomendation to split the cost between the cart and phono preamp about equally. 
TCC-750 ( if you put another say 100$ into it in better tolerance/quality part and better power supply ) is a WONDERFUL preamp - and one would have to get to a MUCH higher level/quality/price cartridge before the TCC-750 would actually represent the bottleneck. And 1K cart with TCC-750 ( even in stock form ) will run rings about $500 cart with #500 preamp.

But I WILL insist on the best/price be damned where there really is no other way. Whether I can afford it or not, is an entirely different question.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 12, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Your reply is  typical once one feels ever more cornered and usual tactics that worked up to now are running out - fast.  And you are well aware of it.



My patience for thread crapping and grandstanding is wearing thin. Sometimes people on internet forums post to help other people understand or to ask questions to help them understand themselves. Sometimes people do it just to direct attention to themselves and feed their ego. I'm not here to plow through five posts in a row of self serving blather. Feel free to use the quote multiple function and please refrain from idle chatter. I've gotten to the point where I only read a few sentences in your posts. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is ignoring you. You should consider your audience when you speak. Just a little advice... Brevity is the soul of wit.


----------



## bfreedma

All of those words would be unnecessary if evidence was posted identifying differences audible to a human...

My experience when purchasing technical solutions is consistent - the more words used in the sales pitch, the less likely it is that the product will meet the promises made in the pitch.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> First of all, I would like to congratulate you on great post. Although I do concur with most of it, I am going to destroy it to smitherins - as it is THE classic example of  "hide and seek, trying to fly below the radar without being caught" . And you personally are here both the victim and the perpetrator - at the same time.
> 
> Yes, I agree, only ONE thing should be compared at one time. Unfortunately, not always possible - due to lack of resources, time , or whatever. Giulty on that charge...
> 
> ...


Yes, ABX/DBT in the case of comparing electrostatic headphone amps/energizers must be done with the same pair of headphones.  5 second switching time is unacceptable.  However, anyone who can design such a high voltage amplifier can easily conceive of the correct design for a switching device, and capacitance should not be a problem. 


analogsurviver said:


> The total capacitance of the Stax Lambda Pro is approx 145 pF - with the actual transducer having approx 62 pF( off the bat, real values may be a few pFs off, but ARE in this ballpark ) - meaning there are MORE losses driving the cable (which, obviously, does not or should not produce any sound output ) than driving the transducer itself ... And that requires CORESPONDINGLY MORE POWER to drive the es headphone to any given frequency that can be included into treble than it would have been required without the cable and having the last active element driving the transducer situated in the "cup" itself. Or, in other words, more than the half of whatever power your es amp is capable of - is wasted in the cable.


Are you seriously trying to say that the amp, normally driving about a 22K load, can't deal with an additional C of up to 50pf without changing response?  Seriously?  The capacitive reactance of your 145pf headphones and cable is about 33K at 30kHz!  No amp designer worth his salt would attempt to drive that with a matched source Z in the first place, so the 10:1 rule would still apply.  

The additional possible C of any switching system would absolutely NOT be a problem.  At least on Planet Earth where the laws of physics still apply.


analogsurviver said:


> For serious work, an electrostatic transducer with roughly 100-150 pF requires approx
> 
> 70 W ( VA) ( in words : seventy watts ( voltamperes)
> 
> at its input terminals ( aka output from whatever is driving it ). Times two for stereo that means AT LEAST 140 W ( VA ) power consumption amp...


 Oh, really?  So where's that power going??? If it's not going into acoustic energy (which is absolutely is not), then it's going up in heat...in the drivers....on your head?  So, you want a pair of 70W light bulbs strapped to your skull?  You plan 2 minute listening sessions with 6 weeks of healing?


analogsurviver said:


> I am - unfortunately - limited in resources ....


The resources you should seriously attempt to acquire is technical knowlege and understanding of electronics and physics.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 12, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> My experience when purchasing technical solutions is consistent - the more words used in the sales pitch, the less likely it is that the product will meet the promises made in the pitch.



And the amount of words is often inversely proportional to the number of points being communicated. Einstein could change the world with three letters, a number and an equal sign.



pinnahertz said:


> So where's that power going??? If it's not going into acoustic energy (which is absolutely is not), then it's going up in heat...in the drivers....on your head?  So, you want a pair of 70W light bulbs strapped to your skull?


----------



## analogsurviver (Jul 12, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Yes, ABX/DBT in the case of comparing electrostatic headphone amps/energizers must be done with the same pair of headphones.  5 second switching time is unacceptable.  However, anyone who can design such a high voltage amplifier can easily conceive of the correct design for a switching device, and capacitance should not be a problem.
> Are you seriously trying to say that the amp, normally driving about a 22K load, can't deal with an additional C of up to 50pf without changing response?  Seriously?  The capacitive reactance of your 145pf headphones and cable is about 33K at 30kHz!  No amp designer worth his salt would attempt to drive that with a matched source Z in the first place, so the 10:1 rule would still apply.
> 
> The additional possible C of any switching system would absolutely NOT be a problem.  At least on Planet Earth where the laws of physics still apply.
> ...



The only thing you are probably correct in this post is tha ABX switching device could be conceived without too adverse effects.

Well, IF you had ANY real world experience with electrostatic loudspeakers or headphones,  you would not have written any  UTTER nonsense  - which is everything written after the ABX switching  device.

Before you utter the tiniest of sounds regarding the electrostatics, do yourself a favour and read the following from this list :

http://www.fonar.com.pl/audio/ksiazki/audio6.htm

1.) An Electrostatic Speaker system (4/1972) (11)
http://www.audiocircuit.com/DIY/Electrostatic-Speakers/Project:ESL-by-David-Hermeyer

2.) Electrostatic Amplifier Mark 2 (3/1973) (20)

3.) The Sanders Electrostatic Amplifier (1/1976) (30)
http://sanderssoundsystems.com/173-build-a-hybrid-tube-amplifier-to-drive-electrostatics-1976
http://www.sanderssoundsystems.com/downloads/TheAudioAmateur0May1976.pdf

The actual links to the first two articles by David Hermeyer you'll have to find yourself; originally they have been published in The Audio Amateur magazine, later reprinted in the Speaker Builder magazine .

But even without the above, anyone that even sporadically attended a single semester at an electrotechnic university SHOULD know where that power is going ...
Geez, MOST of the errors and stupidities in audio are in the Basics of Electrotechnics 1 - something most of the PhDs and Magisters & the like are notoriously known to "forget" ...


----------



## bfreedma (Jul 12, 2018)

bigshot said:


> And the amount of words is often inversely proportional to the number of points being communicated. Einstein could change the world with three letters, a number and an equal sign.



Einstein’s audiophile law:  $=BS^2


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> The only thing you are probably correct in this post is tha ABX switching device could be conceived without too adverse effects.
> 
> Well, IF you had ANY real world experience with electrostatic loudspeakers or headphones,  you would not have written any  UTTER nonsense  - which is everything written after the ABX switching  device.
> 
> ...


No information at the above link, just a link of Audio Amateur projects.


analogsurviver said:


> 1.) An Electrostatic Speaker system (4/1972) (11)
> http://www.audiocircuit.com/DIY/Electrostatic-Speakers/Project:ESL-by-David-Hermeyer


No information there either, just a reference to the fact that Hermeyer wrote an article in the 1970s.


analogsurviver said:


> 2.) Electrostatic Amplifier Mark 2 (3/1973) (20)
> [/qoute]Nothing useful in the above, no idea what it refers to.
> 
> 3.) The Sanders Electrostatic Amplifier (1/1976) (30)
> http://sanderssoundsystems.com/173-build-a-hybrid-tube-amplifier-to-drive-electrostatics-1976


That one is a discussion of an amateur amp construction project written by a guy who (as he states in the article) doesn't even own any test equipment to measure performance!


analogsurviver said:


> http://sanderssoundsystems.com/173-build-a-hybrid-tube-amplifier-to-drive-electrostatics-1976
> http://www.sanderssoundsystems.com/downloads/TheAudioAmateur0May1976.pdf


Another copy of the same article. 

I thought we were discussing amps to drive electrostatic headphones?  Doesn't really matter...your insistence that I read irrelevant material before I make the tiniest of sounds regarding electrostatics has fallen short...again.  If you want to educate me you'll have to do MUCH better than that!  The material linked to has, quite literally, zero technical information that is at all useful or pertinant to the discusssion.


analogsurviver said:


> The actual links to the first two articles by David Hermeyer you'll have to find yourself; originally they have been published in The Audio Amateur magazine, later reprinted in the Speaker Builder magazine .


Then why post dead links?  I have no access to the ancient archives of TAA...do you?? 


analogsurviver said:


> But even without the above, anyone that even sporadically attended a single semester at an electrotechnic university SHOULD know where that power is going ...


Yup.  It's called "entropy".  Whatever isn't converted to acoustic power is converted to heat.  Do you think that excess power goes somewhere else?


analogsurviver said:


> Geez, MOST of the errors and stupidities in audio are in the Basics of Electrotechnics 1


You've confirmed that in your own case many times.


----------



## bigshot

Wow! There's a whole magazine for amateurs!


----------



## KeithEmo

This is getting interesting - and also very long - and you make several good points.... (and I'm going to respond to a few others).
(Then I'm going to bow out before we reach the length of an actual novel).

I still feel that electrostatic headphones and amplifiers (or energizers) interact significantly enough that they should always be considered as a set.
However, by that, I'm not specifically suggesting that they should always be used together in specific combinations....
I'm merely suggesting that, if you want to compare two amplifiers, and you plan to listen using Stax SR-009's then you should compare them using those headphones.
So, in that case, you should be comparing (SR-009 + amplifier A) to (SR-009 + amplifier B).
(And I would not specifically assume that an amplifier that works well with them will or will not work well with a different pair of headphones.)

I've always found the sensitivity of headphones to their position on your head to be an issue when comparing them - or simply listening to them.
One of the things I dislike about headphones is that they have a tendency to sound different when you reposition your head and the position or even the head seal changes.

I do agree that it would be nice if the makers of electrostatic headphone amplifiers actually rated their output power capabilities.
And I do agree that the little Koss amplifier seems unlikely to be able to deliver a lot of current for any length of time.
However, I also suspect that, with most music, it's unlikely to be called upon to do so.
The bottom line is that, if it is unable to do so, then it will clip, which will be easily noticed.
And, if it fails to "run out of steam" in normal use, then I guess their filter capacitors manage to store enough power to get the job done.
(I've got a pair of them. While they most certainly aren't totally neutral - they are quite capable of playing very loudly without any trace of limiting or clipping.)

I also agree that the way the terms "energizer" and "amplifier" are used is rather annoyingly ambiguous.
However, I suspect it's simply their attempt to get the basic idea across that "it's a special box you'll need to run your electrostatic headphones".

I do think that the option of selecting different bias voltages is an excellent one... and I'm surprised it isn't done more often.
For that matter, I'm surprised more vendors aren't offering "amplifiers" and "energizers" that allow you to connect an external bias supply... and a choice of separate ones.
(Although, from a design perspective, the bias supply is pretty trivial, and I can't imagine any reasonably well designed one acting differently than another of the same voltage.)

I agree that, because of the voltages involved, tubes seem to be a logical choice for an electrostatic amplifier.
(If only they didn't always introduce some coloration.)

I will be interested in seeing your actual measurements on that unit... it will be interesting to see what they actually managed to do with magnetics...



analogsurviver said:


> First of all, I would like to congratulate you on great post. Although I do concur with most of it, I am going to destroy it to smitherins - as it is THE classic example of  "hide and seek, trying to fly below the radar without being caught" . And you personally are here both the victim and the perpetrator - at the same time.
> 
> Yes, I agree, only ONE thing should be compared at one time. Unfortunately, not always possible - due to lack of resources, time , or whatever. Giulty on that charge...
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

The Audio Amateur is the old name for AudioXpress magazine. 



bigshot said:


> Wow! There's a whole magazine for amateurs!


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> I do think that the option of selecting different bias voltages is an excellent one... and I'm surprised it isn't done more often.
> For that matter, I'm surprised more vendors aren't offering "amplifiers" and "energizers" that allow you to connect an external bias supply... and a choice of separate ones.
> (Although, from a design perspective, the bias supply is pretty trivial, and I can't imagine any reasonably well designed one acting differently than another of the same voltage.)


It makes more sense to me that the polarizing voltage is fixed at an optimum value because the maximum acoustic energy out of an electrostatic driver is a combination of sum of the polarizing voltage plus the audio voltage working against the maximum total electric field before dielectric breakdown occurs.  You wouldn't want to reduce the polarizing voltage because that will reduce total headroom, but you wouldn't want to increase it much either because breakdown could occur on peaks.  There would be a design optimum for both driving and polarizing voltages that any manufacturer should know far better than anyone else, except of course, those with a deluded view of their own technical prowess.  


KeithEmo said:


> I agree that, because of the voltages involved, tubes seem to be a logical choice for an electrostatic amplifier.
> (If only they didn't always introduce some coloration.)


There are plenty of high voltage solid state solutions, I see no reason to use tubes unless the coloration is preferred, and the sight of a glowing bottle is somehow comforting.


KeithEmo said:


> I will be interested in seeing your actual measurements on that unit... it will be interesting to see what they actually managed to do with magnetics...


Don't hold your breath....


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> No information at the above link, just a link of Audio Amateur projects.
> No information there either, just a reference to the fact that Hermeyer wrote an article in the 1970s.
> That one is a discussion of an amateur amp construction project written by a guy who (as he states in the article) doesn't even own any test equipment to measure performance!
> Another copy of the same article.
> ...



That guy "who owns no test equipment" went on to produce a series of commercially available ESL speakers and amps to drive them, owns a company, etc ... and the reprint is available on his regular site as a sort of tribute to his beggings. It was actually an improvement on the original Hermeyer design - and that one DID  get measured. Maybe not to the standards available today, but it definitely was no slouch in measurement department.

I had no idea that in the meantime the only way to have Hermeyer articles online is either trough sharing/swapping information or buying that Polish book - a compilationb of all the "power amp" articles from The Audio Amateur. Just a year ago, things were NOT that tough ...

I do have all these articles from the original days as photocopies - and have built this amp, using very similar tubes more commonly available in Europe. Ultimately, went first with another simplified Sanders amp - as anything based on the original Hermeyer design is EXTREMELY volatile regarding oscillation - just as written by Roger Sanders, it is fine with some equipment and horrible with another. . It goes completely haywire if a FM tuner connected to an antenna is inserted into the system - and at the power level of these amps, it can turn into a 100+ watt transmitter ... 

The trouble is that driving electrostatic headphones is HARDER than electrostatic speakers. Electrostatic speakers are notorious for beaming of higher frequencies - and thus have to be equalized to produce flat on-axis response. That means the higher the frequency, the lower output from the amp required . No such luck with headphones - those need linear "flat" drive - and can and DO exceed the speaker drive requirements in the treble. So, basically, if one wants decent response from the electrostatic headphones - the size of the amp as described by Sanders IS THE CORRECT SIZE !!! Only reduce the power supply voltage / output voltage swing to the one required by headphones used and increase the current ( to the same % of power output of the tubes used ) - end of story. If STILL not fast enough - double the output stage ... 

Measuring ESL amps is no easy task. First, you got to have probes that can take the voltages required - with enough bandwidth ( reasonably flat to at least 100 kHz ) AND low enough distortion. Tektronix has them - at 2K a pop, and 2 are needed for a single channel differential measurement. Add to that customs duties in Europe - around 5K needed. There are other manufacturers at approx $ 500 per probe - or one can DIY. Anything but easy, but can be done. I misplaced the original DIY ones used in mid 80s - and had to build new ones, which are more concerned with shielding ( anything KV  is high impedance and can act as an antenna if unshielded ) and low distortion - but the bandwith is not that great. So, I did use regular low voltage probes for frequency respoinse measurements at some lower voltage swing level, safe for the probes - and full output level distortion readings ( anything below say 30 kHz ) have been measured with my "new" DIY probes.

Now... WHERE do you think the heat is being dissiapated in electrostatics ? The load, the headphone or loudspeaker, is pure capacitance - so it CAN NOT DISSIAPATE HEAT. No more hints - figure it out by yourself ...


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Now... WHERE do you think the heat is being dissiapated in electrostatics ? The load, the headphone or loudspeaker, is pure capacitance - so it CAN NOT DISSIAPATE HEAT. No more hints - figure it out by yourself ...



I'll guess! They generate a lot of hot air.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> It makes more sense to me that the polarizing voltage is fixed at an optimum value because the maximum acoustic energy out of an electrostatic driver is a combination of sum of the polarizing voltage plus the audio voltage working against the maximum total electric field before dielectric breakdown occurs.  You wouldn't want to reduce the polarizing voltage because that will reduce total headroom, but you wouldn't want to increase it much either because breakdown could occur on peaks.  There would be a design optimum for both driving and polarizing voltages that any manufacturer should know far better than anyone else, except of course, those with a deluded view of their own technical prowess.
> There are plenty of high voltage solid state solutions, I see no reason to use tubes unless the coloration is preferred, and the sight of a glowing bottle is somehow comforting.
> 
> Don't hold your breath....



What makes sense to those with a deluded view of their own technical prowess, turns out to crumble to the ground in real world. 

There ARE certain requirements/tradeoffs  for polarizing voltage in electrostatics ( frequency response limit/stability in the LF vs sensitivity vs polarizing voltage ) - and as it is ALWAYS required to fight for the last dB od sensitivity in electrostatics ( at least those using air as dialectric ), the geometry and polarizing voltages used by Stax are by no means arrived at in an ad hoc, haphazardous arrived at way. Nope - the Pro bias (580 V DC) came about after Mercedes Benz ( the automotive manufacturer ) was not satisfied with the LF extension AND level capabilities of the original Stax Lambda with normal bias. By increasing the gap size between the stators and membranne, greater amplitude was made possible, and decrease in output level has been compensated for by the increase in polarizing voltage - AND  low frequency point has been extended quite a bit, while still maintaininhg stability of the driver. In addition, the capacitance and thus load as seen by the amp has been lowered - increasing the high frequency point to which the same amp can drive the Pro bias headphones compared to normal bias version. No wonder most other manufacturers are using VERY similar parameters in their designs - as what is used in the Lambda Pro, is pretty much the pinnacle in juggling with the threesome tradeoff equation. 

The tubes are being used in high voltage amps almost mandatory with solid state front ends - which can, trough JUDICIOUS use of feedback, reduce any tube coloration beyond any reasonable objection. High voltage amp output stage is the only place tubes operate in their truly natural habitat in audio - high voltage/high impedance/low current . And in this application, they reign supreme. Just as "drawn by the hair" the use of tubes in other application for audio is, the tables turn in tube favor for high voltage output stages. A single "hiccup" in mains supply voltage can quickly lead to the room being filled with the typical aroma of the dead solid state amp ... - not to mention any lightning strikes - even "in the neighbourhood". Tubes are FAR less sensitive to such instantaneous overloads .

There IS - at least - one thing better than "champagne before, cigarette after" . There is nothing as satisfactory and comforting in audio as listening to the crackling of the PL-519 tubes cooling down after powering the amp using them down following a great listening session; the unique experience lasts for about 30 seconds and solid state world has nothing even remotely as satisfactory to offer in return.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Jul 12, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> What makes sense to those with a deluded view of their own technical prowess, turns out to crumble to the ground in real world.
> 
> There ARE certain requirements/tradeoffs  for polarizing voltage in electrostatics ( frequency response limit/stability in the LF vs sensitivity vs polarizing voltage ) - and as it is ALWAYS required to fight for the last dB od sensitivity in electrostatics ( at least those using air as dialectric ), the geometry and polarizing voltages used by Stax are by no means arrived at in an ad hoc, haphazardous arrived at way. Nope - the Pro bias (580 V DC) came about after Mercedes Benz ( the automotive manufacturer ) was not satisfied with the LF extension AND level capabilities of the original Stax Lambda with normal bias. By increasing the gap size between the stators and membranne, greater amplitude was made possible, and decrease in output level has been compensated for by the increase in polarizing voltage - AND  low frequency point has been extended quite a bit, while still maintaininhg stability of the driver. In addition, the capacitance and thus load as seen by the amp has been lowered - increasing the high frequency point to which the same amp can drive the Pro bias headphones compared to normal bias version. No wonder most other manufacturers are using VERY similar parameters in their designs - as what is used in the Lambda Pro, is pretty much the pinnacle in juggling with the threesome tradeoff equation.
> 
> ...


Just to be transparent ...i have owned(and loved) some truly beastly tube amps(sonic frontiers power2 to name 1)they would drive antthing.....but i don't believe for a second that they couldn't be equaled in ability to drive speakers or headphones by solid state devices(sonics might be debatable...maybe)We are talking about volts/ohms/amperage here ....solid state is king here my friend.Unless of course you are fllying an older MIG fighter jet where tubes where used for there immunity to EMP.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> The trouble is that driving electrostatic headphones is HARDER than electrostatic speakers. Electrostatic speakers are notorious for beaming of higher frequencies - and thus have to be equalized to produce flat on-axis response. That means the higher the frequency, the lower output from the amp required . No such luck with headphones - those need linear "flat" drive - and can and DO exceed the speaker drive requirements in the treble.


Now you're trying to say that designing an amp that is flat is harder to do than one with rolled-off high end??? Nonsense!  And then you say headphones exceed the requriemenst of speakers for drive in the HF range?  Again, nonsense.  Electrically, that cannot be.  The impedance of an electrostatic speaker drops to below 2 ohms at high frequencies.  The impedance of electrostatic headphones is nowhere near 2 ohms....it's more like 20K or higher!  With a tiny capacitive reactance or 150pf?  Why, on earth, is that hard to drive?  You're theories defy physics.


analogsurviver said:


> So, basically, if one wants decent response from the electrostatic headphones - the size of the amp as described by Sanders IS THE CORRECT SIZE !!! Only reduce the power supply voltage / output voltage swing to the one required by headphones used and increase the current ( to the same % of power output of the tubes used ) - end of story.


You should re-read the above.  You just said the electrostatic headphone amp needs to be the size of the Sanders amp, but only not the size of the Sanders amp.  You're counteracting yourself.  Which is it?  I can't be both.  And again, where's all that power going????


analogsurviver said:


> Measuring ESL amps is no easy task. First, you got to have probes that can take the voltages required - with enough bandwidth ( reasonably flat to at least 100 kHz ) AND low enough distortion.


Hogwash.  I have the right probes in my junk box.  Several copies.


analogsurviver said:


> Tektronix has them - at 2K a pop, and 2 are needed for a single channel differential measurement. Add to that customs duties in Europe - around 5K needed. There are other manufacturers at approx $ 500 per probe - or one can DIY.


Please state the model number.  Standard Tek 10X probes would be just fine.


analogsurviver said:


> Anything but easy, but can be done. I misplaced the original DIY ones used in mid 80s - and had to build new ones, which are more concerned with shielding ( anything KV  is high impedance and can act as an antenna if unshielded ) and low distortion - but the bandwith is not that great. So, I did use regular low voltage probes for frequency respoinse measurements at some lower voltage swing level, safe for the probes - and full output level distortion readings ( anything below say 30 kHz ) have been measured with my "new" DIY probes.


Sorry, this is also nonsense.  You should work with RF for a while, and get used to working around 100mHz or so...then get real.  It's all measurable. 


analogsurviver said:


> Now... WHERE do you think the heat is being dissiapated in electrostatics ? The load, the headphone or loudspeaker, is pure capacitance - so it CAN NOT DISSIAPATE HEAT. No more hints - figure it out by yourself ...


Why do you think a capacitor doesn't dissipate heat?  Unused power is converted to heat.  Always.  Make the load capacitive and it changes how you calculate it, but it doesn't get converted to acoustic energy, and it doesn't just vanish.  Remember, conservation of energy?  It all can be accounted for.   It has to be.  Sorry, that's physics. 

However, the reality is, you're not dumping 70W or so into the drivers, they are far too high impedance for that.  They're handling likely about 2W, possible 5W tops.  Look at the impedance of the drivers your working with.   And most of that power is lost to heat because you're not shoving 5W at your ears at close range without permanent damage.


----------



## bigshot

I have Christmas lights strung above my stereo system. It gives me the "warm glow" of tubes with solid state fidelity.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Wow! There's a whole magazine for amateurs!



If you have missed it, you SHOULD check it out - and its offsprings, Speaker Builder and later Glass Audio, whose names say it all.

Because in those magazines, MANY by now premier manufacturers/designs were first making a public appearence. And in a honest, no holds barred fashion, not in a commercially limited aimed only at profit way. Many were THE true labours of love . And many things you can buy today can be directly traced to TAA, SB and GA articles. One of the most recognizable designs that will be around long after we on this thread will long be gone, is D'Appolito loudspeaker arrangement. If you are not blind, you must have seen it applied in countless commercially available designs following its first appearence in a Speaker Builder article. 

Here the video presentation by the man himself - and what a pity the video about one of the best sounding loudspeaker arrangement/array simulating a point source with non coincident drivers itself has a very poor sound quality. Blacksmith's mare syndrom strikes again ... :


----------



## analogsurviver

Glmoneydawg said:


> Just to be transparent ...i have owned(and loved) some truly beastly tube amps(sonic frontiers power2 to name 1)they would drive antthing.....but i don't believe for a second that they couldn't be equaled in ability to drive speakers or headphones by solid state devices(sonics might be debatable...maybe)We are talking about volts/ohms/amperage here ....solid state is king here my friend.Unless of course you are fllying an older MIG fighter jet where tubes where used for there immunity to EMP.



I am NOTORIOUS for picking on tube/valve lovers - for all the reasons you may have in mind in the above . I have even invented a rather mocking name for tubes/valves : 

HSD ( Hollow State Device , as opposed to the SSD = Solid State Device )

But, if there is any application for HSDs where they are NATURALLY superiour/more adapted to the task than SSD can ever hope for, it IS the output stage in high voltage amps.

The BIG amp for the electrostatic loudspeakers is completely built with HSDs. No SSD in signal path in sight, only few in rectifiers for power supplies. The reason WHY can be very quickly deduced from its power supply requirements:

input stage ; + - 275 VDC
driver stage: + - 650 VDC
output B+ : + 6.5 KVDC

Following the EU regulation for safety, this schematics has been, naturally, removed from the internet. And, as always, THE MOST INTERESTING is NOT available online - never was or will be.


----------



## bigshot

Huh?


----------



## analogsurviver (Jul 13, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Now you're trying to say that designing an amp that is flat is harder to do than one with rolled-off high end??? Nonsense!  And then you say headphones exceed the requriemenst of speakers for drive in the HF range?  Again, nonsense.  Electrically, that cannot be.  The impedance of an electrostatic speaker drops to below 2 ohms at high frequencies.  The impedance of electrostatic headphones is nowhere near 2 ohms....it's more like 20K or higher!  With a tiny capacitive reactance or 150pf?  Why, on earth, is that hard to drive?  You're theories defy physics.
> You should re-read the above.  You just said the electrostatic headphone amp needs to be the size of the Sanders amp, but only not the size of the Sanders amp.  You're counteracting yourself.  Which is it?  I can't be both.  And again, where's all that power going????
> Hogwash.  I have the right probes in my junk box.  Several copies.
> Please state the model number.  Standard Tek 10X probes would be just fine.
> ...



You really SHOULD sit back and reconsider ALL of the above - because you've just raised the bar for Barking Up The Wrong Tree; and not by a small margin. Frankly, it is amazing for someone who otherwise is very knowledgeable to COMPLETELY fail at task that is VERY different from everything else you are accustomed to work with.

Just in case you plan to continue with this lunacy, please DO check https://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/pro-iesl/

Just how do you expect normal 10x probes rated at 400 V to survive 640 VRMS ( it CAN exceed this value, it is only spec'd at it ... ) ? You do know what VRMS means ?

Only 1:100 probes are really suitable in the case of electrostatic amps ( the BIG one produces over 10 kVpp output ... ) - and here they are : https://www.tek.com/high-voltage-probe-single-ended


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Just in case you plan to continue with this lunacy, please DO check https://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/pro-iesl/


I might suggest you do the same.  Please note the power consumption of the above device then come back and tell me how it delivers 70W to the headphones.  And why you'd want to in the first place.



analogsurviver said:


> Just how do you expect normal 10x probes rated at 400 V to survive 640 VRMS ( it CAN exceed this value, it is only spec'd at it ... ) ?


Ever heard of resistors?  They're great for getting voltages down.


analogsurviver said:


> You do know what VRMS means ?


Knock it off.


analogsurviver said:


> Only 1:100 probes are really suitable in the case of electrostatic amps ( the BIG one produces over 10 kVpp output ... ) - and here they are : https://www.tek.com/high-voltage-probe-single-ended


Did you check the pricing?  The P5122, which would be just fine in this application, is completely affordable.  But also, unnecessary.  I own two HV probes, 15KV, 100mHz, and I think I got them used for $20. 

Now look.  I've raised numerous objections to your nonsense.  You chosen to ignore the key ones and focus on what?  A high voltage probe?  And somehow are trying to use that argument as some sort of excuse for what?  Why some amps aren't tested?  OR we can't build an adequate ABX switcher? 

Well, let me remind you.  You claimed that an ABX switcher that added to the already tiny capacitance of the system would be inadequate for the job and could not be built.  I countered that, both with that it could easily be built and questioned that adding a bit more C would even cause an issue.  You responded with, _*"The only thing you are probably correct in this post is tha ABX switching device could be conceived without too adverse effects."*_

So, we're done.  We agree about the core issue.  All the rest of this is more nonsense that clouds the core issue.  So if you have any other pertinent points to make, other than insulting me, then make them.  Or move on.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jul 13, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> I might suggest you do the same.  Please note the power consumption of the above device then come back and tell me how it delivers 70W to the headphones.  And why you'd want to in the first place.
> 
> Ever heard of resistors?  They're great for getting voltages down.
> Knock it off.
> ...



Now, this is NOT meant to insult.

You have failed - miserably so - at understanding the CORE problem of DRIVING the electrostatic transducer.

It is ( if we neglect some extremely small resistive and inductive components ) more than 99% PURE CAPACITANCE. Furthermore, more of 80% of this capacitance is air ( the rest are spacers, made from some high quality dialectric material ) - so, whatever electrical losses/dissiapation can occur, they are VERY small. For all practical purposes, it does not dissiapate heat - and even if it does get to dissiapate a watt or so of heat, what are ES loudspeaker sizes again ? 1W across a > 1 square meter surface - will anybody be able to perceive that ? The same ratio goes for headphones, they MIGHT dissiapate 0.1W or less heat - again, negligible .

Electrostatic transducer is 100% efficient over most of its operating range, but most notably the midrange - EVERYTHING gets converted into sound, that's why they are considered the best , particularly for midrange. At lower frequencies, limitations due to speaker diaphragm tension come into play - and at higher frequencies, the mass of the driver. The mass of the ES driver is the diaphragm itself, air in both side gaps, air in both side perforations of stators - AND air on both side gaps and mass of the "dustcover" diaphragms IF used in the design. For ESLs that use gas other than air in their drivers, it has to be recalculated for the gas in question ( most usually hellium ). In ANY case, the mass of the diaphragm itself is FAR lower than the the mass of the gas portion of the driver, meaning the diaphragm is inherently well damped.

Above was for ACOUSTIC efficiency of transduction. Electrical efficiency is an entirely different matter - as driving the electrostatic driver does not only mean swinging the volts required, but it requires CHARGING that capacitance first in order to be able to swing that voltage... Yes, you need ever higher output/current capability of the amp with ever increasing frequency - and HERE lies the core problem. Before you know it, Volts multiplied by miliAmperes required mean - BIG amplifier. And that's WHY loudspeaker amps with their mandatory EQ for speakers with falling response in the treble ARE easier to make than the flat linear characteristics required by headphones. If anywhere in audio slew rate limiting is a real and very tangible AND extremely audible problem, it is in high voltage amps for electrostatics - either speakers or headphones. Basically, NEVER enough power - as capacitor is ultimately dead short, requiring infinite power to drive.
Only the biggest/best/most expensive escape being caught out audibly ...

The funny aspect of this is the fact that some of the world's best subwoofers are - electrostatic ! They can be made to operate at near 100 % efficiency ( normal dynamic driver loudspeaker howers around 1% efficiency - 100 W electrical input produces 1 W acoustic power output ) - and imagine WHAT can be achieved with two 10 W ( more appropriately : 10 VA ) ES amps driving those nearly 100% efficient electrostatic subwoofers. For anything required by the subwoofer in frequency, the impedance of the driver remains so high that hardly any current is required from the amp -  FYI, the acoustic power output of a symphony orchestra is "around" 5 watts IIRC ...

These ES subwoofers have to be one of the most closely guarded secrets in audio - but possible versions are two:

- an ES "ceiling" built in situ
- a series of diaphragms driven in acoustical series and placed in the corner ( looks much like the Klipshorn at first glance ); this has even been - VERY briefly - offered as plans in Speaker          Builder in 80s . Unfortunately, decided to pull the trigger too late...

Now, PLEASE look at the figures - voltages, impedances, etc. It is ultra clear you have no experience with electrostatics - NONE whatsoever.  You simply CAN NOT make a voltage divider ( aka probe ) with resistors alone; for the thing to have anything even remotely approaching the linear frequency response, it HAS to be compensated by capacitor(s).

http://how-to.wikia.com/wiki/How_to_make_a_100X_oscilloscope_probe

You have to design with voltage swings in mind - it also has to withstand the power required. And, in the Sanders amp article you can find WHY the above described probe is not fully adequate for measuring distortion of ( really good ) high voltage amps ( or transformers driven by the conventional low voltage amps for dynamic speakers ).

And, if you still have not figured it out where the power goes - it is dissiapated in the amplifier ; either direct drive high voltage or conventional low voltage driving step up transformer. That's why any of these amps will never be minuscule affairs.

The advantage of the step up transformer is the fact that it does not step up only voltage, but also the SLEW RATE of the amp driving it - but until the advent of the iFi unit, other undesirable characteristics of the transformers ( core saturation, distortion, hysteresis, too much deviations from linear response, etc ) have been bad enough for almost everybody to prefer a high voltage amp - even of lower quality than say Stax SRM1MK2. Now, only the very best > most expensive high voltage designs for driving headphones can claim being equal or slightly better than iFi unit driven by a decent speaker amp. The iFi unit can output 70w+ into the headphones themselves - if the amplifier driving it has enough power and is stable into this reactive load . It is, basically, achieving the same thing as my super amp - with far lower cost and above all, much better safety - those few shortcomings it does have compared to the non plus ultra amp be damned.

BTW - the power consumption of the iFi unit covers ONLY  polarizing voltage and pilot light requirement - it is dead cold in operation ...

I hope this explains the matter well enough.


----------



## KeithEmo

There's some truth on both sides here.

It is in fact true that some "electrostatic amplifiers" do interact significantly to small differences in capacitance.
For example, many headphone/amp combinations actually have a significantly different rated frequency response depending on whether you use a six foot extension cable or not (yes, really).
More significantly, some transformer-type energizers react in more interesting ways (they may have a resonance that has a significant effect on their frequency response, and altering the capacitance will change it). 
Many "garden variety" relays, and even many switches, don't handle high voltages very well, and some have significant capacitance between the electrodes, but all this means is that you have to pick a relay or switch that's appropriate to the job.
(If you wanted to match things precisely, you would shorten the cable by the precise amount necessary to compensate for the capacitance of the relay or switch.)

An ideal capacitor, by definition, consumes NO power.
A pure capacitor is purely reactive; you may put voltage across it, and current may pass through it, but they are out of phase - so the actual power consumed is absolutely zero.
Capacitors only "burn" power to the degree that they are not ideal capacitors (that would be that "ESR" number - which stands for "equivalent series resistance" in a capacitor).
As it so happens, because of the way they're constructed, most electrostatic headphones and speakers are very near ideal capacitors.

Any power that is consumed driving electrostatic headphones or speakers is consumed as a side effect of how the circuitry driving them operates (and it may be unavoidable given that context).
For example, a Class A/B amplifier is about 70% efficient, at full output, into a resistive load.
However, assuming it is stable into a purely capacitive load, it will still consume power proportional to the voltage and current it is delivering.
So, a typical class A/B amplifier, delivering 20 watts into a resistive load, may consume 8 watts as heat.
And that same amplifier, assuming it's stable into a capacitive load, and is delivering 20 VOLT-AMPS to a capacitive load, will consume a similar amount of wasted power as heat.
However, the purely capacitive load will "consume" that 20 VA of voltage and current, while dissipating no heat and burning no power whatsoever.
(In an electrostatic speaker, the actual energy used to move the air will appear in the equation as a resistive inefficiency in the capacitor... but it's a tiny percentage.)

The short answer is that the power is being consumed by the amplifier and the other electronics involved.
It is true that, depending on the design, it may end up consuming a significant amount of power as a side effect of delivering the required voltage and current.



pinnahertz said:


> Yes, ABX/DBT in the case of comparing electrostatic headphone amps/energizers must be done with the same pair of headphones.  5 second switching time is unacceptable.  However, anyone who can design such a high voltage amplifier can easily conceive of the correct design for a switching device, and capacitance should not be a problem.
> Are you seriously trying to say that the amp, normally driving about a 22K load, can't deal with an additional C of up to 50pf without changing response?  Seriously?  The capacitive reactance of your 145pf headphones and cable is about 33K at 30kHz!  No amp designer worth his salt would attempt to drive that with a matched source Z in the first place, so the 10:1 rule would still apply.
> 
> The additional possible C of any switching system would absolutely NOT be a problem.  At least on Planet Earth where the laws of physics still apply.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Just to throw in a few facts here.....

1) 
The designs for electrostatic speaker amplifiers being discussed here (the ones fro TAA) were published in the 1970's and thereabouts. This was in the early days of the Internet... They did in fact turn up on the Internet after that, and I've seen occasional copies of them. They're difficult to find now simply because they are very old, and so weren't widely distributed - and not on sites that are still around, and nobody looks for them very much any more. At one point, TAA offered all of their back issues in electronic form, on CD. if you do a bit of digging with various search engines you will still find many of them.

2) 
I should also point out one of the main reasons why DIY audio equipment was often overbuilt in those days. It's very simple, but not necessarily obvious if you weren't around back then. In the early 1950's through even the 1980's, there was a lot of high quality military equipment, and a lot of mil-spec parts, available as military surplus at absurdly low prices. A part that cost hundreds of dollars on the retail market might cost $1 surplus... and the military had a well-deserved reputation for using ridiculously overspecified and expensive parts. For example, test equipment was often rated to operate at temperatures like -50 degrees (just in case you needed to run it in the Arctic). Therefore, it became common practice among DIYers to use parts like Pyranol capacitors. A 20 uF/600V Pyranol capacitor was about the size of a can of Spam, weighed over a pound, had excellent electrical properties for many applications, and cost a lot... and, yes, they lasted forever and were virtually indestructible. However, you could pick one up at your local military surplus store for $1. Therefore, it became "audiophile chic" to "make equipment that was built like a tank - because it was made with parts from a tank". In some cases, the performance was actually excellent; in others, it was simply an affectation. It was cliche that "military equipment weighed a ton, cost a fortune, and lasted forever". This was certainly not a problem - but it did lead to many situations where a massively overspecified part was used, not because it helped anything, but "just because it was there". (People would, quite literally, acquire a set of big radio tubes, or a set of fancy capacitors, or even a complete power supply module, then look for a project where they could use them. For example, 20 uF/600V Pyranol capacitors were often used because they were a very commonly available value.)

3) 
WARNING!  Very few modern "standard" oscilloscope probes are rated to tolerate over 600V; and some probes used on modern digital oscilloscopes are only rated for as little as 50V; if you try to use them on the sort of voltages you will find in an electrostatic speaker you WILL burn them out or damage your oscilloscope. You will also find that many super-high-voltage circuits, like electrostatic bias supplies, operate at extremely low current and extremely high impedance. Therefore, even the relatively high impedance of a standard probe will load them impractically.... (A typical x10 scope probe has an impedance of 10 megOhms... the bias output on a typical electrostatic headphone amplifier has a 50 megOhm or higher resistor in series with it.) Real high voltage probes have an absurdly high impedance which won't unduly load down this sort of circuitry. (And they aren't terribly expensive; note that you only need a DC probe for measuring a bias supply.)

4) 
The impedance of a capacitor drops with rising frequency.... following the well known formula:  Xc = 1 / (2piFC) 
Xc is the capacitive reactance (in Ohms)
pi is the constant Pi (3.141592654 ..... )
F is the frequency - in Hz
C is the capacitance - in FARADS (not uF)
(it is never zero... but halves every time you double the frequency or the capacitance)

Single electrostatic panels follow this equation quite precisely.
Once things like crossovers and transformers become involved it becomes rather more complex.
Most normal amplifier designs DO NOT operate well into a purely capacitive load (so slightly different designs are required).

5)
Large flat panel speakers do tend to be directional at very high frequencies - and so some people may choose to EQ them (this is true equally for electrostatics and planars like Magnepans).
However, most large electrostatics solve this problem by using multiple narrow panels in a curved array, or using some sort of curved panels, or using separate narrow panels for high frequencies (there are other solutions).
Electrostatic headphones tend to have a small area, close spacing between the various parts, and a single driver per side.
Most electrostatic headphones operate with between 300V and 650V bias - and most headphone amps deliver several hundred volts RMS of audio signal (many operate differentially, from a supply in the 1000V range).
Most electrostatic SPEAKERS have a much larger area, but also wider spacing (for various reasons).
The wider spacing, and the need to move more air, necessitates higher bias and drive voltages. 
Most electrostatic SPEAKERS operate with a bias voltage in the 2000V to 3000V range, and require audio drive voltages in a similar range.

6)
Capacitors DO NOT dissipate heat; an ideal capacitor dissipates no heat and consumes no power.
You may put voltage across it, and current will flow through it, but they are always out of phase.
Real world capacitors may get warm - to the degree that they stray from being perfect capacitors (the most common cause is ESR - equivalent series resistance).
However, as it turns out, most electrostatic speaker and headphone drivers are very near perfect capacitors.
Some tiny amount of power is actually consumed moving the air; and some time amount is lost due to ESR and dielectric losses.

The vast majority of the power that is actually consumed as heat is consumed in the amplifier.
(You will find that, if you design a tube amplifier that is capable of delivering several thousand volts, and several hundred milliamps, of audio output, it's probably going to end up big and heavy.)



pinnahertz said:


> Now you're trying to say that designing an amp that is flat is harder to do than one with rolled-off high end??? Nonsense!  And then you say headphones exceed the requriemenst of speakers for drive in the HF range?  Again, nonsense.  Electrically, that cannot be.  The impedance of an electrostatic speaker drops to below 2 ohms at high frequencies.  The impedance of electrostatic headphones is nowhere near 2 ohms....it's more like 20K or higher!  With a tiny capacitive reactance or 150pf?  Why, on earth, is that hard to drive?  You're theories defy physics.
> You should re-read the above.  You just said the electrostatic headphone amp needs to be the size of the Sanders amp, but only not the size of the Sanders amp.  You're counteracting yourself.  Which is it?  I can't be both.  And again, where's all that power going????
> Hogwash.  I have the right probes in my junk box.  Several copies.
> Please state the model number.  Standard Tek 10X probes would be just fine.
> ...


----------



## drtechno

Capacitors don't heat up unless they are used as current limiting applications (like limiting primary transformer currents in "R" core transformers) and phase shift power loading (shaded pole motors) but only if the cap is sized too small for the demand (or deteriorated due to it drying out).


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Now, this is NOT meant to insult.
> 
> You have failed - miserably so - at understanding the CORE problem of DRIVING the electrostatic transducer.


How is the above to be read without insult?


analogsurviver said:


> Electrostatic transducer is 100% efficient over most of its operating range, but most notably the midrange - EVERYTHING gets converted into sound, that's why they are considered the best , particularly for midrange.


I just re-read Walker's equation.  You know, the one that states that if an ESL is driven with constant current the response is flat, but because it's capacitive, it has a 6dB/octave rising response with constant voltage.  The conversion of electrical energy to acoustic energy therefore occurs also on that 6dB/octave slope.  And therefore, the ESL cannot be 100% efficient at any frequency.  In addition, because of the diaphragm being a dipole, half the acoustic power is emitted from the back, so the forward efficiency must be  -6dB below the total. And all of that is without considering the actual efficiency of conversion from electrical energy to acoustic.


analogsurviver said:


> Above was for ACOUSTIC efficiency of transduction. Electrical efficiency is an entirely different matter - as driving the electrostatic driver does not only mean swinging the volts required, but it requires CHARGING that capacitance first in order to be able to swing that voltage... Yes, you need ever higher output/current capability of the amp with ever increasing frequency - and HERE lies the core problem. Before you know it, Volts multiplied by miliAmperes required mean - BIG amplifier.


But, it's a capacitor, so it has changing impedance with frequency.  When you look at the spectral energy distribution of music, it's about 20dB lower at 20kHz than it is below 1kHz.  The amp needs to tolerate a low, capacitive, impedance.  That's it.


analogsurviver said:


> Basically, NEVER enough power - as capacitor is ultimately dead short, requiring infinite power to drive.


This is the kind of statement you make that I have the most trouble with.  A capacitor, ANY capacitor, is not a dead short, ever.  Capacitive reactance means its impedance drops with rising frequency.  It some frequency the impedance becomes very, very low, but it's still capacitive reactance.  Depending on the capacitance, the actual load presented to an amplifier can be anything, and for an ESL will drop quite low at high frequencies, but there's very little energy up there, and with rising efficiency of an ELS, less power...much less power...is required to drive that very low Z load.  A capacitor is not a dead short, and does not require infinite power to drive when you consider a meaningful value for an audio device. A dead short has an impedance of zero ohms at all frequencies. 


analogsurviver said:


> The funny aspect of this is the fact that some of the world's best subwoofers are - electrostatic ! They can be made to operate at near 100 % efficiency ( normal dynamic driver loudspeaker howers around 1% efficiency - 100 W electrical input produces 1 W acoustic power output ) - and imagine WHAT can be achieved with two 10 W ( more appropriately : 10 VA ) ES amps driving those nearly 100% efficient electrostatic subwoofers. For anything required by the subwoofer in frequency, the impedance of the driver remains so high that hardly any current is required from the amp -  FYI, the acoustic power output of a symphony orchestra is "around" 5 watts IIRC ...


Got an actual reference for all of that?


----------



## drtechno

pinnahertz said:


> But, it's a capacitor, so it has changing impedance with frequency.   A capacitor, ANY capacitor, is not a dead short, ever.  Capacitive reactance means its impedance drops with rising frequency.  It some frequency the impedance becomes very, very low, but it's still capacitive reactance.


True, and when the frequency goes greater than the frequency resonance of the circuit (its lowest impedance point), the capacitor starts acting like an inductor, and lags the voltage.


----------



## analogsurviver

drtechno said:


> True, and when the frequency goes greater than the frequency resonance of the circuit (its lowest impedance point), the capacitor starts acting like an inductor, and lags the voltage.



Yes, true. But amps run out of power/current WAAAAY before this frequency is ever reached in practice. The result is slew rate limiting - which sounds anything but nice.

In real world, it does not matter. I could go and calculate  or measure the exact frequency electrostatic speaker or headohone with its cable reaches its resonant frequency and starts behaving like an inductor - but amps, even the mastodont sized and powered accordingly, run out of juice well before that. Not to mention thingies that can run on batteries ...


----------



## KeithEmo

You are describing a resonant circuit - which is comprised of both a capacitor and an inductor.

A pure capacitor does not have any inductance - and does not have a resonant frequency.
Many specific types of capacitors are fabricated by making a sandwich of flat insulators and conductors - and then rolling it up.
Those types tend to have significant inductance, and so may actually be considered to be a resonant circuit, with a resonant frequency.
Likewise, there is often enough capacitance between the windings on a transformer that it ends up acting as a resonant circuit.
(And, yes, at the level of the absurd, a straight one inch piece of wire has some tiny amount of capacitance and inductance.)

However, for most practical calculations, when taken by itself, the driver of an electrostatic speaker is usually a pure capacitor.



drtechno said:


> True, and when the frequency goes greater than the frequency resonance of the circuit (its lowest impedance point), the capacitor starts acting like an inductor, and lags the voltage.


----------



## drtechno

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, true. But amps run out of power/current WAAAAY before this frequency is ever reached in practice. The result is slew rate limiting - which sounds anything but nice.



Yes, that goes hand and hand with the phenomenon that semiconductor amps (both discrete as well as op amps) have that is called "current fold-over" which is the effect of the potential output voltage being lowered due to the loading effect of the load.


----------



## drtechno

KeithEmo said:


> You are describing a resonant circuit - which is comprised of both a capacitor and an inductor.
> 
> A pure capacitor does not have any inductance - and does not have a resonant frequency.
> Many specific types of capacitors are fabricated by making a sandwich of flat insulators and conductors - and then rolling it up.
> ...


even with just the cap, the cap will exhibit inductor action. This happens when its series inductance has more resistance than the capacitor reactance.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, true. But amps run out of power/current WAAAAY before this frequency is ever reached in practice. The result is slew rate limiting - which sounds anything but nice.
> 
> In real world, it does not matter. I could go and calculate  or measure the exact frequency electrostatic speaker or headohone with its cable reaches its resonant frequency and starts behaving like an inductor...


Ok, why don’t you do just that. You now have an opportunity to actually post something in harmony with the thread title. No requirement for images, videos, links working  or dead, papers that cannot be viewed, publications that cannot be found. No wild opinions, or statements. Nothing but you and math. There’s a chance you might actually provide proof of something and convince me... or not.

If you do post your calculations correctly, you'll have done the unlikely: provided proof of one of your statements. 

If you do not post your calculations correctly, or at all, you'll have proven something too: another lie. 

I would, in truth, like to see these calculations.  One thing you have succeeded in is arousing an old curiosity in ESLs.


----------



## pinnahertz

drtechno said:


> even with just the cap, the cap will exhibit inductor action. This happens when its series inductance has more resistance than the capacitor reactance.


You're getting into the "theoretical vs practical" debate with a theorist.  I'd turn back if I were you.


----------



## drtechno

pinnahertz said:


> You're getting into the "theoretical vs practical" debate with a theorist.  I'd turn back if I were you.


I did noticed that, however, I think turning the coals a bit, and putting him in the hot-seat, and picking his brain might be entertaining, even if he's just cute.


----------



## drtechno

KeithEmo said:


> You are describing a resonant circuit - which is comprised of both a capacitor and an inductor.
> 
> A pure capacitor does not have any inductance -and does not have a resonant frequency.


There is no such things as Ideal parts in the real world. In the capacitor's case: the leads and foil and dielectric. we have intrinsic and parasitic inductance and resistance.

Also , When you test a cap even in the simplest circuit of just the part, your test equipment provides the R for the resonance calculation, but it looks like you joined my bandwagon anyways what you say here:


KeithEmo said:


> Many specific types of capacitors are fabricated by making a sandwich of flat insulators and conductors - and then rolling it up.
> Those types tend to have significant inductance, and so may actually be considered to be a resonant circuit, with a resonant frequency.
> Likewise, there is often enough capacitance between the windings on a transformer that it ends up acting as a resonant circuit.
> (And, yes, at the level of the absurd, a straight one inch piece of wire has some tiny amount of capacitance and inductance.)



Well there is no level of absurd when you are performing micro-analysis of the construction of the circuit. Especially when you are aiming for a good design.


----------



## drtechno

KeithEmo said:


> The short answer is that the power is being consumed by the amplifier and the other electronics involved.
> It is true that, depending on the design, it may end up consuming a significant amount of power as a side effect of delivering the required voltage and current.


Yes, but before what you stated about heat is incorrect because it is constant regardless if the load is capacitive or inductive. Because the loading system consumes the same amount of power regardless if the current leads the voltage. 

If you investigate why there is heat buildup/loss, then you might be getting warmer (pardon the pun).


----------



## Merkurio

Advantages of double DAC implementation vs single DAC in a DAP (or other similar device)?


----------



## castleofargh

Merkurio said:


> Advantages of double DAC implementation vs single DAC in a DAP (or other similar device)?


might depend on the chip, and @KeithEmo can probably tell you exactly what can be the pros and cons. personally I'd expect something like an extra 3dB in dynamic range/SNR or something. and probably also some improvement in crosstalk. although it's about the last spec I would personally care about as I can't notice anything unless it's horribly bad(like above -50dB).
good gears measure well, how the good specs are achieved is mostly irrelevant IMO. those stuff are usually made public to try and serve as marketing arguments or "justify" the price, but they're probably not what a consumer should be focused on.


----------



## KeithEmo

Indeed - although don't use the word "resistance" - the proper word is "reactance" - and it is rather different.

However, while pretty much everything, including a straight piece of wire, exhibits some capacitance and some inductance, the inductance of a simple capacitor composed of two flat parallel plates, like an electrostatic speaker transducer, is very small. In virtually all "real world" capacitors, the vast majority of their inductance is due to construction factors, such as the capacitor being constructed as a spiral roll or parallel conductors and insulators. This is a major factor for electrolytic capacitors and film caps, especially of higher values, and quite minor for things like the transducers in electrostatic headphones and speakers.Resistance creeps into the design elsewhere, including places like lead resistance and dielectric absorption.  



drtechno said:


> even with just the cap, the cap will exhibit inductor action. This happens when its series inductance has more resistance than the capacitor reactance.


----------



## KeithEmo

Neither a pure capacitor nor a pure inductor consumes_ ANY_ power or generates _ANY_ heat whatsoever.
While both may have voltage across them and current flow through them they do not consume any power.
And, yes, that includes a circuit that may possess any amount of both capacitance and inductance; for example a resonant circuit.
Any power that is consumed, and any heat that is generated, is due to resistive "impurities" - from things like series resistance, dielectric losses, and even the mechanical energy consumed by moving air.

The easiest way to say it is to say that both capacitors and inductors store energy but they do not consume it.
The energy "sloshes back and forth" - but is not consumed.
While it would seem intuitively that, since voltage and current are not totally out of phase, at least some energy would be consumed, and some heat would be generated, this is incorrect.
The fact is that both "absorb" energy during part of the cycle, but actually impart the same amount of energy back to the circuit later in the cycle, for a "net consumption" of 0.

There's no argument to be had here... find a textbook and look it up... this really is "Electronics 101".

In a DC circuit, power is defined by:  W = V * A  (watts = volts * amps)
In an AC circuit, it is:  P = V * A * PF  (power = volts * amps * power factor).
The power factor of a pure capacitor or pure inductor is 0.

When you are supplying power to a capacitive load, things heat up because, by allowing current to flow through itself, a capacitive load causes current to flow in the amplifier.... (or the other circuitry attached to it).
And, because of how it works, the output stage of the amplifier always consumes power when current is flowing through it.
(And, yes, the resistance of the wires connecting them may be significant at some frequencies.)

Because inductors are basically a roll of wire, most inductors have a significant amount of resistance, so they tend to get warm.



drtechno said:


> Yes, but before what you stated about heat is incorrect because it is constant regardless if the load is capacitive or inductive. Because the loading system consumes the same amount of power regardless if the current leads the voltage.
> 
> If you investigate why there is heat buildup/loss, then you might be getting warmer (pardon the pun).


----------



## KeithEmo

The exact benefits of using multiple DAC chips vary significantly depending on the design... and they have changed a lot over time.

If you have entirely separate and similar DACs, and you parallel multiple chips, the noise and distortions in each chip tend to average out.
This is why you often see designs using really old 8 bit DAC chips parallel four or even eight chips.
The improvement isn't huge, and there is a diminishing return as you add more and mode.
(This is basically unnecessary and pointless with modern DAC chips.)

Beyond that, if you are using multiple chips, and the individual chips aren't intended to be used for audio applications, you may get other benefits.
Such chips often have a short time when the input value is changing that the output may "glitch" - you get a noise spike at the output.
By using multiple chips, and "staggering" the transition times, when you average them all together, the effect of these spikes can be minimized.
Even better, if you use some sort of switching circuitry, you can avoid using each individual chip during the time when it's between states.
(So, by having multiple chips doing the same thing, you can use the output of one when the output of the other is glitching, and vice versa.)

However, in most modern designs, and specifically when referring to doubling chips, the reason is somewhat simpler.
Most modern DAC chips actually contain two channels - and, on most, each channel has a differential output.
So you have a R+ output, a R- output, a L+ output, and an L- output.
(So, for each channel, the differential output already benefits from the distortion and noise cancellation you get from a balanced differential output.)
However, most of them also have a special "mono mode" where the outputs are criss-crossed for even lower noise and distortion (usually 3 dB to 6 dB better).
Of course, in order to use that mode, each "stereo" DAC chip delivers a single mono output - so you need two.

You might imagine that there's some sort of benefit in terms of crosstalk by using two separate chips - but, with most DAC chips, that benefit is insignificant.



Merkurio said:


> Advantages of double DAC implementation vs single DAC in a DAP (or other similar device)?


----------



## Merkurio

Thanks for that replies @castleofargh & @KeithEmo!


----------



## drtechno

KeithEmo said:


> Neither a pure capacitor nor a pure inductor consumes_ ANY_ power or generates _ANY_ heat whatsoever.
> While both may have voltage across them and current flow through them they do not consume any power.


That would be the Ideal model, but depending on what is going in the total circuit, can bring on conditions out side the Ideal operation.


KeithEmo said:


> Any power that is consumed, and any heat that is generated, is due to resistive "impurities" - from things like series resistance, dielectric losses, and even the mechanical energy consumed by moving air.


That is part of what makes the real model, stray inductances from traces, leads, electromagnetism inside lead to foil connections in capacitors, series resistance, etc. That are caused by the construction of the part itself, and the board construction vs the ideal values simulated in a computer (where ideal models live)


----------



## drtechno

KeithEmo said:


> Indeed - although don't use the word "resistance" - the proper word is "reactance" - and it is rather different.
> 
> However, while pretty much everything, including a straight piece of wire, exhibits some capacitance and some inductance, the inductance of a simple capacitor composed of two flat parallel plates, like an electrostatic speaker transducer, is very small. In virtually all "real world" capacitors, the vast majority of their inductance is due to construction factors, such as the capacitor being constructed as a spiral roll or parallel conductors and insulators. This is a major factor for electrolytic capacitors and film caps, especially of higher values, and quite minor for things like the transducers in electrostatic headphones and speakers.Resistance creeps into the design elsewhere, including places like lead resistance and dielectric absorption.




I understand your confusion. The DC property of resistance as well as AC property of reactance is in the circuit. I get it,  you are not used to people combining the findings of both analysis.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jul 17, 2018)

drtechno said:


> That would be the Ideal model, but depending on what is going in the total circuit, can bring on conditions out side the Ideal operation.
> 
> That is part of what makes the real model, stray inductances from traces, leads, electromagnetism inside lead to foil connections in capacitors, series resistance, etc. That are caused by the construction of the part itself, and the board construction vs the ideal values simulated in a computer (where ideal models live)



Since the recent capacitor thing started with electrostatic drivers ( either headphones or speakers ), I have to say that these two types of capacitors are probably the most ideal capacitors in real life - least resistance and inductance of any kind, of any other known type of capacitors. Film STACKED capacitors come as close second - and after that, everything "accordeon" style and later, anything wound.

For all practical purposes, electrostatic drivers can be treated as perfect, ideal capacitors - EVERYTHING else, ANY type of cable included, will be more prone to stray inductance, resistance, electromagnetism - and any other technical vodoo one might come up with. Any real world amp or transformer is pleagued by FAR worse gremlins - and that in PLURAL.

Thew only electrostatic speaker that does not behave for all practical purposes as pure capacitance is QUAD 63 and its offsprings - those are LC transmission lines, terminated by resistance. And are therefore MUCH easier load to drive than pure capacitor ES drivers.

I went for a "therapy" - say a week of "turntables" ( marred by the !"$%&/())=?* khm...omputor audio to record some things ... me NOT like, but grind me tteth... - it is a royal PITA to control the "soundcard", as it uses each&every opportunity to go south of what I actually want ...) - and will do my best to avoid any listening to any analogue record that MIGHT have been a victim of digitalization.

After that, much needed respite from anything digital, I hope to start posting those damn zeros and ones...


----------



## KeithEmo

No.... the problem is that a lot of people don't seem to understand how you calculate whether a given characteristic is important in a particular design or not.
Combining things is fine... as long as you remember that there are several factors involved and calculate them separately where appropriate.

For example, in a typical power supply, a standard electrolytic capacitor will work fine.
This is because the capacitor isn't being asked to conduct high levels of current (not much ripple current; and what there is at a relatively low frequency).
Therefore, the amount of heat generated due to its ESR will not be significant.

However, if you use that same capacitor in a switching supply, it may well overheat.
This is because, in a switching supply, that capacitor is being asked to filter high ripple currents at high frequencies, which subjects it to higher losses from its equivalent series resistance.
Therefore, in that application, heating is an issue, and a low ESR electrolytic capacitor, or even a better type with much lower ESR, is indicated.

As it so happens, the construction of a typical electrostatic speaker results in a very low ESR, even at high frequencies, so it is _NOT_ subject to heat from current flow at audio frequencies.

In other words, in order to understand what will happen, you have to load your model with appropriate values for the particular circuit you're discussing.
(For example, in a capacitor, you need to know how much ripple current it will be expected to conduct at the frequencies and voltages it will be operating at.)



drtechno said:


> I understand your confusion. The DC property of resistance as well as AC property of reactance is in the circuit. I get it,  you are not used to people combining the findings of both analysis.


----------



## bigshot

I think with two channels on a CD you should have two separate CD players playing separate CDs. I'll need six players for my 5.1 system.


----------



## Yuurei

I am confused about what has a real impact on the sound. I always thought that the real impact on the sound has a well-made album and headphones/speakers. I don't believe that cables have an impact on sound. But what about amplifiers or DACs? Every now and then I read about the AMP modules or DACs playing better than others (you know warmer sound, better bass response etc) and somehow it doesn't fit me. It seems to me that the task of the amplifier is to amplify the signal, and the task of the DAC is to convert the signal from digital to analog. Transparently. How does this look in real world?


----------



## analogsurviver

Yuurei said:


> I am confused about what has a real impact on the sound. I always thought that the real impact on the sound has a well-made album and headphones/speakers. I don't believe that cables have an impact on sound. But what about amplifiers or DACs? Every now and then I read about the AMP modules or DACs playing better than others (you know warmer sound, better bass response etc) and somehow it doesn't fit me. It seems to me that the task of the amplifier is to amplify the signal, and the task of the DAC is to convert the signal from digital to analog. Transparently. How does this look in real world?



You can spend a lifetime on threads similar to this - or get an answer in about one hour to one weekend; depending how good your other gear is and how good recordings you are using for the comparison. The closest thing to answer to what are you asking would be direct comparison between iFi Micro DSD https://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/micro-idsd/  and iFi Micro iDSD Black Label https://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/micro-idsd-bl/  . 

It puts to rest ANY doubt that the quality of electronic components does not matter - for good ...   

And it would take one hell of a high quality measuring setup to get ANY meaningful measurement differences between the two.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jul 19, 2018)

Yuurei said:


> I am confused about what has a real impact on the sound. I always thought that the real impact on the sound has a well-made album and headphones/speakers. I don't believe that cables have an impact on sound. But what about amplifiers or DACs? Every now and then I read about the AMP modules or DACs playing better than others (you know warmer sound, better bass response etc) and somehow it doesn't fit me. It seems to me that the task of the amplifier is to amplify the signal, and the task of the DAC is to convert the signal from digital to analog. Transparently. How does this look in real world?


What you've just said is actually quite correct.  The big impact on sound is in the transducer (microphones, speakers, headphones) and the environment they are in.  The electronics has far less impact, though not zero.

Where you have to be extremely careful is how you do your comparisons. With transducers, the differences are measurably and audibly huge, but with electronics like amps and DACs, the differences are very small.  And this is where expectation bias becomes the dominant factor.  A simple and sighted A/B comparison can, and usually does, result in differences and preferences, but when the same devices are compared using a double-blind technique, which prevents the listener from knowing what he's listening to and is a test for difference only, not preference, the differences often vanish into statistical guessing.  But, because performing an ABX/DBT on DACs, for example, is actually quite difficult to do, even impossible for the casual hobbyist, strong opinions surface that would not be present if expectation bias were under control. These opinions, when challenged, reduce to "I know what I hear!", when in fact, the opposite is actually true.

This does not mean that there are not differences in amplifiers and DACs that do not show up on an ABX/DBT, there are some, but they are remarkably few.  The big challenge is getting good information that is not just emphatic opinion.  I have no suggestions on that, except to recognize when those opinions are given and realize they have been derived from sighted and biased testing.  It doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, but sure increases the chances they are.  Also look for opinions stated without proof of any kind.  Those are pretty easy to spot, though sometimes the promise of future proof is as emphatic as the opinion, it never actually is provided.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

pinnahertz said:


> What you've just said is actually quite correct.  The big impact on sound is in the transducer (microphones, speakers, headphones) and the environment they are in.  The electronics has far less impact, though not zero.
> 
> Where you have to be extremely careful is how you do your comparisons. With transducers, the differences are measurably and audibly huge, but with electronics like amps and DACs, the differences are very small.  And this is where expectation bias becomes the dominant factor.  A simple and sighted A/B comparison can, and usually does, result in differences and preferences, but when the same devices are compared using a double-blind technique, which prevents the listener from knowing what he's listening to and is a test for difference only, not preference, the differences often vanish into statistical guessing.  But, because performing an ABX/DBT on DACs, for example, is actually quite difficult to do, even impossible for the casual hobbyist, strong opinions surface that would not be present if expectation bias were under control. These opinions, when challenged, reduce to "I know what I hear!", when in fact, the opposite is actually true.
> 
> This does not mean that there are not differences in amplifiers and DACs that do not show up on an ABX/DBT, there are some, but they are remarkably few.  The big challenge is getting good information that is not just emphatic opinion.  I have no suggestions on that, except to recognize when those opinions are given and realize they have been derived from sighted and biased testing.  It doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, but sure increases the chances they are.  Also look for opinions stated without proof of any kind.  Those are pretty easy to spot, though sometimes the promise of future proof is as emphatic as the opinion, it never actually is provided.



"_What you've just said is actually quite correct. 
The big impact on sound is in the transducer
 (microphones, speakers, headphones) and the 
environment they are in. The electronics has far 
less impact, though not zero._"

Even bigger than the transducers:  The content(Composition, performance, recording, mixing, and mastering).  Now somebody tell  me I'm "wrong"!


----------



## Yuurei

pinnahertz said:


> What you've just said is actually quite correct.  The big impact on sound is in the transducer (microphones, speakers, headphones) and the environment they are in.  The electronics has far less impact, though not zero.



Got it, thank you very much


----------



## pinnahertz

TheSonicTruth said:


> "_What you've just said is actually quite correct.
> The big impact on sound is in the transducer
> (microphones, speakers, headphones) and the
> environment they are in. The electronics has far
> ...


Ok, “you’re (a bit) wrong.  While “garbage in/garbage out” is true, with transducers you can easily have “no garbage in/garbage out”...on everything played through it.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 19, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Ok, “you’re (a bit) wrong.  While “garbage in/garbage out” is true, with transducers you can easily have “no garbage in/garbage out”...on everything played through it.




And this is the mentality today that leads to dynamically squashed, shallow, lifeless CR.A.P.  Today's converters, both going in and out, smoke those of even twenty years ago, let alone thirty.  Storage is a steal, and production goes on at mind-boggling bit depths and sampling rates.  We have the opportunity to create songs and albums that blow away anything created twenty, thirty, forty years ago.  Yet the stuff being turned out gives me a splitting headache to listen to for more than a half hour.  

Something that is great, with no clipping or other distortion in it, intentional or non, will sound great no matter what(a cheap boombox or full-sized home rig) it is heard back on.  Even with twenty year old ADCs in production.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jul 19, 2018)

I would suggest that there are two very different schools of thought on your question....

The one that I, and most people on this thread, subscribe to is that DACs and amplifiers should do their best to simply reproduce whatever you feed into them as transparently as possible. There is only one theoretically perfect way of reproducing an audio signal - and everyone's goal should be to get as close to it as possible. Most modern amplifiers and DACs do at least a pretty good job of achieving this goal, although nothing is perfect, and you'll find a wide variety of opinions about how well many actually succeed. Some people will insist that "all DACs sound pretty much the same" or "all properly designed amplifiers sound about the same" - while many notice tiny differences and find them important. However, there is a basic agreement that they all should sound the same, and any differences that might be audible are simply flaws. The original definition of how a high fidelity amplifier should sound was "like a straight piece of wire - with gain".

However, you will also find many audiophiles who believe that various pieces of equipment not only sound audibly different, but consider this to be a virtue - because it gives them a lot of different options to choose from. They will insist that all human experience is subjective so "all that matters is that you like the way your system sounds". You will also find that many equipment manufacturers, and especially many so-called "boutique high end audiophile equipment manufacturers", _DELIBERATELY_ design their equipment to have some sort of distinct sonic signature that they believe will make it attractive to a certain audience. These are the ones who, rather than design their equipment to sound neutral, design it to have "a warm sound" or "tube sound"...  or whatever they believe will appeal to the market segment they hope to attract.

(As a broad generality, these days it should be possible to design an amplifier or DAC that sounds quite close to neutral, unless you're either not a competent designer, or you deliberately set out not to.)

And, of course, there is a huge grey area between intentional differences, unintentional differences, and differences that are so small that they may exist only in the imagination of the listener.

I should add that the single audio component that varies the most, both because it is difficult to design one that is perfectly neutral, and because there are various ideas abut how it should interact with the environment, are transducers. Different speakers interact differently with different rooms, and there is no clear definition about some of the details - for example, whether a speaker with a narrow dispersion is more accurate than one with an omnidirectional response. Likewise, headphones vary significantly in sound, may interact differently with the head and ear shapes of different users, and are imperfect enough that some users may simply prefer the compromises made by one over the compromises made by another... and this opens the door of interactions with other equipment. (For example, a certain listener may enjoy the high frequency response of a given model enough that they're willing to accept its relatively poor low frequency response. They may then end up looking for a headphone amplifier that exaggerates the low frequencies - to compensate for that flaw in the headphones that they otherwise like. Since nobody makes one that is perfect in all respects, and most that are even close are quite expensive, the door is opened to each listener choosing which compromises they consider most important.)



Yuurei said:


> I am confused about what has a real impact on the sound. I always thought that the real impact on the sound has a well-made album and headphones/speakers. I don't believe that cables have an impact on sound. But what about amplifiers or DACs? Every now and then I read about the AMP modules or DACs playing better than others (you know warmer sound, better bass response etc) and somehow it doesn't fit me. It seems to me that the task of the amplifier is to amplify the signal, and the task of the DAC is to convert the signal from digital to analog. Transparently. How does this look in real world?


----------



## bigshot (Jul 19, 2018)

Yuurei said:


> I don't believe that cables have an impact on sound. But what about amplifiers or DACs? Every now and then I read about the AMP modules or DACs playing better than others (you know warmer sound, better bass response etc) and somehow it doesn't fit me. It seems to me that the task of the amplifier is to amplify the signal, and the task of the DAC is to convert the signal from digital to analog. Transparently. How does this look in real world?



The answer to your question is easy to find. Audible transparency requires tests with human ears to determine for sure. Measurements can give you enough for a well educated guess, but actually doing a line level matched, direct switchable blind comparison is the best way to find out for yourself. It isn't hard to do. I've done it with every amp and player and DAC I've owned and they are all totally transparent to my ears. That's good enough for me. Most of the people who talk about night and day differences between DACs and amps have never done a controlled comparison themselves. They allow bias to color their judgements, or they double down on overkill "just to be on the safe side". I don't listen to them very carefully when they make claims about audibility.

When I shop for amps, I look at the power specs and the features. When I look for players and DACs, I pay attention to the features and ease of use. I don't bother looking at the response, noise or distortion levels. I expect those to be below the threshold of audibility. If they aren't my comparison test will reveal that and I'll return them as defective. In the past couple of decades, I haven't had to do that yet.


----------



## Yuurei

bigshot said:


> Most of the people who talk about night and day differences between DACs and amps have never done a controlled comparison themselves. They allow bias to color their judgements, or they double down on overkill "just to be on the safe side".



Sounds exactly like one of my friends. I learn not to disscus with him any equipment related issues, because he gets angry very easily


----------



## 71 dB

Yuurei said:


> I am confused about what has a real impact on the sound.



Everything has an impact on sound, but on _very_ different levels. The scale is huge. The order from most impact to least impact goes like this:

- room acoustics / speaker and listening point placement / crossfeed / quality of production (HUGE impact)
- speakers / headphones / tube amplifiers  (significant impact)
- sound source quality (includes DAC) (small impact)
- transistor amplifiers / speaker cables* (hardly noticable impact)
- line level signal analog cables (below human threshold, placebo)
- headphones cables. (below human threshold, placebo)

So that's the principle you should use to weight how to spend your money in order to get most bang for the buck. Buying a $100 carpet on the floor to improve the acoustics can have as much positive impact to the speaker sound than buying $1000 more expensive speakers. 

* speaker cables need to be adequate electrically, but it's this is cheap to achieve.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

71 dB said:


> Everything has an impact on sound, but on _very_ different levels. The scale is huge. The order from most impact to least impact goes like this:
> 
> - room acoustics / speaker and listening point placement / crossfeed / quality of production (HUGE impact)
> - speakers / headphones / tube amplifiers  (significant impact)
> ...




Please note edits, ^above^.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 20, 2018)

Yuurei said:


> Sounds exactly like one of my friends. I learn not to disscus with him any equipment related issues, because he gets angry very easily



I don't get angry. I expect people to be able to back up what they say with evidence though. If someone insists on saying stupid stuff and can't back it up, I just disregard them. My disregard list isn't long. You have to really be delusional to get onto it.




71 dB said:


> - sound source quality (includes DAC) (small impact)
> - transistor amplifiers / speaker cables* (hardly noticable impact)



I'm looking for specific examples of current DACs and solid state amps that sound different (not because of a design or manufacturing flaw or using them for purposes they weren't designed for). If you know of any, please let me know. I've compared dozens of these sorts of things and they are all audibly transparent... and you can't improve upon transparent.


----------



## prescient

I've always thought that AudioDiffMaker was a neat idea if you wanted to take the human element out of the analysis but weren't content to test with frequency sweeps. It's old and a bit fussy apparently, but the analysis is intuitive. It appears to be very good at identifying differences in content that would be hard for a human to discern reliably (e.g. 320kbs vs Flac).

A few example analyses: http://archimago.blogspot.com/search?q=null+depth

I haven't used it but I wonder if you might be able to use the correlated null depth values for FLAC vs MP3 there as a benchmark to discern whether two things are truly different.

http://www.libinst.com/Audio DiffMaker.htm


----------



## castleofargh

prescient said:


> I've always thought that AudioDiffMaker was a neat idea if you wanted to take the human element out of the analysis but weren't content to test with frequency sweeps. It's old and a bit fussy apparently, but the analysis is intuitive. It appears to be very good at identifying differences in content that would be hard for a human to discern reliably (e.g. 320kbs vs Flac).
> 
> A few example analyses: http://archimago.blogspot.com/search?q=null+depth
> 
> ...


you mean like this? http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/05/measurements-do-lossless-compressed.html
^_^


----------



## prescient (Jul 20, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> you mean like this? http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/05/measurements-do-lossless-compressed.html
> ^_^



More along these lines. If i'm using the software I need to know where the cutoff is to determine whether there is an audible difference between two components. If the correlated null depth between flac and 320kbps mp3 is 70db and I consider that barely audible then perhaps I should only worry about changes in my system that are less that 70db. Another option would be to use the same gear and change the FR to a level where you know you can detect a difference and use that as an audibility cutoff.

This is with the knowledge that Audio Diffmaker hears very differently than we do. Something that might be barely audible to us could be very different from it's perspective.

This is all less than scientific. I'm just throwing around ideas for people to play with. Recently I had a problem with my dac and know it either wasn't working correctly or there was some low-level interference and I couldn't tell the difference so maybe it is all moot for me if I can't hear that (could see it on the meters though!).


----------



## KeithEmo

Part of the problem is that, since AudioDiffMaker is a digital product, it requires the samples it compares to be converted into a digital format (so the A/D converter used comes into the equation). The other question is about how it calculates the overall "null depth". Within a continuous repetitive signal, there will be a continuous steady difference.... for example, if one signal has 1% THD and the other has 2% THD, then there will be a steady and continuous difference of somewhere between 1% and 3% (depending on how the distortions present in each signal compare). However, if the differences aren't continuous, then the results may be difficult to compare or even to understand.

Let's take an obvious and simplistic example. My office and the office next door are about equally quiet.... However, once every ten seconds, I clap my hands together loudly in my office. Therefore, once every ten seconds, for a period of a few milliseconds, the noise level in my office is hundreds of times higher. So, the noise level in my office is 10,000% higher... for 1/10,000 of the time. If we were to express that as an AVERAGE, the average noise level in my office wouldn't be that much higher....  but it would be far different if we expressed it as a peak measurement.

When we're looking at analog signals, many types of issues, like THD and IM distortion, tend to be steady... while a few, like crossover notch distortion, may result in dramatic differences, but only for a tiny percentage of the time. Likewise, the ringing present in a digital filter is very time dependent. For most of the time, the signal is almost precisely what it should be... but, for a very tiny percentage of the time, the distortion is virtually 100% (there is output signal while the input signal is zero - so, for that brief interval of time, ALL of the output signal is pure noise or distortion).

Therefore, if I were to use AudioDiffMaker, I would want to actually see or listen to the actual null rather than just see something like the AVERAGE level of the null.
And I would also still be concerned that the response of the A/D converter might cover up differences that only occur for a short time during signal transitions. 
At a minimum, I would suggest digitizing the signals to be compared at a much higher sample rate than the original signals were at.
So, if I wanted to compare the outputs of two DACs, while both playing a 44k CD audio file, I would digitize the signals to be compared at 192k.
(That way we can at least hope that an A/D operating at 192k can accurately resolve errors of the magnitude a DAC operating at 44.1k is likely to produce.)



prescient said:


> More along these lines. If i'm using the software I need to know where the cutoff is to determine whether there is an audible difference between two components. If the correlated null depth between flac and 320kbps mp3 is 70db and I consider that barely audible then perhaps I should only worry about changes in my system that are less that 70db. Another option would be to use the same gear and change the FR to a level where you know you can detect a difference and use that as an audibility cutoff.
> 
> This is with the knowledge that Audio Diffmaker hears very differently than we do. Something that might be barely audible to us could be very different from it's perspective.
> 
> This is all less than scientific. I'm just throwing around ideas for people to play with. Recently I had a problem with my dac and know it either wasn't working correctly or there was some low-level interference and I couldn't tell the difference so maybe it is all moot for me if I can't hear that (could see it on the meters though!).


----------



## prescient (Jul 20, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Part of the problem is that, since AudioDiffMaker is a digital product, it requires the samples it compares to be converted into a digital format (so the A/D converter used comes into the equation). The other question is about how it calculates the overall "null depth". Within a continuous repetitive signal, there will be a continuous steady difference.... for example, if one signal has 1% THD and the other has 2% THD, then there will be a steady and continuous difference of somewhere between 1% and 3% (depending on how the distortions present in each signal compare). However, if the differences aren't continuous, then the results may be difficult to compare or even to understand.
> 
> Let's take an obvious and simplistic example. My office and the office next door are about equally quiet.... However, once every ten seconds, I clap my hands together loudly in my office. Therefore, once every ten seconds, for a period of a few milliseconds, the noise level in my office is hundreds of times higher. So, the noise level in my office is 10,000% higher... for 1/10,000 of the time. If we were to express that as an AVERAGE, the average noise level in my office wouldn't be that much higher....  but it would be far different if we expressed it as a peak measurement.
> 
> ...



A few thoughts. First, you can listen to the diff file. If you listen to it and you have to crank your stereo to hear the diff it may be safe to assume that it is noise. Another idea would be to use a metric that doesn't have a breakdown point of 1. For example, you could look at the median or you could plot the whole distribution of null depths in percentiles for a certain sample rate. I'm not an expert obviously, but these don't seem like intractable problems.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 21, 2018)

prescient said:


> More along these lines. If i'm using the software I need to know where the cutoff is to determine whether there is an audible difference between two components. If the correlated null depth between flac and 320kbps mp3 is 70db and I consider that barely audible then perhaps I should only worry about changes in my system that are less that 70db. Another option would be to use the same gear and change the FR to a level where you know you can detect a difference and use that as an audibility cutoff.



One thing to keep in mind when you talk about audibility is the purpose you are speaking about. It's possible to hear things using null tests and tones that you couldn't possibly hear in recorded music. You can feel free to consider -70dB barely audible when you're listening to a null test with the volume cranked, but I doubt you'd be able to hear -40dB when you're playing music. It's possible to set up tests where inaudible becomes audible. A lot of audiophools are experts at setting up straw men exceptions that are designed to break rules. But in practice, it probably doesn't matter at all. It's better to establish practical real world thresholds and then give it a little buffer if it makes you feel better. If you consider extreme situations, you'll just chase your tail and not even improve the sound of the music playing on your system. The purpose dictates the need, not the technical limitations.

The thing that opened my eyes to this problem was doing a little research on thresholds and trying to create examples for myself to hear what the numbers actually sound like instead of just assuming that better numbers mean better sound. The two videos in my sig file were very helpful because they illustrate real world examples and provide downloadable sample tracks that you can listen to on your own system. I went through both of those videos several times, pausing and figuring it all out. It helped me immensely.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

I am not sure whether I'm on or off topic here but I gather I'm close enough.
I am currently waiting on a pair of Ultrasone pro2900 which I bought because I missed my old hfi2400, yet with the pro2900 I assumed, granted with my very limited knowledge about specs, I would be able to drive it with my little Cowon plenue d. -Also why I specifically ordered it all the way from the UK over the hfi2400 that I can buy here in Denmark. 
I then proceed to visit the inhouse pro2900 thread on head fi and surprise surprise if I don't see one owner after another claiming it needs an amp to sound good. 
I thought about asking my questions directly in the thread but decided not to.

I am currently not quite sure what to think as I am still waiting for my pair to turn up, but looking at the numbers it would seem that my Cowon with it's moddest 1 volts rms should do just fine. Then again maybe I am looking at this all wrong, which is why I thought about asking the folks in here.
Innerfidelity's measurements of the pro2900: https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/UltrasonePRO2900.pdf

Cheers
David


----------



## bigshot (Jul 23, 2018)

Those cans are 40 ohm, which as a general rule of thumb is OK to use without amping. But it is a little on the high side. You'll need to try it with your source and see how it does. My headphones are 32 ohm and they work fine with my iPhone. A lot of people in the Head-Fi "fun zone" seem to think that amps improve any cans. That isn't necessarily true. If your impedance matches well, you don't need an amp.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

It's a bit of a jungle to me with regards to all this matching impedances and voltages, but I guess I should do myself a favour and read up on it.
The hardest can of mine to drive is the hifiman he500 which is 38 ohm, yet when I had my Sony mdr-7506 with an impedance of 49 I had no trouble driving them with an iPod nano.
I then came across this site: https://www.headphonesty.com/headphone-power-calculator/
And it solved the puzzle (a bit) for me in that I learned about sensitivity. 
Problem is whenever I come across a headphone that isn't already listed there, I have to find the numbers myself....and I always seem to have trouble finding the last bit ie loudness DBSPL. It's never listed! (I gather it probably is but I just have to do some math with what's already there in order to find it). 
Methinks it'd be much easier if headphone companies just wrote how much power X can needs in order to reach X level of sound pressure. 

I never expected math to interfere with my music. It doesn't really need to, I could just stick to an easy to drive headphone and be done with it...but for some reason I still need small portions of madness in my life.


----------



## castleofargh

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I am not sure whether I'm on or off topic here but I gather I'm close enough.
> I am currently waiting on a pair of Ultrasone pro2900 which I bought because I missed my old hfi2400, yet with the pro2900 I assumed, granted with my very limited knowledge about specs, I would be able to drive it with my little Cowon plenue d. -Also why I specifically ordered it all the way from the UK over the hfi2400 that I can buy here in Denmark.
> I then proceed to visit the inhouse pro2900 thread on head fi and surprise surprise if I don't see one owner after another claiming it needs an amp to sound good.
> I thought about asking my questions directly in the thread but decided not to.
> ...


it's one of those problems you can push any way you like. the notion of "need" for an audiophile can have some very wide and free interpretations. ^_^ 
about power and loudness, if Tyll's pair reflects your own, and the device can indeed handle around 1V into that load, then you can expect almost 108dB maxed out.  which is loud, no doubt. but most people like to cover their bases for any listening conditions and any music material. and for that they will tend to look for a source that can drive the headphone to 110, 115, or even 120dB. I personally suggest to take 115dB as a very safe worst case scenario, but at the same time I almost never come close to 100dB SPL in my actual use of gears.  
so already one could clearly say that your DAP isn't enough. despite how in practice(again if those numbers are all correct!) you'll probably go loud enough for your listening preferences unless you're in a subway and trying to completely cover possibly damaging noises with more damaging music(in which case I strongly suggest sealed IEMs like shure or etymotic instead of getting a portable amp). 

then the idea that a better amp section can be superior to the output of a cowon, again it's technically possible obviously. a good amp can measure better and to some that's really all they "need". both devices might be transparent, or not, a significant difference in impedance might give you a little bass change. some caps at the output could definitely alter the low end with a low impedance headphone. some devices might just not be transparent and someone may prefer the sound of the amp and draw all sort of illegitimate assumptions about sound quality. the actual range of possibilities is quite big.
that said, it doesn't mean that using the Cowon will make you puke or have your headphone burst into flame ^_^. most likely you'll be very fine so long as you enjoy the signature of the headphone. my tiny worry comes from all the DSPs in cowon, I don't know if when you use them they first attenuate the signal a good deal to avoid clipping? if so depending on how much gain attenuation there is on some effects, you may encounter more situations where you'd wish you could push your DAP to 11. I don't know that it will be a problem, I don't even know that the gain attenuation isn't applied at all time. maybe using a DSP actually makes the output go louder like it does on my sony DAP. but it's one possibility where basic loudness could perhaps be an issue. someone who owned such a device would know better.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

A lot to read through but thanks for your answer. I almost exclusively use the 'maestro' effect because it increases clarity to my ears...and also increases the volume considerably. I've gone back and forth between 'flat/no effects' and 'maestro' in order to find out if it's only the volume that increases, but I find that I hear a significant clarity as well. May as well be bs, but I don't mind as long as the music sounds good.
I already have iems for on the go. I just wanted an easy to drive full size open back...without resorting to the non-comfort of Grados.


----------



## castleofargh

cool, so it's probably like with my Sony, they always leave some room and using the DSPs can effectively boost the output. one less concern. 
on my Fiio X1 using the EQ takes the volume down by maybe 6dB(if I remember correctly), that's why I had that potential concern. because I don't remember how Cowon deals with that. but based on your experience, that part is not only solved, it's actually good news.


----------



## bigshot

Your combo there is close enough to being OK on its own, I’d recommend trying it for a while and see if it gets loud enough for you. I seriously doubt that an amp will get you better sound quality, only more volume.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Well I do own a headphone amp that drives my he500, so it should do just fine with the Ultrasone. It would just be an extra bonus to have something easy to drive as well. 
The part I'm really looking forward to is actually the s-logic thing. It worked so well for me when I had my hfi2400. At first though it seemed like a very muddy and dark can. Took me a while before something in my head 'let go' and suddenly the music was as clear as a glacier in this huge room of sound. 
Both the hfi2400 and the pro2900 have covered up drivers with but a few holes at the bottom of the cup. Sound is then pushed out there for then to bounce off the natural curve of your ear...if I understand correctly.
Sounds like bs I know but once you try that 'shifting of the waters' and the penny drops, it gets to be quite a thrilling can. I think it's because we are used to look for instruments in certain places, but when the headphone presents them in other places, it becomes bewildering...until you get it that is. I still get caught by certain genres - like going from some electronic music to a classic rock one fx. That can really throw me and once again make it seem as if the headphone is utterly muddy. I think it's because I've listened to sooooo much rock n roll in my life, over headphones no less, that a certain 'presentation of instruments' is hardwired in my cabeza.
Anyway I very much look forward to the bewildering qualities of the pro2900. I've found that s-logic only really works effectively with the pro series and the hfi2400, but they also all share the same driver enclosure (same holes at the bottom).


----------



## bigshot

MacacoDoSom said:


> "ultrasonics are inaudible", I hope so because in this 'Audiophile' recording "John Coltrane - Alternate Takes - Giant Steps 192 kHz 24 bit" I can see this:



Hey MacacaoDoSom, can you tell me where you got this track? It's pretty astounding. What does it sound like when you play it? I'm guessing there's some pretty hefty distortion going on when you pump those kinds of ultrasonics through a consumer amp!


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Hey MacacaoDoSom, can you tell me where you got this track? It's pretty astounding. What does it sound like when you play it? I'm guessing there's some pretty hefty distortion going on when you pump those kinds of ultrasonics through a consumer amp!



Well, @bigshot, you are guessing. Why, on earth, do decent amps ( and DACs, and everything containing amps, from the smallest low noise preamps to "welding "aparatus" power amps for driving electrostatics ) sport , at the very least, 100 kHz bandwidth ( no worse than - 3dB at that frequency ) ? Why there are "damn fast" (official name in mfr's catalogues ) ICs/op-amps in existence - if not to survive > 20 kHz content with aplomb ? Why there are  X KV per microsecond slew rates in some premioum amps ?

If an amp is well made, it will survive the ultimate torture : IMD 98 kHz + 99 kHz ( or even MUCH higher in frequency, difference signal being 1 kHz ), ratio 1:1, , close to full output ( no less than -3dB ), with no more than around -80dB diff product at 1 khz. And other diff products at even lower level.

There ARE reasons for PCM 384 kHz - even for 768 kHz sampling frequency. And "corresponding" DSD rates. If you ever decide to dip into > 20 khz waters, you WILL stumble upon digital problems - and quantization noise is not a fairy tale. Those - to those unacustomed to work with > 20 kHz - at first glance crazy overkill sampling rates do have one major purpose : keeping the digital noise outside "audible" band low enough not to cause distress downstream in the system. 

If you did any work in this field, you would have known that the track in question is actually rather well done. As you do listen to SACDs because of 5.1 content - you are listening to DSD64. And THAT has noise figures/levels above 20 kHz one hell of a lot worse than the track you fear to cause trouble with consumer amps.

I am trying to find within my collection a phono cartridge that will be kinda OK while not being exorbitantly expensive relative the TT in question. And what REALLY makes one angry is ultrasonic noise of soundcards, limited frequency response, etc, etc - while trying to record what is going on. Analog oscilloscope tells the truth - while digital, at least up to 192/24, struggles across the board.

I will present the problems that arise from ultrasonics in "lesser" amplifiers; mercilessly so. Because there is no more volatile combination as DSD64 ( aka SACD , which only adds copy protection ) source driving electrostatic amp. You WILL see how bloody important are "a few picofarads" - specially if "converted" to money required to buy an amp capable of driving that excess capacitance.  As it is ANYTHING but small change.

The world of sound above 20 kHz can be problematic - but if appropriate measures are taken, it can be "bussiness as usual" - and does not, inherently, require exorbitant priced gear.. But it will always be more expensive than RBCD only requirement.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 23, 2018)

Please make an effort to follow what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the HD track that MacacaoDoSom made the measurement of. Most consumer amps can't handle high volume spikes up near 96kHz like that. Look at that chart. It's a poorly engineered mess and would sound like a mess on most people's stereos. The CD release probably sounds fine because there's nothing but noise above 20kHz on that recording anyway.

\You shoot off into tangents too much. That's why I avoid talking to you.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jul 24, 2018)

Yes, consider it done - in the frame of the pending (and long overdue ) review of the iFi Audio Pro iESL . I have used an extremely good amp from 1977 ( plus or minus a year or two - max ) - power amp section of Technics SU-8080 integrated amplifier ( which is nothing but an improved version - completely separate power supplies for each channel - of SE-9060 power amp ) to drive the iFi unit. For reference Stax SRM1MK2 amplifier has been used - both combos driving a single pair of Stax Lambda Pro headphones. I did throw additional capacitance of the order of magnitude of another pair for measurements. You'll find everything in that review - ARTA http://www.artalabs.hr/ scren shots of THD, IMD, etc. 

I am well aware of the danger of >20 kHz signals messing up with the amps. Been for ages. Absolutely NOTHING can inject a higher frequency garbage into the signal than a phono cartridge on the verge of mistracking - it is even worse than at the actual mistracking. FAR too high in frequency for any normal digital measurement equipment ( short of "officially we don't have it, but can measure in a pinch" military stuff ) to be displayed in the graph or "oscilloscope screen shot ". I had to get a 100 MHz analog oscilloscope to see it - as 20 unit MHz was at the very edge of "showing somethhing".

Going for so high extension in the frequency response IS a double edged sword. I use AGI 511 preamplifier http://www.audiogeneral.com/. The man who designed it in cca 1974 is Mr. Donald Siegel - and he is THE originator of the double blind AB(X) testing. It is STILL the fastest (phono) preamp - ever. As Mr. Siegel is obviously not exactly keen on promotion etc ( he is LONG ago moved from audio only to his current main objective, furnishing the complete A/V installations for halls, etc ), I will not publish the original brochure or even the circuit diagram - which both are a model of precision, if there ever was one in audio. Here a brief summary from Japan : http://audio-database.com/AGI/amp/model511-e.html  Main point is that the bandwidth for the phono section is - minimum - 90 MHz ( NOT a typo, in words : ninety megahertz, minimum ). It is the only phono preamp adhering to RIAA curve ( deviating not more than 4 mB ( again, NOT a misprint, mili Bell ) - from the ideal - built with near zero tolerance parts in the RLC filter; i.e; a resistor of say 23865 ohm shown in circuit diagram will not be 24 kohm 0.X% part, but HAS 23865 PRINTED on it ... ) that can re-constitute the next to perfect square wave fed to its input trough an inverse RIAA network. Every other phono preamp I have ever tested this way does round the leading edge of the square wave - if ever so slightly.

Likewise, the line stage does similar - for the low frequencies. Into 47 kohm load, its output is less than 3 dB down below at 0.1 Hz - and can drive 20 Hz - flat - into 600 ohms load ... It has the most accurate 20 Hz square wave response of any AC coupled preamplifier.

Now, AGI 511 is ANYTHING BUT a consumer amplifier. It is built better than any Hewlett Packard or Tektronix measurement equipment I have ever seen. In many ways, it is still unmatched to this day - and if upgraded trough what technology ( new generation IC op amps have 1/10th of distortion and noise and are at least two times faster  than the original complement ) did bring in the 4 decades after its introduction, it is a VERY tough partner in a shootout - for any preamp. Its Aichile's heel(s) is (are) purely mechanical; the RCA jacks that interface directly with a very dedicated RCA printed circuit board have a nasty propensity to break signal carrying contact - and they are a major PITA to repair. I lucked out a few years ago, finding the original RCAs on ebay - but that is more fluke luck than anything else. Replacing all the RCAs with something modern and making a PCB to fit the chassis is a MAJOR operation - and costly. Also, the potentiometers used are intentionally carbon type - chosen for audio quality. That means that tracking between the two channels never was really good even in a brand new unit - and can not be expected to retain the same quality 40+ years later. No noise or intermittent sound, anywhere within the operation range of the potentiometers, though. Luckily, AGI 511 is not a slimline pancake - so enough place to fit either a potentiometer or stepped attenuator as volume and balance control$$$$ .

For all of the above reasons, AGI 511 can be your best friend - or worst enemy, depending how you look at it. It will unearth - AUDIBLY - stylus wear well before any other preamp would. The extreme case happened at one of my friends , who used a well regarded tube preamp at the time. He has been complaining that lately his beloved Koetsu cartridge started to sound "strange". OK, an oscilloscope and AGI 511 ( line stage ) are always with me in such cases. A quick glance at the output from the Koetsu  playing back square wave at innermost radius on the test record showed - CLEARLY - that the stylus is worn beyond usability. Playing back the normal music using said unnamed tubed preamp it sounded "strange" - but playing back trough AGI 511 it was - unlistenable.

That is WHY I also use other, lesser phono preamps; used records can have too much damage inflicted to them troughout the decades, even if now played back by a VdH/Micro Line type of stylus - and filtering some of it out may well sound advantageous.

The point is the fact that my friend has been listening to ( and irreparably destroying irreplaceable records...) with a stylus that was well past both its prime and usability - because the preamp has been "nice" and swept all the garbage generated by the worn stylus under the carpet - trough excessive HF filtering.

My ( and not mine only ...) regret is that Mr. Siegel did not decide to put the accompaniying power amp prototype to the market. The thing was rumored to have 1000 V per microsecond slew rate - in second half of the 1970s . It was reportedly too expensive to produce due to extremely tight semiconductor tolerances required. I have never even seen the picture of the unit - but judging from the 511 preamp, it must have been a truly awesome amp.

Yes, CDs do allow for the lesser amplifiers to be used to decent effect - but in 2018, there are good ways known to build an amp that does not cost an arm and a leg and can still manage the >20 kHz HF content without excessive distress.

But, we do agree on one point; the recording in question has nothing above say 30 kHz that is meaningful information on the ORIGINAL recording - which back in the day meant analogue reel to reel tape. The only true use of HR digital is in the new recordings of either new musicians and/or new music. As of today, there are - at least - two microphones available for music recordings that go to at least 100 kHz - and it is about time "recorders" catch up.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 24, 2018)

I edited out all the irrelevant digressions in your post and tried to turn it into a coherent comment.



analogsurviver said:


> Yes, consider it done -  I am well aware of the danger of >20 kHz signals messing up with the amps. But, we do agree on one point; the recording in question has nothing above say 30 kHz that is meaningful information on the ORIGINAL recording - which back in the day meant analogue reel to reel tape.



If you look at the chart, there's no meaningful information on the original recording above 20kHz. A CD could contain this recording perfectly. Everything above 20kHz is noise of one type or another. That's true of most analogue recordings made on reel to reel tape.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> <A bunch of garbage with anecdotes related to 1970's amplifiers.>



Are you capable of responding in a way that doesn't evoke all of the magic of amplifier designs of 40 years ago? It's really, REALLY annoying at this point.

"Why there are "damn fast" (official name in mfr's catalogues ) ICs/op-amps in existence - if not to survive > 20 kHz content with aplomb ?"

I can answer that. Op-amps are used for way more than audio, and are designed to work on all kinds of frequency spectra, including RF to microwave frequencies.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> Going for so high extension in the frequency response IS a double edged sword. I use AGI 511 preamplifier http://www.audiogeneral.com/. The man who designed it in cca 1974 is Mr. Donald Siegel - and he is THE originator of the double blind AB(X) testing. It is STILL the fastest (phono) preamp - ever. As Mr. Siegel is obviously not exactly keen on promotion etc ( he is LONG ago moved from audio only to his current main objective, furnishing the complete A/V installations for halls, etc ), I will not publish the original brochure or even the circuit diagram - which both are a model of precision, if there ever was one in audio. Here a brief summary from Japan : http://audio-database.com/AGI/amp/model511-e.html  Main point is that the bandwidth for the phono section is - minimum - 90 MHz ( NOT a typo, in words : ninety megahertz, minimum ). It is the only phono preamp adhering to RIAA curve ( deviating not more than 4 mB ( again, NOT a misprint, mili Bell ) - from the ideal - built with near zero tolerance parts in the RLC filter; i.e; a resistor of say 23865 ohm shown in circuit diagram will not be 24 kohm 0.X% part, but HAS 23865 PRINTED on it ... ) that can re-constitute the next to perfect square wave fed to its input trough an inverse RIAA network. Every other phono preamp I have ever tested this way does round the leading edge of the square wave - if ever so slightly.



This is a stack of complete nonsense.


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> This is a stack of complete nonsense.



Sorry, if you can not undertand what was written, that does not mean it is a complete nonsense. 


colonelkernel8 said:


> Are you capable of responding in a way that doesn't evoke all of the magic of amplifier designs of 40 years ago? It's really, REALLY annoying at this point.
> 
> "Why there are "damn fast" (official name in mfr's catalogues ) ICs/op-amps in existence - if not to survive > 20 kHz content with aplomb ?"
> 
> I can answer that. Op-amps are used for way more than audio, and are designed to work on all kinds of frequency spectra, including RF to microwave frequencies.




Are you STILL not capable of comprehending what somebody did over 4 deacades ago ? That the design in question is way better than almost anything you can buy today ? 
The only meaningful progress in phono preamps are current preamplifiers - and these need as low impedance source , in this case cartridge, as it is possible.  Such carts with usable voltage output are only possible for about a decade - and we are talking of below 10 ohm, preferably even below one ohm cartridge impedance. None have been available in 1974 or so...
Do you find it REALLY annoying that something 40 years old can stil mop the floor with supposedly latest/greatest ? 

If you have never experienced a truly fast audio system - not my fault. It is perfectly OK to say that you do not like it, that it is overkill, that it costs too much - but only AFTER experiencing it. 
And if you knew more, you would have known why so "damn fast" circuits are required for even as slow devices as CD players.

And, of course, op-amps are used for many applications outside audio. And many non-audio ( too fast for traditionalists...) op-amps with otherwise good audio performance are being ever more used by the audio designers. Because they usually perform better, measure better and sound better - at not too great increase in price.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I edited out all the irrelevant digressions in your post and tried to turn it into a coherent comment.
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the chart, there's no meaningful information on the original recording above 20kHz. A CD could contain this recording perfectly. Everything above 20kHz is noise of one type or another. That's true of most analogue recordings made on reel to reel tape.



If this refers to the Cotrane 192/24 track, you are most probably right. Back in the day this track was recorded, there were not (m)any recording chains capable of > 20 kHz recording.

Reel to reel recorders can go quite well over 20 kHz - depending on the model and tape speed. The same goes for the measuring microphones pressed into recording music service - which, ultimately, culminated in the first commercial oficially available ( not modified in the field ) mike intended for music recording by Bruel & Kjaer - the venerable 4006 from the early 80s( back then Bruel & Kjaer, now DPA - which is nothing but B & K music recording branch gone on its own , but still having tight connection with the mother firm ) . So, in early 80s there definitely were both microphones and analog recorders capable of > 20 kHz. And although not particularly numerous, the recordings made with these swansong analog recorders fed by 4006s ( and its siblings )  ARE available. - and exceed what CD  can do. That is why many of these are being now converted to DSD and HR PCM - which can much more closely replicate the original analogue master tape.

I did say - countless times by now - that the only true way to use/sell HR and DSD is with new recordings - using entire recording chain that can support whatever the chosen bandwidth > 20 kHz. Just because most recordings available do not contain meaningful information > 20 k, that does not mean it is meaningless and can be continualy avoided. There are sounds above 20 k, without which the reproduction of the recording will never sound convincing enough.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 24, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, if you can not undertand what was written, that does not mean it is a complete nonsense.



...and if you don't bother to communicate clearly, it doesn't mean that your intended message makes any sense to anyone else.

Irrelevant digressions snipped again...



analogsurviver said:


> If this refers to the Cotrane 192/24 track, you are most probably right. Back in the day this track was recorded, there were not (m)any recording chains capable of > 20 kHz recording. Reel to reel recorders can go quite well over 20 kHz - depending on the model and tape speed. There are sounds above 20 k, without which the reproduction of the recording will never sound convincing enough.



Even if a recorder was capable of recording super audible frequencies, did recording studios bother to calibrate above 20kHz? I would think that if there's anything above that, it's probably a crap shoot. And it would probably be filtered out as noise during mixing and mastering. None of this matters a bit since humans can't hear above 20kHz and those ultrasonic frequencies add absolutely nothing to the perceived quality of music. Your last comment is incorrect.


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> ...and if you don't bother to communicate clearly, it doesn't mean that your intended message makes any sense to anyone else.
> 
> Irrelevant digressions snipped again...
> 
> ...



And even if it did, then by definition the effect of the ultrasonics on the sound must be within the frequency range which humans can hear.  If so, then surely it is only relevant to a live event as a recording of it would have captured the effects.

That raises another issue.  If we playback the ultrasonics would it not double the effect on the human hearing range (given the recording has already captured the effect) and result in a distortion?


----------



## bigshot

I doubt that ultrasonic sound could affect audible sound in any way. It's like x rays not affecting visible light rays.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

What does it mean if an amp is "fast"?  Damping factor?


----------



## castleofargh

TheSonicTruth said:


> What does it mean if an amp is "fast"?  Damping factor?


 as a rule, if @analogsurviver says that something is great, just assume that more ultrasounds are involved. it's not a 100% thing but still a very safe bet. 
here I'm guessing the idea was about slew rate.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> as a rule, if @analogsurviver says that something is great, just assume that more ultrasounds are involved. it's not a 100% thing but still a very safe bet.
> here I'm guessing the idea was about slew rate.



Well, I have singled out AGI 511 because it is an extremely BALANCED product; it does not rob Peter to pay Paul, in any way. It has extremely extended bandwidth, not only in Treblesonics, but also bass - veeeery low, below 0.1 Hz with most normal impedance equipmnent - and is flatter within those extremes than most labs can measure.- includin phono RIAA equalizer and its second to none accuracy of RIAA cutve. It has very low distortion across the board, its noise that was not exactly stellar back in the day can be significntly improved by the new IC op-amps - and is designed to run 24/7/365 - for 40+ years. No AGI I have seen or heard of has failed electrically - ever. The only problem are those pesky RCA females ...

Of course, with the speed like that, slew rate is bound to be great. Recent(ish) op-amps also usable in this circuit can swing up to 3000 V per microsecond. This can not be utilized to the full, since at least I have never heard of coupling capacitors that could even approach this figure - and the speed thus depends on coupling caps. Although the original price was relatively low $ 500 back in the day ( when Audio Research and Mark Levinson charged double or more for their premium efforts ), this did not allow for film coupling caps - stock units all have electrolytics. But - an important BUT - there IS ample space on PCB - indicating that prototypes have used film caps, which had to be replaced in production run with electrolytics because of economics. Needless to say, in my unit electrolitycs are used in signal path only in one location - because I have not yet found a film cap of required value and small enough size to fit in the available space.

In short - it is great because it is great in stock form - and can be significantly improved still further. It is unlikely it will be "heard" in any system that does not place totally out of ordinary requirements for preamp.


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> I doubt that ultrasonic sound could affect audible sound in any way. It's like x rays not affecting visible light rays.


I agree, I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency in that argument if it did.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jul 25, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Of course, with the speed like that, slew rate is bound to be great. Recent(ish) op-amps also usable in this circuit can swing up to 3000 V per microsecond. This can not be utilized to the full, since at least I have never heard of coupling capacitors that could even approach this figure - and the speed thus depends on coupling caps. Although the original price was relatively low $ 500 back in the day ( when Audio Research and Mark Levinson charged double or more for their premium efforts ), this did not allow for film coupling caps - stock units all have electrolytics. But - an important BUT - there IS ample space on PCB - indicating that prototypes have used film caps, which had to be replaced in production run with electrolytics because of economics. Needless to say, in my unit electrolitycs are used in signal path only in one location - because I have not yet found a film cap of required value and small enough size to fit in the available space.


This nonsense doesn’t even approach real electronics. There are thousands of fine capacitors available for very little cost that can easily pass a signal slewing that fast.  Caps used in RF and video designs do it regularly, or those devices couldn’t work. The reason you have not found one is you don’t know what you’re looking for or why.  And, to make a fine point of it, the best solution if caps bother you is to design so coupling caps are not necessary. AGI didn’t do that.

High speed opamps that slew over 4000 V/uS are useless for audio because their noise figure is more than 20dB higher than much more appropriate opamps that slew fast enough for any audio application. Fortunately there are no audio signal that tax, even slightly, and opamp slewing at 30V/uS, which are easy to come by and entirely appropriate for audio.

You are off on the AGI 511 date by 4 years, it was 1977-78.  I remember the review in Audio, in fact I probably still have it.  Oddly, it was never adopted as the “gold standard”, and is largely now forgotten. So much fo MHz bandwidth.

The need for RF frequency response in audio gear is unproven, undocumented, and vastly overrated. Far more important that brute-force bandwidth is linearity in the area above 20kHz where distortion products lie and can, if an amp is significantly non-linear, intermodulate and create products in the audible spectrum.  The rather severe error here is to equate high frequency linearity with high frequency response, which is not universally correct, but is easy to test with non-military-secret equipment.



analogsurviver said:


> In short - it is great because it is great in stock form - and can be significantly improved still further. It is unlikely it will be "heard" in any system that does not place totally out of ordinary requirements for preamp.


There are no audio systems that place out of ordinary requirements on preamps. Frankly, preamps just aren’t that hard to design, even with ridiculous HF bandwidth.  And that means your “holy grail” 511 with its advantages cannot be heard...ever.

And, to date, nothing you’ve posted has ever been “in short”, much to everyone’s dismay.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> This nonsense doesn’t even approach real electronics. There are thousands of fine capacitors available for very little cost that can easily pass a signal slewing that fast.  Caps used in RF and video designs do it regularly, or those devices couldn’t work. The reason you have not found one is you don’t know what you’re looking for or why.  And, to make a fine point of it, the best solution if caps bother you is to design so coupling caps are not necessary. AGI didn’t do that.
> 
> High speed opamps that slew over 4000 V/uS are useless for audio because their noise figure is more than 20dB higher than much more appropriate opamps that slew fast enough for any audio application. Fortunately there are no audio signal that tax, even slightly, and opamp slewing at 30V/uS, which are easy to come by and entirely appropriate for audio.
> 
> ...




Well, those caps that do slew that fast have other disadvantages  - directly with audio. In case you have not moticed by now, I am trying to balance everything into something that , in the end, sounds better. That means achieving the best sounding compromise. And for RF frequencies, values of capacitors are usually MUCH smaller than 47-68 microfarad ( I have seen both, batches from different years of manufacture ) used as coupling cap by AGI.

I agree the best way is to do away with coupling capacitors - if possible. That quickly leads to incompatibility with the vast majority of other equipment. And increases the danger of blowing something up, if the operator does not know EXACTLY what he/she is doing. AGI did not decide to market its power amp ( a 1000 V per microsecond design ) , because it required too tigtly matched semiconductors in order to work at all - and that was too costly. So, they had to throw in some form of "protection" against the direct DC while still passing signal below 1 Hz ( it can be any frequency below 20 Hz, depending on input impedance of the load, it can drive 20 Hz at 0 dB into 600 ohm ) . And, it works - and definitely can be ( or better said, can NOT be heard ) - as it behaves, for all practical purposes, like a DC coupled preamp - but without the possibility to generate excessive DC offset in also DC coupled power amp due to impedance mismatch. I like this solution better than DC servo circuits - YMMV.

AGI 511 is clean in its entire operating range even in stock form - and the advantages of 40 years younger op-amps only enhance the already great performance. The last thing it will do is to intermodulate the products in the audible spectrum.

There ARE audio systems that do place out of ordinary requirements on preamps. One I came across was the necessity to reduce the gain of the "power amp" significantly - in order to allow BW product to within what I have been comfortable with using componentry at hand and available at the time. If it were a commercially available product, an additional gain stage would have to be used - and that has detrimental effects on sound quality. A preamp with more output voltage swing than possible on + - 15 VDC rails of AGI had to be used - and that combination proved to be audibly superiour to whatever lower voltage preamp plus additional gain stage.

It is true that you can not "hear" the 511 - because, in a truly good audio system, it will sound transparent - MY standard, not, for example, that of @bigshot. The difference in soundstage made possible by such high speed but clean electronics as AGI  has to be heard - no blah blah the size of entire head fi can not even approach the real listening experience. But it has to be used in "fast" systems that are also as phase coherent as possible. It was no coincidence I first heard it in Milan, Italy ( in 1979, it was THE audio show in the world, manufacturers often preffered premiering their latest/greatest in Milan than at CES in Las Vegas ) - driving Acoustat X electrostatics with matching electrostatic amps. 

Since I do have schematics, 1974 is among the first entries in the documentation - even if mentioning as the beggining of the development of 511. It took something like 2 years ( for sticklers to the exact dates, I would have to check my archive ) to perfect it - and most reviews do date from 1979.

Short version - try as you might, it will be VERY difficult to find another preamp that will match it, let alone surpass it - in a real world situation. Remember, this is, first and foremost, a PHONO preamplifier ; there are two versions with different gain for MM cartridges and there is an additional MC stage ( rare as hen's teeth - it did/does exist, I do have schematics furnished by AGI, but have not been able/willing to build it yet ) that can be paired with any of the two MM gain versions. Needless to say, it requires the best possible cartridge/tonearm/turntable front end in order to truly appreciate the 511 . It really has to be heard to be believed.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Well, those caps that do slew that fast have other disadvantages  - directly with audio.


Again, complete nonsense.  There are MANY solutions.  You are simply out of your depth here.  The problems with capacitors and audio are well known...and also HIGHLY over-rated.  I've actually tested...with real caps and test gear...what caps do to audio performance.  The series of articles *"PIcking Capacitors" by Walt Jung and Richard Marsh* is a good place to start, though slightly out of date on the values available in certain types.


analogsurviver said:


> I agree the best way is to do away with coupling capacitors - if possible. That quickly leads to incompatibility with the vast majority of other equipment. And increases the danger of blowing something up, if the operator does not know EXACTLY what he/she is doing.


Yet again, compete nonsense!  A proper capacitor-less design requires absolutely nothing from an operator, not even the knowlege that the thing doesn't use coupling capacitors!  Ever heard of a DC servo circuit? 


analogsurviver said:


> <snipped irrelevant info>
> 
> There ARE audio systems that do place out of ordinary requirements on preamps. One I came across was the necessity to reduce the gain of the "power amp" significantly - in order to allow BW product to within what I have been comfortable with using componentry at hand and available at the time. If it were a commercially available product, an additional gain stage would have to be used - and that has detrimental effects on sound quality. A preamp with more output voltage swing than possible on + - 15 VDC rails of AGI had to be used - and that combination proved to be audibly superiour to whatever lower voltage preamp plus additional gain stage.


The example makes no technical sense at all. Reducing the gain of a power amp?  Passive pad.  Achieving it with a preamp with even more output swing? Silly, no engineering involved.  As usual.


analogsurviver said:


> It is true that you can not "hear" the 511 - because, in a truly good audio system, it will sound transparent - MY standard, not, for example, that of @bigshot.


That's just silly.  How could you possibly now what is "transparent" if your only reference is other device that you claim to be non-transparent?   Did you compare with/without the 511? 


analogsurviver said:


> The difference in soundstage made possible by such high speed but clean electronics as AGI  has to be heard - no blah blah the size of entire head fi can not even approach the real listening experience. But it has to be used in "fast" systems that are also as phase coherent as possible. It was no coincidence I first heard it in Milan, Italy ( in 1979, it was THE audio show in the world, manufacturers often preffered premiering their latest/greatest in Milan than at CES in Las Vegas ) - driving Acoustat X electrostatics with matching electrostatic amps.


As soon as I hear "soundstage", I stop listening to the rest because it's applied as a 100% subjective term.  I could make the same impression by connecting an unknown black box along with a powerful suggestion.


analogsurviver said:


> Short version - try as you might, it will be VERY difficult to find another preamp that will match it, let alone surpass it - in a real world situation. Remember, this is, first and foremost, a PHONO preamplifier ; there are two versions with different gain for MM cartridges and there is an additional MC stage ( rare as hen's teeth - it did/does exist, I do have schematics furnished by AGI, but have not been able/willing to build it yet ) that can be paired with any of the two MM gain versions. Needless to say, it requires the best possible cartridge/tonearm/turntable front end in order to truly appreciate the 511 . It really has to be heard to be believed.


Really?  You're now citing gain differences for MM and MC?  Why?  What does that have to do with anything? 

I'll tell you exactly what happened here.  You read the reviews, saw the specs, and were highly impressed, as was I. You saw the construction quality, and was again impressed.  So you believed with conviction that it should be the best sounding preamp in the world.  Yet, there's no data to substantiate the impression!  It didn't survive as a product.  It's principles of design weren't universally adopted, even in the expensive stuff. 

There's no need for RF response in audio equipment.  The AGI is a great piece of gear, but so what?  There are other great preamps that don't have (and don't need) RF response.  You couldn't tell them apart in an ABX test, but don't believe the guy who's tried extensive ABX tests, try it yourself.  I know, I'm asking for a miracle.


----------



## bigshot

Pinnahertz, I'm very glad you're able to address all the stuff that I can't bring myself to even read. I feel a little guilty when I dismiss people out of hand. Especially when they are at least at the level where they are using proper grammar and spelling. But there are some brains that are pretzel shaped and I just can't force my brain to contort itself that far to try to understand their "pretzel logic". I know when I reply to people, it takes me a little while to organize my comments and construct a clear post. Your posts are always well constructed and clear. There's effort behind what you do, as opposed to people who vomit out stream of consciousness nonsense. I guess what I'm trying to say is... "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!"


----------



## analogsurviver (Jul 26, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Again, complete nonsense.  There are MANY solutions.  You are simply out of your depth here.  The problems with capacitors and audio are well known...and also HIGHLY over-rated.  I've actually tested...with real caps and test gear...what caps do to audio performance.  The series of articles *"PIcking Capacitors" by Walt Jung and Richard Marsh* is a good place to start, though slightly out of date on the values available in certain types.
> Yet again, compete nonsense!  A proper capacitor-less design requires absolutely nothing from an operator, not even the knowlege that the thing doesn't use coupling capacitors!  Ever heard of a DC servo circuit?
> The example makes no technical sense at all. Reducing the gain of a power amp?  Passive pad.  Achieving it with a preamp with even more output swing? Silly, no engineering involved.  As usual.
> That's just silly.  How could you possibly now what is "transparent" if your only reference is other device that you claim to be non-transparent?   Did you compare with/without the 511?
> ...



Well, "Picking Capacitors" is the very source of "capacitor blues" - and, if I am not mistaken, there is NO mention of slew rate ( dV/dt ) at all ! Everything else BUT the slew rate ... - and I know the article from the first issue of Audio in which this series run back then. And, unfortunately, it is dated - because of digitalization and miniaturization, the best capacitors are now either NOS, produced at really premium prices - or worse of all, not available at all. Today, a manufacturer can not build with the best that USED TO BE AVAILABLE - as there simply is no quantity for continuing running production. If you heard an amp Serial # 2345  at a friend and based on impression bought one from the recent batches with say Serial # 123456, you would expect it to sound at least similar to the unit that convinced you into buying in the first place - wouldn't you ? That's why only readily available parts that are reasonably expected to be available for at least another few years are used in any currently produced equipment. That does NOT mean that these readily available parts are the best in absolute terms.

Did you read that I wrote I do not like the DC servo circuits ? Would you put one on the INPUT of a moving coil preamplifier ? Would you risk a customer for your preamp suing you for blowing up an expensive phono cartridge ( 5 figures, the first one not necesarilly being one ) - because your preamp failed and took the cartridge with itself to ever haunting grounds ?

No, you misundersood again. The gain of the "power amp" had to be lowered in order for it to work as fast as required - and the front end did not have enough gain bandwidth product to do so at a normal input sensitivity. That was what has been possible 30 or so years ago, today most probably there ARE electronic parts capable of doing what was required while allowing for the gain to be raised enough to allow for the normal 1 V or so sensitivity for the full output.

Well, get an 511. Although not more than about 5000 units have been built ( and LOTS of those are in Japan, Italy ( VERY dedicated distributor made an unheard of effort at the time promoting it ) and elsewhere in Europe ( Germany, France , etc...), there must be some of them still within USA. Compare, listen, AB(X) ( remember: the inventor of 511 is the originator of double blind ABX )  - and you should be able to hear the difference. It is not night and day - more sunny and light overcast. I hope you can differentiate such difference(s).

And I can relate WHY you frown upon the word "soundstage". I know that in most studio gear , the soundstage is the firs thing that falls victim - due to the "20-20k is enough" syndrome being so firmly imbedded in minds of studio people. Place in series as many "20-20k" minded components as required in a typical studio workflow - and it is a miracle in itself  whatt little of soundstage that does come trough - at all.
Imagine the sound from a studio built to AGI 511 standard ...

The gain differences for MM ( MC is another gain stage inserted between the MC cartridge and regular MM input, something that back then was called a head amp - FAR before the headphone world adopted the same name for an entirely different device with another task ) in AGI 511 is significant - because it is not acomplished by a single resistor change, but entire feedback RIAA filter. As these components - both resistors AND capacitors are EXACT values, NO tolerance parts ( resistors having exact value PRINTED on them , down to a single ohm ) are critical for the EXACT adherence to RIAA curve. There never has been - or is likely to be - a better/lower deviation from the ideal RIIA response in a real world analogue circuit. Only Peter Moncrieff has been able to measure exactly how small deviation from perfect AGI511 has - an it was 4 mB, with the test gear having limit to measure at 2 mB. The mB is NOT a typo - in words, miliBel . Every other test published you are likely to see will be perfectly flat line - below the limit of measuring equipment. That kind of dedication to perfection IMO does have to do with - everything ... - including, of course, the highest possible quality capacitors with zero tolerance as used in AGI 511 phono section.
Just for the record : there were 511, 511 A ( normal MM gain ), 511 H ( 6 dB higher gain for low output MM carts, like Technics EPC 100 Series ) and there was 511M - either low or high gain MM paired with MC head amp. 511M is, by far, the rarest of them all - never saw even a picture.

There is another, VERY important feature of the 511 phono preamp. How it deals with picking up the radio. First, radio transmission pickup occurs if the slew rate of the amp is lower than that of the RF input. OK, 90 MHz up to which 511 is specified ( it does exceed this figure, up to two times, depending on sample ) is still too low for FM. Normal phono preamps ( and FTC requirement in late 80s) place simply high enough value capacitor parallel to the phono input - so that no audible RF induced radio pickup can occur. That is usually around 500 pF and higher - which wreaks absolute havoc in frequency response with most, but most notably best MM phono cartridges ( which happen to see the lower capacitance, the better ).  It is also one of the reasons why MC cartridges ( which are largely immune to capacitive loading, used only for fine tuning, not basic performance ) then really took off - under new legislation MM carts have been all but reduced to an afterthought ...

AGI does it differently. Its phono input is made like a two way loudspeaker crossover - up to certain ( for CD lovers still FAR too high frequency ...100 kHz and above ) , the LF pass portion is the phono audio output - and HF pass connects all RF garbage above that  simply to - ground . You can connect ANY phono cartridge ( with their vastly different inductance and resistance parameters ) through ANY tonearm/turntable ( with their vastly different cabling/shielding/grounding schemes ) to the AGI 511 - and even if you tune your RF transmitter in the very same room EXACTLY to the cartridge/tonearm/turntable ELECTRICAL resonance - there will be absolutely zero radio transmission in your audio output. And it does not have to use a single additional pF on its input to accomplish this feat - meaning that cartridge capacitive loading still can work as intended for performance and not FTC requirements . One thing you will never, under any circumstances,  hear trough AGI 511 is - radio - except that intentionaly fed from a tuner output to its tuner input, of course

Try that with any other phono preamp ...

I have seen and heard MANY preamps that dwarf the AGI 511 in novelty factor, in price, in X ( insert your number here ) thick front plates, in GodKnowsWhatElse, etc - and regardless of owning a few, when it comes to the actual listening, the old and trustworthy 511 gets >> 80 % listening time. For a conventional MM phono input, it is still - beyond any shadoe of a doubt -

                                                                                                     “One of The Most Significant Preamps of All Time”

http://whathifi.whatgroupmag.com/old-school-vintage-sound-agi-model-511/


----------



## bigshot (Jul 26, 2018)

Who cares about LPs? The format is demonstrably inferior to digital in every aspect except for the size of album covers and selection of titles at swap meets. I have tens of thousands of records myself, but I swear all this torrent of words on the subject bores me stiff. Please create a thread just for discussion of LPs and you can talk to yourself like this all day long without derailing this thread.

Castle, is it within your power to move off topic posts? If so, we could create a special thread for this topic and you could just move them into that thread when they inevitably pop up like weeds.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Who cares about LPs? The format is demonstrably inferior to digital in every aspect except for the size of album covers and selection of titles at swap meets.



Some people like the distortions caused by vinyl's inferiority to digital audio. Since they don't understand digital and analog audio well, they assume vinyl must be superior because they like it more. The vinyl distortions should on the master if people love them, just as music production uses all kind of effects that people like. Why have the media produce the final steps in your product? Makes now sense, because that way the final step is not controlled. People have different TTs with different distortions etc.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Well, "Picking Capacitors" is the very source of "capacitor blues" - and, if I am not mistaken, there is NO mention of slew rate ( dV/dt ) at all ! Everything else BUT the slew rate ... - and I know the article from the first issue of Audio in which this series run back then. And, unfortunately, it is dated - because of digitalization and miniaturization, the best capacitors are now either NOS, produced at really premium prices - or worse of all, not available at all.


Incorrect, but see below.


analogsurviver said:


> Today, a manufacturer can not build with the best that USED TO BE AVAILABLE - as there simply is no quantity for continuing running production. If you heard an amp Serial # 2345  at a friend and based on impression bought one from the recent batches with say Serial # 123456, you would expect it to sound at least similar to the unit that convinced you into buying in the first place - wouldn't you ?


No, not without knowing what changes were made in production.


analogsurviver said:


> That's why only readily available parts that are reasonably expected to be available for at least another few years are used in any currently produced equipment. That does NOT mean that these readily available parts are the best in absolute terms.


Lets get specific rather than using massive and irrelevant generalities.  What parameters in a capacitor are no longer available?  And "the sound quality" doesn't count!  Be specific!


analogsurviver said:


> Did you read that I wrote I do not like the DC servo circuits ? Would you put one on the INPUT of a moving coil preamplifier ? Would you risk a customer for your preamp suing you for blowing up an expensive phono cartridge ( 5 figures, the first one not necesarilly being one ) - because your preamp failed and took the cartridge with itself to ever haunting grounds ?


That statement indicates a full lack of understanding of how a DC servo works.  I'm not going to explain it, as that's a huge tangent, but for a start: you don't apply it to an input!  No need, and no point.  So, no chance at all of "blowing up" a cart.  Works just fine, and is a very nifty way to eliminate huge caps in the audio path.


analogsurviver said:


> No, you misundersood again. The gain of the "power amp" had to be lowered in order for it to work as fast as required - and the front end did not have enough gain bandwidth product to do so at a normal input sensitivity. That was what has been possible 30 or so years ago, today most probably there ARE electronic parts capable of doing what was required while allowing for the gain to be raised enough to allow for the normal 1 V or so sensitivity for the full output.


It doesn't matter.  The entire scenario of needing to reduce gain because of gain/bandwidth product, then having to hit it so hard that you needed a higher output preamp (like what, +/- 50V???) is irrelevant and stupid.


analogsurviver said:


> Well, get an 511. Although not more than about 5000 units have been built ( and LOTS of those are in Japan, Italy ( VERY dedicated distributor made an unheard of effort at the time promoting it ) and elsewhere in Europe ( Germany, France , etc...), there must be some of them still within USA. Compare, listen, AB(X) ( remember: the inventor of 511 is the originator of double blind ABX )  - and you should be able to hear the difference. It is not night and day - more sunny and light overcast. I hope you can differentiate such difference(s).


The response above was fully expected, but disappointing.  It's typical audiophile: "You haven't hear it, so you don't know.  You probably couldn't hear it anyway because you are 1)deaf 2)an idiot 3)your system is far to unsophisticated.  Thanks for following suit with expectations, but none of that supports even a single one of your arguments.


analogsurviver said:


> And I can relate WHY you frown upon the word "soundstage". I know that in most studio gear , the soundstage is the firs thing that falls victim - due to the "20-20k is enough" syndrome being so firmly imbedded in minds of studio people. Place in series as many "20-20k" minded components as required in a typical studio workflow - and it is a miracle in itself  whatt little of soundstage that does come trough - at all.


There it is again.  This time it's the "20-20k minded". 


analogsurviver said:


> Imagine the sound from a studio built to AGI 511 standard ...


I do.  It's exactly what we get now.  You've fallen into the "circle of confusion" once again.  So you think everything needs to be capable of some RF frequency like 100mHz, but you want everything in the chain to do that.  Most mics don't, can't and won't, and are chosen for other far more audible and important parameters.  The mics that do are useful for very limited applications.  We could digitize up to 100mHz, but we're not going to because there's no evidence it makes any difference above 20kHz or slightly more.  No analog recorder will record above 20kHz reliably and consistently, and none at all above 25kHz that don't have some other fatal issues.  No speakers can deliver anything to your ears above 25kHz at all, even if stated response is 40kHz, the ultrasonic beam width and air absorption blows it away.  The whole argument collapses if you look at any individual segment of the chain, but you want the WHOLE CHAIN to play up to 100mHz!


analogsurviver said:


> The gain differences for MM ( MC is another gain stage inserted between the MC cartridge and regular MM input, something that back then was called a head amp - FAR before the headphone world adopted the same name for an entirely different device with another task ) in AGI 511 is significant - because it is not acomplished by a single resistor change, but entire feedback RIAA filter.


RIAA EQ doesn't dictate a feedback network, but ok...


analogsurviver said:


> As these components - both resistors AND capacitors are EXACT values, NO tolerance parts ( resistors having exact value PRINTED on them , down to a single ohm ) are critical for the EXACT adherence to RIAA curve.


There's no such thing as zero-tolerance parts.  Even the ones with values printed on them have a tolerance, usually 1%, but possibly lower.  But you clearly don't understand either the RIAA curve or what tolerances are necessary.


analogsurviver said:


> There never has been - or is likely to be - a better/lower deviation from the ideal RIIA response in a real world analogue circuit. Only Peter Moncrieff has been able to measure exactly how small deviation from perfect AGI511 has - an it was 4 mB, with the test gear having limit to measure at 2 mB. The mB is NOT a typo - in words, miliBel . Every other test published you are likely to see will be perfectly flat line - below the limit of measuring equipment.


Well, that may have been true in 1977, but not true today.  Easily measured, with non-exotic equipment.  But again, you're in the circle of confusion!  So, we have a preamp with precise RIAA match to the mDB.  Great.  But how does it perform with a cartridge on it?  Oops.  You might measure it if you had a test records recorded with no EQ and a perfectly flat lathe.  But then we get into the real problem, the record RIAA eq may not be that good.  And since the entire produced response is based on what was heard in a studio with monitors that are not flat to 2mdB, likely not to 1dB, we have another random error built into the system.  Then we hit your speakers in your room, and response errors become HUGE because I'm 100% certain you make no attempt to equalize them in the room (an audiophile atrocity). So why on earth would we need or benefit from  2mdB response accuracy anywhere?  We cannot possibly achieve it at all, not even close.


analogsurviver said:


> There is another, VERY important feature of the 511 phono preamp. How it deals with picking up the radio. First, radio transmission pickup occurs if the slew rate of the amp is lower than that of the RF input. OK, 90 MHz up to which 511 is specified ( it does exceed this figure, up to two times, depending on sample ) is still too low for FM.


Wow.  You couldn't BE more wrong!  US FM (and most other countries) runs from 88-108mHz!  AM radio is between 535-1605kHz!  Analog TV channels 2-6 are between 55-83mHz!  CB radio is centered around 27mHz (AM and SSB), HAM radio frequencies are all over, from 135 meters (135kHz), up to 50mHz in 13 separate frequency bands! 

But...I also think you're misquoting the specs.  You've confused mHz with kHz.  From memory I recall that the AGI, while pretty wide band, didn't really perform much above 100kHz.  That's Kiloherts, not Megahertz.  So you're right, it rolls off below most high power RF.  But it's far from the only preamp that would do that.  For example, the Apt-Holman preamp was -3dB at 150kHz with the ultrasonic filter switched out.  I recall the Marantz 7T being good to 100kHz too. So, no big deal there.  However, RF proofing is quite another matter.


analogsurviver said:


> Normal phono preamps ( and FTC requirement in late 80s) place simply high enough value capacitor parallel to the phono input - so that no audible RF induced radio pickup can occur. That is usually around 500 pF and higher - which wreaks absolute havoc in frequency response with most, but most notably best MM phono cartridges ( which happen to see the lower capacitance, the better ).  It is also one of the reasons why MC cartridges ( which are largely immune to capacitive loading, used only for fine tuning, not basic performance ) then really took off - under new legislation MM carts have been all but reduced to an afterthought ...


Wrong again, on several points.  In fact, the only thing right in the above paragraph is that a MM cart won't work well into 500pf!  But they don't have to.  Simply placing a 500pf cap on the front end won't RF proof it at all.  Several preamps, including one by Kenwood, and the notable Apt-Holman, solve the RF problem by not using a bipolar transistor at the front end.  A bipolar junction acts as a diode detector/demodulator at RF frequencies, becoming the root cause.  Eliminate that junction, you don't have a detector. 


analogsurviver said:


> AGI does it differently. Its phono input is made like a two way loudspeaker crossover - up to certain ( for CD lovers still FAR too high frequency ...100 kHz and above ) , the LF pass portion is the phono audio output - and HF pass connects all RF garbage above that  simply to - ground . You can connect ANY phono cartridge ( with their vastly different inductance and resistance parameters ) through ANY tonearm/turntable ( with their vastly different cabling/shielding/grounding schemes ) to the AGI 511 - and even if you tune your RF transmitter in the very same room EXACTLY to the cartridge/tonearm/turntable ELECTRICAL resonance - there will be absolutely zero radio transmission in your audio output. And it does not have to use a single additional pF on its input to accomplish this feat - meaning that cartridge capacitive loading still can work as intended for performance and not FTC requirements . One thing you will never, under any circumstances,  hear trough AGI 511 is - radio - except that intentionaly fed from a tuner output to its tuner input, of course


Again...the actual electronics involved is very different here.  What you describe (actually not in the schematics available on-line which show a bare-foot uA749 opamp as the front end!) is just a low pass RF filter.  The function of which would be necessary for any preamp operating in a high RFI field.


analogsurviver said:


> Try that with any other phono preamp ...


Oh, yes.  Been done.  The Apt-Holman was designed within 1 mile of a high power broadcast transmitter!  And I have actual hands-on experience with phono preamps and all sorts of other audio gear at both a 20kW FM transmitter site and a 50kW AM transmitter site.  There are plenty of other preamps that will work out there, but none (AGI included!) will work without very special attention to installation and grounding. 


analogsurviver said:


> I have seen and heard MANY preamps that dwarf the AGI 511 in novelty factor, in price, in X ( insert your number here ) thick front plates, in GodKnowsWhatElse, etc - and regardless of owning a few, when it comes to the actual listening, the old and trustworthy 511 gets >> 80 % listening time. For a conventional MM phono input, it is still - beyond any shadoe of a doubt -
> 
> “One of The Most Significant Preamps of All Time”


I thought that thing was special too...in 1977.  But time moved on, it's not special today at all, nor has it been for 30 years.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Castle, is it within your power to move off topic posts? If so, we could create a special thread for this topic and you could just move them into that thread when they inevitably pop up like weeds.


no, I have the dominatrix pack. I only punish or say out loud, "now I have become death, the destroyer of words", anytime I delete a post.
for constructive actions, you'd have to ask a real admin.

personally I don't see an issue with people sharing their experiences. that IMO is on topic, either as a myth or as a mean to try and dispel one. I only wish people would try to provide actual data about conducted experiences instead of just some "trust me I tried and it is so because I say so".


----------



## bigshot

My main objection is that we can all be talking about ice cream or aardvarks and he'll reply about phono preamps and cartridges that go up higher than bats can hear. It's kind of like a bot at this point.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 26, 2018)

bigshot said:


> My main objection is that we can all be talking about ice cream or aardvarks and he'll reply about phono preamps and cartridges that go up higher than bats can hear. It's kind of like a bot at this point.



Well, let me ask this:  Audio 101 - can harmonics of a specific tone or combination appear on both sides of that fundamental, on the audio spectrum?

IE: A 300Hz tone might have multiple harmonics, say, at 600, 900, etc.  

So, can a 40kHz tone generate harmonics BELOW its fundamental frequency, and possibly down into the range of human audibility?


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jul 26, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Well, let me ask this:  Audio 101 - can harmonics of a specific tone or combination appear on both sides of that fundamental, on the audio spectrum?
> 
> IE: A 300Hz tone might have multiple harmonics, say, at 600, 900, etc.
> 
> So, can a 40kHz tone generate harmonics BELOW its fundamental frequency, and possibly down into the range of human audibility?



In nature this is very rare.  Things have resonant frequencies, and harmonics always appear *above* this frequency as far as I know.

In recorded and reproduced audio, it can happen. There is intermodulation distortion which will create sidebands (not really harmonics, but the same general idea) lower than the fundamentals.  There is also a type of distortion (foldover aliasing) that does this too.  It is caused by trying to play a tone that's higher than the nyquist frequency in digital audio.  Generally it doesn't happen unless something has gone extremely wrong in your system.  Like if you sample something that's 30Khz at 44.1khz, you get this problem.  This is one of the big reasons why you need filters on ADCs. 

Let's be clear these are types of distortion, and if you reproduce ultrasonics and then get these effects, it's a bad thing.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Incorrect, but see below.
> No, not without knowing what changes were made in production.
> Lets get specific rather than using massive and irrelevant generalities.  What parameters in a capacitor are no longer available?  And "the sound quality" doesn't count!  Be specific!
> That statement indicates a full lack of understanding of how a DC servo works.  I'm not going to explain it, as that's a huge tangent, but for a start: you don't apply it to an input!  No need, and no point.  So, no chance at all of "blowing up" a cart.  Works just fine, and is a very nifty way to eliminate huge caps in the audio path.
> ...



Well, in "Picking capacitors" slew reate may have been mentioned ( don't care to check it, 3 metres away in the library ) - but VERY briefly. Since it was also a thinly disguised advertisement for what later became known as Wonder Cap, there was no warning saying film caps can have VERY large differences in slew rate. From just a few (single digit ) volts per microsecond to aprox 600 ( at least back at the article publishing, but is not much different today ).

Regarding differences made in production; IF that first amp heard at friend's contained "vintage, definitely in limited supply, not to be available again- ever" caps of superiour quality, and the one bought later with whatever best available from the current production, but inferiour to vintage caps - you WOULD mind. That's why manufacturers avoid such situations at all costs - and build with whatever is currentlyproduced and likely to remain available in at least few years ahead. That means an old(er) design may well be, ultimately, superiour sounding for this very reason.

With the miniaturization and advent of SMT /SMD, unfortunately MOST of the best capacitors once used in trough hole variety have been dropped. Simply because they can not withstand the temperatures of the SMD/SMT soldering process - further made worse with the introduction of the lead-free solder ( which requires yet even higher temperature ). Only the most THERMICALLY robust varieties of film capacitors remain available in SMD form - and those are NOT the equal in quality of say polystyrene as dialectric material. And, yes, capacitors DO have different sound quality - even IF the electrical measurements, down to the last DA and whatever electrical parameter ( triboelectrics, anyone ? NO mention in "Picking Capacitors" , THE fatal flaw of teflon caps ... ) are identical. Now try to figure this one out ...

I do know how a DC servo works. And did post its use at the input as the ultimate no-no. Sooo - if your preamp input is directly coupled to a phono cartridge AND there is a catastrophic failure of preamp ( one of the rails blown, latching to whatever remains, blown input semiconductor, etc, etc ) - would you still insist on direct coupling ( best for sonics, no doubt about that ) - or would you insure yourself from blowing up an expensive cart by using ( best quality you can get ) cap ? 

No, that scenario is not stupid. Because it does SOUND better than having to insert another gain stage between the preamp input and - call it that way - driver of the "power amp". And yes, although not +-50 V rails preamp, it was close : +- 45V rails. But, I agree it is not the normal way of doing things and incompatible with most other equipment.

You are , of course, free to think this way. But I ( or anybody else ) can not convince to the contrary anybody - online. Only on the real demo floor, with real equipment of high enough quality.

Yes - because a SINGLE "20-20K" minded component in the entire audio chain, from the microphone to the whatever used as the end transducer back to sound, is enough to throw the spanner into soundstage works. Now - go to any studio - and count 'em ...

No, I do not want the whole chain to play up to 100MHz - because I am realist. It is unlikely to happen - ever, but certainly not in my lifetime. However, ANY stage that can be made large bandwidth will contribute to more accurate recording and reproduction. And I have NEVER said that < 20 Hz and > 20 kHz is more important than 20 - 20K, or even more important 100 to 10K band. Only if this core band is OK, would I try to stretch to either of the extremes. As the easiest way to start doing it is in amplifiers, I started with them.

There are microphones made specially for music that go to 100 kHz. There is any number of headphones that go - at least - to 40 kHz; and an inch or so of air can not filter the driver output before it reaches the ear in any significant way. Furthermore, that the attenuation of high frequencies in air is so severe I find hard to believe; my recordings ( never use anything that might be categorized as close miking ) do show sound clerly related to music - all the way to 55 or so kHz ( where the quantization noise of the ADC starts to keep rising ), depending on the instrument(s).  

As I type this, I am lidstening to and looking at Voxengo Span display of 192/34 transfer of yesteday's DSD128 recording ( clarinet as lead/solo, violoncello, viola, 3 violins, acoustic bass, accordeon, piano and percussion ) - from the rehearsal, where there was less noise than during the concert ( damn lights, audience was generally VERY quiet ...)  I remember a light ( reflector, something like that ) has been switched on during the 12 minute take of rehearsal - and, presto, a constant peak of 19.0 kHz at - 66dB crept in ... and I dread converting DSD to PCM and looking at what has been switched on during the second part of the concert - EVERY damn light in sight dimmed - yuck...!

However, I did not know clarinet has so much  output above 20 K - at very least to 40 kHz, during the solo clarinet passage. One learns every day... 
And the beat box used by the percussionist goes to 50 kHz on this recording - some at least 5 metres from the mike; clarinet between 2-3 metres, depending on player's position on the stage.

RIAA can be implemented in many circuit configurations - and I have only described the one as used in AGI 511. 

I agree there is no such thing as zero tolerance parts - but the best approximation, as most probably used for the AGI, is some Hewlet Packard RLC meter. OK, " measured to be exactly 123456 ohms, with the tolerance from the absolute correct value as specified by XY measurning instrument" - would that satisfy you ?  And, yes, the values of resistors in RIAA circuit are printed down to the last ohm - like 23732 ohms and NOT 24 K 1% ( or any other value/tolerance) . Caps are not - because, for those less familiar with film caps, even picking them up with anything more than feather touch can change their value - let alone re-printing them. For this reason, no desoldering and measuring the super precise ( aka close to zero tolerance ) parts from AGI 511 ( or anything else built with even approaching this quality of parts )  is NOT recommended. 

I am well aware of the cartridge/preamp interferace problems. And so was/is Mr. Spiegel - 511 works exactly as well as any other correctly designed preamp when it comes to interfacing with real world MM cartridge and its RL characteristics .

No, I did NOT confuse kHz with MHz - correct as written. However, you are right, AGI 511 overall HF limit is set by its line stage, which is approx 100 kHz. 

You are correct in stating that whatever has been used in a studio has been way off the accuracy of the RIAA precision of AGI. Then again, it is not AGI's fault to try to strive for the precision - and studio folks being satisfied with sloppiness. 

I do not know which schematics of 511 you did find online. It is NOT a single op-amp - in addition, there are ( bipolar?- would have to check it ) transistors used as feed-forward - that's where 100 MHz+ capability of the circuit is coming from, not from the slow IC op-amp.

I agree installation and grounding are paramount in any phono ptreamp. But none I am aware of can reject this much RF garbage as 511. Enough is to see the open box - plenty images online.

I disagree - there still is nothing comparable up to today. The only gripe I have with 511 is the use of that ribbon cable for all the connections - because that adds approx 80 pF of capacitance per each input, unfortunataly sometimes this is too much for some of the best MM phono cartridges - after the cabling from TT to preamp has already contributed at least 100 pF - if not more.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Well, let me ask this:  Audio 101 - can harmonics of a specific tone or combination appear on both sides of that fundamental, on the audio spectrum?
> 
> IE: A 300Hz tone might have multiple harmonics, say, at 600, 900, etc.
> 
> So, can a 40kHz tone generate harmonics BELOW its fundamental frequency, and possibly down into the range of human audibility?



Yes - it can. To be precise - THEY can. Say overtones at 41 and at 43 kHz - the difference in this case being 2 kHz - definitely audible.

And will be missing in recording>equipment that goes only to 20 kHz.


----------



## analogsurviver

Zapp_Fan said:


> In nature this is very rare.  Things have resonant frequencies, and harmonics always appear *above* this frequency as far as I know.
> 
> In recorded and reproduced audio, it can happen. There is intermodulation distortion which will create sidebands (not really harmonics, but the same general idea) lower than the fundamentals.  There is also a type of distortion (foldover aliasing) that does this too.  It is caused by trying to play a tone that's higher than the nyquist frequency in digital audio.  Generally it doesn't happen unless something has gone extremely wrong in your system.  Like if you sample something that's 30Khz at 44.1khz, you get this problem.  This is one of the big reasons why you need filters on ADCs.
> 
> Let's be clear these are types of distortion, and if you reproduce ultrasonics and then get these effects, it's a bad thing.



Here it has to be diferentiated between the natural sound > 20 kHz - AND possible IMD created by electronics itself.

The first type of NATURALLY occuring IMD is welcome - it is, after all, what we are exposed whenever in air and sound foeld, that is to say always.

The second is an enemy - and needs to be avoided. That is why competently performing electronics above 20 kHz are required in the first place.


----------



## bigshot

If there are harmonics in the audible range they'll be reproduced along with all the other frequencies in the audible range. Super audible frequencies can't be heard by human ears. They add absolutely nothing to the quality of recorded music. They are as useless to humans as teats are to a bull hog. And if super audible frequencies are present in recorded music, they can only hurt, never help. More info on that in the article in my sig, "CD Sound Is All You Need".


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> Yes - it can. To be precise - THEY can. Say overtones at 41 and at 43 kHz - the difference in this case being 2 kHz - definitely audible.
> 
> And will be missing in recording>equipment that goes only to 20 kHz.



So considering the above, could the presence/absence of that 2kHz differential tone in a given song affect the emotional/subconscious reaction to that song?  And secondly, is that why some analog fanatics claim analog superiority to digital?


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jul 26, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> So considering the above, could the presence/absence of that 2kHz differential tone in a given song affect the emotional/subconscious reaction to that song?  And secondly, is that why some analog fanatics claim analog superiority to digital?



Very doubtful.  IMD tones in free air are very different than IMD in recorded audio, because acoustic interferences are 3-dimensional and in all but the worst acoustic spaces, are very chaotic in comparison.  IMD in recorded audio can be made very obvious if you do it right (wrong), but in an acoustic space, it happens by interferences of physical waves in physical media that are all interacting with each other at once, so it's rare to hear very distinct under or over-tones that are produced by interferences between two fundamentals, let alone harmonics.  At any rate, when they occur, they are of a markedly different character than IMD that occurs in an electrical/digital signal or transducer.    

Now, if the 43-41Khz 2khz "undertone" were to occur in the acoustic space where the recording happened, you would probably not hear it even if you were there in person.  Firstly because ultrasonic frequencies tend to propagate very differently around a room, secondly because they tend to get mostly absorbed instead of bouncing around the room like lower frequencies, thirdly because the interferences producing those tones would be chaotic, transitory, and localized at very small places around the room.   Likewise, if they are there, they will be poorly captured by normal recording equipment.

Using ultrasonic audio to acoustically produce audio is a known thing, it's sometimes used to "beam" sound from one point to another in specific applications.  It does happen and can be controlled in real life.  But this is using very high amplitude ultrasonic transducers, not guitars or drums or pianos.

However, I think acoustic interferences of ultrasonics produced by real instruments in free air is among the very last things any recording engineer would ever care about, therefore there is nothing to be gained by trying to reproduce them at home.

And if the IMD happens after the recording phase, as Analogsurviver points out, it should be considered a bad thing and not something you want to reproduce at all.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

TheSonicTruth said:


> So considering the above, could the presence/absence of that 2kHz differential tone in a given song affect the emotional/subconscious reaction to that song?  And secondly, is that why some analog fanatics claim analog superiority to digital?


I love my records.Some of them even sound better than cd's(mastering issues I'm sure)If any of my cartridges where flat out to 43k i would have check with my Boston Terrier for confirmation.


----------



## castleofargh

Glmoneydawg said:


> I love my records.Some of them even sound better than cd's(mastering issues I'm sure)If any of my cartridges where flat out to 43k i would have check with my Boston Terrier for confirmation.


that's when you notice that our preconceptions influence even our experiments. as I don't care about ultrasounds, I usually don't bother with animals. well except for the Bass(fish), because somehow the name in English confused me when I started this hobby. then I learned that the line thingy they have on the sides detect vibrations and are most effective in the low frequencies up to about 100hz(it's fun cause it's true). so from that time I always controlled the low end of my gears with a Bass int the freezer.


----------



## bigshot

Zapp_Fan said:


> Using ultrasonic audio to acoustically produce audio is a known thing, it's sometimes used to "beam" sound from one point to another in specific applications.



I remember a Gilligan's Island episode where they could hear [/SIZE]radio transmissions using the fillings of his teeth.


----------



## pinnahertz (Jul 27, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Well, in "Picking capacitors" slew reate may have been mentioned ( don't care to check it, 3 metres away in the library ) - but VERY briefly. Since it was also a thinly disguised advertisement for what later became known as Wonder Cap, there was no warning saying film caps can have VERY large differences in slew rate. From just a few (single digit ) volts per microsecond to aprox 600 ( at least back at the article publishing, but is not much different today ).


What's clear about this is that you don't understand what slew rate is, and why a capacitor of any reasonable quality cannot limit it.  But go ahead, cite a reference about a coupling cap limiting slew rate.  I will not be holding my breath.

I cannot have a technical discussion with you when you refuse to be specific.  You've been asked for specifics, that means capacitance value, dielectric type, voltage rating, DA, DF, ESR, the whole lot.  Nothing!  There's no point in continuing this.


analogsurviver said:


> Regarding differences made in production; IF that first amp heard at friend's contained "vintage, definitely in limited supply, not to be available again- ever" caps of superiour quality, and the one bought later with whatever best available from the current production, but inferiour to vintage caps - you WOULD mind. That's why manufacturers avoid such situations at all costs - and build with whatever is currentlyproduced and likely to remain available in at least few years ahead. That means an old(er) design may well be, ultimately, superiour sounding for this very reason.


You have not stated clearly why vintage caps are better, only that you don't like the new ones. And, I expressly stated that "sounding better" doesn't count!


analogsurviver said:


> With the miniaturization and advent of SMT /SMD, unfortunately MOST of the best capacitors once used in trough hole variety have been dropped. Simply because they can not withstand the temperatures of the SMD/SMT soldering process - further made worse with the introduction of the lead-free solder ( which requires yet even higher temperature ). Only the most THERMICALLY robust varieties of film capacitors remain available in SMD form - and those are NOT the equal in quality of say polystyrene as dialectric material. And, yes, capacitors DO have different sound quality - even IF the electrical measurements, down to the last DA and whatever electrical parameter ( triboelectrics, anyone ? NO mention in "Picking Capacitors" , THE fatal flaw of teflon caps ... ) are identical.


That's your opinion, and we all get that.  But you have not supplied any proof at all!
When you say "capacitors DO have different sound quality - even IF the electrical measurements...are identical." what you're saying is that even if there is no difference in the resulting wave form parameters, time, energy, frequency (spectrum), there is an audible difference.  And that the cause of that difference cannot be measured either!  That's where we part ways.  That's impossible, and I challenge you to prove it against all electrical and scientific data in opposition.


analogsurviver said:


> Now try to figure this one out ...
> 
> I do know how a DC servo works. And did post its use at the input as the ultimate no-no.


No, you don't, because a DC servo isn't applied to the input!


analogsurviver said:


> Sooo - if your preamp input is directly coupled to a phono cartridge AND there is a catastrophic failure of preamp ( one of the rails blown, latching to whatever remains, blown input semiconductor, etc, etc ) - would you still insist on direct coupling ( best for sonics, no doubt about that ) - or would you insure yourself from blowing up an expensive cart by using ( best quality you can get ) cap ?


No, you have no idea how a DC servo works or you wouldn't be making the above statement.  It's absolutely NOT a risk to the input device!


analogsurviver said:


> No, that scenario is not stupid. Because it does SOUND better than having to insert another gain stage between the preamp input and - call it that way - driver of the "power amp". And yes, although not +-50 V rails preamp, it was close : +- 45V rails. But, I agree it is not the normal way of doing things and incompatible with most other equipment.
> 
> You are , of course, free to think this way. But I ( or anybody else ) can not convince to the contrary anybody - online. Only on the real demo floor, with real equipment of high enough quality.


But your opinions defy science and electronics in specific.  You've fallen back to the old audiophile crutch once again: "You have to hear it on equipment of high enough quality".  Anyone who disagrees doesn't have equipment of high enough quality.  Do you not see how ridiculous that makes you look?


analogsurviver said:


> Yes - because a SINGLE "20-20K" minded component in the entire audio chain, from the microphone to the whatever used as the end transducer back to sound, is enough to throw the spanner into soundstage works. Now - go to any studio - and count 'em ...


 You can claim "soundstage" all you like, but it remains undefined, and not clear.  We simply cannot use that term in a real scientific discussion because it has no definition.


analogsurviver said:


> No, I do not want the whole chain to play up to 100MHz - because I am realist. It is unlikely to happen - ever, but certainly not in my lifetime. However, ANY stage that can be made large bandwidth will contribute to more accurate recording and reproduction. And I have NEVER said that < 20 Hz and > 20 kHz is more important than 20 - 20K, or even more important 100 to 10K band. Only if this core band is OK, would I try to stretch to either of the extremes. As the easiest way to start doing it is in amplifiers, I started with them.


Once again, we're into the absurd.  So we have a chain limited to 20-20kHz.  And now you claim that one  device that is say 10-100kHz improves everything?  What's it improving if there's nothing there in the first place?  Take this example: a full bandwidth audio system (any definition, even yours) has a 3kHz low pass filter inserted in it, which is clearly audible to everyone.  Now, you insert, anywhere, an amplifier with flat response to 100kHz, or heck, 1mHz.  With your warped logic, that causes an audible improvement.  How?  Does it somehow undo the 3kHz LPF? This is simply idiotic.


analogsurviver said:


> There are microphones made specially for music that go to 100 kHz.


And they are impractical for most applications.  It doesn't matter, nobody's using them. You've again focussed on the rare example, citing it as typical.  It's not.


analogsurviver said:


> As I type this, I am lidstening to...


Nobody cares what you're listening to.  Know why? Because you don't share it!  It is, therefore, a lie and a myth. 


analogsurviver said:


> However, I did not know clarinet has so much  output above 20 K - at very least to 40 kHz, during the solo clarinet passage. One learns every day...
> And the beat box used by the percussionist goes to 50 kHz on this recording - some at least 5 metres from the mike; clarinet between 2-3 metres, depending on player's position on the stage.


Again, if you're going to talk about energy without talking about it's intensity and level, you're not working with reality.  The statements above are meaningless.


analogsurviver said:


> I agree there is no such thing as zero tolerance parts -


But that's exactly what you called them!  It can't be both!


analogsurviver said:


> but the best approximation, as most probably used for the AGI, is some Hewlet Packard RLC meter. OK, " measured to be exactly 123456 ohms, with the tolerance from the absolute correct value as specified by XY measurning instrument" - would that satisfy you ?


No!  That's not how things are designed, especially if put into production.


analogsurviver said:


> And, yes, the values of resistors in RIAA circuit are printed down to the last ohm - like 23732 ohms and NOT 24 K 1% ( or any other value/tolerance) . Caps are not - because, for those less familiar with film caps, even picking them up with anything more than feather touch can change their value - let alone re-printing them. For this reason, no desoldering and measuring the super precise ( aka close to zero tolerance ) parts from AGI 511 ( or anything else built with even approaching this quality of parts )  is NOT recommended.


Wrong!  I've measured literally thousands of capacitors, all types and values.  Not one has ever changed value by being picked up!  Not one, unless it was defective.


analogsurviver said:


> No, I did NOT confuse kHz with MHz - correct as written. However, you are right, AGI 511 overall HF limit is set by its line stage, which is approx 100 kHz.


Then you were dead wrong by stating there were no RF signals below 90mHz.  There are many, and some of the strongest you'll ever encounter.  I cited exapmles.


analogsurviver said:


> You are correct in stating that whatever has been used in a studio has been way off the accuracy of the RIAA precision of AGI. Then again, it is not AGI's fault to try to strive for the precision - and studio folks being satisfied with sloppiness.


The attempt at that kind of precision is pointless when the rest of the system is at +/- 1dB or worse.  Actually, far worse.  There's simply no point at all.


analogsurviver said:


> I do not know which schematics of 511 you did find online. It is NOT a single op-amp - in addition, there are ( bipolar?- would have to check it ) transistors used as feed-forward - that's where 100 MHz+ capability of the circuit is coming from, not from the slow IC op-amp.


*Here are the 511 schematics on line.*  You'll need a free account to download it. If you have other information POST IT!


analogsurviver said:


> I agree installation and grounding are paramount in any phono ptreamp. But none I am aware of can reject this much RF garbage as 511. Enough is to see the open box - plenty images online.


I've seen the pictures, it's nothing compared to the construction of audio equipment designed for use in the kind of RF fields encountered at broadcast facilities.  


analogsurviver said:


> I disagree - there still is nothing comparable up to today.


I cited two examples of equipment from that era, direct competitors, that had comparable performance.  The only difference is, they succeeded in the marketplace, and the 511 did not.


analogsurviver said:


> The only gripe I have with 511 is the use of that ribbon cable for all the connections - because that adds approx 80 pF of capacitance per each input, unfortunataly sometimes this is too much for some of the best MM phono cartridges - after the cabling from TT to preamp has already contributed at least 100 pF - if not more.


You're obsessing about preamp capacitive load when you should be concerned with the composite frequency response of the cartridge, tone arm, interconnecting cable, and preamp.   Nothing will ever come close to your claimed RIAA accuracy of the 511, and it won't be a problem with C loading.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Yes - it can. To be precise - THEY can. Say overtones at 41 and at 43 kHz - the difference in this case being 2 kHz - definitely audible.


No!  If the system is linear the combination if any two frequencies will not intermodulate and produce other products.   It takes at least some nonlinear response to cause intermodulation, and it is the degree of that nonlinearity that produces a degree of intermodulation.  Mostly, IMD in todays analog gear is a non-issue in anything other than a dynamics processor.


analogsurviver said:


> And will be missing in recording>equipment that goes only to 20 kHz.


No, it won't, if that equipment is nonlinear at the frequencies involved.  You'd be surprised how many digital devices intermodulate signals near and above 20kHz.  The good ones don't, of course.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Jul 27, 2018)

I'm not sure you can use science in order to explain anything to people who have already made up their minds about these matters. This thread surely is proof of that. Then again I have yet to see anyone's mind being changed over the internet, regardless of logic and fact dropping. People stick to their guns - especially when they've put a lot of money into the shooters.
I do however highly applaud the vehement attempts at pulling this thread back down to earth with knowledge that seems to stem from folks who've been working with electronics in real life ever since Nam. Maybe it's just me but I tend to trust the professionals over the laymen. Similarly I wouldn't want to call a holistic tunnel cleanser if my toilet decides to snuff it.

A little update with regards to my newly aqcuired headphone: it sounds wonderful out of my little Cowon dap and maybe just a tad better out of my myryad z40 amp but I couldn't say for sure.
The supposed power requirement of this headphone among most audiophiles seems warped imho.


----------



## Yuurei

bigshot said:


> If there are harmonics in the audible range they'll be reproduced along with all the other frequencies in the audible range. Super audible frequencies can't be heard by human ears.



One of my friends thinks that there are harmonics that are not audible, but they make you feel that music indeed sounds better and he is dead serious about it. Apparently it only happens on high-end equipment. Or very expensive, I'm not sure


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Jul 27, 2018)

I have to admit that I too have used the word soundstage in order to communicate x can to x dude. Nowadays I think it has more to do with a spike in the higher frequencies that generates 'space' in music. Couple that together with something large and very open around your ears and it feels like the stage got much bigger...which it did in effect but not in an unobtanium-like manner.

Edited for blabber.


----------



## pinnahertz

TheSonicTruth said:


> So considering the above, could the presence/absence of that 2kHz differential tone in a given song affect the emotional/subconscious reaction to that song?


Unlikely as there is a lot of actual content around 2kHz that would mask all but the most severe intermod products.


TheSonicTruth said:


> And secondly, is that why some analog fanatics claim analog superiority to digital?


There is some validity to this, but not specifically for intermodulation of ultrasonic frequencies, and not as a means to define analog preference specifically.  Rather, there is evidence that frequencies in the top octave, from 10kHz to 20kHz, can, in some devices, intermodulate to create products in the upper mid band.  Research into this was conducted by Deane Jensen and Gary Sokolich in their AES paper, "Spectral Contamination Measurement", Nov. 1988.  They found they could generate a test signal comprised of many closely-spaced tones (120Hz apart, 10kHz -25kHz was one example), and with careful analysis, detect intermodulation products.  However, attributing this condition to band-limited systems is not conclusive, especially today.  What is important to note is that the paper makes no correlation between the degree of spectral contamination and audibility.  Also, there was no correlation between types of technology (tubes vs SS, analog vs digital).  A tube amp tested far worse than a SS amp, an analog tape recorder tested far worse than a digital recorder, etc.

So the answer is, possibly under certain conditions, but more study is needed.


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> Yes - it can. To be precise - THEY can. Say overtones at 41 and at 43 kHz - the difference in this case being 2 kHz - definitely audible.
> 
> And will be missing in recording>equipment that goes only to 20 kHz.



Why not have those 2 kHz frequencies in the original recording? Why put instead 41 and at 43 kHz signals and have your non-linear ( = crappy) reproduction gear generate those 2 kHz signals for you? The human hearing range is 20 Hz - 20 kHz. Put_ whatever* _you want inside that frequency range and have as linear as possible reproduction chain to deliver that without arbitrary uncontrolled distortions.

* You can even have an 192 kHz recording with 41 and 43 kHz frequences, filter ultrasonic 20 kHz content and feed it to the IMD module (hardware or software) and mix all the < 20 kHz distortion products to the lowpass filtered content you put on a CD. Then you have that audible IMD garbage on your 16/44.1 audio format if you want it there for some reason. And it's controlled when payback is done with an audibly transparent system.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 27, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> [1] Place in series as many "20-20k" minded components as required in a typical studio workflow - and it is a miracle in itself whatt little of soundstage that does come trough - at all.
> [1a] However, I did not know clarinet has so much output above 20 K - at very least to 40 kHz, during the solo clarinet passage. [1b] One learns every day...
> [2] presto, a constant peak of 19.0 kHz at - 66dB crept in ... and I dread converting DSD to PCM and looking at what has been switched on during the second part of the concert - EVERY damn light in sight dimmed - yuck...!
> [2b] Yes - it can. To be precise - THEY can. Say overtones at 41 and at 43 kHz - the difference in this case being 2 kHz - definitely audible. .. [2c] And will be missing in recording>equipment that goes only to 20 kHz.



1. There's very little soundstage above 12kHz and virtually none at all by about 16kHz. Which is why it doesn't really matter that analogue distribution media is so inaccurate above 16kHz and why 44.1kHz digital, which is flat to 20kHz, is more than enough. What's really a "miracle" is that you proclaim yourself a recording engineer with many years of experience but not only haven't you discovered this simple fact, you somehow seem to have convinced yourself of the complete opposite of the actual facts. However, maybe your "miracle" of misunderstanding and undiscovered facts is believable, in light of your next quoted statement ...
1a. You're joking right? If you are an experienced recording engineer, how could you NOT know this? Most acoustic instruments have significant output above 20kHz! All orchestral woodwind instruments (flutes, clarinets, oboes and bassoons) have metal key mechanisms which produce clearly audible noise (when listened to or mic'ed closely) and that mechanical noise has a spectra well into the ultrasonic range. In addition to mechanical noise there is also reed buzzing and breath sounds (particularly in the case of the flute) which extend will into the ultrasonic range. With many string instruments we can also have some mechanical noise but also commonly fret noise (a particular problem with acoustic guitars for example), which again extends well into the ultrasonic range. Even the human voice produces a lot of ultrasonic content, breath sounds and lip smacks for example. How is it possible not to know these basic facts even with minimal student level recording experience, let alone the many years of profession experience you claim? It's a "miracle"!
[1b] Indeed and at your rate, you should have a decent understanding of all the basic/obvious facts in a couple of centuries or so!

2. Why do you have to convert DSD to PCM and "look" to see what has been switched on? Why don't you just play the DSD as is and listen? And, I've never seen a light/dimmer produce just a single peak, they always produce a harmonic series (mostly odd harmonics). Obviously you didn't notice that because you can't hear those harmonics either.
2a. Hang on, what sort of alien are you? You can (presumably) hear roughly the normal human range but you can't hear 19kHz and 41kHz and 43kHz are "definitely audible". AFAIK, there's no creature on this planet which has a hearing response like that, ergo you must be an alien!
2b. If, on the other hand, you are saying that the 2kHz signal has already been produced as a by-product of IMD, then why would equipment capable of recording up to 20kHz not be able to record this 2kHz signal?

So, either you're an alien (with a bizarre hearing response) OR you're taking the ludicrous position that a 20kHz system cannot record a 2kHz signal. I suppose it's possible that you're both an alien AND completely ignorant of recording/audio but my money is firmly on just the latter!!



analogsurviver said:


> The first type of NATURALLY occuring IMD is welcome - it is, after all, what we are exposed whenever in air and sound foeld, that is to say always. ...[1] The second is an enemy - and needs to be avoided. [1a] That is why competently performing electronics above 20 kHz are required in the first place.
> [2] In case you have not moticed by now, I am trying to balance everything into something that , in the end, sounds better.



1. That will come as a bit of a shock to those who like rock music but OK if you insist, no electric guitars, vintage cabs, compressors or other unnatural occurring IMD.
1a. Hang on. If all that unnatural IMD "needs to be avoided" and recording systems which only go to 20kHz can't record that audible unnatural IMD, then that would be a great reason for using a 20kHz system "in the first place". You are contradicting yourself!

2. How is it even possible for anyone to have noticed that? "In the end" you've not only demonstrated little/no idea of what sound is but actually evidenced that you think horrendously bad sound (a soundstage which jumps all over the place) is a superb example of "good" sound. The ONLY thing that's really noticeable from your posts is that you're trying to "balance" ignorance, fantasy and delusion, and you're achieving that by ignoring the actual facts and making up complete nonsense! What's really surprising is the sheer number of times your false statements have been shown to be made-up nonsense but rather than recognise how foolish that makes you appear, your response is just to make-up another whole load of nonsense. A vicious circle of ever more foolishness, ad infinitum ... eventually passing the point (long ago) of a level of foolishness that's not even credible/imaginable. It's literally "incredible", a true miracle!!!

G


----------



## analogsurviver (Jul 27, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> What's clear about this is that you don't understand what slew rate is, and why a capacitor of any reasonable quality cannot limit it.  But go ahead, cite a reference about a coupling cap limiting slew rate.  I will not be holding my breath.
> 
> I cannot have a technical discussion with you when you refuse to be specific.  You've been asked for specifics, that means capacitance value, dielectric type, voltage rating, DA, DF, ESR, the whole lot.  Nothing!  There's no point in continuing this.
> You have not stated clearly why vintage caps are better, only that you don't like the new ones. And, I expressly stated that "sounding better" doesn't count!
> ...



I will return to answer the rest later - but only the most critical answer right now.

Damn... are you living on this planet ?

If you EVER - repeat - EVER - measured a truly decent MM phono cartridge, you would have known exactly WHY I am "obsessing" about the preamp capacitive load. Cartridge does not give a damn where the capacitive load does come from - all it can see is the capacitance COMBINED - from each and every part of the signal path, from cartridge connecting clips to the actual input electrical active element on the circuit board ( or hard wired in better tube equipment ).

Now, do tell me WHY do ALL manufacturers of truly decent high ( normal ) output MM carts ( sensitivity around 1mV/cm/sec ) dabble with capacitive load ( usually specified as 100-200 pF ) ? To ease off this nasty hook the manufacturers of preamps, perhaps ? Themselves producing preamps with more input C than healthy for their own carts ?

If you ever did work with any of those, you would have known that they react badly with anything above 100 pF or so - throwing away practically everything fought so hard and gained at such a great co$t as compared to their mechanically much more robust/much less costly siblings of the very same principle of operation - because of those damn additional 100 or so pF in the phono preamp ? If it is only an additional capacitor across the input and can be removed, OK - if that capacitor is imbedded into the circuit as in cable used by AGI, you can not do anything about it.  I can beat the otherwise superb 511 for application necessitating as low capacitance input as possible for top flight high output MM cartridges with this : https://www.phonopreamps.com/tc750pp.html   All it takes is desoldering the 220pF caps at the input ... - and a decent cabling/grounding from TT to preamp. The resulting response WILL be better - incomparably so - despite TCC-750 having far inferiour RIAA tolerance compared to AGI. TCC-750 can be upgraded for both quality and tolerance of the parts, as well as power supply ... and then it is hard to beat, even with carts that do require higher capacitive loading, which can be always easily added with a Y RCA connector and required capacitance  (or resistance) soldered into a RCA male plug - no additional soldering required.

It is easy to add additional capacitance, if required - as well lowering the resistive load, both by parallel connection of either cap and/or resistor. The other way around is impossible. So, it is always sound to have the resistive load higher than nominal 47 kohm ( at which VERY FEW real world cardridges perform at their best anyway) and as low capacitance as possible - you can always  add both caps and resistors in parallel to the input, as required by the cartridge in question. There were/are commercially available preamps done just like that - because MM cartridge loading is more important than RIAA accuracy - the error(s) in loading have FAR greater effect than say half a dB error in RIAA response AT THE EXTREMEs - but not in the midrange and around the poles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization, where errors as low as 0.1dB can be audible.


----------



## MacacoDoSom (Jul 27, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Hey MacacaoDoSom, can you tell me where you got this track? It's pretty astounding. What does it sound like when you play it? I'm guessing there's some pretty hefty distortion going on when you pump those kinds of ultrasonics through a consumer amp!


Hi... 99% of the 192kHz and 96kHz files from (supposedly HD) recordings (and I got a lot) are like this, you just have to check it.... it's astounding... I really don't notice any distortion, but I always convert them to 44.1/24 and then to mp3 to listen in the car or in my portable player.... so...
You can check it with foobar and Voxengo SPAN a free VST plugin...


----------



## KeithEmo

I've always wondered that myself (although the obvious answer is "licensing issues").

If so many people like the sound of a certain vinyl album, played on a certain $28,000 turntable, using a certain $9200 cartridge...
And they don't like the sound of the digital recording because "it's too analytical" (or some other words that translate to "doesn't add any of the colorations they like")...
Then someone should start a service where you send them your favorite record, they play it on that $10k cartridge and that $30k turntable, then make a high quality 24/192k digital recording of it that accurately reproduces all of that lovely coloration.
You can then distribute as many identical copies as you like and, if you play any of them on a reasonably good DAC, you will get back the complete $40k experience; they won't wear out or deteriorate like vinyl... and you can make as many perfect copies as you need or want. 
(Just for the record, let's not even argue about whether you _NEED_ to use 24/192k; if you do, then your recording will have everything up to 96k, so nobody can argue that any ultrasonics the cartridge produced will be missing - whether they're audible or not.)

Recording studios often offer a selection of vintage microphones because some performers and some engineers simply like the sound of a particular classic model...
Your service could offer a choice of ten different "high end turntable/cartridge/preamp combinations".... for those who have a particular favorite.

It could be like wine....
"Here I have a copy of the 1973 MoFi pressing of Dark Side of the Moon, recorded on a Thorens TD-124, using a Shure V15-III, and the phono preamp from a Marantz 2270......"    
Or whatever you happen to like.



bigshot said:


> Who cares about LPs? The format is demonstrably inferior to digital in every aspect except for the size of album covers and selection of titles at swap meets. I have tens of thousands of records myself, but I swear all this torrent of words on the subject bores me stiff. Please create a thread just for discussion of LPs and you can talk to yourself like this all day long without derailing this thread.
> 
> Castle, is it within your power to move off topic posts? If so, we could create a special thread for this topic and you could just move them into that thread when they inevitably pop up like weeds.





71 dB said:


> Some people like the distortions caused by vinyl's inferiority to digital audio. Since they don't understand digital and analog audio well, they assume vinyl must be superior because they like it more. The vinyl distortions should on the master if people love them, just as music production uses all kind of effects that people like. Why have the media produce the final steps in your product? Makes now sense, because that way the final step is not controlled. People have different TTs with different distortions etc.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I've always wondered that myself (although the obvious answer is "licensing issues").
> 
> If so many people like the sound of a certain vinyl album, played on a certain $28,000 turntable, using a certain $9200 cartridge...
> And they don't like the sound of the digital recording because "it's too analytical" (or some other words that translate to "doesn't add any of the colorations they like")...
> ...




THAT made me laugh... because it has to be done, IF we want noncopressed audio that slowly but securely overrun the CD releases. A good digital copy of THE original vinyl issue would make mincemeat from the "master of master of remaster remastered by etc on CD ) : 

Although the choice of the analog equipment in the last "vine" paragraph is a bit ... - put it politely, dated , it is the 192/24 PCM that leaves me puzzled - it is NOT enough. 

Unless you know one ADC/DAC that is actually flat to 96 kHz "CD 20k style" ( say 88 kHz +- < 0.5 dB ) and the quantization noise above that frequency does no exceed say -100 dBFS, up to whatever frequency there is any output from DAC.

You should "update" the prices for "certain" analogue gear with which you want to impress ( or mock ... ) - we've reached a NEW "standard" in "presenting" price tag :

( brace yourselves, make sure you are sitting on some FIRM ground ) - here it comes :

" This TT ( including two arms and two cartridges...) costs .... Thousand Thousands ... ( and NOT in $ , but in Euros ... )

I do NOT endorse such pricing - just to bring you up to "speed" ...


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] So considering the above, could the presence/absence of that 2kHz differential tone in a given song affect the emotional/subconscious reaction to that song? And secondly, is that why some analog fanatics claim analog superiority to digital?



I'd like to expand what pinnahertz stated and look at the issue more from a music recording/production angle:

1. In the case of a 2kHz differential tone between 41 and 43kHz, no, that's extremely unlikely. The amplitude of 2kHz tone will be related to the amplitude of the 41 and 43kHz tones, which is almost certainly going to be very low and therefore the 2kHz tone will almost certainly be masked. However, contrary to analogsurvivor's erroneous statement, IMD is sometimes highly desirable. An electric guitar often contains and partially relies on IMD, the same is true of many vintage music compressors (and limiters) and of many synths/soft synths for example. Even though it's an artificially high level of IMD, you may not be consciously aware of it but if you could compare the sound produced with IMD and without, you could/would notice the difference. If you ponder all this for a bit, you might notice a couple of points, one of them a potential flaw:

A. In the case of say an electric guitar, we're getting overdrive, IMD and break-up distortion from both the guitar's amp and it's cab (all of which is desirable). Depending on the sound setting the guitarist has chosen, there will be some ultrasonics and some IMD (differential tone) products in the audible range. While we can't record those ultrasonics (assuming 44.1kS/s recording) we can of course record the IMD products in the audible range by putting a mic in front of the cab (after the IMD products have been created). But, this leads us to a potential flaw:

B. What happens with say a soft synth or modelled compressor, guitar amp/cab plugin used inside a DAW (running at 44.1kS/s). If for example our vintage compressor is producing a 4kHz differential IMD tone from say a 23kHz and 27kHz signal, how can we model that compressor and achieve that 4kHz IMD product if the 23kHz and 27kHz signals are illegal (non-existent) with a 44.1kS/s sample rate? The answer is, we can't! This is one of the reasons why the vast majority of music was mixed and mastered in the analogue domain, even into the turn of the millennium. Even beyond that time it was common, particularly during mastering, to come out of the digital domain, into an analogue compressor (or compressors) and then back into the digital domain again. Another solution, the only solution in the case of many soft synths and modelling plugins, was to record and run the DAW at a higher sample rate, thereby providing the audio frequency bandwidth for the ultrasonic tones and allowing the desired IMD products in the audible range to be generated. Many of these types of plugins at the time appeared to be programmed to operate best at 96kS/s. After mix down, the file could then be converted from 96kS/s to 44.1kS/s, obviously still containing the audible range IMD products. Running the whole recording/mix at 96kS/s was therefore often audibly different (and better) than running it at 44.1kS/s and therefore most commercial engineers (myself included) ran our sessions at 96kHz. Incidentally, all this is at least partly responsible for the myth that higher sample rates sounded better, because for a period and under certain circumstances it wasn't a myth, it was fairly easily detectable (with double blind testing, which I did a lot of at the time, specifically to determine which processors absolutely required a higher sample rate). However, that period only lasted for a relatively few number of years. The sophistication of plugin processors increased, along with the amount of computing power required to run them and by about a dozen years or so ago we could run our sessions at 44.1kS/s and those plugins which required a higher audio bandwidth for non-linear operations (IE. IMD), could simply oversample internally, do their processing (IE. Create their audible range IMD products), then downsample and pass the result (including those IMD products) back to the DAW at 44.1kS/s. 

2. Not likely. Again from a music production point of view: If we want consumers to hear an IMD product (say the 4kHz example above), then we'd get our 23kHz and 27kHz signal, produce the audible range IMD product ourselves and incorporate that into the recording/mix/master. We wouldn't just put the 23kHz and 27kHz signals in the recording and hope that the consumers' own equipment will generate the desrired IMD. The production of IMD is too unpredictable, there can be a lot of variables at play in different amps and transducers; some reproduction equipment might produce a lot of it, other equipment much less and some equipment might not produce any at all. It's well accepted (outside of the analogue audiophile world of course) that the reason for the claim of analogue superiority is one or a combination of factors, for example; euphonic distortion (even order harmonic distortion) often caused by tubes, HF distortion/inaccuracy/roll-off, resonance/emphasis of the low mid-freqs and probably a healthy dose of placebo in some/many cases. I have no hard evidence to conclusively rule out IMD as a contributing factor but I'd personally require a fair bit of convincing that it's generally a significant factor in the claim/belief.



analogsurviver said:


> Damn... are you living on this planet ?



With reference to my last response to you, it's unclear which planet you're referring to? Are you talking about the Earth or your home planet? 

G


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> ...let's not even argue about whether you _NEED_ to use 24/192k; if you do, then your recording will have everything up to 96k, so nobody can argue that any ultrasonics the cartridge produced will be missing ...



You walked right into that one!!

As you've already seen, you really to qualify "nobody" when analogsurvivor is about. Instead of "nobody", try "no human being" or "no rational person", it still won't stop him but at least you'd have a simple and obvious response! 

G


----------



## KeithEmo

It's a Friday morning... so I figured I'd throw a little science and history out there.
(If you want to confirm any of this, please consult your favorite electrical engineering text or collection of historical articles.)

High-speed Op Amps and why we need them...

_ALL_ op amps operate as a feedback controlled amplifier. 
There are many types of amplifiers, some of which don't use feedback, however, _BY DEFINITION_ "operational amplifiers" use feedback.
At the simplest level a theoretical op amp has infinite open loop gain... and you set the gain in your circuit by using a pair of resistors to set the actual gain.
The gain for an inverting op amp circuit is defined as Rfb / Rin (so, if you make Rin = 10k and Rfb = 100k then your gain = 10).
(If you want to know why it works this way - you can find it explained in several different ways in many textbooks.)
The math is a bit messier for non-inverting op amps but the idea is the same.

_NOW_, this mechanism all works based on the idea that the output of the op amp is exactly out of phase with the input (180 degrees out of phase).
(It works by comparing some multiple of the output to some multiple of the input and making the difference zero.)
If the output were to start approaching being in phase rather than out of phase your amplifier becomes an oscillator (aka positive feedback).
As it turns out, virtually all amplifiers suffer from phase shift that is proportional to frequency.
This means that, as we input higher and higher frequencies, the phase shift in our real world op amp gradually increases. 
And, at some point, the output is no longer really out of phase with the input - at which point the whole thing becomes unstable - and becomes a giant oscillator.
That would be very bad.
To prevent this from happening, virtually all op amps are designed so that their gain decreases with frequency... in fact, it decreases proportionally with frequency.
So, instead of that theoretical infinite gain, they have a very high gain at DC, and the gain decreases as the frequency goes up.

Those huge megahertz rating you see on op amps are NOT "frequency response" - they are "gain bandwidth" - which really is the product of gain and bandwidth.
So, for example, the LF357 has a GAIN BANDWIDTH of 20 mHz.
This means that, at 1 Hz, it has a gain of 20,000,000 (it does top out so you can probably figure that for its DC gain).
And, at 1 kHz it has a gain of 20,000.
And, at 10 kHz it has a gain of 2,000.
Notice where this is going.

Now, remember that our op amp WORKS by comparing the output to the input, and using feedback to "make them the same" (you get gain by altering the ratios)
Also remember that the theoretical gain on an op amp is supposed to be infinity.
But notice that our REAL WORLD gains are not only "high but not infinity" - but they decrease with increasing frequency.
The catch is that the ability of the op amp to deliver a perfectly distortionless signal depends on its ability to compare those two signals precisely.
The bottom line here is that, if the actual gain of the op amp was infinity, then its distortion would be 0%.
However, the further it varies from that theoretical perfect infinite gain, the more distortion it will actually have.
(Remember that the gain of real world op amps decreases with frequency - so it gets further from the theoretical value we'd like... infinity.)

I'm not going to go into the deeper theory here.....
However, the way it works out is that, at any given frequency, you have the inherent gain of the op amp (calculated from the gain bandwidth)...
In this context that counts as "open loop gain"...
And you have the gain you've chosen for your circuit (chosen by the ratio of two resistors)...
And the amount of distortion your circuit will produce is determined by the _DIFFERENCE_ between the available open loop gain and the gain you're using (as a ratio).
Some folks use a term like "gain margin" for this.
(The op amp itself actually has massive distortion... and, yes, it is different for different ones... but most of it is cancelled out.)

So, to use our examples above, our LF357 has an open loop gain of 2000 at 10 kHz.
If, in our phono preamp, we set the gain at 10 kHz to be 100, then we have a ratio between the open loop gain and the actual gain, at 10 kHz, of 20:1.
That "excess gain" is "used" by the feedback - to reduce distortion.
(And this ratio is multiplied with the internal distortion of the op amp to tell us the actual amount of distortion we'll get.)
So, without going into why it happens, if we used a better op amp, with a gain bandwidth of 40,000,000, our open loop gain at 10 kHz would then be 4,000 instead of 2,000.
Since our closed loop gain is set by our circuit design, it would still be 100.
And, since we've doubled the amount of "excess gain at 10 kHz", the distortion of the circuit at 10 kHz will be lower.

If you look at how the numbers go together you'll see why it's important to use op amps with a high gain bandwidth in phono preamps.
(Because they ARE using very high amounts of gain... even at relatively high frequencies... and we always want plenty of gain margin.)

Slewing Induced Distortion and Phono Preamps

If you look at a typical phono preamp circuit, you will find that the RIAA frequency compensation is usually handled in the feedback network.
The feedback resistor is replaced with a network of resistors and capacitors which serves to make the gain frequency dependent.
And the values are chosen so that the behavior fits the required RIAA curve.

The big brouhaha with many older phono preamps was this....
Many op amps, especially older ones, have a very limited output current drive capability - often 10 mA or 20 mA.
In an inverting op amp circuit, the feedback circuit "looks like" a load to ground to the output of the op amp.
What would happen was that the designer would calculate proper values for a series of resistors and capacitors in the feedback network to do the proper RIAA EQ.
HOWEVER, it would turn out that the capacitance of this network was such that, at high signal levels and high frequencies, the op amp was unable to deliver the required current.
(Because the amount of current a capacitor load to ground draws is proportional to both voltage and frequency.)
As a result, specifically when asked to amplify high level high frequency signals, the amplifier would enter current limiting - and distort.
(The output current is limited - and high level high frequency sine waves become more like triangle waves.)
It turned out that many designers had failed to take this into account.
The solution - at the time - was to add a "current booster" to the output of the op amp feeding the feedback loop.
(If you look at the schematic of "classic designs", like the one in the Advent receiver, it has a high current output driver added between the op amp and the feedback loop).

HOWEVER, this has nothing to do with "the slew rate of the capacitor".
What is happening is that the combination of that particular capacitor VALUE and that op amp, in that particular circuit, has become slew limited.
(Which is simply engineering speak for "the op amp can't put out enough current to charge the capacitor fast enough to keep up with high level high frequency signals".)
This situation is easy to avoid, in several different ways, once you are aware of the need to do so (and any competent phono preamp designer should know enough to do so).

The important thing for you to take away from this is that there's nothing "inherently bad" with that sort of circuit - as long as it is designed properly.
(Unfortunately, that particular design error produced a particular type of distortion that sounded bad, but failed to show up on simple distortion measurements.
Because of that, it was "a bit of a puzzle" until it was figured out. It's pretty well known nowadays - which is why you rarely see it mentioned much any more.)
Every type of circuit has benefits and drawbacks... most of them are quite capable of delivering bad performance if not designed correctly... and this is no exception.
Other types of circuits, for example those that use passive equalization, avoid the possibility of this particular issue, but entail other compromises.


----------



## KeithEmo

I deliberately chose a "mid-priced turntable"....
As far as I know the current most expensive turntable lists for around $140k (although that could have changed).

Personally I'm inclined to believe that response to 50 kHz is a pretty good safety margin for anything we're likely to hear...
However, at the prices we're talking, I see no reason not to provide the file in whatever format, and recorded on whatever digital equipment, the customer prefers.



analogsurviver said:


> THAT made me laugh... because it has to be done, IF we want noncopressed audio that slowly but securely overrun the CD releases. A good digital copy of THE original vinyl issue would make mincemeat from the "master of master of remaster remastered by etc on CD ) :
> 
> Although the choice of the analog equipment in the last "vine" paragraph is a bit ... - put it politely, dated , it is the 192/24 PCM that leaves me puzzled - it is NOT enough.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

You are quite correct that the capacitive load is very important for many moving magnet cartridges.

Moving magnet cartridges all have a relatively high output impedance, and a significant amount of both inductance and resistance.
They also almost certainly have some amount of internal capacitance (possibly between the coils, or between each coil and ground, or who knows.)
As a result, there are several interactions between the cartridge itself and the load.
These probably include a high frequency roll off because of the interaction between the load capacitance and the inductance of the cartridge.
There is also probably one or more resonance peaks, which may fall inside the audio range, or may fall outside it but still affect it.
(For example, a resonance peak in many cartridges in the ultrasonic range causes a rising high frequency response.)

Because the capacitance values commonly found in cables fall into the range that is _LIKELY_ to have a significant interaction with a typical cartridge...
Manufacturers of moving magnet cartridges usually specify a specific total load capacitance that the cartridge is designed to work with.
This is the capacitance value which they are saying will produce the frequency response they designed for on their cartridge.
(And having a capacitance value that is much higher or lower will affect the frequency response - sometimes in unexpected ways.)

The point is that, if you want the cartridge to perform according to spec, then you want to provide the load capacitance specified by the manufacturer.
(This can be any combination of capacitance in the cable and in the preamp.)
Different cartridges are also more sensitive to variation than others...

It's also worth noting that the effect may not always be what you expect.
For example, you might expect increasing the capacitance to roll off high frequencies.
However, if your cartridge happens to have a resonance peak above the audio band, increasing the capacitance could lower the resonant frequency.
As a result, it might move the peak down into the audible frequency range, resulting in a peak in the upper audible range, and a boost in audible high frequencies.

In general, most phono preamps that have adjustable input capacitance will give you a range of adjustment designed to allow you to pick an appropriate value for most combinations of popular cartridges and cables. Those that have a fixed value usually choose one such that, when combined with the capacitance of "a typical cable", is correct for "an average cartridge" - whatever exactly that means to them. Also note that, while they are going to specify the value that they think "sounds best with your cartridge", changing that value will change the way the cartridge sounds. Therefore, rather than choose the optimum setting, some people simply treat it like a tone control, and try different values until they find the one they like the best. (It's never going to physically damage anything.)

The standard for MM cartridges calls out a 47k load. 
Therefore, a well designed cartridge should be designed to perform optimally with that load.
There is no particular reason why a cartridge designed to work according to the standard should work better with a non-standard value.
(Of course, as with the capacitive load, changing the value will change the frequency response of the output, which certain people may find pleasing.)



analogsurviver said:


> I will return to answer the rest later - but only the most critical answer right now.
> 
> Damn... are you living on this planet ?
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

That is actually a well known and quite real phenomenon.
A variety of electronic components are able to "hear" AM radio broadcasts.

This works because all you need to turn an AM radio signal into normal audio is a "detector" - which basically provides some sort of rectification function and some sort of low pass filtering function.
The original "crystal radio" really was just a chunk of a certain type of rock - with the point of a needle touching its surface.
(Since the rock most commonly used was a lead crystal, and lead is used in dental fillings, it's not unreasonable that a dental filling could do the job if conditions were just-so.)

If you find one of the old style "transistor radio crystal earpieces", which use a piezo-electric crystal to make sound, you can usually pick up at least one AM station simply by touching the connector to a long chain link fence.
(The fence is the antenna; the crystal in the earpiece provides the rectification, the filtering, and acts as the speaker. The crystal is sensitive enough, and AM transmitters are powerful enough, that it will play audio by itself - without an amplifier attached.)

This effect also happens unintentionally inside many semiconductors - including transistors - and can be a common cause of noise problems.
(This is the same reason why you might sometimes hear your neighbor's CB radio coming from your stereo or TV set.)



bigshot said:


> I remember a Gilligan's Island episode where they could hear [/SIZE]radio transmissions using the fillings of his teeth.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> I will return to answer the rest later - but only the most critical answer right now.
> 
> Damn... are you living on this planet ?


Yup.  You?


analogsurviver said:


> If you EVER - repeat - EVER - measured a truly decent MM phono cartridge, you would have known exactly WHY I am "obsessing" about the preamp capacitive load. Cartridge does not give a damn where the capacitive load does come from - all it can see is the capacitance COMBINED - from each and every part of the signal path, from cartridge connecting clips to the actual input electrical active element on the circuit board ( or hard wired in better tube equipment ).
> 
> Now, do tell me WHY do ALL manufacturers of truly decent high ( normal ) output MM carts ( sensitivity around 1mV/cm/sec ) dabble with capacitive load ( usually specified as 100-200 pF ) ? To ease off this nasty hook the manufacturers of preamps, perhaps ? Themselves producing preamps with more input C than healthy for their own carts ?
> 
> ...


I'm well aware of the effects of cartridge loading, and yes, I have measured many excellent, and not-so-excellent carts along with preamplifiers using the proper technique of a sweep track of a test recorded without RIAA eq. 

I don't disagree with most of the above, but you've missed several key aspects by focussing only on capacitance.

The load presented to a cart is not purely C, it's a complex impedance, which is something that is not specified by the manufacturer.

The best discussion of the problem comes from "New Factors In Phonograph Preamplifier Design" (T. Holman, available as a reprint from the AES). 

An excerpt follows:
"
_HIGH-FREQUENCY INTERACTIONS

Various factors influence the high-frequency steady state response of a cartridge phono preamplifier system. The cartridge/cable system presents an irregular source impedance to the preamplifier which loads the cartridge/cable system with a complex load impedance.
Cartridge designers frequently state the proper load (resistive and capacitive) to ensure response to the specifications, yet few turntable, tone arm, cable, or preamplifier manufacturers specify impedance completely.

Measurements made through an equivalent electrical circuit with typical moving-magnet cartridges in place reveal a high-frequency rolloff associated with the
electrical circuit. Corresponding “rollups” in the mechanical circuit of the cartridge (the damped stylus mass-groove wall resonance) yield a “flat” response. This high-frequency rolloff is predicted by the equivalent circuit of the system by inspection; however, of fifteen currently available phonograph preamplifiers tested (stand alone phono preamplifiers, system preamplifiers, and phono preamplifiers in integrated amplifiers and receivers from all price categories), all but one exhibited anomalous high-frequency behavior when fed a test signal from an actual phonograph cartridge. This misbehavior is known as “cartridge inductance interaction”.
_
The paper goes on to describe three kinds of interaction and their causes.  HF roll off, caused by capacitance is only one, and the only one you've focussed on.  The second is HF roll-up, a second interaction with the complex impedance presented to the cart.  The third is not simple, but has its basis in an interaction with the preamplifier impedance which is variable with frequency if care is not taken to isolate those impedance effects.  The result is not small at all, rather huge in fact.  But go ahead and focus on the easy one if you like and ignore the rest.  

Until you post your copy of the AGI schematic we won't be able to discuss specifics.  And that will likely be an eternity.


----------



## bigshot

MacacoDoSom said:


> Hi... 99% of the 192kHz and 96kHz files from (supposedly HD) recordings (and I got a lot) are like this, you just have to check it.... it's astounding... I really don't notice any distortion, but I always convert them to 44.1/24 and then to mp3 to listen in the car or in my portable player.... so...
> You can check it with foobar and Voxengo SPAN a free VST plugin...



Thanks for the info!


----------



## bigshot (Jul 27, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> IF we want noncopressed audio that slowly but securely overrun the CD releases. A good digital copy of THE original vinyl issue would make mincemeat from the "master of master of remaster remastered by etc on CD )



I have tens of thousands of records. The CD releases of most of them are much better than the original album. There are exceptions to be sure, interestingly enough, most of them are in the 78rpm era. Excessive noise reduction is the major problem I see, not analogue vs digital.

I have several CDs that have needle drop transfers from LPs as well. They usually sound OK, but not outstanding.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jul 27, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> You are quite correct that the capacitive load is very important for many moving magnet cartridges.
> 
> Moving magnet cartridges all have a relatively high output impedance, and a significant amount of both inductance and resistance.
> They also almost certainly have some amount of internal capacitance (possibly between the coils, or between each coil and ground, or who knows.)
> ...



All correct and well ... - in THEORY.

I have been intrigued by the fact that back in 1990 ( NO different today, save for a few exceptions confirming the rule ) , MM cartridges as a group measured better and sounded worse than MC cartridges as a group - and vice versa. After doing considerable amount of work for  Empire/Benz Micro Switzerland from home  and later during a brief period I worked there ( no way to get an official permit to work for ANY foreigner in 1990 - they did not give it to a lady from Germany recruited by Mr. Ernst Benz - who for the tiniest of margins lost the Nobel prize in Physics for that year... - and the entire project  had to go just across the Constance Lake to Friedrichhaffen in Germany ... ), I decided to find the reason why the high output MM variety simply would not sound right - no matter what.

You've guessed it - impedances. There is MUCH more to capacitance in MM phono caertridge world than found in ANY published literature. Because NOBODY did the evaluation of the entire sharabang - from stylus tip to the output of the RIAA preamplifier. It is so bad that whatever review of any MM cartridge ever published, be it objective ( measurements) or subjective ( listening), it is flawed - the interaction of all the equipment used is simply too great to actually asses the quality of the cartridge itself.  Any serious comparison is only possible using the same tonearm with the same cabling into the same ( preferably with adjustable C and R ) preamplifier.  Other purely mechanical parameters might then be so far off for some cartridges that even this bears absolutely no relevance. The problem is compounded by the fact that whatever is good for cabling suited to MMs, is detrimental for MCs - and vice versa. There were only a very select few tonearms ever made commercially available that did offer two versions of the same tonearm - but with cabling suited to either MM or MC. 99.99% of everything you are ever likely to see is - at best - a compromise; and often, tonearm wiring is an electricall mess - SNAFU in its finest, purest form...

And, no ... in the real world, electrical load is adjusted to the cartridge - not the other way around. If you have access to the International Audio Review from the early 80s - there is TONS of superbly documented evidence that only 2-3 MM ( "fixed coil" - to include also Moving Iron, Moving Flux, etc carts - which all have fixed coils ) cartridges actually perform best into mfr's specified load - and everything else can differ, sometimes markedly, from the mfr's suggestion as the best performing load. And the "particular reason" being the fact that modelling a moving structure (stylus tip, cantilever, whatever is generating the signal, pivot and damping ) to a "standard" load is, in real life, next to impossible. For it would have meant EXACTLY the same stylus, same cantilever (material, tube diameter, tube wall thickness, cantilever length, signal generating element ( magnet, magnetically permeable "plate", coil, etc ), damper, etc, etc. Change ANY of those and things go haywire - and you need to find ANOTHER set of slightly different parameters in order to get JUST the right result again. Can you imagine ALL competing brands EVER to agree on making and marketing the same cartridge, differentiated among them only by the cartridge body colour, lettering, etc ? "Rolls Royce" costing the same as "Yugo" ? That would be "technical communism" to the power of X - unlikely to the same power of X.

And I DID find the solution - back in 1993. At the worst possible time to suggest to the manufacturers to change their existing designs in order to accomodate what was then  made possible - everybody has still been screaming CD, reluctant to invest one single cent into the phono cartridge improvement. Following EXTREMELY reluctant/negative response from the select few manufacturers that did produce at least something approaching the  requirements, I have been left on my own. Legal stuff etc ( too costly, with uncertain outcome - the laws are NOT the same for big countries vs small ones as Slovenia - and besides that, any patent only gives you the right to sue those infringing it - at his domicile, in his language, with lawyers from his country ...) prevented me from pursuing that goal further by myself - too tough nut for me as an individual to crack .

I did NOT enjoy finding this "JohnyComeLately" - on the Silvester day of 2017, no less ( almost a quarter of century after my first prototypes ) : http://www.phaedrus-audio.com/PHLUX.htm
It is just one of the possible variations on the theme - and if you perhaps still think that I do not know what I am talking about, you are mistaken - badly so. It is just that I am struggling with that pile of silicium called computer - and generating the shiny, colourful graphs etc on it - is DEFINITELY NOT my cup of tea.

But I did have this - for almost a quarter of the century. And know perfectly well whatever not (yet)  told by  these new kids on the block ....

Short version - this approach allows for the high output high impedance MM cartridge to perform free from electrical loading problems up to and beyond any frequency mechanics might still be  capable of - beyond 100 kHz .

And that is why I am no longer interested in Apt Holman ( or any other conventional phono preamp ) - for at least for 2 decades now. All it has to got is precise RIAA - and nothing is likely to beat AGI 511 in that department.


----------



## old tech

I also don't understand AS' fetish with MM cartridges.  MC is far superior, particularly when set up correctly with the right pre-amp.

I have experienced countless cartridges over the past few decades and have yet to come across a high quality MM cartridge that that delivers the detail and clarity of a high quality MC cartridge.   Some of the best MC types get very close to CD in fidelity - well close enough that you don't notice the difference in normal listening, as apposed to critical listening.

Digitisation of vinyl records, the ones I have that do sound better because of better mastering/production than the CD version, or those that are unavailable digitally, has been a boon and rekindled my enjoyment of music.  I know many vinyphiles actually enjoy the ritual of playing a record (and that can play into placebo effects), but I usually do not.  It is a pita to remove the record from the sleeve, clean it properly, put it on the TT, either listening to the inevitable crappy tracks or having to get up to move the stylus, and then being interrupted to change sides - compared to just hitting play on my digital device which accurately reproduces the sound of the ripped LP.

I know some like the 'hands on" experience, but other find it a hassle.  It is a bit like a manual window winder in a car being a 'hands on' experience compared to electric windows.


----------



## old tech

That reminds me, back in the early 80s, my brother had this Bang and Olufsen TT which addressed some of the inconveniences of vinyl playback.  It was fully programmable and remote control.  The only thing it did not do is change sides or put the LP back in its sleeve.  I thought my Linn that I had at that time sounded better, but that B&O TT was amazing to watch.

https://beocentral.com/beogram8000


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> I also don't understand AS' fetish with MM cartridges.  MC is far superior, particularly when set up correctly with the right pre-amp.
> 
> I have experienced countless cartridges over the past few decades and have yet to come across a high quality MM cartridge that that delivers the detail and clarity of a high quality MC cartridge.   Some of the best MC types get very close to CD in fidelity - well close enough that you don't notice the difference in normal listening, as apposed to critical listening.
> 
> ...



Well, if you did try and test as many phono cartridges as I did, if you did try to help perfecting by then MC only operation ( Benz ) - even if by being the largest PITA you can possibly think of in terms of the QC - you would understand. 

There definitely are - or, to be precise, WERE - MM phono cartridges that deliver the detail and clarity even high quality MC carts ( at any price...) simply can not follow - and it is for those I did what I did for the MM interface. Some of them were even deemed too sophisticated/costly/too low quantity in production to be - at least officially - exported to USA. And the best of them simply did not carry a price tag associated with MM ... In many ways, they continue to reign supreme - and are still not made obsolete by whatever came after and is available in the market at the time.

It all culminated recently in this :  http://topwing.jp/RedSparrow-en.html
appearently, it is an old dream of the designer of the cult following Grace phono cartridges ( known best for the F series of MM carts, but also producing extremely sophisticated MCs at the golden age of analog ) - made now finally possible due to the recent revival of analogue records. This design has none of the troubles usually associated with either traditional MM or MC designs - and I had the "luck" to miss auditioning it at our audio show in October by - 1 day. One of the very first carts of this type outside Japan was already precisely mounted on a Vertere TT, just to be sold - on the eve before the show... Hastily replaced by a decent MC ( around 5 K ) for the show, in words of the importer " That MC, although very decent,  can't hold a candle to the Red Sparrow ..." .

Yes, I agree... hitting the button on the digital device is MIGHTY more tempting than interruption between sides of a record - particularly as my "ritual" of playing LPs involves a few more operations than usual, one of which requires absolute attention to detail and precision - and can only be performed properly in a  ( very ) bright light. That's why I am postponing digitizing my collection of records - as I have not found transparent enough way to do it - yet. But, ultimately, it will be digital playback of recordings of vinyl that will be used as "daily driver". There are more reasons behind this posponing - but about them only after this digitizing will be over and done deal.


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> That reminds me, back in the early 80s, my brother had this Bang and Olufsen TT which addressed some of the inconveniences of vinyl playback.  It was fully programmable and remote control.  The only thing it did not do is change sides or put the LP back in its sleeve.  I thought my Linn that I had at that time sounded better, but that B&O TT was amazing to watch.
> 
> https://beocentral.com/beogram8000



I plan to do the same for Technics SL series of linear tracking TTs - both programmable and manual . But first they wil have to be modified enough to leave absolutely no desires regarding the SQ - save for the six figure $ category. If made rid of the gremlins Technics did leave, even in the latest generation of these decks, they are stellar performers. And, as you can see, extremely user friendly. No need for the Lady of the House or children ( who DO know how to handle the record properly...) to fear breaking a $$$$ $tylu$ ...


----------



## pinnahertz

old tech said:


> I also don't understand AS' fetish with MM cartridges.  MC is far superior, particularly when set up correctly with the right pre-amp.


But then, ask yourself if you really understand anything about AS's reasoning?  Likely, the answer would be "No", and here's why:


analogsurviver said:


> Well, if you did try and test as many phono cartridges as I did, if you did try to help perfecting by then MC only operation ( Benz ) - even if by being the largest PITA you can possibly think of in terms of the QC - you would understand.


See, an elitist position is essential to understanding what he does.  Could anyone here make a similar claim?  Note that no actual number of cartridges is given, thus making a similar claim is impossible.  And what is the second specific claim that would open the gates of enlightenment and understanding?  Helping Benz perfecting their MC only operation.  And nobody knows what that means either.   And _that, _in turn, means that understanding AS is impossible.

And next will likely follow a verbose diatribe of what all of that is supposed to mean, further burring the possibility of understanding AS below a mountain of tangential statements.  But note that every time specifics are requested, they are not given.  Every time proof is demanded, it is not provided.  Every.  Single. Time.  

I've given up trying to understand.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> I plan to do the same for Technics SL series of linear tracking TTs - both programmable and manual . But first they wil have to be modified enough to leave absolutely no desires regarding the SQ - save for the six figure $ category. If made rid of the gremlins Technics did leave, even in the latest generation of these decks, they are stellar performers.


I plan on becoming king of my own country where I can command the peasants to make for me any audio device I can imagine.  I'll have them whip out your Technics mods for you when that happens.


----------



## old tech

pinnahertz said:


> But then, ask yourself if you really understand anything about AS's reasoning?  Likely, the answer would be "No", and here's why:
> 
> See, an elitist position is essential to understanding what he does.  Could anyone here make a similar claim?  Note that no actual number of cartridges is given, thus making a similar claim is impossible.  And what is the second specific claim that would open the gates of enlightenment and understanding?  *Helping Benz perfecting their MC only operation.  And nobody knows what that means either.   And that, in turn, means that understanding AS is impossible.*
> 
> ...



I'm guessing... I think it could have been a backhander directed towards me as I mentioned I am currently running a Benz Wood SL cartridge in my rig (and yes, they only make MC cartridges).  I bought it a while back to replace the Dynavector xx2 mk11 cartridge (they also only make MC).  In all seriousness, if there is a better MM cartridge I'd reallly like to know what it is and how the designers managed to overcome the inherent flaws in such a design.


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> I've always wondered that myself (although the obvious answer is "licensing issues").
> 
> If so many people like the sound of a certain vinyl album, played on a certain $28,000 turntable, using a certain $9200 cartridge...
> And they don't like the sound of the digital recording because "it's too analytical" (or some other words that translate to "doesn't add any of the colorations they like")...
> ...



Hi-fi means different things to different people.

*Most people, the majority of population*
High fidelity is silly and elitistic unnecessory waste of money. The default IEMs that came with the phone work just fine! If I want more bass I upgrade them to some beats audio phones. So expensive, but at least they look cool and have tons of bass!

*Audiophools/high end fanatics, a tiny fraction of population*
Finding the "perfect" sound is the purpose of life and I define the "perfect" sound myself. It I don't like it, it's not perfect. Money is no issue when finding better sound. If I feel I hear differences, those differences must exist. There is no chance in hell I am just imagining them and placebo effect doesn't apply to me. Other perhaps, but not me! I spent $10k on my speaker cables and have then hanging on Lego blocks. The sound has clearly more "air" to it! People around me say I am crazy and how the snake oil seller conned me, but I don't believe those fools! I have got golden ears and they don't. Even my teenager son stopped asking for his Lego blocks back now that he is more interested of girls.

*Technically/scientifically educated audiophiles, a tiny fraction of population*
I have studied stuff that gives me an ability to undertand how different things affect sound reproduction. I understand that even I myself experience placebo effects and that I must be critical to whether differences are real or imagined. I understand that after some point spending money is about diminishing returns so there is a limit of what is reasonable. Better use the money where it makes a noticable difference. 16/44.1 digital audio is all I need, high-res is just waste of bits for nothing.

*Everyone else, a small fraction of population*
My friend recommended me a pair of headphones based on my favorite music. He/she knows his/her stuff and I bought the headphones. Yeah, they are better than the default IEMs I have been using. I don't understand much about these things, but I'm lucky to have a friend who knows a lot. He/she says I enjoy pretty good sound quality for the money I spend and I believe him/her. Sigur Ros really sounds more immersive and balanced with these phones and I don't think I have that good hearing.

This "diaspora" of philosophies regarding the concept of high fidelity makes creating  profitable sound quality services a challenge.


----------



## pinnahertz

old tech said:


> I'm guessing... I think it could have been a backhander directed towards me as I mentioned I am currently running a Benz Wood SL cartridge in my rig (and yes, they only make MC cartridges).


No.  You can run whatever you like and state your opinion about it. You made no wild unsupported claims.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> No.  You can run whatever you like and state your opinion about it. You made no wild unsupported claims.




Guys... - I have worked with any/every  phono cartridge (type) except :

1. Cantileverless Ikeda MC
2. Strain Gauge types
3. Photo types

If I *somehow* managed to procure Korvet GZM 128 ( one of the very best MMs - EVER ) 
https://www.olx.ua/obyavlenie/gzm-055-korvet-128-IDuS57g.html 
well before it could be found online ... - then you can  count I have either worked with  or actually own most of the important carts. 
Within reasonable limits - no diamond cantilevered expensivos thus far.

A B-52 and its arsenal would not do justice to a pic of any of my TTs - with every cartridge in residence neatly arranged in V group formation in front of it ...


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Guys... - I have worked with any/every  phono cartridge (type) except :
> 
> 1. Cantileverless Ikeda MC
> 2. Strain Gauge types
> ...


Ok, fine. No B-52 needed.  Use a hang glider. Or a micro drone. Post even one picture that supports just one of your massive claims. 

Now, follow this logic: A guy makes grandios statements about his experience, to the point where the image painted is of an electronics Jedi.  But, the same Jedi can’t figure out how to post a picture to the forum!  And, his technical statements conflict with physics, acoustics, and electronics. When asked for proof, we get nothing, barely an excuse. So why believe anything other than the guy is the Ultimate Troll?


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> Hi-fi means different things to different people.



High-Fi means that a format or equipment is capable of reproducing the full spectrum of audible frequencies. Another name for it was FFFR (Full Frequency Range Recording). Hi-Fi has existed since the early 1950s. Since then, technology has advanced hi-fi to being audibly transparent. The signal that goes in is the signal that comes out. CDs, high data rate lossy, HD audio, CD players, DAPs, DACs, amps... these are generally audibly transparent. The next step beyond that is improving directionality and creating room ambiences using multichannel sound.


----------



## bigshot

pinnahertz said:


> Now, follow this logic: A guy makes grandios statements about his experience, to the point where the image painted is of an electronics Jedi.  But, the same Jedi can’t figure out how to post a picture to the forum!  And, his technical statements conflict with physics, acoustics, and electronics. When asked for proof, we get nothing, barely an excuse. So why believe anything other than the guy is the Ultimate Troll?



You missed one thing... the technology he's discussing has been obsolete for nearly half a century. I remember talking with some of my Dad's friends about stereo systems when I was a kid. I'd mention my amp or reel to reel, and the old codgers would launch into stories about chair side RCA radios from the 40s or those giant all in one consoles from the 50s. They had gotten isolated from reality at some point and were in a weird time warp spinning their wheels in the past and never realizing that there was a whole new world to learn about.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> High-Fi means that a format or equipment is capable of reproducing the full spectrum of audible frequencies. Another name for it was FFFR (Full Frequency Range Recording). Hi-Fi has existed since the early 1950s. Since then, technology has advanced hi-fi to being audibly transparent. The signal that goes in is the signal that comes out. CDs, high data rate lossy, HD audio, CD players, DAPs, DACs, amps... these are generally audibly transparent. The next step beyond that is improving directionality and creating room ambiences using multichannel sound.


FFRR was a development of Deca/London. The stated frequency response was 80-15kHz, s/n ratio of 60dB.  Probably no longer qualifies as HiFi.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> You missed one thing... the technology he's discussing has been obsolete for nearly half a century. I remember talking with some of my Dad's friends about stereo systems when I was a kid. I'd mention my amp or reel to reel, and the old codgers would launch into stories about chair side RCA radios from the 40s or those giant all in one consoles from the 50s. They had gotten isolated from reality at some point and were in a weird time warp spinning their wheels in the past and never realizing that there was a whole new world to learn about.


I don't have an issue with old technology for what it is, or even that it may do a particular aspect of a job better, so long as "better" is clearly defined and verifiable (it usually isn't either).  

I love chair side radios!  My favorites are by Zenith, with the "big black dial".  I even have a Zenith T-shirt.  The shutter dial floor models are fantastic, and do the job of producing a big full AM radio sound very well while looking great as a piece of furniture.  However, there have been better AM radios since, and NRSC kinda messed things up for old radios, so I only appreciate that old tech for those few specific qualities, those driven by nostalgia or pseudo-nostalgia (since I wasn't alive in 1945).  

In AS case, however, I don't think nostalgia is involved.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

pinnahertz said:


> FFRR was a development of Deca/London. The stated frequency response was 80-15kHz, s/n ratio of 60dB.  Probably no longer qualifies as HiFi.



As long as everything is reasonably flat within those parameters(frequency response as well as s/n being -60dB throughout that range, and not -30 at one point and -70 at another and so on. )


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Ok, fine. No B-52 needed.  Use a hang glider. Or a micro drone. Post even one picture that supports just one of your massive claims.
> 
> Now, follow this logic: A guy makes grandios statements about his experience, to the point where the image painted is of an electronics Jedi.  But, the same Jedi can’t figure out how to post a picture to the forum!  And, his technical statements conflict with physics, acoustics, and electronics. When asked for proof, we get nothing, barely an excuse. So why believe anything other than the guy is the Ultimate Troll?



You'll get your pics ... - too much of 'em to handle ...


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> You'll get your pics ... - too much of 'em to handle ...


Look, dude, don’t bother. At this point there’s nothing you could post that would change my opinion.  After months of broken promises, I would only doubt their authenticity anyway.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> You'll get your pics ... - too much of 'em to handle ...


I’ll not hold my breath.


----------



## prescient (Jul 28, 2018)

old tech said:


> That reminds me, back in the early 80s, my brother had this Bang and Olufsen TT which addressed some of the inconveniences of vinyl playback.  It was fully programmable and remote control.  The only thing it did not do is change sides or put the LP back in its sleeve.  I thought my Linn that I had at that time sounded better, but that B&O TT was amazing to watch.
> 
> https://beocentral.com/beogram8000



Thanks for posting that turntable. That thing is pretty cool. They aren't even that expensive on ebay. I'm not into vinyl, but that might be a fun toy.

I know B&O is a lifestyle brand, but they are seriously forward thinking on some stuff. I applaud them for their judicious use of DSP and active speakers. Though I suspect I could get something that sounds jus as good if not better from a Genelec SAM setup for far fewer dollars. It just wouldn't look as cool...


----------



## analogsurviver

prescient said:


> Thanks for posting that turntable. That thing is pretty cool. They aren't even that expensive on ebay. I'm not into vinyl, but that might be a fun toy.
> 
> I know B&O is a lifestyle brand, but they are seriously forward thinking on some stuff. I applaud them for their judicious use of DSP and active speakers. Though I suspect I could get something that sounds jus as good if not better from a Genelec SAM setup for far fewer dollars. It just wouldn't look as cool...




You are correct on B & O's forward thinking.

But regarding their TTs, and particularly regarding their pricing : Careful With THAT Axe, Eugene ...

A B & O turntable can be regarded  - in cases you are lucky on ebay - as a VERY good and safe - cartridge box. Except for something like 2-3 models, B & O's TTs are anything but approaching something with a good sound - and that reflects in prices. It is almost a rule that buying a B & O cartridge will be cheaper in a "turntable box" - than in its original cartridge box.

B & O was the first to make automated phono cartridge mesuring setup - obtaining frequency response, channel separation, tracking ability and distortion in something under 2 minutes. For each and every cartridge ever built after the introduction of this measuring setup. That means there were/are almost no duds in whatever ever reached the market  And it is recognized even by otherwise non B & O users. Despite being roughly twice the price of the "equivalent" models from competitive manufacturers, B & O's carts are welcome addition to the cartridge drawer of any analogue record connoisseur. It is reflected in today's going prices : just under 1 K for a mint condition MMC-1 ...

B & O did the unthinkably stupid thing : during the days of the greatest CD onslaught ( reffered to as the dark ages by the analogue gang ) , they have DESTROYED all the super precisely made automated machinery, burned the blueprints, etc - all that remains at the B & O's of the once mighty respectable phono division can be stashed into a carton box one sees US workers being let go carrying out of the office for the last time...

As B & O's TTs accept ONLY B & O's cartridges due to the proprietary connector(s), the existing supply of cartridges has been rather quickly depleted.  With lots of B & O's TTs with worn styli doing - nothing ... Peter Ledermann of Soundsmith obtained the permission from B & O that allowed him to back-engineer the B & O cartridge - and improve upon it, not forgetting to address the problem(s) of reliability some of the NOS B & O produced cartridges did have. And he expanded the range, FAR beyond B & O's original 5 models. From what these days are reasonable prices - up to well above 10 K a pop ( the New Model, claimed to have 49 dB channel separation, IIRC in the final prototype stage ) .

https://www.sound-smith.com/

There are other facilities to either retip or repair B & O cartridge - both in Europe and in the USA . And they are not idle ... - for a reason. B & O's carts are worth the trouble.


----------



## gregorio

pinnahertz said:


> [1] Now, follow this logic: A guy makes grandios statements about his experience, to the point where the image painted is of an electronics Jedi. But, the same Jedi can’t figure out how to post a picture to the forum!
> [2] And, his technical statements conflict with physics, acoustics, and electronics.
> [3] So why believe anything other than the guy is the Ultimate Troll?



1. He didn't only paint an image of an electronics Jedi. He actually started a few months ago painting an image or a recording Jedi and specifically an orchestral recording Jedi. It was quickly obvious he knew next to nothing about recording, even less about music production and orchestras. Who remembers @analogsurviver arguing about rehearsals and that he didn't even know what a dress rehearsal was, something EVERYONE who's ever worked in or with an orchestra knows. After that entire bunch of nonsense about instruments and recording he gave up for a few days and then returned as a GoldenEared binaural Jedi. He made a complete fool of himself by posting a few youtube examples of aural nirvana, some of which he didn't even notice weren't binaural and/or sounded like a complete amateur had recorded them. Only after he was massively called out on all that, did he then return, as an electronics Jedi.

2. Not only does he conflict with physics, acoustics and electronics but also music performance, music recording and production and a bunch of other areas as well.

3. I'm not sure it is ONLY trolling. Although it takes considerable time and effort, with repeated calling out and statement of the actual facts, even severe trolls are eventually backed into logical cul de sacs and some acceptance of the actual facts or at least, a realisation that they're achieving nothing besides making themselves look ignorant and foolish and are shamed into shutting/giving up. This is not the case with AS, there must be some deeper, underlying condition. He isn't ONLY trolling, he appears to be severely deluded, he seems to unquestioningly believe that he is actually a golden-eared Jedi and a recording Jedi, production Jedi, music Jedi, electronics Jedi, etc. He's completely oblivious to the fact that the opposite is true, that he's either almost completely ignorant of these areas or that what he does know is incorrect because he applies it out of context. His delusion is so strong that he unquestioningly believes the nonsense he makes-up to fill in all the huge blanks in his knowledge, that's if he's even consciously aware he himself has just made-up that nonsense in the first place. It's like watching one of those contestants on X-Factor who sound like a cat being dragged backwards through a hedge but are incapable of questioning their delusion that they're a great singer. Watching the whole thing unfold is embarrassing and rather sad but also fascinating!

G


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> 1. He didn't only paint an image of an electronics Jedi. He actually started a few months ago painting an image or a recording Jedi and specifically an orchestral recording Jedi. It was quickly obvious he knew next to nothing about recording, even less about music production and orchestras. Who remembers @analogsurviver arguing about rehearsals and that he didn't even know what a dress rehearsal was, something EVERYONE who's ever worked in or with an orchestra knows. After that entire bunch of nonsense about instruments and recording he gave up for a few days and then returned as a GoldenEared binaural Jedi. He made a complete fool of himself by posting a few youtube examples of aural nirvana, some of which he didn't even notice weren't binaural and/or sounded like a complete amateur had recorded them. Only after he was massively called out on all that, did he then return, as an electronics Jedi.
> 
> 2. Not only does he conflict with physics, acoustics and electronics but also music performance, music recording and production and a bunch of other areas as well.
> 
> ...



@gregorio - do you even realize just how WRONG you are ?

Defending your whole life of parroting the others having some guts to actually do sometrhing on their own ? Yourself always staying in a safe zone, tried and tested first by others - and you following in their steps ONLY if proven succesful ?

That is not only embarassing and sad - it is disgusting, as you do possess enough knowledge that you could do something on your own - if it were not for the lack of any guts whatsoever.


----------



## old tech (Jul 29, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> You are correct on B & O's forward thinking.
> 
> B & O did the unthinkably stupid thing : during the days of the greatest CD onslaught ( reffered to as the dark ages by the analogue gang ) , they have DESTROYED all the super precisely made automated machinery, burned the blueprints, etc - all that remains at the B & O's of the once mighty respectable phono division can be stashed into a carton box one sees US workers being let go carrying out of the office for the last time...
> 
> ...



Why was that unthinkably stupid?  Horse cart manufacturers did the same thing with the invention of the car. Car manufacturers did the same thing when OHV engines replaced side valves and when OHC replaced OHV.  Many well known and highly regarded carburettor manufacturers did the same thing when they moved into electronic fuel injection.  Why would it be different with B&O, seven years after the superior CD format was released?

I'm sure that many analog worshipers do see the CD or digital as "evil", just as steam train buffs see electric trains as evil or prop plane fanatics see the jet engine as evil


----------



## old tech (Jul 29, 2018)

double post


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] ... do you even realize just how WRONG you are ?
> [2] Defending your whole life of parroting the others having some guts to actually do sometrhing on their own ? Yourself always staying in a safe zone, tried and tested first by others - and you following in their steps ONLY if proven succesful ?
> [3] That is not only embarassing and sad - it is disgusting, as you do possess enough knowledge that you could do something on your own - if it were not for the lack of any guts whatsoever.



1. Your response is just to parrot what you are accused you of but with NO evidence (or even logic/common sense)? In fact it's double HYPOCRISY because not only are you yourself OBVIOUSLY guilty of not "realising just how WRONG you are"  but you ALSO make accusations of "parroting", which is exactly what you've just done! Of course, you won't understand or probably even recognise the hypocrisy of your position, your level of delusion doesn't seem allow it.

2. The force (delusion) is strong in this one! So strong in fact, that even BLATANT LYING appears acceptable in the name of your delusion. YOU WELL KNOW my statements are not just parroting but that I have several decades of actual practical, professional experience, hence why you are obviously deliberately lying. However, what you don't know or indeed have even the SLIGHTEST knowledge of, is what testing/experimentation I've employed in my professional work or if in fact I've ever "stayed in the safe zone". Certainly not for the first time and almost certainly not for the last time, not only are you wrong but are almost the precise opposite of correct!

3. "Embarrassing and sad", well done, more parroting and hypocrisy. What's really "disgusting" here is your deliberate lies ... and that's on top of your "embarrassing and sad" ignorance and made-up nonsense! Do you honestly believe no one here is capable of noticing? How can you NOT realise the ONLY thing you are achieving is making yourself look ignorant, foolish and now a blatant liar as well? Is your delusion really so absolutely consuming? Fascinating!

G


----------



## 71 dB




----------



## Phronesis (Jul 29, 2018)

I just pop into this thread now and then to see if anything worthwhile is being discussed in a civil manner.  Lately, I’m tempted to unsubscribe.

Something I ran across this morning:

“Most importantly, [good disagreements] are never based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, the disagreements arise from perfect comprehension; from having chewed over the ideas of your intellectual opponent so thoroughly that you can properly spit them out. In other words, to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.”​


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> I'm guessing... I think it could have been a backhander directed towards me as I mentioned I am currently running a Benz Wood SL cartridge in my rig (and yes, they only make MC cartridges).  I bought it a while back to replace the Dynavector xx2 mk11 cartridge (they also only make MC).  In all seriousness, if there is a better MM cartridge I'd reallly like to know what it is and how the designers managed to overcome the inherent flaws in such a design.



What is a better MM cartridge ?

It does depend whom you ask - AND it does depend how much of the potential within the MM cartridge an user can actually extract from it. It is FAR more difficult to satisfy all the rewqurements of a MM than of a MC in REAL life - by some 400% - in attention to the minutest detail of the mechanical AND electrical adjustment(s). 

I do not have either the time or will to go into more detail - but there is no better place to start than :

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/who-needs-a-mm-cartridge-type-when-we-have-mc

One caution :  the thread is HUGE ... - and therefore not exactly easy to navigate to whatever information contained within. The thread starter, Raul ( or Silver Julietta on some other analog threads ) has left his own thread - for similar reasons occuring in this one. He DOES lack technical background, he does make some improper reccomendations, particularly regarding the electrical loading of the MM ( exact : fixed coil ) cartridges, he does NOT provide any measurements, etc - but boy, does he have a wealth of experience in actually using ( mating with arm(s) & headshell(s) suitable for cart in question, preamps, etc ...) the cartridges - and he provides specific subjective evaluation with many fine recordings on the black disc. 

But - ANOTHER warning; some of the by now almost exclusively vintage cartridges are REALLY hard to obtain - and can burn a substantial hole in your pocket. 

Being an ex-Benz employee, I still feel a fair amount of gratitude and loyality to the wonderful people I met there - so I won't be the one who will publicly point at this design's Aichilles' heel - which origins go all the way to the classic Ortofon MC. But pretending it is not there would simply be denying the truth. 

Use your ears ...- IF you are a music lover and have regular access to the live music, it will not be that hard to pin it down.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Phronesis: I hear you but it is also a good way to learn a thing or two about stuff that at least for my part is like a foreign language.
I strongly suspect the supposed Jedis of high fidelity are in the same boat actually only they're fighting an uphill battle trying to defend their goalposts with little to no scientific knowledge on the subject at hand.

I had a conversation with an autist kid here the other day at work. We were discussing movies and he suddenly told me that he was going to watch Turner & Hooch when he got home. 'Nice one' I said 'although I always hate it when the dog dies at the end'. He thought about this for a while for then to say 'Don't worry he'll make it this time, I know he will. He needs to jump to the right!'
For about 15 minutes I tried to tell him about fiction vs real life (something he really needs to better separate) and it was basically an exercise in futility. He had made up his mind and fully believed the possibility of Hooch making it at the end.

Now I am not saying folks that believe in sonic magic are like autists, don't worry, that'd be rude to the kids. After all they can't help it


----------



## Phronesis

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Phronesis: I hear you but it is also a good way to learn a thing or two about stuff that at least for my part is like a foreign language.
> I strongly suspect the supposed Jedis of high fidelity are in the same boat actually only they're fighting an uphill battle trying to defend their goalposts with little to no scientific knowledge on the subject at hand.
> 
> I had a conversation with an autist kid here the other day at work. We were discussing movies and he suddenly told me that he was going to watch Turner & Hooch when he got home. 'Nice one' I said 'although I always hate it when the dog dies at the end'. He thought about this for a while for then to say 'Don't worry he'll make it this time, I know he will. He needs to jump to the right!'
> ...



I'm all for probing discussion of the topics, but what I don't understand is people claiming to be scientific and a voice of reason, yet howling at the moon by arguing the same points over and over again, with the same people, in great detail.  If you think your debate opponent is crazy and will never 'get it', just disengage and don't respond to them further.  If you continue to argue with a crazy person, what does that say about you?


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I just pop into this thread now and then to see if anything worthwhile is being discussed in a civil manner.  Lately, I’m tempted to unsubscribe.
> 
> Something I ran across this morning:
> 
> “Most importantly, [good disagreements] are never based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, the disagreements arise from perfect comprehension; from having chewed over the ideas of your intellectual opponent so thoroughly that you can properly spit them out. In other words, to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.”​


to understand the other guy we need some common basis. language is a great start ^_^. things are often lost in translation, not so much from country to country surprisingly, but between those who use technical audio vocabulary for what they define, and those who have stolen them a redefined them as whatever subjective lubricant they think they understood from reading reading the word used by somebody else. the subjectivist lingo has vampirized so many technical terms out of their original meaning, that alone makes having an argument trickier. and TBH I'm not even sure that 2 subjectivists reading a fancy technical word in some flowery prose, will interpret the word in the same subjective way. and it's almost sure that whatever they think they get, won't be what an engineer in the domain will get. even stuff as common as power or dynamic. having arguments involving those terms will require an argument about what we mean when we say them, and people will usually fail to even agree on that new argument. audiophiles have made up their own subjective universe where a guy can post something and 10 people will have 10 interpretations of it while all thinking they "get" the guy who posted. it's like writing "love" in a sentence. we all hove our own idea but we all understand something and will readily decide that what we think is probably what the writer meant. without a clue if it's the case or not. with love it's understandable because it's an emotion. but when we reach that lack of proper interpretation for a technical audio term about electricity or amplitudes, communication is screwed.


the next issue is about rational thinking. the intuitive type(everybody by default), vs method. when you try to demonstrate something to a guy who can't get out of his heuristic way of answering everything, it's really hard to convince somebody to second guess himself with diagnostics, data, and a full rational leading to a conclusion only at the very end and only if everything went nicely. I think the scientific method is amazing at problem solving, but for some really weird reason, most people I talk to haven't been taught about it at school. to my lovey and bright mother, when her friend tells her how some homeopathic drug cured the stuff she had, that's clear and conclusive evidence that the drug works and that she should take it next time she has anything vaguely resembling what her friend had. if I try to show here how her friend might have felt better all the same if she had taken nothing, and might have been healed 2 days faster if she had taken a drug prescribed by a real doctor, she gets that indeed those possibilities exist, but somehow they don't have the same weight as the "proof" of her friend getting better. how it's one anecdote and even an inconclusive one because we have zero control to claim an effect from the drug, those ideas just don't convince my mum of anything. just that I'm annoying. ^_^
this is also a problem we have all the time in the forum. the guy who experienced something so he "knows" he's right about all the stuff he wrongly deduced from his experience. like how the feeling came from sound, even though he doesn't actually have a way to make sure of that with his experience. or how the device is this way and that way and sounds like such and such, and it has a balanced output, so all balanced output sound like that. the kind of rational a 5year old would break, but somehow it's "proof" for most audiophiles so long as the crappy experience and rational is their own.  it's very hard to argue when bad experiments are judged conclusive and a one time thing is judged to be universally true. how do we argue with someone who fails at logic? I personally have no answer for that one. I only noticed that most people really dislike being called irrational. ^_^

the last issue and clearly the one we often have on a regular basis with @analogsurviver: failure to agree on what we consider axioms. to me it's self evident that I won't benefit from extra ultrasonic content while listening to music, because I can't perceive ultrasounds with my ears at a listening level I would accept. it's that obvious and that fundamental.
while he believes ultrasounds to be so important to musical experience that he'd rather have garbage levels of distortions and noise with vinyls, than lose his precious ultrasounds. so not only he he absolutely sure they matter, he also thinks they matter more than other actually audible stuff.
we start from an unsolvable disagreement, at a fundamental level. and then go discuss tens of topics where most of the time his position will be "this is better because it goes to 11 on the ultrasonic scale". that op amp is better because it can do higher freqs, that capacitor is better because most likely in some specific use it leads to some later roll off or something along those lines probably. that turntable cartridge is better because it can pass 50khz when the wind is right. vinyl is better than CD because it can playback ultrasonic content. DSD is superior because it has crazy sample rate. and he can't wait for DSD 16384, simply because the higher it is the higher we can push the noise and the later we have to low pass. we have now hundreds of pages of play pretend arguments that really all come down to one or 2 big absolute beliefs from @analogsurviver . his own very self evident axioms, which happen to contradict human anatomy, but even that reality won't shake his absolute confidence in those few axioms. he somehow thinks he has absolute evidence.
as a result talking is a waste of time for everybody. nothing we say or present will ever change his belief in ultrasounds making his music so much better. it's not for lack of trying.
and I have no idea what demonstration would have me reject contemporary knowledge on human anatomy, discussions with audiologists, and my clear inability to pass any sort of blind test involving an attempt to detect ultrasonic content. at this point I have a hard time imagining how everything we know wouldn't contradict and disprove a discovery that we have some unknown organ picking up ultrasounds and that we're actively using them for our interpretation of music. we suck at echo location, we can't hear pure ultrasonic tones, the mechanic of our ear imposes that ultrasonic content would be dissipated soon after entering the cochlea (if they even reach that far). so only a few cells could capture that, except that those cells are also those being destroyed first and hair cells don't grow back(although that is being researched! it would be real cool if we got that working). the neurons can't fire at ultrasonic speed so they can only detect something happening at a frequency because of where it's vibrating most. but from 20khz to 500khz, it's all basically on the same tiny little space at the entrance with a tiny number of cells. so even registering those perfectly would be peanut compared to some loud low freq where most neurons are firing along those where the resonance actually occurs(plus body shaking to the air pressure). it would make zero sense for ultrasonics to be as significant as other freqs even if we could perceive them with perfectly intact baby ears. so yeah I know why I hold my belief as an axiom. to me it is indeed self evidence and clearly valid. why he does for his belief? I don't have a clue. I spent days, probably weeks of my time at this point trying to understand his viewpoint. and I have nothing.
but it's clear that our opposition is so fundamental that we can't have a proper argument about any specific subject where ultrasounds motivated his position.






 no rational, no argument will stand firmly if the involved parties can't first agree on the foundations.
I didn't mention people wanting to be right more than they want the truth. because even though it's super annoying and frequent, at least they have the good taste of being super easy to understand.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Jul 29, 2018)

I am not sure it says anything other than the person in question refuses to let hi fi hogwash stand untested. I feel similar about subjects where I feel at home ie music, art and nature. If and when someone comes along and fx claims that Max Ernst was a mean trombonist I would have a hard time keeping my mouth shut.
Conversely, had I been working with music all of my life, the production of music as well as all the gear behind it and then stumble across folks spewing bollocks, I'd most likely do the same.
Hell we've got plenty of room for bs on head fi, the "problem" in this particular thread is that people don't take too kindly to sorcery backed up by anecdotal 'evidence' and as a consequence of this call out posters who make extraordinary claims.


----------



## prescient

Ultrasonics.. I can't hear anything above 17K near as I can tell. Apparently my dog has no issues as the test tones sparked her interest and/or annoyance. At least I know it is making noise up there!


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 29, 2018)

What I'm still trying to figure out is: do ultrasonics have a subliminal affect on music listeners??

And do the harmonic products of multiple ultrasonics make their way 'back down' where humans hear?

Does this influence some listener's preferences for analog over digital, or vice versa?

Personally my hearing shelfs off like the Cayman Wall at around 14kHz, so it's no difference to me!  I'm just trying to get to the crux of this debate.


----------



## pinnahertz

TheSonicTruth said:


> What I'm still trying to figure out is: do ultrasonics have a subliminal affect on music listeners??


At the level they occur in music,no, there is no evidence of this.


TheSonicTruth said:


> And do the harmonic products of multiple ultrasonics make their way 'back down' where humans hear?


Harmonic products, no. Intermodulation products, possibly under certain circumstances, but the audibility of these signals is dependent of their level (they’ll always be much lower than the signals that intermodulated to produce them, which are already quite low) and the musical content in the same portion of the spectrum, which will mask lower level signals. 


TheSonicTruth said:


> Does this influence some listener's preferences for analog over digital, or vice versa?


No, because high frequency IMD is not unique to either analog or digital systems.


TheSonicTruth said:


> Personally my hearing shelfs off like the Cayman Wall at around 14kHz, so it's no difference to me!  I'm just trying to get to the crux of this debate.


You’re doing better than the center of the bell curve.  Lots of early hearing damage in the population these days. The extreme highs are the first to go.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> “Most importantly, [good disagreements] are never based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, the disagreements arise from perfect comprehension; from having chewed over the ideas of your intellectual opponent so thoroughly that you can properly spit them out. In other words, to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.”



That is why the disagreement with AS is not "good". I realise that from the outside looking in, it might seem as if I and some others are not granting AS "moral respect", have not attempted to comprehend or sympathize with his ideas and do not allow for the possibility of being persuaded. To an extent this observation is correct but let's frame the situation in a more widely comprehensible way: How would you have a "good" disagreement with a flat earther? Would you "allow for the possibility that you might be persuaded" that the earth is flat? It is possible to understand and to some extent sympathise with a flat earther's "line of reasoning" but it's not really possible to grant them "the intellectual benefit of doubt" because their position largely depends on discarding intellect in the first place.

Does this analogy with flat earthers appear harsh to you? If so, why? What's the difference between the flat earther scenario and the scenario in which we often find ourselves with AS? There's only one difference: The flat earth scenario is famous. Almost everyone knows about it, they know a fair amount of the actual evidence demonstrating the earth is not flat, they have enough understanding of how human eyesight works, they also know that if the earth were flat then much/most of science would have to be discarded and in addition, it would require a conspiracy lasting many decades, involving hundreds of thousands of scientists and all the countries in the world, some of whom are enemies. Intellectually and rationally, it's all completely inconceivable. This is not the case with many of AS's assertions, almost everyone does NOT know about the issue/s, have not seen the actual evidence, do not have enough understanding of how human hearing works, do not realise that if they were true then a large portion of science would have to be discarded and that there would need to be a massive, inconceivable conspiracy covering many decades, countless thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands of professional practitioners. In other words, there is no difference with the flat earther scenario, except in terms of the general population's familiarity with it!

G


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> That is why the disagreement with AS is not "good". I realise that from the outside looking in, it might seem as if I and some others are not granting AS "moral respect", have not attempted to comprehend or sympathize with his ideas and do not allow for the possibility of being persuaded. To an extent this observation is correct but let's frame the situation in a more widely comprehensible way: How would you have a "good" disagreement with a flat earther? Would you "allow for the possibility that you might be persuaded" that the earth is flat? It is possible to understand and to some extent sympathise with a flat earther's "line of reasoning" but it's not really possible to grant them "the intellectual benefit of doubt" because their position largely depends on discarding intellect in the first place.
> 
> Does this analogy with flat earthers appear harsh to you? If so, why? What's the difference between the flat earther scenario and the scenario in which we often find ourselves with AS? There's only one difference: The flat earth scenario is famous. Almost everyone knows about it, they know a fair amount of the actual evidence demonstrating the earth is not flat, they have enough understanding of how human eyesight works, they also know that if the earth were flat then much/most of science would have to be discarded and in addition, it would require a conspiracy lasting many decades, involving hundreds of thousands of scientists and all the countries in the world, some of whom are enemies. Intellectually and rationally, it's all completely inconceivable. This is not the case with many of AS's assertions, almost everyone does NOT know about the issue/s, have not seen the actual evidence, do not have enough understanding of how human hearing works, do not realise that if they were true then a large portion of science would have to be discarded and that there would need to be a massive, inconceivable conspiracy covering many decades, countless thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands of professional practitioners. In other words, there is no difference with the flat earther scenario, except in terms of the general population's familiarity with it!
> 
> G


There is one big fly in the above ointment - Earth has been proven not to be flat ( pics from any high enough flying machine show either curvature or, further away, nicely slightly squashed "ball"  we live on ) - the inaudibility/ non-perception of ultrasound has been not.

I realize there WILL be any resistance mountable activated - as its universal adoption would mean almost all present equipment in the studios is obsolete. And financial repercussion to get it right is beyond the imagination - so, ther IS bound to be resistance.

They - authorities, peer approved colleagues, etc - tried to set torch to the guy who said Eppur si muove - didn't they ?


----------



## gregorio (Jul 30, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> There is one big fly in the above ointment - Earth has been proven not to be flat ( pics from any high enough flying machine show either curvature or, further away, nicely slightly squashed "ball" we live on ) - the inaudibility/ non-perception of ultrasound has been not.



The flat earthers' argument is that the Earth has NOT "been proven to not be flat", pics from high enough flying machines can be manipulated and/or faked, like any other pics/photos and therefore the pics are NOT proof. This assertion is true, pics do NOT prove the Earth is flat. The reason the flat earthers are wrong is because they are contradicting the known science and because the sheer number of pics from different sources would require a conspiracy of photograph fakery involving countless scientists and space professionals from numerous countries, over a period of many decades, a conspiracy that is both unprecedented and rationally unbelievable. There's a huge amount of evidence that ultrasound at the levels present in music is inaudible and none at all supporting the claim that we can. Suggesting that we can hear it, contradicts the known science and would require a conspiracy between countless scientists and audio professionals that is both unprecedented and rationally unbelievable. Rather than being a "fly in the ointment", your statement actually achieves the EXACT OPPOSITE and entirely supports my last post; that there is no difference between your position and that of a flat earther!



analogsurviver said:


> I realize there WILL be any resistance mountable activated - as its universal adoption would mean almost all present equipment in the studios is obsolete. And financial repercussion to get it right is beyond the imagination - so, ther IS bound to be resistance.



Yep, EXACTLY the same as the flat earther argument. There's tons of resistance to the idea of a flat earth - as it's universal adoption would mean almost all present GPS and navigation equipment is obsolete. And financial repercussions to get it right is beyond the imagination - so, ther IS bound to be resistance.

Thanks, I don't think you could have provided better supporting evidence for my last post if you deliberately tried!!! 

Is this logical black hole you've just dug for yourself going to change your approach? I very much doubt it, you've done it quite a few times previously and ALWAYS either completely failed to even recognise that you've dug an embarrassing hole for yourself or just completely ignored it and carried on anyway, pretending that it never happened. Such a response requires a powerful level of delusion indeed!

G


----------



## analogsurviver

gregorio said:


> The flat earthers' argument is that the Earth has NOT "been proven to not be flat", pics from high enough flying machines can be manipulated and/or faked, like any other pics/photos and therefore the pics are NOT proof. This assertion is true, pics do NOT prove the Earth is flat. The reason the flat earthers are wrong is because they are contradicting the known science and because the sheer number of pics from different sources would require a conspiracy of photograph fakery involving countless scientists and space professionals from numerous countries, over a period of many decades, a conspiracy that is both unprecedented and rationally unbelievable. There's a huge amount of evidence that ultrasound at the levels present in music is inaudible and none at all supporting the claim that we can. Suggesting that we can hear it, contradicts the known science and would require a conspiracy between countless scientists and audio professionals that is both unprecedented and rationally unbelievable. Rather than being a "fly in the ointment", your statement actually achieves the EXACT OPPOSITE and entirely supports my last post; that there is no difference between your position and that of a flat earther!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, just look what has been done to Tesla ; the moment he wanted to give electricity to the people - FOR FREE - all the plugs have been pulled away from his projects. His lab burned to the ground.

Because it interfered with bu$$ine$$ a$ u$ual . Which has as a prime goal PROFIT - & some more of it. 

Not because it was not doable. Or true. Or right thing to do. And the same people ( or their offsprings ) are still trying to keep everything he did under the wraps - with self-appointed right to use Deadly Force against anyone thinking otherwise. 

If you utter as much as an "a" in response to the above, you'll only show whose pockets you're in.


----------



## gregorio

1. Did Tesla prove that ultrasonic freqs are audible and that the earth is flat? 
2. In your delusion, do you see yourself as a modern day Nikola Tesla?

G


----------



## Phronesis (Jul 30, 2018)

I think that a lot of people would find this to be a worthwhile 17 minutes: https://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong

She makes the points that when people are arguing, the tendency is to first assume the other party is ignorant (they will understand and agree once you educate them), then if that fails assume that they're stupid (they can't think logically and are hopelessly overridden with biases, etc.), and at the last step of exasperation assume that they're evil (intentionally causing problems, such as by trolling).  We see all of this played out in Sound Science discussions.  She also notes that there are emotional factors which inhibit our considering that we may be wrong - it _feels bad_ to be wrong, especially when the stakes are substantial.

The main issue I see with resolving audio debates is that, while the engineering and measurement aspects are quite mature, our understanding of sound/music perception is still relatively immature, so it's difficult to conclusively rule out the possibility that certain differences (or potential differences) in objective sounds and signals make a difference in conscious and/or subconscious perception.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Phronesis said:


> I think that a lot of people would find this to be a worthwhile 17 minutes: https://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong
> 
> She makes the points that when people are arguing, the tendency is to first assume the other party is ignorant (they will understand and agree once you educate them), then if that fails assume that they're stupid (they can't think logically and are hopelessly overridden with biases, etc.), and at the last step of exasperation assume that they're evil (intentionally causing problems, such as by trolling).  We see all of this played out in Sound Science discussions.  She also notes that there are emotional factors which inhibit our considering that we may be wrong - it _feels bad_ to be wrong, especially when the stakes are substantial.
> 
> The main issue I see with resolving audio debates is that, while the engineering and measurement aspects are quite mature, our understanding of sound/music perception is still relatively immature, so it's difficult to conclusively rule out the possibility that certain differences (or potential differences) in objective sounds and signals make a difference in conscious and/or subconscious perception.



I don't think that others replying to my posts in particular are "wrong".  I just believe that their answers are motivated by the business they're in.  IE: A Mastering Engineer will stalwartly declare the remaster of a given album to be superior to previous releases.  What else would they say?  "It depends"?   Yeah that'll inspire confidence in a lot of existing and potential clients, lol!   You have to talk the talk, y'know?  Not a question of absolute right vs. wrong, just a matter of what's the right thing to say in a given situation.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] She makes the points that when people are arguing, the tendency is to first assume the other party is ignorant (they will understand and agree once you educate them), then if that fails assume that they're stupid (they can't think logically and are hopelessly overridden with biases, etc.), and at the last step of exasperation assume that they're evil (intentionally causing problems, such as by trolling).
> [1a] We see all of this played out in Sound Science discussions.
> [2] The main issue I see with resolving audio debates is that, while the engineering and measurement aspects are quite mature, our understanding of sound/music perception is still relatively immature, [2a] so it's difficult to conclusively rule out the possibility that certain differences (or potential differences) in objective sounds and signals make a difference in conscious and/or subconscious perception.



1. You didn't answer any of the questions, you just repeated exactly the same thing using a different quote/wording. OK, let's take your different wording then: In an argument with a flat earther, would your tendency be "to first assume the other party is ignorant"? If so, why?
1a. Yes we do and for exactly the same reason. Again, would you assume a flat earther is ignorant and if so, why?

2. This brings us right back to my previous response to you, the issue of familiarity. The "issue *I* see" and "*our* understanding of sound/music perception". How familiar are you with "our" understanding? When you say "our understanding" do you really mean just YOUR understanding and the issue YOU "see"? Clearly, the understanding of music perception is not immature, unless you consider about 6 centuries or so to be immature? Understanding of sound perception is less mature, 90 or so years but it's still pretty mature. This invalidates your next statement...
2a. So no, it's NOT difficult to conclusively rule out the possibility that certain differences in objective signals make a difference to perception. Unless, you are NOT familiar with the issues or "our" (humankind/science/professional practitioners) understanding !!!!

G


----------



## Phronesis (Jul 30, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. You didn't answer any of the questions, you just repeated exactly the same thing using a different quote/wording. OK, let's take your different wording then: In an argument with a flat earther, would your tendency be "to first assume the other party is ignorant"? If so, why?
> 1a. Yes we do and for exactly the same reason. Again, would you assume a flat earther is ignorant and if so, why?
> 
> 2. This brings us right back to my previous response to you, the issue of familiarity. The "issue *I* see" and "*our* understanding of sound/music perception". How familiar are you with "our" understanding? When you say "our understanding" do you really mean just YOUR understanding and the issue YOU "see"? Clearly, the understanding of music perception is not immature, unless you consider about 6 centuries or so to be immature? Understanding of sound perception is less mature, 90 or so years but it's still pretty mature. This invalidates your next statement...
> ...



I don't think the flat earther comparison is a good one.  The evidence that the earth isn't flat is overwhelming enough that I've never met a person who asserted that the earth is flat, nor run across one online.  By comparison, many issues related to audio have plenty of proponents on both sides, and the evidence isn't sufficient to conclusively resolve the issues.

Regarding my knowledge of auditory and music perception, it's based mostly on reading the professional/scientific literature, as well as my own experiences with listening tests.  Based on that, I consider our collective understanding to be fairly immature.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> I just believe that their answers are motivated by the business they're in. IE: A Mastering Engineer will stalwartly declare the remaster of a given album to be superior to previous releases. What else would they say?



Well, they could say: "That remaster is crap, if you'd come to me instead it would have been much better"! You're belief is based on "the business they're in" and therefore the motivation for mastering engineers' answers. Unfortunately, you don't appear to have much knowledge of "the business they're in", for starters it's very highly competitive. It's not a bunch of unionised technical engineers who all do exactly the same thing and automatically support all other engineers. In reality, my answer is the more likely one, although it's likely to be rather more diplomatic!

G


----------



## KeithEmo (Jul 30, 2018)

Nikola Tesla was a most interesting fellow. He was certainly a genius, and invented many extremely brilliant and useful inventions. However, to be blunt, he also had some pretty wacky ideas, and many of his ideas for inventions turned out to be entirely impractical, or even wildly impractical and dangerous. (If you recall, for all that DaVinci was a genius, many of his ideas for flying machines are obviously silly and couldn't possibly work - based on modern engineering knowledge.)

However, as for Tesla.....we currently do our best to avoid unnecessary electrical noise, and excessive amounts of airborne electromagnetic radiation are generally considered something to be avoided, and even potentially dangerous. For example, exactly how dangerous it is to live directly under a high-tension power line is still disputed. Tesla's wonderful idea to "bring free power to everyone" involved broadcasting so much power into the atmosphere that you could, literally, hang a fluorescent tube on your wall and light your house.... In other words, his goal was to deliberately generate so much electrical noise, and transmit it through every square inch of the atmosphere, that it could light a bulb, or power an electric airplane. By today's standards, this would have exceeded "safe allowable limits" by a factor of at least tens of thousands of times. However, when Tesla came up with the idea, having massive amounts of high-frequency energy beamed through your body simply wasn't understood to be dangerous. In other words, by today's occupational safety limits, he wouldn't have been allowed to even turn on his prototype with a human anywhere near it. I used to live on Long Island, where his original facility was built, and there were stories about how, when he fired up his "small prototype", it scared horses pulling carriages because it caused lightning bolts to jump from telegraph poles to the ground five MILES away - which many people considered to be "annoying and dangerous". (I just wanted to point out that not ALL of what Tesla came up with was genius, or even useful, or safe. However, your basic assertion, which was that many of his inventions failed to get backing, or were even opposed, purely for financial reasons, was entirely true.)

As for "our understanding of how we perceive music and sound", I think I might choose a different analogy that the shape of the Earth. When I went to school we learned that all matter was made up of subatomic particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons. These were basically little hard bits of "stuff", indivisible into smaller pieces, which made up all matter. Note that this model of how things worked was actually pretty good - it explained most things to do with physics and chemistry - and even how atomic bombs worked. However, nowadays, we all know that it was also vastly oversimplified.... since, contrary to what we thought, those "tiny indivisible particles" are made up of smaller particles after all, and none of them are actually particles anyway, but merely little bundles of energy of a special sort. In short, the story has gotten much more complicated as we've learned more of the details.

I suggest that much the same is true for our understanding of how we perceive sounds and music. Most of the original research of things like "thresholds of perception" was based on the assumption that, since all sound waves are made up of some combination of sine waves, we can understand how it all works by experimenting with pure steady state sine waves. And it was widely accepted that our ears worked strictly like a mechanical spectrum analyzer, with each little hair cell responding to a specific frequency, and simply signalling whether that frequency was present or not. Now we know that, for example, our brains can respond in very complex and interesting ways when multiple signals are present at the same time, or when they are received in a certain sequential order. We can even hear or not hear one sound altogether - depending on whether our brain has been "primed" by some previous event.... which needn't even be a sound. (In fact, since our brains process many things in parallel, and often at different rates, we can even be influenced to hear or not hear a sound by something that occurs after it.)

Therefore, while I DO believe it's fair to say that little or no proof exists that we are influenced by ultrasonic sounds we don't "consciously hear", I think it's also fair to say that no proof exists that we are NOT influenced by them either. Since it has always been assumed that they are irrelevant - little research has been done either way. Likewise, little research has been done to determine the exact effects of small time-dependent effects like ringing on what we hear. (As someone pointed out in a slightly different context... It serves the existing commercial interests better to have certain people assume that they _may_ be audible, and for it to remain a matter of debate, than it does to spend a lot of money doing the detailed tests necessary to prove the point one way or the other. Everyone is happy to continuing assuming what they believe is true; and nobody is motivated to spend the amount of money necessary to actually find out.)

Just to put the claims I'm making on a specific technical basis... I assert that...

I will provide you with a 3D representation of a human brain and a recording of a section of a music file. If we play that file, for a live human subject, hooked up to a real fMRI, and you can predict in advance the exact level of stimulation each portion of their brain will show at every moment during playback, and how they will describe what they perceive, then I will accept a claim that "you fully understand the phenomenon". However, if you cannot do so, then I expect you to concede that "you do not actually understand every detail of what's going on".

Note that, when it comes to the shape of the Earth, any good quality GPS system can provide PRECISELY that level of proof that "it really does know the real correct shape of the Earth". 

The final proof of any scientific theory or model is the ability to predict future events. (And any failure to predict any event with perfect accuracy indicates a flaw or gap in the model or theory.)



analogsurviver said:


> Well, just look what has been done to Tesla ; the moment he wanted to give electricity to the people - FOR FREE - all the plugs have been pulled away from his projects. His lab burned to the ground.
> 
> Because it interfered with bu$$ine$$ a$ u$ual . Which has as a prime goal PROFIT - & some more of it.
> 
> ...


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] I don't think the flat earther comparison is a good one.
> [2] The evidence that the earth isn't flat is overwhelming enough that I've never met a person who asserted that the earth is flat, nor run across one online.
> [3] By comparison, many issues related to audio have plenty of proponents on both sides, [3a] and the evidence isn't sufficiently to conclusively resolve the issues.



1. Neither do I but ONLY because of the level of familiarity!
2. The evidence is overwhelming enough that I never met anyone making the assertions I've come across here, until I became familiar with the audiophile community.
3. There aren't plenty of proponents on both sides, it just appears that way on audiophile websites, just as it may appear there's plenty of proponents on both sides if you go to a flat earth website.
3a. According to flat earthers, the evidence isn't sufficient to conclusively prove the earth is not flat.

The flat earther position appears entirely ridiculous but obviously not to them, the audiophile position also appears completely ridiculous but obviously not to them and here we are on an audiophile website discussing how flat earthers must be a bit nuts but audiophiles are not nuts. I wonder if those who frequent flat earther websites think that audiophiles are nuts? Certainly the professional audio community think they are, my peers would think me nuts for even attempting to engage with audiophiles, which is the main reason I maintain my anonymity here! Audiophiles are as big a joke to professional audio engineers as flat earthers are to professional engineers in the field of space.

G


----------



## KeithEmo

Yeah.....

I would probably expect something along the lines of..... 

"That isn't bad at all. However, from what I can hear there, it could be turned into something really special with just a little more work... and maybe a few tweaks here... and here...if you're interested, here's what I'd need, and here's what it would cost you. I'd normally charge a lot more, but that really is a cool little piece there... and it would be a shame not to see it achieve its full potential just because someone missed a few little details. When would you like to start?"



gregorio said:


> Well, they could say: "That remaster is crap, if you'd come to me instead it would have been much better"! You're belief is based on "the business they're in" and therefore the motivation for mastering engineers' answers. Unfortunately, you don't appear to have much knowledge of "the business they're in", for starters it's very highly competitive. It's not a bunch of unionised technical engineers who all do exactly the same thing and automatically support all other engineers. In reality, my answer is the more likely one, although it's likely to be rather more diplomatic!
> 
> G


----------



## KeithEmo

I'd like to answer your questions here....

1) I would assume that the other person was ignorant. The reason is that I consider my level of knowledge about the basic shape of the Earth to be reasonably complete... beyond the point where I would even consider the possibility that I might be wrong. Therefore, I would assume that I am correct; which, by definition, means that anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong. (Note that, if we were discussing the geometry of bacterial cells, I would be the first to admit that my level of knowledge about them is not very deep at all, and so, on that subject, I may well be wrong in some details.)

2) As for the ongoing debate of "what we know". I actually do read a fair number of scientific books and journals on "how our brains work" and "how human perception works". As anyone who does so will quickly note, there is universal agreement that, while our knowledge of how the human brain works has been increasing recently by leaps and bounds, many of the details are in fact still NOT understood. Therefore, while the mechanics of how our ears work is reasonably well understood in detail, the details of how our brains perceive various types of inputs and interpret them are NOT at all "thoroughly understood". You'll also notice that visual perception has been receiving more attention in the last few years, along with things like mood and emotional responses, so progress in the understanding of audio perception has been somewhat slower. For example, we all know that we humans have a remarkable ability to pick out one familiar voice in a crowd, or to recognize a familiar voice, even over a remarkably low-fidelity audio connection, or when individual characteristics like pitch are altered. However, the exact details of how this works are still not understood in detail.)



gregorio said:


> 1. You didn't answer any of the questions, you just repeated exactly the same thing using a different quote/wording. OK, let's take your different wording then: In an argument with a flat earther, would your tendency be "to first assume the other party is ignorant"? If so, why?
> 1a. Yes we do and for exactly the same reason. Again, would you assume a flat earther is ignorant and if so, why?
> 
> 2. This brings us right back to my previous response to you, the issue of familiarity. The "issue *I* see" and "*our* understanding of sound/music perception". How familiar are you with "our" understanding? When you say "our understanding" do you really mean just YOUR understanding and the issue YOU "see"? Clearly, the understanding of music perception is not immature, unless you consider about 6 centuries or so to be immature? Understanding of sound perception is less mature, 90 or so years but it's still pretty mature. This invalidates your next statement...
> ...


----------



## Phronesis (Jul 30, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> As for the ongoing debate of "what we know". I actually do read a fair number of scientific books and journals on "how our brains work" and "how human perception works". As anyone who does so will quickly note, there is universal agreement that, while our knowledge of how the human brain works has been increasing recently by leaps and bounds, many of the details are in fact still NOT understood. Therefore, while the mechanics of how our ears work is reasonably well understood in detail, the details of how our brains perceive various types of inputs and interpret them are NOT at all "thoroughly understood". You'll also notice that visual perception has been receiving more attention in the last few years, along with things like mood and emotional responses, so progress in the understanding of audio perception has been somewhat slower. For example, we all know that we humans have a remarkable ability to pick out one familiar voice in a crowd, or to recognize a familiar voice, even over a remarkably low-fidelity audio connection, or when individual characteristics like pitch are altered. However, the exact details of how this works are still not understood in detail.)



This.  Exactly this.

There seem to be a lot of people in this forum who know a lot about the engineering stuff (which isn't 'science'), but don't know what they don't know about the perception stuff.  The only way to know that is to read the literature and see the limits of what specialists know.

A superficial understanding of the perception stuff is a big problem for both 'subjectivists' ("I trust my ears, what I'm hearing is quite clear and obvious, and other people who can't hear it simply can't hear as well as me") and 'objectivists' ("the standard measurements we use tell us everything we need to know about any audible differences which could matter" and "perception is very well understood, and can be totally relied upon on when we take out the influence of expectations by doing blind tests").


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

A TON of research has gone into the perception part of the equation most oftenly ending up with words such as 'placebo' and 'buyer's expectations'


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> 2) As for the ongoing debate of "what we know". I actually do read a fair number of scientific books and journals on "how our brains work" and "how human perception works".
> [2a] You'll also notice that visual perception has been receiving more attention in the last few years, along with things like mood and emotional responses, so progress in the understanding of audio perception has been somewhat slower.
> [2b] For example, we all know that we humans have a remarkable ability to pick out one familiar voice in a crowd, or to recognize a familiar voice, even over a remarkably low-fidelity audio connection, or when individual characteristics like pitch are altered. However, the exact details of how this works are still not understood in detail.)



I would argue that "what we know" is not purely defined by "how our brains work". "How human perception works" as far as music perception is concerned is incredibly well understood, it was incredibly well understood over 300 years ago. What's not well understood is some of the areas of what exactly are the brain's processes which result in this very well studied and understood perception. 

2a. I'm not a great expert on visual perception but it received quite a bit of attention during the Renaissance, as did music. As far as I'm aware, by the Baroque period the understanding of music perception (things like mood, and sophisticated emotional responses) was rather more advanced, somewhat faster, than that of visual perception.

2b. True, we don't fully know how the brain achieves this feat, just some likely theories. We can say a similar thing about music notes, we don't fully understand what is a musical note or how the brain determines the pitch of a note, we just have some likely theories. However, we have a huge wealth of knowledge about the relationships between notes, what we perceive from a progression of individual and groups of notes and the rudiments of that knowledge were well understood 600 years ago.

A flat earther might say we don't know everything about planet formation, we've just got some likely theories and in some areas we even lack likely theories for a full understanding of gravity. Some flat earthers don't completely ignore or discount science, they just misinterpret and cherry pick it, to make it appear to fit their belief. Others of course just don't have a clue, they do ignore the science and simply make up nonsense to justify their belief. Some are clearly delusional nutters who probably have difficulty functioning normally in society, some though have responsible professional positions.

G


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> There seem to be a lot of people in this forum who know a lot about the engineering stuff (which isn't 'science'), but don't know what they don't know about the perception stuff.



Is this aimed at me? If so, firstly the engineering stuff is entirely based on the 'science' and secondly, my job almost entirely depends on knowing how perception works and my ability to manipulate it.

G


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> I would argue that "what we know" is not purely defined by "how our brains work". "How human perception works" as far as music perception is concerned is incredibly well understood, it was incredibly well understood over 300 years ago. What's not well understood is some of the areas of what exactly are the brain's processes which result in this very well studied and understood perception.
> 
> 2a. I'm not a great expert on visual perception but it received quite a bit of attention during the Renaissance, as did music. As far as I'm aware, by the Baroque period the understanding of music perception (things like mood, and sophisticated emotional responses) was rather more advanced, somewhat faster, than that of visual perception.
> 
> ...



Well, this shows that you really aren't up to speed with the literature.  What was known 300+ years ago was trivial compared to what's known now, and the research during the past couple decades has been extensive.  Despite that, go to any reasonably up to date source on psychology of sound and music perception, and you'll see that researchers are well aware that there's a ton they don't understand.  For a general discussion of these topics not focused on audio, read the book "Subliminal" by Leonard Mlodinow.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> Is this aimed at me? If so, firstly the engineering stuff is entirely based on the 'science' and secondly, my job almost entirely depends on knowing how perception works and my ability to manipulate it.
> 
> G



A general statement, not aimed at anyone in particular.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 30, 2018)

The science of the brain's interpretation of sound may be recent, but the physics of how we physically hear sound goes back over a hundred years. Most of the basic principles of sound reproduction we discuss every day here in Head-Fi were first established at Bell Labs in the 1920s.

When it comes to the mechanical reproduction of sound, the physics of how sound is produced is what is relevant. The goal is audibly transparent high fidelity sound... a signal that contains all of the information that the ear can physically hear.

The science of how we interpret what we hear is more of an issue for musicians and the creative aspects of sound mixing. We don't discuss that a lot around here, because it requires audible examples. The effects aren't always intuitive. Hard to put that stuff into words. It's an interesting subject, but it isn't the intended topic of Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths. This thread looks at high fidelity sound reproduction and the audible thresholds of perception. Those things are more cut and dried.


----------



## Phronesis (Jul 30, 2018)

bigshot said:


> The science of the brain's interpretation of sound may be recent, but *the physics of how we physically hear sound goes back over a hundred years*. Most of the basic principles of sound reproduction we discuss every day here in Head-Fi were first established at Bell Labs in the 1920s.
> 
> When it comes to the mechanical reproduction of sound, the physics of how sound is produced is what is relevant. The goal is audibly transparent high fidelity sound... a signal that contains all of the information that the ear can physically hear.
> 
> The science of how we interpret what we hear is more of an issue for musicians and the creative aspects of sound mixing. We don't discuss that a lot around here, because it requires audible examples. The effects aren't always intuitive. Hard to put that stuff into words. It's an interesting subject, but it isn't the intended topic of Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths. This thread looks at high fidelity sound reproduction and the audible thresholds of perception. Those things are more cut and dried.



Past the inner ear, we don't 'physically hear sound' - the rest of the processing that leads to perception involves cognition, attention, memory, emotions, beliefs, etc.  Understanding that stuff is essential to designing and interpreting listening tests, whether blinded or sighted.  And our understanding of that stuff is pretty limited.

This morning, I listened to a 20-sec meditation mantra which was looped 21 times, for a total time of 7 minutes.  It didn't sound the same to me each time I listened to it, but I'm pretty sure the objective sound reaching my eardrums was the same each time.  How it sounded depended on how much attention I was paying overall, and what I was paying attention to, among other factors.  A simple demonstration of how variable perception can be.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Jul 30, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Past the inner ear, we don't 'physically hear sound' - the rest of the processing that leads to perception involves cognition, attention, memory, emotions, beliefs, etc.  Understanding that stuff is essential to designing and interpreting listening tests, whether blinded or sighted.  And our understanding of that stuff is pretty limited.
> 
> This morning, I listened to a 20-sec meditation mantra which was looped 21 times, for a total time of 7 minutes.  It didn't sound the same to me each time I listened to it, but I'm pretty sure the objective sound reaching my eardrums was the same each time.  How it sounded depended on how much attention I was paying overall, and what I was paying attention to, among other factors.  A simple demonstration of how variable perception can be.



How does this have ANYTHING to do with sound reproduction? The primary source of my consternation here is that if we have no way of characterizing any of these variables, how can someone sell me a $10,000 phono preamp (for instance) that claims to work on this kind of subconscious, or ultrasonic level? If it can't be quantified, how can someone develop a product to take advantage of it? Why does it *always* cost tons of money to supposedly probe the subconscious? If these questions don't answer themselves, then you're thinking about them all wrong.


----------



## Phronesis

colonelkernel8 said:


> How does this have ANYTHING to do with sound reproduction?



Topic of the thread is testing.  If the testing involves listeners, it has everything to do with it.

As far as sound reproduction, the question is the relationship between differences in reproduced sound versus the effects on listener perception.  For example, some argue that reproduction of ultrasonics makes a meaningful difference with regard to listener perception.  Others disagree.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> There is one big fly in the above ointment - Earth has been proven not to be flat ( pics from any high enough flying machine show either curvature or, further away, nicely slightly squashed "ball"  we live on ) - the inaudibility/ non-perception of ultrasound has been not.
> 
> I realize there WILL be any resistance mountable activated - as its universal adoption would mean almost all present equipment in the studios is obsolete. And financial repercussion to get it right is beyond the imagination - so, ther IS bound to be resistance.
> 
> They - authorities, peer approved colleagues, etc - tried to set torch to the guy who said Eppur si muove - didn't they ?


there is no proof about the limits of human hearing in the same way there is no proof that cartomancy can't work and that mind readers don't exist. we haven't properly tested every human for those abilities. but do we need to before getting a strong opinion on the subject? the fact is that we have a great many experiences suggesting how our hearing works, how our sensitivity falls starting in the midrange, how music is composed and mastered by people who can't tell what's going on in the ultrasounds unless they look at the spectrum. it is very easy to test the same variations at different frequencies and find out individually how much and how fast we lose our ability to sense high freqs. if I listen to music or test tones in a -5, 0, +5dB setting at 1khz, I can't miss the change. almost nobody on the planet would miss it and most would be able to notice 0.5dB variations, at least with a pure tone.  if I do the same -5,0,+5dB at 15khz, it will be harder to notice for everybody but still noticeable for most.  if I try the same at 20khz, I for one will probably fail to notice the change(depending on how wide the EQ is).  if we try at 30khz and my playback gear isn't absolute garbage with 10% IMD, I would be impressed if 1 person out of a hundred could consistently notice the change. and everything I know tells me that 1 person if he/she exists, would be between 5 and 15year old. not you, not me.

how is such a test not obviously significant? I tried that kind of stuff so many times, I made my own equal loudness contour so many times to learn how to do it consistently. I tested phase shifts and low pass filters many times. with DACs and their filter options, then simply went and made my own stuff at various starting frequencies while the DAC was playing at a higher sample rate to find out where the impact was starting to diminish or simply disappear for me. 
everything I've tried was consistent with my decrease in sensitivity and when I fail to notice a frequency at a given listening level. all those stuff do correlate with what we know on hearing, and with my inability to pass a blind test for high res files vs CD. because usually the differences are out of my range. everything is making for one hell of a coincidence. could it be a sign that something disagrees with your views on the matter of ultrasonic perception and its significance in music experience?


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> Topic of the thread is testing.  If the testing involves listeners, it has everything to do with it.
> 
> As far as sound reproduction, the question is the relationship between differences in reproduced sound versus the effects on listener perception.  For example, some argue that reproduction of ultrasonics makes a meaningful difference with regard to listener perception.  Others disagree.


I updated my post.
How can someone develop a sound reproduction product to take advantage of our supposed "subconscious" hearing faculties if these faculties cannot be quantified or characterized in any meaningful way? The listener "testing" you're suggesting is too late in the loop. How did they come up with the product to begin with?


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] This morning, I listened to a 20-sec meditation mantra which was looped 21 times, for a total time of 7 minutes. It didn't sound the same to me each time I listened to it, but I'm pretty sure the objective sound reaching my eardrums was the same each time. How it sounded depended on how much attention I was paying overall, and what I was paying attention to, among other factors. A simple demonstration of how variable perception can be.
> [2] What was known 300+ years ago was trivial compared to what's known now, and the research during the past couple decades has been extensive.



1. For a far more sophisticated demonstration of this phenomena and how it can be manipulated see Pachelbel's Canon in D.

2. Pachelbel's Canon is over 300 years old and the principle of a "looped mantra" with altered/manipulated perception of each loop was very common and is over 400 years old. Thanks for such a clear demonstration of my point!

G


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> some argue that reproduction of ultrasonics makes a meaningful difference with regard to listener perception.  Others disagree.



Some people point to controlled tests that clearly show that super audible frequencies are unrelated to perceived sound quality, and others rely on purely subjective anecdotal impressions. Just because opinions differ, it doesn’t mean that the truth lies halfway between the two.


----------



## Phronesis

colonelkernel8 said:


> I updated my post.
> How can someone develop a sound reproduction product to take advantage of our supposed "subconscious" hearing faculties if these faculties cannot be quantified or characterized in any meaningful way? The listener "testing" you're suggesting is too late in the loop. How did they come up with the product to begin with?



People can change product designs in the hope of achieving that, but I agree that it can't be known that the goal was achieved without suitable testing - and casual listening comparisons don't count as suitable testing.  Personally, I'm not inclined to spend a lot of extra money in the *hope* that something will sound better, or based mainly on a theoretical/technological argument that it *should* sound better.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Jul 30, 2018)

I think I get it though. You once heard a kickass stereo at your friend's house with silver cables, all the bells and whistles. The sound seemed to walk all over your own measely set-up...and you decided to buy an amp with a unicorn filter. It sounds better than your old one ergo this unicorn stuff really works!
Nahh...too much I know but it is a slow and, granted, wonderful journey down the rabbithole and unless someone with a bit of brains comes along and shows you a from b, then you might even end up on a site like head fi or any similar review and hi fi outlet where you have the ability to build up a trustworthy persona - someone other folks actually trust for advice - to continue to express your fondness for the ol unicorn filters. Say the same thing over and over again without no one proving you wrong and wam bam thank you mam the truth is born and we effectively get gear for bats.
If and when someone scientific then pops along and basically tears down most of your reasoning - stuff you've been saying and believing in for years hell decades - then the camel you have to swallow almost gets to be insurmountable.
Yep. I think I get it.


----------



## bigshot

I like your style! I especially love the swallowing camels and gear for bats. We'll have to introduce you to the Sound Science mascot animal, the Whale-Bat!


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> People can change product designs in the hope of achieving that, but I agree that it can't be known that the goal was achieved without suitable testing - and casual listening comparisons don't count as suitable testing.  Personally, I'm not inclined to spend a lot of extra money in the *hope* that something will sound better, or based mainly on a theoretical/technological argument that it *should* sound better.


But what are they attempting to achieve?

I can design an amp specifically to have a low SNR, or extremely low distortion. There are specific means of engineering to these specifications. How can I engineer for specifications that don't exist?


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jul 30, 2018)

That is a good point.  I would argue it's vastly easier to design / engineer for objective, measurable specs than subjective ones - let alone cutting edge psychoacoustic ones.  Nobody wants to be handed a spec list that includes something like "warm, immersive soundstage".  That's marketing speak. (nothing against marketing stuff, I write it myself... but I know engineers usually prefer something a bit more specific.) There is no objective metric for success there, until you are conducting numerous blind ABX tests.  This is a lot more expensive and time-consuming than just saying (instead): FR curve must look like this within +/- 2dB and channel matching must be within +/- 1dB from 100hz-10Khz.  Then marketing can go and claim the warm immersive sound stage, and the business' goals have been achieved without overcomplicating it.

Actually this point cuts to the heart of the subjectivist / objectivist debate.  It's not (IMO) possible to design a product that is objectively "better" except to the extent that it has higher fidelity to the original signal.  Any change besides that will usually be a subjective one, and not everyone will call it an improvement.


----------



## Phronesis (Jul 30, 2018)

colonelkernel8 said:


> But what are they attempting to achieve?
> 
> I can design an amp specifically to have a low SNR, or extremely low distortion. There are specific means of engineering to these specifications. How can I engineer for specifications that don't exist?





Zapp_Fan said:


> That is a good point.  I would argue it's vastly easier to design / engineer for objective, measurable specs than subjective ones - let alone cutting edge psychoacoustic ones.  Nobody wants to be handed a spec list that includes something like "warm, immersive soundstage".  That's marketing speak. (nothing against marketing stuff, I write it myself... but I know engineers usually prefer something a bit more specific.) There is no objective metric for success there, until you are conducting numerous blind ABX tests.  This is a lot more expensive and time-consuming than just saying (instead): FR curve must look like this within +/- 2dB and channel matching must be within +/- 1dB from 100hz-10Khz.  Then marketing can go and claim the warm immersive sound stage, and the business' goals have been achieved without overcomplicating it.
> 
> Actually this point cuts to the heart of the subjectivist / objectivist debate.  It's not (IMO) possible to design a product that is objectively "better" except to the extent that it has higher fidelity to the original signal.  Any change besides that will usually be a subjective one, and not everyone will call it an improvement.



From an engineering standpoint, I agree that you need to have design criteria to measure against.  Unless "warmth" and "soundstage" are operationalized as measurements, they don't really mean anything for design purposes, and subjectively judging them with uncontrolled sighted listening tests doesn't cut it either.

Also agreed that, with signals, there can't be higher fidelity than matching the original signal (other than scaling magnitude and time shift).  Though the challenge there is demonstrating that type of match for a complex musical signal, and IMO that's a much bigger problem when we talk about transducers and sound in air.

With ultrasonics, you can at least say that measurements of some sort could be devised, but it would still need to be demonstrated in a suitable way that changes in ultrasonic content make a real and meaningful difference with regard to perception.  That would require more and better testing than what people usually do, and brain imaging could be of some value there (and if the ear can't be shown to be transmitting nerve signals in response to ultrasonic sound content, that would mean that ultrasonics can only have an effect through senses other than hearing).


----------



## analogsurviver

Zapp_Fan said:


> That is a good point.  I would argue it's vastly easier to design / engineer for objective, measurable specs than subjective ones - let alone cutting edge psychoacoustic ones.  Nobody wants to be handed a spec list that includes something like "warm, immersive soundstage".  That's marketing speak. (nothing against marketing stuff, I write it myself... but I know engineers usually prefer something a bit more specific.) There is no objective metric for success there, until you are conducting numerous blind ABX tests.  This is a lot more expensive and time-consuming than just saying (instead): FR curve must look like this within +/- 2dB and channel matching must be within +/- 1dB from 100hz-10Khz.  Then marketing can go and claim the warm immersive sound stage, and the business' goals have been achieved without overcomplicating it.
> 
> Actually this point cuts to the heart of the subjectivist / objectivist debate.  It's not (IMO) possible to design a product that is objectively "better" except to the extent that it has higher fidelity to the original signal.  Any change besides that will usually be a subjective one, and not everyone will call it an improvement.



Exactly ! 

Getting the besics ( like FR, THD, IMD SNR, etc ) right is - relatively - easy. At least when compared to making that "circuit" appeal and make sense on a subjetive level. It can take YEARS before this happens - and looking at the schematics, an objectivist would say there is NO difference.

Most music is emotional experience - first and foremost. There are exceptions to this rule - one of the more prominent is The Art of Fugue by J.S. Bach ; it is almost pure mathematics.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jul 30, 2018)

Fidelity of a reproduced signal compared to the physical reality of an original performance is almost a non-starter IMO.  An original performance in a space is a single 4-dimensional series of compressions and rarefactions that fill an entire room or space. (3-dimensions of amplitude plus time.)  A recording of music is a set of 2-dimensional (amplitude, time) signals... often just 2.  So much information is lost that it's a miracle that you can even roughly approximate a live performance using speakers in another space.

In my view, responsibility for fidelity begins at the microphone and ends about a couple inches from the surface of the transducer.  To ask anything more from stereo equipment is just asking for trouble IMHO.   FedEx can't make you enjoy the movie, it can only bring you the DVD in working condition.  And I think recordings and transducers are basically like this.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jul 30, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Exactly !
> 
> Getting the besics ( like FR, THD, IMD SNR, etc ) right is - relatively - easy. At least when compared to making that "circuit" appeal and make sense on a subjetive level. It can take YEARS before this happens - and looking at the schematics, an objectivist would say there is NO difference.
> 
> Most music is emotional experience - first and foremost. There are exceptions to this rule - one of the more prominent is The Art of Fugue by J.S. Bach ; it is almost pure mathematics.



I think it is "easy" (if money is no object) to get the basics right in an amp, but to build a transducer that has negligible distortion of any kind is still not commonly achieved, if it's achieved at all...

As far as music being an emotional experience, I mostly agree with that.  However, I think our opinions might diverge on one point.  I see the role of audio manufacturers as concerning themselves with audio, (not music)- with the aim of enabling these emotional experiences, but not favoring one type of experience over another, at least not without a good reason.  To use another analogy- I don't make movies, I make movie projectors.  Performance can't be directly measured in terms of emotion, which I think we all agree on, if only because emotions are very hard to measure.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 30, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> With ultrasonics, you can at least say that measurements of some sort could be devised, but it would still need to be demonstrated in a suitable way that changes in ultrasonic content make a real and meaningful difference with regard to perception.



That's been done and done again many times- controlled listening tests between rebook and high data rate audio (whether 24/96 or SACD or DSD). The results have pretty consistently been that super audible frequencies add nothing to the perceived sound quality of recorded music.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jul 30, 2018)

colonelkernel8 said:


> But what are they attempting to achieve?
> 
> I can design an amp specifically to have a low SNR, or extremely low distortion. There are specific means of engineering to these specifications. How can I engineer for specifications that don't exist?



I reccommend you to read this ( and any other you are likely to get hold of ) interview with by now sadly late Mr.  Hiroyasu Kondo of Audio Note ( Japan )
: https://www.stereophile.com/interviews/597kondo/index.html

I will only repeat my own experience with - for you now most probably next to incoprehensible term "obidience in sound" - with the only Audio Note component that ever stayed at my home for any apreciable amount of time. The Soara phono cartridge ; a little known low(er) priced sibling of the mighty I.O. series of cartridges. I had it in my home for aboit a week - a friend brought to me his entire TT for a precise adjustment of the cartridge. Sort of a "loan", so to speak.

All true Audio Note cartridges ( now called Kondo , after the breakup of Audio Note Japan and Audio Note UK  again produced in Japan )  - after the one of the few succesfull technology transfer from Japan to UK, when cartridge production in Japan was at one time deemed no longer necessary and Audio Note UK  has been helped in starting to produce I.O. in England - and exported back to Japan if required ) are MC types.  And, specifiction wise, are "nothing special" - there is not a single spec outstanding about the I.O. - and even more so about the Soara . In terms of value for money, they can well be described as "problematic" ... As well as is, this time NOT in parenthesis, problematic voltage output of these cartridges : 0.05 mV / cm / sec . Which means, in practice, they are almost exclusively usable with step up transformers - another Kondo san famous product. This for the standard, ALNICO permanent version of the I.O. There is even electromagnet version, with additional 2 contacts allowing the connection of the sizeable power supply - and allowing yet better sound, due to the "magnetics" being more favourable still - but with the punishing 0.04 mV / cm /sec level. If you have to ask, how much does it cost, you can't afford it. I never even saw one in flesh - or maybe, but not knowing it at the time.

Back to the "lowly" Soara ; it will not set any records as to trackability, channel separation, freedom from distortion, etc, etc - objective stuff. Decent, correct, definitely YES ; outstanding, - not even in the wildest dreams.

Until you (after being correctly adjusted - say 3 days' worth of PATIENT work ... ) lower the stylus into the groove... That thing COMMUNICATES !!!    I crap you not...

I remember a particularly moving experience with this recording to this very day ( some 20 + years later ):
https://www.discogs.com/Carl-Maria-...anz-Schubert-Ludwig-van-Beeth/release/5646956

As a sort of test, I let another friend visiting me during the brief "possession" of Soara - to listen to the above mentioned recording. Alone in the room - I purposedly asked him only to listen, without any comment whatsoever - and went to another room, tending to some chores.

After returning to change the side of the LP, I knew - without any words being spoken - that he heard what there was to hear; you don't get to see an adult male with tears of joy flowing down his cheeks - without even a trace of willingness to hide those tears. It is hard to get such a strong emotional "dose" from a live performance - let alone from a recording...

Most other phono cartridges - regardless of price - can not even start to approach this kind of musical "obedience" .  And such performance can only come from a lifelong quest by an individual - or , maybe, a VERY small group of people sharing the burning desire and passion to push the envelope of audio - in service of MUSIC.

I visited Black Forest Audio  in Malsch, Germany https://www.blackforestaudio.de/cms/front_content.php?idcat=2 - and the incredible Spiritus Movens behind it , Mr.*Gerd Volker Kühn* , some 15 years ago. Among many other crazy high end audio gear, he distributes Audio Note Japan. His entire sizeable house is nothing but a string of demo rooms - and I almost STEPPED on Ongaku ( ! )  amplifier while trying to avoid stepping on Gaku-on ( !!! )   ; despite the enormous sized house, it is packed with audio gear . Now, sit in a firm chair and brace yourself -  and then google the price of these two amps ...

Definitely not within my ( financial ) reach - but the fire and passion about everything music and audio by Mr. Kuhn has to be experienced to be believed. And he will demo - on spot - whatever you might be asking regarding the equipment on display.


----------



## bigshot

This record is stuck in the same groove.


----------



## castleofargh

maybe this post isn't 100% accurate despite relying on flawless logic.

I think I've got it:
- when getting older, people lose more and more of their ability to perceive high frequencies.
- we know that old people end up dead at some point, why? what changed for them? it's obvious, they don't get the necessary energy from ultrasounds.
QED redbook is making people age faster by intense exposure to lack of ultrasounds. the body thinks it's old based on the frequency response, and soon enough, dies of old age(although the process might take a few decades).

let's not jump to dramatic conclusions, but redbook kills people! that's the only conclusion. if I'm right about that, we need to alert people using all those IEMs that roll off at 10khz or just after. I'm pretty sure I saw some 12year old with such IEMs and a full mustache, we need to act now! 


ok, I can already hear the skeptics saying, "you're drunk!". and that's a fact, but I have more proof! the doctors will send ultrasounds into the belly of the pregnant women to make sure the baby will stay young and healthy until it can get out and feed on external ultrasounds. after all, the belly attenuates high frequencies pretty fast so the baby can really benefit from a few ultrasonic charges. anyway, doctors know best. out of all the machines they have, they use an ultrasound machine for a reason.

I think I just solved climate change. we need to test all that.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> maybe this post isn't 100% accurate despite relying on flawless logic.
> 
> I think I've got it:
> - when getting older, people lose more and more of their ability to perceive high frequencies.
> ...



Can't but adore the wit and passion of you humor, Monsieur :


----------



## analogsurviver

Zapp_Fan said:


> Fidelity of a reproduced signal compared to the physical reality of an original performance is almost a non-starter IMO.  An original performance in a space is a single 4-dimensional series of compressions and rarefactions that fill an entire room or space. (3-dimensions of amplitude plus time.)  A recording of music is a set of 2-dimensional (amplitude, time) signals... often just 2.  So much information is lost that it's a miracle that you can even roughly approximate a live performance using speakers in another space.
> 
> In my view, responsibility for fidelity begins at the microphone and ends about a couple inches from the surface of the transducer.  To ask anything more from stereo equipment is just asking for trouble IMHO.   FedEx can't make you enjoy the movie, it can only bring you the DVD in working condition.  And I think recordings and transducers are basically like this.



Forgetting something ?

This is not SPEAKER-fi ; it is HEAD-fi ... ( or WHY I am pushing for ( properly done... not there - yet ) binaural ) ?


----------



## bigshot

This is Sound Science. Anything that falls within the topic of any of the Head-Fi sub forums is fair game here... as long as it's based in science, not woo woo.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Thanks. The whalebat sounds awfully cute and huge at the same time. I can relate.



bigshot said:


> I like your style! I especially love the swallowing camels and gear for bats. We'll have to introduce you to the Sound Science mascot animal, the Whale-Bat!


----------



## gregorio (Jul 31, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> [1] For example, some argue that reproduction of ultrasonics makes a meaningful difference with regard to listener perception. Others disagree.
> [2] Personally, I'm not inclined to spend a lot of extra money in the *hope* that something will sound better ...



1. Some people argue the earth is flat, others disagree. Is there a single scrap of reliable evidence to support the claim that the earth is flat or that listeners can perceive ultrasonics in music?

2. What hope? That your hearing is substantially different to every other human ever tested? That despite a century or more of hearing testing and studying human anatomy there's something everyone (except some audiophiles) have missed?



Phronesis said:


> [1] With ultrasonics, you can at least say that measurements of some sort could be devised,
> [2] but it would still need to be demonstrated in a suitable way that changes in ultrasonic content make a real and meaningful difference with regard to perception.
> [3] That would require more and better testing than what people usually do, and [3a] brain imaging could be of some value there ...
> [4] Unless "warmth" and "soundstage" are operationalized as measurements, they don't really mean anything for design purposes, and subjectively judging them with uncontrolled sighted listening tests doesn't cut it either.



1. No, what we "can at least say" is that some sort of measurements have already been devised (decades ago) and are routinely used by many thousands of people every day.

2. But that never has been demonstrated, despite decades of scientific testing and again, despite the fact that for about 20 years many thousands of people work with ultrasonic content every day.

3. What "people" and what do they usually do? Are you talking just about yourself again or just yourself and some other audiophiles? Again, what about the scientists and those countless thousands who actually work with all this ultrasonic content? In practice, your statement is correct, although for the wrong reason! In my case, I never do controlled listening testing of ultrasonic content, although I'm frequently listening and trying to hear it. The reason I never do controlled testing is because I did tons of it, over a period of several years about 18 years ago, with numerous different genres and pieces of music and with numerous sounds, until I'd learnt when and why there was and wasn't any perceivable difference. Most/All of my peers did exactly the same thing when >48kHz sampling rates became commercially available. Why would I want to do even more testing when probably 90% of the testing I've already done was a pointless waste of time due to a forlorn hope that maybe some different instrument or sound might produce some difference I could perceive? Again, virtually all my peers did the same, although many were a bit brighter than me and didn't flog a dead horse as much as I did!
3a. How? Even if brain imaging did show some difference in brain activity we're unaware of, if we're not aware of it, how is that a "real" and "meaningful" difference? In fact this has been done and a difference in brain activity was observed. However the subjects were not aware of any difference and the difference in brain activity was only observed when ultrasonic test signals were introduced via bone conductance. If you bolted super-tweeters directly to your skull, if the low level of ultrasonic content in music was still enough to trigger the difference in brain activity and if you're not bothered whether or not you consciously perceive any difference, then maybe there is something an audiophile could aim or "hope" for?

4. What happens if we turn that argument around? Let's say it was trivially easy to define and measure "warmth" and to design it into say a DAC. What happens if I decide to play a piece of music which is supposed to sound "cold" (not have "warmth"), would the DAC somehow recognise this and not apply it's "warmth" or would it change the intention of the music creators and turn the "cold" piece into a "warm" piece? Whenever there is an attempt at "designing in" some musical or subjective attribute, we're always going to run into this problem. It might be better for some people, some of the time, with some types/genres of music but it will also be commensurately worse for other people, at other times, with some other types/genres of music. The logical solution is to let the music creators put as much "warmth" or "cold" (or soundstage or whatever) into the recording as they feel appropriate, design reproduction equipment to reproduce that input signal with as much fidelity as possible/perceivable and then let individual consumers mess with it how and when they want (say with EQ). Of course, the logical solution is not necessarily the best solution as far as marketing is concerned. A DAC marketed as "musical" is a big turn off for me (because the claim is both impossible and for me at least, undesirable) but obviously that marketing works for some/many audiophiles.



analogsurviver said:


> Most music is emotional experience - first and foremost. There are exceptions to this rule - one of the more prominent is The Art of Fugue by J.S. Bach ; it is almost pure mathematics.



Ah, it's the second option then, EXACTLY as predicted! Simply ignore the embarrassing logical black hole you dug for yourself, pretend it never happened and just carry on as usual with some new false statements/made-up nonsense.

Certainly fugues in particular but most tonal music in general, can be analysed to a degree in terms of mathematics and there's little doubt that Bach did consciously apply some mathematical principles (the golden section for example) to many of his compositions but to state Bach's "The Art of Fugue" is "pure mathematics", is nonsense. The not so subtle clue is in the title itself, which isn't "The Mathematics of Fugue"!

So what now? Are you:
A. Going to ignore the embarrassment of being called out on your made-up nonsense, go off on a tangent and make-up some new nonsense? Or,
B. Going to first argue until you dig yourself into a deeper and even more embarrassing hole and then go for "A"?

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 31, 2018)

So consider this scenario:   Flat F.R., correction HIGH S/N,(f'cking dyslexia!!) low to no IMD, and low THD, not to mention zero L to R channel cross-talk.  Suppose these conditions were applied, from the production chain(recording, mixing, mastering) right through to the delivery(CD, download) and playback chains(home stereo, portable media player, etc).

Would some actually consider the audible results of such an environment to be "not as musical", or "harsh" or "cold"?

Do such conditions, which do exist in an all digital environment, sound too clinical to some listeners?

And does 'good ol analog' mimic how we hear more faithfully than 'holy grail' digital?

Are uneven, or limited FR, more background noise, some IMD, and stereo cross-talk - say from a phono stylus - often perceived as 'more musical' by some?


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> 1. Some people argue the earth is flat, others disagree. Is there a single scrap of reliable evidence to support the claim that the earth is flat or that listeners can perceive ultrasonics in music?
> 
> 2. What hope? That your hearing is substantially different to every other human ever tested? That despite a century or more of hearing testing and studying human anatomy there's something everyone (except some audiophiles) have missed?
> 
> ...



Not sure how to interpret the long responses.  What I said before is generally not in disagreement with your responses.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jul 31, 2018)

I would suggest that it depends on what the actual difference is - and what you mean by "meaningful".

Let's just assume that, for the sake of argument, we were to discover that including ultrasonic content up to 99 kHz increased brain activity in some area of the brain, whose purpose is unknown, and which seems to have no effect whatsoever on anything we can consciously detect or measure....
Would it "matter"?
I'm not sure how I would define that answer.

However, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that we were to find out that, when we include content up to 99 kHz, the average listener shows a blood pressure reading that's 9% lower after listening for the first 30 minutes. Odds are we wouldn't consciously notice that difference... but a doctor might suggest that it would make us healthier, and that it might help us live a little bit longer.

Now, what if we were to find that, instead of increasing activity in an unknown portion of the brain, it increased activity by a few percent in the portion that relates to our perception of emotion... and that, because of this, some percentage of subject report a subjective increase in their "happiness"? They do not report hearing a difference, and cannot recognize a difference in a direct A/B test, but, when surveyed an hour after the session, a higher percentage consistently report "feelings of happiness and contentment" or rate their current mental state as "happier" - on a scale from one to ten. (In other words, there is in fact a clearly measurable objective effect - just not one we normally associate with listening.)

Note that, while I'm not sure if anybody has run this sort of test with music or not, it has certainly been reported that things like the color you paint the walls DO in fact have effects on things like "mood" and "happiness".... so perhaps we SHOULD rule it out... instead of simply declaring that it's impossible.(As I recall, one Japanese group did in fact run tests about how ultrasonic spectral content in certain music affects mood, and produced some interesting results - which, instead of attempting to duplicate, "objectivists" pooh -poohed as "not possible" and then ignored. Personally, I found those results interesting, and would like to see them either duplicated or proven to be false.)

Please note that I am not especially suggesting that including ultrasonic content does or does not produce ANY objective difference in how music is perceived. However, I am suggesting that, short of actually testing it, it is not at all reasonable to ASSUME that it does not simply because some very old, and very limited, tests detected no change. At best, we can quite reasonably say that "so far, no rigorously performed objective tests have demonstrated any such effect".

(When Isaac Newton and friends did all their observations on falling apples, I'm quite certain they detected no significant effects from either magic or relativistic effects. However, as it turns out, while nobody has ever detected any legitimate effects due to magic, and we continue to assume that it simply does not exist, we now know that relativistic effects are quite real. Therefore, anyone who claimed to prove that Isaac Newton's experiments proved that neither magic nor relativity is real would only be half correct. )



gregorio said:


> ..............................
> 3a. How? Even if brain imaging did show some difference in brain activity we're unaware of, if we're not aware of it, how is that a "real" and "meaningful" difference? In fact this has been done and a difference in brain activity was observed. However the subjects were not aware of any difference and the difference in brain activity was only observed when ultrasonic test signals were introduced via bone conductance. If you bolted super-tweeters directly to your skull, if the low level of ultrasonic content in music was still enough to trigger the difference in brain activity and if you're not bothered whether or not you consciously perceive any difference, then maybe there is something an audiophile could aim or "hope" for?
> 
> 4. What happens if we turn that argument around? Let's say it was trivially easy to define and measure "warmth" and to design it into say a DAC. What happens if I decide to play a piece of music which is supposed to sound "cold" (not have "warmth"), would the DAC somehow recognise this and not apply it's "warmth" or would it change the intention of the music creators and turn the "cold" piece into a "warm" piece? Whenever there is an attempt at "designing in" some musical or subjective attribute, we're always going to run into this problem. It might be better for some people, some of the time, with some types/genres of music but it will also be commensurately worse for other people, at other times, with some other types/genres of music. The logical solution is to let the music creators put as much "warmth" or "cold" (or soundstage or whatever) into the recording as they feel appropriate, design reproduction equipment to reproduce that input signal with as much fidelity as possible/perceivable and then let individual consumers mess with it how and when they want (say with EQ). Of course, the logical solution is not necessarily the best solution as far as marketing is concerned. A DAC marketed as "musical" is a big turn off for me (because the claim is both impossible and for me at least, undesirable) but obviously that marketing works for some/many audiophiles.
> ...


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> I reccommend you to read this ( and any other you are likely to get hold of ) interview with by now sadly late Mr.  Hiroyasu Kondo of Audio Note ( Japan )
> : https://www.stereophile.com/interviews/597kondo/index.html
> 
> I will only repeat my own experience with - for you now most probably next to incoprehensible term "obidience in sound" - with the only Audio Note component that ever stayed at my home for any apreciable amount of time. The Soara phono cartridge ; a little known low(er) priced sibling of the mighty I.O. series of cartridges. I had it in my home for aboit a week - a friend brought to me his entire TT for a precise adjustment of the cartridge. Sort of a "loan", so to speak.
> ...


Yeah, none of this addresses my point. At all.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> So consider this scenario:   Flat F.R., low S/N, low to no IMD, and low THD, not to mention zero L to R channel cross-talk.  Suppose these conditions were applied, from the production chain(recording, mixing, mastering) right through to the delivery(CD, download) and playback chains(home stereo, portable media player, etc).
> 
> Would some actually consider the audible results of such an environment to be "not as musical", or "harsh" or "cold"?
> 
> ...



Good and valid questions. Save for the low S/N - you probably madee a mistake and wnted to write high S/N.

Yes, such conditions can be perceived as too clinical for some listeners - particularly those coming from strict analogue .

Yes, analogue - with all its shortcomings ( and myself certainly can not be blamed to try to hide them ...) does mimic how we hear better than CERTAIN kind of digital - RBCD.

Uneven FR can compliment the recording and reproducing and can turn into "just right" - and thus sound better. I try to avoid uneven FR best I possibly can - NOT the way to do things properly..

Limited FR of phono cartridge vs CD - above certain quality level - does not only not apply, but favours the analogue - by FAR. Depending how the master recording has been made and at which speed the analogue disc cutting/mastering has been made, record can be essentially flat to above 50 kHz - leaving CD far,far behind. 
Of course, there ARE inferiour cartridges to CD, master recording can be poor, cutting into record master can be rushed, etc - making the end result FAR inferiour to CD..

There is some unavoidable IMD in analogue record replay - as well as channel cross-talk. Since I am trying to get ANY music carrier/medium sound best it can, I maintain the position that both analogue and digital should - if done perfectly - sound exactly the same. In real life, each has its pros and its cons. Analogue has LOTS of gremlins - but ALL of them bear at least resemblace to something occuring in real live sound and thus sound more natural. Digital - and RBCD, to be exact - does many things right - but those it is poor at sound distincly amusical.  It just does not convey "you are there" sensation - which is the hallmark of the top flight analogue.

Since I have at least 40 years experience with phono cartridges, I can give you a specific answer regarding the channel separation issue. Channel separation in analogue record pllayback is a sort of "Lacmus paper" equivalent in ultimately achievable SQ - the ultimate proof of the correctly aligned and adjusted ( both mechanically and electrically ) phono cartridge/stylus. It can only be achieved  under the strictest attention to EACH AND EVERY DETAIL -  IN UNISON. Ultimately achievable channel separation in phono cartridge - both theorethically AND practically ? Equal to or below the residual noise of a new test record - approx 60 dB below the level of the driven channel. 

These extreme values are only achievable with select cartridges under the best possible conditions - the tonearm has got to have each and every geometrical adjustment available. And are exceptions, FAR exceeding the "normal, average" phono cartridge, installed by nothing beyond the instructions provided within the cartridge box. Here, channel separation can be quickly reduced to 25 dB, with asymmetrical response, etc, etc - the usual SNAFU situation.

I remember doing it BY EAR - and being VERY succesful at it - way back in my high school days, before I even knew measuring equipment and test records existed. Getting the channel separation right in analog record playback means first getting the AZIMUTH right - lateral geometry second.  And cartridges I did use - and prefer - back then ALL had well above average channel separation - IF adjusted correctly. Grado FTE+1 ( a $15 or so WonderCart ), Pickering XSV-3000, Supex SD-900 Super. I STILL have the very sample of FTE+1 ( now on its last legs regarding stylus wear, but still usable ) from 1979 - and it still kicks ass in channel separation department . Pickering has been sold to a friend after two or so years, same with Supex ( all of these 3 carts are renowned for channel separation ... ) - but Shure V15IV, purchased at the same time, lasted less than a week in my system - it does not have much above 25 dB separation, no matter what.

It is interesting to compare phono cartridges with interchangeable styli - the later can cover the whole gamut, from "poles" with conical stylus tip profiles - all the way to the most sophisticared filigran state of the art in everything - using the very same cartridge ( and the rest of the system ). They most offen offer increasing performance with the increasing level of sophistication ( and price...) . And there ACTUALLY IS A REASON why some less educated and informed listeners may well choose an objectively inferiour channel separation cartridge over something with "full" ( above 35 dB ) channel separation. A cart( or stylus )  with lower channel separation will ALWAYS sound more "in your face" than a stylus/cartridge with the perfect channel separation - and PERCEIVED dynamic range of a full channel separation model will, to an untrained and less experienced listener, be - DIMINISHED, as compared to a lesser channel separation model. It also depends on the gentre of music being played; simple pop/rock may well sound better with a lower channel separation cart - regardless of its technical inferiority. But put on a well recorded classical, jazz ( or any other acoustic, non processed and electrically (re)produced music ) - THEN will the high/full/perfect channel separation cart/stylus show its true colours ... by faithfully playing back each and every nuance, over which low(er) channel separation carts simply - gloss over. 

So... - as long as EVERY step in making the recording an average consumer can buy and listen to at home is painstakingly prescribed/STANDARDIZED and followed to the letter, at each and every stage, from mike placement to selection of either headphones or loudspeakers for listening ( in reality, likely to happen at St. Never's) , this situation is here to stay. You can replace, expand, add or remove the effects of channel separation, S/N reduction ( it CAN sound more "musical" ) FR, reasonable amounts of distortion, type of headphones, speakers, etc - in short, this type of ambiguity of the reproduction of the sound in real world homes is unlikely to ever go away.

I did post ( by now, some years ago....) - in great detail, with lots of detail (and passion...) about using which equipment works best with my recordings - only to be booed by @gregorio . I could have well returned the "favour" - in his thread about his  recordings.  But I know better than that - I know there is no such thing as universally acceptable and applicable to everyone and for everyone. Best we can do is to present enough evidence/samples for the customer to make a well informed decision.


----------



## Phronesis (Jul 31, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I would suggest that it depends on what the actual difference is - and what you mean by "meaningful".
> 
> Let's just assume that, for the sake of argument, we were to discover that including ultrasonic content up to 99 kHz increased brain activity in some area of the brain, whose purpose is unknown, and which seems to have no effect whatsoever on anything we can consciously detect or measure....
> Would it "matter"?
> ...



Yep, not having ruled something in, so far, is not the same as ruling it out.  We often discover new things in science, sometimes surprising and even counter-intuitive things.  That doesn't mean that "anything goes" until we have enough evidence, but if something is at least possible or plausible, even if it *seems* unlikely so far, we should say that rather than saying that we're sure it's impossible.  It mostly comes down to keeping an open mind about things.  A lot of people are in a hurry to get to certainty one way or another, often based on limited quantity and/or quality of evidence, which isn't how science works (though politics and religion often work that way).  Science is very much about questions, and getting answers to questions often generates even more questions as we expand the boundaries of our knowledge/beliefs.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Jul 31, 2018)

I am a big fan of the agnostic view...but not in matters that science already has a good footing in. The agnostic view applied to ultrasonic content and how people perceive it is perhaps a nice enough idea for a Hollywood blocbuster about ghosts, but in a real world scenario ie listening to music (sound quality) it is bordering on stupid imo. We're down to stuff we can't hear or even detect...but just might have a postive effect on perceived health/happiness?
Methinks people need to pull out ol' Occam's razor and appy it more rigorously.


----------



## Phronesis (Jul 31, 2018)

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I am a big fan of the agnostic view...but not in matters that science already has a good footing in. The agnostic view applied to ultrasonic content and how people perceive it is perhaps a nice enough idea for a Hollywood blocbuster about ghosts, but in a real world scenario it feels bordering on stupid imo. We're down to stuff we can't hear or even detect...but just might have a postive effect on perceived health/happiness?
> Methinks people need to pull out ol' Occam's razor and appy it more rigorously.



We need to make a distinction between conscious vs subconscious hearing, detection, etc.  There's a ton of processing going on at the subconscious level which does matter as far as how we experience things, but that processing is largely hidden from us precisely because it's subconscious.

Experiments have been done with audio and other kinds of perception where people have to choose between A and B, and they say they can't perceive a difference (or can't perceive them in the first place, e.g. 'blindsight'), yet when they're forced to 'guess', they get things right at rates far better than chance.  It's an example of the subconscious mind 'nudging' the conscious mind with the conscious mind barely being aware of it (or not aware of it at all).

With regard to music, if System A enables you to enjoy music more than System B due to things going on in the brain due to an objective difference in the signal/sound of A vs B, despite not being able to consciously notice the difference between A and B, the difference between A and B would arguably still be meaningful.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

I agree. Placebo is the wild factor - often getting a bad rep, but people forget that it also miraculously cures patients.
If your new 2000$ amp sounds better and makes you feel better than the old one, then it is effectively better to you and therefor worth your while. Sure thing.
Is it still worthwhile and better if you find out that it sounds exactly the same as your nextdoor neighbour's who only paid 50$ for his?
This would of course involve something of a u-turn in thinking...but then again it has happened to other folks who once went down the mo money mo sq route. Me for example.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Jul 31, 2018)

I am being a bit sarcastic, sorry about that.
I just don't agree with your assumptions is all. I think this thread is heading into some kind of new age holistic excuse for using excess money on superfluous nonsense. If the audiofiles' last bastion is to be 'stuff' they can't hear but sense on a subconsious level, then we'll most likely see a lot of edited hi fi reviews coming up with sentences such as 'perfectly hear and detect' acutely updated to 'subconsiously sense'.
It's easy to "win" arguments if you just change your goalpost.

Edit (thrice!): I can't seem to spell properly atm.


----------



## KeithEmo

Absolutely....

And the point that many people seem to be ignorant of, or choose to ignore, is that it is quite possible to design objective tests to test for seemingly subjective effects... but sometimes they take a little more ingenuity to devise than simpler tests

For example, if you think that pink walls are more calming than green walls, you can paint some rooms in a prison with each color, and see in which rooms more fights seem to occur over the next six months - and of course you need to make sure that everything else is equal. And, yes, you also need to rule out all sorts of extraneous effects. In one interesting study some time ago, a company tried painting the walls a certain color, and found that productivity increased by 15%. However, when they painted the walls back to the original color, as a control, productivity increased another few percent (instead of returning to its previous level). Surveys determined that the increase in productivity had nothing to do with the particular color used at all. It turned out that many employees, knowing that the company was testing things in order to "make them happier and more productive" were responding to their perception that "the company cared about their happiness and well being". You need to be very careful to avoid, or account for, things like this.

Here's an example... 

Let's say you want to test someone's claim that "System A is more fatiguing than System B".

To test this, you set up a large waiting room, where large numbers of people are often asked to wait for several hours. This could be a waiting room in a medical facility, or a DMV office, or a school testing area. Arrange for music to be playing at a normal listening level in one corner of the room, and arrange for either System A or System B to be playing the music at various different times of day and under different conditions. Make sure that the levels are exactly matched, as are the musical selections, and that the times when either system is in use are randomized in some manner so both are "equally represented". Now observe where everyone sits, and how often them move, over a long period of time. 

If one system really is "more fatiguing" than the other, we would expect the distribution of people to be different with that system that with the other one. (We may find that people are more likely to seat themselves near the speakers when one particular system is playing; or we may find that the initial seating distribution is equal, but that people tend to move away into a quiet area sooner when one system is playing than when the other one is in use. Either of those findings, if statistically significant, would serve to show that, out of "a large selection of blind test subjects", there is significantly DIFFERENT reaction to one system than the other.)

Now, at the next level of the test, if one of the systems is rather more impressive looking than the other, and we suspect that there may be some placebo effect involved, we might try the same test, but with both systems covered, or with both turned on, so nobody can see which one is playing at any particular time. If the initial results are repeated, then we have ruled out placebo effect; if the initial results are NOT repeated, then we have reason to suspect placebo effect. (And, in the latter case, the marketing guys will be very interested to find out WHY people seem to find one system "more pleasing - but only when they can see it" than the other.)  



Phronesis said:


> We need to make a distinction between conscious vs subconscious hearing, detection, etc.  There's a ton of processing going on at the subconscious level which does matter as far as how we experience things, but that processing is largely hidden from us precisely because it's subconscious.
> 
> Experiments have been done with audio and other kinds of perception where people have to choose between A and B, and they say they can't perceive a difference (or can't perceive them in the first place, e.g. 'blindsight'), yet when they're forced to 'guess', they get things right at rates far better than chance.  It's an example of the subconscious mind 'nudging' the conscious mind with the conscious mind barely being aware of it (or not aware of it at all).
> 
> With regard to music, if System A enables you to enjoy music more than System B due to things going on in the brain due to an objective difference in the signal/sound of A vs B, despite not being able to consciously notice the difference between A and B, the difference between A and B would arguably still be meaningful.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 31, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> So consider this scenario:   Flat F.R., low S/N, low to no IMD, and low THD, not to mention zero L to R channel cross-talk.  Suppose these conditions were applied, from the production chain(recording, mixing, mastering) right through to the delivery(CD, download) and playback chains(home stereo, portable media player, etc). Would some actually consider the audible results of such an environment to be "not as musical", or "harsh" or "cold"? Do such conditions, which do exist in an all digital environment, sound too clinical to some listeners?



Yes, people have varying tastes. But when you start with a calibration point of balanced and clean, you can add whatever coloration you want with equalization and DSPs. The advantage is that you're starting from a calibrated baseline. If every component is balanced and clean, every source will sound the same- audibly transparent- and you can add coloration to taste at the last step- amplification- and it applies equally to every one of your sources. But if you had a CD player with one coloration, a computer with another coloration, and a turntable with a third coloration, you would need three different EQ curves/DSPs to make them all sound the way you want them to. Back in the analogue era, this was a big problem. I remember listening to things on my cassette deck, turntable and reel to reel and there were differences. (I would have preferred the sound of the reel to reel.) But it would have been impossible to correct back then, so I just bit the bullet and put up with it.



TheSonicTruth said:


> And does 'good ol analog' mimic how we hear more faithfully than 'holy grail' digital? Are uneven, or limited FR, more background noise, some IMD, and stereo cross-talk - say from a phono stylus - often perceived as 'more musical' by some?



Not if they know what they're talking about. Do you go to chamber music concerts and say, "Gee, this would sound a lot better with tape hiss, surface noise, inner groove distortion and pops and clicks." Of course not.

The only advantage that analogue has is that analogue noise is more natural sounding than digital noise. Digital noise stands out like a sore thumb. But with current equipment and technology, there is no reason why you should ever get digital artifacting or noise.



Phronesis said:


> We need to make a distinction between conscious vs subconscious hearing, detection, etc.  There's a ton of processing going on at the subconscious level which does matter as far as how we experience things, but that processing is largely hidden from us precisely because it's subconscious.



I don't think any of that has much to do with the design of electronic home audio products.



Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I think this thread is heading into some kind of new age holistic excuse for using excess money on superfluous nonsense. If the audiofiles' last bastion is to be 'stuff' they can't hear but sense on a subconsious level, then we'd see a lot of edited hi fi reviews coming up with sentences such as 'perfectly hear and detect' to 'subconsiously sense'. It's easy to "win" arguments if you just change your goalpost.



I've always said that the tendency to focus on completely meaningless details and ephemeral qualities in audiophool circles exists in the science camp as well. I see it when people point at specs and say that a noise floor of -120dB is necessary to reproduce music in the home... or when they go ahead and qualify everything they say assuming that there are exceptions to the rule when they've never run into one themselves in the wild and can't point to any documented example... or when they talk about "listening fatigue" without once defining what it is, what causes it or how you can measure it. The biggest example of this was jitter, which got tons of discussion in both audiophool and science camps when no one could even describe what jitter sounded like or point to a commercially available component with audible levels of jitter. Sometimes it all turns into mental masturbation even here in Sound Science.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Arhh nuts! You quoted the one that almost made sense. Maybe I should just stay away from the internet today. It took three edits to really make sense.

Anyway thanks for the comforting words alhough I had a sneaking suspicion from the get-go. Maybe it's the order that becomes the trumping factor? Audiophile first electrician/electrical engineer/something very wise and insightful having to do with sound later - always searching for the one loophole to explain what most likely is placebo.


----------



## Phronesis

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I am being a bit sarcastic, sorry about that.
> I just don't agree with your assumptions is all. I think this thread is heading into some kind of new age holistic excuse for using excess money on superfluous nonsense. If the audiofiles' last bastion is to be 'stuff' they can't *hear* but sense on a subconsious level, then we'll most likely see a lot of edited hi fi reviews coming up with sentences such as 'perfectly hear and detect' acutely updated to 'subconsiously sense'.
> It's easy to "win" arguments if you just change your goalpost.
> 
> Edit (thrice!): I can't seem to spell properly atm.



It depends on how you define 'hearing'.  If System A and System B have a difference in sound which results in the ears transducing to sound to produce different auditory nerve signals, I would count that as part of hearing, even if a person can't consciously detect and report a difference.  Whether such a difference in nerve signals matters is a different question, and suitable testing needs to be designed to help answer the question.


----------



## bigshot

All the tests so far indicate that when it comes to reproducing music, inaudible is inaudible.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> All the tests so far indicate that when it comes to reproducing music, inaudible is inaudible.



... again, it depends on how you're defining and measuring 'audibility'.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Jul 31, 2018)

This is two very different discussions: sound quality vs a philosophical look at human hearing. The last bit is certainly interesting but as far as research goes I think it is fair to say that there is an overwhelmingly good chance that people are imagining stuff rather than fx picking up frequencies in music that the very same mics used in the studio for said recording couldn't record or perhaps hearing things they aren't hearing.
I'm all for being open minded but there comes a point when you just have to apply some common sense.


----------



## Phronesis

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> This is two very different discussions: sound quality vs a *philosophical* look at human hearing. The last bit is certainly interesting but as far as research goes I think it is fair to say that there is an overwhelmingly good chance that people are imagining stuff rather than picking up frequencies in music that the very same mics used in the studio for said recording couldn't record.
> I'm all for being open minded but there comes a point when you just have to apply some common sense.



It's psychological (science), not philosophical.  Ears aren't microphones, perception by the brain isn't like a simple objective measuring instrument, and human memory isn't like recording something in a file.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> Good and valid questions. Save for the low S/N - you probably madee a mistake and wnted to write high S/N.
> 
> Yes, such conditions can be perceived as too clinical for some listeners - particularly those coming from strict analogue .
> 
> ...




"Good and valid questions. Save 
for the low S/N - you probably madee 
a mistake and wnted to write high S/N."

Pardon me, clinically dyslexic.  smh!


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Potato potato.
Either way you're still splitting hairs about something that is entirely in people's heads...not in the gear.


----------



## Phronesis

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Potato potato.
> Either way you're still splitting hairs about something that is entirely in people's heads...not in the gear.



Yes, of course perception is "in the head".  If you want to understand gear, best to do measurements.  If you want to understand how differences in gear are perceived by listeners, you'll need to do listening tests and/or brain measurements.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

It's alright buddy, I give up


----------



## bigshot (Jul 31, 2018)

I think there are plenty of audiophiles that should go to shrinks! But honestly, that isn't what we talk about here in this forum. We're more concerned with the signal path from the recording to the transducers inside our ears. From the eardrum on in, it's the province of the loony bin. I try to steer clear of those subjects. I get in trouble with Castle when I start diagnosing.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 31, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> ... again, it depends on how you're defining and measuring 'audibility'.



STUFF YOU CAN HEAR should be a fine definition.

Specifically, there have been controlled tests that have shown that frequencies above 20kHz are totally unrelated to perceived sound quality. In fact, the study found that they could roll off at 10kHz and most people said their perceived sound quality was the same.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Yep, not having ruled something in, so far, is not the same as ruling it out.  We often discover new things in science, sometimes surprising and even counter-intuitive things.  That doesn't mean that "anything goes" until we have enough evidence, but if something is at least possible or plausible, even if it *seems* unlikely so far, we should say that rather than saying that we're sure it's impossible.  It mostly comes down to keeping an open mind about things.  A lot of people are in a hurry to get to certainty one way or another, often based on limited quantity and/or quality of evidence, which isn't how science works (though politics and religion often work that way).  Science is very much about questions, and getting answers to questions often generates even more questions as we expand the boundaries of our knowledge/beliefs.


scientific knowledge is a forever dynamic process with nothing set in stone.  and absolute claims should be made when we have absolute evidence. on that I always agree with you. it's certainly a message that deserves to be spread. but I still feel like you're sometimes mistaking open mind in science for UFO chasing.

a lot of what you do is tell us that we shouldn't dismiss various random ideas and extraordinary claims backed up by little to no evidence. I have no idea how you convince yourself that it's the science way to do things. 
 should we drop all our knowledge and beliefs because subconscious is a thing?  take the ultrasound mess, you don't know if ultrasounds have any impact good or bad on the subconscious. you don't even know if your body would perceive those ultrasounds. it's just a random idea you decided to run with somehow. we have little understanding and even less control over the subconscious, we hardly have a clear way to confirm an impact or conclusively correlate it only with ultrasounds missing from a song. I'm not sure the necessary conditions to properly establish those stuff would even be accepted by the guys deciding what we can and cannot do to humans in trials. 
basically your glorious justification for caution against people doing what you call jumping to conclusion on the wildly documented subject of human hearing, is to present us with a question that's pretty much non falsifiable. 
yeah!!!! go science!!! ^_^

if you're aware that the scientific method gives to new data the power to make us reconsider what we know and test new things and draw new conclusions from that. what does it matter that we decided to previously settle on the most likely conclusion when the data we had at the time strongly suggested it? 

when somebody says something extraordinary, like claiming he can clearly perceive the loss of ultrasounds in music, shouldn't you ask for an extraordinary amount of evidence instead of deciding to weirdly support him as a non null possibility we somehow can't dismiss because.... IDK. why can't we dismiss empty claims now?


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> scientific knowledge is a forever dynamic process with nothing set in stone.  and absolute claims should be made when we have absolute evidence. on that I always agree with you. it's certainly a message that deserves to be spread. but I still feel like you're sometimes mistaking open mind in science for UFO chasing.
> 
> a lot of what you do is tell us that we shouldn't dismiss various random ideas and extraordinary claims backed up by little to no evidence. I have no idea how you convince yourself that it's the science way to do things.
> should we drop all our knowledge and beliefs because subconscious is a thing?  take the ultrasound mess, you don't know if ultrasounds have any impact good or bad on the subconscious. you don't even know if your body would perceive those ultrasounds. it's just a random idea you decided to run with somehow. we have little understanding and even less control over the subconscious, we hardly have a clear way to confirm an impact or conclusively correlate it only with ultrasounds missing from a song. I'm not sure the necessary conditions to properly establish those stuff would even be accepted by the guys deciding what we can and cannot do to humans in trials.
> ...



I don't have an opinion either way on ultrasonics, it's not something I've been motivated to look into.  The point I was making is general - don't declare something impossible without sufficient evidence.  And when it comes to audio perception, gathering solid evidence isn't simple.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 1, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I don't have an opinion either way on ultrasonics, it's not something I've been motivated to look into.



So you haven't read the AES papers on the subject? Wouldn't your opinion hold more weight if you had been motivated to look into it? How can you say that there isn't sufficient evidence without bothering to check if there *is* sufficient evidence? By ignoring the facts, are you experiencing self validation bias yourself? Is your argument an Appeal to Ignorance fallacy that isn't even factual?

Yes I'm giving you a hard time here. You should appreciate that. It will help you keep focused.


----------



## pinnahertz

Phronesis said:


> I don't have an opinion either way on ultrasonics, it's not something I've been motivated to look into.  The point I was making is general - don't declare something impossible without sufficient evidence.  And when it comes to audio perception, gathering solid evidence isn't simple.


But when it comes to ultrasonic hearing, there is plenty of evidence, and has been for many, many years.  In fact, I really don't understand why it's in dispute at all, other than the possibility that those disputing it have never even googled the subject. 

To understand ultrasonic hearing you first must understand the definition of "ultrasonic", which is quite simply, " sound waves with a frequency above the upper limit of human hearing."  If you can hear it, it cannot be defined as "ultrasonic". 

Next, we need to understand what the upper frequency limit(s) in human hearing actually are.  Many contemporary papers cite 24kHz as the absolute upper frequency possible in young, healthy people, typically teenagers who have not been exposed to damaging SPL.  When we try to state an absolute in something like hearing frequency response, there will always be some who use the logic that we cannot state the limit definitively because we cannot test everyone, and if even one person can detect sound up to 25khz, then the 24kHz limit is wrong.  Well, fine, but lets go into that maximum frequency limit a bit more in depth.  First, there are two general methods used in profiling hearing response.  One is to test for the threshold of hearing at a single frequency.  All that is being tested for is the ability to detect the presence of a tone, not the ability to usefully hear and discriminate frequency.  That is, primarily, where we get the 24kHz generally accepted maximum from.  The threshold of hearing rises rapidly above 10khz, and when you get to 24kHz we face a new limit.   The level of energy required for detection is high enough to be damaging to hearing, even if the tone cannot actually be detected. Because no ultrasonic energy of that level and frequency exists in the normal hearing environment, researchers tend to stop before damaging the subject's hearing, and define that as a safe maximum detectable frequency.  But can we hear higher?  Like up to 100kHz? 

Actually, the answer is a qualified yes, but watch out for the qualification.  Ultrasonic frequencies can be detected above 24kHz, but only through direct bone conduction, not at all through air transmission.  There are actual physical reasons for this that involve the geometry of the inner ear, the absorption characteristics of human tissue, skin, and cartilage, and they cannot be worked around.  However, with energy introduced directly to the mastoid, or to the skull, via a calibrated piezoelectric transducer, ultrasonic hearing response has been profiled up to 100kHz. The important bits to take away here are that the energy MUST be directly applied to bone, not airborne. And "hearing", in this case, is defined as detection of the presence of the tone, not the ability to discern it's frequency.  In fact, ultrasonic bone-conduction hearing has the rather odd effect of folding the actual frequency downward so it is detected as a tone below 20kHz.  There is also apparently a function played by brain resonance, which is calculated to be between 13kHz and 15kHz.  Ultrasonic energy introduced via bone conduction can actually mask audible frequencies, a basic concept being studied as a form of tinnitus treatment.  Another rather fascinating application is to modulate an ultrasonic carrier with speech then couple it to a deaf persons skull.  With some success, even the critically deaf can achieve a relative high rate of recognition.

Bone conduction hearing response falls rapidly from 10kHz to 20kHz at the rate of 50dB/octave, then falls at a rate of 15dB/octave above that.  And this is another key point: while ultrasonic bone conduction hearing is verifiable, it takes a LOT of energy coupled directly to bone for the tone to be detected, and progressively more as frequency goes up.  There is no possibility that the extremely low level ultrasonic energy in live music (not recorded) can be coupled to the skull or mastoid with sufficient energy to be heard.  It's off by probably more than 100dB.  In addition, the principles of masking work both ways.  Direct bone-conducted ultrasonic energy can mask audible frequencies, but audible frequencies also mask ultrasonic tones too...and quite effectively.

Here are some reference works:
_Ultrasonic Hearing in Humans: Applications for Tinnitus Treatment Martin L. Lenhardt Departments of Otolaryngology and Emergency Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, published in the International Tinnitus Journal, Vol. 9, No.2, 69-75 (2003) _

_Deatherage BH, Jeffress LA, Blodgett He. A note on the audibility of intense ultrasound. J Acoust Soc Am 26:582 , 1954. _

_Combridge JH, Ackroyd 10. Upper limit of frequency for human hearing. Nature 167:42-46, 1951; citing JH Combridge, 10 Ackroyd , BIOS Final Report 606, 1946. 

*Bone-Conducted Ultrasonic Hearing: Can Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions Confirm Cochlear Involvement?* Master’s Thesis in the Master’s programme in Sound and Vibration JENNIFER A. MARTIN Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Division of Division of Applied Acoustics Room Acoustics Group CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Göteborg, Sweden 2011 Master’s Thesis 2011:18 _

What this all boils down to is, there is no real ultrasonic hearing other than via direct bone conduction.  Because of the rapid rise in hearing threshold with rising frequency of bone-conduction ultrasonic hearing, the possibility of hearing anything air-borne above 24kHz (20kHz typically, and severely reduced frequency with age and noise exposure) is pretty much nil, as verified by many decades of research.

Whatever people think they're hearing in audio systems with the ability to pass ultrasonics, it's not the ultrasonic energy itself.
_
_


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Now, what if we were to find that, instead of increasing activity in an unknown portion of the brain, it increased activity by a few percent in the portion that relates to our perception of emotion... and that, because of this, some percentage of subject report a subjective increase in their "happiness"? They do not report hearing a difference, and cannot recognize a difference in a direct A/B test, but, when surveyed an hour after the session, a higher percentage consistently report "feelings of happiness and contentment" or rate their current mental state as "happier" - on a scale from one to ten.
> [2] (In other words, there is in fact a clearly measurable objective effect - just not one we normally associate with listening.)
> Note that, while I'm not sure if anybody has run this sort of test with music or not, it has certainly been reported that things like the color you paint the walls DO in fact have effects on things like "mood" and "happiness".... so perhaps we SHOULD rule it out... instead of simply declaring that it's impossible.
> [3] (As I recall, one Japanese group did in fact run tests about how ultrasonic spectral content in certain music affects mood, and produced some interesting results - which, instead of attempting to duplicate, "objectivists" pooh -poohed as "not possible" and then ignored. Personally, I found those results interesting, and would like to see them either duplicated or proven to be false.)



1. I'm not sure I get most of your post, your hypothetical situation would apply equally well to placebo effect. For example, an average performing amp or DAC in a very expensive case could (and often does for many audiophiles) produce "a subjective increase in their happiness". Owning and listening to an expensive, "designer brand" bit of kit commonly/usually increases pleasure or happiness, regardless of actual performance. Is this really in question?

2. I'm not sure who you mean by "we"? Heart rate (blood pressure), emotional responses both conscious and subliminal are pretty much the only/main thing "we associate with listening", if by "we" we're talking about music composers/creators.

3. There's two primary studies that I'm aware of, to which you appear to be referring. One which I referred to (and you quoted) but that was concerning bone conductance of ultrasonics. The other is the infamous Oohashi paper which appears to be the one you are referring to. If so, very little of what you state about it is true. Yes, it did provide some interesting results and yes it was famously "pooh-poohed" by objectivists (and other scientists) BUT, it was "pooh-poohed" for very good reasons. Contrary to your statement, there have been several attempts to duplicate the results but they could not be duplicated. Another Japanese group got very close, using virtually identical test conditions and equipment but they discovered a significant amount of IMD (in the audible range), a factor which the original Oohashi study did not even consider and although enough by itself, this was only ONE of the reasons why it was eventually "pooh-poohed"! 



Phronesis said:


> I don't have an opinion either way on ultrasonics, it's not something I've been motivated to look into. The point I was making is general - don't declare something impossible without sufficient evidence. And when it comes to audio perception, gathering solid evidence isn't simple.



Again, you seem to be eloquently proving my point and contradicting yourself! If it's not something you've "been motivated to look into", how do you know there is not sufficient evidence to declare it "impossible"?

Doesn't this demonstrate exactly what I stated, the issue of familiarity being the only difference between the flat earther position and the "ultrasonics" position? You are, I assume, aware of the overwhelming amount of evidence against the flat earther position and for this reason ARE willing to "declare it impossible" and don't have an "open mind" about it but you appear NOT to be aware of the overwhelming evidence against the "ultrasonics" position and for this reason do have an "open mind" about it. The only difference between the two positions (flat earth and ultrasonics) appears to simply be your personal awareness/familiarity with the "overwhelming evidence"!!

G


----------



## analogsurviver (Aug 1, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> But when it comes to ultrasonic hearing, there is plenty of evidence, and has been for many, many years.  In fact, I really don't understand why it's in dispute at all, other than the possibility that those disputing it have never even googled the subject.
> 
> To understand ultrasonic hearing you first must understand the definition of "ultrasonic", which is quite simply, " sound waves with a frequency above the upper limit of human hearing."  If you can hear it, it cannot be defined as "ultrasonic".
> 
> ...



Thank you for a very good post with references.

I knew it will come to bone conducting. And everything written above most probably does hold water.

I would actually like to ask you to go trough the link, if you have failed to do so the first time around : http://www.phaedrus-audio.com/PHLUX.htm

You should find the MAIN difference among MM and MC phono cartridge - as known to most people. And that is phase response. In MMs, the values of coil inductance, resistance and capacitance(s) of tonearm cabling while allowing for normally usable voltage output available from a MM cartridge to drive normal gain ( around 40 dB at 1 kHz ) RIAA preamp are, what they are. An endeless variation on the original MM cartridge theme , made in 1957 by ELAC of Germany - and used under the licence by the likes of Shure ( and many others ). And EXTREMELY FEW models of fixed coil cartridges can avoid placing the LC resonance within 20Hz -20 kHz band - and among those who can and did it, Grado is perhaps the most known and widespread - for a reason ! And proliferation of MCs ( which have none of the LC resonance problems within 20-20k, usually MUUUUUUCH higher than that ... ) and their general preference over MM ( and other fixed coil principles ) established over the decades is most definitely NOT a fluke. And IS audible.

RBCD places this phase anomally just outside the 20-20k band - some of it falling within 20 k accepted threshold of human audibility. Now please go and compare just what happens in a QUALITY WIDEBAND AUDIO SYSTEM WITH ESSENTIALLY FLAT/USABLE RESPONSE TO 50 kHz - including speakers or headphones - if you use "unlimited" ( anything including and above 88.2 kHz sampling frequency ) and the VERY same recording ( NO mastering difference(s) issue(s) ) bounced down to RBCD.

Although I would rather kill myself than becoming a politician, I will say : Use your ears. 

And the rest of your body.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> Thank you for a very good post with references.
> 
> I knew it will come to bone conducting. And everything written above most probably does hold water.
> 
> ...



My signature was aimed at engineers who told me to ignore the evidence of 'remastering' visible in DAWs.


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> Thank you for a very good post with references.
> 
> I knew it will come to bone conducting. And everything written above most probably does hold water.


Well, that's the expected arrogant response.  "Most probably"?  Seriously?


analogsurviver said:


> I would actually like to ask you to go trough the link, if you have failed to do so the first time around : http://www.phaedrus-audio.com/PHLUX.htm


Done.  Marketing fluff.


analogsurviver said:


> You should find the MAIN difference among MM and MC phono cartridge - as known to most people. And that is phase response. In MMs, the values of coil inductance, resistance and capacitance(s) of tonearm cabling while allowing for normally usable voltage output available from a MM cartridge to drive normal gain ( around 40 dB at 1 kHz ) RIAA preamp are, what they are. An endeless variation on the original MM cartridge theme , made in 1957 by ELAC of Germany - and used under the licence by the likes of Shure ( and many others ). And EXTREMELY FEW models of fixed coil cartridges can avoid placing the LC resonance within 20Hz -20 kHz band - and among those who can and did it, Grado is perhaps the most known and widespread - for a reason ! And proliferation of MCs ( which have none of the LC resonance problems within 20-20k, usually MUUUUUUCH higher than that ... ) and their general preference over MM ( and other fixed coil principles ) established over the decades is most definitely NOT a fluke. *And IS audible.*


Taking a heavy sigh...again I ask, for the zillionth time...no opinions...Proof Please!


analogsurviver said:


> RBCD places this phase anomally just outside the 20-20k band - some of it falling within 20 k accepted threshold of human audibility. Now please go and compare just what happens in a QUALITY WIDEBAND AUDIO SYSTEM WITH ESSENTIALLY FLAT/USABLE RESPONSE TO 50 kHz - including speakers or headphones - if you use "unlimited" ( anything including and above 88.2 kHz sampling frequency ) and the VERY same recording ( NO mastering difference(s) issue(s) ) bounced down to RBCD.
> 
> Although I would rather kill myself than becoming a politician, I will say : Use your ears.
> 
> And the rest of your body.


Phase response outside the audio band is responsible for audible differences? 

Well, the following papers which research the audibility of phase shift focus on in-band phase shift.  Remember, if it's "ultrasonic", it's inaudible? 

Koya, Daisuke: " Aural Phase Distortion Detection", Masters dissertation,
Master of Science in Music Engineering Technology,
University of Miami , Coral Gables , Fla. , May 2000

Hansen, V and Madsen, E. R.: "On Aural Phase Detection " (J. Audio Eng.Soc., vol. 22, pp. 10-14 (1974 Jan./Feb.))

Hansen, V and Madsen, E. R.: "On Aural Phase Detection: Part II," (J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 22, pp. 783-788 (1974 Dec.))

Lipshitz, S. P., Pocock, M., and Vanderkooy, J., "On the Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 30, pp. 580-595 (1982 Sep.).

Based on the results detailed in the above, phase shift above 20kHz is inaudible (just as signals above 24khz are). 

Clearly, you disagree with the conclusions in every single one of those cited papers. 
I posted proof to support my position.  *POST PROOF TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION! (and "use your ears" is not proof!)*


----------



## pinnahertz

TheSonicTruth said:


> My signature was aimed at engineers who told me to ignore the evidence of 'remastering' visible in DAWs.


Playing fast and loose with the designation "engineers" here.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] Yes, analogue - with all its shortcomings ( and myself certainly can not be blamed to try to hide them ...) does mimic how we hear better than CERTAIN kind of digital - RBCD.
> 
> [2] I try to avoid uneven FR best I possibly can - NOT the way to do things properly.
> [2a] There is some unavoidable IMD in analogue record replay - as well as channel cross-talk.



I see you decided to go with option "A": _ A. Going to ignore the embarrassment of being called out on your made-up nonsense, go off on a tangent and make-up some new nonsense?
_
1. What do you mean "mimic how we hear", who is this "we"? It's certainly not me, I don't hear the world with: Inner Groove distortion, tape saturation, clicks and pops, tape/surface hiss or wow/flutter. If you do, maybe you need to see a doctor/specialist?

2. Clearly this statement is contradictory. If you really wanted to avoid uneven FR, then you would avoid vinyl and go with the almost perfectly flat 44.1/16.
2a. Exactly, both of which cause "uneven FR" and why vinyl should be avoided in favour of something which does not have IMD and roughly 100 times less cross-talk! Again, your contradicting yourself.



analogsurviver said:


> [1] RBCD places this phase anomally just outside the 20-20k band ..
> [2] Now please go and compare just what happens in a QUALITY WIDEBAND AUDIO SYSTEM WITH ESSENTIALLY FLAT/USABLE RESPONSE TO 50 kHz - including speakers or headphones
> [2a] if you use "unlimited" ( anything including and above 88.2 kHz sampling frequency ) and the VERY same recording ( NO mastering difference(s) issue(s) ) bounced down to RBCD.



1. What RBCD phase anomaly?

2. That's impossible, there are no headphones or speakers which are "essentially flat" to 50kHz or even within the audible range!
2a. Ignoring the fact there are no speakers/room or headphones which are essentially flat, I have done this comparison countless times (probably 100+) over a period nearly 20 years, blind and double blind, in a number of different studios and with a number of different engineers, musicians and even the occasional audiophile. The only time any differences were detected were some specific situations which are not applicable to consumer listening. Never did such a test contradict the actual objective (measured) differences or known/accepted limits of human hearing.

G


----------



## pinnahertz

BTW, @analogsurviver, in all the papers I cited, the researchers did, in fact, "use their ears", that's how they came to their conclusions.

And, this doesn't exist: "_QUALITY WIDEBAND AUDIO SYSTEM WITH ESSENTIALLY FLAT/USABLE RESPONSE TO 50 kHz - including speakers or headphones"_...so you've never heard that with YOUR ears either.


----------



## gregorio

pinnahertz said:


> Playing fast and loose with the designation "engineers" here.



Actually he wasn't playing fast and loose with the designation "engineers", he's playing fast and loose with the term "evidence". The context here is that what is "visible in a DAW" does not necessarily relate to what or how we hear or to the actual damage to waveforms caused by compression. It's an old discussion with thesonictruth that has been dealt with more than once but he likes to keep bringing up anyway, presumably because he didn't understand or didn't want to accept the facts.

G


----------



## Phronesis

pinnahertz said:


> But when it comes to ultrasonic hearing, there is plenty of evidence, and has been for many, many years.  In fact, I really don't understand why it's in dispute at all, other than the possibility that those disputing it have never even googled the subject.
> 
> To understand ultrasonic hearing you first must understand the definition of "ultrasonic", which is quite simply, " sound waves with a frequency above the upper limit of human hearing."  If you can hear it, it cannot be defined as "ultrasonic".
> 
> ...



Thanks for the detailed post.  Some questions:

- Has anyone ever measure the upper frequency limit at which the ear is no longer generating auditory nerve signals?

- Has anyone ever measured response of auditory regions in the brain for high-frequency test tones, to see the upper limit of frequencies?

- What blind listening tests have been done to compare music with and without 'ultrasonic' content?  What are the results of those tests?


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree... and, to me, it's an important distinction.

I don't know for sure whether having a frequency response that extends past 20 kHz, in and of itself, makes an audible difference or not.
I've certainly heard high-res versions of files that sound exactly the same, or even worse, than their CD quality equivalents.
Likewise, I've absolutely heard high-res remasters of albums that sounded clearly and obviously better.
But it could have been because the mastering was different, or because the particular DAC I have simply handles certain sample rates better.
That's why I often tell people that they should judge ANY remaster based on how it sounds - and not assume that the high-res version will sound better.
However, it would be overreaching to assure them that it cannot possibly sound better... so they needn't bother to consider it.

There's that old one about common sense..... "If you hear hoofbeats, it's probably horses, and not zebras".
However, one should always note that it says PROBABLY.... and you cannot absolutely rule out zebras, or oxen, or okapis.

That's why, if the title of this thread was "Audio Equipment Purchasing Advice" - I might well agree with all sorts of generalizations about "most amplifiers sounding the same" and "ultrasonics being inaudible".
However, because that's NOT the title, I am less willing to do so.



Phronesis said:


> I don't have an opinion either way on ultrasonics, it's not something I've been motivated to look into.  The point I was making is general - don't declare something impossible without sufficient evidence.  And when it comes to audio perception, gathering solid evidence isn't simple.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I agree... and, to me, it's an important distinction.
> 
> I don't know for sure whether having a frequency response that extends past 20 kHz, in and of itself, makes an audible difference or not.
> I've certainly heard high-res versions of files that sound exactly the same, or even worse, than their CD quality equivalents.
> ...



One thing I've learned about science is that reality can be far stranger and more complex than we imagined.  Interconvertibility of mass and energy, intertwining and relativity of space and time, wave/particle duality, quantum superposition states and action at a distance … it's all weird real science (not "new age") stuff which doesn't fit our everyday intuitions, and that's just in physics.  By comparison, the brain and how it works is largely uncharted territory, and we continue to learn weird and counter-intuitive things about how it works.  People who say "hearing" is well understood are typically working with a rather simple (oversimplified) model of auditory perception.


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes, I was referring to the Oohashi paper there....  
And, yes, I have also read about some of the various attempts to reproduce that effect - which failed.
However, I don't recall anyone actually trying to reproduce their test exactly - using the same music.
They specifically used music with some rather odd tonal characteristics - supposedly chosen for specific reasons.
A proper attempt to validate their findings would have started with EXACTLY the same experiment - including the same content - and gone on from there.
The proper protocol would have been to replicate their experiment exactly, including the presumed errors, and confirm the same results.
THEN move on to replicating it, minus the errors, and confirm that the putative results are no longer present. 
What happened instead is that others attempted to confirm their theory using better, but slightly different, tests.....and there is a distinction there.
Therefore, while several attempts were made to validate their premise, I don't recall hearing of any that attempted to reproduce their actual experiment exactly first.

It's quite possible that they were simply wrong - and their results were due to experimental error.
However, it's also possible that their results would only repeat with a certain few recordings, which possess some unusual characteristic.
(It's even possible that their theory was flawed, but the results were real, but due to some other factor.)

The answer to your question after (3) is a sort of trick answer.....
It is virtually impossible to prove a negative... therefore it is doubtful that there is any amount of evidence that will effectively prove it to be "impossible".
The most we can state is that nobody has produced compelling evidence to support the premise that ultrasonic content does affect audio perception...
Then, from there, we can use our own judgement to decide whether we believe that it's reasonable to assume that no such effect exists.

I'm reminded of a certain fish that was quite thoroughly believed to be extinct for quite a few million years.....
Until someone accidentally pulled one up that was still alive in a fishing net.....
What I also find interesting is that the Coelacanth was believed to have been extinct for about 60 million years...
And "nobody had ever seen a live one"...
However, once a live one was reported, and people started LOOKING for them, there actually seem to be quite a few of them around after all...
(Perhaps a little bit of negative expectation bias going on there... )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

A friend of mine makes his living designing ultrasonic welding machinery - for fabricating plastic.
He informs me that, if you stand too close to one of those welders, when it's running, with the shielding open, you will quickly get a headache...
Closer, and, almost immediately, your eyeballs actually start to ache (which is undoubtedly very unhealthy).
However, the day some new "death metal" band starts using those frequencies in their performances... perhaps as part of a song entitled "My Head Explodes"....
You will need a hi-fi system with response to 50 kHz to reproduce those performances accurately...
(I leave it to you whether you would want to do so or not.)

Because of things like this, I have no problem agreeing when someone says "nobody has shown compelling evidence that ultrasonic content is audible in music".
However, I am still unwilling to agree that "it is impossible that it could be".



KeithEmo said:


> I agree... and, to me, it's an important distinction.
> 
> I don't know for sure whether having a frequency response that extends past 20 kHz, in and of itself, makes an audible difference or not.
> I've certainly heard high-res versions of files that sound exactly the same, or even worse, than their CD quality equivalents.
> ...





gregorio said:


> 1. I'm not sure I get most of your post, your hypothetical situation would apply equally well to placebo effect. For example, an average performing amp or DAC in a very expensive case could (and often does for many audiophiles) produce "a subjective increase in their happiness". Owning and listening to an expensive, "designer brand" bit of kit commonly/usually increases pleasure or happiness, regardless of actual performance. Is this really in question?
> 
> 2. I'm not sure who you mean by "we"? Heart rate (blood pressure), emotional responses both conscious and subliminal are pretty much the only/main thing "we associate with listening", if by "we" we're talking about music composers/creators.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

So if you guys want to make your car go faster do you then upgrade the glove compartment?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> Actually he wasn't playing fast and loose with the designation "engineers", he's playing fast and loose with the term "evidence". The context here is that what is "visible in a DAW" does not necessarily relate to what or how we hear or to the actual damage to waveforms caused by compression. It's an old discussion with thesonictruth that has been dealt with more than once but he likes to keep bringing up anyway, presumably because he didn't understand or didn't want to accept the facts.
> 
> G



The facts are what folks like you and Shepard want to conceal with statements like "ignore the numbers" and "use your ears".

I was able to create 'after' waveforms similar to those from 'remasters' by using, gues what - compressors and limiters!  The same bloated waveform signature.  Those are the FACTs.


----------



## analogsurviver (Aug 1, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Well, that's the expected arrogant response.  "Most probably"?  Seriously?
> Done.  Marketing fluff.
> Taking a heavy sigh...again I ask, for the zillionth time...no opinions...Proof Please!
> 
> ...




Now, only to reply to YOUR arrogant response. This :

1. Done.  Marketing fluff.
REALLYYY ??????  
Quote : The biggest surprise noted in the listening tests was the alteration of the stereo image which was radically improved with the impedance converter fitted. Measurements on the AT95E show that inter-channel crosstalk improves by >6dB over a sizeable portion of the audio band with the amplifier fitted. ( end Quote )

And THAT with the loweliest of the acceptable carts - AT-95E. Now, imagine TOTL Audio Technicas available today ( they ARE being offered lately - updates to the site are quite regular now ) - let alone THE best MMs ever - most of them vintage, some also by the Audio Technica ...

There is no evidence above approx 30 kHz being posted on that site - yet. I certainly DO know what can be achieved this way - doing it since 1993 !


2.Taking a heavy sigh...again I ask, for the zillionth time...no opinions...Proof Please!

Do you live on this Earth - or all your information is limited to whatever you are being fed by AES and so on - to some distant planet, well outside our solar system ?
Your first "cookie" ( as in sound carrier/medium/whatever that can store and play back music in any shape, form or priciple of operation ) being - CD ?



There WERE needle drops WITHOUT and WITH the amp recorded using the very same MM cartridge available on that site - and if you can not hear the difference, even in whatever digital provided on the site, than hereby I declare you officially - deaf. Emphasis on WERE available - or, at least, I can no longer navigate to the them anymore ...
( But here still ARE comparisons for YET another, likely even better way to utilise a MM cartridge : by turning it into a displacement/amplitude sensitive device - and not keeping it in  the conventional velocity sensitive device mode:



http://www.phaedrus-audio.com/listening.htm#vinyl   ( contains downloadable samples for above - there is even A/B test provided ))

Here a video ( from links provided within the link originally posted ) for those who have to have it all brought to themselves on the silver platter :



And you can wax about DSP this DSP that as much as you like - fact remains that STARTING with the best possible response from the cartridge in the first place is the best way to go.
ALL DSP, no matter how sophisticated,  is AFTER the fact aid. No amount of DSP will EVER be capable of restoring what the initial capture lacks or does wrong.

And, frankly , since you have stated that you did supervise analog record releases, from evaluating various vinyl formulas to the actual commercially available product  - the analogue record itself - I am SHOCKED that you are obviously oblivious to the audible differences between the MM and MC cartridges - and have, even more obviously, never tried to evaluate your own product by using both types of cartridges that represent > 99% of commercially available phono cartridges.


----------



## Phronesis

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> So if you guys want to make your car go faster do you then upgrade the glove compartment?



I drive cars on race tracks, I know that topic well.  The analogy isn't good because 'going faster' is precisely measurable using the simple unit of time, and the physics of what contributes to going faster is very well understood and also precisely measurable.  We don't have anywhere near that level of understanding and measurability when it comes to auditory perception.


----------



## KeithEmo

I didn't address your point #1.... and that is an interesting one.

Just for the sake of discussion, what if we did in fact have a consistent, repeatable, and statistically highly significant placebo effect?
Wouldn't that be an objective result?
(TV commercials don't make the product better; but they DO increase sales. Isn't that an objective improvement for the manufacturer?) 
Where DO we draw that line?

In another context, if we were to discover that we had fewer murders in prisons if we painted the walls pink....
Would that be "a psychological effect"?
Or would it be "a placebo effect"?
Or is there really a distinction.

I saw a recent commercial for a migraine remedy "for people who have 10 - 14 migraine days a month".
The manufacturer was very pleased to announce that their drug reduced headache days by 65% - while the placebo only reduced them by 40%.
My reaction was along the lines of: 
"Gee, we can reduce migraines by 40% just by thinking the right thoughts... there should be something we can do with that."
"Wouldn't it be nice if we could just teach people to get the placebo effect.... maybe by meditation or some such method? 40% improvement, for free, with no risks or side effects."

My PERSONAL take on the subject is that I would like to know whether I'm experiencing a real difference or a placebo effect.
However, if someone can show me that my music will sound better after I see the word "HD" printed on the cover, and it works, even after I know why it's happening...
Then it's probably still worth the extra $5.

I also PERSONALLY often experience a similar, but slightly different, effect with things like high-res audio files.
Let's assume that I have the opportunity to purchase a CD for $15 or a high-res file version of the same content for $20.
Let's assume that it's a given that they are identical except for the fact that the high-res version has some extra "ultrasonic" content.
Let's also assume that I have actually had an opportunity to listen to both casually and been unsure whether I noticed a real difference or not.

I PERSONALLY would still feel mildly uneasy purchasing the version that I know is technically less accurate.... 
Call it "a negative placebo effect" from knowing that it is NOT the most accurate copy available.
I would wonder, at least somewhat, whether, after buying new headphones next week, I might discover that an audible difference did in fact exist.
(I'm not buying an improvement; I'm buying insurance against a risk.)

And, yes, this is based to a degree on personal experience.
A very long time ago I collected a significant amount of music in MP3 format.
Then, after discovering that I could hear a difference in many cases, I ended up purchasing a lot of it over again on CD.
I would have been happier, and saved some money, if I'd just bought the CD versions the first time.
And, faced with that same decision again, I prefer to spend a few dollars extra on "insurance against the possibility".



gregorio said:


> 1. I'm not sure I get most of your post, your hypothetical situation would apply equally well to placebo effect. For example, an average performing amp or DAC in a very expensive case could (and often does for many audiophiles) produce "a subjective increase in their happiness". Owning and listening to an expensive, "designer brand" bit of kit commonly/usually increases pleasure or happiness, regardless of actual performance. Is this really in question?
> 
> G


----------



## Zapp_Fan

KeithEmo said:


> I didn't address your point #1.... and that is an interesting one.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, what if we did in fact have a consistent, repeatable, and statistically highly significant placebo effect?
> Wouldn't that be an objective result?
> ...



I think a true traditional placebo effect is a positive change resulting from something that is not what it purports to be.  Sugar pills as medicine.  So the HD sticker on SD equipment would be a good example.  Placebo effects happen when the subject expects something to happen, or at least are aware of the intervention. 

A pink wall might not be called placebo unless the prisoners were aware that it was intended to alter their behavior.  Otherwise I guess you'd just call it a psychological effect.  I am not actually an expert in these designations but that's my understanding of the difference. 

Negative placebo effects are technically called 'nocebo' effects.  Story time, I once saw a complaint from someone who had taken homeopathic medicine, i.e. highly diluted to the point that according to mainstream science, there was nothing but water in there.  They said they had a terribly unpleasant allergic reaction to the product.  Nocebo effect in a nutshell.  I believe among certain audiophiles, you can find both placebo and nocebo at work depending on the "intervention".


----------



## KeithEmo

Probably not.
But we might find out that the air drag on the rear view mirrors really is enough to make a difference.
And Olympic swimmers now wear swimsuits made of special fabric - designed to slip through the water a tiny bit more easily.

However, with all the knowledge we have about cars, and speed, and aerodynamics, you would think that it would be a trivial assumption that the company with the most money to spend could reliably design the fastest car.

In fact, I would wonder why we bother to have races at all....
Can't we just analyze the cars thoroughly and calculate which car will win - based on the specs?
Isn't it obvious which one can deliver the most torque per weight - and so get around the track the fastest?
Yet, oddly, we still need to build prototypes... and actually test them.

Or could it be that even a simple subject like that is complex enough that we CAN'T work out all the variables carefully enough to predict the outcome reliably from the specs?

Could it be that "a simple audio signal" isn't quite as simple as some of us would apparently like to believe either?



Kammerat Rebekka said:


> So if you guys want to make your car go faster do you then upgrade the glove compartment?


----------



## bigshot (Aug 1, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> - What blind listening tests have been done to compare music with and without 'ultrasonic' content?  What are the results of those tests?



I already answered this one. There was a test that presented music with ultrasonic frequencies and music with nothing above 20kHz to test subjects. They asked if the subjects thought that one sample sounded like it had better fidelity than the other. The result was that most people said there was no difference. They also presented them with a comparison of full frequency response music compared to the same music with everything above 10kHz filtered off. Although some listeners could detect a difference between the two, the majority said that they couldn't determine if one sounded like it had better fidelity than the other.

Pinnahertz probably knows the test I'm referring to. I haven't had access to it since AES put up their paywall.

The takeaway is that super audible frequencies are superfluous, and even the top octave isn't that necessary. Redbook is already well into the range of overkill. CD sound is all you need.



Phronesis said:


> One thing I've learned about science is that reality can be far stranger and more complex than we imagined.  Interconvertibility of mass and energy, intertwining and relativity of space and time, wave/particle duality, quantum superposition states and action at a distance … it's all weird real science (not "new age") stuff which doesn't fit our everyday intuitions, and that's just in physics.  By comparison, the brain and how it works is largely uncharted territory, and we continue to learn weird and counter-intuitive things about how it works.  People who say "hearing" is well understood are typically working with a rather simple (oversimplified) model of auditory perception.



It's easy to use the argument "we can't know everything so we can't know anything" to cherry pick and justify incorrect assumptions. There is an element of hearing that is a simple matter of physics. Thresholds of perception are pretty simple to test for and determine. The basic measures of audio fidelity- frequency response, distortion, dynamics, timing, etc.- are well understood. And those are the things that directly relate to whether an amp or DAC is doing its job. How the brain interprets the sound the ears hear is a completely different subject, and it has little relationship to the electronic design of audio components. Audiophiles use this largely irrelevant information as a smokescreen to avoid addressing the facts that don't mirror their own gut feelings or biases.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 1, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> The facts are what folks like you and Shepard want to conceal with statements like "ignore the numbers" and "use your ears". was able to create 'after' waveforms similar to those from 'remasters' by using, gues what - compressors and limiters!  The same bloated waveform signature.  Those are the FACTs.



You realize that we are talking about a completely different subject here, don't you? You keep trying to drag the conversation back to the one subject you want to talk about... and we've done that subject to death by now. Is that the only interest you have in the Sound Science forum? It gets pretty tiresome.



analogsurviver said:


> Do you live on this Earth - or all your information is limited to whatever you are being fed by AES and so on - to some distant planet, well outside our solar system ?



It's really not a worthwhile use of time conversing with you. You dismiss respected scientific testing and you don't present anything at all to support your own view. To me, that is just bluff. I think you should give it a rest too.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Aug 1, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I drive cars on race tracks, I know that topic well.  The analogy isn't good because 'going faster' is precisely measurable using the simple unit of time, and the physics of what contributes to going faster is very well understood and also precisely measurable.  We don't have anywhere near that level of understanding and measurability when it comes to auditory perception.



It was more of a retoric question. If you bothered to read through the last couple of posts by pinnahertz and still come up with this mantra, then I guess resistance really is futile.

It is rather funny when you think about it actually. All the equipment we use to reproduce music was created with science (tadah!) that audiophiles then pick apart every time it doesn't come up with the "right" answers.
Again: the agnostic view is one I am a huge fan of, but it does not make sense to apply it in matters where science already has a good footing.

I don't care how healthy ultrasounds supposedly make me if I can't hear a noticeable difference in sound quality. The end outcome of all this fumbling about on hi fi sites should preferably leave you with a better understanding of how to get wonderful and better quality music into your ears....so why again are we talking about things we can't hear? If you can't hear it you can't hear it.

Our auditory sense is so easily fooled yet most people on this site herald it as a trustworthy judge of hi fi equipment. It even trumps most scientific papers on the matter.

Edited for spelling and superfluous riff raff.


----------



## pinnahertz

Phronesis said:


> Thanks for the detailed post.  Some questions:
> 
> - Has anyone ever measure the upper frequency limit at which the ear is no longer generating auditory nerve signals?


They've gone to 100kHz via bone conduction and stopped because of the rising intensity required vs dropping sensitivity.  Like most analog systems, there's no hard "stop" point, it's a curve that intersects some practical reference point.  So, 100kHz for bone conduction, 24kHz for air-borne.


Phronesis said:


> - Has anyone ever measured response of auditory regions in the brain for high-frequency test tones, to see the upper limit of frequencies?


Oohashi claimed he did it (EEG).  The results have not been reproduced by others, even matching test method and equipment.


Phronesis said:


> - What blind listening tests have been done to compare music with and without 'ultrasonic' content?  What are the results of those tests?


We get into a really sticky problem here.  Testing that is really difficult.  It's hard to vary ultrasonic content without changing many other things.  They typical test done is to compare 16/44 with something higher, but to do that you have to question how the material was originated, resampled, re-filtered, what changes in ADC/DAC performance when sampling rate is changed, which invalidates much of that testing method.  Another method is to accept the rolled-off response of a normal transducer, then add an ultrasonic transducer to it that can be switched on and off for testing.  That method has problems too.   It's also nearly impossible to deliver ultrasonic content to the ear with consistency and reliability required for this kind of testing.  The higher the frequency the tighter the dispersion beam, which makes the actual size requirement for an ultrasonic drive too small to be practical.  With headphones, we have positioning issues...big ones.    It's also darn difficult to create without the possibility of rather significant IMD, which makes isolating ultrasonic response impossible.

Working against the premise that ultrasonic content audibility testing is necessary at all is a rather significant, and documented fall-off in human hearing response above the audible range coupled with the extremely low level of ultrasonic content in music. With a 50-70dB loss in hearing sensitivity, along with ultrasonic content being down 30-50 dB (or more) below mid-band, we don't really have anything to test for in the first place.

I want to be very clear here for all.  It's not under question that air-borne sound above a certain frequency (generally accepted 24kHz as the practical max, average being more like 20kHz) cannot be heard by the vast majority of people.  That's been proven, many times.  It's not under question that the ear does have ultrasonic bone-conduction response, that's also been proven many times, but is inapplicable to the general concept of "hearing".   We can therefore reasonably say (how's that, Keith?) that for the vast number of humans, hearing ultrasonic content _directly via air-borne sound waves _is not possible. 

However, the question of audible differences related to total system bandwidth has not been studied definitively.  Work done by Deane Jensen ("Spectral Contamination Measurement", AES, November 1988), showed that there may be a secondary connection between bandwidth and spectral contamination, though it was not universal and clearly depended on other factors such as linearity and the resulting ultrasonic intermodulation, and not strictly bandwidth alone.  Their tests showed a lack of consistent correlation between amplifier bandwidth and spectral contamination. 

There's no point in further conjecture, but it is possible to state a few things that should be self evident.  1. There is no direct hearing of ultrasonic energy. 2. High frequency intermodulation can cause products to be generated in the audible band.  Those products are variable by degree of intermod (nonlinearity), with audibility affected by variations in product level and frequency, and masking by actual in-band content.  3. The expectation that a system with ultrasonic response is somehow "better" (without regard to linearity) is powerful, but without consistent basis.  4. There may be audible differences that have some degree of correlation with system bandwidth (but not caused simply by bandwidth), but_ preference choice_ in these differences are largely swamped by expectation bias, as those stating that preference have not conducted scientific testing, and refuse to do so, finding fault with the procedure, preferring fully sighted auditioning.  5. Nearly all analog recording systems have extremely high ultrasonic IMD, especially vinyl and analog tape.   6. Tweeters with ultrasonic response suffer from narrowing beam width with rising frequency and potentially high intermod distortion.

Given all the above, we cannot say that wide-band ultrasonic response, in and of itself, results in an audible difference. 

And remember, "ultrasonic" means you cannot hear it.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 1, 2018)

Balance and cleanness in the core frequencies are *much* more important to achieving high audio fidelity than worrying about the extreme bleeding edges of human hearing. Beyond the range of human hearing, sound is completely irrelevant to the faithful representation of recorded music. Most musical instruments don't produce any sound in super audible frequencies. Most commercial recordings don't include super audible frequencies. And as I'm discovering in another thread, numerous commercial recordings sold as "HD audio" contain nothing above 20kHz but noise unrelated to the music.

With all the clear indications that inaudible frequencies are inaudible, it astounds me how tightly audiophiles cling to the idea that "more is better". Even intelligent people who believe themselves to be relatively free of bias can totally throw all logic out of the window to protect this cherished misconception. It's probably the most common of all of the audiophile myths.

This is an Emperor's New Clothes topic for sure.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Aug 1, 2018)

Another way to consider whether ultrasonics matter to music is our experience of ultrasonic audio in daily life from natural sources.  Have you ever entered a room and noticed that there was loud ultrasound in there? Or otherwise experienced something that you identified as primarily ultrasonic in nature?  Does bats' echolocation bother you at night? Do you flinch when someone blows a dog whistle? Is it a common experience to notice ultrasonic audio when we're not listening for it? (despite the contradiction in terms)?

I think the answer to all of these is probably no, with few if any exceptions.

If ultrasound mattered to our perception of audio, it would always matter, not just when listening to music. 

This is not necessarily an assertion about the optimal bandwidth for reproducing normal audio, but let's be realistic about what ultrasound is and whether it matters in and of itself.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 1, 2018)

When I was a kid, I used to hate to go to Sears because it was a huge warehouse sized space lit by fluorescent lights. There was a horrible high pitched cicada-esque squeal at a high volume from all the ballasts on the ceiling going South. I remember we had an old B&W Magnivox TV set that would overheat and put out a squeal like that too. Since I hit puberty, I haven't heard that sound. It was probably above 18kHz and at my age, I just can't hear it any more. Now I can go into places lit by old fluorescent light fixtures and it doesn't bother me a bit.

I have a battery operated dog training device that puts out a high frequency sound at 22kHz. It makes my dogs scramble all over and run for the exit, but I can't hear it at all and it doesn't bother me a bit.

What you can't hear, can't bother you.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> When I was a kid, I used to hate to go to Sears because it was a huge warehouse sized space lit by fluorescent lights. There was a horrible high pitched cicada-esque squeal at a high volume from all the ballasts on the ceiling going South. I remember we had an old B&W Magnivox TV set that would overheat and put out a squeal like that too. Since I hit puberty, I haven't heard that sound. It was probably above 18kHz and at my age, I just can't hear it any more. Now I can go into places lit by old fluorescent light fixtures and it doesn't bother me a bit.


What you heard from the TV was the horizontal frequency from the flyback circuit, 15750, fairly rich in harmonics, it's a sawtooth.  But of course, you were hearing the fundamental, not the 3rd harmonic!


bigshot said:


> I have a battery operated dog training device that puts out a high frequency sound at 22kHz. It makes my dogs scramble all over and run for the exit, but I can't hear it at all and it doesn't bother me a bit.
> 
> What you can't hear, can't bother you.


In the late 1950s, early 1960s, there was a type of motion detector used in retail stores alarm systems that used "ultrasonic" energy, likely about 22kHz.  It drove me nuts.  I literally couldn't stand to be in some stores, much to my mother's dismay.  Finally, one day in a music store (of all places) where I was demoing instruments, the motion detector was intolerable.  I didn't know, of course, what it was, but complained about the "squeal" that nobody else could hear.  The sales guy said, "Just a minute..." and walked into the back room and shut the thing off.  He came out and I declared it was off.  He revealed it was the "burglar alarm", and pointed out the domed-shaped transducer on the ceiling.  After that, any time I was in a store that used the thing, I would walk around until the sound was the loudest, look up and see the transducer.  I maintained 22kHz hearing until my early 20s, long gone now.  But at the time, the motion detector wouldn't have qualified for the designation of "ultrasonic", because I could hear it reliably.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> This morning, I listened to a 20-sec meditation mantra which was looped 21 times, for a total time of 7 minutes.  It didn't sound the same to me each time I listened to it, but I'm pretty sure the objective sound reaching my eardrums was the same each time.



If you had the two samples lined up with each other and looping, you could have put them through a switch box and directly compared them with no time between samples. The problem you had was related to auditory memory, and that has been extensively tested.


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting..... taking your statement literally, word for word, here's what I get out of that....

That MOST people did not claim that they heard a SIGNIFICANT difference when ultrasonic content was or was not filtered out.
I find it very significant that they said "most" rather than "all".... since it infers that at least some people DID hear a difference... or claimed that they did.

Now, if I was setting up a new mass market streaming service, that would be plenty to tell me that MOST of my potential customers would be perfectly happy with music limited to 15 kHz.
My guess is that, when the standard for FM radio was created, it was based on very much that sort of information.
And that same information probably explains why so many people are perfectly satisfied with the sound quality offered by services like Spotify.

HOWEVER, as with most audiophiles, I don't concern myself with what "most" other people hear or care about.
Therefore, I would be more interested to know if they confirmed whether the difference that SOME people DID claim to hear was real or not. 

So, to me, the big takeaway is that at least some people did claim to hear a difference......

I would also be interested in knowing all sorts of details.... including the demographics of their test group and the details of their music samples.
For example, most high school students can apparently hear a very high pitched phone ring tone known as "a bumblebee ring".... but most teachers apparently cannot.
(Which works out very well since, from what I understand, the largest users of bumblebee ring tones are students - specifically because they can usually hear them while their teachers usually cannot.) 
I would also assume that certain musical instruments contain significant ultrasonic overtones - while others do not.
(I would expect those ultrasonic overtones to be more important to the sound of a cymbal than the sound of a bass drum.)



bigshot said:


> I already answered this one. There was a test that presented music with ultrasonic frequencies and music with nothing above 20kHz to test subjects. They asked if the subjects thought that one sample sounded like it had better fidelity than the other. The result was that most people said there was no difference. They also presented them with a comparison of full frequency response music compared to the same music with everything above 10kHz filtered off. Although some listeners could detect a difference between the two, the majority said that they couldn't determine if one sounded like it had better fidelity than the other.
> 
> Pinnahertz probably knows the test I'm referring to. I haven't had access to it since AES put up their paywall.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting.....

I would have assumed that there was no "problem" whatsoever... 
I would have assumed that the composer had arranged to repeat the same loop multiple times with the specific idea that, each time you heard it, your perception would be slightly different because of having heard it before.
Each time you hear it, your mental state is altered, so, the next time you hear it, you have "a different starting point".
Perhaps, each time you hear the same loop, you will notice new and interesting details... or, perhaps, hearing no new details each time, your mind will wander in a relaxing way. 
(Likewise, if you do ten identical pushups, or drink ten identical bottles of beer, the tenth one doesn't feel at all like the first one.)



bigshot said:


> If you had the two samples lined up with each other and looping, you could have put them through a switch box and directly compared them with no time between samples. The problem you had was related to auditory memory, and that has been extensively tested.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 1, 2018)

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I described the test a couple of times before in this thread before, so I skimmed over the details a bit.

They weren't asked to tell a difference between redbook and high sampling/bit rate audio. We already know they wouldn't be able to tell a difference between music with and without ultrasonic information because ultrasonic information is inaudible. That's a given and it's been proven time and time again.

The question this test asked was "Does ultrasonic content give music some special sort of quality beyond audibility?" They were testing to see if inaudible frequencies somehow made music sound "better". That addresses the whole "nerve ending argument" that there is some sort of perception of ultrasonic frequencies beyond mechanical hearing.

In the test, people indicated that there was no difference in perceived quality between a redbook sample and a high bit/sampling rate sample. They both sounded just as good. No one could tell the difference between the two samples either (but that's a given).

The test took it one further and rolled off everything above 10kHz and then had them compare that to redbook. The results were that some people could discern that the two samples were a little different, but in general even the ones that could tell a difference said that the difference didn't affect the perceived quality of the sound. Both samples sounded just as good. There was more variability in this test than the other obviously, because it was an audible difference to some people. But in general, the majority agreed that rolling off everything above 10kHz doesn't significantly degrade the perceived sound quality of recorded music. This really shouldn't be surprising. If you get a good quality digital equalizer with very little spill and do this test for yourself, you'll find that there isn't much musical content in most commercial recordings above 10kHz.

There are things about the numbers that represent sound that audiophiles accept as truth that just don't hold up if you actually do the test yourself. Even Sound Science folks are guilty of judging by the numbers, not judging by the sound. I've found that most tests test for the extremes of hearing with test tones and very controlled environments. If you test using recorded music in a normal home environment, the thresholds can be much less stringent.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Phronesis said:


> ... again, it depends on how you're defining and measuring 'audibility'.


Well you have to have some bloody metric. How does a company selling amps find out if the “subconscious” tonal qualities are in spec off the line? Have one (I mean literally one) “golden ears guy” listening to every single one of them in a controlled blind test? Your “testing” approach falls apart. It literally needs to be numerically quantifiable in order to manufacture it. Period.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 1, 2018)

colonelkernel8 said:


> How does a company selling amps find out if the “subconscious” tonal qualities are in spec off the line?



Let's do an experiment! Which one of these audio components do you think might have the most appealing subconscious sound?









KeithEmo said:


> if you drink ten identical bottles of beer, the tenth one doesn't feel at all like the first one.)



Sometimes I think people have had ten bottles of beer before commenting in this thread!


----------



## Davesrose

Well that's easy....this one, cause it's most like a Venus character and the upper half is more tweet vs bottom woof


----------



## prescient (Aug 1, 2018)

If we could step away from the ultrasonic debate for a bit I have what is probably an easier question to answer.

I often hear that different kinds of filters used to equalize speakers (FIR perhaps?) have the potential to introduce ringing. Can anyone explain to me why the ringing occurs and how audible it is? Have there been studies conducted that indicate what "too much eq" is? If not how would one measure the effect of ringing on sound quality? In a less than ideal room, which most of us have, how would you think about determining the "right" level of EQ?

Additionally if there is good material on this feel free to point me in that direction!


----------



## pinnahertz

KeithEmo said:


> Interesting..... taking your statement literally, word for word, here's what I get out of that....
> 
> That MOST people did not claim that they heard a SIGNIFICANT difference when ultrasonic content was or was not filtered out.
> I find it very significant that they said "most" rather than "all".... since it infers that at least some people DID hear a difference... or claimed that they did.
> ...


As long as we're nit-picking (and we really are), FM was created with bandwidth to 20kHz in mono.  FM Stereo places a pilot tone injected at -20dB @ 19kHz re: 100% modulation (+/- 75kHz).  The pilot must be "protected" from adjacent audio so it can be used to regenerate the suppressed carrier in the 38kHz L-R signal.  Early filters were 15kHz low pass, and passive, ringy, and not very good.  The next generation was active precision filters with higher pass, faster cut-off, next came phase compensated low-ring active filters.  Current filters are digital, low ring (phase compensated, though not strictly minimum phase for other reasons) and flat to 17kHz, with a precision cut for the pilot.  The entire stereo generator, filters, pilot, suppressed carrier subchannel, is now within a DSP, and response, distortion, and separation figures are not superior to any previous method.


KeithEmo said:


> And that same information probably explains why so many people are perfectly satisfied with the sound quality offered by services like Spotify.


That, and the fact that the greatest population group has hearing ability that doesn't exceed 15kHz, much of it lower than that.


KeithEmo said:


> HOWEVER, as with most audiophiles, I don't concern myself with what "most" other people hear or care about.
> Therefore, I would be more interested to know if they confirmed whether the difference that SOME people DID claim to hear was real or not.
> 
> So, to me, the big takeaway is that at least some people did claim to hear a difference......


As a binary analysis, yes, but the real question is always one of magnitude.  How many claimed to hear a difference, and was their claim provable and reliable?  And how intense were the ultrasonics they could detect?  Was there in-band masking? And was there in-band intermod?  See...not that simple, many dimensions to the data set.


KeithEmo said:


> I would also be interested in knowing all sorts of details.... including the demographics of their test group and the details of their music samples.
> For example, most high school students can apparently hear a very high pitched phone ring tone known as "a bumblebee ring".... but most teachers apparently cannot.
> 
> (Which works out very well since, from what I understand, the largest users of bumblebee ring tones are students - specifically because they can usually hear them while their teachers usually cannot.)


They call it a "mosquito tone".


KeithEmo said:


> I would also assume that certain musical instruments contain significant ultrasonic overtones - while others do not.
> (I would expect those ultrasonic overtones to be more important to the sound of a cymbal than the sound of a bass drum.)


Your assumption as to the "significant" ultrasonic overtones is the classic vague evaluation.  If there are "any", then they're "significant" to some.  However, the reality is, again, one of magnitude.  How strong is the ultrasonic content relative to the audible content that absolutely will mask low level signals. 

And remember, if it's "ultrasonic", then it's inaudible.  Can't seem to get that one across for some reason.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 1, 2018)

prescient said:


> I often hear that different kinds of filters used to equalize speakers (FIR perhaps?) have the potential to introduce ringing. Can anyone explain to me why the ringing occurs and how audible it is? Have there been studies conducted that indicate what "too much eq" is? If not how would one measure the effect of ringing on sound quality? In a less than ideal room, which most of us have, how would you think about determining the "right" level of EQ?



What do you mean by "ringing"?  Do you mean the system you're listening to has a semblance and is physically giving you a ringing in the ear (or overall fatigue)?  Overall, DSP filters are supposed to bring more dynamics (usually at the expense of treble), so ear fatigue can be more about system integration.  This forum is more about headphones, but with speaker amps, there may be particular settings with your own brand.


----------



## pinnahertz

prescient said:


> If we could step away from the ultrasonic debate for a bit I have what is probably an easier question to answer.
> 
> I often hear that different kinds of filters used to equalize speakers (FIR perhaps?) have the potential to introduce ringing. Can anyone explain to me why the ringing occurs and how audible it is? Have there been studies conducted that indicate what "too much eq" is? If not how would one measure the effect of ringing on sound quality? In a less than ideal room, which most of us have, how would you think about determining the "right" level of EQ?
> 
> Additionally if there is good material on this feel free to point me in that direction!


Correctly applied EQ doesn't introduce ringing, quite the inverse.  Speakers in rooms already "ring" for many reasons, including resonances, reflections, modes and associated phase shifts to name the biggies.  A properly applied FIR filter has the capability to compensate for those issues.  Taking an impulse response measurement and using it to convolve an inverse filter is relatively trivial. The question is one of measurement accuracy, not so much of the measurement mic, but how it is positioned, and how multiple measurement points are combined for optimal correction over a specified area.  The same technique has been applied to headphones in the past (Audyssey Music Player app), with excellent technical success, but somewhat dismal market success. 

While *these guys are selling something*, there's enough info here to get a basic understanding of the inverse FIR principle. 
*These guys* also are selling product, but if someone wanted to wet their feet in FIR or IIR correction (they have a headphone product!), this would be an economical way in, and *they share info here.*

BTW, remarkable correction can also be achieved with IIR filters with the benefit of lower DSP load, it's just not as precise.


----------



## pinnahertz

Davesrose said:


> What do you mean by "ringing"?  Do you mean the system you're listening to has a semblance and is physically giving you a ringing in the ear (or overall fatigue)?


Not ringing as in a bell, or ear fatigue.  The classic definition is where a step function, rather than being just a clean step, results in overshoot and ringing. 


Davesrose said:


> Overall, DSP filters are supposed to bring more dynamics (usually at the expense of treble), so ear fatigue can be more about system integration.


No, that's a very poor description of what a DSP can do.  A DSP is a Digital Signal Processor, and can be programmed to accomplish a multitude of functions.  A DSP by definition has nothing to do with loss of treble in specific.  Nearly every system can benefit from properly applied DSP because no speaker or headphone is free from a plethora of anomalies, not even the best of the best.  Then there's the room, in the case of speakers, and good rooms are very, very rare.  DSP based EQ addresses frequency response and time domain issues, which cannot be addressed in any other way.   The proper application is the hitch, requiring really good measurements, or the process fails at least in part.


Davesrose said:


> This forum is more about headphones, but with speaker amps, there may be particular settings with your own brand.


DSP can be, and is applied to headphones.  In fact, as I alluded to in an earlier post, one realization of really great headphone EQ was done by Audyssey with their AMP iOS app.  It is, unfortunately, no longer available and incompatible with the current iOS.  Audyssey had a high precision headphone measurement system in house, and developed an extensive database.  The profiles I personally tried were really excellent, solving most of the big issues I had with sample headphones.  I'd seriously check out the miniDSP headphone solution.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 1, 2018)

pinnahertz said:


> Not ringing as in a bell, or ear fatigue.  The classic definition is where a step function, rather than being just a clean step, results in overshoot and ringing


And a spike in frequency (often treble range) brings on ear fatigue....what I equate most to ringing.



pinnahertz said:


> No, that's a very poor description of what a DSP can do.  A DSP is a Digital Signal Processor, and can be programmed to accomplish a multitude of functions.  A DSP by definition has nothing to do with loss of treble in specific.  Nearly every system can benefit from properly applied DSP because no speaker or headphone is free from a plethora of anomalies, not even the best of the best.  Then there's the room, in the case of speakers, and good rooms are very, very rare.  DSP based EQ addresses frequency response and time domain issues, which cannot be addressed in any other way.   The proper application is the hitch, requiring really good measurements, or the process fails at least in part.



Treble attenuation and compression is an often used plot with DSP algorithms (DSP has been around a very long time).  To also include your other specifics about DSP and headphones, I used to enjoy DSPs with CDs and Dolby virtual surround.....but these days I don't use much DSPs with my headphones.  I try to have a clean digital source (Benchmark has pretty flat frequencies), and my coloration is with my tube amp.  So, instead of the latest and greatest digital colorations, I'm embracing NOS old school analog colorations!


----------



## pinnahertz (Aug 2, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> And a spike in frequency (often treble range) brings on ear fatigue....what I equate most to ringing.


Ok, but that's not what "ringing" means in general audio.



Davesrose said:


> Treble attenuation and compression is an often used plot with DSP algorithms


DSP can be programmed to emphasize or de-emphasize treble.  Treble attenuation is not a default result of DSP.  Compression is a dynamics processing function that also can be accomplished with DSP, but is not done by default.  Perhaps you've used specific DSP-based products and had these results, but they are not endemic to DSP applications.


Davesrose said:


> (DSP has been around a very long time).


Not in common consumer use, and not with the quality and resolution available today.  What does this have to do with anything anyway?  My first exposure to DSP was in the late 1970s, and the thing couldn't actually pass data fast enough to process high quality digital audio.  So what?


Davesrose said:


> To also include your other specifics about DSP and headphones, I used to enjoy DSPs with CDs and Dolby virtual surround.....but these days I don't use much DSPs with my headphones.  I try to have a clean digital source (Benchmark has pretty flat frequencies), and my coloration is with my tube amp.  So, instead of the latest and greatest digital colorations, I'm embracing NOS old school analog colorations!


You don't seem to understand the point.  DSP does not by default introduce colorations, though that might be one application.  DSP can in fact neutalize "analog colorations", pass then, or simulate them.  They can also be programed to simulate your tube amp.

It's actually funny that you think you're using a "clean digital source" without DSP, when every single recording you're playing has at some point been processed by some form of DSP.  Every one.

But if you're enamored with "analog colorations" and don't like "digital colorations", whatever the heck that means (likely just a bias), then I guess we're done here.


----------



## Davesrose

pinnahertz said:


> Ok, but that's not what "ringing" means in general audio.



  OK, spike in frequency isn't ringing to you....got it.



pinnahertz said:


> DSP can be programmed to emphasize or de-emphasize treble.  Treble attenuation is not a default result of DSP.  Compression is a dynamics processing function that also can be accomplished with DSP, but is not done by default.  Perhaps you've used specific DSP-based products and had these results, but they are not endemic to DSP applications.
> Not in common consumer use, and not with the quality and resolution available today.  What does this have to do with anything anyway?  My first exposure to DSP was in the late 1970s, and the thing couldn't actually pass data fast enough to process high quality digital audio.  So what?



  No, treble attenuation or compression is not "default", but I said often used.  I have not even gotten into what my experience with DSP has been, and no, not all my applications where what my generality was (hint: you do realize Bose is one of the most popular audio companies).  I don't care what DSP was like in the 70s (before CD): I'm at least talking about popular 16 bit audio of the late 80s.  At least DSP processing of 48khz+ should be considered.

  When you say DSP 'can in fact neutralize "analog colorations"', you do realize that means it is adjusting frequencies (IE colorizing)??  You might want to assume the latest digital processing is the easiest and best in sound, but I think it's just another cycle.


----------



## pinnahertz

Davesrose said:


> When you say DSP 'can in fact neutralize "analog colorations"', you do realize that means it is adjusting frequencies (IE colorizing)??


Adjusting frequency response is one possible DSP function, but when working in the time domain, much more is accomplished.  Every single speaker or headphone (analog systems) have serious problems both in frequency and time domains.  Those problems result in what you're terming "colorations".  I have no issue with the use of the term.  You may like those colorations, or not, or just not care.  The environment a speaker is in also has similar impact, and results may or may not be desirable. With proper measurement and convolution it is possible to compensate for, to a very large extent, many of those deficiencies and end up with a system that is more neutral, faithful, high-fidelity...you pick your favorite term...than before.  You can also match a target curve for a particular application, which is most often done.  The end result, when proper measurement and targets are applied, is not more "coloration" but rather a reduction in the flaws and deficiencies that caused coloration in the first place.  It's been established that people prefer smooth and neutral response.  DSP is a way to get there.


Davesrose said:


> You might want to assume the latest digital processing is the easiest and best in sound, but I think it's just another cycle.


It's always another cycle.  Todays DSP products and solutions are the best yet, but there's always higher speed, more resolution, more memory, etc.  I feel most of the work that needs to be done is in the area of collecting complete and representative measurements.  It's impossible to apply full DSP correction unless you know what you're correcting for.  In my work I've found measurement is actually the key to excellent sounding DSP equalization, and unfortunately, it's not as intuitive or as easy as one might hope.  Can't tell you how many hours I've spent only to trash the results and start over using different measurement techniques. The fully automated solutions are only approximate.  I'm always hand-tuning and re-measuring anyway.  Hence my feeling that measurement improvement is the next step.  I think DSP capability today is more than adequate to accomplish most of what we need to do.


----------



## tipsyboo

This was the best read ever.


----------



## bigshot

There are a lot of different types of DSPs intended for all kinds of purposes. I don't think you can make any generalization about what DSPs do or don't do, you can only say that they do something. They can create coloration or uncolor. They can create time shifts or eliminate them. They can simulate unnatural ambiences or make the room ambience sound more natural. I use DSPs all the time in my speaker system. I wish there were sophisticated DSPs that I could easily use with headphones too. I believe that DSPs are the future of high end audio.


----------



## old tech

Phronesis said:


> Thanks for the detailed post.  Some questions:
> 
> - Has anyone ever measure the upper frequency limit at which the ear is no longer generating auditory nerve signals?
> 
> ...



I can answer the last question.  Commencing around 20 years ago, I made probably around 500 CDs from LPs in my collection.  Firstly they were done in a well known Australian studio and then later, at home when consumer software/hardware became available.  As I put a lot of effort into this and a large number of LPs, I regularly conducted blind tests against the donor turntable on the same stereo.  Apart from some faulty transfers along the way, netiher I nor friends who participated in the tests could pick the CD apart from the LP (now remember CD's top out at around 20khz, while LPs have noise which goes higher than that).  Neither could the professionals at the studio tell them apart and that was 20 years ago.

A better example is the M&M 2007 year long study comparing SACDs and DVD-A clean and downsampled to 16/44.  The subjects of that study included trained musicians, record producers and audiophiles, including allowing the subjects to use their own music material, on their own stereos, in their own home and in their own time.  Again any ultrasonic content would have been removed when downsampled to 16/44 and no evidence was found that the listeners could pick the difference.

Apart from those examples, what about the 1000s of people who load up a hi res track in foobar and then do a proper DBT and cannot tell the difference? 

How much evidence do you need?  Surely the onus of proof is the other way round.


----------



## old tech

Phronesis said:


> I drive cars on race tracks, I know that topic well.  The analogy isn't good because 'going faster' is precisely measurable using the simple unit of time, and the physics of what contributes to going faster is very well understood and also precisely measurable.  We don't have anywhere near that level of understanding and measurability when it comes to auditory perception.


Actually it is quite a good analogy.  Some cars are deceptively fast and some are deceptively slow.  There are many instances where people might ride in a slower accelerating car and be convinced it is quicker than the faster car, until they see the precise measure - like audio in a way.  Some are convinced that CD is not completely transparent, despite the precise measurements while others say vinyl has superior fidelity despite not even needing precise measurements to demonstrate it is not.

Like audio, beliefs and preferences can affect how an individual responds to a car, regardless of measurement.  I know quite a few people that prefer 1960s muscle cars over modern cars.  They would very much prefer driving a 60s Mustang or Camaro over say a current model Kia Stinger, even though the Stinger is quicker, handles much better, has better brakes, more precise steering, more comfort and indeed, measures objectively far better on any relevant measure.


----------



## castleofargh

Davesrose said:


> OK, spike in frequency isn't ringing to you....got it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


about ringing, @pinnahertz  was just explaining that in this context, it doesn't refer to a subjective impact(my ears are ringing), but to a characteristic of the signal(pre or post ringing depending on the type of filter used for the EQ). the biggest effects can be observed with impulse responses and a strong low pass filter. that's the type of ringing @prescient was referring to in his post.

about coloration, alteration, degradation of the sound, it's really a matter of reference. if I could purchase flat speakers, put them in a room, sit in a chair, and get clean flat sound, then room correction through DSP would be a mistake. because all I would do would be "coloration".
but as reality is more likely to have us end up with sound at the listener's position being a mess of non flat transducers, room reflections, comb effects and what not. proper settings in a DSP can effectively result in higher fidelity and a signal closer to neutral(if that's what we were aiming for).


----------



## gregorio (Aug 2, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I saw a recent commercial for a migraine remedy "for people who have 10 - 14 migraine days a month".
> The manufacturer was very pleased to announce that their drug reduced headache days by 65% - while the placebo only reduced them by 40%.
> My reaction was along the lines of:
> [2] "Gee, we can reduce migraines by 40% just by thinking the right thoughts... there should be something we can do with that."
> [2a] "Wouldn't it be nice if we could just teach people to get the placebo effect.... maybe by meditation or some such method?"



That's effectively a common audiophile response. By that I mean I've often seen it used as a response, typically something along the lines of: "If it [some bit of kit or format, etc.] sounds better, what difference does it make whether it sounds better because of placebo or some real affect? The end result is exactly the same, it sounds better and therefore I've wisely spent my money on something that sounds better!". - The problem is of course that placebo effect is unpredictable and volatile. It may work for one person and not another and even if it does work for someone on one occasion, it may or may not work on the next occasion.

2. There IS something "we can do with that" in the audiophile world and virtually without exception something is done with it!
2a. We can and routinely do "teach people to get the placebo effect" not with meditation though, the "some such method" is called marketing!!

Placebo is caused by the interaction of various biases and marketing exists to manipulate biases. Therefore, even if placebo works for someone consistently, it's likely that some form of marketing will come along which changes those biases, reduces or changes that placebo effect and creates a new placebo effect. In fact, the audiophile world almost entirely exists solely on this principle!



KeithEmo said:


> Let's assume that I have the opportunity to purchase a CD for $15 or a high-res file version of the same content for $20.
> Let's assume that it's a given that they are identical except for the fact that the high-res version has some extra "ultrasonic" content.
> Let's also assume that I have actually had an opportunity to listen to both casually and been unsure whether I noticed a real difference or not.
> [1] I PERSONALLY would still feel mildly uneasy purchasing the version that I know is technically less accurate....Call it "a negative placebo effect" from knowing that it is NOT the most accurate copy available.
> ...



1. As mentioned, that's called a "nocebo effect". In your example, a nocebo effect based on the fallacious belief that the CD is somehow less accurate.
1a. You're buying an insurance against the risk that you may not be a human being?

2. How is that based on your personal experience? The MP3 format removes masses of information from within the human hearing range, to hear a difference does not require you to be some species other than a human being, it just requires you to have acute human hearing/listening (perception) skills. The difference between MP3 and CD does not equate to the difference between CD and so called hi-res.

Your posts indicate you don't understand what "inaudible" means or the difference between "imperceivable" and "inaudible".



KeithEmo said:


> [1] ]However, with all the knowledge we have about cars, and speed, and aerodynamics, you would think that it would be a trivial assumption that the company with the most money to spend could reliably design the fastest car.
> [1a] Or could it be that even a simple subject like that is complex enough that we CAN'T work out all the variables carefully enough to predict the outcome reliably from the specs?
> [2] Could it be that "a simple audio signal" isn't quite as simple as some of us would apparently like to believe either?



1. No, I would not think that, I can see how some might though.
1a. Even if you had all the specs you still couldn't predict the outcome. Just with the aerodynamics alone we have a chaotic system, unless the races were only to occur within a specific wind tunnel, and that is just one of numerous variables, some others of which are also chaotic systems. A chaotic system is by definition unpredictable or at best, only predictable to within a probability (of less than 100%).

2. No! Audio signals, regardless of their complexity, are NOT a chaotic system. They are entirely definable/predictable and have been proven to be so. To state or prove otherwise would require disproving the already well established and proven mathematics of Fourier, Shannon and a bunch of others.

G


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] The facts are what folks like you and Shepard want to conceal with statements like "ignore the numbers" and "use your ears".
> [2] I was able to create 'after' waveforms similar to those from 'remasters' by using, gues what - compressors and limiters! The same bloated waveform signature. Those are the FACTs.



1. Either it's all some massive conspiracy of engineers against audiophiles or it's simply you deliberately misquoting "statements" in order to justify your agenda.
2. Those are the irrelevant and out of context facts, which you've misunderstood. What's surprising is that you continue to misunderstand despite it having been explained and demonstrated to you!

I'm not going to go through it all again with you for about the fourth time. I'll leave it to others to work out for themselves if this a conspiracy and the real "facts" or you just misrepresenting the facts to further your own agenda!



Phronesis said:


> I drive cars on race tracks, I know that topic well. The analogy isn't good because 'going faster' is precisely measurable using the simple unit of time, and the physics of what contributes to going faster is very well understood and also precisely measurable. We don't have anywhere near that level of understanding and measurability when it comes to auditory perception.



What has a level of understanding and measurability of auditory perception go to do with it? We're talking about the limits of audibility, NOT the limits of perception!

G


----------



## prescient

pinnahertz thanks for the replies. With respect to the ringing the reason I asked is that I had seen people on message boards indicate it was a potential issue, but I've never noticed it as I suspect my room is a much larger issue. I am interested in understanding the potential downsides of the use of DSP despite the fact that they are probably minimal in the grand scheme of things.

I actually have Dirac, a minidsp DDRC-88a, and minidsp headphone measurement rig to play around with. The DDRC-88a is for the living room, band but I'm planning to measure my headphones and play around with creating EQ curves to see how that works out. I also have this plan to build active speakers with DSP built in at some point in the future just to see if I can do it, but obviously have no clue how to do it at the moment.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> Probably not.
> But we might find out that the air drag on the rear view mirrors really is enough to make a difference.
> And Olympic swimmers now wear swimsuits made of special fabric - designed to slip through the water a tiny bit more easily.
> 
> ...



Yes, this is generally true.  The biggest budgets for developing race cars are in Formula 1.  There are literally hundreds of people in each team to support development of two cars for two drivers.  The knowledge is there for engineers to develop cars that are nearly optimized without too much difficulty, with the result that the difference in lap time between the fastest and slowest cars is about 1-2% in a field of 10 teams.  But over the course of dozens of laps, that small difference in lap time amounts to a difference between having a shot at winning vs being near last place.  Squeezing that last bit of performance out of the car is difficult because of the complexities, design tradeoffs, and small uncertainties which are involved.

With audio, it may similarly be the case that it's not difficult to design very good gear, but squeezing out the last bit of 'sound quality' is challenging, with the further challenge that we can't necessarily be confident that we can measure 'sound quality' in a purely objective way.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> If you had the two samples lined up with each other and looping, you could have put them through a switch box and directly compared them with no time between samples. The problem you had was related to auditory memory, and that has been extensively tested.



The same sound is played back over and over again by the app.  So I think we can assume that the sound is objectively the same in each case, and what's changing is my perception of the sound (which, yes, involves auditory memory).


----------



## Phronesis

old tech said:


> Actually it is quite a good analogy.  Some cars are deceptively fast and some are deceptively slow.  There are many instances where people might ride in a slower accelerating car and be convinced it is quicker than the faster car, until they see the precise measure - like audio in a way.  Some are convinced that CD is not completely transparent, despite the precise measurements while others say vinyl has superior fidelity despite not even needing precise measurements to demonstrate it is not.
> 
> Like audio, beliefs and preferences can affect how an individual responds to a car, regardless of measurement.  I know quite a few people that prefer 1960s muscle cars over modern cars.  They would very much prefer driving a 60s Mustang or Camaro over say a current model Kia Stinger, even though the Stinger is quicker, handles much better, has better brakes, more precise steering, more comfort and indeed, measures objectively far better on any relevant measure.



Yes, agreed.  For example, the sound of a car can certainly influence the perception of speed.  For cars used in a non-competitive setting like road use, what really matters isn't how fast the car is, but rather the how enjoyable the experience of driving it is.  An objectively less capable car can be more fun, and often is for a lot of people.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> That's effectively a common audiophile response. By that I mean I've often seen it used as a response, typically something along the lines of: "If it [some bit of kit or format, etc.] sounds better, what difference does it make whether it sounds better because of placebo or some real affect? The end result is exactly the same, it sounds better and therefore I've wisely spent my money on something that sounds better!". - The problem is of course that placebo effect is unpredictable and volatile. It may work for one person and not another and even if it does work for someone on one occasion, it may or may not work on the next occasion.



I certainly agree that the first priority needs to be on making sound objectively better, and that it wouldn't be prudent to rely on placebo effects or be duped into spending a lot of money for them.  And if testing is done to show that something is objectively better (or just as good as something which costs a lot more), that knowledge itself can be a source of a useful placebo effect. 

A recent example is that I compared Focal Utopia (about $4K) and Clear (about $1.5K) headphones.  I went into the comparison assuming that the Utopia would sound better, and the question is whether they would sound better enough to justify the much higher cost.  While I couldn't do blind testing, I did a lot of short- and long-term listening tests in various ways, using controls in various ways and sometimes keeping switching time under 2 secs, and came to the conclusion that I prefer the sound of the Clear, so that's what I bought.  Not only did I wind up saving money, but I now have a sort of placebo effect from having confidence that the Clear sounds better than the Utopia (to me), and I've avoided the negative placebo effect that would have come with having bought the Clear to save money without sufficient comparison to the Utopia, thereby leaving me wondering what I was missing out on by not having bought the Utopia.


----------



## old tech

gregorio said:


> 1. As mentioned, that's called a "nocebo effect". In your example, a nocebo effect based on the fallacious belief that the CD is somehow less accurate.
> G



What many audiophiles don't realise is that the nocebo effect can actually reduce your enjoyment of music.

As an example, for several years many audiophiles believed (and still believe) that the original 1984 Beatles Abbey Road CD is the digital holy grail and the 1987 version barely listenable.  They use terms to describe the 1987 release as bland and flat, nowhere near as good as the original LP, while the 1984 version is described as 'analog sounding', sounds just like the original LP and so on.  I had both, and never really preferred one over the other until I started reading those threads and then noticing how much better the 1984 CD was and even worse, the 1987 CD became almost unlistenable.

Then there was this long thread on the Hoffman forum where again people were bagging the 1987 CD.  One of their more grounded and rational members argued that the difference between the two CDs is very minor and really only noticeable when concentrating heavily between the two (his opinion was that the 1987 CD was probably one generation tape older, but still good quality).  He was laughed off for a while so he set up a double blind test.  Not many could pick which was which - I and some others managed to pick out the 1984 as having a touch more clarity in certain areas, but it was so minor - so then the usual arguments abounded about whether he set up the test correctly or honestly - but it was all verified.

Anyway, my point about the nacebo is that once I knew that there was virtually no difference between the two, the 1987 CD sounds great again.  I was previously hearing it as sounding relatively bad, simply because of an audiophile mastering myth.


----------



## Phronesis (Aug 2, 2018)

Head-fi actually struggles with both placebo and nocebo issues.  Reports based on placebo effects make some products 'hot' and cause people to waste money, while reading a thread where someone reports that your beloved product doesn't sound any better or doesn't sound good can adversely impact people's enjoyment of their beloved products.


----------



## KeithEmo

I guess something got changed along the way....

I would swear that, in your post, you said that MOST people said they couldn't hear a difference....
Which means that SOME people said they DID hear a difference.
Did they actually finish the test and confirm that none of the people who claimed to hear a difference were telling the truth?

Because, if a million people heard no difference, but ONE really did, then SOME people can.

Likewise, I'm sure you're right.... and that MOST commercial recordings contain absolutely nothing useful above 20 kHz.
However, if even a few do, then we cannot say that "NONE" do.

If we were discussing marketing, then being able to say "almost nobody hears any difference, and there's almost never any difference anyway" would be quite sufficient.
However, if we're discussing science, then that is not good enough.

Millions of fishermen never saw a coelacanth in their entire lives....  
And it would be quite fair to suggest that fishermen needn't waste their time learning what one is....
However, the day one guy caught one live one, we could no longer claim that they were extinct...

It's quite possible that there are only a dozen recordings on the entire planet with meaningful ultrasonic content...
And, just maybe, only 0.001% of the people on the planet could hear the difference...
And, if so, then that's a really tiny percentage...
(And, yes, it may seem really silly to spend a lot of money just so your system can play one single album correctly... but, to some few people, it may not.)
But, even if that were the case, it's still not "NONE".
(Again, it may turn out that it really is in fact "none".... but I'm not going to say it until it's confirmed.)

The job of science is to tell us the limits of reality.... not to tell us how important they may be to us personally.



bigshot said:


> I guess I wasn't clear enough. I described the test a couple of times before in this thread before, so I skimmed over the details a bit.
> 
> They weren't asked to tell a difference between redbook and high sampling/bit rate audio. We already know they wouldn't be able to tell a difference between music with and without ultrasonic information because ultrasonic information is inaudible. That's a given and it's been proven time and time again.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree.

However, we always need to remember the difference between "science" "marketing" and "court".
In science, we need to be especially careful to distinguish "things that haven't been proven" from "things that have been proven not to be true".
There are scientific theories that have been around for hundreds of years before finally being proven.
(For example, I believe someone just succeeded in actually detecting "gravity waves" - even though their existence was predicted decades ago.)
In court, we discuss things like "onus of proof"...
In science, we "just try to find stuff out as accurately as we can".

For example, even if we were to determine that no existing recording contained useful audible ultrasonic content....
Knowing whether such information would be audible IF IT WAS PRESENT could determine whether we try to develop microphones with response to 50 kHz... or not. 
(And, whether even a few people could hear the difference, would mean very different things to a scientist, and to a company that hopes to sell a lot of new microphones.)



old tech said:


> I can answer the last question.  Commencing around 20 years ago, I made probably around 500 CDs from LPs in my collection.  Firstly they were done in a well known Australian studio and then later, at home when consumer software/hardware became available.  As I put a lot of effort into this and a large number of LPs, I regularly conducted blind tests against the donor turntable on the same stereo.  Apart from some faulty transfers along the way, netiher I nor friends who participated in the tests could pick the CD apart from the LP (now remember CD's top out at around 20khz, while LPs have noise which goes higher than that).  Neither could the professionals at the studio tell them apart and that was 20 years ago.
> 
> A better example is the M&M 2007 year long study comparing SACDs and DVD-A clean and downsampled to 16/44.  The subjects of that study included trained musicians, record producers and audiophiles, including allowing the subjects to use their own music material, on their own stereos, in their own home and in their own time.  Again any ultrasonic content would have been removed when downsampled to 16/44 and no evidence was found that the listeners could pick the difference.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Your assertion is incorrect.

In manufacturing, many results can be reasonably inferred from the procedures that produce them. When CD-R blanks were initially produced, every one was tested, and the bad ones discarded, because manufacturing flaws were quite common. Nowadays, because the manufacturing process has been virtually perfected, it is quite sufficient to spot test one out of ever thousand... and assume that, as long as they are good, all of the ones in between, manufactured EXACTLY the same way, will also be good. (And there are people who make their living deciding exactly how many you have to test, and how long to wait between tests, based on things like how quickly the manufacturing parameters are likely to drift over time.)

In the case of electronic circuitry, including audio equipment, it is not at all uncommon to validate a DESIGN.... then operate on the assumption that, if you use the same design, and the same parts, the end result will be the same. In some cases, it may be sufficient to simplify a specific part value. In others, you may have to specify a certain type, or a certain manufacturer, or even a certain lot number. The test strips used to measure blood sugar vary between manufacturing batches, but each batch is quite consistent. Therefore, when using them, every time you open a new lot number, the meter must be recalibrated. However all the strips in a given batch, manufactured from the same vat of chemicals on the same day, can be trusted to be nearly identical. Likewise, we don't test every bolt to see how strong it is. We test the design - and ensure that the size and alloy we used are sufficient. Then we simply ensure that every bolt we purchase has the proper dimensions, and is made using the proper methods, from the proper alloy.

A somewhat well known audio example is something discovered in the 1970's or thereabouts called "Transient Intermodulation Distortion" (TIM). This is a particular sort of distortion - caused by a certain design flaw that was common in audio equipment in the 1970's. As it turns out, this particular distortion only occurs under transient conditions, so it doesn't show up under standard static tests like THD and IM, but it is quite audible - and annoying. When it was first noticed, it was treated as one of those intangibles (people heard it, but didn't know precisely what caused it), and discussions about it bordered on the mystical. The exact cause is now known, but it's still somewhat difficult to actually MEASURE. 

Luckily, however, you DON'T have to measure each amplifier you produce to verify that it has minimal TIM. Once you know the cause, you can reliably prevent it by avoiding the design errors that are likely to cause it to occur. And, even better, once you understand the mechanism that produced TIM, you can use the results of other tests as indicators. In a design, if you see THD that rises sharply specifically at the combination of high frequencies and high levels, that would be strongly suggestive that the conditions that are likely to cause TIM may be present in your circuit. If you do NOT see those indicators, then you can be virtually certain that the flaws likely to cause high levels of TIM are NOT present, so there's no need to confirm that with actual measurements. And, on the production line, if you see unusually high THD at high levels and high frequencies, you can infer a manufacturing flaw or bad part that is also likely to cause high levels of TIM; however, as long as the distortion curves are within acceptable limits, you can also infer that excess TIM will not be there.

In formal terms, the performance metric is applied to THE DESIGN, and a separate metric is applied to the manufacture which specifies how closely each unit produced follows the design specification.
This sort of logic is also commonly applied to items like wine... where the details themselves may be more complex or less tangible.
You may not understand all the details of wine chemistry... but you assume that bottles of a certain type of wine, of a certain brand, and a certain vintage, will share all sorts of subtle characteristics with most other bottles of the same vintage. 
Likewise, an audiophile would assume that all of a certain model of amplifier, made using carbon composition resistors, and loaded with Mullard 12AU7 tubes, manufactured at a certain factory, with a certain lot number, will share a similar sound signature. 

The short answer to your question is.....

They come up with a DESIGN that sounds the way they want it to.
Then they come up with metrics to ensure that each individual unit they manufacture follows the design closely enough to sound like it should.
(And, if their engineers know what they're doing, as long as each unit is manufactured properly, it WILL end up sounding as it should.) 



colonelkernel8 said:


> Well you have to have some bloody metric. How does a company selling amps find out if the “subconscious” tonal qualities are in spec off the line? Have one (I mean literally one) “golden ears guy” listening to every single one of them in a controlled blind test? Your “testing” approach falls apart. It literally needs to be numerically quantifiable in order to manufacture it. Period.


----------



## KeithEmo

That's not it at all..... (you can find lots of more detailed explanations in discussions about DACs).

Here's an abbreviated explanation....

Let's assume you play a single loud click through a speaker...
In theory, the speaker's cone should move in one direction, then back the other way, then simply stop (and you'll hear a click)
However, in practice, the speaker's cone will continue to bounce back and forth for a while (and you'll hear more like a thump).
Once it starts moving, momentum makes it want to continue moving, so it bounces back and forth until that extra energy "drains off".
And, of course, some do this far more than others, and, if an amplifier is connected, it will try to damp the speaker's motion.
This is precisely the same mechanism that causes a bell to ring instead of tick when you strike it.
You've imparted energy to the bell quickly, with a single tap, but that energy takes a while to "drain off".
(Another way of looking at this is that the energy from that single sharp tap is returned when the bell rings - but it has been "smeared over time".)

A similar mechanism occurs electrically in filters. 

Now, a need for filtering is inherent in ALL digital audio playback methods.
When the analog audio is converted to digital, any signal above the range of frequencies the system is designed to handle that reaches the ADC will cause audible distortion.
Therefore, a low pass filter MUST be applied to the incoming analog audio signal so that doesn't happen.
And, as part of the process of converting digital audio back into analog, extra "junk" related to the sample rate is created, which must also be filtered out. (This is those "steps" that you often hear about.)
NOTE that this is simply part of the process.... as is the filter itself.
Assuming it's properly designed, the filter precisely removes "the extra junk", and what you're left with is the mathematically correct signal you wanted.
This is not some sort of flaw that's being corrected... it's how the process is SUPPOSED to work.
If you omit the filter then the output will NOT be correct.

At another point in the process, most modern DACs perform something called oversampling....
This is a step where the incoming signal is converted to a mathematically equivalent signal at a higher sample rate.
It delivers all sorts of major benefits in terms of accurate processing (which are beyond this discussion), but also requires filtering.

The bottom line is that virtually all filters that work properly also produce some ringing.
This is normal for any signal which requires that its bandwidth be limited (which is true for all digital audio signals).

If you look through DAC information you'll find all sorts of pictures of how a particular DAC rings (oscilloscope pictures).

NOW.... HERE'S THE IMPORTANT BIT - IN OUR CONTEXT.

That ringing itself occurs at the frequency of the sample rate.
In other words, in theory, the ringing is at a frequency well above the audible range, so you don't hear "ringing".
You do NOT hear "nnngnngngngnngngng" after a sharp drumbeat when you play it through a DAC.
However, technically, the ringing is "smearing the energy over time"...

Where all the discussion and dispute arises is this....

With modern technology, it is possible to make various tradeoffs in this ringing....
For example, the "typical" filter will add some ringing after the signal and some ringing BEFORE the signal (it's all math after all).
However, special filters can be designed with various tradeoffs.
You can make the filter less effective in other ways - but reduce the ringing altogether.
Or you can trade - for example, you can remove all the ringing before the signal at the cost of increasing the amount of ringing after the signal.

Now... here's what the arguments are about.....

One group of people insist that, since the ringing occurs at ultrasonic frequencies, you can't possibly hear it - one way or the other.
The other group is equally certain that, even though you don't hear actual ringing, the type of filter response you choose DOES subtly alter the sound quality.
(For example, many people find that a filter that eliminates pre-ringing seems to "sound more natural with plucked strings".)

The fact is that many DACs offer multiple filter choices....
Many of them produce obvious differences in an oscilloscope trace when playing a test signal.
And many of them do produce audible differences.
However, besides having different ringing characteristics, many also differ in terms of frequency and phase response.
The dispute is mostly over whether any of the differences visible in those oscilloscope traces are actually audible or not...
Or whether everyone who claims to hear them is just imagining things...
Or whether there may sometimes be audible differences - but, if there are, they're due to other factors (like phase accuracy or frequency response).
Many people claim to hear obvious differences (I number in that group).
Many are quite sure that, since the differences occur at inaudible frequencies, it cannot POSSIBLY be audible, and so MUST be due to some sort of bias
In fact, many people insist that any DAC that is reasonably quiet, reasonably flat, and reasonably low in distortion MUST sound EXACTLY like any other (an extension of the "all amps sound the same" argument).

Note, however, that the perceived differences may include things like "how natural cymbals sound" as well as one or another unit sounding "more fatiguing" or "more like analog" or "more natural" or even "more relaxed".



Davesrose said:


> What do you mean by "ringing"?  Do you mean the system you're listening to has a semblance and is physically giving you a ringing in the ear (or overall fatigue)?  Overall, DSP filters are supposed to bring more dynamics (usually at the expense of treble), so ear fatigue can be more about system integration.  This forum is more about headphones, but with speaker amps, there may be particular settings with your own brand.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm also had the experience of noticing an unpleasant sort of pressure feeling when entering rooms with old-style "ultrasonic" motion detector alarm systems.

Likewise, I also recall being in an audio store, and noticing leakage of the high frequency FM stereo subcarrier (it's not strictly "ultrasonic" because it centers at 19 kHz and extends significantly below that).
Interestingly, it isn't perceived as a sound... at least to me.... it was more like a sensation of slight pressure as if of someone blowing gently in my ear.
(I would notice it when walking directly in front of certain speakers when certain tuners were being used.... )

I would note that many natural sounds do contain a lot of high and ultrasonic frequencies....
Many people consider it difficult to reproduce wire brush cymbals that sound like the real thing....
And producing a recording of smashing glass "that makes you jump like the real thing" to be VERY difficult....
Note that smashing glass produces a VERY powerful initial burst of high frequency sound - among other things.
(I had an intrusion alarm once that detected a breaking window by looking for the distinctive burst of very high frequency energy produced.)

I've heard very few recordings that make me jump like when I hear someone drop a glass on a concrete floor.... 
The recording just always seems to fail to sound exactly like the real thing....
It might be interesting to figure out how much of that is due to deliberate EQ of the audible frequencies....
And if any of it is due to the existence - or lack thereof - of actual ultrasonic frequencies.



Zapp_Fan said:


> Another way to consider whether ultrasonics matter to music is our experience of ultrasonic audio in daily life from natural sources.  Have you ever entered a room and noticed that there was loud ultrasound in there? Or otherwise experienced something that you identified as primarily ultrasonic in nature?  Does bats' echolocation bother you at night? Do you flinch when someone blows a dog whistle? Is it a common experience to notice ultrasonic audio when we're not listening for it? (despite the contradiction in terms)?
> 
> I think the answer to all of these is probably no, with few if any exceptions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan

KeithEmo said:


> I'm also had the experience of noticing an unpleasant sort of pressure feeling when entering rooms with old-style "ultrasonic" motion detector alarm systems.
> 
> Likewise, I also recall being in an audio store, and noticing leakage of the high frequency FM stereo subcarrier (it's not strictly "ultrasonic" because it centers at 19 kHz and extends significantly below that).
> Interestingly, it isn't perceived as a sound... at least to me.... it was more like a sensation of slight pressure as if of someone blowing gently in my ear.
> ...



Interesting anecdotes, I have wondered if high-intensity broadband bursts of ultrasound produce a different perceptual effect than tones.  Clearly we know that tones above (say) 22-24khz are essentially meaningless for audio.  But I haven't looked at the literature enough to know whether broadband / transient signals in the "ultrasound" range are thoroughly debunked as well.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 2, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Your assertion is incorrect. In manufacturing, many results can be reasonably inferred from the procedures that produce them. When CD-R blanks were initially produced, every one was tested, and the bad ones discarded, because manufacturing flaws were quite common. Nowadays, because the manufacturing process has been virtually perfected, it is quite sufficient to spot test one out of ever thousand... and assume that, as long as they are good, all of the ones in between, manufactured EXACTLY the same way, will also be good.



I'm afraid his point sailed right over your head. The pertinent phrase was "subconcious tonal qualities". He was asking how does a manufacturer design an electronic home audio component to favor subconscious and purely subjective non-hearing based impressions? I guess the answer to that is to encase it in a wrapper made of angora or paint it in a color that most people find soothing. I don't know how that's relevant at all to what we talk about here in Sound Science. We talk about the digital/electrical theory behind sound reproduction and the physics of sound perception. I suppose psychoacoustical principles like auditory masking and the Fletcher Munson Curve sort of enter into that realm, but those are pretty well understood concepts. Belief that there is some sort of form of human hearing of things beyond the range of the physics of our ears seems like woo woo hoodoo to me, not sound science. I can see how perception of sub audible frequencies might be felt rather than heard, but I see no reason to believe that super audible frequencies are the same. They're vibrating too fast for us to perceive. I dunno... maybe they make the fluid around our brain act like one of those ultrasonic denture cleaners or something. Set mine on puree!



Zapp_Fan said:


> I have wondered if high-intensity broadband bursts of ultrasound produce a different perceptual effect than tones.  Clearly we know that tones above (say) 22-24khz are essentially meaningless for audio.  But I haven't looked at the literature enough to know whether broadband / transient signals in the "ultrasound" range are thoroughly debunked as well.



This wikipedia article talks about sonic bomb bursts...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I'm afraid his point sailed right over your head. The pertinent phrase was "subconcious tonal qualities". He was asking how does a manufacturer design an electronic home audio component to favor subconscious and purely subjective non-hearing based impressions? I guess the answer to that is to encase it in a wrapper made of angora or paint it in a color that most people find soothing. I don't know how that's relevant at all to what we talk about here in Sound Science. We talk about the digital/electrical theory behind sound reproduction and the physics of sound perception. I suppose psychoacoustical principles like auditory masking and the Fletcher Munson Curve sort of enter into that realm, but those are pretty well understood concepts. Belief that there is some sort of form of human hearing of things beyond the range of the physics of our ears seems like woo woo hoodoo to me, not sound science. I can see how perception of sub audible frequencies might be felt rather than heard, but I see no reason to believe that super audible frequencies are the same. They're vibrating too fast for us to perceive. I dunno... maybe they make the fluid around our brain act like one of those ultrasonic denture cleaners or something. Set mine on puree!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Probably not going to fit the ultrasound discussion.  Most LRAD devices operate between 2,800 Hz to 3,000 Hz where our hearing is most sensitive.  Ultrasounds in the mHz range have been demonstrably capable of creating tissue damage to mice in a lab,  It's important to note that the experiments with mice found was done with ultrasounds at 184db - not something likely to happen while listening to a CD (or vinyl....).  For more, see: Ultrasound Physics 2nd edition"; Terry Reynolds

Low frequency noise may have large scale military applications, but ultrasonics, due to both volume required and beam width, might at best be useful against a single target.


----------



## KeithEmo (Aug 2, 2018)

Actually, no, I responded quite specifically to what he asked.....

His original question was this:

"Well you have to have some bloody metric. How does a company selling amps find out if the “subconscious” tonal qualities are in spec off the line? Have one (I mean literally one) “golden ears guy” listening to every single one of them in a controlled blind test? Your “testing” approach falls apart. It literally needs to be numerically quantifiable in order to manufacture it. Period."

And what he's asking also makes perfect sense. If you design a piece of audio gear to sound certain way, and you plan to manufacture a bunch of them, you need some way to ensure that every unit you manufacture sounds the same. If your design requirement is "THD < 0.1% and FR flat within +/-0.2 dB", then it's a simple matter to test every unit that comes off the line to comply with that requirement. However, if your requirement is that it "sound a certain way", but you can't define how to measure that requirement, "because it's based on some intangible or subconscious factor", then it becomes problematic to ensure that every unit you produce meets your spec. (If your only set specification is "Charlie thinks it sounds awesome" then, unless you have Charlie listen to every single unit, you can't tell if every unit really meets that requirement or not.)

My answer, which is the actual methodology relied upon by manufacturers, is that you control the PROCESS. To take your example, let's assume that your customers agree that your amplifier sounds best when painted a certain shade of lavender, and wrapped in angora wool..... but you don't know exactly why..... then there's no way to measure the actual performance of the intangible part of that process. However, what you CAN do is to use measurements to confirm the tangible metrics, then you paint all your production units exactly the same shade of lavender, and wrap them in the same type of angora wool, being careful to wrap them just as tightly, wind the wool in the same direction, and duplicate the PROCESS as carefully as possible.

You don't have to know WHY it works... or have an accurate way to measure it. As long as you do exactly the same thing; you should produce exactly the same result; the new units should sound exactly the same; and they should get exactly the same response from your customers. You don't HAVE to be able to measure how it sounds because, as long as it was made EXACTLY the same way, then you can safely assume that it also sounds the same. You don't need to know WHY people think that shade of lavender makes the amp sound better... you just have to know that apparently it does... and use the proper color. And, yes, there will be some "engineering art" involved in deciding whether any old angora wool will do, or it has to be from a virgin sheep, just like the original was, and whether it's OK to offer the design in different colors, or whether the color makes a difference.

In short, if you don't have a good metric in terms of PERFORMANCE, then you can use the manufacturing process itself as your metric...

When you go to a good restaurant, they probably do NOT taste your food before serving it to you.
They rely on the fact that, if they made it correctly, it will taste right.
(And, yes, this works for some things, and not others.)



bigshot said:


> I'm afraid his point sailed right over your head. The pertinent phrase was "subconcious tonal qualities". He was asking how does a manufacturer design an electronic home audio component to favor subconscious and purely subjective non-hearing based impressions? I guess the answer to that is to encase it in a wrapper made of angora or paint it in a color that most people find soothing. I don't know how that's relevant at all to what we talk about here in Sound Science. We talk about the digital/electrical theory behind sound reproduction and the physics of sound perception. I suppose psychoacoustical principles like auditory masking and the Fletcher Munson Curve sort of enter into that realm, but those are pretty well understood concepts. Belief that there is some sort of form of human hearing of things beyond the range of the physics of our ears seems like woo woo hoodoo to me, not sound science. I can see how perception of sub audible frequencies might be felt rather than heard, but I see no reason to believe that super audible frequencies are the same. They're vibrating too fast for us to perceive. I dunno... maybe they make the fluid around our brain act like one of those ultrasonic denture cleaners or something. Set mine on puree!


----------



## bigshot (Aug 2, 2018)

Welll I'll let him speak for himself, but I read "subconscious" tonal qualities as meaning something akin to unobtaineum. If you don't know how something works or how to measure it- just that it works, I guess the quality control department would have to consist of something similar to the straight jackets and eyeball clamps like Alex underwent in Clockwork Orange.

This whole thing about superaudible sound is silly. It's self evident that it's inaudible, and a mountain of evidence indicates that it contributes absolutely nothing to the perceived quality of recorded music.

We've come back around to two Kings fighting over which side of an egg to crack.


----------



## KeithEmo

There are in fact quite a few interesting technologies based on ultrasonics.... 

This one uses a directed beam of ultrasonic sound to deliver audio to a specific target.
You point it at someone - like a spotlight.
The modulated ultrasonic beam interacts with the air to produce audible sound inside the beam.
The person being illuminated by the beam can hear it, but someone standing just a few feet away cannot.
Other than being a neat toy these are currently being used in various applications - including interactive signage.
(They claim it's great for playing audio content in libraries - offering the equivalent of an isolation booth - but without the need for an actual booth.)

Note that this is NOT science fiction....
It's a commercial product, which you can buy today, and which are being used commercially.

https://www.holosonics.com/?keyword...CngEVR2OOFi1DrMMe4zV3barTy3FauVRoCE2kQAvD_BwE



bfreedma said:


> Probably not going to fit the ultrasound discussion.  Most LRAD devices operate between 2,800 Hz to 3,000 Hz where our hearing is most sensitive.  Ultrasounds in the mHz range have been demonstrably capable of creating tissue damage to mice in a lab,  It's important to note that the experiments with mice found was done with ultrasounds at 184db - not something likely to happen while listening to a CD (or vinyl....).  For more, see: Ultrasound Physics 2nd edition"; Terry Reynolds
> 
> Low frequency noise may have large scale military applications, but ultrasonics, due to both volume required and beam width, might at best be useful against a single target.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> There are in fact quite a few interesting technologies based on ultrasonics....
> 
> This one uses a directed beam of ultrasonic sound to deliver audio to a specific target.
> You point it at someone - like a spotlight.
> ...




Sennheiser made those as well they seem to be discontinued 

https://www.performanceaudio.com/item/sennheiser-audiobeam/11174/

I think we might have used some in MIM.


----------



## bfreedma (Aug 2, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> There are in fact quite a few interesting technologies based on ultrasonics....
> 
> This one uses a directed beam of ultrasonic sound to deliver audio to a specific target.
> You point it at someone - like a spotlight.
> ...




Never suggested otherwise.  The response was specific to weaponizing ultrasonic noise.  Using ultrasonics to beam audio directionally is a separate topic entirely.  In the case of Holosinics, it’s important to note for the purposes of this discussion that the ultrasonics are used as a carrier and aren’t intended to be audible .

Keith, is there a reason you post above the quote rather than below?  It makes it hard to understand the context of your replies without scrolling down to see the post you’re responding to.


----------



## bigshot

Just to drag this kicking and screaming back to discussion of super audible content in recorded music, RRod kindly posted a FLAC file of an HD Track that has been high pass filtered to isolate just the content above 20kHz and then pitched down four octaves to make the content audible. I think most of you folks who think super audible frequencies are important will be surprised to hear just what the frequencies you're talking about actually sound like!

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...encies-are-in-hd-tracks.885484/#post-14397352


----------



## Phronesis

Terms like 'audible' and 'hearing' need to be operationalized and defined in these discussion to have a clear meaning.  Otherwise, we're mixing up things like conscious vs subconscious, subtle or inconsistent detection vs clear detection, test tones vs music, etc.  Circle of confusion ...


----------



## Arpiben (Aug 2, 2018)

@bigshot 
Now isolate and listen to the translated content from 14kHz-24kHz or even 10kHz-20kHz with the same original file.You will probably find not so much improvement vs the ultrasonic one.
Not sure one can judge a sound only listening at part of its harmonics without the fundamental.


----------



## pinnahertz (Aug 2, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Terms like 'audible' and 'hearing' need to be operationalized and defined in these discussion to have a clear meaning.  Otherwise, we're mixing up things like conscious vs subconscious, subtle or inconsistent detection vs clear detection, test tones vs music, etc.  Circle of confusion ...


You might be the only one confused by this.

Definitions from Dictionary.com

Audible:

capable of being heard; loud enough to be heard; actually heard.
Hearing:

the faculty or sense by which sound is perceived.
the act of perceiving sound.
opportunity to be heard:to grant a hearing.
We can, in our context, ignore 3.

_Do you see any reference to conscious vs subconscious in any of that?  _

There have been many tests for decades that have profiled hearing frequency range and sensitivity (threshold).  It's well known, established, by _physical limits._  IF you have _any_ evidence at all that subconscious perception would occur outside the range where physical hearing takes place, you need to post it.

edit:
Let me as this: are there any other senses that provide subconscious perception out of the normal range of response?  Can you subconsciously see ultraviolet light?  Can you subconsciously smell a scent 10 miles away?  Can you subconsciously sense a .01 degree temperature rise on your skin?  And if you could do any of this, how would that be useful?  How would you bring your subconscious ultra-perception up to the conscious level, and what would those out of normal range sensations relate to?? What reference would they have?

See, the whole subconscious ultra-sensory argument falls completely apart.  Unless, of course, you have actual evidence...


----------



## bigshot (Aug 2, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Terms like 'audible' and 'hearing' need to be operationalized and defined in these discussion to have a clear meaning.



Gladly.

AUDIBLE: Able to be heard with human ears.
HEARING: The mechanical process of the eardrum and cochlea that receives sound and converts it to nerve impulses.

Now if you want to talk about PERCEPTION in a general sense that is different. We can perceive things in many ways. We hear sounds with our ears.



Arpiben said:


> @bigshot
> Now isolate and listen to the translated content from 14kHz-24kHz or even 10kHz-20kHz with the same original file.You will probably find not so much improvement vs the ultrasonic one.
> Not sure one can judge a sound only listening at part of its harmonics without the fundamental.



Why would the harmonics of a Macy Gray song be a sustained tone? Wouldn't the harmonics go along with the rhythm and dynamics of the instruments being played. It wouldn't be sustained pink noise throughout the whole album. That's what is happening with the tracks I'm pointing to.


----------



## Phronesis

pinnahertz said:


> You might be the only one confused by this.
> 
> Definitions from Dictionary.com
> 
> ...





bigshot said:


> Gladly.
> 
> AUDIBLE: Able to be heard with human ears.
> HEARING: The mechanical process of the eardrum and cochlea that receives sound and converts it to nerve impulses.
> ...



Check this out: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/lau...ne-please-explain.879904/page-6#post-14266815

First I didn't hear something, then I heard it.  So is it 'audible'?  Or maybe in the first pass, I heard it subconsciously but not consciously?  Or when I thought I heard it consciously, was my perception making me fill in the blanks and think I was hearing something I really didn't hear?  I don't think audibility, hearing, perception, etc. are simple at all when we're talking about complex musical signals/sound rather than just simplified cases of thresholds based on test tones.


----------



## pinnahertz

Phronesis said:


> Check this out: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/lau...ne-please-explain.879904/page-6#post-14266815
> 
> First I didn't hear something, then I heard it.  So is it 'audible'?  Or maybe in the first pass, I heard it subconsciously but not consciously?  Or when I thought I heard it consciously, was my perception making me fill in the blanks and think I was hearing something I really didn't hear?  I don't think audibility, hearing, perception, etc. are simple at all when we're talking about complex musical signals/sound rather than just simplified cases of thresholds based on test tones.


OMG, not that again!  

That has nothing to do with hearing, conscious or subconscious.  It's an "audio illusion", you can be trained to hear either result.  Nothing subconscious about it.


----------



## bigshot

pinnahertz said:


> OMG, not that again!



The level of discourse seems to be in a downward spiral.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Aug 3, 2018)

The last couple of pages have been entertaining yet on the fringes of what I'd personally call the twilight zone.
The continued attempts to somehow 'slide one through' the fine nets of modern science is starting to become increasingly circular and ridiculous.

One side provides in depth scientific details whilst the other misunderstands the content in trying to find a loophole to justify their hi fi purchases.
Now I won't claim to understand everything in here - far from it - but then again I prefer to stay out of technical discussions I have no real knowledge about.
The fact that people continue to do this in here, regardless of how many audiophiles have been hung out to dry previously, suggests to me that this particular thread hits a nerve and is on he right track (although it feels a tad warped lately).


----------



## rule42

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> The last couple of pages have been entertaining yet on the fringes of what I'd personally call the twilight zone.
> The continued attempts to somehow 'slide one through' the fine nets of modern science is starting to become increasingly circular and ridiculous.
> 
> One side provides in depth scientific details whilst the other misunderstands the content in trying to find a loophole to justify their hi fi purchases.
> ...



All should be clear if you just listen to your lizard brain. See post #11 in https://www.head-fi.org/threads/watts-up.800264/


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Clear as mud, thanks.

Reasoning is easy y'know: 
My mother can't fly.
A stone can't fly.
Ergo: mother is a stone.


----------



## Phronesis

pinnahertz said:


> OMG, not that again!
> 
> That has nothing to do with hearing, conscious or subconscious.  It's an "audio illusion", you can be trained to hear either result.  Nothing subconscious about it.



You’ve stated a view with no supporting argument or evidence.  In fact, your comment that one can be trained to hear it or not supports what I’m saying.  I would define hearing as simply an auditory nerve signal be generated (or changed). Perception is about what the brain does with that nerve signal.  ‘Audible’ is a vague term and would need to be defined in terms conscious or subconscious perception.  If someone thinks there’s no such thing as subconscious perception, or that it can’t matter, we don’t have anything further to discuss on the topic and I encourage them to read the literature.


----------



## pinnahertz

Phronesis said:


> You’ve stated a view with no supporting argument or evidence.


Here ya go: https://www.vox.com/2018/5/16/17358774/yanny-laurel-explained


Phronesis said:


> In fact, your comment that one can be trained to hear it or not supports what I’m saying.


Nope.


----------



## bigshot

It's amazing that people can go on about trees falling in the forest and no one there to hear them, and think that a comment like that is profound and worth arguing about.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> It's amazing that people can go on about trees falling in the forest and no one there to hear them, and think that a comment like that is profound and worth arguing about.



The tree falling will only be heard properly as long as the forest has a sampling rate of at least 384 Khz, to make sure it has a USABLE, FLAT bandwidth of at least 0-50Khz, if you had ever heard the trees I worked on back in the 1970s you'd know what I mean.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 3, 2018)

I thought I heard a tree falling once on one of my binaural recordings, but it was actually a glee club singing Yanni. We can never know for sure because science doesn't know anything about that sort of thing yet. So I'm going to assume it's true and everyone else is wrong.


----------



## pinnahertz

Zapp_Fan said:


> The tree falling will only be heard properly as long as the forest has a sampling rate of at least 384 Khz, to make sure it has a USABLE, FLAT bandwidth of at least 0-50Khz, if you had ever heard the trees I worked on back in the 1970s you'd know what I mean.


Was it one of those custom modified trees they only made 8 of? Superconducting bark to get that 50kHz response?


----------



## colonelkernel8

pinnahertz said:


> Was it one of those custom modified trees they only made 8 of? Superconducting bark to get that 50kHz response?


Yeah, but they only made it in 1974, and NOTHING comes close today to even matching it let alone surpassing it. It was a 5-figure tree, and I SWEAR that it's clearly the best tree. You should see the write-up in Arbor Fancy from July 1975 by Tom Thumb. Here's a website that hasn't been online in a decade:


----------



## bigshot

You guys must actually read all that babble! I salute you!


----------



## pinnahertz (Aug 3, 2018)

Yeah, but I can’t decide if that babble is comically tragic or tragically comic.

However, a recent thorough, controlled double-blind test confirmed statistically that it is, in fact, babble.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Aug 3, 2018)

One would think that knowing all of this stuff, or at the very least just the gist of it, would set you free? I will most likely never truly get my head around all of it that's for damn sure, but that's because I fill my cebaza with everything else under the sun, though mainly things concerning fruits and exotic vipers...but yeah free to focus on the music where the REAL magic happens. Cool off buddy your set-up is da shizzle! It's as close as can be to transparent ie you get the full kahuna. You're certainly not missing anything that you couldn't fix with a basic eq. If you want better sq then look for "better" recorded/produced music, simple as.
All of this time you've been searching around for the same sensation you once got when you went from your 'insert crappy and most likely distorted purveyor of sound' to something high fidelity....but you already went there!
You can only have your first ice-cream once.

Edit: Hah! Those brewskis sure did the trick. Sorry for the monologue. I wasn't talking to anyone in particular..except maybe my old self.
It's easy to get caught up in upgradeitis - and just stay there. Buy one thing and before it lands on your doorstep you're already contemplating the next upgrade...kinda bummed out that you didn't wait juuust a bit and buy the deluxe version...and then it grows tentacles and reaches out further into stuff you'd never even thought of before - y'know back when you just listened to music?
I am so glad I'm not there anymore and this thread surely is to thank for that. It lead me down a path where I tried to put my money where my mouth was, and it was not even a contest. There was a time before blindtesting gear and a time after. All the floral accolades I'd had for one amp/dac simply disappeared once sight was out of the question. Then I had trouble telling one from the other - in fact they both (all actually except for one by jds labs that was broken) sounded awesome.
Truth be told this was never done under any form of scientific scrutiny but suffice to say that the experience(s) sobered me up quite a bit. After the initial shock I felt relieved and went back to music effortlessly.

I'm not completely cured though. I currently have 6 headphones in my apartment and a used dt990 on the way. I like headphones.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Aug 4, 2018)

Deleted


----------



## 71 dB

For a long time I haven't understood much what is talked about here and frankly I don't even care.


----------



## bigshot

This whole forum is getting thread crapped.


----------



## Phronesis

The sky is falling!!!


----------



## analogsurviver

@pinnahertz  ( & all other Doubting Thomases ) : I have found my review that proves I can back my claims with proof(s) : https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/ifi-audio-micro-idsd.20201/reviews
( IIRC, the third review from the top ). It has been merely shifted from the original "position" to the "ultimate compilation of reviews" .

It proves there CAN be interchannel phase delay(s) in PCM. The path is described - exactly - but I will elabotate on it - given some time. 

I have yet to publish the review of iFi Pro iESL ( electrostatic headphone transformer/ bias power supply aka "energizer" ) - which WILL rattle quite a few cages ... that is guaranteed. 
It will be the first thing I will upload - so any comments, follow-ups, etc  in SS will have to wait.

I spent quite some time with turntables and cartridges - trying to find unit(s) that perform WAAAY above their price points. I consider this being much more important than any digital "cause". And , it is interesting to find things that managed to stay under the radar for 30, sometimes even 40 years - and can still be viable today, when even the likes of Yamaha are re-introducing turntables to their premium line - at premium prices. And I wanted to do something for those whose pockets are not quite so "rich" as their ears would like them to be ...


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> @pinnahertz  ( & all other Doubting Thomases ) : I have found my review that proves I can back my claims with proof(s) : https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/ifi-audio-micro-idsd.20201/reviews
> ( IIRC, the third review from the top ). It has been merely shifted from the original "position" to the "ultimate compilation of reviews" .
> 
> It proves there CAN be interchannel phase delay(s) in PCM. The path is described - exactly - but I will elabotate on it - given some time.
> ...



Yeah...I sincerely doubt it will rattle any cages, but keep on talking up your nonexistent evidence game.


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> Yeah...I sincerely doubt it will rattle any cages, but keep on talking up your nonexistent evidence game.



Sorry - I can't click on the link provided in the post you replied to - for you.


----------



## pinnahertz (Aug 26, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> @pinnahertz  ( & all other Doubting Thomases ) : I have found my review that proves I can back my claims with proof(s) : https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/ifi-audio-micro-idsd.20201/reviews
> ( IIRC, the third review from the top ). It has been merely shifted from the original "position" to the "ultimate compilation of reviews" .
> 
> It proves there CAN be interchannel phase delay(s) in PCM. The path is described - exactly - but I will elabotate on it - given some time.
> .


@analogsurviver -
You are getting this reply from me because even though I've unsubscribed from all threads in this forum (precisely because of posts like this!), because you mentioned me directly, I got notified of your post.  I don't feel that my time is well spent here, specifically, attempting to lend actual science to offset hair-brained ideas like the above.  It's like talking to a toddler, they just keep talking and never listen.  Frankly, considering the frustration and time investment, I'm stupid to hang around here.  This is going nowhere, and is a total discredit to a forum designated as Sound Science.

You have proven nothing with that linked review other than you found a design flaw in a single device.  But you're using that to imply, strongly, that ALL PCM devices have serious timing errors.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  There are test CDs, some from as long ago as the inception of the CD, that can easily be used to prove this.  It's not like this wasn't carefully looked at! All digital recording and reproduction started life with a reverse reference to analog tape, which does have huge interchannel timing errors related to tape guidance.  It's one of the things digital improved on, and we have not gone backwards - other than in a few very rare cases of poor electronics design.

Now, I will ask you a very specific question.  If I were to invest some time and duplicate your test (3kHz square wave, dual trace scope) on a number of PCM devices, and show without question that this sort of timing error is a rare anomaly attributable to a design flaw, would you drop the argument?

I'll even tell you up front how I expect you'll answer: you won't say yes or no, but instead, will post about 50 paragraphs of additional nonsense.

And THAT is why I've left the building.  But I'll wait for your reply anyway, then unsub again.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> @analogsurviver -
> You are getting this reply from me because even though I've unsubscribed from all threads in this forum (precisely because of posts like this!), because you mentioned me directly, I got notified of your post.  I don't feel that my time is well spent here, specifically, attempting to lend actual science to offset hair-brained ideas like the above.  It's like talking to a toddler, they just keep talking and never listen.  Frankly, considering the frustration and time investment, I'm stupid to hang around here.  This is going nowhere, and is a total discredit to a forum designated as Sound Science.
> 
> You have proven nothing with that linked review other than you found a design flaw in a single device.  But you're using that to imply, strongly, that ALL PCM devices have serious timing errors.
> ...



I see - and can undertand and sympathize with your decision.

I am aware the flaw seen in the pics is from a family of devices from iFi audio. HOWEVER, I did stumble upon it before, before I even knew iFi Audio as a brand existed - and even if that means only two, most different machines from two very different manufacturers at very different price points that can play PCM files are vulnerable to this tming errors - that does not mean there are not others, which, under certain conditions and used with certain software, can not fail at coherence between the two channels in exactly the same way. 

And , it has to be said, I always  first HEARD *something wrong* - and that then prompted me to devise both the test signal ( a square wave from XR-2206 based signal generator, recorded trough xy adaptor to both channels of Korg recorder(s), in each and every sampling frequency and bit depth setting available, from MP3 192kbps to DSD128 ). I am aware of the test CDs with square wave(s) - which are completely useless for testing anything higer than RBCD. To add insult to the injury, the authors/publishers of test CDs were mostly makers/manufacturers of either CD players or CD disks - who, of course, wanted to present this "perfect sound forever" in best light possible. Even if it took doctoring the frequency of the square wave itself - from the in analog days de facto standard of 1 kHz down to 400 Hz - as it is the last frequency at which the square wave from a RBCD looks anything comparable to analog or HR digital. The first test CD that had 1kHz square wave test signal  had to come from a third party that had no RBCD horse in the race - Stereophile . 

I will NOT say that I will drop the argument - not because I would per some default like to oppose you, but because you personally and SS crowd in general have taken FAR too mucg things for granted. And it is precisely this notion that things are *perfect* that prevents us from reaching a "minimum common denominator" that could be acceptable as minimum standard of SQ that could be safely said to provide flawless ( audibly indescernible ) performance.

I have a huntch much of the hoolabaloo regarding the MQA lies precisely in somehow fixing these timing errors that - obviously - CAN happen.  I do not have any MQA capable machines as of yet; however, the latest firmware update for iFi Micro iDSD does exactly that; for halving the maximum sampling frequency ( both in PCM/DXD and DSD ), it provides MQA. Since I want to come to the bottom of this, no doubt for me an all important issue, I will try to use my iFi micro BL for some other tests before updating firmware to the newest enabling MQA - and hopefully then also ensuring perfect inter channel phase/zero delay. All the above said - I have yet to listen to a single MQA file. I have friends - professional musicians - who swear by it. And I dislike the - yet another - cunning way to milk money for authoring the MQA approved masters. But - if MQA allows for streaming in quality anything approaching their claims, I would - reluctanttly - have to agree it might be worth it.


----------



## gregorio (Aug 26, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> [1] I have found my review that proves I can back my claims with proof(s) : https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/ifi-audio-micro-idsd.20201/reviews
> [2] It proves there CAN be interchannel phase delay(s) in PCM. The path is described - exactly - but I will elabotate on it - given some time.



1. That's just stunning! How long have you been posting on this sub-forum? In all that time, how is is even possible that you don't know what the word "proof" means?

2. What is this ridiculous nonsense? Of course there can be interchannel phase delay in PCM, it would be next to useless if there couldn't be! To introduce an interchannel phase delay simply load the PCM stereo file into any audio editor and nudge the left or right channel by some number of samples. Instant interchannel phase delay in PCM! Of course, you could do this with DSD or any other audio format too. The question then is: Does a specific DAC introduce such an interchannel phase delay? Never in my experience but then I've never tested the iFi, just numerous pro units (cheap and expensive), plus some consumer units and one or two audiophile units.

In conclusion then: Firstly, you have provided NO proof, you've just quoted your own measurements, of which we have no verification. Even assuming that you haven't made a mistake (or deliberately falsified evidence), all you have done is demonstrate that a poorly designed/faulty audiophile DAC exists on the market! And, that's hardly a revelation, some audiophile DAC makers have been doing that for years, deliberately! Anyone remember the NOS/filterless audiophile DACs? Oh no, proof that PCM doesn't work because someone decided to very poorly design a DAC, miss out half the required circuitry, charge 10 times more and scam a bunch of gullible audiophiles! What you've actually proven (and by no means for the first time!) is: That you don't understand what "proof" means, that you don't understand the concept of a "fallacy" and therefore that nearly all of your facts/conclusion are utter nonsense. The only thing which is surprising, is how you can just blindly continue with this lack of understanding and utter nonsense, no matter how many times it's demonstrated to you!!

G


----------



## pinnahertz

analogsurviver said:


> I will NOT say that I will drop the argument - not because I would per some default like to oppose you, but because you personally and SS crowd in general have taken FAR too mucg things for granted. And it is precisely this notion that things are *perfect* that prevents us from reaching a "minimum common denominator" that could be acceptable as minimum standard of SQ that could be safely said to provide flawless ( audibly indescernible ) performance.


Thank you for your reply.  You've just saved me a lot of time. 

Now, if you please, do NOT "mention" me in a post again. Thank you.


----------



## analogsurviver

pinnahertz said:


> Thank you for your reply.  You've just saved me a lot of time.
> 
> Now, if you please, do NOT "mention" me in a post again. Thank you.



OK.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 27, 2018)

Me too. Please don't bother to reply to any of my posts either. Your brownie points have been exhausted.


----------



## taffy2207 (Aug 30, 2018)

Me either. You probably haven't or ever will but I don't want to feel left out


----------



## perhapss

Hi guys,

I know I don't usually post in this thread (but I think it's good ) but,
I just thought (before I gave up conspiracy theories ) I'd express something here that seems distantly relevant to me:

I used to think that analogsurviver and bigshot were the same physical person in real life. I used to think they were some kind of split-personality kind of situation.


----------



## bigshot

I'm not creative enough to make up that kind of zany stuff. My brain can't be made to work that way... at least since I gave up drugs after college.


----------



## analogsurviver

perhapss said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I know I don't usually post in this thread (but I think it's good ) but,
> I just thought (before I gave up conspiracy theories ) I'd express something here that seems distantly relevant to me:
> ...


THAT would be, for me at least, beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt:


                                                                                           The Mother of Worst Nightmare


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I'm not creative enough to make up that kind of zany stuff. My brain can't be made to work that way... at least since I gave up drugs after college.


I have never done drugs except for coffee.  (hey, I'm a Finn!  ). I even consume alcohol very rarely (despite of being a Finn  ).


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> I'm not creative enough to make up that kind of zany stuff. My brain can't be made to work that way... at least since I gave up drugs after college.



I never did drugs, in my 16 years of school or otherwise.  That includes alcohol or cigs.  I got nowhere in life accordingly.


----------



## Whazzzup

I’m soiled in steep amounts of quality wine, whiskey, and weed. But don’t hold that against me. No relationship to my enjoyment of cables. -)


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Whazzzup said:


> I’m soiled in steep amounts of quality wine, whiskey, and weed. But don’t hold that against me. No relationship to my enjoyment of cables. -)



You probably have accordingly a decent, actual social life, outside of your preferences in cables.


----------



## castleofargh

I'm not high on potenuse or even much of an alcohol consumer myself. my body is making me pay an increasingly high price for any abuse I put it through, so moderation has become my favorite tool against ragrets. but I've been a teen and went to a boarding school where the guy making the rounds at night was the local dealer. mistakes were made, a bunch of times.  


 I have to say that as a modo:  the notion of "testing" in this topic is in relation to audio claims only. we don't support testing of illicit stuff. 




this post was created with the help of stealing jokes from TV and ruining them.


----------



## bigshot

I'm all in favor of drugs. They keep the stupid ones quiet.


----------



## seanheis

bigshot said:


> I'm all in favor of drugs. They keep the stupid ones quiet.


----------



## rickdog

Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review did a blind test of a cheap consumer amp against an audiophile one back in the 70's and the results were random.  I was a subscriber back then, months of diatribe againt Hirsch by irate audiophiles ensued in subsequent issues, he created quite a stir.  I tried to find a copy of the story on the web but couldn't locate it.  He was THE pioneer in this debate.


----------



## seanheis

When I am at an audio show, at some point all the rooms start to sound very similar....I would most likely not be able to tell amps apart in an unfamiliar room, with unfamiliar music, speakers, etc....but if somebody tried to slip a new amp in my system at home with my music, it would not be difficult to tell that something was different.


----------



## bigshot

I did that once. My brother has a McIntosh system he bought back in the 70s. When he was on vacation and I was babysitting his house.I swapped my cheapie Sanyo amp in replacing his McIntosh power amp. I wasn't able to do a direct comparison because it required rewiring his speakers, but it sounded the same to me. I thought I'd be able to hear a difference, but I couldn't.


----------



## seanheis

Older gear is somewhat more similar than different. Today's systems have a lot more resolution, for better or worse. When you get into the Electrostat or Planar speakers, even differences between DACs become noticeable....assuming that everything else is familiar.


----------



## gregorio

seanheis said:


> .but if somebody tried to slip a new amp in my system at home with my music, it would not be difficult to tell that something was different.



Assuming your amp is not deliberately coloured/lowers fidelity and is of an adequate power/impedance, then swapping it with a different amp (which also doesn't deliberately colour the sound, is of adequate power/impedance for your speaker or HPs and is volume matched) would be impossible for you to differentiate by sound alone. This has been demonstrated countless times over a period of several decades, even though you believe/think it absurd.

G


----------



## seanheis

All the tests that I have seen were in situations where listeners were in an unfamiliar room with unfamiliar speakers and music. It's not difficult to change the sound of an amp. Adjusting the bias and negative feedback will change the sound for example.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

rickdog said:


> Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review did a blind test of a cheap consumer amp against an audiophile one back in the 70's and the results were random.  I was a subscriber back then, months of diatribe againt Hirsch by irate audiophiles ensued in subsequent issues, he created quite a stir.  I tried to find a copy of the story on the web but couldn't locate it.  He was THE pioneer in this debate.



The late Hirsch was my hero in the magazine circuit!   Explained things in terms even those who didn't own a single piece of equipment could understand.


----------



## analogsurviver

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> https://www.americanradiohistory.com/




_Thank you Analog  - I feel like a kid in a candy shop now!  _


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> https://www.americanradiohistory.com/



Thanks! - great link.  Permanently bookmarked.


----------



## bigshot

seanheis said:


> Older gear is somewhat more similar than different. Today's systems have a lot more resolution, for better or worse. When you get into the Electrostat or Planar speakers, even differences between DACs become noticeable....assuming that everything else is familiar.



Have you been able to determine differences between DACs yourself under controlled conditions (blind, level matched, direct A/B switched) or can you point me to a published test that proved that? Everything I've read about or tested myself tells me the exact opposite. I've compared a $40 Walmart DVD player to an Oppo HA-1 and I couldn't detect any difference at all using Oppo PM-1s. The same goes for my blu-ray players, iPods, iPhones and computers. Everything I've ever bought sounds the same. I'd be interested in hearing about solid evidence proving there is something out there that sounds different.


----------



## seanheis

Yes, I can tell the difference when using my Magnepan speakers...but it becomes difficult to tell the difference with my cone and dome speakers. Some folks find that 128k MP3 sounds the same as FLAC. I believe them....it's their gear and their ears in their room.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 2, 2018)

The important part of Bigshot's question is whether you've actually done it under controlled conditions - blind, level-matched, etc.  It's also easy to tell the difference between two (otherwise identically-performing) sources if there's even a 1dB difference in levels between the two sources.  It's almost impossible *not *to hear a difference between two identical sources if you're getting up, plugging in a different source, going back to your seat, and hitting play 30+ seconds later, especially when you expect to hear one.

In my personal and professional experience it's actually harder to convince yourself you don't hear a difference between two device, than identify a "clearly audible" difference.  For many of us it's a very dispiriting result, psychologically.  In our minds we want to find something, finding nothing is no fun.


----------



## sonitus mirus

seanheis said:


> Yes, I can tell the difference when using my Magnepan speakers...but it becomes difficult to tell the difference with my cone and dome speakers. Some folks find that 128k MP3 sounds the same as FLAC. I believe them....it's their gear and their ears in their room.



How were you verifying that an audible difference was identifiable?   Were you just switching devices and figuring that the cheapest DAC or amp sounded inferior?


----------



## seanheis

Blind level matched ABX box.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

seanheis said:


> Blind level matched ABX box.



Well that is certainly better than 98% of people who march in claiming they hear something that's not supposed to be hear-able.  

What were the amps in question if you don't mind sharing?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 2, 2018)

What kind of blind level matched ABX box testing? I'm interested in your test setup. Was the difference significant? How many tests did you do to determine the difference. Could you tell the difference every time, or most of the time? What did the difference sound like?


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 2, 2018)

Yeah I'm also interested in specifics.  I don't know if you follow this forum or thread, but people who have actually done these tests with proper ABX gear are not common, so deets are a rare treat.  Speaking for myself It's definitely an "interest" question, not an "I don't believe you" question.


----------



## castleofargh

once we're past the point of established noticeable difference, discussing about significance is entirely subjective.
for the anecdote, most of the time I find it easier to notice something using a single speaker.


----------



## sonitus mirus (Oct 2, 2018)

seanheis said:


> Blind level matched ABX box.


What do you suppose was broken, set up incorrectly, or used outside of design specifications?  Or is this another magic moment that nobody can understand or even measure.  Why is it that only people with expensive gear seem to have superhuman powers of hearing?


----------



## gregorio

seanheis said:


> [1] Some folks find that 128k MP3 sounds the same as FLAC. I believe them....[2] it's their gear and their ears in their room.



1. I'm one of those people, although that's only true for a very small number of recordings. The vast majority of the time I find it trivially easy to tell the difference. As the bit rate increases, so the number of recordings where I can't tell the difference increases. By the time I get to the more recent versions of 320kbps MP3 and AAC, there's almost no recordings where I can tell the difference.

2. Yep, the old audiophile cliche that's utter nonsense! A. I've worked in various world class, multi-million dollar studios for over 25 years. What's wrong with the gear and rooms in these studios, in what way is your gear and room superior? B. It's typically got nothing to do with "their ears". Many of the people I deal with, particularly students and other younger people, have much better ears than me but they have a far poorer ability to analyse and discriminate what their ears are hearing.

Don't you have anything other than several decade old audiophile cliches/myths which have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false?

I'm sorry my response sounds overly harsh. I realise that audiophiles are bombarded by audiophile marketing, reviews and impressions/opinions and that except for relatively obscure little corners like this sub-forum and the world of professional audio practitioners (which generally keeps it's distance from the audiophile world), there's little/nothing the average audiophile would ever encounter to cause them to question the wealth of audiophile "information". It's easy to stand here and dismiss audiophiles as gullible saps who've been utterly suckered by the audiophile industry but that's not really fair. It's difficult or even near impossible to avoid being sucked-in if all the information one receives fundamentally says the same thing. 

That's why this thread was started and why it's a "sticky" but most audiophiles either like believing what they've been led to believe and therefore avoid any information which might cause them to question their belief or, are so indoctrinated that they come to this thread (and others like it) to discredit/disprove the information presented here. That's of course where we run into disputes and "harsh" responses, because there is no reliable evidence with which to discredit or disprove the information here, ALL the reliable evidence does the exact opposite (which is why that information is here in the first place), all they have is their unquestionable belief and the same old cliches/myths that previous generations of audiophiles invented to justify their unquestionable beliefs. What we therefore end up with is an intermittent stream of audiophiles totally convinced the information here is unquestionably wrong and a vicious circle of the same cliches/myths, which is why this thread is 640 pages long, when about 20 should have been more than enough and why my response is harsher than you personally deserve!

G


----------



## taffy2207 (Oct 3, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> Why is it that only people with expensive gear seem to have superhuman powers of hearing?



It's a self defence mechanism to protect themselves from the 'Morning after buyers regret' feeling that they've radically overspent. It's something that's becoming more and more prevalent around the forums. i.e.  It costs more, therefore, it's better. Shiny new toy syndrome is a powerful force, as is Elitism.


----------



## bigshot

I'm still really interested in hearing the details of that controlled comparison test that revealed audible differences between modern DACs.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Oct 3, 2018)

Yeah, like was there an EQ or other sound processing equipt. in the chain between one of the DACs and the listener?


----------



## seanheis

bigshot said:


> I'm still really interested in hearing the details of that controlled comparison test that revealed audible differences between modern DACs.



I decided to stop responding as so many seem to have an axe to grind on this topic. BTW, I never said or implied that more expensive sounds better. An interesting observation during the tests was that female friends tended to score a bit higher than males. Also, the lowest scorers were techie engineering types...I have a few friends that are borderline asbergers and their results were dismal.


----------



## sonitus mirus

What DACs were compared?   Which did you and your friends prefer?  What was the source?


----------



## bfreedma

seanheis said:


> I decided to stop responding as so many seem to have an axe to grind on this topic. BTW, I never said or implied that more expensive sounds better. An interesting observation during the tests was that female friends tended to score a bit higher than males. Also, the lowest scorers were techie engineering types...I have a few friends that are borderline asbergers and their results were dismal.



The reason people are asking for more detail is that your results would, if supportable, be the first time evidence has been presented that under controlled testing conditions, properly operating solid state amps and/or DACS could be differentiated with statistical significance.

The lack of supporting evidence in regards to how the tests were conducted, the number of trials, specifics about the % of correct responses per test, etc, makes it difficult to validate the claims.  Your subsequent post above suggests that a large number of subjects were tested - why not post the details?

Don’t take the questioning personally, but this claim has been made a number of times yet the supporting evidence never materializes.


----------



## gregorio

seanheis said:


> [1] I decided to stop responding as so many seem to have an axe to grind on this topic.
> [2] An interesting observation during the tests was that female friends tended to score a bit higher than males.
> [3] Also, the lowest scorers were techie engineering types...I have a few friends that are borderline asbergers and their results were dismal.



1. That's strange! Aren't you one of those audiophiles I mentioned in my last post, who come to this thread (and others like it) to "grind their axe" of unquestionable belief, despite the decades of overwhelming reliable evidence which contradicts it? If you don't have "an axe to grind on this topic" then why post assertions so contrary to the reliable evidence here in the sound science forum and if you do have an axe to grind (which seems obvious), then you've "decided to stop responding" because of people like yourself?!

2. That observation is expected in some listening tests. On average, age related high frequency hearing loss is less for women than for men.

3. This observation is completely contrary to expectations though. In all the published scientific and controlled studies I'm aware of, where the interests/professions of the participants are included, sound engineers and others with trained hearing always perform better than audiophiles and general members of the public. Maybe you weren't referring to sound engineers but "engineering types" in fields unrelated to music/sound?

G


----------



## bigshot (Oct 4, 2018)

seanheis said:


> I decided to stop responding as so many seem to have an axe to grind on this topic.



I kind of suspected that was coming. In the future, it might be a good idea not to stretch the truth to make your point. I know it's just an internet forum and we are all relatively anonymous, but someone might just ask you for details that you aren't prepared to provide. If it was just a subjective impression, say that and move on. Don't try to make it better by saying it was a controlled test when it wasn't. Lying and then claiming victory when you're being forced to retreat doesn't really convince anyone. You'll want to avoid having to do that in the future.


----------



## seanheis

Hi guys. This thread is a firing squad. Insulting someone is not a good way to get your questions answered or to promote sharing. I treat people online the same way that I do offline and I respond to others in the same fashion. I'm unsubscribing to this thread as the overall attitudes and expectation bias' are counterproductive to having a meaningful discussion.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 4, 2018)

You already said you weren't going to answer our questions because you think we won't be fair with you. Why would you expect fairness from us when you won't be fair with us?

It's already been explained to you by Gregorio. The reason we are interested in hearing about the controls on your test is because your results go against every controlled test we've ever heard of, and it doesn't follow any scientific principle. If what you say is true, you have a very exceptional thing going on. We would love to hear about it and we will be polite. But if you're going to cop an attitude and write us off before you even start, it doesn't instill much confidence in us about the validity of your claims. We have people who come into Sound Science all the time and make exceptional claims, refuse to back them up, and then march off in a huff. It seems you fit that pattern.

We would love to be proved wrong. We can learn from that. Marching about and making claims that can't and won't be backed up is just a waste of time. If you're going to do that, we politely point you towards the door.

NEXT!


----------



## bfreedma

seanheis said:


> Hi guys. This thread is a firing squad. Insulting someone is not a good way to get your questions answered or to promote sharing. I treat people online the same way that I do offline and I respond to others in the same fashion. I'm unsubscribing to this thread as the overall attitudes and expectation bias' are counterproductive to having a meaningful discussion.



Kind of saw that coming...

Frankly, I though my request for additional information was non-confrontational - if we were discussing this in person, I would have asked the same questions using the same verbiage.  This is the Science based subforum of head-fi.  Reports of Bigfoot or flying pigs are going to be met with requests for supporting evidence.


----------



## filipcza (Oct 4, 2018)

KingStyles said:


> Its amazing how every thing supposedly sounds the same but when I listen to at meets it all sounds different with the same can. How can that be?



Because you are not a tape recorder and your ears are not microphones.
I think most of us like to think we are machines, but we are not. Far from it.

When you hear something, you experience hearing. It's not like you record sound with your ears and hear it objectively.
Maybe audioholics like to think they are objective, but that's where they go way off.

The word is "experience" and that my friends is a mystery like our consciousness.

When you experience sound, that experience is influenced by many things like:
1. What you hear
2. What you see
3. What you taste
4. What you feel
5. What you think.
6. What you expect
and so on..

Change any one of these things and your whole experience changes.

Change what you see (Nicer looking gear), and your feelings change too -> you experience changes to a more positive one -> you hear sound which "sounds" better because your experience is uplifted. You don't just think it sounds better, IT REALLY sounds better because your whole experience is influenced at the same time. If you measure the sound with microphones you will see that objectively it has not changed but you still hear like it has been changed.

Good analogy to this is optical illusion. Take a look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion

Look at the A and B squares. Which is darker?

A is clearly darker. You see it, I see it, everyone can see it looks darker. And no matter how much I tell you that A and B are identical, your EXPERIENCE is that A is darker, period. It does not matter the slightest that when we measure them, they are identical, you still see A as being darker. This is the difference between objective reality and our experience.

So in objective reality, cables do not matter. But for some their experience tells them that they clearly matter. Some can hear the difference because their experience tells them so. So for them, cables produce better experience, no matter what the objective reality is.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Also, at meets, (OK, in my very limited experience, I went to one once) a lot of people bring in tube amps, which add non-linear distortion to the signal on purpose.  So it's worth considering that many of these amps and dac-amps might have some coloration built in on purpose, in which case you should hope to hear something.


----------



## bigshot

One of the biggest ways to introduce bias is to conflate music with sound. Something I notice about reviews in audiophile magazines is that reviewers spend as much time describing their favorite music that they played on the system being evaluated as they do talking about the sound of the equipment itself. They wax rhapsodic about the recording and never relate that to specifics about the component they're reviewing. They say it's because they're familiar with the recordings, but what they are really doing is manufacturing a positive impression by playing music they like. I have recordings that I use to evaluate equipment, but it isn't necessarily music I play for pleasurable listening. I use them because they isolate a particular frequency range, like with a descending bass pattern or vocals or bell trees with lots of upper harmonics, so I can evaluate the response in that range. A tone sweep will generally tell you more than music does.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> One of the biggest ways to introduce bias is to conflate music with sound. Something I notice about reviews in audiophile magazines is that reviewers spend as much time describing their favorite music that they played on the system being evaluated as they do talking about the sound of the equipment itself. They wax rhapsodic about the recording and never relate that to specifics about the component they're reviewing. They say it's because they're familiar with the recordings, but what they are really doing is manufacturing a positive impression by playing music they like. I have recordings that I use to evaluate equipment, but it isn't necessarily music I play for pleasurable listening. I use them because they isolate a particular frequency range, like with a descending bass pattern or vocals or bell trees with lots of upper harmonics, so I can evaluate the response in that range. A tone sweep will generally tell you more than music does.



Musophiles focus on the sound of the music.  Audiophiles focus on the sound of the equipment, or how music sounds on that equipment.


----------



## bigshot

They're two separate things. Blending the two only confuses things because you get too many variables going at once.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 4, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> Also, at meets, (OK, in my very limited experience, I went to one once) a lot of people bring in tube amps, which add non-linear distortion to the signal on purpose.  So it's worth considering that many of these amps and dac-amps might have some coloration built in on purpose, in which case you should hope to hear something.



It's interesting that I now have a pretty good setup for headphones, and each component has their own headphone stage.  I have music ranging from 128kbs to FLAC on a USB drive going to a music player (SMSL DP3).  It has an unbalanced and balanced headphone stage as well as many options for digital output.  I have optical going out to a Benchmark DAC.  From the Benchmark DAC, I have analog outputs going to a Single Power PPX3.  The stereotype is that tube amps apply a warm sounding distortion.  What I find the most interesting when I plug in the same headphones to any component, I find the SMSL DP3 to have the warmest sound (and less resolving treble).  I've found some tubes on the Single Power stay focused on the mids, while others may be more laid back and allow extension in bass and higher treble regions.  I don't have the tools to have a switch and do a level adjust with my Benchmark vs SMSL DAC components for something controlled (when it comes to the topic of differences with DACs).  The Benchmark is more expensive, but the SMSL is supposed to be very good for the money (using the most modern popular DAC chips: Sabre 9018Q2C).  I would think that there could still be some discernible difference, as a DAC is not just limited to sampling method (IE there's also a chain in the signal with circuit design).  What I have found most surprising is hearing a difference using a digital source going to the Benchmark.  I have a USB to coaxial adapter that I've used for plugging a computer or smartphone to the Benchmark (so the levels and headphone stage stay consistent).  I switched from my laptop and an iPhone, and there was a discernible difference in tonality.  Coming from the computer, there was noticeably more bass.  I was very surprised, as my expectation was that they'd sound the same.  My only guess is that it has something to do with the different timings people speak of with digital connections (and there was slightly more direct connection with the computer going to USB vs iPhone first having lightening to USB hub).  At the end of the day, I'm concerned most with the music itself...and there is some adage that you can thoroughly get into and enjoy a musical piece from most any source.  IMO, I just get even more of a connection if I have it playing through a system that I find resolving.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 4, 2018)

I just have my iPhone and Oppo PM-1s and 256 AAC VBR files on a micro SD card. The phone sounds exactly the same as my home system, and it's always in my pocket. I don't know why anyone would want a really complicated setup for on the go., especially when it's as good as a home system. At home I just use an Oppo BDP103.

All my equipment is audibly transparent. If I bought something and it sounded different, I would send it back for a refund.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 4, 2018)

My foray into amps and stationary setups was to drive what's deemed "demanding" headphones.  My most recent headphone acquisition is an Audeze LCD2 closed back.  Other headphones I directly plug into an iPhone, I have to raise the volume to almost max, and it still sounds fairly flat.  The Audeze has a higher sensitivity, and I do find it sounds pretty good by themselves with iPhone (have never collected portable amps).  When I plug the Audeze in my "office rig", the volume knob is a little more then 1/8 but it still has much better dynamics (both volume dynamics and frequency range).  I was kind of bemused that while researching reviews for headphones, I saw one youtube source that said the optimal volume for a headphone amp is setting the volume to halfway (if you did that with any of my headphones on the Single Power, you'd go deaf).  So yes, as long as your setup can drive the given headphone, things will sound "transparent"...but that still doesn't mean it will be identical or as "resolving" for every system.


----------



## castleofargh

it's much harder for me to accept that I fail to perceive differences in an uncontrolled test, than it is to be sure I'm hearing differences in a test where there is actually only 1 sound but I'm told differently. I will almost always "hear" a difference, no matter if there is any to be heard. and I will almost always be fairly confident that I have found the way to discriminate and that I could pass a blind test. at least I'm confident so long as I don't actually look at the results of the blind test ^_^. 
I'm of the opinion that it's probably the same for most people if not all of them. thinking that getting impressions of a difference is the difficult thing in a listening test, that's IMO one of the biggest misconceptions about humans and this hobby in general. the brain is very likely to have betrayed us completely for the sake of personal gratification. because let's not forget that our brain is a massive junky! and behaves exactly like one. it's pretty obvious that finding stuff will be way more rewarding than finding nothing. even science is getting ruined by such an obviously human way of thinking as it's almost impossible to get funded to confirm a lack of impact, or to replicate an experiment showing no change. we're wired that way, the brain does its worst to find stuff, truthfully, or by making it up. it's very much the same result as far as immediate gratification is concerned.
I understand completely why audiophiles are in majority the way they are. facts and truth are simply not the target, pleasure and feeling right are. 
those who do care to confirm facts have to fight against what's intuitive, natural and easy. that's quite the handicap.

from my very personal point of view, a sighted impression is not a reliable listening test. for the many reasons we all went over a great many times in here. so discussing impressions from sighted experiences without even a switch or matched volumes, I really see that as a waste of time in this section. right or wrong is irrelevant when we have so many reasons to refrain from placing any confidence in what is said. if all we get is doubt about something expressed by someone who's confident for the wrong reasons, is it interesting to even get those anecdotes? 
maybe the notion of "testing" should be clarified. getting subjective impressions in uncontrolled conditions, that's not what I would call a test. and most certainly not something conclusive about audible differences between gears. just because we're the kings of heuristic, and we're able to draw conclusions no matter how incomplete the information, doesn't mean those conclusions aren't going to be total crap from time to time.


----------



## Davesrose

I would ask what's being evaluated.  Many claims here are whether one can hear a difference with any system.  At first I thought it was DAC, then others chimed in with amp distortions, and also what kind of various perceptions our brains have at a given moment.  I am a proponent of how our perceptions are always changing and can effect how we can "hear" something from day to day.  The main "controlled" anecdote I have is the computer vs iPhone source through my Benchmark.  My bias was that they'd sound the same: so I was taken aback that they sounded different.


----------



## bigshot

Davesrose said:


> So yes, as long as your setup can drive the given headphone, things will sound "transparent"...but that still doesn't mean it will be identical or as "resolving" for every system.



Whatever resolving means... whether it's a balanced response or low distortion levels, the Oppo PM-1s have it. And they work with an iPhone without an amp. I think people just like the complication of a convoluted system to haul around in a backpack.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Davesrose said:


> My foray into amps and stationary setups was to drive what's deemed "demanding" headphones.  My most recent headphone acquisition is an Audeze LCD2 closed back.  Other headphones I directly plug into an iPhone, I have to raise the volume to almost max, and it still sounds fairly flat.  The Audeze has a higher sensitivity, and I do find it sounds pretty good by themselves with iPhone (have never collected portable amps).  When I plug the Audeze in my "office rig", the volume knob is a little more then 1/8 but it still has much better dynamics (both volume dynamics and frequency range).  I was kind of bemused that while researching reviews for headphones, I saw one youtube source that said the optimal volume for a headphone amp is setting the volume to halfway (if you did that with any of my headphones on the Single Power, you'd go deaf).  So yes, as long as your setup can drive the given headphone, things will sound "transparent"...but that still doesn't mean it will be identical or as "resolving" for every system.



Volume setting between 2/5 and 3/5 of maximum should be the goal.  What is volume of your input device set to?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I frankly find seanheis' apparent dishonesty more insulting than anything thrown at him here.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> Whatever resolving means... whether it's a balanced response or low distortion levels, the Oppo PM-1s have it. And they work with an iPhone without an amp. I think people just like the complication of a convoluted system to haul around in a backpack.



 https://www.head-fi.org/threads/describing-sound-a-glossary.220770/

*Definition (or resolution) *- The ability of a component to reveal the subtle information that is fundamental to high fidelity sound.


----------



## Phronesis (Oct 5, 2018)

Nothing new is likely to be said in the revival of this thread, so I'll just repeat what I've said before: the issues of variability and unreliability of perception and memory which plague casual sighted listening comparisons are also a problem for blind comparisons.

There's no way of avoiding comparing a perceptual judgement of what's being heard with a memory of a perceptual judgment of what was heard before, since we can't compare two sounds at the same time.  Blinding can remove expectation bias, but other problems of perception and memory remain.

It's a very different situation as compared to say doing a double-blind comparison of a placebo vs drug for blood pressure reduction, based on objective measurements of blood pressure which aren't affected by perception and memory issues.  The "measurements" involved in auditory perception and memory are fundamentally subjective, not objective.

Summary:

- Casual sighted listening comparisons: can be quite unreliable, with potential for large differences perceived which aren't objectively there in the physical sound

- Blind listening comparisons with matching of volumes and music segments, and ability to switch rapidly: should be better than casual sighted listening comparisons, but could still be unreliable, especially for detection of small objective differences in the physical sound


----------



## gregorio (Oct 5, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> [1] I am a proponent of how our perceptions are always changing and can effect how we can "hear" something from day to day.
> [2] The main "controlled" anecdote I have is the computer vs iPhone source through my Benchmark.
> [3] My bias was that they'd sound the same: so I was taken aback that they sounded different.



1. I'm a proponent of our perceptions do change, subtly over time and sometimes quickly and quite dramatically but regardless, our perception constantly affects how/what we "hear". Just the fact that you listen to "music" and can differentiate music from semi-random sound/noise demonstrates that fact.

2. I'm not sure how "controlled" your test was, or even if you were testing what you thought you were testing. For example, you might have just been testing an impedance difference in the supplied signal, noise/interference from the computer's USB output the DAC was not expecting/designed to cope with on it's coax input or various other possibilities.

3. A lot of audiophiles fall into the trap of thinking that "bias" is that thing which they consciously expect. This is an erroneous belief! We all have numerous biases, some/many of which are sub-conscious and can take precedence over conscious biases. Furthermore, expectation bias itself isn't just one thing, our "expectation" is usually a judgement comprised of various different expectations and again, some of our expectations are sub-conscious and therefore not taken into account. An example of this is the Mcgurk Effect, watch this 3 min video. but first I'll tell you (even though it states it in the video) there is no "faa", you only ever hear "baa", there's no difference. You should now have the conscious expectation of there being no difference and you shouldn't hear "faa".



Phronesis said:


> - Blind listening comparisons with matching of volumes and music segments, and ability to switch rapidly: should be better than casual sighted listening comparisons, but could still be unreliable, especially for detection of small objective differences in the physical sound



Sure but why doesn't your summary include the other obvious missing points? Shouldn't your summary effectively be:

1. Casual sighted tests can be (typically are) unreliable.
2. Blind testing has it faults but is typically more reliable.
3. Double blind tests are typically more reliable still.
4. DBX test are typically the most reliable.

No test is absolutely reliable although with a sufficient sample size we can get close. The gap between the first point and the second is typically larger than between the second point and the rest because a casual sighted test is by definition "casual", while the other testing methods are usually less so. For example, as you mention, blind testing usually includes matching volumes and material, thereby eliminating potentially serious testing flaws. And, ABX testing typically allows instant switching and the comparison of extremely short extracts, thereby eliminating the limits of echoic memory which can affect the other testing methods.

G


----------



## KeithEmo (Oct 5, 2018)

The general connotation of "resolving" is that "it allows you to hear differences in other components or the music itself more easily". So, for example, if you heard a distinct difference between two DACs when listening with one pair of headphones, but not with another, then the one that enabled you to hear the difference would be "more resolving". While many audiophiles seem to believe that this means that "the more resolving component is 'better'", that may not always be the case. It's important to note that this can mean different things, or different combinations of characteristics, depending on the person speaking, and the context. It's equally important to keep in mind that resolving is not necessarily synonymous with "good". For example, a speaker with a huge lump in the treble response will make it easier to resolve certain types of distortion - by exaggerating them. That obviously does NOT mean that it sounds good or is especially accurate.

It is worth noting, however, that any audio system is subject to having a weakest link. So, for example, if your speakers have tweeters whose response doesn't extend all the way up, then they might prevent you from hearing a difference between two other components that have differences in high frequency response. (This might limit the sound quality they can deliver with high quality program material; but it might also hide the flaws in low quality MP3 files, which might be considered to be a benefit.) 

Also note that "the weakest link" is not always a simple distinction. For example, some tweeters have a lot of energy storage.... if you ask them to play a single sharp high frequency tone they continue to ring after the tone ends. However, they will still test as having a flat overall frequency response. This is easily seen on their waterfall plot. We might well consider that 50 milliseconds of ringing on a tweeter may be totally inaudible. However, without knowing whether that's always true or not, we can say that we are definitely NOT going to be able to assess whether a DAC that exhibits 5 msec of ringing sounds better than one that exhibits 10 msec of ringing if the speakers we've chosen for our test setup exhibit ten times that much... because the speakers will obviously mask the difference - ensuring that we won't be able to hear it.

So, WITHOUT getting into an argument about whether the difference between 5 msec of ringing on a DAC is audible or not, attempting to make that determination using a speaker that exhibits far more ringing would invalidate the test entirely. (We call that "a flawed test protocol".) 



bigshot said:


> Whatever resolving means... whether it's a balanced response or low distortion levels, the Oppo PM-1s have it. And they work with an iPhone without an amp. I think people just like the complication of a convoluted system to haul around in a backpack.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> Sure but why doesn't your summary include the other obvious missing points? Shouldn't your summary effectively be:
> 
> 1. Casual sighted tests can be (typically are) unreliable.
> 2. Blind testing has it faults but is typically more reliable.
> ...



I could go about midway between what I originally said and what you said.  The only way we can "know" how perception and memory are affecting results of listening comparisons (regardless of the protocol) is comparison with objective information on the physical sound which tells us the true objective differences.  We generally don't have that type of objective information available, and statistics have only limited benefit in helping us get to the truth if the subjective "measurements" of audio perception and memory are inherently variable and unreliable.  It's like trying to figure out how different two signals may be, with each signal having a lot of random noise added to it; if there's a small difference in the signals, the stats may miss that because the difference in the signals is swamped by the random noise.


----------



## Davesrose

gregorio said:


> 2. I'm not sure how "controlled" your test was, or even if you were testing what you thought you were testing. For example, you might have just been testing an impedance difference in the supplied signal, noise/interference from the computer's USB output the DAC was not expecting/designed to cope with on it's coax input or various other possibilities.
> 
> 3. A lot of audiophiles fall into the trap of thinking that "bias" is that thing which they consciously expect. This is an erroneous belief! We all have numerous biases, some/many of which are sub-conscious and can take precedence over conscious biases. Furthermore, expectation bias itself isn't just one thing, our "expectation" is usually a judgement comprised of various different expectations and again, some of our expectations are sub-conscious and therefore not taken into account. An example of this is the Mcgurk Effect, watch this 3 min video. but first I'll tell you (even though it states it in the video) there is no "faa", you only ever hear "baa", there's no difference. You should now have the conscious expectation of there being no difference and you shouldn't hear "faa".



Maybe it was differences in impedance with iPhone vs computer output, or other factors.  As I stated, I don't know the reason, but my expectations were not confirmed when these digital sources sounded different.  Also, the Mcgurk effect is not relevant as I'm comparing sound during approximately the same time and with consistent stimuli.  Your video is showing the change of audio perception from visual perception (and that if you close your eyes, you may hear something differently then when you're watching the video).


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 5, 2018)

If there really is an audible difference when you're just changing the digital source and the analog stage is the same, then there's something wrong. Especially if the difference is in tonality.  More likely some weird impedance problem, than you get more bass from a different copy of the same file.  Maybe there was a grounding problem or something.

Viewed another way, if there was an interesting way to just plain old resample a signal (read: treat it as coming from a different digital source) that resulted in (sometimes) pleasant tonality changes, you might expect to see VST plugins for musicians that made use of that effect.  There are no such plugins to my knowledge.  You can resample something back and forth from 44.1 to 88.2 and back 1000 times and you're not going to get more bass.  There are plenty that implement different types of dithering and resampling, for "final touch before exporting" work on mixes, but none are touted as changing FR in a meaningful way.

This suggests that there is a problem and either the DAC is designed wrong, or the effect is coming in somewhere else, or it just wasn't a real effect at all.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 5, 2018)

If you're replying to me, I've never heard anyone say Benchmark DACs are faulty or that they intentionally color sound.  My observation was two different digital transports going to the same DAC (playing the same digital file).


----------



## KeithEmo (Oct 5, 2018)

Errrr.... yes and no.

Saying "plain old resampling of the signal" is an oversimplification.
In general, altering the sample rate involves some filtering.
If you look at the software you're using to convert between sample rates, you'll _USUALLY_ find options for what sort of filtering to use (in R8Brain, or Izotope, you can choose both the sharpness and the cutoff frequency of the filter).
And, yes, you will hear slight differences in the output when you change those settings (those differences are usually pretty subtle).
And, yes, some of those differences involve audible differences in high-frequency response (which can affect "the tonal balance").
And, yes, some pros DO prefer one converter over another "because of how it sounds".

If you want to see a comparison of a whole bunch of sample rate converters.... check out this website:
http://src.infinitewave.ca/

You'll see that many sample rate conversion utilities do deliver virtually identical outputs...
But a surprising number actually DO cause significant alterations to the signal...

I would agree that, with a DAC, assuming that the data remains the same, then the resulting analog audio should sound identical.
However, apparently, on some DACs, the various_ TYPES_ of inputs have considerably different performance... particularly when it comes to rejecting jitter present on the incoming source.
(Feel free to argue for another ten pages about whether the difference should be audible or not... but you can readily measure it.)

I would also add that, subjectively, many people I know agree that Sabre DACs tend to emphasize high frequencies, resulting in a sound that seems more detailed, yet slightly unnatural. I'm not at all interested in arguing about "how we must be imagining it" - nor do I know anyone who has done proper tests to reasonably confirm or deny it. HOWEVER, in their early product literature, ESS (who makes Sabre DACs) claimed that, rather than design their DACs for the most accurate response, they used focus groups to "choose the output filter that most people preferred the sound of". They at least claimed, at that point, not that their DACs were accurate, but that they "sounded different and better". They have notably omitted this claim in recent years.



Zapp_Fan said:


> If there really is an audible difference when you're just changing the digital source and the analog stage is the same, then there's something wrong. Especially if the difference is in tonality.  More likely some weird impedance problem, than you get more bass from a different copy of the same file.  Maybe there was a grounding problem or something.
> 
> Viewed another way, if there was an interesting way to just plain old resample a signal (read: treat it as coming from a different digital source) that resulted in (sometimes) pleasant tonality changes, you might expect to see VST plugins for musicians that made use of that effect.  There are no such plugins to my knowledge.  You can resample something back and forth from 44.1 to 88.2 and back 1000 times and you're not going to get more bass.  There are plenty that implement different types of dithering and resampling, for "final touch before exporting" work on mixes, but none are touted as changing FR in a meaningful way.
> 
> This suggests that there is a problem and either the DAC is designed wrong, or the effect is coming in somewhere else, or it just wasn't a real effect at all.


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> ... [1] but my expectations were not confirmed when these digital sources sounded different.
> [2] Also, the Mcgurk effect is not relevant as I'm comparing sound during approximately the same time and with consistent stimuli. Your video is showing the change of audio perception from visual perception (and that if you close your eyes, you may hear something differently then when you're watching the video).



1. What "expectations" your judgement of your conscious expectation or all your actual expectations?
2. The video demonstrates how audio perception is changed by a sub-conscious expectation (caused by a visual stimulus), even when your conscious expectation was for there to be no change/difference. How do you know the difference you heard in your test was not the same process, a sub-conscious expectation outweighing both what you actually heard and your conscious expectation?

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 5, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Errrr.... yes and no.
> 
> Saying "plain old resampling of the signal" is an oversimplification.
> ...
> ...



Good point, I was definitely oversimplifying, but to keep it a little more focused, @Davesrose was saying that he heard a noticeable change in low frequencies, which really should not happen regardless of the output filter choice.  If I understood correctly, he was saying that the bass tonality changed just from the digital source, not even switching between DACs.  I could easily believe that a DAC's filter was deliberately colored, but the effect was supposed to have originated before the DAC.

Restating my point: there is no reason to think that feeding the same file into a DAC from a phone vs. computer should affect anything that's easily noticeable, let alone low frequencies, unless something has gone wrong.

And I do acknowledge there are valid artistic choices to be made between resampling algorithms depending on the input, I was more trying to make the point that it's not a strong effect (and should amount to almost nothing in consumer use) except in wild edge cases.


----------



## Davesrose

Zapp_Fan said:


> Restating my point: there is no reason to think that feeding the same file into a DAC from a phone vs. computer should affect anything that's easily noticeable, let alone low frequencies, unless something has gone wrong.





gregorio said:


> 1. What "expectations" your judgement of your conscious expectation or all your actual expectations?
> 2. The video demonstrates how audio perception is changed by a sub-conscious expectation (caused by a visual stimulus), even when your conscious expectation was for there to be no change/difference. How do you know the difference you heard in your test was not the same process, a sub-conscious expectation outweighing both what you actually heard and your conscious expectation?
> 
> G



My original goal was to see if using the iPhone for my source would be a good system, or if I needed to make it larger with having  a computer.  My conscious expectation was that the sources would sound the same (as they both were using the same USB adapter going to the Benchmark's coaxial port).  My focus at that point of time was just listening to the same track of music (there wasn't a preconceived notion or change in stimuli).

@Zapp_Fan: there definitely was a difference in tonality between the computer and iPhone going to my DAC.  On further reflection as to why that is: perhaps the source OS is applying a DSP with the USB adapter (as its seen as a soundcard).  Maybe it's just a matter of things being more complicated and the DAC not getting an unaltered bit for bit copy of the file.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 5, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> My original goal was to see if using the iPhone for my source would be a good system, or if I needed to make it larger with having  a computer.  My conscious expectation was that the sources would sound the same (as they both were using the same USB adapter going to the Benchmark's coaxial port).  My focus at that point of time was just listening to the same track of music (there wasn't a preconceived notion or change in stimuli).
> 
> @Zapp_Fan: there definitely was a difference in tonality between the computer and iPhone going to my DAC.  On further reflection as to why that is: perhaps the source OS is applying a DSP with the USB adapter (as its seen as a soundcard).  Maybe it's just a matter of things being more complicated and the DAC not getting an unaltered bit for bit copy of the file.



Yeah, the most straightforward explanation I can think of is that the OS applies some kind of filter for some reason.  Or that you just heard a difference for psychological reasons, or your headphones shifted on your head slightly, etc.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 5, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> *Definition (or resolution) *- The ability of a component to reveal the subtle information that is fundamental to high fidelity sound.



What aspect of sound reproduction is responsible for that? Frequency response? Distortion? Timing accuracy? Proper dynamics? Everything? Because if the answer is "everything" it isn't a very useful term when you are looking to find solutions to problems.

A lot of audiophile terms are vague and only serve as generalized praise. That may be fine for advertorial where they're trying to sell you something, but it's completely useless for identifying *why* one thing is better than another. All it tells you is someone's subjective conclusion. It doesn't tell you anything about how the person arrived at that conclusion. If I say this amp has audible distortion in the 1kHz to 4kHz range, or if I say the response is boosted in the upper mids, you're going to have a pretty good idea how it sounds... nasty and strident. But if I just say it sounds nasty and strident, you really don't know at all how it sounds.

If someone is going to be serious about sound reproduction, I would expect them to try to describe things with precision, so people know exactly what they're saying. But in audiophile circles, writers usually are more interested in being an "authority" and having their conclusions accepted without question than conveying information.



Phronesis said:


> Nothing new is likely to be said in the revival of this thread, so I'll just repeat what I've said before: the issues of variability and unreliability of perception and memory which plague casual sighted listening comparisons are also a problem for blind comparisons.



This isn't a revived thread. It's pinned because that first post is vitally important to what we talk about here in Sound Science. And as it has been explained to you in the past, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with perceptual error. It's about audio fidelity- accurately reproduced sound. We use various techniques to reduce the effect of perceptual error so we can determine the objective facts. "Can a difference be heard or not?" is the basic question. ABX testing is very good at determining that. We don't enter into subjective questions like "Do I like this better?" or "Does this audio component make me feel better?" Each person answers those questions for themselves. We just want to know if the signal going in sounds the same as the signal coming out.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> If I say this amp has audible distortion in the 1kHz to 4kHz range, or if I say the response is boosted in the upper mids, you're going to have a pretty good idea how it sounds... nasty and strident. But if I just say it sounds nasty and strident, you really don't know at all how it sounds.



There's a contradiction here ...


----------



## bigshot (Oct 5, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> My original goal was to see if using the iPhone for my source would be a good system, or if I needed to make it larger with having  a computer.



Here is the answer to that question...
https://kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6-plus.htm#measurements
https://kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6s-plus-audio-quality.htm



Phronesis said:


> There's a contradiction here ...



One is a specific way of describing a problem and one is a non specific way that begs a subjective conclusion.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> Here is the answer to that question...
> https://kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6-plus.htm#measurements
> https://kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6s-plus-audio-quality.htm



My topic was about using the iPhone as a digital source for an external DAC: not the audio quality of the included amp.


----------



## reginalb

bigshot said:


> Here is the answer to that question...
> https://kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6-plus.htm#measurements
> https://kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6s-plus-audio-quality.htm
> 
> ...



Who considers a 37.5Ω a low impedance load for a headphone amp? I'd call that a very average load. Not high, not low. Just average. I was actually surprised by the amount of roll for such a load.


----------



## castleofargh

Davesrose said:


> I would ask what's being evaluated.  Many claims here are whether one can hear a difference with any system.  At first I thought it was DAC, then others chimed in with amp distortions, and also what kind of various perceptions our brains have at a given moment.  I am a proponent of how our perceptions are always changing and can effect how we can "hear" something from day to day.  The main "controlled" anecdote I have is the computer vs iPhone source through my Benchmark.  My bias was that they'd sound the same: so I was taken aback that they sounded different.


clearly specifying what we're testing is very important! most of the time the test itself will need to adapt to what we're testing.
the idea that all "whatever" sound the same is not provable and as such can't be claimed. but it certainly is disprovable by demonstrating properly that 2 stuff are audibly different. even if only one such device exists and is only perceived as different by one guy on a full moon, that's enough to disprove the claim that they all sound the same. I don't think we should make global claims like those. better explain that failing to pass a blind test with DACs happens quite often. and that given the high level of fidelity achieved even by rather cheap DACs, it makes sense to expect mostly small to inaudible differences unless another issue somewhere is massive enough to manufacture it's own difference. like an aberrant level of noise from the source, or some electrical issue(ground loop or whatever), or maybe a severe gain mismatch between DAC and amp. those stuff do happen but they might not be considered as typical or proper use of the DAC. and if an unusual condition is necessary to get audible differences, it's debatable if we should conclude that the DACs sound different. for example many DACs have a different voltage output, that's a fairly audible difference right there. if that counts as audible difference between DACs, then, it's very easy to have 2 DACs that sound different ^_^. but I feel that as audiophiles we should be talking about more than changing the volume level. which brings me back to the necessity of proper testing conditions to avoid mistaking something for something else. 


your anecdote about the input of the Benchmark dac doesn't look controlled to me in anyway. only that you expected the same and didn't get that impression, but that proves or disproves nothing and tells us nothing about the actual variation in sound or the true cause for it. to be clear I'm not saying you made it up, just that we're missing a form of control where you can compare your impressions to something(the control) to gain the ability to confirm if the difference was indeed heard. and also maybe that it was caused by the different sources, or by the adapter, or by using the different inputs on the DAC, or all of the above. right now even if you had the ability to confirm the audible difference in sound, I still wouldn't know what conclusion to draw from it. so it's the type of anecdote that could probably tell us something, but under uncontrolled conditions, what are we to do with it? make assumptions that because you expected something else then you couldn't possibly be victim of placebo? even that is arguable because your preconceptions about digital audio might not be strong enough to oppose your vision of using 2 different gears. vision isn't to be underestimated. after all, the visual cortex is the biggest one in our brain and it clearly tends to dominates over other senses when put to the test. so drawing conclusions from a sighted(here used for both meanings) experience is really not as easy as it might seem.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Nothing new is likely to be said in the revival of this thread, so I'll just repeat what I've said before: the issues of variability and unreliability of perception and memory which plague casual sighted listening comparisons are also a problem for blind comparisons.
> 
> There's no way of avoiding comparing a perceptual judgement of what's being heard with a memory of a perceptual judgment of what was heard before, since we can't compare two sounds at the same time.  Blinding can remove expectation bias, but other problems of perception and memory remain.
> 
> ...


without getting all philosophical, we are absolutely sure of nothing when it comes to objective reality. the unavoidable filter of our senses used to acquire any form of information, makes any view of objective reality an interpretation or at least an incomplete observation. looking for perfect answer in an area that will never provide it is just a waste of time and something used by lazy people to justify avoiding any effort toward trying to know a little more. science admits that nothing is perfect or final. even theories are open to change if new data is solid enough to suggest a need to revise it. and it's been done a bunch of times already. 
so it's pretty obvious to me that a listening test isn't final. we can do many more and if at some point we learn how to pass or we simply had a good night of sleep in silence and our ears are well rested or whatever, that listening test will matter and change our conclusion of previously inaudible difference. I don't really see the issue about it. at one point it was decided that 0dB SPL was the threshold of audibility for a tone in the midrange, then we found that some people could perceive down to maybe -10dB, so we integrated that as new data and nobody went crazy about the impossibility of hearing below 0dB. but what is sure, nobody would have moved that threshold based on sighted impressions. 

beyond the matter of everything being imperfect, rises the issue of basic requirements to demonstrate something. a blind test may provide such conditions. thanks to a control, some dependent and independent variables, the elimination of some undesired ones... all the notions and parameters helping to increase our confidence by comparing the resulting data to something specific to confirm the impact and the cause of impact. a sighted test usually won't provide any of this. personal impressions of a sighted test used to demonstrate a "fact" to someone else, can be summed up by "dude trust me". which is not going to be a very convincing demonstration unless I'm trying to convince my mom.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> without getting all philosophical, we are absolutely sure of nothing when it comes to objective reality. the unavoidable filter of our senses used to acquire any form of information, makes any view of objective reality an interpretation or at least an incomplete observation. looking for perfect answer in an area that will never provide it is just a waste of time and something used by lazy people to justify avoiding any effort toward trying to know a little more. science admits that nothing is perfect or final. even theories are open to change if new data is solid enough to suggest a need to revise it. and it's been done a bunch of times already.
> so it's pretty obvious to me that a listening test isn't final. we can do many more and if at some point we learn how to pass or we simply had a good night of sleep in silence and our ears are well rested or whatever, that listening test will matter and change our conclusion of previously inaudible difference. I don't really see the issue about it. at one point it was decided that 0dB SPL was the threshold of audibility for a tone in the midrange, then we found that some people could perceive down to maybe -10dB, so we integrated that as new data and nobody went crazy about the impossibility of hearing below 0dB. but what is sure, nobody would have moved that threshold based on sighted impressions.
> 
> beyond the matter of everything being imperfect, rises the issue of basic requirements to demonstrate something. a blind test may provide such conditions. thanks to a control, some dependent and independent variables, the elimination of some undesired ones... all the notions and parameters helping to increase our confidence by comparing the resulting data to something specific to confirm the impact and the cause of impact. a sighted test usually won't provide any of this. personal impressions of a sighted test used to demonstrate a "fact" to someone else, can be summed up by "dude trust me". which is not going to be a very convincing demonstration unless I'm trying to convince my mom.



I mostly agree, but still get hung up on the issue that we perceive at both conscious and subconscious levels, and someone may be able to register subconscious differences while being unable to consciously register them.  Unless a test is set up to consider the subconscious aspect, the test could lead to false negative results.  And to properly set up such a test, you need to have some understanding of how subconscious perception works.  I know people would like it to all be simple and not deal with psychological aspects, but it's not simple and listening/hearing inherently involves psychological aspects.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 5, 2018)

It's a good idea to minimize subconscious bias as much as possible. Blind testing, perhaps in comfortable surroundings with pleasant sounds is a good way to do that. Maybe you can't completely eliminate psychological reactions, but at least you can get close enough that you can figure out if a difference is audible or not.


----------



## robthemac

That guy who said he heard differences between DACs with an ABX box was great. 

It's kinda like a physicist saying 'I have made some dark matter in my basement' then packing a sad when others ask for details.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> It's a good idea to minimize subconscious bias as much as possible. Blind testing, perhaps in comfortable surroundings with pleasant sounds is a good way to do that. Maybe you can't completely eliminate psychological reactions, but at least you can get close enough that you can figure out if a difference is audible or not.



It's not just about bias, many factors can affect our auditory perception without our being aware of those effects, since most of the cognitive processing of auditory perception occurs at the subconscious level - we're just not consciously aware of that, because subconscious activity is largely hidden from us.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with something BigShot alluded to in a slightly later post...

A major part of the problem with discussing this sort of thing is that audiophiles often resort to inaccurate or vague terms to describe what they hear.
As a result, different people may use the same words to describe very different things, and it is often difficult to equate sound with measurements.
Also, much as some people prefer to disagree, exactly how certain measurable differences relate to AUDIBLE differences is still not always clearly defined.

To use the example I put forward as... an example...

To many people I know, Sabre DACs (especially those of the vintage of the 9018 chip), seem audibly to boost high frequencies.
SUBJECTIVELY, compared to DACs of many other brands, it sounds as if the Sabre DACs boost the upper midrange by about 1 dB.
(To offer the converse; if I take a component that uses an AD1955 DAC, and apply a 1 dB boost cenetered around 7 kHz, the result sounds more like an ESS9018 without the boost.)
However, when we measure the ESS9018 DAC, we find that its frequency response is exceptionally flat (like most other good DACs).
Therefore, an actual difference in frequency response DOES NOT account for the difference in sound... because no such measurable difference exists.
(Therefore, the difference in frequency response that people claim to hear does not actually exist.)
However, if we measure the impulse response of the filters used in the Sabre DACs, we find that they ARE in fact measurably quite different.
This would seem to suggest at least the possibility that the differences in filters, which we can measure, may account for the subjective/audible differences.

I'll also offer a more well known example of how sometimes it's simply a case of "not measuring the right thing".

Class B amplifiers commonly have a known flaw - known as "crossover notch distortion".
On an oscilloscope, this sort of distortion literally appears as a "notch" in the sine wave which appears right before and right after the zero crossing point of the waveform.
As it so happens, the actual distortion is largely independent of the amplitude of the music signal... for a given circuit, adjusted a given way, the notch will be a certain size.
As a result of this, the PERCENTAGE of distortion will vary depending on the signal level.
(With a large signal, the distortion will be a very small average percentage of the total; wheres a tiny signal may be almost entirely distortion.)
Basically, with a large signal, you have a very high level of distortion, but for a very small percentage of the time.
(In a poor design, with a certain input signal, you can quite literally have a signal with an AVERAGE THD of 0.5%, but with a THD of 20% for 0.5% of the TIME.)
Therefore, studies about the level of AVERAGE THD which is audible really do NOT apply to this situation (unless some controlled study has shown that they are similar).
(Many people seem to agree that excessive crossover notch distortion sounds "harsh"... but the amount which is required to be audible is not widely agreed upon.)

I'll offer another very simple example.....
Let's assume I have a speaker that exhibits ringing......
When I apply a 1 second burst at 1 kHz to this speaker, it continues to produce sound at -30 dB for 20 msec after the applied tone burst ends.
Now consider the THD of that speaker during the time interval from 5 msec to 15 msec AFTER THE APPLIED TONE BURST ENDS.
During that time interval, we have no input signal, but a clearly measurable output signal... so all of that output signal is "distortion".
So, for that time interval, the THD is 100%... but the AVERAGE THD is much lower (and it will be different depending on what arbitrary measurement interval you choose).

A similar situation exists with DACs....
The filters in DACs create some amount of ringing before and after transient signals.
Therefore, for some very short period of time, they produce an output signal that is "pure distortion".
The duration of this signal is very short, and most of the energy it contains is at "ultrasonic frequencies", but it also expends energy that is "borrowed" from the audible spectrum.
(When the signal is "spread out in time", much of the extra distortion is inaudible, but it also takes energy away from the "intended signal".) 
Many people, including myself, believe that it is this ringing and its variants that accounts for the differences people claim to hear between different DAC filter choices.
And, as far as I know, very little actual controlled research has been done to confirm or deny this hypothesis.



KeithEmo said:


> Errrr.... yes and no.
> 
> Saying "plain old resampling of the signal" is an oversimplification.
> In general, altering the sample rate involves some filtering.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

My expectations would also be that they would sound pretty much the same.

Various sources, like an iPhone and a computer, may have slight differences... like more or less digital jitter on their output signal.
However, like many modern DACs, the Benchmark DACs have internal mechanisms designed to eliminate most of these issues.
(Regardless of which source may start out with more jitter, or whether jitter is audible or not, the Benchmark DAC is designed to be essentially immune to it.)

I would be inclined to suspect that any significant differences were actually due to differences in the signal itself not being identical.
It's possible that, depending on the player software you were using, one or both were not delivering an unaltered (bit perfect) data stream.
This is true for many player programs.
However, it is even more often the case with streaming audio.
For example, when playing MQA files, the Tidal client for a computer does very different processing than the Tidal client for a phone or device like a Sonos box.
Also note that adjusting the volume on either the phone or the computer requires a modification of the bit stream...
The algorithms used to do so may be different on a phone than on a computer - and either may introduce other differences while doing so.
(So, when doing that sort of comparison, you must set both digital devices at "100% volume" and use the volume control on the DAC.
And, even then, you have no assurance that the software is really providing a pure unaltered signal at 100% volume setting. )



Davesrose said:


> My original goal was to see if using the iPhone for my source would be a good system, or if I needed to make it larger with having  a computer.  My conscious expectation was that the sources would sound the same (as they both were using the same USB adapter going to the Benchmark's coaxial port).  My focus at that point of time was just listening to the same track of music (there wasn't a preconceived notion or change in stimuli).
> 
> @Zapp_Fan: there definitely was a difference in tonality between the computer and iPhone going to my DAC.  On further reflection as to why that is: perhaps the source OS is applying a DSP with the USB adapter (as its seen as a soundcard).  Maybe it's just a matter of things being more complicated and the DAC not getting an unaltered bit for bit copy of the file.


----------



## analogsurviver

I agree with most of what @KeithEmo said - the most audible differences always lead back to transient response in any sound (re)production device. The mechanisms in either mechanical or electrical part of the equation may well be different - but they manifest themselves rather similarly in audible sound. It is a part of my striving - to quote @castleofargh - for *moARR HIGHS*  (end quote) - as larger bandwidth always goes hand in hand with lower problems of "stored energy" ( be it in literal sense when electromechanical or vice versa transducers are involved ) , filter defficiences, etc, etc.  Steady state frequency response can be stellarly flat from 20-20k - yet the device in question may - or may not - (mis)behave ( often quite BADLY ) outside this range - both below and above "band of interest". For me, a device having a response +- 2 dB 20-20K but not misbehaving outside this range is FAR better than something +-0.01dB 20-20K and going berserk just above that - be it resonance in an analog phono cartridge or brickwall filtering of a digital device - most commonly that would be RBCD .

I do not have either time or will to respond to every word and twisting of that same word with those who claim there are no audible differences. I can even sympathize with them - it may actually be so with their equipment. If they did any real work by themselves, they would have known that a SINGLE "wrong" electronic part ( capacitor, resistor, semiconductor, etc ) can be a make or break of the entire system - or audio chain, if you prefer it that way. Having literally hundreds of those in "transparent" audio equipment will surely render any really good device or recording a moot point - the difference simply can not get trough all those *filters/compressors* that are built in most of the audio equipment, studio gear here being the bigger culprit than better home audio equipment.

That insistance of furnishing the proof ... OK, I agree it is correct. Now... WHO has the finance to support a really meaningful test ? Like furnishing say 40  or more pairs of TOTL headphone sets, say at least 2-3k a pop ? I regret I did not bookmark the reply to the 1M challenge to that person who would be able to scientifically prove that cables do introduce audible differences - the COST of doing so, in order to satisfy all the criteria, would exceed that 1M ... - before you know it. The proponents of maintaining status quo have this gamme rigged so THOROUGHLY that whatever one does to change it, he/she will lose ... proving say 1M worth of claims "beyond  the shadow of a doubt" could run one ten times or more in excess of that 1M.


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> I agree with something BigShot alluded to in a slightly later post...
> 
> A similar situation exists with DACs....
> The filters in DACs create some amount of ringing before and after transient signals.
> ...



If your input signal is perfectly bandwidth limited in theory you should not have any aliasing whatever digital reconstruction filter applied inside DAC.
But nothing is perfect,I know...starting from input to windowing effects at boundaries and many others...
In principle,nowadays it is quite simple to measure the analog output of a DAC with large bandwidth digital instruments and proper input signals.
It is also quite easy to measure the differences of DAC's output when upscaling the input with different filter types ( million or not million taps).
I am not sure to have fully understood your "borrowed energy" explanation, anyhow the loss can be compensated by applying correction filers if necessary.
I am not trusting my ears but I do trust a measurement if properly done and conducted.


----------



## JRG1990

KeithEmo said:


> Therefore, an actual difference in frequency response DOES NOT account for the difference in sound... because no such measurable difference exists.
> (Therefore, the difference in frequency response that people claim to hear does not actually exist.)
> However, if we measure the impulse response of the filters used in the Sabre DACs, we find that they ARE in fact measurably quite different.
> This would seem to suggest at least the possibility that the differences in filters, which we can measure, may account for the subjective/audible differences.
> ...



What about upsampling dacs that have different filters and the filtering is done well outside the audiable range?.

Also transducers will likely have alot more ringing than a dac, so wouldn't it mask any ringing from the dac?.


----------



## KeithEmo

Quite so.....

The "borrowed energy" idea is more way of looking at the situation.

Assuming I have an input signal and an output signal.
And assuming that, when I compare them, their overall average energy measures to be absolutely identical.
(This is what "a totally flat overall frequency response" would demonstrate.)
But, when I look at the output signal with an oscilloscope, I have ringing that wasn't present in the input signal.
The energy that is present in the ringing must have come from somewhere.
If it was added from some outside source then the overall total amount of energy would be higher.
Since the overall amount of energy is NOT higher, the energy in the ringing must have been "borrowed" from some other point in time.
Therefore, even though the time-averaged frequency response is flat.
We would expect to see ripples in the frequency response at various points in time.

Likewise... there is no such thing as a perfect filter.
Assuming that your input content actually CONTAINS nothing above the Nyquist frequency, then all required conditions would be met without filtering, and it would all work out "perfectly".
However, since there is ALWAYS background noise, some of which is above the Nyquist frequency, there is always something that must be filtered out.
However, no filter is or can be "perfectly sharp"; an infinitely sharp filter would have infinitely poor time response; and a filter with infinitely perfect time response cannot be a filter.
In fact, the electronic components from which the filter is built will also contribute some noise and distortion.
Therefore, in practical terms, there can never be "a perfectly band limited signal", and there can never be "a perfect reconstruction filter".
You can get REALLY close... but it can never be perfect.
So we end up right back at "the limits of audibility"... and deciding what's "so far below those limits that it really need not be considered".

The bottom line is that the differences between the outputs of DACs using various filters _CAN_ easily be measured.
For example, take the same model of DAC, and choose two different output filter options.
(Most manufacturers of DAC chips provide graphs which show the transient response of their various filter options.)
In some cases, you will find that the options sound audibly different; and, in most cases, you will find that the output signals are visibly different on an oscilloscope, and will NOT null to zero.
(Most people can only identify differences of several percent visually on an oscilloscope display; but smaller differences can be resolved by other measurements.)
So, we now have measurable differences, and claims of audible differences....
Therefore, the challenge is to correlate them.



Arpiben said:


> If your input signal is perfectly bandwidth limited in theory you should not have any aliasing whatever digital reconstruction filter applied inside DAC.
> But nothing is perfect,I know...starting from input to windowing effects at boundaries and many others...
> In principle,nowadays it is quite simple to measure the analog output of a DAC with large bandwidth digital instruments and proper input signals.
> It is also quite easy to measure the differences of DAC's output when upscaling the input with different filter types ( million or not million taps).
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo (Oct 8, 2018)

The problem is that we're approaching dangerously close to circular logic here....
You cannot argue that something is "well outside the audible range... because you must not really be hearing it... because it is outside the audible range".

There are audible differences between some filter choices offered on some DACs - even when the overall frequency response measures close enough that we would consider the differences to be negligible.
Either we're wrong about what we consider "inaudible"...
Or we're wrong about what we consider "identical withing negligible amounts of differences"...
Or there's something else going on that we've so far missed entirely...

I would just point out that "being sure there can't possibly be an audible difference" is itself a type of very powerful expectation bias...
Therefore, while I would agree that I would not accept the results of subjective experiences as facts...
Neither will I accept many arguments that claim to know with absolute certainty that those results are impossible...

Likewise, I would _EXPECT_ the amount of ringing present in a tweeter to thoroughly mask the ringing in a DAC.
However, I don't know for sure how well such masking might work.
Perhaps it explains why I hear certain things with electrostatic headphones (which have very little ringing) and not with speakers. 
I personally find quantum mechanics to be "intuitively ridiculous" - but, apparently, in reality it is not.



JRG1990 said:


> What about upsampling dacs that have different filters and the filtering is done well outside the audiable range?.
> 
> Also transducers will likely have alot more ringing than a dac, so wouldn't it mask any ringing from the dac?.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Apparently filters can ring for dozens of milliseconds, so it's not a sure thing that your transducer is ringing longer than your filter at any given frequency.  A really good pair of headphones should have decay times in a comparable range.  Filter ringing will probably be a lot lower in amplitude, but I wouldn't say it's impossible to hear or that there are cases where filter ringing can't matter.


----------



## JRG1990

Would an upsampling dac have less ringing than a standard dac with a standard filter, since upsampling dac use different filters with a slower roll off.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

I hear lots of ringing on my DACs.    Oh wait, it's the phone ringing soundtrack on my sound fx CD, duhh!


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> Quite so.....
> 
> The "borrowed energy" idea is more way of looking at the situation.
> 
> ...



Thanks @KeithEmo 

1° _Energy_ is a density of power over a bandwidth.
What are you comparing? Analog energy over 22.05 kHz before recording or sampling in ADC, with analog DAC output inside 22.05kHz? 
ADC output has already added energy due to aliasing (not perfect band limited) and decimation artefacts etc...
DAC output has bandwidth over a few Ghz
That is the reason I personally don't like so much your view applied in this context.
In principle you do have ripples in the frequency response as a consequence of the window used for LPF interpolation (at least lower than 0.01dB).

2° _Perfect filter_...Agreed. There are hundreds of methods to reconstruct signals using Fourier or faster decay functions....In real life nobody is waiting infinite time for perfect recovery at boundaries (smile)

3°_Difference between output DACs..._ 
I do like impulse response only to characterize the response applied inside DAC.
Manufacturers do not provide the phase or group delay response especially in the transition area.
I do prefer legal input signals such as chirps, bandlimited transients or white noise rather than a pseudo Dirac.
With the data of a digital scope you can retrieve tons of information (spectrum, time frequency-analysis,etc...)

As you rightly said biggest challenge is to correlate all.

N.B. I am not challenging you and do appreciate your posts. Just a different perspective.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> The problem is that we're approaching dangerously close to circular logic here....
> You cannot argue that something is "well outside the audible range... because you must not really be hearing it... because it is outside the audible range".
> 
> There are audible differences between some filter choices offered on some DACs - even when the overall frequency response measures close enough that we would consider the differences to be negligible.
> ...


arguments about what probably shouldn't be audible are only relevant because claims of audibility are being made without evidence. so we take the next best thing, which are the few measurements available at the time, and the general consensus about signals of similar magnitudes or frequencies. I have no doubt that people meet circumstances where 2 DACs sound different. just like I have no doubt that some people perceive stuff I won't notice. but when most testimonies come from uncontrolled experiences and cherry picked correlation=causation type of fallacies, can you really blame a guy like me for taking a position where I reject all they say? the circular logic can't be broken only because we wrongly accepted to debate something before reliable evidence was provided for it. at least that's how I feel. 

all in all, I find it weird how people can't just accept "I don't know" as a natural and valid position on a topic. was the first TOTL Sabre chip sounding brighter than another brand of chip? well they weren't interchangeable in DACs, AFAIK the power supply design needed to be changed with the chip and it was consuming a lot more than chips from other brands like the Wolfson at the time. so it was and still is hard to test just the DAC chips for any audiophile interested. from that obvious difficulty, the conclusion everybody should have accepted was that we couldn't say for sure because we lacked a proper testing method. and until such method comes forward, we leave it at that. 
but no! instead we had social warriors taking sides and claiming that the Sabre is bright/digital sounding/jittery sounding or whatever crap following the same idea. they all were talking about completely different DACs with hundreds of other potential variables they unilaterally decided to ignore. what legitimacy can those positions hope to have? and often when that rumor started, the guys were making claims about the sound of the Sabre chip based on different DAPs into multidriver IEMs... how ignorant and nonsensical was that? 
IMO giving weight to such rumors is wrong. it's not open minded, it's the tacit acceptance that it's all right to jump to conclusion and to make empty claims. so you always find me on the other side where people mistake my "failed to disprove the null hypothesis" position, for a claim that everything always sounds the same. so be it. I'd rather be mischaracterized that way than as a supporter of logical fallacy and uncontrolled tests. my real position is of course that I don't have a clue and that people shouldn't claim stuff without proof. a position I have for most questions. ^_^


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> [1] My original goal was to see if using the iPhone for my source would be a good system, or if I needed to make it larger with having a computer. My conscious expectation was that the sources would sound the same (as they both were using the same USB adapter going to the Benchmark's coaxial port). My focus at that point of time was just listening to the same track of music (there wasn't a preconceived notion or change in stimuli).
> [2] there definitely was a difference in tonality between the computer and iPhone going to my DAC.
> [3] On further reflection as to why that is: perhaps the source OS is applying a DSP with the USB adapter (as its seen as a soundcard). Maybe it's just a matter of things being more complicated and the DAC not getting an unaltered bit for bit copy of the file.



1. This statement appears to entirely contradict itself! You state your goal was to see if you needed a larger source and that you didn't have any preconceived notions BUT if you didn't have the preconceived notion that a larger source could make a difference then what was the point of your "goal"? Clearly even your conscious expectation wasn't certain the sources would sound the same or you wouldn't have had the goal "to see" if there was a difference and furthermore, you have simply ignored your more subconscious expectations; such as the fact that something which looks significantly different is generally expected to sound at least somewhat different. In other words, you are mis-stating your "expectations", albeit unintentionally and (I believe) without any intention to deliberately deceive. 

2. Due to the above point, you cannot make this statement. You cannot be certain there was an actual difference in tonality or if your experience was just due to biases which caused you to perceive a difference. You cannot therefore state there "*definitely* was a difference in tonality", you can only truthfully state that you definitely perceived a difference. Being as truthful as possible and trying to avoid being a hypocrite, I cannot state that the difference you perceived was "definitely" caused by some sort of cognitive or perception bias on your part, there could have been an actual difference...

3. Personally, my judgement of my conscious expectation of the situation you describe would have been rather more vague, notwithstanding the fact that I subscribe to the general statement that DACs and sources all sound the same. However, I take it for granted that such an assertion is a "general statement" rather than an absolute one, it comes with conditions. There are some obvious (and not so obvious) exceptions/conditions which dictate that such a statement cannot be absolute: Blatantly obviously, a broken/faulty DAC can easily sound entirely different to a perfectly functioning DAC. Still obvious but somewhat less so, a particular DAC could be deliberately designed to sound different. Less obvious still, a particular DAC may have a design flaw and then, there are even less obvious conditions. I've already mentioned impedance, you are now considering the possibility of some DSP being applied and there are other possibilities. For example, a USB signal from a laptop or computer is typically quite noisy/contaminated, for instance USB ports on computers/laptops typically provide power. Of course, a competent DAC designer should be aware of this fact and should design the DAC to function well under this most typical of usage scenarios, by, for example, making sure that USB power supply is isolated from components within the DAC which could be adversely affected by it. Even though it's inexpensive to make a DAC which is well isolated from power and other typical USB "noise", clearly there are a few audiophile/consumer DACs which don't achieve this adequately and are therefore incompetently designed. The situation is somewhat different with your Benchmark DAC: Typically a coax (SP/DIF) connection would be less "noisy" than USB. For starters, the SP/DIF protocol does not include the provision of supplying power and it would therefore be unreasonable to expect Benchmark to design the type of power isolation on it's coax connection which would be incompetent not to design on a USB connection and there are other potential "noise" issues with USB which a competently designed DAC should easily reduce to well below audibility which one wouldn't expect a coax connection to deal with. With a well designed DAC one would not expect coax or USB to sound any different but the scenario you present is a USB signal being supplied to the DAC's coax input. If there is an actual difference, I would be looking closely at the USB/coax converter, particularly at how it isolates the USB power supply from the coax output signal, as this is an obvious potential difference between the USB output of your laptop/computer and the USB output of your phone.

The first thing I'd be doing is comparing loop-back recordings from your DAC to objectively see if there is any potentially audible difference in the first place, to avoid being mistaken when attributing perceived differences and being (inadvertently) dishonest when posting publicly.



KeithEmo said:


> There are audible differences between some filter choices offered on some DACs - even when the overall frequency response measures close enough that we would consider the differences to be negligible.
> Either we're wrong about what we consider "inaudible"...
> Or we're wrong about what we consider "identical withing negligible amounts of differences"...
> Or there's something else going on that we've so far missed entirely...



You've missed one: Or, there's something else again going on, which is perfectly well known and demonstrated but obfuscated by some manufacturers in the name of "marketing"! 

In practise, it's pretty easy to design a filter which is audibly different: An extremely steep/narrow transition band filter for example or conversely a filter with an extremely wide transition band, not to mention the additional psychological suggestion that switching to different settings/filters on a DAC would be expected to produce at least some audible difference some of the time. Today (and for some years) filter design can get very close to the perfect signal reconstruction envisaged by the pioneers of digital audio theory and the remaining imperfections have been demonstrated time and again to be inaudible. As in my response above though, this is a general rather than absolute statement. It has conditions such as; listening to music rather than (illegal) signals specifically designed to exacerbate/highlight the imperfections and, a filter which is actually designed to be high-fidelity/transparent rather than de-prioritize fidelity in the name of potentially being more subjectively "pleasing/good".

Obviously, manufacturers of dedicated DACs, particularly those aimed at audiophiles/discerning listeners, need to differentiate their products from the massively cheaper DACs found consumer devices, such as smartphones. Reconstruction filters is one area where that's possible, with just a little obfuscation of the fact that even a cheap competently designed filter will be audibly transparent. For example, creating obfuscation by suggesting we may not be quite right about what's "inaudible" or that there's maybe something else (some magic maybe?) that a "higher-end" DAC manufacturer has incorporated which everyone else (including apparently the science community) has "so far missed entirely". It's hard to see how the manufacturers of certain consumer audio components/equipment survive and will continue to survive without obfuscating the facts somewhat (or entirely)!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I pretty well agree with everything you said......
I do think, however, that it is often a matter of context... 
Ad, as you say, many folks seem to be unwilling to just say "I don't know"... and so prefer to substitute absolute certainty where it may not be wholly appropriate.

I sense that a lot of people consider the purpose of this thread to be "Debunking Audio Snake Oil"....
They seem dead set on using this as a venue to debunk all snake oil...
And become very defensive when anyone even suggests the possibility that occasionally there might be something to it.

However, the title is in fact "Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths"....
To me, that suggests _NOT _dismissing things that can be tested out of hand...
(And not assuming the results of a specific test we aren't performing.)

So, to me, if someone were to claim that their new whiz-bang cable really does sound different...
I find it extremely unlikely that it really does...
And I would cheerfully tell anyone considering buying it "because the sales brochure is convincing" that they should probably save their money...
However, I'm still going to at least try to be open minded that there MIGHT be a slim chance that they've actually got something.
I would prefer to stop at: "Current evidence doesn't support your claim, so I find it rather unlikely."
(To be honest, when it comes to cables, I too tend to be dismissive... but I do believe that DACs are far too complicated to justify doing so.)

I tend to be extremely context driven...
If someone were to tell me they were considering investing in the latest "tabletop cold fusion" scheme, I would absolutely tell them it's probably a scam.
However, I would stop short of saying "it's absolutely impossible".
Because, after all, someday someone MIGHT actually figure out how to do it.
And I would hate to think that we might miss it "because someone was so sure it was impossible that they didn't bother to test it".
I've lived long enough to see quite a few things that were"obviously impossible" turn out to be possible after all.

Being struck by lightning may be extremely unlikely...
But, from what I hear, it happens to people every now and then...
(So, while I can tell someone "not to worry about it", and that it isn't worth buying insurance, I can't promise them it won't happen to them.)



castleofargh said:


> arguments about what probably shouldn't be audible are only relevant because claims of audibility are being made without evidence. so we take the next best thing, which are the few measurements available at the time, and the general consensus about signals of similar magnitudes or frequencies. I have no doubt that people meet circumstances where 2 DACs sound different. just like I have no doubt that some people perceive stuff I won't notice. but when most testimonies come from uncontrolled experiences and cherry picked correlation=causation type of fallacies, can you really blame a guy like me for taking a position where I reject all they say? the circular logic can't be broken only because we wrongly accepted to debate something before reliable evidence was provided for it. at least that's how I feel.
> 
> all in all, I find it weird how people can't just accept "I don't know" as a natural and valid position on a topic. was the first TOTL Sabre chip sounding brighter than another brand of chip? well they weren't interchangeable in DACs, AFAIK the power supply design needed to be changed with the chip and it was consuming a lot more than chips from other brands like the Wolfson at the time. so it was and still is hard to test just the DAC chips for any audiophile interested. from that obvious difficulty, the conclusion everybody should have accepted was that we couldn't say for sure because we lacked a proper testing method. and until such method comes forward, we leave it at that.
> but no! instead we had social warriors taking sides and claiming that the Sabre is bright/digital sounding/jittery sounding or whatever crap following the same idea. they all were talking about completely different DACs with hundreds of other potential variables they unilaterally decided to ignore. what legitimacy can those positions hope to have? and often when that rumor started, the guys were making claims about the sound of the Sabre chip based on different DAPs into multidriver IEMs... how ignorant and nonsensical was that?
> IMO giving weight to such rumors is wrong. it's not open minded, it's the tacit acceptance that it's all right to jump to conclusion and to make empty claims. so you always find me on the other side where people mistake my "failed to disprove the null hypothesis" position, for a claim that everything always sounds the same. so be it. I'd rather be mischaracterized that way than as a supporter of logical fallacy and uncontrolled tests. my real position is of course that I don't have a clue and that people shouldn't claim stuff without proof. a position I have for most questions. ^_^


----------



## Joe Bloggs

KeithEmo said:


> I agree with something BigShot alluded to in a slightly later post...
> 
> A major part of the problem with discussing this sort of thing is that audiophiles often resort to inaccurate or vague terms to describe what they hear.
> As a result, different people may use the same words to describe very different things, and it is often difficult to equate sound with measurements.
> ...



I would rather think that the reputation of the Sabre DACs would account for the 1dB of subjectively perceived high boost (where 1dB shouldn't be audible anyway)--unless you specified anywhere that the tests are blind?



> Let's assume I have a speaker that exhibits ringing......
> When I apply a 1 second burst at 1 kHz to this speaker, it continues to produce sound at -30 dB for 20 msec after the applied tone burst ends.
> Now consider the THD of that speaker during the time interval from 5 msec to 15 msec AFTER THE APPLIED TONE BURST ENDS.
> During that time interval, we have no input signal, but a clearly measurable output signal... so all of that output signal is "distortion".
> So, for that time interval, the THD is 100%... but the AVERAGE THD is much lower (and it will be different depending on what arbitrary measurement interval you choose).



That matches no definition of THD I'm aware of... 1. it would be at the same frequency you fed it with, hence not a harmonic 2. it can be accounted for by the linear transfer function of the speaker which does explain ringing without the need for talking about distortion at all.



> A similar situation exists with DACs....
> The filters in DACs create some amount of ringing before and after transient signals.
> Therefore, for some very short period of time, they produce an output signal that is "pure distortion".
> The duration of this signal is very short, and most of the energy it contains is at "ultrasonic frequencies", but it also expends energy that is "borrowed" from the audible spectrum.
> ...



Again, there is no technical sense in which this is distortion--as for controlled research, I believe that controlled studies relating to CD vs high res would fit the bill, since CD reproduction would have included the brickwall ringing while the high res version wouldn't (not to mention including extra ultrasonic info).


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I pretty well agree with everything you said......
> I do think, however, that it is often a matter of context...
> Ad, as you say, many folks seem to be unwilling to just say "I don't know"... and so prefer to substitute absolute certainty where it may not be wholly appropriate.
> 
> ...


yup, we're thinking the same way about all inclusive claims. they shouldn't exist so long as some exceptions are to be found to disprove them. the rational is very clear. 
when I bring that up from time to time, @bigshot (tell me if I'm putting words I shouldn't into your mouth, and I'll edit my post) justifies dismissing the unlikely possibilities as being part of dysfunctional situations, so the claim implies an operational standard without mentioning it. or he makes universal claims just as a mean to push newbies toward thinking something simple that will be true most of the time. he's beyond true or false and just thinking about pushing as many people as possible in the right general direction. 

so when bigshot or someone else does it, I tend to be like






in short, when I think about conditional truth VS a universal claim correct most of the time, I will always favor a clean conditional truth.
but when I'm thinking of marketing VS a universal claim correct most of the time... I can't help but root for for the lesser evil.
what is our main role here? I honestly don't know and don't expect everybody to agree anyway. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with that said, as we're in the "testing stuff" topic, everybody please remember that a specific test you will conduct on your own will be as conditional as it gets and usually cannot lead on its own toward a universal conclusion. also when you guys do experiment and decide to share your results, remember that we need the conditions for the test as much as the results. the real value of an experiment is the possibility for others to try and replicate it to support or disprove the results(repeatability). so when you encountered difficulties, mention it. when you made a mistake and realized it, mention it. when you got a special way to set up or measure something, do mention it with your results. it will all help understand your situation and perhaps why you get the results you get. also it might save other people a lot of time when they decide to try the same test. 
so try to avoid dropping some result or some random conclusion and then just fly away when asked for details. if we look like we're the Spanish Inquisition and you weren't expecting it, could be that we're trying to understand the test and the cause for the results, possibly to try it ourselves if it seems correct/relevant/feasible. and of course sometimes we're going to ask just waiting to find what you did wrong because your results are nonsense. crap happens.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Joe Bloggs said:


> I would rather think that the reputation of the Sabre DACs would account for the 1dB of subjectively perceived high boost (where 1dB shouldn't be audible anyway)--unless you specified anywhere that the tests are blind?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Can brick-wall limiting in CD mastering cause audible ringing during playback?


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 9, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Can brick-wall limiting in CD mastering cause audible ringing during playback?



Generally ringing is caused by frequency filtering (when talking about signals) or physical resonances / motion (when talking about transducers) so a basic single band limiter won't cause ringing because it only operates in the time domain.  A limiter basically just turns the volume knob up and down automatically.  This doesn't cause ringing as far as I know.

If it's a multi-band limiter then you would expect some slight amount of ringing as an artifact of the filtering stage.  This is because the signal is split into X bands and then each band is limited separately, then re-combined.  Since there are digital filters involved you're going to get ringing.

So the short answer is "no", the long answer is "actually, sometimes yes, but not because of the limiting itself."  Multi-band limiters are actually used somewhat commonly because they allow you to squeeze even more loudness from the sound, if you're doing that kind of mix.

You also said "audible" in your question, and so then I would guess that the answer ultimately would be "no" because a good multiband limiter will be oversampling and using relatively mild filters to avoid phase / ringing type crap.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

TheSonicTruth said:


> Can brick-wall limiting in CD mastering cause audible ringing during playback?


It can cause ringing if the source material had that much energy out to 21kHz and beyond that needed to be cut out.  Audible or not is a loaded question.

It can also not cause ringing by using such a gentle filter that avoids ringing and causes audible rolloff from say 15kHz on up in one fell stroke, or by not using a filter at all which would be audibly stupid.


----------



## castleofargh

to be clear, people before were talking about ringing due to the band limiting filter around 20khz, while @TheSonicTruth is asking about a limiter tool in mastering to reduce the amplitude of signals above a given value.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 10, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> @bigshot (tell me if I'm putting words I shouldn't into your mouth, and I'll edit my post) justifies dismissing the unlikely possibilities as being part of dysfunctional situations, so the claim implies an operational standard without mentioning it. or he makes universal claims just as a mean to push newbies toward thinking something simple that will be true most of the time. he's beyond true or false and just thinking about pushing as many people as possible in the right general direction.



That is basically it. My thinking is that in home audio there is already WAY too much theoretical BS that doesn't add up to anything audible. When I read about jitter hoodoo and digital stair step shrillness and frequency response up where bats can't even hear and dynamic range that would require putting your stereo system at the bottom of Carlsbad Caverns to hear, I just shake my head and dismiss it with the wave of a hand. I wasted weeks of research on all that baloney in the past, and I'm not going to entertain those ideas any more until I can hear it with my own ears. The purpose of thinking logically and scientifically is to help people make their home audio systems sound better, not to give them a lesson in quantum physics. Audibility is paramount. If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, I say "Who cares?"

I know enough about how human hearing works to have good ballpark concepts about where the thresholds lie. If the specs show that something should be clearly inaudible, I assume it is inaudible until someone proves to me that it can be heard. If a hundred carefully conducted listening tests say one cable sounds just like any other and no studies show they sound different, I don't care how many people claim to hear a difference. People can claim whatever they want. But I'm not going to pay them any mind if the established knowledge says their claims are probably baseless. I don't see any purpose in thinking up excuses to justify their claims before I know they have done their homework and proved it. Talking purely in theory is just mental gymnastics. The idea is to solve problems, not think up theoretical problems that don't even need to be solved. Prove it and I'll be your biggest fan, because you're handing me something I can use. Until then, I operate on what is already established.

Also, I don't care about subconscious craziness because there's no way that buying a different piece of audio equipment is going to fix that!

When it comes to your home audio system, theoretical science only muddies the water and doesn't make your music sound any better. Practical applied science does.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Also, I don't care about subconscious craziness because there's no way that buying a different piece of audio equipment is going to fix that!



The cognition that results in your "hearing" mostly occurs at a subconscious level.  If people, not microphones, are doing the "hearing," you need to account for what's happening in the brain to make the perception of hearing possible.  It's not about "thresholds," it's about how the ear and brain turn a complex physical sound into a perception of sound, and how that perception may vary with differences in that complex sound.


----------



## tmars78

I haven't posted in here in quite awhile, but are people really spending money on something that cleans your ethernet? Will this give super duper fast internet too? This is seriously head scratching stupidity. 

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2018/10/10/wavelength-ethernet-spacelator-rmaf-2018/amp/


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> That is basically it. My thinking is that in home audio there is already WAY too much theoretical BS that doesn't add up to anything audible. When I read about jitter hoodoo and digital stair step shrillness and frequency response up where bats can't even hear and dynamic range that would require putting your stereo system at the bottom of Carlsbad Caverns to hear, I just shake my head and dismiss it with the wave of a hand. I wasted weeks of research on all that baloney in the past, and I'm not going to entertain those ideas any more until I can hear it with my own ears. The purpose of thinking logically and scientifically is to help people make their home audio systems sound better, not to give them a lesson in quantum physics. Audibility is paramount. If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, I say "Who cares?"
> 
> I know enough about how human hearing works to have good ballpark concepts about where the thresholds lie. If the specs show that something should be clearly inaudible, I assume it is inaudible until someone proves to me that it can be heard. If a hundred carefully conducted listening tests say one cable sounds just like any other and no studies show they sound different, I don't care how many people claim to hear a difference. People can claim whatever they want. But I'm not going to pay them any mind if the established knowledge says their claims are probably baseless. I don't see any purpose in thinking up excuses to justify their claims before I know they have done their homework and proved it. Talking purely in theory is just mental gymnastics. The idea is to solve problems, not think up theoretical problems that don't even need to be solved. Prove it and I'll be your biggest fan, because you're handing me something I can use. Until then, I operate on what is already established.
> 
> ...



Combining "Who" with "cares" perpetuates an _attitude_ more powerful - and potentially more dangerous - than the strongest nuclear weapons currently on stand-by.

Just sayin'...


----------



## KeithEmo (Oct 11, 2018)

Believe it or not, while sighted tests are susceptible to all sorts of bias, occasionally they are actually correct... or, to be more precise, occasionally what you think you hear is actually closely related to what you DO hear.
I've also heard rumors that some art experts were actually able to tell a real Rembrandt from a cheap forgery, and be correct at least some of the time, before colorimeters and mass spectrometers were invented.

In the case of ringing, I wold agree that it is not "THD".... I would say it technically falls under the category of "noise".... and, further, "data correlated noise".
(Which is just a fancy way of saying that it is noise that is correlated in some fashion to the signal.... )

However, my point was not what to call it...
My point is that it is something which is clearly audible, at least under some circumstances, but will not show up on traditional frequency response, THD, IMD, or S/N measurements.
It is only detectable, or measurable, with certain specific types of test signals and test equipment... however, those test signals are quite characteristic of music, which pure sine waves are not.
(And anyone versed in science knows that, when devising a test, it must be designed to approximate the actual usage conditions as closely as possible, and not be chosen "because it's easy to measure".)

I'll give you a precise analogy.
Let's assume that, in an otherwise very quiet room, I set off a firecracker once an hour...
If I measure the SPL of the explosion instantaneously I will get a very high reading...
But, if I average the reading over an hour, the firecrackers will make almost no difference at all in the reading...
And NEITHER of those measurements would accurately reflect "how audible the firecracker really is".
(Neither is wrong; but neither accurately represents the entire reality of the situation.)

Ringing is exactly that sort of situation...
If you measure the contribution it makes to the average levels of noise or distortion it will be small...
However, if you measure it over very short periods, at certain instants, there will be a signal which is pure noise (or whatever you care to call it)...
And we're right back to the question of whether a burst of that particular type of noise, of that particular amplitude and duration, is audible or not...

And, incidentally, being electro/magnetic and electro/mechanical, even the "linear transfer response" of speakers isn't really linear...
So the amount and type of ringing will be different if you make the measurement at different SPL levels.

So, in this specific case, if you send a continuous 440 Hz sine wave through a Sabre 9018 and an AD 1955, and measure the steady state THD, it will be very low for both.
And, if you measure the frequency response of both, it will be quite flat - and nearly identical.
_HOWEVER_, if you send a tone burst at some particular frequency through both, then measure the output for a few seconds after the signal stops, you will see significant _DIFFERENCES_ in the output.
The actual differences will themselves be very different depending on the frequency, duration, and envelope characteristics of the test signal you choose.

And we're right back to determining whether those particular differences are or are not audible.
And, as far as i know, nobody has actually conducted a comprehensive test to determine whether the various filter settings on specific DACs are or are not audible.
All of the tests I've seen, when the details were documented at all, tested individual specific hardware.

For example, when whoever it was did that test between CDs and high-res files, what filter did they use on the 44.1k "CD quality sample"?
How steep was the filter?
How much ringing, and at what frequencies, did it exhibit?
And, did the particular music they used as a test signal include transients with very little ringing to begin with, so as not to mask any ringing caused by the filter?
In fact, what was the overall provenance of the music signal they used?
And how much ringing was present in the master recording because of the particular microphones, preamps, and ADCs they used?
And what filter was used on the high-res audio signal?
Etc...

This is where I see a very solid distinction between "scientific testing" and "consumer reporting".
Are we trying to determine whether "there is a clearly audible difference between most DACs when tested with typical consumer music files"?
Or are we trying to determine, scientifically, if there is ANY audible difference between different DACs, even if it can only be detected with certain test signals, or on certain audio tracks.
Many folks may only be interested in the former...
Whereas, my interest is more scientific, so I'm looking at the latter...

As far as I know, MANY people subjectively say that they often hear significant differences between Sabre DACs and other DACs (in specific).
The manufacturers claim that there are audible differences - and claim to have "done the tests".
Are you aware of anyone else who has actually tested for an audible difference between a variety of products with Sabre DACs, and a variety that use other brands, with a variety of music and test signals, and a variety of other equipment?
I have personally never seen or heard of such a test.
And, since there ARE in fact measurable differences, I prefer not to claim to know, beyond my subjective personal experience, whether the differences are audible or not.

I would find it interesting to see actual PROPERLY CONDUCTED tests - with actual results.
However, lacking that, I prefer to avoid reaching conclusions based on vaguely similar data, derived from incomplete test results.

You could spend your entire life banging blocks of metal together - and eventually conclude that "banging blocks of metal together never produces an explosion"...
I would even say that "it's a good ballpark estimate that all you get when you bang metal blocks together is a bit of a clang".
However, I would suggest you rethink your conclusions BEFORE someone believes you, and decides to try it with Plutonium...
(Luckily, or unluckily, some scientists figured out that particular exception to "the rule", and tried it out.)

It has been my personal (subjective) experience that MOST DACs do sound very much alike... except some of them don't.
It is my THEORY that the difference I hear is related to the filter differences I can measure... but I could be entirely wrong there.
(Perhaps it's the color they painted the plastic case that really does it...)



Joe Bloggs said:


> I would rather think that the reputation of the Sabre DACs would account for the 1dB of subjectively perceived high boost (where 1dB shouldn't be audible anyway)--unless you specified anywhere that the tests are blind?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

It isn't the first such product to be offered for sale (and so I assume a few people actually do buy them).
And, if you look, you'll find "audiophile Ethernet cables" as well.
And, no, from the claims, it's strictly a re-clocker, isolator, and power cleaner, so it won't make your Internet access any better or faster at all.

Ethernet networks are essentially a very noisy environment - and equipment designed for them is tolerant enough that this is not a problem at all.
So, from the Ethernet point of view, they're trying really hard to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist.

I would guess the claim is this....
Networked audio equipment contains both network and audio circuitry.
Assuming it's designed at all well, the network circuitry will be totally unaffected by things like noise on the signal and ground lines, and small amounts of clock jitter, so no problem there.
Likewise, as far as I'm concerned, if you're designing audio gear to connect to a network, then it should work as intended when connected to a typical network.
However, it's possible that some designers of networked audio products have failed to do so; in which case making the network part of the signal chain super-clean might help it somehow.
(In other words, _AT BEST_, it might actually improve the performance of some few devices that currently suffer from design flaws.)

It's my opinion that, if that's really the case, you'd be better off buying equipment that works right to begin with...
Rather than spending a lot of money attempting to compensate for its shortcomings...

However, as someone in marketing no doubt once said.... audiophiles love complicated expensive tweaks...



tmars78 said:


> I haven't posted in here in quite awhile, but are people really spending money on something that cleans your ethernet? Will this give super duper fast internet too? This is seriously head scratching stupidity.
> 
> https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2018/10/10/wavelength-ethernet-spacelator-rmaf-2018/amp/


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree with BigShot's first statement...

However, I've always assumed that this thread was dedicated to "audio science" rather than "common sense consumer advice"...
And, in science, the idea really is to think up new theories, and see if they turn out to be true or not, or to find out more details about existing things.

I should also point out that, even among "ordinary consumers", priorities and "what's obvious" differ considerably...
For example, I probably wouldn't notice the difference between an original Rembrandt and a $500 copy... even though art aficionados insist the difference is quite obvious.
I should point out that there actually was a time when everyone "knew" that "nobody could hear the difference between cassette tapes and real life".



bigshot said:


> That is basically it. My thinking is that in home audio there is already WAY too much theoretical BS that doesn't add up to anything audible. When I read about jitter hoodoo and digital stair step shrillness and frequency response up where bats can't even hear and dynamic range that would require putting your stereo system at the bottom of Carlsbad Caverns to hear, I just shake my head and dismiss it with the wave of a hand. I wasted weeks of research on all that baloney in the past, and I'm not going to entertain those ideas any more until I can hear it with my own ears. The purpose of thinking logically and scientifically is to help people make their home audio systems sound better, not to give them a lesson in quantum physics. Audibility is paramount. If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, I say "Who cares?"
> 
> I know enough about how human hearing works to have good ballpark concepts about where the thresholds lie. If the specs show that something should be clearly inaudible, I assume it is inaudible until someone proves to me that it can be heard. If a hundred carefully conducted listening tests say one cable sounds just like any other and no studies show they sound different, I don't care how many people claim to hear a difference. People can claim whatever they want. But I'm not going to pay them any mind if the established knowledge says their claims are probably baseless. I don't see any purpose in thinking up excuses to justify their claims before I know they have done their homework and proved it. Talking purely in theory is just mental gymnastics. The idea is to solve problems, not think up theoretical problems that don't even need to be solved. Prove it and I'll be your biggest fan, because you're handing me something I can use. Until then, I operate on what is already established.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Oct 11, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> If people, not microphones, are doing the "hearing," you need to account for what's happening in the brain to make the perception of hearing possible.



My point is, if my brain is telling me a piece of audio equipment sounds bad, going out and buying a better piece of audio equipment won't necessarily solve that problem. The problem may be in my head, not the electronics. All I can do is find a component that performs to a level of audible transparency. Beyond that, the equipment doesn't matter. The only way to help then is to see a shrink.

If you want a good psychological study, look into why people on Head-Fi churn through equipment. They buy something that is "new and improved", and six months later, they sell it for a loss and buy the latest "new and improved" model. There are people here who have bought 14 different DACs and 8 different amps and 20 different headphones in the space of a couple of years. The reason they go through so much equipment is because they never define the parameters of what kind of sound they are looking for. They let the pleasure center in their brain do the shopping for them. The problem is, human brains aren't that far from monkey brains. What gives us pleasure in this moment may be different than what gives us pleasure in another.

It's a complete waste of time and money to try to cater to subconscious urges like that. Snake Oil salesmen love to fuel the consumer culture of buying the same thing over and over. They try to convince you that you're getting something better every time. That is a lie. All you need to do is define the quality you are looking for, shop for it carefully, and then keep that optimal rig until you die or the equipment wears out, whichever comes first.

Keith, the purpose of audio science is to give us common sense advice on how to improve the quality of our systems. That is the purpose of this forum. There are plenty of non-common sense approaches to the problem- green felt markers, specs far beyond our ability to hear, magic filters, power wash for electrical currents, purity tests, inaudible frequencies... It's the job of this forum to provide solid scientifically based solutions to counteract the snake oil, placebo and hyperbole.

As for the Rembrandt and cassette tape... If the Rembrandt copy looks exactly the same to you, spending a lot of money for the original won't make it look any bigger hanging over the fireplace in your living room. And cassette tapes may have been capable of great sound back in the 80s, but they clearly weren't audibly transparent the way digital audio is. We have achieved audible transparency now. A simple scientific listening test proves that. That is a very useful application of science right there.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think you also need to consider the possibility that, for at least some people, the enjoyment comes from shopping for and purchasing new equipment.

They're enjoying the hunt...
Compare them to people who enjoy fishing, even though they may not eat what they catch, and actually prefer to "catch and release".
I've spoken to many people who "just enjoy trying different equipment"; and who will never "reach the end of the game" because they're not trying to.
And, for those sorts of folks, there's no point in "defining what they're looking for" in terms of results - because trying a new piece of equipment every month actually IS what they're looking for.
(But, no, I personally do NOT feel that way.... I'd much rather get to the end, collect my prize, and NOT have to go looking for another one next week.)



bigshot said:


> My point is, if my brain is telling me a piece of audio equipment sounds bad, going out and buying a better piece of audio equipment won't solve that problem. All I can do is find the one that performs to a level of audible transparency. Beyond that, the equipment doesn't matter. The only way to help is to see a shrink.
> 
> If you want a good psychological study, look into why people on Head-Fi churn through equipment. They buy something that is "new and improved", and six months later, they sell it for a loss and buy the latest "new and improved" model. There are people here who have bought 14 different DACs and 8 different amps and 20 different headphones in the space of a couple of years. The reason they go through so much equipment is because they never define the parameters of what kind of sound they are looking for. They let the pleasure center in their brain do the shopping for them. The problem is, human brains aren't that far from monkey brains. What gives us pleasure in this moment may be different than what gives us pleasure in another.
> 
> It's a complete waste of time and money to try to cater to subconscious urges like that. Snake Oil salesmen love to fuel the consumer culture of buying the same thing over and over. They try to convince you that you're getting something better every time. That is a lie. All you need to do is define the quality you are looking for, shop for it carefully, and then keep that optimal rig until you die or the equipment wears out, whichever comes first.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 11, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I think you also need to consider the possibility that, for at least some people, the enjoyment comes from shopping for and purchasing new equipment.



I totally understand that. But I have nothing to offer that. Science won't help. Practical advice won't help. That kind of person should stick to snake oil sales pitch, spend their money randomly, and not try to convince a forum dedicated to finding solid scientific practical ways to achieve better sound that their willy nilly spending of money means that they have achieved sound nirvana that mere mortals can only dream about!

Here in Sound Science we have our own forms of being crazy and impractical. They aren't all that far removed from the audiophool forms actually. It's the same sort of splitting fractions off into infinity, ego boosting, and providing reams of dense theoretical verbiage that don't get people any closer to solving their problem at hand. It would be a good idea for us to be more practical and focused on the goals too. I'm not saying that we are any better than the audiophools when it comes right down to it.


----------



## Phronesis

I'm in general agreement with the last three posts by @bigshot and @KeithEmo.  There's a lot of wastage of money by people chasing some sort of nirvana through headgear, which is especially problematic for the many people who can't really afford to waste that money ("I'm saving up for X," "I need to sell X so I can buy Y," etc.).  And a lot of people are clearly misguided about how various items of gear influence sound, being overly influenced by hype, hope, appearance, comments of others, misperception, etc.  Forums like head-fi can be genuinely helpful, but they often also facilitate people making and rationalizing bad purchasing decisions.  It's kind of sad.


----------



## tmars78

Agreed. If the company who built whatever product you bought needs some other company's product to fix it, you probably shouldn't buy their products. Who spends thousands(and thousands) on equipment that's faulty? It's so insane to me. 

As an aside, my super fast internet comment was sarcasm.





KeithEmo said:


> It's my opinion that, if that's really the case, you'd be better off buying equipment that works right to begin with...
> Rather than spending a lot of money attempting to compensate for its shortcomings...
> 
> However, as someone in marketing no doubt once said.... audiophiles love complicated expensive tweaks...


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Oct 11, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I absolutely agree with BigShot's first statement...
> 
> However, I've always assumed that this thread was dedicated to "audio science" rather than "common sense consumer advice"...
> And, in science, the idea really is to think up new theories, and see if they turn out to be true or not, or to find out more details about existing things.
> ...



Agreed but I wish the new theory were about something more interesting than theories explaining why sighted results say that two brands of DACs with exemplary performance actually sound a bit different when it is established psychological fact that sighted tests almost never find two objects "equal" even when the objects are provably indistinguishable stimuli without the benefit of knowing in advance which is which...

I'm sitting here every day listening to the fruits of independent research that could revolutionize audio quality and drive sales of audio equipment up by multiples... just wish I could get the corresponding thesis and patent squared away soon so I can talk about it in public.  Then wishing that one can more easily make actual profit out of the revolutionary technology and make it a talking point among audiophiles.  But too often actual audio science and technology can only be discussed among tiny groups while audiophiles at large only understand ad copy (wherein there's not really much to be understood)

Oh, and no expensive DACs were procured or harmed during the research... on the other hand quite a bit of recording equipment was procured to tune up loudspeakers and headphones as a necessary step in the research... with the side benefit of creating an audio system that would beat the socks off most systems several times its price... and the fruits of the research giving it certain capabilities that money cannot buy at the moment.


----------



## bigshot

That's what Head-Fi should be about... tuning gear to optimize its performance. Not acting as the audio equivalent of Home Shopping Club.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> It is my THEORY that the difference I hear is related to the filter differences I can measure... but I could be entirely wrong there.


nit picking, but if we're interested in science, shouldn't this be an hypothesis, an idea or a guess until it has been validated through testing?


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> nit picking, but if we're interested in science, shouldn't this be an hypothesis, an idea or a guess until it has been validated through testing?



I would suggest verifying that a difference was actually being heard before attempting to correlate what might be attributed to it.


----------



## gregorio (Oct 12, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> ...to be more precise, occasionally what you think you hear is actually closely related to what you DO hear.



That is virtually never the case. For example, what "you DO hear" is some external soundwaves hitting your eardrums plus a rather large amount of heartbeat sound, the sound of blood moving though blood vessels and even the sound of your nervous system. What we think we hear is typically NOT closely related to what "you do hear" because, except for some rare circumstances, we never think we hear these constant, relatively loud body function sounds because our brain eliminates them from our perception, and this is just one of many similar examples. The reality of the situation is that almost never is what we think we hear "closely related" to what we do hear, the best we can truthfully say is that occasionally, what we think we hear aligns quite well with what other people think they hear.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] My point is that it is something which is clearly audible, at least under some circumstances, but will not show up on traditional frequency response, THD, IMD, or S/N measurements.
> It is only detectable, or measurable, with certain specific types of test signals and test equipment...
> [1a] I'll give you a precise analogy. Let's assume that, in an otherwise very quiet room, I set off a firecracker once an hour... If I measure the SPL of the explosion instantaneously I will get a very high reading...But, if I average the reading over an hour, the firecrackers will make almost no difference at all in the reading... And NEITHER of those measurements would accurately reflect "how audible the firecracker really is".



1. True but in this particular case we're talking about filter ringing, something which should be clearly inaudible, unless it's been specifically designed to be audible.
1a. OK, let's run with your analogy. By orders of magnitude, the most common type of equipment used to examine sound is the graphical representation of sample data over time (in say a DAW/audio editor) and graphical representations of frequency content over time, both of which would blatantly obviously "reflect how audible the firecracker really is". In fact, you'd have to doctor the firecracker recording in the case of the SPL measurement or use a measurement type specifically designed not to report amplitude variations (only an average), all while avoiding the almost unavoidable other types of measurements. In other words, one would need to be deliberately trying to avoid a measurement that would "accurately reflect how audible that firecracker really is"!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] For example, when whoever it was did that test between CDs and high-res files, what filter did they use on the 44.1k "CD quality sample"? How steep was the filter?
> [2] And, did the particular music they used as a test signal include transients with very little ringing to begin with, so as not to mask any ringing caused by the filter? ... And how much ringing was present in the master recording because of the particular microphones, preamps, and ADCs they used?



1. The controlled tests I'm aware of used standard type filters, with a transition band of around 2kHz or so. What about the inverse of the question, how steep were the filters used in controlled tests where a difference could be detected? As far as I'm aware the answer is either: Steeper than is ever found in consumer equipment or extremely shallow and well into the audible range (for some "warmth" or other lower audible fidelity and supposedly subjectively better result).

2. A very good point and one often omitted in the arguments made by audiophiles (or marketed to them). How many pieces of music do you know that were NOT recorded by mics and had no EQ (or other ringing/phase inducing effect) applied during mixing or mastering? All of which can not only produce far greater amounts of ringing/phase related artefacts than any well designed/standard reconstruction filter but also in a freq range to which we're actually sensitive!



KeithEmo said:


> Are we trying to determine whether "there is a clearly audible difference between most DACs when tested with typical consumer music files"?
> Or are we trying to determine, scientifically, if there is ANY audible difference between different DACs, even if it can only be detected with certain test signals, or on certain audio tracks. Many folks may only be interested in the former...
> Whereas, my interest is more scientific, so I'm looking at the latter...



We're trying to determine scientifically/factually whether there is any audible difference between DACs designed for high-fidelity conversion when reconstructing commercial digital audio.

Why would anyone be trying to "determine, scientifically, if there is ANY audible difference between different DACs, even if it can only be detected with certain test signals"? Of course there is, that's already been determined scientifically, decades ago! It's easy to deliberately make a DAC sound different with certain test signals and there are actual, commercially released, deliberately obvious examples of this. For example there were some which did not oversample and had no reconstruction filter (the NOS/Filterless DACs) and it's simple to design a test signal which would result in the DAC producing alias images which are clearly audible or at least, easily differentiated from a DAC with a competent filter.

The thread is: "Testing audiophile claims and myths". What audiophiles are we talking about? How many audiophiles are there who listen exclusively to test signals and are not interested in fidelity? Even if there are some, the audiophile claims and myths clearly relate to reproducing commercial audio.

The above points are all misrepresentations or obfuscations, although I can't be sure if they're deliberately so or inadvertent but they are obfuscations, as per my last post (#9650), and I fail to see how any of this makes your "interest more scientific". If anything, it demonstrates to me "less scientific" or at least, less factual.

G


----------



## Phronesis (Oct 12, 2018)

gregorio said:


> That is virtually never the case. For example, what "you DO hear" is some external soundwaves hitting your eardrums plus a rather large amount of heartbeat sound, the sound of blood moving though blood vessels and even the sound of your nervous system. What we think we hear is typically NOT closely related to what "you do hear" because, except for some rare circumstances, we never think we hear these constant, relatively loud body function sounds because our brain eliminates them from our perception, and this is just one of many similar examples. The reality of the situation is that almost never is what we think we hear "closely related" to what we do hear, the best we can truthfully say is that occasionally, what we think we hear aligns quite well with what other people think they hear.



Great points.  It's an interesting topic which has a philosophic aspect.  I'm generally in the Kantian camp, with the view that we can never directly hear physical sound 'as it is', nor can we really even talk about how close we're getting to 'the thing in itself'.  Instead, I view our perception of sound as being a _model_ of reality, with the nature of that model being shaped by evolutionary history based on utilitarian factors.

So, for example, there are species that can't hear frequencies as low as humans, can hear frequencies much higher than humans, and have ears which can move independently of each other and have an anatomy much different from human ears.  We can assume that the world of sound they perceive is much different from ours, but we can't really even imagine what that world of sound is like.  We have horses and cats on our property, and I sometimes wonder what world of sound they perceive (and what goes through their minds in general), but I'll never know the answer, and no advancement in science could help me know it.


----------



## KeithEmo

When I read your post, I see many "assertions" - which is something quite different than facts.

For example, you assert that "filter ringing should be clearly inaudible".
Why do you assume that this would be the case?
Ringing produces clearly audible effects in some speakers; and its effects were clearly audible in old-style analog equalizer circuits with L-C filters.
In fact, many EQ plugins for DAWs offer the option of choosing "vintage EQ sound" - which includes filters that introduce ringing and other sorts of "vintage circuit sounds".
Many folks assert that "finally, now, it is inaudible in most modern equipment, unless it's put there intentionally" - but that is simply an assertion.

And, yes, most modern equipment measures frequency response over time.
However, the time constants used vary quite widely.
An oscilloscope trace, especially on a modern digital oscilloscope, will show that firecracker quite clearly - it you look for it.
But the standard spectrum measurements used to measure THD, and the sort of noise sidebands used to quantify jitter effects, are usually averaged over several seconds.
There's a good reason for this: time averaging allows greater accuracy, and helps eliminate random noise and other random fluctuations.
However, it also tends to ignore, or avoid showing, short-term effects like ringing on transients (because, FOR THAT PARTICULAR TEST, those are NOT what we're trying to measure, so they're considered to be "distractions".)
And, of course, any measurement done using steady state sine waves fails to experience or show anything whatsoever about transient performance.
In fact, in order to measure things like transient response, and filter ringing, you have to use special tests and test signals designed for that purpose.

And, yes, many of the microphones and other equipment used to record audio introduce various alterations to the sound; some of which are intentional, and some of which are not.
And, yes, some of them "can... produce greater amounts of artifacts than any well designed filter... and in ranges to which we are sensitive."
However, all of those are part of the music PRODUCTION process; somebody chose that microphone because they like the way it sounds, or because they consider its flaws acceptable, NOT because they imagine it's "perfect".
When REPRODUCING that music, our goal is to play it as it is provided to us, and to avoid introducing more and different alterations.
Van Gogh may have used cheap paint, scraped off old buildings, for one of his paintings; however, when I reproduce it, I still try to do reproduce his painting, original errors and all, just as he painted it, as accurately as possible.  

One time one of my customers sent in a piece of equipment for repair of a "problem" he'd discovered.
He also included a copy of the file where he'd noticed it.
His particular piece of equipment would clip this particular test signal - quite obviously - even though we were unable to notice any odd sounds with any other music.
Would you suggest that "it doesn't really matter if that sound is clearly distorted - because it's not something you encounter very often in popular music"?
(That sound was included on that test disc, along with a few other odd sounds, specifically BECAUSE it stresses equipment, and so tends to emphasize flaws that might otherwise not be obvious.)
In fact, when designing tests, we often create specific unusual test signals, designed to maximize the visibility or audibility of certain flaws.
For example, when testing a camera lens for distortion, we use a black and white checkerboard or crosshatch pattern...and, when testing it for color accuracy, we use a checkerboard of accurately known colors.

This is not something that is limited to audio testing....
The very popular JPG image compression format was designed to work well with images with continuous tones - like human faces - for which it works VERY well.
However, it works very poorly with images that include lines or sharp edges - like cartoon images and text.
If you apply a high level of JPG compression to a variety of images, faces will look very good, but text will display obvious artifacts (little ghosts around the edges of the letters).
For this reason, JPG compression is often used for photographs, but would be a bad choice for "compressing an unknown mixture of images and pictures".
(Because, not only do we KNOW that it will perform badly on certain specific types of images, but, if we see artifacts on some of our images, we won't know if they were there originally, or if the JPG processing caused them.)
So, likewise, when attempting to accurately reproduce complex signals, we generally prefer to do so in ways that we KNOW won't alter them audibly, rather than in ways that we hope or assume will not.
(And, yes, one thing that differentiates "audiophiles" from "regular consumers" is that audiophiles are willing to expend more effort and money to avoid issues that occur infrequently or aren't especially annoying.)

You really do need to differentiate between "fixing problems that really don't exist" and "fixing problems that ARE quite real, but aren't bad enough that MOST PEOPLE care about them".



gregorio said:


> That is virtually never the case. For example, what "you DO hear" is some external soundwaves hitting your eardrums plus a rather large amount of heartbeat sound, the sound of blood moving though blood vessels and even the sound of your nervous system. What we think we hear is typically NOT closely related to what "you do hear" because, except for some rare circumstances, we never think we hear these constant, relatively loud body function sounds because our brain eliminates them from our perception, and this is just one of many similar examples. The reality of the situation is that almost never is what we think we hear "closely related" to what we do hear, the best we can truthfully say is that occasionally, what we think we hear aligns quite well with what other people think they hear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

KeithEmo said:


> When I read your post, I see many "assertions" - which is something quite different than facts.
> 
> For example, you assert that "filter ringing should be clearly inaudible".
> Why do you assume that this would be the case?



Because the frequencies through which the ringing occurs is supersonic.  Certainly supersonic to you and me, if not to most everybody old enough to play with a DAC.



> Ringing produces clearly audible effects in some speakers; and its effects were clearly audible in old-style analog equalizer circuits with L-C filters.
> In fact, many EQ plugins for DAWs offer the option of choosing "vintage EQ sound" - which includes filters that introduce ringing and other sorts of "vintage circuit sounds".
> Many folks assert that "finally, now, it is inaudible in most modern equipment, unless it's put there intentionally" - but that is simply an assertion.
> 
> ...



Do you understand sampling theory enough to know that the amount of ringing is fixed for a given filter frequency response, and that you can only move it around in front or behind the impulse, never remove it given the same frequency response?

This is such an immutable law that whenever I see a 44.1kHz or 48kHz player / DAC / recording system with no ringing in response to the Kronecker delta, I immediately turn my eye away, for it goes without saying that stupid audiophool things have been done to the lowpass filter, either an apodizing filter that suppressing inaudible ringing at the 20-24kHz supersonic transition band (which was the "cushion area" intentionally left in the formats, to LET brickwall filter ringing happen and be inaudible) at the cost of quite audible dulling of audible high frequencies 15-20kHz;  severe compromise of stopband attenuation;  or complete omission of the filter.

The one smart thing to be done within the confines of linear filtering, given sensible filter frequency response, is to decide on minimum phase or linear phase filtering, or some intermediate choice.  Given that for audible frequencies masking occurs before and after a signal, but mostly after, if we extrapolate these tests results from audible frequencies to inaudible 20-24kHz ultrasonics the preferred binary choice would be the minimum phase filter, with the optimum choice being a hybrid filter somewhere between minimum and linear but leaning towards minimum.



> One time one of my customers sent in a piece of equipment for repair of a "problem" he'd discovered.
> He also included a copy of the file where he'd noticed it.
> His particular piece of equipment would clip this particular test signal - quite obviously - even though we were unable to notice any odd sounds with any other music.
> Would you suggest that "it doesn't really matter if that sound is clearly distorted - because it's not something you encounter very often in popular music"?
> ...



And yet, in another post:


> However, my point was not what to call it...
> My point is that it is something which is clearly audible, at least under some circumstances, but will not show up on traditional frequency response, THD, IMD, or S/N measurements.
> It is only detectable, or measurable, with certain specific types of test signals and test equipment... however, those test signals are quite characteristic of music, which pure sine waves are not.
> (And anyone versed in science knows that, when devising a test, it must be designed to approximate the actual usage conditions as closely as possible, and not be chosen "because it's easy to measure".)



It really seems like in your imagination the scientific method is whatever you imagine to be convenient for your argument at the time?

For the record I side more with the test signals side of the argument, especially as it is basic psychoacoustic fact that humans can detect distortion in pure tones much more easily than in regular music material.  And on that note...  When playing sine sweeps on "vanilla" DACs I do often hear a "harmonic" crawling down from the Nyquist frequency as the actual sweep crawls up to meet it, presumably caused by IMD between the signal frequency and its ultrasonic image generated when the DAC oversamples and which is not fully removed by the reconstruction lowpass filter.  So it would seem that these DACs would audibly benefit from even steeper filtering... at the cost of more ringing.


----------



## KeithEmo

I guess I'm a little bit confused... I'm not sure that your point is here.

You seem to be agreeing that filters with different responses will have different amounts and types of ringing...
And there are obviously an infinite number of filter variations that will yield a response that is "arbitrarily very flat between 20 Hz and 20 kHz and down a lot of dB at 24 khz".
(Not to mention that, as you did point out, a lot of DAC designers are willing to forego those semi-obvious requirements in pursuit of other specific characteristics they're convinced are important.)
And, yes, if everybody used the same filter, then the ringing on every system that used it would be the same.
(And, if all the other parameters were the same, then I would expect them to sound the same.)
However, everybody does NOT use the same filter.

For example, the Wolfson WM8741 DAC offers a choice of 21 different filters.
Many of them are "arbitrarily quite flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz"...
Yet they have significant differences in other characteristics...
Some have more or less out-of-band suppression; others have more or less out-of-band ripple; others have different amounts of phase shift...
And some seem to sound different than others...
And, no, they do NOT say "filter #14 is the right one - and we've provided the others just for fun".
So, yes, there are choices, and there are differences.
And, clearly, not everyone agrees with you about "the best and most optimal choices".
(And, to be honest, "a hybrid filter somewhere between minimum and linear but leaning towards minimum" seems to offer a lot of leeway for variations too.)

Your other assertion is probably correct - but also obviously limited. 

Yes, steady state levels of THD and IMD tend to be most audible with pure sine waves.
However, it's also obvious that it isn't going to work to try and test the audibility of distortions that ONLY occur during transients using steady state sine waves.
(You cannot test the audibility of something that isn't there... and distortions related to transients simply will not occur while playing steady state sine waves.)

And, yes, I certainly agree that, if a certain design exhibits audible aliasing with sine wave sweeps, then it probably would benefit from better filter design



Joe Bloggs said:


> Because the frequencies through which the ringing occurs is supersonic.  Certainly supersonic to you and me, if not to most everybody old enough to play with a DAC.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Oct 12, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> For the record I side more with the test signals side of the argument, especially as it is basic psychoacoustic fact that humans can detect distortion in pure tones much more easily than in regular music material.



If you're generally listening to music and not pure tones, then getting good sound using tones is probably overkill. That's fine if you want to go the extra mile, just as making sure your response goes beyond the range of human hearing, or your noise floor that is way below what you actually need, or your distortion specs are an order of magnitude or more below the threshold of hearing. But doing all that doesn't mean that you'll hear better sound when you put on a nice Vivaldi CD in your living room. Your dog might appreciate it though!

I don't find minuscule differences in specs are generally the problem because in practice they just aren't audible. A lot of what gets discussed in audiophile forums are like that. There are bigger fish to fry that actually do matter, but they aren't as ego gratifying I guess.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 12, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I've also heard rumors that some art experts were actually able to tell a real Rembrandt from a cheap forgery, and be correct at least some of the time, before colorimeters and mass spectrometers were invented.



You do realize that colorimeters and mass spectrometers don't tell you who the original artist is?  What it tells you is the materials used and can help identify time period.  With the "great masters", it's even harder in which they had a studio with their cheaper painting being derived from their apprentices and main commissions being from the recognized artist.  Even now, there is a lot to be said about assessing a particular style.  Rembrandt set a style for paintings, photography lighting, and etchings.  We have seen that there were questionable "Rembrandt"s from school of or wannabes.  An interesting documentary to watch for art is "Who the $&% Is Jackson Pollock?" The premise is that a retired truck driver happens on a painting that *might* be a Jackson Pollock.  It's not in the quintessential period of Jackson's drip period...but may be earlier.  With forensics, it's determined that the paint does exist in Pollock's studio....but that is not conclusive as many folks were expanding to these paints.  Pollock's friend sees the painting and says he's not sure...that it may or may not be.  An art critic looks at the painting and says he's certain it is not a Pollock.  I have some fine arts background, and my opinion is that the painting seems busy for "quintessential" drip painting.  So even this example...a painting that forensically has some indication of same materials, does not show quintessential composition.


----------



## bigshot

In the fine art world authenticity doesn't always matter. Some Arab sheik bought a painting purported to be a DaVinci that even to my ordinary eyes was clearly not a DaVinci. All it took was buying off one "art expert" to get him to say it MIGHT be a DaVinci.


----------



## old tech (Oct 13, 2018)

Having read some of these recent posts, I thought I'd brush the dust off my CD player and have a play with its adjustable filters.

It is a NAD unit with three levels of filter adjustment, normal, gentle and aggressive.

For the life of me, I cannot hear a difference between any of these settings.  Could it be because at 53 years of age I can't hear frequencies higher than 15khz?


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Oct 13, 2018)

old tech said:


> Having read some of these recent posts, I thought I'd brush the dust off my CD player and have a play with its adjustable filters.
> 
> It is a NAD unit with three levels of filter adjustment, normal, gentle and aggressive.
> 
> For the life of me, I cannot hear a difference between any of these settings.  Could it be because I can't hear frequencies higher than 15khz?



Splitting hairs.  Just enjoy the music.  

Different masterings, or just moving one or more speakers one inch any any direction, or changing your seated listening position, will make more of a difference than filters, cables, or anything else.


----------



## old tech

TheSonicTruth said:


> Splitting hairs.  Just enjoy the music.
> 
> Different masterings, or just moving one or more speakers one inch any any direction, or changing your seated listening position, will make more of a difference than filters, cables, or anything else.


I know. This is more tongue in cheek.

Whether these effects of filtering and potential artifacts like ringing can be audible or not, it always amazes me that those debating it are not 20 year olds with highly developed listening skills.

Btw - I'm not referring to anyone here in particular...


----------



## bigshot

old tech said:


> Having read some of these recent posts, I thought I'd brush the dust off my CD player and have a play with its adjustable filters. It is a NAD unit with three levels of filter adjustment, normal, gentle and aggressive. For the life of me, I cannot hear a difference between any of these settings.  Could it be because at 53 years of age I can't hear frequencies higher than 15khz?



It might be a placebo button with descriptive words like that. I have a Philips SACD player that has a button to "improve the sound quality and take full advantage of SACD sound". I can't hear any difference at all between on and off. I searched everywhere- through the manual, reviews, online, etc.- to figure out what it did and could never find any specific information at all. I think it is just a button to light up a nice calming blue light on the faceplate.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> It might be a placebo button with descriptive words like that. I have a Philips SACD player that has a button to "improve the sound quality and take full advantage of SACD sound". I can't hear any difference at all between on and off. I searched everywhere- through the manual, reviews, online, etc.- to figure out what it did and could never find any specific information at all. I think it is just a button to light up a nice calming blue light on the faceplate.



Not intending to p- you off, but good production values at all steps of the    making of an album will beat the pants off of any CD Vs SACD comparison.


----------



## bigshot

This wasn't a button to switch between the CD layer and the SACD layer, it was some sort of vague "enhancer" button that doesn't appear to do anything at all.


----------



## analogsurviver

There is one CD/SACD player that does sport a "button" for CD playback - and it is VERY audible. That's why I chose it some 10 years ago - because I prefer its less than brickwall filtering called Legato Link. Here a brief description https://www.techradar.com/reviews/a...yers-and-recorders/pioneer-pd-d6-95169/review.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 15, 2018)

I just went and looked this deck I have up. (It's in a box in the closet now.) It's the Philips 963SA. I misremembered what the magic button was for... it's a super fancy upsampling gizmo for CDs. It makes absolutely no audible difference. But the light lights up real pretty. I think at the time this deck came out they were not only trying to convince people that SACDs sounded better on this deck, they wanted to claim that CDs did too. It was a crock o' bull. I did a careful comparison test when I got it and determined that neither SACDs or CDs on this deck sounded any different than on a $125 budget CD player. It was a serviceable SACD player, but home burned CDs and DVDs skipped like crazy on it so I replaced it.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> In fact, many EQ plugins for DAWs offer the option of choosing "vintage EQ sound" - which includes filters that introduce ringing and other sorts of "vintage circuit sounds".
> Many folks assert that "finally, now, it is inaudible in most modern equipment, unless it's put there intentionally" - but that is simply an assertion.



Not just vintage EQs but many uses of all EQs, plus various/numerous other effects besides, which are used almost ubiquitously in every mix and typically numerous times. I am not arguing that ringing is not audible, I'm arguing that the ringing caused by transparently designed reconstruction filters when reconstructing commercial audio is inaudible!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] And, yes, many of the microphones and other equipment used to record audio introduce various alterations to the sound; some of which are intentional, and some of which are not.
> And, yes, some of them "can... produce greater amounts of artifacts than any well designed filter... and in ranges to which we are sensitive."
> [2] However, all of those are part of the music PRODUCTION process; somebody chose that microphone because they like the way it sounds, or because they consider its flaws acceptable, NOT because they imagine it's "perfect".
> When REPRODUCING that music, our goal is to play it as it is provided to us, and to avoid introducing more and different alterations.



1. You think it's reasonable that small amounts of mainly ultrasonic ringing (from a decently designed recon filter) can be audible in the presence of the far greater amounts of ringing (and other phase effects) already in the mix/music, which also covers the audible range? Is that just your assertion or is it a fact?

2. Clearly that is NOT true! Engineers/Producers CANNOT listen to how a microphone or anything else sounds! When we listen to a microphone we are listening to the ringing of the anti-alias filters in our ADC and any other deliberately applied effects, all of which are/will be in the recording. IN ADDITION however, we are also listening to the ringing and phase effects of our DAC, speakers and room, NONE of which is in the recording. We do not expect our recordings to EVER be played-back without a DAC, on perfect speakers in a perfect anechoic chamber, we ALWAYS expect our music to be reproduced with "introduced alterations"!



KeithEmo said:


> But the standard spectrum measurements used to measure THD ...



Who examines a multiple hour recording with ONLY a THD measurement? Again, you'd have to be deliberately trying not to detect the firecracker transients in order not to detect them!



KeithEmo said:


> When I read your post, I see many "assertions" - which is something quite different than facts.



And when I read your response, I see it packed with obfuscations (as I predicted) - which is something almost diametrically opposed to honestly representing facts!

G


----------



## KeithEmo (Oct 16, 2018)

Oddly, however, most recording engineers DO seem to believe that they can hear the differences between those different microphones.... otherwise nobody would ever use anything besides "a decent $200 microphone". With all that ringing, and other noise and distortion, in all that other equipment, most people, including most engineers, agree that the majority of microphones DO sound different from each other... and different enough that at least some of those differences are in fact audible above all the colorations caused by all that other equipment.

You also seem to be using what is commonly referred to as "the no true Scotsman" argument. (If "the ringing caused by transparently designed reconstruction filters when reconstructing commercial audio is inaudible" then, by definition, if the ringing is audible, it must simply not be "a transparently designed filter". I could restate that as: "All perfect DACs sound the same; therefore, any DAC that sounds noticeably different from the rest must not be perfect." If that's your claim, then I agree; many DACs that are designed specifically to sound audibly neutral do in fact sound audibly identical to me... or incredibly close. However, then, apparently many DACs are are either designed intentionally not to sound neutral, or their designers aren't quite competent enough to do so and get it right.)

Sample-rate-conversion is mathematically a relatively simple process... so any programmer "should" be able to do it well enough that no audible artifacts result.... and certainly well enough that there should be no aliasing visible with the naked eye on a basic oscilloscope display of an audio sweep. Yet, when a website tested them, about half of all commercial audio editing programs produced VERY OBVIOUS aliasing when asked to perform a simple conversion (the link to that site is posted somewhere earlier on this thread).

Presumably either:
1) a lot of programmers aren't very good at their job
2) a lot of programmers don't bother to actually test their software to make sure it's doing what it's supposed to
3) a lot of programmers deliberately chose to sacrifice performance in that area for a presumed benefit somewhere else
4) a lot of programmers deliberately wanted their converter to sound different than everyone else's (which falls under #3)

You do seem to be missing the point of what I said about the firecracker.....

The most commonly used unit for performing sophisticated audio measurements these days is an Audio Precision 585 test set (or some model in that line). And, if you punch up the standard test for THD, IMD, or S/N ratio, it will be performed by taking a long term average of the output spectrum of the device you're testing, while feeding in a continuous sine wave. It's done this way specifically to reduce or eliminate the effect caused by a firecracker pop, or any other transient noise, which is considered to be "a distraction" rather than useful data for that particular test. On most sets, depending on the options you have, you can also do a test of transient response, where a single "impulse" signal of some sort is fed in, and the output "captured". This is the test that shows ringing, and is the one that shows the different amounts and types of ringing produced by various different filters. And this is the test that produces different results for all of those different filters. However, you have decided that the results of THAT test should be ignored "because all that ringing is clearly inaudible".

(Most modern test equipment is designed with the capability of performing a wide variety of "targeted tests" - each optimized to test a very specific parameter. Unfortunately, as a result, it's easier than you might think to miss things if you haven't selected the correct test for that particular thing)

There's also something that I need to remind many people about "real scientific testing". In order to test for whether something is "audible" of "noticeable", you first need to create a test that allows you to present it to your test subjects - in a controlled and optimal manner. For example, if you want to test for "what percentage of lemon juice can be tasted", you must first figure out how to create samples with various amounts of lemon juice in them. And, if you really want to figure out "the minimum detectable amount", you may need to pick certain test conditions. Offering your test subjects glasses of laboratory grade distilled water with controlled amounts of lemon juice added to each would be an effective test. Mixing different tiny amounts of lemon juice into glasses of grapefruit juice, and asking people to taste them, after gargling with mouthwash, would probably NOT be a very good test.... because you have failed to minimize the things that might tend to mask the lemon juice you're testing.

In audio terms, if you're trying to test the audibility of ringing, and it turns out that 99% of all speakers produce so much ringing that it masks the ringing from the filters, then those 99% of speakers WILL NOT be appropriate for use in the test. If you want to test whether that ringing is audible, you must ensure that it is reaching the ears of your test subjects, so that they have the opportunity to hear it - or not. I am not aware of any test ever conducted to this level of rigorous scientific accuracy. Feel free to claim that, based on statistical analysis, "most commercial speakers have so much ringing that they will mask the ringing from the filters", or "most people don't notice the difference"... but that's a different sort of claim. Also feel free to concede that you are unable to run an accurate test because we lack the technology to build the test equipment. HOWEVER, you cannot reasonably assert that "ringing is inaudible" SIMPLY because you can't figure out how to accurately present it to the ears of your test subjects. (And, again, I have NEVER seen a test that has properly and rigorously determined that the sort of ringing present in DAC filters is or is not audible.)



gregorio said:


> Not just vintage EQs but many uses of all EQs, plus various/numerous other effects besides, which are used almost ubiquitously in every mix and typically numerous times. I am not arguing that ringing is not audible, I'm arguing that the ringing caused by transparently designed reconstruction filters when reconstructing commercial audio is inaudible!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

^ I get the Sweetwater Music catalog, and I see that there are microphones costing up to about $10K.  Seems overly expensive to me, but I guess there are some people who think really expensive microphones make a difference and are worth the extra cost for some applications.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

I think gregorio's point was that technically nobody can listen to ONLY the microphone in isolation, as the output of a microphone is not audible without (at least) a preamp, amp, and headphones/speakers.  And typically you'll have both an ADC and DAC between you and the mic, even just for monitoring.


----------



## KeithEmo

I know....

But he also seemed to be suggesting that, because of all the other equipment involved, the differences between microphones would always be masked and so inaudible.
This seems to be where we disagree.

Ringing is NOT a simple phenomenon, where, if any device has a lot of ringing, it will totally mask any ringing present anywhere else in the signal chain.
So, for example, a speaker or microphone, or an ADC, may itself have lots of ringing, but that doesn't mean that a small amount of a different sort of ringing, or a different type of artifact altogether, caused by a DAC somewhere else in the signal chain, won't be audible.

In fact, we humans are extremely adept at picking out tiny differences, even among much larger distractions, under certain circumstances.
The same ability that lets us recognize a particular voice in a room full of people talking can allow us to pick out tiny anomalies - even if they're "buried" among a lot of other signals.
And, just as we are especially good at picking out the voices of people we KNOW, we also learn to pick out tiny anomalies especially well once we "learn" what to listen for.
This almost certainly accounts for the way in which we are able to notice even tiny differences in a piece of music we're very familiar with (even though others find them to be inaudible).



Zapp_Fan said:


> I think gregorio's point was that technically nobody can listen to ONLY the microphone in isolation, as the output of a microphone is not audible without (at least) a preamp, amp, and headphones/speakers.  And typically you'll have both an ADC and DAC between you and the mic, even just for monitoring.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 16, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> ^ I get the Sweetwater Music catalog, and I see that there are microphones costing up to about $10K.  Seems overly expensive to me, but I guess there are some people who think really expensive microphones make a difference and are worth the extra cost for some applications.



It's not so much that microphones sound different or better than others, it's that they suit different situations better. I've done a lot of recording of VO and the microphone makes a huge difference. Voices close to a microphone have huge dynamics from a whisper to a scream. It's necessary to apply very heavy compression to get the consonants to read and to get the dynamics to fit within a normal sound mix. That involves not just pushing down the peaks, but pulling up the quiet stuff. It's important that a mike be able to take big peaks without distorting, and to be very clean so the quiet bits can be pulled up without pulling up noise with it. The quality of the mic pre and noise gate are important too.

There are lots of variables depending on what you're recording. One microphone doesn't fit all.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> And, just as we are especially good at picking out the voices of people we KNOW, we also learn to pick out tiny anomalies especially well once we "learn" what to listen for.
> This almost certainly accounts for the way in which we are able to notice even tiny differences in a piece of music we're very familiar with (even though others find them to be inaudible).



I think it's pretty well accepted that hearing/listening/perceiving is an _active_ cognitive process, and that the resulting perceptions very much depend on how the brain has learned to perceive - which is why expectation bias is even a possibility, hence sometimes not perceiving differences that are really there, or perceiving differences that aren't really there.


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> And, just as we are especially good at picking out the voices of people we KNOW, we also learn to pick out tiny anomalies especially well once we "learn" what to listen for.
> This almost certainly accounts for the way in which we are able to notice even tiny differences in a piece of music we're very familiar with (even though others find them to be inaudible).





Phronesis said:


> I think it's pretty well accepted that hearing/listening/perceiving is an _active_ cognitive process, and that the resulting perceptions very much depend on how the brain has learned to perceive - which is why expectation bias is even a possibility, hence sometimes not perceiving differences that are really there, or perceiving differences that aren't really there.



It seems like a bit of a contradiction as presented.  Couldn't one make the logical assumption that it is likely that slight changes to familiar music might also go unnoticed based on what the listener is expecting to hear?  

A trained ear to identify anomalies is one thing, but using familiar pieces of music could create problems for anyone trying to identify a difference.  I've found it much easier to use new music when attempting to ABX for differences.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> It seems like a bit of a contradiction as presented.  Couldn't one make the logical assumption that it is likely that slight changes to familiar music might also go unnoticed based on what the listener is expecting to hear?
> 
> A trained ear to identify anomalies is one thing, but using familiar pieces of music could create problems for anyone trying to identify a difference.  I've found it much easier to use new music when attempting to ABX for differences.



I think it can work both ways.  We rely on perception, yet it isn't as reliable as we wish it was.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Oct 16, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Sample-rate-conversion is mathematically a relatively simple process... so any programmer "should" be able to do it well enough that no audible artifacts result.... and certainly well enough that there should be no aliasing visible with the naked eye on a basic oscilloscope display of an audio sweep. Yet, when a website tested them, about half of all commercial audio editing programs produced VERY OBVIOUS aliasing when asked to perform a simple conversion (the link to that site is posted somewhere earlier on this thread).
> 
> Presumably either:
> 1) a lot of programmers aren't very good at their job
> ...



Or
5) a lot of programmers are hassled by people looking for a "no ringing" response to a resampled Kronecker delta and were could only give them what they want, a resampler that looks good in waveform view and terrible in spectral view.  With very audible artifacts in sine sweeps.  When a proper resampler that rung in waveform view would have been audibly transparent for both the sine sweep AND the Kronecker delta--because the energy being cut and spread around is ultrasonic.

This from an earlier post:


> (When the signal is "spread out in time", much of the extra distortion is inaudible, but it also takes energy away from the "intended signal".)



Yes... ultrasonic energy...


----------



## KeithEmo

I would say that they're BOTH true - but it isn't a contradiction.
There are simply a variety of different things which may affect what we notice at different times.

When you meet an old friend you may notice different things about them than you would with a stranger. 
Because you are very familiar with them, you may notice if their voice sounds a little odd that day...
Or, instead, because you're very familiar with them, you may not notice their voice at all (perhaps because you're paying more attention to what they're saying)...
(You already know "what their voice sounds like" so you may ignore that aspect entirely.)
It depends on the circumstances, and on how your attention has been "primed".

Likewise, if I listen to an impressive drum solo I've never heard before, I may be very impressed by the big cymbal crash at the end...
However, the result of that may be that I listen very careful to the cymbal, and notice every detail of how it sounds...
Or, alternately, I may be so impressed by the overall sound, that I fail to notice that the final shimmer sounds a tiny bit different on one speaker than on another...
And, if I use a recording that I'm very familiar with, I may become somewhat bored, and not notice the details much at all...
Or I may remember how it should sound in such minute detail that I notice tiny discrepancies that someone less familiar with it might miss.

I definitely find myself using certain specific indicators for specific purposes....
For example, when I compare DACs, there is a certain recording that I use....
More specifically, I listen to the way the wire brush cymbals in a certain riff on that particular recording sound...
Because, to me, they shimmer in a distinctive way, and, because I have such specific expectations, I notice very minor differences.

Much as, once you notice a tiny chip on your car windshield, you find yourself unable to stop noticing it...
When I'm comparing DACs, I find myself using that recording, and paying careful attention to that one drum riff...
And noticing slight differences in the exact sound of the metallic shimmer at one part near the end...
However, when I'm "just listening to the song" and not "using it as a test track" I'm sure I wouldn't notice far greater differences.

It's the same as the difference between "admiring an atractive painting on the wall"....
And "inspecting that painting for damage" after your neighbor's child bounces his ball off of it....
(Or, if you suspect his ball was muddy, you may be looking even more carefully, for a specific type of damage.)

The other issue I've found is with "learned familiarity".
When I listen to a certain piece of music for the first time I notice certain things.
Then, for the next few times I hear it, I notice other "new" things each time.
I often wonder, when reviewers claim to "hear more detail with product X", if they're simply hearing more details on the second listening that they didn't notice on the first one.
I also find this effect much more strongly when listening to a piece of music that I'm very familiar with - but havdn't heard in a while.
The first few times I hear it after the hiatus I find myself "rediscovering" things - after which those certain details may become extremely vivid.

We see examples of this sort of thing all the time....
For example, it's very difficult to proofread something that you've written - because you tend to "not see" spelling errors you've made - and which may be obvious to someone else.
And it's the same way you may trip over a chair "because you often don't actually look where you're walking" - even though it may seem as if you are.
(Most of us actually operate more like an automatic guidance system - with certain "alarms set" to notify our conscious mind - like "object blocking us - see what it is".)



sonitus mirus said:


> It seems like a bit of a contradiction as presented.  Couldn't one make the logical assumption that it is likely that slight changes to familiar music might also go unnoticed based on what the listener is expecting to hear?
> 
> A trained ear to identify anomalies is one thing, but using familiar pieces of music could create problems for anyone trying to identify a difference.  I've found it much easier to use new music when attempting to ABX for differences.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

sonitus mirus said:


> It seems like a bit of a contradiction as presented.  Couldn't one make the logical assumption that it is likely that slight changes to familiar music might also go unnoticed based on what the listener is expecting to hear?
> 
> A trained ear to identify anomalies is one thing, but using familiar pieces of music could create problems for anyone trying to identify a difference.  I've found it much easier to use new music when attempting to ABX for differences.



When I'm doing A/B tests or tuning something, I use some familiar music, some unfamiliar music, tones, pink noise, and measurements, and I tend to go back and forth between them quite a bit. 

With the subtle types of difference we're discussing here, even when I know there's something there, it's pretty challenging to quantify and usually takes a lot of back-and-forth.  I agree that familiar music can be a help or hindrance depending on what we're looking for, and on what equipment. 

For what it's worth I don't think I've ever noticed filter ringing unless I added it on purpose.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

In other words, pick ONE:



 
1. Ringing kronecker delta response, correct sine sweep

OR



 
2. Non ringing kronecker delta response, messed up sine sweep



Joe Bloggs said:


> Or
> 5) a lot of programmers are hassled by people looking for a "no ringing" response to a resampled Kronecker delta and were could only give them what they want, a resampler that looks good in waveform view and terrible in spectral view.  With very audible artifacts in sine sweeps.  When a proper resampler that rung in waveform view would have been audibly transparent for both the sine sweep AND the Kronecker delta--because the energy being cut and spread around is ultrasonic.
> 
> This from an earlier post:
> ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Joe Bloggs said:


> In other words, pick ONE:
> 
> 1. Ringing kronecker delta response, correct sine sweep
> 
> ...



Yeech!


----------



## castleofargh

sonitus mirus said:


> It seems like a bit of a contradiction as presented.  Couldn't one make the logical assumption that it is likely that slight changes to familiar music might also go unnoticed based on what the listener is expecting to hear?
> 
> A trained ear to identify anomalies is one thing, but using familiar pieces of music could create problems for anyone trying to identify a difference.  I've found it much easier to use new music when attempting to ABX for differences.


IMO if we know what we're looking for, then we will use the samples most revealing of that type of sound variation that we're familiar with. for that, experience will tend to win over pure focus ability. but otherwise I tend to be with you on the familiar stuff. we use to explain that with survival instinct and I don't know if it's true of just the natural consequence of being bored by what we know well, but novelty does tend to keep us on our toes while fully known stuff tends to get easily dismissed(the good old situation with the wife/gf/helicopter changing her hair and us not noticing). 



Joe Bloggs said:


> In other words, pick ONE:
> 
> 1. Ringing kronecker delta response, correct sine sweep
> 
> ...


and that's why stormtroopers look like they can't aim for crap with their laser guns. poorly picked filters.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I think there is a difference between using a specific song you enjoy and have heard many times and using an anomaly that has been identified in the past.  When I tested my ability to hear for possible differences with lossy encoded music, I first began researching what was reported to be the type of music or a particular song that presented difficulties for the encoder.  I would start at a low bitrate that was obvious for me to identify differences and then increase the quality and retest, attempting to listen for the same anomalies. 

My familiarity with the test files that I was using to determine if a difference could be heard didn't necessarily correspond with my enjoyment of the music or how often I had listened to it in the past.


----------



## bigshot

I don't necessarily care if I'm familiar with the song or not. I just want a really good recording that has a lot of different timbres and dynamics. Something that is limited won't show up differences at the edges.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> I don't necessarily care if I'm familiar with the song or not. I just want a really good recording that has a lot of different timbres and dynamics. Something that is limited won't show up differences at the edges.



YOU, bigshot, want dynamics??


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Phronesis said:


> ^ I get the Sweetwater Music catalog, and I see that there are microphones costing up to about $10K.  Seems overly expensive to me, but I guess there are some people who think really expensive microphones make a difference and are worth the extra cost for some applications.



I, for one, believe that microphone technique(placement, etc) is at least as important as what one pays for a mic!


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> I, for one, believe that microphone technique(placement, etc) is at least as important as what one pays for a mic!


 I am convinced microphone technique ( placement, etc ) is more important than what one pays for a mic.  With a reservation - if a simple two microphone technique is used, these should be paired as close as possible - and that can get pretty costy before you know it.


----------



## Phronesis

TheSonicTruth said:


> I, for one, believe that microphone technique(placement, etc) is at least as important as what one pays for a mic!



Based on my limited studio experience from a three decades ago, I have to agree.

I feel like the average quality of recording has improved a lot over the past few decades.  What do you all think?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 17, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> YOU, bigshot, want dynamics??



Are you a bot or something? You seem like you have artificial intelligence.



Phronesis said:


> I feel like the average quality of recording has improved a lot over the past few decades.  What do you all think?



Sound quality tends to improve in spurts, It really doesn't evolve slowly over time. The biggest improvements in commercially recorded music were in 1927 with the introduction of electrical recording, 1947 with the introduction of high fidelity recording, 1954/1958 with the introduction of stereo, 1981 with the first consumer digital recording, and 1999 with the first consumer multichannel SACD.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Oddly, however, most recording engineers DO seem to believe that they can hear the differences between those different microphones.... otherwise nobody would ever use anything besides "a decent $200 microphone".
> [1a] With all that ringing, and other noise and distortion, in all that other equipment, most people, including most engineers, agree that the majority of microphones DO sound different from each other...
> [1b] and different enough that at least some of those differences are in fact audible above all the colorations caused by all that other equipment.



1. How many of those "most engineers" have an XLR socket and a mic pre-amp implanted in their skull? If your answer is "none", then no engineer can directly listen to mics, an engineer can only listen to mics in combination with at least all of the following: A mic pre-amp, ADC, DAC, amp and monitors/room acoustics (or HPs).
1a. ALL professional sound/music engineers would agree that mics sound different. In fact, any engineer who couldn't tell any difference would never get to be a professional engineer in the first place!
1b. And that's my whole point! Mic colourations "are in fact audible above all the colourations caused by all that other equipment". The differences between different mics range from inaudible to so blatantly obvious you'd almost need to have a hearing impairment to miss them. With professional music recording we use almost the full range of mic types, which almost always includes at least some mic choices based on extremely subtle differences. How is it possible to differentiate these extremely subtle differences, especially in this case where we've got not just one but two sets of ringing filters (the ADC's anti-alias filter in addition to the DAC's reconstruction filter)? Mic pre-amps (for example) affect mic choice but ADC and DAC filters do not, because in pro ADCs and DACs they are designed to be transparent and are therefore inaudible!



KeithEmo said:


> [2] You also seem to be using what is commonly referred to as "the no true Scotsman" argument. (If "the ringing caused by transparently designed reconstruction filters when reconstructing commercial audio is inaudible" then, by definition, if the ringing is audible, it must simply not be "a transparently designed filter". I could restate that as: "All perfect DACs sound the same; therefore, any DAC that sounds noticeably different from the rest must not be perfect." If that's your claim, then I agree; many DACs that are designed specifically to sound audibly neutral do in fact sound audibly identical to me... or incredibly close.
> [2a] However, then, apparently many DACs are are either designed intentionally not to sound neutral, or their designers aren't quite competent enough to do so and get it right.



2. Hang on, first you say it appears I'm using a logical fallacy and then, in the next sentence, you say that if I am using that logical fallacy then you agree?
2a. Ah yes, would that be the audiophile misrepresention of "many"? When you say "many DACs are not designed to sound neutral", how many hundreds of millions of consumer owned DACs are you talking about?



KeithEmo said:


> [3] Sample-rate-conversion is mathematically a relatively simple process... so any programmer "should" be able to do it well enough that no audible artifacts result.... and certainly well enough that there should be no aliasing visible with the naked eye on a basic oscilloscope display of an audio sweep. Yet, when a website tested them, about half of all commercial audio editing programs produced VERY OBVIOUS aliasing when asked to perform a simple conversion ...
> 
> [4] You do seem to be missing the point of what I said about the firecracker..... The most commonly used unit for performing sophisticated audio measurements these days is an Audio Precision 585 test set (or some model in that line).



3. You seem to be arguing against yourself here! Assuming you're NOT saying that professional engineers (and others who use commercial audio editing programs) are incapable of hearing something that is "VERY OBVIOUS", then what you ARE saying is that what might look "VERY OBVIOUS" in fact sounds at least incredibly subtle, if not inaudible. Almost all commercial music releases of the last 15 years or so contain several (possibly 30+) resampling processes which strongly indicates "inaudible" because obviously, "incredibly subtle" multiplied by several (or say 30) times should no longer be incredibly subtle!

4. When performing "sophisticated audio measurements" with only an AP 585, how often would you use ONLY the tests for THD, IMD and S/N ratio, WITH a test signal (used in it's entirety) comprised of many hours of silence with nothing but a firecracker (or a similar short large transient sound) once per hour? Always, frequently or never? If it's the latter, then it's irrelevant, it's an obfuscation!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] But he also seemed to be suggesting that, because of all the other equipment involved, the differences between microphones would always be masked and so inaudible.
> [2] Ringing is NOT a simple phenomenon, where, if any device has a lot of ringing, it will totally mask any ringing present anywhere else in the signal chain.[2a] So, for example, a speaker or microphone, or an ADC, may itself have lots of ringing, but that doesn't mean that a small amount of a different sort of ringing, or a different type of artifact altogether, caused by a DAC somewhere else in the signal chain, won't be audible.
> [3] In fact, we humans are extremely adept at picking out tiny differences, even among much larger distractions, under certain circumstances.



1. No, what I was suggesting is that ringing is inaudible and therefore cannot mask anything!

2. Is that an assertion, fact or obfuscation?
2a. It's almost always the case that a tiny amount of something will be inaudible in the presence of a large amount of that same something. In almost every recording we're going to have a relatively large amount of the exact same artefacts which occur in the DAC process, due to the use of EQ and ADC filters on almost every channel in the mix and from all the resampling processes. What evidence do you have that a standard, transparently designed reconstruction filter in a DAC is audible in the presence of far greater amounts of filter artefacts?

3. Another marketing obfuscation favourite! Yes, humans are extremely adept at picking out tiny differences BUT firstly, ONLY if those differences are in the audible freq band. Secondly, what "certain circumstances" and are they relevant to consumers listening to music? And lastly, "extremely adept" relative to what? For example it's been demonstrated that humans can differentiate jitter in musical material down to just 200 billionths of a second, that is indeed "extremely adept". However, it's also an irrelevant obfuscation because even a cheap DAC should not have jitter higher than about 200 trillionths of a second, about 1,000 times lower than our "extremely adept" ability to detect. And, as you know, this is just one of numerous similar examples of obfuscation.



Phronesis said:


> ^ I get the Sweetwater Music catalog, and I see that there are microphones costing up to about $10K. Seems overly expensive to me, but I guess there are some people who think really expensive microphones make a difference and are worth the extra cost for some applications.



An original factory matched set of M50s can be worth as much as $100K. "Expensiveness" though is an audiophile metric, not a professional sound engineer's metric. I learnt that lesson the very first time I worked "behind the glass" in a world class studio. They had a famous mic collection valued at $7m and I first asked to use their M50s (insured for nearly $200K) but what we ended up using was a set of SM57s (tested on the suggestion of the recording engineer), just about the cheapest mic widely used by professionals (even today, less than $100). Mics have different sonic characteristics and on that particular occasion (that musician, that instrument and that recording venue) the SM57s had the more appropriate characteristics. The completed album went on to become a definitive recording of it's type. There are other occasions where the reverse is true, the desired characteristics can only be found in more expensive mics. Really expensive mics do make a difference, sometimes such an obvious difference that the extra cost is unavoidable if one requires top quality professional results. The difference between the pro audio and audiophile worlds is that more expensive doesn't necessarily always mean better, as I learned, the cheapest can sometimes be better than the most expensive.

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Phronesis said:


> Based on my limited studio experience from a three decades ago, I have to agree.
> 
> I feel like the average quality of recording has improved a lot over the past few decades.  What do you all think?



I don't consider the agressive use of dynamics processing and loudness trend to be an 'improvement'.  Compression, limiting, and other tools were used 40, 50  years ago but in ways that it wasn't so glaring apparent, like it is today.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> An original factory matched set of M50s can be worth as much as $100K. "Expensiveness" though is an audiophile metric, not a professional sound engineer's metric. I learnt that lesson the very first time I worked "behind the glass" in a world class studio. They had a famous mic collection valued at $7m and I first asked to use their M50s (insured for nearly $200K) but what we ended up using was a set of SM57s (tested on the suggestion of the recording engineer), just about the cheapest mic widely used by professionals (even today, less than $100). Mics have different sonic characteristics and on that particular occasion (that musician, that instrument and that recording venue) the SM57s had the more appropriate characteristics. The completed album went on to become a definitive recording of it's type. There are other occasions where the reverse is true, the desired characteristics can only be found in more expensive mics. Really expensive mics do make a difference, sometimes such an obvious difference that the extra cost is unavoidable if one requires top quality professional results. The difference between the pro audio and audiophile worlds is that more expensive doesn't necessarily always mean better, as I learned, the cheapest can sometimes be better than the most expensive.



Yikes, that's a lot of money for a mic.  I remember the SM57, I had a few them back in the good ol' days.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think it depends on how you look at it....  and it's a lot more complicated than just looking at a simple average.

For example, I would say that the hardware performance of the best equipment available is a lot better today (a modern high-end mic preamp or mixer is better than the best one you could buy fifty years ago).
I would also say that the performance of the lowest-quality equipment is a lot better (you can get a decent sounding microphone preamp for $25 today).
This has enabled an improvement at both the top and bottom ends of the spectrum.
However, there is more low-end equipment available today, and the price is low enough that more people can afford it more easily.
On the plus side this has encouraged a lot of very interesting and creative music to become available.
But, on the minus side, it has reduced the barrier to entry, which has also encouraged the creation of a lot of extremely poor quality amateur efforts.

We also now have a proliferation of powerful editing and effects plugins.
As with hardware, this has given talented professionals more options, so we're seeing more really cool stuff.
But, at the same time, it encourages people with less talent to "over engineer" and so has enabled more really poor quality attempts to reach the market.

Likewise, you must differentiate between "quality limitations" and "deliberate choices you simply don't like".
One of these is the so-called "loudness wars" - which many people incorrectly characterize as "compression" and "lack of dynamic range".

One of the audio magazines (I forget which one) did an actual analysis of several thousand recordings over the last fifty years or so.
In contrast to what many people seem to believe, modern albums DO NOT have "less dynamic range" than most older recordings.
Dynamic range is defined as "the difference between the quietest sounds and the loudest sounds".
So, for example, if a track on a CD fades in from silence, and reaches 0 dB at any point, then it has a dynamic range of 96 dB, which vinyl simply cannot achieve.
The difference is that, on many modern albums, the AVERAGE VARIANCE IN LEVEL is less.
(The quietest sounds are equally quiet, the loudest sounds are equally loud, but the overall loudness remains within narrow ranges for more of the time.)
Therefore, the dynamic range hasn't changed at all; what has changed is that the AVERAGE LOUDNESS is higher, and the AVERAGE VARIATION in loudness has been reduced.

Once you understand this, it becomes obvious that what we're really talking about is AN ARTISTIC CHOICE THAT WE DON'T PERSONALLY LIKE.
The recording engineer probably did exactly what he or she wanted to do, and technically did it very well.... we just don't LIKE the way it sounds.

I would say that the quality of both the best quality recordings, and the worst quality recordings, has improved over the years.
I would also say that the overall average level of technical quality has improved.
However, I would also have to say that I find more modern music where I personally don't like the choices made by the mixing engineer or production folks.



Phronesis said:


> Based on my limited studio experience from a three decades ago, I have to agree.
> 
> I feel like the average quality of recording has improved a lot over the past few decades.  What do you all think?


----------



## Zapp_Fan

TheSonicTruth said:


> I don't consider the agressive use of dynamics processing and loudness trend to be an 'improvement'.  Compression, limiting, and other tools were used 40, 50  years ago but in ways that it wasn't so glaring apparent, like it is today.



Technically use of compression and limiting is not recording, but mixing.  I would agree that recordings themselves seem to have improved in the past 15 years or so. I would guess this is due to increased availability of affordable-but-good mics, mic pres, and DACs.  $500 gets you some surpisingly good kit these days. As you've noted, in many genres the mixing has gotten worse - or at least more aggressive - even as the recording has improved, I would agree with that. (Blame Waves I guess)

Actually, they might be related phenomena.  These days you can get a reasonably low-noise recording out of a $500 setup where you could not 20 or 30 years ago.  Once your noise floor is low enough you can start going nuts with the dynamics, using a great deal of compression, without the noise floor becoming obvious.


----------



## KeithEmo

You seem determined to split ever thinner hairs here....

The logical fallacy is in claiming that "all well designed DACs should sound identical; therefore, by definition, any DAC that sounds different is simply not well designed".

You can NEVER disprove my claim that "all true Scotsmen wear kilts"  if you accept it as both a given assumption AND a claim.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to find a true Scotsman not wearing a kilt because I've already stated that, if you find someone without a kilt, he doesn't qualify as a true Scotsman.

I am agreeing with you that, at least in theory, any DAC that is well designed, and specifically designed to be totally neutral, should sound pretty much like any other.
However, clearly not all DACs are "well designed" by this definition; and, equally clearly, not all DACs are designed to sound perfectly neutral.
The Wolfson 8741 offers a choice of 21 different filters.
Either one of them is "absolutely the most accurate and neutral" - in which case the other twenty are simply "bad" (so why are they included at all?)
Or one of them is "absolutely the most accurate and neutral" - but the designers have offered a bunch of inferior options because they believe their customers may prefer them anyway (or so they can say "twenty distinctly different filter options" in the brochure).
Or NONE of them is "audibly perfect" - and they're offering both designers and customers the option to choose the one with the flaws they find less obtrusive.

I also disagree with your continuing characterization of things like "the exact same artifacts".
If you actually look at the jitter or ringing spectra of a dozen different DACs you will see exactly the opposite.... they are NOT identical.
Likewise, if you look at the impulse response graphs of those 21 filter choices on that Wolfson DAC, you will see that they also are all different.
(Leaving the question of whether those differences are audible or not for another day - they most certainly are different.)

Incidentally, since you asked, I've personally owned thirty or forty DACs (if you count everything from sound cards to commercial models).
I've also listened to quite a few prototype variations. 
(I work for Emotiva; we have several DACs in out product line at any given time, so I get to listen to and compare both production units and prototypes.)


And, no, before anyone asks, we haven't sponsored any "well designed, properly run, full on double blind tests" on DACs - because doing it correctly is very expensive and time consuming... and we see little value in doing a full study "almost correctly".
(And, to put it bluntly, we're not trying to compare our super-expensive DAC to someone else's; we're quite content if people buy our $500 DAC because they find it sounds just as good to them as our competitor's more expensive model.)
We do occasionally allow customers to informally compare current models to new ones at public events, however.

It has been my experience that:
- most well-designed commercial DACs that seem to have been designed with the intent to sound neutral sound very similar (but not necessarily identical)
- some DACs are obviously designed deliberately to sound different (they usually either claim outright to "sound special" or make some obviously non-standard circuit modification like omitting the reconstruction filter)
- DACs vary significantly, both in terms of how much jitter their own circuitry contributes, and of how well they filter out jitter present in their input source (this may or may not be audible at all, but is quite subtle even when it is audible)

I should also point out something that you seem to ignore...
Your "possibly 30 resampling processes" may or may not be producing clearly audible artifacts.
However, unless we actually get to compare the track before and after the resampling process, we won't know if the resampling is "audibly transparent" or not; and the consumer will almost certainly only get to hear the "after" version.
All the consumer will ever know is that, after all those manipulations, the final result "sounds the way the mix engineer wants it to"... (or close enough that he's willing to send it out).
(And, for all we know, the process is far from transparent, and the engineer actually likes the coloration it adds.)

However, as an end user, seeking to REPRODUCE the sound, my goal is for my system to add no coloration beyond what the engineer may have added as part of the PRODUCTION process.



gregorio said:


> 1. How many of those "most engineers" have an XLR socket and a mic pre-amp implanted in their skull? If your answer is "none", then no engineer can directly listen to mics, an engineer can only listen to mics in combination with at least all of the following: A mic pre-amp, ADC, DAC, amp and monitors/room acoustics (or HPs).
> 1a. ALL professional sound/music engineers would agree that mics sound different. In fact, any engineer who couldn't tell any difference would never get to be a professional engineer in the first place!
> 1b. And that's my whole point! Mic colourations "are in fact audible above all the colourations caused by all that other equipment". The differences between different mics range from inaudible to so blatantly obvious you'd almost need to have a hearing impairment to miss them. With professional music recording we use almost the full range of mic types, which almost always includes at least some mic choices based on extremely subtle differences. How is it possible to differentiate these extremely subtle differences, especially in this case where we've got not just one but two sets of ringing filters (the ADC's anti-alias filter in addition to the DAC's reconstruction filter)? Mic pre-amps (for example) affect mic choice but ADC and DAC filters do not, because in pro ADCs and DACs they are designed to be transparent and are therefore inaudible!
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Oct 17, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> The logical fallacy is in claiming that "all well designed DACs should sound identical; therefore, by definition, any DAC that sounds different is simply not well designed".



I've had dozens of digital players of all kinds and price ranges, from a $40 Walmart DVD player all the way up to an Oppo HA-1.  I've made no attempt to match the sound signature of any of them when I bought them. Yet every single one of them sounds exactly the same, because they are all audibly transparent. They don't alter the signal at all, they just convert it from digital to analogue.

Could you please direct me to a player or DAC that is not audibly transparent, and will sound clearly different and measure clearly differently within the audible range? I've been hearing people talking about these colored DACs. I'd like to actually hear one myself. It would also be useful to make a list of them so people can avoid them.


----------



## KeithEmo

[Just to note that I am NOT presenting this as "scientifically verified data".... you asked - so I respond.]

The most recent DACs that I had the opportunity (and the inclination) to compare directly with any degree of care were:
- a Wyred4Sound DAC2 (the original version; not the later various updated versions)
- one of our Emotiva DC-1 units

The Wyred4Sound unit used the Sabre DAC (I believe an ESS9018; it was their top part when that DAC was designed)...
The Wyred4Sound also offered a choice of five or six different filters (we were using the most normal seeming one).
The DC-1 uses an Analog Devices AD1955 DAC and an AD1896 ASRC (it offers only the DAC's internal filter).
Both were connected to the same digital source... and the levels were matched.
I don't have the specs for either DAC handy, but both certainly have THD, IMD, S/N and frequency response specs that are all "good enough that they should be audibly perfect"
I should also note that I believe the Wyred4Sound uses custom filters rather than the ones included with the Sabre DAC; and one or two of them are apodizing filters that do introduce significant frequency response alterations.
We used one of the ones specified to be flat.
However, if you dig out the manufacturer's data sheets on both DACs, you will see that the impulse responses on their filters are visibly quite different.

There were only two of us present, so there was no opportunity to invite someone else to run the switch.
We had two different amplifiers, a variety of music, and three different sets of speakers, with which to try them (we were auditioning both speakers and the DACs).
The differences were NOT subtle at all.
In fact, we both agreed that the differences were about as obvious as the differences between the various sets of speakers.
(And, no, we did not test both DACs to confirm that both were operating up to spec.)

Of course, NOT HAVING BEEN THERE, feel free to insist that "we must have been imagining what we heard".
Incidentally, in terms of bias, we both expected to notice a slight difference, but were both surprised about the magnitude of the difference.
We agreed that SUBJECTIVELY the difference seemed about equivalent to a boost of about 1.5 dB, centered around 5-7 kHz (on the part of the Sabre DAC).



bigshot said:


> I've had dozens of digital players of all kinds and price ranges, from a $40 Walmart DVD player all the way up to an Oppo HA-1.  I've made no attempt to match the sound signature of any of them when I bought them. Yet every single one of them sounds exactly the same, because they are all audibly transparent. They don't alter the signal at all, they just convert it from digital to analogue.
> 
> Could you please direct me to a player or DAC that is not audibly transparent, and will sound clearly different and measure clearly differently within the audible range? I've been hearing people talking about these colored DACs. I'd like to actually hear one myself. It would also be useful to make a list of them so people can avoid them.





bigshot said:


> I've had dozens of digital players of all kinds and price ranges, from a $40 Walmart DVD player all the way up to an Oppo HA-1.  I've made no attempt to match the sound signature of any of them when I bought them. Yet every single one of them sounds exactly the same, because they are all audibly transparent. They don't alter the signal at all, they just convert it from digital to analogue.
> 
> Could you please direct me to a player or DAC that is not audibly transparent, and will sound clearly different and measure clearly differently within the audible range? I've been hearing people talking about these colored DACs. I'd like to actually hear one myself. It would also be useful to make a list of them so people can avoid them.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Oct 18, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> [Just to note that I am NOT presenting this as "scientifically verified data".... you asked - so I respond.]
> 
> The most recent DACs that I had the opportunity (and the inclination) to compare directly with any degree of care were:
> - a Wyred4Sound DAC2 (the original version; not the later various updated versions)
> ...



Fine, we agree that these were subjective impressions.  Where we disagree is where to go from there.

You seem convinced that given the large subjective difference we should take it as given that the subjective difference has basis in the signal and we should analyze the signal for the cause. *

The rest of us would say, if the subjective difference is as large as you say, you guys should have no difference turning out a statistically significant result in a proper volume matched double blind test.  And given that any factor we theorize / distill from the differences in the DAC signals to be the possible cause would have to be vetted by such DBTs anyway to become scientific facts, you may as well do us the favor of vetting your findings thus before those two devices are to be supplied as raw data for any kind of psychoacoustic analysis...

To those who say DBT isn't sensitive enough, I say, come up with a repeatable, unfalsifiable way of detecting these unconscious differences as *sensed by humans* that *doesn't* simply consist of "let's just forget about not letting the subject know which is which in the first place", and win a Nobel prize.  Now THAT would be pushing forward the state of the art.

*Sorry, I know you said that you don't present your findings as scientific fact--but given the argument that has gone down in the past several pages I consider this response fair game...


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 18, 2018)

In my experience if you can see a difference in the IRs you can usually hear it, too.  As such, I'm not inclined to doubt Keith's result (even though it's more or less anecdotal) - as he's said, why would DAC manufacturers bother building in extra filters if there was no plausible chance that anyone could tell a difference?  Since the consumer won't be dealing with filter selection, they know their audience is audio pros who are going to be doing some amount of serious, if not statistically significant measurement.  If they knew it was just marketing hokum, I think Wolfson would probably stop at 10 or 15 filters, 20 is just overkill 

All that said, a solid, irrefutable DBT (one way or the other) would certainly be a tonic for this forum.


----------



## KeithEmo (Oct 18, 2018)

I'm not _suggesting_ that you go _anywhere_ "from here".
(If you know me well enough to value my judgment, then you should probably _consider_ my claim, and that I _may_ know something you don't... while making up your own mind.)
I was simply answering BigShot's question.

I agree with you.
I think it would be great if someone would sponsor, fund, and carry out a  properly designed, properly executed, and properly scaled, test to determine exactly how many people can hear a difference.
I think it would make a great topic for a college research paper or thesis.
And, if I was still in college, I might actually consider doing it.
I also include "the audibility of high-res vs CD quality music" on my list of such things.

The "bottom line", as usual, is simply that nobody who has the budget to do so has the _inclination_ to do so.
(The main reason that pharmaceutical companies run all those studies, and publish many of the results, is simply that they're_ required_ to, or that they actually expect it to_ increase sales_.)

I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating.....

Doing these sorts of studies properly is expensive and time consuming (and, face it, people will dispute the results anyway).
There simply aren't enough academics or hobbyist audio societies with enough interest and funding to do them properly.
And, quite honestly, as "pure science", there are plenty of other things that people are a lot more interested in - and a lot more willing to fund.

Also, to be quite blunt, there is very little financial incentive for a commercial company to do so.
Remember that companies are in business to do business... and generally not "to advance science".

Let me offer you a very trivial business analysis of the exact claim I offered...

I was comparing a DAC that Emotiva sold for between $500 and $600 for most of its product life to one sold by one of our competitors for about twice that much.
We have no strong incentive to "prove" that our product is audibly better than one costing twice as much; we're quite content if you believe they sound the same (ours is half the price of theirs).
It doesn't benefit us in the least if you buy our DC-1 "because we proved it's better" instead of "because you believe they're both the same and ours is a much better deal".
We have no incentive to pay a lot of money to fund a study showing that ours is better; we've already "won by default".
And, for the folks who are already totally convinced that the other product is better, "sound unheard".... odds are they won't read the study, or won't believe it, anyway - so we gain nothing there.

Now, from their side of the fence, it would only benefit _THEM_ if they could prove that a lot of people find their product clearly and significantly better.
If the study were to prove that nobody heard a difference at all - they "lose on price".
If the study were to prove that people heard a difference, but didn't express a clear preference - they lose on price.
If the study were to prove that people heard a difference, and a few people liked their product _a little bit better -_ they _still_ lose on price (at double the price, a few people finding it "a little bit better" would count as a "loss").
And, finally, if the study were to find that people preferred the sound of our DC-1, yet again, they lose.
Therefore, unless they honestly believe that _ENOUGH_ people will find their product _CLEARLY BETTER_, they also have no incentive to fund a study.
There is simply no way that funding such a study is likely to make them enough profit to justify the cost.
(And they most certainly have no incentive to run a study, and disclose the results, unless they clearly "win".)
It is far more profitable for them to have at least some people assume that their product is better "because it's more expensive" or because they find the logic they use in their advertisements credible.

Therefore, there's very little chance that the study would actually benefit _EITHER_ of our companies in terms of sales.

And, sadly, likewise, funding studies like this doesn't even benefit the audio magazines.
The few remaining magazines these days sell issues by publishing interesting articles, and by encouraging debate and controversy.
If they were to run a totally awesome study, and publish the results, it would sell a lot of issues.... that month.
But, then, what would they have to talk about next month?

Even worse, they have a very strong bias to find differences, whether they exist or not.
Think about it... which would sell more magazines?
1) "After careful study, we've found that all DACs sound the same, so buy whichever one you like." (Now we're all going home since there's nothing more to write on the subject.)
2) "Next month we'll start an extensive story, in ten segments, with tests and opinions by industry experts, about all the exciting differences between DACs.".

This is the same reason why you'll never see a real study about "the audibility of different interconnect cables".....
Because neither the manufacturers of $500 interconnects, nor the makers of $5 interconnects, nor the audio magazines, has a solid financial incentive to sponsor one.



Joe Bloggs said:


> Fine, we agree that these were subjective impressions.  Where we disagree is where to go from there.
> 
> You seem convinced that given the large subjective difference we should take it as given that the subjective difference has basis in the signal and we should analyze the signal for the cause.
> 
> The rest of us would say, if the subjective difference is as large as you say, you guys should have no difference turning out a statistically significant result in a proper volume matched double blind test.  And given that any factor we theorize / distill from the differences in the DAC signals to be the possible cause would have to be vetted by such DBTs anyway to become scientific facts, you may as well do us the favor of vetting your findings thus before those two devices are to be supplied as raw data for any kind of psychoacoustic analysis...


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 18, 2018)

Agree with everything Keith said.  Case in point: Bose is one of the top selling audio manufacturers in the world, if not THE top, by revenue.  They don't even publish meaningful specs for many of their products, let alone fund (public*) studies to quantify the audibility of things.

I think the only hope of advancing this debate materially is for a bunch of hobbyists to get together and run a Kickstarter, and use the money to hire some PhD students to run a proper study.  You'll probably want at least 100 people off the street all paid about $200 each (say for a half day spent in a lab listening to stuff), plus another $50K or so for the equipment and another $50K or so to pay the scientists.  I think this is certainly achievable, much dumber things have raised more money.

Maybe this *exact* thing is not the *only* hope, but waiting for audio companies or publications to do it, and grousing about it on the internet, are not going to change anything.  Conducting a proper DBT test is a ton of work.  It took me an entire day to conduct a (not proper at all, really shaky) DBT test of some whiskey once.  The test cost hundreds of dollars and about a dozen people were involved.  It took a week to plan.  It took hours to conduct.  And this was just for fun!  Imagine what's involved when you actually need statistical significance about something that's hard to notice, and people actually give a crap about the results!

*I am sure Bose does some amount of research on what works and doesn't in acoustics and digital audio... they just aren't sharing.

NB: The winning bourbon was Corner Creek.  Very Old Barton 100 also was a surprise favorite.  Everyone agreed that after 6 or so 1/4oz portions, it was very hard to tell the difference between anything.


----------



## KeithEmo

A Kickstarter project just might work.... and it might be interesting to try.

Just an aside....

This whole discussion reminds me of a somewhat parallel situation (involving entirely different things).

There's a place called Oak Island (I forget where it is located; I think off Nova Scotia) - where there is widely believed to be a significant amount of buried pirate treasure..
Essentially, on this small island, there is a big hole.....
It's a pit something like a hundred feet deep... and full of water... and assorted debris.
The story started when someone found a hint that there was pirate treasure buried at this particular spot.
They financed a "dig", and found some suggestive stuff (heavy old wood platforms buried every ten feet as you go down).
Eventually, when they thought they were getting close, the hole flooded and partly collapsed.
It was later determined that sea water was filling the hole... and it was widely believed that "ancient pirates had dug water tunnels as booby traps".
Since then, several different people and groups have purchased the island, and attempted to dig out the treasure.
The hole has been excavated several times, has collapsed multiple times, and several people have died in the attempt over the years.
There have been lots of books written about Oak Island, and TV specials, and even several SEASONS of a TV show called "The Curse of Oak Island".
A few drill shafts have been sunk... one or two of which have retrieved small gold items (really small).

The bottom line, and my point, is that I have little doubt that a well financed operation could easily dig out the hole and settle the "mystery".
However, there is only believed to be something like ten million dollars worth of treasure down there.
And, to put it bluntly, while that sounds like a lot to a guy with a shovel, it isn't anywhere near enough to justify a full scale underwater mining excavation.
In fact, it's clear that, over the years, FAR more money has been spent, and made, on books, TV specials, TV shows, and mystery tours than the treasure could POSSIBLY be worth.
In other words, the "mystery" is worth FAR more than the solution could ever possibly be.
And actually SOLVING the mystery would collapse an entire cottage industry.

I believe that to be the case here.

Face it, if someone were to do an extensive study, and prove beyond any doubt that no living human could tell the difference between fifty popular DACs...
It would NOT convince people who believe otherwise...
And someone will always find some flaw in the test methodology (of claim the test was "fixed")...
And it would NOT stop a company introducing a new DAC next year, after the study was completed, and claiming that "finally, this time, this one actually sounds different"...
At best, with luck, if a study were to find that there clearly are audible differences, it would advance the science, and provide "something new to work on"....
(But, based on the number of products that come to market every year anyway, claimed to solve perceived issues that already exist, this would be of limited "commercial value".) 
Therefore, it seems to me something like a Kickstarter campaign is virtually the only way such a study will ever actually happen.



Zapp_Fan said:


> Agree with everything Keith said.  Case in point: Bose is one of the top selling audio manufacturers in the world, if not THE top, by revenue.  They don't even publish meaningful specs for many of their products, let alone fund (public*) studies to quantify the audibility of things.
> 
> I think the only hope of advancing this debate materially is for a bunch of hobbyists to get together and run a Kickstarter, and use the money to hire some PhD students to run a proper study.  You'll probably want at least 100 people off the street all paid about $200 each (say for a half day spent in a lab listening to stuff), plus another $50K or so for the equipment and another $50K or so to pay the scientists.  I think this is certainly achievable, much dumber things have raised more money.
> 
> ...


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> A Kickstarter project just might work.... and it might be interesting to try.
> 
> Just an aside....
> 
> ...



Why don't people start by sampling the DACs' output and compare them?


----------



## bigshot

Zapp_Fan said:


> All that said, a solid, irrefutable DBT (one way or the other) would certainly be a tonic for this forum.



You're talking about a mythical beast there... Even if someone did a solid test, it wouldn't be irrefutable. You've been around Sound Science long enough to know the drill.... Someone does a test and reports back to us on it. If someone doesn't like the results, they question the testing methodology. The discussion shifts from the results to proper testing procedures, the difficulties in doing "proper" double blind tests, complex mathematics regarding probability, then the conversation isn't about sound quality any more and everyone gets bored and moves on. In a week or two, the same misconceptions raise their head again and the cycle begins again.

In order for proof to be convincing, a person has to be capable of being convinced. THAT'S the problem here, not the testing methodology.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> You're talking about a mythical beast there... Even if someone did a solid test, it wouldn't be irrefutable. You've been around Sound Science long enough to know the drill.... Someone does a test and reports back to us on it. If someone doesn't like the results, they question the testing methodology. The discussion shifts from the results to proper testing procedures, the difficulties in doing "proper" double blind tests, complex mathematics regarding probability, then the conversation isn't about sound quality any more and everyone gets bored and moves on. In a week or two, the same misconceptions raise their head again and the cycle begins again.
> 
> In order for proof to be convincing, a person has to be capable of being convinced. THAT'S the problem here, not the testing methodology.



Sure, "irrefutable" doesn't exist, and that's not limited to audio either.  Maybe a better word would be "unambiguous".  I think that's something we can realistically hope for.  People may invent their own ambiguity, but if the results themselves don't suggest it, that would be a victory.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Arpiben said:


> Why don't people start by sampling the DACs' output and compare them?



Even that requires more resources than the average consumer has.  In order to compare 2 DACs, you need an ADC which is known to have a great deal better performance than the devices being tested, probably a lot more expensive.  Most people don't go out and buy $5K ADCs to test $500 DACs, and nobody who DOES have that equipment has the inclination to do such a test, as Keith has outlined.


----------



## KeithEmo

They have.... that's what _ALL_ of the various measurements and graphs are... but we've gone way beyond that.
Most DACs are similar in a number of ways... and different in a number of ways... to varying degrees.
If you were hoping to see that "they all measure exactly the same" then you're destined to be disappointed.
Nobody is suggesting that all DACs "measure the same in every measurable way"; _NOBODY_ is disputing that the outputs are in fact different.
The disagreement is about whether _SPECIFIC_ differences are _AUDIBLE_ or not.

There are many different ways of "sampling" or "measuring" something.

A "frequency response specification number" is one way of measuring frequency response...
An actual graph of the frequency response as a plot of amplitude vs frequency is another.
A frequency spectrum plot is yet another.
And each of those particular methods tells us certain things very clearly; and totally obscures other things.

Likewise, S/N is a nice simple metric for "how noisy something is"...
But actually plotting the noise_ SPECTRUM_ is more accurate, and more informative...
And something with a lot of noise at 60 Hz is going to sound very different than something with a lot of noise at 5 kHz.
It is common established practice to make audio devices and systems sound audibly quieter by "shifting the noise spectrum to frequency ranges we are less sensitive to".

And, likewise, there are several different ways of measuring ringing and impulse response...
One is the popular "impulse response graph"...
Another is to plot the output spectrum over time after applying an impulse signal as the input...
Another would be to describe the frequency at which the output rings, and the time it takes for the amplitude of the ringing to drop by 60 dB...
Or you might describe the ringing frequency and then specify how many cycles of ringing occur after the input signal stops... (until it is "no longer visible on an oscilloscope").

Here's a link to the data sheet for the Wolfson 8741 DAC chip:
https://www.mouser.com/ds/2/76/WM8741_v4.3-1141934.pdf

You will see that several pages are dedicated to "looking at the sampled output" in various ways when various configuration options are chosen.
You will see that they provided frequency response graphs and numbers for each of the filter choices... and all of them are different.
They also provided numerical data for many of what they consider to be the important specifications.
You will also note that all of their measurements were performed under specific conditions, and using specific test signals... so, if you measure them differently, odds are you'll get different results.
And Wolfson chose not to include the oscilloscope images of impulse response that other folks like to examine.
And, of course, these are all measurements of the chip itself... and the output of a complete DAC product is also determined by all of the associated circuitry connected to it.
(You can feel free to sample and measure them all yourself... but I doubt you'll catch Wolfson out on anything important.)

If you look at that data sheet...  I'll refer you to page 54.
Compare figures #30 and #31 to figures #32 and #33.
They show the output amplitude responses of two different filter choices.
Would you expect to be able to hear a difference between them or not?
If so, which one would you expect to sound better, or more accurate?
(See.... it's not as simple as many people think.)





Arpiben said:


> Why don't people start by sampling the DACs' output and compare them?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 18, 2018)

Great! Now there's something to work with! I'm going to cut out the stuff where you try to figure out the reasons why there is a difference because that needs to be determined. Excuse me if I reorganize your quote a little bit.



KeithEmo said:


> The most recent DACs that I had the opportunity to compare directly with any degree of care were:
> 
> - a Wyred4Sound DAC2 (the original version; not the later various updated versions)
> - one of our Emotiva DC-1 units.
> ...



OK. We will assume that your testing procedures were good enough to give an accurate result. You understand the process of setting up a listening test, and you have a proven record of fairness here that makes that assumption not a huge leap.

My first question is, which one of these DACs do you suspect is transparent, and which one do you think is colored? Have you compared either of them to other DACs and found them to sound the same?

The question of published specs and independent measurements (if they exist) is the next thing to look into. A 1.5dB difference should be clearly measurable. The fact that it is up in the 5-7kHz range (an area that isn't a core range of hearing or an important range in recorded music) means that if it sounds like 1.5dB, it is likely a bit more than that. In that range, it would take a significant boost to be significant. That would be the top end of a snare drum and planted squarely on cymbals. That range be a likely suspect for a manufacturer trying to goose the response to make their product stand out as "brighter/sharper" sounding without dragging in shrillness. That is worth checking out if it is true.

I'm getting ready for work right now so I don't have time, but when I get a spare moment, I'll google up the published specs and any measurements I can find. We'll see if the boost you're talking about shows up in the specs. If this exists, it should be measurable. Once we figure that out, we can go to the next question.

Thanks for something specific to chase down!


----------



## Arpiben

Zapp_Fan said:


> Even that requires more resources than the average consumer has.  In order to compare 2 DACs, you need an ADC which is known to have a great deal better performance than the devices being tested, probably a lot more expensive.  Most people don't go out and buy $5K ADCs to test $500 DACs, and nobody who DOES have that equipment has the inclination to do such a test, as Keith has outlined.



Then consider myself as an exception .


----------



## bigshot

Zapp_Fan said:


> Most people don't go out and buy $5K ADCs to test $500 DACs



In my comparisons, I haven't found any correlation between price and audible performance, at least when it comes to solid state electronics.


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> They have.... that's what _ALL_ of the various measurements and graphs are... but we've gone way beyond that.
> Most DACs are similar in a number of ways... and different in a number of ways... to varying degrees.
> If you were hoping to see that "they all measure exactly the same" then you're destined to be disappointed.
> Nobody is suggesting that all DACs "measure the same in every measurable way"; _NOBODY_ is disputing that the outputs are in fact different.
> ...



Rather than looking at a theoretical filter simulation I do prefer looking at the DAC output in its environment.
With proper samples you retrieve whatever you want spectrum,phase,etc..
With samples and a proper decimation you can also simply compare input and output, subtract and check for audibility levels.
I do not have your experience in audio. I started building digital filters and looking at my DAC output for my own curiosity.
I am lucky to have good instrumentation available at work. I am lucky to understand measurements. Time is another issue.
Correlating data is not simple as we both already mentioned.
But dealing with your anecdotal case an output DAC measurement would have shown your frequency boost much more convincingly than any words.


----------



## KeithEmo

First of all, as I stated earlier in the text, both DACs actually have very flat frequency response - according to spec.
I can vouch for the fact that the Emotiva DC-1 actually is flat within a small fraction of a dB (we build them, and we test a lot of them, they all pass that spec just fine).
Also, as far as I know, Wyred4Sound is a very "reputable" company... so I suspect that the DAC2 is also measurably as flat as they claim it is.
(I've also seen several reviews on various Wyred4Sound products, and they generally do meet their published specs.)
I wish I'd had an opportunity to confirm that on both - but I suspect that it would be confirmed that both really were quite flat.

You'll note that I specifically said that what I heard was "a difference that SUBJECTIVELY SOUNDED AS IF THERE WAS A BOOST OVER THAT RANGE OF FREQUENCIES".
I strongly suspect that, if you were to confirm the measurements, you would find that the frequency response on both is virtually identical, and the difference lies elsewhere.

And, in terms of grouping, I have found that many DACs that use various Sabre DAC chips sound this way to me...
While other brands of DAC chips sound more natural to me, and sound more similar to each other.

My theory, which is that it is due to differences in the impulse response of the filters, is based on two things.

First, there is plenty of precedent for similar effects in other areas that also involve perception.
For example, if you have used Photoshop, or any similar image editor... and, more specifically, used the very popular "Unsharp Mask" sharpening feature.
This feature is used to make images APPEAR PERCEPTUALLY TO BE SHARPER... and virtually everyone agrees that, when images are "processed" with it, they APPEAR to be much sharper.
This is quite similar to the way the "sharpness" feature on many TVs works... although some modern ones involve more complex processing.
In actual fact, what it does is to detect borders between different colors or brightness levels, and create artificial "halos" at the boundary between them.
So, for example, if a light object borders on a dark one, a light halo is added at the edge of the bright object, and a dark halo is added at the edge of the dark object.
This artificially boosts the local contrast between the edges where they touch.
The result is a sort of optical illusion that, to humans, makes it APPEAR as if the edges and details are sharper.
In fact, the actual sharpness or focus of the image remains unaffected; it only "appears" to have become sharper.
It makes sense that a similar effect might work for the "edges" of audible details as well... making them "stand out more sharply".
(This is similar to what I perceive when I turn up the range of frequencies between 5 and 7 kHz - details seem to be exaggerated.)

Second, I have noticed this difference very often specifically with Sabre DACs (ESS)... and many other people characterize many products using Sabre DACs as sounding "grainy or etched".
To me, this sounds very much like a description of the audible equivalent of how images sharpened using unsharp mask appear visually.
If the process is over applied, images look "over sharpened", and almost as if the edges of individual objects have been "etched into the surface".
And, in their early product literature, ESS actually described, as part of their design process, "organizing focus groups to decide which filter parameters appealed to the most people".
In short, they basically said that, rather than design for the greatest accuracy, they based their design on "customer preference".

And, based on my somewhat extensive experience, while not everyone claims to hear a difference between Sabre DACs and other brands...
The majority of people who do claim to notice a difference tend to describe it the same way.
Those who dislike them say that "the Sabre DAC sounds grainy or etched compared to the other one".
Those that like them say that "the Sabre DAC sounds more detailed".
To me, these seem likely to be descriptions of the same phenomenon, differing in whether they are viewed as being positive or negative.

In other words, I do not believe that Sabre "gooses" the frequency response in the upper treble...
I believe they "goose" their filters is such a way that they cause "the audible boundaries" at the edge of impulses and other high frequency sounds to seem clearer and more prominent.
And, to me, with my human ears, this produces the same "perceived difference" as I would get by boosting that frequency range. 
And, because this phenomenon only affects the edges of transients, it does not show up on steady state frequency response measurements.
(Much as applying Unsharp Masking doesn't technically alter the overall brightness of an image.)

And, yes, this should be something that can be determined scientifically with relative ease...
Compare the impulse response of various DACs...
Ask a large sample of people to listen to several DACs and describe how they characterize the sound...
See if there is a correlation between certain types of filter responses and certain descriptions...
(Perhaps I'm wrong, and the filter response won't correlate well at all, but some other characteristic will..... )



bigshot said:


> Great! Now there's something to work with! I'm going to cut out the stuff where you try to figure out the reasons why there is a difference because that needs to be determined. Excuse me if I reorganize your quote a little bit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Arpiben said:


> Then consider myself as an exception .



I am glad there are at least some exceptions to this rule. 

As far as Keith's theorization of what might be causing the apparent treble boost... that's not even necessarily getting into dynamic / nonlinear effects, which won't really show up in an IR anyway, and might not show up in a typical THD result either. 

For example, if I was mixing a track, and I wanted to add this effect to sound on purpose, I would add a volume-gated distortion plugin and filter the output and maybe the input.  Or I might throw an expander on the input.  Anyway, you could definitely get this subjective brightness, and hide it from all normal measurements.  So as far as that goes, I totally agree with Keith that it is conceivable to have audible differences that are difficult or impossible to detect with standard measurements.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> We have no strong incentive to "prove" that our product is audibly better than one costing twice as much; we're quite content if you believe they sound the same (ours is half the price of theirs).
> It doesn't benefit us in the least if you buy our DC-1 "because we proved it's better" instead of "because you believe they're both the same and ours is a much better deal".
> We have no incentive to pay a lot of money to fund a study showing that ours is better; we've already "won by default".
> And, for the folks who are already totally convinced that the other product is better, "sound unheard".... odds are they won't read the study, or won't believe it, anyway - so we gain nothing there.
> ...



Nonsense.

If an(y) audio company's product can do what they claim it can do, then scientifically valid verification of that fact can only help that company and lend credibility to their product, increasing its perceived value, and thus its demand.

On the other hand, if the product is high priced snake oil, you're absolutely right about it not being in their interest to reveal that to potential customers.


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Oct 18, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> And, based on my somewhat extensive experience, while not everyone claims to hear a difference between Sabre DACs and other brands...
> The majority of people who do claim to notice a difference tend to describe it the same way.
> Those who dislike them say that "the Sabre DAC sounds grainy or etched compared to the other one".
> Those that like them say that "the Sabre DAC sounds more detailed".
> To me, these seem likely to be descriptions of the same phenomenon, differing in whether they are viewed as being positive or negative.



To me, based on _my _somewhat extensive experience, that sounds exactly like cognitive biases at play. What you've seen is justification to develop a research hypothesis to begin testing, not to reach any sort of conclusion yet unjustified by systematic, repeatable research.


----------



## sonitus mirus (Oct 18, 2018)

Jaywalk3r said:


> To me, based on _my _somewhat extensive experience, that sounds exactly like cognitive biases at play. What you've seen is justification to develop a research hypothesis to begin testing, not to reach any sort of conclusion yet unjustified by systematic, repeatable research.



This is how it works, apparently. 

DACs can use filters that measure differently.  People can listen to different DACs and make sighted, unverifiable decisions that one sounds different from another.  Since DACs can measure differently, and subjective listening tests with no rudimentary validations implemented find preferences, we should correlate the different DAC measurements with these sighted evaluations.  If cognitive biases are mentioned, you can be sure that a post will soon be made regarding how hearing perception is not fully understood and we can't possibly attempt to verify that a difference is actually being detected.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Oct 19, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> First of all, as I stated earlier in the text, both DACs actually have very flat frequency response - according to spec.
> I can vouch for the fact that the Emotiva DC-1 actually is flat within a small fraction of a dB (we build them, and we test a lot of them, they all pass that spec just fine).
> Also, as far as I know, Wyred4Sound is a very "reputable" company... so I suspect that the DAC2 is also measurably as flat as they claim it is.
> (I've also seen several reviews on various Wyred4Sound products, and they generally do meet their published specs.)
> ...



While you claim to be very experienced in signal processing, the way in which you characterize the examples you give make me feel less than confident about your credentials.

The Unsharp Mask emphasizes high spatial frequencies compared to low spatial frequencies much like a treble knob for audio.  This "only creates sharpening halos" only if the transfer function of the lens/camera/eye combination already recorded all spatial frequencies in equal proportion, in which case the USM filter was extraneous in the first place (e.g. note how the sharpness control rapidly fell out of favor on monitors with the transition from CRT to LCD...).  It is also extraneous if the frequencies it attempts to boost were totally wiped out by the combination transfer function, in which case there wouldn't be halos but rather pretty much no perceived change.  When applied correctly USM compensates for a drop in high frequency response of the lens/camera/eye combination much like an equalizer.



> Second, I have noticed this difference very often specifically with Sabre DACs (ESS)... and many other people characterize many products using Sabre DACs as sounding "grainy or etched".
> To me, this sounds very much like a description of the audible equivalent of how images sharpened using unsharp mask appear visually.



That does not give credence to the theory that sound can appear high-boosted without actually being high-boosted... because as noted above USM is actually analogous to totally un-mysterious equalization of audio frequencies...


----------



## bigshot (Oct 19, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> First of all, as I stated earlier in the text, both DACs actually have very flat frequency response - according to spec.



I'm not looking for the "why" of it yet. I'm skipping over that part. We'll get to the "why" of it later. I'm also not going to consider the reputation of the company. That is irrelevant to what we are doing here.

I'm looking for verification of the difference you heard. If there is a boost of at least 1.5dB between 5 and 7kHz which was your estimation of the difference, that would be reflected in the response. (If this isn't an accurate description of the difference, perhaps you can elaborate on what you heard better so we can understand better.) Distortion can be tested for as well. If the difference isn't reflected in the specs, either 1) the specs on one or both of the DACs is fudged/incomplete or 2) the particular DAC you compared was performing out of spec. I suppose there could be some magical thing that can be heard but not measured, but that would be something to consider much further down the road after we've eliminated all the other possibilities. I have been swamped at the studio this week. I'll google specs and bring them back to this thread when I get a chance. Clearly audible should be easily measured.

I'm not keen to go out and buy two DACs to test this myself. I'm not made of money unfortunately! Do you have access to a way of transparently capturing the outputs of the DACs to a digital file? That would be the easiest way to distribute the files to all of us so we can see and hear exactly what we are talking about. Maybe even set up a null test to isolate the difference clearly. Or perhaps someone here with testing equipment will be able to verify specs on one of your DACs that is loaned for testing.

There's an order to what I'm doing here...

1) observation
2) verification
3) quantification / measurement
4) hypothesis
5) testing hypothesis

We are on step 2. We shouldn't jump ahead of ourselves. Let's think of a way to verify what you heard. It's clearly audible, so that shouldn't be difficult. Does that make sense?

By the way, I didn't see an answer to this question.... Which one of these DACs do you suspect is transparent, and which one do you think is colored? Have you compared either of them to other DACs and found them to sound the same? Obviously one has to be colored, because if both were transparent, they would both sound the same.


----------



## KeithEmo

You're right... to a point.

First off, if a company sells a comparatively expensive product, it only benefits them to prove that it is SIGNIFICANTLY better than products costing less.
(Proving that a product that costs a lot more is a tiny bit better, or that only a small percentage of customers find it better, can actually count against it.)

Second of all, you might be surprised how many people don't look at performance as an important feature at all.
(When you purchased your last car did you buy the one that got the best mileage?)
And, for that matter, if you REALLY believe that "all DACs sound the same", then you probably don't bother to look at the specs at all.
(If you REALLY believe that THD below 0.1% is inaudible, then who cares if your next DAC has a THD of 0.003% or 0.1%?)

The reality is that the majority of people who purchase audio equipment won't care what the outcome of any study is.
SOME already "know" that THD below 0.5% is inaudible, so they're not going to believe any results our study might find.
Others are "subjectivists", so they're equally certain that the specs aren't important at all.
Others will purchase the DAC that their favorite reviewer says sounds the best.
Others will buy the one that looks the fanciest, or that fits in their rack the best, or that matches their other equipment.
Many will audition it with the rest of their system... and, in essence, try to find one that does the best job of cancelling out other flaws.
(if their speakers are bright they'll look for a dull sounding DAC, and, if their speakers are a bit muddy, they'll look for a bright DAC "which has the best synergy with their system".)
And, of course, most non-audiophiles will simply end up buying the one that shows up first on their search on Amazon or Google that fits their general price range.

In fact, the marketing departments in most companies will all tell you that a nice full page ad, or a good review, are FAR more important to sales than actual performance.

I'll bet you spend a LOT more on canned food every year than you spend on audio equipment.
So, when did you perform a properly conduted ABX double blind test on canned peas?
And, have you actually READ a lot of reviews to determine the best-tasting TV dinners?
And, for that matter, have you ever actually measured your gas mileage to see if your car gets better mileage with Premiun than with Regular.
(If not, then you may be buying Premium that's "just high-priced snake oil" or you may be seriously handicapping your car's performance by using inferior Regular.)

Most all selling, and especially when it comes to nonessentials like cars and audio equipment, is based almost entirely on emotion and bias.
Read ANY good book on "how to sell cars".
They will tell you that specs and features DO NOT sell cars.
The way to sell a car is to convince the customer to want it; then steer him or her away from anything that might prevent him from buying it.
That's why so many car commericals show a pretty girl sitting in that sports car.. they're vaguely promising that, if you buy their car, pretty girls like that will want to ride with you.
And, notice how the obnoxious kids all suddenly behave like little angels when they jump into that new SUV they're pushing on that commerical.
It's all a not-very-veiled message that "if you buy this car that could be YOU".
Then, ONCE THEY WANT THE CAR, you provide the information they may need to justify the decision they've already made.
And, as long as none of the specs are so bad that they "disqualify" the choice, they're going to buy it.
The specs aren't used to MAKE the choice; they're used to RATIONALIZE the choice after it's already been made.
Those impresssive specs are there to convince you that you've already made a great choice... and to impress your friends.



Jaywalk3r said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> If an(y) audio company's product can do what they claim it can do, then scientifically valid verification of that fact can only help that company and lend credibility to their product, increasing its perceived value, and thus its demand.
> 
> On the other hand, if the product is high priced snake oil, you're absolutely right about it not being in their interest to reveal that to potential customers.


----------



## KeithEmo (Oct 19, 2018)

First of all, as far as I can tell, you still haven't actually read what I wrote.
I said that, since the manufacturer claims to have a flat frequency response, and reviews seem to confirm this, I doubt that there will be an anomaly in the frequency response.
(It couldn't hurt to run a test to confirm this and, if we find it, then the test is effectively over.)

So, as is the case with anything that affects PERCEPTION, but you don't know the exact cause...
The first thing to do would be to confirm that it is there... using human perception as your test.
So, in this case, a double-blind test using a significant number of test subjects would be appropriate.
I'm also going to assume that we're going to SPECIFICALLY test my assertion that this difference is between products using Sabre DAC chips and other brands.

Therefore, a good starting point would be to secure several products that use: Sabre DACs, Analog Devices DACs, Burr Brown DACs, and Wolfson DACs.
Five samples of each seems like a reasonable sample.... in a variety of price ranges.

We will then allow a group of fifty or so listeners to listen to all of them (fully blind).
We could use specially chosen musical content, or allow each listener to bring their own, or some combination of both... each methdology has advantages and disadvantages.

We can then:
1) Determine how many people can actually hear a difference between the products.
2) Ask them to CHARACTERIZE the difference they hear (if any).

If it turns out that the descriptions have no significant correlation, then I must be mistaken, and the study is over.
However, if it turns out that the majority are able to differentiate between the different brands, we will have proven that they sound different.
At that point we can move on to analyzing the specific differences they hear.

My hypothesis, based on my experience and observations, is that a statistically significant majority will describe the Sabre DACs as "highly detailed", or "bright", or "etched"...
And that a statistically significant majority will describe the other brands as sounding more similar to each other, and "more neutral" or "less detailed" than the Sabre DACs.

Obviously, if we FAIL to confirm my hypothesis, then we've finished.
However, if we confirm it, then we move on to Part 2 - attempting to correlate the percieved difference with something specific.

At this point we can either simply test my secondary hypothesis - whcih is that it is filter impulse response that will correlate with the audible differences.
Or we can move directly to measuring that and a dozen other parameters (perhaps frequency ripple, phase ripple, THD, IMD, impulse response, and a few others).
(Obviously it's going to be easier to test for individual correlations one at a time.)

For a reasonably "representative study" I would suggest five each of DACs using four different brands of DAC chips (ESS SAbre, Burr Brown, Analod Devices, and Wolfson or AKM).
(I would suggest five different ones of each at five different price ranges - just for inclusivity.)
I would say forty or fifty test subjects would be sufficient.
I would suggest a good selection of well-recorded music samples, at both CD and higher resolution, be provides...
I would ALSO encourage listeners to bring their own samples...
And we need some sort of mechanism to allow all DACs to be assigned a number and switched "blindly".
I would suggest that, for each listener, the numbers be randomly assigned to the DACs, but the listener then allowed to listen in any order.
I see no reason to limit the time listeners have, or to prevent them from repeating selections if they like.

There is no way to do this sort of test accurately using recordings or captured samples.
The reason is that you haven no way to capture the samples accurately enough to ensure that your recorded samples contain the information you need.
When measuring THD, if you want reasonable accuracy, it is commonly accepted that your test gear must have 5x to 10x LOWER THD than what you're measuring.
A similar standard is typically applied to other forms of measurements.
If you're comparing DAC filters, then the ADC you use to capture samples would have to be KNOWN to be far more accurate than any of the devices under test.
Since the filters used in commercial ADCs are of similar quality to those used in commercial DACs, they clearly do NOT meet this requirement.

It would be easy to null or subtract the outputs, and so "extract" the differences.....
But that won't tell us how audible they are or are not when combined with actual musical content.

Likewise, while you can analyze the samples you gather using a computer, there is no issue with the "accuracy" when you do so.
However, if you hope to have humans listen to those samples, they must be presented on gear that is FAR more accurate than the gear you're trying to test.
(This is the ONLY way to ensure that any differences in the samples are presented accurately, and no edditional differences are introduced, and no existing ones obscured.)

Note that all of these issues can be avoided quite nicely by simply doing the test in person.

Incidentally, just for the record, I would be very surprised if there's anything "magical" involved, or anything that cannot be measured.
However, I suspect that it will be something OTHER THAN frequency response, or steady state THD or IMD, that accounts for it.
(As I've said, I suspect it will turn out to be differences in filter impulse response, but there are plenty of other possibilities.)

And, since you asked, I no longer own the Wyred4Sound DAC (I sold it soon after the comparison I mentioned).
And, no, I have NEVER owned an ADC of sufficient accuracy to capture samples at the necessary level of accuracy.

Of course, if you just want to test the INDIVIDUAL case, and simply want to establish that a percieved difference really exist (or not), then simply doing a double-blind test with a sufficient number of subjects should be sufficient.

QUOTE="bigshot, post: 14548222, member: 17990"]I'm not looking for the "why" of it yet. I'm skipping over that part. We'll get to the "why" of it later. I'm also not going to consider the reputation of the company. That is irrelevant to what we are doing here.

I'm looking for verification of the difference you heard. If there is a boost of at least 1.5dB between 5 and 7kHz which was your estimation of the difference, that would be reflected in the response. (If this isn't an accurate description of the difference, perhaps you can elaborate on what you heard better so we can understand better.) Distortion can be tested for as well. If the difference isn't reflected in the specs, either 1) the specs on one or both of the DACs is fudged/incomplete or 2) the particular DAC you compared was performing out of spec. I suppose there could be some magical thing that can be heard but not measured, but that would be something to consider much further down the road after we've eliminated all the other possibilities. I have been swamped at the studio this week. I'll google specs and bring them back to this thread when I get a chance. Clearly audible should be easily measured.

I'm not keen to go out and buy two DACs to test this myself. I'm not made of money unfortunately! Do you have access to a way of transparently capturing the outputs of the DACs to a digital file? That would be the easiest way to distribute the files to all of us so we can see and hear exactly what we are talking about. Maybe even set up a null test to isolate the difference clearly. Or perhaps someone here with testing equipment will be able to verify specs on one of your DACs that is loaned for testing.

There's an order to what I'm doing here...

1) observation
2) verification
3) quantification / measurement
4) hypothesis
5) testing hypothesis

We are on step 2. We shouldn't jump ahead of ourselves. Let's think of a way to verify what you heard. It's clearly audible, so that shouldn't be difficult. Does that make sense?

By the way, I didn't see an answer to this question.... Which one of these DACs do you suspect is transparent, and which one do you think is colored? Have you compared either of them to other DACs and found them to sound the same? Obviously one has to be colored, because if both were transparent, they would both sound the same.[/QUOTE]


----------



## bigshot (Oct 19, 2018)

The reason I don't read all of your posts is because you keep drifting into proving your preconceived point instead of answering my specific questions.

We're all busy people here. Let's focus and be concise and to the point.

We are trying to verify what you heard. How can we do that? Here are some suggested ways. Feel free to suggest more ways to verify it if you can think of more.

1) Checking the specs
2) Capturing samples of both for comparison using measurements and null test.
3) Sending two physical DACs out to a bunch of people and overseeing to make sure all the comparison tests are properly conducted.

I don't think any of us have the ability to do 3. We can do 1 and 2. I'll google up 1. You say it won't show the difference. OK. Then we will have to move on to 2. Can you help us capture samples that exhibit the clear difference? You have access to the two DACs. Do you have access to a good capture device? It's not a subtle difference and it's clearly audible, so it should be able to be captured. If it isn't able to be captured by a device capable of capturing transparently, how can it be clearly audible? (Remember when answering that question not to assume the conclusion by trying to explain why it might not be able to be captured. We haven't verified that there is a difference yet.)

I suppose we could try to get just one verification from someone in the group who is trusted to know how to conduct a proper ABX test and perhaps do measurements. Would you be willing to send the two DACs to someone to do their own listening test/measurements?

If this is purely a subjective perceptual response, then we don't need to go any further because a subjective response that you have probably doesn't mean that other people will have the same subjective perceptual response. The reason you applied the controls to your test (level matching, blind comparison, direct A/B switching, etc.) was to eliminate the possibility of subjective perceptual bias affecting the test. So that brings us back to the effectiveness of your controls, which I gave you the benefit of the doubt with in the beginning.

One last question... My Oppo HA-1 has a Sabre Reference ES9018 DAC in it. My Mac and iPods don't. I've done a direct controlled comparison of those myself and I didn't hear any difference. Should I have?


----------



## KeithEmo

Strictly speaking that is incorrect...

The original version of USM was done optically, by superimposing a negative image that was slightly blurred over the original, and optically summing them, so it literally applied a halo only at edges of high contrast... (At low contrast edges, while the falloff profile of the edge may be affected, it won't be boosted or cut enough to appear as an actual halo. Apparently, while changing the dropoff profile may be slightly visible, only an actual halo produces a distinct illusion of artificially added sharpness.) The blurring applied to the "mask image" is where the term "unsharp masking" comes from.

Modern digital versions produce a similar effect by signal processing, but virtually all of them apply the effect ONLY TO EDGES, after using some method to avoid applying it to "non-edges". Therefore, if you want a more correct analogy, they act more like a dynamic processing equalizer, which is applied unequally and whose effect varies with time and the specific characteristics of the signal it is applied to.

On a typical DAC...
- If you pass a continuous sine wave of fixed frequency through them there will be no measurable effect.
- If you pass a variety of frequencies, like a frequency sweep, the filters will have a minor effect on the overall frequency response (outside of its intended range).
- But, if you apply a TRANSIENT signal, then the filter will introduce ringing, which will vary greatly depending on the specific filter parameters used.
(For example, if you play a five second burst of a sine wave, the central portion will be virtually unaffected, but ringing will be introduced that extends PAST THE ENDS of the signal.)

Therefore, if you look at the effect in relation to time, it will have no effect on steady state sine waves.
And will have an effect that is greatest at and near the edges of CHANGES in the signal.

Incidentally, in modern high quality cameras, there is rarely a significant "drop in high frequency response". Typically, in most high quality modern cameras I've used, the effect you're compensating for is "pixel uncertainty". (If a sharp boundary between black and white falls in the center of a camera pixel, that pixel will be recorded as grey. Applying a USM to that image does NOT restore the original resolution, which was never recorded. There's no way, after the fact, to determine whether that grey pixel "should have been half black and half white" rather than being a grey pixel. Rather, the "sharpening effect" creates an optical illusion of "enhanced sharpness" which "perceptually compensates" for the lack of real resolution. The picture is "made to appear sharper" - whether it was originally that way or not.)



Joe Bloggs said:


> While you claim to be very experienced in signal processing, the way in which you characterize the examples you give make me feel less than confident about your credentials.
> 
> The Unsharp Mask emphasizes high spatial frequencies compared to low spatial frequencies much like a treble knob for audio.  This "only creates sharpening halos" only if the transfer function of the lens/camera/eye combination already recorded all spatial frequencies in equal proportion, in which case the USM filter was extraneous in the first place (e.g. note how the sharpness control rapidly fell out of favor on monitors with the transition from CRT to LCD...).  It is also extraneous if the frequencies it attempts to boost were totally wiped out by the combination transfer function, in which case there wouldn't be halos but rather pretty much no perceived change.  When applied correctly USM compensates for a drop in high frequency response of the lens/camera/eye combination much like an equalizer.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Oct 19, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> In fact, the marketing departments in most companies will all tell you that a nice full page ad, or a good review, are FAR more important to sales than actual performance.



A fact often exploited by snake-oil salesman. Audiophiles are, collectively, a pretty gullible bunch.

When it comes to high-end audio, snake-oil is the null hypothesis.

And no, if I can plug some high sensitivity, low impedance IEMs into a DAP, pause the music, set the gain to high and crank up the volume, and hear no noise, I don't care that the THD is 0.1% instead of 0.0003%. Sure, the difference is significant, but the effect isn't of a meaningful magnitude. Research suggests it isn't audible. Why would I pay extra? If a company wants me to pay for improved performance, they must first convince me that the increased performance adds value. If their claims conflict with prevalent scientific research, you'd better believe they better have some sound scientific research supporting those claims.


----------



## KeithEmo

OK, if you're not actually going to read the full answer, then here's a short one....

NO, #1 is unlikely to show anything interesting.
NO, I do NOT have access to an ADC of high enough quality that it won't potentially alter things like the amount of ringing usually obersved in DAC filters.
(And, no, I no longer own the Wyred4Sound DAC.... I sold it some time ago.)

Therefore, I would say that #3 is the only way to actually perform the test in a valid fashion.
And, until and unless we do so, we're all just applying our preconceived notions about what we BELIEVE the results woud turn out to be.
(Or, to spin it more positively, "discussing theories and performing thought experiments".)

I should also point out that Emotiva offers a 30 day return policy (the DC-1 has been discontinued, but its replacement will be along in a few months).
Likewise, I believe Wyred4Sound has a return policy (the last time I looked they had a small restocking fee, however they also now have a new model).
Therefore, anyone considering purchasing a DAC from either company, and willing to go to the effort, actually CAN test whether they hear a difference for themselves.



bigshot said:


> The reason I don't read all of your posts is because you keep drifting into proving your preconceived point instead of answering my specific questions.
> 
> We're all busy people here. Let's focus and be concise and to the point.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Oct 19, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> NO, #1 is unlikely to show anything interesting.
> NO, I do NOT have access to an ADC of high enough quality that it won't potentially alter things like the amount of ringing usually obersved in DAC filters.
> (And, no, I no longer own the Wyred4Sound DAC.... I sold it some time ago.)
> Therefore, I would say that #3 is the only way to actually perform the test in a valid fashion.
> And, until and unless we do so, we're all just applying our preconceived notions about what we BELIEVE the results would turn out to be.



Oh! I'm more than open to not assuming anything about an anecdotal unverified claim until it's verified first. I am just looking for an example of a difference between DACs that I can verify!

But if we're going to talk about preconceived notions... How did you determine that ringing is the cause of the clearly audible difference? Is there some way to measure that or prove that it is the cause and not something else causing it? Couldn't it be just be a difference in response or distortion or a defective unit? How did you check to eliminate that possibility? We don't want to confuse association with causation.

I think you missed my question about the Sabre DAC in my Oppo HA-1... Assuming that ringing is audible, should that sound different than playing the same digital file through an iPod with an Apple branded or Wolfson DAC in it?


----------



## analogsurviver (Oct 19, 2018)

bigshot said:


> The reason I don't read all of your posts is because you keep drifting into proving your preconceived point instead of answering my specific questions.
> 
> We're all busy people here. Let's focus and be concise and to the point.
> 
> ...



You have clearly missed that @KeithEmo  said that for capturing the performance of the various DACs would require at least 5 times - and preferably 10 times - better specs in the ADC. Similar was/is possible in analogue world - but DACs and ADCs go laregely hand in hand performance wise; no such thing as 10 times better ADC than the best DAC. Judging from the number of DACs ( innumerable ) and ADCs for audio ( comparably VERY few ), both home and pro, it is no surprise some DACs might well exceed the performance of even the best ADCs.

Merging Horus/Hapi, one of the top ADCs/DACs today, is on its FOURTH revision - each time, an even better ADC and/or DAC chip ( and the required annicilaries ) is incorporated onto new module board. The specs from he very first to the very last version are so good that - according to your comments - should not matter in the slightest.

One relatively inexpensive way to test two VERY similar DACs ( in fact, two generations, or if you will, second being an improved version on the first ) is iFi Micro iDSD and iFi Micro iDSD Black Label. Same functionality, same size, except that the second has a plethora of improvements across the board. Again, some in areas you dismiss as being long time surpassing anything a human could possibly hear. Around 20% increase in price over the predecessor at the time of introduction. It would take one hell of a measuring setup to actually tell the two apart ( for the reasons given above ) - yet in listening test, the two are clearly discernibly different. It does not really matter if the listening test is sighted , ABX, DBT, or whatever - the difference is big enough. The only outcome in using one or another testing methology is the different amount of time required before the difference is understood.  Among other reviews, there is also my take on the Black Label : [URL]https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/ifi-audio-micro-idsd.20201/reviews[/URL]


----------



## bigshot (Oct 19, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> You have clearly missed that @KeithEmo  said that for capturing the performance of the various DACs would require at least 5 times - and preferably 10 times - better specs in the ADC.



Why? I'm not trying to determine all of the differences, just the audible ones. If a capture device is capable of audible transparency, then it should be fine for reproducing audible differences.

There's no point measuring inaudible differences, and I'm sure they exist. I am trying to find a way to verify that two DACs sound different to human ears. If we're assuming there must be a difference because one is a Sabre chip and one isn't, I have a headphone amp with a high end Sabre chip and it sounds identical to an iPod, so it isn't that.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Why? I'm not trying to determine all of the differences, just the audible ones. If a capture device is capable of audible transparency, then it should be fine for reproducing audible differences.
> 
> There's no point measuring inaudible differences, and I'm sure they exist. I am trying to find a way to verify that two DACs sound different to human ears. If we're assuming there must be a difference because one is a Sabre chip and one isn't, I have a headphone amp with a high end Sabre chip and it sounds identical to an iPod, so it isn't that.



That is the core problem; you always insist that any difference in > 20 kHz, lower than so and so % THD, etc,  performance has no effect on audible differences. If you can, try to have both micros side by side - an afternoon is more than it takes, regardless how you will compare them. It is the only case of a commercialy available device known to me where significantly better electronic parts - when taken together - clearly result in an audible improvement. The THD, etc numbers are crazy in any case - and are particularly off the charts with Black Label. It should not matter audibly - yet, it does. Because the SQ is largely determined by analogue stages - input in ADC, output in DAC.

It might answer the question " How transparent is transparent? " ...


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Oct 19, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Strictly speaking that is incorrect...
> 
> The original version of USM was done optically, by superimposing a negative image that was slightly blurred over the original, and optically summing them, so it literally applied a halo only at edges of high contrast... (At low contrast edges, while the falloff profile of the edge may be affected, it won't be boosted or cut enough to appear as an actual halo. Apparently, while changing the dropoff profile may be slightly visible, only an actual halo produces a distinct illusion of artificially added sharpness.) The blurring applied to the "mask image" is where the term "unsharp masking" comes from.



Keith...

The "slightly blurred negative image" = lowpassed image with inverted phase

Optically summing them = cutting all frequencies except those cut by the lowpass

Further lighting up the summation = boosting the frequency bands cut by the lowpass.

And no, "an actual halo" is not the preferred result.  If so why don't you add some actual halos to your perfectly sharp LCD monitor using the sharpness control that may or may not be there anymore?



> Modern digital versions produce a similar effect by signal processing, but virtually all of them apply the effect ONLY TO EDGES, after using some method to avoid applying it to "non-edges". Therefore, if you want a more correct analogy, they act more like a dynamic processing equalizer, which is applied unequally and whose effect varies with time and the specific characteristics of the signal it is applied to.
> 
> On a typical DAC...
> - If you pass a continuous sine wave of fixed frequency through them there will be no measurable effect.
> ...



The effect of the interpolation filter is always there.
1. If there's no interpolation filter you get no sound.
2. If a non-oversampled zeroth order hold is used, high frequencies pure tones will sound very funky indeed (like a square wave of the frequency f modulated by a Nyquist-2f beat frequency, AFAICT).  But a transient signal won't ring!
3. If a proper filter is introduced, it is close to as you say, with respect to their analog originals.  With the exception of the last point:  *within the confines of sampling theory, there's no such thing as a transient signal that ought to appear as input to a DAC.  A sine wave start starts and stops on a dime, or a Kronecker delta, are artificial constructs that can never appear in a real-life recording, because they are cropped versions of theoretical signals that contain frequencies extending beyond Nyquist out to infinity.*  The "introduced ringing" is simply what happens when these theoretical signals are brought back to reality, rendered using the finite set of frequencies available under the sampling format.

Speaking of which, there IS a theoretically perfect reconstruction filter against which all real life reconstruction filters are to be measured:  the infinite length sinc filter.  It will produce ringing tails before and after your sine burst and K-delta--infinitely long tails!  But said ringing would only consist of frequencies a fraction of a Hz under 22.05kHz (for 44.1kHz sample rate) and hence be completely inaudible (to you and me anyway)!

As noted in a previous post--the *shorter* the ringing response to a K-delta, the more artifacted the filter's response to real life input--including music and high frequency sine tones!



> Therefore, if you look at the effect in relation to time, it will have no effect on steady state sine waves.
> And will have an effect that is greatest at and near the edges of CHANGES in the signal.



*As noted before, the ONE WAY in which I could detect imperfect filtering in pedestrian DACs was by listening for aliasing in high frequency sine tones--NOT by listening to K-delta clicks, square waves, theoretical sine pulses, or anything like that!*



> Incidentally, in modern high quality cameras, there is rarely a significant "drop in high frequency response". Typically, in most high quality modern cameras I've used, the effect you're compensating for is "pixel uncertainty". (If a sharp boundary between black and white falls in the center of a camera pixel, that pixel will be recorded as grey. Applying a USM to that image does NOT restore the original resolution, which was never recorded. There's no way, after the fact, to determine whether that grey pixel "should have been half black and half white" rather than being a grey pixel. Rather, the "sharpening effect" creates an optical illusion of "enhanced sharpness" which "perceptually compensates" for the lack of real resolution. The picture is "made to appear sharper" - whether it was originally that way or not.)



There's an antialiasing filter in front of the sensor to prevent that scenario and to replace that with, exactly, "a drop in high frequency response".  If not, the sensor is high resolution enough that lens aberrations take care of the antialiasing.  If not, serious artifacts occur when shooting finely patterned fabrics.

--Joe Bloggs
--10+ year dpreview member
--designed sharpening-based filter for HDR toning that sharpened *everywhere in the image *except* where halos would occur*: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2902464#forum-post-36868711


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Oct 19, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> That is the core problem; you always insist that any difference in > 20 kHz, lower than so and so % THD, etc,  performance has no effect on audible differences. If you can, try to have both micros side by side - an afternoon is more than it takes, regardless how you will compare them. It is the only case of a commercialy available device known to me where significantly better electronic parts - when taken together - clearly result in an audible improvement. The THD, etc numbers are crazy in any case - and are particularly off the charts with Black Label. It should not matter audibly - yet, it does. Because the SQ is largely determined by analogue stages - input in ADC, output in DAC.
> 
> It might answer the question " How transparent is transparent? " ...


Transparent is transparent, unless, as Keith prefers it, they pass a DBT of a Sabre DAC vs whatever, or SOMETHING is done past the current sighted *"I think I hear an elevation in treble when I think there's no actual elevation in treble even though I haven't measured the particular DACs to see if there's an actual elevation in treble and no none of this is volume matched or blinded or any more than your usual subjective hoolabaloo except you should take me seriously because I'm a serious guy!"* situation.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

analogsurviver said:


> That is the core problem; you always insist that any difference in > 20 kHz, lower than so and so % THD, etc,  performance has no effect on audible differences. If you can, try to have both micros side by side - an afternoon is more than it takes, *regardless how you will compare them*. It is the only case of a commercialy available device known to me where significantly better electronic parts - when taken together - clearly result in an audible improvement. The THD, etc numbers are crazy in any case - and are particularly off the charts with Black Label. It should not matter audibly - yet, it does. Because the SQ is largely determined by analogue stages - input in ADC, output in DAC.
> 
> It might answer the question " How transparent is transparent? " ...



I've highlighted the core problem above. It _very much matters_ how they are compared. If the comparison is done in such a way as to not eliminate biases, it doesn't matter what you _think _you hear. It sure is funny how frequently "night & day" differences disappear when cognitive bias is eliminated from the comparison process.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 19, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> " How transparent is transparent? "



I know the answer to that question very well. Transparent is the line where no human can hear differences any more. I've been reminded of the all-too-human frailty of my ears on many occasions. I've spent a great deal of time researching and testing to have a basic idea of where the thresholds of audibility lie. I know some people (present company included!) claim to have supersonic ears. I give those folks a chance to back up their claims of "night and day differences" and "clearly audible" and "not at all subtle". If it really is that obvious, it should be easy to demonstrate that difference to the rest of us. But when my basic questions get answered with obfuscating paragraphs packed with confusing association with causation, bandwagon effect, begging the question and appeal to ignorance arguments, I start to tune out and wait for my simple questions to be answered simply.

All I am asking for is an audible difference. That shouldn't be difficult to prove. I have dozens of amps and DACs and players here in all different price ranges and I've compared them all INCLUDING ONE WITH A HIGH END SABRE CHIP, and I have yet to find one that sounds different. So I ask if someone can point me to one that sounds different and I get "oh I don't own that DAC any more..." and "the difference won't show up in any measurements" and "the only way to know is to conduct elaborate controlled tests on 50 people and run the percentages". That's when my BS meter starts to rise.

I'm nice and polite and I give people the opportunity to share some new info with me... until they start making me jump through hoops and try to slip a noose of logical fallacies around my neck. I'm not stupid or gullible. Those tricks might work on audiophools, but not me. If a difference is clearly audible, it should show up in measurements and it should be capturable and it should be clearly demonstrable in gear the person who is making the claim actually owns or has available for testing.

I shouldn't have to put a grand on MY credit card to prove YOUR anecdotal and so far unverified claim. At some point I get tired of the circular arguments and just call for the "put up or shut up". If I still keep getting the hoop being held up and the whip cracking and the encouragement to "JUMP! JUMP!", I dismiss them with a wave of the hand and move on and I don't read much of their posts any more. I've already gotten to that point with a couple of people in Sound Science. You can take a guess if you are one of those folks or not.

It's put up or shut up time! Would someone like to suggest simple ways to objectively verify a clearly audible difference between two DACs? Yes? No?


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Oct 19, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I know the answer to that question very well. Transparent is the line where no human can hear differences any more. I've been reminded of the all-too-human frailty of my ears on many occasions. I'm very familiar with not being able to tell a difference. I know some people (present company included!) claim to have supersonic ears. I give those folks a chance to back up their claims of "night and day differences" and "clearly audible" and "not at all subtle". If it really is that obvious, it should be easy to demonstrate that difference to the rest of us. But when my basic questions get answered with obfuscating paragraphs packed with confusing association with causation, begging the question and appeal to ignorance arguments, I start to tune out and wait for my simple questions to be answered simply.
> 
> All I am asking for is an audible difference. That shouldn't be difficult to prove. I have dozens of amps and DACs and players here in all different price ranges and I've compared them all, and I have yet to find one that sounds different. So I ask if someone can point me to one that sounds different and I get "oh I don't own that DAC any more..." and "the difference won't show up in any measurements" and "the only way to know is to conduct elaborate controlled tests on 50 people and run the percentages". That's when my BS meter starts to rise.
> 
> ...



This guy on facebook claims to be able to DBT between two DACs even when he messes with the volume.  Sounds promising even if obnoxious at first!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/headfi.org/permalink/10156926474584736/?comment_id=10156927508814736&reply_comment_id=10156927944254736&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}

https://www.facebook.com/vlad.petric?fref=gc&dti=4623534735


----------



## bigshot (Oct 19, 2018)

I'm very familiar with crackpots who jump the volume to incredible levels to detect noise floors. We used to have one around here that the minimum acceptable dynamic range for recorded music is 120dB. He didn't seem to realize that his human ears would incur hearing damage trying to hear all 120dB of that dynamic range. Performance in extreme situations isn't what I'm asking for. I'm asking for two DACs that sound different playing a typical music CD at a normal listening level. That is how I use my audio equipment.

Again, I know differences exist. I want real world AUDIBLE differences.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

bigshot said:


> I'm very familiar with crackpots who jump the volume to incredible levels to detect noise floors. That isn't what I'm asking for. I'm asking for two DACs that sound different playing a typical music CD at a normal listening level. That is how I use my audio equipment.
> 
> Again, I know differences exist. I want AUDIBLE differences.


It's not that, he's just saying that he doesn't even need to volume match the two DACs to detect a difference anymore.  The obvious question would be how one blinds two DACs AND mismatch their volume, he claims he has his ways.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 19, 2018)

So did our old friend from the Geek Squad. Some people invest their ego in trying to prove that they are superior beings. I'm quite satisfied with my perfectly normal human ears. I just want sound that is as good as my ears can hear. I don't need to split atoms.

I just noticed the latest two tags that were added to this thread... haha!


----------



## 500178

o my, this topic is the embodiment of audiophilia.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> I'm very familiar with crackpots who jump the volume to incredible levels to detect noise floors. We used to have one around here that the minimum acceptable dynamic range for recorded music is 120dB. He didn't seem to realize that his human ears would incur hearing damage trying to hear all 120dB of that dynamic range. Performance in extreme situations isn't what I'm asking for. I'm asking for two DACs that sound different playing a typical music CD at a normal listening level. That is how I use my audio equipment.
> 
> Again, I know differences exist. I want real world AUDIBLE differences.




"_We used to have one around here 
that the minimum acceptable dynamic 
range for recorded music is 120dB._"

And who might that have been?


----------



## KeithEmo

I think we've been discussing "the proper way to do it"... for quite some time.
And, for quite some time, I've been bombarded with complaints that "I haven't provided test results to support my hypothesis".
You're quite correct; I haven't.... which leaves it unproven at this point.
That's why I'm calling it a hypothesis rather than a FACT.

If we're just comparing two products, then the proper way would be to conduct a double-blind test of those two products.
WIth a proper set of test equipment; and properly chosen test samples; and a properly sized and selected sample.
If anybody wants to do so I would be glad to participate (by helping to determine the proper way to ensure that we get valid results).
However, no, I am NOT personally interested enough to do it myself.
(And, somewhat sadly, Emotiva isn't likely to sponsor an expensive study that isn't likely to justify its cost by selling more product... sorry.) 

If you REALLY want to conduct a test on those two specific products PERSONALLY, I believe you'll find both the Emotiva DC-1 and the Wyred4Sound DAC2 readily available used.
(Both have pretty good resale value, so you could probably buy both, test them, and sell one or both for what you paid for it.)
The Emotiva DC-1 is surrently out of production.... but its replacement (the DC-2) will be available shortly.
All of Emotiva's products come with an unconditional 30 day return policy - which offers anyone who wants to the opportunity to do any sort of comparison they like.
(And, if someone wants to sponsor a real proper scientific study, with proper controls, associated equipment, and samples, I can quite possibly get you a loaner.)

Also, PLEASE, stop incorrectly putting words in my mouth....
I did NOT say "that the differences won't show up in any measurement".
I said that I suspect they will not show up in one particular measurement (frequency response); and I also conceded that I hadn't confirmed that.
I also noted that there are in fact CLEARLY measurable differences - and I described in which measurement they can be easily measured.
And I suggested my hypothesis - which is that one particular difference will correlate to audible differences.
Of course, even if there are confirmed audible differences, I many be incorrect about the cause.
(But YOU choose to insist that "differences in that particular measurement cannot possibly be audible and so cannot POSSIBLY be the cause"... )
(I'm willing to wait for actual test results - when and if we have any...)

Let me also note, yet again, that for the most part I agree with your claims...
There is FAR too much snake oil out there...
(And, yes, some of the differences that really do exist are actually rather trivial and probably not "important".)

------------------------------------------------
(Consider everything from here on to be "background information" - so you don't have to read it.)

If we are talking about how to do "a properly run and scientifically valid test"...
One difficulty is going to be to determine what constitutes a sufficient number of test subjects.
If it turns out that only one person in twenty can hear the difference, then we'll need a test sample of a few hundred to avoid missing those few, and producing a "false negative".
Assuming we're doing a SCIENTIFIC study, then saying "most people" really isn't good enough.
(I DON'T NOT believe this would be the case... since , of the many people I've asked, MOST of them calim to hear a similar difference to what I do... but I cannot rule it out.)

Another difficulty is that we must ENSURE that both our test equipment, and our test samples, do not obscure what we're testing for.
So, for example, our samples, and our speakers, must be able to reproduce the differences in waveforms caused by the differences in the various filters.
If we can see a difference in the output waveforms on an oscilloscope then we must make sure it is being delivered to the ears of our test subjects.
This is a common failure of many tests; they fail to ensure that their test setup can actually accurately deliver the differences they're claiming to be trying to measure.
If you're attempting to prove, or rule out, that people can hear 45 kHz, then your first step is to make sure it is present in your test samples, and that the speakers you use can reproduce it.
(And, when you heard no differences between those DACs, DID you verify that the equipment you used was accurately reproducing the output waveforms?)

And, if you want to prove a GENERALIZATION (about "all DACs" or "Sabre vs other DACs") rather than about two particular products, then you'll need to expand your test considerably.
Testing two specific products is very limited; especially when both have probably been through many minor design revisions... some of which may affect how they sound or measure.
In fact, you should probably use several smaples from different production runs, just to rule out "unit to unit production variations".

However, in this case, I am not aware of ANYONE who has conducted a proper "credible" study of whether the differences in DAC filters are audible.
ESS, who makes the Sabre DAC, claims to have "run focus groups" and to have "used the filter which most people preferred" (I take that as a claim to have found a difference).
I should also note that, when their product was introduced, they were introducing a "premium chip" (more expensive) - so they HAD to claim that it was DIFFERENT to justify the price.
Many other DAC manufacturers offer a choice of a variety of filters (we'll never know if they did any audibility tests or are simply offering a feature their customers have asked for).
Yet many other DAC manufacturers offer only a single filter (which, since they all cost about the same, suggests they believe the one they chose is the most accurate).

I should also point out that many so-called "reliable sources" seem to not stick to their story.
Sony released the CD format - based on the claim that "CDs sounded audibly identical to the original source to most people".
They then followed up a few years later by releasing the SACD format - which "corrected" many of the "audible limitations" of their "audibly perfect CD format".
So, WHICH Sony claim would you prefer to consider credible?

Many people claim to hear obvious differences between DACs; and many claim not to; so all we have there is a whole bunch of anecdotal information.

I am NOT suggesting that you do or don't buy an Emotiva DAC or a Wyred4Sound DAC.
Although, of course, if you believe that they sound the same, ours was a better deal because it cost less. (But, then, you can buy a decent sound card for $25).
You asked me to offer a specific example of where I heard a significant and obvious difference between DACs; I answered your question.
I chose Sabre DACs because I find the audible differences between them and most others rather obvious.
(And, no, I tend not to hang onto equipment I don't especially like - just to PROVE to other people why I don't like it.)

I will, however, note that I have had a lot of conversations with a lot of people about "how DACs sound" (since part of my job is providing support for customers who purchase DACs).
In find that roughly somewhat more than half of the people I talk to, if asked, agree that Sabre DACs "seem to have a distinctive sound".
Furthermore, OF THOSE WHO CLAIM TO HEAR A DIFFERENCE, almost all of them describe the difference they think they hear quite similarly, whether they like or dislike it.
(Those who like it say that they find Sabre DACs to be "more detailed"; those who dislike it consistently describe Sabre DACs as sounding "more grainy" or "etched".)
Feel free to consider this to be "a sociaological study" if you like... but the majority of people who believe they hear a difference seem to believe they hear a SIMILAR difference.
(And, oddly, it is much the same difference that I think I hear.)

Personally, I think it would be interesting to run a proper study, 
I doubt that my company will ever do so... because it really is unlikely to help us sell more products.

As I noted in another post... there is very little "pure science" left in the world - and virtually none when it comes to audio equipment.

A company who sells $500 interconnects has little incentive to do a proper study (because it will probably show that their product is eitehr snake oil or only marginally better).
Yet the company who sells $5 interconnects ALSO has little incentive to sponsor the test.
(They'd have to sell an awful lot more $5 cables to justify the cost of a study; and most of their customers simly don't care anyway.)

And, for those who keep on trotting out studies, like the one conducted by Sony, that purport to "prove" that 16/44k audio is "audibly indistinguishable from the orignal...
I would first point out that Sony did NOT conduct an "unbiased scientific study" there.
They figured out the format they preferred, based on how much time they could get on a disc, and the current technology, then conducted a study to CONFIRM that it was "good enough".
(They had a major bias AGAINST determining that they COULDN'T produce a disc at the time that would fit all their requirements.)



bigshot said:


> I know the answer to that question very well. Transparent is the line where no human can hear differences any more. I've been reminded of the all-too-human frailty of my ears on many occasions. I've spent a great deal of time researching and testing to have a basic idea of where the thresholds of audibility lie. I know some people (present company included!) claim to have supersonic ears. I give those folks a chance to back up their claims of "night and day differences" and "clearly audible" and "not at all subtle". If it really is that obvious, it should be easy to demonstrate that difference to the rest of us. But when my basic questions get answered with obfuscating paragraphs packed with confusing association with causation, bandwagon effect, begging the question and appeal to ignorance arguments, I start to tune out and wait for my simple questions to be answered simply.
> 
> All I am asking for is an audible difference. That shouldn't be difficult to prove. I have dozens of amps and DACs and players here in all different price ranges and I've compared them all INCLUDING ONE WITH A HIGH END SABRE CHIP, and I have yet to find one that sounds different. So I ask if someone can point me to one that sounds different and I get "oh I don't own that DAC any more..." and "the difference won't show up in any measurements" and "the only way to know is to conduct elaborate controlled tests on 50 people and run the percentages". That's when my BS meter starts to rise.
> 
> ...





Jaywalk3r said:


> A fact often exploited by snake-oil salesman. Audiophiles are, collectively, a pretty gullible bunch.
> 
> When it comes to high-end audio, snake-oil is the null hypothesis.
> 
> And no, if I can plug some high sensitivity, low impedance IEMs into a DAP, pause the music, set the gain to high and crank up the volume, and hear no noise, I don't care that the THD is 0.1% instead of 0.0003%. Sure, the difference is significant, but the effect isn't of a meaningful magnitude. Research suggests it isn't audible. Why would I pay extra? If a company wants me to pay for improved performance, they must first convince me that the increased performance adds value. If their claims conflict with prevalent scientific research, you'd better believe they better have some sound scientific research supporting those claims.





bigshot said:


> I'm not looking for the "why" of it yet. I'm skipping over that part. We'll get to the "why" of it later. I'm also not going to consider the reputation of the company. That is irrelevant to what we are doing here.
> 
> I'm looking for verification of the difference you heard. If there is a boost of at least 1.5dB between 5 and 7kHz which was your estimation of the difference, that would be reflected in the response. (If this isn't an accurate description of the difference, perhaps you can elaborate on what you heard better so we can understand better.) Distortion can be tested for as well. If the difference isn't reflected in the specs, either 1) the specs on one or both of the DACs is fudged/incomplete or 2) the particular DAC you compared was performing out of spec. I suppose there could be some magical thing that can be heard but not measured, but that would be something to consider much further down the road after we've eliminated all the other possibilities. I have been swamped at the studio this week. I'll google specs and bring them back to this thread when I get a chance. Clearly audible should be easily measured.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Personally I always preferred the Nikon d800 version without the anti-aliasing filter 



Joe Bloggs said:


> Keith...
> 
> The "slightly blurred negative image" = lowpassed image with inverted phase
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

TheSonicTruth said:


> "_We used to have one around here
> that the minimum acceptable dynamic
> range for recorded music is 120dB._"
> 
> And who might that have been?


amirm 
he's not an uberman believer like some are. he simply defines audibility with a wider range of conditions than we do. including loud output, quiet passages, very isolating IEMs...  so obviously the thresholds found under such circumstances are going to be different from the thresholds found with music averaged around 70 or 80 dB SPL, and more typical albums that will rarely show more than 50 or 60 dB down for the quiet parts. 
basically he says that if some conditions make something audible, then it is. which isn't wrong, but tends to take us pretty far away from what anybody would get with typical music listening. which is admittedly still what most of us care about.


----------



## KeithEmo

And which of the twenty or so iPod models did you compare to which of the hundreds or thousands of devices that use the rather popular Sabre DAC chip?
And, by the way, which speakers or headphones, and which source content, did you use to compare them?

Obviously it would be extremely un-scientific to try and generalize one particular pair of samples to "all DACs everywhere".

If one comparison, under one specific set of circumstances, proves an audible difference, then we must concede that "audible differences sometimes exist".
However, we must cover a lot more ground to "prove" that audible differences "never" exist (or even "occur rarely enough that we can ignore them").
For starters, did the device you compared, with the Sabre DAC, use the internal filters provided by ESS (Sabre), or did the designers use their own external filters?
Most folks I know who support the idea that differences exist also find that "some Sabre DACs have more of the characteristic Sabre sound than others"
(But, as I mentioned in another post, that Sabre DACs OFTEN sound different than other brands, and that, when they do, the difference is virtually always of the same character.)
It has also been noted, by some of the people who imagine they hear a difference, that Sabre DACs are more sensitive to the circuitry that accompanies them than most others.

The obvious way to confirm the basic claim would be to compare two DACs that one or more people insist "are obviously different in sound"...
And see if that difference is confirmed or denied in a proper test.
Assuming that the difference is really obvious, that should be possible with two DACs, a few people, and some good samples and associated equipment.
(But, no, I see no way to avoid actually placing the two DAcs in front of the people performing the test.)



bigshot said:


> Why? I'm not trying to determine all of the differences, just the audible ones. If a capture device is capable of audible transparency, then it should be fine for reproducing audible differences.
> 
> There's no point measuring inaudible differences, and I'm sure they exist. I am trying to find a way to verify that two DACs sound different to human ears. If we're assuming there must be a difference because one is a Sabre chip and one isn't, I have a headphone amp with a high end Sabre chip and it sounds identical to an iPod, so it isn't that.






analogsurviver said:


> That is the core problem; you always insist that any difference in > 20 kHz, lower than so and so % THD, etc,  performance has no effect on audible differences. If you can, try to have both micros side by side - an afternoon is more than it takes, regardless how you will compare them. It is the only case of a commercialy available device known to me where significantly better electronic parts - when taken together - clearly result in an audible improvement. The THD, etc numbers are crazy in any case - and are particularly off the charts with Black Label. It should not matter audibly - yet, it does. Because the SQ is largely determined by analogue stages - input in ADC, output in DAC.
> 
> It might answer the question " How transparent is transparent? " ...


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Oct 20, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> I will, however, note that I have had a lot of conversations with a lot of people about "how DACs sound" (since part of my job is providing support for customers who purchase DACs).
> In find that roughly somewhat more than half of the people I talk to, if asked, agree that Sabre DACs "seem to have a distinctive sound".
> Furthermore, OF THOSE WHO CLAIM TO HEAR A DIFFERENCE, almost all of them describe the difference they think they hear quite similarly, whether they like or dislike it.
> (Those who like it say that they find Sabre DACs to be "more detailed"; those who dislike it consistently describe Sabre DACs as sounding "more grainy" or "etched".)
> ...



Again, you've described a Petri dish for cognitive biases.



Joe Bloggs said:


> there is very little "pure science" left in the world - and virtually none when it comes to audio equipment.



There's very little science in high-end audio; it's primarily snake-oil, at least outside of speakers. The use of science is, in general, increasing in the world.

Speaking of science, if you claim there is a difference in DACs, the onus is on you to support that claim with evidence. If you don't do that, reasonable people are fully justified to dismiss your claims out of hand, no matter your background. _That's_ science.



Joe Bloggs said:


> A company who sells $500 interconnects has little incentive to do a proper study (because it will probably show that their product is eitehr snake oil or only marginally better).



Right. Demonstrating to people that they are wasting their money if they buy your product instead of a much less expensive alternative is generally a bad business strategy. On the other hand, a manufacturer who is selling something that _isn't_ snake-oil has every incentive to demonstrate that their product provides value. If all they provide are excuses, it's a safe bet they _are _selling snake oil.



Joe Bloggs said:


> Yet the company who sells $5 interconnects ALSO has little incentive to sponsor the test.



Correct. They aren't making any ridiculous claims about their interconnects, other than they will connect one component to another, which is easy to demonstrate conclusively.

What the manufacturer of those $5 interconnect _is _doing, in most cases, is methodically sampling and testing production units so that reliable estimates about production yield rates can be made with known levels of confidence, using well-established statistical methods.


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> And which of the twenty or so iPod models did you compare to which of the hundreds or thousands of devices that use the rather popular Sabre DAC chip? And, by the way, which speakers or headphones, and which source content, did you use to compare them?



I have eight iPods from the raised wheel one through the last brushed aluminum classic. I have an Oppo HA-1 that includes the Sabre chip. I don't generally use my speaker system for comparison tests, because that introduces too many variables with distortion and room acoustics. Instead, I use Oppo PM-1s. I've compared a Pioneer blu-ray player, an Oppo BDP-103D, a Sony blu-ray player, a Philips 963SA DAD/SACD player, three different versions of the iPhone, 8 0r 10 different Macs- from the 8500AV to a recent iMac, and a cheapo DVD player from Walmart. Every one of them sounded the same for the purposes of listening to music in the home. That menagerie of gear runs the price range from $40 to 300 times that. It covers portable gear, home gear, A/V gear, phones and players capable of HD audio. I'm looking for something that sounds different. I haven't been able to find it yet. I've just given you a whole laundry list of things you can use to verify my claim that they all are audibly transparent. You probably own some of this stuff or gear just like it. Please! Go check me. I welcome your verification. If there is a difference I missed, I would like to pinpoint it myself, quantify it and find the reason it occurred so I don't make that mistake in the future.

I would be happy to entertain the idea of a DAC or player that sounds different. I would actually be pleased to find one. The problem is, whenever I ask someone in an audiophile group for an example that sounds clearly different, I get a verbal runaround as soon as I try to pin down the claims. Either they point to differences in specs that are clearly not audible, or they base their opinion on subjective impressions and sloppy testing procedures, or they do what you just did... tell me that I have to jump through a million hoops to verify the claim properly. When I call them on the runaround, the conversation usually degenerates to them pulling out the old saw "Either your equipment sucks or you're deaf."

I'm sorry, but I'm not deaf, and I'm not dumb. Just because someone claims in an internet forum that they did a controlled test and clearly heard a difference, that doesn't force me to accept the fact that in "one comparison, under one specific set of circumstances a difference was proven." At the beginning of this, I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that for the sake of argument in the hopes that you would produce a way to get verification. But that led nowhere.

I'm not claiming to try to prove a negative by saying different DACs don't exit. That's just a straw man. I'm just asking for one clear example that we can all verify. But you've worked very hard to make it as impossible as possible for anyone to verify your results... tthe model you used is out of production, you don't own it any more, your system is different than other people's, to capture it you need 10x the audio quality of what you're recording, we would have to sample 50 people and run the probabilities to know for sure, etc, etc... The only supporting arguments you've put forward are that lots of people say Sabre DACs sound different and a bunch of stuff about how filters might theoretically cause differences... but you haven't proven yet that a difference exists!

I don't want you to think I haven't been reading your posts. I was just politely ignoring the prevarication and slips in logic in the hopes that it would lead to a way for me to find a recent DAC or player that sounds different. That's what I do. I don't try to grab on to every little semantic argument, because I don't want to feed the circular arguments that go on here in Sound Science all the time. I just keep my eye on the prize. I skip past the rhetoric and I focus on the nugget of real stuff buried underneath. I patiently wait for the truth to reveal itself... at least until it seems pretty much guaranteed that it's never going to arrive.

A clear audible difference should be clearly audible. If you really did regularly hear clear differences between DACs, it would be easy for you to point to an example that would be relatively simple to verify and audible on any good system. I actually think you honestly believe DACs do sound different. But that belief is based on bias, not actual experience or comparison tests. You might not want to know the truth. That is very common among audiophiles.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 20, 2018)

Jaywalk3r said:


> you've described a Petri dish for cognitive biases.



Head-Fi is a hothouse for them... a partical generator for them!

Just because a lot of people say something, it doesn't mean it's true. A lot of people claim to have been abducted and violated by aliens. A lot of people have seen bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. A lot of people believe the lies snake oil salesmen tell them too. They repeat them as gospel and make the job of the snake oil salesman that much easier.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> I have eight iPods from the raised wheel one through the last brushed aluminum classic. I have an Oppo HA-1 that includes the Sabre chip. I don't generally use my speaker system for comparison tests, because that introduces too many variables with distortion and room acoustics. Instead, I use Oppo PM-1s. I've compared a Pioneer blu-ray player, an Oppo BDP-103D, a Sony blu-ray player, a Philips 963SA DAD/SACD player, three different versions of the iPhone, 8 0r 10 different Macs- from the 8500AV to a recent iMac, and a cheapo DVD player from Walmart. Every one of them sounded the same for the purposes of listening to music in the home. That menagerie of gear runs the price range from $40 to 300 times that. It covers portable gear, home gear, A/V gear, phones and players capable of HD audio. I'm looking for something that sounds different. I haven't been able to find it yet. I've just given you a whole laundry list of things you can use to verify my claim that they all are audibly transparent. You probably own some of this stuff or gear just like it. Please! Go check me. I welcome your verification. If there is a difference I missed, I would like to pinpoint it myself, quantify it and find the reason it occurred so I don't make that mistake in the future.



So you're listing some devices that have their own DAC and headphone stage, and then presumably other devices that either have digital out or analogue out where you have another device being your headphone amp.  How is this any kind of validation for the output of a DAC?  Personally, I have an iPhone, several computers, my speaker system with Music Hall SACD player, Oppo BD player, and my main headphone system (of digital transport going to Benchmark DAC and then tube amp).  Every one of my setups sound different...but there are also different components in the chain (which means there's no constant metric).  An iPhone is fine by itself...and it can drive some of my headphones OK.  With others, it just doesn't have enough amperage for their lower sensitivity (to have transparency as you put it).  I have an aunt who was an opera singer in Vienna.  With a recent family reunion, she picked up a Sennhieser bluetooth headphone for herself, but I also let her try my headphone setup with Benchmark DAC and tube amp.  She had no problems telling the difference in sound and said it was the most live sounding she's heard from headphones (just that for her own use, it would be way to heavy and overboard compared to convenient BT headphones).

Recent posts also have mentioned how Sabre DACs are "generally" thought of as being bright.  Again, I'd say it's very hard to ascertain because what we are actually hearing are different components down the audio chain.  With my main headphone system, for example, my music streamer (SMSL DP3) has the most recent high end Sabre dual channel DACs.  I think it's great as a digital transport...but when I've tried plugging my headphones into it, it's far from bright.  Its headphone stage is the warmest sounding with muddy treble (even compared to any tube I've had with my headhone amp). So to sum things up, I'm not sure how you can audibly judge a DAC by itself when the stage we tend to be listening to is further down the chain.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> So you're listing some devices that have their own DAC and headphone stage, and then presumably other devices that either have digital out or analogue out where you have another device being your headphone amp.  How is this any kind of validation for the output of a DAC?



The null hypothesis is that there exist no audible differences among recent (non-defective) DAC offerings. The null hypothesis need not be validated. The alternative hypothesis, that there exist at least two DAC models between which audible differences can be heard (when both are in spec), must be validated.

That someone doesn't hear any differences across such a wide variety of devices suggests that the alternative hypothesis probably isn't worthy of any additional research.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 20, 2018)

Jaywalk3r said:


> The null hypothesis is that there exist no audible differences among recent (non-defective) DAC offerings. The null hypothesis need not be validated. The alternative hypothesis, that there exist at least two DAC models between which audible differences can be heard (when both are in spec), must be validated.
> 
> That someone doesn't hear any differences across such a wide variety of devices suggests that the alternative hypothesis probably isn't worthy of any additional research.



Well to me this seems to be inconclusive and will never be resolved.  I don't believe anyone has claimed that Sabre or Burr-Brown DACs or others are outright "defective".  There are some different approaches.  I know there's still arguments about whether 1bit processing or oversampling to 32bit is "best".  But things are also complicated in which what one hears with a device isn't limited to one DAC.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> I don't believe anyone has claimed that Sabre or Burr-Brown DACs or others are outright "defective".



No one is saying any of them are defective. I'm just explicitly stating that audible differences caused by manufacturing defects are not of any interest.


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> No one is saying any of them are defective. I'm just explicitly stating that audible differences caused by manufacturing defects are not of any interest.



And with components that have been discussed, that doesn't seem to be a factor.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> And with components that have been discussed, that doesn't seem to be a factor.



Right. Also no one has been able to provide any examples of two DACs that demonstrably sound different, not even the folks who most adamantly claim such differences exist.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 20, 2018)

Jaywalk3r said:


> Right. Also no one has been able to provide any examples of two DACs that demonstrably sound different, not even the folks who most adamantly claim such differences exist.



Well I doubt anyone who says that their iPhone "sounds" exactly the same as any other system...but what's compounded by the statement about DACs is that they're a primary source in a chain that continues on.  The last signal being that of source to your headphone amp.  There are different methodologies with DACs.  I have a Sony Discman I like that has 1bit processing and a DSP for "surround" sound that sounds nice with headphones.  It's very different then my Benchmark DAC (which is focused with oversampling with consistent neutral frequency range).  Neither one are "faulty" and if anyone listened to them, they could hear differences (to me, subjectively they're both nice).  With my SMSL DP3, if my gauge for its Sabre DACs with its headphone stage...then my impression would be that it's very warm sounding with noticeable treble roll off.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> Well I doubt anyone who says that their iPhone "sounds" exactly the same as any other system...but what's compounded by the statement about DACs is that they're a primary source in a chain that continues on.


Right. That should make it easier, not harder, to detect audible differences among devices. Yet, only excuses from those who claim such differences exist.


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> And which of the twenty or so iPod models did you compare to which of the hundreds or thousands of devices that use the rather popular Sabre DAC chip?



I use my last Mac Classic iPod as my control source. I compare everything to it, and if they sound the same as it, they sound the same as each other. I already answered the questions about the headphones I use. No need for an intermediate amp for iPod or HA-1. Just a headphone splitter.

Are you really interested? Because I've already answered these questions for you. Set aside your bias and ego and just try to figure it out logically.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm just curious....
You said "Every one of them sounded the same for the purposes of listening to music in the home"....

Does this mean that you actually did in fact conduct a bunch of proper, level matched, double blind tests between a bunch of them....
Or just that "you actually tested one or two and didn't notice what you considered to be obvious differences between the rest"?
I only ask because, to be quite honest, in many cases I find the differences to be small enough that I can ONLY notice them, 
when listening specifically FOR differences, with certain content, and with certain speakers or headphones.

Therefore, I would agree that "for purposes of listening to music in the home" I wouldn't notice the differences either.

When you asked for "an obvious example" I mentioned the Wyred4Sound DAC2 and my DC-1 because I found the differences in sound between them to be quite obvious.
I had planned to sell the Wyred4Sound, and a friend of mine, who designs speakers for a living, had expressed an interest.
I had used the W4S as my main DAC for several months - and found it quite acceptable - before switching to a different one.
I had never compared it directly to another DAC before, but my friend, who already owned a DC-1, was curious if there would be an audible difference.
We tried comparing them, with three different pairs of very neutral speakers, and two different amplifiers...
And were quite surprised at how different they sounded.
(He remarked that the difference was actually greater that the difference between the various speakers.)

I did NOT run a frequency response sweep on the Wyred4Sound at the time.
However, at some point when I was using it, I did run one (I don't recall the details - but an error of even a fraction of a dB in frequency response would have been noticed as odd.)
SInce, as far as I know, W4S has a decent service record, I doubt that it had mysteriously drifted (that sort of error, the same in both channels, would be extremely unusual).
It has been my experience that DACs rarely suffer the sorts of failures that would cause errors in frequency response.
(Also, since they would be due to a failed analog component, the odds of the same flaw appearing in both channels would be very tiny.)
We've tested plenty of DC-1's, some with circuit problems, but I don't recall ever hearing one where everything else worked fine, but the frequency response was off.
(Most DACs sound different, when they do, because of deliberate or unintentional DESIGN differences.)

As for the cause being due to differences in the filters....
That is simply a pet theory of mine.
Knowing that the filters are different, and that, on DACs like the W4S, which offers several filter choices, the choices DO sound different, it seems like a reasonable hypothesis.
Also, offhand, I can't think of anything else that might account for it.
However, to be fair, I am NOT specifically convinced that it's the cause.

There could quite possibly be some OTHER factor that I haven't thought of.
For example, Sabre DACs include an internal mechanism that operates something like an ADSR, and is intended to reduce jitter.
It uses a sort of "intelligent oversampling" that "calculates corrections to compensate for jitter and inserts them in the data stream".
(Sabre has a cool name for it.... but it amounts to figuring out when there's jitter, and adjusting the upsampled data stream, to "compensate" for the errors.)
Therefore, since the data stream is altered, it is not unreasonable to suspect that it may produce some sort of audible effect.

Also, one of the previous Emotiva DAC models included an ADSR for jitter elimination that could be instantly switched on and off by a button.
An ADSR alters the sample rate, but in no way alters the amplitude or frequency response of the data itself.
The ADSR acts as a sample rate converter, but the resampled data is synchronized to a new clock, which eliminates jitter.
However, as with the mechanism in the Sabre DACs, the actual math used to calculate the corrections is very complex and quite proprietary.
(Analog Devices offers a "conceptual description", but the math is proprietary; all they claim is that "any errors it introduces are at least 130 dB down.)
Be that as it may, it is simple enough to switch the ADSR in and out by pressing a button, with no measurable effect on the S/N or the frequency response.
Yet, interestingly, MOST people agree that the ADSR changes the sound (usually seeming to cause slight changes in the sound stage).
(Although the asserted purpose is to reduce or eliminate jitter, the change seems audible on many sources, even those that seem unlikely to have jitter to remove.)

Now, in this case, it should be somewhat trivial to analyze the data stream, and confirm that "all the bits are new and different".
However, the basic measurements remain virtually the same, yet the "sound" changes slightly.
(I would suggest that neither is better, but, when switching quickly back and forth, a "change" is somewhat obvious.)

To me, as a generalization, all this strongly suggests that "there are things going on we haven't accurately quantified yet"...
(Of course, it could turn out that there really is a small difference in frequency response, and it is simply the claims about the limit of audibility on things like that are incorrect.)

I wonder whether, for example, you have actually done a double-blind test between an Oppo 93 and an Oppo 95...
(Oppo claims that the xx5 models sound rather different than the xx3 models because of their Sabre DAcs.)
Or whether you have simply CHOSEN to believe the results of a few outdated, and poorly executed, tests.

I will ask again....
Have you ever actually run or seen the results of a properly designed and operated test to determine whether Sabre DACs sound different than other DACs?
Or, for that matter, to determine whether various DAC filters are audibly different - EVEN IF THEY DELIVER ARBITRARILY LOW DISTORTION AND FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE.
Or are you INFERRING that to be the case, based on a little of your own personal anecdotal data, and the results of a bunch of vague and not totally relevent tests?



bigshot said:


> I have eight iPods from the raised wheel one through the last brushed aluminum classic. I have an Oppo HA-1 that includes the Sabre chip. I don't generally use my speaker system for comparison tests, because that introduces too many variables with distortion and room acoustics. Instead, I use Oppo PM-1s. I've compared a Pioneer blu-ray player, an Oppo BDP-103D, a Sony blu-ray player, a Philips 963SA DAD/SACD player, three different versions of the iPhone, 8 0r 10 different Macs- from the 8500AV to a recent iMac, and a cheapo DVD player from Walmart. Every one of them sounded the same for the purposes of listening to music in the home. That menagerie of gear runs the price range from $40 to 300 times that. It covers portable gear, home gear, A/V gear, phones and players capable of HD audio. I'm looking for something that sounds different. I haven't been able to find it yet. I've just given you a whole laundry list of things you can use to verify my claim that they all are audibly transparent. You probably own some of this stuff or gear just like it. Please! Go check me. I welcome your verification. If there is a difference I missed, I would like to pinpoint it myself, quantify it and find the reason it occurred so I don't make that mistake in the future.
> 
> I would be happy to entertain the idea of a DAC or player that sounds different. I would actually be pleased to find one. The problem is, whenever I ask someone in an audiophile group for an example that sounds clearly different, I get a verbal runaround as soon as I try to pin down the claims. Either they point to differences in specs that are clearly not audible, or they base their opinion on subjective impressions and sloppy testing procedures, or they do what you just did... tell me that I have to jump through a million hoops to verify the claim properly. When I call them on the runaround, the conversation usually degenerates to them pulling out the old saw "Either your equipment sucks or you're deaf."
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Davesrose said:


> Well I doubt anyone who says that their iPhone "sounds" exactly the same as any other system..



Have you ever seen how an iPhone measures? Would you like to? You can compare it to your system.


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> Right. That should make it easier, not harder, to detect audible differences among devices. Yet, only excuses from those who claim such differences exist.


So are you also claiming every device sounds the same?  My assertion has been that audible differences aren't just with DACs (and what we often hear is the different stages)...but if you believe it is hard to detect audible differences with all devices, then that's a different matter.


----------



## KeithEmo

I already have my answers....

You used a single pair of headphones and a single amplifier.
But what if the differences are there - but aren't audible on that particular, and very narrow, sample of test gear?
(You might try the same comparison using a pair of Stax or even Koss electrostatic headphones... which are both known for extremely accurate transient response.)
(I'll have to admit that I'm also somewhat dubious that the output of an iPod can drive a pair of headphones well enough to not obscure something...)



bigshot said:


> I use my last Mac Classic iPod as my control source. I compare everything to it, and if they sound the same as it, they sound the same as each other. I already answered the questions about the headphones I use. No need for an intermediate amp for iPod or HA-1. Just a headphone splitter.
> 
> Are you really interested? Because I've already answered these questions for you. Set aside your bias and ego and just try to figure it out logically.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> Have you ever seen how an iPhone measures? Would you like to? You can compare it to your system.



You already linked a link once: it's frequency range doesn't compare to the Benchmark...sorry.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 20, 2018)

When I say "for purposes of listening to music in the home" I mean that I compare using a music file at normal listening levels. I do level matching and direct A/B switching.

I'll read more of your post later. I'd appreciate it if you would stick to the point, which is a DAC that clearly sounds different where it's possible and practical to set up a test to confirm your test.



KeithEmo said:


> But what if the differences are there - but aren't audible on that particular, and very narrow, sample of test gear?



Then I would say that it's either not "clearly audible" and wouldn't qualify as "not a subtle difference at all", or I would say that there might be something wrong with the test where the difference was detected.

If well reviewed $1200 planar magnetic headphones aren't good enough to detect the difference, is it really a clearly audible difference? How could Stax be THAT much different than PM-1s? And if it sounds the same on every set of headphones BUT the Stax, does it really matter to anyone but Stax owners?

You're just going back to creating impossible possibilities again. Goal post shifting. Show me a DAC with a difference I can verify. I'm not looking for excused to invalidate your test. I'm looking for a way to validate it. You are the one that is making that difficult. That makes me wonder if you are really sure of what you say yourself. Wouldn't you be confident that a difference should be clearly audible on other good systems if it was on yours? I'm confident enough to invite you to compare any of the units I've compared to make sure they sound the same.


----------



## bfreedma

Davesrose said:


> You already linked a link once: it's frequency range doesn't compare to the Benchmark...sorry.



Are the FR differences within the range audible to humans?


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 20, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> Are the FR differences within the range audible to humans?



Yes, down below 20hz and well beyond 20khz (iPhone starts rolling off after 20HZ and then around 16khz).  I'm 40, but I've tested my hearing and I still hear 17khz...there's also arguments about harmonics and realistic sampling of sound for going above 20khz.


----------



## KeithEmo

That might be interesting....

I tried looking up the specs on the iPod Classic....
But here's all I could find: https://support.apple.com/kb/SP572?locale=en_GB
The headphone output is specified as: "20 Hz to 20 kHz" with "32 Ohm earphones".

And, when I looked at the latest iPhone, I couldn't find any audio specs at all (although I assume SOMEONE has them).
Here's Apple's page on the subject:
https://www.apple.com/iphone-xs/spe...id_294525206764&cid=wwa-us-kwgo-iphone-slid--

Here are some actual measurements Ken Rockwell did on an older model:
https://kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6s-plus-audio-quality.htm

It's actually quite good, although he noted an output impedance of about 6 Ohms...
And a resulting frequency response variance of +/- 0.2 dB with a "typical pair of 32 Ohm headphones"...
All of which are "OK but not great"...

I guess we should assume that the new models are better...



bigshot said:


> Have you ever seen how an iPhone measures? Would you like to? You can compare it to your system.


----------



## bfreedma

Davesrose said:


> Yes, down below 20hz and well beyond 20khz (iPhone starts rolling off after 20HZ and then around 16khz).  I'm 40, but I've tested my hearing and I still hear 17khz...there's also arguments about harmonics and realistic sampling of sound for going above 20khz.



Can you provide a reference for that?  I’m not able to find any FR measurements of recent iPhones that show roll off under 20hz or around 16khz.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 20, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> Can you provide a reference for that?



So we can be specific, I have a 6s plus. Here are measurements. https://kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6-plus.htm#meas

It makes absolutely no sense that my iPhone might have a response imbalance that precisely matches an imbalance in over a dozen other components by different manufacturers. It's more likely that all of them are audibly transparent.

Keith, look up the impedance specs and sensitivity for the Oppo PM-1s. They work fine with the headphone out of the iPod and iPhone. If headphones require different impedance specs, you just do line out to a headphone amp and VOUALA! you have audible transparency. Impedance mismatches are the fault of the headphones, not the DAP. The DAP works fine with the headphones designed to work with it.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> So we can be specific, I have a 6s plus. Here are measurements. https://kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6-plus.htm#meas




That’s why I’m asking for a reference supporting the previously made claim that the iPhone doesn’t have a flat FR. All of the response charts I’ve seen including Ken Rockwell’s show a flat FR well beyond human audibility.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 20, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> Yes, down below 20hz and well beyond 20khz (iPhone starts rolling off after 20HZ and then around 16khz)



You're mistaking the iPhone for the AAC codec. AAC 192 and below does exactly what you say. That's why I use AAC 256 VBR that extends beyond the limits of human hearing.

The difference between 16kHz and 17kHz is extremely small- not even a single note on a piano. But it doesn't matter because there isn't much up there in recorded music anyway. All that stuff about harmonics is hooey, because those frequencies get masked and disappear completely into the room if the recording isn't really close miked. That stuff is audiophool meat and potatoes. The frequencies that matter are the ones in the middle, particularly the upper mids/low treble. The least important frequencies are the ones in the top half octave of human hearing (15kHz to.20kHz)


----------



## Davesrose

bfreedma said:


> Can you provide a reference for that?  I’m not able to find any FR measurements of recent iPhones that show roll off under 20hz or around 16khz.



Well it was from memory from bigshot's rhetoric that's now been linked above of the 6S (and with more loads, Ken says it's good with the slight roll off being good and could sound warm).  So another argument about headphone stage instead of DAC.  I'm also into photography and I know that Ken Rockwell is not much of a source for accurate information (I once actually informed him about why extended ISO doesn't have better DR).


----------



## bigshot

Rockwell's facts are impeccable. He just has unpopular opinions. I understand that myself completely. Some folks just don't want to be reminded of the facts if they don't match their personal opinions.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> I'm just curious....
> You said "Every one of them sounded the same for the purposes of listening to music in the home"....
> 
> Does this mean that you actually did in fact conduct a bunch of proper, level matched, double blind tests between a bunch of them....



That standard is only required when one is trying to justify rejecting the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is, by default, not rejected. It is rejected _only _in the event that the actual observed data is very unlikely to be observed if the null hypothesis is, in fact, true.


----------



## bfreedma

Davesrose said:


> Well it was from memory from bigshot's rhetoric that's now been linked above of the 6S (and with more loads, Ken says it's good with the slight roll off being good and could sound warm).  So another argument about headphone stage instead of DAC.  I'm also into photography and I know that Ken Rockwell is not much of a source for accurate information (I once actually informed him about why extended ISO doesn't have better DR).




The “slight roll off” is less than .1db in the linked measurements.  That isn’t audible.  The quote from the site is: “Yes, it rolls off a tiny bit at the top, but that won't be audible. If it was, it would make it sound slightly smoother and warmer.”  I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that your misrepresentation of the quote was accidental.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> So are you also claiming every device sounds the same?


I'm saying that no one has provided any credible evidence supporting claims that there are audible differences among in-spec DACs currently offered.



Davesrose said:


> My assertion has been that audible differences aren't just with DACs (and what we often hear is the different stages)...but if you believe it is hard to detect audible differences with all devices, then that's a different matter.



I invite you to provide evidence of that assertion. Until such evidence is presented, I'll assume your conclusion is based on cognitive biases, not actual differences. Similar claimed differences have disappeared when proper comparisons are performed. You'll be something of a rock star in audiophile circles if you could support your assertion with data.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> You're mistaking the iPhone for the AAC codec. AAC 192 and below does exactly what you say. That's why I use AAC 256 VBR that extends beyond the limits of human hearing.



Nope, I just responded about that point: again, it's about actual headphone load: has nothing to do with audio codecs.



bigshot said:


> The difference between 16kHz and 17kHz is extremely small- not even a single note on a piano. But it doesn't matter because there isn't much up there in recorded music anyway. All that stuff about harmonics is hooey, because those frequencies get masked and disappear completely into the room if the recording isn't really close miked. That stuff is audiophool meat and potatoes. The frequencies that matter are the ones in the middle, particularly the upper mids/low treble. The least important frequencies are the ones in the top half octave of human hearing (15kHz to.20kHz)



You're missing the point.  Arguments about high resolution recordings is that there's less distortion (and can convey what all musicians agree about harmonics).  I have classical SACDs natively recorded in DSD: they do seem to have more sound-stage and better high end.  However, I also am more about the music.  I have a SACD of Harnoncourt's Mozart Requiem.  It sounds more open then Neville Marriner's recording of Mozart's Requiem.  But artistically, I much prefer Marriner.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> there's also arguments about harmonics and realistic sampling of sound for going above 20khz.



But not evidence supporting them. Without evidence, they're justifiably assumed to be empty claims from snake-oil salesmen.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> Rockwell's facts are impeccable. He just has unpopular opinions. I understand that myself completely. Some folks just don't want to be reminded of the facts if they don't match their personal opinions.


Sorry, when I bought the 5D, I read Rockwell's review.  He criticized it for not having any DR difference with ISO 50 vs 100.  At least when I pointed him to documentation that also confirmed it was software based (and so couldn't be a difference), he thanked me.  He didn't change his article though.


----------



## Davesrose

bfreedma said:


> The “slight roll off” is less than .1db in the linked measurements.  That isn’t audible.  The quote from the site is: “Yes, it rolls off a tiny bit at the top, but that won't be audible. If it was, it would make it sound slightly smoother and warmer.”  I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that your misrepresentation of the quote was accidental.



Only the first graph...but then when you look at it with loads.  Again....this then gets back to my point about it being hard to isolate just DAC


----------



## bfreedma

Davesrose said:


> Sorry, when I bought the 5D, I read Rockwell's review.  He criticized it for not having any DR difference with ISO 50 vs 100.  At least when I pointed him to documentation that also confirmed it was software based (and so couldn't be a difference), he thanked me.  He didn't change his article though.



Not sure how camera measurements are relevant.

That said, if you feel Rockwell’s iPhone FR response measurements are inaccurate, post FR measurements from another source that supports your claim.


----------



## bfreedma

Davesrose said:


> Only the first graph...but then when you look at it with loads.  Again....this then gets back to my point about it being hard to isolate just DAC



Quote from the second graph 
*“Frequency response, 37.5 Ω load. *(CBS CD-1 track 11, R&S UPL.)

Fantastic, no changes with a low-impedance load.”


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> Only the first graph...but then when you look at it with loads.  Again....this then gets back to my point about it being hard to isolate just DAC



Why are you hung up on trying to isolate the DAC? While it won't hurt anything, it won't cause us to suddenly hear audible differences that we couldn't previously hear. It won't help anything, except to reduce the likelihood of hearing audible differences due to something other than the DAC.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 20, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> Quote from the second graph
> *“Frequency response, 37.5 Ω load. *(CBS CD-1 track 11, R&S UPL.)
> 
> Fantastic, no changes with a low-impedance load.”



Are you serious...the graph isn't flat then....we're limited to these quotes but: "Yes, it rolls off a tiny bit at the top, but that won't be audible. If it was, it *would make it sound slightly smoother and warmer*."   And this is only a 37.5ohm load.  There was question about this vs a Benchmark DAC: the Benchmark is flat well above any of these frequencies, and its headphone stage isn't what i deem "colored".  Though we all care more about what audio quality we prefer, and will add whatever filters/tube/etc.


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> Why are you hung up on trying to isolate the DAC? While it won't hurt anything, it won't cause us to suddenly hear audible differences that we couldn't previously hear. It won't help anything, except to reduce the likelihood of hearing audible differences due to something other than the DAC.



I thought that was the topic of this thread....


----------



## bfreedma

Davesrose said:


> Are you serious...the graph isn't flat then....we're limited to these quotes but: "Yes, it rolls off a tiny bit at the top, but that won't be audible. If it was, it *would make it sound slightly smoother and warmer*."   And this is only a 37.5ohm load.  There was question about this vs a Benchmark DAC: the Benchmark is flat well above any of these frequencies, and its headphone stage isn't what i deem "colored".  Though we all care more about what audio quality we prefer, and will add whatever filters/tube/etc.




The Rockwell measurements show the iPhone FR to be no more then +- 0.08db across the audible range.  By any rational assessment, that would constitute a flat FR.  Not sure which Benchmark DAC you’re specifically referencing, but according to the specs on Benchmark’s web site, the DAC3 HGC is somewhere around -+ .015db across the audible range.  Neither of those figures is audible.  So are both flat, or is neither flat?

Attempting to throw the amplification stages into the discussion seems like deflection at this point.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> I thought that was the topic of this thread....


Isolating the DAC makes hearing an audible difference _less _likely. By using actual consumer devices, the likelihood of finding some audible difference between any two devices becomes much more likely. It gives the benefit of the doubt to those who claim, without evidence, that such differences exist.

If such a difference is identified, the DACs can be identified, and further comparisons made. Failure to isolate DACs prior to any difference being identified does not lessen the validity of the process.


----------



## Davesrose

bfreedma said:


> The Rockwell measurements show the iPhone FR to be no more then +- 0.08db across the audible range.  By any rational assessment, that would constitute a flat FR.  Not sure which Benchmark DAC you’re specifically referencing, but according to the specs on Benchmark’s web site, the DAC3 HGC is somewhere around -+ .015db across the audible range.  Neither of those figures is audible.  So are both flat, or is neither flat?
> 
> Attempting to throw the amplification stages into the discussion seems like deflection at this point.



Not really sure where you get your Rockwell measurements where he says from 5.9ohm to 6.8ohm is ±0.14 dB.  Then, as I already said, when you add more load, you see the graphs change.


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> Isolating the DAC makes hearing an audible difference _less _likely. By using actual consumer devices, the likelihood of finding some audible difference between any two devices becomes much more likely. It gives the benefit of the doubt to those who claim, without evidence, that such differences exist.
> 
> If such a difference is identified, the DACs can be identified, and further comparisons made. Failure to isolate DACs prior to any difference being identified does not lessen the validity of the process.



That's great in theory, but I can't see a methodology for it.  For most applications, a particular DAC model is theoretical and can only have "transparency".  For my own anecdote, the only time I've found significant differences with DAC is SACD.  The first SACD I tried buying was an entry Sony.  It didn't sound much different then a regular CD.  I went ahead and invested in a Music Hall SACD player and everything opened up (all other components the same...but then also the new SACD player had better parts all around).


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Oct 21, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> That's great in theory, but I can't see a methodology for it.



It's the standard approach to hypothesis testing. There's a reason the snake oil salesmen criticize it, while science world round relies on it.



Davesrose said:


> For my own anecdote, …



The problem is that your anecdote led you to a _conclusion_, when all it justified was a _question_.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Oct 21, 2018)

Here folks:

You want to hear a difference - You REALLY want to hear a difference??  I'll GIVE YOU A DAMN DIFFERENCE!

Here's THREE DIFFERENT MASTERINGS of 'Dark Side Of The Moon':..



 

 




THERE's your frickn' "difference".  Now GO HOME!


Ave Maria purissima....


----------



## Jaywalk3r

TheSonicTruth said:


> Here folks:
> 
> You want to hear a difference - You REALLY want to hear a difference??  I'll GIVE YOU A DAMN DIFFERENCE!
> 
> Here's THREE DIFFERENT MASTERINGS of 'The Dark Side Of The Moon':..



That's my all time favorite album. My library copy is MFSL. I've also got the dark triangle master (Harvest pictured above?) somewhere. I'm not familiar with what the differences in the different masters are supposed to be. I suck at doing comparisons of that album anyway, because I start the album, and next thing I know the intro to Time pulls me back. It's just one of those rare albums that is great no matter how it is consumed. (Please do not eat your CDs or LPs.) But I'd love to know what I'm should be listening for. Are they the sorts of differences that don't affect enjoyment, even if you know they're there, or are they the kinds of differences that cannot be unheard?


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Here folks:
> 
> You want to hear a difference - You REALLY want to hear a difference??  I'll GIVE YOU A DAMN DIFFERENCE!
> 
> ...



Hey, guys... chill down a bit.

Of course, different mastering gives the differences. They can be broken into two main categories :

1. The person doing the remastering, his /hers likes and preferences
2. The choice of the equipment for doing the mastering

AND, the most important one :

0. Master tape/record/file - or how many generations removed from that, in which case the 2. comes into play all over again.

However, IF one has the control of the music programme, has access to the recording that is 100% guaranteed not to be tampered with in any way ( only possible to guarantee that in case you recorded it yourselves ), THEN the differences heard are entirely due to differences in playback equipment. Recording has ABSOLUTELY ZERO influence on the outcome in such a case. Period.

It can be shown , perfectly well, repeatable, etc, etc, - that on paper and according to circuit diagram two completely equal devices sound markedly different. Because one (stock) has been built with bean counter's tight grip on component selection ( maximizing the profit, SQ be damned ... ) - and the other by an enthusiast installing best possible components that can still phisically fit within the volume available ( maximizing the SQ, cost effectiveness, let alone profit, be damned ). On the outside, both of these two devices LOOK IDENTICAL . And, given the standard measurements, may well also measure pretty , if not totally the same. 

But they DO NOT SOUND THE SAME . The problem is that such a comparison is impossible to be documented online - you have to have the two DUTs in situ. Because 99.99% of the participants of such online test have never even stood beside an audio component of the quality comparable to the better, modified unit - let alone possess it and have it available for the test.
And, to make it more understantable, THE WHOLE SYSTEM has to be of such quality - otherwise, the ultimately achievable quality will always be determined by the weakest link - or bottleneck - of the entire system. That is the core of the pro et contra going on since forever. I can perfecty understand people who claim that ( insert your favourite topic here ) does not make any audible difference - in THEIR system.

@KeithEmo has , extensively and in great detail, described WHY such tests are not being properly conducted, with all the requirements to be accepted as scientific proof.. Basically - because of money. If companies as large as Sony can ( or wish ? ) not to do it, please understand that I, as an individual with limited resources, interested in best possible SQ, do not have the financial means to conduct such a test. 

If you go and check out all better recording engineers, ALL of them will almost always use some modified gear - either by themselves or by  well known better electronics wizzards. 

Very few, if ANY, will use 100% stock equipment available commercially. That alone co$t$ dearly - and I have yet to see a case that any recording engineer had to back his/hers decision to use modified gear with evidence in order to satisfy - science.  In a perfect world, with unlimited resources, entirely doable - but in the real world, most unlikely to happen.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Oct 21, 2018)

Jaywalk3r said:


> That's my all time favorite album. My library copy is MFSL. I've also got the dark triangle master (Harvest pictured above?) somewhere. I'm not familiar with what the differences in the different masters are supposed to be. I suck at doing comparisons of that album anyway, because I start the album, and next thing I know the intro to Time pulls me back. It's just one of those rare albums that is great no matter how it is consumed. (Please do not eat your CDs or LPs.) But I'd love to know what I'm should be listening for. Are they the sorts of differences that don't affect enjoyment, even if you know they're there, or are they the kinds of differences that cannot be unheard?



Be the differences between the masterings I referenced "good" or "bad", they ARE....

ACTUAL.

AUDIBLE.

DIFFERENCES.

Compared at least to this assinine back and forth regarding DACs and wiring.




analogsurviver said:


> Hey, guys... chill down a bit.
> 
> Of course, different mastering gives the differences. They can be broken into two main categories :
> 
> ...



Of course they don't sound the same!   Which is the RIDICULOUS claim some of you are making about DACs, cabling, and other inconsequentials on here. Sheez!  You plug your source into one DAC, take a listen, lean over to unplug it from that DAC and plug into another, your headphone shifts a little on top of your thick skull- now THERE's a difference: the HEADPHONES moved!!

My point is, the differences some on here are trying to claim between DACs are INFINITESIMAL compared the differences between releases of the same album or artist catalog.   So give it a rest already!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Here is where this whole debate over DACs, wiring, brand names, etc. could lead if folks keep obsessing over what they think they hear:

(volume, please)...


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Be the differences between the masterings I references "good" or "bad", they ARE.
> 
> ACTUAL.
> 
> ...



I agree the differences in DACs, amplifiers etc are small compared to the differences in various VERSIONS of the same album or artist's catalog. Back in the day, it used to be like this : 

1. Master tape. Remains in the vault, save for unlikely event of being sent out for a brief time for re-release. Used to make :
2. Something called ( IIRC ) LEDO ( Level, equalization, ??? )
3. Master for CD
4. Master for LP
5. Master for MC ( music cassette )

And it was 5. that was the first copy made available "overseas" - maeaning that , in case of an originally American recording, the rest of the world has been given the master for cassette as the first copy available - and vice versa, if USA was the licensee. And that's why the ORIGINAL PRESS - either CD or LP - is held in such esteem and commands such prices on the used market. That goes for the releases at the ORIGINAL RELEASE TIME - not re-releases of re-re-re-re-re-re-releases. 

In analog days, the best copies - better than the master tapes that deteriorate with time  - were and remain the first pressings of any given well recorded album. You can not restore/replace the treble information that has by now deteriorated in master tape for any digitalization - and is well preserved in a carefully played , let alone unplayed original first pressing copy of the record.

However, given that digital has advanced to the point it is threatening to replace analog for good, the quality of playback equipment rises again. Today, downloads of NEWLY RECORDED recordings are de facto - masters. Not any worse than the original recording engineer/mastering guy has. And will be much less likely to be required to re-master them in the future. That goes particular for native DSD recordings, where all the usual mumbo jumbo of re-mastering is not only unwelcome, but impossible to do - unless going the the PCM/DSP/pluigin route - which negates all of the original intent and effort put in the native DSD recording in the first place.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> I agree the differences in DACs, amplifiers etc are small compared to the differences in various VERSIONS of the same album or artist's catalog. Back in the day, it used to be like this :
> 
> 1. Master tape. Remains in the vault, save for unlikely event of being sent out for a brief time for re-release. Used to make :
> 2. Something called ( IIRC ) LEDO ( Level, equalization, ??? )
> ...



You can add another item to your above list - the subject of my user avatar.  'Remastering', and remasters of remasters!   Swapping out a Chevy DAC for a Rolls Royce DAC cannot even begin to touch the differences made by that late-1990s-to-present trend of loudifying hours and hours of legacy artists' albums and entire catalogs.  Most to detrimental effect, regardless of what two certain mastering and studio engineers in here have to say about the matter.


----------



## Phronesis (Oct 21, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I already have my answers....
> 
> You used a single pair of headphones and a single amplifier.
> But what if the differences are there - but aren't audible on that particular, and very narrow, sample of test gear?
> ...



Yes, if the comparison is a single listener using a particular amp and headphone to compare DACs, all you can confidently say is that he personally didn't detect a sound difference between the particular DACs which were compared, given that particular amp and headphone, for the recordings and testing protocol which were used.  This leaves open the possibility that differences might be detected by other listeners, and/or using more 'resolving' headphones, trying other DACs, different protocols, etc.  General conclusions require a comprehensive testing program with the results carefully interpreted based on a good understanding of scientific aspects pertaining to the entire chain from recording to subjective perception.


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> You can add another item to your above list - the subject of my user avatar.  'Remastering', and remasters of remasters!   Swapping out a Chevy DAC for a Rolls Royce DAC cannot even begin to touch the differences made by that late-1990s-to-present trend of loudifying hours and hours of legacy artists' albums and entire catalogs.  Most to detrimental effect, regardless of what two certain mastering and studio engineers in here have to say about the matter.



Same old insults.  Same old tilting at windmills.  Same old trolling.

You clearly have nothing to offer.  /ignored


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Be the differences between the masterings I referenced "good" or "bad", they ARE....
> 
> ACTUAL.
> 
> ...



You are oversimplifying ang generalizing a bit too far.

I am very well aware of the danger of differences in sound due to slightly different positioning of headphones. It has been a source of frustration to me, hence I decided to do away with this type of possible influence.

I have been using re-recording of the files played by two "amplifiers" - using headphones and artificial head. The position - exactly the same position - of the headphones on the artificial head - can be held indefinitely. Listening to re-recording ABX, DBT or ŽNJ comparison(s) can then be made edither with headphones without any requirement of taking them off - or using loudspeakers, with listener(s) always occupying the same position without moving.

And, re-mastering games of remastering engineers are NOT my game - could not possibly care less for the (n+1)th version of DSOTM ( n being an - at least - one number too much... ) , when there are new musicians worthy of recording to the current state of the art - not something done 40+ years ago, with the capabilities that were SOTA back then.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> Nope, I just responded about that point: again, it's about actual headphone load: has nothing to do with audio codecs.



The way a DAP handles a headphone load depends on if you are using the headphones it was designed to work with. If you try to use Stax cans with a DAP, you are going to have problems. But that isn't the fault of the DAP. It's your fault for using headphones that aren't suitable. Either use headphones like the Oppo PM-1s that are designed to work well through the headphone out of the iPod, or take the line out from the iPod and run it through a headphone amp. The signal being put out is still audibly transparent even if your headphones don't present it that way.



Davesrose said:


> You're missing the point.  Arguments about high resolution recordings is that there's less distortion (and can convey what all musicians agree about harmonics).  I have classical SACDs natively recorded in DSD: they do seem to have more sound-stage and better high end.



You realize that the next question is going to be "How did you arrive at that conclusion?" and we're going to start talking about the need for careful controls on testing. I think I already know that you didn't level match, do blind testing or do direct A/B switching with no gap of time between samples, so I won't bother to go there. Instead, I'll tell you about how I determined whether SACD had better sound quality than CD or not...

I went out and bought a high end (at the time) SACD player. As I do with all my equipment, I started comparing it to other pieces of equipment I own. I quickly found out that SACDs have different mastering than the CD release of the same album. I couldn't just compare an SACD of Steely Dan's Gaucho or the Rolling Stones Sticky Fingers to the CDs of the same albums. So I ripped the CD layer off of the SACDs I was using for my test and discovered that my player inserted a five or six second pause when switching layers. That was no good (see: auditory memory) so I burned them to CD and lined up a CD player next to my SACD player, level matched and used a headphone switcher to compare them. Listening carefully, I discovered that not only was the mastering STILL different, a couple of the discs even had different mixes on the two layers- old mixes from LP and CD release, not the new remastered mixes. They had *deliberately* made it difficult to compare by hobbling the sound quality of the CD layer.

So I started asking around in forums if they were aware of this. A few people had done the same comparison I did and realized the same thing. They pointed me to Pentatone as being a label where the SACD and CD layers were identical. I ordered a couple of their discs and sure enough, they were the same... EXACTLY the same. I couldn't tell a difference between the SACD and CD layer at all, and the recordings were top notch sounding. I mentioned this to a sound mixer friend of mine and he suggested I bring the discs and SACD player over to his lab and we could do the test on his reference system. Sure enough... no difference.

We determined that if there is a difference between SACD and CD, it isn't because of the added bitrate. It's because of different mixing and mastering. If you took the SACD layer and bounced it down to CD, you would be missing nothing audible. One format isn't audibly any different from the other.

A few years later, I got a multichannel 5.1 system and I learned what SACD did well. Surround sound is a significant improvement over 2 channel, and it is the only advantage the SACD format has over a CD.

The moral of this story is that better numbers don't necessarily mean better sound. And what the high end audio websites tell you is advertorial. It was written by marketing people who are trying to sell you something. The only way to know for yourself is to take the time to do the research and find things out for yourself.



Davesrose said:


> Are you serious...the graph isn't flat then....we're limited to these quotes but: "Yes, it rolls off a tiny bit at the top, but that won't be audible. If it was, it *would make it sound slightly smoother and warmer*."   And this is only a 37.5ohm load..



I have Oppo PM-1s. They are very good cans, and they have an impedance rating of 32 Ohm and a sensitivity of 102dB. They work fine with the iPod without amping. When you look at specs, you need to focus on the word "audible". Just because a measurement shows something, it doesn't mean it is audible. We can measure far beyond what we can hear. In order to know if something is audible, you need to have an idea of where the thresholds of perception lie. Here is a nice example...



bfreedma said:


> The Rockwell measurements show the iPhone FR to be no more then +- 0.08db across the audible range.



bfreedma has been nice enough to give us a spec for us to figure out. Do you know what the threshold of perception is for frequency response deviation? Well, it depends on the frequency. In the midrange and upper mids (around 2-5kHz or so) hearing is most sensitive. There it's possible to detect as little as 1dB when listening to music in direct A/B comparison. Hearing is the least sensitive in the extreme high and extreme low frequencies. There, the threshold is as much as 3dB or more. The deviation you are pointing to won't make anything sound smoother or warmer, because it is absolutely 100% inaudible. I can look at the numbers and know that, because I've done enough research and testing myself to have a pretty good ballpark on the thresholds. If you don't, you're at the mercy of the "more is better" sales pitch. That pitch is a lie. There is a point where you just can't hear any better, because your stereo equipment produces sound better than your ears can hear it. That is called Audible Transparency. Most (if not all) modern DACs and amps are audibly transparent.

Hope this helps.


----------



## KeithEmo

I quite agree....

Differences due to differences in mastering are often orders of magnitude more audible than differences in equipment...
And differences in electromechanical equipment, like speakers and phono cartridges, are usually far greater than those in purely electronic equipment...
And differences in room acoustics and speaker placement often far exceed the differences in electronics...

And all of those things would be critically important.... if this thread was "How To Get The Most Bang For Your Buck When Buying Audio Equipment".

However, in a discussion of SCIENCE, there is a big difference between:
- "it doesn't matter to most consumers"
- "most consumers are actually unable to tell the difference"
- "no difference exists"

And, as far as I know, this forum is supposed to be a discussion of science.




TheSonicTruth said:


> Be the differences between the masterings I referenced "good" or "bad", they ARE....
> 
> ACTUAL.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

Jaywalk3r said:


> That's my all time favorite album. My library copy is MFSL. I've also got the dark triangle master (Harvest pictured above?) somewhere. I'm not familiar with what the differences in the different masters are supposed to be.



I did comparisons of the SACD layer and the redbook layer on the CD. They were different masterings. The CD layer had less noise reduction and more audible tape hiss. The two channel SACD layer is the best for stereo. I had the hand pulled half speed mastered MFSL LP and sold it because the SACD sounded better (and was in multichannel too). I'm told the best sounding multichannel version is the original quad mix in the Immersion box set, although I won't spend that much money on Pink Floyd. The 2 channel version on there is as good as the 2 channel on the SACD.

By the way, some knives in this drawer aren't as sharp as other ones.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> However, in a discussion of SCIENCE, there is a big difference between:
> - "it doesn't matter to most consumers"
> - "most consumers are actually unable to tell the difference"
> - "no difference exists"
> ...



This is a forum discussing how science can be used to improve home audio systems. And I don't exactly see how saying that inaudible sound isn't needed is jut trying to get "bang for the buck". If you can't hear it, it flat out doesn't matter. If you want to collect numbers on a sheet of paper as a hobby, that is fine. But going overboard on that won't make your music sound any better.

This makes me wonder... Do you really not care about audibility and you are more interested in the abstract specs? I imagine those sorts of people exist... folks who buy expensive stereo systems and only play test tones and frequency sweeps on it... I guess if your goal is just collecting equipment to set on a shelf and gaze fondly at, that kind of thinking makes sense. But I can't see it, because I'm in it for the music.

By the way, I would still like to get an example of a current DAC that sounds clearly different and can be verified... There are examples in the first post in this thread of equipment NOT sounding different. I'd like to have solid evidence that they can.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I did comparisons of the SACD layer and the redbook layer on the CD. They were different masterings. The CD layer had less noise reduction and more audible tape hiss. The two channel SACD layer is the best for stereo. I had the hand pulled half speed mastered MFSL LP and sold it because the SACD sounded better (and was in multichannel too). I'm told the best sounding multichannel version is the original quad mix in the Immersion box set, although I won't spend that much money on Pink Floyd. The 2 channel version on there is as good as the 2 channel on the SACD.
> 
> By the way, some knives in this drawer aren't as sharp as other ones.




I bought Immersion Box Set - WYWH has some specific sentimental value so paid more than I otherwise would have.  Will have to compare the 5.1 and original quad mixes this week to see which I prefer.


----------



## bigshot

I have the standalone 5.1 SACD of WYWH. It is a lazy and sloppy mix. I've heard the mix on the Immersion box is much better. (it's a different mix altogether.) But I was talking about the Dark Side Immersion Box before, not the WYWH one.


----------



## bfreedma (Oct 21, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I have the standalone 5.1 SACD of WYWH. It is a lazy and sloppy mix. I've heard the mix on the Immersion box is much better. (it's a different mix altogether.)



I have the standalone SACD as well and remember preferring the 5.1 mix in the Immersion box.  Looks like I’ll be listening to a lot of WYWH this week to see if I still find the same preferences.  Of course, it will be a one data point subjective opinion, but you’ve got me curious.

Edit.  Looks like I may no longer have the stand alone SACD.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

analogsurviver said:


> But they DO NOT SOUND THE SAME .



A wholly unsupported assertion.

Anyone making such claims, but is unwilling to provide supporting evidence, is safely and justifiably assumed to be a snake oil salesman.



analogsurviver said:


> @KeithEmo has , extensively and in great detail, …



… provided excuse after excuse about why proper comparisons are too hard for those who have the greatest incentive, and responsibility, to perform them.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 21, 2018)

bigshot said:


> We determined that if there is a difference between SACD and CD, it isn't because of the added bitrate. It's because of different mixing and mastering. If you took the SACD layer and bounced it down to CD, you would be missing nothing audible. One format isn't audibly any different from the other.
> 
> A few years later, I got a multichannel 5.1 system and I learned what SACD did well. Surround sound is a significant improvement over 2 channel, and it is the only advantage the SACD format has over a CD.



I think you might mean added sampling rate...

I already stated that I have CDs that I like better then comparable SACDs because they may have better performances.  My impression of the Mozart Requiem on SACD was from a DSD recording: so  it's different than a recording that's first mastered for CD.  I have a high end SACD player that's stereo.  I can listen to SACD multichannel with an Oppo BD player I have.  There is an audible difference between them (tonally, the Oppo sounds brighter then my dedicated SACD player).  Most music has been mastered in stereo, so I'd rather listen to the better source.  The only recording I have that was originally recorded in quad surround (and then remastered to SACD) is Bach Toccatas played on 4 organs at the cathedral of Freiburg....so for that, I will play on the Oppo.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

TheSonicTruth said:


> Be the differences between the masterings I referenced "good" or "bad", they ARE....
> 
> ACTUAL.
> 
> ...



Oh, I agree completely. I didn't mean for anyone to infer from my post that me not being familiar with the differences is equivalent to me claiming no differences exist, though I probably wasn't clear.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Phronesis said:


> Yes, if the comparison is a single listener using a particular amp and headphone to compare DACs, all you can confidently say is that he personally didn't detect a sound difference between the particular DACs which were compared, given that particular amp and headphone, for the recordings and testing protocol which were used.  This leaves open the possibility that differences might be detected by other listeners, and/or using more 'resolving' headphones, trying other DACs, different protocols, etc.  *General conclusions require a comprehensive testing program with the results carefully interpreted based on a good understanding of scientific aspects pertaining to the entire chain from recording to subjective perception.*


Much more important is a solid understanding of the statistical methods used.

Case in point, the only acceptable hypothesis, until someone can provide reliable data suggesting it is an improbable conclusion given that said data was observed, is that there exist no audible differences among current DAC offerings.

If anyone wants to claim otherwise, they have to bring supporting data for anyone to take them seriously. So far, no one has met that minimal standard, despite the fact that several parties have incentive to demonstrate such a difference, should it actually exist. We've seen lots of excuses, but no data.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> And all of those things would be critically important.... if this thread was "How To Get The Most Bang For Your Buck When Buying Audio Equipment".
> 
> However, in a discussion of SCIENCE, there is a big difference between:
> - "it doesn't matter to most consumers"
> ...



Talk about an ironic post!

Since you're such a fan of science, do you have any data supporting your continued assertion that there exist at least to in-spec DACs between which audible differences can be heard? Or are you still disregarding the science of which you claim to be such a fan?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> My impression of the Mozart Requiem on SACD was from a DSD recording: so  it's different than a recording that's first mastered for CD.  I have a high end SACD player that's stereo.  I can listen to SACD multichannel with an Oppo BD player I have.  There is an audible difference between them (tonally, the Oppo sounds brighter then my dedicated SACD player).



I compared a Pentatone SACD to the CD layer. It was recorded in DSD. Both layers sounded great, and both sounded exactly the same.

Would you like to fill us in on how you compared the output of your SACD player and your Oppo player to determine that they sounded different? Did you eliminate the possibility of bias from affecting your impression? Would it upset you to be wrong?

I probably already know the answer to that, but I'll ask anyway. Just call me Diogenes.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 21, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I compared a Pentatone SACD to the CD layer. It was recorded in DSD. Both layers sounded great, and both sounded exactly the same.
> 
> Would you like to fill us in on how you compared the output of your SACD player and your Oppo player to determine that they sounded different? Did you eliminate the possibility of bias from affecting your impression? Would it upset you to be wrong?
> 
> I probably already know the answer to that, but I'll ask anyway. Just call me Diogenes.



My Oppo player is plugged into my receiver with HDMI (so digital connection), and my SACD player is plugged in with analogue RCA cables.  So there is a difference with connection and processing of audio (SACD player having DSD DAC and Oppo converting to PCM).  When it comes to bias, I can also turn it around and ask if you have a bias for assuming everything sounds the same (as it appears your assertion is that any device that is "transparent" sounds identical).


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> When it comes to bias, _*I can also turn it around and ask *_if you have a bias for assuming everything sounds the same (as it appears your assertion is that any device that is "transparent" sounds identical).



No, you can't. The null hypothesis is that there exist no audible differences between any two in-spec DACs. The null hypothesis is assumed to be true until someone provides data that would be very unlikely to be observed if the null hypothesis is, in fact, true.

The onus is _entirely _on those who seek to reject the null hypothesis to provide that data.

If the claimed differences actually exist, it's quite a low bar. If they don't exist, it's a very high bar indeed.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the posters who claim audible differences exist tend to be the same posters who repeatedly demonstrate a lack of understanding of the methods needed to justify and support those assertions?

A better strategy for those folks would be to say, "Hey humans, I'f got these two DACs that I believe sound noticeably different. How can I test to verify that the perceived differences I'm hearing are real, not just my ears/mind playing tricks on me?" Undoubtedly, assistance could be provided to design a proper experiment.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 21, 2018)

Jaywalk3r said:


> A better strategy for those folks would be to say, "Hey humans, I'f got these two DACs that I believe sound noticeably different. How can I test to verify that the perceived differences I'm hearing are real, not just my ears/mind playing tricks on me?" Undoubtedly, assistance could be provided to design a proper experiment.



So how would you create such a test (as page after page of this thread asks for controlled tests to determine of there is a difference with DACs)?  If you're going to quote the null hypothesis and assume that's indisputable, that's not being scientific as well (as it's meant to be testable).  In a previous post, you asked me why I was so hung up on other stages besides the DAC.  My situation of Oppo BD player vs SACD player is another example of what I'm actually listening to is not isolated to DAC chip used in player.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> I quite agree....
> 
> Differences due to differences in mastering are often orders of magnitude more audible than differences in equipment...
> And differences in electromechanical equipment, like speakers and phono cartridges, are usually far greater than those in purely electronic equipment...
> ...



I never meant to imply "no difference exists" in any of my replies.  Just not a difference that was readily audible, even under controlled conditions.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> So how would you create such a test (as page after page of this thread asks for controlled tests to determine of there is a difference with DACs)?  If you're going to quote the null hypothesis and *assume that's indisputable*, that's not being scientific as well (as it's meant to be testable).



It's clear that you don't understand the scientific method. That makes you very much like many other people, so don't feel bad about it. But don't be proud of it, either.

The _entire point_ of a hypothesis test is to dispute and test the null hypothesis. So we assume it's true ("for argument's sake"), collect data, and test to see if those data are consistent with the null hypothesis. If they are consistent, e.g., no audible differences found, then we do not reject the null hypothesis. On the other hand, if the data are sufficiently inconsistent with the null hypothesis, we reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternate hypothesis. In science, we take _nothing _on faith, except that the intersection of set A and the compliment of set A is the empty set. We are investigating differences. We assume nothing about the comparison, i.e., the audible difference between two DACs is zero. Think there's a difference? Let's prove it. We'll design an experiment that controls for all of the other influencing factors, so we can be confident about the results we observe. When we're through, we give our work to peers, asking them to try to find any mistakes or methodological errors. That's what the scientific method is all about. That _is _science.

The ones "not being scientific" are you and your fellow posters who are insisting that audible differences exist, without providing a shred of supporting evidence.


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> It's clear that you don't understand the scientific method. That makes you very much like many other people, so don't feel bad about it. But don't be proud of it, either..



And now you're being condescending: showing how you rely on rhetoric instead of science.  I have a background in science, and I've been pretty transparent (unlike you).  I asked what test you would perform for determining differences in DACs (as you were adamant that those who claim hearing any difference in devices can be shown "a proper experiment").  Now you just want to personally attack.  The main problem with the basis of testing audible differences with DACs is that the DAC chip is within a chain that influences the final output to speaker/headphone.  This has been my rational discussion of why devices sound different and how it's hard to isolate perceptual differences with DACs themselves.  If you resort to such rhetoric as this post again, I'll just ignore you.


----------



## analogsurviver

Jaywalk3r said:


> A wholly unsupported assertion.
> 
> Anyone making such claims, but is unwilling to provide supporting evidence, is safely and justifiably assumed to be a snake oil salesman.
> 
> ...



I did say WHY  it is impossible to do that online, I did say I do not have the financial means to conduct such a test in a way that science would accept it.

But make no mistake, if anyone with reasonably preserved hearing and some listening experience would be doing the DBT of two devices I described in situ, he/she would NOT  come up with roughly 50/50 result... youcan bet anything on that. 

One piece of advice; before making such wholly unsupported assertions on your part again, try to DO something/anything of your own that does support better SQ - and you will, very quickly, comprehend how much work is behind even the smallest real improvement. All it takes for a desktop naysayer is to repeat that it does not  matter ad nuauseaum - he/she does not even need to listen to one single second of audio, all it is required and accepted is scientifically approved and peer reviewed and whatnot paper - written by somebody else, who did all the work and/or paid for it to make it happen. 

A super safe and lazy approach - I might add.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> And now you're being condescending: showing how you rely on rhetoric instead of science.



Um, no. Extracting truth from data is what I do for a living. It's my wheelhouse.



Davesrose said:


> I have a background in science, and I've been pretty transparent (unlike you).



Then you should know that one must start with a null hypothesis of no audible differences between any two in-spec DACs. You claim to understand science. Okay, let's assume that's true. So if your substantial errors in reasoning are not due to ignorance of the subject, should we then assume your errors are intentional attempts to be misleading?


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Oct 21, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> I did say WHY  it is impossible to do that online, I did say I do not have the financial means to conduct such a test in a way that science would accept it.
> 
> But make no mistake, if anyone with reasonably preserved hearing and some listening experience would be doing the DBT of two devices I described in situ, he/she would NOT  come up with roughly 50/50 result... youcan bet anything on that.



Yet, crickets when asked to support your claims.



analogsurviver said:


> … before making such wholly unsupported assertions on your part again …


What claims were those, specifically?

Not accepting dubious claims of audible differences at face value sans evidence is not making an assertion. It's simply application of logic and reason in a systematic manner.


----------



## bigshot

Davesrose said:


> My Oppo player is plugged into my receiver with HDMI (so digital connection), and my SACD player is plugged in with analogue RCA cables.  So there is a difference with connection and processing of audio (SACD player having DSD DAC and Oppo converting to PCM).  When it comes to bias, I can also turn it around and ask if you have a bias for assuming everything sounds the same (as it appears your assertion is that any device that is "transparent" sounds identical).



Are you switching between the Oppo and the SACD player on the same amp? I'm curious why you don't just use the analogue out of the Oppo instead of using a totally separate player? Analogue out is a little lower quality than direct HDMI, but it still would fall below the threshold of audibility. I don't think you would be able to hear a difference unless there's something funky with your analogue chain.

Yes, I definitely have bias. I have normal human perceptual errors too. That's why it's important to apply controls if you really want to know the truth. Those controls are blind comparison to eliminate expectation bias, level matching to eliminate the perceptual error that causes us to think slightly louder is better queality, and direct A/B switching to avoid the perceptual error related to auditory memory. Do you take those steps to avoid bias and error when you compared your players?


----------



## bigshot

Jaywalk3r said:


> Do you think it's a coincidence that the posters who claim audible differences exist tend to be the same posters who repeatedly demonstrate a lack of understanding of the methods needed to justify and support those assertions?



Oh! You noticed that too?!


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> So how would you create such a test (as page after page of this thread asks for controlled tests to determine of there is a difference with DACs)?



IT WAS ANSWERED IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS THREAD!

34. Blind test of six DACs, Stereomojo
Like the other blind as opposed to ABX tests this one found the cheapest and most expensive DAC in the final, with only a hairs width between the two in terms of sound.
http://www.stereomojo.com/Stereomojo Six DAC Shootout.htm/StereomojoSixDACShootout.htm

The way they set up their test was a shootout leading to one being the best, but that was based on an assumption that there actually *was* a best. That assumption was wrong, they were all the same, so they ended up with spectacularly random results.

Have you even read the post the comments here are about? How to properly apply controls to a test is the whole point of this thread. Click this link and start reading from the top. Remedial reading time!
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> Um, no. Extracting truth from data is what I do for a living. It's my wheelhouse.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should know that one must start with a null hypothesis of no audible differences between any two in-spec DACs. You claim to understand science. Okay, let's assume that's true. So if your substantial errors in reasoning are not due to ignorance of the subject, should we then assume your errors are intentional attempts to be misleading?



Then you're showing a very bad form of knowing science.  The first thing you should do is *specify* an hypothesis to test.  You have continued to not understand my posts..which is evidence when you claim the hypothesis is testing "audible differences between two in-spec DACs".  This after my posts have continued to ask how you can just isolate DACs for testing.  The onus is on you, as you've indicated you can show the error of people's way for hearing differences with audio devices.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> And now you're being condescending: showing how you rely on rhetoric instead of science.



Just some friendly advice.... I wouldn't recommend going down that road. We've seen that go wrong too often in the past. Sound Science is populated by some folks who are VERY knowledgeable about science and electrical engineering. Several of the regular posters here are professionals in the field. Unless you are very confident that you know the subject inside and out and have experience in testing audio equipment, you would do well to not stick your neck out that far in that direction. I don't know a lot about you or Jaywalk3r, but I can tell from reading his posts and your posts that he knows an awful lot more about science than you do. Tell us about what you know. Stick to your lane.

Not knowing about something is fine. We are all here to learn from each other. We do that by sharing knowledge and backing it up with solid evidence. Sound Science was created because people with baseless opinions got mad at being called out for it. They created this group so we wouldn't make willfully ignorant people cry. You have stepped into our cage here. You don't want to behave like them. If you do, you will end up very upset and you'll stomp out of this forum in a huff. It won't bother us in the least and we'll probably make fun of you when you're gone. That won't be useful to anyone. It will just be one more fool through the revolving door. You don't want to go there.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 21, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Are you switching between the Oppo and the SACD player on the same amp? I'm curious why you don't just use the analogue out of the Oppo instead of using a totally separate player? Analogue out is a little lower quality than direct HDMI, but it still would fall below the threshold of audibility. I don't think you would be able to hear a difference unless there's something funky with your analogue chain.
> 
> Yes, I definitely have bias. I have normal human perceptual errors too. That's why it's important to apply controls if you really want to know the truth. Those controls are blind comparison to eliminate expectation bias, level matching to eliminate the perceptual error that causes us to think slightly louder is better queality, and direct A/B switching to avoid the perceptual error related to auditory memory. Do you take those steps to avoid bias and error when you compared your players?



You do understand that most high quality SACD players only had analogue output in their SACD layer because of copy protection?  You're really generalizing in this post, and it seems to reveal that you also believe that there can be sonic differences (if you say that "Analogue out is a little lower quality than direct HDMI").  Well with the case of my expensive SACD player vs Oppo: the analogue out from the SACD sounds better.  It's not about levels: which can effect dynamics....there is a clear difference with tonality.  There's also more processing going on with the Oppo: which is converting DSD to PSM and then sending that digital signal to my receiver.  There are quite a few components involved in this chain, and it's not limited to the main DAC chip used with the player.  Hence my stance about how one can isolate a DAC for testing perceptual quality.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> You do understand that most high quality SACD players only had analogue output in their SACD layer because of copy protection?  You're really generalizing in this post, and it seems to reveal that you also believe that there can be sonic differences (if you say that "Analogue out is a little lower quality than direct HDMI").  Well with the case of my expensive SACD player vs Oppo: the analogue out from the SACD sounds better.  It's not about levels: which can effect dynamics....there is a clear difference with tonality.  There's also more processing going on with the Oppo: which is converting DSD to PSM and then sending that digital signal to my receiver.  There are quite a few component involved in this chain, and it's not limited to the main DAC chip used with the player.  Hence my stance about how one can isolate a DAC for testing perceptual quality.


.
OK I guess you don't understand what I'm asking. I need to back up a little bit. I'll try to speak in smaller chunks.

Do you use your analogue out from your SACD player so you can record your CDs? If so, I understand. (Although if you have an Oppo BDP-103 or 105 you can rip SACDs lossless without worrying about copy protection.)

There is a method to eliminate bias and perceptual error in comparing two similar sound sources. You 1) level match, 2) direct A/B switch between sources and 3) test blind to eliminate bias. Did you do any of these things when you compared your SACD player to your Oppo, or are you basing your opinion on the difference on sighted comparisons at different points in time and at different volume levels?

You're not understanding fully what is happening in your Oppo and its effect on the sound quality. It might not be easy for me to explain to you, but I'll try... Your Oppo is fully capable of putting out direct DSD to be converted to analogue in your preamp. I don't know what model you have, but my BDP-103D has analogue outputs too so you can convert to analogue in the Oppo if you want. But even if you convert to PCM and transfer that to your amp for conversion, you aren't losing any audible sound quality, because PCM is capable of reproducing everything human ears can hear with headroom to spare. Your SACD player has a DAC. Your AV amp has a DAC. Your Oppo has a DAC. It doesn't really matter which DAC converts the signal. And passing signal from one component to another is audibly identical too, not matter what method you use.

I know that high end audio salesmen tell you that analogue is better sounding, but that isn't true. All three of those methods should be audibly transparent. The reason that high end audio salesmen push analogue output is because only the very most expensive models have that. They have to get an exemption from the sundown rule and that costs more. It's being recommended to you because a higher retail price means a higher profit or commission for the salesman. It makes absolutely no difference to the sound quality. If you don't believe me, learn to do a controlled listening test and check it yourself.


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Oct 21, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> Then you're showing a very bad form of knowing science.  The first thing you should do is *specify* an hypothesis to test.



If you've been following along, you know I've stated the null and alternate (aka research) hypotheses multiple times. Here, I'll do it again:

*H0: There do not exist audible differences between any two current in-spec DACs.
H1: There exist at least two current, in-spec DACs between which audible differences exist.*​
As long as you're claiming that DACs sound different, those are our hypotheses. You don't get to change them; they're defined by the claim.



Davesrose said:


> You have continued to not understand my posts.


I understand your posts find. It's not your command of writing that is deficient.



> This after my posts have continued to ask how you can just isolate DACs for testing.  The onus is on you, as you've indicated you can show the error of people's way for hearing differences with audio devices.



If there are audible differences, they will not be masked by other components in a system with no audible noise. (And if someone thinks they are, which is okay, a different device with the same DAC can also be checked.) On the other hand, another component might interact with the DAC, combining two previously inaudible sounds into a single audible one. There's nothing to gain by isolating the DACs before identifying candidate DACs, i.e., specific DAC models between which you believe an audible difference exists. In principle, it won't hurt anything, but won't help anything either. In practice, it's used by those selling snake-oil as an excuse as to why we can't do real testing and should instead believe people's subjective opinions when it comes to our audio equipment.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> .
> You're not understanding fully what is happening in your Oppo and its effect on the sound quality. It might not be easy for me to explain to you, but I'll try... Your Oppo is fully capable of putting out direct DSD to be converted to analogue in your preamp. I don't know what model you have, but my BDP-103D has analogue outputs too so you can convert to analogue in the Oppo if you want. But even if you convert to PCM and transfer that to your amp for conversion, you aren't losing any audible sound quality, because PCM is capable of reproducing everything human ears can hear with headroom to spare. Your SACD player has a DAC. Your AV amp has a DAC. Your Oppo has a DAC. It doesn't really matter which DAC converts the signal. And passing signal from one component to another is audibly identical too, not matter what method you use.



No, you're showing you don't understand what's going on with your Oppo.  I also have a BD-103.  The player doesn't natively decode DSD.  It converts it to PCM, which is the codec that gets converted with its PCM DAC.  How many times do I have to say that my expensive SACD player that decodes DSD has analogue out for the SACD layer?  There is no option for digital due to copyright issues.


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> If you've been following along, you know I've stated the null and alternate (aka research) hypotheses multiple times. Here, I'll do it again:
> 
> *H0: There do not exist audible differences between any two current in-spec DACs.
> H1: There exist at least two current, in-spec DACs between which audible differences exist.*​
> As long as you're claiming that DACs sound different, those are our hypotheses. You don't get to change them; they're defined by the claim.



Yet you continue to engage with me and fling insults, when my posts are not reflective of these specific hypotheses.



Jaywalk3r said:


> If there are audible differences, they will not be masked by other components in a system with no audible noise. On the other hand, another component might interact with the DAC, combining two previously inaudible sounds into a single audible one. There's nothing to gain by isolating the DACs before identifying candidate DACs, i.e., specific DAC models between which you believe an audible difference exists. In principle, it won't hurt anything, but won't help anything either. In practice, it's used by those selling snake-oil as an excuse as to why we can't do real testing and should instead believe people's subjective opinions when it comes to our audio equipment.



I also didn't know the only gauge of audio differences is with audible noise...here I thought signals can effect both frequency range and dynamic range.


----------



## KeithEmo

First, you asked for an example, and I provided you with one.
My claim was based on a somewhat informal sighted comparison test.
Your conclusion is based on pure inference, about two pieces of equipment you haven't heard at all.

Are YOU actually suggesting that "a well reviewed $1200 set of planar magnetic headphones" are the be-all and end all?
And, are you suggesting that, "if a difference isn't obvious using them cannot possble be audible using anything else"?
Have you actually confirmed this with any tests?

Since you asked, I chose Stax as an example for two reasons:
First, many people, myself included, believe that electrostatic headphones are better at revealing detail, and have a cleaner impulse response, than others - inclusing planar magnetics.
Most people consider Stax to be "the top consumer brand for electrostatic headphones".
Second, as a historical aside, when the Navy was doing the original development of SONAR, they used Stax electrostatic headphones 
(apparently because they allowed operators to hear detailed differences between different sound signatures better than other types of headphones).
Of course, that was a long time ago.

I fail to see anything "impossible" about confirming that test.
The original Wyred4Sound DAC2 is readily available on the used market; and so is the DC-1.
The speakers we used included two pairs of very well designed home-made models (my friend designs speakers for a living).
I think both were three-way; one used dome tweeters and one used flat planar tweeters.
The third pair was a pair of one of Emotiva's current speaker models (all of which sound quite similar, and are all still available; they use folded ribbon tweeters).
We used one of the Emotiva amp models and an older Mark Levinson solid state model (I forget the actual model).
We didn't use a separate preamp; we used the analog gain stage in the DC-1 for both... and matched the levels using the level controls on the DACs.
As I said, I no longer have the W4S... but, if you want to arrange the test, I'll loan you one of my DC-1's to use.



bigshot said:


> When I say "for purposes of listening to music in the home" I mean that I compare using a music file at normal listening levels. I do level matching and direct A/B switching.
> 
> I'll read more of your post later. I'd appreciate it if you would stick to the point, which is a DAC that clearly sounds different where it's possible and practical to set up a test to confirm your test.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Without evidence, assumptions are simply assumptions (which aren't facts), which may or not turn out to be true.
Of course, feel free to assume anything you like 



Jaywalk3r said:


> But not evidence supporting them. Without evidence, they're justifiably assumed to be empty claims from snake-oil salesmen.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm sorry - but you claim that "no difference exists" is "the obvious conclusion".

On what do you base that conclusion?
I suspect that, if you want to use statistics alone, you will find the most audiophiles BELIEVE that there is a difference...
Therefore, minus any actual test results showing the contrary, wouldn't THAT be "the obvious default assumption"?



Jaywalk3r said:


> Much more important is a solid understanding of the statistical methods used.
> 
> Case in point, the only acceptable hypothesis, until someone can provide reliable data suggesting it is an improbable conclusion given that said data was observed, is that there exist no audible differences among current DAC offerings.
> 
> If anyone wants to claim otherwise, they have to bring supporting data for anyone to take them seriously. So far, no one has met that minimal standard, despite the fact that several parties have incentive to demonstrate such a difference, should it actually exist. We've seen lots of excuses, but no data.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> Yet you continue to engage with me and fling insults, when my posts are not reflective of these specific hypotheses.



So you acknowledge that all current in-spec DACs sound alike? Good. We're in agreement. But if you don't agree, then those hypotheses are indeed reflective of the checking the claim that some DACs sound different. 



Davesrose said:


> I also didn't know the only gauge of audio differences is with audible noise...here I thought signals can effect both frequency range and dynamic range.



Okay. Which DACs sound different? How, exactly, did you reach that conclusion? We're very interested.

Just don't be surprised when people dismiss your claims when you reveal you didn't take any steps to minimize the effects of cognitive biases. We all know that many people are quite genuine with their claims of hearing a difference, they honestly believe they're hearing a difference; They don't realize that they could be influenced by subtle, or not so subtle, biases. They can influence all of us to some degree or another. That's why it's critically important to control for the influence of biases _when drawing conclusions_.

On the other hand, what @bigshot is doing is trying to identify DAC pairings that would be most likely to reveal an audible difference. He's prescreening, trying to find devices that might sound different enough to spend the time and effort required to perform more rigorous testing required to justify rejecting the null hypothesis. His specific methodology is justified by the transitive property: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. If he finds one he thinks sounds different, that will justify investigating the question, _Does this DAC sound different from any of my other DACs?
_
On the other hand, he would still need to verify that difference he perceives is real, not the result of cognitive biases. He's not being held to any different standard than anyone else. He seems more than willing to perform a valid comparison if he ever finds a pair of DACs he suspects he could distinguish blindly.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> Without evidence, assumptions are simply assumptions (which aren't facts), which may or not turn out to be true.



Yet, here you are, offering your assumptions up as fact, wholly without any evidence. Do you not see the problem with that in this forum?


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> I'm sorry - but you claim that "no difference exists" is "the obvious conclusion".



The null and alternative hypotheses are defined by the claim that some DACs sound different from others. I didn't make the null hypothesis the default conclusion; the claim that DACs can sound different did.



KeithEmo said:


> Therefore, minus any actual test results showing the contrary, wouldn't THAT be "the obvious default assumption"?



To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, That's not right: That's not even close enough to be wrong.


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes, all of the recent Oppo models can output either PCM audio or DSD audio via HDMI.
They will not convert PCM to DSD.
(The copy protection will not allow them to output DSD digital audio by their other digital outputs.)
However, if you configure the Oppo to do so, and you play a DSD source, it will output DSD to devices whose EDID shows that they can accept it.
(If your device cannot accept DSD, or if you configure it to do so, the Oppo will convert the DSD to PCM.)

I should point out, however, that converting DSD audio to PCM audio is not a "lossless" or "bit perfect process".
It involves filtering, and the conversion process can introduce... audible differences.
In fact, the audible differences between the results of converting DSD to PCM using different conversion software are the subject of lively discussion in other forums.
(The two most well known conversion programs are Korg AudioGate and Weiss Saracon... )
Therefore, since we have no idea what conversion algorithms are used in the Oppo, it is NOT "a given" that the PCM and DSD outputs of the Oppo "are audibly identical".
(Personally I have never noticed a difference; however, I will admit that I have never actually performed a proper test to confirm that assumption.)

I should also note that Oppo is a firm proponent of the claim that "DACs sound very different".
(The main selling point of the Oppo BDP-95, BDP-104, and BDP-205 over their significantly lower cost xx3 variants is that their Sabre DACs sound better than the 
"regular DACs" in the other models. ) 




bigshot said:


> .
> OK I guess you don't understand what I'm asking. I need to back up a little bit. I'll try to speak in smaller chunks.
> 
> Do you use your analogue out from your SACD player so you can record your CDs? If so, I understand. (Although if you have an Oppo BDP-103 or 105 you can rip SACDs lossless without worrying about copy protection.)
> ...


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Yes, all of the recent Oppo models can output either PCM audio or DSD audio via HDMI.
> They will not convert PCM to DSD.
> (The copy protection will not allow them to output DSD digital audio by their other digital outputs.)
> However, if you configure the Oppo to do so, and you play a DSD source, it will output DSD to devices whose EDID shows that they can accept it.
> ...




Keith, as a MOT of a company selling numerous products with DACs, you likely have access to more data than most.  Given that, do Emotiva DACs sound audibly different across the various products?  If so, can you provide some examples?  What is the process for developing the various DAC operational parameters? How do you test them to see if the DAC is performing as defined in the development phase?


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> So you acknowledge that all current in-spec DACs sound alike? Good. We're in agreement. But if you don't agree, then those hypotheses are indeed reflective of the checking the claim that some DACs sound different.



I'm saying I don't know....and if you were genuine to science, you'd have that perspective as well.  What I have observed is that people like @bigshot are conflating entire audio systems as being equal to their source transport DACs (even cognitively one should understand that there are differences with digital filters, circuitry, and amps employed after source DAC).  If you read my previous posts, you'll see components I list which sound different (and many times my impressions are talking about frequency range from perception of headphone/speaker).  You'll also see I'm specific about device and not what DAC chip happens to be in it.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> I'm saying I don't know.



Okay. That means you are not rejecting the null hypothesis that no audible differences exist between current in-spec DACs.

It's binary. Reject or do not reject.


Davesrose said:


> … if you were genuine to science, you'd have that perspective as well.



Again, you misunderstand the science. No one is saying that it's not possible that two DACs could sound different. What's being said is this: considering the measured differences between DACs is all, in theory, inaudible, I would require credible evidence supporting any claims that those differences can be heard.

Not rejecting the null hypothesis until evidence justifies rejecting it is _how _scientists maintain open minds.


----------



## KeithEmo

Errrr.... no.

I'm offering my observations as "anecdotal evidence".
I certainly don't suggest that anyone should accept them as fact without confirming them.
And, when I make assertions about products I haven't actually heard, I usually preface them with something like: "Measurements would seem to suggest...."
If you read what I write carefully, you will find that I am quite careful to avoid stating assertions or opinions as FACTS.

And, yes, I'm STILL waiting to see the results of a properly designed and conducted test about "whether different DACs are audibly different".
And, so far, from what I can tell, NOBODY HAS RUN SUCH A TEST SO FAR.
(I would love to design and run such a test... but nobody seems interested in financing one.)

I would much rather see a serious discussion about how we can arrange for such a test to actually be run...
Or, at the very least, a serious discussion about the requirements of doing so.
(Perhaps, when presented with an actual test methodology, someone WILL fund a Kickstarter campaign, or pick it for their college thesis.)
Yet, instead, all we have is an endless rehash of what various folks are quite sure the results will turn out to be - or "excuses" about why such a test "really isn't necessary".



Jaywalk3r said:


> Yet, here you are, offering your assumptions up as fact, wholly without any evidence. Do you not see the problem with that in this forum?


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> It's binary. Reject or do not reject.



Not the science I'm involved with (medical sciences).  You often times have data that's incongruous to hypothesized data, so you examine and revise.



Jaywalk3r said:


> Again, you misunderstand the science. No one is saying that it's not possible that two DACs could sound different. What's being said is this: considering the measured differences between DACs is all, in theory, inaudible, I would require credible evidence supporting any claims that those differences can be heard.
> 
> Not rejecting the null hypothesis until evidence justifies rejecting it is _how _scientists maintain open minds.



This again begs the question...are we talking about entire components: that an iPhone should sound exactly the same as an expensive audio setup?  Everyone who's heard my setup has said it sounds more lively and better then your run of the mill blue tooth earbud (so it's not just me that is succumbing to snake oil).  What my argument has been is that my dedicated headphone setup has more then just its source DAC chip: so it's impossible to just judge its quality.  I know there currently are many different approaches with DAC chips...and I'm sure many can sound great depending on application and overall design of all components used.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> And, when I make assertions about products I haven't actually heard, …


The problem arises when you make assertions about equipment you have heard, but haven't tested in any meaningful way.



KeithEmo said:


> I would love to design and run such a test... but nobody seems interested in financing one.)



Just find someone who works for a company that sells "premium" DACs. They'll have a vested interest in verifying that their DACs make an audible difference. Unless they make no such difference, in which case that company will have a vested interest in making excuses about why they don't have any reason to conduct such testing. Your claim that such tests aren't in such companies' best interests holds only if those companies are selling snake-oil, in this case, "high-end" commodity DACs. If they're selling the real deal, it _is _in their best interest to do testing.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> No, you're showing you don't understand what's going on with your Oppo.  I also have a BD-103.  The player doesn't natively decode DSD.  It converts it to PCM, which is the codec that gets converted with its PCM DAC.  How many times do I have to say that my expensive SACD player that decodes DSD has analogue out for the SACD layer?  There is no option for digital due to copyright issues.



I really don't intend to argue with you, but here is the bit on page 62 of your BDP103 user's manual dealing with the playback of SACDs....

DSD – SACD Direct Stream Digital (DSD) data is output over HDMI without any conversion. For the analog audio outputs, DSD data is converted into an analog signal directly by the internal DAC.
http://download.oppodigital.com/BDP103/BDP-103_USER_MANUAL_English_v1.6.pdf

You can either play DSD by outputting it to the analog output using the internal DAC in the Oppo, or you can pass the DSD stream directly to your receiver through HDMI v1.2a to be decoded. If your receiver doesn't have analog inputs nor is it able to decode DSD from the HDMI inputs, you can convert to PCM and play it that way. All three of those ways should sound exactly the same. You really don't need that second SACD player. You can just hook up your Oppo with both analog and HDMI cables to two different inputs on your amp and switch between them.

Another friendly suggestion... You really might want to listen to what other people say and consider that they might know more about the topic than you do. The purpose of being here is to learn form the people around you, not to ram through opinions based on your own misunderstandings. At some point your opinions might be proven wrong and you'll either have to backtrack and apologize or try to bluff your way out of it and stomp off in a huff not admitting your mistake. That is your choice I guess.



KeithEmo said:


> Yes, all of the recent Oppo models can output either PCM audio or DSD audio via HDMI. They will not convert PCM to DSD.)
> 
> (The copy protection will not allow them to output DSD digital audio by their other digital outputs.)



You missed what we were talking about. He was talking about an SACD player that converted DSD directly to analog output with no extra conversion. The Oppo does that. It also converts DSD to PCM in case your amp doesn't have analog inputs or a DAC capable of decoding DSD through HDMI. There really isn't any need to convert PCM to DSD.

The Oppo can pass DSD directly out via HDMI v1.2a, The Oppo can also rip SACDs to a DSD file. There is no copy protection on any of this.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> Not the science I'm involved with (medical sciences).



Maybe not on the illustration side, but on the actual research side that's exactly how it works. Hypothesis testing works the same across all domains in which Statistical methods are employed.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> Another friendly suggestion... You really might want to listen to what other people say and consider that they might know more about the topic than you do. The purpose of being here is to learn form the people around you, not to ram through opinions based on your own misunderstandings. At some point your opinions might be proven wrong and you'll either have to backtrack and apologize or try to bluff your way out of it and stomp off in a huff not admitting your mistake. That is your choice I guess.


Friendly advise: you should read the post of the person you're responding to.  I'm not talking about bitstreaming over HDMI.  I'm talking about the BD-103's DAC...which does not decode DSD.  It's purely PCM.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> Friendly advise: you should read the post of the person you're responding to.  I'm not talking about bitstreaming over HDMI.



Oh, the irony. That's exactly what was being discussed, extracting the digital signal from HDMI output, when you said it didn't work that way.


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> Maybe not on the illustration side, but on the actual research side that's exactly how it works. Hypothesis testing works the same across all domains in which Statistical methods are employed.



Sorry, but I have been involved with PhD research of the medical sciences: hypothesis are often revised with data returned.


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> First, you asked for an example, and I provided you with one.



Then I said, "Let's verify it." and you started thinking up ways to make that completely impossible. Is this the only DAC that you claim has a clearly audible difference? Maybe you can suggest one we can compare that you haven't tied all up in knots like this.

Do you know of an available DAC that would sound clearly different to an iPod or iPhone? A lot of us have those.

You still haven't answered one question... Which of the two DACs you compared do you think is colored?


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> Oh, the irony. That's exactly what was being discussed, extracting the digital signal from HDMI output, when you said it didn't work that way.



WHAT??  I thought what was being discussed was evaluating DACs....most my audio DACs don't even have HDMI output, and every example I've seen on this thread is how the DAC itself might sound.  Really, this is another example of how you're not concerned with defining an hypothesis.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> Sorry, but I have been involved with PhD research of the medical sciences: hypothesis are often revised with data returned.


I'd be careful where you say that. You're just asking for an ethics investigation.

Data are like money. Data that raise a question have been spent. New data must subsequently be collected before that question can be investigated. The same data cannot be used for both tasks; doing so invalidates any conclusions.


----------



## bigshot

Davesrose said:


> @bigshot is conflating entire audio systems as being equal to their source transport DACs (even cognitively one should understand that there are differences with digital filters, circuitry, and amps employed after source DAC).  If you read my previous posts, you'll see components I list which sound different (and many times my impressions are talking about frequency range from perception of headphone/speaker).  You'll also see I'm specific about device and not what DAC chip happens to be in it.



Did you apply controls? Blind test? Level matching? Direct A/B switching? PLEASE answer this question. I've asked it several times.


----------



## KeithEmo

You are making conclusions that are not supported by the facts.

All manufacturers are in business to sell product.
They will ALWAYS choose the option that provides them the most benefit for a given cost.
And, make no mistake, the benefit they're looking for is SALES... 
Credibility is great... as long as it leads to sales...

The problem with your logic is that:
- Magazine ads sell product
- Magazine reviews sell product
- Online reviews sell product
- An expensive, well run, study that only a dozen audipphiles read does NOT sell product

A study that showed, conclusively, that people preferred my product would have some value in selling product.
And I could then mention that study in my advertising.
However, a dozen full page ads, showing it sitting on an expensive table, being listened to by an attractive family, will probably sell more... and cost me a lot less.
If you actually talk to people, you will find that remarkably FEW people who bought an amplifier last year read that AES study from 1982 first.
A lot of them will have read the full page ad in Stereophile last month...
And a bunch of them will have friends who own our brand...
And a lot will have read that REVIEW in Stereophile last month...
But only a small handful will even know when the last legitimate scientific study was run...

The other thing is that audiophiles tend to treat their opinions on this subject almost like religion or politics.
If my company were to do a study, and it showed that our amplifier really sounded better than Brand X, here's what would happen...
People who already "know" that amplifiers sound the same would pick the study apart... or claim that it was just plain fixed.
People who already "know" that amplifiers sound different would say "I told you so"... and a few more of them might buy ours.
However, by and large, VERY FEW people would actually change their opinions either way.
(About as many as the number of people who change political party, or religion, after reading a study on the subject.)
And, for something as expensive as a proper scientific study, the return just plain wouldn't come close to justifying the cost.
(And, yes, that's doubly true if they syspect that the study will NOT show that their product is clearly and obviously better.)



Jaywalk3r said:


> The problem arises when you make assertions about equipment you have heard, but haven't tested in any meaningful way.
> 
> 
> 
> Just find someone who works for a company that sells "premium" DACs. They'll have a vested interest in verifying that their DACs make an audible difference. Unless they make no such difference, in which case that company will have a vested interest in making excuses about why they don't have any reason to conduct such testing. Your claim that such tests aren't in such companies' best interests holds only if those companies are selling snake-oil, in this case, "high-end" commodity DACs. If they're selling the real deal, it _is _in their best interest to do testing.


----------



## bfreedma

In an effort to move this forward into actual testing, if we come up with an agreed upon testing methodology and someone has the equipment, time, and expertise to execute it, I have a W4S DAC-2 that I can loan to the test organizer.  I believe this is the same model KeithEmo referenced at the start of the discussion, filters and all.

In the meantime, I’ll put it back into my system and see if I can reliably identify the different filters with a 3rd party making the changes.  Before anyone asks, no, this will not be a properly executed DBT and I don’t expect my results to be conclusive.  Just curious to see if I can or can’t realize any statistically relevant identification of a change in applied filter.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> Are we talking about entire components: that an iPhone should sound exactly the same as an expensive audio setup?



I am saying that because I've done controlled tests on an iPhone and a Oppo HA-1, which is a $1200 headphone amp. I still have both of them and if someone is interested in verifying it, they can contact me. However, you don't really have to do that. One look at the specs of both units clearly shows that both of them are well into the range of audible transparency.


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> I'd be careful where you say that. You're just asking for an ethics investigation.
> 
> Data are like money. Data that raise a question have been spent. New data must subsequently be collected before that question can be investigated. The same data cannot be used for both tasks; doing so invalidates any conclusions.



It doesn't break ethics....you publish your findings, and then if data doesn't follow your hypothesis you question and can revise for the next review.


----------



## bigshot

Davesrose said:


> Friendly advise: you should read the post of the person you're responding to.  I'm not talking about bitstreaming over HDMI.  I'm talking about the BD-103's DAC...which does not decode DSD.  It's purely PCM.



Hey champ. Go look at page 63 of your user's manual where it says, "For the analog audio outputs, DSD data is converted into an analog signal directly by the internal DAC."

*DSD CONVERTED INTO AN ANALOG SIGNAL DIRECTLY BY THE INTERNAL DAC*

I'm making this bold so you don't miss it again. You can apologize if you'd like. Even if you don't apologize, I think you should reconsider your attitude.


----------



## bigshot

Jaywalk3r said:


> Oh, the irony. That's exactly what was being discussed, extracting the digital signal from HDMI output, when you said it didn't work that way.



No, he was talking about playing an SACD through the analog outputs. He was under the impression that the BDP-103 converted DSD to PCM and then converted PCM to analog. (He was wrong.) The Oppo also outputs DSD directly via HDMI as you say.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> I am saying that because I've done controlled tests on an iPhone and a Oppo HA-1, which is a $1200 headphone amp. I still have both of them and if someone is interested in verifying it, they can contact me. However, you don't really have to do that. One look at the specs of both units clearly shows that both of them are well into the range of audible transparency.



And since you rely on anecdote...everyone who's listened to my expensive headphone setup has said it sounds more lifelike then their phone/BT headphones.  Not just an aunt, who was an opera singer and could tell differences with audio quality.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 21, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Hey champ. Go look at page 63 of your user's manual where it says, "For the analog audio outputs, DSD data is converted into an analog signal directly by the internal DAC."
> 
> *DSD CONVERTED INTO AN ANALOG SIGNAL DIRECTLY BY THE INTERNAL DAC*
> 
> I'm making this bold so you don't miss it again. You can apologize if you'd like. Even if you don't apologize, I think you should reconsider your attitude.



Jesus Christ...you're *STILL COMPLETELY ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC THEN WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.  I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE OPPO'S PCM DAC SPECIFICALLY.  CAN YOU GET THAT?????*


----------



## bigshot

I'm with bfsreedma. Let's get two DACs or DAPs that sound different and do a test.

*CAN SOMEONE NAME A DAC THAT ISN'T AUDIBLY TRANSPARENT THAT WE CAN TEST WITH?*


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> *STILL COMPLETELY ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC THEN WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.  I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE OPPO'S PCM DAC SPECIFICALLY.  CAN YOU GET THAT?????*



The user manual says that the Oppo converts directly from DSD to analog using its internal DAC. Who told you it doesn't? It isn't a "PCM DAC". It's a DAC that can decode a bunch of different file formats. I don't think you know what you're talking about. Click through the damn link I gave you and check it yourself if you don't believe me.


----------



## KeithEmo

For the record...

The SACD standard forbids the player from outputting the digital DSD audio content "directly, at full quality, via an insecure connection".
This prevents them from delivering it via standard digital audio outputs like Coax and Toslink.
(Analog audio output is allowed.)
However, because HDMI provides an encrypted connection, it is considered to be "a secured connection" and so digital DSD output from SACD discs is permitted.

Note 1:

Most equipment that accepts digital audio via HDMI doesn't support direct playback of DSD content.
HDMI inputs actually report their capabilities to the equipment connected to them via a data structure called an EDID.
If the recieving equipment cannot process DSD, it will say so in its EDID, and the sending equipment won't send it.
Most equipment, including the Oppo players, will automatically convert the DSD output to PCM if this is the case.
(If you've set it to output DSD, the display on the Oppo will show DSD, but the output will really be PCM.
if you hold down the INFO button on the remote control long enough, you should eventually get an "extended information" screen, that will show the true output details.)

An Oppo player will output DSD _IF_ it is set to do so _AND IF_ the device it's sending to accepts DSD (and only via HDMI).
(Our Emotiva XMC-1 home theater processor accepts DSD via HDMI, as do some other processors, but not the majority of them.)
An Oppo player will output PCM _IF_ it is set to do so, or _IF_ the device it's connected to doesn't accept DSD (regardless of whether the Oppo is set to DSD or PCM).
An Oppo will _ONLY_ put out DSD if the source is DSD - it will not convert _TO_ DSD.

Note 2:

The copy protection restriction applies specifically to SACD _DISCS_... It does NOT apply to DSD _FILES_ or the DSD format itself..
Therefore, presumably, some players can output DSD content from DSD _FILES_ from their other digital outputs, even though they cannot output DSD content from SACD discs.



bigshot said:


> I really don't intend to argue with you, but here is the bit on page 62 of your BDP103 user's manual dealing with the playback of SACDs....
> 
> DSD – SACD Direct Stream Digital (DSD) data is output over HDMI without any conversion. For the analog audio outputs, DSD data is converted into an analog signal directly by the internal DAC.
> http://download.oppodigital.com/BDP103/BDP-103_USER_MANUAL_English_v1.6.pdf
> ...


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 21, 2018)

bigshot said:


> The user manual says that the Oppo converts directly from DSD to analog using its internal DAC. Who told you it doesn't? It isn't a "PCM DAC". It's a DAC that can decode a bunch of different file formats. I don't think you know what you're talking about. Click through the damn link I gave you and check it yourself if you don't believe me.



If you look it up, you'll see the BD-103 uses Cirrus Logic CS4382A 8-channel 24-bit 192KHz DACs.  Edit, I looked it up and it does support DSD...so I accept I was mistaken.  Still, There is audible differences between it and my dedicated SACD player.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> It doesn't break ethics....you publish your findings, and then if data doesn't follow your hypothesis you question and can revise for the next review.


You don't get to change your hypothesis after you've seen your data. That shouldn't make it past peer review at a reputable journal, if properly disclosed. Nor is it defensible in a dissertation. It violates the random sample assumption. Once the data are observed, alpha (the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is, in fact, true) and the hypotheses are fixed.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> The problem with your logic is that …



Apparently your problem with my logic is that I use it while you don't.

You're not the only person to have experience in the for-profit private sector. Yes, I get that one can sell more snake-oil without credible research. Baffle them with B*ll****. What you're missing is that _when a company isn't selling snake-oil, but a legitimate product_, it is in their interest to credibly demonstrate the objective value of their product. You keep ignoring that last bit.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

bigshot said:


> No, he was talking about playing an SACD through the analog outputs. He was under the impression that the BDP-103 converted DSD to PCM and then converted PCM to analog. (He was wrong.) The Oppo also outputs DSD directly via HDMI as you say.


My mistake. Apologies all.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> And since you rely on anecdote...everyone who's listened to my expensive headphone setup has said it sounds more lifelike then their phone/BT headphones.  Not just an aunt, who was an opera singer and could tell differences with audio quality.


Please tell me that you don't think that's indicative of anything other than people being polite.


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> You don't get to change your hypothesis after you've seen your data. That shouldn't make it past peer review at a reputable journal, if properly disclosed. Nor is it defensible in a dissertation. It violates the random sample assumption. Once the data are observed, alpha (the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is, in fact, true) and the hypotheses are fixed.



You said an hypothesis has to be binary: that it has to be accepted or rejected.  But in most definitions, an hypothesis can be modified or rejected.

https://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> Please tell me that you don't think that's indicative of anything other than people being polite.



So you're showing a bias of not wanting to take people at face value....noted.


----------



## KeithEmo

To answer the simplest question first...
For measuring basic specifications like S/N, frequency response, and distortion, we use Audio Precision model 585 testers.
(It's a ridiculously expensive, very cool, computer controlled test set that does a whole bunch of standard tests, and can be run off a test script; we have several.)

Many companies like to pretend that they have some esoteric design process... we really don't.

First we decide what the product should do.
If we want to build a product that supports DSDx2 and PCM up to 384k, we'd better choose a DAC chip that can do it.
(We find that there are plenty of commercial DAC chips available that perform very well, and sound very good, so we're going to pick one to use.)
To be completely honest, we often base our operational parameters on the hardware that's available.
(For example, in terms of the market, support for 192k is absolutely required, 384k is strongly desired, and 768k will impress a few people.)
The latest chips by the major vendors all pretty much have the features that the market is looking for this year (they've already sorted that all out).
We may choose which particular chip based on specific features, cost, availability,  or even simply which brand the design engineer prefers.

Then, based on that requirement, we have our engineers come up with a prototype that offers the features we want.
For example, our new DC-2 will do PCM and DSD, will have a WiFi input, and will have a subwoofer output.

We run it through the basic scripted test to confirm that the standard measurements are all "really good"...
And, if anything sticks out as bad, we go back to the drawing board, figure out why, and fix it.

Then a bunch of us _LISTEN_ to it, with a variety of material, and see if we all agree that it sounds good.
(If anyone thinks that it sounds "off" - then back to that drawing board to figure out why.)
This step is usually somewhat informal...
We set it up in one of our home theater systems and listen to it... then we pass it around.
I may listen to it in my office, or at home with headphones, or both...
Someone else may listen to it on their office system...
We compare it directly to at least a few of our previous products...
And usually compare it to a few competitors' products...
We always design our products to sound neutral, so we do not compare them to dozens of competitors' products...
Our goal is to design a product that performs well and sounds good... and not to "beat" anyone else.
Depending on the circumstances, we may invite some members of the public, or some of our insiders, to audition them.
(We had the prototype of our DC-2 available for people to listen to, and compare to the old model, at our Emofest public event; most people preferred the new model.) 

To be quite honest, all of our DAC products sound more similar than different.
Our more expensive products generally have more impressive specifications than our lower-cost products.
(The DC-1 has much better measurable specs than the Little Ego.)
And, based on our listening tests, we generally find the DC-1 to sound slightly better than the Little Ego (but it also has a lot more features).
(Most people agree that they hear a difference; most prefer the DC-1; a few prefer the Ego; and, yes, they do use different DAC chips.)

If, by "operating parameters", you mean things like THD and S/N, then the design goal is really simple.
Pick a good DAC chip with good specs from the manufacturer...
Build it into a competent design (following the manufacturer's suggestions and certain well known "best practices").
If you haven't screwed something up then it will perform at or near the manufacturer's specifications.
And, if so, then it should sound both "neutral" and "good".

Those "best practices" include 
- providing well-regulated and isolated power supplies for certain parts of the circuit
- laying out the circuitry properly, with proper grounds, and proper care in foil layout
The details can be quite complex... but they aren't especially exciting.

And I mentioned, our DACs tend to sound more similar than different...
There are some really subtle differences...
For example, the DC-1 sounded exceptionally clear and detailed (quite possibly because it had a very sophisticated multi-section power supply).
And, if you switch filters on the Ego DACs, most people hear a subtle differencebetween the various settings (but I wouldn't venture to say which one is "better"; I prefer #2).

On some of our higher-end uints, every unit is tested (using one of those AP 585 testers).
On others, after we confirm that the production units consistently pass, we may simply spot check them.
In general, we do not see "variations" in performance, or minor variations in sound; either they perform to spec - or they're broken (and need to be repaired). 
The design sets both the measurable performance and the sound.
(There's no point in confirming that a certain filter on a certain chip delivers the exact waveform the manufacturer says it does.... it will.)



bfreedma said:


> Keith, as a MOT of a company selling numerous products with DACs, you likely have access to more data than most.  Given that, do Emotiva DACs sound audibly different across the various products?  If so, can you provide some examples?  What is the process for developing the various DAC operational parameters? How do you test them to see if the DAC is performing as defined in the development phase?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> If you look it up, you'll see the BD-103 uses Cirrus Logic CS4382A 8-channel 24-bit 192KHz DACs.  Edit, I looked it up and it does support DSD...so I accept I was mistaken.  Still, There is audible differences between it and my dedicated SACD player.



HOORAY! You looked something up and verified it. That is the first step to becoming a Sound Science person. Would you mind telling me who told you that the Oppo couldn't decode DSD directly? I'm going to take a wild guess... Was it the guy who sold you the dedicated SACD player?

Now, let's move on to my other question, Did you apply the standard controls for doing your listening test that determined that your SACD player sounds different than your Oppo?


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> You said an hypothesis has to be binary: that it has to be accepted or rejected.  But in most definitions, an hypothesis can be modified or rejected.
> 
> https://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html



That article is consistent with everything I've written. A hypothesis is either rejected or not rejected. There's no grey area. I'm not sure why you think that article suggests something different. What gave you that idea?


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> For the record...The copy protection restriction applies specifically to SACD _DISCS_... It does NOT apply to DSD _FILES_ or the DSD format itself..
> Therefore, presumably, some players can output DSD content from DSD _FILES_ from their other digital outputs, even though they cannot output DSD content from SACD discs.



Thank you very much for your input, but it is possible to rip SACDs using an Oppo BPD-10x player. It can output DSD files by ripping them directly from the disc. Follow Davesrose's example. Look it up!


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> That article is consistent with everything I've written. A hypothesis is either rejected or not rejected. There's no grey area. I'm not sure why you think that article suggests something different. What gave you that idea?



You have maintained an hypothesis can only be rejected or not rejected...while the link clearly states: "Upon analysis of the results, a hypothesis can be rejected or *modified*, but it can never be proven to be correct 100 percent of the time."


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> So you're showing a bias of not wanting to take people at face value....noted.



Not when there's several _obvious _reasons not to take their word at face value. Most people have the tact to not tell you that they think you wasted your money. There's incentive to tell a white lie if one doesn't actually hear a difference.


----------



## bigshot

Let's just PROVE that a difference can clearly be heard. I'm eager to do that. Bfreedma suggested it too. Who's in on this?


----------



## KeithEmo

You're playing with semantics....

There are known measurable differences.
We are discussing which are or are not audible.
Neither is "clearly obvious".

You assert (as a positive assertion) that "all DACs sound the same.
I assert (also as a positive assertion) that "many DACs do sound noticeably different".
In both cases, the "null hypothesis" would be "the assertion is wrong".



Jaywalk3r said:


> Okay. That means you are not rejecting the null hypothesis that no audible differences exist between current in-spec DACs.
> 
> It's binary. Reject or do not reject.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Jaywalk3r said:


> assert (also as a positive assertion) that "many DACs do sound noticeably different"..



Do you have one that sounds clearly different that you can provide for a controlled listening test? Do you have a list of models that sound clearly different that we can rustle up from our regular crew?


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> HOORAY! You looked something up and verified it. That is the first step to becoming a Sound Science person. Would you mind telling me who told you that the Oppo couldn't decode DSD directly? I'm going to take a wild guess... Was it the guy who sold you the dedicated SACD player?
> 
> Now, let's move on to my other question, Did you apply the standard controls for doing your listening test that determined that your SACD player sounds different than your Oppo?



I already listed my setup: switching between my SACD player (which has an analogue input to my receiver) vs the Oppo BD-103 and it's digital output.  I stated the perceived audio difference: primarily the Oppo was brighter..  If you believe everything is transparent and sound's identical, why should it matter if my Oppo connection is digital or analogue?  Why do people also say the Oppo BD-105 is more "audiophile" then the BD-103?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

You aren't reading what I am asking. I'll state it clearly. Did you...

1) set up a switcher to directly A/B switch between the two inputs while they were playing the music same file in the same spot
2) level match the output of the two players so one wasn't a tiny bit louder than the other
3) have a friend switch between them and record your impressions of each as he switched back and forth

This is the next step in being a Sound Science person. Just answer yes or no to 1, 2 and 3. If you answer that, I'll tell you why people say that the 105 is more "audiophile" than the 103.


----------



## KeithEmo

You're not taking that nearly far enough.

There is a MAJOR human bias to not admit TO OURSELVES when we make a mistake.
Therefore, we ALL have a bias to continue to believe what we've decided is true (if we change our mind then we must have previously been WRONG).
That bias becomes even stronger when we share our claim in public.
And we each also have a strong incentive to NOT admit to ourself, or anyone else, when we make a foolish decision.

However, note that this bias applies to everyone, and in all directions:
- Someone who bought the expensive one, because he hears a difference, would feel like an idiot if he turned out to be wrong.
- Someone who bought the cheap one, because he's sure there is no difference, would feel like just as much of an idiot if HE turned out to be wrong.

This presents an interesting dilemma....
- There are many ways to eliminate the effects of "positive bias".
- However, it can be difficult to eliminate the effects of "negative bias".
(How do you eliminate a bias that causes someone to ignore small differences that actually exist?)



Jaywalk3r said:


> Not when there's several _obvious _reasons not to take their word at face value. Most people have the tact to not tell you that they think you wasted your money. There's incentive to tell a white lie if one doesn't actually hear a difference.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Davesrose said:


> You have maintained an hypothesis can only be rejected or not rejected...while the link clearly states: "Upon analysis of the results, a hypothesis can be rejected or *modified*, but it can never be proven to be correct 100 percent of the time."



It can be, and often is, modified from one study to the next, but _never within a single study_. Rarely, outside of medicine, is much confidence placed in any single study, so it is also common for hypotheses to remain unmodified between researchers, so they can independently verify the results.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> This presents an interesting dilemma....



You really think it's interesting? If you aren't going to answer my question, please say that so I don't have to keep hounding you.

Jaywalk3r, you realize that they are tag teaming you to pull you off point, don't you?


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 21, 2018)

Jaywalk3r said:


> Not when there's several _obvious _reasons not to take their word at face value. Most people have the tact to not tell you that they think you wasted your money. There's incentive to tell a white lie if one doesn't actually hear a difference.



No, my aunt, the opera singer does not mince words.  She found my Audeze headphones way too heavy, but stated the system sounded magnificent and more lifelike then anything she's heard.  She's not the sort to tell me a white lie about this...


----------



## Davesrose

Jaywalk3r said:


> It can be, and often is, modified from one study to the next, but _never within a single study_. Rarely, outside of medicine, is much confidence placed in any single study, so it is also common for hypotheses to remain unmodified between researchers, so they can independently verify the results.



My previous post said you publish your results and then can change....that's very different then claiming you change your hypothesis during the same phase of a study.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> To answer the simplest question first...
> For measuring basic specifications like S/N, frequency response, and distortion, we use Audio Precision model 585 testers.
> (It's a ridiculously expensive, very cool, computer controlled test set that does a whole bunch of standard tests, and can be run off a test script; we have several.)
> 
> ...




Thanks for the detailed answer, though it could have left out the rather condescending description of the AP 585.  I’m well aware of what it is.

I’m still a little lost on the testing methodology described.  Still sounds highly subjective - that said, based in the description and desire to stay neutral, it appears as though your engineering team beliieves a variety of DAC chips to be audibly transparent and select them to meet the capabilities required in the end product.  That makes sense. Where I’m getting lost is how these transparent DAC chips selected based on product requirements and not audible differences somehow produce audibly different output.

I’m inclined to belive that despite the subjective testing results you describe, if the products were tested via a proper blind test/ABX, they would be indistinguishable.  

I understand the need to differentiate product for sales purposes, so I’ll stop here.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm sorry, but I suspect you haven't been much involved in the "audiophile equipment sector"...
People buy products for a wide variety of reasons...
And, when it comes to luxury products, like "audiophile products", and perhaps especially audiophile products, "objective value" is pretty far down the list.
And, of course, "objective value" means very different things to different people.
For example, many people base their choice on "the reviewers liked it" (so, to them, "reviewer preference" is their "objective criterion").
Others buy 'their favorite brand".
And yet others buy it "because their friend liked it".
And, yes, a lot of them have no preference at all, and simply buy the cheapest one, or the first one the search engine pops out.

If people REALLY were objective, nobody would ever buy an amplifier that cost more than $2000....
However, as you'll note, MANY of them do....



Jaywalk3r said:


> Apparently your problem with my logic is that I use it while you don't.
> 
> You're not the only person to have experience in the for-profit private sector. Yes, I get that one can sell more snake-oil without credible research. Baffle them with B*ll****. What you're missing is that _when a company isn't selling snake-oil, but a legitimate product_, it is in their interest to credibly demonstrate the objective value of their product. You keep ignoring that last bit.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 21, 2018)

bigshot said:


> You aren't reading what I am asking. I'll state it clearly. Did you...
> 
> 1) set up a switcher to directly A/B switch between the two inputs while they were playing the music same file in the same spot
> 2) level match the output of the two players so one wasn't a tiny bit louder than the other
> ...



Love how you have a title "Sound Science person" reserved for particular people.  Is there an A/B switch for analogue input for my SACD player and digital input for the Oppo (you yourself have made the generalization that digital input is always better then analogue input)?  My evaluation has been changing inputs with my receiver.


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Oct 21, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> However, note that this bias applies to everyone, and in all directions:
> - Someone who bought the expensive one, because he hears a difference, would feel like an idiot if he turned out to be wrong.


Yes.


KeithEmo said:


> - Someone who bought the cheap one, because he's sure there is no difference, would feel like just as much of an idiot if HE turned out to be wrong.


Might have regrets, but we wouldn't feel like just as much of an idiot. Most people recognize that mistakes have a degree of magnitude.

The guy who buys a $1200 device only to learn that a $200 device would do just as well realizes he wasted $1000.
The guy who learns that he really does need the $1200 device instead of the $200 device he purchased realizes he wasted $200.
My guess is the second guy gets over the mistake faster.



KeithEmo said:


> However, it can be difficult to eliminate the effects of "negative bias".
> (How do you eliminate a bias that causes someone to ignore small differences that actually exist?)



Increase your listening audience size if you think the effect is only audible to a certain proportion of the population. If you think people are deliberately sabotage your test, increase listening audience size. I can't think of any other case that doesn't equate to a genuine inability to hear a difference.


----------



## KeithEmo

DAC chips are a rather sophisticated  circuit element...

Their output is affected by, among other things:
- the stability and noise in their analog supplies
- the source impedance of their analog supplies
- the amount of jitter produced by the main clock (and how much of it reaches the clock input of the DAC chip itself)
- the amount of jitter introduced by the input circuitry (S/PDIF recievers all have an inherent amount of jitter)
- all sorts of factors that affect the analog circuitry in the overall device

These all produce small, but clearly measurable differences, which also seem to be audible.

Feel free to BELIEVE whatever you like.



bfreedma said:


> Thanks for the detailed answer, though it could have left out the rather condescending description of the AP 585.  I’m well aware of what it is.
> 
> I’m still a little lost on the testing methodology described.  Still sounds highly subjective - that said, based in the description and desire to stay neutral, it appears as though your engineering team beliieves a variety of DAC chips to be audibly transparent and select them to meet the capabilities required in the end product.  That makes sense. Where I’m getting lost is how these transparent DAC chips selected based on product requirements and not audible differences somehow produce audibly different output.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> I'm sorry, but I suspect you haven't been much involved in the "audiophile equipment sector"...



Perhaps, but I've seen people selling other snake-oils.



KeithEmo said:


> People buy products for a wide variety of reasons...



Utility chief among them.


----------



## KeithEmo

But that "degree of magnitude" is both relative and subjective.
If the guy is actually enjoying his $1200 whatzit, he probably doesn't really care how it measures.
(He'll probably say something like: "I like the way it sounds and that's all I care about".)

I personally wouldn't pay $500 for a bottle of wine, but many people do, and consider it a good purchase... 
And, you'll find that most of those people really aren't interested in your test report.




Jaywalk3r said:


> Yes.
> 
> Might have regrets, but we wouldn't feel like just as much of an idiot. Most people recognize that mistakes have a degree of magnitude.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> DAC chips are a rather sophisticated  circuit element...
> 
> Their output is affected by, among other things:
> - the stability and noise in their analog supplies
> ...



You sounded credible until the bold bit. It would have been more accurate as:

_These all produce small, but clearly measurable differences, *but there's no reason to believe they're audible*_.​
It's a justified statement. You're version skips over the all-important process of verifying that the differences are audible before presenting that assertion as near-proven fact.


----------



## bfreedma (Oct 21, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> DAC chips are a rather sophisticated  circuit element...
> 
> Their output is affected by, among other things:
> - the stability and noise in their analog supplies
> ...




Most of that list should be easily addressed through proper implementation.

As to the “small, but clearly measurable differences”, I don’t doubt that either.  Can you show any of those measurements so that it can be determine if they are likely to be audible to a human?  Since you have an AP 585, there should be plenty of hard evidence regarding the magnitude of the differences.  Jitter, for example, is commonly referenced by audiophiles as the cause of audible differences, yet I can’t remember the last time actual measurements of jitter on a modern component were anywhere near the threshold of audibility.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> But that "degree of magnitude" is both relative and subjective.
> If the guy is actually enjoying his $1200 whatzit, he probably doesn't really care how it measures.
> (He'll probably say something like: "I like the way it sounds and that's all I care about".)



Snake-oil salesmen depend on that reaction.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm sorry... I keep missing this one.

In my opinion, it is the Sabre DACs that are usually colored (the Wyred4Sound DAC2 rather than the Emotiva DC-1).

I base that partly on my (subjective) personal opinion of "how things should sound".
And partly on the fact that several people I know, when offered an opportunity to listen to a produce with a Sabre chip in it, have remarked "gee, that sounds grainy".
And also on the fact that, when I notice differences, I tend to find that virtually all other high-performance DACs sound similar...
While most Sabre DACs sound quite similar to each other, but different than the others...

I've noticed the difference with many Sabre DACs - although some seem to exhibit it more than others.
I should also point out that MANY people seem to agree that there is an audible difference between, for example, the Oppo 203 and the Oppo 205.
(And Oppo claims outright that the difference is due to their use of Sabre DACs in the "audiophile models".)

I picked my example for two reasons:
- it's the most recent time I actually compared two DACs side by side
- I found it FAR more obvious than the differences I've noticed between others



bigshot said:


> Then I said, "Let's verify it." and you started thinking up ways to make that completely impossible. Is this the only DAC that you claim has a clearly audible difference? Maybe you can suggest one we can compare that you haven't tied all up in knots like this.
> 
> Do you know of an available DAC that would sound clearly different to an iPod or iPhone? A lot of us have those.
> 
> You still haven't answered one question... Which of the two DACs you compared do you think is colored?


----------



## KeithEmo

I should point out that, like many things, nobody has performed any tests of the audibility of jitter in modern DACs.
(There are one or two very old tests, performed on very different equipment, which suggest that it is largely mostly inaudible.)
I should also note that the popular "J-test" used by many magazines does NOT in fact measure jitter.
It actually applies a "stress test signal", then measures the output noise spectra.
This fails to differentiate between jitter from the source, jitter generated internally, jitter caused by the input circuitry, and jitter removed by any processing.
(It's the equivalent of "shaking the box and listening for noises caused by stuff rattling around".)

Since you asked, while our output spectra tests show the results of any jitter which might be present, and so would alert us to any "jitter problems", we do not measure jitter directly.
(Measuring jitter directly is very difficult, and requires an expensive, and extremely specialized, extra module for the AP.)

The product page for the DC-1 is no longer online - because it is discontinued.
However, at least for now, you can download a copy of the AP test report for it here:
https://emotiva.com.ua/pdf/dc-1/DC1_AP_Report.pdf

I haven't seen one for the Wyred4Sound (and we didn;t run or save one).



bfreedma said:


> Most of that list should be easily addressed through proper implementation.
> 
> As to the “small, but clearly measurable differences”, I don’t doubt that either.  Can you show any of those measurements so that it can be determine if they are likely to be audible to a human?  Since you have an AP 585, there should be plenty of hard evidence regarding the magnitude of the differences.  Jitter, for example, is commonly referenced by audiophiles as the cause of audible differences, yet I can’t remember the last time actual measurements of jitter on a modern component were anywhere near the threshold of audibility.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I should point out that, like many things, nobody has performed any tests of the audibility of jitter in modern DACs.
> (There are one or two very old tests, performed on very different equipment, which suggest that it is largely mostly inaudible.)
> I should also note that the popular "J-test" used by many magazines does NOT in fact measure jitter.
> It actually applies a "stress test signal", then measures the output noise spectra.
> ...




Thanks for the link - I’ll dig into the details tomorrow.  On first glance, the results of the jitter related tests are excellent.  And far below the human audibility threshold.


----------



## bigshot

Davesrose said:


> Is there an A/B switch for analogue input for my SACD player and digital input for the Oppo (you yourself have made the generalization that digital input is always better then analogue input)?  My evaluation has been changing inputs with my receiver.



Mark Twain said, "We are all ignorant... just on different subjects." But being willfully ignorant is something else altogether. You may not realize it, but you come off as incredibly disingenuous. I apologize for backing you into a corner here. I thought it might help you think about things logically and truthfully. It didn't.

I won't bother you any more.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 22, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I should point out that, like many things, nobody has performed any tests of the audibility of jitter in modern DACs.[/SIZE]



That's because jitter in the levels it occurs in even the cheapest audio equipment measures at least and order of magnitude below the threshold of audibility. I think you know that. And you aren't replying to me any more because you've been backed into a corner too. I'm done. I don't want to be unduly cruel. You can join Analoguesurvivor.


----------



## bigshot

If anyone knows of a DAC that sounds different than other ones and is willing to help verify that, I am willing to work with you to do that.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> If anyone knows of a DAC that sounds different than other ones and is willing to help verify that, I am willing to work with you to do that.


I told you that already - iFi Micro iDSD ( original silver ) and iFi Micro iDSD Black Label.

You can use these to establish both the DAC differences ( same DAC chip used in both ) AND amplifier differences ( functionally the same, analog input on both ) - as well as of course overall difference as DAC/amp combo. Readily available, no modifications required. The "black" has improvements in each and every possible place/department - starting with the MUCH improved clock and finishing off with the last output capacitor in the analog output stage - plus everything in between. There are three power modes, three filtering modes, three amplifier sensitivity modes ( slightly affecting the output impedance of the amp ), absolute polarity switch, 3D circuit ( there are different between the two, never really cared for either ) and X-bass ( bass boost for bass shy IEMs ). 

It should be possible to make a direct ABX using jRiver - it should be possible to asign each DAC to different zone - while playing the same file, the outputs of both can then be ABX or DBT.


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> I should point out that, like many things, nobody has performed any tests of the audibility of jitter in modern DACs.
> (There are one or two very old tests, performed on very different equipment, which suggest that it is largely mostly inaudible.)
> I should also note that the popular "J-test" used by many magazines does NOT in fact measure jitter.
> It actually applies a "stress test signal", then measures the output noise spectra.
> ...



Thanks for your inputs.
The issue with phase noise (continuous function of time) or jitter (phase noise amount at crossing times) is that DAC manufacturers do not understand it!
Most of them if not all keep providing irrelevant or at best not meaningful data.
IMHO, DAC missing specifications are:

Entry noise rejection (AC/DC,USB,Coaxial)
Output measurements with real load or real conditions as opposed to clean PS and input data from test equipments.
Well, if Inputs & Outputs were properly designed we should care less about about entry and load susceptibilities.
You may feel better if I add that unfortunately DACs are not an exception.


----------



## Phronesis

@KeithEmo, in your sighted comparisons, have you tried instant switching with matching of volume levels and music segments?  When I did that, I couldn’t consistently perceive any difference between the Mojo and Hugo 2 (with various headphones and tracks), whereas when I did prior casual comparisons without that matching and delayed switching, I had perceived significant and consistent differences.  I was very surprised by that result.


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes, I always match the level, and switch back and forth as quickly as possible, using the same source and content.

If you use a computer as your source, and  a USB connection, it's simple enough to switch the output between DACs, and it only takes a split second with most programs.
The DC-1 has an analog input, and a quite transparent analog stage, so it can switch between its own DAC, and an analog input from another DAC, instantly.
At Emotiva, we also have a little add-on unit called the SP-1, which is simply a relay-operated line level switcher, which is handy for comparisons (as long as your sources have level controls).
(It has both front panel buttons and a remote control for switching... but it doesn't have any facility for "blind" operation.)
Obviously, there are also plenty of preamps that will do the job adequately as well.

And I agree with you...it is impossible to jugde properly whether there are differences if there is any significant delay... or obviously if you aren't listening to the same content.



Phronesis said:


> @KeithEmo, in your sighted comparisons, have you tried instant switching with matching of volume levels and music segments?  When I did that, I couldn’t consistently perceive any difference between the Mojo and Hugo 2 (with various headphones and tracks), whereas when I did prior casual comparisons without that matching and delayed switching, I had perceived significant and consistent differences.  I was very surprised by that result.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> I told you that already[



No need.


----------



## FX5K

There is something to point out considering the human anatomy.
And that is that our auditory sensory memory decays rather fast. 
I'd like to leave a quote from a paper which I found most illuminating. 

"Research has shown striking variation in the estimated duration of ASM (Auditory Sensory Memory). Though some researchers have estimated it to be 2 s or less (Crowder, 1976; Huron and Parncutt, 1993), longer estimates have included 3.5 s (Mcevoy et al., 1997), 4–5 s (Glucksberg and Cowen, 1970), at least several seconds (Cowan, 1984), 10 s (Sams et al., 1993), 10–15 s (Winkler and Cowan, 2005), 20 s (Watkins and Todres, 1980), at least 30 s (Winkler et al., 2002), and possibly up to 60 s (Engle and Roberts, 1982)."

Nees MA. Have We Forgotten Auditory Sensory Memory? Retention Intervals in Studies of Nonverbal Auditory Working Memory. _Frontiers in Psychology_. 2016;7:1892. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01892.

Which means to me that you cannot compare more than 10s of audio in listening tests and they shouldn't exceed a period of 30s. The content needs to be identical before and after the test-component is changed.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

FX5K said:


> There is something to point out considering the human anatomy.
> And that is that our auditory sensory memory decays rather fast.
> I'd like to leave a quote from a paper which I found most illuminating.
> 
> ...




There's also the (at least, in my subjective experience) factor of the magnitude of a difference affecting how long your auditory memory is able to adequately serve as a point of comparison for new audio.  In other words, if it takes you 5+ seconds to switch back and forth and it's a tiny difference, it's very, very hard to be sure if the difference is real or what the difference even is.  This is why instantaneous switching is so important. 

If something is massively clipped and the comparison audio isn't, I could probably identify the difference sometime next week. 

If something has +1dB at 1Khz I'll need to A/B in real time with zero delay in the switch-over to even have a faint hope of correctly identifying the difference.


----------



## Phronesis

Zapp_Fan said:


> There's also the (at least, in my subjective experience) factor of the magnitude of a difference affecting how long your auditory memory is able to adequately serve as a point of comparison for new audio.  In other words, if it takes you 5+ seconds to switch back and forth and it's a tiny difference, it's very, very hard to be sure if the difference is real or what the difference even is.  This is why instantaneous switching is so important.
> 
> If something is massively clipped and the comparison audio isn't, I could probably identify the difference sometime next week.
> 
> If something has +1dB at 1Khz I'll need to A/B in real time with zero delay in the switch-over to even have a faint hope of correctly identifying the difference.



Yes, my experience has been that, when comparing based on music segments of a few seconds duration, switching time of much less than 1 second is much better than a few or several seconds of switching time.


----------



## KeithEmo

That is an important distinction - and one that many audiophiles overlook.

After more than a few seconds, we don't remember "exactly what we heard", what we remember is _AN INTERNAL DESCRIPTION_ of what we heard.
For example, we don't remember what a specific clipped sample sounded like, instead we remember that it "sounded like what we know a clipped bit of audio sounds like".

This is the way human memory works with most things - and it's a very effective, although not always accurate, way of storing memories.
For example, each of us probably has a general memory of "what ketchup tastes like", built up of a composite of thousands of experiences eating ketchup.
So, if I "remember" what the ketchup I had at lunch tasted like, I seem to remember a very detailed impression of the exact taste.
Except in reality, that "memory" is built up of information very like how MSWord stores styles.
For my lunch today that would be (generic ketchup taste) + (slightly sweeter than usual) + (slightly more tart than usual).
This is specific enough for me to form a rough comparison to other times I've had ketchup.... but is far from exact.

It's also why we humans often make mistakes.
In the classic example where a "mugger" pointing a banana at someone is remembered as holding a gun....
We remember "mugger pointing weapon" - and we then fill in "typical details" (which, in that case, turn out to be wildly wrong).
We fill in a gun because we daily, on TV especially, see bad guys holding guns.... and never see bad guys sticking someone up with a banana.
So that image is far more typical in that situation... in essence it becomes "what should be there" and our brains fill in the memory with that data.
(Note that this demonstration works best when we only have a very brief glimpse of the "mugger" - so there is less real detail - forcing our brain to fill in more "synthetic" detail.)

In the case of audio, if we're very familiar with the content, we remember a "standard memory of what it sounds like" modified by any specific details we notice in a particular case.
The memories differ and drift because we notice different things each time... and the overall level of detail is different depending on the specific experience as well.
This is why "on casual listening" we may simply notice that a certain song is playing...
Then, when listening more carefully, we may notice that it sounds "brighter than usual" or that "a certain sound we expect to hear seems to be missing"...
And, when someone points out a specific detail or flaw, bringing our attention to it, we may notice and remember it in much greater detail...



Zapp_Fan said:


> There's also the (at least, in my subjective experience) factor of the magnitude of a difference affecting how long your auditory memory is able to adequately serve as a point of comparison for new audio.  In other words, if it takes you 5+ seconds to switch back and forth and it's a tiny difference, it's very, very hard to be sure if the difference is real or what the difference even is.  This is why instantaneous switching is so important.
> 
> If something is massively clipped and the comparison audio isn't, I could probably identify the difference sometime next week.
> 
> If something has +1dB at 1Khz I'll need to A/B in real time with zero delay in the switch-over to even have a faint hope of correctly identifying the difference.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 22, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> There's also the (at least, in my subjective experience) factor of the magnitude of a difference affecting how long your auditory memory is able to adequately serve as a point of comparison for new audio.



That is true of all of the controls we put on listening tests. The greater the difference, the less need for stringency of controls. What it usually comes down to here are sloppy or non-existent controls creating an impression of a "clearly audible" difference that doesn't exist. Obviously, if a difference exists in DACs, it's most likely going to be small. Describing a 1.5dB boost at 5-7kHz isn't describing something clearly audible. At that frequency, I'm not even sure it would be audible in carefully controlled tests.

Ultimately, none of this really matters though, because all of us understand how to conduct a decent test, and folks where vested interests and ego validation are more important than accuracy are going to fudge the results anyway. I remember one of our former friends who posted cut and paste logs of his "perfect" listening tests. He ignored any questions about how those tests were conducted and just changed the subject over and over. It was obvious that he was hiding something and his ego was invested into having golden trained ears. He couldn't be taken at his word. (There are ways to test for that too.)

That's why verification is important.


----------



## Phronesis (Oct 23, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> That is an important distinction - and one that many audiophiles overlook.
> 
> After more than a few seconds, we don't remember "exactly what we heard", what we remember is _AN INTERNAL DESCRIPTION_ of what we heard.
> For example, we don't remember what a specific clipped sample sounded like, instead we remember that it "sounded like what we know a clipped bit of audio sounds like".
> ...



Yup, very important points you note here.  The reliance on comparing what's currently being heard with a *memory* of what was heard is why I believe all listening comparisons, whether blind or sighted, are problematic.  Such comparisons may be able to reliably distinguish large differences, but I think they're susceptible to both false positives and false negatives when dealing with small differences.  In a series of trials, we might notice differences in some trials, but not other trials, due to variations in how our perception and memory are working.  There also remains the issue of how much the results of comparisons of short music segments with quick switching, and a conscious effort to make distinctions, can be generalized to normal listening which involves extended listening and in which subconscious aspects of perception could come into play differently than in the test conditions.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think you're quite right.... 



Phronesis said:


> Yup, very important points you note here.  The reliance on comparing what's currently being heard with a *memory* of what was heard is why I believe all listening comparisons, whether blind or sighted, are problematic.  Such comparisons may be able to reliably distinguish large differences, but I think they're susceptible to both false positives and false negatives when dealing with small differences.  In a series of trials, we might notice differences in some trials, but not other trials, due to variations in how our perception and memory are working.  There also remains the issue of how much the results of comparisons of short music segments with quick switching, and a conscious effort to make distinctions, can be generalized to normal listening which involves extended listening and subconscious aspects of perception could come into play differently than in the test conditions.


----------



## Phronesis (Oct 23, 2018)

On the memory aspect, a simple experiment illustrates the point.  Think back to a time when you were listening to a specific segment of music on a specific system.  Try to remember exactly what you heard.  For me, my recollection is a mere characterization of the music, a sort of fuzzy indexing of the tonal balance, loudness, harmony, melody, rhythm, associated emotions, etc.  The recollection is quite different from the experience of listening to music in real time.  There appear to be different types of memory for different timeframes, but I find that what I've said above applies to short-term auditory memory also.


----------



## gregorio (Oct 24, 2018)

For the last 15 pages or so this thread has progressed under some incorrect assertions and possibly/probably deliberate obfuscations, assertions which have reduced this "testing audiophile claims" thread to: There is no affordable objective test (measurement equipment or a scientific study is too expensive) and there's no incentive for audiophile manufacturers to do so. Therefore a hypothesis has been invented based on subjective (largely uncontrolled) listening tests and supported with what "many" (audiophiles) believe/claim/report. Isn't this *a circular argument* though: The testing of audiophile claims using effectively audiophile testing methodology and backed up by audiophile claims?



Zapp_Fan said:


> In order to compare 2 DACs, you need an ADC which is known to have a great deal better performance than the devices being tested, probably a lot more expensive.



This is not necessarily correct. It's correct if we compare 2 DACS indirectly but not if we compare them directly. An indirect comparison would be looking at the performance of a DAC relative to a theoretically perfect performance and then comparing that with how close another DAC gets to that theoretically perfect performance. For this type of comparison we need equipment which has a much closer to theoretically perfect performance than either of our DACs, which will be a great deal more expensive (as you say). Additionally, it is very difficult in practice as there are many different types of measurements for different aspects of performance and not only is it difficult to accurately measure them all, it still leaves us with the problem of assessing how each of those measurements contributes to overall performance. The direct comparison is very different though, we ONLY need to measure the difference between the DACs, not their performance relative to "theoretically perfect". The result of a Null Test is a file containing ALL the difference (the "difference file") and ONLY the difference, anything which is the same is eliminated ("nulled"). A relatively cheap/mediocre ADC, even one with lesser performance than the DACs being tested, should not contribute significantly to this difference file because it's not a "difference", it's exactly the same ADC used for both files and therefore it's contribution to the recordings should largely "null" and contribute extremely little to the difference file. The other advantage of a Null Test is that it captures all the differences in one relatively simple to execute test. It includes THD, SNR, filter response, phase and EVERYTHING ELSE which can affect the signal, so no messing about with tons of difficult, different tests.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] So, as is the case with anything that affects PERCEPTION, but you don't know the exact cause... The first thing to do would be to confirm that it is there... [2] using human perception as your test.



1. Absolutely agreed!!
2. Huh? You propose determining if flawed human perception is the cause by testing with flawed human perception? Admittedly, you go on to state using human perception with a controlled DBT which hugely reduces the human flaws but then you eliminate that as a possibility on the grounds of audiophile marketing benefit vs cost, bringing us right back to determining if flawed human perception is the cause by testing with flawed human perception. A circular argument which you use to justify your "pet theory". Of course there's a simple alternative which completely eliminates human perception, is relatively quick, easy, cheap, highly sensitive, accurate and completely objective! You even acknowledge it's existence but then dismiss it by obfuscating/misrepresenting it. Why is that? Do you not really understand it (or how to interpret it) or, are you deliberately misrepresenting it to avoid an obvious objective alternative?



KeithEmo said:


> [1] When measuring THD, if you want reasonable accuracy, it is commonly accepted that your test gear must have 5x to 10x LOWER THD than what you're measuring.
> A similar standard is typically applied to other forms of measurements. If you're comparing DAC filters, then the ADC you use to capture samples would have to be KNOWN to be far more accurate than any of the devices under test.
> Since the filters used in commercial ADCs are of similar quality to those used in commercial DACs, they clearly do NOT meet this requirement.
> [2] It would be easy to null or subtract the outputs, and so "extract" the differences.....
> [2a] But that won't tell us how audible they are or are not when combined with actual musical content.



1. Why would we want to measure THD? If "the first thing to do would be to confirm that [there is a difference]", then why don't you just measure the difference, which as you say "would be easy"? Why dive into a barrage of different tests (THD, filter response, jitter, etc.) requiring extremely accurate and expensive gear?

2. Hallelujah brother!
2a. And now the misrepresented/obfuscated dismissal of the Null Test. The difference file from a null test contains exactly that, the difference. Nothing added or taken away, nothing filtered to compensate for the limitations of human hearing/perception, which is why, if we want to relate the difference file to human audibility we have to interpret the results. If for example we have a difference file with an RMS of say -120dBFS, how does that not tell us that the differences are inaudible? If we have a difference file of say -40dBFS RMS but almost all of that energy is above 17kHz, how does that not tell us that the differences are inaudible? We can have high RMS levels in a difference file and it still be an inaudible difference, the classic obvious example being the difference between a high bitrate MP3/AAC and a lossless file, but the reverse is not true, low RMS levels in a difference file are always inaudible.



KeithEmo said:


> However, in a discussion of SCIENCE, there is a big difference between:
> - "it doesn't matter to most consumers"
> - "most consumers are actually unable to tell the difference"
> - "no difference exists"
> And, as far as I know, this forum is supposed to be a discussion of science.



And how is misrepresenting what's being said a better "discussion of science"? I don't recall anyone in this thread stating "no difference exists" between DACs (or pretty much anything else). I'm certainly not stating that. Have you ever even tried Null Testing anything? There's always a difference, there's only one circumstance where there is no difference, a null test with two identical digital audio files not passed through any equipment! Even passing identical audio files through exactly the same (unchanged/touched) equipment, one immediately after the other, will produce a difference file containing something. Typically it's usually some way below -90dBFS but can be higher. This is logical, all the components in an audio chain have at least a thermal noise floor, some have dither or other forms of random noise, all of which is summing together. As it's RANDOM noise, it's by definition somewhat different all the time and this will show up in a difference file. BTW, why don't I hear many audiophiles talking about "night and day" differences between their own (same) DAC? Is it because this difference is inaudible and no one has pitched/marketed the "hypothesis" that their DAC is always different and therefore they neither hear nor perceive this difference?

There's been a lot of talk of "many" people (audiophiles) and anecdotes of professional colleagues, uncontrolled or slightly controlled listening tests. That's not reliable evidence but it is evidence, no problem, but there's another side to that coin which is either being ignored, avoided or is simply not well known. There's maybe many tens of thousands of audiophiles but there's also many tens of thousands of professional and graduate audio engineers. The consensus of the pro audio world tends to be more reliable than that of the audiophile world, due to trained listeners, substantially better testing procedures, more accurate monitoring environments. Still not entirely reliable evidence but generally far more so than the audiophile community. Starting about 25 years ago there was an explosion in the number of ADC/DACs available, due in part to higher sample rates and bit depths but also to technology providing good quality at a low cost and an explosion in consumers buying studio equipment and the market we came to call "prosumer". By about 15-20 years ago technology had already reached the point where high-end pro ADC/DACs had gone almost as far as the laws of physics would allow and well beyond the ability of anyone to hear but technology marched on anyway. It couldn't go any further with performance but what it could achieve is lowering the cost of that performance and improving functionality and features. My $4k converters are audibly indistinguishable from the DAC in an iPhone but I've got 32 simultaneous channels of conversion and a bunch of features and functionality the iPhone cannot provide. By about a decade or so ago listening tests were pretty much useless in all but the most extreme cases, even between modestly priced prosumer ADC/DACs and the very highest end pro ADC/DACs at more than 10x the cost. So it started to become the practice to do listening tests with 10x loop back recordings. In other words, a digital signal is passed to the DAC which converts it to analogue, that analogue signal is fed to the input of the ADC which converts it to digital and is recorded. That recording (containing the DAC/ADC artefacts) is passed through the loop again and recorded again, rinse and repeat 10 times. We now have a recording with the ADC/DAC artefacts effectively magnified 10 times and we can run a practical listening comparison between two different ADC/DACs. This is hardly a "real world" scenario for consumers but it can be somewhat real world for audio pros, especially 10-20 years ago when some workflows (mainly in mastering) required multiple round trips through the converters, though almost never as many as 10. This is what, for a number of years, drove the "mastering grade" converter market, which were very expensive and had performance several times beyond the audibility of even the most golden-eared. Today that performance is available for peanuts. Actually, I bought a bag of peanuts the other day which was more expensive than a virtually flat DAC chip!

G


----------



## bigshot (Oct 24, 2018)

I think the belief that every component in the chain has its own sound is an idea fostered by marketing people. They have a vested interest into making people think their brand or model of DAC is better than the competition. They can point to minuscule differences in specs and tout their numerical superiority, but that doesn't motivate the consumer to buy unless that is put across with a heavy inference that "discerning listeners" might hear a "clear difference". They play into the egos of their customers by letting them believe that their ears are superior to other people's because they bought the best of the best, and they play into fear that perhaps the sound coming out of their systems isn't quite as "pure" as it could be.

It's just plain old sales pitch, and most consumers would filter it out along with the "new and improved" label on their box of laundry detergent. But the problem with home audio is that it's a little more complicated than soap, and most people's main source of information is manufacturer's tear sheets and websites with cut and paste advertorial. The independent people who know what they're talking about speak over the heads of the average consumer, and they overcomplicate things by wandering away from the practical into things that are purely theoretical. Ultimately, what the average customer wants is something that sounds good in his living room, pride in ownership, and confidence that he hasn't made an expensive mistake and bought something that isn't as good as it should be. Salesmen are MUCH better at filling those three needs than scientists and engineers are.

There was a time when there were magazines that took a "consumer reports approach" and broke things down impartially for consumers. I don't think anything like that exists any more... the closest thing we have to that are Amazon reviews, and those are regularly gamed. It all comes down to Caveat Emptor. The customer has to do his own research and analysis. He can't count on any one source to do it for him.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with most of what you said.... but I disagree with a few of your conclusions.

The problem with doing a null test is much as you described.... 

We also have the issue where the differences we're talking about are dynamic.
That ringing is going to be or very short duration and only occur at certain times.
How do you plan to decide 'whether it's audible or not"?
For example, is an artifact, at 1 kHz, for a 1 mS duration, at -40 dB audible or not?

If a null test showed no difference whatsoever, then we'd be done. However, since no two pieces of equipment will be truly identical in every way, that's not going to happen. So, once we run our null test, and have our result of exactly what the difference is, we're right back to determining whether that difference is audible or not. (In most cases, if a difference is small, it will be most noticeable if we examine it by itself, but not always.)

I also disagree in your blanket statement about this obviating the need for test equipment that far exceeds the device under test. If you have two DACs, one of which introduces five cycles of ringing, and another of which introduces ten cycles, if you try to measure them using a low-cost ADC that introduces fifty cycles of ringing, it's going to obscure that difference quite effectively. (You're NOT going to see one output with 55 cycles of ringing, and one with 60 cycles of ringing, because the ringing on both DACs will fall INSIDE the ringing caused by the ADC, and so will be obscured by it. You will instead see a slight increase in ringing where the ringing from both overlaps... which is going to be very difficult to detect and measure.)

Likewise, if you try to compare the S/N of two devices, one of which has a S/N of 80 dB, and another of which has a S/N of 90 dB, using measurement gear that has an S/N of only 60 dB, you will not get accurate or valid results. In theory, you could subtract the known contribution from your noisy test gear, and compare the resulting residual from each test... however, in practice, your results will be "so far down in the noise" that you will not be able to accurately detect or measure them. (Because noise is random, you cannot simply subtract it, although, if you take a long enough sample, and measure it carefully enough, you might be able to statistically sort out the difference... but it will be tricky, and the precision required will render your test very subject to error.) 

This is particularly an issue with audio equipment, and specifically DACs, because most speakers and headphones produce so much ringing and distortion that they will almost certainly obscure the much smaller amounts produced by a DAC, or the differences between them. 

I do agree, however, that avoiding this doesn't HAVE TO BE expensive... IF PROPER CARE IS TAKEN.

For example, some speakers and some headphones produce a lot of ringing and distortion, and so are going to obscure differences in what you're testing.
I've found that certain headphones and speakers seem to reveal this sort of difference much more obviously than others... and electrostatics seem to be the best.
The solution to this is to start by using a test to select your test gear.
(You can avoid buying expensive high quality gear by simply testing to ensure that the test gear you've chosen is up to the job.)
Create test files, some of which have known small amounts of distortion or ringing, and test to determine which headphones or speakers allow you to identify the smallest amount.

This is pretty standard methodology.
When you test for differences in something, you first make sure the differences are there, and that your TEST GEAR can detect them.



gregorio said:


> For the last 15 pages or so this thread has progressed under some incorrect assertions and possibly/probably deliberate obfuscations, assertions which have reduced this "testing audiophile claims" thread to: There is no affordable objective test (measurement equipment or a scientific study is too expensive) and there's no incentive for audiophile manufacturers to do so. Therefore a hypothesis has been invented based on subjective (largely uncontrolled) listening tests and supported with what "many" (audiophiles) believe/claim/report. Isn't this *a circular argument* though: The testing of audiophile claims using effectively audiophile testing methodology and backed up by audiophile claims?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Oct 24, 2018)

You guys keep on piling up the imagined reasons for why existing blind test methodologies may be flawed / not sensitive enough.  But the correct action from there would be to devise and conduct improved blind tests using your purported state of the art equipment and improved methodologies, not sit here blabbing about why we should accept your SIGHTED test results.  SIGHTED tests are the lowest of low in terms of methodology and can never be accepted as any sort of evidence no matter how much detail you go into the perceived differences or how baldly obvious you swear the differences are!

Really, for the amount of fruitless bickering recorded here, this thread should be locked until somebody posts results from a new blinded test he conducted!


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I think the belief that every component in the chain has its own sound is an idea fostered by marketing people. They have a vested interest into making people think their brand or model of DAC is better than the competition. They can point to minuscule differences in specs and tout their numerical superiority, but that doesn't motivate the consumer to buy unless that is put across with a heavy inference that "discerning listeners" might hear a "clear difference". They play into the egos of their customers by letting them believe that their ears are superior to other people's because they bought the best of the best, and they play into fear that perhaps the sound coming out of their systems isn't quite as "pure" as it could be.
> 
> It's just plain old sales pitch, and most consumers would filter it out along with the "new and improved" label on their box of laundry detergent. But the problem with home audio is that it's a little more complicated than soap, and most people's main source of information is manufacturer's tear sheets and websites with cut and paste advertorial. The independent people who know what they're talking about speak over the heads of the average consumer, and they overcomplicate things by wandering away from the practical into things that are purely theoretical. Ultimately, what the average customer wants is something that sounds good in his living room, pride in ownership, and confidence that he hasn't made an expensive mistake and bought something that isn't as good as it should be. Salesmen are MUCH better at filling those three needs than scientists and engineers are.
> 
> There was a time when there were magazines that took a "consumer reports approach" and broke things down impartially for consumers. I don't think anything like that exists any more... the closest thing we have to that are Amazon reviews, and those are regularly gamed. It all comes down to Caveat Emptor. The customer has to do his own research and analysis. He can't count on any one source to do it for him.



Agreed, valid points.  There's also the drug-like aspect of audio that sometimes we experience real highs from music, and there's a natural desire to continue to experience such highs or, better yet, experience even higher highs.  Addiction is powerful stuff.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> Agreed, valid points.  There's also the drug-like aspect of audio that sometimes we experience real highs from music, and there's a natural desire to continue to experience such highs or, better yet, experience even higher highs.  Addiction is powerful stuff.



You can maintain that high if you focus on the music instead of the equipment playing it! Audiophiles should probably spend less time fretting about jitter and more time listening to great music.


----------



## bigshot

Joe Bloggs said:


> You guys keep on piling up the imagined reasons for why existing blind test methodologies may be flawed / not sensitive enough.



I think it's pretty obvious that the strategy with some folks is to throw up as many objections to doing controlled testing as possible. If no proof is ever good enough, you can keep repeating your completely bogus subjective impressions forever and no one can ever question you. Thank goodness we're in Sound Science where that sort of buffaloing doesn't work.

By the way, the people thread crapping here would dearly love to see this thread locked. That first post in this thread is a smoking gun and they would prefer that it was buried deep where people can't find it. That is *exactly* why we pinned it to the top. It's the "put up or shut up" thread. They've tried many times to get this thread locked and have failed. Those of us interested in doing the tests to find out the truth aren't the problem. They are.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> You can maintain that high if you focus on the music instead of the equipment playing it! Audiophiles should probably spend less time fretting about jitter and more time listening to great music.



Agreed.  But there's also the fun of shopping, trying and buying new stuff, etc.  I think that's ok (as a complement to enjoying great music), but unfortunately many people are wasting money they can't afford to waste in genuinely pursuing better sound quality by buying expensive stuff which provides little or no benefit in sound quality (other than through placebo effect, which is a fake thing which winds up having a real effect).


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> there's also the fun of shopping, trying and buying new stuff, etc.



That's fine, but try to get them to admit that's why they keep buying more stuff! They come here to Sound Science and try to push their self justifying subjective impressions on us to get us to validate them. When we don't they get mad. That isn't elf aware... or even healthy. Those kinds of people can go away. I wouldn't miss them.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> That's fine, but try to get them to admit that's why they keep buying more stuff! They come here to Sound Science and try to push their self justifying subjective impressions on us to get us to validate them. When we don't they get mad. That isn't elf aware... or even healthy. Those kinds of people can go away. I wouldn't miss them.



The problem - as I've personally experienced - is that we can easily and clearly perceive a difference between A and B, seemingly as clear as the difference between red and blue, which isn't objectively there.  With the cognitive processing involved in perception mainly being subconscious and therefore hidden from our awareness, we generally don't detect things like the effects of biases, so it can be difficult and even counterintuitive to believe that they exist.


----------



## KeithEmo

Someone suggested the idea of a Kickstarter campaign to finance some tests.
I think that would be an excellent idea.

I just want to make it perfectly clear that I am 100% behind doing proper testing.
But I am very much against reaching premature conclusions based on the results of inadequate tests.
I've designed proper scientific tests - which is why I'm unwilling to ignore serious flaws when I see them.
It's not really all that difficult to do it right.
However, sadly, it rarely seems to work out that way.

And, when it comes to testing, the biggest part of the cost is usually time and labor.
This is what makes it expensive for a company to do it - unless they are certain of a return on their cost.
On the other hand, an audio club or group of enthusiasts can save a lot of that cost by using volunteer labor.

Another way to encourage the most rigorous testing is to encourage "self selection".
You DO NOT arbitrarily choose "a good pair of headphones" to use for the test.
You hold a meet - and invite everyone to "bring their most revealing pair of headphones".

Then you create a set of test files, with varying amounts of THD, and ringing, and perhaps noise, in them.
Then you test the test equipment...
With the goal of finding out which of those headphones make the known differences easiest to notice.
This gives you the best chance at detecting audible unknown differences if they really exist...
And makes it plausible when you say you did your best to detect differences if there are any...

As far as I'm concerned, the basic methodologies of various blind testing methods aren't the big problem.
The biggest problem is simply sloppy test procedure.

For example, if you were trying to test whether a certain additive would make a noticeable change in the taste of a product, you would start by adding known amounts of the substance, and you would analyze your samples to make sure they really contained the proper amounts before letting anybody taste them. Yet, in contrast, in most of the various tests that have been run about "audible differences", nobody bothered to get out an analysis microphone and confirm whether that ringing, or ultrasonic content, or whatever, was actually _ARRIVING AT THE EARS OF THE TEST SUBJECTS_. (It seems pretty obvious that you cannot conclude that something is "inaudible" if you haven't first confirmed that it is arriving at the ears of your test subjects. Yet almost all tests omit this basic step, preferring to rely on the idea that "good speakers" are delivering the test signal properly, without actually confirming it.)





Joe Bloggs said:


> You guys keep on piling up the imagined reasons for why existing blind test methodologies may be flawed / not sensitive enough.  But the correct action from there would be to devise and conduct improved blind tests using your purported state of the art equipment and improved methodologies, not sit here blabbing about why we should accept your SIGHTED test results.  SIGHTED tests are the lowest of low in terms of methodology and can never be accepted as any sort of evidence no matter how much detail you go into the perceived differences or how baldly obvious you swear the differences are!
> 
> Really, for the amount of fruitless bickering recorded here, this thread should be locked until somebody posts results from a new blinded test he conducted!


----------



## c1ferrari

_New to this forum and wanted to thank the original poster for initiating the thread._
_Many pages to review, perhaps I'll catch up at some point.  _


----------



## bigshot (Oct 24, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> The problem - as I've personally experienced - is that we can easily and clearly perceive a difference between A and B, seemingly as clear as the difference between red and blue, which isn't objectively there.



Not if you do a blind test and randomize the order of A and B.



c1ferrari said:


> _Many pages to review, perhaps I'll catch up at some point._



If you have better things to do, don't bother. Too many of the comments are just people arguing a point without backing it up like the original poster.


----------



## castleofargh (Oct 26, 2018)

my point of view on all this is fairly simple(perhaps too simple?):
we have tools to confirm things, or we don't.
when our most reliable and available testing methods for audibility, fail to disprove the null hypothesis, the conclusion should be that the subjects didn't perceive a difference. even if we know that the test isn't perfect, if we don't have results from a more reliable one, what right do we have to declare that we know better? even deciding that a test isn't very reliable, requires proper evidence, else it's wishful thinking.
our scientific knowledge base, relies fully on how much confidence we can have in experiences and how much confidence we can have in what is inferred from the data. if we had to stop reaching conclusions anytime we notice that we don't have the full picture, we would still be wondering what to do with a wooden stick. so anybody arguing that we can't draw conclusions because we most likely are missing out on some stuff, to you I say: you're wrong and using double standards. the very fact that you can argue on those subjects implies that you have trusted a all lot of things and drawn a all lot of conclusions on partial data, so why the sudden need for absolute certainty just for some audio topic?

you all know how I feel about jumping to conclusions and making empty claims. but conclusion from some of the most reliable test methods we know of, are not empty claims. they're the most reliable data we have and as such represent our contemporary knowledge on that specific matter. the one most likely to be closer to the truth which is all we aspire and can aspire to. so IMO, the only legit reason to dismiss such tests and their results, is to have better method and more reliable results. anything else is dishonest because it implies rejecting the more reliable idea for the sake of a less reliable one, and that isn't an act driven by reason.


----------



## Phronesis

To really do this audio stuff like science, you need to develop theoretical frameworks which encompass all of the factors in the tests - physics, electronics, ear anatomy/physiology, neuropsychology of perception, etc. - and do a wide variety of tests with many variations of parameters.  That will build up a body of data and interpretations of the data, and enable us know some things with confidence.  By comparison to that ideal, the tests described in the first post of this thread seem rather limited and amateurish.  A problem is that there isn't much motivation for qualified scientists (the kind with PhDs who publish in peer-reviewed journals) to undertake this kind of research, since audio gear is more of a consumer thing than a science thing.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

KeithEmo said:


> Someone suggested the idea of a Kickstarter campaign to finance some tests.
> I think that would be an excellent idea.
> 
> I just want to make it perfectly clear that I am 100% behind doing proper testing.
> ...



Do you really need a kickstarter campaign to go back to the equipment you "heard" the differences on and conduct some volume matched randomized trials?  When it is within reach of homebrew operations like this? https://www.head-fi.org/threads/bli...nd-yamaha-stereo-headphone-amplifiers.891001/

If you do, why are you on the other hand suggesting bigshot to *buy all the gear listed in your comparison to test them out* ???


----------



## bigshot (Oct 25, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> Do you really need a kickstarter campaign to go back to the equipment you "heard" the differences on and conduct some volume matched randomized trials?



No. It's just more goalpost shifting to justify an opinion that serves a particular commercial interest.

I'm betting that if a difference in DACs exists, it is going to exist at the very bottom of the market. That is exactly why I bought a $40 Walmart DVD player. I really didn't need a DVD player. I bought it so I could compare it to my Oppo equipment head to head. I was actually expecting a difference there. But I didn't find one.

I haven't actually spent the time pricing out the cost of the two DACs he's suggesting I buy. And I don't know if they are available at Amazon where I buy all my equipment with a no questions asked return policy. Should I spend the time to google that or is it a waste of time?


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Phronesis said:


> To really do this audio stuff like science, you need to develop theoretical frameworks which encompass all of the factors in the tests - physics, electronics, ear anatomy/physiology, neuropsychology of perception, etc. - and do a wide variety of tests with many variations of parameters.



No, that's not necessary in order to "really do this audio stuff like science." [C]astleofargh very eloquently described how to to this audio stuff like science in post #9949. I'll copy it here, because it bears repeating:

_"we have tools to confirm things, or we don't. 
when our most reliable and available testing methods for audibility, fail to disprove the null hypothesis, the conclusion should be that the subjects didn't perceive a difference. even if we know that the test isn't perfect, if we don't have results from a more reliable one, what right do we have to declare that we know better? even deciding that a test isn't very reliable, requires proper evidence, else it's wishful thinking. 
"our scientific knowledge base, relies fully on how much confidence we can have in experiences and how much confidence we can have in what is inferred from the data. if we had to stop reaching conclusions anytime we notice that we don't have the full picture, we would still be wondering what to do with a wooden stick. so anybody arguing that we can't draw conclusions because we most likely are missing out on some stuff, to you I say: you're wrong and using double standards. the very fact that you can argue on those subjects implies that you have trusted a all lot of things and drawn a all lot of conclusions on partial data, so why the sudden need for absolute certainty just for some audio topic? 

"you all know how I feel about jumping to conclusions and making empty claims. but conclusion from some of the most reliable test methods we know of, are not empty claims. they're the most reliable data we have and as such represent our contemporary knowledge on that specific matter. the one most likely to be closer to the truth which is all we aspire and can aspire for. so IMO, the only legit reason to dismiss such tests and their results, is to have better method and more reliable results. anything else is dishonest because it implies rejecting the more reliable idea for the sake of a less reliable one, and that isn't an act driven by reason."_​


----------



## Phronesis (Oct 25, 2018)

Jaywalk3r said:


> No, that's not necessary in order to "really do this audio stuff like science." [C]astleofargh very eloquently described how to to this audio stuff like science in post #9949. I'll copy it here, because it bears repeating:
> 
> _"we have tools to confirm things, or we don't.
> when our most reliable and available testing methods for audibility, fail to disprove the null hypothesis, the conclusion should be that the subjects didn't perceive a difference. even if we know that the test isn't perfect, if we don't have results from a more reliable one, what right do we have to declare that we know better? even deciding that a test isn't very reliable, requires proper evidence, else it's wishful thinking.
> ...



I read castle’s post before I wrote mine.  I stand by what I wrote.  I don’t think much testing meeting scientific standards has been done so far.  Let’s compile a list of papers published in peer-reviewed journals and see what we make of it.  I know that peer review doesn’t guarantee anything (I’ve published peer-reviewed stuff, and have also been a reviewer), but at least the standards and expertise are generally higher than audio magazines for consumer audiences.

Here's an example of what I consider to be legit scientific research in this area:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24528-3.pdf


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't see this as a problem per-se... it's just something that you acknowledge and take into account.

There are plenty of optical illusions that are so persistent that, even if you _KNOW_ it's a trick, "the lines that you know are straight look bent" or "one square looks bigger even though you know they're the same size".
This is also why we supposedly know that eyewitness identification of suspects is quite often incorrect.
However, it doesn't mean we assume that _ALL_ eyewitness testimony is necessarily wrong, or that all lines that appear curved are actually straight.... just that we cannot trust our eyes as the final judge 100% of the time. 

And, of course, I would be less inclined to believe a salesman trying to sell me something than someone working for a consumer advocacy group.
But I'm still going to bear in mind that they _BOTH _have their biases, either of them could be wrong, or even both of them.
(The salesman is obviously trying to sell me something; but the scientist working for the consumer advocacy group could also be trying to make a name for himself by "discovering something important", or just testing out a "pet theory".)

However, and this is important, I'm not going to consider ANYTHING without looking into the details of who is making the claim and what they've based it on.
Historically, a lot of the things we "knew" were true have in fact turned out to be wrong.
Therefore, _HOW_ they were proven really is important, and the tests and methodology used are one of the things that is going to inform us about much weight we should place on the results.
And, yes, sloppy science, or out-of-date science is often more useful than no science at all..... but it is also more likely to turn out to be wrong.





bigshot said:


> Not if you do a blind test and randomize the order of A and B.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have better things to do, don't bother. Too many of the comments are just people arguing a point without backing it up like the original poster.


----------



## KeithEmo

Wellll... yes you do... i f you want your conclusions to be _generally_ useful.

They conducted a very nice test of three different amplifiers using a single sample of a single model of headphone.
However, we all know that different headphones make it easier or more difficult for us to hear certain types of information, and emphasize different things.
Therefore, from that limited test, we really cannot reach conclusions about "all headphones" or "all headphone amplifiers".
All we can conclude is that their results are probably correct with the single pair of headphones they used and the particular amplifiers they used.
(And, with luck, they won't change much with production units of those models from next month.)

One serious limitation is that they used _ONLY_ high impedance headphones.
This means that they would have totally missed issues related to the output impedance of those headphone amplifiers.
(If the amplifiers' output impedance is high, then they will interact with, and sound different with, different headphones - especially low impedance models.)
I would have tried it with at least a few different models of different impedance ranges.

As it sits, you can assume that their results are somewhat valid if you plan to use high impedance headphones, but may not even be close if you use low impedance headphones.
This is a perfect example of how, when you know the details of the test, you can consider both what it shows, and what it fails to take into account.



Joe Bloggs said:


> Do you really need a kickstarter campaign to go back to the equipment you "heard" the differences on and conduct some volume matched randomized trials?  When it is within reach of homebrew operations like this? https://www.head-fi.org/threads/bli...nd-yamaha-stereo-headphone-amplifiers.891001/
> 
> If you do, why are you on the other hand suggesting bigshot to *buy all the gear listed in your comparison to test them out* ???


----------



## KeithEmo

Something else worth remembering is that, especially with science, there are varying degrees of "accuracy and correctness".

For example, Newtonian physics works just fine for building a building, or even targeting an artillery piece...
But, if you're calculating the route of a space probe, it's not _exactly_ right;  it isn't _wrong_ either; it's just not_ right enough_.

We often work with approximations, and generalizations that are usually, but not always, right...
For example, peanuts are generally nutritious, and certainly edible, except for the few people who are allergic to them.
For most of us, we don't worry about such things, and can safely ignore them.
However, we cannot simply assume that the one person in ten thousand who says that "eating a handful of peanuts would kill him" is lying either.
We keep it in perspective.

In the case of audio equipment, all that really matters when you or I buy equipment is what WE can hear, or what we notice, or find important.
Both science, and other people's reviews and opinions, are just tools we use to optimize our own experience.
And, yes, science is often an excellent safety check against claims based on pure speculation or opinion (or just plain false or mistaken claims).



KeithEmo said:


> I don't see this as a problem per-se... it's just something that you acknowledge and take into account.
> 
> There are plenty of optical illusions that are so persistent that, even if you _KNOW_ it's a trick, "the lines that you know are straight look bent" or "one square looks bigger even though you know they're the same size".
> This is also why we supposedly know that eyewitness identification of suspects is quite often incorrect.
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Oct 25, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I stand by what I wrote.  I don’t think much testing meeting scientific standards has been done so far.f



I think your particular form of bias expresses itself in not being willing to accept any evidence that conflicts with your theories of perception. You will put forward thinly verified psychological theories, but when it comes to hard and fast facts, you take the position that good enough is never good enough and we can't know anything because we can't know everything. That is pretty common among people who come to Sound Science with a preconceived conclusion. If the facts don't go their way, they start questioning the testing methodology. They don't accept any evidence until it's absolutely proven to them, and it's never quite good enough to be absolutely proven to their personal standards.

I look at things differently. I follow the prevailing winds and let the evidence set the direction. And once I find something out, I try to put that into perspective to see if it really matters. Ultimately, that way of thinking is much more practical for the purposes of improving the sound of an audio system, because you don't have to wait for all your questions to be answered before seeing improvement. And the evolution of your questioning can lead to improvements you weren't even looking for.

It's like the difference between Columbus refusing to sail to India until he knows all the logistics of how to get to the destination, and Columbus setting sail due East and discovering America as he goes.


----------



## Phronesis (Oct 25, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I think your particular form of bias expresses itself in not being willing to accept any evidence that conflicts with your theories of perception. You will put forward thinly verified psychological theories, but when it comes to hard and fast facts, you take the position that good enough is never good enough and we can't know anything because we can't know everything. That is pretty common among people who come to Sound Science with a preconceived conclusion. If the facts don't go their way, they start questioning the testing methodology. They don't accept any evidence until it's absolutely proven to them, and it's never quite good enough to be absolutely proven to their personal standards.
> 
> I look at things differently. I follow the prevailing winds and let the evidence set the direction. And once I find something out, I try to put that into perspective to see if it really matters. Ultimately, that way of thinking is much more practical for the purposes of improving the sound of an audio system, because you don't have to wait for all your questions to be answered before seeing improvement. And the evolution of your questioning can lead to improvements you weren't even looking for.
> 
> It's like the difference between Columbus refusing to sail to India until he knows all the logistics of how to get to the destination, and Columbus setting sail due East and discovering America as he goes.



The evidence always needs to be interpreted in the context of how it was gathered, which then raises the question of how far the evidence can be generalized beyond that context.  From that standpoint, I see significant problems with the currently available evidence.  I'm not looking for "proof" nor do I think that's attainable, but I think we have a ways to go with doing more and better research and testing before we can reach conclusions with confidence.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Oct 25, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Wellll... yes you do... i f you want your conclusions to be _generally_ useful.
> 
> They conducted a very nice test of three different amplifiers using a single sample of a single model of headphone.
> However, we all know that different headphones make it easier or more difficult for us to hear certain types of information, and emphasize different things.
> ...


We don't need a generalized conclusion that no two DAC/amps sound different, we need ONE specific example from you that the pair you found to be different, can actually be perceived to be different.

Find those two DACs and the particular speakers you heard the difference on, conduct your test on that. Don't tell me that a man of your resources can't put together ONE system that can reveal these purported differences between DACs in a blind test and tell me with a straight face that somebody needs to start a Kickstarter campaign based on your theories.

To imply that studies need to be conducted to prove the null hypothesis for generally all types of combos on the market is obviously shifting the burden of proof where it doesn't belong.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 25, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I'm not looking for "proof" nor do I think that's attainable, but I think we have a ways to go with doing more and better research and testing before we can reach conclusions with confidence.



You said a couple of months ago that you were going to do a careful listening test with level matching, switching and blind evaluation. How did that go?

You can criticize testing controls better if you actually employ them yourself.

I’ve given up on him Joe Bloggs. He only pretends to be interested in figuring things out. I think there is a reason why he doesn’t want to put it to the test.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> You said a couple of months ago that you were going to do a careful listening test with level matching, switching and blind evaluation. How did that go?
> 
> You can criticize testing controls better if you actually employ them yourself.
> 
> I’ve given up on him Joe Bloggs. He only pretends to be interested in figuring things out. I think there is a reason why he doesn’t want to put it to the test.



Didn't get around the blind phase of the testing, other life stuff came up.  With the sighted testing, I found that results varied with the controls used, and generally differences vanished with tighter controls.  Didn't need to run any stats to conclude that.  But I remain unsure of how much results of that type of testing tell us about normal listening, since the two settings involve very different types of listening experiences and perception could work differently in the two settings.  I'm ok with saying that I don't yet know enough to reach any solid conclusions.  I try to tell myself there can be fun in the mystery, but I'd rather just have real answers.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Phronesis said:


> Didn't get around the blind phase of the testing, other life stuff came up.  With the sighted testing, I found that results varied with the controls used, and generally differences vanished with tighter controls.  Didn't need to run any stats to conclude that.  But I remain unsure of how much results of that type of testing tell us about normal listening, since the two settings involve very different types of listening experiences and perception could work differently in the two settings.  I'm ok with saying that I don't yet know enough to reach any solid conclusions.  I try to tell myself there can be fun in the mystery, but I'd rather just have real answers.



You can make your randomized trials days long between choices if you want.  Nothing about blind testing stipulates picking a choice within a few minutes.  The test just takes longer otherwise... And you do still need to run the same minimum number of trials for statistics


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't disagree with your first assertion.....
If you want to test a specific claim then you should in fact test that claim (same equipment, same conditions).

However, I do disagree with your assertion that there is such a thing as "an obvious null hypothesis".
Is it obvious that a human being will be able to detect if you add one part per billion of a chemical to a glass of water?
It may seem so, but, in fact, some chemicals can be detected at that absurdly low concentration, even though most cannot.
Likewise, I do not find it to be obvious that different DACs do or do not sound different.
Therefore, to me, the answer to that question is simply "unknown".... which means that either hypothesis is equally valid as a null hypothesis.

I also didn't say that a Kickstarter campaign would be necessary to find two DACs that sound audibly different.
However, even if I were to recommend two DACs and, after a thorough study, you were to find that they were indistinguishable, all that would prove was that my specific choice of examples was bad.
I would have failed to prove my assertion (that some DACs sound different); _BUT YOU WOULD STILL NOT HAVE PROVEN YOUR ASSERTION_ (that _NO_ DACs sound different).
What I said was that, if you want results that can reasonably be generalized to "_MOST IF NOT ALL DACs SOUND AUDIBLY THE SAME_", then you need to use a sizeable sample, and test them all under a variety of conditions. 
You cannot assume that your assertion is correct just because a single attempt to disprove it fails.
(It's very difficult, and sometimes downright impossible, to prove a negative.)

There is no "burden of proof" here; we simply have two contradictory theories about what we might find out if we preformed an actual test.



Joe Bloggs said:


> We don't need a generalized conclusion that no two DAC/amps sound different, we need ONE specific example from you that the pair you found to be different, can actually be perceived to be different.
> 
> Find those two DACs and the particular speakers you heard the difference on, conduct your test on that. Don't tell me that a man of your resources can't put together ONE system that can reveal these purported differences between DACs in a blind test and tell me with a straight face that somebody needs to start a Kickstarter campaign based on your theories.
> 
> To imply that studies need to be conducted to prove the null hypothesis for generally all types of combos on the market is obviously shifting the burden of proof where it doesn't belong.


----------



## Phronesis

Joe Bloggs said:


> You can make your randomized trials days long between choices if you want.  Nothing about blind testing stipulates picking a choice within a few minutes.  The test just takes longer otherwise... And you do still need to run the same minimum number of trials for statistics



But that introduces its own problems. If you listen to A and B for say an hour each, how are you going to compare them?  In the span of an hour, there's stuff going on with multiple time frames of memory, fatigue becomes a factor, emotions become a factor, etc.  Randomization doesn't fix that, because there's a fundamental problem with how the 'data' is being gathered in the first place.  The basic issue is that the ear/brain is a very complex and variable 'measuring instrument' that we have only a limited understanding of.  It's very different from situations where measurements can be made relatively objectively, then you just do you statistics on the results to see if there's statistical significance.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 25, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Didn't get around the blind phase of the testing, other life stuff came up.  With the sighted testing....



I'm really not all that interested in sighted testing. I know that won't give accurate results, particularly when bias is so strong.

1) Line level matched
2) Direct A/B switchable synchronized to the same spot in the track
3) Blind testing

That is how you compare to similar sounds correctly. It isn't difficult. I think you're just coming up with excuses. It seems to be contagious.

I'm not even looking for a big scientific study. All I want is an example of two DACs that sound clearly different in normal use. That doesn't require rocket science or lab coats or kickstarters. Everyone seems convinced that such a thing exists. Why is it so hard to just find an example and have a few people listen to it carefully and verify that there is a clear difference? That should be really easy. But every listening test like this that I've ever seen ends up deciding that there is no clear difference between DACs, even ones with radically different price points. All of the careful listening tests I've done bears that out too.

I think "common knowledge" in audiophile forums is wrong in this case. No big deal. Audiophile common knowledge has certainly been wrong before!


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I'm really not all that interested in sighted testing. I know that won't give accurate results, particularly when bias is so strong.
> 
> 1) Line level matched
> 2) Direct A/B switchable synchronized to the same spot in the track
> ...



No need to make it personal ...

You might be surprised by what you can learn by doing variations on sighted testing protocols. Gives some real insight on how biases, and how they can be counteracted or not.  For example, the effect of varying switching time was very obvious.  This kind of experimentation is part of doing 'sound science'.  I'm interested in both differences in gear and how our brains deal with gear and differences in gear.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 25, 2018)

I'm not intending to be insulting. I am just pointing out that you appear to have a very specific point of view and can't seem to see things in any other way. Everyone is biased. That isn't an insult. That is a fact. I'm biased too. That's why I use careful controls when I compare equipment so I don't get biased results.

And I totally see the value of sighted tests. If you don't care if differences are slight, and you only care if a difference is big enough to matter, a sighted test is fine. It's still a good idea to level match and do direct A/B switching though. Those things can make a big difference.

I really don't care about how my brain processes sound subjectively though. I can't change that by buying new equipment. And I am guessing that a brain transplant would be beyond my budget. I have to just live with it.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I'm not intending to be insulting. I am just pointing out that you appear to have a very specific point of view and can't seem to see things in any other way. Everyone is biased. That isn't an insult. That is a fact. I'm biased too. That's why I use careful controls when I compare equipment so I don't get biased results.
> 
> And I totally see the value of sighted tests. If you don't care if differences are slight, and you only care if a difference is big enough to matter, a sighted test is fine. It's still a good idea to level match and do direct A/B switching though. Those things can make a big difference.
> 
> I really don't care about how my brain processes sound subjectively though. I can't change that by buying new equipment. And I am guessing that a brain transplant would be beyond my budget. I have to just live with it.



Actually, I think sighted tests can be unreliable or misleading even for fairly big differences, depending on the controls used.

To deal with bias, my skepticism is fairly sweeping.  I'm not taking a point of view other than saying "I don't know," since I don't have convincing enough to draw conclusions.  If you want to call that a bias, I'm ok with that.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> Actually, I think sighted tests can be unreliable or misleading even for fairly big differences, depending on the controls used.



Are you reading what I'm writing? I'm trying to be very clear and your reply is as if I never said it. Specifically...

"I totally see the value of sighted tests. If you don't care if differences are slight, and you only care if a difference is big enough to matter, a sighted test is fine. *It's still a good idea to level match and do direct A/B switching though. Those things can make a big difference."*

I totally don't believe that your skepticism is capable of overcoming your bias. Unconscious bias is unconscious. You can't control that. I would think that you would be the first to admit that. Convincing you of something is entirely different the dealing with bias. I don't think that is very easy to do, but I'm trying to help you figure out how to convince yourself. You just aren't helping! I haven't given up on you like several others in this thread. I still see hope for you if you'd just get off your theoretical duff and start doing some controlled testing for yourself.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Are you reading what I'm writing? I'm trying to be very clear and your reply is as if I never said it. Specifically...
> 
> "I totally see the value of sighted tests. If you don't care if differences are slight, and you only care if a difference is big enough to matter, a sighted test is fine. *It's still a good idea to level match and do direct A/B switching though. Those things can make a big difference."*
> 
> I totally don't believe that your skepticism is capable of overcoming your bias. Unconscious bias is unconscious. You can't control that. I would think that you would be the first to admit that. Convincing you of something is entirely different the dealing with bias. I don't think that is very easy to do, but I'm trying to help you figure out how to convince yourself. You just aren't helping! I haven't given up on you like several others in this thread. I still see hope for you if you'd just get off your theoretical duff and start doing some controlled testing for yourself.



Do you have any idea how condescending you sound?  Or are you too biased to see it?


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> I don't disagree with your first assertion.....
> If you want to test a specific claim then you should in fact test that claim (same equipment, same conditions).
> 
> However, I do disagree with your assertion that there is such a thing as "an obvious null hypothesis".
> ...



If one claims sample A is different than sample B, the null hypothesis is that A and B are the same. That would be obvious enough for most people that were not in the business of selling high priced DACs to audiophiles.   Nothing in modern observations is truly identical if we include atoms and particles, but audible differences could be determined to be identical if a specific qualifying threshold is established.  Nobody can prove a null hypothesis, such as that audio sample A is identical to B; though, a difference should be well within the realm of even basic scientific steps that just about anyone can conduct.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Oct 25, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Do you have any idea how condescending you sound?  Or are you too biased to see it?



While bigshot and I disagree bitterly on the amount of dynamic compression used in recent pop music releases and the necessity of legacy album remasters, I do agree with him on the methodologies he suggested to ensure accurate testing of alleged audible differences between DACs and between examples of pieces of other categories of audio equipment.


----------



## bigshot

I'm attempting to be friendly and to keep the conversation light and focused. You must be misinterpreting my tone.


----------



## Davesrose

TheSonicTruth said:


> While bigshot and I disagree bitterly on the amount of dynamic compression used in recent pop music releases and the necessity of legacy album remasters, I do agree with him on the methodologies he suggested to ensure accurate testing of alleged audible differences between DACs and between examples of pieces of other categories of audio equipment.



I'm still waiting to see how one would conduct a test for a premise of determining audible differences between DACs just in themselves.  One referred test I saw had a person blindly switching between DACs and trying to identify them.  That's a different premise then judging if there's an audible difference.  With that, it's assuming a bias that there's a particular sound signature with a DAC that you can identify.  With a switch, will there be any audible hick-up or click to let the listener know there's a change in source?  Seems to me, maybe the best control might be recording a track with the same output stage.  Record it in its entirety with one DAC, then switch out with the other DAC.  In a sound editor, make sure they have matched levels and then note where you splice them together.  The subject then has to decide if they hear a change in audio, and you note the time they indicate that.  If it has no correlation to the source file, you know there's no audible difference.  I've indicated I have no controlled tests, but I've clearly heard differences with devices (but then I'm not isolating to DACs and it's entirely likely differences I hear is with different stages and filters).


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Oct 26, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I read castle’s post before I wrote mine.  I stand by what I wrote.  I don’t think much testing meeting scientific standards has been done so far.  Let’s compile a list of papers published in peer-reviewed journals and see what we make of it.  I know that peer review doesn’t guarantee anything (I’ve published peer-reviewed stuff, and have also been a reviewer), but at least the standards and expertise are generally higher than audio magazines for consumer audiences.
> 
> Here's an example of what I consider to be legit scientific research in this area:
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24528-3.pdf



There's nothing wrong with that approach, but "real science" can be done without taking so many factors into consideration. The important things are to control for biases and to make sure everything is repeatable, not just from participant top participant, but also from researcher to researcher, so the research can be repeated independently.

The "real science" is in the process, not the complexity of the experiment.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Phronesis said:


> You might be surprised by what you can learn by doing variations on sighted testing protocols.



Not a bit. One can learn a lot that way. Bear in mind, learning something doesn't make that something correct. If you want to have any (justified) confidence in what you learned, it behooves you to avoid sighted testing.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

@bigshot @Phronesis let me see if I get this right
As far as I can tell from a previous reply to *me*, Phronesis has given up trying to find differences between (cables? DACs? Something like that) at the "sighted level matched" stage.

So there's no need in this case to insist on blinding as a further control.

However what I was saying, you could conduct ABX testing in an ordinary listening environment.  Simply engage your ABX switch before each day of casual listening and record your guess against the answer at the end of each day.


----------



## castleofargh

Davesrose said:


> I'm still waiting to see how one would conduct a test for a premise of determining audible differences between DACs just in themselves.  One referred test I saw had a person blindly switching between DACs and trying to identify them.  That's a different premise then judging if there's an audible difference.  With that, it's assuming a bias that there's a particular sound signature with a DAC that you can identify.  With a switch, will there be any audible hick-up or click to let the listener know there's a change in source?  Seems to me, maybe the best control might be recording a track with the same output stage.  Record it in its entirety with one DAC, then switch out with the other DAC.  In a sound editor, make sure they have matched levels and then note where you splice them together.  The subject then has to decide if they hear a change in audio, and you note the time they indicate that.  If it has no correlation to the source file, you know there's no audible difference...


testing alone isn't going to be easy for DACs. it would ideally require an ABX box to do the randomizing for you. recording is what I did before I could purchase a friend on ebay to help me with some tests. I just recorded both outputs with the same music, time aligned and checked for volume change. and then simply used the resulting files in foobar's abx. I ran that test once with one DAC, once with the other one, just in case some one DAC might mask the characteristics of the other or some idea like that. if the concern is the difference caused by filters, then it seems like a good idea to make sure the ADC records at a higher sampling rate to avoid having it apply it's own salsa at the same freqs. it wasn't great, but I'd still put that above trusting my sighted impressions(where I almost always believe I'm hearing a difference). 



Davesrose said:


> ... I've indicated I have no controlled tests, but I've clearly heard differences with devices (but then I'm not isolating to DACs and it's entirely likely differences I hear is with different stages and filters).


you have to consider that such a statement can mean anything. it's the classic "I know what I heard", and in this section it's fairly despised because there is no content behind it. if self confidence from sighted experience was reliable, the world wouldn't need to bother with objective approaches and controlled tests. for you to believe that your impressions certify the audible difference, it requires a state of mind where you decide for yourself when your subjective interpretation can be biased or not. and that without adding any form of control or attempting to remove potential sources of bias from the experience. in a word: overconfidence. 

sure enough you could be talking about some differences so massive that anybody would agree, with or without controlled testing. but even then you might have mischaracterized a volume difference. without controlling the volume levels how can you know for sure? or your brain could have made stuff up based on visual differences or other preconceptions about price, brand, or someone's previous opinion on sound. because you talk of an experience without control, we can't confirm what really caused your interpretation of the experience. and that's why we can't use sighted impressions to demonstrate audible differences.


----------



## Phronesis (Oct 26, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> @bigshot @Phronesis let me see if I get this right
> As far as I can tell from a previous reply to *me*, Phronesis has given up trying to find differences between (cables? DACs? Something like that) at the "sighted level matched" stage.
> 
> So there's no need in this case to insist on blinding as a further control.



This is pretty much correct.  By varying controls during sighted testing, I could see changes in my perception, with a clear role of expectation bias.  By tightening those controls in sighted tests, I could reduce the perceived differences between two DAC/amps to the point where I could no longer consistently perceive significant differences between them; I felt like I would just be guessing to try to say which is which.  So I haven't bothered yet with adding blinding to the controls, but I do plan to do it at some point.  I found that level matching needs to be reasonably good, but even more important is matching the music segment and minimizing switching time.  If music segments weren't matched, I found that it was easy to perceive differences because the sound content can vary dramatically between segments.  I found that, by minimizing switching time to nearly zero, that seemed to prevent expectation bias from having time to kick in, whereas a few seconds delay in switching was enough time to see an effect of expectation bias.

Now the caveat with all this is that I can't rule out the possibility of subtle differences that I couldn't consistently consciously perceive, and I don't know how far I can generalize the results of this testing to normal listening.  But I'm fairly convinced that the big differences I previously perceived without any real controls were due to misperception, and that any differences which are really there are likely to be subtle at most.


----------



## KeithEmo

You bring up a good point - which is that there are very different testing methodologies - which, even though they're different, and actually test slightly different things, can be equally "fair". The problem with many of the tests I've seen is that they do not test EXACTLY what they claim to be testing, even when it is possible to do so. 

For example, I've noted that a lot of people seem to be obsessed with ABX testing. The reality is that ABX testing tests - VERY SPECIFICALLY - whether you can match an unknown to one or the other of two known samples. However, this is slightly different than asking whether you can detect a DIFFERENCE between two unknowns, and is NOT necessarily the most sensitive way to test for a perceptible DIFFERENCE between two things. For example, if you were to test if two colors are identical, for example a paint sample you're trying to match, you would NOT switch back and forth, or ask the viewer to recognize one or the other, because that is a relatively ineffective way to test for detectable differences. (We humans have very poor color memory when there is any time or spatial distance between the samples, but are very sensitive to differences between samples that touch or overlap.). Instead, what you would do is to take a big square of one color, overlay a smaller square of the other color over part of it, and ask viewers if they could see a division between them - when the smaller square "disappears" then you have a match. Even if you can still see a dividing line, when presented this way, we humans are quite adept at judging whether two colors in touching areas are identical or not. This is what you're doing when you hold a color swatch up to a wall.

An audible equivalent of this would be to play a music sample, split into three parts, and play the parts in an A-B-A sequence. With music, the listener would certainly hear a tick when the sample changed, however, by asking them to identify whether you were playing your samples A-A-A, A-B-A, or B-A-B you could determine with excellent sensitivity whether they could detect a DIFFERENCE. Either all three samples are being played on the SAME device, or there is a CHANGE recognized. If there is a change, EVEN IF THE USERS CAN'T JUDGE WHAT THE CHANGE IS, then you will have demonstrated a difference. In an ABX test, you are actually asking your listeners to perform a more complex process than simply identifying whether a difference exists. (And adding complexity to the tast virtually always compromises the results - unless you're specifically testing for the ability to perform complex tasks.)

The other issue there is that there is a huge difference between absolute thresholds and statistical significance. For example, let's say we 100 test subjects, and test to see if they can tell the difference between two DACs, using whatever methodology you prefer. We run the test with 100 different subjects and 100 different music samples. Out of all those tests, THREE of our test subjects identify a difference accurately 98% of the time, but the results for the other 97 are statistically random. If we look at all those results in aggregate, they appear to be very close to random; however, that analysis is totally incorrect. When looked at IN DETAIL, our data actually shows that a few test subjects can recognize the difference with great accuracy, while most of them apparently cannot do so much beyond random. 

Therefore we have learned two facts:
1) That an audible difference DOES exist.
2) That only a small percentage of our test subjects can recognize it.

We would have learned something similar if even a few subjects could reliable recognize that difference with only one or two test samples.
If, out of all those test subjects, and all that sample music, ONE GUY could recognize which was which RELIABLY, with one music sample, then we have proven our difference.
(It only takes finding ONE person with perfect pitch to "prove" that "pitch perfect humans exist".)
However, if we fail to analyze that data properly and thoroughly, our test rewsults will sort of obscure each other.

(Obviously, the NUMBER of subjects who can do so, and with how many samples, will be of great interest to the marketing department.... but that isn't "pure science".)

I brought this up in specific because it would not be especially difficult to devise a test fixture that could do that PARTICULAR type of blind test very well.
For each run, you would simply connect two DACs to it (to inputs "A" and "B") and an output audio "system" - which could be speakers or headphones or both.
(Some sort of splitter would provide the same input to both.)
You would then press a "setup" button that would randomly assign one or the other as A or B.
Then, each time you started a test run, and played a sample, it would play either A-A-A, or A-B-A, or B-A-B, or B-B-B.
The user would basically hear...... "music... click... music... click... music."
And, each time, the user would record a YES/NO response ("Was the entire sample played on one device, or was the device changed along the way.")
This is exactly analogous to "Are the squares the same color" on the color test - and calls for the absolute minimum of processing or thought from the user.
You could use long or short samples.
You could even allow the user to decide when the "switches" would occur.... and let them switch back and forth as many times, and as often, as they like.
This would even allow the user to switch back and forth in the middel of "especially revealing passages" or even to repeat certain segments.
This test would call for virtually no "audible memory", and would allow for any test samples, and any other associated equipment, that each user preferred.
The ONLY question the user would be asked was: "Were you listening to two different DACs or only one".
You would then be very sure that you chose a variety of users, a variety of test samples, and a variety of test gear.
(After all, you might find that only 5% of your users can tell the difference, and only with live trumpet music, but that, with that combination, they are extremely accurate.)

This same test system (presumably computer controlled) could then be used the same way with more specific and narrower choices.
For example, only teenagers,  or only live recorded jazz, or different types of headphones.....
And you would need to ensure ENOUGH variety to reasonably claim that your results could be generalized.
And it could ALSO be programmed to do other tests - like A/B/X tests - to determine more complex answers.

These days such a test set could be run by a computer (even a small low cost one like a Raspberry Pi).
All it would take to build would be a few relays - and someone with some reasonable programming experience.



Joe Bloggs said:


> @bigshot @Phronesis let me see if I get this right
> As far as I can tell from a previous reply to *me*, Phronesis has given up trying to find differences between (cables? DACs? Something like that) at the "sighted level matched" stage.
> 
> So there's no need in this case to insist on blinding as a further control.
> ...


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> I just want to make it perfectly clear that I am 100% behind doing proper testing.



Apparently NOT! If you were "100% behind doing proper testing" then why are you trying so hard to avoid the most "proper" type of testing, purely objective testing? Your response to the suggestion of Null Testing was a series of obfuscations/misrepresentations! ....


KeithEmo said:


> [1] We also have the issue where the differences we're talking about are dynamic. That ringing is going to be or very short duration and only occur at certain times. How do you plan to decide 'whether it's audible or not"?
> [1a] For example, is an artifact, at 1 kHz, for a 1 mS duration, at -40 dB audible or not?
> [1b] If a null test showed no difference whatsoever, then we'd be done. However, since no two pieces of equipment will be truly identical in every way, that's not going to happen. So, once we run our null test, and have our result of exactly what the difference is, we're right back to determining whether that difference is audible or not.


1. We look at how much energy we've got in the difference file. If it's a low amount, end of story, we've objectively determined no audible difference. If it's a high enough amount to be potentially audible, we then look at where that energy is distributed in the freq spectrum (EG. Is it in a sensitive, insensitive or inaudible band?). If it's in an inaudible band, end of story. If it's in an insensitive band and not of a high level, end of story. If it's in a sensitive band and of a moderate or higher level, ONLY then does the story continue, although we can in some instances look at the music or test signal and determine if that artefact will be masked by human hearing.
1a. Typically in musical material it will be inaudible. However, you've invented an example which not only jumps many of the "end of story" scenarios but MORE IMPORTANTLY, misrepresents/obfuscates the issue! Under what circumstances will a reconstruction filter produce 1ms of 1kHz at -40dBFS where it is not masked or obscured by human hearing? The only answer I'm aware of is: Either a filter deliberately or incompetently designed to produce such an artefact!
1b. No, we are NOT right back to where we started, we now know exactly what and where the difference is OBJECTIVELY! From this we can often determine if that difference is inaudible, from countless scientific tests which have ALREADY been done over the course of 85 years or so! You didn't answer the questions, if say the difference is at -100dBFS or if it's higher in level and mostly in the inaudible band, how does that NOT determine it's inaudible?


KeithEmo said:


> [2] If you have two DACs, one of which introduces five cycles of ringing, and another of which introduces ten cycles, if you try to measure them using a low-cost ADC that introduces fifty cycles of ringing, it's going to obscure that difference quite effectively. (You're NOT going to see one output with 55 cycles of ringing, and one with 60 cycles of ringing, because the ringing on both DACs will fall INSIDE the ringing caused by the ADC, and
> [2a] so will be obscured by it. You will instead see a slight increase in ringing where the ringing from both overlaps... which is going to be very difficult to detect and measure.)
> [3] Likewise, if you try to compare the S/N of two devices, one of which has a S/N of 80 dB, and another of which has a S/N of 90 dB, using measurement gear that has an S/N of only 60 dB, you will not get accurate or valid results. ...
> [3a] ... however, in practice, your results will be "so far down in the noise" that you will not be able to accurately detect or measure them.
> ...


2. You're joking? It's NOT going to be very difficult to detect or measure, it's going to be easily detected in a Null Test! The only time a Null Test would not detect the difference accurately is: A. If you change some variable other than the DAC between the two recordings or B. If the ADC has some random artefacts, which likewise causes a difference between the two recordings. Filter ringing is not a random artefact.
2a. So which is it? Is the low-cost ADC going to obscure the ringing or will you "see a slight increase in the ringing where it overlaps?? If you're asserting the latter then I would completely agree BUT I completely disagree that it will be difficult to detect or measure, it will be trivially easy and in fact that's the whole point of a Null Test in the first place! A Null Test is effectively very simple math, if our ADC is "X" and our two DACs are "Y" and "Z", the Null Test math is: "(X+Y) - (X+Z)". The X and -X (our ADC) cancel each other out and what we're left with is Y - Z, the exact difference between our two DACs and nothing else, regardless of how big X is relative to Y or Z!

3. Assuming the ADC has a noise floor of -60dBFS comprised entirely of random noise (which will therefore cause a different between the two recordings), then yes, you would not get accurate or valid results BUT ...
3a. What do you mean "however, in practice"? In actual practice your example is a misrepresentation/obfuscation because in practice, what ADC has random noise at -60dBFS? Even a cheap (say $100) prosumer ADC should not produce audible random noise.

4. No, it's not an issue in the slightest, let alone a "particular issue", because in a Null Test of DACs there are NO speakers or HPs in the test chain! Why then introduce (relatively) massively flawed reproduction transducers into the discussion unless you're trying to obscure the issue?

5. Yep, you said that before and I completely agree. So why not use a Null Test to verify that?
5a. Again, I agree. My question is though; what TEST GEAR (ADC) wouldn't be able to detect them? Your examples would be easily detected, even with a modestly priced prosumer ADC.


KeithEmo said:


> For example, Newtonian physics works just fine for building a building, or even targeting an artillery piece...
> But, if you're calculating the route of a space probe, it's not _exactly_ right; it isn't _wrong_ either; it's just not_ right enough_.


But we're not talking about calculating the route of a space probe, we're talking about DACs and calculating the reconstruction of an audio signal. Even if we're talking about calculating the reconstruction of an audio signal for an astronaut on a space probe, still that would make no difference because the relationship between the DAC and the astronaut would be the same, The only circumstances where this could be an issue is if someone on Earth is trying to listen to the same acoustic soundwaves the astronaut is listening to but even then, the probe would have to be travelling considerably closer to the speed of light or be considerably closer to a much more massive source of gravity than it's currently possible to achieve. With only Newtonian physics the Global Positioning System (GPS) would accumulate an error of about 10kms per day and be useless, so the application of Einsteinian physics (relativity) is vital. However, if we're listening to music on Earth (or we're an astronaut listening to music in space), then Newtonian physics is indeed exactly right! Are you suggesting that the Newtonian laws of physics are not "right enough" for human hearing? Is this not just another attempt at obfuscation?

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Keith as usual makes good points.  ABX is very good for certain things, but is not the only valid style of testing. 

I just thought of something that seems funny in this context.  Companies developing new audio devices almost always do sighted testing.  At least, I know I've never done blind testing at work. I haven't heard of other product developers doing blind testing on their own prototypes. I wonder how much time I've spent fooling myself.  Honestly, the proportion is probably not zero percent.


----------



## Phronesis

Zapp_Fan said:


> Keith as usual makes good points.  *ABX is very good for certain things, but is not the only valid style of testing.*
> 
> I just thought of something that seems funny in this context.  Companies developing new audio devices almost always do sighted testing.  At least, I know I've never done blind testing at work. I haven't heard of other product developers doing blind testing on their own prototypes. I wonder how much time I've spent fooling myself.  Honestly, the proportion is probably not zero percent.



I think we need to get away from the idea that there's such a thing as a "perfect" test in this domain.  At the most basic level, what a test tells you is the results of the testing under the very specific conditions and protocols of that testing.  Any attempt to interpret the test results and generalize them beyond the specific test conditions requires judgment and is subject to error.  And to the extent that a test involves conditions which are "unnatural" and not representative of "naturalistic" real world conditions, we need to have some skepticism about the relevance of the testing to naturalistic settings.  This is why there needs to be a proper research program with a variety of testing being done, hypotheses and theoretical models developed, dialogue and debate among scientists, etc.  What we have currently in audio falls far short of such a research program.  But on the bright side, audio technology has advanced to a level where we can now get quite good sound quality for affordable prices, so a lot of this stuff amounts to splitting hairs.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Phronesis said:


> But on the bright side, audio technology has advanced to a level where we can now get quite good sound quality for affordable prices, so a lot of this stuff amounts to splitting hairs.



Indeed.  I think if you could wave a magic wand and improve one part of the signal chain from studio to consumer's ear dramatically, it would have be transducers first.  DAC and amp technology is already (as many have asserted ITT) much better than transducers, IMO mostly because they have to overcome mechanical difficulties, not just electronic. 

Audible differences between DACs is more of a curiosity than a real problem in consumer audio.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Oct 26, 2018)

All of these comparisons of what are thought of as differences take a back seat to how and where 90% of music is consumed, nowadays, in the first place:

HOW:
-Over crappy OEM earbuds that have a frequency response flat between 1kHz-4kHz.
-Or Blue Tooth speakers that pretend to be full-sized ones, with "room-filling" 500Hz-10kHz sound!
-Plugged into portable devices with amps the size of Tic-Tac candy.
-Via Spotify or YouTube or such.

WHERE:
-On planes
-Trains
-Small 20' motor boats
-Other noisy environments

DOING:
-Anything BUT sitting or lying down actually LISTENING to what's playing
-Mowing the lawn
-Operating a jack-hammer
-Working on an assembly line
-Cleaning the toilet, etc.


For anyone that fits into any of the above three categories, the difference between even the worst and best DACs ever won't mount to a pile of termite crap in comparison!   So after 9,900-plus posts how about putting this silly topic to bed?

Unless it really matters to one or two of you...


----------



## Phronesis

TheSonicTruth said:


> So after 9,900-plus posts how about putting this silly topic to bed?
> 
> Unless it really matters to one or two of you...



The discussions go on because people like connecting with each other and discussing topics of shared interest.  Deep down, we know that we're not solving any major problems in these forums.  When someone gets really heated up about something, they've forgotten why we're really here.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Zapp_Fan said:


> Keith as usual makes good points.  ABX is very good for certain things, but is not the only valid style of testing.
> 
> I just thought of something that seems funny in this context.  Companies developing new audio devices almost always do sighted testing.  At least, I know I've never done blind testing at work. I haven't heard of other product developers doing blind testing on their own prototypes. I wonder how much time I've spent fooling myself.  Honestly, the proportion is probably not zero percent.


For marketing the *perception* that you're getting something done is certainly more important than the fact thereof.  If every new piece of equipment had to pass an ABX test against the state of the art to be released to market, there would be roughly 0.5%* the number of audio source / amplification products there are today 

*A number I pulled out of my ass


----------



## Zapp_Fan

This is certainly true.  And also the value proposition of a piece of audio gear doesn't only come from raw performance.  There is also appearance / industrial design (which I believe is more important than anyone admits), brand loyalty, customer service, ergonomics, and non-audio features (e.g. USB-C connectivity). 

But if you really had to objectively pass ABX tests as a functionally superior product to get your product on the market, I think half a percent is much too high.  There are... 2 headphones that I know of (not that I have done any serious research on this yet) that are objectively better at noise cancellation than Bose has made, both by Sony.  Meanwhile there are hundreds of noise cancelling headphones on the market.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

KeithEmo said:


> You bring up a good point - which is that there are very different testing methodologies - which, even though they're different, and actually test slightly different things, can be equally "fair". The problem with many of the tests I've seen is that they do not test EXACTLY what they claim to be testing, even when it is possible to do so.
> 
> For example, I've noted that a lot of people seem to be obsessed with ABX testing. The reality is that ABX testing tests - VERY SPECIFICALLY - whether you can match an unknown to one or the other of two known samples. However, this is slightly different than asking whether you can detect a DIFFERENCE between two unknowns, and is NOT necessarily the most sensitive way to test for a perceptible DIFFERENCE between two things. For example, if you were to test if two colors are identical, for example a paint sample you're trying to match, you would NOT switch back and forth, or ask the viewer to recognize one or the other, because that is a relatively ineffective way to test for detectable differences. (We humans have very poor color memory when there is any time or spatial distance between the samples, but are very sensitive to differences between samples that touch or overlap.). Instead, what you would do is to take a big square of one color, overlay a smaller square of the other color over part of it, and ask viewers if they could see a division between them - when the smaller square "disappears" then you have a match. Even if you can still see a dividing line, when presented this way, we humans are quite adept at judging whether two colors in touching areas are identical or not. This is what you're doing when you hold a color swatch up to a wall.
> 
> ...


If you're proposing new methodology, you need to test it on known stimuli and pit it against known methodology first, to see whether it is really more sensitive, without being prone to false positives.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 26, 2018)

f he's that concerned about the testing procedures, I don't know why he didn't employ all that when he was doing the tests himself. He had the two DACs right there in front of him. Now we can't do it because he doesn't own it any more / it's out of production / we need to do a kickstarter / etc. etc. etc. When people shift from a position that the difference was "clearly audible" to "gosh! it's going to be a lot of work to prove it's audible!" it tells you something. I know blowing smoke when I see it.



castleofargh said:


> testing alone isn't going to be easy for DACs.



Same digital file... audibly transparent transports, 2 DACS to compare, some sort of audibly transparent headphone amps to level match, headphone patch controlled by helper, switch box controlled by listener. A bunch of pairs to compare.... some a/b some b/a some a/a some b/b. Person operating the switch keeps notes, person listening keeps his own notes. Discern if differences exist or not. Compare notes, generate odds. Voualla!


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm sorry, but, to put it bluntly, I didn't do any properly conducted tests, and neither did you.
I'm pretty convinced that I heard a difference - in a sighted, and not especially scientifically conducted, test.
You, who haven't heard either product, and weren't there at all, seem quite convinced that you _KNOW_ no such difference existed.
I think it was extremely obvious, as did the person I was with at the time... and I haven't changed that opinion in the least.
I don't see anything to suggest that _anybody_ has changed their position.

What I said was that, in order to prove it, reliably and scientifically, using a test procedure that lacks obvious flaws, would be complex.
(For example, I can't speak for you, but I have no source of "scientifically proven transparent headphone amps" or "headphones guaranteed not to obscure small differences".... so I would have to test and qualify all the equipment first. )

As I've said before, if I was still in college, this would make a great term paper research project.
However, since I'm not, I don't currently have the time and resources to do so....
And I have no interest in doing a flawed and limited test that would fail to adequately prove the point either way.
And, as someone noted in another post, no audio company I know of is interested in financing it.
(Most companies apparently have no expectations that such tests would sell products - regardless of the outcome.)



bigshot said:


> f he's that concerned about the testing procedures, I don't know why he didn't employ all that when he was doing the tests himself. He had the two DACs right there in front of him. Now we can't do it because he doesn't own it any more / it's out of production / we need to do a kickstarter / etc. etc. etc. When people shift from a position that the difference was "clearly audible" to "gosh! it's going to be a lot of work to prove it's audible!" it tells you something. I know blowing smoke when I see it.
> 
> 
> 
> Same digital file... audibly transparent transports, 2 DACS to compare, some sort of audibly transparent headphone amps to level match, headphone patch controlled by helper, switch box controlled by listener. A bunch of pairs to compare.... some a/b some b/a some a/a some b/b. Person operating the switch keeps notes, person listening keeps his own notes. Discern if differences exist or not. Compare notes, generate odds. Voualla!


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree....

The other thing to remember is that, as audiophiles, we are presumably seeking equipment that sounds good...
And, presumably, for most of us that means equipment that is relatively accurate to the original...

However, when it comes to specific _scientific _issues, that doesn't always hold true...

For example, I mentioned that the Navy, in their early SONAR experiments, had chosen to use Stax electrostatic headphones, because they were "very revealing"...
Apparently, with SONAR (especially back when human operators did it "by ear"), the goal was to recognize certain specific differences between certain complex sounds...
Those Stax headphones were chosen because they emphasized and highlighted those differences... and not because, overall, they were "accurate" or "good sounding"...
I've heard a few early epectrostatic headphones... while they emphasized certain details very well, they also had a somewhat ragged frequency response, and sounded rather bad.
(So, they are the most accurate tool available for detecting certain specific differences, but you probably would not want to listen to music on them.)

My point is that a discussion of "what matters when listening to most music" or even "what sounds good" is somewhat different than "scientific research".
The trick is to avoid confusing the two.
There's nothing unreasonable about concluding that: 
"We have scientifically determined that small audible differences exist, but we have also statistically determined that, when listening to music, most people don't notice them".

However, a scientific test to determine the absolute limits of human audio perception...
May be rather different than a test and statistical analysis to determine how many people notice a significant difference when listening to music...
(And there is no requirement for scientific limit testing to be limited to "natural" or "real world" conditions, while it's usually a good idea to do so for "listening tests".) 



Phronesis said:


> I think we need to get away from the idea that there's such a thing as a "perfect" test in this domain.  At the most basic level, what a test tells you is the results of the testing under the very specific conditions and protocols of that testing.  Any attempt to interpret the test results and generalize them beyond the specific test conditions requires judgment and is subject to error.  And to the extent that a test involves conditions which are "unnatural" and not representative of "naturalistic" real world conditions, we need to have some skepticism about the relevance of the testing to naturalistic settings.  This is why there needs to be a proper research program with a variety of testing being done, hypotheses and theoretical models developed, dialogue and debate among scientists, etc.  What we have currently in audio falls far short of such a research program.  But on the bright side, audio technology has advanced to a level where we can now get quite good sound quality for affordable prices, so a lot of this stuff amounts to splitting hairs.


----------



## KeithEmo

I figured that BigShot's "question" rated a specific answer....

The reason why we didn't employ "proper testing practices" was quite simply that we didn't set out to do so.
I had simply mentioned to a friend that I planned to sell the Wyred4Sound DAC.
He suggested that he might be interested, so I offered him the opportunity to listen to it, and have an opportunity to buy it at a discount before I posted it on eBay.
He also wanted to take the opportunity to let me listen to several speaker systems he had designed, and, since we was using a DC-1, we decided to compare them.
We both expected to hear a slight difference, but were surprised at how obvious the difference was (we both agreed that the DC-1 sounded both more neutral and more pleasant).
We had no plans to "run a formal test" or to "document the results" - although, just to be fair, we carefully matched the levels.
I only mentioned it because BigShot asked... and it was the most recent and most obvious example I've heard lately.



bigshot said:


> f he's that concerned about the testing procedures, I don't know why he didn't employ all that when he was doing the tests himself. He had the two DACs right there in front of him. Now we can't do it because he doesn't own it any more / it's out of production / we need to do a kickstarter / etc. etc. etc. When people shift from a position that the difference was "clearly audible" to "gosh! it's going to be a lot of work to prove it's audible!" it tells you something. I know blowing smoke when I see it.
> 
> 
> 
> Same digital file... audibly transparent transports, 2 DACS to compare, some sort of audibly transparent headphone amps to level match, headphone patch controlled by helper, switch box controlled by listener. A bunch of pairs to compare.... some a/b some b/a some a/a some b/b. Person operating the switch keeps notes, person listening keeps his own notes. Discern if differences exist or not. Compare notes, generate odds. Voualla!


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> I'm sorry, but, to put it bluntly, I didn't do any properly conducted tests



Didn't you say that you did level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparisons using speakers and determined that one of the DACs clearly showed a bump between 5 and 7kHz? That sounds like a good test to me... The ability to consistently detect a difference as small as 1.5dB in the upper treble range just shows that your controls were more than tight enough to do the job . I might be able to detect that small of a difference using my headphones, but I doubt I would be able to do that with speakers.


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Oct 26, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> For marketing the *perception* that you're getting something done is certainly more important than the fact thereof.  If every new piece of equipment had to pass an ABX test against the state of the art to be released to market, there would be roughly 0.5%* the number of audio source / amplification products there are today
> 
> *A number I pulled out of my ass





Zapp_Fan said:


> This is certainly true.  And also the value proposition of a piece of audio gear doesn't only come from raw performance.  There is also appearance / industrial design (which I believe is more important than anyone admits), brand loyalty, customer service, ergonomics, and non-audio features (e.g. USB-C connectivity).
> 
> But if you really had to objectively pass ABX tests as a functionally superior product to get your product on the market, I think half a percent is much too high.  There are... 2 headphones that I know of (not that I have done any serious research on this yet) that are objectively better at noise cancellation than Bose has made, both by Sony.  Meanwhile there are hundreds of noise cancelling headphones on the market.



These posts bring to mind Cool Fall flashlights, ultra high-end pocket flashlights that are, by nearly all accounts, flawless working titanium sculptures, with rotary switches that are as pleasurable to use as fine chocolate is to taste. And they should be, given the prices they command, topping out north of US$5000. However, I've never heard anyone claim that Cool Fall torches produce better light than would a $29 import with the same emitter, driven similarly. My point is, no one is under any illusions regarding what that extra cash is or is not buying.


----------



## KeithEmo

No....

I said it was carefully level matched...
And was quickly and directly switched...
But it was sighted...  (at least some of the time, one person switched and the other listened, but there was no specific attempt to hide the switch).
I also said that there was an audible difference... which we characterized as "sounding like or being equivalent to "a bump around 1.5 dB in the area between 5 kHz and 7 kHz". 
We both found the difference to be quite obvious... but we did not compare it to a known 1.5 dB or use any sweep tones or measurements to confirm that.
Therefore, the magnitude of the difference - beyond "perceptually extremely obvious" - was a complete approximation.

In fact, beyond noting that "the difference between the DACs was much more obvious than we'd expected", we weren't really looking for magnitude numbers at the time. 
We noticed the difference... which was more obvious than we'd expected.
So, we checked the levels, then switched back and forth carefully several times to confirm that it was really a difference in the DACs we were hearing, and then went on to other things.
We tried several different music samples, but no sweep tones, so the frequency range and exact magnitude were both just rough approximations.
(If we'd been running an actual study, we would have confirmed the measured frequency responses of both, and compared it to samples with known variations introduced to them.)



bigshot said:


> Didn't you say that you did level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparisons using speakers and determined that one of the DACs clearly showed a bump between 5 and 7kHz? That sounds like a good test to me... The ability to consistently detect a difference as small as 1.5dB in the upper treble range just shows that your controls were more than tight enough to do the job . I might be able to detect that small of a difference using my headphones, but I doubt I would be able to do that with speakers.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Jaywalk3r said:


> These posts bring to mind Cool Fall flashlights, ultra high-end pocket flashlights that are, by nearly all accounts, flawless working titanium sculptures, with rotary switches that are as pleasurable to use as fine chocolate is to taste. And they should be, given the prices they command, topping out north of US$5000. However, I've never heard anyone claim that Cool Fall torches produce better light than would a $29 import with the same emitter, driven similarly. My point is, no one is under any illusions regarding what that extra cash is or is not buying.



Aren't those lights the same ones they're selling at the P.O.S. price point?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 27, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> No.... I said it was carefully level matched... And was quickly and directly switched... But it was sighted...



OH! Then I apologize! The reason I took you at your word that you heard a difference was because I thought you knew to conduct a test with a way of eliminating bias. If it was sighted, I would have just dismissed it on those grounds and wouldn't have wasted anyone's time. A sighted test is no evidence at all that there was a difference. You were comparing a competitor's DAC to a DAC the company you represents makes. I just figured that you would be expecting to deal with the inevitable bias that kind of a comparison would come saddled with. I assumed that since you had two people there, you would take turns operating the switch blind for the other person. I understand where the difference came from now. Never mind.

My quest for a DAC that sounds clearly different continues...


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting....

However, I am getting tired of the pompous prattle.
Neither one of us has bothered to actually perform a proper test.... 
And neither of us has presented the results of one....
I am unwilling to make assumptions based on incomplete data; you are willing to do so; it really is that simple.
Do please let us all know when you have the results of a properly run test that actually answers the question one way or the other.
(Please include details of the actual test methodology; if it has no obvious weaknesses of flaws then the results should be quite convincing - to us all.)
Until then we'll all have to settle for what we have now; the results of signted comparions, sloppy tests, and assumptions based on tests that were improperly designed and performed.
(I don't understand why there was any confusion; I described exactly what I did the first time around.)

Incidentally, as I also mentioned the first time, I have no bias or inclination whatsoever to show a difference between our DAC and one from a competitor that costs twice as much.
I would have been prefectly happy to report that they sound the same; however, I'm not determied to convince myself that they don't, if my actual experience suggests otherwise.
Could it possibly be that you have a bias to NOT notice any difference?
That sort of bias is much more difficult to eliminate when designing a test protocol.
The only way I can think of to eliminate a bias in the direction of NOT noticing a difference would be to offer to pay your test subjects if they could pick out which was which.
Then, if you run a blind test, you will be able to determine if a real difference is detected, and you will also be assured that your test subjects actually tried their best to detect one.
Otherwise, there is no way to rule out a bias in the direction of expecting all the test samples to sound the same... and so failing to notice small differences.



bigshot said:


> OH! Then I apologize! The reason I took you at your word that you heard a difference was because I thought you knew to conduct a test with a way of eliminating bias. If it was sighted, I would have just dismissed it on those grounds and wouldn't have wasted anyone's time. A sighted test is no evidence at all that there was a difference. You were comparing a competitor's DAC to a DAC the company you represents makes. I just figured that you would be expecting to deal with the inevitable bias that kind of a comparison would come saddled with. I assumed that since you had two people there, you would take turns operating the switch blind for the other person. I understand where the difference came from now. Never mind.
> 
> My quest for a DAC that sounds clearly different continues...


----------



## bigshot (Oct 27, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I have no bias or inclination whatsoever to show a difference between our DAC and one from a competitor[



No bias whatsoever? I'd like to know how you accomplish that, because it's a feat that I doubt any of the rest of us would claim.

I was asking for someone to point me to a DAC they had reason to believe sounded different based on some sort of evidence. If I settled for impressions, I would be having to check just about every DAC. I'd kind of like to not waste my time chasing impressions. It's a good thing we didn't waste kickstarter money on this!

This is Sound Science. We work different here than the rest of the site. I thought you knew that .It's fine. I know where you're coming from now.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Oct 27, 2018)

@KeithEmo here at Sound Science we don't take anyone's word for it that they have a bias for finding a difference or not.  We remove the *possibility* of confirmation bias with a blinded test.  Otherwise a deaf person can tell us how he can hear whether the USB cable connecting the source to the DAC is branded or not, whether the electricity powering the setup today is nuclear powered or hydro powered (latter sounds more "liquid" etc.), etc. ad nauseum. "Even though hearing a difference is the last thing I expected." *

*Example taken from a viral Chinese social media post mocking the superhuman powers of sighted testing audiophiles... for all the good that does in China--audiophoolery is more than alive and well there it is running the show everywhere!


----------



## KeithEmo

OK..... so where _ARE_ the test results you wanted to provide that show that no audible differences exist?
(I'm still waiting to see the results of a single properly conducted, reasonably thorough, fully documented, test - designed to determine "whether all DACs sound the same or not".)

Obviously we _ALL_ have biases; mine is to trust what I hear; yours is to make assumptions how things sound that you haven't actually heard; based on the results of tests you haven't run.
(Surely you don't consider a double-blind test, using a single pair of headphones, and a single headphone amp, as "conclusive" for _ALL_ headphones and other equipment?...)
In all fairness, when it comes to things like cables, where the science is a little simpler, and more thorougly understood, I'm inclined to do the same.
I'm not quite sure my consideration that differences might exist between DACs counts as a "bias".... but I'll accept that I might be "excessively open minded".

However, I didn't say that I have no biases.
You seemed to be suggesting that I have a vested interest in believing that the DAC made by my company sounds better.
My reply is that, if it was simply a matter of preferential bias, I would be quite satisfied to "believe" that our DC-1 was merely equal to a competitor's product costing twice the price.
In fact, it has been my experience that many people actually prefer the sound of Sabre DACs... I merely assert that I do hear a _difference_.

I can't offer you the opportunity to test a DC-1 personally... because they are now discontinued and we don't have any more in stock.
However, we have a new replacement model which will be available in a few months (the DC-2).
As with all Emotiva products purchased new, it will come with a 30 day money back warranty, so anyone who wants to will be able to test it - or just listen to it - for themself.
(I think the DC-2 sounds slightly better... but, on that score, I will concede a slight bias.


If you _DO_ test it... 
Please post the results here...
And include the details of the test protocol, other test equipment, and comparison products, you use so we can evaluate your results properly...



bigshot said:


> No bias whatsoever? I'd like to know how you accomplish that, because it's a feat that I doubt any of the rest of us would claim.
> 
> I was asking for someone to point me to a DAC they had reason to believe sounded different based on some sort of evidence. If I settled for impressions, I would be having to check just about every DAC. I'd kind of like to not waste my time chasing impressions. It's a good thing we didn't waste kickstarter money on this!
> 
> This is Sound Science. We work different here than the rest of the site. I thought you knew that .It's fine. I know where you're coming from now.


----------



## KeithEmo

Good for you....

We all have various biases... and _NOBODY_ should expect their claims to be taken as gospel.
And that includes both individuals, companies, and even government agencies.
(Remember the recent scandal about how VolksWagen has been falsifying the results of mileage tests on their diesel vehicles for years... without even the government catching on.) 



Joe Bloggs said:


> @KeithEmo here at Sound Science we don't take anyone's word for it that they have a bias for finding a difference or not.  We remove the *possibility* of confirmation bias with a blinded test.  Otherwise a deaf person can tell us how he can hear whether the USB cable connecting the source to the DAC is branded or not, whether the electricity powering the setup today is nuclear powered or hydro powered (latter sounds more "liquid" etc.), etc. ad nauseum. "Even though hearing a difference is the last thing I expected." *
> 
> *Example taken from a viral Chinese social media post mocking the superhuman powers of sighted testing audiophiles... for all the good that does in China--audiophoolery is more than alive and well there it is running the show everywhere!


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> Good for you....
> 
> We all have various biases... and _NOBODY_ should expect their claims to be taken as gospel.
> And that includes both individuals, companies, and even government agencies.
> (Remember the recent scandal about how VolksWagen has been falsifying the results of mileage tests on their diesel vehicles for years... without even the government catching on.)



Great Keith.  The VW scandal is about corruption, not science.  Same thing with this discussion about audio myths, in my opinion.  Now, you claim to hear differences sighted without any confirmation.  The null hypothesis for that assertion would be that no audible difference exists that can be identified.  We can't prove a negative, so the onus is on you to show that a difference can be heard.  Thus far, you haven't provided any proof other than what would be obvious differences if the measurements were made available from the huge amounts of advertisements you frequently post to support your company and what you do for that company.   I get it.  With the amp off, the sound appeared to be softer, as if it were silent.  Amps do sound different.


----------



## KeithEmo

Actually you missed my point entirely about the VW scandal.
My point there was simply that sometimes the results of tests turn out to be wrong - for various reasons (in that particular case it was because of deliberate trickery).
Even, as in that case, when the test results are "certified" by the government, and published as being "reliable".
(I wonder how many people used those published results, of that single test, as "proof" of something.)
However, errors in test results are often simply due to error, or to a badly designed or implemented test procedure.
This is why, in real science, we virtually never rely on the results of a single test as proof of anything.
We publish the details, and invite other folks to run the same test, or to devise different tests, approaching the question from slightly different directions, to confirm our data.
The computers in those VW diesel vehicles were programmed to fudge the data for a very specific test.
A quick run around the track, instead of on a dynamometer, with a full tank of fuel, would have identified the problem with the test results... or, at the least, provided conflicting data.
But, instead, for years, everybody _CHOSE_ to accept the results of one specific test, instead of actually taking the time to confirm it with a different test.
(We know why VW fudged the tests; we must assume that everyone else was either too lazy, or too eager to believe those results, to bother to confirm them.)

So far, as far as I know, _NO_ independent reliable source has done a proper scientific test to show whether different DACs sound different or not.
Several reviewers have done tests that seem to show the opposite - many of which have been linked to on this forum.
(Every review that shows that, in a blind test, one or another DAC was preferred, is clearly inferring that an audible difference did exist... )
Likewise, many vendors have done their own listening tests, but we can safely assume them to be biased (they wouldn't have published results that made their product look bad).
Obviously, we have lots of anecdotal evidence, in both directions.
And we have a lot tangentially related data showing that, under certain other circumstances, many of the differences measured with DACs have been found _NOT_ to be audible.
And BigShot has done some credible double-blind testing, but with only two or three DACs, one or two sets of headphones, and one set of ears.
I'm _STILL_ waiting to see a single properly run test that shows _SIGNIFICANT_ results either way.
(And I'm sure nto seeing several different tests whose results support or agree with each other.)

I would not expect anyone to "take anybody's word for anything".
Therefore, I'm still simply waiting to see actual test data either way.

WIth any luck, eventually, someone will run such a test (or several folks will run different ones).
Or, until then, we can continue to discuss the results we expect, and what we each believe based on the current incomplete and inconclusive information.
This doesn't seem unreasonable to me...
But, personally, I would prefer to avoid prtending that we have data that we do not.



sonitus mirus said:


> Great Keith.  The VW scandal is about corruption, not science.  Same thing with this discussion about audio myths, in my opinion.  Now, you claim to hear differences sighted without any confirmation.  The null hypothesis for that assertion would be that no audible difference exists that can be identified.  We can't prove a negative, so the onus is on you to show that a difference can be heard.  Thus far, you haven't provided any proof other than what would be obvious differences if the measurements were made available from the huge amounts of advertisements you frequently post to support your company and what you do for that company.   I get it.  With the amp off, the sound appeared to be softer, as if it were silent.  Amps do sound different.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> I think we need to get away from the idea that there's such a thing as a "perfect" test in this domain.



Why? We're talking about DACs here, how is measurement with say a null test not a perfect test?



KeithEmo said:


> [1] I'm pretty convinced that I heard a difference - in a sighted, and not especially scientifically conducted, test.
> [2] You, who haven't heard either product, and weren't there at all, seem quite convinced that you _KNOW_ no such difference existed.



1. Then why didn't you do an objective (Null) test, it would have cost you next to nothing and taken all of 10 minutes or so?

2. I'm quite convinced that no such audible difference existed, unless the fidelity of the DACs in question had been deliberately or incompetently compromised. I base this on a generalisation from years of my own (and the pro audio industry's) objective (inc. Null) tests between DACs and I'll continue to be so justifiably convinced until some objective, reliable and compelling evidence is presented to the contrary. 



KeithEmo said:


> [1] What I said was that, in order to prove it, reliably and scientifically, using a test procedure that lacks obvious flaws, would be complex.
> [2] (For example, I can't speak for you, but I have no source of "scientifically proven transparent headphone amps" or "headphones guaranteed not to obscure small differences".... so I would have to test and qualify all the equipment first. )



1. And, what I've said is that this repeated assertion is INCORRECT. A null test is not complex and it would help your cause if you could show a difference file containing something that's at least potentially audible.

2. And again, what's that got to do with anything? We're not testing headphones, we're testing DACs.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Neither one of us has bothered to actually perform a proper test.... And neither of us has presented the results of one....
> [2] I am unwilling to make assumptions based on incomplete data ...



1. So why didn't you? This is the science forum, you can't simply assert theories and facts on the basis that you couldn't be bothered to perform a proper test!

2. I on the other hand am. For example, I'm willing to make the assumption that no adult can hear filter artefacts above 20kHz at say -40dBFS, even though not every adult on the planet has been tested for hearing response above 20kHz at quiet levels (and therefore the data is incomplete). Do you not make this assumption too? And if not, why not, as all the reliable scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates such an artefact would be inaudible?

G


----------



## bigshot (Oct 28, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> OK..... so where _ARE_ the test results you wanted to provide that show that no audible differences exist?



THE FIRST POST OF THE THREAD YOU ARE POSTING IN!!!!! HAVE YOU READ IT?

And for the hundredth time... I"M NOT SAYING DIFFERENCES DON'T EXIST. I SAY I HAVE NEVER ENCOUNTERED ONE AMONG DOZENS OF SAMPLES AND I WOULD LIKE AN EXAMPLE OF A DAC OR PLAYER THAT SOUNDS CLEARLY DIFFERENT SO I CAN CHECK IT FOR MYSELF.

All caps might help getting the blatantly obvious point across. There is a test in the first post where DACs are put in a shootout to find the best one- random results because they were all the same. Most of us here in Sound Science do controlled tests and measurements on a regular basis and we have found that our DACs and players are audibly transparent. You haven't gone to that trouble. DACs are measured and specs are published... all of them well within the range of audible transparency. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to support the argument that DACs are audibly transparent. I have yet to see any evidence that they aren't. I am simply asking for some evidence if you are going to claim that.

All opinions aren't equal. Some opinions are supported by evidence. Some are smoke and mirrors. When I run across those sorts of opinions, it's easier to determine that they are flawed than it is to figure out why they are flawed. It can be unconscious bias, it can be conscious cherry picking, it can be cognitive or communication problems, it can be lack of a grasp on elementary logic, it can be to protect their ego, it can be to gain a commercial advantage, or it can be outright intent to deceive. I've seen all kinds of those things coming through our doors here over the past 14 years that I've been posting here. I am still learning why people insist on trying to defend ignorance. I'm a lot better at spotting the errors than I am knowing why. But I take it all in and process it. Maybe someday I will know.


----------



## kukkurovaca

bigshot said:


> THE FIRST POST OF THE THREAD YOU ARE POSTING IN!!!!! HAVE YOU READ IT?



So, I took a look at the first post, and I found one link to a blind test comparing DACs, and casually browsing that post, it seems likesome of those comparisons produced a consensus preference among the listeners, particularly at the _first _level, before the lower-performing DACs were eliminated.

Wouldn't that seem to fit with what I think is a relatively common and uncontrosversial stance/assumption that there are sometimes audible differences between DACs (and between SS and tube implementations), but the differences between well-implemented DACs are not significant?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 28, 2018)

They did a runoff test which is going to eliminate contenders, even through random chance. They also identified the two contenders and allowed the judges to discuss them among themselves. That makes for "group think". The important thing is the result- cheap vs fancy- which showed that there was probably no clear consensus on any of the ones that were selected or eliminated. Just agreement on randomness. There used to be more published DAC tests in the post, but the links expired. Audio magazines have been eliminating non-advertiser friendly content lately.

Here are some more if you want to dig further...

https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/dig...blind-test-audible-difference-whatsoever.html

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/03/dac-listening-challenge-results.html

This one involves CD players, not DACs but it is the same kind of thing.

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

More useful links

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,82777.0.html

I don't have time right now to dig them all up, but there are lots more in forums. A simple google search will pull them up. But you'll have to sort through the threads to find the results and see if their testing methodology might have caused error. If you can find a DAC or player that appears to be clearly different than others (not due to amping) in real world use, I would be interested in hearing about them.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

TheSonicTruth said:


> Aren't those lights the same ones they're selling at the P.O.S. price point?


Sort of.

Manufacturers bin emitters by performance and color temperature, within the same model. The POS/budget flashlights tend to get the poorer performing emitters, those that are efficient only at high color temperatures (which, counter-intuitively, produce very cool light). Better lights use emitters from better performing bins, with visually pleasing color temperatures and, often, high Color Rendering Index (CRI) values. The increased cost of the better-binned emitters is trivial for a light that will sell direct to customer for well over US$100, but would be a significant increase in cost of goods sold for budget lights that utilize more traditional supply chains.

Most custom makers tend to use their own electronic controls for the emitter. These are frequently more efficient than with which budget lights are fitted. It's sometimes programmable. The spacing between levels is usually better thought out. UIs tend to be more user-friendly.

Budget lights tend to use lower quality reflectors, with noticeable visual artifacts.

For most people, most times, only the UI is going to be the only real difference. On occasion, we might need to see colors fairly accurately (_Is that dark puddle under the car oil or transmission fluid? Is this steak medium-well, as ordered?_), a task low-end bins tend to do very poorly, except for blues. When colors are important, high-CRI LEDs are the only good alternative to incandescent flashlights. But most times, two beams of roughly the same brightness, and of the roughly same shape, are going to be pretty equivalent. Beam artifacts are lost in the textures of the world. The higher price pays for better regulation, better host enclosure, better UI, and better quality control, not superior light.

I've never handled a Cool Fall light. However, I daily-carry a high-CRI McGizmo Sapphire and a custom-configured HDS Systems EDC Rotary. The McGizmo is titanium keychain-jewelry (also the most useful keychain light I've owned), while the HDS is a technological marvel of utility and reliability. It has 24 equally spaced levels, such that the switch from one to the next is barely perceptible, ranging from a low-low that will run for weeks, all the way to maximum. The interface is programmable. Neither the McGizmo nor the HDS is designed as a dive light, but both are built to tolerances sufficiently tight that they can be used for that purpose. The HDS Systems EDC was originally designed for caving,_ The light that gets you home.™_


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> Neither one of us has bothered to actually perform a proper test....


Incorrect. You haven't performed a proper test, given the differences you claim to have been able to hear. Bigshot's tests have been amply sufficient, given what he is claiming.



KeithEmo said:


> I am unwilling to make assumptions based on incomplete data;



Wait, what??? Were you able to type that with a straight face? That's _all _you've done this entire thread, made assumptions on incomplete data. As an example, you've claimed there exists an audible difference between two DACs with exactly zero supporting evidence, only your assumption that you are somehow magically immune from the cognitive biases that affect the rest of the species.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Jaywalk3r said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Manufacturers bin emitters by performance and color temperature, within the same model. The POS/budget flashlights tend to get the poorer performing emitters, those that are efficient only at high color temperatures (which, counter-intuitively, produce very cool light). Better lights use emitters from better performing bins, with visually pleasing color temperatures and, often, high Color Rendering Index (CRI) values. The increased cost of the better-binned emitters is trivial for a light that will sell direct to customer for well over US$100, but would be a significant increase in cost of goods sold for budget lights that utilize more traditional supply chains.
> 
> ...



BTW do you know how much is the 'POS price point'?


----------



## Jaywalk3r

TheSonicTruth said:


> BTW do you know how much is the 'POS price point'?



These days I do not.

Here are a few of the more important things about lights:
It takes a ~40% increase in light for the increase to be visually perceptible. You're unlikely to notice any difference switching from 200 lumens to 250 lumens, for example.
If you'll use the light frequently, it's worth getting an emitter with a color temperature you find pleasant. For myself, chasing a blue-white beam for long periods isn't very pleasant.
Seeing colors correctly is important enough, often enough, that high-CRI emitters should always be preferred, all else close to equal.
Indoors, at night, how low a light goes is more important than how bright it goes. Low low modes are frequently useful.
It's better that a multimode light can access low from off than high from off.

If it can't fail, I'm always reaching for my HDS or one of my Surefires. Surefire is probably still the baseline for premium quality, but that quality is overkill for most people's needs. Flashlights also have their own equivalent of Chi-fi, imported models that are sometimes surprisingly good for the price point. You could probably treat sub-$50 flashlights similarly to sub-$50 IEMs. You'll likely find a lot of good options, a lot of poor options, but very few models that compare favorably (except on price) with models available at the $350 price point.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Oct 28, 2018)

Jaywalk3r said:


> These days I do not.
> 
> Here are a few of the more important things about lights:
> It takes a ~40% increase in light for the increase to be visually perceptible. You're unlikely to notice any difference switching from 200 lumens to 250 lumens, for example.
> ...



FYI: If it sounds too good to be true, it's probably *$19.95* (or 19.99!)  In other words, a (P)iece (O)f (S)h*t!  lol


----------



## KeithEmo

Really?

BigShot is claiming that there is _NO_ audible difference, between _ANY_ two well designed DACs, that can be heard by _ANY_ human being, using _ANY_ combination of test equipment, and _ANY_ content sample. It seems to me that such a broad calim would require a significant amount of proof before I would accept it as a generality. 

If he were claiming that "there is very little audible difference between most well designed DACs" I wouldn't disagree at all.



Jaywalk3r said:


> Incorrect. You haven't performed a proper test, given the differences you claim to have been able to hear. Bigshot's tests have been amply sufficient, given what he is claiming.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what??? Were you able to type that with a straight face? That's _all _you've done this entire thread, made assumptions on incomplete data. As an example, you've claimed there exists an audible difference between two DACs with exactly zero supporting evidence, only your assumption that you are somehow magically immune from the cognitive biases that affect the rest of the species.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> Really?
> 
> BigShot is claiming that there is _NO_ audible difference, between _ANY_ two well designed DACs, that can be heard by _ANY_ human being, using _ANY_ combination of test equipment, and _ANY_ content sample. It seems to me that such a broad calim would require a significant amount of proof before I would accept it as a generality.
> 
> If he were claiming that "there is very little audible difference between most well designed DACs" I wouldn't disagree at all.



No. Bigshot is claiming that he's never seen (heard) any reason to doubt the null hypothesis.

You, on the other hand, would have us reject the null hypothesis wholly without any data to suggest unlikely.

You are making an extraordinary claim, and the onus is on you to back up that claim with solid data, lest your claims be justifiably dismissed out of hand as BS. Bigshot is making no such extraordinary claims. He has no onus to provide extraordinary evidence. If you don't get that, you're in the wrong forum.


----------



## KeithEmo

OK... I guess I owe BigShot an apology.
Apparently, I misunderstood, and he is NOT saying that "differences don't exist" or trying to claim that "all well designed DACs audibly sound exactly the same" .
In that case, we seem to be in agreement after all.
I too have found many instances where well designed DACs sounded so much the same that I couldn't tell them apart.

However, everything I've said so far still stands.
He asked what DACs I suggest testing for audible differences... and I responded with a suggestion.
I responded.
I will eagerly await the results of a properly conducted test on those two DACs if someone performs one.
(And we obviously both have our own personal predictions about what we believe those results will prove.)

Yes, DACs are measured, and the test results are published.
And, yes, most of them test very similar in some ways, and different in others.
And we're back to either actually testing for audible differences... 
Or making assumptions about what the tests we haven't performed will show...

And, no, I for one am not comfortable writing off every result of every test that showed "some sort of preference" as "they must all have been due to bias".
Because I have yet to see a test that provided results in either direction that _DIDN'T_ suffer from serious flaws or limitations.



bigshot said:


> THE FIRST POST OF THE THREAD YOU ARE POSTING IN!!!!! HAVE YOU READ IT?
> 
> And for the hundredth time... I"M NOT SAYING DIFFERENCES DON'T EXIST. I SAY I HAVE NEVER ENCOUNTERED ONE AMONG DOZENS OF SAMPLES AND I WOULD LIKE AN EXAMPLE OF A DAC OR PLAYER THAT SOUNDS CLEARLY DIFFERENT SO I CAN CHECK IT FOR MYSELF.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo (Oct 29, 2018)

Not at all... I'm not asking anyone to accept or reject anything.
In science, a hypothesis generally isn't "accepted " or "rejected" without evidence and experimentation.
In science, over time, a hypothesis accumulates data that either supports or contradicts it.
All I've ever said is that there are lots of assumptions and very little actual relevant test data

And the same holds true for the ever-popular debate about "whether high-res audio is audible".
A bunch of tests HAVE been conducted on that question.
But every single one I've seen described in detail was deeply flawed.
(That doesn't mean that the results were necessarily wrong; just that they are far from truly conclusive.)



Jaywalk3r said:


> No. Bigshot is claiming that he's never seen (heard) any reason to doubt the null hypothesis.
> 
> You, on the other hand, would have us reject the null hypothesis wholly without any data to suggest unlikely.
> 
> You are making an extraordinary claim, and the onus is on you to back up that claim with solid data, lest your claims be justifiably dismissed out of hand as BS. Bigshot is making no such extraordinary claims. He has no onus to provide extraordinary evidence. If you don't get that, you're in the wrong forum.


----------



## KeithEmo

Honestly... I don't care what, or who, you believe... and I "wouldn't have you do" anything whatsoever.

I've simply pointed out that "the default hypothesis" is based on incomplete, out of date, and largely only tangentially related information.
I've also noted, in various instances, where the tests a lot of people seem to treat as gospel were badly designed, poorly executed, and often just downright sloppy.
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that their results were wrong, but they are far from authoritative, or worthy of being treated as definitive in the general case.
(You might as well test a half dozen snake oil cancer cures, note that none of them work, and conclude that "all cancer drugs are snake oil and should be ignored".)

I should also point out that I didn't actually make a claim.
BigShot asked if I had noted any DACs where I believed there was an audible difference; I responded... quite accurately, and in absolute detail, _BASED ON MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE_.
I would still suggest that, _IF ANYBODY WANTS TO RUN AN ACTUAL TEST_, those two DACs would be pretty good candidates.
(They are both considered to be "high end products", both measure very well, and both seem quite characteristic of typical implementations for their respective DAC chips.)
Obviously, in one sense, it would make sense to choose current production samples (unless you're planning to purchase samples on the used market or find volunteers to donate them).

I should also point out that performing a proper null test on DACs is actually quite difficult.
(It is relatively simple on analog devices like amplifiers because they usually don't introduce a significant time delay - which allows the signals to be subtracted directly.)
However, unlike analog devices, most modern DACs introduce a delay of somewhere between a fraction of a sample and multiple samples, and the drivers on the computer involved often introduce several more milliseconds of delay to each..
Therefore, in the analog domain, there tends to be a slight time offset between the two samples, which makes simply performing an "accurate analog subtraction" impossible.

And, while performing a direct comparison of digital samples is relatively easy, and there is at least one piece of software that allows "fractional sample time adjustments", you would still require difficult-to-achieve precision to do so.
You would need to sample your sources at extremely high precision, both in terms of time and amplitude, to rule out artifacts, or missing something due to simple lack of detail.
(In most cases, you're likely to get a very poor null, but there will be a very good chance that most of the differences you find will be due to testing limitations... which makes the entire test largely invalid.)



Jaywalk3r said:


> No. Bigshot is claiming that he's never seen (heard) any reason to doubt the null hypothesis.
> 
> You, on the other hand, would have us reject the null hypothesis wholly without any data to suggest unlikely.
> 
> You are making an extraordinary claim, and the onus is on you to back up that claim with solid data, lest your claims be justifiably dismissed out of hand as BS. Bigshot is making no such extraordinary claims. He has no onus to provide extraordinary evidence. If you don't get that, you're in the wrong forum.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> Not at all... I'm not asking anyone to accept or reject anything.



That's _exactly _what you're doing. You are asking us to assume, without evidence, that there exist at least two current, in-spec DACs that sound audibly different. You've made the claim repeatedly, each and every time without anything that could be reasonably considered evidence.



KeithEmo said:


> In science, a hypothesis generally isn't "accepted " or "rejected" without evidence and experimentation.



Correct, yet you expect us to do just that, reject the null hypothesis without evidence.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> I've simply pointed out that "the default hypothesis" is based on incomplete, out of date, and largely only tangentially related information.


No doubt you believe that, but all you've actually pointed out is that you don't understand how the scientific method works.


----------



## Phronesis

IMO, reference to "null hypothesis" is being misused in this context.  Sometimes we just don't know something, and in those cases there's no default null hypothesis from a practical standpoint. In a test, an investigator may label A and B "not sounding different" as their formal null hypothesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the investigator expects them to not sound different.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Phronesis said:


> IMO, reference to "null hypothesis" is being misused in this context.  Sometimes we just don't know something, and in those cases there's no default null hypothesis from a practical standpoint. In a test, an investigator may label A and B "not sounding different" as their formal null hypothesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the investigator expects them to not sound different.


Right. The research hypothesis is typically suspected of being true, otherwise there would be no reason to do any research. But the investigator understands that concluding that they have audible differences is not justified without seeing data which would be unlikely if the null hypothesis is, in fact, true.


----------



## Phronesis

Jaywalk3r said:


> Right. The research hypothesis is typically suspected of being true, otherwise there would be no reason to do any research. But the investigator understands that concluding that they have audible differences is not justified without seeing data which would be unlikely if the null hypothesis is, in fact, true.



No disagreement.  We just need to be clear that we're talking about a bunch of different things in this thread, and sometimes jumbling things together which are best kept separate.  The question of whether two DACs can sound significantly different needs proper scientific investigations, and like Keith, I'm not aware of such investigations having been done to date.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Phronesis said:


> No disagreement.  We just need to be clear that we're talking about a bunch of different things in this thread, and sometimes jumbling things together which are best kept separate.  The question of whether two DACs can sound significantly different needs proper scientific investigations, and like Keith, I'm not aware of such investigations having been done to date.



I think the disagreements arise because some posters don't understand that in the event there is not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis, the only alternative is to not reject the null hypothesis. That doesn't mean that the researcher no longer suspects the research hypothesis to be true, it just acknowledges that data observed would not be unlikely if the null hypothesis is true, and that further investigation will be required before the null hypothesis can be rejected justifiably.

Failure to reject the null hypothesis is not the same as embracing the null hypothesis.


----------



## KeithEmo

Thank you... that's what I've been trying to get across for some time.



Phronesis said:


> No disagreement.  We just need to be clear that we're talking about a bunch of different things in this thread, and sometimes jumbling things together which are best kept separate.  The question of whether two DACs can sound significantly different needs proper scientific investigations, and like Keith, I'm not aware of such investigations having been done to date.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> BigShot is claiming that there is _NO_ audible difference, between _ANY_ two well designed DACs.



I haven't said that. What I've said is... Of the dozens of DAPs and DACs I've owned in the past couple of decades, I have tested every one of them and determined them to be audibly transparent- meaning there is no difference between them. I asked for someone to point me to one that wasn't audibly transparent, so I can know that colored DACs exist.

You pointed me to a DAC, but it was a lousy recommendation because you made no effort to determine if it really was colored. If I wasted my time chasing down every biased "impression" in Head-Fi, I would be spinning my wheels until the cows come home, and I'd get no closer to finding a colored DAC. The reason I ask here in Sound Science for examples of colored DACs is because I assume that people here know how to filter bias and conduct a halfway decent comparison test. I was wrong to assume that you would do that.

I've only had one other DAC suggested to me, and that was by the Geek Squad guy. I asked him how he determined that it was not audibly transparent, and he pointed to measurements showing noise at -60 or -70dB or something like that. He claimed that was "clearly audible". When I started asking him about his listening test procedures, he ignored me and started in with the yellow highlighted quotes from books saying a noise floor of -120dB was required for audible transparency. He also hadn't done a halfway decent listening test. He was cherry picking quotes to fit his pre conceived theories.

Some people think of reasons for something to exist before they establish that it even exists. You kept doing that by jumping ahead to talking about filters and Sabre chips and all that, when you hadn't even established that it sounded different. When I pointed out that I own a DAC with a high end Sabre chip and I have tested it and determined it to be audibly transparent, you blew right past it and continued talking about filters and "digital glare" and how lots of people say Sabre chips sound harsh. None of that is based on anything except words and paragraphs and posts in internet forums repeating "common knowledge" without any personal knowledge.

I read people's posts here and I try to figure out if they know what they're talking about. If they do, that is great because I can learn from them. I consider the source. There are people here whose posts I don't read past the first line or two because it just isn't worth my time. That's fine. We should all be filtering what we are presented with on the internet. It isn't all useful.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

KeithEmo said:


> Thank you... that's what I've been trying to get across for some time.


Keith, you have, by far, committed  the most egregious lapses of logic in this thread.


----------



## Phronesis

Jaywalk3r said:


> I think the disagreements arise because some posters don't understand that in the event there is not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis, the only alternative is to not reject the null hypothesis. That doesn't mean that the researcher no longer suspects the research hypothesis to be true, it just acknowledges that data observed would not be unlikely if the null hypothesis is true, and that further investigation will be required before the null hypothesis can be rejected justifiably.
> 
> Failure to reject the null hypothesis is not the same as embracing the null hypothesis.



I don't think you understood my point.  We're not talking about a formal study and formal language like "null hypothesis," we're talking about what we believe or speculate may or may not be true, and the basis for that, in the absence of properly conducted studies.

And even when you talk about formal studies, the level of evidence or statistical significance needed to reject the null hypothesis is still a matter of judgment (e.g., cutoff p-value of 0.05 is arbitrary), and sometimes studies give misleading findings because they weren't properly designed or conducted or interpreted. 

A lot of people who talk about "science" in this forum don't seem to really understand how actual science works.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I haven't said that. What I've said is... Of the dozens of DAPs and DACs I've owned in the past couple of decades, *I have tested every one of them and determined them to be audibly transparent- meaning there is no difference between them*. I asked for someone to point me to one that wasn't audibly transparent, so I can know that colored DACs exist.
> 
> You pointed me to a DAC, but it was a lousy recommendation because you made no effort to determine if it really was colored. If I wasted my time chasing down every biased "impression" in Head-Fi, I would be spinning my wheels until the cows come home, and I'd get no closer to finding a colored DAC. The reason I ask here in Sound Science for examples of colored DACs is because I assume that people here know how to filter bias and conduct a halfway decent comparison test. I was wrong to think that you would do that. Point taken. Source considered from now on.



Have you considered that other people may be able to hear differences which you can't?  It's not scientific to assume that your particular ears/brain serve as a reference benchmark for audible "transparency."


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting....

I performed a rather informal test...
And you did no testing on either of those DACs whatsoever...

And, not to nit pick, but did you actually test all those DACs against each other?
Or did you compare two or three to each other at a time?
And how many different speakers, headphones, and amplifiers did you use?
(It seems to me that you tested a very tiny percentage of the overall number of products available.)
And, by the way, how many test subjects were involved in each run?
And what was their age spread?
And what was the provenance of your test content?
(Please note that I'm not belittling your efforts.... and I would even consider them to be "somewhat suggestive".... but they hardly constitute a conclusive test.)

I did mention my reason for making that specific suggestion - which was based on my subjective impression.
My subjective impression was that the difference was very obvious, which would seem to make those two DACs excellent candidates for testing.
(It would hardly make sense to test two DACs which I thought sounded about the same.)
However,I didn't actually ask anyone to accept my claim as fact.
I simply made a suggestion about a good unit to test... which was what you asked me to do.
You seem determined to reject any recommendation about running any sort of experiment unless someone else has already run the experiment.
To me, that doesn't seem like a good way to learn anything new...



bigshot said:


> I haven't said that. What I've said is... Of the dozens of DAPs and DACs I've owned in the past couple of decades, I have tested every one of them and determined them to be audibly transparent- meaning there is no difference between them. I asked for someone to point me to one that wasn't audibly transparent, so I can know that colored DACs exist. You pointed me to a DAC, but it was a lousy recommendation because you made no effort to determine if it really was colored.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Phronesis said:


> And even when you talk about formal studies, the level of evidence or statistical significance needed to reject the null hypothesis is still a matter of judgment (e.g., cutoff p-value of 0.05 is arbitrary), …



Alpha is semi-arbitrarily chosen, but it's fixed once the data are observed. That's the important bit. It can't be second-guessed after the analysis. There's plenty of reason to use a large alpha value, such as 0.1, or a small value, like 0.000001. Sometimes the purpose of a study is simply to see if further research is justified. A small sample and large alpha would be warranted, usually to keep costs low. At the other extreme, if your research will modify our understanding of the universe by modifying physical laws, then a large sample and tiny alpha is warranted.



Phronesis said:


> … and sometimes studies give misleading findings because they weren't properly designed or conducted or interpreted.



That's not the fault of the process. It's the fault of the researchers. _All _research conclusions are conditioned on the research assumptions being, in fact, true.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I performed a rather informal test..
> And you did no testing on either of those DACs whatsoever...



I'm beginning to lose faith in what you say, I'm afraid. If I had more confidence, I'd actually be interested in discussing this kind of stuff with you.

I do level matched, direct A/B switched blind comparisons. I only do sighted to verify what I already know. I always use my iPod classic as my reference. Everything is compared against that. As I already told you, I use my Oppo PM-1s because speakers introduce too many variables of their own. I don't intend to publish in the AES. The tests I do are for my own purpose, which is to determine if something is transparent in normal use. So ! didn't do a full bells and whistle scientific test, but at least I make an effort to eliminate bias.

My advice is to demand accuracy from your own tests and your on conclusions first. That way, you'll recognize when someone else has done a decent job or not. I think at this point your ego is bruised and you're grabbing at straws. I don't need to go any further. I know what I need to know now. I'll move on to other posters.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Phronesis said:


> Have you considered that other people may be able to hear differences which you can't?  It's not scientific to assume that your particular ears/brain serve as a reference benchmark for audible "transparency."



Um … You just diverted from a scientific approach.

Bigshot's research responsibilities extend only to being open to the possibility that if an audible difference exists, he's open to the possibility of being among the humans able to hear it.

You, like Kieth, are confusing_ "I require evidence before believing humans can actually hear sounds which physiological knowledge suggests are below the threshold of human audibility"_ with_ "It's impossible for anyone to hear audible differences between DACs."  _They are not equivalent statements. Nor would one investigate the claims in the same manner.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2018)

I'm only interested in differences that exist under normal use and that are big enough to be heard and matter. Differences at the bleeding edge of audibility aren't what make one audio system in the home sound better than another one. My purpose is to make my sound systems sound better. When someone describes a difference between DACs as "clearly audible" or "not at all subtle", they get my attention. I'm not interested in noise floors at -65dB as opposed to -70dB or response deviations of less than a dB above 17kHz. I have a good idea of what "audible" means and how it measures. Not everyone in Head-Fi does, so they rely on rhetorical and theoretical arguments that make no impact on the way a sound system actually sounds playing music in your living room.

Too many people use the difficulty of tighter and tighter control over minute theoretical differences as an excuse to not control at all. Or they get all invested in obtuse theoretical concepts that make absolutely no audible difference (like jitter). Or they throw their hands in the air and let a salesman convince them that if they throw more money at it, they will solve all their problems. All that stuff is a waste of time. We want to play music. We want the music to sound good. I focus on what makes music sound good. I do that by listening and analyzing and applying scientific principles to see if they make an improvement or not.


----------



## KeithEmo

As a philosophy, that makes perfect sense, however science is not always limited to practicality. 

I can't order a new "Fusion Man" to power my electric car, so LASER triggered fusion doesn't matter much to me as a car owner.
And, if someone were to offer to sell me one for $500, I would be quite doubtful of their honesty.
However, as someone interested in _science_, I still find articles about the latest CERN project on controlled fusion interesting.
(And the fact that I can't do any fusion experiments, because I lack the proper permits, and a few billion dollars, doesn't change that.)

What you're talking about I would term "consumer product science" or perhaps even "practical science". 
However, we need to always make it clear that's what we're talking about.

For example, I very much doubt I could hear a 0.1% speed error on a turntable...
But I'm told that, to some few people who have "perfect pitch", it can be quite annoying.
So, if someone were to claim that they could hear it, I might doubt their claim, but I would not assume they were wrong.
I would probably respond with something like: 
"Most people can't hear that, and most records aren't recorded that accurately anyway, but you may be one of the few who can."

Likewise, you may not notice a noise floor at -65 dB, but that doesn't mean that it won't annoy someone else.
I've spoken to plenty of customers who were quite disappointed at how "noisy" their amplifier was with a S/N of "only" 105 dB.
(Because they actually heard some hiss, when they put their ear six inches from their speaker, which was 103 dB efficient.)

Personally I'm always very careful to say exactly what I mean.
And that does include the difference between stating something as an absolute or not.
That's why I use words like "most", and "usually", and "probably" so often.
Educating the less knowledgeable is a laudable goal.
However, you need to be careful to avoid "easy generalizations", which can sometimes do more harm than good.

Being taught in school that: "we have high tides because the oceans are attracted towards the moon" was a nice generalization.
Of course, as soon as you realize that there is also a high tide _ON THE SIDE AWAY FROM THE MOON_....
You start to wonder how much of the other stuff they taught you isn't strictly true.....



bigshot said:


> I'm only interested in differences that exist under normal use and that are big enough to be heard and matter. Differences at the bleeding edge of audibility aren't what make one audio system in the home sound better than another one. My purpose is to make my sound systems sound better. When someone describes a difference between DACs as "clearly audible" or "not at all subtle", they get my attention. I'm not interested in noise floors at -65dB as opposed to -70dB or response deviations of less than a dB above 17kHz. I have a good idea of what "audible" means and how it measures. Not everyone in Head-Fi does, so they rely on rhetorical and theoretical arguments that make no impact on the way a sound system actually sounds playing music in your living room.
> 
> Too many people use the difficulty of tighter and tighter control over minute theoretical differences as an excuse to not control at all. Or they get all invested in obtuse theoretical concepts that make absolutely no audible difference (like jitter). Or they throw their hands in the air and let a salesman convince them that if they throw more money at it, they will solve all their problems. All that stuff is a waste of time. We want to play music. We want the music to sound good. I focus on what makes music sound good. I do that by listening and analyzing and applying scientific principles to see if they make an improvement or not.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2018)

I don't have any particular interest in abstract theories and "what ifs". You can entertain them if you like, but I'm going to move on and just wait for someone to do a decent listening test that indicates that some DACs sound different. I've done dozens of tests myself and I know what my results are.

If I wanted vague subjective impressions and people claiming to be able to hear the inaudible while steadfastly refusing to do a careful listening test, I could get my fill of that outside of Sound Science. I have other things to do than to waste my time with that BS.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I don't have any particular interest in abstract theories and "what ifs". You can entertain them if you like, but I'm going to move on and just wait for someone to do a decent listening test that indicates that some DACs sound different. I've done dozens of tests myself and I know what my results are.
> 
> If I wanted vague subjective impressions and people claiming to be able to hear the inaudible while steadfastly refusing to do a careful listening test, I could get my fill of that outside of Sound Science. I have other things to do than to waste my time with that BS.



Theory is a part of science, and all observation is theory-laden.  Data without a context of theory isn't really even data. 

 I don't think you're really interested in science, you're interested in practical ways to make your gear sound good to you - i.e., practical ways to use technology.  That's fine, but then don't limit "science" to that.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2018)

There are things that make a difference to stereo systems and things that are just mental monkeyshines. I leave armchair science to people who own smoking jackets and ascots. I'm more interested in applied science. Especially when the theoretical concepts being mused upon have never proven themselves to make any difference in the real world and only end up costing a lot more money.

There's a fine line between theoretical science and snake oil. Jitter is a perfect example of that. It's entirely possible to be a very smart person and still be a total fool.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Phronesis said:


> Theory is a part of science, and all observation is theory-laden.  Data without a context of theory isn't really even data.



_This is not only not right, it is not even wrong._ -Wolfgang Pauli


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 29, 2018)

One thing we struggle with on here is varying levels of interest.

Bigshot's threshold for interest: A phenomenon that can reliably be heard by a normal adult, under normal listening conditions, listening to normal recordings of rock / classical / jazz music.

My threshold for interest: A phenomenon that can be heard by a slightly-above-average adult under strictly controlled, near-ideal conditions, listening to edge-case audio.

Some people's threshold for interest: A phenomenon that probably can't, but might be audible to an ideal-hearing adult under theoretically perfect conditions, listening to nothing but the phenomenon itself.

Audiophool's level of interest: A phenomenon that doesn't even have an intelligible theoretical link to actual audibility, and may not actually exist in the first place.

It's maybe worth pointing out that the 3rd and 4th levels of interest are very different.  One person is interested in the outer limits of science, another has left the science building entirely.  In these discussions I think there is a tendency to attribute "type 4" interest to someone who is merely in the "type 3" camp. 

One reason for my lower threshold for interest is it's personally interesting to me, one is that I listen to "edge case" audio for enjoyment, and one is that part of my job is to look into the overlooked areas for improvement in audio.  Just because something doesn't show up in a given null test or THD measurement doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  So I like to take a broader view to make sure I haven't missed an actual business opportunity.  You don't make progress without walking down a few dead ends.

While it's fine to be uninterested in a certain maybe-audible-maybe-not phenomenon, I don't find it helpful when discussions get shut down because the effect in question is of questionable relevance to everyday use cases.


----------



## Phronesis

Jaywalk3r said:


> _This is not only not right, it is not even wrong._ -Wolfgang Pauli



Well then, you just discredited yourself in my eyes.  I don't know your background, you seem to be more interested in numbers and stats than science.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Phronesis said:


> you seem to be more interested in numbers and stats than science.



The numbers and stats are not easily removed from science, as anyone familiar with science would tell you. Mathematics is the language of science, and statistics is the language of scientific research.

The part of your post that I quoted was nonsensical, self-inconsistent gibberish.


----------



## Phronesis

Jaywalk3r said:


> The numbers and stats are not easily removed from science, as anyone familiar with science would tell you. Mathematics is the language of science, and statistics is the language of scientific research.
> 
> The part of your post that I quoted was nonsensical, self-inconsistent gibberish.



Again, you misunderstand.  I didn't dismiss numbers and stats, I noted the role of theory.  Regarding what you quoted, "if I have to explain it, you wont understand."


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Phronesis said:


> Again, you misunderstand.  I didn't dismiss numbers and stats, I noted the role of theory.  Regarding what you quoted, "if I have to explain it, you wont understand."



Since what you wrote contradicted itself, we can safely dismiss it as nonsense.


----------



## Phronesis

Jaywalk3r said:


> Since what you wrote contradicted itself, we can safely dismiss it as nonsense.



Where is the contradiction?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> I listen to "edge case" audio for enjoyment



You listen to square waves and test tones for enjoyment?!!

My point of view is that home audio electronics solved the problems of sound reproduction as far as DACs and amps and players go with the refinement of digital technology in the mid 1980s. Since then, the industry has been pushing the boundaries further, doubling down on specs and pushing to improve them far beyond the threshold of audibility. That would be fine if we were talking about edge case applications, like communication with the Mars rover or sending the London Philharmonic through the trans-Atlantic cable, but for the purposes of the portable rig in your backpack or the stereo in your living room it's about as useful as teats on a bull hog.

Manufacturers have been forced to differentiate themselves from the competition by arguing that things that don't matter at all _just MIGHT matter in SOME extreme circumstances. _People with OCD grab onto that and _just to be safe,_ they add a little noodge to their requirements, and then another, and another... The manufacturers happily go along with this game of diminished returns upon depleted returns as long as the money keeps rolling in. They use testimonials from clueless people in advertising to justify the pointless charade. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

That is the road that leads to audiophoolery, and we are all soaking in it. The truth is that you don't need any more sound quality than your ears can hear, and a $40 Walmart DVD player can produce that just as good as a high end SACD player. The cables that came with your player sound exactly the same as the 14K unobtanium cables that cost a fortune. And as long as your amp has enough power to push your transducers, it doesn't have to be a $10K liquid cooled monoblock. This whole hobby is a big mass of BS and the irony is that the victims of all this- the consumers who are being misled- are complicit in misleading others by repeating the BS they were told to other potential victims. Clueless individuals in internet forums convince other clueless individuals that if they want to sleep well at night and not worry about the potential theoretical sound that they might be missing, they had better buy the latest and greatest... To me, self abuse is still abuse. Even if someone says they enjoy it.

It isn't a "gimme" that if you go out and buy something it will sound great. There are things people really need to know and priorities that really matter. But that isn't what gets discussed in internet forums. People are too busy arguing about things that _just don't matter at all_ like cables and DACs and amps.

I try to be patient with all this stuff, but I get to the point where I can't suffer fools gladly any more. Everyone gets a chance to be practical, straightforward and truthful and share what they know about. When they prove themselves incapable of that, then I move on and try to find someone who doesn't have their head planted quite that deep.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 29, 2018)

bigshot said:


> You listen to square waves and test tones for enjoyment?!



Damn close.  I have listened to entire Ryoji Ikeda albums straight through.  And a favorite tune of mine, The Rub Off by Plump DJs features a lot of unipolar impulse-like sounds. They actually really suffer from lossy encoding and the song quickly (and audibly) loses its unique snap if played on less-than-amazing equipment.

I don't do this all the time, but in general I have always enjoyed some relatively extreme types of electronic music that make artistic use of signals that are a whole lot more like a test tone than a piano.

And as a synth / music hobbyist, I have probably spent enough time listening to tones to technically qualify myself as an honorary oscilloscope.  So to me, the idea of listening to pure tones and caring about my gear's performance in that context is totally sensible.

I'm not saying everyone needs to make that a priority, but I do have my reasons.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Phronesis said:


> Where is the contradiction?



"_Data without a context of theory isn't [sic] really even data._"

Data without the context of theory aren't really even data. Well, what are they, because you declared that they are data in the subject of your sentence. So they are data, while simultaneously being not-data? What, exactly, are data that are not data? In science, logical consistency is highly valued.

The first part is in dire need of definitions for your new terminologies. It's presently too ambiguous to mean anything at all.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Jaywalk3r said:


> "_Data without a context of theory isn't [sic] really even data._"
> 
> Data without the context of theory aren't really even data. Well, what are they, because you declared that they are data in the subject of your sentence. So they are data, while simultaneously being not-data? What, exactly, are data that are not data? In science, logical consistency is highly valued.
> 
> The first part is in dire need of definitions for your new terminologies. It's presently too ambiguous to mean anything at all.



Numbers that aren't contextualized as representing a measurement of something are just numbers, not data.  Measurements of something, if you don't know what they're measuring, are also just numbers.


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Oct 29, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> Numbers that aren't contextualized as representing a measurement of something are just numbers, not data.  Measurements of something, if you don't know what they're measuring, are also just numbers.



Who claimed numbers are equivalent to data?

Even with meaningful units, having a number does not imply having a datum, nor has anyone claimed as such.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Jaywalk3r said:


> Who claimed numbers are equivalent to data?
> 
> Even with meaningful units, having a number does not imply having a datum, nor has anyone claimed as such.



I think all phronesis was saying is that in order to call something "data" you would also need some kind of theory by which to interpret the data.  I am not sure if you guys actually disagree on this point.


----------



## Phronesis

Zapp_Fan said:


> Numbers that aren't contextualized as representing a measurement of something are just numbers, not data.  Measurements of something, if you don't know what they're measuring, are also just numbers.



Yes, that's what I was getting at.  What we call "data" needs to have a theoretical context in order to represent data.  Otherwise, we just have numbers which have no real meaning or usefulness.  Here's the simplest thing I could quickly find online:

https://www.rit.edu/cla/philosophy/quine/theory_ladenness.html


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> Yes, that's what I was getting at.  What we call "data" needs to have a theoretical context in order to represent data. l



The context in this case is audibility. You need to understand what can and can't be heard to be able to interpret the numbers.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> Damn close.  I have listened to entire Ryoji Ikeda albums straight through.  And a favorite tune of mine, The Rub Off by Plump DJs features a lot of unipolar impulse-like sounds. They actually really suffer from lossy encoding and the song quickly (and audibly) loses its unique snap if played on less-than-amazing equipment.



Have you tested it on less than amazing equipment like my $40 Walmart DVD player? Do you really think I would hear a difference if I played it on that and compared it to the output of my Oppo?

By the way, when it comes to transducers, I find that the piano is one of the most difficult instruments to reproduce. When it comes to the combination of purity of tone combined with massive and precise dynamics, it shows the warts in mediocre speakers fast. But my Walmart DVD player can still play it fine.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> The context in this case is audibility. You need to understand what can and can't be heard to be able to interpret the numbers.



... which leads to needing to understand how perception works via the ears and brain (otherwise, you can't talk about biases, effects of auditory memory, etc.).  Not simple stuff.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 29, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Have you tested it on less than amazing equipment like my $40 Walmart DVD player? Do you really think I would hear a difference if I played it on that and compared it to the output of my Oppo?
> 
> By the way, when it comes to transducers, I find that the piano is one of the most difficult instruments to reproduce. When it comes to the combination of purity of tone combined with massive and precise dynamics, it shows the warts in mediocre speakers fast. But my Walmart DVD player can still play it fine.



My guess is the DAC would make no difference on that particular point, and if it did, the transducer's flaws would swamp it.  I have noticed a problem on that track only in 2 cases: lossy encoding below 320kbps MP3 and transducers or other analog parts that have difficulty with transients, or that lack breadth of frequency response such that transients come out with an audible hole in them. 

To be clear, if I come across as giving importance to the differences between DACs, I am not personally worried about the actual converting of bits to analog signals, but in potential fillips of engineering introducing something audible in the analog parts of the device. 

I hope we all recognize that whether the differences between DACs are or are not STRICTLY academic, nobody is trying to position them as more important to the listening experience than speakers / headphones.

Yeah and I can definitely imagine that subpar speakers would struggle with realistic piano, for the reasons you mentioned.


----------



## bigshot

Zapp_Fan said:


> My guess is the DAC would make no difference on that particular point, and if it did, the transducer's flaws would swamp it 999/1000 times, if not 1000.  I have noticed a problem on that track only in 2 cases: lossy encoding below 320kbps MP3 and transducers or other analog parts that have difficulty with transients.



That is exactly what I've found... every DAC and amp and player I've ever gotten is audibly transparent. MP3 LAME is transparent at 320kbps and AAC 256 is transparent as well. No audible difference between 16/44.1 and so called "Hi-res" formats. Speakers, room acoustics, headphones and the quality of the recording itself are all variables that deserve addressing. In the meantime, everyone argues about the stuff that doesn't matter! Such is life!


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> ... which leads to needing to understand how perception works via the ears and brain (otherwise, you can't talk about biases, effects of auditory memory, etc.).  Not simple stuff.



Nope. It's a matter of thresholds of perception. I don't think you've taken the time to investigate that subject very deeply.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> That is exactly what I've found... every DAC and amp and player I've ever gotten is audibly transparent. MP3 LAME is transparent at 320kbps and AAC 256 is transparent as well. No audible difference between 16/44.1 and so called "Hi-res" formats. Speakers, room acoustics, headphones and the quality of the recording itself are all variables that deserve addressing. In the meantime, everyone argues about the stuff that doesn't matter! Such is life!



Acoustics is badly overlooked, but I think that's because it's very difficult to deal with.  One of my axes to grind... It's sort of the invisible elephant in the room at audiophile shows.  I've been to a few of the 'high end suites' at AXPONA and CES and maybe 1/15 of the rooms have any kind of acoustic treatment, and even when they do it's more symbolic than effective.

It's amazing because they spend tons of time and effort to move these $100K+ setups across the country or even around the world... and when they get there, they set them up in rooms with no acoustic treatment, so most of what you hear is an utterly average and acoustically unfavorable hotel room.  The $95K in that system that differentiates it from a $5K system is hard to hear over the sound of mediocre wallpaper and large windows...

Getting a new DAC with lower jitter or whatever is easy.  Re-arranging your room and building bass traps, etc is super hard in comparison.  People tend to seek the path of least resistance.


----------



## analogsurviver

I agree - but, just a reminder; this is head-fi  - not roomsound.org .

It is infinitely more easy to hear differences in audio gear using headphones than speakers ... - and now I hope no one will try to say otherwise.

The attention to room acoustics etc in audio fairs differs - A LOT. FM Acoustics from Switzerland arrive A WEEK before the opening the show to the public - and have professionals, who check the setups by other professionals within the firm. The quality of their gear is very well known and appreciated - at least by those, who can afford it. Usually, there is no or VERY  little stock - most gear is built to order.

If they want to present their gear at its  at-least-good-enough , they have to acoustically treat the room - and you can bet, that they start with the better/best available room to begin with.

However, also this attention to detail has its price - evenly distributed among their clients.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Nope. It's a matter of thresholds of perception. I don't think you've taken the time to investigate that subject very deeply.



Boiling it down to "thresholds of perception" greatly oversimplifies perception.  Perhaps you don't know what I've investigated, and haven't investigated some of the things I have.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Phronesis said:


> https://www.rit.edu/cla/philosophy/quine/theory_ladenness.html



All they're saying there is that communication relies on a common terminology. I agree, but I doubt anyone would disagree. It's pretty much a truism.


----------



## Phronesis

Jaywalk3r said:


> All they're saying there is that communication relies on a common terminology. I agree, but I doubt anyone would disagree. It's pretty much a truism.



Well no, that's not "all they're saying."  But anyway, at least other people understand the point.


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Oct 29, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Well no, that's not "all they're saying."


Actually, it is.



Phronesis said:


> But anyway, at least other people understand the point.


Unfortunately, you do not appear to be among them.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Perhaps you don't know what I've investigated, and haven't investigated some of the things I have.



There are finite limits to human hearing... frequency ranges, levels of distortion, volume levels, noise levels, time error, etc. Beyond that point no human, even under the best circumstances, can possibly hear. There may be psychological or biological reasons why a person might hear less than that, but the upper limit is a ceiling no one with human ears can hear beyond. That is what I'm talking about and there's absolutely nothing vague or loosey goosey about it. If you've investigated those thresholds, you sure aren't talking like you have. I know by your own words that you haven't bothered to test your own perceptual thresholds with controlled listening tests. That was how I got a grasp on the thresholds, and that is what gave me the ability to look at an abstract number and know pretty well what it represents in real world sound.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

So what could be causing the "5-7kHz bump" someone mentioned they heard several posts back, when they were comparing DACs? That's a significant aberration!


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2018)

It was caused most likely by expectation bias. And a 1.5dB response deviation up in the upper treble isn't significant.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 29, 2018)

bigshot said:


> It was caused most likely by expectation bias. And a 1.5dB response deviation up in the upper treble isn't significant.



Upper treble is considered 6khz-20khz.  Mile posts keep seem to be changing in this thread.  One of the arguments was that we should just default to page one of this thread.  Well if you do look at that post, most links are to the "standard" snake oil of cables and such.  With the one DAC link, its conclusion was that there was still "hairs width between the two in terms of sound"...and that's with particular testing standards.  Seems to me, time after time, we're not isolating to one particular component (and to try to isolate to DAC is hard).  IE Bigshot maintaining any device that's "transparent" sounds the same: that's not the same as a DAC...where one of the arguments is that an iPhone is good for most headphones (in which it's not just DAC but its headphone amp).  Also, when it comes to instruments, bigshot mentioned piano as being one of the hardest ones to reproduce: pipe organ is much harder: fundamental frequency ranges that go below and above regular measured auditory hearing.


----------



## castleofargh

hey guys, please try to ease up on the personal fighting. this is escalating for no good reason.

fundamentally both sides are following an evidence based rational, which is good and fairly rare in here. so maybe we could just appreciate that our thoughts are closer than the last pages might indicate. we're in agreement with almost everything that matters. the only difference is that when we lack conclusive data, we have different standby positions. as both sides agree that they are indeed just standby positions waiting for proper evidence, do we really have to fight to the death over how we should put our legs while waiting for the evidence bus? it's not that important IMO. 




@Phronesis . we've been through this, but if it's not testable, what use is it to us? are we theoretical audiophiles now? you're stuck on subconscious being important in the listening process, and no doubt it is in general. but in this specific context, is it? 
 here are the conditions required to make 2 devices affect us differently at subconscious level but not at a conscious one:
1/ the variation between the gears must be too small to trigger a conscious reaction or be outside the range of hearing. 
2/ the variation must be big enough to be properly and consistently perceived by the ear despite various external and internal noises. and the subconscious reaction must be triggered by hearing, not body shaking, vision, smell, preconception... otherwise it's not about hearing anymore.  
3/ the subconscious reaction mustn't cause any change at a conscious level(else it would fall under what's audible in a listening test).   
4/ it still has to matter for the brain. as the general consensus seems to be that we constantly discard a great deal of sensory data without really processing it much, if only for the sake of being able to function and have coherent thoughts. 

how often would you expect those conditions to be met? given how those conditions have somewhat contradictory requirements, your only hope would be a range in the area strictly below the known hearing thresholds. so even with this rather rational but optimistic idea, what could have a subconscious impact while not generating a conscious one, is likely to be highly specific. at least in amplitude, but most likely in all aspects. making it something, even in this open minded hypothesis, that would require hyper specific variations to occur between 2 devices. making the all thing a pretty rare occurrence, if it can happen at all. so that's far from your quasi systematic need to bring it up as a variable we can't dismiss when audibility is questioned. 
again, we don't know much about the brain, and the general concept of subconscious seems to agree with a lot of human behaviors. I'm not trying to reject that model. I'm just saying that it's unlikely to have a place in the hearing part of feeling differences between gears. now if we count the all experience sighted, then I'd be tempted to put subconscious stuff at the top of the list along with preconceptions. but it's a very different matter.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 30, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> Upper treble is considered 6khz-20khz.



No it isn't. The frequency scale is logarithmic. It's divided approximately into  the nine audible octaves. The top octave is sometimes referred to as "air" because it generally isn't a part of the output of musical instruments, other than upper harmonics. That octave is the least important one in the audible range.







By the way, super sharp transients are harder for microphones and transducers to reproduce than super low and ultra high frequencies. Nyquist nails 20Hz to 20kHz perfectly and professional microphones generally do too with room to spare. Sub woofers go down to 12-15Hz or so and super tweeters can go beyond 20kHz easily. Sharp transients are a lot harder for microphones, speakers and headphones to handle. The piano is a percussion instrument and has some of the sharpest transients of any musical instrument. Recording it well is a challenge.

I'd suggest you go read that first post through all the way, including the links, and go through the links in my sig thoroughly too. Lots to learn in there.


----------



## castleofargh

I learned on this (the original interactive page is down )


----------



## bigshot (Oct 30, 2018)

That one works too! That divides it into two octave chunks and extends the range beyond the range of human hearing to make up the extra octave. Not much above 10kHz!


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 30, 2018)

bigshot said:


> That one works too! That divides it into two octave chunks and extends the range beyond the range of human hearing to make up the extra octave. Not much above 10kHz!



Yes, cherry picking sources does seem to work.  Meanwhile, other sources have the organ going above 16khz (and entire range well exceeding piano).  And CD music is recorded down to 20hz, while pipe organ can go below that.

https://www.hifisentralen.no/forume...ass-og-musikk-080830-frequency-ranges.xls.pdf


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Oct 30, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> Yes, cherry picking sources does seem to work.  Meanwhile, other sources have the organ going above 16khz (and entire range well exceeding piano).  And CD music is recorded down to 20hz, while pipe organ can go below that.
> 
> https://www.hifisentralen.no/forume...ass-og-musikk-080830-frequency-ranges.xls.pdf



"Going above" does not mean that that part is responsible for any appreciable portion of its perceived signature sound. (certainly not if I'm categorically deaf to the whole octave at 38 years old)

And there's no LOWER limit to what any PCM format can record.  It will happily record and play back 0.0000001Hz if you have the recording and playback equipment for it. (movable concerete blocks maybe?)


----------



## Phronesis (Oct 30, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> @Phronesis . we've been through this, but if it's not testable, what use is it to us? are we theoretical audiophiles now? you're stuck on subconscious being important in the listening process, and no doubt it is in general. but in this specific context, is it?
> here are the conditions required to make 2 devices affect us differently at subconscious level but not at a conscious one:
> 1/ the variation between the gears must be too small to trigger a conscious reaction or be outside the range of hearing.
> 2/ the variation must be big enough to be properly and consistently perceived by the ear despite various external and internal noises. and the subconscious reaction must be triggered by hearing, not body shaking, vision, smell, preconception... otherwise it's not about hearing anymore.
> ...



I'm thinking not so much about thresholds of perception, but rather the effects of time and memory on the operation and interactions of conscious and subconscious perception (and the two sides of perception can be at odds with each other, as we clearly see with visual illusions).  This paper I've cited before illustrates what I'm talking about as far as the time aspect: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24528-3.

I believe this has a lot of implications for testing.  For example, if some subconscious effects take several seconds to kick in, a test which uses short music segments may miss those effects.  But if you use much longer music segments to try to capture those effects, memory operating in different timeframes comes into play, and memory of what was heard at the beginning of a segment will be especially unreliable.  Making matters worse, we don't generally have a good understanding of what's going on in the brain/mind with auditory perception because the science isn't good enough yet, so we can only speculate about the kinds of potential time and memory effects I'm talking about.

Bottom line for me right now is that I can believe that controlled blind testing with short music segments is *probably* sufficient to rule out the existence of large differences which people often claim to hear (perceive), and my experience shows that you don't always even need blinding if the other controls are good enough.  But I'm not sure that such testing is sufficient to either rule in or rule out more subtle differences.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 30, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> "Going above" does not mean that that part is responsible for any appreciable portion of its perceived signature sound. (certainly not if I'm categorically deaf to the whole octave at 38 years old)
> 
> And there's no LOWER limit to what any PCM format can record.  It will happily record and play back 0.0000001Hz if you have the recording and playback equipment for it. (movable concerete blocks maybe?)



I think that then begs the question if audio reproduction should strive for recording aspects of the original recording venue or be within what’s considered average human hearing.  I’ve seen similar debates about human perception vs digital reproduction in photography.  White balance, for example is separate then human perception (which has rods and cones for different acuity at different wavelengths for daylight vs night).

Also when it comes to whether CDs do have content below 20hz: in CD mastering sounds are evidentially commonly filtered out below 20hz.  Does seem to make it harder to send fundamental sub bass sounds to a subwoofer.


----------



## Phronesis

Davesrose said:


> I think that then begs the question if audio reproduction should strive for recording aspects of the original recording venue or be within what’s considered average human hearing.  I’ve seen similar debates about human perception vs digital reproduction in photography.  White balance, for example is separate then human perception (which has rods and cones for different acuity at different wavelengths for daylight vs night).



This one has been discussed in multiple threads.  Generally, recordings are engineered to create an experience which isn't necessarily meant to capture a live performance, and often there's no single live performance to capture anyway.  So the best you can do is to make it sound like it did for the recording engineers, using their studio monitors in their studio.  But if you're using headphones, matching the sound of studio monitors is already impossible because the acoustics are so different, so the best you can do is some sort of approximation which sounds good enough.  For me, that's my ultimate criterion for evaluating gear: do I like how the music I typically listen to sounds on that gear?  I don't get hung up over an ideal of "fidelity" which turns out to be ambiguous or impossible.


----------



## KeithEmo

Just to add a little actual current data to the "well known fact" that "human hearing is limited to frequencies between 20 Hz and 20 kHz"....  

According to WikiPedia: 
"The commonly stated *range* of *human hearing* is 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Under ideal laboratory conditions, *humans* can hear sound as low as 12 Hz and as high as 28 kHz, though the threshold increases sharply at 15 kHz in adults, corresponding to the last *auditory* channel of the cochlea."

Also, here's an interesting study that was done to determine whether the low frequency sounds produced by wind turbines could be heard by humans...
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-07-inaudible.html

Here was their conclusion:
"Test persons were asked about their subjective hearing experience, and these (also quantitative) statements were then compared by means of imaging procedures, namely by magnetoencephalography (MEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The results have shown that humans hear lower sounds - namely from 8 hertz on - which, after all, is a whole octave lower than had previously been assumed: an excitation of the primary auditory cortex could be detected down to this frequency. All persons concerned explicitly stated that they had heard something - whereby this perception had not always been tonal. In addition, the observations showed a reaction in certain parts of the brain which play a role in emotions.

Interestingly, along with effects on the auditory cortex, they noted effects on the areas affecting emotions.
(So, according to this study, you can not only hear as low as 8 Hz, but it can affect your emotions as well.)



Phronesis said:


> I'm thinking not so much about thresholds of perception, but rather the effects of time and memory on the operation and interactions of conscious and subconscious perception (and the two sides of perception can be at odds with each other, as we clearly see with visual illusions).  This paper I've cited before illustrates what I'm talking about as far as the time aspect: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24528-3.
> 
> I believe this has a lot of implications for testing.  For example, if some subconscious effects take several seconds to kick in, a test which uses short music segments may miss those effects.  But if you use much longer music segments to try to capture those effects, memory operating in different timeframes comes into play, and memory of what was heard at the beginning of a segment will be especially unreliable.  Making matters worse, we don't generally have a good understanding of what's going on in the brain/mind with auditory perception because the science isn't good enough yet, so we can only speculate about the kinds of potential time and memory effects I'm talking about.
> 
> Bottom line for me right now is that I can believe that controlled blind testing with short music segments is *probably* sufficient to rule out the existence of large differences which people often claim to hear (perceive), and my experience shows that you don't always even needing blinding if the other controls are good enough.  But I'm not sure that such testing is sufficient to either rule in or rule out more subtle differences.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

in b4 bUt ThAt's Not ReAlLY "hearINg"


----------



## Joe Bloggs

It's hearing, it's hearing ultrasonic sounds when they are played at over 100dB.
"The present results show that some humans can perceive tones up to at least 28 kHz when their level exceeds about 100 dB SPL." -paper cited by Wikipedia
Now look at a spectrogram of any recorded music you please, and tell me how loud the overall recording has to be played for ultrasonic frequencies to exceed 100dB SPL?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 30, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> Yes, cherry picking sources does seem to work.  Meanwhile, other sources have the organ going above 16khz (and entire range well exceeding piano).  And CD music is recorded down to 20hz, while pipe organ can go below that.



Do you have any SACDs of organ music that goes below 20Hz. I'd really like to hear that. My subwoofer is rated to go down to 14Hz. The walls vibrate like jello with 20Hz organ music and some of it gets down so low I can't hear notes any more. It would be interesting to feel frequencies I can't hear. I also am still learning about organ music. Is this something you specialize in, because if so, I'd like to pick your brain about performers, organs and recordings.

The range on the organ exceeds the piano, but frequency extension generally isn't the problem with playing back recorded music. There are speakers and headphones that can go beyond our ability to hear. The problem with transducers is sharp transients... the punch behind the notes. Pianos are a challenge to mike. Drums too for the same reason.



Davesrose said:


> I think that then begs the question if audio reproduction should strive for recording aspects of the original recording venue or be within what’s considered average human hearing..



That is an easy question to answer. Any engineer will answer that the same. The purpose of recording music isn't to capture the sound of the performance in the recording venue, it's to create an optimized sound that is _better_ than the original sound. The ambience of the venue can be used, but it is sculpted through miking and mixing to create a sound that is designed to work within the parameters of people's equipment and listening rooms, human ears and the aesthetic tastes of the producer and musicians. Recordings are not real. They are creations.



Phronesis said:


> I'm thinking not so much about thresholds of perception, but rather the effects of time and memory on the operation and interactions of conscious and subconscious perception



Direct A/B switching between synchronized samples addresses that problem neatly.

When it comes to hearing ultrasonic sound, it really isn't hearing as Joeblogs says. We can perceive sound PRESSURE of ultrasonics at high volume levels, but we can't perceive sound as musical notes all the way out to 20 to 20... considerably less in fact. That is OK because the lowest octave of human hearing is felt rather than heard, and the upper octave is pretty much irrelevant in commercially recorded music.

If you wanted a recording of a large church organ or gamelan orchestra, you might need a tricked out speaker system and a high sampling rate file, but it doesn't matter if you are listening to headphones which can't reproduce the kinesthetic feel of sub bass frequencies, or listening to music that doesn't include gamelan gongs.

I know that absolutists say that anything humans can perceive should be recorded, but if that's the case, why stop at inaudible frequencies? We should record the feel of the rain and mud at Woodstock, and the heat of the hot lights at an arena show. We can even record the feel of Liberace's ostrich plume cape as he walks on stage! Bring on smellovision for Neil Diamond's Hot August Night!

Stuff that doesn't matter, just doesn't matter. It's the stuff in the core frequencies that really affect sound quality.


----------



## kukkurovaca

I would also love recommendations re: organ recordings! (Although I guess that's a bit off-topic for this thread.)


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Direct A/B switching between synchronized samples addresses that problem neatly.



No, it doesn't.  Think of it this way: you're using your ears/brain as a measuring instrument to compare A and B.  But this measuring system is known to have a variable and faulty system for recording and recalling information, the way it senses information is also selective and variable, and these issues occur without being able to detect them unless something like "imaging" is used to look inside the "black box" of the measuring system.  Moreover, the measuring system is known to be sensitive to the types of measurements it's used to perform, but we have limited information about the specifics of that sensitivity.  This is a problematic situation for which there's no easy solution.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 30, 2018)

For the life of me, I can't figure out what you're saying. If I want to match a color of paint on my wall, I take a chip of paint and put it right next to the swatch so I can flick my eyes back and forth and compare them. If I want to see if one batch of soup tastes better than the other I take a spoonful of each and taste them side by side. If I want to see if lilacs smell different than daisies, I put one in each hand and sniff one then the other. If I want to compare two similar sounds, I set them right next to each other and switch back and forth. If they're so close that even flicking back and forth can't discern a difference, there is no audible difference. I honestly don't care what my brain waves are doing. I only care if it sounds good or not. I am perfectly capable of discerning that to a degree of accuracy that is good enough when I am listening to Grateful Dead records in my living room. Most people are perfectly capable of making decisions like that.

Do you have a sound system? How do you adjust the volume and tone controls? Do you consult CAT scans of your brain? Every day we make choices that are more important and represent bigger differences than the difference in sound between two DACs. Why do you hold deciding if DACs sound different to some sort of stringent standard as opposed to doing a sniff test of your socks and determining whether you can wear them two days instead of one? People make comparison tests every day. They do their best to filter for bias and then they act on their results.

I think you are putting up unreasonable hurdles to avoid being forced to surrender to a premise that you just don't like. That certainly indicates that you might be unable to filter for bias, but it doesn't mean that I have that same degree of intellectual avoidance of the truth.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 30, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Do you have any SACDs of organ music that goes below 20Hz. I'd really like to hear that. My subwoofer is rated to go down to 14Hz. The walls vibrate like jello with 20Hz organ music and some of it gets down so low I can't hear notes any more. It would be interesting to feel frequencies I can't hear. I also am still learning about organ music. Is this something you specialize in, because if so, I'd like to pick your brain about performers, organs and recordings.



I'm not a collector of organ music, but I do like Bach (so I have Bach organ music).  It was a treat to hear Academy of Ancient Music playing Brandenburg Concertos in an old church with stone masonry.  While trying to find the entrance, we walked past the performers, and I overheard them say they were really looking forward to playing in this church.  As to recordings that master the lowest organ notes...it is said (Jean Guillou, organist; Mussorgsky, Pictures at an Exhibition, Stravinsky, 3 Dances from Petrouchka; Dorian CD DOR-90117) is a good reference for subwoofers as there are clear notes that go to 16hz.  With SACDs, if you like them for surround sound, I really like E. Power Biggs Bach Great Toccatas & Fugues.  It was recorded in the 70s, but recorded for quadraphonic sound.  It's recorded at the Cathedral of Freiburg, with 4 organs.  I guess it also begs the question if your surround speakers should be the same as the mains: for examples like this where you want the rear audio to be high-fidelity. Unless you keep rotating to have your ears focused on the rear speakers, it seems moot anyway.

I have a powerful forward firing subwoofer, and agree there's more of an argument about recording below average hearing, as it's still visceral (and I think sound systems have gotten much better with subwoofers then first attempts with "sensurround").  When I did the "subwoofer crawl" I also found behind my recliner was a sweet spot.  So I definitely feel inaudible frequencies.  I also find that there can be more use of the subwoofer for material that does have a discrete track for subwoofer.  That's one of the reasons I like blu-ray concerts with hi-res surround tracks.  Will have to look at see if there's any good organ music on BD.


----------



## Phronesis (Oct 30, 2018)

bigshot said:


> For the life of me, I can't figure out what you're saying. If I want to match a color of paint on my wall, I take a chip of paint and put it right next to the swatch so I can flick my eyes back and forth and compare them. If I want to see if one batch of soup tastes better than the other I take a spoonful of each and taste them side by side. If I want to see if lilacs smell different than daisies, I put one in each hand and sniff one then the other. If I want to compare two similar sounds, I set them right next to each other and switch back and forth. If they're so close that even flicking back and forth can't discern a difference, there is no audible difference. I honestly don't care what my brain waves are doing. I only care if it sounds good or not. I am perfectly capable of discerning that to a degree of accuracy that is good enough when I am listening to Grateful Dead records in my living room. Most people are perfectly capable of making decisions like that.
> 
> Do you have a sound system? How do you adjust the volume and tone controls? Do you consult CAT scans of your brain?



Your examples actually illustrate my point well.  Perception of sound is inherently dynamic, it needs to unfold over time to be experienced as a coherent perception.  Things that inherently _don't_ change from moment to moment are color of paint, composition of soup, smells emitted by lilacs, etc.  You can't put sounds next to each other in space - only in time - and you have to work with segments of sound which have a lot of dynamic change over time within that segment.  To reliably detect small differences between such segments of sound, arranged back to back in time, is a perceptual challenge which is more difficult than in the examples you gave.

When I've tried to detect such differences, it wasn't usually the case that I could confidently say A and B were the same or different, but rather that I wasn't quite sure, to the point where I felt like I was guessing.  That doesn't automatically mean that they were actually the same, because the other possibility is that the accuracy and consistency of my perception wasn't good enough to reliably discern a difference which was there.  If there was such a difference, a test using short music segments wouldn't necessarily tell me if the difference matters for normal extended listening.


----------



## bigshot

If CDs can contain those sub bass frequencies, then I probably already have lots of them. E Power Biggs would have been recorded on tape though. I don't think that will go below 20Hz. I just got this multichannel organ SACD but I haven't had time to listen to it yet. I like Ton Koopman a lot. https://amzn.to/2OdRD0U


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> Your examples actually illustrate my point well.  Perception of sound is inherently dynamic, it needs to unfold over time to be experienced as a coherent perception.



I'm perfectly capable of handling all that and making a comparison for the purposes of deciding if I need to buy a new DAC or not. Most of us here in Sound Science are capable of doing that and we do it all the time. I do that by putting on a few different recordings on both units and flicking back and forth A/B sighted for a while. Then I choose what I think is the most likely to sound different and I do a more focused blind test on that. If I still am unable to tell a difference, the difference flat out doesn't matter. If I can't hear a difference in controlled testing, I'm never going to hear it in casual music listening.

You're just applying an unreasonably stringent set of conditions on testing. I do think that is definitely rooted in your particular psychology and set of biases... moreso than whether you can actually hear a difference between two DACs or not. I think you just want to believe what you want to believe and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary. You get to reject it because it doesn't live up to your absurdly high standards of "rigor". The best way to avoid testing is to make it as difficult on yourself as possible. Don't start with loose tests and get better at it and refine your techniques as you go. Just tell other people they aren't doing it right and go on believing anything you want, even if it isn't true at all! That really isn't uncommon around Sound Science. We regularly get people in here who use that technique. You are a bit better at it than them because you appear to actually know a little bit about psychology... just enough to erect a wall.... not quite enough to go past it.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 30, 2018)

bigshot said:


> If CDs can contain those sub bass frequencies, then I probably already have lots of them. E Power Biggs would have been recorded on tape though. I don't think that will go below 20Hz. I just got this multichannel organ SACD but I haven't had time to listen to it yet. I like Ton Koopman a lot. https://amzn.to/2OdRD0U



I can't seem to quickly find any info about where studio master tape rolls off...but yeah, I was referencing it more as a good use of surround. Though I can't believe it's out of production now, so I think copies are like $80.  I've tried searching for BD pipe organ music, and this is the only result I got (and it's a new digital recording, so must make use of discrete subwoofer).  On another site, there's one review and its glowing:

https://www.amazon.com/Music-Pipe-O...540923163&sr=8-1&keywords=blu-ray+organ+music


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I'm perfectly capable of handling all that and making a comparison for the purposes of deciding if I need to buy a new DAC or not. Most of us here in Sound Science are capable of doing that and we do it all the time. I do that by putting on a few different recordings on both units and flicking back and forth A/B sighted for a while. Then I choose what I think is the most likely to sound different and I do a more focused blind test on that. If I still am unable to tell a difference, the difference flat out doesn't matter. If I can't hear a difference in controlled testing, I'm never going to hear it in casual music listening.
> 
> You're just applying an unreasonably stringent set of conditions on testing. I do think that is definitely rooted in your particular psychology and set of biases... moreso than whether you can actually hear a difference between two DACs or not. I think you just want to believe what you want to believe and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary. You get to reject it because it doesn't live up to your absurdly high standards of "rigor". The best way to avoid testing is to make it as difficult on yourself as possible. Don't start with loose tests and get better at it and refine your techniques as you go. Just tell other people they aren't doing it right and go on believing anything you want, even if it isn't true at all! That really isn't uncommon around Sound Science. We regularly get people in here who use that technique. You are a bit better at it than them because you appear to actually know a little bit about psychology... just enough to erect a wall.... not quite enough to go past it.



You're essentially "trusting your ears" as subjectivists do, but you trust them less than the typical subjectivist, so you use some controls.  That's good, it helps to reduce perceptual errors.  I'm just saying that, even with those controls (including blinding), there's still some potential for error -- likely a lot less potential for error, but maybe enough error to sometimes get it wrong on subtle differences.  In the end, I don't think those subtle differences matter much, since the bigger differences are in things like recording quality, transducers, and rooms, so our discussion is largely "academic," at least for me.  But if we're going to have an academic discussion, I'm going to say "I don't know" about things where I believe the evidence is inconclusive and the science is not yet mature enough, and I think that kind of recognition of uncertainty is essential to doing and talking about science.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 30, 2018)

It's fun that you are the living embodiment of your theories. It's impossible for us to know anything because all of our brains are too busy deceiving us. So since we can't know for 100% certain, there is no reason to test! A scientist who refuses to test because it would just lead to more questions. That would make an amusing character in a TV show... a professor of philosophy who refuses to have a philosophy because he's philosophically opposed to it, or a librarian who doesn't read because there are just too damn many books to read. Or how about a fireman who refuses to put out fires because as soon as he does, another one will just start up and he'll have to do it all over again. It's a funny way to look at things.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

As someone else has pointed out recently, CDs and other PCM formats don't have a lower frequency limit.

However, microphones and other recording gear may or may not have very good response below 20hz.  And, some mixing engineers will set a highpass near 20hz to avoid problems caused by excess (assumed to be inaudible on most systems) energy in the mix. 

My guess is classical / organ recordings with good clean sub-20hz signal would not be rare, but may be a little uncommon.


----------



## Phronesis (Oct 30, 2018)

bigshot said:


> It's fun that you are the living embodiment of your theories. It's impossible for us to know anything because all of our brains are too busy deceiving us. So since we can't know for 100% certain, there is no reason to test! A scientist who refuses to test because it would just lead to more questions. That would make an amusing character in a TV show... a professor of philosophy who refuses to have a philosophy because he's philosophically opposed to it, or a librarian who doesn't read because there are just too damn many books to read. Or how about a fireman who refuses to put out fires because as soon as he does, another one will just start up and he'll have to do it all over again. It's a funny way to look at things.



Not sure what you're getting at, I've bought plenty of audio gear and am enjoying listening to music with it, without fretting much about our "academic" questions.

Anyway, I don't think we can "know" much with 100% certainty, and that's widely recognized by scientists too.  But we can gather and evaluate evidence, formulate hypotheses, and make judgments about how likely or unlikely it is that our hypotheses are accurate enough (good models).  In that sense, they can serve as working hypotheses or assumptions - act as though they may be right or wrong, but recognize the possibility of error and be open to changing your mind.

Have you considered the possibility that you may be subconsciously biased to NOT perceive a difference between gear like DAC and amps?  With such a bias, it becomes easier to perceive that "they sound the same to me, so I'll just guess that it's ...", and that would then give null results in tests.  In a blind test, you can't bias yourself into a positive result, but you can certainly bias yourself into a null result.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 30, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Not sure what you're getting



No, please don't worry about it. It would take all the fun out of it. Your self contradictions are what make you charming.



Zapp_Fan said:


> My guess is classical / organ recordings with good clean sub-20hz signal would not be rare, but may be a little uncommon.



Probably digital era though. I can't see something recorded for LP release getting by with sub 20Hz content. And this page seems to indicate that analog decks roll off pretty steeply below 40Hz.

http://www.endino.com/graphs/

Now I'm eager to listen to the Ton Koopman multichannel disc. By the way, I've always thought the Telarc Michael Murphy organ series sounds great. Every one is on a different organ. The one on the Out Lady of the Angels organ in LA is devastating!


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> Not sure what you're getting at, I've bought plenty of audio gear and am enjoying listening to music with it, without fretting much about our "academic" questions.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think we can "know" much with 100% certainty, and that's widely recognized by scientists too.  But we can gather and evaluate evidence, formulate hypotheses, and make judgments about how likely or unlikely it is that our hypotheses are accurate enough (good models).  In that sense, they can serve as working hypotheses or assumptions - act as though they may be right or wrong, but recognize the possibility of error and be open to changing your mind.
> 
> *Have you considered the possibility that you may be subconsciously biased to NOT perceive a difference between gear like DAC and amps?  With such a bias, it becomes easier to perceive that "they sound the same to me, so I'll just guess that it's ...", and that would then give null results in tests.  In a blind test, you can't bias yourself into a positive result, but you can certainly bias yourself into a null result.*


Absolutely possible.   But, who the hell cares?  That has nothing to do with someone claiming to hear differences sighted while completely losing track of any difference when blinded.

I can intentionally fail every ABX test with reasonable certainty and it means nothing when trying to show a difference might be identified.  When it comes to audio, I don't care what the position of the electrons are in relation to every nucleus in every atom of my body.  How ridiculous are we supposed to get with our claims of audible differences? 

Do you think there are audible differences that we can't identify with commonly known audio measurements?  If yes, do you have any examples that can be researched further?  If nothing obvious can be identified to show that a human could hear any difference, would you be able to provide any reliable test results that show anyone was capable of hearing a difference?


----------



## bigshot

sonitus mirus said:


> Do you think there are audible differences that we can't identify with commonly known audio measurements?



What about audible differences that can't be heard?!!


----------



## Jaywalk3r

bigshot said:


> For the life of me, I can't figure out what you're saying.



Don't feel bad I can't either, and the science side of this is my wheelhouse. Best I can tell is he's trying to rationalize why perfectly valid methods shouldn't be used.


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Oct 30, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> You're essentially "trusting your ears" as subjectivists do, but you trust them less than the typical subjectivist, so you use some controls.  That's good, it helps to reduce perceptual errors.  I'm just saying that, even with those controls (including blinding), there's still some potential for error -- likely a lot less potential for error, but maybe enough error to sometimes get it wrong on subtle differences.  In the end, I don't think those subtle differences matter much, since the bigger differences are in things like recording quality, transducers, and rooms, so our discussion is largely "academic," at least for me.  But if we're going to have an academic discussion, I'm going to say "I don't know" about things where I believe the evidence is inconclusive and the science is not yet mature enough, and I think that kind of recognition of uncertainty is essential to doing and talking about science.



These sorts of minor factors are already taken care of with the statistical methods used. In particular, we use an alpha value much closer to zero than one-half. That helps prevent erroneously rejecting the null hypothesis.

There's no need to concern ourselves with an inability to hear something audible. That's the vacuous case. If there's an inability to hear it, it _isn't_ audible.


----------



## bigshot

Jaywalk3r said:


> If there's an inability to hear it, it _isn't_ audible.



That revelation should surprise several people in this thread!


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Oct 31, 2018)

Jaywalk3r said:


> These sorts of minor factors are already taken care of with the statistical methods used.


*Statistical methods can't fix flawed experimental methods.* You must know that!



Jaywalk3r said:


> In particular, we use an alpha value much closer to zero than one-half. That helps prevent erroneously rejecting the null hypothesis.


You're either being disingenuous or you're not so bright... I strongly believe the former, not the latter. Any "data scientist" would understand that @Phronesis expresses concern about beta, erroneously failing to reject the null hypothesis (type II error), not alpha.


Phronesis said:


> ...but maybe enough error to sometimes get it wrong on subtle differences.





Phronesis said:


> ...
> Have you considered the possibility that you may be subconsciously biased to NOT perceive a difference between gear like DAC and amps?  With such a bias, it becomes easier to perceive that "they sound the same to me, so I'll just guess that it's ...", and that would then give null results in tests.  In a blind test, you can't bias yourself into a positive result, but you can certainly bias yourself into a null result.


He also points out that he's not losing sleep over this, but merely mentions a potential flaw _that does exist_, but that some here wish to ignore:


Jaywalk3r said:


> There's no need to concern ourselves with an inability to hear something audible. That's the vacuous case. If there's an inability to hear it, it isn't audible.


This is complete nonsense, and you must know it. Do you claim type II errors don't exist?
Creating an intensionally flawed example is trivial: System 1 - normal, competent RBCD playback system, System 2 - same, but with sharp LPF with 5kHz cutoff. Choice of music: bass guitar solos. "No difference found!" So is a 5kHz LPF "audible"?
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a verbal statement about type II errors.

This post is absolutely *not* an appeal to "everything matters", "we don't know everything, so we know nothing" or "if you can't hear it, you're deaf"!! It is a vehement condemnation of sloppy science, and even worse, sloppy defense of sloppy science... which is all too frequent here.
It is amazing to me that a few of the most prolific posters here both defend sloppy science as relevant to their "normal music listening in their living room", *and* try to shoo away those whose posts aren't "science-y" enough! "This is Sound Science after all." Is it a race toward mediocrity?


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> Absolutely possible.   But, who the hell cares?  That has nothing to do with someone claiming to hear differences sighted while completely losing track of any difference when blinded.
> 
> I can intentionally fail every ABX test with reasonable certainty and it means nothing when trying to show a difference might be identified.  When it comes to audio, I don't care what the position of the electrons are in relation to every nucleus in every atom of my body.  How ridiculous are we supposed to get with our claims of audible differences?
> 
> Do you think there are audible differences that we can't identify with commonly known audio measurements?  If yes, do you have any examples that can be researched further?  If nothing obvious can be identified to show that a human could hear any difference, would you be able to provide any reliable test results that show anyone was capable of hearing a difference?



The post was directed to bigshot, in reference to his not hearing differences in his own testing.  And I wasn’t talking about intentionally failing a test, I was talking about being subconsciously biased towards not hearing a difference.  Not at all the same thing.


----------



## Phronesis

SoundAndMotion said:


> *Statistical methods can't fix flawed experimental methods.* You must know that!
> 
> You're either being disingenuous or you're not so bright... I strongly believe the former, not the latter. Any "data scientist" would understand that @Phronesis expresses concern about beta, erroneously failing to reject the null hypothesis (type II error), not alpha.
> 
> ...



Thank you, I’m glad some people understand these points - which are not difficult to understand if someone has basic qualifications to understand, and approaches the questions scientifically rather than ideologically.  Some of the more prolific posters here often display the Dunning Kruger effect.


----------



## FX5K

Hi everybody, 
I have a little question as to what you actually understand as bias. 

A. Do refer to something that happens purely unconscious?
B. Or is it also something like not focusing on something which would lead to disregarding a certain test aspect? 

For example, I have a WA22 which in combination with my AKG K812 produces a barely audible transformer-hum. Choosing to disregard it could lead to listening to higher volumes. But here is a decision is involved which may lead to a biased result. (whereas using a Focal Utopia with my WA22 makes it impossible to disregard the hum...)

Also since the McGurk Effect was mentioned previously, does anyone of know similar effects or actual test methods for which you would expect to get biased or false results?

It actually might be nice to have a checklist on what to avoid in audio tests.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

It is wholly bizarre how we continuously revert back to discussing inaudible content with regards to listening to music. 
It really seems like the last bastion of the audiophile.
Then again if one is buying audio equipment for their owl then be my guest. To us mere humans it seems rather futile to spend sooo much time on things we cannot pick up unless we have electronic equipment to do so.

Then again I would venture that most folks actually reading this thread are able to spot who is providing real life information based on experiments and decades of experience over the few who come here to look for blindspots and loopholes that they themselves don't evwn understand. When they then come along to discuss these matters it all goes tits up because the knowledgeable peeps first have to properly explain the subject that this new poster is referencing.
Aaaaand we go round and around yet again...


----------



## Phronesis

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> It is wholly bizarre how we continuously revert back to discussing *inaudible content* with regards to listening to music.
> It really seems like the last bastion of the audiophile.
> Then again if one is buying audio equipment for their owl then be my guest. To us mere humans it seems rather futile to spend sooo much time on things we cannot pick up unless we have electronic equipment to do so.
> 
> ...



Be careful of circular reasoning.  What's "inaudible" and how that's to be determined are the very questions that we're trying to answer.  To say "I did a blind test in this particular way and I couldn't reliably or consistently discern a difference" does NOT necessarily mean there will be NO "audible" difference during normal listening.  That point is obvious to me, and if some people can't grasp it after all this discussion, perhaps they'll never grasp it.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> It is wholly bizarre how we continuously revert back to discussing inaudible content with regards to listening to music.
> It really seems like the last bastion of the audiophile.
> Then again if one is buying audio equipment for their owl then be my guest. To us mere humans it seems rather futile to spend sooo much time on things we cannot pick up unless we have electronic equipment to do so.
> 
> ...


No one says that you must use science for your purchasing decisions or to enjoy listening to music. Pursue those however you see fit!

If discussing what's audible or not is unimportant to you, great! Don't pretend you've contributed to a "Sound Science" discussion.

I also see no point in "discussing inaudible content with regards to listening to music". Using your definition, I'm not an audiophile, but by any definition, I am a scientist. I wonder how anyone tries to discuss audibility without understanding thresholds. And I can't be certain, but I doubt most people here have a clear understanding of what thresholds are, how to measure them or how to interpret the published data. 

Please don't claim to use science when you aren't, and don't defend bad science as good enough. Also please don't harass those who wish to discuss the science involved as having pie-in-the-sky, not real-world goals. My work is not only published, but used in real-life, non-audiophile products.


----------



## Phronesis

^ Given who the prolific posters are and their views, it's more of an anti-"subjectivist" "objectivist" ideology forum, rather than a science forum.


----------



## castleofargh

FX5K said:


> Hi everybody,
> I have a little question as to what you actually understand as bias.
> 
> A. Do refer to something that happens purely unconscious?
> ...


there are many forms of biases. from cognitive bias to biases in experiments caused by the tester, the subjects, the experiment itself(the way it favors a type of answer, or some mistakes in setting it up), the way the results are interpreted... anything that has the potential to affect what you're really testing can be considered a bias. the most obvious case for listening tests would be seeing what we're testing. vision becomes a bias in an experiment that should be about hearing. another favorite of audiophiles would be to not even try to limit the number of variables, but still deciding that we know the cause for our impressions(cherry picking correlations). 

so about A or B, it's both and then some more. 

you example doesn't have a fixed answer. because even if we have "fun" debating generalizations for no particular reasons, the conditions and events surrounding a specific test tend to be tailored for the variable we're trying to test(or they should be). something like background noise from a given amplifier will indeed tend to depend on the listening levels and the sensitivity of the headphone. because those variables can affect the results, you simply have to be specific about your testing conditions and what you're trying to achieve. and then when interpreting the results, we again have to come with conditional conclusions that involve those relevant variables. the tendency for audiophiles to crave for absolute and simple answers, tends to have people take those conditional results and abuse them by turning them into some parody of a universal law. this is a logical fallacy(and a bit of laziness), and it's a plagues in the hobby. the less somebody will know, the more he will be attracted to oversimplified views and questions. like "what is the best amp?". no condition, no headphone specified, yet they still expect a response and sadly some people will give it to them, based on ultra specific anecdotes and often partially or completely erroneous experimentation they might not even bother detailing with their answer.  audiophilia rox!  ^_^


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> ^ Given who the prolific posters are and their views, it's more of an anti-"subjectivist" "objectivist" ideology forum, rather than a science forum.


TBH I still to this day have no idea what stands behind those terms, so I can't agree or disagree. but isn't it strange that the only people in the hobby who are interested in trying to get reliable listening experiences, are systematically called objectivists?


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

SoundAndMotion said:


> No one says that you must use science for your purchasing decisions or to enjoy listening to music. Pursue those however you see fit!
> 
> If discussing what's audible or not is unimportant to you, great! Don't pretend you've contributed to a "Sound Science" discussion.
> 
> ...



Harass?? Have you read through this thread?
But alright I'll bite: sorry for my platitudes. 
Now let's get back to sound quality and how things we can't hear increase the very same.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think you're simply talking about the difference between "audible" and perhaps "perceptible".... which is an interesting distinction.

A friend of mine who works with ultrasonic welders tells me that, if you are in the vicinity of very high SPL at certain ultrasonic frequencies, it actually causes your eyeballs to ache.
(I'm sure that this is not only unpleasant, but actually unhealthy in the long term.)

So, let's assume that you were comparing two headphone amplifiers, using whatever headphones, source material, and methodology you prefer.
And you were to find yourself absolutely positively _UNABLE_ to tell one from the other in any sort of short-term double-blind test.
But "amplifier A" happens to have a very high noise floor above 25 kHz......
And, consistently and repeatably, listening to "amplifier A" for an hour always results in a splitting headache...
But, listening to the same content, at the same level, for the same amount of time, with "amplifier B" does not...
Isn't that "an obvious and _reportable_ difference"?

Clearly "amplifier A" is producing some sort of "unpleasant experience" that is related to "its audio output"...
But would you classify that as "an audible difference"?
(Personally, I would probably classify it as an "inaudible but significant additional effect or factor".... rather as we would classify a "side effect" when testing a drug.)

However, and this is the point many people might consider significant, such effects can be "part of a listening _experience_".
For example, the study I posted about infrasonic noise was conducted in the context of potential health issues caused by wind farms.
(Apparently windmills produce significant sound output in the 8 Hz to 10 Hz range - and some people living near them claim it causes sleep issues among other problems.)
What if it turns out that those 10 Hz notes are _perceptible_ even though they aren't "audibly noticeable"? 
What if, when you listen to Jurassic Park on headphones, that big T Rex really _IS_ scarier if you include the 10 Hz components of his roar, because the components below 10 Hz affect the emotion centers of your brain?
If that were true, then omitting those subsonic frequencies most certainly would affect "_your listening experience_" - even if you don't _hear_ them.
And I would say that question most certainly does fall under "audio science". 



bigshot said:


> What about audible differences that can't be heard?!!


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Harass??


Too strong? Sorry, my foaming at the mouth blocked my view... 


Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Have you read through this thread?


Yes!! I've read dozens and dozens and dozens of posts! Uh, maybe 1%


----------



## castleofargh

SoundAndMotion said:


> No one says that you must use science for your purchasing decisions or to enjoy listening to music. Pursue those however you see fit!
> 
> If discussing what's audible or not is unimportant to you, great! Don't pretend you've contributed to a "Sound Science" discussion.
> 
> ...


I believe the amalgam between Science and amateur testing is creating confusion. this topic is initially focused on people who are willing to test stuff themselves as well as they can within their limited means. the fact that we try to follow some advice of the scientific method doesn't turn it all into science. I've always assumed that it was obvious for everybody, but now that you mention it, maybe it's not and is worth saying. the topic's intent has nothing to do with all the crap debates about everything vs nothing declined in so many colors and tastes. those stuff are silly. 
it also has nothing to do with debating the most likely answer to stuff we don't know and don't even know how to test while acting like we're right anyway to win the internet. that too is silly, but a forum is a forum is a forum.


in the first post, I personally disagree with a good deal of the overly general conclusion, but I love every single experiment described(even if most could do with more details about the protocols), and all the people who pulls their fingers out of their butt and tried. I do a great deal of half baked experiments like those myself. I usually don't have the guts to present them as relevant data. and when I do I put so many warnings about how everything is wrong and poorly done, that I'm guessing nobody even cares about the results. but that's me being skeptical even of myself. I would still encourage everybody to try and test themselves if only to see how it can rapidly become complicated to do things right, and how even the most basic controls can drastically affect our impressions compared to the stupidly accepted casual sighted test. we're here to try and put a stop to people making up conclusions they have no legitimate right to make up, and guys like yourself should act when it's relevant. but I wouldn't want the serious and rigor needed for claims, to scare people away from experimenting, even poorly.


----------



## KeithEmo

Exactly.... and let's put the most basic definition right at the top....

A bias is essentially anything that can affect the results _OTHER THAN_ what you're attempting to test.
In general, the term carries the connotation of being biased "towards" or "away from" a particular result... for example "being biased to expect the more expensive product to sound better".
This can be a conscious bias (you were raised to believe that "you get what you pay for") or an unconscious bias (the more expensive unit "just seems nicer").
One of the most prevalent general categories of bias is "expectation bias" - which simply means that what you expect can alter how your brain interprets what you experience.
This can also act at many different levels. (You may fail to notice things you don't expect to be there; and you may choose to discount "a blip on the graph" as "noise" if it disagrees with the data you expect.)
Of course, if you're testing whether something is audible or not, the bias could be towards preferring one device over another, finding a difference, or not finding a difference.

It should also be noted that biases do not always act in a particular direction.
For example, if you're tired when you perform the test, it may not cause you to prefer one choice over another, but it may cause you to be less perceptive, or just plain sloppy.
(So, in that case, even though the mechanism acts much like a bias, the result is more random... but it also acts as a bias to produce incorrect or flawed results.)
You could argue that this is more of a flaw in methodology than a bias.
(However, the goal of a good test methodology is, among other things, to eliminate the possibility of bias as much as possible.)



castleofargh said:


> there are many forms of biases. from cognitive bias to biases in experiments caused by the tester, the subjects, the experiment itself(the way it favors a type of answer, or some mistakes in setting it up), the way the results are interpreted... anything that has the potential to affect what you're really testing can be considered a bias. the most obvious case for listening tests would be seeing what we're testing. vision becomes a bias in an experiment that should be about hearing. another favorite of audiophiles would be to not even try to limit the number of variables, but still deciding that we know the cause for our impressions(cherry picking correlations).
> 
> so about A or B, it's both and then some more.
> 
> you example doesn't have a fixed answer. because even if we have "fun" debating generalizations for no particular reasons, the conditions and events surrounding a specific test tend to be tailored for the variable we're trying to test(or they should be). something like background noise from a given amplifier will indeed tend to depend on the listening levels and the sensitivity of the headphone. because those variables can affect the results, you simply have to be specific about your testing conditions and what you're trying to achieve. and then when interpreting the results, we again have to come with conditional conclusions that involve those relevant variables. the tendency for audiophiles to crave for absolute and simple answers, tends to have people take those conditional results and abuse them by turning them into some parody of a universal law. this is a logical fallacy(and a bit of laziness), and it's a plagues in the hobby. the less somebody will know, the more he will be attracted to oversimplified views and questions. like "what is the best amp?". no condition, no headphone specified, yet they still expect a response and sadly some people will give it to them, based on ultra specific anecdotes and often partially or completely erroneous experimentation they might not even bother detailing with their answer.  audiophilia rox!  ^_^


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> TBH I still to this day have no idea what stands behind those terms, so I can't agree or disagree. but isn't it strange that the only people in the hobby who are interested in trying to get reliable listening experiences, are systematically called objectivists?



I'm interested in getting reliable listening experiences, but I don't think of myself as an objectivist.  But similarly, I'm an independent politically and a skeptical agnostic religiously, so maybe there's a disposition aspect involved.  I'm ok with uncertainty and complexity.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Oct 31, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> Do you think there are audible differences that we can't identify with commonly known audio measurements?  If yes, do you have any examples that can be researched further?



Most commonly USED audio measurements don't identify non-linear distortion very well or at all - meaning something that doesn't vary in direct, linear (i.e. a constant ratio) proportion to either the frequency or amplitude of the input signal.  It's not captured well or at all by THD measurements produced with sweeps, it's not captured at all by impulse response or frequency response measurements.

Among the commonly known measurements, this stuff certainly CAN be measured if you're looking for them, but it can be hard to know whether nonlinear effects show up in a given measurement or not, unless the author tells you so.

An easy example of this is driving something to digital clipping.  Up to -0dbFS everything is dandy.  A couple dB past that, it sounds like rocks in a garbage disposal.  Normal measurements at normal levels do not capture that feature of the equipment.  You would never know from a THD or FR or IR plot, that your device has this clipping problem. But, in use, the clipping will be very obvious if it happens.

There are also time-varying effects that can crop up that aren't captured using our most familiar measurements.  I recently tested a prototype that measures well with sweeps, but poorly with pink noise. I believe it's at least partly because the amplifier can't really keep up.   You can easily hear this problem, too, it's obvious to even casual listeners.  But the measurements with sweeps look great!

I would suggest that these nonlinear flaws would make up a lot of the putative audible phenomena that are hard to measure.  Unfortunately, they are hard to measure, often subtle and fleeting, and therefore hard to distinguish from expectation bias, etc.  But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

This might also be a good time to mention that I don't think a lot of massive nonlinear distortions are cropping up in DACs or decent amps that are used within their intended use cases.  But if you want to talk speakers and headphones, I would bet there are plenty.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Oct 31, 2018)

SoundAndMotion said:


> Too strong? Sorry, my foaming at the mouth blocked my view...
> 
> Yes!! I've read dozens and dozens and dozens of posts! Uh, maybe 1%


Sorry but it just gets irritating after a while where folks like yourself join in on the discussion throwing loads of theories on the table, yet when you are asked to name say two dacs that sound different to human ears, we either hear crickets or a waterfall of reasons why the science that led us this far now seems redundant in the face of the powerful human perceptive powers.
You seem to be scientific in your approach - can you help us out with this problem so we can get on with the purpose of this thread?


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Sorry but it just gets irritating after a while where
> 1-folks like yourself join in on the discussion throwing loads of theories on the table, yet
> 2-when you are asked to name say two dacs that sound different to human ears,
> 3-we either hear crickets or
> ...


It seems the purpose of the thread is "Testing audiophile claims and myths". I can certainly help with that. But I'm not sure I can help you, unless you can communicate clearly and not mix up the people with whom you're interacting.

You seem to have me mixed up with someone else:
1-What loads of theories have I thrown on the table?
2-When did you, or anyone, ask me to say name two dacs that sound different to human ears? Why ask me?
3-If you never ask me anything, why would you expect more than crickets to your non-existent question?
4-What are you talking about? Why ask me about whatever you tried to say?


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Nevermind. You haven't followed the thread right, like you said yourself. Wonderful to have you onboard! Thanks for the insight in the thread you haven't been following. 
Can I perhaps fill you in on some stuff that I haven't been following as well?


----------



## KeithEmo

Exactly.

The list of tests that are now "most commonly used" has evolved over time - based on being simple to perform, well understood, and appropriate to the equipment being measured.
Frequency response, THD, IMD, and S/N, usually measured using steady state sine waves, happen to work very well for characterizing the performance of analog amplifiers.
However, with digital equipment, and especially with equipment that converts between different things (like DACs), those tests simply don't cover even all the likely variations.
(For example, the sidebands created by jitter, and most other digital artifacts, are _NOT_ harmonically related to the content, so the audibility standards for THD do not apply.)

Unfortunately, we humans have a tendency to continue to use the tests we are most familiar with, and understand the best.
In addition to that, most common test equipment is designed to perform the tests we use the most often, and its ability to perform less well known tests may be limited..
(Even though the Audio Precision test set used by most audio equipment manufacturers can perform hundreds of different tests - most folks stick to the same four or five "standards".)
Together, this can make it very difficult to perform other tests, and to interpret the results.

A good analogy would be to compare measuring the performance of electric cars using the metrics commonly used for gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Not only are different metrics more appropriate, but even the results of well known metrics need to be interpreted differently.
(For example, gasoline may be slightly denser when cold, but most batteries experience significant performance variations between warm and cold conditions.
The ambient temperature also affects the charging and discharge efficiency of many types of batteries - and some far more than others.
Therefore, if you're testing the "driving range" or "charge time" of an electric car, you really should do so at several different ambient temperatures.)



Zapp_Fan said:


> Most commonly USED audio measurements don't identify non-linear distortion very well or at all - meaning something that doesn't vary in direct, linear (i.e. a constant ratio) proportion to either the frequency or amplitude of the input signal.  It's not captured well or at all by THD measurements produced with sweeps, it's not captured at all by impulse response or frequency response measurements.
> 
> Among the commonly known measurements, this stuff certainly CAN be measured if you're looking for them, but it can be hard to know whether nonlinear effects show up in a given measurement or not, unless the author tells you so.
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

^ Fundamentally, a "measurement" is just having one thing interact with another thing and recording the resulting observations.  There is no finite set of such interactions (measurements) which is guaranteed to tell you everything you might want to know about the thing being "measured."

Think of the human body.  There are a huge number of potential measurements (including "tests") which can be performed, but even doing thousands of such measurements won't necessarily completely characterize the state of a human body.  Sometimes docs will do lots of such measurements and results come out "normal," despite the patient clearly experiencing something being not normal.  And sometimes particular measurements come out not normal, but those abnormalities don't explain the particular ways the patient feels not normal.

On top of all of this, there are issues like measurement error, changes over time in the thing being measured, changes over time in the measuring device (e.g., ears/brain), etc.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Nevermind. You haven't followed the thread right, like you said yourself. Wonderful to have you onboard! Thanks for the insight in the thread you haven't been following.
> Can I perhaps fill you in on some stuff that I haven't been following as well?


Saying I've read 1% was a tongue in cheek attempt at humor. Ok, failed.
I've read the first post completely a couple of times, a few of the early posts, and I've been reading it off and on most of this year. How about you? Have you followed it substantially more?
I wonder who, if anyone, has followed the thread for 8 and a half years and read most or all of the 10121 posts to date. Is that what you meant by following the thread?
I responded specifically and directly to @Jaywalk3r, and you seemed to attack my post. What's up with that?
Feel free to fill me in on whatever you want... if you know who I am!


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

SoundAndMotion said:


> Saying I've read 1% was a tongue in cheek attempt at humor. Ok, failed.
> I've read the first post completely a couple of times, a few of the early posts, and I've been reading it off and on most of this year. How about you? Have you followed it substantially more?
> I wonder who, if anyone, has followed the thread for 8 and a half years and read most or all of the 10121 posts to date. Is that what you meant by following the thread?
> I responded specifically and directly to @Jaywalk3r, and you seemed to attack my post. What's up with that?
> Feel free to fill me in on whatever you want... if you know who I am!


You are a human being! That's my official guess...like me and most of the other members on here.
I have not been following this thread for over 8 years but I've read through it all - mostly because I am not a science buff or an electrical engineer. I wanted to learn about the gear I use to listen to music and how best to upgrade or indeed if an upgrade was possible.
My post was not an attack on you and I'm sorry if it reads like that. I am just tired of wading through the same ol same ol. 
I am a human being that loves music. This thread should preferably concern itself with tests that make sense to humans ie tests that lead us down the road to better sound quality, yet it seems like we always end up in the twilight zone, where inadible stuff suddenly is important to the average Joe and his listening rig.
I have tried a multitude of blindtests on dacs and amps and they all end up the same. Everything sounds the same once the volume is matched and you can't see what's playing. Testing these things can be very humbling - especially if one has used a lot of cash on the gizmos.
I am sure that most of these devices are different and measure differently, but the machines that do the measuring are not the ones enjoying the music.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 31, 2018)

SoundAndMotion said:


> *Statistical methods can't fix flawed experimental methods.*



Tell us about how you conducted your last listening test! What were you testing and what did you find out? Have you found digital home audio equipment that sounds clearly different? If so, I am very interested.



Phronesis said:


> What's "inaudible" and how that's to be determined are the very questions that we're trying to answer.



Tell us about how you conducted your last listening test! What were you testing and what did you find out? Have you found digital home audio equipment that sounds clearly different? If so, I am very interested.



Phronesis said:


> The post was directed to bigshot, in reference to his not hearing differences in his own testing.  And I wasn’t talking about intentionally failing a test, I was talking about being subconsciously biased towards not hearing a difference.



I'm looking for clear differences, I don't need to figure out the bleeding edge of hearing when I compare audio equipment. If a frequency response is within the tolerances of my hearing, I don't care if it's .5dB one way or the other. When I listen to a CD in my living room, that small of a difference doesn't matter.

Bias usually affects subtle differences, not obvious ones. It plays on ambiguity. You can't be biased enough to see red as blue. But you can easily be biased enough to look at two blues and think one of them looks a tiny bit different than the other, even if it doesn't. But if someone has an investment in a particular outcome (business or financial or ego or expected rewards), bias can affect decision making in bigger ways. If someone is going to get fired if that blue isn't blue enough, they are going to see what they want to see. In that kind of situation people can turn black into white in their head. Bias is MUCH more of an issue with expressing desires and preferences than it is for expressing no preference. Turning that  argument back at me is just "I am rubber, you are glue..."

I'm not a scientist. I don't pretend to be one like some people around here do. I just use science to figure out how to make clear improvements in the sound quality of my home audio system. I'm looking for clear differences. If it gets down to a gnat hair's difference, for the purposes of listening to recorded music in the home, it doesn't matter. I have never found a clear difference in any DAC, player or amp that I have tested. I've applied more controls to my tests than I probably need to. But as OCD audiophiles know, it's always good to be a little bit over the line on the safe side.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I'm looking for clear differences, I don't need to figure out the bleeding edge of hearing when I compare audio equipment. If a frequency response is within the tolerances of my hearing, I don't care if it's .5dB one way or the other. When I listen to a CD in my living room, that small of a difference doesn't matter.
> 
> Bias affects subtle differences, not big ones. You can't be biased enough to see red as blue. But you can be biased enough to look at two blues and think one of them looks a tiny bit different than the other, even if it doesn't. Bias is MUCH more of an issue with expressing preferences than it is for expressing no preference. That argument is just "I am rubber, you are glue..."
> 
> I'm not a scientist. I don't pretend to be one like some people around here do. I just use science to figure out how to make clear improvements in the sound quality of my home audio system. I'm looking for clear differences. If it gets down to a gnat hair's difference, for the purposes of listening to recorded music in the home, it doesn't matter. I have never found a clear difference in any DAC, player or amp that I have tested. I've applied more controls to my tests than I probably need to. But as OCD audiophiles know, it's always good to be a little bit over the line on the safe side.



Then what's the point of participating in these Sound Science discussions?  You can just pick any DAC, player, and amp, and try headphones to pick some that you like (blind testing not typically possible with headphones, nor instant switching, and matching music segments takes some effort too).  If you're talking about speakers and room acoustics, then yes, that's complicated stuff where science is helpful, and much has already been written about those topics by real experts.  But this is head-fi, not speaker-fi.

Seems to me that you're here because you've made up your mind on many of these questions, and you like debating with anyone who disagrees with your point of view as a matter of 'sport'.  That's an ideological motive, not an inquisitive and open-minded scientific one.


----------



## bigshot

FX5K said:


> For example, I have a WA22 which in combination with my AKG K812 produces a barely audible transformer-hum. Choosing to disregard it could lead to listening to higher volumes. But here is a decision is involved which may lead to a biased result. (whereas using a Focal Utopia with my WA22 makes it impossible to disregard the hum...)



A test isn't just an abstract test. You're trying to check a hypothesis, which for me is "Does this component perform transparently within my intended use." If the transformer hum is inaudible at the volume levels I plan to play my music at, then it doesn't matter. If I plan to listen to music loud, then it does. Considering intended use is important. You can prove that a fork makes a lousy spoon, but it doesn't have to be a spoon. The problem is a lot of people go to extremes, trying to eliminate every trace of noise down to absurd levels. The audiophile market encourages this. That is a waste of energy and money.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 31, 2018)

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I would venture that most folks actually reading this thread are able to spot who is providing real life information based on experiments and decades of experience over the few who come here to look for blindspots and loopholes that they themselves don't evwn understand.



There could be a great study on bias right here in this forum. I see the same sorts of arguments over and over...

1) Either your equipment sucks or you are deaf.
2) You aren't scientific enough.
3) You can't know everything so you can't know anything
4) Somewhere in the world this anomaly might exist, so you can't generalize until you've checked every piece of equipment in the world
5) Repeating the same misconception over and over insisting it's true
6) My opinion is just as valid as your opinion. It doesn't matter that my opinion is a subjective impression and you actually put some controls on and did a test.
7) Human perception is fallible, so it's impossible to test anything with listening tests
8) There are differences in sound that can't be measured. I don't know what they are, but I believe they exist
9) Measured differences, no matter how small can still have an audible effect. Better numbers always means better sound quality.

The irony is this is a home audio forum. In theory we are all looking to improve the sound of our stereo systems. But very few people are discussing that. Most people are defending their preconceived notions and biases to the death. If our purpose was to solve problems, we would be working on that. We wouldn't criticize other people's tests. We would do better tests ourselves to come up with more accurate results and a more effective way to achieve improvements.

When I take my experience and make a recommendation... for instance to say, transducers are much more important than electronics, or to say good speakers give a more dimensional soundstage than headphones do, or to say cables don't matter... it shouldn't make people mad. I'm simply stating my opinion and giving supporting arguments. When people get mad and start resorting to ad hominem attacks or logical fallacies, that is a drop dead red flag for bias. Protecting their ego is more important than the truth.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! Prove me wrong. Do a controlled test and determine that there is a DAC that is in spec and sounds night and day different than another DAC. Help me verify your findings and I will be your best friend. I am here to solve problems. I don't do that by pumping myself up. I want to learn. That's how I got as far as I have... I listened to people who had walked the walk and could back up their opinions I learned from them. I've done 180 turnarounds on things when I figured out the truth. I wasn't born knowing the stuff I know. If there really is a DAC that sounds clearly colored, I want to know about it so I can let people know about it. I won't say every DAC I've ever had experience with sounds the same any more. I promise!


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


> Tell us about how you conducted your last listening test! What were you testing and what did you find out? Have you found digital home audio equipment that sounds clearly different? If so, I am very interested.


I seriously doubt the sincerity of your interest. I assume you have already pigeon-holed me in one of your simplistic bins, but whatever. I'll give you a mini-response now, and if there is further interest, I'll expand tomorrow (it's Halloween, and the kiddie's keep buzzing).

I haven't done unisensory tests for a long time; I do multisensory integration tests. I'm interested in how (or if) a unified percept is created, particularly when there are small sensory conflicts (i.e. the senses don't match). We don't use home audio equipment at work. We use off-the-shelf computers, but pretty much all of the rest is purpose-built. I doubt you want a whole methods section, but I typically use two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) responses, with adaptive (Bayesian) stimuli or the method of constant stimuli. The stimuli are calibrated and I always control the parameters of interest (obviously!).

Buying home audio for myself has included a hodgepodge of methods that have evolved over the decades, but the dominant factors have been pragmatic, not idealistic. I haven't done critical listening for several years. I enjoy music from the various incarnations of my home systems, my standard factory car systems, and even my clock radio. I appreciate and like better sound, but I listen to whatever I have nearby.

I don't care how people choose their own systems, as long as they're happy. I help when/if I can. I know how to do meaningful tests. I do care when people spread misinformation, or engage in "Goldilocks-science": not too good, not too bad, their own definition of what's just right, and then act like that's right for everyone.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Bias is everything and people seem to forget just how easily our minds are fooled or merely 'let themselves go'.
I remember one night after far too much frivolous activities with beer and snaps at the frontwheel, it quickly went downhill after a couple of pokes on the ol buddha. What I didn't expect was the music experience I had when I got home. Lying there in bed with these 40$ earbuds playing Lisa Gerrard and Klaus Schulze into my ears I could swear I was listening to a pair of hd800. My whole face was numb yet at the same time my mind was superquick and perceptive, so it ponied out in every far reaching corner of the music almost touching individual vibrations of air. The soundfield was enormous - like speakers in a room huge. It was magical.
I actually come very close to duplicating the experience in everyday life but prefer to stay off the booze.
Most of all it taught me about the importance of one's frame of mind and how easily the music opens up if you are positive (paying big bucks for something that looks gorgeous should preferably permeat positive vibes in the consumer methinks).
If you can't feel the headphone and don't think about it and only listen to the music, then the sky's the limit in terms of soundstage, imaging and all the other words people come up with. 
Even in everyday listening seances I can increase the experience just by listening more intently...which is why most new headphones sound great! They make you listen more intently.
'It's all you honey! 
And you're marvelous!!!'


----------



## bigshot (Oct 31, 2018)

SoundAndMotion said:


> I wonder who, if anyone, has followed the thread for 8 and a half years and read most or all of the 10121 posts to date.











SoundAndMotion said:


> Buying home audio for myself has included a hodgepodge of methods that have evolved over the decades, but the dominant factors have been pragmatic, not idealistic. I haven't done critical listening for several years. I enjoy music from the various incarnations of my home systems, my standard factory car systems, and even my clock radio. I appreciate and like better sound, but I listen to whatever I have nearby.



Well, that certainly makes it very easy for you to choose audio equipment. That's fine. You're not apt to get swindled by false claims that way. You're very fortunate in that regard, and I'm sure it saves you a lot of money compared to other people in Head Fi. I'm very practical too. I try to optimize my system to make it sound as good as I can. I've been working on it for over thirty years now, and I've come a long way. I like to make sure the changes I make are improvements, not just change for change's sake. That can be tough because there's an awful lot of bad advice out there. I try to sift through that and find the wheat among the chaff. I do that in practical common sense ways. You don't need to do listening tests. It helps me to do them with basic controls. Same practicality, just a different goal, that's all.



Phronesis said:


> Seems to me that you're here because you've made up your mind on many of these questions, and you like debating with anyone who disagrees with your point of view as a matter of 'sport'.



I'll let you in on a little secret... when I am discussing things with you, I'm not doing it for your benefit. I already know that you've built up an impenetrable fortress of excuses. I'm speaking past you for the benefit of the lurkers. I regularly see my posts come up in Google searches. I get PMs from people who never post publicly all the time. Our discussions get quoted in other forums. I'm being judged. You're being judged. We all are. The people who post in Sound Science aren't the important ones. The ones who read Sound Science are.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


>


Good boy! I'm impressed. Come by and I'll give you a bag of treats.


----------



## bigshot

Only if you're handing out Snickers!


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


> Only if you're handing out Snickers!


My wife made cute little Halloween bags (with jack-o-lanterns on them) filled a variety... I think one mini-Snickers each. You can have 2... I think the kids have stopped coming.


----------



## bigshot

I get hundreds of kids here in my neighborhood. I'm handing out Snickers so if there are any left over I get them!


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I'll let you in on a little secret... when I am discussing things with you, I'm not doing it for your benefit. I already know that you've built up an impenetrable fortress of excuses. I'm speaking past you for the benefit of the lurkers. I regularly see my posts come up in Google searches. I get PMs from people who never post publicly all the time. Our discussions get quoted in other forums. I'm being judged. You're being judged. We all are. The people who post in Sound Science aren't the important ones. The ones who read Sound Science are.



That's then part of the problem.  You write because you think you have things figured out, and want to make an impression on a presumed audience, rather than engaging in sincere dialogue with people in this forum, open to the possibility that you might learn something.

Thanks for letting me know, I'll try to remember not to interact with you going forward.


----------



## bigshot

It really isn't necessary for you to interact with me at all if you don't want to.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

This goes for everyone who has participated here:

We have unqualified & unfit individuals in our highest echelons of national government, haters mailing explosives, shooting up places of worship, and stirring unprecedented levels of division in this country.  The global political atmosphere and global economy are less stable than ever, thanks to the words and actions of one person's mouth.

And you all are bickering and threatening not to talk to each other over what part(s) of an audio reproduction chain have what infinitesimal impact on the sound of something??

Pathetic.

Just.

F*cking.

Pathetic!


----------



## bigshot

Ha Ha Ha! Happy Halloween to you!


----------



## castleofargh

TheSonicTruth said:


> This goes for everyone who has participated here:
> 
> We have unqualified & unfit individuals in our highest echelons of national government, haters mailing explosives, shooting up places of worship, and stirring unprecedented levels of division in this country.  The global political atmosphere and global economy are less stable than ever, thanks to the words and actions of one person's mouth.
> 
> ...


this tantrum was presented to you by the one and only Don Quixote de la Remastering, who once again forgot to look in the mirror before saying bloody Mary 3 times and realizing the irony and arrogance of his post in time.
I almost got spooked.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

TheSonicTruth said:


> This goes for everyone who has participated here:
> 
> We have unqualified & unfit individuals in our highest echelons of national government, haters mailing explosives, shooting up places of worship, and stirring unprecedented levels of division in this country.  The global political atmosphere and global economy are less stable than ever, thanks to the words and actions of one person's mouth.
> 
> ...


oh dear....you might want to lay off the snickers....blood sugars going wild


----------



## gregorio

How ridiculous do we want to get here? You haven't just ignored the accusation of misrepresentation and/or obfuscation and carried on regardless, you're actually now posting stuff that's EVEN MORE of a misrepresentation/obfuscation??! 



KeithEmo said:


> [1] A friend of mine who works with ultrasonic welders tells me that, if you are in the vicinity of very high SPL at certain ultrasonic frequencies, it actually causes your eyeballs to ache.(I'm sure that this is not only unpleasant, but actually unhealthy in the long term.)
> [2] So, let's assume that you were comparing two headphone amplifiers, using whatever headphones, source material, and methodology you prefer. And you were to find yourself absolutely positively _UNABLE_ to tell one from the other in any sort of short-term double-blind test. But "amplifier A" happens to have a very high noise floor above 25 kHz...... And, consistently and repeatably, listening to "amplifier A" for an hour always results in a splitting headache... But, listening to the same content, at the same level, for the same amount of time, with "amplifier B" does not...



1. Sounds plausible but what on earth has that got to do with listening to music recordings? Who listens to music through an ultrasonic welder?

2. So you're assuming that "amplifier A" happens to have a noise floor that outputs ridiculous amounts of 25+kHz. Why wouldn't it end up welding (melting) whatever tweeters you're using? What actual/existing amplifier could "amplifier A" actually be? Are talking about a broken/faulty amplifier or just inventing a hypothetical amplifier, along with a bunch of fallacies and misrepresented facts? For example:


KeithEmo said:


> [2a] Isn't that "an obvious and _reportable_ difference"?
> [2b] Clearly "amplifier A" is producing some sort of "unpleasant experience" that is related to "its audio output"...
> [2c] But would you classify that as "an audible difference"?
> [2d] (Personally, I would probably classify it as an "inaudible but significant additional effect or factor".... rather as we would classify a "side effect" when testing a drug.)
> [2e] However, and this is the point many people might consider significant, such effects can be "part of a listening _experience_".


OK then, now we've got a hypothetical, non-existent, completely unrealistic scenario, let's draw some fallacious conclusions from it 

2a. If we assume that unicorns exist and that drinking their blood will extend your life, wouldn't that too be "an obvious and reportable difference"! How can you have "an obvious and reportable difference" of something that doesn't exist?

2b. How can "Amplifier A" be "CLEARLY" producing any sort of "experience" if it doesn't exist?

2c. You're joking? How can you classify the output of an amp that doesn't exist as "an audible difference"?

2d. Would you really? I on the other hand would classify it as "ridiculous"! A hypothetical situation with a bunch of non-sequitur and correlation/causation fallacies thrown in for good measure!

2e. And what "many people" would they be? Scientists, audio professionals, anyone with a grasp of logic and some basic facts? Is this the political tactic of: The erroneous beliefs of Many (ignorant/manipulated) People trump the actual facts/science?


KeithEmo said:


> [1] For example, the study I posted about infrasonic noise was conducted in the context of potential health issues caused by wind farms. (Apparently windmills produce significant sound output in the 8 Hz to 10 Hz range - and some people living near them claim it causes sleep issues among other problems.)
> [2] What if it turns out that those 10 Hz notes are _perceptible_ even though they aren't "audibly noticeable"?
> [3] What if, when you listen to Jurassic Park on headphones, that big T Rex really _IS_ scarier if you include the 10 Hz components of his roar, because the components below 10 Hz affect the emotion centers of your brain?
> If that were true, then omitting those subsonic frequencies most certainly would affect "_your listening experience_" - even if you don't _hear_ them.
> [4] And I would say that question most certainly does fall under "audio science".



1. Firstly, as you say, that's the claims of "some people". Secondly, even IF those claims are true, what has that got to do with listening to music (or in fact any audio)?

2. And what if unicorns do exist and their blood does prolong life? How would that affect how audiophiles perceive their DAC?

3. What if it did affect "your listening experience"? OK, I'll seriously answer this one: If it did affect "your listening experience" then even if it were a positive "experience" then still it would be a lower fidelity one! If there is actually any 10Hz components in that T-Rex roar, they are there because no one noticed (heard or perceived) them and therefore didn't bother to filter them out! This is hardly surprising, as most theatrical systems are only useable down to 25Hz, although a few can go a bit lower (19Hz). At the time of Jurassic Park the sound system used to mix it was specified to steeply roll-off below 30Hz, so there was nothing being reproduced at 10Hz to start with!

4. Sure, we can perceive sound at the extremes of human frequency response but only some people, under some conditions and at incredibly high SPLs. SPLs which would render the listening of music (and even movie sound) a damaging/dangerous experience. After being in this forum for so long, you must know these basic facts, yet you still misrepresent them and use circular arguments/fallacies to justify them. For example, we have little/no direct scientific evidence that >20kHz content can or cannot be heard in musical content, because the SPLs required to show that it can would be dangerous/illegal/unethical! Due to this fact (and the scientific evidence we do have), the obvious and unavoidable conclusion is that it's inaudible (in ANY practical situation). However, you choose to misrepresent this fact and then use the fallacious and circular-logic that without direct evidence you can make-up any hypothesis you want and call it "scientific". Fine, there's no direct evidence about unicorn blood either, so I can make-up some hypothesis which questions how long it extends life by and call it "scientific" can I? Would you say "that question most certainly does fall under medical science" or is it utterly ridiculous?

G


----------



## Phronesis

G, I bet no one accuses you of being lazy!


----------



## bigshot

Ha! I'm not reading those replies any more, so that one snuck right by me. It's funny that my dumb one liner joke elicited so much wheel spinning! I wonder if he lays in bed at night dreaming up what ifs? And what if I wonder if he dreams up what ifs? And what if you wonder if I wonder if he dreams up what ifs? I think we need a kickstarter to figure this stuff out! My eyeballs are beginning to hurt. It must be cosmic rays embedded in my music!


----------



## KeithEmo (Nov 1, 2018)

The short answer to your question is....

Ridiculous _ENOUGH_ to demonstrate beyond any doubt that it is _POSSIBLE_ for an audio signal to produce effects beyond "an audible difference".

Ultrasonic welders do in fact exist.
And they do in fact produce a painful physical effect because of a simple ultrasonic sound output.
Therefore, anyone who claims that "it is impossible for an audio signal to produce effects that are not audible" is wrong.
More specifically, anybody who claims that "sound at 25 kHz cannot be perceived by a human being" is either a fool, a liar, or serious deluded.
(Feel free to hypothesize that we will never experience a level where it will be perceptible with typical home audio equipment... but admit that your hypothesis may turn out to be incorrect.)

There are many people who_ CLAIM_ that various equipment, even though it measures equal to other equipment inside the range of frequencies between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, is "more fatiguing" or "less pleasant to listen to".
And there are quite a few people on this forum who insist that "when dealing with audio signals, and their possible effects on our experience, any and all _POSSIBLE_ differences that might exist will be audible".
And, _SINCE WE HAVE NOW SHOWN BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT THAT IT IS *POSSIBLE* FOR AUDIO STIMULI TO PRODUCE DISTINCT RESULTS WHICH ARE NOT THEMSELVES AUDIBLE_....
We can no longer rule out that claim as "clearly impossible" or "obviously due to bias"

I don't know for sure exactly how much SPL would be required at 25 kHz to cause a headache... and, apparently, neither do you.
We can safely assume that, at -100 dB SPL, it will not be audible.
And, if I were to find out the output of one of those welders, we would have another data point of the SPL level where it IS clearly perceptible.
Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility that a certain amplifier and speakers can produce the required SPL.
(However, some Class D amplifiers operate at frequencies that low, and some piezoelectric tweeters, such as the ones commonly used on concert and PA gear, are quite capable of delivering very high SPLs at close range.)

The difference is - or should be - obvious.
As far as I know unicorns don't actually exist.
However, effects on our perception caused by infrasonic and ultrasonic stimuli clearly _DO_ exist.

(In effect, I've handed you your unicorn, and your response is: "But we don't have that sort of unicorn around here." )

Incidentally, while I don't doubt your statement about the 30 Hz cutoff on Jurassic Park, you might be interested to know that the noises used for the "Sensurround signal" on the original Earthquake movie was made by filtering pink noise with a bandpass of 16 hz to 63 Hz"... so not everyone uses the same limitations.



gregorio said:


> How ridiculous do we want to get here? You haven't just ignored the accusation of misrepresentation and/or obfuscation and carried on regardless, you're actually now posting stuff that's EVEN MORE of a misrepresentation/obfuscation??!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

It's amazing how easy it is to stray off the track. Let me know when we're talking about consumer audio equipment playing commercially recorded music in the home again. In the meantime, I'll go listen to this great new Ray Charles box set I just got.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> The short answer to your question is....
> 
> Ridiculous _ENOUGH_ to demonstrate beyond any doubt that it is _POSSIBLE_ for an audio signal to produce effects beyond "an audible difference".
> 
> ...



A key question here is whether sounds at say 25 kHz are transduced by the ear to produce auditory nerve signals going to the brain.  If so, it's possible that such sounds have an effect on what a listener experiences, without necessarily being consciously "audible" in the sense that the listener can report hearing the sound.  It wouldn't really surprise me if that was the case, but I don't know.


----------



## bigshot

I hear dead people.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> I don't know for sure exactly how much SPL would be required at 25 kHz to cause a headache... and, apparently, neither do you.
> We can safely assume that, at -100 dB SPL, it will not be audible.
> And, if I were to find out the output of one of those welders, we would have another data point of the SPL level where it IS clearly perceptible.
> Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility that a certain amplifier and speakers can produce the required SPL.



How determined are you to misrepresent the facts, and how ridiculous are you prepared to get?

Again, what have sonic welders got to do with DACs? Are your DACs so faulty they can be used as a sonic welder?

I'm not sure if anyone has ever demonstrated the ability to hear 25kHz. There was a scientific study many years ago where one subject detected 24kHz, at a level of about 115dB, if I remember correctly. In ANY piece of music the SPL at 25kHz is probably going to be 60dB or more below the peak SPL. So even if we accept your 100dB SPL 25kHz audibility figure and even if you could still hear it 60dB below the content in the audible band, you'd still have to play the music back at a peak level of 160dB SPL to stand even the faintest chance of hearing it (assuming you're student age with excellent hearing)! How many consumer amps/systems are capable of 160dBSPL ... more than the number of unicorns? Again, how ridiculous are you prepared to get?

I'm sure there are a small percentage of pieces with a high amount of 25kHz content, maybe 40dB below peak and you might even find an example or two of 25kHz only being 20-30dB below peak but if we take the evidence (115dBSPL to be even potentially audible) then we're still at a peak output level of 135-145dBSPL to reach that 115dB @ 25kHz level, clearly still a very dangerous level! You're free to make-up whatever definition of "audible" or "perceivable" you want but once we get to dangerous levels in order for something to even be only potentially audible, then I consider it to be inaudible!!

So yes, we can perceive sound outside the hearing range, even way outside the hearing range BUT it has to be at ridiculous high, damaging levels (which is how we perceive it). It would be trivially easy to perceive even 50kHz, at say 170dBSPL I'm sure your perception would register your eardrums rupturing! And how much commercial audio (music or film) contains massive levels outside the hearing range .... more than the number of unicorns?



KeithEmo said:


> Incidentally, while I don't doubt your statement about the 30 Hz cutoff on Jurassic Park, you might be interested to know that the noises used for the "Sensurround signal" on the original Earthquake movie was made by filtering pink noise with a bandpass of 16 hz to 63 Hz"... so not everyone uses the same limitations.



How many cinemas today (let alone at that time) can actually reproduce 16Hz ... more than the number of unicorns? And you were talking about 10Hz! Again, how ridiculous are you willing to get?

For anyone interested in the facts (rather than being ridiculous): The general rule in film is that anything below about 30Hz is counter productive, it requires massive amounts of energy to be even slightly audible. Even an octave higher (60Hz) requires about 1,000 times more energy to sound the same volume as something in the most sensitive band. This is why the THX specification requires the LF to roll-off below 30Hz. It's also why the peak energy levels in almost all music is between 80Hz-300Hz and therefore why 25kHz is always way below the 80-300Hz content.

G


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 1, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> A key question here is whether sounds at say 25 kHz are transduced by the ear to produce auditory nerve signals going to the brain.  If so, it's possible that such sounds have an effect on what a listener experiences, without necessarily being consciously "audible" in the sense that the listener can report hearing the sound.  It wouldn't really surprise me if that was the case, but I don't know.



The cochlea is a lot more complicated then say a simple transducer.  Even discounting how auditory nerve signals are picked up by the brain, there is physiological changes to the ear at any time.  The cochlea is filled with fluid (which has different ions and can change with change in health).  Sensory hair cells are arranged in a pattern such that mechanic forces first intervene high frequencies, and lowest frequencies are last (this is one of the reasons why losing high frequency hearing with age is common: and exasperated if listening at high volumes).  Just as other sensory organs, there are hair cells that carry stimuli to the brain, and there are others that come from the brain to effect the organ.  There's even an amplifier mechanism: where the cells coming from the brain can move and amplify signals to neighboring sensory cells (and is expressed by prestin protein levels).


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 1, 2018)

gregorio said:


> For anyone interested in the facts (rather than being ridiculous): The general rule in film is that anything below about 30Hz is counter productive, it requires massive amounts of energy to be even slightly audible. Even an octave higher (60Hz) requires about 1,000 times more energy to sound the same volume as something in the most sensitive band. This is why the THX specification requires the LF to roll-off below 30Hz. It's also why the peak energy levels in almost all music is between 80Hz-300Hz and therefore why 25kHz is always way below the 80-300Hz content.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-frequency_effects

But then there are LFE specs for 3-120HZ.  Now it is true that it takes a lot of amplification for 20HZ, but it's still seen as a valid effect for depicting explosions (for hearing lower frequencies as well as what can be felt).  It's interesting Wikipedia mentions the depth charge scene of U-571 as being a popular test for a subwoofer: I always found that was the best part of the movie (and does sound/feel pretty good with my speaker system).  I realize that's a different use then musical content...but many of us do listen to music and movies on the same system.  There are not many acoustic instruments that can go down to 20HZ...but with produced music, and those instruments that do...I like having a nice subwoofer.


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> How determined are you to misrepresent the facts, and how ridiculous are you prepared to get?
> 
> Again, what have sonic welders got to do with DACs? Are your DACs so faulty they can be used as a sonic welder?
> 
> ...




There’s also a more practical reason commercial theaters don’t want to reproduce anything lower than 30hz (or even slightly higher).  The shared walls of a multiplex aren’t capable of preventing a sound wave of that length from traversing the walls between the theaters and bass bleed isn’t going to make the customers watching another movie very happy.

There are some of us with home theaters capable of producing bass into the single digit hz range, but it takes a lot of power and subwoofers to accomplish it.   I’m flat down to 14hz, but that’s taken two subs with a max power consumption of 5000 W RMS (short burst) and almost 4” of XMAX per sub to get there.  It makes the recent trend (Disney in particular) of executing a 30hz cutoff on the BR audio track very frustrating.  This seemed to have started in the last year.

In room measurement graphs available if there are doubters


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> But then there are LFE specs for 3-120HZ.



How much is enough? That seems to be the question no one around here asks themselves. They're too busy trying to dream up extreme situations to justify the need for lower and lower frequencies. I honestly don't think you'd be able to tell the difference between a 3Hz rumble and a 10Hz rumble. Once it gets below the range where you can hear it as a musical note, and it gets down below the range where you can hear it as sound as opposed to just feeling it, you've crossed the line into the realm of not mattering any more. The only difference between 20Hz is whether it matches the resonant frequency of your living room or not. I doubt there are many movies that require much sound below 20Hz. In fact, I bet if they mixed it with that kind of extreme sub bass content, it would get kicked back for not meeting the specs for distribution.

If you can manage a balanced response from 20Hz to 20kHz, I salute you. Achieving that is a MUCH more useful goal than to reproduce the unbearable.


----------



## bfreedma (Nov 1, 2018)

bigshot said:


> How much is enough? That seems to be the question no one around here asks themselves. They're too busy trying to dream up extreme situations to justify the need for lower and lower frequencies. I honestly don't think you'd be able to tell the difference between a 3Hz rumble and a 10Hz rumble. Once it gets below the range where you can hear it as a musical note, and it gets down below the range where you can hear it as opposed to just feeling it, you've crossed the line into the realm of not mattering any more. I doubt there are many movies that requires sound below 20Hz. In fact, I bet if they mixed it with that kind of sub bass content, it would get kicked back for not meeting the specs for distribution.





Actually,  there are quite a few movies with significant content below 20hz though you are correct in saying that more of a tactile experience than an audible one.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...master-list-bass-movies-frequency-charts.html


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> How much is enough? That seems to be the question no one around here asks themselves. They're too busy trying to dream up extreme situations to justify the need for lower and lower frequencies. I honestly don't think you'd be able to tell the difference between a 3Hz rumble and a 10Hz rumble. Once it gets below the range where you can hear it as a musical note, and it gets down below the range where you can hear it as sound as opposed to just feeling it, you've crossed the line into the realm of not mattering any more. The only difference between 20Hz is whether it matches the resonant frequency of your living room or not. I doubt there are many movies that require much sound below 20Hz. In fact, I bet if they mixed it with that kind of extreme sub bass content, it would get kicked back for not meeting the specs for distribution.



Oh, just because the spec allows for such low frequencies, that doesn't mean a system has to conform to it.  I'd also be skeptical about the conditions or use for >10HZ subwoofers.  I think sound engineering for film would be quite interesting to learn: it has changed a lot now with Dolby Atmos and DTS X.  Engineers no longer have to mix specific channels, but tracks are spatially mapped as objects.  Soundtracks can be adaptable for venues that can't have the deepest bass or venues that do.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Nov 1, 2018)

bigshot said:


> How much is enough? That seems to be the question no one around here asks themselves. They're too busy trying to dream up extreme situations to justify the need for lower and lower frequencies. I honestly don't think you'd be able to tell the difference between a 3Hz rumble and a 10Hz rumble. Once it gets below the range where you can hear it as a musical note, and it gets down below the range where you can hear it as sound as opposed to just feeling it, you've crossed the line into the realm of not mattering any more. The only difference between 20Hz is whether it matches the resonant frequency of your living room or not. I doubt there are many movies that require much sound below 20Hz. In fact, I bet if they mixed it with that kind of extreme sub bass content, it would get kicked back for not meeting the specs for distribution.
> 
> If you can manage a balanced response from 20Hz to 20kHz, I salute you. Achieving that is a MUCH more useful goal than to reproduce the unbearable.


Agreed...room size,wavelengths,1/2 wavelengths ect become unreasonable exponentially at frequencies below 25hz or so.You need a great room to support 20hz....and a badass speaker setup.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> Actually,  there are quite a few movies with significant content below 20hz though you are correct in saying that more of a tactile experience than an audible one.



I know which ones they are because my dog hates them... Das Boot and Cabin in the Woods are her least favorite movies.



Glmoneydawg said:


> Ok i will return to lurking then....carry on gentlemen



Oh no, Dawg. You are the good kind of crazy!


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> How much is enough? That seems to be the question no one around here asks themselves. They're too busy trying to dream up extreme situations to justify the need for lower and lower frequencies. I honestly don't think you'd be able to tell the difference between a 3Hz rumble and a 10Hz rumble. Once it gets below the range where you can hear it as a musical note, and it gets down below the range where you can hear it as sound as opposed to just feeling it, you've crossed the line into the realm of not mattering any more. The only difference between 20Hz is whether it matches the resonant frequency of your living room or not. I doubt there are many movies that require much sound below 20Hz. In fact, I bet if they mixed it with that kind of extreme sub bass content, it would get kicked back for not meeting the specs for distribution.
> 
> If you can manage a balanced response from 20Hz to 20kHz, I salute you. Achieving that is a MUCH more useful goal than to reproduce the unbearable.




+/- 3db 20Hz to 20Khz.   This took time, a good deal of tuning using measurements, and running Audyssey XT32 Pro.  Graph is smoothed at 1/12th octave.  I could cheat and give you a much flatter line with less smoothing .(looking at you, Sennheiser HD800 response graphs)  This is in a mixed use room with no dedicated audio treatments.  Just pointing out that reasonably flat response is attainable if you're willing to put in the time and effort and the room isn't a complete acoustical disaster area.







Subwoofer only measurement.  Note the absence of the dip at 80Hz due to cancellation at the crossover point.  The top graph shows the cancellation, though much less then there was before reducing it by slightly altering the subwoofer distances set in the AVR as measured by audyssey.  The improvement in the bass response is due to small changes in subwoofer location to further optimize response after the top measurement was taken.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> I know which ones they are because my dog hates them... Das Boot and Cabin in the Woods are her least favorite movies.



How can any animal hate Das Boot  I even have the original German mini-series on BD.  Looking forward to a new sequel that's supposed to be coming out on German TV this month.  But if Das Boot's bass is to bad, your dog shouldn't be around for U-571's surface depth charge scene.


----------



## bfreedma

Davesrose said:


> How can any animal hate Das Boot  I even have the original German mini-series on BD.  Looking forward to a new sequel that's supposed to be coming out on German TV this month.  But if Das Boot's bass is to bad, your dog shouldn't be around for U-571's surface depth charge scene.




If you can reproduce it (I can't), Pulse (when the door is opened to the server room) and Flight of the Phoenix (plane barrel roll) both have single digit Hz bass.  I have a friend with an insane dedicated home theater.  16 18" custom built subs and and an infinite baffle setup in the attic above his HT and those scenes are quite an experience.  Seen more than a few people get physically ill when he's demoing them.  Still waiting to hear/feel a Thigpen rotary sub - that goes down to 1Hz.  There are six installed in a building in Niagara Falls in an attempt to recreate the experience of being at the actual Falls.  Want to check that out one of these days.


----------



## Phronesis

Davesrose said:


> The cochlea is a lot more complicated then say a simple transducer.  Even discounting how auditory nerve signals are picked up by the brain, there is physiological changes to the ear at any time.  The cochlea is filled with fluid (which has different ions and can change with change in health).  Sensory hair cells are arranged in a pattern such that mechanic forces first intervene high frequencies, and lowest frequencies are last (this is one of the reasons why losing high frequency hearing with age is common: and exasperated if listening at high volumes).  Just as other sensory organs, there are hair cells that carry stimuli to the brain, and there are others that come from the brain to effect the organ.  There's even an amplifier mechanism: where the cells coming from the brain can move and amplify signals to neighboring sensory cells (and is expressed by prestin protein levels).



Understood that the ear is a fairly complex transducer.  But my question remains: do higher frequencies like 25 kHz produce any auditory nerve signals?  If not, such sounds can only influence the brain via pathways other than the ears.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I know which ones they are because my dog hates them... Das Boot and Cabin in the Woods are her least favorite movies.
> 
> The sound - movies included - is NOT meant to please 100 % of the time. Das Boot is so good in no small measure due to the remastered sound - the sound of explosions, bullets flying JUST past and hitting nearby metal are scary as hell - IF reproduced on good headphones or well adjusted surround system. How can you tell if the reproduction is good - or not ? If it is right, when the first bullets start hitting YOUR close surrounding ( some scenes are filmed as viewed trough the sailors'/submariners' eyes ) - you WIILL - duck ( or not, if the system is not up to snuff ).
> 
> ...


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Phronesis said:


> Understood that the ear is a fairly complex transducer.  But my question remains: do higher frequencies like 25 kHz produce any auditory nerve signals?  If not, such sounds can only influence the brain via pathways other than the ears.


Are you perhaps suggesting the epidermis  is capable of sensing high frequencies?It would certainly explain a major difference between headphone and speaker listening.It is almost certainly true at low frequencies so why not hi frequencies ?


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 1, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Understood that the ear is a fairly complex transducer.  But my question remains: do higher frequencies like 25 kHz produce any auditory nerve signals?  If not, such sounds can only influence the brain via pathways other than the ears.



Well my point was that it really can't be thought of as a transducer.  Apparently, under "ideal laboratory conditions" there have been outliers that have been able to hear 26khz.  But as I pointed out with the description of the cochlea: physiologically it's always in a state of change (and can also contribute to why perceptions always fluctuate).

https://asa.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1121/1.2761883


----------



## Phronesis

Davesrose said:


> Well my point was that it really can't be thought of as a transducer.  Apparently, under "ideal laboratory conditions" there have been outliers that have been able to hear 26khz.  But as I pointed out with the description of the cochlea: physiologically it's always in a state of change (and can also contribute to why perceptions always fluctuate).
> 
> https://asa.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1121/1.2761883



A transducer converts energy from one form to another.  Since the ear converts acoustic mechanical energy (sound waves) to nerve signals, I think it's clearly a transducer, though quite different from a microphone.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2018)

I just want to make it clear that it says I said that and I didn't... I didn't even read it.

Great work bfreedma. I know how much work you've put in to get it to that state. I'm not sure many other people in this thread know what they're looking at when they see that measurement though. do you do off axis measurements too? I'd be interested how you deal with that. I have to make fairly large compromises to even it out across the room. I often have as many as six or eight people spread around the room.


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 1, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> A transducer converts energy from one form to another.  Since the ear converts acoustic mechanical energy (sound waves) to nerve signals, I think it's clearly a transducer, though quite different from a microphone.



Did you read my overview on the cochlea?  It doesn't just convert acoustic energy to sensory nerve signals (it also has motor cells which amplify sensory signals for example).  There's other factors on how sensory nerve cells are innervated as well.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 1, 2018)

Apropos of nothing, the ear is a "remarkably complex _transducer_." (Emphasis in original.) FWIW. Also most guinea pigs hear up to about 40 khz, cats 32 khz, humans 16 khz (sorry), and squirrel monkeys kind of top out at 7 khz. Though humans are generally thought to top out at about 20 khz in some cases, and I guess a few humans sense 25 khz and then get migraines.

Are we happy now? Yes, I am just stating this with no supporting evidence. I'm just making it up. Honest.

http://hep.physics.indiana.edu/~rickv/Ear.html

https://health.uconn.edu/meds5377/w...7/07/PALMER-Auditory-Nerve-Physiology-ARP.pdf


----------



## bigshot

Where do guinea pigs get their headphones from? I'm sure a lot of people around here think they need them.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> Where do guinea pigs get their headphones from? I'm sure a lot of people around here think they need them.



They must only buy those headphones that have specs for going up to 40khz


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Steve999 said:


> Apropos of nothing, the ear is a "remarkably complex _transducer_." (Emphasis in original.) FWIW. Also most guinea pigs hear up to about 40 khz, cats 32 khz, humans 16 khz (sorry), and squirrel monkeys kind of top out at 7 khz. Though humans are generally thought to top out at about 20 khz in some cases, and I guess a few humans sense 25 khz and then get migraines.
> 
> Are we happy now? Yes, I am just stating this with no supporting evidence. I'm just making it up. Honest.
> 
> ...


I am shocked by your squirrel monkey specs and call for a full on scientific method study with evidence/proof!!!My squirrel monkey says 18khz all day long!!!....we feel like you may be making this spec up!!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Where do guinea pigs get their headphones from? I'm sure a lot of people around here think they need them.


Earbuds obviously .....headphones would be silly


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 1, 2018)

That's totally awesome.

Would I need a specific variety of receiver to put in the effort to do something like that? I just have a 5.1 system with one nice subwoofer, I'm pretty confident in the quality of my _transducers. _But is there a general technique to go from using my ears and a decibel meter (as I do now) to attaining the results you get? Do I need "Audyssey XT32 Pro" in the receiver and if so would it just be over my head anyway?

Do you apply the Fletcher-Munson curve post-EQ at lower volumes?



bfreedma said:


> +/- 3db 20Hz to 20Khz.   This took time, a good deal of tuning using measurements, and running Audyssey XT32 Pro.  Graph is smoothed at 1/12th octave.  I could cheat and give you a much flatter line with less smoothing .(looking at you, Sennheiser HD800 response graphs)  This is in a mixed use room with no dedicated audio treatments.  Just pointing out that reasonably flat response is attainable if you're willing to put in the time and effort and the room isn't a complete acoustical disaster area.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bfreedma

I have serious doubt that any headphone is reproducing significant sub 20hz sound audibly, and I’m even more doubtful that any headphone is reproducing tactile response for frequencies that low.  The power and more importantly, driver extension/ ability to move air isn’t there in dynamics.  My experience with test tones on planers is similar.  Headphones also can’t leverage cabin pressure to enhance the perception of very low bass.

Most people I work with when calibrating their audio systems are not good at estimating what low frequencies they are hearing.  When hearing 50-60Hz, they typically think it’s sub 20Hz.

BTW, the primary reason race cars sound different from their road legal counterpart is the exhaust system (or general lack of one) rather than the engine itself.  Straight unmuffled freeflow exhaust on race cars makes for some pretty impressive audio.


----------



## Steve999

No, no, your squirrel monkey is right, I was wrong. I guess science has moved along. He probably gets about 32 khz no sweat.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.a.20117 



Glmoneydawg said:


> I am shocked by your squirrel monkey specs and call for a full on scientific method study with evidence/proof!!!My squirrel monkey says 18khz all day long!!!....we feel like you may be making this spec up!!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I just want to make it clear that it says I said that and I didn't... I didn't even read it.
> 
> Great work bfreedma. I know how much work you've put in to get it to that state. I'm not sure many other people in this thread know what they're looking at when they see that measurement though. do you do off axis measurements too? I'd be interested how you deal with that. I have to make fairly large compromises to even it out across the room. I often have as many as six or eight people spread around the room.


Can't please everyone bud....the other people can try and get perfect sound at their house lol.Diagonal placement seems to take the room out the equation to a certain extent...but its your system!sounds like its its setup great ...enjoy it.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Steve999 said:


> No, no, your squirrel monkey is right, I was wrong. I guess science has moved along. He probably gets about 32 khz no sweat.
> 
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.a.20117


I was takin his word for it...i guess i owe him a banana.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I just want to make it clear that it says I said that and I didn't... I didn't even read it.
> 
> Great work bfreedma. I know how much work you've put in to get it to that state. I'm not sure many other people in this thread know what they're looking at when they see that measurement though. do you do off axis measurements too? I'd be interested how you deal with that. I have to make fairly large compromises to even it out across the room. I often have as many as six or eight people spread around the room.



Thanks for the compliment.  I’m somewhat fortunate in that my room doesn’t have massive problems I have to overcome, and the room is a rectangle, not a square.  I have taken off axis measurements - will see if I can find them and post.  If not, I should have time in the next week or so to take them again.  Obviously, they aren’t going to be as good as the ones I posted from the MLP, but from memory, most locations were at least acceptable until they were taken from more than a few feet outside of the front mains.   I definitely did a “selfish” calibration - was more focused on the response at the MLP, ie. my seat!

I also have some decay waterfalls I can post if you’re interested.


----------



## bfreedma

Steve999 said:


> That's totally awesome.
> 
> Would I need a specific variety of receiver to put in the effort to do something like that? I just have a 5.1 system with one nice subwoofer, I'm pretty confident in the quality of my _transducers. _But is there a general technique to go from using my ears and a decibel meter (as I do now) to attaining the results you get? Do I need "Audyssey XT32 Pro" in the receiver and if so would it just be over my head anyway?
> 
> Do you apply the Fletcher-Munson curve post-EQ at lower volumes?




Thanks!

Most receivers have some sort of built in auto EQ - what brand/model are you using?  There are also outboard solutions like the Mini-DSP if your AVR has a lower end room EQ system or none at all.  For better or worse, Audyssey has abandoned Pro in favor of a fairly competent smartphone based solution that works with XT32 and is much easier to use (anyone want to buy an Audyssey Pro Kit cheap).  If I was purchasing today, I’d probably look at an AVR with Dirac rather than Audyssey as it seems to do a better job of addressing bass correction, where the biggest impact is seen.  Bottom line for me is that any room eq solution is going to make significant improvement over no eq, just follow the directions carefully, particularly on mic placement when the room eq system does it's calibration runs.

I’m also a big believer in “trust but verify”, so having a measurement mic and software to validate results and further tune your 5.1 system is a good investment.  A few degrees of toe in or moving a subwoofer a few inches can have both incredibly good and incredibly bad impact on in room response.  REW is great software when combined with a calibrated microphone, but there is a fairly steep learning curve.  If you want something you can use out of the box without immersing yourself in the complexity of REW and the associated required knowledge of acoustics, look into the Omnimic system.  For around $300, you get a calibrated microphone that connects to a computer by USB, software that’s very easy to understand, and a disk chock full o test tones.  Add in a cheap microphone stand and most people will be getting meaningful and easy to understand measurements in 15 minutes.

I don’t usually apply Fletcher Munson at low levels, though I will use the AVR to raise the subwoofer output 3db or so at times.  Always adjust the sub via the receiver levels so you can return to the exact calibrated settings instead of trying to remember where the volume dial of the sub used to be set.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to PM so I don’t drag this thread too far off topic.  I know this probably sounds complicated, but it really isn’t that bad.  An afternoon and a little patience is probably all you need to get reasonably good results.  For the price of a fancy power cord, you can buy the omnimic and get real and measurable improvement.  I also find that working on my own system with measurement tools has been a great way to increase my understanding and knowledge of acoustics.  Seeing on screen the results of toeing in a speaker or adjusting the speaker distances within the AVR can be incredibly illuminating.


----------



## castleofargh

off topic:
I removed a few posts following some irrelevant and obviously forbidden political attack. please don't reply to such posts, just use the report function so they get dealt with sooner.


----------



## analogsurviver (Nov 2, 2018)

@bfreedma Congrats regarding your room measurements. You are quite correct in stating it was a "selfish" measurement/adjustment - no way to have it equally good for more than say - at best - two people. Move the measurement mike 4 inches - and you get , although still similar, definitely audibly different curve. Some herrendous peak(s) might pop out of nowhere with just a bit of unluck.

Regarding cars and noise they are making - exhaust does not make one iota difference among regular race 917 and 917-30 - turbo and some additional 500-800 BHP ( depending on turbo pressure settings ) do. But exhaust can make one hell of a difference; back in the day, when in F1 anything else than Ford Cosworth V8 engine was exotic to the max, everybody but Ferrari and Matra used the Cosworth. I remember how shocked I was listening to the Tyrell and Lotus cars - both using Cosworth - sounding so markedly different. Lotus with loud low frequency growl, Tyrell almost "inaudible" by comparison ( still loud, though...  ) . GP  of Austria in Zeltweg, around 1975 - with Jackie Stewart and Ronnie Peterson battling for the win.

Just checked - 1973, Ronnie won.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 2, 2018)

SoundAndMotion said:


> *Statistical methods can't fix flawed experimental methods.* You must know that!
> 
> You're either being disingenuous or you're not so bright... I strongly believe the former, not the latter. Any "data scientist" would understand that @Phronesis expresses concern about beta, erroneously failing to reject the null hypothesis (type II error), not alpha.
> 
> ...


To people in general:
When you have
1. a HiFi system treated with the best modern science has to offer in terms of room treatments* and digital room corrections, verily recreating recording studio conditions of fidelity in your home,
2. a Headphone system treated with the best modern science has to offer in terms of virtualization, through self-measured HRTF convolution, ALSO able to recreate recording studio conditions of fidelity right between your ears (I'm talking about close your ears and forget you're wearing headphones kind of realism)

THEN you have the right to accuse us of being sloppy in our science of what is further possible in terms of DACs costing more than a used car.

Because all of the above are possible for the price of DACs costing... roughly the price of a used pair of socks, and have been demonstrably responsible for more audio improvements than audio improvements worth greater than the national debt of all developed nations combined measured in terms of DAC purchases...

I do not see the point of entertaining complaints about the state of the art of audio science from way out in the frontiers between Antarctica and where there be dragons, when the people making the complaints are not familiar with the science available from their home town...

*I'd give the benefit of the doubt regarding passing on room treatments because of cost or WAF... in which case the whole laundry list above costs you less than what an "entry level" DAC goes for these days.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Nov 2, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> When you have
> 1. a HiFi system treated with the best modern science has to offer in terms of room treatments* and digital room corrections, verily recreating recording studio conditions of fidelity in your home,
> 2. a Headphone system treated with the best modern science has to offer in terms of virtualization, through self-measured HRTF convolution, ALSO able to recreate recording studio conditions of fidelity right between your ears (I'm talking about close your ears and forget you're wearing headphones kind of realism)
> 
> ...


a) I'll call out sloppy science when I see sloppy science. You don't know what I own. My possessions are irrelevant.
b) Is there anything in my post that disagrees? Did I mention price? Are you talking to me? I call out sloppy posting!


----------



## Phronesis

Joe Bloggs said:


> To people in general:
> When you have
> 1. a HiFi system treated with the best modern science has to offer in terms of room treatments* and digital room corrections, verily recreating recording studio conditions of fidelity in your home,
> 2. a Headphone system treated with the best modern science has to offer in terms of virtualization, through self-measured HRTF convolution, ALSO able to recreate recording studio conditions of fidelity right between your ears (I'm talking about close your ears and forget you're wearing headphones kind of realism)
> ...



The forum is supposed to be about science.   The science has a broad scope which includes both physics and psychological aspects, and exploring limits and extreme cases is part of science.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Some people here (certainly not all!) seem to be very tribal. They group all posts that they don't like as being from the other (enemy) tribe, and assume that any member of that tribe agrees with all posts from that tribe. They then lash out all their pent up anger about the enemy tribe on anyone they think is part of it. ...whether it makes sense or not.

I'm not in a tribe. If you knew me, you'd find we probably agree on more than we disagree. But I'll challenge friends and praise foes, when I think it's appropriate.

@Joe Bloggs @Kammerat Rebekka  I don't like answering for things I've never said!


----------



## gregorio (Nov 2, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> [1] But then there are LFE specs for 3-120HZ.
> [1a] Now it is true that it takes a lot of amplification for 20HZ, but it's still seen as a valid effect for depicting explosions (for hearing lower frequencies as well as what can be felt).
> [2] There are not many acoustic instruments that can go down to 20HZ...
> [2a] but with produced music, and those instruments that do...I like having a nice subwoofer.



1. Sure, the specs may include freqs down to 3Hz but no one deliberately goes that low.
1a. No! Assuming you're after a loud explosion, you would not deliberately use 20Hz. In fact, if you wanted a very loud explosion you'd probably remove (filter out) the very low freqs! This is logical if you think about it. If we had an explosion mainly centred at say 20Hz, assuming it could be accurately reproduced (which we don't!), then you'd be using up all your available headroom for a sound that would be heard as "quiet". BTW, a multiplex screen of say 400 seats is going to have (VERY roughly) in the region of 30,000 watts of sub power but even with that amount of LF power, at maximum level 20Hz is still relatively quiet. The same level but an octave or two higher will sound several/many times louder. As bfreedma mentions, many people misinterpret LF sound, thinking that something like 60Hz is much lower than it actually is. Generally, if we want a low powerful rumble, something that is felt as much as heard, we'd centre it (in the LFE channel) at around 60-80Hz, not 20Hz.

2. There are pretty much no acoustic instruments that can go down to 20Hz. The lowest note of any orchestral instrument is Pedal C (the Contra-bassoon, tuba and extended double bass) which equates to about 31Hz, but these lowest possible notes are very rarely employed. The lowest note of a bass (electric) guitar is E, 42Hz. The only exception I'm aware of is some church/cathedral pipe organs, some of which can go as low as 16Hz, but each pipe organ is custom built for the particular church and very few of them go below 20Hz.
2a. Obviously synths for example can go arbitrarily low but again, it's typically inadvisable to go much below about 40Hz. Some un-tuned perc instruments do produce content down to (and below) 20Hz, the orchestral bass drum for example and the kick drum in some pop/rock kits but it's effectively just irrelevant noise. The important/desired components of a kick drum for example are typically at about 100-140Hz and 1.2-1.8kHz (although this can be genre dependent), an orch bass drum would typically be somewhat lower but in both cases any content lower than 20Hz is undesirable.



bfreedma said:


> [1] There’s also a more practical reason commercial theaters don’t want to reproduce anything lower than 30hz (or even slightly higher). The shared walls of a multiplex aren’t capable of preventing a sound wave of that length from traversing the walls between the theaters and bass bleed isn’t going to make the customers watching another movie very happy.
> [2] There are some of us with home theaters capable of producing bass into the single digit hz range, but it takes a lot of power and subwoofers to accomplish it. I’m flat down to 14hz, but that’s taken two subs with a max power consumption of 5000 W RMS (short burst) and almost 4” of XMAX per sub to get there. [2a] It makes the recent trend (Disney in particular) of executing a 30hz cutoff on the BR audio track very frustrating. This seemed to have started in the last year.
> [3] Actually, there are quite a few movies with significant content below 20hz though you are correct in saying that more of a tactile experience than an audible one.



1. That's certainly a factor which contributes to the assumption during movie mixing that the reproduction of content below about 30Hz is highly unpredictable, sometimes/often to the point of it not being reproduced at all!

2. Your statement raises a few points: Firstly, that's a very impressive plot you have there, apparently better than some of the commercial film mix stages I've worked at. I say "apparently" because it depends on how it's been achieved, an equally flat-ish waterfall plot would be impressive indeed. Secondly, impressively flat is not necessarily what you should be trying to achieve (assuming the highest fidelity is the goal)! Theatrical dub/mix stages are not designed to be flat, they employ the "x-curve" (a can of worms) which I won't go into, except to mention that it rolls-off significantly for the front speakers below 30Hz. Additionally, the surround speakers/diffusers in a theatrical system typically roll-off below about 55Hz and are mixed 3dB higher. If you're reproducing those channels flat, then what you're outputting/hearing could be somewhat/significantly different from what the mixers (and director/producers/sound designers) heard or intended, although of course you might subjectively prefer it. Thirdly, the LFE channel is mixed 10dB lower (so needs raising by 10dB), although I'm sure you already know this. And lastly, there's typically no way of knowing what mix you're actually getting in a home cinema. Some films have their sound mixes re-versioned for consumer/home distribution and are somewhat compensated for the differences between consumer systems and theatrical systems, while others are not.
2a. I would say that trend is entirely sensible. There's typically nothing of any significance below 30Hz anyway, most consumers can't reproduce anything much below 30Hz and of those who can, the vast majority will be reproducing that content highly inaccurately, probably exciting undesirable room modes for example.

3. Containing sub 20Hz content and intending for it to be reproduced are two entirely different things! Again, dub stages are not designed to reproduce sub 20Hz content, the most commonly used dub stage subs go down to 25Hz or 19Hz/20Hz. If you are reproducing 14Hz then you're reproducing content that was not designed to be reproduced. It should be noted that virtually without exception, the content in the LFE channel, particularly the content below about 30-40Hz, is just noise, typically some sort of uneven broadband noise component, part of a "rumble" for example. Being somewhat broadband, it's going to cover a fairly wide range of freqs, including content below 20Hz, but as hearing sensitivity decreases with frequency, you''re going to be hearing/perceiving the higher freq components of that noise/sound. As the sub 20Hz content is not being reproduced in the mix stage (or by the cinemas playing the film) then it's typically just ignored and left there, unless it's eating up required headroom in which case we reduce/remove it. It should be noted that mixing film is entirely different to mixing music. The average music mix of a traditional rock/pop band uses 24 or so tracks/channels and contains a few hundred (or fewer) audio clips. Whereas a blockbuster film for example is likely to have up to about 1,000 channels and contain many tens of thousands, maybe even 100,000 or so, audio clips. It's just not practical to go through every channel and clip and spectrum analyse them all to find out exactly what freq content it contains. So many films do end up with significant content below 20Hz, not because it was put there deliberately or ever intended to be reproduced but simply because it didn't negatively affect the mix and so wasn't removed. I'm aware that there are some extreme home cinema enthusiasts and if they get pleasure reproducing content that was never intended to be reproduced, that's up to them.



Davesrose said:


> I think sound engineering for film would be quite interesting to learn: it has changed a lot now with Dolby Atmos and DTS X. Engineers no longer have to mix specific channels, but tracks are spatially mapped as objects. Soundtracks can be adaptable for venues that can't have the deepest bass or venues that do.



That's not really correct. With Dolby Atmos we still mix exactly as we always (since 5.1) have but we also have the option of assigning SOME channels as audio objects. It's not really possible or desirable to create a film mix entirely with audio objects, just some sounds/channels are assigned that way. For example, virtually all the reverb/acoustic info in a film is generated artificially during mixing, how would a reverb unit respond to the positioning of an audio object? It is possible but only to a limited extent and the reverb output itself cannot/should not really be assigned an audio object, only as a traditional mix (up to 9.1). Also, while there are some differences with regard to the bass specs of Dolby Atmos (the requirement for the surround channels to be bass managed for example), the main (screen) speakers, subs and LFE channel remain unchanged from 5.1/7.1. Dolby Atmos specifies full range, including the subs, as extending down to 40Hz btw.



Glmoneydawg said:


> Are you perhaps suggesting the epidermis is capable of sensing high frequencies?It would certainly explain a major difference between headphone and speaker listening.It is almost certainly true at low frequencies so why not hi frequencies ?



Theoretically there's no reason, in practice though we excite the physical sensation of low freqs by using very high SPLs (to which our ears are insensitive) using those Same SPLs at much higher freqs, where we are sensitive, would be deafeningly loud. At the very high/ultrasonic freq range we again have the severe loss of hearing sensitivity but we have a number of problems: Beyond bone conduction affecting brain waves (but not conscious perception) there's no evidence to suggest we can sense very high freqs through organs other than our ears, while there's overwhelming evidence that we can with very low freqs. Other problems include air absorption and diffusion of high freqs, the artistic desirability of large amounts of energy dedicated to very high freqs and of course the practical problem that tweeters on speakers are simply not designed to output high SPLs, as my colleague demonstrated, to our cost, when testing the high freq hearing response of a group of students.

G


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 2, 2018)

I just find it offensive and a complete waste of time when those who most like to challenge the audio science are for the most part those who never bothered to practice even a smidgen of it.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

No I have no idea what you own and couldn't care less. Ownership of audio equipment implies zero in the way of audio science practice.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Nov 2, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> I just find it offensive and a complete waste of time when those who most like to challenge the audio science are for the most part those who never bothered to practice even a smidgen of it.


Then you should have no problem with me. Or do you have some specific, unusual, non-dictionary definition of "audio science".


Joe Bloggs said:


> No I have no idea what you own and couldn't care less. Ownership of audio equipment implies zero in the way of audio science practice.


 YOU brought up ownership requirements for an allowance to post about sloppy science. I'm glad you don't care. That makes me happy.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 2, 2018)

Pray tell what these published audio science articles are.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Nov 2, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> Pray tell what these published science articles are.


They include threshold studies, studies of multi sensory integration (both physiological and perceptual) and noise analysis in sensory systems. They are published in refereed, high-impact journals.
I won't give you links, because I'm anonymous, for specific reasons. If you think I'm making this up, there's not a thing I can do to help you, other than to suggest you challenge _what I write here_, not my background. Maybe I'm one of Trump's 300 lb. hackers, which should make it_ trivially easy_ for you to rip apart my content. Just ignore my anonymous credentials as made-up.


----------



## Phronesis

Joe Bloggs said:


> Pray tell what these published audio science articles are.



If you're going to ask that, you're asking for someone's real name.  Perhaps you should present your credentials before asking that.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Phronesis said:


> If you're going to ask that, you're asking for someone's real name.  Perhaps you should present your credentials before asking that.


If we can't reference said published studies for reasons, why bring them up in the first place?


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Joe Bloggs said:


> If we can't reference said published studies for reasons, why bring them up in the first place?


There, are you happy? I edited my post. I'll just have to answer "those who never bothered to practice even a smidgen of it" (audio science), by saying I have, without proof. Happy? What qualifies you? Or better yet, don't answer, just stick to post content, not personal background.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 2, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> The forum is supposed to be about science.   The science has a broad scope which includes both physics and psychological aspects, and exploring limits and extreme cases is part of science.



Except anytime you guys make it sound reasonable to doubt the things you doubt in any but the most extreme frontier cases, ten audiophools walk away smugly satisfied with their bitperfect boutique NOS POS DACs selling for half a house powering "time coherent" single driver full range speakers feeling ever more certain that everything spoken by anyone in a science paper since Nyquist (inclusive) is complete rubbish.

Either that is the intention all along, or you guys are never taking sufficient account of how much the existing evidence (incomplete though it is) weighs against the things you guys would like to conjecture, when posting said conjectures.

I suppose I should give this up too.  Science-based building of audio systems will always be considered part of the lunatic fringe by the audio authorities that be.  Not that changing the status quo, impossible though that may be, necessarily benefits us:  if by a miracle audio science became the norm in the audio industry, the audio company powers that be would probably just find a way to sue things like REW and EqualizerAPO out of existence and charge us through the nose for what we enjoy for free right now.

So perhaps it is all for the best that the willfully ignorant stay that way. (not pointing at the present posting company.  I hope!)


----------



## Davesrose

gregorio said:


> 2. There are pretty much no acoustic instruments that can go down to 20Hz. The lowest note of any orchestral instrument is Pedal C (the Contra-bassoon, tuba and extended double bass) which equates to about 31Hz, but these lowest possible notes are very rarely employed. The lowest note of a bass (electric) guitar is E, 42Hz. The only exception I'm aware of is some church/cathedral pipe organs, some of which can go as low as 16Hz, but each pipe organ is custom built for the particular church and very few of them go below 20Hz.
> 2a. Obviously synths for example can go arbitrarily low but again, it's typically inadvisable to go much below about 40Hz. Some un-tuned perc instruments do produce content down to (and below) 20Hz, the orchestral bass drum for example and the kick drum in some pop/rock kits but it's effectively just irrelevant noise. The important/desired components of a kick drum for example are typically at about 100-140Hz and 1.2-1.8kHz (although this can be genre dependent), an orch bass drum would typically be somewhat lower but in both cases any content lower than 20Hz is undesirable.



Thank you for letting me know a sound engineer's perspective on reproduction of the sub-bass regions.  I was thinking of outliers like the pipe organ that have registers going below 20hz, and realize most fundamental tones are at higher registers.  As previously already brought up: even if our ears aren't as sensitive at 20hz, there's still been a push in cinema to have sub-bass for physical sensation (going back to "Sensaround").



gregorio said:


> That's not really correct. With Dolby Atmos we still mix exactly as we always (since 5.1) have but we also have the option of assigning SOME channels as audio objects. It's not really possible or desirable to create a film mix entirely with audio objects, just some sounds/channels are assigned that way. For example, virtually all the reverb/acoustic info in a film is generated artificially during mixing, how would a reverb unit respond to the positioning of an audio object? It is possible but only to a limited extent and the reverb output itself cannot/should not really be assigned an audio object, only as a traditional mix (up to 9.1). Also, while there are some differences with regard to the bass specs of Dolby Atmos (the requirement for the surround channels to be bass managed for example), the main (screen) speakers, subs and LFE channel remain unchanged from 5.1/7.1. Dolby Atmos specifies full range, including the subs, as extending down to 40Hz btw.



Well I see a white paper on Dolby Atmos stating a frequency range of 31.5-120hz +-3DB.  It can also be different with Cinema standards (which have had subwoofer tracks and not LFE).

https://hometheaterhifi.com/editorial/the-misunderstood-01-lfe-channel-in-51-digital-surround-sound/

LFE information is also set 10DB higher then other channels, and according to the sample RTA cinema graph, while LFE channel also rolls off at 30hz, it still has more DB after roll off then subwoofer.

With an Atmos track, isn't reverb handled as metadata?  It seems conflicting to encode reverb only in specific speaker channels, when the point of Atmos is to decode to different speaker configurations (from 34 speakers in cinema to 7.1 in home).  Do you have experience with Atmos?  I can see that Dolby would want to create software that interacts like previous surround schemes, but Dolby does advertise it as a fundamentally different technology:

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf

"In the case of the home theater, every sound in the mix is represented as an audio object. When you set up your Dolby Atmos enabled AVR, you inform your receiver how many speakers you have, what type of speakers they are (large, small, overhead, and/or Dolby Atmos enabled), and where they’re located. Armed with this information, a sophisticated processor in your AVR-----the Object Audio Renderer or OAR-----analyzes the positional metadata and scales each audio object for optimal playback through the connected speaker system."

If I'm taking Dolby for their word, everything is object based in home audio reproduction.  It also makes sense to me, as that would be a more accurate way of decoding (rely on the receiver, which has been calibrated for number of speakers and acoustics of your room).  In this white paper, Dolby does summarize the authoring process and how there's a conventional 9.1 "bed" of channels and then tools for specific surround objects (up to 118).  It would be interesting to see what information is being engineered on the 9.1 "bed" vs surround objects with current Hollywood movies...but it appears it's also scaled to object based for home use.


----------



## KeithEmo

There are always going to be exceptions and practical limitations... and there is also a two way relationship between what is used and what is available.

For example, the NTSC color space is actually rather limited, but, until recently, it was used for both monitors and as a video mastering standard.
Producers didn't use colors outside that range because home TVs couldn't reproduce it; manufacturers didn't bother to try to make TVs able to reproduce it because it was never used for home video production.
(That's why you simply never saw certain colors used in video - like bright saturated violet... not because we humans couldn't see them, but simply because of technical equipment limitations.)
However, now that the technology has changed, and the limits have moved outwards, we have both HDR content, and HDR TVs and projectors, both of which utilize a much wider color space and contrast range.
Furthermore, a lot of people actually consider the difference "obvious", and really wouldn't be willing to live without it now that it's available.

Likewise, nowadays we now often include synthetic sounds in music, which are created electronically or digitally.
So, yes, if those studies on wind farms find that 8 Hz tones actually can affect our emotions, we may someday see a song entitled "Emotion", where the entire first movement is underscored with an "audible subsonic" 8 Hz tone, intended to invoke feelings of dread in the audience.
And, at that point, you will be shopping for a new subwoofer that goes down to 5 Hz if you want to "properly reproduce it".

Now, I wouldn't take that as a serious shopping or design requirement today.
However, in five or ten years, it may be considered to be as normal as HDR is today.
Either way, as a matter of _sound science_, I would certainly say that it's worth considering.

However, as of now, everyone involved in sound production knows that most home systems really don't reproduce much below about 30 Hz very cleanly at loud levels, and so avoid including it.
And, yes, if you want to include "a really loud really low note" in a movie today, intended for home viewing, you're better off sticking to notes above 30 Hz or so - which most home subwoofers can actually play cleanly.
But......
I heard a demo several years ago at the Axxpona show.... they were playing a scene of a rocket taking off (I believe from Interstellar) in the Seaton subwoofer demo room.
In a room about 40 x 50 feet, they had 16 subwoofer cabinets, each with a pair of massive 15" drivers, and somewhere around 4kw of amplification (that's per cabinet - x 16).
And, yes, it was really impressive.....
You could actually feel the air move......
Now, personally, I probably wouldn't want to subject my living room to that..... but there are people who would.



gregorio said:


> 1. Sure, the specs may include freqs down to 3Hz but no one deliberately goes that low.
> 1a. No! Assuming you're after a loud explosion, you would not deliberately use 20Hz. In fact, if you wanted a very loud explosion you'd probably remove (filter out) the very low freqs! This is logical if you think about it. If we had an explosion mainly centred at say 20Hz, assuming it could be accurately reproduced (which we don't!), then you'd be using up all your available headroom for a sound that would be heard as "quiet". BTW, a multiplex screen of say 400 seats is going to have (VERY roughly) in the region of 30,000 watts of sub power but even with that amount of LF power, at maximum level 20Hz is still relatively quiet. The same level but an octave or two higher will sound several/many times louder. As bfreedma mentions, many people misinterpret LF sound, thinking that something like 60Hz is much lower than it actually is. Generally, if we want a low powerful rumble, something that is felt as much as heard, we'd centre it (in the LFE channel) at around 60-80Hz, not 20Hz.
> 
> 2. There are pretty much no acoustic instruments that can go down to 20Hz. The lowest note of any orchestral instrument is Pedal C (the Contra-bassoon, tuba and extended double bass) which equates to about 31Hz, but these lowest possible notes are very rarely employed. The lowest note of a bass (electric) guitar is E, 42Hz. The only exception I'm aware of is some church/cathedral pipe organs, some of which can go as low as 16Hz, but each pipe organ is custom built for the particular church and very few of them go below 20Hz.
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

Joe Bloggs said:


> If we can't reference said published studies for reasons, why bring them up in the first place?



I don't need him to cite specific papers to believe that he's written them.  There needs to be some modicum of trust that people aren't lying about their backgrounds if we're going to have worthwhile discussion in generally anonymous internet discussion forums.  My name is somewhat well known in my professional circles, and I don't want my professional colleagues reading what I write in audio discussions which, for me, mainly serve as fun diversions.  I find this stuff interesting, but I know better than to take it too seriously, given that I don't need to explore sound science in order to select gear which sounds good to me.


----------



## KeithEmo

It's interesting that you look at it that way...
I'm inclined to look at it the opposite way...

The goal of science is to question and learn.
Then, once you know what's_ true_, and what's possible, you can choose to limit yourself to what's _practical_ or what's _sensible_.

For example if I, as a scientist, were to state - as fact - that 10 Hz is "totally inaudible to human beings"....
Then someone comes along, and finds some guy somewhere who actually can hear 10 Hz, I've been proven to be a _BAD_ scientist....
And, having put forward something as fact that turned out to be untrue, I have no credibility....
(I'm not a bad scientists for reporting that, _according to the results of my experiment_, 10 Hz is inaudible; I'm a bad scientist for claiming that to be a general fact, when it is really just the result of one particular experiment.)

I absolutely would like to see more people more well informed about science...

However, while what you seem to fear most is that people will confuse "fringe technology" with "mainstream consumer technology", I fear the exact opposite.
I'm afraid that, after hearing a difference between two DACs that "science insists can't possible be audible", a lot of people will just decide that science isn't a reliable source of information.

Obviously we have two different groups on this forum - with two different goals.
One group likes to discuss sound science... in the general sense.
The other is specifically dedicated to "separating the scientific fact from the myth in consumer audio gear".
Perhaps we can both actually coxeist.



Joe Bloggs said:


> Except anytime you guys make it sound reasonable to doubt the things you doubt in any but the most extreme frontier cases, ten audiophools walk away smugly satisfied with their bitperfect boutique NOS POS DACs selling for half a house powering "time coherent" single driver full range speakers feeling ever more certain that everything spoken by anyone in a science paper since Nyquist is complete rubbish.
> 
> Either that is the intention all along, or you guys are never taking sufficient account of how much the existing evidence (incomplete though it is) weighs against the things you guys would like to conjecture, when posting said conjectures.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

This thread is hilarious!


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 2, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> It's interesting that you look at it that way...
> I'm inclined to look at it the opposite way...
> 
> The goal of science is to question and learn.
> ...



Science doesn't insist that all DACs sound the same.  What it does insist, is for a blind test to be carried out before one touts as fact that one can hear the difference.
1. Because it has been demonstrated that *many* DACs perform within a range that science would deem to be perceptually identical *given the results of research so far*
2. Because it has been demonstrated that when comparing gear for which (1) is true, the majority of the time when sighted claims of perceived differences are put to the test, the difference cannot be proven.
3. Because it makes no sense whatsoever to take sighted tests at face value.  Confirmation bias aside, even a deaf person can pass a sighted test if that were his intention.

I also contend that it is against the spirit of science to make conjectures about where and how differences occur between DACs, when the *fact* that the two DACs under question *are* perceivably different at all has not been proven in the first place.  This last point, I would particularly like to see a sensible rebuttal of from you.


----------



## KeithEmo

There are a few headphones, including a few electrostatic models, that claim response far below that.
For example, the Koss ESP/950 claims a frequency response of "8 Hz to 35 kHz" (no tolerance provided).

I should also note that, subjectively, low frequencies can be somewhat complicated.
When I listen to headphones with an extremely extended low frequency response, even at moderate volume, I sometime get the sensation of being able to feel lower bass, even though it is clearly not the case.
(I wonder if my brain is simply interpreting low frequency sound as a physical sensation because that is how we normally experience it.)

As you've noted, most of us aren't used to hearing low bass, or interpreting it.




bfreedma said:


> I have serious doubt that any headphone is reproducing significant sub 20hz sound audibly, and I’m even more doubtful that any headphone is reproducing tactile response for frequencies that low.  The power and more importantly, driver extension/ ability to move air isn’t there in dynamics.  My experience with test tones on planers is similar.  Headphones also can’t leverage cabin pressure to enhance the perception of very low bass.
> 
> Most people I work with when calibrating their audio systems are not good at estimating what low frequencies they are hearing.  When hearing 50-60Hz, they typically think it’s sub 20Hz.
> 
> BTW, the primary reason race cars sound different from their road legal counterpart is the exhaust system (or general lack of one) rather than the engine itself.  Straight unmuffled freeflow exhaust on race cars makes for some pretty impressive audio.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 2, 2018)

I guess I might have extended low frequency hearing because of having a big head and by extension a big cochlea housing longer hair cells resonating to lower frequencies than the norm.  I don't perceive a 15Hz or 12Hz note from any number of IEMs as particularly different or more fake than say a 30Hz one.  The only reason by which I might doubt their veracity, is that such low notes start to sound like a discontinuous train of whumps rather than a continuous tone.  Of course, I would look forward to testing my hearing with some premium drivers known for negligible harmonic distortion at those frequencies before putting any weight to that hypothesis.


----------



## Phronesis

Joe Bloggs said:


> Science doesn't insist that all DACs sound the same.  What it does insist, is for a blind test to be carried out before one touts as fact that one can hear the difference.



"Science" doesn't insist that particular testing methodologies need to be used to gather and evaluate evidence.  It's all about trying to figure out how reality works - developing good models of it.  The basic guidelines are things like formulating hypotheses which can be empirically checked or at least checked against accepted theory, spelling out how you gathered your evidence so that others can try to replicate your results, noting and trying to account for anomalies and avoiding inconsistency, etc. 

Even in medicine, where double-blinded controlled clinical trials are a standard practice, it's recognized that such trials have limitations - e.g., a drug that generally gives a null result for a study group of patients may still actually work for a subset of patients, and a drug which generally works for the group may not work for a subset of patients or have intolerable side effects for them.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 2, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> "Science" doesn't insist that particular testing methodologies need to be used to gather and evaluate evidence.  It's all about trying to figure out how reality works - developing good models of it.  The basic guidelines are things like formulating hypotheses which can be empirically checked or at least checked against accepted theory, spelling out how you gathered your evidence so that others can try to replicate your results, noting and trying to account for anomalies and avoiding inconsistency, etc.
> 
> Even in medicine, where double-blinded controlled clinical trials are a standard practice, it's recognized that such trials have limitations - e.g., a drug that generally gives a null result for a study group of patients may still actually work for a subset of patients, and a drug which generally works for the group may not work for a subset of patients or have intolerable side effects for them.


None of what you say contradicts the fact that sighted test results in audio should be taken seriously about as far as I can throw a 1kW monoblock amp.

So if your contention is that science doesn't dictate that audio comparison tests need to be blinded, I beg to differ.

You guys keep bringing up that blind test results should be analyzed separately per individual, claiming that existing results do not support the null hypothesis but rather that a select bunch of elites can tell the samples apart 100% of the time.

1. Is this anything more than idle speculation?  From which actual study did you find such a result?
2. Given the high number of test subjects used to derive the group study results, did you calculate the probabilities of a false positive?  Disregarding that, were the experiments even run with a sufficient number of trials per subject to give significance to single subject results?


----------



## Phronesis

Joe Bloggs said:


> None of what you say contradicts the fact that sighted test results in audio should be taken seriously about as far as I can throw a 1kW monoblock amp.
> 
> So if your contention is that science doesn't dictate that audio comparison tests need to be blinded, I beg to differ.



Sighted tests can be used to explore the psychological aspects of sound and music perception, including the effects of various biases, by varying protocols and controls and seeing how that affects the results.  Sighted tests can also be used to help formulate hypotheses which can be tested in blind tests.  The obvious advantages of blind tests don't preclude also using sighted tests for some purposes. 

There are also the practical considerations of what's involved in setting up blind vs sighted tests, and the fact that it can be difficult to do truly blinded tests for headphones, and the minimum switching time for headphones is necessarily longer than for other gear.  Most people agree that the biggest differences are in transducers, and yet that's where we have the biggest difficulty in doing truly blind tests in the head-fi world - a fundamental problem, yet I don't see it discussed much around here.  If you guys want to be practical rather than talking about limiting cases, maybe come up with some solutions for that.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with everything you've said except your last point.

Let me be VERY explicit here:

1) 
I absolutely agree that the first step in determining or testing for "differences" is to determine that those differences actually exist.
However, at this point, you must be very careful to avoid artificially excluding something significant.
If Charlie says DAC1 and DAC2 sound different, when listening to a certain recording of a certain song, on a certain pair of headphones, after three cups of coffee, on a Tuesday...
You must repeat Charlie's test EXACTLY if you wish to confirm or deny his results.
You can't confirm or deny Charlie's results if you use a different song, or a different pair of headphones, or run your test in the morning, or drink orange juice instead of coffee.
(You may believe that the coffee isn't a relevant factor - but, until you perform the test, you don't KNOW that caffeine doesn't affect hearing acuity.)
HOWEVER, YOU CANNOT REASONABLY ASSUME THAT A DIFFERENCE DOESN'T EXIST UNLESS YOU HAVE ACTUALLY TESTED TO SEE IF IT EXISTS.
(You may decide that you aren't convinced of the likelihood thoroughly enough to run the test... but that is not the same thing.)

2)
Assuming that you fail to confirm Charlie's results, then you might choose to expand your conditions to rule out other possibilities 
For example, you might test a hundred volunteers, just to rule out the possibility that Charlie has exceptionally good hearing, while your test subject does not.
Or you might lose interest and simply conclude that "you were unable to duplicate Charlie's results".
(But don't overreach and conclude that "_Charlie must have been mistaken_".) 

3)
Now, assuming that you HAVE confirmed a difference, you need to devise a test to determine what is causing it.
The most effective way to do this is to devise a series of tests that control for all but one variable.
(The alternative would be to run a massive number of tests, and then try to correlate detected differences with multiple variables at the same time statistically.)

The problem here is that there are actually a huge number of variables involved.....
- frequency response of each DAC
- overall aggregate THD of each DAC
- overall aggregate IMD of each DAC
- overall aggregate S/N of each DAC
- distortion SPECTRUM of each DAC (if you have two DACs, both with the same THD, one could make more second harmonics, while the other could make more third harmonics)
- distortion characteristics of each DACs (one DAC may produce more harmonic distortion while the other may produce more harmonically unrelated noise) 
- ringing (ringing could be more or less, pre or post, at different frequencies, with a different envelope....)

And we haven't even considered really obscure possibilities.....
- perhaps caffeine enhances the ability to perceive one of these sorts of differences (maybe a 0.1 dB difference in frequency response is audible - after consuming 200 mG of caffeine in a one hour period - but not otherwise).
- and, if you want to be really obscure, coffee is actually a complex mix of chemicals (so, perhaps, there's some odd chemical in the particular brand of coffee Charlie drinks)

And, if you use a different brand of headphones than Charlie did, then you have failed to control for a variable - the difference may only be audible with certain headphones.
(Even worse, with some well known popular headphones, the performance of a articular model has changed over time, or between production runs.)

Therefore, because of all these possible factors, you basically MUST form some sort of conjecture (a theory) about what is causing the difference so you have a specific factor to test for.

So, for example, you might theorize that the difference is in the amount of ringing.
Now you can devise a test where everything else is held constant - and ONLY the ringing is varied.
And, after you run that test, you may conclude that the differences in ringing are audible - or not.

So, next, you test for the audibility of differences in frequency response.
Perhaps the current generalizations about what amounts of difference in frequency response are audible are incorrect.
Let's find out.

And, in extreme circumstances, you may find that only certain combinations of variables cause a certain effect.
(For example, perhaps high frequency pre-ringing is audible, but only with a certain song, on a certain recording, and when played on a certain pair of headphones.)
In that case it's going to take a lot of work to figure out which factors, or combinations of factors, are involved

Just imagine how many blocks of metal you'd have to bang together to make nuclear fusion if you didn't start your experiment by working out that U238 was the most likely test candidate.

I need to point out that a lot of people on this forum are guilty of the exact same error - in reverse - and to truly egregious levels...
I repeatedly see a situation where one person claims to hear a difference...
And, immediately after that, other folks are not only convinced that he did not hear what he believes he did, but are quite willing to conjecture about why he "must have been imagining it"...
Now, in all fairness, how can you conclude that something is wrong, and even claim to know WHY it's wrong, if you haven't actually tested it one way or the other?
(Note that this is a far different claim that simply saying: "I've tested a bunch of similar equipment, in similar situations, and never observed what he claimed he did."... which is a perfectly reasonable observation.)

It is perfectly reasonable to note that, because they are subject to more of the effects of varios types of bias, sighted tests are less reliable than unsighted tests.
However, there is no legitimate logic that will get you from there to the conclusion that "the results of all sighted tests are incorrect" or "the results of all sighted tests that seem to disagree with my beliefs must be wrong".



Joe Bloggs said:


> Science doesn't insist that all DACs sound the same.  What it does insist, is for a blind test to be carried out before one touts as fact that one can hear the difference.
> 1. Because it has been demonstrated that *many* DACs perform within a range that science would deem to be perceptually identical *given the results of research so far*
> 2. Because it has been demonstrated that when comparing gear for which (1) is true, the majority of the time when sighted claims of perceived differences are put to the test, the difference cannot be proven.
> 3. Because it makes no sense whatsoever to take sighted tests at face value.  Confirmation bias aside, even a deaf person can pass a sighted test if that were his intention.
> ...


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 2, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I agree with everything you've said except your last point.
> 
> Let me be VERY explicit here:
> 
> ...



By the same logic, you also can't test anything Charlie said if you're not Charlie.  Nor can Charlie repeat his test blinded, because among other things, sightedness was one of the test parameters, and the way every single air molecule moved in that room on that trial were also part of the test conditions, which can never be duplicated.

By reductio ad absurdum, I call bull on your whole line of reasoning.

Assuming we skip to 3...

Well the whole point of my last post was that part (2) never happened, so why make wild conjectures per 3 as though 2 were a given?  How is this not giving more credence to an untested comparison result than it deserves?  Nothing in your long post addresses that.

YOU are Charlie.  Per your twisted reasoning, YOU are the only person in the world who can reliably replicate the results you claimed.  Yet Charlie steadfastly refuses to raise a finger to try to reproduce his results in a controlled environment, pretending that he has to have a complete theory of everything in order to even try to run a second test.  Even outside of your "reasoning" framework it is widely acknowledged that Charlie is the person for which it would be easiest to rerun the test.  Yet Charlie would prefer to ramble endlessly about the implications *if* a second test turns up positive *and* ramble endlessly about how *hard* it is to do a second test properly--instead of just giving his best shot at a second test already.  How can anyone NOT conclude that Charlie is being deliberately obtuse or pushing a hidden agenda?


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

I just tried using a banana as a key to the frontdoor. It didn't work. BUT! What if I'd tried my nextdoor neighbour's instead? Sadly though there is no way for me to test this, because I smothered the banana in the process of testing. Ahh!! But you merely use another banana.
Nope that won't do because bananas - like people - are different to one another and the individual strings of fruity keypulp differ in such ways that quite easily could be compared to the inner workings of x keyhole.
Which is why I still believe in the possibility of bananas being keys until I've tested these matters right down to the smallest of molecules.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I just tried using a banana as a key to the frontdoor. It didn't work. BUT! What if I'd tried my nextdoor neighbour's instead? Sadly though there is no way for me to test this, because I smothered the banana in the process of testing. Ahh!! But you merely use another banana.
> Nope that won't do because bananas - like people - are different to one another and the individual strings of fruity keypulp differ in such ways that quite easily could be compared to the inner workings of x keyhole.
> Which is why I still believe in the possibility of bananas being keys until I've tested these matters right down to the smallest of molecules.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Phronesis said:


> Sighted tests can be used to explore the psychological aspects of sound and music perception, including the effects of various biases, by varying protocols and controls and seeing how that affects the results.  Sighted tests can also be used to help formulate hypotheses which can be tested in blind tests.  The obvious advantages of blind tests don't preclude also using sighted tests for some purposes.
> 
> There are also the practical considerations of what's involved in setting up blind vs sighted tests, and the fact that it can be difficult to do truly blinded tests for headphones, and the minimum switching time for headphones is necessarily longer than for other gear.  Most people agree that the biggest differences are in transducers, and yet that's where we have the biggest difficulty in doing truly blind tests in the head-fi world - a fundamental problem, yet I don't see it discussed much around here.  If you guys want to be practical rather than talking about limiting cases, maybe come up with some solutions for that.



And yet this would seem to be the opposite problem.  It would be a problem worth working on if everyone thought that DACs and cables and amplifiers can all sound identical and were further doubting whether even headphones and speakers sounded any different if we were blind to them.  But if people are disputing that there are even any two identical sounding DAC designs in the world, how is research into blinding headphones anything but a premature, fruitless act?


----------



## Phronesis

Joe Bloggs said:


> And yet this would seem to be the opposite problem.  It would be a problem worth working on if everyone thought that DACs and cables and amplifiers can all sound identical and were further doubting whether even headphones and speakers sounded any different if we were blind to them.  But if people are disputing that there are even any two identical sounding DAC designs in the world, how is research into blinding headphones anything but a premature, fruitless act?



Regardless of the debate about DACs, amps, and cables, since most agree that there are significant differences between transducers, we can still work on the latter problem.  Just pick one or a few DACs, amps, and cables as standard references, then work on the headphone problem.  If some people say "but the DAC makes a big difference too," just ignore them and continue to work on the headphone problem. 

You can also do a blinded study which uses a variety of DACs, amps, cables, and headphones and get results to demonstrate that even if there could be differences between DAC, amps, and cables, the differences between headphones are much larger.  That would settle the matter from a practical standpoint. 

PS - Also listen to the new album "Here If You Listen" by David Crosby et al to hear how much difference stellar recording quality makes!


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Nov 2, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> There are always going to be exceptions and practical limitations... and there is also a two way relationship between what is used and what is available.
> 
> For example, the NTSC color space is actually rather limited, but, until recently, it was used for both monitors and as a video mastering standard.
> Producers didn't use colors outside that range because home TVs couldn't reproduce it; manufacturers didn't bother to try to make TVs able to reproduce it because it was never used for home video production.
> ...



R.E. NTSC color space:  And ATSC(USA) covers only 25% of the visible color gamut, compared to NTSC only 20% or less!

-From one who calibrates TVs


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Phronesis said:


> Regardless of the debate about DACs, amps, and cables, since most agree that there are significant differences between transducers, we can still work on the latter problem.  Just pick one or a few DACs, amps, and cables as standard references, then work on the headphone problem.  If some people say "but the DAC makes a big difference too," just ignore them and continue to work on the headphone problem.
> 
> You can also do a blinded study which uses a variety of DACs, amps, cables, and headphones and get results to demonstrate that even if there could be differences between DAC, amps, and cables, the differences between headphones are much larger.  That would settle the matter from a practical standpoint.
> 
> PS - Also listen to the new album "Here If You Listen" by David Crosby et al to hear how much difference stellar recording quality makes!


Certain lines of headphones have identical fit and can be compared blind quite easily.  Beyerdynamic DT770/880/990 and Sennheiser HD600/650, 800/800S/820 (modulo pad change?) come to mind as possibilities.


----------



## Phronesis

Joe Bloggs said:


> Certain lines of headphones have identical fit and can be compared blind quite easily.  Beyerdynamic DT770/880/990 and Sennheiser HD600/650, 800/800S/820 (modulo pad change?) come to mind as possibilities.



Yes, but those tend to be the exceptions rather than the rule.  Also, the tactility of headphones could influence people, possibly subconsciously, to try to guess which headphone they're listening to, which could bias results.  For example, if I'm attempting to do a blind comparison of the Clear and Utopia, I could incorrectly guess which one I'm listening to, since they feel and sound very similar (but not identical), and if I've heard that the Utopia is supposed to sound a touch brighter and more detailed, I bet I would perceive that way if listening to the Clear but thinking it's the Utopia.  Because of the tactile aspect, I don't think true absolute blinding is possible, as can be done with DACs, amps, and cables.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 2, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> The forum is supposed to be about science.   The science has a broad scope which includes both physics and psychological aspects, and exploring limits and extreme cases is part of science.



Since I've been here, it's been about using science to improve the sound quality of home audio equipment. We occasionally get into discussions of professional audio engineering, but science stuff that doesn't relate to home audio equipment is a digression.



SoundAndMotion said:


> Some people here (certainly not all!) seem to be very tribal. They group all posts that they don't like as being from the other (enemy) tribe,



I tend not to do that. Most of the time, I don't remember who is who unless they've been around a long while. I generally just respond to the individual post. If someone repeatedly acts like a chimp banging on a drum, then I will put them in the disregard file, but each person has their own reasons... beating on the same dead horses that are irrelevant to the conversation, making completely fanciful claims with no attempt to back up their statements, arguing to extremes with no grounding in real world practicality, disingenuously falsifying information to make themselves sound important, rampant use of logical fallacies, participation only for the purpose of trolling, etc. Everyone seems to have their own brand of crazy. I could write a book on all the different flavors of audiophoolery and internet forum abuse. The only exception is the blatant trolling. There definitely are patterns to that and I tend to group them together. Easier to dismiss them that way.

Generally, I let out a lot of line and let people reveal themselves. I'm pretty patient about it and I give them a chance. But I reserve the right to judge, and there are people who I think are full of boloney and are not worth my time engaging with. That's fair. We all have limited time, and we all get to use what time we have in a way that we see as being productive. No need to read posts from people who have proven themselves to be full of it. I don't have to keep giving people chances when they keep making the same mistakes over and over.

I'd be very interested in reading articles on perceptual thresholds as they relate to home audio equipment if you can recommend any. That is a subject that doesn't get discussed enough. Too often specs are looked at in the abstract, without any baseline for audibility. I've done a lot of experimentation similar to the stuff Ethan Winer does in the videos in my sig file. I have my own rule of thumb on things. It would be interested to compare that to more rigorous studies.

One study that I've always thought would be interesting, although there probably is no commercial reason to do it, is to determine what exactly separates the perceptual acuity of three types of people... professional engineers/musicians, golden ear audiophiles and average people. What areas of perception do one group or other excel at, and where are they all basically the same? The test could involve various kinds of differences between signals... small amounts of distortion, response deviation, noise, timing error, etc. and thresholds for each group and anomaly could be established. That would be pretty interesting to me. Harman did a test kind of like this, but they presented it as a "golden ear challenge" which I'm sure skews the results.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 2, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> [1] I was thinking of outliers like the pipe organ that have registers going below 20hz, and realize most fundamental tones are at higher registers.
> [2] As previously already brought up: even if our ears aren't as sensitive at 20hz, there's still been a push in cinema to have sub-bass for physical sensation (going back to "Sensaround").
> [3] Well I see a white paper on Dolby Atmos stating a frequency range of 31.5-120hz +-3DB. It can also be different with Cinema standards (which have had subwoofer tracks and not LFE)
> [4] LFE information is also set 10DB higher then other channels, and according to the sample RTA cinema graph, while LFE channel also rolls off at 30hz, [4a] it still has more DB after roll off then subwoofer.



1. Well yes, that's a real outlier! Not only are you looking at the tiny niche of pipe organ music but the tiny number of pipe organs within that niche which actually go down that low.
2. I haven't seen any such push. Dolby Atmos does not extend or "push" what was already available with the original Dolby Digital (DD 5.1) 25 years ago and does not specify below 30Hz, let alone below 20Hz.
3. Yep, my bad. The main subs and fronts are specified down to 31.5Hz, it's subs for the (bass managed) surround channels that are spec'ed to 40Hz (in a theatrical setup).
4. That's exactly the same as it's always been since 5.1.
4a. I'm not sure what you mean, the LFE channel is output to the subwoofers (speakers), the LFE channel doesn't have any dB until it's output, so it can't have more dB than a subwoofer.


Davesrose said:


> [1] With an Atmos track, isn't reverb handled as metadata? [1a] It seems conflicting to encode reverb only in specific speaker channels, when the point of Atmos is to decode to different speaker configurations (from 34 speakers in cinema to 7.1 in home).
> [2] Do you have experience with Atmos?
> [3] I can see that Dolby would want to create software that interacts like previous surround schemes, but Dolby does advertise it as a fundamentally different technology:


1. No. Dolby Atmos, like 5.1 or even standard stereo, is a mix format not a mix processing tool, it simply deals with the output routing of whatever you mix. So with stereo, you simply pan whatever you've mixed to output channels 1, 2 or some combination of both and channel 1 is always routed to the left speaker and 2 to the right speaker. 5.1 and 7.1 are a little more complex, with 7.1 you have 8 audio channels, an LFE channel that is always routed to the subs, Left, Centre and Right, which are always routed to their respective speakers and then side and surround channels which are routed to banks of diffuser speakers around the side and rear walls (the exact amounts/balance of which is setup during system installation). Atmos goes a step further with how the outputs are routed but it's still only dealing with output routing, it has no idea of, or involvement in whatever signal/sound you choose to send to that output. It doesn't "know" it's being fed reverb and reverb is dealt with exactly the same as all the other digital audio content.
2. Yes, fairly recently I was involved in mixing a theatrical film in Dolby Atmos. I have also heard a home Dolby Atmos system but only briefly.
3. That's advertising for you! It's not entirely untrue to state it's a "fundamentally different technology" but it's not entirely true either. Certainly it's confusing to the uninitiated though! I would describe Atmos as: fundamentally exactly the same technology, with the addition of some new (fundamentally different) technology. My description is not as snappy or anywhere near as impressive from a marketing perspective and it's probably more confusing but at least it's more accurate! To understand Dolby Atmos, first think of a completely conventional 7.1 system, then think of adding two ceiling channels, so effectively a 9.1 system that is still exactly the same fundamental technology. Now in addition to this we can also (if we choose) have some "audio objects". These are like virtual channels that are dynamically routed to specific speakers on playback, according to the speaker setup entered into the cinema processor during system installation. Whereas before we could only access the bank (array) of speakers represented by say the left surround channel, we can now effectively access a single speaker within that left surround array and if that speaker doesn't exist in a particular cinema setup the processor can figure this out and route the signal to two or more other speakers to recreate the position as a "phantom" position. Effectively, Atmos is somewhat like a 64 channel system encoded discretely into 8 audio channels + a bunch of metadata. This ASPECT of Atmos could be described as "fundamentally new technology".


Davesrose said:


> "In the case of the home theater, every sound in the mix is represented as an audio object. When you set up your Dolby Atmos enabled AVR, you inform your receiver how many speakers you have, what type of speakers they are ..."
> [1] If I'm taking Dolby for their word, everything is object based in home audio reproduction.
> [2] It also makes sense to me, as that would be a more accurate way of decoding (rely on the receiver, which has been calibrated for number of speakers and acoustics of your room).
> [3] Dolby does summarize the authoring process and how there's a conventional 9.1 "bed" of channels and then tools for specific surround objects (up to 118).
> [4] It would be interesting to see what information is being engineered on the 9.1 "bed" vs surround objects with current Hollywood movies...but it appears it's also scaled to object based for home use.


1. You have to be a little careful and "interpret" what their "word" actually is saying. The first sentence of your quote appears impossible. "Every sound in the mix being represented as an audio object" would require every sound that hasn't been assigned as an audio object (during mixing) to be extracted from the mix and then assigned as an audio object, which is not possible. What they could relatively easily do, is take a mixed output channel and assign that whole channel as a single audio object. If they do this with all the (9.1) channels then you have 10 audio objects which contain "every sound in the mix" but not every sound in the mix is being assigned as an individual audio object, which is contrary to what their "word" seems to imply!
2. That's not fundamentally any different from what Dolby Digital has been doing for years. For example, you feed your AVR with a 5.1 DD stream, program in that you have say just two speakers (stereo) and the onboard Dolby chip takes those 6 channels and arranges (down-mixes) them for your two speakers.
3. This entirely agrees with my assertion that it's essentially a conventional type 9.1 mix + some audio objects. Although in the theatrical specification it's a max of 128 audio objects rather than 118 and a max of 64 speakers.
4. Sounds assigned as "audio objects" are some of the point source sounds. This immediately eliminates many sounds and groups of sounds; atmosphere sounds and room tone for example, as well as the aforementioned reverb and many other background sounds. The sorts of sounds which can benefit from being audio objects are some of the sounds which require pin point positioning, cannot be perfectly represented by a single speaker already part of the 7.1 setup (like say the front centre) and/or dynamically move. For example, if we have a car passing left to right in front of our POV (on screen), it wouldn't need to be an audio object, we'd just pan it as we would in 7.1 using the front (screen) speakers but if the car is passing behind our POV or at an angle, then it probably would. What passes overhead requires being an audio object, because with 9.1 the whole left ceiling row of speakers would be effectively a single output, so you can ONLY achieve say a front to back overhead pass as an audio object.

G


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> @bfreedma Congrats regarding your room measurements. You are quite correct in stating it was a "selfish" measurement/adjustment - no way to have it equally good for more than say - at best - two people. Move the measurement mike 4 inches - and you get , although still similar, definitely audibly different curve. Some herrendous peak(s) might pop out of nowhere with just a bit of unluck.
> 
> Regarding cars and noise they are making - exhaust does not make one iota difference among regular race 917 and 917-30 - turbo and some additional 500-800 BHP ( depending on turbo pressure settings ) do. But exhaust can make one hell of a difference; back in the day, when in F1 anything else than Ford Cosworth V8 engine was exotic to the max, everybody but Ferrari and Matra used the Cosworth. I remember how shocked I was listening to the Tyrell and Lotus cars - both using Cosworth - sounding so markedly different. Lotus with loud low frequency growl, Tyrell almost "inaudible" by comparison ( still loud, though...  ) . GP  of Austria in Zeltweg, around 1975 - with Jackie Stewart and Ronnie Peterson battling for the win.
> 
> Just checked - 1973, Ronnie won.




Last off topic F1 comment, I promise.

The exhaust on the turbo -30 version is definitely different.  I’ll have to find the title, but there is a great design book on the 917 that shows it.  I guess if we’re considering turbo wastegate noise “engine noise”, then yes, there was a different engine note.

What I remember most about Tyrell from that era was the P34.  Not many 6 wheeled cars were ever built, let alone raced...

Sad what happened to RP.  So avoidable if they had treated him properly.


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 2, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 2. I haven't seen any such push. Dolby Atmos does not extend or "push" what was already available with the original Dolby Digital (DD 5.1) 25 years ago and does not specify below 30Hz, let alone below 20Hz.



Well both in the movie theater and at home, I have found Blade Runner 2049 to have more bass content: it may be classified as noise, but it's a soundtrack noticeably rattles my furniture.



gregorio said:


> 4a. I'm not sure what you mean, the LFE channel is output to the subwoofers (speakers), the LFE channel doesn't have any dB until it's output, so it can't have more dB than a subwoofer.


Every source I've seen about surround sound has said one shouldn't confuse LFE with a subwoofer channel.  In regards to DB, as my linked article went over, all other tracks are targeted at 85DB, while LFE channels are targeted at 95DB.



gregorio said:


> 1. No. Dolby Atmos, like 5.1 or even standard stereo, is a mix format not a mix processing tool, it simply deals with the output routing of whatever you mix. So with stereo, you simply pan whatever you've mixed to output channels 1, 2 or some combination of both and channel 1 is always routed to the left speaker and 2 to the right speaker. 5.1 and 7.1 are a little more complex, with 7.1 you have 8 audio channels, an LFE channel that is always routed to the subs, Left, Centre and Right, which are always routed to their respective speakers and then side and surround channels which are routed to banks of diffuser speakers around the side and rear walls (the exact amounts/balance of which is setup during system installation). Atmos goes a step further with how the outputs are routed but it's still only dealing with output routing, it has no idea of, or involvement in whatever signal/sound you choose to send to that output. It doesn't "know" it's being fed reverb and reverb is dealt with exactly the same as all the other digital audio content.
> 
> .........
> 
> 1. You have to be a little careful and "interpret" what their "word" actually is saying. The first sentence of your quote appears impossible. "Every sound in the mix being represented as an audio object" would require every sound that hasn't been assigned as an audio object (during mixing) to be extracted from the mix and then assigned as an audio object, which is not possible. What they could relatively easily do, is take a mixed output channel and assign that whole channel as a single audio object. If they do this with all the (9.1) channels then you have 10 audio objects which contain "every sound in the mix" but not every sound in the mix is being assigned as an individual audio object, which is contrary to what their "word" seems to imply!



I have some software development experience...so I'd like to know more about the software itself.  From white papers I've seen, there are indeed purely object-based sound schemes.  These are more versatile as sounds are mapped to a reference 3D space (and just like WB is a metadata in a RAW, properties of the sound and environment can be included as metadata).  The receiver, then isn't matrixing discreet channels into different channels: it's getting a model of the 3D environment and reproducing it within the given parameters it has with its system.  I think Atmos streams are more complicated where they also include TrueHD and/or Dolby Digital discrete tracks...but they seem to indicate there's also a core object-based stream (and I wonder if going by their wording about home systems, the Atmos stream on UHD devices are object-based).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwidsq_xuLbeAhULTt8KHdPlCA0QFjABegQIBhAE&url=https://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9789811015502-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1580738-p180006221&usg=AOvVaw2Q3QbXkT-3X6Jo9qs5GMMW


" Object-based format is the most original format of a sound recording. Object-based format represents a sound scene using a combination of sound objects with the associated metadata [HHK15]. Sound objects are essentially individual sound sources. The metadata usually consists of two types: static metadata, such as language and on/off time, and dynamic metadata, such as position or direction, level, width, or diffuseness of the sound object. Not all audio objects are separated. Those objects that collectively contribute to a ﬁx sound effect or sound environment shall be grouped and regarded as one “larger” audio object. As a result, metadata
16 2 Literature Review on Spatial Audio
can be speciﬁed for each audio object or a group of objects. The greatest beneﬁt of object-based audio is that it can be rendered optimally for any arbitrary playback systems. Meanwhile, interactivity can be enabled, for example, changing to another language of speech, increasing the loudness of certain objects (e.g., speech level shall be higher for hearing-impaired listeners), and adapting the position of the sound objects according to listener’s movement in virtual reality applications. The object-based format is the best format in terms of reproduction ﬂexibility and quality. However, two challenges that are found in practical implementation are high storage or transmission bandwidth and high computation complexity for real-time rendering [MMS11]. Important aspects on the implementation of audio objects’ coding and rendering were extensively studied in [Pot06]. Some work has been carried out by MPEG to achieve an efﬁcient coding of sound objects based on perceptual features [HPK12]."

I haven't had the time to fully read this article, and it does seem to indicate that Atmos isn't a pure object-based format.  However, it would be interesting to find out more about the specs for home Atmos: seems with streaming services that advertise Atmos, they wouldn't assume a bandwidth for lossless discrete surround: object-based streams can save bandwidth it seems (at the cost of needing a more robost decoder).


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> However, now that the technology has changed, and the limits have moved outwards, we have both HDR content, and HDR TVs and projectors, both of which utilize a much wider color space and contrast range. Furthermore, a lot of people actually consider the difference "obvious", and really wouldn't be willing to live without it now that it's available.



Oh good, more ridiculousness! Sure, HDR is a much wider colour space and contrast range than previously available, still nowhere near what our eyes can deal with and routinely experience. Who hasn't experienced going from a dark room into bright sunshine and that contrast range being on/near the threshold of pain? How many TVs and projectors have you seen which are able to produce the same brightness range and effect ... more than the number of unicorns?

Your analogy is fallacious, for 25 years or so the humble CD format has already achieved what the HDR format is still striving to achieve, from silence to on/near the threshold of pain (120dB). And, the equivalent of a colour space that significantly exceeds human capabilities. When videophiles start arguing about how much better a TV looks when they have a ridiculous colour space and produce large amounts of invisible ultraviolet and infrared, then we can start talking about it being a viable analogy with CD! On the other hand, a TV producing enough ultraviolet radiation to give you a suntan while watching an episode of "Baywatch" might really help the sense of "being there" 



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Likewise, nowadays we now often include synthetic sounds in music, which are created electronically or digitally.
> [2] So, yes, if those studies on wind farms find that 8 Hz tones actually can affect our emotions, we may someday see a song entitled "Emotion", where the entire first movement is underscored with an "audible subsonic" 8 Hz tone, intended to invoke feelings of dread in the audience.
> [3] Now, I wouldn't take that as a serious shopping or design requirement today.
> [4] However, in five or ten years, it may be considered to be as normal as HDR is today.
> [5] Either way, as a matter of _sound science_, I would certainly say that it's worth considering.



1. What do you mean "nowadays", we've been doing that since the 1950's.
2. If, may, someday. Sounds like a definite scientific reality to me! 
3. A more or less serious shopping requirement today than shopping for unicorn blood?
4. HDR is normal today because it can be seen by normal human beings but a sub woofer and content only potentially audible to whales and not normal human beings, how could that rationally be "considered normal"? If, maybe, someday we all evolve into whales, then I'll be cuing up outside the Apple store for my own 8Hz iSubwoofer XS Max! 
5. As a matter of ridiculousness, pseudo-science, perverting science or superstition and myth certainly but "as a matter of sound science", you're joking, what science? Please provide some, instead of ridiculous assertions, fallacies and non-analogous analogies!

G


----------



## Phronesis

bfreedma said:


> Last off topic F1 comment, I promise.
> 
> The exhaust on the turbo -30 version is definitely different.  I’ll have to find the title, but there is a great design book on the 917 that shows it.  I guess if we’re considering turbo wastegate noise “engine noise”, then yes, there was a different engine note.
> 
> ...



Keep the car references coming, makes me feel at home!  My wife and I are F1 fans, and we drive on track a lot ourselves.  That hobby makes audio stuff seem really cost-effective.


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 2, 2018)

gregorio said:


> Oh good, more ridiculousness! Sure, HDR is a much wider colour space and contrast range than previously available, still nowhere near what our eyes can deal with and routinely experience. Who hasn't experienced going from a dark room into bright sunshine and that contrast range being on/near the threshold of pain? How many TVs and projectors have you seen which are able to produce the same brightness range and effect ... more than the number of unicorns?



That's more an example of how photographic reproduction is different then human perception.  Experiencing pain stepping into bright sunlight is an example of visual adaptation (quickly switching and requiring pupillary reflex and change of effected photo receptors).  While HDR standards are for 12 stops of light, most current HDR displays aren't capable of 10 stops.  Current cameras can now record 14 stops worth of light, though RED cameras can get to 16: and HDR for simulated light rendering goes to 32 stops.  Where do we make the cutoff?  Well even going by human sight, there's no absolute (as our eyes constantly scan and theoretically have an "ideal max" perception of 576MP total visual field and 20 stops DR).


----------



## bfreedma (Nov 2, 2018)

gregorio said:


> _snip_
> 
> 1. That's certainly a factor which contributes to the assumption during movie mixing that the reproduction of content below about 30Hz is highly unpredictable, sometimes/often to the point of it not being reproduced at all!
> 
> ...




Brief response due to tight deadlines of actual work...

Thanks for the compliment on the FR response and the additional information.  I'll either dig up an existing waterfall or take a new one once work eases up.  I will readily admit that it's not as purty as the FR - the room in question is a mixed use room so to keep some level of harmony (considering the investment in speakers and measurement gear), typical room treatments aren't an option.  My decay is quite good down low, but isn't nearly as nice at 2kHz and up.  Definitely aware of the surround roll-off and accounted for via individual speaker level adjustments in the AVR.  I'm sure it isn't perfect, but it's probably as good an approximation of the intended output as I'm going to achieve with the limitations of a home theater without going to some extreme measures.  Kind of one of those areas I've just accepted as good enough for my purposes.  Also aware of the 10db reduction in the LFE channel and addressed in the room EQ - that one I'm pretty confident I have correct implementation of.  Let's just say that I'm not getting any complaints about missing bass...   Also understand that the mix on home media is a bit of a mystery, so I do at times find I have to adjust the bass levels in the AVR for some content.  Will readily admit that it's a bit of an on the fly approximation.  Just doing the best I can with the tools I've got!  I also believe I've got the X-curve largely covered.  With the crossover in the AVR set to 80Hz for all channels, the fronts, centers, and surrounds aren't reproducing content where that would come into play.  Need to learn more about that though.  Like most, I don't find frequencies below 80Hz to be localizable, so feel I'm getting better reproduction of LFE by just letting the subs do the heavy lifting.  Side benefit is it dramatically reduces the amount of power required to drive the other 5 speakers, so less load on the AVR amplification and less need to have massive woofers.

2a.  No disagreement in principle, but as someone who can reproduce sub 30Hz content with a modicum of accuracy, I wish it wasn't being truncated.  I do realize that the industry has to cater to the majority, so I'll just sulk in the corner quietly on that one going forward 

3.  From the FR and spectrum plots I've seen for a few movies, I do think there are a few that have intentional content below 20Hz but will defer to your industry knowledge and not argue that most of the sub 20Hz content is unintended residue or unedited channels.  I'll also own up to the fact that watching a blockbuster movie and reproducing ULF is a pleasant experience for me, so even if it's unintended content, it rarely feels out of context with what is occurring on screen.  Please don't ruin my fun


----------



## bigshot

Most real world listening rooms in homes have to make do with mixed use and imperfect architecture. How you deal with that is the art of it. Optimizing a single listening position is just the start.

Cars, photography... now all we need are some wine analogies and we've covered all the bases.


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> Last off topic F1 comment, I promise.
> 
> The exhaust on the turbo -30 version is definitely different.  I’ll have to find the title, but there is a great design book on the 917 that shows it.  I guess if we’re considering turbo wastegate noise “engine noise”, then yes, there was a different engine note.
> 
> ...



Well, I did not  study the design of exhaust systems on regular and -30 917s. But hearing is believing : https://www.discogs.com/No-Artist-Porsche-Sound-History/release/7895215
I have just checked with a friend who gave me the record to transfer it to CD - it was not his and he can not get it back for another, better transfer to HR digital. Although nowhere on recprd sleeve it is explicitely written that the recordings are binaural ( except for the original historic voice recordings of Ferdinand Porsche, of course , made way before any practical artificial head became commercially available ), it is clear what they are the first second you listen with (good) headphones. BTW - Stax Lambda Pro came into being because Mercedes Benz has been doing binaural recordings of the noise in cars - and regular Lambda could not support either enough low frequencies or high enough SPL at those low, << 20 Hz sounds commonly found in cars. Increasing the plate distance and bias voltage did the trick - and basic Lambda geometry of ES transducer remained unchanged to this day; only the efficiency has been raised by the recent(ish) trickling down plate technology from the 009 - making L700, the latest/best Lambda, offering most of the 009's performance for cnsiderably less money.

The P34 came after Stewart retired - but he did drive it on the real circuit and did like it. Six wheel P34 not only was raced, it even won ! Decision of the tyre manufacturer not to continue supporting F1 tyres in the required dimension ( unlike any other used by other manufacturers ) sealed the fate of the P34. 

Really sad what happened to RP. But, I am not so sure it was completely avoidable. Not enough medical knowledge for me to judge - but we all expected for him to pull trough. 

Accidents continued to happen and claim lives - but action headed by Stewart slowly eventually lead to safer cars and less fatalities. Seeing 1973 cars in pit area without the aerodynamic "cover" gave one a pretty good idea the last thing one wants is to crash such a car ... compared to today's cars, those were death traps waiting to be triggered.


----------



## KeithEmo

Joe Bloggs said:


> By the same logic, you also can't test anything Charlie said if you're not Charlie.  Nor can Charlie repeat his test blinded, because among other things, sightedness was one of the test parameters, and the way every single air molecule moved in that room on that trial were also part of the test conditions, which can never be duplicated.
> 
> By reductio ad absurdum, I call bull**** on your whole line of reasoning.
> 
> ...


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Most real world listening rooms in homes have to make do with mixed use and imperfect architecture. How you deal with that is the art of it. Optimizing a single listening position is just the start.
> 
> Cars, photography... now all we need are some wine analogies and we've covered all the bases.




Single position optimization can also be the finish line.  Neither single or multi position optimized is right or wrong, it just depends on where you want to make the compromises.

Since most of the time, it's just one or two of us listening, I prefer to optimize for the MLP.  When I have visitors, they get the best seats in the house.  Some rooms are probably less compromised with multi seat optimization than mine is, but when I tried to get all of the seating positions to be relatively equal, the MLP suffered too much.  If I ever get around to finishing the basement and building a dedicated home theater, I will certainly try for a more accurate experience for the entire room.

I make sure visitors are well fed and liquored up to make up for it!


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't know if anyone has run any such tests regarding DACs.
However, it is pretty well accepted that certain few people (usually described as "having perfect pitch") can detect pitch errors that most of us cannot.

I was actually alluding to several points......

If Charlie says he heard a difference using a certain song, a certain headphone amp, and certain headphones, the first thing you should do is try to replicate his results _AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE_.
Don't try and claim that, because you couldn't hear a difference, using a different song, a different amplifier, and different headphones, that you've proven that Charlie _MUST_ be wrong.
And, for that matter, if the matter is important, perhaps you should offer to buy a plane ticket for Charlie, and his test equipment, if he's willing to come and demonstrate _HIS_ results.
(And, if you really want to offer incentive, offer a $500 reward for "any audiophile who can demonstrate to you the he can hear a difference in a blind test".)
However, whether you're willing to go that far or not, it's just plain bad science to assume that Charlie "must" be wrong, without actually testing his results for yourself.
(Note that it's not at all wrong to conclude that you don't find his results compelling enough to test them for yourself; just admit that you haven't _proven_ the result either way.)

Incidentally..... 
I hear that ICEpower has a 1 kW monoblock that weighs about six pounds.... 
I'll bet I could throw it pretty far... and I'll bet you could too.




Joe Bloggs said:


> None of what you say contradicts the fact that sighted test results in audio should be taken seriously about as far as I can throw a 1kW monoblock amp.
> 
> So if your contention is that science doesn't dictate that audio comparison tests need to be blinded, I beg to differ.
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Most real world listening rooms in homes have to make do with mixed use and imperfect architecture. How you deal with that is the art of it. Optimizing a single listening position is just the start.
> 
> Cars, photography... now all we need are some wine analogies and we've covered all the bases.



Of course, correct. Just like the listening to any live concert only one seat removed from the optimum can produce considerably reduced sound quality. 

There are sound examples even past cars ... historic steam locomotives. Both the frequency and dynamic range that only a handful of transducers can reproduce correctly. In a way, even more taxing than fighter jets - where direct in-line "exhaust" from the climbing Su-27 does make an impression of the loudest sound I have ever heard. The dynamic range of a steam locomotive - from "idle" ( well below normal speech level ) to full acceleration in - say - 5 seconds has to be heard ( and felt... ) to be believed.


----------



## KeithEmo

Exactly.... and, if you want to claim that "most home listeners won't notice the difference" then just run a statistical analysis.
Invite 1000 listeners to compare two different DACs, using their own home equipment, and their own favorite music, survey them, and report how many noticed a difference.
And, if the majority report hearing no difference, then you will have ample statistical proof that "most listeners don't notice a difference".



Phronesis said:


> Regardless of the debate about DACs, amps, and cables, since most agree that there are significant differences between transducers, we can still work on the latter problem.  Just pick one or a few DACs, amps, and cables as standard references, then work on the headphone problem.  If some people say "but the DAC makes a big difference too," just ignore them and continue to work on the headphone problem.
> 
> You can also do a blinded study which uses a variety of DACs, amps, cables, and headphones and get results to demonstrate that even if there could be differences between DAC, amps, and cables, the differences between headphones are much larger.  That would settle the matter from a practical standpoint.
> 
> PS - Also listen to the new album "Here If You Listen" by David Crosby et al to hear how much difference stellar recording quality makes!


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I did not  study the design of exhaust systems on regular and -30 917s. But hearing is believing : https://www.discogs.com/No-Artist-Porsche-Sound-History/release/7895215
> I have just checked with a friend who gave me the record to transfer it to CD - it was not his and he can not get it back for another, better transfer to HR digital. Although nowhere on recprd sleeve it is explicitely written that the recordings are binaural ( except for the original historic voice recordings of Ferdinand Porsche, of course , made way before any practical artificial head became commercially available ), it is clear what they are the first second you listen with (good) headphones. BTW - Stax Lambda Pro came into being because Mercedes Benz has been doing binaural recordings of the noise in cars - and regular Lambda could not support either enough low frequencies or high enough SPL at those low, << 20 Hz sounds commonly found in cars. Increasing the plate distance and bias voltage did the trick - and basic Lambda geometry of ES transducer remained unchanged to this day; only the efficiency has been raised by the recent(ish) trickling down plate technology from the 009 - making L700, the latest/best Lambda, offering most of the 009's performance for cnsiderably less money.
> 
> The P34 came after Stewart retired - but he did drive it on the real circuit and did like it. Six wheel P34 not only was raced, it even won ! Decision of the tyre manufacturer not to continue supporting F1 tyres in the required dimension ( unlike any other used by other manufacturers ) sealed the fate of the P34.
> ...




If you haven't seen it, there's an extraordinary and extraordinarily sad documentary "Grand Prix - The Killer Years" focusing on the 60s and early 70s.  I honestly don't know how the drivers climbed into those cars or were willing to drive on those tracks.

Every racer in every series today owes Jackie Stewart for his contributions to safety and willingness to put his career on the line to improve it.


----------



## bigshot

Gosh! It's getting so complicated and difficult to verify, I guess we should just believe everything we're told because proving otherwise would be a dreadful bother!


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 2, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Exactly.... and, if you want to claim that "most home listeners won't notice the difference" then just run a statistical analysis.
> Invite 1000 listeners to compare two different DACs, using their own home equipment, and their own favorite music, survey them, and report how many noticed a difference.
> And, if the majority report hearing no difference, then you will have ample statistical proof that "most listeners don't notice a difference".



Taking it further, if you have multiple variables in the same study - DACs, amps, cables, and headphones - with a wide range of equipment in each category, and lots of listeners, you can do a statistical analysis of the results to maybe be able to say something like "we found that essentially all of the variability in sound quality perceived by listeners was attributable to differences in headphones, and essentially none of the variability was attributable to differences in DACs, amps, or cables."  If such a study was designed, conducted, and interpreted properly, with a large number of diverse listeners, it would provide powerful evidence.  But doing such a study isn't a small undertaking, and it would require decent funding.


----------



## Phronesis

bfreedma said:


> If you haven't seen it, there's an extraordinary and extraordinarily sad documentary "Grand Prix - The Killer Years" focusing on the 60s and early 70s.  I honestly don't know how the drivers climbed into those cars or were willing to drive on those tracks.
> 
> Every racer in every series today owes Jackie Stewart for his contributions to safety and willingness to put his career on the line to improve it.



Sir Jackie is one of my heroes!  Yeah, those were crazy times, reflective of a culture where the high level risk was considered kind of macho and exhilarating, as though drivers were warriors on a battlefield.  The death of Senna was a turning point, where a lot of people started saying enough is enough.  But outside the upper echelons of pro racing, there's still a culture of some complacency with respect to motorsports safety on road courses even today (I've been heavily involved in the safety aspect for years, having gone to scene of numerous incidents and investigated them).  Also check out the documentary "1" for a history of Grand Prix safety:

https://www.amazon.com/1-Michael-Fa...UTF8&qid=1541195734&sr=1-8&keywords=formula+1


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> If you haven't seen it, there's an extraordinary and extraordinarily sad documentary "Grand Prix - The Killer Years" focusing on the 60s and early 70s.  I honestly don't know how the drivers climbed into those cars or were willing to drive on those tracks.
> 
> Every racer in every series today owes Jackie Stewart for his contributions to safety and willingness to put his career on the line to improve it.



Maybe I have not seen the exact documentary mentioned - but certainly did see many from that era. Admit it or not - much of the allure of the F1 in those days for the spectators has been the eternal question hanging in the air : Who is gonna be next ?

I agree that every racer owes Jackie Stewart for his contributions to safety and his willingness to put his career on the line to improve it. Jackie stopped racing after Francais Cevert , his young team mate, crashed in Watkins Glen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_United_States_Grand_Prix There is no single person who made more in order to improive the safety of this inherently dangerous sport - during his active career and following years after retirement from active racing. GREAT man !


----------



## KeithEmo

Of course not....

Just be careful to say things like: "Nobody has done a proper study showing that there's a difference."
Or even: "As far as I know, even though a lot of people seem to believe it's true, nobody has been able to prove it."
When you're just stating an assumption, or an educated guess, rather than a proven fact.

So, for example, when talking about DACs.....
Say: 
"Most well designed DACs have excellent frequency response, THD, and S/N specs."
"There are measurements, like impulse response, that vary considerably between DACs."
"But many of these differences fall outside of what many people consider to be 'the limits of human audibility'."
"Subjectively, most people claim to hear no difference between well-designed DACs under most conditions, but a distinct minority are convinced that they can hear differences."
"So far nobody has conducted a properly designed experiment to conclusively determine whether audible differences exist or not."



bigshot said:


> Gosh! It's getting so complicated and difficult to verify, I guess we should just believe everything we're told because proving otherwise would be a dreadful bother!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I did not  study the design of exhaust systems on regular and -30 917s. But hearing is believing : https://www.discogs.com/No-Artist-Porsche-Sound-History/release/7895215
> I have just checked with a friend who gave me the record to transfer it to CD - it was not his and he can not get it back for another, better transfer to HR digital. Although nowhere on recprd sleeve it is explicitely written that the recordings are binaural ( except for the original historic voice recordings of Ferdinand Porsche, of course , made way before any practical artificial head became commercially available ), it is clear what they are the first second you listen with (good) headphones. BTW - Stax Lambda Pro came into being because Mercedes Benz has been doing binaural recordings of the noise in cars - and regular Lambda could not support either enough low frequencies or high enough SPL at those low, << 20 Hz sounds commonly found in cars. Increasing the plate distance and bias voltage did the trick - and basic Lambda geometry of ES transducer remained unchanged to this day; only the efficiency has been raised by the recent(ish) trickling down plate technology from the 009 - making L700, the latest/best Lambda, offering most of the 009's performance for cnsiderably less money.
> 
> The P34 came after Stewart retired - but he did drive it on the real circuit and did like it. Six wheel P34 not only was raced, it even won ! Decision of the tyre manufacturer not to continue supporting F1 tyres in the required dimension ( unlike any other used by other manufacturers ) sealed the fate of the P34.
> ...



"_I have just checked with a friend who gave me 
the record to transfer it to CD - it was not his and 
he can not get it back for another, better transfer 
to HR digital._"

I can guarantee you will not hear a difference between a needle-drop of that vinyl to CD and a needle-drop to High-Res format, assuing same playback and ADC equipment and a flat transfer.


----------



## bfreedma

Phronesis said:


> Sir Jackie is one of my heroes!  Yeah, those were crazy times, reflective of a culture where the high level risk was considered kind of macho and exhilarating, as though drivers were warriors on a battlefield.  The death of Senna was a turning point, where a lot of people started saying enough is enough.  But outside the upper echelons of pro racing, there's still a culture of some complacency with respect to motorsports safety on road courses even today (I've been heavily involved in the safety aspect for years, having gone to scene of numerous incidents and investigated them).  Also check out the documentary "1" for a history of Grand Prix safety:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/1-Michael-Fa...UTF8&qid=1541195734&sr=1-8&keywords=formula+1




Yes, that’s an excellent documentary as well.  Agree that Senna was a big turning point, but another major factor was the advent of major companies sponsoring and using the cars for advertising.  Something about a driver passing away in a car with your corporate brand on it wasn’t very appealing.  Sadly, the changes were as much driven by money as they were concern for driver safety.

Since there seems to be interest, I’ll create an F1 thread in in the Gear-FI subforum as I suspect not everyone wants this thread to turn into an F1 discussion...


----------



## bigshot

I like how my jokes get turned into word salad responses.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> "_I have just checked with a friend who gave me
> the record to transfer it to CD - it was not his and
> he can not get it back for another, better transfer
> to HR digital._"
> ...



That is to say you have never heard a really decent audio system. Specifically, talking about Stax Lambda Pro and above - and amps capable of driving them CORRECTLY.

Porsche could have issued a CD in 1983 - but they chose not to. The state of the CD art was simply too low at that time - NOT acceptable for these superb recordings. These recordings have been made available on the CD only in 2010 - https://www.discogs.com/Various-Porsche-Sounds/release/10698676 - only after Edel music actually managed to produce some extraordinary transfers of original analog recordings to CD. I remember those - started to appear at the end of my CD retail days (around 2003-4) , left most other CDs, including new recordings, in dust regarding the SQ - and there was extraordinary good music on those to begin with - mostly from the ETERNA catalogue. Labels on CD include Corona Classics, Berlin Classics, sometimes even under Edel itself.

It is a bit difficult to "sell" the sound of CD to  men working with cars on a daily basis - that spark, that - for the lack of a better word - joie de vivre is missing. So, they chose - quite cleverly - to issue only the analog record in 1983.

Nothing against digital in porinciple - but RBCD  is simply not good enough not to be clearly distingushable from the live microphone feed. I do not want this merry go around to go  - yet another - new circle . So, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic. I have neither the time nor finances available to prove it according to all the rules and beyond shadow of a doubt.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> That is to say you have never heard a really decent audio system. Specifically, talking about Stax Lambda Pro and above - and amps capable of driving them CORRECTLY.
> 
> Porsche could have issued a CD in 1983 - but they chose not to. The state of the CD art was simply too low at that time - NOT acceptable for these superb recordings. These recordings have been made available on the CD only in 2010 - https://www.discogs.com/Various-Porsche-Sounds/release/10698676 - only after Edel music actually managed to produce some extraordinary transfers of original analog recordings to CD. I remember those - started to appear at the end of my CD retail days (around 2003-4) , left most other CDs, including new recordings, in dust regarding the SQ - and there was extraordinary good music on those to begin with - mostly from the ETERNA catalogue. Labels on CD include Corona Classics, Berlin Classics, sometimes even under Edel itself.
> 
> ...



So you want to refute the Nyquist theorem and its role in the development of Redbook?  Fine.

Yes, I'm sure there are some Golden Ears who can hear the difference between High-res and Redbook deliverables.  But for the majority of listeners, with decent component setups, CD is just fine.  Heck I could make a High-Res version sound different than the CD version:  Apply mild loudness processing, or smiley-face EQ, to the high-res master.    THEN the suckers - er, audiophiles who buy it will hear their stinkin' difference.  Ave Maria...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 2, 2018)

"That is to say" is a very odd way of starting out a sentence.

I would be interested in seeing an example of a person who can discern a difference between 16/44.1 and higher data rates at normal listening levels with a typical home stereo situation. I've never met anyone who can do that.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> So you want to refute the Nyquist theorem and its role in the development of Redbook?  Fine.
> 
> Yes, I'm sure there are some Golden Ears who can hear the difference between High-res and Redbook deliverables.  But for the majority of listeners, with decent component setups, CD is just fine.  Heck I could make a High-Res version sound different than the CD version:  Apply mild loudness processing, or smiley-face EQ, to the high-res master.    THEN the suckers - er, audiophiles who buy it will hear their stinkin' difference.  Ave Maria...



Hmmm... - people trying to convince me and others who claim that RBCD or Nyquist or whatever/whoever is not enough have ONE COMMON quality - there is ALWAYS some intentional manipulation of the signal involved. I am stating this WITHOUT any loudness processing, without any EQ, without any compressing, without - ANYTHING. Only the different sampling rates - and less important, bit depths. If you are fine with RBCD, fine - you will save quite a bit of money. If you have accesss to the real thing, it is next to impossible to ignore the benefits of higher sampling rate recordings.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> Hmmm... - people trying to convince me and others who claim that RBCD or Nyquist or whatever/whoever is not enough have ONE COMMON quality - there is ALWAYS some intentional manipulation of the signal involved. I am stating this WITHOUT any loudness processing, without any EQ, without any compressing, without - ANYTHING. Only the different sampling rates - and less important, bit depths. If you are fine with RBCD, fine - you will save quite a bit of money. If you have accesss to the real thing, it is next to impossible to ignore the benefits of higher sampling rate recordings.



Spoken like a true audiophile!  Believe what you want to believe.


----------



## Davesrose

analogsurviver said:


> Hmmm... - people trying to convince me and others who claim that RBCD or Nyquist or whatever/whoever is not enough have ONE COMMON quality - there is ALWAYS some intentional manipulation of the signal involved. I am stating this WITHOUT any loudness processing, without any EQ, without any compressing, without - ANYTHING. Only the different sampling rates - and less important, bit depths. If you are fine with RBCD, fine - you will save quite a bit of money. If you have accesss to the real thing, it is next to impossible to ignore the benefits of higher sampling rate recordings.



You know I think it's great that on here there's still debates about CD vs SACD/hi-res formats ...while your typical person is now listening to mp3s on a bluetooth device that can't even reveal a difference with aptX/AAC.  I'm agnostic when it comes to source format: I have many CDs that are the pinnacle of that recording and I will always favor them (also driven by how I like the performance).  I also found certain classic rock from the 70s sounds really good on vinyl (the height of when they were engineered for the medium, and then were apparently compressed for CD remasters).  I do have quite a few SACDs that are original older tape masters trying to be the most hi-fidelity: I still enjoy them because of the lower noise floor.  One of my main genres I've delved into is classical guitar: I have some RCA SACD recordings of Julian Bream that will just innately sound better then the original vinyl pressing as there's no noticeable distortion.  I do have a few natively recorded DSD SACDs, and they do seem to have a quality of more open soundstage.  But again, the final basis for me is the music itself.  I have an SACD of Hnoncourt's Mozart's Requiem which I can identify as being technically superior to my favorite interepretation of Neville Marriner's CDs.  But I'll still always want to default to listening to Marriner for the music.  At this point in time, the main high-res lossless audio I'm collecting is Blu-ray concerts.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Davesrose said:


> You know I think it's great that on here there's still debates about CD vs SACD/hi-res formats ...while your typical person is now listening to mp3s on a bluetooth device that can't even reveal a difference with aptX/AAC.  I'm agnostic when it comes to source format: I have many CDs that are the pinnacle of that recording and I will always favor them (also driven by how I like the performance).  I also found certain classic rock from the 70s sounds really good on vinyl (the height of when they were engineered for the medium, and then were apparently compressed for CD remasters).  I do have quite a few SACDs that are original older tape masters trying to be the most hi-fidelity: I still enjoy them because of the lower noise floor.  One of my main genres I've delved into is classical guitar: I have some RCA SACD recordings of Julian Bream that will just innately sound better then the original vinyl pressing as there's no noticeable distortion.  I do have a few natively recorded DSD SACDs, and they do seem to have a quality of more open soundstage.  But again, the final basis for me is the music itself.  I have an SACD of Hnoncourt's Mozart's Requiem which I can identify as being technically superior to my favorite interepretation of Neville Marriner's CDs.  But I'll still always want to default to listening to Marriner for the music.  At this point in time, the main high-res lossless audio I'm collecting is Blu-ray concerts.



"_then were apparently compressed for CD remasters)_" 

You just proved my point, and something the obvious audiophiles on outright refuse to admit:  The MASTERING makes a THOUSAND-fold difference between formats than the formats themselves.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

TheSonicTruth said:


> "_then were apparently compressed for CD remasters)_"
> 
> You just proved my point, and something the obvious audiophiles on outright refuse to admit:  The MASTERING makes a THOUSAND-fold difference between formats than the formats themselves.



I don't think that's the guy you were debating with...


----------



## Davesrose

TheSonicTruth said:


> "_then were apparently compressed for CD remasters)_"
> 
> You just proved my point, and something the obvious audiophiles on outright refuse to admit:  The MASTERING makes a THOUSAND-fold difference between formats than the formats themselves.



Indeed...that's one immediate thing I found with demoing vinyl vs CD masterings of the 80s.  Many early CDs were audibly compressed to eliminate any tape hiss and just sound awful now.  Digital processing has greatly improved so that dynamics sound great in within CD standards.  My ultimate preference with my speaker system in BD has to do with surround and LFE.  The best in high res music I have in BD isn't just about accurately modeling high frequencies...but they have a great use of subwoofer and dynamics.  We are in an interesting time where we have fringe elements wanting to revive vinyl, are high res digital purists, and the majority who are listening to whatever compressed formats on given bluetooth formats.


----------



## Davesrose

Joe Bloggs said:


> I don't think that's the guy you were debating with...



Oh, I just thought he was looking for someone for confirmation!


----------



## old tech (Nov 2, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> Indeed...that's one immediate thing I found with demoing vinyl vs CD masterings of the 80s.  Many early CDs were audibly compressed to eliminate any tape hiss and just sound awful now.  Digital processing has greatly improved so that dynamics sound great in within CD standards.  My ultimate preference with my speaker system in BD has to do with surround and LFE.  The best in high res music I have in BD isn't just about accurately modeling high frequencies...but they have a great use of subwoofer and dynamics.  We are in an interesting time where we have fringe elements wanting to revive vinyl, are high res digital purists, and the majority who are listening to whatever compressed formats on given bluetooth formats.


Many early CDs also sound outstanding, some of the original or early CD releases are the best available, sound quality wise.  Many of the better oop early CDs command high prices on the used market for that reason.

The early CDs are a mixed bag.  I don't believe most of them were compressed, but rather they were a flat transfer from the source tape.  In the rush to get CD titles to the market, labels used whatever tape was available.  Sometimes the tapes were poor, eg many generations down or dub masters used for vinyl or cassette production, other times the quality of the tapes were great and they were the early CDs that are sought after.  For example, take the early David Bowie RCA CD catalogue which still today are considered by many to be the best digital versions, better than the later hi res SACDs or PCM downloads even though the tapes used were hardly stellar.  To my ears, Hunky Dory and Ziggy Stardust RCAs sound better than the RCA vinyl releases due to the higher resolution of CDs.  The very early Sony mastered Dark Side of the Moon CD is another example of a generally preferred digital version.  This was a flat transfer of the 15ips tape used to make the highly regarded  1978 Japan Pro Use LP.  There are numerous other examples like the early Dire Straits and Roxy Music CDs.  Many of the early Japan and German target CDs (called so because of the circle around the edge of the CD) or the "swirl" CDs are very high quality (though still variable) and sought after by audiophiles.

No doubt digital production has advanced since the early 80s, but properly implemented at the studio they were still superior to the analog stuff of the day.  Later productions may have benefitted from advances in digital production but too often that advantage is cancelled out by the loudness wars.


----------



## Davesrose

old tech said:


> The early CDs are a mixed bag.  I don't believe most of them were compressed, but rather they were a flat transfer from the source tape.  In the rush to get CD titles to the market, labels used whatever tape was available.  Sometimes the tapes were poor, eg many generations down or dub masters used for vinyl or cassette production, other times the quality of the tapes were great and they were the early CDs that are sought after.  For example, take the early David Bowie RCA CD catalogue which still today are considered by many to be the best digital versions, better than the later hi res SACDs or PCM downloads even though the tapes used were hardly stellar.  To my ears, Hunky Dory and Ziggy Stardust RCAs sound better than the RCA vinyl releases due to the higher resolution of CDs.  The very early Sony mastered Dark Side of the Moon CD is another example of a generally preferred digital version.  This was a flat transfer of the 15ips tape used to make the highly regarded  1978 Japan Pro Use LP.  There are numerous other examples like the early Dire Straits and Roxy Music CDs.  Many of the early Japan and German target CDs (called so because of the circle around the edge of the CD) or the "swirl" CDs are very high quality (though still variable) and sought after by audiophiles.



This also highlights how there is different markets for different genres.  When I invested in SACD, all reviews I read about rock masters pretty much said the only possible advantage for some was a mixed surround.  Many impressions of rock SACDs were that they were no different from previous CD releases.  I invested in SACD for classical and jazz.. The main native rock SACD I have is Beck's Sea Change.  I do have Dark Side of the Moon on SACD: I'm not such a Pink Floyd devote to want to collect every version and compare.  I do know this in itself is debated ad infinitum.  I've only compared with my friends vinyl versions, and there just seems to be less distortion with the SACD in my setup.  When it comes to audio quality of CDs in the 80s, I'm also sure there'd be a huge difference between the earliest masters in the early 80s vs the later 80s (just as the earliest DVDs had pretty bad compression and were not anamorphic).


----------



## old tech (Nov 3, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> This also highlights how there is different markets for different genres.  When I invested in SACD, all reviews I read about rock masters pretty much said the only possible advantage for some was a mixed surround.  Many impressions of rock SACDs were that they were no different from previous CD releases.  I invested in SACD for classical and jazz.. The main native rock SACD I have is Beck's Sea Change.  I do have Dark Side of the Moon on SACD: I'm not such a Pink Floyd devote to want to collect every version and compare.  I do know this in itself is debated ad infinitum.  I've only compared with my friends vinyl versions, and there just seems to be less distortion with the SACD in my setup.  When it comes to audio quality of CDs in the 80s, I'm also sure there'd be a huge difference between the earliest masters in the early 80s vs the later 80s (just as the earliest DVDs had pretty bad compression and were not anamorphic).


Nope, there is no difference generally between the early 80s CDs and the later 80s.  It wasn't until the early 90s that digital mixing consoles were widely used and music production became more processed (there were limits on how far one could push analog processing).

I still don't quite understand what you mean by the early CDs being compressed.  I presume you are referring to audio compression rather than data compression because both CD and SACD are uncompressed formats.  Even so, if you did mean audio compression then it is far more likely that SACDs would be more compressed due to modern mastering trends.  It would be rare to find an 80s CD that is compressed as most of them were transfers from the source tape.


----------



## old tech (Nov 3, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> "_I have just checked with a friend who gave me
> the record to transfer it to CD - it was not his and
> he can not get it back for another, better transfer
> to HR digital._"
> ...


Yes, believing that is like believing pouring 1 litre of water into a 3 litre jug will yield more water than pouring it into a 2 litre jug.


----------



## old tech

TheSonicTruth said:


> Spoken like a true audiophile!  Believe what you want to believe.


You mean audiophool?


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Nov 3, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> Indeed...that's one immediate thing I found with demoing vinyl vs CD masterings of the 80s.  Many early CDs were audibly compressed to eliminate any tape hiss and just sound awful now.  Digital processing has greatly improved so that dynamics sound great in within CD standards.  My ultimate preference with my speaker system in BD has to do with surround and LFE.  The best in high res music I have in BD isn't just about accurately modeling high frequencies...but they have a great use of subwoofer and dynamics.  We are in an interesting time where we have fringe elements wanting to revive vinyl, are high res digital purists, and the majority who are listening to whatever compressed formats on given bluetooth formats.



Actually you have that backwards.  The masters were compressed for *some* early CDs(hence all the DR12 values I'm getting on the MAAT DR meter), but I believe the guy I quoted(Davesrose) was referring to the later 'remaster' editions(late 1990s reissues of Thriller for example) which were compressed and limited for loudness.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

old tech said:


> Nope, there is no difference generally between the early 80s CDs and the later 80s.  It wasn't until the early 90s that digital mixing consoles were widely used and music production became more processed (there were limits on how far one could push analog processing).
> 
> I still don't quite understand what you mean by the early CDs being compressed.  I presume you are referring to audio compression rather than data compression because both CD and SACD are uncompressed formats.  Even so, if you did mean audio compression then it is far more likely that SACDs would be more compressed due to modern mastering trends.  It would be rare to find an 80s CD that is compressed as most of them were transfers from the source tape.



Correct.  We are talking dynamic compression here, not data compression.  Some people still believe that lossy formats(mp3) compress the dynamics, and that's why they got a bad rap - mp3 gained traction with the mobile public just as the latest loudness war(late 1990s to present) was beginning.  Consumers naturally confused one form of compression with the other, lol!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Joe Bloggs said:


> I don't think that's the guy you were debating with...



What do you mean by that? I'm confused.  I quoted Davesrose and replied to him.


----------



## analogsurviver

Davesrose said:


> You know I think it's great that on here there's still debates about CD vs SACD/hi-res formats ...while your typical person is now listening to mp3s on a bluetooth device that can't even reveal a difference with aptX/AAC.  I'm agnostic when it comes to source format: I have many CDs that are the pinnacle of that recording and I will always favor them (also driven by how I like the performance).  I also found certain classic rock from the 70s sounds really good on vinyl (the height of when they were engineered for the medium, and then were apparently compressed for CD remasters).  I do have quite a few SACDs that are original older tape masters trying to be the most hi-fidelity: I still enjoy them because of the lower noise floor.  One of my main genres I've delved into is classical guitar: I have some RCA SACD recordings of Julian Bream that will just innately sound better then the original vinyl pressing as there's no noticeable distortion.  I do have a few natively recorded DSD SACDs, and they do seem to have a quality of more open soundstage.  But again, the final basis for me is the music itself.  I have an SACD of Hnoncourt's Mozart's Requiem which I can identify as being technically superior to my favorite interepretation of Neville Marriner's CDs.  But I'll still always want to default to listening to Marriner for the music.  At this point in time, the main high-res lossless audio I'm collecting is Blu-ray concerts.



This is the kind of answer I like the most - congrats, Sir !

Currently, I am working on vinyl - how to best preserve it on digital. The recordings vary in quality - widly so, spanning more than 60 years of music and audio history . And, ultimately there is , finally, for the moment only one - LP available made from the DSD256 master as the best possible reference - to compare it to the turntable output .

Stylus shapes, vinyl quality ( from new, unplayed - to would replace the copy in a heartbeat IF available >>), vinyl cleaning methods, cartridges, arms, turntables, phono stages, - and "digititis" that can best approach the sound of the vinyl played "live". It is going to be quite a journey ...


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 3, 2018)

old tech said:


> Nope, there is no difference generally between the early 80s CDs and the later 80s.  It wasn't until the early 90s that digital mixing consoles were widely used and music production became more processed (there were limits on how far one could push analog processing).
> 
> I still don't quite understand what you mean by the early CDs being compressed.  I presume you are referring to audio compression rather than data compression because both CD and SACD are uncompressed formats.  Even so, if you did mean audio compression then it is far more likely that SACDs would be more compressed due to modern mastering trends.  It would be rare to find an 80s CD that is compressed as most of them were transfers from the source tape.



Sorry, but CDs aren't all mastered the same.  I also work with computers and know what data compression is: I obviously wasn't referring to compression as that.  My use of the word was referring to audio, but probably wasn't the best word (as I didn't mean dynamic range so much as primarily reducing frequency range around tape hiss).  Since my post did reference tape hiss, I'm not sure how you got to data compression.  Music is also mastered after transferring original source tape.  Also SACDs can have a MP4 lossless data compression known as DST.


----------



## Davesrose

TheSonicTruth said:


> Actually you have that backwards.  The masters were compressed for *some* early CDs(hence all the DR12 values I'm getting on the MAAT DR meter), but I believe the guy I quoted(Davesrose) was referring to the later 'remaster' editions(late 1990s reissues of Thriller for example) which were compressed and limited for loudness.



Wait, you seem to have things backwards.  You quote me (Davesrose), then say you were quoting another guy named Davesrose.  All my (Davesrose) posts have been referencing early CD releases.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Davesrose said:


> Sorry, but CDs aren't all mastered the same.  I also work with computers and know what data compression is: I obviously wasn't referring to compression as that.  My use of the word was referring to audio, but probably wasn't the best word (as I didn't mean dynamic range but reducing frequency range around tape hiss).  Since my post did reference tape hiss, I'm not sure how you got to data compression.



I'll probably catch flack for this(or FLAC! ), but I refer to the two forms as 'dynamic compression' and 'data REDUCTION'.  No confusion there!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Davesrose said:


> Wait, you seem to have things backwards.  You quote me (Davesrose), then say you were quoting another guy named Davesrose.  All my (Davesrose) posts have been referencing early CD releases.



Go back to post #10249 or thereabouts:  Did someone else named 'Davesrose' type that?


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 3, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Go back to post #10249 or thereabouts:  Did someone else named 'Davesrose' type that?



No, I typed that one and I only refer to early CDs then.  At no time did I, Davesrose, talk about mastering CDs from the 90s.  It appears you quoted the first post I made about observations of CD and high-res formats still being debated on this forum.  And at no point does any post from Davesrose disagree with you.  From what I can see going back to the previous page, you were having a back and forth with analogsurvivor


----------



## dprimary

Davesrose said:


> Indeed...that's one immediate thing I found with demoing vinyl vs CD masterings of the 80s.  Many early CDs were audibly compressed to eliminate any tape hiss and just sound awful now.  Digital processing has greatly improved so that dynamics sound great in within CD standards.



Compression will increase tape hiss since you are decreasing the dynamic range. Many early transfer transfers sound bad because master tape sounded really bad to start with. Luckily many of the drugs consumed at the time drastically reduced high frequency hearing so the final mixes are screaming bright. So the mastering engineer reduces the high frequencies back to normal the hiss gets reduced. Drug induced noise reduction.
When the record companies rushed to reissue thousands upon thousands of reissues they did straight transfers it was not mastered like the original vinyl had been. Back then You recorded and mixed to compensate for the many short comings of vinyl since it was mixed for a lossy format you can never get it back if all you have left is the half track master. If it was remixed from the multitrack you have more options however it will sound vastly different. The chances of you getting every fader move and effect exact is close to zero. Some remixed releases are not even the same take. The performance is not the same one as the original. How reviewers and audiophiles miss that is mystery to me.


----------



## castleofargh

Davesrose said:


> Wait, you seem to have things backwards.  You quote me (Davesrose), then say you were quoting another guy named Davesrose.  All my (Davesrose) posts have been referencing early CD releases.


----------



## bfreedma

castleofargh said:


>





If I had the editing tools and skill, I’d update that video and replace every verbal and written “Malkovich” with “compression”.


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> [1] Every source I've seen about surround sound has said one shouldn't confuse LFE with a subwoofer channel. [2] In regards to DB, as my linked article went over, all other tracks are targeted at 85DB, while LFE channels are targeted at 95DB.



1. There isn't such a thing as a "subwoofer channel" per se. I think you have misunderstood, what "every source" is warning you about is not to confuse the LFE channel with the subwoofer information generated by a bass management system.
2. I'm not sure which of your linked articles you're referencing but either it's wrong or you have misunderstood it! The main screen channels are referenced to 85dBSPL (= -20dBFS) but the LFE channels are NOT targeted at 95dBSPL. The LFE channel/subwoofer has +10dB of in-band gain applied relative to the screen channels. If one were to (incorrectly) measure full-band, that would typically result in the calibration of the sub being somewhere around 91dB relative to the 85dB of the screen speakers, not 95dB. 



Davesrose said:


> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...8-p180006221&usg=AOvVaw2Q3QbXkT-3X6Jo9qs5GMMW
> " Object-based format is the most original format of a sound recording. Object-based format represents a sound scene using a combination of sound objects with the associated metadata [HHK15]. Sound objects are essentially individual sound sources. ... The greatest beneﬁt of object-based audio is that it can be rendered optimally for any arbitrary playback systems. Meanwhile, interactivity can be enabled, for example, changing to another language of speech, increasing the loudness of certain objects (e.g., speech level shall be higher for hearing-impaired listeners), and adapting the position of the sound objects according to listener’s movement in virtual reality applications. The object-based format is the best format in terms of reproduction ﬂexibility and quality.



Kudos for actually presenting some scientific documentation but not quite so much kudos for not reading it all and not really understanding it's context. In effect, the extract presents the current state of research and the areas requiring more research, in order to develop the theory further and ultimately lead to solution which is applicable in practise. In a sense it's a bit like an extract on teleportation, sure there are many advantages of teleportation over catching a plane but there's one big obvious disadvantage, teleportation isn't actually possible yet! The serious articles on teleportation are presenting theories on how it might work in the future and the article you linked to is of a similar type. This isn't an ideal analogy because the theories presented on audio objects can actually be implemented and be made to work but only under very specific conditions and only at a very simplistic level. Conditions which could be practically applied to about 1% of music production and about 0% of film/TV production (and nowhere close to the level of complexity required)! The extract itself states: "Despite the recent advances in BSS and PAE, the challenges due to the complexity and uncertainty of the sound scenes still remain to be resolved". The cutting edge of what's currently commercially available in separating sounds is autonomously effective about 15% of the time and even then, only with certain types of fairly simple examples, it's a similar story with reverb extraction, both of which employ fairly sophisticated machine learning. Recreating reverb/spacial information is also relatively rudimentary. I can't see how a full practical solution could ever be possible but assuming I'm wrong, we're looking at decades rather than years in the future and certainly not something that's possible today.

G


----------



## Davesrose

gregorio said:


> 1. There isn't such a thing as a "subwoofer channel" per se. I think you have misunderstood, what "every source" is warning you about is not to confuse the LFE channel with the subwoofer information generated by a bass management system.
> 2. I'm not sure which of your linked articles you're referencing but either it's wrong or you have misunderstood it! The main screen channels are referenced to 85dBSPL (= -20dBFS) but the LFE channels are NOT targeted at 95dBSPL. The LFE channel/subwoofer has +10dB of in-band gain applied relative to the screen channels. If one were to (incorrectly) measure full-band, that would typically result in the calibration of the sub being somewhere around 91dB relative to the 85dB of the screen speakers, not 95dB



In case you did want to check the source, I'll post it again:
https://hometheaterhifi.com/editorial/the-misunderstood-01-lfe-channel-in-51-digital-surround-sound/

"During both soundtrack production and in the movie theaters, the LFE channel, with that same level (-20dB) pink noise (but band limited to the subwoofers range), is calibrated to 95 dB on the RTA within the sub’s bandwidth (Figures 2 and 3). This is done so that it can play 10 dB higher than any one of the screen channels. Because of this 10 dB offset, the LFE channel can achieve a balanced output of bass as compared with the total output of bass from the three screen channels (in other words it can single handedly compete with the screen channels in terms of level). The only down side is that we lose a little S/N (signal to noise) performance on that track. Because our hearing is less sensitive to bass to begin with, the system gets away with it just fine."

When it comes to the difference between 85DB vs LFE 95DB: the article says it's in the playback level.





gregorio said:


> Kudos for actually presenting some scientific documentation but not quite so much kudos for not reading it all and not really understanding it's context. In effect, the extract presents the current state of research and the areas requiring more research, in order to develop the theory further and ultimately lead to solution which is applicable in practise.



I don't believe I showed ignorance.  I did say that I realize Atmos is not a pure object-based system.  As to when object-based systems will be fully utilized: technologies mature at an exponential rate.  No one could have realized how quickly facial recognition matured (due to advances in neural networking).


----------



## gregorio

bfreedma said:


> [1] Thanks for the compliment on the FR response and the additional information.  I'll either dig up an existing waterfall or take a new one once work eases up.  I will readily admit that it's not as purty as the FR - the room in question is a mixed use room so to keep some level of harmony (considering the investment in speakers and measurement gear), typical room treatments aren't an option.
> 2a.  No disagreement in principle, but as someone who can reproduce sub 30Hz content with a modicum of accuracy, I wish it wasn't being truncated.  I do realize that the industry has to cater to the majority, so I'll just sulk in the corner quietly on that one going forward
> 3. From the FR and spectrum plots I've seen for a few movies, I do think there are a few that have intentional content below 20Hz but will defer to your industry knowledge and not argue that most of the sub 20Hz content is unintended residue or unedited channels.
> [4] I'll also own up to the fact that watching a blockbuster movie and reproducing ULF is a pleasant experience for me, so even if it's unintended content, it rarely feels out of context with what is occurring on screen.  Please don't ruin my fun



1. I wouldn't expect it to be as "purty" as the FR plot. You can usually somewhat "fix" many FR probs with EQ, to get a fairly decent plot but that's a two edged sword because some of those FR plot probs are related to time/duration of resonance rather than just peak levels, so although you might get a "purty" FR plot with EQ, you may have achieved it by reducing the EQ'ed freqs well below flat. The only way to deal with this is with acoustic treatment but if that's not possible/practical, it's almost always preferable to sacrifice some of the "purtiness" of your FR plot. I completely appreciate you've done the best with what was practical/possible and IMHO that's all we can reasonably ask.

2a. I would guess that far less than 1% of consumers can even reproduce 30Hz with any accuracy, let alone below 20Hz. However, I will adjust material down as far as I can detect or reproduce (which is 19Hz), "just in case" but in all the cases I can recall where I've done so, it was always because of some headroom usage rather than any material audio quality concern. 

3. I can't say for absolute certain. I've not seen/heard all movies and while I've worked in some world class dub stages I've certainly not worked in them all. The top dub stages have custom built systems and it's possible some go lower than the norm (of other world class facilities). Professional practice/guidance has always been; "don't deliberately put anything in there below 25Hz". There may of course be someone who deliberately ignored the professional practice and therefore there might be some examples of intentional content below 20Hz but I've never done it, I've never seen or even heard of anyone else doing it and I can't see any reason why anyone would.

4. As a mixer, I (and my colleagues) am slightly disturbed by the idea of you reproducing down to 14Hz, from the point of view that I'm uncomfortable with you reproducing material that I haven't heard/vetted. Although having said this: 1. Anything down there should hopefully be innocuous and 2. It's becoming somewhat of an unfortunate fact of life that we can't just go on what our ears/perception/judgment are telling us any more. More so with higher sample rate music than film, we're having to guess what's there from looking at spectograms because we can't actually hear more than half the freq spectrum of what goes out our doors! As a type of commercial artist who earns a living from it, I have to accept that once it's out of my doors, it's no longer "mine". The consumer buys it and it's up to them how they choose to reproduce/hear it and to be honest I don't really have a problem with that. If someone wants tube distortion all over their reproduction, that's fine, they've paid to reproduce it how they want and I'm making a living doing what I love because they were willing to pay for it. The only time I have a problem is when they try to convince me or others that reproducing it how they want (with say tube distortion) is somehow higher fidelity/more accurate. You're not trying to convince me or others that you're getting better fidelity, just that you enjoy listening to it that way, which is fine and to be honest, I often have my home sub a little higher than I know it should be because purely for my own pleasure, I like bass!

G


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> [1] I don't believe I showed ignorance.
> [2] As to when object-based systems will be fully utilized: technologies mature at an exponential rate.



1. And yet you're misunderstanding LFE/subwoofer calibration. You seem to be misunderstanding the "in-band" part. If you take a full range screen speaker outputting 85dBSPL and remove everything above 120Hz, then it will no longer be outputting 85dB, it will be outputting more like 81dB. If you then calibrate the LFE/subwoofer to be 10dB higher, that would be 91dB, not 95dB. Here's how Dolby themselves describe calibrating the LFE/subwoofer:

"_Ideally, the test noise used for subwoofer calibration should be band-limited pink noise, low-pass filtered at 120 Hz. To properly calibrate the subwoofer, an RTA is required... When using an RTA, proper calibration requires setting the LFE channel signal sent to the subwoofer, within its typical bandwidth of 25 to 120 Hz, 10 dB higher than the main channels.If an RTA is not available, setting the LFE channel higher (e.g., ~ 90 to 91 dBc for the subwoofer channel when the Center channel measures 85 dBc), can give an approximate level with an SPL meter._"

2. Are we exponentially closer to a teleportation device? Technologies typically mature at an exponential rate only from the point at which they exist. The technology doesn't currently exist to deal with the type of complex signals that modern music and film/TV production are. The extract YOU cited specifically states that!

G


----------



## Davesrose

gregorio said:


> 1. And yet you're misunderstanding LFE/subwoofer calibration. You seem to be misunderstanding the "in-band" part. If you take a full range screen speaker outputting 85dBSPL and remove everything above 120Hz, then it will no longer be outputting 85dB, it will be outputting more like 81dB. If you then calibrate the LFE/subwoofer to be 10dB higher, that would be 91dB, not 95dB. Here's how Dolby themselves describe calibrating the LFE/subwoofer:



And now you're showing you take things out of context: when that sentence was in reference to the paper on object-based models.  You've accused me of not understanding my sources, when you didn't read them initially.  You asked if I understood the article on LFE I previously posted. It specifically says RTA of 85DB and 95DB.  If you dispute that, then that's with the author of the article and not me.  I wonder also if there's a difference in authoring between cinema and home applications.



gregorio said:


> 2. Are we exponentially closer to a teleportation device? Technologies typically mature at an exponential rate only from the point at which they exist. The technology doesn't currently exist to deal with the type of complex signals that modern music and film/TV production are. The extract YOU cited specifically states that!



I don't know why you're fixated in unicorns and teleportation.  We were talking about guessing when full implementation of object-based audio comes about, which has a basis in current object-based models.  The paper I cited listed issues at hand: it doesn't say we're doomed to never have these models.


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> 1. I wouldn't expect it to be as "purty" as the FR plot. You can usually somewhat "fix" many FR probs with EQ, to get a fairly decent plot but that's a two edged sword because some of those FR plot probs are related to time/duration of resonance rather than just peak levels, so although you might get a "purty" FR plot with EQ, you may have achieved it by reducing the EQ'ed freqs well below flat. The only way to deal with this is with acoustic treatment but if that's not possible/practical, it's almost always preferable to sacrifice some of the "purtiness" of your FR plot. I completely appreciate you've done the best with what was practical/possible and IMHO that's all we can reasonably ask.
> 
> 2a. I would guess that far less than 1% of consumers can even reproduce 30Hz with any accuracy, let alone below 20Hz. However, I will adjust material down as far as I can detect or reproduce (which is 19Hz), "just in case" but in all the cases I can recall where I've done so, it was always because of some headroom usage rather than any material audio quality concern.
> 
> ...




Again, thanks for the detailed response.  It’s interesting getting and understanding the view from the content creation side!

1.  Since significant physical room acoustic treatment isn’t an option for me, my next AVR purchase will include Dirac as it purports to be able to work in time domain as well as frequency response.  Audyssey is essentially FR only.  I will post a waterfall as soon as I can retake the measurements as I’d very much like your opinion on whether the EQ is doing more damage via excessive resonance than I’m getting back in value with the relatively flat FR.

2a.  Completely sensible.  As much as I want to leverage my investment in low frequency response, I fully appreciate the need to create content that works best for the vast majority and not outlying use cases.  I just hope that the trend away from full size 5.1 or more channels to sound bars doesn’t force the content creators and mixers to further reduce LF content.  I’m continually disappointed at how many people invest big $ in large screens or projectors then stick a $200 sound bar under it.  Not my idea of a theater experience.

3,  Again, I’ll certainly defer to your domain knowledge and expertise, but I do think there are a few cases where the “rules” have been broken.  The best example that comes to mind is the server room scene in Pulse.  There is some content from 6Hz - 18Hz that seems to be too well aligned with the scene and the intent to cause the type of physical reaction ULF generates in humans to be purely accidental.  It could be residue from other LF between 20Hz-40Hz but if so, it’s certainly an unusually successful coincidence.

4.  I bought it, so it’s mine, mine, all mine (evoking Donald Duck).  More seriously, I do understand the frustration of losing control of content and the potential for it to be misused once it’s out of your hands.  A good deal of my work involves developing strategic IT roadmaps for large organizations.  All too often, when I come back a year or two later to extend it, I wonder what the consumers of the roadmap were thinking when I see how far off the map they have gone and how poorly aligned to business requirements the changes are.  Not exactly the same as what you live with, but similar frustration seeing what I believe to be a well thought out strategy devolve into something unintended.  As you suggest, not much I can do about it once it’s out of my hands.  More specifically to ULF reproduction, I do think it’s fairly innocuous as it doesn’t (for me) do much more than add some tactile element to the existing audible content.  Frankly, it’s also a fairly rare occurrence- my finger in the wind estimate is that it’s only being generated in my system in 10% of the films watched and in those films, less than 1% of the running time.  It’s more important to me that my subwoofers are highly capable between 40Hz - 80Hz.  Content below that is just a nice bonus.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> 1. And yet you're misunderstanding LFE/subwoofer calibration. You seem to be misunderstanding the "in-band" part. If you take a full range screen speaker outputting 85dBSPL and remove everything above 120Hz, then it will no longer be outputting 85dB, it will be outputting more like 81dB. If you then calibrate the LFE/subwoofer to be 10dB higher, that would be 91dB, not 95dB. Here's how Dolby themselves describe calibrating the LFE/subwoofer:
> 
> "_Ideally, the test noise used for subwoofer calibration should be band-limited pink noise, low-pass filtered at 120 Hz. To properly calibrate the subwoofer, an RTA is required... When using an RTA, proper calibration requires setting the LFE channel signal sent to the subwoofer, within its typical bandwidth of 25 to 120 Hz, 10 dB higher than the main channels.If an RTA is not available, setting the LFE channel higher (e.g., ~ 90 to 91 dBc for the subwoofer channel when the Center channel measures 85 dBc), can give an approximate level with an SPL meter._"
> 
> ...




"_The technology doesn't currently exist to deal with 
the type of complex signals that modern music and 
film/TV production are. The extract YOU cited specifically 
states that!_"

I read the article he linked to forwards and backwards, and did not read anything stating such, implicitly or indirectly.  My equipment does a perfectly fine job dealing with "the type of complex signals that modern music and film/TV production" are capable of generating.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Davesrose said:


> And now you're showing you take things out of context: when that sentence was in reference to the paper on object-based models.  You've accused me of not understanding my sources, when you didn't read them initially.  You asked if I understood the article on LFE I previously posted. It specifically says RTA of 85DB and 95DB.  If you dispute that, then that's with the author of the article and not me.  I wonder also if there's a difference in authoring between cinema and home applications.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you're fixated in unicorns and teleportation.  We were talking about guessing when full implementation of object-based audio comes about, which has a basis in current object-based models.  The paper I cited listed issues at hand: it doesn't say we're doomed to never have these models.




Ohhh Gregorio excels at doing those things!  Don't take it too personally.  I've learned to develop a thick skin when dealing with those for whom the world is wrong and they're right.


----------



## Davesrose

bfreedma said:


> 2a.  Completely sensible.  As much as I want to leverage my investment in low frequency response, I fully appreciate the need to create content that works best for the vast majority and not outlying use cases.  I just hope that the trend away from full size 5.1 or more channels to sound bars doesn’t force the content creators and mixers to further reduce LF content.  I’m continually disappointed at how many people invest big $ in large screens or projectors then stick a $200 sound bar under it.  Not my idea of a theater experience.



Agreed.  I haven't really demoed a sound bar, but it is funny how much attention they're getting.  They must have EQ parameters to try compensating for lack of range (which isn't new: IE Bose 901 EQ module).  A friend of mine said he was really blown away with hearing a Sonos.  I quipped if it could be anywhere approaching my full range sound system.  He said no, but it was good for what it was...size being the main factor.  But I do roll my eyes at expensive brands like Bose.  Their Lifestyle series has a center console that doesn't handle the latest surround formats, and their kit is more expensive than getting a full receiver with Klipsch speaker kit.


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> It specifically says RTA of 85DB and 95DB. If you dispute that, then that's with the author of the article and not me. I wonder also if there's a difference in authoring between cinema and home applications.



The author isn't wrong, you're understanding of what he wrote is wrong! Admittedly what he wrote was maybe a little confusing but you're ignoring the "RTA" part of that statement. The RTA part refers to a Real Time Analyser reading the in-band levels (IE. 20Hz - 120Hz). Again, if you have a screen speaker outputting 85dB and then remove everything above 120Hz, it will only be outputting about 81dB. You can then increase the output level of that screen speaker so it's outputting 85dB in-band and then set the LFE/sub output to be 95dB (+10dB). If you measure the output of that screen speaker without the RTA only reading the 20-120Hz band, it would read something around 89dB rather than the required 85dB calibration level. Are you disputing the information from Dolby themselves who actually invented 5.1?



Davesrose said:


> We were talking about guessing when full implementation of object-based audio comes about, which has a basis in current object-based models.



That might be what you're talking about but it not what I or the article are talking about. I'll remind you of the statement: "... the challenges due to the complexity and uncertainty of the sound scenes still remain to be resolved". There's been a great incentive to "resolve" these issues for 30 years or more and yet they "still remain to be resolved", they are currently unresolvable! Once it is resolved, if in fact it ever can be, then probably technology will progress exponentially but until then there cannot be a "full implementation". The problem is not just one of better technology for the current object-based models, it's a problem that the current object-based models simply cannot cope with real world commercial audio, regardless of how much technology you throw at those current models. What is required is different, massively more sophisticated models!

G


----------



## bfreedma

Davesrose said:


> Agreed.  I haven't really demoed a sound bar, but it is funny how much attention they're getting.  They must have EQ parameters to try compensating for lack of range (which isn't new: IE Bose 901 EQ module).  A friend of mine said he was really blown away with hearing a Sonos.  I quipped if it could be anywhere approaching my full range sound system.  He said no, but it was good for what it was...size being the main factor.  But I do roll my eyes at expensive brands like Bose.  Their Lifestyle series has a center console that doesn't handle the latest surround formats, and their kit is more expensive than getting a full receiver with Klipsch speaker kit.



Bose has certainly been successful at marketing generally poor to ridiculously bad speakers and electronics. Let’s not even discuss Bose “subs”, which barely qualify as mid bass modules. Their profit margin allows them to advertise incessantly and the cycle continues.  As you state, you can do a lot better for far less money.  I will say that the QC35 headphone is an exception - not a bad deal for travel headphones with ANC.

I’m not entirely anti sound bar.  I use one for our bedroom TV where a surround system is both impractical and really not necessary as we use the home theater when watching movies.  The relatively inexpensive Zvox is far better than the TV’s built in speakers, particularly for improving voice intelligibility.


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 3, 2018)

gregorio said:


> The author isn't wrong, you're understanding of what he wrote is wrong! Admittedly what he wrote was maybe a little confusing but you're ignoring the "RTA" part of that statement. The RTA part refers to a Real Time Analyser reading the in-band levels (IE. 20Hz - 120Hz). Again, if you have a screen speaker outputting 85dB and then remove everything above 120Hz, it will only be outputting about 81dB. You can then increase the output level of that screen speaker so it's outputting 85dB in-band and then set the LFE/sub output to be 95dB (+10dB). If you measure the output of that screen speaker without the RTA only reading the 20-120Hz band, it would read something around 89dB rather than the required 85dB calibration level. Are you disputing the information from Dolby themselves who actually invented 5.1?



I am done talking with you when you show you continue to want to switch topics.  The author and Dolby refer to RTA...and you keep wanting to expand on the DB without RTA.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> I've learned to develop a thick skin when dealing with those for whom the world is wrong and they're right.



Unfortunately, you've developed a skin so thick that you've invented your own world! The conversation I'm involved in is the calibration of LFE channel in film, which I was taught by the head technician of Dolby (Europe) and as Dolby effectively had a worldwide monopoly on 5.1 sound on 35mm film, as they invented it, then that is the "world".And, as I've directly quoted the information published by Dolby, what world is it you live in that disagrees with it?

G


----------



## gregorio (Nov 3, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> The author and Dolby refer to RTA...and you keep wanting to expand on the DB without RTA.



What do you mean I keep wanting to expand on the dB without RTA? Dolby specifies the 85dB calibration of the screen (front) speakers WITHOUT RTA, not me! And that 85dB calibration level without RTA is what you quoted!

G


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 3, 2018)

gregorio said:


> What do you mean I keep wanting to expand on the dB without RTA? Dolby specifies the 85dB calibration of the screen (front) speakers WITHOUT RTA, not me! And that 85dB calibration level without RTA is what you quoted!
> 
> G



Once again from post 10269-

https://hometheaterhifi.com/editorial/the-misunderstood-01-lfe-channel-in-51-digital-surround-sound/

"During both soundtrack production and in the movie theaters, the LFE channel, with that same level (-20dB) pink noise (but band limited to the subwoofers range), *is calibrated to 95 dB on the RTA within the sub’s bandwidth* (Figures 2 and 3). This is done so that it can play 10 dB higher than any one of the screen channels. Because of this 10 dB offset, the LFE channel can achieve a balanced output of bass as compared with the total output of bass from the three screen channels (in other words it can single handedly compete with the screen channels in terms of level). The only down side is that we lose a little S/N (signal to noise) performance on that track. Because our hearing is less sensitive to bass to begin with, the system gets away with it just fine."


----------



## Jaywalk3r (Nov 3, 2018)

SoundAndMotion said:


> *Statistical methods can't fix flawed experimental methods.*



Agreed. But not understanding the underlying logic of the methods is not the same as those methods being flawed.



SoundAndMotion said:


> You're either being disingenuous or you're not so bright.


Neither description is accurate. His description highlighted a worry of random effects unduly affecting the decision. We address that by decreasing alpha and/or increasing sample size.

Rarely would we focus on beta specifically, lest we risk increasing alpha to an unacceptable level. If we are worried of insufficient power of the test, we increase the sample size.

Here, we would also not be much concerned with beta, compared to alpha. The differences are claimed to be _clearly _audible.



SoundAndMotion said:


> This is complete nonsense, and you must know it.



Again, no.

It's simple logic. If the subject can't hear it, it isn't audible, by definition of _audible_.


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> Once again from post 10269- https://hometheaterhifi.com/editorial/the-misunderstood-01-lfe-channel-in-51-digital-surround-sound/
> "During both soundtrack production and in the movie theaters, the LFE channel, with that same level (-20dB) pink noise (but band limited to the subwoofers range), *is calibrated to 95 dB on the RTA within the sub’s bandwidth* (Figures 2 and 3). This is done so that it can play 10 dB higher than any one of the screen channels. Because of this 10 dB offset, the LFE channel can achieve a balanced output of bass as compared with the total output of bass from the three screen channels (in other words it can single handedly compete with the screen channels in terms of level). The only down side is that we lose a little S/N (signal to noise) performance on that track. Because our hearing is less sensitive to bass to begin with, the system gets away with it just fine."



And still you are ignoring the "RTA" part??! The sub is calibrated to 95dB which is 10dB more than a screen speaker outputting about 89dB (which will read 85dB on the band-limited the RTA). However, the screen speakers should be calibrated to 85dBSPLC without an RTA not 89dB, so the system level needs to be reduced by about 4dB (keeping the same relationship between the sub and screen speaker) and of course then the sub will be outputting about 91dB, not 95dB. Again this is Dolby's own words "_If an RTA is not available, setting the LFE channel higher (e.g., *~ 90 to 91 dBc for the subwoofer channel when the Center channel measures 85 dBc*), can give an approximate level with an SPL meter.". _I don't know how to make this any clearer, the centre (and other screen channels) are calibrated to 85dBC with an SPL meter, NOT a band-limited RTA, with a band-limited RTA those screen speakers would only read about 81dB. 

Furthermore, the 85dBSPLC = -20dBFS is the screen speaker calibration for cinemas ONLY. For home cinemas the calibration level of each screen speaker relative to -20dBFS should be about 79dBSPLC, not 85.

G


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 4, 2018)

gregorio said:


> And still you are ignoring the "RTA" part??! The sub is calibrated to 95dB which is 10dB more than a screen speaker outputting about 89dB (which will read 85dB on the band-limited the RTA). However, the screen speakers should be calibrated to 85dBSPLC without an RTA not 89dB, so the system level needs to be reduced by about 4dB (keeping the same relationship between the sub and screen speaker) and of course then the sub will be outputting about 91dB, not 95dB. Again this is Dolby's own words "_If an RTA is not available, setting the LFE channel higher (e.g., *~ 90 to 91 dBc for the subwoofer channel when the Center channel measures 85 dBc*), can give an approximate level with an SPL meter.". _I don't know how to make this any clearer, the centre (and other screen channels) are calibrated to 85dBC with an SPL meter, NOT a band-limited RTA, with a band-limited RTA those screen speakers would only read about 81dB.
> 
> Furthermore, the 85dBSPLC = -20dBFS is the screen speaker calibration for cinemas ONLY. For home cinemas the calibration level of each screen speaker relative to -20dBFS should be about 79dBSPLC, not 85.
> 
> G


Why would you avoid the RTA like poison when the RTA is clearly the more accurate tool? How can one give exact figures for what the broadband response of each speaker should be without complete knowledge of both the program material and the FR curves of the speakers?


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 4, 2018)

What I WOULD be interested in knowing is, supposing all speakers give flat in-band response, what should the single-tone response level be for the LFE relative to the other channels given the same digital input level? Should it be 10dB higher? 5? ??

This is a much more relevant question to me because I mix down the sub with centre and recalculate sub output by crossing over my specified LF part of all channels to the sub.  So the answer to the above is the number by which I should be amplifying the LFE channel before mixing it into the centre channel, correct?  Does this apply to multichannel music as well?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Joe Bloggs said:


> Why would you avoid the RTA like poison when the RTA is clearly the more accurate tool? How can one give exact figures for what the broadband response of each speaker should be without complete knowledge of both the program material and the FR curves of the speakers?



Why?  Because he's 'gregorio', that's why.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 4, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> Why would you avoid the RTA like poison when the RTA is clearly the more accurate tool? How can one give exact figures for what the broadband response of each speaker should be without complete knowledge of both the program material and the FR curves of the speakers?



The calibration procedure is to use an RTA on the screen speakers and ensure the speaker's FR corresponds to the "x-curve". Once the FR is set, each of the screen speakers is then level calibrated to 85dB SPL "C" with an SPL meter, referenced against -20dBFS pink noise. The RTA is then used to ensure the FR of the sub array and then it's is level calibrated. This is done by setting (say) the centre speaker to output 85dBSPL within the 20-120Hz band (which you determine by use of an RTA measuring just that band), then set the sub array to +10dB higher (than the band-limited measurement of the centre speaker). To achieve that 85dB band-limited measurement from the centre speaker it has to be outputting something like 89dBSPL (non-band limited) but of course the calibration level should actually be 85dBSPL (C), not 89dB, so you have to turn your centre speaker down by about 4dB (and your sub which is referenced/calibrated to it, which means the sub is now outputting 91dB rather than 95dB). It's the +10dB in-band relationship that's important, so you don't have to raise your centre speaker's output to 85dB in-band, you can leave it at 85dB full band (which is about 81dB in-band) and set the sub array 10dB higher than that (which would be about 91dB). You wouldn't want to do the sub level calibration without an RTA, as neither the centre speaker nor sub array are going to have a flat response (within the band limit) but if you don't have an RTA or, as in this case, if you are referencing dBSPL(C) measurements, then the front speakers should be at 85dB while the subs are at (about) 91dB.

This however is all for theatrical reproduction, where there is no bass management. In a home situation (with bass management) you can't simply use the method above to turn the sub up, because you'd end up with all the redirected bass freqs being 10dB too loud, it's only the LFE channel that needs 10dB of in-band gain. Fortunately, the consumer doesn't typically have to bother themselves with this, the AVR or (sub itself) will add the boost to the LFE channel it's receiving BEFORE it merges that LFE channel with the redirected bass. This is only an issue for those manually calibrating their sub.

G


----------



## Phronesis

No takers on thoughts on headphone testing?  Aside from initial thoughts from JoeBloggs, it’s crickets.  Where’s the passion for sorting out truth from illusion in a practical way?


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> No takers on thoughts on headphone testing?  Aside from initial thoughts from JoeBloggs, it’s crickets.  Where’s the passion for sorting out truth from illusion in a practical way?


what do you want to test? headphones tend to be clearly different from each other so there is no point in trying to set up a blind test for audibility of the differences. and measurements will be more relevant for most other questions you may have. so what's left would be about personal preference, but it's hard to forget about weight, clamping force, how much we sweat when we wear some... IMO those are perfectly relevant variables for a preference assessment, even if it goes well beyond preference of sound.
 just volume matching requires some imagination when 2 headphones don't have the same FR.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 4, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> what do you want to test? headphones tend to be clearly different from each other so there is no point in trying to set up a blind test for audibility of the differences. and measurements will be more relevant for most other questions you may have. so what's left would be about personal preference, but it's hard to forget about weight, clamping force, how much we sweat when we wear some... IMO those are perfectly relevant variables for a preference assessment, even if it goes well beyond preference of sound.
> just volume matching requires some imagination when 2 headphones don't have the same FR.



With DACs, amps, and cables, most of us here agree that sound differences are mainly (or entirely) in the head rather than in the gear, and any sound differences in the gear are subtle at most.  The debate is mostly about what the tests done so far have to say about such subtle differences, and how better tests might be done to settle the matter more conclusively.  As long as someone agrees that the differences in that gear are subtle at most, there's not much at stake in the whole thing.

With headphones, the sound differences are in BOTH the head and the gear, which complicates matters, because you have to sort out where perceived differences are coming from.  Even though headphones have physical differences, you also have to contend with the effects of expectations, other biases, perceptual adaptation, mood, etc.  My headphones don't always sound the same to me from day to day, and I'm pretty sure it's me that's changing rather than the headphones.  People interested in 'sound science' should absolutely be paying attention to these issues and their implications for headphone testing.  Otherwise, you're back to 'trust your ears' decision-making.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 4, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> 1.  Since significant physical room acoustic treatment isn’t an option for me, my next AVR purchase will include Dirac as it purports to be able to work in time domain as well as frequency response.  Audyssey is essentially FR only.  I will post a waterfall as soon as I can retake the measurements as I’d very much like your opinion on whether the EQ is doing more damage via excessive resonance than I’m getting back in value with the relatively flat FR.
> 2a.  I just hope that the trend away from full size 5.1 or more channels to sound bars doesn’t force the content creators and mixers to further reduce LF content.  I’m continually disappointed at how many people invest big $ in large screens or projectors then stick a $200 sound bar under it.  Not my idea of a theater experience.
> 3,  ... There is some content from 6Hz - 18Hz that seems to be too well aligned with the scene and the intent to cause the type of physical reaction ULF generates in humans to be purely accidental.  It could be residue from other LF between 20Hz-40Hz but if so, it’s certainly an unusually successful coincidence.
> 4. More specifically to ULF reproduction, I do think it’s fairly innocuous as it doesn’t (for me) do much more than add some tactile element to the existing audible content.  Frankly, it’s also a fairly rare occurrence- my finger in the wind estimate is that it’s only being generated in my system in 10% of the films watched and in those films, less than 1% of the running time.  It’s more important to me that my subwoofers are highly capable between 40Hz - 80Hz.  Content below that is just a nice bonus.



1. In my experience the Dirac processing was superior to Audyssey but when Dirac says it works in the time domain as well, my understanding is that it compensates for waveform arrival times rather than their durations. I'm not sure how it could compensate for duration, except maybe at the fairly rudimentary level of lowering the EQ at those freqs but possibly to a more appropriate (rather than flat) level, this is all speculation though. I think you understand what I'm talking about but as I haven't made it very clear: An RTA is effectively measuring total energy levels of all the freqs. A waterfall plot separates out that total energy to include duration, which human perception does as well. In other words, the brain effectively recognises that the duration (of the affected freq/s) is longer, that the total energy level should therefore be higher and that therefore that this higher level is essentially flat. If we then try to achieve a flat RTA reading by EQ'ing that higher level lower, the brain can perceive the result as now not being flat, lacking those freqs we've EQ'ed lower. It's for this reason that the general rule of studio design is to use EQ only for the last 10% of the required correction amount, the other 90% being achieved by treatment (absorption or diffusion). In your case you can't use treatment, so the best solution available to you is probably to split the difference. EQ those (higher level) freqs demonstrating a long duration in a waterfall plot only half-way (for example) to flat. A compromise for sure but probably the most practical one available.

2a. I don't think that will happen. Even though currently the vast majority of consumers can't reproduce anything below about 60Hz, that doesn't stop us (mixers) being concerned about what we can hear on our systems, which is an octave or so below that. If soundbars really come to almost totally dominate the market then that *might* have an effect on how we mix TV (and films re-versioned for TV) but that won't be in terms of removing or ignoring the LF, just in terms of adjusting the higher freq components of those LF sounds (that the soundbars can reproduce). In practice I doubt there will be any effect on our mixing, because we already have to consider that most people watching films at home are just using their TV's speakers, which are generally roughly comparable to soundbars in regards to freq range.

3. I saw Pulse about a decade ago but not on a system capable of reproducing <20Hz. In films pretty much everything in the LFE channel is a type of boom/rumble, in fact when I started in the film industry most of the old-timers didn't call it the LFE channel, they referred to it as the "boom track" or "rumble track". Pretty much all "booms" and most rumbles are part of some explosion/impact type sound (crash, weapon fire, bomb detonation, etc.) which contains a range of freqs not only covering the entirety of the subs' freq range but also some, most or all of the main speakers' range too. Typically the raw audio we have to play with contains relatively little low freq content, which while technically accurate to what we would perceive, is quite different from what we desire or expect in film sound. We have two ways to deal with this, either just route the explosion (also) to the LFE channel and whack that channel up or design something specifically for the LFE channel. The first way is the quickest, easiest and generally preferred way but it quite often doesn't work very well. An easy solution is to take the explosion, pitch-shift it down by a couple of octaves and stick that in the LFE, along with what was there. So, the energy level we had at say 240Hz is now at 60Hz, ideal for our sub and of course anything that was at 40Hz is now at 10Hz  Either way, if there is something down at say 10Hz no one during the creation or mixing of that sound effect is going to notice (because it's not being reproduced by our systems) and it will usually just be left there. And of course, if that 10Hz content is left there, it's going to be perfectly "aligned" because it's essentially the exact same (albeit "effected") sound effect in the exact same place, no "unusual coincidence" involved.

4. Yep, it should be very innocuous and as long as you're not being silly about it, for example ignoring or sacrificing sub response where it really matters, which you're clearly not, then I don't see any problem if you like it.

G


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 4, 2018)

Thanks, @gregorio. 40 hertz is so important to me as it is approximately the lowest note on a double bass and most electric basses. The kick of a realistic 40 hertz makes the music more alive for me. I’ll take a 2.1 that does 40z no sweat over all the bells and whistles in the world that won’t do 40 hertz. Getting a nice subwoofer was so key for me. My towers have a tuned spike at 50 Hz and that’s about the end of the line for them without the subwoofer. I guess if the low E is not in the recording or the system doesn’t reproduce it your ears impute the notes somehow by harmonics of the fundamental and the context of the harmony but it’s not the same. With my subwoofer I walk over to my piano and hit a low E when the bass player is hitting an open low E and I will say YES! Of course pianos and organs go even deeper but at some point it takes a really special set of musical ears to hear what’s going on at 27 hertz, etc. But that 40 hertz E is just plain part of Western music, pop, jazz, classical, whatever, it’s the low frequency foundation, IMHO.

I can see that you are a movie guy and not so much a music guy in terms of creating content but one thing I do love about the digital age is a real low E on my stereo.

Also thanks for the info earlier about calibration of the decibel levels for home stereo. That’s helpful. It seems awfully loud to me for thoughtful music listening. For rocking out, sure thing though, if no one else is home. I think Fletcher-Munson is my friend.

Also it seems like a lot of modern pop music hits synth notes down below 40 hz for effect, makes use of the half octave lower for atmosphere. Am I wrong on that? Anyway my subwoofer seems to handle it nicely. I think some five-string basses might use that lower 4th down below a 40 hz E too, that would be the next open string down. Seems like it sometimes but it is vey hard for me to discern individual notes down that low.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> With DACs, amps, and cables, most of us here agree that sound differences are mainly in the head rather than in the gear, and any sound differences in the gear are subtle at most.  The debate is mostly about what the tests done so far have to say about such subtle differences, and how better tests might be done to settle the matter more conclusively.  As long as someone agrees that the differences in that gear are subtle at most, there's not much at stake in the whole thing.
> 
> With headphones, the sound differences are in BOTH the head and the gear, which complicates matters, because you have to sort out where perceived differences are coming from.  Even though headphones have physical differences, you also have to contend with the effects of expectations, other biases, perceptual adaptation, mood, etc.  My headphones don't always sound the same to me from day to day, and I'm pretty sure it's me that's changing rather than the headphones.  People interested in 'sound science' should absolutely be paying attention to these issues and their implications for headphone testing.  Otherwise, you're back to 'trust your ears' decision-making.


oh, sure. it's way more relevant to obsess about headphones than about DACs. almost everybody agrees with that. I still read some posts about guys saying that the DAC is as important or even more important than the rest, but it's relatively rare(for good reasons). 
the problem I see with rigorous headphone testing is that it's not easy to be rigorous anything. we don't tend to have much of a reference for that. you must first make a lot of assumptions, some very arguable. I know that I'm not comfortable with forcing my views of the right methodology and target onto others for this, even less so if the ultimate target is about subjective preference. when it's about sighted test vs blind test, it's easy to take a side because one method isn't a listening test^_^. but here for example, I tend to assume that because almost all albums were mastered on speakers, headphones without processing are just wrong(and even then which processing is debatable and would ultimately require some customization to better fit with the listener's HRTF). I'd be tempted to try and simulate the stereo and room of speaker sound into the headphone, and then start testing whatever preference I have. but by then, we might come to realize that the headphone is not the massive difference it usually is. and not everybody will agree with my view of the "right" playback reference. some will wish to test "wrong stereo"(usual headphone listening) because that's what they always listen to, so it obviously is more relevant to them. some will argue that stereo speakers in a room is far from ideal audio reference, and there are a few points supporting such views. even then, which room and speakers should be the reference? 
without a clear target, it's hard to assess much of anything. 
I view headphones as something very personal both objectively and subjectively. if a study on 1500 people told us that a HD800 is neutral, I would still say "F that!" and use the signature I favor or find closer to neutral myself. it's different from DACs and amps. a DAC's job is to accurately reconstruct a signal. the job of an amplifier is to offer some gain to that signal in the most linear way possible. the notion of fidelity is clear, the concept of neutral is super clear(electrical flat). we don't really have that for headphones IMO. 
and of course aside from the difficulties of switching headphones rapidly, or avoiding getting any cue about which headphone we put on, there is the tiny issue of declaring that 2 headphones are volume matched while they have different FR.

plus after all that you get losers like myself who really don't care about the FR the same way most listeners do. to me, so long as it's relatively easy to EQ back to what I prefer, it's fine. another very arguable notion as most audiophiles rely almost entirely on the signature, even if they don't always realize it, to decide if a headphone is "good". I'm not sure those stuff can be settled rationally as a standard, or that they should. a relevant portion of setting a headphone right, has to do with the listener's own head. and that's for the objective side of the question.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 4, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> oh, sure. it's way more relevant to obsess about headphones than about DACs. almost everybody agrees with that. I still read some posts about guys saying that the DAC is as important or even more important than the rest, but it's relatively rare(for good reasons).
> the problem I see with rigorous headphone testing is that it's not easy to be rigorous anything. we don't tend to have much of a reference for that. you must first make a lot of assumptions, some very arguable. I know that I'm not comfortable with forcing my views of the right methodology and target onto others for this, even less so if the ultimate target is about subjective preference. when it's about sighted test vs blind test, it's easy to take a side because one method isn't a listening test^_^. but here for example, I tend to assume that because almost all albums were mastered on speakers, headphones without processing are just wrong(and even then which processing is debatable and would ultimately require some customization to better fit with the listener's HRTF). I'd be tempted to try and simulate the stereo and room of speaker sound into the headphone, and then start testing whatever preference I have. but by then, we might come to realize that the headphone is not the massive difference it usually is. and not everybody will agree with my view of the "right" playback reference. some will wish to test "wrong stereo"(usual headphone listening) because that's what they always listen to, so it obviously is more relevant to them. some will argue that stereo speakers in a room is far from ideal audio reference, and there are a few points supporting such views. even then, which room and speakers should be the reference?
> without a clear target, it's hard to assess much of anything.
> I view headphones as something very personal both objectively and subjectively. if a study on 1500 people told us that a HD800 is neutral, I would still say "F that!" and use the signature I favor or find closer to neutral myself. it's different from DACs and amps. a DAC's job is to accurately reconstruct a signal. the job of an amplifier is to offer some gain to that signal in the most linear way possible. the notion of fidelity is clear, the concept of neutral is super clear(electrical flat). we don't really have that for headphones IMO.
> ...



All good points, but there's still the issue that our perception can be biased and vary over time.

For example, when I compare two headphones with different signatures back to back, they can both sound bad to me, but as I listen to each longer term my perception adjusts and each can sound quite good, despite being so different.  If our perception can gradually adjust to make a headphone sound better and more 'correct', that suggests that we shouldn't pay so much attention to differences in headphone sound, since perceptual adaptation will 'narrow the gaps', and short-term listening comparisons could be misleading with respect to long-term enjoyment.

As another example, when I spent a lot of time comparing the Elear, Clear, and Utopia, I wound up only slightly preferring the Clear and bought it, despite going in expecting that I'd like the Utopia best because it's an expensive TOTL everyone raves about (and was fully prepared to pay a lot more for the Utopia), and I bet a lot of people who put the Utopia on a pedestal would reach the same conclusion as me if they compared them with some rigor (I matched volumes best I could, quick switching, matched tracks and sometimes segments, various durations of listening, etc.).

So I still think 'sound science' needs to be brought to bear on headphone comparisons, because if it's left to being subjective and based on casual comparisons and hearsay, a lot of people are going to swayed by biases, etc.  There are difficulties bringing rigor to headphone comparisons, but we shouldn't just throw up our hands and say it's hard, so anything goes.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> All good points, but there's still the issue that our perception can be biased and vary over time.
> 
> For example, when I compare two headphones with different signatures back to back, they can both sound bad to me, but as I listen to each longer term my perception adjusts and each can sound quite good, despite being so different.  If our perception can gradually adjust to make a headphone sound better and more 'correct', that suggests that we shouldn't pay so much attention to differences in headphone sound, and short-term listening comparisons could be misleading with respect to long-term enjoyment.
> 
> ...


a proper reference would solve that adaptation issue. if I stick to my idea of speakers as reference and accept that being lazy is right. I can just use my own speakers in my room as reference. I will listen to music on them, get used to that, and then try a headphone to find out how far I get from my lazy target. 
 a solid reference is a must. it could be another headphone, but how do we determine which headphone deserves that honor? in science when confronted to that sort of trouble, usually they simply come up with an arbitrary but practical reference(you might record something yourself if you have some confidence in your microphone and where it should be placed). like most units and most standards so long as everybody agrees, it becomes the de facto reference. problem solved and we can test based on it. but first we have to settle on something that will not have 2/3 of the planet think it's wrong. and for headphones, it might be easier said than done. 
all the Harman papers and the final target for full-size headphone could be seen as our target if we'd like. we could look at headphones coming close to that as a first selection. or maybe even EQ headphones to that target and then try to see if we still prefer one over another? IDK but once we settle on something and have written down a clear question, moving forward with the proper testing method will come naturally. I just wouldn't like to be the guy having to decide that ^_^. too many landmines on the way.


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> 1. In my experience the Dirac processing was superior to Audyssey but when Dirac says it works in the time domain as well, my understanding is that it compensates for waveform arrival times rather than their durations. I'm not sure how it could compensate for duration, except maybe at the fairly rudimentary level of lowering the EQ at those freqs but possibly to a more appropriate (rather than flat) level, this is all speculation though. I think you understand what I'm talking about but as I haven't made it very clear: An RTA is effectively measuring total energy levels of all the freqs. A waterfall plot separates out that total energy to include duration, which human perception does as well. In other words, the brain effectively recognises that the duration (of the affected freq/s) is longer, that the total energy level should therefore be higher and that therefore that this higher level is essentially flat. If we then try to achieve a flat RTA reading by EQ'ing that higher level lower, the brain can perceive the result as now not being flat, lacking those freqs we've EQ'ed lower. It's for this reason that the general rule of studio design is to use EQ only for the last 10% of the required correction amount, the other 90% being achieved by treatment (absorption or diffusion). In your case you can't use treatment, so the best solution available to you is probably to split the difference. EQ those (higher level) freqs demonstrating a long duration in a waterfall plot only half-way (for example) to flat. A compromise for sure but probably the most practical one available.
> 
> 2a. I don't think that will happen. Even though currently the vast majority of consumers can't reproduce anything below about 60Hz, that doesn't stop us (mixers) being concerned about what we can hear on our systems, which is an octave or so below that. If soundbars really come to almost totally dominate the market then that *might* have an effect on how we mix TV (and films re-versioned for TV) but that won't be in terms of removing or ignoring the LF, just in terms of adjusting the higher freq components of those LF sounds (that the soundbars can reproduce). In practice I doubt there will be any effect on our mixing, because we already have to consider that most people watching films at home are just using their TV's speakers, which are generally roughly comparable to soundbars in regards to freq range.
> 
> ...



1.  Yes, to the best of my understanding, you are correct about what Dirac can (and can’t) do.  If there is something general you can share, how where duration starts to cross over the acceptable level of delay and decay?  I’m sure there is no hard and fast threshold, but something I can use to asses what I see in the waterfall?

2.  Good to hear.  Please threaten your fellow mixers with verbal abuse and knuckle raps if they try to further reduce LF content .  I’m also willing to buy and park a cheap hatchback with badly implemented subs in front of their homes and put Milli Vanilli on endless loop if necessary.  I’m usually anti torture, but this is serious business!


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 4, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> a proper reference would solve that adaptation issue. if I stick to my idea of speakers as reference and accept that being lazy is right. I can just use my own speakers in my room as reference. I will listen to music on them, get used to that, and then try a headphone to find out how far I get from my lazy target.
> a solid reference is a must. it could be another headphone, but how do we determine which headphone deserves that honor? in science when confronted to that sort of trouble, usually they simply come up with an arbitrary but practical reference(you might record something yourself if you have some confidence in your microphone and where it should be placed). like most units and most standards so long as everybody agrees, it becomes the de facto reference. problem solved and we can test based on it. but first we have to settle on something that will not have 2/3 of the planet think it's wrong. and for headphones, it might be easier said than done.
> all the Harman papers and the final target for full-size headphone could be seen as our target if we'd like. we could look at headphones coming close to that as a first selection. or maybe even EQ headphones to that target and then try to see if we still prefer one over another? IDK but once we settle on something and have written down a clear question, moving forward with the proper testing method will come naturally. I just wouldn't like to be the guy having to decide that ^_^. too many landmines on the way.



Such a reference headphone may need to be somewhat person-specific, since head and ear anatomical geometry varies, so the sound reaching the eardrum is a function of that geometry.  I'm not sure you can try to match up headphones to a reference speaker either, other than maybe FR, since so many aspects of the acoustics are different (e.g., timing of reflections).  I know this is mostly HRTF stuff, and maybe there's a theoretical solution, but I'm looking at practical aspects from a consumer standpoint.

Then further add the variability of how recordings were engineered, and the need for headphones to sort of compensate for that to get a good synergy.

All of the above mainly relates to objective differences and trying to benchmark things, but there are still the questions of how to deal with subjective variability and biases in perception.  With say DACs, people can perceive big differences despite little or no objective differences.  With headphones, we have real and substantial objective differences, which means that we have raw material to work with for perception to *really* go awry.


----------



## bigshot

"This life, which had been the tomb of his virtue and of his honour, is but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."


----------



## bigshot (Nov 4, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> "During both soundtrack production and in the movie theaters, the LFE channel, with that same level (-20dB) pink noise (but band limited to the subwoofers range), *is calibrated to 95 dB on the RTA within the sub’s bandwidth* (Figures 2 and 3). This is done so that it can play 10 dB higher than any one of the screen channels. Because of this 10 dB offset, the LFE channel can achieve a balanced output of bass as compared with the total output of bass from the three screen channels (in other words it can single handedly compete with the screen channels in terms of level). The only down side is that we lose a little S/N (signal to noise) performance on that track. Because our hearing is less sensitive to bass to begin with, the system gets away with it just fine."



The signal to noise difference is well below the threshold of audibility. Digital noise floors have room to spare. The 10dB calibration difference is made up for when a movie is played back on blu-ray. Music blu-rays have the same level LFE as movie ones. You don't have to do anything as a consumer to correct for this. It's all handled for you transparently in mastering and in the AVR's bass management. It's only important to the mixers preparing the deliverables. It's irrelevant to consumers. I got confused by this when I first looked into it too. Most of the time, 5.1 setups in homes have grossly uncalibrated subs anyway. That's the biggest wild card when you master for blu-ray. If you look at Amazon, the reviews are all over the map when it comes to the bass. One person will say it sounds thin, the next will describe it as boomy. That's due to poorly implemented subs in the home, not calibration issues.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> The signal to noise difference is well below the threshold of audibility. Digital noise floors have room to spare. The 10dB calibration difference is made up for when a movie is played back on blu-ray. Music blu-rays have the same level LFE as movie ones. You don't have to do anything as a consumer to correct for this. It's all handled for you transparently in mastering and in the AVR's bass management. It's only important to the mixers preparing the deliverables. It's irrelevant to consumers. I got confused by this when I first looked into it too. Most of the time, 5.1 setups in homes have grossly uncalibrated subs anyway. That's the biggest wild card when you master for blu-ray. If you look at Amazon, the reviews are all over the map when it comes to the bass. One person will say it sounds thin, the next will describe it as boomy. That's due to poorly implemented subs in the home, not calibration issues.



I realize the 10DB difference is for mastering.  The article I linked to does even state that then doesn't mean you should set your sub higher at home.  The selected quote I used was to show my reading comprehension: which clearly states the LFE is calibrated at 95DB on the RTA.  Gregorio then quotes a source saying "if RTA is not available"....and so then obfuscates the original topic.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> The signal to noise difference is well below the threshold of audibility. Digital noise floors have room to spare. The 10dB calibration difference is made up for when a movie is played back on blu-ray. Music blu-rays have the same level LFE as movie ones. You don't have to do anything as a consumer to correct for this. It's all handled for you transparently in mastering and in the AVR's bass management. It's only important to the mixers preparing the deliverables. It's irrelevant to consumers. I got confused by this when I first looked into it too. Most of the time, 5.1 setups in homes have grossly uncalibrated subs anyway. That's the biggest wild card when you master for blu-ray. If you look at Amazon, the reviews are all over the map when it comes to the bass. One person will say it sounds thin, the next will describe it as boomy. That's due to poorly implemented subs in the home, not calibration issues.




What’s really disappointing about the large percentage of poorly integrated subs is the relatively low level of effort required to at least realize a decent sub implementation.  Where most people fail is by placing the sub where it “looks good” rather than doing the sub crawl and finding the best location(s), or at least the best location that doesn’t cause household disharmony.  Once placed in a reasonably optimal location, running the AVR’s room eq system following the simple instructions on how to properly run it will lead to at a decent sub implementation for the vast majority.

Plopping down a sub randomly and hoping for the best isn’t a good methodology.  No amount of EQ is going to fix a significant null.


----------



## gregorio

Steve999 said:


> [1] With my subwoofer I walk over to my piano and hit a low E when the bass player is hitting an open low E and I will say YES! Of course pianos and organs go even deeper but at some point it takes a really special set of musical ears to hear what’s going on at 27 hertz, etc. But that 40 hertz E is just plain part of Western music, pop, jazz, classical, whatever, it’s the low frequency foundation, IMHO.
> [2] I can see that you are a movie guy and not so much a music guy in terms of creating content but one thing I do love about the digital age is a real low E on my stereo.
> [3] Also thanks for the info earlier about calibration of the decibel levels for home stereo. That’s helpful. It seems awfully loud to me for thoughtful music listening. For rocking out, sure thing though, if no one else is home. I think Fletcher-Munson is my friend.
> [4] Also it seems like a lot of modern pop music hits synth notes down below 40 hz for effect, makes use of the half octave lower for atmosphere. Am I wrong on that?



1. Your observation is very valid IMO. 40Hz appears to be about the point at which insensitivity to amplitude/volume, directionality and frequency combine to make anything below that essentially pointless musically. Some instruments can go lower but very rarely do and when they do, I can't think of a single example where they are not just playing a pedal note, IE. A note an octave below the bass/fundament pitch of a chord, just to provide some almost intangible depth/richness.
2. I am a movie guy but also a music guy. I started as a trained orchestral musician and then was an orchestral musician for about 7 years, then I switched sides and started composing and producing music for film and TV before gradually moving over more to the sound side of film/TV but I still have to deal with music daily and still occasionally take on music production or mastering jobs.
3. I'm not sure that would/should be of any help to you, probably more of a hindrance! Most of what I stated about calibration levels is theatrical multi-channel sound, all the +10dB in-band stuff is NOT applicable to a bass managed stereo system, only to how the LFE channel in 5.1, 7.1 or the newer formats should be output.

A clear point of confusion for some is the ".1" term and it's not surprising it's confusing because it actually has two different meanings/uses! In home systems, say a 2.1 system, the ".1" doesn't exist in the music you're playing, it's simply manufactured by your bass management system and comprises all the frequencies below a certain crossover frequency. This ".1" is then fed to a subwoofer and the end result is hopefully a balanced sound throughout the spectrum, with the subwoofer effectively filling-in the low freqs which your main stereo speakers can't reproduce accurately (or at all). This is NOT what the ".1" is for in multi-channels formats such as 5.1, 7.1, 9.1! These formats were all originally invented for cinemas, not home use. In a cinema we have a bank of subwoofers, sometimes 16 or more, each of which is a 12"-18" driver but this bank of subs are NOT there to fill in a LF hole that the screen/main speakers can't reproduce because they CAN reproduce them, abundantly and accurately. In fact, each of the main/screen speakers has at least one and often two 18" drivers of it's own. If we played say a symphony through the main/screen speakers ONLY, the result should be a perfectly balanced reproduction throughout the spectrum, all the way down to 30Hz (if there is anything much at 30Hz in the recording). And indeed, when I was only supplying the music to be mixed with the rest of the film, it was always mixed in 5.0, the main speakers providing all the bass I ever needed, even when I needed a lot! So why do we need that additional array of subs? Only for effect, to move large amounts of air in the low freqs, to give the audience an actual physical impact sensation, essentially mini-shockwaves. In other words, this sub array exists ONLY for these Low Frequency Effects, hence why the audio channel supplying these subs is called the LFE channel. In a home environment exceedingly few have the type of full range main speakers used in cinemas (with subwoofer/s effectively built into the speakers), consumers use bass managed systems and this is where the situation becomes confusing, because their subwoofer is essentially doing double duty, playing both the ".1" which covers all the freqs their main speakers can't, plus the theatrical ".1" which is the LFE channel. And just to make sure it's really confusing, the theatrical ".1" needs to be output at a much higher level than the bass management ".1"! One last point I'm not sure if you picked-up on, the 85dBSPL = -20dBFS calibration level only applies to cinemas, in the home it should be about 76-79dBSPL = -20dBFS (depending on the size of room) and this applies specifically to TV/Film, music masters are NOT calibrated to the film or TV specs and almost all music, with the possible exception of some classical music, will be too loud, even at the 76-79dB = -20dB level! For most modern popular music genres, probably somewhere nearer 64dB equalling -20dBFS would be more appropriate or as high as about 70dBSPL if you like your music loud. 

4. No, you're not wrong but it is rather genre specific. All popular genres going back to the 70's have a highly processed kick sound but with modern genres it's not only processed but often more manufactured than just processed. With modern R&B for example, a defining feature is a highly processed and compressed kick that's mixed with some very LF tones (typically around 40Hz but can be lower) giving it that longer duration boom sound, that's quite different to the various types of kick used in other rock genres. Most obviously though is EDM (and most of it's sub genres), which evolved from the club scene, with their big sound systems and serious subs. DJ's started incorporating these sub into their compositions/performances and used them in much the same way as we do in film, to move masses of air to provide the audience with a real physical sensation. Large, live heavy metal gigs have been doing that for many years but with EDM it's use is much more creative, giving the audience a more normal range kick sound, teasing them and building up to the climax of the powerful sub supplemented kick sound. And because of the enormous popularity of EDM gigs, other artists and genres are now sometimes more inclined to incorporate some very LF synth material.

G


----------



## bigshot

Davesrose said:


> I realize the 10DB difference is for mastering.  The article I linked to does even state that then doesn't mean you should set your sub higher at home.



Ah. Sorry. I thought you didn't know that it didn't affect playback. It's nothing that non-engineers need deal with, so I don't pay attention to it. I keep my eyes peeled for info I can use.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

bfreedma said:


> What’s really disappointing about the large percentage of poorly integrated subs is the relatively low level of effort required to at least realize a decent sub implementation.  Where most people fail is by placing the sub where it “looks good” rather than doing the sub crawl and finding the best location(s), or at least the best location that doesn’t cause household disharmony.  Once placed in a reasonably optimal location, running the AVR’s room eq system following the simple instructions on how to properly run it will lead to at a decent sub implementation for the vast majority.
> 
> Plopping down a sub randomly and hoping for the best isn’t a good methodology.  No amount of EQ is going to fix a significant null.



1. Wouldn't a reinforcing mode be even more damaging to integration than a null?  And if you were doing the crawl without an RTA, wouldn't your ears tend to end up choosing the spot with the most obvious sounding mode?
2. Somewhat related to the above, are we overestimating the number of AVRs out there with EQ features powerful enough to take care of a reinforcing mode in sub frequencies?


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> It's only important to the mixers preparing the deliverables. It's irrelevant to consumers. I got confused by this when I first looked into it too.



Most of the time it should be irrelevant to consumers. The two exceptions are when consumers manually calibrate/play with the sub and in the case of SACD, where the ".1" is not +10dB in-band gain.



Davesrose said:


> [1] The selected quote I used was to show my reading comprehension: which clearly states the LFE is calibrated at 95DB on the RTA.
> [2] Gregorio then quotes a source saying "if RTA is not available"....and so then obfuscates the original topic.



1. Yes, unfortunately you did show your lack reading comprehension! Your quote clearly states the LFE is calibrated to 95dB on a band-limited RTA when your main speaker is calibrated to 85dB on with the same RTA. IE. When the main speaker is calibrated to about 89dBC on an SPL meter, which it should NEVER be, NOT even in a cinema (where it should be calibrated to 85dBC on an SPL meter) and certainly not in a home/consumer environment, where it should be calibrated to 76-79dBC!

2. Gregorio then quotes the publication by Dobly themselves on how to calibrate the LFE output! Which provides the rough level of the LFE output relative to the level the main speaker is calibrated to. Maybe you just don't understand that's what the +10dB is refering to? It means 10dB higher than the calibration of the main speakers (which is 85dBC for cinemas, not 89dB!), resulting in the sub/array having an output level of roughly 91dB! Why don't you "show your reading comprehension" on that?!

G


----------



## Joe Bloggs

bigshot said:


> Ah. Sorry. I thought you didn't know that it didn't affect playback. It's nothing that non-engineers need deal with, so I don't pay attention to it. I keep my eyes peeled for info I can use.



I reckon it just might be info I can use if my "AVR" looks like this... 




 



Joe Bloggs said:


> What I WOULD be interested in knowing is, supposing all speakers give flat in-band response, what should the single-tone response level be for the LFE relative to the other channels given the same digital input level? Should it be 10dB higher? 5? ??
> 
> This is a much more relevant question to me because I mix down the sub with centre and recalculate sub output by crossing over my specified LF part of all channels to the sub.  So the answer to the above is the number by which I should be amplifying the LFE channel before mixing it into the centre channel, correct?  Does this apply to multichannel music as well?



Sooo I think we've ascertained that the answer to the above is 10dB--if at all?  Would the requisite boost be already done by computer video player apps like say Netflix going out to a (virtual) sound card?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

P.S. 85+10 = 91?


----------



## bfreedma (Nov 4, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> 1. Wouldn't a reinforcing mode be even more damaging to integration than a null?  And if you were doing the crawl without an RTA, wouldn't your ears tend to end up choosing the spot with the most obvious sounding mode?
> 2. Somewhat related to the above, are we overestimating the number of AVRs out there with EQ features powerful enough to take care of a reinforcing mode in sub frequencies?




1.  Not sure I agree.  You can EQ down a reinforcing room mode, but no amount of EQ is going to fix a null.  Would much rather be EQing down than taking the risk of trying to overpower a null which could be damaging to the sub amp without any real chance of addressing the problem.  Agree that doing the crawl with an RTA is optimal, but wonder how small the percentage of HT owners own one let alone know how to interpret it.  No doubt, not a perfect methodology, but I’ll still take the “sub crawl” over random placement.  Particularly if you lack quality measurement tools and/or the knowledge of how to interpret the output.

The above is also why running multiple subs is highly beneficial, as it’s unlikely that both will be hampered by the same room issues.  A lot of what I’ve posted is based on running multiples and I probably should have mentioned that earlier for context.

2,  I don’t think so.  Other than a few boutique receivers, it’s been a while since I’ve seen an AVR that couldn’t competently address bass room modes.  The last major manufacturer that had EQ that didn’t address bass properly was Pioneer with its older version of MCACC (did nothing below 80Hz) but that was updated some years back.  Emotive (sorry Keith) also released some processors that incorrectly handled bass, but I believe their most recent model resolved the problems.  Additionally, a number of better subs include their own EQ.  JL Audio’s implementation has worked well for me and I’ve seen SVS’s work successfully.  Typical best practice is to run the subs native EQ solution first, then the AVR to reduce the demand on the built in AVR EQ.

Edit:  I mean this as a compliment - after seeing your “AVR” above, I can understand why you might have concerns about the capabilities of consumer products.  Do you have any documentation about that configuration you can link to?  I’d love to read about what you’ve got there!.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 4, 2018)

Thank you so much, Gregorio. This is so helpful and insightful I wouldn't even know where to begin. I did not quite get the distinction between deliberate LFE frequencies and the subwoofer just picking up the lower frequencies the mains can't handle and my subwoofer doing double-duty in that respect. I had an uneasy feeling there was something I didn't know but now it is clear. I have a 5.1 system but no 18 inch drivers in my mains. : )

Also the lowered reference calibration value for music as opposed to cinema meets with my subjective impression very well, as does the feeling that once you go below that low E
(40 hz or so) it's atmosphere and shock waves (or else a pedal note, as you say).

The insights about the different genres and the low frequency content handling and the different ways of getting that low-frequency kick is very cool. Thanks.



gregorio said:


> 1. Your observation is very valid IMO. 40Hz appears to be about the point at which insensitivity to amplitude/volume, directionality and frequency combine to make anything below that essentially pointless musically. Some instruments can go lower but very rarely do and when they do, I can't think of a single example where they are not just playing a pedal note, IE. A note an octave below the bass/fundament pitch of a chord, just to provide some almost intangible depth/richness.
> 2. I am a movie guy but also a music guy. I started as a trained orchestral musician and then was an orchestral musician for about 7 years, then I switched sides and started composing and producing music for film and TV before gradually moving over more to the sound side of film/TV but I still have to deal with music daily and still occasionally take on music production or mastering jobs.
> 3. I'm not sure that would/should be of any help to you, probably more of a hindrance! Most of what I stated about calibration levels is theatrical multi-channel sound, all the +10dB in-band stuff is NOT applicable to a bass managed stereo system, only to how the LFE channel in 5.1, 7.1 or the newer formats should be output.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 5, 2018)

Mighty fancy!

My player automatically compensates for bass management with SACDs. I think most current players do. There's usually a setting to set speakers to "small" and/or to set the player to LFE or normal. If you set it to small and LFE, there is no need to adjust anything when you play SACDs. It's all transparent. If you have a sub, I don't see any reason to not engage bass management. It can only help. Maybe for quad... maybe, but i still prefer to have bass management on for quad.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 5, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> [1] P.S. 85+10 = 91?
> [2] This is a much more relevant question to me because I mix down the sub with centre and recalculate sub output by crossing over my specified LF part of all channels to the sub. So the answer to the above is the number by which I should be amplifying the LFE channel before mixing it into the centre channel, correct? Does this apply to multichannel music as well?
> [3] Would the requisite boost be already done by computer video player apps like say Netflix going out to a (virtual) sound card?



1. Yes, absolutely! This is the point I've tried to explain several times, apparently unsuccessfully. I'll try an be as absolutely clear as I can: The basis of all level calibration for 5.1, 7.1, etc., is the main/screen speakers. Everything else, the LFE/sub and surrounds are calibrated relative to that main/screen speaker calibrated level. The -3dB for the surrounds (cinema only) and the +10dB in-band gain for the LFE (cinema and home) are -3dB and +10dB relative to  the screen/main centre speaker, which in the theatrical specification is 85dBSPL (C). And to be clear, this 85dBC is the level measured with an SPL meter with the main/screen speaker outputting 20Hz-20kHz pink noise (at -20dBFS). Our LFE is level calibrated to +10dB *in-band gain* relative to our main/screen speaker. The "In-band" part means that our LFE/Sub should be outputting 10dB more 20Hz-120Hz than the amount of 20-120Hz our main speaker is outputting. The issue should hopefully now be obvious, our main speaker is not outputting 85dBC of 20Hz-120Hz, it's outputting 85dBC of 20Hz-20kHz. If we remove the 121Hz-20kHz output of our main speaker (so that it's only outputting our required 20Hz-120Hz), it's output level will obviously be lower, it will be approx 81dBSPL and our sub is then calibrated 10dB higher, which is about 91dB. In practice, we wouldn't try and "remove the 121-20kHz", we'd just use an RTA to measure the 20Hz-120Hz portion of the main speaker's output. In other words, your equation should read: "85dBC - (the 121Hz -20kHz band) +10dB = 91dB".

2. This is where it can quickly get confusing, with your sub playing double duty, as I explained to Steve999 in the second paragraph of this post. To adapt the official manual LFE calibration procedure for a bass managed system, I would first sort out the bass management part of the equation. With say your centre speaker, use a sine sweep (or 20Hz-20kHz pink noise) and RTA software, and set the level of your sub so that you have as flat a response throughout the spectrum as practical, the main goal obviously is to equally balance both sides of the crossover point between your centre speaker and your sub. Once achieved, level calibrate your centre channel/sub combo to (say) 78dBC with 20Hz-20kHz pink noise at -20dB, using the "C" weighting, "slow" response on an SPL meter. Without changing that level (or the pink noise signal), use your RTA software (set to 1/3 octave bands) to take a 20Hz-120Hz plot of your centre/sub combo. Now take band-limited (compensated) 20Hz-120Hz pink noise, output that through your LFE channel (to your sub only) and take an RTA plot of that. Finally, EQ your LFE channel (NOT your sub!) so that each 1/3 octave band is 10dB higher than the corresponding band in the (20Hz-120Hz) plot you made of your centre/sub combo. However ...

3. I'm not sure but I would say probably not. If you try and achieve this by software in the digital domain, it has to be done the other way around. IE. You can't apply the boost to the LFE channel, you have to apply a reduction to all the other channels. Typically, you would accomplish the +10dB in-band LFE gain in the analogue domain. You can't just increase the LFE channel by the required amount in the digital domain. What would happen in the digital domain if the LFE channel on a particular film peaks at say -1dBFS and you try to add 10dB? As you can't have +9dBFS what you actually get is a nasty clip! Even if you were considering the calibration method I explained in point #2, that final 10dB per band LFE channel gain would have to be done with an analogue EQ or, you'd have to devise some way of applying it's inverse (reduction) to your main/screen speakers.

I know the above is confusing but again, it was never designed for consumers. In fact, it wasn't even designed for us sound engineers, it was designed by Dolby for the sole use of it's own technicians! Part of the licencing contract which allowed film mix stages to produce films in 5.1, 7.1, etc., required that Dolby's own technicians calibrated the mix stage and the mix/sound engineers weren't allowed to touch it! The problem with multi-channel music production is that it's relatively rare (outside of the film music world) and the music engineers sometimes have the same lack of understanding of LFE calibration, even some of the most respected engineers. So, even if your LFE is correctly calibrated, you maybe trying to reproduce music which isn't! As a general rule, for most people, I would advise that you let your AVR deal with it.



Steve999 said:


> Thank you so much, Gregorio.



You're welcome!



bigshot said:


> My player automatically compensates for bass management with SACDs. I think most current players do.



If someone is outputting their SACD to an AVR though, wouldn't the AVR be boosting the LFE channel?

G


----------



## Joe Bloggs

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, absolutely! This is the point I've tried to explain several times, apparently unsuccessfully. I'll try an be as absolutely clear as I can: The basis of all level calibration for 5.1, 7.1, etc., is the main/screen speakers. Everything else, the LFE/sub and surrounds are calibrated relative to that main/screen speaker calibrated level. The -3dB for the surrounds (cinema only) and the +10dB in-band gain for the LFE (cinema and home) are -3dB and +10dB relative to  the screen/main centre speaker, which in the theatrical specification is 85dBSPL (C). And to be clear, this 85dBC is the level measured with an SPL meter with the main/screen speaker outputting 20Hz-20kHz pink noise (at -20dBFS). Our LFE is level calibrated to +10dB *in-band gain* relative to our main/screen speaker. The "In-band" part means that our LFE/Sub should be outputting 10dB more 20Hz-120Hz than the amount of 20-120Hz our main speaker is outputting. The issue should hopefully now be obvious, our main speaker is not outputting 85dBC of 20Hz-120Hz, it's outputting 85dBC of 20Hz-20kHz. If we remove the 121Hz-20kHz output of our main speaker (so that it's only outputting our required 20Hz-120Hz), it's output level will obviously be lower, it will be approx 81dBSPL and our sub is then calibrated 10dB higher, which is about 91dB. In practice, we wouldn't try and "remove the 121-20kHz", we'd just use an RTA to measure the 20Hz-120Hz portion of the main speaker's output. In other words, your equation should read: "85dBC - (the 121Hz -20kHz band) +10dB = 91dB".
> 
> 2. This is where it can quickly get confusing, with your sub playing double duty, as I explained to Steve999 in the second paragraph of this post. To adapt the official manual LFE calibration procedure for a bass managed system, I would first sort out the bass management part of the equation. With say your centre speaker, use a sine sweep (or 20Hz-20kHz pink noise) and RTA software, and set the level of your sub so that you have as flat a response throughout the spectrum as practical, the main goal obviously is to equally balance both sides of the crossover point between your centre speaker and your sub. Once achieved, level calibrate your centre channel/sub combo to (say) 78dBC with 20Hz-20kHz pink noise at -20dB, using the "C" weighting, "slow" response on an SPL meter. Without changing that level (or the pink noise signal), use your RTA software (set to 1/3 octave bands) to take a 20Hz-120Hz plot of your centre/sub combo. Now take band-limited (compensated) 20Hz-120Hz pink noise, output that through your LFE channel (to your sub only) and take an RTA plot of that. Finally, EQ your LFE channel (NOT your sub!) so that each 1/3 octave band is 10dB higher than the corresponding band in the (20Hz-120Hz) plot you made of your centre/sub combo. However ...
> 
> ...



Thanks greg.  Re part 3, actually attenuation relative to max system volume is included in the VSTHost volume levels, so unless I were running the sound full blast digitally, I can do boosts just fine.  The speakers on my system are set once to be able to play very loud at 0dBFS, without being so loud as to hiss noticeably, and volume control is all in software from there on out.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 5, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> Thanks greg. Re part 3, actually attenuation relative to max system volume is included in the VSTHost volume levels, so unless I were running the sound full blast digitally, I can do boosts just fine. The speakers on my system are set once to be able to play very loud at 0dBFS, without being so loud as to hiss noticeably, and volume control is all in software from there on out.



Yep, that would work. The only issue is that you're effectively loosing 10dB of your system's signal to noise ratio performance. That loss is probably a non-issue in many cases but worth baring in mind.

G


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> Yep, that would work. The only issue is that you're effectively loosing 10dB of your system's signal to noise ratio performance. That loss is probably a non-issue in many cases but worth baring in mind.
> 
> G


*castleofargh whistles as his reading of max true peak for the all session is -11.8dB(replaygain+EQ), and then foobar's volume removes another -7.35dB just for lazy loudness setting. SNR is so 2017 anyway. ^_^


----------



## AKGForever (Nov 6, 2018)

Got kind of contradictory results on the digitalfeed.net ABX tests.  I only did the minimum 5 tests as I was sure I wouldn't hear any difference.  The first time I tried it I came up with 44% right, within the range of a coin flip.  The only real outlier was the Eagles'  Hotel California, which was the only song I was actually familiar with.  I got 80% right on Hotel California.  Didn't think too much about as if you flip a coin 25 times, it might come up heads four times in a row.  I did the test again a day later and scored 52% but got 100% on Hotel California.  Mostly I was guessing and I can't point to anything that was a give away on Hotel California.  Just found it curious.  BTW, this was using a Windows laptop with "HD" sound and AKG K240 headphones.


----------



## bigshot

gregorio said:


> f someone is outputting their SACD to an AVR though, wouldn't the AVR be boosting the LFE channel?



It all evens out. There's no reason for regular folk to worry about it. You put in a disc and it plays the way it's supposed to.


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting......

I've always found the HDTracks 24/192k version of that album to be excellent for listening for minor differences between DACs and filter choices.
(Listen for slight differences in the sound of the plucked guitars and cymbals.)



AKGForever said:


> Got kind of contradictory results on the digitalfeed.net ABX tests.  I only did the minimum 5 tests as I was sure I wouldn't hear any difference.  The first time I tried it I came up with 44% right, within the range of a coin flip.  The only real outlier was the Eagles'  Hotel California, which was the only song I was actually familiar with.  I got 80% right on Hotel California.  Didn't think too much about as if you flip a coin 25 times, it might come up heads four times in a row.  I did the test again a day later and scored 52% but got 100% on Hotel California.  Mostly I was guessing and I can't point to anything that was a give away on Hotel California.  Just found it curious.  BTW, this was using a Windows laptop with "HD" sound and AKG K240 headphones.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> Interesting......
> 
> I've always found the HDTracks 24/192k version of that album to be excellent for listening for minor differences between DACs and filter choices.
> (Listen for slight differences in the sound of the plucked guitars and cymbals.)



More likely to hear mastering differences than differences between DACs even at that resolution.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 6, 2018)

HD Tracks downloads often have no super audible content except for spikes of complete noise. I posted numerous examples of that a few months back. You might want to skip pages 2 through 7 in that thread though. It gets really good again at pages 8 and 9.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/what-kind-of-ultrasonic-frequencies-are-in-hd-tracks.885484/

There's absolutely no guarantee that HD Tracks downloads are any better than the commercial CD, and in many cases, it's clearly worse.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> HD Tracks downloads often have no super audible content except for spikes of complete noise. I posted numerous examples of that a few months back. You might want to skip pages 2 through 7 in that thread though. It gets really good again at pages 8 and 9.
> 
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/what-kind-of-ultrasonic-frequencies-are-in-hd-tracks.885484/
> 
> There's absolutely no guarantee that HD Tracks downloads are any better than the commercial CD, and in many cases, it's clearly worse.



Good final point there.  Some of the HD Tracks downloads and even SACDs are subject to the over-compression and loudness processing(compared to their Redbook predecessors) that you and others here seem inclined to dismiss as 'old news' or nonexistent altogether.


----------



## bigshot

It isn't compression that's the problem Sonic. Click through the link and look at the info there and you'll know what I'm talking about.


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> HD Tracks downloads often have no super audible content except for spikes of complete noise. I posted numerous examples of that a few months back. You might want to skip pages 2 through 7 in that thread though. It gets really good again at pages 8 and 9.
> 
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/what-kind-of-ultrasonic-frequencies-are-in-hd-tracks.885484/
> 
> There's absolutely no guarantee that HD Tracks downloads are any better than the commercial CD, and in many cases, it's clearly worse.


I still don't get this preoccupation with super audible content as if it is a good thing.  It is not music, we can't hear it and it can only create distortions in the playback chain.


----------



## upstateguy

Here's one of Pono's HiRez in flac.  I've seen 320 with more information.


----------



## KeithEmo

Quite probably...

I don't specifically like that version _because_ it's 24/192k; as far as I know it's also a complete re-master.
However, I find that version to sound especially good, and the plucked guitar strings and cymbals to sound distinctly "natural" to me.
That makes it an excellent sample piece for evaluating high frequency and clarity phase response.
(I also happen to actually like the music.)

There is also good logic for purchasing the 24/192k version - other than the actual sample rate per-se.
As far as I know, that particular version was remastered with the intent of its becoming a 192k release (so it was mastered at 192k).
That being the case, the 192k version is the master, and the versions at lower sample rates, like 96k and 44.1k, will have been down-sampled from that one.
Therefore the versions at lower sample rates are "one generation further away from the master".
Now, avoiding the argument about the audibility of various re-sampling algorithms, it seems easiest to avoid any possibility of it's being audible by NOT re-sampling unnecessarily.
(The cost of the extra space required by a 192k file is negligible, every DAC I own can play 192k files, and the 192k version is only a few dollars more than the 44.1k version.)
Therefore, since that version was mastered at 192k, that seems like the best version to purchase.



TheSonicTruth said:


> More likely to hear mastering differences than differences between DACs even at that resolution.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 7, 2018)

old tech said:


> I still don't get this preoccupation with super audible content as if it is a good thing.  It is not music, we can't hear it and it can only create distortions in the playback chain.



It gives people with OCD an unattainable goal to quest after. Too much is never enough.

The people who recommend high data rate audio can’t even tell the difference between an iTunes file and a lossless file in a blind test.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> Quite probably...
> 
> I don't specifically like that version _because_ it's 24/192k; as far as I know it's also a complete re-master.
> However, I find that version to sound especially good, and the plucked guitar strings and cymbals to sound distinctly "natural" to me.
> ...



It's your money!  But also remember that the remastering itself is far more audible than any difference between 44.1 Redbook and 192 High-res.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] However, I find that version to sound especially good, and the plucked guitar strings and cymbals to sound distinctly "natural" to me.
> [2] That makes it an excellent sample piece for evaluating high frequency and clarity phase response.
> [3] As far as I know, that particular version was remastered with the intent of its becoming a 192k release (so it was mastered at 192k).That being the case, the 192k version is the master, and the versions at lower sample rates, like 96k and 44.1k, will have been down-sampled from that one. Therefore the versions at lower sample rates are "one generation further away from the master".



1. That's odd, the plucked guitar and cymbals sound distinctly unnatural to me, they sound distinctly produced. I'm not saying the song is poorly produced, far from it, but it is produced. It's also entirely possible that the "produced" sound was achieved mainly with mic choices/positioning but I'm pretty certain there's at least some EQ in there and there would definitely have been compression/limiting applied. Certainly though, there are many recordings where the guitars and/or cymbals sound less "natural".

2. At that time (the mid '70's), some studio mics topped out at about 20kHz but most topped out somewhat or significantly lower. Plus we're talking about more than one generation of analogue tape and routing through various other analogue equipment which also added HF noise and reduced HF linearity. For it's time, it had good HF response but not "excellent" compared with what could be done later.

3. It is NOT the case that it was mastered at 192/24, because it has never been possible (or desirable) to master at 192/24! Most likely it was mastered at 192/64 or possibly 192/32 and also, it's likely that it has been resampled several times, either via trips in/out of the ADC/DACs, by plugins which resample internally or both. Whatever the case, the distribution master will have been re-quantised, either to 24/192 or some other depth/rate. Therefore, the versions at the lower depth/rates are NOT "one generation further away from the master", they are exactly the same number of generations away from the master as the 192/24 version (IE. One generation away)!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I can't disagree with you there.....

I guess "natural" is a bad choice of verbiage..... the cymbals do sound a bit smoother than in real life..... but I guess they sound "appropriate" to the music to me.... to me they seem to sound "like they should sound".
I certainly do find the sound of that album to be "somewhat distinctive".
And, to me, on some other versions of that album, the guitars and cymbals sound somewhat indistinct to me (for example, the wire brush sounds more like the hiss of a steam valve than wires hitting metal).
I also find that distinction to be quite obvious on some equipment - but to be almost entirely inaudible on other equipment.

Explosions in movies rarely look like a real explosion. most of which just look like a flash of bright light if you film them, yet we still have a sense of "what a movie explosion should look like", and some "seem to look better than others".
(And, even among the CGI explosions we often see, on some the flames and bluster seem much more "realistic" than on others.)
To be quite honest, whenever I've actually listened to real live cymbals, I've found them to sound a bit annoying.... but I find these "pleasant".

However, even though I've never taken the time to analyze that recording, I find that the guitars and cymbals have a "clear detailed sound" - which seems to NOT be properly reproduced on some equipment.
Perhaps it's just the way they were EQed... but there is a distinct sense of shimmer and inner detail which, to me, seems intentional... and, on some equipment, seems to be :blurred over" or lacking.
(When I see two versions of a photo, one sharp and one blurry, and the details in the sharp version seem natural, I assume that the sharp version is "the better version", even though it's possible that the blur was deliberately added for some reason.)

Regardless of how you define the terms - by their product listings and pricing - the 24/192k version is "the best version HDTracks sells" - it is "the premium version of the product".
Therefore, however many times individual tracks have been resampled, or what sample rate or bit depth the most final version of the mix was produced at, I have little doubt that the 24/192k version got the most attention.
So, if there is a difference, I would expect it to be the one that "they made sure to get right" - by however they define that statement.

I see this simply as an extension of how the markets for most equipment  and products operate - from audiophile electronic gear, to speakers, to cars, to dishwasher detergent.
If a product is available in several versions, the "premium" version will  usually have more features, and better performance, than the "low cost" version.
This may happen because there is a cost difference involved in including the extra features or better performance.
But, equally often, it happens because details, or minor performance niceties, are _DELIBERATELY OMITTED_ from the "low end product".. to provide the customer incentive to upgrade to the more expensive version.
In this case, I would expect them to expend more effort in making sure the highest resolution, and most expensive, version sounds really good.
And, if there really is no audible difference, it wouldn't surprise me if they were to deliberately "down-grade" the lower cost versions to sound slightly inferior.
For example, I might expect them to deliberately roll off the high end on the "CD quality version" to meet people's expectations that "the high-res version will have a better high end".

I am quite convinced that one of the major reasons the SACD layer on hybrid SACDs often sounds quite different is that, in some instances, someone told the mix engineer:
"The SACD layer is the audiophile version. Make sure it sounds smoother, and clearer, and more like what audiophiles expect, than the regular version."

My point is that there are many reasons why a difference might exist... many of which are out of our control as a consumer.
If it turns out that the 24/192k version sounds better because they deliberately added more compression to the CD version, it makes no difference to me whether they did it to make the CD version "less desirable",
or whether they really believe that "the low end market prefers more compression".
Either way I'd rather have the better one.
(And, once I've got it, the space I'd save by converting it to 16/44.1k myself is so negligible that I wouldn't bother.)

With that album, the best I hope for is a compromise between, "the best quality possible considering the analog masters available" and "some alterations to the sound of the analog master to make the result more like what the producers and musicians intended".
And, yes, I realize that there is going to be some "artistry" and some "opinion" involved in that goal.
However, assuming I trust the folks who did the remaster to have done a good job, I would prefer to have the most accurate rendition of _THEIR_ final product possible.

And, yes, I'd probably be willing to pay an extra $10 to get the 32 bit or 64 bit file off the console.... because it would be one step closer to the original.... 
(Which is find to philosophically be an improvement... with no need to agonize about whether it's audible or not.)
I have no trouble playing those sorts of files... so why not?

Just to be perfectly clear.....
I have found many of the remasters sold by HDTracks to sound really good - and quite different than the originals.
To me this justifies purchasing them.
While I most certainly find the question of whether they sound better because they're high-res files to be of academic interest...
It makes no difference in my purchasing decision.



gregorio said:


> 1. That's odd, the plucked guitar and cymbals sound distinctly unnatural to me, they sound distinctly produced. I'm not saying the song is poorly produced, far from it, but it is produced. It's also entirely possible that the "produced" sound was achieved mainly with mic choices/positioning but I'm pretty certain there's at least some EQ in there and there would definitely have been compression/limiting applied. Certainly though, there are many recordings where the guitars and/or cymbals sound less "natural".
> 
> 2. At that time (the mid '70's), some studio mics topped out at about 20kHz but most topped out somewhat or significantly lower. Plus we're talking about more than one generation of analogue tape and routing through various other analogue equipment which also added HF noise and reduced HF linearity. For it's time, it had good HF response but not "excellent" compared with what could be done later.
> 
> ...


----------



## gregorio (Nov 7, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I guess "natural" is a bad choice of verbiage..... the cymbals do sound a bit smoother than in real life..... but I guess they sound "appropriate" to the music to me.... to me they seem to sound "like they should sound".



Agreed. That's the hallmark of a good production and mastering. It's got nothing to do with how natural it is and everything to do with how "right" or "appropriate" in the context of the entire piece.



KeithEmo said:


> Regardless of how you define the terms - by their product listings and pricing - the 24/192k version is "the best version HDTracks sells" - it is "the premium version of the product".
> Therefore, however many times individual tracks have been resampled, or what sample rate or bit depth the most final version of the mix was produced at, I have little doubt that the 24/192k version got the most attention.
> So, if there is a difference, I would expect it to be the one that "they made sure to get right" - by however they define that statement.



No, that approach is impractical. You make one (virtual) master with all the effort to make sure it's as right as possible. You then just bounce that master down to whatever depths/rates you want, 192/24, 96/24, 16/44 and whatever. The amount of work is identical, the different versions sound identical. If, for some reason, you have to "crappify" say the 16/44 version, then that's extra work/effort to create that 16/44 version (to crappify it). In other words, the actual situation is the exact opposite of what you appear to believe. I'm well aware that the highest bitrate version is marketed as the "premium version" with a significantly higher price but it's not the "best version" and it's NOT the version which has had the most effort/time put in, it's a rip-off!!

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan

@KeithEmo this is one time where I'll have to disagree. My personal view is that 24 bit is more than enough for playback, I don't think it's possible to achieve playback on real-world equipment with a noise floor below an effective 24 bits, and gear I can afford is going to be more like 20.  IMO 32 / 64 bits are only important or desirable when you're actually modifying the audio.  90+ MB for each song adds up pretty quick when you're using SSDs


----------



## AKGForever (Nov 7, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Interesting......
> 
> I've always found the HDTracks 24/192k version of that album to be excellent for listening for minor differences between DACs and filter choices.
> (Listen for slight differences in the sound of the plucked guitars and cymbals.)



The ABX tests I did were iTunes 256k vs lossless.  I should have mentioned that in the original post.  I doubt I could tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192k.  Maybe when my ears were 20 but at 55 I am limited to about 40 - 13,500 hz and I perceived no artifacts at iTunes 256k.  I have perused HD Tracks as well as eClassical for 16/44.1 lossless Classical music files but found them expensive compared to just getting used CDs on Amazon.

I am in the process of re-ripping my CDs in lossless format, not because of any belief that I can hear a difference but several have failed, almost all due to my carelessness over the years.  Fortunately with Cuetools, I was able to rescue most of them and those that I can't I still have my original 320k MP3 rips made about 15-20 years ago.


----------



## KeithEmo

We seem to be largely in agreement about what happens - but we seem to have different expectations about the results.

First off, if you check out actual comparisons of the quality of sample rate conversion provided by a variety of commercial products, you will find they vary widely.
Without getting into a lengthy discussion about which flaws are likely to be audible - in terms of measurements some clearly perform far better than others (some perform quite poorly).
Many also offer a variety of filter options - which again leaves the person performing the conversion in a position to alter the results.
(Whether you or I agree or not, some engineers will insist that a brick wall filter, or a minimum phase filter, or a slow roll-off filter, "sounds best" - and will use their favorite.)

If you "start with the virtual master and bounce the other versions _down_ from there" you are introducing the _POSSIBILITY_ that they will be degraded along the way.
(You seem to agree that the highest-resolution copy available is that "virtual master". I'd rather just have a bit-perfect copy of that than risk some loss of quality by altering it.)

And, yes, I expect someone to listen to that highest-resolution version and possibly make adjustments... while I expect the "44k version" to be "whatever came out of the converter".

Beyond that, I do not know who does or does not actually bother to add extra compression or other types of "crappification" to the different versions.
I should also point out that not everyone views it that way; some engineers see added compression as "making it play louder and more clearly on a car radio or a cheap iPod".

You'll notice that there is often an audible difference between the Red Book CD layer and the SACD layer on hybrid SACDs.
Since the performance difference between DSD and PCM is negligible - we _MUST_ conclude that a deliberate choice was made to make them sound different.
(They were deliberately mastered differently to appeal to different market audiences.)

We seem to agree that the "virtual master" is going to be the highest-resolution copy.
Therefore, logically, and version produced from that version by any sort of conversion could _AT BEST_ be equal, but not necessarily.
It simply seems easier to me to "take home a direct un-converted copy of the virtual master" than to trust a modified copy of it that offers me no potential benefit.



gregorio said:


> Agreed. That's the hallmark of a good production and mastering. It's got nothing to do with how natural it is and everything to do with how "right" or "appropriate" in the context of the entire piece.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree entirely....

However, most mastering applications operate at 32 bits or 64 bits, mostly because the extra overhead allows them to avoid potential rounding and math errors after multiple passes through various level adjustments and more complex processing. Then, once production is "done", the files are put through a final step of reducing the bit depth and dithering the noise floor. At this point you have a "production copy" that may be audibly equal to the original - but is technically degraded from it. In my opinion, the only practical reason for home equipment to support 32 bit audio is that this will allow it to play the files output by the mastering application directly, and so save the extra step of converting them to 24 bit, or some other format.

I would also agree that there are often practical considerations. For example, even though I don't find the size of high-resolution files to be an imposition, I generally don't buy high-res remasters of music that I'm not especially fond of, or that I don't believe will benefit significantly from the best quality possible. 

When I take "snapshots" with my camera, I often use the JPG format, which is both fast and requires very little storage space. However, when I take IMPORTANT pictures, or ones I may consider editing later, I use RAW or TIFF format. The JPG format is the equivalent of MP3. It technically introduces significant artifacts, most of which are not at all visible under most circumstances. However, those flaws can become apparent under some circumstances, which is why most professionals agree that "JPG is a fine format for delivering moderate quality content to end users but not at all appropriate for archival, mastering, or editing use".

I apply the same standard to my music collection. For most music I find the quality of a standard CD to be just fine. However, for albums that I consider especially important, I want the best quality possible, and am unwilling to take any chance of compromising it. For those albums, I treat my copy as I would an "archival master", and my priority is to have "the best quality copy possible". (I may even down-sample a copy to put on my laptop. But, as with other masters, I retain an unaltered copy for future use.)



Zapp_Fan said:


> @KeithEmo this is one time where I'll have to disagree. My personal view is that 24 bit is more than enough for playback, I don't think it's possible to achieve playback on real-world equipment with a noise floor below an effective 24 bits, and gear I can afford is going to be more like 20.  IMO 32 / 64 bits are only important or desirable when you're actually modifying the audio.  90+ MB for each song adds up pretty quick when you're using SSDs


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] First off, if you check out actual comparisons of the quality of sample rate conversion provided by a variety of commercial products, you will find they vary widely.
> Without getting into a lengthy discussion about which flaws are likely to be audible - in terms of measurements some clearly perform far better than others (some perform quite poorly).
> [2] If you "start with the virtual master and bounce the other versions _down_ from there" you are introducing the _POSSIBILITY_ that they will be degraded along the way.
> (You seem to agree that the highest-resolution copy available is that "virtual master". I'd rather just have a bit-perfect copy of that than risk some loss of quality by altering it.)
> ...



1. Define "vary widely". Digital audio gear varies "very widely" in terms of their jitter measurements but even in the worst cases, it's still well below audibility!

2. Firstly, you cannot have a bit-perfect copy of the virtual master, even the mastering engineer can't! There is no format which supports writing a 64bit audio file. So, all versions, even the highest depth/rate version (say 192/24), will have to go through a re-quantisation process. And yes, the process will degrade the virtual master but way below even our ability to reproduce, let alone hear. My DAC is a high quality pro DAC, it can output about 19bits, by the time the audio has been amp'ed and comes out of my speakers, it's down to about 17bits. What possible benefit would there be in having another 47bits below that? We're in silly, la-la land!

3. Agreed but then you could achieve that, completely transparently, by having two different 16/44 versions. 

G


----------



## bigshot

It has nothing to do with actual sound quality. People who want high data rate audio files buy them because they want as big a file as possible to assuage their OCD. If there is a version of their favorite album out there with more numbers in it, they lay in bed at night jonesing for it. It doesn't matter if it sounds exactly the same or not. They just want as big as they can. Once they've gone out and bought the overstuffed audio file, then their self validation kicks in and their expectation bias convinces them that the really can hear a difference. This part of audiophilia is totally psychological and has nothing to do with audio fidelity. It's an easy trap to fall into, and the only way out is to do controlled comparisons designed to eliminate the bias. If they refuse to do that, then their brain just keeps on in an endless loop of "more is better".


----------



## Zapp_Fan

KeithEmo said:


> I apply the same standard to my music collection. For most music I find the quality of a standard CD to be just fine. However, for albums that I consider especially important, I want the best quality possible, and am unwilling to take any chance of compromising it. For those albums, I treat my copy as I would an "archival master", and my priority is to have "the best quality copy possible". (I may even down-sample a copy to put on my laptop. But, as with other masters, I retain an unaltered copy for future use.)



Well, all good audio software does process 32-bit float audio, and 64 is common today, so the "true" master is a 32-bit floating point WAV or something.  However, I think it's worth noting that a floating point number is non-physical, a DAC can't operate as if it has arbitrary resolution the way a 32-bit floating point file can.  So you'll have to convert from 32-bit float to 32-bit INT before the DAC outputs it, anyway, which is an equivalent process to converting to 24 bit.  If you want as few steps away from what existed inside the mastering DAW, 24 and 32-bit files are probably equivalent in that regard.


----------



## KeithEmo

1) 
Here's a nice comparison of the performance of quite a few commercial sample-rate converters.
Note the surprisingly large number that have obvious aliasing....
http://src.infinitewave.ca/

Jitter is a different issue - although equipment varies widely in terms of jitter as well.
Note that virtually all current sample rate conversions are performed on software - on data files - and so jitter is not relevant.
Also note that jitter is a phenomenon that affects conversion between analog and digital - and NOT files.
I have no control over the jitter in the ADC; and the jitter in what happens to be my current DAC is totally unrelated to the source files I'm playing.

2)
As far as I know, virtually all editing suites have the option of "saving your current work files" - at their current resolution and bit depth.
(Otherwise there would be no way to temporarily stop working on a  project and resume where you left off.)
However, in many of those situations, the format may be obscure, or specific to a certain editing program.
There is also obviously a continuum.... you can always have a higher sample rate or a higher bit depth.

However, there are several clearly recognized "break points" in that continuum.
For example, it is generally agreed that the noise floor of a 24 bit file is "below audibility" but that the noise floor of a 16 bit file is not.
This is why dithering is universally applied when reducing a file to 16 bit CD format.
(But, once that dithering is applied, you are "hard coding" the dynamic range of that CD to about 14 bits... by creating a "solid permanent noise floor" 14 bits below 0 dB.)
It's too late to go back and "redo" that CD using a different dither if you haven't retained a copy of the master file.

The obvious difference is "topological".......
Before you apply that quantization/reduction process you are open to a bunch of current and future options...
Once you apply it, it is largely irreversible, so you have reduced your options to one...

While you have that 24 bit file you can choose which dithering algorithm to use (and each has advantages and disadvantages).
Once you reduce it to 16 bits, and dither it, you have locked in one option, with both its advantages and disadvantages, and you have eliminated all the other choices.
(For example, if you reduce your 24 bit file to 16 bits using TPDF dither, then later discover that MBIT+ dither would have sounded better.... too late.... )

3)
The point is that, if I have a 24/192k version, I can make as many different 16/44k versions as I want.
But, once I let someone else pick one or more 16/44k versions for me, I can't go back and choose a different path.

The difference is really philosophical....
Even if you were to prove to me, beyond ANY possible doubt, that no DAC _TODAY_ sounds different with 24/192k than with 16/44k...
Neither of us can know with absolute certainty that this will be true tomorrow.

Wouldn't it suck to buy a new DAC tomorrow and find out that, on it, you _CAN_ hear the difference?
(And that you should have spent that extra $5 to get the 24/192k versions of all those albums.)
It just makes more sense to me to start with the best quality version available and go from there. 

Serious photographers don't use RAW or TIF format for all their photos because every photo is important and it always makes a difference.
They do so because you can never know in advance WHICH PHOTO will turn out to be important, and too much quality never hurts, while too little quality often does.
Therefore you always choose the best possible quality format - IN CASE you end up needing it later.
I feel the same way about albums that are important to me.
(As I mentioned in another post... for many albums I wouldn't bother.)



gregorio said:


> 1. Define "vary widely". Digital audio gear varies "very widely" in terms of their jitter measurements but even in the worst cases, it's still well below audibility!
> 
> 2. Firstly, you cannot have a bit-perfect copy of the virtual master, even the mastering engineer can't! There is no format which supports writing a 64bit audio file. So, all versions, even the highest depth/rate version (say 192/24), will have to go through a re-quantisation process. And yes, the process will degrade the virtual master but way below even our ability to reproduce, let alone hear. My DAC is a high quality pro DAC, it can output about 19bits, by the time the audio has been amp'ed and comes out of my speakers, it's down to about 17bits. What possible benefit would there be in having another 47bits below that? We're in silly, la-la land!
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 7, 2018)

Just shootin' the breeze with you my friend, I'd say the same to a friend right next to me:

Why is jitter an issue at all? Why is aliasing an issue at all? Why is sample rate an issue at all? "Virtually" is usually a euphemism for "Not" or "I don't know whether." Why should I care about quanitization or reduction processes? Why is it only "largely" irreversible? Can't you just keep the first generation audio file in case you screw something up, like you would in photography? Why should I care about dithering at all? Honestly, I can't say I understand word one of that stuff, except at a very high level of abstraction. The math is too much for me, except for some simple highest possible frequency or noise floor type of calculations. I might hear to 16 khz and there is no audible noise floor in my audio equipment unless I am going to risk permanent hearing damage. How about for you? Dithering smooths the noise floor which I can't hear anyway, jitter is a timing error that gets corrected to way below audible levels anyway, I can only hear to maybe 16 khz so 44k sampling rate should be fine for me, etc. etc. But do I really understand it? Hell no! I try, I learn, but that is some serious stuff at its core.

To extend your reasoning by analogy:

The difference is really philosophical....
Even if you were to prove to me, beyond ANY possible doubt, that the sun rose today
Neither of us can know with absolute certainty that this will be true tomorrow.

So. . . ?

Philiosophy 101, literally, David Hume, with some statistics thrown in at a later date. Sunrise problem:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphiloso...an_you_prove_that_the_sun_will_rise_tomorrow/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem

I thought lots of professional sports photographers and news photographers shot jpeg but were very skilled so got great shots out of camera that could be sent to their clients within minutes. Also many of the cameras catch action a lot faster if you are shooting jpeg. Also I always carry a camera around in my left front pocket that only shoots jpeg. I shoot jpeg plus raw on vacation and always try to make the raw file look better than the jpeg came out. That works. Raw is for when I have all the time in the world to process the photo. Perhaps you _don't_ always choose the best possible format in case you end up needing it later? Perhaps you'll miss shots and waste time? Perhaps you're good enough with a camera that you can get great out-of-camera shots? I thought too much "quality" can equal "too much information" and can _really hurt if you miss a shot? 
_
Or waste time and computing resources and distract you away from what matters if you are trying to enjoy music.

Correct me if I'm wrong or mistaken. It won't be the first time. It happens quite often, I assure you. Sometimes I even feel I have to apologize. But if you want to continue the conversation, if you think it's interesting, I'll be around.  : )



KeithEmo said:


> The difference is really philosophical....
> Even if you were to prove to me, beyond ANY possible doubt, that no DAC _TODAY_ sounds different with 24/192k than with 16/44k...
> Neither of us can know with absolute certainty that this will be true tomorrow.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Inaudible is inaudible. It doesn't matter if you can't hear it.


----------



## Davesrose

Steve999 said:


> I thought lots of professional sports photographers and news photographers shot jpeg but were very skilled so got great shots out of camera that could be sent to their clients within minutes. Also many of the cameras catch action a lot faster if you are shooting jpeg. Also I always carry a camera around in my left front pocket that only shoots jpeg. I shoot jpeg plus raw on vacation and always try to make the raw file look better than the jpeg came out. That works. Raw is for when I have all the time in the world to process the photo. Perhaps you _don't_ always choose the best possible format in case you end up needing it later? Perhaps you'll miss shots and waste time? Perhaps you're good enough with a camera that you can get great out-of-camera shots? I thought too much "quality" can equal "too much information" and can _really hurt if you miss a shot?_



RAW is s sensor dump, while jpeg requires processing and compression in camera.  Many DSLRs can have a longer burst mode with jpeg because of write times to memory. The fastest DSLR is the Canon 1DX2, which takes 170 RAW images at 14fps in one burst (mainly because it's using CFast card).  In live view mode, it can shoot 16fps.  When it comes to sports, some photographers shoot jpeg and some shoot RAW.  For quite some time, big sports venues have had data centers for photographers to dump their images and process with their preferred profiles during half-time/breaks (this is where if they shoot RAW, they can batch process many photos with their own presets).  They then can transmit to their publications through ethernet (transmitting jpegs via wifi is a much more recent phenomenon).  Personally, I always shoot RAW+jpeg with my DSLR.  Jpegs tend to invariably just be a reference, as I can easily batch process RAW with Lightroom.  Jpeg is limited to 8bit per channel color: which might be fine for certain scenes (and are highly dependent on how you setup your color profile on your camera).  RAW has both exposure latitude and greater color depth for you to be able to change WB in post.  I come from having darkroom experience, and I've always enjoyed having more exposure latitude and have the ability to mask in more exposure in different areas of a photo (with RAW or a negative).  Hard drive prices are always going down in price...so now I backup my RAWs, Lightroom catalogues, and any DNG files I might create with HDR or panoramic merges.


----------



## Steve999

Good stuff. Thanks. I learned something!



Davesrose said:


> RAW is s sensor dump, while jpeg requires processing and compression in camera.  Many DSLRs can have a longer burst mode with jpeg because of write times to memory. The fastest DSLR is the Canon 1DX2, which takes 170 RAW images at 14fps in one burst (mainly because it's using CFast card).  In live view mode, it can shoot 16fps.  When it comes to sports, some photographers shoot jpeg and some shoot RAW.  For quite some time, big sports venues have had data centers for photographers to dump their images and process with their preferred profiles during half-time/breaks (this is where if they shoot RAW, they can batch process many photos with their own presets).  They then can transmit to their publications through ethernet (transmitting jpegs via wifi is a much more recent phenomenon).  Personally, I always shoot RAW+jpeg with my DSLR.  Jpegs tend to invariably just be a reference, as I can easily batch process RAW with Lightroom.  Jpeg is limited to 8bit per channel color: which might be fine for certain scenes (and are highly dependent on how you setup your color profile on your camera).  RAW has both exposure latitude and greater color depth for you to be able to change WB in post.  I come from having darkroom experience, and I've always enjoyed having more exposure latitude and have the ability to mask in more exposure in different areas of a photo (with RAW or a negative).  Hard drive prices are always going down in price...so now I backup my RAWs, Lightroom catalogues, and any DNG files I might create with HDR or panoramic merges.


----------



## bigshot

If you set your camera settings correctly, you can shoot JPEG with no problem. I learned using film, which has a much lower latitude than digital. It's second nature to me now, so it doesn't really matter if I shoot JPEG or RAW.


----------



## KeithEmo

JPeG is a form of LOSSY compression (which is somewhat parallel to MP3 for audio).

The information leaves the camera's sensor as a RAW file - which contains all the information the camera has collected.
Unfortunately, RAW files are also the largest, and there is very little standardization between them 
(your picture viewer or image processor must support the RAW format for your specific model camera).

The next stage is to convert it to a more standard but still lossless format - like TIF.
This version still contains most of the original information... although not all.
(If your shot turns out to have "crushed blacks" or "burned highlights" the RAW file has a little extra information that may help you recover it fully.)

The final stage is JPG - which is a lossy format that is generally only recommended for final distribution.
The JPG compression standard was developed to allow the greatest size reduction with the least loss of VISUAL QUALITY.
(The user gets to decide how to trade off file size against picture quality.)
As you might expect, most JPG files "look OK" under casual observation.
However, the flaws and artifacts introduced by the compression process become very obvious if any sort of processing is done on the picture.
In other words, a JPG image can look quite good as it sits...
However, if you attempt to perform many common editing modifications to a JPG, the flaws quickly become obvious and extremely unpleasant.
This is why converting to JPG is almost always right at the end of the workflow - after you KNOW no more editing will occur.

Turning a TIF file into a JPG actually requires a significant amount of processing.
However, in the past, the speed of most consumer cameras was limited more by the speed at which images could be transferred into memory than by processing power.
Many consumer cameras can shoot much more quickly in JPG than in RAW because, even though the JPG files require more processing, the smaller JPG files take much less time to save.
Even many pro cameras have a higher sustained shooting rate for JPGs.
(One particular Nikon model will shoot thirty of either type on image very quickly... however, it will slow down after 30 RAW files, while being able to shoot 120 JPG files at the same rate.)

Sports photography often relies on shooting multiple frames very quickly.
Therefore, being able to shoot a lot of frames in sequence, very quickly, and doing so for a long time, is more important than the quality of each picture.
If the big play is going to take ten seconds...
You may well improve the odds of getting that one great shot by taking 500 medium quality shots rather than 50 high quality shots while the play is in progress.
However, if you're taking stills, and hope to achieve good quality, and have the option of editing your photos later, everyone agrees that RAW or TIF is the format to use.

JPG files are also more likely to be of a size where you can reasonably send several in an e-mail.
(The high-quality master images used for advertising copy can run to several hundred mB in size.)

In the past, storage space was also an issue.
With my old Nikon D90, shooting on auto-repeat, in RAW formet, I could fill up a $100 memory card in about five minutes.
Now, with memory so much cheaper, that same $100 buys me a much bigger card... so much bigger that file size isn't a problem.

It'a also worth noting that pros, and serious amateurs, have found ways to avoid being inconvenienced by file size.
If I go out to shoot pictures of a tree somewhere, I take lots of pictures, from every reasonable angle, in RAW format.
Then, when I get home, I pop open my image manager, which shows me a thumbnail page of all those pictures.
That way I get to pick out the interesting shots, open them at full quality, or transfer them to Photoshop for further processing.
(I can delete the less interesting ones or, more likely, throw them in the archives in case I decide to look at them again later.)

Many cameras also offer the option of shooting in BOTH JPG and RAW or TIF.
WIth those, you can download and look at the JPG versions...
Then download the full quality master (the equivalent of the negative) for any shots you want to do more with.
Because most photographers are fanatical about saving backups and negatives, many editing programs automatically save backups, or allow changes to be reversed.



Steve999 said:


> Just shootin' the breeze with you my friend, I'd say the same to a friend right next to me:
> 
> Why is jitter an issue at all? Why is aliasing an issue at all? Why is sample rate an issue at all? "Virtually" is usually a euphemism for "Not" or "I don't know whether." Why should I care about quanitization or reduction processes? Why is it only "largely" irreversible? Can't you just keep the first generation audio file in case you screw something up, like you would in photography? Why should I care about dithering at all? Honestly, I can't say I understand word one of that stuff, except at a very high level of abstraction. The math is too much for me, except for some simple highest possible frequency or noise floor type of calculations. I might hear to 16 khz and there is no audible noise floor in my audio equipment unless I am going to risk permanent hearing damage. How about for you? Dithering smooths the noise floor which I can't hear anyway, jitter is a timing error that gets corrected to way below audible levels anyway, I can only hear to maybe 16 khz so 44k sampling rate should be fine for me, etc. etc. But do I really understand it? Hell no! I try, I learn, but that is some serious stuff at its core.
> 
> ...


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> If you set your camera settings correctly, you can shoot JPEG with no problem. I learned using film, which has a much lower latitude than digital. It's second nature to me now, so it doesn't really matter if I shoot JPEG or RAW.


Different films had different dynamic range (B&W having more because it just had one photosensitive layer).  Ansel Adams made a series of books outlining the need of developing for fine tuning contrast, in which the print had less contrast range then the negative.  JPEG can be fine for certain scenarios, but one of the main advantages of RAW is higher dynamic range (which may be needed for a situation with bright light and deep shadows).


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 8, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> The next stage is to convert it to a more standard but still lossless format - like TIF.
> This version still contains most of the original information... although not all.
> (If your shot turns out to have "crushed blacks" or "burned highlights" the RAW file has a little extra information that may help you recover it fully.)



Early cameras recorded their RAW information in non-proprietary TIF formats.  Current DSLRs don’t convert from RAW to TIF to JPEG.  Most have options for RAW and/or JPEG (there's a few cameras now that can record in Adobe's DNG lossless format).  TIF itself can be a HDR format (16bit or 32bit per channel..and therefore take up more disk space then current RAWs).  I just looked at one of my RAWs from my 5D4.  It's 32MB for full RAW (I have dabbled with dual pixel RAW, which raises the file size to around 50MB).  I converted it to 16bit RGB working space, and with or without LZW compression, the TIF file size was around 200MB. I’ll use HDR TIF for light maps in 3D software (and certain rendering processes are actually computationally faster working with 32bit floating point).  Besides camera information, the RAWs sensor portion for color is not RGB (as a sensor’s photosite layout has different arrangements of color).  RAW also actually does also have a jpeg preview as well as lossless compression.


----------



## KeithEmo

Your statement is "relative". 
All JPG images are an approximation of the original... and, as you increase the compression (or decrease the image size), the approximation becomes more vague and less correct.
The usual symptoms are a vague blurriness as actual detail is discarded... combined with false edges which appear at the boundaries of the 16x16 pixel zones to which the compression is applied.

Much as with most lossy audio formats, the JPG format was developed to work reasonably well under very specific circumstances.
JPG was specifically developed to work well with "continuous tone color images" - which means "smooth looking images with no sharp edges".
This is why it works well with photos...especially of things like faces; the majority of the useful information in most photos is "continuous tone".
It also works well with images that have lots of medium sized details - like the leaves on trees - where a few extra artifacts that look like edges are unlikely to be noticed.
It's also why JPG encoding almost always looks extremely bad when you try to apply it to things like cartoon images, or scanned text, which has lots of high contrast sharp edges.
(You'll also notice the problem in photos of things like chain link fences and signs - which contain precise sharp edges - and it is more pronounced if the sharp edges are purely vertical or horizontal.)

Your JPG photos may well "look just fine" as they are - as long as you don't encounter any of the specific situations where the inherent issues are obvious.
For example, take a picture of someone's face, and it will look pretty good... especially if you don't zoom in or adjust the color or contrast extensively.
However, try and take a sharp and readable photo of a page of black and white newsprint, and you will see obvious artifacts that will not only look bad but will actually make it difficult to read.

You may reasonably argue that "it's unreasonable to turn up the volume on the quiet spots so you can hear the noise floor" in an audio file.
However, people who actually do anything with their photos besides view them as-is out of the camera, very often adjust light and dark levels, contrast, or color settings.
And, when you adjust any of those, the visible artifacts that are unavoidable with JPG compression are very likely to become both obvious and extremely annoying.
And, because the errors basically amount to both loss of real details and the addition of "phantom details", blowing up or sharpening the image, both common practices, are even more likely to exaggerate those artifacts.

If you've ever actually started with a non-JPG image that is extremely sharp, then converted it into a JPG image, the differences range from subtle to obvious.
At the lowest levels of compression, or with high resolution images, you'll see a vague softening of the image, which both get progressively worse as you increase the compression.
With higher levels of compression, and with low-resolution images, you'll start to see the edges of the pixel zones become visible as "blockiness" or vertical and horizontal artifacts, while the detail inside each square becomes blurry.

The JPG compression algorithm works separately on individual 16x16 pixel square zones.
As you increase the compression, more and more of the information that is responsible for storing detail is progressively discarded.
This results in an overall loss of detail and blurring of the image.
In addition, since the effect is applied to 16x16 pixel squares, as each square becomes less like the original, the boundaries between the squares become visible.
(What you're seeing is the contrast between dissimilar errors that occur in contiguous zones of adjoining blocks.)
Another artifact caused by the transform-based nature of the process is clearly visible "echoes" or "ghosts" around sharp high-contrast edges - like letters on a screen or the strands of a chain link fence.
(Those are essentially ringing - caused when the higher-order coefficients that store detail in the image are truncated to reduce image size.)

By themselves, most of the time, JPG images look pretty good.
However, if you start with a fully sharp non-JPG image, and compare it to the JPG encoded version, at a magnification where individual pixels can be resolved, you will _ALWAYS_ find differences.
If you have a camera that stores JPG + RAW", and you compare them side by side, at reasonable magnification, you will never fail to see at least a slight difference.
And, because of the nature of the flaws and artifacts introduced by the process, even a JPG image that initially looks good, will quickly become unusable if you try to blow it up or make major color or contrast adjustments.
You will NEVER see a pro use JPG over RAW or another lossless format unless they've made a conscious decision to sacrifice image quality and the ability to edit your images for convenience or faster shooting speeds.
That's why you'll see plenty of sports photographers using JPG, but _NEVER_ landscape photographers, or archivists, or anyone shooting high quality ad copy.
(And, if you plan to store or photograph black and white text, you are well advised to use GIF - which is very poor at storing accurate colors but doesn't sacrifice spatial accuracy or sharpness.)






bigshot said:


> If you set your camera settings correctly, you can shoot JPEG with no problem. I learned using film, which has a much lower latitude than digital. It's second nature to me now, so it doesn't really matter if I shoot JPEG or RAW.


----------



## KeithEmo

The dictionary meaning of the word "virtually" is "as good as" or "close enough that the difference doesn't matter".... so saying "virtually all" is about the same as saying "most" or "the overwhelming majority".
But, yes, it is often used as a sort of colloquialism to suggest that, even though you technically cannot claim "all", you find it unlikely that the listener will ever encounter the exceptions.
(Peanuts are healthy to eat for VIRTUALLY everyone. We feel fair saying that, and classifying peanuts as a safe food item, because very few people have dangerous peanut allergies, so peanuts are safe for "virtually everyone" but technically not for everyone.)

I agree with your second assertion absolutely - Just keep the first generation audio file in case you screw something up.
That's why I want a copy of the master, or one that's as close to it as I can get, rather than a lossy copy or a copy at a lower sample rate.
However, I won't have the opportunity to do so if the producer has sold me a reduced quality copy that he insists is "good enough for my purposes".

In point of fact, the noise floor is _NOT_ always inaudible.
Also, because of the mathematics involved, specific types of dither can be used to "shift the noise floor into a different frequency range"; this is typically referred to as "noise shaping".
By choosing a specifically formulated pattern of dither noise, a recording that has an audible noise floor can be altered to make the noise floor less audible.
The dither actually adds overall noise, and the result is a net increase in noise, but a major increase in ultrasonic noise has been "traded" for a lesser but significant decrease in audible noise.
(We say that "the overall noise has increased, but the noise spectrum has been shifted so as to be less audible".)
Some patterns shift the noise into the ultrasonic range, where it is essentially inaudible, while others merely shift it to higher audible frequency ranges which we humans find less obvious or annoying. 
(In general, all such processes result in an increase in overall noise, but a reduction is "audible noise" or "bothersome noise".)

It should be noted that many people find the particular TYPE of noise often encountered in digital recordings to be especially unpleasant - even though at a very low level.
Therefore, it is considered worthwhile to "trade it" for a higher level of less unpleasant noise by adding dither.
Most digital recordings use explicitly added dither, especially when the target output file is 16 bit "CD audio", where the noise floor is considered to be "low but audible"..
(Many audio editors apply dither to 16 bit output files by default... but many leave it as a non-default option on files with a bit depth of 24 bits or more.)
It should also be noted that, with analog content, the background hiss already present on analog master tapes, and on vinyl, acts as a dither signal (which often obviates or reduces the need of applying additional dithering).



Steve999 said:


> Just shootin' the breeze with you my friend, I'd say the same to a friend right next to me:
> 
> Why is jitter an issue at all? Why is aliasing an issue at all? Why is sample rate an issue at all? "Virtually" is usually a euphemism for "Not" or "I don't know whether." Why should I care about quanitization or reduction processes? Why is it only "largely" irreversible? Can't you just keep the first generation audio file in case you screw something up, like you would in photography? Why should I care about dithering at all? Honestly, I can't say I understand word one of that stuff, except at a very high level of abstraction. The math is too much for me, except for some simple highest possible frequency or noise floor type of calculations. I might hear to 16 khz and there is no audible noise floor in my audio equipment unless I am going to risk permanent hearing damage. How about for you? Dithering smooths the noise floor which I can't hear anyway, jitter is a timing error that gets corrected to way below audible levels anyway, I can only hear to maybe 16 khz so 44k sampling rate should be fine for me, etc. etc. But do I really understand it? Hell no! I try, I learn, but that is some serious stuff at its core.
> 
> ...


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Note the surprisingly large number that have obvious aliasing.... http://src.infinitewave.ca/
> [2] Jitter is a different issue - although equipment varies widely in terms of jitter as well.



1. Yes, that site has been around for many years and I'm well aware of it. My point is though, define "obviously". It's obvious if you look at the measurements/graphs but NOT at all obvious to hear.
2. No, it's exactly the same issue (as I'm talking about). DACs (and other digital audio equipment) all have jitter ranging from a few tens of pico-secs up to several hundred, which is an OBVIOUS difference when we look at the numbers/measurements, not obvious at all to hear though (because even hundreds is well below audibility). Which is exactly the same issue with modern resampling algos! 



KeithEmo said:


> 2) As far as I know, virtually all editing suites have the option of "saving your current work files" - at their current resolution and bit depth.
> [2a] (Otherwise there would be no way to temporarily stop working on a project and resume where you left off.)
> [2b] However, in many of those situations, the format may be obscure, or specific to a certain editing program.
> [2c] There is also obviously a continuum.... you can always have a higher sample rate or a higher bit depth.



2. Yes but what's that got to do with it? We're not talking about editing, we're talking about mixing and mastering aren't we?
2a. No, that is incorrect! Pro mixing and mastering environments are typically 64bit, the 24bit raw tracks are played/loaded into this virtual environment and processed (volume, panning and various plugins) in real time at 64bits. If we want to stop for the day, we cannot save our work at 64bit because there is no 64bit format that allows us to do so and there is no need anyway! All we have to do is save the session, which includes ALL the processing settings (fader, pan, routings and plugin settings). The next day we start our DAW, open the saved session and load our raw 24bit files into our mixing/mastering environment again, except we're not starting from scratch again because every parameter of our virtual mixing environment is recalled to exactly the same state as when we saved the session and therefore when we press "play" our mix/master is perfectly restored. So, the mix (or master) only ever exists in this virtual environment until it's completed and then we record ("bounce it down") it to actual physical file/s, at whatever depth/rate we choose.
2b. No, there is no format which supports 64bit and even if there were, why would we record that mix/master if it's not completed? How would we un-mix it to make further changes and complete it? The mix or master is entirely virtual.
2c. Again, I can't see what that's got to do with it. We have a virtual master at say 192/64, from that we re-quantize it and make a say 192/24 physical file. We DON'T then take that 192/24 physical file and apply another round of re-quantization on it to produce say a 96/24 and then another round of re-quantisation on that to produce a 16/44 version. We just use our 192/64 virtual master again but with a different re-quantisation setting, say 44/16. There is no generational difference between our 192/24 and 44/16, they are both exactly the same generation, once removed from the (virtual) master!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] For example, it is generally agreed that the noise floor of a 24 bit file is "below audibility" [1a] but that the noise floor of a 16 bit file is not.
> [1b] This is why dithering is universally applied when reducing a file to 16 bit CD format.
> [1c] (But, once that dithering is applied, you are "hard coding" the dynamic range of that CD to about 14 bits... by creating a "solid permanent noise floor" 14 bits below 0 dB.)
> [1d] The obvious difference is "topological"....... Before you apply that quantization/reduction process you are open to a bunch of current and future options... Once you apply it, it is largely irreversible, so you have reduced your options to one...
> ...



1. It's not "generally agreed", it's completely accepted, at least by us engineers! The noise floor of 24bit is way below the thermal noise floor of any piece of analogue equipment and therefore must be inaudible.
1a. "Generally agreed" by whom? Those who've been bombarded with "high-def" product marketing, certainly. Those who create that marketing, some maybe? Those of us who make the actual content though, no! It's "generally agreed" that the 16bit noise floor is inaudible at any reasonable playback level. Heck, it's generally agreed that even truncation noise (which is 6dB higher than the 16bit noise floor) is inaudible! And of course, we're the only ones in a position test any specific piece and we all have done, some of us exhaustively for 25 years!
1b. Not absolutely universally, I know one engineer who doesn't, because it's inaudible. It is general practise though, because we can't be absolutely sure everyone will playback at a reasonable level and as it only takes a few seconds to apply, we've covered any "just in case" scenarios. 
1c. No! One applied, we've "hard-coded" a dynamic range of about 20bits, not 14bits, that's why we've applied it in the first place! If we only got 14bits, we'd not bother and just leave the truncation noise there (as a few do).
1d. Which is why we use a virtual master and not one already re-quantized!
1e. Once we have a 24bit version it's already had a dither algorithm (or truncation) "baked-in", because our master is 64bit! 
1f. Yes, just like every different approach to jitter reduction has it's advantages and disadvantages but all of them are inaudible!

3. Why would I make as many 16/44 versions as I want from a 24/192 version, when it's quicker, easier and at least theoretically better quality to make as many 16/44 versions from the same original 192/64 virtual master?

4. The difference isn't "philosophical", the difference is marketing! If I were to prove to you that 16/44 is transparent, what do you think is going to happen tomorrow? Are we going to forget how to make 16/44 transparent, is digital technology going to go backwards?
4a. If tomorrow science suddenly gets complete amnesia and technology jumps backwards a decade or more, I'd have a lot more to worry about than a DAC purchase!!

I can't be sure that all your assertions aren't just poor guesses because you don't know how DAWs actually work or if you're just deliberately trying to misrepresent/obfuscate the facts? If it's the latter, what's the point, when you know that in this forum you're going to be refuted and if it's the former, why just invent "poor guesses" when there are people here you can ask, people who've been using DAWs professionally almost every day for about as long as DAWs have existed?

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan

2 questions: 

1) Isn't dithering used to avoid quantization noise that is correlated with the signal?  

I heard a demo of this amplified quite a bit once, it sounded like trash and made the value of dithering instantly obvious.  With dither you get the subjective effect of the signal actually getting better despite the added noise.  I don't know if there is a point to dithering with higher bit-depths because the quantization noise will never be audible in any realistic scenario.  Likewise, I don't see why you wouldn't dither a 16-bit file unless you were 100% sure that nobody would ever turn the volume up enough to hear the noise floor. 

2) I don't understand how you can add ultrasonic noise in a 44khz file.  OK, that's not a question, but I assume you weren't talking about 44khz files keith?


----------



## KeithEmo (Nov 8, 2018)

You _DO_ have a way to save "your work at 64 bits".... Your "saved session" is simply a rather messy and convoluted way to "save the current version of the 64 bit virtual master file"... plus a lot of other information that may be extremely useful for purposes of editing it. If your customer demanded "a copy of your current version that he could play at home, in his basement, on his DAW", you could provide it to him in the form of a copy of that session backup. He could then load that session into his DAW, and be in possession of "an exact copy of your current 64 bit virtual master file". I do agree, however, that it would be impractical to expect most end users to load ProTools, and load up an entire project, "just to play their favorite album at full quality". (I could also imagine a client, considering the possibility that he may wish to re-master the album in the future, and have that remastering done by a different studio, demanding the full project file "right when you are all set to do the final render" as a deliverable... and we all know the reasons why your studio might wish to withhold doing so unless properly motivated.)

My point is that, tomorrow morning, you can load that project, press "play", and again have your "64 bit virtual master" loaded on your console. The exact process required to get you there is merely a technical detail.

I also agree that, since I'm not planning to re-master the album from scratch, a 24 bit or 32 bit version of the final mix output file will be quite sufficient to satisfy me.

I would very much like to assume that each separate version at a different sample rate is actually re-quantized from the same master original... but I'll admit that, after purchasing a commercial CD "re-master" of an album that contained occasional record ticks, clearly present because it was digitized from a vinyl or pressing master copy, I am somewhat disinclined to trust everyone to do things the optimal way. Therefore, I do wonder if every different version and format offered by folks like HDTRacks was provided individually by the studio, or whether some of them may have been created in-house from others. (I'm not totally convinced that, when they wanted to add a DSD version to the set, or a copy at some other sample rate, they actually went back to the original studio and paid to have them to produce it from the original project files. I hope they did... but...)

Most software I've seen offers the choice of multiple dither options, and most software vendors seem to offer proprietary versions optimized for specific effects, or for use in specific circumstances. Many engineers also seem to express a preference for one or the other. Therefore, I would not say that "there is general agreement that it doesn't matter"... even when mastering 16 bit CDs... I would say it's still "in question" at a minimum.

I guess that, if you could prove to me that 16/44k is perfectly transparent, to every living human being, with every piece of music and test signal in existence today, when played on every existing piece of equipment, we could agree that it is absolutely and unquestionably sufficient for reproducing any content in existence today. But, sadly, by tomorrow, some new human will be born, or some new test signal will be devised, and then we'll be right back to "probably" and "most".

Likewise, if you can perform a study showing that none of the jitter that is easily measured on current DACs is ever audible, to any human being, under any circumstances, then we'd be done on that discussion as well - at least until tomorrow.

However, to be totally honest, I strongly suspect that someone in 1955 used that same exact justification to prove that analog master tapes were "good enough" and there was no reason to bother to seek technology with better performance that would be "totally inaudible".

I've seen plenty of tests that suggest that 500 ps of jitter is "probably inaudible, to most people, most of the time" - but I still haven't seen one that even approaches proving that to be the overall general case. Rather, at best, a few of them have shown that, with certain equipment, and certain test files, a small handful of people found it inaudible.

Obviously there is a difference between "practical considerations" - which you are concentrating on, and "pure science" - which is what I'm looking at. For example, it is certainly POSSIBLE to record a 64 bit digital audio file; the fact that commercial consumer products, or even current recording consoles, don't offer that option, simply means that there is no perceived need to include it in them as a product feature. (I'll bet that, if I were to offer them a few million dollars, the folks who make ProTools would even be willing to add it - just for me.) 

As for audible differences between re-sampling algorithms.... As an example there, the re-sampler in Izotope RX offers fully configurable filter controls.... and some of the choices absolutely will produce easily audible changes. Therefore, we can only hope that the setting used when the latest CD reissue was produced was chosen because it was the most audibly transparent option (and not because some customer, watching over the engineer's shoulder, said "can't you make it sound a little smoother?") I'd rather simply get a copy of the master, skip that step, and not have to worry.



gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, that site has been around for many years and I'm well aware of it. My point is though, define "obviously". It's obvious if you look at the measurements/graphs but NOT at all obvious to hear.
> 2. No, it's exactly the same issue (as I'm talking about). DACs (and other digital audio equipment) all have jitter ranging from a few tens of pico-secs up to several hundred, which is an OBVIOUS difference when we look at the numbers/measurements, not obvious at all to hear though (because even hundreds is well below audibility). Which is exactly the same issue with modern resampling algos!
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Basically, yes.... all dithering amounts to is deliberately adding a specific type of noise for a specific reason.
The usual reason is to render an unpleasant noise inaudible by transforming it into a more pleasant one.
For example, by mixing it with a noise signal, you transform the unpleasant digital noise you described into a louder, but mush less unpleasant, hiss.
(It just so happens that, while they tend to have a very low noise floor, digital systems are prone to noise that is correlated to the signal, as well as other forms of noise, which humans happen to find especially unpleasant.)

Similar effects have been observed in entirely physical systems.
There are stories about libraries that were so well designed, and so quiet, that the tiny noises made by people breathing and papers rustling became very distracting.
The solution was to remove baffling from the ventilation systems so the gentle hiss of the air circulators became audible.
The gentle hiss of the fans acted as a dither signal to make the other, quieter but more distracting, noises less noticeable.

I'm not quite sure how the limitations of frequency shaping play out mathematically.
CDs actually do include frequencies up to 22 kHz...
And, unlike attempting to design a filter that is flat to 20 kHz, but has no effect on frequencies below that, a dither signal is basically "synthetic noise".
(So it's pretty simple to create a dither signal that contains exactly the frequencies, and at the relative levels, that you want.)



Zapp_Fan said:


> 2 questions:
> 
> 1) Isn't dithering used to avoid quantization noise that is correlated with the signal?
> 
> ...


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] You _DO_ have a way to save "your work at 64 bits".... Your "saved session" is simply a rather messy and convoluted way to "save the current version of the 64 bit virtual master file".
> [2] If your customer demanded "a copy of your current version that he could play at home, in his basement, on his DAW", you could provide it to him in the form of a copy of that session backup.
> [3] I am somewhat disinclined to trust everyone to do things the optimal way.
> [3a] Therefore, I do wonder if every different version and format offered by folks like HDTRacks was provided individually by the studio, or whether some of them may have been created in-house from others.



1. No, when I save a "session", NO audio is saved, just the plugin and all the other mixing/mastering parameters.

2. I could provide the session for my client but he/she most probably couldn't open it because they probably don't have all the same plugins that I've used. If, on the off-chance they did have all the many thousands of dollars worth of plugins I have used (in addition to the tens of thousands worth of ProTools), they could open my session and then press "play" but of course absolutely no sound would come out! I would also have to provide all the RAW 24bit recordings to feed/load into that "session" so all those plugins and other mix parameters actually have some audio to process! In practice, this is all impractical I would just bounce down the virtual master in whatever format the client wanted for testing purposes, most commonly that would be a 320 MP3.

3. If the "optimal way" is also the quickest, easiest and therefore the cheapest way, then the only reason not to do it the optimal way is if you want to spend EXTRA time and money to make something which is deliberately not optimal. I don't charge for different versions at different depths/rates because as the master is virtual, each version can be bounced down much faster than real time and I don't charge for the additional 20 odd seconds each different version would take me. If they want one of the versions to be mastered differently though, say the 16/44 version to have significantly more compression, then that would take much more time, probably 30 mins or so and I definitely would charge for it.
3a. It's not unheard of for companies like HDTracks to want the 16/44 version to not sound as good to audiophiles as the highest depth/rate version, thereby justifying the much higher price they charge for the high depth/rate version and more than off-setting the additional mastering costs of creating that "crappified" version.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Many engineers also seem to express a preference for one or the other. Therefore, I would not say that "there is general agreement that it doesn't matter"... even when mastering 16 bit CDs... I would say it's still "in question" at a minimum.
> [2] Likewise, if you can perform a study showing that none of the jitter that is easily measured on current DACs is ever audible, to any human being, under any circumstances, then we'd be done on that discussion as well...



1. Yes, I have a preference for the type of dither I use, mostly a preset I've custom made based on my favourite software for the task by iZotope. And believe me I've tested so many over the years I couldn't hazard a guess at how many. So, using your logic, why doesn't this fact tell ME that it's "still in question", am I not logical? When I first started having to bit reduce down to 16bit, I could, just about, hear the difference between TDPF dither and truncation, sometimes on some material. That was in the early 1990's but by the mid 1990's and the introduction of noise-shaped types of dither, not a chance in hell. My preference now, was reached by testing different dither parameters, finding very quiet pieces of track, often the second half of the final reverb tail of the piece is a good starting point, and whacking the volume up by about 50dB or so, then it's easy to hear. Of course, if I played the whole track at that volume, I'd blow my speakers, eardrums or both! Some of my colleagues are like me, they've also made their own preset or have a favourite but also like me, none of them think anyone could possibly hear it, unless they play at stupidly loud levels or test how we do. An ABX for this is easy to setup, why don't you try it?

2. That's why/how you can make sure the discussion is never closed, the question still exists and therefore the possibility to market a lower jitter device or one with a "better" filter is not an absolute lie, just an obfuscation/misrepresentation of the facts. For me, other engineers and the world of science, the case is closed. There's been many jitter studies over the years, starting over half a century ago, in fact one of the first demonstrated that about 200 nano-secs was the limit of detection with music. Every test in the intervening years has found NO evidence to even question that early finding, so, what's the point of continuing to do the same test over and over? That's the definition of insanity, not science! Even with test signals specifically designed exacerbate the detection of jitter, no one has managed less than a few nano-secs, nowhere near the 500 pico-secs of a truly terrible device, let alone the 100ps or less expected of a cheap mediocre device. I understand why you wish to "keep the question open" but unless I see some pretty compelling new evidence, I don't have a single rational reason to consider the question anything other than done and dusted many years ago! This all applies equally well to up/down sampling algos and recon filters (designed to be transparent).

G


----------



## bigshot

Zapp_Fan said:


> 2 questions:
> 1) Isn't dithering used to avoid quantization noise that is correlated with the signal?
> 2) I don't understand how you can add ultrasonic noise in a 44khz file.  OK, that's not a question, but I assume you weren't talking about 44khz files keith?



There is an interesting demonstration of dithering in one of the Ethan Winer videos in my sig file. He takes a music track and renders it out with no dither and with dither, and you can listen to it and tell exactly what dithering does. It basically pushes down noise that is already pretty much below the threshold that is audible at normal listening levels. There is nothing wrong with dithering, but if there was no such thing, digital sound would still sound phenomenal for the purposes of listening to recorded music in the home.

CD players have a filter at the top that eliminates anything above 22kHz. There's no super audible content in CDs. He was probably talking about HD tracks. That link I posted to the spectrum charts on HD tracks shows you what that super audible content looks like, and at the end there are audio files that pitch the sound down into the audible range so you can hear what they sound like too.


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting... I guess that's a matter of what they needed - and were willing to pay for. On many large-scale 3D rendering and CAD applications there's a specific choice to "create a project package" - which includes ALL of the components required to recreate the session in a single "package".... which, of course, may be an enormous archive, or simply a single portable hard disk with everything on it. It wouldn't include the plugins, or the app itself, but includes all of the content. Obviously, different clients want different levels of involvement. I've heard rumors that George Lucas had a full equipment suite installed at his ranch, with a full speed network feed to the studio, so he could view daily shooting takes "at the same quality as the studio was seeing" for Star Wars... I hear it cost him several million dollars... but apparently he thought it was worth it.

My problem with "optimal" is that it is a relative term. For example, I would consider it optimal to have a full quality 32 bit version, taken directly from the console, of my favorite album. I have several programs that can load and play 32 bit files, and I don't consider playing them an imposition at all. However, the studio that produced that album probably doesn't consider it optimal to have a copy of that sort in the hands of a retail customer. Therefore we have very dissimilar ideas about what constitutes optimal.

Likewise, if your studio had produced a recording for HDTracks, and they came back next year requesting a copy in a brand new format, I assume you would expect to charge them to drag out all those files, load up the project, and bounce them a new copy in a new format. However, they might not consider the fee you would expect to charge to be optimal. And, if the new format actually utilized a lower bit rate, they might not agree that it was essential, or even optimal, that it be produced from the original mix rather than simply down-mixed from the 24/192k copy.

I guess we just look at things differently. To me, the very fact that you have a "preference" when it comes to dither is conceding that you do not in fact consider them all to be equal - or even "practically equal". Otherwise, instead of choosing your favorite, you would simply "leave it set at the defaults - whatever they happen to be". Likewise, its not up to you or me to suggest that "the guy who turns the volume up during the quiet spots so he can hear the noise floor" is wrong. I may decide that I don't care about what he wants, or that he represents such a small segment of my market that I don't feel a need to give him what he wants; but I cannot say that it's "wrong". 

Personally, I tend to look at sample rates the way you look at dithers. I'm not convinced that I'll hear a difference between 16/44k and 24/192k in all cases but, just as you use your favorite dither, even though you concede you probably wouldn't notice the difference most of the time, I prefer to have the best quality copy (the most technically accurate reproduction of the original), even though I willingly concede that, in many cases, I might actually not notice the difference. I'm just more comfortable not having to wonder if, this particular time, that other copy might actually sound audibly better.



gregorio said:


> 1. No, when I save a "session", NO audio is saved, just the plugin and all the other mixing/mastering parameters.
> 
> 2. I could provide the session for my client but he/she most probably couldn't open it because they probably don't have all the same plugins that I've used. If, on the off-chance they did have all the many thousands of dollars worth of plugins I have used (in addition to the tens of thousands worth of ProTools), they could open my session and then press "play" but of course absolutely no sound would come out! I would also have to provide all the RAW 24bit recordings to feed/load into that "session" so all those plugins and other mix parameters actually have some audio to process! In practice, this is all impractical I would just bounce down the virtual master in whatever format the client wanted for testing purposes, most commonly that would be a 320 MP3.
> 
> ...





gregorio said:


> 1. No, when I save a "session", NO audio is saved, just the plugin and all the other mixing/mastering parameters.
> 
> 2. I could provide the session for my client but he/she most probably couldn't open it because they probably don't have all the same plugins that I've used. If, on the off-chance they did have all the many thousands of dollars worth of plugins I have used (in addition to the tens of thousands worth of ProTools), they could open my session and then press "play" but of course absolutely no sound would come out! I would also have to provide all the RAW 24bit recordings to feed/load into that "session" so all those plugins and other mix parameters actually have some audio to process! In practice, this is all impractical I would just bounce down the virtual master in whatever format the client wanted for testing purposes, most commonly that would be a 320 MP3.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Did it ever occur to you that they may actually just want the file that is technically more accurate to the original?
That some people just like "technical excellence for its own sake".

Of course, not all high-resolution files actually contain valid ultrasonic content that enables them to be more accurate to the original, but at least some probably do.
For example, while it may or may not be audible, and may or may be detected by a given microphone, breaking glass produces a lot of ultrasonic content.
Therefore, in order to be "an accurate recording of glass breaking", a recording of it must accurately reproduce that ultrasonic content.
And, as a matter of logic, a recording that omits that ultrasonic content is "technically less accurate".
And, yes, I suspect that an accurate recording of a bat must have frequency response well above 50 kHz.
And, in both of those cases, the recording with the ultrasonic content intact is "technically more accurate" - whether the difference is audible or not.
Perhaps some audiophiles simply enjoy the knowledge that they have the best possible copy - as an issue separate from whether the difference is audible.



bigshot said:


> It has nothing to do with actual sound quality. People who want high data rate audio files buy them because they want as big a file as possible to assuage their OCD. If there is a version of their favorite album out there with more numbers in it, they lay in bed at night jonesing for it. It doesn't matter if it sounds exactly the same or not. They just want as big as they can. Once they've gone out and bought the overstuffed audio file, then their self validation kicks in and their expectation bias convinces them that the really can hear a difference. This part of audiophilia is totally psychological and has nothing to do with audio fidelity. It's an easy trap to fall into, and the only way out is to do controlled comparisons designed to eliminate the bias. If they refuse to do that, then their brain just keeps on in an endless loop of "more is better".


----------



## AKGForever (Nov 8, 2018)

bigshot said:


> It has nothing to do with actual sound quality. People who want high data rate audio files buy them because they want as big a file as possible to assuage their OCD. If there is a version of their favorite album out there with more numbers in it, they lay in bed at night jonesing for it. It doesn't matter if it sounds exactly the same or not. They just want as big as they can. Once they've gone out and bought the overstuffed audio file, then their self validation kicks in and their expectation bias convinces them that the really can hear a difference. This part of audiophilia is totally psychological and has nothing to do with audio fidelity. It's an easy trap to fall into, and the only way out is to do controlled comparisons designed to eliminate the bias. If they refuse to do that, then their brain just keeps on in an endless loop of "more is better".



The OCD description is probably accurate.  If Apple were to offer reasonable priced ALAC upgrades to their previously sold 256k AAC files, I would buy the upgrades in a minute.  By reasonable I mean a few dollars an album, as used CDs are cheap.  On my 100 or so iTunes album downloads that's a cool $200-300 for Apple and the record company, even though I can't hear the difference.  Not all at once but fairly quickly.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Nov 8, 2018)

I'd just like to confirm Gregorio's point that DAW project files are not in any sense a suitable substitute for a 32-bit output file.

There is actually another factor which is that some plugins and resampling algorithms still use different quality settings in realtime vs. rendering mode.  Sometimes plugins will have a random output.  Lots of reverb algorithms are randomized. So the DAW playback may be different every time. The WAV file at the end is actually different (sometimes very audibly) than the realtime preview.  

The render straight from the DAW is certainly the most authoritative file to have, but the project file is only useful if you intend to modify the recording.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 8, 2018)

People who "want something closer to the original" are exactly what I'm talking about. They care about theoretical sound that they can't even hear. It makes no practical sense, but you can't explain that to someone with OCD who is fretting that the file size might not be as big as it can be. HD Tracks plays on this by selling nice big fat files with inaudible noise introduced like packing peanuts in a box from eBay. It makes absolutely no difference, but it assuages people's obsessions... at least for a little while until they start obsessing about something else.



AKGForever said:


> The OCD description is probably accurate..



One quick clarification I'd like to make... I don't think all audiophiles are crazy. Most of them are practical and try to make informed decisions. However internet forums and social media attract people who do not operate on a rational level. Reading posts, you'd think the whole world has gone nuts, but it's actually just a handful of people who do most of the talking about stuff that doesn't matter at all.

One last point... analogue tape *was* good enough and for all practical purposes was capable of great sound. The advantage of modern digital technology isn't so much sound quality as it is no generation loss, non-linear access, the ability to send files over the internet, flexibility in mixing and mastering, easier to back up and prevent damage, and a much better delivery medium- the CD. The irony is that the CD was designed to match the sound fidelity of human ears with plenty to spare. But the first thing OCD audiophiles did was to demand something "better". It doesn't matter that they can't hear the "improvements" they are demanding. More is better. Too much is never enough. Rabbit hole ahoy!


----------



## KeithEmo

You really have a very different perspective - and one that I find interesting.

If someone were to offer me two files.....
"You almost certainly won't hear any difference, but technically one is better quality than the other; the better quality one costs $5 more."
(And, do remember that, regardless of what we can hear, the numbers do show that the better file really is better, so there's no lie involved.)
I would still take the one that was technically better - on general principles.
To me it just seems foolish to save a few bucks, and specifically choose a lower quality product, because "I really probably won't notice that it's worse".
I'd just rather have the better one.
I think you'll also find that, when it comes to other types of products, most people feel that way.

Please explain to me the benefit of having the version that's _NOT_ closer to the original?

And, yes, for me, the choice will depend on the exact situation.
There's a big difference between asking me to spend $25 for a high-res version of an album I already own...
And asking me for an _ADDITIONAL $5_ for the high-res version, over the price of the CD version, when I'm making an initial purchase already...
(And, yes, I also usually prefer to purchase a new copy of the CD, for a few bucks more, rather than a used copy, which may be damaged, or may have been stored poorly.)
In general, if you're asking me to buy another re-master of something I already own, I'm only going to do so if it is audibly better (regardless of why it sounds better).
Unless it sounds audibly better, _for whatever reason_, I'm probably not going to buy it... and, if it does sound better, then I'll buy it.
But, if it does sound better, I'll always spend the extra $5 for the better quality copy, because, to me, it seems like "cheap insurance against finding out later that I was wrong".



bigshot said:


> People who "want something closer to the original" are exactly what I'm talking about. They care about theoretical sound that they can't even hear. It makes no practical sense, but you can't explain that to someone with OCD who is fretting that the file size might not be as big as it can be. HD Tracks plays on this by selling nice big fat files with inaudible noise introduced like packing peanuts in a box from eBay. It makes absolutely no difference, but it assuages people's obsessions... at least for a little while until they start obsessing about something else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 8, 2018)

You know you can't even hear the difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless, much less 24/96. You can't see the difference. You can't smell it. You can't feel it. You can't hear it. You can't taste it... But if I tell you one file is a little bigger than the other one and offer to charge you $5 more for it, you will call out "SOLD!" and pull out the extra money?! That has nothing to do with fidelity of sound. It has everything to do with individual psychology. You aren't buying music files. You're trying to buy peace of mind. Spending more on stuff that doesn't matter won't get you peace of mind, it will just make you neurotic. There will always be something else to worry about and spend too much on. Spend that five spot I just saved you on more music. That *will* bring you peace of mind. That's my advice.

A 14K gold plated hammer drives nails the same as a regular one.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Nov 8, 2018)

To be fair, this is far from the only category in which people spend a lot of money on peace of mind.  How many "healing energy crystals" have been sold over the years...?

I'm not really knocking this either. If you spend your money and you feel better afterwards, who can really say the money was wasted?

The real argument is that there is no good reason to feel better, but feeling good about the purchase is not disputable.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 8, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> To be fair, this is far from the only category in which people spend a lot of money on peace of mind.  How many "healing energy crystals" have been sold over the years...?



Do you suppose somewhere there is a mineralogy forum where the place has been overtaken by crystal healers and they have to split off a separate forum for "Mineral Science" so people can discuss actual facts about rocks rather than how rocks make you feel?

I've found that I generally feel better and the feeling lasts longer when I actually accomplish something. Spending money on things that don't matter tend to not create good feelings that last very long. But I am a well adjusted practically minded person. I don't get peace of mind from the number of zeros and ones in a file, the price of wires, or frequencies I know I can't hear. I get it from music, the arts, nature and my friends and family instead.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 8, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> To be fair, this is far from the only category in which people spend a lot of money on peace of mind.  How many "healing energy crystals" have been sold over the years...?
> 
> I'm not really knocking this either. If you spend your money and you feel better afterwards, who can really say the money was wasted?
> 
> The real argument is that there is no good reason to feel better, but feeling good about the purchase is not disputable.



I generally agree.

Maybe good to divide it into (a) money needed to meet basic needs and (b) discretionary money spent on things which may make life more fulfilling.

If spending in category (b) is excessive and encroaches on category (a), that can be a real problem, and I do see indications of that sometimes happening in the audio world.

But we should be reluctant to judge how people spend their money in category (b).  There's no obvious optimal formula for it, and it varies across people and over the course of people's lives.  It's difficult to define what counts as wasting or not wasting money in this category.

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”​


----------



## bigshot (Nov 8, 2018)

I'm happy to criticize discretionary spending when it's wasting money on absolutely nothing. Blind consumerism isn't a religion and it doesn't improve us in any way. The simple act of spending is a lousy way to make life fulfilling. It's a lot better if you are spending money on something that has actual value... like music, literature or art. In fact, I don't consider investing in culture to be discretionary. I think it's a necessity. There are people who are aesthetically deprived, just like there are people who are nutritionally deprived. And buying too much music, literature or art doesn't make you fat.

Paying $5 to buy a bigger file that sounds exactly the same on a song you already own doesn't "feed the soul". It just depletes your wallet. But I'll fight to the death to support people's right to waste their own resources. Just don't hit me up for your kickstarter if you run out!

Criticizing people for doing dumb things is one of the things I do best!


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 8, 2018)

People, especially women in some parts of the world, like diamonds and think they have real value.  They seek them out, spend a lot of money on them, and seem to feel better when they have them.  I personally am not interested in what appear to be pieces of ordinary glass which sparkle a little more and are more durable.  But I do have a somewhat expensive mechanical watch which doesn't tell time particularly well, because I like the design.  And I'm content to spend diamond-level money on multiple high-end headphones, all of which sound excellent, because each sounds a bit different from the others. Are the women fools?  Am I?  All of us? None of us?  These questions are just too judgmental, IMO.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 8, 2018)

I think diamonds are very pretty and they look quite different than glass. They actually have a monetary value too. Spending money on exta zeros and ones isn't pretty, it doesn't sound better than a high bitrate lossy file, and it has absolutely no resale value. If I asked any sane person if they would prefer to have their money invested into diamonds or if it should be invested in inaudible sound, I think I know what they'd pick!

I reserve the right to criticize people who spend money on nothing. Hopefully the shame will encourage them to make better decisions. I understand some people are beyond all hope though. The thing that made me laugh was, I'll spend $5 on nothing, but $20 is too much. How much sense does that make? Do we have budgets for foolishness that we aren't allowed to exceed? I say go for broke! Nothing that costs a lot should give more peace of mind than cheap nothing, right?


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 8, 2018)

2. At Keith's age you can (ZING!)
(or mine or yours for that matter)
(sorry couldn't resist  )

But yes, as Keith mentions, 22kHz is supersonic already



Zapp_Fan said:


> 2 questions:
> 
> 1) Isn't dithering used to avoid quantization noise that is correlated with the signal?
> 
> ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Nov 8, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Do you suppose somewhere there is a mineralogy forum where the place has been overtaken by crystal healers and they have to split off a separate forum for "Mineral Science" so people can discuss actual facts about rocks rather than how rocks make you feel?
> 
> I've found that I generally feel better and the feeling lasts longer when I actually accomplish something. Spending money on things that don't matter tend to not create good feelings that last very long. But I am a well adjusted practically minded person. I don't get peace of mind from the number of zeros and ones in a file, the price of wires, or frequencies I know I can't hear. I get it from music, the arts, nature and my friends and family instead.



This is delving into philosophy a lot more than audio, but your view of value is too narrow.  The definition of value is personally tautological. If I find value in something, it is valuable to me.  There are no hard and fast rules (in this sphere of spending) on what someone ought or ought not to find valuable. I may find the most satisfying use for $100 is to set it on fire.  If that's my best use for $100... then it is.  _De gustibus non est disputandum.
_
If I get more than $100 worth of enjoyment from setting $100 on fire... then I SHOULD set it on fire.  You can't argue it was a dumb use of money, because it wasn't, for me.

You can try to convince me that I SHOULD not find pleasure in setting money on fire... but you can't convince me that I ACTUALLY DON'T get value from it or that my expenditure was not worth it.  I have already determined that it was.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 8, 2018)

Well that is interesting. I think there is something to Leibniz's monads. We are all animate lenses and we each see the world in unique ways from our own place and circumstances. I am not into what Leibniz was trying to prove with all of this (we live in the best of all possible worlds etc.) but Voltaire's Candide took care of that side of the argument for us. But Leibniz was a co-discoverer of calculus so we nevertheless have to consider him one one of the greatest minds who ever lived. And I like his observation about monads.

And from my perspective as a monad what you are speaking of sounds like a discredited school of microeconomics, in which people are assumed to behave rationally. Discredited empirically, scientifically, and philosophically. 

Which brings us to a phrase that the greatest mind in economics who ever lived wrote: "The fact that all things are possible is no excuse for talking foolishly." (Google it or take my word for it. It may take a little effort to dig it up. It's probably the book that had the greatest impact on this monad's view of the world.)

And so ends the current observation of this particular monad.



Zapp_Fan said:


> This is delving into philosophy a lot more than audio, but your view of value is too narrow.  The definition of value is personally tautological. If I find value in something, it is valuable to me.  There are no hard and fast rules (in this sphere of spending) on what someone ought or ought not to find valuable. I may find the most satisfying use for $100 is to set it on fire.  If that's my best use for $100... then it is.  _De gustibus non est disputandum.
> _
> If I get more than $100 worth of enjoyment from setting $100 on fire... then I SHOULD set it on fire.  You can't argue it was a dumb use of money, because it wasn't, for me.
> 
> You can try to convince me that I SHOULD not find pleasure in setting money on fire... but you can't convince me that I ACTUALLY DON'T get value from it or that my expenditure was not worth it.  I have already determined that it was.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Nov 8, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> This is delving into philosophy a lot more than audio, but your view of value is too narrow.  The definition of value is personally tautological. If I find value in something, it is valuable to me.  There are no hard and fast rules (in this sphere of spending) on what someone ought or ought not to find valuable. I may find the most satisfying use for $100 is to set it on fire.  If that's my best use for $100... then it is.  _De gustibus non est disputandum.
> _
> If I get more than $100 worth of enjoyment from setting $100 on fire... then I SHOULD set it on fire.  You can't argue it was a dumb use of money, because it wasn't, for me.
> 
> You can try to convince me that I SHOULD not find pleasure in setting money on fire... but you can't convince me that I ACTUALLY DON'T get value from it or that my expenditure was not worth it.  I have already determined that it was.


Right!....that logic would have us all driving cars that only do the speed limit...this is still a hobbiest forum and bringing economics into it will cloud the landscape and bring into question the validity of the whole science vs overpriced thing....don't hate people for being prepared to spend more money on their hobby than you would.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 8, 2018)

I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to spend money wastefully. It's your money. Burn it, throw it in a hole, snort it up your nose, do like the end of The Magic Christian, I don't care. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to say that it's a good idea to spend $5 more for something that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. You can feel free to go ahead and do just that and you can even feel free to feel like your life has been enhanced by it... but I get to call it wasteful and dumb. If you offer it up as advice for someone else to do the same, I'll say that you're beyond just dumb. You're deliberately giving people a bum steer.

Catering to people's delusions isn't science, is it? Why are we arguing that being wrong is right? Sometimes I wonder how people survive in this world. You'd think Darwin's Theory would have taken care of them by now. Too much monkey paddling. Cut to the chase. We're here to get better sound out of our stereo systems, not to feel fulfilled by performing foolish and wasteful acts.

Here is some great logic for you... If you spend $5 on nothing and get pleasure out of it, then spending $500 on nothing should give you a hundred times the pleasure! Go try it yourselves and let me know if it works!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Zapp_Fan said:


> This is delving into philosophy a lot more than audio, but your view of value is too narrow.  The definition of value is personally tautological. If I find value in something, it is valuable to me.  There are no hard and fast rules (in this sphere of spending) on what someone ought or ought not to find valuable. I may find the most satisfying use for $100 is to set it on fire.  If that's my best use for $100... then it is.  _De gustibus non est disputandum.
> _
> If I get more than $100 worth of enjoyment from setting $100 on fire... then I SHOULD set it on fire.  You can't argue it was a dumb use of money, because it wasn't, for me.
> 
> You can try to convince me that I SHOULD not find pleasure in setting money on fire... but you can't convince me that I ACTUALLY DON'T get value from it or that my expenditure was not worth it.  I have already determined that it was.



Setting money on fire, or, dropping it down the porcelain file and pressing the silver lever!  LMAO!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to spend money wastefully. It's your money. Burn it, throw it in a hole, snort it up your nose, do like the end of The Magic Christian, I don't care. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to say that it's a good idea to spend $5 more for something that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. You can feel free to go ahead and do just that and you can even feel free to feel like your life has been enhanced by it... but I get to call it wasteful and dumb. If you offer it up as advice for someone else to do the same, I'll say that you're beyond just dumb. You're deliberately giving people a bum steer.
> 
> Catering to people's delusions isn't science, is it? Sometimes I wonder how people survive in this world. You'd think Darwin's Theory would have taken care of them by now.


Everybody needs a hobby my friend ....maybe one of yours is economics?....thats ok enjoy it.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 8, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Basically, yes.... all dithering amounts to is deliberately adding a specific type of noise for a specific reason.
> The usual reason is to render an unpleasant noise inaudible by transforming it into a more pleasant one.
> For example, by mixing it with a noise signal, you transform the unpleasant digital noise you described into a louder, but mush less unpleasant, hiss.
> (It just so happens that, while they tend to have a very low noise floor, digital systems are prone to noise that is correlated to the signal, as well as other forms of noise, which humans happen to find especially unpleasant.)
> ...



But maybe not so mathematically simple to calculate whether the dither signal you generate thus is good enough to make the decision process for samples falling in between bits to become locally random, which is the desired result.  And it's not as if dither is just a noise track you play together with your signal


----------



## Steve999

Glmoneydawg said:


> Everybody needs a hobby my friend ....maybe one of yours is economics?....thats ok enjoy it.



And so we might as well just say

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

And end the conversation?

Because who are we to disagree if someone else thinks so?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 8, 2018)

All opinions are equal! There is no right or wrong. We can't know everything, so we can't know anything. Let's burn all our money and feel like we have achieved samadhi. The perfect stillness of nothingness!

Crescendum ad Absurdum!


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 8, 2018)

Yea I don't know why I do anything for anything in this world and maybe that's why I'm utterly washed up these days while people who don't know the tenth of what we know here about audio happily go about their lives making millions from the audio industry


----------



## Phronesis

Where things go awry is when people are stubbornly ignorant about human nature, and that ignorance opens the door for those people to put themselves on a pedestal and presume to be in a position to judge others in a condescending way (e.g., the "audiophool" label).  It's classic Dunning Kruger effect.


----------



## bigshot

Phronesis said:


> Where things go awry is when people are stubbornly ignorant about human nature, and that ignorance opens the door for those people to put themselves on a pedestal and presume to be in a position to judge others in a condescending way (e.g., the "audiophool" label).  It's classic Dunning Kruger effect.



I wouldn't totally dismiss the possibility that some people actually *are* idiots!


----------



## Steve999

Think! It ain't illegal yet!


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 8, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Where things go awry is when people are stubbornly ignorant about human nature, and that ignorance opens the door for those people to put themselves on a pedestal and presume to be in a position to judge others in a condescending way (e.g., the "audiophool" label).  It's classic Dunning Kruger effect.


I think it's a lose lose situation.  If you are ignorant about human nature you get to grandstand every day yapping about audiophool foolishness and instead get called the biggest fool by every fool around you (see this guy for example).  If not you get to shake your head every day at the stupidity of human nature and fall prey to another brand of stupidity as you fall into depression from knowing too much.

All in all I think my life would have been better for being ignorant about human nature and even more so for being ignorant about psychoacoustics in the first place!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I wouldn't totally dismiss the possibility that some people actually *are* idiots!


The problem is that most people think everyone else is an idiot....somebody has to be wrong in this equation...btw castle is gonna kick us all in the nards tomorrow morning for wandering off topic.


----------



## bigshot

Maybe some people are idiots and don't know it, and some people are idiots and they do?


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Maybe some people are idiots and don't know it, and some people are idiots and they do?


This is why i enjoy fencing with you lol


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Maybe knowing that everyone on earth is some sort of idiot has made me the biggest idiot of all.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 8, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Maybe some people are idiots and don't know it, and some people are idiots and they do?



Does this cover 100 percent of the human population? To what degree of certainty? p<.0000005?

The use of degrees of certainty to evaluate knowledge:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/664d/82df213e2a82f43ebf0a630f7ff3d384f1a8.pdf

"Changes in knowledge after a course can be very complex and each type of change may require a specific educational effort. Thus for knowledge that is correct both before and after a course it may be enough to preserve it with periodic meetings. On the other hand, knowledge that is wrong before and after a course should require a stronger educational effort, especially if it is held with a high degree of certainty. In this case, the traditional educational approach might not be sufficient and patients could need to be addressed on an individual basis. Finally, wrong knowledge that becomes correct or correct knowledge that becomes wrong, both with a low degree of certainty, could be managed with recurrent meetings. Along this way of reasoning, patients that after a course persist in giving a wrong answer, but do so with a lower degree of confidence, should be told that the quality of their knowledge has improved."


----------



## bigshot

Glmoneydawg said:


> This is why i enjoy fencing with you lol


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Steve999 said:


> Does this cover 100 percent of the human population? To what degree of certainty? p=.0000005?


Everyone is gonna have a different graph for this...and everyone's gonna think theirs is right.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Nov 8, 2018)

bigshot said:


>


I just peed a little...did you nail their little feet to the board and make them duke it out?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

This thread is now pure awesome.


----------



## Phronesis

Joe Bloggs said:


> I think it's a lose lose situation.  If you are ignorant about human nature you get to grandstand every day yapping about audiophool foolishness and instead get called the biggest fool by every fool around you (see this guy for example).  If not you get to shake your head every day at the stupidity of human nature and fall prey to another brand of stupidity as you fall into depression from knowing too much.
> 
> All in all I think my life would have been better for being ignorant about human nature and even more so for being ignorant about psychoacoustics in the first place!



I dunno, I find that an evolutionary social psychology perspective sheds a lot of useful light on this stuff.  The fact that our species is still here indicates that it doesn't make sense to say that most people are "stupid," though we're all certainly fallible and limited.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 8, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I dunno, I find that an evolutionary social psychology perspective sheds a lot of useful light on this stuff.  The fact that our species is still here indicates that it doesn't make sense to say that most people are "stupid," though we're all certainly fallible and limited.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-the-dinosaurs-long-reign-a-fluke/

"Dinosaurs stomped all over the planet for millions of years. Now some researchers think it was more a matter of luck than vigor."

I mean come on, dinosaurs were really, really stupid but they could eat you for breakfast and they were here for millions of years.

We've been here about 300,000 years. Maybe. Not too impressive.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...uman-evolution-discovery-morocco-jebel-irhoud


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Phronesis said:


> I dunno, I find that an evolutionary social psychology perspective sheds a lot of useful light on this stuff.  The fact that our species is still here indicates that it doesn't make sense to say that most people are "stupid," though we're all certainly fallible and limited.


Hmmm i dunno...all we need is someone to be in charge and keep the wolves from the door and we're happy right?Im ok with being part of the hoard.


----------



## bigshot

I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.

Well, I meet a lot of people and I'm convinced that the vast majority of wrong thinking people are right.

That seems like a consensus there. Could we have the next question, please?


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 8, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-the-dinosaurs-long-reign-a-fluke/
> 
> "Dinosaurs stomped all over the planet for millions of years. Now some researchers think it was more a matter of luck than vigor."
> 
> ...



These articles are good examples of how "news" for the lay public has already been studied in academic circles for quite some time.  When it comes to human evolution, many anthropologists have accepted that the earliest cro-magnon populations came from Africa (earliest sites found being close to 300,000 years).  Beforehand, there were migrations from homo erectus all through Asia and parts of Europe..and we had other early hominids like Neanderthals in Europe and Denisovans in Asia. All these populations seem to have been displaced by cro-magnons within 40,000 years ago. During many periods in evolutionary history....populations appear to not have much evolution (cambrian explosion being one big exception).  But this shouldn't be a surprise: there aren't sudden shifts to transition fossils.  Your great great great great grandparent will look like you....it takes many hundreds or thousands of generations to have noticeable changes in traits.  There are also species of animals that don't have a need to change if climate doesn't change (and their current adaptations are still favored).


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
> 
> Well, I meet a lot of people and I'm convinced that the vast majority of wrong thinking people are right.
> 
> That seems like a consensus there. Could we have the next question, please?


You didn't answer my question about their little feet....some concern here.


----------



## bfreedma

I smell a business opportunity.

Send me audio files and I will pad them with zeros for only $5 per song.  Judgement free.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Davesrose said:


> These articles are good examples of how "news" for the lay public has already been studied in academic circles for quite some time.  When it comes to human evolution, many anthropologists have accepted that the earliest cro-magnon populations came from Africa.  Beforehand, there were migrations from homo erectus all through Asia and parts of Europe.  During many periods in evolutionary history....populations appear to not have much evolution (cambrian explosion being one big exception).  But this shouldn't be a surprise: there aren't sudden shifts to transition fossils.  Your great great great great grandparent will look like you....it takes many hundreds or thousands of generations to have noticeable changes in traits.  There are also species of animals that don't have a need to change if climate doesn't change (and their adaptations are still favored).


Well...yeah try livin in Canada..my coat is super warm!!.


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
> 
> Well, I meet a lot of people and I'm convinced that the vast majority of wrong thinking people are right.
> 
> That seems like a consensus there. Could we have the next question, please?



Question: What's the difference between evolutionary psychology and social Darwinism?


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Steve999 said:


> Question: What's the difference between evolutionary psychology and social Darwinism?


8 letters i believe


----------



## Joe Bloggs

bigshot said:


> I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
> 
> Well, I meet a lot of people and I'm convinced that the vast majority of wrong thinking people are right.
> 
> That seems like a consensus there. Could we have the next question, please?



Pardon?


----------



## bfreedma

Glmoneydawg said:


> 8 letters i believe




So 1 byte?


----------



## Davesrose

Glmoneydawg said:


> Well...yeah try livin in Canada..my coat is super warm!!.



I'm in an area that's opposite: mild winters and hot an humid summers....our adaptation is AC!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Davesrose said:


> I'm in an area that's opposite: mild winters and hot an humid summers....our adaptation is AC!


Without freezin cold weather you can never truly appreciate hot weather....a little sad for you here bud


----------



## bfreedma

Glmoneydawg said:


> Without freezin cold weather you can never truly appreciate hot weather....a little sad for you here bud



Easy for you to say in early November while you’re probably nice and toasty in a Canada Goose jacket,  Let’s see how you feel about that in February


----------



## Joe Bloggs

We're talking about the weather now?


----------



## Davesrose

Glmoneydawg said:


> Without freezin cold weather you can never truly appreciate hot weather....a little sad for you here bud



Ha, but I've found people adapt really quickly.  Myself, I grew up in the mountains and do know how to drive on ice.  I had an internship in Boston which also included a summer with a heat wave: I had never seen so many long lines at department stores trying to get window AC units.  In Atlanta, central air is a given, but we're ill prepared for any ice (there are no salt trucks).  There's many transplants from the snow belt.  I've found they transition pretty quickly to not being tolerant of any cold weather.


----------



## Steve999

Joe Bloggs said:


> We're talking about the weather now?



Well duh.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Joe Bloggs said:


> We're talking about the weather now?


   My stereo def sounds better in the summer....back on track now


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 8, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> My stereo def sounds better in the summer....back on track now



Mine sounds better in spring and autumn, when the changes and unpredictability in meteorological conditions are intellectually and emotionally invigorating.


----------



## bfreedma

Joe Bloggs said:


> We're talking about the weather now?




It’s been a little high stress in these parts recently.  A little off topic fun probably isn’t the worst thing to happen.

Or you could give us the long form explanation of a certain Porta Corda’s journey


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bfreedma said:


> It’s been a little high stress in these parts recently.  A little off topic fun probably isn’t the worst thing to happen.
> 
> Or you could give us the long form explanation of a certain Porta Corda’s journey


I think castle is gonna redirect us to bigshots corner pub ....and rightly so...goodnight gentlemen.


----------



## bfreedma

Glmoneydawg said:


> I think castle is gonna redirect us to bigshots corner pub ....and rightly so...goodnight gentlemen.




Perhaps, but I’d wager he’d rather deal with off topic humor than off topic trolls.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 8, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> It’s been a little high stress in these parts recently.  A little off topic fun probably isn’t the worst thing to happen.
> 
> Or you could give us the long form explanation of a certain Porta Corda’s journey



The Porta Corda ran from a 9V battery but the Opamp was said to be operable at up to 33V input. I did some Tim Taylor thinking (not helped by the official rhetoric) that I wanted a power supply as close to 33V as possible. I also thought it should be a linear power supply.  All put together I thought the unregulated 24V big brick of a PSU I came across at a hardware shop to be a bright idea.  Little did I know that unregulated means the voltage going into such a light load would be amplified up to 1.4 times, going well over the rated maximum of the unit.  It didn't heat up or explode but the volume pot started making bad scratching sounds and replacing it didn't help.  Sent it in to Meier and was informed that my unit was a lost cause.  Posted my story here and got my custom title from Jude at a time when dinosaurs walked the earth and custom titles came freely to half the head-fi population


----------



## bfreedma

Joe Bloggs said:


> The Porta Corda ran from a 9V battery but the Opamp was said to be operable at up to 33V input. I did some Tim Taylor thinking (not helped by the official rhetoric) that I wanted a power supply as close to 33V as possible. I also thought it should be a linear power supply.  All pit together I thought the unregulated 24V big brick of a PSU I came across at a hardware shop to be a bright idea.  Little did I know that unregulated means the voltage going into such a light load would be amplified up to 1.4 times, going well over the rated maximum of the unit.  It didn't heat up or explode but the volume pot started making bad scratching sounds and replacing it didn't help.  Sent it in to Meier and was informed that my unit was a lost cause.  Posted my story here and got my custom title from Jude at a time when dinosaurs walked the earth and custom titles came freely to half the head-fi population




LOL - wow, was I way off on what I thought the story would be,  I was envisioning a much more direct analogy to the movie The Green Mile and had imagined that psychics and prison would somehow be involved.  Not that the real story isn’t good, but my imagination clearly ran wild with your custom title.  I guess you did torture the device, but certainly not criminally 

Now I wonder what people make out of the title Jude put on my account (with my consent).  The actual story isn’t very exciting.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 8, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> LOL - wow, was I way off on what I thought the story would be,  I was envisioning a much more direct analogy to the movie The Green Mile and had imagined that psychics and prison would somehow be involved.  Not that the real story isn’t good, but my imagination clearly ran wild with your custom title.  I guess you did torture the device, but certainly not criminally
> 
> Now I wonder what people make out of the title Jude put on my account (with my consent).  The actual story isn’t very exciting.


Well, as a side story, some criminally bad soldering work was involved in my efforts to change the volume pot... I kind of wonder whether it was actually that or the overvoltage that killed the unit for real. 

And I still haven't watched the movie to this day, so don't really know what people make of the title.  I thought the most direct analogy is that someone was electrocuted in the end or so I hear.


----------



## KeithEmo

You seem to have an obsession which, for some odd reason, you keep projecting onto me.
So, once and for all...

>>> I DO NOT CARE HOW BIG THE FILE IS <<<<

I don't care if it's bigger...
I don't care if it's the same size...
I don't even care if it's smaller... 
(A 24/96k FLAC file could well contain more data than a larger 16/44k WAV file.)

All I care about is that the file is A MORE ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE ORIGINAL CONTENT.
If so I will consider it to be "a better copy".
And it is between me and the producer whether that extra information is musical harmonics, tape noise, or merely "accurately recorded background nothingness".
If there's nothing there at all, but the recording was properly produced, then that nothingness provides me with the useful information that no harmonics were present in the original.
And, whether I consider that useful information or not is really none of your business.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you are actually unable to tell the difference between:
a) a file that has extra information that you personally find useless
b) a file that actually doesn't contain that additional information

If anyone is neurotic here it would seem to be you.
After all, you seem awfully worried that other people will pay actual money, for something that actually exists, because YOU are convinced it has no value.
It doesn't bother me in the least that YOU prefer to buy standard resolution, or even compressed, files if YOU see no extra value in high-resolution files.
Why does it bug you so much that I find having that extra information "comforting" or "reassuring"?

Do you own life insurance?
If so... WHY?
You can't see it...
You can't smell it... 
You can't feel it... 
You can't hear it... 
You can't taste it...
And, in fact, you may well never use it at all.
Could it be that it represents something that you find comforting?
Could it be that I find KNOWING that my music file contains EVERYTHING THAT WAS THERE IN THE ORIGINAL to be comforting?
(...rather than taking it on blind trust that the extra stuff that someone else decided to leave out really doesn't make any difference.)



bigshot said:


> You know you can't even hear the difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless, much less 24/96. You can't see the difference. You can't smell it. You can't feel it. You can't hear it. You can't taste it... But if I tell you one file is a little bigger than the other one and offer to charge you $5 more for it, you will call out "SOLD!" and pull out the extra money?! That has nothing to do with fidelity of sound. It has everything to do with individual psychology. You aren't buying music files. You're trying to buy peace of mind. Spending more on stuff that doesn't matter won't get you peace of mind, it will just make you neurotic. There will always be something else to worry about and spend too much on. Spend that five spot I just saved you on more music. That *will* bring you peace of mind. That's my advice.
> 
> A 14K gold plated hammer drives nails the same as a regular one.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 8, 2018)

Actual story please. 



bfreedma said:


> LOL - wow, was I way off on what I thought the story would be,  I was envisioning a much more direct analogy to the movie The Green Mile and had imagined that psychics and prison would somehow be involved.  Not that the real story isn’t good, but my imagination clearly ran wild with your custom title.  I guess you did torture the device, but certainly not criminally
> 
> Now I wonder what people make out of the title Jude put on my account (with my consent).  The actual story isn’t very exciting.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 8, 2018)

Well, now, and I am being totally serious, I do wonder sometimes if emulated surround sound decoding will require a higher bitrate from a compressed file to avoid audible artifacts.

Do you need less lossiness for emulated surround sound (neo or Dolby Prologic II for example) to sound at its best?

Does anyone have any insights on this peculiar bewilderment of mine? Honestly, I wonder it, and I do not know the answer.



KeithEmo said:


> You seem to have an obsession which, for some odd reason, you keep projecting onto me.
> So, once and for all...
> 
> >>> I DO NOT CARE HOW BIG THE FILE IS <<<<
> ...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Steve999 said:


> Well, now, and I am being totally serious, I do wonder sometimes if emulated surround sound decoding will require a higher bitrate from a compressed file to avoid audible artifacts.
> 
> Do you need less lossiness for emulated surround sound (neo or Dolby Prologic II for example) to sound at its best?
> 
> Does anyone have any insights on this peculiar bewilderment of mine? Honestly, I wonder it, and I don't know the answer.


The invention I alluded to some time ago in this thread concerns surround upmixing. Let's just say that it puts high demand on how well your surround speakers match up as well as the source file and, done badly, you can get plenty of artifacts even from a lossless source file. Lossy encoding certainly doesn't help... But I'm happy playing say 192kbps VBR AAC through my system.  It does break the assumptions of the lossy codec so it won't perform as well at low bitrates as before.  But minimizing the impact is part of the upmixer's job too.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think diamonds are an excellent example.

In point of fact, while large expensive diamonds can be a reasonable investment, smaller diamonds are not.
Much like cars, small diamonds lose about half their value the day they leave the store.
Try to sell a reasonable quality one carat diamond used and see what you get for it...
And those small 0.1 carat "chips" they put in tennis bracelets and cheap earrings have almost no resale value at all.

Good quality diamonds do look slightly different than glass.
HOWEVER, by all the standards used to value diamonds (color, clarity, fire) a good quality Cubic Zirconia is superior.
Good quality CZ has perfect color, perfect clarity, and MORE fire than an actual diamond - because CZ has a higher index of refraction than diamond.
A well cut Cubic Zirconia that is superior to a $2000 diamond in every measurable way will cost you about $10.

The diamond is harder, so is less likely to be damaged by certain specific types of abuse, but that's the only practical difference.
(Other than, of course, "she just knows it's a real diamond".)

And, again, you seem to be confusing "nothing" with something that can be shown to be there - but which YOU consider to have no value.



bigshot said:


> I think diamonds are very pretty and they look quite different than glass. They actually have a monetary value too. Spending money on exta zeros and ones isn't pretty, it doesn't sound better than a high bitrate lossy file, and it has absolutely no resale value. If I asked any sane person if they would prefer to have their money invested into diamonds or if it should be invested in inaudible sound, I think I know what they'd pick!
> 
> I reserve the right to criticize people who spend money on nothing. Hopefully the shame will encourage them to make better decisions. I understand some people are beyond all hope though. The thing that made me laugh was, I'll spend $5 on nothing, but $20 is too much. How much sense does that make? Do we have budgets for foolishness that we aren't allowed to exceed? I say go for broke! Nothing that costs a lot should give more peace of mind than cheap nothing, right?


----------



## bfreedma (Nov 8, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> Actual story please.




Someone unhappy with my posting (and who was generally miserable to everyone) posted that I had the personality of a hornet.  I believe Jude thought it was ironic as the description better fit my accuser and we had a few laughs over it via PM.  Though I certainly admit I can be rather blunt at times, so it isn’t entirely inaccurate.

Told you it wasn’t a particularly exciting origin story!


----------



## Phronesis

Steve999 said:


> And from my perspective as a monad what you are speaking of sounds like a discredited school of microeconomics, in which people are assumed to behave rationally. Discredited empirically, scientifically, and philosophically.



No, he's saying that people tend to do what they feel suits them, even if some would consider it "irrational."


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 8, 2018)

But he considers the hypothetical money-burning individual to be maximizing his personal utility based on what that individual person perceives to be the best use of his money at that moment for his long-term pleasure. That is an invalidated concept, IMHO. Individual human judgment, particularly uninformed judgment, does not fit that model. One of the leading doctrines to invalidate that model, by the way, is evolutionary and behavioral psychology, as espoused by Harvard and Stanford business school academic articles. All in my humble opinion and subject to my margin of error, of course.



Phronesis said:


> No, he's saying that people tend to do what they feel suits them, even if some would consider it "irrational."


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 8, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> The invention I alluded to some time ago in this thread concerns surround upmixing. Let's just say that it puts high demand on how well your surround speakers match up as well as the source file and, done badly, you can get plenty of artifacts even from a lossless source file. Lossy encoding certainly doesn't help... But I'm happy playing say 192kbps VBR AAC through my system.  It does break the assumptions of the lossy codec so it won't perform as well at low bitrates as before.  But minimizing the impact is part of the upmixer's job too.



I have an Onkyo surround sound receiver with a "music optimizer" button that is supposed to help with lossy files and a "phase matching" setting for the bass processing. Would those things help with surround sound demands on lossy files and otherwise? Generally the two together make things sound more clear and the bass is, well, I hate to use a subjective term, but just plain meaner. More growling.


----------



## Phronesis

Steve999 said:


> But he considers the hypothetical money-burning individual to be maximizing his personal utility based on what that individual person perceives to be the best use of his money at that moment for his long-term pleasure. That is an invalidated concept, IMHO. Individual judgment, particularly uninformed judgment, does not fit that model.



"Maximizing personal utility" and "long-term pleasure" are your words, not his.  You're overanalyzing it, his point is clear - he's talking about people doing things that many would consider to be irrational in the ordinary sense of the word, instead of doing what would "maximize their utility" based on "rational analysis."


----------



## old tech (Nov 9, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Likewise, if you can perform a study showing that none of the jitter that is easily measured on current DACs is ever audible, to any human being, under any circumstances, then we'd be done on that discussion as well - at least until tomorrow.
> 
> However, to be totally honest, I strongly suspect that someone in 1955 used that same exact justification to prove that analog master tapes were "good enough" and there was no reason to bother to seek technology with better performance that would be "totally inaudible".



I don’t think that analogy is a good one as the discussion is more about technical improvements that are not audible, rather those that are.  I wasn’t around the 1950s and while they may have marvelled at how far master tapes had progressed, I very much doubt there was a widespread belief that it could not get better.

The reason is that while SNR, dynamic range, distortion, wow & flutter, frequency response etc on the top end analog tapes would have been excellent by the standards of the day, all these metrics could be improved within the audible band of human hearing.  And so it was, the tapes and recorders continued to improve and by the time we got to the 1990s, the improvements were still there to be had, but with diminishing returns.

All the improvements on the digital side today are in the areas of cost, flexibility and portability.  Sure, the SNR and other metrics can still be improved but it is not the case of diminishing returns anymore as it has long passed the audible band of human hearing.


----------



## Steve999

Fair enough. 



Phronesis said:


> "Maximizing personal utility" and "long-term pleasure" are your words, not his.  You're overanalyzing it, his point is clear - he's talking about people doing things that many would consider to be irrational in the ordinary sense of the word, instead of doing what would "maximize their utility" based on "rational analysis."


----------



## bigshot (Nov 8, 2018)

Question:

How do you know a file is closer to the original file just because it's bigger? I posted examples of HD Tracks files that were clearly padded out with super audible noise and weren't even close to the original. In fact, an MP3 would be closer than that. But the noise was inaudible, so you would never know it. Does that make it OK? What I don't know won't hurt me? I see absolutely no correlation between file size and "authenticity". It all comes down to believing that things exist or don't exist that you can't perceive. And that is where the emperor's new clothes come in.

I own no life insurance. No one depends on me but my dogs and they are cute enough to fend for themselves. If I had life insurance, it wouldn't prevent me from dying. But I read somewhere that Lloyds of London insured Liberace's hands for a million pounds. It didn't cost a lot because he had them insured against loss or theft.



Steve999 said:


> Well, now, and I am being totally serious, I do wonder sometimes if emulated surround sound decoding will require a higher bitrate from a compressed file to avoid audible artifacts.



Each channel has a threshold of transparency. If stereo requires 256 to be transparent, 5.1 would require three times that. 3x2=6. Of course the codec matters too. You can use AAC multichannel in MP4 video files.

Does that make sentse?



bfreedma said:


> Someone unhappy with my posting (and who was generally miserable to everyone) posted that I had the personality of a hornet.  I believe Jude thought it was ironic as the description better fit my accuser and we had a few laughs over it via PM.!



You're the Mohammed Ali of Sound Science! Fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee...



Steve999 said:


> But he considers the hypothetical money-burning individual to be maximizing his personal utility based on what that individual person perceives to be the best use of his money at that moment for his long-term pleasure. That is an invalidated concept, IMHO.



Does wisdom still exist? I wonder sometimes. It used to come with age. Belligerence is all the comes with age nowadays!


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 8, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> I have an Onkyo surround sound receiver with a "music optimizer" button that is supposed to help with lossy files and a "phase matching" setting for the bass processing. Would those things help with surround sound demands on lossy files and otherwise? Generally the two together make things sound more clear and the bass is, well, I hate to use a subjective term, but just plain meaner. More growling.


I honestly have no idea what some other company's mystery buttons do to the sound, never mind that they don't seem to relate specifically to surround audio, let alone upmixing.  In our program to be released there are options controlling how aggressive* the upmixer is at expanding spatial detail, and that is the thing most affecting the audibility of artifacts.  Another option controls the amount of audio to analyse at a time looking for these spatial details, which lets you have your cake and eat it too regarding the enhancement vs artifacts tradeoff but increases the delay from the time the audio is read to the time it is played on the surround speakers, thus requiring the video to be delayed for proper lip synch.

*The sound could get expanded to a wider or narrower arc among your circular array of speakers, and within that arc a sound that the algorithm deems to come from a particular direction could emanate from just the speaker that happens to be at that angle, or at the other extreme, from all speakers, with the "right" speaker just happening to play it much louder than the rest.  So both the width and the definition / resolution of the soundfield can be increased at the cost of potentially more artifacts.


----------



## KeithEmo

That is an interesting question - and the answer is currently unclear (although I don't believe any current decoders would use that information).

However, I can tell you the answer as it pertains to the devices that have been sold to "remove clicks and pops from vinyl" while it's being played.
All of those devices that I am familiar with use the presence of ultrasonic noise to recognize the difference between musical content and noise.
(Ticks and pops have a lot of ultrasonic noise content above 20 kHz - so you can tell them apart by analyzing and comparing their high frequency spectra.)

So, if you were to use one of those devices, or a plugin that used the same principle, to remove the ticks and pops from a digital archive copy of a favorite vinyl album...
It would almost certainly work as intended with a digital recording made at a 96k sample rate (which would include the ultrasonic information it relies on to work)...
But would be unable to function with a 44k recording that omitted that ultrasonic content.

I can certainly see how some future surround sound synthesizer could benefit by knowing the dimensions of the original recording venue...
And I can see how one might be able to extract that information by analyzing ultrasonic ringing and harmonics preserved in the recording.
I have little doubt that some folks will chime in and insist that "the microphones used couldn't possibly have recorded anything useful at those frequencies.
However, those same folks will insist that analog master tapes "can't possibly have any useful content above 20 kHz."
Yet the Plangent Process works by recovering the residual levels of record bias frequency still present on master tapes, and using it to correct speed variations and wow and flutter.
That bias frequency, which is still present on the tape at very low levels, and has now turned out to be quite useful, is at frequencies up to and around 89 kHz.
I'm guessing that, up until a few years ago, many people would have insisted that preserving the content on those tapes up to a full 100 Khz bandwidth, was "useless".
In fact, if they'd noticed any of that residual bias frequency, they would have considered it to be a nuisance, to be filtered out and discarded.
As they say.... it's usually better to have extra information you don't need than to find out later that you don't have something you DO need.

For anyone interested....
https://www.plangentprocesses.com/




Steve999 said:


> Well, now, and I am being totally serious, I do wonder sometimes if emulated surround sound decoding will require a higher bitrate from a compressed file to avoid audible artifacts.
> 
> Do you need less lossiness for emulated surround sound (neo or Dolby Prologic II for example) to sound at its best?
> 
> Does anyone have any insights on this peculiar bewilderment of mine? Honestly, I wonder it, and I do not know the answer.


----------



## bfreedma (Nov 8, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Question:
> 
> How do you know a file is closer to the original file just because it's bigger? I posted examples of HD Tracks files that were clearly padded out with super audible noise and weren't even close to the original. In fact, an MP3 would be closer than that. I see absolutely no correlation between file size and "authenticity". It all comes down to believing that things exist that you can't perceive. And that is where the emperor's new clothes come in.
> 
> ...




It’s “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee”, you fool .  Just trying to honor my moniker with that brusque response,

Now you kids get off my lawn!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 8, 2018)

I pity me- the fool!

Ultrasonic content used for noise reduction filtering and some sort of theoretical multichannel expansion would all exist in the masters. If that information is important, it could be extracted and processed. But for the purposes of playing CDs in 2018 on our home system, it's as superfluous as teats on a bull hog.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 8, 2018)

FWIW our algorithm derives spatial information for any given frequency only from the information presented at that particular frequency, so ultrasonic info is of no use to it unless the ultrasonics also need to be upmixed.  And the processing accuracy goes up with the length of the time window it looks into, while processing at double the sample rate requires dealing with double the information to preserve the same level of fidelity within the audible band (i.e. for the same processing CPU power, upmixing quality is inversely proportional to the sample rate!)


----------



## Steve999

I'm going passive-aggressive. No one wants to know about my moniker. I bet I got my moniker before you got your moniker. And mine was posted WITHOUT my consent! I just woke up one morning and wondered if I had gotten banned or something. Don't even ask.


----------



## bfreedma

Steve999 said:


> I'm going passive-aggressive. No one wants to know about my moniker. I bet I got my moniker before you got your moniker. And mine was posted WITHOUT my consent! I just woke up one morning and wondered if I had gotten banned or something. Don't even ask.



Well now I feel like I HAVE to ask...


----------



## Steve999

bfreedma said:


> Well now I feel like I HAVE to ask...



Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Davesrose

KeithEmo said:


> I can certainly see how some future surround sound synthesizer could benefit by knowing the dimensions of the original recording venue...
> And I can see how one might be able to extract that information by analyzing ultrasonic ringing and harmonics preserved in the recording.
> I have little doubt that some folks will chime in and insist that "the microphones used couldn't possibly have recorded anything useful at those frequencies.
> However, those same folks will insist that analog master tapes "can't possibly have any useful content above 20 kHz."
> ...



With surround sound, are we talking about speakers or headphone?  Because latest generations of lossless surround encodings with my receiver and full range speakers does have good range and seem to have better sound scapes then earlier surround schemes.  However, with emulating surround sound with headphones: I have a Dolby Pro Logic processor/headphone amp that came with my Sennheiser HD580s.  It has some calibration settings for you to try to localize a surround scape based on ear and preference.  When spending time to adjust to your taste, I have found it sounds a lot more emursive then the latest Dolby Headphone offerings with receivers.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 8, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> I honestly have no idea what some other company's mystery buttons do to the sound, never mind that they don't seem to relate specifically to surround audio, let alone upmixing.



I have a guess about that based on the ones I've played with... I think they create an EQ curve that has dips in it to separate out frequency spectrums. Kind of like the teeth of comb. Thinning out the sound makes it "clearer". I also think these magic buttons have a dynamic expander to punch up the peaks, particularly short bursts like drumbeats. I don't know for sure though, because I haven't done any controlled kind of study on it. I might be completely wrong.



Davesrose said:


> latest generations of lossless surround encodings with my receiver and full range speakers does have good range and seem to have better sound scapes then earlier surround schemes.



Discrete surround always has the potential for better sound compared to matrixed. I haven't found any matrixed surround scheme that can rival what discrete can do.

My nickname was given to me by an old boss. It was a badge of honor for him that he only bestowed on his top people.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Quick, somebody copy this stuff into a "how did you get your custom title?" thread in the Lounge  It will be the top thread of the week


----------



## KeithEmo

If you're curious - we could make an educated guess at a post mortem (on your little amplifier).

When Volume controls suddenly become noisy before they're old enough to have actually worn out the culprit is usually DC voltage across the potentiometer.
(When a potentiometer that is controlling low level audio signals has a higher DC voltage applied across it the typical symptom is to become excessively "scratchy".)
In most amps and pramps, the incoming signal goes to the Volume control, and then on to the input of the first op-amp.
Odds are what happened is that your over-stressing of the op-amps caused that one to start leaking DC current back into the Volume control.
(Of, if the amp was capacitor coupled, the stress could have caused a coupling capacitor to leak instead.)
This is pretty common in situations like that....
The proper repair would have been to replace the op-amp or capacitor that was leaking current.... the Volume control itself was probably still OK.
In a situation like that, the manufacturer probably concluded that too many parts had been overstressed, and it wouldn't have been worthwhile to replace all of them.
(If you damaged the PCB in your attempts to repair it that would have been the proverbial last straw.) 



Joe Bloggs said:


> Well, as a side story, some criminally bad soldering work was involved in my efforts to change the volume pot... I kind of wonder whether it was actually that or the overvoltage that killed the unit for real.
> 
> And I still haven't watched the movie to this day, so don't really know what people make of the title.  I thought the most direct analogy is that someone was electrocuted in the end or so I hear.


----------



## bigshot

Joe Bloggs said:


> Quick, somebody copy this stuff into a "how did you get your custom title?" thread in the Lounge  It will be the top thread of the week



Isn't this the lounge now? People seem to think they can post anything here. It doesn't even have to be sound or science... it can be inaudible hoodoo!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

KeithEmo said:


> If you're curious - we could make an educated guess at a post mortem (on your little amplifier).
> 
> When Volume controls suddenly become noisy before they're old enough to have actually worn out the culprit is usually DC voltage across the potentiometer.
> (When a potentiometer that is controlling low level audio signals has a higher DC voltage applied across it the typical symptom is to become excessively "scratchy".)
> ...


Yes, you basically rephrased here what Dr. Meier told me about my amp back then.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 8, 2018)

FWIW, I was referring to a 5.1 speaker setup with neo or Dolby II emulated surround sound and lossy files (most of them 256 kbps Apple AAC as a practical matter) and a bass phase match setting on my Onkyo receiver and a music optimizer button on my Onkyo receiver. I read somewhere in another forum that the phase match button legitimately matches the phase of the bass of the different speakers electronically. I'm not really sure precisely what that means but I have practical experience in getting better sound by trying to match phase in bass in graduated units by ear with my subwoofer. You may have been specifically answering or asking someone else or Keith, I'm not sure.



Davesrose said:


> With surround sound, are we talking about speakers or headphone?  Because latest generations of lossless surround encodings with my receiver and full range speakers does have good range and seem to have better sound scapes then earlier surround schemes.  However, with emulating surround sound with headphones: I have a Dolby Pro Logic processor/headphone amp that came with my Sennheiser HD580s.  It has some calibration settings for you to try to localize a surround scape based on ear and preference.  When spending time to adjust to your taste, I have found it sounds a lot more emursive then the latest Dolby Headphone offerings with receivers.


----------



## bigshot

Steve999 said:


> I was referring to a 5.1 speaker setup with neo or Dolby II emulated surround sound and lossy files.



Since those are matrixed and the separation is done with phase, it shouldn't matter if it is lossy or lossless. Lossy primarily affects frequency response, not timing.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 9, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Since those are matrixed and the separation is done with phase, it shouldn't matter if it is lossy or lossless. Lossy primarily affects frequency response, not timing.


Not an expert on lossy coding but find this assertion a bit hard to swallow.  Given how much perceived sound quality depends on frequency response and how little on timing, one would think the latter would be the first thing a smart encoder throws out the window.  I posted my (sighted) findings with my upmixer further up the thread.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

I've never heard that lossy touches phase. It throws out masked frequencies that aren't audible. I have lossy matrixed dolby soundtracks on movies and they work fine.

Matrixed surround works by using two channels and separating them by throwing everything common to both channels to the center speaker and everything out of phase to the rears. That is 100% phase. It isn't audible. If you listen in regular stereo, it sounds fine.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

bigshot said:


> I've never heard that lossy touches phase. It throws out masked frequencies that aren't audible. I have lossy matrixed dolby soundtracks on movies and they work fine.


But he was talking about upmixing from lossy stereo. You'd think that matrixed surround encoding would work, it's doing what it's designed to do!  Not so with upmixing.


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't... but then YOU seem to be the only one here who keeps bringing up the size of the file.

If we assume that the source is totally untrustworthy then, for all we know, the 64k MP3 might be the best copy.
But, if we really consider them to be that untrustworthy, then we shouldn't be doing business with them.
For all we know they might have made that 64k MP3 by holding the microphone of a cassette recorder in front of the speaker on a car radio.

However, if we accept their claim that the 192k file was the highest-resolution copy, and the 44k file was down-sampled from it, then we KNOW that the 44k file CANNOT be better.
The 192k file might be better, or they may be equal, but the 192k file CANNOT be of lower quality.
It's like buying a product in a store with an open package instead of a sealed one... odds are that, if they are unequal, the sealed one will be the better risk.

But, since Liberace got no benefit from that insurance, whatever it cost, it must have been a waste of money.
And, let's not even talk about the stupidity of people who buy diamonds, instead of the much cheaper, and functionally superior, cubic zirconia.

That analysis of surround sound is also flawed.
It is reasonable to argue that each channel individually has a "threshold of transparency".
HOWEVER, surround sound decoders use phase relationships between the channels to determine where to route specific audio content.
Therefore, small differences in the relative phase and frequency response of the individual channels, while separately inaudible, may alter the actions of the decoder.
For example, if the same sound is present in both channels, you might not notice a phase shift of a few degrees between those two channels.
However, because the decoder depends on phase, that phase shift might cause it to position that sound at a very different location.
This effect is quite significant with decoders that "synthesize" surround sound.
With most, sounds that are p[resent in both channels, exactly in phase are usually sent to the front or front center.
But sounds that are present in both channels, but are even slightly out of phase, tend to be positioned somewhere else.
Many lossy encoders, such as MP3, sometimes replace phase-specific content with decorrelated content.
If so, then, when you play them back through a phase-sensitive decoder, the resulting audio, while it sounds more or less the same, may be decoded very differently.
(One of the advantages of discrete surround sound is that, since each channel is separate, such potentially ambiguous decisions are totally avoided.)



bigshot said:


> Question:
> 
> How do you know a file is closer to the original file just because it's bigger? I posted examples of HD Tracks files that were clearly padded out with super audible noise and weren't even close to the original. In fact, an MP3 would be closer than that. But the noise was inaudible, so you would never know it. Does that make it OK? What I don't know won't hurt me? I see absolutely no correlation between file size and "authenticity". It all comes down to believing that things exist or don't exist that you can't perceive. And that is where the emperor's new clothes come in.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

If it doesn't sound different when you play it back on your home stereo, then the only difference is the size. You keep pointing at how all those inaudible things make you sleep better at night. I understand the psychological aspects. I don't care. When I put on music in my listening room, I just care about how it sounds. How big the file is doesn't matter to me. Neither do inaudible frequencies. Your brain is wired different. It bothers you like a burr under your saddle. That doesn't change the file itself. It's just the way you think about it. No one can help that. That is just you. There is a subject and a viewer. How the viewer perceives it isn't a fault in the subject. I don't know if your bias could be cured. Maybe if you recognized it and worked on it. I don't know enough about psychological issues to say one way or the other.

By the way, discrete surround sound (aka 5.1 like on SACD or blu-ray audio) doesn't use phase to separate the channels. It actually has six totally separate tracks. You are thinking of old school matrixed surround. AAC is perfectly capable of reproducing matrixed surround.


----------



## KeithEmo

The various lossy protocols work quite differently.
You have to look up the details of each individual one to see what it preserves and what it discards or alters.
(And, with many, the details will be different depending on how many channels are involved, the settings chosen, and the content itself.)

The original versions of one of the lossy surround sound decoders actually discarded similar sounds in certain frequency ranges that appeared across multiple channels.
So, for example, if a cymbal crash appeared in all five channels, a single copy was stored.
Then, when it was played back, each channel recieved a copy of the same sound.
The relative levels for each channel were recreated, and some sort of randomized "decorrelation" was applied to introduce "audible variation" between the channels.
Basically, the playback "synthesized a reproduction of the original channel content" from a recording of a single "representative" channel, and additional level data.
(It was claimed that, with certain types of sounds, and in certain frequency ranges, we humans simply wouldn't notice the difference, so the approximation was "good enough".)



bigshot said:


> I've never heard that lossy touches phase. It throws out masked frequencies that aren't audible. I have lossy matrixed dolby soundtracks on movies and they work fine.


----------



## KeithEmo

So according to you.....

The Hope Diamond is worth no more than the visibly identical cubic zirconia replica I can purchase for $100 - because neither you nor I can see the difference...
And a real Rembrandt really is worth no more than a good quality forgery...
(If you ever find yourself in posession of either original, please call me immediately... we can do a trade... and I'll throw in an extra $50.)

Discrete sound is discrete.... but we were talking about synthesized surround sound... like Dolby PLIIx...
With discrete sound, all we would need to worry about would be messing up the phase and timing cues that your human brain uses to determine sound stage location.
Although, if I was using an encoder that offered options, I would certainly choose "linked encoding", which will prevent the encoder from choosing different parameters for each channel.
If the decoder is allowed to use unlinked parameters, it may alter the relative level or phase between the channels, or even discard different content from each, which may  be noticeable.
(This option is still explicitly offered on many MP3 encoders.)



bigshot said:


> If it doesn't sound different when you play it back on your home stereo, then the only difference is the size. You keep pointing at how all those inaudible things make you sleep better at night. I understand the psychological aspects. I don't care. When I put on music in my listening room, I just care about how it sounds. How big the file is doesn't matter to me. Neither do inaudible frequencies. Your brain is wired different. It bothers you like a burr under your saddle. That doesn't change the file itself. It's just the way you think about it. No one can help that. That is just you. There is a subject and a viewer. How the viewer perceives it isn't a fault in the subject. I don't know if your bias could be cured. Maybe if you recognized it and worked on it. I don't know enough about psychological issues to say one way or the other.
> 
> By the way, discrete surround sound (aka 5.1 like on SACD or blu-ray audio) doesn't use phase to separate the channels. It actually has six totally separate tracks. You are thinking of old school matrixed surround. AAC is perfectly capable of reproducing matrixed surround.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

Gosh. We were having fun for a minute there... I'm skipping over stuff when it goes back into the same silly loop. You know you can't tell the difference between high data rate lossy and lossless. If you can't hear it, it doesn't matter.

Joe Bloggs, what do you mean by up mixing? Do you mean decoding the matrixed stereo from lossy 2 channels to 4 channel surround? If so, I don't see any way that it wouldn't work exactly the same as lossless 2 channel to 4 channel surround. In fact, I don't just know that in theory. I have hundreds of MKV files with AAC 2 channel Dolby that decode perfectly into 4 channel surround. It works. Lossy is based on masking, not phase. If it did affect phase, stereo wouldn't be transparent either. Dolby matrixed stereo is still just stereo.

If that isn't what you meant by up mixing, let me know what you mean. I might just not know the terminology.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

@bigshot I mean upmixing bog standard 2 channel audio with no surround information to play on surround speakers.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] On many large-scale 3D rendering and CAD applications there's a specific choice to "create a project package" ...
> [2] I've heard rumors that George Lucas had a full equipment suite installed at his ranch, with a full speed network feed to the studio, so he could view daily shooting takes "at the same quality as the studio was seeing" for Star Wars... I hear it cost him several million dollars... but apparently he thought it was worth it.
> [3] My problem with "optimal" is that it is a relative term. ... [3a] Therefore we have very dissimilar ideas about what constitutes optimal.
> [3b] I guess we just look at things differently. To me, the very fact that you have a "preference" when it comes to dither is conceding that you do not in fact consider them all to be equal - or even "practically equal". Otherwise, instead of choosing your favorite, you would simply "leave it set at the defaults - whatever they happen to be".
> ...



1. I have no idea how CAD packages work, I can only tell you about DAWs. Analogies with photos/visuals can be useful but not always, they have to obviously be analogous, which sometimes they are not! Maybe you use visual analogies so often because you don't know how DAWs and audio work or maybe it's because they provide such a good opportunity to misrepresent/obfuscate facts about audio?

2. George Lucas built a comprehensive film audio post facility on his ranch, with 2 full theatrical dub stages, an orchestral scoring stage, a screening room, several sound design rooms, a Foley stage and about 50 editing suites. It's called Skywalker Sound and is one of the top audio post facilities in the world. It didn't cost several million dollars though, it initially cost $198million. He's now sold Skywalker Sound, it was part of the $4.3billion deal with Disney.

3. My problem is that you invent your own meaning for the term "optimal", one which bares no relationship to reality or even the laws of physics!
3a. Indeed, my "idea" of optimal, is optimal within the confines of the laws of physics; what is reproducible in the first place and then what is actually audible. On the other hand, your idea of "optimal" seems to be; what provides the optimal opportunities for marketing, regardless of what's reproducible or audible!
3b. Indeed we do look at things differently. You appear to think that you can simply invent any interpretation of my actions that fulfils your agenda and that it's somehow just as valid as my actual reason for why I'm doing something. So, we do look at things differently, I look for the actual facts and you look for an opportunity to misrepresent them to further your agenda! Unfortunately, this pretty much sums up the vast majority of all audiophile marketing.
3c. And here's a perfect example. What I actually said was that there wasn't a "chance in hell" that I could hear it. Which you then deliberately MISREPRESENT as "you concede you probably wouldn't notice most of the time ..."

4. Impressively, this one sentence perfectly sums up almost all the false marketing employed by so many of today's audiophile digital audio manufacturers! To actually be true, you would have to "willingly concede that" it's utterly impossible for you or anyone else "to notice the difference" because to do so would require not only defying some of the laws of physics but also for humans to evolve into a new species! For example, the noise floor of 24bit is at least a couple of times lower than the noise floor required by the laws of physics for even a theoretically perfect analogue audio circuit, so it's about 10 times lower than the noise floor that any DAC can actually achieve, which in turn is about 10 times lower than the noise floor of any speakers/HP/amp combo. So, we're talking about random noise which is roughly 100 times lower than the random noise floor of even a top quality system. In other words, by a factor of about 100 times, your system cannot reproduce the 24bit noise floor! As your system cannot even get close to reproducing it, what are the chances that you "might actually notice the difference" of something which is not even being reproduced?? If that's not already ridiculous enough, say we did have some theoretical system which could break the laws of physics and reproduce the 24bit noise floor, still you couldn't hear it without damaging your hearing! But why end there, why end with the ridiculously impossible when you can convince poor saps of the even more laughably ludicrous, in order to sell some new/more products? So, instead of 24bit, let's suggest to punters there could be circumstances where they "might notice the difference" with a noise floor that's another 10,000 times below the already un-reproducable noise floor of 24bit, let's suggest the best/safest thing is to ask for the (virtual) master!

The problem that has faced digital audio manufacturers for quite a few years now is that "the most technically accurate reproduction of the original" that is possible in the real world, is somewhat less than what 16bit can achieve. Which is rather old, well established and cheap technology. Hence why it's so imperative for their survival to obfuscate/misrepresent the facts, to at least "leave the question open" and/or "suggest the possibility" (of something which is actually not only impossible but ludicrously impossible). While your semantics, obfuscations, misrepresentations and inapplicable analogies demonstrate a relatively sophisticated marketing ability, this is however the science forum, NOT a marketing forum! 

There's no point in addressing any of your other assertions/suggestions/hypothesis because they're all pretty much covered by what I've just written above!

G


----------



## Joe Bloggs

One has to wonder why he bothers.  It's not as if keeping at this thread is going to draw him significantly more supporters or customers compared to drawing interest in the marketing black hole of how any of today's hi end gear matter if at all to fidelity anymore!


----------



## castleofargh

-first, wow! that's a serious amount of posts in one day. 
-second, no you can't bring back dinosaurs with lossy DSP. 
-third.higher fidelity sometimes means extra content, but beyond 16/44 files, how often are we sure that the extra content isn't random accumulation of various noises and distortions? I get that some people will be interested in better, even if it's not necessarily audible like @KeithEmo suggests. but can we really be satisfied with an idea of better when we usually have no certainty about the extra content? I see people obsessed with improving the noise floor well below what they notice, but does it still have a purpose if all it does is allow to get a more accurate reproduction of background noises, mic noises and distortions, recorded and mixed at different levels(to set the best gain for each instrument), and then added together? wouldn't there be a point where adding some low level white noise or just cutting out the remaining bits, would arguably increase the fidelity of the musical content? 

same idea with ultrasonic content. if the mics aren't selected to better record ultrasounds, and the sound engineers can't hear what's going on up there when they master the album, how often can we be confident that we're improving anything with a high sample rate record? same question as with noise. can't we argue at some point that it may be more accurate to just have nothing instead of relatively unknown content that just had to came along and be manipulated with the mastered audible range? 
we start with the high res album as reference, and we obviously do that because it's the only reference a consumer has. but if we get beyond that and start wondering about the content itself, the notion of high-res isn't as clearly defined anymore. even more so when so many subjective choices aren't made for fidelity but for audibility. release the philosoraptor!


----------



## gregorio (Nov 9, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> One has to wonder why he bothers. It's not as if keeping at this thread is going to draw him significantly more supporters or customers ...



I'm not so sure. Much of what he says would be difficult to refute without specific knowledge of, for example, exactly how DAWs work or mastering is done. And, it's not as if he's always banging on about exactly the same nonsense, many of his posts are about other areas, where he's typically factually accurate and helpful. He's probably not convincing many of the regulars here but I believe there are more lurkers than regulars and with his ability to assert the ridiculous in a way that appears entirely reasonable, his tactic maybe very successful. Here's an even more recent and particularly good example I've just noticed:


KeithEmo said:


> I can tell you the answer as it pertains to the devices that have been sold to "remove clicks and pops from vinyl" while it's being played.
> [1] All of those devices that I am familiar with use the presence of ultrasonic noise to recognize the difference between musical content and noise. (Ticks and pops have a lot of ultrasonic noise content above 20 kHz - so you can tell them apart by analyzing and comparing their high frequency spectra.)
> [2] So, if you were to use one of those devices, or a plugin that used the same principle, to remove the ticks and pops from a digital archive copy of a favorite vinyl album... It would almost certainly work as intended with a digital recording made at a 96k sample rate (which would include the ultrasonic information it relies on to work)... But would be unable to function with a 44k recording that omitted that ultrasonic content.


It really is impressive how you bend the facts, invent a bit here and there, come up with some hypothetical situation which would never exist, support it all with an inapplicable analogy or two and make it all sound so plausible, when in fact it's all completely ridiculous! Let's have a look at what you've actually done here:

1. Maybe the devices you are familiar with do use the presence of ultrasonic noise for detection. I have to deal with the removal of clicks and pops on an almost daily basis and have used a wide variety of commercial hardware and software to achieve this for 15 years or so. NOT a single one of those devices relied on ultrasonic content! They all operate equally efficiently at 44.1/48kHz as at 96kHz, using a variety of metrics, including with the most recent ones, machine learning. Maybe it's just another fortuitous (to your agenda) coincidence that the only ones you're "familiar with" have very limited functionality? Maybe you haven't bothered to find out how other click/pop audio restoration equipment actually works and are therefore misrepresenting it unintentionally?

2. Why would anyone use a device or plugin which used that same principle when cheap technology provides superior solutions which operate optimally at any sample rate, including 44.1? Why would your hypothetical situation ever exist?


KeithEmo said:


> [3] I can certainly see how some future surround sound synthesizer could benefit by knowing the dimensions of the original recording venue...
> [3a] And I can see how one might be able to extract that information by analyzing ultrasonic ringing and harmonics preserved in the recording.
> [3b] I have little doubt that some folks will chime in and insist that "the microphones used couldn't possibly have recorded anything useful at those frequencies.
> [3c] However, those same folks will insist that analog master tapes "can't possibly have any useful content above 20 kHz."


3. I can't, except in a tiny number of cases. How would it benefit a surround sound synthesizer to know the dimensions of the original recording venue, (say): 50x20x30 and 100x50x70 and 10x12x8 simultaneously? Or, outside with no dimensions and 8x8x10. The "original recording venue" for probably 99% of commercial audio is actually a combination of different recording venues + some amount of various different artificial reverbs added subjectively by the engineers/producers.
3a. The ultrasonic range is the very last place "one might be able to extract that information"!! High and progressively ultrasonic freqs are absorbed by pretty much everything, even the air itself. As the acoustical information of a room/space is defined by reflections from the boundaries, and as all the materials those boundaries are made from absorb high and ultrasonic freqs. there is essentially no ultrasonic acoustic info there to be extracted! As far as reflections/room acoustics are concerned, we're done and dusted by about 12kHz and commonly by about 8-9kHz. Deliberate misrepresentation of the facts or just a bit of coincidental, inadvertent bending?
3b. And you believe that mics exist which can "possibly record something useful at those freqs" which never existed?
3c. And how is that analogy even slightly applicable? You think that analogue master tapes can accurately record acoustical information above 20kHz that doesn't exist?

It all sounds reasonable but it's all utter nonsense, to support your agenda that ultrasonic content *might* be useful and therefore (your) equipment which can, presumably, accurately reproduce it, is better than equipment which can't. Again, this is NOT a marketing forum!



bfreedma said:


> Send me audio files and I will pad them with zeros for only $5 per song



Send ME those audio files and I will pad them with Gaussian distribution noise for only $10 per song. Mine will look like there might actually be something useful down there! 

G


----------



## Joe Bloggs

gregorio said:


> Send ME those audio files and I will pad them with Gaussian distribution noise for only $10 per song. Mine will look like there might actually be something useful down there!
> 
> G



Better yet, add a fractional amount of intentional clipping after upsampling to create "transients" that look to span the entire ultrasonic spectrum


----------



## KeithEmo

You're missing the distinctions involved here.

An encoding scheme can be lossy or lossless, and it can be discrete or matrixed, any any combination of those is possible.

There are lossy encoding schemes that are still discrete - like Dolby Digital.
With a Dolby Digital encoded signal, the individual channels are encoded using lossy encoding, but each channel is encoded explicitly.
In other words, the result is DECODED rather than SYNTHESIZED.
Another way of looking at it is that the content includes both the audio information and the information about which channel it belongs in.
And, so, as BigShot says, the functioning of the encoder, in terms of operation, shouldn't be affected by alterations caused by the lossy encoding.

HOWEVER, both matrixed systems and surround sound synthesizers share a characteristic.
The channels are NOT stored separately; all of the information is mixed together, and the decoder then FIGURES OUT which channel it should be sent to.

When you use Dolby PLIIx or DTS Neo to synthesize surround sound from a stereo signal, it analyzes the content, and uses the results to "decide" where specific sounds should be located.
Various decoders may use relative amplitude, relative phase, or frequency response to make this decision, and what they actually use may be quite complex.
For example, they may locate a sound that occurs in both channels, at exactly identical phase, and assign it to the center channel.
Or, if they recognize that same sound in both channels, but it leads by between 5 and 10 degrees in one channel, they may decide it belongs in that channel, and reduce it's level in the opposite channel.
Modern systems may use even more complex details to make those decisions.
Complex decisions like this are easily influenced by minor alterations in the signal.

Now, here's the thing, MATRIXED SYSTEMS do not specifically differentiate between encoded signals and non-encoded signals.
If you use PLIIx to play a song that was originally recorded in stereo, it uses phase, amplitude, and frequency information in the content itself to decide how to decode it.
The decoder neither "knows" or "cares" whether you feed it information that was actually encoded or not.
And, if you "encode" content for it, the encoder DOES NOT RECORD OR STORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE THE CONTENT SHOULD BE ASSIGNED.
The encoder basically operates by creating the conditions that will lead to a specific result in the decoder, as it encodes the signal.

In other words (taking an example from the old SQ4 days), let's assume that my matrix decoder takes sounds that appear similar in both front channels, but 90 degrees ahead in the left channel, and sends them to the rear left.
If I play stereo content through that decoder, it will randomly pick out sounds that match that requirement, and put them in the back left channel.
(Ambience information tends to end up swirling around the rear channels because it tends to have been recorded in the front channels with random relative phase.) 
However, if I specifically "encode a surround sound program in that format", the encoder takes the rear left channel content, mixes it directly into the fight front channel, shifts a copy ahead by 90 degrees, and mixes that into the left front channel.
Then, when I play it back through the decoder, that signal hopefully ends up in the rear left channel - BECAUSE THE ENCODER CREATED A SITUATION WHERE THE DECODER IS LIKELY TO ASSUME IT BELONGS IN THE LEFT REAR CHANNEL. 
The decoder didn't differentiate between my encoded content, and ambience information that randomly met it's requirement; it sent EVERYTHING that is 90 degrees ahead in the left front channel to the left rear channel.
This means that the decoded content will depend both on what the encoder does, what was there to begin with, and anything that gets changed along the way...  making the decoded output somewhat random.
(It is still deterministic, because the same decoder will always produce the same output when presented with the same input, but we don't know exactly what it will be in advance since it is not controlled explicitly by the encoder.)

Therefore, the content of the individual channels in ANY discrete system is fixed, whether the individual channels are lossy or lossless.
However, with matrixed systems, which includes all surround sound synthesizers, the results are less deterministic, and the very description is somewhat complicated.
For example, can you actually claim that a system is "lossless" if it preserves all frequencies, but may not route the content to the original channel? 
Essentially, ALL MATRIXED SYSTEMS are lossy.... because they do not always put everything back where it belongs.
(Even though all the information has been retained, information has been lost from some channels, and added to others.)

A Dolby TrueHD sound track is both lossless and discrete.... it contains discrete channels, each of whch contains lossless information.
PLIIx is neither.... since it is a matrixed system, the output of the decoder will be DIFFERENT than the original input to the encoder, so it cannot be claimed in any way to be lossless.
(You could say that, regardless of whether the frequency and amplitude content of each channel is lossless, the POSITIONAL INFORMATION of where each sound should be located has been lost.)
And, in that case, anything that affects the "encoded content" is likely to make a major difference.

So, if you were to use the same PLIIx decoder to decode a lossless audio track, and a copy of that track that has been AAC compressed (but whose compression _YOU_ find to be audibly transparent), the output may be _VERY_ different - audible.
(Basically, even though you, as a human, may find the lossy encoding to be "transparent", the PLIIx decoder sees it as causing major differences.)
In case you didn't know, all lossy encoders work by cutting the signal into bands, then operating separately one each bank.
The narrow filter used to divide the bands are not at all phase accurate...
And, obviously, the "phase characteristics of a sound" are going to be altered when you start discarding portions of it, divided either by frequency or time slice.
Lossy encoding relies on these differences being inaudible to HUMANS - due to things like masking and simply our inability to notice certain small differences.
DO NOT assume that a decoder, which operates by using phase information, is equally deaf to minor differences. 



bigshot said:


> Since those are matrixed and the separation is done with phase, it shouldn't matter if it is lossy or lossless. Lossy primarily affects frequency response, not timing.


----------



## KeithEmo

I find your comment on my #2 especially interesting.

What plugin or software _DO_ you use that can, reliably and with 100% accuracy, determine the difference between a record tick and a similar sound made by one of the musicians dropping a coin - starting with a 44k file that contains no ultrasonic information.
As far as I know, so far nobody has claimed to have a system that can make that distinction with 100% accuracy, at any price _- without_ using the ultrasonic spectral differences between recorded ticks and ticks caused by surface damage.
There are some that are at least pretty good... but none that are "as good or better" when those that utilize that extra ultrasonic information.
Click reduction algorithms that use AI have gotten better... and some of them are "usually right most of them time" - however, I am not aware of any that never makes a mistake, so there is always room for improvement.
Regardless of how much of the time your AI routine gets it right, there is always going to be some small percentage where it is wrong, and where the extra information provided by that ultrasonic content would have enabled it to avoid that error.

Maybe you've never had Izotope RX remove the sound a drummer made when he touched the rim with his stick - because it was mis-identified as a record tick....
(Or, perhaps, not unreasonably, you consider that to be "acceptable error".)

You clearly don't recognize the distinction between information and sound in this context.
For example, we humans recognize sound stage location mostly by timing.
If I'm listening to two people, sitting next to each other, twenty feet in front of me, I can tell which one is sitting on the right and which on the left.
My brain determines this using a variety of cues.
-  the voice of the person on the left will be a TINY bit louder in my left ear
- the voice of the person on the left will reach my left ear a TINY bit before it reaches my right ear (about 1 millisecond per foot of travel)
- and the echoes of each person's voice will reach my ears at slightly different times (which will differ differently depending on which wall they've bounded off of).
(the voice of the person on the left will reach my right ear after bouncing off both the left and right walls)

Some of those differences will be very small, and some may even be so small that my human brain and ears cannot pick them out or use them.
HOWEVER, an analysis system, which mathematically analyzes those signals, may well have use for differences that can only be resolved with data that far exceeds 20 kHz.
The Plangent process adjusts for and corrects flaws in master tapes - by using recovered record bias signals at up tom 90 kHz.
There "shouldn't be useful information on analog master tapes at 89 kHz"... however, as it turns out, that information is there, and has proven to be VERY useful.
I guess all the folks who were sure that "there's nothing useful there above 20 kHz" were wrong.

Modern technology has become ever more effective at extracting and utilizing previously unnoticed pieces of information.
I don't know if tomorrow's surround sound synthesizer will be able to extract useful information from that huge swatch of "mostly ultrasonic garbage" that is on that 24/192k recording, but not on its 44k counterpart.
For all I know, next week I may have a new plugin that, after listening to a five second section of inter-track noise, can draw me a map of the recording studio, with the wall textures clearly labelled.
And it may work much better when presented with a signal that extends to 50 kHz instead of being limited to 20 kHz.

Perhaps that new mapping software that someone writes next year...
The one that maps out exactly where each musician was sitting so we can more accurately reproduce the sound stage...
Will produce a better map if it has information that extends to 50 kHz instead of being limited to 20 kHz.
And, yes, you might see that level of sophistication in the surround sound decoder you get in a $150 consumer AVR five years from now.

I simply prefer to hedge my bets.
(Just as I'll bet a few folks are glad they didn't figure out how to throw away that "useless and potentially problematic 89 kHz leakage signal" on those master tapes.)



gregorio said:


> I'm not so sure. Much of what he says would be difficult to refute without specific knowledge of, for example, exactly how DAWs work or mastering is done. And, it's not as if he's always banging on about exactly the same nonsense, many of his posts are about other areas, where he's typically factually accurate and helpful. He's probably not convincing many of the regulars here but I believe there are more lurkers than regulars and with his ability to assert the ridiculous in a way that appears entirely reasonable, his tactic maybe very successful. Here's an even more recent and particularly good example I've just noticed:
> 
> It really is impressive how you bend the facts, invent a bit here and there, come up with some hypothetical situation which would never exist, support it all with an inapplicable analogy or two and make it all sound so plausible, when in fact it's all completely ridiculous! Let's have a look at what you've actually done here:
> 
> ...


----------



## bfreedma

Keith, could you please follow the standard posting model of responding below the post you quote.  You may not realize it, but for those reading the forum on mobile devices, the amount of scrolling necessary to see what you’re responding to so your replies have context isn’t ideal.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bfreedma said:


> Keith, could you please follow the standard posting model of responding below the post you quote.  You may not realize it, but for those reading the forum on mobile devices, the amount of scrolling necessary to see what you’re responding to so your replies have context isn’t ideal.




Slightly OT but definitely relevant:  With the migration away from Usenet to moderated forums such as this one, such basic protocols and courtesies have fallen by the wayside.  Bottom-posting(vs top- or anywhere-posting)  makes perfet sense, and lends chronological order to the conversation, but sadly some haven't realized that.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

KeithEmo said:


> I find your comment on my #2 especially interesting.
> 
> What plugin or software _DO_ you use that can, reliably and with 100% accuracy, determine the difference between a record tick and a similar sound made by one of the musicians dropping a coin - starting with a 44k file that contains no ultrasonic information.
> As far as I know, so far nobody has claimed to have a system that can make that distinction with 100% accuracy, at any price _- without_ using the ultrasonic spectral differences between recorded ticks and ticks caused by surface damage.
> ...



There's nothing in the AES article that suggests that the technique can possibly work on existing digitizations of tape.  The original master tape must be re-analyzed using the new technique and hardware.

And this is more forensic science than audio science.  To pretend that this has any significance for the audiophile at home choosing between archival formats is beyond ridiculous.


----------



## KeithEmo

There is no "invention" involved.... "optimal" is_ ALWAYS_ a relative term.

And, yes, $189M is substantially more than "a few million".
But, if I was in his position, and had his budget, I would certainly have done the same.
(And, apparently, "spending more, on a better setup, than most people thought he needed" has turned out to be a good investment, and I'm sure he enjoyed using it as well.)

In most cases, having a master tape, and a playback system, with a frequency response that extends to above 20 kHz, may indeed qualify as "optimal" or "optimal enough".
Unless you wish to restore that master tape using the Plangent system.
However, if you do decide to have your tape restored using Plangent, then suddenly frequency response up to 20 Khz is totally inadequate.
On that day, response to 100 kHz becomes optimal, and response to above 89 kHz becomes a bare minimum.
(Which is why they had to design custom equipment that would perform optimally in that situation.)

As a very broad generalization...
Throwing away information that you have today, but don't have any use for today, because you ASSUME you will have no use for it tomorrow, is usually not a good idea.

And, no, times have moved on...
It is quite possible to produce electronic equipment with a noise floor considerably better than 24 bits.
(I'm not suggesting that, at this point, it is either practical or useful in most situations... but it is most certainly not impossible.)
I doubt my current system has a noise floor anywhere near that low... and I don't consider it a priority.
However, Benchmark's latest CONSUMER amplifier has supposedly been measured as having a dynamic range of about 21 bits.... and that's "just home gear". 

You also like to throw around absolutes.....

Can you honestly tell me that _NEVER IN YOUR LIFE_ have you turned up a CD, in the quiet spot between tracks, to the point where the noise floor was clearly audible?
You have _NEVER_ heard a little noise, and wondered if the drum was rattling or the musician dropped his keys, and turned the volume way up to hear which it was?
I sure have.... more than once.
That would be like claiming that your 10 megapixel camera is absolutely good enough because _YOU'VE NEVER ONCE ZOOMED IN FAR ENOUGH TO SEE A PIXEL_.
I would absolutely agree that 10 megapixels is plenty for most people most of the time.
But I sure wouldn't say "there is never any use for higher resolution above 10 megapixels".
In fact, I very much doubt that either of us has met many people who have NEVER hit the noise floor - on a CD or their camera.

And, before you go on whining about how "it's all a conspiracy by the marketing department".....
I would remind you that the major proponent of the idea that "16/44k is quite good enough" was Sony.... when it was the format they chose for their new consumer audio format.
Then, a few years later, when they came out with a new format, they suddenly "discovered" that CDs weren't good enough after all, so we all really needed to move up to SACD.
(Coincidentally, their previous discovery that 16/44k was "perfectly good enough" was only discovered to be in error when they decided to market a new product that was "better".)

As I've said, numerous times, I absolutely agree that we're talking about "cutting edge technology that most people really don't need"...
But I'm not willing to go far enough out on a limb to suggest that people aren't entitled to set their own priorities.
(I doubt anybody really needs Jaguar's latest sports car either.)

Are you really suggesting that Skywalker Sound didn't probably sound better than the surround system you own...
Or that you wouldn't have preferred to have it instead of the setup you have now?



gregorio said:


> 1. I have no idea how CAD packages work, I can only tell you about DAWs. Analogies with photos/visuals can be useful but not always, they have to obviously be analogous, which sometimes they are not! Maybe you use visual analogies so often because you don't know how DAWs and audio work or maybe it's because they provide such a good opportunity to misrepresent/obfuscate facts about audio?
> 
> 2. George Lucas built a comprehensive film audio post facility on his ranch, with 2 full theatrical dub stages, an orchestral scoring stage, a screening room, several sound design rooms, a Foley stage and about 50 editing suites. It's called Skywalker Sound and is one of the top audio post facilities in the world. It didn't cost several million dollars though, it initially cost $198million. He's now sold Skywalker Sound, it was part of the $4.3billion deal with Disney.
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

And, to suggest that a map of room acoustics can be generated from random ultrasonic noise spurting out from random instruments at unknown positions in the recording venue, recorded by regular microphones as opposed to high order ambisonic mics, is like suggesting that a junkyard of random spare parts will assemble themselves into a flying Boeing 747 in a hurricane.

Never mind that room acoustics mapped out for a particular frequency also holds little relevance to that for another frequency, given that material absorption and diffusion at different frequencies vary wildly depending on material and geometry of boundaries.


----------



## KeithEmo

I doubt that the new accelerator they're building at CERN has much significance for my home electrical system either.
Yet, I still find it interesting in terms of science, and have been known to read about it, and even discuss it.

Luckily, in the case of Plangent, nobody was dumb enough to discard the original tapes "because the latest digital archive versions were audibly perfect".
Therefore, the original data is there to be extracted using the new technology.

Excellent point; it wouldn't work at all on my CD copy of American Beauty.
But, if some fanatic had decided that "a proper archival copy should include all the ultrasonic noise present on the tape - up to several megahertz", it probably WOULD work on that.
(So, if I was an extremely wealthy collector, I know which version I would prefer to own.)

Obviously there's always going to be some practical balance between cost and utility.
I wouldn't even consider paying $1 million for an exact copy of that master.
In fact, I probably wouldn't be willing to pay $500.
I also wouldn't buy a $200k sports car - even though some people do.
But $5 extra for a copy of an album that's a little closer to the master (hopefully) - even if it's only a little closer - hardly seems like a major issue to me.

Do you get equally excited about Starbucks "ripping everyone off" by charging $5 for a "premium" cup of coffee....
Or is your outrage reserved for the guys selling high-res downloads?

I would also classify "AUDIO forensic science" as simply part of "audio science"...



Joe Bloggs said:


> There's nothing in the AES article that suggests that the technique can possibly work on existing digitizations of tape.  The original master tape must be re-analyzed using the new technique and hardware.
> 
> And this is more forensic science than audio science.  To pretend that this has any significance for the audiophile at home choosing between archival formats is beyond ridiculous.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> There is no "invention" involved.... "optimal" is_ ALWAYS_ a relative term.
> 
> And, yes, $189M is substantially more than "a few million".
> But, if I was in his position, and had his budget, I would certainly have done the same.
> ...



"_Can you honestly tell me that NEVER 
IN YOUR LIFE have you turned up a CD, 
in the quiet spot between tracks, to the point
 where the noise floor was clearly audible?
You have NEVER heard a little noise, and 
wondered if the drum was rattling or the musician 
dropped his keys, and turned the volume way 
up to hear which it was?
I sure have.... more than once.
That would be like claiming that your 10 megapixel 
camera is absolutely good enough because 
YOU'VE NEVER ONCE ZOOMED IN FAR 
ENOUGH TO SEE A PIXEL._"

And what, pray tell, would be the point of doing any of those things??

Which I have, mind you, but not in the goal of exploring the resolving limits of either example.

I cranked up the fading pianos on the CD track of "A Day In The Life", not to hear the noise floor, but to head that squeak toward the end of the track.  It was told to be Ringo's shoe squeaking, but I hear more like a wooden chair squeaking as its occupant shifted position.


----------



## KeithEmo

You mean like figuring out where a gun was fired by listening to and analyzing all the echoes of the sound of the shot...?
Oh, wait a minute, they've been doing that for some years now.

The other thing is that it's NOT "random ultrasonic noise"...
Some of it may actually be random electronic noise...
But it also includes ultrasonic harmonics of various instruments, and other ultrasonic noises, caused by various things...
It only seems like noise to a human ear... (possibly even when shifted into a spectrum we can hear).

The way it works is that you pick out some single particular sound... then analyze the exact time it arrives as several known points.
That gives you an idea of where that noise originated.
Then, by analyzing the spectral content of each sample, you can figure out a lot about what materials it's bounced off of, and in what order.
So, for example, you pick out one particularly loud sharp drumbeat, and calculate its first arrival times.
That gives you its location.
Now, you note that an echo of that sound arrives 20 mS later, but its frequency spectrum is lacking high frequencies.
So now you know that it's bounced off a padded surface, and arrived at your microphone, after a combined travel distance of about 20 feet.
The 20 mS delay signifies about 20 feet of travel distance; the loss of high frequencies in the echo signifies that it was reflected from something that preferentially absorbed high frequencies. 
And then we notice another each, with more high frequencies, at about 30 mS.
That means we have another surface, which is less absorptive of high frequencies, with travel distance of about 30 feet.

When you collect a lot of information like this, and then put it all together, you can learn a lot about the environment.
(Kind of like bats do it.)

And, yes, if you set your phone on your desk next to your computer, and someone switches on the microphone...
It is possible to reconstruct what you type on your keyboard by analyzing the sound of your typing as picked up by your phone's microphone.
(Different keys; different sounds; different distances; different echoes.)

The other thing to realize is that this technology evolves, and drops in price, very quickly.
The math used today by the US Navy, in their latest billion-dollar SONAR system, to locate foreign nuclear submarines by their echoes....
Will quite probably turn up ten years from now in the surround sound system of your $150 AVR.



Joe Bloggs said:


> And, to suggest that a map of room acoustics can be generated from random ultrasonic noise spurting out from random instruments at unknown positions in the recording venue, recorded by regular microphones as opposed to high order ambisonic mics, is like suggesting that a junkyard of random spare parts will assemble themselves into a flying Boeing 747 in a hurricane.
> 
> Never mind that room acoustics mapped out for a particular frequency also holds little relevance to that for another frequency, given that material absorption and diffusion at different frequencies vary wildly depending on material and geometry of boundaries.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Steve999 said:


> And from my perspective as a monad what you are speaking of sounds like a discredited school of microeconomics, in which people are assumed to behave rationally. Discredited empirically, scientifically, and philosophically.



I'm just describing the (not yet discredited as far as I know) principle in microeconomics that an individual's assessment of value ("utils" was the term of choice when I was in school) is subjective.  This actually doesn't pertain to whether we can consider someone rational or not, it only complicates it.  

If things had known, inherent value, then we could easily tell if someone is rational or not just by observing. "Oh, he spent $50 on something that is only worth $48.2 of enjoyment - irrational."

Instead, we have to figure out how much they value something before we can say whether they've made a rational choice to increase their overall enjoyment of things they value. That's sort of beside the point though.


----------



## Phronesis

A general dichotomy I see in this thread and forum is that some people (like Keith and me) emphasize the science aspect, in terms of what we know and don't know, what might be possible, and how we can try to figure things out.  That necessarily involves some hypothesizing, what ifs, discussion of experimental design and interpretation, extreme cases, etc.

Others have more of an engineering and "practical" mindset, which can sometimes be a bit dismissive of scientific questions. 

I feel like the practical side is largely a solved problem, since it's neither difficult nor overly expensive these days to find good gear.  If we're talking head-fi, just use Spotify or Tidal as sources, pick any decent DAC/amp, and choose one or a few of many excellent headphones and IEMs currently available.


----------



## KeithEmo

You're quite right....

It really could just be junk...
Or such a jumble of overlapping backgrounds and floors from various tracks that we never successfully decipher it.
And, because modern recordings are often subject to so much processing, this is probably more likely with recent recordings than old ones.

However, we can't know either way.
Residual record bias was quite properly junk - until Plangent found a good use for it.
(And I can't imagine even trying to decipher the result if you had a super-wide-bandwidth digital recording of a dozen different tracks, mixed together,and  each containing residual bias from a different tape clip.)
Remember that, to a recording engineer in 1960, there was no reason to cut out that residual 89 kHz bias tone ("because nobody would hear or detect it anyway").

Science moves on, often in new and previously unpredictable ways.
Imagine trying to convince someone in 1820 that you could tell where his ancestors came from by analyzing the saliva on a stamp he'd licked.
Yet, today, this would hardly seem surprising at all (and has probably been done).

My point in all this is that, if I have an opportunity to purchase a copy of an album that potentially contains extra information...
It is not at all unreasonable to suggest that, even if that extra information is inaudible today, it might be useful at some point in the future... and so cannot be simply assumed to be "worthless".
Yes, I agree that it MIGHT turn out to be useless, or MIGHT not be worth the extra cost... but it is incorrect to make a blanket assumption to that effect.

A lot of current technology would have been considered to be science fiction a very few years ago.
How about a TV that could make motion look smoother, by recognizing specific objects at different locations in consecutive frames, and making up pictures of them at locations in between, to show between the real images?
Isn't it hard to imagine actually doing that and getting it to work.
Well, if  your TV is relatively new, then it probably CAN do that - with decent results.



castleofargh said:


> -first, wow! that's a serious amount of posts in one day.
> -second, no you can't bring back dinosaurs with lossy DSP.
> -third.higher fidelity sometimes means extra content, but beyond 16/44 files, how often are we sure that the extra content isn't random accumulation of various noises and distortions? I get that some people will be interested in better, even if it's not necessarily audible like @KeithEmo suggests. but can we really be satisfied with an idea of better when we usually have no certainty about the extra content? I see people obsessed with improving the noise floor well below what they notice, but does it still have a purpose if all it does is allow to get a more accurate reproduction of background noises, mic noises and distortions, recorded and mixed at different levels(to set the best gain for each instrument), and then added together? wouldn't there be a point where adding some low level white noise or just cutting out the remaining bits, would arguably increase the fidelity of the musical content?
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 9, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> There is no "invention" involved.... "optimal" is_ ALWAYS_ a relative term.
> Are you really suggesting that Skywalker Sound didn't probably sound better than the surround system you own...
> Or that you wouldn't have preferred to have it instead of the setup you have now?



Of course it's better... for NONE of the reasons you bang on about in these pages.
Better transducers, more transducers, better room treatments, quieter machinery... basically anything BUT DACs and tape decks that can play out to 100kHz with noise floors comparable to the noises air particles make when colliding in a perfect anechoic chamber.

What's driving our outrage is that there's zero, exactly ZERO, people reading this for which what you're proposing as "distinctly possible" will ever materialize into gear or album purchases that make more improvement to their sound system and experience than much more sensible upgrades in other areas.  Even if the Skywalker ranch, or the best studio on earth, had all its DACs stolen and replaced with nothing but 50USD Behringer DACs out to all its amps, and all its master tapes stolen and replaced with redbook copies, further improvements to audible sound quality (further post-production quality excluded in the case of the master tapes) at ANY budget can still only be made by further upgrading the world's top class acoustics, transducers and maybe digital room corrections, moreso than any equivalent amount of money invested in replacing the supposedly crappy DACs with ones that can play all the sounds that's too ultrasonic or too quiet for you to hear, or hunting down the original master tapes!  All while you continue to pointlessly play devil's advocate to be the public audiophile darling here of all places!


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Steve999 said:


> But he considers the hypothetical money-burning individual to be maximizing his personal utility based on what that individual person perceives to be the best use of his money at that moment for his long-term pleasure. That is an invalidated concept, IMHO. Individual human judgment, particularly uninformed judgment, does not fit that model. One of the leading doctrines to invalidate that model, by the way, is evolutionary and behavioral psychology, as espoused by Harvard and Stanford business school academic articles. All in my humble opinion and subject to my margin of error, of course.



You've overinterpreted what I said a little.  What I meant was just that people attempt to maximize their personal utility based on what they perceive to be the best use of their money at a given moment, among the options they have in front of them.  Long term or otherwise optimized decision-making is not something I'm arguing for or about.


----------



## Steve999

Zapp_Fan said:


> You've overinterpreted what I said a little.  What I meant was just that people attempt to maximize their personal utility based on what they perceive to be the best use of their money at a given moment, among the options they have in front of them.  Long term or otherwise optimized decision-making is not something I'm arguing for or about.



I’ve conceded the point. I was wrong. I erred. I over-analyzed. I added my own gloss. I extended and interpolated. I distorted. I misled. I deceived. I corrupted. I convoluted what was a path of civil discourse. You won. : )


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> @bigshot I mean upmixing bog standard 2 channel audio with no surround information to play on surround speakers.



That shouldn't be affected by compressed audio. It might depend on what DSP you're using to simulate multichannel, but I still doubt that audibly transparent compressed would be any different than lossless. It wouldn't affect Dolby encoded 4 channel either.



TheSonicTruth said:


> Slightly OT but definitely relevant:  With the migration away from Usenet to moderated forums such as this one, such basic protocols and courtesies have fallen by the wayside.



I usually just look at a person's posts and decide if the content justifies my time. In this case, the content is usually overwritten and without a lot of purpose, so I just skip over it. We all have to filter for ourselves. The internet won't ever do that for us I'm afraid. If someone is focused on psychological issues and pie in the sky theory that has no practical application, or if they flat out don't know what they're talking about and don't want to know, I have more important things to get to.... like cracking a few jokes.


----------



## bfreedma (Nov 9, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> Keith, could you please follow the standard posting model of responding below the post you quote.  You may not realize it, but for those reading the forum on mobile devices, the amount of scrolling necessary to see what you’re responding to so your replies have context isn’t ideal.





KeithEmo said:


> You're quite right....
> 
> It really could just be junk...
> Or such a jumble of overlapping backgrounds and floors from various tracks that we never successfully decipher it.
> ...




I guess I've gotten your response.  No problem, post how you like.  I'll be skipping past your novellas and returning valuable time to my day.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Phronesis said:


> A general dichotomy I see in this thread and forum is that some people (like Keith and me) emphasize the science aspect, in terms of what we know and don't know, what might be possible, and how we can try to figure things out.  That necessarily involves some hypothesizing, what ifs, discussion of experimental design and interpretation, extreme cases, etc.
> 
> Others have more of an engineering and "practical" mindset, which can sometimes be a bit dismissive of scientific questions.
> 
> I feel like the practical side is largely a solved problem, since it's neither difficult nor overly expensive these days to find good gear.  If we're talking head-fi, just use Spotify or Tidal as sources, pick any decent DAC/amp, and choose one or a few of many excellent headphones and IEMs currently available.



If you haven't done customized corrections for your earphones on your ear or done or applied any customized HRTF measurements and virtualizations you are hardly scratching the surface of what audio science today has to offer.  Yet the only consumer friendly way to go after these goals would be to go after a Smyth Realiser.

I don't see people lining up outside SVS to try the thing though...


----------



## Phronesis

Joe Bloggs said:


> If you haven't done customized corrections for your earphones on your ear or done or applied any customized HRTF measurements and virtualizations you are hardly scratching the surface of what audio science today has to offer.  Yet the only consumer friendly way to go after these goals would be to go after a Smyth Realiser.
> 
> I don't see people lining up outside SVS to try the thing though...



But what's the incentive?  I'm currently listening to some acoustic jazz on the LCD-3 and it sounds great.  Instruments sound like the real thing, 'image' is fine, everything is clear and coherent … aside from the not insignificant weight on my head, I can forget that I'm using gear and just experience the music.  At some point, we can say that what we have is good enough (or more than good enough), and not keep searching for even more.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Steve999 said:


> I’ve conceded the point. I was wrong. I erred. I over-analyzed. I added my own gloss. I extended and interpolated. I distorted. I misled. I deceived. I corrupted. I convoluted what was a path of civil discourse. You won. : )



When a discussion of a point can begin and end within fewer than 10 pages on this forum, we have all won. 

Sorry if I pressed the issue too much.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Phronesis said:


> But what's the incentive?  I'm currently listening to some acoustic jazz on the LCD-3 and it sounds great.  Instruments sound like the real thing, 'image' is fine, everything is clear and coherent … aside from the not insignificant weight on my head, I can forget that I'm using gear and just experience the music.  At some point, we can say that what we have is good enough (or more than good enough), and not keep searching for even more.


If we were only here to discuss immediately required betterment of our own audio systems I would have left headphone forums years ago and loudspeaker forums as well this year.  And what would you be doing in this thread?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

Here is my quote for the day... HD Tracks are often just regular CD sound packed out to 24/96 with dead leaves and old candy wrappers.

I'm still looking to improve my main speaker system. It sounds fantastic, but there's always things I can do to improve it... in audible ways too! ...and without having to consult a shrink!


----------



## Phronesis

Joe Bloggs said:


> If we were only here to discuss immediately required betterment of our own audio systems I would have left headphone forums years ago and loudspeaker forums as well this year.  And what would you be doing in this thread?



And that's the crux of it.  I'm mainly interested in exploring the scientific questions I referred a little earlier, rather than practical ways to get better sound.  But when those scientific questions are raised, they're usually beat down by the regulars who think they have it all figured out and purport to be "practical."

I do have an interest in discussing methods for evaluating headphones, factoring in effects of biases, etc., but that topic didn't gain traction, despite it's obvious relevance to head-fi and sound science.  Oh well ...


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> You're quite right....
> 
> It really could just be junk...
> Or such a jumble of overlapping backgrounds and floors from various tracks that we never successfully decipher it.
> ...


oh I'm not making assumptions, I just have doubts about a great many things. and as a random consumer with skepticism over 9000, if there is one thing I want fidelity to free me from, that's doubt. I want to know that I'm getting what I should. actual fidelity offers that notion. so I'm very interested in fidelity and further improvements of it, even if I can't hear it TBH. if I can't confirm an improvement by ear, I will certainly have a harder time pulling out my credit card, but deep inside I'd want it all the same ^_^. I very much join you on that road for a better tomorrow. although I don't have your optimism about the future applications because there is little hope for a human upgrade without going the cyborg way.
I believe I expect the same thing for TOTL products in general. not necessarily that it is the best, but that it will reduce doubt. a better product should be more stable, be compatible with more uses, be sturdy... all those ideas somehow follow the principle of paying to get extra confidence. I'm up for all that. but when concepts of fidelity, or claims of fidelity fail to remove my doubts for x reasons, I tend to take a step back and doubt some more. I just can't help it.





Phronesis said:


> But what's the incentive?  I'm currently listening to some acoustic jazz on the LCD-3 and it sounds great.  Instruments sound like the real thing, 'image' is fine, everything is clear and coherent … aside from the not insignificant weight on my head, I can forget that I'm using gear and just experience the music.  At some point, we can say that what we have is good enough (or more than good enough), and not keep searching for even more.


switch between speakers and your LCD-3, then tell me that the image is fine again. to get a good image remotely like the sound engineer intended, you'd have to go for some binaural albums, get blessed with a very average body so the binaural settings come close to your natural HRTF(if recorded with a dummy head). also your headphone needs a FR that still leaves mono sound in front of you instead of up or below. and last but not least, head tracking would really help convince the brain that an instrument is at a distance and a steady position in space. and to push one step further, it would work better if the head tracking worked based on your HRTF for at least a few angles. else, depending on where the music is panned, you may get more or less consistent distance or altitude(we rarely care because we don't know what the original placement was, but as far as fidelity is concerned, it could be relevant. at least more relevant than having 24bit and extra ultrasounds, as this is a very noticeable change when you perceive a different position.
so I'm going to take a lucky shot and guess that no, your image isn't fine. you may like it, and that is great news for you. you might even prefer that experience to the proper original intent(we never know). but it's not what was intended when the mastering was done. there is little doubt about this as the vast majority of records were done on speakers. 

the alternative, being indeed a pair of speakers, with its fair share of issues TBH. we're not in audio heaven just yet. but at the very least, as the sound source is at a distance and acting on your body/head like any real sound source, the chance for you to get an impression of real placement at a distance is wayyyyy higher than with headphones.




Joe Bloggs said:


> If we were only here to discuss immediately required betterment of our own audio systems I would have left headphone forums years ago and loudspeaker forums as well this year.  And what would you be doing in this thread?


do as my grandma was doing as a kid with her family. each one learned an instrument and they played together after dinner. I expect those instruments to really sound realistic. this is backed up by science! ^_^ 
and for those who like feeling like they're sitting a few rows away from the musicians, I think they have those stuff called concerts. I've heard good things(this pun was condemned to 10years in prison without possibility of parole).


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Phronesis said:


> And that's the crux of it.  I'm mainly interested in exploring the scientific questions I referred a little earlier, rather than practical ways to get better sound.



That is indeed... bizarre.

So bizarre that I must simply admit complete defeat.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

It makes it easy to tell whose posts to read and which ones to skip over. Thanks for the tip! Take note, bfreedma! Another one for your list!


----------



## bfreedma (Nov 9, 2018)

bigshot said:


> It makes it easy to tell whose posts to read and which ones to skip over. Thanks for the tip! Take note, bfreedma! Another one for your list!




I've basically given up on the Ignore list in Sound Science.  It makes it too hard to keep conversational context.  And while there are certainly members I disagree with (and who I'm sure disagree with me), there are very few I feel have nothing of value to offer.  Disagreement still spurs thought and sometimes clarity

I still use it for other areas of head-fi though.  There are some, um, interesting characters out there in the other subforums...


----------



## KeithEmo

But, then, the HDTRacks 24/192k re-master of the Grateful Dead studio albums sounded quite spectacular..... and quite different than all the previous versions I've heard.
(Of course, it was completely remastered, as well as being issued at 24/192k.)



bigshot said:


> Here is my quote for the day... HD Tracks are often just regular CD sound packed out to 24/96 with dead leaves and old candy wrappers.
> 
> I'm still looking to improve my main speaker system. It sounds fantastic, but there's always things I can do to improve it... in audible ways too! ...and without having to consult a shrink!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> And while there are certainly members I disagree with (and who I'm sure disagree with me), there are very few I feel have nothing of value to offer.



You are a better man than I am Gunga Din.

I only have limited patience to hear the same drum beating on pet subjects or see arguments trotted out for the umpteenth time that have been answered dozens of times by multiple people. I give people a chance. Then I give them another chance, and another... but eventually I just lose interest. I don't block them. I just ignore them and don't engage them in the conversation any more. Like for instance that comment above... It pretends to answer me, but I'm sure he still hasn't clicked through the link I provided and looked at those spectrum charts. Maybe he looked at the posts when they were originally posted, but they went in one ear and out the other. What's the point of discussing things with people who ignore everything you say? I'll just ignore them back. No time for nonsense! I'll let those who enjoy answering the same silliness over and over do that. I move on and look for something more rewarding to spend my time on. I want to have conversations, not just act as a springboard for monologues.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 9, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> switch between speakers and your LCD-3, then tell me that the image is fine again. to get a good image remotely like the sound engineer intended, you'd have to go for some binaural albums, get blessed with a very average body so the binaural settings come close to your natural HRTF(if recorded with a dummy head). also your headphone needs a FR that still leaves mono sound in front of you instead of up or below. and last but not least, head tracking would really help convince the brain that an instrument is at a distance and a steady position in space. and to push one step further, it would work better if the head tracking worked based on your HRTF for at least a few angles. else, depending on where the music is panned, you may get more or less consistent distance or altitude(we rarely care because we don't know what the original placement was, but as far as fidelity is concerned, it could be relevant. at least more relevant than having 24bit and extra ultrasounds, as this is a very noticeable change when you perceive a different position.
> so I'm going to take a lucky shot and guess that no, your image isn't fine. you may like it, and that is great news for you. you might even prefer that experience to the proper original intent(we never know). but it's not what was intended when the mastering was done. there is little doubt about this as the vast majority of records were done on speakers.
> 
> the alternative, being indeed a pair of speakers, with its fair share of issues TBH. we're not in audio heaven just yet. but at the very least, as the sound source is at a distance and acting on your body/head like any real sound source, the chance for you to get an impression of real placement at a distance is wayyyyy higher than with headphones.



I do sometimes switch between speakers and headphones.  Sometimes I like the headphone sound better, sometimes the speakers.  Depends on the track, mood, need for a change, etc.  I agree that headphones can't get as close to the intended sound as speakers in terms of image, but I don't worry about intent too much, just want what I hear to sound good to me.  And getting back to the psychology aspect, my experience has been after listening to particular headphones a lot, my brain seems to learn to 'decode' what I'm hearing and 'fix' the sound so that tonality, image, etc. sound better and more correct than they initially did.  'Image' is both in the gear and in the head.



Joe Bloggs said:


> That is indeed... bizarre.
> 
> So bizarre that I must simply admit complete defeat.



Why is it bizarre?  How do the sound science discussions help on the practical side?  The view of many is that it hardly matters which source, DAC, and amp you use, and people around here seem to have little interest in discussing headphones.  So what practical stuff is left to discuss?  I'm not interested in home theater, etc., not why I come to *head*-fi.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

I've learned a lot about equalization from Sound Science. I've also learned the basis that underlies digital recording technology. I use that all the time with my system. I've learned how to read specs and how they relate to audibility. I've learned how to conduct effective listening tests. I've learned about how lossy codecs work and their strengths and weaknesses. I've learned about room acoustics, and how that applies to multichannel speaker setups. I've learned about the future of home audio technology, and Gregorio has taught me a lot about studio engineering. I've been here for 14 years and I've interacted in this group nearly 20,000 times. I've learned an awful lot here. I owe a lot of the quality of my system to this particular internet forum and the people who post here. (Well many of them if not all, but that's to be expected.)

I have a great deal of interest in home audio. In my listening room I have state of the art sound reproduction devices dating back 100 years. And I have a pretty sweet listening/screening room with HD projection on a ten foot screen and 5.1 sound. All of that has taken a lot of research and work to accomplish. Internet forums like this one are a fabulous resource for me.

The only thing about internet forums that I get impatient with are when people come into a group with a chip on their shoulder and only a peripheral interest in the topic of the group. They'll park themselves in the middle and try to steer the conversation to subjects that only interest them. They use forums to be "bigshots" (without any irony!) and they proceed to spit out paragraph after paragraph of unsupported misinformation with a double dose of hubris and a smug air of superiority. No one wants to be like that. Maybe they don't even know they're being like that. I don't know.

I like it better when a forum is just a bunch of people with common interests hanging out and chatting and sharing information. That's what I'd like this forum to be more like.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> But, then, the HDTRacks 24/192k re-master of the Grateful Dead studio albums sounded quite spectacular..... and quite different than all the previous versions I've heard.
> (Of course, it was completely remastered, as well as being issued at 24/192k.)



"_Of course, it was completely remastered, 
as well as being issued at 24/192k.)_"

And ^THIS^ is what I refer to as the 'great deception', or, why ordinary listeners and many audiophiles think High-Res(24/192) sounds 'better'!  

I'll take a flat transfer of the original master tapes to 24bit 192kHz over something that's been compressed or peak limited and boosted up in gain before being transferred to that high res any day!


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 9, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I do sometimes switch between speakers and headphones.  Sometimes I like the headphone sound better, sometimes the speakers.  Depends on the track, mood, need for a change, etc.  I agree that headphones can't get as close to the intended sound as speakers in terms of image, but I don't worry about intent too much, just want what I hear to sound good to me.  And getting back to the psychology aspect, my experience has been after listening to particular headphones a lot, my brain seems to learn to 'decode' what I'm hearing and 'fix' the sound so that tonality, image, etc. sound better and more correct than they initially did.  'Image' is both in the gear and in the head.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it bizarre?  How do the sound science discussions help on the practical side?  The view of many is that it hardly matters which source, DAC, and amp you use, and people around here seem to have little interest in discussing headphones.  So what practical stuff is left to discuss?  I'm not interested in home theater, etc., not why I come to *head*-fi.



I'm with you generally on this. I have speakers and headphones right in front of me right now, and I switch depending on various factors. Not my best stuff, but very good stuff. Right now I am listening to my new $30 pair of headphones because how good they sound amuses and fascinates the hell out of me. Superlux HD-681s if you're wondering. Speakers are way more realistic. A good receiver, two really good speakers and a nice subwoofer can run you under $1k total, in my experience, and will kick the snot out of any headphone. You are getting close that way, close to the intent of the musicians and recording engineers. You can keep getting marginally closer with technology and elbow-grease and book learning. I find that intensely satisfying, as I do headphones. I love learning too, for its own sake, so my mind will take me here and there just because damn, now that's interesting or funny or amusing or fascinating. Oh well, enough Steve 101. I drift away from intent of the content creators on purpose sometimes, and sometimes I'm just thrilled and fascinated to be sort of close to being there, close to the intent of the content creators. I think in general recordings are meant to sound better than live performances--not an original concept on my part--they're often an idealized soundscape based on the efforts of a lot of very artistic and technical people.

I also agree that your ears adapt to sound--they "burn in" to develop tolerances for shortcomings in the audio gear, particularly and almost solely headphones and speakers. The brain is very accommodating that way, to a point. And there's nothing wrong with being satisfied with getting 70 percent of the way there instead of 95 percent. I'm probably happy enough at 70 percent, but curiosity gets the best of me and I try to do a little better over time. This sub-forum has given me so much insight into the intent of the content creators and how they go about it and the technology behind it, I'm very grateful for that.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> What plugin or software _DO_ you use that can, reliably and with 100% accuracy, determine the difference between a record tick and a similar sound made by one of the musicians dropping a coin - starting with a 44k file that contains no ultrasonic information. ... As far as I know, so far nobody has claimed to have a system that can make that distinction with 100% accuracy, at any price _- without_ using the ultrasonic spectral differences between recorded ticks and ticks caused by surface damage. There are some that are at least pretty good... but none that are "as good or better" when those that utilize that extra ultrasonic information.



Thanks for proving my point! In the specific case of a record, where there's little/nothing above 20kHz of any relevance, a record tick does have significant content throughout the spectrum (inc. above 20kHz) and is not wanted, then using ultrasonic spectral differences for detection would seem to be the logical and most reliable way of removing those ticks. HOWEVER (!), you extrapolated this fact to apply to everything, which resulted in a FALSE assertion/conclusion because without ALL the conditions just mentioned, then detection by ultrasonic spectral differences will be EVEN LESS reliable than the only partially reliable other methods of detection! For example, many ticks/clicks don't have much high freq content, let alone ultrasonic content, these would obviously be missed. Then, there are various other sounds (recorded digitally) which contain ultrasonic freqs, the transient of a closely mic'ed plucked string for example, but which we do not want detected as a click and removing. Therefore, using the detection and removal of clicks when reproducing a vinyl record as an analogy was ENTIRELY inappropriate and fallacious!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] You clearly don't recognize the distinction between information and sound in this context.
> For example, we humans recognize sound stage location mostly by timing.
> [1a] If I'm listening to two people, sitting next to each other, twenty feet in front of me, I can tell which one is sitting on the right and which on the left.
> [1b] My brain determines this using a variety of cues.
> ...



1. And you CLEARLY are trying to obfuscate the distinction between misleading marketing and the science/facts!! Because:

1a. How often have you recorded two people sitting next to each other 20' in front of you and actually looked at the spectrum produced? You can (or should) be able to tell which of them it to the left and which to the right but NOT from the ultrasonic content BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ANY!!!
1b. Yes it does but ultrasonic information is not one of those "variety of cues" because: A. Ultrasonic cues are inaudible and B. In this case there wouldn't even be any ultrasonic information in the first place!!
1c. Unless those walls are made of something incredibly dense and reflective, like solid sheets of diamond for example, then they're going to absorb ultrasonic sound but even diamond covered walls wouldn't help in this case because there wouldn't be any ultrasonic content to reflect!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] HOWEVER, an analysis system, which mathematically analyzes those signals, may well have use for differences that can only be resolved with data that far exceeds 20 kHz.
> The Plangent process adjusts for and corrects flaws in master tapes - by using recovered record bias signals at up tom 90 kHz. There "shouldn't be useful information on analog master tapes at 89 kHz"... however, as it turns out, that information is there, and has proven to be VERY useful. I guess all the folks who were sure that "there's nothing useful there above 20 kHz" were wrong.



1. Instead of just making up theories and assertions, why don't you show us some data which at least demonstrates there's some acoustic information "that far exceeds 20kHz" to start with. That would be the first required step, because if there isn't, what "mathematical analysis" technique can analyse a signal that doesn't exist? But no, you skip this first step (and all the other required steps) and magically arrive right at the final conclusion of this fantasy myth without any steps at all, why is that?

2. What folks were sure that "there's nothing useful there above 20kHz"? Why would we bother putting a signal on a tape at 90kHz (or any other freq) if it wasn't useful? It's very useful for biasing the magnetic particles on the tape and I personally know of no one who thinks otherwise. In the case of the Plangent process it's useful because it's a constant frequency, variations in that freq are caused by tape wow and flutter, so by measuring that freq we can see when and how much wow and flutter is present and correct for it. To suggest the bias signal contains any useful acoustic information is not just nonsense but the exact opposite of the facts, the bias signal is specifically designed not to be reproduced, let alone audible! You're perfectly free to believe that 89kHz bias signal is being reproduced, does carry useful acoustic information and that you can hear it but this is the sound science forum. But, do you really believe that? Or is this just another misrepresentation/obfuscation to serve your agenda? If so, then the answer is the same; this is the sound science forum (not the marketing forum)!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] And, yes, $189M is substantially more than "a few million". But, if I was in his position, and had his budget, I would certainly have done the same.
> [1a] (And, apparently, "spending more, on a better setup, than most people thought he needed" has turned out to be a good investment, and I'm sure he enjoyed using it as well.)
> [2] In most cases, having a master tape, and a playback system, with a frequency response that extends to above 20 kHz, may indeed qualify as "optimal" or "optimal enough". Unless you wish to restore that master tape using the Plangent system.



1. You're just making stuff up again! I realise you clearly don't know much about film sound, few consumers do and so imagination and guessing is generally the only option but then why would you argue on that basis with someone who actually works in that field and has done for 20 years? That's a typical audiophile approach and one of the main reasons why audiophile myths/nonsense persist! To answer your assertion, there are (and have been) a significant number of film makers "in his position" and yet almost none of them "have done the same". The only other film maker to have done the same, as far as I'm aware, is Peter Jackson.
1a. You're applying audiophile metrics and goals to a totally inappropriate situation. I'm fairly sure for example that George Lucas probably didn't even know how to turn the systems on, let alone use them! Skywalker Sound isn't a billionaire's audiophile toy, it's a successful commercial business, which is why Disney bought it!

2. That's a quick jump to the utterly ludicrous, we're just going backwards! What "most cases"? How many cases are there of consumers having the 2" master tapes and a system that can play them back? The simple fact you're trying so often to misrepresent and obfuscate is there are various situations when creating audio that require super high bit depths and sample rates. We don't use 64bit and/or 192kHz because it's audibly "better", we use it because it's audibly better under very specific circumstances, circumstances which NEVER apply to consumer playback. When consumers start running 1,000 channels of audio, with 500 plugin instances and pitch-shifting their audio down 2 or 3 octaves, then and only then will I advocate that consumers should have 64bit/192kHz distribution copies!



KeithEmo said:


> The way it works is that you pick out some single particular sound... then analyze the exact time it arrives as several known points.
> That gives you an idea of where that noise originated. Then, by analyzing the spectral content of each sample, you can figure out a lot about what materials it's bounced off of, and in what order.
> So, for example, you pick out one particularly loud sharp drumbeat, and calculate its first arrival times. That gives you its location.



And what can you "figure out about what materials it's bounced off of" with ultrasonic content, that it's NOT a solid sheet of diamond? Why do you need to figure that out, I can tell you now that it won't be a solid sheet of diamond! It's not going to tell you anything much else though because there's not going to be much ultrasonic content to start with and all or virtually all of any ultrasonic content that is there, is going to be absorbed! As I stated before, if you want to try and analyse reflections (which isn't currently possible to any useful extent anyway!), then the place where you'll find useful info is below 12kHz!

I could refute your other assertions in these quoted sentences and the rest of your post but this response is already long enough and it's all basically the same anyway. It's either real facts fallaciously correlated, missing facts that render your assertions false or simply made-up false "facts" to start with. Clearly you don't know how audio recordings have to be made, or if you do, you're deliberately misrepresenting it all. If it really is the former, then why don't you ask instead of just guessing, jumping to incorrect conclusions and then making false assertions???

G


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> I'll take a flat transfer of the original master tapes to 24bit 192kHz over something that's been compressed or peak limited and boosted up in gain before being transferred to that high res any day!



Ignoring your mis-characterisation for the time being, what you're after is a "Remaster" which hasn't been re-mastered. In other words, a "Re-issue". Why don't you stop bleating about remasters and ask the label for a re-issue then? If there's enough of a demand to make it financially viable, why would anyone ignore it?

G


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 10, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> I'm with you generally on this. I have speakers and headphones right in front of me right now, and I switch depending on various factors. Not my best stuff, but very good stuff. Right now I am listening to my new $30 pair of headphones because how good they sound amuses and fascinates the hell out of me. Superlux HD-681s if you're wondering. Speakers are way more realistic. A good receiver, two really good speakers and a nice subwoofer can run you under $1k total, in my experience, and will kick the snot out of any headphone. You are getting close that way, close to the intent of the musicians and recording engineers. You can keep getting marginally closer with technology and elbow-grease and book learning. I find that intensely satisfying, as I do headphones. I love learning too, for its own sake, so my mind will take me here and there just because damn, now that's interesting or funny or amusing or fascinating. Oh well, enough Steve 101. I drift away from intent of the content creators on purpose sometimes, and sometimes I'm just thrilled and fascinated to be sort of close to being there, close to the intent of the content creators. I think in general recordings are meant to sound better than live performances--not an original concept on my part--they're often an idealized soundscape based on the efforts of a lot of very artistic and technical people.
> 
> I also agree that your ears adapt to sound--they "burn in" to develop tolerances for shortcomings in the audio gear, particularly and almost solely headphones and speakers. The brain is very accommodating that way, to a point. And there's nothing wrong with being satisfied with getting 70 percent of the way there instead of 95 percent. I'm probably happy enough at 70 percent, but curiosity gets the best of me and I try to do a little better over time. This sub-forum has given me so much insight into the intent of the content creators and how they go about it and the technology behind it, I'm very grateful for that.



I think you've described well why this can be a fun hobby.  If we're not tied to "fidelity" in the sense of trying to replicate sitting in the audience at live performances, we're liberated to just pursue musical experiences we subjectively enjoy.  They can indeed sometimes surpass live experiences in some ways, or even overall.  Trying to match what the content creators heard in the studio can be a goal, though we can never be sure how close to the target we are, and of course some recordings aren't engineered so well.  We can also deviate from that creator's intent to create somewhat different musical experiences to our liking. 

With head-fi, that gives options to try to various headphones and see how they interact with various tracks and our changing perceptual dispositions, hence my having multiple headphones rather than trying to pick one "best" headphone.  With speakers, of course you get an explosion of possibilities in terms of channels, rooms, etc., stuff I've enjoyed playing with in the past, but lately I'm mainly into head-fi because of the ability to listen to what I want, when I want, and where I want, without having to worry about disturbing others.  Yesterday, after everyone left for the day, I was wandering around my office listening to jazz on the i4 while doing some other stuff, and it was such an interesting experience to have the music follow me wherever I went with no change in the sound.

I'll post some further thoughts on the perception stuff in the new perception thread.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Nov 10, 2018)

gregorio said:


> Ignoring your mis-characterisation for the time being, what you're after is a "Remaster" which hasn't been re-mastered. In other words, a "Re-issue". Why don't you stop bleating about remasters and ask the label for a re-issue then? If there's enough of a demand to make it financially viable, why would anyone ignore it?
> 
> G



"Mischaracterization" of what - remasters?

Well unfortunately, with regards to legacy material in the popular genres(rock, top forty, rap, country..), my avatar represents what largely is being done, and hawked to an unsuspecting or unknowledgeable public, as 'remasters. I have plenty of DAW screenshots as evidence if you don't believe me. That is the reality of it.  

Of course, I'm saying this to someone who has to promote the remaster as better than the original because of the business they're in. smh!


----------



## castleofargh

TheSonicTruth said:


> "Mischaracterization" of what - remasters?
> 
> Well unfortunately, with regards to legacy material in the popular genres(rock, top forty, rap, country..), my avatar represents what largely is being done, and hawked to an unsuspecting or unknowledgeable public, as 'remasters. I have plenty of DAW screenshots as evidence if you don't believe me. That is the reality of it.
> 
> Of course, I'm saying this to someone who has to promote the remaster as better than the original because of the business they're in. smh!


how his post motivates your answer is a mystery to me. doesn't his suggestion of re-issue align exactly with what you want?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

castleofargh said:


> how his post motivates your answer is a mystery to me. doesn't his suggestion of re-issue align exactly with what you want?



Re-issue? Fine.  

And just so you, Gregorio, and bigshot realize:  I DO know the difference between a reissue and a remaster. Although, lots of reissues have been loudifie-AHEM - 'remastered'.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> ... [1] and hawked to an unsuspecting or unknowledgeable public, as 'remasters.
> [2] Of course, I'm saying this to someone who has to promote the remaster as better than the original because of the business they're in. smh!



1. That doesn't make any sense! If the public suspected there was no difference between the original and a remaster, why would they buy exactly the same thing twice? Surely the public buy a remaster because they expect/suspect it will be different?
2. The only "of course" here is: Of course you're just lying to defend your agenda! I'm not in the business of either making, distributing or marketing remasters, so I have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to promote them.



TheSonicTruth said:


> I DO know the difference between a reissue and a remaster. Although, lots of reissues have been loudifie-AHEM - 'remastered'.



That makes no sense either! If it's been remastered then it's a remaster and not a re-issue, so you're directly contradicting your first sentence?! 

G


----------



## bigshot (Nov 10, 2018)

gregorio said:


> Ignoring your mis-characterisation for the time being, what you're after is a "Remaster" which hasn't been re-mastered. In other words, a "Re-issue". Why don't you stop bleating about remasters and ask the label for a re-issue then?



I don't think he wants reissued old mastering. He wants no mastering at all. I think he would prefer just raw mixes and doesn't care if the volume levels jump all over the place and songs don't transition from one to another at all. He just wants the sessions tapes flat. I don't think it would sound the way he wants it to sound though.

In any case, I have little to add to this discussion aside to what I've said before... Mastering is just a tool to make music more listenable in specific situations. It isn't the great Satan. You just have to talk to collectors and find out which releases have the kind of mastering you want. There's no way to look at the date of issue, format or cover and know what you are getting. There are great remasters and there are lousy ones. You just have to ask around and figure out what the best release for you is. I talk about stuff like this with my collector friends all the time. It's a big part of the hobby.

I just got the new "super deluxe" version of Hendrix's Electric Ladyland. I'm interested in hearing it because Hendrix studio albums tend to sound to me like a lot of stuff going on at the same time... kind of chaotic. I'm interested to hear if a new mix, particularly a multichannel one, can sort it out better than the original mix. I felt the same way about Miles Davis's Bit ches Brew, and the new multichannel mix is a revelation. It turns chaos to clarity. Of course there are bad remixes too... I don't care for Let It Be (Naked) very much. You can't generalize about stuff like this. Mastering and mixing are important, but like anything else quality varies from fantastic to awful.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> 1. That doesn't make any sense! If the public suspected there was no difference between the original and a remaster, why would they buy exactly the same thing twice? Surely the public buy a remaster because they expect/suspect it will be different?
> 2. The only "of course" here is: Of course you're just lying to defend your agenda! I'm not in the business of either making, distributing or marketing remasters, so I have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to promote them.
> 
> 
> ...



Working for Fox News again are we?  Stop twisting my words around!

Any time(after it's initial release date) an album is re-released it's a reissue.  Ergo, if a reissue has had its sound f*cked with(IE 'remastered'), it is also a remaster.   If it is re-released as a flat transfer of the same stereo master used IE 20 years ago for initial release, it's just a reissue.


----------



## bigshot

TheSonicTruth said:


> I'll take a flat transfer of the original master tapes to 24bit 192kHz



The original master tapes are the songs recorded with no sequencing or mastering as an album. In order to be released as an album, the songs are copied into order and sweetened and mastered for release on a particular medium of for a particular market. The songs are adjusted to flow from one to another well. That involves equalization, compression, adjusting fade ins and outs... a whole bunch of things. It is its own branch of engineering, separate from recording engineers or mixers. That formatted submaster is what gets released, not the original master tapes.

I'm honestly not trying to piss you off. In truth, I try to avoid you because there isn't much "there" there. If you listened a little more, and thought a little bit about what is being discussed, rather than just reacting with out of context knee jerk responses, we might understand and appreciate what you're trying to say better. Try to venture out into other subjects. This one seems to have been played out. Being rigid isn't helping.


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> But, then, the HDTRacks 24/192k re-master of the Grateful Dead studio albums sounded quite spectacular..... and quite different than all the previous versions I've heard.
> (Of course, it was completely remastered, as well as being issued at 24/192k.)


I can say the same thing with regards to the streaming mp3 versions available through Google Music service.  They sound great, and generally offer an improvement over the original studio recordings in my opinion.  It is not the format making it sound better.


----------



## bigshot

They will probably release restored and remastered versions of the albums to physical media later. Sometimes streaming gets things before physical media nowadays, since physical media is in such a slump.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> They will probably release restored and remastered versions of the albums to physical media later. Sometimes streaming gets things before physical media nowadays, since physical media is in such a slump.




They can keep 'em!

My original CDs and vinyl of those legacies are just fine.

-Politcally liberal, but technologically a staunch CONSERVATIVE!


----------



## bigshot

Do you have any idea what we're talking about?


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Do you have any idea what we're talking about?


I think he does....but is unable to agree/get along....he likes problems....if he doesn't have one,he will create one.


----------



## old tech (Nov 10, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> They can keep 'em!
> 
> My original CDs and vinyl of those legacies are just fine.
> 
> -Politcally liberal, but technologically a staunch CONSERVATIVE!


Sonic, it pays to keep an open mind.  While I generally agree with what you say about many remasters, there are also many that are an improvement over earlier issues.

For example, I was listening to a 2010 remaster of 10cc which has a DR of 8, compared to the earlier release which had a DR of 12.  The remaster is louder but also much clearer, more detailed and with greater presence.  It is certainly a significant improvement.

Another example is the Rhino 2009 CD remasters of Procol Harum.  Again, these are a bit louder than the original issues but streets ahead in sound quality. In particular, the live at edmonton is a revelation, easily beating the MFSL CD version.  You see, apart from the remaster, the production team went back to the original tapes (which were in a poor condition) and got the best out of them using modern technology.  If you were stuck in the mud, insisting on the original CDs you would be missing out some great sound.

As always, it is a case by case comparison.  There are many later remasters which sound better than the original issue because the production team genuinely wanted to improve on the sound, rather than merely "modernising" the sound.

On the other point you make around only wanting a copy of the original masters, well be careful what you wish for.

I don't know if you have heard any masters.  I have been fortunate to hear many back in the 1990s at a reputable studio.  What struck me is how much they varied in sound quality.  Some were superb but others were plainly awful.  After hearing a few of them you can really appreciate the job of the mastering engineer to turn these into something that sounds good for consumers.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Nov 11, 2018)

old tech said:


> Sonic, it pays to keep an open mind.  While I generally agree with what you say about many remasters, there are also many that are an improvement over earlier issues.
> 
> For example, I was listening to a 2010 remaster of 10cc which has a DR of 8, compared to the earlier release which had a DR of 12.  The remaster is louder but also much clearer, more detailed and with greater presence.  It is certainly a significant improvement.
> 
> ...



"_For example, I was listening to a 2010 remaster 
of 10cc which has a DR of 8, compared to the earlier 
release which had a DR of 12. The remaster is louder 
but also much clearer, more detailed and with greater 
presence. It is certainly a significant improvement.

Another example is the Rhino 2009 CD remasters 
of Procol Harum. Again, these are a bit louder than 
the original issues but streets ahead in sound quality. 
In particular, the live at edmonton is a revelation, easily 
beating the MFSL CD version. You see, apart from the 
remaster, the production team went back to the original 
tapes (which were in a poor condition) and got the best 
out of them using modern technology. If you were stuck 
in the mud, insisting on the original CDs you would be 
missing out some great sound._"

Thank you for so expertly pointing most of the very reasons I REJECT so-called 'remasters'!

1. The trading of dynamic range for sheer loudness.  Of course louder sounds better!  Just turn up the volume in the right place - when playing that original 10cc over an actual sound system.  NOT by compressing it or clipping off 6dB of the peaks and cranking up what's left, in mastering.

2. The very fact that the 'remaster' does NOT sound like the original.

"stuck in the mud"?

"insisting on the original CDs"?

Sounds like paradise to me!


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 11, 2018)

TheSonicTruth said:


> "_For example, I was listening to a 2010 remaster
> of 10cc which has a DR of 8, compared to the earlier
> release which had a DR of 12. The remaster is louder
> but also much clearer, more detailed and with greater
> ...



The whole point of the post you quoted was that there are a thousand ways a remaster can sound different / better than the First Master (there's no such thing as "the original") other than the volume.

On the other hand...



> 2. The very fact that the 'remaster' does NOT sound like the original.
> 
> "stuck in the mud"?
> 
> ...



If all you're after is a memory, of course nothing other than the first thing you listened to would satisfy, be it on CDs vinyls or wax cylinders.


----------



## castleofargh

@TheSonicTruth is locked out of this topic too. that's the full extent of what I can do on my own while waiting for admins to decide for themselves. 
obviously repeated insults and political amalgams aren't tolerated on this forum.


----------



## Steve999

castleofargh said:


> no you can't bring back dinosaurs with lossy DSP.
> release the philosoraptor!



Done!


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm not quite clear on where you see that "great deception".
(Particularly with the Grateful Dead remasters.)

As I recall, when HDTRacks first offered that set of re-masters for sale, they included a very detailed description of all the work that had been done on the re-master.
It included detailed descriptions about what steps were taken to improve or repair each individual album in the set, including which ones were subject to the Plangent process.
In fact, it was one of the most detailed explanations I've ever seen offered about what was done when an album, or a set of albums, was re-mastered.
They made a major point of the fact that the re-master had been significantly altered from the original verison.

Apparently some people simply like to make bad assumptions, but can't manage to take the time to read the descriptions about what they're buying...
(Although, yes, in many cases, no details are given, and it is left to the purchaser to ASSUME that the high-resolution version is somehow better.)



TheSonicTruth said:


> "_Of course, it was completely remastered,
> as well as being issued at 24/192k.)_"
> 
> And ^THIS^ is what I refer to as the 'great deception', or, why ordinary listeners and many audiophiles think High-Res(24/192) sounds 'better'!
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

And you are proving my point by cherry picking the facts.

If you were to make a digital acrhive copy of an album, and limit it to 20 kHz, that click and pop remover would fail when applied to that copy.
However, if you've included the clearly inaudible frequencies up to 50 kHz, it would work as intended.
Therefore, in that case, _THE ARCHIVE COPY THAT WAS LIMITED TO 20 KHZ WOULD BE INFERIOR_.

Likewise, if you tried to apply the Plangent process to a digital archive copy limited to 20 kHz, it would also fail.
However, _IF YOU HAVE AN ARCHIVE COPY THAT WAS RECORDED AT THE QUALITY REQUIRED BY THE PLANGENT PROCESS_, it would work fine.
As it turns out, none of our current archival equipment provides that level of quality, so the point may be somewhat moot.
However, if someone proposes tomorrow that we should use Plangent's equipment to produce all digital archives of tapes, they will have an excellent argument in favor of doing so.

Although that is a more obscure example, the point remains.... it always makes sense to retain _AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE_ whenever practical.
There are always going to be economic practicalities involved... but it _NEVER_ makes sense to discard information you already have "because you're sure you'll never need it".

There are plenty of more examples.... but they are unnecessary to make the point...

You also missed my entire point (surprise)... or the point of the original question... which was about possible future surround sound synthesizers.
First off, some recent tests seem to suggest that "ultrasonic" differences in arrival time may produce audible results in terms of sound stage location after all.
However, that wasn't my point.
The point was that, whether a human can use those cues or not, _SOME CURRENT OR FUTURE SURROUND SOUND PROCESSING SYSTEM_ may be able to use them.
Specifically, virtually all systems that synthesize surround channels, as well as many room correction systems, use information retrieved by analysis, to do their job.
It doesn't matter if that information is audible to humans or not as long as it is there to be measured and analyzed.
Therefore, it's not at all unlikely that one of them may use information about room dimensions, recovered from those ultrasonic cues, to do a better job of recreating the original room.
Since that technology changes quite rapidly... it is simply irrational to claim to "know" that the information you discard "can't possibly ever be useful".
(I'm not even totally certain that no systems already in existence don't use it... since I don't know how every current system works in detail.)

And, yes, we're talking about a surround sound symthesizer that I might buy tomorrow, and apply to one of the stereo recordings I own today.
Will next year's "surround sound synthesis mode" do a better job if the recording you feed it has a 45 kHz bandwidth instead of a 22 kHz bandwidth?
I don't know... but neither do you.



gregorio said:


> Thanks for proving my point! In the specific case of a record, where there's little/nothing above 20kHz of any relevance, a record tick does have significant content throughout the spectrum (inc. above 20kHz) and is not wanted, then using ultrasonic spectral differences for detection would seem to be the logical and most reliable way of removing those ticks. HOWEVER (!), you extrapolated this fact to apply to everything, which resulted in a FALSE assertion/conclusion because without ALL the conditions just mentioned, then detection by ultrasonic spectral differences will be EVEN LESS reliable than the only partially reliable other methods of detection! For example, many ticks/clicks don't have much high freq content, let alone ultrasonic content, these would obviously be missed. Then, there are various other sounds (recorded digitally) which contain ultrasonic freqs, the transient of a closely mic'ed plucked string for example, but which we do not want detected as a click and removing. Therefore, using the detection and removal of clicks when reproducing a vinyl record as an analogy was ENTIRELY inappropriate and fallacious!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

From my experience.... many people agree that the remasters of many popular alums are clearly _INFERIOR_ to the original release.

Therefore, clearly, they are very different - and "better" is just a matter of personal preference.



TheSonicTruth said:


> "Mischaracterization" of what - remasters?
> 
> Well unfortunately, with regards to legacy material in the popular genres(rock, top forty, rap, country..), my avatar represents what largely is being done, and hawked to an unsuspecting or unknowledgeable public, as 'remasters. I have plenty of DAW screenshots as evidence if you don't believe me. That is the reality of it.
> 
> Of course, I'm saying this to someone who has to promote the remaster as better than the original because of the business they're in. smh!


----------



## KeithEmo

That's certainly true in some cases... although the "sinister intent" is probably often lacking.

Virtually every dish detergent, cleaning rag, and flavor of soda, is touted as "new and improved".
In many cases, they're not trying to get you to buy a duplicate, but simply and less specifically "trying to make it sound like it's a better product".

It's distinctly possible that many people who buy re-masters don't actually already own a copy...
They're simply deciding whether to buy "the original" or "the latest version" and the manufacturer is positioning their latest version vaguely as "better".

And, to be honest, you must assume that most audiophiles are quite stupid... 
To keep buying those high-res remasters after buying one and finding absolutely no difference...



TheSonicTruth said:


> "Mischaracterization" of what - remasters?
> 
> Well unfortunately, with regards to legacy material in the popular genres(rock, top forty, rap, country..), my avatar represents what largely is being done, and hawked to an unsuspecting or unknowledgeable public, as 'remasters. I have plenty of DAW screenshots as evidence if you don't believe me. That is the reality of it.
> 
> Of course, I'm saying this to someone who has to promote the remaster as better than the original because of the business they're in. smh!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 11, 2018)

I just got three remasters/remixings of classic albums in the mail from Amazon... The complete George Szell on Columbia, The Beatles White Album and Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland. I haven't listened to Hendrix or all of the Szell yet (obviously! It's 106 CDs) but from what I've heard, it's a clear improvement.

With the White Album, they went back to the original sessions tapes and reconstructed the mixes using state of the art modern technology. At the time the album was recorded, Abby Road had just gotten an 8 track machine, so overdubs of complex tracks would sometimes have to be mix downs, causing generation loss. They also were able to roll back the compression that was necessary for an LP release. In addition to the stereo version, they created a 5.1 mix that opens up and clarifies the mix further. The set includes 6 CDs full of unreleased tracks, mix elements and demos. This is the ultimate version of The White Album. I have one of the much lauded white vinyl pressings and the original CD releases. This trumps them all.

With the Szell box, the improvement is even more dramatic. Szell is one of my favorite conductors. He was precise without being stiff. But like Bernstein and Stravinsky, he was recorded by Columbia, which had merged with CBS when I was buying their LPs I believe. The pressings were atrocious. Opaque, dull sounding, noisy... not good at all. I have heard of "six eye" pressings that were good, but the only ones I picked up used were well played on early hi-fis and had inner groove distortion and surface noise. The CBS CD reissues weren't much better- flat sounding and without a lot of dynamic punch or frequency extension. It was like the submasters used to make the bad LPs had been used to make the CDs. The only improvement was the lack of surface noise. This new box is something entirely new. Everything here has been remastered and it's like listening to these recordings for the first time. When Sony took over the Columbia library, they started remastering back catalog a bit at a time. I picked up a few of these and they were great. Now they appear to have completed the remastering project and they are putting out big box sets with complete runs in great sound. I'm a pig in mud here.

I'm looking forward to hearing the remix/remaster of the Hendrix album. I have early pressings on LP and they sound pretty good, but I've always found the Hendrix studio albums to have a very cluttered and busy sound. There are overdubs and fills piled up that all blend together into cacophony. I like it, but I can't listen to it for long. I felt the exact same way about Miles Davis's Bit ches Brew until I got the new Japanese remix in 5.1. The extra channels sort out the complex mix and assign things to different channels. That separation makes it much easier to sort out the different performers and solos. Again, that SACD is the ultimate version of that album. I don't need my vinyl or CD copies any more. I'm hoping this Hendrix is the same, and I hope if it is good that they can continue through the rest of the Hendrix catalog remixing like this.

I don't listen to much mainstream 70s-80s AOR. I've never cared much for  Foghat or Styx or Kansas or the Eagles. At that time I was listening to Talking Heads and XTC and new wave. (I really should have been listening to punk and soul music in retrospect.) I understand that there is a problem with hot mastering on CD designed for people who play everything on shuffle with earbuds. But there are plenty of good remasters of all this stuff too. You just can't buy the "Nice Price" six dollar bargain CDs to get it. For instance many of the albums by Rush have been remixed and remastered, just about all of the Jethro Tull albums too. Talking Heads released every one of their albums in 5.1. Most of the XTC albums are out in surround as well. Yes, Genesis, Eagles, Supertramp, Pink Floyd, Beatles, Springsteen, Fleetwood Mac, The Rolling Stones, Elton John, Alan Parsons, Eric Clapton, Steely Dan, ELP, Bob Dylan, Gentle Giant... I could list dozens and dozens of artists with a lot of great CD/SACD/BD reissues that blow the original vinyl or old CD releases out of the water.

Anyone who says that all remastering is bad just doesn't know what they're talking about. Or perhaps they just don't listen to music as much as the sound of their own voice. I love great music and I love great sounding music. I actively seek it out. I don't point at waveforms and make blanket statements. I recommend great sounding albums to my friends and correspondents. Sometimes I wonder if people in audiophile forums spend as much time thinking about music as they do cables, and equipment and obscure scientific theories like jitter or ultrasonics. I find that the ones who appear to actually listen to music with their brain turned on are the ones who are the best grounded and the least apt to fly off into contextless rants about stuff that just doesn't matter. The ones who are dogmatic and fetishistic are the ones who latch onto some particular idee fixee, like the superiority of vinyl or the evils of remastering or super audible frequencies. I think they are so busy focused on stuff other than music, they have no clue what actually makes music sound good any more. To understand that, you have to listen to music.

It's clear who these people are because you read their mile long posts or their multi-posted marathons of responses and the whole time they talk about things OTHER than music and they focus on INAUDIBLE sound. They think about PHILOSOPHY and try to twist PSYCHOLOGY into validating their preconceived ideas. Most of all- and this is the prime number 1 trait- they refuse to separate their aesthetic feelings from objective reality. They are taking the key aspect of music- aesthetic beauty- and transplanting it onto wires and black boxes, and file formats and discs made of plastic. My own psychological evaluation of all this is that inside they KNOW that music is supposed to be an emotional experience, but they've never taken the time to really explore that. The music was shoved in the background behind the equipment. And now they try to transplant the emotional communication of music to a bunch of electronic devices. They attribute feelings to wires and sound waves like it's a religion. I kinda feel sorry for them and I keep throwing out breadcrumbs, but they refuse to follow them. Their loss.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I just got three remasters/remixings of classic albums in the mail from Amazon... The complete George Szell on Columbia, The Beatles White Album and Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland. I haven't listened to Hendrix or all of the Szell yet (obviously! It's 106 CDs) but from what I've heard, it's a clear improvement.
> 
> With the White Album, they went back to the original sessions tapes and reconstructed the mixes using state of the art modern technology. At the time the album was recorded, Abby Road had just gotten an 8 track machine, so overdubs of complex tracks would sometimes have to be mix downs, causing generation loss. They also were able to roll back the compression that was necessary for an LP release. In addition to the stereo version, they created a 5.1 mix that opens up and clarifies the mix further. The set includes 6 CDs full of unreleased tracks, mix elements and demos. This is the ultimate version of The White Album. I have one of the much lauded white vinyl pressings and the original CD releases. This trumps them all.
> 
> ...



A rare case  I almost agree with Bigshot. Save for the last paragraph, of course. 

I am most definitely not in the remastering game - since I do not have decent conditions for surround. And no, CD never really happened for me - it is and has remained a downstairs maid - at best. The latest remastered music available on CD - such as Szell - has not been remastered directly to CD - not if Sony had anything to do with it. It is most likely a DSD transfer of original master tape and mastered natively in DSD/DXD - then bounced down to RBCD. Boxes of lots of lots of CDs are perhaps the last bastillon of CDs - but one has to admit they are good value.

All the music mentioned is good - but OLD. And has been remastered to death - and perhaps, at least in some cases, beyond. Sort of Arnhem - repeated ad nauseaum.

What about the new recordings, made in present time - of new music, or, at least, by new musicians ? I do tend to agree that "in the olden days" the music has been better .... - only to be proven totally wrong by a ( rare, but existent ) new performance, composition, musician(s) ...   The new recordings, IF made with care and attention to detail, can benefit from extended frequency range - even if some insist it is inaudible. 

Inaudible - yes; not perceptible - no .


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 11, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> A rare case  I almost agree with Bigshot. Save for the last paragraph, of course.



Ah, so there is a proviso. . . wonder what it is.



> I am most definitely not in the remastering game - since I do not have decent conditions for surround. And no, CD never really happened for me - it is and has remained a downstairs maid - at best. The latest remastered music available on CD - such as Szell - has not been remastered directly to CD - not if Sony had anything to do with it. It is most likely a DSD transfer of original master tape and mastered natively in DSD/DXD - then bounced down to RBCD. Boxes of lots of lots of CDs are perhaps the last bastillon of CDs - but one has to admit they are good value.



A backhanded shot at someone's new Szell collection I would guess.



> All the music mentioned is good - but OLD. And has been remastered to death - and perhaps, at least in some cases, beyond. Sort of Arnhem - repeated ad nauseaum.



Does remastering things wear them out? I don't get it.



> What about the new recordings, made in present time - of new music, or, at least, by new musicians ? I do tend to agree that "in the olden days" the music has been better



*Here is room for a substantive and spirited discussion. Not sure this is the right thread, but I'm game. Examples? Let's discuss! Post some music in the music thread!*



> .... - only to be proven totally wrong by a ( rare, but existent ) new performance, composition, musician(s)



Oh. Never mind.



> ...   The new recordings, IF made with care and attention to detail, can benefit from extended frequency range - even if some insist it is inaudible. Inaudible - yes; not perceptible - no .



Acknowledgements to Joe Bloggs:

Never heard that one before. That is indeed... bizarre. So bizarre that I fear we must simply admit complete defeat.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 11, 2018)

First of all, if you like music, please post in our music thread! I want to see what you've got!

Now for the rest of what I have to say:



KeithEmo said:


> And, to be honest, you must assume that most audiophiles are quite stupid...





You cannot be serious. No, I don't have to assume that most audiophiles are quite stupid. In fact, I assume many of them are quite smart. In fact, I find that offensive. In fact, I assume you are quite smart. If you are really that smart, that is a gift. Maybe you need to learn the difference between a gift and something you've earned. But since you assume that most audiophiles are quite stupid, I guess you know better than I do, so








Now, I think the subject was, testing audiophile claims and myths, not the intelligence of audiophiles. That's called an _ad hominem attack _and I believe it is against the TOS, especially when it's that blatant. Nor is the thread about dish detergents. Or flavors of sodas. Or symthesizers [sic].

But I digress. I go off-topic and I make mistakes too. You could probably write a novella of them. You could even call me quite stupid. But first, be forewarned:



Did I include too much spurious information in this post for you? Sorry about that.


----------



## KeithEmo

Errrrr......

You are convinced that high-res albums don't sound any different.
So, then, why would any intelligent audiophile EVER buy more than one?
(Wouldn't he or she buy one, notice that it sounded exactly the same, and then never buy a second one?)

Since I can't imagine that stores like HDTRacks can survive by selling a single album to each customer they manage to mislead...
I must conclude that either:
1) some of their customers really do hear a difference
2) most of their customers are so stupid they keep paying extra to buy more high-res albums after they DON'T hear a difference

I can't think of anything else that would explain it.

Personally, I do NOT assume that most audiophiles are stupid...
I assume that a lot of them actually do hear a difference...



Steve999 said:


> First of all, if you like music, please post in our music thread! I want to see what you've got!
> 
> Now for the rest of what I have to say:
> 
> ...


----------



## AKGForever (Nov 12, 2018)

Back right before the CD Era, Mobile Fidelity sold records made from the original masters.  That wasn't the only thing that made them exceptional as the platters were cut at half speed and they supposedly used better vinyl.  I always felt the factors that made them so good was the original masters and the fact that they limited the pressings on a platter.  None of this is really a factor anymore except the original master. 

More important than 320 vs CD vs HD is the master generation, as that is more of a factor.  I have numerous 80's compilations, my three largest are Priority's Rock of the 1980s (15 volumes), Rhino's Just Can't Get Enough - New Wave Hits of the 80's (15 volumes) and EMI's Living in Oblivion (5 volumes).  There is a good bit of overlap in songs and the sound quality varies greatly with the EMI version usually being the best, Priority the worst but none really horrible.  I assume the masters were mostly analog.  My guess is EMI had the original or a close master. Rhino got good masters and Priority got what it could get.  This more than HD definition that I can't hear would be a selling point. 

The Capital Collectors Series was digitized from the original recording lacquers.  I have the Nat King Cole and Frank Sinatra versions.  Amazingly clean sounding CDs.  Too bad they decided to be cute and included the engineer/artist conversations at the beginning of some tracks.  Easy enough to remove, I guess.

Supposedly the "Mastered for iTunes" label forbids excessively loud mastering but doesn't speak to the generation.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> But, then, the HDTRacks 24/192k re-master of the Grateful Dead studio albums sounded quite spectacular..... and quite different than all the previous versions I've heard.
> (Of course, it was completely remastered, as well as being issued at 24/192k.)



I believe that is the remaster a friend played for me a few years ago telling my how much better it sounded the the 44k version. It did sound much different, starting with it, didn't takes that was used on the original album.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 12, 2018)

AKGForever said:


> Back right before the CD Era, Mobile Fidelity sold records made from the original masters.



They weren't really straight from the master. That was just the brand name. MFSL did their own mastering. Their mastering engineer was Stan Ricker.

The only reason to buy one release over another is the quality of the mastering (or condition of the masters). It's possible for an LP to be mastered better than a CD, and it's possible for a CD to be mastered better than HD Tracks. You can't judge by format. The formats that digital music is distributed on now are all audibly transparent. No fidelity difference between them. You have to ask collectors for advice on which releases sound best.


----------



## AKGForever (Nov 12, 2018)

bigshot said:


> They weren't really straight from the master. That was just the brand name. MFSL did their own mastering. Their mastering engineer was Stan Ricker.



Looks like Rick is still in the business.

I looked into to it and Mobile Fidelity did claim to be cutting the platter from the first generation master tape.


----------



## Steve999

KeithEmo said:


> Errrrr......
> 
> You are convinced that high-res albums don't sound any different.
> So, then, why would any intelligent audiophile EVER buy more than one?
> ...



I never said any of that. Not word one. See ya.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 12, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> [You win]





Steve999 said:


> [You win]



Lol, someone else pushed to throw in the towel I see.


----------



## bigshot

AKGForever said:


> I looked into to it and Mobile Fidelity did claim to be cutting the platter from the first generation master tape.



I don't know how they would do that. I've never seen the 24 track sessions tapes sequenced in album order, and half speed mastering an LP would have to be done a side at a time with no interruption. But that was a long time ago that I was working on stuff like this. Gregorio might know better.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I don't know how they would do that. I've never seen the 24 track sessions tapes sequenced in album order, and half speed mastering an LP would have to be done a side at a time with no interruption. But that was a long time ago that I was working on stuff like this. Gregorio might know better.


1/2speed Crime of the century(a+m audiophile series) is from 2nd master and is absolutely incredible...tried to replace this with digital for convenience sake....can't be done.I know it's an anomaly....but it's a great example of what can be recorded and reproduced.


----------



## old tech

Glmoneydawg said:


> 1/2speed Crime of the century(a+m audiophile series) is from 2nd master and is absolutely incredible...tried to replace this with digital for convenience sake....can't be done.I know it's an anomaly....but it's a great example of what can be recorded and reproduced.


I have both the MFSL and Speaker's Corner half speed LP productions of this album.  As good as they are, IMO my MFSL CD sounds better, providing it is turned up (it is a very quiet CD).

Having said that, I haven't heard the AM+ release.


----------



## analogsurviver

Glmoneydawg said:


> 1/2speed Crime of the century(a+m audiophile series) is from 2nd master and is absolutely incredible...tried to replace this with digital for convenience sake....can't be done.I know it's an anomaly....but it's a great example of what can be recorded and reproduced.


I have a regular US pressing AM copy from late 70s - and it is definitely a recording most people heve NEVER heard - not REALLY. 

It is a phono cartridge eliminator non plus ultra - and unless using cartridges that operate on amplitude sensing and NOT on velocity sensing principle ( anything magnetic, be it coil, iron or magnet ), one gets only a glimpse of what is actually in the grooves. And even that can not be transferred to digital.

I envy you your half speed mastered version ... - knowing exactly what well done half speed mastering can do, it must sound even better !


----------



## bigshot (Nov 13, 2018)

Man. I have the MFSL LP of that one somewhere and I'd sell it in a heartbeat. That album is like the Eagles Hotel California. I don't think I ever need to hear it again for the rest of my life. I saw them live on that tour. It sounded like they just played the album. The whole concert might have been on tape.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Man. I have the MFSL LP of that one somewhere and I'd sell it in a heartbeat. That album is like the Eagles Hotel California. I don't think I ever need to hear it again for the rest of my life. I saw them live on that tour. It sounded like they just played the album. The whole concert might have been on tape.


i never much liked anything they did after crime,but that album was so different from anything else at that time....very original stuff.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] And you are proving my point by cherry picking the facts.
> [2] If you were to make a digital acrhive copy of an album, and limit it to 20 kHz, that click and pop remover would fail when applied to that copy. However, if you've included the clearly inaudible frequencies up to 50 kHz, it would work as intended.
> [2a] Likewise, if you tried to apply the Plangent process to a digital archive copy limited to 20 kHz, it would also fail.
> [2b] Although that is a more obscure example, the point remains....
> ...



1. But at least I'm cherry picking relevant facts. You are cherry picking irrelevant facts or simply making them up!

2. But you don't have to use a click and pop remover and if you do, you don't need to use that particular one. And, even if that particular tool is currently the best method for vinyl record click removal, once it's been applied, what benefit would there be in a distribution copy at that same high sample rate which has already had that very specifically useful >20kHz content removed?
2a. How many consumers use the Plangent process to restore studio analogue master tapes and how many are likely to in the future? As the answers are none and none, how is that even remotely relevant to consumers?
2b. The point does indeed remain! Namely, that you are doing exactly what I accused you of: Taking a real fact and fallaciously correlating it to consumer requirements.
2c. Of course it doesn't! It all depends on what that information is, or rather, if it is indeed information at all or just random noise that contains no information.
2d. How about just one example that's even remotely relevant to consumer reproduction?

3. No, I entirely got your point: 1. That you don't know if some current or future surround processing system might be able to use ultrasonic content, you're just making-up the suggestion that it might. 2. And what if it isn't "there to be measured and analysed"? Why don't you take the first step and find out? I've asked this before but you (conveniently) just ignore it and carry on promoting your made-up suggestion anyway, why is that?

G


----------



## KeithEmo

No... you didn't get my point... the actual point.
(Which is simply that there is information there that just might prove useful someday...)

What I'm hearing is the exact same arguments I heard when my buddy wanted to buy a new car - and he was looking at a sports car that was really fast.

Certain people were quite determined to cnvince him that "nobody NEEDS a car that can go over 120 mPH".
And, when he wasted time talking about why someone might want to go that fast, everyone wasted an equal amount of time arguing why his reasons were wrong.
YOU are absolutely convinced that nobody actually  NEEDS that extra information... or, at the very least, consumers don't.
I presented a few reasons why some of them  MIGHT have a use for it.
You argued that my reasons "weren't reasonable" or "weren't good enough".

The bottom line is that YOU are convinced that none of the information that might be there would be of any use to YOU.
Fine... no argument there.
However, you are also quite convinced that you know what people need today, and that you KNOW nobody else needs it now.
Furthermore, you KNOW that nothing any home customer might own five years from now could POSSIBLY need or have use for that information.
You KNOW that nobody will EVER develop a home decoder that could use that information.
(Just like a lot of people seemed to KNOW that my buddy could NEVER have a reason to go 120 mPH.)



gregorio said:


> 1. But at least I'm cherry picking relevant facts. You are cherry picking irrelevant facts or simply making them up!
> 
> 2. But you don't have to use a click and pop remover and if you do, you don't need to use that particular one. And, even if that particular tool is currently the best method for vinyl record click removal, once it's been applied, what benefit would there be in a distribution copy at that same high sample rate which has already had that very specifically useful >20kHz content removed?
> 2a. How many consumers use the Plangent process to restore studio analogue master tapes and how many are likely to in the future? As the answers are none and none, how is that even remotely relevant to consumers?
> ...


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] No... you didn't get my point... the actual point. (Which is simply that there is information there that just might prove useful someday...)
> [2]YOU are absolutely convinced that nobody actually NEEDS that extra information...
> [3] or, at the very least, consumers don't. I presented a few reasons why some of them MIGHT have a use for it.
> [4] You argued that my reasons "weren't reasonable" or "weren't good enough"



1. I do get your point; that you're misrepresenting the facts and using a non-sequiteur to further your agenda!! Your statement "that there is information there" is a misrepresentation. You have NOT ascertained if in fact there is any sort of acoustic information there and you refuse to provide even a shred of evidence that there is. It "just might prove useful someday" is therefore a non-sequiteur because if there is not any "information there" to start with, then how on earth could it prove useful someday?

2. Huh? What "extra information"?

3. No you haven't! What you've actually presented is a suggestion about "why some of them might have a use for" information that doesn't exist!

4. Why on earth would I do that? Doing something impossible with information that doesn't even exist - What's unreasonable about that?!!

G


----------



## bigshot

I'll offer some unsolicited advice... I've found that there isn't much point answering posts that just throw out vague theoretical stuff and empty analogies that have no practical relation to the topic we're discussing. I think some posters just type for their own pleasure, and I sincerely doubt that there is any way to break through into their private world of self absorption and drag them back to the world of facts and context. If I feel the need to reply to those people, I don't quote them. That just sends them an email reminding them to come back and blather some more. It's like the old legend about vampires... they can't come into your house and suck your blood in the middle of the night unless you invite them in.

Just a friendly suggestion. Feel free to ignore it if you want. Back to the fun... Carry on!


----------



## KeithEmo

Actually... I disagree.
I claim it is you who are misrepresenting the facts (or, more accurately, substituting suppositions and conclusions for facts).

The audio spectrum extends far beyond what we can hear - in both directions.
At least some current music is mastered at sample rates higher than 44.1k.
And at least some current microphones, microphone preamps, and A/D converters are capable of picking up and recording that information.
Therefore, at least some current and future recordings do or will contain information outside the "audible spectrum".

Several people have posted spectral analyses showing that many high-res audio recordings contain _SOMETHING_ above 20 kHz.
The usual assertion that follows is that "it isn't anything useful" or "it's just noise".
Or they pitch shift it and conclude that, because it isn't recognizable to a human as a musical harmonic, it is useless.

The reality is that, even if we to determine that what was present was "pure noise", we could still derive quite a bit of information by analyzing it.
For example, by examining the spectral content of that noise, and calculating the T60 at various frequencies, we could determine the "liveness" of the room where it was recorded.
And, assuming it is anything other than pure steady noise, we can probably even calculate some approximate room dimensions by noting differences in arrival times.
In fact, if we can find a single sound in that recording that resembles an impulse, we can ascertain all sorts of interesting information by analyzing it.
(However, if you limit the spectrum of the recording of that impulse, for example by discarding all the components above 20 kHz, you will reduce the data we can get from it.)

I even provided a few quite practical current examples.....

If you make a recording of a vinyl album, and wish to apply a tick-and-pop removal algorithm to it....
The result will be seriously compromised if you use a recording limited to 20 kHz in bandwidth rather than one that extends to 45 kHz.
(Yes, some algorithms can perform adequately using solely audible frequencies, but the better ones can perform better if they have access to the ultrasonic information as well.)

Likewise, if you had made an "audibly perfect" copy of a master tape thirty years ago, taht copy would have been INADEQUATE for use with the Plangent process.
(Because the Plangent process uses information that would have been discarded as useless until a use was found for it.)

However, even after being presented with these examples, you seem to be claiming to know with absolute certainty that this will never happen again.
You KNOW with absolute certainty that there is no information in ANY 96k recording that may someday be used by any process for anything useful.
I simply claim that I don't know... 
But I'm pretty sure that you can;t know for certain either...

There actually are people working on things like figuring out the dimensions of a room by analyzing echoes and noise components...
And, if they do, I don't know if they'll get better results with a recording of "room noise" that extends to 45 kHz instead of being limited to 20 kHz...
But I'm pretty sure you don't know for sure either...

In all fairness, I very much doubt that I will ever personally use the Plangent process. 
(But, hey, I actually might if it becomes available in a handy $99 VST plugin.)
However, YOU seem determined to convince me and everyone else that it would be "bad" for me to digitize my master tape at 192k "just in case I might want to".

Most engineers I know would say, as a generalization, that "you gather as much information as possible - then decide what to use later".
Yet you seem determined to discard every iota of information for which you cannot determine a definite use - today.



gregorio said:


> 1. I do get your point; that you're misrepresenting the facts and using a non-sequiteur to further your agenda!! Your statement "that there is information there" is a misrepresentation. You have NOT ascertained if in fact there is any sort of acoustic information there and you refuse to provide even a shred of evidence that there is. It "just might prove useful someday" is therefore a non-sequiteur because if there is not any "information there" to start with, then how on earth could it prove useful someday?
> 
> 2. Huh? What "extra information"?
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 14, 2018)

Spectrum charts of ultrasonic content in HD Tracks
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/what-kind-of-ultrasonic-frequencies-are-in-hd-tracks.885484/

Examples of the pure noise contained in those tracks
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...-are-in-hd-tracks.885484/page-8#post-14417352

This stuff isn't going to be used by whales for navigation or for communicating with aliens across the reaches of space. It's music to play in your home. For that purpose, ultrasonics are completely superfluous. You can't hear them. They don't improve sound. They can only hurt sound quality. When files are padded out with high level ultrasonic noise like some of these examples, it might actually cross the line into being unhealthy. It would certainly be uncomfortable for your dog. I don't know why any sane person would pay a penny more for crap like this.


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting.....

I looked at the 96k track of only the content above 20 kHz in my favorite spectrum analyzer (I used Adobe Audition because it was handy).
(I did _not_ try to _listen_ to it since I doubt it's anything I would want to listen to.)

However, when I bumped it up by 30 dB, it looked nothing at all like pure white noise to me.
In fact, I see a whole jumble of assorted bursts of various levels, with widely varying spectral content.
Anyone wishing to duplicate this should load the "band limited to above 20 kHz" FLAC file, load it into an editor, raise the level by 30 dB, and see what you get.
(I included a screen cap of part of the file from Adobe Audition below...)

From looking at it, I would guess it contains some combination of high frequency harmonics of actual instruments and/or data-correlated noise.
(I would have to do some more serious analysis to determine which and in what quantities.)

If it's harmonics of specific instruments, which seems rather likely, then it's just the sort of information I might want to use to help me figure out the acoustics of the recording venue.
I could also figure out all sorts of interesting things about instrument and microphone placement if I could pick out multiple arrival times for single distinct sounds.
We're simply talking about a modernized version of "timing the echoes to see how big the cave is"... although much more detailed analysis is possible these days.
(All of this could be done with audible content, but ultrasonic content would give me better resolution on the measurements.)
And, if I was really into forensics, and especially interested, it might even help me determine how the tracks were put together.
(If the acoustics of one track are different than those of another track, then they were probably recorded at different times, and in different places.)

And, if there's data-correlated noise, which is a very specific sort of artifact, it might tell me a lot about the various processes the recording was subjected to.
(Some types of data correlated noise are quite distinctive, while others are common, so this might or might not be useful.)
In fact, we could just be looking at a sort of "fingerprint" of a lot of equipment.

How much of this information I might find useful, and for what, is unknown.
For example, will next years surround sound decoder be able to use that room data to more accurately reconstruct the recording?
Darned if I know... But I wouldn't be betting either way.

Here's the image.... this is the file BigShot linked to.... with the level increased by about 30 dB.... and zoomed in.... 
The top ruler shows the part we're zoomed in on...
All that other stuff is information - whether you expect it to be useful or not...








bigshot said:


> Spectrum charts of ultrasonic content in HD Tracks
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/what-kind-of-ultrasonic-frequencies-are-in-hd-tracks.885484/
> 
> Examples of the pure noise contained in those tracks
> ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Yeah just looking by eye I'd guess there would be something musical in there.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 14, 2018)

There is a track there that is just the super audible sound pitched down into an audible range. It sure doesn't sound like musical content. The spectrums in the first link don't look anything like musical content either. Later on in the thread there are more examples of what the superaudible stuff sounds like. None of it relates to any of the rest of it.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Nov 14, 2018)

To be clear, when I say "musical" I mean originating with the original recording, i.e. anything but pure artifacts or noise, technically 'music'.  I don't expect it would sound very nice.  And to be fair most songs sound pretty depressing if you highpass them at 10khz, let alone 20...

e: Just tried this in Audacity, it's pretty simple to do.  Did it on the 96khz recording of one of the goldberg variations that's public domain.  (can find on wikimedia).  Filtered at 20khz, pitched down 10x, normalized... nothing but noise to my ear, no apparent relation to actual music.

Not sure what I expected from a solo piano piece, and even so I guess the engineers were not prioritizing ultrasonics that day.  Or there just weren't any.

If anyone can link me to a more promising recording, it would be interesting to try a few more.  It's really easy to test.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 14, 2018)

Look at the spectrums too. Stuff pops up in one frequency range, then disappears and pops up again as a spike much higher. The super audible content is clearly some sort of mistake, but it's inaudible, so no one notices it to fix it. Arpiben makes an educated guess as to the causes here... https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...-are-in-hd-tracks.885484/page-9#post-14419929


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> I'll offer some unsolicited advice... I've found that there isn't much point answering posts that just throw out vague theoretical stuff and empty analogies that have no practical relation to the topic we're discussing. I think some posters just type for their own pleasure, and I sincerely doubt that there is any way to break through into their private world of self absorption and drag them back to the world of facts and context. If I feel the need to reply to those people, I don't quote them. That just sends them an email reminding them to come back and blather some more. It's like the old legend about vampires... they can't come into your house and suck your blood in the middle of the night unless you invite them in.
> 
> Just a friendly suggestion. Feel free to ignore it if you want. Back to the fun... Carry on!



Substantively, I think the analogies are a real problem. They don't hold up as analytical tools. It's a rhetorical technique but we are not making value judgments here. A lot of this is dry facts and analogies just obfuscate the relevant information. I see this as a recurring problem. If people want to have a serious discussion I'd say drop the analogies and stick to the merits. I am so tempted to try and be funny and make an analogy here but since I am actually trying to be serious I'll skip it.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 14, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> To be clear, when I say "musical" I mean originating with the original recording, i.e. anything but pure artifacts or noise, technically 'music'.  I don't expect it would sound very nice.  And to be fair most songs sound pretty depressing if you highpass them at 10khz, let alone 20...
> 
> e: Just tried this in Audacity, it's pretty simple to do.  Did it on the 96khz recording of one of the goldberg variations that's public domain.  (can find on wikimedia).  Filtered at 20khz, pitched down 10x, normalized... nothing but noise to my ear, no apparent relation to actual music.
> 
> ...



Try a digital recording where the drums are really active, or for something with clear pitch something with a harp, that's the best I can think of. All of the pitch instruments and even hi-hat cymbals kind of top out around the 4 khz to 7 khz range at best with just harmonics above that.

http://www.zytrax.com/tech/audio/audio.html

Just from what I was listening to yesterday you might check out what the drums do with something like this:



I don't know if the HF content is lost in compression in this Youtube posting here, but in the CD recording I'd expect some above-10 khz content in the harmonics of the cymbals and hi-hats. Anything like that would be a good choice, I think. Digital jazz recordings with active drum kits. After looking, according to the chart on the bottom of the page I linked to you can get sixth-order harmonics up to 24 khz with a jazz drum kit--that's about the end of the line.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 14, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> Substantively, I think the analogies are a real problem.



Analogies are good for getting across basic ideas to someone who just doesn't understand yet, but you're right. They aren't needed when they are being used rhetorically.



Steve999 said:


> After looking, according to the chart on the bottom of the page I linked to you can get sixth-order harmonics up to 24 khz with a jazz drum kit--that's about the end of the line.



Generally, the higher the harmonic, the lower the volume level and the more likely it's going to be covered by masking. Above 15kHz, there really isn't much to hear in any recording.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 14, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Analogies are good for getting across basic ideas to someone who just doesn't understand yet, but you're right. They aren't needed when they are being used rhetorically.
> 
> Generally, the higher the harmonic, the lower the volume level and the more likely it's going to be covered by masking. Above 15kHz, there really isn't much to hear in any recording.



As it relates to testing audiophile claims and myths, the point is: You're right. Analogies are good teaching tools in the right hands, but are not suitable as rhetorical devices when it comes to discerning facts or constructing arguments about audio, as I will demonstrate below.

If I understand correctly a high-res recording of a jazz drum kit would be interesting just to see what you could _see _on a spectogram (if that's the right spelling of the right word) of that musically produced but inaudible content that could possibly exist at about up to 24 khz. I like the spectograms with the pretty colors. I don't know why they don't put more effort into using pretty colors for frequencies you can't hear. I'd use like rainbow pastel colors just to make people wish they could hear them.  You're right, as far as actual hearing music content goes, stuff above 15 khz is always going to be extremely marginal, IMHO. Actually this is super-easy to hear (4 khz) (it's where your hearing sensitivity is greatest):



The harder part may be telling the top two notes on a piano (in the 4 khz range) apart and trying to figure out what pitch they are by ear. I would bet it can vary on the quality and tuning of the piano. I am actually pretty ticked off as I just checked the high c on my piano with a tuner and it was much closer to e D-flat than a C (it was nearly a half-step sharp). This was causing me confusion and caused me to edit and re-edit this post. I need a new person to tune my piano I think. Although I'm glad my hearing for pitch was good enough that I felt that something was not right. However, any 88-key piano does create some unique challenges at its highest and lowest frequencies:



The two highest notes on a piano have such a weak tonal content that I think determining the pitch by ear could be challenging, even if my fricking piano was tuned correctly. I'm surprised the damn string doesn't snap in two. Just for the sake of argument, by analogy, it's like taking a metal rubberband and stretching it too far and then stretching it even farther and then hoping it doesn't snap and cause severe lacerations on your right arm and forehead. Anyway, as I've confirmed with Gregorio, it's also really tough to discern pitch on a piano below 40 Hz (about a low E, or the lowest note on a bass). Obviously, extrapolating (not analogizing!) from the above, with the pure sine wave with nothing else to interfere, hearing the 4186 khz pitch would be a breeze. Sorry, this is where my curiosity and mind wandered. By analogy, just for the sake of argument, it's kind of like when you are eating cold pizza for breakfast and a giant woolly mammoth stomps on your toes.


----------



## analogsurviver (Nov 15, 2018)

What I really don't get is the fact that all of you are concerned with mostly mainstream recordings that have not originated as HR digital file - or analog master tape and then transferred to HR digital - be it DSD or PCM. These old(er) recordings are likely to have digital artifacts - because, troughout the time, digital hardware and software have been improving - but at the time the HR file has been made, there may well be inbellible stamps of equipment used. It is highly unlikely anybody will go to the trouble of tracing down the true master ( whatever it is ) and make new, fresh, using SOTA equipment, another (say ) 192/24 transfer.

On the other hand, any suggestions to check new(er) recording from labels that do push the envelope in HR audio , which are much more likely to be unnecessary artefact above 20 kHz free, are being constantly ignored.

And, seriously, pitching the ultrasonics down enough to be directly audible is childish to me - at best. It can not be done during a live concert.

Bottom line - most of the attempts here are directed towards discrediting any content above 20 kHz - as it did not exist at all and if it does exist, it is deemed detrimental.

Which is something that does not and can NEVER happen in live music using acoustic instruments..


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] I claim it is you who are misrepresenting the facts [1a] (or, more accurately, substituting suppositions and conclusions for facts).
> [2] Therefore, at least some current and future recordings do or will contain information outside the "audible spectrum". Several people have posted spectral analyses showing that many high-res audio recordings contain _SOMETHING_ above 20 kHz.
> [3] The usual assertion that follows is that "it isn't anything useful" or "it's just noise". Or they pitch shift it and conclude that, because it isn't recognizable to a human as a musical harmonic, it is useless.



1. Not happy with only misrepresenting the facts, now you're misrepresenting the responses to your misrepresentations. That's not an uncommon tactic by audiophiles who are newbies to this (or other science/fact based) forums but you're not a newbie here. So what on earth made you think that ridiculous tactic would work here and specifically on me??
1a. You're joking? All you've done is misrepresented the facts and then invented hypothetical theories/suggestions based on those misrepresented facts, the word "hypocrite" seems wholly inadequate!!

2. I have NOT disputed there might be something above 20kHz, that would be absurd as I've recorded "something" above 20kHz thousands of times, over a period of 20 years or so. And, I've clearly acknowledged that tape bias (at about 90kHz) exists and that ultrasonic content exists from record clicks. So, you are MISREPRESENTING both what I believe and what I've actually stated! Containing "something" above 20kHz and containing acoustic information above 20kHz are two entirely different things though, two different things which you are fallaciously correlating!

3. No, the usual assertion is that's it's worse than useless. Being inaudible makes it typically useless but potentially causing IMD, which is audible, makes it worse than useless!


KeithEmo said:


> [4] The reality is that, even if we to determine that what was present was "pure noise", we could still derive quite a bit of information by analyzing it.
> [4a] For example, by examining the spectral content of that noise, and calculating the T60 at various frequencies,
> [4b] we could determine the "liveness" of the room where it was recorded. And, assuming it is anything other than pure steady noise, we can probably even calculate some approximate room dimensions by noting differences in arrival times.
> [4c] In fact, if we can find a single sound in that recording that resembles an impulse, we can ascertain all sorts of interesting information by analyzing it.
> ...


4. What "reality" is that? Is that an existing audiophile "reality" or one you've just made-up yourself?
4a. Just to be clear about your "reality", you're saying that:  We've got some random ultrasonic noise being produced and instead of being absorbed by the walls/boundaries it's reflected (let's say because the walls are made of sheets of diamond). These (hypothetical) reflections must, according to the laws of physics, be substantially lower than our original random noise but you go way further and propose that we then calculate the RT60, the amount of time it takes for those random noise reflections to decay by a further 60dB. Let's use some figures: Let's say we've got ultrasonic random noise at -40dBFS and a diamond walled studio producing random noise reflections at say -60dBFS. How do you propose we differentiate the -60dB random noise that's underneath the -40dB random noise? Then, we calculate the RT60 of the reflections, the amount of time it takes for our (hypothetical) -60dB reflections to decay to -120dB. How do you propose to differentiate -120dB random noise that's underneath -40dB random noise? So, a diamond walled studio and an impossible differentiation process is your "reality" is it? In other words, flying pigs exist but they're invisible, stealth flying pigs that we can't see or detect. If that's not all absurd enough, you go even further! ...
4b. Not satisfied with the impossible task of just differentiating (theoretical) random noise that's way underneath other random noise, you now propose that we can actually analyse that undifferentiatable random noise and  "probably calculate" the acoustic properties of our diamond walled studio. In the real world (rather than your "reality") we can't even achieve this feat with reflections that do actually exist and are above the noise. In fact, the latest software is only partially successful at determining what is a reflection from what is direct sound, let alone analyse and get any detailed acoustic information from it. So now we've got invisible, stealth flying pigs that don't exist and can't be seen or detected but with magic we can determine all kinds of complex details such as; how fast they're flying, their altitude, where they've flown from and where they're heading. But wait, there's even more! The assertion that this non-existant, non-detactable, non-analysable, non-information is actually useful! If we ignore the fact that it doesn't exist and we can't detect or analyse it and pretend that we can determine the details of where it was recorded, how does that help in anyway? In virtually all commercial audio recordings going back many decades, we actively try to change/disguise the room and acoustics of where it was recorded. Let's take an obvious example to illustrate the point. Let's say we've got a film scene in a big hall in a castle. Most probably it was actually filmed on a film set made of plywood or in a small studio with a green screen, some of the dialogue was probably recorded in a voice-over booth/ADR suite, all the other sounds were manufactured or recorded in various other places, a Foley studio and other locations. How, even if it were possible, is acquiring this information useful? We want it to sound like it's in a castle hall, not a plywood set and a combination of various different studios! The same applies to music production, since the mid-late 1960's onwards, pretty much none of it is supposed to sound like the actual combination of locations in which it was recorded. The only potential exception would be recording a symphony orchestra or some purely acoustic performance in a single venue (such as a concert hall), using only a coherent mic array, say only an ambisonics setup. So, you're talking about roughly 0% of all commercial audio recordings in the last 50 odd years!

5. How will I reduce the data we can get from it if there is no data we can get from it? How can you start with nothing and then reduce it?

6. They are neither remotely practical nor examples! But apart from that your sentence is spot on!
6a. How is that an example or in any way analogous to the situation? It would be analogous if vinyl record clicks contained no information >20kHz and then the obvious question would be: How well would your ultrasonic click detector work then?! And as for being practical, that's so ridiculous, it's funny. Virtually all your hypothesising on this topic is about what some future technology might be able to achieve, you think maybe the future is some sort of high definition, surround sound vinyl LP?
6b. Likewise, if that 90kHz bias tone didn't actually exist, how effective would the Plangent process be then? And again, how is this (non-analogous) example even remotely practical, how many consumers have even heard of it, let alone actually use it to correct wow and flutter on studio master tapes?



KeithEmo said:


> [1] If it's harmonics of specific instruments, which seems rather likely, then it's just the sort of information I might want to use to help me figure out the acoustics of the recording venue.
> [2] I could also figure out all sorts of interesting things about instrument and microphone placement if I could pick out multiple arrival times for single distinct sounds.
> [3] We're simply talking about a modernized version of "timing the echoes to see how big the cave is"... although much more detailed analysis is possible these days.
> [4] (All of this could be done with audible content, but ultrasonic content would give me better resolution on the measurements.)



1. That's an utterly FALSE misrepresentation! Even if we assume it is actual instrument harmonics above 20kHz, that would still provide *NO INFORMATION* about the acoustics of the recording venue. What *might* provide that information would be the REFLECTIONS of those harmonics from the recording venue's boundaries (walls, floor, ceiling). So my question (still) is, where's your evidence that there are any reflections above 20kHz? Outside your fantasy diamond walled studio, real concert halls and recording venues typically employ wood and other acoustic materials specifically to absorb mid/high freqs to produce a "warm" sound and the absorption coefficients of these materials INCREASES WITH FREQUENCY, additionally, so does the absorption by air. In the real world then, not only do we have low, very low or no harmonics above 20kHz to start with but what does exist is then NOT reflected off the walls, because the walls are doing the exact opposite and absorbing rather than reflecting them! So, thanks for reposting bigshot's >20kHz screenshot, now all you have to do is TAKE THE FIRST STEP and point out where the reflections/acoustic information is!!!!!

2. What "multiple arrival times"? The "multiple arrival times" of the >20kHz reflections which don't exist? Enough of this flying pig BS, show us some evidence that >20kHz reflections exist in music/audio!

3. AGAIN, stop just making up BS! Outside of your invented "reality", the actual analysis "possible these days" couldn't even work out that it is a cave!!

4. More utter BS! In the real world and with commercial audio, ABSOLUTELY NONE of that can be "done with audible content"! How then do you get "better resolution on the measurements" in a frequency range where that acoustic information doesn't even exist??


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm sorry.... but, if you read a few current science books, you will find out that everything I've described is not only possible, but a lot of it isn't even especially new.

We seem to have agreed that there is "stuff" in many recordings above 20 kHz.
And that it is NOT "undifferentiated random noise" at all.
Rather, it is a combination of the interaction with real sounds and the acoustics of a real room, almost certainly mixed in with some actual random noises and some distortion.
(If you even glance at the file BigShot provided, it's pretty obvious that what's there isn't at all random; it clearly follows some sort of patterns - and patterns are another word for information.)

For starters.....
All I need is one distinct wavefront which I can analyze (so I pick out a loud drumbeat).
By measuring the arrival times between the initial wavefront, and the first three or four echoes, I will now know the dimensions of my room.
Actually, I'll have to do this same analysis with several sounds, and correlate the results.
In 1950 this would have required a really expensive computer; nowadays the processor in my cheap cell phone is quite capable of doing it in a few seconds.
And they use it for everything from autonomous cars, to ultrasound imaging, to ground penetrating RADAR...
(And, yes, they figured out how to read a RADAR pulse that's way below the noise floor a long time ago....)

So, if I wanted to use it, I would simply continue on from where we already are.
I would use a high pass filter to separate the ultrasonic content from the "audible music".
Then I would boost it a bit to make it easy to work with.
Then I would fed it into a DSP engine running appropriate software to analyze it.

However, you are consistently exaggerating the difficulties and complications involved in the basic process.
How do we differentiate the useful information from the random noise?
That's easy.
We all know what white noise looks like..... on an oscilloscope or a spectrum display.... 
I took those high-passed files BigShot thoughtfully provided...
All I had to do was to turn up the volume.
It was quite obvious that a lot of it wasn't actually random... and simple to pick out the interesting parts.
I could easily identify one loud click, pick out a few return echoes that follow it, and get my room dimensions from there.
Of course, a DSP doing spectral analysis will extract more useful information than I can by simply looking at it, but you get the idea.

Now, is it really USEFUL to figure out that the snare drum was recorded in a plywood isolation booth ten feet square, while the violins were recorded in a concert hall?
Interesting question there.
Obviously it IS information that we didn't have before.
Perhaps I'll list it on my new expanded album folder.
Or, perhaps, I'll describe it in my new book: "The provenance of historical drum track recordings".
Or, just maybe, I'll write new software that cleans up recordings, by removing conflicting room acoustic cues from the drum tracks.
(I could pick out and remove the echoes of the drum from that crummy little plywood booth... and replace them with calculated reverb that matches the reverb on the violins.)

Our brains use cues like that as part of how they visualize the sound stage.
Perhaps the recording sounds a bit jumbled because the drum sounds include cues about room acoustics that conflict with the cues I'm hearing from the violins.
So, perhaps, once I know that, by detecting and "cleaning up" the drum hits, I can make the whole recording sound better.
(If I was really enthusiastic I would include an algorithm to add fake room acoustics to the drum track that matches the violin track.)

How "unreasonable" or "unlikely" is all this to be useful - especially to a home user?
Well, now, I really don't know.
You might be surprised to know how much calculation is involved in synthesizing a center channel, or height channels, from a stereo recording.

Izotope's latest restoration utility has the ability to remove distortion, clipping, and harmonics it can recognize.
(Can it recognize them more accurately if we include those ultrasonic harmonics?)
It also has the ability to not just add, but to _REMOVE_, reverb....
Apparently it is able to pick out the specific sounds of reverb, differentiate them from primary sounds, and reduce their level - after the fact.
There are also several new pieces of software that allow you to "match the acoustics of one track to another" - presumably by analyzing, and then collectively replicating, the "echoes" and "room noise".
(And, no, I have no idea which of the current batch benefit from having extra ultrasonic information... but, of course, that could change tomorrow anyway.) 
I would simply prefer to preserve as much of "what might be useful information" - in case it DOES turn out to be useful.

And, no, any _competently_ designed piece of audio gear will not suffer from excessive IM distortion because the bandwidth of the incoming signal is too wide.
(It is standard design practice, in a proper design, to specifically limit the bandwidth of the input stage to block any frequencies that would cause problems at later stages.)

And, yes, give me $1 million, and I will show you a flying pig (remember the Doritos commercial)....
Of course, it would be more humane to simply buy my pet pig a seat next to me the next time I fly to Paris....

And, finally...... obviously that 90 kHz carrier tone _DOES_ exist - or the Plangent process wouldn't work.
In fact, anyone who actually knows how the technology of recording magnetic tape works already_ KNEW_ that it existed.
It's been there all along... but a lot of people simply _weren't paying attention_ for a long time.



gregorio said:


> 1. Not happy with only misrepresenting the facts, now you're misrepresenting the responses to your misrepresentations. That's not an uncommon tactic by audiophiles who are newbies to this (or other science/fact based) forums but you're not a newbie here. So what on earth made you think that ridiculous tactic would work here and specifically on me??
> 1a. You're joking? All you've done is misrepresented the facts and then invented hypothetical theories/suggestions based on those misrepresented facts, the word "hypocrite" seems wholly inadequate!!
> 
> 2. I have NOT disputed there might be something above 20kHz, that would be absurd as I've recorded "something" above 20kHz thousands of times, over a period of 20 years or so. And, I've clearly acknowledged that tape bias (at about 90kHz) exists and that ultrasonic content exists from record clicks. So, you are MISREPRESENTING both what I believe and what I've actually stated! Containing "something" above 20kHz and containing acoustic information above 20kHz are two entirely different things though, two different things which you are fallaciously correlating!
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Good point....

We seem to have progressed through....
- there's nothing up there
- well, yes, there IS stuff up there, but it's all random noise
- well, no, it ISN'T actually random, but you can't possibly have a use for it
- well, even if you did have a use for it, it should be gotten rid of because it does more harm than good

And, if you believe the guys from MQA, they can actually use those digital artifacts to figure out what equipment was used, and to reverse engineer corrections to its flaws.
(I'm somewhat dubious that they've actually got that part working like they claim.... but it's certainly possible.)



analogsurviver said:


> What I really don't get is the fact that all of you are concerned with mostly mainstream recordings that have not originated as HR digital file - or analog master tape and then transferred to HR digital - be it DSD or PCM. These old(er) recordings are likely to have digital artifacts - because, troughout the time, digital hardware and software have been improving - but at the time the HR file has been made, there may well be inbellible stamps of equipment used. It is highly unlikely anybody will go to the trouble of tracing down the true master ( whatever it is ) and make new, fresh, using SOTA equipment, another (say ) 192/24 transfer.
> 
> On the other hand, any suggestions to check new(er) recording from labels that do push the envelope in HR audio , which are much more likely to be unnecessary artefact above 20 kHz free, are being constantly ignored.
> 
> ...


----------



## Arpiben

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/audio/cymbal-samples/cymbal-reviews-index.html

@KeithEmo 
Some samples of cymbal crashes for your analysis.Not sure you can tell how/where they were hammered during fabrication.


----------



## james444

gregorio said:


> So my question (still) is, where's your evidence that there are any reflections above 20kHz? Outside your fantasy diamond walled studio, real concert halls and recording venues typically employ wood and other acoustic materials specifically to absorb mid/high freqs to produce a "warm" sound and the absorption coefficients of these materials INCREASES WITH FREQUENCY, additionally, so does the absorption by air. In the real world then, not only do we have low, very low or no harmonics above 20kHz to start with but what does exist is then NOT reflected off the walls, because the walls are doing the exact opposite and absorbing rather than reflecting them!



Interesting. So a bat's echolocation wouldn't work inside these venues and it would bang into the walls?


----------



## Arpiben

james444 said:


> Interesting. So a bat's echolocation wouldn't work inside these venues and it would bang into the walls?


Bats echolocation will not work in an anechoic chamber, for sure.
Since bats do transmit ultrasounds at around 120 dBSPL in CF and FM I am not expecting them to bang in the walls of such venues unless those have attenuation designed for their earing curve. Who knows, just a matter of putting some of them inside concert halls


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> We seem to have agreed that there is "stuff" in many recordings above 20 kHz. And that it is NOT "undifferentiated random noise" at all.
> [2] Rather, it is a combination of the interaction with real sounds and the acoustics of a real room ...
> [2a] By measuring the arrival times between the initial wavefront, and the first three or four echoes ...
> [3] I would use a high pass filter to separate the ultrasonic content from the "audible music". Then I would boost it a bit to make it easy to work with. Then I would fed it into a DSP engine running appropriate software to analyze it.
> [4] How do we differentiate the useful information from the random noise? That's easy.



Will you PLEASE stop!! You respond to accusations of misrepresentations, fallacies and BS with just even more misrepresentations, fallacies and BS!
We have agreed that sometimes there is "stuff" in some recordings above 20kHz, which is precisely where we started! But where do you get the next bit from? There is ALWAYS some ultrasonic undifferentiated random noise and that's one of the big problems (or would be if it was audible!) that ultrasonic noise is constant or somewhat higher in level but the ultrasonic content of musical instruments is very much lower (or non-existent), making differentiation difficult or impossible.

2. BULLSH*T! Despite NUMEROUS requests you STILL have NOT provided even a shred of evidence that ANY acoustic information exists above 20kHz, let alone differentiable or even analysable acoustic information!
2a. What three or four echoes, you can't even show the existence of the first echo, let alone the next two or three which would be even lower in level!

3. So let me get this straight; you would filter out all the masses of acoustic information which actually does exist (almost entirely below 12kHz) and then boost and analyse the freq region where it doesn't?? That's some sort of audiophile logic and approach is it?

4. Not just BS but outrageous BULLSH*T! If you find it so easy, what are you doing here, you should be living on a super-yacht somewhere.



KeithEmo said:


> Now, is it really USEFUL to figure out that the snare drum was recorded in a plywood isolation booth ten feet square, while the violins were recorded in a concert hall?
> Interesting question there. Obviously it IS information that we didn't have before. Perhaps I'll list it on my new expanded album folder.
> [2] Or, just maybe, I'll write new software that cleans up recordings, by removing conflicting room acoustic cues from the drum tracks.(I could pick out and remove the echoes of the drum from that crummy little plywood booth... and replace them with calculated reverb that matches the reverb on the violins.)
> [3] Our brains use cues like that as part of how they visualize the sound stage.
> [4] How "unreasonable" or "unlikely" is all this to be useful - especially to a home user? *Well, now, I really don't know.*



1. Great, so you're going to analyse what isn't there, with analysis tools that don't exist, so you can write something on your album cover. Now, what about the actual argument I'm refuting, that you could use that information in some futuristic system to correctly synthesise it's 3D place. Your also ignoring the fact that the plywood room acoustic information has been mixed with masses of other reverb information and how the hell are going to differentiate it from that? But heck, that's easy compared to trying to analyse acoustic information in a frequency range where it doesn't even exist!

2. Great, so you're going to pick out the plywood acoustics which are mixed with the violin (and other instrument) acoustics in a range where there isn't any acoustics. Have you picked out a super-yacht yet?

3. I presume you must be talking about an audiophile brain, if it can visualise a sound-stage from information that isn't even there and would be inaudible if it were?

4. Well knock me down with a feather! 



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Izotope's latest restoration utility has the ability to remove distortion, clipping, and harmonics it can recognize. (Can it recognize them more accurately if we include those ultrasonic harmonics?) It also has the ability to not just add, but to _REMOVE_, reverb.... Apparently it is able to pick out the specific sounds of reverb, differentiate them from primary sounds, and reduce their level - after the fact.
> [2] There are also several new pieces of software that allow you to "match the acoustics of one track to another" - presumably by analyzing, and then collectively replicating, the "echoes" and "room noise".
> (And, no, I have no idea which of the current batch benefit from having extra ultrasonic information... but, of course, that could change tomorrow anyway.)
> I would simply prefer to preserve as much of "what might be useful information" - in case it DOES turn out to be useful.
> [3] In fact, anyone who actually knows how the technology of recording magnetic tape works already_ KNEW_ that it existed.



1. Oh dear, right back to the BS: What do you mean "apparently"? Don't you know? Then why the hell don't you ask someone who uses it everyday, instead of arguing with them and just making up BS!!! What about WNS, the Sony Restoration Bundle, UnVeil, the Cedar forsenic kit and all the others? Like most others in my profession, I've spent tens of thousands of the years and use it everyday. I know exactly what it can do AND, what it can't!

2. What do you mean "new", we been doing that for god knows how many years. The newest software is better than the old but after many years development it's still only partially successful some of the time, with specific material, it's typically little more than just a starting point. At this rate it won't become an accurate autonomously tool until well after I'm pushing up the daisies, if ever! There still isn't even a scientific theory about how it might be done, let alone anyone trying to design an actual product. Once they figure that out though, maybe then they can figure out how to do it in a frequency range where there isn't any acoustic information to start with, who knows?

3. I know, I told you that about 3 pages ago!

G


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> Good point....
> 
> We seem to have progressed through....
> - there's nothing up there
> ...



Possible?  I doubt it.  Even if it were possible where does it leave MQA files that were originally sourced from analog tape?  How will they reverse engineer the by order of magnitude greater flaws around non-linear sonic signatures such as wow, flutter (and scrape flutter), imperfect alignment and calibration, variations in pitch and timing, possible tape stretching, print through and so on.  Even well maintained studio tape machines operating within specifications can vary between machines and with the same machine from session to session.

That MCA claim is clearly then, snake oil.  A bit like HD Tracks and others claiming their files are hi res when most are sourced from CD or analog tape sources, neither of which are
hi res'.  Btw, the ability to reproduce frequencies (albeit imperfectly) which humans cannot hear does not make a medium hi res, rather it is the ability to produce or reproduce a sound with a high enough SNR, linearity of frequency response and low distortion/artifacts within the range humans can hear.  Mark Waldrep explains this well.


----------



## bigshot

Too many "what ifs".


----------



## Glmoneydawg

old tech said:


> Possible?  I doubt it.  Even if it were possible where does it leave MQA files that were originally sourced from analog tape?  How will they reverse engineer the by order of magnitude greater flaws around non-linear sonic signatures such as wow, flutter (and scrape flutter), imperfect alignment and calibration, variations in pitch and timing, possible tape stretching, print through and so on.  Even well maintained studio tape machines operating within specifications can vary between machines and with the same machine from session to session.
> 
> That MCA claim is clearly then, snake oil.  A bit like HD Tracks and others claiming their files are hi res when most are sourced from CD or analog tape sources, neither of which are
> hi res'.  Btw, the ability to reproduce frequencies (albeit imperfectly) which humans cannot hear does not make a medium hi res, rather it is the ability to produce or reproduce a sound with a high enough SNR, linearity of frequency response and low distortion/artifacts within the range humans can hear.  Mark Waldrep explains this well.


Probably at least 50% of the music we listen to is sourced from analogue tape originally....not good enough for you ?..just askin.


----------



## old tech

Glmoneydawg said:


> Probably at least 50% of the music we listen to is sourced from analogue tape originally....not good enough for you ?..just askin.


I think you missed the point.  It certainly is good enough, so how are perceived flaws in ADC conversion an issue when these flaws are far less, and by order of magnitude?


----------



## Steve999

old tech said:


> I think you missed the point.  It certainly is good enough, so how are perceived flaws in ADC conversion an issue when these flaws are far less, and by order of magnitude?



That's how I read it, like the two of you were on the same page but the wires got crossed somewhere.


----------



## KeithEmo

You can shout "bull" as many times as you like....

But, if you'd spend a little of that effort reading up on current signal processing technology, you would learn that those analysis tools do in fact exist, and that separating information from hoise, even when the noise is at a higher level than the information, is well established technology, as well as the theory that explains why and how to do it, and enables a good programmer to create new analysis tools that do specific things even more accurately. As a broad generalization, when you want to analyze something, you start by looking at _ALL_ the information you have; you do _NOT_ throw half of it away, while cheerfully exclaiming "I just know there was nothing useful in that half", then declare that anybody who disagrees with that absurd claim must be wrong. 

It's pretty obvious, from even a cursory visual obsrvation of the one sample BigShot provided in that link, that those ultrasonic frequencies contain _some sort of information_... at least in the song he looked at. The "stuff" above 20 kHz looks nothing at all like random noise and, if it isn't random noise, then the only other possibility is that it's some sort of information.Therefore, the only questions that remain are exactly what sort of information is there, how we can extract or analyze it, and whether it might be useful for something.

If I have an instrument whose primary frequency is at 2 kHz...
- the level and phase relationship of the harmonic at 4 kHz provides information
- and the level and phase relationship of the harmonic at 24 kHz will give me _MORE_ information

I'll gladly stop claiming that such things are possible....
Right after you show me a statistical analysis showing that, after analyzing a bunch of high-res recordings, 
NOTHING in the spectral range above 20 kHz on any of them correlated in any way with any details about the instruments, the room, or the equipment involved.
(That would show that, at least with the currently available tools, there was really "nothing useful there".)
Until then, perhaps you should stop claiming to known the unknowable....



gregorio said:


> Will you PLEASE stop!! You respond to accusations of misrepresentations, fallacies and BS with just even more misrepresentations, fallacies and BS!
> We have agreed that sometimes there is "stuff" in some recordings above 20kHz, which is precisely where we started! But where do you get the next bit from? There is ALWAYS some ultrasonic undifferentiated random noise and that's one of the big problems (or would be if it was audible!) that ultrasonic noise is constant or somewhat higher in level but the ultrasonic content of musical instruments is very much lower (or non-existent), making differentiation difficult or impossible.
> 
> 2. BULLSH*T! Despite NUMEROUS requests you STILL have NOT provided even a shred of evidence that ANY acoustic information exists above 20kHz, let alone differentiable or even analysable acoustic information!
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

You clearly haven't read their claims (which, as I said, I do NOT necessarily believe to be substantiated at this point).

They claim that, by analyzing the digital version that was sourced from that master tape, they can identify specific flaws in the ADC used to perform the conversion.
(They are essentially identifying and analysing the artifacts of the flaws in the conversion process.)
Then, based on that information, they can apply "corrections" to that digital copy that cancel out those flaws, thus making a new master that is more accurate to the original.
(They are a little vague about whether they are claiming to identify the specific equipment involved... or simply to identify the _TYPE_ of flaws, and apply a correction factor to cancel them.)

They are only claiming to be able to identify and correct flaws introduced during the actual conversion from analog to digital.
They are not claiming that their process will correct flaws that are present in the original master tape.



old tech said:


> Possible?  I doubt it.  Even if it were possible where does it leave MQA files that were originally sourced from analog tape?  How will they reverse engineer the by order of magnitude greater flaws around non-linear sonic signatures such as wow, flutter (and scrape flutter), imperfect alignment and calibration, variations in pitch and timing, possible tape stretching, print through and so on.  Even well maintained studio tape machines operating within specifications can vary between machines and with the same machine from session to session.
> 
> That MCA claim is clearly then, snake oil.  A bit like HD Tracks and others claiming their files are hi res when most are sourced from CD or analog tape sources, neither of which are
> hi res'.  Btw, the ability to reproduce frequencies (albeit imperfectly) which humans cannot hear does not make a medium hi res, rather it is the ability to produce or reproduce a sound with a high enough SNR, linearity of frequency response and low distortion/artifacts within the range humans can hear.  Mark Waldrep explains this well.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 16, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> You can shout "bull****" as many times as you like....
> 
> But, if you'd spend a little of that effort reading up on current signal processing technology, you would learn that those analysis tools do in fact exist, and that separating information from hoise, even when the noise is at a higher level than the information, is well established technology, as well as the theory that explains why and how to do it, and enables a good programmer to create new analysis tools that do specific things even more accurately. As a broad generalization, when you want to analyze something, you start by looking at _ALL_ the information you have; you do _NOT_ throw half of it away, while cheerfully exclaiming "I just know there was nothing useful in that half", then declare that anybody who disagrees with that absurd claim must be wrong.
> 
> ...



This may be valid data as to instruments and their harmonics: http://www.zytrax.com/tech/audio/audio.html (go to the bottom of the page). I'm not competent to judge it, but I believe it. So the only thing you have up there above 20 khz is percussion harmonics that maybe a very small sliver of the population can hear a small portion of during the early part of their lives, if I am reading and understanding this right.

What do you think? Am I getting this right?

If I understand correctly a person here is saying they measure and then verify distant harmonics from the jazz drum kits above 20 khz in recordings by digitally modifying the pitch down into the audible range and amplifying it greatly. It sounds reasonable to me. The chart would indicate the cymbals and hi-hats can go up to 24 khz in the sixth harmonic. Again, I am not competent to judge the accuracy of this information. But the chart and the reported data seem consistent to me. To me the idea you have expressed of an instrument that plays a fundamental tone of 2 khz producing a 24 khz harmonic seems outlandish. It's just an uninformed guess on my part.

Do you think it's outlandish? Do you have any way to test it? It is you who are making the claim--that's standard operating procedure--to ask the person making the affirmative claim to offer proof. I'm not going into analogies, I'm just asking a dry question.

Can we agree on this--that the frequencies from musical instruments above 20 khz are of no use at all to the home consumer with today's technology? If I am reading things correctly and putting two and two together right, at Bigshot's request I listened to a file of just such information with headphones that are measurably demonstrated to produce the frequencies at least up to 22 khz without attenuation and I heard absolutely nothing at what would be ear-damaging volumes if there were any common audible musical content.

What about the idea that if you could hear these sounds just barely in isolation, they would be masked by anything resembling music. Would you agree with that?

We need to think carefully and organize your thoughts and hit it on the merits, and I think you need to accept that when you have made a claim it's up to you to prove it or else we would err under the circumstances that necessitated the creation of this sub-forum in trusting your bare assertion. We can argue as to who is making the claim as a matter of semantics, but it looks to me like you are making the affirmative claims here. If you think Gregorio is making an affirmative claim as to what can be done with certain information rather than negating your claims, let me know. He may well show you actual proof of the affirmative assertions he is making. I see him as doubting your claims, though. If so, it would be best and standard-issue protocol and rigor if you came forward with actual proof of your assertions. It's not really fair to ask someone to prove that they know or don't know the unknowable. If anything it is at least bordering on tautology that they don't know the unknowable.

Would you agree?

I think you know more than I do. Help me out here.

Honestly, I hope you will provide an informative response that I can enjoy as a learning experience and a good read. That is my hope.

(Edited several times for better clarity.)


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> You clearly haven't read their claims (which, as I said, I do NOT necessarily believe to be substantiated at this point).
> 
> They claim that, by analyzing the digital version that was sourced from that master tape, they can identify specific flaws in the ADC used to perform the conversion.
> (They are essentially identifying and analysing the artifacts of the flaws in the conversion process.)
> ...


Yes I understand that, I was just pointing out there are more flaws in playback from the analog source (ie from the tape machine converting the magnetic layer of the tape to an electrical signal) than in the ADC conversion.  

Correcting 'flaws' in ADC conversion while ignoring the flaws from electro/magnetic/mechanical analog sources is like leveling out a slight undulation in the road while ignoring the pot holes.


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> Possible?  I doubt it.  Even if it were possible where does it leave MQA files that were originally sourced from analog tape?  How will they reverse engineer the by order of magnitude greater flaws around non-linear sonic signatures such as wow, flutter (and scrape flutter), imperfect alignment and calibration, variations in pitch and timing, possible tape stretching, print through and so on.  Even well maintained studio tape machines operating within specifications can vary between machines and with the same machine from session to session.
> 
> That MCA claim is clearly then, snake oil.  A bit like HD Tracks and others claiming their files are hi res when most are sourced from CD or analog tape sources, neither of which are
> hi res'.  Btw, the ability to reproduce frequencies (albeit imperfectly) which humans cannot hear does not make a medium hi res, rather it is the ability to produce or reproduce a sound with a high enough SNR, linearity of frequency response and low distortion/artifacts within the range humans can hear.  Mark Waldrep explains this well.



First of all, nobody ever climed to be able to compensate for ALL deficiences of the analogue gear. The topic is ONLY removing/correcting for the artefacts caused by the digitalisation.

Well, then you should check HQ Player - as good as any starting point is https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/19715-hq-player/
4 years later, only the one above knows just to which point in attaining the perfection with each and every ADC/DAC combination(s) known to be made sometime in history the latest incarnation or HQPlayer V.x.y.z addendum ž has arrived. Last time I checked ( looong ago... ), it required a computer solely dedicated eclusively to audio - min system requirement 24GB RAM ... and everything else at this or higher level.

MQA surely does similar things - only likely to be even more supported by the input from (m)any record companies that jumped on the bandwagon. If they actually allowed the devices they have been using to measure them, MQA team could actually devised correction(s) - for each and every one of those supplied. As record companies tend to use stock equipment, having analyzed one "Troublemaker MK3a" covers it and its use in all companies - it is enough to know whether the "Troublemaker MK3a" has been used in the process - or not.

Most probably algorhytms to hunt for particular artefacts could have been devised - and, of course, applied in the MQA process .... 

I have a huntch MQA will get remembered, even if NOT for its prime intent/purpose, for its contribution to the digital processing - much as CD-4 quadrophonics did for the improvement in phono cartridges ( requirement of frequency response to 45 kHz ). CD-4 may well be commercially dead for decades now - but the improvement in phono cartridges ALSO FOR STEREO it did bring is very much still with us - and is, de facto, the root why we are having this conversation. Prior to the emergence of DSD64/aka SACD and at least 88.2 kHz PCM, phono playback was the ONLY mass supported medium capable of playing back content > 20 kHz. 

And - whatever it is - it has been the reason enough many listeners prefer it over the RBCD.


----------



## old tech (Nov 16, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> First of all, nobody ever climed to be able to compensate for ALL deficiences of the analogue gear. The topic is ONLY removing/correcting for the artefacts caused by the digitalisation.
> 
> Well, then you should check HQ Player - as good as any starting point is https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/19715-hq-player/
> 4 years later, only the one above knows just to which point in attaining the perfection with each and every ADC/DAC combination(s) known to be made sometime in history the latest incarnation or HQPlayer V.x.y.z addendum ž has arrived. Last time I checked ( looong ago... ), it required a computer solely dedicated eclusively to audio - min system requirement 24GB RAM ... and everything else at this or higher level.
> ...


Are you still on your vinyl horse?  I only know a minority that prefer vinyl playback over RBCD in a general sense (ie excluding certain examples that are better mastered than the equivalent digital release) and even so, they prefer it because they find the distortions pleasant, rather than a fantasised belief that they have superman hearing of higher frequencies.  Most rational people who understand audio as a science know that RBCD is a higher fidelity format than vinyl for all frequencies that we humans can hear.  The only bandwagon are the marketing gurus that appeal to a certain type of audiophile (aka audiophools) with their psuedoscience.  Unfortunately you get that in all industries, including medicine, finance etc not just audio.

In any event, your post is off-topic as the point is that comparing 'flaws' in ADC conversion with flaws in playback of an analog master tape before the DC conversion is like comparing molehills to mountains.


----------



## analogsurviver

Yes, I am still on my vinyl horse - or DSD128 ( present, hopefully DSD512 near future ) for actual recordings. I might even admit - shame on me - sometimes using 192/24 PCM for some purposes - but only because these purposes involve mandatory spectrum analysis and other computer mumbo jumbo - and therefore conversion from DSD to PCM, taking both additional time and storage place, better used for other purposes.

The point is that vinyl horse(s) can run at substantially different speeds, while running on the very same analogue record - whereas RBCD is inherently defined and by its definition, it is too slow. 

I agree that marketing gurus are doing what you accused them of in all fields.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

old tech said:


> I think you missed the point.  It certainly is good enough, so how are perceived flaws in ADC conversion an issue when these flaws are far less, and by order of magnitude?


agreed....i managed to misread your post


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 16, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, I am still on my vinyl horse - or DSD128 ( present, hopefully DSD512 near future ) for actual recordings. I might even admit - shame on me - sometimes using 192/24 PCM for some purposes - but only because these purposes involve mandatory spectrum analysis and other computer mumbo jumbo - and therefore conversion from DSD to PCM, taking both additional time and storage place, better used for other purposes.
> 
> The point is that vinyl horse(s) can run at substantially different speeds, while running on the very same analogue record - whereas RBCD is inherently defined and by its definition, it is too slow.
> 
> I agree that marketing gurus are doing what you accused them of in all fields.



I started an LP / vinyl thread a while back and no one posts to it. If you post to it I’ll cut you some breaks and back you up wherever I can. If you look way down the list of threads you’ll see it. For what it’s worth, I played vinyl for one of my kids for a while the other day and he was just in love with it. The sound is good and you are just so much viscerally closer to what’s going on. You can hear the music from the cartridge with everything off, you have an intuitive sense for the vibrations and the magnets and the electronic current, it’s amazing to hear it amplified and you’re just like, wow, if all you’ve heard is CDs or file formats your whole life. I for one have had the thought that if we had a sturdier LP substance, as in not scratching, or developing surface noise to such an extent, maybe there would be a lot more vibrancy to the format commercially. Even now, it’s just amazing and fun. I’m lucky enough to have a few hundred LPs—a small collection yes but enough to have some real fun. If you want to post to my thread we can hash these things out. You can tell me what the best sounding LPs are. I’d be interested in checking them out. I have a feeling old tech might jump in too.

It’s the fourth thread on the second page of sound science right now.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 16, 2018)

old tech said:


> Are you still on your vinyl horse?  I only know a minority that prefer vinyl playback over RBCD in a general sense (ie excluding certain examples that are better mastered than the equivalent digital release) and even so, they prefer it because they find the distortions pleasant, rather than a fantasised belief that they have superman hearing of higher frequencies.  Most rational people who understand audio as a science know that RBCD is a higher fidelity format than vinyl for all frequencies that we humans can hear.  The only bandwagon are the marketing gurus that appeal to a certain type of audiophile (aka audiophools) with their psuedoscience.  Unfortunately you get that in all industries, including medicine, finance etc not just audio.
> 
> In any event, your post is off-topic as the point is that comparing 'flaws' in ADC conversion with flaws in playback of an analog master tape before the DC conversion is like comparing molehills to mountains.



All of these analogies remind me of an old John Belushi SNL skit where he started off stating the common wisdom that Spring comes in like a lion and out like a lamb, or vice versa, I forget, and then he totally goes off on a litany of analogies he thinks are more appropriate, I’ll try to dig it up and add it from YouTube. The point being, once we are in debate mode I think it’s best to minimize the analogies, Getting into what analogy is best or why a certain analogy is being discussed doesn’t take us much of anywhere. It’s comical but not constructive, IMHO.

Here, this just cracks me up so bad. It’s the official NBC clip.

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-john-belushi-on-march/n33439


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> I started an LP / vinyl thread a while back and no one posts to it. If you post to it I’ll cut you some breaks and back you up wherever I can. If you look way down the list of threads you’ll see it. For what it’s worth, I played vinyl for one of my kids for a while the other day and he was just in love with it. The sound is good and you are just so much viscerally closer to what’s going on. You can hear the music from the cartridge with everything off, you have an intuitive sense for the vibrations and the magnets and the electronic current, it’s amazing to hear it amplified and you’re just like, wow, if all you’ve heard is CDs or file formats your whole life. I for one have had the thought that if we had a sturdier LP substance, as in not scratching, or developing surface noise to such an extent, maybe there would be a lot more vibrancy to the format commercially. Even now, it’s just amazing and fun. I’m lucky enough to have a few hundred LPs—a small collection yes but enough to have some real fun. If you want to post to my thread we can hash these things out. You can tell me what the best sounding LPs are. I’d be interested in checking them out. I have a feeling old tech might jump in too.
> 
> It’s the fourth thread on the second page of sound science right now.



There are - at least - two LP/vinyl threads on head-fi, running for a long, long time :

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/tur...t-a-new-thread-ask-your-question-here.613136/

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/post-a-photograph-of-your-turntable.549616/

TBH - vinyl is LOTS of hits and misses - the latter outnumbering the former, unfortunately. It is an EXTREMELY metiuculous way of doing things - whereas one can be "sloppy" with digital ( and everything can be backed up and/or restored - at least for the last whatever operation you did wrong ) - but EVERY mistake with things vinyl is final. It can range from ruined just one record ( learning the hard way in the least expensive way... ), trough breaking styli ( at "few" hundreds to "few" K a pop... ) - to the harshest one - realizing you have SNAFUed your entire record collection to FUBAR condition ...

It is MUCH more expensive than digital. Unless you plan to have at very least approx 10K for your entire rig ( sky is the upper limit ) - digital will always be a better choice. Records are the second most expensive sound carrier commercially available - after R2R second gen tapes. Record hygiene is THE biggest issue - and nobody should be without some serious record cleaning "device(s)". 

I work with analog records and the equipment to play them on for 43 years , have MUCH more experience than most analog oriented audiophiles, yet I know that I know only a little. That said, I forgot about analog record playback probably more than 99% of people will ever know.

Currently in the process of figuring out how to digitise some 2-3K records - in a way that will result in a digital file that should be better sounding than possible with normal record playback, even when using the best possible equipment. In essence, bringing the sensation your kid experienced for the first time with vinyl even further - on a digital file, all while preserving the vinyl  for the future with the minimal possible record wear.

It is a tall order - but, as it seems, doable.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 16, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> There are - at least - two LP/vinyl threads on head-fi, running for a long, long time :
> 
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/tur...t-a-new-thread-ask-your-question-here.613136/
> 
> ...



I thought you my like a thread with your friends in sound science. I would like that. I started the thread with you in mind.

I had the best experience with Adobe software—powerful enough that you can really screw things up but also very easy to make improvements once you find your favorite tools. It is cool when it feels like you’re listening to the LP you know so well from a digital file. It’s also a good object lesson in exactly how powerful digital is. The interface runs along the Adobe paradigm so if you have experience with Adobe software you have a head start up the learning curve. Maybe it’s Adobe Audition? I think they bought it out from someone several years ago but it seems to me they are active in improving it. Well this is my last post about that out here in the wild as I don’t want to go too far OT. My thread is around if you’re amenable.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 16, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] You can shout "bull****" as many times as you like....
> [2] But, if you'd spend a little of that effort reading up on current signal processing technology, you would learn that those analysis tools do in fact exist, and that separating information from hoise, even when the noise is at a higher level than the information, is well established technology, as well as the theory that explains why and how to do it, and enables a good programmer to create new analysis tools that do specific things even more accurately.
> [3] As a broad generalization, when you want to analyze something, you start by looking at _ALL_ the information you have; you do _NOT_ throw half of it away, while cheerfully exclaiming "I just know there was nothing useful in that half", then declare that anybody who disagrees with that absurd claim must be wrong.



1. But you can't keep spouting BS as many times as you like, this is NOT the "KeithEmo BS" forum, it's the Science Forum!

2. Instead of just more utter BS and using the same tired old audiophile tactic of extreme hypocrisy, why don't you take your own advice? Why don't you spent a little effort reading up on current signal processing? If you did, you would learn that in fact those analysis tools DO NOT exist (that are capable of doing what you're suggesting), that in fact not even the scientific theory exists on which such a tool could be based! Why don't you start with this, the most useful recent scientific paper on the subject I've seen, because it investigates and evaluates the different current approaches to signal extraction. While the science has developed significantly recently, it can only deal with certain specific signals and conditions (isolated signals for example), signals and conditions which are NOT applicable to commercial audio recordings, which are massively more complex. And, it's not just an issue of developing the technology to be better, it's an issue for which there isn't even a practical theory which could achieve what you're suggesting. Quote: "_Despite the recent advances in BSS and PAE, the challenges due to the complexity and uncertainty of the sound scenes still remain to be resolved._". The proposed suggestion is that all the information of the recording; mics types, positioning relative to the source, etc., and all the mixing process details be fed into some future processor, so it's got some idea what it's looking for but, none of that information exists for any past or current recording, let alone all of it and in the vast majority of cases it's totally impractical/impossible to log all that information for future recordings. So as far as even the theory is concerned (let alone an actual implementation), we're currently at an impasse.

Furthermore, if you'd spent some time actually using the current signal analysis and processing tools, rather than just reading the marketing, you'd learn what is actually currently possible! De-Noiser technology has been around for decades, the best ones currently are by Cedar and iZotope and they are much better than those of a decade ago. However, they cannot actually De-Noise, that's just marketing, they CANNOT isolate the signal from the noise, typically they can only reduce noise by about 6-8dB before the artefacts become too great BUT even then, it only works that well if you feed it relatively simple, raw (unprocessed), un-mixed channels of sound. As soon as the complexity increases, their effectiveness reduces, and that's what you're talking about, applying these tools not only to processed sound but processed sound that's mixed with many layers of other processed sound. The same situation is true with reverb analysis/removal. I'm sure it works absolutely perfectly if you create the ideal signal+reverb for it but I wouldn't know because I only ever give it real recordings which were NOT specifically designed for it!

3. Huh, are you completely NUTS? You stated: "_I would use a high pass filter to separate the ultrasonic content from the "audible music". Then I would boost it a bit to make it easy to work with. Then I would fed it into a DSP engine running appropriate software to analyze it._" And now you state: "_you start by looking at ALL the information you have; you do NOT throw half of it away,_" So just to clarify, you're saying that as throwing half the information away is bad, what you would do instead is throw away 99%-100% of it. Good luck with that, knock yourself out! Secondly, what "half" am I throwing out, show me a single commercial recording where half (or for that matter even a tenth) of the information is at >20kHz.


KeithEmo said:


> [4] It's pretty obvious, from even a cursory visual obsrvation of the one sample BigShot provided in that link, that those ultrasonic frequencies contain _some sort of information_... at least in the song he looked at.
> [5] (a) If I have an instrument whose primary frequency is at 2 kHz...
> (b) - the level and phase relationship of the harmonic at 4 kHz provides information
> (c) - and the level and phase relationship of the harmonic at 24 kHz will give me _MORE_ information
> [6] I'll gladly stop claiming that such things are possible.... Right after you show me ...


4. Yes, it contains "some sort of information" BUT, WHAT SORT OF INFORMATION? Does it specifically contain acoustic/reflection information because if it doesn't, then any disagreement on how impossible it currently is to isolate acoustic information is completely moot anyway!! How many times?

5. Another absolute beauty, it really is truly impressive! Let look at your three statements and the typical type of fallacy you use to relate them and end up with your utter BS:
a. OK, lets take that example.
b. Yes, it could.
c. Sure ... Providing you ignore all the evidence AND the laws of physics!
Back in the real world:
Statement "a": There are very few instruments which produce a primary (fundamental) frequency as high as 2kHz. In say an orchestra, there's only two; the piccolo and the violin. Still an entirely valid example though.
Statement "b": An instrument producing a 2kHz fundamental will have a 4kHz 2nd harmonic but that harmonic will provide less information than the fundamental (2kHz) frequency because it will be of lower level to start with and will be more prone to absorption.
Statement "c": Now this statement is problematic on several levels! Let's look at the actual evidence, which very fortunately specifically exists for one of the instruments mentioned, the violin. In the James Boyk Paper (1997) he carefully measured and analysed the specifically >20kHz output of a violin. Depending on whether it was played sul-ponticello or double-stopped, as a percentage of the total power the violin produced throughout the spectrum, the >20kHz band accounted for just *0.02%* and *0.04%* respectively. But wait, it gets even worse (!) because that figure was obtained from close mic'ing the violin. The calculation of air absorption at 100ft distance for a 24kHz harmonic (relative to 2kHz content) is 20.7dB. Admittedly 100ft is further than the typically ideal listening position but still, we've got virtually nothing to start with and have to reduce it by a factor of about 4 times! And if that's not bad enough, these are the figures for the direct sound, what's going to happen with far lower level reflections? They've got much more air to travel through AND they're going to be absorbed by the wall materials! You'd have more luck trying to record a quark farting during a thunderstorm! I've provided the published scientific evidence and applied the laws of physics, which fully supports my assertion that there would be no recordable acoustic information above 20kHz (in fact I highly doubt there'd be anything above 10kHz). Violins is one of the instruments YOU mentioned analysing and even if we take the most optimal close mic'ed figures, you propose to achieve this by "throwing away" 99.96% of the information and analysing the remaining 0.04% for acoustic information which isn't even there! Now, for the umpteenth time, it's well past time for you to PUT UP OR SHUT UP, provide some evidence that there is any recorded acoustic information above 20kHz.

6. How long have you been a member of this sub-forum? In all that time have you never bothered to read the home page or learn anything about science or fallacies? Try clicking the "Burden of Proof" link for a beginner's version! It is unacceptable here to make-up BS and to continue to claim BS until someone proves you wrong, it's up to YOU to substantiate your claim. Despite this, I've provided you with evidence above, so yet again, provide evidence of recorded acoustic information >20kHz, *PUT UP or SHUT UP*!!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

You've got most of the basic facts more or less right.... but you've sort of missed some of the details and the consclusions.

It's well established that many things produce some output up to and including very high frequencies.
For example, even a relatively clean 1 kHz square wave produces harmonics into the megahertz (theoretically up to infinitely high frequencies).
In fact, many complex waveforms contain harmonics that theoretically extend to infinitely high frequencies.
(Many old style LED displays were chopped using a square wave at a few hundred Hz.... and produced harmjonics high enough to interfere with AM radios.)
And things like a cymbal hit contain at least some components reaching into the very high ultrasonic range.
And that information is PRESENT... whether we humans can hear it or not.
The argument about "whether high-res recordings are audibly different" focuses on whether those sounds may in fact be audible to some people.

HOWEVER, exlcuding for the moment whether anyone can HEAR them or not, those high frequency components can be used to obtain OTHER information.
For example, by analyzing the arrival times of echoes of some of those high frequencies, we may be able to tell how large the studio was, and what it was made of.

When someone hits a cymbal, we can tell what the walls and floor were made of by analyzing the spectrum of the echoes....
For example, concrete floors absorb certain frequencies more thoroughly than others, and wood walls act differently.
So, by comparing the spectrum of the original hit, to the spectrum of the echo, we can tell what the wall was made of by comparing the amounts of various frequencies present in both.
As a simple example, if the original cymbal hit was bright, but the first echo sounded dull, then the wall that first echo bounced off of was probably padded.
And, if that first echo was bright, then that wall was probably very reflective.
(And we can tell how far away the wall was by measuring the delay between the first hit and the echo.)
This gives us INFORMATION about where that cymbal was recorded.

That information may them be useful for something (other than listening to).
Maybe I juts want to know abut the studio.
Oe, maybe, the vocalist sounds as if she was recorded in a different room.
By knowing what both rooms were like, I can add some specific reverb to the vocals, and make them sound like they were recorded in the same room as the cymbals.

And, more to the point of what I was saying....
A modern surround sound processor mught use information like that to learn about the original venue so as to adjust its operation in some fashion.

I pointed out that we already DO have processes that use inaudible information for quite useful purposes.
Click-and-pop reducers use ultrasonic information to tell record clicks from sounds recorded in the music.
The Plangent process uses inaudible high-frequency residual record bias to correct tape flaws.
The ICE optical process uses invisible infrared components to accurately tell the difference between scratches on a photo negative and lines that are part of the actual photo.

The list goes on and on, and I merely suggested that some of the information that is obviously present in those recordings may well prove useful - even in "consumer gear".
(You might be amazed how much computer processing goes into, for example, synthesizing height channels from a two-channel recording.)
Perhaps next week's surround decoder will use that information it figures out about the studio to make more accurate height speaker channels...
If so, then it will work much better with recordings that have retained that information than with those that haven't.
I don't know... and neither can anyone else.



Steve999 said:


> This may be valid data as to instruments and their harmonics: http://www.zytrax.com/tech/audio/audio.html (go to the bottom of the page). I'm not competent to judge it, but I believe it. So the only thing you have up there above 20 khz is percussion harmonics that maybe a very small sliver of the population can hear a small portion of during the early part of their lives, if I am reading and understanding this right.
> 
> What do you think? Am I getting this right?
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Yets, amazingly enough, over thirty years ago, I had a burglar alarm that could, with excellent accuracy, tell the difference between a breaking window and a RECORDING of a breaking window... by analyzing those totlaly useless ultrasonic harmonics of the sound. And it didn't even have a DSP in it. (Shattering glass seems to make a lot of easily identifiable sounds above 20 kHz.)

Actually, what I was saying was that you look at ALL the parts.... sometimes that's easier if you look at them all together... and sometimes you pick them apart and look at the individual pieces separately... often you do both and combine the information you get from each.





gregorio said:


> 1. But you can't keep spouting BS as many times as you like, this is NOT the "KeithEmo BS" forum, it's the Science Forum!
> 
> 2. Instead of just more utter BS and using the same tired old audiophile tactic of extreme hypocrisy, why don't you take your own advice? Why don't you spent a little effort reading up on current signal processing? If you did, you would learn that in fact those analysis tools DO NOT exist (that are capable of doing what you're suggesting), that in fact not even the scientific theory exists on which such a tool could be based! Why don't you start with this, the most useful recent scientific paper on the subject I've seen, because it investigates and evaluates the different current approaches to signal extraction. While the science has developed significantly recently, it can only deal with certain specific signals and conditions (isolated signals for example), signals and conditions which are NOT applicable to commercial audio recordings, which are massively more complex. And, it's not just an issue of developing the technology to be better, it's an issue for which there isn't even a practical theory which could achieve what you're suggesting. Quote: "_Despite the recent advances in BSS and PAE, the challenges due to the complexity and uncertainty of the sound scenes still remain to be resolved._". The proposed suggestion is that all the information of the recording; mics types, positioning relative to the source, etc., and all the mixing process details be fed into some future processor, so it's got some idea what it's looking for but, none of that information exists for any past or current recording, let alone all of it and in the vast majority of cases it's totally impractical/impossible to log all that information for future recordings. So as far as even the theory is concerned (let alone an actual implementation), we're currently at an impasse.
> 
> ...


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> You've got most of the basic facts more or less right.... but you've sort of missed some of the details and the consclusions.



So that's a "no" then, you can't provide a single shred of evidence to support your claim that there is any acoustic information above 20kHz. All you can do is just repeat exactly the same BS, even though evidence supporting it's refutation has been provided. Therefore, not only do I have every right to call you a bullsh*ter, but in this sub-forum it's a duty! Now all you have to do is fulfil your promise "_I'll gladly stop claiming that such things are possible...._" but it doesn't appear that you're honest enough even to do that!!!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm inclined to agree there....

However, to use your analogy....
I'm sure there are a few people who insist that the undulations make them seasick... while they don't mind the potholes...
And perhaps even a few cars with soft suspension that bounce madly when they hit undulations of a certain size... 
(I once owned a Dodge Diplomat that had very soft suspension. It cruised right over potholes, but sometimes bounced alarmingly if the road was unlevel.)
And, regardless of their relative importance, at least in principle, a perfectly level flat road would technically be better than one with undulations or potholes....

And that last point is the relevant one.
There are two entirely different questions there.
1) Does "the MQA process" do what they claim and make a TECHNICAL improvement in the quality of the recording?
2) Can you, or anyone, hear that difference, and how many people care about it (whether they can hear it or not)?

In point of fact, many MQA files do sound substantially different than the originals (and many do not)...
However, many of them are also subject to "other remastering", and details are rarely provided...
This makes it difficult to determine exactly how they were changed along the way...

Dolby Labs also includes options in their current top-line encoder to address and correct "ADC issues".

So, whether you or I agree or not, "credible people seem to believe there's something to this and are working on it".
And, obviously, folks like the Navy and the Air Force continue to do research in "extracting information from noise" - for use with RADAR, sonar, and other similar technologies.
And, at least sometimes, previously "useless" information turns out to be useful after all.



old tech said:


> Yes I understand that, I was just pointing out there are more flaws in playback from the analog source (ie from the tape machine converting the magnetic layer of the tape to an electrical signal) than in the ADC conversion.
> 
> Correcting 'flaws' in ADC conversion while ignoring the flaws from electro/magnetic/mechanical analog sources is like leveling out a slight undulation in the road while ignoring the pot holes.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> So that's a "no" then, you can't provide a single shred of evidence to support your claim that there is any acoustic information above 20kHz. All you can do is just repeat exactly the same BS, even though evidence supporting it's refutation has been provided. Therefore, not only do I have every right to call you a bullsh*ter, but in this sub-forum it's a duty! Now all you have to do is fulfil your promise "_I'll gladly stop claiming that such things are possible...._" but it doesn't appear that you're honest enough even to do that!!!
> 
> G



@KeithEmo, I encourage you not to reply to the quoted post.  You deserve better than to be repeatedly personally insulted.  I've really appreciated your substantive and measured posts in this thread, and would like to see them continue.


----------



## KeithEmo

Hmmmm.....

Let's see.......

That burglar alarm I had used acoustic information above 20 khz to tell the difference between a real break-in and a TV show.
And the Plangent process uses very high frequency ultrasonic information to correct issues with old master tapes.
And, let's not leave out our little furry friends, the bats, who use ultrasonic acoustic information to navigate.
(And BigShot provided examples of actual non-random ultrasonic information present in actual high-resolution recordings.)

That's three examples of technologies that use "USEFUL acoustic information above 20 kHz"....
And one demonstration that it really is present in at least some high-res recordings....
How many examples do you need?
Or are you suggesting that I just made up those examples....?

Incidentally, here's an interesting technical paper about "determining information about a room from ultrasonic echoes".
This particular example considers using a generated signal rather than one that is already present (lie RADAR or SONAR).
That makes the job of detailed analysis simpler....
However, it addresses various issues about "how to extract useful information from a jumble of echoes".
https://www.researchgate.net/public...stics_Simulator_for_Ultrasonic_Robot_Location

And, just for fun, if I happen to listen to a high-res recording of Tommy, I'll finally get to know about that scene where the mirror gets smashed.
(Did the Foley guys really smash a mirror in the studio - or did they smash it outside and record it on a separate track - or did they use a tape recorded sample of breaking glass?)



gregorio said:


> So that's a "no" then, you can't provide a single shred of evidence to support your claim that there is any acoustic information above 20kHz. All you can do is just repeat exactly the same BS, even though evidence supporting it's refutation has been provided. Therefore, not only do I have every right to call you a bullsh*ter, but in this sub-forum it's a duty! Now all you have to do is fulfil your promise "_I'll gladly stop claiming that such things are possible...._" but it doesn't appear that you're honest enough even to do that!!!
> 
> G


----------



## KeithEmo

Thank you... and you're quite right... 
I think I've provided more than enough examples to prove my point to anyone who is really interested...
It's time to move on.



Phronesis said:


> @KeithEmo, I encourage you not to reply to the quoted post.  You deserve better than to be repeatedly personally insulted.  I've really appreciated your substantive and measured posts in this thread, and would like to see them continue.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Nov 16, 2018)

Is it really controversial that hi-res recordings could contain acoustic information in the ultrasonic band?

I mean, in the other thread on HD tracks and ultrasonics, it's pretty easy to hear in those recordings (after pitching down 90%) that there's actual ultrasonic stuff that obviously corresponds to the music.

To my ear, it's either ultrasonic noise being modulated by the audio band, or it's actually from the instruments themselves. (It certainly doesn't sound tonal.) Anyway, assuming it's the latter, that would certainly (technically) count as acoustic information in the ultrasonic band.

(Whether it's of any practical use is a question for researchers, I suppose.)

Do we happen to know for a fact that it would be the former?

@KeithEmo - I personally get the drift of your posts and don't think you're completely off base on anything.  I think two things work against the quality of the discussion - one is that you are reluctant to speak in absolute terms (as am I), and the other is that your posts tend to be of substantive length.   I think by making several points in one post, it reduces the likelihood that they are all well-understood - it's clear that the pace of posting ITT is extreme, especially considering the word count... I don't see that the typical M.O. is to sit and digest a long post before responding.

It seems that sometimes, taking the stance of "I can't rule it out absolutely" is interpreted as positive support for the position, but I don't really see it that way. 

I find it's safer to be brief and try to address a singular topic.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 16, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> To my ear, it's either ultrasonic noise being modulated by the audio band, or it's actually from the instruments themselves. (It certainly doesn't sound tonal.) Anyway, assuming it's the latter, that would certainly (technically) count as acoustic information in the ultrasonic band.



No, that would count as direct signal information, not acoustic information, information about the room acoustics in which that instrument was recorded.



KeithEmo said:


> Let's see.......
> [1a] That burglar alarm I had used acoustic information above 20 khz to tell the difference between a real break-in and a TV show.
> [1b] And the Plangent process uses very high frequency ultrasonic information to correct issues with old master tapes.
> [1c] And, let's not leave out our little furry friends, the bats, who use ultrasonic acoustic information to navigate.
> ...



1. Let's see indeed.
1a. Don't you know the difference between evidence and anecdote? How about what the word "analogy" means? If you can provide some evidence that your burglar alarm was using ultrasonic information to work out the acoustic properties of the room the TV or burglar was in, then we'd have an analogy that was actually analogous, instead of your REPEATED tactic of an analogy that isn't an analogy!
1b. Again, what has that got to do with acoustic information?
1c. And all your music recordings contain bat call/echolocation signals do they? Please give me just one example of a music album that contains 120dB of ultrasonic bat signals/reflections.
1d. Great, then what's stopping you pointing out the acoustic information within that ultrasonic information?

2. ONLY ONE ... WHERE IS IT? After you demonstrate that ultrasonic acoustic information exists on at least one commercial audio recording, ONLY THEN we can talk about it's possible extraction, analysis and how it *might* be useful with the fantasy/futuristic surround sound system you're suggesting. How many times?

3. How many music albums do you have that contain RADAR reflections of the recording venue/s? Just one example will do.



Phronesis said:


> [1] You deserve better than to be repeatedly personally insulted.
> [2] I've really appreciated your substantive and measured posts in this thread, and would like to see them continue.



1. No, we deserve better than to have this forum deliberately and repeatedly insulted! He has no excuse, he's not a newbie here.

2. If you "really appreciate" misrepresented fact and made-up BS to fulfil KeithEmo's agenda, and would like to see it continue, that's entirely up to you, just not here, this is the Sound Science forum!! If this is a democracy and everyone wants BS rather than facts/science, no problem. Just rename the forum "KeithEmo's BS" forum and everyone will be happy (except those interested in the facts/science).

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Nov 16, 2018)

gregorio said:


> No, that would count as direct signal information, not acoustic information, information about the room acoustics in which that instrument was recorded.



Oh right, good point.

Still I think we might be overestimating how much ultrasonic content gets absorbed in free air / reflections. It's a lot but it's not instantly extinguished either.

Attenuation in free air is only roughly 1-5dB/m at "lower" frequencies, (under 100khz or whatever) reflections are expected to be much more attenuated than normal audio, but Keith's point about sonar being a useful technology indoors does prove that reflected ultrasound is reliably detectable in normal spaces.  Not all recording venues completely lack surfaces that might return some reasonable-amplitude ultrasound to the mic's position.

If the wall is 3 meters from the musician, we might get (say) 6dB attenuation from the air plus (say conservatively) another 20dB from the reflection, for all I know at -26dB the 24khz crap coming off a cymbal is still an intelligible signal for some arbitrary purpose.

To put it another way, if (for some strange reason) you tasked me with making sure that no useful amount of reflected ultrasound reached a mic in a recording session, I couldn't just assume that the problem would take care of itself.


----------



## Phronesis

Here's a thought: intelligent, informed, and truth-seeking people may not always agree on what's true or false, possible or not possible.  A corollary is that intelligent, informed, and truth-seeking people can sometimes be wrong without knowing they're wrong, despite believing that they're right.  That's where humility comes into play, and people with humility are willing to say things like "I'm not sure," "I could be wrong," "I guess it's possible," "this is what I think, but I can't be sure of it," etc.  Research has also shown that confidence in a belief isn't generally a good indicator of how accurate the belief is.  I believe most scientists would agree with all of this, and it's worthwhile to do some study of the history of science to see how prevailing ideas have changed over time, sometimes very dramatically (paradigm shifts, scientific revolutions, etc.).


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> Here's a thought: intelligent, informed, and truth-seeking people may not always agree on what's true or false, possible or not possible. A corollary is that intelligent, informed, and truth-seeking people can sometimes be wrong without knowing they're wrong, despite believing that they're right.



All true. And the solution couldn't be more simple, for KeithEmo to support his claims with some evidence, or are you advocating that intelligent, informed and truth-seeking people should accept any old made-up unsubstantiated theory or BS?

G


----------



## KeithEmo

If I actually do ever suspect that there were bats in that studio, these guys seem to have the equipment that will enable me to identify the species...
http://www.latimes.com/projects/bat-sounds-library/
(of course that will only work if the recording hasn't been bandwidth limited).

I wonder if they have an album....
And, yes, the echoes of bat signals do contain acoustic information... 
And bats do use them to collect data about things like... where the walls are... and what they're made of.
And, yes, they seem to be somewhat better at analyzing that data than we are... at least for now.

No.... I'm really done being baited into responding this time 



gregorio said:


> No, that would count as direct signal information, not acoustic information, information about the room acoustics in which that instrument was recorded.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

gregorio said:


> are you advocating that intelligent, informed and truth-seeking people should accept any old made-up unsubstantiated theory or BS?



That's what analoguesurvivor does. He's just following the trend.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> All true. And the solution couldn't be more simple, for KeithEmo to support his claims with some evidence, or are you advocating that intelligent, informed and truth-seeking people should accept any old made-up unsubstantiated theory or BS?
> 
> G



Because you're so sure you're right and can't see any other possibility, you're not seeing that judging what's "unsubstantiated theory" and "BS" is sometimes a matter of perspective.

Sincerely, I suggest that you get some help in dealing with whatever personal issues are motivating you to fight with people on the internet about topics which are pretty unimportant in the scheme of things.  Try breathing exercises, meditation, spending time outdoors in nature, yoga, time with loved ones, etc.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> That's what analoguesurvivor does. He's just following the trend.



Following the trend is THE LAST thing I do.

I stopped reading JAES when all the rage has been developing MP3s - where I clearly heard and felt the info CD is capable of conveying is not enough. That was in mid 80s, when I was approx 25 years old - and built from scratch the best headphones - ever. Basically, Jecklin Float WITHOUT all the limitations, constraints, design errors, you name it... - either in technical, financial and, unfortunately, safety department. In states of USA that still have death penalty, they'd be more frugal with electricity to see one off than what powers these babies ... - thing went to storage late 1999 and I, reluctantly, swallowed the sour pill of replacing it with Stax. Talking about MAJOR downgrade !!!

I bought my first CD player not because of music - but because it was the cheapest low distortion signal generator when using test discs.  Limited to 20 kHz, but having up to that frequency less THD than the signal generator I could afford. 

I simply seek the closest approach to the live sound - and if miniaturized Martians rubbing their noses with each other happen to be the best means to achieve it, that is what I would be interested in. 
In that quest, I am as consistent as it gets.

About time you learn to spell my name correctly - that "E" is there for (a) (m)any reason(s) - or I will start misspeling yours .


----------



## taffy2207

A view from an Outsider looking in. This thread reminds me of this :-



You're all (mostly) grown Men, act accordingly


----------



## Steve999

KeithEmo said:


> You've got most of the basic facts more or less right.... but you've sort of missed some of the details and the consclusions.
> 
> It's well established that many things produce some output up to and including very high frequencies.
> For example, even a relatively clean 1 kHz square wave produces harmonics into the megahertz (theoretically up to infinitely high frequencies).
> ...




Thank you. I enjoyed reading that. I’ll try to study up on it.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 16, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> [1] Keith's point about sonar being a useful technology indoors does prove that reflected ultrasound is reliably detectable in normal spaces. Not all recording venues completely lack surfaces that might return some reasonable-amplitude ultrasound to the mic's position.
> [2] If the wall is 3 meters from the musician, we might get (say) 6dB attenuation from the air plus (say conservatively) another 20dB from the reflection, for all I know at -26dB the 24khz crap coming off a cymbal is still an intelligible signal for some arbitrary purpose.



1. There can't be any doubt that ultrasonic freqs can be used for acoustic purposes, we all learned about bats at school and hopefully Radar too. That though is unrelated to the issue because musical instruments have evolved over the decades/centuries specifically for human hearing, not for transmitting radar or bat echolocation signals. Bats for example produce massive amounts of ultrasonic content (up to 120dB I believe) while musical instruments do the exact opposite, they dramatically reduce output levels even in the high frequency range, before we even get to the ultrasonic range. So, we've got massively less ultrasonic signal to start with and what is there is massively more absorbed than much lower freqs. Even at 120dB, echolocation only operates for bats over relatively short distances.

2. I previously provided evidence that the >20kHz from a violin accounts for 0.04% of it's output. For that ultrasonic content to be at 120dB (like bats) the total audio energy of the violin would rupture your ear drums or kill you. The level we've actually got is down around -70dB, take off another -26dB, now we're at -96dB and even the first couple of initial reflections are below the noise floor of even very quiet mics. And of course, we typically record the violin to sound 10m or so away, so we've got a lot more attenuation of the ultrasonic content being produced in the first place, causing even lower reflection levels, plus those reflections have a lot more air to travel through. The cymbal and similar untuned perc instruments, are an interesting case. Unlike tuned instruments, they do produce some significant ultrasonic content, though still far less than what's in the audible band. However, being untuned, what they're producing contains relatively little identifiable harmonic content, particularly in the high freqs (around 10kHz or so) where the decaying harmonics disappear into the general wash of sound, in fact it becomes audibly indistinguishable from white noise. That's a problem because you can't do anything with it acoustically. Try adding artificial reverb to a splash cymbal, nothing happen except it just gets louder, because reflections of noise is also noise they just sum together and produce more noise and neither we as humans nor processors can differentiate it except in terms of just more noise. BTW, this experiment won't work ideally with all cymbals, it's best with splash cymbals because they have relatively little lower freq harmonic content.

The problem is that we can't really analyse and derive useful acoustic information even in the frequency range where virtually all of it exists (400Hz - 7kHz). In theory we can but the theory doesn't match the actual practical act of how recordings are made, often with multiple different mic positions (and therefore different acoustic information in each), different recording locations, then processed and other reflections added and then all those processed + added reflection channels mixed together. I can't see how any future DSP would ever sort all that out but even if I'm wrong and some super advanced quantum computer/software manages the task, how would that ever benefit music or film sound reproduction? Probably 99% of commercial audio recordings are not supposed to acoustically sound anything like the actual acoustic space they were recorded in. KeithEmo could hardly have picked a worse area to push his ultrasonic agenda because he can't even show there is any acoustic info there, let alone how to differentiate and analyse it or how it could be useful even if we could overcome all of these impossibilities!

G


----------



## bigshot (Nov 16, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Because you're so sure you're right and can't see any other possibility, you're not seeing that judging what's "unsubstantiated theory" and "BS" is sometimes a matter of perspective.



Perspective is usually more useful if it’s supported with facts, not just to try to muddle up and confuse other perspectives that are being supported. That’s a trend lately with some posters. Someone states something and backs it with relevant examples. Then someone else says “you can’t know that because of (irrelevant analogy) or (logical fallacy) or (unsubstantiated belief)”. We’re expected to take all perspectives as being created equal, regardless of whether the person even knows what they’re talking about.

Gregorio pours out paragraph after paragraph of hard facts to support his position. No one else comes anywhere close to him in that regard. But certain people ignore his facts and go right back to their pet theories and beliefs without bothering to back it up at all. They pump out paragraph after paragraph of semantic arguments, untested hypothesis and pseudo scientific verbiage that doesn’t address the point at hand.

It’s just a matter of intellectual honesty. If someone really did have a position to argue, they would love to have someone like Gregorio to challenge them. He’s smart, experienced and knowledgeable. That is exactly what you need to sharpen your argument. But instead we get the same old blather, ignoring every point he makes, and complaints that he isn’t being “nice” enough. OK. That tells me something. I don’t need to follow that very closely. I’ll just read the stuff that makes a point and supports it.


----------



## Arpiben

I provided @KeithEmo a few posts back a link with close miked cymbal hits hires files. As expected there is ultrasonic content up to 40kHz. My purpose was not to challenge him but rather to learn what kind of information he could retrieve from one of them. I am waiting in case he whishes to show some concrete material.
IMHO, music is not released for the purpose of eventually analyze the flight of a fly/mosquito during a live event.
If one want to dig inside 44.1/16 files there is already lots of information for dealing with.Useless to look at ultrasonics when 50/60Hz,for example, can give you clues...


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Nov 16, 2018)

gregorio said:


> Probably 99% of commercial audio recordings are not supposed to acoustically sound anything like the actual acoustic space they were recorded in. KeithEmo could hardly have picked a worse area to push his ultrasonic agenda because he can't even show there is any acoustic info there, let alone how to differentiate and analyse it or how it could be useful even if we could overcome all of these impossibilities!
> 
> G



This is a good response overall, I don't disagree on any of it really.  I would think it goes without saying that you basically wouldn't bother looking for ultrasonics from anything except percussion.

When it comes to drums / cymbals, I could imagine an algorithm that might do something interesting using ultrasonic content.

Since that band will be relatively free from interference from anything except percussion, you might be able to use the cymbals to approximate some kind of impulse response and then derive the size / composition of the space based on certain assumptions (rectangular room, for example), and from there generate some kind of useful "clean" IR?

From other comments, I gather this is already attempted by some software, but I don't have any idea of how well it works.   And it seems more like a novelty for producers / engineers than something a consumer would want, but it's sort of fascinating to think about.


----------



## KeithEmo

That's exactly what I was talking about.

Most modern room correction systems use an impulse as their preferred test signal.
They then analyze the returning echoes from the impule, along with a lot of heavy math, to learn all sorts of things about the room.
This can be done the most accurately when you have the option of creating a specific and precisely known impulse as a stimulus.
However, any waveform that approximates an impulse will provide you with data, although it will contain more variables, and so be less precise.

Now, let's assume I have a multi-track recording of a vocalist singing with a band...
The band was recorded in a large room, but the vocalist was recorded in a sound booth at the studio, and mixed in later.
It's obvious that, at least to begin with, the background tone of the band's performance isn't going to match that of the vocalist.
If the band recorded in a cathedral, there will be echoes of the drums from the walls, and other sorts of "venue ambience".
However, those room size cues will be missing from the vocal track (there won't be any of those echoes in the vocal track because the vocalist wasn't singing there).
If the mix was well mastered, the engineer will have added reverb to the vocal track to match the ambience associated with the music.
He'll have used a plugin to create echoes and other ambience in the vocal track to make it seem as if the vocalist was singing in the same room as the band was playing.
And, if that wasn't done, some humans might complain that the recording sounded quite unnatural, and was "obviously multi-tracked".
A few recent mastering plugins offer the ability to fix this automatically, by "extracting the tone from one track and applying it to another".

If you've been keeping track, you'll realize that there is a long history of including various "DSP modes" in home theater processors.
Most of them simulate the sounds of specific types of rooms by adding processing to the audio.
Yamaha was well known for offering DSP modes like "concert hall" and "cathedral" as options on their home theater gear.

Could someone sell a new product that include a DSP algorithm that "made unnatural sounding recordings sound more natural"?
The answer there is an obvious yes... because many such products already exist.
Could such an algorithm make use of information about the original venue where most of the tracks were recorded to do a better job?
I'll bet it could.

Also note that you don't always have to have "complete, detailed, and fully extracted information" in order for it to be useful.
For example, I can record the impulse response of a room, and that impulse response can be analyzed to create a "signature" of how that room sounds.
I can then use a convolver algorithm to apply that signature to a different recording.
And, after I do so, it will make my new track "sound as if it was played in that room".
For example, I can record a vocal track in a sound booth, and use my convolver to apply the impulse response from Winchester Cathedral...
And, after I do, I'll end up with a recording that SOUNDS very much like that vocalist was singing in Winchester Cathedral...
That impulse file of WInchester Cathedral "contains" information about the dimensions and other acoustic properties that make Winchester Cathedral unique...
And, even more interesting, I can apply that information to another recording to alter it...
AND I CAN DO THIS *WITHOUT* ACTUALLY ANALYZING THE FILE OR EXTRACTING THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION FROM IT.
I can make it sound as if my singer was singing in Winchester Cathedral.... without actually bothering to calculate the dimensions of the cathedral.
This is well known current technology.
Here's a free plugin for FooBar2000 that uses it....   http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Foobar2000:Components_0.9/foo_convolve
The main catch with the current technology is that is requires a special impulse file.
(Someone has to actually play an impulse sound in Winchester Cathedral and record the result to create the impulse file.)

However, wouldn't it be cool if the processor you buy next year could create a "pretty good" approximation of that impulse file by analyzing the recording itself?
It might even do a better job of simulating the sound of WInchester Cathedral than "cathedral DSP mode" in a current processor.
You might push a button, play it a recording you like, and it would make your other albums "sound like that one"....
Or it might have a mode that "makes poorly mixed multi-track recordings sound more natural by repairing obvious inconsistencies".
If you doubt the market for that... just see how many pieces of audiophile gear claim, as their main selling point, that they "make music sound more natural".
(A variation on that claim has certainly gotten MQA plenty of buzz... and, apparently, earned them a lot of financing.) 

As far as I know nobody has gotten this to work really well... yet... although I could be wrong there.
But, considering how quickly technology advances, it's only a matter of time...
(And, if someone wants me to give it a try, I'll be glad to... but I will need some financing to pay the programmers to write the code....)



Zapp_Fan said:


> This is a good response overall, I don't disagree on any of it really.  I would think it goes without saying that you basically wouldn't bother looking for ultrasonics from anything except percussion.
> 
> When it comes to drums / cymbals, I could imagine an algorithm that might do something interesting using ultrasonic content.
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Nov 17, 2018)

None of this suggest any utility in recording ultrasonics.

Also nothing in his writing is backed up by any evidence that calculating the acoustics or structure of the original venue would be beneficial to the reproduction of the record.

MQA is a good example of the fact that audiophiles demand impossible things and the fact that unscrupulous companies who pretend to serve them the moon on a plate succeed over engineers who try to deliver actual improvements on an everyday basis.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 17, 2018)

Joe Bloggs said:


> None of this suggest any utility in recording ultrasonics.
> 
> Also nothing in his writing is backed up by any evidence that calculating the acoustics or structure of the original venue would be beneficial to the reproduction of the record.
> 
> MQA is a good example of the fact that audiophiles demand impossible things and the fact that unscrupulous companies who pretend to serve them the moon on a plate succeed over engineers who try to deliver actual improvements on an everyday basis.



I thought the MQA fingerprinting created marginally audible distortions, no? I could be wrong. I’m not asserting, I’m asking. Here is what I was thinking of:

https://mattmontag.com/audio-listening-test/


----------



## gregorio (Nov 17, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] And, yes, the echoes of bat signals do contain acoustic information...And bats do use them to collect data about things like... where the walls are... and what they're made of. And, yes, they seem to be somewhat better at analyzing that data than we are... at least for now.
> [2] No.... I'm really done being baited into responding this time



1. Stop with the schoolboy BS! What schoolboy doesn't know about bat echolocation? Now all you have to do is give a single example of an album that contains some bat echolocation signals (and their reflections). If you can't, then explain what possible relevance this has to music/sound production and how you're not trying to promote a correlation fallacy as fact.

2. What do you mean "you're done being baited"? You repeatedly and deliberately make-up BS, thereby attempting to pervert whole point of this forum and insult it's members, and YOU'RE the one being baited? This thread is "testing audiophile claims and myths" NOT "Let's make up a whole new bunch of unsubstantiated audiophile BS claims"! Who's baiting who here? The level of hypocrisy is staggering!!



Phronesis said:


> Because you're so sure you're right and can't see any other possibility, you're not seeing that judging what's "unsubstantiated theory" and "BS" is sometimes a matter of perspective.



Great, if there's another/different perspective that is factually or scientifically valid, then by definition of that alternative perspective being factually/scientifically valid there MUST be some valid evidence to support it. Show me some, anything.



Zapp_Fan said:


> [1] I would think it goes without saying that you basically wouldn't bother looking for ultrasonics from anything except percussion.
> [2] When it comes to drums / cymbals, I could imagine an algorithm that might do something interesting using ultrasonic content. ...



1. In theory, that would seem entirely logical and I'd agree. In practice though, the vast majority of the time it couldn't work.
2. With drums; I'd certainly agree there could be some acoustically useful ultrasonic content, particularly with the snare drum, because we've got a high level of signal with a reasonable level of ultrasonic content, a pronounced transient and a fairly short decay which won't interfere too much with any acoustic reflections and therefore should make differentiating the direct signal from the reflections relatively simple. In theory then, the snare drum is the most logical place to look for analysable ultrasonic acoustic information. But then we run into that pesky problem of what actually happens in the real world in practise! In practise, the snare drum in a kit is always extremely closely mic'ed (typically an inch or less), to reduce spill from the other instruments in the kit and thereby allow us some ability to process and mix the snare drum without too adversely affecting the other instruments. The consequence of this is that: A. If we're reducing spill significantly from the other loud instruments in the kit which are only a few inches or a foot or so away, then obviously we're reducing the relatively distant and quieter reflections of the snare drum by significantly more. B. This close mic has to be placed on the far side of the drum (otherwise the drummer would hit it), pointing downwards and towards the drummer. So most of the wall reflections arriving straight at the mic (where it is most sensitive) would have to pass through the drummer first! Additionally, we would get little/no reflections from the floor, as they would have to pass through the snare drum first. If all that isn't bad enough, the snare drum in a kit is typically quadruple mic'ed: The batter head mic (which I've just described), the snare head mic (a mic placed underneath the snare drum pointing upwards) to capture the snare "sizzle" which is somewhat lost in the batter head mic (due to the batter head being in the way), then also the "overheads" (which I'll come back to) and lastly, often a room mic. That's a great deal of conflicting phase and acoustic information, particularly between the two main snare mics (batter and snare head mics) because the distance between them causes severe phase cancellations, so much so, that the phase of the snare head mic is commonly "flipped" (180deg out of phase). Lastly, the whole point of close mic'ing the snare drum in the first place was so we can process it somewhat independently. Compression, EQ and also (pretty much without exception) with some artificial reverb. And while we're on arteficial reverb, I can't recall off the top of my head ever seeing a reverb preset that didn't roll-off it's output dramatically above 12kHz and the vast majority, at about 7kHz. Most in fact have a low pass filter. There's absolutely no doubt that the snare drum does contain ultrasonic content, does contain a lot of acoustic information and that acoustic information can be relatively easily differentiated but I can't imagine how on earth you'd actually analyse it to get any sort of intelligible information about the room's acoustics out of all that disparate phase and acoustic information, unless all the exact details of mic positions and exactly what was done during mixing were available to the processor (so it could maybe attempt some sort of reverse engineering) but of course none of that information is logged or available and some/most of it never will be. Additionally of course, we've just been talking about the snare drum on it's own, which is available to the mix engineer but not the consumer. What the consumer gets is the snare drum mixed with the rest of the drumkit plus all the different processing (EQ/compression/reverb etc.) of those other drumkit instruments and of course all the other instruments and vocals in the band/ensemble, each with their own processing and DIFFERENT acoustic information. As I explained (and provided the evidence), science doesn't yet even have a theory on how we could analyse all that and get intelligible results. And lastly, acoustic information in the ultrasonic range is the last place to look, even with the raw snare drum recordings which contain significant ultrasonic content, because of the way we record it, I don't recall ever having seen any ultrasonic acoustic info and once it's mixed, the most dominant (and perceptually important) acoustic information present doesn't extent beyond 12kHz (at most!).

So where else could we look.

The kick drum has some ultrasonic content but quite often it's filtered out. If it isn't though, just maybe there'd be some ultrasonic acoustic information. Again, I don't recall ever having seen any, if there is, the ratio puts it below the noise floor. Certainly within the audible band the primary kick mic does definitely provide significant acoustic information, although again, even if it could be extracted from a completed mix and analysed, I fail to see how it could provide any useful (rather than harmful) information to a reproduction system. The kick drum is virtually always recorded with the mic actually inside the kick drum or just slightly outside the hole in the resonant head (again to provide high signal to spill ratio), so all the acoustic information captured is the reflections of the inside of the drum. I suppose if someone wanted their recording to sound like the band/ensemble were all inside a kick drum then it would be useful, otherwise it would be harmful.

The cymbals are generally NOT extremely close mic'ed and therefore we avoid all the loss, phase and other issues of the acoustic information we have with the other kit instruments. Better still, the primary source for the cymbal sound in a drumkit sub-mix is typically the overhead mics, which are a stereo pair, and that means two coherent signals which can be phase compared and in theory, much more detailed/accurate acoustic information could be extracted than can be extracted from single (mono) mics. Unfortunately, there's an elephant in the ointment! Unlike the drums, cymbals by design have a long (and high level) decay, which is effectively random noise and we cannot even differentiate, let alone analyse, reverb/reflections that are going to be at minimum 20dB below that random noise. Now I need to be a little more precise here, because KeithEmo has already tried to misrepresent this fact. White noise, while random, has equal intensity at all freqs, giving it equal power spectral density. This means that white noise has statistical probability properties and that provides a potential differentiation and analysis opportunity. We could in theory have a signal that is the same level or even somewhat lower than white noise, analyse this combined signal and justly assume that deviations from the constant statistical probability of white noise must represent the signal that is buried in the white noise. While not perfectly accurate (we only ever have a probability of accuracy) it has been shown to be accurate enough to be audibly indistinguishable (in dbx tests, subjects were unable to distinguish the original signal from the extracted signal). However, there's two points to consider: Firstly, the signal can only be a little lower than the white noise. Once it falls below a certain level, it can no longer modulate/sum with the freqs within the white noise by enough to fall outside of it's statistical amplitude range. Secondly, while all this development and research is interesting and might somehow lead to a useful application in the future, the real problem, with real recordings and real cymbals is that while it might sound like white noise, it isn't, it's random noise but it's not specifically white noise (white noise only exists as a mathematically constructed, generated signal, it doesn't occur in the natural world) and therefore, the whole house of cards comes crashing down because this random noise no longer has the statistical probability properties to compare against. In a real recording, we cannot hear (nor differentiate with DSP) the reflections/reverb caused by the cymbals because it's below the level of the direct cymbal sound, which is random (but not white) noise. And BTW, there's an additional problem if we're looking only in the ultrasonic range. A near coincident stereo pair is phase coherent BUT only up to the high freq range. Very high freqs have very short wavelengths and the small distance that must exist between the mic capsules therefore causes phase incoherency. So any calculations based on phase/timing (such as reflection arrival times for example) are going to be incorrect.

There are still other considerations, not least is that music produced in the last 15-20 years commonly doesn't use an actual drumkit in the first place, drumkit samples are virtually exclusively used in EDM and other electronic genres and even in the more traditional rock genres, in the past 10 years or so drumkit samples have become so good that it's difficult even for highly experienced engineers and drummers to tell the difference.

G


----------



## gregorio (Nov 17, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Now, let's assume I have a multi-track recording of a vocalist singing with a band...
> The band was recorded in a large room, but the vocalist was recorded in a sound booth at the studio, and mixed in later.
> It's obvious that, at least to begin with, the background tone of the band's performance isn't going to match that of the vocalist.
> If the band recorded in a cathedral, there will be echoes of the drums from the walls, and other sorts of "venue ambience".
> ...



I can only assume you made your "baiting" cry in your earlier post as some sort of attempt to cover the fact that you intended some severe baiting of your own. You and I both know that you know nothing about mixing or mastering (as the quote above demonstrates) and you are also aware that I've been a professional engineer for many years. So, what reason other than baiting could there possibly be for posting a bunch of utter BS about mixing/mastering to an actual mixing and mastering engineer??

For everyone else, I'm sure KeithEmo's post sounds entirely reasonable to you. It certainly doesn't sound unreasonable but that's what he's good at (and I hope Emotiva pays him well for)! However, it is in fact all utter nonsense, almost every single line above is incorrect/false and the couple of assertions which are actually correct he's used to promote a conclusion/assertion which is false! But how you would you recognise all this utter BS unless you had practical experience in a professional recording studio and experienced for yourself how recordings are actually created? It really is impressive, how does one make such utter BS/nonsense sound so believable and reasonable? Politicians pretty much do that for a living and many/most don't achieve it as well as KeithEmo just has, again, I hope he's well paid for it!

Particularly from the responses from @Phronesis but also one or two others, I'm starting to get the impression that you actually prefer reasonable sounding BS to the actual facts/science. If so, either you're in the wrong place or this forum is mis-named and I'm the one in the wrong place? Either way, unless there is anyone here interested in the actual facts, there's no point going through the above, explaining why it's all utter BS and what the actual facts are, because at best all I'd be doing is attempting to ruin your enjoyment, belief and support of very reasonable sounding BS.

G


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 17, 2018)

^ I have no issue with vigorous debate about technical issues.  What I have a problem with is personal attacks and rudeness.  Other people may be reluctant to call out rudeness, but I'm not.


----------



## analogsurviver (Nov 17, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> That's exactly what I was talking about.
> 
> Most modern room correction systems use an impulse as their preferred test signal.
> They then analyze the returning echoes from the impule, along with a lot of heavy math, to learn all sorts of things about the room.
> ...



What you said above is going to happen - real soon, if it is not actually already being used by someone out there.

One can wax RBCD is enough left, right, up, down and/or around... - once confronted with the real live mike feed - or HR digital recording of it - the game is over in an instant.

Ultrasonics are LOW  in level - well below 0.1% ( add as many zeroes between the comma and 1 as you feel appropriate ) - but are there and do serve their purpose.

How many times , in the analogue days, have you read one can "picture" the acoustics of the venue - right after the stylus hits the groove and music has not even began to play ? Using high speed phono gear - starting with the stylus/cartridge, of course. And following troughout the system, right to the end electroacoustic transducer that allows us to hear what's engraved into the groove. It is here that the most dramatic difference between (most, > 99% ) MM cartridges and MC cartridges occur - with MCs as a group clearly outperforming MMs as a group in this regard. Up to 20 kHz, both might and may be remarkably similar in frequency response - but above 20-30 khz, MCs will generally run rings around MMs. There are < 1% MMs that can match or even exceed the performance of MCs as a group - but that "exceed" would - perhaps - account for 0.000 ..................01 % of the actual MM cartridges still in use today.

I was lucky enough to be in a hall some 357.82 metres away from my home ( depends which corner of each place you take for the reference...)  back in 2009, when an older colleague has been measuring "reverberation" of that hall - using pulse method. In no time I was there with the DSD64 recorder and mics that do extend at least to 40 kHz - how linearly exactly  I do not know (yet), but the output > 50 kHz can be regularly seen in recordings of instruments that do go that high.

How does one create an acoustic pulse extending WELL PAST officially audible 20 kHz - up to in MHz region, in fact ? Answer - explosion. Small, controlled and repeatable one. The first use of such an impulse I saw was by A.R.BAILEY in his paper on transmission line loudspeaker enclosure in Wireless World in 1965. http://diyaudioprojects.com/Technical/Papers/Non-resonant-Loudspeaker-Enclosure-Design.pdf  He used precisely machined copper wire ( thinner in the middle ) to be clamped at the ends with contacts, both leading to a switch and a low inductance high voltage capacitor. After charging the capacitor, it was discharged trough the "exploding wire(s)" - giving a point source, precisely repeatable omnidirectional impulse with frequency response well over any known microphone can measure.

My friend used a simplified version; a high voltage low inductance 10 uF 4000 V oil capacitor ( from a B-17 downed during WW II over our territory - Germans were here up to late April 45 ... ) has been allowed to charge from the mains trough voltage multiplier circuit - creating spark and discharge trough the air across the appropriately spaced electrodes - creating , again, a repeatable sonic pulse, only slightly less point source and omnidirectional than "exploding wire(s)". Alternatively, a series of equal and equally inflated toy ballons has been recorded bursting with (needle/cigarette ???) .

I can provide these files, if interested.


----------



## Phronesis

I haven't really followed the details of the ultrasonics discussion, but will just note that sounds well above 20 kHz clearly obviously are produced in the real world and contain "information," since many species can hear and make use of such sounds.  I don't have an opinion on the relevance to humans and audio gear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range#/media/File:Animal_hearing_frequency_range.svg


----------



## analogsurviver

Phronesis said:


> I haven't really followed the details of the ultrasonics discussion, but will just note that sounds well above 20 kHz clearly obviously are produced in the real world and contain "information," since many species can hear and make use of such sounds.  I don't have an opinion on the relevance to humans and audio gear.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range#/media/File:Animal_hearing_frequency_range.svg



That means a ferret should be on the Hirez Audio logo !


----------



## Indiana

analogsurviver said:


> One can wax RBCD is enough left, right, up, down and/or around... - once confronted with the real live mike feed - or HR digital recording of it - the game is over in an instant.



There is no game between resolution in digital audio. Because there is no resolution in digital audio. Audio DSP just does not work that way at all.


----------



## analogsurviver

Indiana said:


> There is no game between resolution in digital audio. Because there is no resolution in digital audio. Audio DSP just does not work that way at all.



I did not have any DSP in mind - all it takes is a pair of ears.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 17, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I don't have an opinion on the relevance to humans and audio gear.



A controlled comparison test of music that contains ultrasonics and the same music without it would give you a better idea of that. (I've done this.)



Phronesis said:


> Here's a thought: intelligent, informed, and truth-seeking people may not always agree on what's true or false, possible or not possible.



Yes, people can disagree. But that doesn't mean that all opinions are created equal. Some opinions are based on applying specific criteria for judging and supporting arguments. Some are based on nothing but psychological self justification and bias. (you know that). The way you determine which is which is to put it to the test... or as Gregorio so colorfully says, "Put up or shut up." If someone refuses to do that and just keeps blathering on with more semantics, irrelevant anomalies and complete lack of facts, you don't throw up your hands and say "GOSH! We all can't agree, so I don't know WHAT to think!" You dismiss the person who is full of crap with a wave of the hand. And no one is required to be polite when they do that. Respect is earned, it isn't a God given right.

If someone is going to talk a lot, it's best to talk about things they actually know. Not make stuff up and then spit out a bunch of empty words to try to dazzle people into thinking that qualifies as an opinion.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 17, 2018)

I was thinking the other night about the absurdity of people arguing that super audible content is important to the reproduction of recorded music in the home... Super audible sound is BY DEFINITION not audible. We can't detect it in a controlled listening test. (I know. I've tried.) That shouldn't be surprising, and it shouldn't even be up for argument because inaudible things can't be heard. It's self evident.

OK. So someone says that at high volume levels, some super audible frequencies can cause some sort of indefinite readout on a brain scan. They try to argue that if it can be detected on a brain scan, it can be perceived. Then they make the leap that because it can be perceived, it MIGHT THEORETICALLY be important to perceived sound fidelity. OK. I can't consciously perceive it, but it might be affecting my perception of the music. Let's talk about that...

What about things that CAN be consciously be perceived? I can definitely perceive the color red in lighting. Since I can perceive that, do red lights improve sound fidelity? I can perceive the texture of the fabric on my living room sofa. Does that make a difference too? When the dog sitting at me feet cuts a fart... You get the idea. Are all these things we need to consider as perhaps important to listening to music in our home? In order to determine if we are hearing sound as it was intended by the artists and engineers, do we need to paint the walls the same color as in the studio and buy the same swivel chairs? Do we need to eat the same lunch they ate?

It's reducto ad absurdum... all I just did here was "reducto" a little further, to demonstrate how absurd it is to worry about inaudible sound.

The determining factor for whether something affects how good our stereo system sounds is whether it audibly affects the sound in a positive or negative way. You can't assume that if you can perceive it (especially unconsciously!), it will make your music sound better to you. The way you determine that is simple. You take two samples of music... one with ultrasonics and one without... and you compare them in a controlled way and see which one you prefer.

Until you actually do a controlled listening comparison yourself, you are only guessing. A test like this is DROP DEAD SIMPLE to do. There is absolutely no excuse for not doing it. If you want to argue that ultrasonics are theoretically important, yet you haven't bothered to check for yourself if they are, I am going to assume that you are either too lazy to know anything, or unwilling to know the truth. The second you outright REFUSE to do that test, I lose all faith in you because that tells me that you aren't just ignorant. You are willfully ignorant. I have no time and no interest in dealing with people like that. I give them a chance, then I give them another, and another... but at some point, it's clear that I'm being played by a fool and I dismiss with a wave of a hand.

Thankfully, I've only had to do that a few times. It just seems like more often because those two or three people spew out more foolish words than anyone else. I just skip right on by them and encourage others to do the same via PM.

I am judging. I admit it. I don't have to be nice about it if someone is willfully ignorant. This is Sound Science. We get to ask for proof and then judge based on it.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 17, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 2. With drums; . . . In practise, the snare drum in a kit is always extremely closely mic'ed (typically an inch or less), to reduce spill from the other instruments in the kit and thereby allow us some ability to process and mix the snare drum without too adversely affecting the other instruments. The consequence of this is that: A. If we're reducing spill significantly from the other loud instruments in the kit which are only a few inches or a foot or so away, then obviously we're reducing the relatively distant and quieter reflections of the snare drum by significantly more. B. This close mic has to be placed on the far side of the drum (otherwise the drummer would hit it), pointing downwards and towards the drummer. So most of the wall reflections arriving straight at the mic (where it is most sensitive) would have to pass through the drummer first! Additionally, we would get little/no reflections from the floor, as they would have to pass through the snare drum first. If all that isn't bad enough, the snare drum in a kit is typically quadruple mic'ed: The batter head mic (which I've just described), the snare head mic (a mic placed underneath the snare drum pointing upwards) to capture the snare "sizzle" which is somewhat lost in the batter head mic (due to the batter head being in the way), then also the "overheads" (which I'll come back to) and lastly, often a room mic. . . . Lastly, the whole point of close mic'ing the snare drum in the first place was so we can process it somewhat independently. Compression, EQ and also (pretty much without exception) with some artificial reverb. And while we're on arteficial reverb, I can't recall off the top of my head ever seeing a reverb preset that didn't roll-off it's output dramatically above 12kHz and the vast majority, at about 7kHz. Most in fact have a low pass filter. There's absolutely no doubt that the snare drum does contain ultrasonic content, does contain a lot of acoustic information and that acoustic information can be relatively easily differentiated but I can't imagine how on earth you'd actually analyse it to get any sort of intelligible information about the room's acoustics out of all that disparate phase and acoustic information, unless all the exact details of mic positions and exactly what was done during mixing were available to the processor (so it could maybe attempt some sort of reverse engineering) but of course none of that information is logged or available and some/most of it never will be. Additionally of course, we've just been talking about the snare drum on it's own, which is available to the mix engineer but not the consumer. What the consumer gets is the snare drum mixed with the rest of the drumkit plus all the different processing (EQ/compression/reverb etc.) of those other drumkit instruments and of course all the other instruments and vocals in the band/ensemble, each with their own processing and DIFFERENT acoustic information. I don't recall ever having seen any ultrasonic acoustic info and once it's mixed, the most dominant (and perceptually important) acoustic information present doesn't extent beyond 12kHz (at most!).
> 
> The kick drum has some ultrasonic content but quite often it's filtered out. If it isn't though, just maybe there'd be some ultrasonic acoustic information. Again, I don't recall ever having seen any, if there is, the ratio puts it below the noise floor. Certainly within the audible band the primary kick mic does definitely provide significant acoustic information, although again, even if it could be extracted from a completed mix and analysed, I fail to see how it could provide any useful (rather than harmful) information to a reproduction system. The kick drum is virtually always recorded with the mic actually inside the kick drum or just slightly outside the hole in the resonant head (again to provide high signal to spill ratio), so all the acoustic information captured is the reflections of the inside of the drum.
> 
> ...



The above-quoted portions are like cotton candy to me. Thanks. It helps me picture what I am hearing when I listen to a recording. I just mean this very earnestly, I really really enjoyed learning this stuff and it will stick with me probably for the rest of my life.

I am not passing judgment on other parts of the post, I am just saying that this stuff up here, I know it was a pain in butt for you to write, but I find it just inherently extremely interesting.

Now, I do have one thing. You talk about an elephant in the ointment. I am having a hard time picturing that. It's very a entertaining image and I'm glad you said it, but are you sure you did not mean a fly in the ointment or an elephant in the room? I mean, first, that would be a lot of ointment. What kind of ointment is it? Does the elephant seek it out? Does he or she drink or eat it? Do they use it at zoos or something? From the general meaning of the two related phrases and the context of your usage I assume we do not want the elephant in there in the ointment and that it is causing problems.

If you are not in the mood for such humor I sincerely apologize. It's just where my mind goes. I can't help it. I like to laugh. I know this is the Sound Science forum, not the what does Steve999 find funny forum. 

So I will re-emphasize--I really, really enjoyed learning the above posted information, it is fascinating to me. Thank you. 

So I am listening to my Spotify release radar tracks and I am imagining. . . That's not real drums, that's drum synths, definitely. As someone whose first love in music is acoustic jazz I definitely have had a long-term preference for live instruments with human beings behind the wheel. But as I listen to the new stuff more and more I think I am getting it, I'm enjoying it. And I couldn't care less about if there are any ultrasonic frequencies recorded in it.


----------



## Phronesis

Steve999 said:


> So I am listening to my Spotify release radar tracks and I am imagining. . . That's not real drums, that's drum synths, definitely. As someone whose first love in music is acoustic jazz I definitely have had a long-term preference for live instruments with human beings behind the wheel. But as I listen to the new stuff more and more I think I am getting it, I'm enjoying it. And I couldn't care less about if there are any ultrasonic frequencies recorded in it.



It's impressive how far the technology has come with electronic instruments.  I have Roland electronic drums as well as acoustic drums, and with the right headphones the e-drums sound and feel really good, plus they have versality and consistency you can't get with acoustic drums.


----------



## KeithEmo

MQA is a complicated subject - in part because it really encompasses several different processes and claims which are being promoted under a single "brand".

1) Part of MQA is a process for encoding audio at reduced size. This can be applied to original recordings, existing analog master files, or even existing digital audio files. They claim that files produced with their process, when played through the appropriate (licensed) decoder, can deliver better quality with smaller files than other current compression methods. Furthermore, their files can also be played on standard equipment, without being "completely decoded", and still produce pretty good results. This process can be applied to the creation of new recordings, or can be used to compress existing recordings, and they claim it essentially "gives you a result equal to a high-resolution file in a file that's smaller than a standard resoultion file". (There are several variations in terms of how MQA can be decoded, and the claimed results, but that's the gist of that part of the process.)

Strictly when considered as "a better lossy compression algorithm" - MQA seems to work pretty well.
(And Tidal has "signed on" with it.)

2) Another separate claim is that, when processing an existing digital master file, they can "reverse engineer and correct" some of the errors that were caused by the original A/D conversion process, and so produce an "improved" version of the master. Some of the exact details here are somewhat vague. Part of the process entails applying some sort of apodizing filter designed to cancel out the known effects of the sharp cutoff filters often used when digital files are first converted. They seem to have claimed to be able to identify and correct for specific flaws caused by specific converters and other hardware - but the details there are somewhat vague. (It should be noted that the full specified decoding process includes using a DAC with a special "leaky slow-rolloff filter" - designed to comply with their specific requirements.)

3) It has been mentioned in a few MQA press releases that, while these "improvements" are produced by the "standard automated encoding process", there is also a higher tier of custom service available. This service includes "human interaction" and presumably is much more expensive.

The bottom line, based on a lot of assorted reviews, and my limited personal listening of MQA files, is that sometimes they sound distinctly different than the original, and other times they do not. A lot of people say they prefer the sound of MQA fiiles. However, since they aren't supposed to sound the same, whether you prefer the altered version is always going to be somewhat subjective. Likewise, it's difficult to say whether the differences are 'improvements" or just 'euphonic distortion". (MQA insists that their new altered masters are closer to the acoustic original than before... but there's no real way to judge that.)



Steve999 said:


> I thought the MQA fingerprinting created marginally audible distortions, no? I could be wrong. I’m not asserting, I’m asking. Here is what I was thinking of:
> 
> https://mattmontag.com/audio-listening-test/


----------



## KeithEmo

I have an interesting question for some people here.... and, yes, based on actual existing technology.

Let's assume that I have a photographic slide that I consider important.
That slide is somewhat old, it's been around a while, and it has quite a few nasty scratches on it.

I feed that slide into a slide scanner, and it accurately scans all of the visible light frequencies contained on that slide, producing a visibly perfect copy.

Now I feed that slide into another scanner, which scans the visible light frequencies equally accurately, but also makes a second scan in the far infrared range.
We all agree, beyond any doubt, that the infrared scan, and all the information it contains, is TOTALY INVISIBLE to humans.
Therefore, the initial output of this scanner will be visibly identical to the output of the first scanner.
However, because my image processing software is "ICE enabled", it uses the information contained in the infrared scan to identify and remove visible scratches from the image.
Therefore, by using that infrared information, it produces a picture that LOOKS BETTER TO HUMANS than would have been possible without that information.

Would you agree that the infrared information contained on that slide "was useful after all"?
Would you agree that we have gained an improvement in useful results by preserving and utilizing that totally invisible information?
Would you agree that it would be a mistake to discard that infrared information "because no human can possibly see it".
(ICE is a real technology that's been around, and used, in slide scanners, even high-end consumer slide scanners, for quite a long time.)

I'm simply positing a use for similar information contained in audio recordings...
I honestly cannot understand why anybody considers this in the least unlikely...

I'm perfectly willing to concede that there isn't a working version of it in this year's version of ProTools...
But that in no way convinces me that it won't be there in NEXT year's update... or the year after...
In fact, to me, it seems like a pretty obvious next step from the technology we have today...



bigshot said:


> I was thinking the other night about the absurdity of people arguing that super audible content is important to the reproduction of recorded music in the home... Super audible sound is BY DEFINITION not audible. We can't detect it in a controlled listening test. (I know. I've tried.) That shouldn't be surprising, and it shouldn't even be up for argument because inaudible things can't be heard. It's self evident.
> 
> OK. So someone says that at high volume levels, some super audible frequencies can cause some sort of indefinite readout on a brain scan. They try to argue that if it can be detected on a brain scan, it can be perceived. Then they make the leap that because it can be perceived, it MIGHT THEORETICALLY be important to perceived sound fidelity. OK. I can't consciously perceive it, but it might be affecting my perception of the music. Let's talk about that...
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 18, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I have an interesting question for some people here.... and, yes, based on actual existing technology.
> 
> Let's assume that I have a photographic slide that I consider important.
> That slide is somewhat old, it's been around a while, and it has quite a few nasty scratches on it.
> ...



It seems to me this is analogous to repairing old audio recordings, which we’ve been doing for decades. Photoshop or Lightroom can take information I don’t begin to notice or comprehend and fix flaws in pictures, and the same is true for audio software fixing scratches on records, not too unlike fixing scratches on slides. As I’ve used both audio software and photography software, at the amateur level, I see nothing remarkable about that. But please, let’s not go around comparing analogies and discussing whether my analogy or your analogy holds up better. That’s a dead end in my view at least.

Both technologies will become even more mind-blowing as time goes by. It has been said that any technology that does not seem like magic is not sufficiently advanced.

Very sincerely, very earnestly, could we please move on to other topics and areas of discussion? You’re mostly just arguing by analogy and I don’t think it’s constructive to do that once we get in the weeds. 

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-john-belushi-on-march/n33439

Surely you have other concepts and substance to dig into. Once a disagreement arises, analogies just create imprecision and lack of substance. I know you have other things to contribute, it’s obvious.

Could you post something in the music thread? Let’s see what your deal is!!!


----------



## Steve999

KeithEmo said:


> MQA is a complicated subject - in part because it really encompasses several different processes and claims which are being promoted under a single "brand".
> 
> 1) Part of MQA is a process for encoding audio at reduced size. This can be applied to original recordings, existing analog master files, or even existing digital audio files. They claim that files produced with their process, when played through the appropriate (licensed) decoder, can deliver better quality with smaller files than other current compression methods. Furthermore, their files can also be played on standard equipment, without being "completely decoded", and still produce pretty good results. This process can be applied to the creation of new recordings, or can be used to compress existing recordings, and they claim it essentially "gives you a result equal to a high-resolution file in a file that's smaller than a standard resoultion file". (There are several variations in terms of how MQA can be decoded, and the claimed results, but that's the gist of that part of the process.)
> 
> ...



Thank you. That was interesting and informative and entertaining.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Would you agree that the infrared information contained on that slide "was useful after all"?
> [2] I'm perfectly willing to concede that there isn't a working version of it in this year's version of ProTools...
> [2a] But that in no way convinces me that it won't be there in NEXT year's update... or the year after...
> [2b] In fact, to me, it seems like a pretty obvious next step from the technology we have today...



1. Yes, provided *ALL* the following are true:
A. Consumers actually have some old scratched slides to start with.
B. The slides contain some infrared information to start with.
C. The infrared information (when there is any) on those slides actually contains the details necessary for it to be of any use in the removal of scratches. 
D. Science has figured out a theory for how to extract, analyse and use those details in the infrared information to remove scratches.
E. Technology exists which actually implements that theory.
F. Consumers actually own that technology (an infrared slide scanner).

2. Wow, a willingness to concede that something that doesn't exist, really doesn't exist, that's novel!
2a. And here we go with the suggestions, suggestions which are not only unsupported by any evidence but that actually contradict all the evidence.
2b. Yep, you keep doing that. It all sounds reasonable and therefore, your assertion that "it seems like a pretty obvious next step" isn't too much of a logical leap and seems entirely reasonable. I can't prove it, but being a ProTools expert of many years, it seems "pretty obvious" to me that ProTools will NOT include an infrared slide scanner in the foreseeable future and actually, I find it pretty absurd to even suggest that it might, regardless of how reasonable it might sound to others!  Wait a minute ... are you NOT asserting that ProTools will include an infrared slide scanner? Was the slide scanner thing just an analogy, another one of your completely non-analogous analogies?! 

Let's look at YOUR analogy shall we, and apply it to commercial music/sound: Assuming "A" is a commercial music/sound recording, then it is true. "B" is only true sometimes (only sometimes is there anything other than useless information in the >20kHz band). There's no shred of evidence to suggest that "C" is ever true, in fact all the evidence indicates that it MUST be false. D, E and F are also false. So out of the 6 requirements, ALL of which have to be true, in fact only one and a half are. Clearly then it's a terrible analogy, so how come it sounds so reasonable? Simple: You gloss over the fact that "B" is only sometimes true. You omit to even mention "C", deliberately ignore every request for any evidence that "C" exists and instead misrepresent other unrelated facts as providing that evidence. You claim "D" is true and continue to do so even when the scientific evidence is presented proving that it's false. You get away with E and F by stating they may one day be true but that too is false because E and F can NEVER be true until after C and D are both true.

We're all used to the rapid advance of science and digital technology, that provides products/solutions to things that seemed impossible or even unimaginable. It's this expectation of science and technology that KeithEmo is fallaciously abusing to make his suggestions seem so plausible! In reality, science and technology rapidly advances and achieves the seemingly impossible by creating detailed information, then extracting and using that information. For example, the global positioning system (GPS) works by having satellites provide extremely detailed timing information and then us owning technology which extracts and uses that information. How would the GPS system work if there were no satellites? How would it work if there were satellites but they weren't providing any timing information? Even if the technology of extracting and using satellite timing information advanced to a level that isn't even imaginable today, that still wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if there were no satellite timing information in the first place! To bring this analogy back to music/sound: Once we start using radar or sonar transmitters (or bats) in the studio and equipment to capture the reflections of those signals, then I'll be happy to record at a high sample rates to capture that detailed information, provided it doesn't affect what I'm able to do in the frequency band that is audible and provided there may actually be the potential for that information to be beneficial and a demand for it. So far, only 2 potential benefits have been suggested, one which wouldn't actually be a benefit and the other that's too laughably ridiculous to even repeat!

G


----------



## gregorio (Nov 18, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> [1] The above-quoted portions are like cotton candy to me. Thanks. It helps me picture what I am hearing when I listen to a recording. I just mean this very earnestly, I really really enjoyed learning this stuff and it will stick with me probably for the rest of my life.
> [2] Now, I do have one thing. You talk about an elephant in the ointment. I am having a hard time picturing that.



1. So much of the audiophile talk and marketing is based on fallacies. They present a fact as true, describe a technology that can do this other thing, put the two assertions together and come up with some conclusion that *might* sound reasonable but is fact utter nonsense. We can accelerate billions of particles to 99.9% the speed of light, therefore once we have a solution for wind drag and tyre friction, it's pretty obvious that NEXT year's updated Ford Focus should have a top speed very close to the speed of light. Assuming you don't know too much about cars or physics, that sounds reasonable doesn't it? I admit though, I'm not as good at it as KeithEmo. Maybe it would help if I'd said that science has come a long way with aerodynamics and that there are technologies that have almost no friction?

We've all seen images of a mic being placed in front of a musician, someone hitting a record button, moving a few faders, twiddling a few knobs and then we've got a recording which is sent to a mastering engineer to be compressed, job done. Some may realise there's a bit more to it than that but in general they have no idea of even a tiny fraction of what's really involved in practice. To an extent I can't blame them, they see some footage of a band performing in a studio with a bunch of mics and an engineer doing something at a mixing desk and assume they're witnessing what actually happens, when in fact what they're doing is consuming a product that's been manufactured to fulfil their expectations and promote the band and the real recording (that happened at a different time and in a completely different way). This isn't specific to music production, we see this all the time in many other fields. I often see students who want to be film directors, they see the fame, fortune and respect, they've even seen the footage of what a director does; sitting in a chair with the word "director" printed on the back, telling everyone what to do in order to make a film. They know it's hard work and more complicated than it looks but they're willing to learn. Except, they really have no idea, that's not how a film is made and that tough job sitting in the director's chair during filming they think they'll enjoy only actually accounts for about 5% of what a director really does. The other 95% you don't see in the footage!

All I can do here is give little snippets of what really happens but most people just want it all to be quick and easy to understand and therefore prefer to believe the over-simplified falsehoods and incorrect assertions/conclusions which are based on that misconception of it all being simple. And of course, those who market products to these audiophiles want this too, because it provides the opportunity of making up all kinds of enticing nonsense that sounds plausible precisely because you have that oversimplified, false belief of how it's all done. The reality is that sound engineering students don't spend 3 years just learning how to plug in a microphone and that even after their 3 years they are not a recording or mix engineer, they've just qualified as a beginner, another 3-5 years and they might be ready. Hence why I can only give little snippets.

I thought that's what this forum (and this thread) was for; people willing to put in the effort for the actual facts/reality, just because they want to know and/or because they're maybe sick of the marketing BS. If that's the case though, why aren't others as outraged at KeithEmo as me? Is it not really about the actual facts at all, just about who sounds like a nice reasonable guy? Why have this sub-forum then, we've already got that in just about all the other sub-forums?

2. Yep, "fly in the ointment" and "elephant in the room" just didn't seem to do justice to the point I was trying to convey, which effectively was the same as: Yes the rapid advance of technology is surprising, yes we can accelerate billions of particles to 99.9% the speed of light and yes a Ford Focus is also made of billions of particles but a near light speed Ford Focus update isn't just around the corner, because there's an elephant in the ointment!

G


----------



## castleofargh

moderator rant: 
guys. I know that it's rarely possible to only fight the ideas instead of the people when the arguments are about very personal opinions. but please try anyway. just replace liar/dishonest/ignorant/etc by "wrong" or something less offensive.

@gregorio IMO you're going too far. if you read the all thing, Keith is as always, just impressively optimistic about what we record and what we can, or will make use of later on. he expects some ultrasonic content to be music(not right out impossible), he expects that high res may have a small audible difference in some ways(also not impossible, although probably not a concern for adults), and no matter how subjective his experiences, he stated many times the nature of said experiences, how he's only sharing impressions, not claiming to prove anything. he even mentioned a few times how even those impressions of his are about tiny variations.
 that general mindset doesn't deserve the dishonest BS liar treatment that you've been delivering(also those can very much be seen as personal attacks and you know Head-fi doesn't want to host those). just like you, I see trouble(and sometimes danger) in including unsupported possibilities into our decisions and technological choices. because in practice, many of those "we haven't disproved it so we shouldn't dismiss it", will turn out to be unfalsifiable ideas. meaning that those ideas once accepted, are never going to be disproved and are never going away. and that's bad for everybody!!!!!
so don't go thinking that I'm troubled by your position. as usual the issue is how aggressive you are. a few people have complained about it so I get out of my cave. analogsurviver defending the superiority of vinyl over CD with a calm demeanor, is better than you insulting people while trying to defend a solid fact. that's probably not what you think, but it doesn't matter because:


> Our forum rules have one major purpose: they allow a respectful exchange of ideas.


 if you can't do that, the rest becomes irrelevant. I enjoy learning things from you, and on several occasions I've had people PM me to basically say that they'd rather have me ban 2/3 of the forum than losing you and the knowledge you bring. so as a modo trying to satisfy most people, there is only one working outcome, and that's a Gregorio who can argue a point and stop there.



non modo whatever:
@KeithEmo if I have one advice for you, it's to lighten up on the analogy combos. you've brought up a lot of them in the last few days and IMO they're not serving your argument very well. aside from the usual deathtrap that an analogy often turns out to be, there is the consistent comparison between stuff that may or may not be, and some clear proved facts from the analogy. and while you don't try to force it like a guy claiming that we need high res audio because we see a difference on a 4K TV screen, the analogy does associate things on very different levels when it comes to having evidence. for guys like Greg and myself, who are now wired to be suspicious, you can be sure that we're reading those posts and thinking that you're trying to mislead people into associating facts with maybes as if they're all facts. and you being an industry insider probably doesn't help our bias, whether we know it or not. sorry ^_^.


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 18, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, provided *ALL* the following are true:
> A. Consumers actually have some old scratched slides to start with.
> B. The slides contain some infrared information to start with.
> C. The infrared information (when there is any) on those slides actually contains the details necessary for it to be of any use in the removal of scratches.
> ...



That's not how ICE works.  The premise of it is that the slide doesn't have any relevant information in the infrared band.  A scanner that is ICE compatible will have an infrared band, which then records dust and fingerprints that show up in the infrared band and will be subtracted and filled in by the software.  It's clearly a different technology, so not really an analogy in recording ultra-high sound frequencies (which that argument seems to be if there's more precision/ more realistic model of environment).


----------



## KeithEmo

I think you're looking at it from a very odd point of view.

In general, when we look at a slide, we ASSUME that everything we're seeing is "relevant image information".
However, we also accept that this is an assumption, rather than a certainty.
(We may not be able to visually tell the difference between a scratch, a power line, and a far-away contrail.)

But your assumption that the ORIGINAL SLIDE didn't have any relevant IMAGE information on it in the IR band is incorrect.
If I'd done an ICE scan on it, it would have shown WITH CERTAINTY that there were no scratches, which is better than as assumption.
That useful information is knowing that: "There are no scratches, so everything you see is actually intended image content".
(Maybe that vertical line is a power line, or a contrail from a UFO, but we would KNOW it wasn't just a scratch.)

And, by doing that infrared scan on my damaged copy, I now KNOW where all the scratches are.
This is useful information because it prevents me from confusing those scratches with lines that belong on the picture.
Even with no further action this information may prove quite useful.
However, even beyond that, this information lets me make higher quality corrections of those scratches.
The result is an image that is both visually more attractive and more accurate.

Here's the analogy:
The original recording venue is "the original perfect slide".
The final mixed down copy is "the potentially scratched slide".
Assuming that I can extract information from whatever exists in the ultrasonic band.....
1) it is simply information that I might simply find useful
2) specifically it might help me understand and/or correct flaws in the original recording

For example, by analyzing the ultrasonic reflections in aggragate, I may determine that the main venue was fifty feet square.
Furthermore, I may be able to conclude that the drums were located somewhere near the center.
And, if, on one particular track, there is a return from a drum hit at 12 milliseconds, that would be an anomaly.
(It would correspond to an echo from something twelve feet from the drums.)
Perhaps this would indicate that some extra drums were "layed in" that were recorded elsewhere.
Perhaps someone added some studio drums, and added some reverb to attempt to match them, but was a little sloppy.
And, perhaps, my new super-duper decoder can remove the anomalous reverb, and so make the recording sound "more natural".

The analogy is simply to "using out-of-band information to make better corrections of in-band information".
And I think "invisible infrared light" is quite analogous to "inaudible ultrasonic information".



Davesrose said:


> That's not how ICE works.  The premise of it is that the slide doesn't have any relevant information in the infrared band.  A scanner that is ICE compatible will have an infrared band, which then records dust and fingerprints that show up in the infrared band and will be subtracted and filled in by the software.  It's clearly a different technology, so not really an analogy in recording ultra-high sound frequencies (which that argument seems to be if there's more precision/ more realistic model of environment).


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 18, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I think you're looking at it from a very odd point of view.
> 
> In general, when we look at a slide, we ASSUME that everything we're seeing is "relevant image information".
> However, we also accept that this is an assumption, rather than a certainty.
> ...



It's not a POV: it's clarification on the technology.  ICE uses IR to detect dust and oil on a color slide or negative (so it's limited to only certain photographic media).  It's based on the assumption that there is no relevant visual information that was recorded in the IR band, and only physical defects on the surface of the "recording" will be isolated in an IR scan.  No IR information was recorded in the slide...and your original arguments have been asking if one should record/obtain higher frequencies in the recording itself.


----------



## KeithEmo

I like your comparison to the GPS system.

However, I will note that, in many situations where we don't happen to have beacons already in place, we EXTRACT information from existing sources.
For example, we calculate the locations of cosmic events, based on information extracted from background radiation levels, pulsar emissions, and other cosmic events.
And, long before we had GPS satellite beacons, people were navigating based on the position of naturally occurring "beacons".
(For example, by pointing a sextant at the sun and the moon, and calculating our position based on information we extracted about their positions.)

This is analogous.

Yes, it's EASIER, and often more accurate, when you have the opportunity to use accurate beacon signals, specially designed for the purpose.
So, yes, a GPS reciever is much better at the job than a sextant.
However, people have been achieving "adequate" and "useful" results with sextants and similar instruments for a long time.
Likewise, having a transmitter, or a full array of ultrasonic beacon signals, would be the BEST way to determine this sort of information.
But that in no way suggests that it's the only way, or that other ways cannot yield useful results.

Yes, if you want to measure a large room, the best method is to use an ultrasonic rangefinder, or a LASER measure.
However, you can still obtain a useful approximation by clapping your hands and timing the echoes.
(Or timing the echoes on a recording that was made in that cave.)



gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, provided *ALL* the following are true:
> A. Consumers actually have some old scratched slides to start with.
> B. The slides contain some infrared information to start with.
> C. The infrared information (when there is any) on those slides actually contains the details necessary for it to be of any use in the removal of scratches.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Apparently there have been several variations on the ICE process over the years... each of which works to different degrees on different types of slides and negatives.
However, most of them DO in fact claim to detect and repair "dust and scratches".
If you check the literature, you will find descriptions about which variations, present in which scanners, do or don't work with specific film types.

- On B&W slides you can use the fact that the emulsion is opaque to IR to identify scratches, which extend through the emulsion, as being "perfectly bright in the IR spectrum".
(However, since the emulsion is opaque to IR this will only work to detect scratches that extend through the emulsion to the base layer.)
- With some color processes, the dyes and emulsions are somewhat transparent to IR light, and so both dust and scratches may show up as dark (opaque).
(In this process, the dust and scratches contrast because they are MORE opaque to IR than the emulsion.)
- And, apparently, certain clor print emulsions are more or less opaque or translucent to IR, and it doesn't work at all with them..

There have even been some processes that use other types of scans - like polarized light.
However, what they all share in common is that they use the "image" obtained by scanning the negative or slide with something that is invisible to humans.
Then using the information obtained from that scan to intelligently identify scratches and dust so as to guide corrections of the visible image.

Virtually all consumer slide or negative scanners use one particular variation on this... and, from reviews, each seems to work best in only certain situations.
However, in forensic analysis and art restoration, it is not unusual to try a wide variety of visible and invisible spectra, to see which works best in a particular situation.



Davesrose said:


> It's not a POV: it's clarification on the technology.  For one thing, ICE doesn't detect scratches: it detects dust and oil on a slide or negative.  It's based on the assumption that there is no relevant visual information that was recorded in the IR band, and only physical defects on the surface of the "recording" will be isolated in an IR scan.  No IR information was recorded in the slide...and your original arguments have been asking if one should record/obtain higher frequencies in the recording itself.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 18, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> moderator rant:
> guys. I know that it's rarely possible to only fight the ideas instead of the people when the arguments are about very personal opinions. but please try anyway. just replace liar/dishonest/ignorant/etc by "wrong" or something less offensive.



Your wish is my command.... Keith is wrong. So are Analoguesurvivor and our hot mastering friend (I always forget his name).

That was a lot easier than having to explain the specific reasons why their thinking is wrong. It's quicker for me too. I can just get a rubber stamp that says, "YOU'RE WRONG" and politely reply to their posts faster that way.


----------



## Davesrose

KeithEmo said:


> Apparently there have been several variations on the ICE process over the years... each of which works to different degrees on different types of slides and negatives.
> However, most of them DO in fact claim to detect and repair "dust and scratches".
> If you check the literature, you will find descriptions about which variations, present in which scanners, do or don't work with specific film types.
> 
> ...



I've revised my post to include a good video on the technology of ICE and why it doesn't work with B&W negatives (which uses silver nitrates and can block IR).  The advertising isn't misleading when they say it can "detect dust and scratches" (apparently there is some success with scratches still being physical damage that can be detected).  The premise is that it's detecting physical imperfections using a separate band from the actual recorded spectrum.  That's a different topic than asking if >20khz frequencies already in a digital recording are relevant.


----------



## bigshot

Infra Red Herring!


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't understand the perspective from which your claim originates....

ICE intentionally uses "a separate band from the actual recorded spectrum".

If we were to agree that "ultrasonic content in a recording is totally inaudible"...
And we were to also agree that "there is still some sort of information in the ultrasonic spectrum of some recordings"...
Then that information is just "information is a separate band than the audible recorded spectrum"...
And I'm simply suggesting that it is POTENTIALLY POSSIBLE to detect and correct errors in the audible portion of the recording by using information we extract from the inaudible portion.

The ONLY difference is that the ICE process relies on taking extra steps to GENERATE the additional information rather than extracting and using "extra" information already present.



Davesrose said:


> I've revised my post to include a good video on the technology of ICE and why it doesn't work with B&W negatives (which uses silver nitrates and can block IR).  The advertising isn't misleading when they say it can "detect dust and scratches" (apparently there is some success with scratches still being physical damage that can be detected).  The premise is that it's detecting physical imperfections using a separate band from the actual recorded spectrum.  That's a different topic than asking if >20khz frequencies already in a digital recording are relevant.


----------



## Davesrose (Nov 18, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I don't understand the perspective from which your claim originates....
> 
> ICE intentionally uses "a separate band from the actual recorded spectrum".
> 
> ...



I'll try to re-iterate.  ICE can only be used with analog color slides and C-41 based color negatives.  The software is taking the first scan that's within the visible spectrum (the dust and scratches will be visible in that scan).  But the ICE scanner makes a separate IR pass (and digitization) that relies on a spectrum that does not include the photograph's recorded visible color spectrum.  It's physically separating the original color information from physical imperfections with certain analog sources (based on there being a limited recorded spectrum, and imperfections being detected on a different band).  The premise for ICE is that there's a separate pass using a spectrum that wasn't in the original recording: and that is used to isolate.  This is separate from your arguments about "ultrasonic content in a recording" (ICE is relying on physical imperfections of analog source, and is incongruous to analyzing a whole spectrum in one digital recording).


----------



## Phronesis

I think there's an issue in the discussion with how the word "audible" is being used.  You need to define it precisely, otherwise there will be arguments because people aren't talking about the same thing.  To me, the broadest definition of "audible" is that if a sound at the eardrum, or difference in sound at the eardrum, results in an auditory nerve signal, or a difference in that signal, it's potentially "audible" if there's also a change in the brain response.  That wouldn't necessarily require a conscious perception of sound or difference in sound, though a subconscious effect would be expected.


----------



## KeithEmo (Nov 18, 2018)

I stand corrected... it seems to be widely agreed that the commercially developed ICE process works very poorly, or not at all, with B&W emulsions.
(Although I have read early white papers suggesting that it could be used to detect and remove scratches that actually penetrate the emulsion.)

It seems that a slightly different variation, which uses polarized light, rather than IR, is recommended for detecting surface scratches in B&W film.
Here are a couple of papers on the subject (I don't know if there are any commercial products that use this.)
(Sorry about the long second Google link... but it does work.... the direct link seems to be inaccessible due to lack of permissions.)

https://www.ccaaa.org/images/tinyUpload/import/jts2010/10.Rudolf_Gschwind.pdf

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjx-tvw5d7eAhWlVN8KHRUqDSUQFjACegQIBxAB&url=http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=2597894&ftid=1550494&dwn=1&CFID=808360414&CFTOKEN=19365920&usg=AOvVaw2RY3Wpb6V_HagAUCR_EYgC

https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/188640/files/ICIP2013_defects_final.pdf

I don't quite see the significance of whether the extra information comes from an explicit "extra pass"...
Or whether it is already present, but simply assumed to be "inaudible". 



Davesrose said:


> I'll try to re-iterate.  ICE can only be used with analog color slides and C-41 based color negatives.  The software is taking the first scan that's within the visible spectrum (the dust and scratches will be visible in that scan).  But the ICE scanner makes a separate IR pass (and digitization) that relies on a spectrum that does not include the photograph's recorded visible color spectrum.  It's physically separating the original color information from physical imperfections with certain analog sources (based on there being a limited recorded spectrum, and imperfections being detected on a different band).  The premise for ICE is that there's a separate pass using a spectrum that wasn't in the original recording: and that is used to isolate.  This is separate from your arguments about "ultrasonic content in a recording" (ICE is relying on physical imperfections of analog source, and is incongruous to analyzing a whole spectrum in one digital recording).


----------



## bfreedma

When an analogy proves to be wrong, and then an attempt to make it correct requires yet another dart throw, it probably isn’t a good analogy.

But hey, another dozen posts trying to equate photo reproduction with audio reproduction will be fascinating...


----------



## bigshot

bfreedma said:


> But hey, another dozen posts trying to equate photo reproduction with audio reproduction will be fascinating...



You are easily amused! I'm just waiting for when we go back to talking about things related to listening to recorded music in the home. No one ever seems interested in that. They're too busy trying to think up extreme conditions that no consumer ever has to deal with.

Ultrasonic frequencies are as useful to a home audio system as teats on a bull hog.


----------



## analogsurviver

Back in the day, the recording labels did compete for the sound quality they managed ultimately to bring to the customer. 

With the advent of digital recording - and particularly trough the limitatrions of the early digital, which unfortunately culminated in de facto standard for recording/distributing music - the (in)famous RBCD - sound quality took a big hit and nosedived to almost an afterthought. Things got better only after the sample rate of digital went high enough - around the end of the millenium - but an entire generation, about 20 or so years, has been lost - and the good recording techniques already mastered in the analogue days had to be re-discovered by the new generation of recording engineers.

Here a nice video on the use of the what would be most likely termed as "unnecessary overkill" by the @bigshot & Co - 35 mm magnetic tape that has been used for making vinyl records, and, much later, also made available on CD.  But the true sound of these tapes is available either on the original pressing LPs - or HR ( PCM and DSD ) digital downloads that have recently been produced from the 35 mm masters.



Try to listen to at least ONE of these recordings, either on record or HR digital - and you might begin to understand that, although admittedly expensive, "overkill" DOES produce better results. These recordings are now roughly 60 years old - no one ( except in the studio while making them ) back then could reproduce them with anything approaching the quality available today - if not exactly to masses, then to most interested in sound quality enough to dedicate that quest  enough money to allow for the equipment that can show these recordings in proper light.

The recording engineers of the past were trying to use the best equipment available, cost be damned - and not use the equipment mostly for the  ability to reduce the cost trough clever use of equipment - relegating the sound quality to the back seat .


----------



## gregorio (Nov 19, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I like your comparison to the GPS system.
> However, I will note that, in many situations where we don't happen to have beacons already in place, we EXTRACT information from existing sources.
> For example, we calculate the locations of cosmic events, based on information extracted from background radiation levels, pulsar emissions, and other cosmic events.
> And, long before we had GPS satellite beacons, people were navigating based on the position of naturally occurring "beacons".
> ...



So, the GPS timing signal is analogous to acoustic information and if it isn't there, (as it isn't in the case of ultrasonic freqs), then GPS won't work. So you're suggestion is to use say the sun, stars or other cosmic events instead of the GPS timing signal. As "This is analogous" then you've similarly got some suggestions for what we could use instead of reflections/reverb on a recording, to provide us with acoustic information? Great, let's hear them then! Or are you saying we can actually extract pulsar emissions from an album and some how use that? As ridiculous as that sounds, it's no more ridiculous what you seem to be suggesting, so I really can't tell!

For everyone interested in facts, let's look at some:

As mentioned before, instruments like the snare drum in a drum kit are mic'ed extremely closely and as they produce some significant amount of ultrasonic content, we can record it and you can see it in a spectral analysis. However, the consequence of such close mic'ing is that we largely loose everything else (especially the relatively distant reflections), which is of course the point. So, if we want to record those reflections, we have to move the mic significantly further away. In practise that won't work when recording a drumkit (because of spill) but let's say for now we're just recording a solo, unaccompanied snare drum. Let's say the mic is 30ft (10m) away to keep the figures simple and because in live gigs the ideal seating position will be at least that far way. So what will actually happen to the sound received by our mic? I've mentioned before about high freq absorption but that's not the whole story, because in addition to air absorption we've also got air damping. Let's say from an inch away we've got a 110dB snare hit, which we'll say is 0dBFS and most likely the ulrasonic freqs are at around -40dB. With a mic position 10m away we loose about 52dB (of the entire sonic and ultrasonic range), due to air damping, leaving us with -48dB in the audible range and -88dB in the ultrasonic range. However, we've also lost roughly an additional 12dB of the ultrasonic range due to high freq air absorption, so now we're down to -100dB and that's for the direct sound. For the reflections the situation is different because our closely positioned snare drum mic was already quite far away from the reflection source (the walls), so while we're moving 10m away from the drum, our relative distance to the wall reflections is only a little more than it was. So closely mic'ed, the ratio of the reflections to the direct sound was most likely around 50dB but at 10m we're much closer to parity, with the reflections most likely somewhere around -50dB but the ultrasonic content will be significantly lower than the -100dB of the direct signal because we've got wall absorption and some more air to consider, most likely it's around -120dB.

Apart from the actual air damping and absorption amounts, these figures can vary quite a bit, depending on the exact size of the room, how far away from the walls the snare drum is placed and how far away the mic is relative to the walls (both close and far mic'ed). I'm just giving an average from my experience and being somewhat conservative to avoid objections of cherry picking the most favourable figures for my argument. We got one more variable to consider, we can turn the mic up or rather, we can't turn a mic up, that's impossible but what we can do is turn up the amplification of the signal coming out of the mic. So, when we move the mic 10m away we can simply turn the mic's output up by say 48dB and again hit our 0dBFS. Our entire spectrum level is up to -52dB and the ultrasonic reflection level up to say about -70dB. So, that's ridiculously low but there's something there that maybe could be extracted. Well no! Remember we can't turn up a mic, only it's output and that means we've not only turned up the mic by 48dB but also the noise floor of the recording venue, the self noise of the mic and increased the noise produced by the amp. When closely mic'ed we probably had a combined noise floor down at -100dB or so, in a very well isolated studio with a particularly quiet mic, but after 48dB gain our noise floor is closer to about -45dB, putting our ultrasonic reflection level some 20 times or so lower than the noise floor. That's just in theory of course, in disputes about these sorts of levels, there often seems to be the assumption that a mic is somehow infinitely sensitive and everything is captured down to an infinitely quiet level but just buried in noise. This is of course a fallacy, just as it's a fallacy to assume a Ford Focus could travel at near light speed if it weren't for tyre fiction and wind resistance. In practise, once we get into the noise floor of the mic itself, that's it, there's nothing there to even potentially extract. Those ultrasonic reflections might exist at those extremely low levels but we can't record them (or of course hear them) and if we can't record them, they're obviously not in any recordings and there's nothing there to be extracted! Furthermore, using analogies of analogue tape or vinyl are particularly ridiculous because it's only when the marketing guys started pushing high sample rates to consumers that there became a need to actually put something up there. Before that time (around the turn of the millennium) there were no studio mics spec'ed beyond 20kHz and while they produced some response to particularly loud ultrasonic freqs (when very close mic'ed), it was greatly reduced and, their noise floors were higher, in addition to the much higher noise floors of vinyl and tape of course! Again, there maybe some future tech that can extract acoustic info and if so, it would be very useful in the studio (although still useless to the consumer), but whatever happens in the future, the ultrasonic range is the very last place to look for that info! If *someone* is looking for a marketing gimmick to push ultrasonic freqs, they're barking up completely the wrong tree. Not that they'll let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story though!

G


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> With the advent of digital recording -



Oh good, we've gone from one guy pushing a totally ridiculous fantasy future to another one pushing a totally ridiculous fantasy history. So, that covers just about everything, all we need to do now is join it all together, maybe an Edison disk packed with ultrasonic acoustics would make everyone happy? Jeez, I thought the Cables forum was bad!

G


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> Oh good, we've gone from one guy pushing a totally ridiculous fantasy future to another one pushing a totally ridiculous fantasy history. So, that covers just about everything, all we need to do now is join it all together, maybe an Edison disk packed with ultrasonic acoustics would make everyone happy? Jeez, I thought the Cables forum was bad!
> 
> G




If you can make that ultrasonic Edison roll available in 784kHz DSD, I’ll take two!  Just make sure to charge me a lot, because if it’s not expensive, it won’t sound as good...


----------



## KeithEmo

Technology has a way of advancing much more rapidly than we can even imagine.
I used to think it would be a very long time before "computer driven cars" were considered to be safe enough to be allowed on public streets.
Yet here we... and they... are.

Here's a thought.... for fans of multi-channel recording.

If we wanted to be able to reproduce a recording of an orchestra very accurately...
We could record each instrument on its own audio track, keep track of the exact location of each, and encode all of that information into the recording.
Then, when we played back the recording, our decoder could figure out which speakers to send each track to so that the instrument appeared in the correct location.
It could calculate things so that, no matter how many speakers we had, or where they were located in the room, each instrument seemed to come from the correct apparent physical location.
Yes, it would take a lot of information, and a lot of computing power, but it at least seems possible, right?

If I'd suggested that this was possible ten years ago, at least a few people here would have "called BS" and said "it was both useless and impossible".
But, if you haven't gotten the joke yet, this isn't science fiction... it's a description of Dolby Atmos (and DTS:X).
And, if you buy a new home theater reciever this year, even a relatively cheap one, you'll probably be getting it.



bfreedma said:


> If you can make that ultrasonic Edison roll available in 784kHz DSD, I’ll take two!  Just make sure to charge me a lot, because if it’s not expensive, it won’t sound as good...


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Technology has a way of advancing much more rapidly than we can even imagine.
> I used to think it would be a very long time before "computer driven cars" were considered to be safe enough to be allowed on public streets.
> Yet here we... and they... are.
> 
> ...




I don’t see why people would have doubted that audible sound could be reproduced in an object oriented model.  What does that have to do with the point you’re trying to make about inaudible ultrasonics being viable in the future?  I see this as yet another false equivalence.

Not to say that it’s not great that most receivers have valuable features like Atmos. And working room eq.


----------



## Davesrose

KeithEmo said:


> Technology has a way of advancing much more rapidly than we can even imagine.
> I used to think it would be a very long time before "computer driven cars" were considered to be safe enough to be allowed on public streets.
> Yet here we... and they... are.



Technology also goes around in round about ways.  Analogsurvivor's example of an esoteric high-end audio source... it was also the same time of Cinemascope and 70mm Panovision in movie theaters (the heyday of big screens that could take advantage of higher resolving power).  Then with the advent of multiplexes and smaller screens...there was less of a demand for high resolving film.

While technology is easily accessible for autonomous cars, and it's proven they are now more accurate then humans...I do think it's still an uphill battle to make them the de-facto for travel.  People, they just love their cars and will fight tooth and nail to be the driver (even if they're now more distracted with their cell phones while being stuck in stop and go traffic that could have been alleviated with autonomous travel).


----------



## Arpiben

gregorio said:


> So, the GPS timing signal is analogous to acoustic information and if it isn't there, (as it isn't in the case of ultrasonic freqs), then GPS won't work. So you're suggestion is to use say the sun, stars or other cosmic events instead of the GPS timing signal. As "This is analogous" then you've similarly got some suggestions for what we could use instead of reflections/reverb on a recording, to provide us with acoustic information? Great, let's hear them then! Or are you saying we can actually extract pulsar emissions from an album and some how use that? As ridiculous as that sounds, it's no more ridiculous what you seem to be suggesting, so I really can't tell!
> 
> For everyone interested in facts, let's look at some:
> 
> ...



Thanks @gregorio for the added information. As a man interested in facts I did some homework with close mic'ed cymbals 176.4/24 samples.
Useful to mention that the ultrasonics levels do count less than 0.1dB RMS TPL when comparing original file with the Low Pass Filtered one.
Useful to mention that I didn't find echolocation clues in the ultrasonics.
B.R.


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting.

Could you please provide a few details about which algorithms you used to analyze the information when you were looking for that "echolocation information".
I don't know offhand which commercial programs currently available do that - ot what exact analysis technique they use.
(MatLab is usually good for general purpose "number crunching".)
It would have involved looking for "unique and identifyable energy bursts", then analyzing the signal later to find and identify the specific "echoes" associated with them.
(I would have started by trying to identify the highest peaks, figuring out the decay envelopes associated with them, then looking for anomalous bumps or dips.)
I would have expected it to take some serious software development to determine exactly what methods would work best and develop a working software prototype.
I assume you did something a little more concise than "shifting the pitch and listening for echoes a human would recognize".
(If you could tell us what you did that _didn't_ work, perhaps the next person who tries to do it can avoid that dead end...)



Arpiben said:


> Thanks @gregorio for the added information. As a man interested in facts I did some homework with close mic'ed cymbals 176.4/24 samples.
> Useful to mention that the ultrasonics levels do count less than 0.1dB RMS TPL when comparing original file with the Low Pass Filtered one.
> Useful to mention that I didn't find echolocation clues in the ultrasonics.
> B.R.


----------



## KeithEmo

It occurred to me that, if you want to do some general research on "how to extract information from noisy and chaotic signals", there are a few people who have used it lately for various things.

The US Navy, of course, continuously researches both active and passive SONAR.
(With active SONAR you send out a ping; but, by doing so, you also advertise your location. Passive SONAR simply means picking out things like echoes and engine noises passively and extracting information, like where that submarine is, from that noise.)
Unfortunately (if you're a researcher), the Navy isn't that big on sharing.

I hear the Earth Science folks have also been doing a lot lately with analyzing the echoes of the sounds made by earthquakes to visualize structures inside the Earth.
(For everything from looking for oil to mapping the internal structure of the planet.)
This seems to me as if the math would be very much like what you would need to locate walls by listening to echoes from music.)

I think they're all working with similarly complex situations - with lost of noise and very low-level signals.



Arpiben said:


> Thanks @gregorio for the added information. As a man interested in facts I did some homework with close mic'ed cymbals 176.4/24 samples.
> Useful to mention that the ultrasonics levels do count less than 0.1dB RMS TPL when comparing original file with the Low Pass Filtered one.
> Useful to mention that I didn't find echolocation clues in the ultrasonics.
> B.R.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Nov 19, 2018)

I figure there are hundreds of ways one can differentiate between dacs if one has the proper instruments to do so...but if we could all bear in mind that all of this preferably should end up enrichening the experience of listening to music..by HUMAN BEINGS.
Yet we keep going back to the supposedly faulty ways of blindstests.

Now I usually drink water from a glass or a bottle. Does this mean that if scientists suddenly brought forth the proposition that glasses don't work perfectly, I should then revert back to using my hands as a means to shovel water into my mouth?

I am sure science will figure out a way to do better tests in the future, no doubt, but why should a future heureka undermine the best tests we have for judging sound quality now?
If we are to believe most of the audiophile crowd we should throw blindtesting in the trash and wholly base our purchases on sighted testing.
Bias doesn't exist...except for in other people's lives. Real music afficionados can hear stuff dogs can't...mostly because the canine never knows where exactly to listen for the ultrasonic content of titanium violin with spiderweb strings.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 19, 2018)

^ I absolutely agree that blind tests are better than sighted.  The question is how best to do blind tests and how to interpret them.  If blind tests appear to give null results, but there are doubts about how the tests were done or interpreted, that undermines the ability of the tests to provide evidence that there are really no significant audible differences (i.e., could be false negative results).  This stuff needs to be done to scientific standards, subject to scrutiny by qualified scientists.  The tests cited in the first post of this thread generally don't seem to meet those standards.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

I don't see any problems with blindtesting...other than they often show people what they don't want to hear/see.

The past few pages, here as well as in the dac thread, seem to have nosedived back into obfuscation. 
I have absolutely no problems with blindtests if a) they are properly set up (no visual cues and matched volume levels) and b) the actual person(s) testing have as much time on his/her hands in order to explore every possible thing that pops up. 
This way you can listen all day to one dac/amp and then shift...or shift all the time if you find that to be a better way forth.

It is a very simple and accurate test in order to find out if you prefer one over the other or if you indeed are able to distinguish between the two.
This test will most likely never make any scientific journals, sure, but it may have saved you a couple of thousand dollars.
If you can't hear any differences between two units over the course of a weekend shifting from hd800s to studio monitors...then you can't hear a difference. Simple as. If you can then good for you. I'd personally be very interested in seeing some kind of doctor perform some hearing tests then....mostly because scientific anomalies interest me.

Everything else just seems like obfuscating scientific trifle that indeed will matter to spermwhales and owls on the hunt for the next upgrade to their rigs.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I don't see any problems with blindtesting...other than they often show people what they don't want to hear/see.
> 
> The past few pages, here as well as in the dac thread, seem to have nosedived back into obfuscation.
> I have absolutely no problems with blindtests if a) they are properly set up (no visual cues and matched volume levels) and b) the actual person(s) testing have as much time on his/her hands in order to explore every possible thing that pops up.
> ...


Life would be simpler if everything was binary: yes or no, good guys or bad guys, black or white.

Are blind tests good or bad? Are they simple or complex? Do they have problems or are they accurate? Are they easy to perform or difficult? Do sighted tests have zero value or some value?
It's just not that simple. It all depends on what you want to test, both the item (DACs, file formats, amplifiers, etc.) and what you are asking (same/different, better/worse, etc.) That will determine what factors are important in setting up the test.

Some tests are easy for nearly anyone to perform, but some tests require care if you want the results to have any meaning. You might have to think a bit, which seems to scare some people.

I, for one, welcome the fact that most of life lies between the pure black and pure white. I like shades of gray and the full spectrum of colors. That is not just obfuscating scientific trifle.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> I was thinking the other night about the absurdity of people arguing that super audible content is important to the reproduction of recorded music in the home...



For the record, although I'm willing to entertain the idea that ultrasonics might have some value to the listening experience... someday, somehow... I don't argue that it's important to home listening in today's world.  It's more of an intellectual curiosity - either trying to put the final nail in the coffin, or finding some good reason to pry it open again. 

@gregorio - thanks for the long response regarding the practical problems in extracting any useful information from the ultrasonic band of a finished / mixed recording.  It all makes sense and agrees completely with the limited knowledge I have about recording.  I would totally agree that if you intend to extract an impulse response (or any other direct measurement) from a finished recording, you are going to have a very hard time.  I won't really speculate as to what one might actually be able to learn from analyzing ultrasonic content, but we can definitely agree that the task is not a simple one, whatever the end goal is. 

Also, I know that over-reliance on analogies is pretty dangerous here now, but here's one - if astronomers are able to look at stars behind a black hole by algorithmically removing the distortion of spacetime itself (not to mention all kinds of other interference), I imagine there is hope for similarly fancy processing of audio.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Technology has a way of advancing much more rapidly than we can even imagine.
> [2] I used to think it would be a very long time before "computer driven cars" were considered to be safe enough to be allowed on public streets. Yet here we... and they... are.
> [3] Here's a thought.... for fans of multi-channel recording.
> If we wanted to be able to reproduce a recording of an orchestra very accurately...
> ...



1. A fallacy that has already been exposed as such yet you keep repeating it anyway, why is that? Show me any technology that has advanced rapidly that extracts information that doesn't exist.
2. Great, what's that got to do with extracting information that doesn't exist?
3. Sure, but why would we try and encode that information in some ultrasonic freqs within the audio recording, when we could just put it in the files' metadata?
4. Maybe some would but I would NOT have been one of those people and you implying that I would is a bold faced lie!! 
5. No, that assertion is FALSE (just for a change!)! Neither Dolby Atoms nor DTS X can place "the instrument in the correct location" within a soundfield. They simply route an output signal to a specific speaker or group of speakers. They do NOT attempt to add any acoustic information about the room/environment those signals are supposed to occupy. Furthermore, the routing information they store (and process) is stored in metadata, NOT ultrasonic audio frequencies!

Again, here are some actual facts: Technology is not far away from being able to do what KeithEmo is now suggesting but not autonomously, it still needs a great deal of human intervention, and additionally requires very significant computational power. Furthermore, his example completely ignores/glosses over the realities of the situation, it all sounds reasonable but in practise how could we "record each instrument [in the orchestra] on it's own track" without seriously compromising the performance? That alone kills his "example" stone dead but even if it were possible, it would take many months to make such a multi-tracked recording, never recoup a fraction of what it would cost and not sound as good as is currently possible anyway. It's all very well to be "optomistic" and ignore the realities but only *if* there is some sort of prospect/potential those realities can be beneficially overcome in practise. If not, then it's not "optimistic", it's "irrational"! Is it optimistic to expect next year's Ford Focus will be capable of near light speed or is it irrational?



KeithEmo said:


> Could you please provide a few details about which algorithms you used to analyze the information when you were looking for that "echolocation information". I don't know offhand which commercial programs currently available do that - ot what exact analysis technique they use.



Huh? You argued for post after post, in support your agenda, that it's not only possible to do that analysis but trivially easy. You state even your "cheap cell phone" would be able do it in a few seconds and even list specific "_*commercial programs currently available*"_ that according to you can achieve this task but then, less than a week later, when confronted with someone's assertion that they couldn't find any ultrasonic acoustic information, you very conveniently develop acute selective amnesia?? I leave others to draw their own conclusions! Here's just a few quotes I could be bothered find from the last few days:

"_Izotope's latest restoration utility has the ability to .. not just add, but to REMOVE, reverb.... Apparently it is able to pick out the specific sounds of reverb, differentiate them from primary sounds,_"
"_There are also several new pieces of software that allow you to "match the acoustics of one track to another" - presumably by analyzing, and then collectively replicating, the "echoes" and "room noise_"
"_We're simply talking about a modernized version of "timing the echoes to see how big the cave is"... although much more detailed analysis is possible these days._"
"_I would use a high pass filter to separate the ultrasonic content from the "audible music". Then I would boost it a bit to make it easy to work with. Then I would fed it into a DSP engine running appropriate software to analyze it._
"_By measuring the arrival times between the initial wavefront, and the first three or four echoes, I will now know the dimensions of my room. Actually, I'll have to do this same analysis with several sounds, and correlate the results. In 1950 this would have required a really expensive computer; nowadays the processor in my cheap cell phone is quite capable of doing it in a few seconds._"
"_I could easily identify one loud click, pick out a few return echoes that follow it, and get my room dimensions from there. Of course, a DSP doing spectral analysis will extract more useful information than I can by simply looking at it, but you get the idea._"

G


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Nov 19, 2018)

SoundAndMotion said:


> Life would be simpler if everything was binary: yes or no, good guys or bad guys, black or white.
> 
> Are blind tests good or bad? Are they simple or complex? Do they have problems or are they accurate? Are they easy to perform or difficult? Do sighted tests have zero value or some value?
> It's just not that simple. It all depends on what you want to test, both the item (DACs, file formats, amplifiers, etc.) and what you are asking (same/different, better/worse, etc.) That will determine what factors are important in setting up the test.
> ...


I very much agree with most of your post, but I disagree with your conclusion as well as the way you managed yet again to obfuscate - here though it was merely my post.
This is a forum for human beings. Human beings have been scrutinised for hundreds of years. We have made extensive scientific research into sound and how we perceive the very same. We also have a very good understanding of thresholds of hearing and how frequencies can mask one another.
Add on what we know about people and their imaginative powers ie our biases and we effectively end up at a very simple place. Most especially if you have bothered to try these things for yourself. I do understand where we two don't see eye to eye: you are looking at this through microscopes and oscillators while I'm merely attempting to achieve the best sound quality I can possibly get.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 19, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> [1] Also, I know that over-reliance on analogies is pretty dangerous here now, but here's one - if astronomers are able to look at stars behind a black hole by algorithmically removing the distortion of spacetime itself (not to mention all kinds of other interference),
> [2] I imagine there is hope for similarly fancy processing of audio.



I entirely agree, technology can achieve wonders, by processing data/information that exists and deriving astonishing results. In this example, the data/information that exists is the light from the stars (behind a black hole) being "bent" by the gravitational forces of the black hole. How could that process work if that light didn't exist in the first place, or if it did exist but was never directed towards the earth and was therefore undetectable?

2. There is some amazing fancy processing of audio that's being achieved and developed, but ONLY with information that actually exists (can be recorded).

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I disagree....

If we know so much about precisely how humans hear, and exactly what they can and cannot hear or differentiate, then how come we have so many surround sound systems, and so many competing systems that attempt to record and play back binaural recordings, yet there is not a single one of them that is universally agreed to "work perfectly"? If we know all these details so well, and the technology is so well established, then I should have dozens of systems to choose from, whose main difference is the color of their knobs and the shape of their face plates. Yet, instead, we have a whole bunch of competing systems, none of which seems to be especially close to that goal.

To me, the fact that no such perfect system exists is adequate proof that "we don't know quite all of it yet".

When you can sit me down in a room with a band and a sound reproduction system.
And I literally cannot tell which is playing... ever...
And, when we try it with other bands, and other listeners, nobody can ever tell the difference....
Then I'll be the first to agree that "we've accomplished perfect sound reproduction so there's no need to keep trying".
Until then... we simply aren't there yet.



Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I very much agree with most of your post, but I disagree with your conclusion as well as the way you managed yet again to obfuscate - here though it was merely my post.
> This is a forum for human beings. Human beings have been scrutinised for hundreds of years. We have made extensive scientific research into sound and how we perceive the very same. We also have a very good understanding of thresholds of hearing and how frequencies can mask one another.
> Add on what we know about people and their imaginative powers ie our biases and we effectively end up at a very simple place. Most especially if you have bothered to try these things for yourself. I do understand where we two don't see eye to eye: you are looking at this through microscopes and oscillators while I'm merely attempting to get the best sound quality I can possibly get.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

I think I understand where you're coming from Keith. We all have to make a living and while yours depends on science it also very much abhors the very same. It is truly bizarre to watch from the sidelines though.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I disagree....
> 
> If we know so much about precisely how humans hear, and exactly what they can and cannot hear or differentiate, then how come we have so many surround sound systems, and so many competing systems that attempt to record and play back binaural recordings, yet there is not a single one of them that is universally agreed to "work perfectly"? If we know all these details so well, and the technology is so well established, then I should have dozens of systems to choose from, whose main difference is the color of their knobs and the shape of their face plates. Yet, instead, we have a whole bunch of competing systems, none of which seems to be especially close to that goal.
> 
> ...



It's the Dunning Kruger effect again.  People don't know what they don't know, and are often overconfident about how much they really know.  The only way to really know is to gain the experience, knowledge, and skill needed to become a real expert, and then you'll realize how much you didn't know, but didn't realize you didn't know it.  Meanwhile, when we're not experts on a topic, the best we can do is to explore enough to realize that there's a lot we don't know, have humility because of that, and try to learn more (preferably from real experts, rather than anonymous faux internet experts).  It may all sound complicated, but these are practical and important points.

A lot of people are also quite uncomfortable with uncertainty and complexity, so they have a tendency to simplify by making assumptions which they take to be facts, and the belief systems they eventually form harden in a way that it becomes almost impossible to change them.  Personally, I accepted long ago that reality is inherently uncertain and complex (to varying degrees, depending on the aspects we're dealing with), and I kind of enjoy the intellectual and practical challenge of grappling with uncertainty and complexity.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

KeithEmo said:


> I disagree....
> 
> If we know so much about precisely how humans hear, and exactly what they can and cannot hear or differentiate, then how come we have so many surround sound systems, and so many competing systems that attempt to record and play back binaural recordings, yet there is not a single one of them that is universally agreed to "work perfectly"?



I think it's mostly because we haven't achieved anything people would describe as a perfect transducer.  And as far as binaural / surround there is no practical way that I know of to perfectly account for the shape of ears.  I understand a certain big IEM brand tried to categorize / generalize about inner ear shapes and gave up after doing a ton of MRI scans, but not finding enough commonalities among ears.


----------



## KeithEmo

You keep saying "that it doesn't exist".
Yet, when I look at those filtered clips BigShot posted in an audio editor, they are not empty clips.
In fact, even the one that's high-pass filtered at 20 Kzh is far from empty...
Even more interesting, it's clearly NOT random noise, because it obviously "follows the music"...
(If there was really nothing there then the difference file would be null - or would contain nothing except the white noise from the noise floor of the recording.)
Therefore it obviously contains all sorts of information...
Of course, actually determining with any accuracy exactly what information is there is going to take a significant amount of signal analysis.
(You can even get information from white noise by analyzing its spectrum... but we're talking about obvious patterns here.)

I've heard a few recordings of "the sound of the ocean"... and, to me, they just sound like a lot of noise.
But, by applying some signal processing, the guys on a Navy ship can apparently tell me what ships are in the area, what directions they're going in, and how fast they're going.

I'm told they can even identify individual ships by their "sound signatures".
(I wonder if I could identify a specific brand of cymbal by its "ultrasonic signature".)

I propose a simple test to settle this - at least under one specific condition.

Find someone with a drum set, with plenty of cymbals, and have him play the exact same piece of music in a typical studio and in an anechoic chamber.
Record each at some nice high sample rate - let's say 192k.
Now, play each of those samples through a good quality 20 kHz high-pass filter.

If there's nothing in either except pure white noise, from the noise floor of the equipment, then we will know that there's literally no useful information there.
And, if there's something there, but it nulls perfectly to silence when we null the two samples, then we'll know it contains no useful information about the difference.
I'm betting that we won't get a perfect null...
And, if not, then the difference must be due to the differences between the room acoustics present when those two recordings were made...
And, at that point, once we know there's information there, we need to figure out what it is, how to best extract it, and what, if anything, we might want to do with it.

Incidentally, I absolutely agree with your analogy.
If we looked up into the night sky, and saw absolute perfect pitch blackness, and were unable to identify any light whatsoever, then there would be nothing to analyze.



gregorio said:


> I entirely agree, technology can achieve wonders, by processing data/information that exists and deriving astonishing results. In this example, the data/information that exists is the light from the stars (behind a black hole) being "bent" by the gravitational forces of the black hole. How could that process work if that light didn't exist in the first place, or if it did exist but was never directed towards the earth and was therefore undetectable?
> 
> 2. There is some amazing fancy processing of audio that's being achieved and developed, but ONLY with information that actually exists (can be recorded).
> 
> G


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with you - in general.

Blind tests are a good way to eliminate preference bias when comparing two or more of something.
Of course, even a standard blind test cannot eliminate a preference to NOT notice, or to ignore, small differences.

It would actually be possible to do that by modifying a standard blind test slightly.
You would have to expand the test to include multiple unknowns and multiple known reference samples.
And, among the reference samples, you would have to include several which had known differences which were expected to be audible.
(For example, if we were to assume that threshold for audibility for THD was 1%, we could include one sample with 2% THD and confirm that our test subjects identified it as different.)

As you suggest, blind tests are quite useful and effective in specific circumstances.
For example, if you're purchasing a DAC to use with your hd800s headphones, then all that really matters is whether you hear a difference with those headphones.
However, just because you hear no difference with those headphones, you _CANNOT_ conclude that no difference would be audible with _OTHER_ headphones.
SCIENTIFICALLY, the best you could do on that score would be to repeat the test with many different headphones, then report your results as a STATISTICAL analysis.
(You could say that, with a variety of different headphones, none of your test subjects could hear a difference.... and provide a list of the headphones you tested that with.) 



Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I don't see any problems with blindtesting...other than they often show people what they don't want to hear/see.
> 
> The past few pages, here as well as in the dac thread, seem to have nosedived back into obfuscation.
> I have absolutely no problems with blindtests if a) they are properly set up (no visual cues and matched volume levels) and b) the actual person(s) testing have as much time on his/her hands in order to explore every possible thing that pops up.
> ...


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Most especially if you have bothered to try these things for yourself.


I have. I can't be sure, but I would guess I have more than most people here, including you. And depending on the goal, it results in nice sound for my family, or helpful advice to a friend, or a publication.


Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I do understand where we two don't see eye to eye: you are looking at this through microscopes and oscillators while I'm merely attempting to achieve the best sound quality I can possibly get.


 No, where we don't see eye to eye is you seem to be an _*either/or *_person and I am not. You think _*either*_ one looks at things through microscopes and oscillators _*or *_merely attempts to achieve the best sound quality possible. In my case it's both, and most importantly knowing when to use what method.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Heh...I guess Bigshot was right when he said that you guys always go for the testing methods, the wishful 'science cannot possibly know all!!' and the eternal 'you haven't tested everything so your conclusions are incomplete'.
I did use all my headphones ie the Q701, pro2900, he500, dt990, hd600, pro550, hfi-15g, he400s as well as his hd800. 
The other blindtests I've partaken in has had studio monitors, near field speakers (only one time though but with the same result) plus a wide variety of headphones - though never with electrostatics, so there is your loophole


----------



## KeithEmo

I do NOT "abhor science".
What I abhor is when people misuse science in an attempt to prove broad generalizations based on a small sampling of facts.



Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I think I understand where you're coming from Keith. We all have to make a living and while yours depends on science it also very much abhors the very same. It is truly bizarre to watch from the sidelines though.


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Could you please provide a few details about which algorithms you used to analyze the information when you were looking for that "echolocation information".
> I don't know offhand which commercial programs currently available do that - ot what exact analysis technique they use.
> ...



I just did what you could have done a basic time-frequency analysis based on a single close mic'ed cymbal hit and focusing only in frequencies above 22.05kHz.
By time frequency analysis I mean Spectrogram with small windows = 8-32 samples (time resolution).
At this stage I found non obvious delayed ultrasonics with echo clues. 
I didn't bother with wavelets transforms analysis ( vs Fourier) whether continuous or discrete CWT/DWT.
IMHO, no need of any specific army software for such non complex samples.
That said I may have missed an ultrasonic clue and will appreciate if you can show me any.


----------



## bigshot

gregorio said:


> maybe an Edison disk packed with ultrasonic acoustics would make everyone happy?



Well, I've never transferred an Edison cylinder, but I have remastered acoustic 78s. They have plenty of ultrasonic content... but it's all noise... sounds like some of the posts here lately!


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> It occurred to me that, if you want to do some general research on "how to extract information from noisy and chaotic signals", there are a few people who have used it lately for various things.
> 
> The US Navy, of course, continuously researches both active and passive SONAR.
> (With active SONAR you send out a ping; but, by doing so, you also advertise your location. Passive SONAR simply means picking out things like echoes and engine noises passively and extracting information, like where that submarine is, from that noise.)
> ...



Well those things are quite familiar to me when dealing with Electromagnetic Waves. Even if Sound waves have completely different properties we do use more or less some maths. But as mentioned by @gregorio if the information you are trying to retrieve was not recorded I am afraid there is little chance to find something.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

I actually try to stay away from this thread because I end up doing the exact same thing you guys are: obfuscating the hell out of matters!
You all know that you can run circles around me with regards to all the technical matters - I've never made an effort to hide that about me....BUT I know people. I've worked with them most of my life and have always had a natural ability to see through them...for better or for worse (mostly the latter).
So when I time and again see supposedly knowledgeable people continue to flee when asked for solid proof of whatever it is that they're saying - I get suspicious.
When the same people then try to justify this they come up with an army of cleverly put together 'what-ifs'. Keith is brilliant at this, I'll give him that. Again this also looks very suspicious to me.

I'm out.


----------



## bigshot

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I actually try to stay away from this thread because I end up doing the exact same thing you guys are: obfuscating the hell out of matters! I'm out.



Don't leave! We need more baby animal avatars around here! I just sit back and skim over all the blather and wait for someone to start talking about playing back commercially recorded music in the home again. It can be a long wait at times. Some people never seem to run out of gas.


----------



## castleofargh (Nov 19, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I disagree....
> 
> If we know so much about precisely how humans hear, and exactly what they can and cannot hear or differentiate, then how come we have so many surround sound systems, and so many competing systems that attempt to record and play back binaural recordings, yet there is not a single one of them that is universally agreed to "work perfectly"? If we know all these details so well, and the technology is so well established, then I should have dozens of systems to choose from, whose main difference is the color of their knobs and the shape of their face plates. Yet, instead, we have a whole bunch of competing systems, none of which seems to be especially close to that goal.
> 
> ...


 bad examples. there are quite a few obvious technical issues and deliberate shortcuts in recording, mastering, calibration, and playback of such systems. so of course the result is unlikely to "work perfectly". also what's the reference? as a consumer most of the time I won't know. and even more often it won't care about me. so if all was perfect, could we consumers even tell?
anyway the issues mostly fall under technical and acoustic concerns, not mysterious human interpretation of sound. if you get the right sound at the eardrum, sound involving at least a specific room and speakers, or your specific HRTF cues for binaural, then you're done with sound. even in some utopia of ideal conditions, it wouldn't be surprising for some people not to feel "right". that much is true, but the cause would be what they see or their knowledge of the room. and for binaural,  it would have to do with stuff like the lack of head tracking and tactile bass for example.

so bad example to show that we lack understanding about hearing and interpretation. I'm not saying that we know everything about hearing and interpretation, only that this example is bad.


----------



## bigshot

Any port in a storm.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Let me take a stab in the dark here: the ONLY test you will ever see audiophiles greet welcome is the one that proves them right. 
The real problem though seems to be that the upgradeitits bug is scouring about in venues that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. 
How about upgrading your ears before venturing any further?


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree - that wasn't a great example.
A lot of the gaps involved entail not lack of understanding but simply lack of ability to deliver things we know are missing.
I would also suggest that we really don't necessarily want a perfect reproduction.... 
For example, nobody wants to actually suffer hearing damage when the rocket takes off at 150 dB in that scene from Interstellar....
We're quite content to have that experience inaccurately simulated by "a really loud noise"....

However, excluding extremes like that, if we start by assuming that some original event actually existed, which is not always the case...

We could replicate what both you and I heard at that original performance (or would have heard there) by exactly replicating every sound wave in the room.... 
Then, when both you and I listen to it, the sound reaching our eardrums would be exactly the same as it was at the original performance.
This would involve all sorts of things that are annoying in practice - like exactly replicating the acoustics of the original room and each instrument or other sound source.
However, since the sound would be passing through our ears, we wouldn't have to worry about things like HRTF (that part would "take care of itself").

Alternately, we can try to bypass some or all of the variables.
For example, if we had some way to deliver the signal directly to our eardrums, we could bypass both the room and the mechanism of our ears.
This is what we try to do with binaural and IEMs... deliver the signal as close as possible to our eardrum... and electrically simulate or compensate for the rest of the path. 
By using headphones and individual HRTFs, we've "taken a step back"...
We've delivered the signal closer to our eardrums, and artificially compensated as many of the differences between the speaker and our eardrum as we can.
(However, IEMs till don't deliver the signal directly to the eardrum and, as you've noted, individual HRTFs are a nuisance to generate and use.)

I should also mention that various attempts have been made to "cover" some of the extra information you mentioned.

For example, both big subwoofers, and "buttshakers", do their best to replicate the tactile feedback... and can do pretty well.
And the Smyth Realizer seems to do a passable job of replicating the head tracking requirement...
The Realizer uses headphones, mounted with an IR sensor, to track head position, and simulates the differences you hear due to changes in head position.
It essentially "simulates listening to the surround sound system of your choice, in the room of your choice, while wearing a pair of stereo headphones".
I guess you could also claim that VR headsets attempt to replicate the full visual portion of the "total experience".

Arguably, in some future system, we could somehow play the music signal directly into the auditory nerve...
If we could do that, in theory we could actually "hear the music through the EARS of the performer" (or, at least, a "designated standin for the reference listener").)
(In fact, if we would somehow "patch into all five senses" then we could replicate the entire experience.
People have been theorizing that for decades... but the technology isn't there yet.



castleofargh said:


> bad examples. there are quite a few obvious technical issues and deliberate shortcuts in recording, mastering, calibration, and playback of such systems. so of course the result is unlikely to "work perfectly". also what's the reference? as a consumer most of the time I won't know. and even more often it won't care about me. so if all was perfect, could we consumers even tell?
> anyway the issues mostly fall under technical and acoustic concerns, not mysterious human interpretation of sound. if you get the right sound at the eardrum, sound involving at least a specific room and speakers, or your specific HRTF cues for binaural, then you're done with sound. even in some utopia of ideal conditions, it wouldn't be surprising for some people not to feel "right". that much is true, but the cause would be what they see or their knowledge of the room. and for binaural,  it would have to do with stuff like the lack of head tracking and tactile bass for example.
> 
> so bad example to show that we lack understanding about hearing and interpretation. I'm not saying that we know everything about hearing and interpretation, only that this example is bad.


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> I've heard a few recordings of "the sound of the ocean"... and, to me, they just sound like a lot of noise.
> But, by applying some signal processing, the guys on a Navy ship can apparently tell me what ships are in the area, what directions they're going in, and how fast they're going.
> 
> I'm told they can even identify individual ships by their "sound signatures"



I was in the US Navy as a sonar technician/supervisor for eight years, albeit over 20 years ago.  It was mostly trigonometry and an extensive library of recordings made from undersea hydrophones, submarines, and to a lesser extent frigates/destroyers/cruisers equipped with towed arrays that allowed for knowledge of situational information and identification.   Generally, the signal processors created a graphical representation of the sound displayed as frequencies with their intensity.

Typically a sound source other than a biologic would first be identified, and further analysis would be needed to determine the range, direction of travel, speed, and type of vessel.  It was not instantaneous.    Bathythermographs and navigation charts would be used to gather data about the ocean environment with regards to thermal layers and any physical characteristics.  Course changes could be used to narrow the target's location.  The signal strength could be used to determine if the target distance was increasing or decreasing.  

Any identifying auxiliary equipment could be referenced, but in my day we had to study tons of information to be able to do our jobs successfully.  The system didn't do this for us.  Propellers, turbines, generators, diesel engines, gears, and other noise-makers could help to isolate a class of vessel or even a specific ship/sub.   This process could all be automated today with enough CPU resources, but it is mostly going to be a database of information that meets specific requirements and not from signal processing.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would guess you do so by politely asserting that a fallacy exists - and providing actual information to support your assertion.

For example, Gregorio asserts:
Yes, there is *sometimes* something there (>20kHz) that "obviously" modulates in time with the energy peaks of the music. 
How do you jump from this fact to the conclusion that's "it's clearly NOT random noise"?

Well, here's a scientific response to that.....

The simplest answer is self-referential (it's a mater of definition)...
If the signal is modulated, then that modulation constitutes information...
Therefore, since the signal contains information, it is not "random".
(By definition, something that contains information is not "purely random".)

Perhaps he misspoke.... and intended to say that: "He is _personally _certain that it contains no _useful_ information."
If so, then he is entitled to his opinion on that subject, but should avoid asserting it as established fact.

In some contexts noise is defined as the opposite of information.... 
So, also in general, pure noise would contain no information.
(In reality, with proper analysis, the noise itself will give you information about the processes that generated it.)
But, if that noise is modulated, then that modulation itself contains more information.
If the modulation was deliberate, it has added both the information we chose to modulate onto the signal, and information about our modulation method.
If the modulation was unintentional, then, at a minimum, it contains information about the mechanism that caused it.  

So, if we have what appears to be "noise that is modulated in time with the musical peaks"...
Then it contains significant information about how and why those musical peaks were modulated.
(We also have an excellent starting point for our analysis since we have the audible portion of the overall sound spectrum to use for reference.)

To use the example of the Plangent process...
Record bias serves a purpose in terms of tape magnetization - but, as far as the audio signal is concerned, it is noise.
However, some smart fellow noticed that, not only was that noise present, but it was "modulated" by variations in tape speed.
Then, by analyzing that "noise", and precisely how it was modulated, he figured out how to extract useful information about errors in tape speed.
This information is then used by the rest of the process to make audible corrections to the audible portion of the audio spectrum.
(It would be fair to state: "The Plangent process makes audible corrections - based on the analysis of the unintended modulation of noise present on the tape.")

To choose another potential example.
I may notice that the background noise level in the room rises and falls slightly at a certain frequency.
(I would detect this by looking for patterns modulated into the background noise.)
From that, I may determine that a ceiling fan, or something similar, is modulating the noise in the room (a fan is a series of moving reflective surfaces).
And, if I were to detect this, I would look for similar modulations in the levels of audio tracks recorded in that room.... and potentially correct them if I find them.
As a result, I may be able to improve the quality of those audio tracks, by removing an error introduced when they were initially recorded.
This is simply an advanced version of "establishing a noise profile and using it as a basis for corrections". 

And, again, the fact that this takes a good programmer a week to do today...
In no way suggests that we won't see it in a $125 AVR in five years.



gregorio said:


> How do you refute the use of a fallacy without referring to the fact that a fallacy is being employed? How do you refute a ridiculous assertion without explaining/demonstrating why it's a ridiculous assertion?
> 
> G


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 20, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. That's entirely possible but as the sort of people I've been hanging around for several decades is world class musicians and engineers, what are we to do? Ignore the actual facts of what musicians and engineers do and just rely on make-up nonsense instead?
> 
> 2. But he's not making any technical arguments, he's using ridiculous fallacies, non-sequiteur analogies and false assertions. I've asked you whether we should just let all that pass here in the science forum and if not, how to refute it. You have not responded, which implies you think we should let it pass. No problem but then we have to rename this forum!
> 
> G



I think you should debate the technical points as forcefully as you want.  Just don't make it personal.  When you finish writing your posts, before you hit 'Post Reply', just filter out all the personal stuff and everything will be fine.  Making it personal doesn't help your arguments, it just diminishes your credibility with respect to being able to rely on the merits of your arguments, inhibits constructive discussion, and makes the forum a less pleasant place to spend time.  The same dynamics tend to occur when people talk about politics and religion, and we should be able to do better here in Sound Science where the purported mission is to get closer to the truth by applying a scientific mindset.


----------



## castleofargh

quasi-modo:
personal attack removed and bad bad Gregorio contacted. I wish I could edit a post because most of it was IMO interesting. dunno if Greg will repost an edited version. 
@Phronesis maybe don't keep quoting and discussing the very post you think shouldn't be on the forum? that's a little counterproductive ^_^. plus when I come to remove it, I have to chase all the related posts and quotes of it. report, or try your best to comment without actually quoting insults, do it for your modo brother who's really lazy.


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes, today, virtually all of the "number crunching" is done by computer... and there's a major stress on getting it done in real time if at all possible.
Modern analysis techniques are also able to sort out a lot more information a lot faster.
Most systems these days would automate both the lookup process and consolidating that information with other forms of data.
These days, you'll probably end up looking at a screen, with a little icon for each ship or plane, color coded by nationality, class, threat level, or whatever other parameters you set.
The computer will have combined the SONAR and RADAR data, with satellite data, data from each ship's transponder, and reference data about things like "last known location".
(Just click your mouse if you want to see all military vessels, or all freighters of Russian registry, or all ships making over ten knots in the general direction of Hawaii.)

It also might detect and note or flag anomalous information....
For example, it might alert you to an anomaly if it detected an object with "the hull sounds of a destroyer" - but "the engine sounds of a freighter". 
Or if the SONAR and RADAR indicate an armored warship, while official records say the only thing near there should be a fishing boat, and the transponder is oddly silent.
This could be really useful for identifying ships trying to camouflage their sound signatures - and so hide or falsify their locations.
(I worked on a project back in the 1970's that involved developing quieter propellers to reduce the acoustic propulsion signatures of large warships.) 

Now, when it comes to consumer music, we're usually dealing with "an artificial reality" when multi-track recordings are involved.
However, we may also encounter recordings that claim to have been "recorded live", at a single sitting, and without a lot of processing.
In those situations, it might be useful to detect whether the acoustic signatures of the backgrounds on all the tracks matched.
Was that "audiophile recording" really recorded direct-to-file, with minimal processing, or did they drop in a few tracks later, and add artificial reverb to match them to the others?
In fact, I'll bet we could even recognize certain reverb plugins by their acoustic signatures.
Now, while this is hardly life or death, many people might find it interesting... or even potentially useful.



sonitus mirus said:


> I was in the US Navy as a sonar technician/supervisor for eight years, albeit over 20 years ago.  It was mostly trigonometry and an extensive library of recordings made from undersea hydrophones, submarines, and to a lesser extent frigates/destroyers/cruisers equipped with towed arrays that allowed for knowledge of situational information and identification.   Generally, the signal processors created a graphical representation of the sound displayed as frequencies with their intensity.
> 
> Typically a sound source other than a biologic would first be identified, and further analysis would be needed to determine the range, direction of travel, speed, and type of vessel.  It was not instantaneous.    Bathythermographs and navigation charts would be used to gather data about the ocean environment with regards to thermal layers and any physical characteristics.  Course changes could be used to narrow the target's location.  The signal strength could be used to determine if the target distance was increasing or decreasing.
> 
> Any identifying auxiliary equipment could be referenced, but in my day we had to study tons of information to be able to do our jobs successfully.  The system didn't do this for us.  Propellers, turbines, generators, diesel engines, gears, and other noise-makers could help to isolate a class of vessel or even a specific ship/sub.   This process could all be automated today with enough CPU resources, but it is mostly going to be a database of information that meets specific requirements and not from signal processing.


----------



## KeithEmo

KeithEmo said:


> Yes, today, virtually all of the "number crunching" is done by computer... and there's a major stress on getting it done in real time if at all possible.
> Modern analysis techniques are also able to sort out a lot more information a lot faster.
> Most systems these days would automate both the lookup process and consolidating that information with other forms of data.
> These days, you'll probably end up looking at a screen, with a little icon for each ship or plane, color coded by nationality, class, threat level, or whatever other parameters you set.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm going to stop responding entirely to "arguments" on this subject...
I will even concede that "at this point in time there is probably little if any information contained in the ultrasonic portion of the spectrum of high sample rate files that is directly useful by any existing home audio gear".

It seems clear that many people here simply fail to find this interesting...
While several others have, quite reasonably, pointed out that it is somewhat speculative.
And some just want to argue.
(And this forum is more intended to address current products and technology than future and potential products.)

If anybody wants to actually discuss it... feel free to PM me, or post an actual question here, and I'll be glad to reply.



castleofargh said:


> quasi-modo:
> personal attack removed and bad bad Gregorio contacted. I wish I could edit a post because most of it was IMO interesting. dunno if Greg will repost an edited version.
> @Phronesis maybe don't keep quoting and discussing the very post you think shouldn't be on the forum? that's a little counterproductive ^_^. plus when I come to remove it, I have to chase all the related posts and quotes of it. report, or try your best to comment without actually quoting insults, do it for your modo brother who's really lazy.


----------



## castleofargh (Nov 20, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I'm going to stop responding entirely to "arguments" on this subject...
> I will even concede that "at this point in time there is probably little if any information contained in the ultrasonic portion of the spectrum of high sample rate files that is directly useful by any existing home audio gear".
> 
> It seems clear that many people here simply fail to find this interesting...
> ...


different people with different views and interests. nothing we can do about that on a public forum. we all just try to find what interests us and the people who also are interested in it. and that's rarely going to be everybody.  we should be able to direct and answer things in a more common way thanks to controlled experiments and the knowledge base that research provided us with, but that would first require that everybody subscribes to the same knowledge. in practice we can't even get everybody to agree that a listening test shouldn't involve our eye and preconceptions. so, it's a work in progress to say the least. 
and then we obviously get the same issues that all scientists fight continuously about, interpretation of data. TBH when I try to follow some modern research(audio or not), the real scientists with real serious experiments, well they really argue and fight just like we do here all the time. it's at an elevated level of control and understanding compared to here, but the issues remain. was the test really properly done? is the data trustworthy? can you really conclude this based on just that data? when there is a consensus like man made climate change, it's only because the evidence is overwhelming. but first we need the evidence. and when it comes to hearing stuff beyond what we nowadays assume to be human hearing thresholds, the evidence isn't overwhelming at all. and the people pushing the idea that there is more, do tend to have a mediocre understanding of human hearing/digital audio, or they are in the business of selling high res gear, and we all have a hard time forgetting that aspect.
I have to be honest, if the paper from Meridian about audibility of ringing had come from actually independent research, I would still have had a few issues with their experiment, but I wouldn't has been so keen on dismissing it. if the paper on checking the brain for impact when music has ultrasonic content didn't have Oohashi, I would also have ended up finding a few issues, but I wouldn't have started with "oh boy, here he goes again". it's unfair and really not scientific, but who can claim that he won't be affected that way? biases will be there. it's really the all story. so as a consequence, a guy like yourself has to prove himself even more than others. again it's unfair, but there is really nothing we can do about it. I can't unlearn what you do for a living, and I can't have the names on the post be randomized so I can read them without my bias.
I mean I ended up in a pure rage quit 2 days ago in a thread because having the "sound science forum modo" tag has some people pass anything I post through the "he's a Sound Science guy" interpreter. which isn't even correct as what it says is that I moderate the section. but the bias is there, rational or not. I know I can't remove that bias, and this time my solution was indeed to rage quit instead of trying to be so perfect that maybe my point would still get through the bias googles. so I believe I kind of get where you're standing right now. but you're a better man than I am, you don't even post anything suggesting that you'd really like to headbutt some people. all hope isn't lost for you  .
with that said, I'll keep being a dick and disagree with bad analogies making everything more complicated. and I'll still have the skeptical position on anything without clear evidence, making me the other side of any optimistic view on what might happen. bias or not, a bunch of people here will always be that way. because indeed we're not here to deal with theoretical science and speculations. we already have our hands full trying to settle on known facts.
doesn't mean you can't discuss speculations or poorly supported ideas, it's a public forum you discuss whatever you like(within TOS). you just might not find many people to ride the speculative train in this specific section.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> ... then we obviously get the same issues that all scientists fight continuously about, interpretation of data. TBH when I try to follow some modern research(audio or not), the real scientists with real serious experiments, well they really argue and fight just like we do here all the time.



To be honest, it's not really just like what we do here all the time. Their fighting is, as you say, about the interpretation of data but they don't fight about falsified/just made-up data, such a person is simply labelled a fraud, has their medical licence revoked or looses their job and becomes an outcast from the world of science. That's effectively exactly the opposite to this forum (and head-fi in general). According to the rules here, there's nothing wrong with someone making up lies, relying exclusively on fallacies or indeed repeating those lies and fallacies ad infinitum. It is however against the rules to mention that someone is lying or label them a fraud. I understand why those rules exist, the financial realities of head-fi but nevertheless, those rules are inconsistent with the name of this sub-forum. Which is why so many of those with real information/facts/science sooner or later feel obliged to leave or are kicked-out. Eventually, the frauds will get what they want, a forum called Sound Science which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with marketing, plus a willing audience who think they're actually getting the facts/science.

G


----------



## bigshot

We just need to come up with euphemism words... W C Fields said that he "prevaricated". Would that be OK to use instead of "lying"?


----------



## gregorio

Would calling someone a "great steaming prevaricator" be going too far? 

G


----------



## Indiana

Scientists try to understand things. They are looking for explanations that make sense. And try to prove these things. Our most important tool of knowledge is mathematics. Therefore, I would never get the idea to participate in a blind test between "HighRes" and Redbook. I would feel like Don Quixote. But I've never been very passionate about audio anyway.


----------



## bigshot

I'm passionate about music, which wouldn't exist without audio!


----------



## KeithEmo

Perhaps, if you're absolutely certain that someone is lying, the best way to deal it would be to produce PROOF that they're lying.
And, if you try really hard, but can't come up with any such proof, then maybe you should concede that they actually may not be lying after all.
Or maybe you should settle for: "I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work, and it seems downright doubtful to me, but I can't prove it". 
Or perhaps even: "I'm not aware of anybody doing that today, and it doesn't seem especially useful, so I'm not really interested".
(And, to be honest, trying to imagine ever more creative ways to accuse someone of being a liar, without being caught doing so, seems a bit counterproductive.)



bigshot said:


> We just need to come up with euphemism words... W C Fields said that he "prevaricated". Would that be OK to use instead of "lying"?


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> Perhaps, if you're absolutely certain that someone is lying, the best way to deal it would be to produce PROOF that they're lying.



But what if we produce proof and they carry on lying anyway, there's nothing in the rules here to stop him. In fact, the obvious solution for this liar would be to bait the proof provider into calling him a liar, by simply repeating the same lies in every post and making-up a few new ones that the liar knows will be particularly galling, then get the proof provider sanctioned for calling him a liar and then the liar has more freedom to continue lying without being so strongly challenged (with the actual facts) all the time, problem managed, salary earned! Of course, that's just a theory.

G


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 20, 2018)

gregorio said:


> But what if we produce proof and they carry on lying anyway, there's nothing in the rules here to stop him. In fact, the obvious solution for this liar would be to bait the proof provider into calling him a liar, by simply repeating the same lies in every post and making-up a few new ones that the liar knows will be particularly galling, then get the proof provider sanctioned for calling him a liar and then the liar has more freedom to continue lying without being so strongly challenged (with the actual facts) all the time, problem managed, salary earned! Of course, that's just a theory.
> 
> G



Or maybe take a chill pill and stop making mountains out of molehills while crying that the sky is falling.  Thanksgiving is almost here, and we all have things to be thankful for, so maybe try having an attitude of gratitude for the rest of the week and drop the pettiness.


----------



## bigshot

I'm thankful that I don't have to make up completely fabricated theories to protect my fragile ego. I'm thankful that I can allow myself to learn from people who know things I don't know about. I'm thankful that Castle has more patience than any of the rest of us.


----------



## castleofargh

Head-fi's priority is for people to treat each other with respect when they discuss. you don't have to believe it when you write with respect(or at least without blatant insults), just like you don't have to actually like your boss when you pretend to. same reason why people still pretend to like it when you tell them some crap about your kid. we keep social appearances even in totally hypocritical ways, even if it's obvious to us all. because that's the best solution under given circumstances. doing otherwise would almost certainly have bad and lasting consequences, so we suck it up and move on. making a fake smile once in a while isn't killing anybody.
it's the same thing on Head-fi. you avoid attacking people. you try not to openly insult them. you avoid bringing up politic or religion. and you make your posts in English even when it's not your native language. all that is done so you can stay on Head-fi. respect people, or pretend real well, I personally don't care. I'm not a mind moderator. 

now because this is Sound Science we have an extra reason not to claim that somebody's a liar. the same reason not to make any claim, lack of evidence. we have to:
1/ prove without a doubt that something stated is false. and just saying it is and we know it is false, that isn't enough. we don't accept that as evidence from others, so why should we accept it from ourselves? 
2/ once 1/ is indeed demonstrated, we still have to prove that the person stating the false idea, knows that he's wrong but says it anyway. this one is tricky IMO.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...why-people-stick-their-beliefs-no-matter-what    how often can I claim that someone else(or myself) isn't in this situation of simply having a hard time absorbing contradicting information? and if we have at least 2 possibilities(and we have more, such a plain old ignorance or misunderstanding), then surely we have to be able to eliminate those hypotheses before concluding there was voluntary lie involved.


----------



## bigshot

I think there is sometimes a third thing to consider... Internet forums tend to attract people with certain biological conditions that hinder their communication skills and can make them speak in a manner that they don't intend to. It's very hard to recognize those people without face to face contact, but when I suspect that is the case, I just give them a wide berth and try not to cause them trouble. Not everyone realizes that there are people like this participating sometimes, and it's a taboo subject for discussion, so they don't know to cut certain people some slack. I don't know if there is a solution to that.

There are outright trolls hiding behind their keyboards too. Once I identify them, I don't give them slack. I don't see any reason to give respect to someone who is disrespecting me deliberately.


----------



## KeithEmo

That's easy.....

If any compelling proof were produced by either side, then it would be obvious to everyone who saw that proof which side was right, and the debate would be over.
And, if no such evidence actually exists, then we can only conclude that we simply have conflicting theories.
If something is actually untrue, rather than simply unknown, then it should be pretty easy to prove that using actual evidence.
(And, no, the fact that nobody has done something so far in no way constitutes evidence that it cannot be done.)

It's also true that, when it comes to new science, finding actual proof can often be expensive and time consuming.
(Because of this, some questions may never be answered, if nobody is willing to budget the necessary funds to conduct the required research.)
For example, the question of whether "gravity waves" actually exist and can be detected has been debated for a long time.
However, the fact that nobody succeeded in detecting and documenting them for years didn't prove that they didn't exist.
It just proved that, up until that point, nobody had succeeded in detecting them.
So all they could do was to list the ways they'd tried, and failed, to detect them so far.
Now, finally, after several decades of research, and several failed research projects, the latest attempt to detect and measure gravity waves has finally succeeded.
(So I guess we're lucky nobody assumed they didn't exist after the first few attempts to detect them failed.)

In real science, we are often faced with situations where things simply remain unknown...
It's not that big a deal.
However, it is logically flawed to simply label everything that hasn't been done yet as "impossible".



bigshot said:


> I'm passionate about music, which wouldn't exist without audio!





gregorio said:


> But what if we produce proof and they carry on lying anyway, there's nothing in the rules here to stop him. In fact, the obvious solution for this liar would be to bait the proof provider into calling him a liar, by simply repeating the same lies in every post and making-up a few new ones that the liar knows will be particularly galling, then get the proof provider sanctioned for calling him a liar and then the liar has more freedom to continue lying without being so strongly challenged (with the actual facts) all the time, problem managed, salary earned! Of course, that's just a theory.
> 
> G


----------



## Indiana (Nov 21, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> If any compelling proof were produced by either side, then it would be obvious to everyone who saw that proof which side was right, and the debate would be over.
> And, if no such evidence actually exists, then we can only conclude that we simply have conflicting theories.



What kind of debate? There is in fact no debate. And you did not present a theory.  It's not even a hypothesis. And there are also no two sides. The only one point I disagree with Gregorio: This is for sure not a science forum.


----------



## bigshot

I love it when my quotes are used without any context whatsoever.


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> That's easy.....
> 
> If any compelling proof were produced by either side, then it would be obvious to everyone who saw that proof which side was right, and the debate would be over.
> And, if no such evidence actually exists, then we can only conclude that we simply have conflicting theories.
> ...



It took almost one year and a half for computing the data in LIGO gravitational's observation. I am just wondering how many years any consumer computer will need to retrieve your wished reverb ultrasonic information?


----------



## bigshot

Put NASA on the job! It isn't a measurement if a person can't interpret it without a computer's help.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 21, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> now because this is Sound Science we have an extra reason not to claim that somebody's a liar. the same reason not to make any claim, lack of evidence. we have to:
> 1/ prove without a doubt that something stated is false. and just saying it is and we know it is false, that isn't enough. we don't accept that as evidence from others, so why should we accept it from ourselves?
> 2/ once 1/ is indeed demonstrated, we still have to prove that the person stating the false idea, knows that he's wrong but says it anyway. this one is tricky IMO. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...why-people-stick-their-beliefs-no-matter-what how often can I claim that someone else(or myself) isn't in this situation of simply having a hard time absorbing contradicting information? and if we have at least 2 possibilities(and we have more, such a plain old ignorance or misunderstanding), then surely we have to be able to eliminate those hypotheses before concluding there was voluntary lie involved.



I agree entirely but I didn't come to that conclusion lightly, it wasn't just a case of me not liking the assertions made and responding in the heat of the moment with an emotional insult, I effectively followed your two points:

1/ I provided the published scientific evidence that science doesn't currently even have a theory to achieve what was being asserted as achievable already. I provided scientific evidence that the percentage of information >20kHz produced by instruments is a tiny fraction of their total information/energy. Obviously science can't prove a negative, I can't prove there is no acoustic information above 20kHz on every one of the hundred million or so commercial audio recordings released over the last 60 years or so. But, supported by the fact that he hasn't managed to provide even a single example, I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that acoustic information above 20kHz is, at the very least, exceedingly rare. Additionally, I've used just about all of the professional reverb processors over the last 20+ years and never seen one that produced anything higher than about 12kHz and this fact has not been challenged. Therefore, even if I'm wrong and there are some recordings with >20kHz acoustic information, we're talking about developing some future technology for consumers that at best *might* be able to work about 0.1% of the time and probably 0% of the time (and this is assuming that the extracted >20kHz acoustic information is actually useful rather than misleading). Clearly, developing a consumer product that even in the best case would only work a tiny fraction of the time, is not a viable commercial proposition. However, as you say, none of this or the other facts provided proves lying has occurred, it may only have proved ignorance, a false belief and an unwillingness or inability to accept the evidence/facts. Which brings us to:

2/ There are several supporting points here: Firstly, the ignorance defence is only applicable for so long. Once the refuting evidence has been provided, then the person is no longer ignorant of the facts. Of course, they may not understand those facts/evidence or they may choose not to accept them but they are now at least aware that their assertions are being challenged with some sort of evidence and, they are also aware that they are continuing to make their assertions without any supporting evidence of their own! Still not absolute proof of lying but the evidence is starting to stack up. Secondly, we have many examples of supporting assertions being changed 180deg, depending on whether they support or contradict his agenda. I detailed a couple of particularly obvious examples; Pages were spent arguing that the analysis of acoustic information was trivially easy, even listing the commercial software that apparently can achieve this feat but when another member stated they were unable to find the supposed acoustic information, just a few days later, the response was that he knew of no commercial software which could achieve that exact same feat, so how did the member know there was no acoustic information there. Or, the assertion that I was wrong for eliminating a fraction of a percent of the information from an analysis but that he was correct in eliminating >99% of it. There are numerous other examples, just yesterday for example: He wrote various posts (and repeated them) detailing how a 90kHz bias tone has been used to correct wow and flutter tape flaws but then, when he needs to support another assertion about random noise, that single tone is magically not a single tone any more, it's suddenly random noise, despite the fact that the process he detailed and is using to support his agenda ONLY works precisely because it is a single constant tone and couldn't work if it were random noise. Thirdly, he just (accidentally/fortuitously?) ignores or misquotes responses. Fourthly, he's not a newbie here, I'm sure he's read a great deal of information here over the years and additionally, he's a member of the trade. He must surely have at least a basic working knowledge of sound and audio? So how can he be so ignorant of it or accidentally get so much of it wrong? For example, does he really not know that sound behaves very differently in water than in air and therefore that his Navy analogy is incorrect/inappropriate?

None of these points (and many others besides) individually prove beyond doubt that he is lying, but all of them in combination? At what stage do we reach the critical mass of "overwhelming evidence", of there being no other reasonable explanation? Obviously, that stage is different for everyone, it depends on the false assertions/analogies/fallacies presented and our personal knowledge/experience that enables us to identify those assertions as false. Many/Most of the false assertions made were effectively regarding what is recorded, how it's recorded and how it's edited, mixed and mastered after it's recorded, which are my personal areas of expertise. Therefore, it's likely that I will reach that stage of "overwhelming evidence" before many others, some of whom may never reach it because they do not recognise enough of the falsehoods to reach that "critical mass". To them it would appear that I'm jumping to conclusions and making a very serious accusation with insufficient evidence, that maybe I have some agenda or other which is causing me to be unjust/unfair, especially as he seems to be a very decent, reasonable guy and the opposite of what I'm accusing him of!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

You're quite right... and thank you.

All I suggested was that relatively well known technology, based on the same technology already in use for several other similar things, might be used for something new.
I then suggested a few points that seemed quite relevant about how someone might go about doing so.
It hardly seems like a big deal - or even much of a stretch.
Yet some folks seem extremely determined to "prove" that it's "impossible".



Indiana said:


> What kind of debate? There is in fact no debate. And you did not present a theory.  It's not even a hypothesis. And there are also no two sides. The only one point I disagree with Gregorio: This is for sure not a science forum.


----------



## KeithEmo

Technology evolves.

From what I've heard the, technology behind simple RADAR was incredibly expensive when the military started working on it, but now it's cheap. The signal processing needed to recognize things buried in the ground (ground penetrating RADAR), is a lot more complicated, but now I can buy a little gadget that clips onto any Android phone, and uses similar technology to give me a video image of the pipes and wires inside the wall. I also remember a time, not that long ago, when a color TV camera cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and rolled around on a large wheeled cart, and radio controlled video drones were science fiction. Yet, today, I can buy a drone, with a color video camera included, for $39 on sale. Computers today are already millions of times more powerful than they were thirty or forty years ago... and my out-of-date phone has more processing power than the combined power of all the computers NASA owned in 1960... (There wasn't enough money or technology on the planet to build a low-end iPhone in 1960.)

So, myy answer to your question would be that, if there's no interest, you'll never see it done on a home computer. And, if there is interest, you'll probably be able to buy it on a $10 smart phone app by 2025... and they may be picking the winning lottery numbers by watching for gravity waves by 2030.

If I just follow Moore's law (which states that "computing power available per $1 invested doubles every 18 months"..... ans is widely considered to be generally true), however long it took this year, in two years it will only take about 1/3 that long, and in five years it will take 1/10 as long. 

I should also point out that gravity waves are quite a bit more difficult to detect than simple ultrasonic audio information. Ultrasonic data is already used for all sorts of things, so all I'm talking about is some rather specialized analysis software geared towards one particular and rather narrow application.



Arpiben said:


> It took almost one year and a half for computing the data in LIGO gravitational's observation. I am just wondering how many years any consumer computer will need to retrieve your wished reverb ultrasonic information?


----------



## Indiana (Nov 21, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> All I suggested was that relatively well known technology, based on the same technology already in use for several other similar things, might be used for something new.



KeithEmo, not sure, maybe I understood you wrong. But you presented several time a tape machine as an example. An analoge device which is in every way worse compared to digital recording. But we are now in DSP days. We have far more precision a human can hear. I really do not understand your point at all about ultrasonics. Why should it be useful?


----------



## KeithEmo

I really need to stop bothering to respond.... because this is all theoretical anyway.
(And that would put it rather near the edge of what this thread is supposed to be about.)
Therefore, after this, I really am going to stop responding to abstract theoretical questions along this line... at least in this forum.
(Although, if someone starts a thread on this specific subject, or something similar, do let me know...)

However Gregorio brings up a few interesting... and potentially useful... pieces of information worth noting.

For example, he asserts that, after a lot of experience, he's never seen a professional reverb processor that produces anything above 12 kHz.
Assuming that he's right, that would mean that the presence of ANY reverb information above 12 kHz would tell us that we were looking at natural rather than artificial reverb.
Therefore, that fact alone would provide us with significant information.

For example.....
- if we were to note anything that looked like reverb information with a spectrum that extended above 20 kHz
- and it was correlated with sounds in the audible spectrum (for example, if it happened after a cymbal hit, and seemed to correlate with it)
- we would know that it was natural rather than artificial reverb
- and, knowing that, we would also then know that particular instrument was recorded in a somewhat live room rather than a well-padded isolation booth
- and we might even be able to pick out enough early reflections to learn something about the dimensions of the particular room where that track was recorded
- (and we could rely on that information to be about a real room rather than simply having been created artificially).

I will also point out that I did not say anything was "trivially easy"......
But only that it was "possible with current technology"......
Also, when asked to do so, I offered a way in which the information so obtained MIGHT be useful..... (thus proving that it is NOT "obviously useless").
I never specifically suggested that it was or would be commercially worthwhile.....
We are talking science here.... it would be up to the marketing department to decide if it was useful and related to a salable product...
(It might only ever be of interest to music historians, and other people, who like to analyze recordings to learn about how they were made.)

I should also point out a distinction between "a bunch of anecdotal evidence that nobody has done something so far" and "proof that it cannot be done".
(Without proper scientific research, properly conducted and documented, how much anecdotal information does it take to prove a negative?)

However, if that's all we're talking about, then I'll concede a few points.....
I am unaware of any current commercial product that uses the ultrasonic information present in recordings to analyze room characteristics.
Furthermore, I don't specifically know if such a product will ever be developed for consumer use.
However, I can't rule out the possibility that one or more current products do use that information, and I certainly cannot rule out the possibility that someday one or more may.
(Also, just for the record, I probably wouldn't pay extra for an audio recording that included that information.... unless it was required by some product I used or expected to use.)

I also need to point out that there are a lot of scientists in the world...
And even non-scientists sometimes have theories...
Therefore, I'm at a total loss about how someone could "provide evidence that science doesn't have a theory to achieve.... (something)".
Perhaps he really means to say that he personally has never seen what he considers to be a credible theory about this offered in print.



gregorio said:


> I agree entirely but I didn't come to that conclusion lightly, it wasn't just a case of me not liking the assertions made and responding in the heat of the moment with an emotional insult, I effectively followed your two points:
> 
> 1/ I provided the published scientific evidence that science doesn't currently even have a theory to achieve what was being asserted as achievable already. I provided scientific evidence that the percentage of information >20kHz produced by instruments is a tiny fraction of their total information/energy. Obviously science can't prove a negative, I can't prove there is no acoustic information above 20kHz on every one of the hundred million or so commercial audio recordings released over the last 60 years or so. But, supported by the fact that he hasn't managed to provide even a single example, I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that acoustic information above 20kHz is, at the very least, exceedingly rare. Additionally, I've used just about all of the professional reverb processors over the last 20+ years and never seen one that produced anything higher than about 12kHz and this fact has not been challenged. Therefore, even if I'm wrong and there are some recordings with >20kHz acoustic information, we're talking about developing some future technology for consumers that at best *might* be able to work about 0.1% of the time and probably 0% of the time (and this is assuming that the extracted >20kHz acoustic information is actually useful rather than misleading). Clearly, developing a consumer product that even in the best case would only work a tiny fraction of the time, is not a viable commercial proposition. However, as you say, none of this or the other facts provided proves lying has occurred, it may only have proved ignorance, a false belief and an unwillingness or inability to accept the evidence/facts. Which brings us to:
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

A reasonable question - which deserves a reasonable answer.

Many modern recordings include a lot of processing, which often includes things like artificially added reverb, and other far more complex alterations.
Many current recordings, and especially multi-track recordings, are also put together out of multiple tracks, often recorded in different rooms, and at different times.
Because of this, among many other things, recordings often sound less than optimal.
To pick an extreme example, if you were to play a poorly produced recording, and notice a distinct echo on the singer's voice, but no echo on the drums, it would sound "odd".
And, in that example, if we were able to analyze that recording, and, after doing so, pick out and correct that anomaly, we might make that recording sound better.
(We may conclude that the reverb in the singer's voice is artificial, and try to filter it out, or add "matching" reverb to the drum so they sound like they were recorded at the same time.)
And, as a broad generalization, whenever analyzing any sort of signal, the more information you have to begin with, the better results you may be able to achieve.
Whatever ultrasonic information is present would simply be more data - which would enable us to "build a more accurate fingerprint of the sound". 

We're talking about "analyzing the acoustic fingerprints of sounds"; the more complete our information about each sound is, the more accurately we can analyze it.
That remains true - even if some of the extra information we have doesn't happen to be directly audible to we humans.

So, in my example.....
1) 
Just as a matter of historic interest, we may be able to learn that the vocals and the drums were definitely recorded and/or processed separately.
(This might be interesting if that recording was claimed to be "a live direct-to-master recording"; or if we were simply wondering if the vocalist and drummer had ever met in the studio.)
2)
We might be able to use that information, as part of the data for some specific process, to improve the sound of that recording.
There is certainly a lot of demand, and a huge market, for "products that improve the sound of poor quality recordings".
Many current products simply apply static filtering... but some are more sophisticated... (I've never heard one that I thought worked well yet).
At the level of individual tracks, there are products that do something SIMILAR, by "reading" the AUDIBLE ambience information from one track and "applying" it to others.



Indiana said:


> KeithEmo, not sure, maybe I understood you wrong. But you presented several time a tape machine as an example. An analoge device which is in every way worse compared to digital recording. But we are now in DSP days. We have far more precision an human can hear. I really do not understand your point at all about ultrasonics. Why should it be useful?


----------



## KeithEmo

KeithEmo said:


> A reasonable question - which deserves a reasonable answer.
> 
> (I was merely offering the Plangent process as an example, in the very general sense, of :
> "information that was previously considered useless turning out to be useful in the light of newer technology"
> ...


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> Technology evolves.
> 
> From what I've heard the, technology behind simple RADAR was incredibly expensive when the military started working on it, but now it's cheap. The signal processing needed to recognize things buried in the ground (ground penetrating RADAR), is a lot more complicated, but now I can buy a little gadget that clips onto any Android phone, and uses similar technology to give me a video image of the pipes and wires inside the wall. I also remember a time, not that long ago, when a color TV camera cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and rolled around on a large wheeled cart, and radio controlled video drones were science fiction. Yet, today, I can buy a drone, with a color video camera included, for $39 on sale. Computers today are already millions of times more powerful than they were thirty or forty years ago... and my out-of-date phone has more processing power than the combined power of all the computers NASA owned in 1960... (There wasn't enough money or technology on the planet to build a low-end iPhone in 1960.)
> 
> ...



Why do you need ultrasonics for reverb when you should have enough of such cues in the audio bandwidth?
Gravity analysis is using wavelets transforms since they offer a faster convergence/decay vs Fourier.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree.
The short answer is that you probably don't _need_ that extra information. 
It's simply more information... 
And, when you're analyzing complex things, based on often insufficient or confusing information, the more information you have the better.
You can always filter out or discard information that turns out to be useless.... but, once you discard information, or simply fail to record it, you cannot get it back later.
There's always going to be a tradeoff... but it seems foolish to go out of the way to deliberately avoid information that may potentially be useful later.

We humans manage to see pretty well using "visible light"...
Yet we still use active or passive infrared illumination when we want to see through fog...
And, as it turns out, photos of farmland with a response that extends into the infrared can be used to identify specific crops that look identical under visible light.

Likewise, different wall coverings absorb different frequencies differently.
So, by noting the T60 of a room at a variety of frequencies, you can learn something about the wall coverings and textures.
For example, odds are that there are at least a few wall coverings that act similarly between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, but very differently at 25 kHz.
And, assuming that to be the case, you could probably tell which was used in that studio room by comparing the T60 at 400 Hz, 10 kHz, and 25 kHz.
I have no idea when, if, or why, we might wish to know that particular detail... but I cannot rule out that we someday might want to.
(Perhaps someone has asked whether a certain track was recorded before or after the studio burned down and was redecorated.... or which studio that track was recorded at.)



Arpiben said:


> Why do you need ultrasonics for reverb when you should have enough of such cues in the audio bandwidth?
> Gravity analysis is using wavelets transforms since they offer a faster convergence/decay vs Fourier.


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> I agree.
> The short answer is that you probably don't _need_ that extra information.
> It's simply more information...
> And, when you're analyzing complex things, based on often insufficient or confusing information, the more information you have the better.
> ...



Hoping you will have a limit and not ask for ultrasonics up to hundreds of kHz in order to check musicians and public organs/pregnancy/ etc...


----------



## KeithEmo

Not at all.....
Although, if you could figure that stuff out, it might make for a new hit reality show.
(Contestants could try to match the celebrity to their medical profile.)






Arpiben said:


> Hoping you will have a limit and not ask for ultrasonics up to hundreds of kHz in order to check musicians and public organs/pregnancy/ etc...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 21, 2018)

Ultrasonic frequencies are inaudible by definition. Tests have shown that people can't discern content with super audible frequencies from content without. Studies have also shown that inaudible frequencies add nothing to the perceived sound quality of music. While ultrasonic frequencies may have some relevance in scientific or studio applications, they are completely unnecessary for playing back commercially recorded music in the home.

However, ultrasonics serve a purpose in home audio... They are a very useful tool for snake oil salesmen to use to introduce doubt and make people part with money that they don't need to part with. Salesmen will say, "You can't consciously hear super audible frequencies... but MAYBE you can perceive them in other ways..." They try to make sound without inaudible frequencies seem like "half a loaf" so they can sell you more expensive equipment, more expensive HD Tracks of albums you already own, and formats like SACD and Blu-ray Audio that offer no advantage over CD quality for 2 channel music listening in the home.

There are people who are deluded and truly believe that inaudible sound is important. They believe that way despite every shred of proof in the matter. There are people who buy into ultrasonics "just to be on the safe side", figuring they don't mind paying extra for sound they can't hear, just in case the established science might end up being wrong. And there are people who are outright prevaricators who use specs of stuff that no human being can hear to sell their snake oil. Whatever the reason, the advice they give still stinks.

There are certain things that are big red flags to alert you that someone either doesn't know what they're talking about, or they are trying to sell you something that you don't need. Ultrasonics, jitter, the benefits of specs that extend even further beyond the threshold of transparency... The home audio business is jam packed with lies designed to separate marks from their long green. "Don't be a sap" is my advice. If someone tries to convince you of stuff like this, take everything they say with a huge grain of salt.


----------



## Indiana

Unfortunately bigshot is right. Many people I know bought very expensive gear sold by boutique Hifi-Stores. I guess this will never change.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 21, 2018)

If you listen to the facts instead of people who are trying to cheat you, you can put together a kick ass system that sounds just as good as the high end BS and have tons of money left over to buy music with. You just have to focus on sound you can hear, not just abstract numbers on sales tear sheets.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 22, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] If any compelling proof were produced by either side, then it would be obvious to everyone who saw that proof which side was right, and the debate would be over.
> [2] And, if no such evidence actually exists, then we can only conclude that we simply have conflicting theories.
> [3] I also need to point out that there are a lot of scientists in the world... And even non-scientists sometimes have theories...
> [3a] Therefore, I'm at a total loss about how someone could "provide evidence that science doesn't have a theory to achieve.... (something)".



1. The debate should be over, unless that someone decides to completely ignore the evidence presented and carry on making incorrect assertions anyway.

2. But if such evidence does actually exist AND has been presented, then we can ONLY conclude that the theory which conflicts with that presented evidence (and has no supporting evidence of it's own), must be just made-up nonsense!

3. And *apparently* I also need to point out that scientific theories require a considerable amount of supporting evidence in order to actually be theories and that even just hypotheses require some supporting background evidence. I should point out that the given example of gravitational waves was NOT a case of someone just inventing an idea and then searching for them. Their existence was strongly implied by the mathematical evidence supporting Einstein's papers on special and general relativity.
3a. How can you be "at a total loss" when it's *already been posted* and referred to an number of times??? Here is a quote from this posting nearly a week ago, that details a *published scientific paper* investigating the issue under discussion; the extraction and analysis of the direct and ACOUSTIC INFORMATION, from a recorded audio signal:


> Why don't you start with this, the most useful recent *scientific paper on the subject* I've seen, because it investigates and evaluates the different current approaches to signal extraction. While the science has developed significantly recently, it can only deal with certain specific signals and conditions (isolated signals for example), signals and conditions which are NOT applicable to commercial audio recordings, which are massively more complex. And, it's not just an issue of developing the technology to be better, it's an issue for which there isn't even a practical theory which could achieve what you're suggesting. Quote: "*Despite the recent advances in BSS and PAE, the challenges due to the complexity and uncertainty of the sound scenes still remain to be resolved.*".





KeithEmo said:


> [1] Technology evolves. ... If I just follow Moore's law (which states that "computing power available per $1 invested doubles every 18 months"..... ans is widely considered to be generally true) ...
> [2] I should also point out that gravity waves are quite a bit more difficult to detect than simple ultrasonic audio information.



1. And how many years of Moore's law will it take for technology to evolve the ability to analyse information that doesn't exist?

2. And I should also point out that if you jump off the 10th floor of an apartment block, I'm pretty certain you'll detect the effects of gravity *before you detect* "simple ultrasonic audio information"!! (Sauce for the goose ...)



KeithEmo said:


> For example, he asserts that, after a lot of experience, he's never seen a professional reverb processor that produces anything above 12 kHz. Assuming that he's right, that would mean that the presence of ANY reverb information above 12 kHz would tell us that we were looking at natural rather than artificial reverb.
> [1] Therefore, that fact alone would provide us with significant information.
> [1a]For example..... - if we were to note anything that looked like reverb information with a spectrum that extended above 20 kHz ...
> [2] I will also point out that I did not say anything was "trivially easy"...... But only that it was "possible with current technology"......



1. Surely you mean: "Therefore, *IF* there were acoustic information there, it *might* provide SOME information"! Clearly your sentence must have been a typo, as you obviously didn't intend to just make stuff up without a shred of evidence. You're free of course to assume anything you want but I personally prefer to look at the evidence/facts, ask some logical questions and arrive at some rational conclusions. For example, given that technology has been capable of it for more than a couple of decades, a logical question would be: Why don't professional reverb processors produce anything above 12kHz? Are they all just incompetently designed or do they not generally produce freqs above 12kHz because the real spaces they're emulating also don't have any useful acoustic information above about 12kHz? We can ask the designers themselves for answers to these questions (which I have) and we can actually look for ourselves for that info in acoustic recordings (which I also have)  or, we can just not bother finding out any answers, facts or evidence and simply assert made-up assumptions which contradict the evidence!
1a. And have you "noted anything that looked like reverb information that extended above 20kHz"? If so, why won't you share it with us? If not, then NONE of your following "examples" are even vaguely relevant!

2. There's two *glaringly obvious problems* with that assertion: Firstly, you are directly contradicting the actual scientific evidence presented (just above and for the second time!), that science has currently NOT resolved the challenge of achieving that feat with actual commercial recordings, plus, you're directly contradicting that evidence without even the slightest shred of supporting evidence and Secondly, you appear to be contradicting even yourself, I quote: "_I am unaware of any current commercial product that uses the ultrasonic information present in recordings to analyze room characteristics_"



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Many current recordings, and especially multi-track recordings, are also put together out of multiple tracks, often recorded in different rooms, and at different times.
> [1a] Because of this, among many other things, recordings often sound less than optimal.
> [2]To pick an extreme example, if you were to play a poorly produced recording, and notice a distinct echo on the singer's voice, but no echo on the drums, it would sound "odd".
> And, in that example, if we were able to analyze that recording, and, after doing so, pick out and correct that anomaly, we might make that recording sound better.
> [2a] (We may conclude that the reverb in the singer's voice is artificial, and try to filter it out, ...



1. Correct, although not just "many" but virtually all.
1a. Incorrect. In fact, not just incorrect but the exact opposite of true! The reason we go to all the additional time, effort and expense of recording multi-track and often in different rooms and at times is PRECISELY BECAUSE we want the recording to sound optimal.
2. Make it "sound better" according to who? Maybe it's not a poorly produced recording, maybe it's supposed to sound like that. It would certainly be an exceptionally rare example of extreme incompetence, if a commercial audio recording sounded the way you described but wasn't intended to (or a very early example with very limited technology). In fact, virtually always, a different reverb/acoustic effect is deliberately applied to the vocals vs the drumkit (and even within the drumkit itself)! Even if there were software which could "pick out" and analyse the various different reverbs/reflections in the vocals and drumkit (and there isn't), how could that software differentiate between an anomaly needing correcting and an artistic intent? Also, please can you provide the "extreme example" to which you are referring?
2a. What we can definitely conclude, is that if it's artificial reverb then it's been put there deliberately by the engineers/producer/artist and therefore, why on earth would you try "to filter it out"?



KeithEmo said:


> [1] And, as a broad generalization, whenever analyzing any sort of signal, the more information you have to begin with, the better results you may be able to achieve.
> [2] We're talking about "analyzing the acoustic fingerprints of sounds"; the more complete our information about each sound is, the more accurately we can analyze it.
> [3] For example, odds are that there are at least a few wall coverings that act similarly between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, but very differently at 25 kHz.
> [3a] And, assuming that to be the case,
> [3b] you could probably tell which was used in that studio room by comparing the T60 at 400 Hz, 10 kHz, and 25 kHz.



1. Again, another two *glaringly obvious* issues: Firstly, I'm not throwing away any acoustic information, there isn't any recorded acoustic information above 20kHz and Secondly, you AGAIN appear to be contradicting yourself, you stated that you would filter out everything below 20kHz (IE. throw away at least 99% of the information) and process what was left, and you steadfastly maintained that position!

2. Again, two *glaringly obvious* problems: The acoustic information is complete even before we get to 20kHz or do you have some evidence to suggest otherwise? And secondly, we cannot analyse what isn't there, we can't yet even analyse the acoustic information which is there (in the audible band) and there's currently no prospect of us doing so!!

3. Do you have any evidence to support the assertion of "odds are"? Or even an explanation for why wall coverings would behave "very differently" at 25kHz than at 20kHz? Or that you actually get and are able to record any acoustic information at 25kHz in music recordings?
3a. Why would you assume that to be the case when there is no evidence to support such an assumption but plenty of evidence that contradicts it?
3b. How are you going to compare the RT60 at 25kHz? We keep coming back to this; how are you going to compare a signal that either just doesn't exist in the first place or if it does, is thousands of times below the sensitivity of a music/studio mic and therefore cannot exist on the recording you're analysing? Where does the "you could probably tell" come from, when all the actual evidence indicates "not a hope in hell"?

G


----------



## KeithEmo

You're right... if we accept the conclusions of that paper then the debate would be over.

I didn't read the entire paper, but, ACCORDING TO THE SUMMARY THAT YOU POSTED, the paper says that "science has currently NOT resolved the challenge of achieving that feat with actual commercial recordings". It seems pretty obvious that they weren't suggesting that it would be impossible, or even that there were any theoretical reasons why it would be, but simply that it hadn't been successfully done yet with commercial recordings. (So, to be specific, they didn't say "it can't be done", or even "we don't think it can be done", but merely "we don't think anybody has done it yet". In fact, they didn't even suggest that it wouldn't be possible, but merely that "it was still a challenge".) Just to be specific, if you read everything I've posted CAREFULLY, you'll see that I never said that anybody had done it successfully yet - but merely that it was POSSIBLE... and I still haven't seen anything to contradict that claim.

And, yes, I noticed all sorts of things in that spectrum that were obviously correlated to the music. Since they clearly aren't random noise, they must be either ultrasonic harmonics of the original signal, some sort of electronic distortion, or some result of the acoustics of the room. (And, of course, if they're harmonics of the original isntrument, picked up by the recording equipment, then they would also be affected by the room acoustics.)



gregorio said:


> 1. The debate should be over, unless that someone decides to completely ignore the evidence presented and carry on making incorrect assertions anyway.
> 
> 2. But if such evidence does actually exist AND has been presented, then we can ONLY conclude that the theory which conflicts with that presented evidence (and has no supporting evidence of it's own), must be just made-up nonsense!
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

I do not have time to go into this ultrasonic debate to do it really justice.

However, do not forget : Information, lost in the first stage, can not be retrieved later on.

The musicians that had the *privilege* to become the recording artists with the introduction of digital ( late 70s, early 80s ) and have been the victims of the early digital, will be on these recordings NEVER heard as intended. Whatever the mumbo jumbo that recalculates the losses and addittions in those early digitall attempts, will never be able to replicate the real thing in full measure.

The same can be said regarding ANY digital recording - with the appropriate ever smaller deviations from the original microphone feed as the digital progressed troughout the history.

The fact that - as of today, to my knowledge  - there are only two microphones specifically intended for music recording ( as opposed to stricly measurement mics, although these two applications can and do overlap ) that meet or exceed 100 kHz response, is largely responsible that we have extremely limited amount of actual musical recordings using these microphone and HR digital with the bandwidth flat to 100 kHz ( regardless if DSD or PCM/DXD ). It will take at least half a decade before any meaningful amount of recordings spanning more genres will actually become commercially available - then, and only then, will truly be possible to judge the effect od ultrasonics - not only by digital equipment artefacts of upsampling PCM material or digital transfers of analog tapes of old(er) origin.

Anyone can say whatever he/she likes/pleases; but ONE fact remains :

                                                                                    YOU ONLY GET ONE CHANCE TO RECORD A MUSICAL EVENT 

And that one chance absolutely should be taken advantage of with the best possible means available; you can always bounce the recording down to MP3 32 kHz 96kbps - if required.

The other way around, upsampling MP3s to whatever higher will NOT produce nearly the same quality; best it can do, is to ameliorate the effect(s) of brickwall filtering. 
You can choose any step in between the MP3 and - say - DSD1024; but the general principle remains.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 22, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] You're right... if we accept the conclusions of that paper then the debate would be over.
> [2] I didn't read the entire paper, but, ACCORDING TO THE SUMMARY THAT YOU POSTED, the paper says that "science has currently NOT resolved the challenge of achieving that feat with actual commercial recordings". It seems pretty obvious that they weren't suggesting that it would be impossible, or even that there were any theoretical reasons why it would be, but *simply that it hadn't been successfully done yet with commercial recordings*. (So, to be specific, they didn't say "it can't be done", or even "we don't think it can be done", but merely "we don't think anybody has done it yet". In fact, they didn't even suggest that it wouldn't be possible, but merely that "it was still a challenge".)
> [2a] Just to be specific, if you read everything I've posted CAREFULLY, you'll see that I never said that anybody had done it successfully yet - but merely that it was POSSIBLE... and I still haven't seen anything to contradict that claim.
> [3] And, yes, I noticed all sorts of things in that spectrum that were obviously correlated to the music.
> ...



1. Do you have ANY counter (reliable) evidence that justifies not accepting it? If not, then how come the debate is not over?

2. If it has not been successfully done yet, that means no one has achieved this feat of analysis yet! And to be specific, they didn't say "it was still a challenge", they said that "*the challenges due to the complexity and uncertainty of the sound scenes still remain to be resolved!* Furthermore, you seem to have missed the rather large section where they detail "*Future* Directions" (highlight is mine) which may lead to a (future, not current) resolution of the challenges, you also seemed to have missed the part (in fact "parts" because it's mentioned more than once) where they state that detailed information would be required, such as the mixing process, microphone placement, etc. Information that does not exist for any current or past commercial recordings. So yes, they are CLEARLY saying that it is NOT possible currently, which is the opposite of your assertion that "_I will also point out that I did not say anything was "trivially easy"...... *But only that it was "possible with current technology"*_". And, this analysis feat is currently impossible even in the audible range, which is where the acoustic information actually resides, so it's self-evident that it's *impossible in the ultrasonic range*, where it does not!
2a. You did In effect state it would be "trivially easy", you stated that even "my cheap cell phone" would be "quite capable of doing it"! Just to be specific, here's some reminders, as you appear to have forgotten (despite already being reminded!) what you've actually posted:
"_Izotope's latest restoration utility has the ability to .. not just add, but to REMOVE, reverb.... Apparently it is able to pick out the specific sounds of reverb, differentiate them from primary sounds,_"
"_There are also several new pieces of software that allow you to "match the acoustics of one track to another" - presumably by analyzing, and then collectively replicating, the "echoes" and "room noise_"
"_We're simply talking about a modernized version of "timing the echoes to see how big the cave is"... although much more detailed analysis is possible these days._"
"_I would use a high pass filter to separate the ultrasonic content from the "audible music". Then I would boost it a bit to make it easy to work with. Then I would fed it into a DSP engine running appropriate software to analyze it._
"_By measuring the arrival times between the initial wavefront, and the first three or four echoes, I will now know the dimensions of my room. Actually, I'll have to do this same analysis with several sounds, and correlate the results. In 1950 this would have required a really expensive computer; nowadays the processor in my cheap cell phone is quite capable of doing it in a few seconds._"

3. And have you noticed gravity?
3a. It is NOT clear they "aren't random noise", it would ONLY BE "clear" if you present some actual evidence instead of just repeating "it's clear"! According to the evidence presented we haven't yet gone beyond: Random noise whose amplitude modulates with the musical content! Although I'll agree with "electronic distortion" as I've witnessed it on numerous occasions.
3b. Firstly you haven't ascertained they are harmonics and secondly, there's no evidence for, but overwhelming evidence against, that reflections of those ultrasonic harmonics, even if present, would be unrecordable. So, where does the "of course" come from?

It's obvious that you cannot/will not answer ANY of the questions put to you or provide any evidence to support your claims, it's just repetition of the same unsupported claims, with the addition of (and I'll be unreasonably charitable about it) _inadvertently_ misrepresenting/obfuscating what the paper actually stated and what you yourself have stated. I'll leave others to draw their own conclusions from these facts!!

G


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2018)

gregorio said:


> The debate should be over



The debate is over. It has been for months. We've got a few people here who have camped out on this thread and crapped all over it because they don't like what controlled testing shows. They each have their own unique way of doing that, but the overriding theme is the same. They have an idea in their head and they refuse to let go of it, even if it's proven to be wrong. They'll just say, "We can't know for sure, so I'm going to keep an open mind." Their "open mind" is an intellectual brick wall with no door in it. (By the way, I'll excuse that and just not interact on that level with them if that is a result of some sort of mental challenge. I think we are seeing that here too.)

I had hopes for two of them... one said he was interested in conducting a blind test himself. I still hope he'll get off the pot and try it. He would learn a lot. I actually helped another one of them do a blind test. But it took no time at all before he slid right back to the same wiggly logic and refusal to present any evidence to back up what he said. The last straw was when he wanted me to jump through hoops to test his subjective impression. Why should I waste time doing that?! He understands how controlled tests work. He could have done that himself. But it almost certainly wouldn't back up his theory, so it's easier to pawn it off on someone else so he can blame another person for not doing the test correctly... the simple test that he could have done himself, but he didn't!

Some people are just here to keep repeating the same old half baked theories over and over. For me, that is the finisher. I give people chance after chance, but at some point, it's clear that it is a complete waste of time corresponding with them. I'm here to learn from other people. There are some people who offer nothing and I can't learn from them. I've gotten lots of interesting and useful stuff from you. Thanks.


----------



## old tech (Nov 22, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> I do not have time to go into this ultrasonic debate to do it really justice.
> 
> The same can be said regarding ANY digital recording - with the appropriate ever smaller deviations from the original microphone feed as the digital progressed troughout the history.



The same can be said for ANY analogue recording, but more so as what is lost or distorted is WITHIN the range of human hearing.  So should we all be in dark despair with all those recordings done in the 1950s/60s when microphones, tape and tape recorder technologies were far less advanced than today?  Then there is the imperfect process of converting the taped music to vinyl through many transducers, RIAA equalisation which modern technology cannot really address.

I think perhaps, you just are not into very high fidelity of digital processing and prefer the distortions that are inherent in analog productions.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

So now only digital is acceptable for music listening?I enjoy music even on a clock radio that's not capable of discerning differences in recording tech.You are also eliminating music over 30 years old from your repetoir.Maybe you're more into the tech than the music?


----------



## old tech

Glmoneydawg said:


> So now only digital is acceptable for music listening?I enjoy music even on a clock radio that's not capable of discerning differences in recording tech.You are also eliminating music over 30 years old from your repetoir.Maybe you're more into the tech than the music?


Not sure if you are referring to me, if so you have misunderstood my sarcasm which was directed to Asurvivor's logic.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm sorry.
I give up.

- I honestly don't even know how to discuss things like this with someone who doesn't find it obvious that "noise which is correlated to the music" is NOT "random noise".....
(It's simple semantics... BY DEFINITION.... something that "follows the music" - even if it's modulated noise or distortion - is no longer random... it now contains INFORMATION.)
- Or who equates "I can't do something yet because there are challenges that still have to be resolved" to "it's absolutely impossible to do it".
(And, no, I didn't read the section that detailes the future predictions of those particular authors... because that's simply their opinions.) 



gregorio said:


> 1. Do you have ANY counter (reliable) evidence that justifies not accepting it? If not, then how come the debate is not over?
> 
> 2. If it has not been successfully done yet, that means no one has achieved this feat of analysis yet! And to be specific, they didn't say "it was still a challenge", they said that "*the challenges due to the complexity and uncertainty of the sound scenes still remain to be resolved!* Furthermore, you seem to have missed the rather large section where they detail "*Future* Directions" (highlight is mine) which may lead to a (future, not current) resolution of the challenges, you also seemed to have missed the part (in fact "parts" because it's mentioned more than once) where they state that detailed information would be required, such as the mixing process, microphone placement, etc. Information that does not exist for any current or past commercial recordings. So yes, they are CLEARLY saying that it is NOT possible currently, which is the opposite of your assertion that "_I will also point out that I did not say anything was "trivially easy"...... *But only that it was "possible with current technology"*_". And, this analysis feat is currently impossible even in the audible range, which is where the acoustic information actually resides, so it's self-evident that it's *impossible in the ultrasonic range*, where it does not!
> 2a. You did In effect state it would be "trivially easy", you stated that even "my cheap cell phone" would be "quite capable of doing it"! Just to be specific, here's some reminders, as you appear to have forgotten (despite already being reminded!) what you've actually posted:
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> The same can be said for ANY analogue recording, but more so as what is lost or distorted is WITHIN the range of human hearing.  So should we all be in dark despair with all those recordings done in the 1950s/60s when microphones, tape and tape recorder technologies were far less advanced than today?  Then there is the imperfect process of converting the taped music to vinyl through many transducers, RIAA equalisation which modern technology cannot really address.
> 
> I think perhaps, you just are not into very high fidelity of digital processing and prefer the distortions that are inherent in analog productions.



True; NOT into very high fidelity of digital processing - because there is no such thing, and even IF it is, it gets definitely abused the second most audio engineers lay hands on it. The results of such abuse *grace* FAR too many recordings to even start mentioning them - and, to me at least, are far more offensive than any reasonably decent analogue recording - or AAA in digital parlance.

There are uses where I might concede the use of advanced high quality HIGH sample rate PCM/DSP is beneficial and ultimately superior to any analogue - and that would be crossovers for 2 or more ways active loudspeakers. It is possible to produce "nearly perfect" square wave(s) in the vicinity of the ears of the listening position of the listener with loudspeakers using mentioned DSP. It takes a VERY high processing power computer to run such a "crossover network" - $$$ - and that's why this approach is almost never available in a commercial product.

And if anyone starts arguing there are no square waves in music, he/she should remind him/herself what a square wave actually is - and which parameters have to be next to perfectly fullfiled before any decent approximation to the square wave is actually possible.

RIAA equalisation is possible to perfectly address in a commercial product from about - at least - 1978. It might be a single phono preamp to achieve it - but it DOES exist.  Then - and today - existed/exist phono cartridges operating on amplitude sensing principle, which do not need RIAA, like all velocity sensing cartridges ( anything involving magnetic induction - MMs, MCs, etc ) at all - or only FAR less problematic mild correction for the perfectly linear response of the electrical part of the phono playback. Tape recording has also been completely eliminated - precisely about the same time frame. You should check out direct to disk recordings by Ken Kreissel for Miller and Kreissel recordings - also using best analog reproducing gear of the era ( or, in some cases, better yet, current crop of the best analog ). 

Taken together, all of these measures run mind boggling rings around any RBCD. The only actual advantage while listening RBCD has is better dynamic range, better bass and no surface noise - in everything else it fells - by its very definition - short. Whatever the defficiences of analog, in this case it is more than offset by its virtues. 
Although I am no politician ( my worst nightmare ), I will say : Use your ears.

Today, the best digital - HR, be it DSD or PCM/DXD - has advanced to a point it can challenge, meet or exceed anything any analog has to offer. Yet, there are stubborn ones who insist RBCD is all any listener at home will ever need. 
Agreed - IF he/she NEVER leaves the home and, per some miracolous sorcery, strays to reach attending a live concert involving only acoustic instruments in a decent acoustics venue.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 23, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] - I honestly don't even know how to discuss things like this with someone who doesn't find it obvious that "noise which is correlated to the music" is NOT "random noise".....
> (It's simple semantics... BY DEFINITION.... something that "follows the music" - even if it's modulated noise or distortion - is no longer random... it now contains INFORMATION.)
> [2] - Or who equates "I can't do something yet because there are challenges that still have to be resolved" to "it's absolutely impossible to do it".
> [2a] (And, no, I didn't read the section that detailes the future predictions of those particular authors... because that's simply their opinions.)



1. If I take a piece of random noise and raise it's level by say 6dB, it it still random noise just 6dB louder or has it magically turned into something else? If I take some random noise and change it's level more than once, is it still random noise that's had it's level changed more than once or has it magically become something else? If I take some random noise and change it's level in time with say the beat of a piece of music, is it still random noise or has it magically become something else? Your mistake is in saying the "noise which is correlated to the music", the noise is NOT correlated to the music, if it were, it would not be noise, it would be the music. The random noise is still just random noise, only the level of that random noise changes in time with the music. Could we extract information from this? Yes, we could extract the time/tempo of the music. Could we extract say harmonic information from this random noise? No, it's random noise and by definition does not have any harmonics! Could we extract acoustic information from this random noise? In theory, you could extract the timing of reflections from those amplitude changes, until those amplitude changes fell within the natural amplitude variations of the random noise. In practise though (in the real world), to extract that information we OBVIOUSLY actually need that information to exist in the first place, there must actually be amplitude changes of the random noise that are in response to the reflections. That presents two problems: Firstly, you have NOT provided a single shred of evidence those amplitude changes even exist in the first place and Secondly, even if there were some amplitude changes in the noise that might be caused by reflections, how would you ever be able to determine that in a complex audio mix? We would not be able to relate these hypothetical amplitude changes (in the random noise) to the instrument harmonics causing the reflections because the random noise does not contain any harmonic information (by definition of it being random noise)! In fact, even in the audible band where we definitely have some acoustic information and it's frequency related information (rather than just random noise), STILL it is currently impossible to extract that information!   ... It is possible however that you are being "honest". Maybe it's true and you really "_don't even know how to discuss things like this with someone who_" ... knows what "correlated" means in terms of an audio signal, has some reasonable knowledge of audio and therefore doesn't accept your assertions of "obviously this" or "it's clear that", just because you say so, especially when the actual evidence effectively says the exact opposite. Maybe you only "_know how to discuss things like this_" with audiophiles and others who don't know enough to question/doubt your assertions?

2. If there are still challenges to be resolved in our knowledge of HOW we might accomplish a particular task, then it's self-evident that it's currently impossible to achieve that task. As this is such an easy concept to grasp, I'm finding it difficult to comprehend why you're avoiding grasping it. Actually that's not true, I'm not finding it difficult to comprehend "why" but I'm just not allowed to say 
2a. This statement appears to indicate that you can't/don't/won't differentiate "simply an opinion" from an "opinion informed by the facts/science"? (Which could explain many of you contributions to this thread) However, It's a critically important distinction (especially in this sub-forum!). For example, the American government spent hundreds of millions of dollars building a device (LIGO) to detect gravitational waves, the existence of which was an "opinion informed by science" (reliable evidence). However, the American government has not spent hundreds of millions of dollars building a device to detect unicorns, because the existence of unicorns is "simply an opinion" that is uninformed and unsupported by any facts/science. Without this distinction, there is no reason for this sub-forum to exist (or indeed for the vast majority of science itself to exist), it would just be the same as all the other forums and have no relation to science or the facts!

Additionally, I can't see how one can logically argue for an interpretation of a scientific paper (regarding what is currently possible or may/may not be possible in the future), if you haven't even read the paper's section on future areas of research?!

G


----------



## Glmoneydawg

old tech said:


> Not sure if you are referring to me, if so you have misunderstood my sarcasm which was directed to Asurvivor's logic.


i was...i did...and i apologize


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I give up.



Me too.  After several months here, I've concluded that it's not possible to have productive discussions about 'sound science' around here.  The dynamic of the forum is more like a politics forum than a science forum.  Some consequences are a lack of manners by a few of the more active posters, interesting discussions not being able to get off the ground, and some important practical questions being overlooked.


----------



## KeithEmo (Nov 23, 2018)

Well said.

Yes, when you raise the level of that noise, you have _modulated_ it... and so you have added information to it.
In the most trivial example, if I was napping in the studio, and I heard the hiss coming from the speakers get louder, I would know someone had moved the control.
And early radio transmissions were accomplished by generating random RF noise using a spark gap - and modulating it on and off with a telegraph key.
And, when I sit at a certain fast food restaurant, I can tell if the ceiling fans are spinning, and how fast, because the blades modulate whatever is coming from the speakers.
(And that works whether they're playing music or all I can hear is background noise... either way it is modulated by the fan blades... which happen to partially block some speakers.)

I'm told that experienced telegraph operators could even extract significant extra information from those simple Morse code signals.
For example, they claimed to be able to tell whether the operator at the other end was tired (by how consistent the timing was on his modulation).

I should also point out that we humans FREQUENTLY use patterns in random noise to obtain useful information.
Didn't you ever listen for the slight jump in the background noise to tell exactly when someone had patched in an extra track?
How about listening for the jump in background noise on a high quality recording of a vinyl album as a way to tell exactly when the needle was dropped?
(In both of those situations you have "extracted useful information by listening to the modulation of random noise"....... )
And, when I'm talking to someone on their cell phone, I can often tell whether their car window is open by listening for traffic noises.
(And it's easy to tell whether they're at home, or on the road, or even sometimes where they are, by analyzing the background noises.)
(It's interesting that, even when I can't hear details, my human brain can still recognize the difference between "restaurant ambience" and "road noise".)

The complicated part is extracting more precise or more detailed information.
The room correction system we use in our lower-end Emotiva gear sends out a burst pattern with a particular envelope.
The system then listens for the signal from each speaker to reach the microphone and uses the time delay to determine speaker distances.
We're playing a known pattern, and using the direct time from the speaker to the microphone, which makes it a easy to decipher.
SONAR, and ultrasonic rangefinders, also both send out their own signal - for the same reason.

If you wanted to do something like that with an unknown signal - like music - where you don't get to generate your own unique signal...
You would have to FIND distinctive pieces of signal.... for example, the distinctive "sort of impulse shaped sound" from a snare drum hit or a tap on a cymbal.
You would probably have to search to find a unique wave-shape.... but, like looking through a window, you wait until you find a signal you can lock onto.
The process is roughly analogous to facial recognition - which attempts to find an approximate match between a known and a bunch of unknowns.
(The system looks at an image, picks out faces, then attempts to determine enough detailed characteristics in one to identify other similar ones.)

Errrrr.....

When a specific source says that "there are challenges to be resolved" - they are stating two things:
1) That THEY have not succeeded in accomplishing the task they're referring to (and don't know of anyone else who has).
2) That, rather than believe it to be impossible, they already have some idea of what they'll have to achieve to make it work.

For example, "there are unsolved challenges that prevent us from sending a live human being to Alpha Centauri".
(But most people I know assume that we will eventually do so... whether it's in twenty years or a thousand.

Note that this is also a "local assertion".
They can only state that they haven't done it... and that nobody they know has done it, admitted to doing it, and provided proof that they've done it.
Neither you, nor I, nor the authors of that paper, know if this has already been done, in some secret project, conducted by the US Navy - or by one of our competitors.

Likewise, the question of whether we can successfully clone a human being, or whether it has already been done, but simply not reported, is considered to be open.
(Beyond a few minor details, we know that current technology has successfully cloned other mammals, and the differences seem likely to only be matters of detail.
There are many reasons for trying to clone a human being, many reasons for publicizing it if you do, and many reasons for keeping it a secret if you succeed.)

Now, as for unicorns..... AS FAR AS I KNOW the US Government hasn't fielded any extensive projects to hunt for them....
However....
- you might be amazed how much money our government, and many others, have spent researching telepathy, and remote viewing, and mind control (unsuccessfully)
- and, during WWII, they had a major project that was based on gluing tiny little incendiary bombs to bats and releasing them over Tokyo (successful but never implemented)
- and we and the Canadians spent a lot of money developing a rather comically unsuccessful flying saucer
- he military are quite often excellent scientists - because they're willing to fund attempts to LEARN THINGS by TRYING to do things that may or may not be possible

And, no, I didn't read it - because I can't see how the opinions of "future directions" by one particular group of scientists would "prove" anything either way (or any way).
(I may eventually read it, as a matter of academic interest, but it certainly isn't going to _prove _anything relevant here.)

I can tell you for a fact that I've never funded a project to see if we could accomplish what I suggested...
If someone is interested enough in getting it to work, perhaps someday they will, then we'll know if it's really possible or not...
(at least within the constraints of current technology, the capabilities of the team they hire, and their budget).
Until then, it simply remains conjectural.



gregorio said:


> 1. If I take a piece of random noise and raise it's level by say 6dB, it it still random noise just 6dB louder or has it magically turned into something else? If I take some random noise and change it's level more than once, is it still random noise that's had it's level changed more than once or has it magically become something else? If I take some random noise and change it's level in time with say the beat of a piece of music, is it still random noise or has it magically become something else? Your mistake is in saying the "noise which is correlated to the music", the noise is NOT correlated to the music, if it were, it would not be noise, it would be the music. The random noise is still just random noise, only the level of that random noise changes in time with the music. Could we extract information from this? Yes, we could extract the time/tempo of the music. Could we extract say harmonic information from this random noise? No, it's random noise and by definition does not have any harmonics! Could we extract acoustic information from this random noise? In theory, you could extract the timing of reflections from those amplitude changes, until those amplitude changes fell within the natural amplitude variations of the random noise. In practise though (in the real world), to extract that information we OBVIOUSLY actually need that information to exist in the first place, there must actually be amplitude changes of the random noise that are in response to the reflections. That presents two problems: Firstly, you have NOT provided a single shred of evidence those amplitude changes even exist in the first place and Secondly, even if there were some amplitude changes in the noise that might be caused by reflections, how would you ever be able to determine that in a complex audio mix? We would not be able to relate these hypothetical amplitude changes (in the random noise) to the instrument harmonics causing the reflections because the random noise does not contain any harmonic information (by definition of it being random noise)! In fact, even in the audible band where we definitely have some acoustic information and it's frequency related information (rather than just random noise), STILL it is currently impossible to extract that information!   ... It is possible however that you are being "honest". Maybe it's true and you really "_don't even know how to discuss things like this with someone who_" ... knows what "correlated" means in terms of an audio signal, has some reasonable knowledge of audio and therefore doesn't accept your assertions of "obviously this" or "it's clear that", just because you say so, especially when the actual evidence effectively says the exact opposite. Maybe you only "_know how to discuss things like this_" with audiophiles and others who don't know enough to question/doubt your assertions?
> 
> 2. If there are still challenges to be resolved in our knowledge of HOW we might accomplish a particular task, then it's self-evident that it's currently impossible to achieve that task. As this is such an easy concept to grasp, I'm finding it difficult to comprehend why you're avoiding grasping it. Actually that's not true, I'm not finding it difficult to comprehend "why" but I'm just not allowed to say
> 2a. This statement appears to indicate that you can't/don't/won't differentiate "simply an opinion" from an "opinion informed by the facts/science"? (Which could explain many of you contributions to this thread) However, It's a critically important distinction (especially in this sub-forum!). For example, the American government spent hundreds of millions of dollars building a device (LIGO) to detect gravitational waves, the existence of which was an "opinion informed by science" (reliable evidence). However, the American government has not spent hundreds of millions of dollars building a device to detect unicorns, because the existence of unicorns is "simply an opinion" that is uninformed and unsupported by any facts/science. Without this distinction, there is no reason for this sub-forum to exist (or indeed for the vast majority of science itself to exist), it would just be the same as all the other forums and have no relation to science or the facts!
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> Yet, there are stubborn ones who insist RBCD is all any listener at home will ever need.


reminds me of someone pretty stubborn, insisting that vinyl is superior to CD because of some crap measurable in the ultrasounds. 




Phronesis said:


> Me too.  After several months here, I've concluded that it's not possible to have productive discussions about 'sound science' around here.  The dynamic of the forum is more like a politics forum than a science forum.  Some consequences are a lack of manners by a few of the more active posters, interesting discussions not being able to get off the ground, and some important practical questions being overlooked.


can I call BS in this? of course it's easy to notice mostly what goes against our own views, and against what we're personally interested in discussing. just like my grandma would feel invaded by black people when she saw a family of 3 at the market in a massive crowd. no statistical relevance, but certainly a magnified subjective impression. 
but I'd be curious to know what scientific discussion is impossible here? I can't even stop 100% disproved ideas from being brought up again and again into various conversations, and you want to make me believe that you can't discuss something? 
if nobody cares, or nobody knows, I guess that would put a stop to it. and if the all discussion is based on maybes with no data, and no hope for us here to provide more ourselves, like your beloved subconscious themes, then we can hardly have a scientific conversation about it, can we? because let's not forget that science isn't just about sciency looking topics. it's also about fact based knowledge and experimentation so that we don't end up too often in fiction and pseudo science. 
I'm certainly the stuck up kind that wouldn't do well around people discussing string theory. I believe in falsifiability as the main reason to trust science. even more so in this specific audiophile environment where 10 people will have 10 versions of reality and at least half of them are going to mistake subjective impressions for objective facts. which really contributed to make me the skeptic I now am(along with all the real world lies and omnipresent marketing). but even then, doing my worst to shut down those conversations, tends to amount to me reformulating what's in my signature. is that stopping people from discussing whatever they want? I wish.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> When you can sit me down in a room with a band and a sound reproduction system.
> And I literally cannot tell which is playing... ever...
> And, when we try it with other bands, and other listeners, nobody can ever tell the difference....
> Then I'll be the first to agree that "we've accomplished perfect sound reproduction so there's no need to keep trying".
> Until then... we simply aren't there yet.



Every time I have reproduction that I cannot tell if it live or recorded it is extremely stressful and unpleasant. Your eyes tell you one thing your ears tell you another. Much like the stress people experience going into an anechoic chamber. Almost all recordings are not intended to sound realistic.


----------



## analogsurviver

dprimary said:


> Every time I have reproduction that I cannot tell if it live or recorded it is extremely stressful and unpleasant. Your eyes tell you one thing your ears tell you another. Much like the stress people experience going into an anechoic chamber. Almost all recordings are not intended to sound realistic.



Almost NEVER  caught a rabbit.

However, I do agree with your observation regarding the stress induced from totally different information presented by ears and eyes.   

The solution is video to go with audio - most likely, ultimately resulting in some form of VR.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 23, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> can I call BS in this? of course it's easy to notice mostly what goes against our own views, and against what we're personally interested in discussing. just like my grandma would feel invaded by black people when she saw a family of 3 at the market in a massive crowd. no statistical relevance, but certainly a magnified subjective impression.
> *but I'd be curious to know what scientific discussion is impossible here?* I can't even stop 100% disproved ideas from being brought up again and again into various conversations, and you want to make me believe that you can't discuss something?
> if nobody cares, or nobody knows, I guess that would put a stop to it. and if the all discussion is based on maybes with no data, and no hope for us here to provide more ourselves, like your beloved subconscious themes, then we can hardly have a scientific conversation about it, can we? because let's not forget that science isn't just about sciency looking topics. it's also about fact based knowledge and experimentation so that we don't end up too often in fiction and pseudo science.
> I'm certainly the stuck up kind that wouldn't do well around people discussing string theory. I believe in falsifiability as the main reason to trust science. even more so in this specific audiophile environment where 10 people will have 10 versions of reality and at least half of them are going to mistake subjective impressions for objective facts. which really contributed to make me the skeptic I now am(along with all the real world lies and omnipresent marketing). but even then, doing my worst to shut down those conversations, tends to amount to me reformulating what's in my signature. is that stopping people from discussing whatever they want? I wish.



I'm not referring to what's possible in principle here, I'm talking about what actually happens.  I've communicated with some real scientists by PM who've told me that they don't post much in sound science because they don't find the effort to be worthwhile.

Skepticism is good, but if you're going to be a skeptic, don't just be skeptical about claims that don't fit your current beliefs - also be skeptical about your current beliefs and the assumptions on which they're based.  If you're going to look for effects of biases, first consider your own biases.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> I'm not referring to what's possible in principle here, I'm talking about what actually happens.  I've communicated with some real scientists by PM who've told me that they post much in sound science because they don't find the effort to be worthwhile.
> 
> Skepticism is good, but if you're going to be a skeptic, don't just be skeptical about claims that don't fit your current beliefs - also be skeptical about your current beliefs and the assumptions on which they're based.  If you're going to look for effects of biases, first consider your own biases.



There has to be something presented to make someone skeptical about what is commonly accepted ideas.  I understand that you believe that such information has been provided, but it has never stood up to the counter-arguments, though this is often ignored and we continue to go in circles.


----------



## KeithEmo

I remember, many years ago, we were looking at things like "CinemaScope" and there were predictions about full 360 degree wrap around screens.
Today we have various VR headsets, and ever more "immersive" surround sound, but what ever happened to _FULL SURROUND VIDEO SCREENS_?

I'm not an especially big fan of immersive surround sound...
But what I find most jarring is watching a movie, hearing a voice behind me, turning around..... and seeing _A BLANK THEATER WALL_. 
I just heard that guy talking but, when I turn to look, he's _NOT THERE_.....
What ever happened to surround video to go with the surround sound?

Now that we have 4k video, with 8k on the way, it sure seems like we have plenty of pixels to produce a sharp full-surround picture.
(If the next step in realistic sound reproduction is "all the other senses that go with a live experience" then we seem to be devolving.)



analogsurviver said:


> Almost NEVER  caught a rabbit.
> 
> However, I do agree with your observation regarding the stress induced from totally different information presented by ears and eyes.
> 
> The solution is video to go with audio - most likely, ultimately resulting in some form of VR.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 23, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> After several months here, I've concluded that it's not possible to have productive discussions about 'sound science' around here.



If by "productive" you mean Producing made-up ideas which contradict the science/facts, then yes, hopefully this is not the right place (neither this thread nor this forum) to be "productive"!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] I'm told that experienced telegraph operators could even extract significant extra information from those simple Morse code signals.
> [2] And, when I'm talking to someone on their cell phone, I can often tell whether their car window is open by listening for traffic noises.



1. Ahh, another inapplicable analogy, thanks for that!
2. Oh, and another. Just a couple of questions, how do you know it's traffic noises? If it were random noise you would not be able to tell that it's traffic noise, it would just be noise. Secondly, as you can hear this traffic noise, am I correct in assuming that it's not ultrasonic? So how exactly is this analogy analogous?


KeithEmo said:


> If you wanted to do something like that with an unknown signal - like music - where you don't get to generate your own unique signal...
> You would have to FIND distinctive pieces of signal.... for example, the distinctive "sort of impulse shaped sound" from a snare drum hit or a tap on a cymbal.


And have you FOUND such "distinctive pieces of signal"? Let's look a the properties this signal (say your example of a snare drum hit) would need to have in order for it's acoustic information to potentially be analysable:
1. It would need to be recorded with a mic placed some significant distant from the snare drum in order to record some usable amount of acoustic information.
2. The snare drum would need to be un-processed, IE., No artificial reverb or delay based effects.
3. There couldn't be any other sound, such as another snare drum hit, hit from any other instrument in the drumkit or music from any other instrument/vocalist in the band, until the RT60 of that snare drum hit has been reached.

So, I'll ask again, have you ever found a snare drum hit in a commercial music recording which fulfils ALL these requirements? Furthermore, this only applies to the audible band of a snare drum hit, as requirement #1 precludes us from being able to record any usable amount of ultrasonic acoustic information! A cymbal hit (or any other sort of hit) would have the exact same requirements but unless we're talking about a tap on say the bell of a ride-cymbal or a hit on closed hi-hats, any other sort of cymbal hit would likely produce too much random noise for any acoustic information to be recordable (even in the audible band).


KeithEmo said:


> When a specific source says that "there are challenges to be resolved" - they are stating two things:
> 1) That THEY have not succeeded in accomplishing the task they're referring to (and don't know of anyone else who has).
> 2) That, rather than believe it to be impossible, they already have some idea of what they'll have to achieve to make it work.
> [3] Neither you, nor I, nor the authors of that paper, know if this has already been done,
> ...


1. As the whole point of this paper was to investigate the current different areas of research into accomplishing this task, and as it was peer reviewed, published and uncontested, and indeed from the references, it's possible to be quite confident that the information presented is accurate and representative. Certainly, a massively higher degree of confidence than an assertion on a forum that "it is possible" backed up with absolutely no research or evidence whatsoever and clearly not even a basic understanding of the practical issues! Maybe we should change the name of title of this thread to "blindly accepting ANY audiophile myths and claims"?

2. How would you know, you refuse to read that section?! In fact they do have some idea how to make it work, which I've detailed previously and you seem to have missed.

3. If you don't know "if this has already been done" then how can you assert that it is possible, that it has been done and that there's several pieces of commercial available software that can actually do it? If you're now admitting that you don't know, then you're admitting that previously you were bullsh*ting inadvertently mistaken. 

4. Just so I'm clear, you're asserting that it is possible to send a live human being to alpha centuri? That maybe someone has actually already done it but hasn't told anyone about it (or has been censored by the government)? *When did the name of this forum change from the "Sound Science Forum" to the "Sound Science-Fiction Forum"?*

5. Firstly, it's NOT one specific group, the paper deals with all the different current approaches to the problem and the different groups researching those different approaches. Did you somehow not notice? Secondly, the "future directions" section indicates areas of research for the FUTURE, that tells us quite a lot because obviously it would be stupid to list areas of research in that section that have already been done!

Again just so we're clear, you are now disputing the findings of a scientific paper, without any evidence whatsoever and without even having read it all?

G


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> There has to be something presented to make someone skeptical about what is commonly accepted ideas.  I understand that you believe that such information has been provided, but it has never stood up to the counter-arguments, though this is often ignored and we continue to go in circles.



All sorts of 'commonly accepted ideas' prove to be inaccurate or incomplete, especially when we're talking about things that we understand to an especially limited degree.  The history of science (both theoretical and applied) provides many examples of this.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> All sorts of 'commonly accepted ideas' prove to be inaccurate or incomplete, especially when we're talking about things that we understand to an especially limited degree.  The history of science (both theoretical and applied) provides many examples of this.


Here you go again, conflating one thing that may be true in an effort to attempt to apply it to the topic under discussion.  We understand digital audio quite well and have for a relatively long time.  We know your position with regards to human's perspective with our sense of hearing, and there is no need to go into this again unless there is something different that you can add.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> Here you go again, conflating one thing that may be true in an effort to attempt to apply it to the topic under discussion.  We understand digital audio quite well and have for a relatively long time.  We know your position with regards to human's perspective with our sense of hearing, and there is no need to go into this again unless there is something different that you can add.



My comments are general to the forum, not specific to the recent discussion about ultrasonics (which I haven't been reading in detail).


----------



## KeithEmo

As for traffic noises..... excellent question.
Our human brains seem to do an excellent job of sorting through all the individual characteristics of what we hear.
For example, I can usually recognize the difference between "restaurant background noise" and "driving a car background noise".
Offhand, I couldn't explain how I know, which factors I consider, or how they're weighted....
As with many complex examples, our brains seem to have evolved to be very good at sorting out stuff like this, and most people seem able to do it quite well.
Of course, since a human brain is only a specialized computer, it's obviously _POSSIBLE_ to create a computer that can do something similar.
(The complexity would be of the same order of magnitude as designing a facial recognition system.)

Determining what constitutes "a distinctive piece of signal" is a very broad generalization.
As a visually oriented human, I would probably look at either the actual waveform, or the envelope waveform on an oscilloscope.
Most percussion instruments produce a rather unique and recognizable signal envelope.
Of course, there are any number of other variables and characteristics which could be analyzed, and might or might not produce unique and recognizable patterns.
(And some analytical processes produce unique results for things that may not be at all obvious to humans.)
Look at a few minutes of any complex audio signal on an oscilloscope... or in an audio editor... and you'll see plenty of "unique waveforms".
However, in simplest terms, if I can tell someone hit a snare drum, then the information I used to figure that out must be present in the signal.

To take your comment about the snare drum.....
You have listed a whole bunch of "requirements" which are not supported by the facts.
Can you tell someone hit a snare drum?
If yes, then obviously the information necessary to recognize a snare drum hit is present.
Can you tell it was recorded in a studio (and not in an anechoic chamber)?
If yes, then obviously there is information present about the acoustics of the room where it was recorded.
(If both of those were not by definition true than you might mistake it for the sound of a cowbell in a cave.)

Other sounds are only relevant to the degree that they make this more difficult.
Likewise, artificial reverb may or may not be difficult to distinguish from real acoustic reverb.
However, if you can hear it, then it definitely can be measured.
And, if you can't hear it, then it may still be able to be measured.

Yes, just to be clear, it is NOT "absolutely impossible to ever send a live human being to Alpha Centauri".
It is simply impossible to do so TODAY... for us here on Earth... as far as I know...



gregorio said:


> If by "productive" you mean Producing made-up ideas which contradict the science/facts, then yes, hopefully this is not the right place (neither this thread nor this forum) to be "productive"!
> 
> 1. Ahh, another inapplicable analogy, thanks for that!
> 2. Oh, and another. Just a couple of questions, how do you know it's traffic noises? If it were random noise you would not be able to tell that it's traffic noise, it would just be noise. Secondly, as you can hear this traffic noise, am I correct in assuming that it's not ultrasonic? So how exactly is this analogy analogous?
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver (Nov 23, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I remember, many years ago, we were looking at things like "CinemaScope" and there were predictions about full 360 degree wrap around screens.
> Today we have various VR headsets, and ever more "immersive" surround sound, but what ever happened to _FULL SURROUND VIDEO SCREENS_?
> 
> I'm not an especially big fan of immersive surround sound...
> ...




Well, I can sympathize with all of your observations - not much to add.

However, with binaural recordings - and LIVE binaural recordings in particular  - the lack of accompanying video is almost unsurmountable for a person who was not present at the event or at least has not seen photos or the video footage.  In a live setting, you can hardly use a stationarry artificial head - been there, done that, with great results.But it takes an experienced listener to grasp the acoustics of any given venue. Most people simply do not have it - WHERE they could learn it - if 99.99+% of all the recordings available are mixes of multimiked sessions ?!? Here, accompanying video is a great asett - and something allowing the listener up the (re)learning curve of natural listening.

It was really a very stark difference with an extremely experienced listener - hrklg01 here on head-fi, during my visit to his home. He clearly, instantly recognized the general outline of the acoustics of a binaurally recorded concert - even if he never even knew before the venue existed. After the listening, I did show him the photos of recording of the concert - and he possibly could not describe it better than he did without seeing the pics or video.

For real live binaural, video is almost a must . Here one ad hoc you-have-to-improvise-on-spot recording of mine from this year's summer Sajeta festival http://www.sajeta.org/#/home . After grasping the - vaguely, generally - the idea what is about to happen , I had no other recourse than to use my old phone for the video - hence poor video quality. I did try to move my head and phone as simoultaneously as humanly possible - yet there are, understandable, some discrepancies from the "planned unisono movement". The sound is a VERY good approximation to that heard live - such a recording of amplified music is, unfortunately, always at the mercy of the sound engineer. ( There is no such limitation with acoustic music in good venues ).




The actual audio on YT is aac 124 kbps 44.1 kHz stereo - no better possible because of the poor video quality. Master is in DSD128.

Two days ago, I recorded the entire show of Baldur ( more musicians, entire dance "squad" plus some guests ) in a reasonably large hall - binaural and better cellphone on the stand. With binaural, the microphone ( in this case : me ) has to be, almost universally, in the middle on the central line of the hall, somewhere not far back removed from the front row - chosen for best sound and/or compromise with video coverage. I  had to remain seated, not to impede the view to the audience seating behind me - which made awfully hard to track with camera/cellphone on the stand ( remember - one has to keep the camera as sync with the head movement  - or vice versa - as possible) the sometimes extremely fast moving dancers - plus the SQ was not nearly as good when seated compared to standing. There are always limitations to what one can do during live performance - yet the atmosphere of a live performance is next to impossible to replicate in "studio" conditions, without the audience.

More and better ( particularly the video is PITA in this case... ) is in the works - but this was just to give you a taste of things to come.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> As for traffic noises..... excellent question.
> [1] Our human brains seem to do an excellent job of sorting through all the individual characteristics of what we hear.
> [1a] For example, I can usually recognize the difference between "restaurant background noise" and "driving a car background noise".
> [2] Offhand, I couldn't explain how I know, which factors I consider, or how they're weighted....
> ...



1. Absolutely but of course there needs to be some "individual characteristics" for our brains to "sort through". If there isn't, as is the case with random noise, then how can we sort though individual characteristics if there aren't any?
1a. Along with traffic noise, neither of these are random noise, so how are they an analogy?
2. I can because I sometimes have to create it.
3. But neither our brain nor any computer can "sort out" random noise because it's random!
4. Sure it's possible to create a computer that can do something similar, in fact every computer on the planet can do exactly the same already, namely: Not be able to "sort out" random noise!
5. No it wouldn't, it would take literally no computing power whatsoever to "not be able to sort out random noise".



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Determining what constitutes "a distinctive piece of signal" is a very broad generalization.
> [2] Look at a few minutes of any complex audio signal on an oscilloscope... or in an audio editor... and you'll see plenty of "unique waveforms".
> [3] To take your comment about the snare drum..... You have listed a whole bunch of "requirements" which are not supported by the facts.
> [4] Can you tell it was recorded in a studio (and not in an anechoic chamber)?
> ...



1. No it's not. You even gave an example yourself!
2. Obviously being a professional, I've never done that or ever noticed "unique waveforms". That's funny, who was it aimed at though?
3. It is both supported by the facts and I have provided those facts, maybe you just unfortunately missed them again, forgot them again or are inadvertently mistaken, AGAIN!
4. Not generally, can you? If so, show us how ... just one teeny, tiny shred of evidence!
5. Why? How does a snare drum recorded in an anechoic chamber with say a small room reverb added, sound anything like a cow bell in a cave? Ahh, are you saying that you might mistake it for a cow bell in a cave? That makes more sense!
6. Other sounds make it impossible, as detailed in the scientific paper you are contradicting, without a shred of evidence! Are you inadvertently mistaken about what forum you're in?
7. I can hear the Faa in the McGurk Effect, please explain how we could analyse the audio for that information. Maybe it's in the ultrasonic range, what do you think?
8. Hallelujah brother, welcome to the sound science forum. And thanks for the admission, even it it was via an analogy! Shame we had to waste so many pages getting there.

G


----------



## bigshot (Nov 23, 2018)

I get PMs from members who used to participate here who don't any more because a small handful of people insist on wallpapering threads with their completely unsupported claims and pet irrelevant theories. It gets tiresome so see them ignore the same counter arguments over and over without ever addressing them. It's like they are only talking to themselves and the rest of the group doesn't matter.


----------



## gregorio

@castleofargh - How does what KeithEmo is doing not constitute trolling? Is it really acceptable in this sub-forum to dispute and contradict the facts/science, with ridiculous non-analogous "analogies" but without any supporting evidence whatsoever, and just keep repeating that same nonsense ad infinitum? I suppose you're between a rock and a hard place, the whole point of a sound "Science" forum in the first place vs the economic priorities of Head-fi, a sad fact which is clearly being deliberately abused ... but even that fact probably makes no difference to the outcome. 

G


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I'm not referring to what's possible in principle here, I'm talking about what actually happens.  I've communicated with some real scientists by PM who've told me that they post much in sound science because they don't find the effort to be worthwhile.
> 
> Skepticism is good, but if you're going to be a skeptic, don't just be skeptical about claims that don't fit your current beliefs - also be skeptical about your current beliefs and the assumptions on which they're based.  If you're going to look for effects of biases, first consider your own biases.


my opinion about all the informed people who don't bother participating in here, is that they have forfeited their right to complain the moment they stopped trying to raise the level with their knowledge and evidences. 
 I certainly have had people in PM telling me what you report. and also several telling me what bigshot said. it's not the forum you believe it should be. it certainly isn't what I wish it would be, and I bet that almost nobody is thinking "wow this is exactly what I wanted". but you guys make the content, you are the forum. 


as for being skeptical, why do you think I ask for evidence and proper demonstration all the time? if I was fine with what I believe, what use would I have for evidence?



gregorio said:


> @castleofargh - How does what KeithEmo is doing not constitute trolling? Is it really acceptable in this sub-forum to dispute and contradict the facts/science, with ridiculous non-analogous "analogies" but without any supporting evidence whatsoever, and just keep repeating that same nonsense ad infinitum? I suppose you're between a rock and a hard place, the whole point of a sound "Science" forum in the first place vs the economic priorities of Head-fi, a sad fact which is clearly being deliberately abused ... but even that fact probably makes no difference to the outcome.
> 
> G


I admit that I read maybe one in 10 posts of the long duel between you two. so subjectively I can unequivocally say that I'm fed up with it. but as a modo, we don't have any sort of a rule about sticking to facts. and if bad analogies were a crime, I'd be in jail for life in a cell next to @analogsurviver. it's funny because it's true. and then it's not funny because it's still true.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> [1] I admit that I read maybe one in 10 posts of the long duel between you two. so subjectively I can unequivocally say that I'm fed up with it. but as a modo, we don't have any sort of a rule about sticking to facts.
> [2] and if bad analogies were a crime, I'd be in jail for life in a cell next to @analogsurviver. it's funny because it's true. and then it's not funny because it's still true.



1. I'm not going to push for an answer, I know you're in a difficult position.
2. Maybe but he'd be in solitary! 

G


----------



## bigshot

There is always a certain amount of self-policing in internet forums, and sometimes the offender even polices himself. When someone has been called out and proven to be completely disingenuous, shame will tend to make them pull back. However when normal shame doesn't exist (for either ethical, psychological or biological reasons) the person just thinks up some more boloney and comes right back.

I think the main problem we are experiencing here is that people are speaking entirely for the purposes of self-aggrandizement, not for the purposes of communication with peers. Perhaps people pattern themselves on the aggressively craven sales pitch and solipsist subjective behavior they see on the inside of Head-Fi and they take that as permission to behave that way here. I don't know... However, I do know that the old saying holds true... "Ye shall know them by their stripes." It doesn't take long to figure out who knows what they're talking about here and who is pulling it all out of their nether regions. And it seems clear that we are dealing with two basic personality types here... snake oil salesmen with something to gain from BS, and people who have difficulties either with communication, cognitive processes, or egocentricity who are unable to reason or think outside of their own headspace. No matter which of these is causing it, no amount of logical or factual argument is going to convince them.

It seems to me that when someone posts a mile long post full of complete blather, a single sentence dismissal does the job much better than detailed refutations. If everyone who can grasp the futility of all this just replied with a simple comment like, "You don't know what you're talking about." it wouldn't give them much to grab onto to continue their blather. The mistake is affording them the respect that they don't afford any of the rest of us. Longer replies are just more lines for them to quote out of context and use as launching pads for more pointless verbal mudslides. It's not like they have something solid to say. Easier to just blow on by it with a wave of the hand.


----------



## KeithEmo

I really do give up.....
Obviously some folks had no trouble understanding what I suggested... and seeing how it could be accomplished... while others find doing so impossible.
(But we're all just wasting time trying to change anybody's minds.....)
I also have to agree that this has little to do with "Audiophile Claims and Myths".....
(Since, as of now, it is neither a claim nor a myth.)

================================================

If a snare drum and a cow bell lacked "any unique characteristics" then they would sound the same - and you would not be able to tell them apart.
And, if a recording of a snare drum _ACTUALLY CONTAINED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE ACOUSTICS OF THE ROOM WHERE IT WAS RECORDED_ - then you would not be able to tell if it was recorded in an anechoic chamber or a cave.
Therefore, in the obverse, _IF YOU CAN TELL WHETHER THE SNARE DRUM WAS RECORDED IN AN ANECHOIC CHAMBER OR A CAVE THEN IT *MUST* CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE ROOM ACOUSTICS WHERE IT WAS RECORDED_.

Trying to argue that "there are differences - but the differences aren't information" is simply against the basic logic of information theory.
_ALL DIFFERENCES CONTAIN INFORMATION. YOU CANNOT HAVE A DIFFERENCE THAT CONTAINS NO INFORMATION._

When I looked at the ultrasonic portion of the sound on those samples BigShot provided....
_IT FOLLOWED THE PATTERN OF THE MUSIC - THEREFORE IT WAS ***NOT*** RANDOM NOISE._
By definition, anything that follows a pattern, or is correlated to anything else, is NOT random.
Therefore, noise that "follows the music" is not random.
I fail to see how this is in any way ambiguous or confusing._
_
And, as for unique sections of pattern.....
Whenever I look at a few seconds of a song on my favorite editor..... I find that most of them are at least somewhat unique.
I've seen plenty that are somewhat similar to others... but only similar.

Incidentally, those government scientists... the ones who wouldn't waste money on looking for unicorns....
Have a budget to research sending a manned flight to Alpha Centauri... (their target is to schedule it for 2069 - which is the centennial of the moon landing).
Considering the fact that the government has budgeted the money, and the scientists have started spending it, I guess they don't believe it's impossible after all.



gregorio said:


> 1. Absolutely but of course there needs to be some "individual characteristics" for our brains to "sort through". If there isn't, as is the case with random noise, then how can we sort though individual characteristics if there aren't any?
> 1a. Along with traffic noise, neither of these are random noise, so how are they an analogy?
> 2. I can because I sometimes have to create it.
> 3. But neither our brain nor any computer can "sort out" random noise because it's random!
> ...





castleofargh said:


> my opinion about all the informed people who don't bother participating in here, is that they have forfeited their right to complain the moment they stopped trying to raise the level with their knowledge and evidences.
> I certainly have had people in PM telling me what you report. and also several telling me what bigshot said. it's not the forum you believe it should be. it certainly isn't what I wish it would be, and I bet that almost nobody is thinking "wow this is exactly what I wanted". but you guys make the content, you are the forum.
> 
> 
> ...





gregorio said:


> 1. Absolutely but of course there needs to be some "individual characteristics" for our brains to "sort through". If there isn't, as is the case with random noise, then how can we sort though individual characteristics if there aren't any?
> 1a. Along with traffic noise, neither of these are random noise, so how are they an analogy?
> 2. I can because I sometimes have to create it.
> 3. But neither our brain nor any computer can "sort out" random noise because it's random!
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Distortion is a form of noise that follows the signal. It's pretty easy to recognize noise, but it's harder to recognize inaudible noise because you can't hear it. But that is fine, because you don't need sound you can't hear. Just filter it out.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Distortion is a form of noise that follows the signal. It's pretty easy to recognize noise, but it's harder to recognize inaudible noise because you can't hear it. But that is fine, because you don't need sound you can't hear. Just filter it out.



Who or what is filtering out the sound you "can not" hear at a live event ? 

Self proclaimed RBCD sound police ?

Want to see the FUNDAMENTALS well over 20 kHz - with at least the first harmonic still visible in the recording ? Most definitely NOT noise/distortion  following the signal, but the distinctly discrete  sound ? It just does not sound the same with ultrasound components removed - it could be due to the difference products, falling back into audible range. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chime_(bell_instrument)


----------



## bigshot

My ears filter out sound I can’t hear.


----------



## bfreedma (Nov 23, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I really do give up.....
> Obviously some folks had no trouble understanding what I suggested... and seeing how it could be accomplished... while others find doing so impossible.
> (But we're all just wasting time trying to change anybody's minds.....)
> I also have to agree that this has little to do with "Audiophile Claims and Myths".....
> ...




Keith, can you provide a reference to a government funded program for a manned mission to Alpha Centauri?  I follow this fairly closely, and the only NASA entity I’m aware of that has an AC mission objective is currently unfunded.  The proposed mission scope would be to send an unmanned probe to AC to to look for biosignatures on the surrounding planets.  The mission is currently unfunded due to the lack of viable technology.  Members of Congress have suggested it could be funded if a technical solution is presented, but to date, it has not been.  It’s a side project mostly happening out of JPL led by Anthony Freeman at the moment.

I think you’re referring to Breakthrough Starshot which is a follow up to Project Longshot, but have misconstrued it’s current mission objectives and status.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...alpha-centauri-100th-anniversary-moon-landing


----------



## bigshot

Do a kickstarter and go Greyhound.


----------



## KeithEmo

They look pretty serious about it to me.

Oddly, even though "a lot of tht technology required doesn't exist yet" they seem quite convinced that it will be developed along the way.
(Most scientists just seem to assume that technology will continue to progress.)

https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/27/nasa-in-early-planning-for-2069-alpha-centauri-mission/

https://www.popsci.com/alpha-centauri-NASA-2069

https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17364-nasa-alpha-centauri-2069

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...alpha-centauri-100th-anniversary-moon-landing

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ASA-planning-2069-mission-Alpha-Centauri.html



bfreedma said:


> Keith, can you provide a reference to a government funded program for a manned mission to Alpha Centauri?  I follow this fairly closely, and the only NASA entity I’m aware of that has an AC mission objective is currently unfunded.  The proposed mission scope would be to send an unmanned probe to AC to to look for biosignatures on the surrounding planets.  The mission is currently unfunded due to the lack of viable technology.  Members of Congress have suggested it could be funded if a technical solution is presented, but to date, it has not been.  It’s a side project mostly happening out of JPL led by Anthony Freeman at the moment.
> 
> I think you’re referring to Breakthrough Starshot which is a follow up to Project Longshot, but have misconstrued it’s current mission objectives and status.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...alpha-centauri-100th-anniversary-moon-landing


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> They look pretty serious about it to me.
> 
> Oddly, even though "a lot of tht technology required doesn't exist yet" they seem quite convinced that it will be developed along the way.
> (Most scientists just seem to assume that technology will continue to progress.)
> ...




Keith, you stated that the government was funding a manned mission to AC and government scientists were actively working on that project.  Did you even read my post? 

Like many claims, you seem unable to support it and just throw a lot of “stuff” at the wall.  Could you at least acknowledge that your claim was incorrect?

There is no currently federally funded mission to Alpha Centauri
The proposed mission, currently being studied though unfunded is an unmanned probe.  At this point, it’s a theoretical exercise by interested parties.
All of your links state the same.

It would be better if we could discuss facts and not what you imagine is happening.


----------



## bigshot

Maybe we can hope they'll develop technology to prove that noise is signal too.


----------



## CoryGillmore

Going through all those blind test results kinda left me with the impression that it's a waste to spend the money on anything higher end than mid-fi equipment. I mean I guess that's no revelation. The difference from low-end to mid-end is much more obvious than mid-end to high-end. I guess it all comes down to your level of expendable income. 

I just wish I could be satisfied with what I have, ya know? I'm sure we all suffer from this in one form or another. Like I could have a perfectly fine setup that I enjoy using like you wouldn't believe. But then in the back of my mind I can't help but be bummed because I just know that amp that's one step up from what I have or that next tier up of speakers sounds waaayyy better than the junk I have lmao. Like even though my modest equipment is like 100x better than what 99.5% of people on this earth have, I still can't help but be envious for what the top .5% must have. It's a damn disease man haha.


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> Maybe we can hope they'll develop technology to prove that noise is signal too.


Hmm, Asurvivor would then feel vindicated.


----------



## old tech

CoryGillmore said:


> Going through all those blind test results kinda left me with the impression that it's a waste to spend the money on anything higher end than mid-fi equipment. I mean I guess that's no revelation. The difference from low-end to mid-end is much more obvious than mid-end to high-end. I guess it all comes down to your level of expendable income.
> 
> I just wish I could be satisfied with what I have, ya know? I'm sure we all suffer from this in one form or another. Like I could have a perfectly fine setup that I enjoy using like you wouldn't believe. But then in the back of my mind I can't help but be bummed because I just know that amp that's one step up from what I have or that next tier up of speakers sounds waaayyy better than the junk I have lmao. Like even though my modest equipment is like 100x better than what 99.5% of people on this earth have, I still can't help but be envious for what the top .5% must have. It's a damn disease man haha.


Actually, I think it would be the other way round.  Excluding speakers, a lot of mid hi fi (price wise) is fairly transparent and certainly far more so than they were a generation ago.

On the other hand, the high end hi fi (again price wise) tend to chase a subjectively pleasant 'signature sound' for product differentiation to justify the pricing.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 24, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] And, if a recording of a snare drum _ACTUALLY CONTAINED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE ACOUSTICS OF THE ROOM WHERE IT WAS RECORDED_
> [2] Incidentally, those government scientists... the ones who wouldn't waste money on looking for unicorns.... Have a budget to research sending a manned flight to Alpha Centauri...



1. Instead of spending all that time and effort coming up with a hundred different ways to repeat exactly the same thing, wouldn't it have just been easier to simply show us a screenshot of all this mass of ultrasonic acoustic information? Plus, there'd be the added bonus of some actual evidence and we wouldn't have to conclude that you're just fabricating utter nonsense.

2. As Alpha Centuri is a binary main-sequence star system, I hope their budget includes enough money for a full-body oven glove and some serious sun-cream! ... I take it back, you're not trying to turn this forum into the sound "Science-Fiction" forum but the sound "Science-Fiction + Comedy" forum. Hey, you think maybe "Men in Black" was a documentary?

When I posted a BS meter last time it seemed entirely appropriate, now it seems *pathetically inadequate*!


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] Want to see the FUNDAMENTALS well over 20 kHz - with at least the first harmonic still visible in the recording ?
> 2. It just does not sound the same with ultrasound components removed -
> 2a. it could be due to the difference products, falling back into audible range.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chime_(bell_instrument)



1. Yes please! Could you tell me where on your posted link these visible "fundamentals well over 20kHz" are, I can't seem to find them?
2. As a sound with it's fundamentals well over 20kHz would sound like silence and as a recording of that sound filtered at 20kHz would also sound like silence, how does silence "just not sound the same" as silence?
2a. I take it by "difference products" you mean IMD? Maybe try digital audio, which doesn't suffer from the non-linearities of analogue? Just a thought! Or are you saying you like the sound of IMD?

G


----------



## castleofargh

CoryGillmore said:


> Going through all those blind test results kinda left me with the impression that it's a waste to spend the money on anything higher end than mid-fi equipment. I mean I guess that's no revelation. The difference from low-end to mid-end is much more obvious than mid-end to high-end. I guess it all comes down to your level of expendable income.
> 
> I just wish I could be satisfied with what I have, ya know? I'm sure we all suffer from this in one form or another. Like I could have a perfectly fine setup that I enjoy using like you wouldn't believe. But then in the back of my mind I can't help but be bummed because I just know that amp that's one step up from what I have or that next tier up of speakers sounds waaayyy better than the junk I have lmao. Like even though my modest equipment is like 100x better than what 99.5% of people on this earth have, I still can't help but be envious for what the top .5% must have. It's a damn disease man haha.


when I think expensive gears in general, I expect quality, durability, increased versatility, gear that will do something the other gears at lower price can't do(in a good way hopefully^_^). when I purchase a camera, it's pretty clear that some of the "pro" functions will not be seen on the entry level products. even if it's there but they lock it in purpose to justify a difference. the top camera will have a better weather treatment, added functions, increase dynamic, will often be factually sturdier, take more shots/s, have increased low sensitivity, more customization, etc. we can always argue that some stuff are too expensive for what they do, but at least we tend to see a certain logic of really getting more when paying more. 
in audio it always amazed me how some TOTL products(for audiophiles, not pro gears!!!!) end up being more of a PITA to use than entry level equivalent. when I first came looking for TOTL gears for headphones, I knew nothing of it, I would just go at a store purchase some rather expensive stuff they had and go live my life. so I was expecting the same thing as with cameras, increased compatibility, versatility, longer battery life, maybe smaller form factor, some cool DSP that would reduce the flaws of albums mastered for speakers being played back on headphones. I somehow expected that TOTL devices would be like extreme AV receivers. with a long list of functionalities, many inputs and outputs, Ethernet, wifi, decoders for everything... instead I discovered portable bricks without even 10hours of battery. some could only play wave???? the TOTL amps were discussed by people nonchalantly saying that you'd have to recable all your headphones because it was a balanced amp and the SE output was mediocre(or didn't exist). to me at the time, the audiophile elite seemed to be more into S&M than into getting cool practical and durable gears. but I was new, I at least assumed that those annoying gears really had an edge on fidelity. but even that wasn't very obvious. 
nowadays I've come to believe that there exist a select group of audiophiles who simply strive for the stuff that other people won't have. if it's expensive they already get rid of a lot of fellow audiophile competition. but then if it's expensive and requires a lot of tuning and special gears to make it work correctly, instead of being pissed off by that, they enjoy it because those are some more ways to be special and have the gears that normies won't get. I don't know that I'm right about this, but it's the only explanation that made sense to me so far. 

now don't get me wrong, there exist some gears that are simply expensive because they're among the best at doing what they do. and there are gears that are expensive simply because they're made entirely by one dude in his garage. and some gears are expensive simply because the components used are more expensive. the world is big and things happen for various reasons. but an electronic device treated as some fashion clothing for rich people, it's something I didn't know existed before I came talking to amateur audiophiles. I had heard about thousand dollar cables, but TBH I thought that it was a running gag about audiophiles, I had no idea that people actually purchased those. oh, how innocent I was back then.


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes, it seems quite inadequate.... many people here seem quite able to make up their own conclusions without the need for an actual meter.

BigShot already posted at least one file that showed the frequency range above 20 kHz extracted from a high-res recording.
It clearly showed variations in both content and level that were correlated with the music (varied in time with it).
There's your PROOF that "at least some high-res recordings contain information above 20 kHz".
(I'm pretty sure I did post a screen shot of that with the level raised a few dB to make it easier to see.)

Actually analyzing all the spectral components present would take quite a bit of time - and effort.
(It's a bit more complicated than shifting the pitch and listening to it for five minutes.)
And writing software to do so automatically, in something resembling real-time, would be even more expensive and time consuming.
Therefore, no, I'm NOT going to expend the time and effort to do it.
(I'm not going to dig a two mile deep mine shaft to prove that it's possible to make holes taht deep either.)

Perhaps I'll just make up a nice picture of a "real science meter" instead... but mine will go all the way to "+11".

(In the mean time, I'm not going to waste any effort discussing it any further, outside of the Sound SCIENCE forum.)

As for Alpha Centauri....
You're wasting your time arguing with me about that...
You'll have to convince NASA that it's not worth spending any more money on their plan to eventually go there.
They seem to believe that it is not only possible - but a pretty good idea in the long term.
(Perhaps a picture of a meter will convince them that it really is impossible - and they'd be silly to waste any more time and money on it.)

Feel free to "conclude" whatever you like about either one.



gregorio said:


> 1. Instead of spending all that time and effort coming up with a hundred different ways to repeat exactly the same thing, wouldn't it have just been easier to simply show us a screenshot of all this mass of ultrasonic acoustic information? Plus, there'd be the added bonus of some actual evidence and we wouldn't have to conclude that you're just fabricating utter nonsense.
> 
> 2. As Alpha Centuri is a binary main-sequence star system, I hope their budget includes enough money for a full-body oven glove and some serious sun-cream! ... I take it back, you're not trying to turn this forum into the sound "Science-Fiction" forum but the sound "Science-Fiction + Comedy" forum. Hey, you think maybe "Men in Black" was a documentary?
> 
> When I posted a BS meter last time it seemed entirely appropriate, now it seems *pathetically inadequate*!


----------



## KeithEmo

I would suggest that the only real problem is when people purchase expensive gear _BASED ON UNREASONABLE EXPECTATIONS_.

I know several people who purchase expensive mechanical wrist watches - even though the best mechanical Rolex is less accurate than a good $30 quartz electronic watch.
However, none of them is paying that extra money because they imagine a $10,000 watch keeps more accurate time.
They buy expensive watches for other reasons.

People also buy expensive audio gear for a variety of reasons.
A lot of people actually base their decision on selecting a user interface they like (that may mean having a nice feeling control knob, or a well-designed menu system).
Others do so for purely aesthetic reasons (they like the cabinet, or the face plate matches their other equipment, or they like the color of the lights).
And many simply have some sort of "brand loyalty", or know their friends will be impressed by a certain brand.
And many choose a home theater processor in part because "it fits in the cutout in their home theater cabinet".
And, these days, you'd be surprised how many people simply follow the herd (they buy the one that has good reviews "because their peers like it".)

I would only really fault those who are unwilling to admit the reasons for their choice...
Or who, after making their choice for one reason, then try to rationalize it by imagining other reasons.
(Like convincing themself that buying the one in the fancy cabinet "makes sense" because of some infinitesimally better specification.)

I should also point out that it is universally acknowledged in the sales field that most people do NOT make purchases, and especially luxury purchases, based on requirements.
For example, when selling a car, a competent car salesman will NOT start by presenting all the facts that show why a certain choice is best.
Instead, they will start by taking you for a test drive, and hopefully impressing you - so you WANT the car.
THEN they will present you with all the facts and technical details you may use to convince yourself that you need that car.

This sequence is essentially based on a form of bias....
It is widely accepted that most customers decide pretty quickly what car they want...
They may simply find one particular model mnore attractive...
TV commercials that show a sexy girl in a the passenger seat of that sports car, and quiet well behaved kids in that SUV, are designed to make you WANT it.
(They are subconsciously promising you that, if you buy that sports car, you'll get the girl, and, if you buy that SUV, your kids will start acting like the kids in the commercial.)
Then, after deciding what vehicle they want, the customer looks for facts to support their decision (with a strong bias to notice facts that SUPPORT their choice).
It is now the job of the salesman to provide you with all the facts you need to rationalize the decision yu've already made.
(And, yes, if he makes enough mistakes, he may fail to give you enough ammunition to sell yourself the car, and the sale may fall through.)
However, my point is that the sequence is to FIRST convince you to want the car, THEN present you with the reasons to buy it.

The same is obviously true for audio gear.
Many people simply decide they want something...
And many even just decide that "it's time for an upgrade", and then go looking for new equipment.

This is rather different than the idea that they've been actively convinced taht they actually need a specific product for a specific reason.
Or, to put it more simply, some audiophiles just like shopping for and buying new audio gear.
(And their enjoyment of doing so is quite separate from any real expectation of better sound or measurably better performance.)



castleofargh said:


> when I think expensive gears in general, I expect quality, durability, increased versatility, gear that will do something the other gears at lower price can't do(in a good way hopefully^_^). when I purchase a camera, it's pretty clear that some of the "pro" functions will not be seen on the entry level products. even if it's there but they lock it in purpose to justify a difference. the top camera will have a better weather treatment, added functions, increase dynamic, will often be factually sturdier, take more shots/s, have increased low sensitivity, more customization, etc. we can always argue that some stuff are too expensive for what they do, but at least we tend to see a certain logic of really getting more when paying more.
> in audio it always amazed me how some TOTL products(for audiophiles, not pro gears!!!!) end up being more of a PITA to use than entry level equivalent. when I first came looking for TOTL gears for headphones, I knew nothing of it, I would just go at a store purchase some rather expensive stuff they had and go live my life. so I was expecting the same thing as with cameras, increased compatibility, versatility, longer battery life, maybe smaller form factor, some cool DSP that would reduce the flaws of albums mastered for speakers being played back on headphones. I somehow expected that TOTL devices would be like extreme AV receivers. with a long list of functionalities, many inputs and outputs, Ethernet, wifi, decoders for everything... instead I discovered portable bricks without even 10hours of battery. some could only play wave???? the TOTL amps were discussed by people nonchalantly saying that you'd have to recable all your headphones because it was a balanced amp and the SE output was mediocre(or didn't exist). to me at the time, the audiophile elite seemed to be more into S&M than into getting cool practical and durable gears. but I was new, I at least assumed that those annoying gears really had an edge on fidelity. but even that wasn't very obvious.
> nowadays I've come to believe that there exist a select group of audiophiles who simply strive for the stuff that other people won't have. if it's expensive they already get rid of a lot of fellow audiophile competition. but then if it's expensive and requires a lot of tuning and special gears to make it work correctly, instead of being pissed off by that, they enjoy it because those are some more ways to be special and have the gears that normies won't get. I don't know that I'm right about this, but it's the only explanation that made sense to me so far.
> 
> now don't get me wrong, there exist some gears that are simply expensive because they're among the best at doing what they do. and there are gears that are expensive simply because they're made entirely by one dude in his garage. and some gears are expensive simply because the components used are more expensive. the world is big and things happen for various reasons. but an electronic device treated as some fashion clothing for rich people, it's something I didn't know existed before I came talking to amateur audiophiles. I had heard about thousand dollar cables, but TBH I thought that it was a running gag about audiophiles, I had no idea that people actually purchased those. oh, how innocent I was back then.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> BigShot already posted at least one file that showed the frequency range above 20 kHz extracted from a high-res recording. It clearly showed variations in both content and level that were correlated with the music (varied in time with it). There's your PROOF that "at least some high-res recordings contain information above 20 kHz".



I have to say, it's amusingly unimpressive that you've provided PROOF of something that's never been in dispute and that Bigshot already proved anyway. And I'm sure everyone can indeed come to their own conclusions that you've (inadvertently?) posted this proof INSTEAD of proof to support your claims of >20kHz ACOUSTIC information!!



KeithEmo said:


> Perhaps I'll just make up a nice picture of a "real science meter" instead... but mine will go all the way to "+11".



Would that be a "real science meter" of >20kHz acoustic information? If so, going all the way to +11 would seem pointless as you can't even show it getting to 1! You having a BS meter going to +11 though, now that would indeed seem useful. 

G


----------



## bfreedma (Nov 24, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Yes, it seems quite inadequate.... many people here seem quite able to make up their own conclusions without the need for an actual meter.
> 
> BigShot already posted at least one file that showed the frequency range above 20 kHz extracted from a high-res recording.
> It clearly showed variations in both content and level that were correlated with the music (varied in time with it).
> ...




NASA can’t spend any MORE money on a mission to Alpha Centauri until they BEGIN spending money on a mission to Alpha Centauri.  There is no budgeted mission/project and despite your claims, the mission in the non financial discussion phase is an unmanned probe, not a manned mission as you originally stated.

I’m amazed you continue down this path given the evidence offered. You are incorrect about both the funding status and the type of probe in early stages of internal discussion at JPL.  There is no NASA plan. There is no budget.  The links in posts you yourself made on this topic state the same.

I simply don’t understand how you can continue to argue otherwise.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 24, 2018)

There is ultrasonic content in HD Tracks. I proved that. The trouble is that the ultrasonic content doesn't look at all like music. It appears to be a variety of kinds of noise and distortion that none of the engineers detected because it just isn't audible.

The biggest unreasonable expectation people have when they buy expensive DACs and Amps is that they will sound better than a cheap one. That misconception is fed and nurtured by the commercial enterprises that benefit from it (i.e. audiophile press, equipment manufacturers and salesmen). We no longer have snake oil salesmen to deal with, we have a *snake oil industry.*


----------



## KeithEmo

Obviously we have very different perspectives on things.

NASA's purpose for existence is "space exploration"..... 
Alpha Centauri, as our closest celestial neighbor, is almost certainly the first star system which any technology will enable us to reach.....
Therefore, unless NASA decides to give up, their long-term goal is to reach Alpha Centauri.....
Therefore, every dime NASA spends is being spent "developing technology that they hope will eventually help them reach Alpha Centauri".
(Of course, we can assume that, once we reach there, there will be further steps.)
And I most certainly have not heard any quotes from NASA saying: "We've decided humans will never reach Alpha Centauri".
In fact, every quote I've ever seen seens to be about: "WHEN we'll reach Alpha Centauri"... and not "whether it will eventually be possible"... which is simply assumed to be the case.
(I have yet to hear a single scientist quoted as saying: "Clearly we humans will never reach Alpha Centauri, so there's no point in continuing to try.".... although there may be a few.)

However, the final overall point here is that we have not reached Alpha Centauri yet, yet we clearly have not decided to stop trying.
However, the real final point is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with audio....so... signing off... let's all.



bfreedma said:


> NASA can’t spend any MORE money on a mission to Alpha Centauri until they BEGIN spending money on a mission to Alpha Centauri.  There is no budgeted mission/project and despite your claims, the mission in the non financial discussion phase is an unmanned probe, not a manned mission as you originally stated.
> 
> I’m amazed you continue down this path given the evidence offered. You are incorrect about both the funding status and the type of probe in early stages of internal discussion at JPL.  There is no NASA plan. There is no budget.  The links in posts you yourself made on this topic state the same.
> 
> I simply don’t understand how you can continue to argue otherwise.


----------



## bfreedma

How did we get from this:



KeithEmo said:


> Incidentally, those government scientists... the ones who wouldn't waste money on looking for unicorns....
> *Have a budget to research sending a manned flight to Alpha Centauri... (their target is to schedule it for 2069 - which is the centennial of the moon landing).
> Considering the fact that the government has budgeted the money, and the scientists have started spending it*, I guess they don't believe it's impossible after all.



To this?



KeithEmo said:


> Obviously we have very different perspectives on things.
> 
> NASA's purpose for existence is "space exploration".....
> Alpha Centauri, as our closest celestial neighbor, is almost certainly the first star system which any technology will enable us to reach.....
> ...



Nice try at covering up fabricating specifics of the first post with that rather lame attempt to deflect to a more general statement.  Par for the course.

Nothing more to see here.


----------



## KeithEmo

That could well be....

But, then, I would expect _that_ expectation to be quickly proven wrong when they actually fail to hear a difference.
Or, even better, I would suggest that they would be well advised to listen carefully _BEFORE_ spending their money.
(You might find someone foolish enough to believe that a Nissan Versa is faster than a Ferrari... but, odds are, they'll notice their error pretty quickly.)

To be quite honest... I don't expect anyone to take your word... or mine... about what _THEY_ can or cannot hear.
(And it isn't all that difficult for them to find out for themselves.)

And, I quite agree, that ultrasonic content doesn't look like music... but it is follows the music... and so is correlated with it.
So, either it is acoustic information, which tells us something about the room, or it is electronic distortion, which tells us something about the equipment, or it is some combination of both.
I suspect it is some combination of both.
However, until it is all characterized and accounted for, we won't really know for sure... and we're both just guessing.

Again, though, if your only question is: "Whether there is any _currently available_ product that can use that extra information for anything useful _today_".....
Then I would agree that the answer is almost certainly "no" (so we agree on that detail).
I simply prefer to keep it around, rather than discard it, in case that situation changes. 
And, no, none of the equipment I currently own is adversely affected by content extending to 50 kHz - whether it contains anything useful or not. 



bigshot said:


> There is ultrasonic content in HD Tracks. I proved that. The trouble is that the ultrasonic content doesn't look at all like music. It appears to be a variety of kinds of noise and distortion that none of the engineers detected because it just isn't audible.
> 
> The biggest unreasonable expectation people have when they buy expensive DACs and Amps is that they will sound better than a cheap one. That misconception is fed and nurtured by the commercial enterprises that benefit from it (i.e. audiophile press, equipment manufacturers and salesmen). We no longer have snake oil salesmen to deal with, we have a *snake oil industry.*


----------



## KeithEmo

bfreedma said:


> How did we get from this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Quite so....

From now on, let's limit trying to convince people that it is impossible for humans to ever reach Alpha Centauri to forums on Space Science.
(That's where we'll find the silly people who actually think it will eventually happen.)


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Quite so....
> 
> From now on, let's limit trying to convince people that it is impossible for humans to ever reach Alpha Centauri to forums on Space Science.
> (That's where we'll find the silly people who actually think it will eventually happen.)




I don't appreciate your use of false insinuation to deflect from the actual point being made.


----------



## KeithEmo (Nov 24, 2018)

I seem to have lost track of the original point....

As far as I can see, every time I suggest that "something is possible", and provide any justification for that claim....
Someone else attempts to claim that, because nobody has done it yet, that constitutes "proof that it is impossible".....

I tried to make the point by offering something else that, while obviously impossible _AT THE MOMENT_, is still being actively worked upon.....
This has somehow morphed into an argument about "whether they're really working on it".....
I suggested that, as the nearest deep space body, Alpha Centauri is obviously on the list of "places NASA intends to go".....
I offered several news articles where it was implied, or actually stated, that funding had been REQUESTED for exactly this project.....
In reply, someone claimed that, since NASA doesn't have any specific project funds allocated to that specific goal this year, they must have decided it's impossible....

The real bottom line is that a few people here are quite certain that what I suggested is impossible... and they fail to find my reasoning compelling.
However, they seem deeply offended that I find THEIR reasoniong equally non-compelling.
In fact, they seem deeply offended that anyone might suggest that anything is POSSIBLE, based on logic, rather than based on specific proof that it's already been done.
(Let's all agree to concede that claims, based solely on logic, do in fact sometimes fail to pan out.)

But, in any case, a discussion about missions to Alpha Centauri really is totally off-point for a forum on Audiophile Claims and Myths....
Unless they plan to include a really high-end audio system on the exploration vehicle....
And, in all fairness, my original subject, which entailed my prediction about how something could be achieved (but hasn't been done yet), was already a bit outside the lines to begin with.

Here's one final link to a story about the plan to go to Alpha Centauri....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ing-for-alpha-centauri-will-change-the-world/



bfreedma said:


> I don't appreciate your use of false insinuation to deflect from the actual point being made.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I seem to have lost track of the original point....
> 
> As far as I can see, every time I suggest that "something is possible", and provide any justification for that claim....
> Someone else attempts to claim that, because nobody has done it yet, that constitutes "proof that it is impossible".....
> ...



My last post on this subject and my last response to you.

You’ve written a series of ridiculously long and convoluted posts to avoid acknowledging that your claim that NASA has a budgeted and active research program specifically for a manned mission to Alpha Centauri in 2069 was a product of your imagination.  At first, I thought it was a misinterpretation on your part of Breakthrough Starshot but I now realize you pulled it out of your posterior.

My dispute of that is in no way a suggestion that it’s impossible to reach AC and/or that it’s not a potential long term goal.  That accusation is clearly your defense mechanism and not my issue nor me being a Luddite.

I only pursued this as I believe it highlights how loosely you play with “facts”.  The thing about digging holes ever deeper is that eventually the dirt collapses while you’re in the hole digging.


----------



## bigshot

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on here.


----------



## KeithEmo

I've got to agree there.

I also have to admit to being taken completely by surprise by all the "dispute" about NASA.
I had really intended it to be an example of "something that we hadn't done yet but everybody knew we would be doing eventually".
I had intended it to be along the lines of: "If you drop a brick it falls, and we all know that, even though we can't do it now, eventually humans will be flying to Alpha Centauri".

When I went to high school (this would be about 40 years ago).
Virtually everyone understood that the long term goal of the space program, and NASA, was "space exploration".
And it was universally assumed that....
- first we would orbit the Earth
- then we would go to the Moon
- then we would go to Mars
- then we would go to Alpha Centauri

Alpha Centauri was next on that list simply because it is our closest neighbor in "deep space"....
Unless there is a quantum jump in our technology, ALpha Centauri will be the next step to deep space that it is practical to reach...
Some of the details have been adjusted over the years...
For example, whether we would cotinue to research human hibernation, or assume that some sort of colony ships would be involved...
However, for all that, I have NEVER heard any serious doubt voiced that we would EVENTUALLY travel to Alpha Centauri...
(Estimates for how long it will take vary widely... but everyone assumes we will go there eventually.)
I have seen nothing to suggest that NASA's long term goals now no longer include that step.
(And the fact that it isn't included in this years SHORT TERM project goals does nothing to convince me otherwise.)

It seems clear to me that some people here are simply determined to argue with anything I say.
And, in this case, I accept some of the blame for assuming that anything was "too obvious to be argued with".
(I wouldn't have brought it up in an audio discussion if I honestly thought anyone would try to "discuss" it.)



bigshot said:


> You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on here.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Nov 24, 2018)

has something for both sides.....the 4 out of 6 she got right where sequential though...and i suspect with the right kind of music she could've gone 6 for 6..oops not working..see next post


----------



## Glmoneydawg




----------



## bigshot

Is there an off switch on the NASA stuff? ABORT! ABORT!

Let's talk about testing audio myths and finding out the truth for a change.


----------



## KeithEmo

Indeed....

I'm not quite sure whether it counts as a claim or a myth.... but does anybody have any thoughts about MQA?

The proponents of MQA claim that their MQA-encoded files are "more accurate to the analog original because they correct errors in the original digital transfers".
However, without having access to the original analog masters to compare them, we have no way to do a direct comparison.
Subjectively, some MQA files do sound different than the non-MQA versions of the same albums.
However, since the MQA encoding process is _NOT_ lossless, and claims to "make the _MQA_ versions sound better", we would expect to see differences if we compare them.
(And, apparently, many MQA versions have also been re-mastered in other ways).

Therefore, how can we determine whether MQA files are "really better" or "really more accurate"?
- Is their claim, that the MQA encoding process actually corrects errors in the original masters, and so the MQA versions are actually more accurate, justified or not?
- Ignoring whether we can actually say they're more or less accurate, do the MQA versions sound better, or worse, or just different?
- Assuming that a bit-compare shows a difference, we should at least be able to do a statistical analysis, and show whether people actually prefer the MQA or the non-MQA versions.

So far, a few reviewers have claimed that they consider the MQA files to sound far better, but we really don't know how they were remastered, or what other alterations have been made.
Dr Aix has stated, on several occasions, that the MQA representative had promised to encode some of his original content - so a direct comparison could be performed.
However, according to him, they never provided the samples they promised.
It seems like, by now, someone would have done some large-scale subjective statistical testing - to determine how many listeners really prefer the MQA version to the regular one.
Has anyone here heard of any such tests (or performed any)?



bigshot said:


> Is there an off switch on the NASA stuff? ABORT! ABORT!
> 
> Let's talk about testing audio myths and finding out the truth for a change.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 25, 2018)

MQA is total hogwash. I'm taking the example of others in this forum and just following that up with, "I'm not going to take the time to point out examples." That sentence works so good! Makes life easy!


----------



## castleofargh (Nov 25, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Indeed....
> 
> I'm not quite sure whether it counts as a claim or a myth.... but does anybody have any thoughts about MQA?
> 
> ...


IMO the situation on MQA is now pretty clear.
 the option we will encounter the most because they have no other practical choice(cost and time). is applying the default stuff onto an existing master as is it. there we can say with 100% confidence that the MQA result is of lower resolution compared to that master. maybe using a MQA dac makes it all seem like the sound is better? maybe the filter rolling off gently starting at lower freq to sort of erase the initial band limiting, does end up with some sort of audible difference for whatever reason(I'm not convinced)? but even taking an optimistic position on those possibilities, we're once more talking about subjective preference and not fidelity. the final number of bits is going to be smaller, and the encoding scheme for the ultrasonic portion seems to include attenuation and lossy compression when the amplitude is too big to allow encoding on the few least significant bits allocated for that purpose. so objectively inferior is a certainty. at least compared to the master used to create the MQA version.

and if they remaster an album, what does it matter what extra sauce they put in it? it's a different master, people like it better or don't, it's again a purely subjective decision. not one about fidelity.

the one thing I concede to MQA is that IMO we have no need for 24bit files. we don't know how to record at that level of fidelity. and there is no way it's relevant to properly record stuff going on at -30dB SPL or even lower in the studio. so their decision to discard a few bits is IMO the right one.


----------



## AKGForever (Nov 25, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> The proponents of MQA claim that their MQA-encoded files are "more accurate to the analog original



Or the the producers of music could just get the best analog master they can find, clean it up properly, digitize it correctly and then sell it in whatever transparent format people want to buy.

When some CDs and high bit-rate MP3s/AACs sound astonishing great, most just OK and some like crap, the problem isn’t the delivery format.


----------



## bigshot

MQA claims tested to see if it's just an Audiophile myth!

Part 1: https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-i.html
Part 2: https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html
Part 3: https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-iii.html


----------



## analogsurviver (Nov 25, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> IMO the situation on MQA is now pretty clear.
> the option we will encounter the most because they have no other practical choice(cost and time). is applying the default stuff onto an existing master as is it. there we can say with 100% confidence that the MQA result is of lower resolution compared to that master. maybe using a MQA dac makes it all seem like the sound is better? maybe the filter rolling off gently starting at lower freq to sort of erase the initial band limiting, does end up with some sort of audible difference for whatever reason(I'm not convinced)? but even taking an optimistic position on those possibilities, we're once more talking about subjective preference and not fidelity. the final number of bits is going to be smaller, and the encoding scheme for the ultrasonic portion seems to include attenuation and lossy compression when the amplitude is too big to allow encoding on the few least significant bits allocated for that purpose. so objectively inferior is a certainty. at least compared to the master used to create the MQA version.
> 
> and if they remaster an album, what doesn it matter what extra sauce they put in it? it's a different master, people like it better or don't, it's again a purely subjective decision. not one about fidelity.
> ...



MQA is primarily targeting At streaming services - because it can work with only slightly more data than RBCD. Streaming PCM in meaningfuly higher sample rates is not (yet) practical under real world conditions and even less practical for DSD.

I do agree that MQA results in lower resolution compared to HR digital - but not necessary RBCD.

What I vigorously oppose is the notion that as high level as -30 dB SPL is not relevant to properly record . Real magic of good recordings - or, if you wish, their most audible superiority - lies in the << - 30 dB ( ALL THE WAY DOWN ... ) region - be it analog record or any digital file. I have to stress that this is THE issue we ( castleofargh and myself - plus everyone else ) have on this thread.

I did mention the requirement for most of the pro recording gear to be purged MORE THOROUGLY  than the infamous purges by a guy better not mentioned again on these pages. Simply because most pro gear is so compromised most have never heard how a really clean audio actually sounds... - and in most cases ( honour to the rare exceptions ) , the real game is over BEFORE they can attach the XLR  cable to the microphone... - only to be further degraded by the mixing console, compressors, DAWs, etc. 

It is this very notion that the sound SHOULD be recorded and reproduced only to certain technical level - which, miraculously, closely corresponds to whatever is in present or in forseeable future format likely to be available and supported commercially by the majority - that is WRONG.  

I have no objection to make different levels of resolution available for playback - from MP3s to sky-is-the-limit, bot only IF the initial recording itself is of the highest grade possible at the time of its making. 

As I have said many times, this is not something that can be discussed on the forum, let alone ABXed with samples provided - on most of the existing equipment. Like it or not - most audio gear does not have enough resolution for that ... and a really great recording can come out sounding WORSE than an average one - if reproduced on average equipment. 

Most "digititis" works reasonably well - high grade MP3s included. The MAIN problem is in the ANALOG sections - and it is analoguous to camera "pixel/resolution wars". No matter how many millions of pixels the NEXT digital gizmo in cameras can have - at best, it can not but perfectly convey whatever the picture quality is allowed by the lens. 

PERIOD.


----------



## bigshot

High Bitrate AAC = CD = MQA = SACD = 24/96

It's all transparent.


----------



## dprimary

analogsurviver said:


> What I vigorously oppose is the notion that as high level as -30 dB SPL is not relevant to properly record . Real magic of good recordings - or, if you wish, their most audible superiority - lies in the << - 30 dB ( ALL THE WAY DOWN ... ) region - be it analog record or any digital file. I have to stress that this is THE issue we ( castleofargh and myself - plus everyone else ) have on this thread.




-30 dB SPL ????? are we recording underwater?


----------



## analogsurviver

dprimary said:


> -30 dB SPL ????? are we recording underwater?



Ups.. - mea culpa. I had 0dBFS in mind - not 0dB SPL. I apologize .. - thanks for the bump.


----------



## Steve999

analogsurviver said:


> Ups.. - mea culpa. I had 0dBFS in mind - not 0dB SPL. I apologize .. - thanks for the bump.



Please, let's elevate the merits of our discussions. Thank you.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 25, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> [1] How did we get from this: ..... To this?
> [2] At first, I thought it was a misinterpretation on your part of Breakthrough Starshot but I now realize you pulled it out of your posterior.



1. The answer is obfuscation and misrepresentation and the "from this - to this" is even worse because the actual "from this" is his claim that not only is it currently possible to extract and analyse acoustic information from commercial music recordings, there's actually commercially available software that accomplishes that feat. I demonstrated (and provided evidence) that was a false claim, that it is not currently possible. That lead eventually lead to the current "to this" and his argument which is therefore effectively that: My refutation of his claim is incorrect because we cannot say it will never be possible for NASA to send a manned mission to Alpha Centuri. Clearly, this debating tactic and the actual level of deflection and logic he's employed, is indicative of about a 4 year old child (or an adult with an equivalent learning disability) but equally clearly, KeithEmo is neither.

2. I initially thought the same, that it was just an inadvertent misrepresentation based on an ignorant assumption ... but eventually, after the facts have been explained (and evidenced), that potential excuse is eliminated, leaving only one rational conclusion. ... KeithEmo's recent posts pervert the whole purpose of this sub-forum AND by debating with us as if we ALL have a severe learning disability (or are 4 year olds) demonstrates utter contempt for it's members' intelligence. It's hard to imagine behaviour that could be more insulting BUT there's *no rule against it*! As long as you don't use racial-slurs, threats, obscenities etc, you can apparently insult a whole sub-forum as often and as offensively as you like, the rules only forbid attacking an individual in this way, not an entire forum! Of course, there's room for interpretation of how/when to enforce the rules - understanding what governs that interpretation is simply a matter of "following the money". KeithEmo is therefore "protected", is free to lie or say virtually whatever he wants and treat us collectively as offensively as he pleases. This is nothing new though, it's been going on for countless decades and with infinitely worse consequences than just conning a bunch of gullible audiophiles out of a few bucks, for example; cigarettes were at one time sold as a health product, even when the execs knew from their own internal research this assertion was the exact opposite of the actual facts. What happened to these horrific mass murderers, did they blow their own brains out in a bunker in the Alps or did they die wealthy old men in the comfort of their beach-side mansions?

The rules here do NOT exist to protect, preserve or promote the facts/science, they exist to protect the income stream, thereby preserving the existence of Head-Fi itself and it does that by aiding the promotion of the exact opposite of the facts/science! We are therefore fighting a battle that is obviously unwinnable and futile. Indeed, virtually without exception the science community and audio engineering community shun the audiophile world as a cesspool of snake oil salesman, shills and those irredeemably gullible enough to thoroughly believe it all and therefore any engagement is just stupid. But I'm of the opinion that unless there is some access to the facts/science then the average person has no alternative except to believe the only thing they do have access to, the snake oil BS. That's why I'm still here (albeit anonymously, so my peers don't assume that I'm "just stupid"), although I am starting to question if there's anyone here who either doesn't already have a decent enough grasp of the actual facts or who actually has the slightest interest in an alternative to the BS. If not, then I am indeed wasting my time  - as far as the latter is concerned This article seems appropriate!

G


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> Indeed....
> 
> Therefore, how can we determine whether MQA files are "really better" or "really more accurate"?
> - Is their claim, that the MQA encoding process actually corrects errors in the original masters, and so the MQA versions are actually more accurate, justified or not?
> ...



Well as mentioned by @castleofargh it is rather a pure subjective decision if master happens to be altered.
You may find some tests with provided data here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...a-vs-hirez-an-apples-to-apples-comparison-ii/
IMHO,the methodology applied is interesting even if we may dig further in some aspects.

Applying DSP or EQ to 16/44.1 versions one may achieve same results at sound perception level vs MQA.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 25, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. The answer is obfuscation and misrepresentation and the "from this - to this" is even worse because the actual "from this" is his claim that not only is it currently possible to extract and analyse acoustic information from commercial music recordings, there's actually commercially available software that accomplishes that feat. I demonstrated (and provided evidence) that was a false claim, that it is not currently possible. That lead eventually lead to the current "to this" and his argument which is therefore effectively that: My refutation of his claim is incorrect because we cannot say it will never be possible for NASA to send a manned mission to Alpha Centuri. Clearly, this debating tactic and the actual level of deflection and logic he's employed, is indicative of about a 4 year old child (or an adult with an equivalent learning disability) but equally clearly, KeithEmo is neither.
> 
> 2. I initially thought the same, that it was just an inadvertent misrepresentation based on an ignorant assumption ... but eventually, after the facts have been explained (and evidenced), that potential excuse is eliminated, leaving only one rational conclusion. ... KeithEmo's recent posts pervert the whole purpose of this sub-forum AND by debating with us as if we ALL have a severe learning disability (or are 4 year olds) demonstrates utter contempt for it's members' intelligence. It's hard to imagine behaviour that could be more insulting BUT there's *no rule against it*! As long as you don't use racial-slurs, threats, obscenities etc, you can apparently insult a whole sub-forum as often and as offensively as you like, the rules only forbid attacking an individual in this way, not an entire forum! Of course, there's room for interpretation of how/when to enforce the rules - understanding what governs that interpretation is simply a matter of "following the money". KeithEmo is therefore "protected", is free to lie or say virtually whatever he wants and treat us collectively as offensively as he pleases. This is nothing new though, it's been going on for countless decades and with infinitely worse consequences than just conning a bunch of gullible audiophiles out of a few bucks, for example; cigarettes were at one time sold as a health product, even when the execs knew from their own internal research this assertion was the exact opposite of the actual facts. What happened to these horrific mass murderers, did they blow their own brains out in a bunker in the Alps or did they die wealthy old men in the comfort of their beach-side mansions?
> 
> ...



I should like to know your opinion as to one matter that I feel is relevant to testing audiophile claims and myths. I think we should all agree that the null hypothesis for DACs should be that they sound the same. It would seem that the same should be true for amps, but with more chance for variability than for DACs, due to the variables with respect to how amps interact with other components.

However, when testing speakers, I cannot escape the intuition that the null hypothesis for testing speakers of different makes and models should be that they are audibly different. The matter to be explored is how and why they are different. This is based on intuition on my part, not on any sure-footed reasoning. What would be your opinion on the matter? I have a feeling that I have mishandled certain concepts.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Nov 25, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> I should like to know your opinion as to one matter that I feel is relevant to testing audiophile claims and myths. I think we should all agree that the null hypothesis for DACs should be that they sound the same. It would seem that the same should be true for amps, but with more chance for variability than for DACs, due to the variables with respect to how amps interact with other components.
> 
> However, when testing speakers, I cannot escape the intuition that the null hypothesis for testing speakers of different makes and models should be that they are audibly different. The matter to be explored is how and why they are different. This is based on intuition on my part, not on any sure-footed reasoning. What would be your opinion on the matter? I have a feeling that I have mishandled certain concepts.


Well technically you don't define the null hypothesis however you want. But we can easily avoid arguing definitions by avoiding specific terms. The specific terms are not really relevant to the discussion.

Let's say your *default* hypothesis is that speakers sound different, but I'm skeptical. You bring me 2 active speakers that look identical, but you've changed the DSP inside, quite a bit, and you know they measure dramatically different and you've ABX-ed them with clearly significant results. But I don't know that. They look the same and I'm skeptical.

My buddy and I build a speaker switcher (details provided). We don't have any musical instruments with us, but I have my A440 tuning fork. We go to his anechoic recording studio downstairs, I whack the tuning fork on my hand and record it. We set up, volume match, and sample a few bottles of wine and toke some of the "medicine" he has. We switch for each other (semi-blind) and both agree that both speakers sound great! and are "transparent". We reject your *default* hypothesis. Is this useful? No, because the method is flawed. And the definition doesn't matter.


----------



## gregorio

Steve999 said:


> [1] I think we should all agree that the null hypothesis for DACs should be that they sound the same. It would seem that the same should be true for amps, but with more chance for cariability than for DACs, due to the variables with respect to how amps interact with other components.
> [2] However, when testing speakers, I cannot escape the intuition that the null hypothesis for testing speakers of different makes and models should be that they are audibly different. This is based on intuition on my part, not on any sure-footed reasoning. What would be your opinion on the matter?



1. As current technology enables us to reconstruct digital audio completely audibly transparently at a cost of around $10 or so worth of components, then the only reason we would be able to hear a difference is if a DAC is faulty or has been deliberately designed not to be audibly transparent. The same true of amps, although the cost of the components is somewhat higher and there's the obvious caveat that the amp's output power be appropriate for the load (HPs or speakers) that it's driving.

2. I don't believe there is any serious dispute that speakers/HPs are all somewhat, significantly or radically different. The conversion from analogue audio to acoustic sound waves (or vice versa) is massively inefficient and massively inaccurate (relative to digital/analogue conversion for example). Audible transparency is not possible at any price. In the case of speakers the closest solution to audibly transparent is beyond the resources of virtually all consumers and in the case of HP's the placement of the drivers (right next to or inside the ears) causes a whole bunch of additional issues precluding audible transparency/fidelity. So the design of HPs/Speakers is much more a case of what the designer thinks will work best, in a particular usage case and within the confines of a product's price point. This is rather the opposite of say DAC design, where the designer has to deliberately change the output of a DAC chip which by default produces an audibly transparent output, even those which only cost about $1. This is of course supported by actual measurements, different speakers and HPs measure significantly differently.

G


----------



## Indiana (Nov 25, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> However, when testing speakers, I cannot escape the intuition that the null hypothesis for testing speakers of different makes and models should be that they are audibly different. The matter to be explored is how and why they are different. This is based on intuition on my part, not on any sure-footed reasoning. What would be your opinion on the matter? I have a feeling that I have mishandled certain concepts.



Its the same game for Loudspeakers. There is the myth you have to spend most of your money in speakers and don't need to spend that much in the electronics. You don't have to spend a fortune in speakers neither. There are many well build speakers out there for small money. When people see a fancy high-end speaker in mahogany wood beside a cheap looking plastic box, the better looking speaker always wins, no matter accuracy.
For the vast majority of home listeners like me, it does not make sense to spend a lot of money. This rule does not apply for a professional lets say mastering studio. They need to hear the super flat speakers and they spend a fortune for room treatment. Speakers need to be as flat as possible. I spent 200 euros for my pair of active speakers  (bought it used, but they were like new) I am listening for years now. These are really flat speakers. It was a 5 minute decision, i just called a friend of mine who is an expert in this field. He just told me to grab a pair of these and I would be fine. They are placed at a position where they make sense. I had to install some absorbers for my room. It's in no way optimal, but a good compromise.


----------



## Steve999

Indiana said:


> Its the same game for Loudspeakers. There is the myth you have to spend most of your money in speakers and don't need to spend that much in the electronics. You don't have to spend a fortune in speakers neither. They are many well build speakers out there for small money. When people see a fancy high-end speaker in mahogany wood beside a cheap looking plastic box, the better looking speaker always wins, no matter accuracy.
> For the vast majority of home listeners like me, it does not make sense to spend a lot of money. This rule does not apply for a professional lets say mastering studio. They need to hear the super flat speakers and they spend a fortune for room treatment. Speakers need to be as flat as possible. I spent 200 euros for my pair of active speakers  (bought it used, but they were like new) I am listening for years now. These are really flat speakers. It was a 5 minute decision, i just called a friend of mine who is an expert in this field. He just told me to grab a pair of these and I would be fine. They are placed at a position they make sense. I had to install some absorbers for my room. It's in no way optimal, but a good compromise.



Well here we are starting from a different null hypothesis, I would guess. We are starting from the null hypothesis that more expensive speakers sound better. We have cats testing preferences. We have Sony and Pioneer very recently figuring out they can make a speaker sound awfully good at a very low price (with the addition of a subwoofer even more so) basically putting the heat on the rest of the market. So we want to conduct testing and see how that correlates with price, and see with what degree of confidence, with some bizarre p = this or that something value, we can say that sound quality of speakers does or does not correlate with price. Now me personally, I would guess that over the last 20 years sound quality of speakers has correlated less and less with price. Just based on what I’ve read and how I hear things. I’d guess that the correlation is there but it’s weak and getting weaker.

But what I want to know is what is the framework for determining what is the fricking null hypothesis. Because we are laying down who has the obligation to prove what and what’s the default we get if the data don’t correlate in a certain way.


----------



## Indiana

Steve999 said:


> But what I want to know is what is the framework for determining what is the fricking null hypothesis. Because we are laying down who has the obligation to prove what and what’s the default we get if the data don’t correlate in a certain way.


I guess I don't understand what you mean. Sorry for that. Who has what kind of obligation? I guess its not difficult to prove all speakers are inaccurate  No matter the cost. But I really have no data about it and I am not an expert in that field.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 25, 2018)

Indiana said:


> I guess I don't understand what you mean. Sorry for that. Who has what kind of obligation? I guess its not difficult to prove all speakers are inaccurate  No matter the cost. But I really have no data about it and I am not an expert in that field.



Me neither. I am venting for ostensible comic effect but even more so because I want to get to know more about the fricking null hypothesis. The person holding a view contrary to the null hypothesis has an obligation to set forth evidence to the contrary. So it makes a big difference in how you study things. But it seems like a case of, as my grandfather used to say, you can’t get there from here, you have to start from somewhere else.


----------



## castleofargh

Steve999 said:


> I should like to know your opinion as to one matter that I feel is relevant to testing audiophile claims and myths. I think we should all agree that the null hypothesis for DACs should be that they sound the same. It would seem that the same should be true for amps, but with more chance for variability than for DACs, due to the variables with respect to how amps interact with other components.
> 
> However, when testing speakers, I cannot escape the intuition that the null hypothesis for testing speakers of different makes and models should be that they are audibly different. The matter to be explored is how and why they are different. This is based on intuition on my part, not on any sure-footed reasoning. What would be your opinion on the matter? I have a feeling that I have mishandled certain concepts.


it's fun that we all end up with different approaches to this problem. to me setting up a test to reject the null hypothesis doesn't involve what I believe the outcome to be. I will assume the null hypothesis under a list of conditions. because without clear conditions none of this means anything. IMO the issue we have is that people assume some conditions in their head, but don't systematically share them with their testing results and interpretations. then the world ends because someone else assumes other conditions in his head and think the first guy is a moron.

now back to experimenting with a set of clear conditions and a well defined experienced(also well defined to the people reading about the results!!!!). if with DACs in a double blind, volume matched test, you often fail to disprove the null hypothesis, well that's it, you at least know it's not systematic, maybe it's going to be far from it, maybe not, the test will try to answer that and will do a better job if you can test a all bunch of DACs with a bunch of sound systems, computers, houses? IDK.
same stuff with amps, depending on your testing conditions for the null hypothesis, you will find yourself rejecting the hypothesis more or less often. it will probably turn out to happen more often than with DACs, if only because we don't have too much of a standard about what the load(headphone/speaker/IEM) should be, or what the output impedance of the amps we test should be. the simple fact that we allow more leeway for such variables that could impact the resulting sound, is very likely to have us successfully reject the null hypothesis more often.
now with speakers, same null hypothesis. it will be trivially easy to reject it and so the conclusion will be that speakers don't often sound the same even under rather strict testing conditions(although it's not that trivial to properly test speakers as they ideally should be at the same position in the room. argh).

now we already know what to expect for similar tests(because we've done them and so did many people), plus we have the respective levels of fidelity measured for a bunch of variables as an indicator of how likely we are to reject the null hypothesis. so it won't really bring much to the table to test for that from my very own perspective right now. but if there is any doubt for people, I don't see why they shouldn't just start there and clear out as many doubts as they can before moving on to more specific questions and tests(like how various impedance values can affect amps and headphones for example). or how the test turns out when using specific test signals instead of typical music. or maybe check how when we do reject the null hypothesis, if changes in the test conditions help us reject it with more confidence(stats, not ego). like using shorter samples, using a rapid switch or waiting for 20secs or more between switches. how different listening levels may impact what we consider audible(same with our own hearing loss and what the wife, friends perceive when we get nothing), etc.
it's because we keep debating totally pointless universal statements without any condition specified that all this is never going anywhere. stereotypes won't mean much to the guy with a specific setup at home. but then that guy at home usually won't bother testing anything properly and share fully his method, results, mistakes, and interpretation of the results. so we're here with nothing burgers and people trying to shove it down your throat anyway and asking you to admit how yummy it is. something I really don't appreciate.
all that to say that there is nothing wrong with starting with a good old null hypothesis. it's not a political party, it doesn't mean you already believe there can't/won't be a difference. it's just a convenient starting point.


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> 1. The answer is obfuscation and misrepresentation and the "from this - to this" is even worse because the actual "from this" is his claim that not only is it currently possible to extract and analyse acoustic information from commercial music recordings, there's actually commercially available software that accomplishes that feat. I demonstrated (and provided evidence) that was a false claim, that it is not currently possible. That lead eventually lead to the current "to this" and his argument which is therefore effectively that: My refutation of his claim is incorrect because we cannot say it will never be possible for NASA to send a manned mission to Alpha Centuri. Clearly, this debating tactic and the actual level of deflection and logic he's employed, is indicative of about a 4 year old child (or an adult with an equivalent learning disability) but equally clearly, KeithEmo is neither.
> 
> 2. I initially thought the same, that it was just an inadvertent misrepresentation based on an ignorant assumption ... but eventually, after the facts have been explained (and evidenced), that potential excuse is eliminated, leaving only one rational conclusion. ... KeithEmo's recent posts pervert the whole purpose of this sub-forum AND by debating with us as if we ALL have a severe learning disability (or are 4 year olds) demonstrates utter contempt for it's members' intelligence. It's hard to imagine behaviour that could be more insulting BUT there's *no rule against it*! As long as you don't use racial-slurs, threats, obscenities etc, you can apparently insult a whole sub-forum as often and as offensively as you like, the rules only forbid attacking an individual in this way, not an entire forum! Of course, there's room for interpretation of how/when to enforce the rules - understanding what governs that interpretation is simply a matter of "following the money". KeithEmo is therefore "protected", is free to lie or say virtually whatever he wants and treat us collectively as offensively as he pleases. This is nothing new though, it's been going on for countless decades and with infinitely worse consequences than just conning a bunch of gullible audiophiles out of a few bucks, for example; cigarettes were at one time sold as a health product, even when the execs knew from their own internal research this assertion was the exact opposite of the actual facts. What happened to these horrific mass murderers, did they blow their own brains out in a bunker in the Alps or did they die wealthy old men in the comfort of their beach-side mansions?
> 
> The rules here do NOT exist to protect, preserve or promote the facts/science, they exist to protect the income stream, thereby preserving the existence of Head-Fi itself and it does that by aiding the promotion of the exact opposite of the facts/science! We are therefore fighting a battle that is obviously unwinnable and futile. Indeed, virtually without exception the science community and audio engineering community shun the audiophile world as a cesspool of snake oil salesman, shills and those irredeemably gullible enough to thoroughly believe it all and therefore any engagement is just stupid. But I'm of the opinion that unless there is some access to the facts/science then the average person has no alternative except to believe the only thing they do have access to, the snake oil BS. That's why I'm still here (albeit anonymously, so my peers don't assume that I'm "just stupid"), although I am starting to question if there's anyone here who either doesn't already have a decent enough grasp of the actual facts or who actually has the slightest interest in an alternative to the BS. If not, then I am indeed wasting my time ...



him being a member of trade has nothing to do with the situation. people can be paranoid and somehow somewhere, sure enough the admins won't dare to moderate some members of trade just the way they would someone else, even for made up reason in their mind that Jude never demanded from them. I can't totally claim that special treatment never happened and never will. we're humans. but in here, with me, I can absolutely say that it's BS. I wasn't even told how to deal with members of trade, nobody gave me any sort of directive on that matter. I went to read the same stuff you can all read in the terms of service. so it's a radical no on that assumption that being a member of trade causes his freedom of expression.
I believe if you ask anybody here, they would agree that the one I'm most consistently protecting is you ^_^.

now as an assumed sort of scientific sub section, not having any clear rules about accountability of what is being said is an issue. I've complained about it myself, although I'm not sure how to define and enforce such a concept in practice. I certainly wouldn't want to end up having to peer review every post to decide if things are accurate enough for the standards of the forum. and I absolutely cannot take it upon myself to decide what is true or not. that's something I can do as a random member running my mouth, but it would be pure despotism to moderate that way, even worst given how I'm an expert about nothing.
 I see issues and limitations with the current situation, but don't honestly know how to correctly improve on that(assuming the big bosses would even agree to change anything for me).
so this section has a name assuming standards we can't uphold. it's just a normal forum section where we try our best to discuss fact based notions while looking out for the PC police, as the PC rules are clear and in place. and those who don't care about trying to stick to facts as much as possible, well that's life. I could abuse my power and consider anything I want to be trolling, but then we're back to despotism.
IMO, having several people point toward empty claims, disagree and sometimes disprove false claims, that's how we regulate things and how our fellow members can make their mind. the rest is noise and we'll always have some.

but @KeithEmo, I can only repeat my advice about you using a machine gun(inception! the analogy in the analogy) to spread a massive amount of analogies in the same general direction. just look back on your posts and see how, far from helping your points, most of those analogies tend to just give ammo to contest your posts(and that analogy is now dead, I can't shoot and give ammo with the same action^_^). from the accuracy of the statements in the analogies, to how the analogies don't apply very well to the original argument. you have been weakening your own position IMO.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 25, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> it's fun that we all end up with different approaches to this problem. to me setting up a test to reject the null hypothesis doesn't involve what I believe the outcome to be. I will assume the null hypothesis under a list of conditions. because without clear conditions none of this means anything. IMO the issue we have is that people assume some conditions in their head, but don't systematically share them with their testing results and interpretations. then the world ends because someone else assumes other conditions in his head and think the first guy is a moron.
> 
> now back to experimenting with a set of clear conditions and a well defined experienced(also well defined to the people reading about the results!!!!). if with DACs in a double blind, volume matched test, you often fail to disprove the null hypothesis, well that's it, you at least know it's not systematic, maybe it's going to be far from it, maybe not, the test will try to answer that and will do a better job if you can test a all bunch of DACs with a bunch of sound systems, computers, houses? IDK.
> same stuff with amps, depending on your testing conditions for the null hypothesis, you will find yourself rejecting the hypothesis more or less often. it will probably turn out to happen more often than with DACs, if only because we don't have too much of a standard about what the load(headphone/speaker/IEM) should be, or what the output impedance of the amps we test should be. the simple fact that we allow more leeway for such variables that could impact the resulting sound, is very likely to have us successfully reject the null hypothesis more often.
> ...




Many thanks to  @castleofargh, @SoundAndMotion, @gregorio, and @Phronesis , for their views on this, and cool video by the way. I learned some new stuff to carry around in my fund of knowledge, so to speak. I will let the posts in the DAC and this thread stand on their own rather than do an @castleofargh sacred Linus-on-the-hill with his blanket post-mortem type of recap. This thread is tricky to be rigorous in discussion because the null hypothesis is such a moving target as we shift subject matter and points of view. It occurs to me it's a thread that by its nature is hard to get anywhere past the original post substantively or to gain much focus in covering new ground.


----------



## castleofargh (Nov 25, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> Many thanks to  @castleofargh, @SoundAndMotion, @gregorio, and @Phronesis , for their views on this, and cool video by the way. This thread is tricky to be rigorous in discussion because the null hypothesis is such a moving target as we shift subject matter and points of view. It occurs to me it has sort of turned into a shoot the breeze and by the way you're wrong type of thread.


it's not a moving target IMO, it's a practical starting point.  we take 2 similar devices, tracks, umbrellas, and because we don't know much about them, the basic assumption is that they are going to do similar stuff, them being similar stuff in the first place. it's a cost free assumption as it's not a claim but just one hypothesis.
now why go for this instead of starting with the hypothesis that 2 stuff are always going to be different(which is probably more often true in practice, at least down to a deep enough level of scrutiny)? well simply because be it the scientific method or statistics, you somehow gain more from disproving an hypothesis. what Feynman says in the video.
could you disprove that 2 speakers are audibly different? no. if you fail to discriminate them in a test, all you have done is fail to notice something. you haven't proved there is nothing to notice. on the other hand if you start with the null hypothesis, all you have to do is successfully pass(so show you heard a difference), to conclusively show that a difference does exist. it's a much better deal ^_^.


----------



## Steve999

castleofargh said:


> could you disprove that 2 speakers are audibly different? no.



That confuses the heck out of me. I have to think about that. Wait... wait... okay, I got it.

Seriously though, I'm glad we do havie the DAC thread, the USB thread, etc., in addition to this.

Also, you quoted my post before I had time to disingenuously edit it. No fair.


----------



## castleofargh

sorry about that .


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 25, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> it's not a moving target IMO, it's a practical starting point.  we take 2 similar devices, tracks, umbrellas, and because we don't know much about them, the basic assumption is that they are going to do similar stuff, them being similar stuff in the first place. it's a cost free assumption as it's not a claim but just one hypothesis.
> now why go for this instead of starting with the hypothesis that 2 stuff are always going to be different(which is probably more often true in practice, at least down to a deep enough level of scrutiny)? well simply because be it the scientific method or statistics, you somehow gain more from disproving an hypothesis. what Feynman says in the video.
> could you disprove that 2 speakers are audibly different? no. if you fail to discriminate them in a test, all you have done is fail to notice something. you haven't proved there is nothing to notice. on the other hand if you start with the null hypothesis, all you have to do is successfully pass(so show you heard a difference), to conclusively show that a difference does exist. it's a much better deal ^_^.



Similar conversation in two threads:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/rob-watts-dac-design-talk.881644/page-29#post-14619766

castle has a really tough job, and IMO is doing it well considering the circumstances.  When I whine about the forum, it's not a complaint about castle's moderation, we just happen to be dealing with stuff that can often be polarizing and people approach it with different backgrounds, assumptions, methods, goals, etc.  Human nature is on full display around here!


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

One of my favourite things about this thread is that it makes me think about stuff not necessarily related to audio...and then it gets back to audio again because someone magically breaks the spell.
I often think about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and how modern social media is ripe with this warped almost nihilistic take on it. Everywhere I look...and what it effectively does is it undermines accumulated knowledge, languages and the way in which we understand the two or perhaps more succinctly lose our ability to navigate properly in them. 
In audio it gets to be this nigh on impossible feat just taking measurements or conduct something even remotely close to a 'proper blindtest'. There's always room for more doubt.


----------



## KeithEmo

As a generalization I would agree with you.

Some amplifiers, and some DACs, are specifically designed to sound unique. Some companies simply design their products to have a "house sound", and some technologies have come to have a sort of "sonic signature" that people have simply come to accept. However, excluding those, all well designed amplifiers and DACs should sound more similar than different.

However, there are two reasons why this doesn't hold especially well for speakers.

First off, as an electromechanical device, speakers simply vary more from each other than many other devices. Regardless of exactly what you consider the threashold of audibility for things like distortion, and variations in frequency response, there are virtually no speakers available that come close to meeting them. Even the best loudspeakers vary by several dB from flat, produce single or even double digit levels of distortion at certain frequencies, and have huge phase variations. (A speaker that measures 20 Hz to 20 kHz +/- 5 dB, with less than 5% THD at 50 Hz, and whose phase varies by less than several _HUNDRED_ percent between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, would be considered to be quite accurate.)

Second, because of their nature, speakers interact with many things - including room acoustics and the relative position of the listener. Whatever a certain speaker, in a certain room, and a certain location, sounds like to a listener in a certain position.... change any of those factors and it will both sound and measure quite differently. 

This is essentially unavoidable, in order to deliver bass without a lot of IM distortion, a speaker should ideally have a very large surface that doesn't have to move very far. However, in order to have reasonable dispersion, the radiating surface should be smaller than the wavelength of the highest frequency produced. And, to minimize interactions between the individual speaker drivers, the sound sources should be coincident. And, regardless of where you position that speaker in a real room, there are going to be nulls and peaks in frequency response due to the dimensions of the room and the location of the speaker itself. Because many of these "requirements" contradict each other, it is impossible to design a speaker that lacks significant deviations from perfect. And, of course, with that many potential compromises, each manufacturer, and each listener, is going to have different priorities as to how they should be handled.

(At most, you might suggest that speakers made using similar technology, located at the same spot, in the same room, have a good chance of sounding similar.)



Steve999 said:


> I should like to know your opinion as to one matter that I feel is relevant to testing audiophile claims and myths. I think we should all agree that the null hypothesis for DACs should be that they sound the same. It would seem that the same should be true for amps, but with more chance for variability than for DACs, due to the variables with respect to how amps interact with other components.
> 
> However, when testing speakers, I cannot escape the intuition that the null hypothesis for testing speakers of different makes and models should be that they are audibly different. The matter to be explored is how and why they are different. This is based on intuition on my part, not on any sure-footed reasoning. What would be your opinion on the matter? I have a feeling that I have mishandled certain concepts.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm inclined to agree....

However, I think, in order to fully understand the situation, you need to look at all the business models of the players.
The studios who own the music are continually looking for new ways to make more money by selling more copies of it... often by re-issuing or re-mastering it.
And, in order to convince people to purchase yet another re-master of an album they already have, they have to offer at least some presumption of a benefit.
So, for example, they are currently selling "high-res remasters" of lots of albums simply because it provides an excuse to sell more copies.
(It is irrelevant to them whether there is any difference or not; sales depend on their potential customers _BELIEVING_ the new version is better.)

Now "the MQA guys" come along... and offer to apply their processing to that album.
Their message to the studio that owns that album is this:
"We're prepared to re-master a whole bunch of your albums for you."
"We claim that our new re-masters will be better and, more importantly, we've done all the advertising necessary to convince _YOUR CUSTOMERS_ that they're better."
"We will be doing all of the work of re-mastering those albums for you."

MQA is essentially offering, as a service, a way to sell another wave of album re-masters.... and all they're asking in return is "part of the take".
From the point of view of the studio, MQA is doing most of the work to create the new re-masters, as well as most of the effort needed to convince people to buy them. 
And, in MQA's business model, they're hoping to collect licensing fees from the studio, and the DAC manufacturer, and - indirectly - the customers.



AKGForever said:


> Or the the producers of music could just get the best analog master they can find, clean it up properly, digitize it correctly and then sell it in whatever transparent format people want to buy.
> 
> When some CDs and high bit-rate MP3s/AACs sound astonishing great, most just OK and some like crap, the problem isn’t the delivery format.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree - that it's almost entirely subjective...

However, among their many claims, MQA claims the opposite.
In several interviews, they have made an interesting claim... they claim that:
"Even though the processed digital file is obviously not bit-perfect, since it has admittedly been altered, _THE ANALOG OUTPUT IS MORE ACCURATE TO THE ANALOG ORIGINAL_."
In other words, they are specifically claiming that, "if you consider the entire signal chain - from microphone to speaker - analog to analog - their version is more accurate".
Their claim is that, by correcting errors inherent in the digital signal chain, they have made the analog output _MORE ACCURATE_ to the original analog source.
This seems like a specific claim that could in fact be proven - or disproven.

This would seem to be something that could be confirmed two different ways:
1) By conducting listening tests between the original analog master and the final output (and comparing the results using MQA to other methods - like PCM).
     (Statistically, either most people will find that the MQA version sounds closer to the original than other versions, or they won't.)
2) By directly comparing the analog original master to the final analog output and measuring the differences.
     (There will still be some subjectivity involved in evaluating the differences... but it might be interesting to know what those differences actually are.)

If their claims are justified, then we would expect the analog output of "an MQA enabled DAC" to be measurably more accurate to the analog original than any other versions.
And, furthermore, we would expect that a statistically significant majority agree that it sounds subjectively closer.
(There's no point in even looking at the digital signal along the way, because they are definitely altering it; we need to compare _ANALOG_ source to _ANALOG_ output.)



Arpiben said:


> Well as mentioned by @castleofargh it is rather a pure subjective decision if master happens to be altered.
> You may find some tests with provided data here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...a-vs-hirez-an-apples-to-apples-comparison-ii/
> IMHO,the methodology applied is interesting even if we may dig further in some aspects.
> 
> Applying DSP or EQ to 16/44.1 versions one may achieve same results at sound perception level vs MQA.


----------



## bigshot

Indiana said:


> Its the same game for Loudspeakers. There is the myth you have to spend most of your money in speakers and don't need to spend that much in the electronics.



If you're just looking for good sound, there's plenty of low cost options nowadays. Much more than in the past. I'm impressed by the quality of my tiny little Alexa speaker and I have a set of Monoprice headphones that cost $60 that sound quite good too. But if you're looking for high end sound quality, speakers capable of doing that and filling a good size room cost a lot of money. Every speaker is different and the room has an effect on them too. That isn't true of electronics. Just about every DAC or amp you can buy sounds exactly the same. The only reasons to purchase one model over another are the features or the power rating of the amp.

I have a very good multichannel speaker system and the cost of the speakers dwarfs the cost of the electronics. There's no reason related to sound quality to buy a $2,000 DAC over a $100 one. But a $2,000 speaker will be capable of sounding a lot better than a $100 one.

You should spend most of your money on speakers and don't spend much on electronics. That old saying is absolutely true.


----------



## bigshot

Arpiben said:


> Applying DSP or EQ to 16/44.1 versions one may achieve same results at sound perception level vs MQA.



I'm totally convinced that the future of high end audio is going to be based on sound processing. We've chased down sound purity to ridiculous extremes. At this point even the playback of a $50 DVD player is audibly perfect and indistinguishable from that of an audiophile DAC. Splitting the fractions to push down the noise deeper or extend frequencies further isn't going to make any audible difference. If sound quality is going to be improved, it's going to be related to directionality, how sound fills space, and the ability to fine tune levels and EQ to fit specific listening conditions. I think the possibilities in signal processing using DSPs are exciting as hell. But a lot of audiophiles are stuck in the past when signal processing meant increased noise and distortion. They throw the baby out with the bathwater by not attending at all to important things like response curves and manipulating the acoustic properties of sound, while worrying about signal purity that they just can't hear.

It's kind of ironic that the biggest breakthrough in sound quality in the past six decades or so has been pioneered by video enthusiasts, not audiophiles. I suspect that hi-fi nuts are going the way of the dodo bird. The hobby is being co opted by home theater folks, while recorded music chases the goal of convenience and casual listening on the go over sound quality and focused listening to music. The people who are pushing forward the new concepts in sound are the guys who are working to match the size of their sound to the size of their big screen TVs.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 25, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> I should like to know your opinion as to one matter that I feel is relevant to testing audiophile claims and myths. I think we should all agree that the null hypothesis for DACs should be that they sound the same. It would seem that the same should be true for amps, but with more chance for variability than for DACs, due to the variables with respect to how amps interact with other components. However, when testing speakers, I cannot escape the intuition that the null hypothesis for testing speakers of different makes and models should be that they are audibly different.



This was directed to Gregorio and I'll be interested to hear his answer, but if I can be allowed to jump in on this one...

It isn't so much a matter that speakers *should* sound different, it's more the fact that differences are unavoidable. Any speaker design involves trade offs and compromises. To boil it down to basics, a speaker can be compact, it can be efficient or it can have a wide range of response. Speaker designers know that it's possible to get two out of the three, but not all three. Old style box speakers were very efficient and they had bass down to the bottom of the spectrum, but they did it by having big woofers and big cabinets. Modern speakers are compact and they have a full range of sound, but they require more amping than older designs. This is a good tradeoff for today because amps today are more powerful, clean and inexpensive than in the past. There are other tradeoffs too... for instance deep bass and excusion and its effect on distortion. Speaker designers are making judgement calls all the time in their designs... how much is too much, how much is too little. How much is just right.

The other tradeoff is the room. You can design the most perfect response curve possible for a speaker in the lab, but the second you put it in a real world living room, your perfection is shot to hell. Different rooms make speakers sound different. You can go out and buy the most expensive and perfect speakers made, but that is no guarantee that they will sound perfect. So instead of pursuing a perfectly flat response, designers focus on acoustic issues like sound dispersion or they focus on reducing distortion. Since you're going to have to do room treatment and a little EQing anyway, there's no point in focusing on that. Better to focus on things that are important to sound in every person's living room.

The advantage of the way systems work now is that everything is so tightly controlled... DACs and amps are as perfect as you could hope for... your signal path only needs to be modified at the last link in the chain... where the speakers meet the room. That is incredibly liberating to me. When I first started fifty years ago, every component had its own color and different paths from source to speakers could end up sounding different from another source and path. Your turntable would sound quite different than your cassette deck. If you went through your power amp, it sounded different than through the headphones. Balancing the response in a room was a spit in the wind that worked sometimes with some sources and not so well with others. Today my iPod sounds exactly like my computer which sounds exactly like my blu-ray player. I can apply one response calibration right before the speakers and it will work for everything.

It's OK to have one wild card in a chain from source to sound. You can correct for that. You just don't want more than one wild card, because that causes chaos. This is something people with speakers who calibrate with EQ understand that people who use headphones and don't EQ don't understand.


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> This was directed to Gregorio and I'll be interested to hear his answer, but if I can be allowed to jump in on this one...
> 
> It isn't so much a matter that speakers *should* sound different, it's more the fact that differences are unavoidable. Any speaker design involves trade offs and compromises. To boil it down to basics, a speaker can be compact, it can be efficient or it can have a wide range of response. Speaker designers know that it's possible to get two out of the three, but not all three. Old style box speakers were very efficient and they had bass down to the bottom of the spectrum, but they did it by having big woofers and big cabinets. Modern speakers are compact and they have a full range of sound, but they require more amping than older designs. This is a good tradeoff for today because amps today are more powerful, clean and inexpensive than in the past.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your reply. It was aimed at Gregorio and as I read things he answered, and I welcome anyone else's opinions and insights. I learned a ton today standing on the shoulders of others so I thank everyone who jumped in.


----------



## gargani

bigshot said:


> MQA claims tested to see if it's just an Audiophile myth!
> 
> Part 1: https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-i.html
> Part 2: https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html
> Part 3: https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-iii.html


Thanks for those links. I found the test results quite interesting and revealing.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 25, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> him being a member of trade has nothing to do with the situation.



Quietly raising my hand...

I was banned from this forum for posting tear down photos of a "sound enhancing" plug manufactured and sold by a member of the trade on Head-Fi. The photos showed clearly that the $400 gadget consisted of two wires with tinfoil wrapped around them. Being a member of the trade might not grant someone special treatment, but I can testify that it definitely did make a difference that I wasn't one in my case. I really didn't mind being banned for that. It was worth it. I'm just sorry that people who came to my defense in the uproar got banned too. That collateral damage pretty much put this group on ice for over a year until the bans were lifted. The sad thing is that those snake oil plugs are still being made and sold, but they effectively silenced the criticism. It really didn't change anything. Some people will only believe what they want to believe. There's no proof good enough to change that. And the good news is that Sound Science is active again. I just miss some of the old regulars. We had a really good group of people here back then.


----------



## Indiana

bigshot said:


> Every speaker is different and the room has an effect on them too. That isn't true of electronics. Just about every DAC or amp you can buy sounds exactly the same. The only reasons to purchase one model over another are the features or the power rating of the amp.
> I have a very good multichannel speaker system and the cost of the speakers dwarfs the cost of the electronics. There's no reason related to sound quality to buy a $2,000 DAC over a $100 one. But a $2,000 speaker will be capable of sounding a lot better than a $100 one.


I can not help myself, but somehow I feel that you like to contradict me. But I may be wrong. It does not matter anyway.
I am sure you have a good sounding system. And multichannel is for sure a great thing. But I am a two channel guy. So two loudspeakers are just fine for me.
I wrote you don't have to spend much money neither ! Good hifi does just not cost a lot of money these days. My speakers cost about 360 dollar a pair if you buy them new. I didn't gave a listen to them. I would never buy a speaker by listening. What for ? I just want to know if the speakers performs well. The person who recommended me the speakers has experience for decades in this field and his clients are radio stations, tv stations and music production studios and I don't know what else. He measured these speakers. And the values were very good for the price.
A 2000 dollar speaker CAN perform better. But it is not mandatory. I don't care the price. I care for performance and if I can get performance cheap, even better for me.
When you speak about DACs and amplifiers - they should sound the same, of course, or something is just wrong. Right now I listen with a 40 dollar hifi-berry on a raspberry pi. Its a two dollar DAC. The usual Delta-Sigma stuff. I checked the transparency on archimago.blogspot.com few months ago.
But one thing is for sure, the room affects the sound more than most people think. It has really a big influence. Often more than difference in loudspeakers. But that is another topic.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 25, 2018)

Indiana said:


> I can not help myself, but somehow I feel that you like to contradict me. But I may be wrong. It does not matter anyway.
> I am sure you have a good sounding system. And multichannel is for sure a great thing. But I am a two channel guy. So two loudspeakers are just fine for me.
> I wrote you don't have to spend much money neither ! Good hifi does just not cost a lot of money these days. My speakers cost about 360 dollar a pair if you buy them new. I didn't gave a listen to them. I would never buy a speaker by listening. What for ? I just want to know if the speakers performs well. The person who recommended me the speakers has experience for decades in this field and his clients are radio stations, tv stations and music production studios and I don't know what else. He measured these speakers. And the values were very good for the price.
> A 2000 dollar speaker CAN perform better. But it is not mandatory. I don't care the price. I care for performance and if I can get performance cheap, even better for me.
> ...



I think we're starting to hit new high watermarks with Pioneer and Sony for speakers that sound darn good for cheap. Just my opinion based on what I've read and heard. But did I mention that I recommend a subwoofer? That's where that solid as a rock sound comes from that you didn't get from LPs or all but the most stellar loudspeakers, IMHO. My subwoofer was my single most expensive part of my system, about $500, and I'm grateful for it every day, it was a game-changer. A good subwoofer can most often also help you get the very best out of whatever speakers you might have.

By the way, I'm very sympathetic to a 2.1 setup. For pure sound quality and value that's a powerful combination, IMHO. I have accrued to 5.1 over time but that was over time.


----------



## Indiana

Steve999 said:


> I think we're starting to hit new high watermarks with Pioneer and Sony for speakers that sound darn good for cheap. Just my opinion based on what I've read and heard. But did I mention that I recommend a subwoofer? That's where that solid as a rock sound comes from that you didn't get from LPs or all but the most stellar loudspeakers, IMHO.


There are so many manufactures of loudspeakers, I have really no overview about it. And I guess Sony and Pioneer can build good sounding speakers like others do. They have a lot of know how in house. I want to buy a subwoofer for quite a while. Just too lazy till now to go after one.


----------



## bigshot

I’m not deliberately trying to contradict you. I’m just pointing out that spending more money on electronics doesn’t buy you better sound quality. Buying better speakers does. You can find inexpensive near field speakers that sound very good for a desktop system. But finding good speakers that can fill a good sized living room with good sound isn’t cheap.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 25, 2018)

Indiana said:


> There are so many manufactures of loudspeakers, I have really no overview about it. And I guess Sony and Pioneer can build good sounding speakers like others do. They have a lot of know how in house. I want to buy a subwoofer for quite a while. Just too lazy till now to go after one.



The only overview I have is this for those on a budget:

I have an SVS SB12 subwoofer, FWIW. Looks like it's gone down $100 since I got mine, or else I paid $400, I have to get my story straight:

https://www.amazon.com/SVS-SB12-NSD-400-watt-Controlled-Subwoofer/dp/B009F8Y7SO

Pioneer is cranking out these:

https://www.amazon.com/Pioneer-SP-F...d=1543183408&sr=8-4&keywords=pioneer+speakers

and Sony is cranking out these:

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SSCS5-3...UTF8&qid=1543183255&sr=8-2&keywords=sony+core

You can buy better for more money, I'm very sure, but it's great to have those options on the table. Diminishing returns are hitting at a lower price point than ever, it seems to me.

And throw in a little DSP of course!


----------



## Indiana

bigshot said:


> I’m just pointing out that spending more money on electronics doesn’t buy you better sound quality. Buying better speakers does. You can find inexpensive near field speakers that sound very good for a desktop system. But finding good speakers that can fill a good sized living room with good sound isn’t cheap


Agree with the electronic part. But what do you mean with "fill a good sized room" ? I have a 28m2 living room and more than enough distortion free sound pressure for my listening needs.


----------



## Indiana

Thank you @Steve999


----------



## bfreedma

Steve999 said:


> I think we're starting to hit new high watermarks with Pioneer and Sony for speakers that sound darn good for cheap. Just my opinion based on what I've read and heard. But did I mention that I recommend a subwoofer? That's where that solid as a rock sound comes from that you didn't get from LPs or all but the most stellar loudspeakers, IMHO. My subwoofer was my single most expensive part of my system, about $500, and I'm grateful for it every day, it was a game-changer. A good subwoofer can most often also help you get the very best out of whatever speakers you might have.
> 
> By the way, I'm very sympathetic to a 2.1 setup. For pure sound quality and value that's a powerful combination, IMHO. I have accrued to 5.1 over time but that was over time.




Beyond the ability to support the lower octaves in the way only a very large speaker usually can in a single box solution, there is perhaps an even more important reason to add a subwoofer.  The best location in any room for bass reproduction is rarely where the front L/R or mains are located.  A subwoofer offers the flexibility necessary to place the speaker primarily responsible for bass generation into the ideal (or at least better) location.  Or better yet, adding multiple subwoofers to minimize room modes.

An additional benefit is reducing the load on amplification.  Most modern subwoofers are self powered and bass reproduction is where significant load is placed on an amplifier.  While most home systems don’t actually require nearly as much power as people believe, if you are going to strain an amplifier, bass reproduction is where it’s going to happen.


----------



## bigshot

Indiana said:


> I have a 28m2 living room and more than enough distortion free sound pressure for my listening needs.



My theater is about 18 wide by 24 feet long with a peaked ceiling. I have the added problem of a ten foot screen that I have to fill. I use a combination of several different speaker designs to get the size of the soundstage, dispersion pattern, off axis listening positions and punch that I’m looking for. A lot of it is trial and error. There are so many variables, it’s hard to balance everything just with theory. You have to break rules sometimes.


----------



## Phronesis

Let me ask a dumb question.  To compare the analogue outputs of two DACs, is it possible to sample the musical signals say every microsecond and compare the amplitudes to see how much the signals differ?  I'm assuming that the signals are aligned in time and scaled to generally match amplitude.  I believe @gregorio has talked about a null test or something along those lines which might address my question, but I don't know the details.  If the analog signals can be shown to essentially the same, that would conclusively indicate that they must sound the same also.


----------



## AKGForever

KeithEmo said:


> And, in order to convince people to purchase yet another re-master of an album they already have, they have to offer at least some presumption of a benefit.



I am in the camp that RB CD or equivalent file is all I will ever need and that if the only way I would re-buy would be if it was improved on the production side and sold through a reputable company like the original Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs.  Used CDs are dirt cheap and available through Amazon and Goodwill, and gives the CD producers nothing


----------



## Phronesis

Speaking of cheap gear that sounds good, I got one of these Marshall Kilburn Bluetooth speakers a month ago and am impressed:

https://www.amazon.com/Marshall-Kil...d=1543192708&sr=1-2&keywords=marshall+kilburn

The rechargeable battery goes for quite a few hours, tonal balance is nice with plenty of bass, and it gets surprisingly loud.  This plus my phone running Tidal or Spotify covers a lot of my needs.  The Marshall vibe is nice too, since I play guitar and have some Marshall amps.


----------



## bigshot

AKGForever said:


> I am in the camp that RB CD or equivalent file is all I will ever need and that if the only way I would re-buy would be if it was improved on the production side and sold through a reputable company like the original Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs.



I can tell you an interesting story about MFSL... My favorite live album is Little Feat's Waiting for Columbus. I have it on MFSL LP and always thought it sounded great. I bought the MFSL CD of the album and it sounded great too. Recently, I bought a Little Feat best of box set and it had tracks from the album on it. I was expecting it to sound poorer than the MFSL, but it didn't. It sounded exactly the same. I think the album just always sounded good. It probably wouldn't have mattered what CD of it I bought.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Let me ask a dumb question.  To compare the analogue outputs of two DACs, is it possible to sample the musical signals say every microsecond and compare the amplitudes to see how much the signals differ?  I'm assuming that the signals are aligned in time and scaled to generally match amplitude.  I believe @gregorio has talked about a null test or something along those lines which might address my question, but I don't know the details.  If the analog signals can be shown to essentially the same, that would conclusively indicate that they must sound the same also.


but what will define "essentially the same"? taking your example, we'd subtract the analog signals(once volume matched and time aligned!!!!!!) then end up with a residual signal. how small will it need to be before you can convince others that it is inaudible? we're back to the usual crap where someone could be shown DACs identical down to -100dB and go "see! they're different at -100dB, and of course I can hear -100dB, the soundstage is completely different" or whatever nonsense like that.
if you care about audibility, there is no substitute for a proper listening test. and listening to the residual signal itself and hearing something, is not evidence that you would hear a difference between the DACs. cf https://www.head-fi.org/threads/flac-vs-320-mp3.570621/page-35#post-14618399


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> but what will define "essentially the same"? taking your example, we'd subtract the analog signals(once volume matched and time aligned!!!!!!) then end up with a residual signal. how small will it need to be before you can convince others that it is inaudible? we're back to the usual crap where someone could be shown DACs identical down to -100dB and go "see! they're different at -100dB, and of course I can hear -100dB, the soundstage is completely different" or whatever nonsense like that.
> if you care about audibility, there is no substitute for a proper listening test. and listening to the residual signal itself and hearing something, is not evidence that you would hear a difference between the DACs. cf https://www.head-fi.org/threads/flac-vs-320-mp3.570621/page-35#post-14618399



Yes, that's the problem I was anticipating: what effect would the residual signal have on audibility?  Maybe a less stringent amplitude cutoff than -100 dB could be used, and then the remaining residual signal could be characterized in some way?  Or if the amplitude of the entire residual signal was very small, maybe that would be enough that they should sound the same?  I guess I'm wondering what the actually residual signals are typically like when comparing DACs.


----------



## dprimary

castleofargh said:


> we're back to the usual crap where someone could be shown DACs identical down to -100dB and go "see! they're different at -100dB, and of course I can hear -100dB, the soundstage is completely different" or whatever nonsense like that.


 The constant pounding of the blood pumping through their ears must be unbearable.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 26, 2018)

The brain can hear all the way down to -300dB according to some people! All jokes aside, if you click on the link in my sig for the AES Audiophile myths seminar, you can download some samples of a horrible buzzing sound under music at various attenuation levels. Listen to it yourself and you'll hear where the threshold of audibility lies in a worst case scenario. In the video Ethan Winer states the point where he thinks it doesn't matter any more if you need an expert opinion on it.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> [1] I can't totally claim that special treatment never happened and never will. we're humans. but in here, with me, I can absolutely say that it's BS. I wasn't even told how to deal with members of trade, nobody gave me any sort of directive on that matter.
> [2] I've complained about it myself,
> [2a] although I'm not sure how to define and enforce such a concept in practice.



1. Just to make it clear, I was NOT accusing you personally of some sort of moral corruption but the system itself. While the spirit of the rules appears to forbid insults, the actual wording does not, except in the case of attacking an individual. The rules are therefore open to abuse and marketing in general is largely based on exploiting such loopholes.

2. If you've complained about it, clearly you perceive there to be a problem too.
2a. This is where you and I (or me and the higher authorities disagree), which is essentially the interpretation of "insulting"/"offensive"/"trolling". Making an incorrect/fallacious claim is NOT deliberately insulting or offensive, it could easily be just an honest misunderstanding of the facts, which is hardly surprising given that audiophiles are constantly manipulated into misunderstanding the facts. Nor is it deliberately insulting or offensive if someone doesn't initially support their claim with some reliable evidence. It's again most likely just an inadvertent mistake, not realising in what way this sub-forum is different to the others. However once this has been made clear, if the claim has been refuted, the person making the claim refuses to supply any reliable supporting evidence and just continues to repeat the claim, then we are in the area where their behaviour could be interpreted as an insult (to this forum) and some friendly "moderator advice" could be issued (to support their claim with some reliable evidence). If they ignore that advice, continue to repeat the claim (without any reliable evidence) and go even further by making up even more unsupported claims, especially if the claims are obviously contrary to the actual (presented) facts, then it is IMHO difficult to avoid the interpretation that it's a deliberate act of insulting/trolling and a stern "moderator warning" could be issued, requiring no further posting on the subject by the claimer unless it's a retraction of the claim or the requested reliable supporting evidence, or face their all their posts on the subject being removed. If they ignored that warning too and just continued repeating the same thing and making-up more unsupported "facts", then IMHO it's essentially IMPOSSIBLE to avoid the interpretation that they're deliberately trolling/insulting this sub-forum.



castleofargh said:


> but what will define "essentially the same"? taking your example, we'd subtract the analog signals(once volume matched and time aligned!!!!!!) then end up with a residual signal. how small will it need to be before you can convince others that it is inaudible? we're back to the usual crap where someone could be shown DACs identical down to -100dB and go "see! they're different at -100dB, and of course I can hear -100dB, the soundstage is completely different" or whatever nonsense like that.





Phronesis said:


> Yes, that's the problem I was anticipating: what effect would the residual signal have on audibility?



I hear this response quite often here but for me (and others like me) it doesn't "hold water". We're not really "back to doing a listening test" because in the majority of cases either inaudibility is the only logical conclusion, the listening tests have already been done or can be done far more easily than trying to setup an unflawed double blind test. Some examples, if the difference file is at -100dB (or lower) we don't need to do a listening test because for that difference to be audible (above or just within the noise floor) would require peak playback levels of around 120-140dBSPL which even if possible would be dangerous/damaging, so logically it's inaudible. Or, even if the difference file is quite high in level, say -30dB, if virtually all the that difference is above say 17kHz then we don't need to do a listening test, because there have already been numerous listening tests which unequivocally demonstrate that even with excellent hearing, we need very high levels and to achieve that even in theory would put us back into the damaging range. Or, if we have some distortion in our difference file, we can simply go online and test if we can hear distortion at those levels. I seem to remember Ethan Weiner had such a test online and if I remember correctly -70dB was about the absolute limit that anyone could detect. So if we've got -80dB (or lower) of distortion then it's inaudible or better still, just take the test yourself and find your personal level of sensitivity. If your sensitivity is average, say -50dB or so, if the null difference file shows distortion at say -65dB (or lower) then for you personally, it will definitely, without question be inaudible.

A null test gives us precisely and objectively what the difference is and while it doesn't necessarily tell us if the difference is audible, it does often tell us that the difference is inaudible and often, it tells us this unequivocally! So I don't really understand why there appears to be such a feeling against doing null tests here and such a reliance on double blind testing, which is more time consuming, more difficult to setup without error and less reliable as an absolute answer without a significant sample size. Certainly in the audio engineering community it is one of the most commonly used tests but here I hardly ever see it even mentioned, let alone actually done?

G


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> 1. Just to make it clear, I was NOT accusing you personally of some sort of moral corruption but the system itself. While the spirit of the rules appears to forbid insults, the actual wording does not, except in the case of attacking an individual. The rules are therefore open to abuse and marketing in general is largely based on exploiting such loopholes.
> 
> 2. If you've complained about it, clearly you perceive there to be a problem too.
> 2a. This is where you and I (or me and the higher authorities disagree), which is essentially the interpretation of "insulting"/"offensive"/"trolling". Making an incorrect/fallacious claim is NOT deliberately insulting or offensive, it could easily be just an honest misunderstanding of the facts, which is hardly surprising given that audiophiles are constantly manipulated into misunderstanding the facts. Nor is it deliberately insulting or offensive if someone doesn't initially support their claim with some reliable evidence. It's again most likely just an inadvertent mistake, not realising in what way this sub-forum is different to the others. However once this has been made clear, if the claim has been refuted, the person making the claim refuses to supply any reliable supporting evidence and just continues to repeat the claim, then we are in the area where their behaviour could be interpreted as an insult (to this forum) and some friendly "moderator advice" could be issued (to support their claim with some reliable evidence). If they ignore that advice, continue to repeat the claim (without any reliable evidence) and go even further by making up even more unsupported claims, especially if the claims are obviously contrary to the actual (presented) facts, then it is IMHO difficult to avoid the interpretation that it's a deliberate act of insulting/trolling and a stern "moderator warning" could be issued, requiring no further posting on the subject by the claimer unless it's a retraction of the claim or the requested reliable supporting evidence, or face their all their posts on the subject being removed. If they ignored that warning too and just continued repeating the same thing and making-up more unsupported "facts", then IMHO it's essentially IMPOSSIBLE to avoid the interpretation that they're deliberately trolling/insulting this sub-forum.



It's common that when people are arguing, it gets to the point where each thinks it should be obvious to the other person, and everyone else who may be listening, that they're right.  So if the other person doesn't concede, they're ignorant, stupid, and/or disingenuous.  The problem is that both sides feel that way, so each side just needs to live with the other side not conceding.  In a forum, I think the best that can be done is to keep it from getting personal.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> I hear this response quite often here but for me (and others like me) it doesn't "hold water". We're not really "back to doing a listening test" because in the majority of cases either inaudibility is the only logical conclusion, the listening tests have already been done or can be done far more easily than trying to setup an unflawed double blind test. Some examples, if the difference file is at -100dB (or lower) we don't need to do a listening test because for that difference to be audible (above or just within the noise floor) would require peak playback levels of around 120-140dBSPL which even if possible would be dangerous/damaging, so logically it's inaudible. Or, even if the difference file is quite high in level, say -30dB, if virtually all the that difference is above say 17kHz then we don't need to do a listening test, because there have already been numerous listening tests which unequivocally demonstrate that even with excellent hearing, we need very high levels and to achieve that even in theory would put us back into the damaging range. Or, if we have some distortion in our difference file, we can simply go online and test if we can hear distortion at those levels. I seem to remember Ethan Weiner had such a test online and if I remember correctly -70dB was about the absolute limit that anyone could detect. So if we've got -80dB (or lower) of distortion then it's inaudible or better still, just take the test yourself and find your personal level of sensitivity. If your sensitivity is average, say -50dB or so, if the null difference file shows distortion at say -65dB (or lower) then for you personally, it will definitely, without question be inaudible.
> 
> A null test gives us precisely and objectively what the difference is and while it doesn't necessarily tell us if the difference is audible, it does often tell us that the difference is inaudible and often, it tells us this unequivocally! So I don't really understand why there appears to be such a feeling against doing null tests here and such a reliance on double blind testing, which is more time consuming, more difficult to setup without error and less reliable as an absolute answer without a significant sample size. Certainly in the audio engineering community it is one of the most commonly used tests but here I hardly ever see it even mentioned, let alone actually done?
> 
> G



Is there any published research to generate and analyze these difference files?


----------



## KeithEmo

Unfortunately, while null tests are "very nice in theory" - they are VERY difficult to perform in some situations.
Also, to be quite honest, they often produce very misleading results - in both directions.
(it worked very well, for analog amplifiers, and for making relatively large differences more audible, and easier to measure.)

Null testing is relatively easy with analog amplifiers.
Most analog amplifiers are very flat, most have very little time delay, and most have analog inputs.
This makes it very easy to send the same exact signal to two of them, and subtract their outputs.
(You can use a splitter to send the exact same signal to both... and both outputs arrive at the same time... so all you need to do is match the levels and feed them into a diff amp.)

However, note that, even then, the results can be confusing.
Let's say you do a null test on two amplifiers and find what calculates out to a 5% difference.
If that difference was because one had 0.1% THD, while the other had 5.1% THD, they would sound very different.
And, if the output signal from one was silent, while the other was 5% noise floor, that noise would be very obvious.
it would also be quite possible that two amplifiers, with the same _percentage_ of noise or distortion, but of different characteristics, could sound very different.
However, what if one or both of those amplifiers simply wasn't perfectly flat?
A 5% difference in amplitude at certain frequencies would work out to a small fraction of a dB in "non-flat frequency response" - and would almost certainly be inaudible.

DACs are much more complicated...

First off, you can't simply use a signal splitter to "send the same signal to two DACs".
With USB inputs, the DAC sets the timing, and you simply cannot "split the signal".
Many DACs also include internal processes, like ASRCs, that introduce significant delay to the signal.
And the drivers inside most computers also introduce different, and sometimes long, delays.
This applies to both the USB and the other inputs.
Therefore, trying to "fiddle things" so the analog outputs of two DACs align within a fraction of a sample would be extremely difficult.

Now, as for your suggestion that "you could just sample the musical signal every microsecond".
Well, for starters, in order to sample every microsecond, you actually have to do so.
To take one sample every microsecond you need an analog-to-digital converter with a 1 mHz sample rate.
And, if you don't want your test equipment to obscure your results, its other performance characteristics have to be BETTER than the DACs you're trying to compare.
So, an ADC, that can sample at 1 mHz, with at least 24 bits of resolution, perfectly flat frequency response, and THD out in the triple digits.
(You're talking a VERY expensive piece of test equipment.)

There is some software that allows you to adjust the timing of two signals to line up so you can compare them.
(There is at least one piece of software that analyzes the difference between two samples and allows you to null out "fractional sample offsets".)
However, if you use a sample rate similar to your input signal, such adjustments will themselves involve filtering and smoothing... 
(And comparing two signals, after one or both has been filtered and re-sampled, isn't really a valid way to compare them if you're looking for small differences.)

It would certainly be possible to design a test system that delivered the same digital audio to two different DACs...
With some way to adjust the time offset to line them up so they can be nulled.
But it's not something a hobbyist is going to have.



Phronesis said:


> Let me ask a dumb question.  To compare the analogue outputs of two DACs, is it possible to sample the musical signals say every microsecond and compare the amplitudes to see how much the signals differ?  I'm assuming that the signals are aligned in time and scaled to generally match amplitude.  I believe @gregorio has talked about a null test or something along those lines which might address my question, but I don't know the details.  If the analog signals can be shown to essentially the same, that would conclusively indicate that they must sound the same also.


----------



## KeithEmo

Audio Difference software......

Here's software designed to detect and extract the differences between two audio recordings.
From the description, it should be able to detect any differences between different versions or an audio file, regardless of why they appear.
They recommend it for detecting, extracting, and amplifying the differences between _any_ two versions of the same audio content.
It also has the ability to provide you with both "a difference file" and a package containing both the samples and the analysis results.
Of course, it's ability to detect differences is going to be limited by the recording hardware itself.

The program has excellent provenance... and an AES paper to go with it...
And, best of all, it's free.
And they even included several interesting examples.

http://www.libinst.com/Audio DiffMaker.htm

I would STRONGLY suggest reading the "slides" that go with it....
(They cover many of the strengths - and limitations - of the differencing process.)

http://www.libinst.com/Detecting Differences (slides).pdf



Phronesis said:


> Is there any published research to generate and analyze these difference files?


----------



## Phronesis

Thanks for the responses on the null test.  I figured it was wishful thinking, and that the problems would be along the lines you all mentioned, hence my qualifying it as a dumb question.


----------



## Steve999

KeithEmo said:


> Audio Difference software......
> 
> Here's software designed to detect and extract the differences between two audio recordings.
> From the description, it should be able to detect any differences between different versions or an audio file, regardless of why they appear.
> ...



Extremely cool. Thanks, Keith!!


----------



## Indiana

Enjoy the silence.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> it gets to the point where each thinks it should be obvious to the other person, and everyone else who may be listening, that they're right. So if the other person doesn't concede, they're ignorant, stupid, and/or disingenuous. The problem is that both sides feel that way, so each side just needs to live with the other side not conceding.



No, that's why we have science in the first place! If one person asserts one belief and another person asserts another, who has some reliable evidence to support their assertion? This is not a religion forum, we are not arguing about which god is the one true god. If we were, then indeed we would have to live with the other side not conceding but as this is the sound Science forum then a claim, which is refuted and/or contradicts the known facts, has to be supported with reliable evidence. Notice that my post, which you quoted, did not mention anything about belief or even who is right and who is wrong, just the requirement to support a claim (which is refuted with reliable evidence/the known facts) with at least some reliable evidence of it's own and the eventual consequences of just repeating the claim while refusing to provide any such evidence.



Phronesis said:


> Is there any published research to generate and analyze these difference files?



Certainly there is plenty of information out there explaining what a null test is and how to do one. Here's one of many examples.
How to analyse the difference file is simply a case of using a measurement tool, initially a peak meter and a spectral analysis, and then any other appropriate tool if necessary. I'm not sure about where to find the published research on this. In the case of say a spectral analysis one would have to go back to the papers published a couple of hundred years or so ago by Fourier. Today we don't generally do so, it's an accepted "known fact" because it was proven a long time ago and no one since has ever found any reliable evidence to suggest it might be incorrect.



KeithEmo said:


> With USB inputs, the DAC sets the timing, and you simply cannot "split the signal". ... Therefore, trying to "fiddle things" so the analog outputs of two DACs align within a fraction of a sample would be extremely difficult.



We do not need to "split the signal", just record the output of one DAC, then replace that DAC with another DAC and record the output of that one, then align the two recordings in a DAW/Audio Editor. So, we do not need to "fiddle things so the analogue outputs of the two DACs align within a fraction of a sample", they don't have to match to even a second.


KeithEmo said:


> [1] Now, as for your suggestion that "you could just sample the musical signal every microsecond". .. Well, for starters, in order to sample every microsecond, you actually have to do so.
> [2] And, if you don't want your test equipment to obscure your results, its other performance characteristics have to be BETTER than the DACs you're trying to compare.
> [3] It would certainly be possible to design a test system that delivered the same digital audio to two different DACs...
> [3a] With some way to adjust the time offset to line them up so they can be nulled.
> [3b] But it's not something a hobbyist is going to have.



1. Well for starters, you don't have to sample every microsecond! You only need a sample rate 2x higher than the highest audio frequency you want to capture, in order to capture 100% of the information. Therefore the only time you need to sample at 1mHz is if you need to capture audio frequencies up to 500kHz, which of course is pointless/irrelevant as far as music and human hearing is concerned.

2. No it doesn't! The test equipment only has to be BETTER if we're measuring the performance of a piece of equipment relative to a notion of perfect performance but that is NOT what a null test does or is for! A null test is for identifying differences between TWO pieces of equipment or audio files and NOT the difference between one piece of equipment and an ideal measurement. A null test eliminates (nulls) everything that is in common to both audio files and leaves only the differences. Therefore even relatively poor test equipment is sufficient for a null test because whatever flaws it has are "in common" to both audio files and are therefore eliminated.

3. Yes it would be possible, pretty much any computer could for example. You'd also need an ADC, to record the output of the DACs.
3a. Say pretty much any free audio editor or there's free software that will do it for you.
3b. Why wouldn't a hobbyist have a computer, an ADC and some free software? There are countless tens of thousands who do, possibly millions.


KeithEmo said:


> There is some software that allows you to adjust the timing of two signals to line up so you can compare them.
> However, if you use a sample rate similar to your input signal, such adjustments will themselves involve filtering and smoothing...



True but again, it does not affect the results because that "filtering and smoothing" will be common to both recordings/audio files and will therefore be eliminated/nulled.

G


----------



## Phronesis

@gregorio, it would helpful to go beyond the theoretical arguments and look at papers which actually compare the analog outputs of two DACs, with analysis of the residual signals.  To your knowledge, has that been done and published?

Regarding your other point, keep in mind that qualified scientists routinely disagree on lots of things, sometimes when looking at the same evidence.  There's always a need for judgment, and sometimes the uncertainty is enough that the 'correct' answer is by no means obvious.  Again, we only need to look at the history of science to see many examples of this.  I _still_ think quantum mechanics and relativity are pretty crazy, but apparently those are the prevailing models despite their very counterintuitive aspects!


----------



## analogsurviver

While searching for "something/anything" that could record simoultaneous video and audio in minimum 48k/16 using smartphone and external mics ( direct, line, usb, ... - whatever ) I stumbled upon these links : 

https://www.wildmountainechoes.com/equipment/audio-recording-with-a-smartphone/

Of particular interest to me was, of course , ultrasound recording : 

https://www.wildmountainechoes.com/equipment/options-for-recording-ultrasounds/

Overall, a very good info with lots of references within those two links - on quite a few topics discussed here . 

@KeithEmo - BIG thanks for the Audio Diff soft. 

I did not have the time to go trough any of the above as thoroughly as deserved - will update/comment when ready.


----------



## bigshot

If a test is misleading, you haven't performed it properly. You just need to up your game with your controls and eliminate the sloppiness.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 26, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> [1] @gregorio, it would helpful to go beyond the theoretical arguments and look at papers which actually compare the analog outputs of two DACs, with analysis of the residual signals.  To your knowledge, has that been done and published?
> [2] Regarding your other point, keep in mind that qualified scientists routinely disagree on lots of things, sometimes when looking at the same evidence.



1. Firstly, I'm not making theoretical arguments, I'm providing information about a practical objective test that does not require expensive specialist tools, is relatively easy to do, very accurate and very widely used. Secondly, it's a simple mathematical process, effectively a signal with a peak at say +50db is phase inverted and summed, what we would have is therefore +50dB + (-50db) = 0dB. There's maybe a published paper somewhere which proves that 50 - 50 = 0 but I consider it to be an accepted "known fact" and can't actually reference such a paper. Thirdly, comparing the relationship between two specific DACs currently on the market would not be a subject of scientific research. That's something a consumer might be interested in, maybe a student or professional user but even consumer or professional magazines are not particularly interested in the difference between two specific DACs, they're typically interested in the difference between a single DAC and some notion of "ideal", but there would be no interest from the world of science either to research it (which is too trivial) or to publish the results.

2. Yes but what has keeping that in mind got to do with it? This situation has nothing to do with different interpretations of the scientific/reliable evidence, this is about one side of the dispute contradicting the known facts/science WITHOUT any reliable evidence in the first place. You should keep in mind that generally scientists would NEVER publicly disagree on ANY factual matter if they had no evidence whatsoever and they DEFINITELY would never contradict known facts without a very substantial amount of almost bulletproof evidence!

G


----------



## bigshot

If you want to know the truth you do simple tests to verify that. If you want to prop up a lie, the best way to do that is to try to knock down other people’s tests that have results you don’t like. Everyone should decide for themselves which side they’re on.


----------



## KeithEmo

If you plan to do any sort of comparison based on recordings then the quality of the recording _MUST_ be good enough that it doesn't obscure the information you're trying to compare.
For example, you cannot perform a null test on two amplifiers, both with a THD of approximately 1%, using a sound card whose THD is 5%.
The error produced by your recording signal chain will so exceed what you're trying to measure as to make proper analysis impossible.
In theory, if _ALL_ of the errors introduced by your test equipment were _perfectly_ consistent and _perfectly_ repeatable, they would cancel out....
However, in practice, that is rarely entirely true even with good quality test gear, and far from a realistic expectation with low quality gear.

As a broad generalization, at the very least, to perform a valid null, you must ensure that your test equipment _WILL NOT_ obscure the information you're comparing.
For example, if you try to compare the outputs of two amplifiers, using a sound card whose frequency response only extends to 10 kHz, you will get "a perfect null above 10 kHz".
However, that null will be false, and due to nothing other than the inadequacy of your test equipment.
(All you will have proven is that your test equipment is equally incapable of measuring the output of either device above 10 kHz.)

And, yes, if you wish to perform a null on a 20 kHz sine wave, sampled at a 44k sample rate, you will need to "align your samples" somewhere to within a small fraction of a sample.
A misalignment of a single sample at a 44k sample rate will result in a phase shift well over 100 degrees to a 20 kHz tone...which will give you a very poor null.
(Incidentally, when you perform that "alignment" in software, you are comparing interpolated rather than actual data... so you have those errors to worry about.)

If you check out the AES paper that goes with the "diff" program I posted, you will find that they explain a lot of this.
The paper goes into some detail to explain how difficult it is to achieve a good quality null and why this is the case.
It also explains how the authors of that program addressed many of them... and to what degree they were successful.

I should also note that, according to the authors, the biggest problem with performing nulls is NOT false nulls.
The biggest problem is that it's almost impossible to achieve even a reasonably accurate null... 
Therefore, rather than containing nothing, the difference file most often contains significant differences that probably aren't audible.



gregorio said:


> No, that's why we have science in the first place! If one person asserts one belief and another person asserts another, who has some reliable evidence to support their assertion? This is not a religion forum, we are not arguing about which god is the one true god. If we were, then indeed we would have to live with the other side not conceding but as this is the sound Science forum then a claim, which is refuted and/or contradicts the known facts, has to be supported with reliable evidence. Notice that my post, which you quoted, did not mention anything about belief or even who is right and who is wrong, just the requirement to support a claim (which is refuted with reliable evidence/the known facts) with at least some reliable evidence of it's own and the eventual consequences of just repeating the claim while refusing to provide any such evidence.
> 
> Certainly there is plenty of information out there explaining what a null test is and how to do one. Here's one of many examples.
> How to analyse the difference file is simply a case of using a measurement tool, initially a peak meter and a spectral analysis, and then any other appropriate tool if necessary. I'm not sure about where to find the published research on this. In the case of say a spectral analysis one would have to go back to the papers published a couple of hundred years or so ago by Fourier. Today we don't generally do so, it's an accepted "known fact" because it was proven a long time ago and no one since has ever found any reliable evidence to suggest it might be incorrect.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

As you say, the best possible experiment would be to compare a DAC to "some notion of ideal".
However, while doing this with a single DAC is impossible (because we have no "perfect reference"), that isn't at all true for the complete signal chain.

The asserted goal of the entire reproduction process is "to produce an exact replica of the original".
And, in fact, we do have "a perfect reference" with which to compare the entire process.
That perfect reference is simply a short piece of wire.
(Remember the old definition of "a high fidelity component" as "a straight wire with gain".)

All I need to do is to take an analog signal and split it into two equal signals.
One signal is passed through an A/D, and converted to a digital audio signal, then converted back into analog using a DAC...
I then compare that output to the signal that is passed ONLY through a short piece of wire...
If both the ADC and the DAC are "perfectly transparent" then the output of the DAC should produce a perfect null with the output of the wire...

If the output is anything other than a perfect null, then either our ADC, or our DAC, or both, are _NOT_ "transparent".
(Unfortunately, if we do get a perfect null, we cannot rule out the possibility that the ADC and the DAC individually have flaws that happen to cancel out... but it's a start.)

However, we would absolutely expect to get a perfect null with any combination of "audibly transparent ADC" and "audibly transparent DAC".
So, assuming that the majority of both ADCs and DACs really are "audibly transparent", we should have no trouble finding a combination that produce that result.
(It seems as if it should be quite simple to provide proof for the claim that "most ADCs and most DACs are audibly transparent - and all sound the same".)



gregorio said:


> 1. Firstly, I'm not making theoretical arguments, I'm providing information about a practical objective test that does not require expensive specialist tools, is relatively easy to do, very accurate and very widely used. Secondly, it's a simple mathematical process, effectively a signal with a peak at say +50db is phase inverted and summed, what we would have is therefore +50dB + (-50db) = 0dB. There's maybe a published paper somewhere which proves that 50 - 50 = 0 but I consider it to be an accepted "known fact" and can't actually reference such a paper. Thirdly, comparing the relationship between two specific DACs currently on the market would not be a subject of scientific research. That's something a consumer might be interested in, maybe a student or professional user but even consumer or professional magazines are not particularly interested in the difference between two specific DACs, they're typically interested in the difference between a single DAC and some notion of "ideal", but there would be no interest from the world of science either to research it (which is too trivial) or to publish the results.
> 
> 2. Yes but what has keeping that in mind got to do with it? This situation has nothing to do with different interpretations of the scientific/reliable evidence, this is about one side of the dispute contradicting the known facts/science WITHOUT any reliable evidence in the first place. You should keep in mind that generally scientists would NEVER publicly disagree on ANY factual matter if they had no evidence whatsoever and they DEFINITELY would never contradict known facts without a very substantial amount of almost bulletproof evidence!
> 
> G


----------



## analogsurviver

http://www.artalabs.hr/

Currently limited to 192/24 PCM ( getting too slow for today... ) - but still a verry usable tool. It provides for self testing of ADC/DAC aka soundcard. The best measuring soundcard in existence I
know of is Chinese - at around 500 or so prior shipping/customs. Should check my bookmarks ... - but it is at least an order of magnitude better than anything else.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> 1. Firstly, I'm not making theoretical arguments, I'm providing information about a practical objective test that does not require expensive specialist tools, is relatively easy to do, very accurate and very widely used. Secondly, it's a simple mathematical process, effectively a signal with a peak at say +50db is phase inverted and summed, what we would have is therefore +50dB + (-50db) = 0dB. There's maybe a published paper somewhere which proves that 50 - 50 = 0 but I consider it to be an accepted "known fact" and can't actually reference such a paper. Thirdly, comparing the relationship between two specific DACs currently on the market would not be a subject of scientific research. That's something a consumer might be interested in, maybe a student or professional user but even consumer or professional magazines are not particularly interested in the difference between two specific DACs, they're typically interested in the difference between a single DAC and some notion of "ideal", but there would be no interest from the world of science either to research it (which is too trivial) or to publish the results.



What I'm looking for are actual examples of properly conducted and analyzed null tests comparing DACs, using test equipment which is good enough for that purpose.  Compare a budget DAC with an expensive and well regarded one, that sort of thing.  Can you provide such examples?


----------



## bigshot

Gregorio is a professional. He isn't just someone anonymously coming into a forum spouting his most off about boloney. He's not making extraordinary claims. On the contrary, he's stating facts that are consistent with what other professional sound engineers say. If a duffer on the sidelines think he's wrong about something, they can do a test and prove it for themselves. No one HAS to do a test. People who want to know the truth WANT to do tests.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> What I'm looking for are actual examples of properly conducted and analyzed null tests comparing DACs, using test equipment which is good enough for that purpose.  Compare a budget DAC with an expensive and well regarded one, that sort of thing.  Can you provide such examples?


that's not going to get you anywhere as the difference could be anything and being a mix of 2 sound sources, it will make analyzing it more complicated, not easier.  just take THD in a source in general(not DACs as they tend to measure very well for THD). depending on the frequency, and the actual music playing at the same time, the expected threshold of audibility is going to change. and then, even or odd harmonics because they're more or less pleasing, will also change how noticeable the change will be to us. so while we very much know how to measure THD and understand it, when it comes to correlating that with audibility, it's difficult to just draw a global line between audible and inaudible. and it's the same for a bunch of audio variables. 
now imagine that same problem, but you've subtracted 2 different sound sources. how do you analyze the residual signal? aside from the general level properly showing the difference as it should, there isn't much to say. at least as far as I know(so not too far ^_^).


----------



## KeithEmo

Agreed....

However, assuming that both the ADC and the DAC are "audibly transparent" we would expect the difference to be very small.
(If there are very obvious, and very audible, differences - then that result would be self-explanatory.)



castleofargh said:


> that's not going to get you anywhere as the difference could be anything and being a mix of 2 sound sources, it will make analyzing it more complicated, not easier.  just take THD in a source in general(not DACs as they tend to measure very well for THD). depending on the frequency, and the actual music playing at the same time, the expected threshold of audibility is going to change. and then, even or odd harmonics because they're more or less pleasing, will also change how noticeable the change will be to us. so while we very much know how to measure THD and understand it, when it comes to correlating that with audibility, it's difficult to just draw a global line between audible and inaudible. and it's the same for a bunch of audio variables.
> now imagine that same problem, but you've subtracted 2 different sound sources. how do you analyze the residual signal? aside from the general level properly showing the difference as it should, there isn't much to say. at least as far as I know(so not too far ^_^).


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> that's not going to get you anywhere as the difference could be anything and being a mix of 2 sound sources, it will make analyzing it more complicated, not easier.  just take THD in a source in general(not DACs as they tend to measure very well for THD). depending on the frequency, and the actual music playing at the same time, the expected threshold of audibility is going to change. and then, even or odd harmonics because they're more or less pleasing, will also change how noticeable the change will be to us. so while we very much know how to measure THD and understand it, when it comes to correlating that with audibility, it's difficult to just draw a global line between audible and inaudible. and it's the same for a bunch of audio variables.
> now imagine that same problem, but you've subtracted 2 different sound sources. how do you analyze the residual signal? aside from the general level properly showing the difference as it should, there isn't much to say. at least as far as I know(so not too far ^_^).





KeithEmo said:


> Agreed....
> 
> However, assuming that both the ADC and the DAC are "audibly transparent" we would expect the difference to be very small.
> (If there are very obvious, and very audible, differences - then that result would be self-explanatory.)



OK, so that leaves me confused.  You guys seem to be saying the test can't really be done in a conclusive way (which fits my non-expert expectation), whereas @gregorio seems to be saying that these null tests are easily and commonly done and can rule out audible differences pretty conclusively.  If the latter is true, that would be GREAT, because it could potentially put an end to a lot of debates which seem to be based on hypotheses, but we need to see some examples of it actually being done.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> OK, so that leaves me confused.  You guys seem to be saying the test can't really be done in a conclusive way (which fits my non-expert expectation), whereas @gregorio seems to be saying that these null tests are easily and commonly done and can rule out audible differences pretty conclusively.  If the latter is true, that would be GREAT, because it could potentially put an end to a lot of debates which seem to be based on hypotheses, but we need to see some examples of it actually being done.


subtracting 2 signals is easy. the potential difficulty if we're only dealing with the analog domain, is going to align the gain and timing properly. if we start looking at the difference between 2 signals shifted in time, then even identical stuff are going to show a lot of residual mess. in that respect some tests can be tricky. now if it's just recording stuff and doing the difference on the computer, then of course that's easy. be it good old audio diffmaker or any DAW where you bother aligning the recording very precisely.
how easy it is to do it is relative to what you're actually doing. pick a specific question a specific context and then you might get only one answer on how hard it is and how informative is will be.

as for the interpretation, Greg simply meant that when you get a residual signal down at -90dB, you don't need a lot of expertise to conclude that the 2 outputs are indeed very very similar. and if someone is going to crazy about how music stored on his 2 hard drives sound different, you can pick that signal anywhere you like along the playback chain, and the result will probably not leave too much to interpretation ^_^. but as far as objectively analyzing resulting signal or interpreting it when we do get significant stuff... it's clear to me that measuring each signal independently would provide so much more information. even more so if we can run some test signals instead of random music.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 26, 2018)

Here's a good test! Anyone want to help me do it? This would be fun.

Take the analogue output of a DAC run it into a current ADC and capture it. Normalize the original file and the converted and reconverted file and do a line level matched, direct A/B switched listening test to see if you can clearly tell which one is which.


----------



## KeithEmo

Tests, and their results, are often less conclusive than we might like.
It's also frequently the case that, while a certain result may prove something one way, the opposite result may not prove the opposite case.
And, quite often, test results provide support of one claim, or fail to do so, but fall short of being conclusive.

Let's go with my simple suggestion.
Take an analog signal, put it through an A/D converter, then put the resulting digital audio through a D/A converter.
Now let's compare the result to the original signal using DiffMaker.
Assuming that both the A/D and the D/A are really audibly transparent, we would expect a very clean null, with any difference information at a very low level.

Let's say we do the test, with one particular A/D and DAC, and get a null that is perfect down to -95 dB...
Well then, at least for those test conditions, we can conclude that the combination we're testing is very likely audibly transparent.
(While it's possible that the A/D and the DAC both have awful errors that just happen to cancel out, or that the tiny difference is remarkably annoying, it's not very likely.)
Now, if we do that same test, with a dozen different combinations of A/Ds and DACs, and get the same result, all of our results support the claim that they're all transparent.
(It's very unlikely that multiple units, made by different manufacturers, would have errors that happen to cancel out perfectly.)
And, if we do all those tests with a bunch of different types of music, we further increase the odds that we haven't missed anything.

But, what if we do the test, and only get a null at -15 dB?
Well, to be honest, we probably haven't proven much.
It's quite possible that our failure to get a good null really means that the units we tested simply aren't audibly transparent after all.
But it's also possible that the flaws in our test methodology have prevented us from getting an accurate result.
It's also possible that, even at a mere -15 dB, the differences are really there, but are so innocuous they are inaudible anyway.
(We might consider running a different test, where we deliberately introduce errors at that level, and see if they're audible or not.)

The first test, especially after we ran it under multiple conditions, has produced a relatively conclusive result.
The second test has simply produced a less conclusive result.
It hasn't proven that anybody was wrong... it has simply failed to prove that anybody was right.

As someone mentioned in another post, using test signals instead of music would probably be easier, but we need to be careful to choose the proper test signals.
When people started testing amplifiers, especially for distortion, most of the tests were done using sine waves... for several reasons.
First, it's relatively easy to generate a very clean sine wave as a test sample.
Second, it turns out to be very easy to detect even low levels of THD with sine waves.
You send a sine wave into the amplifier at a particular frequency, you pass the output through a filter that BLOCKS that frequency; whatever is left must be distortion.
(This is exactly how most analog distortion analyzers work; it's very simple - and quite effective. However, it gives you a single number for "THD", with no details.)
And, finally, it turns out that the sorts of distortion common to amplifiers, especially primitive ones, virtually always show up when you test with sine waves.
So, for analog amplifiers, THD testing with sine waves is relatively effective, and relatively effective.

However, that doesn't mean that it is either effective or appropriate for testing other devices.
For example, when we do that simple null-based THD test, we don't test for frequency variations.
There's a good reason for that: 
Analog amplifiers don't cause frequency shifts in sine waves, so there's no reason to test for it, or to use a test that is sensitive to it.
However, both tape transports and turntables _ARE_ prone to speed variations.... 
Sok, if we want to learn anything about the performance of tape transports and turntables, we're going to need a different test.
We'll ask both to play a sine wave of a very accurately known frequency and monitor the frequency at the output for variations.
(This would be pointless with an analog amplifier - because they don't ever cause speed variations.)

It turns out that most DACs are able to reproduce sine waves very accurately... whcih is why most DACs have such excellent THD specs.
However, DACs vary widely in how accurately they handle transients, and sudden changes, in audio signals...
And, beyond variations in "accuracy", they also vary in the sorts of errors they introduce with these sort of signals...
Therefore, to test DACs, we need to use a test signal designed to make it possible to detect the sorts of errors they cause.
We would probably want to use a signal with short bursts of different tones, some overlapping, and short sharp clicks and ticks.
(Note that these sorts of sounds are still characteristic of music - they're just specifically selected to be characteristic of the parts of music that different DACs handle differently.) 

Part of designing "a good test" is determining exactly what you're trying to measure or detect...
And then designing a test methodfology that will best enable you to measure or test it...
And that test methodology includes test signals or samples carefully designed to highlight rather than obscure what you're trying to test. 
(If you want to test whether a new preservative has a taste, you perform the test by adding tiny amounts to pure water, which has no taste of it's own... 
That will give you the most sensitive results; you don't add it to whiskey, which has a strong taste of its own, and is likely to cover it up. )



Phronesis said:


> OK, so that leaves me confused.  You guys seem to be saying the test can't really be done in a conclusive way (which fits my non-expert expectation), whereas @gregorio seems to be saying that these null tests are easily and commonly done and can rule out audible differences pretty conclusively.  If the latter is true, that would be GREAT, because it could potentially put an end to a lot of debates which seem to be based on hypotheses, but we need to see some examples of it actually being done.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 27, 2018)

Tests are more conclusive that paragraph after paragraph of unsubstantiated blather in internet forums. Let's prove it. Come up with something that sounds different. Let's get together and test it.


----------



## Don Hills

KeithEmo said:


> ... DACs vary widely in how accurately they handle transients, and sudden changes, in audio signals...
> And, beyond variations in "accuracy", they also vary in the sorts of errors they introduce with these sort of signals...
> ...



You state this as a fact, which implies you've either done these tests or have seen test results showing this. Do you have some pointers to the results, or is it something to add to the list of things to be tested?


----------



## analogsurviver

Don Hills said:


> You state this as a fact, which implies you've either done these tests or have seen test results showing this. Do you have some pointers to the results, or is it something to add to the list of things to be tested?



Any digital - much more so than analog, although they are by no means exempted - device will show its true colours when pushed to the limit. In digital, that means operation close to the half Nyquist frequency. Here, one has to decide which type of filtration will be applied - and chip manufacturers are likely to throw in several options - which may or may not be (all) available in a finished DAC or, much rarer, ADC. 

Create a decent approximation to a square wave ( any decent signal generator should exceed the bandwidth of even the fastests ADCs/DACs of today ) , record it to some media using as fast sampling rate as you have available - and you have your test signal. In a single DAC that does allow various output filters, you can observe the output on the (fast, analogue ) oscilloscope - and you should clearly see the difference(s). Testing using digital methods will, invariably, stumble upon the practical limitationds at present - ADCs are about of equal quality as DACs, meaning there will be no way measuring only the DAC, either for distortion, noise - but particularly for the frequency response.

20-20K using steady state sine wave may well look and measure exactly the same - but with real music, transient behaviour will be VERY audible.

Filtering is audible on top systems - no such thing as the "best" filtering, only the one that best suits the system it is driving. At present....

For the filtering to cease being the problem, sampling rate of digital has to be increased - to the levels most of the objectivists would deem ludicrous. 

Put another way, that would be quoting Nelson Pass in his brochure of the SL-10 preamplifier ( still one hell of a preamp, 30+ years later ) : 

" To remove from realm of possibility that .... ( put here any parameter applicable to audio ) will influence the performance in an audible way, we have reduced ( ... ) to at least an order of magnitude below the accepted threshold of audibility. "

It is impossible to do that with digital - not today. For a 100 khz "perfect" response, that would mean - at least - 2 MHz sampling in PCM.


----------



## Arpiben

@analogsurviver 
Please do us a favour by updating your knowledge in digital data as well as available test equipment or methods.
Thanks.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 27, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] The asserted goal of the entire reproduction process is "to produce an exact replica of the original". And, in fact, we do have "a perfect reference" with which to compare the entire process. That perfect reference is simply a short piece of wire.
> [1a] (Remember the old definition of "a high fidelity component" as "a straight wire with gain".)
> [2] If the output is anything other than a perfect null, then either our ADC, or our DAC, or both, are _NOT_ "transparent".



1. How is a short piece of wire a "perfect reference"? How does a short piece of wire "reproduce an exact replica of the original", you need at least a DAC to do that! In the real world, we use various electronic components to achieve "the entire reproduction process". A short piece of wire could only be a perfect reference in some fantasy universe in which the laws of physics do not apply, because in the real universe electronic components generate thermal noise.
1a. That's presumably an audiophile "old definition" because in the real world, according to the laws of physics, "a straight wire" cannot create any gain! In the real world then, "a straight wire with gain" therefore means a straight wire PLUS an amplifier, which contains an electronic circuit with multiple components and therefore thermal noise.

2. According to the laws of physics, there could never be a perfect null between "a short piece of wire" and two short pieces of wire + ADC + DAC because we would always have a difference file containing at the very least, the thermal noise of both the ADC and the DAC. With any competently designed ADC or DAC, you're not going to hear that thermal noise though, to hear it should require playback levels high enough to be damaging. Therefore, although we would not have a perfect null it should absolutely be audibly transparent. *Are you saying that Emotiva DACs are incompetently designed*, that the thermal noise which would show up in the difference file of your null test is NOT audibly transparent?



KeithEmo said:


> Let's say we do the test, with one particular A/D and DAC, and get a null that is perfect down to -95 dB...
> Well then, at least for those test conditions, we can conclude that the combination we're testing is very likely audibly transparent.
> [1] (While it's possible that the A/D and the DAC both have awful errors that just happen to cancel out, or
> [2] that the tiny difference is remarkably annoying, it's not very likely.)



1. It maybe possible in theory but would be extremely unlikely in practice. The probability of the ADC and DAC having precisely the same "awful errors" at precisely the same magnitude are unlikely to say the least. However, none of that really matters because the old audiophile trick of performing a test improperly and then claiming the test is useless doesn't wash here! A null test works by keeping the signal chain identical, the only thing that changes is the single piece of equipment being tested, everything else is therefore "in common" and is nulled, leaving us with the difference of ONLY the equipment being tested. So in the case of null testing differences between ADCs, we wouldn't even have a DAC in the testing chain, we'd just take the digital output of the two different ADCs into a DAW and perform the null-test on those two signals. And in the case of testing the difference between DACs, we'd feed both different DACs with exactly the same digital signal and then record the analogue output from both of them with exactly the same ADC (thereby "nulling" the ADC).

2. What do you mean "not very likely"? How is it EVER possible for a difference which is inaudible to be "remarkably annoying"? Of course, we could boost the music to a level where -95dB is audible but then you've got a level well beyond uncomfortable and into the damaging/painful area, which I suggest is way more "remarkably annoying" than some flaw/distortion/noise which would be barely audible!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] But, what if we do the test, and only get a null at -15 dB? Well, to be honest, we probably haven't proven much.
> It's quite possible that our failure to get a good null really means that the units we tested simply aren't audibly transparent after all.
> ... It's also possible that, even at a mere -15 dB, the differences are really there, but are so innocuous they are inaudible anyway.



1. "Well, to be [really] honest", you simply don't know that! For example, if your -15dB energy is virtually all above say 40kHz, then clearly would we have proven a great deal, unless you're suggesting that we can hear above 40kHz and therefore not attained "audible transparency"?

AGAIN, the difference file can often tell us a great deal. A low level difference file tells us the difference cannot be heard (except at unreasonable/dangerous playback levels) and when the level of the difference file is much higher, we can compare a spectral analysis of it against the already completed science (equal loudness contours being just one example) and reach a similar determination. The advantages should be OBVIOUS:
1. It's quick and relatively easy to do a null test and it's very sensitive/accurate.
2. We may have arrived at an answer to the question of "are there audible differences" using ONLY an objective measurement + the established science, thereby eliminating all our personal perceptual, cognitive and other biases AND any possibility of some statistical error/anomaly with a sample size of one.
3. Even if the difference file does not give us a conclusive answer and therefore a listening test is indicated, we still haven't wasted our time doing the null test because the two recordings we've created and aligned are "ready to go" as the A and B files with which to perform an ABX test and, it has also told us where to listen for differences.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] However, DACs vary widely in how accurately they handle transients, and sudden changes, in audio signals...Therefore, to test DACs, we need to use a test signal designed to make it possible to detect the sorts of errors they cause.
> [2] We would probably want to use a signal with short bursts of different tones, some overlapping, and short sharp clicks and ticks. (Note that these sorts of sounds are still characteristic of music - they're just specifically selected to be characteristic of the parts of music that different DACs handle differently.)



1. Why do you "therefore" need to design a test signal "to make it possible to detect" these inaccuracies if, as you effectively state, they are so large and obvious ("vary widely in how accurately ..")? Surely it's exactly the other way around: If these inaccuracies are so large and obvious when reproducing music, therefore you DO NOT need to design a test signal to make it possible to detect them?

2. Typically, square waves or Dirac pulses are used as these test signals, which contrary to your assertion, are NOT "still characteristic of music", as has been explained (and supported with evidence) many times on this forum and even already in this thread! There are some rare examples of square waves being employed in commercial music recordings (Stockhausen in the 1950's being the first example I'm aware of) but we cannot simply ignore the obvious fact that the musicians/engineers also heard these square waves through a DAC (or the technology of their day) and therefore expected/intended them to also be reproduced "inaccurately". Lastly but not leastly, the majority of the energy in these "inaccuracies", is in the extremely high/ultrasonic region and is therefore inaudible anyway!

G


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 27, 2018)

@gregorio, I see that you like complex debates, but can you please provide examples of null tests comparing DACs?  Maybe the residual files have characteristics such that nearly everyone will agree that there’s no way the compared DACs can have ‘night and day’ difference in sound.  This is a case where a claim can and should be supported by empirical evidence, in this case a test which potentially takes the issues of perception mostly out of the picture, and you’re at least implying that such a test can easily be done.

I’m inclined to trust the results of a quality null test which has conclusive results over any blind listening test which brings in the vagaries of perception.  IMO, we should only be relying on listening tests for gear like headphones where we KNOW there will be significant audible differences.


----------



## Steve999

Phronesis said:


> @gregorio, I see that you like complex debates, but can you please provide examples of null tests comparing DACs?  Maybe the residual files have characteristics such that nearly everyone will agree that there’s no way the compared DACs can have ‘night and day’ difference in sound.  This is a case where a claim can and should be supported by empirical evidence, in this case a test which potentially takes the issues of perception mostly out of the picture, and you’re at least implying that such a test can easily be done.
> 
> I’m inclined to trust the results of a quality null test which has conclusive results over any blind listening test which brings in the vagaries of perception.  IMO, we should only be relying on listening tests for gear like headphones where we KNOW there will be significant audible differences.



Don't most of us have a starting point in terms of computers and audio gear where we can do our own null test as a start? Why should the burden of him doing that be on him? When I have a little time I'll try it.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 27, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> Don't most of us have a starting point in terms of computers and audio gear where we can do our own null test as a start? Why should the burden of him doing that be on him? When I have a little time I'll try it.



Seems like, so far, @gregorio is the only one indicating a lot of experience with doing these null tests and expressing confidence that they would show that DACs must sound audibly the same.  So I think the burden falls on him to support the claim with actual test results, just like so many people around here ask others to support their casual listening impressions with blind test results (which seem more difficult to properly conduct and interpret than a null test may be).  After considering the input from others and thinking about it, I myself am not so confident that null tests will settle the matter.


----------



## KeithEmo

Start downloading the data sheets on DAC chips.

You will find that many of them offer multiple filter choices (the top Wolfson chip offers 21 different choices.)
Most DAC vendors are more inclined to provide filter frequency response and phase response graphs.
Companies who sell DACs are more likely to provide oscilloscope pictures of ringing on transients (because they're more visually interesting and impressive).
And many folks - especially on this thread - will argue that "they cannot possibly be _audible_".

However, audible or not, the differences are quite obvious on an oscilloscope, and so will show up in a properly run "difference" comparison.
More specifically, however, they will be visible to some degree on any waveform resembling a sharp pulse or impulse... but totally absent on a continuous sine wave. 

Here's a link to an AES White Paper on the response characteristics of different types of filters.
(_it provides a lot of insight into DAC chip design - and filter considerations_)
http://80.75.67.56/documents/uploads/misc/en/Ultra_High_Performance_DAC_whitepaper.pdf

Note:
1) the paper is somewhat dated
2) it was authored by Wolfson - who is a major manufacturer of DAC _chips
3) _the basic premise is that: _there is no such thing as a perfect DAC filter - so we are simply choosing which compromise we prefer_

As a broad generalization, in any situation where the amplitude or phase response varies with frequency, alterations to the waveform...
- will not show up with a single-frequency sine wave (with a single frequency sine wave the only variation will be in amplitude)
- will cause measurable differences when a test signal containing multiple frequencies is used (and the visible shape of the waveform will be changed)
(If you take a waveform that consists of multiple frequencies, and alter the different frequency components in any way unequally, then you will change the overall waveform.)

Here's a sample data sheet....
https://statics.cirrus.com/pubs/proDatasheet/WM8741_v4.3.pdf

You will see, starting on page 49, a long list of characteristics for the different filter choices on that chip, followed by lots of response graphs.
(You will also note that_ some_ of their options do have a significant effect on the frequency response between 20 Hz and 20 kHz.)

Again, just to remind everyone, at this point I am _NOT_ specifically claiming that those differences will be audible....
However, since they constitute known differences, we can at least use them to validate our test procedure....
(We expect to confirm that a test designed to detect differences will report known differences.)

If you read the white paper itself you will also note an interesting conclusion that is alluded to.
Many filter designs that have other highly desirable characteristics also have a significant roll off near the Nyquist frequency for a given sample rate.
This is offered as justification for using sample rates above 44k.
You avoid having to worry about a roll off near the Nyquist frequency if you simply move the Nyquist frequency further away from the audible frequency range.
And the way to move the Nyquist frequency higher is to use a higher sample rate.
(A sample rate of 44k has a Nyquist frequency of 22 kHz, which is "close to the range of audible frequencies".)



Don Hills said:


> You state this as a fact, which implies you've either done these tests or have seen test results showing this. Do you have some pointers to the results, or is it something to add to the list of things to be tested?


----------



## KeithEmo

In case anybody is actually curious......

The definition of "high fidelity" as ideally being "a straight wire with gain" is indeed a very old definition.
(I've seen it credited to a fellow named Stewart Hegeman who worked for Harman Kardon and Eico.... although I'm not interested in defending or arguing about who deserves the credit.)

It refers to the fact that, for most practical purposes, most people assume that "a straight piece of wire" will not alter an audio signal in any significant way (a straight wire is specified because curved wires have higher inductance).
It is simply asserting that "a true high fidelity amplifier will provide gain - and not alter the signal in any other way".
(It is being assumed that "a straight wire won't alter the signal at all" and "a high fidelity amplifier will do nothing to alter the signal _EXCEPT_ apply gain".

Early null tests were often performed by taking the output of an amplifier, dividing it by the exact amount necessary to cancel out the gain, and nulling the result with the original signal.
(Back in those primitive times the thermal noise of a piece of wire at room temperature was considered to be "insignificant".)

By definition, the most accurate version of anything is clearly the thing itself... therefore, for purposes of comparison, the best possible reference is simply the original.
(If you null something against itself, and get any result other than zero, then that result is either "experimental error" or "error due to the limits of your test equipment or flaws in your test procedure".)

Obviously, until and unless someone figures out how to build audio equipment or test equipment without wires, we are going to have _some_ residual thermal noise.
(And we haven't actually excluded the noise from ions in the air bumping into the wire either... nor electric fields induced in the wire by ions in the air near it moving around.)

"A null test" is simply subtracting any two things - an an attempt to prove that they are identical if the subtraction yields a null (zero) result - ot to extract or measure the difference between them.
Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to perform a null test between an entire reproduction chain and the original.... with the null giving you the total error present in the entire reproduction signal chain.
(If the reproduction was a perfect reproduction, and your test was perfect, you would get a perfect null.)

Null tests are very commonly used, in one form or another, when calibrating equipment.
You use that basic principle when you adjust the DC offset of an amplifier; you compare the output to "0 VDC", and adjust for the best null (output closest to the desired offset of 0v).
It is also quite common to make an adjustment by comparing an output to a known reference voltage - and adjusting the output for as close as possible to a perfect null difference between them.
It's also how virtually all servo-systems works - including biological ones - although the details vary quite widely .
You compare an unknown to a known reference, and generate a correction base don the difference between them.
For example, when you drive a car, you have a picture in your head of where you want the car to go, you look where it's really going, and you "adjust the steering wheel for the best null between where you want to go and where the car is pointing".

You may feel free to perform a null test on anything you like... including individual pieces of equipment, entire signal chains, or even images (digital or analog).
If your asserted goal is to have the entire reproduction chain reproduce the original exactly - it is only sensible and logical to null its output against the original.


----------



## bigshot

Null tests are easy to do. All you need is a sound editing program. Listening tests are easy to do. All they take is a switch box, a way to balance levels and a friend. There really isn't any excuse for not doing simple tests like this. I imagine Gregorio has access to much more flexible equipment and software than the rest of us, but this stuff is pretty basic and most of us have done stuff like this.

It seems the only people who aren't doing simple controlled tests are the ones who post reams of blather questioning how good other people's tests are. That is typical for the barnacles we get around Sound Science sometimes.


----------



## Phronesis

^ @KeithEmo, what you previously said on this seemed clear enough to me.  @gregorio seems to have a habit of nitpicking and misrepresenting for the sake of debate and 'winning' rather than trying to understand what the other person is saying and discuss constructively rather than debating.  It's a bad habit in science, forums, marriage, and life in general.


----------



## Phronesis

It would be nice if people who say tests are 'easy to do' would actually do them, and present the results along with the details of how they did them, so that others can evaluate them and maybe try to replicate them.  I believe that's how SCIENCE normally works!  Otherwise, tests that are merely alluded to or described incompletely are just more unreliable anecdotal stuff.


----------



## KeithEmo

I just noticed something that seems obvious to many people, especially those who have actually designed scientific test protocols, but apparently isn't obvious to everyone....

I have repeatedly heard variations on: "Well, if it's obvious, then you shouldn't need complicated tests or special test files or test equipment to detect it".
While this seems to intuitively make sense - it is in fact often simply not true in practice.

If I were to add a few drops of pepper sauce to your lunch today you would probably notice it immediately.
And, if you were a connoisseur of hot sauce, you might even recognize the brand, or the species of pepper used in it.
However, performing a chemical test on your lunch to identify the species of pepper, or even whether it was present or not, would be far more complex.
A full chemical analysis is prohibitively expensive, and time consuming, and would still yield an incredibly long and detailed list of organic molecules.
The analysis required to compare that list against the constituent components of all known foodstuff and additives would be even more complex.
And still might fail to provide enough detail to identify the species of pepper - which human taste buds seem quite able to do.
(A modern mass spectrometer, attached to a massive library of known chemicals, with the chemical signatures for each, _might_ be able to do this... )

In fact, if specifically tasked with creating a direct test to detect "added pepper sauce" - no competent chemist would approach it that way at all.
Instead, he or she would devise a more specific way to test for pepper sauce.
(It would almost certainly involve doing some research on peppers, determining one or two organic molecules that are _UNIQUE_ to peppers, and just testing for those.)

You will find that neither a hospital, nor a police lab, can "test your blood to see what's in it".
Instead, they will perform a laundry list of specific tests, each designed specifically to test for certain things.

The same holds true for most test procedures and test signals.
When you set out to test for or measure a specific characteristic - you start out by examining it and determining the best way to test for that particular characteristic.
With audio equipment, this is going to entail determining the best test signal to emphasize rather than obscure what you're trying to test, and choosing the best equipment to measure the results with.
For example, if you're looking for steady-state THD in an analog audio amplifier, a sine wave is simple, easy to generate, easy to measure and analyze, and likely to show the particular error you're testing for.
However, using pink noise, and analyzing the results with a spectrum analyzer, while it would tell you a lot about frequency response, would provide very little useful information about THD.
And neither of those would tell us much about high-frequency intermodulation distortion - we use a pair of high-frequency sine waves at different frequencies for that.

It might be nice if we could devise a simple short list of tests that could conclusively "test for everything that a human might be able to hear".
However, so far, we haven't managed to do so.
And starting with a long laundry list of "things we aren't going to bother to test for because we're sure they don't matter" is not a very good start towards learning anything.
You start by testing for everything that might be there.
Then, if it turns out_ NOT_ to be there, you can ignore it.
But, if it is there, _THEN_ you progress to determining its relative importance.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 27, 2018)

An oldie but goodie from six months ago... https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/page-520#post-14242573

"I'm not trying to write a peer-reviewed paper or tell the audio world about a great discovery, just discussing in a forum. If I do blind testing and get more evidence either way, that will be worthwhile."

"A subjective probability is what it is - subjective - and the number can't be viewed as having much precision."

"I want to compare the DAC/amps, so just need two A and B 1/8" or 1/4" input jacks, A/B switch, and one 1/8" or 1/4" output jack."


----------



## bfreedma

Is it just me, or is this going around in circles?  With new irrelevant analogies sporadically salted (or peppered) in.


----------



## Steve999

bfreedma said:


> Is it just me, or is this going around in circles?  With new irrelevant analogies sporadically salted (or peppered) in.



Sounds like I’ll be posting some Billy Preston in the Sound Science music thread tonight!!!!!

Mind if I quote your post as an introduction?


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 27, 2018)

bigshot said:


> An oldie but goodie from six months ago... https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/page-520#post-14242573
> 
> "I'm not trying to write a peer-reviewed paper or tell the audio world about a great discovery, just discussing in a forum. If I do blind testing and get more evidence either way, that will be worthwhile."
> 
> ...



This is a good example to cite.  If you're going to make a strong claim, like all DACs sounding the same or some of them definitely sounding different, you need to back that up with rigorous testing which is properly documented and can be scrutinized by others - the testing could involve objective measurements, subjective listening, or both.  If you're going to make a weaker claim, like 'these two DACs sound different to me', you don't need the same rigor, but people may then have good reasons to doubt the validity of the claim, and even the person making the claim should leave room for misperception.  In the example cited, I did actually follow up by getting a switchbox and doing sighted testing with controls for volume and music segment, and I concluded that I very likely had previously misperceived to a substantial degree.  But what I learned about how my perception works also raised questions about how well the results of such testing (sighted or blinded) do or don't generalize to normal listening.  The science of perception, considering both conscious and subconscious aspects, needs to be brought to deal with that - not easy stuff to deal with, and there's a lot we still don't understand.


----------



## KeithEmo

It almost seems as if several of the participants here simply consider their opinions to be "the obvious truth".
And, yes, they are willing to provide some evidence to support their claims.
However, as humans are prone to do, they tend to overvalue evidence that supports their claims, and unreasonably discount evidence that contradicts them. 
And, as a result, they seem to expect us to believe their claims until and unless absolute proof is provided that they are wrong.

As the old joke sign says: 
"Those of you who think you know everything are very annoying to those of use who do."

However, it seems as if some of us have forgotten that sign is supposed to be _A JOKE_.
(Usually posted on the wall of someone who is willing to admit that they're occasionally wrong, but expects the same from everyone else.)



bfreedma said:


> Is it just me, or is this going around in circles?  With new irrelevant analogies sporadically salted (or peppered) in.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 27, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> It almost seems as if several of the participants here simply consider their opinions to be "the obvious truth".
> And, yes, they are willing to provide some evidence to support their claims.
> However, as humans are prone to do, they tend to overvalue evidence that supports their claims, and unreasonably discount evidence that contradicts them.
> And, as a result, they seem to expect us to believe their claims until and unless absolute proof is provided that they are wrong.
> ...



In my field of engineering, people can die if we get things wrong.  It's much better to say that we're not sure when we're not sure, rather than fooling ourselves and possibly others into thinking that we can be sure.  The scientific research process has the checks and balances of standard detailed ways of presenting findings, peer review, etc. to vet claims so that uncertainties are recognized.  By contrast, in forums like this, you have a lot of people who skip the steps of rigor, or aren't even familiar with what rigor is like, so they just go on fueling their confirmation bias and asserting that they know things with certainty.  I've done research, published in peer-reviewed journals, and presented at professional conferences, and the difference between that world and this forum is pretty stark.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bfreedma said:


> Is it just me, or is this going around in circles?  With new irrelevant analogies sporadically salted (or peppered) in.



I'm expecting to see a reply about how 0 dB is perceived differently by everyone, and so a perfect null would not tell us anything useful.


----------



## bigshot

bfreedma said:


> Is it just me, or is this going around in circles?


----------



## analogsurviver

Arpiben said:


> @analogsurviver
> Please do us a favour by updating your knowledge in digital data as well as available test equipment or methods.
> Thanks.



@arbipen : Please do yourself a favour by removing blinders for everything that is not backed up by tons of peer reviewed papers and everything that is safer than safe safe to parrot ad nuseaum.

You - and the ones who liked your post - have missed not a boat, but continent - of what I have actually tried to convey. Continue like this, and all you will ever know - or will be able to appreciate - will be RBCD Minimundus. It is an equivalent of McDonalds in food.


----------



## bfreedma

Phronesis said:


> In my field of engineering, people can die if we get things wrong.  It's much better to say that we're not sure when we're not sure, rather than fooling ourselves and possibly others into thinking that we can be sure.  The scientific research process has the checks and balances of standard detailed ways of presenting findings, peer review, etc. to vet claims so that uncertainties are recognized.  By contrast, in forums like this, you have a lot of people who skip the steps of rigor, or aren't even familiar with what rigor is like, so they just go on fueling their confirmation bias and asserting that they know things with certainty.  I've done research, published in peer-reviewed journals, and presented at professional conferences, and the difference between that world and this forum is pretty stark.



/Puts Nomex undies on....

In theory, I agree, but for practical purposes and because the primary risk here involves wallet injury, would it make sense to set a slightly lower bar?

If we don't find a rational middle ground between completely subjective opinion/utterly uncontrolled testing and the type of rigor that should be required if lives were involved, I doubt any progress is going to be made.  For example, if we found commonality in results of testing with a reasonable level of control (i.e., controls achievable by the majority of participants here), could we also draw reasonable conclusions while acknowledging that improved testing might require updating those conclusions, particularly for edge cases?

Ironically, it seems that despite the debate, most of the debate participants aren't necessarily radically disagreeing on the likely outcomes.

Just looking for a way we can move the ball rather than continually circling it.


----------



## KeithEmo

I tend to agree.... but a good solution, which should be minimally disagreeable to anyone, is simply to provide detailed QUALIFICATIONS for the claims we make.

For example, if you believe something, and you've seen lots of evidence to support it, then say exactly that. 
But avoid saying that you know it for an absolute fact - or that you _KNOW_ that anyone who disagrees _MUST_ be wrong.
Instead, say: "I believe this, I've seen lots of evidence that supports it, and very little evidence that contradicts it".

For example:
"I've seen several studies whose results suggest that the differences between most well designed DACs fall well below the generally agreed thresholds of human audibility."
"I've also performed some tests myself and can attest to the fact that I was unable to hear any differences."
"While some people insist that they do hear differences, I personally suspect that they are probably the result of bias."
(And feel free to list the documentation for the studies that support your claim....)
That should provide plenty of information for someone to evaluate your claim and decide whether they wish to accept it at face value or continue to do more research.

And, if you're trying to make a case for whether a CONSUMER should PURCHASE that product..... how about:
"These guys conducted a test comparison to see whether a group of participants were able to recognize differences between DACs in blind tests."
"They tested several well known DACs, with a variety of program material, and the participants were unable to detect any difference to any degree of statistical significance."
(Provide as much documentation about the details of the test as you have so others can evaluate for themselves how conclusive they consider the results.)
"I've also conducted my own tests with several DACs, and was unable to hear any difference, so my results agree with theirs."  
"Based on all this evidence, I'm thoroughly convinced that I won't hear any difference, and neither will you."
This should certainly make both your claim, and the evidence you have to back it up, clear to anyone who reads it.

And, likewise, if I am quite convinced that, in an informal sighted listening test, I heard a difference, then I say:
"I conducted an informal, sighted listening test, of these three DACs... and I'm convinced that I heard a difference."
"I realize that bias can be a problem with sighted listening tests, but I am convinced that this difference falls outside the error I expect because of bias."
And I may even say:
"I suspect that the difference I heard may have been due to such and such a difference - which my favorite manufacturer insists is audible".

(And anyone should feel free to point out the flaws of sighted testing, or of any other test that was performed, or to point out the lack of details when they are lacking.)

Notice how nobody misrepresented anything...
And nobody called anyone a liar... or a fool...
And nobody is assuming that any test that falls short of perfect is necessarily wrong or worthless...



bfreedma said:


> /Puts Nomex undies on....
> 
> In theory, I agree, but for practical purposes and because the primary risk here involves wallet injury, would it make sense to set a slightly lower bar?
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 27, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> /Puts Nomex undies on....
> 
> In theory, I agree, but for practical purposes and because the primary risk here involves wallet injury, would it make sense to set a slightly lower bar?
> 
> ...



lol on the nomex ...

Regarding wallet injury, generally I think people need to make their own judgments and decisions about where to spend their money.  For me, that's not a 'cause'.  But I admit that I'm kind of a double agent, because in head-fi outside of Sound Science I do sometimes cast doubt that DACs, amps, and cables make a significant difference, to the extent that I can without getting in trouble with mods.

Regarding the middle ground and drawing conclusions, until real research is done (which may never happen), again I think each person needs to reach their own working conclusions after everyone has had their say.  We don't all have to agree.  But I'd really like to see some good null testing done, because if signals can be demonstrated to be really close to being the same, that could provide some conclusive evidence.

Regarding the likely outcomes, FWIW, here are my current personal non-expert best guesses, based on all the evidence and arguments I've come across so far:

- Recordings make a very big difference.  They range from lousy to amazingly good.
- Source resolution makes a negligible or no difference, once it's almost CD quality or higher (I don't notice an obvious difference between Spotify 320K and Tidal Hi-Fi).  I don't miss vinyl, other than the nostalgia aspect.
- Cables make a negligible or no difference.
- DACs make a negligible or no difference, or a subtle difference at most, unless the design is bad.
- Amps make a negligible or no difference, unless they're underpowered, the design is bad, or they intentionally color the sound (some tube amps?).
- Headphones make a very big difference.  But even here, our ears/brains adapt, so the differences noticed in back to back comparison become less significant for normal listening.

Again, I'd like to see real science done to know which of the above is accurate or not. 

But IMO the most important thing is to listen to music we like, and don't obsess over sound quality: be a musicophile rather than an audiophile.  Good gear isn't that expensive these days, so a lot of these debates are kind of academic in the not-good sense.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 27, 2018)

If someone says that they did a casual comparison of two DACs, cables, amps or transparent file formats and heard a clear difference between them, I would say that is interesting, but unlikely based on my experience. However, I'd be willing to give them advice and help them do a more controlled test that help them find out whether their casual impression is true or not. But if they aren't interested in finding out, and they are more interested in arguing technicalities of testing than actually doing tests, then I'm going to assume they are a know-nothing duffer who isn't worth my time. If I help someone actually do a test and they shrug it off and go back to saying the exact opposite of what they found out doing the test, then I would say that they graduated from duffer to prevaricator. That's fair isn't it?


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I tend to agree.... but a good solution, which should be minimally disagreeable to anyone, is simply to provide detailed QUALIFICATIONS for the claims we make.
> 
> For example, if you believe something, and you've seen lots of evidence to support it, then say exactly that.
> But avoid saying that you know it for an absolute fact - or that you _KNOW_ that anyone who disagrees _MUST_ be wrong.
> ...



That there is some wisdom!


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I tend to agree.... but a good solution, which should be minimally disagreeable to anyone, is simply to provide detailed QUALIFICATIONS for the claims we make.
> 
> For example, if you believe something, and you've seen lots of evidence to support it, then say exactly that.
> But avoid saying that you know it for an absolute fact - or that you _KNOW_ that anyone who disagrees _MUST_ be wrong.
> ...




Adding qualifications will simply lead us back to the same arguments over the qualifications.

I’m suggesting discussing and agreeing on a rational and semi practical testing protocol so that we can produce a larger set of test results to correlate.  Disparate testing methodologies with qualifications won’t achieve that.


----------



## bfreedma

Phronesis said:


> lol on the nomex ...
> 
> Regarding wallet injury, generally I think people need to make their own judgments and decisions about where to spend their money.  For me, that's not a 'cause'.  But I admit that I'm kind of a double agent, because in head-fi outside of Sound Science I do sometimes cast doubt that DACs, amps, and cables make a significant difference, to the extent that I can without getting in trouble with mods.
> 
> ...




I figured you would like the nomex reference.

No real argument, but as stated above, I do think we could generate enough data through rationalized if imperfect testing to support a reasonable “conclusion” with the acknowledgement that the conclusions may be altered by more formalized testing.  Using volume as a substitute for rigor isn’t perfect, but statistical significance will likely be indicative.

As I suspected, your views on component impact largely mirror mine and I surmise are fairly representative.  Differences in recordings and transducers are so much more significant than the rest of the list that they essentially reduce properly operating electronics and cables to meaningless elements of audio reproduction.  Add in the room if we’re including speakers.

All that said, if anyone is capable of performing or funding proper research, I’m all in.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 27, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> But I admit that I'm kind of a double agent



Cool!


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 27, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> Is it just me, or is this going around in circles?  With new irrelevant analogies sporadically salted (or peppered) in.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 27, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> As I suspected, your views on component impact largely mirror mine and I surmise are fairly representative.  Differences in recordings and transducers are so much more significant than the rest of the list that they essentially reduce properly operating electronics and cables to meaningless elements of audio reproduction.  Add in the room if we’re including speakers.



Given these discussions, some of my background with hi-fi may amuse some people.

My dad got me my first hi-fi when I was around 12, about four decades ago (Marantz receiver, Dual turntable with Shure cartridge, Dynaco speakers mounted to the walls).  I was really into this stuff, read Stereophile magazine and other stuff, spent a lot of time at the hi-fi stores, etc.  I remember reading a blind test article on amps in Stereophile where they found that the listeners couldn't distinguish between a cheap solid state receiver vs a very expensive tube amp when blind, but when sighted they described the sound of the cheap receiver with words like 'brittle' and 'lacking depth' whereas the tube amp got words like 'warm' and 'dynamic'.  I never forgot that finding, and since then I always assumed that the only gear that really matters is speakers.  I recall reading something similar for speaker wire also.

Now that I'm revisiting this stuff four decades later, my working conclusion is about the same, but I'm not quite as sure of it as before, though I've gained some good firsthand experience to see how readily I can misperceive due to expectation bias.


----------



## Steve999

Phronesis said:


> But I admit that I'm kind of a double agent





Phronesis said:


> Given these discussions, some of my background with hi-fi may amuse some people.
> 
> My dad got me my first hi-fi when I was around 12, about four decades ago (Marantz receiver, Dual turntable with Shure cartridge, Dynaco speakers mounted to the walls).  I was really into this stuff, read Stereophile magazine and other stuff, spent a lot of time at the hi-fi stores, etc.  I remember reading a blind test article on amps in Stereophile where they found that the listeners couldn't distinguish between a cheap solid state receiver vs a very expensive tube amp when blind, but when sighted they described the sound of the cheap receiver with words like 'brittle' and 'lacking depth' whereas the tube amp got words like 'warm' and 'dynamic'.  I never forgot that finding, and since then I always assumed that the only gear that really matters is speakers.  I recall reading something similar for speaker wire also.
> 
> Now that I'm revisiting this stuff four decades later, my working conclusion is about the same, but I'm not quite as sure of it as before, though I've gained some good firsthand experience to see how readily I can misperceive due to expectation bias.



Spoken like a true double-agent! How do we trust you! Which side are you on anyway?


----------



## castleofargh (Nov 28, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> lol on the nomex ...
> 
> Regarding wallet injury, generally I think people need to make their own judgments and decisions about where to spend their money.  For me, that's not a 'cause'.  But I admit that I'm kind of a double agent, because in head-fi outside of Sound Science I do sometimes cast doubt that DACs, amps, and cables make a significant difference, to the extent that I can without getting in trouble with mods.
> 
> ...


for your list of propositions, you do have real science giving you clues, it's called measurement. when the typical variations are magnitudes bigger for speakers compared to typical variations between DACs, which variations are going to result in big noticeable changes should be self explanatory.
speakers have much lower fidelity than DACs, you have more than enough data to claim that much without a shred of doubt. speakers can have pretty significant differences, FR alone usually validates audibility between various models. all those statements are simple and consistent, so we simply accept them for what they are. easy enough.
on the other hand, DACs will tend to have like +/-0.3dB in frequency variation within the audible range(often less), they will typically have strong linearity(even the R2R are not that bad), THD will easily be tens of dB lower than speakers figures, etc. as fidelity is a rather rigid target and DACs consistently fall real close to the center of that target, it should also be self explanatory that a big obvious audible difference is not likely.
we know that before even bringing up hearing and how to test for it.
we have other sources of data. for example how many of the people who "know" their DACs to sound different, have provided any sort of supporting evidence? what is so different between DACs and speakers that for one we can hardly find evidence of audible variations, while for the other one, we have so many, that expecting speakers to be audibly different is a consensus? that alone tells us how DACs probably aren't the night and day different gears that some claim them to be.
now is it possible for a DAC to sound different? sure. does it actually happen often? the lack of conclusive experiments being reported is in itself pretty telling. now is it telling us about how rare audible differences are in practice? or it is telling us about how lazy or plain unqualified, people making claims about differences really are? IDK. but in both situations, it's a strong case not to take them too seriously, which is an important conclusion IMO.

same thing for your other propositions. just don't do what almost all audiophiles do, which is relying on a BS experience to form a very subjective impression, then go look for science and objective reality to magically agree with that subjective impression and justify the weirdo ideas born from it. instead just start with the data and experiences you can actually trust, and develop from there. it gives a much better sense of what to expect, even if cognitive dissonance will tend to strike hard on our own casual listening experiences. we accept that disagreeable situation the moment we decide to look for objective facts. or at least we should.


----------



## Phronesis

Steve999 said:


> Spoken like a true double-agent! How do we trust you! Which side are you on anyway?



Alas, I'm an independent, only on the side of trying to better figure how things really are.  Much more interesting and fun for me than picking a traditional side!


----------



## bfreedma

Phronesis said:


> Given these discussions, some of my background with hi-fi may amuse some people.
> 
> My dad got me my first hi-fi when I was around 12, about four decades ago (Marantz receiver, Dual turntable with Shure cartridge, Dynaco speakers mounted to the walls).  I was really into this stuff, read Stereophile magazine and other stuff, spent a lot of time at the hi-fi stores, etc.  I remember reading a blind test article on amps in Stereophile where they found that the listeners couldn't distinguish between a cheap solid state receiver vs a very expensive tube amp when blind, but when sighted they described the sound of the cheap receiver with words like 'brittle' and 'lacking depth' whereas the tube amp got words like 'warm' and 'dynamic'.  I never forgot that finding, and since then I always assumed that the only gear that really matters is speakers.  I recall reading something similar for speaker wire also.
> 
> Now that I'm revisiting this stuff four decades later, my working conclusion is about the same, but I'm not quite as sure of it as before, though I've gained some good firsthand experience to see how readily I can misperceive due to expectation bias.




Other than the actual industry pros posting here, again, I suspect there are more similarities than differences in our audio histories.  My dad had big wharfdale 3 ways, a Fischer receiver (still remember the glow of tubes under the cover) and a Garrard turntable.  I remember a lot of Herb Alpert and Big Band stuff being played.  I was hooked.

Like most, I bought into the typical audiophile mythologies around cables etc. until I gained a better understanding of the basic operating principles involved.  A blind amp test conducted by a friend with more knowledge than I had at the time convinced me I needed to know more about the science of audio reproduction to avoid throwing away money on solutions looking for problems.  Fortunately, I learned that lesson prior to setting up my home theater, so focused on speakers, room correction and measurements rather than simply throwing money at electronics and cables.  The real money went into speakers and subs.

I don’t mind a good cup of placebo once and a while, so have certainly made purchases based on criteria other than the bottom line for the headphone gear, since I haven’t spent on the HT for some time as I feel that it’s about as good as the room will permit.  Atmos is coming though - the mixed use room the HT is in is due for a refresh, so...


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 27, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> for your list of propositions, you do have real science giving you clues, it's called measurements. when the typical variations are magnitudes bigger for speakers compared to typical variations between DACs, which variations are going to result in big noticeable changes should be self explanatory.
> speakers have much lower fidelity than DACs, you have more than enough data to claim that much without a shred of doubt. speakers can have pretty significant differences, FR alone usually validates audibility between various models. all those statements are simple and consistent, so we simply accept them for what they are. easy enough.
> on the other hand, DACs will tend to have like +/-0.3dB in frequency variation within the audible range(often less), they will typically have strong linearity(even the R2R are not that bad), THD will easily be tens of dB lower than speakers figures, etc. as fidelity is a rather rigid target and DACs consistently fall real close to the center of that target, it should also be self explanatory that a big obvious audible difference is not likely.
> we know that before even bringing up hearing and how to test for it.
> ...



All sounds reasonable to me, that's why I have the working conclusions I do.  The debates around Sound Science seem to only be about (a) whether there are any meaningful differences at the margins of perception, (b) how close to 100% certain we can be on the conclusions noted above, and (c) what measurement and testing methods are best to bring us closer to 100% certainty. 

IMO, in the scheme of things, that's interesting but not overly important stuff, and @bigshot is right that (a) the most important thing is to find good music and enjoy it, (b) sound improvements are best achieved by things other than source resolution, DACs, amps, and cables, and (c) it's hard to beat the sound of a well set up speaker system and room.


----------



## Phronesis

bfreedma said:


> Other than the actual industry pros posting here, again, I suspect there are more similarities than differences in our audio histories.  My dad had big wharfdale 3 ways, a Fischer receiver (still remember the glow of tubes under the cover) and a *Garrard* turntable.  I remember a lot of Herb Alpert and Big Band stuff being played.  I was hooked.



Ah, that jogged my memory, the first turntable my dad got me was actually a Garrard, and he gave me his Dual years later.  I loved that thing, wish I still had it.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 27, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Ah, that jogged my memory, the first turntable my dad got me was actually a Garrard, and he gave me his Dual years later.  I loved that thing, wish I still had it.



Alas, I started in the corner of my bedroom with an all-in-one record player that gouged out the grooves of every record it saw. Then my step-father got a couple of Advent speakers and a Pioneer receiver and a nice turntable (I forget what kind) and put them out in the living room and a whole new world opened up to me. . . although I was already completely in love with music.


----------



## bfreedma

Phronesis said:


> Ah, that jogged my memory, the first turntable my dad got me was actually a Garrard, and he gave me his Dual years later.  I loved that thing, wish I still had it.



Unfortunately, my dad didn’t upgrade often/ever, so I got no hand me downs.  In fact, when his gear finally broke down, he got my used components.  He’s still using my old Technics turntable and receiver. i got even back in the day by setting up an unreasonably large pair of Cerwin Vegas in my bedroom and playing them LOUD. 

No complaints, seeing and using the family hi-FI still got me into the hobby.


----------



## Phronesis

In case this hasn't already been posted, just ran across it:

https://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html


----------



## CoryGillmore

Phronesis said:


> Ah, that jogged my memory, the first turntable my dad got me was actually a Garrard, and he gave me his Dual years later.  I loved that thing, wish I still had it.


Speaking of turntables, I’ve never used one in my life and honestly couldn’t even setup a record to play music on one of you put it all in front of me. But I want to change that..
So I’m pursuing Best Buy two days ago when I see a shelf of records, I start flipping through and what do you know, I see my favorite album of all time: Radiohead OkComputer and it’s the 2017 reissue. I literally almost bought it simply because. I mean I could’ve hung it on my wall or something. Well anyway that got me to checking out their turntables, they surprisingly had quite a few. They had an $80 Sony, $100, $130 and I believe $230 Audio Technica turntables. I damn near bought one so I could have a legit reason to leave with that Radiohead record. And damn I’ve always wanted to say “record” and actually be talking about an LP Hahaha. 

So my inquiry is, what do you all think of these Best Buy record players? Are they ok for a beginners turntable? I don’t know the first thing about turntables or LPs. Thanks.


----------



## old tech

Phronesis said:


> In case this hasn't already been posted, just ran across it:
> 
> https://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html


I'm not sure why you would refer to that link in a sound science forum.  The subjective biases that come into play from his idea of a test is exactly what double blind tests attempt to control.

Atkinson is a funny character.  He, and his staff, earlier failed the Carver challenge which of course he doesn't mention.  For a short while after that he was a convert (some of his articles in relation to that test is still accessible on the net) but then changed his mind.  What was it, a fundamental change of view or a realisation that he was going to sabotage his then early stage of his career by alienating all of Stereophiles's high end advertisers?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

KeithEmo said:


> That's exactly what I was talking about.
> 
> *Most modern room correction systems use an impulse as their preferred test signal.*
> They then analyze the returning echoes from the impule, along with a lot of heavy math, to learn all sorts of things about the room.
> ...



This might be an old post, but I would like to point out that NO modern room correction systems that I know of use an impulse as the test signal.  That's because speakers suck at producing impulses at any usable volume for microphone capture and precise computations.  Rather, most systems use sweep signals that are recorded by the microphone then *recalculated* into what *would* be the linear impulse response for purposes of further computations.

The amount of pseudoscientific drivel derived from, as usual, a false premise, is staggering even by Keith's usual standards...


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 27, 2018)

CoryGillmore said:


> Speaking of turntables, I’ve never used one in my life and honestly couldn’t even setup a record to play music on one of you put it all in front of me. But I want to change that..
> So I’m pursuing Best Buy two days ago when I see a shelf of records, I start flipping through and what do you know, I see my favorite album of all time: Radiohead OkComputer and it’s the 2017 reissue. I literally almost bought it simply because. I mean I could’ve hung it on my wall or something. Well anyway that got me to checking out their turntables, they surprisingly had quite a few. They had an $80 Sony, $100, $130 and I believe $230 Audio Technica turntables. I damn near bought one so I could have a legit reason to leave with that Radiohead record. And damn I’ve always wanted to say “record” and actually be talking about an LP Hahaha.
> 
> So my inquiry is, what do you all think of these Best Buy record players? Are they ok for a beginners turntable? I don’t know the first thing about turntables or LPs. Thanks.



Of the ones I see at Best Buy I'd get the Audio Technica, no-brainer. Not ruining your records is just as high a priority as fidelity, IMHO. Even better would be something nice with auto-return. Do you have a Guitar Center nearby?

https://www.guitarcenter.com/Audio-...ereo-Record-Player-Turntable.gc#productDetail

It's a belt drive, some people will frown on that, but a good belt drive beats a bad direct drive. It also has a built-in preamp in case your receiver doesn't have a phono preamp. And it has auto-return and is fully automatic, which as far as conveniences go is pretty crucial.

That Best Buy Audio Technica, if it's the one I'm looking at, doesn't look like it has auto return. It's more of a DJ tool or a record to CD ripper than it is a pleasure listening device, IMHO.


----------



## dprimary

CoryGillmore said:


> Speaking of turntables, I’ve never used one in my life and honestly couldn’t even setup a record to play music on one of you put it all in front of me. But I want to change that..
> So I’m pursuing Best Buy two days ago when I see a shelf of records, I start flipping through and what do you know, I see my favorite album of all time: Radiohead OkComputer and it’s the 2017 reissue. I literally almost bought it simply because. I mean I could’ve hung it on my wall or something. Well anyway that got me to checking out their turntables, they surprisingly had quite a few. They had an $80 Sony, $100, $130 and I believe $230 Audio Technica turntables. I damn near bought one so I could have a legit reason to leave with that Radiohead record. And damn I’ve always wanted to say “record” and actually be talking about an LP Hahaha.
> 
> So my inquiry is, what do you all think of these Best Buy record players? Are they ok for a beginners turntable? I don’t know the first thing about turntables or LPs. Thanks.



It looks like they sell a Denon DP-300F I would look at that, then the higher end Audio Technica, It look like they sell Pro-Ject which seem to get decent reviews. You will need a phone preamp if you don't already have one.


----------



## CoryGillmore (Nov 27, 2018)

dprimary said:


> It looks like they sell a Denon DP-300F I would look at that, then the higher end Audio Technica, It look like they sell Pro-Ject which seem to get decent reviews. You will need a phone preamp if you don't already have one.


Thanks! Well see my A/V receiver does have a “phono” input on it, is that sufficient? But really for headphone use I was hoping I could just use RCAs to plug it directly into the soundcard on my PC. That way I could utilize the better DAC and opamps in that rather than whatever crap is in my A/V.

But yeah I have no idea if this is feasible. I have no clue how turntables work. I figured it was just like a d player or sowktbijg similar. Just plug in some RCAs and go haha. Something tells me that’s not the case though...


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 27, 2018)

CoryGillmore said:


> Thanks! Well see my A/V receiver does have a “phono” input on it, is that sufficient? But really for headphone use I was hoping I could just use RCAs to plug it directly into the soundcard on my PC. That way I could utilize the better DAC and opamps in that rather than whatever crap is in my A/V.
> 
> But yeah I have no idea if this is feasible. I have no clue how turntables work. I figured it was just like a d player or sowktbijg similar. Just plug in some RCAs and go haha. Something tells me that’s not the case though...



It's easy! You hook it into a phono or line in connection (your choice with this turntable) on a sound card or a stereo, put the record on it, press a button, and you are good (since it's fully automatic)!

It probably comes with the cartridge pre-installed but if not it's a little fiddly but not rocket science. It pays to do it right though. The cartridge is the thing with the stylus (i.e., needle) on it, and it needs to be aligned correctly and weighted correctly. I have a feeling the cartridge is pre-installed for you though. This is a pleasure-listening device with near-geeky performance, not a tech albatross that you will curse at for years to come. : )

By the way, if our friend @analogsurviver comes along I am ducking and running!


----------



## dprimary

CoryGillmore said:


> Thanks! Well see my A/V receiver does have a “phono” input on it, is that sufficient? But really for headphone use I was hoping I could just use RCAs to plug it directly into the soundcard on my PC. That way I could utilize the better DAC and opamps in that rather than whatever crap is in my A/V.
> 
> But yeah I have no idea if this is feasible. I have no clue how turntables work. I figured it was just like a d player or sowktbijg similar. Just plug in some RCAs and go haha. Something tells me that’s not the case though...



If you can get enough gain it might work with a RIAA curve plugin. I would look into the electrical load seen by the cartridge going directly into a soundcard. You could get something like a Shiit Mani to feed the soundcard. Vinyl has so many distortions I wouldn't get too carried away.


----------



## Steve999

dprimary said:


> If you can get enough gain it might work with a RIAA curve plugin. I would look into the electrical load seen by the cartridge going directly into a soundcard. You could get something like a Shiit Mani to feed the soundcard. Vinyl has so many distortions I wouldn't get too carried away.



The record player has a preamp built in. It's already amplified to line level if you select the pre-amp switch. So no RIAA curve plug-in needed. CoryFillmore, the RIAA curve adjusts the output of the cartridge to be much more flat--it's part of the technology.


----------



## Davesrose

CoryGillmore said:


> Thanks! Well see my A/V receiver does have a “phono” input on it, is that sufficient? But really for headphone use I was hoping I could just use RCAs to plug it directly into the soundcard on my PC. That way I could utilize the better DAC and opamps in that rather than whatever crap is in my A/V.
> 
> But yeah I have no idea if this is feasible. I have no clue how turntables work. I figured it was just like a d player or sowktbijg similar. Just plug in some RCAs and go haha. Something tells me that’s not the case though...



Apart from amplifying the signal, a phono preamp also applies RIAA equalization (which is meant to equalize the signal to intended studio recording).  Recievers that have a phono input will have both the amplification and RIAA equalization needed for vinyl.  There are turn tables that have built in phono preamps and you can directly plug their RCA cables into a regular component.  Others will have a ground wire and require a seperate phono preamp to act as an in-between from turn table to your component.


----------



## CoryGillmore

Steve999 said:


> Of the ones I see at Best Buy I'd get the Audio Technica, no-brainer. Not ruining your records is just as high a priority as fidelity, IMHO. Even better would be something nice with auto-return. Do you have a Guitar Center nearby?
> 
> https://www.guitarcenter.com/Audio-...ereo-Record-Player-Turntable.gc#productDetail
> 
> ...


Thanks for this, I missed this post the first time. I do have a guitar center near me and I need to remember them more often. Hell I think they carry audiophile grade headphones and stuff too. Thanks I'll keep this player in mind for sure!


----------



## KeithEmo

I both agree and disagree.... let me explain....

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that we are _NOT_ actually having the same argument... and part of the problem is the fact that some of us don't seem to understand that.
It seems quite obvious to me that some people on this forum look at the questions we're discussing "literally" while others look at them "practically".

Here's a simple question.
Please think of how you would answer it - and think carefully.....  "Are peanuts safe to eat?"
I suspect that you would answer: Yes.
I eat peanuts, you eat peanuts, and oen of my colleagues keeps a can of them in his desk for guests.
_BUT_ I also worked with someone several years ago who was deadly allergic to peanuts (he was told by his doctor that a single teaspoonful of peanut butter would kill him).
So, in fact, the correct answer is that peanuts are very safe and healthy for _MOST_ people.
And, even better, _MOST_ people who are very allergic to peanuts are aware of their allergy, and know enough not to eat them.
However, technically, and in terms of compete accuracy, peanuts are not "safe and healthy for all humans".

To me, considering the question from a point of view of absolute scientific accuracy, you cannot claim that "all DACs sound the same" until you test all DACs.
(And, yes, you must try all DACs, with all humans, and all program content... which seems quite likely to be impossible.)
However, remember, you may also havee to test a few hundred thousand people to find the one who is deadly allergic to peanuts, or aspirin, or bee stings.
Likewise, you may have to test a lot of people to find the one with perfect pitch who notices a 0.1% speed error in a tape transport.

My point, after all this rambling, is that you don't need to "raise or lower the bar".....
But, when you make a claim, "adding qualifications" is an excellent way to make it plain _EXACTLY WHERE THE BAR IS_.

It's not at all misleading to tell someone that: "Peanuts are generally considered to be a healthy snack food".
But it's also not misleading to tell them that: "For some people peanuts are a deadly poison."
However, if you want to make sure nobody misunderstands, then you should add some qualifications.
("In general, peanuts are a very healthy snack, but a few people are allergic to them, and a very rare few are so allergic that they could die after eating a few.")

I would suggest that, for most people, what they _REALLY_ want to know, especially in the context of a discussion forum, is whether something is likely to make a difference _TO THEM_.
Therefore, if we're talking abut "consumer advice", it seems reasonable to "set the bar" at "whether the majority of audiophiles would notice a difference or not".
or, even perhaps, "whether the majority of audiophiles would notice what they say is a _significant_ difference".

Another less significant, but also important, error I see is a misunderstanding of statistics.....
Statistics are quite useful when it comes to generalizations... and things like product marketing...
However, statistics provide a different sort of information than other types of testing.

For example, let's assume you wanted to know how fast a human could run one mile.
If you tested everyone at your local mall today you would probably find that many could run a mile in eight or ten minutes.
From that "test" you could produce all sorts of statistics about average speed, standard variation, and even the limits of human rtunning speed.
Expand that test to everyone in your town, you might widen the results a bit... and you might even find someone who could run a mile in 4:30.
HOWEVER, in absolute terms, your results would be interesting... but misleading.
According to Wikipedia, the current record for running the mile is 3:43 - held by a fellow from Morocco.
(And, to be blunt, all the statistics in the world will not give you the correct answer unless you happen to include him in your test sample.)

In the context of audio equipment, it makes sense to use statistics to determine "what most people hear"...
And, from that, to extrapolate to "what you can expect to hear"...
But your "answer" will be something akin to an approximation... and not an absolute certainty.

And, yes, many companies who make "audiophile products" leverage the fact that many audiophiles "believe that they have a golden ear"...
So, because of that, they believe that they are far more perceptive than "the average person" who the statistics describe.
They basically say that "it doesn't matter whether other people can hear it or not - you can because you're special".
(This constitutes a special sort of bias.)

One way to combat this is to exclude personal judgment altogether - perhaps by doing double blind tests.
Another way is to actually test yourself (if the audiologist says you can't hear anything above 15 kHz then you can stop worrying about it).
And yet another way is to simply accept and acknowledge that it exists.
While we all have some form of bias - we can minimize the effect by recognizing it - and simply by choosing not to consider it.

If you don't expect expensive amps to sound better then you won't be biased to heard differrences that favor expensive amps.
And, if you legitimately simply don't expect to hear a difference between two products, then you will not be especially biased to hear one.
(And, if you aren't biased NOT to hear a difference, you'll have the best chance of noticing a difference that really exists.)
It sounds trite, but the best defense against bias is really simply an open mind... but a critical mind.
A vendor can only "set your expectations to believe their product is better" if you _BELIEVE_ their arguments in favor of it.
If, instead, you simply accept "their argument makes sense but I have no idea whether it's true or not", it will have little ability to bias you.

So, for example, if you want to compare a high-res recording to a standard-res version, the absolute best way may be a double blind test.
However, it's almost as good if you can _REALLY_ approach the comparison with no particular expectation either way.
Don't buy that high-res re-master because it's "high resolution"...
Listen to it, and only buy it if it really sounds better... (and don't assume that, because that one sounds better, the next one also will).

However, to address the original question.... without some common ground, you cannot exchange useful information.
Having someone tell you "this amplifier is better than that one" without any context of how they tested it simply tells you nothing.
Likewise, having someone say "I tested these two things and did/didn't find any difference" tells you nothing at all unless you know what they tested and how.
(If you know NOTHING about their test protocol, you literally don't know whether they compared those two amplifiers by listening to them, or by tasting the paint on the front panels.)
You MUST know something about how the testing was done in order to evaluate both the conclusions and how useful they may be to you.

The proper scientific process is to _FIRST_ agree on the information we want.
The next step is to agree on a test protocol that will enable us to collect that information effectvely.
And, so far, when it comes to evaluating amplifiers, or DACs, or high-resolution files, we don't seem anywhere near even that simple first goal.
(We may need to go back to that first step and determine, with some degree of certainty, "what determines how amplifiers and DACs actually sound".)



bfreedma said:


> Adding qualifications will simply lead us back to the same arguments over the qualifications.
> 
> I’m suggesting discussing and agreeing on a rational and semi practical testing protocol so that we can produce a larger set of test results to correlate.  Disparate testing methodologies with qualifications won’t achieve that.





bfreedma said:


> Adding qualifications will simply lead us back to the same arguments over the qualifications.
> 
> I’m suggesting discussing and agreeing on a rational and semi practical testing protocol so that we can produce a larger set of test results to correlate.  Disparate testing methodologies with qualifications won’t achieve that.


----------



## Steve999

CoryGillmore said:


> Thanks for this, I missed this post the first time. I do have a guitar center near me and I need to remember them more often. Hell I think they carry audiophile grade headphones and stuff too. Thanks I'll keep this player in mind for sure!



The cartridge that comes with it looks nice too. The tracking force (1.5g-2.0g) should be strong enough to stay in the groove, so to speak, but still not so heavy as to potentially damage your records.

https://www.audio-technica.com/cms/cartridges/c1b0deab14aa9b53/index.html


----------



## KeithEmo

That basically sums it up.

Unfortunately, because the system required to reproduce vinyl is rather complex, and includes both electronic and mechanical components, the details can get complicated.
The turntable itself is tasked with rotating the record at the proper speed, without adding any vibratiion or speed variations.
The arm must hold the cartridge in proper relation to the surface of the spinning disc... and avoid being susceptible to vibrations and mechanical resonances.
(It turns out that an are which swings on a pivot cannot hold the stylus at the exact proper angle all the way across the disc - so various arm geometries compromise on that.)
The mechnism inside the cartridge must convert very tiny mechanical movements into an electrical signal - whcih is somewhat tricky.
And the signal delivered by that cartridge is both tiny, and in need of RIAA equalization - which is actually quite extreme - and so subject to errors.

In short, there are a huge number of variables.
Also, unfortunately, because we're talking about an electro-mechanical system, much like speakers, there are significant variations between different ones. 
Which puts us back to the dilemma of "none of them are very close to perfect - so a lot of it comes down to subjective preferences".



Davesrose said:


> Apart from amplifying the signal, a phono preamp also applies RIAA equalization (which is meant to equalize the signal to intended studio recording).  Recievers that have a phono input will have both the amplification and RIAA equalization needed for vinyl.  There are turn tables that have built in phono preamps and you can directly plug their RCA cables into a regular component.  Others will have a ground wire and require a seperate phono preamp to act as an in-between from turn table to your component.


----------



## Steve999

KeithEmo said:


> I both agree and disagree.... let me explain....
> 
> The biggest problem, as I see it, is that we are _NOT_ actually having the same argument... and part of the problem is the fact that some of us don't seem to understand that.
> It seems quite obvious to me that some people on this forum look at the questions we're discussing "literally" while others look at them "practically".
> ...



I am so sorry, Keith. I like you. But I couldn't resist.


----------



## CoryGillmore

KeithEmo said:


> I both agree and disagree.... let me explain....
> 
> The biggest problem, as I see it, is that we are _NOT_ actually having the same argument... and part of the problem is the fact that some of us don't seem to understand that.
> It seems quite obvious to me that some people on this forum look at the questions we're discussing "literally" while others look at them "practically".
> ...


Jesus Christ! You have to be an engineer haha No doubt about it!


----------



## KeithEmo

That is quite true - and I stand corrected.

Most "room correction systems", especially those found in most consumer gear, do in fact use either a sweep signal or some sort of band-limited pink noise.
I've generally only seen impulses used on "room ANALYSIS systems".
(And software designed to replicate the response of one room in another.)

Many "room correction systems" simply use the results of frequency sweeps of pink noise tests directly - to calculate corrections for only amplitude variations.
A few start with a sweep, then calculate a sort of "virtual impulse" from that, and use that intermediate result for future calculations (I believe REW does that).

Note that a "room correction system" is NOT designed to measure the room at all.
It is designed to characterize the room, speakers, and everything else, as a system.
It then considers these errors in aggregate, and calculates a correction to fix them all at once.
The only true "knowns" are the original test signal and the characteristics of the microphone.
And, because the microphone is picking up both direct and reflected information, some sort of time windowing must be used to separate them.
(Which means that you are forced to truncate the length of the original arrival information when the reflections start to arrive - which reduces the accuracy a bit.)



Joe Bloggs said:


> This might be an old post, but I would like to point out that NO modern room correction systems that I know of use an impulse as the test signal.  That's because speakers suck at producing impulses at any usable volume for microphone capture and precise computations.  Rather, most systems use sweep signals that are recorded by the microphone then *recalculated* into what *would* be the linear impulse response for purposes of further computations.
> 
> The amount of pseudoscientific drivel derived from, as usual, a false premise, is staggering even by Keith's usual standards...


----------



## KeithEmo

I take that as a compliment.

Thanks.





CoryGillmore said:


> Jesus Christ! You have to be an engineer haha No doubt about it!


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I both agree and disagree.... let me explain....
> 
> The biggest problem, as I see it, is that we are _NOT_ actually having the same argument... and part of the problem is the fact that some of us don't seem to understand that.
> It seems quite obvious to me that some people on this forum look at the questions we're discussing "literally" while others look at them "practically".
> ...




Yet another analogy followed by a nearly impenetrable wall of text where you seem to revel in playing Captain Obvious.  Can you try and be more concise and focus on solutions rather than finding yet another way to explain the challenge in the most complicated and condescend way possible?  Do you really think most here aren’t aware of peanut allergies?  Come on Keith, you aren’t lecturing a 6th grade science class here.

It’s almost as if you want to avoid finding a reasonable and workable test protocol, even acknowledging that it won’t be perfect.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Nov 28, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Null tests are easy to do. All you need is a sound editing program. Listening tests are easy to do. All they take is a switch box, a way to balance levels and a friend. There really isn't any excuse for not doing simple tests like this. I imagine Gregorio has access to much more flexible equipment and software than the rest of us, but this stuff is pretty basic and most of us have done stuff like this.
> 
> It seems the only people who aren't doing simple controlled tests are the ones who post reams of blather questioning how good other people's tests are. That is typical for the barnacles we get around Sound Science sometimes.





bigshot said:


> However, I'd be willing to give them advice and help them do a more controlled test that help them find out whether their casual impression is true or not.


That's so cute! It brings back fond memories of my son "driving" from the back seat!





He thought it was "easy" too, and still does now that he's graduated to his PlayStation.
Of course, both driving safely and performing blind listening tests, capable of meaningful results, is "easy" and most people can do it... once they learn how. My son can already tell you "stay in your lane", "obey the signs and laws", and "don't hit anything", just like anyone, capable or not, can say "level match", "find a switching method" and "do it blind".
The devil is in the details, for both safe driving and meaningful blind tests.

I really hope you put me in my place and embarrass me by telling us the details(!) of your last listening test. Give us a cookbook description, please. I keep asking; you keep deflecting.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 28, 2018)

Some people sure do love the sound of their own voice! So many words! So little to say! So much thread crapping and trolling!

NEXT!


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Nov 28, 2018)

So true! Is that why your post count is so high? And yet, so few details. Please embarrass me with your knowledge, not just more words.

NEXT? You want more?

Edit: Here is the quote to which I originally replied:


bigshot said:


> Some people sure do love the sound of their own voice! So many words! So little time!


I added "NEXT" after I saw you had. I won't keep editing my post for every change you make.

I do want to ask whether you define "thread crapping" and "trolling" as disagreeing with you and challenging your posts?


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to perform a null test between an entire reproduction chain and the original.... with the null giving you the total error present in the entire reproduction signal chain. (If the reproduction was a perfect reproduction, and your test was perfect, you would get a perfect null.)



You gave us an example of null testing an ADC and DAC simultaneously and then complained that the null test wouldn't tell us whether the difference file was caused by the ADC or the DAC and, that flaws in the ADC might cancel out flaws in the DAC. If we want to know the difference between two DACs then we have to perform a null test where the ONLY difference in the signal chain is those two DACs, so performing this test while also having a two different ADCs in the chain is therefore performing the null test incorrectly. It is then fallacious to complain about the efficacy of this test, based on incorrectly performing the test in the first place! Your response was to state "_it is perfectly reasonable to perform a null test between an entire reproduction chain_" which while potentially true, is unrelated/irrelevant to the context of differences between DACs BUT it was presented as related/relevant?



KeithEmo said:


> If I were to add a few drops of pepper sauce to your lunch today you would probably notice it immediately.



I don't see how an analogy which contradicts your original assertion actually clarifies anything or supports your assertion? Your pepper analogy is effectively that a very small amount of pepper sauce would be difficult to measure when part of a relatively large whole meal. But your assertion was that DACS "vary widely" with regards to accuracy, so if your analogy is actually analogous then a "few drops of pepper sauce" is equivalent to a very small accuracy variation and therefore contradicts your assertion. Additionally of course, pepper sauce is well within the range of human taste, presumably a particularly sensitive area of human taste, not so with the "inaccuracies" of DACS which are typically in the least sensitive areas of hearing or actually outside it!



Phronesis said:


> [1] ^ @KeithEmo, what you previously said on this seemed clear enough to me.
> [2] @gregorio seems to have a habit of nitpicking and misrepresenting ... It's a bad habit in science, forums, marriage, and life in general.
> [3] ]It would be nice if people who say tests are 'easy to do' would actually do them, and
> [3a] present the results along with the details of how they did them, so that others can evaluate them and maybe try to replicate them. I believe that's how SCIENCE normally works!



1. As what KeithEmo stated is quite often non-analogous analogies, incorrect or out of context facts and even self contradictory, then if it "seemed clear enough to you", that would indicate some misunderstanding on your part, wouldn't it? That brings us full circle; just because something might be presented in a way that sounds reasonable, doesn't mean that it is reasonable or true, This is a fundamental technique underpinning the vast majority of marketing/advertising, present something in a way that sounds reasonable and count on the fact that the vast majority of people won't have enough in depth knowledge of the subject to recognise it as actually unreasonable/false.

2. Is it not a bad habit in science (or anything else) to make a claim of misrepresentation without stating what has been misrepresented and explaining/justifying why it is a misrepresentation? So please, what is it that I have misrepresented?

3. I have "actually done them".
3a. I have not saved the results of the tests I've done because they were for my benefit and of little use to anyone else. The last time I did a null test with DACs was between an AVID 192 I/O and a Presonus StudioLive RML32AI, nothing anyone here (or probably anywhere else) would be interested in and I've clearly explained that this is typically the case and therefore why you won't find much/any published null test results. However, I have very clearly given the details of how to perform a null test and even provided a link explaining them and how to do them, precisely so that YOU or anyone else can do them for yourself. That is how science normally works! How science does not work however, is to keep making demands for something that doesn't exist, not performing your own tests despite it being detailed how and then calling everyone else "unscientific"!



KeithEmo said:


> For example, if you believe something, and you've seen lots of evidence to support it, then say exactly that. .. But *avoid saying* that you know it for an *absolute fact* ...
> Notice how nobody misrepresented anything... And nobody called anyone a liar... or a fool...





Phronesis said:


> That there is some wisdom!





KeithEmo said:


> So, for example, if you want to compare a high-res recording to a standard-res version, *the absolute best way* may be a double blind test.



@Phronesis - Is it wisdom to state something wise and then ignore or actually do the exact opposite of what they're suggesting others do? What is the word used to describe someone who does that? Additionally, there doesn't seem to be anything in that "wise" post about employing inappropriate/inapplicable analogies. And lastly, this "wise" post is not entirely relevant anyway, because we're not dealing with ""_I believe this, I've seen lots of evidence that supports it, and very little evidence that contradicts it_", we're dealing with "I believe this because there's lot's (or overwhelming) reliable evidence that supports it, no rationale for why it could be wrong AND absolutely NO reliable evidence that contradicts it"!! Could you explain why you're having such difficulty recognising or understanding any of this?

Not only is KeithEmo doing the opposite of his own advice but his assertion here is actually incorrect to boot! Comparing a high-res recording to a standard-res version would be an ideal application for a null test. We would expect to see a difference file with a low level from 0Hz-20kHz and then a relatively high level above 20kHz. In this example, a null test should give us a very clear, unambiguous result, either a good null from 0Hz - 20kHz (and the difference therefore being ultrasonic and inaudible) or a poor null in the 0Hz-20kHz region (indicating a different master). Plus, it provides the added benefit that what "we would expect to see" could have no effect on the results whatsoever, because a null test is a purely objective measurement!

G


----------



## SoundAndMotion

@KeithEmo, I see that several posts here hope to remind you that this is the Sound Science sub-forum and if you don't understand that and more importantly don't understand how science works, perhaps you need to look into it a bit...
May I suggest looking at the info/links on the Sound Science sub-forum page. That and the terms of service/posting guideline should help you understand Sound Science. Here's a useful link for you:
A post describing how science works.
Let me know if you have any questions, or you might ask the poster from that link...
...ummm.... wait... ...I, uh...
Oh, I'm so ashamed... sorry!

@gregorio, I know the methods used at GearSlutz differs a bit from exactly what you are talking about (AD/DA loop comparison vs. just DACs under test). But they have a rather extensive database of null tests (link), that may interest some here, including you. They have the Avid HD I/O and the PreSonus RML32AI. They also have 2 Emotiva DACs.
WARNING! To understand the results they have, you have to read the description (here) and (here).

Based on this page, I decided to build my own ADC with the PCM4222EVM.

Some food for thought:
- Given the claims by some that many/most DACs (and stated less often:ADCs) sound the same, notice how very different some results are.
- The very best loop null is about -81dBFS. I think that's great! One might think from some claims here that could/should be better.
- Several presumably competently designed components have loop nulls in the -40s dBFS. Is that good? Why/why not?


----------



## Phronesis

@gregorio, rather than making arguments of the type heard in bad marriages, could you PLEASE just give us an actual null test of DACs with the residual file and analysis of the file?  Let’s be empirical and practical about this.


----------



## Phronesis

bfreedma said:


> Yet another analogy followed by a nearly impenetrable wall of text where you seem to revel in playing Captain Obvious.  Can you try and be more concise and focus on solutions rather than finding yet another way to explain the challenge in the most complicated and condescend way possible?  Do you really think most here aren’t aware of peanut allergies?  Come on Keith, you aren’t lecturing a 6th grade science class here.
> 
> It’s almost as if you want to avoid finding a reasonable and workable test protocol, even acknowledging that it won’t be perfect.



I found Keith’s post to be clear and helpful, and I like analogies. It’s clear to me that there are people around here who need to learn what Keith is saying, and I don’t see any condescension in it.  His posts add value to the discussion.

The real issue seems to be that people come at this audio stuff with different backgrounds, assumptions, and goals, so we’re inevitably not all on the same page, and maybe never will be.  The remedy may be for people to co-exist and allow different kinds of conversations to occur, taking part only in those which fit their personal interests.


----------



## Arpiben

Phronesis said:


> @gregorio, rather than making arguments of the type heard in bad marriages, could you PLEASE just give us an actual null test of DACs with the residual file and analysis of the file?  Let’s be empirical and practical about this.



Respectfully why don't you start trying yourself by recording a test sample looping your PC sound card and compare the result with the original. Tools/software needed -> Audacity. 
It is quite instructive and you will learn how to set the different parameters accordingly.


----------



## Phronesis

Arpiben said:


> Respectfully why don't you start trying yourself by recording a test sample looping your PC sound card and compare the result with the original. Tools/software needed -> Audacity.
> It is quite instructive and you will learn how to set the different parameters accordingly.



Too much on my plate right now for that to be a priority, plus others around here are much more qualified than me to do that, but I may try it at some point.


----------



## KeithEmo

I didn't "complain" about the inability to rule out that specific possibility.
Like any competent scientist, I suggested a specific test protocol, and included mention of the limitations inherent in that protocol.
(_ALL_ tests have limitations... a competent scientist considers and documents them.)

If you want to compare two DACs, then you must start with some sort of digital audio test signal.
The easiest way to do this is to simply create a digital signal directly... since digital audio is simply a stream of numbers.
You'll find many published tests showing the outputs of various DACs, or even different filters on the same DAC, using artificially created "impulse signals".
Interestingly, impulse signals, specifically chosen to highlight differences, virtually always show that the output of the DACs with different filters are in fact quite different.
However, when it's done that way, the results are frequently met with complaints about "not representing real music" or "being visible on an oscilloscope but not audible".
(This is true, those test signals are designed to be easy to measure and compare visually; they are designed for use with specific test protocols rather than human ears.)
The only other alternative is to start with actual music - and, if we want to do that, we must include an ADC somewhere in the signal chain.

Let me rephrase my statement.....

If you are correct, and "all good quality ADCs are audibly transparent" and "all good quality DACs are audibly transparent".....
Then _ANY COMBINATION OF A GOOD QUALITY ADC AND A GOOD QUALITY DAC MUST ALSO BE AUDIBLY TRANSPARENT._

Or, to say it yet another way.....

If I find that, when I pass an analog audio signal through _ANY COMBINATION_ of "a good ADC and a good DAC", and the output is not identical to the analog original...
Then I can conclude that one or both of the devices in the signal chain is _NOT_ audibly transparent.

If I include multiple devices in the signal chain, it is _POSSIBLE_ that errors in two or more of them may cancel out, which may lead to a _FALSE_ conclusion that both are transparent.
However, the converse is not true.
It is _IMPOSSIBLE_ for the output to be in any way different from the input unless _AT LEAST ONE OF THE DEVICES IN THE SIGNAL CHAIN IS NOT TRANSPARENT_.

Therefore, if I were to test all possible combinations of ten different ADCs with ten different DACs......
If a single combination, as a set, fails to be perfectly transparent, then I have _CONCLUSIVELY DISPROVEN_ the claim that "all ADCs and ADCs are transparent".
And, if every single combination is proven to be audibly perfectly transparent, I have simply failed to prove the opposite.
I have _NOT_ "proven" that "all ADCs and all DACs are transparent"...
I have simply made a reasonable attempt to prove that claim wrong, and failed, which _SUGGESTS_ that the claim _MIGHT_ actually be true.

At the risk of including another one of those confusing analogies....
Let's say you were to assert that "no human can run a mile in under four minutes" and I were to assert that you are wrong and "some humans are faster than that".
In order to conclusively prove your claim you would have to test the running speed of every human on Earth...
But, in order to conclusively prove your claim to be _WRONG_, I only have to find one guy (or gal) who can run a mile in under four minutes...
This is simply the risk you incur when making broad generalizations.

Just to be clear here.....

Many people claim to "have run tests and found that different DACs sound different"....
You have "run tests and found that they all sound the same"....
Without a _LOT_ more information, we have no way to decide which tests were "more valid", or which ones to believe...
Ideally, you would provide enough information so that someone else could verify your test results under _EXACTLY_ the same conditions.

To be "incisive" here... 
1) Your claim that "you've done the tests", supported by neither details of the test protocol, nor documented results, really is "just another unsubstantiated claim".
2) Even if you were to provide proper documentation and proof that a certain DAC is audibly transparent, that doesn't support the generalization that _ALL_, or even _MOST, _DACs are.

I do want to address your final assertion.....

Going back a few days, BigShot did in fact provide samples of a high-res file, including a sample of _ONLY_ the portion of the spectrum above 20 kHz.
Accepting the assertions that his samples were really otherwise identical, and the filter he used was "transparent", then that "content above 20 kHz" _IS_ your "difference file".
However, you have jumped to the conclusion that "any difference above 20 kHz _MUST_ be inaudible".... but you have not proven it by this test.
In essence, you have conceded that the difference file is far from empty, but asserted that everything in it "is known to be inaudible".
In fact, you have asserted both that everything in that difference file is itself inaudible, and that it will not produce any audible difference when added to the original content.

Some time ago, someone published an article claiming that "high-resolution files are actually bad - because the ultrasonic information they contain can actually cause distortion".
Interestingly, his conclusion and yours are mutually exclusive.... they cannot both be true.
If that extra ultrasonic content causes audible distortion, then it most certainly _DOES_ produce an audible difference...
And, if it produces no audible difference at all, then it _CANNOT_ be causing audible distortion...
Or, perhaps you would prefer to amend your original assertion to:
"Either the ultrasonic content produces no audible difference, or it does produce an audible difference, but that audible difference is bad."



gregorio said:


> You gave us an example of null testing an ADC and DAC simultaneously and then complained that the null test wouldn't tell us whether the difference file was caused by the ADC or the DAC and, that flaws in the ADC might cancel out flaws in the DAC. If we want to know the difference between two DACs then we have to perform a null test where the ONLY difference in the signal chain is those two DACs, so performing this test while also having a two different ADCs in the chain is therefore performing the null test incorrectly. It is then fallacious to complain about the efficacy of this test, based on incorrectly performing the test in the first place! Your response was to state "_it is perfectly reasonable to perform a null test between an entire reproduction chain_" which while potentially true, is unrelated/irrelevant to the context of differences between DACs BUT it was presented as related/relevant?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I would say that an 80 dB null is in general quite good....

However, I would note that the character of the difference is also important.
When a null is expressed as a single number, it is implied that it represents an average, and provides no other details.
Therefore it is still possible that it may include very large differences that only occur for a very short period of time... but may still be audible.
And, likewise, it may include numerically significant errors may not be very audible.

Take, as a common example, the ticks and pops common on vinyl albums (especially dirty ones).
Because they occur only occasionally, and only for a very short period of time, those ticks don't affect the measured S/N very much (S/N measurements are usually averaged).
However, they can still be quite audible, and quite annoying, when they do occur.

Conversely, if you compare one device whose frequency response is -0.5 dB at 20 Hz and at 20 kHz, while the other is +0.5 dB at those frequencies...
A comparison will produce a very poor null... even though they may audibly sound very similar or even indistinguishable from each other.

Likewise, comparing two devices whose frequency response is "20 Hz to 20 kHz +/- 0.5 dB"......
If one has a relatively flat frequency response, which rolls off by 0.5 dB at the frequency extremes...
While the other is subject to a comb filter effect, and has a frequency response that goes sharply up and down multiple times by 0.5 dB in the midrange region of the spectrum...
They will probably sound quite different (humans tend to be more sensitive to variations in the midrange region, and to be more sensitive to sudden variations).

I would say that, ideally, I would consider a null of 60 dB to be "quite good", and 80 dB to be "excellent".
But I would like to see a further qualification that, if that's the average, it is relatively consistent... with few or no short term events that significantly exceed it.



SoundAndMotion said:


> @KeithEmo, I see that several posts here hope to remind you that this is the Sound Science sub-forum and if you don't understand that and more importantly don't understand how science works, perhaps you need to look into it a bit...
> May I suggest looking at the info/links on the Sound Science sub-forum page. That and the terms of service/posting guideline should help you understand Sound Science. Here's a useful link for you:
> A post describing how science works.
> Let me know if you have any questions, or you might ask the poster from that link...
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 28, 2018)

Arpiben said:


> Respectfully why don't you start trying yourself by recording a test sample looping your PC sound card and compare the result with the original. Tools/software needed -> Audacity. It is quite instructive and you will learn how to set the different parameters accordingly.



I told him about dozens of listening tests I've done, and that wasn't good enough. I don't know why another test by Gregorio would be any different. He's said he'll do a test of his own "someday". Until then, I'm ignoring his demands to "DANCE, MONKEY, DANCE!" He can get his own clue from now on. A scientist *does* tests to find things out, he doesn't demand that other people do the test to satisfy him personally.

There have been a whole lot of words piled around here lately, but not much of value to read.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 28, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I told him about dozens of listening tests I've done, and that wasn't good enough. I don't know why another test by Gregorio would be any different. He's said he'll do a test of his own "someday". Until then, I'm ignoring his demands to "DANCE, MONKEY, DANCE!" He can get his own clue from now on. A scientist *does* tests to find things out, he doesn't demand that other people do the test to satisfy him personally.
> 
> There have been a whole lot of words piled around here lately, but not much of value to read.



Given the strong claim you repeat about equal transparency of DACs and amps, your internet audience awaits the DETAILS of your testing.  Otherwise, you're just adding to the pile of words which don't add much value to the discussion.  Here's an example of what it means to provide details:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24528-3

Is it really so difficult to understand that the person making a strong claim needs to provide the support for the claim, with sufficient details for others to evaluate the support for the claim?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 28, 2018)

You had your chance, this monkey won't dance.







Do some tests yourself like you said you were going to do. I don't even care if they hold up to "clinical scrutiny". Making an effort... even a small one... to find out the truth for yourself would be a step in the right direction.

I've done dozens of tests myself. I applied controls. I described my procedures here in the group more than once, and I've shared my results. I found out what I found out. Now it's time for you to do that.

Better yet, let's do an even better test together as a group. I'm trying to get a team together to validate Gruss Gott's tests of USB cables. Volunteer to do your part and see if others will help you. Be honest. Who knows? Maybe it will prove me wrong. I'm happy to contribute my part to a group test if you'd like to organize a team to objectively verify my tests. Put up or shut up.

My listening tests tell me that there is no clear difference between DACs, DAPs or players. Let's start by finding a likely candidate that does sound different. Then let's set up a team to perform an unbiased listening test and find out if it really does sound different. If it does, let's measure it and find out why.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> You had your chance, this monkey won't dance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's fine, just bear in mind that many of us who're familiar with scientific research will conclude that you haven't described your testing in sufficient detail, and won't give much weight to your findings, viewing them as largely anecdotal and suggestive at best, rather than scientific.

Regarding my own testing so far, there's a separate thread on it in head-fi (not in Sound Science) related to the Hugo 2.  Anyone who's interested can PM me for a link.


----------



## Indiana (Nov 28, 2018)

I don't see any "strong claim" from bigshot. He just says what everybody says who made a test. They don't hear a difference. I don't understand what is so difficult about that. People totally overestimate their hearing ability and how hard expectation bias hits your brain. This was for myself an exiting experience when I was young and believed I could hear all kind of details. An electronic engineering in Paris gave me a good lesson after I told him I can for sure hear cable differences. I read the same discussion here in this forum about 16bit / 24bit. It's impossible to hear such a difference.
The signal is exactly the same.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 28, 2018)

I think you're full of it and no test will have enough detail to please you... unless you do the test yourself. That's why I won't do your work for you. You have to open your own eyes. I can't do that for you.

When you post in Head-Fi instead of Sound Science, you guarantee that no one here can discuss your results. That is VERY clever of you. Remarkably clever... and remarkably disingenuous.

Edit: Sorry Indiana, I don't mean you. Your post popped in-between while I was typing this. You're cool.


----------



## Indiana

bigshot said:


> Edit: Sorry Indiana, I don't mean you. Your post popped in-between while I was typing this. You're cool.


No problem bigshot. All fine.


----------



## Phronesis

Indiana said:


> I don't see any "strong claim" from bigshot. He just says what everybody says who made a test. They don't hear a difference. I don't understand what is so difficult about that. People totally overestimate their hearing ability and how hard expectation bias hits your brain. This was for myself an exiting experience when I was young and believed I could hear all kind of details. An electronic engineering in Paris gave me a good lesson after I told him I can for sure hear cable differences. I read the same discussion here in this forum about 16bit / 24bit. It's impossible to hear such a difference.



If you look at the first post in this thread, there are actually some references to blind tests where it was claimed that people could hear differences between gear other than speakers.  And of course you have lots of people claiming to hear big differences in uncontrolled tests.  With these contradictory findings, that takes us back to the need understand the details of how tests have been conducted and the results interpreted.  Until proper research has been done on this, we all have to draw our own working conclusions based on the evidence we each have seen, and it's ok if we don't all reach the same working conclusions. 

I'm not 100% sure or convinced of much, so I'm not motivated to try to convince others to do anything other than keep a reasonably open mind, delve into the relevant science, and push for good research to be done.  Nothing will be settled in this forum based on our available resources and methods, we're all just discussing, and the discussions should preferably be interesting and fun rather than unnecessarily adversarial (when I stop having fun, I'll need to tip my hat and depart).


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree.... 

Contrary to what many people seem to believe, and totally independent of whether I agree with it or not.....
I would absolutely consider a claim that includes terms like "NO difference exists", and claims that it applies to "ALL DACs" and "ALL humans" is making a "strong claim".
(I would consider any claim of an absolute result, which is said to apply to a wide range of subjects, with absolutely no exceptions, to be "a strong claim".)

That article offers an excellent example of a properly designed, conducted, and documented _scientific_ study.

I also find their conclusions to be quite interesting.

They essentially concluded that listeners enjoyed the music they heard more when they believed it was a "professional performance" because they paid closer attention.
This increased attention, due to their bias that they were hearing a "professional performance", made them more cognizant of "positive aspects" of the performance.

What I would note is that this follows on the assumption that the performance was in fact "a good performance" - based on whatever criteria an amateur listener would apply.
(So listeners rated the performance higher when they thought it was a professional performance because they paid closer attention to what they enjoyed about it.)

What I would find interesting would be to repeat the experiment - but with a notably BAD performance.
What I would specifically like to determine is if the bias would then work in reverse.
If people rate an enjoyable performance as being MORE enjoyable, because they're biased to pay closer attention, because they consider it to be a "professional performance"....
Will they also rate an UNENJOYABLE performance as being LESS ENJOYABLE because of their paying closer attention to it?
(If the difference is purely in how closely they pay attention - then we would expect it to amplify both positive and negative experiences.)
(But, if there is a component of positive expectation in favor of the professional performance, then we would expect that bias to always be positive.)
In colloquial terms, will that bias make them more critical, or more forgiving, of a BAD performance from a professional than from an amateur.?



Phronesis said:


> Given the strong claim you repeat about equal transparency of DACs and amps, your internet audience awaits the DETAILS of your testing.  Otherwise, you're just adding to the pile of words which don't add much value to the discussion.  Here's an example of what it means to provide details:
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24528-3
> 
> Is it really so difficult to understand that the person making a strong claim needs to provide the support for the claim, with sufficient details for others to evaluate the support for the claim?


----------



## KeithEmo

I noticed that.
The results of many of those tests seemed to provide "statistical conclusions" - while noting that specific exceptions were in fact found.

I've read several tests, mostly involving the audibility of differences between standard and high-res files, where it was essentially concluded that "overall a statistically significant number of people WERE NOT able to discern any difference"...
However, the detailed results went on to state that there were in fact a few test subjects who were able to do so with some accuracy.
(When that happens, you really need to do some follow-up testing to determine if their anomalous results were really just statistical anomalies, or if those test subjects are legitimate outliers.) 

To me, this is very much like offering to prove statistically that humans cannot run a mile in under four minutes.
You can conduct a test, using any number of test subjects, and find that none of them can run a mile in under four minutes.
However, as seems obvious to anyone with common sense, you have obviously _NOT_ proven that "_NO_ human can run a four minute mile".
(Your test was simply poorly designed... or inappropriately chosen... and so failed to provide relevant and accurate results to the question you asked.)

Likewise, certain tests that purported to find audible differences were "debunked"...
However, the contradictory tests used different test equipment, different test samples, and different test conditions...
Therefore, they neither confirmed nor contradicted the original results, but merely provided results of a different test which failed to support the original results.
There was one case where the authors used music produced by a rather unusual instrument, with odd tonal characteristics, and found that many of their subjects seemed to be able to detect a difference between standard and high-res versions of their test file.
Several subsequent tests claimed to "debunk" their results - _even though they used different test samples that lacked the unique tonal characteristics of those used in the original test_.
In a proper scientific test, if you wish dispute the results of a certain test, the first step is to replicate it _exactly_... 
(It wouldn't have been difficult to request copies of the original test file - so as to precisely confirm or contradict the original results.)

Doing it the proper way offers two distinct benefits.
1) It will quickly demonstrate if there were simple errors in the original test (because the results won't match and you have the opportunity to actually observe the test itself for errors)
2) If the results do match, and seem to contradict the results of other tests, it will give you the opportunity to figure out WHY the results disagree
    (If the first test was run at 10 AM, and the second one at 2 PM, and the results were different, then just maybe people's hearing acuity varies with time of day. It seems useful to know for sure... to either prove or rule out the possibility.)



Phronesis said:


> If you look at the first post in this thread, there are actually some references to blind tests where it was claimed that people could hear differences between gear other than speakers.  And of course you have lots of people claiming to hear big differences in uncontrolled tests.  With these contradictory findings, that takes us back to the need understand the details of how tests have been conducted and the results interpreted.  Until proper research has been done on this, we all have to draw our own working conclusions based on the evidence we each have seen, and it's ok if we don't all reach the same working conclusions.
> 
> I'm not 100% sure or convinced of much, so I'm not motivated to try to convince others to do anything other than keep a reasonably open mind, delve into the relevant science, and push for good research to be done.  Nothing will be settled in this forum based on our available resources and methods, we're all just discussing, and the discussions should preferably be interesting and fun rather than unnecessarily adversarial (when I stop having fun, I'll need to tip my hat and depart).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 28, 2018)

I've gotten a PM from someone who is interested in collaborating on a group listening test of DACs. Let me know if you're interested folks. I'm still looking for a DAC that someone has made an effort to determine that it doesn't sound the same as any other DAC. We have a DAC and a DAP offered up for loan for this test, but both of them are probably audibly transparent. We need one of these rare bird DACs to compare them to.

I'm sick and tired of "what ifs" and "I don't know for sure". Let's prove something to ourselves. Who's in?


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I've gotten a PM from someone who is interested in collaborating on a group listening test of DACs. Let me know if you're interested folks. I'm still looking for a DAC that someone has made an effort to determine that it doesn't sound the same as any other DAC. We have a DAC and a DAP offered up for loan for this test, but both of them are probably audibly transparent. We need one of these rare bird DACs to compare them to.
> 
> I'm sick and tired of "what ifs" and "I don't know for sure". Let's prove something to ourselves. Who's in?



Good idea and initiative.  I suggest that you collaborate with people participating in this thread to design the test protocol, then the actual testing and selection of test subjects will probably need to be done based on geographic location.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 28, 2018)

Those who participate will set the questions to answer and design the test. We won't dance for armchair monkey directors. It'll only happen if we have people who are interested enough in the test to participate in it. I'm happy to be a part of it, but like many of us, I've already done tests along these lines so I don't have to do it again myself. I would be interested in participating myself if someone can come up with a DAC or player that sounds different though. I've been looking for that for a long time.


----------



## james444

KeithEmo said:


> If you are correct, and "all good quality ADCs are audibly transparent" and "all good quality DACs are audibly transparent".....
> Then _ANY COMBINATION OF A GOOD QUALITY ADC AND A GOOD QUALITY DAC MUST ALSO BE AUDIBLY TRANSPARENT._
> 
> Or, to say it yet another way.....
> ...



Not sure I'd agree with this line of thinking. Don't you think it's possible that individual components in a chain may be audibly transparent (i.e. errors below audible threshold), yet still the sum of all errors in that chain may exceed the threshold of audibility?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 28, 2018)

james444 said:


> Not sure I'd agree with this line of thinking. Don't you think it's possible that individual components in a chain may be audibly transparent (i.e. errors below audible threshold), yet still the sum of all errors in that chain may exceed the threshold of audibility?



It would probably have to be a pretty long chain to do that. Looking at typical specs, it would require stacking up equipment to the point where the sound was impacted by an order of magnitude or maybe two to reach the level of audibility under normal listening conditions. What would that entail? 40 preamps or passthroughs? 50? I don't know, but it would be a lot.

I would be curious if there would be an audible difference if the analog output of a DAC or player was captured with a decent ADC and compared to the original file. I have a feeling there would be little if any difference. I might actually do that test very soon. I just have to dig out my ADC.

I did a test where I took an AAC 256 file and converted it to AIFF then back to AAC 256 again ten times. There was no audible degradation. I think that generation loss and stacking noise with audibly transparent stuff is pretty much a thing of the past. I remember stuff like that being an issue back in the 70s. But not since.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


> It would probably have to be a pretty long chain to do that. Looking at typical specs, it would require stacking up equipment to the point where the sound was impacted by an order of magnitude or maybe two to reach the level of audibility under normal listening conditions. What would that entail? 40 preamps or passthroughs? 50? I don't know, but it would be a lot.
> 
> I would be curious if there would be an audible difference if the analog output of a DAC or player was captured with a decent ADC and compared to the original file. I have a feeling there would be little if any difference. I might actually do that test very soon. I just have to dig out my ADC.
> 
> I did a test where I took an AAC 256 file and converted it to AIFF then back to AAC 256 again ten times. There was no audible degradation. I think that generation loss and stacking noise with audibly transparent stuff is pretty much a thing of the past. I remember stuff like that being an issue back in the 70s. But not since.


Guess you didn't see this (link) I posted earlier. I'm _extremely_ curious how your results will compare to the dozens already done.


----------



## KeithEmo

That's actually a very astute question. 
Yes, it's quite possible, and we have to account for that possibility when we design our test, and when we evaluate the results.

For a simple example, let's assume that we accept that "the threshold of audibility for frequency response errors is 0.75 dB".
We could have two components, each of which has a frequency response that is down 0.5 dB at 10 kHz.
Therefore, since that error is less than 0.75 dB, it will be inaudible.
However, if we connect those two components together, their individual frequency response errors add.
So, with both together, the _TOTAL_ result is an output which is down 1.0 dB at 10 kHz.
And, since that exceeds our agreed-upon threshold of 0.75 dB, it _WILL_ be audible.

However, as with many other situations, detailed knowledge will probably help us decide how to deal with that possibility.
For example, with most linear analog circuitry, the most common types of frequency response errors are gradual roll offs at the extremes of the frequency spectrum.
Frequency response variations that cover a narrow range, at some point in the middle of the spectrum, are far less common.
Therefore, the likelihood that we will have two components that both have a roll off above 10 kHz is pretty high...
But the likelihood that both an amplifier and a preamp would both have a narrow peak centered at 3345 Hz is relatively low...

So, in that situation, if a variety of different combinations of components showed a roll off above 10 kHz, I may have difficulty concluding which component or components were responsible.
However, if I were to test a ten different preamps, in combination with ten different amplifiers, and found a +1 dB peak at 3345 Hz in every pair that contained preamp #3...
I could conclude with some level of certainty that the preamp that was common to all ten pairs taht showed the error was probably responsible for it.

Another factor is something called "self selection".
If I were to try to find "the fastest human being" - specifically in terms of how fast they could run one mile - I would have a major task.
Testing everyone on my block, or everyone in my high school, would be unlikely to find the fastest person on Earth.
And, likewise, actually testing everyone on Earth is somewhat impractical.
Luckily, in this case, we have self selection.
That's a scientific way of saying that, because of how much we revere athletes, and how much we pay them, and those valuable endorsements, we don't have to test everyone.
Because of all those rewards offered to exceptional athletes, the individuals most likely to be the fastest have lots of incentive to enter competition.
(It's possible that the world's fastest person is a stock broker from Albuquerque.... but the likelihood that he's someone who attended the Olympic tryouts is much higher.)

Just to take the extreme example.... (and assume a large budget).
If I wanted to prove that some DACs sound different, I would invite people to attend a test, bringing their favorite DAC, their favorite program material, and their favorite headphones.
Then I would offer a substantial reward to anyone who could demonstrate, in a double blind test, _USING THEIR EQUIPMENT AND SAMPLES_, that they could hear a difference.
The reward would provide incentive for people to show up... and to do their best to maximize their chance of success.
(We might hope that, by being allowed to choose their own headphones and test samples, people may successfully maximize their chances of success.)
(It's simply not valid to test whether something is possible unless you can assure that your test subjects will try their best to succeed.)

However, since previous test results have shown that people often have poor success when allowed to choose their own test files and equipment...
I would also include various other test files and equipment....
For example, a variety of music, from a variety of different genres, and a variety of different headphones, using different technologies.
(I personally suspect that electrostatic headphones will be the most revealing... but others may disagree... and there's no reason not to include a wide variety.)



james444 said:


> Not sure I'd agree with this line of thinking. Don't you think it's possible that individual components in a chain may be audibly transparent (i.e. errors below audible threshold), yet still the sum of all errors in that chain may exceed the threshold of audibility?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 28, 2018)

If you look at the specs of most modern DACs, they are often at least an order of magnitude below the threshold of audibility, often double or triple. How many -90dB and -100dB noise floors do you have to pile up to reach -40 or -50dB? Would it even be possible or would one noise floor just fall into the noise floor of the next item in the chain? I doubt it's an issue even under extreme conditions. You would have to plug stuff together until the length of the wires start affecting the sound, and you'd have a daisy chain of equipment a couple of blocks long. It's just more crazy what ifs.


----------



## PointyFox

I apparently accidentally started a "Holy War" on this thread discussing the benefits or lack thereof of TOTL DACs: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/audeze-lcd-4.782442


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> I've gotten a PM from someone who is interested in collaborating on a group listening test of DACs. Let me know if you're interested folks. I'm still looking for a DAC that someone has made an effort to determine that it doesn't sound the same as any other DAC. We have a DAC and a DAP offered up for loan for this test, but both of them are probably audibly transparent. We need one of these rare bird DACs to compare them to.
> 
> I'm sick and tired of "what ifs" and "I don't know for sure". Let's prove something to ourselves. Who's in?


Count me in, though unfortunately I can't offer up a DAC - my days of dapling in external DACs are long over.


----------



## Phronesis

PointyFox said:


> I apparently accidentally started a "Holy War" on this thread discussing the benefits or lack thereof of TOTL DACs: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/audeze-lcd-4.782442



Be careful, there are rules against discussing that stuff outside Sound Science.  You can see that people there don't want to hear that stuff and will readily attack you for saying it.  But the same thing often happens here in Sound Science too.  As with politics, it's hard for 'independents' to find a place where they can talk freely.  After the 2016 elections, I spent some time in a politics forum, and, surprising to me, it was usually actually more civil there than what I often see in head-fi when people with different viewpoints try to talk with each other.


----------



## PointyFox

Phronesis said:


> Be careful, there are rules against discussing that stuff outside Sound Science.  You can see that people there don't want to hear that stuff and will readily attack you for saying it.  But the same thing often happens here in Sound Science too.  As with politics, it's hard for 'independents' to find a place where they can talk freely.  After the 2016 elections, I spent some time in a politics forum, and, surprising to me, it was usually actually more civil there than what I often see in head-fi when people with different viewpoints try to talk with each other.



So what is Sound Science exactly? Doesn't seem like a place for talking about science. Seems more like a place for the people who don't see the Emperor's new clothes. 



> Concentration Camp: a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 29, 2018)

PointyFox said:


> So what is Sound Science exactly? Doesn't seem like a place for talking about science. Seems more like a place for the people who don't see the Emperor's new clothes.



I escaped from here and I asked them a sincere and straightforward question. We’ll see how it goes. Whatever the answer, if I get one, I’ll give them no trouble.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 29, 2018)

SoundAndMotion said:


> @gregorio, I know the methods used at GearSlutz differs a bit from exactly what you are talking about (AD/DA loop comparison vs. just DACs under test). But they have a rather extensive database of null tests (link), that may interest some here, including you.



Yep, I know of that test on GearSlutz, it's been running for many years now. It has some fairly serious flaws, largely due to what I've been talking about and combining the null test of both ADC and DAC together, rather than doing one at a time.



Phronesis said:


> [1] ... could you PLEASE just give us an actual null test of DACs with the residual file and analysis of the file? Let’s be empirical and practical about this.
> [2] ]I found Keith’s post to be clear and helpful, and I like analogies.
> [3] It’s clear to me that there are people around here who need to learn what Keith is saying ... His posts add value to the discussion.
> [4] The real issue seems to be that people come at this audio stuff with different backgrounds, assumptions, and goals, so we’re inevitably not all on the same page, and maybe never will be.



1. Three times now you've asked for my null tests of DACs and I've already told you twice that I no longer have them, I explained why and explained why you likely won't find such information in published scientific papers. How then can repeatedly asking for something that no longer exists be in anyway "empirical" or "practical"? It's a contradiction, it doesn't make any sense! Why don't you simply do as @Arpiben suggested and do the tests yourself, it's not as if you need thousands of dollars worth of specialist measuring equipment and months of training to use it!

2. You're not addressing the questions, simply repeating the same thing! This forum is not concerned with what you find to be clear and helpful, it's concerned with the science/facts. There's plenty of clear and helpful posts (in other forums) about cables making significant audible differences but just because they're "clear and helpful" doesn't mean they're factually accurate. Same with analogies, it doesn't matter if you like them, in this forum it's about whether or not they aid understanding of the actual facts.

3. Then that's an issue about what's "clear to you". Some/Much of what Keith has asserted has been clearly refuted (with evidence) and demonstrated to be incorrect/false. So how does incorrect/false assertions "add value to the discussion" (rather than the opposite) and why are you advocating that "people around here" should learn those incorrect/false assertions? The only non-nefarious answer to this question is that you do not understand the assertions and how they conflict with the actual facts!

4. Isn't that the point of this forum and indeed science itself? Sure, people will have different backgrounds, different knowledge, different opinions and different beliefs but this is not a religion forum where everything just comes down to more or less equally weighted opinions and you just choose to believe whichever one you like the most (or think is "clear and helpful"). Your statement assumes that there are no actual audio facts or science, only differing opinions, Clearly that assumption is false! Of course, it's up to you if you want to treat it all as just differing opinions and ignore the actual facts/science but then you're in the wrong forum to actually assert that.



KeithEmo said:


> If you are correct, and "all good quality ADCs are audibly transparent" and "all good quality DACs are audibly transparent".....Then _ANY COMBINATION OF A GOOD QUALITY ADC AND A GOOD QUALITY DAC MUST ALSO BE AUDIBLY TRANSPARENT._



That is a fallacy! Clearly, we can have an ADC whose flaws are below audibility and therefore is "audibly transparent", likewise we can have a DAC whose flaws are below audibility and is therefore "audibly transparent". However, add those two sets of flaws together and they may jointly exceed the threshold of audibility. It's troubling enough that you apparently don't know/understand this pretty basic fact and therefore arrived at this fallacy *but far more troubling* is that you do in fact know this basic fact because just a few posts later you state "... Le_t's assume that we accept that the threshold of audibility for frequency response errors is 0.75 dB. We could have two components, each of which has a frequency response that is down 0.5 dB at 10 kHz. However, if we connect those two components together, their individual frequency response errors add. So, with both together, the TOTAL result is an output which is down 1.0 dB at 10 kHz. And, since that exceeds our agreed-upon threshold of 0.75 dB, it WILL be audible_" - You have *directly contradicted yourself*! What other conclusion is there other than that you made this forceful (all caps) assertion, knowing that it was false?



KeithEmo said:


> If I include multiple devices in the signal chain, it is _POSSIBLE_ that errors in two or more of them may cancel out, which may lead to a _FALSE_ conclusion that both are transparent.



Which is precisely why you should not include multiple different devices in the signal chain when null testing a piece of equipment! To make it clear (AGAIN!), all devices have consistent flaws to some degree (audible or not), those flaws will cancel out in a null test, provided of course that individual device is not changed. So if you have say an ADC which, as per your example, is down 0.5dB at 10kHz, then it will be down 0.5dB at 10kHz on both recordings which will null and will therefore not show-up in the difference file. If however you change that ADC for one that is flat, then that 0.5dB at 10kHz is a "difference", it will not null and it will show up in the difference file. This is of course exactly what we're after if we're testing two different ADCs but it will give us an incorrect difference file if we're actually testing something else (say differences between two DACs)!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] However, you have jumped to the conclusion that "any difference above 20 kHz _MUST_ be inaudible".... but you have not proven it by this test.
> [2] Some time ago, someone published an article claiming that "high-resolution files are actually bad - because the ultrasonic information they contain can actually cause distortion". Interestingly, his conclusion and yours are mutually exclusive.... they cannot both be true.
> [2A] If that extra ultrasonic content causes audible distortion, then it most certainly _DOES_ produce an audible difference... And, if it produces no audible difference at all, then it _CANNOT_ be causing audible distortion...
> [2b] Or, perhaps you would prefer to amend your original assertion to:
> "Either the ultrasonic content produces no audible difference, or it does produce an audible difference, but that audible difference is bad."



1. Firstly, yes I have, I have done tests and cannot hear anything above 20kHz. Secondly, I have been involved in listening tests of around 1,800 people (90% of which were older teenagers) and never found a single one who could hear above 20kHz. Thirdly and most relevantly, the scientific community have done such tests and conclusively demonstrated that even young adult ears can only hear content above 20kHz at extremely high SPLs, which as part of a commercial music product would require damaging SPL levels. The conclusions I've "jumped to" are backed by considerable testing + published scientific testing and your assertion is THEREFORE FALSE!!

2. No, his conclusion and mine are NOT mutually exclusive and therefore, Yes, they can both be true! Because:
2a. The ultrasonic content does not cause audible distortion! What might cause audible distortion is an amplifier not adequately designed for ultrasonic content, resulting in a non-linear response that creates IMD in the audible band.
2b. Rather than changing my assertion, I'll add to it, not because it was incorrect but purely in an attempt to stop you from fallaciously misrepresenting it! :
There are two solutions to an amplifier reacting non-linearly to ultrasonic content, either: A. Buy one that does not respond to ultrasonic content non-linearly or B. As it's inaudible anyway, simply don't feed the amplifier any ultrasonic content in the first place!



KeithEmo said:


> Just to be clear here.....Many people claim to "have run tests and found that different DACs sound different"....You have "run tests and found that they all sound the same"....



How is misrepresenting what I've said "just to be clear"? Misrepresenting what I've said is in fact the exact opposite of being clear!

We've gone full circle again, I can't be bothered to refute every single one of your false assertions and misrepresentations and besides, as you've demonstrated, I really don't need to in some cases because you're doing it all on your own!
I can't see what advantage you think you're gaining from all this nonsense and self-contradiction, I can't see how it's helping you or Emotiva and with one possible exception (who apparently can't recognise it's self-contradictory/nonsense), pretty much everyone here is sick to death of the CONTINUOUS INSULT it represents to this forum and it's members. When is enough, enough?

G


----------



## Phronesis

@gregorio, too many words.  Are you not able to grab a couple DACs, do a null test, and present the results?  If it’s so easy (at least for you), what’s the hold up?


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> Are you not able to grab a couple DACs, do a null test, and present the results? If it’s so easy (at least for you), what’s the hold up?



Not currently, no. My studio is setup and being used for a project currently and anyway, it doesn't exist to do a test that you could do yourself! What's the hold up?

G


----------



## Steve999

Steve999 said:


> I escaped from here and I asked them a sincere and straightforward question. We’ll see how it goes. Whatever the answer, if I get one, I’ll give them no trouble.





PointyFox said:


> I apparently accidentally started a "Holy War" on this thread discussing the benefits or lack thereof of TOTL DACs: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/audeze-lcd-4.782442





Steve999 said:


> I escaped from here and I asked them a sincere and straightforward question. We’ll see how it goes. Whatever the answer, if I get one, I’ll give them no trouble.



They seem nice enough if you play on their playing field. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with throwing a little cold water on their parade (hope I didn’t mix any metaphors) but you should be willing to do so with the expectation of anger and knowing you are breaking the rules. Sometimes doing that is the high ground. I’m just done with all that, except within our little isolated camp here. Kudos to you for breaking down the barriers. It’s in everyone’s best interest, but it’s a situation of no pain, no gain, IMHO.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 29, 2018)

gregorio said:


> Not currently, no. My studio is setup and being used for a project currently and anyway, it doesn't exist to do a test that you could do yourself! What's the hold up?
> 
> G



I’m not that motivated to do the test because my learning curve is significant, I’m not confident that the test will show no audible difference, and, unlike you, I’m not asserting that the test will show that.

Again, the burden of demonstration falls on those making claims.  If someone claims there’s definitely a difference, demonstrate that, knowing that sighted uncontrolled listening comparison doesn’t cut it due to established effects of expectation bias.  If someone claims there’s definitely no difference, demonstrate that, knowing that comparison using measurements needs to show conclusively very small differences, and blind tests need to be done and interpreted in a scientific way -  casual hobbyist blind tests won’t cut it.  In the absence of such demonstrations, all we can say is maybe, probably, probably not, etc., and there won’t likely be any consensus.


----------



## Steve999

Phronesis said:


> I’m not that motivated to do the test because my learning curve is significant, I’m not confident that the test will show no audible difference, and, unlike you, I’m not asserting that the test will show that.
> 
> Again, the burden of demonstration falls on those making claims.  If someone claims there’s definitely a difference, demonstrate that, knowing that sighted uncontrolled listening comparison doesn’t cut it due to established effects of expectation bias.  If someone claims there’s definitely no difference, demonstrate that, knowing that comparison using measurements needs to show conclusively very small differences, and blind tests need to be done and interpreted in a scientific way -  casual hobbyist blind tests won’t cut it.  In the absence of such demonstrations, all we can say is maybe, probably, probably not, etc., and there won’t likely be any consensus.



Based on our null hypothesis discussion the other day, can’t we just as easily flip that? Since you are claiming there may be a difference, might the null hypothesis be that there is no difference and the burden of testing fall on you? I don’t know, these concepts are not really stuff I have real expertise with, but I’m not too bad with logic and comprehension.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 29, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> Based on our null hypothesis discussion the other day, can’t we just as easily flip that? Since you are claiming there may be a difference, might the null hypothesis be that there is no difference and the burden of testing fall on you? I don’t know, these concepts are not really stuff I have real expertise with, but I’m not too bad with logic and comprehension.



It's the difference between 'may' versus 'is' or 'is not'.  'May' also includes 'may not', so it's not a strong claim, more just an expression of uncertainty and keeping an open mind until the evidence is more conclusive.  'Is' or 'is not' (excluded middle) implies that the evidence is already conclusive, and people who believe that need to provide that evidence.

Now before people start screaming that we don't have to mount evidence to demonstrate there are no ghosts in order to believe there are no ghosts, let's keep in mind that audio gear does typically measure differently and some blind tests have found differences (but those tests may have been flawed), plus the zillion anecdotal experiences of people hearing clear differences in uncontrolled listening, so we can't just dismiss the possibility of there being *some* audible difference out of hand.

I liked your reference to monads, so I know you studied some philosophy.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> It's the difference between 'may' versus 'is' or 'is not'.  'May' also includes 'may not', so it's not a strong claim, more just an expression of uncertainty and keeping an open mind until the evidence is more conclusive.  'Is' or 'is not' (excluded middle) implies that the evidence is already conclusive, and people who believe that need to provide that evidence.
> 
> Now before people start screaming that we don't have to mount evidence to demonstrate there are no ghosts in order to believe there are no ghosts, let's keep in mind that audio gear does typically measure differently and some blind tests have found differences (but those tests may have been flawed), plus the zillion anecdotal experiences of people hearing clear differences in uncontrolled listening, so we can't just dismiss the possibility of there being *some* audible difference out of hand.
> 
> I liked your reference to monads, so I know you studied some philosophy.


a bad experiment is bad. billions of people judging audibility with sighted impressions and getting the same sort of erroneous conclusions about how everything almost always sounds different, do not amount to a legitimate reason to believe they are onto something. that's a fallacy and you cannot think that way!

this section somehow always turns into "everything sounds the same" vs "no it doesn't". be it because bigshot loves his generalizations, or because some guy arguing for differences will put that into someone else's mouth as a strawman argument. we can't seem to be able to escape that black&white crap. are those really the questions you had about audio gears?  here is my usual statement: humans have 2 hands. now let's fight for 20 pages about what I meant and how wrong I am... 
are you guys really coming to the forum for that? 

- an untenable claim like "everything sounds the same" has to be rejected for being untenable, not for the position it proposes. just ask for evidence. obviously nobody will be able to offer more than a few anecdotes, which is far from supporting such global claim. so the claim is unsupported, throw it away, the end. 
- an uncontrolled test has to be rejected because of what it is. not because of the position it defends. an uncontrolled test cannot be conclusive because of all the added variables and uncertainty it ignored. throw the all thing away with whatever argument and conclusions associated. the end. 
every time we get dragged into an argument with those faulty situations, we're wasting our time.  ***this was presented to you by "do what I say not what I do" ^_^. ***






about null tests, are they the FOTM of standards for audibility somehow? sure if the resulting signal is nothing or close enough then we demonstrate how small the difference is(duh!). but that's as far as it goes and that's what we use it for.
there are just many possible cases where relatively high amplitudes remaining in the signal would not demonstrate audibility so the test cannot consistently answer that.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 29, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> a bad experiment is bad. billions of people judging audibility with sighted impressions and getting the same sort of erroneous conclusions about how everything almost always sounds different, do not amount to a legitimate reason to believe they are onto something. that's a fallacy and you cannot think that way!
> 
> this section somehow always turns into "everything sounds the same" vs "no it doesn't". be it because bigshot loves his generalizations, or because some guy arguing for differences will put that into someone else's mouth as a strawman argument. we can't seem to be able to escape that black&white crap. are those really the questions you had about audio gears?  here is my usual statement: humans have 2 hands. now let's fight for 20 pages about what I meant and how wrong I am...
> are you guys really coming to the forum for that?
> ...



These are good points which point to a need to find a productive way forward.

For gear other than transducers, I'd love to take the listener mostly or entirely out of the equation and show that gear is audibly the same based on measurements.  I like the null test at least in concept, because if the signal is the same, the sound must be the same.  But of course we can't readily determine that by simply overlaying the signals graphically (or graphing the difference signal) and eyeballing to see the difference, so we need some further signal analysis, which gets us into problematic territory as far as inferring audibility.

If measurements won't settle it and we need to bring in listeners as measuring devices to make subjective comparisons (they are unavoidably and inherently subjective) in blind tests, that opens up other cans of worms related to perception, memory, and generalizing from how perception and memory worked in the tests versus how they work in normal listening.

One issue is that memory is fuzzy, and doing A/B comparison of a memory of sound versus what you're hearing now is problematic.  It's like I open the door to a room and tell you to look around for 5 secs and memorize what you see, then I close the door and can make any changes in the room as quickly as I want, then I open the door again and ask you what, if anything, changed; that's a difficult task, and people will both miss things that actually changed and will suspect that some things changed which actually didn't (false negatives and positives).  When family came over for Thanksgiving, no one noticed that we repainted the dining room from a dark burgundy to a light tan; when I asked people what changed in the room, they said the chairs (correct), then the table (not correct), and finally most said the paint, after they looked around the room to find something else which could have changed; no one noticed the paint change at all without being prompted to keep looking, and after being prompted, most quickly noticed it and it seemed obvious.

And it's actually worse than that, because the room is static each time you look at it, whereas sound unfolds in time.  So a better analogy is to make a video clip, have the ability to alter it to any degree and in any way, and now ask people to compare clips and say what if anything changed.  The person altering the clips may be able to clearly see the effects of their changes, yet many people taking the test may miss the changes or think they see changes that aren't actually there.  You can do lots of trials and run statistics, but if the changes are subtle, people may consistently miss them, even though they would notice them if they were the ones using the editing software and could direct their attention to the changes they intend to make - there can be demonstrably perceivable differences which people fail to perceive because of where they direct their attention or not paying enough attention in general.

The other big issue I see with blind tests is the conscious versus subconscious aspect.  As others have noted, forced choice perception experiments demonstrate that people can discriminate between A and B at statistically above-chance levels, even though they consciously don't notice any difference and feel they're just guessing.  The subconscious mind apparently nudges the conscious mind towards correctly noticing differences without the conscious mind being aware of that happening.  An extreme example of this divide is the phenomenon of blindsight, where people have no conscious awareness of seeing anything at all, yet they can navigate their environment with some effectiveness.  There's already research showing that conscious and subconscious aspects of perception work differently in the time dimension.  So IMO it's plausible that blind tests which involve focused conscious attention, typically listening to short music segments, may result in failing to notice differences which would actually be experienced in normal listening.  A protocol can be designed to use longer music segments and ask listeners to listen as they 'normally' do, but you would potentially need a lot of trials and good statistical analysis to pick up subtle differences, and asking listeners to make A/B comparisons in such a protocol is problematic because listeners will remember very little from a long listening session with any clarity (memory is evolved to retain the gist of things, not the details), so how can they reliably note if they experienced a difference (even if they did)?  If comparison based on auditory memory doesn't work, but there's an accurate gut feeling that A sounded better than B, how can someone reliably tap into that feeling?

These are the kinds of issues which hobbyists typically fail to consider because they lack the knowledge and maybe the inquisitiveness to even have them on their radar, but scientists take these kinds of issues seriously and explicitly discuss them.


----------



## Indiana (Nov 29, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> - an untenable claim like "everything sounds the same" has to be rejected for being untenable, not for the position it proposes. just ask for evidence. obviously nobody will be able to offer more than a few anecdotes, which is far from supporting such global claim. so the claim is unsupported, throw it away, the end.



This is not an untenable claim. It's fact. And yes, it's black and white in this case. There is no grey zone. Audio DSP is all about Math. And there is no such thing about untenable Math. This is called unproved/unsolved problems. Math folks love it and bang there head on it all the time. But we talk here about Audio DSP and how it works.
When I say its impossible the to hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit "highres" then because I know its impossible. There is no resolution at all in Audio DSP. Something like "highres" does just does not exist. Its just not there. Its very misleading to think there could be more information. Because there is no resolution at all, only quantized data words which represents a signal with more or less noise. Thats it. There is no magic behind it. And again its ALL in the math. And the math is quite amazing and beautiful. No matter how many expensive DAC devices are out there, you achieve transparency cheap this days.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 29, 2018)

PointyFox said:


> I apparently accidentally started a "Holy War" on this thread discussing the benefits or lack thereof of TOTL DACs: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/audeze-lcd-4.782442



The Holy War no longer exists in that thread.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

The only freewheeling searches for honest knowledge at head-fi appear to be in Sound Science. The discussions may get pretty heated but I would be reassured to know you are in a place where, relatively speaking, honest knowledge and constructive disagreement may be pursued.

As I once read in a fairly pathetic training manual on negotiations, the truth is not the truth where the truth is not expected.

The counter-argument is that relationships are built on trust.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely disagree.

In order to _PROVE_ that "everything sounds the same" you would have to test "everything".
(So, unless you believe that someone can actually test "everything and everybody", then purporting to make a claim about all of them is untenable - or, perhaps, "impossible to substantiate".)

Short of that you can "produce evidence that strongly suggests it"...
Or you can "infer it"...
Or you can state that nobody has produced evidence that proves the opposite to be true...
Or you can make a softer statement like "for practical purposes it's safe to assume that it's true"... (which is clearly a statement of belief or opinion)

However, until and unless you test everything, everywhere, forever, under every possible circumstance, you cannot make a valid generalization about "everything".
And, since you cannot possibly know about everything, any attempt to make such a statement must by definition be untrue.
(And, yes, in science we DO take everything literally whenever possible)



Indiana said:


> This is not an untenable claim. It's fact. And yes, it's black and white in this case. There is no grey zone. Audio DSP is all about Math. And there is no such thing about untenable Math. This is called unproved/unsolved problems. Math folks love it and bang there head on it all the time. But we talk here about Audio DSP and how it works.
> When I say its impossible the to hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit "highres" then because I know its impossible. There is no resolution at all in Audio DSP. Something like "highres" does just does not exist. Its just not there. Its very misleading to think there could be more information. Because there is no resolution at all, only quantized data words which represents a signal with more or less noise. Thats it. There is no magic behind it. And again its ALL in the math. And the math is quite amazing and beautiful. No matter how many expensive DAC devices are out there, you achieve transparency cheap this days.


----------



## castleofargh

Indiana said:


> This is not an untenable claim. It's fact. And yes, it's black and white in this case. There is no grey zone. Audio DSP is all about Math. And there is no such thing about untenable Math. This is called unproved/unsolved problems. Math folks love it and bang there head on it all the time. But we talk here about Audio DSP and how it works.
> When I say its impossible the to hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit "highres" then because I know its impossible. There is no resolution at all in Audio DSP. Something like "highres" does just does not exist. Its just not there. Its very misleading to think there could be more information. Because there is no resolution at all, only quantized data words which represents a signal with more or less noise. Thats it. There is no magic behind it. And again its ALL in the math. And the math is quite amazing and beautiful. No matter how many expensive DAC devices are out there, you achieve transparency cheap this days.


how cool would it be if practical applications had the actual reliability of math. 
I say it's untenable because beyond being something you cannot prove through experiment(it would require too many), any claim as broad as "everything ...." is super easy to disprove. 
we were talking about DACs, but if you want to play with 16 vs 24bit, I can just create a track with nothing in the first 70dB and increase the gain until I can clearly perceive the background noise. it's easy and totally repeatable. so it's not impossible to hear a difference and the claim is false. 
now obviously you meant typical properly mastered music and normal listening levels, and under those conditions I share you views. but then why didn't you specify that as conditions for your claim? if we have conditions for when the claim is true, it's not impossible anymore. the absolute claim was false, and the conditional claim isn't an absolute claim. from my point of view that does make a lonely "everything sounds the same" untenable. 

for DACs it's similar. many DACs have an audible output level difference. so if the claim that they all sound the same doesn't specify matched levels, we then have plenty of evidence disproving that claim. take a DAC with a 1V fs output, one with 3V output. the second one will sound about twice as loud as the other. if that's not an audible difference, what is? any truth is going to be conditional, so any claim should come with a specific set of conditions.


----------



## Indiana (Nov 29, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> And, since you cannot possibly know about everything, any attempt to make such a statement must by definition be untrue.
> (And, yes, in science we DO take everything literally whenever possible)


With all due respect, I spent thousands of hours in DSP. And you obviously not. You fill endless posts which have nothing to do with the topic. I made my posts as simple and as clear as possible. You will never hear a difference. This day will never come.


----------



## Indiana

castleofargh said:


> I say it's untenable because beyond being something you cannot prove through experiment(it would require too many), any claim as broad as "everything ...." is super easy to disprove.


This is only semantic and misleading. You know exactly what I mean.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 29, 2018)

PointyFox said:


> I apparently accidentally started a "Holy War" on this thread discussing the benefits or lack thereof of TOTL DACs: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/audeze-lcd-4.782442



Be careful Fox. You'll get banned. People are allowed to lie outside of Sound Science and be praised for it. Here they can go ahead and lie too, but we can call them out on it. If you push too far out there, you'll be banned and you can't get back in here either.



PointyFox said:


> So what is Sound Science exactly? Doesn't seem like a place for talking about science. Seems more like a place for the people who don't see the Emperor's new clothes.



It was created as a banishment group to make those meddling kids and their dog stop poking around the haunted carnival. A couple of us (ahem ahem) used logic to the point where it started messing with some salesmen's bread and butter and we had to be incarcerated here. We started enjoying it and building up our own community, so that had to be stopped with a mass ban campaign. We've crawled back after over a year and started again, but we find ourselves as the porch light attracting disingenuous, self important, severely biased moths who glom onto threads they don't like as barnacles. Their goal is to attack the most knowledgeable person in the group and drive him away. They're doing the same for me because of my tenure here and post count. They won't succeed because this group was built on the idea of backing up statements, and a few of us are stubborn old goats who won't ever let go.

Does that explain it better?

Please stick around here and don't torment the rest of Head-Fi with a stick through their bars of ignorance. It will only end badly for you, and I kinda like having you here as part of our jolly family.



Steve999 said:


> I don’t think there’s anything wrong with throwing a little cold water on their parade.



If you disappear suddenly, it was nice knowing ya!



old tech said:


> Count me in, though unfortunately I can't offer up a DAC - my days of dapling in external DACs are long over.



Great. I'll let you know. When we get enough people together, I'll create a PM group and we'll discuss what if anything we want to do.


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes... bringing listeners into the equation is both unavoidable and a serious complicating factor.
Listeners are not only complicated, and difficult to calibrate, but are actually subject to both internal and external variations.
Also, annoyingly, the performance of human listeners has been proven to vary depending on the state of their brain - which can be affected by things like beliefs and expectations.
Unfortunately, when dealing with "what humans can perceive", there's no real way to eliminate those pesky humans from the process.

As that interesting study in Nature showed.... 
Because "hearing" is a function of both your ears and your brain....
Listeners actually "heard different things" depending on how their attention and expectations were directed....
(They "heard" a better or worse performance depending on whether their brain was operating on the belief that it was being done by a professional or student musician.)

Even though it's solely based on perception, the placebo effect is both real, and able to affect physical things.
People given a placebo pain pill not only report feeling less pain, but measurements of physical indications of pain, like blood pressure and heart rate, show that they actually _EXPERIENCE_ less pain.
(Perhaps someone who expects to hear no difference between two devices is actually physically less able to hear differences because his brain has focused his perceptions away from them.)

Note that it is quite possible to test this sort of thing... it simply requires more effort.
For example, you could divide test subjects into two groups.
One group would be TOLD that they were listening to identical devices (you could make up an excuse about why).
The other group would be told they were being asked to compare different devices.
(You have now created two groups of test subjects with different expectations.)
Both groups could then be presented with a mix of device pairs - some with known differences and some exactly identical.
The results would tell us whether both people who expected to hear differences, and people who expected NOT to hear differences, were equally able to detect small known differences.
(It would also tell us whether they were equally likely to imagine differences that weren't there.)

My theory is that people who don't expect to hear differences have their attention less powerfully focused on detecting differences...
And that, therefore, they will prove less sensitive to small but real differences.
In colloquial terms" You are less likely to notice something if your attention isn't on it; and your attention is less likely to be focused on something you don't expect to be there."
(This is simply based on the well known fact, proven many times in other contexts, that we humans tend not to notice things we aren't paying attention to.)
(And I'd love to see fMRI data about how the brains of both groups were "allocating their resources".)

Some experts have suggested that yet another variable should be included.
Some subjects should be "taught what to listen for".
They could be provided with exaggerated examples of what various sorts of distortions and signal artifacts may sound like... so they "know what to listen for".
(Note that this is slightly different than, for example, using "professional musicians", who are _presumed_ to have a more accurate "internal reference".) 
We could then test whether these "trained listeners" were better able to distinguish small differences than "untrained listeners".
(There is a lot of precedent for this. For example, when training people to inspect parts, the training usually includes both showing them perfect parts, and showing them typical flawed parts "so they know what to look for".)

Your video clip example would almost certainly yield interesting results.
I suspect that, if you created a clip with many small differences, you could "control what people saw" simply buy making suggestions about what changes "they should keep an eye out for".
Many studies suggest that we "see" a very small percentage of what our eyes pick up... based on where "our brain's attention is focused".
Even worse, since our brain controls our eyes, even what our eyes pick up is going to vary depending on where the attention of our brain is focused.
(There have been some very comical examples of this - where participants failed to see huge signs projected on the ceiling during a lecture simply because "they had no reason to look up".)

I would suggest that a good start in the right direction would be to make a conscious attempt to consider the context of a question or discussion:
Are we discussing "what's humanly possible"?
Or are we discussing "things a typical customer purchasing an new component should worry about"?
I would say that BOTH are valid subjects for discussion... but it saves a lot of angst and bickering to keep track of which is which.



Phronesis said:


> These are good points which point to a need to find a productive way forward.
> 
> For gear other than transducers, I'd love to take the listener mostly or entirely out of the equation and show that gear is audibly the same based on measurements.  I like the null test at least in concept, because if the signal is the same, the sound must be the same.  But of course we can't readily determine that by simply overlaying the signals graphically (or graphing the difference signal) and eyeballing to see the difference, so we need some further signal analysis, which gets us into problematic territory as far as inferring audibility.
> 
> ...


----------



## Indiana

bigshot said:


> Be careful Fox. You'll get banned. People are allowed to lie outside of Sound Science and be praised for it. Here they can go ahead and lie too, but we can call them out on it. If you push too far out there, you'll be banned and you can't get back in here either.


Bigshot, is this a commercial forum here ?  I clicked on the video above. A guy selling headphones for a lot of money.


----------



## bigshot

"The difference between "may" and "is not"" was a line from the Clinton impeachment deposition wasn't it?


----------



## bigshot

Indiana said:


> Bigshot, is this a commercial forum here ?  I clicked on the video above. A guy selling headphones for a lot of money.



Yes, this site is advertiser supported. This forum is the only place on head-fi where certain words may be spoken... placebo, confirmation bias and double blind testing are off limits for discussion on the rest of the site. This is to keep the "members of the trade" happy. You can identify them because it says "member of the trade" under their name.


----------



## Indiana (Nov 29, 2018)

Thank you very much bigshot. (I was not aware of that)


----------



## bigshot (Nov 29, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> this section somehow always turns into "everything sounds the same" vs "no it doesn't". be it because bigshot loves his generalizations, or because some guy arguing for differences will put that into someone else's mouth as a strawman argument.



Just to make it clear for the millionth time... I don't say all DACs and amps and cables sound the same. I say that all DACs and amps and cables SHOULD sound the same. They should all perform beyond the line of audible transparency under normal use so they don't introduce coloration in the chain. I have tested all of my DACs and amps and they are all audibly transparent for the purposes of listening to music in the home. That's my claim right there. Accept no substitutes!

I've asked for someone to help me locate and get my hands on a DAC or amp or cable that sounds clearly different. No one to date has been able to do that. If someone can help me, I will eagerly and enthusiastically try to prove myself wrong. I would love to find one of these night and day difference things that I keep reading about in forums. But whenever someone says they have one for me, I try to get to the point where we can verify it and the person dissembles into prevarication, semantic arguments, what ifs, circular arguments, complete avoidance of the issue, logical fallacies or ad hominem attacks. It's a pattern. And we have several examples of this pattern posting right here in this thread!

Step right up and make Bigshot admit he was wrong about this. Help prove it once and for all. But if you aren't genuine and you try to win with argumentative tricks, you'll get bitten by this old lion.


----------



## Indiana

bigshot said:


> Just to make it clear for the millionth time... I don't say all DACs and amps and cables sound the same. I say that all DACs and amps and cables SHOULD sound the same.


You express it better than me. Of course they should sound the same or something is just wrong.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 29, 2018)

Indiana said:


> Thank you very much bigshot. (I was not aware of that)



By the way Indiana, the particular technique they are using on you is argument from ignorance and demanding to prove a negative. "You can test a million grains of sand and fine them all to be the same, but you can't say every grain of sand is the same until you test every one in the world." "You don't know anything because you can't know everything." Classic logical fallacy. It's one of their favorite ways to weasel out of the conclusion that the facts clearly seem to point to. It just means that no amount of proof is enough for them. They know they are unable to provide a burden of proof, so they demand absolute proof from you.

Just like any other forum, you read for a while and you figure out who has something to say, and who just blathers and argues. Then you ignore the people who aren't worth your time. I'd be happy to share my notes with you on who is worthwhile reading and who isn't if you'd like.


----------



## Indiana

bigshot said:


> It just means that no amount of proof is enough for them. They know they are unable to provide a burden of proof, so they demand absolute proof from you.


Yes, as you know I am new here and I follow this discussion now for days just to get the picture. And Gregorio and you presented many facts which I just know they are correct. But its really confusing for  readers to follow this discussion. I already wrote: when people want to find out if they can hear a difference, this is not so hard to find out. So why don't they just do it? It's really a simple task.


----------



## KeithEmo

The problem is that it's NOT a logical fallacy at all.... but your argument is.... it's a "straw man".

Your first quote is simply a fact:
"You can test a million grains of sand and fine them all to be the same, but you can't say every grain of sand is the same until you test every one in the world."

In fact, it's relatively easy to substantiate.
You can test every grain of sand on my favorite New York beach.... which is probably many trillions of them.
You'll find that most are white quartz, with some black magnetite, a few orange garnets, a little feldspar, and perhaps some coral mixed in.
However, if you go to a beach in Hawaii, you will find that the sand is almost entirely black lava sand.
(And, no amount of knowledge about New York sand will render you especially knowledgeable about Hawaiian sand.)

And, offhand, I don't actually recall anyone claiming that:
"You don't know anything because you can't know everything."
I believe most merely claimed that "the scope of your conclusions exceeded the reach of your proof".



bigshot said:


> By the way Indiana, the particular technique they are using on you is argument from ignorance and demanding to prove a negative. "You can test a million grains of sand and fine them all to be the same, but you can't say every grain of sand is the same until you test every one in the world." "You don't know anything because you can't know everything." Classic logical fallacy. It's one of their favorite ways to weasel out of the conclusion that the facts clearly seem to point to. It just means that no amount of proof is enough for them. They know they are unable to provide a burden of proof, so they demand absolute proof from you.
> 
> Just like any other forum, you read for a while and you figure out who has something to say, and who just blathers and argues. Then you ignore the people who aren't worth your time. I'd be happy to share my notes with you on who is worthwhile reading and who isn't if you'd like.


----------



## KeithEmo

Thank you for clarifying that..... 

That is a well phrased and perfectly reasonable conclusion or opinion.
It clearly states your conclusion and the supporting evidence on the basis of which you believe it to be true.

Just for the sake of completeness, I will also point out something important...
When phrased that way, it also does _NOT_ specifically accuse anyone who reaches a different conclusion of being "foolish" or "wrong".



bigshot said:


> Just to make it clear for the millionth time... I don't say all DACs and amps and cables sound the same. I say that all DACs and amps and cables SHOULD sound the same. They should all perform beyond the line of audible transparency under normal use so they don't introduce coloration in the chain. I have tested all of my DACs and amps and they are all audibly transparent for the purposes of listening to music in the home. That's my claim right there. Accept no substitutes!
> 
> I've asked for someone to help me locate and get my hands on a DAC or amp or cable that sounds clearly different. No one to date has been able to do that. If someone can help me, I will eagerly and enthusiastically try to prove myself wrong. I would love to find one of these night and day difference things that I keep reading about in forums. But whenever someone says they have one for me, I try to get to the point where we can verify it and the person dissembles into prevarication, semantic arguments, what ifs, circular arguments, complete avoidance of the issue, logical fallacies or ad hominem attacks. It's a pattern. And we have several examples of this pattern posting right here in this thread!
> 
> Step right up and make Bigshot admit he was wrong about this. Help prove it once and for all. But if you aren't genuine and you try to win with argumentative tricks, you'll get bitten by this old lion.


----------



## castleofargh (Nov 29, 2018)

bigshot said:


> By the way Indiana, the particular technique they are using on you is argument from ignorance and demanding to prove a negative. "You can test a million grains of sand and fine them all to be the same, but you can't say every grain of sand is the same until you test every one in the world." "You don't know anything because you can't know everything." Classic logical fallacy. It's one of their favorite ways to weasel out of the conclusion that the facts clearly seem to point to. It just means that no amount of proof is enough for them. They know they are unable to provide a burden of proof, so they demand absolute proof from you.
> 
> Just like any other forum, you read for a while and you figure out who has something to say, and who just blathers and argues. Then you ignore the people who aren't worth your time. I'd be happy to share my notes with you on who is worthwhile reading and who isn't if you'd like.


I see a clear difference between asking for conditional truth to be claimed along with said conditions, and what you describe, which is sort of an appeal to never knowing anything. I'm not a fan of the later.
it's obvious that when people claim they're hearing a difference, most of the time they will be wrong or the way they tested it was nonsense. anytime such a person comes around, you can see me right beside you sharing your skepticism and asking for the evidence that never comes. and soon enough we'll all agree that the guy just doesn't know what he's talking about, and move on.
but moving from that to just plain claiming that differences don't happen, it's an extra step we shouldn't take IMO. if we do some tests with even 50 DACs used in various ways on various computers and that results in an overwhelming failure to tell them apart, then I'd be fine to use that and extrapolate a little. I'd still be more comfortable with bigger sample size if we're going to tackle "all" of something in a claim even if clearly stated as a statistical fact(another thing you guys don't clarify often enough IMO). in practice all we have are anecdotes and often not so rigorous listening tests. to me that's not conclusive enough to go global on our ... conclusions. it has nothing to do with accepting that people can hear -300dB or 100khz or that I don't need prescription glasses because maybe subconsciously I read the last lines of letters correctly on the board. not agreeing to one extreme claim is in no way me supporting opposed and equally extreme claims. I'm just concerned with drawing conclusions in proportion to what our experiences actually support. you know, like science guys would do.
I failed more DAC tests ( admittedly with various degrees of rigor) than I can remember, but that only speaks for me, my hearing, and the relatively cheap DACs I got my hands on. I agree that DACs should sound the same, and I probably said it myself several times. I personally find weird to go purchase a DAC for "how it sounds". but again, that's only my opinion based on my subjective experiences. those experiences are not makers of universal claims.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 29, 2018)

bigshot said:


> People are allowed to lie outside of Sound Science and be
> It was created as a banishment group to make those meddling kids and their dog stop poking around the haunted carnival. A couple of us (ahem ahem) used logic to the point where it started messing with some salesmen's bread and butter and we had to be incarcerated here. We started enjoying it and building up our own community, so that had to be stopped with a mass ban campaign. We've crawled back after over a year and started again. . .
> 
> If you disappear suddenly, it was nice knowing ya!



Thanks for the heads-up. I was here for the creation of this sub forum but not for the mass banning you describe as have occurred a year or two ago. I had lots of acquaintances get banned for having what we might call serious discussions when I was here in the 2000-oughts. I took a decade-plus or so off so I didn’t know it had come to a mass banning.

To conversely paraphrase another of our ilk, we are the fly in the room.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 29, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Thank you for clarifying that.....
> 
> That is a well phrased and perfectly reasonable conclusion or opinion.
> It clearly states your conclusion and the supporting evidence on the basis of which you believe it to be true.
> ...



So he weakens his claim to saying that _he_ hasn't noticed a difference in the specific gear _he's_ tested, using _his_ testing methods (for which he hasn't provided details).  That means _other_ people could notice differences using _other_ gear using _other_ different/better testing methods.  Of course, not noticing a difference consciously doesn't mean that a difference couldn't be perceived subconsciously in a way that matters for music enjoyment.


----------



## KeithEmo

You allude to something important... and which is worth mentioning in more detail.
We, and all humans in general, operate on a huge foundation of assumptions, which we simply assume to be true.
And, quite often, we are so accustomed to doing so that we fail to notice that we're doing it.

"Pigs can't fly"
Well, give me a catapult, and a pig, and I'll bet I can make a pig fly.
And, have you considered all the pigs in various cartoons?
And, for that matter, I'll bet any travel agent will tell you that plenty of rich folks have taken their pet pig with them on the airplane when they went on vacation
And, are you really sure that some mad scientist won't someday genetically engineer a pig with wings?

I'll bet you assumed we were talking about normal pigs, on farms, under normal circumstances...
And you really meant that plain old pigs, going about their day-to-day lives, have no inherent ability to fly under their own power.

Likewise, anyone who lives in the USA will tell you that "swans are white" and "you'll never see a black swan".
(A rather popular book about statistical anomalies and assumptions, titled The Black Swan, starts by noting that, in Australia, swans are BLACK, and "everyone there knows it".)

And "the fastest man can run a mile in just under 3:45" - right?
Well, it would be more accurate to say that "the fastest time for running the mile, that has been documented, for a modern human being, so far, in a sports event, in front of witnesses, is just under 3:45".
(It's quite possible that nobody can run faster - but why go out on a limb and extend the claim to one we can't substantiate?)
(Notice that, in the interest of completeness, I also considered the possibility that some ancient Greek olympian ran a faster mile, but nobody documented or timed it.)

We humans all have a tendency to assume that everyone else operates on the same exact set of base assumptions that we do.
And, as a matter of "practical shorthand" - we often fail to spell them out, or even examine them, in detail.
(If you looked out the window of your plane, and saw something fly by, it's probably safe not to bother to consider that it might be a pig.)
However, sometimes this blinds us to the fact that we haven't bothered to mention our assumptions - and that someone else may be using entirely different ones.
One of the things that good scientist are good at is in recognizing and explicitly documenting those base assumptions.
It may seem like a pain in the butt, or just a waste of time, but it often helps avoid both mistakes and disagreements later.
(And, at the very least, we all have the assurance that we're "having the same conversation".)



castleofargh said:


> how cool would it be if practical applications had the actual reliability of math.
> I say it's untenable because beyond being something you cannot prove through experiment(it would require too many), any claim as broad as "everything ...." is super easy to disprove.
> we were talking about DACs, but if you want to play with 16 vs 24bit, I can just create a track with nothing in the first 70dB and increase the gain until I can clearly perceive the background noise. it's easy and totally repeatable. so it's not impossible to hear a difference and the claim is false.
> now obviously you meant typical properly mastered music and normal listening levels, and under those conditions I share you views. but then why didn't you specify that as conditions for your claim? if we have conditions for when the claim is true, it's not impossible anymore. the absolute claim was false, and the conditional claim isn't an absolute claim. from my point of view that does make a lonely "everything sounds the same" untenable.
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> You allude to something important... and which is worth mentioning in more detail.
> We, and all humans in general, operate on a huge foundation of assumptions, which we simply assume to be true.
> And, quite often, we are so accustomed to doing so that we fail to notice that we're doing it.
> 
> ...



… and of course, changes in key assumptions have been part of the history and progress of science.  Space and time are absolute, and separate dimensions, right?  Seems obviously true, everyday life 'proves' it, and it works for the Newtonian mechanics we still use in most of science and engineering too.  But then relatively came along a century ago and overturned those assumptions with a totally different model in which space and time became relativized and intertwined, which has been corroborated by many experiments, and that's now the go-to model for some phenomena where the Newtonian model loses too much accuracy.


----------



## KeithEmo

Of course, it isn't strictly necessary to include a "null hypothesis" in a simple claim or statement.
In fact, you can even run a test on the basis of "we're looking to see whether such and such has any effect or not".
(Yes, at some deeper level, there is a null hypothesis that there will be no effect, but you don't have to make a big deal about it.)

And, when stating conclusions that aren't supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence, it may simply be less contentious to say something like:
"While we don't have any conclusive evidence, all of the evidence we do have seems to support this conclusion, and to suggest that the other one is wrong."



Steve999 said:


> Based on our null hypothesis discussion the other day, can’t we just as easily flip that? Since you are claiming there may be a difference, might the null hypothesis be that there is no difference and the burden of testing fall on you? I don’t know, these concepts are not really stuff I have real expertise with, but I’m not too bad with logic and comprehension.


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> Thank you for clarifying that.....
> 
> That is a well phrased and perfectly reasonable conclusion or opinion.
> It clearly states your conclusion and the supporting evidence on the basis of which you believe it to be true.
> ...



For something like a short, digital interconnect cable that adheres to certain specifications, there isn't a conventional way to improve the sound quality, only to possibly degrade it.  If the measurements suggest that it would be impossible for a human to hear any degradation from a typical low-cost option, it would not be logical to assume any improvement could be made with a ludicrously expensive option.  A difference might be identifiable, but any improvement would be a subjective experience and not one that corresponds to transparency.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree.



sonitus mirus said:


> For something like a short, digital interconnect cable that adheres to certain specifications, there isn't a conventional way to improve the sound quality, only to possibly degrade it.  If the measurements suggest that it would be impossible for a human to hear any degradation from a typical low-cost option, it would not be logical to assume any improvement could be made with a ludicrously expensive option.  A difference might be identifiable, but any improvement would be a subjective experience and not one that corresponds to transparency.


----------



## Steve999

Phronesis said:


> So he weakens his claim to saying that _he_ hasn't noticed a difference in the specific gear _he's_ tested, using _his_ testing methods (for which he hasn't provided details).  That means _other_ people could notice differences using _other_ gear using _other_ different/better testing methods.  Of course, not noticing a difference consciously doesn't mean that a difference couldn't be perceived subconsciously in a way that matters for music enjoyment.



I tend to want to put the word “hypothetically” between the words “could” and “notice” (above).

What say you?


----------



## bigshot

Indiana said:


> Yes, as you know I am new here and I follow this discussion now for days just to get the picture. And Gregorio and you presented many facts which I just know they are correct. But its really confusing for  readers to follow this discussion. I already wrote: when people want to find out if they can hear a difference, this is not so hard to find out. So why don't they just do it? It's really a simple task.



Don't ask me! Gregorio is a professional sound engineer who has taught the subject. He knows a lot more than any of us about the nuts and bolts of recorded music. I'm a producer and I've done sound engineering for TV, but I tend to defer to folks who know more than I do on technical subjects. Some people have neither experience nor the wisdom not to open their mouth when they don't know what they're talking about. But it really has little to do with sound recording technology. It's an internet phenomenon. Internet forums provide an opportunity for people who never feel like they get respect in face to face encounters to manufacture an online persona to get the attention they wish they got in real life. It's a problem in all internet forums, but it is particularly bad here, because they feel like the banishment of discussion of controlled testing and expectation bias/placebo in the rest of the forum gives them permission to come in here and rattle our cages and disrupt our threads. It doesn't matter what they argue about. They'd argue that the moon was made of green cheese and claim to have superior science on their side if it served their egos.

I've had enough of it. I'm not going to put up with their strutting and bluster any more. I've got a list of posters whose posts I will read and think about and reply to, and a list of posters that aren't worth my time. I'd be happy to share those lists with you if you want.


----------



## Steve999

Phronesis said:


> … and of course, changes in key assumptions have been part of the history and progress of science.  Space and time are absolute, and separate dimensions, right?  Seems obviously true, everyday life 'proves' it, and it works for the Newtonian mechanics we still use in most of science and engineering too.  But then relatively came along a century ago and overturned those assumptions with a totally different model in which space and time became relativized and intertwined, which has been corroborated by many experiments, and that's now the go-to model for some phenomena where the Newtonian model loses too much accuracy.



I think of Einstein and Darwin all of the time when I read these discussions. I strenuously doubt we have a Darwin or Einstein among us, but the point is, what we believe is often demonstrably wrong, but good enough to get by on. Our minds though have the remarkable ability to go much further. This seems true for both music and science.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 29, 2018)

Castle, if a difference exists, someone should make an effort to test that so they know for sure. Then they should try to help others reach the same conclusion. I've done both of these things myself. But what we have here are people who are all talk and "are not motivated to do the test", yet they feel qualified to tell other people (who know a hell of a lot more about the subject than they do!) how they should conduct tests and reach conclusions. If you ask me, that is what comes out of the hind end of a steer. I'm here to learn. I can't learn from people like that. I don't have to give them my attention and time... or respect.

I have little interest in what ifs and theoretical pie in the sky. I have a sound system. I want it to sound the best it can. That is why I'm here. Everything else is just a bunch of blather designed to boost their own egos. I'm not here to watch them apply mental corporal punishments to simians all day long.


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> Castle, if a difference exists, someone should make an effort to test that so they know for sure. Then they should try to help others reach the same conclusion. I've done both of these things myself. But what we have here are people who are all talk and "are not motivated to do the test", yet they feel qualified to tell other people (who know a hell of a lot more about the subject than they do!) how they should conduct tests and reach conclusions. If you ask me, that is what comes out of the hind end of a steer. I'm here to learn. I can't learn from people like that. I don't have to give them my attention and time... or respect.



Yes, I’d prefer, I hypothesized, I tested, this is what happened, and if someone doubts it they can do their own thing and let us know. I guarantee it will be a less than perfect effort, but the chances are also everyone involved will learn a ton instead of just arguing.


----------



## Phronesis

Steve999 said:


> I tend to want to put the word “hypothetically” between the words “could” and “notice” (above).
> 
> What say you?



Yes, I assumed it was implied, but can't be too careful around here!


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Castle, if a difference exists, someone should make an effort to test that so they know for sure. Then they should try to help others reach the same conclusion. I've done both of these things myself. But what we have here are people who are all talk and "are not motivated to do the test", yet they feel qualified to tell other people (who know a hell of a lot more about the subject than they do!) how they should conduct tests and reach conclusions. If you ask me, that is what comes out of the hind end of a steer. I'm here to learn. I can't learn from people like that. I don't have to give them my attention and time... or respect.
> 
> I have little interest in what ifs and theoretical pie in the sky. I have a sound system. I want it to sound the best it can. That is why I'm here. Everything else is just a bunch of blather designed to boost their own egos. I'm not here to watch them apply mental corporal punishments to simians all day long.


ideally, I'd like it if we were all to simply reject then ignore unsubstantiated stuff, and instead spend our time learning about and discussing established facts and controlled experiments. someone makes a claim, you ask for evidence, if none are provided, the claim is assumed to have imploded and we go focus on something else. what can be demonstrated should be demonstrated. what cannot be isn't our problem, we're mostly ignorant consumers, not explorers of human and technological frontiers. and those interested in fringe areas should understand that all they say is about ideas, opinions and hypotheses. not established facts. and their posts should express that unequivocally. 
imagine the time saved if the only claims posted here were abundantly substantiated. I believe this is the true answer on both sides of any argument. more "I wonder", "I'm of the opinion", "IDK", more experiments, more actual data. and no more "trust me I know what I heard". 


I have a dream that one day this sub section will rise up, and live out the true meaning of its creed.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 29, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> ideally, I'd like it if we were all to simply reject then ignore unsubstantiated stuff, and instead spend our time learning about and discussing established facts and controlled experiments. someone makes a claim, you ask for evidence, if none are provided, the claim is assumed to have imploded and we go focus on something else. what can be demonstrated should be demonstrated. what cannot be isn't our problem, we're mostly ignorant consumers, not explorers of human and technological frontiers. and those interested in fringe areas should understand that all they say is about ideas, opinions and hypotheses. not established facts. and their posts should express that unequivocally.
> imagine the time saved if the only claims posted here were abundantly substantiated. I believe this is the true answer on both sides of any argument. more "I wonder", "I'm of the opinion", "IDK", more experiments, more actual data. and no more "trust me I know what I heard".
> 
> 
> I have a dream that one day this sub section will rise up, and live out the true meaning of its creed.



Well I am inspired. I have this audio problem I am going to try and figure out and I'll figure it out and write up what my guesses were and the details and how I did it. It has to do with what I regard as a clearly audible problem with a source. I plan on resolving it. After I fix it maybe some of the more knowledgeable people here will have a technical answer as to what was wrong. I am not going to provide further details at this second because I don't feel like it. Variables will be sources, computers, DACs, USB interfaces, headphones, and headphone amps. At a minimum I'll let you know when the problem does happen and when it doesn't happen after trying different combinations of things. My view is it _shouldn't _happen so something is less than optimal in my system. I know I can work around it but I want to achieve the most minimal workaround possible and still get clean sound.

First datapoint: The problem _doesn't_ happen running music from Itunes over an Ipad through a pair of Bose QC 35 IIs connected wirelessly with noise cancelling on. I've fixed audio problems a million times before in my life-I hate anything other than clean output-but rarely do I know or understand why what I did worked. It's a garble of trial and error.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> more "I wonder", "I'm of the opinion", "IDK", more experiments, more actual data. and no more "trust me I know what I heard". I have a dream that one day this sub section will rise up, and live out the true meaning of its creed.



Me too. I've been here a long time, and I remember what it used to be like. We had some really great and knowledgeable posters. I can't even name them all there were so many. We all got along too. After the ban hammer came down, there were two left in the void... Gregorio and Pinnahertz. Now, thanks to all the blather there's just Gregorio. A few of us from the old days have drifted back, but the signal to noise has got to improve significantly if we really want this forum to thrive.

There are four or five people hogging up all the oxygen in this group posting large quantities of aggressive attacks, irrelevant nonsense, and unsubstantiated claims. All it takes is a little reading between the lines to know what they're up to. They could post in the Head-Fi Turntable Forum or the DAC Rorum or the Miscellaneous Irrelevant Analogy Forum and not have any trouble. But there, they would be just another person with a whole lot of words and not many thoughts. Here, they can be truly annoying and achieve their desired goal-- to be the center of attention. That's what they want here. They're elbowing their way into the spotlight and taking bows and curtain calls without any concern about the audience reaction. They aspire to be pests.

This forum had community at one point. Now that is fragmented. When a group of people aren't self aware enough to know when they need to sit down and shut up, it isn't the most conducive atmosphere for building community. I try to have a conversation with someone and one or more of them immediately derail the conversation into turntable minutia, or how we can never know the way the brain works, or irrelevant analogies propping up vacuous theories, or grandstanding about hot mastering, or just plain old ad hominem attacks alternating with narcissistic posturing. It's frustrating and tiresome, but I'm not going away. I'm going to communicate with the people here who actually listen and converse, and I'm going to blow right on past the blowhards who are so needy for attention.

There's already too much blather and horse pucky around here for weasel terms like IMHO or "gosh! I might be wrong but..." to help. We're long past that point. People need to focus on getting along with each other and gaining something from each other. But to do that, they need to be able to see their fellow posters here as peers from whom they can learn. If they aren't willing to do that, I'm going to ignore them and speak past them to the people who are worth my time. I'm not here to entertain people with "abnormal absorption with the self; marked by communication disorders, a restricted range of interests, and an inability to treat others as people". I'm respectful of disabilities, but only if those behaviors are being addressed and self moderated.

Thankfully, there are always newbies that aren't pests. It would be a shame if the behavior issues scared them off before they get a chance to settle in.


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> Me too. I've been here a long time, and I remember what it used to be like. We had some really great and knowledgeable posters. I can't even name them all there were so many. We all got along too. After the ban hammer came down, there were two left in the void... Gregorio and Pinnahertz. Now, thanks to all the blather there's just Gregorio. A few of us from the old days have drifted back, but the signal to noise has got to improve significantly if we really want this forum to thrive.
> 
> There are four or five people hogging up all the oxygen in this group posting large quantities of aggressive attacks, irrelevant nonsense, and unsubstantiated claims. All it takes is a little reading between the lines to know what they're up to. They could post in the Head-Fi Turntable Forum or the DAC Rorum or the Miscellaneous Irrelevant Analogy Forum and not have any trouble. But there, they would be just another person with a whole lot of words and not many thoughts. Here, they can be truly annoying and achieve their desired goal-- to be the center of attention. That's what they want here. They're elbowing their way into the spotlight and taking bows and curtain calls without any concern about the audience reaction. They aspire to be pests.
> 
> ...



Can you talk about the ban hammer openly or is that best done by PM? Is there a risk to talking about it out in the open? I did not know about it.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 29, 2018)

@bigshot, people disagreeing with you doesn't mean the forum is going down the tubes.  You may need to get used to people expressing points of view that you don't understand or don't agree with.  Homogeneity of thought isn't a virtue in science.  Oh, and the irony of your histrionics is palpable.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 29, 2018)

I did that earlier in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. I posted a photo of a teardown of a particularly egregious bit of snake oil. It was billed as a sound enhancing plug and cost several hundred dollars, but all it consisted of when you opened it up was a male and female jack connected by two wires wrapped in tin foil. The manufacturer was a member of the trade and advertiser on Head-Fi. He took exception to my tear down photo and imploded in the thread. Most of my posts on the subject were deleted by admins along with the tear down photos. After that, this forum was under extreme scrutiny and I was identified as the principle troublemaker. I was given a lifetime ban for some little thing and over the next few days, people who were seen as my friends got banned. The whole group started arguing that it wasn't deserved and many of the most vocal got banned too. Pretty soon everybody was either banned or left in disgust. We had a Facebook group for the ex-patriots called The Head-Fi Sound Science Misery Lounge, so we kept in touch there. Once it was all over, the forum returned to peacefulness with Gregorio and Pinnahertz holding down the fort under Castle's expert guidance. At some point the lifetime bans were lifted and I poked my head in the door and said hello. I haven't gotten rebanned yet. More people came back. Traffic increased. Then when we started to get some momentum, the assaults began. You know the rest.

It's all ancient history now. We can all get along fine and go on with the business of sound science.


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> Well I am inspired. I have this audio problem I am going to try and figure out and I'll figure it out and write up what my guesses were and the details and how I did it. It has to do with what I regard as a clearly audible problem with a source. I plan on resolving it. After I fix it maybe some of the more knowledgeable people here will have a technical answer as to what was wrong. I am not going to provide further details at this second because I don't feel like it. Variables will be sources, computers, DACs, USB interfaces, headphones, and headphone amps. At a minimum I'll let you know when the problem does happen and when it doesn't happen after trying different combinations of things. My view is it _shouldn't _happen so something is less than optimal in my system. I know I can work around it but I want to achieve the most minimal workaround possible and still get clean sound.
> 
> First datapoint: The problem _doesn't_ happen running music from Itunes over an Ipad through a pair of Bose QC 35 IIs connected wirelessly with noise cancelling on. I've fixed audio problems a million times before in my life-I hate anything other than clean output-but rarely do I know or understand why what I did worked. It's a garble of trial and error.



That the problem does not happen running music from itunes over an ipad trough a pair of Bose QC 35IIs connected wirelessly with noise cancelling  on is akin to saying that you can not tell the difference in a newly changed chicane of a Formula 1 race track, intended to slow the racing cars down and bring more safety - when driving a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow ( bulletproof, heavy armor plated version ) over that course. That RR can not accelerate, decelerate, maintain the number of Gs in a curve, etc, etc - not nearly even in the ballpark of any lightweight racing car with much, much more power per unit weight.

Music itself is an EXTREMELY difficult - and above all, FAST - "racing course". And you can't slow it down live, in air... you would have to introduce different gas, one that changes the pitch of sound source and still allows breathing and survival. All the mumbo jumbo against HR digital here is the last ditch effort to somehow justify the RBCD, its existence, designers and its stubborn adoption by the - still - most music industry.

The best HR possible today is on the brink of achieving enough for the sonics to be "perfect beyond meaningful improvement " That is to say bandwidth to 100 kHz is possible with today's best commercially available equipment.

Compared to the above, the setup from your description is even worse than that hypothetical armor plated Silver Shadow trying to negotiate a race course.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I did that earlier in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. I posted a photo of a teardown of a particularly egregious bit of snake oil. It was billed as a sound enhancing plug and cost several hundred dollars, but all it consisted of when you opened it up was a male and female jack connected by two wires wrapped in tin foil. The manufacturer was a member of the trade and advertiser on Head-Fi. He took exception to my tear down photo and imploded in the thread. Most of my posts on the subject were deleted by admins along with the tear down photos. After that, this forum was under extreme scrutiny and I was identified as the principle troublemaker. I was given a lifetime ban for some little thing and over the next few days, people who were seen as my friends got banned. The whole group started arguing that it wasn't deserved and many of the most vocal got banned too. Pretty soon everybody was either banned or left in disgust. We had a Facebook group for the ex-patriots called The Head-Fi Sound Science Misery Lounge, so we kept in touch there. Once it was all over, the forum returned to peacefulness with Gregorio and Pinnahertz holding down the fort under Castle's expert guidance. At some point the lifetime bans were lifted and I poked my head in the door and said hello. I haven't gotten rebanned yet. More people came back. Traffic increased. Then when we started to get some momentum, the assaults began. You know the rest.
> 
> It's all ancient history now. We can all get along fine and go on with the business of sound science.


The term "troublemaker" all depends on what side of the sales counter you're on


----------



## bigshot

I don't mind being a troublemaker as long as I am a lovable troublemaker.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 29, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> That the problem does not happen running music from itunes over an ipad trough a pair of Bose QC 35IIs connected wirelessly with noise cancelling  on is akin to saying that you can not tell the difference in a newly changed chicane of a Formula 1 race track, intended to slow the racing cars down and bring more safety - when driving a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow ( bulletproof, heavy armor plated version ) over that course. That RR can not accelerate, decelerate, maintain the number of Gs in a curve, etc, etc - not nearly even in the ballpark of any lightweight racing car with much, much more power per unit weight.
> 
> Music itself is an EXTREMELY difficult - and above all, FAST - "racing course". And you can't slow it down live, in air... you would have to introduce different gas, one that changes the pitch of sound source and still allows breathing and survival. All the mumbo jumbo against HR digital here is the last ditch effort to somehow justify the RBCD, its existence, designers and its stubborn adoption by the - still - most music industry.
> 
> ...



_Oh goodie! Can I be silly too?_



YOU WIN! YOU WIN! YOU WIN! YOU WIN! YOU WIN!
_**_


Are you. . . . the _real_ JABBERWOCK?????

_’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves 
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves, 
      And the mome raths outgrabe. _

_“Beware the Jabberwock, my son! 
      The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! 
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun 
      The frumious Bandersnatch!” _

_He took his vorpal sword in hand; 
      Long time the manxome foe he sought— 
So rested he by the Tumtum tree 
      And stood awhile in thought. _

_And, as in uffish thought he stood, 
      The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, 
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, 
      And burbled as it came! _

_One, two! One, two! And through and through 
      The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! 
He left it dead, and with its head 
      He went galumphing back. _

_“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock? 
      Come to my arms, my beamish boy! 
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!” 
      He chortled in his joy. _

_’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves 
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: 
All mimsy were the borogoves,
   And the mome raths outgrabe._


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I don't mind being a troublemaker as long as I am a lovable troublemaker.


Thanks to your avatar you are halfway there


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> _*You win!*_




It is NOT about winning, being vindicated, etc - it is about recording present, living artists in the best possible way.

We personally may never be able to hear these HR recordings in our lifetime to the full benefit the "inaudible information to the human ears" can potentially bring - but within next say 50 years, technology might advance forward enough and more widespread adoption of QUALITY  might bring the price of admission within the reach of ordinary people.  

Going to and keeping only to RBCD certainly CAN NOT accomplish that goal.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Nov 29, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> It is NOT about winning, being vindicated, etc - it is about recording present, living artists in the best possible way.
> 
> We personally may never be able to hear these HR recordings in our lifetime to the full benefit the "inaudible information to the human ears" can potentially bring - but within next say 50 years, technology might advance forward enough and more widespread adoption of QUALITY  might bring the price of admission within the reach of ordinary people.
> 
> Going to and keeping only to RBCD certainly CAN NOT accomplish that goal.


Oh no you are wrong my friend.....its about having the best stereo system ever....and whoever has it ....we must alll bow down and kiss his lucky ass!Btw if you believe this to be untrue i await you're graphs ect proving it untrue.....until then....


----------



## analogsurviver

Glmoneydawg said:


> Oh no you are wrong my friend.....its about having the best stereo system ever....and whoever has it ....we must alll bow down and kiss his lucky ass!





Glmoneydawg said:


> Oh no you are wrong my friend.....its about having the best stereo system ever....and whoever has it ....we must alll bow down and kiss his lucky ass!



I certainly do hope it is NOT about that.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

analogsurviver said:


> I certainly do hope it is NOT about that.


Well me too.....but of course it is.


----------



## bigshot

Glmoneydawg said:


> Oh no you are wrong my friend.....its about having the best stereo system ever....and whoever has it ....we must alll bow down and kiss his lucky ass!Btw if you believe this to be untrue i await you're graphs ect proving it untrue.....until then....



I thought it was all about whose file size is bigger.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I thought it was all about whose file size is bigger.


You may be right....I'm not that well educated in the digital stuff...workin on it though.....have you seen some of the speakers available nowadays though....we need an analogue SS forum thread...the digital thing has been flogged to death...might actually be able to improve things in the analog domain.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 29, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> It is NOT about winning, being vindicated, etc - it is about recording present, living artists in the best possible way.
> 
> We personally may never be able to hear these HR recordings in our lifetime to the full benefit the "inaudible information to the human ears" can potentially bring - but within next say 50 years, technology might advance forward enough and more widespread adoption of QUALITY  might bring the price of admission within the reach of ordinary people.
> 
> Going to and keeping only to RBCD certainly CAN NOT accomplish that goal.




*The Hunting of the Snark 
By Lewis Carroll

Fit the First
The Landing

 "Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
    As he landed his crew with care;
 Supporting each man on the top of the tide
    By a finger entwined in his hair.
*


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 29, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> I certainly do hope it is NOT about that.



Hey, I posted some turntable and cartridge advice around here somewhere yesterday. You should check it out!


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> Hey, I posted some turntable and cartridge advice around here somewhere yesterday. You should check it out!



4 AM here ... tomorrow, heck, today, IF there will be any time.


----------



## Steve999

analogsurviver said:


> 4 AM here ... tomorrow, heck, today, IF there will be any time.



10 PM here. . . still a little time for me to have some fun. Stay cool. I admire kindness (no kidding).


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 30, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> Well I am inspired. I have this audio problem I am going to try and figure out and I'll figure it out and write up what my guesses were and the details and how I did it. It has to do with what I regard as a clearly audible problem with a source. I plan on resolving it. After I fix it maybe some of the more knowledgeable people here will have a technical answer as to what was wrong. I am not going to provide further details at this second because I don't feel like it. Variables will be sources, computers, DACs, USB interfaces, headphones, and headphone amps. At a minimum I'll let you know when the problem does happen and when it doesn't happen after trying different combinations of things. My view is it _shouldn't _happen so something is less than optimal in my system. I know I can work around it but I want to achieve the most minimal workaround possible and still get clean sound.
> 
> First datapoint: The problem _doesn't_ happen running music from Itunes over an Ipad through a pair of Bose QC 35 IIs connected wirelessly with noise cancelling on. I've fixed audio problems a million times before in my life-I hate anything other than clean output-but rarely do I know or understand why what I did worked. It's a garble of trial and error.





analogsurviver said:


> That the problem does not happen running music from itunes over an ipad trough a pair of Bose QC 35IIs connected wirelessly with noise cancelling on is akin to saying that you can not tell the difference in a newly changed chicane of a Formula 1 race track, intended to slow the racing cars down and bring more safety - when driving a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow ( bulletproof, heavy armor plated version ) over that course. That RR can not accelerate, decelerate, maintain the number of Gs in a curve, etc, etc - not nearly even in the ballpark of any lightweight racing car with much, much more power per unit weight.
> 
> Music itself is an EXTREMELY difficult - and above all, FAST - "racing course". And you can't slow it down live, in air... you would have to introduce different gas, one that changes the pitch of sound source and still allows breathing and survival. All the mumbo jumbo against HR digital here is the last ditch effort to somehow justify the RBCD, its existence, designers and its stubborn adoption by the - still - most music industry.
> 
> ...



With the wise guidance of @analogsurviver (see above, I am so so sorry, I really do like you, but that was really a show-stopper of analogy soup, I think it should be elevated to a head-fi classic!) I have completed my testing. The status is: problem fixed, I have no idea why.

I traced the problem to clipping on a Windows PC in Itunes of Apple streamed or Apple DRM'ed music during intense (loud) passages. Everything else was as clean as clean can be, all other music. The same music Itunes had trouble with, Spotify seemed quite smooth. Didn't matter what DAC, headphones, etc., I used, it seemed like it was just plain Itunes doing some good old digital clipping. I googled the situation and saw many people had similar troubles with Itunes and there were different fixes over the years depending on the version of Itunes. I fiddled with some computer settings accordingly. All I can tell you for now is that the problem is gone. Everything sounds smooth as silk. Maybe it will come back! But for now it is goner than gone.

*If anyone has a theory as to why Itunes would clip like that during loud passages with streamed or DRM'ed music, and how to prevent or fix it, I'd love to know*. 

I wonder a little if it was some electronics that were on earlier on the night that are not on now, but that's not really logical, not consistent with all of the other stuff I ruled out (DACs, headphones, amps, etc.).


And @analogsurviver  , just for you I was sure to include use of headphones that cost $30 but with extension well over 20 khz!

See https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-2/graph#471/2031

Right now I am using an old pair of Sony MDR-CD780s. Oldies but goodies.

But still I drive those slow slow Bose QC35 IIs around on the subway sometimes, through some thick inert gas, not keeping pace around the track in my Rolls Royce Silver Shadow (bulletproof, heavy armor plated version) on the Formula 1 race track, and the Formula 1s pass me by, yet under the weight of my momentum in my Rolls Royce tank I fall off the edge of the cliff around a corner on an unfenced edge of the track at about 16 khz! Do I have that about right? 

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-2/graph#471/2031/565.


----------



## Don Hills

KeithEmo said:


> ...
> My theory is that people who don't expect to hear differences have their attention less powerfully focused on detecting differences...
> And that, therefore, they will prove less sensitive to small but real differences.
> In colloquial terms" You are less likely to notice something if your attention isn't on it; and your attention is less likely to be focused on something you don't expect to be there."
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 30, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> Hey, I posted some turntable and cartridge advice around here somewhere yesterday. You should check it out!



Very bad move. When someone gives you a word salad, you don't ask for more. You move on to a course with more substance.



Glmoneydawg said:


> have you seen some of the speakers available nowadays though.



Yes, I have some very clever KES speakers with a nested design and incredibly wide dispersion. I also use old school JBL 15 inch woofers with the cloth surround and the highly directional bullet tweeters. I like to mix up different types of speakers to get better coverage across the room, not just in the main listening position.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] If someone claims there’s definitely no difference, demonstrate that, knowing that comparison using measurements needs to show conclusively very small differences, and blind tests need to be done and interpreted in a scientific way - casual hobbyist blind tests won’t cut it. In the absence of such demonstrations, all we can say is maybe, probably, probably not, etc., and there won’t likely be any consensus.
> [2] I like the null test at least in concept, because if the signal is the same, the sound must be the same. But of course we can't readily determine that by simply overlaying the signals graphically (or graphing the difference signal) and eyeballing to see the difference,
> [2a] so we need some further signal analysis, which gets us into problematic territory as far as inferring audibility.



1. *No one* is claiming there's "definitely no difference", in fact quite the opposite, there MUST ALWAYS be a difference. And, I can make this statement with confidence NOT because I've tested/measured everything in the universe but because the laws of physics tells us so. The question then is: Can we hear these differences? And the answer is: It depends on the magnitude of the differences and where in the frequency spectrum they occur. But in many cases we can show "conclusively" that "no we can't" because for around a century science has studied and tested the limits of human capabilities. So, why is it likely there won't be any consensus? Well in fact there is consensus, there's consensus among scientists and professionals. Where there isn't consensus is among those who don't understand, know or believe the science and amongst those professionals deliberately trying to misrepresent the science in order to sell snake oil to those who don't; Typically, by either just ignoring/omitting what science has already "shown conclusively" or by questioning, misrepresenting or obfuscating what "conclusively shown" means.

2. Where does that "But of course" come from? It's a simple, widely used, mathematical, objective test that you can do yourself at no cost, you can even just take existing files and/or convert them (HD converted to say 16/44.1 or MP3 for example), see for yourself how the test works and what you end up with, and you don't even need an ADC, just a computer and some free software. But no, you just make-up an absolute "but of course" statement about it, based entirely on your position of never having used/tried it (IE. complete ignorance) and if that's not bad enough, you then call us "unscientific"?

3. What "problematic territory"? It's ONLY "problematic territory as far as inferring audibility" is concerned if you are ignorant of, or refuse to believe the science. If we have for example a difference file down at -100dB throughout the audible spectrum except above 22kHz, where there's 1,000 times more energy, what "problematic territory" are we in? We're only in "problematic territory" if you don't know or refuse to believe the science.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] In order to _PROVE_ that "everything sounds the same" you would have to test "everything".
> [2] Are we discussing "what's humanly possible"? Or are we discussing "things a typical customer purchasing an new component should worry about"?
> I would say that BOTH are valid subjects for discussion... but it saves a lot of angst and bickering to keep track of which is which.



1. This is just yet another rewording of the old fallacy that "science doesn't know everything, therefore science doesn't know anything". In this case it's: Science can never test "everything", therefore science can never PROVE anything. In some cases that is simply false, because we can prove some things without testing everything, the "laws of physics" for example and in many other cases it's effectively just semantics over the term "Prove". Have we for example "proved" the theory of evolution, has it been "shown conclusively" or is it just another theory with no more merit than say the theory of creationism? And incidentally, who are those people who believe in creationism? Mostly those who do not know, do not understand or refuse to believe the science, plus some people who do know and understand the science but misrepresent it for personal gain; typically by just omitting what science has already "shown conclusively" or by questioning, misrepresenting or obfuscating what "conclusively shown" means. Sound familiar?

2. That question is itself an obfuscation because those are NOT the only two options! In fact, here on head-fi the majority would not consider themselves to be in either group. By definition of calling themselves "audiophiles" in the first place, they do not fit into the category of "typical customer" and appear to consider themselves much closer to the "what's humanly possible" group. This provides great opportunities for snake oil salesmen to obfuscate and misrepresent "what's humanly possible" and what do we see? Many/Most audiophiles therefore having little idea of "what's humanly possible" and commonly believing in nonsense that's not even possible according to the laws of physics, let alone "what's humanly possible"! 



castleofargh said:


> I can just create a track with nothing in the first 70dB and increase the gain until I can clearly perceive the background noise. it's easy and totally repeatable. so it's not impossible to hear a difference and the claim is false. now obviously you meant typical properly mastered music and normal listening levels, and under those conditions I share you views. but then why didn't you specify that as conditions for your claim?



I'm guilty of that too, but how guilty am I really, in practice? How many commercial recordings are there that peak no higher than -70dB? If it's none, then surely we can take that condition for granted or not even consider it in practice? It's like my statement above, that "there MUST ALWAYS be a difference". That's not strictly true, a DAC operating at a temperature of absolute zero would not have any thermal noise and therefore could in theory not be any different from another DAC. Likewise, the rules of thermal noise breakdown in the terahertz range, so two DACs converting only terahertz frequencies could also in theory not be different. What about other potential conditions where for all I know it might be possible, such as inside the event horizon of a black hole, travelling at the speed of light, etc. Additionally, EVERYTHING is audible in theory and nothing is impossible: 1MHz audio freqs, no problem just slow it down by 7 times or so, or pitch shift it. Distortion at -350dBFS, no problem, just apply 340dB of gain. ... Is my statement about there always being a difference false? Should I have explicitly stated that it doesn't apply to audiophiles listening to a DAC operating at absolute zero inside a black hole when playing a piece of terahertz music with 340dB of gain, or, is it reasonable to forego listing all those conditions?

G


----------



## Indiana

Great, I did not consider superconductivity or worst case listening scenario. I have the impression you folks try here to confuse people to sell stuff they don't need.


----------



## gregorio

Indiana said:


> [1] Great, I did not consider superconductivity or worst case listening scenario.
> [2] I have the impression you folks try here to confuse people to sell stuff they don't need.



1. I don't believe even "worst case listening scenario" covers it. The worst case scenario when listening to commercial audio is still way better than that! It would be more accurate to say; a scenario manufactured to be far worse than the worst case scenario specifically to make something which is inaudible, audible.

2. That perfectly describes a very large portion of the audiophile world!!

G


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 30, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. *No one* is claiming there's "definitely no difference", in fact quite the opposite, there MUST ALWAYS be a difference. And, I can make this statement with confidence NOT because I've tested/measured everything in the universe but because the laws of physics tells us so. The question then is: Can we hear these differences? And the answer is: It depends on the magnitude of the differences and where in the frequency spectrum they occur. But in many cases we can show "conclusively" that "no we can't" because for around a century science has studied and tested the limits of human capabilities. So, why is it likely there won't be any consensus? Well in fact there is consensus, there's consensus among scientists and professionals. Where there isn't consensus is among those who don't understand, know or believe the science and amongst those professionals deliberately trying to misrepresent the science in order to sell snake oil to those who don't; Typically, by either just ignoring/omitting what science has already "shown conclusively" or by questioning, misrepresenting or obfuscating what "conclusively shown" means.
> 
> 2. Where does that "But of course" come from? It's a simple, widely used, mathematical, objective test that you can do yourself at no cost, you can even just take existing files and/or convert them (HD converted to say 16/44.1 or MP3 for example), see for yourself how the test works and what you end up with, and you don't even need an ADC, just a computer and some free software. But no, you just make-up an absolute "but of course" statement about it, based entirely on your position of never having used/tried it (IE. complete ignorance) and if that's not bad enough, you then call us "unscientific"?
> 
> ...



You write WAY too many words. Focus!  Any reader able and willing to understand would have understood that I was referring to *audible* differences.  And do the null test and give us the results if you think it will show no audible difference.


----------



## dprimary

Steve999 said:


> With the wise guidance of @analogsurviver (see above, I am so so sorry, I really do like you, but that was really a show-stopper of analogy soup, I think it should be elevated to a head-fi classic!) I have completed my testing. The status is: problem fixed, I have no idea why.
> 
> I traced the problem to clipping on a Windows PC in Itunes of Apple streamed or Apple DRM'ed music during intense (loud) passages. Everything else was as clean as clean can be, all other music. The same music Itunes had trouble with, Spotify seemed quite smooth. Didn't matter what DAC, headphones, etc., I used, it seemed like it was just plain Itunes doing some good old digital clipping. I googled the situation and saw many people had similar troubles with Itunes and there were different fixes over the years depending on the version of Itunes. I fiddled with some computer settings accordingly. All I can tell you for now is that the problem is gone. Everything sounds smooth as silk. Maybe it will come back! But for now it is goner than gone.
> 
> ...



I don't think it is either one, Apple has not had DRM protected music in years, unless you are playing something you bought 10 years ago. Apple will not accept masters with digital clipping. Since it went away it is not part of the recording. More likely it a setting that is somehow affecting the gain structure or doing some unwanted signal processing.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

I find it rather peculiar that the very people who keep questioning the science behind audio continuously show signs of not understanding how it works from the get-go.


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 30, 2018)

I thought of an audio example to illustrate what I was talking about earlier with perception.

Track A is a normal track, and the only instrument which has substantial bass is the bass drum, which comes in infrequently, say every few seconds.  Track B is exactly the same as A, except that the bass is very slightly boosted, and the vast majority of people who do the editing can notice the boosted bass when they do the editing.  Now you tell a listener that A and B are different, listen to each several times (using the same clip which runs several seconds, in which the bass drum comes in only once), and tell me the difference.  The listener is focusing attention on things like detail, instrument separation, stage, imaging, etc. and fails to notice the difference, because he's paying no attention to the bass, which is only noticeable the one time the bass drum comes in, while other instruments are playing (and again, the difference is very slight, but audible if the listener is focused on it and able to compare the bass drum of A and B back to back repeatedly).  Now if the listener listens to the entire track in the A and B versions, maybe he'll notice that B seems to have very slightly more bass and be able to say that (possibly without being sure of it), or he'll just like A or B better without being able to consciously say why, depending on how much bass he prefers.

This is a made up example, but I think it's a plausible scenario, and of course this sort of thing can be tested.  This example illustrates the effects of which listener is doing the listening, where he focuses his attention, the content of the music track, and the duration of the music samples being compared - the kinds of details which people in this forum who claim they've done good blind tests seem to never provide, and maybe didn't pay any attention to in the first place because they incorrectly assumed those details don't matter - they "trusted their ears" and everything sounded the same, so it must really sound the same for them under all conditions, and maybe for all other listeners too!


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 30, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> That the problem does not happen running music from itunes over an ipad trough a pair of Bose QC 35IIs connected wirelessly with noise cancelling  on is akin to saying that you can not tell the difference in a newly changed chicane of a Formula 1 race track, intended to slow the racing cars down and bring more safety - when driving a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow ( bulletproof, heavy armor plated version ) over that course. That RR can not accelerate, decelerate, maintain the number of Gs in a curve, etc, etc - not nearly even in the ballpark of any lightweight racing car with much, much more power per unit weight.
> 
> Music itself is an EXTREMELY difficult - and above all, FAST - "racing course". And you can't slow it down live, in air... you would have to introduce different gas, one that changes the pitch of sound source and still allows breathing and survival. All the mumbo jumbo against HR digital here is the last ditch effort to somehow justify the RBCD, its existence, designers and its stubborn adoption by the - still - most music industry.
> 
> ...





dprimary said:


> I don't think it is either one, Apple has not had DRM protected music in years, unless you are playing something you bought 10 years ago. Apple will not accept masters with digital clipping. Since it went away it is not part of the recording. More likely it a setting that is somehow affecting the gain structure or doing some unwanted signal processing.



Thanks. My comprehension is not so good on this one. And I am playing dumb a little to facilitate communication. Okay, I just made a decision not to play dumb. Though it is not that hard for me to do, it is not such a reach. I thought the Itunes tracks that you get to download or stream as part of an Apple music subscription but which you do not now "own" (you did not pay for apart from the license to play them via the Apple Music subcription service) were DRM'ed. In fact I would be astonished if this was not the case. Also, I've heard special Sun Ra Apple-sanctioned remasters with what I thought was clipping where the LP did not have clipping, but this could be possibly be explained away by the fact that Sun Ra was all over the place in every way, with recordings or music. Anyway, in this instance we are talking about here, I tried to uncheck any box in any untoward corner of the computer settings related to signal processing or what I would guess would be "gain structure" (not familiar with the term), e.g., output levels, and that did not seem to be what fixed the problem. But on the other hand I don't know what fixed it, and in years past people did fix similar sounding problems that way. Analytically I know I should be systematic but as a practical matter I am just trying to get rid of the damn problem by throwing mud on the wall and seeing what sticks. In some ways I'm not patient enough to figure out the why's and wherefores. I'll be interested to see tonight if it comes back. If so I will have to look for other variables in unexpected places.

If there are any errors or imprecisions here I am all ears. Part of my motivation here is to get us into talking about and doing and learning _stuff_. I'll fix this problem, I just won't know why it worked. And part of my motivation is the truly sincere and genuine pleasure of sharing the experience with some <ahem> interesting folks. I'm persistent. Cannot stand clipping or unexplained noise, etc. It actually makes me irritable, and has since I was a teenager a year or two ago. I just want to know _why as much as how._

Also any psychologically or aesthetically oriented ideas from the thought police or the posting editors are highly welcome. Seriously, if I were 100 percent normal 1) that would ironically and paradoxically be abnormal as a matter of logic and 2) I would not be posting this. Crafting this post and ones like it makes me relax and focus and enjoy myself. There is nice relaxing music in the background over a Sonos 5 speaker in the bedroom. May you achieve the same zen or whatever here.


----------



## dprimary

Steve999 said:


> Thanks. My comprehension is not so good on this one. And I am playing dumb a little to facilitate communication. Okay, I just made a decision not to play dumb. Though it is not that hard for me to do, it is not such a reach. I thought the Itunes tracks that you get to download or stream as part of an Apple music subscription but which you do not now "own" (you did not pay for apart from the license to play them via the Apple Music subcription service) were DRM'ed. In fact I would be astonished if this was not the case. Also, I've heard special Sun Ra Apple-sanctioned remasters with what I thought was clipping where the LP did not have clipping, but this could be possibly be explained away by the fact that Sun Ra was all over the place in every way, with recordings or music. Anyway, in this instance we are talking about here, I tried to uncheck any box in any untoward corner of the computer settings related to signal processing or what I would guess would be "gain structure" (not familiar with the term), e.g., output levels, and that did not seem to be what fixed the problem. But on the other hand I don't know what fixed it, and in years past people did fix similar sounding problems that way. Analytically I know I should be systematic but as a practical matter I am just trying to get rid of the damn problem by throwing mud on the wall and seeing what sticks. In some ways I'm not patient enough to figure out the why's and wherefores. I'll be interested to see tonight if it comes back. If so I will have to look for other variables in unexpected places.



Apple Music is different than iTunes, the streams likely has DRM depending on the contracts with the record companies. Still Apple does have some level of quality control. Is it a certain track? Since you can make it go away, that would indicate it is not a problem with the track. Or is it just reducing it to point you don't notice? For example some well know Motown tracks are extremely distorted. How noticeable the distortion is depends on the release, the digital versions are worse since it is not masked by the limitations of vinyl, that and crushed it was hard with a limiter to keep the stylus in the groove when the master was cut. But the distortion is still there.


----------



## KeithEmo

Agreed.

As a broad generalization, there's something I don't understand about all the emotion I see in this group, about high-res audio files, and about DACs, and even about amplifiers and cables. The last time I bought a ruler for my desk, I ended up with a nice shiny stainless steel one.... that was marked in thirty-seconds of an inch.... with really fine precise looking lines. I really only need an accuracy of 1/16", if even that. However, the nice one that was more accurate than I needed was almost the same price, and it _was_ only a few cents more. 

When we design audio components, we virtually never buy something that's "just barely good enough to do the job". 1% resistors used to be an expensive luxury; however, nowadays, most resistors are 1%. The reason is simply because, even though you usually don't need 1% precision, having too much precision never hurts, but not having enough is a problem. And, to be honest, it's actually gotten hard to find 10% resistors these days.  Therefore, since they cost about the same, it simply makes sense to stock the better quality part. The extra cost of using 1% resistors when you don't really need them is actually less than the extra cost and aggravation of keeping separate bins for 1% ones and 10% ones. And, if you have a recipe that calls for 3/4 of butter, you buy a pound; you don't buy three separate 1/4 pound sticks... which, if you could find them separate, would probably cost more anyway. It's also been a truism for as long as I can remember that, when you buy test or measurement equipment, you aim for accuracy that is at least 10x better than you need. In some specific situations, when that extra accuracy would cost a lot of money, you only "overbuy" by a little bit... but, in most cases, it really doesn't work that way. It's typically referred to as "a safety margin".... and the break point is often simply between "having to keep track of the errors" and "making the errors small enough that it's OK to just ignore them".

This is why I don't understand all the "hate" directed towards high resolution files.

Comparing an RBCD file, with a frequency response that extends to 20 kHz, to a "high resolution 96k file", with a response out to 45 kHz.....
The usual difference in cost, assuming you're just buying a new album, is about $5.
It's _NOT_ double; it's _NOT_ $5 per kHz.... 
It's the difference between the $20 tape measure that's "just barely good enough".....
And the $25 tape measure that's "a lot more accurate then you really need".....

I own lots of test equipment.
And virtually none of it is "barely good enough to get the job done".
In fact, most of it is _A LOT BETTER_ than I really need...
Usually because it didn't cost much more to get something that was "a lot better than I really need"...
Instead of something that "I'm pretty sure is barely good enough to do the job"...
Or even something that "I'm absolutely certain, with no doubt whatsoever, is just barely good enough to get the job done".
For a few bucks more I get something that's "A lot better than what I need - so I don't have to worry about it".

When CDs were developed, there were significant issues about storage space, and about disc size.
They wanted the discs to end up being the size they currently are...
They wanted to get an hour on a disc...
The technology current at the time meant that, if they wanted to meet those two requirements, 44k was the highest sample rate they could use.
(All else being equal, if they'd wanted to use 96k, and keep the size, a CD would hold about 25 minutes - which was considered "unacceptable".)
We simply don't have those limits today.

If you want to read sinister and ulterior motives into everything......
Isn't it an interesting coincidence that the sample rate that Sony's studies found was "just good enough to be audibly perfect" ...
Happened to be _exactly_ the one that allowed them to meet all their other commercial requirements.
(Wouldn't it have sucked if they'd found out that they couldn't develop a product that met all their goals with the technology they had readily available?)

If I want to put my entire CD collection on a hard drive, and I calculate the storage requirements....
- the extra cost of having the entire thing in 96k would be about $50
- add another $100 if I wanted to use 24/192k
- and that's for _THOUSANDS_ of albums
(That's far less than the price I've occasionally paid for fancy jewel cases.)

Even if someone could convince me that 99.99% of the humans on Earth can't hear the difference...
And, more importantly, if they could show me that I can't hear the difference...
I'd still pay the 10% premium for that nice reassuring 50% safety margin...
- in case, someday, with some new equipment, or a new set of bionic hearing aids, I can hear the difference
- or in case it turns out that next year's surround sound synthesizer really does work better with high-res files (for whatever reason)
- or just because, being an engineer, I'd rather have a safety margin than... well... _NOT_ having a safety margin

I agree that anyone would be foolish to replace their entire CD collection with high-res files.... if they can't hear a difference....
But I really find myself unable to consider it a big deal either way...
And I honestly don't understand why some people get so excited about it...

It almost makes me wonder if some people are really that worried that the big bad music companies will cheat them out of a lousy few bucks.
(If you want to worry about a few bucks, I think you should worry about things like how much of that money makes it into the pockets of your favorite band...)



analogsurviver said:


> It is NOT about winning, being vindicated, etc - it is about recording present, living artists in the best possible way.
> 
> We personally may never be able to hear these HR recordings in our lifetime to the full benefit the "inaudible information to the human ears" can potentially bring - but within next say 50 years, technology might advance forward enough and more widespread adoption of QUALITY  might bring the price of admission within the reach of ordinary people.
> 
> Going to and keeping only to RBCD certainly CAN NOT accomplish that goal.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm not at all an iTunes fan. However, from what I understand, in the original iTunes store, you were limited to purchasing lossy files at the 128k AAC sample rate - with DRM. They then started to offer an upgraded version of many files, at the better quality 256k AAC sample rate, and without DRM. The situation for folks who already owned files at the older 128k rate - and with DRM - is a lot more complicated - and seems to have changed over time. At one point you could still buy both; then, at one point, you had the option to upgrade all your files (but, according to some stories, were required to do it with "all of none" - and to move any non-upgraded files to your desktop). According to a few recent articles, by subscribing to iTunes "Match service", for $25 a year, you can have the option of upgrading all the songs you currently own. Once you have the best quality, DRM-free, version, you should then be able to save a copy for yourself somewhere.... just in case they change their minds again... or lose the licensing rights to some songs you already own. If you Google it, make sure to check the dates on anything you read, since the situation seems to change relatively often.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2015/01/18/itunes-drm/21964513/

One thing I find incongruous is Apple's standpoint on lossy-vs-lossless files.

The original iTunes store offered only LOSSY 128k AAC files.
The current highest quality format is LOSSY 256k AAC (still lossy).
However, for files submitted to the iTunes store, they request and recommend 24/96k.

So:
- If there really is no audible difference, then why are they asking for submissions to be provided at better quality than what they're selling?
- What exactly _ARE_ they planning to do with those "unnecessary" 96k master versions?

Now, to be fair, if a little pessimistic, I have my suspicions.
I think Apple may consider 256k AAC to be "good enough for their customers" - but just doesn't trust anyone else to do a decent quality job of encoding them that way.
(Of course, it's also possible that we'll be seeing "Apple high-res streaming" next year and they're just collecting assets for it.)



Steve999 said:


> Thanks. My comprehension is not so good on this one. And I am playing dumb a little to facilitate communication. Okay, I just made a decision not to play dumb. Though it is not that hard for me to do, it is not such a reach. I thought the Itunes tracks that you get to download or stream as part of an Apple music subscription but which you do not now "own" (you did not pay for apart from the license to play them via the Apple Music subcription service) were DRM'ed. In fact I would be astonished if this was not the case. Also, I've heard special Sun Ra Apple-sanctioned remasters with what I thought was clipping where the LP did not have clipping, but this could be possibly be explained away by the fact that Sun Ra was all over the place in every way, with recordings or music. Anyway, in this instance we are talking about here, I tried to uncheck any box in any untoward corner of the computer settings related to signal processing or what I would guess would be "gain structure" (not familiar with the term), e.g., output levels, and that did not seem to be what fixed the problem. But on the other hand I don't know what fixed it, and in years past people did fix similar sounding problems that way. Analytically I know I should be systematic but as a practical matter I am just trying to get rid of the damn problem by throwing mud on the wall and seeing what sticks. In some ways I'm not patient enough to figure out the why's and wherefores. I'll be interested to see tonight if it comes back. If so I will have to look for other variables in unexpected places.
> 
> If there are any errors or imprecisions here I am all ears. Part of my motivation here is to get us into talking about and doing and learning _stuff_. I'll fix this problem, I just won't know why it worked. And part of my motivation is the truly sincere and genuine pleasure of sharing the experience with some <ahem> interesting folks. I'm persistent. Cannot stand clipping or unexplained noise, etc. It actually makes me irritable, and has since I was a teenager a year or two ago. I just want to know _why as much as how._
> 
> Also any psychologically or aesthetically oriented ideas from the thought police or the posting editors are highly welcome. Seriously, if I were 100 percent normal 1) that would ironically and paradoxically be abnormal as a matter of logic and 2) I would not be posting this. Crafting this post and ones like it makes me relax and focus and enjoy myself. There is nice relaxing music in the background over a Sonos 5 speaker in the bedroom. May you achieve the same zen or whatever here.


----------



## KeithEmo

There's one thing that _REALLY_ needs to be pointed out here.....
(Note that this is not _just_ in response to Gregorio.... )

Again and again I see it referred to that "established science has proven beyond any doubt the range of frequencies human beings can hear".
(And a whole host of other things that "are so well known that you aren't _ALLOWED_ to doubt them".)
Yet, amazingly, when I look around, I find that science _FREQUENTLY_ has to change or update "what we know to be true" based on new discoveries or research.
When I went to school they still had the silly idea that - "matter is made up of three distinct types of indivisible particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons".
I'm pretty sure that, at the time, all the textbooks claimed that "science had proven this conclusively".
Today we would classify that "fact" as somewhere between "a crude but sometimes still useful approximation" and "just plain quaint".
(And, today, everybody "knows" that there are dozens of identified "subatomic particles", but they're probably really all just "little bundles of energy" anyway.)
I'm also told there were times when "established science" "proved" that the Earth was flat, humans couldn't fly, and coelacanths were extinct.
(It isn't, they can, and they aren't.)

In fact, I was taught that science is _NEVER_ certain, and is _ALWAYS_ open to challenge, and even revision based on new data.
- If it is in fact true that humans cannot ever, under any circumstances, hear sounds, or other effects, at frequencies above 20 Khz - then high-resolution files _cannot _sound different.
- And, if high-resolution files sound different - then the claim that humans can never hear any sound or effect above 20 kHz must be untrue under at least some conditions.

As far as I know, that "fact" wasn't handed down by some glowing being - indelibly inscribed on tablets of purest iridium alloy.
It's simply the conclusion of a whole bunch of scientific tests... many of which were conducted a long time ago, with antiquated equipment, using primitive test protocols.
(It almost reminds me of all the experiments that "proved" that Newtonian physics was "always true".... until better experiments showed them to be somewhat in error.)
Perhaps, like Newtonian physics, we'll eventually find that it's really just "usually true" or "true under most circumstances"......
(In fact, at least one experiment does seem to have established that "under some lab conditions humans can be shown to hear 10 Hz" - so we already know it's not entirely true.)

So, by all means, feel free to quote those numbers, and to remind everyone about the huge amount of research that current supports them...
And about the fact that very little serious research performed so far contradicts them in any significant way...
But _DO NOT_ stand on a soap box and start screaming "heresy" every time someone suggests that they may be just a little bit wrong... or incomplete... 



gregorio said:


> 1. *No one* is claiming there's "definitely no difference", in fact quite the opposite, there MUST ALWAYS be a difference. And, I can make this statement with confidence NOT because I've tested/measured everything in the universe but because the laws of physics tells us so. The question then is: Can we hear these differences? And the answer is: It depends on the magnitude of the differences and where in the frequency spectrum they occur. But in many cases we can show "conclusively" that "no we can't" because for around a century science has studied and tested the limits of human capabilities. So, why is it likely there won't be any consensus? Well in fact there is consensus, there's consensus among scientists and professionals. Where there isn't consensus is among those who don't understand, know or believe the science and amongst those professionals deliberately trying to misrepresent the science in order to sell snake oil to those who don't; Typically, by either just ignoring/omitting what science has already "shown conclusively" or by questioning, misrepresenting or obfuscating what "conclusively shown" means.
> 
> 2. Where does that "But of course" come from? It's a simple, widely used, mathematical, objective test that you can do yourself at no cost, you can even just take existing files and/or convert them (HD converted to say 16/44.1 or MP3 for example), see for yourself how the test works and what you end up with, and you don't even need an ADC, just a computer and some free software. But no, you just make-up an absolute "but of course" statement about it, based entirely on your position of never having used/tried it (IE. complete ignorance) and if that's not bad enough, you then call us "unscientific"?
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis (Nov 30, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> There's one thing that _REALLY_ needs to be pointed out here.....
> (Note that this is not _just_ in response to Gregorio.... )
> 
> Again and again I see it referred to that "established science has proven beyond any doubt the range of frequencies human beings can hear".
> ...



Keith, it's just one of his debating tactics, which obviously doesn't carry much weight with those of us who've taken the time to learn science from experts, so we don't need to rely on his characterization of what "established science" has concluded and how conclusive those conclusions really are.

People who've already firmly made up their minds on things just reinforce their beliefs through confirmation bias, regardless of what or how much they read, so changing their minds about things could shatter their sense of reality and identity, and they're not in a position to learn much.  Sound Science has attracted some of these people, a few of which are very prolific posters, and they can easily be spotted based on the overconfidence they exude.  They're more like activists and ideologues than scientists.


----------



## Arpiben (Nov 30, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Keith, it's just one of his debating tactics, which obviously doesn't carry much weight with those of us who've taken the time to learn science from experts, so we don't need to rely on his characterization of what "established science" has concluded and how conclusive those conclusions really are.
> 
> People who've already firmly made up their minds on things just reinforce their beliefs through confirmation bias, regardless of what or how much they read, so changing their minds about things could shatter their sense of reality and identity, and they're not in a position to learn much.  Sound Science has attracted some of these people, a few of which are very prolific posters, and they can easily be spotted based on the overconfidence they exude.  They're more like activists and ideologues than scientists.



What a waste, in my opinion, for you not to share or better put into application what you have learnt from experts.
As a member of the trade, @KeithEmo has potentially more reasons not to do it fully compare to you.

By the way, I am taking the opportunity to thank @gregorio for his relentless fight against distorted and wrong information posted here.
I am also very grateful to @bigshot in keeping focused in what really matters.
Thanks to them and others who left (@pinahertz) I learnt how to distinguish better what really matters.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> One thing I find incongruous is Apple's standpoint on lossy-vs-lossless files.
> 
> The original iTunes store offered only LOSSY 128k AAC files.
> The current highest quality format is LOSSY 256k AAC (still lossy).
> ...




I would expect them to want the the highest resolution master you can provide. They are processing it for distribution. I don't give the masting engineer a cassette copy to a cut 7". Wait I mean my patented analog dithering process.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 30, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I'm not at all an iTunes fan. However, from what I understand, in the original iTunes store, you were limited to purchasing lossy files at the 128k AAC sample rate - with DRM. They then started to offer an upgraded version of many files, at the better quality 256k AAC sample rate, and without DRM. The situation for folks who already owned files at the older 128k rate - and with DRM - is a lot more complicated - and seems to have changed over time. At one point you could still buy both; then, at one point, you had the option to upgrade all your files (but, according to some stories, were required to do it with "all of none" - and to move any non-upgraded files to your desktop). According to a few recent articles, by subscribing to iTunes "Match service", for $25 a year, you can have the option of upgrading all the songs you currently own. Once you have the best quality, DRM-free, version, you should then be able to save a copy for yourself somewhere.... just in case they change their minds again... or lose the licensing rights to some songs you already own. If you Google it, make sure to check the dates on anything you read, since the situation seems to change relatively often.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2015/01/18/itunes-drm/21964513/
> 
> ...



Why are you not an iTunes fan? I hate the software but have learned to get along with it now that you mention it. But I am just curious what your view is and why.

Your Apple Music history is very good. As I am an actual consumer of it I think you may be unaware of one pretty cool recent detail. iTunes Match now comes free with the Apple Music service. As you allude to, for nearly anything under 256kbps that you “own” you can download the Apple 256kbps AAC file for free, DRM free, yours to keep. This does  result in an alphabet soup of file types for someone like me as well as maintaining good backups just in case but the value there is quite good. Put more simply, if you have Apple Music you now get ITunes Match for free. This is relatively recent. Hope that makes sense. I have both Spotify and Apple Music to satisfy the needs and preferences of a family of 5. Spotify has some big usability and curation advantages. Apple upgrades all my old rips at no extra charge and stores my personal music files in the cloud. Two very different products in a lot of ways. Glad to have both.

If I just want to listen to some music I find Spotify more efficient and reliable.

As to the bitrate and sample rate and hires stuff, I kind of stay out of that debate because it doesn’t seem fruitful.

Thanks for your time and information, Keith.


----------



## Steve999

dprimary said:


> Apple Music is different than iTunes, the streams likely has DRM depending on the contracts with the record companies. Still Apple does have some level of quality control. Is it a certain track? Since you can make it go away, that would indicate it is not a problem with the track. Or is it just reducing it to point you don't notice? For example some well know Motown tracks are extremely distorted. How noticeable the distortion is depends on the release, the digital versions are worse since it is not masked by the limitations of vinyl, that and crushed it was hard with a limiter to keep the stylus in the groove when the master was cut. But the distortion is still there.



Could you identify some distorted Motown tracks? I’d like to check it out. iTunes and Apple Music as a service and associated product have converged a lot as set forth by me and Keith above.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 30, 2018)

I would expect that there are a lot of distorted Motown tracks. Especially in the 60s. That era used distortion as a technique. Phil Spector and Joe Meek were geniuses when it came to pushing the envelope on sound.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 30, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> I am playing dumb a little to facilitate communication.



They're playing smart for the opposite intent!

I'd be happy to help you debug your problem, but if you go down the bizarro world rabbit hole gladly, I'lll not be on the voyage to crazy town with you. You're on your own. I am of the opinion that encouraging them to post more stuff is counter productive.



Arpiben said:


> By the way, I am taking the opportunity to thank @gregorio for his relentless fight against distorted and wrong information posted here. I am also very grateful to @bigshot in keeping focused in what really matters. Thanks to them and others who left (@pinahertz) I learnt how to distinguish better what really matters.



You're pretty helpful in quantifying stuff and helping us to figure things out. We have a really great core group here. I really appreciate having such a great resource to learn from.


----------



## PaperTank

Arpiben said:


> By the way, I am taking the opportunity to thank @gregorio for his relentless fight against distorted and wrong information posted here.
> I am also very grateful to @bigshot in keeping focused in what really matters.
> Thanks to them and others who left (@pinahertz) I learnt how to distinguish better what really matters.



As a long time lurker here I wanted to second this. The patience of people like @bigshot and @gregorio against the endless barrage of utter nonsense that is spewed their way is commendable. If not for people like them here and on various other sites I would not have been exposed to the truth of so many products in this industry. It's this education that has saved me thousands of dollars that would have been wasted chasing unicorns instead of focusing on what really matters.


----------



## bigshot

Thanks Paper Tank. Nice to meet you!


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Yet, amazingly, when I look around, I find that science _FREQUENTLY_ has to change or update "what we know to be true" based on new discoveries or research.
> [2] When I went to school they still had the silly idea that - "matter is made up of three distinct types of indivisible particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons".
> [2a] I'm pretty sure that, at the time, all the textbooks claimed that "science had proven this conclusively".
> [3] If you want to read sinister and ulterior motives into everything......
> [4] It's also been a truism for as long as I can remember that, when you buy test or measurement equipment, you aim for accuracy that is at least 10x better than you need.



1. Really, can you provide an example? Certainly science FREQUENTLY updates theories that might be true and particularly those theories we know to be incomplete but extremely rarely in modern times is something "we know to be true" found to be false, so can you provide some of these frequent examples please?

2. Why is that a silly idea, all matter is made up of three distinct types of particles, protons, neutrons and electrons? 
2a. Maybe we've found the problem, are you getting all your information from school textbooks?

Interesting that you should draw a FALSE CORRELATION with quantum mechanics. A theory for which there is significant evidence to suggest it's incomplete, which is therefore quite regularly updated and for which there are competing theories. Quantum mechanics is therefore not "what we know to be true" on the contrary, we know that in some respects it's almost certainly only part of the truth. So, we have significant evidence to suggest it's incomplete, where's your significant evidence for 20kHz not being an upper limit for human hearing? In fact, how about just a bit of reliable evidence, it doesn't even have to be "significant"! ALL the reliable evidence indicates that with commercial music recordings it CANNOT be audible. 

3. What other option is there? That you're horrendously ignorant, can't read anything that's been posted, can't read any science, apparently don't how science works, don't understand what a scientific theory is, don't know what the word "evidence" means, don't know anything about audio, etc., OR that you have an agenda/ulterior motive?

4. 16bit digital audio effective has infinite accuracy, is infinite not "10x better than you need"? Admittedly, 16bit has a noise floor that obscures that infinite accuracy, so in practice it's only about 1,000 times "better than you need". Where's your next fallacy/misrepresentation?



Phronesis said:


> Keith, it's just one of his debating tactics, which obviously doesn't carry much weight with those of us who've taken the time to learn science from experts, so we don't need to rely on his characterization of what "established science" has concluded and how conclusive those conclusions really are.



Yes, it's a debating tactic of mine to quote the actual facts/science and call out those trolls proclaiming to have learned "science from the experts" but ask them for just one piece of supporting evidence and they run away, deflect, call everyone else unscientific, complain there are too many words for them to read (understand?) and accuse others of doing exactly what they are guilty of. "Taken the time to learn science from experts"? That's funny!!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree - when I look at it that way.... although it sort of depends on whether you look at what they're doing as "mastering an album for you" or "taking the product you provide to them and putting it on a shelf - in return for a sales commission".
I suspect that, technically, the truth lies somewhere in the middle (as far as I know _ALL_ they do is to run it through an encoder - which is an automated process).
With all the talk about studios "wanting to protect their crown jewels" - if they're planning to sell only 256k AAC copies then couldn't they just request that you provide it in 256k AAC?
(Why do I need to "turn the crown jewels over to them" - especially if they aren't going to take advantage of them anyway?.... )

I'm personally not a musician but, without getting into the argument about how much it matters, I wouldn't turn my music over to someone to sell for me unless they were at least going to offer it to my customers however they want it.
And, again without arguing any technical virtues, if I'd bothered to master it at 96k, I would want my customers who prefer 96k to be able to buy it that way, and not be limited to what Apple thinks is "good enough for them".
Whether you think it makes any difference or not, if one of my customers is willing to pay extra for CD quality, or 96k PCM, or DSD for that matter, why should Apple deprive me of the opportunity to sell them what they want?

Another way of looking at it would be to say:
"Apple has always claimed to "care abut the music" and to "want to provide top quality for their customers".
"Yet, until their customers started demanding higher quality, they thought that 128k LOSSY AAC with DRM was plenty good enough for them."
"And then, when their customers started demanding higher quality, they started offering 256k LOSSY AAC - which is somewhat better - but charging more for it and charging for the upgrade".

And, if you start from there:
"I wonder if they're sitting on those 96k files so that, once their customers again demand better quality, they'll be able to sell yet another upgrade, for yet more money."

By asking for music at 96k, but only selling it at lossy 256k, Apple has guaranteed themselves the opportunity to sell two more upgrades: "CD quality" and "high res".
And, especially to folks in this forum, I would expect this to seem like pretty shady tactics.
(Obviously _THEY_ believe that 96k PCM is better than AAC - or they wouldn't make the distinction.)



dprimary said:


> I would expect them to want the the highest resolution master you can provide. They are processing it for distribution. I don't give the masting engineer a cassette copy to a cut 7". Wait I mean my patented analog dithering process.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> Yes, it's a debating tactic of mine to quote the actual facts/science and call out those trolls proclaiming to have learned "science from the experts" but ask them for just one piece of supporting evidence and they run away, deflect, call everyone else unscientific, complain there are too many words for them to read (understand?) and accuse others of doing exactly what they are guilty of. "Taken the time to learn science from experts"? That's funny!!
> 
> G



Could you tell us a little about your scientific background?  What field(s)?  Any research and peer-reviewed papers?  Perhaps I'm underestimating your background ...


----------



## dprimary

Steve999 said:


> Could you identify some distorted Motown tracks? I’d like to check it out. iTunes and Apple Music as a service and associated product have converged a lot as set forth by me and Keith above.



"My world is Empty Without You" by The Supremes  is the worst one The drums are distorted so I don't think it was intentional. Any remasters that they have brighten it up it is painful. Much of Motown has the vocals breaking up, but that could be intentional.


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> I'm guilty of that too, but how guilty am I really, in practice? How many commercial recordings are there that peak no higher than -70dB? If it's none, then surely we can take that condition for granted or not even consider it in practice? It's like my statement above, that "there MUST ALWAYS be a difference". That's not strictly true, a DAC operating at a temperature of absolute zero would not have any thermal noise and therefore could in theory not be any different from another DAC. Likewise, the rules of thermal noise breakdown in the terahertz range, so two DACs converting only terahertz frequencies could also in theory not be different. What about other potential conditions where for all I know it might be possible, such as inside the event horizon of a black hole, travelling at the speed of light, etc. Additionally, EVERYTHING is audible in theory and nothing is impossible: 1MHz audio freqs, no problem just slow it down by 7 times or so, or pitch shift it. Distortion at -350dBFS, no problem, just apply 340dB of gain. ... Is my statement about there always being a difference false? Should I have explicitly stated that it doesn't apply to audiophiles listening to a DAC operating at absolute zero inside a black hole when playing a piece of terahertz music with 340dB of gain, or, is it reasonable to forego listing all those conditions?


 let's say some, I believe some would be the appropriate amount to start a conversation ^_^. it is important to help make a claim true. but it's also important to communicate properly. if we don't frame what we say with at least a range of applicable circumstances, then someone will inevitably start discussing stuff outside of our assumed frame of reference and count it as false claim, like my silly -70dB signal example. and that's not even counting all those who will just have their own sets of assumptions coming to mind while reading your claims, so they won't even read your post as meaning what you meant to say. and you'd have provided nothing to make they suspect otherwise.  
 bigshot counts audibility as what he notices on his system with music at usual levels, you and I know that, but not everybody does. amirm counts audibility as what he can notice when he sets up tests to find out the threshold of his hearing(including special test signals, special listening conditions and special gears). Phronesis defines audibility more or less as anything coming from the auditory nerves that successfully decided a neuron to fire in our brain. and a all lot of audiophiles will define audible differences as differences they can see(even if they often don't know themselves that it is their definition of audible). 
so providing a bunch of conditions to better define the true range of our claims, it's pretty much a necessity IMO.


----------



## KeithEmo (Nov 30, 2018)

I would agree......

The idea that "all matter is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons" isn't silly at all.
It's an excellent model, which worked well enough to be the basis of a lot of things - like fission bombs to nuclear reactors.
However, in light of new information, it's just plain not true.
(We have now split protons into all sorts of interesting pieces.)

Incidentally, if you actually read some of commonly cited studies - _ALL THE WAY THROUGH -_ you'll find some interesting information.
For example, while their results universally failed to show with statistical significance that "humans can tell the difference between CD quality and high-res files"...
Several I've read noted _INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTS_ who were able to do so with far greater than the accuracy required for statistical significance.
So, according to those results, _AT LEAST A FEW HUMANS CAN IN FACT TELL THE DIFFERENCE_.
(It would have been useful if they're followed up. However, they were obviously looking for statistical significance rather than absolute facts.)
[I've edited this to correct my statement that those tests were listed at the beginning of this thread. I don't know if they were listed here or elsewhere. If I find links to the actual tests I'll post them.]

I'm assuming that your claim that "human hearing extends from 20 Hz to 20 kHz" came from some place other than a textbook.
If so, then please inform us all what test protocols you used to determine it, how you selected your test population, and provide the actual results of your test.
Otherwise, like everything else I read in a textbook, I'm willing to consider it "provisionally true" - until and unless someone disproves it with more recent or more carefully performed testing.

Who else here remembers when we "knew" that cancer wasn't caused by a virus?
(But, no, I'm not trying to prove "who can make the longer list" - just one proves the point.)



gregorio said:


> 1. Really, can you provide an example? Certainly science FREQUENTLY updates theories that might be true and particularly those theories we know to be incomplete but extremely rarely in modern times is something "we know to be true" found to be false, so can you provide some of these frequent examples please?
> 
> 2. Why is that a silly idea, all matter is made up of three distinct types of particles, protons, neutrons and electrons?
> 2a. Maybe we've found the problem, are you getting all your information from school textbooks?
> ...


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> bigshot counts audibility as what he notices on his system with music at usual levels, you and I know that, but not everybody does. amirm counts audibility as what he can notice when he sets up tests to find out the threshold of his hearing(including special test signals, special listening conditions and special gears).



It's important to consider the intended purpose. When I work in a studio, I require a different standard than when I'm listening in my home. I can see the value of figuring out the worst case scenario that encompasses extreme situations and critical applications, but it's important to realize that when we wash our hands to prepare dinner, we don't have to do it in the same way that a surgeon might when he is going in to do brain surgery.

We're talking about home audio here, not atomic fission. People who get diverted off into the extreme bleeding edges of theoretical science in this forum are just as crazy in my book as audiophiles who stumble in here to make up poems to describe imaginary sounds they clearly can't really hear. It's two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> let's say some, I believe some would be the appropriate amount to start a conversation ^_^. it is important to help make a claim true. but it's also important to communicate properly. if we don't frame what we say with at least a range of applicable circumstances, then someone will inevitably start discussing stuff outside of our assumed frame of reference and count it as false claim, like my silly -70dB signal example. and that's not even counting all those who will just have their own sets of assumptions coming to mind while reading your claims, so they won't even read your post as meaning what you meant to say. and you'd have provided nothing to make they suspect otherwise.
> bigshot counts audibility as what he notices on his system with music at usual levels, you and I know that, but not everybody does. amirm counts audibility as what he can notice when he sets up tests to find out the threshold of his hearing(including special test signals, special listening conditions and special gears). Phronesis defines audibility more or less as anything coming from the auditory nerves that successfully decided a neuron to fire in our brain. and a all lot of audiophiles will define audible differences as differences they can see(even if they often don't know themselves that it is their definition of audible).
> so providing a bunch of conditions to better define the true range of our claims, it's pretty much a necessity IMO.



This is the crux of the problem, IMO.  Some people around here like to speak, and apparently think, in absolute terms, maybe due to discomfort with uncertainty.  As a result, they resist qualifying their statements, stating their assumptions, providing sufficient detail of how they arrived at their conclusions, etc.  That's bad for communication, and not the way science works.

When I wandered into Sound Science, it was because I Iwas enticed by the title Sound Science, figuring the forum was mainly science-minded people who real wanted to delve into the science.  Most of the time, that's not what goes on here.

If the objective is to be practical, we don't really need Sound Science at all.  For head-fi, use any decent source, DAC, amp, and cables, then try headphones to see which ones you subjectively like.


----------



## KeithEmo

I have a bunch of different reasons for disliking iTunes... and some of them are historical (so they're no longer true).

1) 
I am simply not a fan of "closed ecosystems" like Apple.
While iTunes has gotten a lot better in this regard it still has some issues.
For example, iTunes doesn't play files in the most widely used lossless format (FLAC).
(You can add that capability by adding a plugin - which really isn't tragic - but I still don't like the idea that they omitted THE standard format everyone else uses.)
As a broad generality, iTunes seems to work better with Apple computers and devices, and less well with others.
(This would count in its favor if you have mostly Apple devices.)

2) 
I do not like lossy compression. 
I am quite convinced that I hear a noticeable difference - at least some of the time.
Therefore I want at least CD quality - and the iTunes store doesn't offer me that option.
Note that iTunes can RIP CDs at full CD quality - it's only stuff you buy from iTunes that is lossy.
(Note that, if you want to RIP CDs in a lossless format, you'll have to change the default setting.)

3)
iTunes used to have many really annoying quirks.
For example, all of the songs were stored in the iTunes library on disc with cryptic gibberish file names.
iTunes showed the proper names in the index, which was stored in a database, and displayed them on-screen.
However, if you wanted to manually copy a file, or your library got corrupted, you were stuck with a bunch of unidentifiable files.
In "the old days" the iTunes library did get corrupted more often than one might like.
(I believe they now use normal file names... and I assume that they've solved many of the reliability issues.)

4)
A lot depends on whether you are normally "an Apple person" or "a Windows person".
I use Windows exclusively on all my regular computers.
As such, I simply don't find iTunes to be the best choice.
If I want a simple but powerful program - I prefer FooBar2000 (which is really good, and also totally free, but is only available for Windows).
If I want a complicated program, with all the bells and whistles, I prefer jRiver Media Center (which is available for both Apple and Windows computers).
The choices for Apple computers are somewhat different - and I'm not that familiar with all of them.

5)
I dislike "storing stuff in the cloud" - sort of as a matter of principle.
It has security issues, connectivity issues, and reliability issues.
(Basically, it's like letting your neighbor keep track of your CD collection for you, except there's no chance your neighbor will go out of business.)
I tend to listen to my music in one place - and I find storing it on a local hard disc to be more trustworthy and more efficient.
HOWEVER, with multiple listeners, and multiple devices, that becomes much less practical.
(And, to be honest, solutions like setting up your own DLNA server, while they work quite well, tend to end up being labor intensive and often complicated.) 

6)
A LOT depends on how you feel about the iTunes store.
If you purchase stuff from the iTunes store then iTunes is the easiest way to do so and to manage your purchases.
If you DON'T purchase stuff from the iTunes store, then I see little benefit to iTunes as a music player alone.

7)
And, all specific logic aside, I also simply hate the software.
I have never especially liked the interface.
I can get along with it, but there are lots of others that I like better, so I'd rather not.

Again, while many people may disagree, I do NOT like even the idea of lossy compression.
(So, if I want to upgrade a poor quality copy of something I already have, I'm not going to bother to upgrade it to a better, but still lossy, file; I'm going to look for the CD version of it.)



Steve999 said:


> Why are you not an iTunes fan? I hate the software but have learned to get along with it now that you mention it. But I am just curious what your view is and why.
> 
> Your Apple Music history is very good. As I am an actual consumer of it I think you may be unaware of one pretty cool recent detail. iTunes Match now comes free with the Apple Music service. As you allude to, for nearly anything under 256kbps that you “own” you can download the Apple 256kbps AAC file for free, DRM free, yours to keep. This does  result in an alphabet soup of file types for someone like me as well as maintaining good backups just in case but the value there is quite good. Put more simply, if you have Apple Music you now get ITunes Match for free. This is relatively recent. Hope that makes sense. I have both Spotify and Apple Music to satisfy the needs and preferences of a family of 5. Spotify has some big usability and curation advantages. Apple upgrades all my old rips at no extra charge and stores my personal music files in the cloud. Two very different products in a lot of ways. Glad to have both.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> I do not like lossy compression.
> I am quite convinced that I hear a noticeable difference - at least some of the time.



Have you forgotten the test I helped you do? That isn't what you said when you took it.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 30, 2018)

bigshot said:


> They're playing smart for the opposite intent!
> 
> I'd be happy to help you debug your problem, but if you go down the bizarro world rabbit hole gladly, I'lll not be on the voyage to crazy town with you. You're on your own.





KeithEmo said:


> I have a bunch of different reasons for disliking iTunes... and some of them are historical (so they're no longer true).
> 
> 1)
> I am simply not a fan of "closed ecosystems" like Apple.
> ...



Great write-up Keith. I found it to be a really good read and really well-written and concisely organized and direct and informative and entertaining. Truly, I enjoyed it and agreed with nearly everything you said. I use Itunes as a portable music service so you and I are different use-cases. I think I will try the jriver software for something cool. I have foobar up and running in addition to itunes.

I have a macbook pro, a stationary windows PC, an ipad, an android tablet, and my nice stereo.

You and I will have to respectfully disagree about lossy compression though. As Bigshot alludes to I did do the testing A/B/X and I feel like I know my limits as far as audibility. So let's just respectfully disagree on that, eh? Though I don't really see too much harm in going the extra mile. I think the mad hatter would be down with that (and maybe that's who I am!). 

I have my original CDs for the stuff where I might want to do a re-rip and my guess is that in the long run all of the music services will go nuts and give us all lossless. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of our lives. Down the bizarro world rabbit hole voyage to crazy town I gladly go!!!!


----------



## bigshot

I was alluding to a test of lossy vs lossless that I helped Keith do.


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> I was alluding to a test of lossy vs lossless that I helped Keith do.



I understood that my good man. I was just trying to reiterate the point to him a bit in an indirect and gentle way.


----------



## old tech (Nov 30, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Even though it's solely based on perception, the placebo effect is both real, and able to affect physical things.
> People given a placebo pain pill not only report feeling less pain, but measurements of physical indications of pain, like blood pressure and heart rate, show that they actually _EXPERIENCE_ less pain.
> (Perhaps someone who expects to hear no difference between two devices is actually physically less able to hear differences because his brain has focused his perceptions away from them.)
> My theory is that people who don't expect to hear differences have their attention less powerfully focused on detecting differences...
> ...



Nice theory, the major flaw in it though is that more often than not, those that are vehement that they can hear a difference fail in a properly constructed DBX test.  Your theory would assume that these listeners would be keenly attuned to listening for these differences, yet they fail the test.



KeithEmo said:


> This is why I don't understand all the "hate" directed towards high resolution files.



Where is this "hate" towards hi res files?  They should be part of any audiophiles mix of music sources as sometimes the best mastering of an issue is only available in that format.  The sense of hate (for a lack of a better term) that I pick up is more around the psuedoscience around hi res for playback.  Remember this is a sound science fourm so what would you expect when unsupported claims are being made?



KeithEmo said:


> When CDs were developed, there were significant issues about storage space, and about disc size.
> They wanted the discs to end up being the size they currently are...
> They wanted to get an hour on a disc...
> The technology current at the time meant that, if they wanted to meet those two requirements, 44k was the highest sample rate they could use.
> ...



That is an oversimplification.  Sure, duration of the CD, technology etc were all variables in the mix when redbook specs were designed, but 44.1 was chosen as most of the material transferred to tape was based on betamax or Umatic video specifications.  However, Sony and Phillips did not compromise on recording or reproducing sound for human listening so 44.1 was perfectly acceptable as it covered the entire range of human hearing, more so if the listener is more than 18 years old.



KeithEmo said:


> I agree that anyone would be foolish to replace their entire CD collection with high-res files.... if they can't hear a difference....
> But I really find myself unable to consider it a big deal either way...
> And I honestly don't understand why some people get so excited about it...
> 
> ...



No, often listeners can hear a difference.  The main reason they would be foolish is my second point above, ie obtaining the best quality mastering.  Sometimes it is the hi res file and other times it is a CD.  For example, there is no way I would replace my Jet ELO Discovery CD for the squashed hi res version, as just one of so many examples.  On the other hand I would gladly take the hi res remasters of Neil Diamond over the CD versions as they do sound better - the fact though that the hi res remaster could be released on CD and would sound the same but is charged at a higher price, is the cheating part of the industry.


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> There's one thing that _REALLY_ needs to be pointed out here.....
> (Note that this is not _just_ in response to Gregorio.... )
> 
> Again and again I see it referred to that "established science has proven beyond any doubt the range of frequencies human beings can hear".
> ...



What you are saying is true of course, after all we cannot prove that unicorns definately do not exist.  However, you are using the science method here as an obsufcation.  

Sure, we can agree that it cannot be proven that there is no human cannot hear sounds or other effects above 20khz, but we can look at practical experience from audiology, controlled tests and numerous research to say it is highly unlikely.  And even if it were possible, it would take a massive leap of faith to believe that it can influence playback listening to such an extent that it is not masked by the music in the range where our ears are most sensitive.

I mentioned before that I have a good friend who has been a practised audiologist for some 30 years.  When I show him some these claims he is astounded by the delusion that exists in some audiophool circles.  The part that really makes him shrug is that there are far more important aspects to human hearing than being able to hear even up to 14khz, such as our ability to discriminate sounds, hear details, separation of instruments etc.  Our abilities in this area decline with age, the so called cocktail effect, so even if it was possible that say a 50 year old could hear past 20khz (or its [ill defined] effects], and bare in mind no individual has ever been found at that age that can hear anywhere near 20 khz, but of course as you say that doesn't prove noone exists that can), the cocktail effect would swamp it.



KeithEmo said:


> So, by all means, feel free to quote those numbers, and to remind everyone about the huge amount of research that current supports them...
> And about the fact that very little serious research performed so far contradicts them in any significant way...
> But _DO NOT_ stand on a soap box and start screaming "heresy" every time someone suggests that they may be just a little bit wrong... or incomplete...



There is a lot of research that contradicts the idea of ultrasonic hearing and no convincing research suggesting otherwise.  In a more practical contradiction, we have over 100 years of audiolgy data which have not identified superhuman hearing.  And I am sure that any university or researcher in this area would bend over backwards to test any individual that can do so, that is if they can be certain that the individual is genuine and not an audiphool crank.


----------



## Phronesis

A hypothesis: a lot of people (not all of them) who are interested in having ultrasonic content want it because they incorrectly conceive it being similar to the very high frequencies they can actually hear - a category mistake. 

This hypothesis is separate from any opinion that actual ultrasonics (say above 20 kHz) do or don't have any effect on listeners.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 1, 2018)

Test.


----------



## old tech

Steve999 said:


> Interesting! How would you test that? A survey during a listening test of unwitting subjects?
> 
> *Anyway, to me a line of reasoning that holds my curiosity better would be that the higher inaudible frequencies interact with the audible frequencies in a way that creates a more natural sound field such as is heard in day to day life.* I don't_ believe_ that, but here we are entering my belief system and not something I know. I couldn't disprove it, though I think it is plausibly subject to analysis and testing, and I believe that my proposed hypothesis would be disproven. Nevertheless, we do know that waves interact with each other and with the world in fascinating and non-intuitive ways, do we not?



Even if that was true, there would be two problems with that statement.

Firstly, why would it be relevant to a recording, rather than a live event?  Presumably any effects of the inaudible frequencies interacting with the audible would be baked into the recording.

Secondly, taking the first point further, wouldn't it distort the sound by doubling the effect ie the ultrasonics interacting with the audible which already has the effect baked in?


----------



## Phronesis

Steve999 said:


> Interesting! How would you test that? A survey during a listening test of unwitting subjects?
> 
> Anyway, to me a line of reasoning that holds my curiosity better would be that the higher inaudible frequencies interact with the audible frequencies in a way that creates a more natural sound field such as is heard in day to day life. I don't_ believe_ that, but here we are entering my belief system and not something I know. I couldn't disprove it, though I think it is plausibly subject to analysis and testing, and I believe that my proposed hypothesis would be disproven. Nevertheless, we do know that waves interact with each other and with the world in fascinating and non-intuitive ways, do we not?



I think all of that can be tested, but of course good testing by qualified people usually requires funding.

My hypothesis is based on imagining the person who says "if I really pay attention, I can notice the really high frequencies in the music, and if I can have a system which is more accurate for those frequencies, I bet the overall sound will be more realistic.  I don't know the exact range for those really high frequencies, but they seem awful high, maybe in the range of say 20 to 40 kHz, so I guess my system should cover that range, to play it safe."  This imaginary person might be surprised to find that 15 kHz is already "really high."


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 30, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I think all of that can be tested, but of course good testing by qualified people usually requires funding.
> 
> My hypothesis is based on imagining the person who says "if I really pay attention, I can notice the really high frequencies in the music, and if I can have a system which is more accurate for those frequencies, I bet the overall sound will be more realistic.  I don't know the exact range for those really high frequencies, but they seem awful high, maybe in the range of say 20 to 40 kHz, so I guess my system should cover that range, to play it safe."  This imaginary person might be surprised to find that 15 kHz is already "really high."



Yeah, I think that would be right for a lot of people.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 1, 2018)

Test.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 1, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> I'm not going to take an argument too far on something with which I actually disagree, but how are the interference patterns between the waves going to be recorded if not all of the waves are recorded? That's a rhetorical question, FWIW. That is, if not all of the ultrasonics are recorded, how are the interference patterns between the ultrasonic frequencies and the audible frequencies going to be "baked in"? I think this addresses both your first and second points.
> 
> Now let me take your side: *of what relevance is all of this since musical instruments and voices are not producing these frequencies?* Or, just to be rigorous, are they producing these frequencies? I think not, but I don't know.



20 kHz is certainly not the limit of what instruments are producing:

https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

https://asa.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1121/2.0000451

Species other than humans can hear up to approaching 100 kHz, so I think we can safely assume that frequencies well above 20 kHz are being produced at meaningful levels in the natural world.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 1, 2018)

Test.


----------



## bigshot

Commercially recorded music doesn't contain frequencies above 20kHz. And ultrasonic harmonics from acoustic instruments fade away if you sit more than a few feet away from them. Even up close they are probably masked. This is becoming a clown show because no one knows what they're talking about. They're just pretending they do.

Steve, you aren't helping.


----------



## old tech (Dec 1, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> I'm not going to take an argument too far on something with which I actually disagree, but how are the interference patterns between the waves going to be recorded if not all of the waves are recorded? That's a rhetorical question, FWIW. That is, if not all of the ultrasonics are recorded, how are the interference patterns between the ultrasonic frequencies and the audible frequencies going to be "baked in"? I think this addresses both your first and second points.
> 
> Now let me take your side: of what relevance is all of this since musical instruments and voices are not producing these frequencies? Or, just to be rigorous, are they producing these frequencies? I think not, but I don't know.


I'm not sure I follow you.  What I'm saying is that if inaudible frequencies are somehow altering the frequencies that are audible then those altered frequencies will be baked into a recording.  If the recording also contains those inaudible frequencies (ie not filtered out), then playing back the recording will not only reproduce the frequencies that have been altered and baked into the recording, but is subject to further influencing from again reproducing the inaudible frequencies.


----------



## old tech

Phronesis said:


> 20 kHz is certainly not the limit of what instruments are producing:
> 
> https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
> 
> ...



No-one doubts that, just like in the natural world species other than humans can see light frequencies in excess of 700 nanometres.  

That does that mean we should insist on film recording and television playback that can reproduce light frequencies of 1400 nanometres?  Well, yes if we want to carry out experiments on bees.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 1, 2018)

We've been through this merry go round a million times. I don't see the point in it. If someone doesn't listen to counter arguments and just keeps repeating the same unsubstantiated claims, what is the point of repeating the counter arguments? It will just go in the same circle. I think it's pretty clear how this works. Just throw it to the jury and be done with the arguments.

I would really like to see something productive and interesting talked about in this forum. But it keeps getting co opted by this stupid BS. It's a frustrating waste of time to keep responding to people who refuse to engage in fair discourse. It amazes me to see people so willing to share pearls with swine over and over.


----------



## KeithEmo

That may or may not be true depending on the exact circumstances.
(In most circumstances commonly encountered it would probably be true.)



old tech said:


> I'm not sure I follow you.  What I'm saying is that if inaudible frequencies are somehow altering the frequencies that are audible then those altered frequencies will be baked into a recording.  If the recording also contains those inaudible frequencies (ie not filtered out), then playing back the recording will not only reproduce the frequencies that have been altered and baked into the recording, but is subject to further influencing from again reproducing the inaudible frequencies.


----------



## KeithEmo

Hmmmmm......

The sun feels warm when it shines on your face...
However, when I watched The Martian, there were several very bright sunny scenes, yet I never felt that warmth.
(That's because TVs and video cameras fail to accurately record or reproduce the invisible infrared light frequencies that convey a sense of warmth.)
I would say that makes the overall experience, and the recording, less true to the original.



old tech said:


> No-one doubts that, just like in the natural world species other than humans can see light frequencies in excess of 700 nanometres.
> 
> That does that mean we should insist on film recording and television playback that can reproduce light frequencies of 1400 nanometres?  Well, yes if we want to carry out experiments on bees.


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 1, 2018)

As I recall, I found that, with the samples you provided, I was frequently uncertain... yet I still scored well above random. It has been my experience that good quality lossy files quite often sound indistinguishable from the lossless versions to me. However, out of a large group of files, and especially with music I am very familiar with, I tend to notice discrepancies in specific spots on certain specific files.

This is one of those situations where our priorities are significantly different. 
You might be quite satisfied if, out of 100 files, you only noticed a small difference on five of them.
However, to me, that would signify that "I couldn't trust all of them to be right".
(And I would cheerfully pay extra to avoid that risk.)



bigshot said:


> I was alluding to a test of lossy vs lossless that I helped Keith do.


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> We've been through this merry go round a million times. I don't see the point in it. If someone doesn't listen to counter arguments and just keeps repeating the same unsubstantiated claims, what is the point of repeating the counter arguments? It will just go in the same circle. I think it's pretty clear how this works. Just throw it to the jury and be done with the arguments.
> 
> I would really like to see something productive and interesting talked about in this forum. But it keeps getting co opted by this stupid BS. It's a frustrating waste of time to keep responding to people who refuse to engage in fair discourse. It amazes me to see people so willing to share pearls with swine over and over.





bigshot said:


> Commercially recorded music doesn't contain frequencies above 20kHz. And ultrasonic harmonics from acoustic instruments fade away if you sit more than a few feet away from them. Even up close they are probably masked. This is becoming a clown show because no one knows what they're talking about. They're just pretending they do.
> 
> Steve, you aren't helping.



Yes, yes, I get it. I go away for a little while to listen to my Hendrix Bluray and look at all of this. I don't want to cause any problems. Fair enough.


----------



## Steve999

dprimary said:


> "My world is Empty Without You" by The Supremes  is the worst one The drums are distorted so I don't think it was intentional. Any remasters that they have brighten it up it is painful. Much of Motown has the vocals breaking up, but that could be intentional.



Yeah that is some messed up drum distortion. Thanks. I just like proof of concept sometimes. I appreciate it.


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> Hmmmmm......
> 
> The sun feels warm when it shines on your face...
> However, when I watched The Martian, there were several very bright sunny scenes, yet I never felt that warmth.
> ...



Yeah I suppose getting sunburnt while watching TV could be part of the experience.

Going to the other end of the spectrum, ie ultraviolet, and getting cancer from radiation exposure is an experience that perhaps should be avoided.


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> Very bad move. When someone gives you a word salad, you don't ask for more. You move on to a course with more substance.



I try to lead the dude to his passion. Let's face it, he took a potshot at me and I fired back and he took it well. I respect that. Just me. So then I try to lead him back to where he's most at home. Now he would hate the advice I gave. I know that. But that's his prerogative. But since it's his passion I thought it fair he have a look.


----------



## Steve999

Steve999 said:


> With the wise guidance of @analogsurviver (see above, I am so so sorry, I really do like you, but that was really a show-stopper of analogy soup, I think it should be elevated to a head-fi classic!) I have completed my testing. The status is: problem fixed, I have no idea why.
> 
> I traced the problem to clipping on a Windows PC in Itunes of Apple streamed or Apple DRM'ed music during intense (loud) passages. Everything else was as clean as clean can be, all other music. The same music Itunes had trouble with, Spotify seemed quite smooth. Didn't matter what DAC, headphones, etc., I used, it seemed like it was just plain Itunes doing some good old digital clipping. I googled the situation and saw many people had similar troubles with Itunes and there were different fixes over the years depending on the version of Itunes. I fiddled with some computer settings accordingly. All I can tell you for now is that the problem is gone. Everything sounds smooth as silk. Maybe it will come back! But for now it is goner than gone.
> 
> ...



So the deal here is that I still get clipping in Windows on iTunes with wired headphones no matter what headphones or DAC I use.

On my MacBook Pro (which I'm using now) everything sounds great. On my iPad, everything sounds great. On Windows with anything but iTunes, everything sounds great. It seems to me iTunes and Windows don't play well together. I can't fathom what to do about it. Since I have so many alternatives it's not that important but I would be astonished and thrilled to find that there is an actual fix.


----------



## KeithEmo

Exactly.....

You would make two copies of the same recording.
You would start with a high-sample-rate recording of instruments KNOWN to produce significant amounts of ultrasonic harmonics.
You would then make a copy that was identical EXCEPT that it was band limited to frequencies below 20 kHz.
You would repeat this several times - to create twenty or so sets of sample pairs.

You would now enlist a large sample of listeners and ask them to listen to each pair of recordings and pick the version they think sounds better.
If they are totally unable to discern the difference, "consciously or unconsciously", you would expect a random response.
I would suggest using a "forced response" (require them to pick ne or the other).
This will make it more likely to detect "unconscious effects" or subtle differences that the subjects may not be aware of.

If it turned out that a statistically significant number of listeners preferred EITHER version you could then conclude that there is some audible difference.
(You must consider the possibility that the majority may actually find the inclusion of ultrasonic harmonics to be unpleasant - whcih is also a positive response that they're audible.)
Now, after statistically analyzing the results in aggregate, you would examine the results for each test subject in detail.
We don't want to miss it if even one or two of our subjects turn out to be able to distinguish between the files with statistical significance.
If one or two of our subjects seem to be able to tell which is which with better than random accuracy that wouldn't be considered a comclusive result...
However, the proper way to follow it up would be to conduct more tests on just those subjects, to determine whether their result was an anomaly or am pattern.

I've read several tests where the aggregate results were analyzed and failed to show that a statistically significant number of people could hear a difference...
Yet the detailed notes then proceeded to note that two or three of the participants were in fact able to tell which was whcih with far above statistically significant results.
However, because the test was only looking for statistical results, they failed to follow up by further testing those individuals.
(Quite possibly because the teste were run, and the subjects were sent home, long before the analysis was completed.)

There are also more subtle, and more creative, ways of doing this without even enlisting volunteers.
For example, set up two identical sound systems, playing identical content, in two identical public waiting rooms.
Only band limit the music being played in one and not the other.
Now simply observe and see if more people sit in one room than the other (presumably because of a conscious or unconcsious preference).
You could eliminate any unintentional differences between the rooms by conducting the test over several days...
And alternating which room had the band limited music.
I would suggest collecting lots of data.
You might find that more people sat in one room or the other...
Or you might find that people who sat in one room on average remained there longer than those who sat in the other room...
(With this sort of test, a null result wouldn't necessarily prove much, but a statistically significant result would be strongly suggestive.)



Steve999 said:


> Interesting! How would you test that? A survey during a listening test of unwitting subjects?
> 
> Anyway, to me a line of reasoning that holds my curiosity better would be that the higher inaudible frequencies interact with the audible frequencies in a way that creates a more natural sound field such as is heard in day to day life. I don't_ believe_ that, but here we are entering my belief system and not something I know. I couldn't disprove it, though I think it is plausibly subject to analysis and testing, and I believe that my proposed hypothesis would be disproven. Nevertheless, we do know that waves interact with each other and with the world in fascinating and non-intuitive ways, do we not?


----------



## Steve999

KeithEmo said:


> Exactly.....
> 
> You would make two copies of the same recording.
> You would start with a high-sample-rate recording of instruments KNOWN to produce significant amounts of ultrasonic harmonics.
> ...



Yeah but how do you make a recording that includes all of those ultrasonics? I mean in the real world as a practical matter?


----------



## KeithEmo

What you see as "obfuscation" I simply see as accuracy.

I absolutely agree with everything you said.... but I am unwilling to state things as absolutes unless theyr eally are.
I would cheerfully agree with you that nobody has ever produced evidence that unicorns exist.
I would also happily agree that I believe it's quite unlikely that we will ever discover live naturally occurring unicorns on Earth.

However, I would stop somewhat short of claiming that "unicorns DEFINITELY don't exist".
- We may someday reach another inhabited planet - and find it populated by unicorns (unlikely).
- Some mad scientist may actually MAKE a unicorn by grafting a horn on a horse (there is at least one human running around with devil horns grafted to his skull).
- Or, perhaps, someday someone will genetically engineer one (considering we have fish that light up, and various other interesting things, that doesn't seem especially unlikely).

I also agree that the differences we're talking abut aren't especially significant.

However, to be honest, I'm not sure I agree with your closing point.
We currently consider "the fastest man" to be a fellow from Morocco who ran the mile in 3:43.
However, one of the reasons we discovered that is that, since we revere athletes, a lot of effort was expended in the search.
There is a lot of incentive for anyone who thinks they might be "world class fast" to enter a competition or to have themselves tested.
I'm not really convinced that many university researchers would fly halfway around the planet to confirm whether someone could actually hear 30 khz.
It simply isn;t the sort of discovery that would be likely to earn someone a Nobel prize or a multi-million-dollar grant.
It would be interesting to see the result if someone promised a $1 million prize for "any human being who could prove he could hear 25 kHz".
However, I don't think it will happen, because nobody cares all that much.
Just as nobody is going to sponsor a randon test of a few hundred thousand people - just to see if any of them can.
Most of the current uncertainty stems from the fact that most of the tests people keep referring to are terribly flawed and limited...
And, point blank, the reason for that is mainly that nobody has been willing to come up with the money to finance thorough, complete, properly scaled, and well controlled tests...



old tech said:


> What you are saying is true of course, after all we cannot prove that unicorns definately do not exist.  However, you are using the science method here as an obsufcation.
> 
> Sure, we can agree that it cannot be proven that there is no human cannot hear sounds or other effects above 20khz, but we can look at practical experience from audiology, controlled tests and numerous research to say it is highly unlikely.  And even if it were possible, it would take a massive leap of faith to believe that it can influence playback listening to such an extent that it is not masked by the music in the range where our ears are most sensitive.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

That part is not difficult...

Many instruments seem to have harmonics that extend well past 50 kHz...
And there are also quite a few microphones whose response extends that high...
There are even one or two microphones that can record frequencies as high as 1 mHz in air....

This company seems to offer several microphones whose response extends well past 100 kHz (their CM16 model seems to be rated to 250 khz.)
https://www.avisoft.com/usg/microphones.htm

There are plenty of DACs that support sample rates up to 384k (that would cover frequencies up to about 175 khz).
I don't know about the upper limit of "regular audio A/D converters" - but video DACs and A/Ds both operate at speeds up to tens of mHz.
(And some "instrumentation converters" operate at much higher frequencies.)



Steve999 said:


> Yeah but how do you make a recording that includes all of those ultrasonics? I mean in the real world as a practical matter?


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 1, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> That part is not difficult...
> 
> Many instruments seem to have harmonics that extend well past 50 kHz...
> And there are also quite a few microphones whose response extends that high...
> ...



My good man, take care. I don't have the knowledge to know these things. If you want to _test_ this you've got to think it all the way through. . . otherwise it's just speculation.    Now you got this cat Faraday, right, he didn't learn by the conventional route and people were on his case and frowning down upon him and now we know he was brilliant. Hang in there. Write concisely and be cogent and think your ideas through. And you got this cat Einstein and he said gravity could bend light. And you got this cat Darwin and he said we evolved from other primates. And you got Tesla who was batty as hell but he nailed alternating current. And you got Newton who couldn't hold a conversation but laid the foundation for conventional physics. And you got Voltaire who spoke truth to power and got beat up and still hung in there. And you got Galileo who spoke truth to power and hung in there and lost his contact with his daughter and was under house arrest. That's what science and truth are about, right? Hang in there Superman. It's not about I'm scared of this guy or I don't want to have this conversation again. Don't let anyone talk you down, but do lift yourself up!


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> What you see as "obfuscation" I simply see as accuracy.
> 
> However, to be honest, I'm not sure I agree with your closing point.
> We currently consider "the fastest man" to be a fellow from Morocco who ran the mile in 3:43.
> However, one of the reasons we discovered that is that, since we revere athletes, a lot of effort was expended in the search.



I get your point but what age was that person and consider that from a physiological perspective.  It is also highly unlikely from a physiological point that any human regardless of age can run the mile in say 1:05.

While we certainly cannot rule out there is someone out there that can hear up to say 25khz, it is unlikely from a physiological perspective, particularly if he or she is over 30 years old.

On a more practical level, what is the point of recording, producing and playing back frequencies over 20khz just to cater for that possible person who may be able to hear that high, particularly when it is moot anyway as the sound in our sensitive range would completely mask it?  I appreciate that there is a sub industry propagating and catering to the ultrasonic beliefs and that is based on commercial considerations not science.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree entirely....

However, in a purely scientific discussion, there is a distinct difference between "unlikely" and "impossible".
I agree that it is quite unlikely that most of us can hear anything above 25 kHz under normal circumstances.
And I would never suggest that someone should pay extra for a file that has a response up to 50 khz because I think they'll hear a difference.
However, I'm simply not prepared to claim something to be true with absolute certainty unless the evidence supports that level of certainty.
To me, that's the difference between "consumer advice" and "science".

However, at a different level, there's also the simple matter that we all have different priorities.
When I've tried compressing files, using various types of lossy compression, I've often found that I didn't notice any difference. 
However, whenever I've converted groups of files, I've always noticed at least one or two discrepancies in one or two of them.
If storage space was expensive, and I really wanted to use the least space possible, here's what I would do...
I would convert all of my files, compare each compressed one carefully to the original, and keep only the lossless copies of the ones where I noticed a difference...

HOWEVER....

- I would always wonder if, when I buy a new set of speakers, or a new DAC, I might discover flaws in files that I previously thought were "good enough".
- I consider the time it would take to convert and compare all my files to be worth far more than the space I would save by doing so
.
Therefore, to me, it simply isn't worth the bother to even consider it.

There is always going to be a segment of the audio industry devoted to selling "re-masters" of albums.
And, in general, they are going to claim that the new version is somehow superior to the original.
I see little practical difference if the current excuse is "it's high resolution" or "we re-mixed it" or "we fixed this or that problem the original had".
From my experience, sometimes the re-master is better, sometimes it's about the same, and sometimes it's actually worse.
I've heard CD reissues that sounded great; and I've heard high-resolution remasters that sound worse than the CD; but I've also heard ones that sounded far better.
Therefore, I would always advise anyone to decide whether to buy a re-master based on the merits of the individual album.
However, I can't get especially excited or insensed that this week's excuse is "high resolution".



old tech said:


> I get your point but what age was that person and consider that from a physiological perspective.  It is also highly unlikely from a physiological point that any human regardless of age can run the mile in say 1:05.
> 
> While we certainly cannot rule out there is someone out there that can hear up to say 25khz, it is unlikely from a physiological perspective, particularly if he or she is over 30 years old.
> 
> On a more practical level, what is the point of recording, producing and playing back frequencies over 20khz just to cater for that possible person who may be able to hear that high, particularly when it is moot anyway as the sound in our sensitive range would completely mask it?  I appreciate that there is a sub industry propagating and catering to the ultrasonic beliefs and that is based on commercial considerations not science.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Commercially recorded music doesn't contain frequencies above 20kHz. And ultrasonic harmonics from acoustic instruments fade away if you sit more than a few feet away from them. Even up close they are probably masked. This is becoming a clown show because no one knows what they're talking about. They're just pretending they do.
> 
> Steve, you aren't helping.



OK, this TOTALLY unsupported and unproven assertion that ultrasonic frequencies from acoustic instruments fade away if you sit more than a few feet away from them has to stop - right here, right now. Of course, they do get filtered by the air - but nowhere to the extent both of you are tying to establish for granted. And I extremely rarely record  closer than 3 metres, that is about 10 feet - usually, it is double (or more ) of that.

I did point you - several times - to the commercially available recordings that do contain such content - but, if to silence the likes of @gregorio and yourself ( he, at least, does have experience with ultrasonics, no matter how wrong he went about it or misinpretered the results - you just keep on repeating the same mantra over and over again, without doing no work by yourself whatsoever ), I will post some samples. I will even - reluctantly - convert them to 192/24, so that spectrum analysis would be easier than from the original DSD128.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 1, 2018)

I'm not reading your posts. There is no reason to quote and reply to mine. I think I understand your situation and I sympathize. I don't want to cause you any grief. It will be easier for me to do that if you just stay out of my lane. Thanks.


----------



## Steve999

Let’s not turn this into an episode of Mean Girls.


----------



## bigshot

PM me and I will explain.


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> PM me and I will explain.



I get it.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Science 101 and how we learned to stop caring about Lebron.

A) It is perfectly reasonable to make buying decisions based on the slim chance that you are one of those rare batpeople that science has been ducking for years.

B) The above would entail actual studio mics being able to pick out sound in these frequencies...let alone instruments that work in these regions.

C) Maybe science has it all wrong and it's basically been shooting from the hip ever since the first radio was conceived? It's all sheer luck and we would all be better off with a couple of sausages strapped to our noggins.

D) You are looking for a dac that will work bit-perfectly inside the belly of a dancing John Goodman...and well everybody knows Chord does this better than anyone.


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> I try to lead the dude to his passion. Let's face it, he took a potshot at me and I fired back and he took it well. I respect that. Just me. So then I try to lead him back to where he's most at home. Now he would hate the advice I gave. I know that. But that's his prerogative. But since it's his passion I thought it fair he have a look.



OK, please direct link to those files - you got me curious. I had too much on my plate this week to navigate head-fi ( horrible after the last big change IMO ) for threads etc.


----------



## Steve999

analogsurviver said:


> OK, please direct link to those files - you got me curious. I had too much on my plate this week to navigate head-fi ( horrible after the last big change IMO ) for threads etc.



Analog—You might have me confused with someone else. I haven’t uploaded any audio files or other files.

Best Wishes, Steve


----------



## Phronesis

Phronesis said:


> 20 kHz is certainly not the limit of what instruments are producing:
> 
> https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
> 
> ...



The second paper linked above has some interesting content:

"According to the Nyquist Theorem, the sampling rate must be at least twice the highest analog frequency component of the signal (not the highest perceived frequency). If the components of the original signal run over the Nyquist frequency it is necessary to limit them by means of an antialiasing filter, altering the phase components of the signal at least a decade around the cutoff frequency of the filter. If the ultrasonic energy of musical instruments was significant, the use of antialiasing filters with a cutoff frequency under the Nyquist frequency would result in some kind of misrepresented audible components of the original signal."

"Ashihara reports the possibility of perceiving pure tones above 20 kHz, at least when high level signals were used (108 dBSPL). The energy generated by musical instruments in this frequency range is expected to be far below this value. Normally this consideration seems enough to rule out any interest in high frequency components because it is assumed that even if it exists, it surely would be of a low level. But when a short period of time is considered we have shown that a cymbal, for example, generates high frequency energy only 5 dB below the energy of the 2 kHz octave band."

"In the instruments with sharp attack the high frequency energy levels are comparable with the maximum sensitivity levels for some tenths to hundredths of milliseconds."​


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 1, 2018)

Let's agree that it's a good goal to help people to avoid wasting money on audio gear 'upgrades' that aren't significant upgrades.  Then I think a lot of you guys are going about that the wrong way.

You can't convince people simply with theoretical arguments, because those aren't knock-down arguments and any potential differences in signals and physical sounds open the door for people claiming that those differences could be audible (and important to them).

You apparently can't convince people with measurements, because measurements typically show at least small differences, and no set of measurements is exhaustive anyway (a difference signal based on a null test could be considered exhaustive, but we seem to have a problem with interpreting the difference signal).

You can't convince people by reference to blind tests either, because the blind tests so far aren't good enough, either individually or collectively, due to issues with how they've been documented, designed, conducted, interpreted, etc., and most of the tests are on the small side; plus, some blind tests did show positive results.  There's not much good scientific research in this area yet, and I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

Meanwhile, people do _consistently_ perceive _substantial_ differences, so they have good reason from firsthand empirical experience to doubt your arguments and conclusions anyway.  So you need to convince people to start doubting the reliability of those perceptions.  Here are couple ways to do it:

1. Convince people to try controlled testing for themselves.  It doesn't have to be blind, at least initially, and there's a benefit to doing it sighted.  When I did sighted testing, I varied controls on volume, matching music segments, durations of music segments, and switching time.  By playing around with these variables in a lot of trials, I was able to see the effects of my own expectation bias and how it was influenced by these variables.  I was able to rule out the substantial differences I had previously heard with some confidence, but I wasn't able to rule out or rule in more subtle differences, and I think you need science-grade (not hobbyist) blind testing to explore that.  But let's be realistic, the vast majority of people won't be motivated to undertake controlled or semi-controlled testing, for a variety of reasons, and calling them audiophools isn't going to help.

2. *Show people how unreliable their perception can be using visual, rather than auditory, examples.*  Here's a great example: http://brainden.com/visual-illusions.htm.  With most of the examples, even when I objectively prove to myself that they're illusions, I can't correct my perception to visually see the equal things as being equal.  Many people may still be dismissive when they see these examples, but I bet that at least some people would be motivated to question the reliability of their auditory perception after seeing these visual illusions.

Even if subtle audible differences exist between some gear, disproving 'night and day' auditory differences would still have value in helping people to avoid wasting money.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> Let's agree that it's a good goal to help people to avoid wasting money on audio gear 'upgrades' that aren't significant upgrades.  Then I think a lot of you guys are going about that the wrong way.
> 
> You can't convince people simply with theoretical arguments, because those aren't knock-down arguments and any potential differences in signals and physical sounds open the door for people claiming that those differences could be audible (and important to them).
> 
> ...



And yet I was convinced by many of the ideas that you suggest can't persuade people.  Does vision work exactly the same as our other senses?  Is it fair to attempt to conflate perception with one sense to another and expect similar results?   Are analogies using optical illusions valid to explain how biases influence hearing perception?


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 1, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> And yet I was convinced by many of the ideas that you suggest can't persuade people.  Does vision work exactly the same as our other senses?  Is it fair to attempt to conflate perception with one sense to another and expect similar results?   Are analogies using optical illusions valid to explain how biases influence hearing perception?



Keep in mind that a lot (most?) of audiophiles don't have a technical background, so technical arguments will largely go over their heads, and 'arguments from authority' aren't going to compensate for that.  Agreed that people may not infer the possibility of auditory misperception from visual misperception, but it's a start and worth trying.  Can you suggest better strategies to convince people?

There are at least a couple different things discussed around here:

- What's actually true as far as audible differences, and how do we figure that out?  IMO, we need more testing and better testing.  Debates based on existing testing won't get us there.  Until we have that testing, we can just talk about the science, including extreme cases, and nothing will really get resolved.

- How do we convince people that the night and day differences they hear are almost always and entirely in their heads rather than in the gear (generally excluding transducers)?  In my months here in Sound Science, I've found that this forum does a pretty poor job in that regard, often treating people with disdain rather than finding an effective way to help.  It's mainly just preaching to choir around here.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> Keep in mind that a lot (most?) of audiophiles don't have a technical background, so technical arguments will largely go over their heads, and 'arguments from authority' aren't going to compensate for that.  Agreed that people may not infer the possibility of auditory misperception from visual misperception, but it's a start and worth trying.  Can you suggest better strategies to convince people?
> 
> There are at least a couple different things discussed around here:
> 
> ...



I don't have a solution either, and I agree to what you're saying.  Though, I have learned a great deal from some of the comments provided.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> I don't have a solution either, and I agree to what you're saying.  Though, I have learned a great deal from some of the comments provided.



I've learned a lot too, but for me, the dogmatic, adversarial, and counterproductive attitude of some people in Sound Science is a real downer.  Another forum like Audio Science Review may be a better fit for me as far as the kind of atmosphere and discussions I'm interested in.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 1, 2018)

It's amazing that a reasonably intelligent person would think that a tenth of a millisecond burst of inaudible frequencies would be at all audible. And I can only assume that he doesn't know what 108dB represents. A 108dB blast of pure ultrasonic tone through headphones would probably set the fluid around your brain vibrating and make you nauseous, but never make an audible peep. He keeps arguing that perception is the same as hearing, but if the perception of incredibly high volume ultrasonics causes vomiting, that isn't quite the same as listening to Mozart causes pleasure.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> It's amazing that a reasonably intelligent person would think that a tenth of a millisecond burst of inaudible frequencies would be at all audible. And I can only assume that he doesn't know what 108dB represents. A 108dB blast of pure ultrasonic tone through headphones would probably set the fluid around your brain vibrating and make you nauseous, but never make an audible peep. He keeps arguing that perception is the same as hearing, but if the perception of incredibly high volume ultrasonics causes vomiting, that isn't quite the same as listening to Mozart causes pleasure.



I know studies have been done that suggest exposure limits of 70 dB @ 20khz and 100 dB @ 25kHz, but there isn't a lot of useful info on short peaks, as @amirm would most likely point out.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ultrasound-and-infrasound-health-effects


----------



## dprimary

analogsurviver said:


> OK, this TOTALLY unsupported and unproven assertion that ultrasonic frequencies from acoustic instruments fade away if you sit more than a few feet away from them has to stop - right here, right now. Of course, they do get filtered by the air - but nowhere to the extent both of you are tying to establish for granted. And I extremely rarely record  closer than 3 metres, that is about 10 feet - usually, it is double (or more ) of that.
> 
> I did point you - several times - to the commercially available recordings that do contain such content - but, if to silence the likes of @gregorio and yourself ( he, at least, does have experience with ultrasonics, no matter how wrong he went about it or misinpretered the results - you just keep on repeating the same mantra over and over again, without doing no work by yourself whatsoever ), I will post some samples. I will even - reluctantly - convert them to 192/24, so that spectrum analysis would be easier than from the original DSD128.




It is completely supported and proven. Air absorption becomes a bigger problem the higher the frequency, that we fight every day. Large halls have large amounts of high frequency absorption with little to no reflection to reinforce them. By the time you get to a stadium size you are doing great to still have 8k. In recording even drum overheads for pop I'm at least 2m away it is likely that I don't even use them in a mix, most of it is the room mics much farther away.  Classical I don't think I have even been closer than 10-15 m. My boom alone is at least 4 meters.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> It's amazing that a reasonably intelligent person would think that a tenth of a millisecond burst of inaudible frequencies would be at all audible. And I can only assume that he doesn't know what 108dB represents. A 108dB blast of pure ultrasonic tone through headphones would probably set the fluid around your brain vibrating and make you nauseous, but never make an audible peep. He keeps arguing that perception is the same as hearing, but if the perception of incredibly high volume ultrasonics causes vomiting, that isn't quite the same as listening to Mozart causes pleasure.



If referring to that paper, per Figure 2, I think the authors meant tens to hundreds of milliseconds, not tenths to hundredths (English probably isn't their first language).


----------



## bigshot (Dec 1, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> I know studies have been done that suggest exposure limits of 70 dB @ 20khz and 100 dB @ 25kHz, but there isn't a lot of useful info on short peaks



That test is measuring hearing damage due to frequency and level related to exposure times. That isn't quite the same as audibility. I think it's safe to say that if ultrasonics are inaudible at normal volumes and long periods of time, they'll be even more inaudible at 10 to 100 milliseconds. (figure corrected) And if a commercial recording has an ultrasonic spike that reaches +108dB at normal listening volumes, that particular SACD has severe engineering flaws. 108dB is extremely loud. It's about as loud as you can hear something without crossing the threshold of pain.

Just to provide context 10 milliseconds is the  rotation period for a pulsar. It's less than the time of a single field in video. 50 milliseconds is the cycle time of the lowest audible tone 20Hz. Just under 100 milliseconds is the maximum desirable latency of an internet connection. (video gamers will be familiar with this!) It takes a little more than 100 milliseconds for light to travel all the way around the equator of the earth. 200 milliseconds for a person to recognize emotion in an expression. (Wikipedia is your friend!)

In any case, we're talking about a quick sliver of time in which it would be probably difficult to detect a flicker in light, much less hear an inaudible frequency.

To provide context for the volume levels we're talking about... 108dB is about the volume of a chain saw at close range. It's around the loudest industrial noise level you would ever find. It's in the range where hearing protection is not just recommended, but required.

While an exposure of 10 to 100 milliseconds likely wouldn't be long enough to incur hearing damage, it would certainly be a lot louder than you would ever find in recorded music (even assuming that the recorded music actually has ultrasonic content, which most music doesn't).

These are irrelevant, extreme situations that don't at all apply to our discussion of audibility of ultrasonics in recorded music.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Dec 1, 2018)

bigshot said:


> It's amazing that a reasonably intelligent person would think that a tenth of a millisecond burst of inaudible frequencies would be at all audible. And I can only assume that he doesn't know what 108dB represents. A 108dB blast of pure ultrasonic tone through headphones would probably set the fluid around your brain vibrating and make you nauseous, but never make an audible peep. He keeps arguing that perception is the same as hearing, but if the perception of incredibly high volume ultrasonics causes vomiting, that isn't quite the same as listening to Mozart causes pleasure.


Either you made ALL of that up completely in your head, or you have a different reference than what @Phronesis mentioned. Which is it? Made up or please give the reference.

"inaudible frequencies"? Obviously audible, if the people heard them.
"probably set the fluid around your brain vibrating and make you nauseous"? Nonsense and gibberish. You don't have a clue about how sound is processed in the ear and brain, do you?
"never make an audible peep"? Again, obviously audible, given the methods used.
"if the perception of incredibly high volume ultrasonics causes vomiting"? Please provide a reference. I think you just made this up. It's not mentioned in the Ashihara paper at all.
"isn't quite the same as listening to Mozart causes pleasure"? Do any threshold tests using pure tones (nearly all of them) sound like Mozart? I have to agree with you, they don't. What's your point?

Oh, sorry.. you got the 108dB correct from the Petrosino paper, but he quotes Ashihara incorrectly. Ashihara used a maximum of 99dB in one paper and 110dB in the other. But those are maximums in a 3 down, 1 up staircase. The actual thresholds, that he could obtain were always lower. If an incorrect response was given that should have gone above the maximum, that test was terminated and a no result recorded.

Edit: moved this: "tenth of a millisecond"? Ashihara played the tone for 2 sec.
down here since I found where you got that (from Phronesis' and your comments, and your correction). It seemed to me you were referring to the threshold study (Ashihara) mentioned for the "108dB"..


----------



## dprimary

sonitus mirus said:


> I know studies have been done that suggest exposure limits of 70 dB @ 20khz and 100 dB @ 25kHz, but there isn't a lot of useful info on short peaks, as @amirm would most likely point out.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ultrasound-and-infrasound-health-effects




I'm not willing damage my hearing to prove I can hear ultrasonics. At some point everyone can sense 25kHz it might be 180dB but you will sense it.

From the study "However, taking the full range of the response, the average threshold frequency is marginally below 20kHz, as reported in a large study by Takeda et al (1992)

I don't understand the audiophile obsession with ultrasonics, especially when at that same time they ignore glaring distortions and defects in recordings, playback systems and acoustics.


----------



## analogsurviver

Phronesis said:


> The second paper linked above has some interesting content:
> 
> "According to the Nyquist Theorem, the sampling rate must be at least twice the highest analog frequency component of the signal (not the highest perceived frequency). If the components of the original signal run over the Nyquist frequency it is necessary to limit them by means of an antialiasing filter, altering the phase components of the signal at least a decade around the cutoff frequency of the filter. If the ultrasonic energy of musical instruments was significant, the use of antialiasing filters with a cutoff frequency under the Nyquist frequency would result in some kind of misrepresented audible components of the original signal."
> 
> ...



This does seem to conjure with my observation of the spectra above 20 kHz in recordoings that have usable - if not exactly flat - response to approx 50 kHz. Those high amplitude peaks may be brief, but they do exist - and can exceed the capabilities of digital capure, which may have all sorts of anomalies - including the one cited above.

Pipe organ has the widest frequency response in the steady state domain - whatever it does, it does not have any way to sound "fast". Any string or percussion instrument can, if propeerly excited, exceed the frequency range of any pipe organ ever built in the treble. And these are NOT  captured and reproduced correctly with bandwidth limited to 20 k. Artefacts most digital equipment does under these conditions may well be far higher output in the ultrasonic range than the instrumentitself is producing


dprimary said:


> It is completely supported and proven. Air absorption becomes a bigger problem the higher the frequency, that we fight every day. Large halls have large amounts of high frequency absorption with little to no reflection to reinforce them. By the time you get to a stadium size you are doing great to still have 8k. In recording even drum overheads for pop I'm at least 2m away it is likely that I don't even use them in a mix, most of it is the room mics much farther away.  Classical I don't think I have even been closer than 10-15 m. My boom alone is at least 4 meters.



Well, I am speaking - with extremely few exceptions - only about acoustic instruments/voice  recording - be it classical, jazz or whatever. If your recording technique requires being at least 4 m high off the ground ( most of them do...) ,  that does compound the problem. The properties of Jecklin Disk simply do not allow for elevating it off the floor that much - with the exception of organ recording, of course. A few inches increasingly too high - and you get progresively male choir > castrati choir > women choir ( well, almost... ). I can get about 5 m or so ( depending on venue, etc ) to the acoustical source (s).

Microphones and recorder has to support usable bandwidth to 5o k or so ( my setup does, although not flat ) - and commercially available equipment that does supporzt 100 kHz bandwidth does exist - for at least a couple of years now. It is, however, still anything but widespread or even common.


----------



## bfreedma (Dec 1, 2018)

There is some evidence that exposure to ultrasonics can cause nausea and vomiting.  The study referenced below documents a much longer exposure period than we seem to be discussing in terms of music reproduction.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a048115.pdf

Although more recent and comprehensive studies are contradictory and the most significant conclusion is that more research is necessary

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/472/2185/20150624#sec-29

Edit.  Just to be clear, nothing in either of these studies describe ultrasonics as being audible, at least not until extreme levels unlikely to exist in recorded audio is reached.


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> There is some evidence that exposure to ultrasonics can cause nausea and vomiting.  The study referenced below documents a much longer exposure period than we seem to be discussing in terms of music reproduction.
> 
> https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a048115.pdf
> 
> ...



Never heard of harpsichord or percussion players vomiting because they play music ... - and percussion peaks can well exceed VERY high levels above 20 KHz. They are ultra short in duration, though.


----------



## bigshot

dprimary said:


> I don't understand the audiophile obsession with ultrasonics.



The main theory that audiophiles operate on is the "more is better" theory. If 20Hz to 20kHz is good, then 15Hz to 25kHz must be better. They don't understand that the frequency range is logarithmic and the difference between octaves roughly doubles every time. So a number like 25kHz sounds nice and big, but it barely represents a single note on the musical scale. It doesn't matter that they can't even hear it with human ears. If more is better, then perhaps making things they can't hear better will improve things they can. Naturally, this makes no logical sense.

The same more is better theory is applied to other things, like distortion levels, noise floors, dynamic range and timing error wth similar absurdity. The core of the problem is that audiophiles focus entirely on the specs and numbers of their electronic devices and they really don't have any clue about the specs and numbers as they relate to human hearing. More is better all the way down the rabbit hole of chasing down better inaudible sound. As you say, there are plenty of things that are right smack dab in the middle of our ability to hear that can be dealt with. But I guess that isn't as sexy as using the more is better theory to justify irrelevant race car analogies and cherry picked perceptual studies that have absolutely nothing to do with listening to recorded music in the home.

Hopefully they don't apply this same twisted logic to the rest of their life, or they'll be filtering their water though a dozen different expensive filtration systems, lining their walls and floors with lead to filter out trace radiation, and buying fancy light bulbs that can produce everything from ultraviolet to infra red. If unchecked, this kind of OCD can consume your entire attention and budget, and prevent you from accomplishing anything at all.


----------



## bigshot

http://drumheadauthority.com/product/protect-your-hearing/


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bfreedma said:


> 1-There is some evidence that exposure to ultrasonics can cause nausea and vomiting.  The study referenced below documents a much longer exposure period than we seem to be discussing in terms of music reproduction.
> 
> 2- Although more recent and comprehensive studies are contradictory and the most significant conclusion is that more research is necessary
> 
> 3- Edit.  Just to be clear, nothing in either of these studies describe ultrasonics as being audible, at least not until extreme levels unlikely to exist in recorded audio is reached.



1- Excellent and interesting references (found above in your post, not my quote). The evidence for nausea from very high intensity, long-term ultrasonics does seem to appear in several anecdotal studies (with some attempt to verify). The evidence for vomiting ... not so much. Macca seems to report one case.

2- Indeed, more study needed. But Leighton's comment about the risk to one's reputation in reporting these studies, and his own decision to go ahead was amusing. But I guess Parrick had to retract his often cited paper. Yes, more study.

3- Yes, and they weren't looking for it either. In several studies, it has been shown. Whether that's relevant to audio is certainly debatable. I'm sure I don't need anything above 18kHz for my enjoyment of music. I'm older and male and it's easy to get my toes tapping... But to say "no one can hear above 20kHz" or "they don't hear it, they feel it" is simply untrue. The discussion of the need, or lack thereof, for sound above 20kHz simply need not rely on incorrect information.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

dprimary said:


> I'm not willing damage my hearing to prove I can hear ultrasonics. At some point everyone can sense 25kHz it might be 180dB but you will sense it.
> 
> From the study "However, taking the full range of the response, the average threshold frequency is marginally below 20kHz, as reported in a large study by Takeda et al (1992)
> 
> I don't understand the audiophile obsession with ultrasonics, especially when at that same time they ignore glaring distortions and defects in recordings, playback systems and acoustics.


I'm not obsessed with ultrasonics. And I find that discussion of whether they are a part of music enjoyment is relevant. If you say you doubt they are, I wouldn't disagree... certainly in my case. But the reason can't be "because no one hears that high". Its simply untrue. Saying that is not an argument for, or obsession with, ultrasonics.


----------



## sonitus mirus

SoundAndMotion said:


> I'm not obsessed with ultrasonics. And I find that discussion of whether they are a part of music enjoyment is relevant. If you say you doubt they are, I wouldn't disagree... certainly in my case. But the reason can't be "because no one hears that high". Its simply untrue. Saying that is not an argument for, or obsession with, ultrasonics.



There is no amount of ultrasound content created by musical instruments at a reasonable volume level that could be appreciated by humans.  Hearing something and being impacted by it are not the same thing.  As has been mentioned, everyone will be impacted to some degree by ultrasounds if the SPL is high enough.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> Hmmmmm......
> 
> The sun feels warm when it shines on your face...
> However, when I watched The Martian, there were several very bright sunny scenes, yet I never felt that warmth.
> ...


you also didn't get the smell. sometimes less is for the best. ^_^


----------



## SoundAndMotion

sonitus mirus said:


> 1- There is no amount of ultrasound content created by musical instruments at a reasonable volume level that could be appreciated by humans.
> 2- Hearing something and being impacted by it are not the same thing.
> 3- As has been mentioned, everyone will be impacted to some degree by ultrasounds if the SPL is high enough.


1- Petrosino seems to argue against this in the paper @Phronesis cited. But I'm not sure I would. It's certainly a good point worth discussing, but the reason is not that it those frequencies can't be heard.
2- Please clarify what you mean. Do you have specific research in mind? Looking at Ashihari's work and that of Henry and Fast, people are hearing tones above 20kHz. Maybe you have a special definition I should take into account.
3- Well this is so vague as to be automatically true. Sound at nearly any frequency will damage every part of the body "if the SPL is high enough". But Ashihari tested 30 kHz up to a max of 110dB on each ear of 16 people and was unable to obtain a threshold for any of them. Perhaps they would detect higher SPLs, but he did not show that. And I doubt 100 kHz at any SPL can be heard or "cause an impact", unless you are including physically damaging any structure, not just the ear.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 1, 2018)

I read a paper on the AES website when it was still free that took a recording that contained ultrasonic content and presented people with a comparison between it and rolled off at 20kHz. People were asked which one had the best sound quality. Most people couldn't choose one over the other, and the ones that did make a guess came out to a normal statistical curve indicating random choice. Then they took the same recording and rolled off everything above 10kHz and compared that to the original recording. A decent percentage of people could detect a difference, but they said that it didn't affect their judgement of its sound quality. Both samples were described as having good sound fidelity.

The top octave of frequencies is the least important octave in the 9 that make up human hearing, followed by the bottom one. The most critical range is between 2kHz and 5kHz where human hearing is the most sensitive. Every day we listen to band limited response on car radios, televisions, telephones and computer speakers... and we think nothing of it. We can listen to a broadcast of a symphony orchestra on a TV set's internal speakers and enjoy it. That is because a TV speaker is optimized to perform reasonably well within the core frequencies. Adding octaves above and below will add a little more to the sound quality, adding less and less as you get closer to the upper limit of human hearing, which for most adults is around 17-18kHz. The upper octaves and lowest octave are not able to be perceived as musical notes any more. They are detected just as sound pressure. There isn't a human being alive who can hear more than a note or two at the lowest end of the octave above 20kHz.

Without an understanding of what these frequencies sound like and the numbers that represent them, you can't judge their importance. People throw around numbers without being able to relate them to actual sound. I figured it out by just taking recordings and playing around with an equalizer to get a feel for frequencies and how much a few dB's difference sounded in each frequency range. It didn't take long to discover that the octave just below 20kHz is relatively unimportant to the perception of sound fidelity.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


> I read a paper on the AES website when it was still free that took a recording that contained ultrasonic content and presented people with a comparison between it and rolled off at 20kHz. People were asked which one had the best sound quality. Most people couldn't choose one over the other, and the ones that did make a guess came out to a normal statistical curve indicating random choice. Then they took the same recording and rolled off everything above 10kHz and compared that to the original recording. A decent percentage of people could detect a difference, but they said that it didn't affect their judgement of its sound quality. Both samples were described as having good sound fidelity.


IMHO, this is interesting and relevant to discussing the importance of very high frequencies in music recording (and enjoyment thereof). Do you remember the citation? If not, shouldn't be too hard for me to find.



bigshot said:


> The top octave of frequencies is the least important octave in the 9 that make up human hearing, followed by the bottom one. The most critical range is between 2kHz and 5kHz where human hearing is the most sensitive. Every day we listen to band limited response on car radios, televisions, telephones and computer speakers... and we think nothing of it. We can listen to a broadcast of a symphony orchestra on a TV set's internal speakers and enjoy it. That is because a TV speaker is optimized to perform reasonably well within the core frequencies. Adding octaves above and below will add a little more to the sound quality, adding less and less as you get closer to the upper limit of human hearing, which for most adults is around 17-18kHz.


Hmm... lots of opinions, but I agree with most of this. I doubt you care, but I'm glad.


bigshot said:


> The upper octaves and lowest octave are not able to be perceived as musical notes any more. They are detected just as sound pressure. There isn't a human being alive who can hear more than a note or two at the lowest end of the octave above 20kHz.


 The first two sentences require (for me) explanation. Is this from any research or... how is it known? How do you know? And the last sentence is demonstrably false! You should read Ashihari 2007 and Henry and Fast (1984), if you want to know why.



bigshot said:


> Without an understanding of what these frequencies sound like and the numbers that represent them, you can't judge their importance. People throw around numbers without being able to relate them to actual sound. I figured it out by just taking recordings and playing around with an equalizer to get a feel for frequencies and how much a few dB's difference sounded in each frequency range. It didn't take long to discover that the octave just below 20kHz is relatively unimportant to the perception of sound fidelity.


 Two excellent points! (How can one judge importance, and your self-exploration). That and the first part is why I liked this post.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 1, 2018)

What is Pitch, and How is it Perceived in the Brain - users.miamioh.eduwww.users.miamioh.edu/shermalw/edp101as07/Group5c_Gi-project.doc

A human, can on average, hear sounds from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz.  To put this into perspective, the lowest key on a piano’s keyboard sounds at 27.5 Hz, and one of the highest notes a piccolo can sound (C8) is 4186.0 Hz (Levitin, 2006, pp 23).  In fact, sounds above 6000 Hz and more, sound like high-pitched whistling to most people. So, bringing the discussion back to a musical context, the range of musical notes that convey the strongest sense of pitch, range from 55Hz to about 2000Hz (Levitin, 2006, pp 26).

Levitin, D.J. (2006). _This is your brain on music:  The science of human obsession._New York, NY: Dutton.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 1, 2018)

bigshot said:


> What is Pitch, and How is it Perceived in the Brain - users.miamioh.eduwww.users.miamioh.edu/shermalw/edp101as07/Group5c_Gi-project.doc
> 
> A human, can on average, hear sounds from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz.  To put this into perspective, the lowest key on a piano’s keyboard sounds at 27.5 Hz, and one of the highest notes a piccolo can sound (C8) is 4186.0 Hz (Levitin, 2006, pp 23).  In fact, sounds above 6000 Hz and more, sound like high-pitched whistling to most people. So, bringing the discussion back to a musical context, the range of musical notes that convey the strongest sense of pitch, range from 55Hz to about 2000Hz (Levitin, 2006, pp 26).
> 
> Levitin, D.J. (2006). _This is your brain on music:  The science of human obsession._New York, NY: Dutton.



I trust the study was done well. But I gotta have 40 hertz (about the lowest note on a double-bass or an electric bass) to feel like I am getting solid sound reproduction of Western music, pop, jazz, classical or otherwise. Except for Captain Beefheart. I wonder if people would miss the solid impact of those low notes now more than they would have in 2006.  My _hypothesis_ is that they would after 12 more years of high impact low bass in music in pop culture--people would find 40 hertz pretty desirable and musical and for some even crucial. When we were spinning records we were bottoming out at what, 50 or 60 hertz even with the best gear? And then you went to a concert and you could feel the 40 hz impact in your chest. Or at least I did.

Otherwise, points well-taken and good references.

I couldn't care less about the _high _frequency argument. Give me 15 kHz and then count me out. ; ) And based on playing with EQ 12 kHz or 13 kHz would probably do for me as far as meaningful musical stuff in the cymbals and drums, etc. Beyond that I want to see proof of concept, and I haven't.


----------



## KeithEmo

That makes excellent sense....

I don't have "perfect pitch" - so it doesn't make sense for me to obsess over tiny speed variations in recordings.
So, when deciding what equipment to buy, it also doesn't make sense for me to argue about whether _other people_ can hear them.
But the situation is different if you want to have a _scientific_ discussion about whether _anybody_ can hear them or not.

I would suggest that a lot of audiophiles have to dissimilar but related problems.

First, like most humans, audiophiles aren't always confident of their own experiences.
Therefore, since they're especially interested in audio gear, it's easy to convince them that their judgment about tiny differences may be suspect.
This strategy is often used to sell audio gear. 
"Even though you don't hear noise, it's making your system sound subtly worse, so you should buy our filter to fix it".
As with most humans, audiophiles tend to prefer to avoid admitting their limitations to others.

Second, aduiophiles have a distinct inclination to try to impress _OTHER_ audiophiles.
At one level, this may sometimes incline them to buy expensive equipment because simply having it may impress their friends.
And, at another level, they may honestly believe that, even though they don't hear any difference, other audiophiles might hear and be impressed by it.
(And, of course, if and when other audiophiles _SAY_ they hear a difference, whether they really hear it or simply imagine it, this reinforces the idea that they made a good decision.)

It is important to note that all of this applies to virtually any type of product.
Wine conoisseurs buy expensive wine because they taste a difference, or because they imagine they taste a difference, or because they want to impress their friends.
(Audiophiles are no different.)



Phronesis said:


> Let's agree that it's a good goal to help people to avoid wasting money on audio gear 'upgrades' that aren't significant upgrades.  Then I think a lot of you guys are going about that the wrong way.
> 
> You can't convince people simply with theoretical arguments, because those aren't knock-down arguments and any potential differences in signals and physical sounds open the door for people claiming that those differences could be audible (and important to them).
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 2, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> That makes excellent sense....
> 
> I don't have "perfect pitch" - so it doesn't make sense for me to obsess over tiny speed variations in recordings.



No real quarrel with what you've said except incorrect variations in pitch in recordings bug the hell out of me. I don't have perfect pitch. About 1 in 10,000 people do, it's like being 7 foot 3 and playing basketball, a lot of them wind up being musicians.

But to me a recording being off in pitch is a gross and audible distortion and to the extent I want to sit my incompetent musical butt down and play along with the music it ruins the whole experience. And if you have good relative pitch songs being off in pitch can hit you wrong too.

Peace out!


----------



## KeithEmo

There are several problems with "arguments from authority".

The first is simply that not everyone accepts the same sources as being "authoritative".

Who do you think "knows more about what's really audible"?
- an audiologist
- a neuro-physiologist who specializes in human hearing
- a concert pianist
- a recording engineer

We both know that not everyne will give the same answer.

Most scientists I know agree that "psychic readings" and "fortune tellers" are total bunk.
(And there are plenty fo books about how they trick you.)
However, an awful lot of people still pay to talk to their favorite "psychic".
And a _LOT_ of people read those astrology columns.
Clearly _THEY_ don't accept the same scientific claims that it's all bunk to be quite as "authoritative" as we do.

There's another thing that really needs to be pointed out... and it is a serious flaw in "appeal to authority".
_SOMETIMES IT'S WRONG.
_
I have a friend who believes in astrology.

Whenever I point out to her that it's bunk, and suggest a book that proves it....
She responds by offering me a book which offers proof that psychic powers are real....

How do I convince her that _MY_ authority is "legitimate" but hers is not?
Her "authority" has sold ten million copies of her latest book.
To her fans that gives her more credibility than a few university degrees.

Some audiophiles simply find the opinion of their favorite golden ear reviewer to be more authoritative than your study. And convincing them otherwise is not going to be easy.



Phronesis said:


> Keep in mind that a lot (most?) of audiophiles don't have a technical background, so technical arguments will largely go over their heads, and 'arguments from authority' aren't going to compensate for that.  Agreed that people may not infer the possibility of auditory misperception from visual misperception, but it's a start and worth trying.  Can you suggest better strategies to convince people?
> 
> There are at least a couple different things discussed around here:
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

But how about if, every time you listened to a certain recording, it made you vomit?
(And it turned out that it happened because of that burst of ultrasonics.)
Would you claim that, since it isn't directly audible, it really doesn't matter (so we shouldn't bother to filter it out)?
Or would you agree that, even though it's inaudible, it really matters (although, this time, in a bad way)?

More to the point, what if something equally inaudible could make you feel really good afterwards?
Would you suggest that it also doesn't matter?
Would you suggest that, since it isn't audible, there would be no point in recording it?



bigshot said:


> It's amazing that a reasonably intelligent person would think that a tenth of a millisecond burst of inaudible frequencies would be at all audible. And I can only assume that he doesn't know what 108dB represents. A 108dB blast of pure ultrasonic tone through headphones would probably set the fluid around your brain vibrating and make you nauseous, but never make an audible peep. He keeps arguing that perception is the same as hearing, but if the perception of incredibly high volume ultrasonics causes vomiting, that isn't quite the same as listening to Mozart causes pleasure.


----------



## Steve999

KeithEmo said:


> But how about if, every time you listened to a certain recording, it made you vomit?
> (And it turned out that it happened because of that burst of ultrasonics.)
> Would you claim that, since it isn't directly audible, it really doesn't matter (so we shouldn't bother to filter it out)?
> Or would you agree that, even though it's inaudible, it really matters (although, this time, in a bad way)?
> ...



First I think @bigshot was trying to bust on someone other than you.

Second, as far as vomitting or feeling really good after a music recording with ultrasonics, because of the ultrasonics. . :

let's get real. . .

NOT
GONNA
HAPPEN.


----------



## KeithEmo

There's a big, and rather subjective, difference between "useful" and "perceptible".

(It's an interesting philosophical question whether, if the artist deliberately included a burst of ultrasonic noise because he WANTED you to vomit at the end of his song, you would be "compromising the artistic integrity of the piece" by eliminating it, or simply failing to reproduce it. In that situation, I would probably prefer a _less_ accurate rebdition, but some others may disagree.)



sonitus mirus said:


> I know studies have been done that suggest exposure limits of 70 dB @ 20khz and 100 dB @ 25kHz, but there isn't a lot of useful info on short peaks, as @amirm would most likely point out.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ultrasound-and-infrasound-health-effects


----------



## Steve999

KeithEmo said:


> There's a big, and rather subjective, difference between "useful" and "perceptible".
> 
> if the artist deliberately included a burst of ultrasonic noise because he WANTED you to vomit at the end of his song,



NOT 
GONNA 
HAPPEN!

COME ON!


----------



## KeithEmo

Here's something to consider....
It's a simple piece of logic....

The ranging and detection system used by bats works at ultrasonic frequencies.
Bats seem perfectly able to navigate quite successfully inside typical buildings.
Therefore, the ultrasonic frequencies bats use_ ARE NOT TOTALLY ABSORBED BY THE AIR OR THE WALLS_.
If those ultrasonic frequencies were completely absorbed by the air, or by the walls...
Then the bats would run into the walls.

The fact that recordings don't contain those frequencies _DOES NOT_ constitute proof that the are inaudible.
That is simply circular logic.
Commercial recordings don't include those frequencies because someone _BELIEVED_ that they were inaudible.
Because of this they _CHOSE_ not to include those frequencies or use equipment that can reproduce them.
That does not constitute proof of anything.
(Although, if the frequencies are in fact audible, then those recordings are _NOT_ accurate after all.)

NOTE that I'm not specifically making that claim...
(I'm simply pointing out a flaw in the logic.)



dprimary said:


> It is completely supported and proven. Air absorption becomes a bigger problem the higher the frequency, that we fight every day. Large halls have large amounts of high frequency absorption with little to no reflection to reinforce them. By the time you get to a stadium size you are doing great to still have 8k. In recording even drum overheads for pop I'm at least 2m away it is likely that I don't even use them in a mix, most of it is the room mics much farther away.  Classical I don't think I have even been closer than 10-15 m. My boom alone is at least 4 meters.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 2, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Here's something to consider....
> It's a simple piece of logic....
> 
> The ranging and detection system used by bats works at ultrasonic frequencies.
> ...



First of all I'm not angry.
I smile and laugh every time I get an e-mail that says you've posted.

BUT ULTRASONIC FREQUENCIES ARE BY DEFINITION INAUDIBLE TO HUMANS. THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT AUDIBLE TO HUMANS UNDER LOGIC. THAT'S A DIRECT INHERENT CONTRADICTION. ALL SUBSEQUENT REASONING IS AN EPIC FAIL!

You can do better.

Peace out.


----------



## KeithEmo

Just to put something in context....

Bigshot seems determined to demonstrate, by analogy, that "10 mSec is insignificant".

If you have a home theater system, then part of your setup was to set speaker distances.
Based on the typical speed of sound in air, the compensation for one foot of distance is 1 mSec.
(If one speaker is one foot closer than the other, the system adds 1 mSec of delay to compensate the difference.)
Try changing the distance on _ONLY ONE_ of your front speakers by ten feet.
(By doing so you will have created a _10 mSec ERROR_ in the delay of that one channel.)
Now play some music and listen carefully - from your normal center listening position.
You will find that you have created an _EXTREMELY AUDIBLE AND ANNOYING_ shift in the sound stage.

If you don't believe that then it's easy enough to try for yourself.
I leave the conslusions to you....

I should also note that, on a typical (non-LED) camera flash...
The flash remains lit for somewhere between 1 mSec and 1/50 mSec...
(1 mSec is the longest time ever used on my most powerful Nikon flash.)
And most of us find that to be quite visible...

I also have a high-speed strobe that delivers flashes of 1.2 microseconds (just over 1/1000 mSec)....
And even they are visible to humans....



bigshot said:


> That test is measuring hearing damage due to frequency and level related to exposure times. That isn't quite the same as audibility. I think it's safe to say that if ultrasonics are inaudible at normal volumes and long periods of time, they'll be even more inaudible at 10 to 100 milliseconds. (figure corrected) And if a commercial recording has an ultrasonic spike that reaches +108dB at normal listening volumes, that particular SACD has severe engineering flaws. 108dB is extremely loud. It's about as loud as you can hear something without crossing the threshold of pain.
> 
> Just to provide context 10 milliseconds is the  rotation period for a pulsar. It's less than the time of a single field in video. 50 milliseconds is the cycle time of the lowest audible tone 20Hz. Just under 100 milliseconds is the maximum desirable latency of an internet connection. (video gamers will be familiar with this!) It takes a little more than 100 milliseconds for light to travel all the way around the equator of the earth. 200 milliseconds for a person to recognize emotion in an expression. (Wikipedia is your friend!)
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 2, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Just to put something in context....
> 
> Bigshot seems determined to demonstrate, by analogy, that "10 mSec is insignificant".
> 
> ...



If I move my speaker 10 feet in one direction I am going to move my seating position 5 feet or less in the same direction, depending on proportions,etc.

As far as what @bigshot was pulling out of the air:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millisecond

Not rocket science.

Overall the discussion goes nowhere that I can discern and it makes my brain hurt.


----------



## james444

gregorio said:


> ...where's your significant evidence for 20kHz not being an upper limit for human hearing? In fact, how about just a bit of reliable evidence, it doesn't even have to be "significant"! ALL the reliable evidence indicates that with commercial music recordings it CANNOT be audible.



Probably not exactly what what you've been talking about, but if we substitute "hearing" with "perception", there's indeed some scientific evidence that 20kHz may not be the upper limit:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/af2e/79a6ac98f61b19c78ff01e51a786ead7d4d6.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23384569


----------



## Steve999

james444 said:


> Probably not exactly what what you've been talking about, but if we substitute "hearing" with "perception", there's indeed some scientific evidence that 20kHz may not be the upper limit:
> 
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/af2e/79a6ac98f61b19c78ff01e51a786ead7d4d6.pdf
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23384569



I could swear he used the word "hearing." I could swear I read that! I really, really think he used the word "hearing."


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm not quite convinced that the "more is better" idea is always so silly.

If we accept that human hearing extends only to 20 kHz.
And that they Nyquist frequency of a CD is 22 kHz (actually 22,500 Hz).
Then we're talking about a 10% safety margin (assuming the filters were all perfectly ideal).
By most standards that is a _VERY NARROW_ safety margin.

When it comes to test and measurement equipment...
The general guideline most people I know follow is:
"Aim for a safety margin of ten-to-one or more unless there are compelling reasons to accept less."

Also, I should point out that your allusion to "using ten different water filtration systems" is completely specious.
The tap water in virtually every town in the USA is perfectly safe to drink.
Therefore, anyone who uses a single water filter, or a filter pitcher, has paid extra for a safety margin.




bigshot said:


> The main theory that audiophiles operate on is the "more is better" theory. If 20Hz to 20kHz is good, then 15Hz to 25kHz must be better. They don't understand that the frequency range is logarithmic and the difference between octaves roughly doubles every time. So a number like 25kHz sounds nice and big, but it barely represents a single note on the musical scale. It doesn't matter that they can't even hear it with human ears. If more is better, then perhaps making things they can't hear better will improve things they can. Naturally, this makes no logical sense.
> 
> The same more is better theory is applied to other things, like distortion levels, noise floors, dynamic range and timing error wth similar absurdity. The core of the problem is that audiophiles focus entirely on the specs and numbers of their electronic devices and they really don't have any clue about the specs and numbers as they relate to human hearing. More is better all the way down the rabbit hole of chasing down better inaudible sound. As you say, there are plenty of things that are right smack dab in the middle of our ability to hear that can be dealt with. But I guess that isn't as sexy as using the more is better theory to justify irrelevant race car analogies and cherry picked perceptual studies that have absolutely nothing to do with listening to recorded music in the home.
> 
> Hopefully they don't apply this same twisted logic to the rest of their life, or they'll be filtering their water though a dozen different expensive filtration systems, lining their walls and floors with lead to filter out trace radiation, and buying fancy light bulbs that can produce everything from ultraviolet to infra red. If unchecked, this kind of OCD can consume your entire attention and budget, and prevent you from accomplishing anything at all.





Steve999 said:


> First of all I'm not angry.
> I smile and laugh every time I get an e-mail that says you've posted.
> 
> BUT ULTRASONIC FREQUENCIES ARE BY DEFINITION INAUDIBLE TO HUMANS. THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT AUDIBLE TO HUMANS UNDER LOGIC. THAT'S A DIRECT INHERENT CONTRADICTION. ALL SUBSEQUENT REASONING IS AN EPIC FAIL!
> ...


----------



## SoundAndMotion

james444 said:


> Probably not exactly what what you've been talking about, but if we substitute "hearing" with "perception", there's indeed some scientific evidence that 20kHz may not be the upper limit:
> 
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/af2e/79a6ac98f61b19c78ff01e51a786ead7d4d6.pdf
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23384569





Steve999 said:


> I could swear he used the word "hearing." I could swear I read that! I really, really think he used the word "hearing."



Or, you can stick with the word hearing!
Henry, K. R., & Fast, G. A. (1984). Ultrahigh-frequency auditory thresholds in young adults: Reliable responses up to 24 kHz with a quasi-free-field technique. _Audiology, 23(5)_, 477-489.

Ashihara, K. (2007). Hearing thresholds for pure tones above 16 kHz. _The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(3)_, EL52-EL57


----------



## KeithEmo

If you read the thread I was replying to - it wasn't talking about audibility or hearing.
(That part of the original message apparently didn't make it to the quote.)

It asserted that the audibility of ultrasonic frequencies was irrelevant because they are totally absorbed by even a few feet of air.
(The claim was made that "since the ultrasonic frequencies will have been totally absorbed by the air then it doesn't matter if they're audible to humans or not".)
I simply pointed out that, if the frequencies are there for the bats to hear, then they obviously _HAVE NOT_ been absorbed by the air.



Steve999 said:


> First of all I'm not angry.
> I smile and laugh every time I get an e-mail that says you've posted.
> 
> BUT ULTRASONIC FREQUENCIES ARE BY DEFINITION INAUDIBLE TO HUMANS. THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT AUDIBLE TO HUMANS UNDER LOGIC. THAT'S A DIRECT INHERENT CONTRADICTION. ALL SUBSEQUENT REASONING IS AN EPIC FAIL!
> ...


----------



## james444

Steve999 said:


> I could swear he used the word "hearing." I could swear I read that! I really, really think he used the word "hearing."



Don't you think that's more of a semantic question? So what's your take on bone conduction headphones and "hearing" aids?

https://www.everydayhearing.com/hearing-technology/articles/bone-conduction-headphones/


----------



## KeithEmo

Hmmmmm....

After a controversial painting (that sold for $2.3 million) featured an "African Virgin Mary" whose breast was formed out of elephant dung....
I don't share your certainty about what may or may not happen....
(Although I think I'd _LIKE_ to agree there.)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/chris-ofili-elephant-dung_n_7470692.html



Steve999 said:


> NOT
> GONNA
> HAPPEN!
> 
> COME ON!


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 2, 2018)

I resign. You guys win.

Edit: And please put up some songs in the Sound Science Music Thread!


----------



## KeithEmo

You bring up an interesting question....

If it were to turn out that a significant number of people can percieve ultrasonic frequencies at concerts due to bone conduction...
Then it could be asserted that both almost all current recordings, and all air-conduction speakers and headphones, are inaccurate...
And _ONLY_ high resolution recordings played on bone conduction headphones are actually accurate.

Then we can start an interesting semantic argument as to whether they count as "audio reproduction" or "multimedia reproduction".



james444 said:


> Don't you think that's more of a semantic question? So what's your take on bone conduction headphones and "hearing" aids?
> 
> https://www.everydayhearing.com/hearing-technology/articles/bone-conduction-headphones/


----------



## Steve999

Go ask Alice.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Steve999 said:


> I trust the study was done well. But I gotta have 40 hertz (about the lowest note on a double-bass or an electric bass) to feel like I am getting solid sound reproduction of Western music, pop, jazz, classical or otherwise. Except for Captain Beefheart. I wonder if people would miss the solid impact of those low notes now more than they would have in 2006.  My _hypothesis_ is that they would after 12 more years of high impact low bass in music in pop culture--people would find 40 hertz pretty desirable and musical and for some even crucial. When we were spinning records we were bottoming out at what, 50 or 60 hertz even with the best gear? And then you went to a concert and you could feel the 40 hz impact in your chest. Or at least I did.
> 
> Otherwise, points well-taken and good references.
> 
> I couldn't care less about the _high _frequency argument. Give me 15 kHz and then count me out. ; ) And based on playing with EQ 12 kHz or 13 kHz would probably do for me as far as meaningful musical stuff in the cymbals and drums, etc. Beyond that I want to see proof of concept, and I haven't.


Study? What study? One was a class project, a report, at Miami University (Miami, Ohio) and the other is a popular-science book. But I agree, they are nice references-
For your setup, you choose, obviously. But let others make their own choices, based on their priorities, without scorn. If you can't care less about the high-frequency argument, why are you arguing about it?
By the way, the Levitin book says "on average". That says nothing about those who are different from average. Do you happen to be 176.1cm (5' 9 1/3") tall? If not, you are not average height.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 2, 2018)

SoundAndMotion said:


> Study? What study? One was a class project, a report, at Miami University (Miami, Ohio) and the other is a popular-science book. But I agree, they are nice references-
> For your setup, you choose, obviously. But let others make their own choices, based on their priorities, without scorn. If you can't care less about the high-frequency argument, why are you arguing about it?
> By the way, the Levitin book says "on average". That says nothing about those who are different from average. Do you happen to be 176.1cm (5' 9 1/3") tall? If not, you are not average height.



Is a class project followed by a report at a University not a study? Oh, I'm sorry.

I have no scorn. I have no dog in this fight. I like you guys. Get it?


----------



## analogsurviver (Dec 2, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> I trust the study was done well. But I gotta have 40 hertz (about the lowest note on a double-bass or an electric bass) to feel like I am getting solid sound reproduction of Western music, pop, jazz, classical or otherwise. Except for Captain Beefheart. I wonder if people would miss the solid impact of those low notes now more than they would have in 2006.  My _hypothesis_ is that they would after 12 more years of high impact low bass in music in pop culture--people would find 40 hertz pretty desirable and musical and for some even crucial. When we were spinning records we were bottoming out at what, 50 or 60 hertz even with the best gear? And then you went to a concert and you could feel the 40 hz impact in your chest. Or at least I did.
> 
> Otherwise, points well-taken and good references.
> 
> I couldn't care less about the _high _frequency argument. Give me 15 kHz and then count me out. ; ) And based on playing with EQ 12 kHz or 13 kHz would probably do for me as far as meaningful musical stuff in the cymbals and drums, etc. Beyond that I want to see proof of concept, and I haven't.



Oh dear... want a proof of the concept regarding EQing of ( high ) frequencies ?

First of all, you HAVE TO understand it is not only about the relative level of the any respective frequency (band) - it also has to do with PHASE.

Enter one of the best analog parametric EQs ever made : Technics SH-9010  https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/sh-9010.shtml 
( AND, if anyone might start bitching the short description on the initial page of hifiengine says response is only from 20 Hz to 20 khz - DON'T MONKEY AROUND BUT READ THE MANUAL )

The super shaky foundations, upon which all of the reasoning by the supporters of band limited and mainly amplitude only related "stereo" ( aka multimiking ) is based , get shattered into smitherins the moment  one understands how PROPER equalization ( where phase is more important than amplitude ) actually works - and, ultimately, sounds.

To get the phase ( important for imaging ) right, even well within the 20-20k band, one has sometimes resort to adjusting the PARAMETRIC  equalizer for the just combination of frequency, Q and amplitude settings of each of the "sliders" - and THEN one fully gets the idea WHY the central frequency of the SH-9010 can be set to the "inaudible" 48 kHz ! Needless to say -  SH-9010  will allow for a much more precise core frequencies EQ than possible with graphiuc equalizers - but, unfortunately, parametric EQ is a much more complicated circuit than graphic, resulting in less bands for the same money. SH-9010 has only 5 bands - enough for most, but not all cases.

Just HOW difficult nut to crack listings of equalizers even on dedicated pages such as hifiengine is, is this sterling example of getting it 101% WRONG :

https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/sh-9090.shtml

where the world's best ever parametric 10 band equalizer is listed as graphic ...  - here, a better presentation of this beauty :

http://www.thevintageknob.org/technics-SH-9090P.html

I can only drool about it - or, to be precise, about THEM - SH-9090 is a MONO unit. As it is exceedingly rare and has cost tons of money in anyone's currency when new ( 40 years ago ) - let alone properly functioning sample(s) today. The going price for a functioning pair is - IF you are lucky - starting at 3 k, with average being around 5K.

But for sure you aren't going to see me selling my SH-9010 !!!


----------



## james444 (Dec 2, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> You bring up an interesting question....
> 
> If it were to turn out that a significant number of people can percieve ultrasonic frequencies at concerts due to bone conduction...
> Then it could be asserted that both almost all current recordings, and all air-conduction speakers and headphones, are inaccurate...
> ...



Just for the record, I'm not advocating that ultrasonic frequencies have any practical merit in audio reproduction. But there seems to be some scientific evidence that they can be perceived / "heard" via bone conduction.

Now, I'm primarily an IEM listener and I know about occlusion effects, which mainly work via bone conduction. So I'm not entirely ruling out the possibility that (a small) part of of auditory perception may work via bone conduction... at least with IEMs.


----------



## Steve999

analogsurviver said:


> Oh dear... want a proof of the concept regarding EQing of ( high ) frequencies ?
> 
> First of all, you HAVE TO understand it is not only about the relative level of the any respective frequency (band) - it also has to do with PHASE.
> 
> ...




Thanks. I gotta get some sleep. It's 4 AM for me this time. I'll reply tomorrow. : )


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Dec 2, 2018)

Out of curiosity: do you remember hearing the flyback on CRT TVs? No one mistakes it for music, but many could easily hear it. To me, it didn't feel like pressure, and I could certainly detect the high pitch. I would call it a tone or sound. It was 15734 for NTSC and 15625 for PAL.
And remember, as Levitin points out in his book, when you look at the the frequencies of notes, those are the fundamentals. What makes musical instruments sound different from one another are the harmonics, the timbre. As others have already posted:
There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz coming from musical instruments.
That doesn't mean that "life" is important to you (or me), but for some it may be.


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> First I think @bigshot was trying to bust on someone other than you.
> 
> Second, as far as vomitting or feeling really good after a music recording with ultrasonics, because of the ultrasonics. . :
> 
> ...



Errr... I beg to differ. I concur no one is going to vomit during ANY reasonable concert - even if the music is strictly synthesizer made.

On the other side, rarely - if at all - I can remember a sad face after a decent harpsichord recital. People are normally like  - and some ( not all ) of the harpsichords have TONS of ultrasound. Harpsichord is a quiet instrument to begin with - and is therefore usually played in smaller venues, fit for chamber music. Where the closest sitting listeners can be within 5 metres away from the instrument, where the air filtering still can not filter ultrasound out below perceptibility.. 

Whatever the amount of ultrasonics in this case, they are UPLIFTING - not detrimental.


----------



## JRG1990

I think as it was pointed out a few pages back to even perceive the ultrasonics they have to be a at a really high spl a spl level you wouldn't listen to music at because your ear drums would explode, ultrasonic content is inaudible and un perceivable in music playback.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> Could you tell us a little about your scientific background? What field(s)? Any research and peer-reviewed papers? Perhaps I'm underestimating your background ...



I worked for 6 years as a senior lecturer and course designer at a British university, teaching the science (and art) of audio engineering and music technology to degree students. During all that time I worked closely with the neuroscience department and one of the top neuroscientists in the UK, consulting on several research projects. I'm also a certified expert for the most widely used professional audio editing/DAW software, have been a guest lecturer in audio engineering/recording in the USA, Japan and various European countries and have consulted for the UK government. Additionally, I believe you're aware that I've worked in various world class recording studios with numerous world class musicians and engineers for nearly 30 years and at many of the world's most renown concert venues.

Now what about you, Perhaps I'm underestimating your background?



KeithEmo said:


> However, when I watched The Martian, there were several very bright sunny scenes, yet I never felt that warmth.
> (That's because TVs and video cameras fail to accurately record or reproduce the invisible infrared light frequencies that convey a sense of warmth.)



That's brings us back full circle to what I suggested many pages ago in response to similar nonsense: How about ultraviolet TV, so we could get a suntan while watching Baywatch? I'm sure there are loads of audiophiles who want the "real experience" of melanoma from watching their TV?



KeithEmo said:


> [1] I've read several tests where the aggregate results were analyzed and failed to show that a statistically significant number of people could hear a difference...
> Yet the detailed notes then proceeded to note that two or three of the participants were in fact able to tell which was whcih with far above statistically significant results.
> [2] However, because the test was only looking for statistical results, they failed to follow up by further testing those individuals.
> [3] And, point blank, the reason for that is mainly that nobody has been willing to come up with the money to finance thorough, complete, properly scaled, and well controlled tests...



1. Really? ... How do you achieve "far above" 100%? You seem unaware of the fact that even a perfect 100% score can in fact be "pure chance" as entirely predicted by and consistent with statistics and does NOT indicate "people could hear a difference". So "in fact" yet another of your assertions is FALSE.

2. So you've got absolutely no evidence to support your assertion that "participants were in fact able to tell which is which" ... how surprising!

3. Despite you stating no one should use absolutes we've had an "in fact" absolute assertion form you and now a "point blank" absolute assertion. I can only assume you believe that "no one" doesn't include you? And, if it's not bad enough that you're doing the exact opposite of what you advised others, your absolute assertions are in fact FALSE anyway! Jeez, round and round we go.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] That part is not difficult...
> [2] Many instruments seem to have harmonics that extend well past 50 kHz...
> [3] And there are also quite a few microphones whose response extends that high...
> [4] There are even one or two microphones that can record frequencies as high as 1 mHz in air....
> [4a] This company seems to offer several microphones whose response extends well past 100 kHz (their CM16 model seems to be rated to 250 khz.) https://www.avisoft.com/usg/microphones.htm



1. Correct, it's "not difficult", in practise it's impossible, unless of course one wanted to get laughed at and fired.
2. And many instruments do not. AND, even those that do only produce it in tiny amounts and can only be recorded at extremely close range. Do you typically sit with your ears just an inch from a snare drum? If so, what make of hearing aids do you now have to use or do you just rely on lip-reading?
3. No there aren't, there's very few music mics whose response extend that high.
4. No there aren't, there's not a single music mic that gets anywhere near that high.
4a. You seem to have inadvertently missed the fact this is a mic designed for "Investigating Animal Acoustic Communication", NOT for recording music! You seem to consistently and continually "inadvertently miss" a great deal and what are the odds that all these "inadvertent" mistakes ALWAYS seem to support your agenda? Maybe that's why you like using astronomical analogies?

As you like astronomical analogies: We can propel a space craft to well over 17,000mph with solid fuel rockets, therefore all cars can travel at over 17,000mph. Are there ANY cars that can travel at over 17,000mph? Is this not a ridiculous and fallacious assertion? Even though it's entirely possible to achieve, there are no solid fuel rocket powered consumer cars because it's so highly undesirable in practice .... but why let that fact get in the way of a perfectly good bunch of nonsense?



Phronesis said:


> I've learned a lot too, but for me, the dogmatic, adversarial, and counterproductive attitude of some people in Sound Science is a real downer.



Then why do you do it? Why, when you're clearly lacking basic knowledge, do you employ your dogmatic, adversarial, counterproductive and self-contradictory attitude and ignore your own advice to learn from experts? And why do you ignore every question which points this out? What is the only logical conclusion from this attitude?



analogsurviver said:


> OK, this TOTALLY unsupported and unproven assertion that ultrasonic frequencies from acoustic instruments fade away if you sit more than a few feet away from them has to stop - right here, right now.



Sure, the inverse square law isn't a law, it "TOTALLY" doesn't even exist. High freq air absorption also doesn't exist, it was just invented by people who hate vinyl. Thermal noise increasing with frequency is just another Nyquist lie and the proven math is all wrong AND, all the audience always sits "no more than a few feet away from" say a drumkit at a live gig or an orchestra.



dprimary said:


> It is completely supported and proven. Air absorption becomes a bigger problem the higher the frequency, that we fight every day. Large halls have large amounts of high frequency absorption with little to no reflection to reinforce them. By the time you get to a stadium size you are doing great to still have 8k. In recording even drum overheads for pop I'm at least 2m away it is likely that I don't even use them in a mix, most of it is the room mics much farther away.  Classical I don't think I have even been closer than 10-15 m. My boom alone is at least 4 meters.



Yep, that's not going to work here. I've already tried it, I've even given the facts and figures. They care only about their agenda, of re-stating ad infinitum what they believe might be possible and what has not been proven to be impossible, completely disregarding any of the actual realities or practicalities of how recordings are actually made or even that what they assert as possible would in practice cause hearing damage if they tried it, which they won't anyway. They'll go to extreme lengths and employ the most ridiculous of analogies and falsehoods. Arguing for example that it's entirely possible to send a man to a star 4 light YEARS away, when the best we've actually managed so far is about one and a half light SECONDS! Honestly, you're wasting your time providing recording realities/practicalities, they'll just ignore you and invent recording scenarios which NEVER exist to "prove"/support their agenda.



KeithEmo said:


> Who do you think "knows more about what's really audible"?
> - an audiologist
> - a neuro-physiologist who specializes in human hearing
> - a concert pianist
> - a recording engineer



Who do *YOU* think "knows more about what's really audible" with say a piano recording?
- an audiologist
- a neuro-physiologist who specialises in human hearing
- a concert pianist
- a recording engineer
- an audiophile
- a salesman selling snake oil to audiophiles

The first four are all in general agreement, based on both the science and the factual, practical realities of performing and recording music. The last two however ....

G


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

I am still in absolute awe of this place and the folks who effectively make it work....especially when it again and again turns into the Sound Philosophy forum.

Let me make a friendly suggestion to the outsider peeping in:
Yup I know this thread is like walking into the proverbial nerd stronghold with numbers and axis up the wazoo - stuff you're never ever going to get your head around..properly.
So what's what?? Who to trust? 
'I know - I freckin' KNOW what I heard when I bought that Andalusian Airsplitter! The change in sq was absurd!!'
Well get a hold of a friend - if you can get one with some basic skills inside this field, like I did. I actually have two, one of which was a flaming audiphile before we ventured down the path of listening to gear without actually seeing what's playing.
Set up a simple blindtest just to see what you prefer. 
The volume matching thing is quite real and is alpha omega if you want a genuine result (my friend proved this in a sly backhanded manner to me, where he made my Aune x1 louder than the Benchmark2 we were testing...and I preferred the Aune hands down because of added 'presence', 'stage' and 'nuances' (hoho)).

All of this can be done fairly simple yet there are so few willing to try. Do yourself and your wallet a favour and test this for yourself. We could all be full of horsemanure for all you know!


----------



## Phronesis

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I am still in absolute awe of this place and the folks who effectively make it work....especially when it again and again turns into the Sound Philosophy forum.
> 
> Let me make a friendly suggestion to the outsider peeping in:
> Yup I know this thread is like walking into the proverbial nerd stronghold with numbers and axis up the wazoo - stuff you're never ever going to get your head around..properly.
> ...



Good advice.  Also important for people to match music segments and do the switching quickly, so you can put the same content back to back and lessen the effect of fading auditory memory.  I’m not convinced that such testing can rule out the possibility of subtle differences which might be experienced during normal listening yet missed in the tests, but I’m pretty confident that such testing can reliably demonstrate that night and day differences aren’t really there (assuming that they’re not).  There’s nothing more convincing than doing this testing for yourself, and DO NOT assume that the results will be same as what you perceive in normal listening.  Your perception isn’t the precise, accurate, and consistent instrument you think it is. It’s just not.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Dec 2, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Good advice.  Also important for people to match music segments and do the switching quickly, so you can put the same content back to back and lessen the effect of fading auditory memory.  I’m not convinced that such testing can rule out the possibility of subtle differences which might be experienced during normal listening yet missed in the tests, but I’m pretty confident that such testing can reliably demonstrate that night and day differences aren’t really there (assuming that they’re not).  There’s nothing more convincing than doing this testing for yourself, and DO NOT assume that the results will be same as what you perceive in normal listening.  Your perception isn’t the precise, accurate, and consistent instrument you think it is. It’s just not.



I think I am getting a handle of your style of debate...and it quite frankly seems a tad disingenuous. Both you and Keith agree and agree with the parts you can't refute...and then you round off with a snide 'what if' scenario in order to keep the thread injected with just an ounce of doubt.
The above post is a perfect illustrator of this. We've talked about this thing before and you insist on undermining the test by making a destinction between "normal listening" and listening without sight involved.
I would make the case that they are the same..unless you vehemently fight the test with every fibre of your body. Most folks I know close their eyes when they REALLY listen to music. They weed out any superfluous distractions so as they can focus entirely on the magnificence that is patterned sound.
Furthermore, and as has been told to you previously on a number of occasions, you are free to test the way you want to as long as you don't look at the merchandise ie take as loooooong as you want - use a day, a weekend whathaveyou in order to satisfy your curiosity.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 2, 2018)

gregorio said:


> I worked for 6 years as a senior lecturer and course designer at a British university, teaching the science (and art) of audio engineering and music technology to degree students. During all that time I worked closely with the neuroscience department and one of the top neuroscientists in the UK, consulting on several research projects. I'm also a certified expert for the most widely used professional audio editing/DAW software, have been a guest lecturer in audio engineering/recording in the USA, Japan and various European countries and have consulted for the UK government. Additionally, I believe you're aware that I've worked in various world class recording studios with numerous world class musicians and engineers for nearly 30 years and at many of the world's most renown concert venues.
> 
> Now what about you, Perhaps I'm underestimating your background?



Thanks, I remember you mentioning most of that a while back.  The neuroscience part is interesting, and I wish you'd talk more about perception stuff in your posts.  What I was really wondering though is whether you've had scientific or engineering education, and done research in these areas published in peer-reviewed journals?

As I mentioned a while back, I'm a (licensed professional) engineer and have been in the field for three decades (not audio).  Back in high school, I was fortunate to be able to take three years of analogue and digital electronics, and designed and built an amp for a project; it was so much electronics that I got my fill of it, and decided to go into a different area of engineering, instead of my original plan to go into electrical engineering and focus on audio/music stuff.  I also did live sound for a friend's band, and had a small home studio after college.  In more recent years, I've developed an engineering subspecialty in applying psychology and other social sciences to engineering practice, focusing on preventing engineering failures, so I've spent a lot of time looking into things like perception, memory, cognitive biases, and how we make judgments and decisions.  I've done research on technical and the applied social science stuff, published peer-reviewed papers, and made a lot of conference presentations.  I got back into listening to music once I discovered Spotify and Tidal, and find that I mostly listen using headphones, so I found head-fi, and then wandered into Sound Science for obvious reasons.  And of course, like most of us here, I've done a lot of reading about science topics because I find it interesting.

I'd be interested in knowing a bit about the backgrounds of some of the other Sound Science regulars, for those willing to share.


----------



## Indiana

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I think I am getting a handle of your style of debate...and it quite frankly seems a tad disingenuous. Both you and Keith agree and agree with the parts you can't refute...and then you round off with a snide 'what if' scenario in order to keep the thread injected with just an ounce of doubt.



My impression is more something like this "I agree there are no unicorns but what about fairies?"


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 2, 2018)

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I think I am getting a handle of your style of debate...and it quite frankly seems a tad disingenuous. Both you and Keith agree and agree with the parts you can't refute...and then you round off with a snide 'what if' scenario in order to keep the thread injected with just an ounce of doubt.
> The above post is a perfect illustrator of this. We've talked about this thing before and you insist on undermining the test by making a destinction between "normal listening" and listening without sight involved.
> I would make the case that they are the same..unless you vehemently fight the test with every fibre of your body. Most folks I know close their eyes when they REALLY listen to music. They weed out any superfluous distractions so as they can focus entirely on the magnificence that is patterned sound.
> Furthermore, and as has been told to you previously on a number of occasions, you are free to test the way you want to as long as you don't look at the merchandise ie take as loooooong as you want - use a day, a weekend whathaveyou in order to satisfy your curiosity.



They're not the same.  If you don't understand what I and others have been saying about this, I encourage you to do some reading about the science of perception and memory to learn more, don't just rely on forum blather and your own personal thoughts and experiences.

Regarding the more general point:

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one." - Voltaire​
I'm very wary of people who are too certain about too many things.  In my experience, they tend to cause trouble for themselves and others.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Phronesis said:


> They're not the same.  If you don't understand what I and others have been saying about this, I encourage you to do some reading about the science of perception and memory to learn more, don't just rely on forum blather and your own personal thoughts and experiences.
> 
> Regarding the more general point:
> 
> ...



Again how can you possibly ascertain any of this if a) you don't know the basic fundamentals of the science behind audio b) you have never even bothered to try a simple blindtest?

All this back n forth aims to be as esoteric and philosophically dense as possible so as finding any form of scientific footing gets to be impossible. People read what they so want to be the truth and all the pearls from actual professionals who've been working hands-on with these matters for decades get lost in translation...which of course is a tactic on it's own. The foul bit of the equation though seems to be that it is wholly intended by people that never made an ounce of effort in finding out for themselves. Bye tobias never happens.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Indiana said:


> My impression is more something like this "I agree there are no unicorns but what about fairies?"



'I bought some expensive hifi gizmo and now it seems like these guys with their science and all tell me it's placebo..fugazi..my mind playing tricks on me!!??!!?! Me!??! Hah! I damn well know what I hear!'


----------



## Phronesis

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Again how can you possibly ascertain any of this if a) you don't know the basic fundamentals of the science behind audio b) you have never even bothered to try a simple blindtest?
> 
> All this back n forth aims to be as esoteric and philosophically dense as possible so as finding any form of scientific footing gets to be impossible. People read what they so want to be the truth and all the pearls from actual professionals who've been working hands-on with these matters for decades get lost in translation...which of course is a tactic on it's own. The foul bit of the equation though seems to be that it is wholly intended by people that never made an ounce of effort in finding out for themselves. Bye tobias never happens.



I think I know the "basic fundamentals of the science behind audio" - do you?  And yes, I've done blind tests.  You seem to be quick to make assumptions in order to support what you want to believe.  Sorry that you find much of this to be "esoteric" and "dense," but reality isn't obligated to be simple just because we wish it was simple.  Perhaps the science aspect of this stuff isn't your cup of tea.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

I am not objecting to you objecting to my lack of knowledge - I thought I'd made that perfectly clear by now - no I am objecting against your continuous disregard of what established science and experts (who don't sell anything!!!) have to say. 
How can you inject doubt into matters you don't understand? I am not the one doing that.


----------



## Steve999

analogsurviver said:


> Errr... I beg to differ. I concur no one is going to vomit during ANY reasonable concert - even if the music is strictly synthesizer made.



I appreciate the agreeable sentiment, but I’m not sure I would go that far. I have definitely seen vomiting at reasonable concerts.


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> I appreciate the agreeable sentiment, but I’m not sure I would go that far. I have definitely seen vomiting at reasonable concerts.


Agreed - but the reason for "reverse" most certainly has not been ultrasound.


----------



## Phronesis

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I am not objecting to you objecting to my lack of knowledge - I thought I'd made that perfectly clear by now - no I am objecting against your continuous disregard of what established science and experts (who don't sell anything!!!) have to say.
> How can you inject doubt into matters you don't understand? I am not the one doing that.



How you can possibility evaluate the knowledge of others about a topic about which you yourself lack knowledge?  Dunning-Kruger effect has blatantly popped up yet again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect.  You seem to be keen on firmly latching on to belief systems, and then finding other people to validate them and expunge any doubts.  It reminds me of when I sometimes discuss religion with zealots (I generally avoid doing so), and when I challenge them to provide support for their beliefs, they get flustered and say go talk to some _other_ person who can better answer my questions.


----------



## Steve999

Phronesis said:


> How you can possibility evaluate the knowledge of others about a topic about which you yourself lack knowledge?  Dunning-Kruger effect has blatantly popped up yet again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect.  You seem to be keen on firmly latching on to belief systems, and then finding other people to validate them and expunge any doubts.  It reminds me of when I sometimes discuss religion with zealots (I generally avoid doing so), and when I challenge them to provide support for their beliefs, they get flustered and say go talk to some _other_ person who can better answer my questions.



I’m with you on this but I’d keep religion out of it, however well the analogy might seem to hold.

On the other hand I’d be happy to run through a couple shots of whiskey and a six-pack and talk religion and philosophy with you all day. Maybe with a good football game on.


----------



## Phronesis

Steve999 said:


> I’m with you on this but I’d keep religion out of it, however well the analogy might seem to hold.
> 
> On the other hand I’d be happy to run through a couple shots of whiskey and a six-pack and talk religion and philosophy with you all day. Maybe with a good football game on.



Yes, only an analogy, which seems apt given that the human aspects of audio ideology so often resemble religious and philosophical ideology.  As I've gotten older, I've generally gotten away from having religious and philosophical discussions, since they rarely move the ball forward for either party.  Though the discussions can be fun if the participants aren't dogmatic and trying to defend a particular view (such people seem to be more the exception than the rule), and I've found _applied_ philosophical discussions to be useful in my professional circles to help us understand our background assumptions, why we do what we do, appropriate goals, etc.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Alrighty then. My apologies. You are of course right! The distinction though is that I don't portray myself as someone who knows how these things work. Can you say the same?
I'll go back to trusting the professional folk over the hypothetical theorists on offer here. 
If I find something I don't like in their theories I will of course prove them wrong by conjuring up some clever what-if scenarios to support my case.


----------



## sonitus mirus

This test adds a delay between the high-hat and kick drum.  I was able to easily identify a 1 ms delay in the blind test, though I suspect there may be issues with the test itself that may be providing a tell.




 

https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_timing_2w.php?time=1


----------



## KeithEmo

I tried to snip out only the parts I'm responding to here in the quote.... we'll see if it works out.

-------------

I personally would rather avoid ultraviolet light on my TV... although some few folks might opt for "ruthless accuracy".
(I'm sure that, on the Mars rover, they included cameras that detect both.)
I'm not sure about whether I would consider the warmth of long wave infrared which conveys "warm sunlight" to be a benefit or a drawback.
(Perhaps they could include a switch marked "popular" and "lab" on my next TV.)

--------------

Nobody said anything about "far above 100%".

Here's a link to the AES reprint of the Meyer and Moran study.... (testing "the audibility of a CD standard A/D/A loop in the signal chain")
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1105/0b42c641807bbcf24ba7f6e11af49f135e8f.pdf

If you look at the top right - on page 777

The _TOTAL_ number of correct responses was 246/467 - which is reasonably close to random.
This is well within results that could be explained by random chance - with a slight random variation.
So they quite correctly reported that "the total result did not indicate that a statistically significant number of people could hear a difference".

_HOWEVER_, they also reported that "the best listener score, achieved only once" was 8/10, and "two other results were 7/10.
The results _FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS - AND THOSE RUNS - TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY_ are well outside what you would expect from random chance.
Now, if you understand statistics, you understand that there is in fact a certain probability that, by pure random chace, you may get a few anomalous results.
(It's not impossible that, out of that many subjects and runs, those three were simply "lucky that day", and simply guessed with far better than random accuracy that one time.)
_HOWEVER_, it's also _POSSIBLE_ that those three subjects, under the exact conditions found in those three test runs, really were exceptionally accurate.

Since Meyer and Moran were looking for a statistical result about "whether humans in general would notice a difference" they stopped there.
That result is certainly "suggestive enough to justify follow-up on those three test subjects" - at least if you're really looking for a limit rather than an average.

-------------------

Nobody said anything about "studio microphones currently in use".
Bats obviously _DO_ use ultrasonics to navigate - and they seemingly are able to do so at ranges far exceeding "a few inches".
And the the company I linked clearly _DOES_ produce both microphones and speakers whose response extends above 100 kHz.
Therefore, whether you purchase any for your studio or not, they would be adequate for testing purposes.

-------------------

Perhaps the reason "nobody has made a recording that sounds exactly like the real thing" is that they were all made using microphones...
Limited to the range of frequencies that _IT WAS POPULARLY BELIEVED_ was the limit of human hearing...
Probably not... but maybe...  



gregorio said:


> .............................
> 
> That's brings us back full circle to what I suggested many pages ago in response to similar nonsense: How about ultraviolet TV, so we could get a suntan while watching Baywatch? I'm sure there are loads of audiophiles who want the "real experience" of melanoma from watching their TV?
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 2, 2018)

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Alrighty then. My apologies. You are of course right! The distinction though is that I don't portray myself as someone who knows how these things work. Can you say the same?
> I'll go back to trusting the professional folk over the hypothetical theorists on offer here.
> If I find something I don't like in their theories I will of course prove them wrong by conjuring up some clever what-if scenarios to support my case.



Respectfully, by your own admission, it doesn't seem that you're qualified to enter into the debates and express opinions on the various hypotheses.

Yes, I can say the same - there's a lot I don't know about this stuff, and in fact no one will "know" it until proper research is done.  I'm ok with saying "I don't know" about these things.  That doesn't mean I don't have hypotheses and varying levels of confidence in them, but I leave room for doubt.

The problem is that some people around here leave essentially no room for doubt, and express "certainty" without being able to back up that certainty with proper null tests, blind tests, etc.  Don't make the mistake of thinking that amateurishly done testing is a substitute for proper rigorous testing, especially when you're looking for possible subtle differences.  The smaller the difference you're trying to detect, the more rigor you generally need to detect it.  You can't just do small-scale or non-rigorous testing and then conclusively declare that no difference exists, despite using too crude an instrument to find it.

Here's a simple example.  Say you have a coin which is actually physically biased to produce 51% heads and 49% tails.  How many coin flips will you need to confidently determine that the coin isn't or is 50/50 unbiased, and how many flips will you need to accurately determine the amount of bias of the coin?  If you have no idea of how to approach those questions quantitatively, you should question how useful your own testing is.  Again, if the coin was actually biased 80/20, you don't need too many flips to have some confidence that the coin is quite biased, without even having to run stats.  But if we're talking about a small bias like 51/49, suffice it say that you'll need to do A LOT of flips and will need to run some stats to put probabilities on things.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Phronesis said:


> Respectfully, by your own admission, it doesn't seem that you're qualified to enter into the debates and express opinions on the various hypotheses.
> 
> Yes, I can say the same - there's a lot I don't know about this stuff, and in fact no one will "know" it until proper research is done.  I'm ok with saying "I don't know" about these things.  That doesn't mean I don't have hypotheses and varying levels of confidence in them, but I leave room for doubt.
> 
> ...


Thanks I had no idea. Wow it's as if the enlightenment is bubbling up through my listening aura so much so that I now can pick up variations between dacs and amplifiers in a jiffy.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> Here's something to consider....
> It's a simple piece of logic....
> 
> The ranging and detection system used by bats works at ultrasonic frequencies.
> ...




Since the wavelength does not travel far do to the absorption of air when they hear the reflection they know a boundary is close. They might vary the frequency the emit depending on if they are traveling or hunting. Since many bat eat very small insects the wave length has to be small enough to reflect off the insect. A quick search notes, the range when hunting is 1 meter also interesting is bat detect much shorter reflections then humans can. Which makes sense.

Since decades of studies and tests has not found people that can verifiably pick out a 20k recording from a 40k and higher recording nobody is worried about it other than the marketing people. There are many reasons to use sampling rates above 44k but human hearing is not one of them. Since it doesn't cost a thousand dollars to store a stereo master anymore nobody cares, it is just a safety margin. Bit depth was far more important to production than bandwidth after we had more bit depth than could be used we increased the bandwidth.


----------



## dprimary

gregorio said:


> As you like astronomical analogies: We can propel a space craft to well over 17,000mph with solid fuel rockets, therefore all cars can travel at over 17,000mph. Are there ANY cars that can travel at over 17,000mph? Is this not a ridiculous and fallacious assertion? Even though it's entirely possible to achieve, there are no solid fuel rocket powered consumer cars because it's so highly undesirable in practice .... but why let that fact get in the way of a perfectly good bunch of nonsense?
> 
> 
> 
> G





Well there is one car traveling at over 17,000 mph 

I think Musk is planning to pick it up on his way.


----------



## KeithEmo

I have an interesting idea.... although I'm not sure whether it falls into the area of "science" or "philosophy"...


Here's a link to the Meyer & Moran study - which concluded that:
"at least the majority of people can't distinguish between CD quality and high resolution recordings most of the time".

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1105/0b42c641807bbcf24ba7f6e11af49f135e8f.pdf

_PLEASE READ IT IN ITS ENTIRELY_...
- including the Conclusions section 
- and the section after it entitled A Note on High Resolution Recordings

_NOW, AFTER READING THE REPORT, AND CONSIDERING THEIR OVERALL CONCLUSIONS, PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION_...

I'm offering to sell you both CD and SACD versions of the same album.
(Let's assume that you have a player that can play either one - so there is no issue there.)
The SACD costs $5 more.
You may _NOT_ listen to either one first; and there are no reliable reviews available.
_WHICH ONE WOULD YOU PURCHASE_?


----------



## RRod

The SACD, since it should have a multichannel master to justify the price.


----------



## GearMe

KeithEmo said:


> But how about if, every time you listened to a certain recording, it made you vomit?...









KeithEmo said:


> More to the point, what if something equally inaudible could make you feel really good afterwards?



Hmmm....let's keep this thread PG-13...shall we?


----------



## bigshot (Dec 2, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> I trust the study was done well. But I gotta have 40 hertz (about the lowest note on a double-bass or an electric bass) to feel like I am getting solid sound reproduction of Western music, pop, jazz, classical or otherwise.



That quote was addressing the ability to detect pitch in low notes, not whether you can hear them or if they are necessary. A tone lower than 55Hz is just a rumble. Your ears aren't able to assign the sound to a musical pitch. Likewise for a tone above 2kHz. At that point it turns into just a high frequency squeal with no discernible pitch.

Replying to another point... There is reason to believe that the common complaint called "listener fatigue" could be caused by ultrasonics at high volumes. It is a catch all term though and there are other factors that could cause it, like response imbalances in narrow spikes in upper frequencies or uncomfortable clamping on headphones or even Abba music!

Another point... A 10 millisecond delay to sound playing at the same time as sound that isn't delayed is a big thing. A 10 millisecond burst of inaudible frequencies isn't. Even if it was a 10 millisecond burst of audible frequencies, it would be a very small thing that would likely be masked by the rest of the music. But inaudible makes it even more inaudible than that. That should be self evident. It's absurd to even be discussing a 10 millisecond burst of ultrasonic frequencies at all. I know I've forgotten why it was mentioned in the first place. Perhaps that was the purpose- to just derail into absurdity.



james444 said:


> Probably not exactly what what you've been talking about, but if we substitute "hearing" with "perception", there's indeed some scientific evidence that 20kHz may not be the upper limit



I've been saying this throughout this protracted discussion. However hearing and perception aren't the same thing. We can feel ultrasonics as sound pressure if the volume level is high enough. In fact, at a high enough amplitude, sound we can't hear could possibly kill us. We would certainly perceive that! But that doesn't mean that ultrasonic frequencies are a factor in the fidelity of recorded music. It's been proven repeatedly that ultrasonics make no impact on perceived sound fidelity. You can prove that for yourself by just doing a blind comparison test of an SACD compared to the exact same recording and mastering bounced down to 16/44.1. I've done that myself and I couldn't hear any difference at all. The two were identical sounding.

Ultrasonic frequencies couldn't be heard with bone conduction or hearing aids either. But you could certainly perceive a good headache if you turn the volume up high enough. Personally, I don't think semantic arguments are a good way to understand how things work. But they are very good ways to obfuscate and derail conversations. People love to throw them in though because they think it makes them sound clever.

Here is the knee slapper of the day... The reason that redbook standard has a sampling rate of 44.1 is to allow a "10% safety margin" to allow ultrasonics above 20kHz that might be important. The reason that extra 2kHz is there is to allow for the error in brick wall filtering. The people designing the standard just wanted to make sure that when a brick wall filter with a spill of a kilohertz or so was applied, it wouldn't cut into the theoretical audible range and result in a top frequency of 18kHz. This person who claimed it was a "safety margin" for ultrasonic frequencies knows this very well. He works for a company that manufactures DACs with brick wall filters. Why would he use an argument he knows is completely wrong? Now he is on bone conduction of ultrasonics... this is why I don't read his posts normally. My error for reading this one.



Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Set up a simple blindtest just to see what you prefer.



ABSOLUTELY. But look who replied agreeing to your simple and useful answer... the guy who said "I'm not motivated to do a test". They want us to do the tests so they can nitpick the testing method if they don't like the results. They want us to provide them with links to studies on everything so they can cherry pick them and ignore the ones that don't suit their purpose. Kam, you pointed right at the elephant in the corner... PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW DO TESTS. It doesn't matter if they are done to lab standards. What matters is that you are making an effort to know the facts. People who camp out in internet forums acting like duffers holding up signs with low numbers on them like they're judges at the Olympics don't really want to know anything. They want to set themselves up as the arbiter of their own twisted view of the truth. This line is a classic. "it doesn't seem that you're qualified to enter into the debates and express opinions on the various hypotheses." Yow! Lack self awareness much?!

I think the best thing we can do around here is to teach newbies how to do their own informal test. I tried to encourage the one who isn't motivated and offered advice, but I was just given lip service. People who want to know don't just sit back and ask questions, they roll up their sleeves and actively look for answers. Thanks for focusing us back on what matters.



Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I think I am getting a handle of your style of debate...and it quite frankly seems a tad disingenuous.



YOU THINK???!!!???!!!



Indiana said:


> My impression is more something like this "I agree there are no unicorns but what about fairies?"



And then you prove that fairies don't exist and they say, "But what about unicorns?!" Circular arguments. The other obvious diversion tactic is to divert the discussion to discussing irrelevant stuff like the proper way to argue, or the definitions of words. There isn't a point being made there. It's a complete waste of time to feed into the loop. But that said, I buy SACDs for the multichannel mixes. I don't buy two channel SACDs.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 2, 2018)

bigshot said:


> That quote was addressing the ability to detect pitch in low notes, not whether you can hear them or if they are necessary. A tone lower than 55Hz is just a rumble. Your ears aren't able to assign the sound to a musical pitch. Likewise for a tone above 2kHz. At that point it turns into just a high frequency squeal with no discernible pitch.



[Edits after reading Phronesis post and playing around a little.]

As for the low notes, no way. I just played a chromatic scale from 40hz to 80hz (approximately) (on my piano). Any competent musician could discern the pitches. Same if you are playing an electric bass (with far fewer harmonics so fewer hints for your ears to extrapolate)--otherwise no one could tune their electric bass by ear! I've played both, my kids have played both, just no way.

41 hz (approximately) is the low E on a bass or the lowest E on a piano.

From 27?hz (about the lowest note on a piano) up to 40 hz I will grant you, it's very very tough to discern pitch on a piano. They taught us that and demonstrated that to us in music school in college. No big secret there.

It would take one heck of a mountain of evidence to convince me otherwise. One study (or class project or textbook) is not going to do it. I'll sit with my eyes closed and tell you when the pitch changes within the octave from about 41 hz to 82 hz and what the interval is within that octave by reflex! And I would imagine so would @gregorio.

The conclusions with respect to the higher frequencies (2 khz and up) do [not] generally match my experience [either], and I would not call the 2.003 khz note on a piano a "squeal." Now that I think of it, your ears are _most sensitive around that pitch area._ No reference provided--look it up and prove me wrong! But it's tough to discern pitch at the very highest note of a piano, about 4 khz, because of all of the resonances and harmonics a piano brings to the table (as your friend Mr. Leonard Bernstein pointed out).

Now, back to Trout Mask Replica (sorry, it kind of irritates me so I might be being a bit blunt).

Note: My son just started practicing piano. I will go test him right now (he is much better than I am).

Note: I could not test him because my wife said he has to leave right this minute to audition for a jazz combo. (Proud dad bragging not too subtly.)

Edit: If you can hook your computer up to a subwoofer that does 40 hz and up (it should or it's pointless) hook it up and go to this page:

http://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/

The notes in dispute here are E, F, F# G, G# and A (approximately 41 hz to 55 hz).

Source: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-notenames.htm

Now change the tone generator from 41 hz to 44 hz to 46 hz to 49 hz (I'm rounding because the pitch generator does not do fractions of hertz) to 52 hz to 55 hz, or better yet have a friend do it for you. All you need to be able to do is to discern when the pitch changes with your eyes closed to see what I am saying. Have your friend try to trick you by not changing the pitch sometimes! Heck! Try your worst! I have confidence in you anyway! Hear the changes in pitch? That's what we're talking about.

Hey! I think I just accidentally set up a test for you!


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 2, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> As for the low notes, no way. I just played a chromatic scale from 40hz to 80hz (approximately) (on my piano). Any competent musician could discern the pitches. Same if you are playing an electric bass (with far fewer harmonics so fewer hints for your ears to extrapolate)--otherwise no one could tune their electric bass by ear! I've played both, my kids have played both, just no way.
> 
> 40 hz (approximately) is the low E on a bass or the lowest E on a piano.
> 
> ...



People can try this one for themselves: http://onlinetonegenerator.com/

Using the sine wave, I hear distinct pitch changes down to about 28 Hz and up to about 6 kHz.  As you note, low E on a bass guitar is 41 Hz.


----------



## Steve999

Phronesis said:


> People can try this one for themselves: http://onlinetonegenerator.com/
> 
> Using the sine wave, I hear distinct pitch changes down to about 28 Hz and up to about 6 kHz.  As you note, low E on a bass guitar is 41 Hz.



Interesting. The high notes are super easy to discern above 2 khz with the sine wave. On a piano with all of the harmonics and resonances it gets a lot toughter at the very highest note (4,186.012 hz). I was wrong about the highest note--it's about 4 khz, not 2 khz. If you can't discern pitch around 2 khz you're pretty close to tone deaf (not meant as an insult, I know some people are).


----------



## bigshot (Dec 2, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> As for the low notes, no way. I just played a chromatic scale from 40hz to 80hz (approximately) (on my piano). Any competent musician could discern the pitches.



First of all, we weren't talking about 40Hz to 80Hz. We were talking about the frequencies below about 50Hz. Read his quote. If I remember correctly he says it becomes difficult below 50Hz. And we weren't talking about an instrument that has clear upper harmonics. We were talking about a pure tone.

Take a recording with a lot of sub bass. Use an equalizer to apply a low pass filter at 40Hz. Listen to what you have left and try to figure out if you can hear a melody. That lowest octave is hard to pick out pitch with. Now take the same recording and do a high pass filter at 10kHz. Try to hear pitch in that top octave. Good luck. If you'd like do a tone sweep from the outer edge to the point where you can discern pitch. As a musician the odds are that you will be able to do it at a more distant point than a normal person. It would be interesting to determine how far you can go.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 2, 2018)

bigshot said:


> QUOTE="Steve999, post: 14634523, member: 2821"]As for the low notes, no way. I just played a chromatic scale from 40hz to 80hz (approximately) (on my piano). Any competent musician could discern the pitches.



First of all, we weren't talking about 40Hz to 80Hz. We were talking about the frequencies below about 50Hz. And we weren't talking about an instrument that has clear upper harmonics. We were talking about a pure tone.

Take a recording with a lot of sub bass. Use an equalizer to apply a low pass filter at 40Hz. Listen to what you have left and try to figure out if you can hear a melody. That lowest octave is hard to pick out pitch with. Now take the same recording and do a high pass filter at 10kHz. Try to hear pitch in that top octave. Good luck.[/QUOTE]

Happy cheery change in text color to set off my text from yours. : )

Try the tone generators. It just makes it easier for the higher notes. I pointed out the notes from 40 to 55 hertz for you. Read up. Have a friend test you with pure sine waves.

Here:
38.8999 Hz D# (I don't expect you to be able to tell this one!)
41.2035 hz: E (one octave below the lowest E on your guitar).
43.6536 hz: F
46.249e Hz: F#
48.9995 Hz: G
51.9130 Hz: G# (the first note above the 50 hz range you are concerned with).

Me hear pitch at 10 khz! Ha ha ha ha ha. . . no I can't do that. Maybe you meant something else and I didn't understand. I'll wait and see.


----------



## Phronesis

Steve999 said:


> Interesting. The high notes are super easy to discern above 2 khz with the sine wave. On a piano with all of the harmonics and resonances it gets a lot toughter at the very highest note (4,186.012 hz). I was wrong about the highest note--it's about 4 khz, not 2 khz. If you can't discern pitch around 2 khz you're pretty close to tone deaf (not meant as an insult, I know some people are).



I think it's important to use a pure tone, otherwise harmonics can confuse us about what's going on.

I can actually distinguish pitch differences at well beyond 6 kHz if I use larger increments of change, and I hear pitch continuing to change when I use the tone sweep up to about 15 kHz.  For me, there isn't a point where the high frequencies all just sound like similar high frequencies with no sense of pitch.

This is another example where the "threshold" has to be defined relative to a specific test protocol, and throwing numbers out there as absolute limits without any context can be quite misleading.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 2, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I think it's important to use a pure tone, otherwise harmonics can confuse us about what's going on.
> 
> I can actually distinguish pitch differences at well beyond 6 kHz if I use larger increments of change, and I hear pitch continuing to change when I use the tone sweep up to about 15 kHz.  For me, there isn't a point where the high frequencies all just sound like similar high frequencies with no sense of pitch.
> 
> This is another example where the "threshold" has to be defined relative to a specific test protocol, and throwing numbers out there as absolute limits without any context can be quite misleading.



I guess my gut is that if you can't tell in increments of half-steps there's not much point to discerning the exact or accurate relative pitch. Subject to revision based on informed disagreement, of course.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 2, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> [1] What I was really wondering though is whether you've had scientific or engineering education ...
> [2] _ designed and built an amp for a project ... I also did live sound for a friend's band, and had a small home studio after college.
> [3] I wish you'd talk more about perception stuff in your posts.
> [4] I think I know the "basic fundamentals of the science behind audio"._


1. I'm not sure how it works in universities in your country but in England you're not allowed to teach the science of sound/music engineering unless you actually know the science of sound/music engineering! There was almost constant monitoring of lectures and assessment of lecturers' knowledge, both internally within the university and by independent external experts. Even a lecturer is expected to have greater than degree level knowledge when teaching degree level and a senior lecturer is expected to have greater knowledge still.

2. So no education at all in the subject and no more than a hobbyist's knowledge or experience. More or less what I presumed.

3. Me too, IMO that's where music/sound really gets interesting! Unfortunately though, instead of discussing the real interesting stuff, I'm bogged down refuting misrepresentations of basic technical stuff that has no impact on perception beyond the phycology of marketing snake oil.

4. I obviously can't dispute what you think you know but your posts demonstrate that you are missing a number of absolutely fundamental basics of the science behind audio. For example, in the Rob Watts thread our discourse between about post #350 and #376 demonstrated that you didn't know what the 0's and 1's in digital audio actually represent or even how measurements are represented in binary. Without that basic knowledge we're stuck, we can't rationally discuss digital audio and the proofs which underpin it because it's all based on binary. So, you're not going to be able to understand those proofs or have any reason to believe them and therefore we're reduced to non-rational discussions of digital audio. Arguments about opinions, beliefs and perspectives which are in fact irrelevant but to you they're the only things that are relevant because you do not know and cannot appreciate the actual facts/science. And then, you quote dunning-kruger and other cognitive errors to others, apparently completely unaware of the irony.
_


KeithEmo said:



			[1] Nobody said anything about "far above 100%".
[2] HOWEVER, they also reported that "the best listener score, achieved only once" was 8/10, and "two other results were 7/10. The results FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS - AND THOSE RUNS - TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY are well outside what you would expect from random chance.
[2a] Now, if you understand statistics, you understand that there is in fact a certain probability that, by pure random chace, you may get a few anomalous results.
[2b] (It's not impossible that, out of that many subjects and runs, those three were simply "lucky that day", and simply guessed with far better than random accuracy that one time.) 
[3] HOWEVER, it's also POSSIBLE that those three subjects, under the exact conditions found in those three test runs, really were exceptionally accurate.
[4] Nobody said anything about "studio microphones currently in use".
[4a] Therefore, whether you purchase any for your studio or not, they would be adequate for testing purposes.
[5] Perhaps the reason "nobody has made a recording that sounds exactly like the real thing" is that they were all made using microphones...
[5b] Limited to the range of frequencies that IT WAS POPULARLY BELIEVED was the limit of human hearing...
		
Click to expand...

_1. What do you mean nobody said anything about far above 100%, *YOU DID!* You stated_ "two or three of the participants were in fact able to tell which was whcih with *far above* statistically significant results." - _Statistical probability distribution predicts and expects one or more 100% results from pure chance alone. So if you're stating that participants could tell which was which FAR ABOVE statistical probability then you are stating FAR ABOVE 100%!

2. No, that is untrue, it IS expected!
2a. An 8/10 score out of so many trials IS NOT an anomalous result, it is entirely predicted and expected! It's ironical in the extreme then that you state "if you understand statistics", as clearly you don't, or maybe you do and it's just another of the countless "inadvertent" mistakes?
2b. No, they were not "lucky that day" those results are ENTIRELY EXPECTED sooner or later.

3. The study does not provide absolute proof that hearing a difference is impossible, but it does provide compelling evidence. However, it provides no evidence whatsoever that hearing those differences is possible! BUT, even if we accept your misrepresentation of luck and what's possibile, STILL YOU ARE ADMITTING that your statement _"two or three participants were in fact able to tell which is which" _WAS *FALSE*, as now you're saying it's only a possibility they could tell which was which and NOT A FACT!! Again, when is enough, enough??

4. Just to be clear then, you are NOT talking about the reproduction of commercial music recordings or the hearing/listening to those recordings.
4a. Personally, I don't deal with testing bats' communication abilities and neither does this thread!

5. Yep, they are in general all made using microphones. Are you going to propose another recording scenario which doesn't exist?
5b. Nope, it has nothing to do with that, which you would know if you'd ever taken even an introductory course in microphone use. But you haven't and you clearly have no idea what influences music mic choice, instead you just make statements of fact and "suggestions" about something you have "no idea" of and argue with those who are actually professional mic users. That's ridiculous and even more ridiculous that you don't seem to realise it's ridiculous and just keep doing it! So yet again, when is enough, enough???

G


----------



## Phronesis

Steve999 said:


> I guess my gut is that if you can't tell in increments of half-steps there's not much point to discerning the exact or accurate relative pitch. Subject to revision based on informed disagreement, of course.



Good point.  I can easily distinguish between the highest two notes, A# and B here, at 7459 vs 7902 Hz: http://pages.mtu.edu/~suits/notefreqs.html


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 2, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 1. I'm not sure how it works in universities in your country but in England you're not allowed to teach the science of sound/music engineering unless you actually know the science of sound/music engineering! There was almost constant monitoring of lectures and assessment of lecturers' knowledge, both internally within the university and by independent external experts. Even a lecturer is expected to have greater than degree level knowledge when teaching degree level and a senior lecturer is expected to have greater knowledge still.



That doesn't answer my question about the extent of undergrad and grad science and engineering courses you took or degrees you hold, nor whether you've published peer-reviewed research in these areas.  No shame in being self-taught, but I'm trying to get an understanding of your background, since you present yourself as a properly-educated expert in these areas.  Experts in particular areas of *science* usually hold science PhDs and have published peer-reviewed research in those areas.  Do you at least have BS or higher degrees in science or engineering?  Note that an engineering degree in the US will generally involve a lot of courses in math, physics, chemistry, and specific engineering topics (which usually involve considerable higher math), and 'sound engineering' as related to recording and producing music isn't recognized as a field of engineering in that sense, but viewed rather as a technology degree.  Typical fields of engineering are aerospace, biomedical, chemical, civil, electrical, environmental, materials, mechanical, and nuclear, e.g., https://engineering.mit.edu/departments/  and https://engineering.uic.edu/departments/

I'm not an expert in any aspect of audio or electronics, but I have enough relevant science and engineering background to engage in discussions about measurements, test methodology, how science works, limits of theory, etc., which are the main topics on which there are disagreements.

To illustrate, I don't have any knowledge of how DAC filters work, but if different filter design choices result in different DAC outputs, it's evident that we can't eliminate the possibility of some DACs sounding different to some people simply based on the (invalid) assumption that all DACs convert digital to analog in exactly the same way.


----------



## castleofargh

I'm really not a fan of this persistent appeal to authority. Head-fi is a public forum for amateur audiophiles, not AES or some ethic comity deciding if they will allow our listening experiments. the data presented will come with a given degree of confidence based on how it was obtained(sample size, well documented and controlled experiment, etc). who presents the data shouldn't be the main reason to agree with something. I don't believe in climate change because the guys saying it's real have white coats and PHDs. I believe it's real because of the overwhelming amount of data pointing in the same direction.


----------



## GearMe

Yep...to my way of thinking, arguments from authority are among the weakest and most arrogant of approaches to a constructive, civilized discussion...whether one is truly an expert or not!






That said..._angry_ arguments from authority are, without a doubt, much more entertaining  


(it doesn't take much to amuse us simpletons!)


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 2, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> I'm really not a fan of this persistent appeal to authority. Head-fi is a public forum for amateur audiophiles, not AES or some ethic comity deciding if they will allow our listening experiments. the data presented will come with a given degree of confidence based on how it was obtained(sample size, well documented and controlled experiment, etc). who presents the data shouldn't be the main reason to agree with something. I don't believe in climate change because the guys saying it's real have white coats and PHDs. I believe it's real because of the overwhelming amount of data pointing in the same direction.



I agree.  If someone has say a PhD in cognitive neuroscience, specializing in auditory perception, I'm gonna give their comments more weight than some random person in the forum.  But conversely, if someone is going to present themselves as an authority on the science, as gregorio and his fans present him, IMO they need to back up that claim to being an authority with info on that person's background in the relevant areas.  In the case of gregorio, I'm starting to wonder if he has any science or engineering degrees at all.  If not, that's fine, but then everyone needs to drop the argument from authority stuff wrt gregario.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 2, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> Try the tone generators. It just makes it easier for the higher notes.



It appears that your ability to detect pitch starts around 40Hz. A non musician might start around 50Hz. As you say, it is much harder to detect pitch in very high frequencies. Yeah. That was basically what I was saying. You just can discern a couple of notes lower on the scale than non-musicians.

Again, I'm not saying that people can't hear differences between tones at the outer octaves. I'm saying they can't discern them as musical notes. If you played "Mary Had a Little Lamb" between 10kHz and 20kHz, you would hear a pattern of changes, but not a tune.

To be honest, this digression is kind of pointless. I just answered that guy's question about where I was getting this from and I googled him up a quick cite. If he wants to chase it down further, he can feel free to do that. It isn't worth arguing over.



castleofargh said:


> I'm really not a fan of this persistent appeal to authority.



I think it's pretty rude to be honest. But I've come to expect that. Desperation isn't pretty. He's only embarrassing himself. I'm moving on.


----------



## bfreedma

I know many people with degrees who are experts in their domain.  
I know many people with degrees who haven’t a clue in their domain

I know many people without degrees who are expert in their domain
I know many people without degrees who haven’t a clue in their domain.

Bottom line, not sure that a piece of paper is a indicative of domain knowledge.  Personally, I find work history/experience to be a more accurate indicator.

Oh, and this is the internet and I’m Batman...


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 2, 2018)

GearMe said:


> Yep...to my way of thinking, arguments from authority are among the weakest and most arrogant of approaches to a constructive, civilized discussion...whether one is truly an expert or not!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, so you are arguing by authority by citing to _Einstein_ as to why one should not argue by authority. 

That's awesome!


----------



## bigshot (Dec 2, 2018)

Didn't you make fun of an appeal to ignorance argument by posting a picture of J T Gumby from Monty Python?



bfreedma said:


> Oh, and this is the internet and I’m Batman...



Wow! I really like your car!

I'm not ashamed to admit that Gregorio knows a lot more than I do about the subject of sound reproduction. I defer to his experience, not because of his resume, but because he brings a ton of relevant facts to the table. He also clearly is more interested in having the truth prevail than he is in bolstering his own ego by using any argumentative technique to "win" the debate. Other people could learn from his example.


----------



## GearMe (Dec 2, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> I know many people with degrees who are experts in their domain. I know many people with degrees who haven’t a clue in their domain
> 
> I know many people without degrees who are expert in their domain.  I know many people without degrees who haven’t a clue in their domain.
> 
> ...



So...which is it?

Are you The Hornet or Batman?




Steve999 said:


> Okay, so you arguing by authority by citing to _Einstein_ as to why one should not argue by authority.
> 
> That's awesome!



Yes...irony everywhere.  

One of the smartest people the earth has ever seen encourages us to include people in the discussion by offering explanations that they can understand rather than tell them how they're incapable of understanding the fundamentals

TBH...the levels of assumptions/hubris/keeping score/etc. that sometimes occur in this forum can be a tad much.  Which, in the short run, detracts from knowledge exchange and ultimately from forum readership/growth/etc.


----------



## bfreedma

GearMe said:


> So...which is it?
> 
> Are you The Hornet or Batman?
> 
> ...




I lead a complicated life.  Anyone know how to get a jet powered car with machine guns and rocket launchers through the DMV registration and inspection process?  Asking for a friend.


----------



## bigshot

I know a guy who leaps tall buildings with a single bound. I'll ask him if he knows.


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> I've been saying this throughout this protracted discussion. However hearing and perception aren't the same thing. We can feel ultrasonics as sound pressure if the volume level is high enough. In fact, at a high enough amplitude, sound we can't hear could possibly kill us. We would certainly perceive that! But that doesn't mean that ultrasonic frequencies are a factor in the fidelity of recorded music. It's been proven repeatedly that ultrasonics make no impact on perceived sound fidelity. You can prove that for yourself by just doing a blind comparison test of an SACD compared to the exact same recording and mastering bounced down to 16/44.1. I've done that myself and I couldn't hear any difference at all. The two were identical sounding.
> 
> Ultrasonic frequencies couldn't be heard with bone conduction or hearing aids either. But you could certainly perceive a good headache if you turn the volume up high enough. Personally, I don't think semantic arguments are a good way to understand how things work. But they are very good ways to obfuscate and derail conversations. People love to throw them in though because they think it makes them sound clever.



I wonder why KeithEmo got the question I brought up and you didn't. I have a feeling that you didn't even bother to click the links I posted. 

Here's the first line of an abstract I linked to:


> Ultrasound can be perceived by bone-conduction. The cochlear basal turn is involved in processing bone-conducted ultrasound (BCU) information.



And here's a quote from the other study I linked to:


> The device was designed to give out a sound pressure level of 85dB for 40 kHz and 60dB for 35 kHz and 45 kHz at around 1meter in front of the sound source.



Your reply doesn't sound like you've actually read any of this.

Also, my post was in response to gregorio's question:


> where's your significant evidence for 20kHz not being an upper limit for human hearing?



So I don't know why you feel the need to pontificate about "ultrasonics' impact on perceived sound fidelity", which had nothing to do with the context of my post.

As for your final remark, I think it's condescending and uncalled for. All the more, if you didn't make the effort to understand the context of my post and consider the evidence provided.


----------



## KeithEmo

I see what the problem is..... you seem to have misunderstood a few of the details.

This was a test to determine whether the test subjects could tell the difference whether the audio signal was passed through "a CD quality A/D/A loop" or not.
When you are testing whether participants can tell the difference between equal quantities of two different things the expected result due to random chance is 50%.
Therefore, a "statistically significant result" is a result significantly above 50% (how far it has to be from 50% to be significant depends on various things like the number of trials).
And, as it turns out, with the particular number of trials and paricipants involved, 70% correct is far enough above the 50% predicted by random chance to be "statistically significant".
(As you said, those results would be expected due to chance - sooner or later - but three times out of that small number of trials is somewhat outside our usual expectations.)

Now, since the overall number of trials wasn't very large, this variation itself isn't "_VERY_ significant".
It is neither "expected" nor "unexpected"... but the odds of its occurring with that small number of test runs is quite low.
A statistician could tell you how far 80% deviates from the expected random result of 50%, and what the odds are of that deviation occurring in a certain number of tests.
As I said, it's not impossible that this could happen by random chance, but the odds are low enough to make it "interesting" or "suggestive".
And it's certainly easy enough to confirm whether it's significant or not by doing a few more test runs with those subjects.

That result is exactly equivalent to the situation if, instead of listening for differences, those subjects were flipping coins.
If you were throwing coins, and two subjects threw seven heads out of ten, and one threw eight out of ten, out of only 100 total trials, you wouldn't consider it to _PROVE_ anything...
However, since it is a low-probability result, it would suggest that another level of trials would be worthwhile - to confirm the results one way or the other.

You are applying circular logic.
Most current studio recordings don't contain much musical information above 20 kHz.
The reason for that is that most studio microphones have little response above 20 kHz.
(And most recording engineers don't expend any effort trying to record them or preserve them during the mix.) 
And the reason for that is that information above 20 Khz isn't considered to be useful because it is assumed that nobody can hear above 20 kHz.
Therefore, since the information is largely absent, and no attempt is made to preserve it when it is present, nobody is going to hear it.
_HOWEVER_, this doesn't prove either way whether people would or would not hear content above 20 kHz _IF IT WAS THERE_.
(Again, I'm not _SPECIFICALLY_ claiming that it's audible or not... just that we haven't actually tested the possibility... we simply "go with the assumption".)

Generally microphones are chosen to "sound good" - which includes being able to pick up whatever frequencies contribute to that result.
I have little doubt that, if tests were to find that "cymbals sound better when recorded with microphones whose response extends to 30 kHz"....
We would soon see studio microphones, designed specifically for cymbals, whose response extends to 30 kHz... and sold specifically for recording cymbals.
(And considering that cymbals are often recorded by an overhead microphone located within a few feet.... it shouldn't be especially difficult to record them.)

I've personally made very few recordings... 
And I've certainly never recorded a drum kit using a microphone whose response extends to 30 kHz "just to see if anyone thinks it sounds better"...
Have you actually tried it? 
(Or are you just _assuming _that it won't sound any different.)



gregorio said:


> 1. What do you mean nobody said anything about far above 100%, *YOU DID!* You stated_ "two or three of the participants were in fact able to tell which was whcih with *far above* statistically significant results." - _Statistical probability distribution predicts and expects one or more 100% results from pure chance alone. So if you're stating that participants could tell which was which FAR ABOVE statistical probability then you are stating FAR ABOVE 100%!
> 
> 2. No, that is untrue, it IS expected!
> 2a. An 8/10 score out of so many trials IS NOT an anomalous result, it is entirely predicted and expected! It's ironical in the extreme then that you state "if you understand statistics", as clearly you don't, or maybe you do and it's just another of the countless "inadvertent" mistakes?
> ...





gregorio said:


> 1. I'm not sure how it works in universities in your country but in England you're not allowed to teach the science of sound/music engineering unless you actually know the science of sound/music engineering! There was almost constant monitoring of lectures and assessment of lecturers' knowledge, both internally within the university and by independent external experts. Even a lecturer is expected to have greater than degree level knowledge when teaching degree level and a senior lecturer is expected to have greater knowledge still.
> 
> 2. So no education at all in the subject and no more than a hobbyist's knowledge or experience. More or less what I presumed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 2, 2018)

bigshot said:


> It appears that your ability to detect pitch starts around 40Hz. A non musician might start around 50Hz. As you say, it is much harder to detect pitch in very high frequencies. Yeah. That was basically what I was saying. You just can discern a couple of notes lower on the scale than non-musicians.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying that people can't hear differences between tones at the outer octaves. I'm saying they can't discern them as musical notes. If you played "Mary Had a Little Lamb" between 10kHz and 20kHz, you would hear a pattern of changes, but not a tune.
> 
> To be honest, this digression is kind of pointless. I just answered that guy's question about where I was getting this from and I googled him up a quick cite. If he wants to chase it down further, he can feel free to do that. It isn't worth arguing over.



That sounds right to me, and pretty interesting. My observations were based on personal sensory experience and having thought about it in the past and a little reading and what other people told me, which we both know can be pretty flawed, so it's interesting to see us on the same page. I did learn how much the introduction of audible harmonics introduces so many new variables into the situation, even more than I had previously appreciated, both at the low end and the high end. This is easily enough discerned in comparing sine wave tones with piano notes--it's a qualitatively different task to discern the pitches for the piano because of the rich harmonics. You get extra hints from harmonics for some ranges of pitches (I'd say 41 to 52 hz at least) and harmonics muddling things up for other ranges of pitches (starting up around 4 khz or somewhere around there, and from 27 hz to 40 hz). FWIW. For me this is good stuff--music and sound and perception!


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 2, 2018)

GearMe said:


> So...which is it?
> 
> Are you The Hornet or Batman?





bfreedma said:


> Oh, and this is the internet and I’m Batman...


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> Didn't you make fun of an appeal to ignorance argument by posting a picture of J T Gumby from Monty Python?



A video is worth a thousand pictures. . .


----------



## WoodyLuvr (Dec 3, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I agree.  If someone has say a PhD in cognitive neuroscience, specializing in auditory perception, I'm gonna give their comments more weight than some random person in the forum.  But conversely, if someone is going to present themselves as an authority on the science, as gregorio and his fans present him, IMO they need to back up that claim to being an authority with info on that person's background in the relevant areas.  In the case of gregorio, I'm starting to wonder if he has any science or engineering degrees at all.  If not, that's fine, but then everyone needs to drop the argument from authority stuff wrt gregario.


Good sir, the only problem I really see you having is the manner in which he communicates not his education or professional background. Whither you can bring yourself to believe/accept it, or not... the man clearly is quite knowledgeable and has an audio-based career under his belt which has been confirmed, countless times, in many other posts and threads. You are simply beating a dead horse now.

You have inadvertently made this so passionately personal that you unknowingly have allowed him to get well under your skin... your posts now seem to be driven by this made desire to correct and/or outdo him and it has clearly now clouded your own logic and behavior. Again,how does making/keeping it personal... continually calling out an individual's creds... help this thread? It doesn't.

Simply ignore him if he irks you that much... or better yet, construct and submit stronger counter-arguments that demand thoughtful responses/replies. Honestly, do you really believe you can silence or change his mannerisms with such accusations, retorts, and responses? Why waste your time repeating the same passionate complaint... repeating the same accusation? We all read and got it the first time you posted it... we're not all dumb you know... it is growing tiresome now so please stop it as you are now taking away from the beneficial input you have nicely given to the thread.

Respects.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 3, 2018)

There's a song for every sentiment, and a sentiment for every song. I don't know what that means, it just crossed my mind. Oh God. I think in songs. Somebody help me.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> I see what the problem is..... you seem to have misunderstood a few of the details.
> 
> This was a test to determine whether the test subjects could tell the difference whether the audio signal was passed through "a CD quality A/D/A loop" or not.
> When you are testing whether participants can tell the difference between equal quantities of two different things the expected result due to random chance is 50%.
> ...



The problem with the Meyer and Moran study is that is testing too many variables at once so it more surprising how many participants ending in the random chance range. They are reducing bandwidth, reducing resolution and then just for fun they are add a second piece of equipment in one of the playback chains introducing countless variables. Only three people or three trials (I can't tell from the paper) could tell something better than random chance. 

This was done years after Bob Katz and JJ did the 44k vs 96k tests which JJ right insisted they be a single variable test, why is Meyer and Moran not a single variable test? Bob was very excited about 96k when it came out, JJ told him it made no deference, unlike here they spend many month hashing out the test protocol, Bob creating the test recordings , JJ writing the 96k and 44k filters. While Bob was preping the recordings he admitted he could not tell the difference between the original , the 96k filtered and 44k filtered. All in one of the top master studios in the world with the best equipment you can find.

Pat Brown runs Syn-Aud-Con and teaches audio professionals around the world. When the Pono was released there was much discussion about wider bandwidth among the members. Pretty much the same we have here, once again Pat and others came up with a test, assembled the equipment and the recordings, filtered to 96k filtered to 44k and added one that only had 20k and up. Pat has let hundreds of people who make their living in audio run those tests no missing links so far.  

I did not want to admit this in this never ending circular discussion,  I do have convertors that I can hear the difference between, and before all the audiophiles scream see!!!. It is not night and day, in fact it takes a low noise room an extreme amount of focus and the right point in a certain track. I discovered it while testing something else,  (like data compression artifacts) I was testing at work it was something barely audible like a soft brush note in fairly busy part of the song but I could catch it most times. It was getting late, I decided to finish testing later at home. I forgot to pack the convertor. No big deal I have others, well on the other one I could not hear it. So was the first one broken, or is reveling some the second one couldn't?


----------



## WoodyLuvr

dprimary said:


> I did not want to admit this in this never ending circular discussion,  I do have convertors that I can hear the difference between, and before all the audiophiles scream see!!!. It is not night and day, in fact it takes a low noise room an extreme amount of focus and the right point in a certain track. I discovered it while testing something else,  (like data compression artifacts) I was testing at work it was something barely audible like a soft brush note in fairly busy part of the song but I could catch it most times. It was getting late, I decided to finish testing later at home. I forgot to pack the convertor. No big deal I have others, well on the other one I could not hear it. So was the first one broken, or is reveling some the second one couldn't?


Very interesting... besides a most likely completely different listening environment at home are/were you using the same monitor/headphone setup?


----------



## bigshot (Dec 3, 2018)

james444 said:


> I wonder why KeithEmo got the question I brought up and you didn't. I have a feeling that you didn't even bother to click the links I posted.



I've been trained to not click through things unless I know what I'm clicking them for. Did this test involve ultrasonic frequencies in recordings of music? If you have a quote involving that, I would be very interested. Just cut and paste me a paragraph involving that. I've done considerable googling on this subject and I'm looking for evidence that it is necessary for recorded music playback. using normal speakers or headphones and consumer audio equipment.


----------



## old tech (Dec 3, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I have an interesting idea.... although I'm not sure whether it falls into the area of "science" or "philosophy"...
> 
> 
> Here's a link to the Meyer & Moran study - which concluded that:
> ...


I'm not sure where you got that "at least the majority" and "most of the time" as that study is quite clear that no-one could distinguish between CD quality and high resolution at a rate greater than a fair flip of a coin - in other words guessing.  Saying it is at least the majority and most of the time is either a misrepresentation of that study or displays a novice understanding of the statistical method.

While the M&M study is widely quoted, and perhaps the best known, it was developed on the back of many earlier tests and peer reviewed studies which found pretty much the same thing.  M&M just took it to another level in sophistication.  Other subsequent tests also are consistent with these results, eg Archimago.

As for your question, well that seems to suggest that you misunderstood the test and importantly the reason why many (though certainly not all) SACDs sound better than the CD - better mastering.  The authors noted this and concluded that the masterings of the SACDs could be released on CDs which would sound identical to the SACD.

So I would gladly pay an extra $5 for a SACD over a CD, providing it has better mastering behind it.  Apart from the fact that SACDs sell for much more than $$5 extra, I certainly would not pay that extra blindly without information on that mastering, in fact given that many CDs (particularly early CDs) sound better than the later SACD versions, I generally avoid SACDs.

Btw, even the audiophiles taking part in the M&M study who used their own stereos, in their own homes, playing their own music and taking as much time as they wanted could not do better than a flip of a coin.


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> I'm not sure where you got that "at least the majority" and "most of the time" as that study is quite clear that no-one could distinguish between CD quality and high resolution at a rate greater than a fair flip of a coin - in other words guessing.  I'm sure that finding doesn't sit well with you but there it is.
> 
> As for your question, well that seems to suggest that you misunderstood the test and importantly the reason why many (though certainly not all) SACDs sound better than the CD - better mastering.  The authors concluded that the masterings of the SACDs "could be released on CDs and would sound identical to the SACD.
> 
> So I would gladly pay an extra $5 for a SACD over a CD, providing it has better mastering behind it.  Apart from the fact that SACDs sell for much more than $$5 extra, I certainly would not pay that extra blindly without information on that mastering, in fact given that many CDs (particularly early CDs) sound better than the later SACD versions, I generally avoid SACDs.



You should try the early CD release vs later SACD release : https://www.discogs.com/Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-Music-By-Frank-Zappa/release/1820934


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> You should try the early CD release vs later SACD release : https://www.discogs.com/Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-Music-By-Frank-Zappa/release/1820934



I'm haven't heard this album but some of the other Zappa CDs were pretty bad.  I think the tapes were in poor condition when they transferred them digitally - in fact, they had to have someone come in to re-record some of the drum parts and it sounds nothing like the orginal.


----------



## analogsurviver (Dec 3, 2018)

old tech said:


> I'm haven't heard this album but some of the other Zappa CDs were pretty bad.  I think the tapes were in poor condition when they transferred them digitally - in fact, they had to have someone come in to re-record some of the drum parts and it sounds nothing like the orginal.



Please,  RE-READ the link... - with  ALL of the pictures provided.

Here, some hints ... :


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> Please,  RE-READ the link... - with  ALL of the pictures provided.



Rightio, I should have read the link more closely, I didn't realise it is a symphony.

I'm sure the SACD sounds great.


----------



## analogsurviver (Dec 3, 2018)

old tech said:


> Rightio, I should have read the link more closely, I didn't realise it is a symphony.
> 
> I'm sure the SACD sounds great.



It is - perhaps - THE showcase regarding the sound quality,  where initial recording is rather recent ( 1995 ) analogue master tape > LP release ( long out of print, ultra turbo super rare ) > CD release > SACD release. The mastering on the the CD https://www.ebay.com/p/Music-by-Frank-Zappa-by-Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-CD-Mar-2002-Opus-111/80245343 does differ from the one on SACD release ( see Discogs link ), though. 

SACD  release also has CD layer - both are using the same mastering. Selecting the SACD version on your player DOES  yield better sound quality.

Some of the technical info on Opus 3 : http://www.opus3records.com/am_list.html


----------



## Phronesis

WoodyLuvr said:


> Good sir, the only problem I really see you having is the manner in which he communicates not his education or professional background. Whither you can bring yourself to believe/accept it, or not... the man clearly is quite knowledgeable and has an audio-based career under his belt which has been confirmed, countless times, in many other posts and threads. You are simply beating a dead horse now.
> 
> You have inadvertently made this so passionately personal that you unknowingly have allowed him to get well under your skin... your posts now seem to be driven by this made desire to correct and/or outdo him and it has clearly now clouded your own logic and behavior. Again,how does making/keeping it personal... continually calling out an individual's creds... help this thread? It doesn't.
> 
> ...



You’re right. I was irked by his implication that he’s the arbiter of what the “established science” is, and wanted to see if he had any formal scientific (or engineering) education, training, and published research experience. His evasion of my question makes me suspect that he doesn’t, but he can correct that if that’s wrong.  In any case, I’m going to take a break from posting in Sound Science, and I thank all who’ve shared their knowledge and opinions in a civil way, and again castle for his excellent moderation.


----------



## GearMe

Steve999 said:


> There's a song for every sentiment, and a sentiment for every song. I don't know what that means, it just crossed my mind. Oh God. I think in songs. Somebody help me.




I think in songs and movie clips...

Now *that* should establish my elite credentials for this forum...beyond reproach!


----------



## GearMe

analogsurviver said:


> It is - perhaps - THE showcase regarding the sound quality,  where initial recording is rather recent ( 1995 ) analogue master tape > LP release ( long out of print, ultra turbo super rare ) > CD release > SACD release. The mastering on the the CD https://www.ebay.com/p/Music-by-Frank-Zappa-by-Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-CD-Mar-2002-Opus-111/80245343 does differ from the one on SACD release ( see Discogs link ), though.
> 
> *SACD  release also has CD layer - both are using the same mastering. Selecting the SACD version on your player DOES  yield better sound quality....*


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> It is - perhaps - THE showcase regarding the sound quality,  where initial recording is rather recent ( 1995 ) analogue master tape > LP release ( long out of print, ultra turbo super rare ) > CD release > SACD release. The mastering on the the CD https://www.ebay.com/p/Music-by-Frank-Zappa-by-Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-CD-Mar-2002-Opus-111/80245343 does differ from the one on SACD release ( see Discogs link ), though.
> 
> *SACD  release also has CD layer - both are using the same mastering. *Selecting the SACD version on your player DOES  yield better sound quality.
> 
> Some of the technical info on Opus 3 : http://www.opus3records.com/am_list.html


How do you know both layers have the same mastering?  If it sounds different it is either a different mastering or your expectation biases are colouring how you hear the sound.  Quite often with hybrids they do not have the same mastering - the CD layer is either from a 'crippled' version of the DSD layer or another another CD master (perhaps the 1995 CD mastering?).

Look at it on the practical side, it makes more sense to have a less dynamic, more compressed mastering for the CD layer for background playback in for noisier environments.  Otherwise it is somewhat pointless, having the same mastering on both layers given that people who purchase SACDs presumably want to play in on a SACD player.


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> How do you know both layers have the same mastering?  If it sounds different it is either a different mastering or your expectation biases are colouring how you hear the sound.  Quite often with hybrids they do not have the same mastering - the CD layer is either from a 'crippled' version of the DSD layer or another another CD master (perhaps the 1995 CD mastering?).
> 
> Look at it on the practical side, it makes more sense to have a less dynamic, more compressed mastering for the CD layer for background playback in for noisier environments.  Otherwise it is somewhat pointless, having the same mastering on both layers given that people who purchase SACDs presumably want to play in on a SACD player.



OK - at first, you did not even care to look at the links - at least, not properly. Your reply has been of a standard "normalized" pre-concieved type. ( Which. admittedly, for the Zappa CDs, does hold water in more than one case ).

Have YOU heard all of the releases of Omnibus Wind Ensemble playing music of Zappa - LP included ? Did YOU listen to the SACD release ( which DOES have the same mastering - do check the back page photo of the SACD cover with the credentials ). Does not matter sighted, blind, double blind, ABXed - or whatever ( as long as levels are equalized within 0.2 dB or less apart ). It is THAT audible/obvious. You CAN NOT equalize the levels of this one... too dynamic on SACD, it will be either too soft or too loud, depending with reference to which part of the song/take you are tying to get the level within 0.2dB - on the next part, maybe just seconds removed from the reference spot. The original analogue tape is simply too fast ( too much high frequencies, or, if you wish, its rise time too low ) to be correctly represented by RBCD.

As on ANY other release by ANY label, there is no reference tone at reference level that could be equalized by measurement. 

Opus 3 is a very well known in audiophile circuits as one of THE good recording labels - and no way they will EVER go for anything less that they can possibly accomplish. You can completely forget them doing compression, loudness wars, etc - as most of the rest. Their intent has been NEVER to cater for background playback in noisier environments.

I have yet to see a Ferrari ( or put here your dream sports car of choice ) with wheels of a Monster Truck - while hauling a cart with your racing horse worth millions -  up or down the cliffs of Dover ... - one just can't expect a reference recording being turned into a muzak - can YOU ?


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 3, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> You’re right. I was irked by his implication that he’s the arbiter of what the “established science” is, and wanted to see if he had any formal scientific (or engineering) education, training, and published research experience. His evasion of my question makes me suspect that he doesn’t, but he can correct that if that’s wrong.  In any case, I’m going to take a break from posting in Sound Science, and I thank all who’ve shared their knowledge and opinions in a civil way, and again castle for his excellent moderation.



Your call. You’ve offered the mea culpa (many of us have, you’re not so unique in that way), you do greatly improve he s/n ratio here (which we desperately need), and I for one will keep the lamplight on for you! The problems with tone were here before you got here and unless we figure out how to deal with it they will stay, and we could use your help. There are really good alternatives but they are not as close knit but they’re not going down the rabbit hole all the time either. No harm in keeping a foot in both doors, I’ve found. I’ll miss you here, personally.


----------



## dprimary

WoodyLuvr said:


> Very interesting... besides a most likely completely different listening environment at home are/were you using the same monitor/headphone setup?



Everything was the same except the convertor I forgot. I had to the complete the testing in the morning back at work.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> _NOW, AFTER READING THE REPORT, AND CONSIDERING THEIR OVERALL CONCLUSIONS, PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION_...
> 
> I'm offering to sell you both CD and SACD versions of the same album.
> (Let's assume that you have a player that can play either one - so there is no issue there.)
> ...




I would only buy a SACD, for that matter vinyl, or tape if was the only way to get  a recording I really wanted. Even a properly encoded lowly 256 mp3 would be preferred. Since for the first three would I never bother to go through to effort of listening to the format. These days I only have time to hear music in the car, or listen to music laying in bed.


----------



## KeithEmo

I noticed something you said in this post - and I wanted to mention my impression of it from both sides.

On one side, I absolutely agree with you that there are plenty of issues with most modern recordings that fall smack in the middle of what is audible, and where we would be benefit from significant improvement. I would suggest that a lot of audiophiles ignore those details simply out of frustration with not being able to do anything about them. When my favorite band comes out with a new album, recorded with no dynamics whatsoever, there's not much I can do about it. (But you can also see how I might hope, reasonably or not, that, if my equipment was only good _enough_, it might make at least _some_ improvement.)

I would also point out that most speakers are nowhere near "audibly flat" by anybody's definition... and the acoustics in most rooms are also pretty bad. As far as I'm concerned, many people make far too many excuses for ignoring those issues. (I wouldn't own a speaker that I thought sounded bad, regardless of how attractive its cabinet was, or how well it matched my drapes.)

However, as I mentioned in another post, I do seem to sense an actual antipathy towards high-resolution files and a few other things that you and some others here consider to be "useless or unnecessary". I take a lot of measurements, and I own a digital multimeter. As it turns out, most of the time an accuracy of 0.5% would be quite sufficient, and one might even argue that better accuracy would serve no purpose (back in the days of analog meters 2% was considered to be exceptionally good). However, I own and use several meters whose accuracy is more like 0.05%. Oddly, though, nobody says anything about "going down the rabbit hole" because I bought a meter that is ten times more accurate than I'll ever need, just because I prefer a huge safety margin in terms of accuracy (and it didn't cost much more). And, in fact, nobody would act especially surprised if I were to suggest that I was considering a more expensive meter that was even more accurate. I would also note that, even though most test equipment manufacturers go out of the way to tout the superior, and often unnecessary, accuracy of their latest model, they are very rarely accused of "taking advantage of people by selling them accuracy they can't possibly use". 

Is it _REALLY_ so much more unreasonable to buy a file whose frequency response extends to 45 kHz, "just because you prefer to have something a lot better than the minimum you actually need", than it is to buy a sports car that can go 120 mpH and accelerate like the wind, or a precision stainless steel ruler that's accurate to 1/64", even though we all know that 1/8" is plenty accurate for that magazine rack you're building? Have you considered the possibility that some audiophiles simply enjoy knowing that their equipment, and their music, is significantly _better_ than they'll ever need, instead of "just good enough"? Some of us simply think of it like any other luxury item.... we just enjoy knowing it's there.



bigshot said:


> The main theory that audiophiles operate on is the "more is better" theory. If 20Hz to 20kHz is good, then 15Hz to 25kHz must be better. They don't understand that the frequency range is logarithmic and the difference between octaves roughly doubles every time. So a number like 25kHz sounds nice and big, but it barely represents a single note on the musical scale. It doesn't matter that they can't even hear it with human ears. If more is better, then perhaps making things they can't hear better will improve things they can. Naturally, this makes no logical sense.
> 
> The same more is better theory is applied to other things, like distortion levels, noise floors, dynamic range and timing error wth similar absurdity. The core of the problem is that audiophiles focus entirely on the specs and numbers of their electronic devices and they really don't have any clue about the specs and numbers as they relate to human hearing. More is better all the way down the rabbit hole of chasing down better inaudible sound. As you say, there are plenty of things that are right smack dab in the middle of our ability to hear that can be dealt with. But I guess that isn't as sexy as using the more is better theory to justify irrelevant race car analogies and cherry picked perceptual studies that have absolutely nothing to do with listening to recorded music in the home.
> 
> Hopefully they don't apply this same twisted logic to the rest of their life, or they'll be filtering their water though a dozen different expensive filtration systems, lining their walls and floors with lead to filter out trace radiation, and buying fancy light bulbs that can produce everything from ultraviolet to infra red. If unchecked, this kind of OCD can consume your entire attention and budget, and prevent you from accomplishing anything at all.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I noticed something you said in this post - and I wanted to mention my impression of it from both sides.
> 
> On one side, I absolutely agree with you that there are plenty of issues with most modern recordings that fall smack in the middle of what is audible, and where we would be benefit from significant improvement. I would suggest that a lot of audiophiles ignore those details simply out of frustration with not being able to do anything about them. When my favorite band comes out with a new album, recorded with no dynamics whatsoever, there's not much I can do about it. (But you can also see how I might hope, reasonably or not, that, if my equipment was only good _enough_, it might make at least _some_ improvement.)
> 
> ...




The desire to own luxury items is a fine topic and makes for an interesting discussion of marketing strategy and human psychology.  I don’t see how it’s relevant in Sound Science.


----------



## KeithEmo

A lot of the recent discussions have included the claim that "ultrasonic frequencies are so heavily attenuated by air that they never reach the listener in significant amounts".
However, with all the anecdotal claims, I haven't seen much actual DATA, so I thought I'd provide some.

Here's a link to a calculator provided by the UK National Physical Laboratory to calculate the attenuation of sound by air.
(It lets you enter the frequency, air pressure, temperature, and relative humidity).

http://resource.npl.co.uk/acoustics/techguides/absorption/

As an example:
Frequency = 30 kHz
Pressure = 101 kPA (International Standard Atmosphere at mean sea level - according to them)
Relative Humidity = 20%
Temperature = 20 degrees Celsius ("room temperature")

The attenuation, at 30 kHz, under those conditions, is 0.647 dB / meter
Under the same conditions, the attenuation at 25 kHz is 0.580 dB / meter

For comparison, I've listed the attenuation of several frequencies under the same conditions:
(note that the attenuation will vary significantly with changes in temperature and relative humidity) 

440 Hz = 0.0023 dB / meter
2500 Hz = 0.032 dB / meter
10 kHz = 0.284 dB / meter
15 kHz = 0.414 dB / meter
20 kHz = 0.506 dB / meter
25 kHz = 0.580 dB / meter
30 kHz = 0.647 dB / meter
40 kHz = 0.785 dB / meter

This suggests several things.......
1) There in fact is significant attenuation of even audible high frequencies at the distances you might typically encounter in a living room or concert hall
2) Attenuation of even relatively high ultrasonic frequencies is significant - _BUT FAR FROM ABSOLUTE_ - at typical listening distances
3) Attenuation of even high ultrasonic frequencies at one or two meters (at the distance of a "close mic", for example, on a drum set) is relatively minor


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree - it is not at all relevant in the area of "pure science".

However, to be fair, the more than occasional assertions that "the idea that high-resolution files sound better is a sinister plot by marketers to sell you something" isn't science either.
(Is the claim that "high-res files sound better" any less reasonable or honest than the idea that "luxury watches are better" or that "diamonds are better than cubic zirconia"?)

Many folks here seem to feel that this forum should be devoted to "practical issues" and "informing consumers so they can avoid being cheated"...
And, by that standard, there would seem to me to be a distinct practical difference between "snake oil" and "a legitimate but totally unnecessary luxury item"...
(The term "snake oil" carries with it the connotation of being misled or cheated; whereas "luxury items" simply carry the connotation of being unnecessary matters of personal preference.)

I'm simply pointing out that, topologically, there is no difference whatsoever between:
- a car that can go faster than you will ever drive it
- a meter that delivers measurement accuracy far greater than you will even need
- a DAC or other piece of audio equipment that can faithfully reproduce frequencies you may never hear

And, while some people may buy any of those three out of an ignorant believe that they actually _need_ it, others may simply enjoy them as "luxury items".
I've never seen a post on an automotive science forum exhorting people to avoid being_ tricked_ into buying a really fast car that they'll never even possibly have a need for.
And, for that matter, I've never seen anyone claim that Jaguar and Tesla are "misleading people" by suggesting that they buy fast cars.



bfreedma said:


> The desire to own luxury items is a fine topic and makes for an interesting discussion of marketing strategy and human psychology.  I don’t see how it’s relevant in Sound Science.


----------



## KeithEmo

I quite agree.....

But I think I can answer your question about why.

Meyer and Moran weren't really trying to "perform science" or "add to basic knowledge" in the general sense.
They quite specifically set out to determine if most people would find the entire CD reproduction chain to be "audibly transparent" or not.
They were looking for the answer to a particular question - but the question itself was somewhat broad.
They were basically testing the assertion that "most people won't hear the difference" as a "yes or no proposition".
They were hoping to cover a variety of different variables "in one go" and be able to deliver a general conclusion that "none of the variables made any difference".
(The alternative result would have simply been: "some of the variables apparently made a difference after all".) 

I've had similar experiences to yours with converters.
One time I downloaded two files, both converted from the same DSD x 2 original to 24/96k PCM, but using two different top rated converter programs (both at their default settings).
The author posted them to ask opinions about which one was preferred (the test was blind in that we weren't told which file had been made using which converter).
I would not say that one file sounded better than the other - and I would have been perfectly satisfied with either one - but there were tiny differences.
And, once discussion started, it was plain that most listeners noticed similar differences.
And, yes, these were differences in the audible frequency range, that could be seen on an editor..... but they were tiny.

For example, at one point in the recording, a small bell was struck several times.....
- in one copy the first strike seemed to be louder than the subsequent strikes
- but, in the other copy, the second strike seemed to be slightly louder than the first (or the first strike was slightly subdued)
(and, yes, when you looked at both in an editor, the waveforms looked a little different)

Were they important or significant differences?
No.
Could I have identified, in a test using other files, which converter was used?
I very much doubt it.
But, were the files "audibly identical"?
No.



dprimary said:


> The problem with the Meyer and Moran study is that is testing too many variables at once so it more surprising how many participants ending in the random chance range. They are reducing bandwidth, reducing resolution and then just for fun they are add a second piece of equipment in one of the playback chains introducing countless variables. Only three people or three trials (I can't tell from the paper) could tell something better than random chance.
> 
> This was done years after Bob Katz and JJ did the 44k vs 96k tests which JJ right insisted they be a single variable test, why is Meyer and Moran not a single variable test? Bob was very excited about 96k when it came out, JJ told him it made no deference, unlike here they spend many month hashing out the test protocol, Bob creating the test recordings , JJ writing the 96k and 44k filters. While Bob was preping the recordings he admitted he could not tell the difference between the original , the 96k filtered and 44k filtered. All in one of the top master studios in the world with the best equipment you can find.
> 
> ...


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I agree - it is not at all relevant in the area of "pure science".
> 
> However, to be fair, the more than occasional assertions that "the idea that high-resolution files sound better is a sinister plot by marketers to sell you something" isn't science either.
> (Is the claim that "high-res files sound better" any less reasonable or honest than the idea that "luxury watches are better" or that "diamonds are better than cubic zirconia"?)
> ...




Aside from the deflection and obfuscation, your analogies are false equivalences.

To date, we have not reliably established that DACs or Hi-Rez music can be of value beyond human audibility in any scenario on the topic at hand - music reproduction/playback.

There are multiple scenarios where a car may be driven faster than typical or expected when purchased (track days, emergencies) and situations where a meter's ability to measure more accurately can be utilized (medical equipment testing, measurement compliance testing).

Again, the discussion of luxury as a way to vet the validity of purchasing DACs etc. is an interesting topic.  It's just not fit for this subforum.


----------



## Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> Again, the discussion of luxury as a way to vet the validity of purchasing DACs etc. is an interesting topic. It's just not fit for this subforum.


If a dac seller says: my dac make you feel like wearing Armani is one thing. But they use a different vocabulary. And it sounds always the same. They always present solutions to problems that do not exist. The psalm of clocks, jitter and filters.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 3, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> I did learn how much the introduction of audible harmonics introduces so many new variables into the situation, even more than I had previously appreciated, both at the low end and the high end.!



The difference between the way different bass instruments sound is due to harmonics. I'm sure you've heard lots of examples of bass that sounds like a plucked string bass with several octaves of harmonic content to the sound from the pluck all the way down to the fundamental. And I'm sure you've heard funk bands where the bass player dials out all the harmonics and plays a bass line that you feel more than hear as a melody. Harmonics are the thing that makes one instrument sound different than another.



Indiana said:


> They always present solutions to problems that do not exist. The psalm of clocks, jitter and filters.



Boy! You can say that again! When the whole jitter thing was hot, I realized that it dealt with an area of sound reproduction that I hadn't considered before. So I spent a week diving into it and researching it and I puzzled it out. At the end, I realized that I had wasted a whole week on theoretical sound that didn't exist in practice. And when it comes to timing errors, the best turntable introduces more error than the worst CD player by several orders of magnitude.

There is a tendency among high end audio salesmen to look for a theoretical problem that they can advertise that they have discovered a cure for. I'm beginning to think that RF in USB qualifies as the latest and greatest version of this. I'm getting better at asking the questions that makes it easier to spot them.



old tech said:


> I'm haven't heard this album but some of the other Zappa CDs were pretty bad.  I think the tapes were in poor condition when they transferred them digitally - in fact, they had to have someone come in to re-record some of the drum parts and it sounds nothing like the orginal.



That isn't the issue on that particular album. It's just plain old different mastering on the CD than the SACD. In order to compare CD to SACD fairly, you need to find an SACD with the exact same mastering on the redbook layer. It's harder than it seems. When I was doing my listening test on this, I discovered that there were often big differences between the layers on an SACD, especially with rock albums. I found a Rolling Stones SACD where it wasn't just different mastering, the redbook layer had an old mix done for LPs and the SACD layer had a brand new digital remix. Everything about the two were different.

If someone wants to do a comparison test for themselves, I'd suggest using a Pentatone disc. They only sell SACDs, but many people who buy them don't have SACD players and only listen to the redbook layer. This means that they are not motivated to hobble the redbook layer to justify the SACD format.

When I did my test, I used this Pentatone disc, which was recorded in native DSD and has a redbook layer that is identical to the SACD layer. Neither me nor my friend who was helping me with the blind test could tell any difference between the layers.

http://www.pentatonemusic.com/stravinsky-lhistoire-du-soldat-die-deutschekammerphilharonie-bremen

One thing to keep in mind is that the CD layer is usually quieter than the SACD layer. If you don't level match carefully enough, you will think the SACD sounds better because of the volume difference.

Woodyluvr, I think what we are seeing is an absorption with the self, a hyper focus on a single topic, and the inability to treat others as people. That might not be something that's able to be changed. A little vacation will probably help.

on another subject...

As I explained before I think that spending money on things that don't matter fits under the definition of expendable income. Anyone is free to spend money on whatever they want. They can throw it in the fireplace just to watch it burn and I'd say that is their right. But you yourself know that you can't hear a difference above 256 compressed audio. Buying something more than that for purely theoretical reasons when you know that it offers no practical or aesthetic benefit is certainly unwise, and perhaps even kind of dumb. If you have expendable income, I think smart ways of spending it would be on travel, or more music, or art or literature. All of those things can enrich your life in tangible practical ways. Superfluous zeros and ones do absolutely nothing except take up space on a shelf or fill up a hard drive with digital packing peanuts. It's a waste of money and a waste of space.

Here's an analogy for you... The quality of a Christmas present isn't judged by the size of the package. I didn't realize that when I was 5 years old, but I learned that by the time I was 9!


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> The difference between the way different bass instruments sound is due to harmonics. I'm sure you've heard lots of examples of bass that sounds like a plucked string bass with several octaves of harmonic content to the sound from the pluck all the way down to the fundamental. And I'm sure you've heard funk bands where the bass player dials out all the harmonics and plays a bass line that you feel more than hear as a melody. Harmonics are the thing that makes one instrument sound different than another.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The point about harmonics can't be emphasized enough. I've seen a post or two that misinterprets the frequency vs. highest-note-of-orchestral-instruments chart to mean that the maximum useful frequency is actually quite low, because they're looking at fundamentals and not harmonics. 

This really doesn't have much or anything to do with ultrasonics, but it should at least make you appreciate upper treble as something worth caring about. 

Anyway something like this will make the importance of harmonics obvious in very short order, plus is fun: https://meettechniek.info/additional/additive-synthesis.html


----------



## bigshot

I would say that the importance of upper harmonics is exactly the same as the importance of frequency bands for fundamentals. Human hearing has a sweet spot and it becomes less discerning at the bleeding edges of our ability to hear. The most important harmonics would be the ones that fall between 2kHz and 5kHz. The least important ones would be the ones between 10kHz and 20kHz (and 20 and 40Hz). Everything is relative and bigger numbers aren't necessarily more important.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Well, as you say, it's all relative, although I'd be almost equally unhappy with a system that had a lowpass at 5Khz as 10.  

But the important thing to remember is that harmonics make up almost the ENTIRE character of a musical tone, I mostly wanted to echo your point along those lines.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> The difference between the way different bass instruments sound is due to harmonics. I'm sure you've heard lots of examples of bass that sounds like a plucked string bass with several octaves of harmonic content to the sound from the pluck all the way down to the fundamental. And I'm sure you've heard funk bands where the bass player dials out all the harmonics and plays a bass line that you feel more than hear as a melody. Harmonics are the thing that makes one instrument sound different than another.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have - most clearly - explained that both CD and SACD layers on the disc in question ( Opus 3 CD19423 )

https://www.discogs.com/Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-Music-By-Frank-Zappa/release/1820934

are the same mastering. Which is different from the earlier CD only release ( Opus 3 CD19403 ) 

https://www.discogs.com/Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-Music-By-Frank-Zappa/release/4102340

And I said the CD and SACD  layers of CD19423 do not sound equal.  RBCD is just plain too slow to match the speed original analogue tape has - there is no way it can match the pulse response obtained by SACD/DSD64, which can take advantage of a superiour analogue master tape. 

I do not know or claim similar for other SACDs - they may well be actually different masterings for CD and SACD  layer. But NOT  in the case of CD19423 !


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> I've been trained to not click through things unless I know what I'm clicking them for. Did this test involve ultrasonic frequencies in recordings of music? If you have a quote involving that, I would be very interested. Just cut and paste me a paragraph involving that. I've done considerable googling on this subject and I'm looking for evidence that it is necessary for recorded music playback. using normal speakers or headphones and consumer audio equipment.



Ha, I'll give you credit for admitting you didn't even bother to read the evidence I linked in the post you replied to. But as a result, you're completetly barking up the wrong tree... it's obvious that you also missed my subsequent post:


james444 said:


> Just for the record, I'm not advocating that ultrasonic frequencies have any practical merit in audio reproduction. But there seems to be some scientific evidence that they can be perceived / "heard" via bone conduction.



So, for the last time, my post was simply a reply to gregorio's question:


> ... where's your significant evidence for 20kHz not being an upper limit for human hearing?



No more, no less. Not a word about "perceived sound fidelity" or "necessity for recorded music playback". Just "upper limit for human hearing". Hope I could clarify that for you.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 3, 2018)

Just to let you know, James. If you start out your post with an argumentative snarky comment I won't read the rest of it at all. This one is a case in point. I'm not required to read and respond to anything here. I choose to read the posts that have useful information and remain respectful.

If someone has really done an A/B switched, line level matched, blind comparison of SACD and CD, then they know what the first question about the testing procedures would be...


----------



## bigshot

Zapp_Fan said:


> Well, as you say, it's all relative, although I'd be almost equally unhappy with a system that had a lowpass at 5Khz as 10.



Try it and see. I've done lots of playing around ducking out each of the octaves using an equalizer and 10-20kHz is a lot less important than you might think. We listen to sound without the upper octave all the time on TV and the radio and in the car and none of us complains. I think the importance of the various octaves is directly related to how well we can hear them.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> Try it and see. I've done lots of playing around ducking out each of the octaves using an equalizer and 10-20kHz is a lot less important than you might think. We listen to sound without the upper octave all the time on TV and the radio and in the car and none of us complains. I think the importance of the various octaves is directly related to how well we can hear them.



I'm pretty familiar with what it would sound like. It would be a pretty obvious deficiency either way, which is why it would make me equally dissatisfied.  It's hard to listen to something when it has a distracting flaw like that.  I mean losing the top octave is obviously not as bad as losing two octaves, but it's still bad.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 3, 2018)

It really isn't that obvious. The top octave is quite subtle. Next time you have something racked up in a sound editing program, try it. I think you'll be surprised. It's a continuum. I'm not saying that stuff above 10kHz is inaudible or useless, I'm just saying that of the 9 octaves humans can hear, that one is the least important to the reproduction of music. There's almost no fundamentals up there. Only a few harmonics. And none of it can be discerned as pitch. All it amounts to is a little bit of air on the top end of cymbals.

I looked at youtube to see if I could find an example, but everyone has videos with tones, none with music.


----------



## castleofargh

here is where I stand right now:
+ we shouldn't reject audibility above 20khz as we have some kids who notice 22khz or even higher just fine and that alone disproves the notion that nobody is hearing ultrasounds. 
- just because we can find some dude somewhere who can notice something under specific conditions with specific test signal, doesn't mean we have to suddenly make everything for that dude. I wouldn't necessarily mind such a world, but if we go there, I have a long list of demands I want to put above ultrasounds in music. even in audio that wouldn't be at the top of my list. 


+ I see zero issue with having high res tracks, if someone wants it, he buys it. that's obviously not what is being discussed here. 
- the desire for something, the feeling that it matters, and an actual change in the experience from having it. all 3 can happen without any change in what we're really hearing. that's a fact, so I have an issue with people who think any of those 3 situations is proof that the extra frequencies have to be there to make an audible difference. I believe the notion of high res is a potent source of subjective improvement, but I have yet to see convincing evidence(or experience myself) that actual ultrasounds have much of anything to do with it.


----------



## bigshot

The next step of advancement in audio fidelity is going to be audio processing, not more data and bigger files.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> It really isn't that obvious. The top octave is quite subtle. Next time you have something racked up in a sound editing program, try it. I think you'll be surprised. It's a continuum. I'm not saying that stuff above 10kHz is inaudible or useless, I'm just saying that of the 9 octaves humans can hear, that one is the least important to the reproduction of music. There's almost no fundamentals up there. Only a few harmonics. And none of it can be discerned as pitch. All it amounts to is a little bit of air on the top end of cymbals.
> 
> I looked at youtube to see if I could find an example, but everyone has videos with tones, none with music.



Just tried it, we're going to have to agree to disagree, I think putting a steep lowpass at 10khz sounds pretty awful.  Sure, no fundamentals or lower harmonics are lost, but if there are any vocal fricatives or cymbals or anything like that, the effect is dire and obvious.  This is a matter of opinion, but if you could listen to music lowpassed there without feeling motivated to fix it, that would be pretty amazing to me.


----------



## bigshot

Now try ducking out other octaves and compare. This kind of dire isn't as dire as between 880 and 1760 or between 1760 and 3250. I think you'll find that the octaves from 20 to 40 and 10kHz to 20kHz are the least dire of all of them. Like I say, it's all relative. I'm not saying that taking it out doesn't affect the sound. I'm saying it affects the sound less than any other audible octaves. This is because our hearing is less discerning at the outside edges of our hearing range.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 3, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> Well, as you say, it's all relative, although I'd be almost equally unhappy with a system that had a lowpass at 5Khz as 10.
> 
> But the important thing to remember is that harmonics make up almost the ENTIRE character of a musical tone, I mostly wanted to echo your point along those lines.



Can't agree with you there. _*Massive *_difference between cutting off at 5khz as opposed to 10khz. Upper reach of piano is 4k and we've got harmonics a little above that are essential to hear the character of what's going on. And 5khz low-pass will _kill_ the drums. IMHO.

Based on my experimentation and understanding and reading I am going to kind of split the difference between the two of you--low pass around 14 khz and I think anything you miss would be negligible. IMHO. &etc. Actually I think it's more like 12-13khz but I'm bumping it up to 14 khz for a little margin for error and a little less room for argument.

*As to the essential point, agreed, and even moreso than I thought after some experimentation this weekend*--the tone and character of an instrument depends _enormously_ on harmonics. It's a piece of understanding an learning that would fit extremely well in the toolkit of any hi-fi enthusiast or anyone who is interested in reproduction of music. Musicians are just going to play the damn instrument and try to get it to sound good but recording and reproduction complicate things enormously.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

20 to 40hz in particular,while impressive sounding/feeling seems musically insignificant.While 10khz to 20khz seems to to add that last bit of space and ambiance it certainly isn't the difference between enjoying and not enjoying a piece of music.Good music is enjoyable on car stereos,clock radios,crappy computer speakers ect.Btw youtube is brickwalled at 15khz and i don't hear any complaints.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 3, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> 20 to 40hz in particular,while impressive sounding/feeling seems musically insignificant.While 10khz to 20khz seems to to add that last bit of space and ambiance it certainly isn't the difference between enjoying and not enjoying a piece of music.Good music is enjoyable on car stereos,clock radios,crappy computer speakers ect.Btw youtube is brickwalled at 15khz and i don't hear any complaints.



I think with what I call young people music 27-40 hz is very much a part of it, you just can't discern the pitch, but that _feeling _has worked its way into our music in several genres, and is an element of what is greatly enjoyed, if and when it's reproduced. (Old man with subwoofer who likes to check out young people music speaking here.)

[Edit--went down to 27 hz since a lot of keyboards are going to reach down there.]

With old people music not so much.


----------



## bigshot

Glmoneydawg said:


> 20 to 40hz in particular,while impressive sounding/feeling seems musically insignificant.



That may be because the music you were listening to didn't have much content in that range. 20Hz to 40Hz is mostly present in hip hop and organ music. Not so much in classic rock or top 40.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Steve999 said:


> I think with what I call young people music 35-40 hz is very much a part of it, you just can't discern the pitch, but that _feeling _has worked its way into our music in several genres, and is an element of what is greatly enjoyed, if and when it's reproduced. (Old man with subwoofer who likes to check out young people music speaking here.)
> 
> With old people music not so much.


My speakers/room are reasonably flat down to 20hz..the only time i appreciate it is when i'm setting up my bass section and playing my setup frequency sweep.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Dec 3, 2018)

bigshot said:


> That may be because the music you were listening to didn't have much content in that range. 20Hz to 40Hz is mostly present in hip hop and organ music. Not so much in classic rock or top 40.


Agreed....hip hop is artificially bloated at the bottom end though...and i do love me some Misourski Pictures music...oh yeah...an hour ago you where arguing that 20 to 40hz weren't that important. ...mixed signals here.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 3, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> My speakers/room are reasonably flat down to 20hz..the only time i appreciate it is when i'm setting up my bass section and playing my setup frequency sweep.



But in the middle of the music, how do you know whether or not the keyboardist is vamping on a low A (27 hz?) and a few notes up? Or the bass player has a 5 string bass and so is going a perfect 4th interval lower than 40 hz, for _effect, (_more and more common, even in jazz fusion).

The point being, in the middle of all that traffic, the low frequencies _feel_ good, even if you notice it best in a frequency sweep. Of course the recording has to have that content. It can be mimicked by upper harmonics but the real deal feels different, like rock solid bone cold.

If a pianist decides he is going to hit his low A, that's 27.5 hertz. _I wanna hear it, _not just the harmonics that clue my brain in that something happened down there.

It doesn't have to be artificially bloated, it can be balanced and clean and LOW.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Steve999 said:


> But in the middle of the music, how do you know whether or not the keyboardist is vamping on a low c (27 hz?) Or the bass player has a 5 string bass and so is going a perfect 4th interval lower than 40 hz, for _effect, (_more and more common, even in jazz fusion).
> 
> The point being, in the middle of all that traffic, the low frequencies _feel_ good, even if you notice it best in a frequency sweep. Of course the recording has to have that content. It can be mimicked by upper harmonics but the real deal feels different, like rock solid bone cold.


I know because my wife will come downstairs and visit my soundroom.....and ask me if i have lost my mind


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 3, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> I know because my wife will come downstairs and visit my soundroom.....and ask me if i have lost my mind



LOL!

I should have said a low A by the way, at 27.5 hz.

And yes, I've been there. Even my teenage kids think I'm a bit . . . LOUD and LOW.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Steve999 said:


> LOL!
> 
> I should have said a low A by the way, at 27.5 hz.
> 
> And yes, I've been there. Even my teenage kids think I'm a bit . . . LOUD.


Lol yep...just saying there's not a lot of music that takes advantage of our ability to reproduce deep bass.I still love it when its present though!


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Well, what I mean is a lowpass at 5khz is unacceptable for my listening equipment, so is a lowpass at 10khz. A fail is a fail, it's like asking me if I want a brick or broken glass for lunch.  The glass is worse, but neither one is lunch.

I'm not disputing that different bands being removed hurt the sound more.


----------



## Steve999

Glmoneydawg said:


> Btw youtube is brickwalled at 15khz and i don't hear any complaints.



Interesting piece of info. Thanks,


----------



## analogsurviver

Glmoneydawg said:


> 20 to 40hz in particular,while impressive sounding/feeling seems musically insignificant.While 10khz to 20khz seems to to add that last bit of space and ambiance it certainly isn't the difference between enjoying and not enjoying a piece of music.Good music is enjoyable on car stereos,clock radios,crappy computer speakers ect.Btw youtube is brickwalled at 15khz and i don't hear any complaints.



Agreed that the extremes are less significant than core frequencies. However, that last bit of space and ambience I definitely DO find important for the enjoyment of music. And that's why I insist on having > 20 kHz.

It depends on what you are usually listening to. 

Live ? It has unlimited response - from DC to > 100 kHz. How much more, where is the actual limit - currently unknown, as both the microphones and recorders at the time are not accurate above 100 kHz.

Analogue ? From approx 5 Hz to approx anything between 25 kHz and 50 kHz - depending on the actual equipment used.

RBCD ? DC to 22050 Hz - flat to 20 kHz.

MP3 ? DC to 16 kHz.

HiRez ? DC up to 100 kHz, maybe double that with the latest ADC/DAC combos - but nobody is supplying a concrete spec, only deductible from the sampling frequencies used. Nobody in HiRez is going to brickwall filter the output - and flat output is likely to be considerably lower in frequency than RBCD bricwall type filtering would yield. 

And, YES, I will go to the claim that I complain regarding youtube brickwalling above 15 kHz. To hear that for yourself, all it takes is a weekend using Stax headphones watching videos on YT. Then, use ANY reasonably high quality turntable and record that is in decent condition - and try to compare the sound of the same song on YT with that from the turntable. If you put a bit more effort, you may well find EXACTLY THE SAME PRESSING ( not only mastering...) as that spinninng on your TT.

Just because the tiny fraction of a percent or promile or whatever the number does such comparisons - and the vast majority does not - does not mean the difference does not exist or that it is not audible. It can be painful to the point you can't listen to the YT for some time after being exposed to the original.

Watching movies on YT using Stax rig brings a wealth of information you would otherwise simply - miss. And it learns you pretty quick that Hollywod type of professionaly done movie sound can only go so far - there definitely IS beyond that, but  you will have to invest great deal of time and if english is your native language, swallow the fact that most likely you will be forced to read subtitles.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with everything you've said here - but it is also largely irrelevant. 

I often listen to SiriusXM radio in my car. 
I like the stations, and the DJs, and I get to hear some new music without any annoying commercials.
However, I wouldn't listen to it in my living room - because the audio quality is noticeably and annoyingly inferior.
But, when I'm driving, that isn't the priority (I can't exactly sit back, close my eyes, and concentrate on the music).
I've also been known to watch a TV set in a sports bar that has a fuzzy picture and dubious color accuracy.

I agree that many audiophiles probably have a poor perspective on how important accurate reproduction is.
And I also agree that many people who don't fancy themselves to be audiphiles don't care at all.
And that goes for accurate full range frequency response, various types of distortion, and noise.
Sure, I _CAN_ listen to a TV show on a TV with a 4" speaker... and I can watch it on one that's standard def.
However, I will usually enjoy it _MORE_ if the sound is high fidelity, and the picture is high-resolution.

Obviously the relative importance of each of those things is up to each of us as an individual.
However, from the point of sound science, none of that is relevant.
All that matters is whether it is _POSSIBLE_ for us to tell the difference...
If we consider it to be important and choose to listen for it.

I have VERY FEW audio recordings that actually contain a 32 Hz organ note.
However, when I play one of them, I still very much want to hear it coming out of my speakers.
Likewise, perhaps only a few intruments, like cymbals, have a significant amount of high frequency harmonics.
However, when I play a well recorded track that includes cymbals, I want them there in the proper amounts.



bigshot said:


> Try it and see. I've done lots of playing around ducking out each of the octaves using an equalizer and 10-20kHz is a lot less important than you might think. We listen to sound without the upper octave all the time on TV and the radio and in the car and none of us complains. I think the importance of the various octaves is directly related to how well we can hear them.


----------



## KeithEmo

There are big differences between "audible", " noticeable", "significant", and "important"...
And each of us has different standards for each.

For example, when asked how to "set up a subwoofer properly by ear", the most common response from anyone in the home theater industry will be: "Turn the sub up until you can just hear it... then turn it down a little bit. You should _NOT_ notice a subwoofer as a source of sound. However, if you turn it _OFF_, you'll notice that the music sounds less solid, and less physically palpable."

Most people really don't make the distinction whether they actually hear 20 Hz - or whether they feel it - or a little bit of both. But they do notice that old T-Rex doesn't shake the floor, and you don't _feel_ his roar, when the sub isn't working. My point is that it's not necessarily especially useful to make distinctions about whether a bass note is heard, or felt, or both. The point is that, whether most people can _hear_ 20 Hz, or 32 Hz, or not, many of them will notice if the lowest octave is missing from the sound track of the movie they're watching, or from a well-recorded organ track. And the same holds true for that last little bit of "air" at the top end. You can live without it - but things sound better when it's there.



Glmoneydawg said:


> 20 to 40hz in particular,while impressive sounding/feeling seems musically insignificant.While 10khz to 20khz seems to to add that last bit of space and ambiance it certainly isn't the difference between enjoying and not enjoying a piece of music.Good music is enjoyable on car stereos,clock radios,crappy computer speakers ect.Btw youtube is brickwalled at 15khz and i don't hear any complaints.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree.

I see no point in arguing about which terrible flaws are less intolerable...
Since we are quite capable of eliminating them with a little effort.



Zapp_Fan said:


> Well, what I mean is a lowpass at 5khz is unacceptable for my listening equipment, so is a lowpass at 10khz. A fail is a fail, it's like asking me if I want a brick or broken glass for lunch.  The glass is worse, but neither one is lunch.
> 
> I'm not disputing that different bands being removed hurt the sound more.


----------



## KeithEmo

That is interesting...

I've watched, and listened to, a lot of Youtube videos....
And, while I often enjoy them, I don't recall every hearing one that I thought sounded "good" let alone "very good"....



Glmoneydawg said:


> 20 to 40hz in particular,while impressive sounding/feeling seems musically insignificant.While 10khz to 20khz seems to to add that last bit of space and ambiance it certainly isn't the difference between enjoying and not enjoying a piece of music.Good music is enjoyable on car stereos,clock radios,crappy computer speakers ect.Btw youtube is brickwalled at 15khz and i don't hear any complaints.


----------



## james444

Glmoneydawg said:


> Btw youtube is brickwalled at 15khz and i don't hear any complaints.



It's funny they have a lot of hearing tests with frequency sweeps from 20Hz to 20kHz. For example this "20Hz to 20kHz Earrape":


And some people comment they hear something at 18k, but if you analyze the audio it looks like this:


----------



## castleofargh

james444 said:


> It's funny they have a lot of hearing tests with frequency sweeps from 20Hz to 20kHz. For example this "20Hz to 20kHz Earrape":
> 
> 
> And some people comment they hear something at 18k, but if you analyze the audio it looks like this:



with so many people saying they can hear something at 17 or 18kHz on that sweep, you shouldn't reject the possibility that they really do.  
oh wait! ^_^

just in case I also checked at various resolution settings for the vid, same thing.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> with so many people saying they can hear something at 17 or 18kHz on that sweep, you shouldn't reject the possibility that they really do.
> oh wait! ^_^
> 
> just in case I also checked at various resolution settings for the vid, same thing.



It is perfectly possible for the people using lower quality devices to hear "something" up there ; decent devices should be quiet, but not-so-decent might well emit some kind of noise/distortion. Whatever it is, it is not intended signal, though.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] I'm not an expert in any aspect of audio or electronics
> [2] I have enough relevant science and engineering background to engage in discussions about measurements, test methodology, how science works, limits of theory, etc.



1. Yes, that's been clearly established.
2. You've actually established the exact opposite. You demonstrated that you didn't know that digital audio data is in fact just a measurement but worse still, you demonstrated that you didn't even know that a measurement could be represented as binary (digital information). How that's possible in this day and age, when it's taught at school, let alone in university, is mind boggling for someone claiming to have a formal, relevant science/engineering education! Clearly you do not and cannot engage in a discussion about measurements and the "limits of theory" as it applies to digital audio if you don't understand even the basics of how and what digital is. You continually deflect from this fact by casting aspersions on others and quoting cognitive errors, when you yourself have virtually no understanding of the subject. Dunning-Kruger taken to the extreme!

For the record, I am not a research scientist, I'm an audio engineer. I do not have a degree in the subject because when I started there were no degree courses in the subject, education in the subject was effectively by means of the apprenticeship model, so I'm not self-taught or rather, only partially self-taught. Ironically, that is why I was originally employed by the university in the first place, to design a degree course! My university (conservertoire) education was in the field of music performance, so as I did not have a degree in the specific subject area I had to undergo endless rounds of internal and external examinations, which eventually assessed my knowledge and certified me to teach students up to and including PhD level. In practise, I've been certified and employed as an expert in the field by universities, research scientists, industry bodies and a government, just to name a few and you've got what, a measly degree in an unrelated subject? However, I'm not a great fan of appeals to authority (and even less so with appeals to effectively ignorance!) and none of this is relevant most of the time here anyway, because we're often not talking about who is or is not currently a research scientist, we're talking about research that was done and dusted (and proven!) 200 years ago, 150 years ago in the case of electrical properties and 70 years ago in the case of digital audio!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Most current studio recordings don't contain much musical information above 20 kHz.
> [2] The reason for that is that most studio microphones have little response above 20 kHz.
> [2a] (And most recording engineers don't expend any effort trying to record them or preserve them during the mix.)
> [3] And the reason for that is that information above 20 Khz isn't considered to be useful because it is assumed that nobody can hear above 20 kHz.
> ...



1. By and large true.
2. Also true.
2a. Not entirely true but again, by and large true.
3. Sort of true.
4. Correct, it doesn't by itself prove that.
5. And there we have it yet again! Some true or partially true statements followed by a completely false statement and a totally fallacious conclusion! You have in fact got it entirely backwards, we "go with the assumption" precisely because we HAVE "tested the possibility"! The reason we assume >20kHz content isn't useful is because ALL the evidence and practicalities of music recording creation demonstrates that it is NOT useful, while there's NO evidence to suggest that it might be, which incidentally is why most studio mics are designed to have little response above 20kHz!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Generally microphones are chosen to "sound good" - which includes being able to pick up whatever frequencies contribute to that result.
> [2] I have little doubt that, if tests were to find that "cymbals sound better when recorded with microphones whose response extends to 30 kHz".... We would soon see studio microphones, designed specifically for cymbals, whose response extends to 30 kHz... and sold specifically for recording cymbals.
> [3] I've personally made very few recordings... And I've certainly never recorded a drum kit using a microphone whose response extends to 30 kHz "just to see if anyone thinks it sounds better"... Have you actually tried it?



1. Interesting, you do in fact have at least a very basic idea of why mics are chosen. Why then do you keep inventing scenarios and quoting mics which are contrary to this requirement? Hmmm!
2. Agreed, that's a logical idea, nothing wrong with it at all. However, in reality it's nonsense because we have done exhaustive tests and cymbals do not sound better when recorded with mics whose response extends to 30kHz and that's precisely why, after 20+ years of testing, there are no mics specifically designed for recording cymbals!!!!
3. You're joking right? If you suddenly had access to a new technology, what would be the very first thing you'd do with it? Wouldn't you test those new technology aspects exhaustively and start with the most likely and common source to expose that technology? So, of course I've actually tried it, countless times over many years and so has pretty much every experienced commercial sound engineer.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Is it _REALLY_ so much more unreasonable to buy a file whose frequency response extends to 45 kHz, "just because you prefer to have something a lot better than the minimum you actually need",
> [1a] ... than it is to buy a sports car that can go 120 mpH and accelerate like the wind, or a precision stainless steel ruler that's accurate to 1/64", even though we all know that 1/8" is plenty accurate for that magazine rack you're building? [1b] Have you considered the possibility that some audiophiles simply enjoy knowing that their equipment, and their music, is significantly _better_ than they'll ever need, instead of "just good enough"?



1. Yes, it is unreasonable because it's just a marketing lie that you're getting "something a lot better than the minimum". What you're actually getting in the best case scenario is something that's exactly the same and commonly, something that's actually worse!
1a. Is it unreasonable to buy and pay extra for a sports car that is advertised as a sports car with 120MPH top speed but at best only performs the same as a ford fiesta and at least some of the time can't even keep up with a ford fiesta?
1b. And have you, as a member of the trade, ever considered the possibility that convincing audiophiles they're getting something better than they'll ever need and omitting the fact that they've already got something better than they'll ever need (by falsely characterising it as not good enough or "just good enough") is a profitable marketing tactic?



KeithEmo said:


> A lot of the recent discussions have included the claim that "ultrasonic frequencies are so heavily attenuated by air that they never reach the listener in significant amounts".
> [1] However, with all the anecdotal claims, I haven't seen much actual DATA, so I thought I'd provide some.
> [2] The attenuation, at 30 kHz, under those conditions, is 0.647 dB / meter ..



1. Ideal, two falsehoods/fallacious tactics in one sentence, I'm impressed! Firstly, how come you haven't seen much actual DATA when so much of it has been presented, did you "inadvertently" miss it again? (For example this post #10636). Secondly, the old audiophile marketing tactic of providing "some" actual data but "inadvertently" ignoring the other relevant data and thereby misrepresenting the facts/data! ...

2. Under more realistic conditions (50% humidity, as musical instruments do not cope well with low or high humidity), the high freq absorption is 0.937dB/m which at say 20m is a loss of 18.74dB. However, as stated in the previous point (and in previous posts!), that is not the only relevant data! There is also damping of sound level vs distance, IN ADDITION to purely high freq absorption. At 20m (relative to say 0.5 meters) we loose 32.04dB, so now our 30kHz signal is down by 50.78dB. Another piece of ACTUAL DATA you've ignored (despite the fact it's been posted several times) is that in the case of a cymbal, only about 6% of it's energy is above 20kHz. So, we've got a relatively small amount of signal >20kHz to start with and what's left is going to be attenuated by over 50dB. We should also consider the rising thermal noise of mics and mic-preamps with frequency, which definitely comes into play with signal loss over distance and If we're talking about a live situation, then we should also include the significant damping cause by the audience itself. After all this attenuation, there's simply nothing left to record above the noise floor, let alone hear! So yet again, round and round in circles we go, caused by you yet again (inadvertently?) misrepresenting the facts. Are you ever going to stop insulting this forum?



KeithEmo said:


> This suggests several things.......
> 1) There in fact is significant attenuation of even audible high frequencies at the distances you might typically encounter in a living room or concert hall
> 2) Attenuation of even relatively high ultrasonic frequencies is significant - _BUT FAR FROM ABSOLUTE_ - at typical listening distances
> 3) Attenuation of even high ultrasonic frequencies at one or two meters (at the distance of a "close mic", for example, on a drum set) is relatively minor



1. True.
2. True but only if you (inadvertently?) omit the relevant, uncontested facts and (inadvertently?) ignore some of the laws of physics!
3. True but I ask you again (because you refuse to answer) do you or an audience ever sit with your ears one inch away from the snare drum during a performance or a couple of feet away from the cymbals? Have you ever tried it? Have you any idea what it sounds like? Do you even have any idea how preposterous it would be? 



castleofargh said:


> here is where I stand right now: + we shouldn't reject audibility above 20khz as we have some kids who notice 22khz or even higher just fine and that alone disproves the notion that nobody is hearing ultrasounds.



I'm not disputing that given the right conditions 22kHz is audible, in fact quite the opposite, I've stated that given the right conditions, everything is audible, even much higher than 22kHz! The relevant question is: Do those conditions ever exist in the recording and reproduction chains of commercial audio (or live performances) at any reasonable listening level? Firstly of course, no one ever makes commercial audio recording of only a 22kHz tone. >20kHz content (when it does exist) is ONLY the result of higher order harmonics and is tiny in amplitude relative to the audible band. Even if it were possible to hear 22kHz at a level of say only 100dB, in commercial audio recordings that means the peak level (in the audible band) would have to be at least 130dB and typically, more than 140dB. If instead of 22kHz we were talking about only say a 15kHz signal, it's extremely unlikely that at >40dB below the (more audible band) content it could be "heard" in a commercial audio mix. So, what's the implication of the claim, that our ears perform better at 22kHz than at 15kHz? Admittedly there's essentially (AFAIK) no research in this area, a fact which is misrepresented/abused by those with an agenda. The reason there's no research is that it is too dangerous to carry out such research, peak levels of 130dB and above will cause pain and damage, >140dB will cause almost instantaneous damage. In other words, the reason the research has not been carried out is itself evidence/proof that it's inaudible.

What's disingenuous is that those supporting the claims actually seem to have some understanding of the facts but just abuse them depending on what they're arguing about at the time. For example @Phronesis stated "_I think it's important to use a pure tone, otherwise harmonics can confuse us about what's going on._" - As seems to be so often the case in these disputes, a true argument that's used to support one specific point is in fact self-contradictory and an argument against the claim itself. While Phronesis' statement is true, in practise it supports the argument AGAINST the claim because very high/ultrasonic frequencies in commercial audio recordings ONLY exist as harmonics and high order harmonics to boot! These tactics have gone way beyond tiresome!!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

Gregorio has said, and asked, a few things that have me a bit confused here.....

For example, we seem to agree that, at 30 kHz, there is significant attenuation over distance.
And Gregorio keeps pointing out that, at sixty feet or so, there wouldn't be much of it left at all.
However, in most multi-track recordings, there's a microphone a few feet above the cymbals.
And, at a distance of a few feet, the maximum attenuation, even at 30 kHz, is only a few dB.
(I've even seen a few microphones actually stuck inside the cymbals).
That suggests to me that the attenuation at further distances is somewhat irrelevant.
(Are they deliberately rolling things off at 20 kHz so it will _sound_ like the microphone was 60 feet away?)

Gregorio and I seem to agree that most engineers and performers choose microphones by "sound".
However, we also seem to agree that most studio microphones have a limited high end response.
And, as Gregorio points out, there don't seem to be many if any "microphones for cymbals".

However, while Gregorio seems to imply that there are no studio microphones whose response extends above 20 kHz, or at least exceptionally few, he also suggests that, like any "interesting new technology", they have in fact "been tested over and over again over the years".(Am I to assume that tests were actually conducted to see whether listeners found microphones with extended high frequency response to NOT sound better? If so, I'd be curious to know if they used equipment for those tests designed to record and reproduce those frequencies, or if they ensured failure by testing them in conjunction with a signal chain not designed to reproduce what they recorded.)

(It seems to me that those recordings, made with those experimental microphones, with the response that extends to 30 kHz, that we know contain the ultrasonic harmonics that are produced by cymbals, and are only attenuated by a few dB at such close distances, would be ideal test files for testing whether people can tell the difference between CDs and high-res recordings. And, in fact, those are the microphones I would be using for all those tests. I guess luckily they do exist after all. So, are we to assume that every studio has a few, languishing in the back of the closet, because nobody thinks they sound especially good? )

I do agree that the concept of "better" is somewhat vague... and excessively open to interpretation. For example, we could argue whether a meter with 0.05% accuracy is "really better" than one with 0.5% accuracy, if all you really need is 1% accuracy, or whether a car that can go 120 mpH is "better" than one that can only go 80 mpH, so perhaps we should settle for saying "with technical performance that exceeds the minimum necessary requirements". (However, just as that Jaguar will actually do 120+ if you floor it, a 96k file is most certainly able to really reproduce frequencies up to 45 kHz if they are present.)

My problem here is that I keep seeing what I might call "an appeal to status quo".

Basically:
- Nobody does it because everybody knows it doesn't matter.
- Everybody knows it doesn't matter because nobody does it.

Well, maybe it's time to break the loop, and do some actual testing.

How about we start by recording a few drum solos, with lots of cymbals, using one of those long-forgotten microphones with the response to 30 kHz, stuck five feet right over the drum set? We'll record it at 24/96k so we know those ultrasonic overtones are really preserved (actually they're technically not harmonics with a cymbal). And we'll make sure to use a microphone preamp with a response into the ultrasonic, and confirm on an editor that those frequencies are really there. Then we'll play those recordings back, on speakers or headphones, which we've tested to ensure that they actually have a response that extends to 30 kHz or so..... and, once and for all, confirm how many people hear a difference and how many don't (and if that number is zero or not).

And, yes, selling people equipment that technically performs better, for a higher price, is often profitable.
And, for this reason, many companies are going to try to sell you their highest performing product.
Ferrari and Jaguar specialize in selling very expensive products that probably perform far above any need.
But Volkswagen had a very good run selling "a really cheap car that got the minimum job done very well".
However, neither has any bearing on what you or I, or anyone else, needs or wants.

I'm also a little confused about exactly what you mean by "damping of the sound". We have the attenuation experienced by the sound over the trip from the instrument to the microphone, which is all that will affect the sound arriving directly at the microphone from the source - over the shortest direct path. Then we have things like surface absorption, which will affect later reflections, and so the long-term averaged response. So, as those other losses increase, the average long-term response will get duller, but the original "bite", experienced over the first few tens of milliseconds, will be controlled only by the attenuation experienced from direct losses.) Also, as Gregorio pointed out, the attenuation increases significantly with distance..... so, for a microphone positioned five feet over the drum kit, we can probably ignore everything everything except the sound reaching the microphone directly through those five feet of air (with their 4 - 5 dB of attenuation at 30 kHz). We don't need to even consider all that stuff that's 50 dB down after reflecting off the audience. 

Yes, cymbals sound quite different when you're standing three feet away than when you're standing twenty feet back in the audience. But, most of the time, they do in fact end up being recorded from three or four feet away - and not 20 feet. And, if 6% of the energy of the cymbal is at ultrasonic frequencies.... Then, one meter above the cymbal, where that overhead microphone is mounted, it's only down about 3 dB. That's still quite significant.

And, if it turns out that even a few people can notice when those frequencies are present...
But "they're never included in most commercial recordings anyway"...
Then I guess most commercial recordings fall short of "the limits of human hearing"...
Which sounds to me like a problem worth correcting...
(Especially since we both seem to agree that it wouldn't be that difficult to do so.)  

I will always maintain that the recording engineer counts as "one of the artists"...
Therefore, if the recording engineer PREFERS to record cymbals with a microphone limited to 20 Khz....
(Or if he or she prefers to use a microphone that's limited to 10 kHz for that matter.)
That is certainly his or her business...
But then it's a personal preference... (or "artistic judgment")...
It's neither "a technical limitation" nor "a limit of human perception"....



gregorio said:


> 1. By and large true.
> 2. Also true.
> 2a. Not entirely true but again, by and large true.
> 3. Sort of true.
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

Microphones with response over 20 kHz:

1.) Panasonic WM-61A ( spec'd to 20K, regularly used for break in alarms - breaking glass is in range 30-50 kHz )
2.) Bruel & Kjaer 4006 / DPA 4006 ( and 4003 )
3.) Bruel & Kjaer 4007 / DPA 4007  ( 40k )
4.) Earthworks QTC 30/40/50 ( model number denoting kHz with linear response )
5.) Sanken C-100K   ( 100k) 
6.) Audio Precision (100k) https://www.ap.com/news/audio-precision-expands-microphone-product-family/
7.) DPA 4060/4061 etc (spec'd to 20k, usable response > 40k ) 
8.) Microtech-Gefell ( their capsules also used by Josephson in the USA ; quite a few options )

There are MANY other studio mics with usable response over 20k - but very few with specified/certifdied response.  

Regarding distances; properly positioned Jecklin Disk can be less than 10 metres away from the sources; here one documented example of my recording, for which I can provide say 30 seconds of either original DSD128 or converted to 192/24 PCM :


----------



## bigshot (Dec 4, 2018)

Frequencies are a continuum. There is a sweet spot for human ears, and as the frequencies get further and further away from that sweet spot, they become less and less important... As they reach the outer extremes of human hearing they lose the ability to communicate pitch, then they reach the point where they aren't audible at all. You can continue to track them beyond that, but there is absolutely no point.

Music is designed to sit within the comfort zone of hearing. Musical instruments produce a pleasing combination of fundamentals and harmonics in the core frequencies of human hearing. Arrangers use them to produce an overall sound that fills the range of comfortable listening. Musicians don't compose a Concerto for Mosquito Squeal or Air on a Pitchless Bass Rumble. It's fine if your system is capable of reproducing that, but it isn't as important as presenting the core frequencies properly. And because you feel the need to include the frequencies at the bleeding edge of hearing in your system, it doesn't mean that you need to include inaudible frequencies too... just to be safe.

Audio fidelity is relative, but it also has finite limitations. Frequencies that humans can hear are called sound. Ones that can't be heard are called ultrasonics. Ultrasonics are irrelevant to sound reproduction by definition. The bleeding edges of sound are less and less important the closer they get to that line. Thankfully, CDs and inexpensive consumer electronics are able to perfectly reproduce sound. However transducers are not. If you are going to claim that the extreme octave of human hearing is important to you, you should measure the response of your transducers and see what you are really hearing. It is extremely difficult to achieve a balanced response from 20 to 20 using consumer transducers in a typical home. But if you've tried, you realize that the closer you get to the extremes, the less it matters.

If you sing out do re me fa so la ti... You've sung an octave. How much of that octave can you hear between 10kHz and 20kHz? Odds are if you are a normal adult, about half. You can feel from 20Hz to 40Hz. But you can't detect either of those octaves as musical notes... only as mosquito squeals and rumbles. Most of the mosquito squeals that exist in the upper harmonics of musical instruments are masked by lower frequencies or they are at such a very low volume level they can't be heard. In a reasonably large living room, the upper end of the top octave wouldn't even reach from the speaker to the main listening position. It would be absorbed by air and upholstery and wall board before it even reaches you. Yet audiophiles attach massive importance to those extreme octaves for some reason.

We listen to sound every day that is completely missing those outer octaves and we don't complain. Our $10K+ systems probably don't even do a great job of presenting all of them in a balanced way. But it really doesn't matter that much. Balance in the core frequencies is what is important for the reproduction of music. If you had a system that only produced sound from 40Hz to 10kHz, and it did it in a perfectly clean and balanced and dynamic way, it would still sound darn good. On many recordings it would sound just as good as one that did 20 to 20, because not all recordings contain those extreme frequencies.

Sure, go ahead and include those frequencies if you want. But that doesn't mean that they are as important as the core frequencies. It also probably doesn't mean that your transducers are reproducing them as accurately as the core frequencies. It doesn't even mean that you can hear all of them. And it certainly doesn't mean that you also need ultrasonic frequencies too.

It is all relative. And to make practical decisions and good compromises, you need to keep a firm grasp on relative importance. That is in short supply in audiophile circles.

Discussion like this make me feel like I'm Gulliver watching the Brobnagagian Kings argue over which end of an egg to crack.


----------



## sonitus mirus

james444 said:


> It's funny they have a lot of hearing tests with frequency sweeps from 20Hz to 20kHz. For example this "20Hz to 20kHz Earrape":
> 
> 
> And some people comment they hear something at 18k, but if you analyze the audio it looks like this:




When I listened to this same sweep, I did notice an abrupt cutoff and just assumed it was due to my age, being a product of the 60's.


----------



## bigshot

Sometimes you'll hear a blind spot in your hearing in sweeps too. I think I have one in the treble range, but it is very very narrow.


----------



## james444

sonitus mirus said:


> When I listened to this same sweep, I did notice an abrupt cutoff and just assumed it was due to my age, being a product of the 60's.



Similar age here, just that for me the 15k cutoff is real. Too many too loud rock concerts in my younger days...

That said, next time someone brags about their hearing on Head-Fi, I might make them listen to this sweep and tell me the highest frequency they can hear. 

Just hoping that's not a violation of forum rules, what you say @castleofargh ?


----------



## bigshot

There isn't much audible in music above 15kHz anyway. It's actually a blessing. I remember when I was a kid going into our local Sears store and being bombarded by the high pitched squeals of the fluorescent light ballasts on the ceiling. My parents couldn't hear it but it made me sick and I wanted to get out of there.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree that the _results_ may be interesting.... 

I also wonder if there is a tendency with human hearing to ecperience an illusion of pattern completion.
(If your brain, upoon hearing a sweep, tends to imagine hearing it continue after it ends.)
Certain optical illusions work because of a tendency to "see" things where we "expect" them to be.

However, I don't find it especially odd that a situation like that might happen on Youtube.
Most people who post audio or video files have little technical knowledge about the details.
It's quite possible that the person who posted it simply didn't KNOW that Youtube limits it.
They may have created it, or simply copied it from somewhere else, and simply not confirmed the posting.
It's also possible that Youtube has changed their settings.... and that it was a complete sweep when first posted.

I als doubt that Youtube _specifically_ chose to limit audio bandwidth.
I find it more likely that it is simply a default setting in the encoder they currently use.

Commercial video encoders often include a list of "profiles" recommended for common situations.
(For example, the standard "audio and video quality profile" for "consumer DVDs".)
Odds are they simply chose a profile and didn't really think about or even look at the details.



james444 said:


> It's funny they have a lot of hearing tests with frequency sweeps from 20Hz to 20kHz. For example this "20Hz to 20kHz Earrape":
> 
> 
> And some people comment they hear something at 18k, but if you analyze the audio it looks like this:


----------



## KeithEmo

I recall reading, some time ago, that, if you are exposed to a certain frequency or range of frequencies at an amplitude and duration sufficient to cause hearing damage, it tends to create a gap or loss in sensitivity at a point in the spectrum ABOVE the frequency that caused the damage. This was quoted for instances of "industrial hearing damage" due to extremely loud equipment. (It has something to do with the energy being directed to the wrong nerve fibers in your ear due to some sort of mechanical overload condition.) I believe they suggested that, if damage occurs, it tends to be at a point approximately 1/2 octave above the frequency of the signal that caused the damage. (The counterintuitive part is that the damage does NOT render you incapable of hearing the sounds that caused the damage.. .)

Yes, this seems somewhat counter-intuitive...
No, I don't recall where I read it...
And, no, I'm not interested in arguing about it... 
(I'm sur eit can be looked up somewhere...)



bigshot said:


> Sometimes you'll hear a blind spot in your hearing in sweeps too. I think I have one in the treble range, but it is very very narrow.


----------



## james444

KeithEmo said:


> It's quite possible that the person who posted it simply didn't KNOW that Youtube limits it.
> They may have created it, or simply copied it from somewhere else, and simply not confirmed the posting.
> It's also possible that Youtube has changed their settings.... and that it was a complete sweep when first posted.



Agreed. So if neither the uploader nor the listener knows about the 15k cutoff, then it's a perfect double blind test, isn't it? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





AFAIK, Youtube changed their audio settings in 2014 to the same encoding quality for all video formats. So all the more recent videos have the cutoff. Prior to that, they had different audio qualities depending on video quality, so there may be some legacy stuff on YT that goes higher than 15k.


----------



## analogsurviver

james444 said:


> Agreed. So if neither the uploader nor the listener knows about the 15k cutoff, then it's a perfect double blind test, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I beg to differ. Here the audio qualities available on YT up to at least 2016 : https://yd.3dyd.com/help/youtube_formats/

Here a foobar2000 component that allows you to play YT sound in F2K ( with all the processing you might find required ) ; it also identifies the EXACT audio codec used for each upload:
https://fy.3dyd.com/download/


----------



## james444

analogsurviver said:


> I beg to differ. Here the audio qualities available on YT up to at least 2016 : https://yd.3dyd.com/help/youtube_formats/
> 
> Here a foobar2000 component that allows you to play YT sound in F2K ( with all the processing you might find required ) ; it also identifies the EXACT audio codec used for each upload:
> https://fy.3dyd.com/download/



Well, I said AFAIK... and I may be wrong. Mainly gathered that info from here: https://www.h3xed.com/web-and-internet/youtube-audio-quality-bitrate-240p-360p-480p-720p-1080p
https://www.h3xed.com/web-and-internet/youtube-audio-quality-bitrate-240p-360p-480p-720p-1080p
Note that I was talking about the upload date. Of course there are still other audio qualities available on YT from older uploads. I don't think you'll find a recent video that doesn't have the 15k cutoff though.


----------



## analogsurviver

james444 said:


> Well, I said AFAIK... and I may be wrong. Mainly gathered that info from here: https://www.h3xed.com/web-and-internet/youtube-audio-quality-bitrate-240p-360p-480p-720p-1080p
> Note that I was talking about the upload date. Of course there are still other audio qualities available on YT from older uploads. I don't think you'll find a recent video that doesn't have the 15k cutoff though.



I will have to check. 

Always the same BS with digital whatever - IP providers included. Once they figure out what brings the most $, they drop/limit/discontinue everything else.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 5, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Gregorio has said, and asked, a few things that have me a bit confused here.....
> I'd be curious to know if they used equipment for those tests designed to record and reproduce those frequencies, or if they ensured failure by testing them in conjunction with a signal chain not designed to reproduce what they recorded.



Clearly but why let being confused stop you from making-up another bunch of nonsense?

Initially I felt insulted by your response (as was obviously your intent) but almost instantly I realised that it simply represents the huge gulf between your segment of the industry and mine. The clients of the top class studios are world class musicians (who've been round the block) and billion dollar record labels, who already know every trick in the book. So bullsh*tting or trying scam our clients is almost certain to be found out and because they have such a low tolerance for it, it's completely counterproductive. This is almost the exact opposite of your clients, who are almost crying out to be BS'ed and scammed and are not only tolerant of it but will often come back for more!

What makes world class studios "world class" is having the finest equipment and facilities and the most knowledgable, experienced and talented engineers, and thereby consistently producing the best results. Therefore, when the engineers run tests on equipment/technology it is because we need to know the full capabilities of that technology, it's strengths and it's weakness, so that we can employ it more effectively than others and thereby maintain the position of being a world class studio. These tests are not for publication or any use outside the studio, are absolutely NOT designed to fulfil any marketing agenda but specifically designed to get to the actual facts, as ultimately the reputation and livelihood of the engineers and studio are at stake! "Ensuring failure" or achieving failure inadvertently, is therefore a colossal waste of time and resources, is ENTIRELY counterproductive with no upside or benefit for anyone involved and it would not be expected or tolerated of an intern in their first week, let alone even an assistant engineer.

Your "curious to know" is therefore a shocking and sad indictment of your industry segment and your company. Your serious consideration/suggestion of inadvertent or "ensured" failure demonstrates an expectation that your "engineers" are not even competent enough to be interns in my industry segment and/or that your marketing agenda can/will take precedence over any/all actual facts! Which leads to ...


KeithEmo said:


> [1] And, yes, selling people equipment that technically performs better, for a higher price, is often profitable.
> [1b] And, for this reason, many companies are going to try to sell you their highest performing product.
> [2] How about we start by recording a few drum solos, with lots of cymbals, using one of those long-forgotten microphones with the response to 30 kHz, stuck five feet right over the drum set?



1, And, yes, selling people equipment that actually performs NO BETTER, for a higher price, is even more profitable!
1b. And, for this reason, many audiophile companies are going to try to sell you snake oil; the promise (or at least, strong implication) that it's a higher performing product, when in fact it performs no better in practise than a vastly cheaper product.

2. Go right ahead, what's stopping you? In fact, I strongly advise that you take your own advise and do exactly that. You might actually learn some facts and practical realities, instead of just making-up nonsense suggestions based PURELY on the complete ignorance of never having done it and how you think it all should/might work! If you're advising ME what to do though, then that advice is ABSURD; I can't "start by recording a few drum solos" because I ALREADY started recording drum solos nearly 30 years ago and way more than just a few of them, with virtually every cymbal imaginable (and some that aren't), using virtually every type of mic and countless different positionings of those mics. Bizarrely, you don't seem to know what a recording engineer actually does, which makes it even more absurd that you appear to be telling a long time professional engineer how to do their job. The level of cognitive error (brain-fart) required to do that is truly staggering!

After all these years of engaging with audiophiles, I'm fairly well inured to the audiophile community's antics, assumptions and presumptions and not often shocked. The presumption of a level of incompetence not even expected of a beginner in my community and/or the presumption of deliberate test falsification, coming as it did "straight from the horse's mouth", an actual member of the audiophile trade, has still managed to shock me though!

G

PS. I note again your continued refusal to answer a simple question but instead to deflect and misrepresent it. I also note your serious misunderstanding/misuse of the laws of physics, as per usual.


----------



## KeithEmo

I just wanted to point out a few things here.....
(This reply is directed mostly to @gregorio - but others may find it interesting.)

First off, I absolutely agree that some audio manufacturers go out of their way to convince people to buy equipment they don't need, to make upgrades that won't improve anything, and to fix problems they don't have. And, like it or not, that really is just good business. (Is a car _really_ better because your kids can watch two _different_ movies at the same time in the back seat? According to the car commercial I saw last night it is.) However, it's not _all_ some sort of conspiracy. For example, most of the DACs Emotiva has sold in the past few years support sample rates up to 24/192k. However, it's not all some sinister plot to convince people to buy something they don't need.... In fact, I don't recall that we ever made an official claim that high-resolution files sound better. We're simply selling products with the features our customers are asking for this year. We don't charge extra for it as a premium feature. In point of fact, every high-quality DAC chip we considered for our latest product already offers it... at no extra cost. And, if we omitted it, our customers would wonder why, and a few would consider that omission a reason not to buy our product. Of course, anybody who sells any product that isn't a consumable must continually find excuses why their customers should upgrade to this year's model.

I should also point out that a lot of the conspiracy aspect of new products being hyped in magazines is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that "new and interesting things" and "controversy" sell magazines. An audio magazine suggesting that a new technology isn't exciting and wonderful would be the equivalent of a news station reporting that nothing interesting happened today. Imagine an audiophile journal running a cover story that announced: "a bunch of new amplifiers came out this year - and they sound about like last year's models". There's a very good reason why magazines that suggest things like that too often are no longer there to be read. They need novelty and excitement to sell subscriptions. And that's doubly true if the new product makes truly outrageous claims - so they can get a real debate going about it. (Without any consideration of whether it works or not... MQA has been a huge success in terms of generating blog entries, page count and "buzz".)

Second, let's put the silly argument about recording cymbals to rest. We both seem to agree that there is significant attenuation of ultrasonic frequencies at distances of several meters; and we both seem to agree that, within a few meters, where a lot of the microphones used to record cymbals are placed, that attenuation would only be a few dB. We also both seem to agree that microphones with a response to 30 kHz exist and are available. Therefore, we seem to be agreeing that it would be technically quite possible to record cymbals with a frequency response extending to 30 kHz if we wanted to... and that there would in fact be ultrasonic musical information present in the recording if we did (I am considering "the sound coming from the cymbal" to define "musical content" - to avoid any debate about whether it's useful or not). All we seem to disagree upon is whether that would be worth doing. Yet, when I suggested that, _if we wanted to run some scientific tests, to determine whether it sounded better or not, we could technically do so,_ suddenly we seem to have an argument. @gregorio seems to be suggesting that, since he is already quite certain there would be no audible difference, it is offensive to suggest that perhaps we should run a few tests ourselves. (@gregorio seems offended that I'm unwilling to take his word for it that it would be wasted effort. And @bigshot, who at other times seems to consistently call for us to ignore opinions and personal claims and only consider proven and documented test results, is strangely silent. I would expect him to be the one demanding documented test results.)  

Third, I agree that there are some brilliant engineers out there, and some studios turning out great work. However, I must also note that, based on a truly massive number of ongoing debates and discussions, a lot of people are of the opinion that a lot of modern recordings don't sound very good at all. I point this out for two related reasons. First, just like audio equipment manufacturers, studios and engineers serve customers. I see little difference, in terms of "morality", between an audio manufacturer who sells 192k audio files or DACs that support 192k, "because customers are buying them", and a studio that produces a recording with very little practical dynamic range, "because the artist thinks that's what his listeners like". In both instances, we are simply placing the highest priority on delivering what our customers are asking us for. 

I also feel obligated to point out something else... @gregorio seems to be quite certain that there would be no possible reason why we might want to consider recording cymbals using a microphone with an ultrasonic response. Note that, rather than scientific data, his reasoning is simply that "he's tried it and knows it wouldn't improve anything". Now, in all fairness, he could be right. In fact, it might even sound worse. However, to be quite blunt about it, considering how many people seem _dissatisfied_ about the quality and production values of many modern recordings, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me to suggest that we should run a few tests to find out for sure. And, once we accept that improvements are a possibility, it only seems to make sense to consider _all_ of the possible avenues for improvement.... rather than exclude every possible thing that anyone is convinced "couldn't possibly make any difference". 

(In simplest terms, if the recording industry is turning out recordings that a lot of people don't think sound good, then perhaps it is time to take a second look at a lot of the things that the recording industry "is convinced can't possibly matter". To be extremely blunt... if everybody was doing everything right then everybody would be happy with the results... right? Note that I quite agree with many people that most of the problem is what we might call "production values" rather than technical limitations. However, if we're conceding that the whole system needs improvement, it seems foolish to exclude any viable possibilities. Q: Is choosing a microphone that tops out at 18k instead of one that tops out at 26k an "artistic choice", a "technical limitation", a "practical limitation", or a "production value"? I'm not convinced that the answer to that question is all that clear.)



gregorio said:


> Clearly but why let being confused stop you from making-up another bunch of nonsense?
> 
> Initially I felt insulted by your response (as was obviously your intent) but almost instantly I realised that it simply represents the huge gulf between your segment of the industry and mine. The clients of the top class studios are world class musicians (who've been round the block) and billion dollar record labels, who already know every trick in the book. So bullsh*tting or trying scam our clients is almost certain to be found out and because they have such a low tolerance for it, it's completely counterproductive. This is almost the exact opposite of your clients, who are almost crying out to be BS'ed and scammed and are not only tolerant of it but will often come back for more!
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Strictly speaking it's not a double blind test... 
(or not a typical one - and the details are actually rather complicated)

A "double blind" refers to the fact that neither participant knows which condition is which.
(So, when the audiologist presses the button, he doesn't know whether a tone will play or not.)

In general there are two reasons for doing this:
1) to prevent any sort of bias on the part of the scorer from influencing how the test is scored
2) to prevent knowledge of which sample is which from "leaking" from the 
     person conducting the test to the test subject

The reason saying: "I didn't say anything, but my wife noticed a difference when she walked into the room" doesn't qualify is that you cannot rule out the possibility that she noticed you're smiling, or saw the box arrive yesterday, or noticed you got up early today, and so had a hint that she was listening to something different. 

In this case, the definition is blurred.... 
- Youtube "knows" that their files are frequency limited (so it is NOT blind from their perspective)
- but Youtube doesn't actually exist as a participant (so they cannot leak information)
- but you cannot rule out the possibility of other information or bias

In this case, by seeing a post labelled "20 - 20 kHz Hearing Test", the subject is being presented with a claim that the test does in fact contain those frequencies. He wasn't asked if he thought 20 kHz was present - he was _TOLD_ that 20 kHz was present and then asked if he could hear it. In fact, we might even extend that to say that anyone simply reading "hearing test" might _assume_ that tones covering the full range of human hearing would be included. This creates a sort of placebo effect where he may actually _PREFER or EXPECT_ to hear it.

A proper blind type test would have been more like:
"You'll see a red circle flash on your screen 20 times."
"After each flash, you will hear a tick, which may or may not be followed by a two second tone."
"Press the button at those times when you hear a tone."

(Even though it is technically not double blind - because the test program "knows" when it's playing tones - you would satisfy the requirement that the test computer won't provide any hint to the subject to bias his response.)

(Note that we included the tick, even when the tone is not present, so that the person would not be able to use the typical tick that occurs when any sound signal starts playing as a "tell".)

(There are so many perceptual, bias, masking, and neurological timing issues to saying "tell us when you can no longer hear the tone" that, as a pure test of hearing acuity, it's more or less worthless. For example, hearing a tone at a certain frequency makes us less sensitive to tones at nearby frequencies, but the effect varies depending on the starting frequency, the difference between the frequencies, and the time separating them.) 



james444 said:


> Agreed. So if neither the uploader nor the listener knows about the 15k cutoff, then it's a perfect double blind test, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gregorio (Dec 5, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> For example, most of the DACs Emotiva has sold in the past few years support sample rates up to 24/192k. However, it's not all some sinister plot to convince people to buy something they don't need.... In fact, I don't recall that we ever made an official claim that high-resolution files sound better. We're simply selling products with the features our customers are asking for this year. We don't charge extra for it as* a premium feature.* In point of fact, every high-quality DAC chip we considered for our latest product already offers it... at no extra cost.



Round and round we go again, with you just continuing to do exactly what you've been accused of! For example, what do you mean "a premium feature", it's not a premium feature, it might have been a premium feature 15-20 years ago but today pretty much all DAC chips are 192/24. And what does this premium feature DAC chip cost? About $1 at bulk price rates, cheaper even than peanuts!! You're busy trying to sell your "premium feature" DAC, using analogies with Ferrari and other premium brands but your "premium feature" is in fact found in the CHEAPEST consumer DACs!


KeithEmo said:


> [1] We both seem to agree that there is significant attenuation of ultrasonic frequencies at distances of several meters; and
> [2] we both seem to agree that, within a few meters, where a lot of the microphones used to record cymbals are placed, that attenuation would only be a few dB.
> [3] We also both seem to agree that microphones with a response to 30 kHz exist and are available.
> [4] Therefore, we seem to be agreeing that it would be technically quite possible to record cymbals with a frequency response extending to 30 kHz if we wanted to


1. Yes, we agree on this point.
2. No, we do NOT agree on this point. Or rather, I could agree, if like you I decided to ignore the laws of physics!
3. Yes, we agree on this.
4. No, we do not agree on this. It is possible under some conditions.


KeithEmo said:


> [1] @gregorio seems to be suggesting that, since he is already quite certain there would be no audible difference, it is offensive to suggest that perhaps we should run a few tests ourselves.
> [2] @gregorio seems to be quite certain that there would be no possible reason why we might want to consider recording cymbals using a microphone with an ultrasonic response.
> [3] I also feel obligated to point out something else... Note that, rather than scientific data, his reasoning is simply that "he's tried it and knows it wouldn't improve anything". Now, in all fairness, he could be right.


1. No, that's completely misrepresenting what I stated. The odds of this misrepresentation being "inadvertent" along with all the other "inadvertent" errors and misrepresentations is astronomical, leaving us with only one rational conclusion; that it is NOT "inadvertent", it's deliberate. Exactly contrary to your deliberate lie "inadvertent error", I specifically "strongly advised" you to try some drumkit/cymbal recording and test for yourself!
2. That too is a deliberate lie "inadvertent" misrepresentation.
3. You mean you "also feel obligated" to deliberately lie "inadvertently" misrepresent the facts again. My reasoning is not "simply that" at all!!


KeithEmo said:


> However, I must also note that, based on a truly massive number of ongoing debates and discussions, a lot of people are of the opinion that a lot of modern recordings don't sound very good at all.
> [1] I point this out for two related reasons. First, just like audio equipment manufacturers, studios and engineers serve customers.
> [2] I see little difference, in terms of "morality", between an audio manufacturer who sells 192k audio files or DACs that support 192k, "because customers are buying them", and a studio that produces a recording with very little practical dynamic range,
> [3] Q: Is choosing a microphone that tops out at 18k instead of one that tops out at 26k an "artistic choice", a "technical limitation", a "practical limitation", or a "production value"? I'm not convinced that the answer to that question is all that clear.


1. No, you "point this out" for the same reason you've pointed out just about everything else, to obfuscate and misrepresent. There are reasons why some modern recordings do not sound particularly good but contrary to your assertion, they are NOT related.
2. Yep, we appear to differ drastically in what we "see ... in terms of morality"!!
3. Will wonders never cease? Asking a question about something you don't know about, rather than just making up a bunch of nonsense assertions or analogies, is an unexpected response on your part! Unfortunately, from past experience, it can only be interpreted as a fishing expedition to get more information to "inadvertently" misrepresent again and I'm not willing to play your game. That's a shame because it might have proven useful or interesting to others in this thread, if there's actually any others left after so many pages of thread crapping!!

G


----------



## bigshot

What happened to "build a better mousetrap"? Why is it "create the illusion of a better mousetrap" now... or "make people afraid that a different brand of mousetrap might not catch theoretical mice as well"? Why do people tolerate and put up with this?


----------



## KeithEmo

Last reply - then I give up.
(I'll leave it to everyone else to decide who seems to be making sense here...)

1)

According to the laws of physics, at least in this universe, at 20 degrees Celsius, at sea level, at 50% relative humidity, the attenuation at 30 kHz is 0.94 dB / meter.
That means that, at six feet, the attenuation is just under 2 dB.
Unless you were referring to the laws of physics in some other universe - that's what the ones in this universe say.
(And, if you tried to record ultrasonic frequencies at a distance of a few feet, and were unable to do so, then something else must have been the cause of your inability to do so.)
I don't need to try it myself - I'll settle for believing the laws of physics - as you seem to be suggesting I should.

Here's the link to the calculator:
http://resource.npl.co.uk/acoustics/techguides/absorption/

2)

And, at one point, when I suggested that we might try recording cymbals with a microphone whose response extends to 30 kHz...
You started by replying that most studio mikes don't go that high.
But later, when I offered some microphones that do, and some other folks also listed a few...
You changed your story, and claimed that "of course you'd already tried this and found no benefit to doing it"...
(I'll leave it to @bigshot whether he's willing to take your word on that without any actual documentation.... )

Note that I'd be perfectly willing to accept your conclusions if you'd recorded those frequencies, played them back for some listeners, and found that nobody could hear the difference, or just plain didn't like it.
However, arguing about the laws of physics seems to be sort of a waste to me.

3)

Since you seen to want to be adversarial, I'll pose my last assertion as a question...

Many people seem to agree that many modern recordings sound bad.
(It seems obvious that, if all engineers were great, and doing their best work, and all the equipment was good, this simply would not be happening.)
So......
Do so many modern recordings sound bad because most engineers these days are simply incompetent and it's the best they can do?
Or do they sound bad because, even though most engineers could make great sounding recordings, their customers are demanding poor sound quality, so they're delivering what their customers are asking for?
Now, to be fair here, I never try to sell customers features or capabilities they don't need... but, if they ask for something I don't think they need, or even that I think would be bad for their performance, I'm not going to refuse outright to sell it to them...
How about you?

And, let's be a little bit more adversarial...
We seem to agree that many modern recordings sound bad...
And we seem to agree that there are reasons for this...
However, since you're the recording engineer, isn't it _YOUR_ job to find those problems and fix them?
All I do is sell equipment designed to reproduce the performance - doing the best we can with whatever quality recording the recording folks give us (and our customers).

4)

I actually said, if you read carefully, that we do NOT sell 24/192k as a premium feature on any of our DACs...
The reason for this is that it is NOT a premium feature...
So nobody is being charged extra for it - whether they need it or not...
(Although, since nobody is being charged extra for it, then I fail to see much harm in _GIVING_ them a little extra performance they really don't need.)



gregorio said:


> Round and round we go again, with you just continuing to do exactly what you've been accused of! For example, what do you mean "a premium feature", it's not a premium feature, it might have been a premium feature 15-20 years ago but today pretty much all DAC chips are 192/24. And what does this premium feature DAC chip cost? About $1 at bulk price rates, cheaper even than peanuts!! You're busy trying to sell your "premium feature" DAC, using analogies with Ferrari and other premium brands but your "premium feature" is in fact found in the CHEAPEST consumer DACs!
> 
> 1. Yes, we agree on this point.
> 2. No, we do NOT agree on this point. Or rather, I could agree, if like you I decided to ignore the laws of physics!
> ...


----------



## bigshot

I could already tell who was making sense and who wasn't. Attacking a whole profession because you arguments don't stand up is lame.


----------



## KeithEmo

There is an easy answer to that question.
If people really believe that the current mousetrap is "as perfect as they could possibly use" then there isn't much reason to try to build a better one.
The game is over; we've all won; have a beer.

Therefore, from the seller's point of view, if they want to stay in business, they'd better either:
a) find some way to improve a mousetrap that their customers and competitors didn't think of (and convince them it's really better)
b) make a new model mousetrap, with fancier decorations, and a few fancy blinking lights, that doesn't actually do any better at catching mice, and simply _convince_ their customers that it's better

It's pretty simple.....
If you actually own a DAC...
And are absolutely convinced that it is "audibly perfect"...
Then you're probably never going to buy another one.
(And, since you aren't shopping for a DAC, neither I nor anyone else can possibly sell you one.)

And, from the customer's point of view:
If he's really already got a mouse trap that he's certain is perfect.... then he's not shopping for a mouse trap any more.
His game is over; he isn't going to buy another one; he is an EX-customer.

However, the reality seems to be that many people who own DACs in fact do NOT believe that "The DAC they own now is so perfect that there's no point in looking for a better one".
Likewise, a lot of people seem to be engaged in a never-ending quest to find an amplifier that does something just a tiny bit better than the one they have now.
(If they were really totally satisfied, they'd never see our magazine advertisements, because they'd be listening to music instead of reading audio magazines.)
The reality seems to be that many people aren't as convinced as you are that "perfection has already been reached".
And, to be quite honest, I suspect many would be quite disappointed, and even a bit depressed, if they decided that there was nothing else to hunt for or hope for...

And, if an endless quest for new audio gear is just an addiction, like being addicted to opiates, or chocolate, then neither of us is going to cure them.
(Luckily for us all it's a perfectly legal addiction... and the only possible serious withdrawel symptom is boredom.)



bigshot said:


> What happened to "build a better mousetrap"? Why is it "create the illusion of a better mousetrap" now... or "make people afraid that a different brand of mousetrap might not catch theoretical mice as well"? Why do people tolerate and put up with this?


----------



## bigshot (Dec 5, 2018)

If you have a DAC for sale and people already have one, the best way to sell them a yours is to make them think that your DAC sounds better than the one they already have. That isn't necessarily the truth though. In fact, it probably isn't true at all. Many things salesmen say to sell high end audio products isn't true. In my experience, when it comes to honesty and integrity, high end audio salesmen are a notch below lawyers and a tiny notch above used car salesmen. They're regulated a lot less than either of those professions, so they probably get away with more monkey business than lawyers and used car salesmen do.

There. I just insulted a whole profession too! But that said, I'd rather listen to music recorded by professional sound engineers than set foot in a high end audio store.


----------



## KeithEmo

That would be quite true...
Except mine are the arguments that actually do stand up.

Ahh... welll....

Incidentally, I'm not "attacking the profession" in the least...
I am quite convinced that many recording engineers are in fact quite competent...
And I'm quite convinced that they turn out overly compressed audio_ BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE FOLKS WHO HIRE THEM ASK THEM TO DO_.
I was simply pointing out that it doesn't suggest any lack of integrity to deliver to your customer exactly what they ask you for.

So, if his customers ask for overly compressed music, and my customers ask for 24/192k DACs, we are both simply giving our customers what they asked for.
It isn't his job to refuse to turn up the compression if his customers asks him to...
And it isn't my job to refuse to sell my customer a 24/192k DAC if they ask me for one.



bigshot said:


> I could already tell who was making sense and who wasn't. Attacking a whole profession because you arguments don't stand up is lame.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm quite inclined to agree with you...

There is a lot of snake oil in the high end audio industry...
And also a lot of extremely dubious claims - and "facts" that aren't necessarily actually true.
However, to be honest, I think that's true for many industries.
(I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as a bottle of wine, or a painting, worth $20k either.)

And, yes, it is interesting how representatives of some industries seem immune to claims of plain old false advertising.

I suspect a lot of it boils down to who is usually involved...
We feel bad if someone cheats granny out of her life savings on some new and especially bogus cancer med...
But we don't feel so bad when a rich old gal spends $800 on face cream that turns out to be plain old cold cream with a fancy label...
And people who don't buy expensive audio gear feel no sympathy at all for people who waste money on expensive gear that they can't imagine anyone needs to begin with... (whether it works or not)...

I should also point out that, after quite a bit of experience, I am quite convinced that many snake oil salesmen actually believe what they claim.
That's probably why so many esoteric products are simply claimed to "sound good".... simply because nobody's ever measured them... or they measure badly and someone simply likes the way they sound.



bigshot said:


> If you have a DAC for sale and people already have one, the best way to sell them a yours is to convince them that your DAC sounds better than the one they already have. That isn't necessarily the truth though. Many things salesmen say to sell high end audio products isn't true. In my experience, when it comes to honesty and integrity, high end audio salesmen are a notch below lawyers and a tiny notch above used car salesmen. They're regulated a lot less than either of those professions, so they probably get away with more monkey business than lawyers and used car salesmen do.
> 
> There. I just insulted a whole profession too!


----------



## KeithEmo

I already mentioned that I don't actually disagree with you on this one.
There are a lot of products on the audiophile market with, shall we say, dubious benefits to recommend them.
And, on that side of that argument, people do have a natural inclination to rationalize choices they've already made.
So, once people buy something, they almost certainly have at least a slight bias to like their choice - so they can avoid feeling like they made a mistake.

However, it's only fair to point out the other side of the coin...
At Emotiva, where I work, we have a 30 day return policy on almost all of our products (excluding the occasional clearance item).
And quite a few other reputable audio companies, and even stores, have similar policies.
So, let's say I could somehow convince you that something I wanted to sell you was better, when in fact it really wasn't.....
Or let's say I could even convince you that it was _much better_ when, in reality, it was only a _little bit better_...
If that happened, odds are you'd come to your senses before your 30 days was up, and you'd return that item.
And, if that happened, you'd be out the return shipping, but we'd have to sell the product you returned at a discount as "factory renewed".
Not to mention all the extra work of re-testing it, re-packing it, and shipping it all over again.
So it _really_ isn't in our best interest to sell you a product that we're not pretty sure you're going to like - and want to keep. 

And, at another level, companies that sell products like high-res recordings don't make all that much on each album they sell.
So they're really counting on your liking that first purchase enough to become a repeat customer.
(They may not offer refunds, so they may still make a few bucks on that first sale, but they really are hoping you'll be happy enough to come back for more.)
This actually does give them some incentive to limit themselves to claims they can justify and promises they can keep.
And some of them offer a few free sample downloads... so you can judge their product for yourself.

I always advise people in that situation to forget about whether it's high-res or not.... 
They should just judge it like they would any other re-master.... based on whether they think it actually sounds better or not. 






bigshot said:


> If you have a DAC for sale and people already have one, the best way to sell them a yours is to make them think that your DAC sounds better than the one they already have. That isn't necessarily the truth though. In fact, it probably isn't true at all. Many things salesmen say to sell high end audio products isn't true. In my experience, when it comes to honesty and integrity, high end audio salesmen are a notch below lawyers and a tiny notch above used car salesmen. They're regulated a lot less than either of those professions, so they probably get away with more monkey business than lawyers and used car salesmen do.
> 
> There. I just insulted a whole profession too! But that said, I'd rather listen to music recorded by professional sound engineers than set foot in a high end audio store.


----------



## bigshot

After 30 days, the expiration date has passed and it isn't snake oil any more. Your job now is to convince yourself you made a good "investment". That involves going into Sound Science and arguing with people...


----------



## KeithEmo

Errrrr.....
I think it either is or isn't snake oil... regardless of the expiration date.
It's up to you to police your own brain and keep track of your perceptions and make sure they don't drift too badly.

However....
We generally recommend that people open the box and listen to their new equipment when it arrives.
Amazingly, even before the 30 days are up, we find that most of _our_ customers are quite pleased.
Of course, I can't speak for anyone else.  

And, if you're going to go into Sound Science, wouldn't it be a better idea to do that _before_ you buy something?



bigshot said:


> After 30 days, the expiration date has passed and it isn't snake oil any more. Your job now is to convince yourself you made a good "investment". That involves going into Sound Science and arguing with people...


----------



## bigshot

I wasn't referring to your DACs in particular. I'm sure your DACs sound just the same as any DAC.


----------



## Indiana

bigshot said:


> I wasn't referring to your DACs in particular. I'm sure your DACs sound just the same as any DAC.


The same or worse. That's also a possibility, what I do not hope for his customers.


----------



## Arpiben (Dec 6, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Last reply - then I give up.
> (I'll leave it to everyone else to decide who seems to be making sense here...)
> 
> 1)
> ...



@KeithEmo

I will let @gregorio reply more in details if he feels like.
But what you totally miss in your point 1 and previous posts is that *sound pressure attenuation in outdoor does not depend solely on the atmospheric absorption coefficient! *
@gregorio provided the correct estimation in various posts. I will let you find by yourself.
Note that other attenuation or damping effects have been omitted for sake of clarity ( diffraction/reflection/ground coefficient/scattering/barriers/obstacles/ gradient of temperature/humidity/etc...)


----------



## analogsurviver

Arpiben said:


> @KeithEmo
> 
> I will let @gregorio reply more in details if he feels like.
> But what you totally miss in your point 1 and previous posts is that *sound pressure attenuation in outdoor does not depend solely on the atmospheric absorption coefficient! *
> ...



Although all of the above mentioneed causes of ultrasonic absorption are  undoubtedly real, in practice they do not reduce the ultrasonics to as low levels as some would like us to believe.


----------



## Arpiben

analogsurviver said:


> Although all of the above mentioneed causes of ultrasonic absorption are  undoubtedly real, in practice they do not reduce the ultrasonics to as low levels as some would like us to believe.



The 50 dB attenuation for f=30 kHz @20m/0.5m with 50% humidity in free space is indeed very correct.


----------



## KeithEmo

No.... you didn't read the details....
(We were talking about a VERY specific situation... whether ultrasonic content would be present to be recorded when recording cymbals using an overhead microphone.)

If I place a microphone six feet away from a source.
(For example, if I hang a microphone six feet over the drum set.. which was the context of the discussion.)
In direct line of sight to the source.
Then the only thing that is going to prevent that microphone from hearing the source is the absorption of the air in between.

There are no obstacles...
There are no barriers...
And I specified the temperature and humidity (the calculator I linked to allows you to enter frequency, atmospheric pressure, temperature, and relative humidity).

Various types of reflections absolutely may indeed affect the fidelity...  by adding reflected or diffracted sound unequally to the intended signal.
However, since a cymbal delivers a sort of wide spectrum noise burst, rather than a pure tone, there is no possibility whatsoever of any sort of "hard null" occurring that would cancel it entirely.

No mention was made about whether we were indoors or outdoors.
No mention was made of the fidelity of the recording that would result.
(I absolutely agree that some of the factors you mentioned might result in poor fidelity or an irregular frequency response.)



Arpiben said:


> @KeithEmo
> 
> I will let @gregorio reply more in details if he feels like.
> But what you totally miss in your point 1 and previous posts is that *sound pressure attenuation in outdoor does not depend solely on the atmospheric absorption coefficient! *
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 6, 2018)

Absolutely.
However, since we were talking about recording with a microphone located 2 meters overhead, it is also irrelevant.

[EDIT: Actually, according to the calculator, the attenuation under those conditions is slightly less than 1 dB/meter so, at 20 meters, it would be more like 19 dB.... although I'd be willing to accept a little leeway there for different models ] 



Arpiben said:


> The 50 dB attenuation for f=30 kHz @20m/0.5m with 50% humidity in free space is indeed very correct.


----------



## analogsurviver

Arpiben said:


> The 50 dB attenuation for f=30 kHz @20m/0.5m with 50% humidity in free space is indeed very correct.



Even if it is actually correct - how many recordings of acoustic instruments are actually made from 20 m distance ?


----------



## KeithEmo

Exactly.....

In every multi-track recording situation I've ever seen the cymbals are recorded using one or more microphones...
Usually located directly over the drum set, slightly off the the side, or slightly under the cymbals...



analogsurviver said:


> Even if it is actually correct - how many recordings of acoustic instruments are actually made from 20 m distance ?


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Yeah, got to chime in and say that 20m is probably not a relevant distance for any recording setup except (maybe?) some unusual classical / organ stuff.  Overhead mics are probably no more than 2-3m away from a cymbal most times.   Free air absorption of ultrasonics is actually pretty low on the list of reasons of "why ultrasonics don't matter for music".  Poor ultrasonic performance of gear, absorption by objects in the space, and low initial SPL from the instrument itself are much more important.


----------



## analogsurviver (Dec 6, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Exactly.....
> 
> In every multi-track recording situation I've ever seen the cymbals are recorded using one or more microphones...
> Usually located directly over the drum set, slightly off the the side, or slightly under the cymbals...


We could go back and fort ad nuseaum regarding the distance and consequent ultrasonics attenuation.

It all depends on the type of microphone technique - and actual setting/seating. Even binaural can be used both from 2 metres - or > 20/30/40/etc metres .

And one of the indicators of relative distance from the source to the microphone/listener is the attenuation of ultrasonics - the depth of a soundstage with bandwidth limited recording and/or reproduction will NEVER sound natural.


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> No.... you didn't read the details....
> (We were talking about a VERY specific situation... whether ultrasonic content would be present to be recorded when recording cymbals using an overhead microphone.)
> 
> If I place a microphone six feet away from a source.
> ...



No Keith.
You have distance! - 20 log r in Free space or Fresnel zone. It is the case for f=30 kHz at 6 feet.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Arpiben said:


> No Keith.
> You have distance! - 20 log r in Free space or Fresnel zone. It is the case for f=30 kHz at 6 feet.



Are you talking about normal attenuation that occurs due to sound radiating through space?  Can you explain why ultrasonics don't follow normal 'inverse square' numbers for that?  Not having any need for it, I never bothered to learn how ultrasonic "audio" might vary from normal sound.  I'm confused as to why you're saying there is a much greater attenuation (other than from atmosphere) than there would be with normal sound.


----------



## Arpiben (Dec 6, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Even if it is actually correct - how many recordings of acoustic instruments are actually made from 20 m distance ?



2 meters:
*~14 dB* attenuation for f=30 kHz @2m/0.5m with 50% humidity in free space.


----------



## Arpiben

Zapp_Fan said:


> Are you talking about normal attenuation that occurs due to sound radiating through space?  Can you explain why ultrasonics don't follow normal 'inverse square' numbers for that?  Not having any need for it, I never bothered to learn how ultrasonic "audio" might vary from normal sound.  I'm confused as to why you're saying there is a much greater attenuation (other than from atmosphere) than there would be with normal sound.



Ultrasonics do follow same law as any other frequency provided that they are in Far Field (greater than two wavelength distance).
Atmospheric Absorption is frequency dependent. ISO 9613  calculator provided is dealing only with such absorption.
https://www.mne.psu.edu/lamancusa/me458/10_osp.pdf


----------



## Zapp_Fan

OK, I get that, makes total sense.  But then since we are comparing normal audio to ultrasonics, (the argument being... ultrasonics don't matter because they're too attenuated relative to normal sound to matter) isn't the relative atmospheric absorption the most relevant number?

I mean, yes, certainly, 14db total attenuation at 2m, but unless I'm missing something, that value would be similar at (say) 200hz also.


----------



## Arpiben

Zapp_Fan said:


> OK, I get that, makes total sense.  But then since we are comparing normal audio to ultrasonics, (the argument being... ultrasonics don't matter because they're too attenuated relative to normal sound to matter) isn't the relative atmospheric absorption the most relevant number?
> 
> I mean, yes, certainly, 14db total attenuation at 2m, but unless I'm missing something, that value would be similar at (say) 200hz also.



Not exactly 20log(2/0.5) + AIr Absorption at 200 Hz ( neglectable) -> roughly 12dB vs 14dB.
( 200 Hz has a 1.5 meter wavelength, in principle the 1/r attenuation is not applicable interactions between waves are more complex. I did the above calculation just for copping with your example )


----------



## dprimary

Arpiben said:


> Not exactly 20log(2/0.5) + AIr Absorption at 200 Hz ( neglectable) -> roughly 12dB vs 14dB.
> ( 200 Hz has a 1.5 meter wavelength, in principle the 1/r attenuation is not applicable interactions between waves are more complex. I did the above calculation just for copping with your example )



Is there a decimal missing?


----------



## bigshot

Zapp_Fan said:


> since we are comparing normal audio to ultrasonics, (the argument being... ultrasonics don't matter because they're too attenuated relative to normal sound to matter) isn't the relative atmospheric absorption the most relevant number?



I would think that the fact that ultrasonics are inaudible would be the most relevant, but people continue to discuss it anyway.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Dec 6, 2018)

Arpiben said:


> Not exactly 20log(2/0.5) + AIr Absorption at 200 Hz ( neglectable) -> roughly 12dB vs 14dB.
> ( 200 Hz has a 1.5 meter wavelength, in principle the 1/r attenuation is not applicable interactions between waves are more complex. I did the above calculation just for copping with your example )



Yes, but roughly speaking, if something were audible at -12dB it'd still be audible at -14dB.  Anyway, I am NOT saying ultrasonics are audible, but if they did have some value in the recording , like _________________ (this space left intentionally blank)... then we can't completely discount that possibility on the sole basis of attenuation between source and mic, relative to normal audio.

To put it another way, ultrasonics that originate at the same SPL as another frequency will typically only be a few dB lower at the mic position, at least speaking strictly about direct-path audio.

On the other hand, in some spaces most of the sound reaching a given point is NOT direct and is reflected, so in practice I'd (take a wild) guess you'd capture ultrasonics at no better than an -18dB penalty relative to 1Khz or something, because of absorption by stuff in the room... like walls.  To further waver on the point, that doesn't mean you won't get something intelligible at the mic, just means it will be quieter than stuff that got there by bouncing.


----------



## KeithEmo

That's EXACTLY what we're talking abut here....
(I think some people came into the conversation late.)

I think many people here are confusing absorption with dropoff due to distance. 
Of course, as you get further from the source, the sound level will get lower.
(And the math whereby that occurs will depend on the space the sound is radiated into.)
However, assuming that the absorption of all frequencies by the air was equal....
As we got further away the overall amplitude would be lower..... but it would still remain proportionally equal at all frequencies.
So, if the cymbals were at a certain SPL level at one inch, and 5% of their energy was at 30 kHz......
The level would somewhat lower at two meters, but 5% of the energy at that distance would still be at 30 kHz.....

HOWEVER, the reality is that the absorption of different frequencies by air is NOT at all equal.
The absorption by air at 200 Hz is very close to 0 dB.
The absorption at 30 kHz (under the other conditions I listed) is about 0.9 dB/meter.
So, as the distance increases, you will lose proportionally more amplitude as the frequency goes up.

So, for whatever distance you choose, you calculate the predicted amplitude, based on the distance dropoff calculations.
Then, for relatively high frequencies, you ADD the additional attenuation that occurs because of absorption by the air.
So, for example, at two meters, the level at 200 Hz will be what you would expect based on the "dropoff calculations"...
But, at two meters, the level at 30 kHz will be 3.6 dB lower than that due to the ADDITIONAL loss of 3.6dB due the energy absorbed by the air at that distance and frequency.

@gregorio's original assertion was essentially that:
"Even if there is a significant amount of 30 kHz being produced by the cymbal it won't matter because the air will absorb it all before it reaches the microphone."
He then went on to assert that the loss would be something like 50 dB at 20 meters.

However, those numbers are not correct.
According to the calculations, at two meters, which is what I specified, the energy at 30 kHz will have lost an additional 3.6 dB due to air losses in addition to the dropoff caused by the distance.
In other words, if you measure it, at two meters the cymbals should show an additional roll off of 3.6 dB at 30 kHz compared to the level at relatively low frequencies.
This is quite different than claiming that "nothing at 30 kHz would remain".
(Note that all of the numbers I quoted were for 50% relative humidity and 20 degrees Centigrade at sea level pressure).

We all realize that OVERALL level will drop with distance.
The discussion revolves around how much ADDITIONAL loss there will be at ultrasonic frequencies due to air absorption.
So, for example, if the total attenuation at 2 meters at 200 Hz calculates out to 14 dB, we would expect the drop off at 30 kHz to measure 17.6 dB (which is pretty far from "nothing measurable or recordable remaining").



Zapp_Fan said:


> OK, I get that, makes total sense.  But then since we are comparing normal audio to ultrasonics, (the argument being... ultrasonics don't matter because they're too attenuated relative to normal sound to matter) isn't the relative atmospheric absorption the most relevant number?
> 
> I mean, yes, certainly, 14db total attenuation at 2m, but unless I'm missing something, that value would be similar at (say) 200hz also.


----------



## KeithEmo

But, then, that's another discussion altogether.

All we were ascertaining here was that we would actually be able to produce an appropriate test signal to determine whether that was true or not.
And, in order to do that, we must first produce a recording of cymbals with a frequency response that truly extends to 30 kHz.
Then we must find a pair of headphones or speakers that can reproduce it.
Once we have those we actually have the materials necessary to perform some serious audibility tests.

_AT THAT POINT_, we can test whether anybody can hear it, or whether they notice when we remove it.

This whole discussion is really a sort of detour associated with @gregorio's assertion that we would have difficulty creating the required test signal.
(Or something like that.)



bigshot said:


> I would think that the fact that ultrasonics are inaudible would be the most relevant, but people continue to discuss it anyway.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree.....

I would expect surface absorption at ultrasonic frequencies to be quite high...
Although, since most rooms probably aren't designed with much consideration given to that, we might all be surprised there in some cases.

I should also point out that, in terms of audible frequencies, our brains seem able to differentiate first-arrival direct sounds from later arriving reflected sounds.
And our brains interpret the difference as "room acoustics".
(Even though a bright speaker in a heavily padded room, and a dull speaker in a live room, may have the same long term average response, they still sound different to we humans.)
There is also the possibility, which some studies seem to suggest, that our brains actually can detect fine differences in wave forms and arrival times... 
Some studies also seem to suggest that the limits of audibility for this may be different than those for pure continuous sine wave test tones.
A few studies even suggest that we are able to detect differences in arrival time of as little as a few microseconds under some conditions.

Please not that I am _NOT_ specifically claiming that we would in fact experience cymbals as sounding different depending on whether our recording includes frequencies up to 30 khz or so.
However, since the results of some studies, as well as piles of anecdotal evidence, suggest that this _might_ be the case...
I'm simply suggesting that it might be nice to actually do some testing to find out - rather than continuing to accept the results of often outdated and flawed tests as "absolutely reliable facts". 



Zapp_Fan said:


> Yes, but roughly speaking, if something were audible at -12dB it'd still be audible at -14dB.  Anyway, I am NOT saying ultrasonics are audible, but if they did have some value in the recording , like _________________ (this space left intentionally blank)... then we can't completely discount that possibility on the sole basis of attenuation between source and mic, relative to normal audio.
> 
> To put it another way, ultrasonics that originate at the same SPL as another frequency will typically only be a few dB lower at the mic position, at least speaking strictly about direct-path audio.
> 
> On the other hand, in some spaces most of the sound reaching a given point is NOT direct and is reflected, so in practice I'd (take a wild) guess you'd capture ultrasonics at no better than an -18dB penalty relative to 1Khz or something, because of absorption by stuff in the room... like walls.  To further waver on the point, that doesn't mean you won't get something intelligible at the mic, just means it will be quieter than stuff that got there by bouncing.


----------



## Arpiben

Even at small Jazz club my ears are rarely less than 5 meters from cymbals and almost never in free line of sight (no obstacles).
A few posts back I did provide @KeithEmo with closed mic ed cymbals hits. At that time I was requesting how he could retrieve room characteristics from its ultrasonic content.
We have files available.
Who is turning in circles?


----------



## KeithEmo

I have to end my posting today with a funny story (I don't know if it qualifies as a fable).

As background, there is an old "wives tale" that "you can capture a bird by sprinkling salt on his tail".
(I have no idea where it came from, but it's been around for a very long time, and seems logically to be quite silly.)

HOWEVER, an old Sylvester and Tweety cartoon provided an excellent lesson in how our biases can affect how we interpret things.
If you didn't know, Sylveser is a talking cat, and his lifetime obsession is capturing and eating Tweety, who is a talking canary bird.

In one cartoon, Sylvester approaches Tweety, who has escaped his cage and is sitting on a window ledge.
As usual, Sylvester is ready to pounce, but Tweety is ready to fly, and he is faster than the cat.
Sylvester approaches cautiously, and says to Tweety: "I read somewhere that I can keep you from escaping by sprinkling salt on your tail".
Tweety of course replies: "That's silly, that's just an old wives tale."
About two seconds later the five pound sack of salt lands on top of Tweety.

I believe the moral of the story is that SOMETIMES, old wives tales, and anecdotal evidence in general, actually does have some basis in fact.


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 6, 2018)

Indeed.
And I do deserve you a response.
I personally was never able to retrieve any useful information regarding room acoustics from those files.
However, that doesn't prove that it's impossible, but merely that I was unable to do so.... and those are very different things.
For example, I could draw a flowchart describing one method which I think _might_ be able to do so...
However, I have neither the DSP programming skills to write the code myself, nor the inclination to pay what it would cost to have someone else write it...
(And, yes, that particular idea may turn out to not be successful.)

Far too many people in this thread seem unable to tell the difference between "hasn't been done yet that I know of" and "impossible"

I should also stress the difference between "detailed color photos" and "information".
Not all information need be complete or even useful.

And, if you accept that, I actually can provide you with an obvious example.
Assuming we have a spot where a cymbal is struck after a few seconds of relative silence.
(Lack of any significant high frequency content for a few seconds will do.)
We should be able to pick out the envelope shape of the initial cymbal strike.
Then, starting from there, if we see an envelope of similar shape 20 mSec later...
We can now surmise that there is some surface whose "bounce time" is 20 mSec...
So we will know that the first reflection traveled over a 20 foot signal path...
And, if we compare the spectra of the two, we will learn _something_.
We will see a difference in spectra due to air and surface absorption at various frequencies.
When we correlate this with other information....
We may be able to determine what the nearest wall is covered with...
Or what the humidity was when the recording was made...
It's sort of like an equation with many variables...
We may determine that EITHER the wall was covered with felt OR it was damp that day.
Then, by combining that with other information, we may be able to tell which applies this time.
This is not at all like having a program present us with a 3D image of the room.
(But, then, if you've seen original RADAR images, they don't look like much either.)



Arpiben said:


> Even at small Jazz club my ears are rarely less than 5 meters from cymbals and almost never in free line of sight (no obstacles).
> A few posts back I did provide @KeithEmo with closed mic ed cymbals hits. At that time I was requesting how he could retrieve room characteristics from its ultrasonic content.
> We have files available.
> Who is turning in circles?


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Indeed.
> And I do deserve you a response.
> I personally was never able to retrieve any useful information regarding room acoustics from those files.
> However, that doesn't prove that it's impossible, but merely that I was unable to do so.... and those are very different things.
> ...



A bigger problem is people equating “it hasn’t been done yet” to “when it’s done, it will be audible to humans”


----------



## Zapp_Fan

KeithEmo said:


> I absolutely agree.....
> 
> I would expect surface absorption at ultrasonic frequencies to be quite high...
> Although, since most rooms probably aren't designed with much consideration given to that, we might all be surprised there in some cases.
> ...



Hmm, this suggests a way to guess whether such a test is plausible without having to get out of our chairs and build this rig.  

Do we know any SPL thresholds or similar data from those experiments that could be generalized to other audio?  It should be easy enough to estimate the SPL of ultrasonics in a normal listening setup, based on existing recordings, and go from there


----------



## analogsurviver

Arpiben said:


> Even at small Jazz club my ears are rarely less than 5 meters from cymbals and almost never in free line of sight (no obstacles).
> A few posts back I did provide @KeithEmo with closed mic ed cymbals hits. At that time I was requesting how he could retrieve room characteristics from its ultrasonic content.
> We have files available.
> Who is turning in circles?



Just yesterday, I recorded a binaural concert of jazz - by young musicians - in the legendary venue 

https://www.prulcek.si/

with cymbals less than 5 m from my position, cursing the note stand the leader of the band, a trumpet player, decided to put exactly in "line of fire". And I had a trumpet ( albeit not muted - muted trumpet is specially rich in ultrasonics, beyond 80 khz ) and sax on less than 3 metre . 

As the gig has been partially amplified ( electric guitar, double bass, most - but not all - of the time trumpet ), I chose to record only in DSD64 - which can be problematic regarding inherent DSD ultraosnic noise. Still, a pretty good picture of what is going on up to at least 48 kHz ( 96kHz sampling in PCM for spectrum analysis ) should be possible.


----------



## Arpiben

KeithEmo said:


> Indeed.
> And I do deserve you a response.
> I personally was never able to retrieve any useful information regarding room acoustics from those files.
> However, that doesn't prove that it's impossible, but merely that I was unable to do so.... and those are very different things.
> ...





KeithEmo said:


> Indeed.
> And I do deserve you a response.
> I personally was never able to retrieve any useful information regarding room acoustics from those files.
> However, that doesn't prove that it's impossible, but merely that I was unable to do so.... and those are very different things.
> ...



For your purpose I am afraid you will need much more ultrasonic power than the one available in music recording.Not even talking about having the mics characteristics and exact positioning during the event....
If not already done you may check power involved in ultrasonic applications and their distance range.


----------



## KeithEmo

That is an interesting and dangerous question... the danger, as usual, arises from the fact we always end up making assumptions about how far we can generalize things, so we run the risk of being wrong. And, when it comes to audio science, sometimes you just can't know for sure whether the proverbial rabbit hole has an exit or not unless you reach the end of the tunnel.

From the studies I've been able to find, it is widely agreed that we hear tones when the nerve fibers in our ears associated with a given frequency are stimulated. Like little tuning forks, each fiber corresponds to a different frequency; when a given fiber is stimulated, we "hear" that frequency. And it is pretty widely agreed that the range of "tuning forks" in the human ear respond to frequencies between 20 Hz and 20 kHz. This is the basis for the claim that "our range of hearing extends from 20 Hz to 20 kHz", which has been pretty widely tested (although there have been slight differences in results).

However, there seem to be other nerve fibers in there that respond to other things, and that send signals when specific things happen, like "when a sound starts". And these haven't been researched in nearly as much detail. And, just to make things more complicated, the output of all of these nerves is processed by our brains, in all sorts of interesting ways. And then we get into things like masking effects, which derive from how our brain does all that processing. 

This brings up all sorts of interesting questions which really have NOT bee answered in detail.

Here's an easy but interesting idea to start... 

We all know that loud sounds at a certain frequency mask our ability to hear quieter sounds at nearby frequencies. The louder the sound the more effectively it masks quieter sounds at nearby frequencies and prevents us from hearing them. Just to make life interesting, the effect varies depending on the frequency of the loud tone, the distance between it and the quieter tones, and whether they are above or below it. I believe it also varies depending on the absolute loudness of both tones... and it also depends on what else you're hearing at the time.

So, here's my interesting question.... 

Let's assume I play a relatively quiet level of steady white noise.

If I then switch a loud 22 kHz tone on and off will it cause an audible change, not because I hear it, but because it is applying a masking effect to frequencies I can hear. (Will my white noise sound duller when the ultrasonic tone is playing because it's masking some of the upper audible frequencies?)

This sounds like a relatively simple test....
And also one whose results would be quite interesting.....
Yet I have never been able to find any published results of anyone having actually done it.

From what I can tell, particularly when it comes to audio, we are all operating under a worrisome number of assumptions, and very little real test data.



Zapp_Fan said:


> Hmm, this suggests a way to guess whether such a test is plausible without having to get out of our chairs and build this rig.
> 
> Do we know any SPL thresholds or similar data from those experiments that could be generalized to other audio?  It should be easy enough to estimate the SPL of ultrasonics in a normal listening setup, based on existing recordings, and go from there


----------



## bigshot

bfreedma said:


> A bigger problem is people equating “it hasn’t been done yet” to “when it’s done, it will be audible to humans”



One very good reason that a thing might not have been done yet is because it might not need to be done.

I'm trying to imagine how loud an ultrasonic frequency would have to be to reach from the stage of the Hollywood Bowl to the benches along the back wall of the audience. I bet the ears and brains of everyone in the front two thirds of the audience would melt!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> One very good reason that a thing might not have been done yet is because it might not need to be done.
> 
> I'm trying to imagine how loud an ultrasonic frequency would have to be to reach from the stage of the Hollywood Bowl to the benches along the back wall of the audience. I bet the ears and brains of everyone in the front two thirds of the audience would melt!


Probably sound glorious back there though....if you could hear it over the screams of those in the front


----------



## KeithEmo

You're kind of missing the point.

The point of science is knowledge....
It's nice if that knowledge happens to be immediately and practically useful....
Especially when it comes time to go mooching for a grant....
Or selling a product....
But it isn't absolutely necessary....
(And, oddly, "useless information" has a habit of eventually finding a use.)

However, the limitations may not be as... limiting... as you think.

Check out this gadget.
https://www.holosonics.com/

It uses an ultrasonic beam to project audible sound.
You point it at someone like a spotlight.
It fires a narrow high-powered beam of modulated ultrasonic power (somewhere around 50 kHz).
The beam interacts with the nonlinearity of the air to create audible sound _ONLY INSIDE THE BEAM_.

This company's models seem to be rated for between six and twelve feet or a bit over.
However, I saw a different model demonstrated in a video up to about twenty feet in a quiet room.
And I read that something similar was used from a rooftop billboard at greater distances.

One demonstration I saw showed it being used to talk to someone sitting in a library from across the room...
While the person sitting next to him could not hear was being said.
As such, it is claimed to have "privacy applications".
It is also used for "interactive signage" - billboards that talk to you when you stand in a certain spot.

This is not science fiction.
It is a commercial product that you can buy today.
(And, yes, I wondered about the amount of power required, and the safety issues.... but they don't seem to be an issue.)



bigshot said:


> One very good reason that a thing might not have been done yet is because it might not need to be done.
> 
> I'm trying to imagine how loud an ultrasonic frequency would have to be to reach from the stage of the Hollywood Bowl to the benches along the back wall of the audience. I bet the ears and brains of everyone in the front two thirds of the audience would melt!


----------



## KeithEmo

If you can build one that actually works like that - call the US Navy.
(I hear they're shopping for one.)

https://www.wired.com/2007/12/acoustic-weapon/



Glmoneydawg said:


> Probably sound glorious back there though....if you could hear it over the screams of those in the front


----------



## KeithEmo

As long as you can pick it out over the noise floor then it's enough to work with.
(With things like RADAR you can actually go 10-20 dB _below_ the noise floor - but only with a specially designed test signal.)

To be candid, I wouldn't expect to use only ultrasonic data for something like this.
However, in any analysis of this type, you want to use _all_ the data available.
Therefore, I would not want to exclude the ultrasonic portion of the spectrum if there was anything there.

I should point out, however, that there are many ultrasonic devices used for measuring and ranging...
Virtually all of them generate their own ultrasonic signal and project it with a specialized transducer.
However, they don't seem to be melting anyone's head, so I guess you don't need unreasonable amounts of power to do it effectively.

There is always a trade off between known and unknown information.
In this context knowing where the microphone was located would help you determine characteristics of the room.
And knowing the exact characteristics of the room would help you use the same information to figure out where the microphone was.
(Imagine a puzzle..... "all we know is that there is one wall ten feet from the microphone, one fifteen feet away, and one six feet away" - "where's the microphone".)



Arpiben said:


> For your purpose I am afraid you will need much more ultrasonic power than the one available in music recording.Not even talking about having the mics characteristics and exact positioning during the event....
> If not already done you may check power involved in ultrasonic applications and their distance range.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

KeithEmo said:


> If you can build one that actually works like that - call the US Navy.
> (I hear they're shopping for one.)
> 
> https://www.wired.com/2007/12/acoustic-weapon/


Wow...i'm guessing the volunteer line will be pretty short....or deaf.


----------



## bigshot

Let me know when we start talking about recorded music again. I'm going to take a nap.


----------



## analogsurviver

Check post #11307 - I can post the samples ... later today, 1 AM here, off to bed.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absoultely agree - which is why it often pays to read carefully.
This is doubly true in a forum dedicated to SCIENCE rather than "product ratings".

Many people climb Mount Everest every year.
Persumably the first one did it "to prove that it could be done".
And he answered the question of whether it was possible once and for all.
I personally don't se why anyone cared one way or the other.
And, once he did it, I can't see why anyone else would bother just to claim a "me too".

The other thing worth noting is that science progresses... and things change.

Someone commented in another post that "it probably would be reasonable to assume that no human will run the mile in one minute flat".
Really?
I'm not so sure that, someday, a modern "six-million dollar man" (he was a cyborg for people too young to remember the show)... 
or perhaps a genetically modified superman...
won't do just that.

Then we can all argue about what percentage of a human must be meat and bones before hs or she is no longer human...
Or what percentage of his or her DNA can be modified before they must be considered "not human"...

The line between science and science fiction is often not especially sharp... and has a tendency of moving...
In fact science fiction has often predicted the future more accurately than science journalism...

Do you believe that someday soon we'll have humans walking around happily with pig's hearts inside them?
(If you don't, you should note that, according to the latest news, there is at least one babboon walking around with a pig heart right now.)
We may actually live to see bionic ear implants that can hear to 500 kHz....
And infrared eye cameras...
And who knows what...



bfreedma said:


> A bigger problem is people equating “it hasn’t been done yet” to “when it’s done, it will be audible to humans”


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting idea there...

Is there something you think left to talk about there...
Or do we know it all already anyway...?





bigshot said:


> Let me know when we start talking about recorded music again. I'm going to take a nap.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I absoultely agree - which is why it often pays to read carefully.
> This is doubly true in a forum dedicated to SCIENCE rather than "product ratings".
> 
> Many people climb Mount Everest every year.
> ...




The level of “whataboutism” as a substitute for rationality is reaching a level of absurdity that’s hard to believe.  

Ok Keith, pigs may one day fly.  I’ll alert air traffic control to immediately begin monitoring every pig currently strolling the earth to ensure a plane doesn’t make impact with one at 25000 feet. 

And yes, I’m well aware of the current status of xenotransplantation.  Glad you’re catching up on old news.


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't usually follow that stuff... 

However, be sure to let me know if you ever hear that they've transplanted a bat's ears onto a human.
(He or she will probably be the first human who really _CAN_ hear 50 kHz.)



bfreedma said:


> The level of “whataboutism” as a substitute for rationality is reaching a level of absurdity that’s hard to believe.
> 
> Ok Keith, pigs may one day fly.  I’ll alert air traffic control to immediately begin monitoring every pig currently strolling the earth to ensure a plane doesn’t make impact with one at 25000 feet.
> 
> And yes, I’m well aware of the current status of xenotransplantation.  Glad you’re catching up on old news.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I absoultely agree - which is why it often pays to read carefully.
> This is doubly true in a forum dedicated to SCIENCE rather than "product ratings".
> 
> Many people climb Mount Everest every year.
> ...


so not only do we have to adjust to tech that doesn't yet exist with the idea that it will, we also have to expect human mutation and cyborgs just so that we can at long last justify having ludicrous ranges of recording and levels of fidelity, and be able to say "see I told you those were significant for humans!". 
if we're just a little bit rational when thinking about effectively pushing the limits of fidelity and perception, I believe that it should be pretty obvious that what was recorded so far will be treated like old low quality wax cylinders are treated now. transferred to new techs only for the sake of preservation. the moment we get rid of microphones and start using whatever we will use instead. 3Dcameras at stupid speeds capturing the mechanical actions of the instruments that will have been previously scanned, and then simulating the exact sound instead of trying to record it and lose a lot in the process, maybe interferometry to collect the signals coming right out of an instrument or somebody's mouth... who knows? it will be the future by then. or maybe experiencing music would bypass our senses and be plugged straight into out brain in a completely different form. all of that is already probably possible with various degrees of accuracy, so why not have it one day with massive levels of accuracy? seems to me that it could be science and not just fiction someday. 
but again, most people then would be using music or whatever experience made for and with modern techs. because they will be superior, and because they will follow the trends of the period. 

the people who will still be interested in the old high res albums, will be the same who are now still passionate about vinyls and tube amps with 4%THD. fidelity by the time it comes will no longer define those products and will no longer be the reason why somebody cares to have them. that's how I imagine things at least. yes the future could bring many surprises(including those that would challenge how loud we can hear the moment before getting vaporized), and yes different people will have different interests. but it seems completely unrealistic to believe that someone is really going to bother trying to poorly reconstitute data from high res records that would conveniently happen to now have some important value in the "experience" of music. I just don't believe that many people would bother if it happened. in a world where you often can't even trace back the tracks used in a master, let alone have any relevant information about the gears used or the processed applied while mastering, the day we get better techs, we'll make use of them to the max and forget about most of the old stuff. the amount of content keeps increasing, we already don't have enough of a lifetime of binge watching to get around all the movies and TV shows, the amount of new music is, at least to me, quite overwhelming. everything I observe points toward losing interest for the old stuff, and toward calling things old a lot sooner than the previous generations did. 

I think you are once again being unrealistically optimistic with all this.


----------



## bigshot

I think you should take a nap too Keith.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> so not only do we have to adjust to tech that doesn't yet exist with the idea that it will, we also have to expect human mutation and cyborgs just so that we can at long last justify having ludicrous ranges of recording and levels of fidelity, and be able to say "see I told you those were significant for humans!".
> if we're just a little bit rational when thinking about effectively pushing the limits of fidelity and perception, I believe that it should be pretty obvious that what was recorded so far will be treated like old low quality wax cylinders are treated now. transferred to new techs only for the sake of preservation. the moment we get rid of microphones and start using whatever we will use instead. 3Dcameras at stupid speeds capturing the mechanical actions of the instruments that will have been previously scanned, and then simulating the exact sound instead of trying to record it and lose a lot in the process, maybe interferometry to collect the signals coming right out of an instrument or somebody's mouth... who knows? it will be the future by then. or maybe experiencing music would bypass our senses and be plugged straight into out brain in a completely different form. all of that is already probably possible with various degrees of accuracy, so why not have it one day with massive levels of accuracy? seems to me that it could be science and not just fiction someday.
> but again, most people then would be using music or whatever experience made for and with modern techs. because they will be superior, and because they will follow the trends of the period.
> 
> ...



Mon cheri Chateau, tous ice me resemble du film " Le pantalon "  



Si vous avez une meilleure decription du ce film https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/75935-le-pantalon pour predominant Anglais ici - tres *WELCOME !*


----------



## james444

KeithEmo said:


> Check out this gadget.
> https://www.holosonics.com/
> 
> It uses an ultrasonic beam to project audible sound.
> ...



Build your own ultrasonic array!
https://www.instructables.com/id/Ultrasonic-Array/
https://www.instructables.com/id/Ultrasonic-Array/
Btw, the Sennheiser Audiobeam, which featured similar technology, was specified to deliver 75dB at a distance of 4m, and considered safe at a minimum distance of 20cm from the speaker grill:
http://av.loyola.com/products/audio/pdf/audiobeam-manual.pdf


----------



## gregorio (Dec 7, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> According to the laws of physics, at least in this universe, at 20 degrees Celsius, at sea level, at 50% relative humidity, the attenuation at 30 kHz is 0.94 dB / meter.
> That means that, at six feet, the attenuation is just under 2 dB. Unless you were referring to the laws of physics in some other universe - that's what the ones in this universe say.



Many audiophiles make claims which are ridiculous because they not only simply ignore all the laws of physics but actually contradict them. You on the other hand are quoting one of the laws of physics, but it's still as effectively invalid because you are ignoring all the other pertinent laws of physics and then FALSELY asserting (twice) "that's what the ones in this universe say". Unless you're living in a different universe, that is absolutely NOT what the laws of physics in this universe say. So not only is your statement FALSE but as I've posted in response to you more than once what the relevant laws of physics are, and actually given you facts and figures, then you cannot claim ignorance or being "inadvertently" mistaken. This is the science forum and therefore pretty much the exact opposite of the "let's ignore and/or misrepresent the science (as suits our agenda)" forum!

For those interested in ALL the relevant facts/science:
We have to consider the practicalities/realities of recording, not just an individual law/rule of physics but the COMBINATION of variables, such as: What is being produced in the first place, what mics are capable of, how do they need to be employed in practice, what laws of physics apply and how do they apply. For example, a snare drum in a drumkit is virtually always very closely mic'ed, so if we're talking about recording from say 2-3m away (in the overhead mics) we not only have to take into account the inverse square law (which KeithEmo is TOTALLY ignoring) but also apply it appropriately, as the inverse square law deals with RELATIVE distance. @Arpiben and @Zapp_Fan - You might find this online calculator useful as it deals specifically with relative mic distance: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm. If we enter 0.0254 (1 inch) into ref (mic) 1 and 2.5m into ref (mic) 2, we see that the SPL at 2.5m is almost 40dB (roughly 100 times) lower. Turning this around, if we had say 100dBSPL at 2.5m (which is not at all unreasonable for a snare drum hit), we would have 140dBSPL at the mic position of 1 inch. Now, we MUST COMBINE this fact with "what mics are capable of" and here we run into a problem because most studio condenser mics are only capable of a maximum level of around 130dBSPL, so we would get break-up distortion (and possibly physically damage the mic). For this reason, we would typically use a dynamic mic for the snare drum in a kit as they can cope with the high SPLs BUT, compared to condenser mics, dynamic mics have very poor high frequency response, typically with a roll-off starting around 9kHz-10kHz and listed with a response extending typically to around 15kHz (they may pick-up content above the freq response spec but at extremely reduced levels). The same is true of any instrument of course, not just the snare drum, although with other instruments we may have additional factors to consider (such as proximity effect for example). In ADDITION to the inverse square law, we have the physics rule/law of thermal noise which comes into play when mic'ing at a distance (even of 2.5m), which increases with frequency. Using the example above, to achieve the same output level from the mic at 2.5m (as at 1 inch) we would need to amplify the mic's output by 40dB, which would also increase the noise floor of the mic and mic-preamp by 40dB but in addition, at 20kHz we've got approximately 22dBm more thermal noise (power) than at say 100Hz. In addition again, we have the one law of physics KeithEmo did bother to quote (HF air absorption) and of course we also have to consider the amount of ultrasonic freq content we have in the first place, what the instrument is actually producing. In practice many instruments have no ultrasonic content but, as has been evidenced by the Boyk paper (which has been linked to several times), those that do typically only produce tiny fractions of a percent of their energy in the ultrasonic band and even only around 6% for the cymbals, which of all instruments probably produces the highest amount of ultrasonic content. So, we've got relatively little utrasonic content to start with, PLUS a higher noise floor.

If you "join the dots" of all this information: We pretty much always use condenser mics for the overheads when mic'ing a drumkit, because they have far lower SPLs to deal with than the close mics and they can more accurately capture the >9kHz content. Obviously though, the final sub-mix of the drumkit will not be comprised of only the overhead mics' output, it will also contain the close mics' output and commonly also the output of a room mic (at a much greater distance than 2.5m and therefore with significantly lower ultrasonic content). BTW, I've essentially already stated ALL of this in previous posts in this thread!



KeithEmo said:


> @gregorio's original assertion was essentially that:
> "Even if there is a significant amount of 30 kHz being produced by the cymbal it won't matter because the air will absorb it all before it reaches the microphone."
> He then went on to assert that the loss would be something like 50 dB at 20 meters. *However, those numbers are not correct.*



Do I really need to qualify my numbers with "in this universe"? I haven't quoted numbers for your alternate universe in which the only laws of physics that exist are the ones which support your agenda! In this universe those numbers ARE correct!

For everyone else (in this universe!): The numbers vary according to distance and other factors. For example, cymbals are not only used in popular music. In an orchestra for example the main mics will typically be around 10m from the cymbals so we'll get significantly more ultrasonic freq loss but we commonly we use a specific type of mic which is spec'ed to 14kHz and again, there will be multiple mic's (including room mics) all mixed with the main mics. However, the ideal audience position is at least 20m from the cymbals, probably closer to 30m. The ultrasonic freq loss at that distance plus the raised noise floor of the mic (if we were to record from that ideal position) would result in there not being ANY recordable ultrasonic content from the cymbals (or any other instrument).



KeithEmo said:


> And, at one point, when I suggested that we might try recording cymbals with a microphone whose response extends to 30 kHz...
> [1] You started by replying that most studio mikes don't go that high. But later, when I offered some microphones that do, and some other folks also listed a few...
> [2] You changed your story, and claimed that "of course you'd already tried this and found no benefit to doing it"...
> [3] Note that I'd be perfectly willing to accept your conclusions if you'd recorded those frequencies, played them back for some listeners, and found that nobody could hear the difference, or just plain didn't like it.
> [4] However, arguing about the laws of physics seems to be sort of a waste to me.



1. I stated at that time almost no studio mics went that high. Today, largely because of false marketing, there is more of a requirement to demonstrate the presence of content >20kHz and therefore more mics that cater to that requirement.
2. No, that is a blatant lie "inadvertent" error, which doesn't even make any sense according to your own quote. If "most studio mics don't go that high" then there must be a few which do (only one or two at the time), we used those which did, duh! Also, because even those that did weren't much good above 20kHz we also tried with other laboratory/test mics.
3. We did and they couldn't! Furthermore, as I've already made CLEAR, we are not talking about one test that I did, we're talking about numerous tests that thousands of independent sound engineers carried out all over the world and repeated various/numerous times.
4. What "arguing about the laws of physics"? There are NO rational arguments about the laws of physics, only irrational arguments by audiophiles who don't actually even know the laws of physics or snake oil salesmen trying to misrepresent them! Now that we've demonstrated that you were misrepresenting the laws of physics, all of a sudden it all "seems to be a sort of a waste of time to you" ... of course it does!



KeithEmo said:


> This whole discussion is really a sort of detour associated with @gregorio's assertion that we would have difficulty creating the required test signal.
> (Or something like that.)



Or in fact nothing like that whatsoever. OK then: This whole discussion is really a sort of detour associated with @KeithEmo asserting that unicorns exist and pigs can fly (or something like that).



KeithEmo said:


> And, let's be a little bit more adversarial...
> We seem to agree that many modern recordings sound bad...
> And we seem to agree that there are reasons for this...
> However, since you're the recording engineer, isn't it _YOUR_ job to find those problems and fix them?



No, it's not! If consumers are demanding to pay only a fraction of a cent (or nothing at all) for their recordings and therefore labels and artists are only spending a fraction of the time and money on making recordings, how's that the job of a recording engineer to fix?



KeithEmo said:


> Therefore, from the seller's point of view, if they want to stay in business, they'd better either:
> a) find some way to improve a mousetrap that their customers and competitors didn't think of (and convince them it's really better)
> b) make a new model mousetrap, with fancier decorations, and a few fancy blinking lights, that doesn't actually do any better at catching mice, and simply _convince_ their customers that it's better



If a mousetrap is already effectively perfect then all we're left with, as you say, is to make another mousetrap and "simply convince their customers that it's better", IE. Marketing! Falsely convince customers that their perfect mousetrap isn't in fact perfect by lying about what "perfect" means, lying about the laws of physics, lying about the realities and practicalities of mousetraps, etc. 



analogsurviver said:


> [1] And one of the indicators of relative distance from the source to the microphone/listener is the attenuation of ultrasonics - the depth of a soundstage with bandwidth limited recording and/or reproduction will NEVER sound natural.
> [2] And I had a trumpet ( albeit not muted - muted trumpet is specially rich in ultrasonics, beyond 80 khz ) and sax on less than 3 metre .
> [3] As the gig has been partially amplified ( electric guitar, double bass, most - but not all - of the time trumpet )
> [4] I chose to record only in DSD64 - which can be problematic regarding inherent DSD ultraosnic noise. Still, a pretty good picture of what is going on up to at least 48 kHz



1. Clearly that's an obvious contradiction. If one of the indicators of relative distance from the source is the attenuation of ultrasonics, then attenuating ultrasonics MUST sound natural!
2. A muted trumpet produces about 0.03% of it's energy above 20kHz, beyond 80kHz obviously far less and that's at just 1m, so how exactly is that "specially rich in ultrasonics beyond 80kHz"? And you stated that the trumpet wasn't muted, so your "specially rich" is actually nothing whatsoever!
3. And that amplification extended to 80kHz did it? What super-tweeters were they using at this live gig?
4. A pretty good picture of what exactly up to 48kHz? A pretty good picture of what an un-muted trumpet and an amplification system isn't producing?

We could solve so many of these utterly ridiculous assertions and arguments by simply having an "Alternate Universe Sound Science" forum!!

G


----------



## Zapp_Fan

@gregorio thanks for the detailed response.  I think we all acknowledge the inverse square law applies to all sound (or non-sound like ultrasonics), I guess that should go without saying.  But your point about the higher noise floor above 20khz is a good one.  When I tried the "filter, then pitch down" trick to see what ultrasonics were there in those recordings posted previously, I have to say, they sounded like cymbals to be sure, but noisy as hell.  I think the "it's mostly noise" problem would also give us headaches on playback, i.e. I would expect most listening equipment to have high noise floors in the ultrasonic band also, making the problem that much worse.  At this point, even if I were a space alien with good hearing up to 40khz, I have to wonder if I would even bother with these noisy recordings and pieces of gear.


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 7, 2018)

I'm sorry... but I do see what's going on here...

I seem to be talking about scientific measurements....
While you seem to be trying to bring in a bunch of stuff that, while it may pertain to recording in many situations, is not directly related.

If I take two sources, in a totally open space, or an anechoic chamber (to eliminate outside factors)...
All frequencies will drop off _EQUALLY_ due to the inverse square...
_IN ADDITION TO THAT_, at two meters, 30 kHz will lose an additional 1.8 dB due to air absorption.... (at 20 degrees C, at sea level, at 50% RH)
While low frequencies, for example 200 Hz, will lose virtually nothing due to air absorption....
(Therefore, my recording at two meters will be "down 2 dB at 30 kHz" compared to flat.)

And, _IF YOU CAN FIND ENOUGH LEVEL TO RECORD AUDIBLE FREQUENCIES AT 20 METERS_.....
The level at all frequencies will be significantly lower - based on the inverse square of the distance.
But, in addition to that loss in level, the level at 30 kHz will be an additional 18 dB lower than the level at 200 Hz.
(So, regardless of the overall level, it will then be "down 18 dB at 30 kHz relative to flat".)
Now, remember that we're talking about direct incident sound, so no room reflections, and no "acoustic contributions".
(I would definitely expect to see a much greater loss at 30 kHz if we take our measurements in a real room - and use a long enough window to include reflected sound and other "room contributions".)

Likewise, when we're talking science, we tend to look at things a bit differently.
For example, when I talk about measuring frequencies, I don't have to concern myself with the limitations of the microphone you would choose to use.
I have no reason to doubt it when you say that you would never mic a drum kit with a condenser microphone.
And I have no reason to doubt that the dynamic microphone you would choose, based on several considerations, like good sound quality, won't pick up 30 kHz.

_HOWEVER_, here's a cute little microphone:     http://www.pcb.com/products.aspx?m=378A14
It has a rated frequency response from 4 Hz to 70 kHz (+/- 2 dB)
It also has an inherent noise of 50 dB, and a dynamic range of 173 dB.
From those numbers, my guess is that, with a proper preamp, it would have no trouble recording a snare drum, or a cymbal, from an inch away (or from two meters away).
And, at that range, it will record everything up past 70 kHz.
(So doing so is not only theoretically possible; it's actually possible with currently available equipment.)

It's not my problem if you don't happen to have one of these in your studio to take your measurements with...
And, as the recording engineer, it's your choice to choose not to use it if you don't think it sounds good...
_HOWEVER_, neither of those facts is relevant if we're discussing what's _possible_...

So, for the sake of _SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION_.....
If I record that cymbal from two inches away... using that microphone... I will get a very accurate recording (+/- 2 dB from 4 Hz to 70 kHz).....
(We'll assume that I'm doing it in a free field, or an anechoic chamber, to exclude room acoustics and other outside influences.)
And, if I then do it again from two meters away, I will find that the level at 30 kHz is down by about 1.8 dB (compared to the level at 200 Hz)....
Therefore, I have shown that is is possible to do so, and, beyond that, that the equipment required to do so is currently available....
That satisfies the requirement of "proving that it's possible".... which is all that I stated to begin with.

And, while I've seen a wide variety of estimates, everyone seems to agree that cymbals produce sound well above 25 kHz.
(And breaking glass, which has been featured on more than a few albums, has measurable frequency components extending past 50 kHz.)

I am perfectly willing to concede to you things like....
- nobody ever does it that way
- no recording studio you know currently has the equipment required to do it
- it would probably sound bad anyway (or not sound especially good)
- it wouldn't be what somebody sitting in the audience would hear

I would again remind anybody coming in late that what we're discussing here is the possibility of recording cymbals and including spectral content at ultrasonic frequencies.
We are _NOT_ discussing whether that would be _audible_ or even whether it would be _desirable_... simply that it would be _possible_.
(We are discussing _SCIENCE_ and _NOT_ good recording technique.....)

I should also point out, just to make @bigshot happy, that, if we're talking about "results of test performed by thousands of recording engineers all over the world",
then it seems like we should have plenty of properly documented test data to look at. (Otherwise that would all just be "a lot of anecdotal evidence".)



gregorio said:


> Many audiophiles make claims which are ridiculous because they not only simply ignore all the laws of physics but actually contradict them. You on the other hand are quoting one of the laws of physics, but it's still as effectively invalid because you are ignoring all the other pertinent laws of physics and then FALSELY asserting (twice) "that's what the ones in this universe say". Unless you're living in a different universe, that is absolutely NOT what the laws of physics in this universe say. So not only is your statement FALSE but as I've posted in response to you more than once what the relevant laws of physics are, and actually given you facts and figures, then you cannot claim ignorance or being "inadvertently" mistaken. This is the science forum and therefore pretty much the exact opposite of the "let's ignore and/or misrepresent the science (as suits our agenda)" forum!
> 
> For those interested in ALL the relevant facts/science:
> We have to consider the practicalities/realities of recording, not just an individual law/rule of physics but the COMBINATION of variables, such as: What is being produced in the first place, what mics are capable of, how do they need to be employed in practice, what laws of physics apply and how do they apply. For example, a snare drum in a drumkit is virtually always very closely mic'ed, so if we're talking about recording from say 2-3m away (in the overhead mics) we not only have to take into account the inverse square law (which KeithEmo is TOTALLY ignoring) but also apply it appropriately, as the inverse square law deals with RELATIVE distance. @Arpiben and @Zapp_Fan - You might find this online calculator useful as it deals specifically with relative mic distance: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm. If we enter 0.0254 (1 inch) into ref (mic) 1 and 2.5m into ref (mic) 2, we see that the SPL at 2.5m is almost 40dB (roughly 100 times) lower. Turning this around, if we had say 100dBSPL at 2.5m (which is not at all unreasonable for a snare drum hit), we would have 140dBSPL at the mic position of 1 inch. Now, we MUST COMBINE this fact with "what mics are capable of" and here we run into a problem because most studio condenser mics are only capable of a maximum level of around 130dBSPL, so we would get break-up distortion (and possibly physically damage the mic). For this reason, we would typically use a dynamic mic for the snare drum in a kit as they can cope with the high SPLs BUT, compared to condenser mics, dynamic mics have very poor high frequency response, typically with a roll-off starting around 9kHz-10kHz and listed with a response extending typically to around 15kHz (they may pick-up content above the freq response spec but at extremely reduced levels). The same is true of any instrument of course, not just the snare drum, although with other instruments we may have additional factors to consider (such as proximity effect for example). In ADDITION to the inverse square law, we have the physics rule/law of thermal noise which comes into play when mic'ing at a distance (even of 2.5m), which increases with frequency. Using the example above, to achieve the same output level from the mic at 2.5m (as at 1 inch) we would need to amplify the mic's output by 40dB, which would also increase the noise floor of the mic and mic-preamp by 40dB but in addition, at 20kHz we've got approximately 22dBm more thermal noise (power) than at say 100Hz. In addition again, we have the one law of physics KeithEmo did bother to quote (HF air absorption) and of course we also have to consider the amount of ultrasonic freq content we have in the first place, what the instrument is actually producing. In practice many instruments have no ultrasonic content but, as has been evidenced by the Boyk paper (which has been linked to several times), those that do typically only produce tiny fractions of a percent of their energy in the ultrasonic band and even only around 6% for the cymbals, which of all instruments probably produces the highest amount of ultrasonic content. So, we've got relatively little utrasonic content to start with, PLUS a higher noise floor.
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver (Dec 7, 2018)

Since I do not see any @gregorio post while being logged into my account, only reply from the memory - regarding the recent jazz rcording.

1. ) All the sound has been a mixture of live , unamplified sound of acoustic instruments ( drums - no mic in sight, trumpet(s), double bass, saxophone ) and amplified sound ( trumpet, electric guitar, double bass ).
2. ) All the musicians/instruments were  < 5 metres from my ears/microphones - solid brick wall after that. just behind the heavy curtains ). Totally acoustic sax and 2nd trumpet < 3 m away. Drum kit approx 4 m away. No silencers on trumpet(s) used that night, though.
As you can see, NO ultrasound amplified - or required to mic/amplify for that matter. Therefore, remark regarding speakers is moot.
3. ) We can - VERY WELL - tell if the sound source is close or far away. And trumpet is perhaps the best known example. First, because the further it is away, there will be less ulktrasonics and highs within the 20 k limit range.
And second, the further away, the less assymetric the waveform will be; any brass instrument can, in general, produce only over pressure ( it can not suck air inside itself/person playing it ) Real close miking will reveal there is almost no underpressure at the brass instrument nozzle - the output pressure is almost all in the positive pressure region. That's WHY frequency response to DC is required - to preserve this offset also in the recording. I know it takes TWICE the amplitude in recording it would take if the lows below say 15 Hz or so would be rolled off ... but the realism would be lost.
Yes, some better players can play their brass also by sucking - but that is VERY low level, totally incomparable to SPL of normal playing. On the order of some 20 dB difference - if not more.

OK - worst case scenario attenuation of 30 and 40 kHz for 3/4/5 metres ? Brass instrument "exhaust" to mic distance , direct path, no obstacles whatsoever. How many dBs ?
Whatever the correct answer, it can not get low enough to be possible to neglect.


----------



## KeithEmo

My guess is that, someday in the future, we'll end up with the obvious end game for binaural.

Several "reference listeners" will be seated at various places in the audience - fitted with bionic implants.
The actual nerve impulses that they hear will be recorded.
And you or I will be able to plug directly into their actual experience. 
("Would you prefer to be John sitting front and center or Mary nearer the back?")

I believe someone did a sci-fi movie about that..... but they included recording the entire experience.....
So the result was more like "remembering you were actually there - even though you weren't".

I'm not suggesting that we should worry about this now - because there's nothing much we could do about it.
But I'm old enough to remember when most people thought cassettes were good enough that "there was no point in bothering to improve them".
(I actually heard a recording once, transcribed from an old Edison cylinder, where the narrator exclaimed that "listening to the cylinder was just as good as being there".)
I guess that, luckily, not everyone believed him.

I agree with you that I may be a bit optimistic...
The current trend is more towards streaming, and earbuds, and listening on a smart phone.... so convenience over quality...
Honestly, if I had to predict what we'll have in 100 years...
I'm guessing that we'll have full video and sensory recordings - perhaps with that direct plug going to our brains...
And virtual audio frequency response from DC to infinity will just be "an incidental benefit of the technology".



castleofargh said:


> so not only do we have to adjust to tech that doesn't yet exist with the idea that it will, we also have to expect human mutation and cyborgs just so that we can at long last justify having ludicrous ranges of recording and levels of fidelity, and be able to say "see I told you those were significant for humans!".
> if we're just a little bit rational when thinking about effectively pushing the limits of fidelity and perception, I believe that it should be pretty obvious that what was recorded so far will be treated like old low quality wax cylinders are treated now. transferred to new techs only for the sake of preservation. the moment we get rid of microphones and start using whatever we will use instead. 3Dcameras at stupid speeds capturing the mechanical actions of the instruments that will have been previously scanned, and then simulating the exact sound instead of trying to record it and lose a lot in the process, maybe interferometry to collect the signals coming right out of an instrument or somebody's mouth... who knows? it will be the future by then. or maybe experiencing music would bypass our senses and be plugged straight into out brain in a completely different form. all of that is already probably possible with various degrees of accuracy, so why not have it one day with massive levels of accuracy? seems to me that it could be science and not just fiction someday.
> but again, most people then would be using music or whatever experience made for and with modern techs. because they will be superior, and because they will follow the trends of the period.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan

I guess if we want to assume the technology from Total Recall or The Matrix becomes real at some point, then we should definitely be doing ultrasonic recordings now, just in case.


----------



## analogsurviver

Zapp_Fan said:


> I guess if we want to assume the technology from Total Recall or The Matrix becomes real at some point, then we should definitely be doing ultrasonic recordings now, just in case.



From DC to 100 kHz ( or few Hz, < 5 Hz to at least 70 kHz ) is possible for at least three years.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree entirely.

Personally, when I visit a very small venue, I don't enjoy sitting three feet from the band... and one reason is that the cymbals are unpleasantly loud and bright.
And I wouldn't even argue if someone were to suggest that rolling off the cymbals _sounds better_ to most people.
Those are the kind of artistic decisions that the recording engineer is expected to make.

However, as a discussion of pure science, that isn't the point.

First off, we were discussing whether it was _possible_ to record those 30 kHz overtones, and not whether it was _desirable_.
I'm perfectly happy that I didn't get a terrible sunburn from those bright scenes in The Martian.
However, from a technical perspective, my TV and the video would have _more accurate_ if I had.
Maybe it would have been nice if my TV had a setting for "pleasant" and "LAB".

Of course, since the movie was really filmed in a studio, and not on Mars, those frequencies probably really weren't there anyway.
Therefore, a camera that recorded the scene on the set with perfect accuracy would still not be "accurate to reality"; it gets complicated.
I'm also pretty sure that different cymbals make wildly different amounts of sound at different frequencies. 

However, I still recall the first time I heard Tommy... by The Who.
There's one scene where the Gypsy Queen smashes a mirror to startle Tommy - who is staring at his reflection.
I don't recall ever hearing a version where that smashing mirror sounded like real glass.
(So I guess there was room for a bit of improvement there. Could it be those missing ultrasonic overtones?)

However, from a scientific perspective, there is another issue.
I'm not convinced that it's reasonable to assume that "most people prefer the cymbals rolled off".
And I'm also not convinced that: "nobody _EVER_ notices _ANY_ difference, with _ANY_ recording, of _ANY_ sound, under _ANY_ circumstances, if you roll it off at 20 kHz or at 30 kHz."
That covers an unreasonably large amount of ground...
And, if we want to find out whether people prefer a recording that's flat to 30 kHz to one that isn't, we need test samples of both for them to listen to.
It's not reasonable to simply say: "That's what we're giving them now and they seem happy with it."
People frequently find new things to be preferable after they try them.

And, by the way, _HAS_ anyone ever actually tested whether the sound of breaking glass sounds more realistic when you include frequencies up to 50 kHz?
We could blindfold some people, alternate some recordings of glasses breaking, and break some real glasses, and see if they can tell the difference.
(And see if they can tell the difference more often when we apply a sharp 20 kHz low-pass filter.)

A lot of what I keep hearing on this forum lately boils down to:
"We already know that people can't hear or be affected by ultrasonic frequencies, ever, under any normal listening conditions, so there's no point in doing a test to find out if they can or not."

From a scientific point of view that's a real stretch.




Zapp_Fan said:


> @gregorio thanks for the detailed response.  I think we all acknowledge the inverse square law applies to all sound (or non-sound like ultrasonics), I guess that should go without saying.  But your point about the higher noise floor above 20khz is a good one.  When I tried the "filter, then pitch down" trick to see what ultrasonics were there in those recordings posted previously, I have to say, they sounded like cymbals to be sure, but noisy as hell.  I think the "it's mostly noise" problem would also give us headaches on playback, i.e. I would expect most listening equipment to have high noise floors in the ultrasonic band also, making the problem that much worse.  At this point, even if I were a space alien with good hearing up to 40khz, I have to wonder if I would even bother with these noisy recordings and pieces of gear.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 7, 2018)

gregorio said:


> This is the science forum and therefore pretty much the exact opposite of the "let's ignore and/or misrepresent the science (as suits our agenda)" forum!



And this is the Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths thread, not the "thinking up excuses why we don't have to bother to test anything and wait for someone else to do it for us" thread.



Zapp_Fan said:


> When I tried the "filter, then pitch down" trick to see what ultrasonics were there in those recordings posted previously, I have to say, they sounded like cymbals to be sure, but noisy as hell.  I think the "it's mostly noise" problem would also give us headaches on playback,



At a super audible frequency and attenuated that much, I doubt there would be any effect on you at all. If you turned up the volume high enough that the sound pressure was detectable, you would get a headache, but you would have to be careful not to incur hearing damage while you do that.

In practice, inaudible is just plain inaudible. Nothing more, nothing less.

I never knew that "pure science" consisted of counting how many angels dance on the head of a pin.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I agree entirely.
> 
> Personally, when I visit a very small venue, I don't enjoy sitting three feet from the band... and one reason is that the cymbals are unpleasantly loud and bright.
> And I wouldn't even argue if someone were to suggest that rolling off the cymbals _sounds better_ to most people.
> ...




You work for a relatively large company in this industry.  Why don’t you execute some testing?  Are you unwilling, or is your company not equipped to perform these tests in order to identify audio elements you so strongly believe are important?


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Dec 7, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> You work for a relatively large company in this industry.  Why don’t you execute some testing?  Are you unwilling, or is your company not equipped to perform these tests in order to identify audio elements you so strongly believe are important?



Earlier ITT we discussed the fact that most audiophile-oriented companies don't have any logical incentive to publish results on these topics.  If consumers already believe the products have high performance, then proving ultrasonics are important won't affect sales.  Proving ultrasonics aren't important would nuke their sales.  Most companies that could afford to run the tests fall into the category of "consumers believe they have high performance"... so you see why nobody actually does the work.

Also a really rigorous, put-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin test would be expensive.  My guess is no less than $250K to do it truly properly.  $250K is not chump change for most audio companies, particularly for a project that is only of academic interest.

Keith (or I, or some other MOTT) could spend a work day at his desk testing these things with... himself... probably, but there isn't much point in doing that, it wouldn't be considered authoritative by anyone. 

Others have also pointed out that, according to any reasonable approach to audio among academics, recording formats are basically a solved problem. The importance of frequencies over 20khz is - if anything - very low.  There are more pressing research problems in the world of human hearing, like figuring out how to treat tinnitus, or how to prevent hearing damage, things like that.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> At a super audible frequency and attenuated that much, I doubt there would be any effect on you at all. If you turned up the volume high enough that the sound pressure was detectable, you would get a headache, but you would have to be careful not to incur hearing damage while you do that.



I meant headaches in the sense of "problems if you're trying to actually reproduce ultrasonic recordings", not a literal headache.  But yeah, if I'm getting a headache from an actual ultrasonic noise I imagine other things are going wrong too.


----------



## bfreedma

Zapp_Fan said:


> Earlier ITT we discussed the fact that most audiophile-oriented companies don't have any logical incentive to publish results on these topics.  If consumers already believe the products have high performance, then proving ultrasonics are important won't affect sales.  Proving ultrasonics aren't important would nuke their sales.  Most companies that could afford to run the tests fall into the category of "consumers believe they have high performance"... so you see why nobody actually does the work.
> 
> Also a really rigorous, put-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin test would be expensive.  My guess is no less than $250K to do it truly properly.  $250K is not chump change for most audio companies, particularly for a project that is only of academic interest.
> 
> ...




I understand and agree.  That’s why I find it so interesting that a MOT keeps discussing testing.  The use of “all things may be possible in the future” as an argument seems to be pure marketing. It’s the confluence of these two approaches within the same post that I find problematic.


----------



## KeithEmo

Fair question... and I'm going to give you an honest answer.
The answer is that, outside of academic interest, it really has little relevance to the design of our products.
(And, while we are in fact a relatively large company, we aren't large enough to have a division dedicated to academic research.)

Many of our customers and potential customers request that our products support digital audio files up to 24/192k.
It's simply "what people expect from current products".
The DAC chips we use in all of our high-end units support 192k.
We don't pay extra for it; we don't charge our customers extra for it; and we would not reduce our costs by limiting our equipment to 44k.
(In fact, if we wanted to limit our gear to 44k, it would cost us more to make the modifications necessary to specifically block higher rates from working.)

So, to be very blunt, our next DAC _will_ support a 192k or higher sample rate, and there is no possible test result that will convince us to change that.
What possible reason would we have to eliminate a feature that some people actually ask for, and that costs nothing to include, whether we believe it's important or not?
And, that being the case, what motivation would we have to expend the time and effort necessary to do a reasonably valid test, if we're not going to do anything regardless of what we may find out?

Based on your comment, I would also advise you to read a few of my posts more carefully...
I _DO NOT_ "strongly believe that high-res files sound better"...
What I strongly believe is that there isn't enough evidence to make a legitimate claim either way...
And, _AS AN INDIVIDUAL_, it always bugs me when people make strong and far-reaching claims based on flimsy and inadequate evidence.
(I simply cannot understand how some people can be so dead set on talking me out of paying a few dollars more for a file that I think_ might_ sound better.)

Just to be clear, as a company, Emotiva doesn't specifically have "an official company line" about whether high resolution files are better or not.
Our official standpoint is more like:
"We think our equipment should be able to play anything you ask it to - and make it sound as good as possible".
"Since a lot of our customers seem to want to play high-resolution files, it's fine with us."

I will point out that we do listen to a lot of equipment...
And many of us are quite convinced that our equipment sounds a lot better than the equipment made by many of our competitors.
Many of us are also quite convinced that, for example, different of our own amplifier and DAC models sound a tiny bit different.



bfreedma said:


> You work for a relatively large company in this industry.  Why don’t you execute some testing?  Are you unwilling, or is your company not equipped to perform these tests in order to identify audio elements you so strongly believe are important?


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Dec 7, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> I understand and agree.  That’s why I find it so interesting that a MOT keeps discussing testing.  The use of “all things may be possible in the future” as an argument seems to be pure marketing. It’s the confluence of these two approaches within the same post that I find problematic.



I think the real problem is a disconnect on this proposition.

Keith (and I personally) and a few others find ultrasonics fun to think/talk about, regardless of whether there's any practical application today. 

This is mostly because they're the only thing you can discuss materially improving in audio without getting deep into like... materials science and mechanical engineering.  Back here on planet earth, 2018, as far as most reasonable people are concerned, the biggest bottleneck in audio reproduction today is transducers, (and acoustics) and talking about how to improve transducers beyond today's state of the art is frankly above my pay grade.  And acoustics is sort of boring and out of place on this forum because it's more of a woodworking project than "audio" most of the time. 

Others find them annoying to think about or talk about because there's  no practical application today.  So those others argue against Keith as if he's advocating for something in particular, when really he's just (as I read it) more on a "wouldn't it be interesting if..." sort of trip.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree entirely... with two small exceptions.

"Proving that ultrasonics aren't important" would only "nuke their sales" if their sales were based largely on claims that their product had great ultrasonic performance.
That wouldn't be the case if they really just sold their products based on the claim that "they sound good".
(Which is why it's a good idea to avoid products whose "claim to fame" is based on one questionable virtue.)

I should also point out that this is far more the case for some products and situations than others.
For example, we would expect sales of high-resolution files, claimed to be better in part because of ultrasonic performance, would drop if that was proven to not be significant.

However, I doubt that sales of DACs that support 192k would be affected at all.
The reason is that most current DACs support 192k.
Therefore, while someone may _NOT_ buy a certain DAC because it _DOESN'T_ support 192k... 
It's really doubtful that any company "sells more DACs because they support 192k".
We say that "for DACs 192k is _NOT_ a product differentiator" (it was ten years ago - when few DACs supported it - but not now).

For DACs, 192k is what we in the industry call "a check box item".
It's on the list of what people expect and look for when selecting a product.
They don't select a particular product because it _HAS_ that feature...
But they will _AVOID _a product that_ LACKS_ it (because they see it as a sort of standard feature)...

Nobody buys a car because it _HAS_ air conditioning; because almost all cars have it...
But people will avoid buying a car that _DOESN'T_ have it...
(So proving that air conditioning is useless to you because you live in Alaska won't really hurt sales of a car that has it.) 

The other thing I would point out is that such a result won't nuke sales.
If the company conducted the test themselves, and the results would be bad for business, they simply won't publish it.
(What you suggested would only be the case if that company sponsored an_ independent test_ - which everyone agreed would be published regardless of the results.)



Zapp_Fan said:


> Earlier ITT we discussed the fact that most audiophile-oriented companies don't have any logical incentive to publish results on these topics.  If consumers already believe the products have high performance, then proving ultrasonics are important won't affect sales.  Proving ultrasonics aren't important would nuke their sales.  Most companies that could afford to run the tests fall into the category of "consumers believe they have high performance"... so you see why nobody actually does the work.
> 
> Also a really rigorous, put-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin test would be expensive.  My guess is no less than $250K to do it truly properly.  $250K is not chump change for most audio companies, particularly for a project that is only of academic interest.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Dec 7, 2018)

As long as we all agree that super-audible frequencies in music are  super-fluous. But there are certain people who make a lot of money from selling inaudible sound. They have a vested interest in keeping this conversation going. There are also people who fervently believe that their ears can hear what normal human ears can't. They would rather talk about it in "pure theory" than submit themselves to a controlled test and find out that their ears aren't quite so golden. There's a lot of money to be made in helping these people stay in the dark.


----------



## KeithEmo

Thank you.

The biggest limitations on audio quality these days are probably:
1) transducers (speakers)
2) the room (the acoustics of the playback room itself)
3) production values

However, there really aren't many interesting tests being conducted on those subjects lately.
(How about a survey to determine how many people_ really_ prefer multi-track recordings to relatively unprocessed ones?)
(Or how abut some serious discussion about which reflections it's most important to eliminate when adding a limited amount of sound treatment to a listening room?)

Sadly, or maybe not, not too many people on this forum would really enjoy a scholarly discussion of woven carbon fiber vs parallel fibers in midrange cone construction....
(Or even a scientific discussion about the relative merits of Dirac Room Correction vs Audyssey....?)



Zapp_Fan said:


> I think the real problem is a disconnect on this proposition.
> 
> Keith (and I personally) and a few others find ultrasonics fun to think/talk about, regardless of whether there's any practical application today.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 7, 2018)

How about if we just agree that we _DON'T_ all agree about that...
But there are lots of other things to talk about?

It's really cool to suggest that "everything should be properly tested"....
But, unless you have an endless wallet to pay for those tests, we may have to accept that it may not happen.
However, we do NOT live in a world where everything that hasn't been tested is assumed to be untrue.

Did you know that many foods and medicines currently in use were "grandfathered in", and so have never actually been tested for either safety or efficacy? 
(The FDA did NOT go back and test every product that was already on sale when the agency was started.... it just wasn't practical.)




bigshot said:


> As long as we all agree that super-audible frequencies in music are  super-fluous. But there are certain people who make a lot of money from selling inaudible sound. They have a vested interest in keeping this conversation going. There are also people who fervently believe that their ears can hear what normal human ears can't. They would rather talk about it in "pure theory" than submit themselves to a controlled test and find out that their ears aren't quite so golden. There's a lot of money to be made in helping these people stay in the dark.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 7, 2018)

The problem here is that there's too much talking and not enough being talked about. I'm interested in discussing audiophile myths that have been disproved by controlled testing. There are an awful lot of those, and it is the topic of this thread after all. However the thread keeps getting derailed into discussions of "pure theory" that smells like more audiophile myths being peddled. I feel the need to interject a raspberry whenever I hear people "having fun" discussing things that just aren't true in the real world. Snake oil in "pure theory" is still a scam, and turning a blind eye to it "just for fun" is still being complicit in it.

I do a controlled test on every piece of equipment I buy. It doesn't take a lot of time, and it doesn't cost a lot of money. I understand why manufacturers might want to discourage this sort of thing though. It isn't good for business.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

@KeithEmo I can at least say that IMO the primary reflection points relative to the listening position are the most important to treat.  You can do this literally by having someone walk around with a mirror held near the wall while you sit in the listening position, and mark anywhere you can see a speaker in a mirror. 

Of course... acoustics is a deep enough topic to warrant its own forum, let alone thread, but if you want to know which spots are the highest priority, that's one way to do it 

As far as high-res performance not nuking sales, I tend to agree with your assessment, it's a parity feature for a DAC at this point. 

@bigshot - I have no illusions about me or anyone else being able to hear >20khz tones, but like Keith, I don't believe all nails are fully into the 44Khz coffin yet, or at least, I haven't seen the test that proves it yet. There are other types of information which may have some (modest) value in that frequency band which I haven't seen are completely debunked.  Yet.  I'm not saying they won't be, I just don't happen to know that they are. 

Of course I always acknowledge that they're mostly irrelevant, especially with today's recordings and gear, but like I said, I just think it's fun to think about.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 7, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> I have no illusions about me or anyone else being able to hear >20khz tones, but like Keith, I don't believe all nails are fully into the 44Khz coffin yet, or at least, I haven't seen the test that proves it yet.



If you'd like to do a test yourself to find out, I would be happy to share my experience doing that test myself. It is very easy to do and then you would know. Not asking questions isn't a good excuse for not knowing answers.

Why is it that the regular folks in Sound Science do listening tests and members of the trade don't? It's curious.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Dec 7, 2018)

bigshot said:


> If you'd like to do a test yourself to find out, I would be happy to share my experience doing that test myself. It is very easy to do and then you would know. Not asking questions isn't a good excuse for not knowing answers.
> 
> Why is it that the regular folks in Sound Science do listening tests and members of the trade don't? It's curious.



I actually think it's a really hard test to do and I don't know if I own any equipment capable of doing a valid test.  I mean ... even to find a recording or two where the cymbals (or breaking glass or whatever) aren't just totally submerged in noise would be a project in and of itself. You might even need to make the recording yourself, another big project. Then to be 100% sure your gear can produce ultrasonics with something like decent fidelity without really being able to hear it ... also hard.

Basically I don't have much confidence that the right materials and setups are actually easily accessible or affordable, and as a MOTT, I don't have a budget for this test, nor do I think I'll have one next year or the year after.  I'm only participating because I actually enjoy the useless theoretical discussion.  My fiancee won't humor me so it's up to you guys. 

I do a lot of listening tests... for work.  They are mostly focused on frequencies below 16khz. No shame in this game.


----------



## Phronesis

I'm still generally on break, but wanted to share this, in case it hasn't been shared before (I don't remember):

https://tapeop.com/blog/2018/08/30/subconscious-auditory-effects/

It may have some relevance to the current topic of ultrasonics, and perhaps worth keeping in mind that the boundary between sonic/ultrasonic varies a lot between people.  18 kHz may be consciously perceivable for one person, only subconsciously perceived by another, and neither consciously nor subconsciously perceived by another.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 7, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> I actually think it's a really hard test to do and I don't know if I own any equipment capable of doing a valid test.



Do you have an SACD player? All you need is an SACD recorded in native DSD and with a redbook layer that is the same mastering. I can point you to the one I used if you want. Aside from that, it's just a preamp and switcher.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Dec 7, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Do you have an SACD player? All you need is an SACD recorded in native DSD and with a redbook layer that is the same mastering. I can point you to the one I used if you want. Aside from that, it's just a preamp and switcher.



Don't have any of those things handy.  I have a DAC that may do 96khz, but I sincerely doubt its analog ouputs are any good up past 20khz. Also, we'd have to independently establish the noise floor of each piece of gear at / above 30khz, etc.  Not to mention find some transducers that are actually good > 30khz, again, probably not trivial. I have some Blue Sky monitors and I have some ER4XRs and (although they are wonderful) I don't think either one would be worth a crap for this test.

I mean, I can tell you right now none of my gear that I already own is likely up to the task. There's no question that ultrasonics are worthless in the context of things I own and things I actually listen to. But that's not the question I am interested in.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 7, 2018)

I have a spare SACD player I could lend to the project. If it's an SACD player it's designed to reproduce super audible frequencies. If it's an SACD recorded in native DSD, it would have a full complement of ultrasonics. I also have a set of Oppo PM-1s that are rated to 50kHz in free field that I could conceivably loan. (I doubt we'd be running into much that high though.) This is the equipment I used to set up my own listening test. (I also did a test at my friend's studio with his pro reference rig.)

But if you think the only way to reproduce super audible frequencies is to use specialized equipment, then we've answered our question. They are irrelevant to the playback of recorded music in the home.


----------



## Phronesis

Recent article on ambient ultrasonics:

https://www.livescience.com/62533-ultrasonic-ultrasound-health-hearing-tinnitus.html

Doesn't seem that ultrasonics are necessarily something we'd want to capture in reproduced music.  Seems plausible to me that at least some people might enjoy music more _without_ ultrasonics.

(Yes, I know, supposed to be on break.  I'm taking a break from being on break.)


----------



## Steve999

Phronesis said:


> Recent article on ambient ultrasonics:
> 
> https://www.livescience.com/62533-ultrasonic-ultrasound-health-hearing-tinnitus.html
> 
> ...



Don't worry about taking a break from being on break! Just don't take a break from being on break from being on break and you're good!


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I'm still generally on break, but wanted to share this, in case it hasn't been shared before (I don't remember):
> 
> https://tapeop.com/blog/2018/08/30/subconscious-auditory-effects/
> 
> It may have some relevance to the current topic of ultrasonics, and perhaps worth keeping in mind that the boundary between sonic/ultrasonic varies a lot between people.  18 kHz may be consciously perceivable for one person, only subconsciously perceived by another, and neither consciously nor subconsciously perceived by another.








this is the basic principle and as far as we know, how we hear. just that the apex area of the basilar membrane is in fact wider than the base, and the extreme values are kind of BS, but the graphs on the right help understand what I'm trying to say, so I show this one^_^. any vibration with a strong enough intensity can reach that area and shake the hair cells enough to trigger some electrical impulses. in fact you could even just have something shake the head regardless of what goes on in the ear canal, and still successfully trigger "hearing"(like bone conduction and stuff like that, which are really all just about shaking the hair cells enough to activate them).
now the cells "detecting" high frequencies are at the base, I have never seen anything challenging that tonotopic map of the receptors(given tones related to a position in the ear, and later to a position in the brain). when you send high freqs, the base is narrow and stiff and a rapid vibration is rapidly attenuated(if it wasn't already while traveling to get there inside the head). so high frequencies will significantly shake the entrance of the basilar membrane(the bigger the amplitude the bigger the area that's going to shake, but the resonance is going to be at the entrance.

now if we have a 2khz vibration, it will propagate further down and resonate wherever the shape create the resonance for 2khz. the hair cells in that area will be shaken more than the rest but everything from the base to that 2khz area is also shaking, and then the vibration will get reduced and probably won't shake anything in the area for low end frequencies.


a 60hz tone now. it will create a traveling wave all the way down that hopefully will still reach a place where it resonates so we can identify it by its tone(although that low we start to have the body shaking to go with it anyway).

on the B C D examples in the graph, despite the caricature and the tube being straightened up, what is true is how the base tends to shake significantly no matter the frequency of the tone. that is the reason why that's where we usually lose our hearing the fastest. stronger amplitudes and all sounds causing movements. but the implication is also that when you have a mix of signals, for the 19, 20 or 25khz to be identified for what it is, we cannot afford to have the rest of the music creating bigger vibrations at the base of the basilar membrane. otherwise we get masking, the same way we get it in frequencies close to the resonance point of any tone. if a tone is 5khz, it will resonate massively in the 5khz area and that will also shake things directly next to that area, even though it won't resonate like at 5khz. so if at the same time we have a 4.5khz signal, but the amplitude of the shaking even at the resonance point is still smaller than the shaking from the 5khz bringing each sides for the shaky ride, then we have no way of knowing that the 4.5khz tone even existed. it is masked.
this can happen for ultrasonic and probably for a bunch of the higher treble freqs too, when almost any other tone played at the same time. it's all a matter of amplitudes(how loud it is, and how well it will be carried into the ear. as after all, our sensitivity changes a good deal for very low and very high frequencies).

so we need:
- the ultrasonic content to be recorded without much attenuation from distance or the mic rolling them off.
- same thing for playback gears. while it's not hard to find headphones with stable and extended ultrasonic content, that may not be what we own.
- we need to have ears with that area not damaged so much that it's either dead or firing signals all the time as noise(which does happen in small proportions everywhere even for "good" ears, explaining in part why we do have hearing thresholds in the first place, the other reason being how neurons don't necessarily activate with any level of signal they receive).
- those ultrasonic signals to reach the cochlea and still have enough amplitude to shake things around the base of the basilar membrane.
- and that needs to be bigger than all the already occurring shaking at the base, caused by the rest of the music. because those cells can't possibly identify such frequencies with the period of the vibration, the cells are rather slow to reload once they have fired(I'm guessing potassium and whatever else like in almost everything electrical in the body). I remember watching a video with a guy measuring individual hair cells potentials from rat ears or whatever, but I can't find it when I need it.there was a lot to learn from, and also a few mysteries. 

can we get all that? yeah it's possible, young with the right gear and the right track, and maybe we'll perceive all that. and maybe even when we don't notice consciously, our brain will subconsciously. but let's just agree that the chances aren't on ultrasounds' side.


----------



## analogsurviver

There is A LOT of fishing in murky waters regarding the ultrasonic content in recorded MUSIC .

That murky water business can be clearly traced down to two main reasons :

1.) Non availability of the equipment that can ACTUALLY record above 20 kHz in a competent way in MOST studios/by MOST recording engineers.
2.) Non willingness by MOST recording studios/engineers to adopt it - because it, by default and by definition,  would require turning  the current predominant use of multimiking upside down, in favour of less complicated microphone recording techniques. 

If anyone is naive enough to think aligning the output of a multimiked recording session at least within an order of magnitude greater time errors than allowed by 2 mics/one stereo mic is possible - then he or she is delusional in the extreme. The processing required to allow for this might NEVER become available - and even IF it would become available, it would not be sonically transparent to begin with. 

I did point out that the ANALOG sections of any digital gizmo ever made or yet to be made - if we asume the "digitits", whatever it might be, to be perfect - determine the ultimate sound quality.

I did claim that capacitors - which are and WILL  be used in audio gear ( at least the variety that can - STILL - be considered affordable ; non plus ultra designs eschew the use of capacitors in the audio path altogether, replacing them by high quality inductors - but that is at the price level ANY studio would find prohibitive - let alone all but the most wealthy home listeners  ) are the major culprits. And got flamed for it, BIG time.

I particularly remember @RRod doing some computer generated anylysis how a regular electrolytic capacitor is more than good enough for audio, arguing that any of its distortionit introduces up to 20 kHz is, basically, negligible and therefore inaudible. That simulation gets blown to smitherins by the real world test if frequency response is extended to 96 kHz ( limited by the 192kHz PCM sampling of the soundcard ) and is no doubt even worse if tested for even higher frequencies with even higher sampling frequency soundcard. 

I did say that the signal path of the no longer on this thread @pinnahertz  ( and others' studios as well ) is in for a purge more radical than that by the guy better not mentioined in this thread - IF the benefits of large bandwidth, exceeding 20 kHz by at least one, but preferably two or more octaves - are to be reasonably well realized.

OOpsie daisy .... BIG TIME ! 

What, do you think, is "cheaper" for the studios :

a) - to try to convince everyone response above currently accepted audible frequenciy limit above 20 kHz is not required ( and continue business as usual, with the equipment already in posession , allowing for considerable financial gain still to be reaped, without having to make any new investments )
b) - to replace EVERYTHING - from microphone(s) to speakers/headphones - that DOES support > 20 kHz properly. 
That IS expensive - and beyond profitability in most cases, at least in the present "climate". 
And HAVING TO RE-LEARN the recording techniques by now mostly forgotten - with most of the existing software and plugins rendered instantly OBSOLETE.

As you can see, the crux of the opposition fighting tooth and nail that >20 kHz does not matter is not in trying to save the end customer the difference between a RBCD capable DAC and one capable of HR ( and the rest of the home gear chain ) - as they are trying to present  themselves; not at all. 

It is in the  atempt to stem the tide of desperately required upgrade of existing studio gear and existring recording practices - for as long as possible .


----------



## Davesrose (Dec 7, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> this is the basic principle and as far as we know, how we hear. just that the apex area of the basilar membrane is in fact wider than the base, and the extreme values are kind of BS, but the graphs on the right help understand what I'm trying to say, so I show this one^_^. any vibration with a strong enough intensity can reach that area and shake the hair cells enough to trigger some electrical impulses. in fact you could even just have something shake the head regardless of what goes on in the ear canal, and still successfully trigger "hearing"(like bone conduction and stuff like that, which are really all just about shaking the hair cells enough to activate them).
> now the cells "detecting" high frequencies are at the base, I have never seen anything challenging that tonotopic map of the receptors(given tones related to a position in the ear, and later to a position in the brain). when you send high freqs, the base is narrow and stiff and a rapid vibration is rapidly attenuated(if it wasn't already while traveling to get there inside the head). so high frequencies will significantly shake the entrance of the basilar membrane(the bigger the amplitude the bigger the area that's going to shake, but the resonance is going to be at the entrance.



This isn't quite how we hear.  This diagram is the afferent nerve impulses from the inner ear to brain: but we also have other physical factors in the ear and efferent factors that influence auditory perceptions.  I earlier piped up when the subject reached medical science: and how the ear is not like a transducer (which is simpler and stays consistent in its performance).  Our perceptions even change throughout the day: visually, it's the change of what photosensitive cells are being utilized and with our ears, there's various changes in stapedius and tensor tympani muscles that change the amplification to fluid amplification of the inner ear.  With day to day, it's dependent on fluids in your inner ear and ion levels for the efferent amplification feedback systems.


----------



## Phronesis

Ok, this is pretty dang weird:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17691656

"Intense airborne ultrasound has been associated with hearing loss, tinnitus, and various nonauditory subjective effects, such as headaches, dizziness, and fullness in the ear. Yet, when people detect ultrasonic components in music, ultrasound adds to the pleasantness of the perception and evokes changes in the brain as measured in electroencephalograms, behavior, and imaging. How does the airborne ultrasound get into the ear to create such polar-opposite human effects? *Surprisingly, ultrasound passes first through the eyes; thus, the eye becomes but another window into the inner ear*."​


----------



## old tech (Dec 8, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I have a spare SACD player I could lend to the project. If it's an SACD player it's designed to reproduce super audible frequencies. If it's an SACD recorded in native DSD, it would have a full complement of ultrasonics. I also have a set of Oppo PM-1s that are rated to 50kHz in free field that I could conceivably loan. (I doubt we'd be running into much that high though.) This is the equipment I used to set up my own listening test. (I also did a test at my friend's studio with his pro reference rig.)
> 
> But if you think the only way to reproduce super audible frequencies is to use specialized equipment, then we've answered our question. They are irrelevant to the playback of recorded music in the home.


Wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier to just reacquaint yourselves with the M&M study?  It was a properly controlled study comparing SACDs and DVD-As in native and truncated to CD specs using over 100 subjects, various stereos and listening environments, many trials over the course of a year. There was zero evidence that ultrasonics or resolution beyond RBCD can either be heard or that weezle word 'perceived'. As the authors of that study rightly pointed out, the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise, yet none has been forthcoming. 10 years later some on this thread are still flogging a dead horse.

Btw, I'm not sure you can do that test on a SACD player, all the ones I've come across have a [probably intentional] delay when switching between layers, and how would one be certain that the analogue circuits relating to the 44.1 DAC are of similar quality to those related to the DSD DAC?


----------



## analogsurviver

Phronesis said:


> Ok, this is pretty dang weird:
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17691656
> 
> "Intense airborne ultrasound has been associated with hearing loss, tinnitus, and various nonauditory subjective effects, such as headaches, dizziness, and fullness in the ear. Yet, when people detect ultrasonic components in music, ultrasound adds to the pleasantness of the perception and evokes changes in the brain as measured in electroencephalograms, behavior, and imaging. How does the airborne ultrasound get into the ear to create such polar-opposite human effects? *Surprisingly, ultrasound passes first through the eyes; thus, the eye becomes but another window into the inner ear*."​


This confirms the claims of the Japanese manufacturer of >20kHz speakers and headphones, Taket http://www.taket.jp/

They claim there is a very simple test if an individual is sensitive to ultrasound; if you can tell the difference in perception of the sound being played over ultrasonic capable gear, with ultrasonic information recorded - IF and WHEN  you either cover the eye area by your hands or leave the eye area normally exposed, THEN  you need ultrasonics being present in your listening. 

Not everybody is sensitive to ultrasonics  - they are utmost fair in this regard.


----------



## bfreedma

Phronesis said:


> Ok, this is pretty dang weird:
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17691656
> 
> "Intense airborne ultrasound has been associated with hearing loss, tinnitus, and various nonauditory subjective effects, such as headaches, dizziness, and fullness in the ear. Yet, when people detect ultrasonic components in music, ultrasound adds to the pleasantness of the perception and evokes changes in the brain as measured in electroencephalograms, behavior, and imaging. How does the airborne ultrasound get into the ear to create such polar-opposite human effects? *Surprisingly, ultrasound passes first through the eyes; thus, the eye becomes but another window into the inner ear*."​




Interesting abstract.  I’ve requested the full text of the research paper.  Don’t suppose anyone has access to it in case I don’t get a response from the author?


----------



## castleofargh

Davesrose said:


> This isn't quite how we hear.  This diagram is the afferent nerve impulses from the inner ear to brain: but we also have other physical factors in the ear and efferent factors that influence auditory perceptions.  I earlier piped up when the subject reached medical science: and how the ear is not like a transducer (which is simpler and stays consistent in its performance).  Our perceptions even change throughout the day: visually, it's the change of what photosensitive cells are being utilized and with our ears, there's various changes in stapedius and tensor tympani muscles that change the amplification to fluid amplification of the inner ear.  With day to day, it's dependent on fluids in your inner ear and ion levels for the efferent amplification feedback systems.


the diagram is showing the principle behind the cochlea. the tube going up and back down(same circuit), and in the middle is where all the wiggling will affect the hair cells that will in turn send electrical signals to the brain. the 3 examples on the right are showing the same thing but artificially stretched out to form a line and show the propagation of vibrations. in reality it's a more 3D thing obviously. even the propagation of a tone is more 3D and complicated. but the principles remain. tonotopy and resonance, wave propagation and attenuation over a distance for different frequencies, acoustic masking...
is something in my post contradicting the existence of the extra variables you mention? I'm showing a simplified model of a very specific part of the ear, so obviously it's not describing the entire hearing process in an exhaustive way. you're trying to make me be captain obvious or am I just not getting your point? 

I showed this because it's the area that turns vibration into electrical impulses, so if the brain "hears" something it was registered there, otherwise it's not hearing. I was  saying this in response to the conscious/unconscious pondering from @Phronesis . if the electrical signal created is similar with or without ultrasounds, because ultrasounds are too low in amplitude to register, or because the hair cells in that area are ruined, or because the signal is physically masked by other louder sounds in the audible range, then the very question about subconscious impact of ultrasounds in hearing is irrelevant. that's what I'm suggesting. before we worry about how we interpret stuff, or how music has it so we need it, we have first to make sure that we adult humans actually register the stuff when listening to our favorite music at our usual output level. then we can worry about interpretation. only then.


----------



## james444

bfreedma said:


> Interesting abstract.  I’ve requested the full text of the research paper.  Don’t suppose anyone has access to it in case I don’t get a response from the author?



https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2702/810e3bfde17fc044cd7775b49e9c9a77ee8f.pdf


----------



## Steve999

james444 said:


> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2702/810e3bfde17fc044cd7775b49e9c9a77ee8f.pdf



Thanks. That sure has a few curve-balls in it. It so diverges from anything I would have expected that I have to soak it in.


----------



## Arpiben

analogsurviver said:


> This confirms the claims of the Japanese manufacturer of >20kHz speakers and headphones, Taket http://www.taket.jp/
> 
> They claim there is a very simple test if an individual is sensitive to ultrasound; if you can tell the difference in perception of the sound being played over ultrasonic capable gear, with ultrasonic information recorded - IF and WHEN  you either cover the eye area by your hands or leave the eye area normally exposed, THEN  you need ultrasonics being present in your listening.
> 
> Not everybody is sensitive to ultrasonics  - they are utmost fair in this regard.



Time to change your recordings methods then .
Use ultrasonic mics at eye & skull level rather than record them at ears (binaural).


----------



## KeithEmo

I think that's sort of a fair question....
Let me try and impart a little insight about how the audio industry works (as well as most others).

I'm going to start by asking you to think for a minute. Consider exactly what you would expect us to test, why you would expect us to test it, why you would expect us to publish the results if we did test it, and whether you're really talking about a test or a _survey_. 

As the obvious example, and one near and dear to @bigshot's heart, I'm going to use the subject of high-resolution files. So, why has Emotiva, who I work for, never conducted and published any tests about whether people really can hear the difference between high-resolution files and plain old CDs? The answer is really simple: _because, as a company, we don't care_. As a company who sells hardware, we do our best to include in our products the features that the market has a demand for, and specifically the features that _our_ customers ask for. And, at the moment, a lot of our customers specifically ask for us to support high-res sample rates. Even beyond that, it's pretty obvious that these days support for 192k is what we call a check-box feature, which means that many people simply won't even consider buying a DAC these days that _doesn't_ support at least 192k. And, beyond _that,_ the DAC chips we prefer to use for other reasons support 192k anyway. Therefore, not only doesn't it cost us extra to support 192k, but it would actually cost us extra to block it off if we wanted to avoid supporting it. 

So, what possible reason would we have for wanting to run a test to prove conclusively one way or the other whether there's a real difference or not? We would expect audio magazines, and audiophile clubs, to be the ones who would want to sponsor and publish tests like that. However, apparently, the magazines have decided that it's more profitable to keep the debate going than to sponsor tests, and, obviously, some of their advertisers would be quite unhappy if they published articles claiming that their products were really useless, or no better than cheaper alternatives. And, whether you like it or not, running proper tests that would provide credible results is expensive enough to deter both magazines and clubs from doing it. And, obviously, the companies who sell high-resolution files sell plenty of them because many people believe that they're better. They would lose business if they were to run tests and find out that nobody could hear the difference. In fact, they would probably lose sales even if it turned out that there was a difference, but only a few people could hear it, or if most people didn't think it was a _big_ difference. It seems pretty obvious that loads of anecdotal reports and reviews by happy customers who report hearing differences are much better for their bottom line - and advertising is actually much cheaper than formal testing.

So, to answer your question with a question: Exactly who in the industry would you expect to _WANT_ to spend money conducting and publishing those tests?

Now, let's consider DACs.....

@bigshot is convinced that "all good DACs sound the same". I'm convinced that they sound rather different... and, specifically, that many DACs that use Sabre chips have a specific "house sound". Well, here at Emotiva, we have "tested them". At various times we've had competitors products in to listen to that used Sabre DACs. And, at various times, we've compared them to both our DACs and other DACs of other types. In general, everyone at Emotiva who listened to them thought they sounded a little different than other DACs, and not in an especially good way. This was enough to convince us not to use that brand. Since they test very well, and have specs that equal other DACs, I would have to consider this a subjective choice. 

No, we didn't do any double blind tests; no, we didn't publish any results; and, no, we really don't care whether you take my word for it or not. We expect you to buy our products based on how they preform, and how they sound, and this simply counts as "part of our internal design process". A lot of our customers agree that our products sound better than those that use Sabre brand DAC chips; a few prefer the way Sabre DACs sound; and there are probably plenty who, like @bigshot, don't notice any difference. However, we have little incentive to spend a lot of money on a major test to prove anything either way. We're quite satisfied to accept the fact that most of our customers seem to think that our products sound very good, and very few of them ever get returned because someone is unhappy with the way they sound. And, to be quite honest, we probably wouldn't be willing to sell a product that we didn't think sounded very good - even if it turned out that a lot of other folks liked it.

I should also point out that different standards apply under different circumstances.

The level of testing that @bigshot, or you, or I, may consider more than reasonable to make a personal purchasing decision is far different than the level I would consider to be the credible and reliable sort of results I would be comfortable publishing. If you're deciding which DAC to purchase, then all that matters is how it will sound in your system, through your ears, and that's quite reasonably what you should test. 

When you publish results, you should always include details of both the range, and the limitations of your test.

Here's an example.....

The Meyer and Moran study is quoted, over and over again, as proof that "CDs are audibly perfect".
I've also heard it claimed that "at all reasonable levels nobody was able to determine the difference".
However, when Meyer and Moran did "a brief test to determine the audibility of the noise floor".....
They boosted the gain by a quite reasonable 14 dB...
And, with that slight gain, the noise floor of the CD loop was "clearly audible to all subjects"...
(I would NOT call that "audibly perfect under all reasonable conditions".)

Here's a link to the study:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1105/0b42c641807bbcf24ba7f6e11af49f135e8f.pdf





bigshot said:


> If you'd like to do a test yourself to find out, I would be happy to share my experience doing that test myself. It is very easy to do and then you would know. Not asking questions isn't a good excuse for not knowing answers.
> 
> Why is it that the regular folks in Sound Science do listening tests and members of the trade don't? It's curious.


----------



## old tech

Phronesis said:


> Ok, this is pretty dang weird:
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17691656
> 
> "Intense airborne ultrasound has been associated with hearing loss, tinnitus, and various nonauditory subjective effects, such as headaches, dizziness, and fullness in the ear. Yet, when people detect ultrasonic components in music, ultrasound adds to the pleasantness of the perception and evokes changes in the brain as measured in electroencephalograms, behavior, and imaging. How does the airborne ultrasound get into the ear to create such polar-opposite human effects? *Surprisingly, ultrasound passes first through the eyes; thus, the eye becomes but another window into the inner ear*."​


Just had a quick read of that paper and had a good laugh. The author starts off with a limited understanding of digital and analog recordings, eg he totally misunderstands sampling, eg the comment about inaccuracies at high frequencies with 44.1, he seems to have picked up a myth book somewhere, and his implication that analog cannot record ultrasonics, maybe LPs cannot but 15 ips reel to reel on 1" tape can.

Anyway, as for the test, I haven't read his methodology in detail but instead looked at his references and there they are, using research from people such as Oohashi who also claims something similar through bone conduction, yet his research has been thorougly discredited by peer review. 

Has this paper been subject to peer review? Like Oohashi and others of that ilk, I suspect it would be thoroughly discredited as well. 

Why don't these researchers who make the totally absurd claim that ultrasound in recording and playback affects our hearing of music ever look at the M&M paper which has been subjected to over 10 years of peer review scrutiny? I think we all know the answer to that.


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> I think that's sort of a fair question....
> Let me try and impart a little insight about how the audio industry works (as well as most others).
> 
> I'm going to start by asking you to think for a minute. Consider exactly what you would expect us to test, why you would expect us to test it, why you would expect us to publish the results if we did test it, and whether you're really talking about a test or a _survey_.
> ...


Where in that paper does it say that the CD loop was audible with a "slight" gain which you have quoted? It actually says it was noticeable on quiet passages at 20dB above reference levels, hardly what most reasonable persons would call a reasonable listening environment.

This is is not the first time I've called you out on misrepresenting that paper by substituting with your own words.  I had a lot more respect for you.


----------



## analogsurviver

Arpiben said:


> Time to change your recordings methods then .
> Use ultrasonic mics at eye & skull level rather than record them at ears (binaural).



I have thought of this before...- but present hardware is not ( yet....) at the usable level.

All ultrasonic mics that also have first and foremost decent response in the 20-20k band are TOO LARGE  
( XLR connector itself being humongous for such an application to begin with - imagine a head-worn contraption carying two normal size mics with their 1/4" capsules at eye/skull level... ).

There are also other reasons, besides the size,  why I use exclusively DPA 406x family of microphones : 
https://www.talamas.com/rentals/product/4060-omnidirectional-lavalier-microphone-element

DPA came this fall with an even smaller, 3 mm levalier - but, expectedly, it is about the equal of the "big" 406x in almost all other areas but in the all important bass. The bass itself is already the Aichile's heel of the 406x original series, which got "vintage-ed" by the by now about a year old Core version of the same mic(s). A substantial improvement of roughly 10 dB or so is claimed at all levels, bringing 406x family VERY close to the 4006 quality level. 

And in practically all of my apps, 4006 (along with similar sized mics ) is simply - TOO BIG. 

Miniature mics with well documented and specified ultrasonic response out to at least 100kHz are yet to appear - but appear they for certainly will.


----------



## GearMe

So...have eaten a fair amount of popcorn watching this debate

Which is at times civilized/constructive  and at other times arrogant/condescending/demeaning/etc. (a shame really!)

I've got no dog in this fight and the vast majority of my music library is at RBCD level (primarily FLAC).   FWIW, I don't see the value in spending money for higher bit rates...but am always open to being convinced by a rational argument.   That said, I will spend money for a better/different version of an artist's work.

All that aside, one complaint/dig against the M&M study that seems to pop up from the hi-rez advocates is that the source material used for their tests was not truly hi-rez.  I'd be curious to hear this thread's take on that (i.e. if it's true, and if so, how it impacts the validity/results of the study).

If I missed it in a previous post, I apologize...thanks!


----------



## old tech (Dec 8, 2018)

GearMe said:


> So...have eaten a fair amount of popcorn watching this debate
> 
> Which is at times civilized/constructive  and at other times arrogant/condescending/demeaning/etc. (a shame really!)
> 
> ...


Yes there is some validity to that criticism but it sort of validated the study further. It came out later that many (but not all) the SACDs and DVD-As were not hi res, just upsampled from the original source. However none of the subjects identified the ones that that were not upsampled, which should have stood out if the higher sample rates/bit depths actually made a difference.  The other, probably more powerful evidence was that these "non hi res" SACDs were for several years released in markets all over the world yet no one noticed, not one audiophile or golden eared subjective reviewer. In the end the "fake hi res" SACDs was confirmed by testing rather than listening.

There is also another criticism of M&M which transcends the test put forward by the likes of Waldrep and others, and that is that the term Hi Res is largely a marketing gimmick as true high res requires 24/96 all the way through the chain, from recording, storage to playback.  Analog and CD masters can never be considered Hi Res just because it is in a high res bucket. Even so, I am unaware of any convincing test which has established listeners can hear a difference between true hi res with the same material downsampled to 16/44.


----------



## Phronesis

old tech said:


> Just had a quick read of that paper and had a good laugh. The author starts off with a limited understanding of digital and analog recordings, eg he totally misunderstands sampling, eg the comment about inaccuracies at high frequencies with 44.1, he seems to have picked up a myth book somewhere, and his implication that analog cannot record ultrasonics, maybe LPs cannot but 15 ips reel to reel on 1" tape can.
> 
> Anyway, as for the test, I haven't read his methodology in detail but instead looked at his references and there they are, using research from people such as Oohashi who also claims something similar through bone conduction, yet his research has been thorougly discredited by peer review.
> 
> ...



I would guess that it was peer-reviewed.  Here's the author's website: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~lenhardt/Pages/Main.html.  On this topic, I'm guessing that he's generally more qualified than anyone in this forum, but regardless, a proper thorough evaluation of this paper by qualified people would be needed to judge it.  I don't have those quals, but will take a look at the paper anyway.


----------



## GearMe

old tech said:


> Yes there is some validity to that criticism but it sort of validated the study further. It came out later that many (but not all) the SACDs and DVD-As were not hi res, just upsampled from the original source. However none of the subjects identified the ones that that were not upsampled, which should have stood out if the higher sample rates/bit depths actually made a difference.  The other, probably more powerful evidence was that these "non hi res" SACDs were for several years released in markets all over the world yet no one noticed, not one audiophile or golden eared subjective reviewer. In the end the "fake hi res" SACDs was confirmed by testing rather than listening.
> 
> There is also another criticism of M&M which transcends the test put forward by the likes of Waldrep and others, and that is that the term Hi Res is largely a marketing gimmick as true high res requires 24/96 all the way through the chain, from recording, storage to playback.  Analog and CD masters can never be considered Hi Res just because it is in a high res bucket. Even so, I am unaware of any convincing test which has established listeners can hear a difference between true hi res with the same material downsampled to 16/44.



Thanks for the reply!

Makes sense...you brought up another related concern that I was going to ask about as well...basically the recording/playback chain is only as strong as its weakest link. 

Follow on question...why is the hi-rez source material downsampled instead of the low-rez source material upsampled and then the test run by playing back through that resolution?


----------



## james444

old tech said:


> ... using research from people such as Oohashi who also claims something similar through bone conduction, yet his research has been thorougly discredited by peer review.
> 
> Has this paper been subject to peer review? Like Oohashi and others of that ilk, I suspect it would be thoroughly discredited as well.



From what I've been gathering, it's just Oohashi's conclusions regarding listener preference that have been discredited. But not his findings about physiological brain response to high-frequency audio. If you have more in-depth informaton, I'd appreciate a link to the source.

IMHO, it's an entirely different question to ask whether an ultrasound stimulus will trigger a human brain response in the auditory cortex, or whether we can distinguish Hi Res from RBCD in a conscious listening test.

FWIW, here's the most comprehensive summary on the former question that I've found:


Spoiler: Perception of Ultrasonic Sounds



12. Perception of Ultrasonic Sounds
The frequency range of human hearing is normally defined as extending from 20 Hz to 20 kHz
(Newby & Popelka, 1985). This range is commonly referred to as the sonic range. The lower limit
of hearing (20 Hz) is defined by the lowest frequency at which the listener hears one continuous
sound. The upper limit of hearing (20 kHz) is defined by the highest frequency at which the
listener still has an auditory sensation, regardless of sound intensity. The highest frequency
perceptible differs greatly among individuals and is difficult to determine because some high
frequency sounds can cause a painful or a tactile sensation but not an auditory sensation. In
addition, some investigators have noted that the operational (normal) range of human hearing may
be extended to frequencies beyond 20 kHz when the ear is stimulated by bone conduction as
opposed to air conduction. Ultrasonic frequencies refer to frequencies above the range of air
conduction hearing (greater than 20 kHz), and the human ability to hear sounds in this frequency
range is normally referred to as ultrasonic hearing.
Although air-conducted sounds cannot be heard at frequencies above 20 kHz (Wever, 1949),
ultrasonic hearing as high as 100 kHz has been demonstrated through bone conduction stimulation.

150
Ultrasonic hearing has been found to be capable of supporting frequency discrimination and speech
detection in normal and older people with severe and profound hearing loss. One of the first
groups of investigators to report perception of ultrasonic frequencies by bone conduction demon-
strated this phenomenon by generating ultrasound waves in water (Deatherage et al., 1954). First,
auditory perception was noted when a listener’s jaw bone was placed in contact with a container
filled with water in which a transducer produced a signal of 50 kHz. The threshold for this signal
was approximately 2000 dynes/cm2, which equates to about 140 dB SPL. Second, auditory
perception was demonstrated through submersion of the listener in a container of water containing
the transducer. In this condition, the threshold was approximately 1000 dynes/cm2 at 50 kHz,
which equates to about 134 dB SPL. To support their claims that the vibrations were being
perceived by bone conduction, Deatherage et al. (1954) showed perception of a 7-kHz signal in
a body of water at a threshold of 12 dynes/cm2, which agreed well with previous bone conduction
threshold data obtained by Bekesy using direct mechanical stimulation.
Since this early report of auditory perception of ultrasonic stimuli delivered through bone
conduction, several investigators have pursued measurement of the human auditory system’s
sensitivity and discrimination ability in the ultrasonic range. For example, Corso (1963) evaluated
high frequency sensitivity to bone-conducted sounds by people with normal air conduction hear-
ing. Placing vibrators on the mastoid bone, Corso measured bone conduction thresholds for
frequencies between 6 and 95 kHz and reported good sensitivity for frequencies below 14 kHz and
poor or no sensitivity to sounds of frequencies between 20 and 95 kHz. In contrast, a later study
demonstrated that the sounds in the ultrasonic range can be heard by listeners (Lenhardt, Skellet,
Wang, & Clarke, 1991).
The mechanism through which ultrasonic sound is perceived by the listener is not known, although
several theories exist. These theories include
• Perception by the saccule within the vestibular system,
• Demodulation of the ultrasonic stimulus through the bones of the skull, which is then
perceived by the cochleae,
• Direct stimulation of the brain matter and cerebrospinal fluid, and
• Direct stimulation of the cochleae through the brain.
The first theory is that the bone-conducted sound is perceived by the saccule, one of the three
vestibular canals present in the inner ear, as demonstrated through the perception of ultrasound in
people with nonfunctional cochleae (Lenhardt et al., 1991). Figure 79 is a diagram of the cochlea
for review. In order to accept the saccule theory, the traditional pathways need to be eliminated
first (Dobie, Wiederhold, & Lenhardt, 1992). In support of this effort, several investigators have
demonstrated that ultrasonic stimulation through bone conduction cannot be masked through air
conduction which leads away from a cochlear-based process. Furthermore, ultrasonic signals
presented through bone conduction cannot be measured in the EAC (Staab et al., 1998).


151
A second theory about the perception of ultrasound is that the bone conduction process is suffi-
ciently nonlinear to demodulate the signal (Dobie et al., 1992; Lenhardt et al., 1991). Demodula-
tion refers to the perception of a frequency that is within the audible range that represents the
fluctuations of the carrier signal. According to this theory, the presentation of ultrasonic vibrations
to the skull does not allow for transfer of these vibrations through the middle ear to the cochlea but
to the cochlea directly. The cochlea then demodulates the signal into a range where it can be
heard.













Figure 79. Spatial relationship between the structures of the vestibular system,
the cochlea, and the celebrospinal fluid (CSF) spaces (Salt, 1996).
Several investigators have argued against the theory of the bone conduction pathway for ultra-
sonic perception following an examination of ultrasonic stimulation through the use of magneto-
encephalography (MEG) (Hosoi et al., 1998). In this procedure, areas of the brain are examined
through a scanning device to determine where neurons are activated in response to a particular
stimulus. Hosoi and colleagues (1998) stimulated listeners who had normal hearing with ultra-
sonic sounds by placing a vibrator on their sternocleidomastoid muscle (between the neck and
shoulder). They found brain activity in response to these stimuli in the auditory cortex. This was
true for people with normal hearing and for those with profound hearing loss. Imaizumi et al.
(2001) found the same results using positron emission tomography scans. Again, stimulation in
people with normal hearing or profound hearing loss resulted in activation of the auditory cortex.
This activation occurred through stimulation by air conduction, bone conduction, ultrasound and
vibro-tactile methods (Imaizumi et al., 2001). Regardless of the pathway or mechanisms behind
the phenomenon, it has been demonstrated that ultrasound can be perceived by the listener when
vibrations are applied directly to the human head or neck.
When an ultrasonic carrier signal, which is presented to the listener through bone conduction, is
amplitude modulated by a speech signal, the result is a clear perception of the speech stimuli and
not a sense of high-frequency vibration. In a study by Lenhardt and colleagues (1991), speech
recognition rates through this method for people with normal hearing were on the order of 83%

152
for the WIPI (word-identification through picture identification) task. For people with profound
hearing losses (pure tone averages of greater than 90 dB HL), performance in the same test was
between 20% and 30%. These results support the belief that ultrasonic hearing may be used as a
communications channel and thus as a non-surgical approach in the rehabilitation of profound
hearing losses. The results also imply that ultrasonic stimulation for speech communication may
be applicable for people with normal hearing.
An amplification device using ultrasonic stimulation through bone conduction called HiSonic was
developed by a group of investigators in Arizona (Staab et al., 1998). This device was developed
for use with people with profound hearing loss for whom standard hearing aids would not provide
sufficient amplification. Such a device would allow a non-surgical alternative to cochlear implants
as a hearing solution (see section 10). The device consists of a bone conduction vibrator that is
positioned on the mastoid bone of the wearer. In the Staab et al. (1998) study, pure tone stimuli in
the range of 500 to 2000 Hz were shifted in frequency to the ultrasonic range, and thresholds were
measured for listeners with normal hearing as well as those with profound hearing loss. For the
people with profound hearing loss, a comparison of thresholds measured with and without the
ultrasonic shift showed a clear advantage of using the HiSonic device in that thresholds obtained
with the device were considerably lower than those obtained without the device. Although there
was considerable variability among the performance of the individual listeners, benefit through use
of the device was demonstrated in 65% to 70% of the participants (Staab et al., 1998).
The third theory about a mechanism for ultrasonic perception is that the skull vibrations are
being transmitted directly to the brain and surrounding CSF, including direct stimulation of the
auditory cortex. Skull vibrations can be transmitted to the cochlear fluids and to the non-com-
pressible brain matter and the surrounding CSF. The resulting changes in fluid pressure can be
transmitted through the internal auditory meatus and cochlear aqueduct to the perilymph of the
scala tympani or through the vestibular aqueduct to the endolimphatic sac of the vestibular
system and further to the saccule (see figure 79). This mechanism of bone conduction was
proposed as an alternate pathway explaining the presence of auditory sensation during direct
stimulation of brain tissue and the CSF. However, the hypothesis of the vibration transmission
from the CSF to the cochlear fluids is contradicted by relatively high mechanical damping of
structures (neurons, blood vessels, connective tissue) occupying the aqueducts (Bystrzanowska,
1963, p. 19).
The fourth theory about the mechanism for ultrasonic perception is a mechanical conduction of
sound to the cochlea proposed by Freeman et al. (2000) and Sichel, Freeman, and Sohmer
(2002). This mechanism involves direct excitation of the CSF in the skull cavity. The CSF is
the watery fluid that occupies the spaces around the brain and the spinal cord providing shock
absorption protection to these organs. During some conditions, this fluid can enter the cochlea
from the subarachnoid space that is connected to the scala tympani through the cochlear aque-
duct (diameter ˜0.5 mm). The investigators in these two studies directly vibrated the brain matter
of rats, guinea pigs, and fat sand rats and demonstrated that direct stimulation of the brain


153
through a bone oscillator resulted in measurable ABRs. Progressive elimination of potential
bone conduction mechanisms (i.e., ossicular chain, meatus, and skull through craniotomy) did
not result in complete elimination of the ABR. This finding supports the notion that an auditory
sensation can arise from direct vibration of the brain and CSF. The difference in the inter-
pretation of the mechanism involved is in the identification of the location of perception. The
hypothesis that auditory stimulation of the brain and CSF is possible is also supported by some
results of human studies (Sohmer et al., 2000). The studies did not eliminate direct stimulation
of the auditory cortex as was theorized by others but theorized that the stimulation was directly
detected by the cochleae.
The use of ultrasonic stimulation is not without its contraindications. Several investigators have
noted tinnitus of several days’ duration as a side effect associated with the ultrasonic stimulation,
which could be an early sign of hearing damage (Corso, 1963; Deatherage et al., 1954). This
side effect is not to be taken lightly. In order to consider the use of ultrasonic stimulation for any
person, the safety of that provision must be carefully considered. To our knowledge, there are no
reports about the safety aspects of the provision of ultrasonic stimulation of the bones of the
skull. Until those data are made available, long-term use of ultrasonic stimulation should be
avoided.
In summary, there is evidence to suggest that ultrasonic frequencies can be perceived as sound
by the listener when they are transmitted through bone conduction vibration on the skull. The
pathway for such perceptions is not clear, but four theories have been proposed, ranging from
demodulation by the auditory mechanism to the detection of sound by the CSF within the skull
cavity. Caution should be used when one is attempting to implement ultrasonic stimulation since
there is little known regarding the safety limitations. There have been some reports of the onset
of tinnitus following stimulation by ultrasound.


(source: link; warning: huge document)


----------



## bfreedma

james444 said:


> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2702/810e3bfde17fc044cd7775b49e9c9a77ee8f.pdf



Thanks!  Will read it when I have time to focus and digest the contents.


----------



## castleofargh (Dec 9, 2018)

GearMe said:


> Thanks for the reply!
> 
> Makes sense...you brought up another related concern that I was going to ask about as well...basically the recording/playback chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
> 
> Follow on question...why is the hi-rez source material downsampled instead of the low-rez source material upsampled and then the test run by playing back through that resolution?


their method offered the most chances for a difference to occur. I often create a downsampled copy of the high res file, then upsample it back to the original resolution, and test the original against the upsampled 16/44. just in case the DAC would behave differently or make a noticeable noise or have a specific delay while switching resolution in one direction... I'd do that to strictly check the impact of the content and only the content. not the DAC and filter choice, not the fact that I'm streaming a different sample rate. my test is more limited and as such offers fewer opportunities to get a positive response.
what they did is have the high res signal go 2 ways, one as is, and one where it was converted to redbook. that as an attempt to really offer the complete experience of each formats as it would when playing them. their method gave more chances to get a difference than my own listening tests ever do.


----------



## GearMe

Gotcha...Thanks!


----------



## old tech

james444 said:


> From what I've been gathering, it's just Oohashi's conclusions regarding listener preference that have been discredited. But not his findings about physiological brain response to high-frequency audio. If you have more in-depth informaton, I'd appreciate a link to the source.
> 
> IMHO, it's an entirely different question to ask whether an ultrasound stimulus will trigger a human brain response in the auditory cortex, or whether we can distinguish Hi Res from RBCD in a conscious listening test.



Thanks for that.  It's been a while since I've looked into Oohashi's work and the peer review that followed it.  IIRC, the main issue was that his test and findings were unable to be replicated and later, some flaws were found in the methodology.

Perhaps I am being a bit harsh on Professor Oohashi as he is respected in his field of audiology and has accepted the criticism of his study. As you rightly point out, he never used his findings to claim that ultrasonics influences perception of music, unlike Hendhardt who jumped to this conclusion without any evidence for it.


----------



## old tech

GearMe said:


> Thanks for the reply!
> 
> Makes sense...you brought up another related concern that I was going to ask about as well...basically the recording/playback chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
> 
> Follow on question...why is the hi-rez source material downsampled instead of the low-rez source material upsampled and then the test run by playing back through that resolution?


As an aside, Mark Waldrep who among many others state that true hi res can only be a music file that was at least 24/96 from recording all through the production chain does at least try to test his claims.  He did an on-line listening test with about 80 or so respondents recently using his AIX studio files.  Although it was not a test of scientific quality, the results were less than promising.
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6274


----------



## gregorio (Dec 9, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] I seem to be talking about scientific measurements.... Likewise, when we're talking science, we tend to look at things a bit differently.
> _[2] HOWEVER_, here's a cute little microphone: http://www.pcb.com/products.aspx?m=378A14 It has a rated frequency response from 4 Hz to 70 kHz (+/- 2 dB). It also has an inherent noise of 50 dB, and a dynamic range of 173 dB.
> [3] From those numbers, my guess is that, with a proper preamp, it would have no trouble recording a snare drum, or a cymbal, from an inch away (or from two meters away). And, at that range, it will record everything up past 70 kHz. (So doing so is not only theoretically possible; it's actually possible with currently available equipment.)
> [4] It's not my problem if you don't happen to have one of these in your studio to take your measurements with...
> [4a] _HOWEVER_, neither of those facts is relevant if we're discussing what's _possible_...


1. NO you are not talking about scientific measurements and NO, we do not "tend to look at things differently"! The laws of physics exist and are always applicable, unless you're in some alternate universe. What you're actually doing is making up nonsense and then passing it off as "science", so in fact you're actually perverting the science and are thereby insulting this forum!
2. Inherent noise of 50dB makes it almost unusable for recording musical instruments but regardless, it does NOT have "an inherent noise of 50dB" anyway! The 50dB figure is "A" weighted and due to rising thermal noise with freq (which is real science and in this universe!) the mic will have far higher self-noise in the ultrasonic range.
3. *EXACTLY!!* It's your "*guess*" and that guess is based on "inadvertent" errors which fortuitously just happen to support your agenda . How is that even slightly "science"? It's pretty much the exact opposite of science! Instead of making up nonsense claims and *falsely passing it off as science*, why don't you actually try just the very first step of science and get a musician to perform on cymbals, use this mic to record them and then see for yourself if it will record "everything up past 70kHz"??
4. I do have a measurement mic, in fact more than one.
4a. But you're NOT discussing what's possible! I'm discussing what exists and what's possible BUT you're discussing what's possible in some alternate universe where you get to choose which laws of physics apply!


KeithEmo said:


> I am perfectly willing to concede to you things like....
> [1] - nobody ever does it that way
> [2] - no recording studio you know currently has the equipment required to do it
> [3] - it would probably sound bad anyway (or not sound especially good)
> ...


Continuing for those interested in the actual facts (in this universe!) ...
1. Ask yourself the obvious question, if this mic is so accurate/perfect why is it "nobody ever does it that way", why don't we always record with calibrated measurement mics? In short, there is no such thing as a perfect mic, they must always be compromised: You cannot have a mic with a very low noise floor, a very accurate freq response and resilience to high SPLs. In practise (in this universe) it's a trade-off, you improve one of these areas at the cost of another. Some specialist measurement mics are designed to measure very low SPLs and therefore have very poor resilience to high SPLs and typically poor freq accuracy. Other measurement mics are designed for highly accurate frequency measurement but at the cost of a very high noise floor (which isn't typically a problem because they are designed to be used with optimal/high level test signals). However, the performance of a musical instrument is not a test signal, there will be both loud and quiet elements: A snare drum for example will have a loud impact transient, immediately followed by the relatively quiet sound of the snares sympathetically vibrating against the bottom head and additionally, not every snare hit will be very loud, there will almost certainly be grace notes/flams which are far quieter, and, this effectively applies to all musical instruments. The reason that "nobody ever does it that way" is because these quieter elements would be below the noise floor of a measurement mic (such as the one KeithEmo cited). And, that's even in the audible freq band, let alone the ultrasonic band where the measurement mic will have an even higher noise floor! We always use music/studio mics rather than measurement mics to record music because music/studio mics are optimised for recording music in studios (duh)!
2. This statement is FALSE! Every commercial studio I know of has at least one measurement mic and these days, also studio mics which extend into the ultrasonic range.
3. It wouldn't "sound" at all, if it's below the noise floor of the mic!
4. That as well!
5. And I would remind anybody coming in late that what we're discussing here is the science applicable to recording commercial audio, the stuff that your audio reproduction system is reproducing. KeithEmo on the other hand is discussing certain bits of science and "inadvertently" ignoring the other relevant bits, inventing hypothetical scenarios which never exist and misrepresenting what is science and what is recording technique, which is particularly absurd as he clearly doesn't know anything about recording technique and refuses to try some recording tests and actually find out!


KeithEmo said:


> [1] Personally, when I visit a very small venue, I don't enjoy sitting three feet from the band... and one reason is that the cymbals are unpleasantly loud and bright.
> And I wouldn't even argue if someone were to suggest that rolling off the cymbals _sounds better_ to most people. Those are the kind of artistic decisions that the recording engineer is expected to make.
> [2] And, by the way, _HAS_ anyone ever actually tested whether the sound of breaking glass sounds more realistic when you include frequencies up to 50 kHz?
> [3] A lot of what I keep hearing on this forum lately boils down to: "We already know that people can't hear or be affected by ultrasonic frequencies, ever, under any normal listening conditions, so there's no point in doing a test to find out if they can or not." From a scientific point of view that's a real stretch.
> ...


1. Firstly, how are you going to sit 3 feet from the band, they're all going to be standing/sitting in a tiny circle around you are they? In this universe, the audience is typically going to be sitting in front of the band (with the drumkit at the back of the band) and therefore many meters away from the cymbals. At many meters away from the cymbals there's going to be a great deal less ultrasonic content than the only 6% they're producing in the first place, rolling off the very high and ultrasonic content of closely mic'ed cymbals is not an artistic decision, it's a technical decision based on the laws of physics. Not rolling-off those freqs would be an artistic decision but as human perception partly relies on the attenuation of high freqs at distance, you'd effectively end up with the cymbals sounding much closer (more present) than the rest of the drumkit.
2. Again, you're joking right? You seem to have this bizarre notion that sound engineers pick the worst mic they can find and never test or experiment with anything. This notion is ridiculous and the exact opposite of the actual facts/truth! The recording of breaking glass is so common in film and TV that Foley teams always have a large crate of glass in their store rooms and the recording of breaking glass has been tested to death with just about every mic imaginable, in just about every position by thousands of different engineers all over the planet for decades. Personally I only have mics that go up to 40kHz, so not 50kHz but still plenty of ultrasonic content and no, it does NOT sound more realistic, either for me or for the countless other engineers, sound designers, Foley artists, Directors, etc. In fact, generally less so because generally the glass is breaking more than just a few inches from the sound POV and therefore has attenuated high freqs (and ultrasonic freqs).
3. A lot of what you keep saying on this forum boils down to: "*I have absolutely no idea what extensive testing has been carried out by thousands/tens of thousands of engineers over the course of decades, so I'm just going to make-up an "inadvertent" misrepresentation that it's never been tested and everyone who disagrees with me is just guessing. I on the other hand have never tested either and refuse to do so but my guesses are worth more than the actual facts. According to me, that's SCIENCE!*".
4. Firstly, there's clearly a big difference between the amount of evidence which exists and the amount of evidence you personally know about. Time and again audiophiles state "we don't know this or that", when in fact it's perfectly well known, often for many decades or even centuries, it's a fallacy based entirely on their own IGNORANCE of the facts. Just because they don't know doesn't mean that we (science/mankind as a whole) don't know. There's a mass of evidence, by (as mentioned) the engineers who work with the content every day, industry bodies such as the AES, EBU, ITU (and others), state organisations such as the BBC, NHK (and many others) and some published scientific papers as well. Secondly, this is NOT the "What KeithEmo Strongly Believes" forum!!
5. Then why do you keep doing it??? Why don't you AS AN INDIVIDUAL actually learn some of the facts/evidence, why don't you take YOUR OWN ADVICE and try recording some drumkit solos (and breaking glass) with measurement and other mics and until you do, why don't you STOP making far-reaching claims based on ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER? How come you're not "always bugged" by yourself?


KeithEmo said:


> [1] We say that "for DACs 192k is _NOT_ a product differentiator" (*it was ten years ago - when few DACs supported it* - but not now). ...
> As a company who sells hardware, we do our best to include in our products the features that the market has a demand for, and specifically the features that _our_ customers ask for. And, at the moment, a lot of our customers specifically ask for us to support high-res sample rates.
> [2] So, why has Emotiva, who I work for, never conducted and published any tests about whether people really can hear the difference between high-resolution files and plain old CDs?


1. Just to be clear what you're effectively saying and the truth of the matter:
Ten years ago snake oil salesmen made a big marketing push for 192kHz audio files and 192/24 DACs. That marketing was successful, many/most consumers believed the BS and now demand 192kHz. So all the chip makers now only make 192kHz chips and you're just satisfying the market demand (for snake oil) that ten years ago you helped create. Of course, now that 192kHz is no longer a "product differentiator" and even very cheap DACs now include it as standard, the audiophile snake oil industry has to come-up with some new BS to act as a "product differentiator" (and justify their 10-100 times price premium), hence the next round of even greater snake oil; 32bit, 384kHz and 768kHz, just as 192kHz was the next round of greater snake oil over 96kHz.
2. Because either you'd have to fake the tests and run the risk of being found out and having potentially disastrous publicity or provide accurate tests demonstrating that you and the rest of the audiophile industry have been BS'ing and selling snake oil for well over a decade. That's a no win scenario and why neither your company nor any other audiophile company ever conducts or publishes such tests. To be certain, if there were an audible difference/improvement, the audiophile world would be awash with the test results!!

G


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] And second, the further away, the less assymetric the waveform will be; any brass instrument can, in general, produce only over pressure ( it can not suck air inside itself/person playing it ) Real close miking will reveal there is almost no underpressure at the brass instrument nozzle - the output pressure is almost all in the positive pressure region. That's WHY frequency response to DC is required - to preserve this offset also in the recording. I know it takes TWICE the amplitude in recording it would take if the lows below say 15 Hz or so would be rolled off ... but the realism would be lost.
> Yes, some better players can play their brass also by sucking
> [2] OK - worst case scenario attenuation of 30 and 40 kHz for 3/4/5 metres ? Brass instrument "exhaust" to mic distance , direct path, no obstacles whatsoever. How many dBs ? Whatever the correct answer, it can not get low enough to be possible to neglect.



I'm not sure any of this is worth responding to, it's all just complete nonsense but just in case:

1. There's no such thing as a brass instrument "nozzle", presumably he means "mouthpiece". The sound is produced by the player blowing air and vibrating his/her lips against the mouthpiece. This sound, as with ALL sound, is a sound "wave" which has both positive and negative pressure, otherwise it wouldn't be a soundwave! DC is not a sound wave and why frequency response to DC is NOT required. The lowest brass instrument is the contra-bass Tuba (often just call the Bass Tuba or just Tuba) and the lowest note in it's range is "C", 3 octaves below "middle C" (although this note is extremely rarely ever written), which has a frequency of 31Hz. This is more than an octave above the 15Hz analogsurvivor is FALSELY claiming. So there is no "realism" (or anything else) below 31Hz in the first place and therefore it cannot be lost! Also, you cannot play a brass instrument by sucking, though there are a handful of experimental compositions which require just blowing or sucking air (without the lips vibrating), thereby just producing the sound of air/breathing rather than actual notes.
2. Clearly if it's below the noise floor of the mic, then it's not only possible to "neglect" it, it's unavoidable!


analogsurviver said:


> 1.) Non availability of the equipment that can ACTUALLY record above 20 kHz in a competent way in MOST studios/by MOST recording engineers.
> 2.) Non willingness by MOST recording studios/engineers to adopt it - because it, by default and by definition, would require turning the current predominant use of multimiking upside down, in favour of less complicated microphone recording techniques.



1. That's false, ALL of the studios I know do have mics and recording equipment capable of recording above 20kHz (in a "competent way").
2. Multi-mic'ing has NO baring whatsoever here. We can just as easily record say 30 channels of 96kHz or 192kHz as 30 channels of 44.1kHz and ALL the professional DAW systems I'm aware of have had that capability for more than 15 years. Nothing at all would turn "upside down" and indeed most 96kHz and 192kHz original recordings ARE multi-mic'ed!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

That is a very interesting article... and it seems to me to make quite a few very valid points.
Well worth reading.



Phronesis said:


> I'm still generally on break, but wanted to share this, in case it hasn't been shared before (I don't remember):
> 
> https://tapeop.com/blog/2018/08/30/subconscious-auditory-effects/
> 
> It may have some relevance to the current topic of ultrasonics, and perhaps worth keeping in mind that the boundary between sonic/ultrasonic varies a lot between people.  18 kHz may be consciously perceivable for one person, only subconsciously perceived by another, and neither consciously nor subconsciously perceived by another.


----------



## KeithEmo

If you really want to make a general test of "whether SACDs sound audibly different than CDs"....

You really need to use more than one SACD, more than one CD player, and more than one sample of each medium.
You also need at least a few samples which have been confirmed to contain what you're testing for.

Therefore, at a minimum, you must confirm three things....
1) you must confirm that the master used for both was the same 
2) you must confirm that the entire sginal path of both productions took full advantage of the medium
3) you must confirm that your player is taking full advantage of both types of media playback
(if the analog signal path of your SACD player only extends to 20 kHz, then that is the limit of your test)

If you want to compare the high frequency response, or the ultrasonic response, of two different recordings...
Then you must first confirm that the master recording that both were produced from actually contained those frequencies.
Then you need to confirm that the rest of the signal chain hasn't failed to reproduce what you're testing for.
Then you need to confirm that the actual output of your SACd player is delivering both signal accurately.
(And you also need to confirm that your speakers, or headphones, aren't limiting the respons eeither.)

You can't tell whether 30 kHz is audible unless you start with a test signal that _CONTAINS_ 30 kHz.
If you want to test whether the "ability" of an SACD to deliver ultrasonic frequencies makes a difference...
You must first confirm that the test samples you choose actually do so...

Proving that specific SACDs don't sound better doesn't prove whether_ ANY_ SACD _CAN_ sound better or not.
It could trun out that most commercial SACDs are mastered badly and fail to live up to the potential of the medium.
(I would suggest that most CDs in fact fail to live up to the potential of the CD medium.)

_NOTE_ that this isn't all that hard.
First you confirm, using proper test equipment, that the actual outputs of the two are in fact different.
Then you confirm, using proper test equipment, that your reproduction chain is delivering that difference to your ears.

I should also point out the obverse.....
If you simply want to test if there is a difference that is audible _TO YOU ON YOUR SYSTEM_....
Then performing the test using your system and your ears is perfectly adequate....



bigshot said:


> Do you have an SACD player? All you need is an SACD recorded in native DSD and with a redbook layer that is the same mastering. I can point you to the one I used if you want. Aside from that, it's just a preamp and switcher.


----------



## KeithEmo

I should also point out one more complicating factor....

Because of the restrictions _REQUIRED_ by the SACD production license....
Commercial SACD players are _ONLY_ permitted to deliver a full quality digital version of content on an SACD via HDMI.
So no legal SACD player will give you a full quality digital output you can simply send to a PCM DAC.
(They are restricted to only delivering it via "a secure connection" - and HDMI is the only type that qualifies.)
(And _VERY FEW_ stand-alone DACs have HDMi audio inputs.)
Therefore, you are going to be limited to using the _ANALOG_ outputs of your SACD player...
(Some SACD players may offer a digital output, but, if they're legal, then it will have been down-sampled, at a minimum.)
And so to the capabilities of its internal DACs and analog signal path...



Zapp_Fan said:


> Don't have any of those things handy.  I have a DAC that may do 96khz, but I sincerely doubt its analog ouputs are any good up past 20khz. Also, we'd have to independently establish the noise floor of each piece of gear at / above 30khz, etc.  Not to mention find some transducers that are actually good > 30khz, again, probably not trivial. I have some Blue Sky monitors and I have some ER4XRs and (although they are wonderful) I don't think either one would be worth a crap for this test.
> 
> I mean, I can tell you right now none of my gear that I already own is likely up to the task. There's no question that ultrasonics are worthless in the context of things I own and things I actually listen to. But that's not the question I am interested in.


----------



## KeithEmo

Quite so....

It may be that most listeners don't hear a difference - but that a few do.
Ot it may be that most listeners would simply find that it gives them a headache...
Or even that they hear a difference but don't find either to be better...
However, if the results aren't totally clear....
It would be very simple to include a switchable filter to allow people who want to to apply a limit....

I'm also perfectly comfortable if the recording engineer were to decide that choice for me.
However, I would prefer if we both have that choice, rather than being limited based on someohne else's assumptions.

I also really dislike the current situation - which amounts to "appeal to authority"...
From what I can tell, we are far from "having a consensus among all good recording engineers".

- @gregorio insists that "as a recoding engineer, he knows better"...

- But Cookie Marenco, who also seems to be a well regarded recording engineer,
is dead certain of the exact opposite...

- And Mark Waldrep, who also seems to have a decent reputaion, seems to believe that high-resolution recordings
do actually have the ability to sound significantly better, but that many of the recording currently sold as high-res
simply aren't.

And, while several of the individuals listed "have their own agenda", it's also absurd to suggest that "everyone who has their own agenda must by either lying or deluded". (If you want to live with that assumption, then every recording engineer who earns a salary has incentive to claim that he's the only decent engineer on the planet, and any engineer who does things a little differently is either a liar or an idiot, and every studio has a reason to suggest that only they have the quipment that really sounds good, and everybody who chose different equipment must be deluded.)



Phronesis said:


> Recent article on ambient ultrasonics:
> 
> https://www.livescience.com/62533-ultrasonic-ultrasound-health-hearing-tinnitus.html
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree....
That is the way I've always seen the description of how we hear a sound and identify its frequency.

_HOWEVER_, according to many recent studies, there seems to be a lot more stuff going on in terms of how our nervous system and brain process incoming audio, and what the various nerves attached to them are able to differentiate. For example, in some cases, nerve signals originating at our two ears are time shifted and subtracted. This system is consistently claimed to enable us to hear differences between our two ears of as little as 10 microseconds. I am providing that as an example of how sometimes our brain can extract information from what we hear that seems to be outside the range of what we can hear. As such, I very much _DISAGREE_ that "we know all about how human eharing works"... and every recent book on brain science that I've read seems to agree.
My goal is simply to point out that the phenomenon of "human hearing" is quite a bit more complex than "a simple biological spectrum analyzer" - which is what you illustrated.

These guys seem to be talking about being able to detect differences in arrival time as small as 10 microseconds...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140411103138.htm

And here's an interesting paper - from MIT.
This one describes how, independent of the frequency of a sound, we can detect differences in arrival times between our two ears as small as 10 microseconds.
http://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/ear/ear.html

And these guys are looking for article submissions on the direct effect of ultrasonics on nerves.
They seem convinced that ultrasonic cignals, up to around 500 kHz, affect things like emotion directly.
https://bmcneurosci.biomedcentral.com/about/transcranial-ultrasound-stimulation

And here's an interesting lecture - from Princeton - about how and why we sometimes hear things that aren't there.
The slide on pg38 is interesting.... it shows how adding noise can make sound with gaps more intelligbile.

They all seem to agree that we still have a lot to learn about how human hearing actually works.





castleofargh said:


> this is the basic principle and as far as we know, how we hear. just that the apex area of the basilar membrane is in fact wider than the base, and the extreme values are kind of BS, but the graphs on the right help understand what I'm trying to say, so I show this one^_^. any vibration with a strong enough intensity can reach that area and shake the hair cells enough to trigger some electrical impulses. in fact you could even just have something shake the head regardless of what goes on in the ear canal, and still successfully trigger "hearing"(like bone conduction and stuff like that, which are really all just about shaking the hair cells enough to activate them).
> now the cells "detecting" high frequencies are at the base, I have never seen anything challenging that tonotopic map of the receptors(given tones related to a position in the ear, and later to a position in the brain). when you send high freqs, the base is narrow and stiff and a rapid vibration is rapidly attenuated(if it wasn't already while traveling to get there inside the head). so high frequencies will significantly shake the entrance of the basilar membrane(the bigger the amplitude the bigger the area that's going to shake, but the resonance is going to be at the entrance.
> 
> now if we have a 2khz vibration, it will propagate further down and resonate wherever the shape create the resonance for 2khz. the hair cells in that area will be shaken more than the rest but everything from the base to that 2khz area is also shaking, and then the vibration will get reduced and probably won't shake anything in the area for low end frequencies.
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Dec 9, 2018)

old tech said:


> Wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier to just reacquaint yourselves with the M&M study?



I like to double check stuff with my own ears and equipment if it's a simple test like this. I did the same with CD-R generation loss, AAC generation loss, vinyl rips vs the LP, compression codecs, digital player transparency, amp transparency, headphone EQ, etc. Doing the tests for myself gives me a practical basis for my understanding that some folks who operate purely in theory seem unable to grasp.



old tech said:


> Btw, I'm not sure you can do that test on a SACD player, all the ones I've come across have a [probably intentional] delay when switching between layers, and how would one be certain that the analogue circuits relating to the 44.1 DAC are of similar quality to those related to the DSD DAC?



Two players synced as closely as possible. In my test, I threw all the limitations on the CD side and it still didn't make a difference. They sounded identical.


----------



## KeithEmo

That was my impression.

I've read the Oohashi study, and several of the so-called "debunkings" of it.

It is quite noteworthy that Oohashi chose to use some relatively unusual recordings of some very specific instruments - and described why those in particular were chosen. Now, when attempting to scientifically confirm or contradict results in an experiment, the first step is usually to try to duplicate the experiment exactly - both to see if your results agree and to enable you to pick out possible weakness in methodology and just plain experimental error. However, I do NOT remember reading anyone who tried duplicating his test using the same sample recordings of the same rather unusual instruments. Instead they chose to try and contradict his results - using _different_ equipment and _different_ samples. (He listed the specific sample recordings he used... so they were available for use.)

Therefore, while several others pointed out some flaws in his test methodology, and conducted _DIFFERENT_ experiments that failed to duplicate his results, they were never actually directly "debunked" at all. For example, one example noted that there was significant IM distortion in some of Oohashi's equipment, which _could have_ produced errors in the result. But they neglected to then duplicate his experiment exactly, using the same sample content, but correcting that single error, to confirm that it had caused erroneous results. 

(Sadly I didn't keep the links... )



james444 said:


> From what I've been gathering, it's just Oohashi's conclusions regarding listener preference that have been discredited. But not his findings about physiological brain response to high-frequency audio. If you have more in-depth informaton, I'd appreciate a link to the source.
> 
> IMHO, it's an entirely different question to ask whether an ultrasound stimulus will trigger a human brain response in the auditory cortex, or whether we can distinguish Hi Res from RBCD in a conscious listening test.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Geeee.....

If I've got a microphone with an inherent noise floor of 50 dB, a dynamic range of 172 dB, and a FR to 70 kHz....
That means it's got a _USABLE_ dynamic range of over 120 dB....
So I'd insert a 30 dB attenuator between the microphone and the preamp.....
Then the inherent noise floor at the output would drop to 20 dB... and it still wouldn't overload at 142 dB.
(But, then, if I'm recording something at 140 dB SPL, I doubt the 50 dB noise floor would matter much.)
Seems pretty possible to me... right here and now...



gregorio said:


> 1. NO you are not talking about scientific measurements and NO, we do not "tend to look at things differently"! The laws of physics exist and are always applicable, unless you're in some alternate universe. What you're actually doing is making up nonsense and then passing it off as "science", so in fact you're actually perverting the science and are thereby insulting this forum!
> 2. Inherent noise of 50dB makes it almost unusable for recording musical instruments but regardless, it does NOT have "an inherent noise of 50dB" anyway! The 50dB figure is "A" weighted and due to rising thermal noise with freq (which is real science and in this universe!) the mic will have far higher self-noise in the ultrasonic range.
> 3. *EXACTLY!!* It's your "*guess*" and that guess is based on "inadvertent" errors which fortuitously just happen to support your agenda . How is that even slightly "science"? It's pretty much the exact opposite of science! Instead of making up nonsense claims and *falsely passing it off as science*, why don't you actually try just the very first step of science and get a musician to perform on cymbals, use this mic to record them and then see for yourself if it will record "everything up past 70kHz"??
> 4. I do have a measurement mic, in fact more than one.
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Dec 9, 2018)

GearMe said:


> I don't see the value in spending money for higher bit rates...but am always open to being convinced by a rational argument.   That said, I will spend money for a better/different version of an artist's work.



A better/different version would be better mastering and perhaps remixing. Those things aren't dependent on format. There are terrible sounding SACDs and great sounding MP3 downloads. The best way to find better/different versions is to speak to collectors in music forums where there are people who have compared different versions carefully and have determined which are the best. Sometimes that is an old CD from the early 90s, sometimes that is a current blu-ray audio disc. The only way to tell which is the best is to listen. Price tag and bitrate aren't a good determiner of audio quality. That's my experience, and I have a house full of tens of thousands of 78s, LPs, cassettes, R2Rs, CDs, DVD-As and Blu-Rays that backs it up. I had one recording that meant an awful lot to me that I bought in multiple formats and releases over the years, only to discover that the best possible version was a 1935 78rpm first pressing on Z shellac.

You can't judge by the numbers. You have to judge by sound.



GearMe said:


> why is the hi-rez source material downsampled instead of the low-rez source material upsampled and then the test run by playing back through that resolution?



To guarantee that you are comparing the same mastering in "hi-res" as you are in 16/44.1.


----------



## bigshot

james444 said:


> IMHO, it's an entirely different question to ask whether an ultrasound stimulus will trigger a human brain response in the auditory cortex, or whether we can distinguish Hi Res from RBCD in a conscious listening test.



I agree with that completely. When we listen to Mozart in our living room, we might smell the dinner cooking in the kitchen, see the color of the walls of the room, feel the texture of the fabric of the couch we are sitting on, and we can taste the glass of wine we're sipping... but none of that changes the way our stereo system reproduces sound. We're in a forum dedicated to high fidelity reproduction of music in the home. A brain wave tick in response to frequencies we can't hear won't make our recorded music sound any better. It's irrelevant to the reproduction of commercially recorded music because 1) it can't be heard, 2) it doesn't add anything to perceived sound quality, 3) frequencies that high aren't generally produced by musical instruments, and if they do produce them it's at a volume level likely to be masked, 4) those frequencies are generally not a part of commercial music mixes and 5) it's unlikely that our transducers can reproduce them in any balanced sort of way.

Super audible frequencies are irrelevant to the playback of commercially recorded music.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> If you really want to make a general test of "whether SACDs sound audibly different than CDs"....
> 
> You really need to use more than one SACD, more than one CD player, and more than one sample of each medium.
> You also need at least a few samples which have been confirmed to contain what you're testing for.
> ...




At the very least you should play both from the same model of player. While the conversation from D to A is different the rest of the chain would be the same reducing many variables. Ideally  using a player that can output the full bandwidth of the two formats over the analog outputs. Switching between HDMI sources introduces a load of other problems.  The CD source must be converted from the SACD to be sure it is the same master just bandwidth limited. It would be easier if you could filter DSD. If you could move the filter point on the DSD convertor down to 20k that would work.


----------



## bigshot

I've done this test. Maybe I'm the only one.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I agree with that completely. When we listen to Mozart in our living room, we might smell the dinner cooking in the kitchen, see the color of the walls of the room, feel the texture of the fabric of the couch we are sitting on, and we can taste the glass of wine we're sipping... but none of that changes the way our stereo system reproduces sound. We're in a forum dedicated to high fidelity reproduction of music in the home. A brain wave tick in response to frequencies we can't hear won't make our recorded music sound any better. It's irrelevant to the reproduction of commercially recorded music because 1) it can't be heard, 2) it doesn't add anything to perceived sound quality, 3) frequencies that high aren't generally produced by musical instruments, and if they do produce them it's at a volume level likely to be masked, 4) those frequencies are generally not a part of commercial music mixes and 5) it's unlikely that our transducers can reproduce them in any balanced sort of way.
> 
> Super audible frequencies are irrelevant to the playback of commercially recorded music.



1.) true
2.) false
3.) false
4.) true for most production, BUT NOT ALL - particularly not recent native HR, whether DSD or PCM/DXD
5.) false; transducers that cover well up to at least 40 khz are with us for - at least - approx 40 years.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 9, 2018)

There is absolutely no reason for you to read or answer my posts. I don't read yours. And I'm sure it works fine in your own head, but I doubt anyone else will get much out of a list of trues and falses without any context.

The sound you can hear is the sound that matters. Most of us probably can't hear much above 17kHz anyway. Regular old CD quality sound and high data rate lossy is plenty to achieve audible transparency. Anything beyond the range of human hearing is just packing peanuts to fill up a digital container with stuff you don't need.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I agree....
> That is the way I've always seen the description of how we hear a sound and identify its frequency.
> 
> _HOWEVER_, according to many recent studies, there seems to be a lot more stuff going on in terms of how our nervous system and brain process incoming audio, and what the various nerves attached to them are able to differentiate. For example, in some cases, nerve signals originating at our two ears are time shifted and subtracted. This system is consistently claimed to enable us to hear differences between our two ears of as little as 10 microseconds. I am providing that as an example of how sometimes our brain can extract information from what we hear that seems to be outside the range of what we can hear. As such, I very much _DISAGREE_ that "we know all about how human eharing works"... and every recent book on brain science that I've read seems to agree.
> ...


your examples are about interpretation, and the ultrasonic link seems to not even be concerned about hearing at all. yes I present hearing as a sort of spectrum analyzer, or maybe more as a sort of really weird microphone. not because I believe that our brain can't do amazing stuff with the data from that sensor, but because if something can be masked or is simply outside the range of sensitivity of that sensor, then there will be no extra data to interpret. which seems pretty important to me when considering what might matter.

now if you want to use transcranial stimulation as an argument that ultrasounds even when not perceived by our auditory system can still affect our experience, I'm fine with that of course. but I'm not fine with considering that as hearing. and if like @Phronesis you wish to extend the notion of hearing beyond signals captured by our ears, and go deep inside the brain at a cellular level or just as a thought, I'm also fine with that but only so long as your notion of hearing is very clearly and strictly defined. because as of right not it isn't my definition of hearing. there are many non audio aspects that can trigger a change or even cause a reaction in the auditory cortex or anywhere else. just with the research available, we cannot doubt that to be true. but is it hearing? in a brain where our different senses are never strictly isolated(at least not when it comes to interpretation), one could argue that placebo is hearing. that touching is hearing. we even have people for whom the link between senses is more direct, and a sound will have a color or vice versa. but should we define human hearing with such standards?
when we agree in this section that all those non audio variables need to be eliminated in a listening test, we do imply that they all have the potential to affect our interpretation of sound. so all in all it's not a big move to go from our usual position to a position redefining hearing as a more global experience. but it's a very massive difference in definition! 
even then, all we do is allow more variables to count as audio. even with that trick, demonstrating that the typical amount of ultrasounds in records is having a clear impact(a positive one!) on the listener, is still something I'm waiting to see. if anything I'd argue that if we open our definition of hearing to a wider range or variables, it automatically makes ultrasounds an even smaller part of what forms our audio experience.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> A better/different version would be better mastering and perhaps remixing. Those things aren't dependent on format. There are terrible sounding SACDs and great sounding MP3 downloads. The best way to find better/different versions is to speak to collectors in music forums where there are people who have compared different versions carefully and have determined which are the best. Sometimes that is an old CD from the early 90s, sometimes that is a current blu-ray audio disc. The only way to tell which is the best is to listen. Price tag and bitrate aren't a good determiner of audio quality. That's my experience, and I have a house full of tens of thousands of 78s, LPs, cassettes, R2Rs, CDs, DVD-As and Blu-Rays that backs it up. I had one recording that meant an awful lot to me that I bought in multiple formats and releases over the years, only to discover that the best possible version was a 1935 78rpm first pressing on Z shellac.
> 
> You can't judge by the numbers. You have to judge by sound.



Exactly what I was saying...a better _version_ not a higher bitrate.  Did you think I meant something else?



bigshot said:


> To guarantee that you are comparing the same mastering in "hi-res" as you are in 16/44.1.



Just clarifying this part of the test for my own sanity as it seems this thread has been all over the place.  I would think you'd want to get a well-recorded source/master with verified hi-rez content, (i.e. recorded with 'hi-rez' equipment, includes > 20kHz content, no compression, etc.) and compare it to the same 'limited' source/master (<=20kHz content).  Then, you'd want to upsample the 'limited' copy to the native resolution of the 'hi-rez' copy, play both of them back through gear that is designed/capable for the 'hi-rez' applications, and do the DBT on that...yes?


----------



## bigshot

Right. When I did my test I used an SACD that was recorded natively in DSD. That guaranteed super audible content. It sounded exactly the same as the same in CD quality sound.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> Geeee.....
> If I've got a microphone with an inherent noise floor of 50 dB, a dynamic range of 172 dB, and a FR to 70 kHz....
> That means it's got a _USABLE_ dynamic range of over 120 dB....
> So I'd insert a 30 dB attenuator between the microphone and the preamp.....
> ...



Geeee ..... What's the name of this thread, is it "Refusing to test audiophile claims and myths (and just make-up a bunch of new ones)" or is it pretty much the exact opposite of that? Why don't you take YOUR OWN ADVICE and record a few drumkit solos with your wonder mic??

For everyone else (in this universe):
KeithEmo is suggesting the use of a very specific type of piezoelectric measurement mic. This type of measurement mic has the advantage of being able to withstand extremely high SPLs and is designed for measuring shock waves! As mentioned previously there is always a trade-off, there is no perfect mic, you can't have a mic capable of such extreme SPLs which still performs as well as other mics in other respects. The trade-off for these types of measurement mics is that they have very poor sensitivity and very high self-noise. Unfortunately, KeithEmo "inadvertently" omits to mention the sensitivity issue and proposes to simply pad (attenuate) the output by more than 30 times to reduce the self-noise. In other words, he proposes taking a mic with very poor sensitivity and effectively reducing it's sensitivity by a further 30 times?!

Just to be clear what we're talking about here: This measurement mic has a sensitivity spec of -60 1V/Pa, which means that with a 94dB SPL signal the mic will output just 1 millivolt. This output level is already BEYOND the ability of studio mic pre-amps to amplify to a useable level (line level) and KeithEmo is proposing to reduce it by another 30 times?! 

For what this mic is designed for, 1 millivolt from a 94dB input is not a problem because it's designed for far higher input SPL levels (up to nearly 10,000 times higher!). In other words, if we get this mic close enough to a cymbal and hit the cymbal hard enough to produce a transient peak of 124dB SPL, the output level of this mic with Keith's attenuator would be a single millivolt and once the fraction of a second of the cymbal's transient peak was over and we're into the decay phase of the cymbal hit (and therefore SPLs many times lower than the initial impact/transient peak), what then? KeithEmo's statement "_it will record everything up past 70 kHz_" - actually means it will record (at a very low level) a transient peak lasting a few milli-seconds and then pretty much nothing! Of course, if KeithEmo actually took his own advice and tested his claim, he would see for himself how ridiculous it was. 

There's a good reason we don't use mics designed to measure shock waves for recording music and it's got nothing to do with artistic decisions and everything to do with simple physics! We can all ignore certain facts and realities and then virtually anything would "_seem possible to me ... right here and now..._". If for example we ignore the law of gravity, it would "seem pretty possible" that pigs could fly. However, this is the sound SCIENCE forum, gravity does exist and pigs cannot fly!

In addition to all the above, you (KeithEmo) cannot just keep repeating falsehoods even after they've been shown to be false. You specifically chose this mic as an example due to it's ultrasonic freq response (and high SPL capability). However, it's specified 50dB noise floor is an "A Weighted" measurement, which means at 20kHz it's noise floor is most likely double the 50dB figure you're quoting and by 70kHz it's probably around 3-4 times higher but could be as high as about 90dB. As has already been explained, the law/rule of thermal noise demands that the noise floor is higher at higher freqs, so you already know the 50dBA noise floor figure is inapplicable/false in the ultrasonic range, yet you repeat it as a true/applicable fact anyway, why is that?

G


----------



## Phronesis

This is what I'm gleaning at this point regarding ultrasonics:

- They're produced by various musical instruments (usually transiently) and in nature and the built environment at meaningful levels.  Hence many species being able to hear far above 20 kHz.

- It's possible to record and reproduce these very high frequencies with gear, though that's not usually done.

- These high very frequencies may produce brain responses in auditory regions via pathways which bypass the eardrum, such as through the skull and eyes.

- Some people can consciously perceive these very high frequencies.  Others may perceive them only subconsciously.  The thresholds for these effects vary a lot between people.

- The effect of accurately recording and reproducing these very high frequencies with respect to music enjoyment is uncertain.  It may vary among people.

- If the effects of these very high frequencies are via pathways which bypass the eardrum, headphones may not be a viable option to produce them, and attempting to produce them via headphones may actually be detrimental for music enjoyment.


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> ... there are many non audio aspects that can trigger a change or even cause a reaction in the auditory cortex or anywhere else. just with the research available, we cannot doubt that to be true. but is it hearing?



Well, I'm divided on this. On the one hand, I'm sure I don't need Hi-Res for my personal listening needs. Even worse, actually. I convert everything to lame V0 mp3 and call it a day.

On the other hand, I want to keep an open mind and avoid generalizing things or being overly dogmatic. Yes, I know that non audio stimuli like watching video or lip-reading too can trigger a reaction in the auditory cortex. But what if the stimulus is solely a sound source with ultra-high frequency content (and not something else)? What if research shows that the sound of ocean waves with ultra-high frequency content triggers a brain response in listeners that is significantly different from the 20kHz brickwalled version? How would you name the perception of that part above 20kHz then, that makes the difference? If it's not "hearing" (because we define 20kHz as top end of the audible range), what else is it then? To me, it would seem a bit arbitrary to call perception of a sound stimulus >20kHz something other than "hearing", just because it doesn't fit our traditional definition of the audible range.

That's why I called it "more of a semantic question" earlier on, not to sound particularly clever (as bigshot insinuated), but because I really think it comes down to just that.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree absolutely....

And that's exactly what I tell anyone who calls our support lines and actually asks....
Judge every album on its own merits (because some high-res files sound great... and some don't)....



bigshot said:


> A better/different version would be better mastering and perhaps remixing. Those things aren't dependent on format. There are terrible sounding SACDs and great sounding MP3 downloads. The best way to find better/different versions is to speak to collectors in music forums where there are people who have compared different versions carefully and have determined which are the best. Sometimes that is an old CD from the early 90s, sometimes that is a current blu-ray audio disc. The only way to tell which is the best is to listen. Price tag and bitrate aren't a good determiner of audio quality. That's my experience, and I have a house full of tens of thousands of 78s, LPs, cassettes, R2Rs, CDs, DVD-As and Blu-Rays that backs it up. I had one recording that meant an awful lot to me that I bought in multiple formats and releases over the years, only to discover that the best possible version was a 1935 78rpm first pressing on Z shellac.
> 
> You can't judge by the numbers. You have to judge by sound.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm kind of two minds abut whether we should differentiate between hearing situations and how they're affected by outside factors... and where we draw that line.
And I agree that there's also a major grey area between "placebo" and "real influences".... and I'm not sure where to put that line either.

On the one hand, we have things like trans-cranial stimulation.
In the paper I linked to they were talking about using TCS as a sort of treatment for medical conditions.
However, is it reasonable to discount the effect the loud music at a concert has on us via other methods than our ears?
What if the audible music we listen to _SOUNDS DIFFERENT_ to us because that TCS has altered how our brain interprets it?

You also bring up an interesting question about the placebo effect.
For example, we know that certain chemicals, like the caffeine in coffee, actually affect how our nerves work.
Therefore, it's quite possible that your hearing acuity will actually measure differently after two or three cups of coffee, or at a different time of day, or even in a brightly lit room.
But what if your hearing acuity changes when you drink something that you BELIEVE has caffeine in it - but really doesn't?

Several studies I've read (I forget if that includes any I linked to) have noted that it is now widely accepted that there are feedback paths going from our brain to our ears.
In other words, what you're thinking CAN produce physical changes in your hearing acuity.
Your brain sends messages to your ears that alter their response characteristics.
So, in fact, it may be possible that you actually are PHYSICALLY more able to hear sounds when you concentrate on them.
Or, perhaps, it's the opposite, and your brain dials down the sensitivity of your ears when there is too much other information being processed.
(To take an extreme: What if excessive THD starts to sound good when the strobes get bright enough? )

Note that none of this specifically has anything to do with ultrasonic sounds.
Except that it opens up the possibility that, for example, an ultrasonic sound you can't hear might alter your ear's programming, which might in turn affect other things.
(What if the vocalist "sounds different" because that ultrasonic harmonic from some instrument has reprogrammed your auditory cortex... or even the nerves in your ears?) 
(Or, as a few people have suggested, what if the "audible range" of that instrument sounds different when accompanied by the ultrasonic harmonics because they affect your brain?)

I'm going to suggest an interesting POSSIBILITY here..... (I'm not claiming that it's necessarily true - but maybe we should check into it).

What if the reason that, for most people, "home listening can never duplicate the experience of a real concert" is due to those extraneous factors.....
What if, at the actual concert, our brains and auditory cortex were "configured a certain way" - thanks to those bright lights, our expectations, and even a little TCS....
And we're never going to be able to properly replicate the _auditory experience_ unless we replicate all the other factors that account for the configuration that goes with it?....

To me, this is stuff we should be testing....



castleofargh said:


> your examples are about interpretation, and the ultrasonic link seems to not even be concerned about hearing at all. yes I present hearing as a sort of spectrum analyzer, or maybe more as a sort of really weird microphone. not because I believe that our brain can't do amazing stuff with the data from that sensor, but because if something can be masked or is simply outside the range of sensitivity of that sensor, then there will be no extra data to interpret. which seems pretty important to me when considering what might matter.
> 
> now if you want to use transcranial stimulation as an argument that ultrasounds even when not perceived by our auditory system can still affect our experience, I'm fine with that of course. but I'm not fine with considering that as hearing. and if like @Phronesis you wish to extend the notion of hearing beyond signals captured by our ears, and go deep inside the brain at a cellular level or just as a thought, I'm also fine with that but only so long as your notion of hearing is very clearly and strictly defined. because as of right not it isn't my definition of hearing. there are many non audio aspects that can trigger a change or even cause a reaction in the auditory cortex or anywhere else. just with the research available, we cannot doubt that to be true. but is it hearing? in a brain where our different senses are never strictly isolated(at least not when it comes to interpretation), one could argue that placebo is hearing. that touching is hearing. we even have people for whom the link between senses is more direct, and a sound will have a color or vice versa. but should we define human hearing with such standards?
> when we agree in this section that all those non audio variables need to be eliminated in a listening test, we do imply that they all have the potential to affect our interpretation of sound. so all in all it's not a big move to go from our usual position to a position redefining hearing as a more global experience. but it's a very massive difference in definition!
> even then, all we do is allow more variables to count as audio. even with that trick, demonstrating that the typical amount of ultrasounds in records is having a clear impact(a positive one!) on the listener, is still something I'm waiting to see. if anything I'd argue that if we open our definition of hearing to a wider range or variables, it automatically makes ultrasounds an even smaller part of what forms our audio experience.


----------



## KeithEmo

There's the full quote....
From Page 777, bottom right, of the copy I linked.

---------------->
In one brief test with two subjects we added 14 dB of
gain to the reference level quoted and tested the two
sources with no input signal, to see whether the noise level
of the CD audio channel would prove audible. Although
one of the subjects was uncertain of his ability to hear the
noise, both achieved results of 10/10 in detecting the CD
loop. (We have not yet determined the threshold of this
effect. With gain of more than 14 dB above reference,
detection of the CD chain’s higher noise floor was easy,
with no uncertainty. Tests with other subjects bore this out.)
----------------->



old tech said:


> Where in that paper does it say that the CD loop was audible with a "slight" gain which you have quoted? It actually says it was noticeable on quiet passages at 20dB above reference levels, hardly what most reasonable persons would call a reasonable listening environment.
> 
> This is is not the first time I've called you out on misrepresenting that paper by substituting with your own words.  I had a lot more respect for you.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 10, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I'm kind of two minds abut whether we should differentiate between hearing situations and how they're affected by outside factors... and where we draw that line.
> And I agree that there's also a major grey area between "placebo" and "real influences".... and I'm not sure where to put that line either.
> 
> On the one hand, we have things like trans-cranial stimulation.
> ...



To me, this all illustrates that auditory perception is quite complex, and we can't really isolate it from other senses.  Humans evolved to take in information in a multisensory way, not to listen to IEMs.

I think this very much applies to music listening and enjoyment also.  Two examples:

- A weakness of headphones is that they lack the visceral bass impact of speakers.  We can feel a lot of bass energy through our bodies that we can't feel through headphones.  That presents a challenge for headphone design, to simulate and create a perception of suitable amount of bass without being able to produce the visceral impact.  Headphones that increase the bass to do that seem to typically suffer from some reduction in clarity.

- When I watch concert videos on youtube with my headphones plugged in to the computer, I'm often impressed with how good the sound quality is.  When I then close my eyes, the sound quality seems to get worse and I notice 'flaws' in the sound quality more.  The difference seems to be that, when I see the video, I'm pulled into the experience in a multisensory way and I pay less attention to the sound quality - that makes it easier for the sound quality to be 'good enough'.  A possible implication here is that when we struggle to simulate live sound quality with our gear, that perceived gap may not mainly be due to the sound quality falling short, but rather due mostly to our not seeing the performers, the music unfolding in real time, presence of an audience around us, etc.  I suppose we can somewhat fill the gap by imagining that we're there live, but that of course requires a mental effort where we bring something to the music which isn't there in the physical sound, a sort of 'imposed placebo effect'.


----------



## KeithEmo

All true....

I especially liked the way you unilaterally decided that "a transient peak lasting a few milli-seconds and then pretty much nothing" was something we could safely disregard.... I'm personally not as convinced as you are - which is why I was thinking it might be nice to actually test that. And, the last time I looked, there are plenty of plain old moving coil phono preamps that can amplify a 1 mV signal and still deliver and excellent S/N, so I guess that's not such a huge barrier either. Obviously we can design equipment that far exceeds that if we actually choose to do so. (I recall a demonstration some years ago of an ultra quiet op-amp, where they demonstrated that it could amplify the sound of smoke blown across one of the input leads.... each particle generates a distinct tick as it dissipates its static charge through the lead.)

Personally, if I wanted to produce a high-fidlity recording of that bandwidth, I'm probably design a microphone with multiple elements, each optimized for a different frequency range, and combine their outputs. (The inverse of how we design loudspeakers with crossovers to overcome the limitations of each individual driver.) However, I would suggest performing a few tests first, just to confirm for a fact whether the difference would be audible or not, instead of just assuming that it won't.



gregorio said:


> Geeee ..... What's the name of this thread, is it "Refusing to test audiophile claims and myths (and just make-up a bunch of new ones)" or is it pretty much the exact opposite of that? Why don't you take YOUR OWN ADVICE and record a few drumkit solos with your wonder mic??
> 
> For everyone else (in this universe):
> KeithEmo is suggesting the use of a very specific type of piezoelectric measurement mic. This type of measurement mic has the advantage of being able to withstand extremely high SPLs and is designed for measuring shock waves! As mentioned previously there is always a trade-off, there is no perfect mic, you can't have a mic capable of such extreme SPLs which still performs as well as other mics in other respects. The trade-off for these types of measurement mics is that they have very poor sensitivity and very high self-noise. Unfortunately, KeithEmo "inadvertently" omits to mention the sensitivity issue and proposes to simply pad (attenuate) the output by more than 30 times to reduce the self-noise. In other words, he proposes taking a mic with very poor sensitivity and effectively reducing it's sensitivity by a further 30 times?!
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

To me, that sounds like a fair summary of the current state of the technology.

The one thing I would add is that, if those ultrasonic frequencies may affect our brains or our ears, in one way or another, then that effect may produce a difference in how we perceive "ordinary audible sounds".
We may hear the audible portions of the cymbal equally, but they may "seem clearer" or "seem sharper", because something we cannot hear directly has affected how our brain processes the sound we hear in the audible spectrum.
(And this might account, at least in part, for the persistent claim that "most recordings just don't sound palpably real".)

This could occur because our perceptions of the audible sounds have actually been altered...
Or it could occur because we unconsciously "notice that something is missing" when the overtones aren't accurately reproduced.



Phronesis said:


> This is what I'm gleaning at this point regarding ultrasonics:
> 
> - They're produced by various musical instruments (usually transiently) and in nature and the built environment at meaningful levels.  Hence many species being able to hear far above 20 kHz.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Dec 10, 2018)

I don't care if animals can hear super audible frequencies. My dog can buy his own stereo system.

Wouldn't +14dB be about 3 times the normal listening volume? In any case, it sure isn't a slight boost. If their reference level was around 65dBdB, they would be pushing a level of 80dB, which could certainly reveal the noise floor of the recording itself and conceivably could reveal the noise floor of CDs if the headphones isolated well enough. It sure wouldn't be a comfortable listening level though when the cannons start going off in the 1812 overture!

It helps to know what those numbers represent in real world sound.



james444 said:


> On the other hand, I want to keep an open mind and avoid generalizing things or being overly dogmatic.



The way to avoid that is to give the person making the claim the opportunity to present evidence and make an argument in support of it. If they present no evidence and just provide you with a million "what ifs", and if they ignore evidence to the contrary and refuse to answer it, and quite definitely if they are clearly biased and no amount of evidence would convince them... you aren't required to keep listening.

Entertaining bogus arguments isn't keeping an open mind. It's more like having an open space between your ears.


----------



## KeithEmo

I guess it depends on what you mean by "normal listening volume".

Virtually every chart or list of measurements I've been able to find lists "loud rock concerts" and "full level classical orchestras" as reaching from 110 to 120 dB SPL - or higher.
I also see "sports events" listed at 115 dB SPL (so I guess you would need that to play back a recording of a hockey game at "realistic level".).

I personally consider most rock concerts to be unpleasantly loud and have no desire to reproduce them at original level in my living room.
However, some people most definitely DO seem to want to achieve "realistic listening levels" in their home.
And, apparently, for them, the noise floor of a typical CD would be somewhat inadequate.
(I have most certainly answered phone calls inquiring about "how much power would I need with such and such a speaker to reach 120 dB without clipping?")

Therefore, while you and I both may consider it somewhere between "uncomfortable" and "foolhardy"....
It falls well within the sort of experience that quite a few people seem to want....

I've also heard many CDs where the tracks were recorded at rather different levels.
And, in those cases, it wouldn't be at all unreasonable to turn a "quiet" track up 10 - 15 dB - if you were just listening to that single track.
Likewise, can you honestly say that you've never turned up the volume to hear some odd sound during a track lead-out, or to hear something a musician muttered under his breath?
If not, then I would suggest that also falls under "something a normal listener might sometimes want to do."
Therefore, I guess it is _NOT_ reasonable to claim that "no normal person would ever hear the noise floor of a CD under what they consider normal listening conditions".

Are you really suggesting that, if we want to determine "the minimum acceptable S/N that will never interfere with anyone's listening to music".....
We want to restrict them to: "Listening to the entire CD, all in one pass, at the same volume level?"
To me that seems rather _UNREALISTIC_.

Science is largely about "what ifs".
So, when discussing "what's possible" they are most certainly to be included.
("What's possible" is most certainly distinctly different than "what's been achieved so far".)



bigshot said:


> I don't care if animals can hear super audible frequencies. My dog can buy his own stereo system.
> 
> Wouldn't +14dB be about 3 times the normal listening volume? In any case, it sure isn't a slight boost. If their reference level was around 65dBdB, they would be pushing a level of 80dB, which could certainly reveal the noise floor of the recording itself and conceivably could reveal the noise floor of CDs if the headphones isolated well enough. It sure wouldn't be a comfortable listening level though when the cannons start going off in the 1812 overture!
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

That's a nice simple question... and it deserves a direct answer....

Because I don't especially want to....
- it's an expensive piece of gear
- I don't record cymbals for a living
- nobody is paying me to research whether anybody would hear the difference
- nobody is paying me to conduct a study about whether it would constitute a product that someone would buy

However, none of that has much bearing on whether it's _POSSIBLE_ or not.
(If I had done it, that would prove conclusively that it was possible; however, since I haven't, that proves nothing at all.)
Give me a $1 million budget to develop a studio microphone that can record cymbals, with a flat response to 50 kHz, and THD below 1%, and I'll think about accepting the project.
(But, if I fail, that _STILL_ won't prove that it's impossible, but merely that I and my team can't do it.)

Forty years ago, it was impossible to measure a 23 foot ship's propeller with an accuracy of better than 1/2 inch.
Until the Navy contracted the company I worked for to design a device to measure them to within 1/50 of an inch.
It weighed thirty tons, and the first one cost $6 million, but it worked just fine (and was a lot more accurate than specified).
So I guess it wasn't "impossible" after all; it just hadn't been done _yet._
(Although it's an interesting question whether that qualifies as "science" or merely "applied technology".)

And, of course, just because something is possible doesn't mean it's worth doing... but that is a separate discussion.



gregorio said:


> Geeee ..... What's the name of this thread, is it "Refusing to test audiophile claims and myths (and just make-up a bunch of new ones)" or is it pretty much the exact opposite of that? Why don't you take YOUR OWN ADVICE and record a few drumkit solos with your wonder mic??
> 
> ..................
> 
> G


----------



## bigshot (Dec 10, 2018)

Normal casual listening level in my home is about 60dB. My loudest listening level tops out around 70-75dB with an AC noise floor of about 30dB. I measured it. I don't have to guess what the numbers mean. If I added 14dB to those, my casual listening level would be my absolute loudest listening level, and my loudest listening level would require hearing protection. 120dB is the threshold of pain. It really helps to know what the numbers relate to in real world sound. Without that, it's easy to go down rabbit holes into absurd extremes.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Dec 10, 2018)

As far as people listening at levels well above reference... I can confirm that it is disturbingly common. We sell some headphones that (I estimate) are capable of over 100dB SPL at the ear opening... and we have a handful of people complaining they don't go loud enough.  We sell a portable speaker that can do around 100dB SPL at 1m, some people return it because it's not loud enough.  Some people have to get exchanges because the speaker dies under the strain of being played at maximum volume 24/7.  

Just saying... my money would be on the proposition that plenty of people listen to music loud enough that the noise floor of RBCD is not negligible for them.  On the other hand they're probably half-deaf already so maybe it is.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 10, 2018)

The more you do that, the more you need to do that. It's easy to lose track of volume and destroy your hearing  with headphones. Harder to do that with speakers because the police come to your door. But once you hear what 100dB really sounds like, you won't want to go there often... and you sure don't want to do that for lengthy periods time. Edit: I just looked it up, 100dB exposure time for hearing damage is 15 minutes. 120dB would be less than a minute.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> Science is largely about "what ifs".
> So, when discussing "what's possible" they are most certainly to be included.
> ("What's possible" is most certainly distinctly different than "what's been achieved so far".)



I think this is a key divide in the discussions.

If we're talking about science, we don't need to be concerned with practical applications at all, and can talk about what if's, extreme cases, unorthodox hypotheses, etc. That's all standard for science.

If we're talking about practical applications, we don't necessarily need to delve deeply into the science, we just need to know what "works" to get the results we want.  It would be rational to dismiss some considerations because they seem very unlikely, very small effects, overly complex, etc.

We can have both kinds of discussions in Sound Science, but should be aware of what kind of discussion people are having, and not crap on discussions that don't interest us.

Personally, I'm mainly interested in scientific discussions because I find them interesting, and from a practical standpoint, I think it's pretty easy to put together a head-fi system which sounds quite good for the purpose of enjoying music, without needing to spend a lot of money.


----------



## bigshot

At Head-Fi the primary purpose of purely theoretical science is to justify audiophool excessive spending. It's what brought the hoodoo of jitter to the forefront and made people spend a ton of money on "low jitter" components that were no different sounding than any other one on the market. It's used to explain why fancy cables are necessary. It's used by unscrupulous DAC manufacturers to justify specs that bats can't even hear. And it what is used to justify "HD Audio" that audibly isn't any different that regular CD quality sound. Pure theory is a tool used to sell you stuff you don't need.

Knowledge is knowing things. Wisdom is knowing how to apply knowledge. There is such thing as an educated fool. It's better to be ignorant than it is to have knowledge without the wisdom to apply it. At least if you're ignorant, you can figure things out by googling. More knowledge without wisdom just gets you further and further down the rabbit hole. If you have both knowledge and wisdom, you can solve problems.

There really isn't much difference between the flowery vague adjectives used to describe the sound of home audio equipment in the rest of Head-Fi and the completely irrelevant pure theory that gets thrown around here. They're two sides of the same coin. And they both serve the same master... snake oil.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> At Head-Fi the primary purpose of purely theoretical science is to justify audiophool excessive spending. It's what brought the hoodoo of jitter to the forefront and made people spend a ton of money on "low jitter" components that were no different sounding than any other one on the market. It's used to explain why fancy cables are necessary. It's used by unscrupulous DAC manufacturers to justify specs that bats can't even hear. And it what is used to justify "HD Audio" that audibly isn't any different that regular CD quality sound. Pure theory is a tool used to sell you stuff you don't need.
> 
> Knowledge is knowing things. Wisdom is knowing how to apply knowledge. There is such thing as an educated fool. It's better to be ignorant than it is to have knowledge without the wisdom to apply it. At least if you're ignorant, you can figure things out by googling. More knowledge without wisdom just gets you further and further down the rabbit hole. If you have both knowledge and wisdom, you can solve problems.
> 
> There really isn't much difference between the flowery vague adjectives used to describe the sound of home audio equipment in the rest of Head-Fi and the completely irrelevant pure theory that gets thrown around here. They're two sides of the same coin. And they both serve the same master... snake oil.



It's true that fake science or misapplied science is often used to mislead people and induce them to buy things. 

But separate from that, I think we can and should discuss science here in Sound Science, independently of its potential practical application or misapplication.  Some people just find that sort of thing interesting.


----------



## james444

KeithEmo said:


> Science is largely about "what ifs".



The "what ifs" in my post were just rhetorical. The "ocean wave" study is real, and I linked to it in an earlier post.

Bigshot just doesn't know that, because he thinks he's above clicking links to evidence provided in a discussion. Even after I called him out on that, he still couldn't be bothered to go back and click that link.

Personally, I'm not interested in dogmatic and selfcongratulatory discussions. Science is for the curious and open-minded, not for the self-complacent.


----------



## Phronesis

james444 said:


> Science is for the curious and open-minded



I think those are the keys.  Curiosity motivates us to learn, without concern for applications.  Open-mindedness enables learning to occur, otherwise our beliefs just stay the same.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 10, 2018)

Jitter is real. So are differences between cables and super audible frequencies. Science can talk about them and measure them and study them... but they don't mean jack diddly when it comes to home audio components. Theory is used out of context as sales pitch. If there is nothing really unique about the product you sell, and you can get the same thing elsewhere for less, then you come up with a theory to explain why someone should pay more for your product. Theory is a valuable tool for obfuscation. Without context, theory can be a lie.

In theory there is no right or wrong. That's a comfort when you find yourself in the wrong more often than you'd like.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Jitter is real. So are differences between cables and super audible frequencies. Science can talk about them and measure them and study them... but they don't mean jack diddly when it comes to home audio components. Theory is used out of context as sales pitch. If there is nothing really unique about the product you sell, and you can get the same thing elsewhere for less, then you come up with a theory to explain why someone should pay more for your product. Theory is a valuable tool for obfuscation. Without context, theory can be a lie.
> 
> In theory there is no right or wrong. That's a comfort when you find yourself in the wrong more often than you'd like.



Regarding what "theory" means in science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Worth quoting extensively:

A *scientific theory* is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

The meaning of the term _scientific theory_ (often contracted to _theory_ for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of _theory_.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, _theory_ can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of _prediction_ in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. That doesn’t mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics etc). In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[5] They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.

As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive,[6] aiming for predictive and explanatory power.

The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."​


----------



## bigshot

you just graduated from out of context theory to cut and paste semantics. not going there. sorry.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> you just graduated from out of context theory to cut and paste semantics. not going there. sorry.



The point is that bogus or unsubstantiated theory isn't scientific theory.  When discussing science in Sound Science, use of standard definitions of words is important to avoid misunderstandings.


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> There's the full quote....
> From Page 777, bottom right, of the copy I linked.
> 
> ---------------->
> ...


Yes but 14db above their reference level is not a slight gain.  Even so, at these high SPLs it was noticeable on the very quiet sections of the music - significantly below the noise levels of LP or analog tape playback.


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> To me, that sounds like a fair summary of the current state of the technology.
> 
> The one thing I would add is that, if those ultrasonic frequencies may affect our brains or our ears, in one way or another, then that effect may produce a difference in how we perceive "ordinary audible sounds".
> *We may hear the audible portions of the cymbal equally, but they may "seem clearer" or "seem sharper", because something we cannot hear directly has affected how our brain processes the sound we hear in the audible spectrum.
> ...


Why are we still flogging the dead horse?  If anything what you say is valid, surely over 30 years of testing the 'seem clearer' or 'seem sharper' would have been confirmed over and over by now, beyond any rational dispute.  Or are you suggesting we need another 30 years of testing to maybe verify your conjectures?

Btw, for the record, while I accept that we can percieve ultrasonic and subsonic sounds if exposed to them at abnormal levels, there is zero evidence that these sounds influence our hearing within the range we can actually hear and 30 years of testing providing evidence that we can't.  It is no different to light frequencies we cannot see.  There is no doubt that exposure to high levels of infra red or ultra violet frequencies are perceptible - for example, we cannot see ultra violet frequencies but if you expose yourself to the sunlight long enough your skin would be red as a cooked crayfish (particularly here in Australia).  However, look at the world through a UV filter and there is absolutely no effect on what is seen (apart from any imperfections in the glass or plastic filter lens).

With my understanding of how digital audio (and video) works, and with over 100 years of testing of human hearing, it just doesn't seem logical that sample rates or bit depths alone, greater than CD, can make a difference for playback.  I am open minded that putting aside expectation biases and wanting to hear a difference, there could be a difference due to many other variables, eg the possibility of some DACs working better at certain sample rates, ultrasonic content creating IMD withing components of less than optimal playback chains.  However, given that after some 30 years since hi res was distributed commercially we are still debating this and testing has not confirmed any playback benefits, the difference, if any, would be subtle at most and probably no greater than tilting your head when listening to the stereo.


----------



## bigshot

Super audible frequencies are irrelevant to the playback of commercially recorded music in the home. They are inaudible. They add nothing to perceived sound quality of music.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Super audible frequencies are irrelevant to the playback of commercially recorded music in the home. They are inaudible. They add nothing to perceived sound quality of music.


Your carver sub goes down to 20hz....do you hear it? Or feel it? ...i'm guessing you feel it.Perhaps this is what goes on with super high frequencies?....just stirring the pot here


----------



## castleofargh (Dec 11, 2018)

james444 said:


> Well, I'm divided on this. On the one hand, I'm sure I don't need Hi-Res for my personal listening needs. Even worse, actually. I convert everything to lame V0 mp3 and call it a day.
> 
> On the other hand, I want to keep an open mind and avoid generalizing things or being overly dogmatic. Yes, I know that non audio stimuli like watching video or lip-reading too can trigger a reaction in the auditory cortex. But what if the stimulus is solely a sound source with ultra-high frequency content (and not something else)? What if research shows that the sound of ocean waves with ultra-high frequency content triggers a brain response in listeners that is significantly different from the 20kHz brickwalled version? How would you name the perception of that part above 20kHz then, that makes the difference? If it's not "hearing" (because we define 20kHz as top end of the audible range), what else is it then? To me, it would seem a bit arbitrary to call perception of a sound stimulus >20kHz something other than "hearing", just because it doesn't fit our traditional definition of the audible range.
> 
> That's why I called it "more of a semantic question" earlier on, not to sound particularly clever (as bigshot insinuated), but because I really think it comes down to just that.


20khz is an average value. young people can often hear above that, while the vast majority of adults actually won't even reach 20khz even with unhealthy listening levels. I agree that any such statistical value shouldn't result in making absolute claims like nobody being able to hear above 20khz  edit: this is false it's not an average, it's an old maximum. 

about semantic, arguments are always about that, and poorly defined conditions. IMO hearing implies sound as a cause, ears as a receptor, and conscious perception. the way it would be treated if I went to an audiologist. if we're missing one of those, to me it is not hearing. I don't think we're gaining much of anything trying to add more senses under the "hearing" umbrella, when actual science has been doing exactly the opposite and defining more and more human senses over the last years.
now is the tactile feeling of low frequency important to my experience of music? yes, very much so. but do I count that specific effect of low frequency as hearing? nope. I feel like the soundstage is better defined when I see speakers in the room but that's not hearing to me. when I use my gear, I tend to mostly look for what I know in the music, but when I get new toys to play with, I naturally will be looking for differences and of course feel like I'm getting them. almost anything can and will affect my experience and most will affect at least my impressions of sound. but I believe it's important to separate all that from actual hearing, otherwise every weird delusions that audiophiles have will be self justified and this hobby will never ever pull itself out of the nonsense that it is.

so based on this, I believe I've answered your question ^_^.  and for all the circumstances where it's unclear if the cochlea is involved in our perception of a sound stimulus, I will refuse to call it hearing until that part is cleared up. as always I'm not closing the door, just sticking to the facts I have instead of just accepting anything and everything that hasn't been disproved like a lunatic. new facts will hopefully reach me at some point and make me reconsider or increase my confidence in my skeptical standpoint.


----------



## 5twnr

Doesn't modern music filter out all super high and low frequencies during mastering anyways? If you primarily listen to hiphop, for example, I see no reason for any high-end audio setup when all the samples and instruments won't go above 22khz.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> Right. When I did my test I used an SACD that was recorded natively in DSD. That guaranteed super audible content. It sounded exactly the same as the same in CD quality sound.


Thanks...good to know.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 11, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> This is what I'm gleaning at this point regarding ultrasonics:
> [1] - They're produced by various musical instruments (usually transiently) and in nature and the built environment at meaningful levels. Hence many species being able to hear far above 20 kHz.
> [2] - It's possible to record and reproduce these very high frequencies with gear, though that's not usually done.
> [3] - These high very frequencies may produce brain responses in auditory regions via pathways which bypass the eardrum, such as through the skull and eyes.
> ...



1. Yes, they are produced by some musical instruments but only in relatively small/tiny amounts which is only measurable/recordable at very close range.
2. It is fairly commonly done but I'm not going to argue a definition of "usually".
3. Only in relatively large amounts and/or under certain inapplicable conditions, such as bone conductance for example.
4. There is certainly good evidence to support this first statement but ONLY under the conditions of very high levels AND with test signals (pure tones). This second statement has little evidence to support it, although it seems reasonable in some cases given the same conditions as the first statement. This last statement is also has good evidence to support it, only a small percentage of those tested could consciously perceive these ultrasonic freqs even under the conditions specified. We have to be careful about statements such as "vary a lot" however, what is "a lot"? For example, a variation of 50% is "a lot" and is entirely reasonable, a variation of 100% is also "a lot" and is still entirely reasonable (although slightly less so) but what about a variation of 10,000%? That's only reasonable in the case of a variation which includes those with severe hearing impairments. Furthermore, the variation required for some of the things being discussed in this thread to be audible (to some people) would be in the order of 100,000% - 1,000,000%, which is also "a lot" but is entirely unreasonable!
5. No, this statement is not true. There is no evidence to support it and overwhelming evidence against it. Neither of the specific conditions under which ultrasonic freqs *might* be heard/audible exist in music. The levels of ultrasonic content in music is very small, tiny or non-existent, the opposite of the very high levels required. And, the ultrasonic content that does exist, only exists in the form of high order harmonics, which again is pretty much the exact opposite of the conditions required.
6. This can be true under certain conditions, for example an amp or HPs producing IMD in the audible band, but apart from this situation (which doesn't bypass the eardrum) it is irrelevant as the conditions do not exist within music for it to be either detrimental or not.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] I especially liked the way you unilaterally decided that "a transient peak lasting a few milli-seconds and then pretty much nothing" was something we could safely disregard....
> [2] I'm personally not as convinced as you are - which is why I was thinking it might be nice to actually test that.



1. And I especially liked the way you unilaterally decided to misrepresent what has been stated! I am not unilaterally deciding anything, I, along with countless other engineers have actually done the tests and the results bare out what the specs indicate. Which is why we have music/studio mics in the first place and why music/studio mics have significantly different performance characteristics to shock wave measurement mics. You seem to (falsely) think/believe we are all unthinking automatons that unquestioningly follow some imaginary mic rule book but nothing could be further from the truth. It might have been somewhat true in the 1950's and early 1960's but by the mid-late 1960's and very much so in the 1970's, pretty much all the top studios and engineers were constantly trying all sorts of wacky mics, bizarre positionings and combinations of mics. That's all part of recording history, all part of the learning curve for apprentice engineers (which starts after their formal university education) and all part of the everyday life of professional engineers. Furthermore, you are also ignoring the even greater number of sound engineers who work in TV and film. Have you ever heard a gun shot, cannon or artillery fire or explosions in any TV programme or film? Of course you have, but apparently you've never thought how those sounds were created, recorded and processed/mixed. You think maybe no professional sound effects recordist has ever thought to try and record the shock waves of gun fire and explosions using a mic specifically designed to record and measure shock waves? You think maybe that with almost a century of film sound and countless millions of films and TV programmes that no one has ever tried, tested or experimented with anything? The opposite is true, everything you could imagine has been tried and tested and in fact, there's probably been a great deal more experimentation and testing done on what you couldn't even imagine than on what you could!

Incidentally (@Phronesis et al), sound effects for Film/TV are almost always recorded at least at 96kHz (and commonly at 192kHz) and the use of mics with ranges well into the ultrasonic range is also common. This is because the sound effects recordists have little/no idea how the sound effects designers/editors are going to use those recordings and the slowing down/pitch-shifting of sound effects recordings is one of the oldest and most common of sound effects design techniques.

2. What you think "might be nice to actually test" has in fact already be tested, numerous/countless times! I don't necessarily blame you for not knowing that fact but I do blame you for ignoring it after you've already been informed, making-up nonsense based on that ignorance (and in contradiction of the facts) and doing so repeatedly. For the umpteenth time, this is NOT the "What KeithEmo is personally convinced of" forum, you don't get to make-up facts simply because you personally don't know what the facts are or worse, you deliberately want to avoid knowing the facts! You state it would be "_nice to actually test that_" and to "_try some recording a few drum solos_" but then state you don't want to do those tests "*Because I don't especially want to....*" AND THEN you completely ignore (or argue with) those people who have actually done those tests AND just continue making-up and repeating the same bogus "facts", why is that? How is that even rational, let alone "Science"?



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Virtually every chart or list of measurements I've been able to find lists "loud rock concerts" and "full level classical orchestras" as reaching from 110 to 120 dB SPL - or higher.
> I also see "sports events" listed at 115 dB SPL (so I guess you would need that to play back a recording of a hockey game at "realistic level".). I personally consider most rock concerts to be unpleasantly loud and have no desire to reproduce them at original level in my living room. However, some people most definitely DO seem to want to achieve "realistic listening levels" in their home.
> And, apparently, for them, the noise floor of a typical CD would be somewhat inadequate.
> [2] Science is largely about "what ifs".
> ...



1. No, there's two major fallacies/falsehoods here, which unfortunately combine to be doubly false!: *Firstly*, due to the laws of physics, peak levels are meaningless without reference to distance. Sure, orchestras can produce levels up to 120dB, even above 130dB in fact, depending on where you are relative to the orchestra (and instruments in the orchestra). By the time one is many meters away from the orchestra (and the loudest instruments) the inverse square law and absorption dramatically reduce those levels. For example, by the time one is say the distance away from the orchestra as the conductor's position, the peak level (which started at >130dBSPL) would likely never exceed 105dBSPL and by the distance of the ideal audience listening position, a max peak level of around 95dB would be about the very most ever experienced, even with a large symphony orchestra and a particularly loud piece. Likewise with rock gigs, which in the most extreme cases have been measured up to around 150dBSPL but that's at about one meter from the speakers, in such cases the audience aren't positioned anywhere near the speakers and the vast majority of the audience would be many dozens of meters away. This brings us back again to the question you refuse to answer, do you normally sit an inch or two away from say the snare drum at a rock gig or a foot or two in front of the trumpets during a symphony concert?
*Secondly*, you are confusing peak levels with dynamic range! At a rock gig where say some of the audience might conceivably experience peaks of say 120dB (which would actually be around 10 times the legal limit in many countries!) what is the noise floor, is it 0dBSPL? No of course NOT, typically it would be at the VERY LEAST about 60dB SPL and therefore the dynamic range of this gig would be, in the most extreme of cases, about 60dB! The noise floor of CD is therefore around 80 TIMES MORE THAN ADEQUATE, but if we're talking about a "typical CD" (which would have noise-shaped dither), then the noise floor of the CD would be around 1,000 times more than adequate, pretty much the opposite of "somewhat inadequate"!

2. True to an extent but you are AGAIN "inadvertently" omitting crucial facts. Science is NOT largely (or even slightly) about any old "what ifs", those "what ifs" have to be suggested/implied and supported by the existing science and can ONLY contradict the existing science with significant supporting evidence. Unless the "what ifs" comply with these requirements they are not Science!
2a. Only if they comply with the previous point, otherwise they are most certainly NOT to be included, because that would cover any crazy idea that any nutter could dream up which would be pretty much the exact opposite of "science"!
2b. No, "what is possible" is something which is achievable, if it's not achievable then it's "impossible", however that doesn't necessarily imply that at some time in the future it may (or may not) become possible. Without this definition, the word "possible" has no meaning because everything would always be "possible". We could not state for example that flying pigs are impossible, would have to state that flying pigs are indeed possible, it's just that no pig has achieved flight so far.



Phronesis said:


> If we're talking about science, we don't need to be concerned with practical applications at all, and can talk about what if's, extreme cases, unorthodox hypotheses, etc.



True but only if it's made clear they're "what ifs", if it's not conflated with actual facts or used as an excuse for promoting fallacious facts. Just about the biggest problem we face in this thread (and others) is people making bold claims of fact, which are demonstrably false and then eventually stating it was actually a "what if", a hypothetical that may be possible at sometime in the future. Sure, in a couple of million years pigs might evolve wings and be able to fly but here, today and for the foreseeable future, on this planet, pigs cannot fly.



james444 said:


> Science is for the curious and open-minded, not for the self-complacent.





Phronesis said:


> Open-mindedness enables learning to occur, otherwise our beliefs just stay the same.



True but only to an extent! Let's take an obvious example: Are we open-minded that 1+1 might not equal 2? If we did have an open mind about this, science would spend all it's time trying theorising about what's already been proven and never advance beyond 1+1=2. We are all close-minded and "self-complacent" about 1+1=2 being a true fact, even to the point of treating someone trying to contradict it as a nutter, delusional or both. The reasons for this are:

1. Science has already mathematically proven and it's been more than amply demonstrated in practice that 1+1=2,
2. There's not a shred of reasonable evidence to even suggest that 1+1 might not equal 2.
3. It is therefore rationally undeniable and
4. Just about everyone from kindergarten up, knows that 1+1=2.

Now let's take another example, what's the difference between say the theorem of digital audio and 1+1=2? The answer is almost nothing! Reasons 1, 2 and 3 are absolutely identical; it's mathematically proven and far more than amply demonstrated, there's not a shred of reasonable evidence to even suggest it might be incorrect and it's not therefore rationally deniable/questionable. How come then, we see so many claims here on head-fi which effectively contradict it? The answer and the difference between 1+1=2 and the digital audio theorem is purely due to reason #4. We have exactly the same reasons for being just as close-minded and self-complacent about the digital audio theorem as we do about 1+1=2 but as it's not taught from kindergarten up then not everyone is aware of facts (or the reasons why it is an undeniable fact) and therefore we can't treat them as "nutters, delusional or both", they may simply be ignorant. Of course though, that entirely valid excuse only lasts so long, once it's been explained and the evidence presented, then they can no longer claim ignorance, all that would be left is a personal belief that's identical to 1+1 does not equal 2!

G


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 11, 2018)

gregorio said:


> We have to be careful about statements such as "vary a lot" however, what is "a lot"? For example, a variation of 50% is "a lot" and is entirely reasonable, a variation of 100% is also "a lot" and is still entirely reasonable (although slightly less so) but what about a variation of 10,000%? That's only reasonable in the case of a variation which includes those with severe hearing impairments. Furthermore, the variation required for some of the things being discussed in this thread to be audible (to some people) would be in the order of 100,000% - 1,000,000%, which is also "a lot" but is entirely unreasonable!



I'm thinking in particular of the usually cited nominal FR hearing range of 20 to 20 kHz, whereas that upper limit seems to vary across individuals from roughly 10 kHz to more than 20 kHz.  To me, that factor of about 2x is a lot of variation.

Might be interesting for people in this thread to do a test of their upper limit and report the result.  I did a couple such tests and my upper limit seems to be around 15.5 kHz, but I haven't verified that my computer headphone output is actually producing frequencies above that (I'm pretty sure that my HD800S headphones reach 20 kHz without dropping off much).

I personally don't have much interest in these really high frequencies from a practical standpoint, but the topic does interest me as a scientific question.

Regarding the open-mindedness part, I look at it on a continuum.  At one end, there are things that I assume to be essentially "true" (or highly accurate) and I don't doubt them, even if they can't be proven; math and a lot of physics generally falls in this category.  At the other end, there are things where the uncertainty is high, so I can only guess, and have little or no confidence in my guesses; religion tends to fall in this category for me, though I do doubt some specific things. For me, there's a lot of stuff in between these ends, as related to things like biology, social sciences, and some audio and music stuff where the psychology of perception comes into play.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 11, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> [1] I'm thinking in particular of the usually cited nominal FR hearing range of 20 to 20 kHz, whereas that upper limit seems to vary across individuals from roughly 10 kHz to more than 20 kHz. To me, that factor of about 2x is a lot of variation.
> [2] Might be interesting for people in this thread to do a test of their upper limit and report the result. I did a couple such tests and my upper limit seems to be around 15.5 kHz, but I haven't verified that my computer headphone output is actually producing frequencies above that (I'm pretty sure that my HD800S headphones reach 20 kHz without dropping off much).



1. In the case of FR we are typically talking about a variation in the order of 2 to 5 times (according to audiophile claims) and even 2 times is a great deal, 10kHz to say 20kHz is a pretty extreme example, it's the difference between a young child with perfect hearing and an old person with quite severe hearing loss (although normal for their age).

2. We have to be careful to get at least a very rough reference. I had a discussion with a friend a few years ago who was trying to convince me that he could still hear 18kHz, despite being in his mid-fifties. Eventually we went to his house and repeated the test. We started off at about 2kHz and what I estimate to have been around 80dBSPL, loud by not terribly so. Once we got to about 10kHz it was getting noticeably quieter, so he whacked-up his amp to compensate and kept whacking it up all the way up to 18kHz. Even I could hear it but it wasn't the 18kHz sine wave, it was a very high pitched distortion, my guess is the actual level was above 110dB, which his cans or amp couldn't handle. Setting the level loudly (about 80dBSPL @ 2kHz-3kHz) and increasing the frequency of the sine wave without touching the amp, he couldn't tell when the sine wave was or wasn't present by 13kHz.

IME, the nominal 20Hz - 20kHz is very optimistic/extreme. We conducted tests on about 1,800 students over the course of several years and at a level of about 82dB SPL (which is quite uncomfortably loud at 3kHz in a medium sized room) the mean was about 16.8kHz, only one or two got as far as 19kHz and no one could hear 20kHz. More than 90% of the students were 17-21 years old. I have never tested any young children however, so I don't know if 20kHz is realistic or even normal for say a 4 or 5 year old and is therefore justified if we're talking about humans in general rather than just adults.

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with this 100%.

I should also point out that most people really can tell the difference between science and consumer products.
(And, when discussing theoretical science, we should always make sure to say that's what it is.)

For example, if you're interested in cars, then it's quite possible you might be interested in discussing, or reading discussions about, how the latest Nissan and Kia sedans compare, the performance of Ferrari's latest $250k sports car, and whether it's ever going to be possible to have a car that runs on a portable nuclear reactor. And, odds are, you're not going to have that much difficulty telling which one is likely to affect what you buy next week, which one is only going to make practical sense if you hit the lottery, and which one you'll probably never live to see. And, even though I find LASER interferometry fascinating, and the latest lab experiments show that measurements down to millionths of an inch are possible, I still had no trouble purchasing a LASER tape measure from Home Depot for $29 that's accurate to 1/8" or thereabouts - because I'm smart enough to know that's more than good enough for what I plan to use it for.

Perhaps some of the folks on this forum who are worried about all those evil audio snake oil salesmen should consider wondering why so many audiophiles are so eager to _buy_ their snake oil. I know that there are many cars out there that perform better than the one I own - but I still chose to buy one that does everything I want and fit within my budget. So why is it that so many audiophiles are so eager to spend thousands of dollars on a product that's such a tiny bit better? If the difference is so small that we can have endless discussions on this forum about whether it's even real or not - then, whether it's real or not, it must be a pretty darned small difference. 

If you are really worried about protecting over-eager audiophiles from being tricked into buying snake oil, then all you really need to do is to provide them with enough information that a reasonable person can tell which is which. We can also hope that most audiophiles know the difference between what a few people in a lab experiment can hear and what _they_ can hear. And, if they're the sort of person who buys things to impress their friends, or because the salesman tells them they should, even though they can't actually tell the difference, then that's their choice. (We probably don't have to worry - there's a good chance they've already spent all their money on volcano insurance and psychic readings.)

So......
- if someone predicts that a product will be available in ten years that can do something wondrous
- and someone else wants to point out that, somewhere in a lab, a scientist has discovered something
- and, if someone else wants to point out that "less than 1% of people can hear the difference between A & B"

Those are ALL just information...
How about we just trust each reader, just a little bit, to decide which interests them?



Phronesis said:


> I think this is a key divide in the discussions.
> 
> If we're talking about science, we don't need to be concerned with practical applications at all, and can talk about what if's, extreme cases, unorthodox hypotheses, etc. That's all standard for science.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I disagree.

The fact that it was recorded natively in DSD guaranteed that it was recorded on one of several pieces of recording gear that are capable of recording DSD. It did _NOT_ guarantee anything about the microphones, microphone preamps, or other analog gear that was used. It did _NOT_ guarantee anything about the acoustics of the recording venue itself. It also obviously only provided a single and somewhat limited sample of content. 

(It's obvious that different instruments contain very different harmonic spectra than others. For example, in his tests, Oohashi used recordings of some instrument called a gamelan - because it was claimed to contained an especially rich spectrum of ultrasonic harmonics. When conducting this sort of comparison tests, a good starting point would be to show that the particular instrument and recording used actually contain harmonics that extend into the frequency range we're looking to test. For example, I suspect that a bass guitar probably produces far 



bigshot said:


> Right. When I did my test I used an SACD that was recorded natively in DSD. That guaranteed super audible content. It sounded exactly the same as the same in CD quality sound.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 11, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I agree with this 100%.
> 
> I should also point out that most people really can tell the difference between science and consumer products.
> (And, when discussing theoretical science, we should always make sure to say that's what it is.)
> ...



The comparison with cars is interesting.

The objective design and performance parameters of cars are easily measured, and car enthusiasts do pay attention to them.  But my impression, from owning sports cars and spending time on a sports car forum, is that car enthusiasts pay even more attention to the subjective experience of driving a car, and cars vary quite a lot in that regard.  A $200K Porsche has more far performance capability than can be used on the road (and few will get really close to extracting it's capability even on the track), but it also has a distinct "feel" within the operating range in which people normally use it, and I think that's a primary reason why many people will buy such a car.  Car enthusiasts are definitely influenced by brand, history of the brand, aesthetics, status display, etc., but my impression is that car enthusiasts aren't overly susceptible to snake oil tactics when choosing cars.  The objective parameters are there for all to see, and the subjective differences are fairly obvious.

By contrast, with audio, rather than just seeking subjective experiences they like, people seem to chase a sort of ideal of 'fidelity' - one final destination - trying to inch ever closer to it, expecting increased euphoria as they approach it.  It's very much like addiction.  All sorts of objective parameters can be quantified, and while they may pretty much tell the whole story for the signal chain preceding transducers, people debate that, plus we know that measurements don't quite tell the whole story with transducers.  At the same time, we know that our auditory perception can be quite malleable and unreliable, so that opens to door to perceiving even 'big' differences that aren't really there.  Until either (a) people do their own controlled testing to discover that they can't really trust their ears or (b) a program of scientifically rigorous testing is undertaken, I suspect that audiophiles will continue to be susceptible to snake oil tactics.


----------



## KeithEmo

At the risk of sounding adversarial.....  

You could be right about the motivations of the majority of people who frequent Head-Fi. Personally, while I can speak for the motivations of a few individuals, including myself and the company I work for, I don't feel qualified to make generalizations like that. However, you seem to be suggesting that you have nominated yourself as the sole arbiter of the difference between "useful information", "phony information", and "information that may be true but should be suppressed anyway because it's more likely to confuse people than to inform them". I also absolutely agree with your description of "the difference between knowledge and wisdom".... but, again, I'm not sure I'm comfortable allowing you to determine which is which for everyone else.

The whole issue of jitter is an excellent example. Many companies tout various products as being low in jitter, or as reducing or eliminating jitter, but in fact their products do not _significantly_ reduce jitter, as demonstrated by the fact that they fail to reduce the types of easily measurable distortion commonly used as indicators of how much jitter is present. (Actually measuring the low levels of jitter present on most modern equipment is difficult and requires expensive specialized equipment - and virtually nobody actually does it. Most companies, including Emotiva, who I work for, avoid excessive jitter simply by applying good design practices when designing our products. We then carefully measure the types of distortion commonly caused by excessive jitter and, if they measure very low, we can safely infer that the jitter is also low enough to be irrelevant.)

However, as far as I know, nobody so far has actually conducted proper tests on the audibility of small amounts of jitter. Because jitter causes distortion at both ends of the conversion process, in order to test the audibility of small amounts of jitter at the DAC, you would have to start with samples created using an A/D converter with exceptionally low levels of jitter. The few tests I've seen were done using samples generated on equipment that was far from good enough to produce test samples of the requisite quality. 

Now, following what I mentioned in another post.....

From a scientific perspective, this means that so far nobody has actually conducted a valid test to determine the audibility of small amounts of jitter. I've seen one or two tests which showed that adding significant amounts of jitter to existing audio samples wasn't audible, but none of them documented the amount of jitter present during the original creation of the test samples, or the distortion introduced by it - which, in this case, is a major omission.

But, from a _COMSUMER_ perspective, since most high quality consumer DACs probably have levels of jitter similar to those present in most studio A/D converters, and most modern DACs are probably far better in that regard than even the best studio equipment from a few decades ago, it seems reasonable to suspect that, _WITH MOST COMMERCIAL RECORDINGS,_ purchasing a DAC with significantly lower jitter than the equipment used to make the recording in the first place is unlikely to make a significant audible difference. 

Pure theory is a tool used to form hypotheses about what you think may turn out to be true.
This tells you what to look for, what to test for, or what direction to look in.
As with any other tool - it can be misused.
However, assuming that it is _ALWAYS_ misused... is really being a tiny bit paranoid.
But, as the saying goes: "Just because you're paranoid that doesn't mean they aren't out to get you".
In this context, I agree with you that theory is _OFTEN_ used to confuse the uninformed. 

But, yes, when it comes to high end audio....
A little paranoia can be a healthy thing. 



bigshot said:


> At Head-Fi the primary purpose of purely theoretical science is to justify audiophool excessive spending. It's what brought the hoodoo of jitter to the forefront and made people spend a ton of money on "low jitter" components that were no different sounding than any other one on the market. It's used to explain why fancy cables are necessary. It's used by unscrupulous DAC manufacturers to justify specs that bats can't even hear. And it what is used to justify "HD Audio" that audibly isn't any different that regular CD quality sound. Pure theory is a tool used to sell you stuff you don't need.
> 
> Knowledge is knowing things. Wisdom is knowing how to apply knowledge. There is such thing as an educated fool. It's better to be ignorant than it is to have knowledge without the wisdom to apply it. At least if you're ignorant, you can figure things out by googling. More knowledge without wisdom just gets you further and further down the rabbit hole. If you have both knowledge and wisdom, you can solve problems.
> 
> There really isn't much difference between the flowery vague adjectives used to describe the sound of home audio equipment in the rest of Head-Fi and the completely irrelevant pure theory that gets thrown around here. They're two sides of the same coin. And they both serve the same master... snake oil.


----------



## KeithEmo

That can't be stressed enough!

If someone wants to worry about things like misleading claims...
They should be more careful than anyone else about making up definitions for words...
The first step to accurately presenting information is using language that means the same thing to everyone.
(Which is why I really hate unsubstantiated generalizations.)

Unfortunately, when it comes to product marketing, people often take semantic shortcuts.....

For example, if they were being concise, a manufacturer of a high end DAC might say:

- We believe our DAC sounds better than our competitor's.
- We've taken special care in the design of our DAC to reduce jitter as much as we could.
- (But, no, we don't actually have the equipment necessary to measure jitter directly.)
- We believe that our DAC sounds better because it has less jitter.
- (And here are a bunch of testimonials from customers who like the way our DAC sounds.)

If you read that _CAREFULLY_.....
You'll see that there's nothing whatsoever in there that could be called a lie... or even misleading.
It actually contains one statement about their design goals and two opinions.
(And, if you _DIDN'T_ read it carefully.... whose fault is that?)



Phronesis said:


> The point is that bogus or unsubstantiated theory isn't scientific theory.  When discussing science in Sound Science, use of standard definitions of words is important to avoid misunderstandings.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with you "on general principle"..... but not in practice.
(To follow your analogy: "Because, every now and then, someone sees the bugger twitch.")

First off, it's almost impossible to prove a negative. 

Second, while being careful to avoid making a generalization, _IN THE RESULTS OF EVERY SINGLE TEST I'VE SEEN PUBLISHED AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ, _either there were glaring flaws or omissions in the test procedure itself, or the report failed to provide enough information to confirm its validity either way. To pick what is to me the most glaring example, if you want to claim that "your listener couldn't hear a difference when the test sample contained ultrasonic harmonics", then you _MUST_ confirm that those harmonics were present at the listening position. (He can't possibly hear them if they aren't there. You must confirm that the instrument you recorded actually produces ultrasonic harmonics, you must confirm that they are faithfully present in the recording, and you must confirm that your speakers and other components have delivered them to the test subject's ears. This is easy enough to do simply by applying a measurement microphone at the test subject's listening position.)

Oohashi carefully documented his results. Then, later, others claimed to "debunk" them, while using different recordings, of different instruments, presented under different conditions. (In real science, if you want to "debunk" something, you start by replicating it _EXACTLY_. Then, if you failed to replicate the original results, you try to find out why. And, if you succeed in replicating them under the same exact conditions, but fail under other similar conditions, you have a point of reference to compare to.)

I don't at all suggest that we need another thirty years. However, I would like to see one, or preferably more than one, test that doesn't contain glaring flaws, and that does include a wide enough variety of test subjects and samples to be considered even "probably authoritative".

I would also point out that "intuitive logic", while often useful, if far from always correct.

Incidentally, just to reply to your example, I have a small pocket LASER that emits a pure beam at 720 nm - which is a color frequency commonly used in "infrared remote controls" - and is widely agreed to be "invisible". However, when it's lit, it shows a clearly visible dot in a thoroughly odd color of pink. My _theory_ is that, even though normal red light excites mostly the red sensors in our eye, it also produces some response from the others, while this color only excites the red sensor, which may account for its unique apparent color. (So, at power levels far above what we normally encounter, but still far below what would be considered to be dangerous for short term exposure, it turns out that 720 nm is visible after all. Perhaps bright sunlight appears a tiny bit different if we filter out those infrared frequencies. And perhaps the short burst of ultrasonic harmonics generated by a cymbal strike similarly produce some minor but unique response from our auditory system that make it sound slightly different.)

From a practical point of view, the fact that we can see 720 nm light at very high levels may be insignificant... however, as a scientific fact, I find it somewhat interesting (even if it is extremely subtle).



old tech said:


> Why are we still flogging the dead horse?  If anything what you say is valid, surely over 30 years of testing the 'seem clearer' or 'seem sharper' would have been confirmed over and over by now, beyond any rational dispute.  Or are you suggesting we need another 30 years of testing to maybe verify your conjectures?
> 
> Btw, for the record, while I accept that we can percieve ultrasonic and subsonic sounds if exposed to them at abnormal levels, there is zero evidence that these sounds influence our hearing within the range we can actually hear and 30 years of testing providing evidence that we can't.  It is no different to light frequencies we cannot see.  There is no doubt that exposure to high levels of infra red or ultra violet frequencies are perceptible - for example, we cannot see ultra violet frequencies but if you expose yourself to the sunlight long enough your skin would be red as a cooked crayfish (particularly here in Australia).  However, look at the world through a UV filter and there is absolutely no effect on what is seen (apart from any imperfections in the glass or plastic filter lens).
> 
> With my understanding of how digital audio (and video) works, and with over 100 years of testing of human hearing, it just doesn't seem logical that sample rates or bit depths alone, greater than CD, can make a difference for playback.  I am open minded that putting aside expectation biases and wanting to hear a difference, there could be a difference due to many other variables, eg the possibility of some DACs working better at certain sample rates, ultrasonic content creating IMD withing components of less than optimal playback chains.  However, given that after some 30 years since hi res was distributed commercially we are still debating this and testing has not confirmed any playback benefits, the difference, if any, would be subtle at most and probably no greater than tilting your head when listening to the stereo.


----------



## KeithEmo

And, now that BigShot has spoken, we know it's true, 
and we can all go home and not worry about testing it with this science stuff.

(However, in a purely _practical _sense, I suspect he may actually be right.)

(I'm sorry... but you invited that one.)



bigshot said:


> Super audible frequencies are irrelevant to the playback of commercially recorded music in the home. They are inaudible. They add nothing to perceived sound quality of music.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree - with one minor qualification....

Regardless of how rigorous any test is, or how much evidence is presented, some audiophiles will still choose to disregard it, and choose to accept what they're convinced they personally hear over what "any damn scientist tells them". You are about as likely to turn the audiophile hobby into a fully science-driven venture, and eliminate all snake oil, as you are to put the last few astrologers and phone-line psychics out of business. 

(From the number of commercials I've seen lately, California Psychics must be doing rather well... 
and at $1 a minute no less.)

What I believe many people, on this forum in particular, fail to see is the issue of credibility. 
(And this is something that science already has a problem with.)

For example, I keep reading, over and over again, how "human hearing extends from 20 Hz to 20 kHz".
But, a few months ago, I read that, under certain lab conditions, it has been _PROVEN_ that 10 Hz is audible.
Several studies are also underway in the EU about how "subsonic sounds" from wind farms affect people.
Therefore, what can I logically conclude, except that the oft-quoted "20 Hz to 20 kHz" range is wrong after all?
Those damn lab scientists screwed it up again.
THAT is the hazard of making overreaching generalizations.

If we'd just limited it to: 
"under most conditions very few human adults can hear outside of the 20 hz - 20 kHz range"....
(Which is, after all, the technically accurate version of that claim.)
Then nobody's credibility would now be shredded....
Nobody would have to be wrong....
And people would still have the right idea....



Phronesis said:


> The comparison with cars is interesting.
> 
> The objective design and performance parameters of cars are easily measured, and car enthusiasts do pay attention to them.  But my impression, from owning sports cars and spending time on a sports car forum, is that car enthusiasts pay even more attention to the subjective experience of driving a car, and cars vary quite a lot in that regard.  A $200K Porsche has more far performance capability than can be used on the road (and few will get really close to extracting it's capability even on the track), but it also has a distinct "feel" within the operating range in which people normally use it, and I think that's a primary reason why many people will buy such a car.  Car enthusiasts are definitely influenced by brand, history of the brand, aesthetics, status display, etc., but my impression is that car enthusiasts aren't overly susceptible to snake oil tactics when choosing cars.  The objective parameters are there for all to see, and the subjective differences are fairly obvious.
> 
> By contrast, with audio, rather than just seeking subjective experiences they like, people seem to chase a sort of ideal of 'fidelity' - one final destination - trying to inch ever closer to it, expecting increased euphoria as they approach it.  It's very much like addiction.  All sorts of objective parameters can be quantified, and while they may pretty much tell the whole story for the signal chain preceding transducers, people debate that, plus we know that measurements don't quite tell the whole story with transducers.  At the same time, we know that our auditory perception can be quite malleable and unreliable, so that opens to door to perceiving even 'big' differences that aren't really there.  Until either (a) people do their own controlled testing to discover that they can't really trust their ears or (b) a program of scientifically rigorous testing is undertaken, I suspect that audiophiles will continue to be susceptible to snake oil tactics.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 11, 2018)

Glmoneydawg said:


> Your carver sub goes down to 20hz....do you hear it? Or feel it? ...i'm guessing you feel it.Perhaps this is what goes on with super high frequencies?.



I don't hear it, but the deep sub bass tends to set the walls rattling because the resonant frequency of the room is down there. I keep it attenuated in those areas so it doesn't knock stuff off the walls. Ultrasonic frequencies don't create vibration like that. When I play SACDs, I don't feel anything at all from the high frequencies. In fact, in a direct switched A/B test, I can't even tell the difference at all. I can totally tell when my sub is turned off, but it does most of its work above 20Hz. I don't have a lot of music that has stuff below that. Just movies.

Super audible frequencies, as they occur in commercially recorded music are as worthless as teats on a bull hog. I can't think of any purpose for frequencies above 20kHz. I suppose below 20Hz is good for reproducing explosions in superhero movies.

I really don't need to say any more than this, because the people who listen seem to all agree on this and the people who speak without listening don't. I don't need to go into detail for people who don't listen. That would be pouring my energy into a black hole. I'll let the black hole feed on itself.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 11, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I absolutely agree - with one minor qualification....
> 
> Regardless of how rigorous any test is, or how much evidence is presented, some audiophiles will still choose to disregard it, and choose to accept what they're convinced they personally hear over what "any damn scientist tells them". You are about as likely to turn the audiophile hobby into a fully science-driven venture, and eliminate all snake oil, as you are to put the last few astrologers and phone-line psychics out of business.
> 
> ...



Agreed, and I'd actually take it a step further.  People can be selective about when they trust their ears.  I'll hold myself up again as an example of this.

Before I started comparing Spotify vs Tidal, and various DAC/amps, I assumed they all sound essentially the same, and that any differences were in transducers/rooms/ears (little rooms!).  Then I started wondering if there might be some audible differences in gear other than transducers, and wound up perceiving differences between three of my DAC/amps in uncontrolled listening comparisons.  Then I introduced controls in my comparisons, sometimes blinded and sometimes not, and the differences I previously perceived seemed to go away entirely.  But then I started wondering if my ears/brain may be missing differences in the controlled comparisons which I do perceive at some level in normal listening, due to questions about how our memory and perception work in tests versus normal listening - not likely big differences, but maybe small ones.

I haven't resolved those questions to my satisfaction, at that uncertainty leaves a door open for me.  Now, when I listen to my most expensive and heralded DAC/amp, I let myself believe that *maybe* it sounds better to some meaningful degree.  After all, it's bigger and has more cool lights.  But when I listen to my cheaper DAC/amps, I tell myself that they *probably* sound just as good as the most expensive one, and then I don't dwell on it further.

So if we want to believe that certain gear that we already have, or want to buy, sounds better, we can choose to believe it, and that will likely make it actually be perceived by the brain as sounding better.  It's true that people can use that to exploit us, but we can also influence ourselves in that way.  I don't have a problem playing these games with myself, since it can work to my benefit if I exert some control over how I do it.  Perception is interesting because wanting to believe something objectively changes how we perceive it in our brains, generally in the desired direction.

To me, these psychological aspects are a fascinating part of the science of all of this.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 11, 2018)

Some interesting stuff about the psychology of self justification.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds







It's pretty easy to tell when you run across a person who is so deeply invested in being right, they're willing to be wrong to prove it... There is a desperation to their arguments. They fly all around, never sticking to a single point. They repeat points that are clearly not true over and over to try to make them stick. They say evidence that doesn't support them is vague and not convincing while cherry picking the most vague and unconvincing arguments to put forward to support their own position. At its core, extreme self justification is a hard layer of high self esteem protecting an inner core of low self esteem.  Engaging with them on a peer level inevitably leads to hostility and outright attempts at deception, because they won't allow themselves to consider anyone a real peer. That's why it's ironic that these people always seem to team up with other people with similar need for self justification to tear down each other's perceived opponents. I find that when I run across someone like this, it's best to just background them and only speak with the people who are willing to discuss issues fairly.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Some interesting stuff about the psychology of self justification.
> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds



Quite true.  It's well established that humans are conservative when it comes to changing beliefs, and prefer to stick with beliefs that are familiar and have worked well enough in the past, rather than trying new beliefs which may not work out well.  From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense.  But of course science requires an attitude of challenging existing beliefs and models in order develop better beliefs and models.


----------



## KeithEmo

Absolutely.... but I can also sympathize with how people who really desperately want simple straightforward explanations can find them extremely frustrating.

For example, your brain itself has some very complicated mechanisms for the perception of sounds...
This leads to the fact that you can actually become more able to hear small differences once you "learn to listen for them"...
But, apparently, your brain can also provide feedback to the nerves in your ears, and so can actually affect the physical sensitivity of your hearing.
Therefore, your _PHYSICAL_ ability to hear differences _CAN_ also vary depending on whether you expect to, or want to, hear differences.
Separating out these various factors can be quite complicated.

This suggests that, when you want to test for things like "the minimum amount of THD that can be audibly noticed"...
You actually need to split your test subjects into two groups...
You tell one group that some of the signals they will be hearing will be different...
But the other group you tell that the samples they will be hearing will be the same...
You've got to figure out some way to find out if they hear a difference without hinting that they should EXPECT to hear a difference.

I might suggest, for example, that this could be achieved by playing three different amplifiers and saying:
"These should all sound the same; I just want to confirm that you don't hear any difference, right?"

It seems obvious to me that an expectation to NOT hear a difference is just as much a bias as expecting to hear a difference.
I think it would be very interesting to see if people become LESS able to hear differences when biased NOT to.

Even more interesting might be to present some test subjects with a variety of units, some of which have known differences, and some of which don't.
And then rate their accuracy in identifying WHICH UNITS have known differences and which ones don't.

Your experience with DACs is similar to mine.
I am quite convinced that one or two DACs I've owned sound quite different with a lot of content (even though tests indicate they are quite accurate).
But, with other DACs, I only notice differences with a certain very few files - which seem to have sounds that occur right at the point of difference.
And, to be quite honest, once I've satisfied myself that a slight difference exists, I feel little need to conduct lengthy tests to confirm it.
(There's a very good chance that I simply don't care enough to bother; I'm just willing to "provisionally accept" that I'm probably right.)

I believe that many people also VASTLY overgeneralize - often simply because they fail to consider the conditions that are implied in certain claims.
For example, if I were to ask whether a level difference of 0.2 dB would be audible, many people on this forum would insist that it would not and could not be audible.
However, if I were to repeatedly shift the level of a signal up and down by 0.2 dB, that equates to introducing more than 2% IM distortion.
And most people would agree that 2% or more of IM distortion would probably be quite audible.
(When you shift the level of a signal up and down, you are modulating it by that amount, at the frequency at which you are shifting it.)
The problem is that, when we talk about a change in level of 0.2 dB, many people _ASSUME_ we mean doing so gradually rather than suddenly and repeatedly.

I had a similar experience occur one time with a small computer speaker I purchased used.
After listening to it for several hours I discovered a very significant resonance - which only occurred on one note, on one CD, out of a dozen.
That speaker could play quite loudly, and quite cleanly, unless asked to play the one frequency that aggravated that resonance... probably caused by some sort of mechanical damage.
Yes, I would have discovered it if I'd run a full frequency sweep, but I didn't.
The seller had several of the same model, and replaced that one with another that had exactly the same flaw.
I ended up having to provide a copy of that particular CD to the seller to convince him of the problem.
Luckily, out of several sets, he was able to find one set that DIDN'T exhibit that problem.
However, it provided an object lesson about how testing with one or two samples of music is FAR from sufficient to detect even obvious flaws or differences.
(You need to use a wide selection of different test samples, and/or a specially tailored test signal, to even have a reasonable chance of fully evaluating a piece of gear.)



Phronesis said:


> Agreed, and I'd actually take it a step further.  People can be selective about when they trust their ears.  I'll hold myself up again as an example of this.
> 
> Before I started comparing Spotify vs Tidal, and various DAC/amps, I assumed they all sound essentially the same, and that any differences were in transducers/rooms/ears (little rooms!).  Then I started wondering if there might be some audible differences in gear other than transducers, and wound up perceiving differences between three of my DAC/amps in uncontrolled listening comparisons.  Then I introduced controls in my comparisons, sometimes blinded and sometimes not, and the differences I previously perceived seemed to go away entirely.  But then I started wondering if my ears/brain may be missing differences in the controlled comparisons which I do perceive at some level in normal listening, due to questions about how our memory and perception work in tests versus normal listening - not likely big differences, but maybe small ones.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Quite true...  

Another interesting thing is that, for most people, our commitment to our beliefs depends to a significant degree on our interactions with other humans.

This has been leveraged to excellent advantage for changing the behavior of drug addicts or people on a diet.
It is widely accepted that there is a certain likelihood that someone can change their behavior after personally committing to do so.
However, the more widely and strongly they "assert their intent", the more likely they are to succeed.

So, for example.....
- deciding to go on a diet is a good start
- writing down, in your diary, that you intend to lose weight is better
- telling several of your friends that you plan to do so is better yet
- WRITING a note informing your friends that you have committed to do so is even more powerful
- standing up in front of everyone in your club or group is even more powerful

Many "self help" methods take advantage of this fact to some degree in their process.

And, yes, the idea behind this is used very commonly, in one way or another, in marketing.
It is well known that, if you want to sell cars, you do NOT do so by showing the customer how great your product actually is.
You take him or her for a test drive and get them to WANT to buy the car (and get them to WANT to buy it).
THEN you provide them with facts they can use to convince themselves that it's a good choice.
(In other words, you get them to make a choice, THEN you provide them with a way to justify it.)
Likewise, audiophiles are much inclined to find reasons to justify a purchase they've already made...
And to find reasons to defend their choice, both to themselves and others, after the fact...
And part of that is a sincere desire to believe that it sounds better.



Phronesis said:


> Quite true.  It's well established that humans are conservative when it comes to changing beliefs, and prefer to stick with beliefs that are familiar and have worked well enough in the past, rather than trying new beliefs which may not work out well.  From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense.  But of course science requires an attitude of challenging existing beliefs and models in order develop better beliefs and models.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> It's pretty easy to tell when you run across a person who is so deeply invested in being right, they're willing to be wrong to prove it... There is a desperation to their arguments. They fly all around, never sticking to a single point. They repeat points that are clearly not true over and over to try to make them stick. They say evidence that doesn't support them is vague and not convincing while cherry picking the most vague and unconvincing arguments to put forward to support their own position. At its core, extreme self justification is a hard layer of high self esteem protecting an inner core of low self esteem.  Engaging with them on a peer level inevitably leads to hostility and outright attempts at deception, because they won't allow themselves to consider anyone a real peer. That's why it's ironic that these people always seem to team up with other people with similar need for self justification to tear down each other's perceived opponents. I find that when I run across someone like this, it's best to just background them and only speak with the people who are willing to discuss issues fairly.



To be fair, a few thoughts:

- A lot of research shows that we ALL have a basic need for self-esteem, and our self-esteem depends a lot on how we perceive that others view us.  It goes back to evolution and the fact that we tend to better survive and reproduce when we're part of groups rather than alone.  This is why "saving face" is so important in so many areas of life.  A person who believes that self-esteem doesn't matter to them lacks self insight.

- When we disagree with people, it's natural to think that our arguments are self-evidently right, and the other party's arguments are self-evidently wrong.  Both parties will generally feel that way.  As politics and religion (and audio) show, these disagreements can become hostile and lead to very negative views of others.

- In my experience, the people that tend to be the best learners are those who debate with themselves more than they debate with others, are willing to acknowledge uncertainty and say things like "I'm not sure," and actually change their minds about things sometimes.

I don't mind talking with people I disagree with, but if the discussion is going in circles, probably best for both parties to move on.


----------



## KeithEmo

That makes perfect sense to me.

It's simply human nature to believe that our beliefs are correct.
It would be foolish to believe things that we are_ not_ convinced are in fact correct.
What we humans often have trouble with is that science often simply can't provide us with absolute and definite answers.
A lot of the time we're stuck with: "That's the best guess we can come up with based on the information we have now".
The times when we can be so certain of something that we can simply assume that it represents an unassailable absolute truth are the exception rather than the rule.
At times this can be frustrating and even downright unnerving.

According to the folks who study brains, all we really "know" of the world is the model of it we've built in our heads.
However, at a less esoteric level, that same statement is true of most of science.
We observe things; we build models based on those observations; we use those models to predict new things; and, when they fail to do so, we adjust the model so it works better the next time.

Newtonian physics wasn't proven to be wrong...
And neither was the model of matter as "protons, neutrons, and electrons"...
Neither was ever "right" to begin with; both were simply models.
Both worked pretty well when they were thought up; and both have recently been replaced with _better_ models (better because they work more accurately more of the time).
However, we shouldn't expect that the current models won't themselves eventually be replaced with even better ones.
This is all pretty obvious with some things. 
For example, we have excellent models for how gravity _works_, but we still really don't know what it_ is_.

For the foreseeable future, science is always going to be a quest for better and better models, that do a more and more accurate job of predicting what we experience.
And it's really impossible to move forward without admitting at least the possibility that the current models we have may have room for improvement.



Phronesis said:


> To be fair, a few thoughts:
> 
> - A lot of research shows that we ALL have a basic need for self-esteem, and our self-esteem depends a lot on how we perceive that others view us.  It goes back to evolution and the fact that we tend to better survive and reproduce when we're part of groups rather than alone.  This is why "saving face" is so important in so many areas of life.  A person who believes that self-esteem doesn't matter to them lacks self insight.
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> That makes perfect sense to me.
> 
> It's simply human nature to believe that our beliefs are correct.
> It would be foolish to believe things that we are_ not_ convinced are in fact correct.
> ...



Fully agreed.  Dealing with uncertainty can be both a source of frustration and a fun challenge in science, as well as just about all other areas of life.


----------



## bigshot

Now that we've established the all too human limits of self awareness, I'll move on to my periodic request...

I'm looking for a DAC or digital audio player that doesn't sound just like every other one through line out. If anyone has one that they have determined through reasonably careful testing is colored and could provide it on loan for our project, I'd like to marshal the braintrust of Sound Science to verify that it does indeed sound different and if so, measure it to find out why.


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> 20khz is an average value. young people can often hear above that, while the vast majority of adults actually won't even reach 20khz even with unhealthy listening levels. I agree that any such statistical value shouldn't result in making absolute claims like nobody being able to hear above 20khz.
> about semantic, arguments are always about that, and poorly defined conditions. IMO hearing implies sound as a cause, ears as a receptor, and *conscious perception*. the way it would be treated if I went to an audiologist. if we're missing one of those, to me it is not hearing. I don't think we're gaining much of anything trying to add more senses under the "hearing" umbrella, when actual science has been doing exactly the opposite and defining more and more human senses over the last years.
> now is the tactile feeling of low frequency important to my experience of music? yes, very much so. but do I count that specific effect of low frequency as hearing? nope. I feel like the soundstage is better defined when I see speakers in the room but that's not hearing to me. when I use my gear, I tend to mostly look for what I know in the music, but when I get new toys to play with, I naturally will be looking for differences and of course feel like I'm getting them. almost anything can and will affect my experience and most will affect at least my impressions of sound. but I believe it's important to separate all that from actual hearing, otherwise every weird delusions that audiophiles have will be self justified and this hobby will never ever pull itself out of the nonsense that it is.
> 
> so based on this, I believe I've answered your question ^_^.  and for all the circumstances where it's unclear if the cochlea is involved in our perception of a sound stimulus, I will refuse to call it hearing until that part is cleared up. as always I'm not closing the door, just sticking to the facts I have instead of just accepting anything and everything that hasn't been disproved like a lunatic. new facts will hopefully reach me at some point and make me reconsider or increase my confidence in my skeptical standpoint.




I very much agree with you, except for the part about conscious perception. From what I've been gathering, auditory perception happens first and foremost on a subconscious level. As I understand it, the conscious part is generally called "listening", which of course requires "hearing", but not the other way round. So you may well "hear" something that stimulates your cochlea and triggers a brain wave response, but without becoming consciously aware of it. In fact, this happens all the time in everyday life.

Apart from that, I think we're on the same page, assuming that "ears as a receptor" means all possible pathways to the cochlea, including bone conduction (e.g. sound perceived via bone conduction headphones / bc hearing aids).

As for perception of ultra-high frequencies, I share your skepticism on that. But provided that research can reliably show Involvement of the cochlea and response in brain activity, I'd see no reason not to call it "hearing". Even if it may only happen on a subconscious level, without us becoming consciously aware of it.


Btw, speaking of bone conduction... that's some cool tech imo:


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I don't hear it, but the deep sub bass tends to set the walls rattling because the resonant frequency of the room is down there. I keep it attenuated in those areas so it doesn't knock stuff off the walls. Ultrasonic frequencies don't create vibration like that. When I play SACDs, I don't feel anything at all from the high frequencies. In fact, in a direct switched A/B test, I can't even tell the difference at all. I can totally tell when my sub is turned off, but it does most of its work above 20Hz. I don't have a lot of music that has stuff below that. Just movies.
> 
> Super audible frequencies, as they occur in commercially recorded music are as worthless as teats on a bull hog. I can't think of any purpose for frequencies above 20kHz. I suppose below 20Hz is good for reproducing explosions in superhero movies.
> 
> I really don't need to say any more than this, because the people who listen seem to all agree on this and the people who speak without listening don't. I don't need to go into detail for people who don't listen. That would be pouring my energy into a black hole. I'll let the black hole feed on itself.


Like i said...just stirring the pot....i doubt i hear anything above 17khz at my age....but this thread definately needs an enema


----------



## bigshot (Dec 11, 2018)

james444 said:


> As for perception of ultra-high frequencies, I share your skepticism on that. But provided that research can reliably show Involvement of the cochlea and response in brain activity, I'd see no reason not to call it "hearing". Even if it may only happen on a subconscious level, without us becoming consciously aware of it.



That is a valid definition of hearing if you want to define it that loosely, but we *listen* to recorded music, and it's pretty clear that super audible frequencies add nothing to our evaluation of the audio fidelity of recorded music.

The argument isn't can we or can we not perceive (or hear if you want to define the term that loosely) super audible frequencies. At a sufficient volume level, we can feel them and register them in brain waves. The argument is over whether it's at all relevant to home audio. It isn't relevant, because it isn't consciously "listenable" (if you prefer that term). It doesn't occur in music at volume levels sufficient to even register as brain activity. And it's difficult for modern transducers to reproduce at perceivable levels with any sort of fidelity.

It's a purely theoretical argument that is irrelevant to what sort of audio equipment we choose to play our Aerosmith albums on.

I've actually attended a performance of Gamelan Gongs many years ago when my ears were young and fancy free. I remember thinking to myself that it was kind of uncomfortable to listen to at close range. I preferred my Nonesuch Explorer LP that I'm sure had no super audible content at all. I don't know if it was uncomfortable because of the super audible frequencies, or because of the loud percussive nature of the attacks, but I wouldn't go out of my way to experience that again.



Glmoneydawg said:


> Like i said...just stirring the pot....i doubt i hear anything above 17khz at my age....but this thread definately needs an enema



I'm afraid it's going to remain plugged up because there's no willingness to stop wallpapering the thread with blather.

There is an old saying that I have found to be very applicable to a lot of things... "The truth rarely lies halfway between two opposing viewpoints." Often there is a side that is flat out wrong. But if they aren't self aware enough to even question themselves and they don't listen to the people around them because their ego won't allow it, you aren't going to get them to stop being wrong.


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> First off, it's almost impossible to prove a negative.



True, but the point is that there is no credible evidence to support the conjecture that ultrasonic content in music (if any) effects the sound we can hear.  No different to the earlier unicorn example, ie it is not possible to prove unicorns do not exist but there has been enough observations and understanding of animal physiology and evolution to conclude that there is no evidence supporting the existence of unicorns.



KeithEmo said:


> Second, while being careful to avoid making a generalization, _IN THE RESULTS OF EVERY SINGLE TEST I'VE SEEN PUBLISHED AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ, _either there were glaring flaws or omissions in the test procedure itself, or the report failed to provide enough information to confirm its validity either way. To pick what is to me the most glaring example, if you want to claim that "your listener couldn't hear a difference when the test sample contained ultrasonic harmonics", then you _MUST_ confirm that those harmonics were present at the listening position. (He can't possibly hear them if they aren't there. You must confirm that the instrument you recorded actually produces ultrasonic harmonics, you must confirm that they are faithfully present in the recording, and you must confirm that your speakers and other components have delivered them to the test subject's ears. This is easy enough to do simply by applying a measurement microphone at the test subject's listening position.)



Sure, there are no perfect tests but to say they all have glaring flaws is a bit self-serving.  The tests, despite the various degrees of flaws still amount to the same conclusion that there is no credible evidence that ultrasonic content affects music we can hear, assuming properly functioning DACs and no IMD issues with the playback chain.  It is not just that testing doesn't provide credible evidence, there is no basis to beleive that it should with our current understanding of human physiology and over 100 years of practical audiology in the real world.



KeithEmo said:


> IOohashi carefully documented his results. Then, later, others claimed to "debunk" them, while using different recordings, of different instruments, presented under different conditions. (In real science, if you want to "debunk" something, you start by replicating it _EXACTLY_. Then, if you failed to replicate the original results, you try to find out why. And, if you succeed in replicating them under the same exact conditions, but fail under other similar conditions, you have a point of reference to compare to.)



Yes but Professor Oohashi has accepted the criticisms and the flaws identified with his study.  He is still researching this area some 30 years after he published that paper.



KeithEmo said:


> I don't at all suggest that we need another thirty years. However, I would like to see one, or preferably more than one, test that doesn't contain glaring flaws, and that does include a wide enough variety of test subjects and samples to be considered even "probably authoritative".



I don't believe it is possible to design a test that would satisfy you.  No different to any other field where there are people who hang on to beliefs or have a commercial motive to do so.



KeithEmo said:


> IIncidentally, just to reply to your example, I have a small pocket LASER that emits a pure beam at 720 nm - which is a color frequency commonly used in "infrared remote controls" - and is widely agreed to be "invisible". However, when it's lit, it shows a clearly visible dot in a thoroughly odd color of pink. My _theory_ is that, even though normal red light excites mostly the red sensors in our eye, it also produces some response from the others, while this color only excites the red sensor, which may account for its unique apparent color. (So, at power levels far above what we normally encounter, but still far below what would be considered to be dangerous for short term exposure, it turns out that 720 nm is visible after all. Perhaps bright sunlight appears a tiny bit different if we filter out those infrared frequencies. And perhaps the short burst of ultrasonic harmonics generated by a cymbal strike similarly produce some minor but unique response from our auditory system that make it sound slightly different.)
> 
> From a practical point of view, the fact that we can see 720 nm light at very high levels may be insignificant... however, as a scientific fact, I find it somewhat interesting (even if it is extremely subtle).



You do know that that the infra-red light put out by remotes do vary in their light frequencies - ie there is no standard across remote manufacturers.  It is generally well known that many people can actually see the light of several remotes as the frequency is on the margins of the human range of sight.


----------



## old tech (Dec 11, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I absolutely agree - with one minor qualification....
> 
> For example, I keep reading, over and over again, how "human hearing extends from 20 Hz to 20 kHz".
> But, a few months ago, I read that, under certain lab conditions, it has been _PROVEN_ that 10 Hz is audible.
> ...



The consensus of all the research I have come across in this area is that there is no support for any of it.  For example, the article in the link just below provides a summary of the evidence and the flaws in the proponents' arguments.  It is worth listenting to the discussion as it is quite interesting and covers it more thoroughly than the texts.  The EU and others may be still conducting studies in this area and this is mainly political to appease certain interest groups and anti-wind farm agitists.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4388

and in response to feedback from that episode.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4459

I wish you would provide some references as the only study I know of which you seem to referring to is the 1998 Tandy study of how infrasound can effect vision (which btw is not considered to be of peer review quality). When he measured the infrasound in the laboratory, the showing was 18.98 hertz--the exact frequency at which a human eyeball starts resonating. The sound waves made his eyeballs resonate and produced an optical illusion: He saw a figure that didn't exist.

What any of this has to do with ultrasonics and music is beyond me.


----------



## dprimary

castleofargh said:


> 20khz is an average value. young people can often hear above that, while the vast majority of adults actually won't even reach 20khz even with unhealthy listening levels. I agree that any such statistical value shouldn't result in making absolute claims like nobody being able to hear above 20khz.



I have read many studies done on hearing from the last 100 or so years. 20k was not an average value. 20 to 20k was the minimum and maximum values found in those studies. The average of the test subjects would be closer to 15k. If you averaged the population I would not be surprised if was closer to 12k. Even at ages 10 to 19 the percentage of non responses  jumps to 30% around 17.5k with average threshold of  80dB SPL


----------



## castleofargh (Dec 11, 2018)

james444 said:


> I very much agree with you, except for the part about conscious perception. From what I've been gathering, auditory perception happens first and foremost on a subconscious level. As I understand it, the conscious part is generally called "listening", which of course requires "hearing", but not the other way round. So you may well "hear" something that stimulates your cochlea and triggers a brain wave response, but without becoming consciously aware of it. In fact, this happens all the time in everyday life.
> 
> Apart from that, I think we're on the same page, assuming that "ears as a receptor" means all possible pathways to the cochlea, including bone conduction (e.g. sound perceived via bone conduction headphones / bc hearing aids).
> 
> ...



yup, anything that ends up firing cells in the cochlea in a fairly consistent way is fine for me, including my steps when I walk down the street.
I wish to leave things at conscious level because that's what we can test. if we start to involve the subconscious, then the smell of my shampoo and what my teacher said one afternoon when I was 12 will sooner or later become fairly legitimate variables of "hearing" along with pretty much anything else.
if we stick to let's say whatever creates a consistent activation in the auditory cortex as sole definition of hearing, I could go with that. I don't really wish to, because it sets a testing standard that none of us can afford, but it's not a bad approach once properly defined. several non audio stuff would end up called audio, but it's a small price to pay to move on from having to ask someone how he feels, which is not always effective to define an actual impact.
but if we go full on subconscious, then it's a mess. we involve a lot of what we know nothing about, and bring up so many non falsifiable questions and ideas. I see no practical benefit to this. well except if you're in the marketing department of an audio company, then bringing up the subconscious is paradise on earth. 





dprimary said:


> I have read many studies done on hearing from the last 100 or so years. 20k was not an average value. 20 to 20k was the minimum and maximum values found in those studies. The average of the test subjects would be closer to 15k. If you averaged the population I would not be surprised if was closer to 12k. Even at ages 10 to 19 the percentage of non responses  jumps to 30% around 17.5k with average threshold of  80dB SPL


thanks. you're right, I wrote nonsense. the average would obviously not be 20 to 20khz.
but some experiments clearly went a little above 20khz as a max since. the same way 0dB SPL was defined as the lowest tone we could notice, but since some people have passed slightly lower levels. so perhaps those values would need to be redefined or at least their definition revised, because we would clearly have nothing to gain by changing how much is 0dB SPL in the all world.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 11, 2018)

dprimary said:


> I have read many studies done on hearing from the last 100 or so years. 20k was not an average value. 20 to 20k was the minimum and maximum values found in those studies. The average of the test subjects would be closer to 15k. If you averaged the population I would not be surprised if was closer to 12k. Even at ages 10 to 19 the percentage of non responses  jumps to 30% around 17.5k with average threshold of  80dB SPL



When abusing figures to justify audiophoolishness, it's very common to take the absolute worst or best case figures and pretend that they are typical. That makes it possible to move the goalposts and say things like, "Normal human hearing goes up to 20kHz, but there are examples of people who can hear higher than that. Surely we should allow for the exceptions to the rule." Once you've moved the goalpost that far, the next step is to go back to normalizing the exceptions and starting the process all over again. This is what people routinely do with data rates. "16/44.1 is fine for normal people, but *I* can hear up to 24/96!" And once you've swallowed that, they start whittling away at that saying, "24/96 is fine, but no one has proven SCIENTIFICALLY that there isn't someone in the world who can hear 48/192." All of that is rhetoric and what ifs.

The truth is that plain old CD quality sound is all you would ever need for the purposes of playing commercially recorded music in your home.


----------



## Davesrose (Dec 11, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> yup, anything that ends up firing cells in the cochlea in a fairly consistent way is fine for me, including my steps when I walk down the street.
> I wish to leave things at conscious level because that's what we can test. if we start to involve the subconscious, then the smell of my shampoo and what my teacher said one afternoon when I was 12 will sooner or later become fairly legitimate variables of "hearing" along with pretty much anything else.



I think this is what makes things a bit more complicated with studies.  If we dig down this thread somewhere, there was a scientific study that showed a few outliers could even hear 26khz under "ideal situations".  I've tried clarifying before: the sense of hearing is not just defined by the afferent stimulation of the cochlea.  There is an upper limit as to how many hair cells in the upper frequencies have been damaged.  However, under different circumstances, there's either dampening of stimulation due to muscles tensing in the middle ear.  There's also circumstances where the afferent nerve impulses are amplified by efferent cells.  What ambient noise there is (which if it's overall high volume, will tense middle ear muscles for example), your overall health, what damage you've had over time, if you've taken any medications or had anything to drink....these are all variables that influence your ability to hear at a given time.  Physiologically, I don't think it's a good idea to test high frequency perception by raising volume to current "live" or what some deem as "reference" levels.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 11, 2018)

bigshot said:


> When abusing figures to justify audiophoolishness, it's very common to take the absolute worst or best case figures and pretend that they are typical. That makes it possible to move the goalposts and say things like, "Normal human hearing goes up to 20kHz, but there are examples of people who can hear higher than that. Surely we should allow for the exceptions to the rule." Once you've moved the goalpost that far, the next step is to go back to normalizing the exceptions and starting the process all over again. This is what people routinely do with data rates. "16/44.1 is fine for normal people, but *I* can hear up to 24/96!" And once you've swallowed that, they start whittling away at that saying, "24/96 is fine, but no one has proven SCIENTIFICALLY that there isn't someone in the world who can hear 48/192." All of that is rhetoric and what ifs.
> 
> The truth is that plain old CD quality sound is all you would ever need for the purposes of playing commercially recorded music in your home.



It's true that the vast majority of normal people think they're above average on many traits, and that's likely also the case for audiophiles and their hearing ability. 

While it seems that people can improve aspects of their hearing ability with effort and experience (e.g., ability to detect certain details), I haven't run across any evidence that we can significantly extend the FR range of our hearing in that way.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> yup, anything that ends up firing cells in the cochlea in a fairly consistent way is fine for me, including my steps when I walk down the street.
> *I wish to leave things at conscious level because that's what we can test*. if we start to involve the subconscious, then the smell of my shampoo and what my teacher said one afternoon when I was 12 will sooner or later become fairly legitimate variables of "hearing" along with pretty much anything else.
> if we stick to let's say whatever creates a consistent activation in the auditory cortex as sole definition of hearing, I could go with that. I don't really wish to, because it sets a testing standard that none of us can afford, but it's not a bad approach once properly defined. several non audio stuff would end up called audio, but it's a small price to pay to move on from having to ask someone how he feels, which is not always effective to define an actual impact.
> but if we go full on subconscious, then it's a mess. we involve a lot of what we know nothing about, and bring up so many non falsifiable questions and ideas. I see no practical benefit to this. well except if you're in the marketing department of an audio company, then bringing up the subconscious is paradise on earth.



It seems that we can test subconscious perception, when it's close to the threshold of conscious perception, by doing forced-choice experiments where people have to guess if they're not sure.  They tend to wind up guessing at above-chance levels in such experiments, which indicates that sometimes (not always) the subconscious is figuring things out and nudging them to make the correct choices, even though they're not consciously aware of that happening.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 11, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> there was a scientific study that showed a few outliers could even hear 26khz under "ideal situations"



Frequencies double with each octave, so 20,000Hz to 40,000Hz is the same amount as 20Hz to 40Hz- about one octave. An extra 6Khz above 20 is about a third of an octave. So when you sing do re mi, you don't even get to mi. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you know what the numbers represent. Also, I believe that study was talking about 26kHz being audible at something like 100dB. If they played a core frequency at that volume, you would flinch and rip the headphones off. I doubt if anyone here in this group can hear much past 16kHz. Most of us probably fall somewhere at or under 15kHz. And it doesn't matter anyway because frequencies above that are pretty much useless in music.

You're right about the danger of testing hearing of very high frequencies. A guy here put up test tones and people were reporting that they could hear 20kHz, but it turned out they were doing it by cranking the volume to ungodly volumes. Not a smart idea! People get this idea in their head that the extremes matter more than the core. The opposite is true.


----------



## castleofargh

Davesrose said:


> I think this is what makes things a bit more complicated with studies.  If we dig down this thread somewhere, there was a scientific study that showed a few outliers could even hear 26khz under "ideal situations".  I've tried clarifying before: the sense of hearing is not just defined by the afferent stimulation of the cochlea.  There is an upper limit as to how many hair cells in the upper frequencies have been damaged.  However, under different circumstances, there's either dampening of stimulation due to muscles tensing in the middle ear.  There's also circumstances where the afferent nerve impulses are amplified by efferent cells.  What ambient noise there is (which if it's overall high volume, will tense middle ear muscles for example), your overall health, what damage you've had over time, if you've taken any medications or had anything to drink....these are all variables that influence your ability to hear at a given time.  Physiologically, I don't think it's a good idea to test high frequency perception by raising volume to current "live" or what some deem as "reference" levels.


to be clear, my wish to go toward a simple idea of hearing is motivated by how practical it is to experiment. nothing else. I don't really care how we define hearing, the same way I don't care how much is a kilogram. the significance doesn't come from how arbitrary it is defined but by having a clear and strict definition that everybody can then rely on. if in the topic we have people argue about hearing ultrasounds, but one thinks hearing is "put the headphone on, raise your arm when you notice a sound", and another thinks hearing is anything resulting in a single neuron firing anywhere on the way to, or in the auditory cortex, we're in a pickle. ^_^


----------



## bigshot

Imagine if we defined happiness as anything resulting in a single neuron firing? We would all have to go around like this all the time...


----------



## Davesrose (Dec 11, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Frequencies double with each octave, so 20,000Hz to 40,000Hz is the same amount as 20Hz to 40Hz- about one octave. An extra 6Khz above 20 is about a third of an octave. So when you sing do re mi, you don't even get to mi. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you know what the numbers represent. Also, I believe that study was talking about 26kHz being audible at something like 100dB. If they played a core frequency at that volume, you would flinch and rip the headphones off. I doubt if anyone here in this group can hear much past 16kHz. Most of us probably fall somewhere at or under 15kHz. And it doesn't matter because frequencies above that are pretty much useless in music.
> 
> You're right about the danger of testing hearing of very high frequencies. A guy here put up test tones and people were reporting that they could hear 20kHz, but it turned out they were doing it by cranking the volume to ungodly volumes. Not a smart idea!



My post was about the physiological limit of human hearing: not how far harmonics go.  If you take the rest of my post in, my emphasis was that the upper range of hearing can change quite a bit depending on situation.  I do think it's rather silly to see if one can hear higher frequencies at high volume vs perhaps an argument that high frequencies could help with precision (my experience with software is more photography, and can say the visual digital system is so different from visual perception that it has to have completely different tolerances).  There might also be a good range of upper frequency hearing with this group (whether having more capability with what we're born with or haven't been exposed to as much high volumes).  When I was young, I didn't stand in front of blaring speakers much.  So I can still hear a really annoying high pitch from some halogen bulbs in one of my light tracks.  From an evolution standpoint, though as well, high frequencies are not important (and why they're more easily exposed for damage/decay): human voice range having the most emphasis.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> Imagine if we defined happiness as anything resulting in a single neuron firing? We would all have to go around like this all the time...



LOL, We'd all be sleep deprived and manic


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> It seems that we can test subconscious perception, when it's close to the threshold of conscious perception, by doing forced-choice experiments where people have to guess if they're not sure.  They tend to wind up guessing at above-chance levels in such experiments, which indicates that sometimes (not always) the subconscious is figuring things out and nudging them to make the correct choices, even though they're not consciously aware of that happening.


that specific aspect is already covered in typical blind testing. it's not very common to be unsure about hearing a difference and yet consistently succeed in the test, but it does happen. I experienced that myself. no idea if that demonstrates subconscious discrimination, or plain ability to notice change for being change long before we can properly think about it and define what to look for? I imagine it could be both.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 11, 2018)

From Wikipedia:

*Hearing*, or *auditory perception*, is the ability to perceive sounds by detecting vibrations,[1] changes in the pressure of the surrounding medium through time, through an organ such as the ear.​
From Merriam Webster:

the process, function, or power of perceiving sound specifically *: *the special sense by which noises and tones are received as stimuli​
From Brittanica:

Hearing is the process by which the ear transforms sound vibrations in the external environment into nerve impulses that are conveyed to the brain, where they are interpreted as sounds.​That doesn't help!  What counts as perceiving or detecting?  Does the organ have to be the ear?  Does feeling bass count as hearing?  Does any nerve impulse from the ear to the brain count as hearing?  What's involved in 'interpreting' a nerve impulse as sound?

Seems like there may not a standard operational definition of hearing?


----------



## castleofargh

but here we need one IMO, if only for the sake of communicating. or we can leave it as blurry as we like, so long as when someone talks about hearing he defines what he means every time. and "ain't nobody got time for that" ^_^


----------



## Davesrose

Phronesis said:


> That doesn't help!  What counts as perceiving or detecting?  Does the organ have to be the ear?  Does feeling bass count as hearing?  Does any nerve impulse from the ear to the brain count as hearing?  What's involved in 'interpreting' a nerve impulse as sound?
> 
> Seems like there may not a standard operational definition of hearing?



If you get into medical study, you'll find there isn't an absolute.  I had hoped that my explanation of muscles in the middle ear and efferent nerve cells in the inner ear helped clarify that they effect the afferent nerve impulses to the brain.  It complicates the simplified definition of vibrations being transferred to (what people usually think of afferent) nerve impulses.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 11, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> but here we need one IMO, if only for the sake of communicating. or we can leave it as blurry as we like, so long as when someone talks about hearing he defines what he means every time. and "ain't nobody got time for that" ^_^





Davesrose said:


> If you get into medical study, you'll find there isn't an absolute.  I had hoped that my explanation of muscles in the middle ear and efferent nerve cells in the inner ear helped clarify that they effect the afferent nerve impulses to the brain.  It complicates the simplified definition of vibrations being transferred to (what people usually think of afferent) nerve impulses.



I'm thinking that the root of the problem is actually somewhat philosophical.

If I want to measure blood pressure, I hook up a meter to my arm and get some numbers.  Lots of things can be measured or at least objectively observed.  But when it comes to anything involving perception, we can't forever ignore the issue that perception, as subjective experience, occurs in minds, which aren't really considered to be the same as brains, i.e. we wouldn't describe an observable and measurable pattern of neuron firing in a brain as being the same kind of thing as the sound subjectively perceived by the person who has that brain.

That kind of perception isn't really observable or measurable in a scientific sense, not even by the person who experiences the perception - the best we can do is to try to correlate things happening in the brain or reported by the person with that perception.  If we stick to the scientifically measurable and observable, we're not directly dealing with hearing as perception of sound.  But if we sidestep subjective perception and stick to things like neurons firing and people's reports, there's an incompleteness and/or unreliability involved.

Then when you put conscious vs subconscious aspects in the model, it gets even more complicated, because things that are perceived subconsciously have a sort of more vague and distant character than what's perceived consciously.

So … I'm not sure how I want to define 'hearing'.  There are lots of possible ways to scientifically operationalize the concept, but all of them are correlates of subjective perception of sound, never the same thing as that subjective perception, and even these correlates won't always line up (e.g., what SPL do we set as the cutoff to say someone can 'hear' a particular high frequency?).


----------



## Davesrose (Dec 11, 2018)

Overall blood pressure probably fluctuates more then hearing tolerances throughout the day.  To study a patient's high blood pressure, a doctor might recommend taking blood pressure morning, lunch time, evening.  It's amazing how many afferent/efferent feedback loops you have with every system in your body.


----------



## Phronesis

Davesrose said:


> Overall blood pressure probably fluctuates more then hearing tolerances throughout the day.  To study a patient's high blood pressure, a doctor might recommend taking blood pressure morning, lunch time, evening.  It's amazing how many afferent/efferent feedback loops you have with every system in your body.



Understood, but I’m saying that you can directly relate blood pressure to something physical which makes sense, and then you can define a procedure to measure it objectively.  Perception as subjectively experienced can’t be objectively measured that way, as is the case with other mental stuff like thoughts, moods, emotions, etc.


----------



## Davesrose

Phronesis said:


> Understood, but I’m saying that you can directly relate blood pressure to something physical which makes sense, and then you can define a procedure to measure it objectively.  Perception as subjectively experienced can’t be objectively measured that way, as is the case with other mental stuff like thoughts, moods, emotions, etc.



But efferent nerve innervation can be dependent on "flight or flight" response.  My point is that it's relative and the nervous system isn't just "cognitive" grey matter in the cortex.


----------



## james444 (Dec 12, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> For example, I keep reading, over and over again, how "human hearing extends from 20 Hz to 20 kHz".
> But, a few months ago, I read that, under certain lab conditions, it has been _PROVEN_ that 10 Hz is audible.
> Several studies are also underway in the EU about how "subsonic sounds" from wind farms affect people.
> Therefore, what can I logically conclude, except that the oft-quoted "20 Hz to 20 kHz" range is wrong after all?
> ...





old tech said:


> The consensus of all the research I have come across in this area is that there is no support for any of it.  For example, the article in the link just below provides a summary of the evidence and the flaws in the proponents' arguments.  It is worth listenting to the discussion as it is quite interesting and covers it more thoroughly than the texts.  The EU and others may be still conducting studies in this area and this is mainly political to appease certain interest groups and anti-wind farm agitists.
> 
> https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4388
> 
> ...



Ermm, I can simply stick in a pair of halfway decent in-ear monitors and fire up a tone generator:
http://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/

- 20Hz: easily heard / felt at normal listening levels.
- 15Hz: a little quieter, but still easily detectable as slower vibrations / deeper tone.
- 10Hz: here it gets tricky and I have to increase volume to unsafe levels to be certain.

But 15Hz... no problem at all! What am I missing here?


----------



## bigshot (Dec 12, 2018)

It may be different with headphones than in a room with speakers. My sub is rated to 12 or 13Hz and it gets low enough that I just feel it and don't hear it. Not sure. I never worried about it because it's all an undifferentiated rumble down there.



Davesrose said:


> My post was about the physiological limit of human hearing: not how far harmonics go.



Well if the world's record for hearing high frequencies is 26kHz, it doesn't amount to much anyway. You certainly don't need high sampling rates, because it wouldn't make any difference with music.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> That is a valid definition of hearing if you want to define it that loosely, but we *listen* to recorded music, and it's pretty clear that super audible frequencies add nothing to our evaluation of the audio fidelity of recorded music.
> 
> The argument isn't can we or can we not perceive (or hear if you want to define the term that loosely) super audible frequencies. At a sufficient volume level, we can feel them and register them in brain waves. The argument is over whether it's at all relevant to home audio. It isn't relevant, because it isn't consciously "listenable" (if you prefer that term). It doesn't occur in music at volume levels sufficient to even register as brain activity. And it's difficult for modern transducers to reproduce at perceivable levels with any sort of fidelity.
> 
> ...



First, @bigshot , I would like to make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that I have never - or ever will - consented to excluding your posts from commenting upon - similar as I have done for @pinnahertz. You have lost that *right* with your first ever reply to any of my posts - and nobody can change that. Gods - let alone mods - included . Please, do remember that - for good.

You have - frequently, repeatedly, numerous times - stated, citing anecdotal evidence, that any high frequency sound, be it within currently accepted hearing limit of 20 kHz or beyond, causes you discomfort. Ranges from fluorescent lighting trough cymbals to gamelan - and everything else, proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be capable of producing near and beyond 20kHz, in between.

In contrast, I have stated, again citng anecdotal evidence, the presence of the right amount of ultrasound ( or effects ultrasound produces ) to be pleasurable - and omitting them to be detrimental for my enjoyment of music. Troughout my life and involvement with audio ( say , by now at least 40 years ) , EVERY TIME audio (re)production felt *righr*, *approaching real sound* and whatever adjective describing getting as close as possible to the real thing - involved electronics and transducers ( and in THAT order !!! ) that exceed 20 kHz limit at least twice - but preferably beyond 100 times. I can hear - or perceive, if that is a better term - benefit of such bandwidth in electronics - even if using relatively poor speakers or headsphones.

I have stated, by now many times, my limit to hear steady state sine wave tone. To stay on the safe side - I will proclaim it, on date of 12.12.2018, to be 13 kHz.

Never, not  even once, I have preferred anything badwidth limited. And would, categorically, require say loudspeakers to be replaced - if I have to make a demo of my recording. I prefer NOT to do the demo over doing it wrong. PERIOD.

Above describes - perfectly so - our sentiment regarding the CD - or RBCD, to be exact. For you, it is the gift from above - and to me, the scourge from below. 
I , with the long and loud grundging, *accepted* CD player in my home only in early/mid 90s, when some of the music I like was really not available on anything else. And because, due to the economics _( remember, my then country, Yugoslavia, at the time dissolved in series of bloody (civil) wars - which were helped in no small measure by your country, the USA )_, the CD was the most affordable solution.  

Alert for moderators : you may, due to the policies with which I otherwise agree, remove the text just above in parenthesis, slanted and underlined ; you may NOT remove the whole post.

You, bigshot, have usurped this (and attempted in many others ) thread to try to de facto establish a cult following religion - installing RBCD as the ultimate audio format for all times, with yourself as the President/King/Tzar for the lifetime. And been trying, for years, to undermine, ridicule - with all the means at your disposal - any opinion to the contrary.

Remember, one can ALWAYS reduce any HR audio, recorded using microphones/entire recording rig capable of > 20 kHz bandwidth ( analog tape included ) down to RBCD - to satisfy those who deem it is all it takes and will be satisfied with in audio for life .

It DOES NOT work the other way around - upsampling can bring an audible improvement ONLY trough the requirement of using less severe filtering than the brick wall required by RBCD - it can not restore the information, which has been forever lost in the first, bandwidth limited to (just above ) 20 kHz stage.

In my 14 or so years career in recording, there are, unfortunately, recordings of people, who are no longer with us. 

And one of my regrets is that I did not have the hardware capabilities ( and knowledge to make the best out of it ) for some of ,by now historical recordings , now at my disposal - not only does a live performance happen only once, sometimes there will be no opportunity for a retake  with the particular artist ...


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> It may be different with headphones than in a room with speakers. My sub is rated to 12 or 13Hz and it gets low enough that I just feel it and don't hear it. Not sure. I never worried about it because it's all an undifferentiated rumble down there.



With IEMs, we know at least it's definitely "hearing" what's going on, and not some kind of body-related sensation. Only two possible pathways for the 15Hz tone in that case, either via tympanic membrane or conduction through the bony part of the ear canal.


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> yup, anything that ends up firing cells in the cochlea in a fairly consistent way is fine for me...



It possibly won't be long until we reach clarification. A new imaging tool based on optical coherence tomography (OCT) enables us to "watch the ear hear":

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181017111011.htm


> "There are multiple theories of how high-frequency sounds are conducted to the inner ear, and the ability to view the sound-driven motion of large portions of the ossicular chain will help us understand what actually happens," said research team leader Seok-Hyun Yun of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Mass General Hospital.


----------



## Steve999

james444 said:


> Ermm, I can simply stick in a pair of halfway decent in-ear monitors and fire up a tone generator:
> http://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/
> 
> - 20Hz: easily heard / felt at normal listening levels.
> ...



Could just it be harmonic distortion off of the 15 hz tone? Just a layperson’s guess here. If you hear it as a tone rather than just low low low (to paraphrase REM) I’d guess it’s harmonic distortion. 15 hz is pretty much a lot lower than people generally hear as a tone, if I understand correctly. I don’t know how you’d check for distortion v. fundamental tone. Someone else might. Interesting observation. Thanks. I assume the tone generator generates sine waves with no harmonics. I would also guess some source equipment distorts at 15 hz so there’s that too. Just throwing stuff out there as a curious layperson.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 12, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Dealing with uncertainty can be both a source of frustration and a fun challenge in science, as well as just about all other areas of life.



This is the root of so many of the evils we run into here:
*Firstly* and most importantly, there's the massive issue of what is "uncertain" in the first place. Much of what is categorised as "uncertain" by audiophiles is not in fact uncertain and when challenged, the more sophisticated and apparently scientific response is along the lines of: Science is all about theoretical models of reality based on observations, models which are imperfect and evolve over time in response to new observations, new evidence and/or a failure of prediction. However, this is only "apparently" scientific rather than actually being scientific because while this assertion is often true/applicable to many scientific theories, it is also sometimes NOT true/applicable and even when it is, it often has no affect on the practical application of the science. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that we're often not dealing with scientific theories but also with proven scientific theorems and laws.
For example, we might describe Fourier's discoveries and proofs as a "model" of what sound waves are (comprised of), however, it has not followed the path of many theories (such as the theory of evolution for example), it has NOT evolved over time in response to new observations, evidence and/or failures of prediction because in the 200 years or so since Fourier's mathematical proof there have been no failures of prediction and no new observations or evidence to even hint that it might in some way be wrong or incomplete. It's the same story with digital audio/communication theory, certainly the engineering practicalities of applying the theory have evolved but the theory itself has not, there have been no failures of prediction and no evidence which even hints that it might be incorrect in the 70 years since the proof was published, despite the fact that every digital device on the planet puts the theory to the test hundreds of millions to trillions of times per second. A similar but slightly different example demonstrates another part of my statement above, that even when a theory is incomplete and "evolves" it often still doesn't make any practical difference: By about 170 years ago electricity had been fully defined mathematically by Maxwell, Ohm and others but starting around the 1920's, it became clear our understanding (scientific model) of electricity was not entirely complete, it did not include quantum mechanical effects for example. However, this incompleteness only affects what happens in certain extreme conditions (such as at absolute zero for example), outside those specific extreme conditions, Maxwell's, Ohm's and other's mathematical definitions/proofs of electricity still ALWAYS hold true and there's been no evidence in the intervening 150 years to suggest otherwise. And (hopefully) most realise that the recording and reproduction of music doesn't involve anywhere near the extreme conditions required for the basic classical model of electricity to no longer be ENTIRELY applicable.
These 3 "certainties" cover most of the recording and reproduction of music/sound and yet audiophiles (and those who sell to them) still routinely misrepresent them as "uncertainties"! As far as the audiophile community is concerned, a far more pertinent "challenge" than "dealing with uncertainty" would be to gain a far better grasp of what is certain and uncertain in the first place!

*Secondly*, there are definitely some areas of uncertainty, particularly if we're talking purely about science in say the field of human perception but even here we have to be careful what we mean by "certainty"/"uncertainty". Do we mean we have no idea at all? Do we mean we've got a pretty good idea, for example a "certainty" that a particular perception is a combination of several well defined and accepted theories? Or, do we mean that we actually have an extremely high degree of certainty in how perception works/affects us (and therefore how we can manipulate it) but relatively little science which explains the physical/biochemical processes within the brain which accomplishes this task? For example, centuries of musicology/composition and nearly a century of film sound has given us a very good understanding of how hearing perception works and how it can be manipulated. Again though, many audiophiles are partially or entirely ignorant of all this. This is good example;


KeithEmo said:


> What if the reason that, for most people, "home listening can never duplicate the experience of a real concert" is due to those extraneous factors.....
> What if, at the actual concert, our brains and auditory cortex were "configured a certain way" - thanks to those bright lights, our expectations, and even a little TCS....
> And we're never going to be able to properly replicate the _auditory experience_ unless we replicate all the other factors that account for the configuration that goes with it?....
> To me, this is stuff we should be testing....


Most of that isn't a "what if", it's very well known and has been tested exhaustively over the course of more than 6 decades. Why, for example, do you think we record orchestras with multiple mics (and have done since the 1950's), when just two mics can capture all the sound waves that a member of the audience (in the ideal listening position) would hear?



KeithEmo said:


> It would be foolish to believe things that we are_ not_ convinced are in fact correct.



And it would be even more foolish to not believe the science/facts that ARE correct, and then make-up false assertions entirely based on that foolishness! Yet this is exactly what we see time and again, even from some posters in this sub-forum, let alone the other sub-forums. Ultimately, what you believe and whether you personally are convinced or not is irrelevant, the science/facts do not depend on and are not affected by your belief, understanding or lack thereof.

G


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> Could just it be harmonic distortion off of the 15 hz tone? Just a layperson’s guess here. If you hear it as a tone rather than just low low low (to paraphrase REM) I’d guess it’s harmonic distortion. 15 hz is pretty much a lot lower than people generally hear as a tone, if I understand correctly. I don’t know how you’d check for distortion v. fundamental tone. Someone else might. Interesting observation. Thanks. I assume the tone generator generates sine waves with no harmonics. I would also guess some source equipment distorts at 15 hz so there’s that too. Just throwing stuff out there as a curious layperson.



Oh, come on - and get serious. Any decent portable amp/DAP/whatever used as a source SHOULD be impeccable at 10 Hz and lower - let alone at 15Hz.

In fact, the transducer most likely to be satisfactory for low frequencies < 20 Hz is - IEM. It requires eartips to have PERFECT sealing. Here a good test that can test - in about 10 minutes - the most basic requirements of any headphone/earphonr/IEM : https://www.audiocheck.net/soundtests_headphones.php   It does start at 10 Hz ... - for a reason !


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 12, 2018)

One the one hand John Maynard Keynes wrote that the fact that all things are possible is no excuse for talking foolishly. On the other hand Leibniz, Darwin, Tesla, Farraday, the Wright Brothers, etc., were all perceived as talking foolishly in their day. So there’s a tension. Here I think we are more in the economist’s world rather than in the world of groundbreaking scientific discussion, very much so. I have more to learn than I will ever know about science, but spotting those who deal in lies and deception and illogical speculation, in an environment where we need only follow the money to understand much of its origins, is not so much beyond me. So the task is to take things where they will go if we explore the unexpected in the realm of plausible science, but in an environment riddled with and awash in cash from untoward influences. It’s a fine line and requires careful and thoughtful judgment and open-minded discourse, but also a healthy dose of skepticism. There are virtues to warding off disingenuous commercial influences at every pass, but also there are virtues to progressing in informing one another of that which is known but unexpected, or has yet to be known. So we can feel and enjoy ultrasonics through our eyeballs apparently, and even a/b/x testing is subject to problems with auditory memory and expectation bias. But this does not justify the marketing garbage that is the locomotive that drives head-fi. Sound Science is in a tough spot. If we merely spend all of our energies debunking myths that are propogated here under the profit motive, the discussion as to science and sound will be lost in the noise. It’s just something for each poster to keep in mind, the environment we are in, the dual purposes we serve in a moral and educational sense, and the difficulty posed by the engine of head-fi itself. They are the elephant in the ointment and we are the fly in the room. The danger is that those who seek more pleasant scientific or audio discourse and are most knowledgeable will simply choose not to post here, if each poster does not take on more responsibility in ensuring the soundness of their reasoning. Otherwise we will just have scorched earth and nonsense here, chasing one another around in circles.


----------



## james444 (Dec 12, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> Could just it be harmonic distortion off of the 15 hz tone? Just a layperson’s guess here. If you hear it as a tone rather than just low low low (to paraphrase REM) I’d guess it’s harmonic distortion. 15 hz is pretty much a lot lower than people generally hear as a tone, if I understand correctly. I don’t know how you’d check for distortion v. fundamental tone. Someone else might. Interesting observation. Thanks. I assume the tone generator generates sine waves with no harmonics. I would also guess some source equipment distorts at 15 hz so there’s that too. Just throwing stuff out there as a curious layperson.



Nah, I measured THD of my JVC FD01 IEMs at 90dB, it's around 1% @ 20Hz. Presumably, the rest of the chain has far less distortion. And my listening level was maybe 70-80 dB.

IEMs can easily reach deeper frequencies than full-sized headphones and speakers. It's hard to hear something as low as 15Hz as a tone, if you just listen to that single frequency. But if you start at, say, 30Hz and decrease the frequency step by step, you can discern the pitch change quite easily.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> This is the root of so many of the evils we run into here:
> *Firstly* and most importantly, there's the massive issue of what is "uncertain" in the first place. Much of what is categorised as "uncertain" by audiophiles is not in fact uncertain and when challenged, the more sophisticated and apparently scientific response is along the lines of: Science is all about theoretical models of reality based on observations, models which are imperfect and evolve over time in response to new observations, new evidence and/or a failure of prediction. However, this is only "apparently" scientific rather than actually being scientific because while this assertion is often true/applicable to many scientific theories, it is also sometimes NOT true/applicable and even when it is, it often has no affect on the practical application of the science. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that we're often not dealing with scientific theories but also with proven scientific theorems and laws.
> For example, we might describe Fourier's discoveries and proofs as a "model" of what sound waves are (comprised of), however, it has not followed the path of many theories (such as the theory of evolution for example), it has NOT evolved over time in response to new observations, evidence and/or failures of prediction because in the 200 years or so since Fourier's mathematical proof there have been no failures of prediction and no new observations or evidence to even hint that it might in some way be wrong or incomplete. It's the same story with digital audio/communication theory, certainly the engineering practicalities of applying the theory have evolved but the theory itself has not, there have been no failures of prediction and no evidence which even hints that it might be incorrect in the 70 years since the proof was published, despite the fact that every digital device on the planet puts the theory to the test hundreds of millions to trillions of times per second. A similar but slightly different example demonstrates another part of my statement above, that even when a theory is incomplete and "evolves" it often still doesn't make any practical difference: By about 170 years ago electricity had been fully defined mathematically by Maxwell, Ohm and others but starting around the 1920's, it became clear our understanding (scientific model) of electricity was not entirely complete, it did not include quantum mechanical effects for example. However, this incompleteness only affects what happens in certain extreme conditions (such as at absolute zero for example), outside those specific extreme conditions, Maxwell's, Ohm's and other's mathematical definitions/proofs of electricity still ALWAYS hold true and there's been no evidence in the intervening 150 years to suggest otherwise. And (hopefully) most realise that the recording and reproduction of music doesn't involve anywhere near the extreme conditions required for the basic classical model of electricity to no longer be ENTIRELY applicable.
> These 3 "certainties" cover most of the recording and reproduction of music/sound and yet audiophiles (and those who sell to them) still routinely misrepresent them as "uncertainties"! As far as the audiophile community is concerned, a far more pertinent "challenge" than "dealing with uncertainty" would be to gain a far better grasp of what is certain and uncertain in the first place!
> ...



I think it's generally accepted that science doesn't really "prove" things, but rather draws conclusions from evidence with varying levels of confidence/certainty.  The amount of confidence/certainty varies over a range from none to extremely high, and I agree that saying that we have some uncertainty doesn't mean that we have no idea - we may be justifiably very confident about some things. 

Also, I think it's worthwhile to make a distinction between science and technology. In technology, we can design things to perform intended functions, and by providing some safety margins, we can pretty much guarantee that they'll function as intended if we use decent models for design, there are no significant manufacturing defects, and there no unanticipated loads; this is certainly the case with electronic devices.  In science, since our models can't be proven to be "true" in some absolute and final sense, those models can always evolve and be refined.  Even with something like electricity, it was first unified in a model with magnetism, then the electromagnetic and weak forces were unified in a new model, then the electroweak and strong forces were unified in a new model, and now physicists are still struggling to unify the electroweak and strong forces in a model which also includes gravity ("theory of everything").  And of course, when we get into biology, cognition, perception, etc., things are way more complex, and our models aren't nearly as good as we have in many areas of physics.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 12, 2018)

james444 said:


> Nah, I measured THD of my JVC FD01 IEMs at 90dB, it's around 1% @ 20Hz. Presumably, the rest of the chain has far less distortion. And my listening level was maybe 70-80 dB.
> 
> IEMs can easily reach deeper frequencies than full-sized headphones and speakers. It's hard to hear something as low as 15Hz as a tone, if you just listen to that single frequency. But if you start at, say, 30Hz and decrease the frequency step by step, you can discern the pitch change quite easily.



It’s a worthwhile discussion to have. I would need to look into it, but I may not have the resources. Based on my experience as a layperson and my lay perceptions I doubt what you say, but I accept it is not without plausible support. If you could show me something peer-reviewed that indicates that humans hear pitch at 15 hz I would be interested. My belief is that you cannot. I think you could do well to do further research or search out other possibilities.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> The amount of confidence/certainty varies over a range from none to extremely high, and I agree that saying that we have some uncertainty doesn't mean that we have no idea - we may be justifiably very confident about some things.
> Also, I think it's worthwhile to make a distinction between science and technology. In technology, we can design things to perform intended functions, and by providing some safety margins, we can pretty much guarantee that they'll function as intended if we use decent models for design, there are no significant manufacturing defects, and there no unanticipated loads; this is certainly the case with electronic devices. In science, since our models can't be proven to be "true" in some absolute and final sense, those models can always evolve and be refined. Even with something like electricity, it was first unified in a model with magnetism, then the electromagnetic and weak forces were unified in a new model, then the electroweak and strong forces were unified in a new model, and now physicists are still struggling to unify the electroweak and strong forces in a model which also includes gravity ("theory of everything"). And of course, when we get into biology, cognition, perception, etc., things are way more complex, and our models aren't nearly as good as we have in many areas of physics.



But isn't this largely semantics? Sure, in an absolute sense we can't be absolutely certain of anything, we can't be absolutely certain that pigs can't fly, that unicorns don't exist or that the Earth isn't flat. But if we've got a mathematically proven theorem that's demonstrated trillions of times per second, by billions of devices for many years, with no evidence or even hint that in some way it be incorrect/incomplete and has therefore never evolved or been refined, how much more certain of anything can we ever be? And yes, as I stated, the model of electricity has been refined and likely will be more refined in the future but none of that affects Ohm's Law (for example) as it pertains to home stereo systems. Now if one day we're all listening to Michael Jackson's Thriller while sitting on a singularity inside a black hole, then I'll not be nearly so entirely certain that Ohm's Law is applicable but until then ...

G


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 12, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> It’s a worthwhile discussion to have. I would need to look into it, but I may not have the resources. Based on my experience as a layperson and my lay perceptions I doubt what you say, but I accept it is not without plausible support. If you could show me something peer-reviewed that indicates that humans hear pitch at 15 hz I would be interested. My belief is that you cannot. I think you could do well to do further research or search out other possibilities.



So I double-checked myself. Apparently, some humans can hear down to 12 hz under ideal laboratory conditions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range

This is a long way from proving that you or any human can hear pitch at 15 hz over IEMs, but it’s a start.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 12, 2018)

gregorio said:


> But isn't this largely semantics? Sure, in an absolute sense we can't be absolutely certain of anything, we can't be absolutely certain that pigs can't fly, that unicorns don't exist or that the Earth isn't flat. But if we've got a mathematically proven theorem that's demonstrated trillions of times per second, by billions of devices for many years, with no evidence or even hint that in some way it be incorrect/incomplete and has therefore never evolved or been refined, how much more certain of anything can we ever be? And yes, as I stated, the model of electricity has been refined and likely will be more refined in the future but none of that affects Ohm's Law (for example) as it pertains to home stereo systems. Now if one day we're all listening to Michael Jackson's Thriller while sitting on a singularity inside a black hole, then I'll not be nearly so entirely certain that Ohm's Law is applicable but until then ...
> 
> G



I agree, in much of electronics, for all practical purposes, our models are very accurate and reliable and need not evolve further, even if they can't be proven "true" in an absolute sense.

In my own area of engineering, our models are usually not as good as models based on circuit theory, but the assumptions based on Newtonian mechanics are effectively treated as being certain and we lose no sleep over that.

With audio, it's when we bring listeners and perception into the models, as with any type of listening test, that things get messy and the effects of even very tiny differences in gear wind up introducing a sliver of uncertainty and open the door to debates.


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 12, 2018)

_OK_, just to be perfectly clear, I _DO NOT_ specifically assert that ultrasonic frequencies are audible, or that they have a perceptible effect on what we hear, or our enjoyment of music. _ALL_ I assert is that the opposite has not been conclusively proven. _I DO NOT KNOW IF ULTRASONIC FREQUENCIES HAVE SOME EFFECT ON OUR PERCEPTION OF MUSIC OR NOT_.

When I went to high school, everyone "knew" that all matter was composed of little indivisible things called protons, neutrons, and electrons, there were no such things as dragons and unicorns, dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles, and a cool prehistoric fish called a coelacanth had been extinct for about 30 million years. However, today, we are quite certain that two of those things we used to be quite certain of are in fact wrong, and a third one is in serious doubt. I'm pretty sure there are no unicorns or dragons, and nobody has proven to have found one yet, but that's one out of four.

HOWEVER, someone suggested that "I could never be satisfied with the results of any test proving that ultrasonic frequencies are inaudible." In fact, they may be right, because it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, unless you start by testing every human on Earth... and, even if you do, new ones keep being born to muddy the issue.

HOWEVER, I can describe pretty simply how we could perform a test that would be reasonably free of obvious flaws, and it wouldn't even necessarily be terribly expensive to do so.

Anyone who is actually interested in science should continue to read on.....

First off, in any proper experiment, you need to start by describing EXACTLY what you're testing for. How about: "Determining whether the presence of ultrasonic harmonics, or other audio information, at levels similar to the audible content, makes a perceptible difference in how we perceive audio recordings of music or other frequently recorded sounds".

Second, we need to find or produce some samples of what we're trying to test. We can't test whether people can hear it unless we first confirm that we have it to begin with. This _DOES NOT_ mean "finding some high quality recordings" or "using some samples everybody thinks are high resolution". It means using test samples that we have _CONFIRMED_ contain high frequencies. (At this point I'm going to add another detail... let's test for the presence of frequencies up to a reasonable 30 kHz... if they turn out to be audible, then we can consider looking higher.)

So, let's start by choosing some sound sources that we believe contain harmonics that go that high. I suggest we try cymbals, gamelan music, and the sound of breaking glass. (I'm not going to bother to specify that we need someone to bang on the cymbals and gongs - and break the glass.) Now we dig out our measurement microphone, or bat-hunter microphone, or whatever you like, and measure our sources to make sure there really is something there at between 20 kHz and 30 kHz. We don't care if it sounds nice... we're simply confirming that we actually have a legitimate source of ultrasonic content.

Now we record some sounds or music. And, yet again, we whip out our spectrum analyzer and confirm that the ultrasonic content that was there to begin with (which we confirmed in step 1), made it onto the recording. If we already have recordings _THAT WE CAN CONFIRM MEET THIS REQUIREMENT_ then we can use them. Likewise, we can skip confirming that the ultrasonic components are present in our live sources _IF AND ONLY IF WE CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE PRESENT IN THE RECORDING_.

Now we choose our playback equipment, which may include some headphones, some speakers, or both. And, yet again, we play our samples through the equipment we plan to use and confirm that the ultrasonic content in those recordings is making it to the spot where our test subjects' ears will be when we run the test. (We can use the same microphones we used to record it with - if we recorded it ourselves.)

_NOW_, we can use our best available filters to take our _KNOWN GOOD SAMPLES_, and create versions of them that are identical except for being band-limited to 20 kHz.

And, finally, we can select our test subjects, making sure to select a wide cross section of people of all ages, sexes, ethnicities, and all the other demographics. (We may find out that Native Americans, or people from Eastern Germany, can hear things that white Europeans can't.)

Assuming we recorded our own samples, an interesting extra step would be to allow our test subjects to hear the sources live "so they know what to listen for". (It might be interesting to have two groups, one which does this, and one which does not, to test the effects of "learning" on the results.)

And, being _SCIENTISTS_, we carefully document _ALL OF THE STEPS WE TOOK_. We list the details of every piece of equipment we used. And, if we made our own test recordings, we provide both details of exactly how they were recorded, and provide copies of them to anyone who wishes to confirm our results. (And, if we found suitable commercial recordings, we provide enough information that someone could buy a copy of the exact same recording to use to confirm our results.)

Note that, while somewhat tedious, none of this is especially _EXPENSIVE_ to do. It's all within the budget of a typical college or audio club. You will also note that any of the really expensive gear, like precision measurement microphones, or high quality recording gear, can almost certainly be rented or leased. (And, when you lease test equipment, it almost always comes with traceable calibration certificates and all that sort of thing.)

I can't speak for today, but, when I went to college, you wouldn't earn a passing grade in a lab course if you missed more than a few of these details. I also left out a few steps, like the analysis of the flaws you yourself are aware of with your test protocol. (For example, we are always going to be limited to testing a limited sample of different sound sources, so we cannot claim to have tested all possible sound sources.)

If you follow those guidelines, and don't skip any steps, then you will have results that any reasonable scientist will at least consider credible.

_PLEASE_ go back and read the actual descriptions of as many "credible tests" as you can find.... and, if you can find any that met the _BARE MINIMUM_ I outlined above, do please post them for the rest of us. Of course, even without proper testing, there is no harm in asserting an opinion, or mentioning that there is no scientific data to support someone else's opinion..... but that doesn't technically rise anywhere near the level of "proof".



old tech said:


> The consensus of all the research I have come across in this area is that there is no support for any of it.  For example, the article in the link just below provides a summary of the evidence and the flaws in the proponents' arguments.  It is worth listenting to the discussion as it is quite interesting and covers it more thoroughly than the texts.  The EU and others may be still conducting studies in this area and this is mainly political to appease certain interest groups and anti-wind farm agitists.
> 
> https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4388
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Absolute is absolute and typical is typical.

If you want to make claims about "what a typical human can hear", or "what would probably matter to most of us", then typical values make perfect sense. However, if you want to make absolute statements, or generalities - which are a form of absolute statement, then you must use the extremes when you do so.

You also do in fact need to specify all the details....

For example, can a human being lift over a ton?

That sounds like a simple question...
I'm absolutely certain that I couldn't lift more than a few hundred pounds.
However, I do know several people who can lift several hundred pounds.
I have no idea what the average is - and that might be interesting.
And the limit for what most of us consider "a normal sort of lifting weights" is just under 600 pounds.

However, according to the Guiness Book of World Records....
The heaviest weight lift documented by a human is OVER THREE TONS.
(6270 pounds, lifted in a "back lift", by a fellow named Paul Anderson in 1985.)

If you want to make generalizations, then you simply need to make sure everyone knows that's what you're doing. That's why we have words like "most" and "usually" and "typically". Most of us understand that we can;t lift nearly as much weight as Paul.... and I've never heard of a car company offering "lift handles" on their latest model "just in case you're strong enough to lift it by hand". Perhaps someone needs to look into why audiophiles are so eager to believe that each and every one of them is exceptional... and so easy to convince that they're that outlier.

And, yes, perhaps a good start would be to play some test tones, _ON YOUR EQUIPMENT, USING YOUR SPEAKERS, AT A LEVEL YOU FIND COMFORTABLE,_ to see what actually is likely to make a difference _TO YOU_.



bigshot said:


> When abusing figures to justify audiophoolishness, it's very common to take the absolute worst or best case figures and pretend that they are typical. That makes it possible to move the goalposts and say things like, "Normal human hearing goes up to 20kHz, but there are examples of people who can hear higher than that. Surely we should allow for the exceptions to the rule." Once you've moved the goalpost that far, the next step is to go back to normalizing the exceptions and starting the process all over again. This is what people routinely do with data rates. "16/44.1 is fine for normal people, but *I* can hear up to 24/96!" And once you've swallowed that, they start whittling away at that saying, "24/96 is fine, but no one has proven SCIENTIFICALLY that there isn't someone in the world who can hear 48/192." All of that is rhetoric and what ifs.
> 
> The truth is that plain old CD quality sound is all you would ever need for the purposes of playing commercially recorded music in your home.


----------



## Phronesis

From an eminent physicist, Carlo Rovelli:

https://newrepublic.com/article/118...cist-explains-why-science-not-about-certainty

"Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it’s not certain. In fact, not only is it not certain, but it’s the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure but because they’re the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they’re the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody’s criticism.

The very expression “scientifically proven” is a contradiction in terms. There’s nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices. In our conceptual structure for grasping reality, there might be something not appropriate, something we may have to revise to understand better. So at any moment we have a vision of reality that is effective, it’s good, it’s the best we have found so far. It’s the most credible we have found so far; it’s mostly correct."​


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm kind of looking at all this from the opposite direction.

Most people I know agree that, even if you're standing on the sidewalk, listening through an open window, you can usually tell the difference between a live band playing and a recording. And I find the distinction to be especially vivid when someone inside the room whacks the cymbals really hard. Therefore, clearly, we are _FAR_ from able to make a recording that accurately replicates the live performance. 

I don't know exactly what's missing; maybe it's those ultrasonic components; maybe it's just that the first hit actually registers 165 dB, and neither the microphones or the speakers can handle it accurately, or maybe, when it comes to commercial recordings, it's just that the cymbals always get hit by a limiter.... but there's something that falls short of "it really sounds exactly the same". (To be candid, I've heard recordings of vocalists where I probably couldn't tell the difference, and perhaps a few horns, although many horns seem to lose that "sharp tearing sound" in recordings, but the cymbals never sound exactly right to me.)

Therefore, my assertion is simply "something isn't perfect yet" - so let's find out what it is. (And, since ultrasonic components are a known characteristic of cymbals, and cymbals seem to be a prime example of "something we haven't got perfectly right yet", until all the nit-picking disputes started, that seemed like an easy thing to actually rule out - or _fail_ to rule out.)

And, yes, I'm perfectly willing to concede that the difference may turn out to be something that's bad for your hearing... but that's not really relevant to the question at hand. (Standing five feet from the cymbals at a live performance probably _is_ bad for your hearing.)



bigshot said:


> Frequencies double with each octave, so 20,000Hz to 40,000Hz is the same amount as 20Hz to 40Hz- about one octave. An extra 6Khz above 20 is about a third of an octave. So when you sing do re mi, you don't even get to mi. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you know what the numbers represent. Also, I believe that study was talking about 26kHz being audible at something like 100dB. If they played a core frequency at that volume, you would flinch and rip the headphones off. I doubt if anyone here in this group can hear much past 16kHz. Most of us probably fall somewhere at or under 15kHz. And it doesn't matter anyway because frequencies above that are pretty much useless in music.
> 
> You're right about the danger of testing hearing of very high frequencies. A guy here put up test tones and people were reporting that they could hear 20kHz, but it turned out they were doing it by cranking the volume to ungodly volumes. Not a smart idea! People get this idea in their head that the extremes matter more than the core. The opposite is true.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 12, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I'm kind of looking at all this from the opposite direction.
> 
> Most people I know agree that, even if you're standing on the sidewalk, listening through an open window, you can usually tell the difference between a live band playing and a recording. And I find the distinction to be especially vivid when someone inside the room whacks the cymbals really hard. Therefore, clearly, we are _FAR_ from able to make a recording that accurately replicates the live performance.
> 
> ...



My sense is that the main difference between live sound versus recordings played back on sound systems is in the acoustics, with respect to how we localize sounds, attenuation of frequencies, etc. to construct an 'auditory scene'.  The live experience will always be quite different from anything played back on a sound system.  That doesn't mean the sound system can't sound really good, maybe even be rated by a listener as 'better than live', but I just don't think we can replicate the live experience. 

My *guess* is that ultrasonics aren't a significant factor in the perceived difference between live vs sound system (maybe not a factor at all), though I definitely see how it could be tempting to think so, since the high frequencies we can definitely hear (say 5-20 kHz) seem to have a different character live as compared to with sound systems.  There might be a fallacy along the lines: "the difference in highs really matters (true), so maybe the difference in the ultrasonic highs is the last bit that really matters too."


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm pretty sure that, if you were to ask a neuroscientist, his or her response would be something like "any situation where a vibration carried through the atmosphere causes a measurable response in one of the areas of the brain dedicated to auditory perception". (In other words, anything that causes one or more neurons in your auditory cortex, or any area associated with it, to "light up" on an MRI.)

Not only does this complicate the issue because it adds another definition, but also because our brains are not only incredibly complicated, but incredibly interconnected. For example, since our brains are filled with connections between different sections, I wouldn't bet that being exposed to a bright flashing light wouldn't activate a few "auditory neurons".

To pick a slightly different example..... When struck on the head, most of us "see stars". (The proper term is "phosphene" - which includes any situation where "you see light for any reason other than light actually entering your eye".) Does that count as "vision" or not? And, when you see stars, after being struck on the back of the head, are you simply "seeing" the club that hit you in an unusual way? The answer would seem to depend simply on the definition of "see" that you prefer to use.

To me, in the context of "listening to music", I would use: "any situation where sound, defined as an airborn vibration, produces a result that is consciously perceived as hearing sound". (So for example, if a subwoofer vibrates your foot, but you consciously perceive and report that you heard the vibration, then it counts as hearing.)



Phronesis said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> *Hearing*, or *auditory perception*, is the ability to perceive sounds by detecting vibrations,[1] changes in the pressure of the surrounding medium through time, through an organ such as the ear.​
> From Merriam Webster:
> ...


----------



## Zapp_Fan

KeithEmo said:


> I don't know exactly what's missing; maybe it's those ultrasonic components; maybe it's just that the first hit actually registers 165 dB, and neither the microphones or the speakers can handle it accurately, or maybe, when it comes to commercial recordings, it's just that the cymbals always get hit by a limiter.... but there's something that falls short of "it really sounds exactly the same". (To be candid, I've heard recordings of vocalists where I probably couldn't tell the difference, and perhaps a few horns, although many horns seem to lose that "sharp tearing sound" in recordings, but the cymbals never sound exactly right to me.)



I know exactly what you mean, but I think 99% of this effect has got to be due to things other than ultrasonics. 

For one thing, the sound from a live band is coming from several sources around the stage and the directionality is totally different than loudspeakers.  This alone - even if SPL and dynamics were somehow the same in both the recording and the live event (another big source of the difference I'd wager) - should be enough to tell live from recorded.  The sound radiates around the space in a totally different way, and our ears are pretty good at picking up the directional source of a sound. 

And no matter how well a given performance is mic'd, the directionality of the live band can't be fully reproduced in a recording you're listening to over loudspeakers. (except certain binaural recordings.)

I think this goes back to a point that @gregorio has been making, which is that multi-mic mixes are just as much an artistic creation as a simulation of a live performance.


----------



## KeithEmo

That is an excellent point.

There is a huge gap between when our sensory organs detect inputs and when our brains perceive something. This is especially complex when we talk about music because the connections themselves are quite complex. For example, when you hear a violin, what does your brain "perceive"? 

The way our brains process input is _IMMENSELY_ complicated..... so, for example, you may feel something, or taste something, or "see something in your mind" when you hear a certain sound. And, to make matters even worse, the details of this process vary wildly between individuals.

A casual listener might perceive "a violin playing", while a musician perceives the printed score the musician is playing, a mathematician perceives a sequence of numbers, and a scientist might perceive an image of what the spectrum would look like on a graph. And, inside their brains, the musician might see finger placements, or a printed musical score, while the mathematician sees equations printed on a page, an art student might even see the field of flowers the composer was thinking of when she wrote the piece, while Charlie might smell the perfume of the girl he was with the last time he heard it. And _ALL OF THOSE ARE VALID RESPONSES_.

(And, if there's a flaw in the recording, the mathematician may "see" an error in an equation, the musician might see fingers in the wrong place, the artist might notice that the flowers in her image seem a bit fuzzy, and it may _FAIL_ to evoke feelings of his first love in Charlie - because it's a poor match for the pattern required to do so. And, unfortunately, none of that stuff can be measured.)



Phronesis said:


> I'm thinking that the root of the problem is actually somewhat philosophical.
> 
> If I want to measure blood pressure, I hook up a meter to my arm and get some numbers.  Lots of things can be measured or at least objectively observed.  But when it comes to anything involving perception, we can't forever ignore the issue that perception, as subjective experience, occurs in minds, which aren't really considered to be the same as brains, i.e. we wouldn't describe an observable and measurable pattern of neuron firing in a brain as being the same kind of thing as the sound subjectively perceived by the person who has that brain.
> 
> ...


----------



## james444

Steve999 said:


> So I double-checked myself. Apparently, some humans can hear down to 12 hz under ideal laboratory conditions.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range
> 
> This is a long way from proving that you or any human can hear pitch at 15 hz over IEMs, but it’s a start.



IEMs should be pretty much equivalent to ideal laboratory conditions for that purpose. With a perfect seal, you have high isolation against environmental noise and optimum coupling to the tympanic membrane.

Since I don't think my hearing is anything special, I would assume that many humans can hear 15 hz with IEMs. Don't you know someone you can borrow IEMs from, to try for yourself? All you need is you smartphone / tablet / pc, an online tongen and a pair of perfectly sealing IEMs. If all else fails, I could send you a pair of IEMs to try, no problem.


----------



## KeithEmo

But why would you guess that?

At least one published test has apparently proven that "under certain laboratory conditions some humans can hear frequencies as low as 10 Hz". Therefore, the "established bottom limit of 20 Hz" seems most likely to simply be wrong, or to be correct, but only under some conditions, rather than under all conditions.



Steve999 said:


> Could just it be harmonic distortion off of the 15 hz tone? Just a layperson’s guess here. If you hear it as a tone rather than just low low low (to paraphrase REM) I’d guess it’s harmonic distortion. 15 hz is pretty much a lot lower than people generally hear as a tone, if I understand correctly. I don’t know how you’d check for distortion v. fundamental tone. Someone else might. Interesting observation. Thanks. I assume the tone generator generates sine waves with no harmonics. I would also guess some source equipment distorts at 15 hz so there’s that too. Just throwing stuff out there as a curious layperson.


----------



## analogsurviver

Zapp_Fan said:


> I know exactly what you mean, but I think 99% of this effect has got to be due to things other than ultrasonics.
> 
> For one thing, the sound from a live band is coming from several sources around the stage and the directionality is totally different than loudspeakers.  This alone - even if SPL and dynamics were somehow the same in both the recording and the live event (another big source of the difference I'd wager) - should be enough to tell live from recorded.  The sound radiates around the space in a totally different way, and our ears are pretty good at picking up the directional source of a sound.
> 
> ...



That is precisely why I prefer binaural - over anything else. It can be reproduced over the speakers, to a great effect, exceeding even surround 5.1 - properly processed, of course.

And that is precisely why @gregorio & Co. is so against the binaural - because, ultimately, all the multimiking is going to be remembered in history for is artistic creation and simulation of a live performance - and not as an accurate  reproduction of one.  The timing errors and bandwidth limitations for multimiked multichannel recording session just can not be brought to a similar level for just two mics.

Taken further, any improvement DSD has over PCM is grossly masked by the multimiking - look at random chosen 10 videos of symphony orchestra videos on YT,  estimate the difference among the closest and farthest mic you can see in each, input that sound travels roughly 340 metres per second ( depending on temperature, pressure, humidity - but in that ballpark ) - and whatever computation you end up with, time difference(s) will be orders of magnitude greater than a few - or even tenths under best possible conditions/highest sample rates - microseconds that separate DSD and PCM. 

No wonder that then they claim no difference heard between DSD and PCM - one can't measure the thickness of a sheet of paper with a 3 foot log.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Dec 12, 2018)

If I jack up the output of my headphone amp, a lot of IEMs can create some perceptible effect at 15hz.  To me it basically sounds like a rapid flapping / whooshing noise.  I think it's actually just periodic pressurization of my ear canal and not what might be (if any such sound can be) perceived as a tone.

I think 20hz is a practical lower limit because it's roughly the threshold where most things stop sounding like continuous tones and start sounding like periodic distinct sonic events.

It reminds me of the supposed fact that a lot of "haunted" houses are actually just plagued by infrasound. Places that somehow create a lot of 18-19hz tones (I dunno, from the wind or something) apparently are often "haunted" because those frequencies are supposed to create a sense of unease, and the human eye even supposedly resonates at that range, which supposedly can create visual hallucinations.  Not to mention that a space plagued by that much infrasound will also have various stuff moving, doors opening and closing... etc.

It does speak to the difficulty of hearing, in a normal sense, anything that low-frequency.  If you are experiencing ghosts instead of sound, I assume you aren't consciously hearing a darn thing. 

I think there is, however, a very obvious benefit to being able to reproduce frequencies below 20hz, which is that if your system can do it, then typically audible sub-bass will tend to be a lot better, transients will be better, etc.   But I think perceptible "notes" in that range are very rare if not totally nonexistent.


----------



## KeithEmo

Practical science is a subset of science as a general subject.
And, yes, in many cases "practical science" is both more useful and "more than good enough".
(Although I should point out that not everyone agrees on the diving line between the two.)

And, in fact, there are no such thing as "scientific laws".
That's just a word we use as shorthand for "really well established theories".
You are attempting to erect a bright line where none exists.

To use an example that is often quoted in books about probability and quantum theory. 

The movement of individual gas molecules in an enclosed space is random. This suggests that, one day, you could suffocate because all of the gas molecules in the room where you're sitting could randomly decide to move to the other side, leaving you with no air to breathe. As far as we know this has never happened. And, as it turns out, the odds of this happening are tiny; so tiny that it is highly unlikely to happen any time during the life of our universe. _HOWEVER, TECHNICALLY, IT IS POSSIBLE, AND IT COULD HAPPEN_..... it is merely very very unlikely.

Math is different because it is an abstract. 
We can safely say that the math associated with Fourier's theorem is valid.
We could even say that we have never observed a sound wave that failed to comply with it.
That makes it a very good model which so far has never been found to be wrong.
And it means that it is a very safe assumption that it will be correct the next time.
However, it is _STILL_ a model, which is not the same as a fact.

I agree that it would be foolish to carry around an oxygen mask "just in case all the air jumps away".
But that is _NOT_ the same as saying that it is_ IMPOSSIBLE_ that it could happen.

I absolutely agree that we should all note the difference between practicality and pure science.
For example, it would be totally impractical for me to try to turn lead into gold in my basement.
However, anyone with access to a nuclear reactor can do so rather easily.
Therefore it would be _UNTRUE_ to say "you cannot turn lead into gold".
(But it would be quite reasonable to say that "it would be totally impractical to make gold from lead".)



gregorio said:


> This is the root of so many of the evils we run into here:
> *Firstly* and most importantly, there's the massive issue of what is "uncertain" in the first place. Much of what is categorised as "uncertain" by audiophiles is not in fact uncertain and when challenged, the more sophisticated and apparently scientific response is along the lines of: Science is all about theoretical models of reality based on observations, models which are imperfect and evolve over time in response to new observations, new evidence and/or a failure of prediction. However, this is only "apparently" scientific rather than actually being scientific because while this assertion is often true/applicable to many scientific theories, it is also sometimes NOT true/applicable and even when it is, it often has no affect on the practical application of the science. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that we're often not dealing with scientific theories but also with proven scientific theorems and laws.
> For example, we might describe Fourier's discoveries and proofs as a "model" of what sound waves are (comprised of), however, it has not followed the path of many theories (such as the theory of evolution for example), it has NOT evolved over time in response to new observations, evidence and/or failures of prediction because in the 200 years or so since Fourier's mathematical proof there have been no failures of prediction and no new observations or evidence to even hint that it might in some way be wrong or incomplete. It's the same story with digital audio/communication theory, certainly the engineering practicalities of applying the theory have evolved but the theory itself has not, there have been no failures of prediction and no evidence which even hints that it might be incorrect in the 70 years since the proof was published, despite the fact that every digital device on the planet puts the theory to the test hundreds of millions to trillions of times per second. A similar but slightly different example demonstrates another part of my statement above, that even when a theory is incomplete and "evolves" it often still doesn't make any practical difference: By about 170 years ago electricity had been fully defined mathematically by Maxwell, Ohm and others but starting around the 1920's, it became clear our understanding (scientific model) of electricity was not entirely complete, it did not include quantum mechanical effects for example. However, this incompleteness only affects what happens in certain extreme conditions (such as at absolute zero for example), outside those specific extreme conditions, Maxwell's, Ohm's and other's mathematical definitions/proofs of electricity still ALWAYS hold true and there's been no evidence in the intervening 150 years to suggest otherwise. And (hopefully) most realise that the recording and reproduction of music doesn't involve anywhere near the extreme conditions required for the basic classical model of electricity to no longer be ENTIRELY applicable.
> These 3 "certainties" cover most of the recording and reproduction of music/sound and yet audiophiles (and those who sell to them) still routinely misrepresent them as "uncertainties"! As far as the audiophile community is concerned, a far more pertinent "challenge" than "dealing with uncertainty" would be to gain a far better grasp of what is certain and uncertain in the first place!
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree entirely....

I would also point out that the degree of certainty we are each willing to be satisfied with varies.

I am reasonably confident that the lunch I eat today will not have been accidentally contaminated with poison.
In fact I am confident enough that I'm not at all worried about eating it.
However, it could happen.... and does happen to a few people every year.

However, from what I've read, when the first atomic bomb was detonated:
"Most scientists were reasonably certain it wouldn't set the Earth's atmosphere on fire by a chain reaction."
Now, years later, many people find that degree of certainty to be "not really good enough".

I this case, odds are that the entire planet won't be reduced to a flaming cinder, even if one of us is wrong. 



gregorio said:


> But isn't this largely semantics? Sure, in an absolute sense we can't be absolutely certain of anything, we can't be absolutely certain that pigs can't fly, that unicorns don't exist or that the Earth isn't flat. But if we've got a mathematically proven theorem that's demonstrated trillions of times per second, by billions of devices for many years, with no evidence or even hint that in some way it be incorrect/incomplete and has therefore never evolved or been refined, how much more certain of anything can we ever be? And yes, as I stated, the model of electricity has been refined and likely will be more refined in the future but none of that affects Ohm's Law (for example) as it pertains to home stereo systems. Now if one day we're all listening to Michael Jackson's Thriller while sitting on a singularity inside a black hole, then I'll not be nearly so entirely certain that Ohm's Law is applicable but until then ...
> 
> G


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree....

What I suspect is that we are far more able to resolve far smaller differences in timing and direction of acoustic waves than seems to be widely accepted. Inside a room, sounds from each instrument, and even each part of some instruments, are launched in different directions, and at different times. This is far different than attempting to launch all those sound waves from a few speakers at specific locations.

And, even outside a small window on the sidewalk, the sound waves from all those separate instruments will arrive from a variety of directions, after bouncing around the room inside. And those reflections will be far different than if the same sound waves had originated at a few distinct speakers. 

For an analogy with light, imagine a room with multiple people moving around, waving an assortment of flashlights and lanterns, and an observer outside on the sidewalk. Light would be passing through the window from a wide variety of directions and in a wide variety of different patterns. Now imagine if we were to put a shade in the window, film the light striking the inside of the shade, then project an "equivalent" two-dimensional image on the shade. The pattern of light at the plane of the shade would be identical, but the directional information would be removed, and replaced with new and different, and incorrect, directional information. 

It is generally accepted that the only sense of the directionality of sound we humans have comes from our stereophonic hearing - from timing and phase differences. (Many insects can actually "hear the direction of a sound directly" - but we humans cannot.)

Here is my THEORY. If you were to stand perfectly still outside the window you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. However, if you move your head, by interpreting the patterns of sound your purely directionless ears pick up, your brain is able to partially reconstruct some of the directional information that you cannot hear directly, and so synthesize at least a sense of "three dimensional sound".... which is going to be far different when the source is multiple instruments with different launch patterns than when it is a small number of speakers at fixed locations.

One way to test this experimentally would be to see it the ability to tell the difference between a live band and a reproduction played through speakers "collapses" when the listener is unable to move their head. (Compare the experience of someone with their head clamped in a "dentist chair" to someone free to move around.) 



Phronesis said:


> My sense is that the main difference between live sound versus recordings played back on sound systems is in the acoustics, with respect to how we localize sounds, attenuation of frequencies, etc. to construct an 'auditory scene'.  The live experience will always be quite different from anything played back on a sound system.  That doesn't mean the sound system can't sound really good, maybe even be rated by a listener as 'better than live', but I just don't think we can replicate the live experience.
> 
> My *guess* is that ultrasonics aren't a significant factor in the perceived difference between live vs sound system (maybe not a factor at all), though I definitely see how it could be tempting to think so, since the high frequencies we can definitely hear (say 5-20 kHz) seem to have a different character live as compared to with sound systems.  There might be a fallacy along the lines: "the difference in highs really matters (true), so maybe the difference in the ultrasonic highs is the last bit that really matters too."


----------



## gargani

Phronesis said:


> To me, this all illustrates that auditory perception is quite complex, and we can't really isolate it from other senses.  Humans evolved to take in information in a multisensory way, not to listen to IEMs.
> 
> I think this very much applies to music listening and enjoyment also.  Two examples:
> 
> ...


There's a saying that I've heard. I can't remember if it was a singer or a musician; but it was used to describe the audience's perception of a  performance: "The better you look, the better you sound. "


----------



## bigshot (Dec 12, 2018)

james444 said:


> It's hard to hear something as low as 15Hz as a tone, if you just listen to that single frequency. But if you start at, say, 30Hz and decrease the frequency step by step, you can discern the pitch change quite easily.



That's interesting. Can you hum the tone at a higher pitch and figure out what the musical note is? I can't do that with anything anywhere close to that frequency. Down low, I can detect a difference between one frequency and another, but not the musical pitch. Are you a musician or do you have perfect pitch? That might explain it.

In any case, frequencies that low probably don't exist at audible levels in most recorded music. I think a pipe organ is the only instrument that goes that low. And the main benefit of sound that low in movies is to create the kinesthetic thump in your chest along with explosions and stuff like that. You wouldn't get that at all with IEMs. I find with my subwoofer, the main purpose of super low frequencies is to just provide a rumble or thump. It gets the air vibrating so you can feel it. It's more feeling than hearing. Perhaps when you eliminate the air and space with IEMs you can discern sub bass frequencies a bit better. (I don't have IEMs, so I don't know.)

Maybe when the 20Hz figure was established they were talking about sound conducted through space in a room. They hadn't considered piping the sound directly into the ear canal.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> I'm kind of looking at all this from the opposite direction.
> 
> Most people I know agree that, even if you're standing on the sidewalk, listening through an open window, you can usually tell the difference between a live band playing and a recording. And I find the distinction to be especially vivid when someone inside the room whacks the cymbals really hard. Therefore, clearly, we are _FAR_ from able to make a recording that accurately replicates the live performance.



I disagree. I have had many occasions  that someone thinks a person is playing when they can't see in the room the sound is coming from. Most of the time you know it is not a live performance. If I have the front door open you are pretty sure the Stones are not rehearsing in my living room, you are also sure a orchestra will not fit. If you are playing a recording of a rehearsal or play back of recording that is unfamiliar to the listener and at realistic SPL it does not even need to be that good of full range loudspeaker to fool people. I have also walked out of my door thinking two houses down is playing the stereo pretty loud to see no there is a few people on porch playing.


----------



## Phronesis

dprimary said:


> I disagree. I have had many occasions  that someone thinks a person is playing when they can't see in the room the sound is coming from. Most of the time you know it is not a live performance. If I have the front door open you are pretty sure the Stones are not rehearsing in my living room, you are also sure a orchestra will not fit. If you are playing a recording of a rehearsal or play back of recording that is unfamiliar to the listener and at realistic SPL it does not even need to be that good of full range loudspeaker to fool people. I have also walked out of my door thinking two houses down is playing the stereo pretty loud to see no there is a few people on porch playing.



Could be that people just vary in this respect.  I can almost always tell when music in my environment is live, but my wife can't tell nearly as accurately.  _However_, an alternate hypothesis is that I'm discerning the difference more based on the quality of the music performance rather than the sound.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> In any case, frequencies that low probably don't exist at audible levels in most recorded music. I think a pipe organ is the only instrument that goes that low. And the main benefit of sound that low in movies is to create the kinesthetic thump in your chest along with explosions and stuff like that.



This is not quite right.  All transients (drum hits in particular) contain all frequencies from DC to infinity, to the extent that they resemble a true zero-duration/Dirac impulse.  So the less highpass filtering (or... any filtering at all) you have, the better transients will be, generally speaking.  Now, there are good reasons to highpass stuff and it's not unusual for a recording to be highpassed either... but it's not as if there's no point to reproducing frequencies below the lowest musical note's fundamental frequency.


----------



## bigshot

dprimary said:


> I have had many occasions  that someone thinks a person is playing when they can't see in the room the sound is coming from. Most of the time you know it is not a live performance. If I have the front door open you are pretty sure the Stones are not rehearsing in my living room, you are also sure a orchestra will not fit. If you are playing a recording of a rehearsal or play back of recording that is unfamiliar to the listener and at realistic SPL it does not even need to be that good of full range loudspeaker to fool people. I have also walked out of my door thinking two houses down is playing the stereo pretty loud to see no there is a few people on porch playing.



Back in the teens when recording was in its infancy, Thomas Edison would conduct blind "Tone Tests" in vaudeville theaters. The test consisted of a singer on stage singing a song. The lights would go out making the whole theater pitch black. When the lights came on, the singer would be gone and an Edison Laboratory model C-19 would be singing the song. During the blackout, they would switch off in a pause between verses. Contemporary reports were all favorable. People were astonished that a phonograph could exactly duplicate a human voice.

The problem with discerning live from "Memorex" depends more on the directionality of the sound than it does the fidelity. The horn of a phonograph was very close to the way a human voice projects. The Edison engineers would position the horn so it lined up closely with the singer, so when it handed off, the directionality wouldn't change. The natural acoustics of the vaudeville theater would wrap the same acoustic around the phonograph that it did around the singer. The wall reflections and reverb were all identical because the recording was dry, just like the voice.

I've heard that some antique phonograph fans have recreated Edison Tone Tests and have gotten similar results.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] In my own area of engineering, our models are usually not as good as models based on circuit theory, but the assumptions based on Newtonian mechanics are effectively treated as being certain and we lose no sleep over that.
> [2] With audio, it's when we bring listeners and perception into the models, as with any type of listening test, that things get messy and the effects of even very tiny differences in gear wind up introducing a sliver of uncertainty and open the door to debates.



1. Yep, Newtonian mechanics is another good example of theory that's since been refined but except in extreme circumstances we can treat it as if it were certain. The work of Fourier (for example) we can treat as even more certain because in nearly 200 years it hasn't even needed any refinement.

2. True but things only get messy to an extent, we can still end up with a high degree of certainty. For example, an average fit 20 year old could probably run 100m in 15-20 seconds and 11-13 secs with training, the ultimate human achievement so far is 9.58 seconds but that's still rather messy, it maybe possible to achieve 9.5, even 9.0 might be possible, although it seems rather unlikely. But what about 0.95 secs, can't we effectively treat that with a "certainly" of not possible or what about 0.009 secs? To use KeithEmo's analogy, how about someone lifting 300 tons or 3000 tons? We can easily measure the difference between two cables (for example) and those differences are in the order of a hundred to a thousand times smaller than anyone had ever demonstrated the ability to detect. Are we to believe an audiophile is performing the auditory equivalent of running 100m in 0.09secs or can lift 300 tons? Or, do we treat it as a certainty that they're not hearing what they believe they're hearing? 
With ultrasonics we have a different scenario but effectively the same end result. We know that under certain circumstances some people can hear above 20kHz but what if we deliberately screw-up those circumstances, so instead of say a pure 22kHz tone at 110dBSPL we give them a 110dB fundamental at say 4kHz with a full complement of harmonics, including a high order (22kHz) harmonic that's 100-10,000 times lower in level than the (110dB) fundamental and many times lower than the other harmonics, what do you think would happen? First of all, we couldn't even run that test, it would be too uncomfortable/painful, we'd have to lower the level by around ten times! But even if we could, we already know no one has ever demonstrated the ability to hear even a pure 22kHz tone at only 70dB (let alone at 30dB) but in the presence of a far higher level fundamental and set of harmonics, it would be like asking Usain Bolt to run 100m in 9.58 seconds, in a sack race! Do we not have something we can treat as a certainty here? And let's not forget, this isn't just theory, I and countless other engineers have tested this. 



KeithEmo said:


> Therefore, my assertion is simply "something isn't perfect yet" - so let's find out what it is.



Why, what's the point, when we already know "what it is" and have done for at least 6 decades?

G


----------



## bigshot (Dec 12, 2018)

Zapp_Fan said:


> This is not quite right.  All transients (drum hits in particular) contain all frequencies from DC to infinity, to the extent that they resemble a true zero-duration/Dirac impulse.  So the less highpass filtering (or... any filtering at all) you have, the better transients will be, generally speaking.  Now, there are good reasons to highpass stuff and it's not unusual for a recording to be highpassed either... but it's not as if there's no point to reproducing frequencies below the lowest musical note's fundamental frequency.



I can see that being true of a great big tympani drum, but would the standard kick drum in a rock group put out significant levels down at 15Hz too?

I'm not looking at the theory here. I'm looking at typical music. What kind of music would have a lot of sub 20Hz content? I've played a lot with my equalizers and to me, it seems like most recorded music doesn't have a lot below 40Hz, much less as low as 15Hz. Most bass I find is between around 50Hz and 200Hz. I've found that it's rare to find anything in recorded music that goes down much lower than 40Hz. I imagine it's there in theory, but it isn't at an audible volume over the rest of the drum hit.

I realize I'm generalizing here. I'm just trying to understand where this all fits in the real world. Maybe there's a kind of music where sub bass is important and I'm just not aware of it.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Dec 12, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I can see that being true of a great big tympani drum, but would the standard kick drum in a rock group put out significant levels down at 15Hz too?
> 
> I'm not looking at the theory here. I'm looking at typical music. What kind of music would have a lot of sub 20Hz content? I've played a lot with my equalizers and to me, it seems like most recorded music doesn't have a lot below 40Hz, much less as low as 15Hz. Most bass I find is between around 50Hz and 200Hz. I've found that it's rare to find anything in recorded music that goes down much lower than 40Hz. I imagine it's there in theory, but it isn't at an audible volume over the rest of the drum hit.
> 
> I realize I'm generalizing here. I'm just trying to understand where this all fits in the real world. Maybe there's a kind of music where sub bass is important and I'm just not aware of it.



Technically, yes, in theory all transients include energy down to DC, although again it depends to what extent the attack of the drum hit resembles a "true" impulse.  And, it won't be very easy to detect since it's transient in nature, so I think the difference would be feeling that the bass drum's attack was slightly 'fuller' or stronger somehow, but in terms of the color of the transient (meaning, as far as you can hear it) the effect will be pretty iffy at best. It's not that you would notice it as distinct from the rest of the drum hit, it's just a component of the character of the first few miliseconds of the drum hit.  Most of the decay of a bass drum is usually (as you note) somewhere in the 40+ range and usually more like 60-100.

Counter-intuitively, the most infrasound will be in the "click" portion of the bass (or other) drum attack, which will sound louder / stronger with them... if it sounds different at all.  The drum won't be resonating at infrasound frequencies, so the presence of 0-20hz content is over very quickly and only contributes to the transient portion of the waveform.

In the time domain this will pretty much just show up as a higher peak on the attack of the bass drum... and only if the infrasound was really captured in the first place, which is not assured by any means. 

To put it another way, you can't represent a true impulse (i.e. the sharp attack of any instrument, glockenspiels to tympanis) in the frequency domain if you're missing frequencies, because a theoretical impulse has infinite bandwidth and zero duration.  IMO some drum hits are close enough to true impulses that you might want to keep subsonics just for the sake of realism, but on the other hand, I think many engineers (sensibly) filter those out to avoid screwing up other more important things.  I think if you have a recording with lots of infrasound in it, it's most likely to be rumble from various things moving around and will only serve as a mysterious source of distortion.

It's another somewhat academic distinction, but I would say compared to ultrasound, infrasound has a massively better chance of affecting your listening experience.  But as always with extreme cases, many planets have to align properly for the effect to matter.


----------



## james444

Zapp_Fan said:


> If I jack up the output of my headphone amp, a lot of IEMs can create some perceptible effect at 15hz.  To me it basically sounds like a rapid flapping / whooshing noise.  I think it's actually just periodic pressurization of my ear canal and not what might be (if any such sound can be) perceived as a tone.
> 
> I think 20hz is a practical lower limit because it's roughly the threshold where most things stop sounding like continuous tones and start sounding like periodic distinct sonic events.



Of course it's periodic pressurization of the ear canal, because IEMs form a direct coupling to the eardrum. As frequency gets lower, pressurization cycles decrease and you start noticing individual cycles, much like your vision starts noticing individual frames as you decrease the frame rate of a video. Personally, I have to go up as high as 40Hz until things really start sounding like continuous tones.

Still, I hear these low frequencies as tones, not noise. Just not as smooth, continuous tones. And I can easily tell that 15Hz is lower than 20Hz, which I couldn't, if both were just perceived as different forms of noise.



bigshot said:


> That's interesting. Can you hum the tone at a higher pitch and figure out what the musical note is? I can't do that with anything anywhere close to that frequency. Down low, I can detect a difference between one frequency and another, but not the musical pitch. Are you a musician or do you have perfect pitch? That might explain it.



See above. No, I can't. But I can distinguish these frequencies from noise, and I can tell which one of two given frequencies is lower or higher.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

james444 said:


> Still, I hear these low frequencies as tones, not noise. Just not as smooth, continuous tones. And I can easily tell that 15Hz is lower than 20Hz, which I couldn't, if both were just perceived as different forms of noise.



This might be an issue of semantics around the word 'tone'.  In my mind, a "tone" needs to be perceived as a unitary and continuous sound.  I would say that 15hz is clearly "slower" than 20hz but not necessarily "higher" because I personally don't get a pitch out of 15hz.  But YMMV of course, honestly I have never bothered to look into perception of tones at the bottom of the spectrum.  I just took 20ms/20hz as a good rule of thumb and moved on with my life.   (20ms = minimum duration needed to perceive a tone vs. just a burst of sound, so they say)


----------



## KeithEmo

That makes sense.... and also note that human voice has a relatively narrow frequency response, so wouldn't strain even the relatively narrow frequency range of an Edison phonograph.

I would also suggest that they were taking advantage of several known human bias mechanisms. 

First off, we humans have a strong tendency to assign things to known and familiar categories. For example, we are all familiar with the saying about "when you hear hooves, you think horses, and not zebras". What nobody even bothers to mention is that you don't even consider ten legged robots wearing horseshoes. Instead you choose from among things you are familiar with. When the Edison phonograph was debuted very few people had ever experienced a machine that could reproduce human voice. Therefore, when hearing human voice, everyone assumed they were listening to a human singing. Since most of the participants had never experienced any other source of human voice, when they heard a human voice, they were essentially faced with the single option of assuming that they were listening to a human. And, having made that choice, they then became biased to notice details that tended to support that choice, and to tend not to notice details that were dissonant with it.

From their point of view, they _never_ actually even evaluated the situation. What they experienced was a human singer they could see, followed by "something they couldn't see that sounded very much like the human singer". They had no specific reason to suspect that the human singer was no longer singing, and they had no experience whatsoever with anything that might have served as a replacement, therefore, based on that knowledge, the only logical conclusion was that "'the singer was still singing". They essentially had no compelling reason to doubt that, no compelling reason to consider alternatives, and no alternatives to consider even if they had wanted to. 

If you or I were to hear an Edison recording today, we would notice all sorts of minor discrepancies, like noise, and speed variations, and even the occasional tick or pop, which to us would represent obvious clues that we were listening to a flawed recording. However, consider someone who had never heard those sorts of flaws before, and furthermore had already decided that they were listening to a human performer. 

All of those discrepancies that we would take as obvious clues that we were listening to a recording would have little or no similar meaning for them. To them, that noise might sound like slightly noisy steam heat, the speed variations could be a slightly odd mannerism of the performer, and the ticks and pops might represent noises made by machinery backstage, or by someone in the audience dropping something. However, because we are familiar with recording technology, and the sorts of flaws common in older recording equipment, we would take them as "obvious clues" that we had switched over to a recording.

They would have been "thoroughly primed" to think they were listening to a human singer.
And they would have no experience whatsoever with the clues that might indicate a mechanical reproduction.
Therefore they would have no reason to suspect that the singer had been replaced.

Or, to put it another way, since they had never heard a phonograph before, they had had no opportunity to learn how to tell the difference between a phonograph and a human performer. And, because of that lack or training, they simply overlooked the clues that would have been obvious to a trained observer.

(One might imagine that an aborigine who was totally unfamiliar with modern technology might run screaming from a black and white video of an attacking lion - because, to him, the similarity of the experience to actually being attacked by a lion would far outweigh the differences... and the differences which would be obvious to us would have no clear meaning to him. And, if you asked him later, he would probably reply that the black and white two dimensional moving image "looked pretty much like a real lion to him" and "he had no reason to suspect it wasn't a real lion".) 



bigshot said:


> Back in the teens when recording was in its infancy, Thomas Edison would conduct blind "Tone Tests" in vaudeville theaters. The test consisted of a singer on stage singing a song. The lights would go out making the whole theater pitch black. When the lights came on, the singer would be gone and an Edison Laboratory model C-19 would be singing the song. During the blackout, they would switch off in a pause between verses. Contemporary reports were all favorable. People were astonished that a phonograph could exactly duplicate a human voice.
> 
> The problem with discerning live from "Memorex" depends more on the directionality of the sound than it does the fidelity. The horn of a phonograph was very close to the way a human voice projects. The Edison engineers would position the horn so it lined up closely with the singer, so when it handed off, the directionality wouldn't change. The natural acoustics of the vaudeville theater would wrap the same acoustic around the phonograph that it did around the singer. The wall reflections and reverb were all identical because the recording was dry, just like the voice.
> 
> I've heard that some antique phonograph fans have recreated Edison Tone Tests and have gotten similar results.


----------



## gargani

bigshot said:


> Some interesting stuff about the psychology of self justification.
> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link to that article. Very interesting. It basically justified the belief I already held, about people holding on to beliefs regardless of strong evidence to the contrary.


----------



## james444

Zapp_Fan said:


> This might be an issue of semantics around the word 'tone'.  In my mind, a "tone" needs to be perceived as a unitary and continuous sound.  I would say that 15hz is clearly "slower" than 20hz but not necessarily "higher" because I personally don't get a pitch out of 15hz.  But YMMV of course, honestly I have never bothered to look into perception of tones at the bottom of the spectrum.  I just took 20ms/20hz as a good rule of thumb and moved on with my life.   (20ms = minimum duration needed to perceive a tone vs. just a burst of sound, so they say)



Agreed, but imho semantics isn't important in that context anyway. This started out as a discussion on human hearing range, and regardless of whether we hear 15Hz as "tone" or just a "burst of sound", it's definitely something we can hear with IEMs.


KeithEmo said:


> For example, I keep reading, over and over again, how "human hearing extends from 20 Hz to 20 kHz".
> But, a few months ago, I read that, under certain lab conditions, it has been _PROVEN_ that 10 Hz is audible.
> Several studies are also underway in the EU about how "subsonic sounds" from wind farms affect people.
> Therefore, what can I logically conclude, except that the oft-quoted "20 Hz to 20 kHz" range is wrong after all?
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm not seeing the comparison here.....

The fastest human runner in 1860 could run a mile in about 4:45
Today the fastest runner can do it in just under 3:43

The land speed record for wheeled vehicles is 7.5x as fast today as the record in 1905.

And we now know that the lower frequency limit for hearing is 12 Hz and not the previously believed 20 Hz.
(And that's presumably just due to limits or errors in previous experiments.)

Considering that 30 kHz is only 50% above 20 kHz...
And we already know that some people can hear beyond 20 kHz...
It just doesn't seem especially unlikely to me.

Personally, I don't know either way...
I just can't figure out how some other people can be so absolutely positively sure...

If it makes you happier I will "concede" that it probably doesn't matter much.
(But that still falls short of being able to call it a certainty... sorry.)



gregorio said:


> 1. Yep, Newtonian mechanics is another good example of theory that's since been refined but except in extreme circumstances we can treat it as if it were certain. The work of Fourier (for example) we can treat as even more certain because in nearly 200 years it hasn't even needed any refinement.
> 
> 2. True but things only get messy to an extent, we can still end up with a high degree of certainty. For example, an average fit 20 year old could probably run 100m in 15-20 seconds and 11-13 secs with training, the ultimate human achievement so far is 9.58 seconds but that's still rather messy, it maybe possible to achieve 9.5, even 9.0 might be possible, although it seems rather unlikely. But what about 0.95 secs, can't we effectively treat that with a "certainly" of not possible or what about 0.009 secs? To use KeithEmo's analogy, how about someone lifting 300 tons or 3000 tons? We can easily measure the difference between two cables (for example) and those differences are in the order of a hundred to a thousand times smaller than anyone had ever demonstrated the ability to detect. Are we to believe an audiophile is performing the auditory equivalent of running 100m in 0.09secs or can lift 300 tons? Or, do we treat it as a certainty that they're not hearing what they believe they're hearing?
> With ultrasonics we have a different scenario but effectively the same end result. We know that under certain circumstances some people can hear above 20kHz but what if we deliberately screw-up those circumstances, so instead of say a pure 22kHz tone at 110dBSPL we give them a 110dB fundamental at say 4kHz with a full complement of harmonics, including a high order (22kHz) harmonic that's 100-10,000 times lower in level than the (110dB) fundamental and many times lower than the other harmonics, what do you think would happen? First of all, we couldn't even run that test, it would be too uncomfortable/painful, we'd have to lower the level by around ten times! But even if we could, we already know no one has ever demonstrated the ability to hear even a pure 22kHz tone at only 70dB (let alone at 30dB) but in the presence of a far higher level fundamental and set of harmonics, it would be like asking Usain Bolt to run 100m in 9.58 seconds, in a sack race! Do we not have something we can treat as a certainty here? And let's not forget, this isn't just theory, I and countless other engineers have tested this.
> ...


----------



## bigshot

gargani said:


> Thanks for the link to that article. Very interesting. It basically justified the belief I already held.



Ha! I saw what you did there! Good one!


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] The fastest human runner in 1860 could run a mile in about 4:45. Today the fastest runner can do it in just under 3:43
> [2] The land speed record for wheeled vehicles is 7.5x as fast today as the record in 1905.
> [3] And we now know that the lower frequency limit for hearing is 12 Hz and not the previously believed 20 Hz.
> (And that's presumably just due to limits or errors in previous experiments.)
> ...



1. There's no evidence to suggest that training can increase hearing freq response (as it clearly does with athletics).
2. Are you a wheeled vehicle?
3. We don't "know" that and ascertaining low freq response is a completely different issue to ultrasonic response.
4. Only 50%, maybe it will only take us a million years to evolve only a 50% increase?
5. No, there is no evidence that people can hear beyond 20kHz with musical content, plenty against though.
6. Without any evidence, what seems especially unlikely to you is not relevant to this thread or this forum.
7. Firstly, a lack of evidence despite decades of looking for some. Secondly, tons of evidence against and Lastly, the range of adult hearing and the levels of ultrasonic content in music makes it illogical that it could be audible, unless we've got something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of hearing and again, there's no evidence of that. I can't figure out how some people aren't sure!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

That's an interesting question..... and it would apply specifically to a single impulse.

If you watch the kick drum, you'll see the drumhead move a clearly visible fraction of an inch in the forward direction when the beater hits it.
If you equate that to a 24" subwoofer moving a half inch it's clearly a significant amount of energy in one pulse.
And, considering that the drumhead and the beater are both pretty heavy, and moving relatively slowly, I would assume a significant portion of it is at a very low frequency.

Descriptions of the frequency spectrum of bass drums vary widely - and many state "as low as 20 Hz" - while many also seem to consider 30 Hz as the lowest common fundamental.
However, nobody seems to rate the energy in terms of what's present in the single starting impulse rather that what's present in the oscillation that follows it.
If we include things like those enormous Japanese Taiko drums, then I would assume that at least some go far lower.
At least some few pipe organs include one or more 16 Hz pipes.
Considering how much trouble most older speakers, and vinyl cutting lathes, have with such low frequencies, I suspect they are often deliberately filtered out. 

I would note that most digital recording equipment has no trouble whatsoever with even extremely low frequencies.
However, vinyl records, and record equipment, have a lot of trouble with very low frequencies.
(Low frequencies take up a lot of track space, risk exciting mechanical resonances in the turntable and tonearm, and a lot of vinyl equipment has a deliberate low-frequency roll off to reduce rumble and record warp.)
Many speakers, especially before subwoofers became common, also had trouble with very low frequencies (excessive cone movement and very little output).
I believe many tape decks also have trouble with very low frequencies (because tape heads are inductors) - but I could be wrong there.
This suggests several reasons why many recordings, and especially older ones, probably limit their very low frequency response.)



bigshot said:


> I can see that being true of a great big tympani drum, but would the standard kick drum in a rock group put out significant levels down at 15Hz too?
> 
> I'm not looking at the theory here. I'm looking at typical music. What kind of music would have a lot of sub 20Hz content? I've played a lot with my equalizers and to me, it seems like most recorded music doesn't have a lot below 40Hz, much less as low as 15Hz. Most bass I find is between around 50Hz and 200Hz. I've found that it's rare to find anything in recorded music that goes down much lower than 40Hz. I imagine it's there in theory, but it isn't at an audible volume over the rest of the drum hit.
> 
> I realize I'm generalizing here. I'm just trying to understand where this all fits in the real world. Maybe there's a kind of music where sub bass is important and I'm just not aware of it.


----------



## gargani

james444 said:


> Ermm, I can simply stick in a pair of halfway decent in-ear monitors and fire up a tone generator:
> http://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/
> 
> - 20Hz: easily heard / felt at normal listening levels.
> ...





james444 said:


> Ermm, I can simply stick in a pair of halfway decent in-ear monitors and fire up a tone generator:
> http://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/
> 
> - 20Hz: easily heard / felt at normal listening levels.
> ...


Just tried this test with audeze lcd2c headphones. The lowest tone I could reliably hear was 22hz. The highest frequency I could hear was 14khz. (just barely).


----------



## Phronesis

Seems that some of the debate around here is about whether something is possible, likely, very likely, almost certain, or essentially certain.  Which category something falls in will often be a matter of judgment, and perhaps it's best to just accept that people will reach different conclusions based on their judgment.  It's often not possible to convince someone that their judgment on something is incorrect by presenting arguments, because judgment is largely intuitive rather than based mostly on arguments.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

KeithEmo said:


> This suggests several reasons why many recordings, and especially older ones, probably limit their very low frequency response.)



Two other reasons: Lots of energy in subsonic frequencies being present in the mix throws off compressors / limiters in that they will change output based on inaudible stuff.  It can also cause clipping in a digital file by increasing the total signal amplitude without increasing the audible content, so you lose headroom for no reason.  Both good practical reasons to roll off the ultra-low stuff. 

Also, if you feed a speaker a loud 8hz tone, it may try to reproduce it, and use up a lot of wattage to no avail.  It might even break.  So given that it's a good assumption that the average listener is not going to effectively reproduce anything under 20hz, and that giving them lower frequencies might be harmful, you may reasonably remove those frequencies from the recording. 

It would be very difficult to know if this has been done to a recording or not.  If you look at transients it's pretty hard to get a spectrograph to resolve those low frequencies ... in fact I'm not sure if the math even works that way.


----------



## gargani

bigshot said:


> Ha! I saw what you did there! Good one!





bigshot said:


> Ha! I saw what you did there! Good one!


Ha, Ha; you got it!


----------



## old tech

Phronesis said:


> My sense is that the main difference between live sound versus recordings played back on sound systems is in the acoustics, with respect to how we localize sounds, attenuation of frequencies, etc. to construct an 'auditory scene'.  The live experience will always be quite different from anything played back on a sound system.  That doesn't mean the sound system can't sound really good, maybe even be rated by a listener as 'better than live', but I just don't think we can replicate the live experience.



All that is true and the other major factor is that we are still stuck with transducers - eg mikes, speakers and in the case of analog recording/playback, a whole series of them.

Because the purpose of transducers is to convert one form of energy into another, there will always be losses.  Even with the best digital equipment we are still stuck with mikes and speakers.


----------



## KeithEmo

Unfortunately most spectrograms are Fourier based and take a few seconds to resolve information at low frequencies....

It seems like you should be able to look at the actual waveform and confirm that the initial "bump" is positive going (the drum head moves forward first)...
And, if it's a clean half of a sine wave, you could get a read on that frequency by marking the two zero crossings and calculating the frequency from there...
However, there's a good chance that this will have been lost somewhere along the signal path and not be that clear...
(And, if that's the case, then it probably doesn't matter anyway.)

I would ASSUME that most recordings have been high-pass filtered at 15 Hz or so... if not higher... to protect speakers...
And, likewise, anything on vinyl will have been high-passed, either before being pressed to avoid super-wide tracks and resonance issues with the turntable...
Or after being played, either by an explicit rumble or warp filter, or by a quite reasonable low-frequency cutoff applied to the boost in the RIAA EQ.
As you say, very low frequencies will eat up power, and be quite dangerous to speakers, especially those with tuned ports.

Also, from what I've read, it seems widely agreed that it is the upper harmonics that impart the actual sound character to most drums.
So, as long as there's "some punch left", nobody is trying very hard to reproduce very low frequencies there anyway...
(From a practical point of view, rolling off the super-low frequencies, while boosting frequencies around 50 Hz or so, will make the sound seem "punchier" - and use less power.)



Zapp_Fan said:


> Two other reasons: Lots of energy in subsonic frequencies being present in the mix throws off compressors / limiters in that they will change output based on inaudible stuff.  It can also cause clipping in a digital file by increasing the total signal amplitude without increasing the audible content, so you lose headroom for no reason.  Both good practical reasons to roll off the ultra-low stuff.
> 
> Also, if you feed a speaker a loud 8hz tone, it may try to reproduce it, and use up a lot of wattage to no avail.  It might even break.  So given that it's a good assumption that the average listener is not going to effectively reproduce anything under 20hz, and that giving them lower frequencies might be harmful, you may reasonably remove those frequencies from the recording.
> 
> It would be very difficult to know if this has been done to a recording or not.  If you look at transients it's pretty hard to get a spectrograph to resolve those low frequencies ... in fact I'm not sure if the math even works that way.


----------



## bigshot

The way to get closer to live sound is a balanced response and more channels to create a defined sound field and directionality. Inaudible or fringe frequencies and lower noise floors won't get you any closer.


----------



## castleofargh

a few opinions in a box:
- a huge concept in science is disproving things, not proving them. but still, when *what's falsifiable* resisted our best attempts to disprove it, our confidence sometimes increases to the point where something is simply a fact. how that happens depends on circumstances and statistics and whatever else, but it happens a lot. we can't just somehow turn all that is known as a maybe for the sake of sticking to the purest notion of science. that IMO isn't science at all. let's just take situations where what's happening can only have a known number of causes, disproving all but one of those possibilities gives us certainty. of course we need to first be sure that we're not forgetting extra possibilities, but that again will be a matter of circumstance, not a matter of philosophy. it's good to keep an eye for our mistakes and what we could have missed, that certainly is very important in science, but so are facts!

- for the few posts discussing how something in playback doesn't sound like the real instrument/event(cymbals?), as a reason to consider the lack of ultrasounds or a few other stuff missing from a recording as perhaps being the cause of that feeling. I'd like to remind you that almost no recordings are trying to be a faithful reproduction of an acoustic event. then obviously there are all the imperfections of our playback system. even more so when we're in a forum about headphones, expecting the experience to be identical on headphones is but a dream. and almost nobody is even trying, as seen by how audiophile are happy to use albums mastered for speakers and keep hating DSPs in all forms(except all those used without them knowing, then they're fine and the sound is good ^_^). 

- about testing something like 15hz ourselves with headphones and IEMs, I honestly don't know if that can be called conclusive. well it can show that we're perceiving something, but is that something the 15hz sound or various consequences of it? IDK. I checked a few IEMs and perceiving 15Hz is no problem even at my usual listening levels I can still somehow perceive a tiny something even on those rolling off a bunch. but funnily enough, despite bothering to then calibrate each one to have the 15hz tone at about 85dB SPL, I subjectively thought I could notice it better on some IEMs than others. otherwise, in general I start getting a tone a little above 20Hz, below is more of a shaking and my sensitivity goes down really fast below 15hz.
I thought I was super smart and assumed I was noticing more on the IEMs with high harmonics, but turns out that one of those I notice most shows really low THD(on my measurements) and even trying to look for something with the RTA while sending 20 or 15Hz, I couldn't see anything suspicious. so I'm not sure if it might have to do with how stuck the IEM is in my ear, or maybe how heavy they are so they wobble with the signal? or probably more likely, how good a seal I end up getting in my ear with each? IDK. I now have way more questions than I had when I decided to spend half an hours fooling around with IEMs. my Fiio EX1 are as vented as it gets and I perceive 15Hz super clearly @85dB SPL. but then the level was measured vented from the start. so despite now knowing that I don't need solid occlusion to feel 15Hz, that doesn't exclude that I might get a different seal in my coupler when I calibrate the levels compared to in my own ears. in conclusion, IDK and as often, I have more questions after my tests than before. ^_^


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> a few opinions in a box:
> - a huge concept in science is disproving things, not proving them. but still, when *what's falsifiable* resisted our best attempts to disprove it, our confidence sometimes increases to the point where something is simply a fact. how that happens depends on circumstances and statistics and whatever else, but it happens a lot. we can't just somehow turn all that is known as a maybe for the sake of sticking to the purest notion of science. that IMO isn't science at all. let's just take situations where what's happening can only have a known number of causes, disproving all but one of those possibilities gives us certainty. of course we need to first be sure that we're not forgetting extra possibilities, but that again will be a matter of circumstance, not a matter of philosophy. it's good to keep an eye for our mistakes and what we could have missed, that certainly is very important in science, but so are facts!
> 
> - for the few posts discussing how something in playback doesn't sound like the real instrument/event(cymbals?), as a reason to consider the lack of ultrasounds or a few other stuff missing from a recording as perhaps being the cause of that feeling. I'd like to remind you that almost no recordings are trying to be a faithful reproduction of an acoustic event. then obviously there are all the imperfections of our playback system. even more so when we're in a forum about headphones, expecting the experience to be identical on headphones is but a dream. and almost nobody is even trying, as seen by how audiophile are happy to use albums mastered for speakers and keep hating DSPs in all forms(except all those used without them knowing, then they're fine and the sound is good ^_^).
> ...




Almost ? 

Never caught a rabbit.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> a few opinions in a box:
> - a huge concept in science is disproving things, not proving them. but still, when *what's falsifiable* resisted our best attempts to disprove it, our confidence sometimes increases to the point where something is simply a fact. how that happens depends on circumstances and statistics and whatever else, but it happens a lot. we can't just somehow turn all that is known as a maybe for the sake of sticking to the purest notion of science. that IMO isn't science at all. let's just take situations where what's happening can only have a known number of causes, disproving all but one of those possibilities gives us certainty. of course we need to first be sure that we're not forgetting extra possibilities, but that again will be a matter of circumstance, not a matter of philosophy. it's good to keep an eye for our mistakes and what we could have missed, that certainly is very important in science, but so are facts!



The problem with calling things 'facts' is that they become assumed to be absolutely proven truths.  Philosophically, I don't think we can get there.  And sometimes 'facts' later turn out to not be facts after all. 

But if we say 'facts' are more like 'things which have, relative to a belief system, been found to be consistently accurate, and consistently never inaccurate, based on a large range of experience, or can be logically derived from such things, and therefore can be assumed to be true in practice', then I'd be ok with saying there's such a things as facts.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 12, 2018)

I'm wondering if the ability to "hear" 15Hz with IEMs has something to do with the proximity of the transducer to the inner ear and the seal bottling up the vibrations. Maybe the rumble caused by the low wavelength in close contact with our inner ear makes something inside our ears "rattle" and creates audible low frequency distortion in our ears. I know my subwoofer is rated to 14Hz or something like that, and I've heard it go low enough that it's just a vibration that can be felt in the air, not a sound that can be actually heard. It could also be that it takes far less energy to create sub bass sealed in your ear canal than it does to fill a room with it. Perhaps the energy dissipates fast. Or maybe in free space the waves are as long as a truck and start bouncing off the walls and breaking up. Not sure. I'll think about it. It's an interesting observation.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 12, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> That is an excellent point.
> 
> There is a huge gap between when our sensory organs detect inputs and when our brains perceive something. This is especially complex when we talk about music because the connections themselves are quite complex. For example, when you hear a violin, what does your brain "perceive"?
> 
> ...



I'm actually taking it further, viewing perception as mental rather than physical.  Which raises a standard problem in philosophy, the problem of consciousness - how something non-physical (mind) can be linked with something physical (brain and body).  I don't know the answer, no one else has figured out the answer, and I have some doubt that we humans can figure it out.  Scientists try to work with 'neural correlates of consciousness' (NCCs), but they're only correlates, not the thing itself.

It can be argued that this takes us beyond science (I think it does), but if people are talking about 'what they hear' and 'what sounds good' and 'it sounds different' and 'it sounds the same', that's all mental perception stuff, and we somehow need to tie that back to physical sound and gear in a meaningful way.  And I do think the philosophical perspective can have some practical value here, because if we look at the 'phenomenology of perception', by studying the character of perception as we subjectively experience it, that can provide some suggestions on how to select NCCs and design experiments based on them.

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

In _Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness_ (1995), Chalmers wrote:[3]

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.​
I have some further thoughts on all of this which I'll elaborate later.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I'm wondering if the ability to "hear" 15Hz with IEMs has something to do with the proximity of the transducer to the inner ear and the seal bottling up the vibrations. Maybe the rumble caused by the low wavelength in close contact with our inner ear makes something inside our ears "rattle" and creates audible low frequency distortion in our ears. I know my subwoofer is rated to 14Hz or something like that, and I've heard it go low enough that it's just a vibration that can be felt in the air, not a sound that can be actually heard. It could also be that it takes far less energy to create sub bass sealed in your ear canal than it does to fill a room with it. Perhaps the energy dissipates fast. Not sure. I'll think about it. It's an interesting observation.



I'm thinking along the same lines, and somewhat skeptical that the ear is actually transducing 15 Hz signals.


----------



## Davesrose

Phronesis said:


> I'm thinking along the same lines, and somewhat skeptical that the ear is actually transducing 15 Hz signals.



The cochlea does have waves that propagate below 20hz (and can stimulate).  They may be part of perception, but are not considered within the range of discriminating pitch.


----------



## james444 (Dec 13, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I'm wondering if the ability to "hear" 15Hz with IEMs has something to do with the proximity of the transducer to the inner ear and the seal bottling up the vibrations. Maybe the rumble caused by the low wavelength in close contact with our inner ear makes something inside our ears "rattle" and creates audible low frequency distortion in our ears. I know my subwoofer is rated to 14Hz or something like that, and I've heard it go low enough that it's just a vibration that can be felt in the air, not a sound that can be actually heard. It could also be that it takes far less energy to create sub bass sealed in your ear canal than it does to fill a room with it. Perhaps the energy dissipates fast. Or maybe in free space the waves are as long as a truck and start bouncing off the walls and breaking up. Not sure. I'll think about it. It's an interesting observation.



Take this with a grain of salt, but afaik, it's because of near-perfect coupling of the moving IEM diaphragm to the eardrum, and as a result much higher efficiency and lower distortion. A subwoofer is vastly less efficient due to high mass of the diaphragm and coil compared to the moved air, so it's easy to imagine the bad coupling. I'd also be interested in a comparison of the usual 1m distance measurements of a sub to ear drum level measurements (haven't found anything like that, afair). I'd expect noticeably higher distortion for ear drum level measurements, which reflect what we actually hear... but that's just my 2c, and I could of course be wrong.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> Almost ?
> 
> Never caught a rabbit.


all right, maybe my wording is too extreme. but what percentage of released albums are in your opinion a work fully focused on reproducing the sound how it was at whatever position for whoever? in the ballpark of 1%? 0.1%? less? if we just start with the choices of mics and where they're placed, I believe that already disqualifies most recordings.




Phronesis said:


> The problem with calling things 'facts' is that they become assumed to be absolutely proven truths.  Philosophically, I don't think we can get there.  And sometimes 'facts' later turn out to not be facts after all.
> 
> But if we say 'facts' are more like 'things which have, relative to a belief system, been found to be consistently accurate, and consistently never inaccurate, based on a large range of experience, or can be logically derived from such things, and therefore can be assumed to be true in practice', then I'd be ok with saying there's such a things as facts.


argh! I won't play dumb even if you make me want to. I get that what you're concerned about are people who declare factual, something that isn't(by mistake or because they don't have the full picture yet). but the way you go about consistently undermining the value or even the reality of facts, that's why I've been mad at you for a long time. like when you wouldn't even accept that of course nobody could perceive crap 250dB below music. when you treated that idea as something inconclusive, it was similar to not being sure if I could jump to touch the space station. it's outrageous to even consider those ideas. right now the earth isn't flat, 2+2=4, and I have 2 ears. all facts. they don't need nor deserve caution about how we don't know everything, how objective reality is a mystery, and how the scientific method doesn't work toward proving things, only disproving them. let's not mistake general concepts and reality. the moment you take an actual fact and downgrade it to uncertain, how is that good for science or the quest for truth?
when something is declared factual and shouldn't, you can react to that specific claim and disprove it with your own data, or ask for the data the person relies on to call it a fact(thank to the glorious burden of proof). if there is no supporting evidence coming, then feel free to dismiss the statement entirely like I do all day long while sitting next to my buddy skepticism. the most elegant solution would of course be that people refrain from making claims without conclusive evidence, but we both know that people are going to make 10 BS claims a day, no matter what.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 13, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> argh! I won't play dumb even if you make me want to. I get that what you're concerned about are people who declare factual, something that isn't(by mistake or because they don't have the full picture yet). but the way you go about consistently undermining the value or even the reality of facts, that's why I've been mad at you for a long time. like when you wouldn't even accept that of course nobody could perceive **** 250dB below music. when you treated that idea as something inconclusive, it was similar to not being sure if I could jump to touch the space station. it's outrageous to even consider those ideas. right now the earth isn't flat, 2+2=4, and I have 2 ears. all facts. they don't need nor deserve caution about how we don't know everything, how objective reality is a mystery, and how the scientific method doesn't work toward proving things, only disproving them. let's not mistake general concepts and reality. the moment you take an actual fact and downgrade it to uncertain, how is that good for science or the quest for truth?
> when something is declared factual and shouldn't, you can react to that specific claim and disprove it with your own data, or ask for the data the person relies on to call it a fact(thank to the glorious burden of proof). if there is no supporting evidence coming, then feel free to dismiss the statement entirely like I do all day long while sitting next to my buddy skepticism. the most elegant solution would of course be that people refrain from making claims without conclusive evidence, but we both know that people are going to make 10 BS claims a day, no matter what.



Nope, we’re talking science, which aims to develop ever better models of reality, so I still say we need a nuanced definition of a fact.

Is it a fact that space and time are absolute and independent dimensions of reality?  Is it a fact that mass is the amount of stuff and is always conserved?  For engineering and designing audio gear, we can adamantly say yes, but relativity theory says it’s erroneous to call them facts in that model.

In engineering surveying, we often treat the earth surface as completely flat, and only if the scale gets a lot bigger do we treat it as curved (is the shape of the earth even constant in relativity theory?).  It’s usually fine and better to say in ordinary life that the earth isn’t moving (do anyone of us feel it moving?), and that the sun goes around it, rather than to constantly visualize the solar system with the sun at the center, the earth on elliptical orbit around it, and the earth spinning.

Facts are always relative to a model, and relative to models, there can be facts.  You just have to accept that you’re working with a model (which is not reality itself), and know which model you’re working with.  You don't need to qualify which model you're using when you say you have two hands, because it will likely be two hands in any model we might choose to use, but lots of audio and perception stuff isn't that straightforward, so we do need to know and state our models (and therefore assumptions) when we talk about 'facts'.

Note the qualified and provisional definition of scientific fact here:

https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

*"Fact:* In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."​And BTW, I didn’t say it was plausible that anyone could hear 250 dB below music, I said that maybe Watts was measuring that number in his gear somewhere, and the resulting gear change made a difference somewhere else that was audible.  I thought we already covered this ad nauseum.


----------



## Phronesis

james444 said:


> Take this with a grain of salt, but afaik, it's because of near-perfect coupling of the moving IEM diaphragm to the eardrum, and as a result much higher efficiency and lower distortion. A subwoofer is vastly less efficient due to high mass of the diaphragm and coil compared to the moved air, so it's easy to imagine the bad coupling. I'd also be interested in a comparison of the usual 1m distance measurements of a sub to ear drum level measurements (haven't found anything like that, afair). I'd expect noticeably higher distortion for ear drum level measurements, which reflect what we actually hear... but that's just my 2c, and I could of course be wrong.



Out of my iPhone speakers, I hear meaningful output down to 30 Hz with the pure tone, and it’s not just a vague flapping sound.  But I don’t see how those tiny speakers can go that low, so I suspect that the speakers are producing harmonics and giving a fake 30 Hz.


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> all right, maybe my wording is too extreme. but what percentage of released albums are in your opinion a work fully focused on reproducing the sound how it was at whatever position for whoever? in the ballpark of 1%? 0.1%? less? if we just start with the choices of mics and where they're placed, I believe that already disqualifies most recordings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree that the overal percentage is LESS than the figures cited.

And that's why I started recording - at 44 of age, I had enough of multimiked stuff to the point a person can not show over his or hers head with extended arm anymore.

I am perfectly OK with multimiking in case of electric instruments that without loudspeakers of one sort or another can not be heard - at least not the way as normally heard on amplified concetrs. Have you ever heard an electric guitar played without being plugged into "something electrical " ? If not, I can tell you it's about the most pathetic sound you are likely to hear coming from a musical  instrument. Here, I agree recording  can be and usually is a form of art all by itself - and it is a VERY creative form of art, allowing the use of methods and gear that are nothing but detrimental in acoustic music recording to a good, often novel approach to sound and music in general. 

When it comes to recording anything acoustical in a decent acoustics place, only then does the term " high fidelity ", " absolute sound ", " "true to the sound heard live" or " ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT "   really come into play. And it is here that ANY timing errors - even in sub microsecond range - become audible.  And that means recording techniques have to mimic the human perception of sound best they can to begin with - way before recording methods come into play. 
To be blunt - a recording on a Sony WMD-6(C) ( a pro walkman cassette recorder ) fed from any simple 2 mic recording technique will trounce any digital recorder fed from mulimiked session mix.

It is much harder to do, as most of the work is BEFORE  the actual music recording - because everything, first and foremost the all important " balance among instruments and voices " ( the term musicians themselves are most frequently using - NOT an objective term in scientific sense ), spatiality, reverb, etc - HAS TO BE DONE IN SITU - and not in the post production that multimiking allows for and leaves an enormous window open for the recording>mastering engineer to manipulate - past any reason, unfortunately in not small percentage of all cases. It does take more time to find that "sweet spot" for both the musicians and the mike - and, since time is money, such recordings can well end up costing more than multimiked sessions, where the formula " we can fix everything in the mix " can be - and usually is -  applied.

It was human wish to fly like a bird ... for how many thousands of years, before the first human made object, heavier than air, actually  took to the air  ? 
How many times it has been said it can not be done, how many times the attempts have failed, many times requiring the ultimate sacrifice ?

Just like with airplanes driven by a piston engine and propeller the maximum speed is limited to approx 800 km/h ( single propeller ) , up to almost 900 km/h ( turboprop, two contra rotating propellers ) , regardless of the motor of the power that drives these propellers, the speeed can not be icreased above that limit - because, once the propeller blade tips approach or reach the speed of sound , the efficiency of the prepeller drops to zero.

It is similar with any attempt to piece together a sound captured with multimiked session. WHICH microphone should be the reference for time ? Whichever is finally asigned, it is WRONG decision.

That's why the binaural can be so good. Good as in being true to the sound as heard by the listener in audience. 
And bad in the extreme for - say - a sahophone player, who would like to have recorded as precise instrument handling as possible - and that means close miking, often with the mic clipped on the sax itself ,preferably  eschewing any room influence. The first can be heard ( or very similar ) by anyone in the audience, the second the sax player alone. 

Which you can relate better to ( asuming you are NOT a sax player ) ? 

It is high time that recordings - or pigs, for that matter - learn to *fly* in correct time frame. Hopefully, it will not be another > two thosand years, before that is first understood, then accepted as normal  -  similar to the frequency response for human hearing from 20Hz - 20kHz is accepted today.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] If you watch the kick drum, you'll see the drumhead move a clearly visible fraction of an inch in the forward direction when the beater hits it. If you equate that to a 24" subwoofer moving a half inch it's clearly a significant amount of energy in one pulse.
> [2] And, considering that the drumhead and the beater are both pretty heavy, and moving relatively slowly, I would assume a significant portion of it is at a very low frequency.
> [3] Descriptions of the frequency spectrum of bass drums vary widely - and many state "as low as 20 Hz" - while many also seem to consider 30 Hz as the lowest common fundamental.
> [4] However, nobody seems to rate the energy in terms of what's present in the single starting impulse rather that what's present in the oscillation that follows it.
> [5] If we include things like those enormous Japanese Taiko drums, then I would assume that at least some go far lower.



1. Even in theory, you could only equate that to a 24" sub if you put another drum head in front of the sub.
2. Sure we can talk about "what ifs" and "consider" a heavy drum head and beater, moving relatively slowly and then "assume" pretty much anything we want. How's that relevant though, aren't we talking about what is actually produced and recorded, rather than some hypothetical drum and drum hit that doesn't exist?
3. That's because the physical size of the drum is only one of a number of factors that determine both fundamental freq, what harmonics are produced and the lowest freqs we end up with. Where we hit the drum, how we hit it, what we hit it with, the thickness and tension of the drumhead (or drumheads), the thickness/density of the shell material and what the drum is sitting on, all dictate the frequencies produced (both the fundamental and harmonics). In addition of course is how and where we mic it. Kick drums (like most drums) belong to the family of instruments categorised as "Untuned Percussion" because the fundamental is NOT clearly defined, there are all sorts of frequencies and harmonics being produced and not necessarily in the typical ratios. In practice, how much 20Hz or 30Hz a kick drum is producing is irrelevant, as that is NOT the important freq range. If it were, we would not have the characteristic kick drum "thump" but some very quiet wishy/washy decaying drone! For some reason, many audiophiles seem to believe the characteristic "thump" of a kick drum is far lower in frequency than is actually the case. That thump primarily occurs (most typically) around 120Hz but can be as low as 80Hz in a few cases. Furthermore, there are particularly important harmonics (typically at around 1.2kHz) that are vital in providing (the perception of) the kick drum sound having clarity and volume, as even at 120Hz the relative insensitivity of human hearing would result in the perception of a somewhat quiet kick with relatively poor definition/clarity. @Zapp_Fan was correct in the reasons why sub-sonic freqs are typically filtered out but in addition, it would commonly be the case that the freqs below the "thump" (120Hz or so) are reduced, to allow the bass guitar to come through the mix (rather than being masked by the kick). This is maybe the cause of the audiophile confusion, as the bass guitar's important freqs range is lower than that of the kick drum (often by an octave or more) and the blending of the kick and bass guitar is an area of considerable time and effort. These figures mostly apply to rock music, as it is highly variable depending on the genre and even somewhat variable within the sub-genres of rock. 
All the above is covered in drumkit (and rock/pop music) recording 101, starting in a student's very first semester. It must be remembered that unlike classical music and classical music ensembles, the rock band was NOT invented as, and certainly did NOT evolve into an acoustic ensemble, rather the EXACT OPPOSITE. Rock music (and all of it's derivative sub-genres) is manufactured and specifically designed to be so, using a combination of mic types/positioning and acoustic "tricks", along with production/mixing techniques. All the audiophile talk of "natural", realism or "like being there" is therefore complete nonsense, there is nothing natural or real and there was never a "there". On the other hand, it is an (albeit unintentional) compliment to the engineers/producer, that they've been so convinced by the manufactured illusion.
4. Again, that's because it's not dependent on the drum but far more on the other factors. However, your statement is pretty much the opposite of the truth as far as the engineers/producer is concerned, where a great deal of time and effort is typically put into both the initial transient (drum hit impact) and the subsequent resonance/decay.
5. If drum size were the only factor, then your assumption would be reasonable. Is this another "what if"? "What if" the drum's dimension were the only factor and we pretend/hypothesise the other factors don't exist? If so, you should clearly state it's a "what if", hypothetical musing rather than implying some factual basis and/or an assumption that's reasonable in reality!! If it's not a "what if" then instead of just making-up an assumption (that in reality is FALSE), why don't you actually find out or just ask? I've asked you this before, as you keep doing it over and over again but you refuse to reply. How is this approach of yours in anyway factual or scientific? It's actually the exact opposite!!!



Phronesis said:


> Which category something falls in will often be a matter of judgment, and perhaps it's best to just accept that people will reach different conclusions based on their judgment.
> It's often not possible to convince someone that their judgment on something is incorrect by presenting arguments, because judgment is largely intuitive rather than based mostly on arguments.



But isn't a judgement, by definition, the weighing/comparison of the different pieces of information? If so, then there are two primary factors in arriving at a judgement: Firstly the accuracy and completeness of the information being considered and then the personal subjective weighing/comparison of that information. In many cases here on head-fi, the judgement is impaired or invalid because the accuracy and completeness of the information being judged is way off to begin with, and Secondly, there's how we choose to employ our judgement. For example, the fundamental facts are that: A. Human hearing becomes progressively less sensitive beyond 3kHz and dramatically so beyond about 12kHz and B. The harmonic content of music falls significantly beyond about 12-16kHz. Putting these two facts together, the rational default judgement/position should be that ultrasonic content is inaudible and therefore some compelling evidence would be required to change/overcome that default position. However, there isn't any compelling evidence, there's effectively no evidence at all, just speculations and marketing statements/implications. This is where we run into the problem of personal intuition, some people's judgement being weighted almost exclusively by how much they personally "like" those presenting the speculations/implications rather than making a logical/rational, informed judgement based on the facts/evidence. This "intuitive" approach is something we as a species are going to have to address and quickly, because it increasingly represents an existential threat to our species but regardless, this is the Science sub-forum, not a religion or belief sub-forum, so a logical/rational approach to forming judgements is expected/required, while the purely "intuitive" approach is far better suited to the other sub-forums.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] It seems like you should be able to look at the actual waveform and confirm that the initial "bump" is positive going (the drum head moves forward first)... And, if it's a clean half of a sine wave, you could get a read on that frequency by marking the two zero crossings and calculating the frequency from there...
> [2] However, there's a good chance that this will have been lost somewhere along the signal path and not be that clear...
> (And, if that's the case, then it probably doesn't matter anyway.)



1. It's not really clear what you're talking about here. Of course we can and do (countless times a day) look at the waveform and identify the transient. However, you can't get a read on that frequency by marking the zero crossings and calculating the frequency from there because it is NEVER "a frequency",  it's a modulated sinusoid comprised of many frequencies. To break down what frequencies (and their relative levels) requires employing a Fourier transform and entering the frequency domain rather than the time/amplitude domain. 

2. No, there's no chance of the transient being lost whatsoever, unless: The transient reaching the mic is tiny or non-existent to start with (say due to distance/absorption) or, there is a massive/catastrophic failure (say a massive mic, mic-pre or digital overload) or, if the transient is deliberately removed, say with a look-ahead compressor with a low threshold and a high ratio.

Again, this is all really basic stuff, the sort of thing a student learns the very first time they record and edit an instrument (and then observes for the rest of their career). We just seem to be going round and round in circles with you doing the exact opposite of the thread title!! 



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Also, from what I've read, it seems widely agreed that it is the upper harmonics that impart the actual sound character to most drums.
> [2] So, as long as there's "some punch left", nobody is trying very hard to reproduce very low frequencies there anyway...
> [3] (From a practical point of view, rolling off the super-low frequencies, while boosting frequencies around 50 Hz or so, will make the sound seem "punchier" - and use less power.)



1. That's a vague and massive over-simplification, to the point of being false. With some drums it is absolutely false, with others it is partially true, although it depends on what you mean by "upper" harmonics, the individual drum type and how it's being played.

2. There is no "punch" in the very low frequencies and we wouldn't hear it as a "punch" if there were, the "punch" exists much higher (as explained above). Your statement therefore makes no sense because removing very low freqs does not affect the "punch".

3. No, typically that would do the exact opposite and make the kick sound far less punchy. Ironically, your "idea" is such a common misunderstanding that we had a first semester exercise specifically to address it. In small groups students were given 30 mins in a mix room (with a sub) with a completed mix apart from the kick. They were instructed to complete the mix using just EQ and volume on the kick track and try and make it good and punchy/thumpy, to their taste. We found that 30 mins was optimum because much more than that and they would get frustrated and give up. The first thing they would do is whack-up the low freqs of the kick at around 40Hz, when that didn't work, they'd move the peak around, down to 20Hz and up to around 60Hz or so and then do it all over again playing with the Q setting. When that didn't work, they'd put a peak at say 40-50Hz and then introduce another peak and play around with that, maybe add a low pass filter at 100Hz or so, then introduce a low shelf boost, after effectively playing with every setting they could find on the EQ, they'd give up. After 30mins we'd go in and the students would just be blankly looking at each other,  the EQ would look like a mountain range with low shelves and parametric peaks all over the place and they'd sheepishly play their mix on request. It would always be some hideous mess, that sounded like mud because they couldn't get past their pre-conceived notion that if you want more thump/punch then you need more low freqs. We'd remove all their bass boost/s and do the exact opposite, reverse their shelf to reduce the kick below 100Hz, boost a bit around 120Hz and again at about 1.2kHz, then sit back and let them examine the EQ setting before actually playing the mix. Typically they would frown and/or look confused until we actually played the mix and then their eyes would go wide in disbelief. So, "from a practical point of view" you've made just about the most rookie mistake in the book!! 

Why do you keep doing this, why do you just keep making-up nonsense when you clearly don't know what you're talking about and you know there's at least one person here who does it for a living? Why don't you ask or actually gain a "practical point of view" by trying it in practice?

For everyone else: There maybe times when we do add a high pass filter and boost at 50Hz (using a resonant peak on the filter is a useful trick). However, that's entirely dependent on the genre, how much of a "boom" we're after, what we've recorded in the first place, the nature of the bass it's to be mixed with and we still have to mess with the 100-120Hz (and higher) regions to get the thump/punch.

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't disagree with your first point - but I do have a semantic issue with it. When I learned science, I was taught that you don't EVER "just decide that something is a fact". At best you decide to act AS IF it's a fact for the same of convenience and practicality. (Perhaps the proper term would be that "you agree to treat it provisionally as a fact".) However, at some deeper level, you keep it in the back of your mind that it may someday turn out to be untrue - or untrue in some context you haven't tried yet. (For example, for any prediction you might make based on any so-called "law of physics", quantum theory now demonstrates that the result may not be what you expect. And, of course, tomorrow we may find out that quantum theory is incomplete or slightly wrong. Newton's laws of motion USUALLY work. However, it's possible that, due to quantum uncertainty, you could fire a gun away from you, and have the bullet turn around in midair and hit you in the face. It's extremely unlikely that it will happen in the next billion years... in our galaxy... but it isn't impossible.) We make models and, in many cases, we agree to treat those models AS IF they were simply facts, because it serves no practical purpose to keep repeating out loud "of course this is really only an extremely high probability".... We also neglect to acknowledge even more likely outcomes - for example, we don't say: "I'm going to a movie tonight, unless I have a heart attack, or get hit by a meteorite". However, in that case, we are willing to acknowledge that those things really could happen. I guess it was just hammered so thoroughly into me in science class in college that we must never forget this that I am unwilling to pretend to do so.

I also agree that the goal of most musical recordings is NOT an accurate reproduction of an original - and that it's quite possible that no such original exists. And, obviously, we may not actually prefer the original if it does exist. We don't do our best to reproduce the delays between songs, the occasional clinker hit by a musician, nor the air conditioning failure at the concert hall the night we attended, and we usually edit out the coughs and chair scrapes from the audience. What we are generally trying to do is to create an idealized version of the experience... or a wholly artificial but "ideal" experience. (Note, however, that some people find the noise of the musicians turning pages to be a distraction, while others find that it adds an air of realism to the recording, so we don't all agree on all the details.) 

It should also be obvious that, once you acknowledge that, the practical details of that goal will be different for different people. I personally find the experience with headphones to be quite different from a live experience, and both to be quite difference than hearing a recording. However, this is as much a choice as a limitation. If you REALLY want a headphone experience that is closer to listening with speakers you can buy a Smyth Realiser". The Realiser simulates speakers - using a processor box and a tracking transmitter you attach to your headphones. It accepts a surround sound input, tracks the exact position of your head as you move it, and plays through your headphones a binaural signal that simulates what you would be hearing if you were listening to a set of speakers, playing that content in a real room. They even offer various plugin modules that allow you to "listen through" specific sets of popular models of high end speakers. People who have heard one insist that it works quite well and produces a rather convincing illusion. The fact that it remains quite expensive, and only one company sells such a product as far as I know, probably suggests that this is NOT the goal most audiophiles pursue. (It actually costs less than many high-end DACs, so the cost is not impractical in audiophile terms.)

To me it's obvious that our perception is far from a simple thing. I have one pair of open air electrostatic headphones that are rated to go down to 8 Hz (no tolerance given - Koss ESP/950's). When I listen to something with really low bass on them, it "almost feels as if I can feel my feet vibrating from the bass". I do not get a similar experience with most other headphones. Obviously there is something going on there with my perception. (It could be that they reproduce bass harmonics especially clearly, or that they press against my head in a certain way, or simply that I'm imagining it. One guess might be that, either because they accurately reproduce a cue others miss, or fail to produce some distraction that other headphones produce, my brain simply considers the illusion they produce to be "more real", and so does a better job of filling in the other details that aren't actually there. There is a whole area of brain science dedicated to how our brains fill in details that aren't actually there, based on memories, previous experience, and other less well defined factors.) 

I find all of this fascinating... and, yes, it is _SCIENCE_.

However, I can see how others may find it irrelevant to their day-to-day experience.



castleofargh said:


> a few opinions in a box:
> - a huge concept in science is disproving things, not proving them. but still, when *what's falsifiable* resisted our best attempts to disprove it, our confidence sometimes increases to the point where something is simply a fact. how that happens depends on circumstances and statistics and whatever else, but it happens a lot. we can't just somehow turn all that is known as a maybe for the sake of sticking to the purest notion of science. that IMO isn't science at all. let's just take situations where what's happening can only have a known number of causes, disproving all but one of those possibilities gives us certainty. of course we need to first be sure that we're not forgetting extra possibilities, but that again will be a matter of circumstance, not a matter of philosophy. it's good to keep an eye for our mistakes and what we could have missed, that certainly is very important in science, but so are facts!
> 
> - for the few posts discussing how something in playback doesn't sound like the real instrument/event(cymbals?), as a reason to consider the lack of ultrasounds or a few other stuff missing from a recording as perhaps being the cause of that feeling. I'd like to remind you that almost no recordings are trying to be a faithful reproduction of an acoustic event. then obviously there are all the imperfections of our playback system. even more so when we're in a forum about headphones, expecting the experience to be identical on headphones is but a dream. and almost nobody is even trying, as seen by how audiophile are happy to use albums mastered for speakers and keep hating DSPs in all forms(except all those used without them knowing, then they're fine and the sound is good ^_^).
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

That seems quite possible.

Another possibility might be that, rather than something like a mechanical rattle, what you're hearing is intermodulation distortion occurring inside the mechanism of your ear itself. 

In fact, there could be MANY possible effects involved.....

Let's assume I were to play a continuous 1 kHz tone and a 5 Hz tone.....
That 5 Hz tone will be affecting virtually everything nearby......
- the structures inside your ear will be producing modulation products of the 1 kHz and 5 Hz tones
- even the external structures of your ear, like the pinna, will be vibrating at 5 Hz
- the drivers in your speaker will be doing so (the midrange is being vibrated at 5 Hz while producing 1 kHz)
- the air in the room itself is being pressure modulated - which might produce audible modulation
- and, taken to extremes, that 1 Khz tone will be bouncing off surfaces in the room that are also moving at 5 Hz
- and, an a brain level, the 5 Hz vibrations you _feel _will affect the processing load on other areas of your brain



bigshot said:


> I'm wondering if the ability to "hear" 15Hz with IEMs has something to do with the proximity of the transducer to the inner ear and the seal bottling up the vibrations. Maybe the rumble caused by the low wavelength in close contact with our inner ear makes something inside our ears "rattle" and creates audible low frequency distortion in our ears. I know my subwoofer is rated to 14Hz or something like that, and I've heard it go low enough that it's just a vibration that can be felt in the air, not a sound that can be actually heard. It could also be that it takes far less energy to create sub bass sealed in your ear canal than it does to fill a room with it. Perhaps the energy dissipates fast. Or maybe in free space the waves are as long as a truck and start bouncing off the walls and breaking up. Not sure. I'll think about it. It's an interesting observation.


----------



## james444 (Dec 13, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Out of my iPhone speakers, I hear meaningful output down to 30 Hz with the pure tone, and it’s not just a vague flapping sound.  But I don’t see how those tiny speakers can go that low, so I suspect that the speakers are producing harmonics and giving a fake 30 Hz.



You have a wrong idea of how IEMs work. The key factor to understanding IEMs is that acoustics in a closed ear canal is fundamentally different from acoustics in free air.

First of all, it's no problem whatsoever to make small diaphragms vibrate with 15 cycles per second (i.e. 15Hz). Neither for your iPhone speakers, nor for even smaller IEM drivers.

But your iPhone speakers have two disadvantages compared to IEMs: first, the coupling (transmission of energy from diaphragm to air) is far less efficient in free air than in a closed ear canal. And second, the lower you go in frequency, the less directional the sound waves become in free air. Whereas in the closed canal, they have nowhere else to go. That's why seal is so important with IEMs.

To illustrate the latter, here's an example of IEMs measured with a full seal (blue) vs. a slightly leaky seal (red). You can see that it makes next to no difference for higher (shorter wavelength and more directional) frequencies. But it makes a substantial difference in the bass range.








Here's the measured frequency response of the IEMs I did the 15Hz test with. They have 1% THD@20Hz and no bass roll-off whatsoever.


----------



## KeithEmo

You bring up a good point.... most sound we hear passes through the eardrum.

It seems obvious that, if you move the eardrum in any way, you're going to modulate everything passing through it. So, for example, if 5 Hz is "hitting your eardrum", every other sound passing through it will be modulated by that 5 Hz signal. Remember that, if you modulate a 1 kHz carrier with a 5 Hz signal, the result will be a series of modulation harmonics, at 5 Hz intervals above and below 1 kHz.... most of which will be clearly audible. 

We should also assume that the eardrum has mechanical properties of its own - such as mechanical resonances - which can be affected by both sounds and non-audible vibrations in the air. And, of course, like a speaker cabinet or a microphone's enclosure, the skull which houses your entire hearing mechanism is subject to its own acoustic characteristics.



james444 said:


> Take this with a grain of salt, but afaik, it's because of near-perfect coupling of the moving IEM diaphragm to the eardrum, and as a result much higher efficiency and lower distortion. A subwoofer is vastly less efficient due to high mass of the diaphragm and coil compared to the moved air, so it's easy to imagine the bad coupling. I'd also be interested in a comparison of the usual 1m distance measurements of a sub to ear drum level measurements (haven't found anything like that, afair). I'd expect noticeably higher distortion for ear drum level measurements, which reflect what we actually hear... but that's just my 2c, and I could of course be wrong.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm quite certain you're right there.

I am not familiar with the specific programming in the iPhone's DSP, but I can tell you that the control chips used in many phones, and other devices with tiny speakers, do a variety of things like that.

To give you an idea, one I read about recently contains a quite powerful DSP engine, and is intended to be programmed with a full set of details about the frequency response, distortion characteristics, and long and short term power handling capabilities of the speaker it is to be used with. It them performs several calculations to "optimize the amount of loud, clear, intelligible output the speaker can safely produce". (Note that some phone and small tablet speakers are limited to handling as little as 50 mW long term.)

First off, it calculates the safe operating area of the speaker, and is careful to avoid both short term overloading, and long term overheating of the voice coil, and well as audible distortion from mechanically overdriving it. As you might expect, it applies limiting and compression to loud signals. However, beyond that, it performs "safe operating area compensation". If you present it with a moderately loud signal that lasts for a significant fraction of a second, which it calculates may overheat the speaker, it may actually play that sound louder for a few milliseconds, then reduce the level after that - with the goal of delivering the proper perceived loudness for the sound while minimizing the amount of power used. It also includes a built-in multi-band dynamic equalizer, programmed for that particular speaker. And, beyond that, if it is presented with a sound which is too low in frequency for the speaker to adequately and efficiently produce, it will remove the original sound, and replace it with a series of synthesized harmonics calculated to "simulate the perceived sound of the original tone".

In short, it is a psychoacoustic marvel, programmed to protect the speaker from any possibility of overload or damage, while delivering "the illusion" of the original sound to the listener. (If you were to look at the output signal on an oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer, you probably wouldn't recognize it. However, perceptually, it is relatively similar to the original. More importantly, for the chips used in phones, they are especially careful to preserve the cues we use to recognize familiar human voices and render them intelligible.) 



Phronesis said:


> Out of my iPhone speakers, I hear meaningful output down to 30 Hz with the pure tone, and it’s not just a vague flapping sound.  But I don’t see how those tiny speakers can go that low, so I suspect that the speakers are producing harmonics and giving a fake 30 Hz.


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 13, 2018)

I'm not specifically disagreeing with you here... but I think we are using very different terms.

In very general terms.....
You're talking about reproducing "the sound of a kick drum"....
I'm talking about reproducing exactly the pressure wave the drum produces...
(Just to be clear here, I'm talking about the actual movements of the air, rather than what might be recorded.)

(To put that into a colloquialism. I make no claim about the abilities of the equipment currently in use, or whether they are adequate or not. It could be that the microphones we're using today can only record down to 20 Hz, and that is in fact good enough. It could also be that, in order to produce an audibly perfect recording of a drum, we need microphones that go to DC, and nobody has ever done it right so far. I don't specifically assert - or assume - that either is true. I tend to err on the side of precision. I'm quite certain that, if you reproduce the waveform _EXACTLY_, then it will sound right. However, it's quite possible that even an inaccurate reproduction may also sound "just fine". In fact, we may all be so accustomed to inaccurate recordings that a truly accurate recording would sound wrong. I have heard a few recordings of drums that I personally though sounded quite real... and very many that I thought sounded quite far from real.)

What I was pointing out was simply that, if you observe the _INITIAL PHYSICAL MOTION_ of the drumhead....
The beater pushes it forward, and it then turns around, and returns to its original position.
(It then overshoots and continues to resonate - while internal energy produces other motions and sound.)

If you actually look at a graph of that initial movement - it's going to look like a hill.
And that hill represents half of a sine wave.
If you measure the time between zero crossings, and double it, you will have the period of that entire sine wave.
And you can then use the period to calculate the frequency (1/period).
And, in order to reproduce the shape of the original waveform, you _MUST_ be able to reproduce that frequency.
If you are limited, and cannot reproduce that frequency, then you will NOT successfully duplicate the wave form.

When someone else mentioned Dirac waves they were alluding to this fact.
A Dirac wave is specified as having a certain waveform.
And, in order to work, that waveshape must be correct.
(Simply "sounding exactly like a Dirac wave" is NOT sufficient for it to work properly.)

I'm quite sure that what @greg is referring to as "the initial hit" is actually the initial "sound"....
Which extends for many cycles of complex waveforms beyond that initial movement.

At least one person is convinced that they find it audible when that entire waveform is not accurately reproduced.... 
and reproduced to a degree of accuracy that requires frequency response well below 20 Hz to achieve.
(I'm personally not convinced that I can hear a difference there....
but he is correct in his claim that, without extended low frequency response, the waveform will not be correct.)



gregorio said:


> 1. Even in theory, you could only equate that to a 24" sub if you put another drum head in front of the sub.
> 2. Sure we can talk about "what ifs" and "consider" a heavy drum head and beater, moving relatively slowly and then "assume" pretty much anything we want. How's that relevant though, aren't we talking about what is actually produced and recorded, rather than some hypothetical drum and drum hit that doesn't exist?
> 3. That's because the physical size of the drum is only one of a number of factors that determine both fundamental freq, what harmonics are produced and the lowest freqs we end up with. Where we hit the drum, how we hit it, what we hit it with, the thickness and tension of the drumhead (or drumheads), the thickness/density of the shell material and what the drum is sitting on, all dictate the frequencies produced (both the fundamental and harmonics). In addition of course is how and where we mic it. Kick drums (like most drums) belong to the family of instruments categorised as "Untuned Percussion" because the fundamental is NOT clearly defined, there are all sorts of frequencies and harmonics being produced and not necessarily in the typical ratios. In practice, how much 20Hz or 30Hz a kick drum is producing is irrelevant, as that is NOT the important freq range. If it were, we would not have the characteristic kick drum "thump" but some very quiet wishy/washy decaying drone! For some reason, many audiophiles seem to believe the characteristic "thump" of a kick drum is far lower in frequency than is actually the case. That thump primarily occurs (most typically) around 120Hz but can be as low as 80Hz in a few cases. Furthermore, there are particularly important harmonics (typically at around 1.2kHz) that are vital in providing (the perception of) the kick drum sound having clarity and volume, as even at 120Hz the relative insensitivity of human hearing would result in the perception of a somewhat quiet kick with relatively poor definition/clarity. @Zapp_Fan was correct in the reasons why sub-sonic freqs are typically filtered out but in addition, it would commonly be the case that the freqs below the "thump" (120Hz or so) are reduced, to allow the bass guitar to come through the mix (rather than being masked by the kick). This is maybe the cause of the audiophile confusion, as the bass guitar's important freqs range is lower than that of the kick drum (often by an octave or more) and the blending of the kick and bass guitar is an area of considerable time and effort. These figures mostly apply to rock music, as it is highly variable depending on the genre and even somewhat variable within the sub-genres of rock.
> All the above is covered in drumkit (and rock/pop music) recording 101, starting in a student's very first semester. It must be remembered that unlike classical music and classical music ensembles, the rock band was NOT invented as, and certainly did NOT evolve into an acoustic ensemble, rather the EXACT OPPOSITE. Rock music (and all of it's derivative sub-genres) is manufactured and specifically designed to be so, using a combination of mic types/positioning and acoustic "tricks", along with production/mixing techniques. All the audiophile talk of "natural", realism or "like being there" is therefore complete nonsense, there is nothing natural or real and there was never a "there". On the other hand, it is an (albeit unintentional) compliment to the engineers/producer, that they've been so convinced by the manufactured illusion.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Errr..... yeah, I can... as a very low level approximation.

If any sound, no matter how odd looking, repeats ten times a second _THEN IT MUST CONTAIN AT LEAST SOME COMPONENT OF_ 10 Hz.

Likewise, if I have a waveform that starts at zero, rises above zero, drops below zero, then returns to zero.
Then _IT CAN AND MUST_ contain at least some component of the frequency defined by the period between those zero crossings.
That is also true if we look at only the portion above or below the zero line - since the overall period must be longer than either of the parts.
(Note that I'm failing to pick out a lot of other information.... but that specific information will always be true.)

You can ALWAYS bounce back and fort between the time and frequency domains... in  variety of different ways.
Unfortunately, due to practical limitations, a lot of software doesn't allow you to do so in some cases.
(A part of a cycle most certainly DOES have "a frequency" - regardless of whether your DAW can handle the math necessary to calculate it for display or not.)

Take a "single hill 100 mSec wide"... apply a 20 Hz high-pass filter to it... and watch it change.
(Which is sort of the antithesis of "being perfectly reproduced".)

Incidentally, I do find your practical insights both interesting and useful.
I just tend to look at things more from a perspective of pure science.

(I don't have a nuclear reactor in my basement, so I can't turn lead into gold; but that doesn't alter the fact that doing so is quite possible.)



gregorio said:


> 1. It's not really clear what you're talking about here. Of course we can and do (countless times a day) look at the waveform and identify the transient. However, you can't get a read on that frequency by marking the zero crossings and calculating the frequency from there because it is NEVER "a frequency",  it's a modulated sinusoid comprised of many frequencies. To break down what frequencies (and their relative levels) requires employing a Fourier transform and entering the frequency domain rather than the time/amplitude domain.
> 
> 
> G


----------



## bigshot

james444 said:


> afaik, it's because of near-perfect coupling of the moving IEM diaphragm to the eardrum.



I think this is it. When you are passing frequencies with a tight seal directly into the ear canal, it probably makes things audible that wouldn't be normally. The 20Hz to 20kHz standard was probably established for sound in free space, not when it's pumped directly into your ear.

Not much else here for me to read today. It's a beautiful sunny December morning here in Los Angeles. Have a nice day!


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> But isn't a judgement, by definition, the weighing/comparison of the different pieces of information? If so, then there are two primary factors in arriving at a judgement: Firstly the accuracy and completeness of the information being considered and then the personal subjective weighing/comparison of that information. In many cases here on head-fi, the judgement is impaired or invalid because the accuracy and completeness of the information being judged is way off to begin with, and Secondly, there's how we choose to employ our judgement. For example, the fundamental facts are that: A. Human hearing becomes progressively less sensitive beyond 3kHz and dramatically so beyond about 12kHz and B. The harmonic content of music falls significantly beyond about 12-16kHz. Putting these two facts together, the rational default judgement/position should be that ultrasonic content is inaudible and therefore some compelling evidence would be required to change/overcome that default position. However, there isn't any compelling evidence, there's effectively no evidence at all, just speculations and marketing statements/implications. This is where we run into the problem of personal intuition, some people's judgement being weighted almost exclusively by how much they personally "like" those presenting the speculations/implications rather than making a logical/rational, informed judgement based on the facts/evidence. This "intuitive" approach is something we as a species are going to have to address and quickly, because it increasingly represents an existential threat to our species but regardless, this is the Science sub-forum, not a religion or belief sub-forum, so a logical/rational approach to forming judgements is expected/required, while the purely "intuitive" approach is far better suited to the other sub-forums.



I generally agree with your thoughts here, though we do see that people will sometimes disagree on what the default position should be on some things.  I personally tend to avoid default positions, and instead think of things being anywhere from extremely unlikely to extremely likely, with some things closer to the middle of the range than the extremes.

Getting a bit OT here, but regarding the future of our species, given nuclear weapons, WMDs, synthesized chemicals, genetic engineering, etc., I sometimes wonder whether all of this science and technology will be our downfall rather than our salvation (and I say that as an engineer who's contributed to that technology).


----------



## bigshot

Bleh.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 13, 2018)

james444 said:


> You have a wrong idea of how IEMs work. The key factor to understanding IEMs is that acoustics in a closed ear canal is fundamentally different from acoustics in free air.
> 
> First of all, it's no problem whatsoever to make small diaphragms vibrate with 15 cycles per second (i.e. 15Hz). Neither for your iPhone speakers, nor for even smaller IEM drivers.
> 
> ...



I played around a bit using pure tones with my Audeze i4 IEM, which is an unusual IEM because it's open back and has a large driver for an IEM, but I have a good seal into the ear.  I used my iphone, the synalski online tone generator, and my Chord Mojo to generate the tones.  I don't know what the FR limits of that setup are, but assuming the range is at least 20 to 20 kHz, my results are below.

Down to 40 Hz, I hear distinct pitched notes.  Between 20 and 40 Hz, I readily perceive the bass, and I can hear pitch differences if I change the frequency, but I don't hear distinct pitched notes; towards the lower end of that range, it becomes unpleasant to listen to the pure tone continuously.  Dropping below 20 Hz to about 17 Hz, my perception of the sound fades and it becomes more like 'pressure' than sound.  I become unable to detect anything below 17 Hz even by increasing the volume, not sure it that's due to my ears or the gear not producing those frequencies.

At the upper end, my hearing limit seems to be about 15.8 kHz (consistent with other tests I've done), and my perception of the sound drops off pretty quickly around that frequency.  Near that limit, the sound is like a very high pitched ringing in the ears, and is unpleasant to listen to continuously despite being subtle.  So I think it's safe to say that 18 kHz is ultrasonic for me, and if I perceive it subconsciously at all, it may need to be transient in order for it to not be unpleasant.

At this point, I'm doubtful that such ultrasonics would add much value to my enjoyment of music, so I'm not concerned about missing them in my gear.  And of course, if my gear is giving me up to 20 kHz, I should be getting a range of about 16 to 20 kHz which is already ultrasonic for me, and ultrasonics beyond 20 kHz may be swamped in importance by the ultrasonics from 16 to 20 kHz.  I'm just not seeing a possible significant benefit of 25 or 30 kHz for me, though I suppose it may matter for a kid who can sonically hear beyond 20 kHz (I wish I knew my limit when I was young, but never tested it).

I'll try my SE535 later, which is fully sealed, to see how that compares.

Addendum:

I tried the SE535.  I hear an FR from about 30 to 15.3 kHz, which is a narrower range than the i4.  I assume the difference is the IEM rather than my ears.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Nope, we’re talking science, which aims to develop ever better models of reality, so I still say we need a nuanced definition of a fact.
> 
> Is it a fact that space and time are absolute and independent dimensions of reality?  Is it a fact that mass is the amount of stuff and is always conserved?  For engineering and designing audio gear, we can adamantly say yes, but relativity theory says it’s erroneous to call them facts in that model.
> 
> ...


I have zero issue with the definition of fact that you quoted. as I said, if later on we get new evidence demanding to reconsider, we'll do that then, when the new evidence will call for it. because we act by relying on data, not on faith that in the future anything will be possible and we're always wrong.
about all your examples of conditional truth, the answer is in the name.

as for 


Phronesis said:


> but lots of audio and perception stuff isn't that straightforward, so we do need to know and state our models (and therefore assumptions) when we talk about 'facts'.


that's in part why I said we needed to be clear on what we mean by hearing. and why I brought up my understanding of part of the cochlea. I'm certainly with you on having to define conditions and models.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I don't disagree with your first point - but I do have a semantic issue with it. When I learned science, I was taught that you don't EVER "just decide that something is a fact". At best you decide to act AS IF it's a fact for the same of convenience and practicality. (Perhaps the proper term would be that "you agree to treat it provisionally as a fact".) However, at some deeper level, you keep it in the back of your mind that it may someday turn out to be untrue - or untrue in some context you haven't tried yet. (For example, for any prediction you might make based on any so-called "law of physics", quantum theory now demonstrates that the result may not be what you expect. And, of course, tomorrow we may find out that quantum theory is incomplete or slightly wrong. Newton's laws of motion USUALLY work. However, it's possible that, due to quantum uncertainty, you could fire a gun away from you, and have the bullet turn around in midair and hit you in the face. It's extremely unlikely that it will happen in the next billion years... in our galaxy... but it isn't impossible.) We make models and, in many cases, we agree to treat those models AS IF they were simply facts, because it serves no practical purpose to keep repeating out loud "of course this is really only an extremely high probability".... We also neglect to acknowledge even more likely outcomes - for example, we don't say: "I'm going to a movie tonight, unless I have a heart attack, or get hit by a meteorite". However, in that case, we are willing to acknowledge that those things really could happen. I guess it was just hammered so thoroughly into me in science class in college that we must never forget this that I am unwilling to pretend to do so.
> 
> I also agree that the goal of most musical recordings is NOT an accurate reproduction of an original - and that it's quite possible that no such original exists. And, obviously, we may not actually prefer the original if it does exist. We don't do our best to reproduce the delays between songs, the occasional clinker hit by a musician, nor the air conditioning failure at the concert hall the night we attended, and we usually edit out the coughs and chair scrapes from the audience. What we are generally trying to do is to create an idealized version of the experience... or a wholly artificial but "ideal" experience. (Note, however, that some people find the noise of the musicians turning pages to be a distraction, while others find that it adds an air of realism to the recording, so we don't all agree on all the details.)
> 
> ...


in principle, I spend my days complaining about empty claims and people claiming way too many stuff on the forum. I'd be happy if everybody was to talk the science way and always go for "the experience/the data strongly supports ...." instead of making claims. I really love discussing with people who do that TBH. I sort of grew more suspicious of confident people for some reason. but that's just me, and this is Head-fi. can you confidently say that it's going to be beneficial for fellow members to have all the guys who know what they're doing, talking in degrees of confidence, while all the idiots with too much ego, will keep spamming stuff with absolute certainty? most people with a question want a yes or no answer, so they will consistently go for that type of answer that a rigorous scientist will rarely make.
so that's another issue where I'm divided. there is my idea of science and the care for truth on one hand, and there is fighting the obscurantism and the myths propagated by amateur audiophiles to themselves on the other. if we show doubt while some fool doesn't, sadly, the readers will often take the confident claim for truth. in this section we expect that people will be slightly more curious and slightly more demanding when it comes to substantiating claims, but in the rest of the forum... when you try to help a fellow audiophile with his problem and give an accurate answer sounding a lot like "it depends on....", while some other guy will come and say something like "this is the best, trust me". should we still be satisfied that we expressed ourselves the most accurately? wasn't the main objective to help the guy? in that respect, I think @bigshot is doing a great job fighting fire with fire. and in respect to making accurate and substantiated claims, he drives me mad once or twice a week. ^_^ 
I don't know who is doing the right thing. 

about the Realiser I joined the kickstarter campaign for the A16 10mn after I learned about it. it was the second or third day of the campaign, I believe dinosaurs still roamed the earth back then. and since I've been waiting for them to finally deliver ... something.  


as for feeling like we're getting tactile bass from headphones, I get what you mean and I admit that I'm not sure what gives that feeling and why some headphones with a lot of bass don't. Floyd Toole seem to believe that some physical shaking(even at the wrong frequency) can be significant in giving such an impression. so it would be interesting to see how much some headphones really shake and how much is felt by the skin. I somehow got the idea that large drivers did that better and imagined that they were just pushing over a bigger surface of skin, helping the subjective impression. but if the driver is bigger, it seems plausible that the weight and force involved will in effect make the headphone vibrate more(unless it's super heavy with the clamping of death). so my hypothesis may just be what Mr Toole is talking about. 
now an even funnier case, and @james444 can maybe relate to that as he has owned a few IEMs with serious bass. I've had some IEMs when lying down in my bed and listening to something with abundance of low end, I started to feel like my lungs were shaking with the bass ^_^. I'd certainly be interested in understanding what exactly can trigger such subjective impression.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] And it is here that ANY timing errors - even in sub microsecond range - become audible.
> [2] And that means recording techniques have to mimic the human perception of sound best they can to begin with ... Good as in being true to the sound as heard by the listener in audience.



1. This being the sound Science forum, I presume you haven't just completely made that assertion up and have evidence to support it? For everyone else (in this universe): Even the very best musicians are only accurate to within a few milli-seconds and are NEVER consistently so. Do these always present timing errors sound many thousands of times worse than apparently audible sub micro-second timing errors? 

2. Make-up your mind, which is it: "Mimic the human perception of sound" *OR* "be true to the sound as heard by the listener in the audience"? You can't have both, it's one or the other, either we are "true to the sound entering a listener's ear" or we "mimic the human perception of sound". The only way we could have both would be if human perception did not exist and therefore what we would "hear" would always be identical to the sound which enters our ears. Of course though, that is purely hypothetical, we are all humans, we therefore all have human perception and recordings are made by humans for humans (a simple obvious fact, that's somehow often ignored by audiophiles). So we (recording engineers/music producers) have a choice, a choice which first started being explored in the 1950's and which continues to be explored today. As we're dealing with art (music) in the first place, it was unsurprisingly found (and continues to be found) that consumers vastly prefer the former and that's why virtually all acoustic commercial music recordings are made using multi-mic'ing techniques, because only that technique gives us the flexibility to change what would enter our ears and "mimic the human perception of sound". Furthermore, even if we ignore human perception, we cannot "be true to the sound as heard by the listener in the audience" anyway! For example: There are no (and cannot be) any perfect microphones, everyone has at least a somewhat different HRTF and a listener in the audience never has their skull bolted in a fixed position.

There's no need to address/refute the other points in the quoted post, as it should (hopefully) already be obvious that it's incorrect.

G


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> I agree that the overal percentage is LESS than the figures cited.
> 
> And that's why I started recording - at 44 of age, I had enough of multimiked stuff to the point a person can not show over his or hers head with extended arm anymore.
> 
> ...


well I'm not going to agree with a lot of what you said, but I certainly have nothing against people working to reproduce a given event or a given experience of the event as close as it can possibly be done. I see value in that. but I also see value in the various artistic interpretations brought by recording and mastering techniques. when I take a photograph, sometimes I will hope to get what I saw and will work toward that goal even in post processing. but most of the time even when taking the picture I have already some more or less specific vision of what I want as a result that isn't the real scene. and then sometimes I don't really have a clue, I just try stuff and settle on what I like the most. I expect that it's very similar for recording/mastering, and that all the approaches have value, if only for being different, which can really be attractive to an artist.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> You're talking about reproducing "the sound of a kick drum"....
> I'm talking about reproducing exactly the pressure wave the drum produces...
> (Just to be clear here, I'm talking about the actual movements of the air, rather than what might be recorded.)
> 
> ...



No, you are NOT talking about reproducing exactly the pressure wave the drum produces, you are talking about the fundamental frequency the drum produces but a drum (string or any other physical object in the real world) does NOT produce ONLY a fundamental frequency it also, at the very least, produces a set of harmonics which is part of that "pressure wave". This was discovered about 2500 years ago (by Pythogoras) and not since demonstrated to be false. You can call what you're claiming "Pure Science" or anything else you want but actually you're contradicting some of the oldest and most well established actual/real science known to man!

G


----------



## SoundAndMotion

gregorio said:


> No, you are NOT talking about reproducing exactly the pressure wave the drum produces, you are talking about the fundamental frequency the drum produces but a drum (string or any other physical object in the real world) does NOT produce ONLY a fundamental frequency it also, at the very least, produces a set of harmonics which is part of that "pressure wave". This was discovered about 2500 years ago (by Pythogoras) and not since demonstrated to be false. You can call what you're claiming "Pure Science" or anything else you want but actually you're contradicting some of the oldest and most well established actual/real science known to man!
> 
> G


What did Pythagoras discover? Are you talking about the ringing hammers of the blacksmiths? That tale has been debunked. Maybe it was something else?


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 14, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> in principle, I spend my days complaining about empty claims and people claiming way too many stuff on the forum. I'd be happy if everybody was to talk the science way and always go for "the experience/the data strongly supports ...." instead of making claims. I really love discussing with people who do that TBH. I sort of grew more suspicious of confident people for some reason. but that's just me, and this is Head-fi. can you confidently say that it's going to be beneficial for fellow members to have all the guys who know what they're doing, talking in degrees of confidence, while all the idiots with too much ego, will keep spamming stuff with absolute certainty? most people with a question want a yes or no answer, so they will consistently go for that type of answer that a rigorous scientist will rarely make.
> so that's another issue where I'm divided. there is my idea of science and the care for truth on one hand, and there is fighting the obscurantism and the myths propagated by amateur audiophiles to themselves on the other. if we show doubt while some fool doesn't, sadly, the readers will often take the confident claim for truth. in this section we expect that people will be slightly more curious and slightly more demanding when it comes to substantiating claims, but in the rest of the forum... when you try to help a fellow audiophile with his problem and give an accurate answer sounding a lot like "it depends on....", while some other guy will come and say something like "this is the best, trust me". should we still be satisfied that we expressed ourselves the most accurately? wasn't the main objective to help the guy? in that respect, I think @bigshot is doing a great job fighting fire with fire. and in respect to making accurate and substantiated claims, he drives me mad once or twice a week. ^_^
> I don't know who is doing the right thing.



I see two largely separate worlds in head-fi, Sound Science and the rest of head-fi.  I spend time in both worlds, but they're separate worlds and don't really mix.  In the rest of head-fi, I talk about headphones, and I pretty much ignore whatever people say about DACs, amps, and cables (well, sometimes I challenge it, but carefully).

Sound Science could be focused on undermining subjective claims of big differences, but if those 'subjectivists' generally don't spend much time in Sound Science, isn't it just mostly preaching to the choir?  Do we really care about some unknown audience that may be eavesdropping on our conversations?  Like almost everyone else, I don't post under my real name, and I don't really care about who may be listening in.  And unless someone can be convinced to do controlled testing for themselves, I don't think anyone is going to stop trusting their ears based on arguments presented in Sound Science, especially if they don't have the technical background to even understand those arguments.

I personally am much more interested in what you describe above, as far as taking a scientific approach to exploring questions on which there isn't a consensus on the answers among people who are reasonably well informed on the science.  To have worthwhile conversations along those lines, we need to have common ground on some basic assumptions.  Let's see if people can agree on these:

- The electronics of gear are well understood.

- There are design choices in gear which result in measurable differences in their outputs.

- Measurements can tell us a lot, but no finite set of measurements can fully characterize a complex musical signal.

- Acoustics is pretty well understood, but it's complex, and there's still 'art' involved in designing transducers.

- Perception is a complex area of science.  We know a lot about it, but there's a lot we don't know.

- We're prone to auditory misperception to a degree that we don't and can't consciously realize.  This accounts for at least the vast majority of big differences people hear in gear other than transducers.

- Controlled tests need to be carefully designed, conducted, and interpreted to try to answer specific questions.

- A null result on a blind test doesn't "prove" that two things sound indistinguishably "the same", it just indicates that the listener was unable to consistently discern a difference in the test conditions.  That could be interpreted as evidence that there's no big difference, but it doesn't rule out the possibility of a small difference which might detected in a different test, or in another trial by the same listener, or by a different listener, or in a larger test, or experienced as a difference in normal listening.  And conversely, a positive result on a blind test doesn't "prove" that a difference exists either, since the test could have flaws (e.g., "tells") or the positive result could be due to luck (which is why tests need to have some scale and you need to run stats).


----------



## KeithEmo

The headphones I notice that with to a significant degree are the Koss ESP/950 electrostatics.

Electrically, they claim a frequency response "8 Hz to 35 kHz" - no tolerance given.
I've never seen a graph, but, from the way they sound, they aren't actually extremely flat.
They are an open backed around-ear headphone with a diaphragm that extends far past your ears.

Also, unlike many headphones, they are very light and fit very loosely.
(They feel like they're going to fall off - even though they never do.)

To, me, subjectively, they don't sound at all bass heavy.
You tend to hear a lot of the details in bass notes but the bass doesn't seem especially loud.
To me this contributes to the odd way they seem so sound.
They don't SEEM to make A LOT of bass, and the bass seems rather thin, but it seems to extend incredibly low.
Their sound also doesn't seem to depend much on their fit (moving them around doesn't change it).

I've seen various measurements.
Here's one:   
http://audioinvestigations.blogspot.com/2011/10/koss-esp-950-very-nice.html

However, considering that it's difficult to measure headphones, the measurements often don't seem to correlate well with the sound, headphones that sound flat tend not to measure flat and vice-versa, and their large diaphragms and loose fit no doubt complicate matters..... who knows.



castleofargh said:


> ...................................
> 
> 
> as for feeling like we're getting tactile bass from headphones, I get what you mean and I admit that I'm not sure what gives that feeling and why some headphones with a lot of bass don't. Floyd Toole seem to believe that some physical shaking(even at the wrong frequency) can be significant in giving such an impression. so it would be interesting to see how much some headphones really shake and how much is felt by the skin. I somehow got the idea that large drivers did that better and imagined that they were just pushing over a bigger surface of skin, helping the subjective impression. but if the driver is bigger, it seems plausible that the weight and force involved will in effect make the headphone vibrate more(unless it's super heavy with the clamping of death). so my hypothesis may just be what Mr Toole is talking about.
> now an even funnier case, and @james444 can maybe relate to that as he has owned a few IEMs with serious bass. I've had some IEMs when lying down in my bed and listening to something with abundance of low end, I started to feel like my lungs were shaking with the bass ^_^. I'd certainly be interested in understanding what exactly can trigger such subjective impression.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> Let's see if people can agree on these:
> [1] - The electronics of gear are well understood.
> [2] - There are design choices in gear which result in measurable differences in their outputs.
> [3] - Measurements can tell us a lot, but no finite set of measurements can fully characterize a complex musical signal.
> ...



1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3. I don't agree with this one. Just one measurement completely characterises any arbitrarily complex signal (musical or not), the measurement of amplitude over time.
4. Agreed.
5. Agreed.
6. Agreed.
7. I somewhat agree. Your statement is true in some/many cases, it depends what we're testing.

G


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> 1. Agreed.
> 2. Agreed.
> 3. I don't agree with this one. Just one measurement completely characterises any arbitrarily complex signal (musical or not), the measurement of amplitude over time.
> 4. Agreed.
> ...



I actually agree on 3 also, but a musical signal has a lot of wiggles and we can't infer much from just looking at all the wiggles.  As we discussed, we can do a null test of two signals, but if the difference signal isn't zero, the door is still open for debate about the what the non-zero signal indicates if the amplitude isn't always super low.

Glad we generally agree on all the rest.  Progress!


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> The headphones I notice that with to a significant degree are the Koss ESP/950 electrostatics.
> 
> Electrically, they claim a frequency response "8 Hz to 35 kHz" - no tolerance given.
> I've never seen a graph, but, from the way they sound, they aren't actually extremely flat.
> ...




The headphones I use for serious listening and evaluation - particularly for bass - are Stax Lambda Pro, driven by its proprietary ( made specially to produce overall correct response with Lambda Pro ) diffusse field equalizer Monitor ED-1 feeding the SRM1MK2 amplifier. 

Lambda Pro came into being because of - Mercedes Benz.  They wanted to research automotive acoustics and noise levels using binaural recordings - and the best headphone at the time, Stax Lambda, was simply not up to the task; it had limitations in both the dynamic range and low end ( infrasonic ) frequency response. The solution has been to enlarge the stator to diaphragm distance and increase the polarizing voltage - now, it was enough for proper monitoring of the car recordings. The Pro version of Lambda has been embraced by the audiophile community in no time - and, the rest is history.

Lambda Pro is so good in bass extension that ED-1 Monitor has to be modified in order not to loose that edge in bass Lambda Pro does have when driven only by SRM1MK2 ( or any of the still better amps ). IIRC - about an order of magnitude bigger value coupling cap(s) are required for that in the signal path of equalizer ( it has been almost a decade now, would have to check for the exact schematics ) - THEN you can have both the proper EQ and BASS that isvery close to second to none - as far as the accuracy is concerned. Bassheads for dubstep etc would still require louder bass, but for anything acoustical, it is - just - enough. The new L700 headset offers additional 3-4 dB of SPL over Lambda Pro  - which, sometimes, would be dearly required for monitoring live mic feed without any limitting/compression. 

This setup will reveal ANY component/recording with rolled-off bass - no way it can escape unnoticed.

As good as Stax Lambda Pro is, it can not compete in bass with better IEMs - even not those from its own family, the often called Baby Stax, the SR-001 and its succesor, SR-002. 

I have not even seen, let alone heard the Koss ESP-950s ( they are exceedingly rare in Europe, and transport/duties works to their disadvantage  pricewise compared to US ) - but here a reasonably good comparison with Stax : https://www.stereophile.com/content/koss-esp950-electrostatic-stereophones-page-3


----------



## KeithEmo

1)

All of the studies I've seen that relate to humans being able to distinguish timing variations down into the microseconds are talking about being able to distinguish variations in arrival times between the two ears. What they're saying is that, if you delay the signal reaching one ear by as little as 10 microseconds, we can notice a perceptible shift in the apparent location of the source. (The generally agreed number is that we can hear differences in inter-aural delay of as little as 10 uS with a 1 kHz signal.)

Here are a few links to studies that mention it:
https://www.pnas.org/content/98/24/14050
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3663869/

(If you Google "inter-aural delay" or "interaural time difference" you will find more.)

2)

Maybe you can't have both, or all three, at the same time... but they are all individually possible.

I could:
a) seek to duplicate the perceptual experience of a listener in the audience
b) seek to exactly duplicate the sound waves, as measured in the air, at the listener's position
c) seek to duplicate the sound waves "at the source"

I believe that, in most consumer applications, what's REALLY going on is b).
We try to design our reproduction system so it "delivers the correct audio information to the listener's ear".

Of course, as you say, in "art", "right" is whatever the artist or the recording engineer says it is.

I would also point out, however, that, while you are technically correct in your final assertion...
You are specifically looking at the matter from a "practical" direction.

You are correct... there cannot ever be "a perfect microphone". HOWEVER, if I am willing to budget enough money, or to accept other limitations, there are quite often scientific methods and equipment that are far better than anything likely to ever be used in a studio. I would also reiterate that, from a scientific point of view, technology does sometimes change very rapidly. When I went to school, a 1 watt LASER was the size of a refrigerator, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and required a rather heavy power main to operate. Today, I can buy one for $50, that fits in my pocket, and runs on AA batteries. (So, for example, if we WERE to decide that there was a real need for microphones that could record 30 kHz at a level of 170 dB, in twenty or thirty years you might be able to find one at your favorite pro shop for $100. Quite often "the limits of practical technology" are simply determined by what there is a market for.)

People have been predicting for some time that someday we will bypass the ears entirely - and plug directly into the brain. We haven't been able to do that yet... but modern cochlear implants do manage to bypass a significant portion of the air/ear signal chain. (And, no, they don't work very well yet, but they do continue to improve.)



gregorio said:


> 1. This being the sound Science forum, I presume you haven't just completely made that assertion up and have evidence to support it? For everyone else (in this universe): Even the very best musicians are only accurate to within a few milli-seconds and are NEVER consistently so. Do these always present timing errors sound many thousands of times worse than apparently audible sub micro-second timing errors?
> 
> 2. Make-up your mind, which is it: "Mimic the human perception of sound" *OR* "be true to the sound as heard by the listener in the audience"? You can't have both, it's one or the other, either we are "true to the sound entering a listener's ear" or we "mimic the human perception of sound". The only way we could have both would be if human perception did not exist and therefore what we would "hear" would always be identical to the sound which enters our ears. Of course though, that is purely hypothetical, we are all humans, we therefore all have human perception and recordings are made by humans for humans (a simple obvious fact, that's somehow often ignored by audiophiles). So we (recording engineers/music producers) have a choice, a choice which first started being explored in the 1950's and which continues to be explored today. As we're dealing with art (music) in the first place, it was unsurprisingly found (and continues to be found) that consumers vastly prefer the former and that's why virtually all acoustic commercial music recordings are made using multi-mic'ing techniques, because only that technique gives us the flexibility to change what would enter our ears and "mimic the human perception of sound". Furthermore, even if we ignore human perception, we cannot "be true to the sound as heard by the listener in the audience" anyway! For example: There are no (and cannot be) any perfect microphones, everyone has at least a somewhat different HRTF and a listener in the audience never has their skull bolted in a fixed position.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes, and, in order to reproduce the entire signal correctly, you must reproduce all the parts correctly, and in the correct relationship. If some limitation prevents you from producing the fundamental accurately, then you have already failed... because, if any piece isn't right, then the total cannot be right. (So, if there is a "piece", whether it's the fundamental or a sub-harmonic, that exists at 10 Hz, and you're filtering it out, then you cannot possibly be reproducing the entire signal accurately. What you end up with may "sound the same" - but technically it will be incorrect.  



gregorio said:


> No, you are NOT talking about reproducing exactly the pressure wave the drum produces, you are talking about the fundamental frequency the drum produces but a drum (string or any other physical object in the real world) does NOT produce ONLY a fundamental frequency it also, at the very least, produces a set of harmonics which is part of that "pressure wave". This was discovered about 2500 years ago (by Pythogoras) and not since demonstrated to be false. You can call what you're claiming "Pure Science" or anything else you want but actually you're contradicting some of the oldest and most well established actual/real science known to man!
> 
> G


----------



## KeithEmo

Exactly... and _BOTH_ serve a valuable purpose.

I would assume that a recording engineer would be more interested in making an album "sound the way it should" than in "accurately reproducing the waveform of each instrument at each point in the room". But I would expect a scientist to be more interested with the second option.



Phronesis said:


> I see two largely separate worlds in head-fi, Sound Science and the rest of head-fi.  I spend time in both worlds, but they're separate worlds and don't really mix.  In the rest of head-fi, I talk about headphones, and I pretty much ignore whatever people say about DACs, amps, and cables (well, sometimes I challenge it, but carefully).
> 
> Sound Science could be focused on undermining subjective claims of big differences, but if those 'subjectivists' generally don't spend much time in Sound Science, isn't it just mostly preaching to the choir?  Do we really care about some unknown audience that may be eavesdropping on our conversations?  Like almost everyone else, I don't post under my real name, and I don't really care about who may be listening in.  And unless someone can be convinced to do controlled testing for themselves, I don't think anyone is going to stop trusting their ears based on arguments presented in Sound Science, especially if they don't have the technical background to even understand those arguments.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I think that, if we want to agree on #3, we also need to include direction/position.
(Or we need to specify that we're talking about measuring it at the eardrum.)

If we're measuring at the eardrum, then it is entirely true...
Our eardrum is essentially "one dimensional" - so all it detects is pressure.

However, if we're measuring somewhere else in the signal chain, then that is far from true.
You can record the pressure signature of a kick drum exactly.
However, it will sound far different if it is reproduced behind you than if it is reproduced in front of you.
(The same "time vs amplitude" signal at the speaker is producing a different result at your eardrum.)



Phronesis said:


> I actually agree on 3 also, but a musical signal has a lot of wiggles and we can't infer much from just looking at all the wiggles.  As we discussed, we can do a null test of two signals, but if the difference signal isn't zero, the door is still open for debate about the what the non-zero signal indicates if the amplitude isn't always super low.
> 
> Glad we generally agree on all the rest.  Progress!


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I think that, if we want to agree on #3, we also need to include direction/position.
> (Or we need to specify that we're talking about measuring it at the eardrum.)
> 
> If we're measuring at the eardrum, then it is entirely true...
> ...



I was referring to only an electronic signal, which can be fully characterized as a function of amplitude as a function of time.

For an acoustic signal, it seems that you would need to characterize that for every point in space, and with ears, for every point on the surface of each eardrum, so we're really talking about an infinite number of signals, which we can neither fully record nor portray.  Once we get out of circuits and wires into the air, I think there's way more complexity, uncertainty, and limitations of measurements.

And once we leave the air and enter the ears and brain, yet another order of increase in complexity, uncertainty, and limitations of measurements.


----------



## KeithEmo

Nice.

I have to admit that I don't listen to headphones that often.
I have no doubt that the Stax Lambdas are more accurate.
I do, however, find the Koss ESP/950s to sound quite pleasant, and to be quite revealing of detail.
(Modern Stax models are also quite pricey here in the US.)

The Koss ESP/950's are somewhat of an odd product.
They are relatively easy to get here in the US.
While they list for US$1000, they often go on sale for as little as US$650 around holiday season.
And, while they have a very cheap plastic feel to them, they are very comfortable, and seem to hold up OK....
(They also come with a lifetime warranty.)

Here in the US, Koss is also very friendly on the cost of replacement parts.
For example, Stax ear pads go for $75+.
The ear pads for the ESP/950 are very flimsy, and tear easily, but they cost $5 a pair.
And, the last time I looked, an official Koss extension cable for the ESP/950 was US$25.

Also, notably, the Koss ESP/950 comes with an actual amplifier to drive them (included in the $$$).
Again, it feels like cheap plastic, but it actually works pretty well....



analogsurviver said:


> The headphones I use for serious listening and evaluation - particularly for bass - are Stax Lambda Pro, driven by its proprietary ( made specially to produce overall correct response with Lambda Pro ) diffusse field equalizer Monitor ED-1 feeding the SRM1MK2 amplifier.
> 
> Lambda Pro came into being because of - Mercedes Benz.  They wanted to research automotive acoustics and noise levels using binaural recordings - and the best headphone at the time, Stax Lambda, was simply not up to the task; it had limitations in both the dynamic range and low end ( infrasonic ) frequency response. The solution has been to enlarge the stator to diaphragm distance and increase the polarizing voltage - now, it was enough for proper monitoring of the car recordings. The Pro version of Lambda has been embraced by the audiophile community in no time - and, the rest is history.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

In that case I absolutely agree.
With an electronic audio signal you have a voltage that varies over time.
There is nothing else.
All you can really vary is the degree of accuracy with which you measure and record it.
(And far too many people seem to have this idea that there is the possibility of some "magical something else" involved - which obviously isn't the case.)




Phronesis said:


> I was referring to only an electronic signal, which can be fully characterized as a function of amplitude as a function of time.
> 
> For an acoustic signal, it seems that you would need to characterize that for every point in space, and with ears, for every point on the surface of each eardrum, so we're really talking about an infinite number of signals, which we can neither fully record nor portray.  Once we get out of circuits and wires into the air, I think there's way more complexity, uncertainty, and limitations of measurements.
> 
> And once we leave the air and enter the ears and brain, yet another order of increase in complexity, uncertainty, and limitations of measurements.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 14, 2018)

Since there's nothing for me to reply to, I have a question about HDMI... A friend of mine got an upscaler for his old video game systems and it outputs to HDMI. For some reason, it only outputs video OR audio, not both at once. It had an analogue headphone output, so he plugged a bluetooth transmitter into that, but it's clunky. Is it common for HDMI to be used for audio only? Is there a reason why it wouldn't include both audio and video? Is there some sort of crazy "signal purity" theory involved here?


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Since there's nothing for me to reply to, I have a question about HDMI... A friend of mine got an upscaler for his old video game systems and it outputs to HDMI. For some reason, it only outputs video OR audio, not both at once. It had an analogue headphone output, so he plugged a bluetooth transmitter into that, but it's clunky. Is it common for HDMI to be used for audio only? Is there a reason why it wouldn't include both audio and video? Is there some sort of crazy "signal purity" theory involved here?




It’s not common for HDMI to be restricted to audio only, though I have seen it.  Can you post the model of the upscaler and the game system - might be a configuration issue or a limitation with the specific converter.  What are you/he doing that switches between audio and video?  Is it a change in settings on the game system or the converter?

One thing that causes  audio to not be output is a headphone jack that is “stuck” in the connected state.  First thing I’d try is using a can of compressed air on the headphone jack to see if anything is making contact.  Happens more often than you would think, particularly on gear that hasn’t been used in a while.  Might not be the case here since you mention that audio is possible, but no harm in trying it.


----------



## bigshot

I’ll get more info from him and let you know.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I see two largely separate worlds in head-fi, Sound Science and the rest of head-fi.  I spend time in both worlds, but they're separate worlds and don't really mix.  In the rest of head-fi, I talk about headphones, and I pretty much ignore whatever people say about DACs, amps, and cables (well, sometimes I challenge it, but carefully).
> 
> Sound Science could be focused on undermining subjective claims of big differences, but if those 'subjectivists' generally don't spend much time in Sound Science, isn't it just mostly preaching to the choir?  Do we really care about some unknown audience that may be eavesdropping on our conversations?  Like almost everyone else, I don't post under my real name, and I don't really care about who may be listening in.  And unless someone can be convinced to do controlled testing for themselves, I don't think anyone is going to stop trusting their ears based on arguments presented in Sound Science, especially if they don't have the technical background to even understand those arguments.
> 
> ...


same answers as Gregorio.
and about this section and how to discuss, well it's your forum along with everybody else in it. I only shared my opinion and if you guys want to discuss a certain way, just do so. if enough people align on that, it will become what this section is about ^_^.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 15, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> All of the studies I've seen that relate to humans being able to distinguish timing variations down into the microseconds are talking about being able to distinguish variations in arrival times between the two ears. What they're saying is that, if you delay the signal reaching one ear by as little as 10 microseconds, we can notice a perceptible shift in the apparent location of the source. (The generally agreed number is that we can hear differences in inter-aural delay of as little as 10 uS with a 1 kHz signal.)



We keep seeing this sort of thing here, it's BOTH a misrepresentation of the actual science itself AND the inappropriate application of it to the listening of music. They are ABSOLUTELY NOT "saying" that "_if you delay the signal the signal reaching one ear by as little as 10 microseconds we can notice a perceptible shift in the apparent location of the source_"!! They are saying that it's possible to manufacture an extremely specific SET of conditions, under which it can be possible for humans to detect different arrival times as little as 10 microsecs. In this case, the set of required conditions are: Only two pure 1kHz sine waves, of identical duration and amplitude, of a specifically short duration (around half a sec), with a specific time interval between the 1kHz pulses and in isolation, with no other sounds present (such as other tones or reflections/acoustics). Change just ONE of those conditions and the time difference detectable increases dramatically, even "_exponentially_"! For example, the conclusion of the papers you quoted was that above 1.5kHz, ITD in human hearing doesn't operate at all, which ironically contradicts your previous assertions about the importance of ultrasonic freqs. So, the science itself has been misrepresented and then the application of it to the listening of music is also completely fallacious because NOT EVEN A SINGLE ONE of those required conditions exist with music!

So often, evidence such as this is hauled out as supporting evidence of what audiophiles think they can hear or believe they should/could be able to hear but that presentation of the science is FALSE, either deliberately (to fulfil some agenda), out of ignorance or both. It's FALSE because it's only half the story (and sometimes less than half). Taking the example of the scientific papers relating to high/ultrasonic freq hearing response: They not only effectively present evidence of what human hearing is capable of but of what it isn't. Yes, some young adults can hear individual ultrasonic freqs but ONLY if they exceed high SPLs. The level of ultrasonic content in music does NOT exceed those required SPLs and is actually several/many times below the required threshold. The science is therefore actually providing evidence that supports the argument AGAINST ultrasonic content in music being audible, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of how it's often presented by audiophiles!! In this particular case, the papers cited are providing evidence that we CANNOT hear an inter-aural delay of as little of 10uS with music.

And, for the umpteenth time, it is trivially easy to test this, you can download raw un-mixed recordings, play around with them in a free editor/DAW, discover for yourself the required conditions and limits of ITD and actually fulfil this thread's title instead of perverting it!!



KeithEmo said:


> Maybe you can't have both, or all three, at the same time... but they are all individually possible.
> I could:
> a) seek to duplicate the perceptual experience of a listener in the audience
> b) seek to exactly duplicate the sound waves, as measured in the air, at the listener's position
> ...



Which is completely the opposite of what I believe because that's pretty much the very last thing anyone, including consumers, would want and it's clearly impossible anyway. Who would want to play back a rock/pop song (for example), which was a couple of days of unaccompanied, unedited, unmixed drum takes, followed by a couple of days of unaccompanied, unedited, unmixed lead vocal takes, then several more days of guitar takes and contain none of the samples or synths employed because they only existed as data or analogue signals and never existed as "_sound waves, as measured in the air, at the listener's position_". AND, even if someone did want their rock/pop song to be disassembled back into an "exact duplicate [of] the sound waves, as measured in the air, at the listener's position", technology is nowhere near capable of that feat. What consumers actually want is a manufactured, produced/manipulated montage (mix) that lasts just a few minutes, not the actual week or so of the sound waves that actually existed "at the listener's position". As far as I'm aware, no one tries to design a consumer reproduction system so it delivers an exact duplicate of the sound waves that would exist at the listener's position. Assuming high-fidelity is the goal, consumer reproduction systems are designed to reproduce (and transduce) the input signal as accurately as possible but DEFINITELY NOT, exactly duplicate the sound waves at the listener's position. *Please provide some evidence/examples of systems which are designed according to your claim!*
As far the the actual input signals that a reproduction system should be trying to reproduce are concerned, they are almost exclusively designed to "a)" or more accurately: To create the conditions for a listener to experience the desired perceptual experience.


KeithEmo said:


> [1] HOWEVER, if I am willing to budget enough money, or to accept other limitations, there are quite often scientific methods and equipment that are far better than anything likely to ever be used in a studio.
> [2] I would also reiterate that, from a scientific point of view, technology does sometimes change very rapidly.



1. How much money do you think you would you have to budget to get around the laws of physics?
Scientific measurement mics are NOT "far better than anything likely to be used in a studio", they're far WORSE! I worked in a world class studio numerous times whose mic collection was valued at about $10m, the most expensive scientific measurement mics are about $10k -$20k, peanuts compared to the amount of money the top studios have invested in mics. So why don't they ever use scientific measurement mics? A scientific measurement mic is designed for a specific purpose, to measure a specific aspect/component of sound waves, such as frequency content, very high SPLs or very low SPLs but they can ONLY do so at the expense of sensitivity in the areas they are NOT designed to measure. So for example a specific measurement mic might measure very high SPLs much better than any studio mic but at the expense of much worse frequency response and/or self-noise and output sensitivity. Overall therefore it would be far WORSE than a studio mic because the signals we are recording need low self-noise, reasonably high output sensitivity and reasonably good freq response otherwise it simply will not be able to record all the components of these signals!

2. And I would also reiterate that, from a scientific point of view, some technology does NOT change very rapidly or hardly at all in some cases. So your assertion is irrelevant, misleading and effectively a fallacy unless you specify what technology you're talking about and whether it applies to the specific equipment or point you are making assertions about. Microphones are one area of technology that has NOT changed very rapidly, in fact the fundament technology has hardly changed at all over many decades. This is in stark contrast to digital technology which has changed/advanced massively over the same period. I'm extremely surprised you are so ignorant of this, even to the point of "reiterating" that same fallacy?

G


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 15, 2018)

Someone shared this short article on auditory memory with me, which I think is quite good:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270574966_Auditory_Memory

There are apparently various models of auditory memory, and this model has three types of memory:

- Perceptual auditory storage: Very short-term sensory memory for a fraction of a second, which is quite detailed, but it's raw unanalyzed detail

- Synthesized auditory memory: Memory which goes back several seconds, has substantially less sensory detail than perceptual auditory storage, and has some general features of the sound stored based on analysis of perceptual auditory storage

- Generated abstract memory: Long-term memory which can be stored indefinitely, and lacks sensory detail, instead capturing the gist of what was heard as an abstract representation

These different types of memory have important implications for listening impressions and tests.

When we do typical controlled tests, we're usually comparing A and B based on synthesized auditory memory from music excerpts which are several seconds long, so there's a loss of sensory detail involved.  In addition, the memory reflects the level of analysis specifically associated with synthesized auditory memory, so some features of the sound will be abstracted out and other features won't.  It's NOT like simply replaying detailed recordings of A and B and comparing them.

When we describe the sound of a headphone that we haven't heard recently, we're working with generated abstract memory, which is quite schematic and lacking sensory detail.  So when we say something like "the bass is strong but a bit bloated, the highs are somewhat rolled off and smooth, and mids are clear and realistic," it's those _attributes_ that we've remembered and are recalling, not a detailed sensory image of those attributes.

It's interesting how all of this stuff with memory happens seamlessly at a subconscious level without our being aware of it.  But we can readily notice all of this if do some real experiments and thought experiments and pay attention to how our memory is working.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with you 100%.

They are saying that a difference that small would only be likely to be audible under very specific circumstances. However, you cannot say for a fact that those circumstances will never occur in an audio recording. I'm pretty sure that most synthesizers these days can make a pure monaural sine wave at 1 kHz... and they could certainly play a sample containing one... and I've definitely heard electronic music where the artist played a pure tone and "made it fly back and forth" by adjusting the relative phase between the channels. And, unless you can say that we will _NEVER_ encounter that situation in music, then you must concede that "it may be audible on some recordings". Bear in mind that we're talking about 1 kHz here... and not anything ultrasonic. 

As you say, it is trivially easy to prove, and the scientists who conducted that test have already done so.
I'm pretty sure that, if you or I were to repeat that same test, we would arrive at the same results.
(I've read summaries of several tests that replicated those results... and that minimum value.)

Please note that I said it was _POSSIBLE_.
You responded that it was not possible.
I responded by presenting published test results showing that it is in fact possible.
Now you respond that "nobody would want to do it anyway".
(I would agree - at least that it's quite unlikely to matter in any but a few really obscure situations.)

You seem to persist in confusing what equipment currently in use can do with what's _POSSIBLE_.

In _SCIENTIFIC_ terms, a modern recording studio is _NOT_ "the definitive level of current technology"; and, of course, even current technology is by no means a definition of what's _possible_. 

If I wanted to record cymbals, from six inches away, with a response up to 50 kHz, first I would check the specs for currently available microphones. If none of them was able to do it well enough, I would request a few quotes from the folks who make high speed measurement equipment. Then, if they didn't sell something off-the-shelf that could do what I wanted, I'd consider designing one. (A microphone is simply a device for measuring air pressure over time. First I'd think about using multiple currently available microphones, each dedicated to a particular frequency range, and combining their outputs digitally. Or, I might consider making a microphone, or having one custom manufactured, specifically designed to do what I want. I suspect that using a thin platinum diaphragm, and tracking its position with a LASER interferometer, might be practical and economical. Or, perhaps, a very thin Kapton diaphragm, sputtered in platinum, would be more practical. Another possible solution might be to fire an electron beam through a small chamber, and read the air pressure from the density of the air itself, based on how much the beam is attenuated. I'm also not convinced taht I'd rule out piezoelectric crystal and polymer colutions. Those are just some simple possibilities - off the top of my head.) And, yes, developing such a device might cost more than the cost to build a typical high end sound studio. (Luckily, in science, we don't have to worry about "consumer practicalities". The latest gravity wave detector, which finally worked after several previous failures, cost just over $600 million.) 

And, yes, I agree that building such a device might be extremely impractical... but it would _NOT_ be _IMPOSSIBLE_.
(And, unlike recording gravity waves, there might simply not be enough interest to fund developing it.)



gregorio said:


> We keep seeing this sort of thing here, it's BOTH a misrepresentation of the actual science itself AND the inappropriate application of it to the listening of music. They are ABSOLUTELY NOT "saying" that "_if you delay the signal the signal reaching one ear by as little as 10 microseconds we can notice a perceptible shift in the apparent location of the source_"!! They are saying that it's possible to manufacture an extremely specific SET of conditions, under which it can be possible for humans to detect different arrival times as little as 10 microsecs. In this case, the set of required conditions are: Only two pure 1kHz sine waves, of identical duration and amplitude, of a specifically short duration (around half a sec), with a specific time interval between the 1kHz pulses and in isolation, with no other sounds present (such as other tones or reflections/acoustics). Change just ONE of those conditions and the time difference detectable increases dramatically, even "_exponentially_"! For example, the conclusion of the papers you quoted was that above 1.5kHz, ITD in human hearing doesn't operate at all, which ironically contradicts your previous assertions about the importance of ultrasonic freqs. So, the science itself has been misrepresented and then the application of it to the listening of music is also completely fallacious because NOT EVEN A SINGLE ONE of those required conditions exist with music!
> 
> So often, evidence such as this is hauled out as supporting evidence of what audiophiles think they can hear or believe they should/could be able to hear but that presentation of the science is FALSE, either deliberately (to fulfil some agenda), out of ignorance or both. It's FALSE because it's only half the story (and sometimes less than half). Taking the example of the scientific papers relating to high/ultrasonic freq hearing response: They not only effectively present evidence of what human hearing is capable of but of what it isn't. Yes, some young adults can hear individual ultrasonic freqs but ONLY if they exceed high SPLs. The level of ultrasonic content in music does NOT exceed those required SPLs and is actually several/many times below the required threshold. The science is therefore actually providing evidence that supports the argument AGAINST ultrasonic content in music being audible, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of how it's often presented by audiophiles!! In this particular case, the papers cited are providing evidence that we CANNOT hear an inter-aural delay of as little of 10uS with music.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Dec 15, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> Can you post the model of the upscaler and the game system



The upscaler is called OSSC https://www.videogameperfection.com/products/open-source-converter/

He has a whole bunch of vintage systems that patch into a converter/switcher that switches between them and converts to HDMI. When he plugs that in direct, he gets both sound and picture.

All of the audiophool pseudo-scientific justifications are getting trotted out now! We've gone from inaudible frequencies to inaudible phase shifts. Next we can talk about inaudible jitter, inaudible levels of distortion and inaudible stuff that we can hear but we're too much of a cave man to know how to measure yet! The guy who has never set foot in a recording studio is telling the guy who runs one how primitive recording studios are. Welcome to Bizzaroland!


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> The upscaler is called OSSC https://www.videogameperfection.com/products/open-source-converter/
> 
> He has a whole bunch of vintage systems that patch into a converter/switcher that switches between them and converts to HDMI. When he plugs that in direct, he gets both sound and picture.
> 
> All of the audiophool pseudo-scientific justifications are getting trotted out now! We've gone from inaudible frequencies to inaudible phase shifts. Next we can talk about inaudible jitter, inaudible levels of distortion and inaudible stuff that we can hear but we're too much of a cave man to know how to measure yet! The guy who has never set foot in a recording studio is telling the guy who runs one how primitive recording studios are. Welcome to Bizzaroland!



That’s an impressive upscaler, but it’s also a lot more complex than the typical plug and play versions.  It looks like there are specific settings for each game system and display combination.  There’s an active support forum - I’d suggest posting there if my shot in the dark below doesn’t get it to output both audio and video.  It also looks like it’s a bit of a work in progress, so make sure the firmware is up to date.

https://www.videogameperfection.com/forums/topic/no-audio-over-hdmi-problem/

Sorry I can’t offer anything more specific - would have to be in front of his setup to really diagnose the issue.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 16, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] However, you cannot say for a fact that those circumstances will never occur in an audio recording.
> [2] I'm pretty sure that most synthesizers these days can make a pure monaural sine wave at 1 kHz... and they could certainly play a sample containing one... and
> [2a] I've definitely heard electronic music where the artist played a pure tone and "made it fly back and forth" by adjusting the relative phase between the channels.
> [3] And, unless you can say that we will _NEVER_ encounter that situation in music, then you must concede that "it may be audible on some recordings". Bear in mind that we're talking about 1 kHz here... and not anything ultrasonic.
> ...



1. There's what, roughly 1 million commercial tracks/songs released per year and probably a similar number of Films, TV programmes and commercials? Please provide a single example, in the whole of recording history where those circumstances have occurred.

2. Sure they can but what's that got to do with it? You need 2 identical 1kHz tones, NOT just a (one) pure monaural sine wave at 1kHz, they need to be panned hard right and hard left and then one delayed by 10uS. That's certainly doable BUT
2a. Firstly, that's extremely rarely ever done because unless the listener is sitting precisely between the speakers then the amount of "back and forth" will be different for each listener, which is why we use amplitude panning and almost never  psycho-acoustic panning (phase based panning) and Secondly, on those very rare occasions when it is done, the relative phase is adjusted in the several millisecond range, NOT the micro-second range AND ADDITIONALLY, you clearly *haven't thought about the laws of physics, AGAIN!!* Sound travels though air at the speed of 0.343 mm (less than 1/64") per micro-second. Therefore, if your head is just 0.343 milli-metres away from dead centre between the drivers (speakers/HP drivers) then our 10uS difference in arrival time between the two 1kHz sine waves could fall below the demonstrated threshold. To put it another way, if your head is 3.43mm away from dead centre between the drivers, the actual arrival time of the 10uS difference would be either 20uS or 0uS! Thirdly, when played by speakers, the 1kHz tones at the listening position will also have room reflections, which completely breaks the required conditions!
3. I CAN say that we will NEVER encounter that situation in music and therefore I do NOT concede that "it maybe audible on some recordings"! Creating that set of conditions would not be artistically desirable AND even if it were, in practice how many consumers ensure their head is within 0.343 mm of dead centre between the drivers and will never listen to the piece/song with speakers? If it's none, then no consumer would be able to hear that desired effect anyway, so what would be the point of going to the effort of creating it? Clearly it's a ridiculous assertion but I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, just provide a single example.
4. I stated it was not possible to hear an arrival time difference of 10uS in music. I did note that you said it was _POSSIBLE_, which is I'm responding because your assertion is incorrect!
4a. Which is correct!
4b. *No you DID NOT!!* You presented published tests showing that it is ONLY possible to hear a difference in arrival time of 10uS under conditions which do NOT exist in music recordings (or listening to music recording). You're just going around in circles, stating something is "possible" that in fact does not exist, which of course is a nonsense fallacy. If gravity didn't exist, then pigs could fly. Science (and everyone else) has it all wrong, flying pigs ARE "possible"!!



KeithEmo said:


> You seem to persist in confusing what equipment currently in use can do with what's _POSSIBLE_. ... And, yes, I agree that building such a device might be extremely impractical... but it would _NOT_ be _IMPOSSIBLE_.


Can you please explain how it's "_POSSIBLE"_ to record a rock band (or in fact anything) with a microphone that hasn't been invented yet??   ... 

G


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Someone shared this short article on auditory memory with me, which I think is quite good:
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270574966_Auditory_Memory
> 
> ...


do you imagine being completely aware of all the data coming from our senses at all time? it would be... Hermagerd staaahhppppp!!!!!!
and then to add some fun, having to actually remember all the data+interpretation instead of how close something is from already vaguely memorized patterns. again in quasi real time because new data keeps coming. that would be crazy and most likely not viable. instead we have perfect creatures like me, who can hardly follow a conversation if there's a TV turned on in the room, and can't remember what someone requested this morning on the phone. 
flawless!


----------



## james444 (Dec 16, 2018)

Change of subject.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







castleofargh said:


> this section somehow always turns into "everything sounds the same" vs "no it doesn't". be it because bigshot loves his generalizations, or because some guy arguing for differences will put that into someone else's mouth as a strawman argument.





bigshot said:


> Just to make it clear for the millionth time... I don't say all DACs and amps and cables sound the same. I say that all DACs and amps and cables SHOULD sound the same. They should all perform beyond the line of audible transparency under normal use so they don't introduce coloration in the chain. I have tested all of my DACs and amps and they are all audibly transparent for the purposes of listening to music in the home. That's my claim right there. Accept no substitutes!




I'm putting this up for discussion, because I honestly have no particular idea what to make of it. Also, I don't know enough about DACs to even make an educated guess. So, here's the story...

There's this ES9218P DAC + AMP chip, which seems to be pretty popular with "audiophile" portable gear manufacturers. I have it in my LG V30 smartphone and in a tiny DAP/USB-DAC, the Shanling M0. As a peculiarity of this chip, it features a user-programmable FIR filter with different presets. Some of these presets are exposed via user interface, my LG V30 offers three different settings and the Shanling M0 eight. The general consensus among users both on Head-Fi and on other forums seems to be that these filter settings do indeed sound different from each other.

So I decided to measure and compare four of them...

I used the Shanling M0 as USB-DAC, and since I don't have gear to measure DACs/AMPs directly, I connected my IEMs and measured the entire chain with my miniDSP EARS. I did not remove the earpiece from the artificial ear between measurements, nor did I change anything else except the FIR filter setting.

Here's a frequency response comparison of 4 filter presets (linear fast, linear slow, minimum fast, minimum slow):






The same graph zoomed in:





And here's an animated comparison of impulse responses (in between spoiler tags, to avoid annoyance):


Spoiler











Subjectively, I'd say these presets do sound slightly different to my ears (in a sighted test). Objectively, I'd think the changes in FR are too small to make an audible difference. Last but not least, I don't know what to make of impulse responses... There seems to be quite some variance, however from what I've read, FR and IR should be just two different visualizations of the same data.

What's your opinion on that?


----------



## castleofargh

james444 said:


> Change of subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


not sure I'd try to answer this question that way. it would probably be more interesting to record a short passage of music with various filters, edit the hell out of them in audacity or whatever to try and have them start at the same time. then just ABX the various tracks in foobar.
I'd suggest to record straight out of the DAP, even if it's with the computer's soundcard, to limit the potential variations outside of changing the filters(ambient noise in the room with the EARS, or tiny change in position as the tips maybe flex a little). and also because the EARS is fixed to 48khz I think. so while that may leave enough room to show differences on 16/44, it will still band limit however it wants for 48kHz/s.so I'd rather record at 96khz(or more) to make sure we're getting FR roll off profile from the DAP.

about impulses in REW, I would suggest to set to %FS in the top left corner of the graph, and then set the limits on the resizing setting (somewhere top right above the graph) to maybe -0.001s and 0.001s at least as a start to find the impulse ^_^. and you can normalize the vertical axis in the controls if you want but then you might not notice a change in amplitude of the main impulse, if any. you can also just zoom while holding the MOUSE3(wheel click) down, but on the impulse graph it's usually a nightmare.
anyway that should give you something looking a lot more like the impulses on innerfidelity and IMO they're more relevant to you than the noise in your room 

about impulse and FR, the FR is in the impulse, but not every information in the impulse is in the FR(like reverb).


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> about impulses in REW, I would suggest to set to %FS in the top left corner of the graph, and then set the limits on the resizing setting (somewhere top right above the graph) to maybe -0.001s and 0.001s at least as a start to find the impulse ^_^. and you can normalize the vertical axis in the controls if you want but then you might not notice a change in amplitude of the main impulse, if any. you can also just zoom while holding the MOUSE3(wheel click) down, but on the impulse graph it's usually a nightmare.
> anyway that should give you something looking a lot more like the impulses on innerfidelity and IMO they're more relevant to you than the noise in your room
> 
> about impulse and FR, the FR is in the impulse, but not every information in the impulse is in the FR(like reverb).



Thanks, I've changed the GIF in my post to a more meaningful presentation.  Only bothered with IR because these filter settings are said to change impulse characteristics,



castleofargh said:


> not sure I'd try to answer this question that way. it would probably be more interesting to record a short passage of music with various filters, edit the hell out of them in audacity or whatever to try and have them start at the same time. then just ABX the various tracks in foobar.
> I'd suggest to record straight out of the DAP, even if it's with the computer's soundcard, to limit the potential variations outside of changing the filters(ambient noise in the room with the EARS, or tiny change in position as the tips maybe flex a little). and also because the EARS is fixed to 48khz I think. so while that may leave enough room to show differences on 16/44, it will still band limit however it wants for 48kHz/s.so I'd rather record at 96khz(or more) to make sure we're getting FR roll off profile from the DAP.



Don't think I own equipment up to this task, just an old notebook and no external soundcard, I'm afraid. I thought, if anything, variations outside of changing the filters would excacerbate variations on the EARS, but since resulting FRs look near-identical, I felt the measurement must have been pretty consistent.



castleofargh said:


> about impulse and FR, the FR is in the impulse, but not every information in the impulse is in the FR(like reverb).



Now that's interesting. Is it possible that two different filter settings might both conform to DAC specs [20HZ~20KHz (-0.5dB)], look near-identical in the FR-graph, yet make an audible difference in impulse response?


----------



## KeithEmo

I've finally figured it out... we seem to have some sort of language barrier.
I have been talkng abut what's _POSSIBLE_... in terms of science... and not what already exists.
You are talking about "what's available today in a typical high end audio recording studio".
(interspersed with your opinion about what we actually need to produce a commercial recording.)
So, in fact, we don't disagree; we simply aren't talking about the same thing at all.)

If you look up "possible" in the dictionary you will find that "someone already did it" is _NOT_ a requirement.
In fact, you will also find that "you can currently purchase equipment that can do it" is also not a requirement.
In fact, the definition is quite specific that it even applies to "whatever can be conceived or is within the limits of ability".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possible

However, in this case, it has in fact been done.
The scientists who ran those tests _already provided the specific example you keep asking for_.

I have no idea if any existing audio track on a commercial recording meets those requirements. However, since I simply said that it's _POSSIBLE_, I have no obligation to prove that someone has already done it. Several scientists have obviously produced a track that meets that requirement - because they used it to obtain their results. And you seem to agree with me that it would not be even difficult to "record a 1 kHz tone in two tracks and pan it hard left". I could certainly do it in about five minutes in Audition. Therefore, as far as I can tell, you _AGREE_ with me that it's possible. So how can you argue the exact opposite? If it makes you happy, I can record a track with that test tone on it, name it "Keith's strange music", and e-mail it to you and two other friends, or post it on this site. We will then have a _distributed_ track with that requirement. And, if it really makes you happy, I'll get a friend of mine to pay me $1 for a copy, then we'll have a _commercially distributed_ track that does. (And, in the mean time, if you want to claim that "no existing commercial track has it", then feel free to provide a signed affidavit that you've screened all million existing tracks, and can actually assert that none of them contain it.) Alternately, I'll be perfectly happy to stipulate that it very rarely comes up in commercial recordings and that, if it does, odds are nobody would be likely to notice that tiny discrepancy anyway. (However, just to be fair, if there something that I know my system isn't doing right, and which I know could cause an audible eror, I'd prefer to fix it.)

Your second question is also simple to answer.... 
You either invent it yourself or pay someone to invent it for you.
In science we are often required to invent new technology to meet new requirements.

1) You decide that your current microphones are inadequate and you decide what you actually need.
2) You carefully write down those specifications as a technical requirement.
3) You pay someone to design and build you a new microphone that meets your requirements.
4) After they deliver it you use it to record your band.

The current level of technology is simply the result of a balance between what's available and what's wanted or needed. Your recordings are limited by the quality of your equipment; the quality of your equipment is limited by the requirements you set for it; those requirements are set by the requirements of your customers; and the requirements of your customers are set largely by what they know is available. Technology evolves... driven by need. It is very rare to find a case where the technology is actually limited by the laws of physics in any practical way. 

The technical limitations of the vast majority of equipment in your studio is NOT set by "the limits of physics". In most cases it is simply "the level of performance that someone was willing to pay to achieve - so far".



gregorio said:


> 1. There's what, roughly 1 million commercial tracks/songs released per year and probably a similar number of Films, TV programmes and commercials? Please provide a single example, in the whole of recording history where those circumstances have occurred.
> 
> 2. Sure they can but what's that got to do with it? You need 2 identical 1kHz tones, NOT just a (one) pure monaural sine wave at 1kHz, they need to be panned hard right and hard left and then one delayed by 10uS. That's certainly doable BUT
> 2a. Firstly, that's extremely rarely ever done because unless the listener is sitting precisely between the speakers then the amount of "back and forth" will be different for each listener, which is why we use amplitude panning and almost never  psycho-acoustic panning (phase based panning) and Secondly, on those very rare occasions when it is done, the relative phase is adjusted in the several millisecond range, NOT the micro-second range AND ADDITIONALLY, you clearly *haven't thought about the laws of physics, AGAIN!!* Sound travels though air at the speed of 0.343 mm (less than 1/64") per micro-second. Therefore, if your head is just 0.343 milli-metres away from dead centre between the drivers (speakers/HP drivers) then our 10uS difference in arrival time between the two 1kHz sine waves could fall below the demonstrated threshold. To put it another way, if your head is 3.43mm away from dead centre between the drivers, the actual arrival time of the 10uS difference would be either 20uS or 0uS! Thirdly, when played by speakers, the 1kHz tones at the listening position will also have room reflections, which completely breaks the required conditions!
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I've read estimates that we visually actually process about 5% of the available data... and even that needs to be qualified because we actually often "pre-screen" the data we acquire. For example, when you walk down a sidewalk, you don't actually "see" much of the sidewalk. Your brain, at various levels, screens out most of the input, and "only shows you the interesting parts". You notice the rock that's sticking up, and the hole you might trip in, but you do not see the millions of "ordinary" rocks and bits of cement.

An important thing to realize, and one which may well be relevant to how we process audio, is that this mechanism operates at many _VERY_ different levels. A simplistic view might be that "your eyes continually take in a picture of the sidewalk in front of you, which your brain then processes, and discards all but the information it considers important". However, the reality is far more complex. For example, your eyes actually have a rather limited visible field, so they can only focus on a small area at any given time, and the mechanisms that control eye movement also have limitations, and different areas and types of data are processed differently. (Your peripheral vision responds to motion, but not color, while your central vision responds better to detail and color.)

So what really happens is something like this. Let's say you see a movement out of the corner of your eye. The sensors and parts of your brain dedicated to detecting motion do so relatively quickly, but without much detail. So, when that motion is detected, your brain sends an instruction to the muscles in your eye to start turning the central more-detailed area of your vision towards it. However, while your eye is still moving, other areas of your brain continue to process that original input. As they complete their slower but more thorough processing, they may reinforce the command to "focus on the interesting area", or they may countermand it after "deciding it wasn't interesting after all". This process occurs in a varety of different areas in your brain - with more complex processing occurring more slowly and simpler processing more quickly... and these processes tie in to other areas of your brain. 

So, for example, your brain notices "motion out of the corner of your eye" relatively quickly, and starts your eye turning in that direction. At the same time it may turn up your adrenaline to enable your muscles to respond more quickly if necessary. While this is all going on, the more complex processing necessary to decide whether that motion was a bird or a lion continues, as does the even more complex processing to decide whether it's an _edible_ bird, or a _hungry_ lion, and the yet more complex and slower processing to decide whether, if it is a hungry lion, you should try to run away, stand and fight, or hold very still and hope he doesn't notice you. And, at any point in the process, the results of certain processes can also oppose others. For example, you may recognize that it's a butterfly, at which point your brain "countermands" the adrenaline, now that it's decided no physical response will be necessary, and may even direct the eyes to stop wasting effort and go back to scanning for important targets.

Assuming that the other areas of our brain are wired and operate in similar fashion, this may explain how we are able to discern so much about what we listen to at some times, while being insensitive to other details, or to the same details at other times. Once you know that a musician hit a certain clinker, whether because you heard it the last time you listened to that song, or because you read it somewhere, a relatively complex portion of your brain has driected your attention towards it... and, since the total amount of processing and sensory capability is limited, this pulls attention away from other details. This is also a neurological explanation of "training" - which simply means that we have learned to preset our attention in certain ways in certain situations based on previous experience. (So, for example, if you believe that "cymbals are more difficult to reproduce accurately than other instruments", more of your attention is focussed on those details, and less of your attention on other details.)

However, because of this, we need to accept that, when listening to the same piece of music, or the same audio system, others may "be hearing very different things than we are". And, in fact, under different conditions, the same may even be true for us. I'm sure everyone here has noticed how, sometimes, "everything just sounds good", or the opposite. This simply means that, at those times, our attention was focussed on aspects of the music that we found enjoyable - or the opposite. The important thing to note, though, is that it is not just a surface experience. Since we cannot separate our braisn from the process, we may LITERALLY be more or less able to hear certain details depending on whether our attention is focussed on them or not. (So, for example, people who are "better trained to listen for details" may in fact actually have the equivalent of physically more acute hearing, and people who are absolutely certain something doesn't exist may LITERALLY be unable to hear it. A visual analogy is simply that "you actually won't be able to see the bird if you aren't looking up".)



castleofargh said:


> do you imagine being completely aware of all the data coming from our senses at all time? it would be... Hermagerd staaahhppppp!!!!!!
> and then to add some fun, having to actually remember all the data+interpretation instead of how close something is from already vaguely memorized patterns. again in quasi real time because new data keeps coming. that would be crazy and most likely not viable. instead we have perfect creatures like me, who can hardly follow a conversation if there's a TV turned on in the room, and can't remember what someone requested this morning on the phone.
> flawless!


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 16, 2018)

Interesting indeed....

I think it's worth mentioning that, while you made an excellent attempt with what you have at hand, the impulse response of mechanical transducers like IEMs is usually quite limited.
Likewise, the impulse response of microphones, even very good ones, isn't especially good either.
Therefore it makes sense that they would not convey the actual electronic output of the device very accurately.
(of course, many folks take this as an indication that "we shouldn't be able to hear it either".)

However:
I found THIS recent review of the LG v30+ phone:
https://musicphotolife.com/2017/11/lg-v30-review-best-audio-video-and-photo-experience/
(Note that, being a phone, it might incorporate additional filtering outside the DAC chip itself, although not necessarily in "hi-fi mode").

If you scroll down about halfway you'll find THIS set of screenshots showing the _claimed_ impulse responses of its three filter options...
Note that they are quite different... and rather typical of many DACs (Sabre and otherwise).
(Also note that they may be theoretical drawings rather than actual 'scope captures.)





https://i1.wp.com/musicphotolife.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Screenshots153.jpg?resize=800,486

Interestingly ESS (who makes the chip) doesn't seem to be providing detailed information or data sheets....

It is also worth noting that the ES9218 chip itself is quite complex - far more complex than "a simple DAC chip".
For example, the internal "jitter reduction technology" it incorporates is actually a novel type of circuit that operates somewhat like sample rate converter.
(The exact internal workings are immensely complicated - and probably prorietary - but it does alter the actual digital audio data as part of the process.)
However, because the chip is so complex, it's quite possible that more significant differences between the filter options might present themselves only with more complex test signals - like actual music.

I should also point out that some of the ESS DAC chips, beyond offering selectable internal filter choices, allow the device designer to create their own custom external filters.
(I'm not sure if this particular chip does or not.)

FInally, I would expect that most devices like your Shanling don't apply any odd external processing to the digital audio signal- so you are seeing and hearing the actual performance of the DAC chip.
HOWEVER, anyone attempting to do this sort of comparison using a phone should be aware that MOST phones apply A LOT of extra processing to the audio signal.
With many modern phones this includes:
- built in EQ to correct for deficiencies in the internal speaker
- optional user-controlled EQ
- dynamic processing and limiting to protect their tiny speakers from overload (far beyond simple limiting)
- dynamic processing to make voice more intelligible
- high pass filtering, combined with artificial addition of extra synthesized harmonics, to provide a convincing illusion of improved bass response




james444 said:


> Change of subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I've finally figured it out... we seem to have some sort of language barrier.
> I have been talkng abut what's _POSSIBLE_... in terms of science... and not what already exists.
> You are talking about "what's available today in a typical high end audio recording studio".
> (interspersed with your opinion about what we actually need to produce a commercial recording.)
> ...




Congratulations- you’ve now found 100 different ways to say “science doesn’t know everything, so it know nothing”

Continually creating irrational and unlikely in the extreme “possibilities” is an exercise of the absurd, not an example of proper science.

Pigs may fly one day - have you equipped your car with anti flying pig screens to protect your windshield?  If you really believed in your view of science, you need to do so if you’re going to be consistent.  You never know - it could happen tomorrow- it’s possible...


----------



## KeithEmo

Luckily for the rest of us, science isn't limited to what you or I think is important.
And the laws of physics nowhere state that "if you or I can't do it today then it must be impossible" either.
(And, as any real scientist will tell you, "the laws of physics" are really just the best model we have - for now.)
It really is just that simple.
Why do you insist on trying to make it more complicated?

I still haven't figured out where you've gotten that silly "science doesn't know anything so it knows nothing" meme from.
(But it certainly wasn't from me.)
Science knows a lot, but science doesn't know everything, and everything science "knows" is subject to revision.
However, that doesn't mean that what science does know isn't USEFUL... whcih is all we can reasonably ask.

Here's a link to a flying pig (he didn't fly very far):


And here's one who completed his flight:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95217&page=1

And, contrary to that last story, the FAA says that pigs may continue to fly (even in first class):
https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94861&page=1

And, while I certainly hope nobody would be mean enough to do it, you could surely launch a pig from a cannon.
And I'll be that, even though perhaps it wasn't recorded, pigs have opccasionally been picked up by tornadoes.

So, yes, in fact pigs _CAN _fly.
The next time I encounter a pig flying on a plane I'll say "hello" for you.
And, if I'm unlucky enough to be caught in a tornado, and see a pig flying towards me, I'll duck.
(I would suggest that, if it ever happens to you, you abandon your preconceived notions long enough to duck as well.)
And, no, I doubt I'm _LIKELY ENOUGH_ to have a pig fly into my car to justify the cost of a "pig-screen".
Have we cleared up the difference between "impossible" and "unlikely" yet?
Can we stop now?



bfreedma said:


> Congratulations- you’ve now found 100 different ways to say “science doesn’t know everything, so it know nothing”
> 
> Continually creating irrational and unlikely in the extreme “possibilities” is an exercise of the absurd, not an example of proper science.
> 
> Pigs may fly one day - have you equipped your car with anti flying pig screens to protect your windshield?  If you really believed in your view of science, you need to do so if you’re going to be consistent.  You never know - it could happen tomorrow- it’s possible...


----------



## bfreedma (Dec 16, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Luckily for the rest of us, science isn't limited to what you or I think is important.
> And the laws of physics nowhere state that "if you or I can't do it today then it must be impossible" either.
> (And, as any real scientist will tell you, "the laws of physics" are really just the best model we have - for now.)
> It really is just that simple.
> ...





That’s exactly the point Keith - you’re using absurd examples as a way to avoid acknowledging current scientific models.  In your universe, we need to test every possible scenario, past, present, or future prior to establishing a rational model.  That’s simply not how science “works”.  No one is disputing that new knowledge may change applied science, but in order to move forward, science relies upon testing existing and rational potential use cases which may deliver consistent and repeatable results.  Those results become applied science which is used to define operational parameters and functionality.  When new discoveries require change, then the models are updated or potentially replaced.

If your vision of science were real world, than we would have no applied science as there is no field where every conceivable past, present, and future scenario has been tested, vetted, and correlated.  You only weaken your argument with the childish and obviously irrelevant examples used above.

You’re playing games, continuously throwing extremely unlikely use cases at the wall, providing no actual evidence, then claiming they somehow represent rational doubt of our current knowledge base. It’s whataboutism of the worst and most unconstructive kind.  It’s the equivalent of saying everything we know about physics is wrong because who knows, the earth could be pulled inside the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole next month.  After all, we can’t say it’s impossible for that to happen.

Last response can be yours.  I’m no longer willing to participate in your gaming of the topic and the damage it’s causing to the actual discussion of audio science in terms of real world application.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 16, 2018)

Speaking as an engineer who likes science, I think we need to keep in mind the distinction between the two.

The models used in engineering are intended for practical purposes, and they need only be accurate and reliable enough for those purposes. Sometimes those models aren’t very “scientific” and involve very substantial empirical data fitting.

Scientific models aim towards capturing “truth” as much as possible, and they need not be suited for practical use at all, though often they are.

So, for example, we might find it appropriate to include ultrasonic effects in scientific models of perception because there are observable differences in activity of the auditory cortex, but we might find that those effects are negligibly small for listener experiences, so we neglect them in audio engineering models.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 16, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Speaking as an engineer who likes science, I think we need to keep in mind the distinction between the two.
> 
> The models used in engineering are intended for practical purposes, and they need only be accurate and reliable enough for those purposes. Sometimes those models aren’t very “scientific” and involve very substantial empirical data fitting.
> 
> ...



Point A: You keep changing your picture. 

Point B: Speaking as an economics major who is incompetent in economics, engineering and science, this all reminds me of an econometrics class I took, and the right side of every big long equation ended in "plus or minus a portmanteau variable, epsilon," a.k.a (in my mind) the _fudge factor_. It looked kind of like this on the blackboard: "bla bla bla bla  bla = bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla +/- E." Except the E was a fancy E with curves on the top and bottom corners. I joke about the "portmanteau variable, epsilon" to this day--I can still hear the lecturer's phrase in my mind as if it were yesterday. It has become a personal cliche (if there is such a thing) for me for whenever someone isn't exactly sure about something.


----------



## bfreedma

Phronesis said:


> Speaking as an engineer who likes science, I think we need to keep in mind the distinction between the two.
> 
> The models used in engineering are intended for practical purposes, and they need only be accurate and reliable enough for those purposes. Sometimes those models aren’t very “scientific” and involve very substantial empirical data fitting.
> 
> ...




No disagreement that pure science is different than engineering and the resultant engineered devices based upon science.  That said, pure science and the pursuit of the “truth” consists of more than continually tossing out random cases with no supporting evidence, then refusing to develop that supporting evidence due to “lack of interest”

Regardless, the title of this thread is “testing audiophile claims and myths”, which by definition can only include the evaluation of claims and myths based on known science based engineered solutions, i.e. claims and myths based on existing product utilization.  The debates here involve existing DACS, cables, etc., not theoretical, yet to be developed devices.

Perhaps the solution would be for those wanting to discuss pure science to create a thread dedicated to that discussion.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I mostly agree with what you say...122%

We can all be a superhero.

Humans can't fly today, yet only a little over a century ago, few people thought we could ever use machines to aid in flying, and now flying in various types of vehicles is commonplace.  wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text.

wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text.

Only crazy folks think we can fly without an assisted wing and power.  People dream about flying.  Some dreams come true.  We might be able to fly without machines soon.  It only has to be discovered, similar to airplane flight.  wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text.

wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text.

So, some people should be able to fly to the sun and back just like Superman, in theory.  wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text.

If someone wears blue tights and a red cape, they might be able to fly and are more powerful than a locomotive, emphasis on loco.

































Just



to



be



annoying,



I'll




place





your





comment




that




I




am




replying






to




way





down





here




for




your






inconvenience.










bfreedma said:


> That’s exactly the point Keith - you’re using absurd examples as a way to avoid acknowledging current scientific models.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 16, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> No disagreement that pure science is different than engineering and the resultant engineered devices based upon science.  That said, pure science and the pursuit of the “truth” consists of more than continually tossing out random cases with no supporting evidence, then refusing to develop that supporting evidence due to “lack of interest”
> 
> Regardless, the title of this thread is “testing audiophile claims and myths”, which by definition can only include the evaluation of claims and myths based on known science based engineered solutions, i.e. claims and myths based on existing product utilization.  The debates here involve existing DACS, cables, etc., not theoretical, yet to be developed devices.
> 
> Perhaps the solution would be for those wanting to discuss pure science to create a thread dedicated to that discussion.



On the one hand you have a good point about the title of the thread. On the other hand look at the title of this forum.


----------



## Steve999

We need another elegant soliloquy by @castleofargh on the mount to clarify all of this!    Oh wait . . .


----------



## bfreedma (Dec 16, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> On the one hand you have a good point about the title of the thread. On the other hand look at the title of the subforum.





Thus my suggestion to create a separate thread for the other discussion.  It still fits under Sound Science, just not in this thread. 

The USB thread was locked - splitting the subtopics seems like a reasonable way to avoid having this thread get to that point.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 16, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> No disagreement that pure science is different than engineering and the resultant engineered devices based upon science.  That said, pure science and the pursuit of the “truth” consists of more than continually tossing out random cases with no supporting evidence, then refusing to develop that supporting evidence due to “lack of interest”
> 
> Regardless, the title of this thread is “testing audiophile claims and myths”, which by definition can only include the evaluation of claims and myths based on known science based engineered solutions, i.e. claims and myths based on existing product utilization.  The debates here involve existing DACS, cables, etc., not theoretical, yet to be developed devices.
> 
> Perhaps the solution would be for those wanting to discuss pure science to create a thread dedicated to that discussion.



I generally agree.  Just about anything is "possible," and even in science it's only worth exploring possibilities which have some support from evidence and/or theoretical arguments.  From that standpoint, I would say it's possible that there can ultrasonic effects which register in the brain from music, but in my non-expert opinion those effects are very likely to be of negligible significance.  I would also say it's possible that some DACs could sound different to some people under some conditions, but it's very likely that any such differences are subtle - not night and day - with respect to the listener experience.  I'm inclined to say that it's not even possible that normal cables sound significantly different, but I'm open to being shown to be wrong.  As I said before, I much prefer to think in terms of likelihoods and confidence levels, rather than binary possibility vs impossibility - because it's not generally possible to "prove" that something is impossible, and saying that something is possible gives no indication of its likelihood.

But there's an interesting philosophical angle here.  When we talk about these likelihoods, we're generally resorting to subjective probabilities due to our incomplete or inaccurate knowledge (ignorance) - the problem is epistemic - and it's assumed that, objectively, things are a particular way in reality (e.g., DACs really do sound different to some people because the signal is different, or they don't).  So ultimately, we're making judgment calls, and we won't all always agree, regardless of what evidence and arguments are presented - that seems to be an objective reality of Sound Science!

Regarding this thread topic, I got the impression that this is sort of a default Sound Science discussion thread, even when the discussion isn't focused on testing (though most things can be related to testing)?


----------



## Steve999

bfreedma said:


> Thus my suggestion to create a separate thread for the other discussion.  It still fits under Sound Science, just not in this thread.
> 
> The USB thread was locked - splitting the subtopics seems like a reasonable way to avoid having this thread get to that point.



Extremely well done with the emoticon / emoji palette!  The Hornet (or perhaps Batman, you never clarified) strikes!  

As I think about it I am a fan of splitting the subtopics. It helps for depth, focus, and clarity.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 16, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I generally agree.  Just about anything is "possible," and even in science it's only worth exploring possibilities which have some support from evidence and/or theoretical arguments.  From that standpoint, I would say it's possible that there can ultrasonic effects which register in the brain from music, but in my non-expert opinion those effects are very likely to be of negligible significance.  I would also say it's possible that some DACs could sound different to some people under some conditions, but it's very likely that any such differences are subtle - not night and day - with respect to the listener experience.  I'm inclined to say that it's not even possible that normal cables sound significantly different, but I'm open to being shown to be wrong.  As I said before, I much prefer to think in terms of likelihoods and confidence levels, rather than binary possibility vs impossibility - because it's not generally possible to "prove" that something is impossible, and saying that something is possible gives no indication of its likelihood.
> 
> But there's an interesting philosophical angle here.  When we talk about these likelihoods, we're generally resorting to subjective probabilities due to our incomplete or inaccurate knowledge (ignorance) - the problem is epistemic - and it's assumed that, objectively, things are a particular way in reality (e.g., DACs really do sound different to some people because the signal is different, or they don't).  So ultimately, we're making judgment calls, and we won't all always agree, regardless of what evidence and arguments are presented - that seems to be an objective reality of Sound Science!
> 
> Regarding this thread topic, I got the impression that this is sort of a default Sound Science discussion thread, even when the discussion isn't focused on testing (though most things can be related to testing)?



I don't believe in one objective underlying reality. Makes things easier for me to take in.  I don't believe there is a beginning or an end in time or space or logic and I don't believe that there is one objective reference point, which we would need to establish one objective reality. I believe it's turtles all the way down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

However, coming back down (or up) to earth, if this thread is about testing audiophile claims and myths, as titled, and someone is trying to say ultrasonics (a hot marketing topic) are or are not bunk from a practical standpoint of a guy trying to buy audio equipment, I think that's totally fair game and deserves focused consideration without resort to wild speculation.

That being said, I wish the thread had a less loaded title. I wish it were more like, "Testing Audio Claims," but I lost that battle like two months ago or something.

Seriously, I suggest we split off the topics and get some depth, focus, and clarity.


----------



## bfreedma

Phronesis said:


> I generally agree.  Just about anything is "possible," and even in science it's only worth exploring possibilities which have some support from evidence and/or theoretical arguments.  From that standpoint, I would say it's possible that there can ultrasonic effects which register in the brain from music, but in my non-expert opinion those effects are very likely to be of negligible significance.  I would also say it's possible that some DACs could sound different to some people under some conditions, but it's very likely that any such differences are subtle - not night and day - with respect to the listener experience.  I'm inclined to say that it's not even possible that normal cables sound significantly different, but I'm open to being shown to be wrong.  As I said before, I much prefer to think in terms of likelihoods and confidence levels, rather than binary possibility vs impossibility - because it's not generally possible to "prove" that something is impossible, and saying that something is possible gives no indication of its likelihood.
> 
> But there's an interesting philosophical angle here.  When we talk about these likelihoods, we're generally resorting to subjective probabilities due to our incomplete or inaccurate knowledge (ignorance) - the problem is epistemic - and it's assumed that, objectively, things are a particular way in reality (e.g., DACs really do sound different to some people because the signal is different, or they don't).  So ultimately, we're making judgment calls, and we won't all always agree, regardless of what evidence and arguments are presented - that seems to be an objective reality of Sound Science!
> 
> Regarding this thread topic, I got the impression that this is sort of a default Sound Science discussion thread, even when the discussion isn't focused on testing (though most things can be related to testing)?




I just want to be clear that I’m not attempting to shut down discussion of possible audible differences in DACS, cables, etc, though I have my doubts they exist without unusual/unique extenuating circumstances.  My preference would be to keep this thread focused on those topics and create a separate thread for what’s become unsupported speculation not based on today’s or near term audio reproduction solutions.  Without those acknowledged judgement calls, this thread has declined into throwing random “stuff” at a wall without even attempting to present a rational possible real world use case and, IMO, is going nowhere of value.  

If someone has evidence supporting claims made, this seems like the appropriate thread.  If, on the other hand, someone is tossing out concepts with no supporting evidence, posting in an alternate thread would help keep this one grounded.


----------



## Phronesis

bfreedma said:


> I just want to be clear that I’m not attempting to shut down discussion of possible audible differences in DACS, cables, etc, though I have my doubts they exist without unusual/unique extenuating circumstances.  My preference would be to keep this thread focused on those topics and create a separate thread for what’s become unsupported speculation not based on today’s or near term audio reproduction solutions.  Without those acknowledged judgement calls, this thread has declined into throwing random “stuff” at a wall without even attempting to present a rational possible real world use case and, IMO, is going nowhere of value.
> 
> If someone has evidence supporting claims made, this seems like the appropriate thread.  If, on the other hand, someone is tossing out concepts with no supporting evidence, posting in an alternate thread would help keep this one grounded.



Seems reasonable to me.  With ultrasonics, for example, I do find that there's enough evidence to discuss it here, though I don't find the evidence to be convincing, as far as ultrasonics having significant effects for listeners.  If I turn out be wrong about this, I'll be surprised, but not unpleasantly surprised.


----------



## Steve999

Phronesis said:


> Regarding this thread topic, I got the impression that this is sort of a default Sound Science discussion thread, even when the discussion isn't focused on testing (though most things can be related to testing)?



I think you were reasonable in thinking this. That's the way the thread reads. It's been ambiguous between the title and the content and the ambiguity has been highly problematic. Perhaps it's time for us to get some mutually agreed-upon clarity as to the bounds of this thread.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 16, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> I don't believe in one objective underlying reality. Makes things easier for me to take in.  I don't believe there is a beginning or an end in time or space or logic and I don't believe that there is one objective reference point, which we would need to establish one objective reality. I believe it's turtles all the way down.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down



Hmm, sounds sort of postmodern or something to me.  I'm basically a metaphysical realist, but Kantian in the sense that I believe we can only make models of reality based on the kind of being we are, and those models will always be incomplete in ways that we can't fathom.  An analogy I like to make is that an ant (presumably) doesn't have the capacity to wrap its little brain around a quantum mechanics model of reality, and maybe a being similarly more "advanced" than humans could work with models that we humans can't possibly imagine.

Some people will roll eyes at the philosophy stuff, but I think the analogy teaches a lesson about having humility when doing science.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 16, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Hmm, sounds sort of postmodern or something to me.  I'm basically a metaphysical realist, but Kantian in the sense that I believe we can only make models of reality based on the kind of being we are, and those models will always be incomplete in ways that we can't fathom.  An analogy I like to make is that an ant (presumably) doesn't have the capacity to wrap its little brain around a quantum mechanics model of reality, and maybe a being similarly more "advanced" than humans could work with models that we humans can't possibly imagine.
> 
> Some people will roll eyes at the philosophy stuff, but I think the analogy teaches a lesson about having humility when doing science.



That's really interesting and insightful. I guess my reaction is exactly what kind of being would have the ability to work with models that would perfectly explain everything. My sense is that there is no possible being. That's an article of faith on my part, I freely admit. But if there is no possible being that could ascertain an objective reality, is it not fair to question the idea of a metaphysical reality at all?

As far as testing audio claims, yes, I strongly agree, we do have to acknowledge our limits. We have the innate ability to comprehend just so much, and then it ends. Part of those limitations is not knowing exactly where it ends. These types of ideas should generate humility when we have disagreements.

Although given our origins we've come incredibly, astonishinlgy far and I think far enough to call the audible or sensory effects of ultrasonics in consumer audio equipment "extraordinarily unlikely." Or in the words of the now-defunct mythbusters, even as a layperson, I think the claim is "BUSTED." Though as you initimated, if I were proven wrong, I would meet it more with delight than disappointment.


----------



## bigshot

Steve999 said:


> That being said, I wish the thread had a less loaded title. I wish it were more like, "Testing Audio Claims,"



There definitely are a lot of audiophile myths. We get many of them trotted out here on a daily basis.


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> There definitely are a lot of audiophile myths. We get many of them trotted out here on a daily basis.



That we do, and we serve a very positive function in questioning them aggressively and pointing out the evidence to the contrary. No argument there.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 16, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> Last response can be yours.  I’m no longer willing to participate in your gaming of the topic and the damage it’s causing to the actual discussion of audio science in terms of real world application.



Feel free to join me over in the corner while these guys hog the dance floor with their improvisations and performances. No one is required to read or reply to nonsense. I give fair warning with shots across the bow. If they keep it up, I'm not going to entertain their shenanigans any more.



bfreedma said:


> The USB thread was locked - splitting the subtopics seems like a reasonable way to avoid having this thread get to that point.



There is absolutely no doubt that getting this thread locked is the ultimate goal here, just as it was the goal of Gruss Gott to get the USB thread locked. I think there are vested interests that don't like certain topics being discussed, so they join the thread and disrupt the discussion until people get frustrated and angry. Then they report the post and the thread gets locked.

The first post in this thread is the most important post in this entire forum because it shows how to question and test things fairly. Most of the comments in reply to it are examples of how not to do that. If this thread gets locked, at least it's still pinned.


----------



## Phronesis

Steve999 said:


> That's really interesting and insightful. I guess my reaction is exactly what kind of being would have the ability to work with models that would perfectly explain everything. My sense is that there is no possible being. That's an article of faith on my part, I freely admit. But if there is no possible being that could ascertain an objective reality, is it not fair to question the idea of a metaphysical reality at all?
> 
> As far as testing audio claims, yes, I strongly agree, we do have to acknowledge our limits. We have the innate ability to comprehend just so much, and then it ends. Part of those limitations is not knowing exactly where it ends. These types of ideas should generate humility when we have disagreements.
> 
> Although given our origins we've come incredibly, astonishinlgy far and I think far enough to call the audible or sensory effects of ultrasonics in consumer audio equipment "extraordinarily unlikely." Or in the words of the now-defunct mythbusters, even as a layperson, I think the claim is "BUSTED." Though as you initimated, if I were proven wrong, I would meet it more with delight than disappointment.



I agree, it's kind of amazing how far science and engineering have progressed.  And I expect the progress to continue for quite a while in many areas of science. 

For audio, IMO the frontier is mainly in the science of perception (and related testing).  I've been doing some reading about psychology of music lately, and I think that much of that stuff can be adapted or applied to audio stuff, but the issue seems to be that it's not really an established and decently funded area of academic research.


----------



## Phronesis

In case this hasn't already been posted: https://www.harman.com/sites/default/files/AudioScience_0.pdf


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 16, 2018)

I'm sorry... but I'm not the one playing games.
However, I do tend to be somewhat intolerant of "playing fast and loose with the facts".

I ABSOLUTELY agree that there is a difference between "theoretycial science", "practical science", and "commercial engineering". And I repeatedly agreed that it might possibly be beyond the capabilities of normally available studio equipment to do what I was suggesting.. I have also routinely agreed with the limitations suggested by others - in terms of practical limitations of studio recording technology, and of what is likely to be audible in a typical commercial recording. However, @gregorio insists on conflating the limits of current studio equipment with what is technically possible in the general sense. (Just to be perfectly clear, I do NOT specifically dispute any of his claims regarding what is possible in a modern recording studio, with the equipment normally found there. I don't even dispute that the capabilities of a typical recording studio MIGHT be sufficient to meet the requirements of the consumer market for which they produce product, although I do not accept that as a given. I simply dispute his attempt to assert that the limitations of the equipment in his favorite recording studio represent universal limitations on all current and future technology....)

I'm simpy attempting to show that actually stating claims accurately and concisely is important.
If you're talking about "the limitations of most common studio equipment" - then say so.
And, if you're talking about "what people are likely to notice in a commercial recording" - then say that.
(That would seem to be the appropriate thing to do in a forum dedicated to "common myths and claims".)
However, conflating either of those with "theoretical impossibility" is both misleading and just plain bad science.

In real science, if something "is true most of the time", then we simply say "it's true most of the time".
(Or, more properly, if we know the limits of where and when it's true, we include those in our claim.)
If your model is true most of the time, then simply say so, and there will be no confusion.
And feel free to say "you are extremely unlikely to ever hear a signal where that would matter in actual music".

BUT.....
"Applied Science" is a special case... but it always yields to "pure science" in the end.
Saying that something is "impossible" is an absolute statement.
Therefore it is NOT just a claim to practical limitations... it is a claim to a theoretical certainty...
As such, a single exception, no matter how unlikely or "absurd", makes it untrue.

I'm going to offer an even more absurd exception.
Let's assume that, tomorrow, a half ton frozen hog falls from a damaged cargo plane and demolishes your house.
Will you cheerfully stand up in court and repeat your claim that "it couldn't have happened because pigs can't fly".
Or will you, just maybe, concede that some exceptions matter after all 

If the head of a research department, or your physics professor at college, had suggested that you record a 30 kHz signal at 150 dB SPL, with both low distortion and low noise levels....

- it would be quite reasonable to suggest that you lacked the equipment necessary to do so
- it would be reasonable to say that you didn't know where you could buy the equipment necessary to do so
- it would be reasonable to claim that the equipment necessary may not exist
- and it might be reasonable to say that, if you could build it, the necessary equipment would be very expensive
- it might even be reasonable to question the NEED to do so

However, if you suggested that it was impossible, you would be fired (if it was your boss), or failed (if it was your professor). In true science, once someone has asserted a goal to do something, if it cannot currently be done, the usual answer is "OK, what do we need to build the equipment we'll need to do it, and what will it cost?" The only exception would be if there were actually widely accepted _THEORETICALLY VALID_ reasons why doing so was impossible. (However, compared to the pressure and time measurement requirements routinely encountered in a physics lab, the requirements for measuring 150 dB SPL at 30 kHz seem pretty trivial. Back in the 1970's I was actually involved in the development of a device to measure large military boat propellers "more accurately than was possible using current equipment". It worked quite well - and exceeded the capabilities of the technology currently in use by a factor of at least 100x - and the Navy paid us quite handsomely for it.)



bfreedma said:


> That’s exactly the point Keith - you’re using absurd examples as a way to avoid acknowledging current scientific models.  In your universe, we need to test every possible scenario, past, present, or future prior to establishing a rational model.  That’s simply not how science “works”.  No one is disputing that new knowledge may change applied science, but in order to move forward, science relies upon testing existing and rational potential use cases which may deliver consistent and repeatable results.  Those results become applied science which is used to define operational parameters and functionality.  When new discoveries require change, then the models are updated or potentially replaced.
> 
> If your vision of science were real world, than we would have no applied science as there is no field where every conceivable past, present, and future scenario has been tested, vetted, and correlated.  You only weaken your argument with the childish and obviously irrelevant examples used above.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I posted a really long answer to this... but how about a short one.

_NO_, in the real universe you _DO NOT_ have to test every possible scenario.
_ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TO ADMIT THAT YOUR MODEL MAY NOT BE TOTALLY ACCURATE 100% OF THE TIME._
Then, as long as it provides a reasonable degree of accuracy, enough of the time, it will be quite useful "for practical purposes".
However, if you claim that your model is accurate 100% of the time, without confirming that it really is, then you are misleading people.

I would hope that most rational adults are capable of conceding that there is a very small possibility that a meteorite may strike their house...
Without running for the phone to purchase meteorite insurance... 



bfreedma said:


> That’s exactly the point Keith - you’re using absurd examples as a way to avoid acknowledging current scientific models.  In your universe, we need to test every possible scenario, past, present, or future prior to establishing a rational model.  That’s simply not how science “works”.  No one is disputing that new knowledge may change applied science, but in order to move forward, science relies upon testing existing and rational potential use cases which may deliver consistent and repeatable results.  Those results become applied science which is used to define operational parameters and functionality.  When new discoveries require change, then the models are updated or potentially replaced.
> 
> If your vision of science were real world, than we would have no applied science as there is no field where every conceivable past, present, and future scenario has been tested, vetted, and correlated.  You only weaken your argument with the childish and obviously irrelevant examples used above.
> 
> ...


----------



## bfreedma (Dec 17, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I'm sorry... but I'm not the one playing games.
> However, I do tend to be somewhat intolerant of "playing fast and loose with the facts".
> 
> I ABSOLUTELY agree that there is a difference between "theoretycial science", "practical science", and "commercial engineering". And I repeatedly agreed that it might possibly be beyond the capabilities of normally available studio equipment to do what I was suggesting.. I have also routinely agreed with the limitations suggested by others - in terms of practical limitations of studio recording technology, and of what is likely to be audible in a typical commercial recording. However, @gregorio insists on conflating the limits of current studio equipment with what is technically possible in the general sense. (Just to be perfectly clear, I do NOT specifically dispute any of his claims regarding what is possible in a modern recording studio, with the equipment normally found there. I don't even dispute that the capabilities of a typical recording studio MIGHT be sufficient to meet the requirements of the consumer market for which they produce product, although I do not accept that as a given. I simply dispute his attempt to assert that the limitations of the equipment in his favorite recording studio represent universal limitations on all current and future technology....)
> ...




I should really heed my own advice and not respond, but...

A falling pig is not a flying pig.  And that’s a problem Keith  - you play fast and loose with your analogies to try to concoct scenarios to support absurd conditions.  By your definition, we can never have conclusive results (of anything) because no matter how consistent the analysis and data we do have is, you simply won’t accept it due to some ridiculous scenario.  It’s simply impossible to test every variable combination - no one is going to test a cable or DAC inside the Fukushima reactor core, yet you’ll consider something unsettled until we do.  Cause, you know, we can’t prove no one will ever use a cable or DAC in a post meltdown nuclear reactor core - it could happen...

Again, science is based on the best evidence/data/observations we have available with which to draw reasonable conclusions based on overwhelming perponderous of evidence.  When you or anyone else can actually SHOW an exception, then conclusions will be adjusted accordingly.  I’ve stated this repeatedly, so your second post suggesting that anyone is refusing to consider future PROVEN exceptions is blatantly wrong.

Good luck going forward.  I have nothing left to say and hope I can hold to it this time despite your mischaracterizations and flat out insulting replies.


----------



## castleofargh

james444 said:


> Thanks, I've changed the GIF in my post to a more meaningful presentation.  Only bothered with IR because these filter settings are said to change impulse characteristics,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no doubt that the impulses coming out of the DAP are pretty different, way more than what you measured in some ways. but what you measured went through a transducer, and as I said, having the EARS recording at 48khz might also have cut off a good deal of some filters(that may or may not involve much higher sample rates to reduce the apparent ringing).
 I get this after fooling around(moved in time and axis for visibility). odac, uha760 and a digital loop with a virtual cable(middle one). with higher sample rates(at output and recording) and if I didn't limit the sweep to 20Hz-20kHz, they would look even closer to the ideal versions of various filters that get audiophiles wet(pre ringing, or not to pre ring?).


you may have access to some filters that would noticeably roll off the upper frequencies even in the audible range(slow roll off that needs to start at lower freq just to achieve an acceptable band limiting). or maybe get something with significant amount of aliasing. depending on the magnitudes involved, I would suspect those to be the most noticeable differences. getting pre ringing can be easy to perceive when you EQ very strongly in the audible range, but for stuff around 20khz for band limiting, I personally concluded that it just wasn't my problem.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] I've finally figured it out... we seem to have some sort of language barrier.
> [2] I have been talkng abut what's _POSSIBLE_... in terms of science... and not what already exists.
> [3] You are talking about "what's available today in a typical high end audio recording studio".
> [4] If you look up "possible" in the dictionary ....
> In fact, the definition is quite specific that it even applies to "whatever can be conceived or is within the limits of ability".



1. Indeed we do. Even a child knows the difference between "falling" and "flying". Even a child knows that if you put a pig on a plane, the pig will actually be sitting/standing/lying in the plane, it's the plane that's flying, NOT the pig.
2. No, you have been talking "about what's _"POSSIBLE_" ... in terms of" what you can imagine/conceive of, NOT in terms of science! Something "existing" is a prerequisite of it being POSSIBLE to achieve anything with it.
3. No I'm not, you just made that up! I'm talking about what's available today ANYWHERE, including a world class studio and a science lab.
4. I did look it up in the dictionary and IN FACT the definition is ABSOLUTELY NOT "whatever can be conceived". If it were then literally anything AND everything is "possible", limited only by what anyone can imagine/conceive of. According to YOUR definition, it's _POSSIBLE_ that you are in fact the love child of Cleopatra and Shrek and that the Sun is actually a jar of crunchy peanut butter, because I've just "conceived" of it! Furthermore if I actually made these claims in all seriousness, then according to you, that would be _PURE SCIENCE_ but according to me (and probably everyone else, including most psychiatrists), it would be certifiably INSANE! The actual definition of "possible" is
_"Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances." _- TheFreeDictionary
"_being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization." _- Merriam-Webster
_"If it is possible to do something, it can be done."_ - Collins English Dictionary

*AGAIN!* This is NOT the "*Whatever KeithEmo can Conceive of*" forum, nor the "*KeithEmo's Pure Science* *(Pure Science = Certifiably Insane)*" forum! You treating this forum as if it were, is an attempted perversion of this forum, an insult to it's members and is effectively trolling! 



KeithEmo said:


> However, @gregorio insists on conflating the limits of current studio equipment with what is technically possible in the general sense.


Please STOP misquoting and misrepresenting what I'm "insisting"! Your imaginary microphone ONLY exists in your imagination, it does NOT exist in any studio, in any science lab or anywhere else (in any sense, "general" or otherwise)!


KeithEmo said:


> However, in this case, it has in fact been done. The scientists who ran those tests already provided the specific example you keep asking for.
> [2] Your second question is also simple to answer.... You either invent it yourself or pay someone to invent it for you.


1. Are you seriously saying that you can't tell the difference between a very specific series 1kHz test pulses and say a Mozart symphony or other commercial music recording? 
2. If it was so "simple to answer", then why didn't you? Why did you instead answer a different question? I did NOT ask WHO should invent your imaginary mic, I asked you to explain how I can record a band, orchestra or anything else with a mic that only exists in your imagination. I'm recording a band on Thursday, how is it _POSSIBLE_ for me (or anyone else) to record them with your imaginary mic?


KeithEmo said:


> [1] I'm sorry... but I'm not the one playing games.
> [2] However, I do tend to be somewhat intolerant of "playing fast and loose with the facts".


1. Are you really being honest? If you honestly believe you are "not the one playing games" that's utterly shocking because you are therefore effectively stating that you don't even have the level of language comprehension of a child and that you're probably "certifiably INSANE"!
2. I don't recall ever conversing with anyone (who wasn't certified insane or seriously deluded) who was MORE TOLERANT of "_playing fast and loose with the facts_"!

G


----------



## Phronesis

^ I think you guys are all making valid points, but are nitpicking and talking past each other.  It’s not a productive use of your time and brainpower.  How about if we talk about some of my topics that no one else is interested in?


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 17, 2018)

Here is the definition of the word "possible".
Ever since I went to school the Merriam Webster dictionary was considered by most people to be THE authoritative dictionary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possible

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*possible*
adjective

pos·si·ble | \ˈpä-sə-bəl   \
*Definition of possible *
1a *: *being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization; "a possible but difficult task"

b *: *being what may be conceived, be done, or occur according to nature, custom, or manners; "the best possible care the worst possible circumstance"

2a *: *being something that may or may not occur; "a possible surprise visit"

b *: *being something that may or may not be true or actual; "possible explanation"

3 *: *having an indicated potential; "a possible housing site"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, no, there are things that theory actually says are impossible.
For example, according to the currently accepted models, it is impossible for matter to travel at the speed of light.
HOWEVER, it is not at all impossible for matter to travel at 1/10 the speed of light; we just haven't done it yet.

A century ago, it was impossible for a wheeled vehicle to travel over 100 mpH; now the speed record is somewhere around 760 mpH.
(I guess you could say it was impossible in 1904; or maybe they just hadn't bothered; we don't really know how hard they tried.)
(I also guess it would be fair to say that driving over 700 mpH is impossible _*for you and I;*_ just not impossible in general.)

Today YOU cannot record a cymbal properly from six inches away using the equipment you have in your studio.
Since we haven't asked for bids or proposals from the companies that make the sort of equipment necessary to do so, NEITHER OF US knows if it is CURRENTLY possible to do so.
(Although, since I already provided links to equipment that CAN do so, and IS available today, I guess that isn't true either.. unless we simply accept your claim that "that one won't do it 'right' ".)
But there is most certainly nothing in "the laws of physics" to suggest that it cannot be done with equipment which could be odered and built today.
And absolutely nothing there to suggest that it is theoretically impossible.

However, I really am am done responding... since I think I've pretty well proved where reality lies in the issue.



gregorio said:


> 1. Indeed we do. Even a child knows the difference between "falling" and "flying". Even a child knows that if you put a pig on a plane, the pig will actually be sitting/standing/lying in the plane, it's the plane that's flying, NOT the pig.
> 2. No, you have been talking "about what's _"POSSIBLE_" ... in terms of" what you can imagine/conceive of, NOT in terms of science! Something "existing" is a prerequisite of it being POSSIBLE to achieve anything with it.
> 3. No I'm not, you just made that up! I'm talking about what's available today ANYWHERE, including a world class studio and a science lab.
> 4. I did look it up in the dictionary and IN FACT the definition is ABSOLUTELY NOT "whatever can be conceived". If it were then literally anything AND everything is "possible", limited only by what anyone can imagine/conceive of. According to YOUR definition, it's _POSSIBLE_ that you are in fact the love child of Cleopatra and Shrek and that the Sun is actually a jar of crunchy peanut butter, because I've just "conceived" of it! Furthermore if I actually made these claims in all seriousness, then according to you, that would be _PURE SCIENCE_ but according to me (and probably everyone else, including most psychiatrists), it would be certifiably INSANE! The actual definition of "possible" is
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I should apologize for dragging this out...... and bothering with silly technicalities like accurate scientific descriptions.
I should have spent a few more minutes checking out catalogs.

Here's a nice little condenser microphone from B&K....
It seems to be listed as "a general purpose" microphone...
And I see it commonly used in audio measurement situations and things like voice intelligibility analysis.

Dynamic range: 20 – 162 dB
Frequency range: 3.15 Hz  – 40000 Hz  (+/- 2 dB)
Inherent noise: 20 dB A 
Lower limiting frequency: -3dB @ 2 Hz 

https://www.bksv.com/-/media/literature/Product-Data/bp2212.ashx

I guess we're done with this subject now.



KeithEmo said:


> Here is the definition of the word "possible".


----------



## taffy2207 (Dec 17, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> How about if we talk about some of my topics that *no one else is interested in*?



I think I see a flaw in your cunning plan, good Sir


----------



## KeithEmo

Now that makes sense (now we're in real trouble). 

I was always under the impression that this thread was about testing things.

To me that means several things:
1) pointing out tests other people have run and discussing the results
2) pointing out when tests other people have run may not be right or accurate after all
3) devising and running our own tests
4) discussing both the results we get, how reliable those results are likely to be, and how to improve them
5) discussing practical issues

Instead it seems to tend to devolve into dogmatic disputes....
"I think this might be interesting to look into...."
"Don't you dare; someone ran a test in 1896 that proves you'd just be wasting our time..."

Can we perhaps start by conceding that everyone in this group is NOT some poor idiot who desperately needs to be protected from their own gullibility and the sinster machinations of all those evil corporate sales villains?





Steve999 said:


> I don't believe in one objective underlying reality. Makes things easier for me to take in.  I don't believe there is a beginning or an end in time or space or logic and I don't believe that there is one objective reference point, which we would need to establish one objective reality. I believe it's turtles all the way down.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> Now that makes sense (now we're in real trouble).
> 
> I was always under the impression that this thread was about testing things.
> 
> ...



I tend to agree.  If we're going to focus on testing, let's talk about testing - the quality of the tests cited in the first posts, how to do testing, how to interpret tests, etc.  A lot of people posting in this thread have already made up their minds about what the conclusions are, and aren't really talking about testing.  Maybe we could start with just ONE test which someone thinks is a good test and evaluate that test.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 17, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> I should really heed my own advice and not respond, but...



It doesn't matter... he's replying to his own posts now.

WELCOME TO THE KEITH EMO SHOW!!


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm flattered..... but it's been years since I was that young..... and I was probably never that attractive.



bigshot said:


> It doesn't matter... he's replying to his own posts now.
> 
> WELCOME TO THE KEITH EMO SHOW!!


----------



## KeithEmo

Exactly.....

Otherwise we could just post a single list entitled:  "Claims That We're Certain Couldn't Possibly Be True."
(Perhaps someone could volunteer to LASER them onto some nice stone tablets. )




Phronesis said:


> I tend to agree.  If we're going to focus on testing, let's talk about testing - the quality of the tests cited in the first posts, how to do testing, how to interpret tests, etc.  A lot of people posting in this thread have already made up their minds about what the conclusions are, and aren't really talking about testing.  Maybe we could start with just ONE test which someone thinks is a good test and evaluate that test.


----------



## james444

KeithEmo said:


> Interesting indeed....
> 
> I think it's worth mentioning that, while you made an excellent attempt with what you have at hand, the impulse response of mechanical transducers like IEMs is usually quite limited.
> Likewise, the impulse response of microphones, even very good ones, isn't especially good either.
> ...





castleofargh said:


> no doubt that the impulses coming out of the DAP are pretty different, way more than what you measured in some ways. but what you measured went through a transducer, and as I said, having the EARS recording at 48khz might also have cut off a good deal of some filters(that may or may not involve much higher sample rates to reduce the apparent ringing).
> I get this after fooling around(moved in time and axis for visibility). odac, uha760 and a digital loop with a virtual cable(middle one). with higher sample rates(at output and recording) and if I didn't limit the sweep to 20Hz-20kHz, they would look even closer to the ideal versions of various filters that get audiophiles wet(pre ringing, or not to pre ring?).
> 
> you may have access to some filters that would noticeably roll off the upper frequencies even in the audible range(slow roll off that needs to start at lower freq just to achieve an acceptable band limiting). or maybe get something with significant amount of aliasing. depending on the magnitudes involved, I would suspect those to be the most noticeable differences. getting pre ringing can be easy to perceive when you EQ very strongly in the audible range, but for stuff around 20khz for band limiting, I personally concluded that it just wasn't my problem.



Thanks for your explanations! 

Yes, it dawned on me that measuring the transducer is bound to smear a large part of potential filter differences, as compared to directly measuring the DAC's output. However, as KeithEmo already hinted at, the transducer's output reflects (the best case of) what we're actually able to hear. Therefore, it could be argued that any difference not showing up in the transducer measurement wouldn't be audible anyway.

All things considered, my thoughts essentially boil down to two questions:

Is it possible, that two DAC filter settings look pretty much identical in the transducer's FR-graph, yet still sound different? And if the answer to that is "yes", then...

Is it possible that these two different sounding filter settings are _both_ within specifications of the DAC?
[in case if the Shanling M0: Frequency 20Hz~20KHz (-0.5dB), Distortion 0.004% (A-Weighting, output 500mV)]


----------



## KeithEmo

The short answer to your first question is YES.
Frequency response is just one of several measurements - although arguably the most important one.

This is where it gets somewhat complicated - and where the disagreements tend to start.

In most cases, differences in frequency response as small as 0.5 dB tend to not be especially noticeable.
Some folks will debate endlessly about whether it's possible for a human to detect them...
However, whether they can be detected under ideal conditions or not, they probably aren't important enough to matter.
(If the frequency response zig-zagged up and down by 0.5 dB, you might notice something odd, but that is rarely the case in real life.)
Likewise, while people will argue about the actual threshold for hearing THD, most of us agree 0.004% is very far below what would be audible.

If you look at those pictures of filter impulse response.......
Impulse response is related to frequency response - but not directly - and not always in easily predicted ways.
It is POSSIBLE that, along with the differences shown in those images, one or more of those filters MIGHT also have a significant, and audibly different, frequency response.
However, it's also POSSIBLE that three filters with those very different impulse responses COULD all measure within that spec for frequency response and THD..

You will find that there is significant debate about whether even "obvious" differences in impulse response are actually audible or not.
The most usual claims are that "excessive ringing is noticeable" and that "pre-ringing is more noticeable than post-ringing".
In nature, many sounds exhibit significant ringing after the main sound, while nothing in nature starts ringing before the sound itself....
The debate is about whether the amount of ringing exhibited by DACs (which occurs for very short times at very high frequencies) is audible or not.
Many folks in this forum will insist that "tests show that you can't possibly hear a difference and must be imagining it".
However, many quite mainstream companies, including folks like Dolby Labs, and the makers of a lot of pro audio editing software, consider it to be "worth addressing".
(For example, the latest version of Dolby's professional encoder suite offers options to reduce pre-ringing, and, obviously, DAC manufacturers often offer filter choices..)



james444 said:


> Thanks for your explanations!
> 
> Yes, it dawned on me that measuring the transducer is bound to smear a large part of potential filter differences, as compared to directly measuring the DAC's output. However, as KeithEmo already hinted at, the transducer's output reflects (the best case of) what we're actually able to hear. Therefore, it could be argued that any difference not showing up in the transducer measurement wouldn't be audible anyway.
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 17, 2018)

I read something interesting about blind wine tasting today:

- When a wine is 'bad', judges will consistently rate it as bad.  They can tell the difference between bad and good.  Bad wines aren't usually submitted to wine competitions.

- When sampling the same wine multiple times - and not knowing it's the same - judges will tend to rate the wine as tasting better each time.

- When tasting good wines, judges are quite inconsistent, with themselves and others, in rating which ones they prefer.  Despite wines being chemically different, when they're all of high quality, the perceptual ability of judges seems to become confused.

I know there's some circular reasoning here related to good and bad and quality, but just go with it for a moment ...

Some possible implications for audio blind testing:

- When gear sounds substantially different (e.g., headphones), people can probably reliably tell which gear is which, and express a valid preference.

- When gear sounds very similar, _even if there are audible differences_, our ability to tell which gear is which may fall apart during the testing.  We may not even be able to express consistent preferences.  And that may mean that any audible differences which are really there just don't matter much.  So ... both of these can be true:

(a) There's an _audible_ difference which is missed in blind tests.

(b) The tests themselves show that the audible difference is unimportant.


----------



## bigshot

The kinds of audible differences that might be missed in careful controlled testing are too small to make any difference for the purposes of listening to recorded music in the home. There's much more likelihood of significant false results if you apply no controls and go purely with subjective impressions.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 17, 2018)

bigshot said:


> The kinds of audible differences that might be missed in careful controlled testing are too small to make any difference for the purposes of listening to recorded music in the home. There's much more likelihood of significant false results if you apply no controls and go purely with subjective impressions.



I generally am inclined to agree.  I find it difficult to make the case that an audible difference missed in a blind test could somehow be a substantial difference in normal listening.  I could be wrong about that (due to a difference in how perception works in the test versus normal listening), but that seems quite unlikely to me.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 17, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> I generally am inclined to agree.  I find it difficult to make the case that an audible difference missed in a blind test could somehow be a substantial difference in normal listening.  I could be wrong about that (due to a difference in how perception works in the test versus normal listening), but that seems quite unlikely to me.



Interestingly, if I digested it correctly, that Harmon paper you distributed pointed out that A/B testing can exaggerate the significance of differences for normal listening purposes. This I think was because the difference may be quite apparent on a controlled A/B comparison but not as important as one might infer as to general quality or preference of the sound reproduction. This is going purely by memory so if I am paraphrasing the article incorrectly feel free to refine or correct.

As to wines, I'm not surprised. But it's alright cause it's midnight and I got two more bottles of wine. <Great. . now you have me on one of my country music kicks. >


----------



## bigshot (Dec 18, 2018)

A level matched, A/B switched, blind comparison is what you use to determine the most subtle of differences. If you have to struggle to hear a difference that way, it flat out doesn't matter. The truth is that that kind of control is overkill. But it's a hell of a lot better than doing no controls and deciding to spend an extra $500 on nothing. It's a lot easier to make an error on the side of getting the impression you hear a difference that doesn't exist than to not discern a difference in a controlled test. All this bias cuts two ways stuff is BS.


----------



## castleofargh

quasi-modo talkin:
guys please, easy on the sarcasm, trolling, personal criticism or whatever you want to call it. we're here to judge facts and point of views about audio, not to judge people.  if you can't stand the way somebody acts, ignore him, or just don't talk to him. if some ideas rank from weird to false, present your views and back them up with something reliable, so that most people can clearly make their mind on the topic and avoid being misguided. we don't need to chase away those who don't act or think like we do. that's what happens to many of us all too often in the rest of the forum and in amateur audio forums in general when we dare bring up revolutionary ideas like how a listening test should probably not involve eyesight. if you hate that half as much as I do, you know how unfair and revolting it feels. the counter to that intolerance should be tolerance, not intolerance toward the type of people/behaviors that are not us. I guess we can make this section our own and try to force the rest of the world out, but if that's who we are, at the very least let's not pretend that we're any better.


don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to tolerate false claims or logical fallacies!!!! wrong is wrong. you can throw fact based rocks at those while I tie them to a pole myself. we can defend our beliefs whatever they are with reason, experiments, gathered evidence, and without attacking people who aren't the way we want them to be(AKA bigotry).


----------



## castleofargh

james444 said:


> Thanks for your explanations!
> 
> Yes, it dawned on me that measuring the transducer is bound to smear a large part of potential filter differences, as compared to directly measuring the DAC's output. However, as KeithEmo already hinted at, the transducer's output reflects (the best case of) what we're actually able to hear. Therefore, it could be argued that any difference not showing up in the transducer measurement wouldn't be audible anyway.
> 
> ...


the minimalistic specs provided by a manufacturer are rarely enough to say that something will be audibly transparent. most are given into a specific load at a specific output, and we don't know what happens under other uses. also THD aren't the only distortions.

yes drivers' limitations make many things less relevant to us. they're a significant part of why I don't care all that much about the rest of the chain. those filters are a more or less fancy way to low pass frequencies at sample rate/2. what matters is mostly the quality of the band limiting to avoid aliasing IMO. I'm really not sure that the rest makes that much of a difference. some phase shift in the upper freqs, that's hardly noticeable in direct A/B. some small FR roll off, that sometimes is noticeable, but it's not like we're using perfectly flat headphones anyway. same idea with pre ringing. we could certainly make filters that will create audible consequences for at least some people with the right test signal. but in general, I wouldn't lose sleep over that.
the designer is going to have to decide where he goes and how far for various objective variables. my own ignorant position is that a reasonable balance of compromises will always give the best results and would probably not sound anything special. so as a result I'm sort of against anybody advertising how he's pushing one single variable to 11. which is how you might end up with clear differences IMO. that, or simple incompetence. but hopefully such people only pretend to be all in on one single variable to market their difference, while the design is actually more mindful and balanced than they tell us.
DACs have had all sorts of filters for a while now, and if we can still have people thinking that almost all DACs sound the same, I think you can guess what they will think about the filter in the DAC ^_^.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] A century ago, it was impossible for a wheeled vehicle to travel over 100 mpH; now the speed record is somewhere around 760 mpH.
> [2] Today YOU cannot record a cymbal properly from six inches away using the equipment you have in your studio.
> [3] Since we haven't asked for bids or proposals from the companies that make the sort of equipment necessary to do so, NEITHER OF US knows if it is CURRENTLY possible to do so.
> [3a] (Although, since I already provided links to equipment that CAN do so ...)



1. Thanks for answering my question. So when the band comes on Thursday, I'll make them a cup of coffee and ask them to wait for a century.
2. Which to the rational mind would present a serious problem, because the equipment in a studio is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED for recording musical instruments (unlike measurement mics)!

3. If "NEITHER OF US knows if it is CURRENTLY possible to do so" then *you admit that your claim (that it is possible) was FALSE*, it was entirely speculation and how exactly does your speculation qualify as "pure science"?? However, you are clearly CONTRADICTING YOURSELF: If you need to ask "for proposals from companies" to invent the "equipment necessary" (to "record a cymbal properly"), then OBVIOUSLY the "equipment necessary" doesn't currently exist and therefore it is NOT currently possible to "record a cymbal properly"?
3a. No you didn't and I explained why, so why are you repeating that falsehood?



KeithEmo said:


> [1] I should apologize for dragging this out......
> [2] and bothering with silly technicalities like accurate scientific descriptions.
> Here's a nice little condenser microphone from B&K.... It seems to be listed as "a general purpose" microphone...
> [3] I guess we're done with this subject now.



1. Absolutely you should, more wasted and insulting pages of incorrect facts, misrepresentations and FALSE SPECULATION! 
2. It's CLEARLY listed as a "free-field measurement mic" and NOT as a "general purpose microphone". So clearly, you are *NOT* "bothering with accurate scientific descriptions"!! Maybe it was a typo and you meant to say that you're "bothering with *silly* arguments like inaccurate unscientific descriptions"!
3. If only! 



KeithEmo said:


> I was always under the impression that this thread was about testing things.
> To me that means several things:
> 1) pointing out tests other people have run and discussing the results
> 2) pointing out when tests other people have run may not be right or accurate after all
> ...



1. So why do you simply ignore any request to "point out tests" which support your (or other audiophile) claims and instead respond with inapplicable analogies and unfounded/incorrect speculations that you falsely present as fact/"pure science"?
2. You've done this a few times, though often incorrectly.
3. You've suggested lots of tests (pointlessly because they've already been done countless times) but repeatedly REFUSED to do any any of those (or other suggested tests) yourself, AND your basis for that refusal has been that you are "not interested" and/or your company would not gain from them.
4. BUT you have NOT discussed the "results we get" because you refuse to get any.
5. You not only refuse to discuss practical issues but actually insult me when I try to!

There's no number 6 in that list: Endlessly invent unfounded speculations, even when they contradict the known facts/tests/evidence. There's no number 7: Endlessly assert/discuss that flying pigs (even dead frozen ones), manned missions to other solar systems, TV's that give you a suntan and all manner of other nonsense are "possible". There's no number 8: Repeatedly misquote and/or misrepresent the actual facts/science to serve your own agenda. 

*I entirely agree with the list you posted*, which makes the fact that you repeatedly ignore every single one of those points (and instead post according to a completely different list) so hypocritical, off-topic, insulting and effectively trolling! Why won't you STOP with all this unsupported speculations/nonsense/BS and instead follow your own advice and stick to the list?

G


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> A level matched, A/B switched, blind comparison is what you use to determine the most subtle of differences. If you have to struggle to hear a difference that way, it flat out doesn't matter. The truth is that that kind of control is overkill. But it's a hell of a lot better than doing no controls and deciding to spend an extra $500 on nothing. It's a lot easier to make an error on the side of getting the impression you hear a difference that doesn't exist than to not discern a difference in a controlled test. All this bias cuts two ways stuff is BS.



I suspect that this is true, but are there any good studies correlating blind tests using short music excerpts with normal listening tests?  I’d like to see evidence here.  Otherwise, we’re just making claims.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I suspect that this is true, but are there any good studies correlating blind tests using short music excerpts with normal listening tests?  I’d like to see evidence here.  Otherwise, we’re just making claims.


but blind test using short samples is normal listening test ^_^.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> but blind test using short samples is normal listening test ^_^.



What I'm looking for is a study which uses multiple listeners and music excerpts, varies the duration of the music excerpts and the switching time, does both blind and sighted comparisons in the A/B, and also has listeners blind and sighted listen for long durations and note their observations on the sound quality (not A/B identification) with respect to things like tonal balance, instrument separation, stage, detail, etc. (the kind of stuff people write in flowery gear reviews).  This involves a lot of trials, so it would take some time to complete the study.

By correlating all of the results, we can get an idea of how the various variables affect the results, and whether there's any relationship between results of blind A/B testing with short excerpts versus notes from normal extended listening.

I've yet to run across even one good study along these lines, and lots of poorly documented, conducted, and/or interpreted studies aren't a substitute for one good study which has some scientific rigor.  I think we all have an idea of what the results of the study would be, but until such a study is done, we're all somewhat speculating about the conclusions.  "Burden of proof" stuff doesn't really matter, because the goal is to figure out the answer based on evidence, not win internet forum debates.


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 18, 2018)

I'm just going to point out one final thing... then I really am going to give up.

One minute you say that what I'm proposing isn't possible...
The next minute you say "we've already tested it and found it made no difference"...
Could you at least make up your mind about which you believe there?
(I'm pretty sure that, if it's impossible, then you haven't actually tested it.)

And, yet again, no....
The fact that your local WalMart....
Or your local recording studio....
Doesn't have a certain piece of equipment....
Says very little about whether it is either possible or even currently available....

When you need a piece of scientific equipment....
- first you see if you have it
- then you ask the people who sell it if they have one (purchase proposal)
- then, if they don't, you ask them if they can make it and what it will cost (design proposal)
- then, if nobody is willing to offer a proposal, you conclude that it is not currently _available_
- then you decide if it's worth bothering to try to design it yourself

However, since I'm not a studio engineer, I'll admit that you could quite well be right.
Perhaps, if a typical studio doesn't have one, they just tell the customer who asks that "it's impossible"...

However, this is all moot, since I already posted a catalog page to the equipment necessary.
(It seems to be readily available, not unreasonably expensive, and not even especially new.)

[IN CASE ANYONE MISSED IT]
https://www.bksv.com/-/media/literature/Product-Data/bp2212.ashx

Feel free to suggest that "you don't like the way that B&K microphone sounds" - if you've actually heard one.
(That would be an "artistic decision"....)
However, it pretty obviously exists.





gregorio said:


> 1. Thanks for answering my question. So when the band comes on Thursday, I'll make them a cup of coffee and ask them to wait for a century.
> 2. Which to the rational mind would present a serious problem, because the equipment in a studio is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED for recording musical instruments (unlike measurement mics)!
> 
> 3. If "NEITHER OF US knows if it is CURRENTLY possible to do so" then *you admit that your claim (that it is possible) was FALSE*, it was entirely speculation and how exactly does your speculation qualify as "pure science"?? However, you are clearly CONTRADICTING YOURSELF: If you need to ask "for proposals from companies" to invent the "equipment necessary" (to "record a cymbal properly"), then OBVIOUSLY the "equipment necessary" doesn't currently exist and therefore it is NOT currently possible to "record a cymbal properly"?
> ...


----------



## castleofargh (Dec 18, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> What I'm looking for is a study which uses multiple listeners and music excerpts, varies the duration of the music excerpts and the switching time, does both blind and sighted comparisons in the A/B, and also has listeners blind and sighted listen for long durations and note their observations on the sound quality (not A/B identification) with respect to things like tonal balance, instrument separation, stage, detail, etc. (the kind of stuff people write in flowery gear reviews).  This involves a lot of trials, so it would take some time to complete the study.
> 
> By correlating all of the results, we can get an idea of how the various variables affect the results, and whether there's any relationship between results of blind A/B testing with short excerpts versus notes from normal extended listening.
> 
> I've yet to run across even one good study along these lines, and lots of poorly documented, conducted, and/or interpreted studies aren't a substitute for one good study which has some scientific rigor.  I think we all have an idea of what the results of the study would be, but until such a study is done, we're all somewhat speculating about the conclusions.  "Burden of proof" stuff doesn't really matter, because the goal is to figure out the answer based on evidence, not win internet forum debates.


the nature of what cues you're trying to perceive will define the testing protocol, so I don't even see how what you're asking for could be done to answer a general question.
but for detection of small changes in sound, which is usually what we discuss here, we have a bunch of recommendations starting with https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf  (not sure if it's the latest version).
the reason for short samples isn't that we notice short samples better per se. it is that we remember things well only for a limited amount of time. it's all about memory instead of perception and this has at least 2 papers I know of, saying about the same things. which is that accuracy of a recalled audio event starts to drop after only a few seconds. so if your test sample is longer than what your brain can accurately recall, you're in trouble.
also it's obvious that when the point of the test is to detect differences between 2 samples, having them as close as possible in time from one another is helping. a little like how it's easier to find variations between 2 pictures when they rapidly switch on a screen, compared to spending 5mn looking only at one then 5 minute looking only at the other. the ability to go back and forth is a great help in identifying and confirming variations. the only real problem comes when the effect of something is felt only in the long term, obviously a 3second sample might fail there. and also when you have no clue what you're looking for, your short sample might not contain the cues you're supposed to notice. but beyond that I don't think there is much doubt left that rapid switching and short samples are the most effective listening method to detect small differences.

now if you're talking about identifying the components of one track, then obviously more time will probably help as you're not looking for differences with another sample.


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 18, 2018)

I agree. I hate to be trite, but none of the "famous studies" that I continually see quoted would have gotten me a passing grade in my college level science courses. They all violate one or more of the basic tenets of "properly conducted scientific tests" - at least if you wish to produce results that are considered to be credible.

I also see a frequent lack of distinction between statistical results and absolute results. For example, let's say you test 50 subjects, with 20 trials each (that's 1000 total trials)... and you find that you got 532 overall "correct" responses... but one subject was right 18/20....

Statistically your overall results suggest that the outcome was within the standard error for a random result. Likewise, the fact that one subject scored 18/20 is itself not statistically significant. However, that result is in fact suggestive enough to justify further testing. It's simple enough to run an additional 20 trials with just that subject to confirm that his anomalous result was random. There is a QUALITATIVE decision involved. It really DOES matter whether that one test subject can routinely get more correct than all your other subjects, or whether he was simply lucky that day. If someone throws ten heads in a row you do NOT "write it off as an anomaly". You conduct additional tests to CONFIRM whether it was an anomaly or a very significant result.

I'm not sure whether this sort of error qualifies as a specific sort of fallacy... of just falls under the heading of "misusing statistics" or "confusing statistics with specific facts".... but it sure happens a lot.

In the context of testing for very subtle audible differences between... (anything)...

If the goal is to determine the absolute fact of whether "a difference is audible or not", then I would suggest one slight difference.....  I would suggest that the most sensitive version of an A/B test would be not an A/B test, but the A/B/A variation. In this form of test you play THREE samples in sequence, timed or not, or simply allow the listener to switch back and forth multiple times as they like. This covers the possibility that, for some unknown reason, the listener may be more sensitive to some small difference between the samples when switching in one direction than in the other. (If we're trying to find the smallest detectable difference then we want to ensure that we include the most sensitive conditions possible.)

At the risk of using an analogy to prove the point, if we were asking observers to compare two colors, the most sensitive test for doing so is to have the colors shown at the same time in direct contact. When matching colors it is universally acknowledged that the most accurate results will be obtained when comparing two OVERLAPPING samples. When comparing "swatches" you hold the swatch OVER the color sample you're testing. (Many very accurate old-school scientific tests worked this way - and many still do.) You do NOT look at the samples sequentially or hold them several inches apart. Showing samples sequentially, or at the same time, but not overlapping, universally reduces the sensitivity of the test. I suggest that allowing the user to switch as often as possible, and as quickly as possible, or as infrequently as they prefer, achieves the same goal. It both minimizes the opportunity for memory to affect the results and allows each test subject to choose their own "most sensitive test conditions".

An A/B/X test is FAR less sensitive since it asks the user to not only recognize a difference but also to characterize what that difference is. Half of the sample sets in our A/B/A test will contain samples that are different; and half samples that are the same. Therefore, if the different samples are "audibly indistinguishable" we would expect the same random 50/50 result for both types of sets. And, if the observer is statistically more accurate in  identifying sets where the samples are different, then we must conclude that SOMETHING is causing them to be able to tell which is which. (And, since it is essentially a forced-choice situation, we have included "unconscious factors" as well as conscious.)

I would also reiterate that, if we're testing something like the audibility of ultrasonic content, then we MUST confirm that such content is both present in our test samples, and actually delivered to the ears of the listener at the listening position. (We must ensure that both our test samples, and all of the gear we use in the test, "is delivering the sample we're testing for".)

I would also note that what we're talking about here is "a test to determine the absolute minimum difference that is audible". This is far different than, for example, testing for "what the majority of people notice" or "what the majority of people find important". In tests of THAT sort, it may be desirable to deliberately include other confounding factors. For example, we may conclude that, if the majority of listeners are unable to detect a difference when their listening sessions are deliberately separated by a thirty second delay, those differences are "unimportant", and "unlikely to be noticed in a typical listening situation". In other words, answering THAT question might call for a different and less stringent test. (Perhaps we actually need to develop a specific test for "what's important in a typical listening situation"... with specific, and less stringent, requirements.)



Phronesis said:


> What I'm looking for is a study which uses multiple listeners and music excerpts, varies the duration of the music excerpts and the switching time, does both blind and sighted comparisons in the A/B, and also has listeners blind and sighted listen for long durations and note their observations on the sound quality (not A/B identification) with respect to things like tonal balance, instrument separation, stage, detail, etc. (the kind of stuff people write in flowery gear reviews).  This involves a lot of trials, so it would take some time to complete the study.
> 
> By correlating all of the results, we can get an idea of how the various variables affect the results, and whether there's any relationship between results of blind A/B testing with short excerpts versus notes from normal extended listening.
> 
> I've yet to run across even one good study along these lines, and lots of poorly documented, conducted, and/or interpreted studies aren't a substitute for one good study which has some scientific rigor.  I think we all have an idea of what the results of the study would be, but until such a study is done, we're all somewhat speculating about the conclusions.  "Burden of proof" stuff doesn't really matter, because the goal is to figure out the answer based on evidence, not win internet forum debates.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 18, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> the nature of what cues you're trying to perceive will define the testing protocol, so I don't even see how what you're asking for could be done to answer a general question.
> but for detection of small changes in sound, which is usually what we discuss here, we have a bunch of recommendations starting with https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf  (not sure if it's the latest version).
> the reason for short samples isn't that we notice short samples better per se. it is that we remember things well only for a limited amount of time. it's all about memory instead of perception and this has at least 2 papers I know of, saying about the same things. which is that accuracy of a recalled audio event starts to drop after only a few seconds. so if your test sample is longer than what your brain can accurately recall, you're in trouble.
> also it's obvious that when the point of the test is to detect differences between 2 samples, having then as close as possible in time from one another is helping. a little like how it's easier to find variations between 2 pictures when they rapidly switch on a screen, compared to spending 5mn looking only at one then 5 minute looking only at the other. the ability to go back and forth is a great help in identifying and confirming variations. the only real problem comes when the effect of something is felt only in the long term, obviously a 3second sample might fail there. and also when you have no clue what you're looking for, your short sample might not contain the cues you're supposed to notice. but beyond that I don't think there is much doubt left that rapid switching and short samples are the most effective listening method to detect small differences.
> ...



I agree with all of that.  The question though is how to relate (a) our ability to detect differences with short segments to (b) differences experienced in longer term normal listening, in which conscious and subconscious perception may be operating differently than in the short-term testing where the focus is on trying to consciously detect differences, and subconscious perception may be working differently.  I do _suspect_ that null results in the short term testing indicate insignificant differences for long term listening, but I'm not sure, and I'd like to see some solid evidence of the connection.

For example, maybe a small difference in the short term (less or more bass, less or more of some type of distortion, etc.) isn't consistently consciously detectable or seems insignificant, but in the long term it may be significantly more pleasant or annoying, and the difference may be perceived mainly subconsciously without being able to consciously point out the difference.  I'm sure many of us have had the experience of there being a slight hum or high-frequency whine in our sound system or environment, and we fail to notice it because it's constant, but we notice when it suddenly goes away, and we realize it was subconsciously bothering us all along.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm inclined to agree with you.

However, many listeners insist that they notice things over long periods of time, like "product A sounds more fatiguing than product B". I personally suspect that this is just a matter of bias. However, because we each perceive things differently, I'm not prepared to claim that I know for a fact that they're imagining it without some thorough testing. Perhaps their minds just process things somewhat differently than mine.



Phronesis said:


> I generally am inclined to agree.  I find it difficult to make the case that an audible difference missed in a blind test could somehow be a substantial difference in normal listening.  I could be wrong about that (due to a difference in how perception works in the test versus normal listening), but that seems quite unlikely to me.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I'm inclined to agree with you.
> 
> However, many listeners insist that they notice things over long periods of time, like "product A sounds more fatiguing than product B". I personally suspect that this is just a matter of bias. However, because we each perceive things differently, I'm not prepared to claim that I know for a fact that they're imagining it without some thorough testing. Perhaps their minds just process things somewhat differently than mine.



Yes, see my post above.  Without evidence, I'm not quite ready to conclude that a difference not detected or found to be very small in the short term necessarily means that it's also insignificant in the longer term.  We need to look at both magnitude of differences and the time over which those differences are experienced to understand the effects of the differences on listeners.  And in this regard, the nature of the difference may matter a lot also - there are different types of differences, and type of difference may make a difference!


----------



## analogsurviver

I concur that small differences that are usually too small to be perceived in quick ABX can be a determining factor in the end. If I can't stand something while washing dishes or doing similar chores - and something else, under same conditions, pleases me - WHAT do you think will I choose - even if the short term DBT ABX.......Ž revealed - nothing ... ?


----------



## Zapp_Fan

This is a little late but the LAME development community used to conduct a buttload of ABX tests, just about every time they released a new encoder preset I believe it was subjected to ABX testing of fair rigor.  So if you want to see how this can be done over time, that would be a good example.  Of course that sort of testing is much easier to conduct than hardware testing, but the principles involved are the same. 

Also @Phronesis this is a little OT but what did you think of the new Jacob Collier album?  I found it a bit soundtrack-y compared to previous stuff... going to see him live in March though.


----------



## Phronesis

Zapp_Fan said:


> Also @Phronesis this is a little OT but what did you think of the new Jacob Collier album?  I found it a bit soundtrack-y compared to previous stuff... going to see him live in March though.



The first time I heard the new album, I wasn't sure I liked it overall, but I liked some things and was intrigued.  I've now listened to the album many times and I love it.  IMO, the kid is a musical genius of a rare kind.  I currently have the album cover as my avatar to pay tribute!  Really looking forward to the upcoming three volumes, and what he does beyond that.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Phronesis said:


> The first time I heard the new album, I wasn't sure I liked it overall, but I liked some things and was intrigued.  I've now listened to the album many times and I love it.  IMO, the kid is a musical genius of a rare kind.  I currently have the album cover as my avatar to pay tribute!  Really looking forward to the upcoming three volumes, and what he does beyond that.



Agree about the "musical genius" thing, even if I don't always love what he does with his talent, it's undeniable. I had the same feeling where I wasn't quite sure how I felt about the music at first, but he's a phenomenon either way.  I'll give Djesse a few more listens...


----------



## Phronesis

Zapp_Fan said:


> Agree about the "musical genius" thing, even if I don't always love what he does with his talent, it's undeniable. I had the same feeling where I wasn't quite sure how I felt about the music at first, but he's a phenomenon either way.  I'll give Djesse a few more listens...



I actually like the new album a lot more than his first one.  For me, the first one is an appetizer which shows his potential, whereas the new album is like a full meal which unfolds like an epic journey.  The stylistic twists and turns can be jarring at first, but once I sort of know they're coming, I can go with his flow and really like it.


----------



## bigshot

If you want to know the best way to conduct tests, doing some tests yourself will teach you that fast. Or just ask someone who does them. They’ll tell you. But asking for test results on how to conduct tests is crossing the line into absurdity.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> If you want to know the best way to conduct tests, doing some tests yourself will teach you that fast. Or just ask someone who does them. They’ll tell you. But asking for test results on how to conduct tests is crossing the line into absurdity.



Not sure I agree.  At this point, I've done a fair bit of testing, but I don't assume that my tests didn't have flaws I'm not aware of, nor that I'm interpreting the test results properly.

In any case, I myself am not really looking for advice on testing, but rather info on tests which have already been done by others, which considered the kinds of variables I mentioned.


----------



## KeithEmo

Errrrrr....... not really.
Almost every five year old has determined, after extensive testing, that wet mud makes excellent pies.
Many have years of research, and stunning results, to back up their claims.
However, as adults, we find their results... suspect.
(They probably based their conclusions on how their pies look... whereas adults are more concerned with taste, safety, and nutritional value).

One problem is that so many people think they're doing it right, or think they're being thorough, but they really aren't.
Another problem is that so many people don't read the details - or manage not to absorb them.
(And, in all fairness, it's possible that some of the details that appear to be missing aren't missing, but just weren't included in that magazine article.)

Oddly enough, there are whole college courses in designing, performing, and documenting tests_ PROPERLY_.
And whole textbooks dedicated to the subject.
Perhaps it isn't actually as simple as some people seem to think.

If you want to test whether a difference will be audible with your system then testing it with your system is fine.
However, if you want to produce results that are valid in the general term, it isn't good enough.
(You will need to document why you are certain that some other system won't reveal differences that yours fails to.)

And, no, it doesn't have to be all that difficult or expensive.
For example, if you and five buddies did a great double blind test of DACs, using five different headphones.
Then say so in your conclusions.....
List the DACS, and the headphones, and the source material you used.
But be sure to mention that, since all the test subjects were between 40 and 50 years of age, you cannot rule out the possibility that younger listeners might hear something you didn't.
And also be sure to mention that you used planar and dynamic headphones, so you cannot rule out the possibility that differences might be audible with electrostatic headphones either.
And be sure to provide details of the test samples you used so, if someone else wants to duplicate your results, they can go out and purchase the same exact ones.
(And, if we're talking abut ultrasonics, provide some spectrum plots showing that the samples contain ultrasonics, and that your headphones are capable of playing them.)
And then, after being thorough, and documenting it all carefully....
Don't go out on a limb by claiming that people should generalize your results to ALL DACs, and ALL headphones, and ALL listeners.

And, yes, I went to college for this sort of thing.
And, yes, I did product comparisons for a living for several years (commercial computer products - mostly big network, communications, and security gear).
And, yes, it included devising, performing, and documenting tests - both for publication and internal use by our customers.
And that included justifying both that our results were valid and that they were actually demonstrating the differences they were designed to test for.
And, yes, we were always extremely careful to include the limitations of our tests, rather than attempt to claim that they were true "everywhere, for everyone, forever".
(We were paid by manufacturers to analyze how their products performed compared to their competitors and make suggestions for making their products more competitive.)



bigshot said:


> If you want to know the best way to conduct tests, doing some tests yourself will teach you that fast. Or just ask someone who does them. They’ll tell you. But asking for test results on how to conduct tests is crossing the line into absurdity.


----------



## KeithEmo

In fact I think many of the tests listed at the beginning of the thread provide lots of useful information.
However, many of them really need to be considered in context.
For example, many tests have shown that _FOR MOST PEOPLE, MOST OF THE TIME_, CDs are audibly perfect.
So perhaps now it's time to concentrate on the exceptions... and either rule each out or list it for further study.
If CDs _CAN_ sound near perfect - then why do they fail to do so so much of the time?
And where is the exact gap between "near perfect" and "perfect" and can we narrow it?
And can we perhaps establish a list of priorities about what needs to be fixed?



Phronesis said:


> Not sure I agree.  At this point, I've done a fair bit of testing, but I don't assume that my tests didn't have flaws I'm not aware of, nor that I'm interpreting the test results properly.
> 
> In any case, I myself am not really looking for advice on testing, but rather info on tests which have already been done by others, which considered the kinds of variables I mentioned.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> Errrrrr....... not really.
> Almost every five year old has determined, after extensive testing, that wet mud makes excellent pies.
> Many have years of research, and stunning results, to back up their claims.
> However, as adults, we find their results... suspect.
> ...



I agree. 

Design and interpretation of tests is a skill (and even somewhat of an art).  Experts will generally have that skill to a much higher degree than amateurs and hobbyists, and the tests listed in the first post in this thread generally don't seem to have been done by experts.

The other point to add is that tests have to be designed and interpreted in the context of a theoretical framework.  If the framework has problems or important omissions, that can create problems in the design and interpretation of tests.  If we're doing listening tests, we need to recognize our assumptions regarding how perception and memory are working when doing the tests.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 18, 2018)

Tests are useful. Everybody should do them to understand for themselves how things work. They don't have to be perfect. They don't have to be conducted by PhDs. All that is required is a desire to know for yourself. If you don't do any tests yourself and you depend on authorities or your gut feelings or what large groups of people say or the size of the price tag, then you probably don't want to know for yourself.

Testing isn't a tool for self validation, and it isn't a tool to prove someone is wrong. It's just a way to find out something. Once you find it out, that leads to more questions and more tests. The more you do that, the more you know. The best way to defend an incorrect conclusion is to refuse to do tests yourself and nitpick everyone else's tests, saying that they aren't good enough for you. If you can keep that up long enough, you can continue to believe a lie forever. Armchair quarterbacks don't know jack diddly. They just think they do.

I am looking for someone who has access to a DAC that sounds clearly different through line out under reasonably careful comparison. If anyone has access to something like that and they would like to join in a test to determine if there is a difference and how it measures, let me know. There are a couple of other people who have PMed me who are also interested in participating. I've been asking for this for over a year now. It's interesting that so far no one has been able to help us with this. I think that might show that if a different sounding DAC exists, it must be pretty rare.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> Tests are useful. Everybody should do them to understand for themselves how things work. They don't have to be perfect. They don't have to be conducted by PhDs. All that is required is a desire to know for yourself. If you don't do any tests yourself and you depend on authorities or your gut feelings or what large groups of people say or the size of the price tag, then you probably don't want to know for yourself.
> 
> The best way to defend an incorrect conclusion is to refuse to do tests yourself and nitpick everyone else's tests, saying that they aren't good enough for you. If you can keep that up long enough, you can continue to believe a lie forever.
> 
> ...



Fully agreed that people should do some testing themselves.  Even if the testing isn't rigorous, it can still be very educational, and there's no better way to see the effects of expectation bias than to do some controlled testing and experience previously clear differences suddenly vanish, like discovering that a mirage was only a mirage.  People will continue to 'trust their ears' until they find out for themselves, firsthand, that their ears aren't so trustworthy after all.

That said, I'd still like to see some rigorous testing done which meets scientific standards, shows the effects of various variables, and links short term to long term.  My interest isn't for any practical reasons (my existing headgear sounds plenty good to me, and I doubt there's much room for improvement), but more just for scientific curiosity.


----------



## KeithEmo

Agreed.....

However, an awful lot of people do seem to put excessive faith in tests performed by so-called experts. Now, to a point, this makes sense. However, that point is crossed when the test itself is badly flawed or, even worse, when the person reading it is unaware of the flaws in the test and/or its conclusions. I am quite convinced that many of the people who conducted a lot of the tests listed at the begining of the thread were well intentioned, but far from well versed in how to conduct a thorough test which will provide valid results, while others simply weren't very thorough in their reporting. I also suspect that, in other cases, the reports were simply incomplete - either because the information wasn't properly captured to begin with, or because someone decided it was too boring to publish all the details.

I also find that many people are quite ignorant of the nuances of statistics - and what they mean. I'm going to pick on one example - from the orignal Meyers and Moran study which everyone so loves to quote. When considered in total, the study produced a result of 246 correct choices out of 467 - which by itself is most certainly NOT "statistically significant". However they reported that one listener, in one trial, scored 8/10 and two others produced 7/10 in other trials. It should also be noted that, with the number of trials involved, this result IN AND OF ITSELF is not statistically significant. There is a quite reasonable probability that those seemingly positive results COULD HAVE OCCURRED by random chance. However, that does not necessarily rule out the possibility that they could also have NOT occurred by random chance. So, in terms of the overall study, those results so far are a sort of null result. 

HOWEVER, when viewed individually, those results are in fact quite suggestive. Ignoring the other results, we have one listener who scored 8/10, and his result COULD have been random luck, or it could have been proof that, out of all the subjects, he is a legitimate outlier who is in fact able to reliably detect differences that others cannot. He may just be the equivalent of the one guy in a million with perfect pitch. In this case, it would have been simple to conduct an ADDITIONAL ten test runs with just that test subject to confirm whether his previous performance was consistent and repeatable or just random good luck. However, notably, that follow-up was never done. At a guess, they may not have even correlated the results until the test subjects had all gone home. Alternately, they could have been so focussed on producing a statistical result that they completely overlooked an opportunity to explore the subject itself further.

If I were asked to summarize the results of that test this is what I would asay:

"They conducted a test with a reasonable number of subjects and test runs. The overall results of the test were not statisticall significant, and so did not statistically suggest that a significant majority of test subjects could hear a difference. They were also thorough enough to note that a few test subjects seemed to perform at well above the level of random chance, but failed to follow up to confirm whether their performance was due to random chance, or whether they were legitimate outliers."

Taken as a general indication that "most people won't be able to tell the difference" the results they produced are useful. However they not only fail to prove that "nobody can hear the difference", but they actually left some suggestive results unexplored. (It would be as if, when testing a new drug, it failed to work for most people, but one or two did unexectedly and mysteriously recover, and you simply didn't bother to try and figure out why.)

To me this sort of suggests that, as scientists, they were "trying to produce a statistical analysis" rather than that "they were trying to learn something".

I would point out one thing, however.... I agree with you that the way to learn new things is to perform more tests. HOWEVER, if you're hoping to learn something new, it is pointless to repeat flawed tests, and include the same flaws as the originals. For example, in point of fact, I'm not especially convinced that ultrasonic harmonics make an audible difference or not. HOWEVER, because the original tests I've read were so poorly designed, we don't know if the samples they used actually contained ultrasonic harmonics or not, or whether the speakers or headphones they used were capable of actually delivering those ultrasonic harmonics to the ears of the test subjects. This produces an annoying situation. If the test subjects had noticed a difference, that would have proven that the test was valid, and the diffeence was audible. However, when the test subjects heard no difference, we cannot know if the tests were valid and produced a legitimate negative response, or if the tests were so flawed as to be worthless. We simply don't have enough information to tell either way. 

The solution is relatively simply: repeat the test minus the flaws of the original. Confirm, using actual measurements, that ultrasonic harmics are present in the test samples, at the output of the speakers or headphones, and at the ears of the test subjects. (And document his fact so there are no doubts about OUR results.)

This is pretty basic stuff. If we were testing for the ability to detect a chemical additive, the first thing we'd do after making up our samples would be to test them and make sure that our chemical was actually present in them in the specified amounts.

I can even provide an entertaining and quite practical example of this sort of error. I lived in Los Angeles in the 1980's and, at that time, a new chemical treatment had been introduced for drinking water - the traditional chlorine additive was replaced with a similar chemical called chloramine. I don't know about the claimed benefit, but there was serious concern in the tropical fish community, because the normal treatments used to remove chlorine from tap water in preparation to putting it in fish tanks didn't work well on chloramine. It was feared that some new water treatment would have to be devised... or that a lot of fish would die. As it turned out, most of the tap water in Los Angeles is carried in cements conduits, and the lime in cement reacts with chloramine. The expected, and feared, reactions to the chloramine never occurred, because the chloramine wasn't there.... almost none of it actually made it to the tap. People had simply assumed that, since it was added at the treatment plant, it would come out of their faucets. SImilarly, in every test I've read about that  attempted to confirm whether ultrasonic harmonics were audible, samples were used which supposedly contained ultrasonic content, but nobody ever confirmed that it was actually arriving at the test listeners ears. This is not a trivial error; it is an absurd, and potentially invalidating, oversight.

(Incidentally, I would have liked to participate in your DAC study, but I am no longer in possession of either of the two DACs which I bel;ieve sounded "significantly different". I sold them because I wasn't especially fond of the way they sounded. While I am quite certain I can hear minor differences in other DACs, they are quite subtle, and I'm not convinced they would be especially audible. For example, I am quite certain I can hear minor differences in the filter choices in one of our little EGo DACs... but only under very certain conditions, with a certain few recordings, in certain specific passages, and when played through certain specific associated equipment.  Therefore, if they really exist at all, they are quite small... and so not especially good examples.)

I would also point out another "confounding factor" to be aware of. Many DAC manufacturers, especially small boutique companies, and makers of very low cost products, have a habit of quoting the specifications of the DAC chip they use as the specifications for their entire product. Therefore, if there is an audible difference with such products, I would want to confirm that it isn't simply due to undocumented flaws in measurable performance. (I would be inclined to trust that major vendors won't cheat.)



bigshot said:


> Tests are useful. Everybody should do them to understand for themselves how things work. They don't have to be perfect. They don't have to be conducted by PhDs. All that is required is a desire to know for yourself. If you don't do any tests yourself and you depend on authorities or your gut feelings or what large groups of people say or the size of the price tag, then you probably don't want to know for yourself.
> 
> Testing isn't a tool for self validation, and it isn't a tool to prove someone is wrong. It's just a way to find out something. Once you find it out, that leads to more questions and more tests. The more you do that, the more you know. The best way to defend an incorrect conclusion is to refuse to do tests yourself and nitpick everyone else's tests, saying that they aren't good enough for you. If you can keep that up long enough, you can continue to believe a lie forever. Armchair quarterbacks don't know jack diddly. They just think they do.
> 
> I am looking for someone who has access to a DAC that sounds clearly different through line out under reasonably careful comparison. If anyone has access to something like that and they would like to join in a test to determine if there is a difference and how it measures, let me know. There are a couple of other people who have PMed me who are also interested in participating. I've been asking for this for over a year now. It's interesting that so far no one has been able to help us with this. I think that might show that if a different sounding DAC exists, it must be pretty rare.


----------



## bigshot

I've already started the ball rolling.  have yet to find a single DAC or DAP that sounds different under normal listening conditions, including ones with chips that audiophiles swear sound clearly different (Wolfson, Sabre, etc).

Anecdotal reports aren't valuable at all. That junk is just expectation bias fed by the prevarications of the high end audio market and internet forum gossip passing as "common knowledge". Do a controlled test and I'll listen to you. You don't have to make it complicated or difficult. I'm just looking for someone who knows how to get close to the truth and has found something worth looking into. I'm not going to waste my time on self serving, biased, subjective and/or anecdotal bologna. This thread is full of it.

If you won't do a test or recognize a test unless it is up to your standards, you can rest assured that I'm not talking to you.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I've already started the ball rolling.  have yet to find a single DAC or DAP that sounds different under normal listening conditions, including ones with chips that audiophiles swear sound clearly different (Wolfson, Sabre, etc).



To get a result that gets people's attention, I suggest comparing a cheap DAC in the $100 range with something like the Chord Dave, which I believe is around $10K.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 18, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> If I were asked to summarize the results of that test this is what I would asay:
> 
> "They conducted a test with a reasonable number of subjects and test runs. The overall results of the test were not statisticall significant, and so did not statistically suggest that a significant majority of test subjects could hear a difference. They were also thorough enough to note that a few test subjects seemed to perform at well above the level of random chance, but failed to follow up to confirm whether their performance was due to random chance, or whether they were legitimate outliers."
> 
> Taken as a general indication that "most people won't be able to tell the difference" the results they produced are useful. However they not only fail to prove that "nobody can hear the difference", but they actually left some suggestive results unexplored. (It would be as if, when testing a new drug, it failed to work for most people, but one or two did unexectedly and mysteriously recover, and you simply didn't bother to try and figure out why.)



We need to also keep in mind that, due to variability in perceptual accuracy for a given listener, someone may be able to discern a difference some of the time, but not consistently all of the time, and sometimes their perception may cause them to imagine a difference between A and B which results in their swapping them.  So three things can happen in a series of trials:

a. Correct detection of a difference between A and B some of the time.

b. Inability to detect a difference between A and B some of the time, resulting in random guessing.

c. Due to misperception ("imagining things"), incorrectly swapping A and B some of the time.

Errors in case c would negate/cancel correct detection in case a, and b is random guessing, so a listener may do a series of trials and come out with an apparent null result close to 50/50, _despite sometimes really detecting the difference between A and B_.  If someone just crunches stats, this possibility would likely be missed, so this illustrates why we need to understand the science relevant to our experiment.  It would be an _assumption_ that, if a difference between a and b can be detected, that difference will be detected consistently, and that assumption may indeed be wrong (from my own testing experience, I suspect that it _is_ wrong).


----------



## bigshot (Dec 18, 2018)

I already tested a $40 Walmart DVD player against an Oppo HA-1 that costs over a grand. They sounded exactly the same. Price is a lousy way to predict performance in DACs. Absurd. Honestly, I can't even believe you'd make a suggestion like that.

I am asking for a DAC that sounds clearly different from other DACs. One that *YOU HAVE CAREFULLY EVALUATED AND HAVE FOUND TO SOUND DIFFERENT.* I'm not going to waste my time dancing like a monkey for people who are too lazy to even do a cursory check for themselves. Repeating completely unsubstantiated subjective impressions from audiophool forums don't qualify as due diligence, neither does making up your own completely unsubstantiated subjective impressions, Keith. YOU guys go put the $10K DAC on your credit card and see if there is a difference. If you do a reasonably careful listening test and hear a clear difference, let me know. You may have to contact me through someone else if you do however, because I probably won't see your posts and I'll be unable to receive your PMs. Until then, we have no evidence that a DAC that sounds different exists. We have plenty of evidence that many, if not all DACs sound the same.

I'm with Gregorio on this one. The signal to noise here is getting excessive. Diogenes mode on.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I already tested a $40 Walmart DVD player against an Oppo HA-1 that costs over a grand. They sounded exactly the same. Price is a lousy way to predict performance in DACs. Absurd. Honestly, I can't even believe you'd make a suggestion like that.
> 
> I am asking for a DAC that sounds clearly different from other DACs. One that *YOU HAVE CAREFULLY EVALUATED AND HAVE FOUND TO SOUND DIFFERENT.* I'm not going to waste my time dancing like a monkey for people who are too lazy to even do a cursory check for themselves. Repeating completely unsubstantiated subjective impressions from audiophool forums don't qualify as due diligence, neither does making up your own completely unsubstantiated subjective impressions, Keith. YOU guys go put the $10K DAC on your credit card and see if there is a difference. If you do a reasonably careful listening test and hear a clear difference, let me know. You may have to contact me through someone else if you do however, because I probably won't see your posts and I'll be unable to receive your PMs. Until then, we have no evidence that a DAC that sounds different exists. We have plenty of evidence that many, if not all DACs sound the same.
> 
> I'm with Gregorio on this one. The signal to noise here is getting excessive. Diogenes mode on.



My point is that by comparing a cheap DAC with a very expensive one, you make a stronger case if the listeners in your test can't consistently tell the difference.  Maybe you can find someone who owns an expensive DAC and would make it available because they're confident that it will sound better.

And you won't know in advance which DACs sound "clearly different," you have test a bunch of them with a bunch of listeners to see if you can find a couple that sound clearly different to at least one listener.  I myself have only tried a few of them, and can't say that they sound clearly different (to me).


----------



## bfreedma

I’ve seen repeated commentary here suggesting the tests documented in the first post and others may be flawed.  That may or may not be true, but if that assertion is going to be made, then it’s encumbent upon the person suggesting the tests were flawed to be specific about those flaws, not just throw a turd in the punch bowl.

General statements that “there might be flaws” aren’t helpful and could be construed as deflection, particularly from those averse to participating in reasonable testing.  While it may not be conclusive, an ABX via Foobar is quite simple to construct and enough data gathered may be inidicative.  Particularly if statistics aren’t abused and single run results aren’t stated as being significant.  If someone can score 8/10 or better on 20 test runs, then we have something to discuss.


----------



## Phronesis

bfreedma said:


> I’ve seen repeated commentary here suggesting the tests documented in the first post and others may be flawed.  That may or may not be true, but if that assertion is going to be made, then it’s encumbent upon the person suggesting the tests were flawed to be specific about those flaws, not just throw a turd in the punch bowl.



In general, I think the bigger issue with those tests is that they're not documented well enough to properly evaluate them.  Also, the tests tend to be relatively small, and the use of stats tends to be very simple (most don't even have something like a p-value).


----------



## bfreedma

Phronesis said:


> My point is that by comparing a cheap DAC with a very expensive one, you make a stronger case if the listeners in your test can't consistently tell the difference.  Maybe you can find someone who owns an expensive DAC and would make it available because they're confident that it will sound better.
> 
> And you won't know in advance which DACs sound "clearly different," you have test a bunch of them with a bunch of listeners to see if you can find a couple that sound clearly different to at least one listener.  I myself have only tried a few of them, and can't say that they sound clearly different (to me).




Why would MSRP make a stronger case (from the perspective of scientific value)?  Aren’t we simply trying to determine if two DACs sound different enough to generate statistically significant results under controlled testing?

And realistically, no amount of testing is going to convince those fawning over their Chord Daves and M Scalers that their DACs and bazillion tap add on boxes aren’t “special”. Those threads are an embarrassing collection of golden eared backslappers justifying their purchases.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 18, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> Why would MSRP make a stronger case (from the perspective of scientific value)?  Aren’t we simply trying to determine if two DACs sound different enough to generate statistically significant results under controlled testing?
> 
> And realistically, no amount of testing is going to convince those fawning over their Chord Daves and M Scalers that their DACs and bazillion tap add on boxes aren’t “special”. Those threads are an embarrassing collection of golden eared backslappers justifying their purchases.



I figure that if you knock the Dave off its lofty pedestal with a good credible test, that should sow seeds of doubt in general about differences in DACs.  I've heard the Dave described as not just substantially better than most other stuff, but "on another planet."  If my dealer can get me a Dave for demo, I may do some testing myself.

I agree, those threads are pretty crazy.  I had to unsubscribe from the Hugo 2 thread because I just couldn't take it any more.  There were people saying they heard differences in the filter settings at 16/44, even after Watts himself said there shouldn't be any sound difference based on his design!


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 18, 2018)

If I may drag things down to my level, I notice if there is too much bass or too much treble or uneven bass and that is fatiguing or tiring or whatever and that's easy to fix with EQ. If I close my eyes and switch between two settings it can often be clear in my lay-opinion that part of the spectrum is over or under emphasized and that can be fixed with EQ. An extra subwoofer has helped keep the bass even in my room (a nightmare of a room, by the way, L-shaped with an opening to other parts of the house). You can walk around the room and hear that it is much more even with the two subwoofers. I can make more minor adjustments and close my eyes (a sort of self-imposed and very vulnerable and flawed blind test) and switch in and out and have a very hard time deciding which is "better." That's my happy place. Once I settle down and relax I enjoy it.

When it comes down to having to do a a blind A/B or A/B/X test to hear very minor differences, I've done that, and it's tedious and difficult and reassuring to know everything is cool, at least to my ears, but I'm just confirming that my equipment and lossy encoding are working right. I'm not really making any progress in my set-up.


----------



## bfreedma

Phronesis said:


> I figure that if you knock the Dave off its lofty pedestal with a good credible test, that should sow seeds of doubt in general about differences in DACs.  I've heard the Dave described as not just substantially better than most other stuff, but "on another planet."  If my dealer can get me a Dave for demo, I may do some testing myself.
> 
> I agree, those threads are pretty crazy.  I had to unsubscribe from the Hugo 2 thread because I just couldn't take it any more.  There were people saying they heard differences in the filter settings at 16/44, even after Watts himself said there shouldn't be any sound difference based on his design!



I’ve heard the DAVE a number of times, twice in a quiet room where I could listen undisturbed.  It’s a DAC.  While I didn’t ABX it, I didn’t find it unusual in any way (good or bad)


----------



## bfreedma

Steve999 said:


> If I may drag things down to my level, I notice if there is too much bass or too much treble or uneven bass and that is fatiguing or tiring or whatever and that's easy to fix with EQ. If I close my eyes and switch between two settings it can often be clear in my lay-opinion that part of the spectrum is over or under emphasized and that can be fixed with EQ. An extra subwoofer has helped keep the bass even in my room (a nightmare of a room, by the way, L-shaped with an opening to other parts of the house). You can walk around the room and hear that it is much more even with the two subwoofers. I can make more minor adjustments and close my eyes (a sort of self-imposed and very vulnerable and flawed blind test) and switch in and out and have a very hard time deciding which is "better." That's my happy place. Once I settle down and relax I enjoy it.
> 
> When it comes down to having to do a a blind A/B or A/B/X test to hear very minor differences, I've done that, and it's tedious and difficult and reassuring to know everything is cool, at least to my ears, but I'm just confirming that my equipment and lossy encoding are working right. I'm not really making any progress in my set-up.




Wait, you enjoy your gear?  Is that permitted


----------



## KeithEmo

Just for the sake of correctness....

Could we please have a few more details about your comparison between the Walmart DVD player and the Oppo HA-1?

How about, for starters:
- model of the WalMart DVD player
- models of headphones or speakers used for the test
- details of test samples used for the test (songs, sources, sample rates, and anything esle required to duplicate the test scenario exactly) 
- duration and actual test methodology used (was this a properly conducted A/B test or "merely an informal sighted test")
- demographics and number of test subjects chosen

Incidentally, I would add a comment to your statement about price.
The Sabre DAC chip used in the Oppo HA-1 costs less than $20 in quantity.
Therefore, while it's quite possible that significant money was spent on implementation details like a better power supply or analog audio circuitry, the cost of the core component wasn't all that different.
Basically, there isn't a commercial DAC chip that's used in a piece of commercial audio gear that costs more than about $20 in quantity.
(Of course, custom designs, and designs built from discrete components are excluded here, and can cost far more.)



bigshot said:


> I already tested a $40 Walmart DVD player against an Oppo HA-1 that costs over a grand. They sounded exactly the same. Price is a lousy way to predict performance in DACs. Absurd. Honestly, I can't even believe you'd make a suggestion like that.
> 
> I am asking for a DAC that sounds clearly different from other DACs. One that *YOU HAVE CAREFULLY EVALUATED AND HAVE FOUND TO SOUND DIFFERENT.* I'm not going to waste my time dancing like a monkey for people who are too lazy to even do a cursory check for themselves. Repeating completely unsubstantiated subjective impressions from audiophool forums don't qualify as due diligence, neither does making up your own completely unsubstantiated subjective impressions, Keith. YOU guys go put the $10K DAC on your credit card and see if there is a difference. If you do a reasonably careful listening test and hear a clear difference, let me know. You may have to contact me through someone else if you do however, because I probably won't see your posts and I'll be unable to receive your PMs. Until then, we have no evidence that a DAC that sounds different exists. We have plenty of evidence that many, if not all DACs sound the same.
> 
> I'm with Gregorio on this one. The signal to noise here is getting excessive. Diogenes mode on.


----------



## Killcomic

If anything, testing will save people money. Really, if you can't hear the difference between a lossy vs a lossless file, what chances do you have of enjoying the "benefits" of 96khz/24bit audio?


----------



## old tech (Dec 19, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> In fact I think many of the tests listed at the beginning of the thread provide lots of useful information.
> However, many of them really need to be considered in context.
> For example, many tests have shown that _FOR MOST PEOPLE, MOST OF THE TIME_, CDs are audibly perfect.
> So perhaps now it's time to concentrate on the exceptions... and either rule each out or list it for further study.
> ...


There you go again, making a claim based on your misuderstanding of statistics and your misinterpretation of results.  This appears to be a continuation of your misinterpretation of the M&M study where you claim it proved some could hear a difference in normal listening environments, despite the flaws in your observations being clearly pointed out to you.

I have yet to see one credible test where all other factors apart from 16/44 are controlled that supports your assertion of exceptions or even more absurd, that that they "fail so much of the time".

Still flogging the dead horse?  I like Emotiva products but peddling FUD on a sound science forum does you or your company you represent no favours.


----------



## Killcomic

KeithEmo said:


> Just for the sake of correctness....
> 
> The Sabre DAC chip used in the Oppo HA-1 costs less than $20 in quantity.
> Therefore, while it's quite possible that significant money was spent on implementation details like a better power supply or analog audio circuitry, the cost of the core component wasn't all that different.
> ...



Because no one EVER, in the entire history of the world, has overcharged for something. Cough.
Also, it could be the same crap as magic juju oxygen-free kryptonite cables made of expensive materials. They make no difference but they cost more.


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> I’ve seen repeated commentary here suggesting the tests documented in the first post and others may be flawed.  That may or may not be true, but if that assertion is going to be made, then it’s encumbent upon the person suggesting the tests were flawed to be specific about those flaws, not just throw a turd in the punch bowl.
> 
> General statements that “there might be flaws” aren’t helpful and could be construed as deflection, particularly from those averse to participating in reasonable testing.  While it may not be conclusive, an ABX via Foobar is quite simple to construct and enough data gathered may be inidicative.  Particularly if statistics aren’t abused and single run results aren’t stated as being significant.  If someone can score 8/10 or better on 20 test runs, then we have something to discuss.



Foobar2000 ABX is limited to comparing different PCM files - and can not test anything else, be it analog or DSD.  That means I  have next to none use for it.

The only commercially available ABX box of sufficiently high quality that can do ABX testing properly - down to a piece of wire or a single electronic component, if required - is  

https://avahifi.com/products/abx-switch-comparator

One could do with a less expensive home brew version - but no way yours or mine, even if built from the same schematics, could be thought of actually performing the same. The most troubles in audio are caused by switches and volume control in general - and with 0.2 dB  or less volume matching - RELIABLY, REPEATEDLY - requirement, this IS tough in real life. You could realise in no time a potentiometer capable of required performance alone costs more than some receivers some claim to be audibly transparent. 

If I had the money, I would have gotten that box - despite being on the wrong continent regarding shipping/customs/voltage, all of which add in practice almost 50% on top of what buys one an unit in the US.


----------



## Killcomic (Dec 19, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Foobar2000 ABX is limited to comparing different PCM files - and can not test anything else, be it analog or DSD.  That means I  have next to none use for it.
> 
> The only commercially available ABX box of sufficiently high quality that can do ABX testing properly - down to a piece of wire or a single electronic component, if required - is
> 
> ...


Oh for the love of... You'll first need to tell the difference between a high quality lossy vs lossless, only then do you even consider going higher.
Everyone here thinks they got dog hearing.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I agree with all of that.  The question though is how to relate (a) our ability to detect differences with short segments to (b) differences experienced in longer term normal listening, in which conscious and subconscious perception may be operating differently than in the short-term testing where the focus is on trying to consciously detect differences, and subconscious perception may be working differently.  I do _suspect_ that null results in the short term testing indicate insignificant differences for long term listening, but I'm not sure, and I'd like to see some solid evidence of the connection.
> 
> For example, maybe a small difference in the short term (less or more bass, less or more of some type of distortion, etc.) isn't consistently consciously detectable or seems insignificant, but in the long term it may be significantly more pleasant or annoying, and the difference may be perceived mainly subconsciously without being able to consciously point out the difference.  I'm sure many of us have had the experience of there being a slight hum or high-frequency whine in our sound system or environment, and we fail to notice it because it's constant, but we notice when it suddenly goes away, and we realize it was subconsciously bothering us all along.


something we'd be able to notice when it goes away, we'd notice with a switch.   I get what you're suggesting, but what are the odds for something creating an impact to be at the same unnoticeable with rapid switching? it would need to have a really small variation compared to the other signal, and then I doubt the consequences would turn out to be meaningful anyway. or it would need to be something with fairly high energy but outside our hearing range(think the radiations of sound, strong but we just happen not to have sensors readily available for it). ultrasounds could probably be that if they happened to have some impact on our body in the long run while we're unaware of their presence. but then high energy inaudible stuff would most likely turn out to be bad for us. 

I don't think it's that easy to manufacture a situation where sound variations we don't notice with rapid switching turn out to have some significant impact anyway. at least I don't expect that to happen in the audible range.


----------



## analogsurviver

Killcomic said:


> Oh for the love of... You'll first need to tell the difference between a high quality lossy vs lossless, only then dhod you even consider going higher.
> Everyone here thinks they got dog hearing.



Sorry, do you know what PCM achronym REALLY stands for ?

TBH, for my personal listening, I have stopped using it, thanks to a member banned from the head-fi ( and to my knowledge, not reinstated after last major change on head-fi - but I could be wrong on that one ), to whom bigshot played the role of the yes-man. 

The plot went around fooling the ear with (white) noise above 20 kHz added instead of the original ultrasonic content in the > 44.1k sampling files. I can go back to the exact files, if required.

BOTTOM LINE : If a person is subject to PCM only diet for music listening, that DOES - unfortunately - de facto become the standard by which the sound quality gets to be judged. 
ANYTHING  that stands out from this bandwidth limited corrupotion of the real thing gets to be considered - inferiour. 

I did fell prey to this devilish scheme. And from that time on, my CD players are gathering - dust. I dusted off some half a cm of dust off a player I  will use for CD mat  tests - to satisfy @bfreedma - sometime this summer. It was actually quite tedious to get it from storage - under piles of _low interest gear ._ No prizes for guessing where it resides at the present ...

It is live, analog record or DSD for me; even on the go. Even if it means strapping the brick of the external DSD capable DAC to the phone.

I break this rule only when having to use sealed bluetooth headphones to demonstrate my recordings in noisy environments - and when some music I like is not available on anything else but PCM. 

And for "enjoying" comparing issued CDs I recorded to the DSD master.


----------



## Killcomic (Dec 19, 2018)

analogsurviver said:


> Sorry, do you know what PCM achronym REALLY stands for ?
> 
> TBH, for my personal listening, I have stopped using it, thanks to a member banned from the head-fi ( and to my knowledge, not reinstated after last major change on head-fi - but I could be wrong on that one ), to whom bigshot played the role of the yes-man.
> 
> ...


Well then, we are looking forward to your subjective test results demonstrating conclusively  that you can pick a DSD file over a 256kbps AAC file. Then, and only then, will I put a poster of you in my bedroom and wish upon the first evening star that I could be just like you.
*Wipes away a hopeful tear*


----------



## bigshot (Dec 19, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> Why would MSRP make a stronger case (from the perspective of scientific value)?  Aren’t we simply trying to determine if two DACs sound different enough to generate statistically significant results under controlled testing?



It's absurd. All I want is one DAC that someone has good reason to believe sounds clearly different. That shouldn't be difficult. All this stuff about tests not being up to their standards and show me tests to show that the tests of the tests are being tested correctly stuff is pure and simple argumentativeness being used to prevent people from seeing the nakedness of the emperor. I think some people will never be satisfied. They will be self justifying their absurd biases until the day they die.

Here is the last time I quote you before I mute your pointless, useless, semantic, repetitive, circular and rambling posts...



KeithEmo said:


> Just for the sake of correctness.... Could we please have a few more details about your comparison between the Walmart DVD player and the Oppo HA-1?



No.



Killcomic said:


> Really, if you can't hear the difference between a lossy vs a lossless file, what chances do you have of enjoying the "benefits" of 96khz/24bit audio?



I know someone who failed to identify lossy from lossless and claims that.


----------



## analogsurviver

Killcomic said:


> Well then, we are looking forward to your subjective test results demonstrating conclusively  that you can pick a DSD file over a 256kbps AAC file. Then, and only then, will I put a poster of you in my bedroom and wish upon the first evening star that I could be just like you.
> *Wipes away a hopeful tear*


Will you send a decent ABX box over here for testing ? Two EQUAL DACs capable of native DSD ? 

IIRC, using jRiver it should be possible to simoultaneously playDSD and from this DSD derived  AAC file via two "zones" - each "zone" using each own own DAC ( has to be two equal native DSD capable type DACs in this case ) - with the output of those two DACs DBT ABXed over a decent ( < 0.2dB level matched ) ABX box.

I only have an older jRiver version installed on my desktop - because it is so damn "predatory" (OK,  it IS possible to set it up - EXACTLY how do you want it to handle various types of files during the initial installation ) and will usurp any device settings for other software also dealing with DSD, I did not want to see it on my laptop, etc.

I do not have two exactly same DACs at my disposal - but could muster iFi Micro iDSD and iFi Micro iDSD Black Label ( same thing as seen by the computer ) to see if I can get jRiver to simoultaneously play both DSD and from this DSD derived AAC files. 

That "from DSD derived AAC" involves some kind of format conversion... and these ARE known to be considerably different from each other. And, they ARE constantly evolving - what held true a year ago does in no way mean it is correct at the time of writing . 
Particularly not so for F2K - which went from almost zero to almost hero regarding DSD over the years... - the more recent improvements are regarding the filtering options.

DSD is, like it or not, more Windows than Mac thing ... - and I do not have any direct DSD to AAC conversion software. DSD to WAV, then WAV to AAC - yes, but direct - no. At least not yet - because I do not have any real use for AAC yet. Most people still require MP3s as proof of the recording being technically OK - and MP3 at 48kHz and 320kbps has been used by me so far for this purpose. I know AAC is better, but if no one requires it and I personally do not listen to lossy , I did not investigate further as much as I perhaps should have.


----------



## Killcomic

analogsurviver said:


> Will you send a decent ABX box over here for testing ? Two EQUAL DACs capable of native DSD ?
> 
> IIRC, using jRiver it should be possible to simoultaneously playDSD and from this DSD derived  AAC file via two "zones" - each "zone" using each own own DAC ( has to be two equal native DSD capable type DACs in this case ) - with the output of those two DACs DBT ABXed over a decent ( < 0.2dB level matched ) ABX box.
> 
> ...


You don't need to convert  DSD to AAC directly. That's even better actually. Because if you can't tell the difference of a dual encoded lossy file and the DSD iriginal, well, that's solid evidence right there. However, if you can tell the difference consistentlg, that's a pretty good indication that there may be something to higher resolution media.
After that, it's just a matter of narrowing down where audible differences begin.


----------



## analogsurviver

Killcomic said:


> You don't need to convert  DSD to AAC directly. That's even better actually. Because if you can't tell the difference of a dual encoded lossy file and the DSD iriginal, well, that's solid evidence right there. However, if you can tell the difference consistentlg, that's a pretty good indication that there may be something to higher resolution media.
> After that, it's just a matter of narrowing down where audible differences begin.


For starters, I would like - LOVE is the more appropriate word - DSD to PCM conversion software would be better in the first place. 

The annoying phase differences between the two channels that some ( most ?) conversions from DSD to PCM produce are audible in the extreme ... - and there ARE combinations of software/hardware that would do that with PCM, too.


----------



## Killcomic

analogsurviver said:


> For starters, I would like - LOVE is the more appropriate word - DSD to PCM conversion software would be better in the first place.
> 
> The annoying phase differences between the two channels that some ( most ?) conversions from DSD to PCM produce are audible in the extreme ... - and there ARE combinations of software/hardware that would do that with PCM, too.


Goodness, who knew the burden of proof was so burdensome?
Well then, so in light of a lack of evidence, claims if audible superiority must be duscarded till actual proof in obtained. Otherwise yuo are chasing ghosts. Do they exist?
Maybe, but till proof is obtained, it's best to go on as if they don't.


----------



## analogsurviver

Killcomic said:


> Goodness, who knew the burden of proof was so burdensome?
> Well then, so in light of a lack of evidence, claims if audible superiority must be duscarded till actual proof in obtained. Otherwise yuo are chasing ghosts. Do they exist?
> Maybe, but till proof is obtained, it's best to go on as if they don't.



What would satisfy you guys ? F2k ABX is NOT - and I  REPEAT - NOT usable for anything but PCM. Which is poor, regardless of degrees of poorness, lossy or non lossy.

What would be accepted that does not automatically record on a computer ? A video of switching the switch by the person sitting in another room , where listeners can not possibly see or otherwise communicate with the switching person? Another video recording absolutely no cable switching etc has been performed ? Another video taken of the listeners, troughout the whole test? All videos  of course simoultaneous, with exact time/date info displayed  ? 
Another video of the people who would after the test take the questionaries and arrange them into a table? 

Would THAT be enough ?


----------



## Killcomic

analogsurviver said:


> What would satisfy you guys ? F2k ABX is NOT - and I  REPEAT - NOT usable for anything but PCM. Which is poor, regardless of degrees of poorness, lossy or non lossy.
> 
> What would be accepted that does not automatically record on a computer ? A video of switching the switch by the person sitting in another room , where listeners can not possibly see or otherwise communicate with the switching person? Another video recording absolutely no cable switching etc has been performed ? Another video taken of the listeners, troughout the whole test? All videos  of course simoultaneous, with exact time/date info displayed  ?
> Another video of the people who would after the test take the questionaries and arrange them into a table?
> ...


Well, repeatable results are a requirement. So far no evidence has been presented.
What are you saying here though? We should believe there are audible differences because it's inconvenient and difficult to prove?
There is no correlation between the two statements.
Mate, if you believe you can hear a difference, that's fine. But when it comes to convincing others, proof is an absolute requirement.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] One minute you say that what I'm proposing isn't possible... The next minute you say "we've already tested it and found it made no difference"...
> [2] And, yet again, no....The fact that your local WalMart....Or your local recording studio....Doesn't have a certain piece of equipment....Says very little about whether it is either possible or even currently available....
> [3] However, since I'm not a studio engineer, I'll admit that you could quite well be right. Perhaps, if a typical studio doesn't have one, they just tell the customer who asks that "it's impossible"...
> [4] However, this is all moot, since I already posted a catalog page to the equipment necessary. (It seems to be readily available, not unreasonably expensive, and not even especially new.)



1. No I didn't, that's a deliberate misquote. "_There's no number 8: Repeatedly misquote and/or misrepresent the actual facts/science to serve your own agenda._" Why are you not able to stick to the list YOU posted?
2. What piece of equipment doesn't a world class recording studio have? You say you're "not a studio engineer" yet you repeatedly make assertions about studios and studio engineers when you've actually no idea what you're talking about. I've already stated that every commercial studio I've ever been in has at least one measurement mic but you simply ignore the facts and make-up nonsense anyway. Where's that on your list?
3. Or maybe they'll just tell the customer that dead, frozen pigs can fly .... but how would you know? Where on your list does it say that if you don't know anything, you're free to make-up any ridiculous suggestion about it? That's your "pure science" is it?
4. *Oh the irony!* You spend pages and pages arguing about the importance of capturing (ultrasonic) room acoustics and then argue for pages for the use of a mic specifically designed to ONLY be used in an anechoic chamber (where there are NO room acoustics). The self-contradiction is staggering!! Where on your list was that?



KeithEmo said:


> [1] For example, let's say you test 50 subjects, with 20 trials each (that's 1000 total trials)... and you find that you got 532 overall "correct" responses... but one subject was right 18/20.... I'm not sure whether this sort of error qualifies as a specific sort of fallacy... of just falls under the heading of "misusing statistics" or "confusing statistics with specific facts".... but it sure happens a lot.
> [1b] I'm going to pick on one example - from the orignal Meyers and Moran study which everyone so loves to quote. ... However they reported that one listener, in one trial, scored 8/10 and two others produced 7/10 in other trials. It should also be noted that, with the number of trials involved, this result IN AND OF ITSELF is not statistically significant. There is a quite reasonable probability that those seemingly positive results COULD HAVE OCCURRED by random chance. However, that does not necessarily rule out the possibility that they could also have NOT occurred by random chance. So, in terms of the overall study, those results so far are a sort of null result.
> HOWEVER, when viewed individually, those results are in fact quite suggestive.
> [1c] I also find that many people are quite ignorant of the nuances of statistics - and what they mean.
> ...



1. You would have zero evidence that "one subject *was right* 18/20", in fact they were probably NOT "right", it was probably just a statistical anomaly (as you admitted). So why make the assertion that the subject "was right", when even by your own admission you would NOT know if they were "right"? That error does qualify as a fallacy, is "misusing statistics" and is "confusing statistics with specific facts", so why do you keep doing it? For example:
1b. No, those results were NOT "a sort of null result"! You seem to be equating a "very high probability" with a "possibility". Those results were not just "quite suggestive" but very "suggestive". The results do not absolutely rule out the possibility that someone could tell the difference but as the expected/predicted distribution curve of pure chance was in fact achieved, the results are therefore very "suggestive" that no one could tell a difference. It was NOT a null result but neither was it conclusive/absolute proof, just evidence with a good degree of confidence.
1c. That's a change, an assertion that you've actually just admirably demonstrated yourself! 
2. But that is pretty much never the goal! A lab controlled DBT results in a statistical probability, therefore the "goal" is NOT to determine "absolute fact" but simply to provide reliable evidence!
2a. No it doesn't! You claim to have studied testing at college but don't seem to know the purpose of a DB listening test or what an ABX test asks for?
3. Firstly, there's a very small chance of that and Secondly, it's a risk you seem to be particularly good at avoiding anyway! Why don't you follow YOUR OWN list and actually try your "OVERLAPPING samples" analogy, test it with music and find out for yourself what actually happens?



KeithEmo said:


> [1] For example, many tests have shown that _FOR MOST PEOPLE, MOST OF THE TIME_, CDs are audibly perfect.
> [2] So perhaps now it's time to concentrate on the exceptions...
> [3] If CDs _CAN_ sound near perfect - then why do they fail to do so so much of the time?



1. Nope, that's NOT what the tests/evidence shows.
2. What exceptions? The exceptions of people comparing different masters, the exceptions of people doing tests at effectively dangerous levels or the exceptions which aren't exceptions because they fall entirely within the expected distribution curve of random guessing? Despite decades of trying, no one has so far found any exceptions, so how can we concentrate on them? 
3. Another fallacy! You are conflating the container with what it contains and worse still, you are already aware of this.

Round and round and round we go!

G


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> something we'd be able to notice when it goes away, we'd notice with a switch.   I get what you're suggesting, but what are the odds for something creating an impact to be at the same unnoticeable with rapid switching? it would need to have a really small variation compared to the other signal, and then I doubt the consequences would turn out to be meaningful anyway. or it would need to be something with fairly high energy but outside our hearing range(think the radiations of sound, strong but we just happen not to have sensors readily available for it). ultrasounds could probably be that if they happened to have some impact on our body in the long run while we're unaware of their presence. but then high energy inaudible stuff would most likely turn out to be bad for us.
> 
> I don't think it's that easy to manufacture a situation where sound variations we don't notice with rapid switching turn out to have some significant impact anyway. at least I don't expect that to happen in the audible range.



Maybe the best way to test this is to manipulate files in various ways to various degrees, and then test with listeners using different time frames.  It’s more a test of perception than gear.  My hypothesis is still that being insignificant in the short term generally means insignificant in the long term, but that’s just a hypothesis.  I don’t know of any good testing that’s been done for this.


----------



## KeithEmo

You clearly didn't actually READ what I wrote.

I really try to be civil - but I give up.

When you analyze a group of samples, looking for something of statistcial significance, you can either find it - or not. YOU CANNOT STATISTICALLY PROVE THE NEGATIVE. All you can prove is that you made a reasonable attempt to find something and failed to do so. From this you may INFER that what you were looking for wasn't there BUT YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN IT. If you examine a thousand samples of dirt from my back yard, looking for diamonds, and find none, YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT THERE ARE NO DIAMONDS IN MY BACK YARD. You have simpy failed to find any proof that there are.

The M&M test failed to show statistically that any significant number of test subjects could reliably hear a difference beyond what would be expected from random chance. However, several subjects as individuals scored very wel, AND NOBODY BOTHERED TO FOLLOW UP TO DETERMINE IF THEIR RESULTS WERE DUE TO RANDOM CHANCE OR NOT. (From their results there is no way to even guess whether the guy who got 8/10 right could do so every time, or only that once, because they failed to follow up on his results.)

I simply stated that "many people do not find CDs to sound audibly perfect". I SAID NOTHING ABOUT A TEST. If you read a few, or a few thousand, reviews of CDs, you will find that a massive number of people find them to sound "not audibly perfect". In fact, I have yet to find an issue of Stereophile where at least a few people haven't commented about how bad this or that DCD sounds, or that the vinyl version sounds better. Therefore, it would be ridiculous to suggest that "everyone thinks CDs sound perfect".



old tech said:


> There you go again, making a claim based on your misuderstanding of statistics and your misinterpretation of results.  This appears to be a continuation of your misinterpretation of the M&M study where you claim it proved some could hear a difference in normal listening environments, despite the flaws in your observations being clearly pointed out to you.
> 
> I have yet to see one credible test where all other factors apart from 16/44 are controlled that supports your assertion of exceptions or even more absurd, that that they "fail so much of the time".
> 
> Still flogging the dead horse?  I like Emotiva products but peddling FUD on a sound science forum does you or your company you represent no favours.


----------



## Phronesis

The thread is getting weird and pointlessly contentious lately. 

IMO, the bottom line is that if we want to draw _general_ conclusions about what gear sounds different (or not) to what degree, we need an _extensive_ program of _good_ testing.  Without such testing, all we have to go by is a lot of non-rigorous controlled testing and a lot of casual sighted listening, and the two categories give conflicting results. 

Most people who've done both believe that differences in gear other than transducers are very small, and have firsthand experience with their own expectation bias.  Many people who've only done the latter believe that there are significant differences in gear other than transducers, and are largely unaware of their own expectation bias.  Two different sets of experiences, and two resulting different opinions.

The matter won't be conclusively settled until we have an extensive program of good testing, and that may never happen.  So what else is there to discuss?  Are people just arguing because they're bored or like to argue?


----------



## KeithEmo

That's a good idea. The reality is that quite often expensive DACs don't perform any better than low cost ones, and some even perform notably worse, but many people seem not to realize this... and it would make a good point.

I would also suggest specifically comparing a unit that used an ESS Sabre DAC to one that uses another brand - a Texas Instruments Burr Brown or a Wolfson. From my experience, and a huge number of anecdotal reports, Sabre DACs tend to sound different from other brands - and to have a sort of "house sound" - even though their basic measurements are very good.



Phronesis said:


> To get a result that gets people's attention, I suggest comparing a cheap DAC in the $100 range with something like the Chord Dave, which I believe is around $10K.


----------



## Killcomic

Phronesis said:


> The matter won't be conclusively settled until we have an extensive program of good testing, and that may never happen.  So what else is there to discuss?  Are people just arguing because they're bored or like to argue?



Well, you know, audio equipment for audiophiles is a penis extension, hence why so many middle aged guys here. I've noticed there's this almost desperate need to demonstrate that they have the magical ability to hear sounds beyond normal human hearing. It is what they hope to set them apart from the common rabble. That's why there's so much utterly meaningless language like describing something as "musical" and sounding "organic".
To actually admit that you've been buying very expensive equipment that yields no real benefits, it's a bit embarrassing. It is counterproductive to the myth they would like to surround themselves with, because you know, penis extension.
Could be worse, they could buy a sport car.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] The thread is getting weird and pointlessly contentious lately.
> [2] IMO, the bottom line is that if we want to draw _general_ conclusions about what gear sounds different (or not) to what degree,
> [2a] we need an _extensive_ program of _good_ testing. Without such testing, all we have to go by is a lot of non-rigorous controlled testing and a lot of casual sighted listening, and the two categories give conflicting results.



1. Not just lately but for quite a while!

2. Well that's the issue; drawing a "general conclusion". There is not and cannot be any absolute proof because we cannot test everyone alive, nor everyone who was alive or will be alive. We therefore have to draw a "general conclusion" on the balance of probabilities and this is where it "gets weird" because we have an overwhelming probability on one side, supported with lots of reliable evidence and a hypothetical possibility on the other, supported by no reliable evidence at all.

2a. We've had lots of "good" testing, going back many years. Some of it is published as scientific papers and much of it isn't, such as that carried out by international bodies, audio professionals and university departments/educators. Therefore it's extremely unlikely there will be another program of extensive testing because as far as the professional and scientific communities are concerned the matter is effectively "put to bed". To get it out of bed again would require some serious evidence, but audiophile marketing and audiophile testimonials do not qualify as "serious evidence". So we have the impasse of a segment of the audiophile community vs pretty much everyone else and as that segment appears immune to logical/rational arguments, the scientific and professional communities simply leave them to it.

G


----------



## KeithEmo

That makes sense..... 

If you would like to suggest a particular test, I'll be glad to try to point out at least the obvious flaws. 
I'm going to start with the Meyers and Moran study.

One of the most common errors I see is the MISAPPLICATION of statistics to situations where they don't apply.

The asserted purpose of the Meyers and Moran test was "to determine whether people could reliably determine an audible difference when a "CD loop" was inserted into the audio signal chain". Most of us here interpret that to specifically mean "whether any human being can reliably determine the difference". Assuming that to be the case, then here is the first (MAJOR) error. Because of the nature of the testing and reporting involved, THE PERFORMANCE _OF EACH INDIVIDUAL_ MUST BE ANALYZED STATISTICALLY. The only way to tell whether an individual can reliably tell the difference is to run a bunch of test trials and see whether their responses score significantly better than would be expected by random chance. 

However, if you apply a bit of logic, it will be obvious that there is no reason to apply statistics to the OVERALL results, and doing so would be improper in light of the results desired. If the purpose of our test is *to determine whether ANY HUMANS can reliably detect a difference*, then, as soon as we find a single human who can do so, we have our answer - which is yes. We have a human who can do so, therefore "some humans can do so". *That is a simple YES/NO question and NOT a statistical question*. (It doesn't matter how many can do it; once we find one who can , we're done, and the answer is known: yes. We might go ahead and see how many can do it, and probably would do so, but that is outside the scope of the original test.)

If Meyers and Moran were REALLY trying to determine "whether most people would hear a difference" or "how many people would hear a difference", then statistically analyzing the overall results was a perfectly valid way to do so. I Strongly suspect that this was what they were trying to do - since this is what most of the public, as well as most CD vendors, would really be interested in. Therefore, attempting to claim that their test "showed that nobody could do it" is simply a misinterpretation of their results. Their results simply showed that "they were unable to suggest that a statistically significant percentage of the people they tested could reliably determine a difference a statistically significant percentage of the time".

(It is also absolutely true that "a statistically significant percentage of the human population is not able to run a mile in four minutes". However, that is FAR different from "proving that nobody can do it", along several different axes.)

Here is the proper way to run a test "to determine whether ANYONE can reliably detect a difference".

You conduct the first level of the test exactly as they did, using statistical analysis ON EACH INDIVIDUAL'S RESULTS, to determine whether each individual test subject scored above what might reasonably be expected by random chance. However, you treat the first level of the test as a screening round. You assume that all the subjects whose results fell very close to random are "uninteresting" and send then home. HOWEVER, if any subjects produced individual results that appeared significant, you conduct further test runs with them to determine whether their results were random or not. Typically you would set some sort of threshold level for "subjects to be passed on to round two". This would typically be either a direct threshold like "everyone who scores above 7/10" or a fraction like "the best scoring 10%". (And, if nobody scored above that threshold, then you would either declare a null result, or find a new set of test subjects and try again.)

At this point you should also note and report two obvious potential causes of error:
1) Your sample didn't contain all humans - so you could simply have missed one who could do it.
2) It's possible that one of your subjects could do so - and his or her failure this time was the anomaly.

So far that constitutes either an error of "performing a test that is inappropriate to the desired results" or "attempting to mis-interpret their results to prove something the test was never intended to measure".

The test itself also contains numerous errors of methodology and procedure. 

We all know that, whether it's audible or not, the CD signal chain fails to exactly reproduce the original audio in many measurable ways. It adds some noise, some distortion, and some errors in frequency response and impulse response, as well as possibly other unknown differences. They should have provided detailed analyses of their test content, both "before and after". They were attempting to determine whether their sample listeners could detect differences - _YET THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES PRESENT IN SAMPLES IN THE TEST. _For all we know they used low quality original material, the CD signal loop made no measurable difference to it, and there were no measurable differences between them. They should have provided both detailed data, like product disc numbers and specifications, as well as test results like spectrum analyses, showing what was present in each sample, and what the _measured_ differences were. In fact, since the "item of interest" was the differences, they probably should have provided an actual difference file containing those differences for easy analysis and confirmation. They should also have included measurements that showed that the differences involved were being accurately presented to their listeners - and not being obscured by any of the components used for the test. Then we would know precisely what differences the subjects were or were not able to hear.

I should note, in their defense, that they DID note the anomalous results obtained from several test subjects.

It was always my impression that Meyers and Moran simply set out to "provide a simple test to demonstrate that, when used to reproduce typical consumer-quality content, most consumers didn't notice any audible degradation caused by CDs".



bfreedma said:


> I’ve seen repeated commentary here suggesting the tests documented in the first post and others may be flawed.  That may or may not be true, but if that assertion is goin
> g to be made, then it’s encumbent upon the person suggesting the tests were flawed to be specific about those flaws, not just throw a turd in the punch bowl.
> 
> General statements that “there might be flaws” aren’t helpful and could be construed as deflection, particularly from those averse to participating in reasonable testing.  While it may not be conclusive, an ABX via Foobar is quite simple to construct and enough data gathered may be inidicative.  Particularly if statistics aren’t abused and single run results aren’t stated as being significant.  If someone can score 8/10 or better on 20 test runs, then we have something to discuss.


----------



## KeithEmo

Quite true.

However, in this case, we are assuming that all of the products we're discussing already have exceptionally low THD, exceptionally flat frequency response, and very low levels of noise - by "commonly accepted standards". The specs on most DACs, even most cheap ones, are quite good... although we may always question whether they actually meet those specs when tested. If there was a simple and audible flaw, like too much bass or treble, that would be obvious on a basic frequency response measurement. Likewise, excessive THD would show up on a distortion analyzer. 



Steve999 said:


> If I may drag things down to my level, I notice if there is too much bass or too much treble or uneven bass and that is fatiguing or tiring or whatever and that's easy to fix with EQ. If I close my eyes and switch between two settings it can often be clear in my lay-opinion that part of the spectrum is over or under emphasized and that can be fixed with EQ. An extra subwoofer has helped keep the bass even in my room (a nightmare of a room, by the way, L-shaped with an opening to other parts of the house). You can walk around the room and hear that it is much more even with the two subwoofers. I can make more minor adjustments and close my eyes (a sort of self-imposed and very vulnerable and flawed blind test) and switch in and out and have a very hard time deciding which is "better." That's my happy place. Once I settle down and relax I enjoy it.
> 
> When it comes down to having to do a a blind A/B or A/B/X test to hear very minor differences, I've done that, and it's tedious and difficult and reassuring to know everything is cool, at least to my ears, but I'm just confirming that my equipment and lossy encoding are working right. I'm not really making any progress in my set-up.


----------



## KeithEmo

Excellent point....

Which is why, if you're choosing equipment to purchase for yourself, then what YOU are able to discern is the most important factor. The one exception is that I would always "aim a little higher" as a sort of safety margin. 

For one thing, you don't want to purchase a whole bunch of lossy files, based on the fact that you can't hear the difference with the headphones you are using today, only to find that they sound obviously worse on the higher quality headphones or other equipment you purchase tomorrow.... (It's true that you would be wasting money to purchase lossless files if you don't ever hear a difference. However, it's also true that some people who purchased 128k AAC files on iTunes, which sounded "just fine" on their cheap headphones, ended up buying them over again as lossless files when their flaws became obvious on better equipment. It's a bit of a slippery slope - in both directions.) 

I should also point out that both our hearing and our perception change with time. Physically, our hearing becomes less acute as we get older. However, many of us "learn to listen more critically" over time, and actually do notice things that we may have ignored or failed to notice previously. 

Harman International has an excellent little (free) app for "training your hearing":

http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/



Killcomic said:


> Oh for the love of... You'll first need to tell the difference between a high quality lossy vs lossless, only then do you even consider going higher.
> Everyone here thinks they got dog hearing.


----------



## KeithEmo

The two "most highly regarded" commercial programs for converting between DSD and PCM are probably 
Weiss Saracon and Korg Audiogate.

Saracon has consistently remained very expensive... 
However Audiogate has, at various times, been available at low cost, or even free...

(For a while Korg was offering it for free - but only if you would allow it to Tweet "I'm using Korg Audiogate" whenever you started it up... yeah... really. I haven't checked the situation lately...



analogsurviver said:


> For starters, I would like - LOVE is the more appropriate word - DSD to PCM conversion software would be better in the first place.
> 
> The annoying phase differences between the two channels that some ( most ?) conversions from DSD to PCM produce are audible in the extreme ... - and there ARE combinations of software/hardware that would do that with PCM, too.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> 2a. We've had lots of "good" testing, going back many years. Some of it is published as scientific papers and much of it isn't, such as that carried out by international bodies, audio professionals and university departments/educators. Therefore it's extremely unlikely there will be another program of extensive testing because as far as the professional and scientific communities are concerned the matter is effectively "put to bed".



If people could provide links to info on good testing available to the public, that would helpful.  If there's better testing out there than what's in the first post of this thread, I'd certainly like to read about it.


----------



## Phronesis

Killcomic said:


> Well, you know, audio equipment for audiophiles is a penis extension, hence why so many middle aged guys here. I've noticed there's this almost desperate need to demonstrate that they have the magical ability to hear sounds beyond normal human hearing. It is what they hope to set them apart from the common rabble. That's why there's so much utterly meaningless language like describing something as "musical" and sounding "organic".
> To actually admit that you've been buying very expensive equipment that yields no real benefits, it's a bit embarrassing. It is counterproductive to the myth they would like to surround themselves with, because you know, penis extension.
> Could be worse, they could buy a sport car.



Probably all true to some extent, but I wouldn't want to generalize it too much. 

I see a lot of people admitting that they're saving up to buy gear, so clearly not trying to project an image of affluence.  And audio expenditures are peanuts for anyone with a decent amount of money, so even a $10K DAC isn't really a big deal (though perhaps a waste of money) in the scheme of things, still a lot cheaper than a car or college education.  Personally, I don't mind saying that maybe it turns out that my Hugo 2 doesn't sound any better than my Mojo despite costing 5x more and my buying it because I thought it sounded better (I do like the looks, amp power, and portability), though I might feel peeved if I had bought a Dave and had the same result.  Generally, I try to find truth, even if I don't like the truth.

As far as magical hearing, I would again go back to the point that people perceive clear differences (even if they're not really there), so when other people say they don't hear them, it's natural to conclude that their own hearing ability is better (even if it's not).  And of course, there _is_ some variation in hearing ability, and I'm pretty sure that my own hearing ability has improved with effort and experience. 

Regarding sports cars, a lot of us buy them because we like driving them (I've actually tracked every car in my garage, including the SUV and sedan).  Status display can be a factor, but a lot of us don't like the attention that sports cars garner.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 19, 2018)

Killcomic said:


> Well, you know, audio equipment for audiophiles is a penis extension, hence why so many middle aged guys here. I've noticed there's this almost desperate need to demonstrate that they have the magical ability to hear sounds beyond normal human hearing. It is what they hope to set them apart from the common rabble.



There's a psychology to internet forums that is stacked up on top of that too... There are people who feel inadequate in real life who try to construct online identities that are designed to make people think they are experts. It's a lot easier to be a "bigshot" in an internet forum than it is to be one in real life. Often these people will park themselves in a single thread or forum and comment on each and every post that comes by either talking about themselves and their personal  thoughts and opinions, or cut and paste information from google searches. They rarely actually interact with anyone, choosing instead to look at other people's posts as springboards for launching into their own extended rambling monologues. These types feel threatened by people who actually do have experience and knowledge on the subject and attack them to avoid being shown up as not being what they're pretending to be. We've seen a particularly extreme example of that in this forum where multiple armchair forum "experts" gang up on Gregorio because he clearly is better informed and has more experience on the subject than most of us here.

When you add the "internet expert" persona to the "it's either your cheap stereo or you're deaf" one, you end up with a particularly obnoxious combination.



Killcomic said:


> Well, repeatable results are a requirement. So far no evidence has been presented.



I and others here are offering to provide independent verification of a clear audible difference in a DAC. All we need is a clearly different sounding DAC to check.... crickets. It's one thing to spend hours and days and weeks and months spewing out paragraph after paragraph of unsubstantiated opinions, but backing them up seems to be too much effort for some people. All they want to do is tell other people how they should back up their opinions!


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> The two "most highly regarded" commercial programs for converting between DSD and PCM are probably
> Weiss Saracon and Korg Audiogate.
> 
> Saracon has consistently remained very expensive...
> ...


I am well aware of these two - and it is precisely because of this I wrote what I have written.

Since I own 5 Korg DSD recorders ( 3x MR-1 & 2x MR-1000 ), I have never had any problems with obtaining and authorizing ( the High Quality version with all the functionality gets authorized  to the computer to which you want to install Audiogate by connecting any of the Korg DSD capable recorders or DACs - free is only Lite Load version, which has MUCH worse sound quality/conversion  and next to none but the most basic functionality ) of the latest Korg Audiogate software. 

Saracon has consistently remained very expensive. For me, it does THE capital sin - its low pass is set way too low, it filters out everything by ( 30 ? 40 ? kHz ) . I would have to re-check the comparisons with spectrum analysis etc , published a few years ago on https://www.whatsbestforum.com/ - when it was being decided which hardware and software should be used for DSD by now commercially available transfers of the better>best analogue recordings, etc. That excessive filtering above 20 kHz plus $$$ has been more than deterrant enough not to mess with Saracon.

Korg Audiogate went from Version 2.0 trough many updates to Ver.3.0 ( here somewhere it caught up in SQ with the then latest jRiver ) and finished off by Version 4.0 and very few updates, which basically added recording both in DSD and PCM, limited to DSD128 and PCM192. 

It has one very hard to swallow limitation - it works in DSD - but ONLY using Korg devices. Everything else, even if native DSD capable, will work only by conversion to PCM. 

As none of the other DSD player soft can "see" markers made during recording with Korg recorders, I did consider adding a Korg DSD DAC just because of this - sound quality of the DSD file over the PCM takes  a MAJOR hit in this case ... - insisting on native DSD playback using non Korg DAC and finding a particular spot in a "take" of one song ( actually, MANY takes of the same song in one single file ) with just a slider in style of F2K or jRiver is, for all practical purposes,  hopeless.

As I write this, I am fiddling with one of the latest additions to the DSD players/editors - TASCAM Hi Res Editor that I just downloaded and installed.  It allows for processing/conversion  DSD up to DSD256 and PCM  up to 384kHz. 
It is  FAR less robust than either Korg Audiogate, F2K , jRiver -  it will stutter where all of the three mentioned will work flawlessly. Will have to see if it can be adjusted etc a bit better - but, very few controls over anything ... - BUT IT DOES warn you, at each launch, to set your laptop to High Performance ( high battery consumprtion )...

THE problem I am having with Korg Audiogate ( any version... ) is the fact that it introduces phase lag between the channels - which I have already described some half or so year ago. Square wave recorded to DSD ( which, by default, can not introduce such an error ... ) that gets perfectly recporded and reproduced on Korg recorder(s) , with total synchronicity between the two channels, gets lost when converted using Audiogate. It is ALWAYS the precise delay between the two channels equal to the rise time in any given sampling frequency of PCM - from 44.1 to 192 kHz. In other words - one channel is still silent when the other has reached its full output - or vice versa... I forgot which channel is leading and which lagging - but it always remains the same.

I will convert the approx 3 kHz square wave test files using TASCAM Hi Res Editor - AGAIN - and, hopefully, that unwanted delay between the channels will go away.... 
Will report what happened tomorrow.


----------



## Killcomic (Dec 19, 2018)

Phronesis said:


> Probably all true to some extent, but I wouldn't want to generalize it too much.
> 
> I see a lot of people admitting that they're saving up to buy gear, so clearly not trying to project an image of affluence.  And audio expenditures are peanuts for anyone with a decent amount of money, so even a $10K DAC isn't really a big deal (though perhaps a waste of money) in the scheme of things, still a lot cheaper than a car or college education.  Personally, I don't mind saying that maybe it turns out that my Hugo 2 doesn't sound any better than my Mojo despite costing 5x more and my buying it because I thought it sounded better (I do like the looks, amp power, and portability), though I might feel peeved if I had bought a Dave and had the same result.  Generally, I try to find truth, even if I don't like the truth.
> 
> ...



Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I never intended to indicate that people here were trying to project an image of affluence. That's not much of a thing where I live (there are always the isolated exceptions though). However, I am utterly aghast at the level of superstition and elitism found in what is, let's face it, a rather trivial hobby.
Don't get me wrong, I've been subject to delusion and expectation bias myself, but to attach a sense of self importance to it is utterly baffling. If anything, I questioned what the value of what I was getting. When a lot of the "evidence" of the benefits you'd be getting from an expensive piece of equipment is based on marketing and pseudoscience, you really have to question what's going on in there.
And as far as sports car go, sure, you do have car lovers, that's true and all respect to them because they appreciate the beauty of design and engineering. But when someone puts on racing gloves, aviator glasses and a polo shirt with a popped collar and a sweater tied around the neck, there's not mistaking that person is a wanker.


----------



## Killcomic

bigshot said:


> There's a psychology to internet forums that is stacked up on top of that too... There are people who feel inadequate in real life who try to construct online identities that are designed to make people think they are experts. It's a lot easier to be a "bigshot" in an internet forum than it is to be one in real life. Often these people will park themselves in a single thread or forum and comment on each and every post that comes by either talking about themselves and their personal  thoughts and opinions, or cut and paste information from google searches. They rarely actually interact with anyone, choosing instead to look at other people's posts as springboards for launching into their own extended rambling monologues. These types feel threatened by people who actually do have experience and knowledge on the subject and attack them to avoid being shown up as not being what they're pretending to be. We've seen a particularly extreme example of that in this forum where multiple armchair forum "experts" gang up on Gregorio because he clearly is better informed and has more experience on the subject than most of us here.
> 
> When you add the "internet expert" persona to the "it's either your cheap stereo or you're deaf" one, you end up with a particularly obnoxious combination.



Hear hear!


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> You clearly didn't actually READ what I wrote.
> 
> I really try to be civil - but I give up.
> 
> ...



I have never suggested that M&M or the many other scientific tests have proved that no-one under any circumstances (however contrived) can hear a difference between CD and hi res when all variables apart from bit depth and sample rates are controlled.  It is you that has at times implicitly and sometimes explicitly said that these tests prove that some can hear a difference, by focussing on statistically irrelevant samples.  Perhaps I am not as eloquent in my writing as @gregorio as he has summed up (many times) the fallacy of your claims.

What all those tests have done is provided credible evidence that listeners cannot distinguish the difference between 16/44 and hi res, while over some 30 years there has been none that provide credible evidence that listeners can distinguish between the two.  You then go on to focus on the one individual that scored 8/10 in one trial as some sort of proof to the contrary.  Using that logic, if we did a test of a fair flip of a coin and in one trial out of 554 x 10 flips one person came up with 8 heads and two tails we should assume that we should focus on that person and how he or she flipped the coin.  Well that would be a waste of time as the probability of one person  flipping 8 heads out of 10 on such a large trial is well within the probability of a random event.

Then you create a strawman by stating that "many people do not find CDs sound perfect" by conflating the container with what is in it.  Sure many CDs do not sound great, just as many vinyl and DSD recordings do not sound great.  No media format can magically make a poor recording or mastering or a poor production generally sound good, which is why M&M and the multitude of other supporting studies controll this critical variable.  The claim that CDs are perfect is true when looking at as a format, it is naive in the extreme to suggest it then should follow that every CD should sound perfectly.  All we can say is that CDs will reproduce the good or the bad production perfectly and in fact, on many imperfect productions vinyl certainly can have the edge because it is not as revealing of all the flaws in the production - a bit like comparing a transparent playback stereo with one that is coloured.

And as for appealing to Stereophile as an authority, i think it speaks volumes for where you are coming from.  A subjective publication that shuns objective measurements and listening tests, hijacked by advertisers catering to their marketing psuedoscience deceptions.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 19, 2018)

Killcomic said:


> Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I never intended to indicate that people here were trying to project an image of affluence. That's not much of a thing where I live (there are always the isolated exceptions though). However, I am utterly aghast at the level of superstition and elitism found in what is, let's face it, a rather trivial hobby.
> Don't get me wrong, I've been subject to delusion and expectation bias myself, but to attach a sense of self importance to it is utterly baffling. If anything, I questioned what the value of what I was getting. When a lot of the "evidence" of the benefits you'd be getting from an expensive piece of equipment is based on marketing and pseudoscience, you really have to question what's going on in there.
> And as far as sports car go, sure, you do have car lovers, that's true and all respect to them because they appreciate the beauty of design and engineering. But when someone puts on racing gloves, aviator glasses and a polo shirt with a popped collar and a sweater tied around the neck, there's not mistaking that person is a wanker.



Regarding the superstition aspects, my sense is that a large percentage of audiophiles would change their views if they did some controlled testing for themselves, but there are multiple reasons why most audiophiles won't do them - trusting their ears, money already invested in gear, hassle of setting up controlled tests, not being sure of how to set up controlled tests, laziness, money to burn, etc.

Regarding the elitism aspect, in my neck of the woods, and on head-fi, I can't say that I've noticed more elitism than with other consumer goods and hobbies.

Also, I think people are people are a lot more influenced by reviews, word of mouth, and brand reputation than marketing pitches by manufacturers.  I see the same thing with sports cars.

Anyway, the holidays are almost upon us, so maybe we can all try to avoid being like this guy for a while (ignore the political aspect, I'm pointing to his general cranky attitude):


----------



## Killcomic

Phronesis said:


> Regarding the superstition aspects, my sense is that a large percentage of audiophiles would change their views if they did some controlled testing for themselves, but there are multiple reasons why most audiophiles won't do them - trusting their ears, money already invested in gear, hassle of setting up controlled tests, not being sure of how to set up controlled tests, laziness, money to burn, etc.
> 
> Regarding the elitism aspect, in my neck of the woods, and on head-fi, I can't say that I've noticed more elitism than with other consumer goods and hobbies.
> 
> ...



Oh my god that video is hilarious! Never heard of Archie Bunker before. Reminds me of an old show called Kingswood Country about a bigot and his Italian son in law (also from the 70's by the looks of it).


----------



## Phronesis

Killcomic said:


> Oh my god that video is hilarious! Never heard of Archie Bunker before. Reminds me of an old show called Kingswood Country about a bigot and his Italian son in law (also from the 70's by the looks of it).



I remember watching that show when I was a kid.  I was too young to really get the social messages they were portraying, but the inexplicable grumpiness of the Archie Bunker character stuck with me.


----------



## old tech

Killcomic said:


> Oh my god that video is hilarious! Never heard of Archie Bunker before. Reminds me of an old show called Kingswood Country about a bigot and his Italian son in law (also from the 70's by the looks of it).


I loved that show, along with Love Thy Neighbour.  Totally politcally incorrect today.


----------



## Killcomic

old tech said:


> I loved that show, along with Love Thy Neighbour.  Totally politcally incorrect today.



Classic Aussie comedy! It was one of the first things I saw when I arrived in Australia. Good stuff!


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 19, 2018)

I think there must be some sort of confusion here.

If you read *MY* posts carefully you will see that:
1) I *NEVER* claimed that a definite and audible difference exists specifically between CD quality and high-res files
2) I *NEVER* claimed that the results of Meyers and Moran proved that such a difference existed
3) I *NEVER* claimed to know AS A FACT that any test would ever show that CDs are not "testably audibly perfect"
4) I said that NONE OF THE EXISTING TESTS HAVE PROVIDED PROOF THAT SUCH DIFFERENCES DO NOT EXIST
5) And I disputed a few specific claims that "Meyers and Moran had shown that no such differences exist"

I personally don't know if low-pass filtering an audio sample at 20 kHz, if done properly, can be audible or not.
I have certainly heard a few files where it seemed to - but I have never tested it fully and properly.
And, here is my whole point, NOBODY ELSE HAS TESTED IT FULLY AND PROPERLY EITHER.
I even agree with Bigshot that there will probably not be a difference that will matter to most listeners.

I suspect that, IF it turns out that reducing properly recorded high-resolution files to CD quality is sometimes audible, the difference will be subtle, it probably won't make a significant difference to most listeners, and it will probably only turn out to be audible to some listeners, quite possibly only on certain equipment. All I've ever claimed is that there is no legitimate justification to make a general claim that it is NEVER audible... and that a little more research is justified...

And, yes, if you're a scientist, attempting to actually determine "if some people can control how a coin lands", and one guy throws a 8/10 you DO investigate it further. You do that because, even though that result COULD be due to random chance, it COULD also be due to a real result, and no real scientists would walk away without finding out which it is.... especially when it would only take five more minutes to have him throw the coins a few more times.

There is also an important piece of that puzzle missing from the Meyers and Moran study.... they didn't mention how many trials they ran with each test subject. This is important because it would certainly be important to know whether the guy who was correct 8/10 that time had participated in other trials where he scored closer to random or whether that was the only trial in which he participated. And, if it turned out he had participated in other trials and scored closer to average, then you would want to know if the trials were actually properly normalized. Was he able to score very highly with one style of music, or with recordings that contained a certain instrument, or only when using "headphone #3", or WAS his one high score REALLY just random good luck. A TRUE SCIENTIST is TRYING to find something interesting - and not trying to find an excuse to rule it out. And, yes, he has to be very careful not to "find something that isn;t there", which is why we have all those standards about "repeatability" and "documenting and reporting the results in detail".

What all those tests have done is to FAIL TO PROVIDE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE *CAN* HEAR THE DIFFERENCE.... which is quite different than providing evidence that they cannot.

This is what you seem to not understand about statistics. If you wanted to know "if a human can run a mile in under four minutes", you could test everyone on your block, everyone in your town, and probably everyone in the entire USA, and fine nobody who could do it. And, after all those tests, you might conclude that 'it couldn't be done". You would, however, BE COMPLETELY WRONG.... because you screwed up, failed to test the one guy who we now know can run a mile in 3:43, and made an overreaching generazilation based on improper analysis of the information you had.

Probability ALWAYS delivers a result in terms of likelihoods.... Just because a result COULD HAVE BEEN due to random chance in no way proves that it WAS due to random chance. Statistics NEVER deals in certainties and never produces results in terms of absolute facts.



old tech said:


> I have never suggested that M&M or the many other scientific tests have proved that no-one under any circumstances (however contrived) can hear a difference between CD and hi res when all variables apart from bit depth and sample rates are controlled.  It is you that has at times implicitly and sometimes explicitly said that these tests prove that some can hear a difference, by focussing on statistically irrelevant samples.  Perhaps I am not as eloquent in my writing as @gregorio as he has summed up (many times) the fallacy of your claims.
> 
> What all those tests have done is provided credible evidence that listeners cannot distinguish the difference between 16/44 and hi res, while over some 30 years there has been none that provide credible evidence that listeners can distinguish between the two.  You then go on to focus on the one individual that scored 8/10 in one trial as some sort of proof to the contrary.  Using that logic, if we did a test of a fair flip of a coin and in one trial out of 554 x 10 flips one person came up with 8 heads and two tails we should assume that we should focus on that person and how he or she flipped the coin.  Well that would be a waste of time as the probability of one person  flipping 8 heads out of 10 on such a large trial is well within the probability of a random event.
> 
> ...


----------



## Killcomic (Dec 20, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I think there must be some sort of confusion here.
> 
> If you read *MY* posts carefully you will see that:
> 1) I *NEVER* claimed that a definite and audible difference exists specifically between CD quality and high-res files
> ...


You cannot prove something doesn't exist. To expect that is a fallacy.
Can you prove the flying spaghetti monster does not exist?
Can you prove I'm not typing this from my secret base on Mars?
No you cannot!
Just because there is a possibility of something existing does not mean you should act as if it does. On the contrary, you must work under  the assumption that it does not.
Should you stop trying to prove something exists?
Absolutely not!
But evidence must be solid and repeatable.
If you're putting faith on probability alone, you are making a foolish mistake.


----------



## castleofargh

it's that time of the year where we need to pull out all the philosophical razors to dismiss ideas coming from nowhere and going right back into it.


----------



## Phronesis

I hope no one is suggesting that Santa doesn’t exist?  When I was a kid, I saw ABUNDANT evidence that he’s real: wife, geography, helper elves and reindeer, high-performance flying sled, etc. Let’s not get carried away with skepticism.  Some things are really real.


----------



## castleofargh

old tech said:


> And as for appealing to Stereophile as an authority, i think it speaks volumes for where you are coming from.  A subjective publication that shuns objective measurements and listening tests, hijacked by advertisers catering to their marketing psuedoscience deceptions.


hey don't be hard on Stereophile. I love how they achieve to sometime directly contradict their subjective BS with their own measurements and act like everybody's right anyway. that always had a solid comedic value. 
seriously. they provided us with a great deal of measurements. I'm very grateful for that contribution. the rest, I'm not personally a fan.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I hope no one is suggesting that Santa doesn’t exist?  When I was a kid, I saw ABUNDANT evidence that he’s real: wife, geography, helper elves and reindeer, high-performance flying sled, etc. Let’s not get carried away with skepticism.  Some things are really real.


in last week's Daily show.^_^  
"Santa is the getaway drug to believing lies because they're fun."


----------



## gregorio (Dec 20, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] The asserted purpose of the Meyers and Moran test was "to determine whether people could reliably determine an audible difference when a "CD loop" was inserted into the audio signal chain". Most of us here interpret that to specifically mean "whether any human being can reliably determine the difference". *Assuming that to be the case, then here is the first (MAJOR) error. *
> [1a] However, if you apply a bit of logic ...
> [2] If Meyers and Moran were REALLY trying to determine "whether most people would hear a difference" or "how many people would hear a difference", then statistically analyzing the overall results was a perfectly valid way to do so.



1. You're joking right? YOU make a FALSE assumption based on YOUR misinterpretation and then you state the paper is erroneous because it doesn't meet your FALSE assumption. There is indeed a (MAJOR) error here, it's entirely YOURS!! This is not "The KeithEmo [FALSE] Assumption" forum .... How many times??
1a. Then why don't you?

2. Again, you're joking? What do you mean "if Meyer and Moran were REALLY trying to determine whether most people would hear a difference"? Meyer and Moran were *not* "REALLY" trying to determine that, AND you know what they were actually trying to determine because only a few lines previously you quoted them ("to determine whether people could reliably determine an audible difference when a "CD loop" was inserted into the audio signal chain"). Clearly they were NOT trying to determine "whether most people could reliably determine a difference", you have deliberately changed what they were trying to determine by adding the word "most" yourself! Where on YOUR OWN list of what this thread should be about does it state that intellectual dishonesty is acceptable? And just for the record, Meyer and Moran make it perfectly clear (numerous times) that the "people" to whom they are referring are the test subjects.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] They were attempting to determine whether their sample listeners could detect differences - _YET THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES PRESENT IN SAMPLES IN THE TEST. _
> [1b] For all we know they used low quality original material, the CD signal loop made no measurable difference to it, and there were no measurable differences between them.
> [2] It was always my impression that Meyers and Moran simply set out to "provide a simple test to demonstrate that, when used to reproduce typical consumer-quality content, most consumers didn't notice any audible degradation caused by CDs".



1. The test was to determine whether their sample listeners could reliably detect an audible difference, as YOU, YOURSELF have quoted! The test was NOT to identify what those differences were, just to detect ANY difference. Therefore detailed information about what the differences were is irrelevant.
1b. They provided an addendum to the paper when it was first presented at the AES, which provides a list of all the systems and recordings/material used in the tests (copy here http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm).

2. This is *NOT* the "KeithEmo Impressions" thread/forum! They were NOT reproducing "typical consumer-quality content", your "impression" is FALSE! A number of the people involved in the test were serious audiophiles and the actual content used included SACD's which the audiophiles themselves asserted; most obviously demonstrated the difference between Hi-res and CD! In addition, a Chesky "Super Audio Collection & Professional Test SACD" was used, various SACDs the paper's authors chose as likely to present a audible difference and even some original, unreleased SACD material from a SACD mastering house (where some of the tests were performed). In other words, the material used was actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of your "impression"!

Furthermore, there were a number of additional conditions deliberately designed to be particularly favourable to detecting a difference: Very low noise floor listening environments with very high quality reproduction equipment, louder than typical/recommended listening levels (-16dBFS = 85dBSPL), TDPF dither rather than noise-shaped dither (which was standard practice for many years before the test) and test subjects which included serious audiophiles, professional music engineers and a class of young recording students (with good HF hearing). Despite these particularly favourable conditions, still no one was able to detect a difference! Again, this is NOT absolute proof that not a single person on the planet might be able to hear a difference and it is NOT intended to be, but it IS quite compelling evidence ... And it's even more compelling when compared to the evidence that differences are audible (because there is no reliable evidence to support that assertion)!



Phronesis said:


> If people could provide links to info on good testing available to the public, that would helpful.



I'm sorry but as I stated, the majority of info is not published and I cannot provide links to info that does not have any links because it is unpublished. In some/many cases doing so would actually be illegal (student data protection for example), in other cases the info/tests were specifically designed for internal use only and never to be available to the public (many studio and company tests for example) and in other cases the info might be available somewhere but I don't have the links archived and a cursory search doesn't reveal them. I would suggest starting with some standards bodies, such as the ITU or ISO and I know that the EBU has done some serious (unpublished) testing because I've been involved on one or two occasions. Also some public/state companies like the NHK and BBC have archives of their published (and some unpublished) tests/studies.

G


----------



## old tech

Phronesis said:


> I hope no one is suggesting that Santa doesn’t exist?  When I was a kid, I saw ABUNDANT evidence that he’s real: wife, geography, helper elves and reindeer, high-performance flying sled, etc. Let’s not get carried away with skepticism.  Some things are really real.


Well, we can't prove Santa doesn't exist.


----------



## old tech

castleofargh said:


> hey don't be hard on Stereophile. I love how they achieve to sometime directly contradict their subjective BS with their own measurements and act like everybody's right anyway. that always had a solid comedic value.
> seriously. they provided us with a great deal of measurements. I'm very grateful for that contribution. the rest, I'm not personally a fan.


Its been many years since I've read Stereophile but as you say, yes they did provide their own measurements (not sure if they still do) but more often than not there was a disconnect between that and their reviews.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> I'm sorry but as I stated, the majority of info is not published and I cannot provide links to info that does not have any links because it is unpublished. In some/many cases doing so would actually be illegal (student data protection for example), in other cases the info/tests were specifically designed for internal use only and never to be available to the public (many studio and company tests for example) and in other cases the info might be available somewhere but I don't have the links archived and a cursory search doesn't reveal them. I would suggest starting with some standards bodies, such as the ITU or ISO and I know that the EBU has done some serious (unpublished) testing because I've been involved on one or two occasions. Also some public/state companies like the NHK and BBC have archives of their published (and some unpublished) tests/studies.



It's disappointing that good test data on this isn't generally available to the public.  In any other area of science that interests me, I can quickly find lots of peer-reviewed journal papers, books by specialists, etc. in order to get up to speed on the topic and see where the start of the art is.  There are multiple journals focused on music perception, yet sound perception related to audio gear is a neglected area of published academic research.  Most of these questions could be put to bed if the needed data were publicly accessible.

Maybe part of the problem is that, on the academic side, audio engineering isn't typically a university department like other engineering disciplines, and it's not specifically a scientific area either (as engineering generally isn't).  And on the practice side, in the US there's no professional engineering license available for an audio engineer: https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/.  In my area of engineering, it's the norm for engineers with the prerequisite experience to get a PE license, and all of the eligible engineers in my firm have it.


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 20, 2018)

Exactly... 
And it's no great tragedy to accept those limitations.

You cannot say that "nobody ever gets hit by lightning" (if you did you would be wrong).
But you can say that "it's extremely unlikely that YOU will be hit by lightning".

And most of us wouldn't pay extra for "special lightning insurance".



Killcomic said:


> You cannot prove something doesn't exist. To expect that is a fallacy.
> Can you prove the flying spaghetti monster does not exist?
> Can you prove I'm not typing this from my secret base on Mars?
> No you cannot!
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

As with any magazine - Stereophile thrives on debate and discussion....

If everyone agreed on what they said there would be nothing to talk about... or write about.
So, rather than take a side, they've chose the somewhat interesting option of presenting all sides.



castleofargh said:


> hey don't be hard on Stereophile. I love how they achieve to sometime directly contradict their subjective BS with their own measurements and act like everybody's right anyway. that always had a solid comedic value.
> seriously. they provided us with a great deal of measurements. I'm very grateful for that contribution. the rest, I'm not personally a fan.


----------



## KeithEmo

There is some truth to that claim....

However, surprisingly, as long as common sense wasn't especially uncommon...

Most people managed to enjoy the buzz while they were children...
And still managed to escape the trap, all on their own, long before reaching adulthood...




castleofargh said:


> in last week's Daily show.^_^
> "Santa is the getaway drug to believing lies because they're fun."


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 20, 2018)

I stand corrected - about the equipment and sample list on the Meyers and Moran study.
The PDF reprints I acquired was only the study and didn't include the addendum.

I would note, however,

1) They described their primary system as: "has a wide frequency range, good definition and detail, and a stereo image with both specificity and depth. Pink noise measured with temporal averaging was very flat broadband." They also persisted in using descriptive terms like "large and capable monitors" when describing the other systems. However, they failed to provide actual measurements, so we have no idea what "wide frequency range" or "very flat" actually mean. Particularly, since one clearly measurable result of inserting a "CD loop" in the signal chain would be to eliminate all frequencies above 22 kHz, they should have confirmed that the speakers and other equipment they used were in fact capable of reproducing those frequencies when they were present. And, no, "likely to" has no technical meaning.

2) They also noted that: "The vast majority of productions have a minimum noise level that swamps the residual noise in the CD link, and no differences in the quality of that noise, or of reverberant tails, could be heard." This is an obvious assertion that the test samples they used had higher noise floors that the CD loop they were attempting to test. They basically stated that, as far as noise was concerned, they were essentially testing for audibly differences made to the noise present in the samples, since the noise present in their samples would have swamped any musical content that might have been present. (I suspect that some modern digital recordings do in fact have a noise floor below the noise floor level of a CD.)

3) I will also repeat the same concern expressed by several other critics of the test. Many of their samples were "audiophile SACDs" or "audiophile recordings". However, they failed to document whether they actually contained any ultrasonic content or not. Since they DID include a full list in the addendum.... I wonder if anyone has actually analyzed those specific discs to determine whether any of them did in fact contain any spectral content that extended into ranges where "reducing it to CD quality" would have altered it.

4) I would finally note - yet again - that AT MOST they could reasonably conclude a statistical result that applied to a specific sample group, specific test systems, and specific sample content. However, you CANNOT LOGICALLY prove the nonexistence of something using any amount of statistical data. (You can, however, INFER that it may be UNLIKELY.)

5) And, since you insist on being pedantic, I will now be equally so. If they were attempting to show that no human being could hear a difference - as a general case - then they have automatically failed. It is simply a matter of definition. Such a test is simply impossible to perform. Since they didn't test every human being, or every sample, or every music system, they cannot make a valid absolute claim that extends to all of them. (This is no big surprise... proving a general negative is _usually_ impossible.) Therefore, assuming that they were attempting to produce a valid result, and had a basic understanding of logic and testing, and had chosen to use a statistical method, at most they must have been trying to find out "whether a statistically significant number of people could hear a difference a statistically significant amount of the time". (And, yes, that is further limited to "in their test sample".)

6) We do, however, seem to be in final agreement. What they offered was "reasonably compelling evidence"... but _NOT_ "absolute proof". (And the term "reasonable" defines a matter of opinion on the part of the person assessing it.) And this is _ALL_ I've been saying all along.



gregorio said:


> 1. You're joking right? YOU make a FALSE assumption based on YOUR misinterpretation and then you state the paper is erroneous because it doesn't meet your FALSE assumption. There is indeed a (MAJOR) error here, it's entirely YOURS!! This is not "The KeithEmo [FALSE] Assumption" forum .... How many times??
> 1a. Then why don't you?
> 
> 2. Again, you're joking? What do you mean "if Meyer and Moran were REALLY trying to determine whether most people would hear a difference"? Meyer and Moran were *not* "REALLY" trying to determine that, AND you know what they were actually trying to determine because only a few lines previously you quoted them ("to determine whether people could reliably determine an audible difference when a "CD loop" was inserted into the audio signal chain"). Clearly they were NOT trying to determine "whether most people could reliably determine a difference", you have deliberately changed what they were trying to determine by adding the word "most" yourself! Where on YOUR OWN list of what this thread should be about does it state that intellectual dishonesty is acceptable? And just for the record, Meyer and Moran make it perfectly clear (numerous times) that the "people" to whom they are referring are the test subjects.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

That's still the way they do it.

In full equipment reviews, they provide both a subjective review, and measurements, and often even comments about whether the measurements tend to support or conflict with the subjective assessment. Their measurements are usually quite thorough and complete, and it is up to the reader to decide how much credibility to assign to the subjective opinions of a specific reviewer. 

(And, yes, the subjective review often disagrees with the conclusions of the "technical review". They basically invite the reader to pick a side and express no overriding editorial opinion about which is "right". And, yes, they do make their living from advertising revenue. And, yes, as with any modern media publication, their main goal in order to attract readers is to "be interesting".)



old tech said:


> Its been many years since I've read Stereophile but as you say, yes they did provide their own measurements (not sure if they still do) but more often than not there was a disconnect between that and their reviews.


----------



## bigshot

old tech said:


> Its been many years since I've read Stereophile but as you say, yes they did provide their own measurements (not sure if they still do) but more often than not there was a disconnect between that and their reviews.



Damn! Those pesky numbers again! Why won't they validate my subjective impression?! I'm just going to ignore them and go over to sound science and sperg up threads with lengthy and repeated posts claiming measurements aren't enough and blind testing is fatally flawed!


----------



## sonitus mirus

I recall reading comments from David Moran (co-author of  "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback") in some discussion where he went on to state that they were looking to test what was then considered to be obvious improvements with specific SA-CDs, and that these were selected for their testing.  In the end, many of these were found to be technically no different at all, yet some people were lauding them as superior.   I think this strengthens the case that hi-res can and should be insignificant.

I can't find the exact reference, as it was long ago.  Here is a short discussion about some of the details from the testing.

https://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/58757/58964


----------



## KeithEmo

I suspect you're quite right....
They were essentially "looking for statistical proof that most people wouldn't notice any difference".
And, if that was their goal, then they did a pretty good job of it.
They made a reasonable attempt to statistically detect a difference - and failed.
From that, it's reasonable to INFER that it is unlikely that a significant difference exists.
(Although I still insist that they failed to prove that their speakers and other equipment was really capable of reproducing the claimed differences if they did exist.)

However, I do dislike your specific wording...
I see nothing to suggest that: "hi-res _SHOULD_ be insignificant".
I would suggest that it's more accurate to say that: "hi-res can be and often_ IS_ insignificant".
I would certainly agree that I've heard many high-res recordings that sounded no different than their CD counterparts.

I should also point out that there is no specific _NEED_ to attempt to prove the negative.
When offering purchasing advice, it's perfectly adequate to offer a statistical assertion that "someone is really unlikely to notice any difference".



sonitus mirus said:


> I recall reading comments from David Moran (co-author of  "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback") in some discussion where he went on to state that they were looking to test what was then considered to be obvious improvements with specific SA-CDs, and that these were selected for their testing.  In the end, many of these were found to be technically no different at all, yet some people were lauding them as superior.   I think this strengthens the case that hi-res can and should be insignificant.
> 
> I can't find the exact reference, as it was long ago.  Here is a short discussion about some of the details from the testing.
> 
> https://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/58757/58964


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithEmo said:


> I suspect you're quite right....
> They were essentially "looking for statistical proof that most people wouldn't notice any difference".
> And, if that was their goal, then they did a pretty good job of it.
> They made a reasonable attempt to statistically detect a difference - and failed.
> ...



I carefully selected the word "should".  I've seen no reliable and repeatable evidence to suggest that Red Book cannot sound audibly transparent to hi-res.  Though, such things as different masters, design choices (like the Pono player using filters that perform oddly with 16/44.1), or issues introduced from conversion and/or encoding processes can create audible differences or measurable differences that indicate that differences might be audibly identifiable.  

Any hi-res music file (PCM-based) should be able to be converted to Red Book and sound identical to all humans on every system.    There are, of course, potential exceptions.  I feel strongly that any exceptions presented would be abnormal and something that could be completely avoided with relatively little effort or cost.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 20, 2018)

If high bitrate/high sampling rate audio sounds different than 16/44.1, then there's probably something wrong with the equipment it's being played on or the settings. The sound mixes I have supervised always end with a bounce down and side by side playback of the original mix and the 16/44.1 bounce down. Neither i nor the engineers I work with have ever heard any difference.


----------



## KeithEmo

The dictionary actually includes several different meanings for the word "should"....
(This is one of those trivial distinctions that can lead to apparent disagreements that don't necessarily actually exist.) 

One meaning of the word "should" is essentially "can be expected to".
I assume that it the meaning you're using....  in which case I definitely agree with you.
(That definition refers to an expectation based on something like previous experience or known facts.)
I would say it's reasonable to EXPECT a CD to sound audibly indistinguishable from a hi-res version of the same file.

(Let me rephrase that as "I would definitely NOT _expect _a high-res version to sound better".)
I may not be as convinced as you are that it will ALWAYS be true...
But I do agree that, in most cases, it is.
And, in many of the cases where high-res remasters do sound noticeably better, they have also been remastered or remixed, so the difference could be due to that.

There is also another subtly different definition of the word "should" that suggests a sort of obligation or quality of right and wrong.... as in "you should always obey laws".
(That definition suggests that it is PREFERABLE for something to "do as it should" rather than that we simply expect it to do so.)
I would disagree with applying that defninition of the word in this case.

However, if exceptions DO exist, I would be very interested in knowing about them, and figuring out why and how they exist.
If there are a few exceptions out there I want them in my collection - just as a demonstration of what is _possible_.

I also suspect that I may also be somewhat less optimistic than you are.
For example, I agree that it is not at all difficult to perform a simple sample rate conversion without introducing obvious artifacts.
Any competent programmer _should_ be able to do the math correctly, and there are free programming libraries that do it very well, that you can use to do it for you.
However, when the conversions performed using commercial audio editing products are compared, many are in fact found to produce obvious artifacts.
(We cannot know whether they are due to simple incompetent programming - or whether someone "liked the way they sounded.)

If you check out this website....    http://src.infinitewave.ca/
You'll see that, of all the SRCs they tested, about half produced excellent results, but the other half produced obviously inferior results.
Without getting into an endless debate about which flaws would be audible, it is obvious that some do a far more accurate job than others.
This may suggest that exceptions may not be as rare as you assume - or as we would like them to be.



sonitus mirus said:


> I carefully selected the word "should".  I've seen no reliable and repeatable evidence to suggest that Red Book cannot sound audibly transparent to hi-res.  Though, such things as different masters, design choices (like the Pono player using filters that perform oddly with 16/44.1), or issues introduced from conversion and/or encoding processes can create audible differences or measurable differences that indicate that differences might be audibly identifiable.
> 
> Any hi-res music file (PCM-based) should be able to be converted to Red Book and sound identical to all humans on every system.    There are, of course, potential exceptions.  I feel strongly that any exceptions presented would be abnormal and something that could be completely avoided with relatively little effort or cost.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] I suspect that, IF it turns out that reducing properly recorded high-resolution files to CD quality is sometimes audible, the difference will be subtle, it probably won't make a significant difference to most listeners, and it will probably only turn out to be audible to some listeners, quite possibly only on certain equipment.
> [1a] All I've ever claimed is that there is no legitimate justification to make a general claim that it is NEVER audible...
> [1b] I personally don't know if low-pass filtering an audio sample at 20 kHz, if done properly, can be audible or not. I have certainly heard a few files where it seemed to - but I have never tested it fully and properly. *And, here is my whole point, NOBODY ELSE HAS TESTED IT FULLY AND PROPERLY EITHER.*


1. This is not the "What KeithEmo Suspects" forum. Neither is it the: "This is what would happen IF something which has been demonstrated to be false, turns out to be true" forum.
1a. Of course there is. There's overwhelming evidence that the differences lie outside of human hearing and there's numerous controlled listening tests which support this fact. On the other side of the coin, there's no evidence of any differences that fall within the range of human audibility and no controlled listening test has provided any evidence that they do. Therefore, CONTRARY to your claim, there is in fact an extremely good "legitimate justification" for the general claim that differences are not audible. And, as there's NO reliable evidence that differences are audible, then there is NO "legitimate justification" to claim otherwise. Why don't you follow YOUR OWN ADVICE and "apply a little logic"?
1b. Exactly! I have certainly "tested it fully and properly", numerous times and in numerous different ways, including ABX. That alone disproves your claim that "NOBODY ELSE" has tested it but additionally, MANY others have tested it exhaustively as well. "*Your whole point*" is therefore based on a FALSEHOOD!


KeithEmo said:


> [1] This is important because it would certainly be important to know whether the guy who was correct 8/10 that time ...
> [2] What all those tests have done is to FAIL TO PROVIDE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE *CAN* HEAR THE DIFFERENCE.... which is quite different than providing evidence that they cannot.
> [3] You cannot say that "nobody ever gets hit by lightning" (if you did you would be wrong). But you can say that "it's extremely unlikely that YOU will be hit by lightning". And most of us wouldn't pay extra for "special lightning insurance".


1. You keep repeating this BUT it is FALSE! You have absolutely zero evidence that the guy was "correct" 8/10 times.
2. I agree but you seem to be arguing against yourself here!
3. Exactly but again, you are arguing against yourself! There is reliable evidence to support an estimate of at least 60,000 people a year being struck by lightening and as you say, "most of us wouldn't pay extra for lightening insurance". However, there is no reliable evidence that even a single person can hear the difference (between hi-res and CD), so why would anyone pay the extra for "insurance" (a hi-res audiophile DAC)? Where's that application of logic YOU advised?


KeithEmo said:


> I would note, however,
> 1) They described their primary system as: "has a wide frequency range, good definition and detail, and a stereo image with both specificity and depth. Pink noise measured with temporal averaging was very flat broadband." They also persisted in using descriptive terms like "large and capable monitors" when describing the other systems. However, they failed to provide actual measurements, so we have no idea what "wide frequency range" or "very flat" actually mean. Particularly, since one clearly measurable result of inserting a "CD loop" in the signal chain would be to eliminate all frequencies above 22 kHz, they should have confirmed that the speakers and other equipment they used were in fact capable of reproducing those frequencies when they were present. And, no, "likely to" has no technical meaning.
> 2) They also noted that: "The vast majority of productions have a minimum noise level that swamps the residual noise in the CD link, and no differences in the quality of that noise, or of reverberant tails, could be heard." This is an obvious assertion that the test samples they used had higher noise floors that the CD loop they were attempting to test. They basically stated that, as far as noise was concerned, they were essentially testing for audibly differences made to the noise present in the samples, since the noise present in their samples would have swamped any musical content that might have been present. (I suspect that some modern digital recordings do in fact have a noise floor below the noise floor level of a CD.)
> 3) I will also repeat the same concern expressed by several other critics of the test. Many of their samples were "audiophile SACDs" or "audiophile recordings". [3a] However, they failed to document whether they actually contained any ultrasonic content or not.
> ...


1. Two obvious points that for some (inadvertent?) reason you failed to note: Firstly, the primary system was not the only system, they also used a $100,000 audiophile system, a university listening laboratory and a SACD mastering facility. I personally have never seen a SACD mastering facility which did not have super-tweeters or speakers capable of reproducing ultrasonic freqs. Secondly, the subjects' hearing response was tested and the upper limit was 16kHz - 18kHz (the young students). So provided the systems exceeded 18kHz, extending beyond 22kHz would have made no difference anyway.
2. This is NOT the "What KeithEmo Suspects" forum!! And even if it were, your suspicion contradicts the facts/evidence. The COMBINATION of the noise floor of the mics, the mic pre-amps and the recording venue will "swamp" the digital noise floor of CD by a factor of at least 10 times but far more commonly, by a factor of 100 times or more.
3. Why would you want to repeat the same fallacy "expressed by several other critics of the test"? Yes, many of their samples were "audiophile SACDs/recordings" (although NOT all!!) but then the only people claiming a difference between (so called) "hi-res" and CD are audiophiles and those selling to them!!
3a. It would be more than surprising if the "professional SACD test disk" didn't contain any ultrasonic content or in fact any of the other recordings but even if they didn't, what difference would it make? None of the test subjects had a hearing response beyond 18kHz!
4. Yes but the sample group AND the test systems AND the sample content were ALL exceptional. So we can INFER that it is EXCEPTIONALLY UNLIKELY.
4a. They were not trying to, and we do not need to LOGICALLY prove anything. You are making the claim that the differences are (or might be) audible, therefore the *Burden of Proof* is on you and so far you've failed to produce even any "reasonably compelling evidence" let alone proof!!
4b. In addition to the "exceptionally UNLIKELY" logical inference of this test, we also have the "exceptionally UNLIKELY" inference from numerous other tests and the "exceptionally UNLIKELY" inference from all the objective (measured) differences. What is "exceptionally unlikely" plus "exceptionally unlikely" plus "exceptionally unlikely"? Add all this together and weigh it against the "reasonably compelling evidence" that we can hear a difference (of which there is none) and what is the inescapable LOGICAL INFERENCE?
5. No, you are NOT being "equally pedantic", you are being unequally disingenuous! You know that is NOT what they were "attempting to show" because YOU, YOURSELF quoted what they were attempting to determine!
6. Great, then we are in agreement. Again, all you have to do now is take your own advice and apply a little logic: Add this "compelling evidence" to all the other "reasonably compelling evidence" and weigh all of that against all the "reasonably compelling evidence" that differences are audible (of which there is NONE)!


KeithEmo said:


> [1] I see nothing to suggest that: "hi-res _SHOULD_ be insignificant".
> [2] I would suggest that it's more accurate to say that: "hi-res can be and often_ IS_ insignificant".


1. That's because you are ignoring the evidence. This isn't the "What KeithEmo Can't See" forum!
2. It is not more accurate to say that (it is far less so) and this is NOT the "What KeithEmo Suggests" forum!

Round and round and round we go!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

1)

If you want to see the "proof" that Meyers and Moran had a subject who got "8/10 right" then you might try reading their report.
It's in the results section.....  page 776, top right, on the copy I linked to.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1105/0b42c641807bbcf24ba7f6e11af49f135e8f.pdf

"
*The “best” listener score*, achieved one
single time, *was 8 for 10*, still short of the desired 95%
confidence level. * There were two 7/10 results*. All other
trial totals were worse than 70% correct.
"

Personally I though it was interesting that many of their subjects who supposedly had "better" hearing actually liked the SACDs less.... 
Not an especially significant result... but... interesting.

2)

And, just to be clear, it's really nice that you're convinced that "any SACD mastering studio would have supertweeters that go to 28 kHz"....
And that you're quite sure that "$100k audiophile speakers" would absolutely be able to reproduce any differences that might possibly exist between CDs and SACDs....
Personally, after having heard a lot of equipment, I'm not nearly as convinced about either of those as you are....
However, real scientists don't take things like that on faith, from me or you, and don't expect their audience to do either - which is why they measure and document it.
With science experiments you don't "just assume all the gear is doing what you think it's doing".... because often it doesn't.

3)

Finally, quoting you: 
"the subjects' hearing response was tested and the upper limit was 16kHz - 18kHz (the young students). So provided the systems exceeded 18kHz, extending beyond 22kHz would have made no difference anyway."
That sure sounds like you're claiming to know the results before the test is even done.
And that, not only are you certain of the results, but you expect us to take your word for them.
Did it occur to you that "just on principle" it is worthless to claim to "test whether CDs are audibly different than SACDs" unless your test equipment is first SHOWN,and then documented, to accurately reproduce the measured differences?
In order to be valid, and determine whether differences are audible, the test MUST be performed using equipment that is KNOWN to be able to reproduce any measurable differences that are there completely and accurately (not _assumed_ to be able to).
You cannot test for what isn't there.
And "guessing" or "assuming" that the speakers you're using can deliver it is not at all good enough.

That is NOT on Meyers and Moran; they made it plain exactly what they did and did not confirm about their test setup... 
For example, they said that they were using "really high end equipment"; bnut NEVER stated that all of the equipment they used had actually been measured and its performance confirmed.
What they tested for was "whether a certain group of people could hear a difference between certain SACDs and their CD equivalents, using certain test gear".
They then proceeded to suggest that we should "trust" that the test gear they selected was up to the task - without actually confirming it.
So, if that's all you really wanted to know, then their results were just fine.

I give up.
You may be a great mixing engineer.
But you would definitely NOT have gotten a passing grade in the lab courses I took in college.
(And neither would Meyers and Moran.)

4)

And, incidentally, there is no "burden of proof" "on me" - because I'm not claiming anything at all.
I simply said "I don't know for sure".
It is you who are making a claim.
Therefore, the burden to prove it is on you.

And, if you have indeed "tested it fully and properly", we'd love to see your fully documented test results.
Otherwise we'll be glad to accept "your anecdotal opinion - based on years of professional experience".

I am now going to join those who are waiting for actual legitimate scientific proof either way...
If and when you have some I'll be very interested to see (read) it...
(But arguing about who said or meant what seems quite unlikely to ever lead to it.)

Bye...



gregorio said:


> 1. This is not the "What KeithEmo Suspects" forum. Neither is it the: "This is what would happen IF something which has been demonstrated to be false, turns out to be true" forum.
> 1a. Of course there is. There's overwhelming evidence that the differences lie outside of human hearing and there's numerous controlled listening tests which support this fact. On the other side of the coin, there's no evidence of any differences that fall within the range of human audibility and no controlled listening test has provided any evidence that they do. Therefore, CONTRARY to your claim, there is in fact an extremely good "legitimate justification" for the general claim that differences are not audible. And, as there's NO reliable evidence that differences are audible, then there is NO "legitimate justification" to claim otherwise. Why don't you follow YOUR OWN ADVICE and "apply a little logic"?
> 1b. Exactly! I have certainly "tested it fully and properly", numerous times and in numerous different ways, including ABX. That alone disproves your claim that "NOBODY ELSE" has tested it but additionally, MANY others have tested it exhaustively as well. "*Your whole point*" is therefore based on a FALSEHOOD!
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

If this is his show, he needs a theme song.


----------



## analogsurviver (Dec 21, 2018)

bigshot said:


> If high bitrate/high sampling rate audio sounds different than 16/44.1, then there's probably something wrong with the equipment it's being played on or the settings. The sound mixes I have supervised always end with a bounce down and side by side playback of the original mix and the 16/44.1 bounce down. Neither i nor the engineers I work with have ever heard any difference.



You have - obvious from above - always worked witH mixes. Which go trough MANy electronic components and who knows how many manipulations ( baNdwidth limitting, compression, de-essers, plugins, etc,etc - which, each and all, have resolution / bandwidth limitations) - and are, according to my definition , already - FUBAR.

You would have to use something clean and pure to begin with - noth something that went trough the normal studio workflow. And you would have to use equipment that does support bandwidth at least to 40 kHz. It has been possible for more than 40 years - so no excuses are possible on this count.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 21, 2018)

I am just outside a concert hall and in an hour will be listening to a live choir with brass, strings and percussion. If someone could please tell me what to listen out for for the unattenauted effects of 40 kHz I would be most grateful.


----------



## Phronesis

Steve999 said:


> I am just outside a concert hall and in an hour will be listening to a live choir with brass, strings and percussion. If someone could please tell me what to listen out for for the unattenauted effects of 40 kHz I would be most grateful.



Just get close to the instruments.  The elation you feel from basking in the ultrasonics will be obvious. 

Merry Christmas to all who celebrate it for real or just for fun!


----------



## old tech

sonitus mirus said:


> I recall reading comments from David Moran (co-author of  "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback") in some discussion where he went on to state that they were looking to test what was then considered to be obvious improvements with specific SA-CDs, and that these were selected for their testing.  In the end, many of these were found to be technically no different at all, yet some people were lauding them as superior.   I think this strengthens the case that hi-res can and should be insignificant.
> 
> I can't find the exact reference, as it was long ago.  Here is a short discussion about some of the details from the testing.
> 
> https://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/58757/58964



The reaction on that thread is hardly surprising.  It is a SACD forum and anything that challenges their beliefs, no matter how well supported, would invoke a strong negative reaction.

It is no different to carrying a pig inside the Sistine chapel.


----------



## old tech

I'm still wondering whether this product is being marketed as a prank or for real...

https://www.vandenhul.com/product/the-extender/


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm not going to make any specific assertions about reasons here.....
However... here is a general suggestion:

If there are cymbals, listen to the cymbals when they crash, and try and fix in your head the part of their character that makes them "sound like metal hitting metal".
And, if there are any spots where the cymbals are hit with wire brushes, try and fix the sound of "little scratchy wires hitting a big metal plate".
Think about the "tss tss" sound escaping steam makes... and how this is UNLIKE that sound.
And, if there are trumpets, listen to the sort of sharp ripping sound they make when they get loud.
And, when you go home, see if the recordings you have seem able to deliver a convincing imitation of the way they sound.
Those are the things that I've generally found most recordings to fail to reproduce with convincing realism.

And, if you don't think any of your recordings manages to sound exactly the same as the real thing, try and figure out why.



Steve999 said:


> I am just outside a concert hall and in an hour will be listening to a live choir with brass, strings and percussion. If someone could please tell me what to listen out for for the unattenauted effects of 40 kHz I would be most grateful.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I'm not going to make any specific assertions about reasons here.....
> However... here is a general suggestion:
> 
> If there are cymbals, listen to the cymbals when they crash, and try and fix in your head the part of their character that makes them "sound like metal hitting metal".
> ...



As we discussed before, I suspect that the difference is due to acoustics, rather than presence vs absence of ultrasonics.  A difference in how 10-20 kHz is presented to our ears in the two settings seems enough to account for the perceived difference.


----------



## Killcomic

KeithEmo said:


> I'm not going to make any specific assertions about reasons here.....
> However... here is a general suggestion:
> 
> If there are cymbals, listen to the cymbals when they crash, and try and fix in your head the part of their character that makes them "sound like metal hitting metal".
> ...


I've never been to a concert where things sounded different to a recording. In fact, the sounds tend to be less immersive as instruments are mono, and the sound seems to come from one direction as opposed to funky stereo effects.
So I guess recordings do sound different to concerts, but it's not the quality of the instrument sound. It's the positioning because it would sound flat otherwise.


----------



## KeithEmo

I suspect you could be right.

I should also note that I am not a fan of classical music.
And, when you see a rock or pop band "live", you're often just listening to a public address system anyway.
(And it is often not nearly as good as a high quality home system.)

And, yes, the acoustics of a home are not likely to be a good match for the acoustics of a concert hall.
(But I would expect a good recording, played through headphones, to be able to deliver the sound of the hall somewhat better.)

And, finally, I have had the opportunity to listen to rock bands play, from within a few feet....
And, at that range, I find the cymbals to be unpleasantly loud, and unpleasantly harsh....
(So, in terms of being enjoyable, I'm not convinced that I would _want_ them to reproduced accurately.)



Phronesis said:


> As we discussed before, I suspect that the difference is due to acoustics, rather than presence vs absence of ultrasonics.  A difference in how 10-20 kHz is presented to our ears in the two settings seems enough to account for the perceived difference.


----------



## KeithEmo

I can't tell....
Most of their other products seem to be at least somewhat reasonable....
And they are a well established and "reputable" brand....
But then I see a "carbon ring" which is supposed to help neck pain, can be worn as a bracelet, and is also claimed to improve room acoustics.
(These seem to me to be the audiophile equivalent of "homeopathic remedies" - which notably seem to be considered to be "legitimate medical products" in the UK.)

Bear in mind that there are companies who sell "special fuses" which are supposed to make your audio equipment sound better...
And I've even seen page-long discussions about which way they're supposed to face when you install them  /

If you want to check out some _really_ outlandish claims, check out "Machina Dynamica" or Google "Peter Belt".



old tech said:


> I'm still wondering whether this product is being marketed as a prank or for real...
> 
> https://www.vandenhul.com/product/the-extender/


----------



## Killcomic (Dec 22, 2018)

old tech said:


> I'm still wondering whether this product is being marketed as a prank or for real...
> 
> https://www.vandenhul.com/product/the-extender/



Thant's not a prank, THIS is a prank:

https://www.futureshop.co.uk/entreq-olympus-tellus-ground-box

EDIT - Oh my god! They published my "review"!
They must have read the first 3 lines and left it at that.


----------



## castleofargh (Dec 22, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I can't tell....
> Most of their other products seem to be at least somewhat reasonable....
> And they are a well established and "reputable" brand....
> But then I see a "carbon ring" which is supposed to help neck pain, can be worn as a bracelet, and is also claimed to improve room acoustics.
> ...


*castleofargh puts on his devils advocate costume*

we all agree here that this is 1337% snake oil product?
I know why I believe that. but given how you're always on the cautious side of things saying that we need to know for sure before drawing conclusions, I wonder why you're not defending this the same way you've been defending various hypotheses pulled out of a hat and not supported by any clear evidence? on such a product, shouldn't you weight in with a strong "maybe, maybe not, we cannot say"?  where do you draw the line? if you allow me to reuse an argument from a few pages back, maybe in the future we'll discover some tech that will let us measure the very real benefits of that wooden piece of crap, and optimize its use. meanwhile we might want to keep it around for the day when it might become more relevant.
and maybe water has a memory and sugar pills are more than that when made with the moronic dilution process? it's not like we have definitive evidence that those can never cure anybody from anything. we have only consistently failed to demonstrate an effect.

*takes off costume*
this IMO is the real danger of demanding highly conclusive science before rejecting an idea, instead of requiring highly conclusive science to support that idea before we do the same. all this is in some ways very similar to the audible benefits of hires? many people will come saying that they clearly perceive an effect and will share a great many anecdotes about it. while experiments on those same people will typically fail to support their claims. from where I stand, all similar situations should lead to rejecting the ideas, at the very least until supporting evidence is brought out.


----------



## KeithEmo

I _THINK _we all agree that this one is snake oil (or perhaps tree sap)?
Although it is by no means the most far fetched product currently for sale.

The answer to your question is simple.... although not as concise as one might like.

The reason is that there is no reasonable scientific basis for any mechanism by which holistic dilutions might even possibly work.
We actually know a lot about chemistry... and especially the chemistry of water.
And, as it turns out, we know that there is no theoretical mechanism present by which their claimed "trace memory" could occur.
(Not only have the failed to show that it DOES occur; they have failed to provide an explanation of how it MIGHT occur.)

Likewise, as far as I know, there is no known mechanism by which a small wooden block could or would cause a significant alteration in room acoustics.
The effect of adding a piece of wood to a room can be quite accurately calculated, it would turn out to be minor, and there are no major unknowns in the equation.)
(If they had presented a plausible theory, consistent with at least some known science, about how the wood block MIGHT affect room acoustics, then testing the claim would be justified.)

If we actually knew exactly how human hearing and perception worked in detail we could make similarly accurate assessments there.
However, in fact, while we know a lot about some aspects of it, we still don't know much about others, so we are unable to make accurate predictions.

We have some very detailed and presumably accurate information about how humans consciously percieve continuous sine wave signals within a certain frequency range at various SPL levels.
(When we play frequency sweeps for people, at different levels, we know when they hold up their hands indicating that they heard something.)
We can also make some pretty reasonable inferences about how we humans consciously percieve frequencies outside that range.
(When we play frequencies outside that range, at reasonable levels, people DON'T hold up their hands indicating they hear something.)
Note how, when I actually phrase what we know accurately and in detail, it seems somewhat limited.

Here's an interesting sample of what you come up with when you analyze things like this somewhat carefully.
The generally accepted frequency range of human hearing... for continuous sine waves... is 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
And, by the basic math, a 44k sample rate is perfectly adequate to reproduce any frequency below 20 kHz.
This would seem to suggest that 44k is a perfectly adequate sample rate to record audio for humans.

Now, note that the time interval associated with a single sample at 44k is about 25 microseconds.
Now, let's look at what might happen to a transient signal (any signal that starts suddenly).
Many DAC filters add multiple cycles of ringing to the beginning or end of transients.
So, WOULD a single extra cycle of ringing added to one channel be audible?
Well, if you do the math, adding one cycle of ringing to the start of the signal will cause it to begin 25 microseconds sooner.
And we know, from several well documented tests, that humans can detect a phase shift between their left and right ears of as little as 10 microseconds.
So, according to those tests results, a single cycle of ringing added to one channel would produce an error that was more than DOUBLE THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF HUMAN AUDIBILITY.
Therefore, there is a perfectly reasonable mechanism by which it MIGHT HAPPEN.

I personally suspect that this effect would probably be beyond the ability of our brains to detect or notice.
And, it should rerely if ever be the case that ringing would be added anything other than symmetrically.
HOWEVER, in fact, a single cycle of ringing at 44k is NOT "obviously beyond our physical ability to detect" after all.
That means that it would probably be a good idea to run a few tests and find out ifi it's audible or not (rather than make an ASSUMPTION that could be wrong).
(That way we'll know whether we have to worry about a single cycle error or not.)

And, just a bit of perspective, for those who think "we've known all about human hearing for a hundred years"....
We didn't figure out that a bacteria causes stomach ulcers until 1982.
(And a lot of people were convinced we knew a lot about medicine before then.)



castleofargh said:


> *castleofargh puts on his devils advocate costume*
> 
> we all agree here that this is 1337% snake oil product?
> I know why I believe that. but given how you're always on the cautious side of things saying that we need to know for sure before drawing conclusions, I wonder why you're not defending this the same way you've been defending various hypotheses pulled out of a hat and not supported by any clear evidence? on such a product, shouldn't you weight in with a strong "maybe, maybe not, we cannot say"?  where do you draw the line? if you allow me to reuse an argument from a few pages back, maybe in the future we'll discover some tech that will let us measure the very real benefits of that wooden piece of crap, and optimize its use. meanwhile we might want to keep it around for the day when it might become more relevant.
> ...


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] And, just to be clear, it's really nice that you're convinced that "any SACD mastering studio would have supertweeters that go to 28 kHz"....
> [2] "the subjects' hearing response was tested and the upper limit was 16kHz - 18kHz (the young students). So provided the systems exceeded 18kHz, extending beyond 22kHz would have made no difference anyway." That sure sounds like you're claiming to know the results before the test is even done.
> [3] Did it occur to you that "just on principle" it is worthless to claim to "test whether CDs are audibly different than SACDs" unless your test equipment is first SHOWN,and then documented, to accurately reproduce the measured differences?
> [4] And, incidentally, there is no "burden of proof" "on me" - because I'm not claiming anything at all. I simply said "I don't know for sure".
> [5] You may be a great mixing engineer. But you would definitely NOT have gotten a passing grade in the lab courses I took in college.


1. "And, just to be clear, it's really nice that you're convinced that" misquoting me is a valid argument!!
2. The tests were done and the students could not hear above 18kHz. Can you please explain how reproducing freqs that NONE of the test subjects could hear, could have affect the results.
3. Did it occur to you that the systems used represent extremely (or beyond) competent systems compared to what even ardent of audiophiles own. Or, are you saying that some cheaper, consumer or audiophile systems are superior to a SACD mastering facility?
4. At least you're consistent, you're misquoting yourself as well as me!
5. And you would definitely not have got a passing grade in my university and I should know, as I was responsible for awarding the grades!!


KeithEmo said:


> [1] I am now going to join those who are waiting for actual legitimate scientific proof either way...
> [2] I give up.


1. Which is yet another self-contradiction! How can you be waiting for proof "either way" when you've already stated several times that science cannot prove a negative? Are you going to wait for "legitimate scientific proof" until you accept the theory of evolution, climate change or numerous other examples? Are you going to wait for "legitimate scientific proof" that Santa, flying pigs or unicorns don't exist?
2. You keep saying that but you never do. Round and round and round we go!!

G


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> And, if you don't think any of your recordings manages to sound exactly the same as the real thing, try and figure out why.



@Steve999 I suspect you might already have an understanding of why a recording will never "sound exactly the same as the real thing" but if you don't, KeithEmo's suggestion is IMO particularly poor. Think about it logically ... If someone doesn't know "why" then that's largely because they do not know or understand all the factors involved and if they don't know all the factors involved then whatever they "try and figure out" is almost certain to be at least somewhat, if not entirely, wrong! Furthermore, particularly here on head-fi, the gaps of not knowing all the factors involved will eagerly be filled with utter nonsense invented by audiophiles and/or those who sell to them!  

As the reasons "why" have been well known and understood for many decades (though apparently not by audiophiles), far better than to "try and figure it out" would be to ask someone who's aware of what's been known for many decades.

G


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 22, 2018)

@gregorio , thanks, yes I am aware of probably dozens of reasons why a recording will never sound exactly the same as the real thing, including your posts here describing the actual practices in the recording studio and the mixing and mastering process, far detached from the reality of sitting there listening to a live concert. And  of course these are not things you would guess by intuition or pure conjecture alone, very far from it. In fact I actually originally put a devil's head after my post above but in the holiday spirit I was moved after the concert to change it to a robot head to lighten up the humor a little bit.

@Phronesis , I second your best wishes for the holiday season for everyone. I could not help myself but pointing out the irony (if only indirectly and gently) of posting directly below @analogsurviver and his 40 khz remark when I was about to walk into an "unfiltered," if you will, actual concert, where there were no pesky microphones or recording engineers to get in the way of those wonderful ultrasonics.

Interesting you mention the range from 10 hz to 20 khz. They did have an organ there that went LOW (below 20 hz but not down to 10 hz I would guess, just based on book reading type of information) and to my surprise they also had a bell ensemble as well as cymbals, snare drums, etc., as well as the chorus and the brass band so I would guess there was a very wide range of frequencies at play.

@Killcomic , I think those are pranks but very unkind ones, quite hard on the wallets of others. One might wish the holiday season would get through to the people who sell those things.

As far as the mono sound of concerts, I tend to agree. This concert (as well as other lighter concerts at this concert hall) was very entertaining as they had bells and vocalists in the balconies and boxes and other parts scattered about the concert hall at times so that you would be quite surprised at which direction some of the sounds from the performers came from at times. It's sort of real life catching up to the surround-sound of movies. I am very fortunate to live only a few miles from a concert hall with wonderful acoustics.

@castleofargh , I thought you were better at math than that, the scale only goes up to 1336% snake oil. But I do agree that reaches to the very top of the scale.

@KeithEmo , get out there and listen to some classical music! Start with the fun stuff! It can be quite breathtaking and thrilling. As with many types of music I am lucky because I started listening in my teens and tried to play a little so it sticks with me, but there are whole new worlds of music out there to listen to.

@analogsurviver , get out there and play some music! No one can argue with that  (I hope)!

This was the guy who conducted the concert, a very high energy, fascinating guy--

https://www.choralnet.org/announcem...d-artistic-director-of-the-washington-chorus/

The chorus itself has won a couple of Grammies apparently.

Everyone have a great holiday season! I am infused with good spirits from the concert, at least for a little while! 

A little holiday music in the Sound Science music thread would be nice! Please, drop something in there! Have at it! I'll look for something from one of the groups I listened to last night to drop in there over the the next few minutes.

Here's a recent Youtube video of a couple of the groups I saw combined with the current conductor--it's about thinking about the people who have passed away that you used to get to see during the holiday season. Quite touching really.


----------



## KeithEmo

2) The point is that a test was in fact being conducted. By your claim, as soon as they found that those students couldn't hear above 18 kHz, they should have simply packed up and gone home. However, the reason they were conducting the test wa sin fact to try to confirm whether that was true or not - under specific conditions. When you conduct a test to determine whether something is audible, or able to be tasted, or able to be seen, THE FIRST REQUIREMENT IS TO USE TEST SAMPLES THAT CONTAIN WHAT YOU'RE TESTING FOR. You cannot say "since we know they can't hear it anyway let's not bother to include it". You make up test samples that contain what you're testing for, then you carefully measure them to document the fact that they contain exactly what they're supposed to, then you present them to the testb subjects. If you don't do that then you have an invalid test.

3) So what? EXACTLY what is "a competent system"? Can you show me the specific, certified and tested, frequency response that the term "competent system" guarantees it will meet or exceed? If not, then that seems an awful lot like a matter of subjective opinion. I also don't especially care what you believe an SACD mastering studio should be able to do either. When we do real scientific experiments, we use equipment that is calibrated to traceable standards, or at least whose performance is well measured and documented. We do NOT "use equipment that someone we trust has promised is really really good". I'll be happy to agree that your favorite SACD recording studio can deliver adequate performance - RIGHT AFTER YOU SHOW ME MEASUREMENTS OR CERTIFIED CALIBRATION CERTIFICATES SHOWING TAHT THEY CAN. Until then it's just your opinion.

5) I don't know what university you went to or taught at.... I went to one that taught science and electrical engineering. And, I can assure you, when we ran tests, we were required to document our procesures and our results in detail.

1) And, no, I'm not waiting for anything there. The theory of evolution in general has been shown to work by lots of evidence... but, of course, it IS still only considered to be a theory... and some of the details are in fact still considered to be very much n doubt or incomplete. For example, do you subscribe to "punctuated evolution" or "gradualism" - or do you suspect that the truth will fall somewhere in between? Likewise for climate change. There seems to be lots of evidence to suggest that we humans are in fact causing changes in the Earth's climate. Yet, with all that proof, none of the current models seem to be able to accurately predict what is going to happen five years from now. (Oh, and, BTW, we already know that flying pigs exist, so can we drop that one?)



gregorio said:


> 1. "And, just to be clear, it's really nice that you're convinced that" misquoting me is a valid argument!!
> 2. The tests were done and the students could not hear above 18kHz. Can you please explain how reproducing freqs that NONE of the test subjects could hear, could have affect the results.
> 3. Did it occur to you that the systems used represent extremely (or beyond) competent systems compared to what even ardent of audiophiles own. Or, are you saying that some cheaper, consumer or audiophile systems are superior to a SACD mastering facility?
> 4. At least you're consistent, you're misquoting yourself as well as me!
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I do want to add something - short - here.

I think we're all convinced that holistic medicine (the part with super-low dilutions and "molecular memory") is bunk.
And that there is no science whatsoever to even suggest a mechanism by which it MIGHT actually work.
And that we're all equally convinced that any effects observed are due to some sort of placebo effect.

HOWEVER, note that, because there are so many anecdotal claims, it HAS still been scientifically tested numerous times. and will probably STILL be tested in the future.
Even though anecdotal claims do not constitute evidence that something is true...
They quite often DO constitute justification for conducting scientific testing...
- we will test it once because we all agree that the results of a test are more useful than a scientific conclusion (aka "eucated guess")
- and we may test it again later because we admit that, since no test is perfect, we could have missed something, or something could have changed

There is always a cost tradeoff between "testing everything to be sure"....
And "only testing the most likely or most useful things because we really have neither the time nor the money to test everything"....
And, in fact, sometimes we DO miss things.

So, yes, if a million happy customers insisted that they did hear a difference with that silly block of wood...
Then we WOULD be justified in testing it, just to settle the question, and rule out the possibility that there's something going on we didn't include in our calculations.
(Maybe it contains toxic preservatives that induce hallucinations in people who spend time in the room with it  )

When I have a headache, I take Tylenol.... because, in terms of helping my headache, it "provides the best price.performance ratio"...
A $3 bottle of Tylenol that very probably will work is simply a better deal than a $3 bottle of holistic medicine that very probably won't work.
Note that I have quite successfully made an efficient decision without resorting to absolute claims I cannot substantiate...



castleofargh said:


> *castleofargh puts on his devils advocate costume*
> 
> we all agree here that this is 1337% snake oil product?
> I know why I believe that. but given how you're always on the cautious side of things saying that we need to know for sure before drawing conclusions, I wonder why you're not defending this the same way you've been defending various hypotheses pulled out of a hat and not supported by any clear evidence? on such a product, shouldn't you weight in with a strong "maybe, maybe not, we cannot say"?  where do you draw the line? if you allow me to reuse an argument from a few pages back, maybe in the future we'll discover some tech that will let us measure the very real benefits of that wooden piece of crap, and optimize its use. meanwhile we might want to keep it around for the day when it might become more relevant.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 22, 2018)

Perhaps sadly - or perhaps not - I have a similar reaction to classical music and paintings by the old masters.

I can recognize their technical artistry...
And, on certain occasions, I even enjoy and appreciate them.
However, in the long term, I always lose interest.

Or, perhaps it's like Chess....
I can play chess quickly but not very well...
I can also play chess carefully and slowly, and quite well...
However, I find that, when I take the effort to play it well, it's more like work, and I don't enjoy it very much...
So neither alternative works well for me.

Likewise....
I have some really nice classical recordings... which I play and enjoy every now and then.
And I even go to a classical concert once in a great while...
But it usually isn't my first choice when there are other options...
Ditto for jazz...
(I prefer symphonic metal - preferably with female vocals.)

The really sad thing there is that the recording quality on many modern symphonic metal recordings is pretty bad.
Even worse, they're the sort of bands where, when you do go to listen to them live, you usually end up listening to a public address system anyway.

And, no, I can't play a note....
I took clarinette in music class in high school....
After two semesters, I could play Chopsticks... badly...
I never enjoyed playing music and never had a knack for it.




Steve999 said:


> @KeithEmo , get out there and listen to some classical music! Start with the fun stuff! It can be quite breathtaking and thrilling. As with many types of music I am lucky because I started listening in my teens and tried to play a little so it sticks with me, but there are whole new worlds of music out there to listen to.
> 
> @analogsurviver , get out there and play some music! No one can argue with that  (I hope)!


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 22, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> Perhaps sadly - or perhaps not - I have a similar reaction to classical music and paintings by the old masters.
> 
> I can recognize their technical artistry...
> And, on certain occasions, I even enjoy and appreciate them.
> ...



I had never heard of Symphonic Metal. So I looked it up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonic_metal

That sounds like a genre where I would definitely rather hear a creatively recorded and produced album than a live recording. It seems like it would be incredibly difficult to capture the disparate elements without some great technical expertise and artistic judgment. I’ll look for what seems to me to be a high quality recording of the genre. That would be a good case study in everything that goes into making commmercially recorded music presentable.

In the meantime I am listening on my main stereo to what I think is a 320 kbps ogg vorbis stream of a Spotify playlist of classical holiday music and enjoying the heck out of it.    Only a matter of time until the din of the rest of the family kicks in and it will be pointless to sit out here for listening. . .


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 22, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> I do want to add something - short - here.
> 
> I think we're all convinced that holistic medicine (the part with super-low dilutions and "molecular memory") is bunk.
> And that there is no science whatsoever to even suggest a mechanism by which it MIGHT actually work.
> ...



I think you guys are referring to homeopathic medicine, not holistic medicine (which is a general medical approach which considers body, mind, and 'spirit').

I've looked into homeopathic medicine a bit, and am not actually _fully_ convinced that it _never_ works, or that any effects are placebo.  Unlike the lack of good testing for audibility of differences in audio gear, there's been some good testing of homeopathic medicine, including with animals, and it sometimes does seem to work.  _If_ it really does sometimes work, I have _no idea_ what the mechanism might be, and apparently no one really does.  It doesn't seem to make sense that something diluted to essentially zero could have any active effect at all.  But if it does sometimes work, then it works, and I'm not willing to conclude that the limits of our understanding of chemistry and biology are the limits of what's possible (and I've studied a lot of chemistry, biology, and biomedicine at undergrad and grad university levels - once considered a career change from engineering to medicine).  Chemistry and biology are way more complex than circuits and transducer vibrations.

Example, hot off the press:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30553908


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> this IMO is the real danger of demanding highly conclusive science before rejecting an idea, instead of requiring highly conclusive science to support that idea before we do the same.



Obfuscation isn't limited to just snake oil salesmen and audiophools. I see people in Sound Science doing it all the time too. Abstract theory with no practical application and sales pitch with no practical application are two sides of the same coin.

No matter if we are talking about science or sales pitch, it all comes down to two questions... Does it make a measurable difference? Does it make an audible difference in normal use? If the answer to either of those questions is no, you can go on discussing it, but it's a complete waste of time. Most of the comments in this thread fall into that category.


----------



## castleofargh

Steve999 said:


> I had never heard of Symphonic Metal. So I looked it up.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonic_metal
> 
> ...


apparently I'm a huge symphonic metal fan. I had no idea that I was, or that it was a music genre. IMO some of the names listed in the link really do not belong together even as a joke. but I can't remember having and enjoying so many of the bands mentioned for a specific genre aside maybe for classical music. today I've learned to name a genre I like without calling it rock ^_^, I'm making tremendous progress.


----------



## KeithEmo

You are quite correct.;; although even those definitions get blurred a bit.

"Homeopathic medicine" often refers to the odd idea that some medicines become stronger the more you dilute them - based on the idea that the water you use has some sort of "trace memory" and "retains some sort of characteristic of the material even if no measurable quantities remain". However, the category is often considered to include all sorts of "alternative medicines" - including many that are taken in normal quantities.

"Holistic medicine" is a very vague category... and is often taken to include a huge variety of "non-traditional treatments" - ranging from aromatherapy, to accupuncture, to massage, to various sorts of "new wave energy healing", and also "homeopathic medicine". The term is also applied to concepts like "treating the entire person instead of just their symptoms". It is also, at least around where I live now, sometimes spelled as "wholistic".... either to emphasize that idea... or to avoid the mainstream definition entirely.

Both can be almost impossible to evaluate because, while "homeopathic medicines" do include those extreme dilutions, they also include more traditional "folk remedies" and "herbal remedies".



Phronesis said:


> I think you guys are referring to homeopathic medicine, not holistic medicine (which is a general medical approach which considers body, mind, and 'spirit').
> 
> I've looked into homeopathic medicine a bit, and am not actually _fully_ convinced that it _never_ works, or that any effects are placebo.  Unlike the lack of good testing for audibility of differences in audio gear, there's been some good testing of homeopathic medicine, including with animals, and it sometimes does seem to work.  _If_ it really does sometimes work, I have _no idea_ what the mechanism might be, and apparently no one really does.  It doesn't seem to make sense that something diluted to essentially zero could have any active effect at all.  But if it does sometimes work, then it works, and I'm not willing to conclude that the limits of our understanding of chemistry and biology are the limits of what's possible (and I've studied a lot of chemistry, biology, and biomedicine at undergrad and grad university levels - once considered a career change from engineering to medicine).  Chemistry and biology are way more complex than circuits and transducer vibrations.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I think my favorites in that general area would be:

Within Temptation
Nightwish
Beyond the Black
Evanescence
Delain

Although exactly where the lines between "symphonic metal", "death metal", and just plain "metal" seem somewhat arbitrary.

Many of WIthin Temptation's albums in particular are very dramatic, and sound somewhat lively, but have very little overall level variation you actually measure it.
(Although, if you want a recording that's very symphonic, and includes a symphony orchestra, check out their Black Symphony and An Acoustic Night At The Theater. 

QUOTE="castleofargh, post: 14673266, member: 188025"]apparently I'm a huge symphonic metal fan. I had no idea that I was, or that it was a music genre. IMO some of the names listed in the link really do not belong together even as a joke. but I can't remember having and enjoying so many of the bands mentioned for a specific genre aside maybe for classical music. today I've learned to name a genre I like without calling it rock ^_^, I'm making tremendous progress.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 22, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> apparently I'm a huge symphonic metal fan. I had no idea that I was, or that it was a music genre. IMO some of the names listed in the link really do not belong together even as a joke. but I can't remember having and enjoying so many of the bands mentioned for a specific genre aside maybe for classical music. today I've learned to name a genre I like without calling it rock ^_^, I'm making tremendous progress.





KeithEmo said:


> I think my favorites in that general area would be:
> 
> Within Temptation
> Nightwish
> ...



This is trippy music!! Why not post some videos in the Sound Science music thread!


----------



## Don Hills

Hopefully anyone interested in metal genres and high fidelity knows about http://www.metal-fi.com/


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Phronesis said:


> I think you guys are referring to homeopathic medicine, not holistic medicine (which is a general medical approach which considers body, mind, and 'spirit').
> 
> I've looked into homeopathic medicine a bit, and am not actually _fully_ convinced that it _never_ works, or that any effects are placebo.  Unlike the lack of good testing for audibility of differences in audio gear, there's been some good testing of homeopathic medicine, including with animals, and it sometimes does seem to work.  _If_ it really does sometimes work, I have _no idea_ what the mechanism might be, and apparently no one really does.  It doesn't seem to make sense that something diluted to essentially zero could have any active effect at all.  But if it does sometimes work, then it works, and I'm not willing to conclude that the limits of our understanding of chemistry and biology are the limits of what's possible (and I've studied a lot of chemistry, biology, and biomedicine at undergrad and grad university levels - once considered a career change from engineering to medicine).  Chemistry and biology are way more complex than circuits and transducer vibrations.
> 
> ...


The medical education system has been taken over by the pharmaceutical companies with shareholders that need to see return on their investment.They have lost the plot.If it can't  be maintained with pharmaceuticals, it doesn't exist.So yes sometimes less is more.


----------



## Phronesis

Glmoneydawg said:


> The medical education system has been taken over by the pharmaceutical companies with shareholders that need to see return on their investment.They have lost the plot.If it can't  be maintained with pharmaceuticals, it doesn't exist.So yes sometimes less is more.



Definitely a system warped by financial incentives.   Much bigger problem than money wasted on audio gear that doesn’t sound better.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> 2) By your claim, as soon as they found that those students couldn't hear above 18 kHz, they should have simply packed up and gone home.
> 3) So what? EXACTLY what is "a competent system"?
> [3a] Can you show me the specific, certified and tested, frequency response that the term "competent system" guarantees it will meet or exceed?
> [3b] If not, then that seems an awful lot like a matter of subjective opinion.
> ...



2. Just so we're clear here: You're saying that "_they should have simply packed up and gone home_" because the only audible difference between SACD and CD occurs above 22kHz? Is that your claim?

3. A commercial SACD mastering facility is by definition a reference system and therefore certainly qualifies as "a competent system". In fact, it's doubtful that ANY consumers own systems that are more "competent". The same is broadly true of the other systems used, which in combination makes the likelihood that consumers/audiophiles will have systems more competent/capable and revealing of the differences extremely unlikely. Hence their claim: "*There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.*" 
3a. There is no "specific, certified and tested, FR that guarantees a "competent system"", either in the professional recording community or in the scientific community. Therefore, according to you, ALL audibility tests are ALWAYS invalid and can never be scientific. Is this really what you're claiming and if so, why have you cited scientific audibility studies if you knew them to be invalid?
3b. In a sense that's true but of course all commercial mastering facilities are very carefully constructed, measured and adjusted to meet that consensus of "subjective opinion" as indeed are scientific listening laboratories.
3c. It's not just "what I believe a SACD mastering facility should be able to do", it's what the industry believes, the industry that creates ALL the SACDs that audiophiles are listening to and audiophile manufacturers are trying to reproduce. Again though, it's a double standard, you "don't especially care" what I, the industry or science believes but we should "especially care" about what you believe!
3d. Yes of course, your scientific experiments are "real scientific experiments" but no one else's are. Remind me, what "real scientific experiments" have you done in this regard?
3e. Firstly, we here do not have to make you "happy to agree", the facts do not depend on your personal happiness to agree with them and this is NOT the "What KeithEmo is Happy to Agree With" forum. Secondly, again there is no "certified calibration certificates", neither in the recording industry nor the scientific community. So you've invented a requirement that cannot be met, apparently to justify ignoring the evidence, even though you've already admitted it is "reasonably compelling evidence"? Thirdly,* it is clearly an untruth* that "until then it's just your [my] opinion", at the very least it's also the opinion of those who own and operate the mastering facility, the university listening lab, the audiophile system used in tests, the authors of the paper and those who peer reviewed it. 

5. Indeed you don't ... but don't let that stop you from making up nonsense about it! In actual fact the university I taught at was a world leader in some scientific fields but this is all typical, childish audiophile nonsense: My ears are better than yours, my gear is better than yours, my university is better than yours and my dad is bigger than yours. If you've done "real scientific experiments" and "we were required to document our procesures and our results in detail", then show them to us, provide that "supported and properly controlled" evidence to counter the claims of Meyer and Moran and give us something (ANYTHING) to balance the BURDEN OF PROOF!!!

1. And again, that is a self-contradictory, double standard. Why don't/won't you apply that same rationale/logic in this case?



Steve999 said:


> [1] It seems like it would be incredibly difficult to capture the disparate elements without some great technical expertise and artistic judgment.
> [2] I’ll look for what seems to me to be a high quality recording of the genre. That would be a good case study in everything that goes into making commmercially recorded music presentable.



1. To be honest, that's true of just about all commercial music recordings. "Incredibly difficult" is a relative term though, a simple traditional rock band is comprised ENTIRELY of disparate elements and therefore also requires great technical expertise and artistic judgement. But, with 50 or so years of recording history and experience to draw on and that in practice it's considered relatively routine, this "incredibly difficult" feat is effectively a fairly basic expectation today. However, it comes as a considerable shock to most music engineering students that even after 3 years of full-time study they can only barely meet this fairly basic expectation. This particular sub/cross genre is even more difficult, for several reasons: Firstly, it can/should require cross disciple skills. Most music engineers specialise in either classical OR pop/rock (not commonly both) and often specialise in specific sub genres, so finding the required skill set would be "difficult". Secondly, it's not so much the fact that the elements are disparate which is the problem (as dealing with disparate elements is routine), it's the fact that there are so many of them. Trying to cram so much into a stereo sound-field is just asking for trouble (it would be an ideal candidate for a surround production IMHO though). However, that's less of a problem in this particular cross-genre case because the metal genre is largely defined by heavy compression and extreme amounts of distortion in the first place.

2. To be honest, it would be quite a poor case study. In practice it's difficult enough to work out "everything that goes into making" even most 70's/80's pop/rock, without significant inside info/knowledge. Even something like "Bohemian Rhapsody" (which could also be described as cross-genre, operatic/rock) is extremely difficult to work out in detail, even though the basic instrumentation is very simple. If you're looking for case studies, I'd advise you start with something other than this sub/cross genre.

G


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 23, 2018)

Don Hills said:


> Hopefully anyone interested in metal genres and high fidelity knows about http://www.metal-fi.com/



Well, as long as we are back to our regularly scheduled program, some of the stuff they sell or review on metal-fi seems highly dubious to me. If one likes the music I’d say search that out and enjoy, but some of the equipment like the AC purifier and The iDSD and whatnot this site deals with are not going to get you far, in my opinion. Listen closely to a piece of music that you like several times and I would hope you’d gain a lot more pleasure and appreciate a lot more of the nuances and details than many of the types of products that the site reviews or pedals. And it would be a lot less expensive.


----------



## Davesrose

KeithEmo said:


> 1) And, no, I'm not waiting for anything there. The theory of evolution in general has been shown to work by lots of evidence... but, of course, it IS still only considered to be a theory... and some of the details are in fact still considered to be very much n doubt or incomplete. For example, do you subscribe to "punctuated evolution" or "gradualism" - or do you suspect that the truth will fall somewhere in between? Likewise for climate change. There seems to be lots of evidence to suggest that we humans are in fact causing changes in the Earth's climate. Yet, with all that proof, none of the current models seem to be able to accurately predict what is going to happen five years from now. (Oh, and, BTW, we already know that flying pigs exist, so can we drop that one?)



I always cringe when someone says "just a theory": you know they're referring to vernacular "theory" and not the scientific definition of theory.  The definition for scientific theory "is is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."  Gravity has both accepted laws and a scientific theory attached to it.  The theory of evolution also makes the prediction that adaptations occur from current traits: therefore there can't be winged quadrupeds.  Animals that have wings are attached to their forelimbs. 



Phronesis said:


> I think you guys are referring to homeopathic medicine, not holistic medicine (which is a general medical approach which considers body, mind, and 'spirit').
> 
> I've looked into homeopathic medicine a bit, and am not actually _fully_ convinced that it _never_ works, or that any effects are placebo.  Unlike the lack of good testing for audibility of differences in audio gear, there's been some good testing of homeopathic medicine, including with animals, and it sometimes does seem to work.  _If_ it really does sometimes work, I have _no idea_ what the mechanism might be, and apparently no one really does.  It doesn't seem to make sense that something diluted to essentially zero could have any active effect at all.  But if it does sometimes work, then it works, and I'm not willing to conclude that the limits of our understanding of chemistry and biology are the limits of what's possible (and I've studied a lot of chemistry, biology, and biomedicine at undergrad and grad university levels - once considered a career change from engineering to medicine).  Chemistry and biology are way more complex than circuits and transducer vibrations.
> 
> ...



One should always be dubious of a "medicine" that was thought up in the 18th century where all biological mechanisms are thought to have "states" (not much different then humorism).  One can poo poo pharmaceutical medicine for being expensive for new drugs that need research.  However, affordable medicine (that has been regulated) trickles down.  Vaccines are made to be easily accessible to everyone.  When it comes to efficacy of homeopathic medicine, I'm not familiar with any studies that have shown an effect.  I looked at the abstract you cited. When you look up Dia, you'll see it's not billed as homeopathic medicine.  It actually does have active ingredients from cow colostrum.  The main country that accepts homeopathy as an option in healthcare is the UK.  I watched a video with Richard Dawkins going over homeopathy and he interviewed a doctor that offers homeopathy.  One factor he found was that homeopaths tend to spend more time with their patient compared to a family doctor (adding to the placebo of the doctor spending more time with patient).


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 23, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> I always cringe when someone says "just a theory": you know they're referring to vernacular "theory" and not the scientific definition of theory.  The definition for scientific theory "is is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."  Gravity has both accepted laws and a scientific theory attached to it.  The theory of evolution also makes the prediction that adaptations occur from current traits: therefore there can't be winged quadrupeds.  Animals that have wings are attached to their forelimbs.
> 
> 
> 
> One should always be dubious of a "medicine" that was thought up in the 18th century where all biological mechanisms are thought to have "states" (not much different then humorism).  One can poo poo pharmaceutical medicine for being expensive for new drugs that need research.  However, affordable medicine (that has been regulated) trickles down.  Vaccines are made to be easily accessible to everyone.  When it comes to efficacy of homeopathic medicine, I'm not familiar with any studies that have shown an effect.  I looked at the abstract you cited. When you look up Dia, you'll see it's not billed as homeopathic medicine.  It actually does have active ingredients from cow colostrum.  The main country that accepts homeopathy as an option in healthcare is the UK.  I watched a video with Richard Dawkins going over homeopathy and he interviewed a doctor that offers homeopathy.  One factor he found was that homeopaths tend to spend more time with their patient compared to a family doctor (adding to the placebo of the doctor spending more time with patient).



Agreed that we should use the term "theory" only in its scientific sense around here, unless specified otherwise.

I don't hold homeopathy being developed in the 18th century against it, there are plenty of herbal things which work that go back many centuries.  For example, go on pubmed and do a search on clinical trials for ashwagandha.  In the past decade, clinical trials have demonstrated benefits which were known without clinical trials for centuries.

I encourage you to do some research on homeopathy, if interested.  As I said, I have no idea how it could work, but there's empirical evidence that it may sometimes work for some people/animals for some conditions (though it may otherwise be bunk).

I'd still say that we have a huge problem in the US with the widespread use of pharmaceuticals and their often outrageous costs.  It's no coincidence that pharmaceutical companies tend to be very profitable.  But the problem isn't just with pharmaceuticals:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...er-countries-with-worse-results-idUSKCN1GP2YN

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...he-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/#item-start


----------



## Davesrose

Phronesis said:


> I encourage you to do some research on homeopathy, if interested.  As I said, I have no idea how it could work, but there's empirical evidence that it may sometimes work for some people/animals for some conditions (though it may otherwise be bunk).



I haven't seen much in the way of empirical evidence that medication directly billed as homeopathic being effective.  At least "folk medicine" with herbs uses real substances (and chemicals modern medicine might find efficacy with).  The theories of homeopathy (using "states" and "like cures") are completely irrelevant to modern medicine.  It would be one thing if all of alternative medicine was just distilled water or sugar pills.  But it's unregulated and some "medicines" being sold are even detrimental to your health (case in point hucksters selling B17 as a cancer cure).

You can't have a direct link with pharmaceutical costs and life expectancy or standard of life (your links also at least mention there are numerous factors).  Besides the debate for universal healthcare vs regulated healtchare, I think one issue with the US system is more money is spent end of life instead of preventative medicine.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 23, 2018)

Davesrose said:


> I haven't seen much in the way of empirical evidence that medication directly billed as homeopathic being effective.  At least "folk medicine" with herbs uses real substances (and chemicals modern medicine might find efficacy with).  The theories of homeopathy (using "states" and "like cures") are completely irrelevant to modern medicine.  It would be one thing if all of alternative medicine was just distilled water or sugar pills.  But it's unregulated and some "medicines" being sold are even detrimental to your health (case in point hucksters selling B17 as a cancer cure).
> 
> You can't have a direct link with pharmaceutical costs and life expectancy or standard of life (your links also at least mention there are numerous factors).  Besides the debate for universal healthcare vs regulated healtchare, I think one issue with the US system is more money is spent end of life instead of preventative medicine.



Agreed, the homeopathic theoretical framework doesn't seem to make any sense.  As far as empirical evidence, there's some for it and a lot against it, and I think it's best not to paint with a broad brush.  I suspect that cases where homeopathy works - if it works at all - will be more the exception than the rule.  But of course regular medicines don't work for everyone either, and sometimes they can be detrimental to health also due to side effects.

Regarding pharmaceuticals, you'll see in one of the links that we pay a lot more for some drugs (and medical devices) in the US than other countries.  The game is rigged.


----------



## GearMe (Dec 23, 2018)

...


----------



## Davesrose

Phronesis said:


> Agreed, the homeopathic theoretical framework doesn't seem to make any sense.  As far as empirical evidence, there's some for it and a lot against it, and I think it's best not to paint with a broad brush.  I suspect that cases where homeopathy works - if it works at all - will be more the exception than the rule.  But of course regular medicines don't work for everyone either, and sometimes they can be detrimental to health also due to side effects.
> 
> Regarding pharmaceuticals, you'll see in one of the think that we pay a lot more for some drugs (and medical devices) in the US than other countries.  The game is rigged.



Medicines are regulated, though, and have gone through numerous studies.  They come with a long list of possible side effects.  Alternative medicines aren't subjected to rigorous tests.  And when it comes to costs, again, I mentioned debates about universal healthcare/more regulation/having more preventative medicine.  IMO, it more has to do with insurance and for profit healthcare systems.  My whole family are mainly doctors, and I can assure you that general physicians make less then specialized medicine: and there's now a lot of paperwork with insurance.


----------



## Phronesis

Davesrose said:


> Medicines are regulated, though, and have gone through numerous studies.  They come with a long list of possible side effects.  Alternative medicines aren't subjected to rigorous tests.  And when it comes to costs, again, I mentioned debates about universal healthcare/more regulation/having more preventative medicine.  IMO, it more has to do with insurance and for profit healthcare systems.  My whole family are mainly doctors, and I can assure you that general physicians make less then specialized medicine: and there's now a lot of paperwork with insurance.



Alternative medicines are usually natural compounds which can't be patented, so no one will invest the large expense need to go through the large clinical trials needed for FDA approval.  But increasingly, smaller clinical trials are being done for some alternative medicines, which demonstrate that they can generally be effective and safe. 

I know a lot of docs also, and am familiar with the issues with compensation, insurance, etc. (when I contemplated a career change to medicine many years ago, nearly every doc I talked with advised not to do it, that I'd be better off staying where I am in engineering).  But my daughter has an interest in going into medicine, and I don't discourage her from doing so.


----------



## Davesrose

Phronesis said:


> Alternative medicines are usually natural compounds which can't be patented, so no one will invest the large expense need to go through the large clinical trials needed for FDA approval.  But increasingly, smaller clinical trials are being done for some alternative medicines, which demonstrate that they can generally be effective and safe.



Now that's being too broad.  Alternative medicine includes acupuncture; aromatherapy; chiropractic; homeopathy; massage; meditation and relaxation therapies; naturopathy; osteopathy; reflexology, traditional Chinese medicine; and the use of vitamin supplements (so you can see how many categories also includes "medicines" that are often claimed to be cures).  There are way more anecdotes of people getting toxicity desperately trying to find cures with alternative medicine, then any study that has shown conclusive positive outcome from an alternative medicine alone.


----------



## Phronesis

Davesrose said:


> Now that's being too broad.  Alternative medicine includes acupuncture; aromatherapy; chiropractic; homeopathy; massage; meditation and relaxation therapies; naturopathy; osteopathy; reflexology, traditional Chinese medicine; and the use of vitamin supplements (so you can see how many categories also includes "medicines" that are often claimed to be cures).  There are way more anecdotes of people getting toxicity desperately trying to find cures with alternative medicine, then any study that has shown conclusive positive outcome from an alternative medicine alone.



Yes, I was referring specifically to supplements and herbs. You would need a comprehensive study to show that they’re net detrimental, and my sense is that they’re net beneficial, but we shouldn’t generalize too much about this stuff.


----------



## KeithEmo

2) 

I was being SARCASTIC. You're the one who said "since the students couldn't hear anything above 18 kHz then it didn't matter inf it was there or not. The reality is the opposite. Whether we BELIEVE they can hear above 18 kHz, or whether in fact they can, ARE BOTH IRRELEVANT. 

All that matters is this:
- IF we want to test whether SACDs sound different then CDs then we must use ACCURATE TEST SAMPLES
- this means that our test samples MUST INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT MAKES THEM MEASURABLY DIFFERENT
- we known that one of the measurable differences is the fact that CDs lack ultrasonic content present in SACDs
- therefore our test samples MUST contain that ultrasonic content
- we cannot "trust" it to be there; we MUST confirm and document its presence

"My claim", and a verifiable fact, is that frequency response above 22 kHz is ONE OF THE MEASURABLE AND VERIFIABLE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SACD AND CD MEDIUM. There may well be other differences as well... but, if you wish to test the audibility of the overall difference, then you cannot omit any pieces.

3a)

Correct on point 1 - because "competent system" means precisely nothing in technical terms.
Neither does "world's greatest" nor "top 100" nor "Grammy Award winning".
By definition "a commercial SACD recording studio" is "a place that records SACDs as a business".
Neither your opinion, my opinion, nor "the industry's opinion" of "how good their equipment is" counts for anything.
Those are simply OPINIONS... and not test results nor facts.

(I don't recall anyone saying that we wished to limit our results, and any claims arising from them, to "what consumers would be able to hear on a competent consumer audio system".)

Each test has certain specific technical requirements.
A major requirement of producing valid results is confirming that the equipment you use meets the requirements.
Therefore, when we run a test, WE TEST THE EQUIPMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ADEQUATE TO OUR NEEDS.
And, yes, most scientific test equipment can be calibrated - and calibration certificates are OFTEN included.
(The B&K microphone I recommended earlier comes with factory calibration - and a certificate.
And, if you want full assured accuracy, you peridoically send it out to be tested and re-calibrated.)
However, if we want our results to be believed, we should test it ourselves anyway, and document the results.

If I'm testing whether people can hear content extending to 30 kHz...
Then my test samples must contain harmonics extending to 30 kHz...
And my test equipment must be able to deliver those frequencies TO THE EARS of our test subjects...
If we don't meet those requirements than the test is simply invalid.
And, if we fail to document that we've NET those requirements, our results will have no credibility.

As Meyers and Moran noted, apparently many SACDs are in fact mastered rather poorly. From their comments, it's clear that, regardless of "what an SACD recording studio should be able to do", many or most of their SACD samples were in fact poor examples of the medium for purposes of the test. (It should be noted that we are trying to confirm that "inserting a CD quality signal loop" will fail to audibly degrade THE BEST POSSIBLE QUALITY SACD, and not merely that it will fail to degrade the sound quality of a poor quality SACD, or one that was produced from a CD to begin with.)

Specifically, in any situation where "exactly what you're testing for" is the slightest bit ambiguous...
It is especially important to provide accurate and detailed data and samples.

For example:
PERHAPS, rather than frequency response, there is an audible difference due to interchannel phase shift.
And we already know that humans can detect those, under some circumstances, as low as 10 microseconds.
So we'd better make sure we can reproduce those accurately if they exist...
If those differences are in fact present, and we fail to reproduce them accurately, then our test will "miss" then.
Even worse... if those differences are there, we reproduce them accurately, and people do hear them....
But we fail to document them adequately - then we'll never be able to figure out the correlation later during analysis.

QUOTE="gregorio, post: 14674057, member: 69811"]2. Just so we're clear here: You're saying that "_they should have simply packed up and gone home_" because the only audible difference between SACD and CD occurs above 22kHz? Is that your claim?

3. A commercial SACD mastering facility is by definition a reference system and therefore certainly qualifies as "a competent system". In fact, it's doubtful that ANY consumers own systems that are more "competent". The same is broadly true of the other systems used, which in combination makes the likelihood that consumers/audiophiles will have systems more competent/capable and revealing of the differences extremely unlikely. Hence their claim: "*There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.*"
3a. There is no "specific, certified and tested, FR that guarantees a "competent system"", either in the professional recording community or in the scientific community. Therefore, according to you, ALL audibility tests are ALWAYS invalid and can never be scientific. Is this really what you're claiming and if so, why have you cited scientific audibility studies if you knew them to be invalid?
3b. In a sense that's true but of course all commercial mastering facilities are very carefully constructed, measured and adjusted to meet that consensus of "subjective opinion" as indeed are scientific listening laboratories.
3c. It's not just "what I believe a SACD mastering facility should be able to do", it's what the industry believes, the industry that creates ALL the SACDs that audiophiles are listening to and audiophile manufacturers are trying to reproduce. Again though, it's a double standard, you "don't especially care" what I, the industry or science believes but we should "especially care" about what you believe!
3d. Yes of course, your scientific experiments are "real scientific experiments" but no one else's are. Remind me, what "real scientific experiments" have you done in this regard?
3e. Firstly, we here do not have to make you "happy to agree", the facts do not depend on your personal happiness to agree with them and this is NOT the "What KeithEmo is Happy to Agree With" forum. Secondly, again there is no "certified calibration certificates", neither in the recording industry nor the scientific community. So you've invented a requirement that cannot be met, apparently to justify ignoring the evidence, even though you've already admitted it is "reasonably compelling evidence"? Thirdly,* it is clearly an untruth* that "until then it's just your [my] opinion", at the very least it's also the opinion of those who own and operate the mastering facility, the university listening lab, the audiophile system used in tests, the authors of the paper and those who peer reviewed it.

5. Indeed you don't ... but don't let that stop you from making up nonsense about it! In actual fact the university I taught at was a world leader in some scientific fields but this is all typical, childish audiophile nonsense: My ears are better than yours, my gear is better than yours, my university is better than yours and my dad is bigger than yours. If you've done "real scientific experiments" and "we were required to document our procesures and our results in detail", then show them to us, provide that "supported and properly controlled" evidence to counter the claims of Meyer and Moran and give us something (ANYTHING) to balance the BURDEN OF PROOF!!!

1. And again, that is a self-contradictory, double standard. Why don't/won't you apply that same rationale/logic in this case?



1. To be honest, that's true of just about all commercial music recordings. "Incredibly difficult" is a relative term though, a simple traditional rock band is comprised ENTIRELY of disparate elements and therefore also requires great technical expertise and artistic judgement. But, with 50 or so years of recording history and experience to draw on and that in practice it's considered relatively routine, this "incredibly difficult" feat is effectively a fairly basic expectation today. However, it comes as a considerable shock to most music engineering students that even after 3 years of full-time study they can only barely meet this fairly basic expectation. This particular sub/cross genre is even more difficult, for several reasons: Firstly, it can/should require cross disciple skills. Most music engineers specialise in either classical OR pop/rock (not commonly both) and often specialise in specific sub genres, so finding the required skill set would be "difficult". Secondly, it's not so much the fact that the elements are disparate which is the problem (as dealing with disparate elements is routine), it's the fact that there are so many of them. Trying to cram so much into a stereo sound-field is just asking for trouble (it would be an ideal candidate for a surround production IMHO though). However, that's less of a problem in this particular cross-genre case because the metal genre is largely defined by heavy compression and extreme amounts of distortion in the first place.

2. To be honest, it would be quite a poor case study. In practice it's difficult enough to work out "everything that goes into making" even most 70's/80's pop/rock, without significant inside info/knowledge. Even something like "Bohemian Rhapsody" (which could also be described as cross-genre, operatic/rock) is extremely difficult to work out in detail, even though the basic instrumentation is very simple. If you're looking for case studies, I'd advise you start with something other than this sub/cross genre.

G[/QUOTE]


----------



## KeithEmo

It's a complicated subject.

As far as I know, it has been shown that many herbal remedies do in fact help, and many medicines have been developed from them. However, it has also be proven that many "folk remedies" are totally useless, while some are even harmful or dangerous. I recall reading recently in a medical magazine in my doctor's office about how several popular "natural oils", generally believed to be beneficial or harmless, can actually cause serious medical problems to some individuals, or when used in certain quantities.

In the case of "homeopathic remedies", the major issue of discussion seems to be of whether the THEORY they claim is valid, and so both explains how some of these remedies work, and suggests that others will... or whether the theory is invalid, and the fact that certain ones work is in fact simply due to random chance, or a combination of chance and placebo effect. For example, there seems to be no support for the their idea about "extreme dilutions", but a few "homeopathic herbal remedies" probably do work. 

It should be noted that there are other traditional ideas which have so far been found to have no merit. For example, in mediaeval times, there was theory about resemblance and similarity.... This was applied to many "magical things", including alchemy, folk medicine, and plain old magic spells. The idea was that "things affect things they resemble"... but interpreted in divers ways.

So, for example:
- powdered rhino horn can make you virile because rhinos are big virile animals
- mandragora root is a powerful medicine because it resembles a human body in shape
- saffron (which is yellow) can treat jaundice (whcih turns your skin yellow)
- a VooDoo doll can force you to do things because it looks like you (and may contain parts like your nail cliipings)



Phronesis said:


> Yes, I was referring specifically to supplements and herbs. You would need a comprehensive study to show that they’re net detrimental, and my sense is that they’re net beneficial, but we shouldn’t generalize too much about this stuff.


----------



## Davesrose

Phronesis said:


> Yes, I was referring specifically to supplements and herbs. You would need a comprehensive study to show that they’re net detrimental, and my sense is that they’re net beneficial, but we shouldn’t generalize too much about this stuff.



It would be hard to isolate any positively effective alternative drug/supplement vs all the negative ones.  I already brought up B17: many have been selling it as a cancer cure, when it can contain cyanide.  I recently became aware of a complete loon, Jillian Mai Thi Epperly, who preys on the sick by trying to sell a protocol of drinking cabbage juice with heavy doses of sodium (It's called Jilly Juice).  She was on Dr Phil, and showed she has no medical background.  She claims her protocol cures everything because she's riding the body of _Candida_ fungus (and claims that Candida is the root of all illnesses: she even claims homosexuality is an illness).  When Dr Phil asked what study she's done for her claim that Jilly Juice can even regrow limbs, her response was "I have all my limbs".  Because her followers are exposing themselves to sodium toxicity, they get severe diarrhea and high blood pressure.  Unfortunately, a lot of people who are preyed upon are in desperate situations.  I've known a few people who decided to forego traditional medicine and try naturopath for curing their cancer.


----------



## bigshot

Wouldn't it be fun to test our equipment and ability to hear and determine where our thresholds of audibility lie?


----------



## KeithEmo

The term "theory", even in its proper scientific context, has a wide variety in it meaning.

Some theories, like the "theory of evolution", have lots of supporting evidence, and are widely believed to be true, or more accurately "to describe a model that represents the reality quite well". However, other theories are wildly conjectural, and seem quite unlikely to be true, and many have in fact been found not to be true.

The main issue, as I see it, is that many NON-SCIENTISTS insist on making some sort of differentiation between theories and facts - with the idea that "theories are less certain" - which is untrue. And, in fact, many use it in a diminutive sense - as "only a theory". The reality is that virtually everything we think we know is teory - but some theories are much better supported by evidence, and have been found to more consistently describe reality, than others.

The actual truth is that MOST of what we believe we know is a theory at one level or another.

No human being has ever left our solar system... therefore EVERYTHING we "know" about astronomy is "just a theory". Everything we see outside our solar system could really be a really cool moving painting on the inside of a giant glass ball. I doubt it, and I'm quite certain that most of the theories we have about whats going on out there will turn out to be reasonably close to the reality, but for now it is all "just theories".



Phronesis said:


> Agreed that we should use the term "theory" only in its scientific sense around here, unless specified otherwise.
> 
> I don't hold homeopathy being developed in the 18th century against it, there are plenty of herbal things which work that go back many centuries.  For example, go on pubmed and do a search on clinical trials for ashwagandha.  In the past decade, clinical trials have demonstrated benefits which were known without clinical trials for centuries.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree.... and especially anything based on "extreme dilutions" and "water remembering chemicsls that it once contained but no longer does".

I am of two minds about regulation:
On one hand, here in the USA, we have the FDA, who "protects us from snake oil".
On the other hand, there have been cases where the red tape associated with the FDA has prevented or delayed legitimate and useful products from coming to market.
They also impose their views of chemical quality on us (they will not allow US citizens to purchase drugs from Canada based on the claim that "they're not sure the quality is the same" - rather than allowing people to make their own choice.)
Thres is the simple question of whether people should be "protected from the dangers of making their own decisions and possibly making stupid mistakes" or not.

However, it seems foolish to expect insurance companies to pay for things that may not be effective, and to raise all our premiums to cover the cost of doing so.
(Perhaps coverage of "homeopathic and other unapproved remedies" should be obtional - and only financed by those who wish to purchase it.)



Davesrose said:


> I haven't seen much in the way of empirical evidence that medication directly billed as homeopathic being effective.  At least "folk medicine" with herbs uses real substances (and chemicals modern medicine might find efficacy with).  The theories of homeopathy (using "states" and "like cures") are completely irrelevant to modern medicine.  It would be one thing if all of alternative medicine was just distilled water or sugar pills.  But it's unregulated and some "medicines" being sold are even detrimental to your health (case in point hucksters selling B17 as a cancer cure).
> 
> You can't have a direct link with pharmaceutical costs and life expectancy or standard of life (your links also at least mention there are numerous factors).  Besides the debate for universal healthcare vs regulated healtchare, I think one issue with the US system is more money is spent end of life instead of preventative medicine.


----------



## KeithEmo

There is a lot of quackery going on.... and people who are dying and have exhausted all the known legitimate options are especially likely to be desperate.
(Could we draw a parallel to audiophiles who are desperate to improve their systems - and feel nearly as strongly about the need to do so?)

As for cancer cures containing cyanide...
There is something deeper going on there...

Quite a long time ago there was a cancer cure called Leatrile which was a very popular subject of the conspiracy buffs.
Leatrile was very thoroughly outlawed in the USA after it was found to produce no useful benefits AND to be extremely toxic.
Fans claimed that "Leatrile would cure cancer but the government, or the big pharma companies, had conspired to suppress it".
Part of how it "worked" was that the chemicals it contained broke down in the human body to release cyanide.

Note that, by itself, the presence of cyanide is not necessarily bad, peach pits and apple seeds contain cyanide, and some chemicals may be poison in certain qualtities, but beneficial in others.
Therefore, the presence of cyanide in small quantities by itself doesn't mean much.

However, the "deeper aspect" I alluded to was this:
After Leatrile was banned, many quacks attempted to get around the ban by devising "other formulations that did pretty much the same thing but avoided the banned formulation".
So, the presence of cyanide in a quack cancer cure, beyond being unlikely to be beneficial, is often taken to suggest that "it's yet another Leatrile knockoff".

You will find similar, but probably harmless, cures based on the idea that "inflammation" causes most illnesses... and can be cured by drinking prickly pear cactus juice...
And, a few years ago, the big obsession was "antioxidants"...



Davesrose said:


> It would be hard to isolate any positively effective alternative drug/supplement vs all the negative ones.  I already brought up B17: many have been selling it as a cancer cure, when it can contain cyanide.  I recently became aware of a complete loon, Jillian Mai Thi Epperly, who preys on the sick by trying to sell a protocol of drinking cabbage juice with heavy doses of sodium (It's called Jilly Juice).  She was on Dr Phil, and showed she has no medical background.  She claims her protocol cures everything because she's riding the body of _Candida_ fungus (and claims that Candida is the root of all illnesses: she even claims homosexuality is an illness).  When Dr Phil asked what study she's done for her claim that Jilly Juice can even regrow limbs, her response was "I have all my limbs".  Because her followers are exposing themselves to sodium toxicity, they get severe diarrhea and high blood pressure.  Unfortunately, a lot of people who are preyed upon are in desperate situations.  I've known a few people who decided to forego traditional medicine and try naturopath for curing their cancer.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Wouldn't it be fun to test our equipment and ability to hear and determine where our thresholds of audibility lie?


The Big Pharma argument is more civil than anything I've seen in here for some time lol


----------



## Phronesis

Davesrose said:


> It would be hard to isolate any positively effective alternative drug/supplement vs all the negative ones.  I already brought up B17: many have been selling it as a cancer cure, when it can contain cyanide.  I recently became aware of a complete loon, Jillian Mai Thi Epperly, who preys on the sick by trying to sell a protocol of drinking cabbage juice with heavy doses of sodium (It's called Jilly Juice).  She was on Dr Phil, and showed she has no medical background.  She claims her protocol cures everything because she's riding the body of _Candida_ fungus (and claims that Candida is the root of all illnesses: she even claims homosexuality is an illness).  When Dr Phil asked what study she's done for her claim that Jilly Juice can even regrow limbs, her response was "I have all my limbs".  Because her followers are exposing themselves to sodium toxicity, they get severe diarrhea and high blood pressure.  Unfortunately, a lot of people who are preyed upon are in desperate situations.  I've known a few people who decided to forego traditional medicine and try naturopath for curing their cancer.



I think it's a complex and delicate issue, since health and lives are at stake.  The bottom line, IMO, is than when conventional medicine can't provide effective treatment or has too many side effects (e.g., many chemotherapies for many types of cancers, especially late stage), people will consider other options.  Some of those options will be net beneficial, and some net detrimental, and we need research to figure that out.  Since many alternative treatments can't be patented, one option is for the government to fund the research.  But of course the pharmaceutical companies will do what they can to prevent competition which cuts into their profits.


----------



## Killcomic (Dec 23, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Wouldn't it be fun to test our equipment and ability to hear and determine where our thresholds of audibility lie?


Talking about fun testing, I was on Youtube the other day and there was a 20Hz to 20kHz test tone. I had no issues hearing in the low 20Hz but I topped out at about 17kHz.
And before you ask, I was using my ATH-M40x to listen.
I’d be surprised if many people in these forums could hear far beyond that.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> The term "theory", even in its proper scientific context, has a wide variety in it meaning.
> 
> Some theories, like the "theory of evolution", have lots of supporting evidence, and are widely believed to be true, or more accurately "to describe a model that represents the reality quite well". However, other theories are wildly conjectural, and seem quite unlikely to be true, and many have in fact been found not to be true.
> 
> ...


I don't think theory has a wide variety of meanings.
we have ideas and questions, we formulate hypotheses and test them to see which ones should be rejected and which ones seem to be relevant ideas. after a while when we come up with a way to predict accurately and consistently what happens in the objective world based on conditions, what we get is a law.
now if we come up with a model of why something happens that aligns with what we know and all the results of experiments, then we have a theory. there is nothing saying that a theory is complete and definitive, because it's a proposed model to explain the world. if new data helps improve on the old model or leads to a new theory, there is no reason not to do it. but a theory found to be untrue is not a theory. the moment something is disproved, it reverts back to no better than a failed hypothesis. it just took us longer than usual to disprove it.


----------



## AKGForever (Dec 23, 2018)

Killcomic said:


> Talking about fun testing, I was on Youtube the other day and there was a 20Hz to 20kHz test tone. I had no issues hearing in the low 20Hz but I topped out at about 17kHz.
> And before you ask, I was using my ATH-M40x to listen.
> I’d be surprised if many people in these forums could hear far beyond that.




I would also recommend an age be added for thoroughness

At age 55, I can hear 13 kHz but not 14khz, which is about normal. On the low end anything below 40 hz is sporadic.  I also do notice a 4K notch, which is also not unusual for my age. Testing with AKG K533, Bose Triports and Bose AE2, all give the same results.


----------



## Killcomic

AKGForever said:


> I would also recommend an age be added for thoroughness
> 
> At age 55, I can hear 13 kHz but not 14khz, which is about normal.  I also do notice a 4K notch, which is also not unusual for my age.


Good point! I’m 43, and although my range is pretty good, I do have some blind spots around 6-7khz on my left ear and 15.5khz - 17khz.


----------



## bigshot

Ears have blind spots just like eyes do


----------



## Killcomic

bigshot said:


> Ears have blind spots just like eyes do


After 13 insane years of working in call centres, it’s no surprise.
Thankfully I have a rather cushy admin job now that allows me to listen to music while working, which is the reason why I ended up in these forums.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Killcomic said:


> Talking about fun testing, I was on Youtube the other day and there was a 20Hz to 20kHz test tone. I had no issues hearing in the low 20Hz but I topped out at about 17kHz.
> And before you ask, I was using my ATH-M40x to listen.
> I’d be surprised if many people in these forums could hear far beyond that.



17kHz on YouTube?

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/page-750#post-14637498


----------



## Killcomic

sonitus mirus said:


> 17kHz on YouTube?
> 
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/page-750#post-14637498


Possible residual noise then?


----------



## KeithEmo

You're probably right... 
With most of us, our high frequency limit starts at around 20 kHz and reduces as we get older.

I might suggest, however, that you look for a similar test that can be done using files you download.
(You will find many websites that offer downloadable files or even an interactive signal generator.)

There have been serious doubts as to whether YouTube videos will actually deliver response to 20 kHz.
Apparently, when analyzed , many YouTube videos have been found to have a response that cuts off far lower.
It is also a known fact that the lossy compression used on some YouTube videos doesn't have response to 20 khz.
I've also seen many claims that, historically, YouTube has limited audio quality in the past.
(So what you get may depend on when a video was uploaded.)

All this suggests that you will get more trustworthy results if you use a file you can play yourself and can look at in the audio editor of your choice - just to confirm it actually contains all the frequencies it should.



Killcomic said:


> Talking about fun testing, I was on Youtube the other day and there was a 20Hz to 20kHz test tone. I had no issues hearing in the low 20Hz but I topped out at about 17kHz.
> And before you ask, I was using my ATH-M40x to listen.
> I’d be surprised if many people in these forums could hear far beyond that.


----------



## KeithEmo

I should also point out something else.

Scientists use the word "law" as a sort of shorthand for "something we've agreed to assume is true" - which is somewhat different than what many non-scientists think it means.
In science, "laws" are often updated when new data becomes available, and this is considered to be perfectly acceptable.
Relativity applies in every situation we know of where motion is involved - whereas we now know that "Newtons laws of motion" are incomplete.
(They produce reasonably accurate results at low speeds - but become far less accurate as you consider speeds even a small fraction of the speed of light.)
However, because Newton's laws produce reasonably accurate results in many situations, and are far easier to calculate, we still use them where they fit our needs.
A "scientific law" is NOT "a theory that we now know to be 100% true"; it is simply a theory that we have AGREED TO TREAT AS IF TRUE UNTIL IT IS CONTRADICTED.

The various "laws of Newtonian motion" are perfectly adequate for working out the details of a cross country trip or a car accident.
And they work pretty well for calculating results for even terrestrial jet planes and missiles.
Yet they would be totally inadequate for calculating the trajectory of a high-speed trip across the solar system - and would yield incorrect answers.
For that, if you want accurate answers, you have to resort to the much more complex math associated with relativity.

It should also be pointed out that many theories (and laws) are still recognized as being incomplete - or in dispute.
For example, "the theory of evolution" is widely agreed to be true - and will likely never be discarded.
However, some of the details of how it works are still disputed (punctuated evolution vs gradualism), and there are still afew unknowns here and there.

It should also be pointed out that a theory can exist in several different states....
- evidence can be found to support it
- evidence can be found to contradict it
- it can simply be beyond our abilities or level of interest to test it

I should also point out that the first two conditions often coexist - where evidence exists which both supports and contradicts a given theory.
Sometimes the outcome is that, after more testing, some of the evidence is discarded as being flawed.
And, sometimes, the theory itself is found to require adjustment.

Most of us here should remember from high-school science class how "light can be modelled both as a wave and as a particle".
And there are many situations where either model will get you to the correct answer.
Yet there are also obvious times at which one or the other is clearly wrong.
(The reality is that light is neither a wave nor a particle; light is simply what it is. We're simply discussing two models we humans like to use as a simple way of thinking about light.)



castleofargh said:


> I don't think theory has a wide variety of meanings.
> we have ideas and questions, we formulate hypotheses and test them to see which ones should be rejected and which ones seem to be relevant ideas. after a while when we come up with a way to predict accurately and consistently what happens in the objective world based on conditions, what we get is a law.
> now if we come up with a model of why something happens that aligns with what we know and all the results of experiments, then we have a theory. there is nothing saying that a theory is complete and definitive, because it's a proposed model to explain the world. if new data helps improve on the old model or leads to a new theory, there is no reason not to do it. but a theory found to be untrue is not a theory. the moment something is disproved, it reverts back to no better than a failed hypothesis. it just took us longer than usual to disprove it.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Killcomic said:


> Possible residual noise then?



There is not a lot separating 15kHz from 17kHz with regards to human hearing, as pitch is perceived logarithmically in relation to frequency.  If put into reference with music scales, it would only span a couple of keys on a piano, provided the keys extended an additional 23 keys beyond C8.




 [

Try a tone generator using a tool like Audacity and see if the headphones behave similarly.  There are simply too many factors to know for certain why any sound is present beyond 15kHz on YouTube videos.  What you are hearing may actually be 17kHz, but from all of the information I have found, that sound is most likely not coming from the YouTube content that was playing.


----------



## KeithEmo

It's also worth noting that, at very high frequencies, it can be difficult to tell whether you're really hearing something or not.
Therefore, if listening to a continuous sweep, or steps in order, it's easy to be misled as to at what point you can actually no longer hear anything.

Unfortunately, there are also several limitations and issues with using separate files.
Most audio players emit at least a small tick when they start playing a file - which provides a cue for when you might expect to hear something.
Likewise, the audio generators in many editors are not perfectly clean, and so may add a small tick between sample frequencies they generate.
These, again, may provide a clearly audible hint when the tone can be expected to start.

There is a relatively easy way to compensate for this issue with a little planning.
Create a series of test files, each containing five seconds of a single frequency, with the frequency SPOKEN AUDIBLY after the tone.
Also create several files, using the same editor, containing five seconds of SILENCE, with that called out at the end of the file.
Now play the files, one after the other, in random order.
Any ticks or other "starting noises" present on the tracks with tones will also be present on the silence tracks.
(By including the same cues on both tracks with tones, and tracks with silence, they no longer provide hinsts about when we should expect to hear tones.)



sonitus mirus said:


> There is not a lot separating 15kHz from 17kHz with regards to human hearing, as pitch is perceived logarithmically in relation to frequency.  If put into reference with music scales, it would only span a couple of keys on a piano, provided the keys extended an additional 23 keys beyond C8.
> 
> Try a tone generator using a tool like Audacity and see if the headphones behave similarly.  There are simply too many factors to know for certain why any sound is present beyond 15kHz on YouTube videos.  What you are hearing may actually be 17kHz, but from all of the information I have found, that sound is most likely not coming from the YouTube content that was playing.


----------



## castleofargh (Dec 24, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> 17kHz on YouTube?
> 
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/page-750#post-14637498


just in case, the video linked didn't give me the upper range signal, but some do. just play a random music video and chances are you'll get typical audio range spectrum.
this one sweep works for me:



or those test tones https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzFvCAfIq7a2SIBfDhpCytfJ4RHVb_KLY
the traces in red are from playing 10 12 14 16 18 20khz single tones vids(firefox, no flash player. dunno if that matters or not but at least you know)

16khz is just fine, 18khz is the one at lower amplitude and 20khz was a no show.




to try older stuff, I went to get my favorite video clip in the universe, and it cuts off around 15khz, which is really sad because it audibly ruins an otherwise perfect song and perfect video.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> From their comments, it's clear that, regardless of "what an SACD recording studio should be able to do", many or most of their SACD samples were in fact poor examples of the medium for purposes of the test.



No, they were in fact particularly good examples for the purposes of the test. The flaw in your reasoning, AS ALREADY STATED, is that you cannot make-up YOUR own "purposes of the test" and then cry foul because the test does not meet YOUR purposes. All tests have a scope and within the scope of this particular test, the test material used was entirely appropriate. If you've studied testing as you claim, how do you not know this? Maybe you do know but you're just misrepresenting it for some reason or maybe you were being "sarcastic" again?



KeithEmo said:


> PERHAPS, rather than frequency response, there is an audible difference due to interchannel phase shift.
> And we already know that humans can detect those, under some circumstances, as low as 10 microseconds.



Ah yes, I was waiting for another of your "what if something exists", that doesn't actually exist! As inter-channel phase shift does not exist with 16/44.1 (or SACD), it's irrelevant whether humans can detect it down to 10 micro-secs, 10 nano-secs or 10 weeks. Again, this thread is titled "testing audiophile myths and claims", pretty much the exact opposite of what you're doing here, which is just repeating an audiophile myth without testing! Your "PERHAPS" has no factual, logical or scientific basis and if that's not bad enough, you presume to advise everyone else on applying logic and how to define "Pure Science". Maybe you were just being "sarcastic" again?

Round and round and round we go!!!

G


----------



## KeithEmo (Dec 24, 2018)

You're quite right. AS LONG AS WE AGREE THAT, SINCE MEYERS AND MORAN ONLY USED A FEW SPECIFIC SACDS, AND ONLY USED A FEW SPECIFIC STEREO SYSTEMS, AND FAILED TO TEST OR DOCUMENT THE PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF EITHER, WE CANNOT REASONABLY ASSUME THAT THEIR RESULTS APPLY TO OTHER STEREO SYSTEMS OR OTHER SACDs, then we are in perfect agreement. The test samples, and the choice of test systems, were perfectly appropriate for what they were hoping to prove. (They were hoping to prove that a sample of test subjects could determine no difference using certain specific "audiophile SACDs" and certain specific stereo equipment.)

Since they used a few specific SACDs, and a few specific stereo systems, and failed to document the details of either, their results apply to the samples and equipment they used, but we have no way to determine how their results might compare to our own samples and equipment, or to generalize those results to any other equipment. Therefore, any claim or attempt to apply it to "all CDs", or "all SACDs", or "all stereo systems" is impossible. The error lies on the part of anyone attempting to use their results to support a general claim that "adding the CD quality signal loop would be inaudible in other circumstances, with other test samples, or with other listening systems". (WIthout doucmentation and measurements, we simply have no way to know how the SACDs and equipment they used compare to anything else, or whether they are "representative" of their respective classes in general.)

Also note that, as usual, you didn't read what I wrote (or you have some difficulty with grammar). I DID NOT SAY THAT AN INTER-CHANNEL PHASE DIFFERENCE EXISTS WITH THE CD RECORDING PROCESS IN GENERAL. In fact, I agree with you that it does not. However, it's not impossible that that such a difference might be introduced by a simple flaw in their test equipment, or by a poorly written sample rate converter, or even by some weird error in the specific SACDs they chose to use. I merely pointed out that, IF such an issue existed, for whatever reason, it would be audible, BUT, SINCE THEY DIDN'T ADEQUATELY TEST THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR TEST SETUP AND EQUIPMENT, we would have no way of detecting it later when we attemnpted to analyze the results.(That makes it "an example of how the limitations of their test might introduce an error" - no more and no less.)

[I really am through responding here.... It seems clear that, rather than read and respond to what I actually write, you simply pick out a few key words, figure out some way you imagine you can prove they're wrong, and go from there. We aren't "discussing" anything... we are simply talking PAST each other.... which is a total waste of my time, and everyone else's.]



gregorio said:


> No, they were in fact particularly good examples for the purposes of the test. The flaw in your reasoning, AS ALREADY STATED, is that you cannot make-up YOUR own "purposes of the test" and then cry foul because the test does not meet YOUR purposes. All tests have a scope and within the scope of this particular test, the test material used was entirely appropriate. If you've studied testing as you claim, how do you not know this? Maybe you do know but you're just misrepresenting it for some reason or maybe you were being "sarcastic" again?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver (Dec 24, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> You're quite right. AS LONG AS WE AGREE THAT, SINCE MEYERS AND MORAN ONLY USED A FEW SPECIFIC SACDS, AND ONLY USED A FEW SPECIFIC STEREO SYSTEMS, AND FAILED TO TEST OR DOCUMENT THE PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF EITHER, WE CANNOT REASONABLY ASSUME THAT THEIR RESULTS APPLY TO OTHER STEREO SYSTEMS OR OTHER SACDs, then we are in perfect agreement. The test samples, and the choice of test systems, were perfectly appropriate for what they were hoping to prove. (They were hoping to prove that a sample of test subjects could determine no difference using certain specific "audiophile SACDs" and certain specific stereo equipment.)
> 
> Since they used a few specific SACDs, and a few specific stereo systems, and failed to document the details of either, their results apply to the samples and equipment they used, but we have no way to determine how their results might compare to our own samples and equipment, or to generalize those results to any other equipment. Therefore, any claim or attempt to apply it to "all CDs", or "all SACDs", or "all stereo systems" is impossible. The error lies on the part of anyone attempting to use their results to support a general claim that "adding the CD quality signal loop would be inaudible in other circumstances, with other test samples, or with other listening systems". (WIthout doucmentation and measurements, we simply have no way to know how the SACDs and equipment they used compare to anything else, or whether they are "representative" of their respective classes in general.)
> 
> ...



Meyers and Moran test is flawed for all the facts cited.  It "proves" only what they wanted to prove.

But I DID SAY INTER-CHANNEL PHASE DIFFERENCE CAN EXIST WITH THE CD (PCM) RECORDING PROCESS IN GENERAL. Period.

And I stand by this claim and I will, beyond any shadow of a doubt, present more than enough solid evidence that it can happen - with completely documented path, hardware and software that DOES fail in this regard.

If it can fail in only one example I have unfortunately had the "privilege" to discover, that - by no means - means that there are no other soft/hardware combinations vulnerable to the same error when working in PCM mode.

DSD is INHERENTLY free from inter-channel phase difference happening - and if this was its only advantage over PCM, it would still be the decisive one.

And, YES, that is AUDIBLE. I will specify the exact "chain of events leading to disaster" that anyone of you can put together on your computer and test with your own ears using HEADPHONES.

And that should be more than proof enough human beings ARE sensitive for inter-channel difference of below 20 micro seconds .

Let alone FAR greater timing error any multi miking introduces per default ...


----------



## analogsurviver (Dec 24, 2018)

In the spirit of time, the ultimate - for me, but not me alone -  Christmas audiophile album :


This upload has all the tracklisting and credits in the comments. Unfortunately, ALL the various versions of the same upload now available on YT made from the original pressing https://www.discogs.com/Oscars-Motettkör-Torsten-Nilsson-Marianne-Mellnäs-Alf-Linder-Cantate-Domino/master/384453 have the last five or so minutes cut off - I expect that is because of the last song on the album, White Christmas by Irving Berlin - and likely copyright ingingement problems.

For the CD  lovers, Silent Night from later CD release :


And, in "glorious" 240p audio of YT ( YT is steadily reducing the quality of less played videos...), the White Christmas by Irving Berlin


Cantate Domino is available as LP, CD, SACD and HR downloads ( both DSD and PCM ) - and is a testimony to the fact that excellent recordings have been possible , as proven in this case, at least from 1976 on.

Merry Christmas to everyone - regardless of the format in which you prefer to play your music.


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> just in case, the video linked didn't give me the upper range signal, but some do.



Thank you for the correction.  I was mistaken about the 15kHz cutout on all videos.


----------



## bigshot

The specs on YouTube uploads have changed over time, and they vary according to the resolution of the video. It depends on when it was uploaded and how high a resolution the video was.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 25, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Therefore, any claim or attempt to apply it to "all CDs", or "all SACDs", or "all stereo systems" is impossible.
> [2] The error lies on the part of anyone attempting to use their results to support a general claim that "adding the CD quality signal loop would be inaudible in other circumstances, with other test samples, or with other listening systems".
> [3] Also note that, as usual, you didn't read what I wrote (or you have some difficulty with grammar).
> [4] I DID NOT SAY THAT AN INTER-CHANNEL PHASE DIFFERENCE EXISTS WITH THE CD RECORDING PROCESS IN GENERAL. In fact, I agree with you that it does not.
> ...



1. No one, NOT me and NOT the authors, have claimed it applies to "all SACDs" or "all stereo systems" and incidentally you've missed a variable: "All listeners". It is clearly impossible to test all SACDs, all stereo systems and all listeners, I've ALREADY posted the quote from Meyer and Moran explicitly stating this and I even bolded it so you wouldn't (inadvertently) miss it. The ONLY person stating that this study "claims to apply it to all CDs, SACDs and all stereo systems" is YOU. Therefore, YOU are effectively arguing with YOURSELF!!

2. No, that is NOT the error, there is no error, the test results DO "support a general claim that adding a CD loop would be inaudible in other circumstances". However that is all they do, the results of the test ONLY provide supporting evidence for the claim, NOT proof.

3. *Oh the irony!* YOU didn't read what I wrote, you didn't read (or misinterpreted, mis-assumed and misrepresented) what YOU quoted and you apparently didn't even read what YOU, yourself wrote. You quoted Mayer and Moran but then misrepresented what they actually stated and then spent pages arguing that (your misrepresentation) of their claim was erroneous. And, YOU stated that their test results represented "_reasonably compelling evidence_" but since then you've effectively been arguing that it's not valid evidence at all, because they didn't document every detail (regardless of relevance)??

4. The recording process (whether CD, SACD or anything else) ALWAYS contains an inter-channel phase difference! As two microphones (mic capsules) cannot occupy the same position in time and space, there will always be an inter-channel phase difference and it will ALWAYS be substantially more than 10 micro-secs (sometimes as much as several milli-secs). What doesn't introduce any inter-channel phase differences is the digitisation (and reconstruction) process, regardless of whether it's CD or SACD.
4a. It's not impossible, pretty much nothing is absolutely impossible but it's exceedingly unlikely. I'm not aware of any DAC chips which suffer from this error and as the analogue signal (electricity) is travelling at about a third the speed of light, cables and other equipment in the chain would have to be very seriously different in length to introduce 10 micro-secs of inter-channel delay. However, such a delay from a listener's perspective would always exist, unless they were positioned precisely between the speakers to an accuracy of greater than 3.43mm and they never move from that position.
4b. But what you "merely pointed out" was incorrect. 10 micro-secs of inter-channel delay is ONLY audible under specific conditions, conditions which did NOT exist in any of their sample SACDs (or any other commercial music SACDs). Again, your premise if false, all tests have a limited scope. They did not bolt the test subjects' heads in precisely the correct position (and neither do audiophiles or anyone else when listening to music), they did not measure or document humidity, temperature or air pressure, they did not measure or document the magnetic field strength of the Earth or gravitational waves or solar activity at their test locations, nor other variables which could "possibly" affect the signal. Not even the most rigorous of scientific tests can eliminate everything that "might possibly" affect the test, hence why they must always have a limited scope.



analogsurviver said:


> But I DID SAY INTER-CHANNEL PHASE DIFFERENCE CAN EXIST WITH THE CD (PCM) RECORDING PROCESS IN GENERAL. Period.
> And I stand by this claim and I will, beyond any shadow of a doubt, present more than enough solid evidence that it can happen ... DSD is INHERENTLY free from inter-channel phase difference happening.



DSD is inherently free from inter-channel phase differences occurring, exactly the same as CD. Please present your "solid evidence" to the contrary!



sonitus mirus said:


> Thank you for the correction. I was mistaken about the 15kHz cutout on all videos.



15kHz was the standard upper limit for analogue video and analogue TV broadcast for many decades and even carried through well into the '90's when much/most of the chain was digital. It's only really with fully digital systems and HDTV where the 15kHz cut-off was dropped. This is maybe where your confusion originated?

G


----------



## Phronesis

Since the crowd around here is a skeptical bunch that doesn't assume that price necessarily correlates with sound quality, I'm wondering, have you guys given the Sony MDR-Z1R a listen?  It's their TOTL $2300 headphone.  I tried it over the past few days and find that it sounds like crap, the tonal balance is just a mess.  I'm wondering if some people like it because they _expect_ to like it, are influenced by some favorable reviews, and haven't bothered to compare it with other headphones with some controls. A lot of people on head-fi who say they like it say they didn't like it at first, but the sound got much better after many hours of 'burn in' and/or upgrading to an expensive cable.  I boxed it up today and will be returning it tomorrow, a week before it's due to back to the shop.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> Since the crowd around here is a skeptical bunch that doesn't assume that price necessarily correlates with sound quality, I'm wondering, have you guys given the Sony MDR-Z1R a listen?  It's their TOTL $2300 headphone.  I tried it over the past few days and find that it sounds like crap, the tonal balance is just a mess.  I'm wondering if some people like it because they _expect_ to like it, are influenced by some favorable reviews, and haven't bothered to compare it with other headphones with some controls. A lot of people on head-fi who say they like it say they didn't like it at first, but the sound got much better after many hours of 'burn in' and/or upgrading to an expensive cable.  I boxed it up today and will be returning it tomorrow, a week before it's due to back to the shop.



I've always seemed to enjoy what Sony considers to be their "house" sound.  Though, I would not spend this kind of money on headphones, as headphones are merely something used for specific, rare situations in my experience.   I'll take speakers every time, the more the merrier.  Was there any type of music that sounded best with the Z1Rs?  That 70mm driver is enormous.

Speaking of too much money, I was browsing MSB's latest DACs and noticed this odd statement:





http://www.msbtechnology.com/DACS/select-features/

I can easily underestimate the importance of clean power, at least with regards to the absurd levels they seem to take it.  I believe they meant to say that the importance of a clean power supply cannot be overestimated.  

Just making fun of the fabulously wealthy to get my jabs in where I can.


----------



## Phronesis (Dec 31, 2018)

Delete


----------



## Killcomic

Just once I’d like hear someone say: “I burnt in my headphones for 48 hours and now they sound utterly rubbish”.

If there us an actual change in sound, why is it always an improvement?


----------



## dprimary

Killcomic said:


> Just once I’d like hear someone say: “I burnt in my headphones for 48 hours and now they sound utterly rubbish”.
> 
> If there us an actual change in sound, why is it always an improvement?


  I burnt my old near fields in for about 23,000 hours and they sounded rubbish when I was done.


----------



## Phronesis

Killcomic said:


> Just once I’d like hear someone say: “I burnt in my headphones for 48 hours and now they sound utterly rubbish”.
> 
> If there us an actual change in sound, why is it always an improvement?



To be fair, I should have said that it sounds like crap to me, but it’s plausible that it really does sound good to others.  But when people say they had problems with the sound initially, and the sound got much better after burn in or changes to expensive cables, I do think they’re fooling themselves.  

We talk about expectation bias with DACs and amps, but I think it’s a real issue with headphones too.


----------



## WoodyLuvr

Killcomic said:


> Just once I’d like hear someone say: “I burnt in my headphones for 48 hours and now they sound utterly rubbish”.
> 
> If there us an actual change in sound, why is it always an improvement?


When I brought home my new Audeze LCD-2s (circa 2012) I was enraptured... eight (8) hours later I was nearly in tears with agony and utter dismay. After burn-in, both driver and human head, the LCD-2s became more and more uncomfortable (too heavy, sweaty, and clampy) and they honestly did not sound much better than my B&O H6s (maybe due to their weaker, shallower bass???). I also found the imaging of the LCD-2s to be only ever-so-slightly better than the B&O H6s. I was very sad. Burn-in was surely to blame.

I gifted them away in early summer 2017 as they were just gathering dust... I must admit they were a horrible impulse buy.


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 3, 2019)

WoodyLuvr said:


> When I brought home my new Audeze LCD-2s (circa 2012) I was enraptured... eight (8) hours later I was nearly in tears with agony and utter dismay. After burn-in, both driver and human head, the LCD-2s became more and more uncomfortable (too heavy, sweaty, and clampy) and they honestly did not sound much better than my B&O H6s (maybe due to their weaker, shallower bass???). I also found the imaging of the LCD-2s to be only ever-so-slightly better than the B&O H6s. I was very sad. Burn-in was surely to blame.
> 
> I gifted them away in early summer 2017 as they were just gathering dust... I must admit they were a horrible impulse buy.



Sometimes, we can be initially impressed by a new and different sound, maybe with strong bass or highs, but over time the deviation from neutrality is perceived to be excessive and becomes annoying.  Or as we listen to more tracks with a headphone, that may reveal problems that weren’t evident with our initial test tracks.

The process of evaluating a headphone is a whole topic in itself, and I personally don’t find the process to be easy.


----------



## KeithEmo

Speaker drivers, which includes the drivers in headphones, are mechanical... and they have flexible suspension parts.
Cone speakers usually have the roll shaped edge seal, which you can see, and a flat disc shaped suspension device attached further back, near the voice coil, called a spider. 
Dome tweeters, and many headphone drivers, have a single edge roll that acts as both seal and suspension.
And, in planar tweeters and headphones, the membrane itself flexes near the edges to allow it to move forward and backward.
This mechanism acts both as a seal for air and as part of the return spring that brings the diaphragm back to its center rest position after it stops moving.
The resonant frequency of any moving mass, like that diaphragm, is determined by the moving mass, and by the strength of that spring force.
(For a given mass, the less powerful the spring, the lower the resonant frequency.)
In a speaker or headphone, the edge spring typically starts out a bit stiff, but softens a bit after being flexed back and forth for the first few hours.
Then, once it's broken in, it remains pretty much the same over the life of the product.
When you design a speaker or headphone, the design parameters you use for the driver are the ones it will have for most of its life (those are the ones on the spec sheet).
So, for the first few hours, until the suspension softens up (breaks in), the suspension spring is a little too powerful, and so the driver parameters are a bit off.
(Since the parameters are wrong for the first few hours, and correct after that, we assume that the sound after the speaker breaks in will be "right" or "what the designer intended".)

The softening process can take anywhere from an hour or two to a day or two - and affects some drivers much more than others.
(Although you can speed it up by playing test tones for a few hours it will happen by itself with normal use anyway.)

This effect can be significant with some drivers and barely noticeable with others.
It tends to be especially noticeable with ported speakers, where the cabinet tuning is specifically matched to the speaker's resonance, and a mismatch can cause noticeable shifts in bass response.
However, other drivers can also exhibit a slight, and possibly noticeable, difference in sound over the first few hours.



Killcomic said:


> Just once I’d like hear someone say: “I burnt in my headphones for 48 hours and now they sound utterly rubbish”.
> 
> If there us an actual change in sound, why is it always an improvement?


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Speaker drivers, which includes the drivers in headphones, are mechanical... and they have flexible suspension parts.
> Cone speakers usually have the roll shaped edge seal, which you can see, and a flat disc shaped suspension device attached further back, near the voice coil, called a spider.
> Dome tweeters, and many headphone drivers, have a single edge roll that acts as both seal and suspension.
> And, in planar tweeters and headphones, the membrane itself flexes near the edges to allow it to move forward and backward.
> ...




I assume you’re about to post evidence supporting the above being audible.  I’ve seen limited examples in larger drivers (woofers/subwoofers), but none for smaller drivers measured over hours or longer.  Looking forward to seeing measurements.


----------



## Phronesis

bfreedma said:


> I assume you’re about to post evidence supporting the above being audible.  I’ve seen limited examples in larger drivers (woofers/subwoofers), but none for smaller drivers measured over hours or longer.  Looking forward to seeing measurements.



To me, if some headphones need a few hours of burn in to sound their best, it doesn't make sense to me that manufacturers of expensive headphones wouldn't do the burn in themselves before boxing up the headphones, to avoid consumers and reviewers auditioning the headphones when they're sound is suboptimal due to lack of burn in.


----------



## bfreedma

Phronesis said:


> To me, if some headphones need a few hours of burn in to sound their best, it doesn't make sense to me that manufacturers of expensive headphones wouldn't do the burn in themselves before boxing up the headphones, to avoid consumers and reviewers auditioning the headphones when they're sound is suboptimal due to lack of burn in.



Exactly.  Same with speakers.  The manufacturers I’m familiar with spend enough time with the drivers/speakers in the QC process to account for whatever minimal mechanical break in may (or may not) occur.


----------



## castleofargh

I'd like to see evidence before conclusion from time to time. 
my own limited attempts at confirming audible change in headphones, left me with changes from the driver(and driver alone!!!!!!!!) that could just as well be the margin of error of my setup. but those experiments also gave me clear evidence that many things disregarded by audiophiles in casual listening "tests", do affect sound in an obvious way: pad compression, position on the head, volume change, memory flaws, new toy effect. anybody supporting the idea of audible burn-in on their headphones, please try at least to make us believe that you have accounted for those other variables before cherry picking burn-in as the cause of any and all impressions of change over time for no legitimate reason whatsoever. 
failure to do at least that will always have me believe that my interlocutor is clueless no matter what really happens to the headphone.


----------



## bigshot

I did a response test with tones side by side on a burned in and brand new set of Oppo PM-1s. I couldn't detect any difference. But I imagine high end cans with tighter tolerances are less likely to change.


----------



## KeithEmo

Nope.

I've seen plenty of measurements showing how larger drivers change their parameters over the first few hours... sometimes significantly.
And no speaker designer I know would take measurements without letting the driver run overnight first.
(Obviously whether a given measured change will be audible depends on many factors.)
Since the drivers in headphones operate according to the same mechanical principles, it seems reasonable to assume that they would be subject to similar effects.

However, very few folks have bothered to attempt to perform any proper tests, and there seems to be little interest in doing so.
(Even headphone manufacturers seem to disagree about whether the effect is sigificant or not.)

Of the few tests run - there seem to have been a few that concluded that there are measurable differences - at least with some headphones.
However, none were done with any significant number of different models, or with more than one or two test subjects.
And, even then, the results of listening tests seem to have been inconclusive.
Headphone sound is also affected by their fit, which changes slightly every time you put them on, and makes comparisons even more difficult.
(It's also possible that, as with full size speaker drivers, different models may be affected quite differently.)

Therefore, with a specific model of headphone, I wouldn't presume to know if there will be any sort of burn-in effects or not.
If I were trying to take measurements, I would probably allow a headphone to burn in overnight, simply to eliminate the _possibility_ that they might change.
(If a change occurs after you take measurements, then your measurements will be wrong; but, if no change occurs, then no harm done.)

https://www.jabra.com/blog/headphone-burn-in-fact-or-fiction/

https://www.tested.com/tech/accessories/459117-science-and-myth-burning-headphones/

Since the construction of headphones varies considerably...
I suggest that anyone requiring a specific answer test the particular model they are interested in...
(Personally I don't care enough to bother.)



bfreedma said:


> I assume you’re about to post evidence supporting the above being audible.  I’ve seen limited examples in larger drivers (woofers/subwoofers), but none for smaller drivers measured over hours or longer.  Looking forward to seeing measurements.


----------



## Phronesis

^ Seems reasonable to give headphones burn-in time just in case the sound changes, but doesn't seem reasonable to conclude that the sound changed due to burn-in unless there's evidence which supports that conclusion and rules out other factors.  Audiophiles typically never have such evidence, yet the belief in burn-in is rampant.  Most people trust their ears way too much.


----------



## hifip

Anyone with any queries, take a look at the pro audio world. There lies your answers. The people who make the music we love so much don’t buy into any of the BS like the hi-fi world does.


----------



## nickosiris

Audio Jester said:


> some people around here forget that their opinions are not facts and they need to stop these little crusades to force their beliefs upon the rest of the audio community.



Yup.  In my humble opinion it's possible to be entirely correct and toe-curlingly obnoxious at the same time.


----------



## bfreedma (Jan 3, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> Nope.
> 
> I've seen plenty of measurements showing how larger drivers change their parameters over the first few hours... sometimes significantly.
> And no speaker designer I know would take measurements without letting the driver run overnight first.
> ...




Here we go again - you make a claim then refuse to support it beyond posting that "you've seen plenty of measurements", none of which you can produce. And that you  "don't care enough to bother".  So essentially, your original post seems to be forum trolling (since you don't have supporting evidence and don't care enough to bother).

What makes this a bit more interesting is that your organization builds and sells speakers.  Does Emotiva "burn in" their speakers or not?  If so, then there must be a reason and you would presumably have the data to support it - both for initial burn in and long term use.  A simple set of pre and post burn in FR graphs would be a great start.  Adding a CSD waterfall would be even better.

Since you claim this phenomenon is "especially noticeable with ported speakers" and your company produces ported speakers, you surely must have supporting data...


----------



## Killcomic

dprimary said:


> I burnt my old near fields in for about 23,000 hours and they sounded rubbish when I was done.


To be honest, mine sounded really bad too when I burnt them in the oven for 8 hours.


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes.... here we go again.
My original post was a simple answer to a simple question.

Someone asked whether headphones burn-in.

I pointed out that speakers do indeed show changes in their measured performance over time...
Since headphone drivers are built exactly like little speaker drivers, it would only be reasonable to expect similar changes to occur in their performance over time.
And, since headphone drivers vary widely in terms of construction and the materials used, I would expect this to also vary widely.

It is close to a first principle of mechanical engineering that all flexible springy materials - like rubber and plastic - change their springiness after repeated flexing...
(And, since the suspensions of speakers are made from this type of material, this applies to them.)
I'm sure you can find the mechanical properties of the plastics used to make headphone diaphragms documented somewhere.

To answer your actual questions (about speakers made by Emotiva):

-
During the _development_ process we _DO_ burn in both individual drivers and complete speakers before measuring or testing them.
It is most common in the industry to leave low frequency filtered pink noise running overnight for this purpose - which is what we usually do.
(Sometimes we simply ensure that someone has been listening to them for a few days before taking measurements.)
Our speaker designers have found, from long experience, that the measured parameters on most speaker drivers do in fact change over the first few hours of use.
(As far as I know, that change is always in the same direction; the suspension gets slightly softer and the free air resonance gets slightly lower; although some change a lot while other change very little.)
We don't bother to take or keep measurements before the drivers are burned in - simply because we don't consider them to be representative of the speaker's typical performance.
(We have no interest in plotting how rapidly the parameters change... all we're interested in is ensuring that the measurements we take will represent their performance through most of their usable life.)

-
We _DO NOT_ burn in our production speakers before shipping them; and we _DO NOT_ burn in the individual drivers before assembling them into speakers.
We _DO NOT_ recommend that anyone burn-in our speakers before listening to them, nor do we specify that they will change after burn in.
However, when people specifically ask, we tell them that "they may notice a slight change in sound over the first few days of use".

-
All of the specifications and performance claims me make for our speakers should be considered to be "after a reasonable amount of burn-in".
("After a week or so of use at typical listening levels".)

I have heard that, in the past, some manufacturers burned in individual drivers before initially testing them.
The reason was claimed to be that, because of inconsistencies in manufacturing, different units or batches might change to different degrees.
Therefore, individual units were first burned in, until they reached a stable operating characteristic, before being sorted, graded, and matched.
I suspect that modern construction materials are consistent enough that there is no longer any justification for doing this.

With a ported speaker, the cabinet is tuned to the free air resonance of the driver, among other things.
When the spring constant changes, the tuning match between the driver and cabinet will also change, which can have a significant effect on both frequency response and damping.
The degree to which this affects performance will depend on several different design parameters - which will be different for each speaker model.
As a broad generalization, in a sealed enclosure, the driver will generally experience a single-order roll off, which will shift slightly as the resonance changes.
This will generally result in a smaller and more benign difference if there is a slight mismatch.
(And, as I mentioned above, we have never bothered to measure or record this, since we are really only interested in how the speaker performs once it is "operating normally".)

As as aside, although we haven't tested it, I will state that I personally have never _NOTICED_ an audible change during the burn in period with any of our speakers.



bfreedma said:


> Here we go again - you make a claim then refuse to support it beyond posting that "you've seen plenty of measurements", none of which you can produce. And that you  "don't care enough to bother".  So essentially, your original post seems to be forum trolling (since you don't have supporting evidence and don't care enough to bother).
> 
> What makes this a bit more interesting is that your organization builds and sells speakers.  Does Emotiva "burn in" their speakers or not?  If so, then there must be a reason and you would presumably have the data to support it - both for initial burn in and long term use.  A simple set of pre and post burn in FR graphs would be a great start.  Adding a CSD waterfall would be even better.
> 
> Since you claim this phenomenon is "especially noticeable with ported speakers" and your company produces ported speakers, you surely must have supporting data...





Phronesis said:


> ^ Seems reasonable to give headphones burn-in time just in case the sound changes, but doesn't seem reasonable to conclude that the sound changed due to burn-in unless there's evidence which supports that conclusion and rules out other factors.  Audiophiles typically never have such evidence, yet the belief in burn-in is rampant.  Most people trust their ears way too much.


----------



## KeithEmo

Agreed.

One article I read reasonably suggested an interesting alternative to the idea of significant _driver_ burn-in.
They noted that even slight differences in the fit of headphones can have a major effect on bass response.
They suggested that the biggest change over time might be due to the ear pads settling into the shape of the listener's head and so providing a better seal.

They noted one test showing a 10+ dB difference in bass response due to adding eyeglasses to their dummy head plus headphone setup.
(The eyeglass frames compromise the quality of the seal between the listener's head and the headphones.)

The fact is that the majority of mechanical systems with moving parts do experience some degree of burn in....
And that is especially true for anything that includes flexible or springy plastic or rubber parts....
Therefore, it seems logical to assume that the same would be true for headphones....

I cannot imagine why this subject is even somewhat interesting.
Once you've listened to your speakers or headphones for a few days they'll be "burned in"... if it matters.
Or, if you're really concerned about it, then simply leave the music playing on your headphones or speakers overnight for a day or two.
If they really change or benefit due to burn in then you will have achieved that change.
And, if not, then no harm done, and no money spent.  
It hardly seems worth worrying about either way.

The fact is that the majority of mechanical systems with moving parts _do_ experience some degree of burn in....
And that is especially true for anything that includes flexible or springy plastic or rubber parts....
Therefore, it seems logical to assume that the same would be true for headphones and speakers....
However, testing it for different models and types of headphones would be a lot of work, and it hardly seems worth the bother.
(It's something that may or may not serve a purpose, only happens once for a given pair of headphones, and doesn't cost anything to do.)



Phronesis said:


> ^ Seems reasonable to give headphones burn-in time just in case the sound changes, but doesn't seem reasonable to conclude that the sound changed due to burn-in unless there's evidence which supports that conclusion and rules out other factors.  Audiophiles typically never have such evidence, yet the belief in burn-in is rampant.  Most people trust their ears way too much.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Yes.... here we go again.
> My original post was a simple answer to a simple question.
> 
> Someone asked whether headphones burn-in.
> ...




So many words.  All utterly absent of evidence of claimed AUDIBLE burn in/break in.

I’ll try just one more time Keith- can you produce hard evidence of audible changes due to headphone break in.  Or speakers.  A link to an appropriate article(s) or measurements would be sufficient - no novella necessary.


----------



## castleofargh (Jan 4, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I did a response test with tones side by side on a burned in and brand new set of Oppo PM-1s. I couldn't detect any difference. But I imagine high end cans with tighter tolerances are less likely to change.


that IMO is a defective test method. if even that doesn't make you feel a difference, you've at least got your own answer to the question "should I bother with burn in?". but measured variations from pair to pair are often too big to assume that they're accurate copies of each others. also how do we switch from headphone to headphone in the delays suggested for noticing small differences in listening tests? IDK.

 I'm tempted to assume that the one and only legit purpose of burn-in is to get beyond the time period where mechanical failures have the highest statistical chances of occurring. but I'm guessing that many manufacturers already do that themselves if only to minimize RMA and similar fun like having many people crying online that the product is crap and broke after a day.




KeithEmo said:


> If I were trying to take measurements, I would probably allow a headphone to burn in overnight, simply to eliminate the _possibility_ that they might change.
> (If a change occurs after you take measurements, then your measurements will be wrong; but, if no change occurs, then no harm done.)


the other name for this is superstition.

evidence of a given effect is what should always matter, when getting that effect was the reason why we did something in the first place. if you do something to reassure yourself and you do get reassured, then I guess you're right to keep doing it as you've achieved the desired effect. but if you honestly burn in gears so that they sound their best when you first use them, then I do not understand how you can be satisfied with "no harm done" as a reason to keep doing it.




my views on the all burn-in concept are that it's yet another trick that audiophiles came up with to avoid having to look in a mirror.
it goes along with banning blind test from most forums and pushing an aggressive anti measurement movement for decades.
all those things keep proving how imperfect and full of crap we humans are. so let's get rid of them and enjoy dreaming that we're perfect and consistent spectrum analyzers. and dreaming that our feelings were indeed plain objective reality about the gear all along.
I do not know how much change can occur to some specific headphone driver, but I do know that if we go take the last 20 people who claimed that their headphone "burned-in" significantly, none of them will have any evidence for their claim. and most, if not all of those who didn't make it all up in their mind thanks to flawed memory, will in fact have noticed a change due to placement, pad wear, or simply a change in listening level as they most likely were listening louder than usual when they did their first "critical listening". even if something is going on with the driver, I believe we have enough data to say that those other causes of change will almost always be of higher magnitude and more noticeable as they impact our impressions of the frequency response.
 so let's drop the act and simply admit that the all burn in thing is a façade for people who can't let go of the illusion of their own consistency over time. it's a lie to make people feel better about themselves by blaming everything on the gears.


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 3, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> Agreed.
> 
> One article I read reasonably suggested an interesting alternative to the idea of significant _driver_ burn-in.
> They noted that even slight differences in the fit of headphones can have a major effect on bass response.
> ...



Physically, it's plausible that some properties of drivers would change with use, and that could generate a measurable difference in sound.  And I've seen some measurement data to that effect.  So there shouldn't be any controversy there.

Where it gets silly is when audiophiles talk about 50 or 100 or 300+ hours of burn-in, with that burn-in changing the sound from having some noticeable problems to being sublimely good, with all the problems fixed.  If the drivers were really changing that much, I'd say they were poorly designed and/or poorly built, and I'd worry about the sound eventually degrading due to things getting too 'loose'.  A much more plausible explanation IMO is that the perception of listeners changes over time such that their ears/brains adjust what's perceived so that it sounds more 'correct', based on a model of correct sound built over time from prior listening experiences.  Changes in pads, etc. could also be a factor, but I wouldn't expect that to consistently change the sound in the direction of improving it.

BTW, as evidence of my being a double agent, I got locked out of the Z1R thread for a week due to my comments about burn-in, cables, perception, etc.  I don't blame the mods for that, it's what they had to do in response to outcry from people in the thread with an aversion to 'science' and Z1R owners who couldn't bear to have the image of the Z1R maligned.  This stuff can really be worse than politics and religion.  I'm not a proper Sound Science card holder, but I feel a lot more comfortable talking with you guys than people in the rest of head-fi.  Regardless of what we agree on or don't, at least we can have real discussions and debates here.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> I'm tempted to assume that the one and only legit purpose of burn-in is to get beyond the time period where mechanical failures have the highest statistical chances of occurring. but I'm guessing that many manufacturers already do that themselves if only to minimize RMA and similar fun like having many people crying online that the product is **** and broke after a day.



The burn-in period is also a good way to have people keep the product past the return period: "I'm not quite happy with the sound, but they say it needs 50-100 hours of burn-in, the return period is about to end, and I've only done 25 hours.  I'll guess I'll keep it and wait for it to sound as good as everyone says it will." (Keep hope alive!)


----------



## CactusPete23

Changing Directions here a bit with a question.  

Are there any Good Mid-Fi Single Ended Portable DAP's out there?  Or Do they need to be balanced to sound better? i.e. Is this myth or reality?

When I look at getting a better sounding Portable DAP, It looks like most manufacturers today quickly jump to Separate DAC's and Amps to get balanced output.   It is like there is an expectation that "balanced" makes a player better automatically.   And when I look for a mid-fi or better DAP, I can't seem to find a many good ones that are just single ended.   Somehow, I think that a single ended DAP with just one DAC and Amp, but using good components and design, could sound better (And be lower cost, lower power usage, ligher weight) than lots of the Balanced DAP's out there?  (Looking for something to drive Efficient Headphones and IEMs for portable use. ) 

So, is it a reality that a mid to high fi Portable DAP must be balanced?  Or can a good single ended DAP provide better sound quality that many Balanced DAP's ?    

And then IF a really good single ended DAP is being made. who makes them?   (Or is this a design/marketing opportunity !)


Thanks!

PS:  I am not sure if this question fits this thread. So please point me in the right direction if the experts in the thread think I'm in the wrong place. Thanks !    Tried searching the forums, but could not find this specific topic being discussed...


----------



## KeithEmo

Let's make this simple...

No, I have no intent of producing evidence that burn-in produces audible effects in any particular product.
Do you plan to introduce any evidence that, in a specific headphone or speaker, burn in does _NOT_ produce an audible change?
Or are we both just stating our opinions on the subject?

I'm not personally interested in having a debate on the subject.
And neither am I especially interested in convincing anyone either way.



bfreedma said:


> So many words.  All utterly absent of evidence of claimed AUDIBLE burn in/break in.
> 
> I’ll try just one more time Keith- can you produce hard evidence of audible changes due to headphone break in.  Or speakers.  A link to an appropriate article(s) or measurements would be sufficient - no novella necessary.


----------



## KeithEmo

That is an excellent point - and one to keep in mind...
(And perhaps a good reason to make sure that you apply the recommended burn-in before the return period expires.)

And there is also another slightly less sinister possibility...
We humans tend to grow to prefer things we are familiar with...
Perhaps they're just making an excuse for you to keep it long enough to become familiar with it and decide you like it...
(And, by suggesting that you listen for differences, they are providing even more incentive for you to focus on how it sounds.)

In all fairness, if you've been listening to something for weeks, and still haven't decided that you like it...
Then you probably don't like it _enough_ to buy it.



Phronesis said:


> The burn-in period is also a good way to have people keep the product past the return period: "I'm not quite happy with the sound, but they say it needs 50-100 hours of burn-in, the return period is about to end, and I've only done 25 hours.  I'll guess I'll keep it and wait for it to sound as good as everyone says it will." (Keep hope alive!)


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree.

If there are going to be audible changes due to mechanical "break in"......
I would expect them to be most significant after the first few hours ......
If you haven't noticed a significant change, in the right direction, by then... then I wouldn't be hoping for it to come along later.

What we're talking about here is mostly an initial stiffness in flexible or elastic products....
Like leather or plastic shoes or leather gloves that get softer after being worn for a few days....
And the time scale should be something similar....

Likewise, as you suggest, it also provides time for our brains to normalize and start considering the sound of that particular product as "normal and right".
However, if they're going to occur, both of these effects typically occur over the first few days or hours...




Phronesis said:


> Physically, it's plausible that some properties of drivers would change with use, and that could generate a measurable difference in sound.  And I've seen some measurement data to that effect.  So there shouldn't be any controversy there.
> 
> Where it gets silly is when audiophiles talk about 50 or 100 or 300+ hours of burn-in, with that burn-in changing the sound from having some noticeable problems to being sublimely good, with all the problems fixed.  If the drivers were really changing that much, I'd say they were poorly designed and/or poorly built, and I'd worry about the sound eventually degrading due to things getting too 'loose'.  A much more plausible explanation IMO is that the perception of listeners changes over time such that their ears/brains adjust what's perceived so that it sounds more 'correct', based on a model of correct sound built over time from prior listening experiences.  Changes in pads, etc. could also be a factor, but I wouldn't expect that to consistently change the sound in the direction of improving it.
> 
> BTW, as evidence of my being a double agent, I got locked out of the Z1R thread for a week due to my comments about burn-in, cables, perception, etc.  I don't blame the mods for that, it's what they had to do in response to outcry from people in the thread with an aversion to 'science' and Z1R owners who couldn't bear to have the image of the Z1R maligned.  This stuff can really be worse than politics and religion.  I'm not a proper Sound Science card holder, but I feel a lot more comfortable talking with you guys than people in the rest of head-fi.  Regardless of what we agree on or don't, at least we can have real discussions and debates here.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Let's make this simple...
> 
> No, I have no intent of producing evidence that burn-in produces audible effects in any particular product.
> Do you plan to introduce any evidence that, in a specific headphone or speaker, burn in does _NOT_ produce an audible change?
> ...




Stop playing games.  
You made a specific claim - the burden of proof is entirely yours.  Asking me to provide anything is simply deflection.
If you had simply stated you had an opinion in your initial post on the topic, I wouldn’t have responded.


----------



## Phronesis

bfreedma said:


> Stop playing games.
> You made a specific claim - the burden of proof is entirely yours.  Asking me to provide anything is simply deflection.
> If you had simply stated you had an opinion in your initial post on the topic, I wouldn’t have responded.



FWIW, I didn't read Keith's comments as intending to support the audiophile belief that extended burn-in can make a substantial difference. 

Also, I've seen some measurement data showing some differences in speakers due to burn-in, but the differences were relatively small, and if audible at all, likely to be insignificant.   Please don't ask me to track down the links, I'm still feeling lazy after the holidays!


----------



## castleofargh

CactusPete23 said:


> Changing Directions here a bit with a question.
> 
> Are there any Good Mid-Fi Single Ended Portable DAP's out there?  Or Do they need to be balanced to sound better? i.e. Is this myth or reality?
> 
> ...


sadly you will probably never find the measurements relevant for that. to start with the elephant in the room, "balanced" for amateur audio gear can mean almost anything so long as you end up with more than 3 pins for both drivers. so from the get go, different "balanced" DAPs may not even be offering the same designs and specs. it's just another one of those oversimplified stuff that we audiophiles love to draw false conclusions upon because it makes things look easy and clear. the trend for expensive balanced DAPs is exactly that IMO.  it's yet another occasion to have something special requiring special cables, so of course it has that elite smell we all want.
with that said, I would expect some differences between single ended and balanced on a same device, mostly depending on the headphone/IEM used. probably the balanced output will have higher impedance and that can make a pretty obvious change in signature for some IEMs with chaotic impedance curves reaching super low values. higher impedance output on DAPs is nowadays supposed to be to audiophiles what the sun is to vampires, but now the trend is to go balanced so we all pretend like low impedance output isn't important anymore. I remember seeing the exact same thing with A&K and their crap first DAP at ludicrous price. everything was wrong the impedance output was stupidly high, but magically the impedance output stopped being relevant for a while because the expensive stuff didn't do it right. if it's expensive, someone will say that it sounds amazing. that's ultimately the law around here. actual performances rarely dictate what the FOTM will be.

it's also possible that when using a crazy low impedance IEM with very average amp sections, the crosstalk levels may rise up to the point of being noticeable. in such a case a balanced output might just offer the extra separation that makes a subjective difference? I'm really just guessing here but under the wrong conditions that seems perfectly possible.
in my mind there is no doubt that a proper single ended design can do just as well if not better than balanced. but when forced to design something within a given size, using a given power source(again because of the size and weight restrictions), it's most certainly a bad idea to estimate the expected sound fidelity based on the output plug or some chipset's name.  actual measurements into various loads should set the hierarchy for fidelity. but we seldom find such measurements into the loads relevant to modern TOTL IEMs. so beside trying and hoping to get lucky, I really don't know what to do.
the one brand I can think of, where the balance output trend may really be a blessing, is Sony. because they have decided to stick with their own weirdo class D system that has been great for battery life, but not so great for everything else. and for years, SONY has struggled to get a DAP that could get above 0.5Vrms and they still had poor output impedance anyway. most really didn't measure best at full output. so for Sony, an easy trick to double the output voltage may really have been the difference between passable output and pretty good output. personally I loved Sony when the expensive stuff were the tiniest revolutionary ones. not so much now when the expensive stuff has some bulky machine casing to "show" why it's expensive. but that's just me whining about my personal preferences ^_^.

all in all I hate special plugs because of all the extra expenses to ensure cable compatibility. and I don't like how balanced stuff cost more because they're balanced so balanced must be better because it costs more because it's balanced because...
but a good design will be good no matter if it's balanced or SE. if I was on the market for a new DAP now, I wouldn't let something like balanced vs SE decide things for me. there are enough criteria and personal desires to filter out DAPs until only a handful remains to chose from. buttons, functions, size, battery life, etc.


----------



## CactusPete23

@castleofargh 
Thanks for the good ideas and thoughts.  The current myth sure does seem to be that new higher end DAPs need to have balanced out.  
 I'll keep looking for now.   Wish I understood the issues in Amplifier Design at a fundamental level, rather than just the superficial knowledge I have.   But I'm probably too old a dog to learn that much today.  
Still have a gut feeling that a great single ended DAP could be designed; and could get higher market share...  (Though the major market may be going to music from phones going to wireless earphones.  Even today LDAC is pretty good.  Plenty good for mass market audio.   )

May take a look at the current Sony lineup... Battery life is definitely nice.   Thanks again


----------



## Steve999

Some random thoughts. @CactusPete23, I am no expert but I don’t think you need balanced cables for home hifi. I think they are good for long runs in live settings and in pro audio settings as a way of keeping some types of noise down. Anyone may correct me.

@Phronesis good to have you here. The Sound Science section of head-fi is really odd when you think about it. But you keep changing your picture. It’s nearly every day now. Don’t think I don’t notice. You had some singer from an incarnation of the Lincoln Center big band the other day, with pink glasses, I think.

@bfreedma I was a big fan of the burden of proof concept but as I think of it and play around with it perhaps it’s better left for the courts than for science. It’s too easy to stand it on its head and in the end there is no one axiom from which which we can prove all things. It’s tough conceptually. It causes us to reach very bad conclusions at times. Better to say, perhaps, show me one shred, just one scintilla, of evidence in support of the claim made, other than a subjective impression, and then we can have an intelligent discussion. Courts get things wrong all of the time because of the formal structure of the burden of proof, the factually guilty are found not guilty, the negligent are found not negligent, the innocent are thrown in prison, and most of today’s still-extant evidentiary premises of law are centuries old and have not held up to recent scrutiny in psychological and social studies or DNA tests for that matter. Perhaps the burden of proof belongs in the trash can. And thanks for helping me choose a new receiver and the help with the subwoofer concepts—it’s all wonderful.

@Phronesis I remember reading years ago a letter from a manufacturer to a head-fi poster saying burn-in of drivers took place in less than a second and was part of the manufacturing process. I’m no expert, in a way that’s a freedom, I can just recount what I think I read.

@castleofargh i am still working on my chess game. I was kicking around the idea of a game of chess960 so I might stand more of a chance. Also I want the white pieces.

I am listening to the symphonies-where to start playlist on Spotify, at 320 kbps Ogg Vorbis, baby!!

Now I have an actual question. Let’s say I’m listening to something in 320 kbps Ogg Vorbis (which I am). I don’t know—is that less than 16 bits worth of dynamic range? I  really don’t have my arms around these concepts. Does lossy compression lift the noise floor and reduce dynamic range? Please note that I have no doubt that 320 kbps Ogg Vorbis or 256 kbps Apple AAC is audibly transparent for me. I’ve done the foobar ABX thing. I’m just trying to get my arms around the concepts.


----------



## Phronesis

Regarding 'balanced' cables, beyond the exotic bling aspect, the word 'balanced' itself will surely send a message to the subconscious mind of the audiophile that the sound will be more balanced in some positive sense (e.g., sonic up and down flaws removed).  Words can be powerful.


----------



## gregorio (Jan 4, 2019)

CactusPete23 said:


> Are there any Good Mid-Fi Single Ended Portable DAP's out there? Or Do they need to be balanced to sound better? i.e. Is this myth or reality?



It's myth!

In the pro audio (recording studio) world, the equipment is always balanced but that's for three reasons: Firstly, we have all sorts of different level signals to deal with. The output level of a microphone for example, is typically around 100-1000 times lower than the output level going to speakers or headphones, so it needs to be massively amplified and any noise/interference picked-up along the way is also going to be massively amplified. This isn't the case for consumers though, who effectively only have two levels to worry about, line level (the output from the source) and speaker/HP level (the output from the amp), both of which are far higher in level than many/most of the signal levels we have to deal with in the studio. Secondly, the term "recording studio" is a bit of a misnomer, commercial recording studios are not just one room: We typically have the musicians in one room (the live room), the engineer/producer working in another room (the control room) and some/most of the audio equipment in another room (the machine room). Typically therefore, the signal has to travel through two or three different rooms, along several cables, the total length of which is almost certain to be at least 100ft and might be double that (depending on the size and layout of the studio complex). And thirdly, a commercial studio will typically have dozens of pieces of equipment, producing a far greater amount of noise/interference than anything a consumer is ever likely to encounter. Add all this up; higher amounts of interference, far longer cable runs (to pick-up that interference) and far lower level signals to start with (which will require massively amplifying that interference), and using a balanced architecture is entirely justified.

But for a consumer DAP, it makes no difference at all, unless maybe you've got a 100ft long HP cable and live next door to a magnet factory! Actually, that's not entirely true, as a fully balanced architecture would result in roughly 6dB more amplification and this, I suspect, is what audiophiles are hearing and thinking is "better", but of course they could get exactly the same audible result with a single ended architecture and just turning their amp up a bit. From a marketing point of view though, the term "balanced" sounds impressive and they can charge a much higher price than the few extra bucks the balanced architecture components actually cost, a win - win scenario for them!!

G


----------



## iridium7777

thank you for the above explanation, it was very interesting to read.

i have perhaps a stupid question, let's say you're at 99% setting for amplification, right before you start hearing discernible distortion and you're with a non-balanced output.  if you went ahead and switched over to balanced and got the +6dB, would it cross you into the distortion area or would there actually be a "clean" 6dB gain?

i'm not sure if i'm asking my question in the right way so please let me know if you understand what i'm asking?


[QUOTE="gregorio, post: 14696946, member: 69811... as a fully balanced architecture would result in roughly 6dB more amplification and this, I suspect, is what audiophiles are hearing and thinking is "better", but of course they could get exactly the same audible result with a single ended architecture and just turning their amp up a bit. From a marketing point of view though, the term "balanced" sounds impressive and they can charge a much higher price than the few extra bucks the balanced architecture components actually cost, a win - win scenario for them!!

G[/QUOTE]


----------



## bigshot

I was evaluating the PM-1s for Oppo prior to them being released. They sent me several pairs when I was doing that and I tested them all side by side. There was no audible difference between them either before or after being used a while. But that isn't surprising because the designer of the cans told me that the manufacturing tolerance on them was +/-1dB. That's tight enough to eliminate sample differences from copy to copy.


----------



## iridium7777

burn-in is real, it's an effect. all electronic components will have some burn in and will continue to drift over the life of the component and eventually will degrade to out of spec or will fail completely.  

the above may not happen in your lifetime, but given a definite/indefinite timeline of any individual component the effect is real.

what you guys are arguing about is the *affect*.  and yes, there will be an affect.  is it discernible in music?  can you hear a difference between 0.005% THD and 0.002% THD?  how about 0.005 and 0.05?  if you can then the affect of the burn-in is real to you.

in my opinion, if you can hear a discernible affect of the burn-in then the manufacturer is garbage.  if their sensors drift that much that my ears can actually pick that up then they don't know what the hell they're doing.  the only time i want to hear an affect of a burn-in is when something breaks and i've blown my speakers or the amp blew up (well, i don't really want to hear that, but i hope you get my point).







KeithEmo said:


> Let's make this simple...
> 
> No, I have no intent of producing evidence that burn-in produces audible effects in any particular product.
> Do you plan to introduce any evidence that, in a specific headphone or speaker, burn in does _NOT_ produce an audible change?
> ...


----------



## CactusPete23 (Jan 4, 2019)

iridium7777 said:


> thank you for the above explanation, it was very interesting to read.
> 
> i have perhaps a stupid question, let's say you're at 99% setting for amplification, right before you start hearing discernible distortion and you're with a non-balanced output.  if you went ahead and switched over to balanced and got the +6dB, would it cross you into the distortion area or would there actually be a "clean" 6dB gain?
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]
No Question in Headfi is a dumb question.  It's all about learning more about audio and music.
When you go to the balanced output (and different jack), you start using a second Parallel Amp in addition to the Primary amp that is used for Single Ended 3.5mm jack.  So you will be able to turn down the volume setting a bit, and eliminate that "max power distortion" (IF your amp has that to begin with). 

I believe that 2 identical amps will allow double the mw output; And that should be an extra 3db by my memory.   Every ~3db = double the power: Every ~10db = double the perceived volume.   Though I will yield to @gregorio  who has much more knowledge and experience !


----------



## KeithEmo

I would agree with you.... _MOST_ electronic components don't drift much over their service life. 
I would not expect any noticeably audible effects with modern electronic components.
However, there are many notable exceptions, for example the short-arc bulbs used in many projectors actually age relatively rapidly.
(The electrical performance of vacuum tubes changes significantly over the first few hundred hours of use.)

However, such effects are far more common among mechanical components and devices.
Many engine parts, like pistons and valves, actually aren't a perfect fit until run for some time, and most car manufacturers recommend some sort of break-in period.
Car manufacturers used to suggest that an automobile would probably deliver poorer fuel mileage and not meet emission ratings for the first few hundred miles.
It was also widely recommended to make the first oil change relatively soon - because a disproportionate amount of wear occurs during break-in period.
(I'm told that this is less true today than it was ten or twenty years ago.)

And we all know how shoes and gloves, both leather and synthetic, get softer and more pliable after being worn for several hours.
(The surround on a typical loud speaker is made of a similarly flexible material.)



iridium7777 said:


> burn-in is real, it's an effect. all electronic components will have some burn in and will continue to drift over the life of the component and eventually will degrade to out of spec or will fail completely.
> 
> the above may not happen in your lifetime, but given a definite/indefinite timeline of any individual component the effect is real.
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

iridium7777 said:


> thank you for the above explanation, it was very interesting to read.
> 
> i have perhaps a stupid question, let's say you're at 99% setting for amplification, right before you start hearing discernible distortion and you're with a non-balanced output.  if you went ahead and switched over to balanced and got the +6dB, would it cross you into the distortion area or would there actually be a "clean" 6dB gain?
> 
> i'm not sure if i'm asking my question in the right way so please let me know if you understand what i'm asking?


warning /!\  I suck at this so I'm really trying to stick to general concepts that I think I understand. I hope I'm not mistaken, but I very much could^_^.
it depends on what's causing the distortion. even without looking into more complicated stuff, your amplifier could first reach either a voltage or a current limit. the amp will of course play a role in that, but so does the load(IEM/headphone), as it's the load that will determine how much current can flow through it and the sensitivity will decide the actual output setting.

then the typical doubling of the impedance for the amp's output will impact certain(rare) situations with incredibly low impedance loads.how, will be a case by case problem. 
in practice you will still listen to music at your preferred level, so going balanced will just increase the gain so you will lower the volume setting to get the same preferred level. you may encounter that rare moment where the difference between usable and unusable was 6dB, but I certainly wouldn't make that my reason to go balanced. instead I would simply pay more attention to make sure the device has enough output for my for my headphone.




CactusPete23 said:


> No Question in Headfi is a dumb question.  It's all about learning more about audio and music.
> When you go to the balanced output (and different jack), you start using a second Parallel Amp in addition to the Primary amp that is used for Single Ended 3.5mm jack.  So you will be able to turn down the volume setting a bit, and eliminate that "max power distortion" (IF your amp has that to begin with).
> 
> I believe that 2 identical amps will allow double the mw output; And that should be an extra 3db by my memory.   Every ~3db = double the power: Every ~10db = double the perceived volume.   Though I will yield to @gregorio  who has much more knowledge and experience !


 the result of going balanced (all else being equal) is double the amplitude of the voltage(+6dB).
it doesn't mean all "balanced" devices will have +6dB over the SE output, people design their stuff however they want and you can have less or maybe the guy will apply a different gain on that output for the lolz. just like we usually expect double the impedance on a balanced output, but it's not always the case. still a good rule of thumb to expect an increase when balanced though.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jan 4, 2019)

The justification for using a balanced output in a piece of portable equipment has changed over time.
A lot of portable equipment has a relatively simple power supply - where power is provided by one or two batteries.
In that sort of equipment, the maximum output power is often limited by the available voltage swing, which is limited by the power supply voltage, which is limited by the batteries.
In that sort of equipment, a balanced output, which is also known as a bridged output, offers you double the available voltage swing.
Since power is a function of the square of the voltage this would raise the maximum available power to quadruple the previous limit.
This would apply, for example, to a simple portable headphone amplifier powered by alkaline batteries.
However, virtually all modern portable equipment includes some sort of switching regulator, which can be designed to boost the voltage from the batteries to whatever is desired.
Therefore, this is no longer really an issue.
(It was never an issue with AC-powered equipment which can be designed to use whatever supply voltage is desired.)

Another historical benefit of balanced amplifiers is that certain types of distortion may be lowered because they cancel out between the two amplifier sections.
However, because the distortion is so low on most modern equipment to begin with, this is rarely relevent these days either.

And, finally, a balanced connection between two components yields much greater immunity from outside noise pickup.
However, this is mostly an issue when you have low signal levels and/or long cables (which is why it is still favored by studios).
It is really unlikely to make a significant difference in a headphone amplifier.

There's one other thing worth noting.....

If you have an amplifier with a balanced output - then that output must be used with headphones wired for balanced operation.
(You cannot safely connect a balanced output to an unbalanced load it. It probably won't work and may cause serious damage.)

However, even if you have headphones with a balanced cable, or which were modified for balanced wiring...
You can still safely connect them to an amplifier with an UNBALANCED output using a simple adapter cable.
(It is perfectly safe to connect a balanced load to an unbalanced amplifier output as long as you wire everything correctly.)

No Question in Headfi is a dumb question.  It's all about learning more about audio and music.
When you go to the balanced output (and different jack), you start using a second Parallel Amp in addition to the Primary amp that is used for Single Ended 3.5mm jack.  So you will be able to turn down the volume setting a bit, and eliminate that "max power distortion" (IF your amp has that to begin with).

I believe that 2 identical amps will allow double the mw output; And that should be an extra 3db by my memory.   Every ~3db = double the power: Every ~10db = double the perceived volume.   Though I will yield to @gregorio  who has much more knowledge and experience ![/QUOTE]


----------



## CactusPete23

castleofargh said:


> warning /!\  I suck at this so I'm really trying to stick to general concepts that I think I understand. I hope I'm not mistaken, but I very much could^_^.
> it depends on what's causing the distortion. even without looking into more complicated stuff, your amplifier could first reach either a voltage or a current limit. the amp will of course play a role in that, but so does the load(IEM/headphone), as it's the load that will determine how much current can flow through it and the sensitivity will decide the actual output setting.
> 
> then the typical doubling of the impedance for the amp's output will impact certain(rare) situations with incredibly low impedance loads.how, will be a case by case problem.
> ...



Thanks for correcting me.  I get easily confused by the terminology used with Audio Equipment.  I mean I'm not sure if some "Balanced" DAC/AMPS are really "Dual Mono" Dac/Amps.... (Just a dac and amp combo for each channel)    
- And also find confusing...  "balanced" 2.5mm (or 4.4mm) iem/headphone cables only have a ground and a signal wire for each channel (4 wires total)?  Where true balanced should be 1 ground wire, and 1 positive signal wire, and 1 negative signal wire for each channel (6 wires total) ?


----------



## Slaphead

KeithEmo said:


> Every ~3db = double the power: Every ~10db = double the perceived volume.



Just for completion

"Every ~3db = double the power: *Every ~6db double the amplitude*: Every ~10db = double the perceived volume."


----------



## JRG1990

CactusPete23 said:


> @castleofargh
> Thanks for the good ideas and thoughts.  The current myth sure does seem to be that new higher end DAPs need to have balanced out.
> I'll keep looking for now.   Wish I understood the issues in Amplifier Design at a fundamental level, rather than just the superficial knowledge I have.   But I'm probably too old a dog to learn that much today.
> Still have a gut feeling that a great single ended DAP could be designed; and could get higher market share...  (Though the major market may be going to music from phones going to wireless earphones.  Even today LDAC is pretty good.  Plenty good for mass market audio.   )
> ...



XDUOO X20 , is cheap and has loads of features , measurements here: https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/amp/xduoo-x20.php .


----------



## KeithEmo

Actually you're confusing several different concepts.....

"dual-mono" - 
Actually simply means that "you have a completely separate amplifier for each channel".
This is actually used by many people to mean slightly different things in different contexts.
If you're talking about a speaker amplifier, it generally means that each channel has a totally separate amplifier and power supply, including separate power transformers (literally like two monoblocks in a single box).  
When you're talking about things like headphone amps or DACs, it generally means that each channel has at least mostly separate parts... but the definition is a bit relaxed.
So, for example, your DAC has a separate DAC chip for each channel, or a separate amplifier chip for each channel, rather than a stereo chip that serves both channels.
(But, while you may see a dual-mono power amp with separate power transformers, I've never seen a dual-mono headphone amp that used separate sets of batteries for each channel.)
It may also have a special meaning in some cases.
For example, many stereo DAC chips have a special "mono mode"; you can cross connect both channels in the chip into a single channel, using each stereo chip as a mono chip, and get somewhat better performance.

"balanced" -
Balanced means different things depending on whether it is applied to a connection or to a device.

In a *balanced connection*, you have two signal leads, both carrying out-of-phase versions of the same signal.
At the receiving end, the two signals are subtracted from each other.
Starting with the first wire, when you subtract the out of phase signal, you are subtracting a negative, and the result is twice as much signal.
However, because both wires are run next to each other, any noise that is picked up from outside will probably be almost the same in both wires.
Therefore, when you subtract the signal in the two wires, the noise is cancelled out.

In a *balanced device*, like an amplifier, you have two entirely separate amplifier channels, one amplifying the original signal, and the other amplifying an inverted (out-of-phase) version of it.
The speaker or load is connected across the outputs of the two amplifiers... which results in the speaker seeing the difference between the two - in effect subtracting them.
Since one signal is inverted, the difference between them is simply twice the original amount of signal.
However, assuming that both amplifier channels are identical, and so produce the same exact type and amount of distortion, the distortion cancels out, reducing the overall amount of distortion.
(Ceratin types of noise, like power supply hum, which may occur equally in both channels, may also cancel out, although random noise like hiss won't.)

In fact, a true balanced connection only requires two wires, one for the positive signal and one for the inverted signal.
The third wire is often connected to the shield... and many modern op amps and similar circuits require that both of the other signals be "referenced to a real ground".
However, strictly speaking, neither a shield nor a ground connection is necessary (although both do offer benefits in certain situations) - the two signals are already referenced to each other.
Many older transformer-based balanced inputs and outputs omitted the third wire... and some omitted the shield as well... using a simple unshielded twisted pair of wires.

If you look at the wiring on a typical speaker or headphone driver, you will find that almost all of them use only two wires, and are in fact symmetrical and balanced.
(Each ear of your headphones has its own driver - and each has two wires - neither of which is specifically required to be connected to ground.)
The typical three wire common ground cable used by most headphones is simply an expedient to save using an extra wire.



CactusPete23 said:


> Thanks for correcting me.  I get easily confused by the terminology used with Audio Equipment.  I mean I'm not sure if some "Balanced" DAC/AMPS are really "Dual Mono" Dac/Amps.... (Just a dac and amp combo for each channel)
> - And also find confusing...  "balanced" 2.5mm (or 4.4mm) iem/headphone cables only have a ground and a signal wire for each channel (4 wires total)?  Where true balanced should be 1 ground wire, and 1 positive signal wire, and 1 negative signal wire for each channel (6 wires total) ?


----------



## CactusPete23 (Jan 4, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> Actually you're confusing several different concepts.....


@KeithEmo   Thank you for taking the time to explain.  Think I understand at a "10,000 foot level" now.  I can better see the potential and real benefits of balanced devices and connections.


----------



## gregorio (Jan 5, 2019)

iridium7777 said:


> i have perhaps a stupid question, let's say you're at 99% setting for amplification, right before you start hearing discernible distortion and you're with a non-balanced output. if you went ahead and switched over to balanced and got the +6dB, would it cross you into the distortion area or would there actually be a "clean" 6dB gain?



That situation wouldn't really occur. In effect with a balanced architecture you've got the original input signal on the "hot" wire and an exact copy of the input signal (but 180deg out of phase) on the "cold" wire. If on the receiving end (the amp for example) you flip the phase of the cold wire and sum it with the hot wire, you would end up with the signal being +6dB, while any interference picked-up along the way would now be out of phase and would cancel out. In practice, the amp (or other device) itself, is internally almost always a single ended architecture, it's just the signal being transmitted between devices that is balanced. In other words, immediately behind the input connector (of the amp for example) is circuitry which converts the balanced input signal to a +6dB single ended signal, the amp then does it's amplification on this single ended signal and at it's output connector is more circuitry which converts it to a balanced signal again for transmission to the next bit of kit in the chain (speakers for example). Apart from the input and output connectors (and the balancing/unbalancing circuitry next to them) the amp is internally effectively the same in a balanced architecture as an in an unbalanced architecture, except it's obviously designed for a 6dB hotter single ended input signal.

If you "switched over" to a balanced output, you'd effectively be adding another small (+6dB) amplifier to the output connector, which is a relatively inefficient (noisy) way of doing it. It's only with long cable runs and relatively high interference where a balanced architecture is actually beneficial, where the amount of "picked-up" noise/interference rejected by the balanced architecture is greater than the amount of noise added by balancing the signal in the first place. Therefore in theory at least, assuming relatively short cables and normal levels of interference (a typical consumer environment), a single ended architecture is actually slightly superior (less noisy) to a balanced architecture!

One last point, it's generally a bad idea to run an amp at 99%. As a general rule of thumb, a setting of no more than about 70% is typically optimal. So, rather than thinking in terms of switching to a balanced architecture, buying a more appropriate (powerful) single ended amp would be the higher fidelity solution.

Caveats: 1. Some of the above might only apply to pro audio kit. There's different ways of skinning this (balancing) cat and audiophile manufacturers are notorious for doing things differently, typically for marketing purposes only, with no benefit (and sometimes even detrimental) to the actual signal integrity. 2. There are some pro audio power (speaker) amps which operate internally with a fully balance architecture, though very few I'm aware of. However, all the other bits of analogue kit in a typical studio are always internally single ended, it's only the input and output connections that are balanced. 3. Although a balanced architecture is technically more noisy, it shouldn't be enough noise to be audible.



CactusPete23 said:


> - And also find confusing... "balanced" 2.5mm (or 4.4mm) iem/headphone cables only have a ground and a signal wire for each channel (4 wires total)? Where true balanced should be 1 ground wire, and 1 positive signal wire, and 1 negative signal wire for each channel (6 wires total) ?



You're not the only one! As is often the case in the audiophile world, definitions are not uncommonly "blurred", if not entirely changed, to suit some marketing narrative, so it's often very confusing. I'm not entirely sure what some audiophile equipment manufacturers are doing or if what they're marketing as "balanced" sometimes actually even qualifies as "balanced"!



Slaphead said:


> "Every ~3db = double the power: *Every ~6db double the amplitude*: Every ~10db = double the perceived volume."



Yep, +3dB is double the power (watts) and +6dB is double the amplitude (volts). However, +10dB being double the perceived volume is more of a rough general guide than a precise fact. The perception of volume/loudness is dependent on variables other than just level, so +10dB = double the perceived volume is only roughly true and even then, only under certain circumstances.

G


----------



## bigshot

Balanced connections are for pro installations with long cable runs. A home audio system that has been properly designed should do just as good with normal connections. I think putting balanced connections on consumer DACs is like putting mag wheels on a VW bug. It might look nice, but it isn't necessary.


----------



## Slaphead (Jan 5, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Balanced connections are for pro installations with long cable runs. A home audio system that has been properly designed should do just as good with normal connections. I think putting balanced connections on consumer DACs is like putting mag wheels on a VW bug. It might look nice, but it isn't necessary.



It depends. If the the DAC is also intended to be a monitor controller then yes, I can fully understand balanced connections as XLR is the most common input for powered pro audio monitors. Admittedly most pro monitors do have the facility for RCA input, but if you're using RCA to the monitors then 3 metres is generally considered the maximum safe length. thereafter you may be prone to interference, but it's an environmental thing and therefore YMMV.

From my point of view using the the equipment that I do then balanced is much preferred, if only for compatibility. If I was using a DAC to power amp/s and then to passive speakers then yes I completely agree with you that balanced is unnecessary.


----------



## castleofargh

Slaphead said:


> It depends. If the the DAC is also intended to be a monitor controller then yes, I can fully understand balanced connections as XLR is the most common input for powered pro audio monitors. Admittedly most pro monitors do have the facility for RCA input, but if you're using RCA to the monitors then 3 metres is generally considered the maximum safe length. thereafter you may be prone to interference, but it's an environmental thing and therefore YMMV.
> 
> From my point of view using the the equipment that I do then balanced is much preferred, if only for compatibility. If I was using a DAC to power amp/s and then to passive speakers then yes I completely agree with you that balanced is unnecessary.


balanced output was initially brought up in the thread asking about DAPs not DACs. so IMO the situation is different from your example. practicality and compatibility are really the last reasons to go balanced on a DAP.


----------



## CactusPete23

castleofargh said:


> balanced output was initially brought up in the thread asking about DAPs not DACs. so IMO the situation is different from your example. practicality and compatibility are really the last reasons to go balanced on a DAP.



I really do appreciate all of the responses to my Balanced DAP Question.   Have learned a lot; and had a total misunderstanding of how it worked in cables vs devices.   
Thanks to everyone for taking the time both to answer, and to "dumb it down" so that I could understand !


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Jan 5, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Balanced connections are for pro installations with long cable runs. A home audio system that has been properly designed should do just as good with normal connections. I think putting balanced connections on consumer DACs is like putting mag wheels on a VW bug. It might look nice, but it isn't necessary.


scientific evidence to the contrary....for the vw bug comment anyway


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> Balanced connections are for pro installations with long cable runs. A home audio system that has been properly designed should do just as good with normal connections. I think putting balanced connections on consumer DACs is like putting mag wheels on a VW bug. It might look nice, but it isn't necessary.


Just to be pedantic, while not necessary, putting mag wheels on the VW may actually improve the ride by reducing unsprung weight.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

old tech said:


> Just to be pedantic, while not necessary, putting mag wheels on the VW may actually improve the ride by reducing unsprung weight.


Right!...having said that I've done the balanced cable thing. ...other than a slight adjustment on the volume knob it appears to have no advantages...to me anyway.Its fun to prod Bigshot though isn't it


----------



## Slaphead

castleofargh said:


> balanced output was initially brought up in the thread asking about DAPs not DACs. so IMO the situation is different from your example. practicality and compatibility are really the last reasons to go balanced on a DAP.



Ahh DAP - I missed that, my bad. In that case yes 100% agree with you - totally unneeded.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jan 6, 2019)

There are several different contexts in which balanced might apply to a DAP.

1) At the level of headphone compatibility - The drivers themselves used in headphones are basically balanced; it's just inherent in how they're designed. Obviously you can connect headphones wired as balanced to the output of a balanced amplifier with no problem, and you can connect unbalanced headphones to an unbalanced output. You can also connect a pair of "balanced" headphones to an unbalanced amplifier output with a simple adapter cable. You simply connect one wire on each of the drivers together and wire them as a common ground connection. However, if a pair of headphones are wired as unbalanced, then they have three wires, which includes a common ground for the two channels. You CANNOT connect this to a balanced amplifier output. All four output lines on a balanced output carry signal, and none are grounded; if you attach a balanced output to a common ground load you are shorting two of the amlifier outputs together.

2) At the level of the amplifier - Assuming the amplifier is really balanced, your stereo amplifier actually is a fully differential amplifier, which means that each channel is really made up of two amplifiers cnnected in a bridge configuration. This gives you the benefits credited to any fully balanced amplifier - mainly cancellation of certain sorts of distortion. There are certain reasons why avoiding a common ground connection on the headphone cound conceivable have some really minor benefits, however the main reason most people get balanced headphones is so they can connect them to a balanced amplifier. Because the distortion on most reasonably well designed modern amplifiers is already extremely low, it's doubtful that the reduction in distortion would be significant.

3) At the level of the DAC - Since any digital audio player with an analog output includes a DAC, considerations about DACs are automatically included in this discussion. Most modern DAC chips have a balanced stereo output. This means they have four outputs: L+, L-, R+, and R-, each of which is actually output by a separate DAC. As with a balanced amplifier, the two DAC outputs for each channel are out of phase, and contain certain distortions that cancel out between the outputs in each pair. if your device has a balanced output, you're going to use all four of those output signals. However, even if the output of your DAP is unbalanced, if you want the lowest distortion, you're going to use all of them. If you connect the R+ line to one input on your right channel amplifier you will get a certain amount fo distortion. However, if you connect both the R+ and R- signals to the two inputs on an amplifier with a differential input, some of the distortion will cancel, and the overall distortion will be lower. There are two things worth knowing here. First, the distortion numbers we're talking about are very low... Second, ALL op-amps, and almost all other modern amplifier designs, have differential inputs, so doing it this way does NOT make the design more expensive or more complicated. It is literally a matter of connecting a few more wires, rather than not connecting them, and about 20 cents worth of additional parts. Now, in addition to all this, most DAC chips allow you to connect each stereo DAC chip to provide a singel monaural output. By cross connecting the all four outputs to a single amplifier in the proper way, you get a slightly lower level of distortion, and typically a S/N that is between 3 dB and 6 dB better. Again note that we're talking about specifications that are very good to begin with. The drawback is that, since each DAC chip only serves one channel, you need to use two separate DAC chips for the two channels. Because the DAC chip is one of the more expensive parts in your DAP, and can cost as much as $10 each, using two rather than one tends to raise the price. (However, regardless of whether you expect it to be audible or not, the best performance specs with a given DAC chip will usually be had with "two separate DAC chips connected in fully differential mono mode". Also note that many DAC chips, designed for surround sound equipment, include eight channels rather than two. WIth these chips, you can have two complete sets of multiple DAC channels, each set connected in differential mono mode, or even cross connected in sets of four, and all on the same single DAC chip.)

The real bottom line of all this is that the performance of any modern DAC chip is extremely good - so we're talking about really tiny differences here.
Likewise, there will be a measurable difference between the distortion spectra of balanced and unbalanced amplifiers, but both are really low, so it's doubtful that those differences would be audible.
(Odds are that, in most cases, other differences in the design of a DAP will make a much more significant difference in the sound than the DAC chip they use.)

I personally don't bother with balanced headphones or headphone amps.

HOWEVER, if you're purchasing headphones, and you have any intention of purchasing a balanced amplifier, then the compatibility issue is worth noting.
If your headphones are wired as balanced, you will be able to connect them to both balanced and unbalanced amplifier outputs, with - at most - an adapter cable.
But, if your headphones are wired as UNBALANCED, then you will NOT be able to connect them to the output of a balanced amplifier.
(There are a few amplifiers that support both - but, when you connect unbalanced headphones to them, they are NOT functioning as a balanced amplifier.)



castleofargh said:


> balanced output was initially brought up in the thread asking about DAPs not DACs. so IMO the situation is different from your example. practicality and compatibility are really the last reasons to go balanced on a DAP.


----------



## gregorio (Jan 6, 2019)

Slaphead said:


> If the the DAC is also intended to be a monitor controller then yes, I can fully understand balanced connections as XLR is the most common input for powered pro audio monitors. Admittedly most pro monitors do have the facility for RCA input, but if you're using RCA to the monitors then 3 metres is generally considered the maximum safe length. thereafter you may be prone to interference, but it's an environmental thing and therefore YMMV.



This highlights one of the issues in the audiophile world, an issue that's been going on for 3 decades or so but has evolved and got a lot worse during the last two decades and is responsible for a fair percentage of the audiophile myths. The issue originally was along the lines of: "If studios do it, then audiophiles/audiophile equipment should too." - As a principle it's false, because what studios are dealing with is quite different from what consumers are dealing with. Not to mention that it's only applied when it suits a particular audiophile marketing narrative but the exact opposite can be applied with a different marketing narrative. For example expensive audiophile cables, which are never purchased for use in commercial studios. In fact, expensive balanced audiophile cables are doubly ridiculous because the basic reason for using a balanced architecture for signal transmission over long cable runs in the first place, is to eliminate any need for expensive cables!

The second part of the equation is the blurring of the line (for marketing purposes) between "consumer" and "pro" equipment. As the pro audio industry became more reliant on computer chips and as the power of those chips increased, while their cost tumbled, it became practical for consumers to create "home studios", initially it was just serious enthusiasts (or musicians) but a whole category of equipment sprang up around 20 years ago to cater to this market, later dubbed "Pro-sumer" equipment. However, "pro-sumer" equipment isn't just pro audio equipment that's cheaper, it's typically designed for a different purpose/usage, a different environment and with different functionality, and it's therefore effectively completely different equipment! Of course though, this fact is routinely abused by marketers, who fallaciously apply terms like "professional", "pro audio", "studio" and "reference" to their products. Getting back to the quote, there really are no studio DACs "also intended to be a monitor controller", such a DAC (typically an ADC/DAC with a couple of channels of mic pre-amps) is really a consumer product rather than a commercial studio (pro audio) product. Likewise, I've never seen a "pro" monitor with unbalanced RCA inputs, in fact an RCA input on a monitor would be an indicator of a consumer product being marketed as "pro audio"! This would seem to imply that a balanced monitor input is beneficial but we always need to come back to the basic question: What interference AND what signal level?

For example, given a nominal amount of interference (say a typical consumer sitting room) and passive speakers, unbalanced is going to be absolutely fine, probably even for a cable run of 10 metres or more. That's because even with this relatively long cable length, the amount of interference should be below audibility and the signal level is as high as it's going to get (speaker level). However, if this were say a microphone level signal, then the interference would still be below audibility but as we need to amplify that signal to a usable level (line level), by say 100 times, the interference will also be amplified by 100 times and probably to audible levels, but a speaker level signal does not undergo any further amplification, so the interference is not amplified and remains inaudible. Powered monitors though are fed a line level signal, which IS amplified (inside the monitor, to speaker level) and therefore any interference picked-up along the cable run is also amplified (though not by anywhere near as much as a mic signal). However, in pretty much all consumer/prosumer applications a balanced connection would still provide no audible benefit because we're talking about nearfield powered monitors, with the "prosumer" DAC (with integrated monitor controller) along with the powered monitors all being within the 1.5 metre listening triangle. Even in the worst case scenario (for example without an integrated monitor controller) we're still probably only talking about 5m or so, which would be fine for an unbalanced line level signal in a consumer environment. In a commercial studio though, the DAC would likely be in the machine room, the analogue line level signal would be routed to a monitor controller and then out to the control room to either the nearfields or main monitors. So each line level analogue signal would go through 4 different connectors, at least 2 cables and would likely travel at least 20 metres (possibly 50 metres or so) plus, it would go through the machine room, which is packed full of noisy (interference inducing) equipment. That's why pro audio monitors (nearfields or mains) always only have balanced inputs, why consumer/prosumer monitors don't need them and why @bigshot's assertion that balanced is only necessary in pro installations, was correct.

G


----------



## bigshot

I've done a simple experiment to determine that every time someone uses an analogy in this forum everyone ends up arguing the analogy, not the actual point. It's like the wise men describing the elepha... no. not going there again!


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Jan 7, 2019)

I think most of these ‘problems’ stem from language and perhaps more importantly how we use the very same.
Just the word balance gives off a wonderful connotation that most likely stays with the listener throughout the listening session ‘damn this is one balanced sound I’ve lured out of my set-up’.

...just like mp3s are called lossy..oh no I am losing information! There’s stuff that goes missing!

Granted, invite many of these folks to do a proper blind test in order to find out what exactly they CAN hear and you get crickets or a good spin on the infamous whatabout-carousel.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with your sentiment - but not with your example.

I do agree that a lot of audiophiles have totally unreasonable expectations that balanced connections, or balanced circuitry, will improve the sound of their system.
However, I'm not convinced that many of them really believe it will "make their system sound more balanced" specifically because the description includes the word "balanced".
I suspect it has more to do with the idea that anything that improves the specs will produce an audible improvement.

I do, however, disagree with your example - MP3.
Yes, when you apply LOSSY MP3 compression to an audio file, you are losing information; there is no question about that; the purpose of MP3 encoding is to save space by discarding information.
(In contrast to LOSSLESS compression, where all of the original information is retained.)
Feel free to argue that you may not _notice_ that information has been lost, and that you personally find that MP3 files sound just fine, but it would be inaccurate to neglect to describe MP3 as LOSSY compression.
It seems quite reasonable to me to expect a copy of an audio file to be complete, and to expect someone to specifically notify me when parts have been discarded, whether I notice the omission or not.
(Describing an MP3 file as having undergone LOSSY compression is not at all misleading - in fact it is rather the opposite - it is simply an accurate description of the process.)



Kammerat Rebekka said:


> I think most of these ‘problems’ stem from language and perhaps more importantly how we use the very same.
> Just the word balance gives off a wonderful connotation that most likely stays with the listener throughout the listening session ‘damn this is one balanced sound I’ve lured out of my set-up’.
> 
> ...just like mp3s are called lossy..oh no I am losing information! There’s stuff that goes missing!
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I agree with your sentiment - but not with your example.
> 
> I do agree that a lot of audiophiles have totally unreasonable expectations that balanced connections, or balanced circuitry, will improve the sound of their system.
> However, I'm not convinced that many of them really believe it will "make their system sound more balanced" specifically because the description includes the word "balanced".
> ...



IMO, both of you have valid points on "lossy".  The term is technically appropriate, but it will also likely influence many listeners to perceive the sound to be worse (relative to lossless) than it actually is.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Jan 7, 2019)

That is my point. I am not suggesting that we change the lingo in order to cuddle up the natives, no, I am suggesting that people try their best to leave their presumptions at the door. The easiest way for one to do this is doing a simple blindtest via Foobar. If you hear or can’t hear the difference, then you’re well on your way to better understanding the word lossy in context with your ears.


----------



## bigshot

Keith has already done a listening test comparing lossless to lossy. He couldn't discern a difference.


----------



## KeithEmo

Actually, as I recall, even using content I wasn't familiar with, I DID score significantly above random.
However, I'm not sure of the relevance either way.
Even assuming that I couldn't tell the difference with a certain few files, that wouldn't prove that this would ALWAYS be the case.

This is all moot, however, because, when applied to digital data, both "lossy" and "lossless" have very specific technical meanings.
A file that has been losslessly compressed, then losslessly uncompressed, will be IDENTICAL to the original.
By definition, a file that has been LOSSY compressed, then uncompressed, will NOT be identical to the original.
Therefore, one is a known quantity, while the other is not...

Now, from the point of practical usage and philosophy......
At that point you are left with the question of whether the lossy copy will be close enough to be "indistinguishable from the original to you".
Bear in mind that, with the lossless copy, there is no question - because we KNOW it is identical to the original.
Personally, given the choice, I will always choose something that I KNOW is perfect over something that "might be good enough"...
And, since the cost in terms of extra storage space is negligible, I see no reason not to do so...



bigshot said:


> Keith has already done a listening test comparing lossless to lossy. He couldn't discern a difference.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jan 8, 2019)

the cost in extra storage space isn't really negligible. 

I've taken a couple tests and could reliably discern a difference up to 192kb mp3s.  256 and up sounded perfect to my 52 year old ears.  Spotify's "extreme" setting is golden afaic.


----------



## KeithEmo

I guess "negligible" is relative.

The entire collection of albums that I actually listen to, in lossless FLAC format, fits on a USB hard drive that cost me $129 .
Reducing the size of the files, even significantly, would save me at most a few cents per album.
Or, looking at it another way, my entire audio collection takes up as much space as a dozen high quality Blu-Ray movies, or one or two 4k movies.
(And, for portable users, a 128 gB USB stick is now less than $30 )



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> the cost in extra storage space isn't really negligible.
> 
> I've taken a couple tests and could reliably discern a difference up to 192kb mp3s.  256 and up sounded perfect to my 52 year old ears.  Spotify's "extreme" setting is golden afaic.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I guess "negligible" is relative.
> 
> The entire collection of albums that I actually listen to, in lossless FLAC format, fits on a USB hard drive that cost me $129 .
> Reducing the size of the files, even significantly, would save me at most a few cents per album.
> ...



Agreed.  Money spent on storage is a pittance compared to what people spend on gear chasing sonic nirvana.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jan 8, 2019)

expense isn't really the issue.  I just have limited space on my Iphone which is the source for a fair bit of my listening.  If I were ripping a large collection onto my laptop or something I'd not worry about it...although frankly, since I can't tell the difference anyway I'd probably still go with 320kb mp3.

I also do my best to not spend ridiculous amounts chasing sonic nirvana.  I have pretty reasonable, real world expectations and I keep the expenses down.  I won't spend crazy money on negligible sonic improvements...


----------



## bigshot

Wasted space is wasted no matter how economical it is. If you can't hear it with human ears, it doesn't matter. I have a massive library that would be a royal PITA to manage lossless. AAC 256 VBR sounds identical to lossless and it works perfectly in everything, from my main speaker system to the limited space available on my iPhone. Why bother with bits you can't hear?


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jan 8, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Wasted space is wasted no matter how economical it is. If you can't hear it with human ears, it doesn't matter. I have a massive library that would be a royal PITA to manage lossless. AAC 256 VBR sounds identical to lossless and it works perfectly in everything, from my main speaker system to the limited space available on my iPhone. Why bother with bits you can't hear?



yeah I have a bit of a philosophical issue with the whole law of diminishing returns aspect of things.  I don't like spending 4 times as much (whether it be money or data space or whatever) for a 3 or 4% improvement.  It feels like spending $80000 on a car that - compared to the $20000 version - has 5% more horsepower and a set of designer floor mats.


----------



## KeithEmo

Obviously this is going to depend on exactly how you plan to use something....
_HOWEVER_, I dispute your absolutely general statement that: "If you can't hear it with human ears, it doesn't matter".
In fact, all you can say for certain is that: "Using your current equipment, and your ears, you cannot hear any difference."
Therefore, at most, you may reasonably generalize your results to others who plan to listen to those files on similar equipment, in similar ways, using similar ears.

Let's try a simple example.

Dolby PLIIx is a surround sound synthesizer that is featured on virtually every recent surround sound processor produced in the past decade.
(DSU, the Dolby Surround Upmixer, is the new version which replaces it on all Dolby Atmos enabled processors.)
Both synthesize surround sound from stereo content by deconstructing the audio content and routing it to various channels based on things like relative amplitude and phase.
(So, if you alter the signal _in any way that's significant to the decoder_, you change its output.)
Likewise, there are several "headphone processors" that utilize phase relationships contained in the content to exaggerate separation and produce other "spatial effects".

I know a few people who prefer surround sound, and who play most or all of their stereo music through their home theater processor, using PIIx to turn it into surround sound.
Have you actually confirmed that, when you apply PLIIx to a lossless file and an AAC file, you get exactly the same result every time?
Have you also confirmed that they produce exactly the same audible output using the new Dolby Surround Upmixer?
And, have you confirmed that they produce the same result with various "headphone processors"?
If not, then, while you may reasonably assert that "they sound exactly the same in stereo".....
You really have no idea whether the lossy encoding has significantly altered the way those files will play through one or more of the commonly used surround sound decoders. 
(Yet we do know that, since lossless files actually deliver an exact reproduction of the original, they will produce the correct result.)

This is _NOT_ some sort of obscure scenario....
_MANY_ people listen to their stereo music using a surround sound decoder. 



bigshot said:


> Wasted space is wasted no matter how economical it is. If you can't hear it with human ears, it doesn't matter. I have a massive library that would be a royal PITA to manage lossless. AAC 256 VBR sounds identical to lossless and it works perfectly in everything, from my main speaker system to the limited space available on my iPhone. Why bother with bits you can't hear?


----------



## KeithEmo

In that case I would agree with BigShot.
If that's the only place you're going to listen to the files - then all that matters is how they sound on your iPhone.
(I would also say that applies to streaming, where all that matters is how the files sound today, because you can't save them anyway.)

HOWEVER, if it was a choice between paying $12 for MP3 files and $15 for lossless, I would still:
- pay the extra $3 for the lossless version - just in case it makes a difference somewhere down the road
- save a backup copy of the lossless file somewhere
- make a good quality lossy copy to put on my phone

There's a sort of saying that is often repeated among photographers (and I consider it to apply to audio as well)....
- if you save a copy at the best quality, and find you don't need it, you can _ALWAYS_ make a more compressed copy at lower quality to use today
- however, if you save a copy at lower quality, then find out you need a higher quality copy later, you're probably screwed

That's why photographers always save the negatives... 
The reality is that, when purchasing music, the difference in cost between lossless and something like MP3 usually isn't all that much.



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> expense isn't really the issue.  I just have limited space on my Iphone which is the source for a fair bit of my listening.  If I were ripping a large collection onto my laptop or something I'd not worry about it...although frankly, since I can't tell the difference anyway I'd probably still go with 320kb mp3.
> 
> I also do my best to not spend ridiculous amounts chasing sonic nirvana.  I have pretty reasonable, real world expectations and I keep the expenses down.  I won't spend crazy money on negligible sonic improvements...


----------



## bigshot (Jan 8, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I don't like spending 4 times as much (whether it be money or data space or whatever) for a 3 or 4% improvement.



With lossy and lossless the space overhead is significant and there's absolutely no sound quality advantage at all. You're only getting the audio equivalent of packing peanuts padding out the file sizes. "HD" audio is even worse for that.

With KeithEmo's ears and KeithEmo's equipment, there is absolutely no audible difference between high data rate lossy and lossless, so for him it's pointless. Any extra cost involved with lossless files is wasted. It would be better used on getting more music.


----------



## sonitus mirus (Jan 8, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> The reality is that, when purchasing music, the difference in cost between lossless and something like MP3 usually isn't all that much.


  That is only true when a CD is still widely available for sale everywhere.   In fact, on Amazon, today, if a new CD is available for sale, that is typically cheaper than the mp3 version, and with a Prime membership, the delivery is free and overnight.

The problem is when I run into something I want to hear, but is not available to stream on music services, or if something has only been released in a Hi-Res format.

The Grateful Dead Studio Albums Collection, as an example, is not available in a CD format nor is it available at 16/44.1.  I can get it in a lossy format for $94.99 (Amazon 256kb mp3) or I can splurge on a 24/96 lossless version for $199.98 on HD Tracks.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm sorry, but your bit of hyperbole about "packing peanuts", while colorful, is also technically untrue.

_WHEN A FILE IS SUBJECTED TO LOSSY COMPRESSION, INFORMATION THAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL FILE IS IRRETRIEVABLY LOST_.

When you use a lossy encoder, the encoder deliberately discards information which it considers to be "perceptually unimportant".
(It discards whatever information it decides can safely be discarded "without producing a noticeable difference" - based on the criteria chosen by whoever programmed it.) 
It may in fact be true that _YOU_ have no use for that information... or even that many others have no need for it either...
However, it is also true that information present in the original file has been discarded, and the contents have been altered.
(Anyone who doubts this should open copies of both in their favorite audio editor and look for themselves.)

I would also really appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting the other facts as well.
On a specific test, consisting of certain files provided by BigShot....
- I was able to easily recognize the difference between the lossless version and some low-sample-rate lossy versions
- and I was not able to recognize the difference between others beyond what would reasonably be expected by random chance

_HOWEVER_, unless you are willing to accept that_ MY_ ability to recognize the difference between a few specific files, on a certain few pieces of equipment, on a certain afternoon, comprises "the limits of human hearing ability and experience".....
Then that doesn't seem especially significant in the big picture.
(In fact, it almost seems like a single, isolated, almost anecdotal result......   hmmmmm....... )



bigshot said:


> With lossy and lossless the space overhead is significant and there's absolutely no sound quality advantage at all. You're only getting the audio equivalent of packing peanuts padding out the file sizes. "HD" audio is even worse for that.
> 
> With KeithEmo's ears and KeithEmo's equipment, there is absolutely no audible difference between high data rate lossy and lossless, so for him it's pointless. Any extra cost involved with lossless files is wasted. It would be better used on getting more music.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jan 8, 2019)

Then you have a dilemma.
When a CD is available I would always buy that... and make my own MP3 if I wanted one.
I should also note that, if you purchase a commercial MP3, you are trusting whoever encoded it to have done an optimum job.
MP3 encoders are not standard, and there are many different options, so they are far from equal.

As for the Grateful Dead Studio Remasters...
I can state that I purchased the 24/192k version of that set - and it sounds very good.
(I would go as far as to say that I own several different remasters of some of the albums included in the set - and the versions in that set are by far my favorites.)
It has also been heavily remastered and remixed - which may well account for all or most of the difference.
I guess it's up to you to decide whether you trust the MP3 version to sound as good as the 24/192k version.



sonitus mirus said:


> That is only true when a CD is still widely available for sale everywhere.   In fact, on Amazon, today, if a new CD is available for sale, that is typically cheaper than the mp3 version, and with a Prime membership, the delivery is free and overnight.
> 
> The problem is when I run into something I want to hear, but is not available to stream on music services, or if something has only been released in a Hi-Res format.
> 
> The Grateful Dead Studio Albums Collection, as an example, is not available in a CD format nor is it available at 16/44.1.  I can get it in a lossy format for $94.99 (Amazon 256kb mp3) or I can splurge on a 24/96 lossless version for $199.98 on HD Tracks.


----------



## bigshot

Sound you can't hear doesn't matter. It can be irretrievably lost and it still doesn't make a lick of difference when you sit down to listen to music.


----------



## Phronesis

Some things to keep in mind regarding whether differences matter and are worth extra storage, cost, etc.:

- One person may notice differences that another doesn't (or can't)

- The differences a person notices may vary over time, depending on how much attention they pay, where they direct their attention, state of body and health, past listening experiences, expectations, etc.

- The differences a person notices may depend on the track

- The differences a person notices may depend on other components in the signal chain

- Even if people notice and don't notice the same differences, they may give different importance to those differences

For a lot of things, these factors make it difficult, if not impossible, to make general statements about what differences can be heard and how much they matter.  To a large extent, each person needs to be make their own judgments and decisions.


----------



## bigshot

I am looking for a person who can discern a difference between lossy and lossless in a blind test under normal music listening conditions. So far I haven't found anyone. If someone thinks they can do it, please let me know. I would be happy to set you up with a test. So far I have tested dozens and dozens of audiophiles, including several posters in this forum and no one seems to be able to tell any difference above about 256. Thanks.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I am looking for a person who can discern a difference between lossy and lossless in a blind test under normal music listening conditions. So far I haven't found anyone. If someone thinks they can do it, please let me know. I would be happy to set you up with a test. So far I have tested dozens and dozens of audiophiles, including several posters in this forum and no one seems to be able to tell any difference above about 256. Thanks.



As we've discussed before, blind test results aren't necessarily conclusive, because:

- There are variations in how blind tests are designed, conducted, and interpreted; a blind test can produce false positive or false negative results due to problems in these areas

- Statistics can't be applied to blind tests in a simple way because hearing acuity can vary across trials - auditory perception isn't a simple and consistent "measuring device/process" (e.g., someone might really notice a difference in 10% of trials, and just be guessing in the other 90% of trials, thus producing an apparent null result)

- Memory inaccuracy and fuzziness is a problem in any listening comparison, whether sighted or blind (blinding only fixes the problem of expectation bias)

- Results of blind tests don't necessarily generalize to normal listening (especially with complex musical signals where the listener can't be sure of what differences to listen for, as compared to simple test samples where the listener knows what to listen for), so blind tests may not be a reliable tool to make such an inference

I can't propose a test better than a controlled blind test, but that doesn't mean that such a blind test is good enough to draw the kinds of sweeping conclusions which are sometimes asserted in Sound Science.  There can be such a situation as "we're not sure, but leaning this way."


----------



## bfreedma (Jan 8, 2019)

It’s unlikely we will ever have a “perfect” testing methodology, but given the consistency of blind test results (people never successfully identifying differences in a statistically meaningful way), it’s unlikely that the methodology is fatally flawed.  If success/failure was conditional, then we should be seeing individuals who can consistently identify lossy vs. lossless those under specific conditions.  That this never happens in controlled testing is fairly compelling.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jan 8, 2019)

Phronesis said:


> As we've discussed before, blind test results aren't necessarily conclusive, because:
> 
> - There are variations in how blind tests are designed, conducted, and interpreted; a blind test can produce false positive or false negative results due to problems in these areas
> 
> ...




c'mon man...it ain't nearly as complicated as all that.  Why is it so hard for some to admit that 256 and above lossy files are pretty damned hard to distinguish from lossless?  "memory inaccuracy and fuzziness" makes A/B testing unreliable, but some guy saying he KNOWS his new high $ cable has "dramatically" improved the SQ of his ear buds or that this DAC sounds way better than that DAC is perfectly reasonable.   It's simple.  Listen to these two recordings - one a good (256 or better) mp3 and the other a lossless recording - and tell me which one sounds better.  You can listen to them over and over and focus on whatever you want to focus on ...then pick the one that sounds better.  If you can pick the lossless more than the lossy you have golden ears.


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 8, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> It’s unlikely we will ever have a “perfect” testing methodology, but given the consistency of blind test results (people never successfully identifying differences in a statistically meaningful way), it’s unlikely that the methodology is fatally flawed.  If success/failure was conditional, then we should be seeing individuals who can consistently identify lossy vs. lossless those under specific conditions.  That this never happens in controlled testing is fairly compelling.





Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> c'mon man...it ain't nearly as complicated as all that.  Why is it so hard for some to admit that 256 and above lossy files are pretty damned hard to distinguish from lossless?  "memory inaccuracy and fuzziness" makes A/B testing unreliable, but some guy saying he KNOWS his new high $ cable has "dramatically" improved the SQ of his ear buds or that this DAC sounds way better than that DAC is perfectly reasonable.   It's simple.  Listen to these two recordings - one a good (256 or better) mp3 and the other a lossless recording - and tell me which one sounds better.  You can listen to them over and over and focus on whatever you want to focus on ...then pick the one that sounds better.  If you can pick the lossless more than the lossy you have golden ears.



I'm comfortable with saying that the blind tests conducted so far are _probably_ sufficient to conclude that any audible differences between lossless vs somewhat lossy, DACs, amps, and cables are _very likely_ to be _very subtle at most_ for the _vast majority_ of listeners.  (The qualifiers I italicized make this sort of statement acceptable to me.  I'm not comfortable with sweeping and absolute statements, because we don't have the evidence and knowledge to support such statements.)

A corollary of the above statement is that it can _very likely_ be concluded that the night and day differences that many listeners frequently report are due to misperceptions rather than real audible differences, in the _vast majority_ of cases.  We have an impressive ability to frequently misperceive things without our being consciously aware of it, and we clearly didn't evolve to be able to be able to make and remember these kinds of fine auditory distinctions. And yet we're drawn to try to make these kinds of distinctions, almost like it's some sort of sport.  Weird …

As I've noted before, I don't notice any obvious difference between Spotify Extreme and Tidal lossless, and I happily use both.  Given the choice, I usually use Tidal "just in case" there's a subtle difference I don't readily pick up, but I don't really worry that I'm missing out when I use Spotify.  There's been talk for a while about Spotify offering a lossless option, and I'm guessing that they haven't done so yet because they don't want to be accused of charging people more for something which makes no difference.


----------



## castleofargh

most of the time you act as if a statement is true until proved false, but this is supposedly a section about facts and science, not one about Judge Judy. claims without supporting evidence are worth nothing because science relies on data, not on our good will to trust an empty claim form some dude online. and if providing supporting evidence is overly complicated or impossible, then the answer isn't to accept the possibility that the claim is true. the answer is to ask why anybody would claim something he has no idea how to demonstrate.
empty claims can be rejected and doing so doesn't mean we claim that the guy was wrong, it means that we have better things to do than getting into a debate without supporting data. it's the same good practice that refuse to argue non falsifiable ideas or claims.


----------



## MrPappy

If i'm adding something to my record collection I would rather have the whole song not just some of it.


----------



## KeithEmo

Sounds good....

But, for starters, you will have to test it under ALL "normal listening conditions".
So, of course, you should try it in stereo.
Then you should try it in synthesized 5.1 and 7.1 channel surround sound, when decoded using Dolby PLIIx, DTS Neo-6, the Dolby Surround Upmixer, the DTS Neo-X upmixer, and the Auro 3D upmixer.
You should also confirm that there is no audible difference when it's played through the most common "headphone ehnancement" plugins - including at least the "Dolby headphone" plugin and " the new "Atmos headphone" plugin for Windows.
You should probably also include a few of the proprietary surround sound modes offered by the major manufacturers.
These are all "normal listening conditions" used by large numbers of "typical listeners".
(We sell both stereo and home theater equipment at Emotiva - and many of our customers who own home theater equipment listen to their stereo music through a surround sound decoder in synthesized surround sound.)



bigshot said:


> I am looking for a person who can discern a difference between lossy and lossless in a blind test under normal music listening conditions. So far I haven't found anyone. If someone thinks they can do it, please let me know. I would be happy to set you up with a test. So far I have tested dozens and dozens of audiophiles, including several posters in this forum and no one seems to be able to tell any difference above about 256. Thanks.


----------



## MrPappy

But ok. I will admit I do still have some mp3's sitting around in my collection. But it's stuff I don't really care about really and listen to it very rarely.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree....
However, this leads us right around the circle, and back to a very basic question:
_WHICH_ claim is the one that we are supposed to reject without proof?
If we accept the criterion that "we shouldn't accept ANY claim without proof" then we simply have two unproven claims.
I should also note that failure to prove that one of those claims is true does NOT prove by default that the other is true.

One person claims that "lossless files sound audibly the same as lossy files".
Another claims that, since lossy files can be shown to be measurably quite different, it seems likely that they will be audibly different.
(I personally suspect that, because lossy files are measurably very different, it seems likely that there will turn out to be situations where those differences lead to audible differences... but I make no claim to have tested it either way.)

It is a logical fallacy to assume that either of those claims is some sort of "default assumption"; by your criterion there is no such thing as a default assumption..
Neither claim is "obviously true" or "obviously likely to be true" or "obviously unlikely to be true".
They are BOTH "just empty claims" until and unless valid and relevent proof is presented.
We need to see actual proof before assuming that EITHER of those claims is true.
(Note that the scale and scope of the proof must be appropriate; for example, if you test five subjects and three pieces of equipment, you cannot reasonably generalize your results to "everyone" or "all equipment".)

I should also point out that most lossy compression methods, including the popular MP3, are not standardized.
If you compress the same original file into a "320k VBR MP3 file" using different encoders, you will end up with different results.
Each encoder uses its own "judgment" to decide what to discard. 
They are all based on the same basic assumptions - but the details vary considerably.
Therefore, at a very minimum, when making this sort of claim, you must specify the EXACT encoder, version, and settings that were used.
(There is no reason to assume that different encoders, or the same encoder with slightly different settings, will produce equally "audibly transparent" results.)
And, yes, this can be a problem if you purchase MP3 files, because vendors often neglect to tell you what compressor and settings they used.
(Of course, the solution there is to find an encoder whose performance YOU trust, then compress your own files from lossless originals.)



castleofargh said:


> most of the time you act as if a statement is true until proved false, but this is supposedly a section about facts and science, not one about Judge Judy. claims without supporting evidence are worth nothing because science relies on data, not on our good will to trust an empty claim form some dude online. and if providing supporting evidence is overly complicated or impossible, then the answer isn't to accept the possibility that the claim is true. the answer is to ask why anybody would claim something he has no idea how to demonstrate.
> empty claims can be rejected and doing so doesn't mean we claim that the guy was wrong, it means that we have better things to do than getting into a debate without supporting data. it's the same good practice that refuse to argue non falsifiable ideas or claims.


----------



## KeithEmo

Perhaps you have a short memory......

There was a time when "nobody could tell the difference between a cylinder recording and a live performer".
Then people insisted that vinyl "was so close to perfect that there was no point in looking for improvement".
Then we were told that most people couldn't tell "is it live or is it Memorex" (referring to cassettes).
Then there was a time when "most people were sure that 128k MP3 files were audibly perfect".
(Note that the developers of the MP3 compression process never made claims beyond that "most listeners" wouldn't notice a difference with "most music".)

I agree.... there's nothing to suggest that the methodology itself is flawed.
However, there really have NOT been "comprehensive widespread tests".
(It seems reasonable to suggest that, at least for now, no single group has both the resources and the inclination to perform those tests.)

I should also note something about human nature - which is that we learn and evolve in our ability to recognize things.
In one very early test, an audience was unable to tell the difference between a live performer and a cylinder recording.
HOWEVER, it is important to note that the audience who participated in that test had no experience whatsoever with recorded music... having only ever experienced live performances.
To them, that poor quality recording was 'the closest thing they'd ever heard to a live performance - other than a live performance".
A modern audience would have been quick to notice the surface noise, ticks and pops, and distortion of the cylinder recording as "obvious hints that it was a record".
In short, we have LEARNED that ticks, pops, and hiss are artifacts often associated with mechanical recordings like vinyl records.

This strongly suggests an interesting avenue of research.

After doing careful tests to determine whether listeners can detect differences between lossless and lossy compressed files (using a particular level and sort of compression).
We should take one group of listeners and "teach them the differences".
This would be accomplished by allowing them to listen to both versions of several different files - while pointing out the differences that exist "so they know what to listen for".
("Here's what those two files look like on an oscilloscope. Do you see the differences? Do you hear a difference that seems to correlate with the difference you see?") 
We should then re-run the test, to find out whether our "taught" group has in fact LEARNED how to better notice and recognize the differences between the files.
We could then perform a double blind test to determine whether our "taught" group has actually LEARNED to be more accurate in distinguishing lossy files - or not.

We aren't born knowing how to tell a counterfeit painting from an original - doing so is a skill that we learn - and that some people have a particular aptitude for while others don't.
And, for those of us who lack that skill, the differences noticed by skilled experts are often invisible or very difficult to detect until they are pointed out to us.
Why would we assume that the ability to recognize the small differences caused by lossy compression shouldn't have a similar characteristic?



bfreedma said:


> It’s unlikely we will ever have a “perfect” testing methodology, but given the consistency of blind test results (people never successfully identifying differences in a statistically meaningful way), it’s unlikely that the methodology is fatally flawed.  If success/failure was conditional, then we should be seeing individuals who can consistently identify lossy vs. lossless those under specific conditions.  That this never happens in controlled testing is fairly compelling.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree....

And, yes, many people on all sides of the fence take advantage of the inclination we humans have to exaggerate our perceptions.
And, yes, many people also see it as a sort of competition... where the winner is more perceptive than his competitors (or has the more golden ear).

HOWEVER, you must always remember to maintain perspective....
It's quite likely that neither you nor I would get to the store any faster if we were driving as Formula 1 racing car.
However, it is still true that the Formula 1 racer is faster and does perform better than my Nissan Versa.

You may reasonably claim that "neither of us would benefit from owning a Formula 1 racer".
However, you may NOT reasonably suggest that "the Formula 1 racer doesn't perform better than the Nissan" just because we are unable to take advantage of the differences.

I have heard that Spotify has been 'test marketing" their lossless service.
However, since we haven't heard any more about it, it seems likely that their test wasn't very successful (at least from the perspective of generating revenue).



Phronesis said:


> I'm comfortable with saying that the blind tests conducted so far are _probably_ sufficient to conclude that any audible differences between lossless vs somewhat lossy, DACs, amps, and cables are _very likely_ to be _very subtle at most_ for the _vast majority_ of listeners.  (The qualifiers I italicized make this sort of statement acceptable to me.  I'm not comfortable with sweeping and absolute statements, because we don't have the evidence and knowledge to support such statements.)
> 
> A corollary of the above statement is that it can _very likely_ be concluded that the night and day differences that many listeners frequently report are due to misperceptions rather than real audible differences, in the _vast majority_ of cases.  We have an impressive ability to frequently misperceive things without our being consciously aware of it, and we clearly didn't evolve to be able to be able to make and remember these kinds of fine auditory distinctions. And yet we're drawn to try to make these kinds of distinctions, almost like it's some sort of sport.  Weird …
> 
> As I've noted before, I don't notice any obvious difference between Spotify Extreme and Tidal lossless, and I happily use both.  Given the choice, I usually use Tidal "just in case" there's a subtle difference I don't readily pick up, but I don't really worry that I'm missing out when I use Spotify.  There's been talk for a while about Spotify offering a lossless option, and I'm guessing that they haven't done so yet because they don't want to be accused of charging people more for something which makes no difference.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Perhaps you have a short memory......
> 
> There was a time when "nobody could tell the difference between a cylinder recording and a live performer".
> Then people insisted that vinyl "was so close to perfect that there was no point in looking for improvement".
> ...




So many words and so little actual refutation.  Wax cylinders, alledged testing from the 1920s with no references, and 70s advertising slogans - seriously?

Still waiting for you to present actual evidence rather than blindly lobbing grenades in the hopes of actually hitting something.   It’s almost as if you have a financial stake in avoiding the data available from existing testing...


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> [1] I can't propose a test better than a controlled blind test, but that doesn't mean that such a blind test is good enough to draw the kinds of sweeping conclusions which are sometimes asserted in Sound Science.
> [2] There can be such a situation as "we're not sure, but leaning this way.
> [3] I'm comfortable with saying that the blind tests conducted so far are _probably_ sufficient to conclude that any audible differences between lossless vs somewhat lossy, DACs, amps, and cables are _very likely_ to be _very subtle at most_ for the _vast majority_ of listeners. (The qualifiers I italicized make this sort of statement acceptable to me ...)



1. But we don't ONLY use "such a blind test" to draw the kinds of sweeping conclusions. Lossy compression algorithms have been tested extensively over a period of at least a couple of decades (and have been refined over that period) and not just with "such a blind test" but with countless and far more robust controlled double blind/ABX tests.

2. Yes, there can be but this isn't one of those situations!

3. You are of course entitled to your opinion but this is the sound science forum and what you personally are "comfortable with saying" or what "sort of statement is acceptable to you" is irrelevant. There is no evidence to support the assertion that the differences are "_very likely to be very subtle at most_", all the reliable evidence indicates that the differences are "very likely to be completely inaudible". If there were audible but very subtle differences we would see some evidence of that, we would see a small minority of test subjects who could reliably identify a difference and we would expect to see a somewhat higher percentage when the test subjects were trained listeners using the highest quality (most accurate) reproduction systems/environments but we don't see this, we don't see ANY percentage of test subjects who can reliably identify a difference, even among the most highly trained listeners with the best reproduction equipment. The actual situation, as far as the evidence is concerned, is therefore: "We cannot be absolutely sure about anything but we can be reasonably certain".



KeithEmo said:


> [1] But, for starters, you will have to test it under ALL "normal listening conditions".
> [2] You should probably also include a few of the proprietary surround sound modes offered by the major manufacturers.
> [3] These are all "normal listening conditions" used by large numbers of "typical listeners".



1. Clearly that statement is false. It's clearly impossible to test every combination of consumer equipment and listening environment, let alone test every consumer with every combination of equipment/environment. There can be no absolute proof, only a weight of evidence.

2. If a consumer wants to take a lossy (or lossless) recording and completely change the fidelity/purpose according to their own preferences, that's entirely up to them but it's not a lack of performance if it's used for a different purpose than it was designed for. Using your own analogy, a Formula 1 car does NOT have "better performance" than a Nissan Versa, if you want to go to a store (with your wife or kids, and buy something) a Formula 1 car has no performance at all, let alone "better performance"! 

3. No they're not, they are abnormal listening conditions, not what lossy codecs were designed for. Additionally, it's not done "by large numbers" of "typical listeners", it's done by an extremely small minority.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] However, this leads us right around the circle, and back to a very basic question: _WHICH_ claim is the one that we are supposed to reject without proof?
> [1a] If we accept the criterion that "we shouldn't accept ANY claim without proof" then we simply have two unproven claims.
> [1b] It is a logical fallacy to assume that either of those claims is some sort of "default assumption"; by your criterion there is no such thing as a default assumption.
> [2] There was a time when "nobody could tell the difference between a cylinder recording and a live performer".
> [2a] Then people insisted that vinyl "was so close to perfect that there was no point in looking for improvement".



1. It does indeed unfortunately lead us right around the circle again, and back to the very basic fallacy which you keep repeating! As there is and cannot be any absolute proof, the claim "we are supposed to reject" is the claim WHICH has no supporting reliable evidence in favour of the claim which has overwhelming supporting evidence.
1a. You can accept any criterion you choose but this is the Sound Science forum (not the "KeithEmo's Criterion" forum) and therefore we "accept the criterion" of science, which is that we accept the claim which is supported by reliable evidence and reject the claim which has none! For example, Evolution has not been proven, neither has Creationism but scientifically we do NOT "simply have two unproven claims". Scientifically, the claim of Evolution is accepted (without proof) because of it's weight of reliable evidence (and the lack of evidence for creationism).
1b. No it's a logical fallacy not to accept the "default assumption" of say Evolution.

2. No there wasn't! You keep contradicting yourself, you keep going on about proof and then make an assertion without even any supporting evidence, let alone proof. Why is that?
2a. What people? Clearly your statement does not apply to all people and specifically excludes entire groups of people (scientists and engineers for example). Why was the RIAA curve invented, why was digital audio invented, was no one able to measure anything 80 years ago?

And off we go again, round and round in circles!

G


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

lol, I love the suggestion that its necessary to prove the difference is inaudible under every possible (imaginary) listening condition!  Why? How bout if we just go with the simplest, by far most common listening situation first.  A pair of headphones and a laptop or other suitable source?  Then, if you want to try and design a situation under which you can reliably tell the difference between a high br lossy file and a lossless one simply by listening to them you go ahead and do that.  Nobody is trying to argue that the files aren't different.  We're saying that under the conditions that 99% of people are using them they are functionally indistinguishable and that - by extension - lossless files are by no means a necessity for audiophile enjoyment.  In other words, selling gear on the basis that lossless files make a substantial (or really ANY) difference in terms of sound quality (again, compared to high bitrate lossy) is a lie.


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 9, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> lol, I love the suggestion that its necessary to prove the difference is inaudible under every possible (imaginary) listening condition!  Why? How bout if we just go with the simplest, by far most common listening situation first.  A pair of headphones and a laptop or other suitable source?  Then, if you want to try and design a situation under which you can reliably tell the difference between a high br lossy file and a lossless one simply by listening to them you go ahead and do that.  Nobody is trying to argue that the files aren't different.  We're saying that under the conditions that 99% of people are using them they are functionally indistinguishable and that - by extension - lossless files are by no means a necessity for audiophile enjoyment.  In other words, selling gear on the basis that lossless files make a substantial (or really ANY) difference in terms of sound quality (again, compared to high bitrate lossy) is a lie.



Even if that conclusion is that correct (my guess is that it’s correct), I’m not aware of it having been established based on testing which meets scientific standards. We need to make the distinction between a belief and the support for the belief.  We shouldn’t be unscientific in Sound Science.

If there are good studies on this which I’ve missed, perhaps someone could provide links.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

the thing that hasn't been established via scientific testing (by people making the claim that they CAN hear a difference) is that there IS any audible difference!  LOL.  The fact that it's incredibly tough (as in impossible) to hear a difference between high BR lossy and lossless has definitely been well-established and the suggestion that it hasn't is really pretty much just willful obfuscation at this point...


----------



## Phronesis

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> the thing that hasn't been established via scientific testing (by people making the claim that they CAN hear a difference) is that there IS any audible difference!  LOL.  The fact that it's incredibly tough (as in impossible) to hear a difference between high BR lossy and lossless has definitely been well-established and the suggestion that it hasn't is really pretty much just willful obfuscation at this point...



If something hasn't been established by scientific testing either way, you don't make a default assumption, you say "I don't know."  To the extent that some testing has been done, the quality and quantity of that testing can be evaluated and people can draw their own conclusions about what the testing suggests.  People may draw different conclusions, there wouldn't necessarily be a consensus.  So again, it would be helpful to gather up all the relevant links and post them here so that people can review the testing for themselves.  Otherwise, we're just debating without reference to evidence and using tactics like asserting burden of proof, which is fine for law, but isn't really how science works.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> There is no evidence to support the assertion that the differences are "_very likely to be very subtle at most_", all the reliable evidence indicates that the differences are "very likely to be completely inaudible".



I was careful with my wording.  "Very subtle at most" includes the possibility of "complete inaudible," while setting a tight upper bound which rules out "obvious" and "night and day" differences.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

When "some testing" (quite a lot actually) has been done that shows one result, and very little testing (essentially none) that shows an opposite result...we can surmise quite a lot.  This is neither a courtroom, nor a science lab.


----------



## Phronesis

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> When "some testing" (quite a lot actually) has been done that shows one result, and very little testing (essentially none) that shows an opposite result...we can surmise quite a lot.  This is neither a courtroom, nor a science lab.



Please provide links and then we can all discuss.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jan 9, 2019)

I know from the outset that anything I provide will not meet your high standards of scientific scrutiny of course, but here's one link...

https://cdvsmp3.wordpress.com/cd-vs-itunes-plus-blind-test-results/


now, if you can provide one link to a similar test that has an opposite result?


----------



## KeithEmo

Indeed.

And since nobody in this forum, or anywhere else, has actually conducted a thorough, reasonably well conducted, and valid test - all we've got is words.
So I guess you'll have to live with that.

The thorough testing that we may wish existed _HAS NEVER BEEN DONE._
The data from existing tests is _VAGUE AND ONLY MARGINALLY RELEVANT._
Wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

If you disagree.....

Then show me the test where a statistically useful number of participants, listening to a reasonably comprehensive selection of test samples, on a reasonably comprehensive cross section of all available equipment, under a reasonable fraction of the listening situations most listeners today use, has produced a result demonstrating that none of those listeners was able to tell the difference between lossy compressed files and the originals. Please provide the demographic data on your test subjects, a full list of the test samples you used, full documentation on the performance of the test equipment you used, and full justification why both were properly representative of "all the listeners and music available today". You must provide both statistical results showing that "a statistically significant number of listeners were unable to distinguish the difference, and proper confirmation that no few outliers were able to do so. When you have that, please tell me which encoder you used, and which settings you used, so we can have someone else duplicate your test and confirm the results. 

After you do that, _THEN_ we will "have something beyond lots of words on which to base our judgment".

_NO REFUTATION IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO REFUTE.
All we have are a few isolated, small scale, extremely limited tests - which produced results that failed to conclusively disprove the assertion that most people don't notice the difference._



bfreedma said:


> So many words and so little actual refutation.  Wax cylinders, alledged testing from the 1920s with no references, and 70s advertising slogans - seriously?
> 
> Still waiting for you to present actual evidence rather than blindly lobbing grenades in the hopes of actually hitting something.   It’s almost as if you have a financial stake in avoiding the data available from existing testing...


----------



## KeithEmo

Actually, even though the test was rather limited, I thought their results were interesting.....

Out of a bunch of participants, they _did_ in fact find one listener who _was_ reliably able to recognize the difference....
So they _DID_ prove that the assertion that "nobody can reliably hear the difference" is _UNTRUE_ after all.
(And the iTunes sales and marketing department will be very interested in the statistical data that _most_ users could not.)

If we consider the results of that test to be valid, then I guess now we know that at least some people can hear the difference after all, and we can move on.
It should also be noted that they managed to find that listener with only a limited number of tests and a limited number of participants.
(If it were to turn out that 1/500 listeners could hear a difference - that would be a quarter of a million who can in the USA alone.)



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I know from the outset that anything I provide will not meet your high standards of scientific scrutiny of course, but here's one link...
> 
> https://cdvsmp3.wordpress.com/cd-vs-itunes-plus-blind-test-results/
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't disagree at all - I agree with you that: "The majority of listeners who listen to stereo music in pure stereo will probably not notice any difference".
I wouldn't disagree at all with that assertion.
(However, you are incorrect in one thing; some people on this forum _are_ trying to argue that "high quality lossy files are _never_ audibly different".)

I also disagree with your guess about the percentages...
A significant percentages of the people these days listen to their music on various surround sound and home theater systems.
Likewise, many people with computers, and many separate headphone amps, include various "headphone processing" options of one sort or another.
(And many of those processors operate by acting on minor channel differences, or minor phase differences, which are altered by many lossy decoders.)


As I mentioned, here at Emotiva, we sell both stereo and surround sound equipment.
And, while we haven't kept count, I can tell you that, based on their support questions, a large percentage of our home theater customers listen to all their music in surround sound.
And I suspect Dolby Labs might dispute your suggestion that using their Dolby headphone plugin is NOT "a common listening situation".
(If you believe their counter - the plugin for "Dolby Atmos and Dolby Atmos Headphone for Windows" has been downloaded over 35,000 times from CNET alone.)
Or you might consider the lively debates about "which upmixer works better with stereo content" to suggest that in fact a lot of people use one or the other in that situation.

It might be interesting to do a survey on Head-Fi to find out how many headphone listeners use some sort of headphone enhancement or cross-mix plugin or gadget.
(And it might be equally interesting to actually test what effect various lossy compression methods and settings have on the _AUDIBLE _outputs of each.)



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> lol, I love the suggestion that its necessary to prove the difference is inaudible under every possible (imaginary) listening condition!  Why? How bout if we just go with the simplest, by far most common listening situation first.  A pair of headphones and a laptop or other suitable source?  Then, if you want to try and design a situation under which you can reliably tell the difference between a high br lossy file and a lossless one simply by listening to them you go ahead and do that.  Nobody is trying to argue that the files aren't different.  We're saying that under the conditions that 99% of people are using them they are functionally indistinguishable and that - by extension - lossless files are by no means a necessity for audiophile enjoyment.  In other words, selling gear on the basis that lossless files make a substantial (or really ANY) difference in terms of sound quality (again, compared to high bitrate lossy) is a lie.


----------



## KeithEmo

I might suggest that, if you consider "the big picture", most people have historically believed, and continue to believe, that various audio formats do sound different.
(So, in fact, it is the assertion that they don't sound audibly different that constitutes "lobbing the grenade" - and not the other way around.)

It would be _VERY_ interesting to survey all of the customers of a major service that uses lossy compression - like iTunes.
I would be curious to know how many of their customers are actually convinced that the lossy compressed music they're listening to is "indistinguishable from CD quality"...
And how many would say that, even though they personally don't care much either way, they just assume, or are outright convinced, that the CD really is a little bit better...
And, for that matter, it would be interesting to find out how many assume that vinyl is still better than both...

Always remember that, statistically, the majority of listeners are not "convinced that the lossy compression used by someone like iTunes sounds just as good as a CD".
The majority of listeners simply don't care all that much and haven't given it much thought either way.



bfreedma said:


> So many words and so little actual refutation.  Wax cylinders, alledged testing from the 1920s with no references, and 70s advertising slogans - seriously?
> 
> Still waiting for you to present actual evidence rather than blindly lobbing grenades in the hopes of actually hitting something.   It’s almost as if you have a financial stake in avoiding the data available from existing testing...


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Actually, even though the test was rather limited, I thought their results were interesting.....
> 
> Out of a bunch of participants, they _did_ in fact find one listener who _was_ reliably able to recognize the difference....
> So they _DID_ prove that the assertion that "nobody can reliably hear the difference" is _UNTRUE_ after all.
> ...



Odd how you toss away every other test based on your absurd and unachivable criteria but seem more than willing to accept this one without applying the same.

Not that I’m surprised.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

KeithEmo said:


> Actually, even though the test was rather limited, I thought their results were interesting.....
> 
> Out of a bunch of participants, they _did_ in fact find one listener who _was_ reliably able to recognize the difference....
> So they _DID_ prove that the assertion that "nobody can reliably hear the difference" is _UNTRUE_ after all.
> ...




lol, oh yes I knew you were going to like that.   Yeah, they "found" one listener...who happened to be an sound engineer and knew exactly what he needed to look for...and still found it difficult and says he mostly made random choices and didn't really hear any difference.  Your conclusion that what the test shows us is that "some" (really, MAYBE 1) people can (might be able to) hear a difference and that now having proven your point (which in fact is the opposite of what this test really does) we can now move on is utterly hilarious!


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 9, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I know from the outset that anything I provide will not meet your high standards of scientific scrutiny of course, but here's one link...
> 
> https://cdvsmp3.wordpress.com/cd-vs-itunes-plus-blind-test-results/
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link, I read through it.  It's not a scientific study which was conducted and documented to scientific standards, but not a worthless study IMO.  Some problems are:

- We don't know the specifics of the gear people used.  What does "excellent" mean?  Some people might think a $150 headphone is excellent.

- Assuming that the difference between lossy and lossless is mainly in higher frequencies, we don't know if the lossless files were recorded well to properly capture the high frequencies in the first place.  I didn't see any analysis of the files themselves.

- A significant percentage of people taking the test may have treated the test as a casual fun exercise and just guessed most of the time, rather than really trying.

Also, the p-value cutoff of 0.05 is arbitrary.  There were some p-values close to 0.05, and one was below 0.05.  To me, this is suggestive that there _were_ subtle differences which some people picked up.  And it seems that there were one or two people who could notice differences with some consistency.

The comments section under the article is worth reading, and confirms some of the problems I noted.

I think the study argues _against_ the sweeping conclusion that the differences are inaudible for all listeners under all conditions, but supports the conclusion that the vast majority of listeners will find the differences to be very subtle at most.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

KeithEmo said:


> It would be _VERY_ interesting to survey all of the customers of a major service that uses lossy compression - like iTunes.
> I would be curious to know how many of their customers are actually convinced that the lossy compressed music they're listening to is "indistinguishable from CD quality"...
> And how many would say that, even though they personally don't care much either way, they just assume, or are outright convinced, that the CD really is a little bit better...
> And, for that matter, it would be interesting to find out how many assume that vinyl is still better than both...
> .



why would this be interesting?  It's not a revelation that basically un-informed people buy into the notion that "lossy" is worse than "lossless."  Really that's exactly what many of us are contending.  They are believing what the salespeople tell them...


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Phronesis said:


> Thanks for the link, I read through it.  It's not a scientific study which was conducted and documented to scientific standards, but not a worthless study IMO.  Some problems are:
> 
> - We don't know the specifics of the gear people used.  What does "excellent" mean?  Some people might think a $150 headphone is excellent.
> 
> ...



yes yes we all know.  We need to adhere to insanely strict (essentially un-achievable) scientific principles here.  Now if you can provide a link to a similar study that shows any statistically significant evidence that people using an array of equipment can reliably tell the difference between high br lossless and lossy...


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I don't disagree at all - I agree with you that: "The majority of listeners who listen to stereo music in pure stereo will probably not notice any difference".
> I wouldn't disagree at all with that assertion.
> (However, you are incorrect in one thing; some people on this forum _are_ trying to argue that "high quality lossy files are _never_ audibly different".)
> 
> ...




For someone who claims to have a background in statistics, you certainly do abuse them.

Windows has an install base exceeding 1 billion devices.  35000 downloads of a DSP shows how few people actually potentially use it, not that it comprises a significant percentage of users.

You also conflate the percentage of people who purchase home theater gear and use DSP with the overall population.  While I certainly don’t have statistics at hand, I would be beyond shocked if the percentage of music listening done via multichannel and DSP enhanced stereo is anywhere close to 1%.  The use rate of phones dwarfs all other playback hardware - it’s easy to forget that people who spend time on forums such as this do not reflect the typical listener.  We are a fraction of a fraction of a percent.  The vast majority use whatever device they are presented with, whether phone, tablet, computer, plug in speakers or headphones, and listen to whatever the default output of the device is.

To suggest that surveys your customers or head-FI members is somehow representative of global usage shows either a complete lack of statistical model awareness or an intentional attempt to skew results.


----------



## Phronesis

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> yes yes we all know.  We need to adhere to insanely strict (essentially un-achievable) scientific principles here.  Now if you can provide a link to a similar study that shows any statistically significant evidence that people using an array of equipment can reliably tell the difference between high br lossless and lossy...



Scientific standards can be adhered to if proper scientific testing is done. 

I haven't tried to search the literature on this because I don't care about the issue beyond some curiosity, but will be happy to read anything that's pointed out here in the forum.

I'm not arguing that some people can reliably tell the difference, I'm saying that I haven't seen good evidence that the opposite has been demonstrated.  Without conclusive evidence either way, we can only draw tentative conclusions (essentially hypotheses).


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Phronesis said:


> Scientific standards can be adhered to if proper scientific testing is done.
> 
> I haven't tried to search the literature on this because I don't care about the issue beyond some curiosity, but will be happy to read anything that's pointed out here in the forum.
> 
> I'm not arguing that some people can reliably tell the difference, I'm saying that I haven't seen good evidence that the opposite has been demonstrated.  Without conclusive evidence either way, we can only draw tentative conclusions (essentially hypotheses).



you have seen "good" evidence.  You choose to ignore it.


----------



## Phronesis

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> you have seen "good" evidence.  You choose to ignore it.



Did you read my post on the article you cited?  As I said, I think that article provides evidence _against_ your conclusion.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Phronesis said:


> Did you read my post on the article you cited?  As I said, I think that article provides evidence _against_ your conclusion.



my conclusion is that any test in which people are tasked with choosing which file is lossy and which is lossless, or which file is the "better sounding" of a set of lossless and (high bitrate) lossy files will essentially come out random - because the differences are essentially in-audible.  That was the conclusion reached by the test I linked.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> There was a time when "nobody could tell the difference between a cylinder recording and a live performer".
> Then people insisted that vinyl "was so close to perfect that there was no point in looking for improvement".
> Then we were told that most people couldn't tell "is it live or is it Memorex" (referring to cassettes).
> Then there was a time when "most people were sure that 128k MP3 files were audibly perfect".
> (Note that the developers of the MP3 compression process never made claims beyond that "most listeners" wouldn't notice a difference with "most music".)


I doubt this was true. well some probably said it in reviews, the previous generation of flowery extravaganza must have been full of "OMG I started playing the song and the wife ran away thinking people were in the house!". but let's be honest, a wax cylinder never contended as a perfect reproduction medium. same stuff with vinyls, it's never been all that hard for vinyl playback to fail at transparency.
 I expect that those days were for audio the same way it has been for video/pictures in the decades. or tv screens and computer monitors. when we get the very best stuff, we certainly are very impressed, but that doesn't mean we're all convinced that we have achieved visual transparency. it's becoming harder and harder, but we're still clear about the limitations on colors, contrast, sometimes refresh rate.  and those aren't conceptual ideas like hires masturbation, we can capture a scene, put it on a screen and anybody will be able to tell that it's different in a test where you can see both. not everybody will know how to call the difference, but noticing some is still to this day, no trouble at all. I imagine wax cylinders, vinyls and k7 tapes to have given the same feeling. at least that's how they always felt to me even before CDs were sold.

on the other hand, 256ACC falls into that marvelous category where almost nobody can pass a proper blind test, but apparently almost everybody "knows" that he can tell it apart from lossless. so as time goes by and the evidence continues to diverge from the claims, it becomes really hard not to consider that those people claiming audible difference are full of crap, or don't know what they're doing.


----------



## KeithEmo

You misunderstand.... I was being a bit sarcastic.

However, my statement stands....
If you accept their results, then they did in fact find someone who could reliably tell the difference, which makes the claim that "nobody can tell the difference" false.

Likewise, if you were to claim that "humans can't run a mile in less than four minutes", you would be incorrect.
It doesn't matter how many millions of humans you can find who cannot do so.
As soon as that one guy did so, it then became proven fact that "humans can do so", and the question has been answered.
(When you make an absolutely general claim, then a SINGLE exception proves your claim false... which is why making generalized claims is such a dangerous proposition.)

However, I quite agree, their test was not well controlled.
(That one subject could have cheated, we don't know what test samples they used, and they only tested using a single encoder, when we all know that lossy encoders aren't standardized.)



bfreedma said:


> Odd how you toss away every other test based on your absurd and unachivable criteria but seem more than willing to accept this one without applying the same.
> 
> Not that I’m surprised.


----------



## castleofargh (Jan 9, 2019)

@Sgt. Ear Ache , before you go mad about miscommunication like I did oh so many times with @Phronesis before getting what his actual point was, let me explain this one as I understand it: he doesn't care at all to say that high bitrate lossy isn't transparent, what he argues against is claiming that it universally is. it might look the same but it's really not. because for obvious reasons, it's hard to test every humans, every tracks, every playback gears with every encoders. so from his position, the absolute claim of transparency cannot and shoudn't be made. that's all.
if 256 AAC is transparent for the all universe but one guy with one audio file, he'll argue that the universal claim has been effectively disproved. which is strictly true, at least for people who aren't big on statistical concepts. ^_^

@Phronesis did I get that right for once?


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

castleofargh said:


> @Sgt. Ear Ache , before you go mad on about miscommunication like I did oh so many times with @Phronesis before getting what his actual point was, let me explain this one as I understand it: he doesn't care at all to say that high bitrate lossy isn't transparent, what he argues against is claiming that it universally is. it might look the same but it's really not. because for obvious reasons, it's hard to test every humans, every tracks, every playback gears with every encoders. so from his position, the absolute claim of transparency cannot and shoudn't be made. that's all.
> if 256 AAC is transparent for the all universe but one guy with one audio file, he'll argue that the universal claim has been effectively disproved. which is strictly true, at least for people who aren't big on statistical concepts. ^_^
> 
> @Phronesis did I get that right for once?



yes I understand that.  Same goes for Kemo apparently.  

Sure, there's humans who can run a sub-4 minute mile.  But don't nobody better try and sell me a pair of shoes claiming they will make ME able to run a sub 4 mile...


----------



## Phronesis

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> my conclusion is that any test in which people are tasked with choosing which file is lossy and which is lossless, or which file is the "better sounding" of a set of lossless and (high bitrate) lossy files will essentially come out random - because the differences are essentially in-audible.  That was the conclusion reached by the test I linked.



Nope, the conclusion isn't supported by the results.  Multiple p-values close to 0.05 suggests that there could be a difference.  A p-value of 0.07 can roughly be interpreted as saying that there's only a 7% chance that you would get a difference from null, at least as big as the difference observed, due to random chance, so there's a 93% chance that the difference is real.  Whether this number is 7% or 5% or 4% doesn't really matter, they're all similarly low numbers.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree.....

And what percentage of people who listen on their phone listen in pure stereo?
And what percentage use one of the many so-called "enhancement plugins" - many of which also perform various sorts of DSP-type audio processing?
And, while we're at it, how many people listen to music on their TV set these days (my cable company offers all sorts of music channels)?
And how many listen to music videos on their TV - probably in some sort of surround sound.
That is an excellent question, and one that would take a lot of research to answer....

My guess is that the majority of iPhone users don't even _KNOW_ if the audio they're listening to has been processed or not.

In order to make any sort of meaningful statement you need to specify a lot of things.



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> my conclusion is that any test in which people are tasked with choosing which file is lossy and which is lossless, or which file is the "better sounding" of a set of lossless and (high bitrate) lossy files will essentially come out random - because the differences are essentially in-audible.  That was the conclusion reached by the test I linked.





bfreedma said:


> For someone who claims to have a background in statistics, you certainly do abuse them.
> 
> Windows has an install base exceeding 1 billion devices.  35000 downloads of a DSP shows how few people actually potentially use it, not that it comprises a significant percentage of users.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> yes I understand that.  Same goes for Kemo apparently.
> 
> Sure, there's humans who can run a sub-4 minute mile.  But don't nobody better try and sell me a pair of shoes claiming they will make ME able to run a sub 4 mile...


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Phronesis said:


> Nope, the conclusion isn't supported by the results.  Multiple p-values close to 0.05 suggests that there could be a difference.  A p-value of 0.07 can roughly be interpreted as saying that there's only a 7% chance that you would get a difference from null, at least as big as the difference observed, due to random chance, so there's a 93% chance that the difference is real.  Whether this number is 7% or 5% or 4% doesn't really matter, they're all similarly low numbers.



"Notice that, despite deviations, both distributions have similar bell shapes. Furthermore, all reliable p-values are in favor of the null hypothesis stated, some of them in high agreement. So, based on the data obtained, the most reasonable conclusion is that we can’t hear the difference between CD audio and iTunes plus. And this is true in all the cases considered—being young, with our sense of hearing at its peak, having musical training or using excellent audio gear doesn’t seem to help."


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 9, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> "Notice that, despite deviations, both distributions have similar bell shapes. Furthermore, all reliable p-values are in favor of the null hypothesis stated, some of them in high agreement. So, based on the data obtained, the most reasonable conclusion is that we can’t hear the difference between CD audio and iTunes plus. And this is true in all the cases considered—being young, with our sense of hearing at its peak, having musical training or using excellent audio gear doesn’t seem to help."



Yes, the author drew a conclusion which isn't really supported by his own results.  The whole point of calculating specific p-values is to get a probability that a difference has been found, rather than resorting to eyeballing shapes of distributions, and choosing an arbitrary p-value of 0.05 as a limit.  I would be interested in knowing the author's background.


----------



## KeithEmo

I really need to point something out here that people keep forgetting.

Statistical results _ONLY_ provide a valid answer to statistical questions.

If you want to know "how fast the _average_ person can run" then you're looking for a statistical result.
If you want to know "whether _most_ people can run a mile in under five minutes or not" then you're looking for a statistical answer.
And, if you want to know "if most people can tell the difference between lossless and lossy files most of the time" then that is also a statistical answer.
But, if you want to know "how fast the fastest human being can run a mile" that is _NOT_ a statistical answer... it's a simple single number.
And, if you want to know whether "humans can _EVER_ notice a difference between lossy and lossless files" then _THAT_ is a simple yes or no question.
(And, that being the case, if a single human being can be shown to do so, you have your answer.)

So, if that's what you REALLY want to know...
Then our best bet for finding out would probably be to buy a plane ticket for the guy who was supposedly able to do so on that test.
Because, if we test him, and find out that he really can reliably do so, then we have our answer... to that specific question.
(However, it probably says little about "what most people can hear".)

And, yes, in science, you have to be extremely careful to ask the right question if you want the right answer.

If you ask "how fast can a human run a mile" - there is only one correct answer:  
"The current record is held by Hicham El Guerrouj, who ran the mile in 3:43.13"
There is no point in looking to statistics for the answer to that question....
And no statistical result that can possibly alter that answer....
(And, unless you find someone faster, no result of any test you can perform will alter that answer in any way.)



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> "Notice that, despite deviations, both distributions have similar bell shapes. Furthermore, all reliable p-values are in favor of the null hypothesis stated, some of them in high agreement. So, based on the data obtained, the most reasonable conclusion is that we can’t hear the difference between CD audio and iTunes plus. And this is true in all the cases considered—being young, with our sense of hearing at its peak, having musical training or using excellent audio gear doesn’t seem to help."


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

In the end, I'm perfectly happy to accept the conclusion that .05% of the people on this planet "might" be able to reliably hear the difference between a 256kb lossy file and a lossless one.  I know I'm not in that .05% group.    Nor are most of us...

It would be lovely if folks selling gear or services on the basis of lossless being better were to say something like ",05% of you might be able to hear improved sound quality thanks to our lossless audio"


----------



## Phronesis

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> In the end, I'm perfectly happy to accept the conclusion that .05% of the people on this planet "might" be able to reliably hear the difference between a 256kb lossy file and a lossless one.  I know I'm not in that .05% group.    Nor are most of us...
> 
> It would be lovely if folks selling gear or services on the basis of lossless being better were to say something like ",05% of you might be able to hear improved sound quality thanks to our lossless audio"



But if you quote a number like that, it needs to be backed up by good research.  Otherwise, you'll have to use words like might, seems, about, etc. when stating your tentative conclusions.

Maybe we can all agree that it seems quite unlikely that the vast majority of listeners really notice significant differences between lossless and lossy with the gear they normally use, for the music they normally listen to, the way they normally listen to the music.  I do think the evidence so far supports that conclusion pretty well.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Phronesis said:


> But if you quote a number like that, it needs to be backed up by good research.  Otherwise, you'll have to use words like might, seems, about, etc. when stating your tentative conclusions.
> 
> Maybe we can all agree that it seems quite unlikely that the vast majority of listeners really notice significant differences between lossless and lossy with the gear they normally use, for the music they normally listen to, the way they normally listen to the music.  I do think the evidence so far supports that conclusion pretty well.



lol.  OK.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I absolutely agree....
> However, this leads us right around the circle, and back to a very basic question:
> _WHICH_ claim is the one that we are supposed to reject without proof?
> If we accept the criterion that "we shouldn't accept ANY claim without proof" then we simply have two unproven claims.
> ...


we all have assumptions, no issue there. it's not like I'm going to delete @Phronesis' list of hypotheses because it's forbidden to think about possibilities. my point was mainly that we have no requirement to bother with something if there is no data supporting it. I believe it's an important tool for science to filter out what deserves attention and what is bound to lead nowhere because it's not knowledge based. I don't use that as a filter to tell what is true or not, data will help me weight in on this so if I have none, I usually won't have a clue(maybe some assumptions ^_^).

beyond that, our decisions don't have to rely exclusively only on data, that's what makes us humans and different from each others. but arguments and even more so, claims about what happens or what could happen in the real world, should be founded on data! not on gut feelings, insecurity, and desires for something to be true.
people don't want to use lossy format, good for them, I wish for everybody to enjoy music no matter the format and resolution they use. it really has nothing to do with me TBH. I'll do what I want, you do the same, everybody's happy. but if somebody brings up some claim of audibility to justify his format choice, then IMO he should be prepared to back up his claim or to shut up about it. maybe it doesn't look nice, but nobody asked or forced him to make that statement. he could have said that he used a format because he wanted to and we would all have been like: "hmmm, ok". if he decides to come with a justification that involves objective reality, he opens the 24th level of hell where all the skeptics and objectivists reside, and he has only himself to blame for that.

and yes different encoders can do a bunch of things differently, even more so when you can add lines of command. and yes over the years codecs have changed. I always wish for us to stop talking in vague concepts and tackle actual situations with a lot of specific details. that's what this topic should IMO be about. actual situations, actual experiments, and then we discuss the errors, how the results align with previous tests(or not) and what to do of that new data. talking about lossy vs lossless in general without even bothering with bitrate is a waste of time IMO.


----------



## bigshot

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> In the end, I'm perfectly happy to accept the conclusion that .05% of the people on this planet "might" be able to reliably hear the difference between a 256kb lossy file and a lossless one.



I'd like to take the "might" out of that sentence and know for sure. But whenever I find someone who says they can definitely hear a difference, they suddenly get cold feet when it comes to doing a controlled listening test. They start coming up with excuses and claim that tests don't prove anything. That tells me where they're coming from quite clearly. I would be delighted to find someone who can actually do this. I don't know if I ever will. The audiophile world is full of generally accepted concepts that no one has ever bothered to prove. They just assume that it exists because other people tell them it does.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

bigshot said:


> I'd like to take the "might" out of that sentence and know for sure. But whenever I find someone who says they can definitely hear a difference, they suddenly get cold feet when it comes to doing a controlled listening test. They start coming up with excuses and claim that tests don't prove anything. That tells me where they're coming from quite clearly. I would be delighted to find someone who can actually do this. I don't know if I ever will. The audiophile world is full of generally accepted concepts that no one has ever bothered to prove. They just assume that it exists because other people tell them it does.



yup, you and I know the truth.


----------



## KeithEmo

The author actually drew TWO conclusions....

One conclusion was that "we" - presumably referring to some sort of average listener - cannot "usually" tell the difference.
The other conclusion was that at least one test subject _COULD_ reliably tell the difference.
And, from this, he concluded that apparently_ SOME_ people can hear a difference _SOME_ of the time. 

There is no contradiction.

The problem, however, is in the context of _THIS PARTICULAR FORUM_.
Even though it isn't being explicitly stated, most of us here aren't really concerned with "what matters to most typical iTunes customers".
If that was the case, then we already know that "most iTunes customers" and "most Spotify customers" and "most Sirius XM customers" find lossy compression to sound quite acceptable.
(Although, as I mentioned in another post, many of them probably don't have a specific opinion of whether it sounds exactly like the CD or not - they simply consider it to sound "good enough to satisfy them".)

In contrast, we are concerned with "what matters and is audible to a specific segment of the market who consider themselves to be audiophiles".
We assume these are the people who have the best equipment, listen the most carefully, and are the most critical of even the tiniest audible differences.
These are also the people who most demand that we speak in absolutes.
(You're not going to convince me, or most other audiophiles, that "I won't hear something because 'most' people can't hear it.")




Phronesis said:


> Yes, the author drew a conclusion which isn't really supported by his own results.  The whole point of calculating specific p-values to get a probability that a difference has been found, rather than resorting to eyeballing shapes of distributions, and choosing an arbitrary p-value of 0.05 as a limit.  I would be interested in knowing the author's background.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 9, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> yup, you and I know the truth.



KeithEmo does too. He took my listening test and had the opportunity to listen to it under whatever normal listening conditions he wanted to. Before he took the test, he admitted to me that he probably wouldn't be able to discern high data rate lossy from lossless, and after he got the results of the test, he admitted he couldn't hear a difference trying as hard as he could. He knows as well as we do that high data rate lossy is audibly transparent. He just likes the attention that creating theoretical arguments bring to him. He isn't the only one. There are a several people who come to this forum to turn the spotlight on themselves and perform.

I'm interested in facts and experiments that will lead me to improvements in the sound quality of my home audio system. I'm not interested in assisting someone with their grandstanding. So I simply cut to the chase and ask for proof that someone can tell the difference and offer to help prove it by helping them do a controlled test. When I make that offer, all I get is crickets. They move on to arguing with someone who will engage with their little "what if" dog and pony show. That's fine with me as long as everyone enjoys that game. I can cheerfully skip past all the time wasting blather. But every so often, I'll pop back in with my put up or shut up offer, knowing full well that they'll do neither. 

It's up to me to remind folks every so often that we're here in Sound Science to talk about ways to use science to find ways to improve the sound of recorded music in our homes, not put on clown shows to draw attention to ourselves.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree.

However, if that fellow can run his sub-four-minute mile one fraction of a second faster wearing those shoes.....
- even if they only make the slightest difference for him and one or two of his closest competitors
- and even if they won't help you or I

Then the manufacturer is _NOT_ lying, or being unreasonable, when they claim that "their shoes are superior because they help some people run faster".
Likewise, a Formula 1 racing car really is faster than my Nissan, regardless of whether you or I could actually safely drive it faster than my car's top speed or not.

And, if you're foolish enough to believe that purchasing a faster car will make you a better driver, to me that seems like an error in judgment on your part.
If you watch that TV commercial, you'll notice that they'll _SHOW_ you some video of exceptional athletes wearing their shoes...
However, they won't promise that the shoes will make you run faster...
They'll leave it to you to exercise typically poor human judgment and subconsciously associate their shoes with your athletic performance. 
(They'll probably say something like "our shoes will enable you to perform your best".)

Likewise...
- A lossless file will deliver all of the original information to you...
- A lossy file will omit some of the original information...

It is up to the individual user to decide whether they consider discarding some of the original information in return for saving storage space to be "acceptable" or not.
(And, clearly, many audiophiles do not consider it to be acceptable to do so, whether based on careful listening tests, or "just on the principle of the thing".)

I should note, however, that the terms "lossy" and "lossless" are not some weasel words thought up by someone's marketing department to mislead consumers.
Both terms have specific technical meanings in terms of data storage that completely predate digital audio... 
And they are in fact being applied accurately according to their defined meanings...

You are welcome to decide to choose to use lossy compressed files "because you just don't like the idea of using extra storage space that won't make them sound any better to you".
However, in return, I expect you to respect my right to choose lossless compression "because I just don't like the idea of throwing away part of the music - whether I can hear the difference or not".



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> yes I understand that.  Same goes for Kemo apparently.
> 
> Sure, there's humans who can run a sub-4 minute mile.  But don't nobody better try and sell me a pair of shoes claiming they will make ME able to run a sub 4 mile...


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

KeithEmo said:


> You are welcome to decide to choose to use lossy compressed files "because you just don't like the idea of using extra storage space that won't make them sound any better to you".
> However, in return, I expect you to respect my right to choose lossless compression "because I just don't like the idea of throwing away part of the music - whether I can hear the difference or not".



yeah, I don't have any big issue with that statement at all...


----------



## KeithEmo

Just to be accurate here....

I freely "admit" that, with many files, I probably will not be able to hear a difference.
However, I do not at all agree that I believe that would be true with _ALL_ recordings.
I see this as an important distinction (perhaps you do not).

1) Not all files start out at equal quality.
2) All lossy compression schemes work better on some types of content and less well on others.
3) As with many people, I am much better at noticing differences on content I am extremely familiar with.)

And, yes, I do like drawing attention to the fact that overly enthusiastic generalizations can come back to bite you in the butt later... 



bigshot said:


> KeithEmo does too. He took my listening test and had the opportunity to listen to it under whatever normal listening conditions he wanted to. Before he took the test, he admitted to me that he probably wouldn't be able to discern high data rate lossy from lossless, and after he got the results of the test, he admitted he couldn't hear a difference trying as hard as he could. He knows as well as we do that high data rate lossy is audibly transparent. He just likes the attention that creating theoretical arguments bring to him. He isn't the only one. There are a several people who come to this forum to turn the spotlight on themselves and perform.
> 
> I'm interested in facts and experiments that will lead me to improvements in the sound quality of my home audio system. I'm not interested in assisting someone with their grandstanding. So I simply cut to the chase and ask for proof that someone can tell the difference and offer to help prove it by helping them do a controlled test. When I make that offer, all I get is crickets. They move on to arguing with someone who will engage with their little "what if" dog and pony show. That's fine with me as long as everyone enjoys that game. I can cheerfully skip past all the time wasting blather. But every so often, I'll pop back in with my put up or shut up offer, knowing full well that they'll do neither.
> 
> It's up to me to remind folks every so often that we're here in Sound Science to talk about ways to use science to find ways to improve the sound of recorded music in our homes, not put on clown shows to draw attention to ourselves.


----------



## Phronesis

I understand the motivation to simplify things, reach a general conclusion, and move forward based on that conclusion without looking back and revisiting it.  In practical decisions, that's often what we do, and need to do.  Making things black and white can make life easier and more psychologically comfortable.

But if we're going to approach this topic scientifically, rather than pragmatically, we do need to delve into a lot of messy details, question a lot of things, and accept that general conclusions may amount to an oversimplification.

With my audio purchases, I mostly wear my pragmatic hat, but here in Sound Science I mostly wear my scientific (not engineering) hat.  Given that reference to science is nearly banned in head-fi outside of Sound Science, I think we should vigorously push for a scientific approach here.  Otherwise, it just devolves into the typical us versus them battle of objectivists versus subjectivists (I don't put myself in either category).


----------



## bigshot (Jan 9, 2019)

Provide me with a lossless track that you think would reveal lossy compression and I’ll set up another test for you. The tracks I used had a full frequency response and massed choral voices, which are two giveaways for comprsssion artifacting. The tracks were selected by a golden eared audiophile who claimed that she could easily detect a difference with these tracks. Above 192, she couldn’t. I’ve conducted tests like this with a variety of different types of music. At 256, modern codecs become transparent. If you have a better test track, please provide it.

I don’t think you know much about this subject.


----------



## taffy2207

bigshot said:


> comprsssion



I detect Sibilance in your typing @bigshot

Meh, Audio joke. As you were


----------



## KeithEmo

I can't remember where I read that story, but it was a story about one of the the first few "public appearances" of the original Edison cylinder phonograph.
It was claimed that a small theater had been booked - and members of the public were invited in to preview the new invention.
(They did provide the date and location in the story.)
Some sort of live performance was offered on-stage and then, at some point, the lights were extinguished...
Some time soon afterwards, the live performance stopped, and was replaced by a phonograph recording.
According to the story, the audience failed to notice, and was suitably impressed when the lights were turned back on to reveal a stage containing only a phonograph.
This was considered to be a successful demonstration showing that "the phonograph sounded just like the real performance".

My point, which is not obvious if you don't know the context of the story, was that the audience had no experience with ANY type of audio recording technology before then.
In 1850, if a housewife heard voices coming from the next room, she would have assumed that she was hearing people talking in the next room.
She would not have even considered that she might be hearing a broadcast or recording because she hadn't experienced or even heard of either one.
The people in that theater started the evening by listening to a live performance...
They had never heard a broadcast or a recording before...
Therefore, when the performance paused, then continued, they had every reason to believe that the performers had started playing again...
And no experience whatsoever to suggest that any of the discrepancies we might have considered obvious might suggest that something had changed...
If they heard a tick, or a speed change, since they had no way yo associate these with a mechanical phonograph, they would have simply failed to notice them.
As modern listeners, familiar with sound reproduction, we would both notice, and actually listen for, such clues about whether we were listening to a recording.

It's simply a matter of what might be called "attention priority".
If you observe something with the specific intention of noticing specific details then you are more likely to notice them.

So, for example, let's say you were listening to a recording of a certain performance, and noticed that the cymbals sounded "a bit odd".
You might not notice at all, or you might suspect that the room had slightly odd acoustics, or that the mixing engineer had made a slightly unusual adjustment.
_HOWEVER_, your attention, and your evaluation, might be different if you had been _TAUGHT_ that the particular odd sound was a specific artifact commonly associated with a certain type of compression.
(And it's the same phenomenon that makes you especially likely to notice and be annoyed by a tiny scratch on the edge of your windshield - once you know where to look for it.)

I'm inclined to agree that, most of the time, with most people, they're probably imagining all or most of what they believe they hear as "obvious differences".
However, I'm also not inclined to rule out the possibility that, after lots of experience listening to various minute flaws, some people do learn to detect very small differences that others might not notice.

A very similar phenomenon is quite typical of how we humans react to lossy compression in image files.
(This is an excellent analogy; as with lossy audio compression, JPG is a perceptual compression, and discards what it considers to be "less noticeable information".) 
Superficially, a good quality JPG file looks very good, and very similar to a full quality lossless image.
HOWEVER, when you know the weaknesses of the process, and so know exactly what to look for, you can almost always pick out obvious flaws.
(JPG works well on smooth color gradients, less well on sharp high-contrast edges, and often has highly visible problems with sharp high-contrast vertical and horizontal edges in particular.) 

Using perceptual lossy compression is directly analogous to "hiring someone to clean your house and throw away the stuff they know you'll never use".
You are trusting that, using a complex and sophisticated combination of models and assumptions, the program can figure out and only discard "the stuff you'll never notice is missing".
However, many of the so-called details are not as obvious as many people imagine... for example, masking is mutually dependent on frequency, relative amplitude, and time delay.
And, even assuming it's right the vast majority of the time, you must either trust it to be 100.0% accurate, or accept the possibility that it may occasionally discard or alter things whose absence will be audible.
(That's a nice way of saying that, unless their model of how our hearing works is dead on, it's going to make mistakes sometimes.)



castleofargh said:


> I doubt this was true. well some probably said it in reviews, the previous generation of flowery extravaganza must have been full of "OMG I started playing the song and the wife ran away thinking people were in the house!". but let's be honest, a wax cylinder never contended as a perfect reproduction medium. same stuff with vinyls, it's never been all that hard for vinyl playback to fail at transparency.
> I expect that those days were for audio the same way it has been for video/pictures in the decades. or tv screens and computer monitors. when we get the very best stuff, we certainly are very impressed, but that doesn't mean we're all convinced that we have achieved visual transparency. it's becoming harder and harder, but we're still clear about the limitations on colors, contrast, sometimes refresh rate.  and those aren't conceptual ideas like hires masturbation, we can capture a scene, put it on a screen and anybody will be able to tell that it's different in a test where you can see both. not everybody will know how to call the difference, but noticing some is still to this day, no trouble at all. I imagine wax cylinders, vinyls and k7 tapes to have given the same feeling. at least that's how they always felt to me even before CDs were sold.
> 
> on the other hand, 256ACC falls into that marvelous category where almost nobody can pass a proper blind test, but apparently almost everybody "knows" that he can tell it apart from lossless. so as time goes by and the evidence continues to diverge from the claims, it becomes really hard not to consider that those people claiming audible difference are full of crap, or don't know what they're doing.


----------



## KeithEmo

I am going to take an opportunity to point a few things out here....

First, Emotiva, who I work for, has no vested interest in any particular digital audio format.
The digital inputs on all of our current models support at least 24/96k, and most support 24/192k or higher.
(And most of our competitors' models also support those now common sample rates.)
We don't sell expensive upgrades that enable you to play higher sample rates, and we don't sell music, in any format.
Therefore, other than wanting our equipment to sound its best when you play music through it, we have no particular interest in what audio format you choose to purchase.

And, on a purely personal level, my goal is exactly the same as BigShot claims his is.... to have the best experience when listening to music.
And, in case there is any doubt, what I mean by that is that I want to hear the music exactly as it was intended - without any alterations or omissions.
However, where we seem to disagree is in our _priorities_.

I most often listen to music in plain stereo.
However, sometimes I edit it, or alter it in some way.
And, sometimes I play it through a surround sound decoder, or headphone expander, or other interesting gadget..
All I want to do is to be able to play my music, in any way I like, without having to worry whether it will play exactly like it should or not.
And, as far as I can tell, actually playing a lossless copy of the original file is the simplest and most reliable way of achieving that goal.
(We know with absolute certainty that a lossless file is identical to the original - so why should we waste time and effort wondering whether a lossy version is good enough or not?)

I should also point out that, even if we were to accept that a lossy file _COULD_ sound audibly the same as the lossless version...
Since we cannot know which decoder, or which settings, a given vendor might use...
We can only extend that assertion to files that we compress ourselves (after purchasing the lossless version to use as a source file).
(Unless you expect each manufacturer to certify that their lossy files were compressed using the encoder and settings we've confirmed are audibly transparent.)

Just to be perfectly clear here....
BigShot is _NOT_ claiming that lossy compression will make his music sound _better_...
He is claiming that it will be a little cheaper...
And he is claiming that it will take up a little less space...
And that it will manage to do so _without sounding audibly worse_...
To me that is simply not an especially compelling justification... especially when we consider the risks.



bigshot said:


> KeithEmo does too. He took my listening test and had the opportunity to listen to it under whatever normal listening conditions he wanted to. Before he took the test, he admitted to me that he probably wouldn't be able to discern high data rate lossy from lossless, and after he got the results of the test, he admitted he couldn't hear a difference trying as hard as he could. He knows as well as we do that high data rate lossy is audibly transparent. He just likes the attention that creating theoretical arguments bring to him. He isn't the only one. There are a several people who come to this forum to turn the spotlight on themselves and perform.
> 
> I'm interested in facts and experiments that will lead me to improvements in the sound quality of my home audio system. I'm not interested in assisting someone with their grandstanding. So I simply cut to the chase and ask for proof that someone can tell the difference and offer to help prove it by helping them do a controlled test. When I make that offer, all I get is crickets. They move on to arguing with someone who will engage with their little "what if" dog and pony show. That's fine with me as long as everyone enjoys that game. I can cheerfully skip past all the time wasting blather. But every so often, I'll pop back in with my put up or shut up offer, knowing full well that they'll do neither.
> 
> It's up to me to remind folks every so often that we're here in Sound Science to talk about ways to use science to find ways to improve the sound of recorded music in our homes, not put on clown shows to draw attention to ourselves.


----------



## SonyFan121

bigshot said:


> I'd like to take the "might" out of that sentence and know for sure. *But whenever I find someone who says they can definitely hear a difference, they suddenly get cold feet when it comes to doing a controlled listening test.* They start coming up with excuses and claim that tests don't prove anything. That tells me where they're coming from quite clearly. I would be delighted to find someone who can actually do this. I don't know if I ever will. The audiophile world is full of generally accepted concepts that no one has ever bothered to prove. They just assume that it exists because other people tell them it does.



You would be amazed at how easy it is to tell the difference between lossy and lossless. It depends _heavily_ on the quality of the equipment. If someone uses very cheap equipment to conduct these kinds of test's..they may never be able to tell a difference. But if using some seriously expensive kit, the difference can be immediately apparent.


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> You would be amazed at how easy it is to tell the difference between lossy and lossless. It depends _heavily_ on the quality of the equipment. If someone uses very cheap equipment to conduct these kinds of test's..they may never be able to tell a difference. But if using some seriously expensive kit, the difference can be immediately apparent.



@bigshot - looks like we have someone who wants to take your lossless/lossy ABX...


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

SonyFan121 said:


> You would be amazed at how easy it is to tell the difference between lossy and lossless. It depends _heavily_ on the quality of the equipment. If someone uses very cheap equipment to conduct these kinds of test's..they may never be able to tell a difference. But if using some seriously expensive kit, the difference can be immediately apparent.



this is an audiophile forum.  Do you really think any of us are unaware of the impact equipment quality can have on sound reproduction?  The point remains the same...it isn't at all "easy" to tell the difference between a 256kb or higher lossy file (that isn't defective in some way or created from a bad source file just to eliminate that possible qualifier) and a lossless file.  If you feel you can do it easily maybe Bigshot can help you prove it.


----------



## bigshot

SonyFan121 said:


> You would be amazed at how easy it is to tell the difference between lossy and lossless. It depends _heavily_ on the quality of the equipment. If someone uses very cheap equipment to conduct these kinds of test's..they may never be able to tell a difference. But if using some seriously expensive kit, the difference can be immediately apparent.



I have a listening test that I'm quite confident will surprise you. It consists of 10 different samples of the same music in three different codecs (Fraunhofer MP3, LAME MP3 and AAC) at three different data rates (192, 256 and 320) along with a lossless sample. It's a fun way to find out where your threshold of transparency lies for each of the codecs. If you are interested in taking a stab at the test, drop me a PM.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 9, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> this is an audiophile forum.  Do you really think any of us are unaware of the impact equipment quality can have on sound reproduction?  The point remains the same...it isn't at all "easy" to tell the difference between a 256kb or higher lossy file *(that isn't defective in some way or created from a bad source file just to eliminate that possible qualifier) *and a lossless file.  If you feel you can do it easily maybe Bigshot can help you prove it.



What exactly do you mean by defective? how can a audio file itself be defective? if it's a low bitrate aac/mp3 or similar lossy audio file then of course the audio quality with be degraded. But i'm not aware of there being such a thing as a defective file. If it plays sound then it's not defective.


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> What exactly do you mean by defective? how can a audio file itself be defective? if it's a low bitrate aac/mp3 or similar lossy audio file then of course the audio quality with be degraded. But i'm not aware of there being such a thing as a defective file. If it plays sound then it's not defective.



Files can be intentionally or unintentionally corrupted while remaining playable leading to audible differences.  The statement was, I suspect, just covering those possibilities.

In the past, there have been examples where people intentionally edited/altered files then claimed to be able to successfully pass an ABX, this the disclaimers.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm not sure exactly what he means... but there is another variable than many people seem to ignore.

The MP3 specification is arbitrary from the point of view of the encoder.
An MP3 _encoder_ is required to produce a file that can be successfully decoded by a standard MP3 _decoder_.
However, the exact details of how it goes about doing so are arbitrary.
Two different encoders, both set to produce "128k VBR MP3 files", may choose to discard different things, and so may produce very different outputs.
(The authors of the program, even though following a set basic methodology, have many choices about priorities and optimizations.)
In the days when 128k MP3 files were the norm, it was widely agreed that different encoders sounded quite different, and that some even favored certain types of music.
(Some people even recommended encoding each source file using several different encoders - then selecting the best sounding output file to keep.)

The point is that you cannot reasonably assume that two different MP3 encoders will produce similar outputs.
Therefore, even if a "320k VBR" file produced by one encoder is found to be transparent, we cannot assume the same will be true for a "similar" file produced by another encoder.
Therefore, it's also possible that some encoders actually do a "bad job", and produce inferior output.
In order for any such experiment to be valid, you MUST specify the brand and version, as well as all the detailed settings, for the encoder that was used.
(This is true for the MP3 standard. I don't know if AAC encoders are standardized or not.)



SonyFan121 said:


> What exactly do you mean by defective? how can a audio file itself be defective? if it's a low bitrate aac/mp3 or similar lossy audio file then of course the audio quality with be degraded. But i'm not aware of there being such a thing as a defective file. If it plays sound then it's not defective.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would suggest that both the terms "easy" and "always" be given special attention.
I agree that good quality lossy files are _often_ sufficiently close to lossless to be _difficult_ and _sometimes_ impossible to distinguish from them.
However, I am not convinced that the similarity rises to the level of _never_ and _impossible_.
We should also all remember that many of us have very different priorities.
For some people "a reasonable degree of certainty" is quite sufficient... but not for others...

I recall my experience from long ago with MP3 (I believe that, at the time, "180k VBR" was widely considered to be "good enough").
Whatever the specific format was, I was prepared to consider that it might be "good enough to use" - and I had an iPod with limited memory at the time.
However, when I converted several albums, and listened to them, I thought I noticed several "clinkers" - specific spots where specific notes or sounds sounded "a bit off".
Sure enough, when I went back and compared the files, there was a certain spot where someone whacked a big bell, and the initial strike sounded different on the MP3 file.
I played both versions several times and confirmed that the difference was indeed there and clearly audible.

At that point I knew for sure that I could not _TRUST_ a file encoded at that MP3 rate to sound_ IDENTICAL_ to the original.
It's quite likely that the difference would only have been audible on one file out of every hundred.
However, since I had neither the time nor the inclination to quality check each file after I converted it.
I chose not to use a format which I could not trust to deliver the quality I require.
And, without checking every file I converted, I would never know for sure if I was hearing what I was supposed to hear.
(And, yes, I did know other people who actually converted all their files, then carefully compared them, keeping only the "successful conversions".... )
Personally, I chose to stick with lossless files, which are the same 100% of the time...
(And, yes, I do run CRC checksums on my music library, so I can confirm that my lossless files haven't gotten mysteriously corrupted in storage).



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> this is an audiophile forum.  Do you really think any of us are unaware of the impact equipment quality can have on sound reproduction?  The point remains the same...it isn't at all "easy" to tell the difference between a 256kb or higher lossy file (that isn't defective in some way or created from a bad source file just to eliminate that possible qualifier) and a lossless file.  If you feel you can do it easily maybe Bigshot can help you prove it.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I'm not sure exactly what he means... but there is another variable than many people seem to ignore.
> 
> The MP3 specification is arbitrary from the point of view of the encoder.
> An MP3 _encoder_ is required to produce a file that can be successfully decoded by a standard MP3 _decoder_.
> ...




Please post MP3s from different encoders that you have been able to successfully ABX.  “Widely Agreed” and “Some people day” certainly doesn’t get over the bar you repeatedly set for evidence of audibility.


----------



## SonyFan121

bigshot said:


> I have a listening test that I'm quite confident will surprise you. It consists of 10 different samples of the same music in three different codecs (Fraunhofer MP3, LAME MP3 and AAC) at three different data rates (192, 256 and 320) along with a lossless sample. It's a fun way to find out where your threshold of transparency lies for each of the codecs. If you are interested in taking a stab at the test, drop me a PM.



I'd definitely be interested. i'll PM you if and when I have a bit more time.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jan 9, 2019)

I'm afraid I don't keep copies of vintage encoders from decades ago.
I'm sure you can find old copies of the Fraunhofer encoder and others from that long ago if you look - although I doubt they'd run on Windows 10.
Since we're talking about MP3 encoders run at 128k, I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that "virtually everyone agrees that 128k MP3 is NOT audibly transparent".
If you disagree - feel free to argue the question with someone who actually cares.
However, I have no interest in proving it, so feel free to believe it or not - as you like.

I DID run into an interesting article explaining how various MP3 encoders differ.
It includes measurements of the rather significant differences between several popular MP3 encoders.
It also includes the results of some sighted tests.
(I coudn't find a date but I suspect the article may be several years old.)

http://archive.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/1q00/mp3/mp3-1.html

And here's an interesting article that explains how AAC and MP3 work... including what can go wrong.

https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/conte...17-Conference_mp3-and-AAC-explained_AES17.pdf




bfreedma said:


> Please post MP3s from different encoders that you have been able to successfully ABX.  “Widely Agreed” and “Some people day” certainly doesn’t get over the bar you repeatedly set for evidence of audibility.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 9, 2019)

Lots of useful information and constructive criticism in this thread. I might as well contribute whilst i'm here with a link to a website about AccurateRip.
http://www.accuraterip.com/

I am an ardent fan of the good old Compact Disc. I swear by it's quality and I believe that a really well engineered CD player and amp combo cannot be beaten for sound quality.
I often Rip any new CD's I purchase, on my computer to WAV (waveform audio file format) using Foobar and always make sure to activate Accuraterip, for the smoothest possible conversion.
Also i've recently been listening to MQA (master quality audio) file's and I must say, as stunning/realistic as that format can sound, I still prefer the Compact Disc.


----------



## bfreedma (Jan 9, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> I'm afraid I don't keep copies of vintage encoders from decades ago.
> I'm sure you can find old copies of the Fraunhofer encoder and others from that long ago if you look - although I doubt they'd run on Windows 10.
> Since we're talking about MP3 encoders run at 128k, I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that "virtually everyone agrees that 128k MP3 is NOT audibly transparent".
> If you disagree - feel free to argue the question with someone who actually cares.
> However, I have no interest in proving it, so feel free to believe it or not - as you like.




Yet another claim that you “have no interest in proving”.  And goalposts moved from “MP3 decoders produce audibly different output” to “legacy MP3 encoders produce 128k non transparent output”.  I don’t think anyone is making the case that 128k MP3s may not be audibly transparent, or that early gen encoders had some issues.

Please either stop posting “facts” you can’t support or hold yourself to your own stated standards of evidence for Sound Science.


----------



## Steve999 (Jan 9, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> I'm afraid I don't keep copies of vintage encoders from decades ago.
> feel free to believe it or not - as you like.I'm sure you can find old copies of the Fraunhofer encoder and others from that long ago if you look - although I doubt they'd run on Windows 10.
> Since we're talking about MP3 encoders run at 128k, I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that "virtually everyone agrees that 128k MP3 is NOT audibly transparent".
> If you disagree - feel free to argue the question with someone who actually cares.
> However, I have no interest in proving it, so feel free to believe it or not - as you like.



Here's some data:

http://listening-tests.hydrogenaud.io/sebastian/mp3-128-1/results.htm

"The quality at 128 kbps is very good and MP3 encoders improved a lot since the last test. This was the last test conducted by me at this bitrate. It's time to move to bitrates like 96 kbps or 80 kbps."

And that's from 2008, a decade ago. Feel free to believe it or not - as you like.


----------



## bigshot

SonyFan121 said:


> I'd definitely be interested. i'll PM you if and when I have a bit more time.



Very good. This is a fun little test. You'll enjoy it.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

by defective i just meant a file compressed by crappy software or anything like that...anything that might create a "poor quality" lossy file...


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Steve999 said:


> Here's some data:
> 
> http://listening-tests.hydrogenaud.io/sebastian/mp3-128-1/results.htm
> 
> ...



I don't really buy that.  Any time I've taken any of the comparison tests I've pretty much never selected files lower than 160kbs.  The differences do become more audible below 192kbs...


----------



## RRod

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I don't really buy that.  Any time I've taken any of the comparison tests I've pretty much never selected files lower than 160kbs.  The differences do become more audible below 192kbs...



The test uses VBR for MP3 encoders that aren't the low anchor. So it's not really '128k' but 'around 128k'. Burst rates can be almost twice as high.


----------



## KeithEmo

I stated that early 128k MP3 encoders had obvious audible differences.
You _SEEM _to agree with me ("I don’t think anyone is making the case that 128k MP3s may not be audibly transparent"...)
So, _EXACTLY_ what are you arguing about this time.
Try actually _READING_ what I write for a change - without first trying to figure out how you can argue about it.

I was pointing out that _THERE WAS A TIME WHEN MANY PEOPLE BELIEVED 128k MP3 FILES WERE AUDIBLY TRANSPARENT_.
Yet you seem to agree with me about that ("I don’t think anyone is making the case that 128k MP3s may not be audibly transparent").
Therefore, apparently the perception that "128k MP3 files are audibly transparent" is now no longer widely accepted.

My point is that, thirty years ago, there _WERE_ people "making the case that 128K MP3 files were audibly perfect".
And, now, after being exposed to higher-quality CODECs, they have realized that they were wrong in that claim.
In short, they have LEARNED to recognize and be annoyed by flaws in low-rate MP3 files that they previously hadn't noticed.

At least to me, this suggests that many listeners, even average ones, have become more discerning.
After hearing better quality CODECs, people who thought 128K MP3 files were "just fine" 30 years ago, now recognize that they were actually badly flawed.



bfreedma said:


> Yet another claim that you “have no interest in proving”.  And goalposts moved from “MP3 decoders produce audibly different output” to “legacy MP3 encoders produce 128k non transparent output”.  I don’t think anyone is making the case that 128k MP3s may not be audibly transparent, or that early gen encoders had some issues.
> 
> Please either stop posting “facts” you can’t support or hold yourself to your own stated standards of evidence for Sound Science.


----------



## KeithEmo

I see no reason not to believe it.

However, I would point out that it is rating the various encoders in terms of perceived "quality".
The fact that most of the good quality encoders ended up tied for first place means that most listeners considered them to sound _equally good_.
It does _NOT_ suggest whether they did or did not specifically sound similar or not. 

It would also have been interesting to have seen the original uncompressed CD content included among the samples.
That way we could see how their listeners rated all of the MP3 candidates in terms of sound quality compared to the original content.
(To me, this suggests that the authors of that study had no expectation that any of the compressed options quold actually compare favorably to the original content... )



Steve999 said:


> Here's some data:
> 
> http://listening-tests.hydrogenaud.io/sebastian/mp3-128-1/results.htm
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jan 10, 2019)

The threshold for most people who have taken my test is about 256. But the music I am using is difficult to compress without artifacitng. With less difficult music, most people can't discern 192. With AAC it appears that the numbers jump down a notch. 128 and 192 are commonly the threshold with that codec because it's more modern than Fraunhofer. No one who has taken my test can consistently identify any of the codecs above a certain point. Some people have tried to cheat by opening the files in a sound editing program and peeping at the frequency extension, but at 320 that doesn't even work and it becomes obvious they are cheating when the data rates below that start getting mixed up. The lower data rates should be the easiest to rank, because there are more artifacts to judge by.


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> I am looking for a person who can discern a difference between lossy and lossless in a blind test under normal music listening conditions. So far I haven't found anyone. If someone thinks they can do it, please let me know. I would be happy to set you up with a test. So far I have tested dozens and dozens of audiophiles, including several posters in this forum and no one seems to be able to tell any difference above about 256. Thanks.





bigshot said:


> The threshold for most people who have taken my test is about 256. But the music I am using is difficult to compress without artifacitng. With less difficult music, most people can't discern 192. With AAC it appears that the numbers jump down a notch. 128 and 192 are commonly the threshold with that codec because it's more modern than Fraunhofer. No one who has taken my test can consistently identify any of the codecs above a certain point. Some people have tried to cheat by opening the files in a sound editing program and peeping at the frequency extension, but at 320 that doesn't even work and it becomes obvious they are cheating when the data rates below that start getting mixed up. The lower data rates should be the easiest to rank, because there are more artifacts to judge by.




I think the results from this site speak for themselves...

http://soundexpert.org/encoders


----------



## gregorio (Jan 10, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] And, in case there is any doubt, what I mean by that is that I want to hear the music exactly as it was intended - without any alterations or omissions. ... However, sometimes I edit it, or alter it in some way.
> [2] And, sometimes I play it through a surround sound decoder, or headphone expander, or other interesting gadget.. All I want to do is to be able to play my music, in any way I like, without having to worry whether it will play exactly like it should or not. And, as far as I can tell, actually playing a lossless copy of the original file is the simplest and most reliable way of achieving that goal.



1. Huh? How self-contradictory is that?

2. None of this makes any sense. If you want to alter the music then of course it's not going to "play exactly like it should" and "as it was intended". Lossless is not the simplest OR "most reliable way of achieving that goal". If for example you want surround sound, a far better/more reliable way of "hearing the music exactly as it was intended" would be to buy a recording actually mixed in surround, in say Dolby Digital (5.1) which is a lossy format, than upmixing a lossless stereo mix!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] I can't remember where I read that story, but it was a story about one of the the first few "public appearances" of the original Edison cylinder phonograph.
> According to the story, the audience failed to notice, and was suitably impressed when the lights were turned back on to reveal a stage containing only a phonograph. ...My point, which is not obvious if you don't know the context of the story, was that the audience had no experience with ANY type of audio recording technology before then.
> [2] I agree that good quality lossy files are _often_ sufficiently close to lossless to be _difficult_ and _sometimes_ impossible to distinguish from them.
> [2a] However, I am not convinced that the similarity rises to the level of _never_ and _impossible_.



1. What about the musicians and recording engineers who actually created the recording (or any other engineers or musicians), could none of them tell the difference either? The assertions about modern high bit-rate lossy codecs is not solely based on what an "audience with no experience" can or cannot discern, it's also based on what engineers (with a great deal of experience) can and cannot discern. Not for the first time, your analogy/anecdote is NOT applicable and if anything, to the moderately intelligent/logical person, it actually indicates the exact opposite of your own assertion!

2. You agree with whom? It's only your assertion that lossy files "are often sufficiently close to lossless to be difficult" to distinguish, therefore you're only agreeing with yourself!
2a. But this isn't the "What KeithEmo is Convinced of" forum! Especially when "what KeithEmo is convinced of", contradicts the actual evidence and even your own evidence! According to bigshot you've actually done the thread's title, you've actually tested for yourself the audiophile claim and failed to discern a difference. So you not only failed to support the claim but actually added to the wealth of evidence which provides very high confidence that the claim false, yet still you support the claim and are "not convinced". Why is that?



SonyFan121 said:


> [1] You would be amazed at how easy it is to tell the difference between lossy and lossless.
> [2] It depends _heavily_ on the quality of the equipment. If someone uses very cheap equipment to conduct these kinds of test's..they may never be able to tell a difference. But if using some seriously expensive kit, the difference can be immediately apparent.



1. Indeed I would be amazed, as in 20 odd years I've never come across a single person who could easily tell the difference. Even in the late '90's, when the lossy codecs were far less effective, it was NOT easy to tell the difference!

2. Nope, even with "seriously expensive kit" it is never "immediately apparent". Have you ever actually heard "seriously expensive kit" or have you only ever heard extremely cheap or fairly cheap kit? I assume you've heard average consumer systems and probably one or more audiophile systems, which at less than about $100k are fairly cheap but have you ever heard a "seriously expensive" system, say a $10m world class recording studio? Fairly often we get audiophiles coming here, making claims about "expensive kit" but it's both nonsense and hypocritical because typically they haven't got the faintest idea what an expensive, exceptionally good system actually sounds like and assume that everyone here is even more ignorant than they are!

G


----------



## Phronesis

james444 said:


> I think the results from this site speak for themselves...
> 
> http://soundexpert.org/encoders



Good stuff.  Maybe I can now dump my Tidal subscription and just stick with Spotify 320.  I didn’t do rigorous testing with stats, etc., but when I did blind testing with controls, I didn’t notice any obvious difference.


----------



## GearMe

james444 said:


> I think the results from this site speak for themselves...
> 
> http://soundexpert.org/encoders



Thanks...hi value post!


----------



## StandsOnFeet

James,
High value, indeed. It probably won't satisfy the people who want all their bits, "just in case," but that site is a valuable resource.


----------



## Phronesis

StandsOnFeet said:


> James,
> High value, indeed. It probably won't satisfy the people who want all their bits, "just in case," but that site is a valuable resource.



I think this one is different from possible differences in DACs, amps, and cables because there's a known loss of information involved.  And it's not just a little information that's lost, it's quite a large percentage.  The audible effect (or lack thereof) of that loss of information needs to be established with listening tests, so that takes us back to all of the issues with listening tests.  But I personally am satisfied that, to my ears, the audible difference between 320 and lossless is very subtle at most, and very unlikely to be of any practical importance.


----------



## KeithEmo

Let me try and explain it in simpler terms......

I _USUALLY_ listen to my music in stereo - most often on speakers - but sometimes using headphones.
But, especially when I use the computer, _sometimes_ I try out one or another processor - like the new Dolby Atmos plugin for Windows or the Dolby Headphone plugin.
And, sometimes, I decide to make some sort of adjustment - like removing noise from a poorly re-mastered old recording.
And, sometimes, I listen to my music on other equipment, either or loan or at other folks sites.
Therefore, I need my music collection in a form that I _KNOW_ will work _AS INTENDED_ for any of these purposes.
I may put some files on a USB stick to play in my car - and, for that, I may use lossy compression.
However, it would be much too complicated and time consuming to have to run a whole new series of validation tests on some lossy format every time I try a new player program...
And, since we all know the sort of measurable changes lossy compression causes, we also know that the result _WILL_ be significant differences with at least some processing.
And it would be a very expensive mistake to purchase files today in a lossy format - and then find out that they don't decode properly on the new player program I purchase tomorrow.
All of these problems and risk will be present if I use lossy compression - and I avoid all of them by NOT using lossy compression.

If, every time a new decoder, or a new piece of gear, seems to sound a little unusual, I have to get out the lossless copy to confirm where the difference lies....
Then I've found it's much easier just to use the lossless version to begin with - and avoid the possibility of having to.
As far as I'm concerned, the "cost" of using lossy compression, in terms of issues like this, is too high.... and the benefit is trivial at best.

To be honest, I don't care what the engineers or musicians can hear; I only care about what I can hear.
I also have a strong suspicion that the engineers and musicians may not have actually personally auditioned the specific MP3 version they're offering to sell me on Amazon.
(Therefore, the fact that "many of them have difficulty hearing the difference sometimes" isn't really relevant as applied to a particular album they didn't hear.)
And I know for a fact that they didn't try that five-year-old album on the new Dolby Surround Upmixer (which is what you get on all new Atmos AVRs - but didn't exist five years ago).
Or, to phrase that differently, an actual lossless copy of the content is "future proof", while we can't know if the lossy version will work the same on something new until we try.
(We can be sure that 'the original will work like the original"; but, with any lossy copy, we can never know until we try it.)

Again, "difficult" doesn't count... and neither does "maybe".
When I listen to a song I want to _KNOW FOR SURE_ that I'm hearing what I should be.
Something that's "probably the same as the original" isn't good enough...
And neither is something where "I think the differences will be difficult to notice"...
To me, saving a few cents, or a few bytes, is an awful high price to pay for all those doubts.

And, yes, I've heard one or two studios, and many of the top manufacturer's "showcase audiophile systems".
And, yes, many of them sounded very good.
And, yeah, a few of them actually didn't sound very good at all (but I'm sure _somebody_ thought they sounded great).
For the record, you will _NEVER_ hear me make any claims about "how things sound on expensive systems" - one way or the other.
(there is some "very expensive audiophile gear" that is nowhere near accurate - and nor would I listen to it.)

Are you honestly suggesting that the studios you work for plan to start releasing all of their products in lossy format?
After all, if _NOBODY_ can _EVER_ hear the difference, then that would seem to be the obvious thing to do.
However, if they're not planning to do so, then I guess they agree with me that the lossy version really is "pretty good but not quite the same".

I have two direct questions for @gregorio....

Have you discarded all of your lossless recordings and replaced them with perfectly adequate lossy copies?
If not; why not?



gregorio said:


> 1. Huh? How self-contradictory is that?
> 
> 2. None of this makes any sense. If you want to alter the music then of course it's not going to "play exactly like it should" and "as it was intended". Lossless is not the simplest OR "most reliable way of achieving that goal". If for example you want surround sound, a far better/more reliable way of "hearing the music exactly as it was intended" would be to buy a recording actually mixed in surround, in say Dolby Digital (5.1) which is a lossy format, than upmixing a lossless stereo mix!
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

It would also be nice if the sports shoe manufacturers included a disclaimer that: "our shoe probably won't enable you to play like Michael Jordan"...
And the guys who sell minivans would include one stating" "we can't promise that your kids will become well behaved little angels like the kids in our commercials"...
And the fine folks who sell all those exercise machines would start showing average folks with average bodies using them...

However, that seems most unlikely.

Perhaps audiophiles should develop a little common sense...
And realize that ads for audio gear are probably no more, and no less, accurate than ads for cars, exercise gear, and health supplements.

I should also point out that most of us don't _NEED_ a wrist watch that's accurate to 30 seconds a month.
However, most of us own one, probably because we wouldn't save much by seeking out and purchasing a watch that was off by five minutes a day.



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> In the end, I'm perfectly happy to accept the conclusion that .05% of the people on this planet "might" be able to reliably hear the difference between a 256kb lossy file and a lossless one.  I know I'm not in that .05% group.    Nor are most of us...
> 
> It would be lovely if folks selling gear or services on the basis of lossless being better were to say something like ",05% of you might be able to hear improved sound quality thanks to our lossless audio"


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree.....

And, as you mention, in this case we know the information has been lost.

I see it sort of like making a choice between an original work of art and "a counterfeit that's so good I probably won't be able to notice the difference".
Or between a real Rolex for $50 and "a Chinese knock-off that's just as good" for $35.
If the difference in cost is trivial - I'd _STILL_ prefer to have the real thing - even if I probably won't notice the difference.
(And that would be true even if I can't sell it - so resale value doesn't enter into my decision.)



Phronesis said:


> I think this one is different from possible differences in DACs, amps, and cables because there's a known loss of information involved.  And it's not just a little information that's lost, it's quite a large percentage.  The audible effect (or lack thereof) of that loss of information needs to be established with listening tests, so that takes us back to all of the issues with listening tests.  But I personally am satisfied that, to my ears, the audible difference between 320 and lossless is very subtle at most, and very unlikely to be of any practical importance.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jan 10, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> It would also be nice if the sports shoe manufacturers included a disclaimer that: "our shoe probably won't enable you to play like Michael Jordan"...
> And the guys who sell minivans would include one stating" "we can't promise that your kids will become well behaved little angels like the kids in our commercials"...
> And the fine folks who sell all those exercise machines would start showing average folks with average bodies using them...
> 
> ...



sure.  The interesting thing about audiophiles is some of them will try to tell you the shoes DO allow them to run a 4 minute mile...then when you ask them to show you they seem to kinda find ways to not do so.  They "choose not to run!" (a little Seinfeld reference  )

As far as watches go, we aren't talking about a choice between one thing that works and one that doesn't.  We're talking about a choice between two things that work functionally identically (both these watches keep perfect time) - and it's been shown pretty conclusively that thats true in spite of your strange obfuscations to the contrary.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I think this one is different from possible differences in DACs, amps, and cables because there's a known loss of information involved.  And it's not just a little information that's lost, it's quite a large percentage.  The audible effect (or lack thereof) of that loss of information needs to be established with listening tests, so that takes us back to all of the issues with listening tests.  But I personally am satisfied that, to my ears, the audible difference between 320 and lossless is very subtle at most, and very unlikely to be of any practical importance.


to return your caution in statements to you, do you actually have conclusive evidence that "to my ears, the audible difference between 320 and lossless is very subtle at most"? or are you just presenting it like that because at the back of your head you can't accept that so much done to a signal isn't audible to you? because if you do have a test showing that you noticed subtle differences at 320, bigshot, I and a few others would love to see it.


----------



## SonyFan121

gregorio said:


> 1. Indeed I would be amazed, as in 20 odd years I've never come across a single person who could easily tell the difference. Even in the late '90's, when the lossy codecs were far less effective, it was NOT easy to tell the difference!
> 
> 2. Nope, even with "seriously expensive kit" it is never "immediately apparent". Have you ever actually heard "seriously expensive kit" or have you only ever heard extremely cheap or fairly cheap kit? I assume you've heard average consumer systems and probably one or more audiophile systems, which at less than about $100k are fairly cheap but have you ever heard a "seriously expensive" system, say a $10m world class recording studio? Fairly often we get audiophiles coming here, making claims about "expensive kit" but it's both nonsense and hypocritical because typically they haven't got the faintest idea what an expensive, exceptionally good system actually sounds like and assume that everyone here is even more ignorant than they are!
> 
> G



In the late 90's/early 2000's most people had yet to be accustomed to lossy file formats. CD's and tape's where the norm back then. I actually bought one of the first ever MP3 players (it was a Philips) back in 2003 and the maximum bitrate it could play was 128Kbps. I was just a kid back then and couldn't tell the difference in sound quality between lossy mp3 and CD format, but now whenever I hear a 128kbps audio file, it's instantly recognisable. There are certain signs to listen out for to identify a lossy file format, it is called "artificats". 

You do not need a $100,000 hifi system to be able to hear these artifacts. That is a silly and somewhat bizzare/crazy assumption.
This is my setup; (total cost of cd player + Linn power amp; $800. I bought the Linn amp for $330 in 2013 but it was actually worth $4,000 in 1993 - it's 25 years old.)
Whenever I hear a low bitrate file through this system, it's very obvious. You can say what you like, but I am very experienced in this hobby, I suspect I take it more seriously than you do, I know what i'm talking about. I do not need someone with less experience to tell me what I can and can't do.

Cheers!


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jan 10, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> In the late 90's/early 2000's most people had yet to be accustomed to lossy file formats. CD's and tape's where the norm back then. I actually bought one of the first ever MP3 players (it was a Philips) back in 2003 and the maximum bitrate it could play was 128Kbps. I was just a kid back then and couldn't tell the difference in sound quality between lossy mp3 and CD format, but now whenever I hear a 128kbps audio file, it's instantly recognisable. There are certain signs to listen out for to identify a lossy file format, it is called "artificats".
> 
> You do not need a $100,000 hifi system to be able to hear these artifacts. That is a silly and somewhat bizzare/crazy assumption.
> This is my setup; (total cost of cd player + Linn power amp; $800. I bought the Linn amp for $330 in 2013 but it was actually worth $4,000 in 1993 - it's 25 years old.)
> Whenever I hear a low bitrate file through this system, it's very obvious. You can say what you like, but I am very experienced in this hobby, I suspect I take it more seriously than you do, I know what i'm talking about. I do not need someone with less experience to tell me what I can and can't do



lol...BOOM!  

btw, none of us are arguing that nobody can tell the difference between a 128kb lossy and a lossless file.  Most of us can do that.  This discussion primarily revolves around 256kb and up lossy files...


----------



## castleofargh (Jan 10, 2019)

james444 said:


> I think the results from this site speak for themselves...
> 
> http://soundexpert.org/encoders


I downloaded some tracks, and I'm both positively surprised and a little disappointed by how they went to do it.
first the bad:
there is too much delay for at least a guy like me to achieve the best discrimination I can. I've more than confirmed that I was way better with extremely short samples+back and forth "instantaneous" switching. here when I fail to notice something, I'm not actually sure if I could or couldn't pass in an abx.
the good:
I sort of get why they put it in a single file, it's easier to handle and marginally harder for the listener to cheat. I don't happen to think it was worth lowering the quality of the test for that, but I understand the choice.
the samples are pretty good choices IMO, speech, acoustic stuff, instruments known to be tricky for some codecs.... I've seen so many online tests where the track would have been fine at 96kbps that it's a good surprise for me.
they avoided the typical gain mistake!!!! all the files I tried were several dB below full scale and none of what I tried resulted in instersample clipping thanks to that. while if I remove my foobar setting(EQ, replaygain, avoid clipping,...) it doesn't take long to find clipping tracks, a few of them in a noticeable way for me.  my point is they give a chance for the encoder to show what it can do, instead of trying to find any mean necessary to create audible difference.


----------



## SonyFan121

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> lol...BOOM!
> 
> btw, none of us are arguing that nobody can tell the difference between a 128kb lossy and a lossless file.  Most of us can do that.  This discussion primarily revolves around 256kb and up lossy files...



It is indeed harder to tell the difference between 256 kbps and 320 kbps, but you would not need a $100,000 hifi system to do so..


----------



## castleofargh

SonyFan121 said:


> It is indeed harder to tell the difference between 256 kbps and 320 kbps, but you would not need a $100,000 hifi system to do so..


money is a silly reference in audio no matter what. but as always in mystic audiophile arguments, it is rooted in some legitimate idea and only later becomes perverted to make rubbish points about spending money or having superhuman hearing. depending on the audio cue that changes audibly, there will be situations where one playback system will make noticing harder. it could be as simple as a matter of frequency response. but it could also be about some solid noise, or distortions caused by the headphone that will end as loud or maybe louder than the artifact we're trying to perceive. possibly masking it entirely for us. so in some cases, having a very high fidelity system could probably let us go further when looking for our own hearing threshold. 
but yeah it's a matter of circumstances, a matter of what we're testing, and most of all, money is not a measure of signal fidelity. based on Harman tests with headphones, it's not even a good measure of subjective fidelity.


----------



## gregorio

SonyFan121 said:


> [1] In the late 90's/early 2000's most people had yet to be accustomed to lossy file formats.
> [2] I was just a kid back then and couldn't tell the difference in sound quality between lossy mp3 and CD format ...
> [3] You do not need a $100,000 hifi system to be able to hear these artifacts. That is a silly and somewhat bizzare/crazy assumption.
> [4] You can say what you like, but I am very experienced in this hobby, I suspect I take it more seriously than you do, I know what i'm talking about.
> [5] I do not need someone with less experience to tell me what I can and can't do.



1. We are not still in the late 90's/early 2000's though! 
2. I wasn't, I was an adult, already an experienced professional and I could easily tell the difference between a 128kbps file and CD. Now, 20 years later and with much more efficient codecs and 320kbps or 256 VBR, I can't tell the difference and neither can any of my colleagues, either on cheap systems like yours or in the multi-million dollar studios where we work.
3. Hey, you're the one who said "_But if using some seriously expensive kit, the difference can be immediately apparent._". Now that you've been called out on it, apparently have no idea what "seriously expensive kit" actually sounds like and only have cheap kit yourself, you're saying you DON'T need expensive kit. So which is it?
4. Just the fact that you call it a "hobby" demonstrates that you take it less seriously than me, because for me it's not just a hobby, it's how I make my living and it has been since before you were "just a kid"! So, you are OBVIOUSLY way less experienced than me, obviously take it way less seriously than me and clearly do NOT know what you're talking about! Again, it's the same old audiophile nonsense, you try the "I've got better kit than you" and when that's shown to be false, you change your tune and try the "I take it more seriously" and "I have more experience", both of which are also false. All you're doing is just making yourself look more foolish, surely that's not why you posted here is it?
5. If you "don't need someone with less experience to tell you what you can do", what makes you think that we do?

Your old audiophile tactics might work in other forums but not in this one, this is the sound science forum, NOT the "I've got cheap kit, less knowledge and experience but I'm going to state the opposite" forum! Why don't you do what the thread is titled and actually try a controlled test, instead of using false appeals to your (lack of) authority?

G


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 10, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> to return your caution in statements to you, do you actually have conclusive evidence that "to my ears, the audible difference between 320 and lossless is very subtle at most"? or are you just presenting it like that because at the back of your head you can't accept that so much done to a signal isn't audible to you? because if you do have a test showing that you noticed subtle differences at 320, bigshot, I and a few others would love to see it.



I was saying that I didn't notice obvious differences at all, so any differences I could have perceived, consciously or subconsciously, were presumably subtle _at most_.  It's possible that I couldn't perceive any differences at all.  I don't know.  I didn't spend more time delving into, since I have both Tidal lossless and Spotify 320, and usually use Tidal "just in case" it sounds a little better, though sometimes I'm lazy and just keep listening using Spotify.  My sense is that any audible difference between the two is tiny compared to differences in recording quality, my headphones, and how my perception is varying within the day and from day to day.

Another point to consider with all of this: maybe it's better NOT to have hearing which goes up to near 20 kHz.  If differences in audio reproduction related to differences in DACs, amps, lossy, etc. are mainly at higher frequencies closer to 20 kHz, not being able to hear those high frequencies would mean that differences in gear matter less, or maybe they don't matter at all.  It could be argued that not being able to hear those higher frequencies means missing out on part of the music, but such a person wouldn't hear those frequencies in normal life either, so presumably their brain would adapt and recalibrate what sounds natural and realistic to them based on the frequencies they _can_ hear.  Doing a FR hearing test is probably the first thing any budding audiophile should do.

And not being able to hear higher frequencies does NOT mean that someone has worse auditory perception.  Auditory perception ability is very much influenced by experience, hence my being to distinguish between sounds of cymbals and judge whether cymbals sound realistic because I've heard a lot of cymbals in real life.  I don't have that ability with the sound of the clarinet because I've never played the clarinet and not often heard it live except in the context of large orchestras.  There are probably people out there who can hear up to about 20 kHz, but have mainly listened to crappy music without acoustic instruments, not heard much live music, and have never played instruments themselves, and therefore have relatively poor auditory perception skill.


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 10, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> It would also be nice if the sports shoe manufacturers included a disclaimer that: "our shoe probably won't enable you to play like Michael Jordan"...
> And the guys who sell minivans would include one stating" "we can't promise that your kids will become well behaved little angels like the kids in our commercials"...
> And the fine folks who sell all those exercise machines would start showing average folks with average bodies using them...
> 
> ...



I don't place much blame on manufacturers.  The root of the problem is the fallibility of our perception, and our lack of conscious awareness of that fallibility.  We're sitting ducks.  And most of the hype about products is generated by fellow audiophiles, not by manufacturers.  Some manufacturers just get lucky (and their products may look good, have cool names, and use technology which sounds impressive to laypeople) and their products get "hot," which tends to be a self-reinforcing process which makes them ever more popular.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 10, 2019)

gregorio said:


> 1. We are not still in the late 90's/early 2000's though!
> 2. I wasn't, I was an adult, already an experienced professional and I could easily tell the difference between a 128kbps file and CD. Now, 20 years later and with much more efficient codecs and 320kbps or 256 VBR, I can't tell the difference and neither can any of my colleagues, either on cheap systems like yours or in the multi-million dollar studios where we work.
> 3. Hey, you're the one who said "_But if using some seriously expensive kit, the difference can be immediately apparent._". Now that you've been called out on it, apparently have no idea what "seriously expensive kit" actually sounds like and only have cheap kit yourself, you're saying you DON'T need expensive kit. So which is it?
> 4. Just the fact that you call it a "hobby" demonstrates that you take it less seriously than me, because for me it's not just a hobby, it's how I make my living and it has been since before you were "just a kid"! So, you are OBVIOUSLY way less experienced than me, obviously take it way less seriously than me and clearly do NOT know what you're talking about! Again, it's the same old audiophile nonsense, you try the "I've got better kit than you" and when that's shown to be false, you change your tune and try the "I take it more seriously" and "I have more experience", both of which are also false. All you're doing is just making yourself look more foolish, surely that's not why you posted here is it?
> ...



Listen pal, - I do not appreciate your extremely aggressive tone!! You seem very touchy! You sure you're okay?!
If you want me to debate with you then calm down!!
I do not care what you say, you can try to irritate me with your aggresive tone, but you will fail.
Do you know anything about Linn? they certainly do not make cheap systems, if they read your statement they would laugh. Honest they would.
I highly, highly doubt you are what you say you are, otherwise you would not be saying the things you do.
I am not going to reply to your extremely aggresive and child-like manner! you have a good day now you hear !?!


----------



## gregorio

SonyFan121 said:


> Listen pal, - I do not appreciate your extremely aggressive tone!!



You are the one who came here with the aggressive and condescending tone. You are the one who brought up your supposedly expensive kit and your supposedly superior experience and now you're getting YOUR OWN tactics thrown back at you, you get all upset and call it a "child-like manner". The solution is simple, if you don't want to be treated in such a manner, do not treat me or others in that manner yourself. Surely that's not too difficult a concept for you to grasp? AGAIN, why don't you stay on the topic of this thread, actually try a controlled test for yourself and STOP with your aspersions and doing exactly what you're complaining I'm doing?!

G


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> Listen pal, - I do not appreciate your extremely aggressive tone!! You seem very touchy! You sure you're okay?!
> If you want me to debate with you then calm down!!
> I do not care what you say, you can try to irritate me with your aggresive tone, but you will fail.
> Do you know anything about Linn? they certainly do not make cheap systems, if they read your statement they would laugh. Honest they would.
> ...




Not replying is a good plan - you'll only dig a deeper hole for yourself.  What I'd recommend is taking bigshot's test - if you're honest (and human), you're going to be surprised by the results and may learn something.

You accused an industry professional of not having experience and trotted out a handful of debunked audiophile axioms in the Sound Science forum - what kind of response did you expect?  I have no idea what you do for a living, but if someone posted about you in your field of expertise as you did here, I suspect you wouldn't appreciate it either.


----------



## KeithEmo

The thing that many people seem not to understand is that, when you're about things like lossy compression, both the benefits and the flaws become more complex.
It's easy to detect when a wrist watch runs 30 seconds a month fast, and easy to confirm when one keeps good time.
However, imagine if you had a complicated computer clock that kept good time - except on Tuesdays, on odd numbered dates, between 3 AM and 5 AM, when it runs ten minutes fast.
You can easily see how it would be "totally accurate most of the time" and how the flaw would be very difficult to detect if you didn't happen to be watching at certain times.

"Perceptual lossy encoders", like MP3 and AAC, rely on complex models of what we can hear to decide what they can safely discard without causing audible changes.
Among other things, these models take frequency, amplitude, relative amplitude, and time into account.
So, literally, if a sound at 3 kHz occurs within 50 milliseconds after a sound at 2 kHz that's 6 dB louder, then we can safely discard it because you can't hear it (due to masking).
Note that, under certain circumstances, a sound may be masked by another sound that occurs before or after it.
To make matters even more complex, the MP3 encoding algorithm splits the incoming audio up into "time slices", and considers the timing as well.
The encoder looks at each time slice separately and, if a certain sound occurs near the beginning of a slice, it may be treated differently than if it occurs at the middle or end of the slice.
And, just to add another twist, masking effects are dependent on the absolute listening level.
This means that differences that are inaudible at a certain listening level may be audible at a different listening level. 

Check out this paper for some of the actual details of the process:
https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/conte...17-Conference_mp3-and-AAC-explained_AES17.pdf

Because of this complexity, and because the model used by the encoder is not a perfect model of human hearing, it is possible for the encoder to occasionally be "tricked".
The result of all this is that, unlike simpler devices such as amplifiers, it is quite possible for lossy encoded files to experience very specific issues only occasionally.
For example, a certain combination of sounds, at specific intervals, may cause the encoder to discard something that it _INCORRECTLY_ expects will be inaudible.
These sorts of complex errors are made possible because the encoding process itself is incredibly complex.

However, because of the complexity, these sorts of errors can be very difficult to detect - and it is difficult to confirm that they are _NOT_ present occasionally.
Finding them is more like the process of finding bugs in computer code than like the process of measuring flaws like distortion in amplifiers.

The Fraunhofer paper spent some time talking about when such errors would be likely to occur - for example on sharp transients that occur near the start of an encoding block.
Based on this, and the details of a given encoder, it should be possible to create files that will specifically cause a certain encoder to "fail" - and audibly change something significantly.
And, since we cannot rule out the possibility that such a condition might occur during a normal music track, we cannot rule out that they might occur "in normal use".
However, it might take many hours of careful testing, using a wide variety of musical tracks, to actually find and document a few of these sorts of flaws.
And they will probably be different for different encoders.
Note, however, that these are "process flaws" - and will be repeatable under identical conditions. 
If you encode the same track, using the same encoder, with the same settings, and play it back on the same equipment, at the same level, it will make the same error.

Unfortunately, since the entire lossy file will be measurably different, and we're talking about "perceptual failures", these sorts of errors can't be "screened for" by test equipment.
(The test equipment will show that the entire file has been altered significantly.)
It requires a careful human listener to pick out the particular spot where the alteration is audible.

Speaking from past experience, many people I know, including myself, have at least occasionally heard such "bad spots" in lossy files.
However, most of us don't bother to note them down, and save copies - to prove they exist to other people.
It seems like a waste to document proof that the file is different - when we already know it is different.

There's also a sort of Catch-22....
- people who don't notice the occasional flaw here or there don't notice them
- and people who do notice them are unlikely to spend hours listening to lossy files just so we can identify and document the occasional flaw
(most people who do notice flaws either make a decision to accept and ignore the occasional error - or to stop using lossy files)

It should certainly be possible to make up an audio test file that specifically includes many of the situations likely to cause an encoder to make mistakes.
However, so far I have not seen one offered.



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> sure.  The interesting thing about audiophiles is some of them will try to tell you the shoes DO allow them to run a 4 minute mile...then when you ask them to show you they seem to kinda find ways to not do so.  They "choose not to run!" (a little Seinfeld reference  )
> 
> As far as watches go, we aren't talking about a choice between one thing that works and one that doesn't.  We're talking about a choice between two things that work functionally identically (both these watches keep perfect time) - and it's been shown pretty conclusively that thats true in spite of your strange obfuscations to the contrary.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 10, 2019)

gregorio said:


> *You are the one who came here with the aggressive and condescending tone*. You are the one who brought up your supposedly expensive kit and your supposedly superior experience and now you're getting YOUR OWN tactics thrown back at you, you get all upset and call it a "child-like manner". The solution is simple, if you don't want to be treated in such a manner, *do not treat me or others in that manner yourself.* Surely that's not too difficult a concept for you to grasp? AGAIN, why don't you stay on the topic of this thread, actually try a controlled test for yourself and STOP with your aspersions and doing exactly what you're complaining I'm doing?!
> 
> G



My goodness..I did not come here with an aggressive and condescending tone at all. You should know that i'm very intelligent and intellectual person, and am not fooled by you.
I know what you're playing at, I know your gameplan. I spoken to people like you before.

And What exactly do you do for a living? you haven't even given me a title for it yet. Give me evidence, and if you can't, then I will assume you are just lying.
I can assure you that I know lot's about audio codec's. I have a perfect understanding of it and it's not even my job. *You do not need to work in the industry to understand. *You just need a brain.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

SonyFan121 said:


> It is indeed harder to tell the difference between 256 kbps and 320 kbps, but you would not need a $100,000 hifi system to do so..



no, you wouldn't, because you probably couldn't do so on any system...


----------



## bigshot (Jan 10, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> Listen pal, - I do not appreciate your extremely aggressive tone!! You seem very touchy! You sure you're okay?!



Don't worry about Gregorio. His tone is gruff, but he really knows a lot and you could certainly learn from him if you take him in the right way.

As for the differences in lossy files, my test will be a lot of fun for you and you'll probably realize things you didn't know about modern codecs. Let me know when you get time to sit down and listen and I'll set you up. After the test we can discuss what is audible and what isn't with a baseline that we've both experienced. That is a lot more useful than speaking purely in theory about apples and oranges and what ifs. There are already too many people around here doing that!


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

KeithEmo said:


> The thing that many people seem not to understand is that, when you're about things like lossy compression, both the benefits and the flaws become more complex.
> It's easy to detect when a wrist watch runs 30 seconds a month fast, and easy to confirm when one keeps good time.
> However, imagine if you had a complicated computer clock that kept good time - except on Tuesdays, on odd numbered dates, between 3 AM and 5 AM, when it runs ten minutes fast.
> You can easily see how it would be "totally accurate most of the time" and how the flaw would be very difficult to detect if you didn't happen to be watching at certain times.
> ...




you've succeeded in typing enough now that I no longer have the energy to commit to reading it and trying to figure out what you are saying so I suppose in that sense, you "win."  lol.  I'm pretty sure I know that in the end it comes down to more of what you've already done all this time - strange obfuscation and moving of goal posts.  But I don't have the level of interest necessary to bother to find out.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm sorry.... but lossy encoding is a complicated process, and, if you don't actually know how it works, then you're not going to be able to evaluate explanations about how or why it sometimes goes wrong.
(The process itself is susceptible to errors. The fact that I haven't caught a particular encoder in any obvious errors does not incline me to trust it to absolutely never do anything wrong.)
If you prefer not to "waste the time" to learn the details about the subject being discussed then that is obviously your choice.
However, you should stop assuming that every explanation that takes more than three sentences is a sinister attempt to confuse you.
It is a complicated subject... and, if you pretend that it is not, then you will miss important details. 
I have nothing to win or lose - it is what it is.
I'm merely doing my part to inform anyone who actually wants to know what's going on.
(I suspect you will find my explanation much shorter, and easier to read, than the more thorough version in the Fraunhofer white paper.)

The description that I gave applies to all "perceptual lossy compression" - which includes MP3, AAC, Ogg Vorbis, and most other lossy compression CODECS in use today..
I am unaware of any which I would _ABSOLUTELY_ trust to _NEVER_ make _ANY_ audible errors.
However, many have gotten quite close, and very rarely make obvious errors...
So, if you've found one that performs well enough to satisfy _YOUR_ requirements, then I guess you have no reason to learn any more about the details.
(So why are you wasting time reading about it at all if you've already decided?)



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> you've succeeded in typing enough now that I no longer have the energy to commit to reading it and trying to figure out what you are saying so I suppose in that sense, you "win."  lol.  I'm pretty sure I know that in the end it comes down to more of what you've already done all this time - strange obfuscation and moving of goal posts.  But I don't have the level of interest necessary to bother to find out.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jan 10, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> I'm sorry.... but lossy encoding is a complicated process, and, if you don't actually know how it works, then you're not going to be able to evaluate explanations about how or why it sometimes goes wrong.
> (The process itself is susceptible to errors. The fact that I haven't caught a particular encoder in any obvious errors does not incline me to trust it to absolutely never do anything wrong.)
> If you prefer not to "waste the time" to learn the details about the subject being discussed then that is obviously your choice.
> However, you should stop assuming that every explanation that takes more than three sentences is a sinister attempt to confuse you.
> ...



lol.  I don't care how or why it might go wrong.  I know there is the potential for it to "go wrong."  Just like I know there is the potential for anything digital to "go wrong" at any given time.  I don't need you to explain fundamental, simple, and obvious principles to me.  Why would I worry about occasional, exceptionally rare audible errors in a file (something which I've not really encountered in several years of listening to lossy files to any notable extent) when I'm exponentially more likely to encounter issues and errors related to simply glitches in an operating system or bluetooth transmission or any number of other instances where something might potentially "go wrong" in the digital realm.  Frankly, I don't even know why you are talking about the issue.  It's got nearly nothing to do with the subject at hand...but as I said, obfuscation and moving of goal posts.

Not to mention that I can well remember from back in the days when I was ripping cds to LOSSLESS files that there were occasions when the process didn't go right and the much vaunted LOSSLESS files ended up with audible glitches.  Oh my!


----------



## bigshot

There is a point where sound fidelity reaches the limit of human hearing. This threshold is a hard and fast line because human ears have a finite ability to hear. Some people may be less tolerant of artifacting and some may be more tolerant, but when it reaches the point of transparency, no human can hear a difference. The problem is that a lot of people want to justify spending a lot of money on their sound equipment. They do that by pointing at measurements on a spec sheet and saying, "Look! this one is better than this one." But if those specs represent sound that is beyond the ability of ears to hear, it flat out doesn't matter. When that simple fact is pointed out to them, they shift to trying to hypothesize that a human somewhere in the world might exist that has extra special hearing and might be able to detect a difference. The argue the logic that because something MIGHT be true, then you should act as if it IS true. That is dumb, because they aren't even arguing that they can hear it or you can hear it or anyone reading the thread can hear it. And they can't point to a single person who actually can hear it.

I'm less "pie in the sky" about it and more practical. I compare things with simple controlled tests. I help other people do the same. If I can't hear a difference in my tests, and no one I help to do tests can hear a difference either, I don't worry about it. I have a very good idea of where my thresholds lie from doing all this testing. I'm not hypothesizing or guessing. You can show me a spec on a tear sheet and I can tell you pretty accurately if I can hear it or not. I can also extrapolate all the tests I've conducted and tell you with a good degree of accuracy whether you can hear it too.

The people who argue "let's be safe", "we don't know everything there is to know" and "I lay awake worrying I might be missing something" are the ones who have never done any critical thinking, experimentation or research. They are the ones that don't know what they're talking about. But of course, they're the ones that talk the most. I'm happy to share what I know. If you disagree, I'm happy to help you do a test to find out for yourself. You don't have to trust me on it. Make the effort and find out for yourself so you aren't ignorant like the people who argue those logical fallacies. No one should make excuses for their own ignorance. That is something to be ashamed of.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jan 10, 2019)

I think you summed it up nicely.

Personally, I store all my lossless music on a hard drive....
And I use a standard data checksum program to occasionally confirm that all the files remain perfect....
I check my library infrequently, but I have so far never encountered a data error.
If I found an error, I would check it much more often, and even more carefully from then on.
I also have full backups of every audio file I listen to.
I connect that hard drive to the computer that I use to play my music....
I don't use Bluetooth because, as you say, it is prone to occasional errors....
WiFi is considerably more reliable - but I don't need it either.

I see lossy compression as simply one more place where something can go wrong....
So, since I prefer to do the best to minimize the possibility of errors, I don't use it....

What I find especially disquieting about current lossy encoders is the very fact that they are "perceptual".
The hope that they will be audibly transparent is based on the assumption that their internal model of what is audible is totally accurate.
In other words, you're trusting the judgment of the guy who wrote it that the information it discards won't be noticeable today, and won't be noticeable tomorrow under slightly different conditions.
And, not only am I trusting that it won't have introduced noticeable errors, but I'm also trusting that it hasn't changed something in some less obvious way, that may still affect what I hear.
I'm taking their word that, even if I don't notice anything specifically and obviously wrong, there won't be some subtle loss that I barely notice.

To me, the situation is philosophically pretty simple.....
In terms of actual information, we all_ KNOW_ that lossy compression causes damage, and in fact it is specified to do so....
And, with lossless compression, we have several perfectly simple and economical ways to store our music _without_ damaging it.
I see no reason to deliberately damage my audio files, then hope that the damage will be inaudible, when the alternative is simply _NOT TO DAMAGE THEM_....

You say "I know there is the potential for it to "go wrong.""
So, then, why do you want to do something to your music that provides no significant benefit, and "has the potential to go wrong"?

As far as I can tell, you and I are in prefect agreement here... and simply agree to disagree on our priorities.
The "discussion" arose out of claims, made by certain people, that lossy compression is "always audibly transparent", and so it does _NOT_ expose us to "the potential for something else to go wrong".



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> lol.  I don't care how or why it might go wrong.  I know there is the potential for it to "go wrong."  Just like I know there is the potential for anything digital to "go wrong" at any given time.  I don't need you to explain fundamental, simple, and obvious principles to me.  Why would I worry about occasional, exceptionally rare audible errors in a file (something which I've not really encountered in several years of listening to lossy files to any notable extent) when I'm exponentially more likely to encounter issues and errors related to simply glitches in an operating system or bluetooth transmission or any number of other instances where something might potentially "go wrong" in the digital realm.  Frankly, I don't even know why you are talking about the issue.  It's got nearly nothing to do with the subject at hand...but as I said, obfuscation and moving of goal posts.
> 
> Not to mention that I can well remember from back in the days when I was ripping cds to LOSSLESS files that there were occasions when the process didn't go right and the much vaunted LOSSLESS files ended up with audible glitches.  Oh my!


----------



## old tech

Phronesis said:


> And not being able to hear higher frequencies does NOT mean that someone has worse auditory perception.  Auditory perception ability is very much influenced by experience, hence my being to distinguish between sounds of cymbals and judge whether cymbals sound realistic because I've heard a lot of cymbals in real life.  I don't have that ability with the sound of the clarinet because I've never played the clarinet and not often heard it live except in the context of large orchestras.  There are probably people out there who can hear up to about 20 kHz, but have mainly listened to crappy music without acoustic instruments, not heard much live music, and have never played instruments themselves, and therefore have relatively poor auditory perception skill.



I agree that not being able to hear high frequencies does not mean someone has worse auditory perception.  If we are talking about frequencies above say 14khz. let alone ultra/sub sonic frequencies, it also has extremely limited influence on how one objectively hears music, let alone perception of it. What is important is how good our hearing is in the midrange, which is where the music magic is, ie our abilities to discriminate detail, propensity to masking and linearity of frequency response for each ear. 

All of this degrades with age, particularly with the acculated damage we do to our ears over over our lifetime.  If anyone over 50 years of age could instantly turn back the clock to hear as they did when they were 18 years old, they would be blown away by the clarity and detail of the music.  It has nothing (or extremely minor) to do with suddenly being able to hear up to 20khz, but everything to do with midrange clarity.

Getting back to perception, the loss in hearing acuity related to age is to a degree compensated by individual perception and memory so it is possible and probable that a 50 year old can appreciate high fidelity more than a 18 yo can, but that is not a function of innate abilities.  Yes, youth is sometimes wasted on the young.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

wow...are you ever full of it!  

there is a "potential for something to go wrong" with lossy compression roughly equivalent to the potential for something to go wrong with ripping CDs to lossless files.  you are introducing a dilemma that almost doesn't exist.  lol.  On top of that, i'm not doing any compression of my own at all! i use Spotify Extreme for all my music listening now.  i'm totally satisfied with that because almost everything I could want to hear is there and I've long since put to bed the notion that I can tell the difference between the 320kb lossy files and lossless so i have no concerns whatsoever...


----------



## bigshot

I've ripped tens of thousands of CDs to AAC and only once did I notice a glitch. I pulled out the CD and discovered that the glitch was encoded into the CD itself. My rip was perfect. The master tape for the CD had a glitch. Errors in ripping is a non-issue unless you use your CDs for drink coasters or your optical drive is severely out of align. If someone here is experiencing errors on their rips, I'm happy to give them tips on how to correct that.


----------



## Phronesis

old tech said:


> If anyone over 50 years of age could instantly turn back the clock to hear as they did when they were 18 years old, they would be blown away by the clarity and detail of the music.  It has nothing (or extremely minor) to do with suddenly being able to hear up to 20khz, but everything to do with midrange clarity.



I don't know either way, and not sure if any experiment along those lines has been done (or really _can_ be done).  But if the experiment could be done, I'm not sure the result would come out that way.  Even if the ear degrades as a transducer, it's still sending the brain a wide range of frequencies, and I would expect that the brain takes that input and adjusts to provide a fairly consistent level of perceived clarity and detail.  It could even go the other way, where the learning of the brain more than makes up for the degradation of the ear.  I'm a little over 50, and don't recall perceiving more detail when I was 18 as compared to now.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jan 10, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I've ripped tens of thousands of CDs to AAC and only once did I notice a glitch. I pulled out the CD and discovered that the glitch was encoded into the CD itself. My rip was perfect. The master tape for the CD had a glitch. Errors in ripping is a non-issue unless you use your CDs for drink coasters or your optical drive is severely out of align. If someone here is experiencing errors on their rips, I'm happy to give them tips on how to correct that.



yeah, i agree. i mean he seems to be arguing that going high BR lossy introduces some new level of risk or something into the ripping process.  i think...


----------



## bigshot

I think that people who actually rip CDs know more about it than people who don't because of "what if" reasons. But I'm a practical soul who tries to limit my topics of conversation to subjects I actually know something about!


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Phronesis said:


> I don't know either way, and not sure if any experiment along those lines has been done (or really _can_ be done).  But if the experiment could be done, I'm not sure the result would come out that way.  Even if the ear degrades as a transducer, it's still sending the brain a wide range of frequencies, and I would expect that the brain takes that input and adjusts to provide a fairly consistent level of perceived clarity and detail.  It could even go the other way, where the learning of the brain more than makes up for the degradation of the ear.  I'm a little over 50, and don't recall perceiving more detail when I was 18 as compared to now.



so by your reasoning it is impossible for someone to have poor hearing??  


i'm personally dealing with a bit of tinnitus myself at the age of 52.


----------



## Phronesis

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> so by your reasoning it is impossible for someone to have poor hearing??
> 
> i'm personally dealing with a bit of tinnitus myself at the age of 52.



Of course not, and I wasn't including cases where ears become 'defective' due to problems like tinnitus or worse, just normal change/degradation with age until the degradation gets bad enough that hearing ability is unavoidably reduced regardless of how the brain tries to compensate.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 10, 2019)

I don't know how anyone could compare the sound quality produced in their ears thirty years ago to now. You just hear. I sure don't think the brain "corrects" for hearing loss. When it's gone, it's gone. It isn't like a lizard growing its tail back or something. It's a bit delusional to expect that it would. Maybe we should tell Stevie Wonder if he takes off those dark glasses and thinks really hard about it, he will be able to see the keys on his keyboard in front of him.


----------



## Phronesis

bigshot said:


> I don't know how anyone could compare the sound quality produced in their ears thirty years ago to now. You just hear. I sure don't think the brain "corrects" for hearing loss. When it's gone, it's gone. It isn't like a lizard growing its tail back or something. It's a bit delusional to expect that it would.



We were talking mainly about what happens in the mid range, not "loss" due to falling off of response at the lower and upper extremes. 

Since I can apparently still hear pretty well from about 20 Hz to 16 kHz, maybe I don't yet really know what it will be like for my hearing ability to degrade to a large extent.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Phronesis said:


> I don't know either way, and not sure if any experiment along those lines has been done (or really _can_ be done).  But if the experiment could be done, I'm not sure the result would come out that way.  Even if the ear degrades as a transducer, it's still sending the brain a wide range of frequencies, and I would expect that the brain takes that input and adjusts to provide a fairly consistent level of perceived clarity and detail.  It could even go the other way, where the learning of the brain more than makes up for the degradation of the ear.  I'm a little over 50, and don't recall perceiving more detail when I was 18 as compared to now.


I'm over 50....and i dont recall a lot of things from when i was 18....or 45


----------



## Steve999 (Jan 10, 2019)

james444 said:


> I think the results from this site speak for themselves...
> 
> http://soundexpert.org/encoders



That's a very cool site. I used to use it way back when to help guide me in how to do my rips and it's served me well. I still have the rips and am confident in them. @castleofargh gave a way more articulate and informed analysis of their processes than I ever could, so thanks @castleofargh. I have more confidence in the site now that I read his analysis. I did do my own ABXs, recently and in the past, but in the past I always did use the findings of the folks at Hydrogen Audio and the soundexpert.org information as data points too. Good stuff.


----------



## Steve999 (Jan 11, 2019)

Phronesis said:


> Good stuff.  Maybe I can now dump my Tidal subscription and just stick with Spotify 320.  I didn’t do rigorous testing with stats, etc., but when I did blind testing with controls, I didn’t notice any obvious difference.



I've come to appreciate Spotify more and more. My whole family can use it, I can play at 320 kbps or other lower tiers in Ogg Vorbis, it seems to avoid clipping in playback chains one way or another, and the curated and automated playlist features (daily mixes, discover weekly, classical and jazz sub-genres) are pretty cool. It's also very platform agnostic, and my family of five uses every platform under the sun--Windows, OS X, Linux, Chrome, iOS, Android, Roku, web browser or native app. The catalog digs pretty deep for me personally, and for me the sound quality is completely there, there's nothing to worry about. I regard modern Ogg Vorbis as being about on a par with modern Apple AAC for a given bitrate, give or take--I could be wrong on that. Apple AAC's been a little tricky in the playback chain in Windows for me though, but I worked through it. Full disclosure: I have both Apple Music and Spotify. On Spotify everyone in the family can see what everyone else is listening to. Sometimes I like to dig into my own idiosyncrasy without the unneeded commentary from my wife and teenage kids.  ; )

I'm totally on-board that Apple 256 AAC is more than enough for a lossy encoder. And @Sgt. Ear Ache , your estimation that things kind of get into a grey area around 160 kbps to 192 kbps in terms of finer differences ascertainable on ABX (if I may put words in your mouth) with many codecs I think is spot-on. If I remember right, ten years ago the folks at Hydrogen Audio gave up testing at 128 kbps VBR in part because it was hard to find people to participate in the test, since it was not an easy task to go through the test. If @bigshot is using killer samples for his test and giving individual feedback it may well be a more entertaining exercise to try his test.


----------



## KeithEmo

Errrr..... not exactly.

If you care about such things, then you use a a program to RIP your CDs that uses the AccurateRIP database.
The AccurateRIP database is a publicly available database of checksums for a significant fraction of all the CDs ever produced.
After each track is ripped, the program calculates a checksum, and compares it to the database.
(The checksum comparison process used is mathematical and precise.)
The program then reports whether the file you just ripped is identical to copies other folks have ripped - or not.
That way, rather than trust the ripping program, or anyone else, you have actual confirmation that the track you just ripped is perfect.
(Several popular programs, including dBPowerAmp and EAC, offer this option.)

While there is the possibility that a RIP will result in an imperfect result...
There is also a certainty that, if that happens, you will be warned that the error exists...
That way, as long as you delete or re-do files that are flawed, there is no chance thatyou will end up with a RIP that is not a _mathematically_ perfect copy of the original.
there is no possibility that you'll end up with 

Again, however, you are not making a valid comparison.
A RIP is intended to make a bit-perfect copy; a lossy encoder is specifically designed to alter the file.

A CD contains specific data.
When you RIP that CD, the file that results is expected to contain exactly the same data.
And that fact can be tested and confirmed by measurement.
(And any program that rips that CD correctly will give you exactly the same output file.)

When you make a copy of a file using a lossy encoder...
You are specifically and deliberately altering the file...
There is no point in comparing the file to the original because we already know it's different...
And, if you made lossy copies of the same original, using different encoders, they will also be different from each other...
You are trusting the person who wrote the encoders that, even though the data is different, _YOU WILL BE UNABLE TO PERCEIVE THE DIFFERENCE_.
And, at best, you can then use listening tests, which are themselves subjective, to confirm that you are unable to _hear_ a difference.
However, there is no possible way to suggest that the lossy files are physically the same, all you can aseert is that "you can't hear the difference".

There is a qualitative difference between:
- I know there is no difference.
- I know there IS a difference but I'm certain I cannot hear it.



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> wow...are you ever full of it!
> 
> there is a "potential for something to go wrong" with lossy compression roughly equivalent to the potential for something to go wrong with ripping CDs to lossless files.  you are introducing a dilemma that almost doesn't exist.  lol.  On top of that, i'm not doing any compression of my own at all! i use Spotify Extreme for all my music listening now.  i'm totally satisfied with that because almost everything I could want to hear is there and I've long since put to bed the notion that I can tell the difference between the 320kb lossy files and lossless so i have no concerns whatsoever...


----------



## old tech

Phronesis said:


> I don't know either way, and not sure if any experiment along those lines has been done (or really _can_ be done).  But if the experiment could be done, I'm not sure the result would come out that way.  Even if the ear degrades as a transducer, it's still sending the brain a wide range of frequencies, and I would expect that the brain takes that input and adjusts to provide a fairly consistent level of perceived clarity and detail.  It could even go the other way, where the learning of the brain more than makes up for the degradation of the ear.  I'm a little over 50, and don't recall perceiving more detail when I was 18 as compared to now.


Well I'm not an expert in the field of audiology, I'm just passing on what a good friend tells me who is a highly experienced audiologist.  He is not an audiophile but does have a passing interest on some of the comments from this forum which I pass back to him.

I'm afraid he would totally disagree with you that the age related loss of higher frequency response is more important than the degradation in our midrange.  It is not a simple case that we can still hear the mid-range frequencies (as you say later) so all is hunky dory.

At a little over 50, surely you would have noticed by now that sometimes it is hard to hear the softer dialogue in movies over the background music, or that you need to concentrate a bit more to carry on a conversation in a party with music, talking and laughing in the backround?  You are still hearing the frequencies but your ears are less efficient at processing and transferring that information.  It has the same effect with music where detail is hidden and clarity has declined.

The brain does somewhat compensate for this degradation, but only to a degree.  In part it is because our 'frames of references' are based on memories and memories are not like a recording, they constantly change.  I can remember certain sounds like decay of instruments that I used to hear with certain tracks when I was 18, albeit with cassettes on a car stereo and sometimes I still expect to hear the sound that way but never do.  Perhaps it is an indication of hearing degradation, but more likely it is the fallibility of memory.  Anyway, the point about being blown away by the clarity and detail you would hear if you could instantly go back to 18, was what the friend said, based on discrimination tests he conducts, not frequency responses.  No different to our eyesight, again you'd be blown away if instantly you were 18.  If you then went back to 50+ you would really notice the lack of focus, the yellowing and degraded ability to discriminate detail.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> Errrr..... not exactly.
> 
> If you care about such things, then you use a a program to RIP your CDs that uses the AccurateRIP database.
> The AccurateRIP database is a publicly available database of checksums for a significant fraction of all the CDs ever produced.
> ...



I am interested interested in the best ripping software for the following:

MASTER CD-R recordings that have not been finished (burnt), none of which can possibly be in any data base . 

I use Yamaha CRW-F1 CD-R burner.

The CD-Rs used were mostly archival quality, said to be guaranteed for over 100 years - with few gold archival CD-Rs and some more regular CD-Rs. There are also a few CD-R Audio discs, made on non-pro CD-R recorder(s) - but these represent a tiny portion.

The safest digital storage to date seems to be Mini Disc - but is is FAR too expensive per amount of data stored, and unavailability makes its use moot point anyway.

Given the reliability of archival CD-Rs used and unreliability of HDDs ( DON*T get into SSD - FAR too expensive for the amount of data involved ) , I felt little desire to make a HDD backup. But, just in case...

Regarding regular CD-Rs "reliability" - our Institute of Josef Stefan https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_"Jožef_Stefan" USED TO back-up their data on CD-Rs - and after determining these get corrupted over time - TWICE - they reverted back to good ol' S-VHS tapes - problem SOLVED !


----------



## gregorio

SonyFan121 said:


> [1] My goodness..I did not come here with an aggressive and condescending tone at all.
> [2] You should know that i'm very intelligent and intellectual person ...
> [3] And What exactly do you do for a living? you haven't even given me a title for it yet.
> [3a] I can assure you that I know lot's about audio codec's. I have a perfect understanding of it and it's not even my job.



1. In your very first post in this thread YOU stated "_You would be amazed at how easy it is to tell the difference between lossy and lossless. It depends heavily on the quality of the equipment. If someone uses very cheap equipment to conduct these kinds of test's..they may never be able to tell a difference. But if using some seriously expensive kit, the difference can be immediately apparent._" - How is that not condescending? And, not just condescending but foolishly condescending as it's now been established that you don't actually have "seriously expensive kit" yourself.

2. How should I know that, when your posts demonstrate only the opposite? ...
2a. Wouldn't an intelligent/intellectual person find out who they are talking to BEFORE casting aspersions on their equipment, experience and knowledge?  I'm a music/sound engineer, as should be obvious from my responses. However, that's irrelevant because ...
2b. Even if you could assure us (which you can't), this is NOT the "What Sonyfan121 can assure you of" forum! No one here is interested in your assurances, this is the science forum, we are only interested in the actual facts, not your (or even my) personal assurances. Furthermore, this thread thread is specifically titled "TESTING audiophile claims and myths" not just repeating those myths with NO reliable testing. AGAIN, why don't you apply that intelligence/intellect of yours and Stop making and defending your unsubstantiated claims by attacking everyone else's equipment and experience (especially when yours are inferior!) and stay on topic by actually doing some controlled testing? 

Ironically, your very first post was in response to bigshot's statement: _"But whenever I find someone who says they can definitely hear a difference, they suddenly get cold feet when it comes to doing a controlled listening test." _- And here you are, doing EXACTLY as he predicted!!

G


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 11, 2019)

old tech said:


> Well I'm not an expert in the field of audiology, I'm just passing on what a good friend tells me who is a highly experienced audiologist.  He is not an audiophile but does have a passing interest on some of the comments from this forum which I pass back to him.
> 
> I'm afraid he would totally disagree with you that the age related loss of higher frequency response is more important than the degradation in our midrange.  It is not a simple case that we can still hear the mid-range frequencies (as you say later) so all is hunky dory.
> 
> ...



I don't doubt that ability to discriminate differences using simple test tones generally declines with age, but that may not translate to perception of detail in music, which is a more complex cognitive skill which can improve with experience.  I'm talking about things like distinguishing a viola from a violin, judging whether cymbals sound realistic, perceiving the details of the sound of an electric bass amidst other instruments, etc.

Making an analogy to visual perception and driving, it's been found that middle-aged drivers generally have much better situational awareness and ability to detect hazards than teen drivers, even though teen drivers generally have better sensory visual acuity on simple vision tests.  It's only when drivers get truly old that their decline in sensory visual acuity becomes enough to diminish their overall situational awareness and ability to detect hazards.  And on race tracks, I've routinely seen that middle-aged drivers new to driving on tracks greatly improve their visual situational awareness and detection of things in peripheral vision over the course of years of experience (that was my own experience).

I haven't actually noticed a decline (so far) in my hearing ability in any of the aspects you mention, compared to when I was 18.  And in fact, since I've been spending a lot of time playing around different headphones over the past year and trying to become better at evaluating them, I feel like my ability to perceive details and notice differences in headphones has increased significantly over the past year, to the extent that I feel like my auditory perception was somewhat primitive and untrained a year ago as compared to today. 

Out of curiosity, I just took three online hearing tests:

https://www.nelsonaudiology.com/your-hearing/online-hearing-test - Almost 'too easy' to pass all the tests and hear the lowest available levels

https://www.beltonehearingtest.com/us/ - easy to pass all the tests

https://www.audicus.com/online-hearing-test - got max 5/5 score in all categories, but no report on specific thresholds

@gregorio, would love to get your thoughts on all of this.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 11, 2019)

gregorio said:


> 1. In your very first post in this thread YOU stated "_You would be amazed at how easy it is to tell the difference between lossy and lossless. It depends heavily on the quality of the equipment. If someone uses very cheap equipment to conduct these kinds of test's..they may never be able to tell a difference. But if using some seriously expensive kit, the difference can be immediately apparent._" - How is that not condescending? And, not just condescending but foolishly condescending as it's now been established that *you don't actually have "seriously expensive kit" yourself.*
> 
> 2. How should I know that, when your posts demonstrate only the opposite? ...
> 2a.* Wouldn't an intelligent/intellectual person find out who they are talking to BEFORE casting aspersions on their equipment, experience and knowledge?  I'm a music/sound engineer, as should be obvious from my responses.* However, that's irrelevant because ...
> ...



1. You do not need seriously expensive kit to hear differences between audio file's, something that you insinuated, whether you realise it or not. However, if you where a sound engineer you would already know that having such gear is a huge advantage, in being able to discern such differences. I hear them all the time when I listen to music via my Linn amp.
2. No, it is not obvious from your respones. What _is_ obvious from your responses however, is that I think you are almost certainly full of c**p. Just because you are a sound engineer doesn't mean you should be the only one who's opinion matters.


----------



## SonyFan121

@gregorio  I am not sure you are who you say you are, but you should know that I know allot about electronics and how circuit boards work, something that is crucial to understanding sound quality and audio codecs, Linear PCM et cetera et cetera. My father is an electronics engineer and he passed much of his knowledge on to me.


----------



## Phronesis

SonyFan121 said:


> 1. You do not need seriously expensive kit to hear differences between audio file's, something that you insinuated, whether you realise it or not. However, if you where a sound engineer you would already know that having such gear is a huge advantage, in being able to discern such differences. I hear them all the time when I listen to music via my Linn amp.



I suggest that you do the blind test and see what the results are.  I don't accept that results of typical blind tests necessarily fully generalize to normal listening, but performance on such tests should still have value, and if you think differences between audio files are easy to hear (for you, with your gear), you should be able to hear them with blind tests.


----------



## castleofargh (Jan 11, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> @gregorio  I am not sure you are who you say you are, but you should know that I know allot about electronics and how circuit boards work, something that is crucial to understanding sound quality and audio codecs, Linear PCM et cetera et cetera. My father is an electronics engineer and he passed much of his knowledge on to me.


he is who he says he is. not that it should matter in determining facts.
if you make a statement and someone contests it and asks for supporting evidence, it is your role to take back what you said, or do your best to provide some supporting evidence to show that you were indeed correct. those are the basic rules of discussing about reality. but of course it goes both ways, if @gregorio claims something you believe to be false, it's is your right to contest and ask for evidence.

under such circumstances, some evidence is provided and we can all decide if they're of significance or not. or no evidence is provided and anybody is free to reject the statement entirely as being nothing but an empty claim on the web. I believe it's a solid system that gives a chance to all and puts the responsibility on the person claiming something. everything else about measuring penises and attacking people instead of the points they makes, IMO they're signs of a failure to argue(and I'm saying this to both of you in this case).


----------



## KeithEmo

In recent years I've always used dBPowerAmp to RIP CDs.
It always seems to do a good job and never seems to get errors.
I might suggest ripping several commercial CDs that are in the AccurateRIP database, just to confirm that your CD drive and other hardware are performing well, when you start.

As far as data storage and reliability - there are several ways of looking at that and a lot of it depends on the user.

First off, _THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 100% RELIABLE DATA STORAGE_ at the level of a single copy.
(This is true for vinyl, data discs, VHS tapes, and even movie film...)
Even discs that are "designed" to last a very long time can be subject to occasional manufacturing defects or accidental damage.
The key to reliable data storage is redundancy - keep more than one copy.
One of the main benefits of digital data storage is that it is so easy and economical to do so.

There are several benefits that you _CAN_ get from all forms of digital storage - but you have to put a little effort into it too.

Perhaps the "zeroth" benefit is that all copies are identical to begin with (unless the duplicating machinery is broken the 1000th CD off the original will be identical to the first).
The first benefit is that, with most forms of digital data storage, you have several easy methods for _VERIFYING_ the accuracy of data you have stored.
The second benefit is that it's very easy to make backup copies...
And part of that second benefit is that copies of digital data are identical to the original.
If I have vinyl albums there is no way to make a duplicate or a backup copy without some "generational" loss of quality.. or buying another copy of the album itself.
If I copy a CD, and do it correctly, the copy will be _EXACTLY_ the same as the original.
That will be true for the first generation copy, and the tenth, and the ten-thousandth.
CDs also have data redundancy; they contain extra data which can be used to invisibly and perfectly repair any damage that does occur.
By the spec, if I punch a 1 mm hole through a CD, lots of data bits will be destroyed.
However, when I play that disc, it will still be _PERFECT_ - because extra data will be accessed and used to replace the missing data.
It won't be "almost as good", or "patched so well you won't notice it"; the original data will have been restored to perfection.
(So, in fact, if I have a disc that has "correctable damage", and I copy it, the copy will be _MORE PERFECT_; not only will it play perfectly, but the damage will actually be removed.)
The only time we get "noticeable errors" on a CD is when it has so much damage that it exceeds the ability of the system to correct it.

In practice.......

I have several thousand albums that I originally obtained on CD or in other digital formats - and which I keep in my permanent collection.
All of them have been ripped and stored onto a single USB hard drive.
And, yes, there is the possibility that any single CD, or that entire hard drive, might fail someday.....

HOWEVER.....

1)
My entire collection fits on a single hard drive that cost about $150 (I still have the CDs).
This is much more convenient than thousands of CDs (and I don't have to worry about misplacing the occasional CD).

2)
After I put each new album on that disc I use a data verification program to calculate a checksum - which is stored in a database.
Using that program, I can push one or two buttons, and absolutely confirm that any track on that disc is still identical to when it was stored there.
And, even better, every several months I leave the program running overnight, and it verifies that every one of the thousands of tracks on the drive is still perfect.
(After it runs it will give me a nice report - either showing "no errors found" - or listing any files that have become damaged.)

3)
Because the drive cost so little, and drives can simply fail outright, I keep a duplicate copy of the entire drive.
For the cost of another $150 drive I can have perfect duplicate backup copies of every track in my entire correction.
(It takes overnight to copy my entire collection - but all I have to do is press a few buttons and go to bed.)

That fellow at "the Institute of Josef Stefan" made a functional, but remarkable inefficient and expensive, decision.
If he has had the occasional CD fail, then the easiest solution would have been to keep duplicates of ALL his CDs.
(CD media is very cheap, takes only a few minutes to copy, and, as I mentioned before, the copy is identical to the original.)
And the easiest and most reliable solution would be to replace 5000 CDs worth of data with a single hard drive......
Then make three or four copies of that hard drive.... put one in the basement, another in a vault in another city, and take one home and bury it in the back yard.
And all of that would have been FAR cheaper, more efficient, and more reliable, than recording 5000 VHS tapes.
(I suspect that his decision was made many years ago - today you would have difficulty finding VHS recorders, players, or media.)

Just to reiterate that - in perspective.....

It's not especially unlikely that a single CD, or a single hard drive, will become damaged or simply fail in the next ten years.
However, the odds of a hard drive, and a backup copy of that drive, both failing in the next ten years are extremely remote.
And the odds of the original drive, and TWO backup drives, all failing in the next ten years, are astronomically small.
At current prices, a hard drive large enough to hold the content from 5000 CDs costs about $125 .
So, the cost to store all the data from 5000 CDs on hard disc, _IN TRIPLICATE_, is less than $500 (It's actually far less; I didn't even consider compression).

I should also note a few additional things....

First, modern hard drives are very reliable, and fail _FAR_ less often than hard drives from a few decades ago.
(SSDs and flash drives DO have a finite life expectancy - and should NOT be used for long-term storage.)

Second, while hard drives are not considered to be "reliable for long term storage", modern ones usually remain viable for many decades.

Third, if you have REALLY valuable data, because making copies is so easy, it's relatively simple to extend the life of backups indefinitely.
There are several "formal backup strategies" that are routinely used to preserve important data - all made possible because it's so easy to make perfect digital copies.
In general, as long as you have AT LEAST TWO backup copies, and verify that both are perfect every few years, the odds of both failing are pretty slim.
(Every decade or so you add a new drive, and retire the oldest one, so at least one drive is relatively new.)

Groups like the IRS, who save huge amounts of data, use more complicated strategies and equipment...
Where files that aren't used for a long time are automatically shifted to storage devices that are slower to access but have a longer shelf life.

HOWEVER, for a typical home listener, simply keeping a backup copy of your music library on a second drive, in the back of the closet....
And, perhaps, a second backup copy at grandma's house, or in your safety depisit box, will be quite adequate....



analogsurviver said:


> I am interested interested in the best ripping software for the following:
> 
> MASTER CD-R recordings that have not been finished (burnt), none of which can possibly be in any data base .
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> I don't doubt that ability to discriminate differences using simple test tones generally declines with age, but that may not translate to perception of detail in music, which is a more complex cognitive skill which can improve with experience.  I'm talking about things like distinguishing a viola from a violin, judging whether cymbals sound realistic, perceiving the details of the sound of an electric bass amidst other instruments, etc.
> 
> Making an analogy to visual perception and driving, it's been found that middle-aged drivers generally have much better situational awareness and ability to detect hazards than teen drivers, even though teen drivers generally have better sensory visual acuity on simple vision tests.  It's only when drivers get truly old that their decline in sensory visual acuity becomes enough to diminish their overall situational awareness and ability to detect hazards.  And on race tracks, I've routinely seen that middle-aged drivers new to driving on tracks greatly improve their visual situational awareness and detection of things in peripheral vision over the course of years of experience (that was my own experience).
> 
> ...


even in the mid range, some hair cells will get damaged over the years(loud noises, physical impacts), the result could be lower stimulation, or possibly extra noise. then getting old and having stuff working less efficiently is sort of the norm for our body I doubt the part of the brain dealing with sound is any different. 

most hearing thresholds get worst for adults. the pretty graph for equal loudness contour going below 0dB SPL in the midrange, that's not for seniors apparently.





stolen from https://www.researchgate.net/public...iometric_thresholds_of_young_and_older_adults





about the hearing tests, the setting of the signal's loudness is massively important to compare with other people, and you most likely don't have that information when you try some online stuff with your headphone.


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> even in the mid range, some hair cells will get damaged over the years(loud noises, physical impacts), the result could be lower stimulation, or possibly extra noise. then getting old and having stuff working less efficiently is sort of the norm for our body I doubt the part of the brain dealing with sound is any different.
> 
> most hearing thresholds get worst for adults. the pretty graph for equal loudness contour going below 0dB SPL in the midrange, that's not for seniors apparently.
> 
> ...



The age-related decline in FR is apparent in the graphs, but there's individual variability, and maybe my decline is less than average?  And FR is still different from perception of detail in music, I'm not sure how much these graphs tell us.  Also, I recall that the research by Harman et al didn't show a big age-related difference in preferred tonality of speakers and headphones, so that's further evidence of the brain adjusting to changes in the ears.

On the hearing tests, two of them said to set a reference at a comfortable level, so that's what I'd, not loud and not quiet.


----------



## bigshot

SonyFan121, let me know when you have time to take the listening test. That will tell you more about the differences between codecs than arguing about it will. You don't know until you take the test for yourself.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> The age-related decline in FR is apparent in the graphs, but there's individual variability, and maybe my decline is less than average?  And FR is still different from perception of detail in music, I'm not sure how much these graphs tell us.  Also, I recall that the research by Harman et al didn't show a big age-related difference in preferred tonality of speakers and headphones, so that's further evidence of the brain adjusting to changes in the ears.
> 
> On the hearing tests, two of them said to set a reference at a comfortable level, so that's what I'd, not loud and not quiet.


I have no idea how your hearing is, I wasn't talking about that. 

my guess comes from how quieter music will have a deep psychoacoustic impact. so even if all else was fine and properly compensated, I'd expect even the most basic and quasi linear loss in sensitivity to have various consequences on our experience. how? I have no clue, the brain keeps adapting and compensating, playing the double game of trying to make us sense what we used to sense, but at the same time if it lasts too long, trying to make the new normal the reference for further changes. so how that balancing act works out when changes are definitive? IDK, I imagine that depending on the impact in real life, the brain will just give up on trying to compensate... IDK. but I'm not confident that we can always tell when something changes in our hearing or in our brain. if we start to miss out on some cues needed for speech comprehension, I'm guessing we become aware, but is it that we notice the change, or only that we notice the consequence of having to ask people to repeat what they were saying? 

anyway for you who's always thinking about subconscious and stuff below obvious observation, it shouldn't be hard to imagine a world of changes between a youngster with a great many very reactive sensors, and an adult with fewer working sensors in the ear. if a bunch join up into a neuron in the brain, given how neurons work, having some of the paths not sending a signal could mean that the neuron never again reaches action potential(I'm free wheeling, I have no clue how things turn out and how much of the famous brain plasticity comes into play). but whatever turns out to happen, I don't think we can just assume that we boost the gain in our head and all is the same once more. even listening louder to compensate for the lower sensitivity probably doesn't result in the same mechanisms being involved. I'd expect the brain to try its best to make our favorite album feel like it always did in our memory, but there surely is a limit to compensating. 

here I'm only considering damaged hair cells and only lost in sensitivity as a result. I have no idea what other changes occur in the body as we age. I'd guess hormones and consequences could be a nice starting point.


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 11, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> I have no idea how your hearing is, I wasn't talking about that.
> 
> my guess comes from how quieter music will have a deep psychoacoustic impact. so even if all else was fine and properly compensated, I'd expect even the most basic and quasi linear loss in sensitivity to have various consequences on our experience. how? I have no clue, the brain keeps adapting and compensating, playing the double game of trying to make us sense what we used to sense, but at the same time if it lasts too long, trying to make the new normal the reference for further changes. so how that balancing act works out when changes are definitive? IDK, I imagine that depending on the impact in real life, the brain will just give up on trying to compensate... IDK. but I'm not confident that we can always tell when something changes in our hearing or in our brain. if we start to miss out on some cues needed for speech comprehension, I'm guessing we become aware, but is it that we notice the change, or only that we notice the consequence of having to ask people to repeat what they were saying?
> 
> ...



I agree, we can't say for sure how our perception and perceptual ability changes over time - we just perceive what we perceive - and the problem of fallibility of memory comes up again when we try to make those comparisons.  I haven't seen any good research on this (but I haven't spent much time looking for it), so for now, based on my own experience, I can say that I haven't noticed a degradation in my ability to perceive music as compared to what I remember from decades ago, and my performance on those few online hearing tests was good, with no indication of significant hearing loss.  My hypothesis is that the brain can compensate quite well, or more than well, through middle-age for many people, but in older age probably that compensation isn't enough for the vast majority of people.  I'm not looking forward to experiencing that latter stage firsthand!


----------



## james444

Phronesis said:


> Even if the ear degrades as a transducer, it's still sending the brain a wide range of frequencies, and I would expect that the brain takes that input and adjusts to provide a fairly consistent level of perceived clarity and detail.  It could even go the other way, where the learning of the brain more than makes up for the degradation of the ear.



Recent research suggests that the opposite may be true, and that age-related hearing loss should be taken seriously even in earlly stages. The brain area used for hearing can become reorganized, and compensatory changes in other brain areas may increase the risk of dementia.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150519104604.htm


----------



## KeithEmo

When you get into the subject of "perception" things get very complicated.

For example, when you listen to your favorite album, how much of what you "hear" is what your ears are picking up today, and how much is from your memory of all the times you've heard it before?
Have you ever noticed how, when you have a song where the lyrics are somewhat muffled and hard to make out, they seem much clearer after you read them and know what they are?
It's pretty obvious what's happening is that, while the audio in the song isn't any clearer, it seems clearer when your brain already knows what the words are and what you're _supposed_ to be hearing.
(There are many examples where words mixed in with background noise, or muttered indistinctly when you play a certain song backwards, become obvious _ONLY_ after you're told what to listen for.)
And, as you get older, while your actual physical abilities are declining a bit, you are accumulating a huge library of stuff you already know, and a huge collection of ways to think about things and figure things out.
(In many modern situations, like driving, the ability to interpret and understand the input data is much more important than the actual quality of the data itself.)

It also makes you wonder whether, when you meet someone who is convinced that his old favorite vintage vinyl sounds so much better than a new CD, he can make a fair comparison at all... 
Or whether what he's comparing is a sort of composite image, made up both of what he's hearing now, and what he remembers hearing forty years ago.
(He is comparing the current sound of the CD to a composite of the sound of the vinyl album today combined with his memory of how he remembers it used to sound.)

It's also worth noting that, quite often, our brains adjust both our memories, and the references to which we compare them.
So, when you remember "how great your favorite old song sounded".....
- your memory of what it actually sounded like is almost certainly not very accurate
- your interpretation of the memory that "it sounded great" may not convey the same meaning now as it did back then

Taken together, that suggests that your ability to compare a current song to one you heard fifty years ago is unlikely to be at all accurate.
(And, since you did hear it fifty years ago, and retain information about it, there's no way you can choose to make a fair comparison based only on what you hear today, because there's no way to "wipe" the existing information.)



Phronesis said:


> I don't doubt that ability to discriminate differences using simple test tones generally declines with age, but that may not translate to perception of detail in music, which is a more complex cognitive skill which can improve with experience.  I'm talking about things like distinguishing a viola from a violin, judging whether cymbals sound realistic, perceiving the details of the sound of an electric bass amidst other instruments, etc.
> 
> Making an analogy to visual perception and driving, it's been found that middle-aged drivers generally have much better situational awareness and ability to detect hazards than teen drivers, even though teen drivers generally have better sensory visual acuity on simple vision tests.  It's only when drivers get truly old that their decline in sensory visual acuity becomes enough to diminish their overall situational awareness and ability to detect hazards.  And on race tracks, I've routinely seen that middle-aged drivers new to driving on tracks greatly improve their visual situational awareness and detection of things in peripheral vision over the course of years of experience (that was my own experience).
> 
> ...





castleofargh said:


> I have no idea how your hearing is, I wasn't talking about that.
> 
> my guess comes from how quieter music will have a deep psychoacoustic impact. so even if all else was fine and properly compensated, I'd expect even the most basic and quasi linear loss in sensitivity to have various consequences on our experience. how? I have no clue, the brain keeps adapting and compensating, playing the double game of trying to make us sense what we used to sense, but at the same time if it lasts too long, trying to make the new normal the reference for further changes. so how that balancing act works out when changes are definitive? IDK, I imagine that depending on the impact in real life, the brain will just give up on trying to compensate... IDK. but I'm not confident that we can always tell when something changes in our hearing or in our brain. if we start to miss out on some cues needed for speech comprehension, I'm guessing we become aware, but is it that we notice the change, or only that we notice the consequence of having to ask people to repeat what they were saying?
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> When you get into the subject of "perception" things get very complicated.
> 
> For example, when you listen to your favorite album, how much of what you "hear" is what your ears are picking up today, and how much is from your memory of all the times you've heard it before?
> Have you ever noticed how, when you have a song where the lyrics are somewhat muffled and hard to make out, they seem much clearer after you read them and know what they are?
> ...



I find it interesting how songs I thought had great sound quality 30-40 years ago, on systems that aren't as good as what I have now, sound like they have somewhat poor recording quality to me today, as compared to more modern recordings.  I wonder how much of that is due to me caring more about sound quality (rather than just music quality) these days, as compared to when I was young.


----------



## KeithEmo

I suspect that our brains associate a lot of cues and associations with everything they store in memory.

How good that song sounded probably depended on everything from how carefully you were listening to the lyrics, to the tune, to the sound quality.
Add to that the mood you were in the first time you heard it, the mood you were in when you usually heard it, and quite possibly the time of day involved.
There was also how it compared to other music you were familiar with at the time.
A whole slew of different factors probably affected your initial response to it.

And that, in turn, affected your response to it later (the next time you heard it you had fond memories of its being a song you liked).
Now, when you think about it, you can add to that "fond memories of happier days", and how you're feeling today.

I have many fond memories of enjoying music on a cheap cassette player that I have little doubt would sound unlistenably awful today.
Yet, in my memory, I have no detailed recall of precisely what they sounded like, but I still remember them as "sounding nice".
(At most, I seem to vaguely recall that particular cassette player as "sounding better because it had a little bit bigger speaker".)
I've often found it to be somewhat sad to find a copy of a song that I thought was great twenty or thirty years ago - only to find that I am no longer able to enjoy it.

The philosophical types would say that "the you who heard that song back then is a different you than the one who is listening to it now".
After all, "you" are simply a sum of all your experiences.
The tricksy part is that you can't simply erase part of the memory and "decide to listen to it without all that baggage attached".
It's simply not possible.



Phronesis said:


> I find it interesting how songs I thought had great sound quality 30-40 years ago, on systems that aren't as good as what I have now, sound like they have somewhat poor recording quality to me today, as compared to more modern recordings.  I wonder how much of that is due to me caring more about sound quality (rather than just music quality) these days, as compared to when I was young.


----------



## old tech

Phronesis said:


> I don't doubt that ability to discriminate differences using simple test tones generally declines with age, but that may not translate to perception of detail in music, which is a more complex cognitive skill which can improve with experience.  I'm talking about things like distinguishing a viola from a violin, judging whether cymbals sound realistic, perceiving the details of the sound of an electric bass amidst other instruments, etc.
> 
> Making an analogy to visual perception and driving, it's been found that middle-aged drivers generally have much better situational awareness and ability to detect hazards than teen drivers, even though teen drivers generally have better sensory visual acuity on simple vision tests.  It's only when drivers get truly old that their decline in sensory visual acuity becomes enough to diminish their overall situational awareness and ability to detect hazards.  And on race tracks, I've routinely seen that middle-aged drivers new to driving on tracks greatly improve their visual situational awareness and detection of things in peripheral vision over the course of years of experience (that was my own experience).
> 
> ...


I think you are conflating a number of issues.  As @castleofargh points out, all our senses decline with age, including body function and our brains.  These are objective facts even though most people don't notice the decline (up to a point) as it is so gradual, so it is no surprise that you would be unaware of the degree your hearing has declined over time. It is a bit like having constant contact with one of your rellies and not really noticing how their kids are getting taller - but if you haven't seen then for years then the growth is very obvious, like instantly turning the clock back to 18 years old in my previous example.  btw, those on-line exercises do not really test the issue, it is not so much about thresholds and being able to hear the lowest levels (important as that is), but rather being able to discriminate between various levels of quiet tones of different frequencies under the background of louder tones of different frequencies.

No doubt middle aged drivers generally have a safer driving record than teenagers or young adults, despite the degradation of eyesight into middle age.  This has little to do with perception but a lot to do with experience (by that age the driver would have experienced many hazardous situations and has more of an idea how to anticipate or deal with them) and the driver is likely to be more sober and cautious, ie less likely to speed in inappropriate conditions or drive under heavy influence.  Of course, there will be a crossover point with many very old drivers where the decline due to age is greater than the experience and sober habits, and becomes more of a risk on the roads.  Where this crossover point lies depends on several factors including age, presence of mind, the driving task at hand etc - how many 50+ yo Formula 1 drivers are out there?

The same analogy can be used with a mastering or mixing engineer with decades of experience under his (or her) belt compared to a 22 yo wet behind the ears novice.  The experienced engineer knows how EQ, limiting, compression etc will effect the music, often without listening as he has been there, done that, many times with different music and that experience will outweigh the degradation in hearing.  Same is true with a seasoned audiophile, who has over the decades been exposed to a wide range of music, genres, stereo systems and knows how to appreciate high fidelity in a way that an 18 yo cannot, despite the 18 yo having much better hearing.

This is not really about perception, or hearing tonal qualities correctly, but rather that with age, masking and clarity becomes more of an issue, whether your oblivious to it or not.  Even with all our cochlear hairs intact across the full range of frequencies, they do not respond to stimuli as well as they did at a younger age.  Additionally, the bones in our middle ear harden with age and our brains do not process the degraded information as efficiently.  This manifests itself mainly as a decline in discriminating fine amplitudes within a frequency band, ie the sound becomes less separated.  Perception cannot compensate for this which is partly evident with the cocktail party effect becoming more pronounced with age.


----------



## Steve999 (Jan 12, 2019)

For me, if I want to hear details I never heard before or alter my perception of music I'll listen closely to a piece of music I really love three or four more times. I'll read the lyrics if it has lyrics. I'll try to organize it in my mind. What our minds do with music is pretty close to magic. The lyrics will take on a different twist. I'll notice the bass line, or something in the drums, or what the clarinets and flutes are doing, or that great trumpet solo, and so on. With modern technology sometimes I'll say wait a minute, what was that, and go back several seconds three or four times, and then from then on when I hear that music I have a better idea what's going on.

Maximizing fidelity is very cool but rapidly diminishing returns on that additional dollar spent hit early and hard for me. I admire and respect people who do better at the hobby than I do and if I can use their experience to identify that an obvious improvement is there for the taking for me I do it in a heartbeat. I want to hear everything on the recording (within the limits of my hearing) in a pretty good and even balance and to have control over the end sound (e.g., EQ) for my preferences.

It is a luxury of life to have a nice hifi and it can be a true wonder and fulfilling hobby and even intellectually quite interesting and demanding and engaging if done well and smartly, but in my view it's not necessary to enjoy music to the utmost. Maybe that's the cruelest audiophile myth of all--that to really appreciate the music you need the nth degree in music reproduction so you can hear the music in all its glory. And the twist of the knife is manufacturers and salesmen misleading people so that they spend their money on the wrong things and in the wrong proportions and in preposterous amounts to maximize fidelity. Then they have veered way off course and wasted time and money and have been lied to and misled in pursuit of what is for me the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, which is to enjoy the music to the utmost.


----------



## Phronesis

old tech said:


> I think you are conflating a number of issues.  As @castleofargh points out, all our senses decline with age, including body function and our brains.  These are objective facts even though most people don't notice the decline (up to a point) as it is so gradual, so it is no surprise that you would be unaware of the degree your hearing has declined over time. It is a bit like having constant contact with one of your rellies and not really noticing how their kids are getting taller - but if you haven't seen then for years then the growth is very obvious, like instantly turning the clock back to 18 years old in my previous example.  btw, those on-line exercises do not really test the issue, it is not so much about thresholds and being able to hear the lowest levels (important as that is), but rather being able to discriminate between various levels of quiet tones of different frequencies under the background of louder tones of different frequencies.
> 
> No doubt middle aged drivers generally have a safer driving record than teenagers or young adults, despite the degradation of eyesight into middle age.  This has little to do with perception but a lot to do with experience (by that age the driver would have experienced many hazardous situations and has more of an idea how to anticipate or deal with them) and the driver is likely to be more sober and cautious, ie less likely to speed in inappropriate conditions or drive under heavy influence.  Of course, there will be a crossover point with many very old drivers where the decline due to age is greater than the experience and sober habits, and becomes more of a risk on the roads.  Where this crossover point lies depends on several factors including age, presence of mind, the driving task at hand etc - how many 50+ yo Formula 1 drivers are out there?
> 
> ...



One of those online hearing tests does involve discriminating quiet words in the presence of background sounds.  I had no problem doing so with any of the tests, it wasn't even close to difficult.

You haven't presented evidence that there's generally a steady decline in _ability to perceive details in music_ from age 18 to 50.  The idea that a 50-yo would be surprised by what their 18-yo perceived is an assumption, but can you point to any studies comparing 18 vs 50 yo people in that regard?

In the driving example, middle-aged drivers do indeed have better perceptual ability, if you understand perception to be awareness and understanding of what's in their environment, rather than just visual acuity.  It's the same when talking about perception of music rather than just acuity in distinguishing small differences in simple test tones.  The top-down cognitive aspect of perception is fundamentally important, and that's why experience improves perceptual ability.

Regarding F1 drivers, like other sports, there are rarely people of that age who are competitive at the most elite levels of any sport.  But I bet there are plenty of 50-yo former elite racers who are excellent racers, and better than many 18-yo racers who'll never reach the elite level.


----------



## old tech

old tech said:


> Well no I haven't, how could you devise such a test?  That is what my audiologist friend tells me based on large real world samples of different age groups and inferring what occurs with degradation based on what has been observed in clinics over a very long time - it would actually be more relevant to complex music than test tones.  He is very unlikely to join this forum just to present clinical evidence to debate the issue with golden eared audiophiles.



Sure, a retired 50 yo F1 driver would have more driving skills than an 18 yo, but that is not the point - the F1 driver is no longer competitive on the major circuit due to age related decline, despite his experience over the 20-30 yo F1 drivers.  No different to saying that a retired mastering engineer will still produce much better masters than just about anyone who has no or limited experience, whatever their age.

You also haven't provided any proper evidence that your hearing has not deteriorated over time - not on-line tests, but standardised clinical trials based on comparable samples for your age group.  Do you really believe your hearing is as good now as it was when you were 18, or that your perception of sound has totally mitigated the loss?


----------



## KeithEmo

I think one quote I've heard sums it up best:
"Some audiophiles listen to music; other audiophiles listen to their equipment."

Some people seem able to "just hear the music and not the equipment" - while others can never seem to get past the gear.
And it's quite possible that some people really do just plain enjoy playing with the equipment more than they care about listening to the music.
(Do you have a collection of tracks that show off your equipment, or that make it easy to detect flaws in gear, even though you don't actually like the songs themselves? I do.)
There's also the issue of attention.
(Have you ever had a small crack in your windshield that, even though it's over in the corner, and not in your field of vision, but you just can't un-notice it once you know it's there?)

I personally think there is a happy middle ground.

Spending all your time, and money, trying to squeeze the last bit of performance out of your gear is usually a losing battle.
You'll never achieve perfection... and you'll never find a perfect recording anyway.
HOWEVER, just like when you have a little crack on your wibndshield, each of us have specific flaws that annoy us...
And, when you have one of those, you're never going to be able to concentrate fully on the music until you get rid of it.
(That's why I really dislike vinyl. I was always that way with surface ticks and pops on records. If I hear a single tick it "breaks the spell" and I can't focus on the music any more.) 

However, I think an awful lot of people go way too far the other way.
It may be true that the world's greatest photographer can take a great picture - even with a crappy camera.
However, a really low end camera is going to limit their ability, and limit their possibilities.
For example, you can't make specific artistic adjustments to depth-of-field in your photos if your camera doesn't have a manual aperature control.
And, yes, every time I see some great photo someone took with their phone, I tend to think: "Gee, that's nice, but it would have been even better if they'd had a better camera".
Likewise, I don't want to enjoy the music I listen to _in spite of _terrible flaws in my system, I would prefer to enjoy it without the distraction of obvious sonic flaws.
It's possible that the world's greatest violinist can play really well even on a discount store violin, but I'll bet he plays even better when he plays on a decent violin.
And, sorry, I'll bet even the world's greatest trumpet player sounds like crap on a fifty-nine cent plastic kazoo.

The real trick is to find the line between "meaningful improvement" and "tilting at windomills".
And, yes, that line is going to be in very different places for each of us.
And, yes, you have to acknowledge that other people may have very different priorities than yours.



Steve999 said:


> For me, if I want to hear details I never heard before or alter my perception of music I'll listen closely to a piece of music I really love three or four more times. I'll read the lyrics if it has lyrics. I'll try to organize it in my mind. What our minds do with music is pretty close to magic. The lyrics will take on a different twist. I'll notice the base line, or something in the drums, or what the clarinets and flutes are doing, or that great trumpet solo, and so on. With modern technology sometimes I'll say wait a minute, what was that, and go back several seconds three or four times, and then from then on when I hear that music I have a better idea what's going on.
> 
> Maximizing fidelity is very cool but rapidly diminishing returns on that additional dollar spent hit early and hard for me. I admire and respect people who do better at the hobby than I do and if I can use their experience to identify that an obvious improvement is there for the taking for me I do it in a heartbeat. I want to hear everything on the recording (within the limits of my hearing) in a pretty good and even balance and to have control over the end sound (e.g., EQ) for my preferences.
> 
> It is a luxury of life to have a nice hifi and it can be a true wonder and fulfilling hobby and even intellectually quite interesting and demanding and engaging if done well and smartly, but in my view it's not necessary to enjoy music to the utmost. Maybe that's the cruelest audiophile myth of all--that to really appreciate the music you need the nth degree in music reproduction so you can hear the music in all its glory. And the twist of the knife is manufacturers and salesmen misleading people so that they spend their money on the wrong things and in the wrong proportions and in preposterous amounts to maximize fidelity. Then they have veered way off course and wasted time and money and have been lied to and misled in pursuit of what is for me the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, which is to enjoy the music to the utmost.


----------



## Steve999 (Jan 12, 2019)

[deleted so as not to derail the thread]


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 12, 2019)

old tech said:


> Sure, a retired 50 yo F1 driver would have more driving skills than an 18 yo, but that is not the point - the F1 driver is no longer competitive on the major circuit due to age related decline, despite his experience over the 20-30 yo F1 drivers.  No different to saying that a retired mastering engineer will still produce much better masters than just about anyone who has no or limited experience, whatever their age.
> 
> You also haven't provided any proper evidence that your hearing has not deteriorated over time - not on-line tests, but standardised clinical trials based on comparable samples for your age group.  Do you really believe your hearing is as good now as it was when you were 18, or that your perception of sound has totally mitigated the loss?



The question is what the net effect is of degradation of the ears versus compensation and learning by the brain.  It's plausible that most 50-yos would be surprised at how much more detailed the perception of their former 18-yo selves is, but you haven't provided any real evidence of that.

On the other hand, take a look at slides 44, 56, and 123 here:

https://www.listeninc.com/wp/media/Perception_and_-Measurement_of_Headphones_Sean_Olive.pdf

Slide 44 shows that headphone preference doesn't vary much with age.  Slide 56 similarly shows only a small variation with age in preference regarding bass and treble amounts, and the difference increases somewhat above age 56.  Slide 123 states that "Listeners prefer models that are accurate and neutral across age, listening experience, or culture with some slight bass/treble variations to account for program/gender/training/hearing loss."  Adding to this that I had no difficulty with multiple hearing tests, and don't have the impression that I perceive less detail in music than I did when I was 18, I'm not convinced that compensation by the brain isn't sufficient to make up for hearing loss for many people up to about age 50.

Regarding F1 drivers, there are surely many 50-yo former F1 drivers who are still better drivers than non-F1 pro drivers who are much younger.  The main issue with F1 drivers aging isn't worsening perception, but rather diminishing stamina to handle dozens of consecutive laps where they repeatedly hit 4-5G, sometimes in hot weather.  Back when the average fitness level of F1 drivers wasn't as high and G-forces were lower, there were winning F1 drivers in their 40s and over 50:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Oldest_winners


----------



## gregorio (Jan 12, 2019)

Phronesis said:


> I haven't actually noticed a decline (so far) in my hearing ability in any of the aspects you mention, compared to when I was 18. And in fact, since I've been spending a lot of time playing around different headphones over the past year and trying to become better at evaluating them, I feel like my ability to perceive details and notice differences in headphones has increased significantly over the past year, to the extent that I feel like my auditory perception was somewhat primitive and untrained a year ago as compared to today. ... @gregorio, would love to get your thoughts on all of this.



OK. My thoughts are that the distinction between "hearing" and "listening" is incredibly important in discussions such as this. Hearing is effectively a physiological attribute and there can be no doubt, according to all the reliable evidence, that it significantly deteriorates with age. Every year there are countless tens of thousands of people who undertake an audiogram and there has been for several decades, so there's a wealth of evidence for deterioration and as far as I know, not a single case of someone's hearing improving (or not deteriorating) with age, unless of course it's due to recovery from some infection/condition which reduced hearing. Additionally, we have a wealth of evidence of actual physical deterioration of the ear structures themselves with age, so taken together, there can be little/no doubt. Listening though is entirely different, it's a skill, it can be taught, learned and developed, and indeed has been for many centuries. Listening skills do not affect one's hearing ability, they only affect our perception of our hearing, our ability to separate out and consciously identify details which we were always hearing but were unaware we were hearing. Therefore, assuming someone is actively training their listening skills, we have two conflicting processes at work: Hearing which is deteriorating with age and listening which is improving with age. However, we have to be careful not to conflate the two! Even if listening skill improved linearly over time with respect to hearing deterioration (which typically they don't), still the two would not just cancel each other out. It's entirely possible, even likely, that it might appear as if they do but in reality your listening skills are improving your perception/detection of details/differences BUT within a smaller audio band (both smaller freq band and smaller dynamic range band) due to hearing deterioration. As you loose your HF response, it's gone, and you cannot train your listening skills to discern something that's effectively no longer there.

I'm not aware of any long term scientific studies which support the above assertion, I'm just recounting the well known (and accepted) knowledge/experience of the audio engineering community, who, in lieu of published science, are best placed to judge, as we work with known freq range audio virtually every working day of our careers. I would therefore consider the above as somewhat reliable evidence, the best evidence we currently have and further supported by the fact that it's in agreement with what IS scientifically known/accepted but not necessarily definitive.



SonyFan121 said:


> 1. You do not need seriously expensive kit to hear differences between audio file's ..
> [1a] However, if you where a sound engineer you would already know that having such gear is a huge advantage, in being able to discern such differences.
> [1b] I hear them all the time when I listen to music via my Linn amp.
> 2. What _is_ obvious from your responses however, is that I think you are almost certainly full of c**p.
> 2a. Just because you are a sound engineer doesn't mean you should be the only one who's opinion matters.



1. Good, so we are now in agreement that your first post was false! Which begs the question, why did you post it?
1a. This though is backwards! It's partly because my colleagues and I are sound engineers and are accustomed to some of the finest gear and listening environments which exist on the planet, that I know that such differences are NOT discernable! And, how would you know "that having such gear is a huge advantage in being able to discern such differences" if you've never even heard "such gear", let alone are accustomed to it?
1b. What are you saying, that your Linn amp is audibly superior to what multi-million dollar studios can afford? If so, that's obviously nonsense for two reasons: Firstly, the cost of even an extremely expensive amp is tiny compared to the overall cost of the studio and secondly, the amps used in world class studios operate perfectly, to levels beyond the limits of audibility. This leaves only two options: Either you're perceiving an audible difference where there is none OR you have a serious fault with your Linn amp (or other bit of kit in your chain).

2. What you think is irrelevant and although you apparently refuse to apply your self proclaimed intellect and therefore fail to realise it, all you're doing is making it blatantly obvious who is the one "full of c**p" here. So again, even in your own self interest (let alone everyone else's), you should desist!
2a. Please apply just a little bit of your supposed "intellect"! This is the "Sound Science" forum, NOT the "Sound Opinion" forum and therefore my opinion does not matter more than everyone else's, in fact it doesn't matter at all and neither does yours! Furthermore, I've already stated all this previously but you seem incapable of understanding it! The only time when my opinion *might* have some value here is if/when we are discussing art or some other area where there is little science, as in my response above to phronesis, but this isn't one of those times because there is a great deal of reliable evidence regarding the discernment of lossy codecs. So AGAIN, please stop with all this nonsense, stay on topic and actually try a reliable test yourself!!!

G


----------



## SonyFan121

gregorio said:


> 1b. What are you saying, that your Linn amp is audibly superior to what multi-million dollar studios can afford? If so, that's obviously nonsense for two reasons: Firstly, the cost of even an extremely expensive amp is tiny compared to the overall cost of the studio and secondly, the amps used in world class studios operate perfectly, to levels beyond the limits of audibility. This leaves only two options: Either you're perceiving an audible difference where there is none OR you have a serious fault with your Linn amp (or other bit of kit in your chain).
> 
> G



I'm not saying that my Linn amp is superior to what fancy studio's have._ It's simple really_.._all I was saying was that when I use my Linn amp to listen to music either connected to my Marantz CD player or connected to my computer, I can hear a difference between the lossy file's and lossless one's._ And I don't have to strain myself to hear it. I don't have to sit with my eyes closed and meditate, get in to a special "zone" and focus all my energy on hearing something that might be different, because it's already there, I can already hear it. 
If you are familiar with the kind of equipment you say you are, and you can't hear differences, then there is something wrong with either your hearing or your equipment. Or both.


----------



## SonyFan121

@gregorio  What is the name of this company? what kind of speakers and amplifiers do they use? i'm curious to know


----------



## StandsOnFeet

SonyFan121,
I _strongly_ suggest you take bigshot's test. I was *convinced *I heard a "night and day" difference between mp3 and FLAC. Then I got the ABX plugin for foobar2000 and tested myself. All that night-and-day difference disappeared, and I found myself essentially guessing. Expectation bias is a wonderfully powerful thing, and we're all subject to it.


----------



## Steve999

SonyFan121 said:


> @gregorio  What is the name of this company? what kind of speakers and amplifiers do they use? i'm curious to know



A lot of the folks here are a bit on the accomplished side and it would be a disservice to their employers to use them as fodder in an Internet argument.

You are going down the textbook path of someone who is checkmated in this conversation. I wish you could have the birds’ eye view. I’d suggest you take @bigshot ’s test and open your mind and let that adrenaline stop running. You’ve hit upon a place where there is a different level and kind of discourse as compared to what you are used to.


----------



## SonyFan121

StandsOnFeet said:


> SonyFan121,
> I _strongly_ suggest you take bigshot's test. I was *convinced *I heard a "night and day" difference between mp3 and FLAC. Then I got the ABX plugin for foobar2000 and tested myself. All that night-and-day difference disappeared, and I found myself essentially guessing. Expectation bias is a wonderfully powerful thing, and we're all subject to it.



I did PM him about it.


----------



## SonyFan121

Steve999 said:


> A lot of the folks here are a bit on the accomplished side and it would be a disservice to their employers to use them as fodder in an Internet argument.
> 
> You are going down the textbook path of someone who is checkmated in this conversation. I wish you could have the birds’ eye view. I’d suggest you take @bigshot ’s test and open your mind and let that adrenaline stop running. You’ve hit upon a place where there is a different level and kind of discourse as compared to what you are used to.



I am no less accomplished. I am a musician.


----------



## Steve999

SonyFan121 said:


> I am no less accomplished. I am a musician.



I wasn’t saying anything about your level of accomplishment. You might be great at your instruments, that’s not really relevant, though it might help you in @bigshot ’s test if you’ve good ears (musically). I was letting you know why you might not get an on-point response to your question and that you are writing to a pretty sharp bunch here.


----------



## Steve999

SonyFan121 said:


> I did PM him about it.



Good deal.


----------



## GearMe

SonyFan121 said:


> @gregorio  What is the name of this company? what kind of speakers and amplifiers do they use? i'm curious to know


I'm curious..what speakers do you have connected to your Linn amp?


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 12, 2019)

GearMe said:


> I'm curious..what speakers do you have connected to your Linn amp?



These; https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/Mistral-Bo...lf-Speaker/1039138499?iid=131531889326&chn=ps
 at nearly $600, they are a bargain. The price of these speakers fluctuates, i've seen them sell for over $1,000 USD in the past.


----------



## Phronesis

StandsOnFeet said:


> SonyFan121,
> I _strongly_ suggest you take bigshot's test. I was *convinced *I heard a "night and day" difference between mp3 and FLAC. Then I got the ABX plugin for foobar2000 and tested myself. All that night-and-day difference disappeared, and I found myself essentially guessing. Expectation bias is a wonderfully powerful thing, and we're all subject to it.



Yep, I and many others have had the same experience.  It's amazing how we can hear clear and consistent differences between gear, and they're consistent with what other people report, yet those differences seem to disappear when doing controlled blind testing. 

Matching volumes is important to avoid something a bit louder seeming more 'dynamic' or whatever.  Matching music segments is important to avoid applying perception to different raw material and getting different perceptual results for that reason alone (e.g., one segment has much different bass content than another).  Minimizing switching time is important to reduce the effects of rapidly fading sensory memory.  Blinding is important to reduce the effects of perceiving differences that we expect to perceive; but we can also _not_ perceive differences because we expect that things will sound the same, and blinding doesn't solve that problem at all (i.e., if you expect things to sound the same, you may perceive it that way without really trying to find differences, and therefore just guess in the trials, so a null result is produced because it was expected).

I still think _all_ listening tests are subject to problems related to 'trusting our ears' and 'trusting our memories', and results of one type of listening test may not necessarily generalize to other listening situations, but I'm inclined to think that controlled blind tests should be helpful in ruling out the possibility of large differences caused by expectation of large differences.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 12, 2019)

Phronesis said:


> Yep, I and many others have had the same experience.  It's amazing how we can hear clear and consistent differences between gear, and they're consistent with what other people report, yet those differences seem to disappear when doing controlled blind testing.


Yes, something I understand more clearly than the people in this forum realise. The fact is, it would be ill-informed to believe that there is no difference in sound quality between a lossy low bitrate audio file and a uncompressed/lossless file. If we can't hear one, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, technically there has to be..and we shouldn't convince ourselves otherwise.

As I said, based on experience;



SonyFan121 said:


> It depends _heavily_ on the quality of the equipment.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 12, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> The fact is, it would be ill-informed to believe that there is no difference in sound quality between a lossy low bitrate audio file and a uncompressed/lossless file. If we can't hear one, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, technically there has to be..and we shouldn't convince ourselves otherwise.



We're talking here about audible differences. Everyone understands that a lossy file is smaller than a lossless one and contains fewer zeros and ones. But there comes a point with lossy where your ears can't detect a difference any more. That is called the _threshold of audible transparency._ For the purposes of listening to recorded music in the home, audible transparency is all you need. Any differences beyond that are inaudible by definition and inaudible sound doesn't matter. That's why we do listening tests to determine where our threshold lies. I've been looking for some time to find a person who can consistently detect a difference between high data rate lossy and lossless. I haven't found one yet, but I keep searching.

The interesting thing that I've learned is that audiophiles go into great detail on the technical specifications of equipment. They measure the distortion levels down to infinitesimal levels and discuss frequency response that extends up octaves beyond 20kHz. But they don't have much of a grasp of the way their ears hear and how those specs relate to audible sound. Listening tests are the way to understand that relationship. My sig file has links to a couple of great seminars from the Audie Engineering Society that link to actual sound files you can download and listen to. It's broken down into commonly cited specs so you can hear a range of different quality levels and see how the numbers relate to real world sound. The links to the downloads are in the description under the video.

Ears have limits and it's a waste of time and money to chase improvements beyond the range of audibility. There's usually too much in the audible range that needs fixing!

By the way, I uploaded your test file this morning. Have fun with the test.


----------



## KeithEmo

You bring up an excellent point - and one which many people seem to ignore.

Various sorts of blind tests can largely eliminate the effects of an expectation bias to hear a difference if there isn't any.
However, it's impossible to completely eliminate an expectation bias to _NOT_ hear a difference.
It's quite possible that people become less likely to hear or report subtle differences if they don't expect a difference to be present.
There is also a widely known tendency for humans to respond to peer pressure when publicly reporting their experiences.

And there are even more interesting and subtle possibilities for error.
For example, we humans have a negative reaction to "failed expectations".
We tend to get frustrated when our expectations aren't met.
So, for example, someone who is expecting to hear "a big obvious difference", and fails to hear an obvious difference, may be less likely to notice a subtle difference.
(Because, after being frustrated at not hearing the obvious difference they expected to hear, they are less carefully focussed on noticing subtle differences.)

There are ways in which some of this _COULD_ be tested statistically... if anyone was willing to bother.
Here's one suggestion for how to do so.
(In order to produce valid test results you would want a large number of test subjects to take the test.)
Test files could be made up with known flaws - perhaps different amounts of deliberately added noise or distortion.
The basic test procedure would be to run a bunch of trials to determine at what level each test subject could reliably detect and report the presence of the distortion.
HOWEVER, the test would be run multiple times, with different groups of test subjects, with each group subjected to a DIFFERENT EXPECTATION BIAS.
(Using some sort of pretext, perhaps by being told that something else was being tested, one group would EXPECT the files to be different, 
one group would EXPECT them NOT to be different, and a third group would have no particular expectation either way - they would be told that some files might be different.)
It would be VERY interesting to see how the "ability to notice and report a difference" would differ between the neutral group and the two groups with "pre-loaded biases".)

There is also another sort of bias which needs to be accounted for - and which is often used to major advantage in group situations: peer pressure.
Put someone in a room full of people, and ask people to "raise their hands if they hear a difference".
As soon as a few people raise their hands, it creates a desire to "raise your hands and become part of the group".
This both biases people to raise their hands, even if they don't hear a difference, and actually creates a bias to WANT and EXPECT to hear a difference.
And, the exact converse of that, place someone in a room full of skeptics, most of whom don't raise their hands, and there is a bias NOT to "raise their hand and go against the group".
(Anyone who runs demonstrations knows how effective it is to place a few shills in the room to raise their hands at the appropriate time and "get the ball rolling".)

This effect is widely known... and described in many textbooks on the subject.... for example, Cialdini's text book on "Influence", which is course material in Harvard business school.

Both of these effects are well know... and both need to be accounted for.
The "group effect" can be accounted for by doing the tests in isolation.....
Where each person takes the test separately, and reports their results separately, and is NOT allowed to see other results until after the total is tallied.

Note how this is the exact OPPOSITE of running an online study where everyone gets to see a running total of the results their peers have already turned in.
When you do that you are introducing TWO distinct problems:
- you are introducing an EXPECTATION in each new subject to experience what the majority of previous subjects have already reported
- you are creating peer pressure to WANT to both experience and report results similar to what most others have already reported

I might also suggest an interesting way to test for that last sort of bias.... which is simply to create a phony bias and see how it affects the results.
The way to do that is relatively simple....
Create some sort of fair test and present it to three groups of test subjects; you could use BigShot's test of "which lossy compressed files are audible".
(The only requirement is that the range of differences is wide enough that it is unlikely to be "obvious to everyone".)
One group is told that "fifty people have already taken the test, and 92% of them heard an obvious difference"...
(You have now created both an expectation bias and a peer pressure bias in that group to expect and want to hear a difference.)
The other group is told "fifty people have already taken the test, and the resuts were statistically random"...
(You have now created both an expectation bias and a peer pressure bias in that group to expect and want to NOT hear a difference.)
The third group is told that they are the first ones to take the test - and they won't get to see the results tallied until their results are all turned in.
(This group is truly neutral in terms of bias.... except, of course, for any biases they may already have.)

If the results are significantly different - then you may infer that the differences were due to the initial bias.



Phronesis said:


> Yep, I and many others have had the same experience.  It's amazing how we can hear clear and consistent differences between gear, and they're consistent with what other people report, yet those differences seem to disappear when doing controlled blind testing.
> 
> Matching volumes is important to avoid something a bit louder seeming more 'dynamic' or whatever.  Matching music segments is important to avoid applying perception to different raw material and getting different perceptual results for that reason alone (e.g., one segment has much different bass content than another).  Minimizing switching time is important to reduce the effects of rapidly fading sensory memory.  Blinding is important to reduce the effects of perceiving differences that we expect to perceive; but we can also _not_ perceive differences because we expect that things will sound the same, and blinding doesn't solve that problem at all (i.e., if you expect things to sound the same, you may perceive it that way without really trying to find differences, and therefore just guess in the trials, so a null result is produced because it was expected).
> 
> I still think _all_ listening tests are subject to problems related to 'trusting our ears' and 'trusting our memories', and results of one type of listening test may not necessarily generalize to other listening situations, but I'm inclined to think that controlled blind tests should be helpful in ruling out the possibility of large differences caused by expectation of large differences.


----------



## KeithEmo

A proposal for a rather coprehensive test on the audibility of lossy file formats.

First off, I want to applaud BigShot for taking the time to create a test for the audibility of various lossy formats. As anyone who's read my posts knows, the only faults I see with tests like this stem from the fact that they end up using a limited number of samples - and, more specifically, music that is not familiar to the test subject. (Many of us are quite certain that we are much more sensitive to differences that occur to music with which we are very familiar. And, also, because of the complexity of lossy encoding, it seem quite likely that there may be certain types of audible errors that occur only on certain tracks, or when using certain encoders and settings.) 

The way to comprehensively avoid both of these issues would be to permit each test subject to submit their own music to use for the test. But, obviously, this would be absurdly labor intensive for an individual running the test. HOWEVER, it is something that could easily be automated. This suggests the possibility that some "audio club" or "research group" could create software to be used to enable this to be done over the Internet. (It would seem that there might even be "commercial motivation" for a company who benefits from the sale or licensing of compressed content - who might see a benefit to "proving to their customers that their lossy compression algorithm is really transparent" and "allowing their customers to try it for themselves".)

Here's the way it would work (reasons provided after)....

The user would submit or upload a test track (in any standard format - at CD quality or below).
The test software would produce a pair of output samples....
One sample would be the original - converted to 24/96k PCM.
The other sample would be first converted to the lossy format being tested....
THEN decoded using the appropriate decoder, and then converted to 24/96k PCM.
From those two files, a set of 10 randomly named files would be created (just by renaming them).
At that point, the software would also create a "key file", which would indentify which files were which.
We would then have ten test files, half of which had been lossy encoded, and half of which had not.
Each set of test samples and key file would be assigned a reference number so we know which goes with which.
(You'll notice this is styled on how the results of "anonymous medical tests" are handled.)

Depending on how the test was being tabulated...
The user could be permitted to download both the test files and the key file...
Or they could be asked to submit their results before being allowed to download the key file...

Note that there are specific reasons why I chose to convert all of the sample files into 24/96k PCM.

1) By converting all the files to the same lossless format, they will all end up the same size, so any size cues about which is which will have been eliminated.
2) All sample converters introduce some alteration to the content that passes through them. WIthout starting a discussion about whether that difference should or should not be audible, by passing all our samples through the SAME sample-rate conversion program, we have increased the likelihood that any differences introduced by the sample rate conversion process will be obscured.
3) By specifying that all incoming samles will be converted to a HIGHER sample rate, we have minimized the likelihood that differences created by the sample rate conversion process will be audible. (Whether they might be audible or not, converting to a higher sample rate is likely to introduce fewer and smaller mathematical differences than converting to the same or a lower sample rate.)   

Obviously the user could be presented with ten samples all concatenated into the same file.
However, I've taken a few such tests, and found the need to keep track of when each sample section ends
to be annoying enough, and distracting enough, to be worth avoiding.

Note that, if we alllowed users to download samples uploaded by other users, there would be copyright issues.
HOWEVER, as long as each user is only allowed to download the samples they uploaded...
And the samples are NOT retained by the server...
This should be avoided.


----------



## castleofargh

SonyFan121 said:


> You can say what you like, but I am very experienced in this hobby, I suspect I take it more seriously than you do, I know what i'm talking about.





SonyFan121 said:


> You should know that i'm very intelligent and intellectual person, and am not fooled by you.





SonyFan121 said:


> I can assure you that I know lot's about audio codec's. I have a perfect understanding of it and it's not even my job.





SonyFan121 said:


> you should know that I know allot about electronics and how circuit boards work





SonyFan121 said:


> I am no less accomplished. I am a musician.





SonyFan121 said:


> Yes, something I understand more clearly than the people in this forum realise.








how about less boasting and more supporting evidence from now on?


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 12, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> You bring up an excellent point - and one which many people seem to ignore.
> 
> Various sorts of blind tests can largely eliminate the effects of an expectation bias to hear a difference if there isn't any.
> However, it's impossible to completely eliminate an expectation bias to _NOT_ hear a difference.
> ...



Another point I don't really see discussed much is the difficulty of the task involved in these listening tests.  When I do the tests, I'm usually not sure of whether I hear a difference.  It's not the case that I'm sure 'they sound the same' or 'I definitely hear X difference', but rather more like 'I'm not really noticing a clear difference' or 'I think I might have noticed X difference, but I'm not sure'.  This can sort of be remedied by doing a forced-choice ABX test where the listener has to guess if not sure.  If the listener scores at a statistically above-chance level, that would suggest that they likely do notice a difference, but as far as I know, the stats won't answer these questions:

- What differences do they notice?
- How consistently do they notice those differences? (small differences likely won't be noticed anywhere near 100% of trials, and may not be much above 50%)
- How big are the differences? (effect size)

These are all important questions from a practical standpoint.


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 12, 2019)

gregorio said:


> OK. My thoughts are that the distinction between "hearing" and "listening" is incredibly important in discussions such as this. Hearing is effectively a physiological attribute and there can be no doubt, according to all the reliable evidence, that it significantly deteriorates with age. Every year there are countless tens of thousands of people who undertake an audiogram and there has been for several decades, so there's a wealth of evidence for deterioration and as far as I know, not a single case of someone's hearing improving (or not deteriorating) with age, unless of course it's due to recovery from some infection/condition which reduced hearing. Additionally, we have a wealth of evidence of actual physical deterioration of the ear structures themselves with age, so taken together, there can be little/no doubt. Listening though is entirely different, it's a skill, it can be taught, learned and developed, and indeed has been for many centuries. Listening skills do not affect one's hearing ability, they only affect our perception of our hearing, our ability to separate out and consciously identify details which we were always hearing but were unaware we were hearing. Therefore, assuming someone is actively training their listening skills, we have two conflicting processes at work: Hearing which is deteriorating with age and listening which is improving with age. However, we have to be careful not to conflate the two! Even if listening skill improved linearly over time with respect to hearing deterioration (which typically they don't), still the two would not just cancel each other out. It's entirely possible, even likely, that it might appear as if they do but in reality your listening skills are improving your perception/detection of details/differences BUT within a smaller audio band (both smaller freq band and smaller dynamic range band) due to hearing deterioration. As you loose your HF response, it's gone, and you cannot train your listening skills to discern something that's effectively no longer there.
> 
> I'm not aware of any long term scientific studies which support the above assertion, I'm just recounting the well known (and accepted) knowledge/experience of the audio engineering community, who, in lieu of published science, are best placed to judge, as we work with known freq range audio virtually every working day of our careers. I would therefore consider the above as somewhat reliable evidence, the best evidence we currently have and further supported by the fact that it's in agreement with what IS scientifically known/accepted but not necessarily definitive.



Thanks for the detailed reply, that fits my thinking.

I wonder how much LF and HF hearing loss affects ability to perceive detail in music.  My guess would be not much (until the hearing loss is pretty bad), with really high frequencies helping more with giving a sense of 'sparkle' rather than being essential to perceiving detail in recorded music.


----------



## SonyFan121

castleofargh said:


> how about less boasting and more supporting evidence from now on?



I don't like to boast, sorry if it sounds like I am. I'm generally an honest human being.
If I am wrong at something I admit it.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> The question is what the net effect is of degradation of the ears versus compensation and learning by the brain.  It's plausible that most 50-yos would be surprised at how much more detailed the perception of their former 18-yo selves is, but you haven't provided any real evidence of that.
> 
> On the other hand, take a look at slides 44, 56, and 123 here:
> 
> ...


the Harman guys have been the true kings of testing audiophile claims and myths for decades.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 12, 2019)

Delete.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 12, 2019)

His results were random because he didn't understand how the samples were arranged in the track. I've explained the problem to him in PM and offered to give him the test again with a different file. Admittedly it is a difficult test. I'm thinking I might need to add 96 and 128 to give people something to grab onto at the beginning before their picks start becoming random. The idea is to start out with accurate rankings at the low end and then work progressively up until your picks aren't as accurate any more. That's the point of transparency.

If anyone else would like to find their threshold, let me know.


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> the Harman guys have been the true kings of testing audiophile claims and myths for decades.



They are reasonable and rational, but they are still attempting to sell us something more expensive than is necessary to achieve a specific result in an effort to make a profit.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 12, 2019)

I have no problem with your forthcoming comments. I'll just get back to listening to my Linn + Marantz CD player combo with my legendary Denon AH-D5000 headphones. You ought to hear the level of detail extraction from this system of mine's. It would surprise many of you.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> The results were random because he didn't understand how the samples were arranged in the track. I've explained the problem to him in PM and offered to give him the test again with a different file. Admittedly it is a difficult test. I'm thinking I might need to add 96 and 128 to give people something to grab onto at the beginning before their picks start becoming random. The idea is to start out with accurate rankings and then work progressively up until your picks aren't as accurate any more. That's the point of transparency.
> 
> If anyone else would like to find their threshold, let me know.




I like the idea of adding lower bit rates to the test.  Would it make more sense to add them in randomly?  It would be interesting to see if the success rate is statistically significantly different.


----------



## bigshot

Yes, it would have to be 12 samples in random order. I prepared 10 variations of 10 and that took me a while to do. I'm not eager to set it all up again, but if I see a lot of people saying that they can't discern even the lowest level, then I'll carve out time to do that. Most people who have taken the test can actually rank AAC>LAME>Fraunhofer at 192. It usually gets random after that..Since he didn't understand that each sample consisted of two bits of music, his results were scrambled. Simple mistake to fix with another run at the test.


----------



## SonyFan121

SonyFan121 said:


> I have no problem with your forthcoming comments.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Yes, it would have to be 12 samples in random order. I prepared 10 variations of 10 and that took me a while to do. I'm not eager to set it all up again, but if I see a lot of people saying that they can't discern even the lowest level, then I'll carve out time to do that. Most people who have taken the test can actually rank AAC>LAME>Fraunhofer at 192. It usually gets random after that..Since he didn't understand that each sample consisted of two bits of music, his results were scrambled. Simple mistake to fix with another run at the test.



Makes sense.  Appreciate the time you’ve invested in putting the test together.


----------



## KeithEmo

That's another good point.

It does, however, depend on what your actual goals are when performing the test. If you're looking for a real scientific answer, taking into account that some people may in fact consciously be unsure that they hear a difference, then a forced A/B/X protocol will probably give you more accurate results. However, if you're doing market research for a new product, then what you probably _really_ want to know is if a significant number of test subjects clearly and consciously notice a difference. If that't your goal, then there's no reason to spend the extra effort to resolve small uncertainties.

I should also point out yet another factor that sometimes confounds these sorts of tests. It's called "self selection bias". What that basically means is that, if you're asking for volunteers, your test population is limited to people who want to take your test. In simplest terms, most of the people who are already certain that a difference is - or is not - audible aren't going to bother to take your test... Some may do so because they honestly "may want to contribute to science", and some others may believe they do or don't hear a difference, and be looking for confirmation of that belief, but most simply won't be interested enough to take the test. As a result, your test sample does NOT represent a true cross section of the general population; instead, your test sample has been self-selected for "those who are interested but unsure - and consider the question important enough to show up".

One solution, which is often employed in serious testing, is to use truly random samples. You get a letter in the mail stating "your name has been chosen at random to take this test", or someone at the mall invites you to come into a back room and sample three new soft drinks. Another is what we might term "motivated selection". We have a pretty good idea who can run the mile the fastest - because there is a major incentive for fast runners to try out for sports events. We probably have no idea how fast the fastest human can run up five flights of stairs - because nobody has any motivation to find out. (And, if you were to try to find out, unless you offered a cash prize, nobody would show up to compete.)

One solution there IS to offer a prize of some sort.

For example, if you REALLY want to find out if ANYBODY can reliably tell the difference wth those compressed files.......  Offer a public contest, where people can submit their own samples for you to encode, _AND OFFER A PRIZE FOR ANYONE WHO CAN SUCCESSFULLY PROVE THAT THEY CAN RELIABLY TELL THE DIFFERENCE. _The prize offers incentive for people who are already convinced that they hear an obvious difference to participate. And, if nobody can hear a difference, then you won't end up having to pay out the prize anyway. I could imagine a booth at an audio show, promoting some new sort of compression. Visitors would be encouraged to bring in their own song, whcih would be compressed on the spot, and inserted into a fancy "A/B test machine" where they could listen to the samples in random order. They would be offered a choice of using several popular premium headphones - of bringing their own. They would be offered a $500 prize if they could tell which samples were compressed and which ones weren't at least 18 times out of 20. I suspect you'd get plenty of participants, and a negative result under those circumstances would be quite compelling. 

(This might also be an interesting event to offer to raise interest for a local audio club.)



Phronesis said:


> Another point I don't really see discussed much is the difficulty of the task involved in these listening tests.  When I do the tests, I'm usually not sure of whether I hear a difference.  It's not the case that I'm sure 'they sound the same' or 'I definitely hear X difference', but rather more like 'I'm not really noticing a clear difference' or 'I think I might have noticed X difference, but I'm not sure'.  This can sort of be remedied by doing a forced-choice ABX test where the listener has to guess if not sure.  If the listener scores at a statistically above-chance level, that would suggest that they likely do notice a difference, but as far as I know, the stats won't answer these questions:
> 
> - What differences do they notice?
> - How consistently do they notice those differences? (small differences likely won't be noticed anywhere near 100% of trials, and may not be much above 50%)
> ...


----------



## SonyFan121

If I where to be brutally honest, Bigshots test is rather flawed. The file that contained the audio samples was itself an audio file.


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> If I where to be brutally honest, Bigshots test is rather flawed. The file that contained the audio samples was itself an audio file.



What, specifically, do you find wrong with the file or the test methodology?


----------



## KeithEmo

It's pretty obvious that the goal of any company is to maximize their profits.
You can only hope that they're trying to do so by offering a better product, at a lower price, than their competitors.

However, watch a few car commericals, and note how many of the features they highlight are "necessary".
(Watch both what they say and the messaging that's not at all hidden in the scene itself.)
For example, notice how, when they show that new SUV, while they're telling you about the great mileage....
They show a mom with three totally obnoxious little monsters...
Who mysteriously become well-behaved little angels the moment they're loaded into that new SUV they're selling.
(Isn't it pretty obvious that what they're really selling is the idea that, if you buy their SUV, your kids will behave?)
(And, is that really any different than when an audio company suggests that you'll hear some tiny difference.?)

They're simply trying to get you to part with as much money as you're willing to spend...
In return for a product that will make you happy...



sonitus mirus said:


> They are reasonable and rational, but they are still attempting to sell us something more expensive than is necessary to achieve a specific result in an effort to make a profit.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 12, 2019)

I don't believe he had been 100% honest with me about his methodology. Furthermore,- the audio samples where not separate files, they where contained within a Flac audio file that lasted 23 minutes. What's the point in doing a blind test when the audio samples are not separate and original.
It's as though he recorded each sample using Audacity or something, then exported it as a Flac file. I suspect that is not how it's done in the real world, by the professionals.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would suggest TWO additions.

The first (known) sample should be the original uncompressed file.
The second (known) sample should be a very low bit-rate lossy file which sounds obviously different.
This provides an audible reference of "what both ends of the continuum sound like"...
It also provides a way for the test subject to "learn what the flaws introduced by lossy compression sound like".
These should then be followed by the "unknown samples".

There should also be a few low-bit-rate files included with the other samples (just for completeness).



bfreedma said:


> I like the idea of adding lower bit rates to the test.  Would it make more sense to add them in randomly?  It would be interesting to see if the success rate is statistically significantly different.


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> I don't believe he had been 100% honest with me about his methodology. Furthermore,- the audio samples where not separate files, they where contained within a Flac audio file that lasted 23 minutes. What's the point in doing a blind test when the audio samples are not separate and original.



The objective of the test is to establish an individual’s ability to sequentially rate the samples comprised of combinations of different bit rates and encoders.  Why would the samples need to be in separate files?  There’s nothing that would prevent you from moving back and forth within the FLAC to compare the various samples.

You’ve stated you have deep expertise in this domain.  Please explain why you believe the contents of the FLAC are not identical to the “original” samples.

One of the reasons the test is constructed this way is to minimize the possibility of cheating by opening individual samples in an audio analysis tool.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm not suggesting specifically how significant this is...
But, every time you convert a file from one format to another, the conversion software alters it.
Therefore, it's POSSIBLE that this alteration is obscuring some difference which would otherwise be audible.

It's a sort of Catch-22 ...... 
If the files are presented in their "original form", after being converted, then that will offer a cue about which is which.
However, if you convert them all to a common format, it's POSSIBLE that the conversion will obscure a difference.

The only way to avoid the possibility that this _could_ happen is to use hardware to play the original files.
However, by converting all samples to a higher sample rate, the likelihood that this might happen can be minimized.



bfreedma said:


> What, specifically, do you find wrong with the file or the test methodology?


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I would suggest TWO additions.
> 
> The first (known) sample should be the original uncompressed file.
> The second (known) sample should be a very low bit-rate lossy file which sounds obviously different.
> ...



That would work as well.  To simplify Bigshot’s work(if he’s willing to invest more time), the uncompressed/highly compressed known example could be a separate file.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jan 13, 2019)

"KeithEmo, post: 14715145, member: 403988"]

I'm not suggesting specifically how significant this is...
But, every time you convert a file from one format to another, the conversion software alters it.
Therefore, it's POSSIBLE that this alteration is obscuring some difference which would otherwise be audible.

The details depend on the details of how you perform the conversions.
If you convert a file to 256 AAC, then convert the 256 AAC file to FLAC, you have performed TWO conversions.
If you convert a 256 AAC file to a 16/44k WAV, then convert that to a 16/44k FLAC, the FLAC should be the same.
However, if you convert a 256 AAC to a 16/44k WAV, then convert that to a 24/96k FLAC...
Then you have added a sample rate conversion.... which cannot be absolutely assumed to be "prefectly transparent".
Likewise, you cannot assume that the decoder will produce identical results if directly outputting 44k and 96k rates.
(Most of these could be ruled out.... but should not be assumed to be negligible.)

It's a sort of Catch-22 ......
If the files are presented in their "original form", after being converted, then that will offer a cue about which is which.
However, if you convert them all to a common format, it's POSSIBLE that the conversion will obscure a difference.

The best way to avoid the possibility that this _could_ happen is to use hardware to play the original files.
However, by converting all samples to a higher sample rate, the likelihood that this might happen can be minimized.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I'm not suggesting specifically how significant this is...
> But, every time you convert a file from one format to another, the conversion software alters it.
> Therefore, it's POSSIBLE that this alteration is obscuring some difference which would otherwise be audible.
> 
> ...




I believe that audible issues which consistently and repeatedly obscure differences due to converting the originals to FLAC is beyond unlikely.  Unless you can point me to examples of this occurring, it seems like a red herring.

If anything, conversion issues (if they existed) would be far more likely to increase the ability to differentiate the samples.

Let’s not muddy the waters unless there is substantiation of the reason and not pure speculation.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 13, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> The objective of the test is to establish an individual’s ability to sequentially rate the samples comprised of combinations of different bit rates and encoders.  Why would the samples need to be in separate files?  There’s nothing that would prevent you from moving back and forth within the FLAC to compare the various samples.
> 
> You’ve stated you have deep expertise in this domain.  Please explain why you believe the contents of the FLAC are not identical to the “original” samples.
> 
> One of the reasons the test is constructed this way is to minimize the possibility of cheating by opening individual samples in an audio analysis tool.


Yes it occurred to me that he might think I would cheat, which I certainly would _not_ do.
The samples where contained within a FLAC audio file which means they where converted from their original format. A very ameture thing to do. Real pro’s would know not to do that, if looking for genuine results.


----------



## SonyFan121

What bigshot done with his test, is the equivalent of playing music through speakers and recording it with a phone, then uploading it on to a computer for playback.
I’m sorry to be brutally honest, but i’m Nobodies fool


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> Yes it occurred to me that he might think I would cheat, which I certainly would _not_ do.
> The samples where contained within a FLAC audio file which means they where converted from their original format. A very ameture thing to do. Real pro’s would know not to do that, if looking for genuine results.



Bigshot created this test some time ago, so you shouldn’t personalize the methodology.  There have been issues in the past with cheating because the testing isn’t supervised - not saying you would, just explaining the rationale.

Can you provide a specific technical explanation of why you believe the conversion to FLAC is problematic in a way that would impact this test?  What would you suggest as an alternative that would address the possibility of cheating without using this methodology?


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> What bigshot done with his test, is the equivalent of playing music through speakers and recording it with a phone, then uploading it on to a computer for playback.
> I’m sorry to be brutally honest, but i’m Nobodies fool




No, it’s nothing like that whatsoever - that’s a false analogy..  I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but to be brutally honest myself, you seem to be looking for excuses for not being able to differentiate the various formats and bit rates.

In your now edited/deleted post, you thought you had done very well prior to getting the results and raised no issues with the test at that time.  Now that you do have the results and weren’t as successful as you believed you were, the test is “flawed”.  If you felt the methodology was poor, why didn’t you state that as soon as you received the test file?


----------



## SonyFan121

bfreedma said:


> No, it’s nothing like that whatsoever - that’s a false analogy..  I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but to be brutally honest myself, you seem to be looking for excuses for not being able to differentiate the various formats and bit rates.
> 
> In your now edited/deleted post, you thought you had done very well prior to getting the results and raised no issues with the test at that time.  Now that you do have the results and weren’t as successful as you believed you were, the test is “flawed”.  *If* *you* *felt* *the* *methodology* *was* *poor*, *why* *didn’t* *you* *state* *that* *as* *soon* *as* *you* *received* *the* *test* *file?*


I better not say too much about it. I don’t want to derail this thread somehow. The answer to that would be because I trusted him. It wasn’t until after I took the test that I realised.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

So the test was great..until you failed it? 
Pretty much sums it up then.

The level of bruised ego and windmill fighting in here is ridiculous.

If you feel Bigshot sidewinded you then try doing it for yourself: rip a cd of your chosing in flac. Upload it in Foobar2000. Then bump it down to 320. Download the free abx program from Foobar as well and once the files have been volumematched you should be good to go.
In this test you will have the opportunity to opt for music that you know like the back of your hand.


----------



## old tech

SonyFan121 said:


> I better not say too much about it. I don’t want to derail this thread somehow. The answer to that would be because I trusted him. It wasn’t until after I took the test that I realised.


Just wow!  Bigshot goes out of his way to assist you with the tests and you repay him by accusing him of dishonesty.

From where I sit, it seems Bigshot has nothing to gain from providing you with the material but you may have a fragile ego to protect when you can't back up your golden eared claims.

Given the serious allegation you are making here, it is incumbent on you to specifically detail why converting lossy files to one Flac file invalidates the test.  Given your claims of audio technical knowledge and expertise that should not be hard to do.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> If you feel Bigshot sidewinded you then try doing it for yourself: rip a cd of your chosing in flac. Upload it in Foobar2000. Then bump it down to 320. Download the free abx program from Foobar as well and once the files have been volumematched you should be good to go.
> In this test you will have the opportunity to opt for music that you know like the back of your hand.



This is the perfect way to prove to us that you hear what you hear. The ABX plugin lets you listen to your own music as much as you need to make a decision, keeps track of your results, and produces a cryptographically-signed report that you can post here to show real proof of your golden ears. It's easy to set up, and there aren't any "extraneous" conversions to FLAC to confuse the issue. Don't you want to know the truth?


----------



## KeithEmo

There seems to be a common misunderstanding. When you do actual scientific experiments, the _ONLY_ reliable way to test for a certain variable is to control _ALL_ the other variables. You cannot simply _assume_ that certain variables don't matter. By default, we must assume that anything that measurably alters the signal _MIGHT_ produce an audible difference, or obscure one that otherwise exists. Therefore, since we know that the conversion will produce a measurable difference, and we haven't actually tested and proven that converting an AAC file to FLAC will not produce an audible difference, or obscure one that exists, we cannot base the validity of this test on the _assumption_ that it won't do one of those things. In simplest terms, _ALL_ conversions are by definition "problematic", until we determine, on an idividual basis, that a specific one is not.

The best solution is to eliminate any and all variables which cannot be controlled. In this case, we might do that by using some sort of hardware A/B test fixture that can play different file types, without converting them, but without letting the test subjects see which is which. By doing so, we limit the conversions that each file will undergo to the ones we are testing - the conversion to and from each specific lossy encoding option.

The next best solution is to control for our new variable. In this case, we would do that by performing tests to confirm that the conversion and software we propose to use will not produce audible differences of its own, or obscure differences that may otherwise be present. We would do that by performing some benchmark tests that ask people to identify quality differences between known files, and confirm that, if we conduct the same tests, but convert the fiels first, the results remain unchanged.

The least good, but simplest, and most practical, solution is to simply accept that you have failed to control for the variable, and report it in your results as a possible cause for error. There's no great harm in this - and you'll see many drugs which are NOT approved for use with certain age groups, or with pregnant women, simply because they haven't been tested with those groups. HOWEVER, when you do this, you SHOULD be sure to describe this as a possible cause for error in your test results, and it will prevent you from legitimately claiming that your results are universally applicable.

You should also do your best to minimize the risk, and to document it accurately. 
In this case.....

- You should carefully document which sample rate or format converter you used and which settings you chose. This allows others to duplicate your experiment under the exact same conditions if they wish to confirm your results. And, if we later find out that certain converters do or don't produce audible differences, or that problems are discovered with specific ones, we will be able to look back and see if that new information affects your reported results.

- In this case, I would suggest delivering the output at a relatively high sample rate, for example 96k. The reason for doing so is somewhat arbitrary, but supported by various facts that are generally true. Most conversions involve some degree of filtering applied to the output files... most often some sort of band limiting applied near the Nyquist frequency. We also know that the sorts of errors produced by most common filter designs often involve frequency response or phase variations near the Nyquist frequency of the sample rate involved. Therefore, without having any specific information, we can infer that we will minimize the likelihood of the conversion producing or obscuring audible variations by choosing a sample rate that puts the Nyquist frequency as far above the audible range as possible. 96k puts the Nyquist frequency well above 20 kHz, while still being supported by most current equipment, so seems like a good compromise there. (We are simply accepting that something is outside our control, and allowing for an extremely wide safety margin - because doing so isn't expecially difficult to do, and will minimize the chances of erroneous results.)

In my personal opinion, _GIVEN THAT YOU WANT A TEST WHICH CAN BE OFFERED ONLINE_, this probably is the most practical solution, and is the one I would choose. I would also spell out the exact details of each converter I used, including the settings I used, and the software version and operating system. (Converters, and especially lossy encoders and decoders, do change over time - so a different revision of a certain program may well produce different results.) 

THERE IS AMPLE PRECEDENT FOR THIS SORT OF DETAIL when it comes to lossy compression - specifically because of the complexity of the process. Because the process is so complex, it has the potential to introduce complex changes. For example, the audio "signal" itself may be reproduced perfectly, but the noise floor may be audibly altered. Many encoders deliberately discard what they consider to be noise; this can result in _AUDIBLE_ pumping or shifts in the noise floor on recordings with a relatively audible noise floor.

(It is well known in video processing that lossy encoders, like the ones used to convert analog video to the format used on DVDs, often produce excellent results with high quality sources, but sometimes produce downright bizarre artifacts with low quality sources.... If you watch DVDs that were created from old analog sources carefully, you will often see an artifact analogous to "breathing", where the noise floor, or film grain, or even movement in dark clouds or shadows, mysteriously appears and disappears, as it shifts above and below the threshold where the encoder decides to discard it as "noise". The result can be quite visible - and quite annoying.)



bfreedma said:


> Bigshot created this test some time ago, so you shouldn’t personalize the methodology.  There have been issues in the past with cheating because the testing isn’t supervised - not saying you would, just explaining the rationale.
> 
> Can you provide a specific technical explanation of why you believe the conversion to FLAC is problematic in a way that would impact this test?  What would you suggest as an alternative that would address the possibility of cheating without using this methodology?


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> There seems to be a common misunderstanding. When you do actual scientific experiments, the _ONLY_ reliable way to test for a certain variable is to control _ALL_ the other variables. You cannot simply _assume_ that certain variables don't matter. By default, we must assume that anything that measurably alters the signal _MIGHT_ produce an audible difference, or obscure one that otherwise exists. Therefore, since we know that the conversion will produce a measurable difference, and we haven't actually tested and proven that converting an AAC file to FLAC will not produce an audible difference, or obscure one that exists, we cannot base the validity of this test on the _assumption_ that it won't do one of those things. In simplest terms, _ALL_ conversions are by definition "problematic", until we determine, on an idividual basis, that a specific one is not.
> 
> The best solution is to eliminate any and all variables which cannot be controlled. In this case, we might do that by using some sort of hardware A/B test fixture that can play different file types, without converting them, but without letting the test subjects see which is which. By doing so, we limit the conversions that each file will undergo to the ones we are testing - the conversion to and from each specific lossy encoding option.
> 
> ...




Ok Keith - let  me know when you've got that test ready to go and I'll be happy to participate.


----------



## KeithEmo

Everybody should take a step back on this one.....

There is an absolutely valid reason to offer the sample files in the same format - and it is "to prevent cheating".
However, in this context, we're not only talking about _deliberate_ cheating by examining the files in an editor.
We also need to rule out unintentional cues which may  consciously or unconsciously tip off the test subject about which file is which.
These range from seeing the file extension or sample rate on your display to unconsciously noticing that one file loads slightly more quickly than another. 
We also cannot rule out the possibility that a particular player may offer specific cues - such as making a specific odd little noise, or hesitating a little longer, when starting to play certain file formats.
One reason double blind tests are often used is to rule out the possibility that even a well-intentioned human test proctor may unconsciously "leak clues" to the test subject.
(However, SonyFan121's assertion that the additional conversion introduces a possible point of error is also valid.)

I would also point out that, ignoring the specifics, this certainly demonstrates that misunderstanding about the test protocol itself can easily result in incorrect or inaccurate results.
(We all suffer from a bias that instructions which seem "clear and concise" to us, because we wrote them, may not be as obvious to others, which may lead to errors.)



SonyFan121 said:


> Yes it occurred to me that he might think I would cheat, which I certainly would _not_ do.
> The samples where contained within a FLAC audio file which means they where converted from their original format. A very ameture thing to do. Real pro’s would know not to do that, if looking for genuine results.


----------



## Phronesis

This lossless vs lossy example is turning out to be a good case study illustrating the need to carefully set up, conduct, interpret, and document tests.  Looking at it from the outside at this point, I have no way of judging what usefulness bigshot's test has.


----------



## KeithEmo

That's not at all likely to happen.... 

I personally have better things to do with my time than devise and run expensive and complicated tests. And Emotiva, who I work for, makes audio equipment that works quite well with whatever sorts of files you care to play - so we have no particular motivation to sponsor expensive tests to help you choose which format to use. 

As I mentioned in my longer post, the folks who I would expect to be motivated to do that sort of testing would fall into three categories......

1) Companies who sell either software that performs lossy compression or products that rely on it. They would have a vested interest in demonstrating that their lossy compression really is audibly transparent - and perhaps demonstrating that theirs is better than a competitor's similar product or offering. You might suggest this to Apple.... since the existence of iTunes is partially predicated on the idea that "AAC is plenty good for their paying customers, you would think _THEY_ would be eager to prove the truth of that claim. 

2) Magazines and other online publications who make a living informing their readers. Obviously it would provide them an opportunity to inform their customers and provide interesting articles on the subject.

3) Local audio clubs or groups. As I mentioned, this would seem like an excellent topic for a public event that might encourage amateur participation and interest.



bfreedma said:


> Ok Keith - let  me know when you've got that test ready to go and I'll be happy to participate.


----------



## castleofargh (Jan 13, 2019)

unless you expect flac to sound different from .wav, there is little cause for concern about lossy being converted to PCM. and the reason is simple, it's going to be done by the player anyway before sending PCM data to the DAC. so the only thing to look for is that the encoder decoder used to extract the lossy file is the same encoder decoder our usual audio player is using. which is always the case for me because I don't bother installing many codecs for a single format and just direct all my software toward the same stuff.


----------



## castleofargh

sonitus mirus said:


> They are reasonable and rational, but they are still attempting to sell us something more expensive than is necessary to achieve a specific result in an effort to make a profit.


sure I'm admiring Harman's testing efforts and scientific approach, not endorsing all their gears or pricing. although I do happen to have a pair of JBL in front of me, so maybe I'm a little biased  .


----------



## KeithEmo

Absolutely agreed.... but only within very specific constraints.

For example, since a FLAC file is lossless, it contains exactly the same data as the WAV file.
Therefore, if we were to play an "original 44k WAV file" and one that had been converted to FLAC, then back to WAV, they will be identical (assuming everything worked right).
And, assuming we were to send both to a DAC, the DAC should be receiving the same PCM audio in both cases (the player should be converting both files to the same PCM output data).
Although we have introduced the possibility that, because decoding FLAC takes more processing power than playing a WAV file, the computer might introduce errors during the conversion.
(We can test for this, and confirm that it isn't happening, by checking that the output of the computer is still bit-perfect.)

However, sample rate conversions always entail some filtering, especially when we're talking about uneven multiples.
So, for example, if you convert a 44k WAV to a 96k WAV, filtering will be applied, so there _WILL_ be tiny measurable differences (and they will depend on the settings you pick in the converter).
And, now, lets say you start with a 320k VBR MP3 - which is simply a different format.
If you decode that file, using a certain MP3 decoder, with the target format as 44k WAV, you will get a certain result.
Then, if you convert that 44k WAV file to a 96k WAV file, it will be altered slightly by the conversion process.
So if, instead, you decode the MP3 file directly to 96k WAV, using the MP3 decoder, the result will be slightly different.
You omitted the conversion from 44k WAV to 96k WAV, so you avoided that difference, but we don't know if that particular MP3 decoder may produce different results based on the output sample rate you chose.
(It's not at all unlikely that part of the decoding process may include filters which are chosen in part based on the Nyquist frequency of the chosen output sample rate.)

Another thing that needs to be considered is that many lossy encoders are what I would term non-deterministic by process.
For example, the MP3 _DECODER_ is standardized, meaning that, if you play the same MP3 file using different decoders, you _SHOULD_ get the same audio output.
However, the performance of the MP3 _ENCODER_ is _NOT FULLY SPECIFIED_. 
The specification essentially requires the encoder to produce a file that will play properly on the standard decoder (assuring that any MP3 file will play on any MP3 player).
However, within the broad limitations of "the standard model", each individual MP3 _ENCODER_ has "discretion" about what information to discard.
So, if you encode the same original file on two different MP3 encoders, using the same exact settings, the output will be different, _AND MAY SOUND AUDIBLY DIFFERENT_.
(Individual results are deterministic. If you encode the same file, using the same encoder, and the same settings, you will get the same result.)
The standard ensures that all MP3 files will play on your standard decoder - but it in no way ensures or even suggests that they will be the same.
(In fact, the standard was designed that way to allow, or even encourage, "improvements in the encoding technology".)
This specifically suggests that you should expect differences between encoders, and even between different versions of the same encoder, or the same encoder on different types of computers.
(It is worth noting, however, than most commercial programs use one of two or three readily available encoder program modules internally, so many do in fact produce identical results.)
(I don't know how this applied to AAC... although I believe the situation is similar.)

It's also not a good idea to simply assume that _ANY_ software works the way it should.
For example, while performing a reasonably accurate sample-rate conversion is mathematically not especially difficult, some software still manages to do it poorly.
There is a site that reviews various sample rate converters:  http://src.infinitewave.ca/
By the metric they chose, about half of the commercial SRC products available seem to do an accurate job of converting between sample rates with few noticeable artifacts, but the other half do a far less accurate job.
(Therefore, unless you actually test the particular one you plan to use, it is not safe to assume that a particular converter will perform well.)
Likewise, if you're planning to use FLAC files, it's not a bad idea to confirm that the converter you're using is converting them properly as well.
(Programmers make mistakes; and certain vendors may deliberately introduce colorations in a player or converter product that they believe constitute "an improvement".)




castleofargh said:


> unless you expect flac to sound different from .wav, there is little cause for concern about lossy being converted to PCM. and the reason is simple, it's going to be done by the player anyway before sending PCM data to the DAC. so the only thing to look for is that the encoder decoder used to extract the lossy file is the same encoder decoder our usual audio player is using. which is always the case for me because I don't bother installing many codecs for a single format and just direct all my software toward the same stuff.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 13, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> If I where to be brutally honest, Bigshots test is rather flawed. The file that contained the audio samples was itself an audio file.



It was a lossless audio file that contained a lossless sample and lower resolution samples which you are supposed to rank by sound quality. Those samples were all lossless, not converted or recaptured. A lossless file containing a lossy file is a bit perfect copy of the lossy file.

If you had followed the instructions for the test and ranked the ten samples, you would have established a pattern to your answers. But you misunderstood how the files were laid out so your responses were random. I 'll be honest and say that I wonder how you were able to evaluate 20 minutes of samples in an hour through listening alone. Most people spend at least three hours on this test. Perhaps you just blew through it too fast. That would explain your random results.

I'm happy to readminister the test if you like.

There is a reason why this isn't a simple lossless vs lossy test and why I require rankings of various compression levels. I had a fellow once who claimed he could easily tell lossless from lossy. I gave him the test and he had and he replied within fifteen minutes with the number of the lossless file. (Not even enough time to listen through the test file!) I politely sent him back to rank the rest before giving him the results. He refused and started arguing with me about the test. He revealed in his complaints that he didn't even realize that there were two kinds of music in each sample. I questioned him a bit further and it was clear he hadn't even listened to the file. He had simply opened it in a sound editing program, did a response analysis and picked out the lossless easy as pie. However he was completely incapable of ranking the lossy files that way. The only way to rank lossy is by ear. That's why I require ranking of ALL of the files, not just the lossless. And that is why I instruct people now that this is a listening test only. No peeping at waveforms or response spectrum charts. If there is a misunderstanding of how the test files are laid out in the file because the person taking the test was either not paying attention or not listening, I invalidate the test and start over. The test has to be conducted according to the guidelines.

The unique thing that this test provides is an insight into where the threshold of transparency lies. Lower data rates are usually ranked lower according to the quality of the codec. As the data rate rises, the accuracy wavers, until it is totally random towards the top. The point where it starts becoming random is the threshold. I've given this test many times and that pattern holds true, just at different points of transparency. A few people can't tell the difference between any of the files. They just throw their hands up and quit. They don't make wild guesses. 256 is as high as anyone has ever gotten in the past, and that is for Fraunhofer, not AAC. If someone can consistently discern the lossless, they should be able to establish a fairly accurate pattern of ranking all the way up to that. I haven't found anyone like that yet. If anyone is interested in taking all ten variations of the test, they could probably get a much more precise statistical grasp of exactly where their threshold lies. I'd be happy help to do that if anyone is that dedicated.

As an aside, I normally don't explain this test with this level of detail because the person taking the test doesn't need to know all this to take it. They should just listen and rank. Also, I like to catch cheaters in the act and they normally don't realize that they need to pay any attention to the lossy tracks. But thankfully, those people are rare. Most people have more integrity than that, and they realize that they are taking the test to find out for themselves, not to prove anything to anyone else.

If I get completely random results, like I did with you it is because of one of two things... 1) You misunderstood how the files were laid out in the test track and got confused, or 2) You cheated the test and tried to look at the waveform. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming it is 1. I'm offering to administer the test again if you promise to take the test seriously and follow the instructions to the letter. I don't think you want me to evaluate your results based on this test, because random results like that indicate that all of the files sounded exactly the same to you.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 13, 2019)

One other point.... This isn't a test to determine if there are minute differences between lossy and lossless that can be detected by direct A/B switching, looping on bits of fade out, cranking the volume way up or peeping at waveform analysis charts. This is a test to determine if there is an audible difference under normal listening conditions I'm only looking for differences that would matter when listening to commercially recorded music in your own home. If you want to pull out a microscope and drill down, then you can easily set up your own test in foobar and do that. This test is more to the point than that.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 13, 2019)

I didn't convert the files. The only conversion occurred when I took a lossless sample and ran it through as lossy at nine different codecs/settings. Then I opened these compressed files in Sound Forge, I normalized the files to the same level and saved each one out as PCM 16/44.1. Then I assembled them randomly into groups with 10 different variations and saved these as PCM. I converted them to FLAC and ALAC for convenience of sending over the internet.

Saving a lossy file as PCM doesn't process it in any way. All it does is decode the compressed audio and save it as PCM as is. That is the same thing that happens when you play a MP3 on your home stereo... it is decoded and played back as PCM. Y_ou aren't hearing a lossy file, you're hearing a lossy file that has been decoded and played back as standard PCM for conversion to analog in the DAC. _A FLAC file decodes as a bit perfect copy of the original PCM file, so that isn't processing it either.

Digital Audio 101. I would have thought everyone here would know this.


----------



## KeithEmo

I should point out that decoding the lossy file into a WAV file doesn't entail any processing except for the decoder itself.
There's no problem there, because it includes both the encode and decode process in what happens to the file, which is exactly what we want to do.
(And, of course, converting the result to ALAC or FLAC should make no difference whatsoever.)
However, strictly speaking, normalizing the volume is a sort of processing; the bits are altered, and it can result in various rounding errors, depending on whether the level ends up being raised or lowered.
(However, in all fairness, the sorts of errors this might cause would be likely to make the difference more audible rather than less so.)



bigshot said:


> I didn't convert the files. The only conversion occurred when I took a lossless sample and ran it through as lossy at nine different codecs/settings. Then I opened these compressed files in Sound Forge, I normalized the files to the same level and saved each one out as PCM 16/44.1. Then I assembled them randomly into groups with 10 different variations and saved these as PCM. I converted them to FLAC and ALAC for convenience of sending over the internet.
> 
> Saving a lossy file as PCM doesn't process it in any way. All it does is decode the compressed audio and save it as PCM as is. That is the same thing that happens when you play a MP3 on your home stereo... it is decoded and played back as PCM. Y_ou aren't hearing a lossy file, you're hearing a lossy file that has been decoded and played back as standard PCM for conversion to analog in the DAC. _A FLAC file decodes as a bit perfect copy of the original PCM file, so that isn't processing it either.
> 
> Digital Audio 101. I would have thought everyone here would know this.


----------



## SonyFan121

@bigshot I wouldn't consider your blind test a legitimate one because the samples you asked me to compare where contained within an audio file. It doesn't matter that it was a flac file. *When you sent me a link, I was expecting a folder with audio samples in it*,* instead it was a single flac file with excerpts of audio. *Laughable really, and very amateur. Ironically, i'm not the one who cheated, it was you.


----------



## bigshot

Did you try to cheat? Just curious.


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> @bigshot I wouldn't consider your blind test a legitimate one because the samples you asked me to compare where contained within an audio file. It doesn't matter that it was a flac file. *When you sent me a link, I was expecting a folder with audio samples in it*,* instead it was a single flac file with excerpts of audio. *Laughable really, and very amateur. Ironically, i'm not the one who cheated, it was you.




And yet you took the test, had no complaints, and thought you did well.  Only when you learned that you weren’t able to discriminate the various files and bit rates did you raise an issue.

It’s becoming more obvious by the post that you don’t understand digital audio nearly as well as you claim and are now resorting to rather immature insults.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 13, 2019)

I really don't care if he tried to cheat the test to be honest. The test isn't intended to prove anything to me or the forum or to science in general. It's for him to learn something about his perceptual thresholds. If he doesn't want to do the test properly and learn what it reveals, then there's no point in him taking the test again. If he tried to cheat and failed, he can blow smoke and try to discredit me and the test and Sound Science all he wants. It isn't going to mean jack diddly. I understand that it's easy in anonymous internet forums to lie and bluff. That's fine. But it isn't easy to cheat this particular test. People who try to cheat get revealed and it usually makes them mad.

But it's not up to me to say if he cheated or didn't cheat. I just make sure the test is administered properly. If he honestly didn't understand that each sample consisted of two bits of music at the same codec/data rate and he's willing to do the test properly, then I'm happy to pull another file and give him another crack at it. All he has to do is ask.

By the way Sony, if you go back and read our correspondence, you'll find that I was clear that you would be receiving a single lossless file with all the samples in it. You had no objection to that. In fact, you specified that you would prefer FLAC over ALAC. It was also made clear to you that you were to rank all of the samples by sound quality. You weren't able to do that. You ranked the same sample 2nd best and 9th best. I don't think you listened to the test file as carefully as you should have.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

SonyFan121 said:


> Laughable really, and very amateur. Ironically, i'm not the one who cheated, it was you.



Do you always act like this when things don't go your way? With almost every post, your credibility drops. The idea behind the test was to let you learn something about yourself. You don't seem interested, and that's fine, but you're passing up something valuable.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Jan 14, 2019)

some men you just can't reach


----------



## gregorio (Jan 14, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> [1] The samples where contained within a FLAC audio file which means they where converted from their original format.
> [1a] A very ameture thing to do. Real pro’s would know not to do that, if looking for genuine results.
> [2] *When you sent me a link, I was expecting a folder with audio samples in it*,* instead it was a single flac file with excerpts of audio. *
> [2a] Laughable really, and very amateur.
> ...



1. No it doesn't, FLAC is just a data compressed container. When decoded, the result is bit perfect identical to the original signal before encoding, there is NO loss, conversion error or difference at all. You stated you had a "_perfect understanding_" of audio codecs but the reality you are actually demonstrating is that you don't even understand the basics!
1a. How would you know, you are NOT a "real" (or in fact any sort of) pro yourself, you're just a hobbyist. The actual truth is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you've stated! Pretty much ALL commercial studios and pro's do exactly that, and have done for well over 20 years. In commercial studios the digital audio data from recording/production is ALWAYS ARCHIVED and always using a lossless data compression codec.

2. Huh? Pretty much the whole point of a blind/controlled test is to eliminate biases caused by expectation and you're complaining that you didn't get what you were expecting?
2a. Again, you're not even an amateur, let alone a professional, so how do you have any idea what is "very amateur"? It's clear that you don't actually have any idea, that you're just making up whatever nonsense about amateurs and professionals that massages your own ego. And to be honest that's not "laughable", it's beyond laughable and really quite sad!
2b. Bigshot provided you with a test that reduces your opportunity of cheating, either deliberately or inadvertently (due to some expectation bias). So you're accusing him of cheating because he stopped you from cheating, now that REALLY IS ironical!!

3. You keep making assertions about yourself but then actually demonstrate the exact opposite. You asserted that you understand audio codecs perfectly but you clearly don't even understand the basics, let alone have a perfect understanding. You made assertions/boasts about "seriously expensive kit" but it turns out that your "kit" is actually relatively cheap. You asserted you are "very experienced" compared to me and others but it turns out that you're actually very inexperienced. You asserted that "*You would be amazed at how easy it is to tell the difference between lossy and lossless*" yet in a blind test you couldn't tell the difference at all, let alone "amazingly easily". You asserted you are intelligent/intellectual but an intelligent person would not keep stating the exact opposite of the actual facts ... so you're demonstrating the exact opposite of being intelligent/intellectual.
3a. But you have been wrong and not just once but numerous times and, you have NEVER admitted it. Worse still, not only do you NOT admit it but instead you just make up more nonsense, empty/false boasts and aspersions about people of whom you know nothing! Do you really believe what you are saying about yourself and if so, how? The only logical conclusion we can draw from your posts is that you are either trolling or seriously self-deluded. If this conclusion is incorrect, then the solution is simple: 1. Post something which provides the option of a different conclusion AND 2. Don't post anything that just reconfirms the conclusion!

G


----------



## taffy2207 (Jan 14, 2019)

@bigshot I hope at the very least you have received an apology from SonyFan121 for the time and effort you put in for him, I hope at least he has the dignity to do that. Some people just don't want to know the truth, it's easier to keep believing in the lie and that they're somehow special.

I downloaded the Foobar ABX plugin yesterday. I'm going to try it out soon. I'm under no illusions that I won't hear big differences, if any, but it sounds like fun. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain and I'll probably save myself a lot of Money in the long run.

It always seems to go the same way bar a chosen few :-

Member : I can clearly hear the difference
Sound Science : Take a test and find out
Member : (After much dodging) OK I will
Result : Member takes test and can't tell the difference
Member : The test is flawed
Sound Science : no it's not (explains testing procedure)
Member : Gets abusive or defensive
Member : Eventually gets kicked from here or slinks quietly into the night never to be heard of in SS again.

Rinse & Repeat.

Even to a relative Newbie in here, it seems a regular pattern.


----------



## bigshot

No need for apology. If someone tries to game the test and I catch it, it will help me root out disingenuous people better in the future. It's interesting that his errors mirrored the ones I caught with that other guy a while back. Having them rank all the files seems to trip cheaters up every time.


----------



## Steve999 (Jan 14, 2019)

taffy2207 said:


> @bigshot I hope at the very least you have received an apology from SonyFan121 for the time and effort you put in for him. Some people just don't want to know the truth, it's easier to keep believing in the lie and that they're somehow special.
> 
> I downloaded the Foobar ABX plugin yesterday. I'm going to try it out soon. I'm under no illusions that I won't hear big differences, if any, but it sounds like fun. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain and I'll probably save myself a lot of Money in the long run.



The foobar ABX plugin is awesome. It’s been a while since I got everything set up but IIRC there’s a great CODEC pack you can grab off of the foobar site too. It comes with Opus, which is not that widely supported, but I think it is the best out there unless something better has come along since then. I found setting up foobar and then the codec pack and then the abx plugin a little tricky but it’s fun and I found it amazing how it all works.

Edit:

For anyone who's interested:

https://www.foobar2000.org/

https://www.foobar2000.org/encoderpack

https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

And results from a July 2014 listening test at ~96 kbps (except LAME MP3 ~128 kbps and a ~52 kbps anchor):

http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm


----------



## bigshot

Opus and AAC are very similar. They are both MP4 encoders.


----------



## taffy2207

Steve999 said:


> The foobar ABX plugin is awesome. It’s been a while since I got everything set up but IIRC there’s a great CODEC pack you can grab off of the foobar site too. It comes with Opus, which is not that widely supported, but I think it is the best out there unless something better has come along since then. I found setting up foobar and then the codec pack and then the abx plugin a little tricky but it’s fun and I found it amazing how it all works.



Yeah, looks like I already have that pack. It may have came with the skin I installed or I may have installed it previously. It was news to me that I had it


----------



## gregorio

taffy2207 said:


> It always seems to go the same way bar a chosen few :-



Very true, except for those who refuse to take the test in the first place! 

I've been doing informal blind or double blind tests on others for 25 years or so; professional classical musician friends of mine, some audiophiles, a lot of students, a few sound engineers and some friends who like listening to music recordings but know almost nothing about it beyond what they do and don't like. In some ways, musicians can be somewhat similar to audiophiles, they often have an over-inflated opinion of their hearing/listening abilities. That opinion is entirely justified in the sense that they have highly trained listening but it's been trained to identify musical composition and performance characteristics, however, many of the sound characteristics an engineer can manipulate (and therefore has to be able to aurally identify) musicians are as unaware of as any average member of the public, a fact which is very difficult for some of them to accept. Incidentally, I say this because I went through it myself; I was a classically trained and then professional orchestral musician and I assumed my training/experience would give an advantage over many of the sound engineers I worked with. In some respects it did but I was shocked to discover there was a whole other side to listening skills, a side in which I was effectively a complete beginner. Quite a difficult pill to swallow after more than a decade of serious study/training and then professional accomplishment.

Many (though certainly not all) of the tests I've run were specifically designed to test expectation biases, rather than eliminate them. In these tests, audiophiles consistently performed the worst, significantly worse than friends who knew nothing and therefore didn't really have expectations. As I say, these tests were all informal, for my personal benefit and the potential benefit of those taking them, the results were not recorded and specifically NOT intended for anyone else to see, in fact that assurance was a condition of many of those I tested. So I don't have and can't provide any supporting evidence and therefore it's level of reliability (or lack of it) is entirely up to the reader. Furthermore, I've tested many hundreds of students but only two or three dozen musicians, probably 15-20 serious audiophiles, a similar number of friends/acquaintances who are effectively just members of the general public and maybe a dozen sound engineers. So not a reliable sample size, except maybe for the sound engineering students. However, I've seen no reliable evidence which contradicts my findings/experience but quite a few studies/tests, a few of which were published papers, which supports them.

G


----------



## Elecroestatico

OH my all the big LOLs im having with many of these last posts. First of all let me tell you all to take big shot tests with a grain of salt as he has stated in the past that he is unable to hear a difference between a 40 buck walmart dac VS a $1400.00 oppo dac. And this is  only to summarize all the useless debate I have had with these lovely members of our community thread. 

Now to close the last debates posts the answer is: EEVRYTHHING MAKES A DIFFERENCE.  even wav vs flac makes a difference and Im feeling to lazy to explain why, just do your research and learn how things work. Andd just to give you a clue 90 ppercent of the time wav sounds better that flac. 
And ultra big LOL to those who think that resampling doesnt make a difference in sound either, there are in fact many different mathematical methods of resampling . Now the biggest LOL award this time goes to the flac VS 256kbps they sound the same...HAHAHA lol if people cant even tell the difference in dacs no wonder why they cant hear the difference of an mp3 from a cd quality track


----------



## StandsOnFeet

Elecroestatico said:


> EEVRYTHHING MAKES A DIFFERENCE



My God, man. How can you stand it?


----------



## Elecroestatico

KeithEmo said:


> I should point out that decoding the lossy file into a WAV file doesn't entail any processing except for the decoder itself.
> There's no problem there, because it includes both the encode and decode process in what happens to the file, which is exactly what we want to do.
> (And, of course, converting the result to ALAC or FLAC should make no difference whatsoever.)
> However, strictly speaking, normalizing the volume is a sort of processing; the bits are altered, and it can result in various rounding errors, depending on whether the level ends up being raised or lowered.
> (However, in all fairness, the sorts of errors this might cause would be likely to make the difference more audible rather than less so.)


And I think when he attaches all the other lower bitrate pieces of music into the main flac file he uses for his tests, thats when the software also makes a conversion to create that flac file.


----------



## Elecroestatico

StandsOnFeet said:


> My God, man. How can you stand it?


Well is not hard, in fact it has never bother me, its just knowing that thats the way it is in audio


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Elecroestatico said:


> EEVRYTHHING MAKES A DIFFERENCE.  even wav vs flac makes a difference and Im feeling to lazy to explain why, just do your research and learn how things work. Andd just to give you a clue 90 ppercent of the time wav sounds better that flac.



Good lord, I had been staying away from this thread because I have work to do... but I couldn't let that slide.  This is ridiculous trolling, you can't be serious. 

Um, but as someone who makes their living from spending on consumer audio... um... please do keep going with this and spending more money on "upgrading" from the same exact thing, to the same exact thing, but with a different file extension. That attitude is how folks like me get rich once we get old, cynical, lose our scruples and start selling snake oil instead of stuff that actually works. So, thank you for your service.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 16, 2019)

Elecroestatico said:


> OH my all the big LOLs im having with many of these last posts. First of all let me tell you all to take big shot tests with a grain of salt as he has stated in the past that he is unable to hear a difference between a 40 buck walmart dac VS a $1400.00 oppo dac.



I'll tell you the difference between me and you... I've done these tests and I know what the results are. You haven't done any tests and you only think you know. That is a significant difference between us there.

Here comes another one!


----------



## Phronesis

Elecroestatico said:


> OH my all the big LOLs im having with many of these last posts. First of all let me tell you all to take big shot tests with a grain of salt as he has stated in the past that he is unable to hear a difference between a 40 buck walmart dac VS a $1400.00 oppo dac. And this is  only to summarize all the useless debate I have had with these lovely members of our community thread.
> 
> Now to close the last debates posts the answer is: EEVRYTHHING MAKES A DIFFERENCE.  even wav vs flac makes a difference and Im feeling to lazy to explain why, just do your research and learn how things work. Andd just to give you a clue 90 ppercent of the time wav sounds better that flac.
> And ultra big LOL to those who think that resampling doesnt make a difference in sound either, there are in fact many different mathematical methods of resampling . Now the biggest LOL award this time goes to the flac VS 256kbps they sound the same...HAHAHA lol if people cant even tell the difference in dacs no wonder why they cant hear the difference of an mp3 from a cd quality track



I don't know if there's a flaw with bigshot's test.  Maybe.  But what is your assertion that "everything makes a difference" based on?  If it's based on your perceiving differences between everything, your perception may be more biased by expectations than you realize.  Please present your case ...


----------



## castleofargh

Elecroestatico said:


> OH my all the big LOLs im having with many of these last posts. First of all let me tell you all to take big shot tests with a grain of salt as he has stated in the past that he is unable to hear a difference between a 40 buck walmart dac VS a $1400.00 oppo dac. And this is  only to summarize all the useless debate I have had with these lovely members of our community thread.
> 
> Now to close the last debates posts the answer is: EEVRYTHHING MAKES A DIFFERENCE.  even wav vs flac makes a difference and Im feeling to lazy to explain why, just do your research and learn how things work. Andd just to give you a clue 90 ppercent of the time wav sounds better that flac.
> And ultra big LOL to those who think that resampling doesnt make a difference in sound either, there are in fact many different mathematical methods of resampling . Now the biggest LOL award this time goes to the flac VS 256kbps they sound the same...HAHAHA lol if people cant even tell the difference in dacs no wonder why they cant hear the difference of an mp3 from a cd quality track


is Michael Lavorgna your spirit animal? you clearly share that amazing ability to turn over a pebble on the street and find that it noticeably and durably improved your music at home. 
since bravado and saying LOL a lot seem to be the entirety of your argumentation(like last time), I believe we can all move on and assume it's ignorance making a lot of noise about nothing. but feel free to change my mind anytime with a semblance of rational argument that doesn't mistake objective change with audible ones, or your opinions with facts. even better, if you don't like bigshot's test, propose a better testing method, and show how you or other people pass it. be it your ignorance, or the legitimacy of your claims, some proper controlled tests should help removing doubts.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Elecroestatico said:


> OH my all the big LOLs im having with many of these last posts. First of all let me tell you all to take big shot tests with a grain of salt as he has stated in the past that he is unable to hear a difference between a 40 buck walmart dac VS a $1400.00 oppo dac. And this is  only to summarize all the useless debate I have had with these lovely members of our community thread.
> 
> Now to close the last debates posts the answer is: EEVRYTHHING MAKES A DIFFERENCE.  even wav vs flac makes a difference and Im feeling to lazy to explain why, just do your research and learn how things work. Andd just to give you a clue 90 ppercent of the time wav sounds better that flac.
> And ultra big LOL to those who think that resampling doesnt make a difference in sound either, there are in fact many different mathematical methods of resampling . Now the biggest LOL award this time goes to the flac VS 256kbps they sound the same...HAHAHA lol if people cant even tell the difference in dacs no wonder why they cant hear the difference of an mp3 from a cd quality track


The gratuitous usage of “LOL” and “hahaha” leads me to believe you have confidence issues. I hope this post made you feel better.


----------



## Elecroestatico

Zapp_Fan said:


> Good lord, I had been staying away from this thread because I have work to do... but I couldn't let that slide.  This is ridiculous trolling, you can't be serious.
> 
> Um, but as someone who makes their living from spending on consumer audio... um... please do keep going with this and spending more money on "upgrading" from the same exact thing, to the same exact thing, but with a different file extension. That attitude is how folks like me get rich once we get old, cynical, lose our scruples and start selling snake oil instead of stuff that actually works. So, thank you for your service.


aiwa selling snake oil? I didn't know but thanks for the heads up    Anyways how can I spend more money if audacity for example gets me flac and wav files for free?  no trolling here my friend


----------



## Elecroestatico

bigshot said:


> I'll tell you the difference between me and you... I've done these tests and I know what the results are. You haven't done any tests and you only think you know. That is a significant difference between us there.
> 
> Here comes another one!



all of my dacs sound different, also all of my daps and even my cell phones sound different, so how can I follow a test you are doing if you cant even tell the sounding difference between different devices.... so silly all those who talk about your tests like you are giving something to the community. Really if mp3 sounds the same than flac to you then keep it to yourself but dont come here to confuse people with silly tests. Just taking a quick look at your test somebody else mention a flaw and I mentioned another possible flaw too. Resampling also makes a difference, just try the different resample components that are available for foobar. Some dacs do internal upsampling regardless of the sample rate that you feed them and thats to improve the sound. etc many things I can explain but I always educate you and all i get is more attacks


----------



## Elecroestatico

colonelkernel8 said:


> The gratuitous usage of “LOL” and “hahaha” leads me to believe you have confidence issues. I hope this post made you feel better.


and your nine inch nails logo leads me to believe that the only kind of music you like is metal


----------



## Elecroestatico

castleofargh said:


> is Michael Lavorgna your spirit animal? you clearly share that amazing ability to turn over a pebble on the street and find that it noticeably and durably improved your music at home.
> since bravado and saying LOL a lot seem to be the entirety of your argumentation(like last time), I believe we can all move on and assume it's ignorance making a lot of noise about nothing. but feel free to change my mind anytime with a semblance of rational argument that doesn't mistake objective change with audible ones, or your opinions with facts. even better, if you don't like bigshot's test, propose a better testing method, and show how you or other people pass it. be it your ignorance, or the legitimacy of your claims, some proper controlled tests should help removing doubts.


what pebble are you talking about? I never said any of the points being made here are improving my music at home noticeably and durably. I simply stated that the things you all were talking aboiut such as resampling and storage format will make a difference, thats it, dont get exited.  I also im not obligated to come up with a new test just because i dont like bigshot one, however as I always give helpful posts (unlike many others) I have stated a possible flaw of his test and that was just taking a quick look at the test, not to mention   what keithemo said about the normalizing process altering the bits, thats also true and now that im thinking about it exporting to flac offers a few extra settings such as method  and levels of compression so not a flaw but can interfere in a test depending what player software and decoder is being used. So saving his "test" in a wav file would be better. OK enough with the education, you guys never say thank you


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Lol how can anyone NOT see the brilliance and wisdom of this man’s posts?? This is bordering on the insane!
I for one have indeed seen the light: from now on I will only trust people that judge gear with their eyes fixed on the price and of course use the  clever lol for giggles..just like my main man Einstein lol!


----------



## gregorio

Elecroestatico said:


> [1] I simply stated that the things you all were talking aboiut such as resampling and storage format will make a difference, thats it, dont get exited.
> [2] I also im not obligated to come up with a new test just because i dont like bigshot one, [2a] however as I always give helpful posts.
> [3] I have stated a possible flaw of his test ... [3a] not to mention what keithemo said about the normalizing process altering the bits,
> [3b] now that im thinking about it exporting to flac offers a few extra settings such as method and levels of compression so not a flaw but can interfere in a test depending what player software and decoder is being used.
> ...



1. Of course we're going to get "excited", this is the sound SCIENCE forum but you come here, completely ignore the science and make FALSE statements. How is it possible for you not to expect that we'd "get excited"? 

2. Can't you read the title of the thread you're posting in, what's the first word? LOL
2a. Can you explain how ignoring the science, ignoring the title of the thread and making false statements is in anyway "helpful"?

3. Again, this is the sound SCIENCE forum, you can't just make-up statements that contradict the science with zero evidence. Don't you even know what science is?
3a. Of course normalising alters the bits, that's the whole point of normalising! However, can you please explain what difference it makes to the output of a DAC?
3b. Now that you're thinking about what, how to make-up FALSE statements?
3c. Nope, it literally wouldn't have made a single "bit" of difference. 

4. And there's you're problem: You clearly have little/no education in the subject, yet you think it's "enough" and if that's not bad enough, you actually come to a science forum to display your ignorance and lack of education. How laughable/crazy is that?
4a. Yep, we're funny like that, we never thank people who come here, contradict the name of this forum and can't read the title of the thread they're posting to. Does that make us bad people? LOL

It really was an impressive post though. To get virtually every single sentence in the whole post WRONG is an impressive feat! Did it take you a long time to achieve that feat or are you just naturally gifted that way? LOL
Do you have enough intelligence to answer any of the questions above?

G


----------



## Don Hills

Elecroestatico said:


> and your nine inch nails logo leads me to believe that the only kind of music you like is metal



You appear to know as little about NIN as you know about audio science.


----------



## bfreedma

Don't feed the trolls.

Interesting who has grabbed onto Keith's whataboutism though...


----------



## bigshot (Jan 17, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> Don't feed the trolls. Interesting who has grabbed onto Keith's whataboutism though...



This guy talks much more than he knows and it shows. He's been here before doing the same thing around Thanksgiiving in the Convincing Wires Don't Matter thread and got dismissed summarily. I guess he figures we've forgotten. He doesn't post much in the rest of HeadFi any more. Perhaps he's relegated this handle to being his trolling account.

What ifs are a time honored technique for weaseling out of situations where someone is wrong and doesn't want to admit it.


----------



## Phronesis

Seems to me that he's quite sure he hears differences between gear, and trusts his ears, and so is naturally dismissive of people claiming that gear in some classes doesn't sound different.  Until such a person experiences the fallibility of their own perception, it will be difficult to convince them that their perception is highly fallible.  Nothing new here ...


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Phronesis said:


> Seems to me that he's quite sure he hears differences between gear, and trusts his ears, and so is naturally dismissive of people claiming that gear in some classes doesn't sound different.  Until such a person experiences the fallibility of their own perception, it will be difficult to convince them that their perception is highly fallible.  Nothing new here ...



Duh



However, this particular part of the forums is dedicated to going deeper than "trusting our own perception" and anyone unwilling to accept that their perception isn't necessarily (or even likely) infallible is probably in the wrong section...


----------



## castleofargh

Elecroestatico said:


> what pebble are you talking about? I never said any of the points being made here are improving my music at home noticeably and durably. I simply stated that the things you all were talking aboiut such as resampling and storage format will make a difference, thats it, dont get exited.  I also im not obligated to come up with a new test just because i dont like bigshot one, however as I always give helpful posts (unlike many others) I have stated a possible flaw of his test and that was just taking a quick look at the test, not to mention   what keithemo said about the normalizing process altering the bits, thats also true and now that im thinking about it exporting to flac offers a few extra settings such as method  and levels of compression so not a flaw but can interfere in a test depending what player software and decoder is being used. So saving his "test" in a wav file would be better. OK enough with the education, you guys never say thank you


 just think about a real life situation with your friends. they all wish to do something(sleep with that super hot girl you all know that won't even give any of you the time of the day, go skydiving, win a million bucks with a lottery ticket, whatever), but they haven't for many reasons. you tell them that you did all that and can do it anytime you want. your friends might be entertained and maybe even impressed for a minute, but at some point they will expect you to prove that you're not full of crap. and if you never bring them supporting evidence instead of "dude trust me", soon enough you'll become known as the mythomaniac of the group.
exact same stuff here. when bigshot says he can't tell between high bitrate AAC and a lossless format, if that's bragging, it sure is a weird way of doing it. the guy shares his failure to notice a change. I'm in the same situation and so are a many people here. so when you come bragging about how easy it is to notice a difference between basically anything and anything else, well, we're the others guys in your group of friends starting to think that you're full of it.  to change our mind you could take back what you claimed, or provide strong enough evidence to support the claims and convince us.
and that's about it.

and in case you decide to assume that me posting this is a denial of anything possibly sounding different ever:
I've noticed differences between DACs(volume output, very rarely background noise, on super rare occasions a massive roll off in the treble). I've heard high bitrate mp3 sounding strange, never very obviously so, but enough to be noticeable(massive intersample clipping, or the device messing up the decoding on the first firmware version for the DAP). and I most certainly heard differences between various DAPs or cellphones(I basically just have to pick the right IEM to manifest the most difference in background noise or in impedance output). I also broke my arm, got bitten by a monkey as a kid(not radioactive  ). all of those things happened and were supported by controlled testing or many eye witnesses, but it's not like they happen to me all the time. some are extraordinary occurrences. and for most of those situations, it's fairly easy to reduce the chances of it happening even further without resorting to total paranoia and getting rid of everything that remotely looks like a risk. 
for example, I don't play mp3 at full scale, and I haven't met a monkey in a decade. thanks to that I didn't feel the need to stop using mp3(and other convenient lossy formats), or to go out only with a chain mail over my entire body in case there's a monkey down the street waiting to jump on me. ^_^

of course if you don't have a clue how to test anything conclusively, you will tend to have an even bigger problem. the problem called "being wrong".


----------



## bigshot

Tell us about getting bit by a monkey as a kid! Are there any photos? Was it like the old lady in Dead Alive?


----------



## StandsOnFeet

castleofargh said:


> just think about a real life situation with your friends. they all wish to do something(sleep with that super hot girl you all know that won't even give any of you the time of the day, go skydiving, win a million bucks with a lottery ticket, whatever), but they haven't for many reasons. you tell them that you did all that and can do it anytime you want. your friends might be entertained and maybe even impressed for a minute, but at some point they will expect you to prove that you're not full of crap. and if you never bring them supporting evidence instead of "dude trust me", soon enough you'll become known as the mythomaniac of the group.



Absolutely brilliant.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Don Hills said:


> You appear to know as little about NIN as you know about audio science.


Preach!


----------



## KeithEmo

You do bring up an interesting point - but I think it relates to how we all, as individuals, think.

While I don't normally make a point of keeping track of who my friends sleep with, or of updating them about who I sleep with, I do expect them not to lie to me, and I don't lie to them.
Therefore, I would never _assume_ that something one of my friends told me was untrue, and I would expect the same courtesy from them.
(I don't lie to impress my friends and I don't expect them to lie to try to impress me. And anyone who "thinks I'm full of crap" just plain isn't my friend.)
And, considering how many of those "super hot girls that everybody wants to sleep with" end up married with kids, I guess some guys in fact _DO_ actually sleep with them.
Therefore, rather than jumping to conclusions, I'm always going to evaluate every claim on its own merits.

I certainly wouldn't call it "bragging".... but it is possible that BigShot may have an expectation bias to _NOT_ to hear differences which may affect his results in some cases...
(Based on the assumption that he's human, we must assume that, in any case where he deosn't expect to hear a difference, he is subject to an "expectation bias" to hear no difference, right?) 
An expectation bias can certainly cause us to "imagine hearing things that aren't there"....
However, an opposite bias can cause us to fail to accept or report things we do notice "because we think we're just imagining them"....
And, at another level, we may actually fail to see or hear "things that we aren't looking for because we've already decided they aren't there"....

If you've ever attended a real performance of "sleight of hand".... it is based, not on things you _can't_ see, but on things you _don't_ see.... because, due to expert misdirection, you're looking the wrong way when they happen.
(We already know that our brains discard, or simply never consciously perceive, about 95% of the information that's _available_. That makes it difficult to know for sure what was in the 95% that we _didn't_ perceive.)



castleofargh said:


> just think about a real life situation with your friends. they all wish to do something(sleep with that super hot girl you all know that won't even give any of you the time of the day, go skydiving, win a million bucks with a lottery ticket, whatever), but they haven't for many reasons. you tell them that you did all that and can do it anytime you want. your friends might be entertained and maybe even impressed for a minute, but at some point they will expect you to prove that you're not full of crap. and if you never bring them supporting evidence instead of "dude trust me", soon enough you'll become known as the mythomaniac of the group.
> exact same stuff here. when bigshot says he can't tell between high bitrate AAC and a lossless format, if that's bragging, it sure is a weird way of doing it. the guy shares his failure to notice a change. I'm in the same situation and so are a many people here. so when you come bragging about how easy it is to notice a difference between basically anything and anything else, well, we're the others guys in your group of friends starting to think that you're full of it.  to change our mind you could take back what you claimed, or provide strong enough evidence to support the claims and convince us.
> and that's about it.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jan 18, 2019)

I think you just don't like the results of controlled tests and you have a bias towards trying to think of an excuse to ignore them.

Here's the deal... If I can make an effort to avoid bias and perceptual error by doing blind, direct A/B switched, line level matched comparisons, and I can't hear a difference, what is the likelihood that differences I missed due to whatever bias is left after all that will make a lick of difference when I'm just sitting on the couch listening to music?

No one has to become a machine and do tests that aren't human to know whether something matters or not. It's so blatantly obvious what is going on in this conversation... The people who do controlled tests and operate based on what they learn from them are being criticized for the thoroughness of their testing procedure and accuracy of their results by _people who are too lazy to get up off their ass and do a test for themselves._ I even make an effort to help them take a blind test and I set one up for them, and even after taking it and admitting that he couldn't hear any difference, he goes right back to the same unfounded excuses and what ifs.

When it comes to bias, it's certainly on display here, but it isn't coming from me. Clean up your own act before you go claiming other people of employing sloppy logic.

I invite someone to prove a significant difference that I missed. I'll even HELP you prove me wrong. But you don't prove jack diddly spewing out semantic arguments and theoretical what ifs month after month in post after post of drivel. You prove things by making a test yourself. I think you know what you'd find out. That's why you don't do it. Your ego can't take being risked to a challenge like that.


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 18, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> You do bring up an interesting point - but I think it relates to how we all, as individuals, think.
> 
> While I don't normally make a point of keeping track of who my friends sleep with, or of updating them about who I sleep with, I do expect them not to lie to me, and I don't lie to them.
> Therefore, I would never _assume_ that something one of my friends told me was untrue, and I would expect the same courtesy from them.
> ...



An interesting aspect of a blind test is that the only expectation bias it can't eliminate is the expectation to not perceive a difference.  And it may even foster that bias because the difficulty of doing the test when differences are subtle may lead to frustration and a tendency to give up on finding differences.

Skill in finding differences and motivation to do so are important factors - human perception is very different from any kind of objective 'meter' or an objective physiological response (e.g., blood pressure, heart rate, cholesterol level, etc.).  'Hearing' is very different from microphones connected to a recording device - the latter only transduces and records what was transduced, there's nothing like perception involved.

The psychological aspects are very important in designing, conducting, and interpreting these listening tests, and I routinely see people not paying enough attention to those psychological aspects, instead trying to reduce the tests to a cookbook procedure, maybe with some quantification using stats to give a sense of objectivity.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Phronesis said:


> An interesting aspect of a blind test is that the only expectation bias it can't eliminate is the expectation to not perceive a difference..



an interesting solution to the (manufactured) issue of any bias caused by an expectation "to not hear a difference" (  ) is for folks who WANT to hear a difference to pass the test and prove they can hear a difference.  lol...


----------



## Phronesis

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> an interesting solution to the (manufactured) issue of any bias caused by an expectation "to not hear a difference" (  ) is for folks who WANT to hear a difference to pass the test and prove they can hear a difference.  lol...



The two things aren't mutually exclusive.  An individual could be subject to both biases, and the effects may vary from one individual to another.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

Phronesis said:


> An interesting aspect of a blind test is that the only expectation bias it can't eliminate is the expectation to not perceive a difference.



True, but totally irrelevant. The test is meant to possibly disprove the hypothesis that a difference is not audible, not to prove that nobody can hear a difference. You're shooting at a strawman.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Phronesis said:


> The two things aren't mutually exclusive.  An individual could be subject to both biases, and the effects may vary from one individual to another.



oh my.  This *is *quite a conundrum!


:rolleyes:


----------



## KeithEmo

All I'm criticizing you for, and it is a minor criticism, is failing to admit that your biases _may_ have affected the results of the tests you performed.
It actually is possible that, because you expect to hear no differences, you are failing to notice differences that would otherwise be audible to you.
(I'm not specifically suggesting that this is the case - but the possibility is just one facet of the sorts of expectation bias we all experience.)

I absolutely agree that your tests have been careful enough and thorough enough that any shortcomings...  
"(won't) will make a lick of difference when (you're) just sitting on the couch listening to music".

My problem... and it's not specifically with you... is that many people on this forum seem to have very different views about what constitutes "science".
If we're really talking about "good enough information to help someone make a decision about what file format to use" - then I suspect we're in agreement.
However, if we're talking about the sort of accuracy I would want when submitting an article to Scientific American - then we are far short of _that_ standard.
All we have are test results of a small sample, using a small sample of test material, under very specific conditions.

The fact that a few dozen people have failed to be able to audibly distinguish certain differences, with certain sample material, does not convince me beyond doubt that
none of the remaining 7.7 billion humans on the planet will be able to do so, with other test samples, and under other conditions.
I find it "suggestive" but far from "conclusive".
(Likewise, if I found out that several dozen "fast runners" couldn't break the four minute mile, I wouldn't conclude that was impossible either.)

And, yes, I have a bias.....
I very much dislike making generalizations when the data fails to support them to the degree necessary to assure that I won't later be proven wrong.
(I prefer to say "I think so but I'm not sure" rather than risk being proven wrong later.)

Phronesis also brought up an excellent point - motivation.
If you wanted to determine "how fast a human can run", you could test ten, or ten thousand, or ten million, and still not find one who could run a mile in under four minutes.
However, if you were to conclude that "no human can run a mile in less than four minutes", you would still be wrong.
You would be wrong because you had failed to test one of the few humans who we know can do so.
The reason we have that information is motivation.
Most of the humans who actually are among the fastest runners _HAVE_ been tested - because we offer medals, and prizes, and endorsements, as incentive to compete.
Likewise, if someone were to offer a $1 million prize to "the person who can reliably tell 320 AAC files from WAV files", we might be reasonably expect most people to participate.
However, unfortunately, when it comes to questions about audio, only a tiny percentage of the population care enough to participate...

If there were no Olympics, and no professional sports, and no endorsements, we might not know about the guy who can run a mile in 3:43...
(Because there would have been no motivation to find out how fast he was.)
And, if that were the case, people might still be saying "no human can run a mile in under four minutes"...
And they'd all be _WRONG_.



bigshot said:


> I think you just don't like the results of controlled tests and you have a bias towards trying to think of an excuse to ignore them.
> 
> Here's the deal... If I can make an effort to avoid bias and perceptual error by doing blind, direct A/B switched, line level matched comparisons, and I can't hear a difference, what is the likelihood that differences I missed due to whatever bias is left after all that will make a lick of difference when I'm just sitting on the couch listening to music?
> 
> ...


----------



## StandsOnFeet

KeithEmo said:


> I very much dislike making generalizations when the data fails to support them to the degree necessary to assure that I won't later be proven wrong.



But that's exactly how science works. I make a hypothesis that nobody can hear a difference between 320 bps mp3 and FLAC. Then the ABX test is there for you to prove me wrong, if you can pass it. If you do, then that hypothesis is proven wrong, and I'll have to come up with a new one. The test isn't to prove I'm right, it's a chance to falsify my statement. There is no way to prove my hypothesis, only to disprove it. The test does exactly what it was designed to do. Look up Karl Popper.


----------



## Phronesis

StandsOnFeet said:


> True, but totally irrelevant. The test is meant to possibly disprove the hypothesis that a difference is not audible, not to prove that nobody can hear a difference. You're shooting at a strawman.



I think it's the other way around.  The test is meant to find a difference, and should be designed to find a difference.  If no difference is found in the test, that doesn't mean there's no difference, only that the test didn't find it, and a difference could be found in a different test.

Think of medical clinical trials.  Nobody spends lots of money doing clinical trials if they expect that a drug doesn't work, and the trial needs to be set up such that, if the drug does work, the trial will provide evidence of that.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jan 18, 2019)

Phronesis said:


> I think it's the other way around.  The test is meant to find a difference, and should be designed to find a difference.  If no difference is found in the test, that doesn't mean there's no difference, only that the test didn't find it, and a difference could be found in a different test.
> 
> Think of medical clinical trials.  Nobody spends lots of money doing clinical trials if they expect that a drug doesn't work, and the trial needs to be set up such that, if the drug does work, the trial will provide evidence of that.



lol...the test isn't meant to find a difference.  We know there's a difference.  One is 320bps lossy and the other is lossless.  The test is for people who claim they can HEAR a difference to prove that claim.  the test can't be designed to find an AUDIBLE difference if (as is the contention here) no AUDIBLE difference exists.


----------



## Phronesis

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> lol...the test isn't meant to find a difference.  We know there's a difference.  One is 320bps lossy and the other is lossless.  The test is for people who claim they can HEAR a difference to prove that claim.



Obviously, I'm referring to an audible difference.  People don't generally test things that are known to be identical to see if they're different ...

And let's please stop playing burden of proof games, we're trying to figure out how things are, not win debates or legal cases.  In my engineering firm, the concept of burden of proof never comes up when we evaluate and design things.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Phronesis said:


> Obviously, I'm referring to an audible difference.  People don't generally test things that are known to be identical to see if they're different ...
> .




no, they don't...unless someone comes along and claims they are different.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> You do bring up an interesting point - but I think it relates to how we all, as individuals, think.
> 
> While I don't normally make a point of keeping track of who my friends sleep with, or of updating them about who I sleep with, I do expect them not to lie to me, and I don't lie to them.
> Therefore, I would never _assume_ that something one of my friends told me was untrue, and I would expect the same courtesy from them.
> ...


how and why we trust others will change from people to people. I'm going to guess that the friends(true friends) you trust completely by default, are small in number and that they have consistently given you reasons to trust them over the years. so they have demonstrated that you could trust them, if not on that specific topic, but on many others making you think they will tell it like it is this time too. my analogy is bad(as usual^_^) in that respect because friends are people we already know a lot about.

bigshot or me or whoever is going to be biased. that's not a possibility, it's a certainty. just like any testing method worth something is going to introduce some variable that has nothing to do with sitting in a chair relaxed and enjoying music. we agree on that much. a test is supposed to answer a specific question. that's where many conversations are lost here, because the question seems to change as the discussion goes on, and clearly that shouldn't happen. instead a test should have some notion of dependent and independent variables, and we're expecting results about those specific variables. the results are statistical anyway and we can easily lower the degree of confidence we put in the data based on the test itself and what we know or don't know about it. 
bigshot's test does not try to test audibility under the best conditions, so it's more likely to fail his test than one specifically made to try and pass. I don't think he tried to say otherwise or misled people about that. now his interpretation of the results are that if you don't notice something with the different files playing one after the other, you will have even fewer chances to notice something wrong while casually listening to an album. and I tend to agree with that. I also tend to agree with him asking those who claim to be able to hear the difference, to demonstrate that they can. because as always, a legion of people failing aren't going to be as conclusive as a few guys showing they indeed can pass a blind test. if bigshot's test is too hard, other methods are available. and if no controlled test allows to pass, then I think it becomes important to ask why would anybody believe that he can hear the difference? because a all lot of assumptions here are not born on confirm audibility, but instead on the assumption that is something is objectively changed, then the possibility that it will have an audible impact remains. and it's not an irrational thought, but it's also not a fact based decision and shouldn't try to pass for one IMO. 

TBH what annoys me is how readily everybody will accept the validity of a test when it's something super obvious that agrees with what they feel(like I've never seen anybody contesting the results of a blind test with one file 15dB louder than the other), and how everything must somehow automatically be full of unconfirmed flaws and stuff we forgot to integrate into the test, as soon as the results don't agree with what our guts tell us. I'm not going to argue that our guts are always wrong or that any blind test is perfectly set without flaw, but statistically, how often will the blind test give the less accurate result? even only considering the most amateurish blind tests, I'm convinced we wouldn't come close to 50/50. to me it's obvious that what really motivates us to want more flaws in blind tests that don't agree with us, is our ego, not the desire for truth.


----------



## KeithEmo

You may have a point... but I don't think it's Phronesis who's responsible for the strawman.

BigShot asserts that "nobody can reliably tell the difference between 320 AAC and FLAC files.
He has devised a test which will enable participants to see if they can do so.
If anyone were successful on the test then they would prove his assertion to be wrong.
So far nobody has proven him wrong.
(However, that does _NOT_ specifically constitute proof that he's _RIGHT_.)

The strawman is saying: "he must be right because nobody has proven him wrong".
Or, perhaps, the strawman is saying: "We have proven that there is no audible difference between 320 AAC and lossless files" without qualification.

When you have an assertion that is possible to falsify...
Falsifying it proves that it's wrong...
However, failing to do so simply allows you to infer, with increasing likelihood, that it _MAY_ be true...
(Basically, you reach a point where you can say "we've tried really hard to falsify it, and failed, so we're going to assume that it's true"
However, the degree to which this is applicable varies.

For example, I may assert that "no human can run a mile in under four minutes"....
And, if I use myself as a test subject, that will certainly be found to hold true.
And, as you continue to test people, and find that they cannot do so, you may become more convinced that I am right....
However, until and unless you test every human, you cannot claim to have "proven" it "conclusively"....
(In that example, we know that, out of 7.7 billion people, only a half dozen or so of them will serve to falsify that claim, but it is in fact still false.)



StandsOnFeet said:


> True, but totally irrelevant. The test is meant to possibly disprove the hypothesis that a difference is not audible, not to prove that nobody can hear a difference. You're shooting at a strawman.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Obviously, I'm referring to an audible difference.  People don't generally test things that are known to be identical to see if they're different ...
> 
> And let's please stop playing burden of proof games, we're trying to figure out how things are, not win debates or legal cases.  In my engineering firm, the concept of burden of proof never comes up when we evaluate and design things.


it never comes up because you're all engineers and you don't keep coming up with antigravity beams. also when you propose something, it won't come out of nowhere and be supported by nothing at all. you'll at least have some data that was the reason why you came suggesting something. in here, we need the burden of proof if only to keep our sanity and stop debating any crazy stuff as if it was a very serious matter.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

Phronesis said:


> Think of medical clinical trials. Nobody spends lots of money doing clinical trials if they expect that a drug doesn't work, and the trial needs to be set up such that, if the drug does work, the trial will provide evidence of that.



That's entirely wrong. The hypothesis in those tests is that the drug works, and the test is giving Nature a chance to disprove the claim. It also gives the drug a chance to show its nastier side. The companies obviously want the drug to succeed, but they know that they have to test for the drug _not_ working.


----------



## Phronesis

StandsOnFeet said:


> That's entirely wrong. The hypothesis in those tests is that the drug works, and the test is giving Nature a chance to disprove the claim. It also gives the drug a chance to show its nastier side. The companies obviously want the drug to succeed, but they know that they have to test for the drug _not_ working.



People doing such tests don't generally get hung up on what to say the hypothesis is.  If there's a statistically significant difference between the drug vs placebo (or another drug), that's considered evidence that the drug works.  If such a difference isn't found, the trial failed to provide such evidence (it didn't 'prove' that the drug doesn't ever work).


----------



## castleofargh

off topic


bigshot said:


> Tell us about getting bit by a monkey as a kid! Are there any photos? Was it like the old lady in Dead Alive?


if I see a hot blooded animal(humans not included for social and legal reasons), I will want/need to pet it. the monkey and a great many other animals over the years, just weren't in the mood and they let me know. which of course makes me want to become their friend even more. I just never learn and admittedly got very lucky that it never got beyond losing a little blood(always mine though). 
now cold blooded stuff and insects, you can call me the blur with how fast I run away.


----------



## KeithEmo

You've got several good points there.....

To many of us, based on the technical details, the "obvious default assumption" is that files processed with lossy compression will sound very different.

After all:
- "by the numbers" a significant portion of the data is in fact being discarded
- "by the pictures" the differences between a lossy file and the original are quite obvious on an oscilloscope or audio editor
- there is a long history of claims of things being "audibly identical" which have turned out to be untrue
- as a broad generalization, most audiophiles believe that most differences, especially those that are easily measurable, are likely to be audible
- some of us are made uncomfortable by not having what I would term "wide safety margins" on various things including audio files
  (even if we believe that something is functionally just as good we are still "more comfortable" with something that is "twice as good" than with something that is "just good enough")

And, yes, lack of conclusive proof is going to run afoul of "ego".
Tell a dedicated audiophile that "only 150 people on the entire planet can hear a difference" and, odds are, he will be convinced that he's one of the 150 who can....
And you are not going to convince him that this is unlikely using statistics.
(Face it, if most people found statistics compelling, then very few people would gamble.)

I should also point out that, from a PR point of view. his test has serious issues..........
Many people are interested learning something new - as long as it is both certain and useful.
However, far less people are interested in what they see as a chance to be proven wrong, with no significant upside.
And, no, most people do not see the size difference between lossless and lossy files to be a significant benefit.

I should also point out a "business case situation".....
Assume that a current album can be purchased on CD for $15 or as 320k AAC for $10.
Now, for the sake of argument, assume someone were to prove, beyond any doubt, that nobody on Earth could hear the difference.
Do you honestly believe that everyone will continue to purchase AAC files for $10 an album?
If that were to happen then sales of CDs might be discontinued... or they might not.
However, the price of AAC files, now known to be just as good as CDs, would be raised to the same $15 price.
(The price of a CD, or a file download, is set by what the license owner decides they need to charge - and has little to do with production cost.
if a 320k AAC file is perceived as being "just as good as a CD" they're going to expect to be paid the same amount for it. )



castleofargh said:


> how and why we trust others will change from people to people. I'm going to guess that the friends(true friends) you trust completely by default, are small in number and that they have consistently given you reasons to trust them over the years. so they have demonstrated that you could trust them, if not on that specific topic, but on many others making you think they will tell it like it is this time too. my analogy is bad(as usual^_^) in that respect because friends are people we already know a lot about.
> 
> bigshot or me or whoever is going to be biased. that's not a possibility, it's a certainty. just like any testing method worth something is going to introduce some variable that has nothing to do with sitting in a chair relaxed and enjoying music. we agree on that much. a test is supposed to answer a specific question. that's where many conversations are lost here, because the question seems to change as the discussion goes on, and clearly that shouldn't happen. instead a test should have some notion of dependent and independent variables, and we're expecting results about those specific variables. the results are statistical anyway and we can easily lower the degree of confidence we put in the data based on the test itself and what we know or don't know about it.
> bigshot's test does not try to test audibility under the best conditions, so it's more likely to fail his test than one specifically made to try and pass. I don't think he tried to say otherwise or misled people about that. now his interpretation of the results are that if you don't notice something with the different files playing one after the other, you will have even fewer chances to notice something wrong while casually listening to an album. and I tend to agree with that. I also tend to agree with him asking those who claim to be able to hear the difference, to demonstrate that they can. because as always, a legion of people failing aren't going to be as conclusive as a few guys showing they indeed can pass a blind test. if bigshot's test is too hard, other methods are available. and if no controlled test allows to pass, then I think it becomes important to ask why would anybody believe that he can hear the difference? because a all lot of assumptions here are not born on confirm audibility, but instead on the assumption that is something is objectively changed, then the possibility that it will have an audible impact remains. and it's not an irrational thought, but it's also not a fact based decision and shouldn't try to pass for one IMO.
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> You've got several good points there.....
> 
> To many of us, based on the technical details, the "obvious default assumption" is that files processed with lossy compression will sound very different.
> 
> ...


2 answers: 
1/ people should use what they want to use. I do many things because I feel like it. some have no objective reason, and quite a few contradict objective reasons. I recognize that and am very fine with it in a pure "I do what I want!" kind of way. even publicly. but I get slightly mad when I'm being given a fake objective reason as justification for such actions, and I really dislike false claims, even sincere ones. 
2/ I would oppose all your arguments supporting the possibility of audible difference with the general notion of auditory masking. if you believe in it as described in various studies, you have little reason to doubt lossy encoding process. at least not at the highest bit rates. obviously as the bit rate goes down, the codec starts taking more chances with what may or may not be masked(in time or in amplitude), and even the way to code the signal can become a lot less accurate or reduced in bandwidth or... which is logical and also agrees with experiment. we don't have a hard time hearing some changes on a few 64kbps MP3 tracks. so no matter how bad we are, we do perceive differences that are actually obvious. 
now if some formats bring changes/artifacts that are audible, or simply don't handle specific signals correctly, that is testable. if someone has a killer track, he can share it with us so we can confirm the lack of transparency at least under such circumstance. and then we can talk about the occurrence of such a case in our library. but empty claims of obvious audible differences, that should and will be held accountable and treated as ignorance or troll until it's backed up by some supporting evidence. 
IMO, any claim should be accountable in some ways, even those claiming transparency of course. 

pricing is BS, the industry has continuously failed to adapt to the technological and social changes. they have spend billions on politicians trying to stop internet by force instead of taking control by being the first on it with consumer friendly concepts. but yes I'd expect the worst possible outcome to be what they'd chose, because that's what they have continuously done.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 18, 2019)

Keith when you're telling people what I say, you might want to add this. I say this too...

I don't know about everyone in the world... but I know about Keith! Keith took my test and was unable to discern a difference between 320 and FLAC. He was also unable to discern the 256 totally correctly, but he was close enough that I will give him that. His picks were very consistent below 256. I would say that means that right around 256 AAC is Keith's threshold of audible transparency. I've given my test to dozens of people. Keith's results are as good as any I've gotten. He can be proud that no one has done better than him at this test and only a handful have matched it. He even did a little better than I did and I tried very hard and did more tests than he did!

That's what I say!


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with most of what you said....

However, I find a specific problem with the logic because of the complexity of the lossy encoding process itself - specifically "perceptual encoding" (which includes MP3 and AAC). The process relies on the idea that, when considered as "audible sounds", a significant amount of the information contained in audio files is actually not audible, and so can be discarded without making an audible difference. Each encoder relies on a very complex model of what we can hear, and what sounds are masked by other sounds, which relies on relative frequency, amplitude, and time. For example: "If a 440 hz tone of a certain level occurs within a 50 milliseconds before or after a 1 kHz tone that is at least 6 dB louder, then the 440 hz tone will be inaudible due to masking, and so can be safely discarded". (I don't know if those numbers are correct - but that descriptionfollows the form quite closely.) Because of the nature of how masking works, those values also vary depending on the listening level. And, in specific encoders like MP3, the audio being analyzed is broken up into fixed-length chunks, and the rules may be applied differently depending on where the particular sound occurs in "the window".

The ability of this process to be TOTALLY transparent depends on the absolute accuracy of the model and processing being used. If the model is not totally accurate, or there are flaws in how it is applied, then, under very specific conditions, the encoder may make a wrong decision, and discard something that wouldn't actually have been entirely masked. Note that, because of the nature of this sort of error, it will tend to ONLY occur under very specific circumstances. As a result, if such errors happen, they usually won't "cause the entire file to sound bad". Instead, they will cause an isolated "clinker"; for example, a single drumbeat may be cut off a little abruptly, or there may be an audible shift in the background noise while a bell is fading to silence. Such errors, if they occur, may be of short duration, and may only occur occasionally... but, when they do occur, if you're listebning for them, they will be audible. (This is analogous to a word processing program that consistently misspells a certain word - only if it occurs after a certain other word. The error may only occur occasionally but, when it does occur, it will be probematic.)

Once you consider the process, and the sorts of errors that are likely to occur, it leads to the best methodology for detecting those particular types of errors. In this case, the best way to detect this sort of errors is to do a careful difference of the two files. HOWEVER, we already know that, when we compare the lossy file to the original, we're going to find significant differences (which are supposed to be inaudible). This is going to make it virtually impossible to tell if any of those many differences actually "falls outside the bounds of the masking model" and is in fact audible - even though it shouldn't be.

My point is that this sort of error, which is exactly the sort of error I would expect from a lossy file, based on how the process works, is likely to occur only occasionally, but may be clearly audible when it does occur. I would expect fewer of this sort of error with a high quality encoder - but I remain unconvinced that there will be none at all. If the encoder works well, you might have to listen to ten minutes of music to find a single error, which you might not notice if you weren't listening carefully for it... and which, in all fairness, you might consider "acceptable", even if you did notice it. However, if you are trying to confirm, or prove the lack of, this sort of error... comparing a few minutes of one or two specific samples is NOT likely to enable you to do so.

(Based on how lossy compression algorithms work, this is exactly the sort of error I would expect to find. It is also consistent with my experience with low-bit-rate MP3 files in the past. I usually noticed a general loss of sound quality - particular with high frequencies. However, in addition to that, there would be occasional "clinkers", where certain specific sounds were very distinctly different than on the original. The Fraunhofer paper suggested some specific situations that would be likely to trigger this sort of error in the encoder. )

If I get a chance, I'll see if I can make up a few test files that include sounds that I believe are likely to "trip up" a lossy encoder. While no such test can ever be conclusive, it will be interesting to see how well the various lossy encoders fare under my best approximation of "worst case conditions". 

I would suggest that, while not exactly "BS", pricing is most often NOT based on what many consumers and audiophiles think it is. When it comes to commodities like music, pricing is simply a balance between "what the market will bear" and "what the owner has decided they need to get"... neither of which has any direct connection to what production or distribution actyually costs (other than, if the price is too low, the product may be withdrawn entirely). And, when it comes to "high end audio equipment" in particular, the price is usually based almost entirely on "what the market will pay".

I don't know of a single audio company who bases their pricing on:
1) What is the minimum performance that will count as audibly perfect?
2) What is the lowest price at which we can produce a product that meets those specs?

In the real world it goes more like this:
1) What price point are we aiming to hit? (Low cost product, premium product, audiophile product?)
2) What specs will we need to deliver for our product to be considered "competitive" in that market?
3) Can we build a product that meets those requirements cheaply enough to make a good profit?
4) Is there any way we can improve the product (sound quality or reliability) without adding cost?
4a) Is there any way we can reduce the cost of the product without compromising its performance?

There have been a few companies who honestly tried to build "their dream product" and then figure out how much to charge for it later. A few of them manage to stay in business, but most of them don't last very long. I should also note that, for most companies whose goal is to build the cheapest product possible, the result is usually far below "audibly perfect" and well into the range of "what most people consider acceptable".



castleofargh said:


> 2 answers:
> 1/ people should use what they want to use. I do many things because I feel like it. some have no objective reason, and quite a few contradict objective reasons. I recognize that and am very fine with it in a pure "I do what I want!" kind of way. even publicly. but I get slightly mad when I'm being given a fake objective reason as justification for such actions, and I really dislike false claims, even sincere ones.
> 2/ I would oppose all your arguments supporting the possibility of audible difference with the general notion of auditory masking. if you believe in it as described in various studies, you have little reason to doubt lossy encoding process. at least not at the highest bit rates. obviously as the bit rate goes down, the codec starts taking more chances with what may or may not be masked(in time or in amplitude), and even the way to code the signal can become a lot less accurate or reduced in bandwidth or... which is logical and also agrees with experiment. we don't have a hard time hearing some changes on a few 64kbps MP3 tracks. so no matter how bad we are, we do perceive differences that are actually obvious.
> now if some formats bring changes/artifacts that are audible, or simply don't handle specific signals correctly, that is testable. if someone has a killer track, he can share it with us so we can confirm the lack of transparency at least under such circumstance. and then we can talk about the occurrence of such a case in our library. but empty claims of obvious audible differences, that should and will be held accountable and treated as ignorance or troll until it's backed up by some supporting evidence.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Excuse me... but no.

What it means is that _WITH THE SPECIFIC TEST FILES YOU CHOSE_ that is my threshold of audibility.
It says nothing about how well that would apply to the the ten thousand or so tracks I have in my permanent collection - or the millions of tracks currently in existence.
It also says very little about whether my performance would be different after listening to those tracks dozens of times and becoming intimately familiar with them.
And, for that matter, it says nothing about whether I would have scored better, or worse, if I'd used different headphones, or different speakers (I only tried with one of each).

I would also reference the matter of motivation that Phronesis mentioned.
I made "a fair attempt" to tell the difference... and listened to each several times.
I would say I exercised considerably more effort than I normally would when casually listening to music.
However, to be totally fair, I won't promise that I couldn't have scored better if there had been a $10,000 prize offered for a perfect score.



bigshot said:


> Keith when you're telling people what I say, you might want to add this. I say this too...
> 
> I don't know about everyone in the world... but I know about Keith! Keith took my test and was unable to discern a difference between 320 and FLAC. He was also unable to discern the 256 totally correctly, but he was close enough that I will give him that. His picks were very consistent below 256. I would say that means that right around 256 AAC is Keith's threshold of audible transparency. I've given my test to dozens of people. Keith's results are as good as any I've gotten. He can be proud that no one has done better than him at this test and only a handful have matched it. He even did a little better than I did and I tried very hard and did more tests than he did!
> 
> That's what I say!


----------



## KeithEmo

I wouldn't call it a conumdrum...

They're simply two different potential causes for error...
And both should be recognized, stated, and taken into account or controlled for if possible...

Both sorts of bias can be tested for easily enough...
However, since I think we all agree that both are possible, there's really no need to do so...
We simply acknowledge that they exist and may affect our results.

I should also point out that, depending on your goal, you can take measures to avoid or bypass one or both of them.
One such method is to employ what we refer to as "self selection".

For example, let's say we were to offer the test, at 8 PM on Saturday night, at the local audio club, and offer a $100 prize (or some free prize offered by a sponsor) for anyone who got a perfect score (or the best score).
By choosing an inconvenient time, we have imposed a self selection criterion: Many people who really don't think they can hear a difference won't bother to show up.
However, by offering a prize, we have offered a counterbalancing incentive: People who believe they _may_ be able to hear a difference have both an incentive to show up and an incentive to try their best.
We have self-selected for people who expect to be able to hear a difference and provided them with a strong incentive to try their best to hear one.
Now, by using a double-blind test methodology, and presenting the samples on our hardware, we avoid the possibility that they will cheat
I would also invite participants to bring their own familiar or favorite headphones... this will probably further increase their chance of success, and make them more confident, while not offering an increased chance of cheating.
(If it were preactical I might also consider inviting people to submit their own content for inclusion.)
While still far from "comprehensive", by taking these measures, we have _drastically_ increased the odds that, if anyone can hear the difference, we will find them in our test.



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> oh my.  This *is *quite a conundrum!
> 
> 
> :rolleyes:


----------



## bigshot (Jan 19, 2019)

Keith, you were told how the test worked before you took it, and you said you doubted you would be able to hear a difference even before you heard the test files. You know the truth here, you've just boxed yourself into an argumentative corner and you don't want to admit it. You told me that you were interested to take the test and find out what it would tell you. You did that and found out. Don't cry and try to tear apart the test because you feel like you "lost". You didn't lose. You won. You found out about where your threshold of transparency lies. Take that information and put it to good use. There's nothing to be gained from making more conflicting arguments and digging the hole deeper. You should just retire gracefully from this subject and move on to points you can discuss straightforwardly without having to make logical backflips to defend.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 19, 2019)

If anyone is going to take a test and criticize it after they've taken it and found out their results, they should be prepared to put together a better test. Before they start announcing what the results_ should have been_ or _might have been,_ they should take that better test fairly and see what the results of that test are. That is the scientific method we are supposed to be following here.

A test has been offered and taken.
Results were determined.

The purpose of my test was to determine the threshold of transparency for difficult to compress music (i.e. naturally recorded acoustic instruments, wide frequency response, dense choral masses of sound) in a normal home listening environment. When I put together this test, I didn't put any limitation on how you were to play back or listen to the music. You used your best equipment, took your time, and put a considerable amount of effort into the test. You did your best I'm sure. The results are the results.

If you don't like the results, _prove_ them wrong and define what exact circumstances need to be different to obtain a different result. Don't just talk down the test. That isn't an adult way to deal with disappointment.


----------



## GearMe (Jan 19, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> Excuse me... but no.
> 
> What it means is that _WITH THE SPECIFIC TEST FILES YOU CHOSE_ that is my threshold of audibility.
> It says nothing about how well that would apply to the the ten thousand or so tracks I have in my permanent collection - or the millions of tracks currently in existence.
> ...



https://www.head-fi.org/threads/set...-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding.655879/

No dog in this fight from the perspective of the codec side.  I have many lossy (mp3, etc.) and non-lossy (CDs --> FLAC) songs in my library..._wasted storage left and right -- oh the humanity!  _

I know that, for my ears, the lossy files work just fine and I routinely purchase compressed downloads when buying the CD is difficult/inconvenient/doesn't make sense to me.

That said, storage is cheap...so I rip my CD's to FLAC and never give it another thought.

For me...it's more about the master and the transducers.


----------



## Elecroestatico

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Lol how can anyone NOT see the brilliance and wisdom of this man’s posts?? This is bordering on the insane!
> I for one have indeed seen the light: from now on I will only trust people that judge gear with their eyes fixed on the price and of course use the  clever lol for giggles..just like my main man Einstein lol!


right?  ...why cant they just say a simple thank you to me? But please do not trust your eyes to judge audio gear, if you think im brilliant, wise and clever, please lets wait and ask what 40 dollar dac sounds like a 1400 dollar oppo dac, then when we know the answer we buy it and put pretty led lights and a shiny case to make it look expensive.  Now we acoustically satisfy the ear and the eye... simply genius like Einstein lol


----------



## Elecroestatico

bigshot said:


> This guy talks much more than he knows and it shows. He's been here before doing the same thing around Thanksgiiving in the Convincing Wires Don't Matter thread and got dismissed summarily. I guess he figures we've forgotten. He doesn't post much in the rest of HeadFi any more. Perhaps he's relegated this handle to being his trolling account.
> 
> What ifs are a time honored technique for weaseling out of situations where someone is wrong and doesn't want to admit it.


what if this what if that.... but what if more flaws are found in your test?


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Elecroestatico said:


> what if this what if that.... but what if more flaws are found in your test?


Not so far!


----------



## Elecroestatico

castleofargh said:


> just think about a real life situation with your friends. they all wish to do something(sleep with that super hot girl you all know that won't even give any of you the time of the day, go skydiving, win a million bucks with a lottery ticket, whatever), but they haven't for many reasons. you tell them that you did all that and can do it anytime you want. your friends might be entertained and maybe even impressed for a minute, but at some point they will expect you to prove that you're not full of crap. and if you never bring them supporting evidence instead of "dude trust me", soon enough you'll become known as the mythomaniac of the group.
> exact same stuff here. when bigshot says he can't tell between high bitrate AAC and a lossless format, if that's bragging, it sure is a weird way of doing it. the guy shares his failure to notice a change. I'm in the same situation and so are a many people here. so when you come bragging about how easy it is to notice a difference between basically anything and anything else, well, we're the others guys in your group of friends starting to think that you're full of it.  to change our mind you could take back what you claimed, or provide strong enough evidence to support the claims and convince us.
> and that's about it.
> 
> ...



I did close my eyes and imagine such real situation and came to the conclusion that indeed you will become a mythomaniac if you cant prove you can have intercourse with that ultra hot girl. So we are not only on the same boat here bbut also about the opinion of bigshot bragging about his failure to tell high bit rate acc (at least hi is comparing using the best lossy format and hopefully at 320 kbs) from a lossless version.  Now where we are not on the same boat is when you tell me I have come here to brag about how easy is to tell such differences bewtween  lossy and lossless file, and part of the reason im hopping they cant tell a difference using a lossy file at 320kkps and im glad is ACC because this is where its hard to tell if such sample is lossy or not.  Easy to tell under real life activities? hardly so, but in a  A B test with the right equipment and sombody that actually can set things right (unlike other test that you find flaws right away without even looking hard) you can still discern a lossless sample if not then maybe your ears are getting old, justt the way life works and i will be in the same boat one day hopefully

ps  i hope you realize YOU ARE A guinea pig if you have been bitten by a monkey and broken your arm under controlled testing and by many eye witnesses, oh well at least you can still hear differences between your sounding devices, just dont use different IEMs to conclude minor differences in devices, that sounds a bit uncontrolled


----------



## KeithEmo

I haven't changed my point of view at all.
Therefore I haven't lost or won.

I have no doubt that, MOST of the time, I won't notice any difference between an AAC 320 files and lossless ones.
However, I am NOT convinced that that I will NEVER hear a difference, under ANY circumstance, with ANY file.
Although I am forced to accept uncertainty in many things, I dislike it, and prefer to avoid it whenever possible.
In this case, I can actually have a degree of certainty, and the extra cost for it is minimal.

I don't honestly know if any file I currently have, or will ever own, would trick the AAC encoder into making a mistake.
However, considering how complex the models involved in lossy compression are, I suspect that it does or may in fact happen occasionally.
But, for the cost of a little extra space, I can have a lossless file, which I _DO_  know with _ABSOLUTE_ certainty is identical to the original.
I simply see no purpose in seeking "the best possible copy", or even "a perfect copy", when I can have the original for a small extra premium.

I am curious.....
How many hudreds or thousands of files have you actually carefully compared?
Personally, I would have to have compared at least hundreds, and perhaps thousands, before I would "simply trust that the process probably never screws up".
(If space was expensive, and I faced a choice between sacrificing a little certainty, in return for room to save a lot more songs, I might be willing to compromise - but that isn't the case.)

Do I need that level of certainty? 
No
But, for a few cents extra, I absolutely enjoy having it.



bigshot said:


> Keith, you were told how the test worked before you took it, and you said you doubted you would be able to hear a difference even before you heard the test files. You know the truth here, you've just boxed yourself into an argumentative corner and you don't want to admit it. You told me that you were interested to take the test and find out what it would tell you. You did that and found out. Don't cry and try to tear apart the test because you feel like you "lost". You didn't lose. You won. You found out about where your threshold of transparency lies. Take that information and put it to good use. There's nothing to be gained from making more conflicting arguments and digging the hole deeper. You should just retire gracefully from this subject and move on to points you can discuss straightforwardly without having to make logical backflips to defend.


----------



## KeithEmo

That's pretty much my sentiment......

I don't disagree that, in most cases, most of the time, good quality lossy files are plenty good enough...
However, because space is cheap, I see no reason to settle for "plenty good enough" when I can have "absolutely perfect"...

There is another issue which I would also point out...

If you RIP your own CDs, and then encode them, you will same a small amount of space by using lossy compression rather than FLAC.
However, you will still have to purchase the CD, or the lossless file, in order to encode it yourself.
Therefore, the only place you're saving space is on your library drive or portable player.

And, if you purchase files that have already been compressed using lossy encoding, you have no control over the encoder or settings that were used.
You are not only trusting that lossy encoding _CAN_ be audibly transparent; you are trusting that _THE ENCODER AND SETTINGS USED ON YOUR PARTICULAR FILE_ are audibly transparent.

And, of course, if you download or trade bootleg files, it is quite possible that they were processed using a low quality or outdated encoder, or re-encoded multiple times.
Lossy encoders cause cumulative differences, so encoding a file with a lossy encoder, then re-encoding or converting it, increases the odds of audible artifacts and differences.
(But, then, if you download or trade bootleg files, it's distinctly possible they were sourced from low quality files anyway.)



GearMe said:


> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/set...-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding.655879/
> 
> No dog in this fight from the perspective of the codec side.  I have many lossy (mp3, etc.) and non-lossy (CDs --> FLAC) songs in my library..._wasted storage left and right -- oh the humanity!  _
> 
> ...


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Elecroestatico said:


> right?  ...why cant they just say a simple thank you to me? But please do not trust your eyes to judge audio gear, if you think im brilliant, wise and clever, please lets wait and ask what 40 dollar dac sounds like a 1400 dollar oppo dac, then when we know the answer we buy it and put pretty led lights and a shiny case to make it look expensive.  Now we acoustically satisfy the ear and the eye... simply genius like Einstein lol


Well every dac I’ve ever tried has sounded the same so I guess I will be needing those flashy lights then.
My iPod nano sounds the same as the Pioneer xdp300r...and that sounded the same as my Aune X1. The latter I have tested extensively in a/b blindtesting where I’ve compared it to the Hugo 2, the Schiit Yggdrassil, Benchmark 2 as well as a lot of others.
Volumes level matched, instant flick of the switch to change unit, set up in my apartment for a weekend where I was free to listen to whatever for as long as I felt like it..in order to sniff out which was “better”.
They were all “best” though and unless your momma got it on with a feisty spermwhale I very much doubt your claims that completely go against established science.


----------



## 71 dB

Lets assume there is a minute difference between 256 lossy and lossless. A difference someone can just notice. Can such a small difference have an effect of enjoyment of the music? Huge diffrence can of course affect the enjoyment (such as +3 dB too much bass), but these tiny differences? People say they can tell A and B apart if they listen to carefully, but does it matter? Were is the threshold of where it starts to matter? Do we listen to music to detect differences or to enjoy music? How about forgetting about bitrates and just enjoying the music?

There is a fine balance in audio. Most people are totally ignorant about sound quality while some people want ultra-high samplerate downloads. People should ask themselves "do I enjoy listening to music?" If not why? Good music helps enjoying music. Sometimes improving sound quality helps.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

I can't differentiate between relatively low bit-rate lossy and FLAC. I purposely haven't trained myself to be able to spot the compression artifacts, so I'm probably comparing the "wrong" parts of the music in my testing. I _am_, however, concentrating on the parts of the music that bring me the most pleasure, and those are indistinguishable between the two formats. I find that I can enjoy the heck out of my music, even when drastically compressed, and I reckon that that is a Good Thing.


----------



## GearMe

71 dB said:


> Lets assume there is a minute difference between 256 lossy and lossless. A difference someone can just notice. Can such a small difference have an effect of enjoyment of the music? Huge diffrence can of course affect the enjoyment (such as +3 dB too much bass), but these tiny differences? People say they can tell A and B apart if they listen to carefully, but does it matter? Were is the threshold of where it starts to matter? Do we listen to music to detect differences or to enjoy music? How about forgetting about bitrates and just enjoying the music?
> 
> There is a fine balance in audio. Most people are totally ignorant about sound quality while some people want ultra-high samplerate downloads. People should ask themselves "do I enjoy listening to music?" If not why? Good music helps enjoying music. Sometimes improving sound quality helps.



*Can't stress how much I agree with post!*

TBH, spending time looking for those nuances would absolutely kill the joy I get from listening to great music


----------



## gregorio

Elecroestatico said:


> [1] why cant they just say a simple thank you to me?
> [2] ...if you think im brilliant, wise and clever ...



1. You've already asked that question and it's already been answered, so why are you asking it again?
2. Why would we think that when you're trying your best to make us think the exact opposite?

G


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Jan 20, 2019)

71db touches upon a subject that has been bugging me lately: how many actually listen to the gear via the music ..and not the other way around?
I slowly but steadily got snuck into this false equation unknowingly leaving my immense enjoyment of music by the side of the road whilst my mind was chasing mice inside my skull - continuously reading conflicting reviews and opinions on what my next “upgrade” should take its form as.

It’s insane...most especially now that I found out that most if not all of those differences I clearly heard between different daps/dacs/amps somehow magically disappears once I focus entirely on how they sound without using my peepers. Granted some times these things are complex and highly difficult experiments to set up if you want to eliminate every bias you possibly can, but for me at least it has been worth it.
I do believe most audiophiles would need similar convincing in order to get back to that oh so carefree state where music just is and one almost never worries about sq because you did the legwork yourself and realised you couldn’t run a hundred miles an hour.

I have a lot of headphones. I do. Every time I go from one to another I am reminded of how I used to be. I’d instantly inspect sound sig, sound field, bass, mids and treble, clarity and yaddayaddayadda...
I still do this to a certain extent but then again who wouldn’t if they’ve got ears? BUT I am almost instantly shot into a certain place of affection - one where the music is paramount and instantly put up on a plinth.
I had great difficulties in achieving the peace of mind that allowed me to do so previously to all these blind tests.

Also small thing before I go: I remember not giving a damn about the production of an album..if it was the bee’s knees. Everything from The Stooges to poorly recorded Rock Progressivo Italiano had equal chance of ending up in the stereo.
Not when I was sick ie had the audiophile bug where it mostly resembled a never ending search for specific albums recorded in a certain way.
Again a deroute from the enjoyment of music...and boy there are a lot of those!
I guess I’ll just get back to my obscure gem from the boot country, Blocco Mentale’s Poa, where the vocals seem to be much too much for the poor mic to handle...yet it gives off a charm - a powerful connotation to the music - almost as if this sudden jolt of fire couldn’t be held back by physical contraptions and exceeded the very bounds of reality.
-All that wonderful esoteric mumbojumbo that turns music into wondrous things instead or having to play second fiddle to the gear.


----------



## GearMe

Agreed...would rather listen to an artist/song I like on a boom box than the best recorded piece on $100,000 system


----------



## Phronesis

Listening to music and listening to sound are definitely not the same thing, and focus on one can interfere with the other, since our attentional bandwidth is limited.  

But if recording quality is notably poor, I’ve experienced that reducing my enjoyment of music, and I’ve also experienced excellent recording quality increasing my enjoyment of music. 

Best scenario is to have excellent recording quality and gear, but only pay attention to the music, sort of like how the acting is good when you don’t notice how good the acting is, and instead get lost in the characters and story.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Jan 20, 2019)

With regards to headphones and poor production this whole sickness actually stems from my love of the AKG Q/K701/2 and how that sounds with a wellproduced album. I was listening to Dead Can Dance earlier over my Q701 and seriously questioning why I have it up for sale.
Had I played that Blocco Mentale album it would have been a rough ride and I would have been far too concerned with the production than the actual music.
An HD800 will do the same.

Which is why I’ve decided to rid myself of these scalpel-like headphones that more than often puts bad production under a miscroscope over the actual musical content of the album.
(Also I bought the K7XX which fixes the above..yet still retains the sparkling nature of a 7 series AKG)

All in the name of eliminating possible hurdles standing between me and my music.


----------



## Phronesis

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> With regards to headphones and poor production this whole sickness actually stems from my love of the AKG Q/K701/2 and how that sounds with a wellproduced album. I was listening to Dead Can Dance earlier over my Q701 and seriously questioning why I have it up for sale.
> Had I played that Blocco Mentale album it would have been a rough ride and I would have been far too concerned with the production than the actual music.
> An HD800 will do the same.
> 
> ...



My solution (for now) is to have multiple headphones and choose a headphone based on my mood and the recording.  For example, I find that the combo of the HD800S and a great recording with a lot of sound/music content packed into it can enhance my enjoyment of the music, whereas other times I prefer the more laid back and somewhat 'warm' sound of the LCD-3 or 99 Classics.  The Clear sort of splits the difference between these two cases.


----------



## gregorio

Phronesis said:


> Listening to music and listening to sound are definitely not the same thing, and focus on one can interfere with the other, since our attentional bandwidth is limited.



I'm not sure I understand what you mean? There are some conceptual differences when working with music or sound but I don't think those differences are what you're referring to.

G


----------



## analogsurviver

Regarding the sheer sound quality requirements, there are genres that actually demand it - nothing but the best available would do, while still leaving the space to desire more - and thus fuel the need to develop better gear that, eventually, should close the gap of live vs recorded sound once and for all. 

There is nothing as demanding as contemporary music - where the composers would leave no stone unturned, be it either the frequency range, dynamic range and/or direction of the sound..

I certainly can listen to familiar music recorded less than optimally and/or on limited capabilities equipment. But, I would have enjoyed it more if the recording and playback equipment would be better- absolutely no doubt about that.

I see absolutely no point in listening to a superbly recorded "extreme" music on poor equipment - or vice versa. 

Somewhere above, I have seen 100 K $ mentioned as being some sort of "limit" or "guarantee" to be able to truly appereciate the difference between say lossless to compressed audio. 

There is no such thing ...  - only in one's head. I have seen - and HEARD - systems well north of 100K that not only struggled, but frankly failed at reproducing a decent uncompressed recording. Most audiophile oriented gear generally can not reproduce more dynamic range than possible with conventional analogue record . 

One extreme case for the absolute requirement for the equipment to be at least "unobjectionable" is electronic portable organ player https://www.cameroncarpenter.com/. 



To fill the actual music hall with the sound that does not look an absolutely pale Minimundus https://www.minimundus.at/en/ copy of the real thing , the speakers HAVE TO BE UP TO THE TASK. He has been playing at the Cankarjev dom, in the Gallus hall, which sportra very good real organ instrument - and could , at very least, hold his own - even in A HALL OF THIS SIZE:
https://www.google.si/url?sa=i&sour...aw3BcYdjJVAJbCGIE8Ublncb&ust=1548079035585097

It was a reality check regarding equipment for the audiophiles being grossly and outrageously overpriced - as similar speakers as used by him in audiophile livery sell for many times multiple of the normal pro use price. 

Such equipment/price limitations apply FAR less in headphone world - and this IS head-fi. No reason one could not put together a decent headphone system for say under 2 k that could support hirez ( 88.2 kHz sampling and above ) and make recent topic of limited bandwidth RBCD vs lossy storm in a teacup - moot for good.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

I'm not sure, either. I sometimes just bathe in the _sound_ of the music without paying a lot of attention to how that sound strings itself out in time. One beautiful chord after another, without much conscious thought of how they relate to each other. I doubt that's what he meant, though.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you mean? There are some conceptual differences when working with music or sound but I don't think those differences are what you're referring to.
> 
> G



I'm saying that when we focus our attention on sound quality (tonal balance, detail, etc.), that takes attention away from the 'higher-level' musical content, and vice versa.


----------



## GearMe

Phronesis said:


> I'm saying that when we focus our attention on sound quality (tonal balance, detail, etc.), that takes attention away from the 'higher-level' musical content, and vice versa.



Yep!


----------



## Steve999 (Jan 20, 2019)

I often use these when I want a nice balanced even sound and to concentrate on the music on headphones. They seem to stand up to testing pretty well as far as critical listening goes:

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/superlux/hd-681

And the price is nice and relaxing too. For those occasions where unpowered open headphones at the end of a wire without me lying down will suffice they seem to give me everything I want. It is interesting, as one person alluded to in the past, that they are made by a microphone company.

As far as speakers and just enjoying the music, I’m all in! In my experience there is the most to gain by trying to approach smooth, deep, even bass, once you get into a certain quality of speakers. The speakers will take care of the low mids to highs largely on their own from a fairly low price point, in my experience. But it takes experimentation with how speakers and subwoofers interact in a particular room to get the real bass right. The way they record music nowadays it seems like some of the bass just goes missing if your system isn’t built to reach that low or isn’t performing as it could. It seems to me that on older recordings they left enough clues as to the lower registers so you didn’t need the speakers to go all the way down to know the bass content was there. Nowadays the way recordings tend to be made if the speakers don’t reach that low it seems to me I miss out on musical content. I can’t concentrate at a high level (for me) on those parts of music in the audible spectrum that the system is not reproducing in the first place. At the extremes, I’ve gone from one system and heard musical bass content and then to another and it’s not there to a meaningful degree. I don’t know the how’s or why’s of it or if I am mis-perceiving. For me the greatest luxury to having some time, effort, and spare change to spend is approaching hearing all of the intended bass on speakers.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> ... while still leaving the space to desire more - and thus fuel the need to develop better gear that, eventually, should close the gap of live vs recorded sound once and for all.



You been repeating this for at least a couple of years now. It's a common audiophile myth and marketing tactic that has been explained to you numerous times but you just completely ignore it all and then pop-up sometime later and repeat it yet again, why is that? For (hopefully) the last time, better audio gear is never going to "close the gap between live vs recorded sound once and for all" because that gap has little/nothing to do with audio/sound and everything to do with our other senses and biases (the expectation bias of a live gig for example). Much/Most of what you go on to state is therefore nonsense because it's based on this audiophile myth which you appear incapable of comprehending!

G


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 20, 2019)

gregorio said:


> You been repeating this for at least a couple of years now. It's a common audiophile myth and marketing tactic that has been explained to you numerous times but you just completely ignore it all and then pop-up sometime later and repeat it yet again, why is that? For (hopefully) the last time, better audio gear is never going to "close the gap between live vs recorded sound once and for all" because that gap has little/nothing to do with audio/sound and everything to do with our other senses and biases (the expectation bias of a live gig for example). Much/Most of what you go on to state is therefore nonsense because it's based on this audiophile myth which you appear incapable of comprehending!
> 
> G



Maybe it's fair to say that better gear can bring us closer to experiencing 'something like' a live experience of 'some sort', in the sense that it seems more 'real' than 'artificial', even if the gear doesn't actually bring us closer to experiencing a particular real live experience (which may not be the intent of the recording engineers, and such a live experience may not exist).

Even when listening to recordings of acoustic instruments in classical and jazz genres, I personally never assume that I'm trying to simulate being a particular live experience, but rather just enjoying a musical experience created and engineered for stereo gear.  When I want to experience real live experiences (which aren't just musical experiences, since they involve other senses, and social and other aspects), I go to live performances.


----------



## KeithEmo

My boss drives "nice" cars... and spends a lot of money on them. I personally don't think the difference between his Mercedes and my Nissan is all that big a deal... but obviously he does... which is why he bought the Mercedes. Once we agree that a difference exists, then it's up to each of us individually to decide how important that difference is to us.

I personally find the quality of my car radio to be perfectly adequate when listening to music while driving to work. However, when I'm listening at home, and actually concentrating on the music, I notice far more details, and smaller differences become much more important to my enjoyment of the music. And, yes, sometimes I turn up the volume so, by listening to changes in the noise floor, I can tell whether a certain instrument was patched into a track or not, or to hear what the musicians are muttering as the track fades away. Those sorts of things may not matter to you, but they do matter to _me_, and being able to hear them increases _my_ enjoyment of the music. In fact, as someone in the music and audio industry, who is curious about such details, I do actually enjoy having a system that is accurate enough, and revealing enough, that it enables me to hear flaws and differences in the equipment used in the production process itself. When I hear a buzz, I enjoy to be able to tell whether it's a rattle on the snare drum, a buzz in the microphone used to record it, and not simply due to a flaw in my system.

I will also admit to being somewhat OCD when it comes to audio and music. If I can own the CD, I'd rather listen to that, or to a lossless file that I know is identical to it, rather than a lossy file that's "really probably just as good". I don't like the idea that what I'm hearing may not be the best version I have available. If I heard a strange noise on a lossy file, I would end up digging out the CD, just to confirm that it was really on the disc, and wasn't just a compression artifact. I avoid all that time, effort, and uncertainty by just listening to a lossless copy to begin with. Back when 128k MP3 files were the norm, I often ended up purchasing a CD after listening to the MP3 and finding that it sounded a bit off; sometimes there was an audible difference, and sometimes there wasn't; now I just save myself the aggravation.

(For those of you who are too young to remember, back in the dark ages, when 128k MP3 was often used, storage space and download bandwidth were both expensive, which provided a strong motivation to minimize both. There were also several encoders available, and many options for each, many of which were audibly different. In fact, it was widely agreed that, because of differences in their algorithms, certain encoders worked better with specific tracks. I recall one program that actually allowed you to encode an album using all three of the most well-known encoders, compare all three versions of each, and select which version of each to keep. At various points, various people claimed that "this time they had an encoder that was audibly transparent with everything", but none of them ever were. To be candid, now that both storage space and bandwidth have gotten so cheap, it seems like that problem no longer exists. So, when I have the option of converting thousands of files, then comparing each and every one to confirm that the results are audibly perfect, and that someone has finally gotten it right, I just can't work up the motivation.)

I agree with your conclusion.... I prefer to "just forget about the bit rate and enjoy the music"....
And listening to a lossless copy of the original, rather than fiddling with lossy conversions, lets me do that.



71 dB said:


> Lets assume there is a minute difference between 256 lossy and lossless. A difference someone can just notice. Can such a small difference have an effect of enjoyment of the music? Huge diffrence can of course affect the enjoyment (such as +3 dB too much bass), but these tiny differences? People say they can tell A and B apart if they listen to carefully, but does it matter? Were is the threshold of where it starts to matter? Do we listen to music to detect differences or to enjoy music? How about forgetting about bitrates and just enjoying the music?
> 
> There is a fine balance in audio. Most people are totally ignorant about sound quality while some people want ultra-high samplerate downloads. People should ask themselves "do I enjoy listening to music?" If not why? Good music helps enjoying music. Sometimes improving sound quality helps.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree 100%......   I want to be sure that I'm listening to the music and not my system. However, in order to do that, I first have to make sure my system is actually letting me hear the music the way it's supposed to sound, and not altering it.



Kammerat Rebekka said:


> 71db touches upon a subject that has been bugging me lately: how many actually listen to the gear via the music ..and not the other way around?
> I slowly but steadily got snuck into this false equation unknowingly leaving my immense enjoyment of music by the side of the road whilst my mind was chasing mice inside my skull - continuously reading conflicting reviews and opinions on what my next “upgrade” should take its form as.
> 
> It’s insane...most especially now that I found out that most if not all of those differences I clearly heard between different daps/dacs/amps somehow magically disappears once I focus entirely on how they sound without using my peepers. Granted some times these things are complex and highly difficult experiments to set up if you want to eliminate every bias you possibly can, but for me at least it has been worth it.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree.

When I look out of the window, I want to see the scene on the other side; I _DO NOT_ want to see the window.
However, if the window isn't perfectly clear, then I won't be able to do that... 

Some flaws, like scratches and dirt, will simply distract me... 
Others, like colored glass, will prevent me from seeing the scene by altering it...
Some of those alterations will be obvious, while I may fail to notice others, but both are alterations.
Therefore, all of them will prevent me from "just looking at what's outside the window".



Phronesis said:


> Listening to music and listening to sound are definitely not the same thing, and focus on one can interfere with the other, since our attentional bandwidth is limited.
> 
> But if recording quality is notably poor, I’ve experienced that reducing my enjoyment of music, and I’ve also experienced excellent recording quality increasing my enjoyment of music.
> 
> Best scenario is to have excellent recording quality and gear, but only pay attention to the music, sort of like how the acting is good when you don’t notice how good the acting is, and instead get lost in the characters and story.


----------



## KeithEmo

Well said...

I have no expectation that, when I play a recording, it is "an accurate reproduction of the original live performance".
Therefore, the best I can hope for is an accurate rendition of _WHAT'S IN THE RECORDING_, and eliminating obvious flaws and inaccuracies related to that goal.



Phronesis said:


> Maybe it's fair to say that better gear can bring us closer to experiencing 'something like' a live experience of 'some sort', in the sense that it seems more 'real' than 'artificial', even if the gear doesn't actually bring us closer to experiencing a particular real live experience (which may not be the intent of the recording engineers, and such a live experience may not exist).
> 
> Even when listening to recordings of acoustic instruments in classical and jazz genres, I personally never assume that I'm trying to simulate being a particular live experience, but rather just enjoying a musical experience created and engineered for stereo gear.  When I want to experience real live experiences (which aren't just musical experiences, since they involve other senses, and social and other aspects), I go to live performances.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 20, 2019)

If you want to close the gap between live and recorded sound, you first need to record something with that goal in mind, and then mix to a specific multichannel installation using an object based format like Atmos. The big difference between live and recorded isn't fidelity. We can reproduce sound with a high degree of fidelity. The difference involves the placement of sound in space around the listener and the acoustics of the room. In order to reproduce that, you would need to have total control over the acoustics of the listening room and be able to place speakers in specific spots to represent the music source. That isn't something that is likely to happen in a suburban living room. So since reproducing the live sound isn't remotely possible, music is mixed to suit established speaker positions... stereo, 5.1, Atmos... and the mix is optimized for the sound of the average playback in a range of living rooms.

Thinking that splitting the fractions even further will result in more "realistic" sound is Snake Oil 101, and it shows that the person speaking has absolutely no clue how music is recorded and mixed. Audio fidelity has already reached audible transparency. If you want to improve fidelity, the way to do that is to work on upgrading your ears first.



Steve999 said:


> As far as speakers and just enjoying the music, I’m all in!



I'm with you 100% on that. But since this is primarily a headphone forum, there are a lot of people who are unfamiliar with the sound of speakers and are motivated to validate their own limitations. Since they are forced by necessity to use headphones, they try to convince themselves that headphones are better. Anyone with both great headphones AND great speakers knows that there is no comparison. Speakers win hands down.

On another subject, there are no audible flaws or distractions in high data rate lossy files. Keith has done a test and can't discern a difference, even with a particularly difficult bit of music. He knows that he can't hear a difference. If he chooses lossless over lossy, it isn't because of audible sound fidelity. I understand that. I have a friend who has to check multiple times if his front door is locked. It isn't pleasant. But my friend doesn't try to blame the lock for not being locked tight enough. He realizes his unique problem and deals with it himself. He certainly doesn't go around trying to convince other people that their front doors might not be locked!

Is everyone reading this ABSOLUTELY SURE your front door is locked right now? Better go check and make sure! When you've done that, google the internet to see if you can buy a higher data rate version of an album you already own.


----------



## gregorio (Jan 21, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> [1] The speakers will take care of the low mids to highs largely on their own from a fairly low price point, in my experience.
> [2] The way they record music nowadays it seems like some of the bass just goes missing if your system isn’t built to reach that low or isn’t performing as it could. It seems to me that on older recordings they left enough clues as to the lower registers so you didn’t need the speakers to go all the way down to know the bass content was there. Nowadays the way recordings tend to be made if the speakers don’t reach that low it seems to me I miss out on musical content.



1. I can't say that's really my experience. Most consumer speakers don't handle the mids particularly well, particularly in terms of imaging. However, this flaw is typically not as obvious as problems with the bass and unless you've heard decently setup studio monitors, few people probably have a reference of what really good speakers sound like throughout the mids.

2. It's not so much about what "they record" as opposed to what they add and why. The "why" is the club scene in the 1990's; clubs got big, profitable and were no longer just reproducing tracks like some giant juke box but were employing DJs who were creating their own mixes/remixes (and original works) that took specific advantage of the big club sound systems (and massive subs). This is obvious in the case of EDM, which as the name implies is a genre exclusively designed for clubs but it also had an impact on various other genres and sub-genres, which were partly for clubs but not exclusively; The new R&B, drum and bass, quite often Rap, plus others. The "what" is a lot of generated/synthesised LF added to the kick (which is typically sampled) and other processing aimed purely at the LF and taking advantage of big subs. This was never the case with any of the more traditional rock/pop based genres. Even with a genre like heavy metal and it's emphasised kick "thump", it was still basically a real kick drum (just heavily processed) and it still contained extremely important high bass/mid freqs. So even with fairly puny consumer speakers you still got a lot of kick, although more of a sort of low-mid "click" than a "thump". Similar thing with the bass lines.



Phronesis said:


> [1] Maybe it's fair to say that better gear can bring us closer to experiencing 'something like' a live experience of 'some sort', in the sense that it seems more 'real' than 'artificial', even if the gear doesn't actually bring us closer to experiencing a particular real live experience (which may not be the intent of the recording engineers, and such a live experience may not exist).
> [2] Even when listening to recordings of acoustic instruments in classical and jazz genres, I personally never assume that I'm trying to simulate being a particular live experience, but rather just enjoying a musical experience created and engineered for stereo gear.
> [2a] When I want to experience real live experiences (which aren't just musical experiences, since they involve other senses, and social and other aspects), I go to live performances.



1. The vast majority of the time there is not (and could not be) a "live experience", there is ONLY "artificial" and no "real". So if better gear actually is better, then rather than make it sound more "real", it should expose the actual reality that it's "artificial", shouldn't it?

2. Classical and Jazz are a tiny minority of commercial recordings but in these cases, there could be a "live experience". Recordings of these genres are virtually always "idealised" versions of a live experience, with far lower noise floors and more perfect performances than a live experience, plus some mic'ing and mixing techniques which to a limited extent emulate how "perception" could/would alter the sound at a live event. Clearly this illusion is effective for the majority of consumers but we're dealing with perception, not reality. Your approach/attitude towards listening to recordings is, IMHO, wise.
2a. I totally agree with the overall sentiment but not so much with the part in brackets, as a live musical experience is (and has been) almost never just about sound. With the exception of some early church music, the performers were always intended to be seen/looked at and even when that wasn't the case, seeing the environment was certainly intended to be part of the experience.



bigshot said:


> [1] The big difference between live and recorded isn't fidelity. We can reproduce sound with a high degree of fidelity.
> [2] The difference involves the placement of sound in space around the listener and the acoustics of the room. In order to reproduce that, you would need to have total control over the acoustics of the listening room and be able to place speakers in specific spots to represent the music source.



1. Agreed. In fact, recordings typically have far greater fidelity than what we'd actually hear at a live performance.
2. I don't entirely agree with this though. Firstly, we cannot "place sounds around the listener and reproduce the acoustics of the room". Even if this were possible to achieve on a recording, what we'd end up with on reproduction would be the perfect acoustics of say some concert hall, within/plus the acoustics of your sitting room. Secondly, even if this wasn't the case and it were possible to reproduce the acoustics of the concert hall (without any interference from the listening room acoustics) then still the end result would be unpredictable, due to the sensory conflict. We'd be hearing (say) an orchestra in a concert hall but be seeing our sitting room. So, "in order to reproduce that" we would need something well beyond an audio recording, plus a good surround system and an anechoic "holodeck"! As we are dealing with just audio recordings and anechoic holodecks don't yet exist, what we're actually getting is a sort of aural artistic impression, rather than a futile attempt at recording/reproducing what actually existed (or would exist).

G


----------



## old tech

Maybe it is just me but I generally prefer the sound of a good quality studio recording, played on good stereo equipment, over a live performance.

For me, I wouldn't want to recreate the live performance if instead, the producer and recording/mixing/mastering engineers did a good job.


----------



## GearMe

old tech said:


> Maybe it is just me but I generally prefer the sound of a good quality studio recording, played on good stereo equipment, over a live performance...



Would agree for most concert settings. How about for orchestral or chamber in a nice hall....or acoustic jazz/folk/etc. in a small club setting?


----------



## analogsurviver

GearMe said:


> Would agree for most concert settings. How about for orchestral or chamber in a nice hall....or acoustic jazz/folk/etc. in a small club setting?



That is my ( only ) fair game.


----------



## old tech (Jan 21, 2019)

GearMe said:


> Would agree for most concert settings. How about for orchestral or chamber in a nice hall....or acoustic jazz/folk/etc. in a small club setting?


Well, I did say generally... 

I meant mainly pop/rock type of music which I prefer the sound of a good studio production over a live performance.  

I like the atmosphere of a good concert but prefer a studio production for just listening to the music. Probably in part because a lot of the sound is manufactured in the studio and cannot be replicated in a live performance.


----------



## GearMe

Yep...same here with pop/rock.  Personally, would opt for live when it's primarily 'unprocessed' which can be quite hard to find except for classical any more.


----------



## Phronesis

gregorio said:


> The vast majority of the time there is not (and could not be) a "live experience", there is ONLY "artificial" and no "real". So if better gear actually is better, then rather than make it sound more "real", it should expose the actual reality that it's "artificial", shouldn't it?



I'm thinking of a 'sense of realism' where the listener gets pulled into the musical experience and stays immersed in it, rather than becoming disconnected from the music (the spell being broken) and finding the musical experience to be artificial due to flaws like poor tonal balance, noticeable distortion, acoustic instruments sounding muffled or unnatural, etc.  This is similar to the way good fiction writing and movie-making can create an alternate reality containing elements which are unlike our normal reality, but they have a kind of plausibility and hang together in a way which makes the alternate reality seem believable.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 21, 2019)

gregorio said:


> in order to reproduce that" we would need something well beyond an audio recording, plus a good surround system and an anechoic "holodeck"!



That was what I was trying to describe, but holodeck is a better way to describe it. I read once that the do a more primitive version of this in some of the newer rides at Disneyland, but not for the same purposes as recorded music.



old tech said:


> Maybe it is just me but I generally prefer the sound of a good quality studio recording, played on good stereo equipment, over a live performance.



There's a "Ying and Yang" to it. Studio recording techniques can make music sound better than real, but performers tend to have more energy when they perform live than when they construct a performance in the studio. It's a balancing act in the studio to achieve a good sounding spirited recording rather than a good performance with flawed sound quality, or great sound quality with a flat performance. A little bit of both is best.

I've had one live experience that I don't think could be matched by a recording. I attended Wagner's Ring cycle with really good seats. They had the orchestra under the black cowl like at Bayreuth, and the singers and chorus were on stage. The sound of the orchestra went upwards out of the pit and flowed out over the walls like water, filling the whole hall. The voices all were coming from pinpoint directions, and there were even antiphonal and backstage sound effects and music. I've never heard anything like that, but of course the big difference with opera is the visual element. I'm not sure it would be the same if I closed my eyes. I'd love to hear Charles Ives' Holidays Symphony live someday. I got a multichannel recording of it, but they didn't put the antiphonal stuff in the rears for some odd reason.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

With most genres studio recordings,while technically better performed and recorded lack the "loose" unrestrained playing that live performances have.Just generalizing here...there are obviously exceptions.


----------



## Phronesis

Glmoneydawg said:


> With most genres studio recordings,while technically better performed and recorded lack the "loose" unrestrained playing that live performances have.Just generalizing here...there are obviously exceptions.



… and also, some live recordings are really good.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Phronesis said:


> … and also, some live recordings are really good.


Yep....have to agree with the guy with Hemispheres for an avatar...Rush has some of the best live albums around


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> My boss drives "nice" cars... and spends a lot of money on them. I personally don't think the difference between his Mercedes and my Nissan is all that big a deal... but obviously he does... which is why he bought the Mercedes. Once we agree that a difference exists, then it's up to each of us individually to decide how important that difference is to us.



I have requirements for the system I'm listening to. I don't want to listen to a sound system unable to go down to 50 Hz or so for example. For example I would never watch tv listening to the speakers of the tv set: FR goes barely down to 200 Hz, bass frequencies cause resonancies and the FR is far from flat. Treble is horrible. For me decent speakers or a headphone are mandatory for tv sound. Maybe I could listen to news on tv with the default speakers in the situation of emergency, but that's it. However, my requirements have limits. If the bass goes to 40-50 Hz (if I listen to something very sub bass heavy then lower - my speaker system goes to 25 Hz and that's enough for everything), the distortion/resonances are hard to hear and the FR is somewhat flat, I start to be happy. On headphones proper crossfeeding is VERY important, but other than that the best $200 cans are perfect for me.



KeithEmo said:


> I personally find the quality of my car radio to be perfectly adequate when listening to music while driving to work. However, when I'm listening at home, and actually concentrating on the music, I notice far more details, and smaller differences become much more important to my enjoyment of the music. And, yes, sometimes I turn up the volume so, by listening to changes in the noise floor, I can tell whether a certain instrument was patched into a track or not, or to hear what the musicians are muttering as the track fades away. Those sorts of things may not matter to you, but they do matter to _me_, and being able to hear them increases _my_ enjoyment of the music. In fact, as someone in the music and audio industry, who is curious about such details, I do actually enjoy having a system that is accurate enough, and revealing enough, that it enables me to hear flaws and differences in the equipment used in the production process itself. When I hear a buzz, I enjoy to be able to tell whether it's a rattle on the snare drum, a buzz in the microphone used to record it, and not simply due to a flaw in my system.



I wouldn't these kind of things don't matter, but how expensive system do you need to hear muttering musicians? 



KeithEmo said:


> I will also admit to being somewhat OCD when it comes to audio and music. If I can own the CD, I'd rather listen to that, or to a lossless file that I know is identical to it, rather than a lossy file that's "really probably just as good". I don't like the idea that what I'm hearing may not be the best version I have available. If I heard a strange noise on a lossy file, I would end up digging out the CD, just to confirm that it was really on the disc, and wasn't just a compression artifact. I avoid all that time, effort, and uncertainty by just listening to a lossless copy to begin with. Back when 128k MP3 files were the norm, I often ended up purchasing a CD after listening to the MP3 and finding that it sounded a bit off; sometimes there was an audible difference, and sometimes there wasn't; now I just save myself the aggravation.



Yes, Why not CD if you can? I'm listening to a CD of Boccherini's symphonies while writing this. I have the CD. I haven't ripped it so I don't have any lossy or lossless files of the music. For me it means extra work and waste of harddrive space to produce lossy version and in the worst case those versions would sound worse. For outdoor listening I have to rip music and my format of choice is 192 kbps mp3. That's enough for sure in less than optimal listening conditions (Busses! Trafic!). I also pre-crossfeed my mp3s in Audacity, because these files are listened to on headphones only anyway and the need for crossfeeders go away.


----------



## KeithEmo

I do agree that, at least in my opinion, headphones rarely provide "as lifelike a listening experience as speakers". I tend to find headphones to be rather the opposite. They tend to completely lack many factors that would contribute to "a lifelike listening experience", but, at the same time, they often do a better job of allowing me to concentrate on certain details, whether they are flaws or merely details I may not have noticed before. And, as many folks have mentioned, often the "real live experience" isn's especially good, and we probably wouldn't _want_ to reproduce it accurately anyway.

In short, I don't expect headphones to be "accurate", or to "provide a lifelike listening experience" in most cases. I tend to look for headphones, and files to play on them, that lack the flaws and errors that I personally find interfere with my enjoyment of the music. 

Again.....

I didn't notice any difference with a few pieces of music that BigShot is familiar with and I am not.
I don't see that as particularly surprising at all.
I probably wouldn't even notice a difference with many of the files with which I am familiar.
But that still doesn't convince me that I can trust that to be the case, with all files, with absolute certainty.
(I would have to test and compare at least a few hundred files to even be "reasonably sure".)

And, yes, I do usually check that my front door is locked before going to bed.
And, yes, sometimes I find that I've forgotten to lock it, and end up having to do so.
And, yes, I appreciate having a deadbolt with a handle, so I can _SEE_ if it's really locked just by looking at it.
Our doors here at Emotiva actually have a little flag you can read at a distance; red=locked, green=unlocked.
But I've never seen a lossy file with a little flag that says....
"THIS FILE has been certified by thorough testing to be audibly identical to the original." 

My point is the same as it's been all along....
With lossy files, each and every time, we are being asked to "trust" that there will be no audible differences.
Furthermore, I am _NOT_ being asked to trust that a computer program hasn't made a _math_ error...
I'm being asked to trust that it hasn't make an error in _JUDGEMENT_...
(The process is based on the accuracy of a model, and on the assumption that it is applied properly.
In the end there is no way to verify that a lossy file will be audibly perfect by _measuring_ it. 
In the final analysis, all you can say is that, while there are in fact obvious measurable differences,
according to the model, we _shouldn't_ be able to hear those differences. )

I'm betting your friend wouldn't be happy with a door that provided no visible indication of its status.
(One where you actually had to try the knob to see if it was locked or not.)
And, in the past, I've definitely lived in areas where checking your door locks frequently was a good idea.
And, even in good neighborhoods, most people I know do check the knob if all they have is a keyhole.
And, to be a bit flip, considering how many audibly horrible lossy files I've heard in the past.....
This really still seems like one of those neighborhoods to me.
I see both benefits and drawbacks to being trusting.
And, in this case, while the risks may not be too bad, the benefits also just don't seem especially worthwhile.



bigshot said:


> If you want to close the gap between live and recorded sound, you first need to record something with that goal in mind, and then mix to a specific multichannel installation using an object based format like Atmos. The big difference between live and recorded isn't fidelity. We can reproduce sound with a high degree of fidelity. The difference involves the placement of sound in space around the listener and the acoustics of the room. In order to reproduce that, you would need to have total control over the acoustics of the listening room and be able to place speakers in specific spots to represent the music source. That isn't something that is likely to happen in a suburban living room. So since reproducing the live sound isn't remotely possible, music is mixed to suit established speaker positions... stereo, 5.1, Atmos... and the mix is optimized for the sound of the average playback in a range of living rooms.
> 
> Thinking that splitting the fractions even further will result in more "realistic" sound is Snake Oil 101, and it shows that the person speaking has absolutely no clue how music is recorded and mixed. Audio fidelity has already reached audible transparency. If you want to improve fidelity, the way to do that is to work on upgrading your ears first.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Several times, various folks have asserted that "we shouldn't worry about whether there are differences which are only audible at unreasonably high listening levels"....

I was simply stating that, yes, on occasion I _DO_ turn the level up unreasonably high in order to hear a sound between songs, or some small detail...
(and, when I do, errors or omissions that "might not be audible at normal listening levels" may still be important to my "listening enjoyment").
Therefore, I have no use for a file which _MUST_ be played at certain levels, and under certain conditions, to sound audibly correct.




71 dB said:


> .......................
> 
> I wouldn't these kind of things don't matter, but how expensive system do you need to hear muttering musicians?
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I do agree that, at least in my opinion, headphones rarely provide "as lifelike a listening experience as speakers". I tend to find headphones to be rather the opposite. They tend to completely lack many factors that would contribute to "a lifelike listening experience", but, at the same time, they often do a better job of allowing me to concentrate on certain details, whether they are flaws or merely details I may not have noticed before. And, as many folks have mentioned, often the "real live experience" isn's especially good, and we probably wouldn't _want_ to reproduce it accurately anyway.
> 
> In short, I don't expect headphones to be "accurate", or to "provide a lifelike listening experience" in most cases. I tend to look for headphones, and files to play on them, that lack the flaws and errors that I personally find interfere with my enjoyment of the music.



I view headphones, and even speakers, as providing something like a virtual reality experience, so I focus on whether they provide a good experience, rather than 'accuracy' in some imagined or absolute sense.  Things that can definitely diminish the experience include whacky tonal balance, noticeable distortion, lack of detail, and incoherent imaging.  But sometimes the combo of the recording + the headphones + my ears and mood lines up really well, and makes for a sublime musical experience.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 22, 2019)

71 dB said:


> I have requirements for the system I'm listening to. I don't want to listen to a sound system unable to go down to 50 Hz or so for example. For example I would never watch tv listening to the speakers of the tv set: FR goes barely down to 200 Hz, bass frequencies cause resonancies and the FR is far from flat. Treble is horrible.



I'm not that picky. I listen for a bunch of different purposes. When I listen to music as the primary focus, I want the absolute best sound that only my speakers can give me. But as background music in my home or in the car, I'm not as strict. Smaller speakers are OK. If I'm riding a bus or out in the street listening to my iPhone, small portable headphones are fine. I'd rather have music with me all the time than to have to wait to be in a situation where I can hear it perfectly. Also a lot of music doesn't contain a full frequency response. I'm not going to cheat myself out of Caruso, Heifetz, Armstrong or Ellington just because it isn't in stereo and it has a limited frequency response. Music is what is important.

Cranking the volume just to hear the musicians' chairs creak is silly and pointless. It makes me wonder if people like that even listen to music. There are people I see talking at length about equipment or theories of sound or technical trivia, but they rarely talk about music. When they do, it's obvious that they still listen to the exact same sort of thing they listened to in high school. For me, music is the be all and end all. It's the place where I grow. I don't grow by buying more and more expensive equipment, that's for sure. All I grow that way is poor. My huge music collection has made me a little poor, I'll admit! But that's worth it.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> There are people I see talking at length about equipment or theories of sound or technical trivia, but they rarely talk about music. When they do, it's obvious that they still listen to the exact same sort of thing they listened to in high school. For me, music is the be all and end all. It's the place where I grow. I don't grow by buying more and more expensive equipment, that's for sure. All I grow that way is poor. My huge music collection has made me a little poor, I'll admit! But that's worth it.


I continue to listen to the same sort of thing I did when I was in high school, though not exclusively, as my interests have greatly expanded.  I frequently listen to music I often heard while in middle school.  I believe that I get what you meant, but I do take a bit of offense with your jab about high school listening and a supposed maturity with age in regards to musical tastes.  Still, I mostly love you and your contributions to the forum.


----------



## GearMe (Jan 22, 2019)

Freebird!  Freebird!  Freebird!



Hmmm...thanks for picking my playlist for the night!  
Thank goodness I haven't grown up!  

- Clapton
- Santana
- Hendrix
- Stones
- Who
- Allman Bros.
- Led Zeppelin
- Steppenwolf
- Ten Years After
- Doors
- Grateful Dead
- CSN
- CCR
- Doobie Bros
- Pink Floyd
- Springsteen
- Lynyrd Skynyrd
- Aerosmith
- ELP
- EWF
- Deep Purple


----------



## bigshot

I know people who listen to only the same music they listened to in high school. And I know people who never set foot out of the comfort zone of one genre of music. That makes me sad for them. Music and art and culture are huge and varied. Someone can choose to sit in a lawn chair in their own backyard and look at the same rock and shrub and tree for the rest of their life, but I don't think that is a good way to grow and gain life experience.

I'm watching a show called Civilizations on Netflix right now. The premise behind the show is that the things we typically think of as being elements of civilization... political structure, religion, literature, social status, history, etc... aren't the things that define culture at all, and they certainly aren't the things that last through the ages. The thing that defines culture is art, because art is how we see ourselves. Some civilizations, like the Olmecs in South America are only known for their art. We don't know anything else about them. If I was able to, I would love to travel and visit as many different cultures as I can, sampling the huge ocean of humanity far and wide.

I feel like that about art and music too. I would hate to just expose myself to French impressionist paintings or just the blues. Not that impressionist paintings and the blues aren't great... they certainly are. It's just that focusing on one thing is like admiring the toenail of an elephant and not appreciating it in its totality. Maybe life is too short to fully understand and appreciate music and art, but I sure as hell am going to die trying!

Here in the US we have a very short history and an even shorter memory. Our country was founded by Puritans and basic folk that were trying to escape the dense and overbearing culture of Europe. They wanted to wipe the cultural slate clean and create something new from scratch. They did a good job of that, and we benefit from being very efficient and technologically advanced. But our education is based on a sense of practical things that are "in the moment", not the depth of timeless humanity. The arts are downplayed in American culture in favor of more "useful" subjects. Our cultural roots only go back 50 to 100 years, and every year our frame of reference gets narrower as ephemeral pop culture obliterates our sense of deeper humanity. And the shallowest elements of American pop culture are fast becoming the culture of the whole world. I think that it is very sad to think that small. I refuse.

This is a fancy way of saying that the most important thing in life is growth and change. The more you push your own envelope and experience a wide range of art and music, the more you grow and change. The more you grow and change, the more you live. I can't see living exclusively on a cultural diet that is the same thing I consumed as a child. That would be a very small experience and an unfulfilled life.


----------



## castleofargh

music as the comfort that we know, or music as a mean of discovery. I'd bet that we all have both, just clearly not in the same proportions.
about music from when we were teens, I remember reading some work on that, suggesting that those were indeed important years for discovery and making up our own taste. I think it went up to maybe 25 or something, but still somewhere in that area.

not the work I'm talking about, but while trying to find it, I stumbled upon this analysis from Spotify's data.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I'm not that picky. I listen for a bunch of different purposes. When I listen to music as the primary focus, I want the absolute best sound that only my speakers can give me. But as background music in my home or in the car, I'm not as strict. Smaller speakers are OK. If I'm riding a bus or out in the street listening to my iPhone, small portable headphones are fine. I'd rather have music with me all the time than to have to wait to be in a situation where I can hear it perfectly. Also a lot of music doesn't contain a full frequency response. I'm not going to cheat myself out of Caruso, Heifetz, Armstrong or Ellington just because it isn't in stereo and it has a limited frequency response. Music is what is important.
> 
> Cranking the volume just to hear the musicians' chairs creak is silly and pointless. It makes me wonder if people like that even listen to music. There are people I see talking at length about equipment or theories of sound or technical trivia, but they rarely talk about music. When they do, it's obvious that they still listen to the exact same sort of thing they listened to in high school. For me, music is the be all and end all. It's the place where I grow. I don't grow by buying more and more expensive equipment, that's for sure. All I grow that way is poor. My huge music collection has made me a little poor, I'll admit! But that's worth it.


there is something very freeing  about listening to music on cheap car systems,clock radios ect.I find it may be more about the music when you have no expectations for the system itself.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I'm not that picky. I listen for a bunch of different purposes. When I listen to music as the primary focus, I want the absolute best sound that only my speakers can give me. But as background music in my home or in the car, I'm not as strict. Smaller speakers are OK. If I'm riding a bus or out in the street listening to my iPhone, small portable headphones are fine. I'd rather have music with me all the time than to have to wait to be in a situation where I can hear it perfectly. Also a lot of music doesn't contain a full frequency response. I'm not going to cheat myself out of Caruso, Heifetz, Armstrong or Ellington just because it isn't in stereo and it has a limited frequency response. Music is what is important.
> 
> Cranking the volume just to hear the musicians' chairs creak is silly and pointless. It makes me wonder if people like that even listen to music. There are people I see talking at length about equipment or theories of sound or technical trivia, but they rarely talk about music. When they do, it's obvious that they still listen to the exact same sort of thing they listened to in high school. For me, music is the be all and end all. It's the place where I grow. I don't grow by buying more and more expensive equipment, that's for sure. All I grow that way is poor. My huge music collection has made me a little poor, I'll admit! But that's worth it.



Small speakers can have decent bass response if you sacrifice some sensitivity. My main speakers are only 16 cm wide, 28 cm high and 22 cm deep (5.3"x11"x8.7") and they go down to 50 Hz by themselves, but I have passive subwoofer extending the bass one octave lower and the sensitivity is low (81 dB/W/m) which is 5-10 dB less than typical floor standing speakers. Thin TV sets of today can't even have decent speakers nor would it be economically feasible. It's like calling airplanes space rockets. They can take you above the clouds, but not to the ISS or the Moon.

Of course Caruso should not define the criteria for a sound system, but the most demanding material you listen to because you are using the system for different recordings from different eras of audio technology and fidelity. Audio technology has gone a long way and today one can have pretty good performance with an relatively inexpensive system. I like to use the _S-curve method_ to control my spendings on audio gear. The sound quality/performance/fidelity tends to follow an S-curve (Gompertz-curve) as a function of price:



 

Now, try to create this curve for every audio gear you use/need. This is not exact science. It's about how you feel about it. You can start with the "most bang for the buck" point (green circle in the my picture). Near above and below that point are the price limits for rational purchase. For example I think the lower and upper limits for heaphones are about $50 and $500 and the point of most bang for the buck is around $200. Headphones cheaper than $50 are "junk" while headphones above $500 do not offer enough to justify the price. But that's me. For you the limits are perhaps different. A poor person maybe has lower limits than a millionaire, but at least everyone can figure out the limits for herself/himself to help with the purchases decisions. I think this process helps in rationalizing things to yourself and obtain "piece of mind" easier.


----------



## taffy2207 (Jan 23, 2019)

You really need a graph to tell you that value is in the middle of the Market? Talk about overkill.

Science isn't needed for that, common sense is.

Value is invariably in the middle bar a few exceptions (eg. Economies of Scale can make a decent Product cheap). When you buy cheap you tend to get what you pay for, cheap tat. But, as a general rule, when you buy in the middle you tend to get value for money much more often. When you buy expensive stuff you tend to get things you don't need or you're just paying for branding, Marketing, R & D costs etc. Occasionally you get a better product.

It doesn't just apply to Audio, it applies to almost everything we buy. It's basic Economics.


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 23, 2019)

Glmoneydawg said:


> there is something very freeing  about listening to music on cheap car systems,clock radios ect.I find it may be more about the music when you have no expectations for the system itself.



Agreed.  Maybe this help explain why some music which sounded really good to me as a kid, with respect to both the music and the sound quality, doesn't sound as good to me these days with my better audio gear.


----------



## Phronesis

71 dB said:


> Small speakers can have decent bass response if you sacrifice some sensitivity. My main speakers are only 16 cm wide, 28 cm high and 22 cm deep (5.3"x11"x8.7") and they go down to 50 Hz by themselves, but I have passive subwoofer extending the bass one octave lower and the sensitivity is low (81 dB/W/m) which is 5-10 dB less than typical floor standing speakers. Thin TV sets of today can't even have decent speakers nor would it be economically feasible. It's like calling airplanes space rockets. They can take you above the clouds, but not to the ISS or the Moon.
> 
> Of course Caruso should not define the criteria for a sound system, but the most demanding material you listen to because you are using the system for different recordings from different eras of audio technology and fidelity. Audio technology has gone a long way and today one can have pretty good performance with an relatively inexpensive system. I like to use the _S-curve method_ to control my spendings on audio gear. The sound quality/performance/fidelity tends to follow an S-curve (Gompertz-curve) as a function of price:
> 
> ...



I put the upper limit close to $2K, but I think that headphones above a few hundred dollars are generally overpriced compared to speakers, maybe because there are lots of people crazed about listening to music using headphones and willing to spend a lot of money on headphones (more than they can really afford, in many cases).  I bet the profit margins for a lot of expensive headphones are very juicy.


----------



## 71 dB

castleofargh said:


> not the work I'm talking about, but while trying to find it, I stumbled upon this analysis from Spotify's data.



My music listening was pretty passive in nature before high-school. Since my father is into jazz (of 50's and 60's), that's what I heard home. My influences were not Pink Lloyd or Genesis but Clifford Brown and Max Roach's awesome drum solos. My father HATES rock so I didn't learn about rock at home. Instead I learned from my father that rock is music for idiots. I was over 37 years old when I finally discovered rock music I do like: King Crimson. I have played it to my father, but he doesn't like even that kind of sophisticated rock. He is stuck with his jazz, but I have managed to make him appreciate classical music a bit: He likes J. S. Bach and also the operas of Rameau seems to entertain him. Who can blame him, Rameau was a genius and wrote insanely entertaining music.

What were my influences at age 14? Not anything really. I didn't feel there's really music out there for me. I didn't know 99.999 % of all music in the World is "hidden" and not played on radio or in other places for passive listeners. It took me much longer to realize I really need to discover with hard work my favorites such as Tangerine Dream (in Finland Tangerine Dream is almost unknown because they didn't perform in Finland until last year for the first time!). The Internet has made things 1000 times easier, but in the 1980's when I was a teenager you where in the dark. Yeah, a friend was perhaps into Genesis, but that's just one band! How about the thousands of other bands? Nobody exposes them to you. I wasn't able to see even MTV until 2001 when I moved to a house that had cable channels. I was 30 years old! I found "modern dance music when I was 17. It was 1988 and acid house was the big thing. *S-Express* became my first favorite "band". Then came rave, hardcore, breakbeat etc. I became *The Prodigy* fan. 1992 was the pinnacle of "modern dance music." After that it was downhill despite all the drum 'n' bass and trance. At the same time my friend at the university told me about classical music and how cool it can be. I got interested and started to listen to a classical radio station in the background while reading to exams. At first classical music sounded a bit weird for a guy who had a taste for "rave" music, but my ears adjusted fast and I started to really like what I hear. In December 1996 I heard *Elgar*'s _Enigma Variations_ on radio and my mind was totally blown away. I felt it was music that was composed for me by a divine creature. Next summer I got into* J. S. Bach* and these two composers are still my most favorite above the rest. The last 20 years has been discovering music I like and expanding my taste. The internet makes it possible.

It seems that many people have got a "rock education" at home, but I didn't have that I had Max Roach education. It might have been a blessing: I am not stuck on some stupid metal music like KISS or Metallica...


----------



## 71 dB

Phronesis said:


> I put the upper limit close to $2K, but I think that headphones above a few hundred dollars are generally overpriced compared to speakers, maybe because there are lots of people crazed about listening to music using headphones and willing to spend a lot of money on headphones (more than they can really afford, in many cases).  I bet the profit margins for a lot of expensive headphones are very juicy.



So you think $2K cans give so much more fidelity compared to $500 cans as to justifying spending 4x more money? How many years back in time do we need to go to have the performance of $2K being the same as $500 cans today? 10 years? 20 years? Spending $500 on cans today gives you the performance of $2K cans 10-20 years late. Allowing the delay saves you $1.5K.


----------



## KeithEmo

That's pretty much how I look at it. I don't imagine that it is an accurate representation of reality, but I do expect it to support a sort of illusion, and it needs to do that well, and avoid anything which, to me, "jarringly breaks the illusion", or even which "distracts from the main story line".  

I would even carry the analogy to an ordinary TV picture. What we see on TV probably has very little to do with reality, with virtually every scene in a movie either staged, or built outright in a computer these days. However, it's still distracting if a scene is "too dark" or "too light" or "a funny color".... and, if your TV were to develop a big blurry spot in the middle of the screen, it would be obvious that it was a technological artifact, and there would be little question that "maybe it belonged there". Likewise, there is no mistaking a dirty smear on your car windshield for part of the scene outside. 

Perhaps an even better analogy would be the glass over a painting. The glass you normally see over pictures and paintings is relatively clear, but it is still subject to surface reflections, and fingerprints and dirt. You very rarely see a picture frame where you _LITERALLY CANNOT TELL THERE IS GLASS BETWEEN YOU AND THE PICTURE_. You may not consciously notice a color tint, and you may be standing at an angle where there aren't too many reflections, but when you look you can almost always tell that "there's glass there". You move your head a bit, and there are reflections, even though your brain may edit them out pretty effectively when you're standing still.

However, if you go to a high-end framing shop, there is an option called "museum glass".  It is extremely transparent, with no noticeable color tints, no odd warps or wobbles in it, and is treated with an anti-reflective coating. If it's clean it is quite literally invisible to the human eye. You can shine a flashlight on it, and hold it up to the light at different angles, and you just plain can't see anything there. In short, it carefully avoids pretty much all of the cues that normally tell us that "there's a piece of glass there". You usually don't notice the windshield in your car, or the windows in your house, but you can usually tell relatively easily when one or the other is missing.... because the lack of all those cues you've learned to ignore is actually rather obvious. To me, that's what a good audio system should do with sound, at least to the degree that it's possible. Audible artifacts are the equivalent of "dirty fingerprints on the glass", and a  good audio system should minimize them, or hopefully reduce them to the level where they really are inaudible. And, like museum glass, it should also avoid the artifacts that you normally don't notice, or have learned to ignore, but still distract from the experience at other levels. (And, even if your brain does a decent job of "editing out the extra junk", I suspect that many of us enjoy music more when our audio system avoids adding extra distractions. Perhaps we get to enjoy the real details more when our brains don't have to expend as much effort "editing around the flaws".)



Phronesis said:


> I view headphones, and even speakers, as providing something like a virtual reality experience, so I focus on whether they provide a good experience, rather than 'accuracy' in some imagined or absolute sense.  Things that can definitely diminish the experience include whacky tonal balance, noticeable distortion, lack of detail, and incoherent imaging.  But sometimes the combo of the recording + the headphones + my ears and mood lines up really well, and makes for a sublime musical experience.


----------



## Phronesis

71 dB said:


> So you think $2K cans give so much more fidelity compared to $500 cans as to justifying spending 4x more money? How many years back in time do we need to go to have the performance of $2K being the same as $500 cans today? 10 years? 20 years? Spending $500 on cans today gives you the performance of $2K cans 10-20 years late. Allowing the delay saves you $1.5K.



I have a few headphones in the $2K range, and haven't found any in the $500 range that I consider to be quite as good.  The performance/price ratio isn't anywhere near 4X, but I'm willing to pay the 4X difference anyway, because the performance difference is worth it to me relative to what I can afford.  I did also try a couple headphones in the $4K range, and didn't like them quite as much as their siblings which cost less than $2K, so those were cases where the higher price resulted in a slight _decrease_ in performance (for me).


----------



## KeithEmo

But this comes back to the whole question of budget, price point, and what something is worth _to you_.

I'm betting that most of us quite often spend $10 for lunch....
Even though we all know you can survive on a $2 tub of Ramen noodles....
I guess that, in that case, we all agree that "it's worth spending 5x as much".

There's also the issue that, if you take that philosophy too far, you never get to enjoy anything.
_WHATEVER_ your phone or computer costs today, in two years, you'll be able to buy an equivalent one for less, or a better one for the same price.
I'm sure you'll also be able to get a car next year, with more features, for lower cost.

You've got to set your own individual priorities.

Spending $2000 on a pair of headphones sounds like a lot of money... for headphones.
Yet you can easily spend 5x that much for fancy chrome trim and wheel rims for your car... and they won't make it go the least bit faster or get any better mileage.
(Unless you sit on your front porch staring at your car an awful lot, you'll probably get far more enjoyment out of a $2000 pair of headphones than out of a $2000 trim package for your car.)

That same argument has been put forward to justify spending a lot of money on a really good car stereo.
If you have a relatively long commute to work, you probably spend more time listening to your car radio than to "the big expensive stereo" in your living room.
So, accepting that, is it really unreasonable to spend a bit of money to make all that time a little bit more enjoyable?



71 dB said:


> So you think $2K cans give so much more fidelity compared to $500 cans as to justifying spending 4x more money? How many years back in time do we need to go to have the performance of $2K being the same as $500 cans today? 10 years? 20 years? Spending $500 on cans today gives you the performance of $2K cans 10-20 years late. Allowing the delay saves you $1.5K.


----------



## 71 dB

Phronesis said:


> I have a few headphones in the $2K range, and haven't found any in the $500 range that I consider to be quite as good.  The performance/price ratio isn't anywhere near 4X, but I'm willing to pay the 4X difference anyway, because the performance difference is worth it to me relative to what I can afford.  I did also try a couple headphones in the $4K range, and didn't like them quite as much as their siblings which cost less than $2K, so those were cases where the higher price resulted in a slight _decrease_ in performance (for me).



Yeah, you maybe can afford paying 4x more, but don't you anything "better" things to spend that money on? Are you missing on something else to allocate money for $2K cans? Perhaps you earn much better than minimum wage. Maybe you earn better than half of americans ($30.000 or less). That's not many $2K cans and that money pays for all living! Money is very limited unless you belong to the top 1 %. Of course if $2K cans serve you 10 years, it's "only" $200 per year, but there's so much other stuff you need to buy in 10 years period. Refrigeratiors, cars, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, tvs, phones, computers, furniture, etc. So, I don't buy even $500 cans, because $200 cans are good enough with proper crossfeed. I have better use for the "saved" $300 elsewhere. It means financial security if not anything else.


----------



## bfreedma

Value judgments and discussions of personal economics seem to be strange topics for Sound Science.  Hard to see any good coming of it.


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 23, 2019)

71 dB said:


> Yeah, you maybe can afford paying 4x more, but don't you anything "better" things to spend that money on? Are you missing on something else to allocate money for $2K cans? Perhaps you earn much better than minimum wage. Maybe you earn better than half of americans ($30.000 or less). That's not many $2K cans and that money pays for all living! Money is very limited unless you belong to the top 1 %. Of course if $2K cans serve you 10 years, it's "only" $200 per year, but there's so much other stuff you need to buy in 10 years period. Refrigeratiors, cars, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, tvs, phones, computers, furniture, etc. So, I don't buy even $500 cans, because $200 cans are good enough with proper crossfeed. I have better use for the "saved" $300 elsewhere. It means financial security if not anything else.



It all of course depends on one's financial situation.  For some, $2K for headphones is pocket change, for others it's simply unaffordable.  If it's closer to pocket change, people tend to buy what they want, even if the value isn't good, and there isn't really any opportunity cost involved.  The big problem I see with the audio world is that there do seem to be a lot of people who really stretch financially to buy audio gear, for the sake of getting an incremental improvement in sound, and sometimes no improvement at all (beyond a placebo improvement).  Audiophile myths and hearsay fuel the problem big time, as is very evident from spending time in head-fi outside the Sound Science section.


----------



## Slaphead

71 dB said:


> Yeah, you maybe can afford paying 4x more, but don't you anything "better" things to spend that money on? Are you missing on something else to allocate money for $2K cans? Perhaps you earn much better than minimum wage. Maybe you earn better than half of americans ($30.000 or less). That's not many $2K cans and that money pays for all living! Money is very limited unless you belong to the top 1 %. Of course if $2K cans serve you 10 years, it's "only" $200 per year, but there's so much other stuff you need to buy in 10 years period. Refrigeratiors, cars, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, tvs, phones, computers, furniture, etc. So, I don't buy even $500 cans, because $200 cans are good enough with proper crossfeed. I have better use for the "saved" $300 elsewhere. It means financial security if not anything else.



I've often said that in this hobby you need to keep it real, and it's refreshing to see somebody (you) doing just that. As @Phronesis said there are too many people killing themselves financially to try and keep up with high end, when a carefully chosen headphone and dac/amp for under $1000, maybe under $500, will deliver up to 90% of what high end has to offer.

IMO if you spend more than 15-20% of your monthly income on a "component", and that's also including saving, then you're overdoing it.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 23, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> I stumbled upon this analysis from Spotify's data.



OK, I am definitely an exception. That chart drops to nothing at 30. That was when I was just getting started. I've had three decades to grow since then! I didn't really take music seriously until I was in college.



71 dB said:


> So you think $2K cans give so much more fidelity compared to $500 cans as to justifying spending 4x more money?



I have $1200 headphones and I figure they're worth 3X my old $400 Sennheisers. I've spent a lot on speakers. Transducers are the part of the system where you can actually hear improvements. Less so when it comes to players and amps. I don't see any value to spending a lot there except for features. That might actually be true for my headphones too. I could make my old Senns as balanced as my Oppos but it would require me lugging around an equalizer. I suppose that qualifies as a feature.


----------



## Phronesis

Slaphead said:


> I've often said that in this hobby you need to keep it real, and it's refreshing to see somebody (you) doing just that. As @Phronesis said there are too many people killing themselves financially to try and keep up with high end, when a carefully chosen headphone and dac/amp for under $1000, maybe under $500, will deliver up to 90% of what high end has to offer.
> 
> IMO if you spend more than 15-20% of your monthly income on a "component", and that's also including saving, then you're overdoing it.



Part of the problem is the "hobby" aspect, which results in churning through gear and adds to the cost.


----------



## bigshot

I've never churned through gear. I buy the right tool for the job and use it until it wears out or becomes obsolete. Churning is OCD. It means shopping for stuff is more important to you than the stuff itself.


----------



## 71 dB

Slaphead said:


> IMO if you spend more than 15-20% of your monthly income on a "component", and that's also including saving, then you're overdoing it.



Typical income level in western countries is about $3000-$3500 before taxes. 20 % of that is $600-$700. So, $2K or even $1K cans forces medium earners to overdo it. Elsewhere in the World the income level is even lower.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I have $1200 headphones and I figure they're worth 3X my old $400 Sennheisers.



Why do you have headphones? You always tell us how speakers are superior and how you listen to speakers for the soundstage.


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> Why do you have headphones? You always tell us how speakers are superior and how you listen to speakers for the soundstage.



I have Oppo PM-1s. They are very good cans. The speakers are still MUCH better sounding though.


----------



## castleofargh

71 dB said:


> My music listening was pretty passive in nature before high-school. Since my father is into jazz (of 50's and 60's), that's what I heard home. My influences were not Pink Lloyd or Genesis but Clifford Brown and Max Roach's awesome drum solos. My father HATES rock so I didn't learn about rock at home. Instead I learned from my father that rock is music for idiots. I was over 37 years old when I finally discovered rock music I do like: King Crimson. I have played it to my father, but he doesn't like even that kind of sophisticated rock. He is stuck with his jazz, but I have managed to make him appreciate classical music a bit: He likes J. S. Bach and also the operas of Rameau seems to entertain him. Who can blame him, Rameau was a genius and wrote insanely entertaining music.
> 
> What were my influences at age 14? Not anything really. I didn't feel there's really music out there for me. I didn't know 99.999 % of all music in the World is "hidden" and not played on radio or in other places for passive listeners. It took me much longer to realize I really need to discover with hard work my favorites such as Tangerine Dream (in Finland Tangerine Dream is almost unknown because they didn't perform in Finland until last year for the first time!). The Internet has made things 1000 times easier, but in the 1980's when I was a teenager you where in the dark. Yeah, a friend was perhaps into Genesis, but that's just one band! How about the thousands of other bands? Nobody exposes them to you. I wasn't able to see even MTV until 2001 when I moved to a house that had cable channels. I was 30 years old! I found "modern dance music when I was 17. It was 1988 and acid house was the big thing. *S-Express* became my first favorite "band". Then came rave, hardcore, breakbeat etc. I became *The Prodigy* fan. 1992 was the pinnacle of "modern dance music." After that it was downhill despite all the drum 'n' bass and trance. At the same time my friend at the university told me about classical music and how cool it can be. I got interested and started to listen to a classical radio station in the background while reading to exams. At first classical music sounded a bit weird for a guy who had a taste for "rave" music, but my ears adjusted fast and I started to really like what I hear. In December 1996 I heard *Elgar*'s _Enigma Variations_ on radio and my mind was totally blown away. I felt it was music that was composed for me by a divine creature. Next summer I got into* J. S. Bach* and these two composers are still my most favorite above the rest. The last 20 years has been discovering music I like and expanding my taste. The internet makes it possible.
> 
> It seems that many people have got a "rock education" at home, but I didn't have that I had Max Roach education. It might have been a blessing: I am not stuck on some stupid metal music like KISS or Metallica...


well, stats are stats. we all have our own lives that conditioned a great many things.


about stupid metal... I guess it's ok to be judgemental about subjective stuff, but art we don't like is still art.
evidence number 1:


aaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg


----------



## KeithEmo

I think you've brought up an important point - but I think I might disagree with your conclusion.

A hobby is something you do for fun; and many hobbies aren't especially utilitarian; and many are VERY expensive. 

I believe that "audiophiles" really fall into two groups: those who like listening to music and consider their equipment a way to do it, and those whose hobby is collecting, building, or trying out audio equipment. For the former, the most sensible thing is to find equipment that they find adequate, and then stop spending money on equipment. However, for those whose actual hobby is _AUDIO EQUIPMENT_, I guess it would ruin all the fun if they stopped buying new equipment to play with.

I also think this is true of any hobby. You can buy a bicycle that works just fine to get you to the corner store, and provides all sorts of wonderful exercise, for a few hundred dollars. Yet you can also spend tens of thousands of dollars for a bike. And we all know how big a difference there is between the price of an economy car and a sports car. And, yes, there are professional bike riders who actually "need" those $10k bikes, and race car drivers who need fast cars, but there are also people who just ENJOY customizing their bike, or working on their car. I know people who go to the shooting range to perfect their skills - with a single very accurate target pistol. But I also know others who try a different one every time, because they just enjoy trying out different ones. Why is it any more foolish to spend thousands of dollars customizing a car that never goes on the track than it is to spend a small fraction of that on audio equipment... even if you don't really need it, and even if you just collect it, or sell the old one and buy a new one every six months?

Perhaps what we're really missing is a place like a shooting range... where, for $20 an hour, you can listen to any headphone or headphone amp from a long list, _without_ having to buy it.  



Phronesis said:


> Part of the problem is the "hobby" aspect, which results in churning through gear and adds to the cost.


----------



## KeithEmo

I personally find that both speakers and headphones have their advantages.

I find speakers to sound more natural, and enjoy them more for casual listening, so I do most of my listening with speakers.
However, I find that good headphones are better at revealing fine details, although at the expense of sounding natural.
I have never heard a speaker, of any type, at any price, that reveals as much fine detail as even a medium-priced electrostatic headphone.
(And I find a mid-priced electrostatic, like the Koss ESP/950, to sound more revealing than any planar or dynamic headphone at any price.)
I also find even the most comfortable headphones to be constraining - wires reduce my mobility and even wireless ones still block wision and situational awareness.



bigshot said:


> I have Oppo PM-1s. They are very good cans. The speakers are still MUCH better sounding though.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Yet you can also spend tens of thousands of dollars for a bike. And we all know how big a difference there is between the price of an economy car and a sports car.
> [2] And, yes, there are professional bike riders who actually "need" those $10k bikes, and race car drivers who need fast cars ...
> [3] Why is it any more foolish to spend thousands of dollars customizing a car that never goes on the track than it is to spend a small fraction of that on audio equipment... ?



1. Have you ever ridden an expensive, competition bike? Have you ever driven an economy car and a sports car? If it were possible to do a blind test, would the differences between an economy car and a sports car exceed the threshold of what humans are able to reliably detect and if so, by a negligible, barely detectable amount or by a massive amount? 

2. Why would professional bike riders "need" those $10k bikes or race car drivers need expensive race cars if those competition bikes and race cars had no discernable improvement in performance over standard/consumer bikes or cars?

3. If one spent many thousands of dollars on performance enhancement customisations for a car and the end result was a car whose performance was indistinguishable from a standard car, that would indeed be very foolish. Just as foolish as spending many thousands on higher performing/higher fidelity audio equipment that also was not distinguishably higher performing or higher fidelity than standard.

The above seems so blatantly obvious to me that I can't even imagine what my everyday life would be like if I were incapable of understanding it! 
Unlike the vast majority of the components in an audio reproduction system, transducers can make a significant difference but here too we run into huge audiophile fallacies, falsehoods and inconsistencies about what the word "fidelity" means and what is a personal preference as opposed to something that is actually "better".

G


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I have Oppo PM-1s. They are very good cans. The speakers are still MUCH better sounding though.



I think I have invested less money on my headphones and multichannel speaker system combined than you on that Oppo PM-1. I have always tried to maximize the "bang for the buck" aspect. I don't understand why I should spend my hard earned money on expensive audio gear if I can have satisfactory sound for much less. If I won in lottery things would be different, but I don't do lottery, because I understand the probabilities, I'm good at math. There's much more important things than the last drops of sonic quality such as paying the rent and having food. Those things are a "must". Having "very good" cans is not so I leave that to those who make $5000 a month or more.


----------



## 71 dB

castleofargh said:


> well, stats are stats. we all have our own lives that conditioned a great many things.
> 
> about stupid metal... I guess it's ok to be judgemental about subjective stuff, but art we don't like is still art.
> evidence number 1:
> ...




Well, I didn't say metal is the _most_ stupid music. Your evidence number 1 is _deliberately_ silly. The track is far from the best of pop, but even it has hooks which take talent to create. As far as I know metal music is not deliberately silly. It's often unintentionaly stupid and that's much worse than being deliberately silly. In that sense your evidence is actually a success. Not a success I personally want to listen to many times, but a success nevertheless.


----------



## GearMe

71 dB said:


> My music listening was pretty passive in nature before high-school. Since my father is into jazz (of 50's and 60's), that's what I heard home. My influences were not Pink Lloyd or Genesis but Clifford Brown and Max Roach's awesome drum solos. My father HATES rock so I didn't learn about rock at home. Instead I learned from my father that rock is music for idiots. I was over 37 years old when I finally discovered rock music I do like: King Crimson. I have played it to my father, but he doesn't like even that kind of sophisticated rock. He is stuck with his jazz, but I have managed to make him appreciate classical music a bit: He likes J. S. Bach and also the operas of Rameau seems to entertain him. Who can blame him, Rameau was a genius and wrote insanely entertaining music.
> 
> What were my influences at age 14? Not anything really. I didn't feel there's really music out there for me. I didn't know 99.999 % of all music in the World is "hidden" and not played on radio or in other places for passive listeners. It took me much longer to realize I really need to discover with hard work my favorites such as Tangerine Dream (in Finland Tangerine Dream is almost unknown because they didn't perform in Finland until last year for the first time!). The Internet has made things 1000 times easier, but in the 1980's when I was a teenager you where in the dark. Yeah, a friend was perhaps into Genesis, but that's just one band! How about the thousands of other bands? Nobody exposes them to you. I wasn't able to see even MTV until 2001 when I moved to a house that had cable channels. I was 30 years old! I found "modern dance music when I was 17. It was 1988 and acid house was the big thing. *S-Express* became my first favorite "band". Then came rave, hardcore, breakbeat etc. I became *The Prodigy* fan. 1992 was the pinnacle of "modern dance music." After that it was downhill despite all the drum 'n' bass and trance. At the same time my friend at the university told me about classical music and how cool it can be. I got interested and started to listen to a classical radio station in the background while reading to exams. At first classical music sounded a bit weird for a guy who had a taste for "rave" music, but my ears adjusted fast and I started to really like what I hear. In December 1996 I heard *Elgar*'s _Enigma Variations_ on radio and my mind was totally blown away. I felt it was music that was composed for me by a divine creature. Next summer I got into* J. S. Bach* and these two composers are still my most favorite above the rest. The last 20 years has been discovering music I like and expanding my taste. The internet makes it possible.
> 
> It seems that many people have got a "rock education" at home, but I didn't have that I had Max Roach education. It might have been a blessing: I am not stuck on some stupid metal music like KISS or Metallica...


We had some similarities growing up in our 'musical upbringings'...my Dad loved Jazz and Big Band.  So, Brubeck, Lewis, Jamal, Montgomery, Parker, Davis, MJQ, Byrd, Goodman, Ellington, Basie, Miller, etc. were the staples of my early musical life...as well as piano lessons -- ugh! 

He was also open to 'good' popular music and listened to Blood Sweat & Tears, Chicago -- even some Guess Who, BTO, Yes, Looking Glass, and others.  That said, he even listened to the other music I played on his Telefunken Console.  Though I'm sure he didn't really like it much!  In retrospect, I'm thinking it was to encourage me to listen to music...and probably the direction of my musical tastes.  

It would've sucked to have that other music 'hidden' as you describe.  I still love Jazz and Big Band but can't imagine if I couldn't have grown up listening to the music I did and having the freedom/capability to explore various genres.  To me musical variety is truly a 'spice of life'.  I have music from all major genres (some more than others  ) and typically listen on shuffle.


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 24, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> I think you've brought up an important point - but I think I might disagree with your conclusion.
> 
> A hobby is something you do for fun; and many hobbies aren't especially utilitarian; and many are VERY expensive.
> 
> ...



I think that’s all fine as far the hobby aspect, and lately I’m sort of in hobby mode with audio gear myself.

But I think it becomes problematic when people spend money they really can’t afford to spend, especially when it’s for the sake of sonic improvements which are actually non-existent.  IMO, if someone has to save for many months to buy a piece of audio gear, and has to sell it if unexpected expenses come up, they can’t afford it and should instead buy something they can afford.  I see a lot of people like that in head-fi.  Some of them buy cables costing $500+ and talk about how they make the bass more articulate, smooth out the highs, etc.

I also see guys straining to buy sports cars costing over $100k, and then hardly driving them to reduce depreciation, so this is certainly not a mindset unique to audiophiles.


----------



## KeithEmo

1) 
Can a human reliably detect the difference? 
Yes.
Would the difference affect any practical aspect of how most people use it? 
No.

2)
You sort of missed the point.....
PROFESSIONAL BIKE RIDERS probably do get a little more speed, or something else, out of that $10k bike.
HOWEVER, many hobbyists just "like having nice equipment".
Many hobbyists walk into a bike store, with their tax refund, which they consider "disposable income" and say "What's the best bike you have?"
And many hobbyists buy a $2k camera to take (usually bad) pictures of their kids and their cat.

3)
I might suggest you check out how much chrome trim costs...
And fancy paint jobs...
And real wood interior trim...
They may impress the owner, or his friends, but they surely don't improve the actual performance of the car.

It is blatantly obvious to me that MOST hobbyists spend most of the money they do to get things they ENJOY.....
Which is quite different than "things that actually affect performance".
Or, to look at it differently, when we're talking about a hobby.....
The main performance criterion is "how much you enjoy it".... so nothing else really matters.
And, if you enjoy driving that car more, knowing that the fancy paint job impresses your friends, then I guess, for a hobby, that apparently counts as "performance enhancement".

At a more basic level - by definition a hobby is something that you do for fun...
So any idea about what you "need" to do it is somewhat moot...
The most economical solution is just to stay home and not do it at all...
Beyond that "whatever turns you on" is "a good investment"...



gregorio said:


> 1. Have you ever ridden an expensive, competition bike? Have you ever driven an economy car and a sports car? If it were possible to do a blind test, would the differences between an economy car and a sports car exceed the threshold of what humans are able to reliably detect and if so, by a negligible, barely detectable amount or by a massive amount?
> 
> 2. Why would professional bike riders "need" those $10k bikes or race car drivers need expensive race cars if those competition bikes and race cars had no discernable improvement in performance over standard/consumer bikes or cars?
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

Here's another angle on expectation bias: if someone has done blind testing and couldn't consistently notice significant differences, they'd expect the relevant classes of gear to sound the same, and would have an expectation that they're not missing out on anything by not trying more gear, so they can just enjoy the gear they have.  The thought that there could be gear out there which really would sound better to them (but they may not be able to find it) would be an unwelcome thought.

The above is NOT an argument that there _are_ significant differences in the sound of gear like DACs, amps, cables, etc.  I'm just pointing out another type of expectation bias which comes into play with all of this stuff.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> Here's another angle on expectation bias: if someone has done blind testing and couldn't consistently notice significant differences, they'd expect the relevant classes of gear to sound the same, and would have an expectation that they're not missing out on anything by not trying more gear, so they can just enjoy the gear they have.  The thought that there could be gear out there which really would sound better to them (but they may not be able to find it) would be an unwelcome thought.
> 
> The above is NOT an argument that there _are_ significant differences in the sound of gear like DACs, amps, cables, etc.  I'm just pointing out another type of expectation bias which comes into play with all of this stuff.


I can only speak for myself when I say that the process to arrive at my current thinking was a painstakingly lengthy one.  While testing to see if I could hear any difference between mp3 and lossless files, there were dozens of times where I swore I was hearing an obvious difference, only to prove to myself via an ABX that I could not identify this difference.  When I carefully listened again, what I was certain was a significant change in sound was not so clear after having performed the ABX. 

I was having such a difficult time finding any differences that I seriously questioned if my processes were faulty or somehow inadvertently responsible for the outcomes I was seeing.   I attempted to make certain that everything dealing with the conversion, saving, and playback were carefully done so as not to mess something up that would invalidate and corrupt the testing.  I would start at a very low compression where I would always identify differences and work my way up in quality levels until the differences could no longer be found.

I attempted to find music that was supposedly the most difficult to compress and still found no differences when subjected to an ABX.  I found the same with many hi-res files.  I made purchases of music for the sole reason of using it for testing.  I signed up for streaming services and used hacks to capture/steal the digital version so that these files could also be used for testing.

Naturally, I began to wonder if maybe my ears or my equipment were too inadequate to resolve such differences.  This is actually true; though not in the same sense that many audiophiles would have you believe.  What I discovered was that practically no one possessed the hearing or equipment capable of identifying any differences.  It wasn't just me, or at least nobody was providing any reliable information to suggest they were special.  I was able to successfully pass the Philips Golden Ear Challenge via a pair of Denon D5000 headphones using Schitt equipment that costs under $300.  I was also able to pass the challenge with a pair Gibson/KRK Rokit 8 powered speakers using all of the inexpensive DACs I had available to me at the time.

I even created a cable apparatus so that I could volume match any pair of headphones using a multimeter.  This was excellent for verifying that various amps I was using did not sound better or worse than another.

I could go on and on with all the various testing I have done.  I found test files that allowed me to identify where my threshold resided with regards to such things as frequency response, dynamic range, stereo imaging, delay, and noise levels.

The debates continue, with no new evidence to suggest the game has changed at all.  At this point, I really don't care if there is some slight difference only a few people might hear with certain equipment playing specific material.  I am thoroughly enjoying what sounds to be perfectly clear music that I can play at a much higher volume level than I would ever require.  Perhaps I am missing something as a result of my personal expectations, but I'd rather be ignorant and save some money than be ignorant and throw money away.


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> If I won in lottery things would be different.



Well, Oppo's R&D team asked me to evaluate the PM-1s and gave them to me, so winning the lottery isn't totally out of the realm of possibility. I totally understand not wanting to drop a grand on headphones. I don't really use cans enough to justify that much money myself. But if you have money to spend, the one place where more cash actually results in improved sound is transducers. I've spent much more on my speakers than the rest of my system. But even that is dwarfed by the money I've invested in music. Music is the best place of all to spend your money. Music is the number 2 focus of my life, so it's worth it.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 24, 2019)

sonitus mirus said:


> I was able to successfully pass the Philips Golden Ear Challenge via a pair of Denon D5000 headphones using Schitt equipment that costs under $300.



You chose the right headphones for the job. All the other Denon/Fostex headphones i've heard are just "off" compared to the AH-D5000 imo. AH-D5000 is a true one-off I think. I shall be taking great care of mine's for years to come.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 24, 2019)

I forgot to mention that I also tried that Philips Golden Ear Challenge years ago, unfortunately I can't remember what headphone exactly it was that I used, i've owned so many that i've forgotten which one it was, but I do know it wasn't the AH-D5000 I used as I didn't have that headphone at the time. I think it was a cheap sub $200 headphone. I do remember the test and that I done quite well, I remember being able to discern the difference between lossy and lossless samples of music, but I remember finding it more difficult nearer the end of the test.


----------



## gregorio (Jan 24, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> 1) Can a human reliably detect the difference? Yes. Would the difference affect any practical aspect of how most people use it? No.
> 2) You sort of missed the point..... PROFESSIONAL BIKE RIDERS probably do get a little more speed, or something else, out of that $10k bike.
> HOWEVER, many hobbyists just "like having nice equipment". Many hobbyists walk into a bike store, with their tax refund, which they consider "disposable income" and say "What's the best bike you have?" And many hobbyists buy a $2k camera to take (usually bad) pictures of their kids and their cat.
> 3) I might suggest you check out how much chrome trim costs... And fancy paint jobs... And real wood interior trim... They may impress the owner, or his friends, but they surely don't improve the actual performance of the car.
> ...



1. That is NOT true. I've owned a sports car, I did use/drive it differently on occasion and so does everyone I've ever known who owns a sports car.

2. Does that competition bike provide more performance? Does a $2k camera provide more performance than their phone camera? How a hobbyist takes advantage of that improved performance is up to them.

3. Do the sellers of chrome trims, fancy paint jobs and real wood interiors promise better performance or just better appearance?

3a. That is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!!! If a hobbyist buys a car or bike that promises better performance, then how is it NOT BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to you that they would be deeply unhappy if they did not get better performance? If however they buy something for their bike/car that purely affects appearance, then BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY they are not bothered whether it improves performance. Also BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY, if you look at all the reviews/impressions of audiophile equipment in other parts of head-fi, almost without exception the hobbyists buying/owning that equipment are being sold the promise of better performance and believe that's at least partly what they are buying! For example, how many audiophiles would still buy expensive audiophile cables if there were no promise/implication of performance improvement and they were sold purely on the basis of improved appearance? What about expensive audiophile amps and DACs? How is this not BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to you?

3b. Then why do you and other audiophile companies market your products with the implication/promise of audible performance improvement? Why don't you market purely on improved appearance, just like "chrome trim, fancy paint jobs and real wood interior trim"????

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm inclined to agree with that.... I also have spent far more on music than on equipment - which seems only reasonable.

I also have a quite serious question to ask you........
Let's just assume, for the same of this question, that we agree that a properly compressed lossy file _CAN_ sound audibly identical to the original.....

Would you be willing to trust that the quality of a _specific_ lossy file that you _purchase_ lives up to that standard? 
(Just because a lossy file _CAN_ be audibly indistinguishable provides no assurance that every one will be of that quality level.)
If so, are there specific vendors who you would trust in that respect?

Here's the reason that I ask......

If I purchase a CD, and then RIP it, I can confirm that it is perfect and unaltered - using any ripping program that has AccurateRIP.
Then, of course, I can convert it into a lossless or a lossy copy with about the same amount of effort (very little).
And, if I do that, I will of course use a compression program that I have extensively tested and trust to do a proper job.
However, if I do that, then I have already had to purchase, and find storage space for, the lossless file or physical CD.
So, in that case, using a lossy format only really benefits me if I need a copy for some portable device with limited storage space.

Alternately, in some cases, I can purchase a copy that is already in a lossy format, like AAC or MP3. 
And, if I go that route, I will indeed use less storage space, and also avoid having to convert it.
However, if I do that, I have no way to confirm that the specific lossy file I've purchased is indistinguishable from the original.
I can confirm that a "CD quality download" is identical to the CD using AccurateRIP or some such service...
However, since the equivalence of a lossy file is "perceptual", there is no equivalent option for lossy files...
(I must either trust whoever I bought it from to have done a perfect job.... or go back to square one and buy a lossless copy to compare it to.)

It sure seems like....
Along with any doubts I may have about the technology involved....
We are also being asked to rely even more on the particular vendor we purchase from....
(Which I also find somewhat problematic.)



bigshot said:


> Well, Oppo's R&D team asked me to evaluate the PM-1s and gave them to me, so winning the lottery isn't totally out of the realm of possibility. I totally understand not wanting to drop a grand on headphones. I don't really use cans enough to justify that much money myself. But if you have money to spend, the one place where more cash actually results in improved sound is transducers. I've spent much more on my speakers than the rest of my system. But even that is dwarfed by the money I've invested in music. Music is the best place of all to spend your money. Music is the number 2 focus of my life, so it's worth it.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

Just want to chime in that expectation bias has a very, very serious effect on what you hear.  When it comes to your ears... "trust but verify". 

More than once I've spent time turning knobs on VST plugins (say an EQ or a 'vintage tape sound' type plugin) and found that the change in sound was noticeable, but less than I expected. 

Then I realize the plugin is actually bypassed and was doing nothing at all.  But make no mistake, I HEARD a difference.  There just wasn't one. 

It's happened to me, it'll happen to you too!!

I can also make my tinnitus disappear temporarily just by wishing it to be so, under certain circumstances (while wearing earplugs in a quiet room).  So, that's a pretty clear indication that my brain hears whatever it wants to hear, gear (including my cochlea / cilia) be damned.


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> I forgot to mention that I also tried that Philips Golden Ear Challenge years ago, unfortunately I can't remember what headphone exactly it was that I used, i've owned so many that i've forgotten which one it was, but I do know it wasn't the AH-D5000 I used as I didn't have that headphone at the time. I think it was a cheap sub $200 headphone. I do remember the test and that I done quite well, I remember being able to discern the difference between lossy and lossless samples of music, but I remember finding it more difficult nearer the end of the test.



I don’t believe that the Philips Golden Ear Challenge had lossy vs. lossless as part of the training/testing program.  If I recall corrrectly, the tests were around the ability to differentiate elements like bass, timbre, and sound field depth.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 24, 2019)

As I said, it was many years ago, so my memory of it is a bit hazy. With that said; I definitely remember having to listen to lossy samples of music with artifacts in them such as the high frequency "tzz" you often get only in low bitrate MP3's. There where lossless samples too. The reason I know I was able to differentiate is because I was not allowed to advance to the next stage without passing that part of the test, and I did. It was only nearer the end of the test in the next stage that i found difficult and thus I was unable to pass the whole thing.


----------



## bfreedma (Jan 24, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> As I said, it was many years ago, so my memory of it is a bit hazy. With that said; I definitely remember having to listen to lossy samples of music with artifacts in them such as the high frequency "tzz" you often get only in low bitrate MP3's. There where lossless samples too. The reason I know I was able to differentiate is because I was not allowed to advance to the next stage without passing that part of the test.



There was a section of the training/testing that included the ability to identify artifacts that can occur in compressed files, but I’m fairly sure it didn’t involve comparing lossless to lossy files.  Only identifying artifacts which were less pronounced as the various test levels progressed.

The test is no longer online, but the link below is a reference to the exercise I’m recalling.  Perhaps you’re thinking of another test.

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/audiophile-workout-philips-golden-ears-training


----------



## sonitus mirus (Jan 24, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> I don’t believe that the Philips Golden Ear Challenge had lossy vs. lossless as part of the training/testing program.  If I recall corrrectly, the tests were around the ability to differentiate elements like bass, timbre, and sound field depth.


The closest test was the Silver "Details" section where the listener was tasked with identifying mp3 artifacts between several different lossy compression formats.   There was "Normal", 160kbps, 128kbps, 96kbps, 80kbps, and 64kbps.  I don't believe "Normal" was lossless, but just a higher, undisclosed bitrate mp3. 

This test was a pain in the butt and more difficult than anything presented at the next "Gold" level for me, and I failed multiple times with the 128kbps or 160kbps files at first, until I figured out how and what I needed to listen for to pass it every time.  I would struggle with this part of the test every time until I retaught myself what to listen for.  Even after I did figure out how to hear the differences consistently, I'd have to say I felt they were extremely trivial differences that I would never concern myself with ever, at least with the music sample being used in that test.


----------



## KeithEmo

Did your sports car get you to work any faster than an econo-box?
Around here, the amount of time it takes to get to work is determined almost entirely by traffic and speed limits.
I very much doubt that a Formula 1 racer would get me to work any faster than my Nissan.
(And I might also suggest that "going vroom vroom" is more a matter of appearance than practical performance for most of us.)

I'm trying to figure out what you think the difference is between.....
- a hobbyist who buys a fancy bike (even though it doesn't help him ride faster)
- a hobbyist who buys a fancy camera (even though it doesn't help him take better pictures)
- an audio hobbyist who buys an amplifier with better specs than he needs (even though he can't hear the difference)

They're all doing it partly because they just plain want to...
And, probably because, at some level, they do sort of expect it to offer them some intangible "benefit"...
A hobby is something you do for fun...
So, if you enjoy it, then it's working...

Here at Emotiva, we sell our equipment based on offering excellent performance for a good price.
We also offer a 30 day return policy - so we wouldn't gain much by making false promises (you'd just return what you bought if you were disappointed). 
And, yes, some people buy more performance than they "need" - because it just makes them feel all warm and fuzzy....
(Which sounds a lot like why many people buy sports cars.)

To be quite honest, if someone were to claim that chome trim would make your car go faster, I doubt it would take long for people to catch on that it didn't.
(However, if you believe the messaging in the commercials, that new sports car will make your girlfriend more attractive, your kids better behaved, and the weather nicer.)
And, if someone was so saturated with expectation bias that they really imagined that their car _DID_ go faster with the new trim installed, I don't think I'd blame the store... much.
And, maybe, if they offered a 30 day return policy on that chrome trim, or on some "audiophile equipment", the world would be a very different place.
(I wonder if they'd refund my money on that SUV if my kids were still the same screaming little monsters two weeks after I buy it as they were two weeks before.)



gregorio said:


> 1. That is NOT true. I've owned a sports car, I did use/drive it differently on occasion and so does everyone I've ever known who owns a sports car.
> 
> 2. Does that competition bike provide more performance? Does a $2k camera provide more performance than their phone camera? How a hobbyist takes advantage of that improved performance is up to them.
> 
> ...


----------



## bfreedma

sonitus mirus said:


> The closest test was the Silver "Details" section where the listener was tasked with identifying mp3 artifacts between several different lossy compression formats.   There was "Normal", 160kbps, 128kbps, 96kbps, 80kbps, and 64kbps.  I don't believe "Normal" was lossy, but just a higher, undisclosed bitrate mp3.
> 
> This test was a pain in the butt and more difficult than anything presented at the next "Gold" level for me, and I failed multiple times with the 128kbps or 160kbps files at first, until I figured out how and what I needed to listen for to pass it every time.  I would struggle with this part of the test every time until I retaught myself what to listen for.  Even after I did figure out how to hear the differences consistently, I'd have to say I felt they were extremely trivial differences that I would never concern myself with ever, at least with the music sample being used in that test.




That’s what I remember as well - thanks for the clarification and details.

I struggled with that section too and don’t believe I would notice the vast majority of the artifacts in the test during a “normal” listening session.


----------



## SonyFan121

KeithEmo said:


> Did your sports car get you to work any faster than an econo-box?
> Around here, the amount of time it takes to get to work is determined almost entirely by traffic and speed limits.
> I very much doubt that a Formula 1 racer would get me to work any faster than my Nissan.
> (And I might also suggest that "going vroom vroom" is more a matter of appearance than practical performance for most of us.)
> ...



I believe your understanding of sports cars is seriously skewed. You can buy parts for a car that do make it go faster, particularly at high speeds. it's a long story involving physics, aerodynamics and gravity that I do not currently have the time to discuss.


----------



## castleofargh

Zapp_Fan said:


> Just want to chime in that expectation bias has a very, very serious effect on what you hear.  When it comes to your ears... "trust but verify".
> 
> More than once I've spent time turning knobs on VST plugins (say an EQ or a 'vintage tape sound' type plugin) and found that the change in sound was noticeable, but less than I expected.
> 
> ...


happened to me so many times that now I have a conditioned reflex making me look at the bypass buttons maybe 15 times in 5 minutes of tweaking some DSP. and yes, it "sounds" better with my settings and the plug in turned off. I can bet that there is somebody out there  totally confident that the bypass doesn't really work and that his settings do improve the sound in bypass mode. I mean those guys sure that nothing is something exist for each and every topic we discuss, so I'm not taking a big risk.


----------



## gregorio (Jan 24, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Did your sports car get you to work any faster than an econo-box?
> Around here, the amount of time it takes to get to work is determined almost entirely by traffic and speed limits.
> [2] I'm trying to figure out what you think the difference is between.....
> - a hobbyist who buys a fancy bike (even though it doesn't help him ride faster)
> ...



1. Yes, on quite a few occasions it did, but I didn't buy a sports car to get me to work faster. I bought it for it's far superior acceleration and handling when having fun around twisty roads and it's superior performance was blatantly obvious. You even agreed the different performance of a sports car would be "reliably detectable" but now you're contradicting yourself and saying it wouldn't be detectable because traffic and speed limits would prevent you from ever using it. Why don't you make up your mind or better still, give it a rest with the non-analogous and irrelevant analogies??!

2. A hobbyist who bought a competition bike would expect and would get better performance and it would help him ride faster! It's ridiculous to say it wouldn't help him ride faster, have you never ridden a competition bike?
A hobbyist who buys a $2k camera gets a camera with obviously better performance, or are you saying that $2k cameras have the same performance as say an iPhone camera?
A hobbyist who buys an expensive audiophile amp is NOT getting better audible performance than a far cheaper amp.

Why is it that you always end-up going round in circles, obfuscating the most simple of logical points that even a child would comprehend? So here we go again, analogies that are NOT analogous and if anything demonstrate the exact opposite of the marketing point you're trying to push, and then we'll have several pages of you using nonsense arguments to defend your ridiculous analogies, eventually reaching the point of flying pigs and manned flights to Alpha Centuri.
Round and round and round we go, again!!!

G


----------



## Phronesis

Regarding sports cars ...

Yes, they all provide an _interactive_ experience, so they're all different to drivers who are paying attention and sensitive to differences, regardless of the speeds at which the cars are driven.  For that matter, for such drivers, _all_ cars are different, not just sports cars. 

You don't need to be near the performance limits of cars to notice the differences, and a given car will also behave differently depending on how it's being driven.  This is all part of the fun of sports cars.

Audio gear is different because we don't interact with it and thereby change the behavior of the gear.  The gear delivers a signal, and we respond to the signal with perception, so it's a one-directional process.


----------



## KeithEmo

I hate to disappoint you - but my understanding of what sports cars do is just fine.
However, as I said, I very much doubt that many owners ever take advantage of any of the actual differences.
For everyone I know who actually drives a sports car like a sports car I know another who barely takes it out once a week to go to the corner grocery store.
Much as many people here insist that many audiophiles are unable to hear the measurable differences between various equipment.
(Which was sort of the point.)

As far as I can see, many people seem to buy sports cars to impress their friends, or to impress themselves...
Which is also undoubtedly why many people purchase expensive audio equipment...
I suspect that, for many of them, the idea that it sounds better is more an excuse than a reason...
The real reaso is simply that they _want_ it...



SonyFan121 said:


> I believe your understanding of sports cars is seriously skewed. You can buy parts for a car that do make it go faster, particularly at high speeds. it's a long story involving physics, aerodynamics and gravity that I do not currently have the time to discuss.


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I hate to disappoint you - but my understanding of what sports cars do is just fine.
> However, as I said, I very much doubt that many owners ever take advantage of any of the actual differences.
> For everyone I know who actually drives a sports car like a sports car I know another who barely takes it out once a week to go to the corner grocery store.



It's true to few sports car owners drive their cars near their limits, especially on public roads, but the differences are definitely quite obvious to the vast majority of owners when driving those cars at normal road speeds.  It's not so much about performance limits, but rather about how cars interact with the driver and the road across the whole range of operating conditions.

I think that analogies between sports cars and audio gear don't work in a lot of ways.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I hate to disappoint you - but my understanding of what sports cars do is just fine.
> However, as I said, I very much doubt that many owners ever take advantage of any of the actual differences.
> For everyone I know who actually drives a sports car like a sports car I know another who barely takes it out once a week to go to the corner grocery store.
> Much as many people here insist that many audiophiles are unable to hear the measurable differences between various equipment.
> ...




The inaccuracy of the analogy you keep missing/ignoring is that a sports car has the capability to outperform your econobox example if the driver has the desire and skill to utilize that performance.  The same cannot be said of the audio gear under discussion. 

As mentioned earlier, it’s a nonanalogous analogy.


----------



## SonyFan121

KeithEmo said:


> I hate to disappoint you - but my understanding of what sports cars do is just fine.
> However, as I said, I very much doubt that many owners ever take advantage of any of the actual differences.
> For everyone I know who actually drives a sports car like a sports car I know another who barely takes it out once a week to go to the corner grocery store.
> Much as many people here insist that many audiophiles are unable to hear the measurable differences between various equipment.
> ...



Well they don't do it like that where I come from. I know I bought a sports car to drive it as it was meant to be driven - at 240 KM/H on the freeway.


----------



## KeithEmo

As usual, you are deliberately avoiding the point.

A sports car has the ability to out-perform an econo-box...
And the fact that a certain driver is unable to take advantage of, or notice, the difference in performance doesn't change that.

And at least some of the audio gear under discussion _DOES_ have the ability to outperform other lesser gear.
And the fact that you or I may not be able to hear the difference doesn't affect that either.

Better is better.

I have a digital multimeter with a rated accuracy of 0.5%.
I have another one with a rated accuracy of 0.02%.
The second one is better.
And it is _STILL_ better... even if I don't need that extra accuracy.

An amplifier with a THD of 0.01% is a better amplifier than one with a THD of 0.1% .
It is _TECHNOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR_.
And, yes, some people consider that to be important, just enjoy superior technology.
It does not magically become not-superior just because you or I can't hear a difference.

Rolex makes a mechanical watch that costs over $1 million.
But, believe it or not, it still doesn't keep time as accurately as a $49 Casio quartz watch.
I guess either the Rolex is junk...
Or the people who buy them are expecting to obtain some benefit beyond accurately telling time.
(I suspect that the second option is probably true.)

I agree that a lot of so-called "audiophile equipment" really doesn't perform better in any way...
But it's just silly to conflate that with "performance that is clearly better - but just not in ways that YOU consider important".

I would assume that many people buy audio equipment because of how it sounds...
While many others buy it as a status symbol...
And a few I know seem more concerned with the finish on their speakers than how they sound...
(And I've seen a similar sentiment when it comes to headphones... and you can't even see them while you're listening to them.)
And more than a few probably simply like spinning the knobs...
(There are sure plenty of people who never learn what half of the controls on their audio equipment actually do.)

The analogy is simply that many people buy things for many reasons - and "utilitarian performance" is just one of them.
(And I would list "audible sound quality" squarely under "utilitarian performance".)



bfreedma said:


> The inaccuracy of the analogy you keep missing/ignoring is that a sports car has the capability to outperform your econobox example if the driver has the desire and skill to utilize that performance.  The same cannot be said of the audio gear under discussion.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, it’s a nonanalogous analogy.


----------



## KeithEmo

Good for you.

They sure don't let us do that around here....



SonyFan121 said:


> Well they don't do it like that where I come from. I know I bought a sports car to drive it as it was meant to be driven - at 240 KM/H on the freeway.


----------



## KeithEmo

You seem to be claiming that the ONLY thing that matters for audio gear is audible sound quality.
I suggest that, if that was really true, then all your equipment would be housed in plain grey painted metal boxes.
Plain grey metal is quite utilitarian, it's really cheap, and it surely sounds the same in a double blind test.

Technical superiority is defined by performance.
A sports car is still a sports car - even if you drive it like an old lady.
And an amplifier with lower noise, or lower distortion, is also superior - even if you can't hear the difference.
Some people simply enjoy superior technology - whether they can see or hear it or not.
(Although I do agree that we should avoid equipment that claims to be superior but really isn't.)



bfreedma said:


> The inaccuracy of the analogy you keep missing/ignoring is that a sports car has the capability to outperform your econobox example if the driver has the desire and skill to utilize that performance.  The same cannot be said of the audio gear under discussion.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, it’s a nonanalogous analogy.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> As usual, you are deliberately avoiding the point.
> 
> A sports car has the ability to out-perform an econo-box...
> And the fact that a certain driver is unable to take advantage of, or notice, the difference in performance doesn't change that.
> ...




So many meaningless analogies...

The point, no matter how hard you try to obfuscate it with dozens of responses full of walls of text, is that the performance of a sports car is easily and overtly evident and available to the driver as well as being measurable.  Inaudible differences in THD are just that, inaudible and not impactful to the listening experience at the demand of the listener.

This is the Sound Science forum.  If you want to discuss marketing and consumerism, the rest of this site would be the appropriate locale.

And can you please stop with the insulting insinuations that I and others aren’t aware of basic facts like the accuracy of digital vs. analog watches.  We’ve gone through this numerous times (ATMOS was another of many examples). Do you really believe that I and others posting here aren’t aware that a mechanical watch is less accurate than a cheap digital.  Believe it or not, I suspect most of us didn’t need to be informed of that.

Not that this post will matter.  No matter how many others here have identified your false sports car analogy, you’re going to press on with it.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree.....

But I can't seem to find an effective way to explain how audio gear operates at many levels...
Yes, we listen to it, and it sounds however it sounds...
However, some people just derive satisfaction _knowing_ that their audio gear is technically superior...

And I think that is analogous to how many people feel about various things - including sports car.
They simply derive satisfaction from _KNOWING_ that they own a high quality or technically superior product.
(They may not actually enjoy reading a test report.... but what that test report _says_ makes them happy nonetheless.) 



Phronesis said:


> It's true to few sports car owners drive their cars near their limits, especially on public roads, but the differences are definitely quite obvious to the vast majority of owners when driving those cars at normal road speeds.  It's not so much about performance limits, but rather about how cars interact with the driver and the road across the whole range of operating conditions.
> 
> I think that analogies between sports cars and audio gear don't work in a lot of ways.


----------



## KeithEmo

The problem is that you _CANNOT_ effectively separate everything you might want to.
Placebos are routinely shown to work -_ IN SCIENTIFIC TESTS_.
And, similarly, people seem to enjoy _KNOWING_ that their audio gear performs well, _EVEN IF THEY CANNOT HEAR THE DIFFERENCE_.

Let's say we have two pieces of audio gear which we are quite certain are audibly identical...
Yet, in a scientifically conducted survey, people who own one consistently report "a higher level of satisfaction" than people who own the other one...
Can you reasonably claim that the one that gets consistently higher ratings isn't "better"?

What if the reason is simply that it looks more attractive? 
And how is that qualitatively different than if the people are more satisfied with the one that they know measures better (even if you're sure the difference is inaudible)?

I thought it was pretty obvious that many people simply enjoy _KNOWING_ that something they own is "superior technology"...
And, to someone who feels that way, an amplifier with 0.01% THD is "just plain better" than one with 0.1% THD...
Owning it will bring them more satisfaction...
And, if they happen to actually hear a difference, that's really just an unnecessary bonus...
But, even if they don't hear a difference, they will still derive satisfaction from knowing that they own the better piece of gear.
I suspect that this is part of why many audiophiles prefer one piece of gear over another.
HOWEVER, if those specs bring greater satisfaction, then how can you say that "they don't matter"?
(Isn't "satisfaction" a measurable property?)



bfreedma said:


> So many meaningless analogies...
> 
> The point, no matter how hard you try to obfuscate it with dozens of responses full of walls of text, is that the performance of a sports car is easily and overtly evident and available to the driver as well as being measurable.  Inaudible differences in THD are just that, inaudible and not impactful to the listening experience at the demand of the listener.
> 
> ...


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> I agree.....
> 
> But I can't seem to find an effective way to explain how audio gear operates at many levels...
> Yes, we listen to it, and it sounds however it sounds...
> ...



No disagreement there.  Part of the reason I like my Chord DAC/amps is the glowing colored balls, and the aesthetic design.  I also kind of like how they get warm with use - makes me feel like they're doing something and reminds me of a cozy fireplace.  It's all part of the ownership experience.  Nothing fundamentally 'wrong' with any of that, IMO.  (But I may be rationalizing somewhat, since I've already bought them and now have real doubts that they sound noticeably better, as I originally thought.)

Where it goes off the rails is people believing in and claiming substantial audible differences which aren't really there, and just due to misperception.  That leads to people inadvertently deceiving themselves and others, and that often results in wasting money that many people really can't afford to waste.  It's so rampant that I sometimes don't want to read threads in head-fi outside Sound Science because the stream of nonsense is so steady (i.e., signal/noise ratio is low).


----------



## Phronesis

KeithEmo said:


> The problem is that you _CANNOT_ effectively separate everything you might want to.
> Placebos are routinely shown to work -_ IN SCIENTIFIC TESTS_.
> And, similarly, people seem to enjoy _KNOWING_ that their audio gear performs well, _EVEN IF THEY CANNOT HEAR THE DIFFERENCE_.
> 
> ...



IMO, all of this is fine, as long as we make the distinction between (a) _audibly_ better or different, versus (b) better or different in ways other than the sound.  It's when we conflate the two that we get into trouble.


----------



## taffy2207 (Jan 24, 2019)

Phronesis said:


> It's so rampant that I sometimes don't want to read threads in head-fi outside Sound Science because the stream of nonsense is so steady (i.e., signal/noise ratio is low).



This thread isn't exactly a Barrel of Fun to read lately either. It seems people are so busy arguing with each other that they've forgotten what the thread title is about. It's made me sleepy so that's a bonus, I'm off to Bed


----------



## Phronesis

taffy2207 said:


> This thread isn't exactly a Barrel of Fun to read lately either. It seems people are so busy arguing with each other that they've forgotten what the thread title is about. It's made me sleepy so that's a bonus, I'm off to Bed



I know what you mean, but at least here the arguments are based on something, whereas, in the rest of head-fi, discussion of anything 'scientific' is prohibited, so people just ramble on about what they believe to be objective differences based only on their subjective impressions.


----------



## castleofargh

Phronesis said:


> Here's another angle on expectation bias: if someone has done blind testing and couldn't consistently notice significant differences, they'd expect the relevant classes of gear to sound the same, and would have an expectation that they're not missing out on anything by not trying more gear, so they can just enjoy the gear they have.  The thought that there could be gear out there which really would sound better to them (but they may not be able to find it) would be an unwelcome thought.
> 
> The above is NOT an argument that there _are_ significant differences in the sound of gear like DACs, amps, cables, etc.  I'm just pointing out another type of expectation bias which comes into play with all of this stuff.


I have the same views on the matter. I even believe that it's a good thing. a significant part of people having a crazy turnover of gears do it because of insecurity. it's not the only drive in this hobby(that would be so sad if it was), but it's there and you can see it's there in the way people discuss about their gears and the way they formulate their questions when looking for new stuff. so at least in my head, it's pretty obvious that performing blind tests will tame that insecurity and have people in general purchase less and change their gears less often. that's just the purely rational aspect. we have questions and doubts, some experiments help answer those questions and remove/confirm those doubts, so we come out more confident and usually rightly so. 
but there is also a second effect where people doing controlled testing realize that at large, our impressions of differences tend to rank from false to strongly exaggerated. IDK if I would call that a bias when it's the truth, but it certainly will impact how we consider "upgrades". 
now you still look at blind testing as a method to notice less than what is, I think that's your bias. I believe that controlled testing very often allows people to notice things that they wouldn't have noticed otherwise. of course if you try to make direct comparison between sighted tests which aren't tests at all as the guy at all time has the answer to the question, and controlled tests, it will almost always seem like the sighted test "reveals" more. but that's just the fallacy of considering sighted impressions as a listening test. 

anyway, in general I believe that people who perform controlled tests purchase fewer gears. which also makes a pretty clear case on why the entire industry has everything to gain by pushing the good old "just listen".


----------



## KeithEmo (Jan 25, 2019)

I agree entirely.

However, I think that we must recognize the fine line between self-deceipt and rationalization. 
If someone buys a product _BECAUSE_ they think it sounds better, when it really doesn't, that would be self-deceipt.
_BUT_, if they really just wanted it, and the idea that it might sound better is just an _EXCUSE_ to buy it, then that's rationalization.

Many people, especially these days, "just like nice things".... and rationalize their desire after the fact.
(And it's surely quite obvious that many audiophiles place high value on "bragging rights".)

I read plenty of posts on our forums about new equipment people have bought.
I also talk to many people who are considering buying new equipment.

Some folks on this forum may be surprised to hear two things:
1) I often advise people that they DON'T need that upgrade and WON'T hear much if any difference.
2) Many of them reply something like: "OK, but I think I want it anyway."



Phronesis said:


> No disagreement there.  Part of the reason I like my Chord DAC/amps is the glowing colored balls, and the aesthetic design.  I also kind of like how they get warm with use - makes me feel like they're doing something and reminds me of a cozy fireplace.  It's all part of the ownership experience.  Nothing fundamentally 'wrong' with any of that, IMO.  (But I may be rationalizing somewhat, since I've already bought them and now have real doubts that they sound noticeably better, as I originally thought.)
> 
> Where it goes off the rails is people believing in and claiming substantial audible differences which aren't really there, and just due to misperception.  That leads to people inadvertently deceiving themselves and others, and that often results in wasting money that many people really can't afford to waste.  It's so rampant that I sometimes don't want to read threads in head-fi outside Sound Science because the stream of nonsense is so steady (i.e., signal/noise ratio is low).


----------



## gregorio (Jan 25, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] As usual, you are deliberately avoiding the point.
> [2] A sports car has the ability to out-perform an econo-box... And *the fact that a certain driver* is unable to take advantage of, or notice, the difference in performance doesn't change that.
> [2a] And at least some of the audio gear under discussion _DOES_ have the ability to outperform other lesser gear. And the fact that you or I may not be able to hear the difference doesn't affect that either.
> [3] Rolex makes a mechanical watch that costs over $1 million. But, believe it or not, it still doesn't keep time as accurately as a $49 Casio quartz watch. [3a] I guess either the Rolex is junk...



1. Pot, Kettle, Black!!

2. What fact, what driver? What driver wouldn't notice the difference between a 120bhp Nissan family car and a 280bhp sports car? A driver wouldn't need to be able to drive the sports car to it's full potential to notice the difference, you'd pretty much have to be dead not to tell the difference, even within the legal limits. So what "fact" and what "certain driver" are you talking about, a dead, non-existant one? Are we getting to flying pigs and travelling to other solar systems yet? Even more ridiculously, you've ALREADY ADMITTED that a driver would notice the difference, so now you're arguing with yourself!
2a. What about the fact that no one would be able to hear a difference? How does that NOT affect your analogy? With your analogy, probably every single living person could not fail to tell the difference between a Nissan family car and a sports car but with say appropriately designed cables, probably not a single living person would be able to tell a difference in performance between a relatively cheap cable and an expensive audiophile one. Your analogy is pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE of the marketing point you're trying to make and therefore, could hardly be less analogous!!

3. Oh good, another analogy that's actually the exact opposite of the marketing point you're pushing! Do Rolex sell their watches as having superior time keeping accuracy to a $49 Casio quartz watch? Do those who buy a Rolex expect better time keeping performance than a cheap quartz watch? NO, THEY DO NOT! Rolex market their watches in terms of superior history, brand name and craftsmanship, NOT as "superior technology" that results in better time keeping accuracy and no one who buys a Rolex expects superior time keeping accuracy, they buy a Rolex solely for it's appearance, craftsmanship and status symbol. AGAIN, your new Rolex analogy is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you're trying to market here!!!
3a. "_Either the Rolex is junk ...._" Or your analogies and marketing are!!!

Congratulations on doing EXACTLY as predicted! "_Round and round and round we go, again!_"

G


----------



## KeithEmo

This thread is about _SOUND SCIENCE_ and specifically about _AUDIOPHILE CLAIMS_.

Both psychology, and even specifically the placebo effect, are in fact _SCIENCE_.
(And you will find plenty of articles about both in reputable science journals.)

So, yes, the results of a survey about whether people can hear a difference between lossy files and lossless files is science.
And determining the threshold of audiblity for a certain type of distortion, under certain conditions, is also science.
_HOWEVER_, figuring out why people continue to buy equipment, even though they don't hear an audible difference, is _ALSO _science.

I think it might be quite informative to do a scientific survey to find out _WHY_ people buy equipment.
It might be interesting to find out how many actually buy new equipment _BECAUSE_ they expect it to sound noticeably better.

A lot of people on this forum seem quite convinced that most audiophiles purchase equipment solely because they expect it to sound better...
And that, if only these poor souls were educated, they would cheerfully find themselves a nice cheap piece of gear that gets the job done, and never look back...
(And be extremely grateful to the kind missionaries who opened their eyes.)

Perhaps _THAT CLAIM_ is a myth that's worth investigating.
Perhaps a lot of audiophiles just like playing with new gear, and the idea that it might sound better is just an excuse, or a secondry reason they use to justify what they're doing.
(just as many people redecorate their home every few years.... even though the old decorations are still perfectly adequate.)

I do agree that some people get carried away, and spend far too much on their hobby, whether it's sports cars, cameras, or audio gear...
But I really don't see a sinister conspiracy by the audio industry to separate people from their hard earned cash...
Nobody _NEEDS_ a $10k DAC, whether it really sounds better or not.....
They're buying it because they _WANT_ it....



taffy2207 said:


> This thread isn't exactly a Barrel of Fun to read lately either. It seems people are so busy arguing with each other that they've forgotten what the thread title is about. It's made me sleepy so that's a bonus, I'm off to Bed


----------



## taffy2207 (Jan 25, 2019)

*This thread is about SOUND SCIENCE and specifically about AUDIOPHILE CLAIMS.*

Indeed. So why do you insist on talking about Cars, Watches, Bikes etc.?  Sorry Keith but your analogies are tiresome. There's no reason why you can't just talk about Audio equipment, Audio claims etc. and be more succinct about it. You seem to be caught in some kind of Analogy loop.

*Nobody NEEDS a $10k DAC, whether it really sounds better or not.....
They're buying it because they WANT it....*

Far too simplified IMO. There's flowery marketing, higher numbers stats (higher is better think), group think, peer pressure, keeping up with the Joneses, One upmanship and good old gullibility to name but a few. It's not always because they "want it". Buyers regret is self evident in the 'For Sale/ Trade' sections of this forum.

And the arguing thing, we have 'Ignore' buttons for a reason.


----------



## Phronesis

I don’t know how representative head-fi is of the larger audiophile world, but based on what I read around here, most people are buying or changing their gear mainly based on the expectation of better sound, and a substantial percentage are stretching themselves financially to do it.  Most discussions describe and compare sound of headphones, and how pads, DACs, amps, and cables affect sound of headphones.


----------



## analogsurviver

Phronesis said:


> I don’t know how representative head-fi is of the larger audiophile world, but based on what I read around here, most people are buying or changing their gear mainly based on the expectation of better sound, and a substantial percentage are stretching themselves financially to do it.  Most discussions describe and compare sound of headphones, and how pads, DACs, amps, and cables affect Sound of headphones.



Now, I really did not expect anyone to doubt PADS not to be responsible for both subjective and objective differences in headphones ... - is there ANY topic we might possibly agree upon ?

Anyone - except for the @james444 - here ever uses IEMs ?


----------



## Phronesis (Jan 25, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Now, I really did not expect anyone to doubt PADS not to be responsible for both subjective and objective differences in headphones ... - is there ANY topic we might possibly agree upon ?
> 
> Anyone - except for the @james444 - here ever uses IEMs ?



I think we all agree that headphones sound different and pads affect the sound.  I was just pointing out that most discussions in head-fi (outside Sound Science) do focus on how various things affect sound, and that's presumably the main factor driving the buying decisions of people around here.

Regarding IEMs, I use my LCD-i4 at work because it sounds good, is fairly inconspicuous, and I can hear things around me by pausing the music without needing to remove it from my ears.  I infrequently use my SE535 when I need isolation from outside sounds.  But otherwise, I mainly use headphones, since I don't really like the feel of IEMs for longer durations.


----------



## SonyFan121

It seems to me that there are a few people in this thread that seem to be almost completely focused/concerned about the value of the gear people have and how much money they spend on it rather than the actual technology and science of the products. This thread is supposed to be about dispelling audiophile myths, right? So it should be full of technical talk, right? well it seems to me that it has turned in to the "dispelling reasons to buy an expensive amp or DAC or headphone or cable" or whatever, thread.
These are the kind of arguments and discussions that could go on forever..
The bottom line is that if an electronic device (such as an amp) measures well (technically; things such as THD, signal to noise ratio, sample rate, frequency response et cetra, et cetra) then it will perform well. Then you have speakers and headphones, and the same thing applies to them. In other words,- if it looks good on paper - it will sound good too.


----------



## analogsurviver

SonyFan121 said:


> It seems to me that there are a few people in this thread that seem to be almost completely focused/concerned about the value of the gear people have and how much money they spend on it rather than the actual technology and science of the products. This thread is supposed to be about dispelling audiophile myths, right? So it should be full of technical talk, right? well it seems to me that it has turned in to the "dispelling reasons to buy an expensive amp or DAC or headphone or cable" or whatever, thread.
> These are the kind of arguments and discussions that could go on forever..
> The bottom line is that if an electronic device (such as an amp) measures well (technically; things such as THD, signal to noise ratio, sample rate, frequency response et cetra, et cetra) then it will perform well. Then you have speakers and headphones, and the same thing applies to them. In other words,- if it looks good on paper - it will sound good too.



This  totally unproven assertion is THE very reason for the existence of this and  similar threads etc.

It is so wrong it could - possibly - not be wronger .


----------



## GearMe

So...they buy the $10K DAC because they_ don't _want it?  

The ongoing 'loop' in this thread is probably not going to stop because there are strongly held POVs by people with differing views on buying philosophies...
There is also a recurring subtext in this thread; in that some folks lean toward a black/white approach in this area and others seem to believe/allow for variability.
Regarding marketing to consumers, some experts in this field believe that '95 percent of our purchase decision making takes place in the subconscious mind' .   One such expert, Gerald Zaltman (HBS Professor Emeritus), has written a book on the topic and leading companies in a variety of industry sectors are investing heavily in this space.

It's often been said that people buy on emotion and then justify their purchase with logic.  Whether you believe this or not, on a practical level, this has always been the case for a portion of consumers as well as businesses.  I believe that this segment of buyers is larger than most folks would think and have personally experienced this phenomenon repeatedly in business scenarios in the IT sector -- a group of people that you would expect to make calculated, logical purchasing decisions.


FWIW, I don't spend a lot on hardware but will on transducers -- to a point which I am comfortable with.
So, while I primarily subscribe to a buying philosophy that aligns with a 'pure' Sound Science approach, I can fully understand those that don't.  For whatever reason they choose to buy that expensive amp/dac/cable (subconsciously or consciously), good on them!

Lastly, I have no compelling desire to convert them to my way of thinking... 

That said, I'm happy to offer up my thoughts/approach/etc. in a respectful dialogue to those that are curious and exploring alternatives


----------



## SonyFan121

analogsurviver said:


> This  totally unproven assertion is THE very reason for the existence of this and  similar threads etc.
> 
> It is so wrong it could - possibly - not be wronger .



What would you know about it?


----------



## SonyFan121

It's a fact that if a product is well engineered, then it will perform exceptionally well. Fact not fiction.


----------



## analogsurviver

SonyFan121 said:


> What would you know about it?



Same as anyone  -  pro or amateur - that ever actually learned cold from the hot side of the soldering iron.


----------



## SonyFan121

That's nice


----------



## 71 dB

SonyFan121 said:


> It's a fact that if a product is well engineered, then it will perform exceptionally well. Fact not fiction.



I'd put it this way:_ Know how_ is really about being able to make cheaper well engineered products than others. The world is full of well engineered high performance products. The problem is only a fraction of people can afford them.


----------



## Phronesis

71 dB said:


> I'd put it this way:_ Know how_ is really about being able to make cheaper well engineered products than others. The world is full of well engineered high performance products. The problem is only a fraction of people can afford them.



I think quality of engineering can be judged based on both value and absolute performance.  There's space for top-performing products which may not represent good value, but are desired (by those who can afford them) because of their performance.  The Sennheiser HE-1 is an example:

https://en-us.sennheiser.com/sennheiser-he-1


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 25, 2019)

71 dB said:


> I'd put it this way:_ *Know how*_* is really about being able to make cheaper well engineered products than others.* The world is full of well engineered high performance products. The problem is only a fraction of people can afford them.



I agree. This is why I like Sony. I believe that they are the number 1 at manufacturing well engineered products at normal prices. My entire home entertainment system is made by Sony ( Sony Bravia TV, Sony Amp/Receiver, Sony speakers and Sony headphones), that's an entire home entertainment setup that cost me less than $650 in total. I'm not sure any other company can achieve this for a lower price, without sacrificing quality.


----------



## Phronesis

SonyFan121 said:


> I agree. This is why I like Sony. I believe that they are the number 1 at manufacturing well engineered products at normal prices. My entire home entertainment system is made by Sony ( Sony Bravia TV, Sony Amp/Receiver, Sony speakers and Sony headphones), that's an entire home entertainment setup that cost me less than $650 in total. I'm not sure any other company can achieve this for a lower price, without sacrificing quality.



I tried Sony's flagship Z1R headphone and didn't like the sound at all, so that was a total miss.  But generally I do like Sony products.


----------



## old tech (Jan 25, 2019)

71 dB said:


> I'd put it this way:_ Know how_ is really about being able to make cheaper well engineered products than others. The world is full of well engineered high performance products. The problem is only a fraction of people can afford them.


I wouldn't necessarily agree with that when it comes to electronics. 

Well engineered, high performance products can and is mass produced very cheaply these days.  Amplifiers, DACs, streamers etc have benefited from advances in technology and manufacture.  A completely transparent amplifier with high quality parts can be built for less than $2k, even after middle men take their cut and DACs likewise for less than $100.  Have a look at today's wall plug transformers as one example, they are much smaller and much cheaper than similar devices of even 10 years ago, and much more efficient.  Why wouldn't that hold for other electronic devices?  Pull the cover of an amp of today and see how little is in it compared to an amp of similar specs a generation ago.  Some of the very high end 'audiophile' amps are weighty with "audiophile' chassis and heat sinks of dubious virtue, but not much else.  As they say, the biggest cost centre of an audiophile manufacturer is their sales and marketing division.


----------



## old tech

Phronesis said:


> I tried Sony's flagship Z1R headphone and didn't like the sound at all, so that was a total miss.  But generally I do like Sony products.


I generally like Sony products too, but don't regard them highly as they once were a generation ago.

Once they were market leaders in terms of technology and stretching the envelope.  For example, their development of Beta video systems and of course the CD (with Phillips).

Contrast that to their misleading marketing nonsense around hi res audio under "what is hi res audio" in the link below.  Not only nonsense, but they trash all their pioneering work they did with digital audio for the sake of marketing to gullible audiophiles.  Contrast that to Phillips' website where they maintain their heritage, rather than selling it out to make a few bucks.

This decline in Sony's culture is many ways reflected in their products today.  I'd rate them as only average compared to where they stood 20 or 30 years ago.  This culture has also reflected their market, whereas once people associated Sony with high quality, cutting edge products now it is mostly associated with Muteki.

https://www.sony.com.au/electronics/hi-res-audio


----------



## SonyFan121

old tech said:


> I generally like Sony products too, but don't regard them highly as they once were a generation ago.
> 
> Once they were market leaders in terms of technology and stretching the envelope.  For example, their development of Beta video systems and of course the CD (with Phillips).
> 
> ...



You make it sound like they are the only company that use the term "high res audio" to promote their products - they are not.
Sony's strength (the thing that they are best at) is their TV's, X Reality Pro is a stunning technology that totally trashes any other TV's by another manufacturer. There is a mode that my Sony Bravia TV has, that changes the way the backlight operates, and it transforms a normal 1080P picture into one that could rival a 4k TV. I'm not talking about upscaling, this is something different and unique to Sony TV's.
I've had countless TV's by LG, Samsung, Finlux, Seiki, Panasonic, + more and the Sony is clearly the most technologically advanced and the best.


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> You make it sound like they are the only company that use the term "high res audio" to promote their products - they are not.
> Sony's strength (the thing that they are best at) is their TV's, X Reality Pro is a stunning technology that totally trashes any other TV's by another manufacturer. There is a mode that my Sony Bravia TV has, that changes the way the backlight operates, and it transforms a normal 1080P picture into one that could rival a 4k TV. I'm not talking about upscaling, this is something different and unique to Sony TV's.
> I've had countless TV's by LG, Samsung, Finlux, Seiki, Panasonic, + more and the Sony is clearly the most technologically advanced and the best.




The most technologically advanced TVs currently on the market use OLED displays.  Given that Sony buys their OLED panels from LG, I don’t think your position reflects reality.


----------



## SonyFan121

I am aware of that, and that Apple buy's theirs (for the iphone X) from Samsung. The technology I was referring to is one developed by Sony. I know I am biased, but so are others in this forum.


----------



## old tech

SonyFan121 said:


> You make it sound like they are the only company that use the term "high res audio" to promote their products - they are not.
> Sony's strength (the thing that they are best at) is their TV's, X Reality Pro is a stunning technology that totally trashes any other TV's by another manufacturer. There is a mode that my Sony Bravia TV has, that changes the way the backlight operates, and it transforms a normal 1080P picture into one that could rival a 4k TV. I'm not talking about upscaling, this is something different and unique to Sony TV's.
> I've had countless TV's by LG, Samsung, Finlux, Seiki, Panasonic, + more and the Sony is clearly the most technologically advanced and the best.


There is nothing wrong in using the hi res logo, it is more the misleading sales marketing based on the audiophile myth of stairsteps and omitting the part even the 16/44 comparison to the analog signal on the left side will reproduce that signal better than any analog playback device would.  Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on Sony as they are not the only manufacturer than panders to audiophile myths to sell products, but Sony is, or was, a highly respected manufacturer with a great legacy.

As for TVs, well YMMV.  I agree that Sony make very good televisions but LED TVs are not the best.  For example, I have three TVs at home, a Panasonic plasma (the last of them before they stopped manufacturing them) in my listening room, a Samsung LED in the family room and a Sony Bravia LED in the dining area.  All three have been professionally calibrated.  I'd rate the Samsung as having a slight edge over the Sony in terms of picture quality (though the Sony is more intuitive to use), but neither can match the Panasonic, whether it is SD or HD broadcast or blu-ray.  That is not an insult to the Sony as I have yet to see a LED TV set that can match the Panasonic plasma.  My next TV will definitely be an OLED.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 27, 2019)

old tech said:


> There is nothing wrong in using the hi res logo, it is more the misleading sales marketing based on the audiophile myth of stairsteps and omitting the part even the 16/44 comparison to the analog signal on the left side will reproduce that signal better than any analog playback device would.  Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on Sony as they are not the only manufacturer than panders to audiophile myths to sell products, but Sony is, or was, a highly respected manufacturer with a great legacy.
> 
> As for TVs, well YMMV.  I agree that Sony make very good televisions but LED TVs are not the best.  For example, I have three TVs at home, a Panasonic plasma (the last of them before they stopped manufacturing them) in my listening room, a Samsung LED in the family room and a Sony Bravia LED in the dining area.  All three have been professionally calibrated.  I'd rate the Samsung as having a slight edge over the Sony in terms of picture quality (though the Sony is more intuitive to use), but neither can match the Panasonic, whether it is SD or HD broadcast or blu-ray.  That is not an insult to the Sony as I have yet to see a LED TV set that can match the Panasonic plasma.  My next TV will definitely be an OLED.


As it happens, I also had a Panasonic plasma, and I think it could well be the same one as it was the last model they stopped making. I actually gave it to my old man when I bought the Sony. The Panasonic plasma I had was a 43 inch, the Sony I have now is a 32 inch LED TV. I think that when it comes to color variation, Plasma is hard to beat. But the X Reality Pro technology of the Sony LED TV combined with the mode I mentioned that changes the way the backlight operates, allows for a truly stunning picture, the likes of which i've not seen from any other TV.


----------



## old tech

SonyFan121 said:


> As it happens, I also had a Panasonic plasma, and I think it could well be the same one as it was the last model they stopped making. I actually gave it to my old man when I bought the Sony. The Panasonic plasma I had was a 43 inch, the Sony I have now is a 32 inch. I think that when it comes to color variation, Plasma is hard to beat. But the X Reality Pro technology of the Sony combined with the mode I mentioned that changes the way the backlight operates, allows for a truly stunning picture, the likes of which i've not seen from any other TV.


Like Sony and most brands, the Pansonic was sold in different models.  The one I have is the VT 50 series which was top of the line back in 2013.  There was also the VT and ST series which were lesser quality.

The Sony Bravia is a newer 55"  I have is quite a new set, it is a kd 9005 while the Samsung is a 50" 2011 Series 8 vintage.  One good thing about having all the TVs running at once is that it makes for easy comparisons. Neither the Sony or the Samsung can match the Panasonic, particularly in colour rendition and background grey scale of darker scenes.  I even prefer the Samsung for picture quality.  The funny thing is that to properly calibrate the Sony, I have to leave the Bravia engine off.

Anyway, I tend not to be brand locked when it comes to electronics as it really depends on the product.  For example, I have a razor thin high definition Sony tablet which I'm extremely happy.  On the other hand, I bought an expensive Sony clock radio dock a few years back that was unusable (for me).  It put out a bright blue light which even in dim mode lit up the whole room, and what's with the blue light display anyway, it is the worst colour you can have for sleep in a bedroom.


----------



## gregorio (Jan 26, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] A lot of people on this forum seem quite convinced that most audiophiles purchase equipment solely because they expect it to sound better...
> [2] Perhaps _THAT CLAIM_ is a myth that's worth investigating.
> [3] This thread is about _SOUND SCIENCE_ and specifically about _AUDIOPHILE CLAIMS_.



1. Can you name just one person on this forum who is "quite convinced" of that, let alone "a lot"?
2. Why would a claim/myth that you've just invented be "worth investigating"?

3. No it is NOT! This thread is specifically about "testing audiophile claims", but you repeatedly refuse to test, failed on the one occasion you did actually test and instead have consistently tried to derail this thread by effectively turning it into "let's just invent a bunch of new audiophile myths"!

For the record: I am "quite convinced" that a few people do purchase equipment "solely because they expect it to sound better", there's probably also a few who purchase equipment solely on appearance and don't give a jot about whether it sounds better. However, I'm "quite convinced" that the vast majority of audiophiles purchase equipment for a combination of reasons (not a sole reason), but it's a combination that includes an expectation of better sound. And, it appears from reviews/impressions, that "better sound" is one of, if not the, primary reasons. This is where ALL your analogies fail, because either an obvious improvement in performance is an expectation that IS realised (as in the case of sports cars and competition bikes) or, improved performance is not realised but is not an expectation (as in the case of a Rolex). A valid analogy would be one where there is an expectation of a noticeable improvement in performance that is NOT realised but you haven't given one of those, only invalid analogies! This is all very simple and blatantly obvious, which raises the question:  How come you are incapable of grasping the "very simple and blatantly obvious" or, maybe you do grasp it but are deliberately obfuscating/misrepresenting it, to serve your (marketing) agenda? Again, "_round and round and round we go_"!



old tech said:


> I generally like Sony products too, but don't regard them highly as they once were a generation ago.
> Once they were market leaders in terms of technology and stretching the envelope. For example, their development of Beta video systems and of course the CD (with Phillips).



I would agree. In addition to the BetaSP and then DigiBeta, there were numerous other pro products that Sony invented and led the market; DASH, DAT, Noise-Shaped Dither, Digital audio mixers and certain DSP processors just to name a few off the top of my head and of course the build quality and performance of consumer products. IMHO, it's not so much that Sony got worse but that everyone else got better (and cheaper) and when digital audio reached transparency in the 1990's there was nowhere for the high priced brand to go. I can't think of a single area of consumer or pro audio (or even consumer or pro video) where Sony significantly leads the field, either in terms of technology or market share but 20+ years ago there were numerous areas where they led (and sometimes dominated) both technology and market share.

G


----------



## SonyFan121

gregorio said:


> I would agree. In addition to the BetaSP and then DigiBeta, there were numerous other pro products that Sony invented and led the market; DASH, DAT, Noise-Shaped Dither, Digital audio mixers and certain DSP processors just to name a few off the top of my head and of course the build quality and performance of consumer products. IMHO, it's not so much that Sony got worse but that everyone else got better (and cheaper) and when digital audio reached transparency in the 1990's there was nowhere for the high priced brand to go. I can't think of a single area of consumer or pro audio (or even consumer or pro video) where Sony significantly leads the field, either in terms of technology or market share but 20+ years ago there were numerous areas where they led (and sometimes dominated) both technology and market share.
> 
> G



Putting aside Sony's consumer electronics products for a moment, I would like to bring attention to the fact that Sony Music Entertainment (a subsidiary of Sony Corporation) are also the biggest music company in the world;
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/sony-technically-biggest-music-company-world-bit-stretch/
The graph in that link shows that in 2017 they made $6.9 Billion, more than Universal Music group and Warner.
And then there is Sony Pictures, also making around $10 billion a year for the Sony Corporation.
The fact that Sony have a presence in the record and film industry gives them a slight advantage over other consumer electronics companies, as it means they have access to music and film studio's.


----------



## Steve999 (Jan 26, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I have $1200 headphones and I figure they're worth 3X my old $400 Sennheisers. I've spent a lot on speakers. Transducers are the part of the system where you can actually hear improvements. Less so when it comes to players and amps. I don't see any value to spending a lot there except for features. That might actually be true for my headphones too. I could make my old Senns as balanced as my Oppos but it would require me lugging around an equalizer. I suppose that qualifies as a feature.



I have a pair of Sony WH1000XM3 wireless headphones. They have adjustable EQ built in the firmware, as well as adjustable noise reduction. They also let you move the image around and have room effects though those don’t seem all that useful to me, except for the effect where the image is supposed to be like it Is directly in front of me. They also will self optimize for what air pressure you are in, and adapt to your current activity level to some extent. It’s a pretty large and useful feature set. I would not have bought them if it were not for the manually (or preset) adjustable EQ. I think the NR is best in class. If the NR is not best in class it’s pretty near there. I use them on the subway, and they’re pretty comfy (though not perfect) for lying down too.


----------



## taffy2207 (Jan 26, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> Putting aside Sony's consumer electronics products for a moment, I would like to bring attention to the fact that Sony Music Entertainment (a subsidiary of Sony Corporation) are also the biggest music company in the world;
> https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/sony-technically-biggest-music-company-world-bit-stretch/
> The graph in that link shows that in 2017 they made $6.9 Billion, more than Universal Music group and Warner.
> And then there is Sony Pictures, also making around $10 billion a year for the Sony Corporation.
> The fact that Sony have a presence in the record and film industry gives them a slight advantage over other consumer electronics companies, as it means they have access to music and film studio's.



They're _technically _the biggest Music Company in the World because they fudged their figures. It's in both the headline and subtext of the article in your link. It's unnecessary grandstanding by Sony IMO.

Sony Pictures brought in $9.3 Billion in _Revenue_. They actually made a profit of $380 Million which is a pretty paltry amount considering the Revenue figure.

https://wccftech.com/sony-group-q1-...wn-revenue-and-profit-improvement-marches-on/

They're on the way back but it's going to be long slow laborious progress IMHO (unless they come up with a benchmark product like the Apple iPhone that takes off).


----------



## 71 dB

old tech said:


> I wouldn't necessarily agree with that when it comes to electronics.
> 
> Well engineered, high performance products can and is mass produced very cheaply these days.  Amplifiers, DACs, streamers etc have benefited from advances in technology and manufacture.  A completely transparent amplifier with high quality parts can be built for less than $2k, even after middle men take their cut and DACs likewise for less than $100.  Have a look at today's wall plug transformers as one example, they are much smaller and much cheaper than similar devices of even 10 years ago, and much more efficient.  Why wouldn't that hold for other electronic devices?  Pull the cover of an amp of today and see how little is in it compared to an amp of similar specs a generation ago.  Some of the very high end 'audiophile' amps are weighty with "audiophile' chassis and heat sinks of dubious virtue, but not much else.  As they say, the biggest cost centre of an audiophile manufacturer is their sales and marketing division.



My first stereo amplifier was NAD 302 which cost me 950 Finnish Marks (~160 euros or ~$180 without inflation) back in the early 90's. That amp is still completely functional. So, yes, electronics can be cheap and good, but it took NAD _know how_ to have these products at those prices.


----------



## old tech

71 dB said:


> My first stereo amplifier was NAD 302 which cost me 950 Finnish Marks (~160 euros or ~$180 without inflation) back in the early 90's. That amp is still completely functional. So, yes, electronics can be cheap and good, but it took NAD _know how_ to have these products at those prices.


Yes but that was 30 years ago. Do you think electronic components, circuitry know how and manufacturing techniques have become more commoditised by now?


----------



## 71 dB

old tech said:


> Yes but that was 30 years ago. Do you think electronic components, circuitry know how and manufacturing techniques have become more commoditised by now?



If anything, the lifespan of electronics has shortened. It's not a miracle if something you bought 30 years ago still works, but it is a miracle if something you buy today still works in 2049! Ever heard of planned obsolescence? For example my 2010 Sony TV stopped supporting net content around 2015. Five years? Pathetic! At least it works otherwise thanks to Sony not using crappy capacitors in the power supple like Samsung did. So no, I don't trust electronics of today more than electronics 30 years ago. I trust less. Much less.


----------



## GearMe

I still have some older gear that works as well.

That said, it seems a little apples and oranges to compare products that have firmware/software/etc. with something that doesn't.

The software support for those products has to be sunsetted or the support issues would eventually consume the company's support time/budget...

Using that measuring stick this is the best audio product that I own  






Still works!


----------



## old tech

SonyFan121 said:


> Putting aside Sony's consumer electronics products for a moment, I would like to bring attention to the fact that Sony Music Entertainment (a subsidiary of Sony Corporation) are also the biggest music company in the world;
> https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/sony-technically-biggest-music-company-world-bit-stretch/
> The graph in that link shows that in 2017 they made $6.9 Billion, more than Universal Music group and Warner.
> And then there is Sony Pictures, also making around $10 billion a year for the Sony Corporation.
> The fact that Sony have a presence in the record and film industry gives them a slight advantage over other consumer electronics companies, as it means they have access to music and film studio's.



There are two ways of looking at this.  Is it a coincidence that Sony's decline from being one of the industry's leading innovators in consumer and pro electronics with their move into content?

I can certainly appreciate their business strategy but it does take their focus away from hardware innovation.  

It also creates a conflict, for example, the imperative to sell hi res content does not sit well with their earlier information regarding transparency of 16/44.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 27, 2019)

old tech said:


> There are two ways of looking at this.  Is it a coincidence that Sony's decline from being one of the industry's leading innovators in consumer and pro electronics with their move into content?
> 
> I can certainly appreciate their business strategy but it does take their focus away from hardware innovation.
> 
> It also creates a conflict, for example, the imperative to sell hi res content does not sit well with their earlier information regarding transparency of 16/44.



What I do know is that not long ago, they where actually close to bankruptcy. I don't know everything about it but i'm sure that their film business (Sony Pictures) was largely to blame.
I think with the high res thing, from a companies point of view (especially a company the size of Sony), these day's they care more about marketing and ensuring sales and less about sound quality. Or rather - they care more about getting there products sold.


----------



## old tech (Jan 27, 2019)

71 dB said:


> If anything, the lifespan of electronics has shortened. It's not a miracle if something you bought 30 years ago still works, but it is a miracle if something you buy today still works in 2049! Ever heard of planned obsolescence? For example my 2010 Sony TV stopped supporting net content around 2015. Five years? Pathetic! At least it works otherwise thanks to Sony not using crappy capacitors in the power supple like Samsung did. So no, I don't trust electronics of today more than electronics 30 years ago. I trust less. Much less.


I think you are conflating two separate things.  It is much easier and cheaper these days for stereo hardware manufacturers to produce products that are transparent, which is a separate issue from durability.  My experience of electronic products is that they are mostly trouble free and usually are replaced as technological improves, mainly around convenience.

Obsolescence comes in many forms.  In a sense the obsolescence of mass consumer products is a byproduct of producing things cheaply on a mass scale, but not due to reliability issues.  Televisions, for example, are cheap these days - so much so that it is not worth repairing them.  Same with many other consumer products, and it is the main reason why service technicians are fast disappearing.  I can remember as a child we had a black and white valve television.  Technicians were ubiquitous back then as rarely a year would go by without them requiring minor or major repairs.  Same with most consumer durables, washing machines generally do not last as long as those of a generation ago, but they tend to be more reliable (for a while at least), are more efficient and generally do a better job while being cheap to replace, making most repairs uneconomic.

Perhaps you were unlucky with your Sony TV as most people I know usually have a fault free experience and usually replace them because of technology improvements rather than faults.  From a manufacturer's perspective, there is a trade off between the cost of very long term durability and being able to compete in a market where people want to upgrade or update their products in five or ten years.   I had a Miele dishwasher which was 16 years old and still worked well.  But when we renovated the kitchen the old dishwasher would have looked out of place to the rest of the modern appliances, so we bought a new one.  Likewise when I replaced my CRT TVs, it wasn't because of reliability issues, but rather I wanted a larger screen that would take a lesser footprint in the rooms. These are the the main types of obsolescence we have these days.


----------



## old tech

SonyFan121 said:


> What I do know is that not long ago, they where actually close to bankruptcy. I don't know everything about it but i'm sure that their film business (Sony Pictures) was largely to blame.
> I think with the high res thing, from a companies point of view (especially a company the size of Sony), these day's they care more about marketing and ensuring sales and less about sound quality. Or rather - *they care more about getting there products sold.*


Exactly, and I cannot blame Sony for doing so.  It is a competitive market and companies have obligations to their shareholders.  I just think that a company like Sony should not throw away its heritage while doing so.


----------



## old tech

old tech said:


> .


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't see a specific correlation between Sony being in the content business and their opinion on 16/44k and CDs.

When Sony came out with the CD format - it offered 16/44k - and Sony was quite convinced that it was "audibly perfect".
Then, when they came out with the SACD format, which they promoted based on the claim that it was audibly better, clearly they'd changed their minds.
(On the commercial level, SACD offered multi-channel, and more powerful DRM... but all the brochures I recall simply touted that "it sounded better than CDs.")

You get to decide whether you believe:
a) After knowing for years that CDs are audibly transparent, Sony mysteriously "sold their soul to the devil", and no longer thinks so 
b) Sony eventually discovered audible weaknesses in the CD format which necessitated the development of the newer SACD format
bb) Sony had been aware of audible flaws in the CD format all along, but had been unable to fix them until new technology became available, and they'd just been lying about them all along. 
c) Sony simply has a marketing policy of claiming that whatever product they are currently selling is "audibly superior" and "better than all previous products"

I'm personally inclined to favor c) ....
And, now that SACD is dead as a commercial format, they've moved on to "high-res files".
(The last time I looked, Sony was licensing the DSD format at no cost... so, _commercially_, for them, it is dead.)

One could also suggest that Sony is now simply "format agnostic".. and is willing to sell their content in whatever format their market asks for it.

I also fail to see a conflict....
Because a conflict would assume that there was some sort of overarching philosophy on the subject....
Sony is first and foremost a PRODUCT company - and both hardware and content are simply products.

If a company has customers who want MP3 files, customer who want CDs, customers who want high-res PCM files, and customers who want DSDx10 files...
There is no conflict whatsoever if they sell their content in all of those formats...
They are in no way obligated to "take a stand on which one is better"...
They simply sell whatever products their customer want...

Many people on this forum seem to overlook a rather obvious fact...
Content producers like Sony have a HUGE library of existing content which they own...
When a given new piece of content somes out, a certain number of people will buy it, but they will make about the same amount, whether they sell it to those people in 16/44k or 24/192k.
_HOWEVER_, if there is widespread demand for 24/192k content...
_THEN THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SELL HIGH-RES COPIES AND REMASTERS OF OLD CONTENT TO MANY PEOPLE WHO ALREADY OWN THE CDS_.
This is the huge piece of revenue that provides the incentive for them to promote high-res content...



old tech said:


> There are two ways of looking at this.  Is it a coincidence that Sony's decline from being one of the industry's leading innovators in consumer and pro electronics with their move into content?
> 
> I can certainly appreciate their business strategy but it does take their focus away from hardware innovation.
> 
> It also creates a conflict, for example, the imperative to sell hi res content does not sit well with their earlier information regarding transparency of 16/44.


----------



## KeithEmo

The term "planned obsolescense" always has a negative connotation...

The reality is that some things, especially in certain markets, become very quickly obsolete.
And, if this is inevitable, then it may not be worthwhile to pay extra money for a product that will last longer.

For example, the basic requirements of an audio amplifier have remained the same for a very long time. Therefore, it makes sense to spend a little extra for an amplifier that will last a while. However, in ten years, your TV will be obsolete - so it would be a waste to pay for one which, because it uses higher quality parts, will last twenty years. 

I'm sure glad I didn't spend a lot of money on a high quality HDTV that would last twenty years - because it was only five years old when I replaced it with a 4k model that was twice the size and cost half the price. And, of all the VHS, DVD, and Blu-Ray players, and computers, I've owned over the years, the majority were still working when they were replaced because they were obsolete. Clearly it would have been a waste of money to have purchased ones that would last longer because they were made out of higher quality parts. The last TV I owned that actually wore out was an old standard def CRT Sony model... and that was about twenty years ago.

You're also being entirely unfair to your old Sony. Even a few years result in a huge gap in the power and cost of processing technology. You would, quite literally, have had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2010 to get the processing power available in a modern $500 TV. (If it could be had at any price back then.) Would you really have been willing to pay $50,000 for a Sony TV in 2010 that would NOT be obsolete today? Isn't it really a better deal to buy a $1000 TV in 2010, then just toss it and replace it in 2018 with a new $1000 TV that's far better?

The most expensive consumer home theater surround sound processor I am aware of today costs around $120,000. It's probably made from really high quality parts - and may outlive all of us here. However, in ten years, it will still be obsolete. So far, a lot of stereo audio gear has resisted this accelerated obsolescense, but I don't know for how long.... and I wouldn't be willing to bet a lot of money on it.



71 dB said:


> If anything, the lifespan of electronics has shortened. It's not a miracle if something you bought 30 years ago still works, but it is a miracle if something you buy today still works in 2049! Ever heard of planned obsolescence? For example my 2010 Sony TV stopped supporting net content around 2015. Five years? Pathetic! At least it works otherwise thanks to Sony not using crappy capacitors in the power supple like Samsung did. So no, I don't trust electronics of today more than electronics 30 years ago. I trust less. Much less.


----------



## old tech (Jan 27, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> I don't see a specific correlation between Sony being in the content business and their opinion on 16/44k and CDs.
> 
> When Sony came out with the CD format - it offered 16/44k - and Sony was quite convinced that it was "audibly perfect".



Sony was not merely convinced, they (along with Phillips) proved that it was.



KeithEmo said:


> Then, when they came out with the SACD format, which they promoted based on the claim that it was audibly better, clearly they'd changed their minds.
> 
> (On the commercial level, SACD offered multi-channel, and more powerful DRM... but all the brochures I recall simply touted that "it sounded better than CDs.")



Of course their marketing brochures would say that, what would you expect them to say, "we are introducing this fantastic SACD format which offers no discernible sound quality improvement, but now that we are entering the content business DRM is vital"?



KeithEmo said:


> You get to decide whether you believe:
> a) After knowing for years that CDs are audibly transparent, Sony mysteriously "sold their soul to the devil", and no longer thinks so



There is no mystery about this.  When Sony and Phillips invented the CD they did not foresee the day when digital files could be identically copied in a consumer format (eg CD-R) or worse, that digital files would be freed from requiring a physical format and advances in the internet meant the public could easily share these files across the net.



KeithEmo said:


> b) Sony eventually discovered audible weaknesses in the CD format which necessitated the development of the newer SACD format



It wasn't an audible weakness, it was a protection weakness as discussed above.



KeithEmo said:


> bb) Sony had been aware of audible flaws in the CD format all along, but had been unable to fix them until new technology became available, and they'd just been lying about them all along.
> c) Sony simply has a marketing policy of claiming that whatever product they are currently selling is "audibly superior" and "better than all previous products"



Where is your evidence for that, outside marketing materials directed towards average consumers and gullible audiophiles?  Having said that, multi-channel capabilities was an improvement but that came later.



KeithEmo said:


> I'm personally inclined to favor c) ....
> And, now that SACD is dead as a commercial format, they've moved on to "high-res files".
> (The last time I looked, Sony was licensing the DSD format at no cost... so, _commercially_, for them, it is dead.)



Of course, how else does Sony keep selling back catalogues without convincing listeners they need to upgrade to hi res recordings?



KeithEmo said:


> One could also suggest that Sony is now simply "format agnostic".. and is willing to sell their content in whatever format their market asks for it.



Yes that is true for Sony and other manufacturers, including yours.  However Sony is conflicted because it has a need to keep selling content.



KeithEmo said:


> I also fail to see a conflict....
> Because a conflict would assume that there was some sort of overarching philosophy on the subject....
> Sony is first and foremost a PRODUCT company - and both hardware and content are simply products.



No, Sony does both and it is not just that they do both, they are also complementary to each other.  The marketing strategy puts both together - it wouldn't make commercial sense not to when you sell both content and the hardware.



KeithEmo said:


> If a company has customers who want MP3 files, customer who want CDs, customers who want high-res PCM files, and customers who want DSDx10 files...
> There is no conflict whatsoever if they sell their content in all of those formats...
> They are in no way obligated to "take a stand on which one is better"...
> They simply sell whatever products their customer want...



So you don't believe that marketing plays a huge role in shaping consumer wants?  Nothing inherently wrong with that except when they use false premises to confuse listeners.



KeithEmo said:


> Many people on this forum seem to overlook a rather obvious fact...
> Content producers like Sony have a HUGE library of existing content which they own...
> When a given new piece of content somes out, a certain number of people will buy it, but they will make about the same amount, whether they sell it to those people in 16/44k or 24/192k.
> _HOWEVER_, if there is widespread demand for 24/192k content...
> ...



Well that's the point isn't it?

A close friend of the family (parents) was the Sony GM for Australasia and would agree with pretty much what I said here - not that I'm necessarily appealing to authority, we don't have access to sensitive commercial documents held by corporations but most of it is common sense and covered ad-finitim on other sites.  He's long passed on, but he was very informative and shaped a lot of my thinking around hi fi back in the 80s/90s.  Tellingly, he never bought into SACDs, even though Sony provided him with a SACD players before its official release (I remember listening to it).  He once told me a story of early developments around a analog two-sided "compact disk" which was mooted to replace the LP (based on laser disk technology) but was shelved as digital technology was advancing at a rapid rate, but I digress...


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 28, 2019)

old tech said:


> Exactly, and I cannot blame Sony for doing so.  It is a competitive market and companies have obligations to their shareholders.  *I just think that a company like Sony should not throw away its heritage while doing so.*



I think that's a sign of how big the Sony Corporation are. There are different divisions. They (Sony Corporation, the parent company) are worth close to $50 Billion U.S.D. In 2017 they made $72 billion..and they are only getting bigger. They'll be overtaking Samsung at this rate in no time.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 27, 2019)

...analogue will never be obsolete, when it comes to audio. I have a 26 year old Linn Power amp that was designed over 30 years ago (the late 80's) and back in 1993 it's RRP was $5,000. It still sounds better than any other modern amp i've heard up to $500 and beyond!


----------



## KeithEmo

I have a single very simple question....

First Sony claimed that "CDs are audibly transparent".
Then, the very same Sony, later claimed "CDs aren't audibly transparent after all".

On what basis do you CHOOSE to consider the first claim to be true - but the second claim to be false?
It sounds an awful lot like what we call "cherry picking".
(We have two contradicting claims, by the same equally credible company, and you are simply CHOOSING which one you PREFER to believe.)

Have you considered the possibility that they were lying the first time - simply to promote the CD format?
Or, perhaps, they were simply saying what they knew would encourage people to buy what they were selling that day.

I personally just discount BOTH claims as being intended primarily to sell product.... which I do not find in any way sinister or even unexpected.
However, I find it difficult to assign any credibility to a study claiming that CDs are audibly transparent - after the company who published it has said it was wrong.

I absolutely EXPECT Sony to say that whatever they were selling last year wasn;t quite good enough... but what they're selling this year is just great.
Then, ten years from now, I expect them to be selling their latest product as "perfect", and their 2019 products as "not quite good enough".
But I'm not going to be quoting either claim as "established fact".



old tech said:


> Sony was not merely convinced, they (along with Phillips) proved that it was.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## old tech (Jan 27, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> I have a single very simple question....
> 
> First Sony claimed that "CDs are audibly transparent".
> Then, the very same Sony, later claimed "CDs aren't audibly transparent after all".
> ...



Well here we go going round in circles again, after so many pages discussing that in some 30 years there is no credible evidence that CDs are not audibly transparent and plenty of credible evidence that it is.  I think it is more that you choose not to believe in controlled scientific based tests and perhaps willing to wait another 30 years just in case we find out that something was wrong with the previous 30 years of data.



KeithEmo said:


> Have you considered the possibility that they were lying the first time - simply to promote the CD format?
> Or, perhaps, they were simply saying what they knew would encourage people to buy what they were selling that day.



Sure, marketing is marketing.  They were lying when they said perfect sound forever, because the format is only a small part of sound quality, extremely small compared to the quality of the recording and post recording production.  But it was not a lie that the CD format was transparent.  Both Sony and Phillips provided all the technical information around measurements to emphatically prove that it is transparent within the bounds of human hearing, and 30 years of controlled testing has not contradicted it.

Conversely, it is not a lie to claim that hi res may sound better.  We all know that many hi res releases have benefited from audiophile mastering, often from early generation tapes, which does give better sound quality.  The lie is claiming that the better sound of some hi res material is due to the format, which Sony clearly does in its marketing material even though they know better.


----------



## old tech

SonyFan121 said:


> ...analogue will never be obsolete, when it comes to audio. I have a 26 year old Linn Power amp that was designed over 30 years ago (the late 80's) and back in 1993 it's RRP was $5,000. It still sounds better than any other modern amp i've heard up to $500 and beyond!


I wouldn't be so sure.  Analog, along with digital formats like CDs won't be around in 50 years time, apart from some hobbyists.

Just look at the sales trend from RIAA data - CDs sales are rapidly shrinking, LPs have grown from a very low base but has now plateaued, representing a tiny portion of the market.  The major growth is streaming and that market will continue to evolve rapidly.


----------



## Elecroestatico

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Well every dac I’ve ever tried has sounded the same so I guess I will be needing those flashy lights then.
> My iPod nano sounds the same as the Pioneer xdp300r...and that sounded the same as my Aune X1. The latter I have tested extensively in a/b blindtesting where I’ve compared it to the Hugo 2, the Schiit Yggdrassil, Benchmark 2 as well as a lot of others.
> Volumes level matched, instant flick of the switch to change unit, set up in my apartment for a weekend where I was free to listen to whatever for as long as I felt like it..in order to sniff out which was “better”.
> They were all “best” though and unless your momma got it on with a feisty spermwhale I very much doubt your claims that completely go against established science.


Ok but what did you use to listen to all those dacs? you are not supposed to plug them into your shoes


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

I used my old Nikes

Nah I used a lot of different headphones most noteably the hd800. I also tested with my friend's electrostatic studio monitors and came to the same conclusion.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] I have a single very simple question.... First Sony claimed that "CDs are audibly transparent". Then, the very same Sony, later claimed "CDs aren't audibly transparent after all".
> On what basis do you CHOOSE to consider the first claim to be true - but the second claim to be false?
> [2] It sounds an awful lot like what we call "cherry picking".
> [2a] (We have two contradicting claims, by the same equally credible company, and you are simply CHOOSING which one you PREFER to believe.)
> ...



1. A very simple question that has a very simple answer: The basis for that choice is the facts/science, which is hardly surprising considering the name of this sub-forum!

2. Who is that "we", just you or the whole marketing department at Emotiva? We (the rest of us) would not call that anything like "cherry-picking" at all! That is because "cherry-picking" is the act of citing those facts which support an agenda, while omitting other facts which contradict the agenda. But that is NOT the case here, we have a considerable amount of diverse scientific facts supporting the assertion that "CDs are audibly transparent", measurements of CDs compared against the long known physiology of the human ear and it's frequency response, plus numerous direct audibility studies. While against the assertion we have no scientific facts, so no facts are being omitted and therefore it is NOT "cherry-picking"!
2a. In a sense you are correct, we are "simply CHOOSING" the marketing claim supported by the facts and rejecting the claim which is not. In other words, we "PREFER to believe" the science/facts in preference to the unsupported marketing claim. Isn't this blatantly obvious, isn't this the sound science forum?

3. That's just patronising! This is the "sound science" forum, not the "sound marketing" forum (an obvious distinction which you repeatedly appear to ignore/obfuscate), so of course he/we have considered that possibility!

4. This isn't the "What KeithEmo finds it difficult to assign any credibility to" forum, it's the sound science forum. The study has some credibility because the testing procedures appear to have been quite rigorous AND because the results are in agreement with numerous other similar, independent tests.

Round and round and round we go!

G


----------



## GearMe

When Sony marketed this product (~3 to 5x markup), I knew exactly where they were coming from!  
https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/19/8068465/sony-memory-card-premium-sound-sr-64hxa


----------



## taffy2207 (Jan 28, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> I think that's a sign of how big the Sony Corporation are. There are different divisions. They (Sony Corporation, the parent company) are worth close to $50 Billion U.S.D. In 2017 they made $72 billion..and they are only getting bigger. They'll be overtaking Samsung at this rate in no time.



Sorry, but on every relevant Market measure Sony are nowhere near Samsung :-


*Samsung (#14)*


Sales *$224.6 B*
Profits *$41 B*
Assets Market * $293.2 B*
Value*   $325.9 B*
*
Sony (#86)
*

Sales* $77.1 B*
Profits* $4.4 B*
Assets Market*  $179.3 B*
Value *$59.9 B*
*
Source (List) :- https://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/#tab:overall
Source (Article) :- **https://www.forbes.com/sites/corinnejurney/2017/05/24/the-worlds-largest-public-companies-2017/#450804b8508d*


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 28, 2019)

taffy2207 said:


> Sorry, but on every relevant Market measure Sony are nowhere near Samsung :-
> 
> 
> *Samsung (#14)*
> ...



The reason I mentioned Samsung is because to my knowledge, Samsung are the next big consumer electronics giant who are closest to Sony in terms of net worth, despite the gap. My opinion is that at the rate of growth Sony have shown since 2015, ($70 -$80 Billion in annual revenue) then maybe in 5 years Sony will have caught up with or overtaken Samsung. I think it's likely.
Samsung have taken their business as far as it can go I think, whereas Sony have room for expansion.


----------



## 71 dB

old tech said:


> Analog, along with digital formats like CDs won't be around in 50 years time, apart from some hobbyists.


I'm afraid I won't be around in 50 years time either… 

Even if I lived 100 years, I'm sure the effects of climate change, wars over water, overpopulation, decline of sivilization because of crony capitalism and fascist populist movements are a lot bigger problems than the availability of old music formats. Every music piece and movie in the history will be stored in a "sugarcube" using quantum holography, so who would want have anything to do with 20th century formats other than some historians? It would be like us crying because they don't sell wax cyliders anymore.


----------



## 71 dB

Sony doesn't sell only audio technology. It sells also mental images and lifestyle. For me and many on this board knowledge of audio has "ruined" this mental image aspect, but most people can "enjoy" that aspect of audio consumerism, let placebo effect make hi-res better than CD etc. The superiority of CD was a good mental image back in the 80's, but people already upgraded their vinyl collection to CDs. So, they came up with the idea of CD remasters which ironically often sounded worse because of loudness war. To get rid of abyssmal VHS, technology had to be developped first for DVD and then for Blu-ray/4K, because even DVD was so far from the resolution of human eye. As a byproduct hi-res audio became possible. Of course companies like Sony try to capitalize on such opportunities. So, they created yet another mental image: Hi-res audio. From the mental image point of view Sony has been right all this time. The fact that Sony was right with CD from technological point of view is because with CD consumer audio happened to reach the state of transparency, if not in the 80's then during the 90's when digital technology matured.


----------



## SonyFan121

There is so much bias in this thread and in Sound Science in general, it's quite unbelievable! I noticed it at an early stage - it's fairly obvious!. As for me,- I try to be fair and unbiased, but when faced with opposition I like to stand up for not what I think is right but what I_ know _is right. It helps when you are armed with _know_ledge, then you can defeat them.


----------



## Phronesis

SonyFan121 said:


> There is so much bias in this thread and in Sound Science in general, it's quite unbelievable! I noticed it at an early stage - it's fairly obvious!. As for me,- I try to be fair and unbiased, but when faced with opposition I like to stand up for not what I think is right but what I_ know _is right. It helps when you are armed with _know_ledge, then you can defeat them.



There's definitely bias around here, but my sense is that the average opinion expressed in Sound Science is likely closer to the truth than the average opinion expressed outside Sound Science.  The root of the problem is that people easily and frequently misperceive things due to influences operating at a subconscious level and therefore beyond their conscious awareness.  Unless steps are taken to control those influences, we can frequently get things quite wrong, thereby fooling ourselves and misleading others.


----------



## SonyFan121

Phronesis said:


> There's definitely bias around here, but my sense is that the average opinion expressed in Sound Science is likely closer to the truth than the average opinion expressed outside Sound Science.  The root of the problem is that people easily and frequently misperceive things due to influences operating at a subconscious level and therefore beyond their conscious awareness.  Unless steps are taken to control those influences, we can frequently get things quite wrong, thereby fooling ourselves and misleading others.



There could be other factors too. Perhaps their financial status is not what it used to be, or perhaps they have a particular grievance with a particular company, or perhaps they just haven't learned to be satisfied with the equipment they have.


----------



## Phronesis

SonyFan121 said:


> There could be other factors too. Perhaps their financial status is not what it used to be, or perhaps they have a particular grievance with a particular company, or perhaps they just haven't learned to be satisfied with the equipment they have.



I think you need to be specific about which biases you're complaining about.


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> It would be like us crying because they don't sell wax cylinders anymore.



They still make wax cylinders... audiophile ones too (such as it is).
https://www.richardslaboratories.com


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> There could be other factors too. Perhaps their financial status is not what it used to be, or perhaps they have a particular grievance with a particular company, or perhaps they just haven't learned to be satisfied with the equipment they have.



Haven’t we been through the financial discussion already and determined that many of the posters you disagree with are certainly not financially challenged in regards to purchasing audio gear?

The issue here, to be blunt, is that you dramatically overestimate your knowledge of audio science.  If you’re going to continue with the insults, you’re going to need to defend your position, particularly when accusing others of bias regarding a company given your user name.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 28, 2019)

Blind testing may have small flaws, but it is a LOT better than sighted impressions or listening tests with no controls applied.

By the way, here in Sound Science we can demand contolled tests- i.e.: blind tests and controls to eliminate perceptual error- from people making claims. You might mistakenly think you are in some other forum.


----------



## SonyFan121

The most outspoken one's are the one's who ironically know next to nothing.


----------



## bigshot

If you don't like our little community, you can always leave. If you're just going to snipe at other members and not provide anything to back up your opinions, that would actually be the wisest move. Your current track isn't going to end well.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 28, 2019)

bigshot said:


> If you don't like our little community, you can always leave. If you're just going to snipe at other members and not provide anything to back up your opinions, that would actually be the wisest move. *Your current track isn't going to end well*.



Good for you. I'm not bothered at all. The truth hurts 
And you can't even conduct a proper blind test.


----------



## bigshot

You have a logical fallacy going there, bud.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 28, 2019)

That's right, use generic terms against me.
I'm done with this thread, i'm away to purchase a Sennheiser HD800 and an expensive Sony amp and enjoy the luxurious sound.
Goodbye strange peeps


----------



## bigshot

BUH BYE! Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out!

(he'll be back)


----------



## SonyFan121

I'm back!
But only to say i've unsubscribed.
I really don't care for the logical fallacy. You can say what you like, I won't be listening


----------



## bigshot

Thank you for your consideration and kindness.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

SonyFan121 said:


> The most outspoken one's are the one's who ironically know next to nothing.


I've been you(perhaps not as outspoken  )thanks to the gentlemen in sound science,i no longer stress about whether my digital front end is good enough.This a step toward the enjoyment of music and not sweating the gear so much.Not much is said in here by the regulars that hasn't been proven.Take a step back and listen....it can only improve your enjoyment of music.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bfreedma said:


> If you have evidence supporting your claim that humans can reliably discern audible differences between 320kbps lossy and lossless, now would be the time to post it.  There is plenty of supporting evidence in this thread to the contrary, including your own test results.
> 
> Note: What you claim to be able to do in an uncontrolled test or during a listening session does not constitute evidence. Happy to discuss a methodology other than blind testing if you care to share the specifics.
> 
> As to your claim that you know more about EE and digital audio than the people you mention here, I’ll be nice and simply say I’ve seen nothing in your posts causing me to share that belief.


Such restraint....i think i will make you an honorary Canadian


----------



## bfreedma

Glmoneydawg said:


> Such restraint....i think i will make you an honorary Canadian



Much appreciated.  I did live in Toronto for 18 months and loved it.  A few months in Goose Bay too - beautiful, but man was the winter cold!


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Jan 28, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> Much appreciated.  I did live in Toronto for 18 months and loved it.  A few months in Goose Bay too - beautiful, but man was the winter cold!


The cold air in Goose Bay probably made you're tunes sound better though right?...it's -21 Celsius here at the moment....and i am diggin my tunes!


----------



## bfreedma (Jan 28, 2019)

Glmoneydawg said:


> The cold air in Goose Bay probably made you're tunes sound better though right?



Much better.  My lungs froze, so no irritating breathing noises to diminish sound quality

-21?  Ugh.  And that's probably before factoring in wind chill!  Stay inside and keep enjoying your music!  Perhaps with a nice glass of Wisers


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Jan 28, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> Much better.  My lungs froze, so no irritating breathing noises to diminish sound quality
> 
> -21?  Ugh.  And that's probably before factoring in wind chill!  Stay inside and keep enjoying your music!  Perhaps with a nice glass of Wisers


Lol...yep Johny Walker is my frequent co pilot after shovelling my drivewaybtw this looks like headphones,but is actually earmuffs.


----------



## castleofargh

modo moustache ON: had to do some cleaning. those posting insults, now is a good time to stop. and the rest, try not to quote insults as I end up having to delete your posts too, which is fun for nobody. 





@SonyFan121 . I hope you get the irony of your angered posts. you're getting mad at people for having critics against Sony, and your reaction is to declare how biased the section is while sporting a Sonyfan nickname. then you go on to pass judgement on what is correct and what isn't without presenting evidence or demonstration of any sort. you argue that you know more than most people, and apparently we should fully accept the fact based on what? that you said so?  
you argue that blind testing is crap and flawed, and again, we're supposed to take your word for it. you can't even bother to mention your superior alternative. you have one right?
and you wonder why other members don't acknowledge you or admit that they're wrong? the why seems pretty clear to me.

when someone makes a statement you believe to be false, you can ask for supporting evidence, or provide your own, showing that the statement was indeed false. that's how things are supposed to develop. and if something you believe to be false is presented without any supporting evidence, you certainly don't have to bother about it. empty claims are only that. but if you decide to argue the point anyway, how about offering more than your own empty claims? so maybe someone might end up actually learning something at some point. 


 the reason why this section talks about blind testing a lot is really very simple. it isn't allowed outside! it is allowed here and as far as I know, to test subjective impressions with some confidence, blind testing is the way to do it. so complaining about people asking for blind test experiments when discussing perception in this section, is about as astute as complaining about people who keep bringing up headphone amps in the headphone amp section. of course if you have a better alternative, I'm "all ears". 
yes people are biased, and yes those who post the most are quite often not the ones who know the most. those are consistent human traits so I'd expect to also see them in this section. are you saying this doesn't happen anywhere else so the section is to blame? 



as for the rest of you, I really have no idea what TVs and Sony, and cars have to do with this thread. we have general discussion topics, just because this one is at the top of the forum threads, doesn't mean we have to post everything in it.


----------



## Elecroestatico

castleofargh said:


> modo moustache ON: had to do some cleaning. those posting insults, now is a good time to stop. and the rest, try not to quote insults as I end up having to delete your posts too, which is fun for nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


did you also erase my last post where I clearly show how poorly dirty and dishonest is "oldtech' and "gregorio" contribution to this thread? If so can you explain why? or maybe I forgot to post it...anyways let me know please so I can post my last message. Like I said I probably forgot to post it but I hope you offer an explanation for every post you delete, it would be the right thing to do.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 29, 2019)

Haven't you already earned the "delete without explanation" treatment? If you want to participate here, you should avoid ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies and start listening to what people say to you. Once you've heard what they have to say, consider the validity of their point of view. Then if you still disagree, present arguments to support your own opinion. Just slagging on individual posters without offering a whit of information yourself is a good way to get marginalized around here. It might work in other forums, but here that sort of nonsense gets buried under post after post pointing out why you're wrong. Most of us here are capable of discussing things with each other. Aim for that. Start with a point and respond to it politely, succinctly and with ample supporting evidence. Be open to learning from the other people here. If you aren't learning anything there's no reason for you to be participating in this group.


----------



## castleofargh

Elecroestatico said:


> did you also erase my last post where I clearly show how poorly dirty and dishonest is "oldtech' and "gregorio" contribution to this thread? If so can you explain why? or maybe I forgot to post it...anyways let me know please so I can post my last message. Like I said I probably forgot to post it but I hope you offer an explanation for every post you delete, it would be the right thing to do.


modo, again:
I removed your post because it was full of condescending and judgemental crap, sprinkled with insults. I didn't warn you specifically because yesterday I deleted a handful of posts in one go(some insulting, some quoting the insults, like I mentioned in the first line of my post).
it's hard to argue about a topic without including the person making a point from time to time, I get it and that's the only reason I show some tolerance.but Head-fi does not allow personal attacks. so if the only thing you wish to talk about is how stupid and dishonest someone is, go do it on a different forum. for the rest, argue audibility anyway you like(some actual demonstrations would certainly go a long way). there are many people reading the forum and having their own independent opinion. but to repeat myself, argue the ideas, not the people.
gregorio fails to do that all too often with Keith's posts those days, and from time to time I also remove his posts. I don't really care who breaks the forum rules, I only care that it stops soon. the last post from @old tech was attacking you too strongly so I also removed it. 
but obviously I'm not going to enjoy doing this for long.


----------



## bigshot

I think everyone needs to get back into the mindset that this forum is for sharing information, not for making royal proclamations or blanket dismissals of royal proclamations. If you have something to teach us about, do it. Be concise and clear. Don't try to impress us, just try to get solid information across. Listen to the questions you get and answer them honestly. Be willing to be wrong. You might find that the people you're arguing with have something to teach you about things you don't know about. No one here knows everything about everything. We can all learn.

But some people with certain cognitive conditions have difficulties empathizing or communicating well with others. They don't read and reply, they only look for the slenderest of opportunities to interject a long protracted spiel talking to themselves about completely irrelevant topics. It's fine to do that if you're making a quick joke or interjecting a short comment, but some of the posters here seem to have made a career of it, and they don't know when their endless pontificating has worn out its welcome. I'd be fine with them if they at least made an effort to not sperg up these threads with post after post full of unwanted blather. But I can't seem to get their attention focused on anything but themselves long enough to get across that their behavior doesn't appear to other people the way they seem to see it themselves. I have nothing against them, but I'm sure not going to volunteer for the job of being their internet adult day care. I think it would take a close friend or relative shaking their cage to get them to look outward for a change. Maybe a time out would help.

Other people are so dead set in their ignorant beliefs, they refuse to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts them. They make a statement, refuse to back it up, and when someone offers evidence to the contrary, they respond with attacks against the other person instead of the argument. Those people are intellectually dishonest and are basically trolls. If I was mod, I would probably send them packing after three strikes. But I'm not a mod so I just mute the posters who have nothing of value to say.

We definitely have a problem here. I'm trying to do my part to fix it, but it takes a village.


----------



## KeithEmo

It's somewhat difficult to find copies or reprints of original Sony marketing literature....
However, here's an article that talks about their press release on the subject.... which mentions the detail I recall.
As with all marketing literature - it does represent what the company publicly "claims to believe".....

"Thus, according to Sony, the resultant digital signal very closely resembles the shape of the original analog waveform"
 ( https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1139202  )

I recall a specific impressive glossy brochure....
It showed a picture of a sine wave...
Below that was a picture of the equivalent PCM waveform, which, to a human, looks like a random chain of ones and zeros...
Then they showed the DSD waveform, where you can clearly see that the pulses get closer together at the high spots on the sine wave and further apart on the low spots...
The narrative claimed that "SACD was more like analog because the analog information it contains is even visible to a human being..."
The _major _point was that "SACD digital is more like analog than CD digital because the digital waveform _looks_ more like analog".
If they mentioned the presumed technical merits - it was in the fine print.

A modern equivalent of this, still sometimes seen in marketing literature for sellers of DSD DACs and players, is the idea that "you can decode DSD with just a simple capacitor"....
Or even that "you can feed DSD directly to a speaker, with no decoding at all, and get legible audio"...

Both of these are technically true.
However, both omit the fact that, without filtering that is very similar to that required with PCM DACs, the resulting "analog audio" contains dangerous amounts of ultrasonic noise.
(In other words, while both "work", they are the equivalent of "parlor tricks" and do not produce a valid, safe, or listenable audio signal.)

Just to avoid any misunderstanding.....
My only point here is that, just as with high-resolution is today, SACD was promoted mostly based on "marketing fluff"...
It was not based on "honestly convincing informed consumers and audiophiles that the SACD format had technical merit"...
I'm also pretty sure I never saw any mention in the "public facing literature" that SACDs had the "benefit" of powerful copy protection...
(They _DECIDED_ to promote SACD for various reasons, then _MADE UP_ whatever "facts" they had to in order to sell it to consumers.)

Sony's research on the audibility of encoding audio signals at 16/44k was NOT a scientific effort designed to advance the cause of audio science...
It was simply research about developing a new product that would be of adequate quality to satisfy a market.

Likewise, when lossy encoding was first invented, it was invented to fill a market need.
Initially, 128k MP3 seemed to fulfill that need...
Then, when 128k MP3 was widely agreed to "not be good enough", higher bit-rate versions were introduced...
Then Apple introduced 128k AAC, which was better, and insisted that it was "good enough" for their commercial music releases (on iTunes)...
Until their market disagreed ... at which point they "decided" that "256k AAC was what everybody needed after all".

Again, just to avoid any misunderstanding.....
_ALL OF THIS WAS MARKET DRIVEN - AND BASED ON MARKET DEMAND.
Apple did NOT abandon AAC 128 because one of their scientists "discovered that it wasn't quite audibly transparent after all".
They did so because the MARKETING DEPARTMENT determined that there was market for AAC 256 files that would be more profitable.
And, if, in a few years, "the market" decides that AAC 256 isn't good enough either, they will cheerfully accept that "fact" and offer a better format.

The main "benefit" of SACD was that there was a perception in the market that "CDs aren't perfect and can be improved upon".
This created a potential demand for a new product.
(Some of that demand evolved on its own, and Sony surely created some of it, probably based on some survey that suggested "there is a market for a new audiophile format".)_
The reality is that VERY FEW if any products are ever seen as "so perfect that nobody will consider buying an improved model next year"._

However....
At no point did any company step forward and promise that:
We will conduct an exhaustive and impartial study to determine which formats are good enough to satisfy our most demanding customers.
At that point, we will declare all formats inferior to that as unacceptable.
And we will immediately abandon any and all use of any formats determined not to meet or exceed that standard._
(And, if you believe that Sony did so when the CD Red Book format was announced, then you must also believe they had their fingers crossed when they made the promise.)

It is all simply an ongoing evolution to meet the current demands of the market...

In the big picture, my only point in all of this is to point out that...
To _CHOOSE_ to believe that the study that proves that "the Red Book CD format is audibly transparent and other formats before it were not"....
And ignore all the studies before that that made the same claim for older technologies...
And also ignore all of the studies after that for newer technologies...
Is indeed a form of cherry picking...

And, likewise, we'll all see if, in ten years, we hear that: "Scientists have finally conceded that 256k AAC is audibly perfect so there's no reason to work on any future formats"...
However, I for one will _NOT_ be taking that bet.
(That would be like betting that Atmos 7.1.6 and 4k UHD TV are finally "the be all and end all for home theater").



gregorio said:


> 1. What better formats? After CD, Sony came out with DAT, which was essentially the same format (just a different storage medium) and then they came out with SACD, which technically was a worse format than CD but they marketed it as audibly "better".
> 1a. The point is that the information KeithEmo shared was incorrect, Sony did not  "clearly change their minds", they just changed their marketing.
> 1b. What you prefer is irrelevant here and even more so when you apparently can't tell the difference between "opinion" and "info", let alone when opinions or info agree with or contradict the actual facts!
> 1c. No, it could NOT have been both, just because KeithEmo stated it as a "possibility" does not actually make it a "possibility". KeithEmo's "possibility" contradicts the actual facts and is therefore NOT a "possibility"!
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

KeithEmo said:


> It's somewhat difficult to find copies or reprints of original Sony marketing literature....
> However, here's an article that talks about their press release on the subject.... which mentions the detail I recall.
> As with all marketing literature - it does represent what the company publicly "claims to believe".....
> 
> ...


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> SACD is technically inferior, as a sufficient amount of noise-shaped dither cannot be applied to SACD to eliminate quantisation distortion (as proven by Lip****z and Vanderkooy in 2001 - "_Why 1-bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications_").
> 
> G



Thank, this is interesting. I haven't been aware of this problem of 1-bit DSD. Sigma-delta converters is not an issue I claim expertise for. 

I wonder how Sony was able to respond to this kind of criticism. Did they say the distortions are insignificant or what?


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> In the big picture, my only point in all of this is to point out that...
> To _CHOOSE_ to believe that the study that proves that "the Red Book CD format is audibly transparent and other formats before it were not"....
> *And ignore all the studies before that that made the same claim for older technologies...*
> And also ignore all of the studies after that for newer technologies...
> Is indeed a form of cherry picking...



Do such studies even exist? I can't imagine a serious study claiming vinyl is audibly transparent.


----------



## KeithEmo

As for formal studies... I suspect not.
However, there were many claims that this or that technology "sounded just like the real thing"...
In the early days formal studies simply weren't done for most things.
(Remember that, until quite recently, even medicine was not tested or certified safe.... actual testing of consumer products is a relatively new idea.)

However, there were many widely publicized "public demonstrations".
(Of course, since many of these were long before low cost video cameras, and the Internet, you won't find copies on YouTube.)

There was one early demonstration where the folks promoting the Edison cylinder phonograph arranged a demonstration in a theater.
Some sort of live performance was set up on stage and, half way through, the lights went out...
Then, after a short pause, the music resumed...
The live performers had been replaced by a hand-cranked Edison phonograph...
And it was claimed that "when asked, nobody in the audience had noticed the difference".
(The "test subjects" were invited in off the street for a "free performance"... with the proper "oohs and aahs" when the lights came back up to reveal the phonograph instead of the band.)

I should point out, however, that there is a bit of perspective that many folks here seem unable to grasp...
We humans _ALWAYS_ base our assessment of situations on our previous experience and our general knowledge of current technology.
Therefore, to someone in 1920, _WHO HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED ANY SORT OF SOUND REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY_....
There was a very strong bias to believe that anything that sounds like music, coming from the stage, is being produced by a live musician.
(It is simply the _ONLY_ experience they have that fits the situation.... )

I have little doubt that the results would have been different if:
1) the audience had been informed that they were comparing a live performance to a recording
2) members of the audience were even aware that recording technology existed as an option

It would be more accurate to say that "many people listened to vinyl and claimed to hear nothing wrong with it".
Since it was essentially the only practical alternative available - there was no incentive to actually perform any of that sort of test.
To most people who listened to vinyl it was simply the only option available.
("The studio master tape" was not an option for most consumers..... )

However, you will still find many people today who insist that vinyl is "higher fidelity than digital recording"....



71 dB said:


> Do such studies even exist? I can't imagine a serious study claiming vinyl is audibly transparent.


----------



## SonyFan121

So interesting to observe this. It is quite enlightening to see for myself, conducting my own tests using my iphone X and Sony MDR7510 headphone, the difference between an analogue waveform and a digital one.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 30, 2019)

Elecroestatico said:


> Not a problem. I will re-post my post that you deleted minus the "insults". So we can all see who is acting the way bigshot describes the behavior some people here have towards others.



When you quote like that I have to sift through all the BS I have blocked. Better to tag your quotes properly. You've got one big thing working against you here. Once you resort to ad hominem attacks, there's only one way to come back from that... an apology to the people you attacked. I suspect your personality type won't allow that. Unfortunately, you can shift to more civil discourse, but your reputation is already shot and people are just going to keep treating you like "the guy who insults people". One of the most important things I said up there was that people need to be able to be wrong and admit it. If you won't do that, you'll never get anywhere and you won't learn a thing from us.



71 dB said:


> Do such studies even exist? I can't imagine a serious study claiming vinyl is audibly transparent.



Vinyl is high fidelity, but it isn't audibly transparent by any stretch of the imagination. That is self evident.



SonyFan121 said:


> So interesting to observe this. It is quite enlightening to see for myself, conducting my own tests using my iphone X and Sony MDR7510 headphone, the difference between an analogue waveform and a digital one.



What am I supposed to be seeing there? Waveform displays aren't a good way to judge sound quality if that's what you are doing. Level differences and the degree of magnification can give a false idea of what is going on. Digital what? Analogue what? All I can tell about your waveforms is that they are so quiet, I would guess that they are noise floors, but without context it doesn't mean anything really.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 30, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> So interesting to observe this. It is quite enlightening to see for myself, conducting my own tests using my iphone X and Sony MDR7510 headphone, the difference between an analogue waveform and a digital one.



Not trying to prove anything. It's just fascinating to observe an analogue waveform (both pictured) in comparison to a digital one..
It reinforces my belief that analogue will always sound superior to digital. An analogue waveform looks similar to a strand of DNA, it's fascinating, whereas a digital one is completely linear due to conversion.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 30, 2019)

It doesn’t show that at all, but feel free to believe that if you want (even though it isn’t true).

By the way, isn’t your analogue waveform digital too?


----------



## SonyFan121

It's converted to analogue (it's analogue).


----------



## KeithEmo

I would like to remind everyone to consider the perspective "back in the days of vinyl".

When vinyl was the current technology, very few people had any way to compare it directly to anything else.
Yes, they could compare what they heard on an album to what they remembered hearing at a live concert.
However, they had no opportunity to do a direct comparison between, for example, the vinyl and the master tape.
At best, they tried to compare what the album sounded like to what they remembered of the concert.
Even today, it's trivial to make a digital copy of a vinyl album, and note tiny differences between the copy and the original.
However, most of us can't do the opposite - and compare a vinyl copy of our favorite CD to the original.
And, without a standard for comparison, all you can really offer is a subjective claim that "it sounds nice".

Today, if we want to compare various file formats, most of us have the capability to both convert and play a wide variety of formats.
That same luxury simply wasn't available in the days of vinyl.
And, since vinyl was the only truly ubiquitous established format... 
There was little incentive for anyone to conduct tests to see "if it was good enough"... until they had an alternative to compare it to.

Comparison of digital audio waveforms is a red herring associated with human perception (at the level of psychology).
When you convert analog audio into digital audio you are converting analog voltage values into a list of numbers.
While one format may have technical benefits over another...
The fact that one format may be "easier for a human being to visually interpret than another" is a meaningless quirk...

As it so happens.....

Visually, to a human being, a PCM waveform is essentially nonsense... 
- the pulse train in no way resembles the original signal.
Visually, to a human being, a DSD waveform resembles the original signal...
- you can see that the pulses get closer together as the voltage rises and further apart as the voltage drops.

Since neither is intended to be read by a human being, this is a meaningless quirk of fate.
Both signals are purely digital - and neither is "more analog than the other".
However, to some this "intuitively" suggests that DSD is "more like analog"...
It is merely the mental equivalent of an optical illusion...
They both simply contain numbers - stored in different formats.
However, for the marketing literature, a DSD files "looks more like analog audio" than a PCM file to a human.
(And Sony was quite happy to capitalize on that difference in_ their_ marketing literature.)



bigshot said:


> ..........................
> 
> Vinyl is high fidelity, but it isn't audibly transparent by any stretch of the imagination. That is self evident.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

You have an analogue phone?


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> However, you will still find many people today who insist that vinyl is "higher fidelity than digital recording"....



I'm too lazy to comment on your long post, but I say this: People do not often know what they are talking about (The Dunning-Kruger effect). So, you have people saying all kind of dumb things. That's just how it is. Vinyl better than CD? The Earth is flat? Climate change is a Chinese hoax? Single-payer healthcare system means Venezuela? Trump's wall will end the drug problem? Yeah right…   …people say so stupid things these days that  in comparison claims like "vinyl is better than CD" are innocent drops in the ocean of disinformation.

No matter what we say here, our music collection sounds the same. I find even my SACDs audibly transparent despite of the 1-bit dithering problems and distortion. Happens at a level low enough. Vinyl has never been transparent for me, not even close. It's those distortions why some people like vinyl! Same with C-cassette, althou the high end decks did have good sound, but that was rich people not me. What ellse? Reel to reel. Never used those. VHS recorders with hifi sound were good otherwise, but there was serious distortion problems. So, for me CD is the first format that is audibly transparent in the price range I can afford.

Lastly: "sounds just like the real thing" doesn't mean audibly transparent. It means "so good you should buy it."


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> Visually, to a human being, a PCM waveform is essentially nonsense...
> - the pulse train in no way resembles the original signal.
> Visually, to a human being, a DSD waveform resembles the original signal...
> - you can see that the pulses get closer together as the voltage rises and further apart as the voltage drops.



I don't care what PCM and DSD _look_ like. I don't watch music, I listen to it. When PCM is shown what it is after DAC it looks like the sound waves in the air expect longitudal waves are waves. So what. Speakers make longitudal waves. DSD resembles the original signal? What?


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree....

However, apparently some people are quite convinced that "digital audio sounds different than analog audio"....
And some of those believe that, if the digital waveform "looks more like analog", then the resulting audio will "sound more like analog"....
You will see this as a recurring theme in advertising for DSD file downloads and equipment that plays DSD...
And you will also notice that many reviewers describe "things that sound more like analog" as if that were a compliment.

I don't know how many people really feel this way...
Or how many feel strongly enough to consider it a selling point...
But apparently such things serve to set an expectation bias that "an SACD will not only sound better but will sound more like analog".
And, when SACD was introduced, Sony considered it likely enough to dedicate a significant space in their advertising literature to the idea.



71 dB said:


> I don't care what PCM and DSD _look_ like. I don't watch music, I listen to it. When PCM is shown what it is after DAC it looks like the sound waves in the air expect longitudal waves are waves. So what. Speakers make longitudal waves. DSD resembles the original signal? What?


----------



## SonyFan121

If you understand the process of how an analogue signal is mapped/sampled/encoded into a digital one, then surely it should be obvious how in-accurate and unrepresentative digital formats are of live sound (what we hear with our ears) compared to analogue. It's obvious to me.


----------



## bigshot

In order for your phone to display the waveform of an analogue signal, it has to convert it into digital. That waveform you're calling analogue is actually digital.

Are you the one that was saying that you probably know more about sound reproduction technology than any of us? I think you might want to rethink that claim. And I suggest you google the term "Nyquist Theory". Let me know what you find out.


----------



## old tech

SonyFan121 said:


> If you understand the process of how an analogue signal is mapped/sampled/encoded into a digital one, then surely it should be obvious how in-accurate and unrepresentative digital formats are of live sound (what we hear with our ears) compared to analogue. It's obvious to me.


You really don't understand digital signalling and how it applies to audio, or video for that matter.

What do you mean by an analogue signal and why would it be more "representative" of the source?  Two cans tied together by a piece of string is analogue, would you say what we hear in the second receiving can is an accurate representation of the transmitting first can?  And how is it what "our ears hear live", do you hear vibrations down a piece of string or for that matter, electrical signals when we talk about audio or see electrical signals when in DTV broadcast?

The objective reality, and easily proved by measurements, is that what comes out of a DAC is a more accurate representation of the source electrical signal than what can be achieved by any analogue device. Transducers which are required in analog capture and playback work by converting one form of energy into another, which always results in losses and degradation of the analog signal (which is why mikes and speakers remain the weak points even today). The same sampling principles is behind digital broadcast and digital video does not involve losses within the parameters set, ie the sampling rate for frequency band and bit depth for SNR.  Even if you don't want to get your head around this, ask yourself why then doesn't something which you say is a better representation of the analog signal end up having a lower SNR (and related dynamic range), lower distortion and a much less linear frequency response?

It is this accuracy which makes digital ubiquitous today as it enables modern technology like your fast computers, the smart phone, digital broadcast, exploring space in a way that was only dreamed about a generation ago and so on.

Due to its inaccuracies in representing the original analog signal, analog recorders and playback devices change the sound which subjectively, some may prefer - but it is certainly a lower fidelity recording/playback.  I know people that prefer the harmonics that these distortions induce into the signal over accuracy.  That is fine, most of the people I know that do prefer the more distorted signal are comfortable in their own skins that they do not need to make unsupported claims to justify their subjective preferences.  Perhaps it is because they do understand audio science.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs but remember this is the wrong forum for espousing myths, particularly when you reject what others here have to say and back it up with proper technical explanations, measurements and evidence.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

SonyFan121 said:


> If you understand the process of how an analogue signal is mapped/sampled/encoded into a digital one, then surely it should be obvious how in-accurate and unrepresentative digital formats are of live sound (what we hear with our ears) compared to analogue. It's obvious to me.


What analog sources are you using?


----------



## SonyFan121

bigshot said:


> In order for your phone to display the waveform of an analogue signal, it has to convert it into digital. That waveform you're calling analogue is actually digital.
> 
> *Are you the one that was saying that you probably know more about sound reproduction technology than any of us*? I think you might want to rethink that claim. And I suggest you google the term "Nyquist Theory". Let me know what you find out.



Yes I am.
Your Nyquist theory only proves my point. Sorry to dissapoint you but any analog signal consists of components at various frequencies. The simplest case is the sine wave, in which all the signal energy is concentrated at one frequency. In practice, analog signals usually have complex waveforms, with components at many frequencies. The highest frequency component in an analog signal determines the bandwidth of that signal. The higher the frequency, the greater the bandwidth, if all other factors are held constant.

Suppose the highest frequency component, in hertz, for a given analog signal is _f_max. According to the Nyquist Theorem, the sampling rate must be at least 2_f_max, or twice the highest analog frequency component. The sampling in an analog-to-digital converter is actuated by a pulse generator (clock). If the sampling rate is less than 2_f_max, some of the highest frequency components in the analog input signal will not be correctly represented in the digitized output. When such a digital signal is converted back to analog form by a digital-to-analog converter, false frequency components appear that were not in the original analog signal. This undesirable condition is a form of distortion called aliasing.

Sorry to disapoint you and your fellow sound science sheeple.
I'll be leaving now..


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> Yes I am.
> Your Nyquist theory only proves my point. Sorry to dissapoint you but any analog signal consists of components at various frequencies. The simplest case is the sine wave, in which all the signal energy is concentrated at one frequency. In practice, analog signals usually have complex waveforms, with components at many frequencies. The highest frequency component in an analog signal determines the bandwidth of that signal. The higher the frequency, the greater the bandwidth, if all other factors are held constant.
> 
> Suppose the highest frequency component, in hertz, for a given analog signal is _f_max. According to the Nyquist Theorem, the sampling rate must be at least 2_f_max, or twice the highest analog frequency component. The sampling in an analog-to-digital converter is actuated by a pulse generator (clock). If the sampling rate is less than 2_f_max, some of the highest frequency components in the analog input signal will not be correctly represented in the digitized output. When such a digital signal is converted back to analog form by a digital-to-analog converter, false frequency components appear that were not in the original analog signal. This undesirable condition is a form of distortion called aliasing.
> ...




Cutting and pasting the Nyquist Theorum doesn’t actually demonstrate a deep understanding of audio science.  Nor does it support your position that analogue is a more accurate than digital or is superior to digital.

Pro tip:  if you want to try to impress by cutting and pasting from other sources, paste in plain text rather than html so the hypertext links don’t appear...


----------



## bigshot (Jan 30, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> Yes I am.
> Your Nyquist theory only proves my point.



The Nyquist Theory says that any sound can be reproduced *perfectly* with a sampling rate of double the highest frequency you want to reproduce. Humans can hear up to 20,000 Hz. A CD samples at 44,100. So therefore a CD can reproduce everything a human being can hear *perfectly*. If that was your point, then Nyquist proves it.

CDs also have a bit rate of 16 bits, which puts the noise floor at -90dB. That is far below any LP and well below commercial recording tape. So according to Nyquist, CDs can reproduce any frequency you can hear, and the noise level is far below any analogue medium. So the plain old CD has higher fidelity than analogue. In fact it's audibly transparent, which means you can't hear the difference between it and the original signal.

Any questions before you leave (again)?



bfreedma said:


> Pro tip:  if you want to try to impress by cutting and pasting from other sources, paste in plain text rather than html so the hypertext links don’t appear...



He went to a very respectable source for his info! Whatis dot com! At least by searching that site, he was asking the question. That's a start.

By the way, who calls you "the hornet"?


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> The Nyquist Theory says that any sound can be reproduced *perfectly* with a sampling rate of double the highest frequency you want to reproduce. Humans can hear up to 20,000 Hz. A CD samples at 44,100. So therefore a CD can reproduce everything a human being can hear *perfectly*. If that was your point, then Nyquist proves it.
> 
> CDs also have a bit rate of 16 bits, which puts the noise floor at -90dB. That is far below any LP and well below commercial recording tape. So according to Nyquist, CDs can reproduce any frequency you can hear, and the noise level is far below any analogue medium. So the plain old CD has higher fidelity than analogue. In fact it's audibly transparent, which means you can't hear the difference between it and the original signal.
> 
> ...



Look below my user name in the post header.


----------



## GearMe

Yep...I'd echo this sentiment.

It'd also be helpful to explain why you believe something...

For instance, I think you believe that aliasing impacts the recording in a noticeable/hearable fashion...how and under what conditions is this true?

Also, I think you don't agree that the concept of digital sampling/recording can produce a sound signal with the same or better fidelity than a signal that is recorded in an analogue manner.  If so, could you explain how and under what conditions is this true?

Am truly trying to understand where you're coming from...Thanks!


----------



## KeithEmo

Please... just do me one favor.
Please read *_ALL_* *_THE_* *_WORDS_* before you start arguing that something I've said is wrong.
What I actually said was that "marketing literature is a statement about what a company _publicly claims to believe_".
(You seem to be claiming that I must be a fool because what I didn't say is obviously wrong and what I actually said is true.... which is somewhat confusing.)

At one point in time Sony claimed that "CDs are audibly transparent".
Then, at another point in time, they claimed that "SACDs are audibly superior".
These two statements factually contradict each other...

Therefore....

Either the first statement was factually true and the second one is not.
Or, the second statement was factually true, and the first statement was not.
Or both statements were unrelated to the truth and simply reflect whatever their marketing department thought would sell product.
(Of course, it is also possible that, at the time it was said, the first statement was "true based on the current level of knowledge", and was later found to be in error.)
I'm personally inclined to accept that everything Sony has ever said or published is simply "marketing literature"... 
And that includes their studies showing that "CDs are audibly transparent".
(I'm sure that every individual working for Sony has their own opinion on the subject - which we may or may not ever get to hear.)

My point, which still stands, is that the CD format was _NOT_ "developed based on a careful and impartial study of what was actually needed to produce a perfect product".
The CD format was, quite reasonably, developed based on the perceived demands of the market, and the currently available technology.
For example, at the time, there were people who felt that more of a performance safety margin would have been a good idea.
(Even if you accept that a frequency response to 20 kHz is perfectly adequate, limiting the product to 22 kHz is cutting it close, and makes design much more difficult.)
However, the desire for a safety margin conflicted with the requirements for how much time could be recorded on a disc and how large each disc would be.
In other words, the studies conducted by Sony and Philips were _NOT_ "set up to determine what sample rate would be needed to produce an audibly perfect reproduction".
The first things to be determined were the acceptable minimum playing time and maximum disc size.... which then constrained the technical limitations. 
Studies were then sponsored to determine "whether the performance of the format and sample rate which had already been chosen were adequate for the market".
(There's nothing sinister about this.... but it does suggest a strong bias on the part of those conducting the study to reach a particular conclusion.)

Obviously _ALL_ products and market demands are partially created by marketing...
I've seen descriptions about how, when automobiles were first offered for sale, they were largely considered a noisy nuisance, by a market that was largely satisfied by horses.
The car companies spent a lot of money _CREATING_ a market for automobiles.
We now believe that "cars are obviously superior".... yet that superiority wasn't at all obvious to millions of happy horse users.
Horses are slower, are more prone to problems, and crap in the street.... 
But cars don't mate and produce their replacements, and extras you can sell, and horses offered a degree of "autonomy" that modern autonomous cars have barely begun to match.
(Many people still suggest that the early cars were so unreliable that they really weren't an improvement over horses.... and they owe their success almost entirely to marketing.)
And the FAX machine was considered a curiosity for decades before anybody managed to create a market for it.

Please note that I'm not specifically "taking sides against Sony here".....
Merely pointing out that the original claims that CDs are "audibly transparent", and the study that they're based on, were both sponsored by commercial companies with products to sell...
And so it's only fair to judge their claims accordingly...

I won't claim that I don't "cherry pick" to a degree.... but that is true of everyone... at least all humans.
For example, Oohashi did a study that seemed to show that high-resolution files were audibly different after all...
However, the results of his study are largely discounted... partly due to legitimate flaws in his test methodology...
_HOWEVER_, other tests are widely accepted as true, even though they contain even more significant flaws...
And, as far as I know, nobody has _EVER_ reproduced Oohashi's test _EXACTLY_, minus the flaws, to see if it has validity or not.
(Oohashi chose very specific musical content that he believed was difficult to accurately reproduce... none of the so-called "debunking studies" used the same content he did.)
It's simply human nature to exaggerate the importance of flaws in things we disagree with, and minimize the significance of flaws in things with which we agree.



gregorio said:


> 1. You are joking right? Are you really saying that what a company "publicly claims" in their marketing is the same as what they actually believe? That level of naivety is simply incomprehensible in anyone other than a child, which is why you must be joking.
> 
> 2. And also AGAIN, your statement is false and therefore it does not "avoid any misunderstanding", it does the exact opposite and causes misunderstanding!! It is market driven but it is NOT based on market demand. It's ultimately based marketing, which creates that "market demand" in the first place!
> 2a. No it is not! It is "all simply an ongoing evolution" of MARKETING, to create "the current demands in the market"! That's what marketing largely is, how can you not know that? As it is incomprehensible that you do not know that, what logical conclusion could there be other than that you are deliberately doing the opposite of what you are claiming and actually creating "misunderstanding"?
> ...


----------



## 71 dB

SonyFan121 said:


> i'm seriously beginning to wonder about you people..analogue is superior to digital and here is why (explained as simply as possible);
> During the conversion of an analogue signal to digital, the sampling rate has to be higher than fmax of the analogue signal, otherwise, in simple terms; there is a loss of data. Meaning audible information that is not there, it gets lost. That is a fact. PERIOD.



Actually the sampling rate has to be at least TWICE as high than he maximum frequency in the analog signal we want to convert. Know what? 44.1 kHz IS twice as high as the highest frequencies we need. So no loss of 'data'. The sampling theorem (which you might not know well) says 100 % of a properly bandlimited signal can be recovered if there is infinite dynamic range. Since there is not (analog systems also have dynamic limits), quantization noise and distortion gets added to the signal unless we use dither noise which removes distortion while increasing the noise level a bit, but again we can have "digital magic" and use shaped dither noise which increases the perceptual dynamic range even with 16 bits to levels even the best analog systems in the world can't mach. So, no. Analog is not superior. Digital can easily beat the best of best analog systems in transparency and accurity.


----------



## AxelCloris

Let's please keep the discussion civil and within the Posting Guidelines. Thanks everyone.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 31, 2019)

GearMe said:


> For instance, I think you believe that aliasing impacts the recording in a noticeable/hearable fashion...how and under what conditions is this true?



Aliasing isn't a real issue if it's done properly In one of the AES links in my sig file (I think the first one) there is a demonstration of exactly what aliasing does. There's an example you can download to hear aliased and unaliased samples of the same recording. Even though there is a difference between them, it's highly doubtful that it would be audible in any real world listening condition. Aliasing is just another way of "gilding the lily" so to speak. It isn't nearly as much of a significant factor as people who haven't taken the time to experiment with it seem to think it is.

-------------

On a different subject, I have a few general requirements for posters who want me to read every word they say...

• First and foremost, *be clear and concise*. Don't ramble. Don't add a bunch of analogies and personal reminisces. Avoid getting sidetracked into irrelevant side discussions. Get to the point and stay fixed on it like a laser beam.

• Secondly, *make an effort to speak about subjects you have knowledge of and make arguments that you can back up*. That should be self evident, but it seems some people tend to ignore it. If you resort to logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks to ram your points home, you risk me not reading anything you say.

• Thirdly, *Organize your post to make it easily readable*. State your point in a single clear sentence in the first line or two of your post so I have an idea where you're going. Then follow that up with evidence that supports your point, and sum up with a conclusion based on that evidence.​
If you neglect to do these three simple things, I reserve the right to read a couple of lines and roll my eyes and say "TL-DR". My time is valuable even if you're willing to waste yours on cranking out sentence after sentence of verbal excelsior.

_Please note how I organized this little note. It's an example of something stated clearly and in an organized fashion. Thank you!_


----------



## 71 dB

SonyFan121 said:


> If you understand the process of how an analogue signal is mapped/sampled/encoded into a digital one, then surely it should be obvious how in-accurate and unrepresentative digital formats are of live sound (what we hear with our ears) compared to analogue. It's obvious to me.



What exactly introduces these in-accuraties in your opinion? This shouldn't be a difficult thing for you to answer since this is 'obvious' to you. Why doesn't the sampling theorem work? This isn't obvious to me at all despite of my university degree in acoustic engineering.


----------



## 71 dB

SonyFan121 said:


> Yes I am.
> 1. Your Nyquist theory only proves my point.
> 2. Sorry to dissapoint you but any analog signal consists of components at various frequencies.
> 3. The simplest case is the sine wave, in which all the signal energy is concentrated at one frequency.
> ...



1. Nyquist theorem isn't mine or "ours" any more than the theory of relativity by Einstein. Doesn't need to be to be correct. The fact that these theories where created by people smarter than "we here" only make these theories _more likely_ to be correct. Unfortunately for you Nyquist sampling theorem proves you wrong.
2. Tell me something I don't know!
3. Yes, no disagreements here.
4. Yes.
5. Actually the _difference_ of the lowest and highest frequencies, but in practise (audio) yes. In FM radio transmissions no. But we are talking about audio so yes.
6. If we have a signal containing frequencies between 99 and 101 MHz, the bandwidth of that signal is 2 MHz. In audio we can approximate the lowest frequency to be 0 Hz so that the highest frequency is also the bandwidth.
7. Correctly understood.
8. Correct. This is why analog signals _must _be bandlimited correctly before sampling. Analog-to-digital converters have proper low pass filters because of this.
9. Yes, but who does something this stupid when you can avoid it by bandlimiting the signal before sampling?


----------



## bigshot

I’m afraid you’re having a conversation with cut and paste there! I think he’s done for now.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

71 dB said:


> 9. Yes, but who does something this stupid when you can avoid it by bandlimiting the signal before sampling?



Actually, those alias frequencies are removed by an anti-aliasing filter in the DAC. Sony probably took that last point out of context in order to make his incorrect point.


----------



## KeithEmo

re #9

Aliasing is a side effect of the process itself.
Aliasing occurs as a result of an interaction between the desired signal and the sampling process itself.
Aliasing is not a result of "failing to apply proper bandwidth limiting before sampling" and cannot be eliminated "by properly band-limiting before sampling".
When you then apply the appropriate bandwidth limiting filter to the output, it removes the aliasing, and you're left with the desired signal.
However, this is all "how it's supposed to work".

When you convert the incoming signal the result is a series of numerical values.
Then, when you convert those values back into analog levels at the output, the result is indeed the "steps" that people point to as "the problem with digital audio".
(The _unfiltered_ output of a basic DAC includes the steps; the aliasing error is the difference between the original smooth signal and the "step version".)
Then, when you apply the correct reconstruction filter, the steps are removed (the alias information), and you end up with an accurate copy of the original signal.

There are a few discrepancies between the theory and practice.... 
For example, the math calls for a DAC to use a SinC function, while real-world DACs use a hold function which is only an approximation of a true SinC function.
However, those discrepancies only result in minor flaws, and mostly only have a minor effect on transients.



71 dB said:


> 1. Nyquist theorem isn't mine or "ours" any more than the theory of relativity by Einstein. Doesn't need to be to be correct. The fact that these theories where created by people smarter than "we here" only make these theories _more likely_ to be correct. Unfortunately for you Nyquist sampling theorem proves you wrong.
> 2. Tell me something I don't know!
> 3. Yes, no disagreements here.
> 4. Yes.
> ...


----------



## 71 dB

StandsOnFeet said:


> Actually, those alias frequencies are removed by an anti-aliasing filter in the DAC. Sony probably took that last point out of context in order to make his incorrect point.



ADC, not DAC. In DACs you have reconstruction filter which is a different thing.

Actually I said this in my #8. What I mean in #9 is that it would be stupid to bypass the filters.


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> re #9
> 
> Aliasing is a side effect of the process itself.
> Aliasing occurs as a result of an interaction between the desired signal and the sampling process itself.
> ...



I was talking about sampling (ADC). You have aliasing in sampling unless you bandlimit the signal. Reconstruction (DAC) is a different story and I wasn't talking about that.


----------



## bigshot

You specifically said ADC and "before sampling" in your post. Perhaps he didn't read it all the way through before replying.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

71 dB said:


> ADC, not DAC. In DACs you have reconstruction filter which is a different thing


You're right, I was thinking about an anti-imaging filter, otherwise known as the reconstruction filter.


----------



## castleofargh (Jan 31, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> Yes I am.
> Your Nyquist theory only proves my point. Sorry to dissapoint you but any analog signal consists of components at various frequencies. The simplest case is the sine wave, in which all the signal energy is concentrated at one frequency. In practice, analog signals usually have complex waveforms, with components at many frequencies. The highest frequency component in an analog signal determines the bandwidth of that signal. The higher the frequency, the greater the bandwidth, if all other factors are held constant.
> 
> Suppose the highest frequency component, in hertz, for a given analog signal is _f_max. According to the Nyquist Theorem, the sampling rate must be at least 2_f_max, or twice the highest analog frequency component. The sampling in an analog-to-digital converter is actuated by a pulse generator (clock). If the sampling rate is less than 2_f_max, some of the highest frequency components in the analog input signal will not be correctly represented in the digitized output. When such a digital signal is converted back to analog form by a digital-to-analog converter, false frequency components appear that were not in the original analog signal. This undesirable condition is a form of distortion called aliasing.
> ...


let's stop the strawman argument where you put the limitations of digital audio under a microscope while "forgetting" to look at the flaws of analogue media. pick your poison, analogue recording on tape, or vinyl, or whatever analogue medium you think is the right way, then we can actually put A and B side by side and discuss the level of fidelity coming out of such recording and playback media. spoiler, it won't make analogue recording look good.


----------



## old tech (Feb 1, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> My point, which still stands, is that the CD format was _NOT_ "developed based on a careful and impartial study of what was actually needed to produce a perfect product".



That is true, the main objective behind the development of the CD was that it had to be superior to the LP.  As you say, the reasons why the 44.1 sample rate and 14bit (later 16bit) depths were chosen were based on practical reasons based on the technologies of the day, which are well documented (ieg the sample rate alignment with video recorders), but the engineers were satisfied that they were not compromising transparency of the format even with those practical constraints.

Btw, an interesting read on the development of the compact disk below, and some of the challenges back in the day.  Most commentators beleived it would be a flop against the well established LP and cassette formats.

file:///C:/Users/05016916/Downloads/The-Emergence-of-the-Compact-Disc_v2.pdf

The document can be accessed through a link on this Phillips website page.

https://www.philips.com/a-w/research/technologies/cd/beginning.html


----------



## KeithEmo

There is a technical detail about the sample rate chosen for the Red Book CD standard that needs to be mentioned to put the choices made into historical context.

As has already been mentioned, in order to encode an analog signal without serious distortion, the analog signal MUST BE bandwidth limited to avoid the Nyquist frequency.
So, for example, if you're encoding audio at a 44.1k sample rate to put on a CD, you MUST pass that signal through a sharp low pass filter that eliminates all content above 22 kHz.
Likewise, when the signal is reconstructed, you MUST again pass the output through a sharp low pass filter that eliminates all aliases above 22 kHz.
If you wish to maintain a flat frequency response, and minimal phase shift and distortion below 20 kHz, this calls for a filter that is flat up to 20 kHz, but has 70 - 80 dB of attenuation at 22 kHz and above.
This poses a serious technical problem... because any filter with performance even approaching these requirements is very complex to design.
Even worse, in order to build such a filter, you must use components that are precisely the correct value, and some of them are very expensive.

Virtually all modern ADCs and DACs use oversampling...
Oversampling essentially uses a 'trick" to allow the use of a filter that is far more gradual.
(This simplifies the process of designing a filter that is flat to 20 kHz, yet still provides excellent attenuation of aliases, and can be produced for a reasonable cost.)

HOWEVER, oversampling technology was NOT yet developed when the Red Book standard was created.
And, without oversampling, the design criteria for the proper filter are so extreme that, as a result, most early equipment performed quite poorly (and equipment that performed well was extremely expensive).

Without oversampling, given the requirements for encoding and decoding signals "right up to the Nyquist frequency", there is a tradeoff:
- either use a somewhat gradual filter, and accept a high-frequency roll off that starts well below 20 kHz, as well as significant high frequency phase shift and significant aliasing distortion
- design a very complex filter, which is difficult and expensive to produce, and still introduces excessive phase ripple and other problems

Oversampling has essentially eliminated this issue entirely... which is why it is so widely used.
However, since oversampling wasn't available when the standard was created, it was a bad idea to set requirements for the standard that impose such a serious compromise.
(Even raising the sample rate from 44.1k to 48k, as was recommended by some engineers at the time, would have significantly relaxed the tradeoff between cost, complexity, and performance.) 



71 dB said:


> ADC, not DAC. In DACs you have reconstruction filter which is a different thing.
> 
> Actually I said this in my #8. What I mean in #9 is that it would be stupid to bypass the filters.


----------



## analogsurviver

Where is that freaking love/adore button when needed !?!


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> HOWEVER, oversampling technology was NOT yet developed when the Red Book standard was created.



Oh yes it was, in fact Phillips proposed to use oversampling with 14 bit convertors back in 1978. Read the Phillips website I linked earlier.


----------



## bigshot

Redbook is already overkill.


----------



## dprimary

old tech said:


> Oh yes it was, in fact Phillips proposed to use oversampling with 14 bit convertors back in 1978. Read the Phillips website I linked earlier.



My first CD player was a Phillips built with 4 times oversampling around 1982. If I remember right it was Magnavox branded in the US. Even then the oversampling players were regarded as better sounding, even though they had 14 bit convertors. I think the Sony PCM F1 was also 14 bit convertors which was the first digital recorder I used. Like most Sony recorders the sound quality was lacking, to be kind. The Sony 3324 was released soon after with equally horrid convertors and is likely the cause of much objections to digital. Luckily Apogee made replacement convertors for the 3324 and 3348 that sounded much better.


----------



## dprimary

dprimary said:


> My first CD player was a Phillips built with 4 times oversampling around 1982. If I remember right it was Magnavox branded in the US. Even then the oversampling players were regarded as better sounding, even though they had 14 bit convertors. I think the Sony PCM F1 was also 14 bit convertors which was the first digital recorder I used. Like most Sony recorders the sound quality was lacking, to be kind. The Sony 3324 was released soon after with equally horrid convertors and is likely the cause of much objections to digital. Luckily Apogee made replacement convertors for the 3324 and 3348 that sounded much better.



Meant Apogee filters not convertors, complete convertors was latter. Maybe mid 80's


----------



## dprimary

castleofargh said:


> let's stop the strawman argument where you put the limitations of digital audio under a microscope while "forgetting" to look at the flaws of analogue media. pick your poison, analogue recording on tape, or vinyl, or whatever analogue medium you think is the right way, then we can actually put A and B side by side and discuss the level of fidelity coming out of such recording and playback media. spoiler, it won't make analogue recording look good.



There is not and never has been a lossless analog recording medium. When recording analog you had to spend time deciding your best compromise of trade off's for the recording you made. There is not a single piece of analog tape or vinyl the sounds anything like the the signal from the microphone(s). That doesn't mean it could not be manipulated into something pleasant but it was never accurate.


----------



## old tech

dprimary said:


> My first CD player was a Phillips built with 4 times oversampling around 1982. If I remember right it was Magnavox branded in the US. Even then the oversampling players were regarded as better sounding, even though they had 14 bit convertors. I think the Sony PCM F1 was also 14 bit convertors which was the first digital recorder I used. Like most Sony recorders the sound quality was lacking, to be kind. The Sony 3324 was released soon after with equally horrid convertors and is likely the cause of much objections to digital. Luckily Apogee made replacement convertors for the 3324 and 3348 that sounded much better.


Good info there.

My first CD player, a Pioneer Elite bought back in 1985 had a 16bit oversampling DAC, and that was a 1984 model. Oversampling DACs on consumer CD players were ubiquitous before then.


----------



## old tech

dprimary said:


> There is not and never has been a lossless analog recording medium. When recording analog you had to spend time deciding your best compromise of trade off's for the recording you made. There is not a single piece of analog tape or vinyl the sounds anything like the the signal from the microphone(s). That doesn't mean it could not be manipulated into something pleasant but it was never accurate.


It is not just the recording to tape and then playback that is compromised, to cut and playback a record more transducers are required and the lacquer master needs to be EQd (and EQd back again).  Worse still, all these tweaks and EQs are done in analogue, further reducing the faithfulness of the original signal.  The measurements clearly bare all this out.


----------



## old tech

dprimary said:


> Meant Apogee filters not convertors, complete convertors was latter. Maybe mid 80's



I recall Ludwig commenting about that.  He was not overly impressed with his first foray into digital mastering until the Apogee filters came out around 1984/85.  He then described it as sounding exactly the same as the sound he heard in the studio.  He thought it was a remarkable achievement in audio progress as he had never before heard a final production sounding exactly like the source.


----------



## analogsurviver (Feb 1, 2019)

dprimary said:


> There is not and never has been a lossless analog recording medium. When recording analog you had to spend time deciding your best compromise of trade off's for the recording you made. There is not a single piece of analog tape or vinyl the sounds anything like the the signal from the microphone(s). That doesn't mean it could not be manipulated into something pleasant but it was never accurate.



This digital love has to be put to some reasonable constraints  - once and for all.

During the recent modo cleanups has been a post by somebody claiming analog never to have the dynamic range of RBCD. Whoever it was, I absolutely have to burst his overinflated digital bubble -

NO WAY ANY RBCD CAN EQUAL THE DYNAMIC RANGE OF THE BEST ANALOG COULD ACHIEVE .

Because RBCD is - theorethically  - 96.xy dB dynamic range maximum - it can never be, even in theory, 97 dB or above.

As this is predominantely American forum, it is - expectedly -   representing what is in best interest of american companies. So ,do not reply with a typical butt hurt reples to the following cold hard facts :

1. )  Analog tape AND record can benefit from decent noise reduction systems. And there was none better than

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Com

Analog reel to reel  recorder tape recorders with best tapes achive S/N around 80 dB... - add to that 20-25 dB noise reduction offered by Telcom C4 and you end up with 100 -105 dB dynamic range.

Even a notch or two below that, using Nakamichi High Com II ( HIGHLY modified  - above all, Telefunken slopiness , which Nakamichi simply took over, without any  corrections... ) and Technics RS-AZ 7 cassette deck can have dynamic range exceeding RBCD. If I could do it on kitchen table and using nothing fancier than a signal generator and analog oscillosope, on tight amateur budget, imagine what could be done provided sufficient finances have been available. RS-AZ 7 is a work of art even in stock form, from the circuit boards it is crystal  clear they did have an even more advanced prototype version, and using electronic components advances made since its introduction, as one of the last serious cassette recorders, in 1996, makes one wonder what more could be achieved. Like it - or, believe it - or not, using lowest noise tapes ( BASF ) , this machine's  ultimate S/N is limited by - HUM from the in-built power supply trransformers ... - and if I had any reasonable quantity of these silent tapes available, I swear I would have made the outboard power supplies for both the recorder and noise reduction units ( you need TWO Nakamichi High Com II's if you want monitor while recording - it works either in record (compand) or playback (expand)  mode - can not do both at the same time).

It has to be admitted that even a single High Com II was rich back in the day - let alone two. and, consequently, few have been sold and even fewer have survived to this day - hence the cost.

Noise reduction can also be applied for analog records - not just tape. An, it has been - towards the very end as the main sound carrier. There were two main versions - dbx 



and CBS's CX, a variant of High Com.DBX records could achive around 100 dB of dynamic rang .. - again, exceeding the dynamic rang of RBCD. Here the best video available online confirming this fact - made rather poorly, claiming only as being equal to CD, recorded with inferiour resolution of which Tascam DA-3000 DSD recorder is otherwise capable of - and all limitations of SQ on YT still apply :



CBS tried to do similar with CX,  but failed royally - because of insistence it was COMPATIBLE also for listening without the CX decoder. iT WAS NOT... - and a single female singer loud enough to protest how her recording issued as CX encoded record played back on conventional record playback equipment without the CX decoder was enough to bury the effort. Similarly, most mastering engineers, whom I otherwise respect, failed to see the potential - and have been opposing CX  with all four.



CX has been the brainchild of CBS Labs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Laboratories  It has been a thorn in the heel of Sony during the introduction phase of the CD - because CBS Labs made each and every step necessary in order NOT to allow CDs to be copied digitallly, but devised a series of schemes that made sure copy could never be as good sounding as the original CD - in order to protect the contents, the enormous catalog of artists on CBS records. Soon enough, Sony had it with these supposed to be implemented limitations - and simply bought the whole sharebang. With a single stroke, got the contents for re-release as CD - and got to rid of the CBS Labs ASAP. Sony did NOT have a foresight enough what will happen with CD copying at first, internet second - in the future...

What Sony did, besides disbanding CBS Labs, was even less glamorous - they ORDERED BACK any CX encoded records still in stores - and see to that that they get destroyed. The threat of an analog record that has almost no more noise than a CD was considered too great a threat to the CD just being introduced to leave the things as they were at the takeover of the CBS. That is why today so few of these records remain...  - and there are even cases where CBS itself has originally mixed up the record jackets/sleeves denoting CX record - it is, unfortunately, possible to get an ordinary record in a CX jacket... - and likely, though not yet encountered by myself, vice versa.

It is cruel that the best strings recorded prior to HiRez availabilility have been on - of all the recording artists, Julio Iglesias - of course on LP, CX encoded and reproduced trough CX decoder.

CX decoder ( again, the work of CBS Labs ) has been produced - EXACTLY to the  schematics from the CBS Patent, to the last resistor and capacitor - by at least 3 companies - Phase Linear, CM Labs and Telefunken. It was - and is - to use the term by the member who is no longer on this thread - half-baked - IF I want to stay on the polite side.

I did not go trough the schematics of the Urei CX encoder .. .yet. I can only hope it is not of the same "quality" ...

Any analog recording within recent memory - say from 50 years ago towards the present - can exceed the 20 kHz limit for the frequency response of the RBCD. For nitpickers - 22050 Hz.

CONCLUSION: analog recording and playback can deliver the sound quality exceeding that of RBCD. Admittedly, at extreme care and expense - but I hope that above debunks, once and for all, that RBCD is inherently superior to any form analog.

It has never been and never will. It is merely a low(er) cost alternative of music delivery


----------



## GearMe (Feb 1, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Aliasing isn't a real issue if it's done properly In one of the AES links in my sig file (I think the first one) there is a demonstration of exactly what aliasing does. There's an example you can download to hear aliased and unaliased samples of the same recording. Even though there is a difference between them, it's highly doubtful that it would be audible in any real world listening condition. Aliasing is just another way of "gilding the lily" so to speak. It isn't nearly as much of a significant factor as people who haven't taken the time to experiment with it seem to think it is.



Thanks, Bigshot...

Was hoping to steer the dialogue with SonyFan121 into a productive vein and get some sense of where s/he felt the discrepancies lie so we could talk about them in this type of manner.

TBH, I've been a 'transducers and mastering' are what really matters person for a long time


----------



## GearMe

analogsurviver said:


> This digital love has to be put to some reasonable constraints  - once and for all.
> 
> During the recent modo cleanups has been a post by somebody claiming analog never to have the dynamic range of RBCD. Whoever it was, I absolutely have to burst his overinflated digital bubble -
> 
> ...




So...you're making an argument for Hi-Res Digital?


----------



## KeithEmo (Feb 1, 2019)

Absolutely true.....

However, part of what created the "imbalance of perception" is the difficulty with producing vinyl recordings (for end users).

It's simple for most of us to make a digital copy of a vinyl album - and note the tiny differences between the recording and the original. However, it's not practical for most end users to make a vinyl copy of their favorite CD, and note the much larger differences. Therefore, because we can't make vinyl recordings ourselves, it's impossible to compare the differences that result from both processes... and many people come to think of vinyl albums as some sort of "reference" or "master" - rather than as just another copy (which they have no practical way to compare to the original).

This also brings up another interesting point. When the early tests were performed to determine whether "the CD format was audibly transparent".... they "inserted a CD quality A/D and D/A loop into the signal chain" to see if anyone could detect whether it caused audible degradation of the signal. However, was their signal source a direct feed from a high quality set of microphones and a mixing console, or was their source an ANALOG MASTER TAPE? (If their source was an analog master tape, then all they could really determine was whether the "CD quality signal loop" introduced WORSE signal degradation that that already being introduced by their tape equipment... and we already know that analog tape has many flaws and limitations. And, even if a direct feed from a mixing console, with live music, was used... the quality of their test signal was still limited by the quality of the console and other equipment they used. And their results were limited by the quality of the playback equipment they used... which presumes that whatever speakers and playback electronics they had available in the 1970s were also "audibly perfect".)

In simplest terms, all they could conceivably prove was that "the Red Book CD format was audibly transparent when reproducing the sample content they had available, and actually used, when they tested it". In other words, if you wish to claim that the tests that proved that the Red Book CD format was audibly transparent are still relevant, you must base that claim on the assumption that there is no content available today that is of audibly better quality than what was used when they ran the tests, and that there is no playback equipment available today that is audibly better than what they used. (If all they did was to prove that Red Book CD was audibly transparent when used to reproduced analog master tapes, which were themselves _NOT_ audibly transparent, then you have not proven the wider case to be true.)



dprimary said:


> There is not and never has been a lossless analog recording medium. When recording analog you had to spend time deciding your best compromise of trade off's for the recording you made. There is not a single piece of analog tape or vinyl the sounds anything like the the signal from the microphone(s). That doesn't mean it could not be manipulated into something pleasant but it was never accurate.


----------



## gregorio (Feb 1, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] There is a technical detail about the sample rate chosen for the Red Book CD standard that needs to be mentioned to put the choices made into historical context.
> [2] HOWEVER, oversampling technology was NOT yet developed when the Red Book standard was created.
> [2a] And, without oversampling, the design criteria for the proper filter are so extreme that, as a result, most early equipment performed quite poorly (and equipment that performed well was extremely expensive).
> Without oversampling, given the requirements for encoding and decoding signals "right up to the Nyquist frequency", there is a tradeoff:
> ...



1. Unfortunately, yet another typical KeithEmo post. Yes, the CD standard does need to be put into historical context but despite your statement, you have not put it into historical context, you've created a historical context that never actually existed in order to push your "filters" agenda again!

2. No CD technology was yet developed when the redbook standard was created because you obviously can't have a CD or CD player before you've created a standard that defines what CD actually is! HOWEVER, oversampling as a technology certainly was known about and it's use was envisaged.
2a. These statements are all true BUT ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT because despite your misinformation, oversampling was developed and ubiquitously employed by CD players by the time that CDs were launched to consumers. As far as I'm aware, ALL CD players, from launch day onwards, employed at least 2 times oversampling.

3. Great, now we're getting somewhere. According to the actual history (that ALL CD players had oversampling) and YOUR statement that "oversampling essentially eliminates this issue entirely", then logically you must agree that the "issue" you've raised never actually existed by the time CD was launched to the public (1983) and is therefore irrelevant!


analogsurviver said:


> Analog reel to reel recorder tape recorders with best tapes achive S/N around 80 dB... - add to that 20-25 dB noise reduction offered by Telcom C4 and you end up with 100 -105 dB dynamic range.


This statement is false. 80dB SNR + 20-25dB Noise reduction does NOT result in a dynamic range of 100-105dB!! This is a classic case of "cherry picking"; of only listing those facts which support an agenda while omitting the other pertinent facts which contradict it. The reality is that the original recording session tapes (with up to 80dB SNR) were OF COURSE, NEVER RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. What was released was a several generation old copy: The recording session tapes would have to be edited, mixed (EQ, compression, etc.) and commonly "bounced down" (recording several tracks to 1 or 2 tracks), each of these mix processes adds noise. When the mix is complete it's bounced down to another (final mix) tape, for transfer to the mastering engineer, the mastering engineer applies analogue processing, which adds more noise, often bounces down during the mastering process and then when the mastering is complete, then bounces down the completed master to another (master) tape. Each of these bounce downs (generations/copies) doubles the amount of tape noise and there would have been an absolute minimum of 2 generations but probably 4 or more. Then, the master tape was copied to a production master and finally the distribution media (cassette or vinyl) was copied from the production master, so another two generations. That's a bucket load of noise that's been added between the original session recording tapes and the final media the consumer buys, so what that 20-25dB noise reduction (or more like 15dB in the more common NR types) actually achieves is some restoration of the 80dB SNR we may have started with.

In the best theoretical case, if we were just making a test tape, we could record a test signal to tape (with say 80dB SNR) apply say 25dB noise reduction and bounce down the result back to tape. That's 1 generation of SNR loss and therefore: 80dB SNR - approx 6dB generational loss + 25dB NR = a theoretical max of roughly 100dB DR. Of course though, we end up with just one test tape! We can only theoretically achieve this DR figure by eliminating all the: Editing, mixing, mastering, creation of a production master and the duplication of it to create the actual consumer product. In the real/practical world of commercial consumer audio recordings the actual equation is more like: 80dB SNR - approx 35-45dB generational loss and analogue processing noise + 15-25dB NR = a theoretical max of roughly 55-65dB DR, which is roughly 100 times less than analogsurvivor is claiming and why all his conclusions/assertions are complete nonsense! And of course, we're only considering noise and ignoring all the other non-linearities and distortions of analogue.

In this sub-forum we tend to focus the details of digital theory and it's implementation, however in the world of commercial recording studios and those who actually make the music products, the single greatest benefit and selling point of digital audio over analogue (which blew all other considerations out of the water), was the elimination of generational loss!



old tech said:


> I recall Ludwig commenting about that. He was not overly impressed with his first foray into digital mastering until the Apogee filters came out around 1984/85. He then described it as sounding exactly the same as the sound he heard in the studio.



I'm not sure about the context of that quote. There really wasn't any digital mastering in 1985, it didn't become even a practical possibility until a decade later and it was almost another decade before the mastering tools had improved to the point that mastering in the digital domain became a viable alternative. Remember that contrary to popular belief, the SPARS code (AAD, DDD, etc.) did not refer to the domain of the procedures but the domain of what those procedures were recorded to. For example, if we record the musicians to digital recording media, mix it in the analogue domain then record that final (analogue) mix to digital, then master in the analogue domain and record the completed master to digital, the SPARS code would be "DDD" (even though it's been both mixed and mastered in the analogue domain). If we're talking about the actual processes, then with the exception of a very few classical recordings (a couple of labels had proprietary digital systems and minimal mixing and mastering), pretty much all recordings up to the mid/late 1990's should have been labelled DAA, then gradually DDA and finally, DDD would have started appearing in the early 2000's.

G


----------



## KeithEmo

According to Philips, they were the only company to_ INITIALLY_ use oversampling in their CD players.
However, as per their description, it was quickly adopted by everyone else.
It was never part of the standard or specified by the standard.
So, _at best_, by choosing a sample rate of 44.1k, they created a practical design problem for which they already had a solution in mind.
(This isn't especially terrible... and one might even suggest that Philips strategically wanted everyone else to be "playing catch-up".)

However, my point remains.... 
It is generally not a good idea to create a standard in such a way that it is likely to be implemented poorly in commercial products designed using current technology.
It's a sort of "recipe for disaster" if a bunch of commercial products are released that claim to support your standard but don't actually work very well.
(You simply end up with a public perception that your standard doesn't work very well.... note how many audiophiles complained about "the poor sound quality of early CDs".)

To quote Phillips:
"However Philips’ oversampling technology, originally born out of the necessity to use the early 14 bit D/A converters, and dismissed as a 'technical joke’ by other manufacturers who believed that a true 16 bit D/A converter followed by a steep analogue filter was the only way to go, was quickly embraced by most manufacturers of CD players. Because it meant there was no need to use highly complex analogue filters, while at the same time it allowed the often serious non-linearities of the D/A converters that were available at the time to be concealed."

( https://www.philips.com/a-w/research/technologies/cd/technology.html   ).

I would also be curious to know how many of the early studio A/D converters included oversampling or not.
(I have no familiarity with any of the early ones.)



gregorio said:


> 1. Unfortunately, yet another typical KeithEmo post. Yes, the CD standard does need to be put into historical context but despite your statement, you have not put it into historical context, you've created a historical context that never actually existed in order to push your "filters" agenda again!
> 
> 2. No CD technology was yet developed when the redbook standard was created because you obviously can't have a CD or CD player before you've created a standard that defines what CD actually is! HOWEVER, oversampling as a technology certainly was known about and it's use was envisaged.
> 2a. These statements are all true BUT ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT because despite your misinformation, oversampling was developed and ubiquitously employed by CD players by the time that CDs were launched to consumers. As far as I'm aware, ALL CD players, from launch day onwards, employed at least 2 times oversampling.
> ...


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> There is a technical detail about the sample rate chosen for the Red Book CD standard that needs to be mentioned to put the choices made into historical context.
> 
> As has already been mentioned, in order to encode an analog signal without serious distortion, the analog signal MUST BE bandwidth limited to avoid the Nyquist frequency.
> So, for example, if you're encoding audio at a 44.1k sample rate to put on a CD, you MUST pass that signal through a sharp low pass filter that eliminates all content above 22 kHz.
> ...



I knew all of this. I just don't worry about anymore problems of year 1983. when I was 12 years old and new nothing about oversampling and aliasing. I was building a large E.T. figure from Legos. I bought my first CD and CD player in 1990. How much did you suffer from 44.1 kHz sampling in 1983? Nobody suffered. CD was a new and exciting music format that took the transparency to a new level in home audio.


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't know about suffering.....

But I've had CD players and DACs since the 1980's....

And, back in those days, they most certainly did NOT all sound the same.



71 dB said:


> I knew all of this. I just don't worry about anymore problems of year 1983. when I was 12 years old and new nothing about oversampling and aliasing. I was building a large E.T. figure from Legos. I bought my first CD and CD player in 1990. How much did you suffer from 44.1 kHz sampling in 1983? Nobody suffered. CD was a new and exciting music format that took the transparency to a new level in home audio.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 1, 2019)

But he's never done a controlled listening test to verify that subjective impression, because... (insert a million excuses based on extreme situations that no one would run across in the real world, doubts about the validity of scientific testing procedures, irrelevant analogies and declarations of ennui).


----------



## KeithEmo

I also never did a controlled listening test to confirm that my first $29 cassette player sounded audibly different than a CD...
(The hiss and lack of high frequencies just seemed sort of obvious.)

However, as I recall, I did have someone do some double-blind switching for me between my first external DAC and my then-current Rotel CD player.
The DAD was rather more expensive - and the difference was actually rather subtle.
(But, since I can't recall the exact model of the DAC, and I'm not at all sure what the brand was either, those results are somewhat moot.  )



bigshot said:


> But he's never done a controlled listening test to verify that subjective impression, because... (insert a million excuses based on extreme situations that no one would run across in the real world, doubts about the validity of scientific testing procedures, irrelevant analogies and declarations of ennui).


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> I don't know about suffering.....
> 
> But I've had CD players and DACs since the 1980's....
> 
> And, back in those days, they most certainly did NOT all sound the same.



I believe you. DACs have come a long way since those days. They were 14 bit, jitter was probably HUGE etc. Also, the analog section of a DAC can give it's favor. The question is: Did those early CD plays and DACs give you more transparent sound than for example vinyl or not?


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> (You simply end up with a public perception that your standard doesn't work very well.... note how many audiophiles complained about "the poor sound quality of early CDs".)


How many audiophiles?  Some maybe, but they were on the outer.  The vast majority of audiophiles were waxing lyricals about how much better CDs sounded compared to all that went before it.

I know because I was there in that era and right into hi fi.  Went to many hi fi exhibitions where CD players were wowing the audiences while the turntables and cassette decks of the day were relegated to the side.  Hi Fi mags were also waxing lyricals, apart from one or two writers like the crank Fremer.

So sorry, there were not "many" audiophiles complaining about the poor sound quality of CDs, quite the opposite.  The complaints about sound quality of CDs really started from the mid to late 90s, when digital consoles were introduced into studios which enabled producers to crank up the loudness and compression.


----------



## old tech

gregorio said:


> I'm not sure about the context of that quote. There really wasn't any digital mastering in 1985, it didn't become even a practical possibility until a decade later and it was almost another decade before the mastering tools had improved to the point that mastering in the digital domain became a viable alternative. Remember that contrary to popular belief, the SPARS code (AAD, DDD, etc.) did not refer to the domain of the procedures but the domain of what those procedures were recorded to. For example, if we record the musicians to digital recording media, mix it in the analogue domain then record that final (analogue) mix to digital, then master in the analogue domain and record the completed master to digital, the SPARS code would be "DDD" (even though it's been both mixed and mastered in the analogue domain). If we're talking about the actual processes, then with the exception of a very few classical recordings (a couple of labels had proprietary digital systems and minimal mixing and mastering), pretty much all recordings up to the mid/late 1990's should have been labelled DAA, then gradually DDA and finally, DDD would have started appearing in the early 2000's.
> G



Yes you are right, the quote was from Bob Clearmountain, not Ludwig - and he wasn't specifically referring to mixing or mastering.  The quote is in the article below.

https://www.laweekly.com/music/why-cds-may-actually-sound-better-than-vinyl-5352162


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> How many audiophiles?  Some maybe, but they were on the outer.  The vast majority of audiophiles were waxing lyricals about how much better CDs sounded compared to all that went before it.
> 
> I know because I was there in that era and right into hi fi.  Went to many hi fi exhibitions where CD players were wowing the audiences while the turntables and cassette decks of the day were relegated to the side.  Hi Fi mags were also waxing lyricals, apart from one or two writers like the crank Fremer.
> 
> So sorry, there were not "many" audiophiles complaining about the poor sound quality of CDs, quite the opposite.  The complaints about sound quality of CDs really started from the mid to late 90s, when digital consoles were introduced into studios which enabled producers to crank up the loudness and compression.



 Sorry, there might be few of us  who reacted negatively to the sound of "perfect sound forever" initially - but WE DEFINITELY WERE !!!!

I never even heard of Fremer up to say a decade or so later...

My first encounter with what proved to be dreaded corruption of music called CD - ( or, in those early days, DAD ) has been at then our yearly consumer electronics show - Sejem Elektronike. It might have been 1981 or 1982 - only the first Philips and Hitachi players.have been on active demo display, no other manufacturer had one actually in production, let alone ready to be shown in public.

Since I NEVER trust sonic impression at fairs ( poor rooom acoustics, corny music, etc ), I did all I could in order to eliminate the former - certainly, I did not have any C discs at the time. So, Audio Technica ATH-7 electret headphones plus Van Alstine 120 C MOSFET power amp to power these were with me at both demos.

I can CLEARLY remember to this day the words one member of the Emona Commerce, importer and distributor for the Hitachi in Yugoslavia at the time, said to the other member of the staff while handing him the ATH-7s for him to listen to Hitachi CD player trough Van Alstine/ATH-7 :  " Come... listen to the dreams...! "

Well, MAYBE the sound heard has been "dreams" for him - because, he clearly has not been familiar with anything even remotely of similar quality. My phono cartridge at the time has been Supex SD-900 Super - or possibly already Grado G1+;  both run rings around CD, but particularly around the first CD machines.

This has been happening about an hour or two after similar thing occurred at the Philips boot - with Philips themselves making the demo. The Philips guy, after hearing for himself his demo piece exposed for what it really was, made sure I leave ASAP ...

For these demos, one particular recording/album needs to be stressed : Dire Straits - Love over Gold. For the initial release, Philips made each and every effort imaginable to make BOTH the new CD and LP version to sound best they can. It has been clearly aimed at proving the CD eclipses the LP. This strategy backfired - royally so. In fact, the best turntables of the day ( remember, Dynavector Karat Diamond cartridge has been three years old at the time .. ) made such a mockery out of ANY then available CD that was laughable... Philips won't admit to have ORDERED BACK any copy of the original LP release of  Love over Gold they could possibly still get back from the vendors - in order ro replace it in the market with the "doctored" "remaster or whatever" - which finally "proved" that CD sound better than LP. 

Yeah, RIGHT -  but only IF you are big enough to have the power to pull off such a fast one - and get away with it.


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> I believe you. DACs have come a long way since those days. They were 14 bit, jitter was probably HUGE etc. Also, the analog section of a DAC can give it's favor. The question is: Did those early CD plays and DACs give you more transparent sound than for example vinyl or not?



short answer : NO


----------



## dprimary

Every setting and calibration in analog recording  changes the sound, there is no setting that is transparent. 30 IPS gives better SN at the loss of low frequency response, 15 IPS gives better lows but you lower SN. That is just one the dozens of tradeoffs in analog recording. I can't even tell how many thousands of hours I spent calibrating tape machines It is first thing you do every session, then again when you change reels. 
You have wow and flutter, tape compression, print-through, oxide loss, generational loss,  poor crosstalk, and many other losses and distortions. Vinyl adds a whole other layer of losses and distortion on top of that. 

High Com was on Akai decks in the 80's. I played with it a little. By played with, I mean tested multiple tape types, brands, recording levels, a-b'd to the source. Like all companding systems it had trade offs. No matter what noise reduction system you use you cannot get around tape compression and all the mechanical issues. It was a consumer systems anyway so not of any use in a studio. Noise Reduction systems peaked with Dolby SR which never gained acceptance in music production but was popular in film production. SN is more important in film than fidelity.

Plug mic preamps directly into any Studer, Ampex, Stevens, Otari, 3M tape machine, listen to what goes in, listen to what comes out, if you are lucky you get 80% of what  went in. Lifeless compressed, soft crap, a faint shadow of the performance. The artifacts are unbearable.


----------



## analogsurviver

Agreed. Some limitations cited are real.

Some apply only if you are strictly USER - and use commercially available equipment in stock form.

You would have been shocked to have demonstrated even stock properly functioning Technics RS-AZ 7 cassette deck - NO commercially available and used in studio R2R had amorphous / magnetoresistive heads - hence poor bass and channel separation/high crosstak in studio machines. No stock equipment I know of had its MPX filters TRULLY out of the circuit when set to "MPX filter off" position - hence poor extension above 20 kHz and unnecessary phase errors in treble, etc, etc. These errors ARE audible.

No commercially available High Com had its most glaring shortcomings removed  ... you had to do it by yoursellf.

It was, basically, NOT the limitation by the technology itself, it has been more the inability to utilize the capabiliies of the technology to the fullest.


----------



## GearMe

Even if the best analog system can meet or surpass the capabilities of digital , I'm failing to understand the point/practicality of it.  

To my understanding, this technology has gone the way of the Betamax...it's not used by the industry and, therefore, has no real value to someone that is interested in listening to a broad selection of music.  

While I'm a fan of Knopfler / Dire Straits, I'm not sure I want to listen to 'Love over Gold' on repeat for eternity  

Feel free to educate me if I'm missing something...


----------



## analogsurviver

GearMe said:


> Even if the best analog system can meet or surpass the capabilities of digital , I'm failing to understand the point/practicality of it.
> 
> To my understanding, this technology has gone the way of the Betamax...it's not used by the industry and, therefore, has no real value to someone that is interested in listening to a broad selection of music.
> 
> ...



I simply used the CD vs LP example that has been actually used for promoting CD - and that was Love over Gold. My sample of LP was lent to a classmate from high school and a friend - and won't be getting it back; he unfortunately committed suicide a decade or so ago...

Analog recording is still viable - both tape and even direct to disk. Rare - but alive and well. 

For a reason... multitude of reasons, in fact.

But as with hirez, it is done only in genres that can profit fro such extra care and attention to detail - it is not going to be used at large scale anymore.

One does not go to a Hors Categorie restaurants every day - but those days that do get spent at such establishments usually create long lasting impressions  - if not memories for life.


----------



## GearMe

Sorry to hear about your friend...tragic when someone feels that is their best alternative; am sure you still miss him.


Understood that analog recording is still viable; just don't see it in the same light that you apparently do.  I say this having owned several high-end turntables (belt & direct drive), tone arms, and MM / MC cartridges with the 'proper' media and gear to do them justice.  Also owned a few reel-to-reel machines, Nakamichi cassette decks, etc.

Gotta say that these didn't/don't sound as good to me as the equivalent CD from a source perspective; couple that with analog media cost/availability/etc. as well as the unfriendly user playback format and it's a non-starter for me from a listening and value perspective.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] According to Philips, they were the only company to_ INITIALLY_ use oversampling in their CD players. However, as per their description, it was quickly adopted by everyone else.
> [2] It was never part of the standard or specified by the standard.
> [3] So, _at best_, by choosing a sample rate of 44.1k, they created a practical design problem for which they already had a solution in mind.
> [3a] However, my point remains....It is generally not a good idea to create a standard in such a way that it is likely to be implemented poorly in commercial products designed using current technology.



1. So even if we accept your revised version of history, "_quickly_" after CD was publicly launched (in 1983) "_Oversampling has essentially eliminated this issue entirely_", so why keep going on about this filter "issue" if it was eliminated entirely roughly 35 years ago?

2. Huh? The Redbook CD standard was a standard for CDs not for oversampling or anything else in the chain that comes after the CD. The redbook standard does not for example specify what amp, speakers/HPs should be used.

3. No they didn't! They chose the sample rate of 44.1kHz to fulfil two main design criteria: Firstly it exceeded the range of human hearing and considerably exceeded the usable range of analogue distribution media and Secondly, it was usable in a commercial production workflow.

3a. Yes, your point does "remain", it remains a nonsense point! Firstly, Philips/Sony did not "_create a standard in such a way that it was likely to be implemented poorly_", they created a standard that they knew they could implement well and as already mentioned, by the time of release they actually had a 4 times oversampling DAC available. If other manufacturers of CD players wanted to do things differently and not oversample, that was their choice. More importantly though, what alternative would you have suggested, a higher sample rate, like say 50kHz or higher? That's a great idea, so instead of a "practical design problem" for which there was already a solution, you suggest a different practical design problem for which there was no solution. Instead of a standard which some other CD player manufacturers *might* have implemented poorly for a short period of time, you suggest a standard which could not be implemented at all? How does that make any sense at all?

For everyone else: 44.1kHz was chosen because it allowed for an anti-alias filter outside the range of human hearing and because the digital data could be transferred. NTSC video has 245 horizontal lines per field, 60 fields per second and 3 stereo samples can be stored per line, therefore: 245 * 60 * 3 = 44,100. This meant that stereo digital audio could be transferred on professional video tape (U-Matic). This was an essential requirement, otherwise how would you transfer digital audio between recording studios, between recording studios and mastering studios and between mastering studios and the CD pressing plants? U-Matic remained the de facto transfer/delivery format for a decade or so, until it was replaced by DAT in the mid 1990's.

G


----------



## Steve999 (Feb 2, 2019)

I think ennui might be a noun that means something like weariness or boredom or tiresomeness, to whoever used it. Maybe that’s how it was intended, I can’t tell from the context. I can think of some posts to which it might apply though. 

@dprimary , I really enjoyed the post about studio reel to reel tape decks. The best I ever had were commercial three-head cassette decks and I would go absolutely batty trying to get the tape to sound just like the source. With Dolby NR (particularly C or S) I could get it so it sounded really good but it was never exact, you’re right. I didn’t realize it was an analogous struggle even with reel to reel in the studio. Wish I had known then. I didn’t realize at the time what a losing battle it was and that tape was just going to degenerate as a medium and that digital files and streaming services were around the bend in a decade or two or three, so with 20/20 hindsight, it was much time wasted, except I did learn a lot about how to develop an understanding of what I could expect with the tools I had, which probably lasts through the rest of the hifi hobby aspect of my life.

Also, everyone, please post some music in the sound science music thread. I get lonely over there.


----------



## analogsurviver

GearMe said:


> Sorry to hear about your friend...tragic when someone feels that is their best alternative; am sure you still miss him.
> 
> 
> Understood that analog recording is still viable; just don't see it in the same light that you apparently do.  I say this having owned several high-end turntables (belt & direct drive), tone arms, and MM / MC cartridges with the 'proper' media and gear to do them justice.  Also owned a few reel-to-reel machines, Nakamichi cassette decks, etc.
> ...



Well, one can hardly completely forget somebody with whom has rubbed the elbow throughout the four years of high school ...

Analog is more expensive as digital - mere tape and cassette prices are enough to deter anyone but the more well up to do. The really PROPER ressurgence of vinyl came about some 5 or so years ago - with the appearence of ultrasonic vinyl record cleaners. You have not really heard your record unless properly cleaned ... - it is better having a 1K turntable ( Turntable/arm/cartridge combo ) and 5K US record cleaner than a 5K turntable and dirty records ...- and that includes NEW records as well, as records must have some form of greasy "coating" on them in order for them to be possible to be separated from stampers. That "grease" attracts static, static attracts dust, together it wreacks sonic havoc ...  US cleaners have luckily trickled down in price - all the way to 185 EUR + shipping for the lowest price usable machine. So, no longer excuseses the price of admission for clean records to be too high.

I agree that cost and selection wise analog is both more expensive and limited - but if you are over 40, most likely you do own some records already and can build on that. Being skilled and knowledgable in this segment helps - there ARE pieces of gear still flying under the radar of most bargain hunters on ebay and other sites offering vintage equipment. It takes also time and patience - the desired piece might well take over a year before it appears for a reasonable price.

About the best example what can be obtained from vinyl records is the channel from Bob Wood on Youtube. There are many turntable drive methods represented, many different tonearms - and, of course, cartridges. We could nitpick about the choice of the phono preamp and/or the way to digitize analog - but, overall, I doubt there is a better representation of what can be ultimately expected from vinyl records available anywhere else. It also might be possible to get some uncompressed files from him - but that most likely can be obtained only by contacting him directly. Still, even with all the limitations of sound quality on YT, I find these recordings usable for general assesment of the sound quality say of a particular piece of analog gear.


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> short answer : NO



Your fanatism over analog sound together with your lack of knowledge about digital audio makes me want to ignore you.


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> For these demos, one particular recording/album needs to be stressed : Dire Straits - Love over Gold. For the initial release, Philips made each and every effort imaginable to make BOTH the new CD and LP version to sound best they can. It has been clearly aimed at proving the CD eclipses the LP. This strategy backfired - royally so. In fact, the best turntables of the day ( remember, Dynavector Karat Diamond cartridge has been three years old at the time .. ) made such a mockery out of ANY then available CD that was laughable... Philips won't admit to have ORDERED BACK any copy of the original LP release of  Love over Gold they could possibly still get back from the vendors - in order ro replace it in the market with the "doctored" "remaster or whatever" - which finally "proved" that CD sound better than LP.



I call BS on that story.  If not, please provide a credible source of reference.

I'm sure that many comparisons between LPs and CDs were done in the early days.  Like in 1984 at one of the hi fi conventions I attended, the comparison was with Howard Jones Dream into Action and no-one at the session I attended would claim the LP sounded better.

I have both the original LP pressing of Love over Gold and an early Target CD.  They both sound great but the CD comes out ahead, particularly on clarity, total lack of noise (which I find distracting) and reproduction of bass nuances - and I have a fairly high end turntable/cart/pre-amp setup.

It is also ironic that you chose Dire Straits.  Mark Knopfler and the band's long time producer Neil Dorsfman were early adopters of digital production, back in the early 80s both publicly stated the superiority of CDs in reproducing their music how it should sound, lie ike it sounded in the studio when they created it in a way they could never achieve it with analog, particularly vinyl.  In fact, Knopfler insisted that the 1985 Brothers in Arms album had to be all digital, and so it was, in all its 16/44 glory which still today stands out with audiophiles as one of the finest sounding rock/pop albums ever produced.


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> Your fanatism over analog sound together with your lack of knowledge about digital audio makes me want to ignore you.



From your posts, I get the impression that you never had the chance to experience top PERFORMING analog gear. It is true that the first to achieve this would also be top priced gear - but there was long enough for the "formula 2 at reasonable price" gear to trickle down from "formula 1 at bust-your-balls price".

Both "grades" can  outperform RBCD by a great margin - provided the absolute limits of what can actually be put on analog records are not exceeded. It is ironic that for uncompressed music, today one is almost forced to digitize LPs - since CDs have been unfortunately misused for loudness wars. 

Decent analog front end also requires better equipment downstream than digital setup sufficient for RBCD;  you are not going to be able to appreciate the equipment AND RECORDINGS  exceeding RBCD, either analog or digital, on "limited to (just) above 20 kHz" downstream setup. And that "excessive" capability does not come for free; although it is not necessary an arm and a leg priced, it has to be more expensive than up to 20 k only.

he only time labeling me as a troll is correct probably with me intentionally saying I know less about the digital than I actually do. It is true that sample rate below 88.2kHz  PCM and lossy formats are of low/no interest to me - if it does not deliver sonical minimum, I do not spend much time with it. As simple as that.


----------



## GearMe (Feb 2, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Well, one can hardly completely forget somebody with whom has rubbed the elbow throughout the four years of high school ...
> 
> Analog is more expensive as digital - mere tape and cassette prices are enough to deter anyone but the more well up to do. The really PROPER ressurgence of vinyl came about some 5 or so years ago - with the appearence of ultrasonic vinyl record cleaners. You have not really heard your record unless properly cleaned ... - it is better having a 1K turntable ( Turntable/arm/cartridge combo ) and 5K US record cleaner than a 5K turntable and dirty records ...- and that includes NEW records as well, as records must have some form of greasy "coating" on them in order for them to be possible to be separated from stampers. That "grease" attracts static, static attracts dust, together it wreacks sonic havoc ...  US cleaners have luckily trickled down in price - all the way to 185 EUR + shipping for the lowest price usable machine. So, no longer excuseses the price of admission for clean records to be too high.
> 
> ...



Sounds like you're really into vinyl. That's the cool thing about the audio hobby...each person can pursue their own interests!

Yeah, fwiw, I've owned analog equipment at that level and above -- in 1980's dollars  -- can't fathom what it costs now!  To my ears, it just didn't compare to CDs.  Sold my entire album collection -- which was quite extensive including many audiophile discs -- and started building my digital library.

At some point, I realized I was listening more to the gear and than the music...bass-ackwards to my way of thinking!  Now, I'd rather listen to an artist/song I like at 128kbps that a hirez version of an artist/song I find uninspiring!  So the concept of audiophile pressings/recordings/etc. really doesn't work for me any more.

Not to say I don't appreciate a great song on a good system...I do.  But, give me a mono recording of Dave Brubeck on Koss PortaPros over a Sheffield Labs disc by Dave Grusin on Bi-amped Maggies with Subs any day of the week!


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Feb 2, 2019)

old tech said:


> I call BS on that story.  If not, please provide a credible source of reference.
> 
> I'm sure that many comparisons between LPs and CDs were done in the early days.  Like in 1984 at one of the hi fi conventions I attended, the comparison was with Howard Jones Dream into Action and no-one at the session I attended would claim the LP sounded better.
> 
> ...


Knopflers British Grove studios offer some the best analog recording studios around....and yes digital alsohttps://youtu.be/Sm6_JJXla-k


----------



## 71 dB

analogsurviver said:


> 1. From your posts, I get the impression that you never had the chance to experience top PERFORMING analog gear.
> 
> 2. Both "grades" can  outperform RBCD by a great margin - provided the absolute limits of what can actually be put on analog records are not exceeded. It is ironic that for uncompressed music, today one is almost forced to digitize LPs - since CDs have been unfortunately misused for loudness wars.
> 
> ...



1. Probably true, because I am not a millionaire. That's one of the problems with analog: You need top performance (tons of money). That's why digital is much better for normal people with normal income level.

2. Outperform in what? Loudness war is not a technical property of RBCD. It is a stupid commercial convention. My classical music CD are not victims of loudness war. Technically analog format can beat RBCD only in bandwidth, but we can't hear those ultrasonic sounds anyway.

3. I'm not interested of front end. I am interested about the end result. What is on the CD. You can have insane samplerates in production and then downsample for CD.

4. You don't hear above 20 kHz, probably not above even 15 kHz, so why do you need 88.2 kHz? CD is not lossy. Lossy formats is another discussion.


----------



## KeithEmo

Just to be perfectly clear here:

I consider CDs to be a HUGE improvement over vinyl - for several reasons.

First, as most of us here are well aware, virtually every step of the process involved in mastering vinyl changes the sound, so vinyl albums are far from "audibly transparent". However much fault can be found with the recording, mastering, and mixing processes that precede both, it's pretty obvious that the process of mastering to vinyl, and playing back vinyl, adds even MORE opprtunities to add coloration and distortion to the sound than CDs and other digital audio formats. 

- EQ is required to limit certain frequencies to avoid overloading a cutting lathe.
- The RIAA EQ used to produce and play back vinyl offers a lot of opportunity for errors to be introduced.
- The process of cutting a groove, and tracking a groove, introduces significant THD and other forms of distortion.
- The surface noise of the vinyl itself is a limiting factor.
- Every time you lay a disc the stresses produced by the stylus produce even more damage and distortion.
- The various masters themselves, as well as the final vinyl albums, are subject to wear and damage.
- And, of course, vinyl is subject to ticks, pops, and various other physical flaws and damage.

To be quite honest, the major reason I found CDs to be a major improvement was simply their ability to deliver the content entrusted to them reliably and repeatable. With my vinyl albums I always had to worry about record wear, and damage like ticks and pops, and warpage. WIth vinyl albums, at every step of the way, there is the possibility of significant wear and damage. The first pressing mothers off a master are not identical to later ones, and the first vinyl pressed from that mother are not identical to those a few thousand units later. 

In contrast, assuming the same master is used, and there are no obvious flaws in processing, every CD copy is identical. I don't have to wonder if the one I've gotten is the best copy, or the worst copy, and I don't have to worry that it will sound different between the first time I play it and the 500th time. And, assuming I handle it reasonably carefully, I don't have to worry about damage or wear. (And, if I RIP it on a computer, I can use AccurateRIP to ensure that the original copy is perfect, and any of a variety of checksum programs to ensure that the copies I save on disc remain absolutely perfect.)

Some folks who like vinyl seem to not notice things like the occasiona tick or pop, or the surface noise, but I find them an unavoidable distraction. If I hear one or two ticks on a track they DO distract me enough that they ruin my ability to enjoy the music. Therefore, for me, freedom from damage and iconsistencies is the signle biggest difference. (Whenever I removed a record from the sleeve I was always nervous, wondering if it had somehoe gotten damaged in storage, or mysteriously accumulated a scratch... With CDs, I can trust them to play as I expect... and, to me, this is a major plus.)



71 dB said:


> I believe you. DACs have come a long way since those days. They were 14 bit, jitter was probably HUGE etc. Also, the analog section of a DAC can give it's favor. The question is: Did those early CD plays and DACs give you more transparent sound than for example vinyl or not?


----------



## KeithEmo

Since you ask.....

I would have used a sample rate of 48k, which was widely suggested at the time as an alternative.
That would have limited the capacity of discs at the current size to about 45 minutes, or required discs to be about 1/2" larger to achieve the same capacity, neither of which seems especially important.
To any competent engineer, designing anything with a safety margin of less than 10% is generally not considered to be a good idea.... 

My other point is simply one of practicality....
Creating a standard that is difficult to implement is usually a bad idea because it leads to poor implementations... whcih deprecate the usefulness of your standard in the minds of customers....
(There was no physcial limitation associated with 44k..... the ONLY drawback to using 48k would have been the need for a slightly larger disc...... and perhaps the need for some studios to adjust their workflow.)

And, I'm sorry, but "the need" to transfer content using NTSC tape was a matter of economics and convenience.
In every other discussion we've had you seem to have insisted that studios are generally willing to spend a lot of money to achieve the best possible sound quality.
Are you suggesting that, in this case, they would have been UNWILLING to abandon the outdated U-matic format and replace it with one that would have worked better?
I'm being a bit facetious, but in defense of my point, which is that, when the CD format was developed, "low cost" and "convenience of implementation" were prioritized far above "best performance".
(They did NOT choose 44.1k because it "worked perfectly"; they chose it because it was easy to put on the tape equipment thwey already had.)



gregorio said:


> 1. So even if we accept your revised version of history, "_quickly_" after CD was publicly launched (in 1983) "_Oversampling has essentially eliminated this issue entirely_", so why keep going on about this filter "issue" if it was eliminated entirely roughly 35 years ago?
> 
> 2. Huh? The Redbook CD standard was a standard for CDs not for oversampling or anything else in the chain that comes after the CD. The redbook standard does not for example specify what amp, speakers/HPs should be used.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I would point out that the discussion becomes a lot more interesting when you talk about digital audio in general rather than RBCD in specific. Without getting into the discussions about whether it matters or not, it is true that vinyl can support a slightly wider bandwidth than RBCD, although it can't deliver an equivalent S/N ratio. HOWEVER, if we include 24/96k digital audio in the discussion, THAT digital format can deliver wider bandwith, much higher S/N, and much lower distortion. Therefore, I would be hard pressed to find any way in whcih vinyl can outperform 24/96k digital audio.

This points out what I see as the major distinction. Analog audio is essentially at its limit... whereas, with digital audio, you can always choose a higher sample rate, or a higher bit depth, if you want technically better performance, and the cost increase is minimal to do so.



analogsurviver said:


> From your posts, I get the impression that you never had the chance to experience top PERFORMING analog gear. It is true that the first to achieve this would also be top priced gear - but there was long enough for the "formula 2 at reasonable price" gear to trickle down from "formula 1 at bust-your-balls price".
> 
> Both "grades" can  outperform RBCD by a great margin - provided the absolute limits of what can actually be put on analog records are not exceeded. It is ironic that for uncompressed music, today one is almost forced to digitize LPs - since CDs have been unfortunately misused for loudness wars.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Feb 2, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> I think ennui might be a noun that means something like weariness or boredom or tiresomeness.



That's a bingo!

It's amazing how the exact same irrelevant sidetracks happen over and over. I think eventually, we'll be like beaten puppies and flinch at the sound of the word "vinyl".

I like how the demonstration of how good an LP can sound is encoded in AAC192 on youtube.



old tech said:


> It is also ironic that you chose Dire Straits.  Mark Knopfler and the band's long time producer Neil Dorsfman were early adopters of digital production, back in the early 80s both publicly stated the superiority of CDs in reproducing their music how it should sound,



I was in an audiophile forum once and a guy was waxing poetic about the sound of an SACD of Donald Fagan's The Nightfly. He went on and on about the superiority of the SACD format and how it allowed the sound of this album to be heard in a quality as good as the original vinyl pressing, which he said had better sound quality than the inferior CD. I guess he wasn't aware that the album was recorded 16/44.1. The CD was a direct port. The SACD was an upsample. The vinyl was a flawed approximation of the CD.

That's what you get when you rely on biased subjective impressions!


----------



## 71 dB

*I have nothing against liking vinyl/analog sound more. It's not my business what other people prefer, but people should realize they prefer vinyl over CD for the distortions. People like familiarity. Vinyl makes everything sound the same introducing same distortions to everything while CDs can sound very different from each other. Vinyls also have narrowed channel separation at low frequencies to keep the needle in the groove. This is essentially crossfeed and has benefit in headphone listening (althou I rather crossfeed the source signal in a controlled manner with a proper crossfeeder). So there are reasons to like vinyl sound, but it doesn't mean vinyl is technically better or more transparent. It's the other way around: people "like" vinyl because it's less transparent. CD being technically superior is a fact. Technical superiority doesn't mean you have to like it more. We like what we like. Just admit you prefer distorted less transparent sound. Nobody can attack you for doing so. There is no law saying you have to prefer technically superior formats.*



bigshot said:


> I like how the demonstration of how good an LP can sound is encoded in AAC192 on youtube.



Well, AAC192 doesn't lose all the distortions introduced by vinyl...


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I would point out that the discussion becomes a lot more interesting when you talk about digital audio in general rather than RBCD in specific. Without getting into the discussions about whether it matters or not, it is true that vinyl can support a slightly wider bandwidth than RBCD, although it can't deliver an equivalent S/N ratio. HOWEVER, if we include 24/96k digital audio in the discussion, THAT digital format can deliver wider bandwith, much higher S/N, and much lower distortion. Therefore, I would be hard pressed to find any way in whcih vinyl can outperform 24/96k digital audio.
> 
> This points out what I see as the major distinction. Analog audio is essentially at its limit... whereas, with digital audio, you can always choose a higher sample rate, or a higher bit depth, if you want technically better performance, and the cost increase is minimal to do so.





KeithEmo said:


> I would point out that the discussion becomes a lot more interesting when you talk about digital audio in general rather than RBCD in specific. Without getting into the discussions about whether it matters or not, it is true that vinyl can support a slightly wider bandwidth than RBCD, although it can't deliver an equivalent S/N ratio. HOWEVER, if we include 24/96k digital audio in the discussion, THAT digital format can deliver wider bandwith, much higher S/N, and much lower distortion. Therefore, I would be hard pressed to find any way in whcih vinyl can outperform 24/96k digital audio.
> 
> This points out what I see as the major distinction. Analog audio is essentially at its limit... whereas, with digital audio, you can always choose a higher sample rate, or a higher bit depth, if you want technically better performance, and the cost increase is minimal to do so.



OK, I agree. The first thing that has to be clarified is your use of "slightly" higher bandwidth for analog than RBCD.

That slightly is as vague and as multi meaning as this : 



Since digital camp does insist on accurate description of each and every bit and byte, I will counter with the undeniable fact :

ANALOG RECORD FREQUENCY RESPONSE IS NOT UNIFORMLY AND UNIVERSALLY DEFINED

What does it mean ? It means one can (hopefully not... ) play some super cut analog record with recorded signal past 100 kHz ( can be done, has been done ) with a $ 0.99 ceramic cartridge tracking at 10 gram vertical tracking force  - getting a ragged response up to about 10 kHz and ruining an expensive record for good in a single play - OR can use a super cartridge with response past 120 kHz ( can be done, has been done ). These two are the maximum opposite extremes possible - with most real world equipment performing somewhere between those two extremes, preferably in the direction of the 120 khz cartridge.

Fast forward to 2019 - almost ANY moving coil phono cartridge in the market for sale today has frequency range AT VERY LEAST TO 50 kHz.  
It is debatable how linear or with which deviation(s) from absolutely dead flat up to 50 khz, but cartridges that have survived in the market up to the present day can not have too wild excursions either way, up to, including and beyond 50 kHz - or the competition simply pinches them out of the contention in a rather short period.

So - IF we assume only the majority of MC cartridges available, FLAT  response of digital whatever is required at least to 50 kHz in order to have a chance of even approaching their full capability. That clearly rules out RBCD, DAT ( 48k) and 96/24. Brick wall filtering and attendant problems you have so eloquently described for RBCD hold equally true at higher sampling rates - and 96/24 can not do justice to most MC cartridges available in stores today. 

That leaves us with 192/24 as the first PCM capable of roughly meeting the FLAT frequency response capable of covering the frequency range of most MC cartridges today. And, since you ARE familiar with the quantization noise etc creeping up in level above certain frequency for any real world ADC/DAC, that means at least 384/24 capable "digitis" is required IF the noise above > 20 kHz is not to exceed certain limit.

DSD compounds the problem - because it is never filtered out so steeply as PCM, its frequency response starts SLOWLY AND GRADUALLY  to fall off at much lower ferequencies than brickwall filtered PCM. Likewise, ultrasonic noise becomes reasonably manageable only with DSD256 - with DSD128 being an absolute minimum in this regard.

SACD - or more precisely, DSD64 - should have never become available ; it is because DSD64 that DSD in general has gotten bad rep in some circles..

I would like to stress that I used here entirely plausible and commercially available equipment that not only millionaires can afford; I did no go for the extreme final capability of analog record at 120+ khz - which will most likely remain as the record in its category, both for the ability to place it on record as well as to be able to play it back.

From this perspective, 96/24 PCM can still be regarded as kindergarten level - OK, make that primary school.


----------



## gargani

analogsurviver said:


> OK, I agree. The first thing that has to be clarified is your use of "slightly" higher bandwidth for analog than RBCD.
> 
> That slightly is as vague and as multi meaning as this :
> 
> ...



Wild excursions up to 20khz., okay; but wild excursions from 20khz. to 50khz. and beyond, is not going to  determine a cartridge's success in the market.


----------



## KeithEmo

Absolutely....

Back in the original days of 4-channel, the CD-4 format utilized a high frequency subcarrier....
CD-4 phono cartridges required a frequency response up to somewhere around 48 kHz.

HOWEVER....
This requires a special cartridge, with a special stylus, most of which also required a very heavy tracking force (3 - 4 grams).
As a result, CD-4 records were claimed to be subject to rapid wear (it was claimed that the subcarrier would actually be worn off after some number of plays).
The subcarrier was also a form of modulated carrier wave (so it wasn't listened to directly as part of the audio signal).
It's aso probably worth noting that, since CD-4 is no longer used commercially....
those cartridges do NOT seem to be in demand as "sounding expecially good because of their extended frequency response".

It is true, however, that vinyl doesn't require the sharp low-pass limiting at 22 kHz required by RBCD.
However, because of the limits of various portions of the signal chain, vinyl cannot record high frequency signals at full amplitude.
For example, you cannot record a 0 dB 20 kHz signal onto vinyl......
(Both because the signal level would be dangerous for the mastering lathe... and because a standard playback cartridge would be unable to track it.)



gargani said:


> Wild excursions up to 20khz., okay; but wild excursions from 20khz. to 50khz. and beyond, is not going to  determine a cartridge's success in the market.


----------



## old tech

KeithEmo said:


> I would point out that the discussion becomes a lot more interesting when you talk about digital audio in general rather than RBCD in specific. Without getting into the discussions about whether it matters or not, it is true that vinyl can support a slightly wider bandwidth than RBCD, although it can't deliver an equivalent S/N ratio. HOWEVER, if we include 24/96k digital audio in the discussion, THAT digital format can deliver wider bandwith, much higher S/N, and much lower distortion. Therefore, I would be hard pressed to find any way in whcih vinyl can outperform 24/96k digital audio.
> 
> This points out what I see as the major distinction. Analog audio is essentially at its limit... whereas, with digital audio, you can always choose a higher sample rate, or a higher bit depth, if you want technically better performance, and the cost increase is minimal to do so.



I agree with what you say apart from that vinyl can deliver a slightly higher bandwidth.

Firstly, without taking into account linearity of frequency response, vinyl potentially can go higher than 20k khz but CDs can go lower at the other end of the bandwidth, right down to 0hz.

If we take into account how strong the signal is, compared to noise, then CD practically goes higher than vinyl.  At 20khz it is still within 0.5db, whereas vinyl starts rolling off around 16khz.  

Not that any of this matters, as we are now talking about frequencies outside the bounds of human hearing, but what is very relevant, is that CD (or digital generally) mantains its fidelity throughout the bandwidth, whereas vinyl is increasingly inaccurate outside the midrange.


----------



## old tech

Glmoneydawg said:


> Knopflers British Grove studios offer some the best analog recording studios around....and yes digital alsohttps://youtu.be/Sm6_JJXla-k


Yes, they cater to a wide market, it doesn't change their views.  Additionally, sometimes analog processes are preferred for production to achieve a certain sound, eg the fatness of bass which analog tape can give as a byproduct of its distortion due to saturation.  None of this is relevant to playback though.


----------



## KeithEmo

There are many technical limitations that affect vinyl and not RBCD.

Although you rarely see any attempts to measure them, I'm sure the THD and IMD of vinyl are much higher than RBCD....
(They are also going to vary depending on stylus profile, tracking force, arm geometry, record wear, and even room temperature.)

Another issue is that the RIAA curve used to record and play back vinyl requires relatively significant erualization.
This introduces many oportunities for errors, both during encoding, and during playback.
Many phono preamps have RIAA EQ that is less accurate than a typical CD player... and we have no way of knowing how accurate the EQ was at the cutting lathe.

It is worth noting, however, that most of this is moot.....
Most people who prefer vinyl do so because they find that it sounds "pleasant" and not because it sounds "accurate".

I should also point out somethign interesting......and it's psychological.
I believe that vinyl tends to appeal to audiophiles who prefer to consider audio in subjective terms.
In simplest terms....
Many audiophiles PREFER TO BELIEVE that they prefer accurate sound reproduction.
Therefore, they would prefer NOT to admit that they like vinyl because they LIKE the inaccuracies introduced by it.
So, in order to rationalize this choice, they prefer to believe that, in spite of the measured inaccuracies, there is some intangible way in which it is still more accurate.
(This also seems to be true of many tube aficionados.)

To me this is a sort of affectation....
It would be like me claiming thet Jamie Tyndall "is a great undiscovered artist" because I happen to like his particular style of fantasy art.
(The reality is that I like his art very much... but he probably isn't such a great artist.)



old tech said:


> I agree with what you say apart from that vinyl can deliver a slightly higher bandwidth.
> 
> Firstly, without taking into account linearity of frequency response, vinyl potentially can go higher than 20k khz but CDs can go lower at the other end of the bandwidth, right down to 0hz.
> 
> ...


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Feb 2, 2019)

old tech said:


> Yes, they cater to a wide market, it doesn't change their views.  Additionally, sometimes analog processes are preferred for production to achieve a certain sound, eg the fatness of bass which analog tape can give as a byproduct of its distortion due to saturation.  None of this is relevant to playback though.


Actually their views are pretty well documented.....they appear to use both mediums for their different strengths.According to Chuck Ainlay,Knopflers current producer/engineer part of the appeal of analog is the plug-in effects sound better than the digital versions...better distortion??


----------



## old tech

Glmoneydawg said:


> Actually their views are pretty well documented.....they appear to use both mediums for their different strengths.According to Chuck Ainlay,Knopflers current producer/engineer part of the appeal of analog is the plug-in effects sound better than the digital versions...better distortion??


Yes, when it comes to music production the choice of sound effects is endless, including distortions to produce that sound.  Sometimes analog will produce the desired effects, other times digital.


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> That's a bingo!
> 
> I like how the demonstration of how good an LP can sound is encoded in AAC192 on youtube.



Yes it is ironic when you view some of these youtube video comparisons of vinyl vs CD.  All they prove is that they are comparing different master sources which can be clearly heard on a lossy digital platform.

A few years back, I commented on a youtube video posted by Fremer comparing David Bowie's Hunky Dory LP against a Rykodisc CD of the same album.  Funnily, half of the responders preferred the Rykodisc.

I posted saying that all he proved was the transparency of lossy digital formats which enabled viewers to hear the difference in the masterings.  I also said that if he wanted a fairer comparison he should use the earlier RCA CD of Hunky Dory as it is considered the best sounding digital version of that album, rather than the Rykodisc remaster which is one of the least preferred masterings.  He responded with an uncalled for vicious attack, which he later deleted. 



bigshot said:


> I was in an audiophile forum once and a guy was waxing poetic about the sound of an SACD of Donald Fagan's The Nightfly. He went on and on about the superiority of the SACD format and how it allowed the sound of this album to be heard in a quality as good as the original vinyl pressing, which he said had better sound quality than the inferior CD. I guess he wasn't aware that the album was recorded 16/44.1. The CD was a direct port. The SACD was an upsample. The vinyl was a flawed approximation of the CD.
> 
> That's what you get when you rely on biased subjective impressions!



A bit like a thread on the Steve Hoffman forum where many of their vinyphiles say how superior the LP version of Brothers in Arms is compared to the CD, even though it is a 16/44 recording which the CD is a bit perfect copy of the master.  Of course, one can prefer the sound of the LP but it must be less accurate to the original master when it sounds different.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 3, 2019)

old tech said:


> vinyl potentially can go higher than 20k khz.



My brother had a test record that had tones on it going all the way up to 18-20kHz. The liner notes on the album said that the highest frequencies on the album would only last for 15 plays or so before being turned to a mush of distortion. It explained that super high frequencies on LPs require very delicate groove modulations that just can't stand up to playing with a diamond needle. They recommended only playing those grooves when you really needed it. I think there was even a loop groove before those tracks to prevent you from playing through from an adjacent groove.

David Bowie's LPs sounded horrible. That was the era when RCA was doing Dynaflex. Yuck!


----------



## analogsurviver

gargani said:


> Wild excursions up to 20khz., okay; but wild excursions from 20khz. to 50khz. and beyond, is not going to  determine a cartridge's success in the market.



WRONG - it could not be wronger ( and I DO know "wronger" to be incorrect  use of the English language ).

Do you actually use analog record playback machine at home or are you speaking only in general ? Two VERY different things...

If you were a regular listener to analog records, you would have known that the surface noise ( that can be clearly decomposed to tape hiss, ticks, pops, other unmentionables ) can vary a GREat DEAL - FROM THE SAME RECORD, BUT PLAYED TROUGH VARIOS PLAYBACK EQUIPMENT.

Records do not produce ticks and pop - ticks and pops are the consequence of record defects that excite (electro)mechanical resonances in phono stylus, cartridge, tonearm, platter, tonearm base , cables, phono preamplifier, etc - and, in general, the whole machine that is "record player" or "cartridge/tonearm/turntable/preamplifier" combination.

Go trough ANY decent, better phono cartridge review - subjective or, in recent times unfortunately extremely rare - objective phono cartridge review. One of the greatest recommendation any reviewer can give to any cartridge is the coveted "quietness in the groove". It is the Holy Grail in analog record playback... - and has been only recently seriously tackled on grander scale by most manufacturers. 

We no longer have new , mint, unplayed records to listen to. Some are older than their listeners - myself included, at 58 years of age. Throughout their life, these records have been played by ??? equipment - some good, some bad, some atrocious. None of the cartridges  whose design is now 10 or more years old can claim to have CONSCIOUSLY tackled this issue. 

2-3 months ago, I conducted a VERY comprehensive test regarding stylus shape in an otherwise for all practical purpose identical cartridge. Using new, never played records, normally used but still good records - and those that would have been replaced by a mint copy ASAP - IF that was still available; which, of course, it no longer is in the majority of cases.

I did record ( 192/24 this time instead of the normally used DSD128 - for convinience of not having to convert the DSD to PCM for spectrum analysis, etc later ) both test signals from " over this test record went everything but a Russian tank " to mint test record . Ditto for the musical variety records.

Conclusion ? A super expected one, but now confirmed trough measurements/recordings. You can have GREAT sound from, a very good MM cartrifge equipped with an elliptical stylus - but ONLY IF your records are ALL mint. Now, with all the cleaning machines available, you can be sold a record in an immaculate outer sleeve, immaculate inner sleeve, appearing with no surface scratches, not even hairline... - BUT, the record has been played with a (elliptical ) stylus at too low tracking force and is - SHOT. Totally unlistenable with an elliptical stylus ....

I could bore you to tears with details of each stylus tip shape, frequency response of the cartridge to which that particular stylus is mounted to, etc.

BOTTOM LINE : THE BEST CHANCE FOR any RECORD ( UNLESS SCRATCHED SO BADLY TO CAUSE SKIPPING/JUMPING THE GROOVE, OF COURSE ...) HAS (drunroll ) : 

The Cartridge with a Van den Hul/Micro Line ( or similar under different commercial names ) stylus shape and as wide and even/non-peaky frequency response as possible. 

That rules out most MM cartridges, leaving only those MMs whose electrical parameters approach those of a typical MC cartridge.

Question for you: IF you were in a market for a new phono cartridge and there were two or more candidates to grace your turntable, which one would you choose - the one that every review on the planet hailed as being super quiet in the groove - or one of the rest where reviewers have been shying from commenting on this topic ?

Somewhat long reply - but hopefully answers WHY performance in phono cartridge WAY above 20 kHz is THE ultimate arbiter of quality and make or break of the deal.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> Absolutely....
> 
> Back in the original days of 4-channel, the CD-4 format utilized a high frequency subcarrier....
> CD-4 phono cartridges required a frequency response up to somewhere around 48 kHz.
> ...



WRONG - COULD NOT BE WRONGER.

On all counts - INCLUDING 20 kHz recorded at 0dB. That is exceptional and recorded to only two test records I am familiar with - but they DO exist, as well as cartridges that can play this 0 dB at 2o kHz with full RIAA aplied, as for the normal music records ( that never contain 20 kHz at 0dB level - nor does music live or consequently any recording ). Admittedly, cartridges with this capability are extremely rare and WERE the pinnacle of all times - no longer in production and can be counted - at best - on fingers of a person's both hands.

I have absolutely not the foggiest where you came up with the vertical tracking force of 3-4 gram with... none of the CD-4 capable cartridges I am aware of track at these VTF

Here, THE proper info from the originator of CD-4 - JVC itself. And its, to this day, Holy Grail cartridge - the mighty X-1 : 

https://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/x1.shtml

Most CD-4 designs following in the wake of JVC's success have VTF below 2 grams - and the contact surface area of a Shibata stylus is at least TWICE LARGER than an elliptical used before; meaning that a Shibata stylus is easier on the groove tracking at 2 grams than is an elliptical trying to track at 1 gram.

It has been noted early on that increased bandwidth cartridges sounded better in stereo, too - and have as such been used for stereo, too. Cost consideration drove to a compromise - styli somewhere in between the elliptical and true Shibata, with commercial names as Stereohedron ( Stanton/Pickering ), Fine Line ( Ortofon ), Line Contact ( Audio Technica ), Hyperelliptic ( Shure ), Alliptic ( ADC ), etc, etc.

Late 70s saw stylus design brought to the present standard - Van den Hul and , under its first known commercially used name, Micro Scanner ( by the late Garrott brothers ). These ( and various similar designs, varying in nothing essential but named differently in order to avoid having to pay royalties to the original patent holders ) went beyond the Shibata - and are capable of playing back info as high as 90 kHz - at INNER grooves of the record played at 33 1/3 RPM and even higher in case of 45RPM record.

CD-4 - although it failed in the market, mostly due to the american vinyl being MUCH softer than the JVC's specially for CD-4 developed vinyl formula, resulting in carrier frequency to be erased in just few plays, rendering quadro ineffective  - did give the greatest boost in phono cartridge development in history - and the consequences of its effects are still present in any current high quality cartridge.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> There are many technical limitations that affect vinyl and not RBCD.
> 
> Although you rarely see any attempts to measure them, I'm sure the THD and IMD of vinyl are much higher than RBCD....
> (They are also going to vary depending on stylus profile, tracking force, arm geometry, record wear, and even room temperature.)
> ...



Correct on most counts. Decision which version - analog or digital - is preferred, has also much to do with what has been the first version heard. That normally becomes "reference".

I do acknowledge the limitations and imperfections of analog record vs even - brrr - RBCD. Please see answer to another member later in the day for specifics.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] I would have used a sample rate of 48k ... That would have limited the capacity of discs at the current size to about 45 minutes, or required discs to be about 1/2" larger to achieve the same capacity, neither of which seems especially important.
> [2] To any competent engineer, designing anything with a safety margin of less than 10% is generally not considered to be a good idea....
> [3] My other point is simply one of practicality....
> [3a] Creating a standard that is difficult to implement is usually a bad idea because it leads to poor implementations... whcih deprecate the usefulness of your standard in the minds of customers....
> ...



Why do you always have to go down this route? You make some clearly false assertion and instead of admitting it or even not admitting it but stop making that assertion, you spend pages futilely trying to defend it, with ever more ridiculous, nonsensical or impossible misinformation. Where does that get you? It makes you look foolish, derails the thread, implies you're deliberately trying to pervert/insult this forum and for what benefit, what do you or the company you represent get out of it? So, let's carry on with this pointless game and refute your latest bunch of misinformation:

1. Disk size wasn't "especially important", I've already told you why 44.1kHz was chosen.

2. With musical material, 20kHz is already beyond what any adult can hear, 16-18kHz being the practical limit in virtually all cases. Even being conservative and taking the 20kHz figure, what is 10% higher than 20kHz and what is the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1kHz sample rate? 

3. No it's not, your point is the EXACT OPPOSITE, it's one of impracticality and impossibility!!
3a. It wasn't "difficult to implement"! As already mentioned, by about the time of CD's launch, Philips already had a 4 x oversampling CD player, so how "difficult" was it to implement 2 x oversampling?
3b. A slightly larger disk would not have been a particularly big issue. However, how could that 48kHz digital data have been transferred? Your statement that "_perhaps some studios would have needed to adjust their workflow_" is nonsense! All studios would have had to change their workflow, by NOT transferring the digital audio to other studios, to mastering studios or to the CD pressing plants. So no mastering and no CDs, that's your "simply practical" is it???

4. You're sorry for what, posting more falsehoods/misinformation?
4a. And what do you suggest studios should have spent "a lot of money on" in 1980? Maybe a CD-R burner, a thumb drive, a web cloud account or how about some other technology that still hasn't been invented yet? 
4b. U-Matic was capable of bit perfect transfer, so what exactly do you think "_would have worked better_" than bit perfect? OF COURSE I'm "_suggesting they would have been unwilling to abandon the outdated U-Matic format_" because abandoning it would have meant no CDs (!) as there was no practical alternative to get the digital data from the studios to the CD pressing plants and there wouldn't be any practical alternative (that worked equally well) for more than a decade AFTER redbook was published! Additionally, U-Matic was NOT an outdated format, in fact EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! it was a NEW broadcast media technology, that was released at the same time that the redbook standard started being developed (1976) and was in the process of revolutionising certain areas of the TV broadcast industry!

5. In addition to being a "bit facetious", you're being disingenuous because "in defence of your point", you are making false assertions!! "Best performance" was already achieved by U-Matic and it was only replaced many years later as the means of data storage/transfer when lower cost and more convenient bit perfect transfer technology became available (DAT for example).
5b. AGAIN, they chose 44.1kHz because it worked perfectly AND because there was a practical way of transferring it. And incidentally, the "tape equipment they [the studios] already had" was NOT U-Matic, why would a music recording studio have spent thousands on a professional video machine? Studios only bought U-Matic machines (with the digital audio adapter) specifically to store/transfer digital audio data, after redbook was published!

Round and round and round we go!

G


----------



## 71 dB

*Hz      kHz      dB*

Can't you people learn to write Hz, kHz and dB instead of Khz/db…? How ****ing hard is it?


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> *Hz      kHz      dB*
> 
> Can't you people learn to write Hz, kHz and dB instead of Khz/db…? How ****ing hard is it?


Matsushita happens ...


----------



## GearMe

analogsurviver said:


> Correct on most counts. *Decision which version - analog or digital - is preferred, has also much to do with what has been the first version heard*. That normally becomes "reference".



Not for me...I started with very nice vinyl setups and had no issues moving to digital from a listening and an end-user experience perspective!



analogsurviver said:


> *I do acknowledge the limitations and imperfections of analog record vs even - brrr - RBCD. *Please see answer to another member later in the day for specifics.



That's good to hear...at times it seems like you're saying/implying that vinyl is superior or equal from a technological perspective.  From a logical (and practical) perspective, I'm not sure how folks get to this spot.  

To me this is a classic case of trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Under normal, consumer circumstances much can be or go 'wrong' with a vinyl playback system including media limitations/wear/damage, proper turntable/arm/cartridge selection, setup, calibration, and maintenance, and lastly, the total lack of convenience.  This last reason was enough for me even if I thought vinyl sounded equal -- which it didn't (to my ears).

That said, it seems many people enjoy the experience from a nostalgic/tactile/wholistic/etc. perspective. 

I have a tube amp system (in addition to my SS system) for similar reasons -- nothing wrong with that.  However, if I'm honest with myself, I'll acknowledge that this system introduces more distortion during playback and requires additional setup/maintenance to properly utilize that the SS equipment doesn't.  Not sure why saying something like this is such a tough thing to do on this and other audiophile forums for some folks...


----------



## 71 dB

I have added *analogsurviver* to my ignore list. His recent post about how 192 kHz sampling rate isn't enough because of the quantization noise above 20 kHz was too much for me. This member has never wrote anything that interests me. It's all bs about how you cut vinyl to reproduce bat frequencies… …madness.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

71 dB said:


> *Hz      kHz      dB*
> 
> Can't you people learn to write Hz, kHz and dB instead of Khz/db…? How ****ing hard is it?


I always try to avoid typos, including units, but wow....
You could crush rocks with that sphincter.
Can I send you some Valium?
... or some charcoal briquettes to make diamonds?


----------



## KeithEmo (Feb 3, 2019)

2)
Assuming you specify a frequency response of "20 Hz to 20 kHz" as your design requirement - then response to 22 kHz is a 10% safety margin. The math there seems pretty simple to me.

3) & 4a)
Yes, oversampling was available, if you were willing to adopt what was, at the time, Philips proprietary technology. And, in that case, you seem to think it was perfectly reasonable to do so. However, there were plenty of formats which supported sample rates besides 44.1k, even in those days. Except, in that case, you seem to think it's unreasonable to expect studios to adopt them. So, just as consumers could use that new oversampling technology, studios could buy some new equipment to handle 48k.... or even higher sample rates... if they wanted to. I'm sure Philpis would have been happy to sell them all recorders that could handle 48k - to go with their oversampling DACs.

Of course, if the studios were actually unable to produce digital masters for the production of CDs, I guess they could have just sent their analog tapes to the CD plant. I'm sure the CD mastering facility could afford a few analog master tape machines to use to convert them to digital. (And don't even suggest that they didn't trust them to do so. Before digital was widely used, studios sent analog master tapes to the vinyl pressing facility to use to cut masters. They could have applied exactly the same workflow to produce CD masters instead.... )

As for "what would have worked better than U-matic"..... the answer would be "something that handles whatever sample rate you required rather than constraining you to use the one it's capable of".



gregorio said:


> Why do you always have to go down this route? You make some clearly false assertion and instead of admitting it or even not admitting it but stop making that assertion, you spend pages futilely trying to defend it, with ever more ridiculous, nonsensical or impossible misinformation. Where does that get you? It makes you look foolish, derails the thread, implies you're deliberately trying to pervert/insult this forum and for what benefit, what do you or the company you represent get out of it? So, let's carry on with this pointless game and refute your latest bunch of misinformation:
> 
> 1. Disk size wasn't "especially important", I've already told you why 44.1kHz was chosen.
> 
> ...


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> 2)
> Assuming you specify a frequency response of "20 Hz to 20 kHz" as your design requirement - then response to 22 kHz is a 10% safety margin. The math there seems pretty simple to me.
> 
> 3) & 4a)
> ...




If only every business in the audio production chain had bought equipment they didn’t need or didn’t yet exist, you’re arguements would hold water...


----------



## KeithEmo

You're absolutely right....

It's perfectly reasonable to create a new standard that can only be implemented properly by using not-yet-available technology like oversampling (knowing it will soon become available).
However, expecting STUDIOS to do the same thing, by by repcifying a 48k (or higher) sample rate, which would require them to purchase new technology to handle it, would be totlaly unreasonable.
(And it would be a very different world if manufacturers and producers put the needs of consumers over their own convenience or "established practices".)

Please note that I'n not disagreeing with you....
One of the reasons that 44k was chosen was that it was easily handled by the studios and production folks.
(It really wasn't that important that, in order to get adequate performance, CONSUMERS would have to choose between new technology like oversmapling, and sharp analog filters, whcih were expensive and performed poorly.)

And, no, I don't think that I'm overstating the issue....
When you market a new format like RBCD you have two customers - the studios who you hope will use it and the customers who you hope will buy it.
Therefore, one goal was to deliver a standard that would provide _adequate_ performance - and attract consumers to buy it.
And another goal was to do so without requiging studios to be excessively inconvenienced by having to change their work flow or purchase a lot of new and expensive equipment.
Notice, however, that neither of those reads: "To develop a standard that was audibly perfectly transparent".

When the CD standard was developed and marketed, it was NOT beiong compared to 24/96k PCM, or any other modern format.
Neither was it being compared to "theoretical perfection".
It was being compaerd to the two other formats available at the time - vinyl and tape.
And it had major advantages over both of those to the consumer.
CDs also had major advantages to manufacturers and resellers (they were easier to manufacture, easier to ship, and harder to damage).
And they managed all this without excessively inconveniencing the current production studios.
As such, RBCD really is a brilliantly designed product, and one that is clearly superior to the previous options.
HOWEVER, that's not exactly the same as claiming that "it is audibly perfect and so there is no room for improvement".
(There is no way Philips could have compared the audible performance of RBCD using a modern well-produced high-resolution digital master - because they didn't exist at the time.)

This is not at all an indictment of the RBCD standard...
I'm simply noting that assuming that "it has been proven to be audibly perfect" is somewhat premature...

Incidentally, and just for the record, I do agree that RBCDs CAN sound really really good...
And, from current products, it seems clear that most are limited by poor production values and not technological limitations...



bfreedma said:


> If only every business in the audio production chain had bought equipment they didn’t need or didn’t yet exist, you’re arguements would hold water...


----------



## 71 dB

Earlier there was talk about CX LP. I want to comment on that.

CX LP definitely did not have 100 dB dynamic range! Vinyl as it is has 60 dB dynamic range at best and CX expanded that 20 dB. Realistically the dynamic range of CX LP is about 75 dB, which is actually near how much one needs in commercial audio. CX was not very aggressive, because it tried to be playable also without a CX expander unit. There's also dbx, which was more aggressive and required dbx expander. That system reached dynamic range up to 90 dB (100 dB in marketing brochures  )!

CX (or even dbx) didn't make vinyl "better than" CD. It doesn't remove distortion and CD achieves > 80 dB dynamic range with ease, with shaped dither even 115 dB of_ perceptual_ dynamic range! The compression/expansion dynamic range trick can be done with CDs too and has been used: HDCD, but ultimately it's pointless because there's already enough dynamic range for commercial audio (~80 dB) anyway.


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> Earlier there was talk about CX LP. I want to comment on that.
> 
> CX LP definitely did not have 100 dB dynamic range! Vinyl as it is has 60 dB dynamic range at best and CX expanded that 20 dB. Realistically the dynamic range of CX LP is about 75 dB, which is actually near how much one needs in commercial audio. CX was not very aggressive, because it tried to be playable also without a CX expander unit. There's also dbx, which was more aggressive and required dbx expander. That system reached dynamic range up to 90 dB (100 dB in marketing brochures  )!
> 
> CX (or even dbx) didn't make vinyl "better than" CD. It doesn't remove distortion and CD achieves > 80 dB dynamic range with ease, with shaped dither even 115 dB of_ perceptual_ dynamic range! The compression/expansion dynamic range trick can be done with CDs too and has been used: HDCD, but ultimately it's pointless because there's already enough dynamic range for commercial audio (~80 dB) anyway.


 There is a fly in your ointment.. - the usual mistake.


S/N of analog record is 60 dB ( a couple dB up or down ) - referenced to 0 dB, which is 3,54cm/sec recording velocity. 

Unlike digital, analog can - and DOES - go over nominal 0 dB level. Analog record does go at least to + 18dB - which is , usually, the limit for tracking ability testing, usually at 300 Hz and in lateral direction ( mono ) , which in turn corresponds to between 89 and 90 micrometer amplitude at this frequency.

There are test records -and cartridges - that can extend this to 110, sometimes even 120 micrometers - without mistracking. That is about +20dB compared to 60 dB S/N ref 0dB - or dynamic range between 78-80 dB. Prior to any noise reduction system.

Add to that 20 or so dB due to noise reduction system - and you DO arrive at 100 or so dB. 

Truth to be told, up to +18dB level most commercially available recordings NEVER arrive - because only a handful of perfectly aligned cartridges woul be able to play such levels back without gross mistracking/severe distortion that can not be expressed in %. 

Deduct 10 dB ( both for more noisy vinyl and reduced cutting leve combined ) - there is still 88-90 dB of dynamic range available.

In other words : enough.


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> 1. It really wasn't that important that, in order to get adequate performance, CONSUMERS would have to choose between new technology like oversmapling, and sharp analog filters, whcih were expensive and performed poorly.
> 
> 2. HOWEVER, that's not exactly the same as claiming that "it is audibly perfect and so there is no room for improvement".
> (There is no way Philips could have compared the audible performance of RBCD using a modern well-produced high-resolution digital master - because they didn't exist at the time.)
> ...



1. CD was a premium product when it was launched, but the prices dropped fast within a few years.

2. There was room for improvement _outside_ the RBCD standard itself. Digital technology matured so that 16 bit / 44.1 kHz really can be considered perfect.

3. Speakers, room acoustics and headphones make sure nothing is audibly perfect. Analog, CD, hi-res. Doesn't matter. Speakers and headphones aren't perfect. Compared to these it's ridiculous to even think about CD, because even it it wasn't audibly perfect, it would still be nothing compared to other things in the audio reproduction chain. CD has been insanely successful music format. I have over 1000 CDs. Kind of makes listening to CDs appealing don't you think? Should I throw my CDs away just because you think "it hasn't been proven to be audibly perfect yet" … …what am I supposed to get out of your criticism? I started buying CDs in 1990. There was no hi-res back then. CD was the KING (it had just "killed" vinyl) and it still today rules despite hi-res. Maybe I am lucky and my music taste helps me avoid loudness war crap (the only rock I really listen to is King Crimson who are NOT into loudness war), but I am very pleased with CD and I consider it perfect for stereo sound. It lacks multichannel support, but SACD gives that. I have never experienced a moment when I wished CD had a higher samplerate or more bit depth. Never. The problems are always related to artistic choices (I simply don't like the music) and mistakes in production (too much reverberation, not enough bass, harpsichord recorded too hot, bad spatiality etc.). Never the RBCD standard itself. The same doesn't apply to my DVD collection. I really wish DVDs had HD video! DVD is so far from the needed resolution. I wish my J-horror DVDs had HD video, because the availability of J-horror on Blu-ray is very limited so upgrading the picture quality is difficult/impossible. Blu-ray on the other hand is enough for me and I don't see much reason to upgrade to 4K unless one uses very large screen compared to the watching distance.

4. Exactly.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 3, 2019)

Whenever people quote specs for LPs, they always quote the specs for the outer grooves which is best case scenario. By the time it gets down to the inner grooves distortion and noise floor has risen massively... sometimes cassettes sound better than LPs on the last couple of songs. A CD is capable of perfect sound from beginning to end, and it can hold a two record set on a much smaller disc. As a format, CDs trounce LPs on just about every measure. LPs can sound darn good, but not as good as CDs.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Whenever people quote specs for LPs, they always quote the specs for the outer grooves which is best case scenario. By the time it gets down to the inner grooves distortion and noise floor has risen massively... sometimes cassettes sound better than LPs on the last couple of songs. A CD is capable of perfect sound from beginning to end, and it can hold a two record set on a much smaller disc. As a format, CDs trounce LPs on just about every measure. LPs can sound darn good, but not as good as CDs.


Generalizing - not me.

I DID state that the best stylus designs that are perfectly aligned are capable of 90 kHz bandwidth - also on INNER grooves ( worst case scenario ) - didn't I ?

They can - CLEARLY - reproduce approx 40 kHz ringing known to be an artefact of the cutting head recorded on the CBS STR112 test record  - 1 kHz square wave group ( left, right, horizontal, vertical modulation ) . Not only on outer grooves ( where even a conical stylus gives good, if not excellent results ) , but where it is the toughest - close to the end of the record side, near the label area.

Specifically, this calibre of performance is available from Namiki produced Micro Line stylus ( also known as Jico SAS ) - the cartridges using these styli do not exhibit any audible inner groove distortion, even at regular 33 1/3 RPM. The small scanning radius of these styli is between 2 and 2.5 micrometers - and Micro Line ( Ridge, Reach, Scanner, SAS ... ) does NOT "spread" as all other styli do with wear ; it remains essentially the same for approx 1000 hours of operation.

https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=22894


----------



## bigshot (Feb 3, 2019)

It doesn't matter what the cartridge or stylus is capable of... That is completely irrelevant to the post you quoted and replied to.

The fact is that the inner groove of an LP record has significantly less bandwidth because it is moving slower than the outside grooves, so there is less real estate to cram the modulations into. The record itself isn't capable of producing low noise, distortion free sound at the inner grooves. You can have the best stylus and cartridge made and the most linear tracking tone arm possible, and it will still have significantly higher distortion and noise at the inner grooves-- AUDIBLE distortion and noise. The longer the running time of the albums side, the more distortion and noise.

The run in groove at the beginning of the side is the best an LP can sound. As the needle travels further, the ability of the LP to reproduce the highest fidelity sound progressively degrades. This isn't a problem with CDs. They produce better sound than even the best an LP can produce, and they do it consistently throughout the entire running time.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> It doesn't matter what the cartridge or stylus is capable of... That is completely irrelevant to the post you quoted and replied to.
> 
> The fact is that the inner groove of an LP record has significantly less bandwidth because it is moving slower than the outside grooves, so there is less real estate to cram the modulations into. The record itself isn't capable of producing low noise, distortion free sound at the inner grooves. You can have the best stylus and cartridge made and the most linear tracking tone arm possible, and it will still have significantly higher distortion and noise at the inner grooves-- AUDIBLE distortion and noise. The longer the running time of the albums side, the more distortion and noise.
> 
> The run in groove at the beginning of the side is the best an LP can sound. As the needle travels further, the ability of the LP to reproduce the highest fidelity sound progressively degrades. This isn't a problem with CDs. They produce better sound than even the best an LP can produce, and they do it consistently throughout the entire running time.



It is true that the quality of reproduction of analog record is dependant on the size a wavelength of signal can occupy in the groove - and this is directly proportional to the distance from the record centre.  

With the best styli, analog record can still manage > 40 kHz at the inner most record grooves - right down to the run out groove at the label edge. WITHOUT any pinch effect to cause vertical movement of stylus on horizontal only modulation - the FALSE "ambience" less experienced analog aficionados mistake for "better".

So, at its worst, still twice better than RBCD. 

Not all styli can have small scanning radius of 2 micrometers - an ordinary elliptical has 8 micrometers small scanning radius, which allows only for 10 kHz bandwidth without considerable level loss and distortion at inner grooves.

The record itself does not have any more problems with noise at the inner grooves as it does at the beginning of the side. It is perfectly capable of adequate performance.- IF the playback gear is of high enough quality-

Micro Line styli and linear tracking arms can play with authority right up to the label edge - without any sonic problems.

No CD can have the soundstage a perfectly aligned and adjusted high quality turntable can convey; it is NOT only about the channel separation ( in excess of 35 dB in higher quality cartridges that have been aligned correctly ) , but also in increased bandwidth with no/low/lower phase shift in the treble than brick filtering inherent to RBCD.

And HERE lies the "catch 22" why some/most people prefer analog over RBCD... - low enough noise, distortion, high enough channel separation - AND the ability to handle yet another octave above 20 kHz if not exactly with aplomb, certainly better than RBCD that can not - must not - perform at these frequencies at all. 

Pray to digital god you never get exposed to the sound of any of the musical test records accompaniying any of the Technics EPC-100C series of cartridges - the degree of high frequency detail is overwhelming even for seasoned top quality level analog listener - let alone one on strictly CD diet ...


----------



## bigshot (Feb 3, 2019)

The signal to noise and distortion in the center groove of an LP is more than an order of magnitude greater than at the outer groove. It's clearly audible on many records. Whenever you see specs quoted, it's always the outer groove they're talking about- a best case scenario that progressively degrades little by little with each rotation of the record. If they cited the specs for the inner groove instead of the outer groove, a cassette tape would have better specs than an LP.

It doesn't matter if a cartridge can reproduce super audible frequencies because those frequencies DON'T EXIST on LP records. If they did, records would degrade into a mush of distortion in just a few plays. It is standard practice in LP mastering to roll off the frequencies starting at about 16kHz to prevent premature record wear. The only super audible frequencies present on LP records are nothing more than noise and distortion.

Even if there were inaudible frequencies in the grooves of LP records, they would be as useless as teats on a bull hog. You can't hear them. They add nothing to the perception of sound quality in music. The performance of LPs in the audible range where it counts is so far below that of CDs, there is no contest when it comes to sound quality. Why would anyone trade compromised sound fidelity in the range they CAN hear, for theoretical sound they know they CAN'T? That is just plain dumb.

LPs can sound good. Open reel tape can sound great. CDs can sound perfect. Perfect is all you need. Anything beyond that is just a waste of time, money and effort.


----------



## 71 dB

My acoustics teacher in the university (this was back in mid 90's) said during a lecture about audio formats that the idea of vinyl records is horrible: You scratch a plastic plate with a small rock and try to get good sound out of that!


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> Since you ask.....
> And, I'm sorry, but "the need" to transfer content using NTSC tape was a matter of economics and convenience.
> In every other discussion we've had you seem to have insisted that studios are generally willing to spend a lot of money to achieve the best possible sound quality.
> Are you suggesting that, in this case, they would have been UNWILLING to abandon the outdated U-matic format and replace it with one that would have worked better?
> ...



In the early 80's what other options did they have? U-Matic was a robust broadcast standard at the time. An U-matic tape machine was not exactly cheap, about the price of a luxury car at the time. and the tape A 1 gig hard drive was 550 pounds and cost around $90,000.  Chances are if you shipped it you would lose the data. My first 1 Gig drive cost $1100 in the mid 90's. Within a few years you could get ten time storage at one third the price With it could edit 1 album I would transfer it in real time off of DAT edit it and transfer it back.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> There is a fly in your ointment.. - the usual mistake.
> 
> 
> S/N of analog record is 60 dB ( a couple dB up or down ) - referenced to 0 dB, which is 3,54cm/sec recording velocity.
> ...


isn't a signal going above the original limit just evidence of non linear behavior? to make things worst, this will manifest differently at different frequencies(for purely mechanical reasons). to me your argument is like saying that we can get 130dB of dynamic on a CD if we just include an expander DSP as standard feature. it's not false, but the concept of fidelity goes out the window.


----------



## KeithEmo

You're quite right.... using a 1 gB hard drive to ship content for a CD would have been impractical back in those days.

The practical solution would have been to use the same workflow as they used for vinyl...
Ship the master tape to the location of the mastering lathe (or CD mastering equipment) and convert it there.
In fact, you can pretty well substitute "CD mastering device" for "record mastering lathe" in the description, and you're done.

There's something else that really needs to be mentioned.
It is true that the U-Matic recorders used by studios in the 1980's were designed to work at certain sample rates.
That is because they were designed to store a specific amount of digital audio data per-line and per-frame as digital audio.
HOWEVER, tape drives were available at that time that were designed to record and store computer data.
Those drives were still expensive - but less so than hard drives.
(It would still have made the most sense to send the analog master tape to the CD mastering facility for conversion.)

Performing the conversion at the studio - and sending a U-Matic tape to the CD mastering plant - was surely the most convenient way...
But sending an analog master tape instead would not have been prohibitively complex or expensive.



dprimary said:


> In the early 80's what other options did they have? U-Matic was a robust broadcast standard at the time. An U-matic tape machine was not exactly cheap, about the price of a luxury car at the time. and the tape A 1 gig hard drive was 550 pounds and cost around $90,000.  Chances are if you shipped it you would lose the data. My first 1 Gig drive cost $1100 in the mid 90's. Within a few years you could get ten time storage at one third the price With it could edit 1 album I would transfer it in real time off of DAT edit it and transfer it back.


----------



## analogsurviver (Feb 4, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> isn't a signal going above the original limit just evidence of non linear behavior? to make things worst, this will manifest differently at different frequencies(for purely mechanical reasons). to me your argument is like saying that we can get 130dB of dynamic on a CD if we just include an expander DSP as standard feature. it's not false, but the concept of fidelity goes out the window.



Oh dear.... 0 dB in  case of analog record is REFERENCE -  most definitely NOT LIMIT.
There is no cartridge that can track the greatest amplitude any cutter system in use today can put on master - that is even above +18 and +20 dB ref 0 dB - or 3.54 cm/sec @ 1kHz .
And all of that is LINEAR - cartridge does not compress the signal, it can only mistrack at levels above its tracking capability.

I actually REALLY  suggest you read the basics of record mastering/cutting. World did not start with zeroes and ones.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> You're quite right.... using a 1 gB hard drive to ship content for a CD would have been impractical back in those days.
> 
> The practical solution would have been to use the same workflow as they used for vinyl...
> Ship the master tape to the location of the mastering lathe (or CD mastering equipment) and convert it there.
> ...



We did use the same workflow. You brought the stereo masters to the mastering studio. The mastering engineer would give it the final polish to maximize fidelity for each of the release formats. After the CD introduction you would do the 1630 master first as it was the highest fidelity. The 1630 encoded on the U-matic tape. I cannot find any data tape format in the early 80's that could store this amount of data. The IBM 3480 only stored 200MB, and didn't come out to1985... 5 years too late. DEC was even smaller. The  DLT could store it in 1989 however it has hardware data compression. 

The cassette master be made by rolling off the low frequencies and compressing the dynamic range it would 1/4" open reel for some reason I think it might have been recorded at lower speeds like 7-1/2 IPS. 

Then you would cut the lacquers 7", LP and EP. The 12" EP having the highest fidelity since they are 45 RPM and wider grooves. The helium cooled Neumann cutting heads had a response to 16kHz and later model to 20 kHz. Ortophon had one that could go to 25kHz however it was not as robust as the Neumanns, It is likely there is no working Ortophons left. The cut the lacquers  the master LF rolled off and summed to mono below 100 Hz. You can cut up to 50 kHz running at half speed however the trade off is even worse low frequency response. You have to compress the dynamic range and you have hard limiters to keep from cutting to wide or deep and don't forget it is eq'ed for RIAA pre-emphasis curve or IEC Curve which are not the same. Recording for LP release or CD release changes your production style you can't expect a LP to perform like a CD. For example on records you duck the bass level off the kick drum beats, you can't have that much LF and keep it in the groove.

 You have a heated stylus cutting the lacquer driven by helium cooled drive coils that has as much 500 watts each going into them. The lacquer that chips off as it is cut is extremely flammable, if the chips get back on the lacquer it is ruined. If you want to hear what is might sound like you have to cut an acetate which can only be played a few times, and you hope the lacquer sounds the same. The lacquer is sent to the pressing plant where it is plated to make the first plate. This process destroys the lacquer. Pretty much the Rube Goldberg of audio. All that work and it doesn't sound anything like the 1/2" analog stereo master you started with. The 1/2" master doesn't sound anything like the mix from the console off the 2" 24 track, which in turn barely resembles what came out of the microphones.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] There is a fly in your ointment.. - the usual mistake.
> [2] Unlike digital, analog can - and DOES - go over nominal 0 dB level. Analog record does go at least to + 18dB ...
> [3] Truth to be told, [3b] up to +18dB level most commercially available recordings NEVER arrive - because only a handful of perfectly aligned cartridges woul be able to play such levels back without gross mistracking/severe distortion that can not be expressed in %.



1. No, the fly is in YOUR ointment ... and it's a very big fly! However, it's not "the usual mistake" because there is NO professional recording engineer who would EVER make that mistake, which is why I'm calling BS on your claim of being a recording engineer!!!!

2. And here we have it, the mistake that not even a rookie student should make: You are comparing two DIFFERENT and UNRELATED dB scales: the dBFS scale of digital audio with the dBVU scale of analogue. There is/was no standard in music recording for aligning these two scales but in film and TV there is: -20dBFS is calibrated to 0dBVU.  Therefore, your +18dB(VU) would be roughly equivalent to -2dB(FS) and consequently, the rest of your post is utter nonsense! The SNR of vinyl is NOT 60dB +18dB, there is no +18dB! Not to mention that peak or quasi-peak level has NOTHING to do with signal to noise ratio anyway. 

3. What truth are you telling, the truth based on you not understanding the fundamental basics of the scales used for measuring signal amplitude in analogue and digital recordings?
3a. So you're saying that only a handful of cartridges would be able to play back a level of -2dB(FS) without severe distortion. As digital can go up to 0dBFS (2dB higher than vinyl) with no audible distortion at all, how is vinyl better than digital? Are you saying that severe distortion is "better" than no audible distortion? 

Unfortunately, even in this sub-forum, there is no rule against posting utter ignorant nonsense and claiming that it's the "truth". So we have no grounds to call for you to be banned, the best we can do is demonstrate/explain that it is utter ignorant nonsense!

G


----------



## dprimary

0dBu is about -18 dB down from 0dBFS depending on your calibration


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> Oh dear.... 0 dB in  case of analog record is REFERENCE -  most definitely NOT LIMIT.
> There is no cartridge that can track the greatest amplitude any cutter system in use today can put on master - that is even above +18 and +20 dB ref 0 dB - or 3.54 cm/sec @ 1kHz .
> And all of that is LINEAR - cartridge does not compress the signal, it can only mistrack at levels above its tracking capability.
> 
> I actually REALLY  suggest you read the basics of record mastering/cutting. World did not start with zeroes and ones.


all right my bad, I misunderstood your post. I thought you were considering playback amplitudes compared to the max amplitude from the source that would be our reference. I imagined that was where you saw your extra dynamic. now I'm wondering what you meant? is it about being able to record with a VU meter above 0? if so that's utterly inconsequential as you can just change your reference, the total actual dynamic remains the same. or am I again misunderstanding what you're talking about?


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> all right my bad, I misunderstood your post. I thought you were considering playback amplitudes compared to the max amplitude from the source that would be our reference. I imagined that was where you saw your extra dynamic. now I'm wondering what you meant? is it about being able to record with a VU meter above 0? if so that's utterly inconsequential as you can just change your reference, the total actual dynamic remains the same. or am I again misunderstanding what you're talking about?



I just saw @dprimary  actually has experience with analog record cutting. 

Just above he said ( quote ) :

0dBu is about -18 dB down from 0dBFS depending on your calibration

That covers the recording levels for normal cutting. Normal record maximum S/N  is therefore 60 dB ref 0dBu - overall, with the maximum level of +18dB, that S/N amounts to 78 dB.

Absolute levels can remain (in theory) the same for noise reduction encoded records. Add about 20 dB to that 78 already present - voila, 98 dB S/N .

For the CX, CBS circuit from the patent hard clips at just above +15dBu - meaning that CX encoded records cut optimally are unfortunately distorted/compressed in the last 3 dB of dynamic range. The ICs readily available in USA at the time did not allow for grater voltage amplitude required - and they - obviously - did not either know of or did not want to use japanese ICs that , even back then, have been specifically developed for phono preamps, running at more than +-15 VDC rails.


----------



## analogsurviver

dprimary said:


> We did use the same workflow. You brought the stereo masters to the mastering studio. The mastering engineer would give it the final polish to maximize fidelity for each of the release formats. After the CD introduction you would do the 1630 master first as it was the highest fidelity. The 1630 encoded on the U-matic tape. I cannot find any data tape format in the early 80's that could store this amount of data. The IBM 3480 only stored 200MB, and didn't come out to1985... 5 years too late. DEC was even smaller. The  DLT could store it in 1989 however it has hardware data compression.
> 
> The cassette master be made by rolling off the low frequencies and compressing the dynamic range it would 1/4" open reel for some reason I think it might have been recorded at lower speeds like 7-1/2 IPS.
> 
> ...



Sounds about correct. 

I am happy to record 2 channel direct to DSD128 - next to none difference, still want to close the gap between the mike feed and recording ...


----------



## dprimary

gregorio said:


> 1. No, the fly is in YOUR ointment ... and it's a very big fly! However, it's not "the usual mistake" because there is NO professional recording engineer who would EVER make that mistake, which is why I'm calling BS on your claim of being a recording engineer!!!!
> 
> 2. And here we have it, the mistake that not even a rookie student should make: You are comparing two DIFFERENT and UNRELATED dB scales: the dBFS scale of digital audio with the dBVU scale of analogue. There is/was no standard in music recording for aligning these two scales but in film and TV there is: -20dBFS is calibrated to 0dBVU.  Therefore, your +18dB(VU) would be roughly equivalent to -2dB(FS) and consequently, the rest of your post is utter nonsense! The SNR of vinyl is NOT 60dB +18dB, there is no +18dB! Not to mention that peak or quasi-peak level has NOTHING to do with signal to noise ratio anyway.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately manufacturers still get this wrong as well. I expect analog line level inputs to handle at least +24dBu. From what I have measured years ago 0 dBFS is over 15 volts peak to peak. They look up the output of a consumer CD player which specifies some nonsense like out 2V nominal ( which nobody knows what that is suppose to mean) Hit that input with a professional CD player or digital console and you have a distortion wonderland. At least consoles you can reduce the master fader, with a CD player if you don't have 20dB pad your stuck.


----------



## Don Hills

dprimary said:


> ...  You have a heated stylus cutting the lacquer driven by helium cooled drive coils that has as much 500 watts each going into them. ...



As an aside, do you know why the amplifiers had to be capable of so much output?


----------



## analogsurviver (Feb 4, 2019)

Don Hills said:


> As an aside, do you know why the amplifiers had to be capable of so much output?



To be able to cut the high frequency information correctly - uncompressed, not bandwidth limited. In fact, the calculated requirement to cut at 100 cm/sec ( above "theorethical", below actual recorded velocities from real world top quality records ) goes up to just below 1 kW - per channel - meaning 2 kW peak power is required to drive the cutting stylus.

https://pubs.shure.com/view/guide/V15-Type-4/en-US.pdf

It takes great skill - and cojones - to work with the cutting head at the very upper limit - exceed that, the coils burn out...  Back in the day, it meant a big check to Neumann or Ortofon - for the replacement head ( if you wanted it ASAP ) or not that much lower check if you wanted to wait to have the damaged head repaired..

Today, neither the Neumann or Ortofon are no longer supporting cutting heads - or record mastering equipment in general. there are none NOS cutting heads anymore - anywhere in the world. Some of the former employees not old too much to still be able to support the market have taken over this task. And they are overbooked like crazy....

No wonder today record mastering engineers have to be more conservative in their approach to record mastering - burning the cutter head can mean 6 months (!) or more waiting time, before the repaired head comes back. Therefore they use compression, peak limiteing, frequency response limiting, - any other sound quality degrading unmentionables of the trade - that will, first and foremost, make sure the cutting head is NEVER jeopardized.

No one can afford half a year doing - nothing ...

Half speed mastering has the benefit of requiring only 1/4 of the power for mastering in real time. That means 250 W/ch amps will suffice - and with any disc cutting  amp, that means loafing..Also, no danger to the cutting head - nor requirement to use helium for cooling. 
Drawback  is problematic low end - requiring the entire chain to work flawlessly down to at least 10 Hz, which proved to be too tough nut to crack. Even the pioneer of half speed mastering, sadly late Stan Ricker resorted to 2/3rd speed mastering in the end - the best compromise under the given circumstances.

More about mastering is nowhere better explained than here ( there are 3 parts ) : http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/rickerinterview/ricker1.htm


----------



## gregorio

dprimary said:


> [1] 0dBu is about -18 dB down from 0dBFS depending on your calibration.
> [2] Unfortunately manufacturers still get this wrong as well. I expect analog line level inputs to handle at least +24dBu. From what I have measured years ago 0 dBFS is over 15 volts peak to peak. They look up the output of a consumer CD player which specifies some nonsense like out 2V nominal



1. Yes, and that does vary with music, there really isn't a standard. I've seen prosumer ADCs with a fixed calibration at -14dBFS = 0dBVU = +4dBu = 1.228 volts. However, others are -16dBFS or -18dBFS (= +4dBu = 0dBVU) and the higher end professional converters used by commercial studios have adjustable calibration, which I've seen calibrated as low as -22dBFS (which is -26dBFS = 0dBu), that was used for a classical music recording, although that's unusual in my experience. As mentioned, in TV/Film there is a fixed standard, -24dBFS = 0dBu (specifically: -20dBFS = 0dBVU = +4dBu = 1.228v). Therefore, analogsurviver's assertion is nonsense, digital can (and always does) exceed 0dB(u), typically by at least +18dB but up to as much as +26dB.

You seem to know what you're talking about but for others (PARTICULARLY @analogsurviver!) here's a basic primer on the subject: http://www.lavryengineering.com/wiki/index.php/DB

2. While manufacturers do get this wrong, there is also the fact that we're not only dealing with two different scales for digital and analogue but also different scales just for analogue! We have the pro analogue "line level" (+4dBu = 1.228v) and consumer "line level" (which is -10dBV, where 0dbV = 1 volt), two different scales with yet again different 0dB reference voltages. Pro analogue line level works out to be 11.8v more than consumer line level. As you say though, consumer equipment manufacturers don't necessarily stick to consumer line level (nominal 1v output). Then of course we've got the dBVU scale, which is what we have on the meters of most pro audio analogue equipment. This is all rather confusing for the uninitiated but it's basic audio 101 for student recording engineers and analogsurviver has claimed to be a professional recording engineer?!!

G


----------



## Don Hills

analogsurviver said:


> ... I do acknowledge the limitations and imperfections of analog record vs even - brrr - RBCD. ....



You imply that you have a "state of the art" LP reproduction system. Do you also have the means (an ADC) to record from this system? It doesn't have to be better than RBCD quality. What I'd really like is a minute or so of the 1 KHz track off a test record.  It's for the "party trick" I used to do back in the 80s(*). After the host had finished demonstrating their high-end turntable setup, I would play the tone from a test record and then from a test CD. Then I would point out that the imperfections audible on the LP (ignoring any ticks and pops) were present in equal measure in all music played on that turntable even if you couldn't hear them (for good psychoacoustic reasons). 
The best turntables could perform this test quite well, especially for the first few seconds. But after a little time listening they ultimately failed to achieve the "solidity" of the CD tone. A common comment was that the LP sounded more "life like". This was understandable, the sound from some human-played instruments (e.g. flute) often exhibits the same sorts of micro variations in pitch and level. The point is, of course, that the 1 KHz test tone should not exhibit such variations. 

(*) At the time, I had no way to make a good digital recording of the turntable output. Now I have the means but no good turntable...

Note that this isn't a trick or a setup against you. I'd like it to show to people who, unlike you as quoted above, refuse to "acknowledge the limitations and imperfections of analog record vs even - brrr - RBCD." It's also an easy test for any vinylphile with a test LP to perform for themselves. It doesn't require exact level matching or blind protocols, the differences are clear.


----------



## Don Hills

analogsurviver said:


> To be able to cut the high frequency information correctly - uncompressed, not bandwidth limited. In fact, the calculated requirement to cut at 100 cm/sec ( above "theorethical", below actual recorded velocities from real world top quality records ) goes up to just below 1 kW - per channel - meaning 2 kW peak power is required to drive the cutting stylus. ...



No, the amplifier has to be able to supply high voltage at high frequencies, not high power. The impedance of the coils rises with frequency, requiring more voltage to be able to drive enough current into the coils. A constant current drive high power amplifier is a tricky beast, it's much easier to use a conventional amp capable of high voltage swings. It's the same problem when driving tape record heads, but at lower powers of course. There, it's usually practical to have constant current drive.


----------



## analogsurviver (Feb 4, 2019)

Don Hills said:


> You imply that you have a "state of the art" LP reproduction system. Do you also have the means (an ADC) to record from this system? It doesn't have to be better than RBCD quality. What I'd really like is a minute or so of the 1 KHz track off a test record.  It's for the "party trick" I used to do back in the 80s(*). After the host had finished demonstrating their high-end turntable setup, I would play the tone from a test record and then from a test CD. Then I would point out that the imperfections audible on the LP (ignoring any ticks and pops) were present in equal measure in all music played on that turntable even if you couldn't hear them (for good psychoacoustic reasons).
> The best turntables could perform this test quite well, especially for the first few seconds. But after a little time listening they ultimately failed to achieve the "solidity" of the CD tone. A common comment was that the LP sounded more "life like". This was understandable, the sound from some human-played instruments (e.g. flute) often exhibits the same sorts of micro variations in pitch and level. The point is, of course, that the 1 KHz test tone should not exhibit such variations.
> 
> (*) At the time, I had no way to make a good digital recording of the turntable output. Now I have the means but no good turntable...
> ...



Believe me - NOBODY is better aware of this than myself...

The defects of analog records are nowhere as plainly audible as any steady state signal - particularly pure sine wave. I kHz is "nice" - compared to 3.15 kHz steady state tone used for wow & flutter measurements ... 5 minutes of it in one go - imagine "joy" of discovering that the test record drops in few places from the nominal 3150 Hz to below 3k ... - another useless freesbie masquerading as a test reference tool.. If > 10 turntables show the SAME deviations at the SAME spot/time on record, and all > 10 turntables measure OK  on another test record, that is the only possible conclusion.

It is a miracle that analog record does sound as good as it does - part of the answer is that most of the real music is nothing but an endless succession of transients -  where  analog record, if recorded and reproduced to quality level, exceeds the RBCD - at least twice.

Sustained tone nightmare par excellence for analog - Horn Concerto with Organ Contionuo. Horn produces the purest close to sine wave waveform with very little, if any, harmonics - and can be played "steady state". Organ is SLOW, SLOW, and again - SLOW; no transient worth worying about. Any distortion, noise, speed deviations, tape sensitivity modulation, ticks and pops of records, you name it - WILL  stand out, as a sore thumb, in such a ( hopeffully hypothetical only ) case ...

The Judgement Hour for RBCD ?  Jazz Big Band ... look no further, although there ARE even more pronounced and audible examples of wrongdoings of RBCD.

I can - and do - record in any digital from MP3 192kbps to DSD128 . An do have analog test record digital recordings for approx - at very least, would have to check and count them one day .. - 50 cartridges, with approx 1 hour of pure technical signals per cartridge/arm/ turntable, etc )

That is LOTS of "bzzz/fiyueEWEWEee" - besides the nominally recorded signals....

Still, with real music, using - State of The Art equipment, if required - analog does smoke RBCD on MOST of the music.

That's WHY I only attempted doing CD-R transfer of analog records twice - or , MAYBE - three times - it was simply NOT ENOUGH.


----------



## analogsurviver

Don Hills said:


> No, the amplifier has to be able to supply high voltage at high frequencies, not high power. The impedance of the coils rises with frequency, requiring more voltage to be able to drive enough current into the coils. A constant current drive high power amplifier is a tricky beast, it's much easier to use a conventional amp capable of high voltage swings. It's the same problem when driving tape record heads, but at lower powers of course. There, it's usually practical to have constant current drive.



I have stopped studying the details about record cutting amplifier requirements back in late 80s - when it has been decided, that the only cutting lathe ever to be known in then capital of Republic of Slovenia within Yugoslavia, now the capital of Slovenia, will be never installed and has been, still in wraps - sold. 

It was a Neumann VMS-80, with all the bells & whistles of the later models.

If it comes to the realization of my dreams ( some really good DSD recording -  mastered as a half speed analog record ), I might want to refresh my knowledge regarding amplifier requirements. I know the resistance of coils is around 5 ohms, but have no data regarding the inductance of a cutting head... That sounds similar to me as a normal dynamic speaker coil.

Be it as it may - at 1/2 speed mastering, absolutely demanded for the > 20 kHz content of the DSD master, amp voltage/power is the last thing to worry about. But I will go and check cutter head electrical parameters anyway in a few days.


----------



## KeithEmo

We seem to have a sort of disconnect here......

I don't disagree at all about all the ridiculous complications involved in mastering to vinyl. (And I would be very interested to see, for example, THD measurements of the entire process.... measured from the output of the microphone preamp in the studio to the output of the listener's phono preamp.... with a clean sine wave and no processing.... compared to those for RBCD. I'm quite sure there are good reasons you never see THD and IMD specs for cutting lathes, phono cartridges, or the mechanical accuracy of the shape of the wiggles in the vinyl.)  

I was specifically addressing the claim that "the 44.1k sample rate was chosen for CDs because the audio masters HAD to be able to be recorded on U-Matic tape systems - which only supported 44.1k". I was simply pointing out that there was no specific need to ever store the data on U-Matic tape.

Excluding all the details about the equipment involved. Before digital media came along you took the ANALOG MASTER TAPE to the place where they used the cutting lathe to produce the lacquer master. After the switch to CDs, you cold have just as easily taken the same ANALOG MASTER TAPE to the facility where the CD masters were produced. There was no specific necessity to convert from analog master to digital master, on U-Matic tape, _AT THE STUDIO_ before transporting it.... and I'm not aware of any reason why it would have had to be transferred to U-Matic tape after the conversion either (I'm guessing that the CD mastering studio could have used one of those 550 pound hard disc drives if they wanted to. Also, unlike with vinyl production, there was no tweaking for the engineer to do at the point of conversion. Other than, possibly, making minor adjustments to the ADC, there is no reason for the mastering engineer to be involved in the physical process of converting from analog to digital.

Incidentally, unlike analog data, digital data isn't so fussy about being stored in one continuous segment on a single piece of media. Once the digital audio data for the CD was created, and assembled on the "CD cutting equipment itself", you could have easily stored one CD on four of those 200 mB digital data tapes. There's no issue whatsoever with allowing a digital data backup set extend across multiple tapes. It is routinely done and there is no loss of quality or reliability. (And since, with digital, there is no generational loss of quality, once the CD data stream has been created, there is no issue whatsoever with making multiple master copies, and multiple backup copies, and changing between formats when convenient.)

When the CD standard was first written - there were no CD disc recorders, and no CD mastering facilities.... so, at that point, they could just as easily have been built to a standard of using a 48k sample rate on 5" discs for 45 minutes.... or 96k on a 12" disc for an hour. I was simply pointing out that there were no significant technological reasons that made other choices impractical. The reasons were more at the level of: "Most studios already have U-Matic machines, and know how to use them, so they'll be happier if they don't have to purchase and learn new hardware, or have to ship their precious master tapes to a CD mastering facility after they leave the vinyl mastering facility". The reality is that "audibly perfect audio quality with a reasonable safety margin" was not the _primary_ consideration when the format was chosen... it was just one of many factors considered. 

They did NOT conduct extensive listening tests, in a huge and impartial scientific study, at a wide variety of different sample rates and bit depths, to determine which one sounded better... or if higher sample rates were audibly better than 44.1k. And they most certainly did not test whether recording it onto a CD would audibly degrade content from a high-quality master, recorded and converted on the best equipment available in 2018, and played back on the best quality playback equipment available in 2018 - for obvious reasons. What they did was to develop a standard that met or exceeded all of what they considered to be the practical requirements, then conducted some listening tests to confirm that it was adequate for the market, and produced no obvious audible problems when tested on the equipment available at the time. (Please note that there is nothing terrible, or even unusual, about doing this. You are NOT driving the safest car, or the fastest car, or the most efficient car, that could be built using current technology either. However, we all know that there will be "better" new models next year. However, when it comes to audio, there seem to be a lot of people determined to believe that 'the game is over, we now have the best possible, and there is simply no point in looking for, or hoping for, anything better". I am quite convinced that RBCD was audibly transparent, when tested with the available audio content, available audio equipment, and listening acumen available at the time.... but the time was the 1970's.) 



dprimary said:


> We did use the same workflow. You brought the stereo masters to the mastering studio. The mastering engineer would give it the final polish to maximize fidelity for each of the release formats. After the CD introduction you would do the 1630 master first as it was the highest fidelity. The 1630 encoded on the U-matic tape. I cannot find any data tape format in the early 80's that could store this amount of data. The IBM 3480 only stored 200MB, and didn't come out to1985... 5 years too late. DEC was even smaller. The  DLT could store it in 1989 however it has hardware data compression.
> 
> The cassette master be made by rolling off the low frequencies and compressing the dynamic range it would 1/4" open reel for some reason I think it might have been recorded at lower speeds like 7-1/2 IPS.
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> We seem to have a sort of disconnect here......
> 
> I don't disagree at all about all the ridiculous complications involved in mastering to vinyl. (And I would be very interested to see, for example, THD measurements of the entire process.... measured from the output of the microphone preamp in the studio to the output of the listener's phono preamp.... with a clean sine wave and no processing.... compared to those for RBCD. I'm quite sure there are good reasons you never see THD and IMD specs for cutting lathes, phono cartridges, or the mechanical accuracy of the shape of the wiggles in the vinyl.)
> 
> ...



Err.... there WERE good measurements for phono gear.... THD and IMD included - published in Italian and German audio press, but measurements themselves being the labor of love by 
Instituto Alta Fedelta,  Roma, Italia.
The pdf files of these objective reviews are like tide - they come and go, but I did find at least the front page and content of the September 1977 issue of Suono : 
https://www.suono.it/La-rivista/Archivio/(pub)/56722
For those not speaking Italian, "fonorivelatore" means phono cartridge. I do have this issue in my archive, it has been instrumental for me buying Supex cart a year or so later. I will try to dig up the reviews proper - there used to be similar coverage as for american magazines, which are still online.


----------



## bigshot

I don't think AS owns any LP records or turntables. They're just fetish objects to him. Sperg fodder.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I don't think AS owns any LP records or turntables. They're just fetish objects to him. Sperg fodder.



Oh dear.... - and to think - somewhere along the way - I wanted to furnish you with a VERY rare phono playback device that would render your warped LPs to play like perfect copies ....

With your attitude, you blew that chance long ago.


----------



## 71 dB

What would make CD not transparent? This: If there is a transparent format (say 24 bit / 96 kHz). You downsample it to 16 bit / 44.1 kHz and you calculate the difference signal. If you can hear the difference signal using normal listening level there is a _possibility_ you can hear the difference when the music is playing. But you have masking so in practise you are much less likely to hear the difference. If you can hear the difference then CD is not transparent. If you can't hear it CD is transparent. I don't know about other people, but I can't hear the difference at normal listening levels so CD is transparent for my ears. If you are a bat then you are a bat. I am a human being with human hearing.

If you are a bat and need hi-res then USE the ****ing hi-res! IT IS AVAILABLE NOWADAYS FOR CHRIST! If not then it's capitalism not RBCD to blame.


----------



## james444

71 dB said:


> If you are a bat and need hi-res then USE the ****ing hi-res! IT IS AVAILABLE NOWADAYS FOR CHRIST! If not then it's capitalism not RBCD to blame.



As an IEM afficionado who doesn't give a damn about hi-res audio files or DAPs, I can tell you why I still welcome the hi-res craze when it comes to these tiny transducers.

IME, manufacturer's efforts to extend bandwidth to 40kHz in a halfway decent manner have (as a side effect) led to improved treble performance below 20kHz. So, while I don't really care about what hi-res certified IEMs might bring to the table for bats, I generally appreciate what they can do for me in the audible range.


----------



## bigshot

james444 said:


> manufacturer's efforts to extend bandwidth to 40kHz in a halfway decent manner have (as a side effect) led to improved treble performance below 20kHz.



How does that work? The resolution of high data rate audio below 20kHz is no different from 16/44.1


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> How does that work? The resolution of high data rate audio below 20kHz is no different from 16/44.1



I'm talking about reproduction quality of IEM transducers, not about high data rate audio. In general, improved performance in the treble range where it matters (6 - 16kHz), higher quality drivers, less harshness, better linearity.

One could argue that IEM technology would have evolved anyway, but I think the hi-res specification for headphones has helped push the envelope.

Imagine tyres with a top speed rating of 130 mph vs. 75 mph. You probably wouldn't be surprised if the former performed better at 75 mph than the latter.


----------



## bigshot

Ah. I've never heard the term hires applied to transducers before. Yes, I can see how a wider frequency extension might balance things better below.


----------



## KeithEmo

That makes perfect sense..... and, at the same time, you will have confirmed that whatever sample rate converter you used produces no audible side effects.
However, I would be sure to perform the experiment with at least a few hundred different files, or even better a few thousand, just to make sure there isn't a difference that is extremely audible, but only on a few of them.
And, just to be accurate, you cannot directly subtract samples at different sample rates.... you would have to use some sort of interpolation to enable you to do so.
Of course, you could convert them to analog, and then do an analog difference compare.... but then you have any errors that might be introduced by the DACs....

It's also worth noting that the opposite could occur.
There could be quantitatively significant differences which might turn out not to be audible.... for example, a high level of THD at 15 kHz would probably not be audible, since the first distortion product would be at 30 kHz.

Of course, I would suggest trying the experiment again every few years, just to confirm that, as mastering technology improves, the situation hasn't changed.
And, of course, your ability to hear differences will be limited by your playback equipment and your ears.



71 dB said:


> What would make CD not transparent? This: If there is a transparent format (say 24 bit / 96 kHz). You downsample it to 16 bit / 44.1 kHz and you calculate the difference signal. If you can hear the difference signal using normal listening level there is a _possibility_ you can hear the difference when the music is playing. But you have masking so in practise you are much less likely to hear the difference. If you can hear the difference then CD is not transparent. If you can't hear it CD is transparent. I don't know about other people, but I can't hear the difference at normal listening levels so CD is transparent for my ears. If you are a bat then you are a bat. I am a human being with human hearing.
> 
> If you are a bat and need hi-res then USE the ****ing hi-res! IT IS AVAILABLE NOWADAYS FOR CHRIST! If not then it's capitalism not RBCD to blame.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 4, 2019)

Let's just do it with every file in the world before we decide. Because it's possible that in some alternate universe "yes" could be "no" and "up" could be "down".

Get back to me when you're done and I'll tell you to do it all again because something may have changed.


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> I wouldn't care even if hi-res WAS clearly better.



But it isn't better. There is no audible difference.


----------



## 71 dB

Vinyl is easy to tell apart from CD. The difference of vinyl and CD is significant. CD and hi-res? We are talking about the possibility of a file someone maybe can tell apart! Man, that's transparent! I concentrate on music when I listen to music so even near transparent would be good enough, because me attention is in the music. This forum is insane.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Feb 4, 2019)

From my experience, it's hard not to get angry when faced with ignorance, arrogance and above all else - stupidity. Being Scottish (I'm from Scotland - a small country within the British Isles), It is not in my nature to give up. Some of these Americans are so laid back they could be horizontal  They would not last long in my country!


----------



## bigshot

A horizontal scotsman would reveal a lot about himself to the passing public... or perhaps very little.


----------



## SonyFan121

Some of the greatest scientists to have ever lived came from Scotland.


----------



## analogsurviver

This is how vinyl records are "distorted" in the last song(s) : 

 

( Jico SAS stylus, original boron cantilever (discontinued), but  still available at approx $ 300 )


----------



## bigshot (Feb 4, 2019)

How many clowns can come out of the same tiny car?

AS, go back and read my post. Notice that I specifically said that I wasn't talking about cartridges or tracking angles. I was talking about the distance the needle travels in the groove during each revolution. The problem with LPs is that the spiral makes the grooves lose sound quality the closer you get to the center of the record because _the circumference is smaller towards the center._ Try to wrap your head around the concept.


----------



## analogsurviver

How many police officers it takes to count them ?


----------



## Glmoneydawg

SonyFan121 said:


> Some of the greatest scientists to have ever lived came from Scotland.


Well...i have to admit Johny Walker is a genius


----------



## bigshot

What about Gordon Ramsey?


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> What about Gordon Ramsey?


Right!....although i suspect Ramsey will admit to boinking the odd sheep....the whole kilt thing you know


----------



## SonyFan121 (Feb 4, 2019)

bigshot said:


> How many clowns can come out of the same tiny car?
> 
> AS, go back and read my post. Notice that I specifically said that I wasn't talking about cartridges or tracking angles. I was talking about the distance the needle travels in the groove during each revolution. The problem with LPs is that *the spiral makes the grooves lose sound quality* the closer you get to the center of the record because _the circumference is smaller towards the center._ Try to wrap your head around the concept.


And LP's/record players still sound warmer, fuller with richer mid's and 100 times more lifelike/realistic than the nihilistic approach of digital which sounds ruler flat, thin, dull and artificial in comparison. Isn't it amazing?!


----------



## castleofargh

SonyFan121 said:


> From my experience, it's hard not to get angry when faced with ignorance, arrogance and above all else - stupidity. Being Scottish (I'm from Scotland - a small country within the British Isles), It is not in my nature to give up. Some of these Americans are so laid back they could be horizontal  They would not last long in my country!


that's because of Earth curvature. the UK decided they were at the center of the planet and made maps that way since long ago, resulting in the balancing of Earth that we know today. since, only you guys can stand up straight an not fall(I'm in France so I'm also almost completely straight. we got lucky when we decided to stay close to you). but the US are pretty far on the side, so they need to lean in the opposite direction simply to stand and avoid slipping down into space. people on the West cost often fail to stay where they are, and you see them slowly going backward despite trying hard to resist. usually without help, they end up falling at the edge of the planet. so people have started to call that way of struggling, the moon walk, as that's where those poor people are likely to end up.






here is evidence of the ground not being flat with a random crowd waiting for their train at a US airport.




QED


----------



## bigshot (Feb 4, 2019)

We're being trolled again. When someone craps all over without adding anything of substance themselves, it's a total waste of energy to entertain them. It's also unwise because replying to them only encourages them. Internet 101. Give them a chance, and if they don't rise to the occasion, dismiss them without a further thought about it.


----------



## analogsurviver (Feb 5, 2019)

bigshot said:


> How many clowns can come out of the same tiny car?
> 
> AS, go back and read my post. Notice that I specifically said that I wasn't talking about cartridges or tracking angles. I was talking about the distance the needle travels in the groove during each revolution. The problem with LPs is that the spiral makes the grooves lose sound quality the closer you get to the center of the record because _the circumference is smaller towards the center._ Try to wrap your head around the concept.



BS, that is understood per se - that is why I talked mostly about the inner grooves, where the performance of the analog record is at its worst.

Even there, at its very worst, it manages twice the bandwidth of the RBCD. Do I need to calculate for you just how many more - exactly - times  better it is at the beginning of the record ?


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Yes, oversampling was available, if you were willing to adopt what was, at the time, Philips proprietary technology. And, in that case, you seem to think it was perfectly reasonable to do so.
> [2] However, there were plenty of formats which supported sample rates besides 44.1k, even in those days. Except, in that case, you seem to think it's unreasonable to expect studios to adopt them.
> [2a] So, just as consumers could use that new oversampling technology, studios could buy some new equipment to handle 48k.... or even higher sample rates... if they wanted to. I'm sure Philpis would have been happy to sell them all recorders that could handle 48k - to go with their oversampling DACs.
> [3] Of course, if the studios were actually unable to produce digital masters for the production of CDs, I guess they could have just sent their analog tapes to the CD plant.
> [4] As for "what would have worked better than U-matic"..... the answer would be "something that handles whatever sample rate you required rather than constraining you to use the one it's capable of".


1. Huh, of course I do. The CD redbook standard itself was Philips (and Sony's) proprietary technology, so if you wanted to make CDs or CD players you had to "adopt" (licence) Philips' proprietary technology anyway! 

2. No one is disputing there were other digital formats back in the late '70's, some of them with higher than 44.1kHz sample rates, I've mentioned them myself. But it's SELF EVIDENT that "it's unreasonable to expect studios to adopt them" if there's no way to store/transfer them!
2a. Again, this is complete nonsense! What Philips (or anyone else's) recorders could store/transfer 48kHz 16bit in the late '70's? 

3. That's even more ridiculous! The whole point of digital audio was the preservation of audio information, the virtual elimination of the cumulative distortion and noise that is effectively doubled with EVERY generation/copy of analogue tape. Your solution to the problem of storing/transferring the digital information is not to, just carry on using analogue tapes as they always had, maintain the cumulative generational distortion and noise and defeat the whole purpose of digital audio in the first place!

4. And AGAIN, what is that "something"? There was nothing, which is why CD was invented in the first place! In a bizarre way you are correct, 44.1kHz was chosen because it was easier and more convenient. It was more convenient to store/transfer 44.1kHz than to use a higher sample rate and then wait 10 years for "something" to be invented that made it possible to reliably transfer it!!


KeithEmo said:


> [1] The practical solution would have been to use the same workflow as they used for vinyl... Ship the master tape to the location of the mastering lathe (or CD mastering equipment) and convert it there.
> [2] There's something else that really needs to be mentioned.
> [2a] It is true that the U-Matic recorders used by studios in the 1980's were designed to work at certain sample rates.
> [2b] That is because they were designed to store a specific amount of digital audio data per-line and per-frame as digital audio.
> ...


1. So the practical solution to transferring digital audio data is to transfer it as analogue audio. That's the LEAST practical solution imaginable! Again, transferring the mix from the recording studio to the mastering studio on analogue tape introduces 1 generation of analogue tape distortion and noise, then that tape is mastered and the master is recorded to another analogue tape, so now we have at least two generations of tape noise and distortion, approximately 4 times the amount of noise and distortion than if we'd transferred the audio as digital data, which is the whole point of digital audio in the first place!! 

2. That's what I don't get about your posts, why do you "really need to mention" a falsehood/lie/misinformation??? ...
2a. No, that is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE! U-Matic recorders used by studios in the 1980's were designed as TV broadcast video recorders and therefore designed to work at TV video resolutions. Digital audio sample rates were not even the slightest of design considerations!
2b. No they were not! They were ONLY designed to store analogue broadcast TV video signals, the specific number of fields per second and horizontal lines per field determined by TV broadcast standards (NTSC or PAL). Sony invented an adapter for U-Matic machines that allowed the available analogue TV lines and fields per second to store digital audio data. As ALREADY stated, the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE was 3 stereo 16bit samples per line and therefore: 3 x 245 (lines) x 60 (fields/second) = 44,100!
2c. They were expensive, only stored about 200MB, had to be used in a "clean room" and were totally unsuitable for reliable transfer. 
2d. In 1980 (when redbook was published) the biggest hard drive available was about 5MB, cost $1,500 and you would have needed about 150 of them to store one CD's worth of digital audio data!

3. What analogue master tape? The whole point of inventing CD in the first place was to distribute digital recordings/masters, not analogue masters. Your suggestion does NOT make "the most sense", it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!

*Exactly as predicted*, you defend your ridiculous assertion with even more ridiculous assertions/suggestions. Record with a higher than 44.1kHz sample rate and then wait many years for technology to be invented to transfer it OR just as ridiculously, that using a higher than 44.1kHz sample rate plus at least two generations of tape distortion and noise is somehow superior to using a 44.1kHz sample rate (that already has a 10% safety margin anyway). 
Round and round and round we go!!

G


----------



## gregorio

SonyFan121 said:


> From my experience, it's hard not to get angry when faced with ignorance, arrogance and above all else - stupidity.



EXACTLY, so why are you surprised when we get angry at you?

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> ...44.1kHz sample rate (that already has a 10% safety margin anyway).
> 
> G



I wouldn't call it a _safety_ margin as it's more or less needed. The narrower the margin is, the harder it is to make audibly transparent anti-alias filters. In theory 40.000 Hz sampling rate is enough for 20-20.000 Hz audio bandwidth, but sampling theorem assumes the signal is free of frequencies above Nyquist frequency. Since this isn't the case in real life, anti-alias filtering is required and we are faced with optimizing the compromises between frequency domain and time domain distortions. Fortunately the 10 % margin seems to be enough, but there isn't much safety margin at all! Perhaps the engineers of Philips and Sony knew what they were doing 4 decades ago?


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> Since this isn't the case in real life, anti-alias filtering is required and we are faced with optimizing the compromises between frequency domain and time domain distortions. Fortunately the 10 % margin seems to be enough, but there isn't much safety margin at all! Perhaps the engineers of Philips and Sony knew what they were doing 4 decades ago?



True but in "real life" and therefore listening to music recordings at comfortable listening levels (rather than single tone test signals at extremely high levels), then human hearing response tops out around 16kHz-18kHz (or lower), we still have at least a 10% safety margin in "real life". Pretty much all experienced professional audio engineers knew that, not only those at Philips and Sony.

G


----------



## GearMe (Feb 5, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> And LP's/record players still sound warmer, fuller with richer mid's and 100 times more lifelike/realistic than the nihilistic approach of digital which sounds ruler flat, thin, dull and artificial in comparison. Isn't it amazing?!



At least this subjective take is one that can be properly owned by the person that subscribes to it...

Much better approach than arguing outlier scenarios for a limited technology!

BTW -- glad you find it amazing...that's what listening to music should be about


----------



## analogsurviver

GearMe said:


> At least this subjective take is one that can be properly owned by the person that subscribes to it...
> 
> Much better approach than arguing outlier scenarios for a limited technology!
> 
> BTW -- glad you find it amazing...that's what listening to music should be about




The only outlier scenario I ever posted about analog record playback was this Tacet bacwards mastered LP. And since, it got brothers and sisters ... - do check the Tacet catalog.

Everything else is based on currently availble gear, using whatever would get the job done - admittedly, with references to vintage gear, which was even better.

RBCD , actually, IS limited technology - by its very definition. There will be no machines able to play RBCD significantly better in years and decades to come - that's IT .

I do not think the original sound engineers in late 50s/early 60, when stereo began in earnest, ever envisioned just how much of the original sound can be put on record and how much of it can be retrieved by playback.  Although small, incremental improvements to analog are still possible. 

And listening to the records - despite FZ himself being an early supporter and adopter of digital ( for artistic reasons, thus forgiven ) , listening to a good analog - AAA, if it has to be stressed - record for me is nothing but :


----------



## GearMe

Limited catalogs, media, expensive, time-consuming, inconvenient, etc.   
(sounds worse in most [read real world] cases)

The world has moved on...

That said, I am considering one of these 






I respect your passion though


----------



## analogsurviver

GearMe said:


> Limited catalogs, media, expensive, time-consuming, inconvenient, etc.
> (sounds worse in most [read real world] cases)
> 
> The world has moved on...
> ...



Yes, can not deny the drawbacks you've listed.

But RBCD ? ONLY - RBCD?  No, not in a million years. Higher sample rate PCM and DSD ...

If you must have a portable record player, then do it properly : Sony Flamingo ( any version you can get at not too outrageous price is OK, it is the one featured in Techmoan's oreloB video, where it of course can not predict the record ever to spin outwards... ) . It is THE tool to have at used record sales - battery powered, it has built in headphone amp - and the best stylus for it is no slouch, even in absolute terms. But act fast - these are in extremely high demand and low supply - you know what that means ...

If you are after some particularly rare/expensive vinyl, it - effectively - pays for itself; no one will be able to sell you a cleaned record in super condition outer and inner sleeve - not scrathed, but shot trough improper playback.


----------



## GearMe

If that works for you...great!

Not worth the cost / effort to me for the perceived audio benefit.


----------



## analogsurviver

GearMe said:


> If that works for you...great!
> 
> Not worth the cost / effort to me for the perceived audio benefit.



It all depends on the intended use - and only using it for checking the real condition of the record for sale at record swaps/meets may justify the expense and effort of getting one. 

For normal use, there are many ways to get better bang for the buck. I abandoned the idea quite some time ago.... - but seeing the prices of old but supposedly well preserved records at few recent events of the type, there is that nagging feeling ... what IF I get had.... . it is sort of like insurance - you don't need it before is too late.


----------



## bigshot

Frank Zappa's albums often have completely different mixes on vinyl than they do on CD. They can have different mixes on 8 track even, but I don't think anyone is nutty enough to try to claim that format is better than CDs. LPs are fine alternatives if their mixing and mastering is superior, which is certainly true in some cases, but as a medium, it is inferior to redbook in just about every aspect of sound quality you can name--- response, distortion, noise, dynamics, timing, as well as convenience--- durability, size, portability. The two advantages that LPs have over CD are 1) there are albums that were released on LP that were never released on CD, and 2) the album covers are bigger and easier to read the liner notes on.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> True but in "real life" and therefore listening to music recordings at comfortable listening levels (rather than single tone test signals at extremely high levels), then human hearing response tops out around 16kHz-18kHz (or lower), we still have at least a 10% safety margin in "real life". Pretty much all experienced professional audio engineers knew that, not only those at Philips and Sony.
> 
> G


The specs of CD is not 16.000 Hz bandwidth, it's 20.000 Hz bandwidth. So, regardless of how high our old hearing goes, the anti-alias filters must be designed so that the attenuation of 20 kHz is "insignificant" and that means the filter response must drop A LOT within a narrow band so that aliasing is avoided. Our hearing perhaps doesn't require this, but that's the specs of CD. If CD was 20-16.000 Hz, we could have huge attenutation at 20 kHz and there really was safety margin.


----------



## bigshot

CD sound is perfect for human ears


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> CD sound is perfect for human ears


clearly this is a claim that requires added conditions to be true. otherwise I'll just go and say: prove it! 
you won't be able to, because the claim is too general. so we'll end up dismissing this as an empty claim. 

obviously I'm not picking on this because it's the only stuff said without evidence in this topic, but I'd rather have at least one side of the argument sticking to more accurate statements.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> [1] The specs of CD is not 16.000 Hz bandwidth, it's 20.000 Hz bandwidth.
> [2] So, regardless of how high our old hearing goes, the anti-alias filters must be designed so that the attenuation of 20 kHz is "insignificant" and that means the filter response must drop A LOT within a narrow band so that aliasing is avoided.



1. I agree that the specs of CD is to 20kHz, I'm just pointing out that spec itself effectively includes a safety margin.

2. That's not necessarily true, some filter designs for 44.1kHz do have some attenuation of 20kHz. Of course, none of this is applicable to DACs because even early CD players had oversampling and therefore a wide (ultrasonic) filter transition band was available. It's only a potential/theoretical issue in the decimation section of an ADC or many years later in the resampling process during mastering when higher sample rates became available, but in both cases, if there were any audible filter artefacts, the engineers had the option of doing something about it but I've never come across this scenario or ever heard of any other engineer coming across it.



castleofargh said:


> [1] clearly this is a claim that requires added conditions to be true.
> [2] otherwise I'll just go and say: prove it! you won't be able to, because the claim is too general. so we'll end up dismissing this as an empty claim. obviously I'm not picking on this because it's the only stuff said without evidence in this topic



1. I'm not sure that's really the case. For the claim to be true, we just need any of the wide range of normal music listening conditions and no "added" conditions. For the claim to be false we do need "added" conditions, such as unreasonably high playback levels and/or test signals (rather than music) specifically designed to exacerbate some otherwise inaudible issue.

2. We can't absolutely prove the claim is true for every single human being, but neither do we have to dismiss it as an empty claim, because although we don't have absolute proof, we do have a weight of reliable evidence to support the claim.

G


----------



## bigshot (Feb 6, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> clearly this is a claim that requires added conditions to be true. otherwise I'll just go and say: prove it!



I've done that with my own controlled listening tests comparing an iPod playing a 16/44.1 WAV file to high data rate output from a ProTools workstation and an SACD. I'd suggest that if you doubt it, you should test it for yourself. I've also compared WAV files to AAC 256 and I've found that format to be audibly transparent too, so I'll add that AAC 256 is perfect for human ears as well. I've shared my test with plenty of other people and none of them have been able to discern a difference either. Again, if you'd like to dispute that, take my test and prove that you can discern differences accurately.


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> 1. I'm not sure that's really the case. For the claim to be true, we just need any of the wide range of normal music listening conditions and no "added" conditions. For the claim to be false we do need "added" conditions, such as unreasonably high playback levels and/or test signals (rather than music) specifically designed to exacerbate some otherwise inaudible issue.
> 
> 2. We can't absolutely prove the claim is true for every single human being, but neither do we have to dismiss it as an empty claim, because although we don't have absolute proof, we do have a weight of reliable evidence to support the claim.
> 
> G


normal music listening is an added condition. and even with something as unclear as "normal", it's a big one. another one could be a CD that wasn't mastered by a moron trying to prove a point. maybe we could also push toward DACs and restrict the claim to stuff that will not have a shitload of aliasing because the designer never understood how digital audio works. luckily those are becoming rare nowadays, but they surely still are owned by someone on the forum.  same with treble roll off, we probably shouldn't have to bother with that, but some audio devices do roll off the trebles in a way that at least a youngster will easily notice at 44.1kHz. me, you and bigshot consider such devices as flawed, but others absolutely love them. 
also, perfect is a heavy word. I wouldn't use it for anything in real life application except perhaps to lie to a pretty girl. 

a claim is a claim, our job isn't to say that we agree when we more or less do. everybody already does that on the web. our "job" as casual science wannabe club is to apply the scientific method and try to disprove things. which I can with bigshot's statement as it is. of course I'll have to manufacture conditions for that to happen because I don't purchase weirdo designs and I don't have the years I once had, but the fact that I can disprove the claim if I work on it, means it is wrong.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 6, 2019)

I'm happy to define normal listening conditions... a volume level that is comfortable and won't incur hearing damage- it can even be loud, a fixed volume level- no gain riding on fade outs, a program that consists of music- not abstract test tones, equipment that plays back the files faithfully- the way they were designed to be played... basically listening to music the way normal people do in their living rooms.

We've been soaking in the what ifs and extreme exceptions around here so long, it's starting to affect us and make us crazy too. It's time to take a step back and focus on what really matters, not the crazy extremes. I leave the semantics to the nuitjobs. I am focused on sound quality.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> I'm happy to define normal listening conditions... a volume level that is comfortable and won't incur hearing damage- it can even be loud, a fixed volume level- no gain riding on fade outs, a program that consists of music- not abstract test tones, basically listening to music the way normal people do in their living rooms.


good. I take that. already under those conditions, it becomes really hard to disprove transparency of the format itself for a random human.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 6, 2019)

The goal is to listen to recorded music in a way that requires no significant compromise to appreciation or relative convenience, yet still produces sound quality that is audibly transparent. CDs accomplish that. If you have to resort to extreme situations to the degree that discerning a difference seriously impacts appreciation and relative convenience, you are trying too hard.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> The goal is to listen to recorded music in a way that requires no significant compromise to appreciation or relative convenience, yet still produces sound quality that is audibly transparent. CDs accomplish that. If you have to resort to extreme situations to the degree that discerning a difference seriously impacts appreciation and relative convenience, you are trying too hard.




Like using - headphones ?


----------



## KeithEmo (Feb 6, 2019)

However..... what you have stated is _YOUR DEFINITION_ of normal listening conditions.
I should point out, however, that the definition is different for each of us.

It's also interesting to note that a live classical concert will _OFTEN_ exceed what OSHA considers to be safe listening levels.
And, as we all know, many rock concerts exceed safe levels for extended periods of time, as do the levels many people use when listening with headphones.

I've seen statements like this made many times on this forum.....
"It doesn't matter if there is some tiny flaw that you can only hear if you crank the levels up to 120 dB - because that is far above normal listening levels".
However, in point of fact, for people who routinely attend classical concerts, which do occasionally hit peak levels that high, 120 dB is actually not "above normal listening level" at all.

You seem to be asserting that it matters whether music is reproduced audibly transparently "the way normal people listen in their living room"....
But that it is foolish to worry about whether an audio system, or a format, can reproduce what we hear at a typical concert with equal accuracy....
Are you suggesting that anybody who sometimes attends live concerts, where levels may occasionally top 120 dB, is "a nutjob"... living their life at "crazy extremes"?
Or are you suggesting that, even though they occasionally encounter such levels when listening to live music, it is unreasonable to expect, or at least hope for, similar performance when listening to reproduced music?

Note that I personally tend not to listen to music that loudly....
But, considering how many people attend live concerts, I can hardly write off those levels as "not normal listening conditions" either....
I would rather say that they are "louder than the conditions under which_ I personally prefer_ to listen to music".

I might also point out that, with a lot of modern music...
I don't see much of a bright line between "music" and "test tones"...
(I would be hard pressed to find a test tone that hasn't ever been used on some modern electronic music album.)

I ran across an interesting description of some "typical SPL levels"....
Both for various sorts of noises and various actual musical instruments....
Note that some unamplified instruments also reach well into those higher SPL numbers.

http://www.audiodrom.net/en/as-we-see-it-tips-thoughts/74-realistic-volume-levels



bigshot said:


> I'm happy to define normal listening conditions... a volume level that is comfortable and won't incur hearing damage- it can even be loud, a fixed volume level- no gain riding on fade outs, a program that consists of music- not abstract test tones, equipment that plays back the files faithfully- the way they were designed to be played... basically listening to music the way normal people do in their living rooms.
> 
> We've been soaking in the what ifs and extreme exceptions around here so long, it's starting to affect us and make us crazy too. It's time to take a step back and focus on what really matters, not the crazy extremes. I leave the semantics to the nuitjobs. I am focused on sound quality.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> However..... what you have stated is _YOUR DEFINITION_ of normal listening conditions.
> I should point out, however, that the definition is different for each of us.
> 
> It's also interesting to note that a live classical concert will _OFTEN_ exceed what OSHA considers to be safe listening levels.
> ...



Well said.

I am of the "play it as close to live" variety listener.

And, since the recordings available commercially, are compressed - in one way or another ( CLASSICAL INCLUDED !!! ) - I have been forced to start my own recording. 

A week ago, we had a listening session with two of my friends  - on stereo speaker system. The owner of the speaker system is well aware of my recordings - and knew, more or less, what to expect. The other friend is vinyl listener only - CD player is in some remote corner, not connected to the system, with correspondingly high dust "cover" ( more than one year since he touched the ... THING )..

And the vinyl listener was - shocked. Why ? DSD128 masters of course contain next to zero (audible ... ) noise and distortion. Dynamics is - shall we say - unbridled. I NEVER use any compression. And, these recordings of course do go quieter than vinyl - and also louder.  He felt somewhat as a skier who has not been standiing on skis for a decade and more ... - and all of a sudden finds himself at the start line of some VERY difficult giant slalom at world class level competition.

Two extremes have been recording of string section playing ppp - and the climax section of Varese's Ionization ( 13 percussionists at full steam ). During the string section, he loudly asked IF the music really was so quiet live - and the same question, this time if it was really that loud during the reproduction of Ionization,  simpy vanished in all the majestic sound..

I am even less tolerant of compression when listening to headphones - particularly for binaural recordings. I want, crave and demand realistic SPL - end of discussion. If someone would think that the AVERAGE level of listening as described above is high or higher than "normal" listening , I will answer that the average level is LOWER. But when the tympani strike at the end of a symphony, they should be both heard and FELT.

That is WHY I mostly listen to headphones. Listening at peak levels described above are likely to give you troubles with your neighbours - and I do not want to worsen good relationship with neighbours with whom I have been living for decade(s)..

I did write about listening to headphones using binaural recordings  - AND subwoofer(s). TBH, I did NOT implement it yet - but, it WILL be done when the conditions get ripe again. 

Now, be a sport... and try to squeeze Mahler's 2nd - unbridled, unrestrained, without any concerns regarding speakers/neighbours issue -  on CD.

The closest came Telarc - BUT, it has been an original DSD recording.  CD for binaural does not have neither the dynamic range nor frequency range sufficient to give it justice.

Now, I may well be accused of using extreme composition ( from dead silence to threshold of pain in shortest amount of time )  -  but it IS a real thing . I would have to go and count all the recordings of 2nd in my library - both on vinyl and CDs, as well as my test recordings exploiting the dynamic range requirements - but it is a double digit number for quite some time now. 2nd is an interesting example of studying exactly which measures have been taken by various recording engineers... even multiple takes by the same recording engineer - and just how much of the real dynamic range and frequency response ( bass in particular.. ) has been sacrificed at the altar of "compatibility" with less than optimum playback systems - not to say - listeners..

On calendar stands 2019. Technically, there are NO more limitations that it could not be done. Question is, who will have the opportunity AND guts to do - RIGHT, for the first time.


----------



## bigshot

I'm using my definitions all the time. Not the definitions of people who spend half their life thinking about what ifs and talking about things they really know very little about.


----------



## analogsurviver

Without "what if" people, we would probably still be living in caves.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] However..... what you have stated is _YOUR DEFINITION_ of normal listening conditions. I should point out, however, that the definition is different for each of us.
> [2] It's also interesting to note that a live classical concert will _OFTEN_ exceed what OSHA considers to be safe listening levels.
> [3] I've seen statements like this made many times on this forum..... "It doesn't matter if there is some tiny flaw that you can only hear if you crank the levels up to 120 dB - because that is far above normal listening levels". However, in point of fact, for people who routinely attend classical concerts, which do occasionally hit peak levels that high, 120 dB is actually not "above normal listening level" at all.
> [4] Are you suggesting that anybody who sometimes attends live concerts, where levels may occasionally top 120 dB, is "a nutjob"... living their life at "crazy extremes"?
> Or are you suggesting that, even though they occasionally encounter such levels when listening to live music, it is unreasonable to expect, or at least hope for, similar performance when listening to reproduced music?



1. How is that definition different for all of us? How many of us only listen to recordings of test tones and at uncomfortable/damaging levels?

2. It would be "interesting to note" if that assertion were true but it's not.

3. Me too ... By misinformed audiophiles or those creating the lies to try and sell something to audiophiles. Your "point of fact" is misinformation but far worse, as we've been through all this before, you are aware it's misinformation and yet here you are stating that misinformation as "point of fact" again!!

4. Yes, I'm definitely suggesting that such a person is a complete "nutjob" because to experience 120dB at a live classical concert one would have to be actually sitting inside the orchestra and if a member of the audience attempted to do that, they would be removed by security and treated by everyone as a "nutjob"!! 


KeithEmo said:


> [5] I might also point out that, with a lot of modern music... I don't see much of a bright line between "music" and "test tones"...
> [6] I ran across an interesting description of some "typical SPL levels".... Both for various sorts of noises and various actual musical instruments....Note that some unamplified instruments also reach well into those higher SPL numbers.


5. You're joking? You really can't tell the difference between say a continuous and unchanging sine wave and a piece of contemporary music? 

6. And again, without relative distance those SPL numbers are meaningless. A trumpet can produce over 140dBSPL a few inches away from the bell but when you go to an orchestral concert, do you sit a few inches away from the bell of the trumpet or do you sit many feet away in the auditorium, where there the SPL is probably 100 times lower?

So here we go again, not actually discussing any science or facts, just refuting the exact same misinformation/lies we refuted a few months ago in this very thread. Round and round and round we go!!

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> 2a. Some filter designs for 44.1kHz do have some attenuation of 20kHz.
> 2b. Of course, none of this is applicable to DACs because even early CD players had oversampling and therefore a wide (ultrasonic) filter transition band was available.
> 2c. It's only a potential/theoretical issue in the decimation section of an ADC or many years later in the resampling process during mastering when higher sample rates became available, but in both cases, if there were any audible filter artefacts, the engineers had the option of doing something about it but I've never come across this scenario or ever heard of any other engineer coming across it.
> 
> G


2a. Of course, but what is significant attenuation at 20 kHz? 1 dB? 2 dB? 3 dB? 6 dB? Something like 3 dB attenuation at 20 kHz due to a "soft knee" filter is probably quite insignificant. 
2b. Yep.
2c. Higher than Nyquist frequency content being folded into audible frequency range isn't necessorily audible, but it's technically wrong and against the principles of digital audio.


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> It's also interesting to note that a live classical concert will _OFTEN_ exceed what OSHA considers to be safe listening levels.



OSHA is primarily interested of the occupational safety of the musicians in the orchestra who experience much higher levels that the the audience and OSHA's remarks on this matter are totally justified. For the audience sitting at a distance classical music concert can be considered quite safe, because the dynamic nature of the music.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I'm using my definitions all the time. Not the definitions of people who spend half their life thinking about what ifs and talking about things they really know very little about.



Until you test a hermit from Timbuktu at an altitude of 25000 feet while driving around a rock concert in a sports car, we know nothing...


----------



## bigshot (Feb 6, 2019)

Where do people get the idea that volume levels at classical music concerts are extremely high? Have they never been to a classical music concert? I play classical music louder at home.

I think it all comes down to people not understanding what a decibel rating or frequency range sounds like. It's easy to fall into the "more is better" trap if you have no clue about what the numbers relate to in real world sound. I can see how that disconnect would be a positive thing for a commissioned high end audio salesman. But for a person looking for a system to play music in their home, they couldn't choose a better way to shoot themselves in the foot.



71 dB said:


> 2a. Of course, but what is significant attenuation at 20 kHz? 1 dB? 2 dB? 3 dB? 6 dB? Something like 3 dB attenuation at 20 kHz due to a "soft knee" filter is probably quite insignificant.



You could chop off all of the content above 17kHz and I doubt it would have any real impact at all on the perceived sound quality of commercially recorded music. The whole argument about roll offs at ultra high frequencies is a complete red herring. Most music doesn't contain any information up there. This is just another example of audiophool goalpost shifting. Good enough is never good enough. Neither is better than good enough. They feel the need to push everything to the limits of possibilities and beyond even if it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Where do people get the idea that volume levels at classical music concerts are extremely high? Have they never been to a classical music concert?




They get it from quoting maximum volume levels of instruments and not the volume levels experienced by attendees.  Either due to lack of understanding or having an agenda.


----------



## analogsurviver

It depends on the repertoire of classical music.

A Mozart symphony and Mahler symphony are two very different beasts - in many ways, loudness included.

There are louder classical pieces than Mahler's ... there is a piece for similar, but even larger orchestra/chorus than for Mahler's 2nd by Penderecki.. - it ends with WOODEN bells ...
Freaked me out on LP ( label : Polskie nagrania, Muza ) - hard to imagine just what effect this ultra loud ending has live in a concert hall.

And there are ultra quiet pieces - like for solo viola, aptly named Silence; - if it comes up to - 40dBFS, it is considered - rock'n'roll !


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> They get it from quoting maximum volume levels of instruments and not the volume levels experienced by attendees.  Either due to lack of understanding or having an agenda.



Nope. 

Binaural recordings done from the audience reflect the exact true SPLs experienced by the attendees.

Of course, these levels do vary depending on the seat - but regardless of position, they are true to the actual levels of music heard live.

The loudest noise heard at the concert of classical concert ? Applause ... - it takes gargantuan orchestra hell bent on being loud in order to result in more dBs at listener - than the person clapping next to you.


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> Nope.
> 
> Binaural recordings done from the audience reflect the exact true SPLs experienced by the attendees.
> 
> ...




Is the audience sitting beside the musicians?  Of course not, thus the maximum instrument SPL levels being used as deflection don’t represent the SPL levels of the recording and it’s repoduction.  If the recording is done with full volume clapping at 6” from the mic, I wouldn’t be interested  in hearing it.


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> Is the audience sitting beside the musicians?  Of course not, thus the maximum instrument SPL levels being used as deflection don’t represent the SPL levels of the recording and it’s repoduction.  If the recording is done with full volume clapping at 6” from the mic, I wouldn’t be interested  in hearing it.



It is the sound any concert goer would experience live. I do try to tell the people in proximity to applaud "on playback" ie WITHOUT actually making the sound - but if the rendition is particularly good, resulting in standing ovations, these recommendations are the first to go tossed out of the window ...


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Binaural recordings done from the audience reflect the exact true SPLs experienced by the attendees.
> 
> Of course, these levels do vary depending on the seat - but regardless of position, they are true to the actual levels of music heard live.



Binaural playback has nothing to do with sound levels. You don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Don Hills

I recall a conversation quite a few years ago, I think on a recording and mastering engineers' mailing list, that we tend to listen to in-room reproduction at a significantly lower SPL than the original live performance. That is, when played back at a level that you judge to be equal to the performance you heard live, the actual SPL is 6 to 10 dB lower.  I might have saved the discussion, if I find it I'll report back.


----------



## castleofargh

Don Hills said:


> I recall a conversation quite a few years ago, I think on a recording and mastering engineers' mailing list, that we tend to listen to in-room reproduction at a significantly lower SPL than the original live performance. That is, when played back at a level that you judge to be equal to the performance you heard live, the actual SPL is 6 to 10 dB lower.  I might have saved the discussion, if I find it I'll report back.


I'd expect that simply from the difference in ambient noise at the live event. our impression of how loud is the music once in quiet room would naturally be affected. do you think there are other reasons? with the premise that the listener tries to set his listening level to feel like the live event. otherwise there are many reasons why one would listen at a quieter level of course.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Binaural playback has nothing to do with sound levels. You don't know what you're talking about.



I beg to differ. You are not the only one attending live concerts. Are you going to imply I can not tell if the playback level of the binaural recording is not within reasonable limits ( say 2 dB or less difference ) than the actual at the concert live  !?!

Remember your complaint in the description of a concert you've been attending ( IIRC - one of Wagner operas ) , where you stated that on the recording "they did not put them on the back ( or something similar ) ".

Trouble is, for you to - finally - achieve that goal of reproduction of recording true to live performance, you would have - like it or not - transform into - my clone.

Binaural - done right - enables EXACTLY that. There are MANY hurdles towards this goal before it will achieve perfection, but many people are working on it. Just one of the examples of work in progress : 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10218126088414454&set=gm.340576729888417&type=3&theater

The reason why this nut is so desirable to crack is super simple and self evident.  Compare the number of people with decent well set up surround speaker system with that with people with  mid to high class smartphone and headphones priced at least say $100 ( China - fi ) or $200 if sticking to western better established brands.

Then compare the projected market figures for making ( and selling... ) any new prospective recordings ....


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> Binaural recordings done from the audience reflect the exact true SPLs experienced by the attendees.



No they don't! They may represent the exact true SPLs that may enter an individual's ears but they do NOT represent the SPLs experienced by the attendees, which is one of the reasons it's never caught on!



bfreedma said:


> Is the audience sitting beside the musicians? Of course not, thus the maximum instrument SPL levels being used as deflection don’t represent the SPL levels of the recording and it’s repoduction. If the recording is done with full volume clapping at 6” from the mic, I wouldn’t be interested in hearing it.



Exactly and in fact, a recording where the audience noise is at the exact relative SPL with the music as would actually exist for the audience at a classical concert is a primary indicator of a poor, amateur/hobbyist recording. A fundament fact to which analogsurviver has repeatedly demonstrated that he's completely oblivious!!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

Hey..... nobody really _needs_ indoor plumbing, right?



analogsurviver said:


> Without "what if" people, we would probably still be living in caves.


----------



## KeithEmo

There's another important aspect of aliasing.

The sounds produced by most instruments contain at least some harmonics. Therefore, when playing music, a small amount of added harmonic distortion is usually heard as a slight change in the tonal balance, but isn't necessarily very noticeable. However, when aliases are folded back down into the audible range, they end up as sounds that are _NOT_ harmonically related to the original content - which often makes them far more noticeable - even at relatively low levels. 

(So, when deciding what levels may or may not be audible, they must be treated more like "extra noises that shouldn't be there" rather than as extra harmonics which may simply alter the balance of harmonics already present. If the aliasing is minimal, then all of the extra sounds will be at relatively high frequencies, which may not be especially noticeable, or distinguishable as separate tones.... but, if it is severe, then you're talking about "extra sounds", which correlate to the musical content, but are separate from it.... which can be highly audible depending on several specific factors.)



71 dB said:


> 2a. Of course, but what is significant attenuation at 20 kHz? 1 dB? 2 dB? 3 dB? 6 dB? Something like 3 dB attenuation at 20 kHz due to a "soft knee" filter is probably quite insignificant.
> 2b. Yep.
> 2c. Higher than Nyquist frequency content being folded into audible frequency range isn't necessorily audible, but it's technically wrong and against the principles of digital audio.


----------



## KeithEmo

It's pretty widely accepted that we humans take distortion as a cue that something is loud. A relatively low-powered table radio_ sounds_ loud if it's heavily distorted... even if the measured SPL level isn't especially high. (We equate "loud" with "annoying".) Our ears and brains include an internal mechanism that acts like an automatic gain control. Because of this we actually aren't especially accurate at judging true SPL levels. Most of us who listen to high quality headphones have noticed a phenomenon where, after we turn up the music once or twice because it "doesn't seem very loud", we take off the headphones and notice that "the world seems very quiet" - until our ears adjust again.  

I would suggest that most home systems simply cannot produce levels in the 120 dB plus range without a lot of distortion... 
And, even when our goal is "to play music at realistic listening levels", most of us "stop turning up the volume when the system starts to distort"...
Therefore, that number is actually simply based on the maximum level a typical home music system can deliver without becoming noticeably distorted (in a way that we perceive as "being loud").

In one sense, this may be good, because it prevents us from inadvertently turning the volume up to dangerous levels...
But, in another sense, it prevents us from achieving totally accurate reproduction...



Don Hills said:


> I recall a conversation quite a few years ago, I think on a recording and mastering engineers' mailing list, that we tend to listen to in-room reproduction at a significantly lower SPL than the original live performance. That is, when played back at a level that you judge to be equal to the performance you heard live, the actual SPL is 6 to 10 dB lower.  I might have saved the discussion, if I find it I'll report back.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> It's pretty widely accepted that we humans take distortion as a cue that something is loud. A relatively low-powered table radio_ sounds_ loud if it's heavily distorted... even if the measured SPL level isn't especially high. (We equate "loud" with "annoying".) Our ears and brains include an internal mechanism that acts like an automatic gain control. Because of this we actually aren't especially accurate at judging true SPL levels. Most of us who listen to high quality headphones have noticed a phenomenon where, after we turn up the music once or twice because it "doesn't seem very loud", we take off the headphones and notice that "the world seems very quiet" - until our ears adjust again.
> 
> I would suggest that most home systems simply cannot produce levels in the 120 dB plus range without a lot of distortion...
> And, even when our goal is "to play music at realistic listening levels", most of us "stop turning up the volume when the system starts to distort"...
> ...



That is PRECISELY WHY did Stax modify the venerable Lambda family of headphones/earspeaker beginning with L700 - it enabled, among other things, about 4 dB increase of maximum SPL prior onset of distortion - from 113 dB of which Lambda Pro ( and slew of versions following it ) has been capable - to the 117 or so dB L-700 can play at - CLEANLY. 

It is the least expensive way to have full  ( well, to 120 dB still miss 3 dBs ... ) dynamic range - and frequency range from well below 20 to well above 40 kHz.

 I own Lambda Pro - and there are moments I would kill for the L700.  These peaks last for < 0.1% of total music time -but failing to reproduce them takes away one hell of a larger % of the realism perceived by the listener.


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> Where do people get the idea that volume levels at classical music concerts are extremely high? Have they never been to a classical music concert?



I have a habit of stuffing small pieces of tissue in my ears, whenever it gets too loud for me in a live concert.

The fact that I never ever felt the need to do that in well over a hundred classical concerts I attended, proves to me that these can't be serious offenders.

By comparison, at the last rock concert I attended (Muse), it was like 30 seconds into the first song until I reached for the tissue.


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> There's another important aspect of aliasing.
> 
> The sounds produced by most instruments contain at least some harmonics. Therefore, when playing music, a small amount of added harmonic distortion is usually heard as a slight change in the tonal balance, but isn't necessarily very noticeable. However, when aliases are folded back down into the audible range, they end up as sounds that are _NOT_ harmonically related to the original content - which often makes them far more noticeable - even at relatively low levels.
> 
> (So, when deciding what levels may or may not be audible, they must be treated more like "extra noises that shouldn't be there" rather than as extra harmonics which may simply alter the balance of harmonics already present. If the aliasing is minimal, then all of the extra sounds will be at relatively high frequencies, which may not be especially noticeable, or distinguishable as separate tones.... but, if it is severe, then you're talking about "extra sounds", which correlate to the musical content, but are separate from it.... which can be highly audible depending on several specific factors.)



This is true if you listen to music with one note playing at a time. I don't. I simple chord creates non-harmonic frequencies when there's non-linearity. 

The fundamental frequencies of a A major chord:

 

The spectrum after hard clipping:




 

To have ultrasonic content folding on sensitive 3000-4000 Hz band, you need frequencies as high as 40-41 kHz. Content just above Nyquist folds on the frequency band where hearing in insensitive ( > 15 kHz).


----------



## 71 dB




----------



## 71 dB




----------



## bigshot

Inaudible is inaudible. It doesn't matter. The balance in the core frequencies is MUCH more important than the balance in the extremes. Just about all of us listen to band limited music every single day of our lives and we don't even think about it. It only bothers those with OCD when they fixate on "sound they might be missing out on". They double and triple down on their obsession, extending their mania further and further out into the aether of sound that even bats can't hear.

Some people's thought processes are shaped like a pretzel. It's not their fault. They were born that way.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Inaudible is inaudible. It doesn't matter. The balance in the core frequencies is MUCH more important than the balance in the extremes. Just about all of us listen to band limited music every single day of our lives and we don't even think about it. It only bothers those with OCD when they fixate on "sound they might be missing out on". They double and triple down on their obsession, extending their mania further and further out into the aether of sound that even bats can't hear.
> 
> Some people's thought processes are shaped like a pretzel. It's not their fault. They were born that way.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Inaudible is inaudible. It doesn't matter. The balance in the core frequencies is MUCH more important than the balance in the extremes. Just about all of us listen to band limited music every single day of our lives and we don't even think about it. It only bothers those with OCD when they fixate on "sound they might be missing out on". They double and triple down on their obsession, extending their mania further and further out into the aether of sound that even bats can't hear.
> 
> Some people's thought processes are shaped like a pretzel. It's not their fault. They were born that way.



What matters is one thing and what is possible is another. It's not that hard to make CDs with almost flat response up to 20 kHz so why not do it even if most people don't hear above 17 kHz anyway? Since the _de facto_ sampling rate in digital audio is 44.1 kHz, why not use it to it's full potential? Even if most people wouldn't notice if we didn't.


----------



## bigshot

CDs are already overkill. It’s a perfect medium.


----------



## KeithEmo (Feb 7, 2019)

The interesting thing is that I would actually agree with your final statement.
_HOWEVER_, we seem to differ widely in our interpretation of what that means in various contexts.

For example, lets agree that "it's widely agreed that human hearing extends from 20 Hz to 20 kHz".
And, in any other context, when we reproduce something, if we have the option, we use equipment that is significantly _BETTER_ than necessary, to provide a substantial safety margin.
As an engineer, I wouldn't dream of measuring a signal that ranges from 20 Hz to 20 kHz using test equipment whose range is limited to exactly that range.
And. likewise, the lanes on most highways are quite a bit wider than the wheel base on an average automobile.
Yet you seem to think that we should strive to use equipment and formats that are just as close as we can to the minimum necessary to get the job done.

And, assuming we start with a nice simple linear PCM digital audio signal...
I think we should simply leave it alone... or reproduce it exactly...
Yet you seem to think we should subject it to lossy compression.
You can't possibly be suggesting that the processes involved in lossy compression are not "as complex as the shape of a pretzel".
(As compared to the basic function of encoding lossless data - "measure the value every time the clock ticks and write it down".)
Yet, in that case, you seem to think all that pretzel-like processing is well justified, even though it does nothing to improve the sound quality, but merely saves a little space.

As an engineer, I would suggest that the _SIMPLEST_ way to reliably record audio in the range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz is to record it at 24/96k PCM and then leave it alone...
Doing it that way requires no complicated encoding and decoding, and offers plenty of safety margin that we needn't worry about how close we're getting to any audible limits...
(Yet, when push comes to shove, you're the one who seems to be advocating all sorts of complex processing, just so we can squeeze a tiny bit closer to the absolute limits.)



bigshot said:


> Inaudible is inaudible. It doesn't matter. The balance in the core frequencies is MUCH more important than the balance in the extremes. Just about all of us listen to band limited music every single day of our lives and we don't even think about it. It only bothers those with OCD when they fixate on "sound they might be missing out on". They double and triple down on their obsession, extending their mania further and further out into the aether of sound that even bats can't hear.
> 
> Some people's thought processes are shaped like a pretzel. It's not their fault. They were born that way.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 7, 2019)

My comment on people's thought processes was a reference to my theory that internet forums sometimes attract people who have cognitive and socialization problems that make it difficult for them to communicate with others in real life. It's easy to concoct an idealized false online persona and maintain it in an internet forum through the written word. It isn't possible to do that face to face. It might be their way of escaping their own real world limitations. I try not to hold it against people in forums if they behave like an armchair expert in subjects they really don't understand. There might be reasons for it. It can try one's patience though.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> CDs are already overkill. It’s a perfect medium.


grrr.


----------



## analogsurviver (Feb 8, 2019)

bigshot said:


> CDs are already overkill. It’s a perfect medium.



Since you did express preference to surround speaker listening - since when CD allows for more than 2 channels ?

Analog record can do that - various systems for quadrophonic sound had different measure of success in both technical and marketing aspects - and most of the best quadrophonic recordings first issued as analog records were among the first to appear on the SACD - which is nothing else but DSD64 packed in extra anti copy protection on a disc - and which allows for 5.1 sound.

Alone from this point of view is CD not only imperfect, but medium with limited functionality.


----------



## analogsurviver (Feb 8, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> Is the audience sitting beside the musicians?  Of course not, thus the maximum instrument SPL levels being used as deflection don’t represent the SPL levels of the recording and it’s repoduction.  If the recording is done with full volume clapping at 6” from the mic, I wouldn’t be interested  in hearing it.



To clarify this beyond any shadow of a doubt - and to stop any further fishing in muddy waters on your part:

1.) No the audience is not sitting beside the musicians. Neither do I when recording binaural from the BEST POSSIBLE SEAT WITHIN ANY GIVEN VENUE - but, of course, that spot IS within the space normally allocated for the audience. I may extend this beyond the place/space normally allocated for the audience in catholic churches; by obtaining permission for using the chair in the middle of the isle, since otherwise one is too far left or right to cover any "balanced centre"- or, if "balanced centre" is achieved by seating in benches far away from the altar, one is - simply - too far away and capturing way too much reverberation of the church.

2. I cerainly DO have binaural recordings from within the orchestra/besides musicians - for all principal sections. That sealed the question regarding SQ if you ask a musician/member of the orchestra.

YOU DON'T - it does not matter - in the SLIGHTEST !!!

Simply because what a musician on stage hears is million light years removed from what AUDIENCE can experience during the concert.

Much of the above also holds true for the solo instruments. I am the last recording engineer in the world, if you are a musician playing <insert any instrument here> and you would like to have a recording that would bear as close resemblance to what YOU hear while playing it.

Gregorio and the likes of his ilk are the last to hire if you would like to have your recording as the AUDIENCE gets to hear it live.

It is a matter of conscious choice and awareness -  and has absolutely nothing to do with me - according to gregorio - being an amateur. If he calls me amateur one single more time, he will get a response he will be not able to forget for all of his living days.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> _[1] HOWEVER_, we seem to differ widely in our interpretation of what that means in various contexts.
> [1a] For example, lets agree that "it's widely agreed that human hearing extends from 20 Hz to 20 kHz".
> [1b] Yet you seem to think that we should strive to use equipment and formats that are just as close as we can to the minimum necessary to get the job done.
> [2] As an engineer, I would suggest that the _SIMPLEST_ way to reliably record audio in the range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz is to record it at 24/96k PCM and then leave it alone...



1. EXACTLY!! Case in point:
1a. Why would we agree that? In the "context" of exceptionally good young ears + very high SPLs and single test tones, I would agree with that BUT, how many of us have exceptionally good young ears and only listen to single tone test signals at very high SPLs? Your "various contexts" are NOT various contexts, it is a single context which is INAPPLICABLE to everyone when listening to music!
1b. That's an absurd statement. With musical content and human hearing, 20kHz is NOT "the minimum necessary", it's already beyond the maximum necessary!!!

2. Clearly you're not a music engineer and your suggestion is nonsense: Firstly because the simplest way to reliably record audio in the range of 20Hz to 20kHz is to limit the recording to 20Hz-20kHz + a margin for a filter (baring in mind 20kHz is already overkill) and Secondly, again we're not talking about test signals but consumers listening to commercial music recordings and commercial music is virtually never just recorded and then "left alone"!



analogsurviver said:


> [1] To clarify this beyond any shadow of a doubt - and to stop any further fishing in muddy waters on your part:
> [2] No the audience is not sitting beside the musicians. Neither do I when recording binaural from the BEST POSSIBLE SEAT WITHIN ANY GIVEN VENUE
> [3] Simply because what a musician on stage hears is million light years removed from what AUDIENCE can experience during the concert.



1. Huh? You're the one muddying the waters and contradicting yourself!!

Points 2 and 3 are correct, so WHY are you quoting SPLs and frequency responses which CAN ONLY EXIST when sitting within a few inches/feet of a musician? Furthermore, if (as you falsely claim) 120dB dynamic range is required, how is vinyl superior to CD when ACCORDING TO YOU even with test signals and under laboratory conditions an LP is only capable of about 100dB (and in the real world of consumer music LPs about 50dB dynamic range is the practical limit), while CD is capable of 120dB dynamic range (both under lab conditions and on a consumer CDs)?

How does not only contradicting the facts but even contradicting your own assertions "_clarify this beyond any shadow of a doubt_"? It couldn't be less clear or more doubtful if you tried!! It really is laughable.

G


----------



## 71 dB (Feb 8, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> *Andreas Vollenweider* for example has released Dolby Surround albums on CD.


----------



## old tech (Feb 8, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Since you did express preference to surround speaker listening - since when CD allows for more than 2 channels ?



Redbook does provide for quadraphonic on CDs.  AFAIK, it has never been used, mainly because 5.1 shortly arrived on the scene with digital video, video audio discs and later SACDs.



analogsurviver said:


> Analog record can do that - various systems for quadrophonic sound had different measure of success in both technical and marketing aspects - and most of the best quadrophonic recordings first issued as analog records were among the first to appear on the SACD - which is nothing else but DSD64 packed in extra anti copy protection on a disc - and which allows for 5.1 sound.



Come on, digital was the greatest thing that ever happened to multichannel playback.  Quadraphonic LPs were pathetic and neither of the three incompatible and poorly implemented systems were successful.  It never really caught on in the 70s and totally died out by the 80s.  I had a SQ quadraphonic LP system in the late 70s and it was fun for a while, but the novelty wears off (a bit like 3D tv, but much worse, like a 3D tv if it were shoe-horned into deficient technology that was not up to the task) and for SQ at least, a few plays of the record and the carrier signal wears out. Not only was playback poor, there was too much analog noise and cross talk, echoing, footsteps, you name it and it had it!.

Analog reel to reel did a better job but was still relatively poor as cross-talk and SNR suffered from less tape width per channel. The only positive about quadraphonic LPs is it showed the potential for multi-channel sound, but it had to wait for digital formats to realise its potential for realism and 5.1.  No-one is really interested in quadraphonic anymore, given it takes 5.1 to give surround sound realism, but at least we can listen to some of the old quadraphonic recordings on the vastly superior SACD compared to the crappy quadraphonic LPs.



analogsurviver said:


> Alone from this point of view is CD not only imperfect, but medium with limited functionality.



Now lets see, it beats any analog music format for transparency, particularly the highly compromised LP.  Anyone that still wants LPs for quadraphonic sound is a low fidelity tragic, and a glutton for punishment when it comes to inconvenience.

https://kenrockwell.com/audio/why-cds-sound-great.htm


----------



## bigshot (Feb 8, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Since you did express preference to surround speaker listening - since when CD allows for more than 2 channels .



SACD or DVD or Blu-Ray are perfect for that. I haven't found quad LPs or multichannel matrixed CDs to be perfect at all... quite the opposite in fact!

I don't believe that AS has any binaural recordings. I don't think he has a turntable either. I think he speaks entirely out of his head and google searches.


----------



## Don Hills

castleofargh said:


> I'd expect that simply from the difference in ambient noise at the live event. our impression of how loud is the music once in quiet room would naturally be affected. do you think there are other reasons? with the premise that the listener tries to set his listening level to feel like the live event. otherwise there are many reasons why one would listen at a quieter level of course.



I recall the predominant theory it was to do with the different acoustic space dimensions. The smaller the room, the lower the actual SPL for the same perceived SPL. 
I'm still looking, the relevant archive is on an old machine which I will need to resurrect.


----------



## analogsurviver

Don Hills said:


> I recall the predominant theory it was to do with the different acoustic space dimensions. The smaller the room, the lower the actual SPL for the same perceived SPL.
> I'm still looking, the relevant archive is on an old machine which I will need to resurrect.



Correct. It has to do with the size of acoustic space environment. Which, at home, is usually MANY times smaller than the original recording venue.

The ONLY way to play back music while preserving all the dynamic range AND spatial cues is binaural reproduced over EARSPEAKERS - not headphones.

Binaural suffers on the recording side of things; it works best outdoors - absolutely no adjacent boundaries and consequent echoes from the walls, etc -  followed by a large venue - and can be absolutely atrocious sounding in small highly reverberant rooms without much or any acoustic treatment.

Catch is that one has to know that - and use that knowledge accordingly. Binaural is NOT the answer or solution to all the real world recording scenarios,


----------



## gregorio (Feb 9, 2019)

Don Hills said:


> I recall the predominant theory it was to do with the different acoustic space dimensions. The smaller the room, the lower the actual SPL for the same perceived SPL. I'm still looking, the relevant archive is on an old machine which I will need to resurrect.



Loudness is a complex thing, which involves a number of different and concurrent variables unrelated to the actual SPL. Most here are aware of the Equal Loudness Contours but this is only one of the variables, another of the variables is as you mention, room size (acoustic space dimensions). This has been well known for many decades and is most obviously demonstrated/exhibited in the film sound world. Sound for film is edited and designed in relatively small rooms, typically bedroom or small living room sized rooms but it is intended for playback in relatively large rooms (cinemas) and therefore mixed in "mix stages" that are also cinema sized. Cinema sound has a specified/defined SPL calibration at the listening position: 85dBSPL = -20dBFS. However, that ONLY applies to cinemas and the similarly sized mix stages, it does NOT apply to the sound edit suites or sound design rooms where 85dBSPL = -20dBFS at the listening position sounds much louder, and therefore the translation of the edited content from edit suite to mix stage wouldn't work as intended with the same SPL calibration level. This difference in perceived loudness due to room size is not only known about but well quantified and has been defined for decades. Dolby explicitly specified this for film sound at least 30 years ago (to my knowledge) and probably more than 40 years ago: 85dBSPL = -20dBFS for cinemas and mix stages but 78dBSPL = -20dBFS for smaller rooms (edit suites and sound design rooms). These two significantly different SPL calibration levels result in roughly the same perceived loudness, although it should be mentioned that the 78dBSPL calibration level is variable depending on the exact size of the room. In practice it can be as low as 72dBSPL in very small edit suites or as much as 80dB or so in larger sound design rooms.

There's another very important variable as well. If I pose the question: "What will sound louder, a peak at 95dBSPL or a peak at 85dBSPL?" and eliminate the other variables (IE. Both peaks are the exact same recording of the same sound, listened to in exactly the same room, with exactly the same system and even the exact same listener), the obvious answer would be the 95dBSPL peak. However, that's not necessarily the case, the 85dB peak could sound louder because there's another variable, it also depends on what precedes the peak. If we precede the 95dB peak with several seconds of 90dB content and precede the 85dB peak with several seconds of 40dB content, even if the peak and content are exactly the same, the 85dB peak will sound louder. This is because the ear/brain perceives loudness as a relative quantity, the 95dB peak is only 5dB higher than the preceding content whereas the 85dB peak is 45dB higher. In other words, the contrast (or dynamic range) is itself a determinant of loudness. This fact has been well known about (and employed) by composers for over 200 years. It's what made Beethoven's 5th Symphony so shocking in it's day and is a fundamental tool employed in film sound (pretty much ubiquitously in horror films) for many decades. This variable applies to consumer music listening, a live symphony concert for example typically has a fairly high noise floor, despite a great deal of time and money spent on concert hall acoustics and sound isolation. We've got 90 odd musicians and many hundred (up to a few thousand) members of the audience, all of whom are moving and breathing (plus of course some HVAC to enable them to breath) and therefore a noise floor typically around 45dBSPL (in some cases it can be lower and in others higher). If we assume that in an ideal seat an audience member might receive a peak level of 100dB, that's a dynamic range of around 55dB. Let's say using HPs in their own home that the noise floor is 35dB, 55dB higher than that would be 90dBSPL and would be perceived as the same level as the live event because the dynamic range is the same, even though the peak level is 10dB lower. This is in fact why IEMs were invented in the first place, to allow performing (pop/rock) musicians to "monitor" at far lower levels, thereby not having to use stage monitor speakers at very high levels, which was potentially damaging to the musicians' hearing and often impacted the the main (audience) mix.

G


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] The ONLY way to play back music while preserving all the dynamic range AND spatial cues is binaural reproduced over EARSPEAKERS - not headphones.
> [2] Binaural suffers on the recording side of things; it works best outdoors - absolutely no adjacent boundaries and consequent echoes from the walls, etc -
> [2a] followed by a large venue - and can be absolutely atrocious sounding in small highly reverberant rooms without much or any acoustic treatment.
> [3] Catch is that one has to know that - [3a] and use that knowledge accordingly.
> [3c] Binaural is NOT the answer or solution to all the real world recording scenarios,



1. But why on earth would we want to preserve all the dynamic range and spatial cues??? The actual dynamic range at say a symphony concert can be very small, because an audience member will be a considerable distance from the orchestra but right in the middle of the audience and therefore the music will be quieter and the audience noise louder. In practice, the brain will concentrate on the music and reduce the audience noise, giving us the experience of a dynamic range which is significantly greater than what actually enters our ears. The same is true of room reverberation, the brain will concentrate on the music and effectively change the balance between direct and reflected sound (increase the direct sound/reduce the reflected sound). A competent recording engineer/music producer will try to create an idealised recording of the sound EXPERIENCED at a live performance, NOT the sound that actually existed at a particular seat in the audience. That is why competent recording engineers never use just a couple of mics at the seating position but numerous mics, most of which are very much closer to the orchestra than the audience (which increases the ratio of orchestra sound to audience noise and increases the direct sound relative to the reverberant sound).

2. Hang on, binaural best preserves "spatial cues" (which are largely defined by "consequent echoes") but "suffers on the recording side of things" and works best when there are no "consequent echoes". Extremely impressive self contradiction there!
2a. What large venues? Stadia and arenas for example are often a complete nightmare, with massive slap back echoes which present a very serious problem (both to the live sound engineers and a would be binaural recording). Classical symphony halls on the other hand, particularly the more modern ones, are very carefully designed to increase reverberation/reflections ("consequent echoes"), particularly in the lower freq band. Even old concert halls, both large and small, extensively use wooden panels and flooring specifically for this purpose (of making the venue more reverberant) and the best contemporary classical concert halls often incorporate specifically designed echo chambers/areas. Or, what about other common large music venues like churches and cathedrals? Massively thick stone walls, floors and ceilings and consequently, some of the most highly reverberant spaces ever made!

3. One has to know what, how to contradict one's self? 
3b. Which patently you are not! Because:
3c. Have you any idea what an (un-amplified) orchestra sounds like outdoors? So that rules out "outdoors" classical music recording in binaural (and most other types of music). Almost all large concert venues and many smaller ones must also be ruled out because they're highly reverberant and can/would "be absolutely atrocious". And the main reason we have recording studios in the first place is so that we can alter the "spatial cues" during recording and/or mixing, so that rules them out too. So what's left? When IS binaural "the answer or solution" and how do you "use that knowledge accordingly"? And, how does your statement that "binaural is NOT the answer or solution to all recording scenarios" reconcile with your first statement that binaural is "the ONLY way to playback music while preserving all the dynamic range and spatial cues"?

It's just utter nonsense analogsurviver, your own assertions don't even agree with your own assertions, let alone the actual facts!!!

G


----------



## GearMe

Stole this from the Schiit thread...electron microscope image of stylus on record, for the occasion of the Grammy Awards.

_NOW_ I get it! 

You can even see the better soundstage, warmer/fuller/richer mids, etc.


----------



## GearMe

Hmmm -- Deja Vu all over again...

https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=1&doc_id=1283449#


----------



## mbphotox

Well, given everything that goes along with Vinyl, I do find that it "sounds better".
May not be technically better, but there's much more involved with listening.

You put the LP on the player, carefully brush it, select the right speed and gently set the needle down, then raise the volume on the amp.
Listening to Vinyl is so much more intimate and therefore "feels" better.

I don't need an expensive player, cables, or amp, but they look great and that helps the "sound experience" immensely!




What I've been wondering, but cannot find the source anymore:
Some tube amps deliver significantly less power at higher impedance levels and vice versa.
If you use a 5W tube amp on a Focal Grande Utopia (impedance ranges from 2 to 16 ohms), you're bound to hear differences to a more powerful amp, because the SPL at different frequencies will be audibly different. (we're talking 3dB+ dips and rises in the curve)

Would this already be considered "clipping", because no sane person uses a 5W amp for such a hungry speaker?


----------



## castleofargh

mbphotox said:


> Well, given everything that goes along with Vinyl, I do find that it "sounds better".
> May not be technically better, but there's much more involved with listening.
> 
> You put the LP on the player, carefully brush it, select the right speed and gently set the needle down, then raise the volume on the amp.
> ...


one can enjoy vinyl playback and even prefer it to digital playback. nobody here claimed that it was wrong to have personal taste and to act on them. just like the love of ritual you mention is clearly a reality for many people(probably everybody TBH). being a listener is a passive hobby, just like we enjoy tweaking our playback chain and picking special stuff to contribute in some ways, we can enjoy being more involved thanks to vinyls. there is certainly nothing impossible in all that. 
what most of us oppose actively is claiming that the subjectively better felt by some people, means that vinyls have objectively higher fidelity. we reject that idea because many measurements clearly disprove it. but otherwise, several people in here who would never agree that vinyl has better fidelity than digital playback, own vinyls and enjoy them a great deal. there is no contradiction in that.



about speaker amps, you're right that some designs, or simply the impedance output can affect the frequency response by up to several dB sometimes. but power notions are mostly unrelated. ideally, we should always purchase the amp to go with our transducers and not the other way around. so it is assumed that our amp can supply X watt into a specific load and that X is the amount of watt you need to get as loud as you'll ever want to go on that system. beyond that, power isn't causing much on its own. if it does, it's only a sign that this specific amplifier isn't a good match for those specific transducers and your listening habits, and probably shouldn't have been purchased for that job in the first place. the only reason I wouldn't entirely blame the user in such a situation, is because the specs provided by manufacturers can sometimes be all over the place. but there is a simple fix for that too. if specs aren't clear about what is given and how it was measured, I suggest to go purchase gears that do provide proper specs and nomenclature. this too works in a loop, if we stopped purchasing gears with BS published specs, manufacturers would stop publishing BS specs to fool consumers. power problem pretty much solved ^_^.


----------



## KeithEmo

From your description you seem to be talking more about "the experience" than how vinyl actually sounds.

Actually, in most cases, the situation with the output power on tube amps is reversed from what you described.

Most solid state amps are what we call "load invariant" - which means that they deliver the same output voltage regardless of the load (within reason).
With amplifiers that follow this "rule", you will get more power into a 4 Ohm load than into an 8 Ohm load, with the same volume setting.
Because of this, most solid state amps are rated to deliver more power into low impedance loads.

In contrast, most tube amplifiers use output transformers to match the load impedance seen by their output devices to the impedance of the load.
(Power tubes work best into very high impedances, on the order of a few_ thousand _Ohms; the output transformer matches this to the 4 - 8 Ohm load presented by most modern speakers.)
However, most output transformers have separate output taps for specific speaker impedances, and most have at least a 4 Ohm tap and an 8 Ohm tap....
And, for MOST amplifiers that have multiple taps on their output transformer, their power output rating will be identical into each of those impedances.
(So, for example, a typical solid state amp may deliver 50 watts into 8 Ohms and 100 watts into 4 Ohms, while a typical tube amplifier will deliver the same 50 watts into either.)

Note that this applies to virtually all amplifiers designed to run speakers - but many headphone amplifiers exclude the expensive transformers.
(Headphones require relatively little power so getting a lot of power, or good efficieny, really doesn't matter with a typical headphone amp.)

"Clipping" refers to a very specific type of distortion commonly caused by overloading an amplifier.
The waveforms are actually "clipped off" and become flat on the top and bottom - because the amplifier cannot keep up with what it's being asked to do.
Clipping results in a rather distinctive - and unpleasant - sort of distorted sound.
You are certainly more likely to cause an amplifier to clip if the amplifier is under-powered and the speakers are inefficient - but you can avoid doing so by turning down the volume.
(In general, most amplifiers can actually "run" most speakers, as long as you don't ask them to deliver more power than they are capable of putting out...)



mbphotox said:


> Well, given everything that goes along with Vinyl, I do find that it "sounds better".
> May not be technically better, but there's much more involved with listening.
> 
> You put the LP on the player, carefully brush it, select the right speed and gently set the needle down, then raise the volume on the amp.
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> From your description you seem to be talking more about "the experience" than how vinyl actually sounds.
> 
> Actually, in most cases, the situation with the output power on tube amps is reversed from what you described.
> 
> ...



Although correct, the above is a form of generalization.

You have left one, but IMPORTANT form of amplifier - HSD OTL. HSD = Hollow State Devices =  tubes = valves = Rohren, 
OTL = output transfoermer less 

These amps are the best for driving the best transducers - electrostatics. Either headphones or speakers.

There are also special solid state amps for transformer coupled electrostatic speakers - which I nicknamed "welding apparatus". They MUST be stable well into sub 1 ohm impedance region - and heavily reactive one at that. The VERY last thing you want in such an amp is any form of current limitting - because, any of the schemes yet tried will bury the amp in sonical terms when driving a typical ES load.
These amps are capable of almost perfect doubling of output power/current into halvcing the impedance of the load - and would not self destruct when presented with a dead short.

That means a BIG amp - with big linear power supply and a VERY powerful output stage device(s) - on a hefty heat sink arrangement.

In real life, there is very little chance an amplifier will ALWAYS be running within its output capabilities - either voltage or current - unless it is a particularly high efficiency transducer at the end or the amp is not extremely big and therefore expensive. Tube amps clip less severely/more gracefully than do solid state amps in general - transfer function of a typical tube does not change drastically, whereas transistor is extremely linear - BUT only up to the limit, above which is a sharp cutoff that has as the consequence the most unpleasent sounding ( all measurable, of course ) harmonic spectrum clipping characteristics.

Many solid state amp designers have tried to ameliorate this FACT ( where tubes are, de facto, better than SS ) by trying to simulate at least the front end of a solid state amp to simulate tubes as much as possible.So, maligning tube designs as inferior to SS by default much practiced in this thread is simply - wrong. 

Above is not something "all amplifiers sound thew same" brigade is likely to love to hear - and although amp and load characteristics that do not require such extreme and therefore expensive measures are not rEquired definitely do exist, it is equally true that there are - at least as numerous - cases where an amp should pack under its cover every trick known to mankind in order to "survive" the WAY out of "normal" load conditions experienced in real life.


----------



## KeithEmo

As I said... most...

OTL tube amps are in a pretty small minority these days...
As are solid state amps with output transformers...
Although both do still exist.

I would, however, disagree about most amplifiers running within their output capabilities.
There are many solid state amps that are powerful enough that they usually remain within their intended operating range (unless you have very inefficient speakers or play your music very loudly).
The best way to avoid worrying about the overload characteristics of an amplifier is simply to use an amplifier that is powerful enough to remain within its linear operating range the vast majority of the time.
(I agree that most tube amps overload more gracefully than most solid state amps - but I would simply prefer not to hear an amplifier overloading at all.)

I also agree that driving electrostatic speakers is a special case..... 
However, I would point out that designing an amplifier to run them using solid state circuitry wouldn't be especially difficult today.
Solid state devices with the required voltage and current capabilities to do so are in fact readily available nowadays.
However, they tend to be expensive, and few people seem to be designing electrostatic speaker amps these days.
(If you're designing the amplifier from scratch it obviously makes sense to avoid the transformer and drive the panels directly.)



analogsurviver said:


> Although correct, the above is a form of generalization.
> 
> You have left one, but IMPORTANT form of amplifier - HSD OTL. HSD = Hollow State Devices =  tubes = valves = Rohren,
> OTL = output transfoermer less
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Feb 21, 2019)

Not having to go through the ritual of playing a record is one of the best things about my music server. I don’t have to worry about accidentally damaging my records, and I can jump from one song to another without having to dig through stacks. It brings me closer to the music.

The best tube amps sound just as accurate as typical solid state amps.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely don't miss "the ritual" of playing vinyl.



bigshot said:


> Not having to go through the ritual of playing a record is one of the best things about my music server. I don’t have to worry about accidentally damaging my records, and I can jump from one song to another without having to dig through stacks. It brings me closer to the music.
> 
> The best tube amps sound just as accurate as typical solid state amps.


----------



## castleofargh

I somehow do. it's strange because I would never consider getting myself a turntable again, but I had rituals that included putting on a vinyl and several other stuff, that would put me in a glorious mood when I'd perform them. like breakfast on a weekend would never feel as good without putting on Stevie Wonder or Marvin Gaye on the old turntable, then proceed to make freshly pressed orange juice, boiled egg and soldiers and go enjoy the last few song while looking at the mountains(outside if the weather allowed it). 110% ritual, and somehow pressing play on my playlist just doesn't feel the same(at that moment @castleofargh knew he had become an old fart. but somehow it felt fine).


----------



## bigshot

I have a Thorens transcription table, and it doesn't have auto return/stop. Whenever I would try to do something like make breakfast, my hands would be covered with pancake batter or maple syrup whenever the record reached the end of the side and it would sit there clicking in the inner groove until I got finished cooking.


----------



## taffy2207 (Feb 21, 2019)

LP's were the excuse I had to let girls into my bedroom with my Foster Father.  "But she doesn't have a Record Player".

I used to love the ritual. Tearing off the Cellophane, blowing on the disc, reading the sleevenotes etc.

I don't miss the sound, but to this day, hearing certain Albums evoke memories of when I bought the LP, the first time I heard it or the rituals involved.

Edit I had a Dual CS 505 for the curious.


----------



## KeithEmo

I used to get a little bit of that feeling....

But I would also have to worry about turning down the volume, and not putting the needle down too hard, and not accidentally sliding the stylus across the record, and whether there would be any new ticks or scratches that weren't there the last time I played it and, if I heard a tick, whether that speck of dust had just become permanently embedded in the surface of the vinyl... and we won't even discuss whether the copy of the album I had was a good one, or whether copies from earlier or later in the pressing run were better, and whether I'd gotten the new vinyl or some of the recycled scraps that sometimes had more surface noise...  

I much prefer a nice reliable digital file, which I can count on to be exactly the same as every other copy, and which I can back up just in case, and run a checksum on to confirm that it really is exactly the same as it was yesterday.

I agree it doesn't feel the same...
When I click "play" I don't hold my breath for the first few minutes waiting for a new tick or pop that wasn't there last time...



castleofargh said:


> I somehow do. it's strange because I would never consider getting myself a turntable again, but I had rituals that included putting on a vinyl and several other stuff, that would put me in a glorious mood when I'd perform them. like breakfast on a weekend would never feel as good without putting on Stevie Wonder or Marvin Gaye on the old turntable, then proceed to make freshly pressed orange juice, boiled egg and soldiers and go enjoy the last few song while looking at the mountains(outside if the weather allowed it). 110% ritual, and somehow pressing play on my playlist just doesn't feel the same(at that moment @castleofargh knew he had become an old fart. but somehow it felt fine).


----------



## Phronesis

castleofargh said:


> I somehow do. it's strange because I would never consider getting myself a turntable again, but I had rituals that included putting on a vinyl and several other stuff, that would put me in a glorious mood when I'd perform them. like breakfast on a weekend would never feel as good without putting on Stevie Wonder or Marvin Gaye on the old turntable, then proceed to make freshly pressed orange juice, boiled egg and soldiers and go enjoy the last few song while looking at the mountains(outside if the weather allowed it). 110% ritual, and somehow pressing play on my playlist just doesn't feel the same(at that moment @castleofargh knew he had become an old fart. but somehow it felt fine).



Similar for me.  Spotify and Tidal have enormously increased my access to music, but I do sort of miss the ritual involved in playing LPs (the ritual of playing CDs never felt on par with playing big LPs).  But I had those LP experiences when I was a younger and different person living in a different time, so my judgment on this could be unreliable because I'm comparing recent experiences with memories colored by a strong sense of nostalgia.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I have a Thorens transcription table, and it doesn't have auto return/stop. Whenever I would try to do something like make breakfast, my hands would be covered with pancake batter or maple syrup whenever the record reached the end of the side and it would sit there clicking in the inner groove until I got finished cooking.



The solution for pancake loving analog record listener using Thorens turntables is - at least - by now 4 decades old. Sold by - you've guessed it - Thorens itself ; at least back in the day. It can be still bought today - as NEW  equipment - under Q-Up name : http://www.thequp.com/ https://www.amazon.com/Q-UP-The-Tonearm-Lifter/dp/B008OAMD26

I managed to procure the original Thorens badged unit - used, from ebay - about half or so year ago, in a bunch of other dedicated analog record playback accessories.. 

There is a high end version device made for the same purpose today - called Little Fwend http://www.littlefwend.com/  It unfortunately definitely belongs to the new wave of recent-ish money grabbing analog accessory wave - priced to appeal to the (analog) audio snob.

However, IF one is skilled enough, it is possible to get a second hand vintage TT with specs ( and actual real life performance... ) that dwarf Thorens' to begin with; followed by integrated not only lift, but auto return to boot - for a really experienced buyer for less than the new Q-Up is going to set one back.

THE User Friendly Award in TTs ? Remote controlled programmable ( vintage ) TT - it can be programmed just as a CD player, in any sequence of choice, in case pictured up to 8 tracks : 



It can be made to repeat the chosen sequence indefinitely - or simply return to start position once the normal playback or any chosen sequence is finished.. The old butcher's method of wrapping the calculator ( in this case remote control ) in a transparent plastic bag works great for cooking, too. 

Needless to say, such a TT is also friendly to The Lady ( and Children ) of the House - if they learn to handle record properly, there is next to none possibilities to damage the record. or stylus. The convenience stops at the requirement to manually change the record sides; going one step further ( allowing for playback of BOTH record sides without the requirement to manually change the record sides ) unfortunately as a consequence sacrifices proper record support and thus ultimate SQ obtainable from record. But - it did exist back in the day.


----------



## Steve999 (Feb 21, 2019)

Phronesis said:


> Similar for me.  Spotify and Tidal have enormously increased my access to music, but I do sort of miss the ritual involved in playing LPs (the ritual of playing CDs never felt on par with playing big LPs).  But I had those LP experiences when I was a younger and different person living in a different time, so my judgment on this could be unreliable because I'm comparing recent experiences with memories colored by a strong sense of nostalgia.



I get the record player and LPs out for my kids once in a while, or if they get to like an album I have an LP of, I’ll just get the LP out for them to look at the record and the jacket and they like that. They love the experience of watching the record on the turntable and hearing the music by putting their ear down by the stylus if I have the volume all the way down. And they are fascinated to think that what they hear on my stereo is those vibrations getting amplified. It’s conceptually much more accessible I think, much more visceral, more mechanically obvious and immediately interesting what’s going on. Of course the sound is not as good and it’s not as convenient as compared to streaming or CDs but I can see from my kids it is a gratifying experience in a way that is not just nostalgia.

Edit: I have a very old JVC QL-A7 TT-71 direct drive turntable that still gets the job done, what, 40 years later? That’s pretty cool.

I currently mostly use Spotify and Apple Music. One Spotify account subscription will accommodate a family of 5 (or up to 6) so each has their own User ID access but we can share music and see what each other is listening to.

As far as song and album info goes to substitute tor the old LP jacket I just Google (or Duck Duck Go!) if I really like something—there is an endless wealth of information on many recordings and artists. Though the net is more comprehensive and informative it’s still somehow not the same as the physical album cover and sleeve. I still have all of my old LPs, a small collection I guess, something substantially less than 200.

For the most part I have ripped all of my LPs where I couldn’t get the CD and it’s not on a streaming service. Slowly I’ll come across a Japanese or European issue of the corresponding CD or it will show up on Spotify or Apple Music, making fewer and fewer of those LP rips really invaluable.


----------



## bfreedma

What I miss from vinyl is the large format album art and all of the information typically printed on the back/inside of the sleeve.

Having recently adopted Roon as a front end to my local collection and Tidal, I have access to more album and artist info than before.  The convenience, combined with content availability across platforms is, at least for me, a terrific solution.


----------



## bigshot

I find that the info scraping on Plex more than makes up for the lack of album covers.


----------



## AKGForever

My fond memories of turntables were visual as well as aural.  I remember, at night, sitting in the dark, with headphones on and watching the strobe light on the turntable flicker.  It was a Technics SL-D2 and while fairly accurate, the lines would slightly wander back and forth.  You don’t get the same effect watching the numbers climb on a CD player.

After digging the Technics out of storage after almost 20 years, I find having to flip a record every twenty or so minutes, a major pain in the ass.  I ripped the records that never made it onto CD or MP3/AAC into digital files before putting the turntable back out of service.


----------



## GearMe (Feb 21, 2019)

TT's...ugh!

Making sure you installed the arm, then the cartridge correctly...

Is the cartridge the optimal one for the arm?  

What about the MC preamp for the cartridge?...Is MC really better than MM?  Is everything set up/done just right...VTA...Azimuth...Anti-skate...Anti-static? 

Not to mention changing the side every 20 minutes...blech 

I had some nice manual turntables over the years (Thorens, Linn, Luxman, Technics, etc.) with a variety of arms (SME, Grace, etc.) and cartridges (Decca, Denon, Dynavector, Drado)...can you say PITA?

*Couldn't run fast enough to CD's when they came out*

Today...having music on a server/pc/phone is even better!

My 'turntable' for the gym/running/walks (below)
$99 with very nice sound through my iems







TBH...the main reason I had a nice cassette deck and a reel-to-reel was to avoid some of the repetitive hassles of TT's


----------



## Glmoneydawg

GearMe said:


> TT's...ugh!
> 
> Making sure you installed the arm, then the cartridge correctly...
> 
> ...


Lol...not willing to suffer for your hobby!!..blasphemous


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Feb 24, 2019)

What do you all think about this:

A customer where I work disagrees with me about no difference between $5.99 Radio Shack RCA interconnects and $599.99 boutique ones.

He described a listening demo he attended some twenty years ago.

Setting:  A gentleman's living room where my customer and a half dozen others were gathered to listen to the demonstration.

Equipment:  My friend did not specify brands, but mentioned that the components - CD player, Tuner, Turntable, etc. - were connected to a pre-amp, which fed the final amp and speakers.

At first he thought the source was the tuner, and that the equipment owner simply switched out the Radio Shacks for the boutique RCAs while the radio was playing.

I immediately stated that invalidated the test, disconnecting the one set of cables and reconnecting the new ones while the source was playing.  Not to mention that even over a separate component tuner, the radio is the black hole of Calcutta of audio fidelity!  He shook his head.

He then stated that yes, he now remembered that a CD was playing, and that after the owner switched the cables, the difference in the sound was, to use his words, "day vs night".

I told him of course the difference was 'day and night' - he listened to the first verse, or movement, when the Radio Shacks were connected, then a silence of probably about 2-3 minutes to switch out cables, - then back to what was probably the next verse or movement!   If not, the next song altogether.  He still insisted in this 'day vs. night' difference.  I mentioned expectation bias to him, but he stood his ground.

I then described a proper A/B switch test set up, or at least restarting the same music CD track after the cable swap.  I also asked him if he saw the owner touch ANYTHING at all on the front of the equipment - the volume, the tone controls, any buttons, etc. - he said 'no'.

We concluded that topic by my saying that I wasn't there, so I remained skeptical - sceptical? Skeptikal?(I hate that fecking word!).  But he said, twenty years later, and he recalls the difference as though he had attended this demonstration just a day before our talking about it.  I insisted we talk about something else at that point.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 24, 2019)

I've told this story before, but... I once went to a high end audio store to audition speakers. I had a yellow pad and I intended to switch through every set of speakers in the house without looking at names and prices, just the letters that they were assigned on the switcher. A salesman insisted on helping me, so I sat down with my pad and called out letters for him to set it to. He had his back to the equipment and his hands were behind his back like a waiter waiting to serve. I was having him switch between two speakers and when he switched back, suddenly it sounded different. I decided I'd come back to those and move on to another pair. When I asked him to switch back to the one I was confused about, I noticed his shoulder twitch a little as he stood there with his hands behind his back. I asked him to step aside a second and the amp was behind him and the bass had been moved off the center detent. I told him that it would take me all day to make a decision if he kept tweaking the tone controls behind his back like that, and he got all huffy and stomped out of the listening room.

I don't trust any listening test conducted by someone who is trying to sell you something.

Also, auditory memory is VERY short... less than 5 or 10 seconds. I'm sure while the guy was swapping cables he was talking about how good this next cable was going to sound, planting the bias for people to judge with. Line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind testing with multiple tests to verify the odds. That is how a listening test should be conducted. But I wouldn't expect that at the audiophile equivalent of a tupperware party. You can tell the guy that his friend that threw the party probably got a percentage of the sales that evening. It's always good to know that your friends are trying to sell you snake oil too.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Feb 24, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I've told this story before, but... I once went to a high end audio store to audition speakers. I had a yellow pad and I intended to switch through every set of speakers in the house without looking at names and prices, just the letters that they were assigned on the switcher. A salesman insisted on helping me, so I sat down with my pad and called out letters for him to set it to. He had his back to the equipment and his hands were behind his back like a waiter waiting to serve. I was having him switch between two speakers and when he switched back, suddenly it sounded different. I decided I'd come back to those and move on to another pair. When I asked him to switch back to the one I was confused about, I noticed his shoulder twitch a little as he stood there with his hands behind his back. I asked him to step aside a second and the amp was behind him and the bass had been moved off the center detent. I told him that it would take me all day to make a decision if he kept tweaking the tone controls behind his back like that, and he got all huffy and stomped out of the listening room.
> 
> I don't trust any listening test conducted by someone who is trying to sell you something.
> 
> Also, auditory memory is VERY short... less than 5 or 10 seconds. I'm sure while the guy was swapping cables he was talking about how good this next cable was going to sound, planting the bias for people to judge with. Line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind testing with multiple tests to verify the odds. That is how a listening test should be conducted. But I wouldn't expect that at the audiophile equivalent of a tupperware party. You can tell the guy that his friend that threw the party probably got a percentage of the sales that evening. It's always good to know that your friends are trying to sell you snake oil too.



It might have been just a friend showing off their new interconnects that they mortgaged their house to pay for, and not a typical pots n pans cooking demo type thing at all.

I tried explaining to Will what I suspected he might have heard - and pereceived - as differences in the sounds of the two pairs of RCAs.  Including a lot of what you brought up.  I changed the topic of conversation when it became clear he wasn't buying what I - and by extension you - was saying.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Feb 25, 2019)

these stories might be a little more palatable without descriptions like night and day ect....been a long time and a few dollars since i've heard night and day differences in the electronics domain.


----------



## analogsurviver

Glmoneydawg said:


> these stories might be a little more palatable without descriptions like night and day ect....been a long time and a few dollars since i've heard night and day differences in the electronics domain.



Well, I do know it is a fringe case - but VERY real in actual audio life.

Imagine driving ANY full range electrostatics - with the exception of Quad ESL-63 ( it is, electrically speaking, a LC transmission line, finally terminated in resistance - not neaerly as impossible load as most normal pure capacitance ESLs ) and its later variants. Sooner or later, the purely capacitive load, most normally coupled trough a step up transformer, will reach - if not actually zero impedance, then certainly a value most amplifiers are no longer capable of driving correctly. Typically, that would be 1 ohm and lower ( highly reactive at that ... ) in the upper audible range - give or take an ohm or few kHz either way , depending on the actual speaker.

There are behemoth amplifiers in multi hundred watts per channel range that - fall apart like broken glass in such a load. It is either complete silence (best), some  very low volume level attainable before the protection cuts everything off ( worse) or some heavy distorted unlistenable screeching, too limited in volume ( the worst ). 

I have found one amp which - by specs and ratings - should NOT be suitable for driving ESLs - yet, in practice, it IS. It is the 75 w/ch into 8 ohms Technics - either as power amp SE-9060 or in integrated amp livery, as SU-8080 . The circuit is the same, differences are in the power supply - and, as it is often with Technics, the supply in integrated is actually better than in separate power amp.

Now - any of the descriptions above vs Technics ( that can play cleanly, but, with 75W/ch, obviously can not drive typical 85 (usually even below ) dB/W/m sensitivity speakers to ear splitting levels.

That IS night and day difference.

There are , of course, better amps for the ESLs. But, they ARE few and far in between. Acoustat TNT-200 ( DO check its schematics - unlike anything else ... ) is the first relatively affordable amp that can drive ESLs to decent, but NOT ear splitting levels. For that, true "welding apparatus" amps are required, but that is $$$$. Gamut range of amps with a p and n pair single giant MOS-FET as output devices
are the real deal in this case - as well as probably is Sanders amp specifically designed for the ESLs. 

Similar occurs at the other extreme - moving coil phono cartridge preamps. Particularly those that have to amplify the cartridges with below 0.1mV/5cm/sec sensitivity.  Merely achieving an acceptable S/N ratio definitely is a challenge... - not to mention any further requirement. Here, the boys and men are told apart in few seconds...


----------



## castleofargh

audiophile anecdotes rely on too many assumptions that turn out to come from misunderstanding or ignorance. and the typically weak testing methods involved certainly don't help sorting things out accurately. 
I have experienced various issues, some really cheap RCAs where the plug was barely holding in place. or some with impedance specs way off compared to what was claimed(ironically that also happens with crazy expensive interconnect...). crap happens and I'm sure that on occasion with some gears, those stuff result in audible difference. I don't see the point of rejecting that possibility because it exists, no matter how unlikely. 
what I personally reject is a baseless correlation between money and sound quality offered by a RCA.  it's very possible that something is more expensive because it has better quality materials, because someone is paid to check each cable for defects, because they throw away stuff that would get a pass for another brand... all those can be legit reasons why we may overall have more confidence in a more expensive product. although I tend to purchase several cheap ones and throw away those that aren't to spec or have issues, the total cost is still cheaper than any "audiophile" cable.  so when the price is 10 or even a hundred times what a perfectly adequate RCA cable costs, they better be selling cables that regrow my hair. because that's the only way I will accept such prices for a RCA cable. but then again, that's just me with my very limited amount of money(and even fewer hairs left ^_^).


----------



## bigshot

TheSonicTruth said:


> It might have been just a friend showing off their new interconnects that they mortgaged their house to pay for, and not a typical pots n pans cooking demo type thing at all.



If that is the case, then you could just attribute the results to sloppy controls on the testing. The motive might either be self validation or commercial interest. Both of those are bias capable of skewing the results, especially when it's clear that they didn't address auditory memory or line level.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

analogsurviver said:


> Well, I do know it is a fringe case - but VERY real in actual audio life.
> 
> Imagine driving ANY full range electrostatics - with the exception of Quad ESL-63 ( it is, electrically speaking, a LC transmission line, finally terminated in resistance - not neaerly as impossible load as most normal pure capacitance ESLs ) and its later variants. Sooner or later, the purely capacitive load, most normally coupled trough a step up transformer, will reach - if not actually zero impedance, then certainly a value most amplifiers are no longer capable of driving correctly. Typically, that would be 1 ohm and lower ( highly reactive at that ... ) in the upper audible range - give or take an ohm or few kHz either way , depending on the actual speaker.
> 
> ...


Agree 100%....but we are bringing transducers into the equation now with speakers and cartridges.......too bad Acoustat is gone,the 2+2 electrostat was one of the first and best high end listening experiences i can remember....they did voices like few others.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 25, 2019)

If you charge a grand for a wire, all you have to do is post a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo and charts on your website and offer a 30 day no questions return policy. You sell a few and issue a bunch of polite refunds, and just wait for some poor sap to lose track of time and be stuck with it after the 30 days are up. Then the sap will go to work for you self validating their purchase on online forums to convince themselves that they spent their money wisely. Then you can cruise through the forums and copy paste the testimonials back to your website on the technical mumbo jumbo page. It becomes a self generating money machine.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> If you charge a grand for a wire, all you have to do is post a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo and charts on your website and offer a 30 day no questions return policy. You sell a few and issue a bunch of polite refunds, and just wait for some poor sap to lose track of time and be stuck with it after the 30 days are up. Then the sap will go to work for you self validating their purchase on online forums to convince themselves that they spent their money wisely. Then you can cruise through the forums and copy paste the testimonials back to your website on the technical mumbo jumbo page. It becomes a self generating money machine.


Saddly that might just work.


----------



## KeithEmo (Feb 26, 2019)

Of course it works - but I suspect you HUGELY underestimate how well it works.

You DO NOT have to wait "for someone to lose track of time and go past the return date".
There are major amounts of both "rationalization" and "self selection" going on.

First off, someone who is skeptical probably will not buy a $1k cable, even if they know they can return it.
Therefore, anybody who actually puts up the money alredy has SOME expectation that it will sound different.
Then, by ordering it, and laying out the money, they create a significant "investment" in being right.
Most of us would feel somewhat silly if, after expending all that effort, they didn't hear a difference.
In other words, while some members of THIS forum might expect to confirm that there is no difference....
MOST people who go to the trouble to try that $1k cable would expect and hope to hear a difference.
They've probably told their friends they were trying it, waited for it to arrive, and have positive expectations.
And, when it arries, they'll invite all their friends over to hear it...
And most of those friends will help validate their expectation...
Because most of them share those positive expectations...
(Like believers in conspiracy theories their skeptical friends probably won't be invited.)

If you doubt how well this works....
Check out websites and TV advertisements for "dial a psychic"...
And sales of "magnetic bracelets" and various obviously useless "holistic remedies"...
You might be amazed how many people consult "psychics" and "astrologers"...
And their so-called "science" is far less credible...

People who frequent those websites _believe _that those fancy cables have some merit...
They expect to hear a difference, tend to believe positive reviews, and tend NOT to believe negative reviews...
Certainly the marketing department helps to promote the process...
But human nature takes care of most of the process quite effectively anyway...


Glmoneydawg said:


> Saddly that might just work.


----------



## bigshot

so says a member of the trade


----------



## analogsurviver

Glmoneydawg said:


> Agree 100%....but we are bringing transducers into the equation now with speakers and cartridges.......too bad Acoustat is gone,the 2+2 electrostat was one of the first and best high end listening experiences i can remember....they did voices like few others.



Well, last time I checked, an audio system consists of many components in a chain - leave any of the links out and you are blessed with perfection - silence...  A perfect amplifier driving nothing has no purpose nor meaning  - yet, it DOES exist . And., believe me, it does have MANY siblings....

Acustat is stil with  (but not) US. Strickland first sold the company to Hafler, which got sold to Rockford, which sold Acustat to Italy - final  and current HQ being in China.
Currently, more than half of worlds' electrostatic speakers are being produced in China. Quad, Acustat ....maybe more. 

Put 2 and 2 together to figure out why I consider King's Audio King 3 full range electrostatic speaker the cream of the crop...in their third version of the King, they actually nailed it - better than anyone else. Here, the only exemption would be Beveridge - but, roughly speaking, the difference in price is about an order of magnitude.


----------



## RRod

Saw this blurb at the end of a booklet today:


> In order to reproduce the original waveform as closely as possible we use 24-bit, as it has a dynamic range that is up to 48 dB greater and up to 256 times the resolution of standard 16-bit recordings. Recording at the 44.1 kHz sample rate, the highest frequencies generated will be around 22 kHz. That is 2 kHz higher than can be heard by the typical human with excellent hearing. However, this recording uses the 192 kHz sample rate, which will translate into the potentially highest frequency of 98 kHz. The theory is that, even though we do not hear it, audio energy exists, and it has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear, the higher sample rate thereby reproducing a better sound.



I would have preferred if they started that last sentence with "The theory is that, since dead salmon…"


----------



## 71 dB

RRod said:


> Saw this blurb at the end of a booklet today:
> 
> I would have preferred if they started that last sentence with "The theory is that, since dead salmon…"



192/2 = 98? Really? Anyway, 98 % of people who read that will believe it all.


----------



## old tech

RRod said:


> Saw this blurb at the end of a booklet today:
> 
> 
> I would have preferred if they started that last sentence with "The theory is that, since dead salmon…"


If the blurb substituted theory with myth, then perhaps it would be closer to the mark.


----------



## bigshot

In audiophile circles a theory is just a myth with an advertising budget.


----------



## old tech

Getting back to the original intent of this thread, I posted this test in another but I think it sits better here.

A blind test comparison of sound cards.

The conclusion, the difference between a $2 Realtek ALC889 codec and other more expensive sound cards/DACs, including the $2,000 Benchmark DAC 2 is features, not sound quality.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html


----------



## KeithEmo

First off, I'll admit that I skimmed the article... although I did so pretty carefully... and I found a few things a bit odd.

Quite interestingly, listener A posted nearly random results.... except for the results with one particular track... (the Daft Punk track).
Oddly, on that one, he got 8/8 right on the first pass... (which seemed to surprise him - and which he seemed especially eager to credit to "probably being luck").
Then, when he repeated the test, he got more or less random results (which seemed to be what he expected).
(It kind of makes me wonder if he had an expectation bias not to hear any significant difference.)

There also didn't seem to be any detailed results for Listener B.

And, obviously, only two test subjects, two pairs of headphones, and a rather limited assortment of tracks, were included.

I would add it to the list of tests which seem to suggest that, if you expect to hear major obvious differences, you're likely to be disappointed....
However, at least to me, it falls far short of supporting an authoritative claim that "there are no audible differences"....
Therefore, their "conclusion" is really a pretty long reach from what the results would support....
(I should note that Tom's is a discussion forum for computer folks... They never claimed that their results were conclusive - and even suggested that more testing was indicated.)



old tech said:


> Getting back to the original intent of this thread, I posted this test in another but I think it sits better here.
> 
> A blind test comparison of sound cards.
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

At first, I thought the following ( found today on FB ) is an April Fool's  joke - but, no, Devious Machines   https://www.deviousmachines.com/ actually exists : 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devious Machines are proud to present a revolution in audiophile signal processing: the DFA-3000 High End Audio Interconnect Simulator.

For the very first time, you can reproduce the highly sought after sound of the very highest quality audio interconnects, previously only available to elite audiophiles: right in your DAW!

Our patented algorithm accurately models every nuance of the most highly sought after components, including quantum effects and electrostatic flux. Using this technique, we were able to accurately model the exact sound of cables costing from $10 right up to the very best products costing $10,000.

Features:

*) Accurate modelling of the highest quality cables and connectors
*) Adjustable "Detail" and "Depth" controls
*) Adjustable "Price" slider, to model cables from $10 to $10,000!
*) Superior detail
*) Unbelievable depth and focus
*) Enhanced power and forceful dynamics
*) Superior digital noise rejection

For a limited time, we're making this exclusive audiophile technology available to you for the unbelievable introductory price of £499 (RRP £1499)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Adjustable Price Slider " - hard one to top for any marketing type ...


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> At first, I thought the following ( found today on FB ) is an April Fool's  joke - but, no, Devious Machines   https://www.deviousmachines.com/ actually exists :
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Devious Machines are proud to present a revolution in audiophile signal processing: the DFA-3000 High End Audio Interconnect Simulator.
> 
> ...



Virtualized snake oil.  Cool...


----------



## old tech (Apr 1, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> First off, I'll admit that I skimmed the article... although I did so pretty carefully... and I found a few things a bit odd.
> 
> Quite interestingly, listener A posted nearly random results.... except for the results with one particular track... (the Daft Punk track).
> Oddly, on that one, he got 8/8 right on the first pass... (which seemed to surprise him - and which he seemed especially eager to credit to "probably being luck").
> ...



Yes, it certainly falls short of anything we could call definitive, but less so than most subjective reviews of these products where the person(s) reviewing them have no controls at all, just beliefs.

For all its shortcomings, the findings do have a basis in audio science unless someone is able to explain why a $2000 DAC should sound better, without resorting to myths and psuedoscience.

Consistent with my own beliefs, the authors have not concluded that these products should be avoided as they do have many benefits around functionallity, convenience, features and looks.  Rather, if the purpose is solely for high fidelity output there is little reason to invest more cash these days over modern codecs that come standard with PC motherboards.


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> At first, I thought the following ( found today on FB ) is an April Fool's  joke - but, no, Devious Machines   https://www.deviousmachines.com/ actually exists :
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Devious Machines are proud to present a revolution in audiophile signal processing: the DFA-3000 High End Audio Interconnect Simulator.
> 
> ...


Fools and their money and all that.


----------



## E1DA

I was surprised when noticed that this area of audio industry so much relaxed regarding official specs! Even the output power isn't specified sometimes, or specified at THD 10% that's really cheap cheat )) The same thing regarding the THD+N, I never see any conditions for that, only the number. In audio-amps area I always have to specify the THD+N and the power where it was measured, usually, it is 1/2 of max power, where is max power = power when THD+N reached 1%. If that power is not specified, it is cheating again because a vendor may found the particular power level where is THD+N is minimal. Sometimes I saw vendors simply copy/paste specs from parts used in that product. If somebody did see that nice recourse https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?reviews/  check this out, how often real measurements mismatch vs claimed specs ))


----------



## KeithEmo

The simple reality is that vendors who sell products are mostly free to post whatever specifications they like, in whatever form they like, as long as there is no _*legally-provable*_ "intent to mislead or defraud". Note that we have many laws concerning "truth in advertising" and "accuracy of product claims" - however, in most cases, they are based on product safety and liability. (For example, medicines and foods are most tightly regulated, because they have the greatest chance of causing harm if they are misrepresented.)

About the only specific legal regulations regarding how audio equipment is described occur in the original "FTC Requirements for Power Amplifier Specifications" document published at or about 1972 by the US Federal Trade Commission (who regulates interstate commerce of retail products). Recognizing that misrepresentation was very common in amplifier power measurements, and partly in response to lobbying from several "reputable audio companies", the Federal Trade Commission published a legal requirement for how the power rating on home audio amplifiers MUST be both measured and described in advertisements. This is the "standard" that is often referenced - and which refers to things like specifying power as "watts RMS continuous", including THD in the measurement, and providing a specific "pre-conditioning warmup period". Note that this paper is very limited, applies almost entirely to only "stereo audio equipment" (it's applicability to "multi-channel gear", "car audio equipment", and "pro audio gear" is extremely limited), and has been revised several times.

The reality is that, in most cases, the manufacturer is free to provide whatever specifications they prefer, in whatever form they prefer, as long as they don't "intentionally outright lie".


It's also worth noting that there are very few specifications that are actually "universally agreed upon" for audio gear.

For example, you may consider 10% THD to be totally unacceptable for an audiophile quality home audio amplifier, but it may be quiet acceptable for a stadium public address system, or for a low cost table radio or portable music player. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to suggest that it's up to the consumer to decide what specifications THEY consider to be important, and to simply refuse to purchase products whose manufacturers fail to provide those specs.


You also need to realize that published specifications are intended to sell products... usually to specific markets...

So, for example, let's say I had an amplifier that produced 72 watts at 0.01% THD, 92 watts at 0.1% THD, and 102 watts at 10% THD.
(These would be typical measurements for a medium-sized solid state amplifier.)

If I was attempting to market that amplifier to audiophiles, who strongly favor very low THD numbers...
  I would probably rate it conservatively at "65 watts at 0.01% THD".

However, if I was marketing it to typical consumers, and one of my main competitors had a similar model rated at "75 watts @ 0.1%"...
  I would rate mine as "90 watts at 0.1%" to emphasize the fact that it was more powerful than my competitor's product at the same rated distortion.

And, if I was selling it as an amplifier to be used with public address equipment in small theaters...
  I might rate it as "a 100 watt public address amplifier" - and only mention that rating was at 10% in the proverbial fine print.
  (Note that, for PA equipment, 10% THD is considered perfectly acceptable, but maximum available volume is important, and "100" is a nice round number.)

Note that NONE of those rating is incorrect, misleading, or "bad" - they just provide the information in the form preferred by the "target market".



E1DA said:


> I was surprised when noticed that this area of audio industry so much relaxed regarding official specs! Even the output power isn't specified sometimes, or specified at THD 10% that's really cheap cheat )) The same thing regarding the THD+N, I never see any conditions for that, only the number. In audio-amps area I always have to specify the THD+N and the power where it was measured, usually, it is 1/2 of max power, where is max power = power when THD+N reached 1%. If that power is not specified, it is cheating again because a vendor may found the particular power level where is THD+N is minimal. Sometimes I saw vendors simply copy/paste specs from parts used in that product. If somebody did see that nice recourse https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?reviews/  check this out, how often real measurements mismatch vs claimed specs ))


----------



## E1DA

So, the conclusion is?


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm not sure there is any conclusion to be had...
You can't really claim that anybody is cheating simply because they fail to provide the specs that you find useful - because there are no "official specs"...
Each manufacturer simply publishes the specs that they believe will impress the people they hope will buy their product.

And, yes, if they fail to meet the specs they claim, under the exact conditions they specify, then it might be reasonable to say they're misleading you.
However, if the manufacturer simply fails to provide complete information, you can't say they're "cheating" simply because you made incorrect assumptions.
(So, for example, if they describe it as "a 100 watt amplifier", but don't specify the THD, then it's your fault if you assume they measured it at 0.1% THD, but they used 10% THD.)



E1DA said:


> So, the conclusion is?


----------



## Steve999 (Apr 18, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> I'm not sure there is any conclusion to be had...
> You can't really claim that anybody is cheating simply because they fail to provide the specs that you find useful - because there are no "official specs"...
> Each manufacturer simply publishes the specs that they believe will impress the people they hope will buy their product.
> 
> ...



The conclusion that there is no conclusion to be had is demonstrably, inherently and deductively false because the conclusion that there is no conclusion to be had is a conclusion itself. There must be a conclusion other than that there is no conclusion to be had.


----------



## E1DA

I do the conclusion that smart users choose with reviewers help(like z-reviews, forums like this one etc), most advanced users probably will try the product in offline shops(that's become an exotic way nowadays) or analyze deep in-tech reviews from www.audiosciencereview.com. To other users price and color is enough )) BTW, for an ideal case, which should be quite close to any linear amp clipping behavior, THD 1% vs 10% makes +23% up power rating. Power amps is a much more challenging task vs HPA due to higher currents, voltages and powers(about 1000 times) involved. DAC and HPA area is really trivial technically, any cheating attempts there can show us just shamefully low engineering level.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Apr 18, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> The conclusion that there is no conclusion to be had is demonstrably, inherently and deductively false because the conclusion that there is no conclusion to be had is a conclusion itself. There must be a conclusion other than that there is no conclusion to be had.



This reply sooo reminds me of former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld's famous "known unknowns" response at a press conference some years ago! lol


----------



## GearMe

E1DA said:


> So, the conclusion is?


----------



## bigshot

"You can't know anything because you can't know everything." --A. Internet Genius


----------



## lavardin

For me the biggest scam are fuses... And power cords costing more than few hundred bucks


----------



## GearMe

lavardin said:


> For me the biggest scam are fuses... And power cords costing more than few hundred bucks



FTFY


----------



## gargani

GearMe said:


> FTFY


Pardon my ignorance, but, what does FTFY mean?


----------



## bigshot

Fixed that for you


----------



## gargani

bigshot said:


> Fixed that for you


Oh. Thank you.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

Fixed That For You.
Dang. Too slow.


----------



## gargani

StandsOnFeet said:


> Fixed That For You.
> Dang. Too slow.


Thanks, anyway.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> Fixed that for you



Why couldn't he have just typed it in full, like you did?


signed, 

-Acronym Hater!


----------



## gargani

TheSonicTruth said:


> Why couldn't he have just typed it in full, like you did?
> 
> 
> signed,
> ...


I understand the use of acronyms. It's easier and more efficient. However the writer or speaker is assuming that the reader or listener is familiar with the acronym.

Just as a humorous, aside. When I first encountered the acronym, " lol". I thought  it  meant " lots of love."

Imagine the difference in nuance; If you had a friend recovering from an illness and you sent them a card.
Then signed off : best wishes, lots of love (lol) as opposed to best wishes, laughing out loud (lol).


----------



## bigshot

TL : DR


----------



## GearMe

TheSonicTruth said:


> Why couldn't he have just typed it in full, like you did?
> 
> signed,
> 
> -Acronym Hater!




Dearest AH,

Noted...

LMAO,
GM


----------



## gargani

bigshot said:


> TL : DR


Oh boy, my acronym ignorance is showing.What does TL: DR mean.?


----------



## GearMe (Jun 3, 2019)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=TL;DR

(the snark level can get a little high in this thread...apologizing in advance for poking a bit of fun)


----------



## gargani

GearMe said:


> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=TL;DR
> 
> (the snark level can get a little high in this thread...apologizing in advance for poking a bit of fun)


That's okay, as in 


GearMe said:


> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=TL;DR
> 
> (the snark level can get a little high in this thread...apologizing in advance for poking a bit of fun)


That's okay, lol, as in laughing out loud.
I'm learning new acronyms.


----------



## Steve999

GearMe said:


>


----------



## GearMe

Two sides of the same coin!


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 4, 2019)

gargani said:


> Imagine the difference in nuance; If you had a friend recovering from an illness and you sent them a card.
> Then signed off : best wishes, lots of love (lol) as opposed to best wishes, laughing out loud (lol).



That's why you don't use acronyms in a greeting card.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

GearMe said:


> Dearest AH,
> 
> Noted...
> 
> ...



I call it 'MILLELLNIALESE'


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 4, 2019)

GearMe said:


> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=TL;DR
> 
> (the snark level can get a little high in this thread...apologizing in advance for poking a bit of fun)



Instead of all that crap, why don't you just tell uS?


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

TheSonicTruth said:


> Why couldn't he have just typed it in full, like you did?
> 
> 
> signed,
> ...



not to get too pedantic about all this, but the reason for using some of these acronyms isn't just as a time/energy saver.  There's also an element of humour or sarcasm involved which doesn't come through quite the same way if you actually type "fixed it for you" instead of "FIFY".  The acronym (along with many others on the net) has become a bit of a code word that has its own little subtext of intent. Most of these have been around for many years now and it's sort of amazing that there's still folks not familiar with them. They are a little language all their own really...


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 4, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> reason for using some of these acronyms isn't just as a time/energy saver.



Yeah, I know. They're a code that Milies use so nobody else knows what the heck they're talking to each other about.




Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> Most of these have been around for many years now and it's sort of amazing that there's still folks not familiar with them. They are a little language all their own really...



What might seem like "many years" to some is only a short time to someone approaching half a century's existence on Earth.

There's a "little language" I like to use in both speaking and writing, called English, really.


We can avoid confusion and wasting time in this manner having to explain to others what BTW, FIFY, AFAIK, IR2D2C3P0, LADYGAGA, etc. mean, by speling out more of these expression, so they can reach a wider age-range of audience.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> you actually type "fixed it for you" instead of "FIFY".



Someone born before 1980 might misinterpret that final "-FY" to mean something quite different, and more hostile, if you catch my drift.


Remove all doubt; SPELL it OUT


----------



## danadam

TheSonicTruth said:


> Instead of all that crap, why don't you just tell uS?


Give a man an answer and you'll have peace for 5 minutes. Teach a man to google and you'll have peace forever.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

danadam said:


> Give a man an answer and you'll have peace for 5 minutes. Teach a man to google and you'll have peace forever.



^^_This_^^ is the biggest vice of the internet age.  Before it came along, people were more willing to actually help one another understand something.

The internet has made us _lazy_. 

By just telling someone to "Google it", instead of attempting an answer, one might as well be telling them to 'F___ off'.    Need we spell that out?


----------



## StandsOnFeet

TheSonicTruth said:


> The internet has made us _lazy_.


Too lazy, evidently, to Google something.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 4, 2019)

StandsOnFeet said:


> Too lazy, evidently, to Google something.



^^The net has also made us less humane and less compassionate^^


----------



## bfreedma (Jun 4, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Yeah, I know. They're a code that Milies use so nobody else knows what the heck they're talking to each other about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm older than you and hardly a millennial.  Sometimes, you have to change with the times.  The internet and it's acronyms are here to stay, so fighting it is going to be a losing battle.

It's not exactly like acronyms are something new.  Every industry has them.  I'm old enough to remember how everyone complained about IT based acronyms.  Now they are commonplace (CPU, RAM, GB, TB...).

FWIW


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bfreedma said:


> It's not exactly like acronyms are something new. Every industry has them. I'm old enough to remember how everyone complained about IT based acronyms. Now they are commonplace (CPU, RAM, GB, TB...).



Abbreviating technical terms is different than abbreviating common human expressions(IE: 'FWIW' - For what it's worth, 'IKR' - I know, right?, or for Gods's sake can we even type out HAPPY BIRTHDAY instead of 'HBD'?).

It's nuanced, but do you see the difference now?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bfreedma said:


> I'm older than you and hardly a millennial. Sometimes, you have to change with the times



I guess I'm what you'd call a 'common-sense' conservative - liberal on the issues, but conservative about the basics:  If it ain't broke don't fix it, don't reinvent the wheel, plus I'm extremely plain-spoken.


----------



## bigshot

Every culture has its own lingo. The only people who get mad about that are the people who feel left out of the "reindeer games". But you become a part of a culture by embracing it, not demanding that it conform to you.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

TheSonicTruth said:


> Yeah, I know. They're a code that Milies use so nobody else knows what the heck they're talking to each other about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm 52


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> Every culture has its own lingo. The only people who get mad about that are the people who feel left out of the "reindeer games". But you become a part of a culture by embracing it, not demanding that it conform to you.



I don't feel left out of something that doesn't need reinventing: basic spoken or written communications.

And besides, what kind of "culture" talks like "DDJE? RRES! WW... XXKSKEKF.  WSKSSS?  QQ. "

What the f__ is THAT nonsense?


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> I don't feel left out of something that doesn't need reinventing: basic spoken or written communications.
> 
> And besides, what kind of "culture" talks like "DDJE? RRES! WW... XXKSKEKF.  WSKSSS?  QQ. "
> 
> What the f__ is THAT nonsense?




Adapt or be left behind.  Sorry, but that's the reality.

To me, this is a whole lot of "Hey you kids, get off my lawn"...


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> I guess I'm what you'd call a 'common-sense' conservative - liberal on the issues, but conservative about the basics:  If it ain't broke don't fix it, don't reinvent the wheel, plus I'm extremely plain-spoken.



The rotary wired phone worked perfectly fine, so who needed wireless land lines, let alone pagers, cell phones, smart phones...

It's not reinventing the wheel, it's improving it, or redesigning it to fit new requirements.  Expecting the world to conform to your desired stopping point of technology, language, etc. isn't going to happen, so everyone either has to adapt or be frustrated.  Being frustrated isn't worth it, because you're tilting at windmills.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bfreedma said:


> Adapt or be left behind.  Sorry, but that's the reality.
> 
> To me, this is a whole lot of "Hey you kids, get off my lawn"...



You'd be surprised the issues I'm quite liberal/progressive about.

But when it comes to this type of communication - texting, forums, usenet - I prefer the equivalent of hand-cranking car windows to pressing a button to open or shut them:  plain English.


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> You'd be surprised the issues I'm quite liberal/progressive about.
> 
> But when it comes to this type of communication - texting, forums, usenet - I prefer the equivalent of hand-cranking car windows to pressing a button to open or shut them:  plain English.




That's fine - communicate as you prefer.  Just don't expect everyone else to conform to your personal preferences.


----------



## bfreedma

This site can be helpful when running into unfamiliar acronyms.

https://www.acronymfinder.com


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes, every culture has its own lingo, but it comes about for various reasons......

For example, mB and mB because, well, giga-byte and mega-byte don't really roll off the tongue ...

And many modern text abbreviations came about because they're easier to type ...
For example, "LOL" takes a lot less keys than "laughing out loud" - especially in the old days when many folks were typing on a numeric keypad...
And, while nowadays almost every phone can display a smiley face, not long ago most could not.
Neither of those came about because someone expected you to memorize a long list of secret code words.
(or because they wanted to exclude the folks who weren't interested in doing so.)
All of those sort of evolved - for pretty straightforward reasons......

It does sort of cross a line when it become obvious that the intent is to divide rather than unite the culture...
For example, when a subculture, or an outright cult, develops their own private language...
For better or worse it promotes an "us and them mentality".
(Ever notice how two doctors can talk about you, right in front of you, and they might as well be speaking a foreign language?)

Do you really doubt that your high school aged children feel like they're speaking a different language than you are?
Do you consider this a good thing or a bad thing?

To some folks it starts to feel like you're walking along the sidewalk talking to someone...
Then they start walking faster and faster, with no obvious purpose other than "seeing if you're willing to run to catch up with them or not"...
It begins to seem like someone is thinking: "Let's invent a new language and see if the old fogeys are willing to learn it to avoid being left behind".
(And, to put it bluntly, when it starts to seem as if many of the users of that new language were never required to pass an English exam, it starts to seem a bit odd.)



bigshot said:


> Every culture has its own lingo. The only people who get mad about that are the people who feel left out of the "reindeer games". But you become a part of a culture by embracing it, not demanding that it conform to you.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

bfreedma said:


> Adapt or be left behind.



Or as some of my gaming friends say: less QQ, more pew pew.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 4, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> That's fine - communicate as you prefer.  Just don't expect everyone else to conform to your personal preferences.



Well, if you or anyone else communicates with me like "JDJS  EEIRK WEEKRJ", expect to be asked by me to translate that into a language spoken by ordinary people.




And "Google it" won't cut it.


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> Well, if you or anyone else communicates with me like "JDJS  EEIRK WEEKRJ", expect to be asked by me to translate that into a language spoken by ordinary people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then I guess you're going to be left out.  No problem, it's your choice to make.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bfreedma said:


> Then I guess you're going to be left out.  No problem, it's your choice to make.



And the other half's choice to be a jerk about it and not help a fellow human understand.


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> And the other half's choice to be a jerk about it and not help a fellow human understand.



People are being jerks because they won't conform to your personal standard of communication?  I think you're a bit off here.

It's not like we're talking about terms that take more than a few seconds to look up.

I have nothing more to add - You've been informed on how to "fish" - don't expect me to continue to fish for you.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bfreedma said:


> People are being jerks because they won't conform to your personal standard of communication?



Folks are free to BFF SMH TERYX WSSXB all they want - I'm not stopping them!  

But I will ask them, politely, what DJIDE WIEZN stands for.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

StandsOnFeet said:


> Or as some of my gaming friends say: less QQ, more pew pew.



Define "QQ" please


----------



## ahofer

Way back in the OP you referred to the Stereo Review tests.  The back issues of this magazine are online

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/HiFI-Stereo-Review.htm

The test is January 1987.

Thanks for this list.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

ahofer said:


> Way back in the OP you referred to the Stereo Review tests.  The back issues of this magazine are online
> 
> https://www.americanradiohistory.com/HiFI-Stereo-Review.htm
> 
> ...



I'm in the table of contents for that month and year.  Which one is the test of interest - the turntable, one of the two CD players?


----------



## bigshot

The article Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same? (DAASTS)


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 4, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> Yes, every culture has its own lingo, but it comes about for various reasons......
> 
> For example, m̶GB and m̶MB because, well, giga-byte and mega-byte don't really roll off the tongue ...



FIFY


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Steve999 said:


> FIFY



Clarify, please?


----------



## Steve999

TheSonicTruth said:


> Clarify, please?



tl;dr


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Steve999 said:


> tl;dr



Post #12669 exemplified.


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> Clarify, please?



DIY


----------



## ahofer

TheSonicTruth said:


> I'm in the table of contents for that month and year.  Which one is the test of interest - the turntable, one of the two CD players?



"Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same" - Page 78


----------



## lavardin

bigshot said:


> The article Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same? (DAASTS)



Of course not.. or we are all deaf?


----------



## bigshot (Jun 4, 2019)

lavardin said:


> Of course not.. or we are all deaf?



I guess it depends on whether you can read. You've got your choice, January of 1987 or July of 1997 https://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html


----------



## GearMe (Jun 4, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> FIFY



So...did you mean Fixed It For You?...or Free Information For You?...or

Yo, NVM ITSK  

Elucidated like a proud 59 yo should   

(PS - I get so  when to use FTFY v FIFY)


----------



## TheSonicTruth

ahofer said:


> "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same" - Page 78



Ahh, thanks! I was looking in the test section pages 35-39


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bfreedma said:


> DIY



Post #12669


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> Post #12669



TLTG


----------



## gregorio

lavardin said:


> Of course not.. or we are all deaf?



Or, are we all misinformed or ignorant of the facts, lack critical thinking ability or deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts to sell something or justify a purchase/belief? For example "are we all deaf?" is clearly nonsense, although different listeners do have differing levels of listening skill/ability, which is easily demonstrated with some basic listening skills training. However, even changing your question into something more reasonable (and less insulting), like; "or do we all have poor listening skills?" is still nonsense for two reasons:

Firstly, that is NOT the only other option. Any two things, even the exact same thing, can appear to sound very different depending on the biases which affect perception. In other words, amps can sound very different simply because our perception invents differences, even when there aren't any at all, but for some reason you failed to mention this other option, why is that? 

Secondly, your statement implies that you have massively better listening skills than the rest of us, a falsehood peddled by many audiophiles. Some of us here are audio professionals with years of formal listening skills training and upon which our ability to be professionals, in a very competitive field, relies. It's extremely unlikely that your listening skills are even as good as some of us, let alone massively better and various controlled tests provide substantial evidence of this. When testing very small (audible) differences with both groups of audiophiles and groups of professional sound/music engineers, the audiophiles always perform significantly worse than the highly trained/experienced pro engineers. This isn't of course really surprising to a rational mind.



bigshot said:


> You've got your choice, January of 1987 or July of 1997 https://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html



Hmmm, hadn't seen that 1997 one before. The final "John Atkinson scratches his head" is particularly troubling, he states that "_Level differences also did not contribute_" - which is false because he does not know whether level differences contributed. He shows that there is a significant impedance peak with the VTL amps which starts at about 500Hz, peaks at 1745Hz and results in a 0.5dB difference at that frequency. The obvious problem is that he level matched the outputs of the two amps with a 1kHz tone which is within this peak. So in fact the outputs were NOT level matched, there was a difference of roughly 0.3dB throughout the entire audible spectrum (except at 1kHz). The vast majority of listeners wouldn't notice such a small difference but a very few would/could, which incidentally correlates very well with the results he obtained and is why international standards require a level matched difference no greater than 0.1dB. So why is John Atkinson scratching his head?

Also interestingly, Atkinson states that the very much cheaper Adcom amp was "o_stensibly flat within the audio band_" but the VTL was not. So with the tested B&W speakers, the far cheaper amp actually has higher/better fidelity than the expensive amp! He then later states that "_there is no doubt in my mind that the VTL is more pleasant to listen to for long periods ..._" - Therefore, when he is listening for long periods he finds the lower fidelity amp "more pleasant" than the higher fidelity amp. Along with most other audiophiles, he appears to assume that what he personally finds "more pleasant" is automatically higher fidelity and therefore, the evidence he himself acquired that demonstrating the exact opposite, that he actually prefers lower fidelity, is probably why he's scratching his head! Not that he's discouraged in the slightest though, he just carries on with business as usual, flowery language describing the "bothersome" shortcomings of the cheaper amp's sound. Higher fidelity is apparently a "bothersome ... quality" in the audiophile world, glad he cleared that up for us!

G


----------



## bigshot (Jun 5, 2019)

If you look at that article for just the evidence of the tests and ignore the interpretation of it, it tells a clear story. (I think the advertorial standards might have changed a bit in the intervening decade.) As it says in the first post in this thread, the overall results fall into a nice bell curve of randomness.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> If you look at that article for just the evidence of the tests and ignore the interpretation of it, it tells a clear story. ...  As it says in the first post in this thread, the overall results fall into a nice bell curve of randomness.



I wouldn't say it tells a "clear story". The results did fall into a bell curve but not a "bell curve of randomness", a bell curve of randomness would be centred on 50% whereas the results obtained were centred on 52.3%. Given the number of trials (3,530), 52.3% is potentially somewhat significant, though not conclusive. Even if we were to assume that the obtained result was significant, a 0.3dB overall level difference is potentially audible (for a very small minority of people) and would therefore neatly account for the entirety of that significance.

I completely agree with you about Atkinson's interpretation though. It's obvious (and unsurprising) that he's desperate to justify his audiophile beliefs and validate his professional career. The article is littered with fallacies, half truths, falsehoods and typical audiophile hypocrisy! 

G


----------



## KeithEmo (Jun 6, 2019)

You and me both.

Let's say I ask someone a more or less simple question...
And they answer in some foreign language or using complicated technical jargon...
Then, when I ask them to please repeat their answer in plain English, their reply is "You're being lazy; just Google it..."
My natural reaction is to assume that either they're just plain rude or they really don't want to be helpful.
(At which point _my_ natural reaction is to go look for someone who actually wants to be helpful.)

It's also worth noting that, believe it or not, information you get on Google is quite often wrong.
There was a recent article in The Wall Street Journal about Google (incorrectly) saying that various people were deceased when they were Googled by relatives and business contacts.
Therefore, in many cases, saying "just Google it" is tantamount to saying "just ask someone on the street and hope they have the right answer".
(And, yes, in something simple like the meaning of an acronym, you have at least a decent chance of getting the correct answer on Google.)
However, the idea that "Google is a reliable source of accurate information" is still a major overstatement.

However, it is worth pointing out that a lot of the people on forums like this one are here in the first place because they're hoping for better information than what they would get "by just Googling it".
They're looking for a simple answer... and not a lesson in someone else's idea of proper Internet etiquette... or a lesson in how to conduct research in a modern world.
(And, to be quite blunt, I'm inclined to believe that people in that position are entitled to the courtesy of a direct answer... in English... if that's what they're hoping for... and it isn't too much trouble to provide one.)



GearMe said:


> So...did you mean Fixed It For You?...or Free Information For You?...or
> 
> Yo, NVM ITSK
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo (Jun 6, 2019)

I would go quite a bit further there...

This idea also points out a serious _MISUNDERSTANDING_ that many people have about the meaning of statistics and probability.

If you graph a truly random distribution of something it will often produce a bell curve with a characteristic shape.
_HOWEVER_ that does _NOT_ mean that the only way to end up with that shape is to start with a random distribution.
It could be the result of a random distribution...
Or it _could_ be the result of something else entirely...

If you fire a shotgun at a target the result will be a 2d version of a bell curve... with the most hits towards the center.
However, it's also possible for an artist to produce the exact same pattern by carefully drawing in the dots one at a time.
And _YOU CANNOT TELL WHICH METHOD PRODUCED THE PATTERN BY LOOKING AT IT_.

See if you can find the time results of some local marathon type race.
I'll bet the finish times follow some sort of bell type curve...
Do you think that means: "Everyone runs at about the same speed and it's just a random distribution"?
Or do you think it might mean that some people really DO run faster than others?
And, "at the next level", do you think it means that we humans just have a random variation in how fast we can run?
Or could there be some other non-random factor - like, perhaps, people who practice become able to run faster, or run fast longer?

To put that another way.....
Show a bunch of grade schoolers a $1000 department store violin and a $2 million Stradavarius sitting next to each other in a display case...
I'll bet that MOST of them can't tell which is which...
And, if you ask them to pick the "better violin", the results will turn out to be "more or less random"....
But a few probably will recognize the Strad (maybe)...
Would you say that proves that "there's not really a significant difference"....?
Or would you say it proves that "only a few grade schoolers know much about expensive musical instruments"....?

How you interpret statistical results depends quite heavily on _context_.

All you can say about the shape of a statistical response curve is that it "appears to fit the characteristic you would expect from a random bell curve".
However, you _CANNOT_ say with certainty whether it is _actually_ the result of a random distribution... or not.

Want to have a try at a _better_ guess...
Run ten more races...
And see if a different 5% of the runners come in first in each one...
Or if it's always the _SAME_ 5% who come in first...
(Then you can calculate the odds of the same 5% "randomly finishing first in ten races".)

Or do a dozen more studies about whether the differences between those two amplifiers are audible or not.
And see if the same one always wins by the same 5% - or whether the _OVERALL_ distribution of the results is random.
(And, if the result is the first one, you've just proven that the difference is almost surely actually real, but only 5% of the participants can hear it.)
(And, if the result is the second one, then your claim that "it probably really is just random" has become somewhat more likely to be correct.)

I would also point out that, if you read a lot of recent Stereophile equipment ratings...
You'll quite often find Atkinson expressing doubt when equipment that measures poorly is rated to "sound good" in the "subjective review"... 

There's also one more thing worth pointing out....

I always find it quite entertaining when results show that "audiophiles often score worse than skeptics"... because it tells us a lot... about human psychology... and specifically the phschology of audiophiles However, while entertaining, as a metric concerning test accuracy, that is quite meaningless. I suspect that "the fastest 100 human beings on Earth" probably have a pretty good idea who they are - based on actual race results. However, I have no reason whatsoever to suspect that "the 100 most dedicated audiophiles", or "the 100 people with the most expensive audio systems", are "the 100 humans with the most accurate hearing". I'm pretty sure nobody has actually ever tested that. In fact, I'm not even sure whether "100 highly rated professional musicians" actually have better than average hearing, or simply benefit from a lot more training and practice, or where that balance lies either. I'd like to think that a professional musician is more capable of recognizing a note that's off key than I am... because it's essential to his or her job performance... but I don't really know whether that translates to being able to recognize a lower level of THD or IMD than I can or not.



gregorio said:


> I wouldn't say it tells a "clear story". The results did fall into a bell curve but not a "bell curve of randomness", a bell curve of randomness would be centred on 50% whereas the results obtained were centred on 52.3%. Given the number of trials (3,530), 52.3% is potentially somewhat significant, though not conclusive. Even if we were to assume that the obtained result was significant, a 0.3dB overall level difference is potentially audible (for a very small minority of people) and would therefore neatly account for the entirety of that significance.
> 
> I completely agree with you about Atkinson's interpretation though. It's obvious (and unsurprising) that he's desperate to justify his audiophile beliefs and validate his professional career. The article is littered with fallacies, half truths, falsehoods and typical audiophile hypocrisy!
> 
> G


----------



## bigshot

...the evidence would seem to suggest that that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them. -Stereo Review January 1987

Nice quote.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree... they phrased their conclusions in a _reasonable_ manner... which is refreshing.

Rather than attempt to make a blanket claim that "differences don't exist"...
It properly characterizes the differences that exist as mostly minor - followed by an opinion that they may not be significant, or even audible, to any given individual listener.
I'm personally inclined to agree with their opinion.
Obviously many audiophiles are quite convinced that any difference that is audible, no matter how small, is a matter of life and death... which is an opinion that _they_ are also entitled to. 
(And it is that opinion that keeps a significant portion of the audio equipment community in business - so it's sort of obvious why so many companies are inclined to encourage it.)



bigshot said:


> ...the evidence would seem to suggest that that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them. -Stereo Review January 1987
> 
> Nice quote.


----------



## bigshot

Amps don’t sound different unless there’s something wrong with them. Audibly transparent is as good as any human being needs. Beyond that is overkill.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> ...the evidence would seem to suggest that that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them. -Stereo Review January 1987
> 
> Nice quote.



The mantra that all the amps sound the same or at least differ so little to be safely ignored has to stop.

Stereo Review had a very manufacturer pleasing policy whenever making any references to the listening tests. As good as the objective measurements from Hirsch - Houck Lab were, they were not really comprehensive, nor did focus on the specific problems - which they even admitted sometimes have been commented upon by the listening test panel.

I did go trough most phono cartridge reviews in Stereo Review - since there were cases no other objective measurements have been available even back in the day - let alone surviving online today. 
And have heard or even own quite a few of them that Stereo Review claimed to reach such a level of quality for the differences to be essentialy meaningless, if not downright inaudible.

NOTHING could be farther from the truth. 

Let's face reality : audio journalists and reviewers LIVE FROM their work; and that goes for both objective and subjective camp. 

They can't afford to say Component X from 4 decades ago has been the best - everything else available today regardless of price is a pale approximation at best. They can't say that even for one month ago... - if they want to stay in the bussiness.

Subjective camp tends to over exaggerate the audible differences, the objective usually does exactly the opposite - NEITHER of which is good. 

Objective camp has it , at the same time, both infinitely easier and more difficult task - standard measurements usually are not capable of revealing the differences reported by discerning listeners, and the willingness to devise better measurements that would correlate with listening better is not there or costs too much to implemented.

Subjective camp has an even harder task - as finer points of reproduction are sometimes consciously limited ( MP3 being a good example ) and, to compound the problem further, usually requires to cater to both better dynamic range ( particularly in soft part of the range ) and frequency extension well past 20 kHz.  That requires recordings to be made with at least similar high calibre of the recording equipment - anything that went trough normal equipment in pro studios is inherently of lower resolution than required.

I try, best I can, to learn positive ( as in bringing the reproduced sound closer to live ) from both camps. And experience clearly shows there were, are and will be - from unwilling errors to purposedly spread misinformation - from both sides. 

Stereo Review bore the banner of "everything sounds the same", "that is exactly how a quality X is supposed to work/sound and is indistiguishable from its peers in similar price bracket", etc, etc. Even if and when their own objective measurements did hint on a problem, they tried to downplay it in the listening comments as much as possible.

The Absolute Sound did - on purpose - postpone a review of an audio component long enough for the company making it announced its discontinuation. For a VERY real fear ... that of the report of a component at a fraction of the competitors' price running circles around its pricier competition reaching the actual consumer. The objective camp did cover the said component - in the usual "nothing to complain about, everything ship shape" fashion - failing, as by default, to recognize the exceptional performance - not only at the price, but in absolute terms.

NEITHER of the camps would publish anything of substance on exceptional overachievers - because it is bad for the bussiness. Here, they could not have been more in bed with each other... - no matter how on opposite banks they appear to be otherwise. Deafening silence. 

Objective audio press has a hidden "review entrance fee" - advertising. Open the small print in any magazine to find out how much advertising space costs. No advertising - no review. Plain and simple.

The days subjective audio press has been reporting serial numbers of the components tested are largely gone - and review samples are offered to reviewers at trade cost - if not "better". Plain and simple.

Draw your own conclusions from the above.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree....

If two amplifiers were absolutely perfect then they would sound exactly the same.
And anyone would be foolish to choose one of anything over another, with the expectation that it would sound better, if both sounded "audibly identical" to them.
(I consider these both to be "logical identities" more or less equivalent to "1=1".)

The obverse is also clearly true...
If two amplifiers sound audibly different then at least one, if not both, must not be perfect.
(This negates the statement above. If both were perfect then they would sound exactly the same.)

However, since nobody has so far produced a perfect amplifier, we're still stuck with the experience of the listener about "what is perfect _enough_".
In other words, we cannot measure "audibly transparent"..... it is a statement of experience.
"Audibly transparent" is simply a fancy way of stating that some particular listener doesn't hear any difference between two things.
I'm pretty sure I haven't seen a graph anywhere on my AP analyzer with a mark labelled "audibly transparent" or even "inaudible" on it.

I think that would be really great.
If we had that, I could simply send all of our customers a nice report, with "Audibly Perfect = PASS" circled and highlighted...
And we could stop with all those other annoying measurements...
And nobody would have to wonder if any other product, at any price, could even possibly be "better".

Now, as for overkill, I agree there too.
However, I'm also pretty sure my car can go a bit faster than I've ever driven it.
But I don't necessarily see that ability as a problem... per-se... either.



bigshot said:


> Amps don’t sound different unless there’s something wrong with them. Audibly transparent is as good as any human being needs. Beyond that is overkill.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 6, 2019)

*"However, since nobody has so far produced a perfect amplifier..."*

WHOOPS! Huge assumption there...

How are you determining that an audibly transparent amplifier has never been produced? (and you guys accuse me of making absolute statements!!) Yes, thresholds of perception are documented. Everyone is a little different, but that difference is the degree of hearing damage due to wear and tear, not superman hearing. Hearing is finite. Beyond a certain point, you are going to have to test dogs and bats, not people.

Just look at the specs. On paper they are audibly transparent. Look at the listening tests. Yup! They're transparent! Compare a Futterman as big as a washing machine to a $200 Pioneer receiver... uh... they sound the same. What makes you think there is no such thing as an audibly transparent amplifier? Are you assuming that all amps are flawed in the exact same way? That is just silly.

You guys are grasping at straws now. You either are incapable of thinking in a straight line, or you are being deliberately absurd just to get attention. Or maybe you just don't like this thread because it puts the lie to things that make snake oil salesmen a lot of money.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> *"However, since nobody has so far produced a perfect amplifier..."*
> 
> WHOOPS! Huge assumption there...
> 
> ...



He's got a point, RE 'perfect' amplifiers.   

I do know someone who could have built a perfect amp, but He lived over 2,000 years ago.  He made ends meet in the woodworking industry.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2019)

Audibly transparent is perfect to human ears. You can improve specs but it doesn't make a lick of difference to how the amp sounds. The limiting factor is your ears, not the transistors. If you want some sort of theoretical perfection, OK. But that has nothing to do with how an amp sounds.

Do all amps sound the same? This test indicates that they do. If someone can suggest an amp that does sound different, have at it. But show a controlled listening test to prove it. Or give our Sound Science brain trust a crack at it to verify the audible difference and figure out why.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Audibly transparent is perfect to human ears. You can improve specs but it doesn't make a lick of difference to how the amp sounds. The limiting factor is your ears, not the transistors. If you want some sort of theoretical perfection, OK. But that has nothing to do with how an amp sounds.
> 
> Do all amps sound the same? This test indicates that they do. If someone can suggest an amp that does sound different, have at it. But show a controlled listening test to prove it. Or give our Sound Science brain trust a crack at it to verify the audible difference and figure out why.



The limiting factor in amps are most usually not the active components, like transistors - but the passive. And the difference is perfectly audible. Trouble is, he whole chain has got to be up to certain  standard - one can not hear the difference of say one single superior component in an otherwise setup of lower quality. So, unless using a really good DAC ( there is amplifier inside...), one can ABX  various digital files on foobar ad nuseaum - and, quite correctly - determine there is no audible differences. Even if all the other amplifiers in the chain are "perfect".

Reminds me of a woman, who has been constantly bitching about the neighbor's laundry being less than perfectly clean. And asking her husband to "finally say something to the other husband". For quite some time...

The next day, she was astounded  - the neighbor's laundry was finally - perfect. She asked her man : " What did you tell to her man ? "

" Nothing. I cleaned our window..."


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] See if you can find the time results of some local marathon type race. I'll bet the finish times follow some sort of bell type curve... Do you think that means: "Everyone runs at about the same speed and it's just a random distribution"?
> [2] Show a bunch of grade schoolers a $1000 department store violin and a $2 million Stradavarius ...I'll bet that MOST of them can't tell which is which...And, if you ask them to pick the "better violin", the results will turn out to be "more or less random"....But a few probably will recognize the Strad (maybe)...Would you say that proves that "there's not really a significant difference"....?
> [3] How you interpret statistical results depends quite heavily on _context_.
> [4] I would also point out that, if you read a lot of recent Stereophile equipment ratings... You'll quite often find Atkinson expressing doubt when equipment that measures poorly is rated to "sound good" in the "subjective review"...



1. Obviously not, because "some sort" of bell curve is obviously not the same as the precise bell curve indicating randomness.
2. If a few recognised the Strad then you wouldn't get the random distribution bell curve and it wouldn't be centred on 50%!
3. Absolutely. For example: Are there only two possible responses/results (such as an ABX test) or are there multiple (such as target shooting or marathon times), sample size is another obvious example and there are various others.
4. And yet in the referenced article he does the exact opposite!


KeithEmo said:


> [5] I always find it quite entertaining when results show that "audiophiles often score worse than skeptics"... because it tells us a lot...
> [5a] However, I have no reason whatsoever to suspect that "the 100 most dedicated audiophiles", or "the 100 people with the most expensive audio systems", are "the 100 humans with the most accurate hearing". I'm pretty sure nobody has actually ever tested that. In fact, I'm not even sure whether "100 highly rated professional musicians" actually have better than average hearing, or simply benefit from a lot more training and practice, or where that balance lies either.
> [5b] I'd like to think that a professional musician is more capable of recognizing a note that's off key than I am... because it's essential to his or her job performance... but I don't really know whether that translates to being able to recognize a lower level of THD or IMD than I can or not.


5. It doesn't entertain me or "tell me a lot" because I've never seen a scientific study which separates the test subjects into groups of self identified audiophiles or sceptics. However, I've seen quite a few which separates the test subjects into audiophiles and professionals (professional musicians and/or audio engineers).
5a. Firstly, those are two very different groups, the "100 most dedicated audiophiles" is a different group to the "100 people with the most expensive audio systems", the latter group being comprised exclusively of very skilled/experienced sound engineers (who constantly use the systems) although they're mostly actually owned by share holders who've probably never heard those systems. Secondly, it has been tested! Many/Most sound engineers do test their hearing and so do musicians often/sometimes. In general, they have pretty much average hearing or lower than average, the latter typically being due to many years exposure to high SPLs. However, you seem to be confusing "hearing" with "listening skills/abilities", two very different things which are largely unrelated.
5b. That would depend on the musician. A violinist probably wouldn't but a pro electric guitarist probably would, as distortion and IMD are important and adjustable aspects of the sound/s they are trying to produce. Of course, it also depends on how well trained you are in identifying THD or IMD and how much you exercise that training.



analogsurviver said:


> [1] The mantra that all the amps sound the same or at least differ so little to be safely ignored has to stop.
> [2] Objective camp has it , at the same time, both infinitely easier and more difficult task - standard measurements usually are not capable of revealing the differences reported by discerning listeners, and the willingness to devise better measurements that would correlate with listening better is not there or costs too much to implemented.



1. I would agree, if this sub-forum were a audiophile marketing forum then it would have to stop. However, despite several years posting here you still haven't realised that this is the sound science sub-forum or what that means, which is bizarre considering how many times it's been explained to you!!

2. That's partially true! For example, we have no "standard [audio] measurements" for the placebo effect, expectation or other biases which are often responsible for the differences reported by audiophiles, because these are obviously not audio properties and therefore cannot be measured with standard audio measurements. It would therefore be stupid to even try to devise a better audio measurement that would correlate with such differences! Any audible differences which actually exist in the audio itself will be revealed by the existing standard measurements. How do you not know this?



KeithEmo said:


> [1] If two amplifiers were absolutely perfect then they would sound exactly the same. ...However, since nobody has so far produced a perfect amplifier, we're still stuck with the experience of the listener about "what is perfect _enough_". In other words, we cannot measure "audibly transparent"..... it is a statement of experience.
> [1a] "Audibly transparent" is simply a fancy way of stating that some particular listener doesn't hear any difference between two things.



1. True, no amplifier or other analogue audio component can ever be "absolutely perfect", due to the laws of physics. It's also true that in such a case "audibly transparent" is a statement of experience. However, you then fallaciously state that "we cannot measure audibly transparent"! Firstly, in the audiophile world we are not only dealing with such a case. We can for example run a null test and if the two signals/outputs null, we have (without question) measured "audibly transparent"! Secondly, even in the case of analogue components, where the result of a null test will never be a perfect null, if the difference file is down below -120dB then many decades of scientific "experience" tells us unequivocally that we have measured "audibly transparent". Or, if two cables' outputs differ by say 0.01dB, then scientific experience tells us this measured difference is "audibly transparent" because in many decades of countless controlled tests, not a single human being has ever demonstrated the ability to identify differences even a hundred times greater. ...
1a. Clearly then, this statement is false! "Audibly transparent" is NOT "simply a fancy way of stating that some particular listener doesn't hear any difference", it can be a fancy way of ACCURATELY stating that no listener could hear a difference!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> Audibly transparent is perfect to human ears. You can improve specs but it doesn't make a lick of difference to how the amp sounds. The limiting factor is your ears, not the transistors. If you want some sort of theoretical perfection, OK. But that has nothing to do with how an amp sounds.
> 
> Do all amps sound the same? This test indicates that they do. If someone can suggest an amp that does sound different, have at it. But show a controlled listening test to prove it. Or give our Sound Science brain trust a crack at it to verify the audible difference and figure out why.



What I meant by no such thing as perfect amplifier is that sooner or later parts will fail.  Caps will leak, thermal circuits will fail to protect when the amp is driven hard, etc.  Sound-wise, I agree:  Any amplifier from 1980 to present should be sonically transparent, whether it costs $200 or $2,000.


----------



## KeithEmo

Actually, if you read the words carefully, you'll see that I made no such assumptions...

My phrase, which you quoted, said nothing about audibility.
I simply pointed out that a technical description of "a perfect amplifier" does exist...
But that there is no existing piece of equipment that fully fits that description...

The reality. which you prefer to ignore, is that there is no "blanket definition" of the word "audible" either.....
Whether it is explicitly stated or not, that claim always includes an implied condition, or a context.....
Whether you spell it out or not, the most you can claim is that something is or is not audible _TO A CERTAIN OBSERVER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES_.

For example, we can measure "the smallest sound audible at the bottom of the Howe Caverns"...
And we can measure "the smallest sound audible 42 seconds into "The Revenge of Vera Gemini" when it's played at a typical Blue Oyster Cult concert"....
I think we both agree that those two measurements will be quite different (so you need to specify which one you're talking about).

An amplifier could be "audibly transparent" TO YOU.
An amplifier could be "audibly transparent" TO ME.
And an amplifier can be "audibly transparent" to a particular group of 42 people - based on your conclusions about a particular test in which they participated.
And, in fact, it could be "audibly transparent" to me one day after listening to a Blue Oyster Cult concert....
But that same amplifier just might not be "audibly transparent" to me after I spend a week at a quiet cabin in the woods (and my ears start to respond slightly differently).

You continually repeat "on paper they are audibly transparent" as if it were a mantra... or even a widely accepted standard...
Yet the reality is that no such standard exists...
All we have are a bunch of opinions, some based on the results of very specific tests, and some based merely on "basic assumptions".

At best, if you were to say that, "two amplifiers were audibly identical, within the limits of statistical error, to a certain group of 92 observers"...
A lot of people would find that both useful and informative.
(But you _STILL_ can't treat it as if it were a universal fact, applicable everywhere, to everyone.)

Incidentally.... I am not at all assuming that "all amplifiers are flawed in the same way".
Quite the opposite.... Based on facts, I am claiming that all amplifiers are less than perfect, so all are flawed _TO SOME DEGREE IN SOME WAY_.
Considering the measurements I've seen I would say that virtually every amplifier is flawed in a slightly different way.
(And, yes, to many of us, under many conditions, many of those flaws are inaudible.)



bigshot said:


> *"However, since nobody has so far produced a perfect amplifier..."*
> 
> WHOOPS! Huge assumption there...
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

TheSonicTruth said:


> What I meant by no such thing as perfect amplifier is that sooner or later parts will fail.  Caps will leak, thermal circuits will fail to protect when the amp is driven hard, etc.  Sound-wise, I agree:  Any amplifier from 1980 to present should be sonically transparent, whether it costs $200 or $2,000.



Ah. OK. That is true. But build quality doesn't enter into sound quality until many years later. And everything will fail eventually. The question is, if a $200 amp sounds the same as a $2000 amp, then will a $2000 amp last ten times as long as the cheap one? Odds are, the answer to that is no.


----------



## bigshot

I can define a perfect amplifier easily... A wire with gain. If it takes the signal being put into it and raises the level and outputs it without audibly altering it, it's a perfect amplifier. Every amp I've ever run across that was in proper working order has fit that definition.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> Trouble is, he whole chain has got to be up to certain  standard - one can not hear the difference of say one single superior component in an otherwise setup of lower quality.



I’ll tell you what... You go click through that link to Stereo Review and read about the other equipment in the chain for their amp test. When you’ve done that, I’ll take the time to reply to your irrelevant blather. There’s no point discussing this until you know what you’re talking about.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Ah. OK. That is true. But build quality doesn't enter into sound quality until many years later. And everything will fail eventually. The question is, if a $200 amp sounds the same as a $2000 amp, then will a $2000 amp last ten times as long as the cheap one? Odds are, the answer to that is no.



Wrong. On both counts.

A better built amp with the same schematics will sound better. 

It takes about 300 hours of normal playback for any newly built amp to settle down - sometimes more, but around 300 hours is the minimum I require before any serious listening should be attempted.

If better build quality means film capacitors vs electrolitic, that most definitely does mean longer lasting amp. You can see in specs of any decent electrolitic caps the time they are kind of guaranteed to perform flawlessly - at given temperature. Now, most amps do not operate 24/7/365 - but those that do come close ( studios...) may well grew accustomed to ever slightly falling performance each day - those changes are gradual. That's why "recapped" mixing desks are such a thing in pro audio ... - if the before and after were not audible, nobody would be willing to part with cash while being at the same time incapable of working/earning money.

Amps with mostly film caps require those initial 300 or so hours burn in - and then will most likely outlive its owner if operated within design envelope. With next to no change in either sound or measured performance troughout decades. It reduces maintenance to tending to the remaining electrolytics.

I have been able to produce an audio chain entirely free from electrolitic caps - at least in signal path. And the difference film caps ( correctly chosen - NOT all film caps are good for all applications ... ) used in power supply ( where possible ) can make is nothing short of staggering.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> I can define a perfect amplifier easily... A wire with gain. If it takes the signal being put into it and raises the level and outputs it without audibly altering it, it's a perfect amplifier. Every amp I've ever run across that was in proper working order has fit that definition.




Nothing of manmade origin  is 'perfect'.  If it were, it would last forever, and never wear out or malfunction.  Even if it passes sound 'perfectly', over time it will start to degrade in performance.  

The only perfect being  is God Himself.  Therefore it is  good to _aim_ for perfection, but  remember, we will always fall short of that mark.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

analogsurviver said:


> Wrong. On both counts.
> 
> A better built amp with the same schematics will sound better.
> 
> It takes about 300 hours of normal playback for any newly built amp to settle down - sometimes more, but around 300 hours is the minimum I require before any serious listening should be attempted..




hahahahaha


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

TheSonicTruth said:


> Nothing of manmade origin  is 'perfect'.  If it were, it would last forever, and never wear out or malfunction.  Even if it passes sound 'perfectly', over time it will start to degrade in performance.
> 
> The only perfect being  is God Himself.  Therefore it is  good to _aim_ for perfection, but  remember, we will always fall short of that mark.



I don’t believe in god but thanks for injecting your beliefs as much as possible.

Nobody here is including, nor is interested in including durability and lifespan of components into the definition of perfection.  We are discussing sound output.  Nothing more.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Nothing of manmade origin  is 'perfect'.  If it were, it would last forever, and never wear out or malfunction.  Even if it passes sound 'perfectly', over time it will start to degrade in performance. The only perfect being  is God Himself.  Therefore it is  good to _aim _for perfection, but  remember, we will always fall short of that mark.



I'll remind you what we are discussing here... We are talking about how amps tend to be audibly transparent. Many of them, if not all, sound exactly the same to human ears. There was no audible difference between amps of completely different design and price range in the Stereo Review test. Do you have anything pertinent to add to this particular discussion?


----------



## KeithEmo

1.
Your first statement is not technically correct.
There is no "precise curve that proves your results are random".
At most, there is "a precise bell curve that is CONSISTENT with a random distribution".
However, nobody who understands statistics would suggest that this proves that there are no other possible ways to produce that same curve...
(Failure to see that curve suggest that your results are non-random; but seeing the curve does NOT suggest the opposite.)

2.
You seem to have missed the point of my second point.
It doens't matter what shape curve you get or where it is centered.
No matter how many students do or do not pick out the Strad... or how you analyze the resulting data...
You _WILL NOT_ learn with absolute certainty whether a certain specific student can or cannot do so.
It is simply the wrong sort of test if that's the data you're looking for.

You can test a dozen people, or a thousand, or a million.
And it may turn out that _NONE_ of them can hear a difference between Amplifier A and Amplifier B.
However, even if that were true, you have not proven whether test subject #1,000,001 can do so or not...
(At best, you may decide that your methodology has a small enough margin of error that you feel comfortable ignoring it...)

I could test every single person I know....
Or everyone in my high school graduating class....
And I'll bet none of the can run a mile in under four minutes....
And, from that, I might conclude that "human beings can't run a mile in under four minutes"....
But all that conclusion would prove is that I don't understand statistics very well.

3.
Oddly, even after "decades of tests" "with countless subjects".....
Nobody seems to be able to come up with a single one that is reasonably thorough, of sufficient scale, and sufficiently free of major flaws in methodology, to prove convincing.

4.
As you say, "audibly transparent" is a matter of experience...
There is no single scientific definition for the term.
It ALWAYS carries a qualification about what circumstances and what observers were involved.

5.
I'm totally confused a with your claim about nulls.
Clearly, if we have two imperfect amplifiers,unless their flaws are perfectly identical, which seems unlikely, then they will NOT null perfectly.

6.
I have read about a variety of studies in which "the scores of audiophiles" were compared to "the scores of ordinary people"...
Or "the scores of audiophiles" were compared to "the scores of professional musicians"....
Generally with the apparent idea of demonstrating that "audiophiles who think they have golden ears really can't hear differences any better than anyone else"....
(I don't keep track of them since I consider them meaningless... but, if you read through several tests, you will find similar references.)

7.
For the purposes of this discussion I am not in any way differentiating between "hearing ability" and "listening skills".
I would expect both to contribute to "whether someone can hear something or not"...
(But I would leave that to phase two. Once we establish that the subject can hear a difference then we can move on to whether some subjects are more likely to than others - and why.)
However, when studies are PUBLISHED, it is pretty clear that the creators of such studies consider "using professional musicians" or "professional sound engineers" to grant extra credibility to their results.
(The reality is that, on average, five year old children probably have better hearing acuity than professional musicians, but nobody really cares what stereo component they happen to like, since they have no purchasing budget.)

8.
Just out of curiosity....
WHICH standard measurements do you consider to "tell us all we need to know about how something will sound".



gregorio said:


> 1. Obviously not, because "some sort" of bell curve is obviously not the same as the precise bell curve indicating randomness.
> 2. If a few recognised the Strad then you wouldn't get the random distribution bell curve and it wouldn't be centred on 50%!
> 3. Absolutely. For example: Are there only two possible responses/results (such as an ABX test) or are there multiple (such as target shooting or marathon times), sample size is another obvious example and there are various others.
> 4. And yet in the referenced article he does the exact opposite!
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2019)

If you're going to support your opinion by arguing "we can't know everything, so we can't know anything", I'm just going to assume that you have no real point and you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Classic logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance.

There is a finite limit to perception. A nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat. Audible transparency exists whether you want to admit it or not.

None of us are here to entertain you. We aren't being paid to pay attention to you. If you want to discuss things with people, you have to earn their respect. You aren't doing that very well.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 7, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I don’t believe in god but thanks for injecting your beliefs as much as possible.
> 
> Nobody here is including, nor is interested in including durability and lifespan of components into the definition of perfection.  We are discussing sound output.  Nothing more.



And even that sound output is not 'perfect'.  NOTHING we humans make is.

PS: Don't choke on your pride, Ear Ache


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting......
However, I need to point out an error.

We seem to be talking about two different things.
You seem to be defining "an _audibly_ perfect amplifier"....
Whereas I was talking about a _functionally_ perfect amplifier....

The concept of a "perfect amplifier", from a functional point of view, is relatively well understood, and is often used in circuit analysis.
It includes a specified gain, zero noise, zero distortion, zero phase shift, and a perfectly flat frequency response from DC to infinity.

When modelling a circuit we often start with "a perfect amplifier" - then consider separately the ways in which it deviates from that ideal.
For example, an ideal or perfect amplifier also has a zero output impedance.
And, when we model a real amplifier, we draw it as an ideal amplifier, in series with a resistor that is equal to the output impedance.

(Since "audibly perfect" is simply a statement of your personal experience I have no comments about that either way.)



bigshot said:


> I can define a perfect amplifier easily... A wire with gain. If it takes the signal being put into it and raises the level and outputs it without audibly altering it, it's a perfect amplifier. Every amp I've ever run across that was in proper working order has fit that definition.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2019)




----------



## analogsurviver

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> hahahahaha



Have you ever done any of such work by yourself - not read somewhere or been told by others ?

You would not be laughing then. 

Although generally not publicly acknowledged, bettter manufacturers do burn in their electronics for an extensive period of time - those 300 hours roughly means two week of operation..It usually catches and weeds out units that would otherwise fail in the field in say half year or so after purchase - creating anger with customers and incurring costs of repair within warranty.
It also means customer never gets to hear a unit that has not been properly burnt in - that's why reports on zero change between out of the box and final condition can actually be true. But you can not expect such burn in programme to be available in budget and lower priced equipment - it would drive the retail price too much up.

I used to work at the microelectronics plant - and the cycling ( mainly temperature ) of integrated and hybrid circuits prior to final electric testing and shipping out differed from zero for low cost plastic package to  you-would-not-believe-cycle-number-and-time  for the military applications. Failure rate for the former has been low when used under reasonable conditions - and approaching zero for the high military grade under atrocious conditions. You do get what you pay for - even if specs "on paper" look exactly the same.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

TheSonicTruth said:


> And even that sound output is not 'perfect'.  NOTHING we humans make is.
> 
> PS: Don't choke on your pride, Ear Ache



Oh brother 




analogsurviver said:


> Have you ever done any of such work by yourself - not read somewhere or been told by others ?
> 
> You would not be laughing then.
> 
> ...



are we talking about failure rate or are we talking about sound quality?


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2019)

How did this happen all of a sudden after such a nice long pause? I can't figure out if you guys are just attention starved and the subject is irrelevant, or if your intent is to shout down evidence you don't like with logical fallacies and made up stuff. In any other forum on this site, I would assume the latter. But I can't figure out how someone could come into the Sound Science forum and spend big chunks of their day arguing against sound science.



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> are we talking about failure rate or are we talking about sound quality?



Do all amps sound the same?

"...the evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them." -Stereo Review January 1987

^ THIS ^ is what I'm talking about. How about the rest of you?


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Obfuscation is such a pathetic tactic.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jun 7, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Do all amps sound the same?
> 
> "...the evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them." -Stereo Review January 1987



Yeah that's what I thought.  So why do these guys keep bringing up durability of components and "military grade testing" lol...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2019)

Maybe they shift the goal posts because they know they can't argue the main point.

I added the despised statement to my sig file.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

KeithEmo said:


> I could test every single person I know....
> Or everyone in my high school graduating class....
> And I'll bet none of the can run a mile in under four minutes....
> And, from that, I might conclude that "human beings can't run a mile in under four minutes"....
> But all that conclusion would prove is that I don't understand statistics very well.



how bout 2 minutes?  You figure it's safe to say nobody on the planet can run a 2 minute mile, or do we need to hedge our bets on the possibility that there's someone out there who can?


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

bigshot said:


> Maybe they shift the goal posts because they know they can't argue the main point.



DING DING DING DING DING!


----------



## GearMe (Jun 7, 2019)

Hey man...not cool!


----------



## bigshot

Sorry, I'll change it if you'd like


----------



## analogsurviver

@gregorio  : I have yet to decide if I want to unblock you or not; I only can see your posts in my mailbox until then.

However, do you really believe two amplifiers with the electrically totally equal scheme, but built to a vastly different price point - SOUND THE SAME ?

That additional would buy the customer better and more precisely toleranced electronic components in the circuit itself, better power supply - or even supplies, as in mono blocs; better chassis ( there is such a thing as microphony in amplifiers ... - and better, sturdier cabinets are there not only for looks, but can actually aid in better sound quality ), and so on and so forth. 

In history, there have been examples of identical ( or almost identical ) electrical scheme amplifiers built to two or even three different price points. The law of diminishing returns is very much still alive - as is the edge the pricier amps have over the lower priced. Saying that both perform and sound equally is simply not true.


----------



## analogsurviver

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> are we talking about failure rate or are we talking about sound quality?



Both. Sorry for not making it clearer.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

analogsurviver said:


> @gregorio  : I have yet to decide if I want to unblock you or not; I only can see your posts in my mailbox until then.
> 
> However, do you really believe two amplifiers with the electrically totally equal scheme, but built to a vastly different price point - SOUND THE SAME ?
> 
> ...



what don't you understand about the fact that it's been proven they DO sound the same?  In comparison testing.  For instance in the articles being discussed over the past few pages of this thread.  Better components don't matter if they make no AUDIBLE difference.  If the cheap stuff produces sound that has distortion well outside the bounds of human hearing, it doesn't matter if the more expensive amp produces 50% less distortion - it was ALREADY more than as good as it needed to be.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> do you really believe two amplifiers with the electrically totally equal scheme, but built to a vastly different price point - SOUND THE SAME ?[



OK. Nothing anyone says can get through. He just ignores anything that doesn't fit his agenda.

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf
PAGE 78


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

analogsurviver said:


> Both. Sorry for not making it clearer.



So then you are telling me all amps need 300 hours of burn in to reach their published performance specs?


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> Sorry, I'll change it if you'd like



Your call...

I don't flag things but feel you can illustrate your side of an argument more effectively -- without an ad-hominem attack and degrading a group of people in one fell swoop.


----------



## bigshot

I think there is some literal truth to it, but I changed it by your request.


----------



## analogsurviver

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> So then you are telling me all amps need 300 hours of burn in to reach their published performance specs?



Amps SHOULD perform better than the published specs - those are only the minimum performance figures. And most do just that - they get better.

And, most of them do need about those 300 hours to really settle down and remain constant in performance - at least when operated at intended temperature. I hope no one will dispute the fact that amplifier from the stone cold after non operation for a considerable amount of time sounds exactly the same as after having reached its optimum operating temperature.

Reaching published specs zealots have been perhaps best answered by Bob Carver; after one of his tested amps failed to reach published power output by a few watts ( at 100 or 200 W spec IIRC ) due to a few too little turns of wire in the secondary of the transformer in the first batch, both competition and specsomaniacs had a field day. After that, he spec'd all of his amps as 101 + 101 Watts, 201 +201 Watts, 401 + 401 Watts, etc - and seeing to that that even with AC voltage lower than normal, that " one more watt " has been available.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jun 7, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Amps SHOULD perform better than the published specs - those are only the minimum performance figures. And most do just that - they get better.
> 
> And, most of them do need about those 300 hours to really settle down and remain constant in performance - at least when operated at intended temperature. I hope no one will dispute the fact that amplifier from the stone cold after non operation for a considerable amount of time sounds exactly the same as after having reached its optimum operating temperature.
> 
> Reaching published specs zealots have been perhaps best answered by Bob Carver; after one of his tested amps failed to reach published power output by a few watts ( at 100 or 200 W spec IIRC ) due to a few too little turns of wire in the secondary of the transformer in the first batch, both competition and specsomaniacs had a field day. After that, he spec'd all of his amps as 101 + 101 Watts, 201 +201 Watts, 401 + 401 Watts, etc - and seeing to that that even with AC voltage lower than normal, that " one more watt " has been available.



Have any published data you can point me to comparing any amps specs out of the box and after 300 hours use and revealing the audible differences?

I'd also be interested in seeing the numbers after 100 and 200 hours as well.  I always wonder how these burn-in numbers are arrived at.  Why does something need 300 hours of burn in?  What could happen between 200 and 300 hours?  And why does the process then stop at 300 hours?  lol.  What if measurements are taken at 400 hours (assuming such measurements are ever taken, and I don't think they ever are) and its now appreciably WORSE than it was at 300 hours?

And while the Bob Carver story is mildly amusing I suppose, it really has nothing to do with what we're talking about since we are actually talking about IMPROVING on published specs (via burn in) rather than simply reaching those specs.


----------



## analogsurviver

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> Have any published data you can point me to comparing any amps specs out of the box and after 300 hours use and revealing the audible differences?



None that I am aware  of. 

The degree of precision of AD/DA soundcards ( or whatever you want to call them ) capable of ACTUALLY  documenting such minuteae has not been around for long - there is at least one from China that is "roughly" an order of magnitude better than Audio Precision and can measure speaker level power outputs directly. The price is - very roughly IIRC - about 1k plus shipping/customs .

Although I know this will be dismissed as anecdotal evidence, I have seen and heard many cases importers have been forced to demo fresh from the box units at audio shows - sometimes even resorting to " whatever it takes to clear the customs by date/hour D" - in order to have that hot component at - usually yearly - show. 

And in most cases, it DID backfire - badly so. Because people have been commenting actually on the sound of burning in of the said component - with appropriately different audible impressions scattered all over the place. If heard early on, it was usually poor ... - and few "poors" from known and well respected listeners will stuck and suffocate any later more positive impressions. No prizes for guessing what that means for sales.

My advice in such a pinch ? DO NOT make active demo - static display only. Burn in the damn thing properly - and AFTER that invite audio press or whoever/whatever to take a real listen. I have seen and heard too many mistakes, made with all the best intentions, in this way - no need to repeat that one over and over again.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jun 7, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> None that I am aware  of.
> 
> The degree of precision of AD/DA soundcards ( or whatever you want to call them ) capable of ACTUALLY  documenting such minuteae has not been around for long - there is at least one from China that is "roughly" an order of magnitude better than Audio Precision and can measure speaker level power outputs directly. The price is - very roughly IIRC - about 1k plus shipping/customs .



I'm not interested in changes that can't be measured by the gear used to arrive at the amps original performance specs.  I'm interested in changes that might be heard by human ears.



> Although I know this will be dismissed as anecdotal evidence...



yes.  It will.


(y'know, the utter lunacy of this burn-in stuff is just mind blowing!  So here I'm being told that the equipment doesn't exist yet that can measure the minute changes that occur via the process of burning an amp in, BUT sales guys setting up displays at audioshows and random passing listeners can easily note that amps sound bad ootb due to not having been properly burned in!  I mean come on! )


----------



## KeithEmo (Jun 7, 2019)

In the situation of "how fast can the fastest human run a mile".....

1) We have a very simple and well defined metric. (We all agree on what a mile is, what a minute is, and what running is.)
2) We have a system in place that encourages people to compete. (So we can reasonably hope than anyone likely to be the fastest human has been tested.)
3) We have a system with at least a pretty good test methodology. (Although we might see slightly different results at a different temperature, or altitude, or humidity... we do also know that most tracks at least have hard dry surfaces.)
4) We have a lot of data about how fast a LOT of humans can run. (I'm sure that, in aggregate, and over history, we have millions, or even billions, of "mile/times".)
5) Nobody is asking me to buy something, or avoid buying something, based on the number I'm reading.

So, based on all of that, I would say that it's reasonably likely that nobody can run a mile in two minutes.
However, a lot depends on what you mean by "hedge your bets", and what standard you use.
I don't personally pay extra for "meteorite insurance" on my car - because I feel the likelihood of my car being struck by a meteorite is unlikely - and so unlikely that I'm prepared to take that chance.
(However, in fact, it is NOT impossible - there is at least one documented case of a car that was struck and destroyed by a meteorite while parked in its owner's garage in recent history.)

So, yes, I feel quite safe saying that "I'm pretty sure that no human can run a mile in two minutes."
(However, notice how, even then, I did not say "I am absolutely sure.")
(And, no, I don't mind a bit admitting that phrasing it that way is a form of hedging that bet.)




Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> how bout 2 minutes?  You figure it's safe to say nobody on the planet can run a 2 minute mile, or do we need to hedge our bets on the possibility that there's someone out there who can?


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2019)

The technique here is obvious...

1) Throw in an irrelevant analogy
2) Ignore direct questions about the topic being discussed
3) Try to divert the argument to the details of the analogy instead of the real topic.

We are talking about Stereo Review's test where they determined that amps of various price ranges and designs all sounded the same. If you don't have any comments on that subject, then we'll mark it as mutually agreed upon and move on.

In case the conclusion of Stereo Review has slipped your mind, here it is again, along with a handy link so you can read about all the details of the test.

"...the evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them." -Stereo Review January 1987 Pg 78 https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf


----------



## analogsurviver

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I'm not interested in changes that can't be measured by the gear used to arrive at the amps original performance specs.  I'm interested in changes that might be heard by human ears.
> 
> Human ear is a very sensitive instrument. It is not ALWAYS reliable - but, over longer periods of time, it can discern what is good and what is better. ABX 30 or so seconds can never replicate that - as borne out by so many tests, Stereo Review's January 1987 included. You are never going to see a musician playing one instrument for 30 seconds, swap it as fast as possible with another, play the same passage of 30 seconds as played on the first instrument, etc, etc. No - they will play say one movement with one instrument, the second with another, or even repeat the same movement, but played with another instrument. But never 30 seconds ...
> 
> ...



You can laugh as much as you please - but it is true. Eventually, we will arrive at equipment capable of measuring "beyond the wildest imagination of audibility". It is just we are not there yet. Up to that point - and even beyond - human ears/brain combo, regardless how imperfect it might be, will remain relevant. 

If an amp A and amp B both have performance figures WELL past accepted audibility thresholds, but A makes you play recording after recording and B makes you switching the system off due to listening fatigue, there is (yet...) no instrumentation that can decipher WHY - but ear/brain CAN discern at least that the difference does exist and can state preference. But not in 30 seconds intervals ....

Understanding the principles behind the ability of the ear to over longer periods of time relatively easy discern such differences where best measuring equipment (yet... ) can't is the next great step towards achieving perfection in reproduction of the recorded sound. I believe in co-operation and learning - not entrenching firmly on either of the banks of the same river.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> The technique here is obvious...
> 
> 1) Throw in an irrelevant analogy
> 2) Ignore direct questions about the topic being discussed
> ...


No, SR 1987 test did not slip my mind - actually, I am going to re-read (particularly the result charts ) it within 24 hours. I was familiar with it from the date of publishing - plus the usual month or so to reach my shores. All I can say it was a well meant and well conceived test - using tone arm I still have in daily use and cartridge I am also familiar with that spawned a lot of offsprings, some of which I still own and use - about as representative of then SOTA level as possible and still quite viable today. 

There is one, VERY important aspect of the test that has NOT been reported. How or where each respective listener has been sitting during these tests. If the PRECISE - and by that, I do mean precise - positioning of the listener's head/ear has not been maintained during listening to both A and B amps, this test is meaningless. Just one seat removed in any given acoustic venue will most likely result in greater difference than any two properly functioning amps. 

0:45 am here, TBC later in the day after sleep.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> I think there is some literal truth to it, but I changed it by your request.



Thanks!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> here, TBC later in the day after sleep.



"TBC"?


----------



## GearMe

An interesting side bar to the amp discussion...

Would be curious to hear the group's thoughts


----------



## bigshot (Jun 7, 2019)

There's no reason to worry about if a listener was sitting straight up or slumped back in his chair. If that makes a difference, it has absolutely nothing to do with the amp.



analogsurviver said:


> If an amp A and amp B both have performance figures WELL past accepted audibility thresholds, but A makes you play recording after recording and B makes you switching the system off due to listening fatigue, there is (yet...) no instrumentation that can decipher WHY



Where did you see a blind test where a specific amp consistently received statistically meaningful reports of listening fatigue compared to another amp? What make and model of amp is proven to have identifiable levels of listening fatigue? Or are you just making stuff up again?

There are documented reasons why one might experience listening fatigue. Foremost among them would be a narrow frequency response spike, which would be measurable. People can also experience fatigue from wearing headphones too long, getting tired of the music they are listening to, and because they have other things that they would rather do. None of these things are measurable, and none of them have anything at all to do with the amp. In fact, I think the amp is just about the least likely culprit if you are experiencing listening fatigue. I would look to the transducers first.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> fact, I think the amp is just about the least likely culprit if you are experiencing listening fatigue. I would look to the transducers first.



Or the mastering engineer for the album being listened to..!


----------



## bigshot

And listening to a better kind of music too!


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 8, 2019)

As to @bigshot's last point, how about this kind of music?


----------



## castleofargh

why are we doing this again?

"all amps sounds the same" is false. it's easy to disprove as we just need one case where 2 amps do not sound the same within all existing amps and all existing conditions. on the top of my head I can think of a few ways to get my own amps to become audibly different so "all amps sound the same" is not the position of science or whatever, it's just another false claim.
of course that fact doesn't in any way legitimize random empty claims about 2 specific amps sounding audibly different under very specific listening conditions. a proper listening test or significant differences in measurements are needed for that.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 8, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> why are we doing this again?
> 
> "all amps sounds the same" is false. it's easy to disprove as we just need one case where 2 amps do not sound the same within all existing amps and all existing conditions. on the top of my head I can think of a few ways to get my own amps to become audibly different so "all amps sound the same" is not the position of science or whatever, it's just another false claim.
> of course that fact doesn't in any way legitimize random empty claims about 2 specific amps sounding audibly different under very specific listening conditions. a proper listening test or significant differences in measurements are needed for that.



IKR IDK
ITA
IRL SMH VSF QQ
GN 99


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 8, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> "TBC"?



I think it’s To Be Continued.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> why are we doing this again? "all amps sounds the same" is false.




Read the article and come back. You are creating your own conclusion.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> "TBC"?


To Be Continued


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> As to @bigshot's last point, how about this kind of music?




I guess the only thing we agree with bigshot is the appreciation of FZ.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> 1. Your first statement is not technically correct. There is no "precise curve that proves your results are random".
> 2. You seem to have missed the point of my second point. It doens't matter what shape curve you get or where it is centered. No matter how many students do or do not pick out the Strad... or how you analyze the resulting data...
> You _WILL NOT_ learn with absolute certainty whether a certain specific student can or cannot do so. It is simply the wrong sort of test if that's the data you're looking for.
> 3. ... So, based on all of that, I would say that it's reasonably likely that nobody can run a mile in two minutes.



1. Here we go again. My first statement IS technically correct while yours is a deliberate LIE!! You've made-up your own (incorrect) statement, falsely attributed it to me and asserted I'm incorrect. 

2. No, I did not miss your point and again, I did not mention "absolute certainty"!

3. And here we are yet again. Firstly: On what basis would you say that "it's reasonably likely that nobody can run a mile in 2 minutes"? It's certainly NOT any sort of rational or even common sense basis! The world record for the mile in the late 1960's was 3:51 and today it stands at 3:43. Even with all the modern scientific advancements in training that's still only an improvement of just 8 seconds in over 50 years, so a further improvement by another 103 seconds (to 2:00) is NOT "reasonably unlikely" it's incredibly unlikely and almost certainly utterly impossible (without artificial enhancements)! Secondly, what if we say a 10 times improvement over what anyone has ever demonstrated, a mile run in 22.3 seconds, how likely would you say that would be? Would you really not be "certain"? If not, that would put you in a tiny group of cranks/nutters! Many of the differences reported by audiophiles are more than ten times beyond what has ever been demonstrated.

I understand, you make and sell relatively expensive amps. It's vital that you somehow justify that extra expense and therefore you have no choice but to obfuscate the likelihood that the differences between your amp and a much cheaper one being audible but this is the wrong forum for such marketing tactics, this is the sound science forum, as you well know!!!



analogsurviver said:


> [1] However, do you really believe two amplifiers with the electrically totally equal scheme, but built to a vastly different price point - SOUND THE SAME ?
> [2] That additional would buy the customer better and more precisely toleranced electronic components in the circuit itself, better power supply - or even supplies, as in mono blocs; better chassis ( there is such a thing as microphony in amplifiers ... - and better, sturdier cabinets are there not only for looks, but can actually aid in better sound quality ), and so on and so forth.
> [3] The law of diminishing returns is very much still alive - as is the edge the pricier amps have over the lower priced. [3a] Saying that both perform and sound equally is simply not true.



1. You're joking right? On the one side we've got numerous reliable/controlled tests, plus objective measurements indicating differences are below/well below audibility. On the other side we've got a bunch of marketing, plus numerous uncontrolled tests and anecdotal audiophile "impressions", all of which vanish when subject to reliable/controlled testing. So of course I "really believe" they sound the same, I'd need to be an irrational nutter to believe otherwise! 

2. All of which are irrelevant unless those more precise tolerances, better power supplies, etc., collectively make a big enough difference to be audible. Therefore, all you have to do is provide some reliable evidence that they are audible!

3. The law of diminishing returns (for amps) is dead, it's been dead for several decades! Audiophile amp manufacturers have had to develop strategies to get around this fact, which would otherwise put them out of business. The two most common appear to be: 1. Carry on incrementally improving amp specifications ever further beyond the threshold of audibility and then obfuscate (or outright lie about) what is the threshold of audibility. 2. Deliberately (colour) lower the fidelity of the amp's output by an amount greater than the threshold of audibility and then claim it is better/higher fidelity.
3a. If it's "simply not true" that they sound the same, then it's "simply" a matter of providing some reliable evidence to support your assertion. However, despite your promises you NEVER provide such evidence and therefore the only rational conclusion is that you're either simply lying or simply deluded.



castleofargh said:


> "all amps sounds the same" is false. it's easy to disprove as we just need one case where 2 amps do not sound the same within all existing amps and all existing conditions.



No one is saying all amps sound the same without any conditions, such a statement would obviously be ridiculous. For example: A 10w amp will sound very different to a 2000w amp when driving say 1000w speakers at a reasonable level, a deliberately audibly coloured amp should sound different to an amp designed for accurate/high fidelity, a broken/non-functioning amp will obviously sound very different to a fully functioning one. The conditions for the statement that amps sound the same are relatively self-evident; for example: The same appropriate load, functioning well within specifications and designed for accurate amplification/reproduction rather than deliberately coloured. 

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Steve999 said:


> I think it’s To Be Continued.



Thanks.  I would have had no problem typing it in full as you did.  Facilitates communication for all.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> To Be Continued



Thank you.

(TY for the others!)


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 8, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Read the article and come back. You are creating your own conclusion.



Yes, after having read the article, it is obvious to me that it was careful, guarded, and reserved in its analysis and conclusions, and from the context of the article it appears to have been an early attempt at a careful examination of the issue, suggesting further tests were warranted to put its findings to the test. Now we are over thirty years down the road, and it seems a mountain of reliable evidence has accumulated that is consistent with the article’s findings, as typified by post number one in this thread. Still, I think it’s best not to over-generalize, that’s a fair point, because at that point the strength of the argument is diminished.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 8, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> Yes, after having read the article, it is obvious to me that it was careful, guarded, and reserved in its analysis and conclusions, and from the context of the article it appears to have been an early attempt at a careful examination of the issue, suggesting further tests were warranted to put its findings to the test. Now we are over thirty years down the road, and it seems a mountain of reliable evidence has accumulated that is consistent with the article’s findings, as typified by post number one in this thread. Still, I think it’s best not to over-generalize, that’s a fair point, because at that point the strength of the argument is diminished.



I've got one amp that sounds really different - day and night! - It's capacitors contain a rare-earth element...


_Suitcaseium!!


_


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> I've got one amp that sounds really different - day and night! - It's capacitors contain a rare-earth element...
> 
> 
> _Suitcaseium!!
> ...



No exotic unobtainium required - but only the best possible that can be obtained and would phisically fit into available volume. 

After SMD became predominant, things started going downhill ; best dialectric materials can not stand temperatures for SMD soldering, particularly not after non lead solder became mandatory according to RoHS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive

So, no present production using SMD is likely to be built with the best materials of the pre SMD trough hole times.


----------



## bigshot

Steve999 said:


> Still, I think it’s best not to over-generalize, that’s a fair point, because at that point the strength of the argument is diminished.



Who's overgeneralizing? All I see is people deliberately obfuscating and utilizing logical fallacies to say that white is black and down is up. The truth doesn't automatically lie halfway between opposing viewpoints. Sometimes people are dead wrong but continue to argue it just to get sympathy and quarter from "broad minded" people who are willing to shove the truth aside to make nice nice.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 8, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Who's overgeneralizing? All I see is people deliberately obfuscating and utilizing logical fallacies to say that white is black and down is up. The truth doesn't automatically lie halfway between opposing viewpoints. Sometimes people are dead wrong but continue to argue it just to get sympathy and quarter from "broad minded" people who are willing to shove the truth aside to make nice nice.



I must admit that yesterday’s debacle was among the worst bunch of nonsense I’ve ever seen in this thread. I wrote my own diatribe toward that effect after reading through everything last night, but whittled it down and later erased it in the middle of the night and just left the Frank Zappa video up. There are people just making up careless and ridiculous arguments that do not deserve any serious discussion, or flying off on comically irrelevant tangents. Some of them do exhibit the thought pattern you pointed out, for at least the year I came back here after an extremely long hiatus, but I do not think it is a tactic so much as their pattern of thinking or argument on this subject, and with the longitudinal view now, I don’t think it’s going to change. You did not overgeneralize yesterday. I read through carefully and in my view you did not. Still I think it’s good to have the don’t overgeneralize police, aka @castleofargh , hanging around, and since he’s human, like all of us, he’ll over-react once in a while, but he does pretty well.

I have made hanging out here part of my leisure time and I’ll admit sometimes I’m more concerned about the people and relationships than the facts. I really don’t like to hurt people’s feelings, even online and I want this to be fun for me.

I go off to a photography forum sometimes, littered with professional photographers (I’m far from it), and in response to some of the types of things you will see here either someone will call B.S. and it’s over or the post will languish with no response ever being given. Or sometimes it’s like, you know so much, show me your photos. That puts a dead stop to a lot of things. And if someone takes cool photos well then you want to hear from them, and guess what—you learn that usually it’s the guy behind the lens and not the gear that makes the biggest difference. There are people spending thousands on gear and an excellent pro can quite often do better with an iPhone. We don’t have that kind of reality check in this hobby so there is not the same process of hard lessons and motivation for self improvement and critical thinking or self examination built in. There’s no similar obvious evidence or penalty in this hobby that corresponds to continuing to believe or practice nonsense.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 9, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> I go off to a photography forum sometimes, littered with professional photographers (I’m far from it), and in response to some of the types of things you will see here either someone will call B.S. and it’s over or the post will languish with no response ever being given. Or sometimes it’s like, you know so much, show me your photos. That puts a dead stop to a lot of things. And if someone takes cool photos well then you want to hear from them, and guess what—you learn that usually it’s the guy behind the lens and not the gear that makes the biggest difference. There are people spending thousands on gear and an excellent pro can quite often do better with an iPhone. We don’t have that kind of reality check in this hobby so there is not the same process of hard lessons and motivation for self improvement and critical thinking or self examination built in. There’s no similar obvious evidence or penalty in this hobby that corresponds to continuing to believe or practice nonsense.



There are many similarities between photography and recordings but also many huge differences. For example, with recordings it's also the guy/s behind the gear rather than the gear that makes the biggest difference. On the other hand; a huge difference is that almost everyone takes photos and serious amateurs know what all the basic tools/techniques do, both the hardware and software tools and for both actually taking a photo and processing it later. The same is not true with audiophiles, they typically have no personal experience whatsoever of creating what they're listening to, no or very limited understanding of even the oldest, most common basic tools/techniques and therefore, no experience and little/no understanding of how each of these tools/techniques individually affect the listener's/viewer's perception, let alone in combination. The result is that mis-attributions (correlation/cause and effect fallacies) are absolutely rife in the audiophile world, a fact which audiophile marketers advance and exploit to the max!

Even if a pro calls BS, many/most audiophiles are so indoctrinated, so lack knowledge/experience and therefore the ability to think critically, that they're incapable of recognising the truth, even when it should be patently obvious. A pro calling BS is therefore almost certain to be insulted and shouted down, so almost without exception pros no longer engage with the audiophile world, with the result that the fallacious audiophile beliefs and marketing BS is simply ignored (and uncontested) by pros, allowing it to continue (and expand further) unchallenged except for a few tiny corners of the internet like this sub-forum! To the vast majority of pro engineers, the term "audiophile" is a synonym for "delusional nutter", while to many audiophiles, music engineers are cloth-eared, ignorant office workers whose job is to effectively ruin the performances of great musicians.

G


----------



## bigshot

What is happening here is we have a careful study that has crossed every T and dotted every I and it points clearly to the conclusion that a couple of people don't want to accept. They can't acknowledge it, so every time it's mentioned or a link is posted, they pad out the thread with irrelevant blather to push the test back to an older page. They don't want this thread to be about tests and results. They want it to be about them and their opinions. When they flurry post their incorrect conclusions to a thread about scientific facts, they feel that it validates them. The arguing back and forth gives them attention and feeds their egp. They can't just let the facts speak for themselves. They have to inject themselves into it. That approach rarely arrives at the truth. It's why this thread is packed with lots of abstract unproven theories, harebrained wive's tales and logical fallacies instead of facts and solid practical advice.

I wish people would let go of their own ego and just talk about sound science and how it applies to putting together a great home audio system. That's the purpose of this forum. But it often gets forgotten.


----------



## GearMe




----------



## castleofargh

GearMe said:


>



when in an argument, the one to win is the one who can eat the most boiled eggs.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 9, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> when in an argument, the one to win is the one who can eat the most boiled eggs.


That would be Joey.


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> No exotic unobtainium required - but only the best possible that can be obtained and would phisically fit into available volume.
> 
> After SMD became predominant, things started going downhill ; best dialectric materials can not stand temperatures for SMD soldering, particularly not after non lead solder became mandatory according to RoHS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive
> 
> So, no present production using SMD is likely to be built with the best materials of the pre SMD trough hole times.



Waiting on the proof you promised 4 years ago of CD mats improving SQ.  Still having trouble posting the data?

I’m willing to read your posts, but you NEED to start producing the evidence you repeatedly claim to have.  Anecdotes are not appropriate as evidence.


----------



## goatkidbaahcity

bfreedma said:


> Anecdotes are not appropriate as evidence.



They should replace the "Write your reply..." text with this.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

castleofargh said:


> when in an argument, the one to win is the one who can eat the most boiled eggs.



And consequently the one who can clear a room, or an entire row in economy class.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would personally say that the results of the test were in fact quite conclusive…

They proved conclusively that a group of test subjects were unable to hear any difference between two different amplifiers…
-      using the group of test subjects they chose
-      using the two specific brands and models of amplifiers they tested
-      using the specific source content they chose
-      using the specific playback equipment they chose
-      using the specific speakers they chose
-      in the specific room and under the specific listening conditions they chose
-      on the day the test was run
-      at that particular time of day, day of the week, and season of the year
-      at the specific temperature, relative humidity, and pollen count present in that venue that day

Note:
If you think I’m being too specific, then please present the results of a thorough test demonstrating how each of those factors is NOT relevant.
Or, if you try, I’ll bet you can think up another dozen factors which MIGHT be different on a different test.
Personally I’m not convinced that either a vinyl album, or a 1987 vintage CD player, could provide content that would be "perfect" enough not to mask flaws in an amplifier.
(For starters, both have a noise level far higher than the noise floor of even medium-quality amplifiers by today's standards... and vinyl has FAR more THD.)



bigshot said:


> Read the article and come back. You are creating your own conclusion.


----------



## KeithEmo

An interesting question.....

Virtually every authority on the subject agrees that our hearing acuity is best when we are very young - and steadily decreases with age. There are apparently a massive collection of test results to back up that claim... and, in fact, nobody seems to even question its accuracy. 

So, if we wish to test "whether humans can hear the difference between two different things", whether it's two different amplifiers, or two different DACs, or two different types of files, it seems to make obvious sense to choose our test subjects from among the human demographic group that we already know has the best hearing acuity. It hardly makes sense to accept test subjects who we know have less than optimal hearing acuity. Even if we suspect that factors other than raw hearing acuity are at work, and may even turn out to be more important, it seems obvious that, by deliberately excluding the group of humans who are known to have the best hearing acuity, we are seriously skewing the overall results. (I am, of course, taking the somewhat liberal view that children are in fact "human beings" rather than "pets".)

So, how many of the test results we have are from groups of test subjects that included the humans we already know have the best hearing acuity?
Did ANY of those so-called "definitive and carefully conducted tests" include any kindergarten children... or even teenagers...?
Should we suspect that they deliberately AVOIDED choosing the group of humans that we KNOW have the most acute hearing?
Or should we simply accept that they chose convenience over accuracy when selecting members of their test groups?
(Or, perhaps, that they chose among "humans who are likely to purchase stereo equipment"?)



bigshot said:


> What is happening here is we have a careful study that has crossed every T and dotted every I and it points clearly to the conclusion that a couple of people don't want to accept. They can't acknowledge it, so every time it's mentioned or a link is posted, they pad out the thread with irrelevant blather to push the test back to an older page. They don't want this thread to be about tests and results. They want it to be about them and their opinions. When they flurry post their incorrect conclusions to a thread about scientific facts, they feel that it validates them. The arguing back and forth gives them attention and feeds their egp. They can't just let the facts speak for themselves. They have to inject themselves into it. That approach rarely arrives at the truth. It's why this thread is packed with lots of abstract unproven theories, harebrained wive's tales and logical fallacies instead of facts and solid practical advice.
> 
> I wish people would let go of their own ego and just talk about sound science and how it applies to putting together a great home audio system. That's the purpose of this forum. But it often gets forgotten.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jun 10, 2019)

haha, you're a funny guy Keith.

"Sure, that A-Bomb detonated perfectly, but that was just one atom splitting under one specific set of circumstances.  Who knows if that will be true of all other atoms.  There might be an atom out there somewhere that won't detonate under even the exact same set of circumstances.  Soooo....who knows right?  Can't really draw any meaningful conclusions from that at all."


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> What is happening here is we have a careful study that has crossed every T and dotted every I and it points clearly to the conclusion that a couple of people don't want to accept. They can't acknowledge it, so every time it's mentioned or a link is posted, they pad out the thread with irrelevant blather to push the test back to an older page. They don't want this thread to be about tests and results. They want it to be about them and their opinions. When they flurry post their incorrect conclusions to a thread about scientific facts, they feel that it validates them. The arguing back and forth gives them attention and feeds their egp. They can't just let the facts speak for themselves. They have to inject themselves into it. That approach rarely arrives at the truth. It's why this thread is packed with lots of abstract unproven theories, harebrained wive's tales and logical fallacies instead of facts and solid practical advice.
> 
> I wish people would let go of their own ego and just talk about sound science and how it applies to putting together a great home audio system. That's the purpose of this forum. But it often gets forgotten.



https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf


----------



## KeithEmo (Jun 10, 2019)

You seem to have your example backwards...

The atom bomb works because there are a huge number of atoms involved...
And, even though we have no way of knowing when a particular atom will split, it is statistically likely that enough of them will split within the required time to create a chain reaction.
(The way you "detonate an atomic bomb" is to create a situation where this is true.)
However, if you were to single out one particular atom, nobody can predict whether that particular atom will split at any given time or not.
In fact, even when an atom bomb is successfully detonated, many atoms will split, but many will not.
(In other words we are NOT able to predict the actions of ANY individual atom.)

I would probably agree with you that, if we choose two properly functioning modern amplifiers, most listeners will be unable to hear a difference most of the time...
(However, you seem to be claiming that, in THAT case, we will be able to predict WHETHER EACH INDIVIDUAL LISTENER CAN OR CANNOT HEAR A DIFFERENCE.)
(You are going beyond claiming to know the results for one particular listener and claiming to know the results for each and every individual listener.)

Remember that, if a single listener on the entire planet can actually hear a difference....
Then the claim that "there is no audible difference" will have been proven to be false....
(We don't need the bomb to go off... we just need one atom to split to prove that "some atoms sometimes split".)
This is the risk you take when making broad generalizations.

All you need to do to avoid falling into this trap is to temper your generalization...
For example, by saying "most people won't hear a significant difference most of the time".
Since that claim is statistical in nature it can be "proven to be true" statistically.)



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> haha, you're a funny guy Keith.
> 
> "Sure, that A-Bomb detonated perfectly, but that was just one atom splitting under one specific set of circumstances.  Who knows if that will be true of all other atoms.  There might be an atom out there somewhere that won't detonate under even the exact same set of circumstances.  Soooo....who knows right?  Can't really draw any meaningful conclusions from that at all."


----------



## bigshot (Jun 10, 2019)

First we get the absolutist statement "we can't know anything because we can't know everything". (Unless we test every human on earth, we can't say anything.) Then we get the demand that we prove a negative. (Tell me how different conditions would NOT be relevant.) Now we'll get four or five completely irrelevant posts talking about A bombs. So predictable. It might as well be a bot.

Sraw man arguments don't make any point. You can't prove a negative. Demanding that every amplifier be checked under every circumstance is obviously impossible. What you *can* do is look at this article, read the sidebar and find out the absurd lengths they went to in trying to please people who make arguments like "OH! You didn't use a turntable!" or "The amp doesn't matter if the CD player isn't top of the line." or arguing statistics, color of the rug, dress code of the listeners, etc.

The fact is, a test can be extremely well conducted, and take a great deal into account in advance, and reach a clear conclusion... and it will still have armchair experts in internet forums saying that it might not apply to them. If you REALLY REALLY REALLY don't want to believe something, you can always think of an excuse to keep yourself in the dark. I'm perfectly fine with that. I only object to that when they try to spread their ignorance to others. All opinions are not equal. Some are full of hot air.

Do more tests. Do tests that are incredibly impractical and expensive "just to be sure". Prove impossible things... Refuse to jump through all my rhetorical hoops? Then my unsupported straw man argument is just as valid as the results of your test backed up with facts.

sorry... no.



bfreedma said:


> I’m willing to read your posts, but you NEED to start producing the evidence you repeatedly claim to have.  Anecdotes are not appropriate as evidence.



You have the patience of Job. I think the only person still reading their posts in full is Gregorio. I read until I hit a logical fallacy or unsubstantiated claim, then I stop. I don't generally get more than a sentence or two in. It's unrewarding to go any further.


----------



## KeithEmo

But A-bombs are fun.... 
And, if nobody can hear the difference between two A-bombs of approximately the same megaton rating, then they must all sound exactly the same.

I'm sorry, but, while I agree that testing every possible amplifier or CD player would be somewhat impractical.....
I really don't think testing with exactly one turntable and one CD player constitutes a sufficient sample to generalize your results to "every source, every amplifier, and every music sample, now and forever"....
And, no, while the two particular sources they chose apparently pleased certain members of their audience, I consider neither to be one of the most perfect signal sources on the planet either.
And, for that matter, I would hardly consider 1987 vintage Magneplanars to be the most revealing loudspeaker on the planet either.
And, if you do, then, well, I guess life is very simple for you....
But I absolutely do not consider test results obtained with that particular selection of equipment to be generally and universally applicable.

To me, that sounds rather like doing a taste comparison of exactly two flavors of soda, out of the thousands available...
And, after being unable to notice any difference between those two, declaring that you have proven that "all soda tastes exactly the same"...
(And suggesting that this is somehow more likely to be true because "you used the two brands of soda that everyone agrees are the best".)

And, I'm sorry, but the fact that they went to absurd lengths to please the fans of two specific types of audio technology hardly seems relevant.
(Or, at most, no more relevant than pleasing the folks who are sure that music sounds best when listened to while wearing a silk robe and a fez.)

The test does appear to be well conducted...
And may in fact be quite definitive... as long as you use the same source equipment, the same content, and the same speakers as they used to perform the test...
But... what about the rest of us... who use very different equipment...?



bigshot said:


> First we get the absolutist statement "we can't know anything because we can't know everything". (Unless we test every human on earth, we can't say anything.) Then we get the demand that we prove a negative. (Tell me how different conditions would NOT be relevant.) Now we'll get four or five completely irrelevant posts talking about A bombs. So predictable. It might as well be a bot.
> 
> Sraw man arguments don't make any point. You can't prove a negative. Demanding that every amplifier be checked under every circumstance is obviously impossible. What you *can* do is look at this article, read the sidebar and find out the absurd lengths they went to in trying to please people who make arguments like "OH! You didn't use a turntable!" or "The amp doesn't matter if the CD player isn't top of the line." or arguing statistics, color of the rug, dress code of the listeners, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I would personally say that the results of the test were in fact quite conclusive…
> 
> They proved conclusively that a group of test subjects were unable to hear any difference between two different amplifiers…
> -      using the group of test subjects they chose
> ...





KeithEmo said:


> An interesting question.....
> 
> Virtually every authority on the subject agrees that our hearing acuity is best when we are very young - and steadily decreases with age. There are apparently a massive collection of test results to back up that claim... and, in fact, nobody seems to even question its accuracy.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree with that. an experiment, even when statistically significant and repeated by others with similar results each time, is only conclusive within the frame of that experiment. if we start to consider dismissing the potential impact of extra variables so we can draw broader conclusions from an experience, we're not doing better than those who use their sighted impressions to draw conclusions about what they heard.
drawing conclusions doesn't have to be easy just because audiophiles want a simple black or white answer they can then go spam as truth. if rejecting universal statements about DACs or amps, gives me the legitimacy to reject all the empty anecdotes on the same ground, then I'm very happy with the status quo. 



about humans having better hearing when young, one pretty obvious reason is that we don't regrow damaged hair cells as we grow old(FU birds!)


----------



## bigshot (Jun 10, 2019)

"...the evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them." -Stereo Review January 1987 Pg 78 https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf

To find out if this test holds true for your own equipment, you get off your butt and do a similar experiment for yourself. I’ve done that. So have a lot of other people around here. We’re the ones who have found out the same thing Stereo Review did and you said it didn’t count because we didn’t do a stringent enough published test. Now you’ve got that and you go back to individual circumstances again. You just don’t want to know.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

bigshot said:


> I don't generally get more than a sentence or two in. It's unrewarding to go any further.


Yep. Me too. Keith is producing Trollish posts, and I've put him on my "Ignore" list. I don't need the aggravation.


----------



## KeithEmo

Good idea.... otherwise you might risk learning something.... even if it's just the limits of your own knowledge.
(I assume I _didn't_ insult anyone who isn't reading my posts... right?   )



StandsOnFeet said:


> Yep. Me too. Keith is producing Trollish posts, and I've put him on my "Ignore" list. I don't need the aggravation.


----------



## KeithEmo

Here's the catch....

Here at Emotiva, we do frequently conduct internal comparisons, both sighted and unsighted...
Both between different of our amplifier and DAC models...
And between various prototypes and the final product...
And I've also done so numerous times at home...

Sometimes there are no audible differences...
Sometimes there are barely discernible, and quite dubious, differences...
And sometimes there are what seem to be quite obvious differences...

Recently, over a two day period, we invited several groups of customers to compare a new prototype DAC to our then-current DC-1....
In both sighted and unsighted tests, the majority universally preferred the sound of the new prototype, and were able to identify it most of the time....

These tests were NOT properly documented and so don't deserve publication....
And I most certainly don't expect them to convince skeptics who didn't participate in them....
But they certainly served to convince me (and us) that audible differences do in fact exist....
At least some of the time....



bigshot said:


> "...the evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them." -Stereo Review January 1987 Pg 78 https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf
> 
> To find out if this test holds true for your own equipment, you get off your butt and do a similar experiment for yourself. I’ve done that. So have a lot of other people around here. We’re the ones who have found out the same thing Stereo Review did and you said it didn’t count because we didn’t do a stringent enough published test. Now you’ve got that and you go back to individual circumstances again. You just don’t want to know.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 10, 2019)

SINCLAIR, Upton, born 1878, American novelist and social reformer:

*It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf*

Page 78.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Virtually every authority on the subject agrees that our hearing acuity is best when we are very young - and steadily decreases with age. There are apparently a massive collection of test results to back up that claim... and, in fact, nobody seems to even question its accuracy.
> So, if we wish to test "whether humans can hear the difference between two different things", whether it's two different amplifiers, or two different DACs, or two different types of files, it seems to make obvious sense to choose our test subjects from among the human demographic group that we already know has the best hearing acuity. It hardly makes sense to accept test subjects who we know have less than optimal hearing acuity.
> [2] Good idea.... otherwise you might risk learning something.... even if it's just the limits of your own knowledge.



1. Here we go again, round and round, making up fallacies, ignoring the facts, etc! Accused of confusing hearing acuity with listening skills, you respond by confusing hearing acuity with listening skills, impressive! Sure, when we're young some of our absolute hearing thresholds are superior and then gradually deteriorate with age, high frequency response being an obvious example. However, listening skills are pretty much the exact opposite, they improve with time, experience/age, training and practise. And again, there's a massive collection of test results to back that up and the only people who "question it's accuracy" are a tiny number of deluded audiophiles, who've presumably never experienced any listening skills training. So, if we want to test whether humans can listen for and identify differences between two different things, how does it "_make obvious sense_" to choose our test subjects from among the human demographic we already know has the worst listening skills? Your "makes obvious sense" is in fact the exact opposite, it couldn't make less sense ... Welcome everyone to the world of audiophile marketing!!

Your argument makes no sense on a completely different level either! Even if it were only about absolute hearing thresholds (rather than listening skills) and therefore a positive result could be obtained from very young children, how many of the audiophiles here on head-fi (or anywhere else) are at kindergarten? And, to whom are you marketing your amps, adults or young children? Maybe you assume that we here and/or your potential customers have the knowledge and critical thinking ability of a young child, maybe it's just you who have the critical thinking ability of a young child or maybe you're just trolling us again? Either way, here on this sub-forum, you're posts are insulting!

2. You've certainly expanded the limits of my knowledge. For example: The lengths to which someone trying to sell audiophile products is willing to go, a whole bunch of new fallacies, obfuscations, misrepresentations and BS and how to insult everyone's intelligence while avoiding contravening the terms of service. Err ... thanks?

G


----------



## bigshot

I am in the HeadFi Facebook group. It's interesting that Facebook isn't quite as regimented as the rest of this site. The poetic descriptions stand alongside people talking about DBTs. I think by separating sound science off as a separate group, they may have kept all our pesky comments out of the bread and butter groups, but it also tended to entrench both sides. I honestly have no idea why the few folks with irrational arguments bother to post here. Their comments aren't appreciated and it's certainly not adding to their reputation. I think it's a case where any kind of attention they can get is what they crave.


----------



## KeithEmo

So far, this discussion in this forum has in fact been about "the absolute limits of human hearing", and previous claims have always been stated as "no human can hear any difference". Now that I have shown that none of the current tests seems well designed to substantiate THAT claim, because they failed to test a significant portion of the total human population, you seem to be suggesting that we should instead change the claim to "no audiophile on this forum is likely to hear a difference". I have no objection to that change - but note that, in detail, it is a somewhat different topic.

I think a discussion about "what differences are significant enough to justify spending more money on a product" would be quite useful to many people.
However, the goals and intent of such a discussion should be stated, concisely and completely, as just that.
(And it should not disguised as "a purely scientific discussion in the limits of human perception".)

As to your other assertion. As of this point, we have no actual evidence about the relative importance of "listening acuity" and "listening skills" to this particular sort of test. Therefore, we don't actually know what effect the admittedly superior hearing acuity and arguably inferior listening skills of youngsters may have on the results. It may be that children, not knowing what to listen for, hear no difference... or it may be that, even without formal knowledge of what to listen for, they consistently find one device to "sound more like the real thing" than another, because of some tiny difference that the rest of us are unable to hear, which would suggest that there is some sort of audible difference. Clearly nobody has been interested enough to conduct a proper test to determine that either way. And, unless you've actually seen the results of such a specific test, then we're both simply stating our hypotheses on the subject (making educated guesses). 

However, yes, I would consider it pretty obvious that superior hearing acuity at least MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED to be associated with the ability to hear differences that people with inferior hearing acuity are unable to hear. I don't know whether it will turn out that way or not, but I am not prepared to claim that it won't without actually testing it. And, yes, it absolutely makes sense to be sure to include test subjects from EVERY demographic that REASONABLY MIGHT show a preferential result.... and that includes men and women, of a variety of ages, and a variety of ethnic and genetic backgrounds, with a variety of listening skills.    

Again, as has been pointed out repeatedly, this thread is NOT intended to be about marketing, or about audiophile purchasing habits, but about pure science.
This has been stated repeatedly at various points in the discussion.



gregorio said:


> 1. Here we go again, round and round, making up fallacies, ignoring the facts, etc! Accused of confusing hearing acuity with listening skills, you respond by confusing hearing acuity with listening skills, impressive! Sure, when we're young some of our absolute hearing thresholds are superior and then gradually deteriorate with age, high frequency response being an obvious example. However, listening skills are pretty much the exact opposite, they improve with time, experience/age, training and practise. And again, there's a massive collection of test results to back that up and the only people who "question it's accuracy" are a tiny number of deluded audiophiles, who've presumably never experienced any listening skills training. So, if we want to test whether humans can listen for and identify differences between two different things, how does it "_make obvious sense_" to choose our test subjects from among the human demographic we already know has the worst listening skills? Your "makes obvious sense" is in fact the exact opposite, it couldn't make less sense ... Welcome everyone to the world of audiophile marketing!!
> 
> Your argument makes no sense on a completely different level either! Even if it were only about absolute hearing thresholds (rather than listening skills) and therefore a positive result could be obtained from very young children, how many of the audiophiles here on head-fi (or anywhere else) are at kindergarten? And, to whom are you marketing your amps, adults or young children? Maybe you assume that we here and/or your potential customers have the knowledge and critical thinking ability of a young child, maybe it's just you who have the critical thinking ability of a young child or maybe you're just trolling us again? Either way, here on this sub-forum, you're posts are insulting!
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 10, 2019)

You haven't proven anything. You can't even put together an argument without loading it up with semantic arguments about definitions, complete speculation, straw men misquotes built on absolutism, goalpost shifting, more than a few logical fallacies, and a wide variety of completely irrelevant analogies- which you gleefully follow as tangents even when no one else has any interest in going down that road with you. If you think you are "winning" here, you should probably take a step back and think about what you are trying to say and how you are actually saying it.

This is a circular discussion because as soon as you get pinned down on one thing, you drop it like a stone and bring up another. When that one gets dismissed, you revert back to the first one. Rinse and repeat. I'm not interested in fetching each unsupported argument like a dog running after a bone. Other people have more stamina for that sort of thing. I cut to the chase.

I don't know about everyone else, but I feel like I'm standing on the sidelines watching you ride an argumentative merry-go-round. It's been speculated that there are commercial reasons you are posting this blather. For the life of me, I can't see what those commercial reasons might be, because I don't see anyone here rushing out to buy the products you have to sell them.

And by the way, this thread isn't about "pure science". It's about exposing the lie behind audiophile claims and myths. Look up at the title of the thread. I suppose you are helping us do that. But I don't know why you are such an enthusiastic whipping boy to help us make that point. We can do that just fine without your help.


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't really see anything to "win" here...
All I did was to point out that your claims are somewhat overgeneralized and far from as conclusive as you seem to think they are.
(I guess it just bugs me when folks seem determined to pretend that reasonable conclusions and practical approximations are actually edicts handed down on iridium tablets from on high.  )

I agree with you... the title of the thread is: "_Testing Audiophile Claims And Myths_".
My problem is that lately it seems to have become: "A list of things that we are convinced no longer NEED to be tested because they have become unassailable truths."
At that point it magically morphs from a discussion about testing to a long sermon on: "What Thou Shalt Not Be Foolish Enough To Bother Testing".

I think a thread about how we could actually test some of these claims, concisely, accurately, and thoroughly, would be somewhat interesting...
However, so far, all we have is a collection of outdated tests that, to be frank, wouldn't have earned me a B grade in any of my college science classes...
And, yes, some of them have produced good enough results to be at least suggestive...
And even to be suggestive enough to be given serious consideration when deciding what equipment to buy...
HOWEVER, while it might be interesting to design new and better tests, that might provide new and better results (which might well prove the previous results correct).
All I keep hearing is how marginal results are "good enough that it's offensive to even consider questioning them"...

A better subject for the current thread would be: "Debunking Audiophile Myths"....
Although, to be honest, such a title would suggest that you wrongly assumed that ALL audiophile myths are by default false - without wasting the effort to test them.



bigshot said:


> You haven't proven anything. You can't even put together an argument without loading it up with semantic arguments about definitions, complete speculation, straw men misquotes built on absolutism, goalpost shifting, more than a few logical fallacies, and a wide variety of completely irrelevant analogies- which you gleefully follow as tangents even when no one else has any interest in going down that road with you. If you think you are "winning" here, you should probably take a step back and think about what you are trying to say and how you are actually saying it.
> 
> This is a circular discussion because as soon as you get pinned down on one thing, you drop it like a stone and bring up another. When that one gets dismissed, you revert back to the first one. Rinse and repeat. I'm not interested in fetching each unsupported argument like a dog running after a bone. Other people have more stamina for that sort of thing. I cut to the chase.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 10, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> All I did was to point out that your claims are somewhat overgeneralized and far from as conclusive as you seem to think they are.



Untrue. In a previous post today you stated that this thread was so far about the absolute limits of human hearing and previous claims were always stated as no human could ever hear any difference. Which of course was also untrue. Study the first post of this thread thoroughly. Some of the tests are recent and some have positive results. The OP went out of his way to post what he could find of positive test findings. For example:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/

A very expensive amp and a second amp had audible differences. They found audible problems in an audiophile amp by doing double blind testing and figured out why by taking measurements. So not all amplifiers sound the same! The audibly different amps were clipping about one percent of the time. There is a very cordial and involved technical discussion in the thread about the chain-effect havoc clipping can cause in multiple parts of the amp and its effect on sound and measurements.

Which in no way mitigates or contradicts the findings of:

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf

"...the evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them." -Stereo Review January 1987 Pg 78

By “distinctive amplifier sounds” and “differences between amps” they did not mean “clipping.”


----------



## bigshot

An audibly transparent amp is by definition the same sounding as any other audibly transparent amp. If the amp *doesn't* sound the same, that should be an alert to look for a problem somewhere. Amps with defects that don't perform to manufacturer's spec might sound different. Proper amps sound the same.

I test every piece of equipment I buy for audible transparency. I have yet to find a single player, DAC or amp that isn't audibly transparent in normal use. I can see why someone would just assume that every amp sounds the same. It might not be true of every amp ever made in the history of man, but I'm pretty confident that it's true of any amp you buy from Amazon or other electronics retailers. And Stereo Review says that sound quality is a poor basis for choosing one amp over another. I'm confident that is true as well.

I'm not going to discuss whether all audiophile myths are false or not. That is a dumb thing to waste time discussing. I have better things to do. Comments like that make me think you're just pretending to be smart.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Here's the catch....
> 
> Here at Emotiva, we do frequently conduct internal comparisons, both sighted and unsighted...
> Both between different of our amplifier and DAC models...
> ...



Why even introduce this post to the discussion?  You ran a bunch of insufficiently controlled listening tests - what possible value, other than once again muddying the waters - does that test serve in this thread?  If the tests, by your own admission, don’t deserve publication, then they shouldn’t convince you or anyone else.  The only significance I see here is that you’re so determined to be “right” that you state that a test you consider improper convinced you of something.  Broken logic.

It’s almost as if you’re intentionally avoiding running a proper test...

If you want to do this thread a real service, next time obvious differences in amps are evident, take some measurements that actually demonstrate those differences.  If they are obvious to the human ear, they should be trivial to show in data.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 11, 2019)

EDITED: Sorry. I replied here because I had people who waste my time on block and missed the thread of thought.  “Here at Emotiva...” That tells you what you need to know. This isn't about sound at all. We're getting sales pitch masquerading as science. The last time I encountered that I posted photos of a tear down of a "sound enhancing" dongle and showed it to be a pair of wires wrapped in tin foil with sand packed in around it. That didn't end well. I think we all know what is going on here. I don't see a need to turn blocked comments back on. If you are doing tests and getting random and inconsistent results, you're probably doing something wrong. Who owns Emotiva? He should rethink his PR. (getting myself in trouble again!)


----------



## bigshot (Jun 11, 2019)

Am I missing something because I blocked the jokers?

Edit: Yeah I saw the quotes and saw the context.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] As of this point, we have no actual evidence about the relative importance of "listening acuity" and "listening skills" to this particular sort of test. Therefore, we don't actually know what effect the admittedly superior hearing acuity and arguably inferior listening skills of youngsters may have on the results.
> [2] It may be that children, not knowing what to listen for, hear no difference... or it may be that, even without formal knowledge of what to listen for, they consistently find one device to "sound more like the real thing" than another, because of some tiny difference that the rest of us are unable to hear, which would suggest that there is some sort of audible difference.
> [2a] Clearly nobody has been interested enough to conduct a proper test to determine that either way. And, unless you've actually seen the results of such a specific test, then we're both simply stating our hypotheses on the subject (making educated guesses).
> [3] Again, as has been pointed out repeatedly, this thread is NOT intended to be about marketing, or about audiophile purchasing habits, but about pure science.



1. This statement is an absolute beauty, which highlights no less that 3 separate fallacies/falsehoods! 
A. You stated "_it seems to make obvious sense to choose our test subjects from among the human demographic group that we already know has the best hearing acuity. It hardly makes sense to accept test subjects who we know have less than optimal hearing acuity._" but now you're admitting that you have "_no actual evidence_" to support it! It's just an assumption that you've made-up and misrepresented as fact, on the basis that an alternative "hardly makes sense". A typical audiophile/marketing tactic!! 
B. Your statement is false anyway! "We" (collective human knowledge) have a wealth of actual evidence, covering many decades and many tens of thousands of subjects. There are various papers which deal directly or indirectly with "listening skills" and "hearing acuity" pertinent to this particular type of test (although many of them are not easily currently available) but even including these, it represents less than the tip of the iceberg of actual evidence. For example: In formal higher education arguably the single most important area of study is listening skills and degree courses in audio engineering typically have listening skills modules across all 3 years of study, the only subject area where this is the case. These skills must of course be evaluated every year under controlled (examination) conditions. That's many tens of thousands of subjects every year, all over the world but none of this is published as in many/most countries it would contravene data protection laws. Additionally, professional engineers and apprentices/trainees (of which there are countless thousands) reasonably often perform controlled tests which are very rarely/never published. So "we" have a huge wealth of actual evidence, what you actually meant is that YOU personally don't but because you don't and presumably because it fits your agenda you falsely state "we" don't! Another typical audiophile/marketing tactic!! 
C. And what does this huge wealth of actual evidence actually demonstrate, baring in mind that with a few abnormal exceptions the young (teenage) students have significantly better hearing acuity than those lecturing/training them (who are typically around 20 or so years older) and of course, that their hearing acuity does not improve as they age, over the duration of their course/training? I'm willing to bet you already know the answer to this question, although there's a good chance you'll try to pretend that you don't and/or obfuscate or misrepresent it. Another typical audiophile/marketing tactic.

2. Isn't it obvious that a comparative determination that "one device sounds more like the real thing than another" in the first place requires some considerable experience of what "the real thing" is? Do you know many kindergarten kids with considerable experience of anything? A comparative determination against a reference of "the real thing" also requires some critical thinking and listening skills.
2a. Clearly, that statement is false because numerous people across the world have been interested enough to conduct countless proper tests to determine either way. Although this has been done with teenagers rather than kindergarten children, the principle is the same as they typically have significantly better hearing acuity than the lecturers/examiners//pros instructing them but significantly poorer experience and listening skills. And yes, I have seen the results of such specific tests on countless occasions and so I'm basing my statements on actual evidence, while your statements are not only based on "no actual evidence" but are contrary to the actual evidence! Yet another typical audiophile/marketing tactic!!

3. Exactly, so why are so many of your statements nothing more than "typical audiophile/marketing tactics"????

G


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

nobody under the age of 30 has ever suggested to me that the $3000 amp he just purchased is "night and day" better than the $500 amp he had before.  That's the guy I'm interested in.  I want that guy to show me in a blind test that he can actually hear a difference.  Or, the 50 year old guy claiming the new rca cables he just dropped $400 on are worlds better than the $20 ones he replaced.  No 12 year old kid has ever tried to convince me my amp needs 300 hours of burn in to sound right, lol...


----------



## analogsurviver

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> nobody under the age of 30 has ever suggested to me that the $3000 amp he just purchased is "night and day" better than the $500 amp he had before.  That's the guy I'm interested in.  I want that guy to show me in a blind test that he can actually hear a difference.  Or, the 50 year old guy claiming the new rca cables he just dropped $400 on are worlds better than the $20 ones he replaced.  No 12 year old kid has ever tried to convince me my amp needs 300 hours of burn in to sound right, lol...



Count me then as Nobody.

I developed and build electrostatic headphone system - better than anything that will ever be allowed to be sold as a commercially available product. Current levels for the performance found to be  required are, unfortunately, lethal.

You can't buy such a thing - nor can you put price on it. It can only be if the person behind it is driven by the passion that can not be satisfied before the final goal is not reached - at least not a VERY good approximation of what is desired and lusted for. And you put in it whatever you can think of , are able to find/steal/procure ... and repeat that until the goal is reached. 

Over days, weeks, months, years... - because you know - EXACTLY - what you want to achieve, cost be damned.

I did that. From around 1984 to 1988. By upping - bit by bit, quite literally - the quality of the parts. And it was - procure, literally - because certain parts were not available off the shelf, at any cost. 

And you can only find out the time required for something never available before to reach its final performance in one way

It was everything Jecklin Float SHOULD have been - but newer was or will be. Before you spew out another stupid comment, please inform yourself what are the requirements of an electrostatic amp, capable of driving an electrical equivalent of Jecklin Float - directly. That is NOT a Stax kindengarten variety .

But, technically, you are right. I did not buy a 3000 $ amp and claimed it better than my 500$ previous one. 

I had to BUILD IT. And it took all the money I could earn, spare, or whatever. For more than 4 years. From when I was 24 to 28. 

In those days, I have been the boogaboo of the whatever the hearing doctor is called in English; they had to repair and recalibrate their measuring rig, after I have proven the switces and dials they have been using were off.

Certainly, my hearing can no longer be as it has been more than 30 years ago. I can no longer enjoy the carnocopia of different noises each bubble bursting on the surface of the puddle after the summer shower is making.... - for example. Each bubble bursting with a slightly different sound - one hell of a fun back in the day. But the experience gained over the decades sure gives me the ability to discern things in sound some much younger people never will - because, usually, they are either not interested, they have been told CD is enough but listen to MP3 anyway - or , plain and simple, have no NEED to ask for more. 12 years olds have grown up listening to MP3 - and are mislead to believe that is everything to be heard. That's partly THE reason why late teens today - after discovering good vinyl - are among the most valued customers. They certainly CAN hear higher frequencies better than most of us on this thread. And are willing to pay the price.

It has been CD CD CD CD ....... CD from 1984 to 1988 - but "perfecr sound forever"  HAD to be aided by the analog - no review of any top speakers - and particularly headphones - worth its salt could afford to use only RBCD.

Today, things are exactly the same - only analog has been joined by the hirez digital. And the requirements for the amplification are more demanding than for amplification only required to cater to RBCD.


----------



## KeithEmo

But what would be the point of introducing measurements?

Someone posted an excerpt from one of those amplifier tests.
The authors heard a difference between two amps which they'd expected not to.
So they _investigated_ and found that one of the amps was clipping a small percentage of the time.
Note the sequence there.
It kind of sounds like science. 
They heard a difference...
_THEY BELIEVED THAT WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY HEARD MIGHT BE REAL AND THERE MIGHT BE A CAUSE_...
_THEY INVESTIGATED_....
I don't recall reading how they first convened a major test to make absolutely sure they weren't imagining what they heard.)
But I _DO_ recall imagining that, if they hadn't discovered clipping, they might have tried a few more measurements, rather than simply assume that the difference must be imagined.

Yet, oddly, whenever someone suggests that they hear a difference lately in this thread (for example between amplifiers or DACs).
And someone notes that, well, yes, those DACs do in fact have measurably different filter characteristics.
Everyone piles on with "proof" that "they must have been imagining it" because "_we already know such a slight difference it couldn't possibly be audible_".
(In other words, they apparently know that, in this particular case, the differences _must_ have been imagined, and those differences _aren't_ worth checking out.)

I'm totally missing any slight sense of discovery here.

I absolutely agree that this thread includes a lot of useful advice...
However, rather than ever discussing new things that can be tested, or discoveries that might be made, or even reasons why old tests just might be wrong...
All I keep seeing is a total rehash of a few very old, and mostly somewhat dubious, tests...
Interestingly, real scientists generally delight in analyzing each other's work, and picking apart the flaws... 
Most real scientists have this idea that it's what drives them to find flaws in old tests...
Which, in turn, helps them devise better tests...
Which sometimes leads to finding out new and interesting things...

In fact, from the attitude I'm seeing from many people here, I can't quite figure out how the thread has gotten so long.

All we really need is two posts....
The first one could just list every test that's already been run, and published, regardless of when, or what flaws it may have, and suggest that we study it carefully...
And the second post could say: "If you have any doubts, please read the first post."
It could then be locked - because, obviously, as far as many are concerned, no further testing is welcome or necessary.
(And there is absolutely no point to pointing out the flaws in any of those tests or suggesting their results might prove wrong or outdated.)

And, for that matter, since apparently the tests run by Stereo Review in 1987 already proved that everything sounds the same, and found some equipment that "sounded perfect"...
There isn't much point in designing any new gear either...

Then we have BigShot...
Who says he always tests every piece of gear he buys to ensure that it is in fact audibly transparent.
(Since we haven't seen any published results of those tests it sounds sort of... anecdotal... to me...)
Apparently it makes perfect sense for BigShot to use anecdotal evidence...
But the rest of us are supposed to carefully avoid it...

Please understand that I actually suspect that BigShot is probably right most of the time.
And an awful lot of recent audiophile nonsense really is... nonsense.
However, I'm not quite convinced that we should all buy some nice "audibly perfect" 1990's vintage gear and then stop looking.

And, yes, when I started reading this thread I had sort of hoped it would be about designing and running new tests to find out new things...
Which is why I find it a bit disappointing that all it seems to be is about "finding new ways to prove that we already know everything".
(Or would that be "simply accepting that, since we already know everything, even thinking about finding out anything would be a waste of time".

Perhaps I'm being pedantic about the semantics here...
But it really seems to me that a better name for this thread would have been "Debunking Audiophile Myths" and that "Testing Audiophile Myths" is actually a bit misleading.

However, for better or worse, it seems quite clear to me that there is no desire whatsoever to learn anything new here.....



bfreedma said:


> Why even introduce this post to the discussion?  You ran a bunch of insufficiently controlled listening tests - what possible value, other than once again muddying the waters - does that test serve in this thread?  If the tests, by your own admission, don’t deserve publication, then they shouldn’t convince you or anyone else.  The only significance I see here is that you’re so determined to be “right” that you state that a test you consider improper convinced you of something.  Broken logic.
> 
> It’s almost as if you’re intentionally avoiding running a proper test...
> 
> If you want to do this thread a real service, next time obvious differences in amps are evident, take some measurements that actually demonstrate those differences.  If they are obvious to the human ear, they should be trivial to show in data.


----------



## KeithEmo

Now you're just being ingenuous....

I'm sure we could pick out any kindergarten student...

Throw a rock through a window...
Record it...
Play that recording for them on two different devices...
And ask them if they hear a difference - and if one recording sounds more like a real window breaking than the other.
We could try two recordings of an ice cream truck (if they still exist)....
And see how many kids in our test sample assume each is a real truck and come running...
I suspect they also might have opinions about which recording of a dog, or cat, or a bird singing, sounds more real...
And it would be very interesting to find out if, with a recording of mommy's voice, they could tell the difference between "real" and "Memorex" with various amplifiers.

In fact, with a little ingenuity, we could even get my cat to participate in a study of "which recording of a can of cat food opening sounds more realistic".

I do also find it interesting that there are actually tens of thousands of tests run every year that prove this...
Even though, of course, none of us is permitted to see or confirm those results...
After all, they're either "top secret" or "unavailable"...
It's sure lucky that we have a few privileged experts who can interpret them for us...
Personally I would love to see some of those results - just to see what other interesting results might be in there....

Incidentally, my first statement is both true and a sort of "truism"....
When performing any test claimed to represent "the human race" it obviously makes sense not to exclude _ANY_ significant demographic.
Therefore, since children comprise a significant percentage of the overall human population, they obviously should be included.
No "evidence" is required to "prove" than any legitimate member of a test population "deserves" to be included.
However, it makes even more obvious sense to be sure to include members of any group who are reasonably likely to be significant.
For example, if you want to find out "how fast a human can run", it would be sort of foolish to exclude professional athletes and tall people.



gregorio said:


> 1. This statement is an absolute beauty, which highlights no less that 3 separate fallacies/falsehoods!
> A. You stated "_it seems to make obvious sense to choose our test subjects from among the human demographic group that we already know has the best hearing acuity. It hardly makes sense to accept test subjects who we know have less than optimal hearing acuity._" but now you're admitting that you have "_no actual evidence_" to support it! It's just an assumption that you've made-up and misrepresented as fact, on the basis that an alternative "hardly makes sense". A typical audiophile/marketing tactic!!
> B. Your statement is false anyway! "We" (collective human knowledge) have a wealth of actual evidence, covering many decades and many tens of thousands of subjects. There are various papers which deal directly or indirectly with "listening skills" and "hearing acuity" pertinent to this particular type of test (although many of them are not easily currently available) but even including these, it represents less than the tip of the iceberg of actual evidence. For example: In formal higher education arguably the single most important area of study is listening skills and degree courses in audio engineering typically have listening skills modules across all 3 years of study, the only subject area where this is the case. These skills must of course be evaluated every year under controlled (examination) conditions. That's many tens of thousands of subjects every year, all over the world but none of this is published as in many/most countries it would contravene data protection laws. Additionally, professional engineers and apprentices/trainees (of which there are countless thousands) reasonably often perform controlled tests which are very rarely/never published. So "we" have a huge wealth of actual evidence, what you actually meant is that YOU personally don't but because you don't and presumably because it fits your agenda you falsely state "we" don't! Another typical audiophile/marketing tactic!!
> C. And what does this huge wealth of actual evidence actually demonstrate, baring in mind that with a few abnormal exceptions the young (teenage) students have significantly better hearing acuity than those lecturing/training them (who are typically around 20 or so years older) and of course, that their hearing acuity does not improve as they age, over the duration of their course/training? I'm willing to bet you already know the answer to this question, although there's a good chance you'll try to pretend that you don't and/or obfuscate or misrepresent it. Another typical audiophile/marketing tactic.
> ...


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jun 11, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> _THEY BELIEVED THAT WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY HEARD MIGHT BE REAL AND THERE MIGHT BE A CAUSE_...
> _THEY INVESTIGATED_......



yup.  And they found the explanation (which had nothing to do with the expensive one sounding "better" than the cheaper one.)  Which is all anyone wants from you.  Show us the data.  Show us the (audible by human ears) difference between your expensive amp and the lesser one.  Don't just say "I can hear the difference."  You are an amp manufacturer right?? Surely you can show us the measurements you've taken that explain what you say you hear.  If two things sound different, something as simple as a frequency response graph will show that right?  This ain't rocket science.  But no, instead of providing that you fall back on what amounts to "it's magic and there's no real way to explain it."  Amps don't have to sound the same.  They can be made to sound how ever the designer wants them to sound...but that isn't really what most of us want right?  We want amps that take a signal in, amplify it cleanly, and then pass it on to the speakers.  So given two amps that both profess to do that, what makes your more expensive one sound better?


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

analogsurviver said:


> I had to BUILD IT. And it took all the money I could earn, spare, or whatever. For more than 4 years. From when I was 24 to 28.
> 
> In those days, I have been the boogaboo of the whatever the hearing doctor is called in English; they had to repair and recalibrate their measuring rig, after I have proven the switces and dials they have been using were off.



That's amazing!  But since anecdotes don't mean much, it's not that conclusive.  Because nobody anywhere is claiming that you don't believe it sounded better.  Were telling you WE don't believe it sounded better and that your golden ears are deceiving you.


----------



## analogsurviver

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> That's amazing!  But since anecdotes don't mean much, it's not that conclusive.  Because nobody anywhere is claiming that you don't believe it sounded better.  Were telling you WE don't believe it sounded better and that your golden ears are deceiving you.



Said a driver of - say - stock Mustang/Cobra/Lambo/WhateverCommerciallyAvailable - to the driver who built by himself an Indy 1500 car - that has to be outlawed in a regular Indy 500 race. 

Out of curiosity - can you even take an educated guess at what are the requirements for the amplifier I said I built 30+ years ago ? Voltage swing, current capability into designated load ?

Please make yourself a favour - and go and listen to any live sound event produced by acoustic instruments - from mosquitos flying trough coal shoveling up to symphony orchestra with choir and organ - and everything in between. Then ask yourself how close whatever equipment you are using comes to the sound of the real thing. Repeat improving that equipment  until the answer is something to the effect of "next to none or very little difference". 

What I can asure you you will not find that path easy - nor, upon sucessful completion, find calling it to be deceiving yourself amusing.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jun 11, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Said a driver of - say - stock Mustang/Cobra/Lambo/WhateverCommerciallyAvailable - to the driver who built by himself an Indy 1500 car - that has to be outlawed in a regular Indy 500 race.
> 
> Out of curiosity - can you even take an educated guess at what are the requirements for the amplifier I said I built 30+ years ago ? Voltage swing, current capability into designated load ?
> 
> ...




...to the driver who *SAYS* he built himself an Indycar.

That's a significant distinction.  You talk a lot about what you've accomplished in your quest for sonic nirvana, but you don't provide much evidence of anything.  Sorry if that doesn't amuse you, lol.


----------



## analogsurviver

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> ...to the driver who *SAYS* he built himself an Indycar.
> 
> That's a significant distinction.  You talk a lot about what you've accomplished in your quest for sonic nirvana, but you don't provide much evidence of anything.  Sorry if that doesn't amuse you, lol.



Yes, I DID build it. And decided it is too dangerous for permanent use, even for myself. In storeage since late 1999 - but, it worked without a hitch, for more than a decade.

Goes WAY over any electrical safety legislation limit. You can joke as much as you wish, but lethal current is lethal in anyone's language - and is no laughing matter. 

Stepping down to Stax Lambda Pro/SRM1MK2 level was - sonically speaking - a sour pill to swallow; but playing electr(ostat)ic chair roulette on daily basis does not exactly sound like relaxing with listening to music. Cable insulation in headphones is likely to fail - and the loss of signal is the least concern in this case.

On the other hand, no other amp can teach you nearly as much as electrostatic amp can - one HAS to consider factors that are not even mentioned in dyanamic speaker amp requirements.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> But what would be the point of introducing measurements?
> 
> Someone posted an excerpt from one of those amplifier tests.
> The authors heard a difference between two amps which they'd expected not to.
> ...




 As usual, you completely ignore the post you're responding to and go off on a rant.

The level of self importance displayed is stunning.  You can't even follow forum convention and respond below the quoted text to maintain context.

I'm completely uninterested in your product marketing masquerading as interest in actual science.  Have fun with absurd edge scenarios, flying pigs, A-bombs, and other attempts to deflect.  You have convinced me of one thing though - I will not be considering any products from your employer.


----------



## bigshot

Let's play the Head-Fi Sound Science Home Game! Just quote one line and cite the logical fallacy that goes with it. Fill your card and call out BINGO! when you've had enough. I'll start...



KeithEmo said:


> In fact, with a little ingenuity, we could even get my cat to participate in a study of "which recording of a can of cat food opening sounds more realistic".



Reductio ad absurdum


----------



## KeithEmo

You seem to be seriously confusing my posts with someone else.

As you say - I work for a company who makes amplifiers - among other things.
And I can tell you that no two of our models have ever measured _EXACTLY_ the same.
There are always tiny differences in frequency response, or THD, or the actual spectrum of the tiny amount of THD that's present... or any of a dozen other things.
And, yes, in many cases, even though they measure slightly differently, at least to me.)

I am also the first one to agree that _ANYTHING_ that can be heard _can_ be measured.
And there is absolutely, positively, NOT any such thing as magic.

However......

If you hear a difference, but can't seem to find a measurement that would account for it....
- maybe you're simply not measuring the right thing
- maybe you're not measuring it accurately, or carefully enough, or under the right circumstances
- maybe you're not interpreting one of the measurements you've taken correctly
- (and, yes, maybe you were just imagining it)

But, just maybe, the 0.2% THD, which you're quite certain couldn't possibly be audible, really _IS_ audible under certain circumstances.

This was commonly the case back in the early days of amplifier design.
An imperfect Class B output stage will often exhibit "crossover notch distortion".
This is typically a "spike" of distortion that occurs right around the zero crossing point of the waveform.
(At certain instants, the signal that should be present is entirely missing, which calculates to a very high percentage of distortion.)
The result is a very high level of distortion - but for a very short duration - and a very small _percentage_ of the time.
And, if you look at the waveform on an oscilloscope, the flats around the zero-crossings with be quite obvious.
However, if you measure the THD, using standard techniques for doing so, the readings will be quite low.
THD is an averaged reading... and very short spikes of high distortion average out to a low overall value.
However, if you look at the THD reading, and fail to look at the oscilloscope, you will reach an entirely erroneous conclusion.
(And, more to the point, if, after seeing the THD reading, you'd concluded that "they must be imagining that it sounds harsh", you would never have discovered the truth.)

My point, in the very general sense, is simply this....

If what you think you hear seems to disagree with the measurements...
You should consider taking a few more measurements...
Or even, perhaps, examining the situation a little more closely, and attempting to figure out what you might have missed...
Instead of just discounting what you heard as "something that couldn't possibly be true"...

I consider this to be even more true with modern digital devices like DACs.
The possible distortion mechanisms for this sort of equipment are much more complex than those amplifiers are subject to.
And, with digital components, it's not at all unlikely that new sorts of artifacts and aberrations may occur.
How _DO_ you count the "distortion percentage" of ringing (where output signal is present when there was no input signal).
And how do you rate the audibility of pre-ringing.... where output signal is present _BEFORE_ the input signal that caused it.
And how do you determine the "THD" on a lossy file - where entire complex sounds are omitted after being calculated to be "inaudible"?
(For example, an amplifier with 50% THD sounds audibly _MUCH_ worse than an MP3 file where 50% of the information has been omitted by the encoder.)
The previous simple metrics for what's audible simply cannot reasonably be _ASSUMED_ to apply to these sorts of situations.
So we need more testing, in order to develop new metrics, which do apply, and which do correlate to what we hear.
(And, no, the basic theories behind "rocket science" are actually pretty simple... and a lot of this stuff is in contrast quite complex.)

And, incidentally, in the "grand audiophile scheme of things", and of comparing various products at different price points....
The company I work for, Emotiva, is generally the one offering "the economical model with the good performance", and not "the expensive audiophile model".
(So, if you want to ask "what makes the expensive one sound better", that would probably be a question for someone else.)



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> yup.  And they found the explanation (which had nothing to do with the expensive one sounding "better" than the cheaper one.)  Which is all anyone wants from you.  Show us the data.  Show us the (audible by human ears) difference between your expensive amp and the lesser one.  Don't just say "I can hear the difference."  You are an amp manufacturer right?? Surely you can show us the measurements you've taken that explain what you say you hear.  If two things sound different, something as simple as a frequency response graph will show that right?  This ain't rocket science.  But no, instead of providing that you fall back on what amounts to "it's magic and there's no real way to explain it."  Amps don't have to sound the same.  They can be made to sound how ever the designer wants them to sound...but that isn't really what most of us want right?  We want amps that take a signal in, amplify it cleanly, and then pass it on to the speakers.  So given two amps that both profess do that, what makes your more expensive one sound better?


----------



## bigshot (Jun 11, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> The level of self importance displayed is stunning.  You can't even follow forum convention and respond below the quoted text to maintain context.
> 
> I'm completely uninterested in your product marketing masquerading as interest in actual science.   I will not be considering any products from your employer.



I think you are closer with the first statement than the second. They don't seem like they are performing any kind of job here, they're just performing. I doubt that they have any purpose in mind other than to grandstand. If they pull these sorts of stunts in the real world, they probably get shut right down quick. It's only here in an anonymous internet forum where they feel comfortable giving free rein to this behavior. I can definitely put a word to it. But I won't because I would get in trouble.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

analogsurviver said:


> Yes, I DID build it. And decided it is too dangerous for permanent use, even for myself. In storeage since late 1999 - but, it worked without a hitch, for more than a decade.
> 
> Goes WAY over any electrical safety legislation limit. You can joke as much as you wish, but lethal current is lethal in anyone's language - and is no laughing matter.
> 
> ...



thanks for that bit of information that has literally nothing to do with anything.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 11, 2019)

@analogsurviver and @KeithEmo . . . Why don’t you go over and join the Audio Science Review forum and try your ideas over there. They are not so regimented in separating the objectivist and subjectivist camps because they are not so wedded to commercial interests.https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php

There are some head-fiers who bounce back and forth. My guess is that they would be somewhat more sympathetic to your philosophical bent. For example, they are sympathetic to the idea that amps will sound different when you push them to the edge of their operating limits and will investigate exactly what is going on, and they do test audiophile equipment and enjoy impressive performance beyond audible transparency for its own sake. The general advice for the edge-case amp problems is sometimes just to turn the volume down a little. They have some moderate “believers” and moderate “non-believers” who have common ground in the middle and the forum has a very cordial posting style. They do lots of testing and measuring. Some of them have experience designing and building big-league stuff. Why not try your hand at it?


----------



## bigshot (Jun 11, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> thanks for that bit of information that has literally nothing to do with anything.



Actually he's attempting to use Appeal To Authority.

I'm getting closer to my Bingo!



Steve999 said:


> The general advice for the edge-case amp problems is sometimes just to turn the volume down a little.



Excellent advice in general. Let's see if he takes it.


----------



## KeithEmo

I was prepared to argue with you when I realized that, this time, you actually did get my point.

Claiming that "it would be too difficult to test kindergarten students" is pretty absurd.
(And the best way to point that out seemed to be by comparing it to an even more absurd assertion.)

However, in fact, I may have failed to provide a sufficiently absurd counter-sample...
I recently read a summary of the results of a test to determine "whether cats recognize their own names"...
It was in a recent edition of Scientific American...
They actually seemed to consider furthering our knowledge of how cats think as useful science.
(Science can actually be fun after all.)



bigshot said:


> Let's play the Head-Fi Sound Science Home Game! Just quote one line and cite the logical fallacy that goes with it. Fill your card and call out BINGO! when you've had enough. I'll start...
> 
> 
> 
> Reductio ad absurdum


----------



## bigshot (Jun 11, 2019)

> If what you think you hear seems to disagree with the measurements...
> You should consider taking a few more measurements...
> Or even, perhaps, examining the situation a little more closely, and attempting to figure out what you might have missed...
> Instead of just discounting what you heard as "something that couldn't possibly be true"...



Stereo Review in the introduction to the article "Do All Amps Sound The Same?" says there is nothing in the measurements of amps to make one think that they would sound different. And at the end of the test they concluded that according to the results of their listening tests, if there are differences between amps, we aren't likely to be able to hear them. So they basically say that the measurements and the listening tests agree. Why are you talking about disparities that don't exist here?


----------



## KeithEmo

I wasn't specifically referring to that article... 

However, I do give the authors of that articular article a lot of credit for _NOT_ making overly grandiose claims about their results.
Note how they used phrases like "that would make one think"... and "aren't likely to hear"... both of which convey elements of personal opinion... 
Which make it clear that they don't expect their results to be taken as generalizations that apply to every amplifier, every listener, or every situation...
They did a small scale comparison, under limited circumstances, between a few popular audiophile products, and reached some interesting conclusions...
(Which many people might well find interesting, informative, and useful...)



bigshot said:


> Stereo Review in the introduction to the article "Do All Amps Sound The Same?" says there is nothing in the measurements of amps to make one think that they would sound different. And at the end of the test they concluded that according to the results of their listening tests, if there are differences between amps, we aren't likely to be able to hear them. So they basically say that the measurements and the listening tests agree. Why are you talking about disparities that don't exist here?


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> AS and KE. . . Why don’t you go over and join the Audio Science Review forum and try your ideas over there. They are not so regimented in separating the objectivist and subjectivist camps because they are not so wedded to commercial interests.https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php
> 
> There are some head-fiers who bounce back and forth. My guess is that they would be slightly more sympathetic to your philosophical bent. For example, they are sympathetic to the idea that amps will sound different when you push them to the edge of their operating limits and will investigate exactly what is going on, and they do test audiophile equipment and enjoy impressive performance beyond audibility for its own sake. The general advice for the edge-case amp problems is sometimes just to turn the volume down a little. They have some moderate “believers” and moderate “non-believers” who have common ground in the middle and the forum has a very cordial posting style. They do lots of testing and measuring. Some of them have experience designing and building big-league stuff. Why not try your hand at it?



Audio Science Review is, of all present options, perhaps the most interesting option. About the best info on objective performance of any currently available gear.

However, despite what you correctly observed, they do not do acid tests - pushing equipment to and beyond the limits. When operated within design envelope, most equipmewnt today will be reasonably good. When pushed beyond ( a single peak into clipping, for example ) can wreck havoc with some amps - and sustained clipping can still sound acceptable on another. Usually, both subjectivists and objectivists find their jaw on the floor - IF presented with the listening to their music at their normal listening level - and observing the input and output of the power amp. Only very high efficiency speaker systems manage to avoid clipping ... - and when the level is reduced for zero clipping on high dynamic range recordings using normal efficiency speaker system (below 90 dB /w/m), the resulting sound is usually simply too low in volume. This is to cite only the most obvious problem with real world use of amplifiers.

With DACs and ADCs, the focus at ASR is on 20Hz-20 kHz performance almost exclusively. I would much prefer distortion 0.01% well into the ultrasonics ( in fact, to and beyond the frequency the device is capable of ) than zero % within 20-20 k, but skyrocketing at any frequency the device still produces output. Real world digital devices have quantization noise from certain frequency up, depending on the sample rate the device is capable of. Above 20 kHz - and, by that I mean at least 40 kHz - there are generally no measurements. Some digital devices can have noise and distortion going trough the roof above 50 kHz - and some, although not perfect, can remain relatively unaffected. The second kind will usually be preffered in listening - despite being worse in the 20-20K band. Objective faction would insist it is the other way around ...; true, but only if and when fed strictly with a RBCD signal. Any analog or hirez digital would prove them wrong. Ever attempted testing digital devices for intermodulation very close to their upper limits of frequency response - like 45 and 46 kHz at1:1 , with amplitude close to 0 dBFS ( say at not more than -3 dBFS ), with the sampling frequency of 96 kHz ?  Usually, the difference sum - 1 kHz, most definitely audible - will be rather higher in level than any single tone THD measurement. It is true that high levels at so high frequencies are extremely rare, but not impossible. And the device that shows less deviation from perfect, even within so stressful conditions, will usually perform better  in the long run of actual listening to music. No testing with upper limit of 20 kHz would reveal such differences among digital devices - but listening to any source exceeding RBCD would generate impressions; regardless how true or false interpreted, they would at lest suggest the difference DOES EXIST.

I have learned troughout my time with audio those hard to do feats , which in theory should never occur, do in fact produce audible differences in perceived sound. Just to cite the most widespread problem in amplifiers prior and up to say 1980 - power supply. Almost everything had great spec for noise levels, but with one, unfortunately fatal flaw ; that power supply has only been quiet and ripple free with no or low level signal(s). Push it above say 25% of the rated power, the power supply will be modulated by the audio signal it is trying to reproduced. Push it close to , to or above the clipping - it might momentarily reduce channel separaton to close to zero.... and so on and so forth. I have adopted the policy the power supply(es) have to remain stable no matter what, even into gross clipping - and amp better recover from this gross overload instantly once the too high input amplitude is removed. This type of problems in amps would NEVER be revealed in conventional testing. If it measures perfectly within specs, that does not mean it will never see "out of spec" signals in real world of listening to music.

Even if we go to the most basic whole chain consisting of microphone, preamp, power amp and headphone/speaker , reasonable performance both below and above 20-20k range is required. Should anything other than RBCD be used as a source, the amplification will be facing various artefacts, from phono stylus mistracking ( can be almost in MHz range ...) to quantization noise of digital. 20-20k conventional tests may well fail to weed the chaff from the grain.

And, like it or not, better and more or even unconditionally stable and noise free power supplies DO  contribute to better perceived sound quality. That may well mean regulated supplies for input, for driver and maybe even for output stage - and you can double that for dual mono or mono block operation designs. 

If anyone of you thinks I am exaggerating with clipping in home audio systems - attach a dual trace oscilloscope to input and output of the power amp, play some reasonably low sine signal ( usually 1 kHz at - 20dB ), adjust the sensitivity of the scope so that input and output have the same amplitude in the display. Invert the polarity of one of the channewls and add the two signals - ideally, the trace on the scope should not show any movement at all, not even noise. Then, at the same settings, start playing music. Make sure your settings do not overload the inputs of the oscilloscope; that would give you false readings. I DO NOT RECOMMEND HIGH LEVEL TESTING CLOSE TO MAX OUTPUT OF THE AMP WITH ANY (PARTICULARLY DYNAMIC ) SPEAKER - if you can, verify that your power amp clips before inputs of the oscilloscope for your settings with dummy resistor load, which is hard to damage and can sustain steady state full output for the few seconds required to do the verification. Needless to say, playing steady state signal ( 1kHz ) trough loudspeakers close to full amp power is extremely LOUD; and could lead to permanent hearing damage. Speakers can be replaced, ears can not. Use common sense.

After you have ascertained above, just play music, at your normal listening level setting. In case of no clipping, output on the scope display should be ideally perfect horizontal line. With today's amps, no noise should be observable on that line. If you are lucky nothing remains to be seen even during the loudest climaxes of the (most) demanding recordings you chose fdor the test - congrats, you have a really well chosen system according to your requirements.

But most WILL get to see peaking to occur some percentage of the time... - and are likely to find the volume insufficient for the desired loudness if the input is reduced below peaking 100 % of the time.

That is when the "beauty" of electroacoustics sets in ... output power of amplifiers is MUCH more meaningful if instead of simple Watts is expressed according how humans perceive loudness : https://www.rapidtables.com/electric/dBW.html    A 100 W amp has 20dBW, a 200 amp only 23dBW - just 3 dB louder. For another 3 dB increase in loudness, 26dBW are required - or 400 W.  Converted into money, those increases in performance ( provided the speakers used can take the power cleanly without damage to begin with )  does cost dearly indeed. 

And those who have some experience will tell you that designing a decent sounding say a 70 watt amp is easier than a say 200W amp - which, in turn, is easier than designing say equally good sounding 400 or more W amp. You can add this claim as yet another "audiophile" myth - but this will be confirmed by anyone who has ever attempted or built any real world amp. In cases where the same - or at least similar - circuit topology has been used for approx above mentioned power levels, the best sounding amp that came on top during listening at low levels and/or with loudspeakers with above than average efficiency has been usually the least powerful one. Which succumbed to power shortage when used for high level music and/or loiw(er) speaker efficiency. An aptly named range has been from Great American Sound: the original big one Ampzilla, its smaller sibling Son of Ampzilla and the final addition to the family, called  Grandson . With careful matching to the room and speakers used, it has been thus catered to optimally choose the amp regarding both cost and sound quality - with many Grandsons replacing its more powerful predecessors in case the power of the smallest amp has been found sufficient. Similar stories can be observed with many more brands, but none had more aptly named amplifiers.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 11, 2019)

I think the Stereo Review article is a MUCH better guide for the best way to select an amp than audiophile sales pitch and anecdotal impressions. However, on the planet Mars if the sun isi at just the right angle and the entire universe is in alignment, perhaps it would be better to go with the BS advice from stereo salesmen. Thankfully, I have no plans to go to Mars, so I can just take it as an absolute and act accordingly.

I keep my amps below clipping so none of that flurry of made up pseudo-scientific blather applies to me either.


----------



## KeithEmo

Wow......
I have to admit that I didn't read the entire test until now..... and, after reading a bit more, I did notice some interesting things.

For example.... they used a tube preamp.
Do we all agree that a tube preamp is "neutral enough to reveal subtle differences in other components"?

Then, they seem to have only used a single set of speakers.... Magneplanars.
Do we all agree that one set of speakers is sufficient to represent all speakers, of all different brands, and designs, completely?
And do we all agree that, even though Magneplanars aren't especially sensitive to amplifier damping factor, we can discount this?
And, for that matter, do we all agree that Magneplanars (from 1987) are "revealing enough that we trust them not to obscure differences in other components"?

And, for that matter, do we all agree that the provenance of the CD player they chose ensures that it can deliver a perfectly neutral signal?
(If we're going to pick out minute colorations in other gear we should at least start with a signal that is as close to uncolored as we can find... right?)

Something else worth noting...
I've also seen one paragraph repeated and quoted multiple times:

_"But for now, the evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are
so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are
still differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them."_

HOWEVER, nobody bothered to quote the preceding paragraph:

_"So for these units, under these conditions, we believe the question has been resolved. But whether or -
not another group of amplifiers in a different situation would yield dramatically different results is still
open to question. This is just the beginning-few scientists would place a great deal of weight on the results of a single
experiment, however extensive, and particularly not an early one. The testing techniques must, and will, be
refined, and a larger body of data will be collected as more such tests are performed in the years to come."_

THAT paragraph seems to place the results of this test, and the conclusions the authors derived from them, in a slightly different context.
(For starters - rather than suggesting that further research was unnecessary - they seemed to believe that their results suggested the exact opposite.)

Interesting....



bigshot said:


> I think the Stereo Review article is a MUCH better guide for the best way to select an amp than audiophile sales pitch and anecdotal impressions. However, on the planet Mars if the sun isi at just the right angle and the entire universe is in alignment, perhaps it would be better to go with the BS advice from stereo salesmen. Thankfully, I have no plans to go to Mars, so I can just take it as an absolute and act accordingly.
> 
> I keep my amps below clipping so none of that flurry of made up pseudo-scientific blather applies to me either.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

they were testing amps.  Not speakers.  Please stop.  There is no need to introduce different variables.  All components except the amp remain the same and the comparison is made.  You know that.  

And yes, the test is not the final word.  Go ahead and present your evidence that proves it wrong.


----------



## bigshot

I'm getting listening fatigue and I'm not even listening to them much any more. Time for me to post my put up or shut up again...

Every amp, player and DAC that I have ever tested has been audibly transparent. Many other people here in this forum have had the same experience, yet anecdotal comments continue to insist that equipment exists that sounds different than every other piece of similar equipment. Here is my request...

If you yourself have done CONTROLLED TESTING (blind, level matched, direct A/B switched) on a piece of solid state home audio equipment of recent manufacture and have determined that it is not completely AUDIBLY TRANSPARENT, please let me know the make and model and consider lending it to those of us in Head Fi Sound Science who are interested so we can do measurements and listening tests to confirm your results.

Until we can identify a piece of home audio equipment that is colored, we can't speak about why it might be colored or what is causing the difference in sound, because to do so would be pure speculation about something that might not even exist. Let's find out.

Thank you!


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 11, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Audio Science Review is, of all present options, perhaps the most interesting option. About the best info on objective performance of any currently available gear.
> 
> However, despite what you correctly observed, they do not do acid tests - pushing equipment to and beyond the limits.



Quite untrue. In pretty much every review they push the unit to and if possible beyond the limits and tell you if and when the review unit goes bonkers. They even tell you how far back to dial the volume to get things under control.

Go there and have fun!

*Just two quick examples from AudioScienceReview.com:*

"Now let us talk about another gotcha with this unit. The volume control goes from 0 to 80 in .5 steps. But they aren't db steps. Further, set to 80 (max) you get more than 30% THD. Set to 70 which is about 3 db less you get a few % THD. Set to 69 THD drops to .009% or about – 80 db. 69 is 2.23 volts output and 80 is only 3.23 volts output. A difference of 3.2 db. Why did they allow you to do this? You don't get any real gain for low levels. Why leave it so you could experience 30% THD?"

*-OR-*

"Intermodulation test was totally nutz with volume control at max as I normally test. Distortion skyrocketed early in both low and high gains. I dialed the volume control back to about 2:00 o'clock and that fixed most of that at the expense of slightly higher noise floor. . .Strangely, high gain did not do anything better than raise distortion level above .3 volt input (pink). There is some design error here. . .Measuring power versus distortion and noise did not do much to make me happy. . .These are dismal power output levels. That aside, what the heck is wrong with low gain mode? Why is it clipping? Low gain mode is supposed to stress the amp a lot less with lower voltage output so there is no reason for it to badly clip. . .High gain has much elevated noise likely due to the mains noise shown in the dashboard. The gap to our reference $99 JDS Labs Atom is massive. . .The same ugliness continues with 33 ohm load. . .I plugged in my Sennheiser HD-650 headphones into [deleted] expecting the outcome to disagree with the measurements. That was not to be the case. Up to 12:00 o'clock on the volume control all was OK. But going much past that caused severe distortion in both low and high gain modes. The latter was not remotely sufficient for this headphone. The distortion was not subtle at all. . . how did listeners not notice the lack of power and quick onset of distortion? I searched and the only reviews I found were the fluff kind with soundstage this, and detail that, missing the major weaknesses in this product. . . To continue selling headphones amps with far less power and more distortion and noise for same or much higher price is like trying to sell flip phones for more money than smartphones."

They gave the Apple headphone dongle a very favorable mini-review, FWIW.


----------



## analogsurviver

Steve999 said:


> Quite untrue. In pretty much every review they push the unit to and if possible beyond the limits and tell you if and when the review unit goes bonkers. They even tell you how far back to dial the volume to get things under control.
> 
> Go there and have fun!
> 
> ...



Wow... - I have to check them out again !

Two or so years ago all of their testing has been limited to 20.000 Hz ( or, maybe, to 22050 ). 

And, yes, they have to be applauded for giving good reviews to inexpensive stuff and exposing some ridiculously expensive stuff as being practically broken. 

Now, time to check if there is any life on ASR  above 22050 Hz .


----------



## analogsurviver

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> they were testing amps.  Not speakers.  Please stop.  There is no need to introduce different variables.  All components except the amp remain the same and the comparison is made.  You know that.
> 
> And yes, the test is not the final word.  Go ahead and present your evidence that proves it wrong.



Testing amps must involve testing them with different speakers. Real world speaker load is anything but a purely resistive load of constant value - such as used for establishing specs and consequent testing. The published spec of an amp is the most rosiest of conditions an amp will almost NEVER be faced to work under in real world use.

Stereo review chose to test with the most benign real world load on the planet - Magnepan. It is the closest approximation of resistive load ( around 6 ohms IIRC ) with a first order crossover - and there is next to none impedance rise in high frequency, such as examplified by any normal dynamic tweeter. Depending on exact model, that impedance may well be within less than one ohm from nominal , across 20 -20 K range - a FAR cry from any more conventional speaker on the market.

Any other speaker used would have presented more challenging load - with bigger differences in sound.

There have been any number of attempts to make the life of an amplifier easier - both commercial and DIY. The first commercial normal box dynamic speaker that adressed the impedance problem has been Cizek ( Model One ) - which, if the large peak in impedance around the port frequency ( unavoidable ) is exempted, really had a very constant and smooth impedance curve across the rest of the spectrum. The Speaker Builder magazine later also published a series of articles addressing the same problem. Catch is that additional elements that have to be added to conventional crossovers slightly reduce efficiency and - predictably - cost more money. So much of the potential cost savings on amplifier are swamped by the more expensive and less efficient speaker.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 12, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Wow... - I have to check them out again !
> 
> Two or so years ago all of their testing has been limited to 20.000 Hz ( or, maybe, to 22050 ).
> 
> ...



In some reviews they state that they prefer to see equipment measure well at least up to 40 kHz, in at least one review they stated that they like to see the gear measure well up to 40 kHz in this age of hi-rez. It’s much more of an an amalgam of subjectivist and objectivist, with a huge dose of audio playback engineering expertise there. You might well feel much more at home there. They have two sets of measurement criteria for audible transparency, a lenient set and a strict set, though they state that even with the lenient set the equipment will be audibly transparent. They like to see gear measure way beyond audibly transparent, but if it is so-so they will talk about if the problems are likely to be audible. They can find gear to be audibly transparent and still be very unhappy with the measurements. There are no big disagreements about audible transparency. They will challenge purely subjective impressions with no data or testing to back it up though. It’s quite a big tent and very active. You may well find your own niche there.

Here they make fun of a cable manufacturer in a short review and there is a funny discussion thread afterwards:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...o-cable-business-is-getting-out-of-hand.7712/


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jun 12, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Testing amps must involve testing them with different speakers. Real world speaker load is anything but a purely resistive load of constant value - such as used for establishing specs and consequent testing. The published spec of an amp is the most rosiest of conditions an amp will almost NEVER be faced to work under in real world use.
> 
> Stereo review chose to test with the most benign real world load on the planet - Magnepan. It is the closest approximation of resistive load ( around 6 ohms IIRC ) with a first order crossover - and there is next to none impedance rise in high frequency, such as examplified by any normal dynamic tweeter. Depending on exact model, that impedance may well be within less than one ohm from nominal , across 20 -20 K range - a FAR cry from any more conventional speaker on the market.
> 
> ...



sorry.  not buying it.  They were testing to see if any difference could be noted between two amps.  no need to test them under a wild array of conditions.  here's two amps.  nothing else is changing in the test except the amp.  do you hear a difference?  Simple. And again, if you have a problem with the test, go ahead and present the evidence you have that proves it wrong...


----------



## KeithEmo

There is a famous quote - often attributed to Einstein (probably incorrectly). 
It goes:  “Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler”

The simplest way to test amplifiers is by connecting them all to a nice simple resistor load...
It's very standard, big load resistors aren't very expensive, and it's a convenient way to compare things equally....
And, for all those reasons, measuring them with a resistive load is in fact the most common way to measure amplifiers.

The problem is that, while purely resistive test loads are the most common type, virtually _ALL_ real world speakers are nothing like that.
Almost all speakers are the exact opposite - in fact, most represent very reactive loads, with very complex impedance characteristics.
And, yes, different amplifiers do act _VERY_ differently when connected to reactive loads.
In fact, being asked to drive a speaker that is almost purely resistive, like a Magnepan, _IS_ "the wild and wacky exception" for an amplifier.
You might as well compare the handling of several cars - by testing them on a straight road, with a gentle but steady downhill angle, and a perfectly smooth dry surface...
And then claim to be comparing how they handle and how fast they go under "real world driving conditions".
In fact, a large part of designing a useful test is to choose test conditions, and test samples, _representative of real world usage conditions_.

You can drive a VW Beetle, and a Formula 1 racer, straight down the street in front of your house at 20 mPH...
And then gleefully claim: "Wow... we tested a VW Beetle and a Formula 1 racer - and they handled just the same."
Your statement won't be a lie - but it won't contain any useful information either.

You aren't going to be able to hear the differences in distortion between two even really poor quality amplifiers while playing fuzz guitar music...
And you aren't going to be able to hear differences in frequency response by playing vocals that contain a range of frequencies that any telephone could easily handle...
And you aren't going to find out how they sound with real typical consumer speakers... unless you test them with a variety of real typical consumer speakers.

In that Stereo Review test, they almost certainly chose Magneplanars because they are highly favored by certain audiophiles...
However, they are not at all representative of "the load offered by most typical loudspeakers"...
And neither are they "the loudspeaker most likely to reveal a wide variety of flaws or limitations if they're present"...
- Magneplanars have a very resistive and "benign" impedance characteristic
- Magneplanars have poor low bass response (which is obvious if you look at their specifications)
- Magneplanars are also dipoles (so they tend to highlight certain types of errors very well - while totally obscuring others)
- Also, because of their low mass, and weakly coupled drive mechanism, Magneplanars are extremely INSENSITIVE to variations in amplifier damping
    (while virtually all other speakers in common use are the exact opposite)

In short, other than being well liked by a certain group of audiophiles, Magneplanars are a very POOR approximation of "a typical speaker".
They are in fact a very ATYPICAL speaker.
Therefore, unless you happen to own or plan to own Magnepan speakers, the results of their test are quite likely to be useless to you.

There is no need for evidence to "prove the test wrong".
Based on the methodology of the test itself it is simply inadequate to support the convlusions you're looking for.

If you look at the products they chose...
And actually read the verbiage about how they chose what to test...
It becomes obvious that they chose products to satisfy certain requirements.
They chose products that were currently popular among audiophiles.
_They also SPECIFICALLY chose products that many audiophiles would be likely to EXPECT to sound very different.
They compared a low cost, solid state, consumer receiver to an expensive tube amplifier of rather unique design.
They didn't even pick a typical tube amplifier - they instead chose a unique and atypical "output transformer-less" one.
Rather than chose typical products - they chose products that would "appear to be as different as possible"._
And, as such, they succeeded quite well._
_



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> sorry.  not buying it.  They were testing to see if any difference could be noted between two amps.  no need to test them under a wild array of conditions.  here's two amps.  nothing else is changing in the test except the amp.  do you hear a difference?  Simple. And again, if you have a problem with the test, go ahead and present the evidence you have that proves it wrong...


----------



## KeithEmo

I may do just that.
I am, however, a bit saddened.

I really had thought that this group was about:  "Testing audfiophile claims and myths"...
(And, perhaps, about devising new tests to learn new things about new gear and technology....)

But, instead, it's mostly about: 
"Deciding not to bother to test audiophile myths and legends because we already know none of them are true".

So far, in several months, I haven't seen ANY discussion about testing ANYTHING new here at all.
(It's all: "Well, someone tested that already... and we trust their answers... no need to bother... move along...."

Any test that shows the opposite of the popular view is "obviously badly flawed" or "a waste of time"...
While tests that support the popular views are "clearly compelling"...
And any flaws we might notice in them are "clearly insignificant"...

If I were to believe the majority fo the posts in the last dozen pages...
All decent audio gear made after 1987 is perfect...
So we might as well all buy a low cost receiver at our favorite big box store or online outlet...
(I still haven't figured out why, if that's the case, we should even keep reading......)

I will add one final thing...

Very few manufacturers of audio equipment have any reason whatsoever to spend money on comparison tests.
In reality, most good products are _quite similar _in sound quality and performance_._..
(Note that I did not say "exactly the same".)
However, there is very little justification for spending good money to show your product is "a little bit better".
And the companies who make good low cost products have little incentive to prove their case at all.
Tests cost good money - and most "price sensitive" customers will choose the cheaper one anyway.

Nobody who makes $10 cables is going to sponsor a test to prove that they're as good as $500 cables.
They can't _possibly_ sell enough extra $10 cables to pay for the cost of the test.
(It may cost the audiophile company a $500 sale - but they only make a buck on the $10 cable they sell in its place.)

I will throw one thing out there.
If anyone actually _WANTS_ to compare various products themselves, by whatever methodology they like...
The audio gear we sell where I work - at Emotiva - comes with a 30 day return policy...
Therefore, you can test it, any way you like, _and then return it if you don't like the results_...
(I'm sure you can find at least a few other manufacturers who offer the same option.)
Sometimes it's fun to learn things without simply taking someone else's word for them.



Steve999 said:


> @analogsurviver and @KeithEmo . . . Why don’t you go over and join the Audio Science Review forum and try your ideas over there. They are not so regimented in separating the objectivist and subjectivist camps because they are not so wedded to commercial interests.https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php
> 
> There are some head-fiers who bounce back and forth. My guess is that they would be somewhat more sympathetic to your philosophical bent. For example, they are sympathetic to the idea that amps will sound different when you push them to the edge of their operating limits and will investigate exactly what is going on, and they do test audiophile equipment and enjoy impressive performance beyond audible transparency for its own sake. The general advice for the edge-case amp problems is sometimes just to turn the volume down a little. They have some moderate “believers” and moderate “non-believers” who have common ground in the middle and the forum has a very cordial posting style. They do lots of testing and measuring. Some of them have experience designing and building big-league stuff. Why not try your hand at it?


----------



## analogsurviver

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> sorry.  not buying it.  They were testing to see if any difference could be noted between two amps.  no need to test them under a wild array of conditions.  here's two amps.  nothing else is changing in the test except the amp.  do you hear a difference?  Simple. And again, if you have a problem with the test, go ahead and present the evidence you have that proves it wrong...



OK, this IS head-fi. I hope no one will disagree with that.

In recent years, many in ear headsphones started using balanced armature drivers - from one way to usually more way designs, sometimes mixed with conventional dynamic drivers. 
Please do check how does the impedance curve of in ear headphones using balanced armatures can measure/look like. From that WILD impedance fluctuations it should be perfectly clear that the amp driving such headphones should have as low output impedance/as high damping factor as possible - or there can be measurable deviations from perfectly flat frequency response. You can see mentions of this happening all over the head-fi - even if described incorrectly, the observation that amp A sounds with such headphone differently than with Amp B is correct - and can be verified by measurements. Any reviewer worth at least the shadow of his/her salt would comment on performance of any current amp or DAC also when driving
such difficult loads.

The same is happening with amps and speakers. Particularly amps and speakers chosen by Stereo Review aim at the easiest possible load - constant, almost completely pure resistance. The tube amp choesn wass an OTL ( OUTPUT TRANSFORMER LESS ) design. OTL eschews the use of otherwise indespensable output transformer - and all of its limitations. Bar one - output impedance. OTLs can easily have output impedance of 1 ohm or even more - making their frequency response with speakers with varying impedance of course - varying. Vacuum tube OTLs  traditionally excell in the treble - and Futterman specifically has been the choice for the treble range with active crossover systems in many cost no object systems. No one in his right mind would ever use it for subwoofer ... not only it would be too expensive, but would perform quite poorly at that.

There is any amount of evidence out there published; just google OTL frequency response vs speaker impedance My first hit was this : https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=50405.0
Depending on speaker impedance used, such an amp can easily exceed 2 dB variation from flat anywhere across the 20-20k band. 2 dB variation in frequency response IS AUDIBLE - and OTL amp can only escape this variation to be heard/measured IF the speaker load is dead constant flat and non reactive - aka Magnepan ( and nothing else in real life ). 

The degree of oversimplification in order to justify "everything sounds the same" is going FAR too far in this thread. I would tend to agree there are "little, if any" difference in two technically comparable amps of comparable power driving reasonably easy impedance normal dynamic box speakers. But choosing as easy load as possible for an amp known to have troubles with any normal speakers is a little too hard to believe the Stereo Review test has not been deliberatly rigged   - inf avour of "no difference" -  from the very start.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree with you 100%.

However, in this case, I'm not so sure the test was exactly rigged.
If they'd set out purely to rig the test I would have expected them to have chosen more normal speakers and a more normal high end amplifier.

They made it sound as if their goal was:
"To compare some gear that audiophiles would agree was audiophile grade to some common off-the-shelf consumer gear"...
With the obvious goal of proving that there was little difference between them.

My guess is that they chose the Futterman simply because, to most of their readers, and to many audiophiles, it represented "a really expensive and exotic piece of super high end gear".
(But that certainly may have influenced their decision to choose the Maggies - which are such a benign load.)

There's also a distinct possibility that their choice of gear was largely determined by what was available to them at the time.
(In that context, and when viewed a certain way, I might agree that the Futterman would be widely precieved as "the exact opposite of a cheap receiver".)

As I recall, at this point in history, Stereo Review was NOT widely viewed by audiophiles or the industry as "a fountain of commonsense wisdom".
They were more often described as: "The magazine that never gave a product a bad review - especially if it was made by one of their advertisers".
I suspect they were trying to earn back some credibility by providing what their readers would see as "some hard hitting credible journalism" - or a reasonable facsimile of it.



analogsurviver said:


> OK, this IS head-fi. I hope no one will disagree with that.
> 
> In recent years, many in ear headsphones started using balanced armature drivers - from one way to usually more way designs, sometimes mixed with conventional dynamic drivers.
> Please do check how does the impedance curve of in ear headphones using balanced armatures can measure/look like. From that WILD impedance fluctuations it should be perfectly clear that the amp driving such headphones should have as low output impedance/as high damping factor as possible - or there can be measurable deviations from perfectly flat frequency response. You can see mentions of this happening all over the head-fi - even if described incorrectly, the observation that amp A sounds with such headphone differently than with Amp B is correct - and can be verified by measurements. Any reviewer worth at least the shadow of his/her salt would comment on performance of any current amp or DAC also when driving
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

They do actually seem to provide a lot of useful information in their reviews.
And they seem to have a LOT of reviews.
And the information itself, and most of the actual conclusions they reach from it, seem to be relatively unbiased.

Although, to be fair, they do also have a few very distinctly odd _OPINIONS_, against which they tend to judge the equipment they review.
For example, they seem to believe that "a piece of equipment shouldn't distort if you turn the Volume control up to its maximum setting"...
They argue that "it shouldn't let you do that", and they rate any piece of gear poorly that allows you to do so.
In fact, there is no such industry standard, or even a vague consensus.
It's not an unreasonable suggestion, and there are good arguments both for and against it, but disagreeing with their opinion is not a design or performance flaw.
Someone else might argue, with equal validity, that a piece of gear that reaches maximum output at full Volume "has no free gain" - and consider _that _to be a design flaw.
It is simply a design choice with which they disagree.
(However, in fairness to them, they seem to usually explain their reasoning, providing plenty of opportunity to discount it if you disagree with it.)



Steve999 said:


> Quite untrue. In pretty much every review they push the unit to and if possible beyond the limits and tell you if and when the review unit goes bonkers. They even tell you how far back to dial the volume to get things under control.
> 
> Go there and have fun!
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I agree with you 100%.
> 
> However, in this case, I'm not so sure the test was exactly rigged.
> If they'd set out purely to rig the test I would have expected them to have chosen more normal speakers and a more normal high end amplifier.
> ...



I agree with everything you've said above.

The trouble is that Hirsch-Houck Labs ( or, to be direct, late Julian Hirsch ) has been doing lion's share of objective testing (measurements) in mainstream US audio press. Besides Stereo Review, it was Popular Electronics and maybe more. The only seriously different "mainstream, slick" objective testing published in US came from Audio Magazine. High Fidelity, although not THAT lukewarm as Stereo Review, has also been clearly in the "safe" camp, with only mildly more critical approach than Stereo Review.

We have a singer-songwriter in Slovenia ( rather mainstream,  sort of our equivalent to Jackson Browne of US - who is one of his idols  ) called Andrej Šifrer. Even he wrote the song "Hladen ali vroč" ( Hot or cold ). The lyrics ( and refrain ) go something like this ( it does unfortunately not rhyme in my attempt at english translation ) :
" ... but be cold, cold or hot ... - if you are lukewarm, I will spit you away... "



I found some european objective reviews of the bygone age to be of particularly high quality. And most of them, regardless if published in italian SUONO magazine or italian or german editions of Stereoplay magazine, have been actually made by IAF - Insituto Alta Fedelta (Institute for High Fidelity) in Rome, Italy. These were more comprehensive than anything published in the mainstream magazines in US - and for objective review of say Beveridge 2SW and other super high end US gear, they are the single source. Too bad they are NOT available online as pdf files, similar to the American Radio History - at least not known to me. And even if they were available as pdf files, non italian and non german reading public would only be able to look at the graphs and figures - being left out for comments on the listening impressions, which were a healthy mix of playing it safe and vaxing poetically - without going overboard in either direction. But they DID say whether they thought the device under test was - or not - a good value and whether it justified its cost. You would never read in any of the US mainstram magazines ( in review of the Grado Signature 2 phono cartridge , german Stereoplay ) : Congratulations, Mr. Grado .... but your manual labor is expensive !

French had ( still have ? > Nouvelle Revue du Son ) Revue du Son ( mainstream, objective, but with very good assesment of listening impressions ) - and the "esoteric" L'Audiophile, a sanctuary of Jean Hiraga, of japanese origins, bringing the fresh air from the land of the rising sun many years in advance of most others in the west. Tubes, horns, turntables ( all  in the Les Undesirables category in this thread... ) - but made with ingenuity of the approach and passion that can leave nobody unmoved by the actual listening to some good music. Also many interesting, although rather pricy DIY projects. All of these has seemingly consolidated here : https://vumetre.com/qui-sommes-nous.html

I believe most of the people here have at least rudimentary overview of the british audio press - so, I will not cover that here. 

Due to language barrier, objective review Danish, Swedish, Norvegian, .... audio press was/is beyond my reach.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 12, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Testing amps must involve testing them with different speakers. Real world speaker load is anything but a purely resistive load of constant value - such as used for establishing specs and consequent testing. The published spec of an amp is the most rosie



They weren't testing the power of the amps. That is a given. A speaker that requires more oomph needs a bigger amp. They were comparing the output of amps that were performing to spec. That means that the amp had to be capable of pushing the transducer properly.

The more variables you introduce, the more likely differences could be due to something other than the thing you're testing. The way to test an amp is to use the most revealing speakers you can find, as long as the amp is able to push them to spec. I think the Magnapans are a very good choice. They are among the cleanest and flattest speakers you can buy. If you can't hear a difference with them, you're not going to hear a difference with lesser speakers.

I am glad you finally read the article, even if it was just to nit pick. The fact that you are aware of all the controls and results, and you still are grasping at straws tells me that you know you are wrong.

If you don't have any better test to offer up for us that show different results, I'm just going to claim victory and move on. You can go ahead and search for a stray thread, but it isn't going to change the overall results.



KeithEmo said:


> _Rather than chose typical products - they chose products that would "appear to be as different as possible"._



If they chose all the same kind of amps in the same price range, what would you be saying? If radically different typologies and radically different price ranges didn't reveal a difference, what does imply about amps of similar characteristics?

This is the best test I've ever seen comparing amps. The fact that it was so well designed and documented is the reason that very few people have bothered to test other slightly different variables. When the test results were this conclusive, people just accepted it and moved on... well except people who are so invested psychologically or commercially that they can't allow themselves to accept it.

If you think that you could come up with different results with the same sort of controls, you and your employer certainly have the ability to do that. Prove your make and model is audibly different, then back that up with measurements showing where the audible improvement comes from. Everyone will buy your product and you'll be rich.

But we all know you won't do that, because an amp is an amp. The technology that allows a manufacturer to build an audibly perfect amp is common knowledge. Even duffers in their garage working with off the shelf parts can do it as a hobby.

Sound quality is a poor reason to select one amp over another. Features, build quality and price are better reasons to make a particular buying decision.



KeithEmo said:


> Although, to be fair, they do also have a few very distinctly odd _OPINIONS_, against which they tend to judge the equipment they review. For example, they seem to believe that "a piece of equipment shouldn't distort if you turn the Volume control up to its maximum setting"... They argue that "it shouldn't let you do that", and they rate any piece of gear poorly that allows you to do so.)



If your car had another gear setting... Beyond Reverse, Neutral, Park and Drive you had one more... Crash... Would that be something that perhaps the designer should have omitted from his plans?

Controls that blow past specs are bad design. It doesn't matter if you keep within clipping, but there is no purpose for it and it can only hurt the sound quality.

This is getting silly now. You're not even thinking about the things you say. We aren't interested in sorting through your random thoughts. Try to organize yourself and speak on point. Thanks.



Steve999 said:


> In some reviews they state that they prefer to see equipment measure well at least up to 40 kHz, in at least one review they stated that they like to see the gear measure well up to 40 kHz in this age of hi-rez.



They aren't looking for that because of sound quality, they're looking for it because of manufacturing tolerances. When you manufacture equipment, every unit that comes off the line is a little different. Manufacturers have a range acceptable variation before they mark a unit NG and toss it in the recycle bin. Those variations all have to be beyond the threshold of audibility to meet spec. If they can design something to maintain control until 40kHz, then it's very unlikely that there would be problems down below 20kHz. Manufacturers build overkill into their designs. Then audiophools look at those specs and imagine that they can hear them. Then they figure that even better specs would mean better sound. It doesn't. They don't know what perfect sound is because they don't know what those numbers really represent... and in many cases, they have a personality disorder that makes them not want to know.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jun 12, 2019)

bigshot said:


> If you don't have any better test to offer up for us that show different results, I'm just going to claim victory and move on. You can go ahead and search for a stray thread, but it isn't going to change the overall results.



I'm begging for it!  Please...give me something to chew on!  I want to believe...I'm a fan of audio gear.  I love the stuff and I would be very happy if expensive amps could put out a better clean signal than cheap ones!  I'd love it if I could improve the sound of my headphones (or amp) by burning them in for a week.  I'd enjoy upgrading all my cables if I knew it would actually improve the SQ!  But all the published tests I can find lead me to believe it's all hokum!  So, please...point me to the stuff that proves it isn't!

BTW, I've been over at ASR all morning reading threads there.  Interesting!  Great forum...and nothing I've seen there really does anything to help me believe the myths!


----------



## castleofargh (Jun 12, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> I really had thought that this group was about: "Testing audfiophile claims and myths"...
> (And, perhaps, about devising new tests to learn new things about new gear and technology....)
> 
> But, instead, it's mostly about:
> ...


can't disagree with this. I've mentioned the "testing" apparently hidden in the title of this thread a good dozen times, but in practice I could delete the all thread save the first post and we wouldn't be missing a lot of testing. personally it pisses me off to see what is done with this thread. and what's mind blowing is that it seems to annoy pretty much all parties involved in it. yet here we are and nothing changes. we still get baited into debating nonsense themes, empty claims and non falsifiable ideas for sport. fighting over an anecdote(often unsubstantiated) with one side making it a conclusive stuff about everything, and the other side saying it's worth nothing because it's just one anecdote. I'm reading that thinking "wow, they once again reached a point where everybody's wrong, how do they do that?"
then there is the all bias about how the standards for myself aren't the ones I demand from others. when I'm the one neglecting variables, conditions, or even any form of supporting evidence, it's for the greater good! to make it easier to understand for the layman. but if the guy on the other side does the same, oh boy, I must tell everybody about how that guy is soooooooo wrong and unscientific. no hope for science to grow from this, but maybe as a comedy it could get somewhere?

of course my biggest trouble when reading those posts is how often I'm wondering: "what are they talking about again?". I know people fight, but I'm not sure they fight the same points or are even aware of that. I tried to tidy things up by saying that all amps sound the same is false, but apparently nobody is defending that idea. and I've seen nobody claiming that all amps sound audibly different.  so what idea is being defended when arguing about amps and audibility? IDK. I hope we're all clear on the idea that amplifiers do exist.




anyway, my advice is to discuss only stuff that have been properly researched or things that can actually be tested by members. we can make a topic about "what if" for those interested in considering what hasn't been done or what hasn't been properly tested yet. you clearly are such a person and I don't see anything wrong with that. but this topic isn't really it IMO as the testing part is still supposedly the main point.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jun 12, 2019)

Why does it have to be testing done only by members? Why can’t we look at and discuss testing done by groups who have resources and capabilities beyond what many of us can accomplish?  I can maybe set up a test for myself, but i can’t really organize tests involving multiple subjects.

In fact, re-reading the first post tells me thats exactly the intent with this thread - to look for and discuss tests that have been done.  So I’m not sure what your issue is...

And your point about not all amps sounding the same was dealt with.  You know that right?  We are discussing amps designed to put out a clean, uncoloured amplified signal.


----------



## castleofargh

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> Why does it have to be testing done only by members? Why can’t we look at and discuss testing done by groups who have resources and capabilities beyond what many of us can accomplish?  I can maybe set up a test for myself, but i can’t really organize tests involving multiple subjects.
> 
> In fact, re-reading the first post tells me thats exactly the intent with this thread - to look for and discuss tests that have been done.  So I’m not sure what your issue is...
> 
> And your point about not all amps sounding the same was dealt with.  You know that right?  We are discussing amps designed to put out a clean, uncoloured amplified signal.


dunno if I accidentally deleted part of my sentence or if it's a pure brain fart on my part but of course I didn't mean post stuff only tested by people of the forum. that's dumb. 
anyway off I go to edit that crap ^_^  sorry.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> They weren't testing the power of the amps. That is a given. A speaker that requires more oomph needs a bigger amp. They were comparing the output of amps that were performing to spec. That means that the amp had to be capable of pushing the transducer properly.
> 
> The more variables you introduce, the more likely differences could be due to something other than the thing you're testing. The way to test an amp is to use the most revealing speakers you can find, as long as the amp is able to push them to spec. I think the Magnapans are a very good choice. They are among the cleanest and flattest speakers you can buy. If you can't hear a difference with them, you're not going to hear a difference with lesser speakers.
> 
> ...



I have read that article back in the day it has been published - Stereo Review and High Fidelity have been in the portfolio of magazines available in the library of the US Information Centre in Ljubljana back in the day. Magazines were possible to borrow for a week ( or two ? - it has been a while... ), and if unlucky, you had to wait for a month or so after publication to be actually able to read it at library or borrow it for home reading. This time, it had only to be refreshed.

I agree regarding Magnepans. But they DO require "all that they can see" in terms of power in order to play back uncompressed recordings - certainly MUCH more power than Futterman can provide into 6 (or so, depending on the exact model ) ohm load. https://www.stereophile.com/content/new-york-audio-laboratories-futterman-otl-1-power-amplifier
I have VERY fond memories of " big Maggie with the line source ribbon "  - most likely these https://www.stereophile.com/content/magnepan-mg25r-loudspeaker ( or bigger, but definitely with line source full height ribbon tweeter ) which I got to listen and work with during my stay at Benz Switzerland. And, no, the two super amps at disposal , the then top Spectral and Swiss Physics, did NOT sound identical - even if carefully adjusted for level to never go into clipping ( hard to do... the space was HUGE, under the ceiling was hung Mr. Benz's glider aircraft ... - he was an avid gliding pilot ) I doubt a more clearly audible difference between "cold" ( Spectral ) and "warm" ( Swiss Physics ) power amps is possible. As this was in 1990, the succesors of the Van Den Hul MC-10 cartridge ( designed by VdH but actually made by Benz, who also sold it under Empire MC-1000 VdH name ) used by Stereo Review test three years earlier have been tested on this rig prior to being put into production. The ultra low output ( 0.03 mV/5cm/sec - NOTHING will get rid of hum at this tiny output ... ) prototype of what later became available commercially as Benz Ruby cartridge has been THE  highlight of all things audio in my lifetime. Of all audio transducers, it istll holds the rise/fall time record: 3 uS ( in words : three microseconds ) . After it, listening to Vdh MC-10 felt like going from FM to AM radio...

Here some food for thought - or bone to chew on - whatever you prefer. As I can not afford Spectral and Futterman and similar $ equipment, I HAD to do "something". That "something" is possible with Technics range - which had great designs, but the electronic components, mainly passive, were of less than superb quality. And, Technics designs have, in certain places of the circuit, chronically undersized value capacitors - which for proper operation would require up to two orders of magnitude higher value  ( ! )

You could, until recent resurrection of the Technics brand, only buy vintage Technics models. Due to age, the first thing to do is to replace most if not all electrolytic caps. And, I did  NEVER  bring a Technics only to its stock new condition ... - while at it, I did try to replace all electrolityc caps with film variety, if that was due to sheer value/physical size impossible, I did install bypass film caps, etc. And, if and when the undersized cap has been found, it has been replaced with value that actually made the circuit to perform as intended - if two orders of magnitude greater than stock required and there is physical space available, in it went. And, no, I did not succumb to the "film cap MUST work better" audiophool notion ; I did verify the operation of each and every stage of modification, for each and every part replaced with an oscilloscope, since the generally higher Q of  film caps vs electrolytics can introduce oscillations - if one does nor know what one is doing or if one is not careful enough. 

The results can be - and are - stunning. Side by side comparison of refurbished to stock and refurbished/modified to aS standard has to be heard to be believed. For the pedantics and nitpickers, ABX can be used - but necessary it is most definitely NOT.

There is one amplifier make NOBODY will rave about its sound quality. And that is - ReVox . In 1977 ReVox, after splash his Electrocompaniet Pre/power made, hired Matti Otala to design for them integrated amp and pre/power combo. It is "ooch - aach" on paper - but, real amps have never had anything even approaching the following of Revox reel-tro-reel decks.

I did get to modify one ReVoX B750 ( MK II ? ). The owner could not believe that this was his old amp after I returned it to him ... - and I could not believe the cheapiosity ReVoX displayed in choosing the passive components for this anything but inexpensive product. 

There is a guy online from Switzerland that does more or less the same for RevoX reel to reels - charging for EACH INDIVIDUAL CAP installed - separately. And, it adds up...big, bold Swiss style .


----------



## KeithEmo

You seem to be missing some of the more major points.

By using Magenpans, which are a very resistive load, they essentially came very close to testing those amplifiers with a purely resistive load.
This is a very poor representation of how they will perform with real world loads.
Part of the reason is that the amps will be more likely to misbehave with almost any other commercially available speaker.
But another part of that is that Magnepans will NOT reveal, for example, if the amplifiers have insufficient damping to drive a normal speaker well.
The point is not that the amplifiers did or did not meet specifications. The point is that the test was run under conditions not at all representative of "normal listening conditions".
Anyone attempting to perform the _same identical test_, but substituting almost any other speaker, would reasonably expect to get different results - whcih sort of defeats the larger purpose.
(Both audibly and by measurement.)

To be very specific...
Amplifiers like the Futterman have a very low damping factor - according to their own specifications.
Therefore, even when performing perfectly to specification, the Futterman can be expected to perform a certain way, both audibly and by measurements, with almost all popular speakers.
However, coincidentally or deliberately, they chose one of the very few speakers that would _cause it to act uncharistically - and MASK this difference in performance by not being sensitive to it_.

Likewise, unless used with a subwoofer, Magneplanars will _MASK_ poor low bass performance, either in the amp or in the source, because they themselves don't reproduce low bass well.
(You cannot tell if the amplifiers sound audibly different in the bass region by playing them through speakers that fail to reproduce the bass region properly - which Magnepans do not.)
If they'd tested those amplifiers with other speakers, we would have expected both audible and measurable differences to exist, but they carefully avoided the conditions that would have caused that to happen.
(You can't be claiming to test "whether audible differences exist" by first carefully avoiding the conditions where those differences would be likely to occur.)

It was a great test....
As long as you plan to buy either a Pioneer receiver (of the proper vintage), or a Futterman amplifier, and Magnepan 3's (make sure you get the correct revision there too).
And as long as you're only concerned with how they compare in sound to each other - but not to anything else.
And, of course, only if you plan to listen solely to vinyl albums and CDs.
And it's probably a good idea to stick with a tube preamp - like the single preamp they chose to test with.
Otherwise, it is poorly devised to apply to any other combination of components.
Any test which hoped for any credibility would have used at least an attempt at a "representative cross section" of the gear they're hoping to posit conclusions about.
(You're trying to say that "horses run just as fast as zebras - by comparing one horse to one zebra - on an especially unusual track.)

if you consider that to be "nit picking" then you are far more tolerant than I.




bigshot said:


> They weren't testing the power of the amps. That is a given. A speaker that requires more oomph needs a bigger amp. They were comparing the output of amps that were performing to spec. That means that the amp had to be capable of pushing the transducer properly.
> 
> The more variables you introduce, the more likely differences could be due to something other than the thing you're testing. The way to test an amp is to use the most revealing speakers you can find, as long as the amp is able to push them to spec. I think the Magnapans are a very good choice. They are among the cleanest and flattest speakers you can buy. If you can't hear a difference with them, you're not going to hear a difference with lesser speakers.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 12, 2019)

Notice that several of us are having a conversation here and the two replies above goes right back to the source of the problem, ignoring the conversation we are having. I don't know if this is fixable if they are all output and no input.

Since the day this subforum was created, we've had people invade this forum to derail any efforts to talk about the topic and bait those of us who are here for the right reasons into arguing with them. Over and over, goalposts shift and we go running off after them again. The difference here is that most trolls get bored and eventually go away. These guys are planted here like weeds and they aren't going to leave of their own choice.

I don't think this behavior has anything at all to do with sound quality or science. I think this is just a ploy for attention... even negative attention qualifies as attention if you're desperate enough for it. I'm not going to speculate on what it is in their ordinary lives that makes them feel the need to do this, but I think anyone can read through the lines and see that they are here pretending to be something that they really aren't. It doesn't take a lot of guesswork to know the source of this kind of behavior. PM me and I'll tell you privately if you can't figure it out for yourself.

The question is, how do we stop feeding their desperate need for attention? This is a discussion forum. If we discuss and they're a part of it, they're going to keep pushing into the spotlight and trying to elbow us out with their long winded rambling posts full of blather. They've been given clear indications that their divisiveness isn't appreciated. They've been told that in no uncertain terms in fact. They blow right past those shots across the bow and keep up the contrarian nonsense. They are either ignoring us, or they are incapable of understanding and having empathy for the people around them. Again, I'm not going to speculate on which of those is the case and what the cause is. But I will say that they aren't going to lift a finger to conform to the formal and informal social rules of this forum. I also don't think it's possible for the whole forum to just ignore them. Forums can't be that organized. There are too many of us to corral. I think we're stuck with them. Someone somewhere must have plopped them down here intending us to be their babysitter without letting us have a say in whether we want to do that. We have no choice.

The only way I see of dealing with them is one sentence dismissals of their long winded blather and then talk past them to the rest of the group. No quoting them in replies. No direct answers to their points. No addressing them by name. That would turn off the attention spigot and perhaps they would move on to bother some other forum somewhere. I'm willing to do that if it would help.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 12, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> I've mentioned the "testing" apparently hidden in the title of this thread a good dozen times, but in practice I could delete the all thread save the first post and we wouldn't be missing a lot of testing.



I'd like to direct your attention to the gentleman who thought his DAC sounded different who did a controlled test for the first time. I got very little assistance helping him conduct his first controlled test from other people in this forum... only people trotting out the tired old absolutist nonsense about his test might not cross every T and dotting every I. He conducted the test and did a good job. He found his answer and he's now sharing his discovery and encouraging other people to do tests. I've even helped one of our problem posters do a test of lossy vs lossless. But he ignored the results and went back to spouting the same "pure theory" nonsense.

I do a bunch of tests and I talk about them all the time. I'm currently inviting people to help me crowd source a test to find an amp, DAC or player that sounds different. If people aren't talking about testing, it's because they get shouted down by the "your test isn't good enough" camp. I say if you do a level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison, you are worthy of listening to. Some of us are used to doing that. Some have never done a controlled test like that in their life. They blather about subjective impressions, insist that no test is good enough, and discourage people from doing their own controlled tests. THAT is why we don't have enough talk about testing here.


----------



## GearMe

castleofargh said:


> can't disagree with this. I've mentioned the "testing" apparently hidden in the title of this thread a good dozen times, but in practice I could delete the all thread save the first post and we wouldn't be missing a lot of testing. personally it pisses me off to see what is done with this thread. and what's mind blowing is that it seems to annoy pretty much all parties involved in it. yet here we are and nothing changes. we still get baited into debating nonsense themes, empty claims and non falsifiable ideas for sport. fighting over an anecdote(often unsubstantiated) with one side making it a conclusive stuff about everything, and the other side saying it's worth nothing because it's just one anecdote. I'm reading that thinking "wow, they once again reached a point where everybody's wrong, how do they do that?"
> 
> *then there is the all bias about how the standards for myself aren't the ones I demand from others. when I'm the one neglecting variables, conditions, or even any form of supporting evidence, it's for the greater good! to make it easier to understand for the layman. but if the guy on the other side does the same, oh boy, I must tell everybody about how that guy is soooooooo wrong and unscientific. *no hope for science to grow from this, but maybe as a comedy it could get somewhere?
> 
> ...




*^THIS*...I often have similar feelings in this thread...it can seem as though neither 'side' considers the broader context and is hell-bent on arguing/being right rather than considering alternatives.


IMO, a test/experiment/etc. _can_ be flawed from the outset (i.e. bad assumptions like 'that's a powerful enough amp"; or "everybody listens to music in the 85-90dB range", etc.).  Even if the basic testing process is solid (level matched, direct A/B switched), if the initial assumptions aren't right (i.e. align with my or your use case), then the results are of little value to that indivdual.  Whether or not this one was seems to be up for a debate (of sorts). 


FWIW, I had a few different sets of Maggies (II's and III's) back in the day and mine sure gulped the power.  I ended up running them with bridged mono amps (ARC D100B's) and eventually setting up separately powered subwoofers as Keith described to get the sound to my liking.  Didn't need to do that for many other sets of speakers that I owned.

Additionally, I had multiple systems in different rooms during that timeframe and my lesser system had Hafler equipment including a DH-200 (still have it in storage).  Nice amp for the money!  That said, it couldn't drive the Maggies (tried it) to the levels I liked...so am wondering how the DH-120 (in the Stereo Review test) was able to effectively drive Maggies with less power than a DH-200. 

Didn't see the SPL levels in the article (skimmed it; so probably missed it)...we're they relatively lower listening levels?


----------



## KeithEmo

*A VERY SIMPLE AND ALMOST FOOLPROOF TEST PROTOCOL

After spending a lot of time critiquing the flaws in other test protocols... I decided to offer a very simple and effective one everyone can use on their own.
(THhs can be a lot more difficult with hardware.... but it's not terribly complicated when it only involves software.)
*
This protocol can be adapted to a wide variety of situations.
It avoids most of the weaknesses of most others I've seen (for example it allows you to choose the test content and associated equipment).
It can be performed in a totally blind fashion.
It can be "scored" in a variety of different ways - and can be self scored.
It does require a small amount of help from an outside third party to set up (but it is comletely "self operated"; they don't have to stay around to switch wires or push buttons.)

Let's assume that, as an example, we wish to determine "If a 24/192k lossless audio file is audibly altered by being converted to a 16/44k lossless audio file."

1. 
The first step is to select a test sample - in the highest quality format we wish to test.
So, in this case, choose a 24/192k file with which you are very familiar, and which you believe will be likely to lose quality by being converted.
We need to start with that file in WAV format (because a WAV file of a given bit depth, resolution, and time will always be the same size).
Name this file  ORIGINAL.WAV

2.
Now, convert that file into 16/44k format, using any converter you choose, and any settings you choose (pick the ones you believe will be "audibly tarnsparent").
Now, convert that 16/44k file back into 24/192k format, again using whatever conversion software and settings you choose.
Save the new file as a 24/192k file named  CONVERTED.WAV

You should now have two files of identical size and the same parameters.
If you were to do a bit compare they would NOT be the same.
JHowever, they will be the same size, resolution, bit depth, etc.
And, if the process of converting the original to 16/44k, and back again, was really audibly transparent, then they will be AUDIBLY identical.

3.
Now, put both files on a USB stick and give them to your helper.
Instruct your helper to create a set of sample files.... named SAMPLE01.WAV, SAMPLE02.WAV.... through SAMPLE10.WAV.
They are to copy ORIGINAL.WAV five times to make five of the samples.
They are to copy CONVERTED.WAV five times to make five of the samples.
They may decide which numbers to use for which any way they like (they don't have to be "really random" as long as you don't know what they are).
Your friend should also keep track of which are which - and list that information in a separate text file.
( A very simple program could be written to do this automatically.)

4.
You may now conduct the test any way you like.
You may listen to each sample as long as you like, as often as you like, and as many times as you like.
You may even listen to all of them on a varierty of different equipment if you like.
You may simply attempt to guess whether each sample file is a copy of the original or the converted version.
You may listen to both ORIGINAL.WAV and CONVERTED.WAV and then do a formal A/B/X test of the ten sample files.
Or you may simply listen to the files in various orders, and note when you believe you hear a difference between two of them when you play them in sequence.
(If they're "audibly identical" then you would NOT expect to hear differences between any two when played in any order.)

Whatever way you choose to conduct the test....record your results.

When you finally look at the "Key" text file....
You will either find that your results have no correlation whatsoever with what the files really are (in which case they really are "audibly identical").
Or you may find that you were able to group them with statistical significance...
Or that you were able to reliably note differences when you played files from different sources one after the other...
Or that you consistently noted that files from the same source sounded similar a larger percentage of the time.

And, of course, be careful not to fall into the "false significance trap".
(If you flip a coin enough times, odds are you WILL eventually throw five heads in a row, by pure random chance.) 
(It is quite possible that patterns may appear by random chance... which is why tests like this should be run many times or with many variations.)

Obviously you can try this as often as you like, with as many files as you like, and YOU get to pick songs that you are familiar with.
(And it requires minimal assistance from a friend who merely needs to be computer literate.)

There are only two real requirements:
1. That you start with the highest measured quality. 
     (So, for example, if you want to compare CD quality and lossy compressed files, your ORIGINAL file should be the lossless one.)
2. That your sample files end up being the same format and size.
     (So you can't tell which is which by looking at the sizes of the files, or the indicator in your player, or get a clue by which loads faster.)


----------



## bigshot (Jun 12, 2019)

The Pioneer is rated at 45 watts per channel at 8 ohm. From what I'm reading on the Magnepan site, that would be a little low but close to the lower recommended limit. The Magnepans are 4 ohm which would shift that rating a bit. If they were underpowered, it be noticeable in the bass, but Magnepans aren't known for their deep bass anyway. If there wasn't enough power to drive them, I would think that they would have noticed a difference. But as I said before, they were comparing sound quality, not power. I'm sure all of the amps were compared at the same loudness... they probably chose the loudest setting of the least powerful amp where they didn't clip and calibrated everything else to that.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> The Pioneer is rated at 45 watts per channel at 8 ohm. From what I'm reading on the Magnepan site, that would be a little low but close to the lower recommended limit. The Magnepans are 4 ohm which would shift that rating a bit. If they were underpowered, it be noticeable in the bass, but Magnepans aren't known for their deep bass anyway. If there wasn't enough power to drive them, I would think that they would have noticed a difference. But as I said before, they were comparing sound quality, not power. *I'm sure all of the amps were compared at the same loudness... they probably chose the loudest setting of the least powerful amp where they didn't clip and calibrated everything else to that.*




*^If that's the case*, then it would be a flawed test in my book (i.e. for my use case). 

TBH..the Maggie's 4 Ohm rating probably wouldn't shift the Pioneer wpc rating much compared to some of the other, more robust amps (just guessing). 

FWIW, the Maggie's were rated at Sensitivity: 83-85 dB/W/m
So...being generous and doubling the Pioneer's power output to 90 wpc (for argument's sake) would only yield 92.5 dB at 4 meters -- which I wouldn't be happy with!






Checking on a couple SPL Calculators you need 400 watts to get 99dB at 4 meters...If my logic's flawed, the SPL Calculators are wrong, etc., feel free to explain so I can learn!


----------



## bigshot (Jun 13, 2019)

Why didn't they detect a difference in the test? I understand that theoretical numbers on a sheet of paper can indicate things, but it's been my experience that common knowledge on the thresholds of perception usually take the worst case scenario and extend it a few notches further. This is true of a bunch of the metrics of sound... frequency, dynamics, noise floor, loudness, distortion, etc. In the real world with sound coming out of speakers playing music in a room, our ears aren't as sensitive as hearing test tones in an anechoic chamber.

On the Magenapan site, they don't give a recommended power rating. They say that their customers have reported good results with amps ranging from 50 watts to 1000 watts. Is there something else that might be responsible for it? I doubt that the test ran the Pioneer through another amp to raise the power.

By the way, 99dB is not a comfortable listening level. Around 80dB is as loud as I can tolerate for normal listening myself, and I usually listen around 65dB. Have you listened to very loud music and measured it with an SPL meter? If not, give it a try and see what you come up with as being comfortable. Most people don't listen to music at 99dB, and if they do, the distortion might be coming from their hearing, not the speakers. In fact, it wouldn't be wise to listen to a whole album that loud.

What sort of wattage would be needed to push the Magnepans between 60 and 80dB?


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 13, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Why didn't they detect a difference in the test? I understand that theoretical numbers on a sheet of paper can indicate things, but it's been my experience that common knowledge on the thresholds of perception usually take the worst case scenario and extend it a few notches further. This is true of a bunch of the metrics of sound... frequency, dynamics, noise floor, loudness, distortion, etc. In the real world with sound coming out of speakers playing music in a room, our ears aren't as sensitive as hearing test tones in an anechoic chamber.
> 
> On the Magenapan site, they don't give a recommended power rating. They say that their customers have reported good results with amps ranging from 50 watts to 1000 watts. Is there something else that might be responsible for it? I doubt that the test ran the Pioneer through another amp to raise the power.
> 
> ...



All of the above is the main reason why I disagree with bigshot so much.

Listening at home - and at home only - is subject to many limitations - self-imposed ones included. There may not be enough space for the listening room, the acoustic treatment may be limited or non-existant, the power available may be too short, the speakers used could not take available power without severe distortion/damage, etc, etc.

So, there are any number of factors why listening levels at home are usually smaller than listening live - MUCH smaller in the majority of cases. I too have a friend, who would pay for a front row ticket of the symphony - and try to "escape" somewhere in the back after the pause - provided there are any free seats left, of course. He just does not like it loud - even live.

Most audiophiles adjust the loudness according to whatever maximum level their room and equipment will allow. And are shocked to hear acoustic music live - because the peaks exceed whatever they are accustomed to listen to at home - considerably so.

And that is why most commercially available recordings - even of classical music - are SEVERELY compressed/limited. One way or another ... Listen to any piano recording from the mainstream labels - and then listen to piano live, in a reasonably sized concert hall - not closet. Piano CAN get loud - very loud indeed - if the score demands it. And well below 1% available recordings capture this dynamic range - which can be, again, played up to correct SPL , by yet another less than 1% speaker systems. So, even if approximating the real dynamic range/loudness at home is desired, it is VERY hard to realize in practice.

Now, I am aware that the size of the listening room dictates the maximum "supportable" dynamic range/loudness. And that at home, within a tiny fraction of the space volume of the original venue, the loudness can not possibly be the same.

But, this IS head-fi. And such limitations do not apply for headphone listening.

Bottom line : listening at 99 dB is NOT harmful - not if the recordoing has not been doctored ( compressed/limited/mastered beyond death ). Those 99 dBs will be reached for about 1% of the total time - if not even considerably less. With a dynamic range of say 60 dB and above, the average listening level would be around 50 dB - not more.

It is horrible to see what loudness wars have done to the music delivered by digital means. Comparing the rip of the original analog recorded vinyl record to currently available CD of the same recording is not going to put smile on your face - either when looking at the files in an editor, or listening.

I did LOTS of work on analog record playback during the time some of you were glad that I did not post in this thread. And have, as a "collateral damage", been forced to actually learn just how certain analog mastering engineers and record labels handled the task.

There has been ONE vinyl record, which - up to now - proved to be "unplayable"; with the majority of phono playback equiment at least. It is Wagner music conducted  by Carlos Paita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Païta - a 1969 recording by Decca, reissued on his own Lodia label in 80s. https://www.discogs.com/Wagner-Carlos-Païta-New-Philharmonia-Orchestra-Tristan-und-Isolde-Der-Fliegende-Holländer-Die-Meis/release/10689527 A cartridge that can do it justice is anything from the upper thirdf tier of Grado models late 70s/mid 80s ( has to track cleanly at least 90 micrometer amplitude - some Grados of the period went past 110; bass and dynamic range without any hint of compression like most others can not even dream about ) in an arm that mates well with Grado ( not an easy task ).

This recording is phenomenal ... regardless from which point of view. And, it is from 1969 ... - one wonders what went so damn wrong today we are getting such limited in everything scale models of what has been, obviously, possible in 1969.

Needless to say, any  amp/speaker combo capable of max 93 dB SPL, has no place in listening to such great recordings. And most will have more problems at the soft end range of this record - room noise floor in most domestic settings during daytime is (too) high, during night time you don't want to start a war with neighbors - even if it is only  about 2% of the time.

Use any of the SPL calculators and input your conditions ( room size, speaker placement, listening distance ) to get an answer. There is one not so tiny detail usually omitted in SPL  calculators; and that is the polar pattern of the speaker. For a typical box speaker, the polar pattern is ( at least for the lower ferequencies, which actually define how loud it goes ) a point source - which falls off  in SPL  with the distance SQUARED - it means only one fourth of the SPL available at 1 metre is available at 2 metres. That's why box speakers pretty quickly "dissapear" in large rooms - and large planars, which are close approximation to the line source ( for which SPL fall off with distance in linear fashion ), can with proper placement in fact play loud enough in huge rooms. Dipoles ( most ESLs) do in fact start their real life in 100 and more square metres rooms - and they may never achive the same loudness in small domestic rooms. In such large rooms, box speakers can be FAR too loud in proximity to the speakers - and "inaudible" in the far corner of the room. I am aftraid no calculation can give you precise answer with Maggies - but up to 80 dB SPL should be fine , with any of the amps tested by Stereo Review.

Except that 80 dB SPL is about an equivalent of maximum speed of 40 miles per hour a vehicle on public road can achieve. It is simply not enough for safe driving under real conditions.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] I do also find it interesting that there are actually tens of thousands of tests run every year that prove this... It's sure lucky that we have a few privileged experts who can interpret them for us...
> [2] Personally I would love to see some of those results - just to see what other interesting results might be in there....
> [3] Incidentally, my first statement is both true and a sort of "truism"....
> [3a] When performing any test claimed to represent "the human race" it obviously makes sense not to exclude _ANY_ significant demographic. For example, if you want to find out "how fast a human can run", it would be sort of foolish to exclude professional athletes and tall people.



1. Which is luckier as far as a sound science forum is concerned?: Having experts who can interpret the tens of thousands of tests every year OR, having marketers who just make-up whatever suits their agenda based on their FALSE assertion that these tests/evidence don't exist, then require the impossible (that science prove a negative, that their made-up nonsense could never be true) and then finally, they call this complete anti-science "pure science"? That's so absurd it's funny!!

2. There aren't any "interesting results in there"! You don't seem to have much of a grasp of "science" ... how do you think we arrive at facts? Running tests, examining the results and what they show/demonstrate. So, assuming that by "interesting" you mean results that don't align with the asserted facts (and therefore could be used to support marketing nonsense), then that doesn't exist because the asserted facts include those results. What is interesting, is that some of the asserted scientific facts are often a representation of an upper limit, that may only true rarely and under extreme conditions. For example, the asserted fact of human hearing being 20Hz - 20kHz. We tested several thousand different teenagers over the course of several years; at a normal listening level the mean highest freq response was between 16kHz and 17kHz, only a tiny fraction could reliably hear 19kHz and not a single one of them could hear 20kHz.

3. See #1!!
3a. Huh? For example, if you want to find out "how fast a human can run", by your logic we would have include kindergarten children and new born babies (as they are a significant demographic). As we obviously can't test every single human baby, we cannot be certain that there isn't (or hasn't been) one somewhere in the world who can run faster than Usain Bolt.  BTW, do you know many tall, professional athletes who are 5 years old? How about 5 year old experienced professional music/sound engineers? Doesn't any of this sound absurd to you? Apparently not, the logic of your argument/position has been put to you before (for example, point #3, post #12756) but you simply refuse to answer the question/s and just rephrase your absurd logic! Furthermore, you seem to have (yet again) created an analogy that's entirely counter-productive to the argument you intended! Yes, it would be "foolish" to exclude professionals but in the audiophile world that's exactly what happens, the results from professional engineers ARE routinely excluded/discounted/ignored!!


KeithEmo said:


> [1] If you hear a difference, but can't seem to find a measurement that would account for it....
> - maybe you're simply not measuring the right thing
> - maybe you're not measuring it accurately, or carefully enough, or under the right circumstances
> - maybe you're not interpreting one of the measurements you've taken correctly
> - (and, yes, maybe you were just imagining it)



1. "If you hear a difference but can't seem to find a measurement that would account for it", do a damned Null Test and that way you're unequivocally measuring ALL differences collectively, except what you are imagining!! You know this, it's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions but here you are yet again just completely ignoring this fact and restating the same made-up "maybe's" (and implying a common audiophile myth)!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 13, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> All of the above is the main reason why I disagree with bigshot so much.
> 
> Listening at home - and at home only - is subject to many limitations - self-imposed ones included. There may not be enough space for the listening room, the acoustic treatment may be limited or non-existant, the power available may be too short, the speakers used could not take available power without severe distortion/damage, etc, etc.
> 
> ...



"What went so damn wrong"?

It's called the LOUDNESS WAR.  And it has been going even before digital.  Digital simply allowed the loudness war to be conducted on a 'nuclear' scale, with DRC in-the-box and plugins much more powerful than any in the analog domain.

Plus, you have to understand that bigshot, and Calbi, have paying customers.  Just as do the big labels that employ their skills.  Those clients are what drive the trend toward over-compressed CD and download versions of youre favorite music.

And of course, playing something at 80dB SPL in your living room will sound louder than playing it at 80 SPL in a church sanctuary, auditorium, or Madison Square Garden.  Loudness-mastered CDs - and excessive DRC & limiting in live sound - only exacerbate this phenomenon.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Why didn't they detect a difference in the test? I understand that theoretical numbers on a sheet of paper can indicate things, but it's been my experience that common knowledge on the thresholds of perception usually take the worst case scenario and extend it a few notches further. This is true of a bunch of the metrics of sound... frequency, dynamics, noise floor, loudness, distortion, etc. In the real world with sound coming out of speakers playing music in a room, our ears aren't as sensitive as hearing test tones in an anechoic chamber.
> 
> On the Magenapan site, they don't give a recommended power rating. They say that their customers have reported good results with amps ranging from 50 watts to 1000 watts. Is there something else that might be responsible for it? I doubt that the test ran the Pioneer through another amp to raise the power.
> 
> ...


80db is good policy if you want to be able to still enjoy your music into your golden years....i have friends that liked it loud,they are paying for it now.


----------



## GearMe (Jun 13, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Why didn't they detect a difference in the test? I understand that theoretical numbers on a sheet of paper can indicate things, but it's been my experience that common knowledge on the thresholds of perception usually take the worst case scenario and extend it a few notches further. This is true of a bunch of the metrics of sound... frequency, dynamics, noise floor, loudness, distortion, etc. In the real world with sound coming out of speakers playing music in a room, our ears aren't as sensitive as hearing test tones in an anechoic chamber.
> 
> On the Magenapan site, they don't give a recommended power rating. They say that their customers have reported good results with amps ranging from 50 watts to 1000 watts. Is there something else that might be responsible for it? I doubt that the test ran the Pioneer through another amp to raise the power.
> 
> ...



Wow...60 to 80 dB?  That's basically 'normal conversation' to 'dial tone' levels! 
What would your peaks get to playing back well-recorded music? 

Agreed, _99 dB is not comfortable for_ *sustained levels and extended periods.* 
That said, I'm interested in peak levels that can at least get close to replicating live conditions...understanding that recorded music is somewhat limited compared to the live experience.

Yes, I've listened to music (under measured conditions that peaked north of 100 dB)  Most likely, you have as well?

Normal concert levels peak in the 100-120 dB SPL levels (chart below).  Heck, even Jazz concerts register in the 90's...



As far as the test goes, I can't surmise why they didn't detect the difference.  Maybe nobody cared about replicating live conditions?  Which would be a huge miss in my book!
Did you find an SPL number/range anywhere in the article?

Also, given your point that our ears aren't as sensitive in real world/speakers conditions ('In the real world with sound coming out of speakers playing music in a room, our ears aren't as sensitive as hearing test tones in an anechoic chamber') , is it possible that this reduced sensitivity might 'bias' the results at lower listening levels?  Meaning, that we'd be able to discern differences more easily in conditions that allowed for live music levels?  Posing the question for the group to think on...have no idea what the psychacoustic science behind it is or the impact it would have on being able to discern equipment differences.



Lastly, regarding the Maggie's -- having owned these speakers (and several others very nice ones), I can state that my experience was that the Maggie's definitely needed amps with 400+ wpc to achieve realistic sound levels in large rooms with a listening position 12-15 feet from the speakers. 

Regarding Magneplanar's amp recommendations, there's a reason the range goes to 1000 watts...the headroom is needed to sound realistic.  As far as the 50 watt number, given this group's trust level for audio equipment vendors, I'm surprised that we'd consider that low number to be 'real'...snake-oil and all.  

Seriously, think about trying to sell speakers and telling people you need 400+ wpc amps to run them properly...not a message the marketing department would want to deliver.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] I really had thought that this group was about: "Testing audfiophile claims and myths"...
> [2] But, instead, it's mostly about: "Deciding not to bother to test audiophile myths and legends because we already know none of them are true".
> [3] Any test that shows the opposite of the popular view is "obviously badly flawed" or "a waste of time"...
> [3a] While tests that support the popular views are "clearly compelling"...[3b]  And any flaws we might notice in them are "clearly insignificant"...
> ...



1. If you really did think that then why do you continually do the opposite: Not do reliable tests, deny the existence of reliable tests, ignore the weight of reliable evidence and then just restate audiophile myths (or invent new ones) as fact or possibilities even though they contradict the weight of reliable evidence?

2. Many of us here have done reliable tests, in fact that's probably why many of us are here!!

3. Firstly, the "popular view" on head-fi is that there are very audible differences between amps. Secondly, we have a wealth of evidence which demonstrates that when this "popular view" is subject to more reliable/controlled testing these very audible differences magically become inaudible.
3a. The tests which support the unpopular view (that amps do not sound different) are "clearly compelling" because they are more reliable/controlled than the sighted tests which support the opposite (popular) view.
3b. That's a misrepresentation! Virtually all listening tests have at least one flaw, even the most rigorous scientific ones. A rational mind, capable of critical thought, will weigh the flaw/s of a particular test, along with the wealth of other evidence/tests/facts and evaluate their significance.

4. You are free to invent a misrepresention the posts here and then believe that misrepresentation. However, posting that misrepresentation as fact is discourteous to the point of insulting to those you are misrepresenting and the whole point of this forum in the first place!

5. Ah, something we can completely agree on! Indeed, what justification could there be in spending good money to run a controlled/reliable test which demonstrates that although a product might be "a little bit better" on paper (measurements/specifications), that improvement is beyond threshold of audibility? Who would "spend good money" to demonstrate the exact opposite of their marketing assertions?



analogsurviver said:


> There has been ONE vinyl record, which - up to now - proved to be "unplayable"; with the majority of phono playback equiment at least. ... This recording is phenomenal ... regardless from which point of view.



So as far as you are concerned: "Unplayable" = "Phenomenal". That really does explain so much of what you post. For everyone else of course, "unplayable" is the exact opposite of "phenomenal".
Unfortunately, in addition to this completely opposite view to everyone else, you also include a bunch a obvious falsehoods: There is no loudness war in classical music. Classical music is never "severely compressed", except in a few special case uses, for example some radio broadcasts. The actual fact is that when compression is used on classical recordings, it is used very lightly and typically to reduce the dynamic range of the recording to the dynamic range which would be experienced in a live performance. So the actual facts are again the complete opposite of what you are falsely asserting!


analogsurviver said:


> There is one not so tiny detail usually omitted in SPL calculators; and that is the polar pattern of the speaker. For a typical box speaker, the polar pattern is ( at least for the lower ferequencies, which actually define how loud it goes ) a point source - which falls off in SPL with the distance SQUARED - it means only one fourth of the SPL available at 1 metre is available at 2 metres. That's why box speakers pretty quickly "dissapear" in large rooms - and large planars, which are close approximation to the line source, can with proper placement in fact play loud enough in huge rooms.


That's funny, for two reasons: Firstly, you seem to be quoting the inverse square law or rather mis-quoting it. Every doubling of distance, the SPL reduces by half, so at 2 meters the SPL would be half, not one fourth, of the SPL at one metre. Secondly, this does not only apply to speakers, it applies to all sound sources. Therefore, although a piano is capable of high SPLs when recorded with mics say only half a meter away from the piano strings, an audience sitting 10 or 20 meters away is actually only going to experience a tiny fraction of that SPL. From a typical concert audience position, a piano cannot get "very loud", in fact it's a relatively quiet instrument and it's dynamic range is many times lower than what CD offers, even without noise-shaped dither!!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

GearMe said:


> Normal concert levels peak in the 100-120 dB SPL levels (chart below). Heck, even Jazz concerts register in the 90's...



And those are averages, not peaks.

It's those _averages_,  for longer periods of time, that can lead to hearing damage and potential loss, not the peaks.


----------



## Phronesis (Jun 13, 2019)

I see that this thread came back to life.  I only glanced at the recent posts.  I doubt there's much to say and beyond what's already been said many times.  People may need to agree to disagree.  Here are the conclusions I came to after months of talking to you guys, doing my own tests, and thinking about this stuff:

- All or nearly all of the night and day differences people describe when comparing DACs, amps, cables, and connections are likely due to misperception.  There may sometimes be subtle differences in the sound differences between these components.

- Listening tests aren't a reliable way to discern subtle differences between the sound of components for normal long-term listening, because the listening tests involve short-term listening, and fallible auditory perception and memory.  Listening to longer music segments in tests involves the problem of exacerbating memory issues.  Blinding can help avoid false positive results, but it may result in more false negative results.

- Perception is adaptive, resulting in perceived differences in the sound of components (including transducers) becoming less apparent over time.

- If comparing decent sound systems, the quality of the recording affects the sound quality more than the sound system.

- Paying too much attention to sound quality can interfere with enjoyment of music.  If enjoyment of music is the goal, best approach is to set up a decent sound system and then forget about sound quality, just get into the music.


----------



## GearMe

Phronesis said:


> I see that this thread came back to life.  I only glanced at the recent posts.  I doubt there's much to say and beyond what's already been said many times.  People may need to agree to disagree.  Here are the conclusions I came to after months of talking to you guys, doing my own tests, and thinking about this stuff:
> 
> - All or nearly all of the night and day differences people describe when comparing DACs, amps, cables, and connections are likely due to misperception.  There may sometimes be subtle differences in the sound differences between these components.
> 
> ...



Wholeheartedly agree with your last point...rather hear a song I like on a transistor radio than one I don't on an awesome system!

However, when possible, I'll opt for a great song _on a great system_


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 13, 2019)

Phronesis said:


> I see that this thread came back to life.  I only glanced at the recent posts.  I doubt there's much to say and beyond what's already been said many times.  People may need to agree to disagree.  Here are the conclusions I came to after months of talking to you guys, doing my own tests, and thinking about this stuff:
> 
> - All or nearly all of the night and day differences people describe when comparing DACs, amps, cables, and connections are likely due to misperception.  There may sometimes be subtle differences in the sound differences between these components.
> 
> ...



I disagree with you on point two and I think point four is too over-generalized to be meaningful! Who cares? I sure don’t. Points one, three five I absolutely agree! Most importantly, good to have you back!! Missed you! How long until you change your pic?


----------



## analogsurviver

@gregorio Regarding "unplayable"/"phenomenal" analog records: Record mastering, although not strictly art, is also not strictly science. And it is ALWAYS human decision to what extent of the cutting capability one wants to actually go with the finished record.

From the ultimately achievable fidelity, it is desirable to cut at the maximum recording level - which may well be impossible due to program material running time. Even if there is place on the record to cut the required time of the program, ther IS a concern whether the "average high quality" customer has the phono equipment capable of playing back so high amplitude/velocity grooves. And even if that is the case, there is a concern whether the equipment has been set up optimally. 

There is a reason for metering "colours" as used in Audition CC - and numerous other editors: green below and up to - 18dBFS, yellow between -18 and -6 dBFS , red from -6 to 0dBFS . Analog record reference 1 kHz level is 5cm/sec - and that corresponds to -18dBFS . In theory, there should be no cutting above 0dBFS - yet, in practice, there is. At least 1 dB - or 2, to stay on the safe side - lower recording digital level is prudent to use if you have only one pass to record an unknown analog record. So, play it safe would be setting the recording level at -20 dBFS for analog signal recorded at 1kHz at 5cm/sec.

The above asumes perfectly adjusted cartridge that has the required trackjability to begin with. Not everyone does have such a cartridge... and therefore, most cutting engineers would be willing to sacrifice the ultimately achievable quality of the finished analog master for something more easily playable by either/or lower quality cartridges and/or less optimally set up turntables. Here, very quickly peak cutting is limited to -3dBFS or even lower  - usually - 6 to -7 dBFS. With corresponding losses in dynamic range / increase in record noise. And the corresponding ability to play them back by inumerably more real world record players. HERE is that never ending dilemma faced by record mastering engineer 

Records that actually do come close to 0dBFS are very scarce. But, they do exist. Those that exceed 0dBFS also exist - and are even scarcer. Now, I would have to check the actual file , but the record in question does approach/exceed 0dBFS if the reference recording level at 1 kHz is set for -18dBFS. 

No moving coil cartridge I am aware of can track those peaks without an audible protest - distortion.

But those additional 3 dB of signal to noise ratio do contribute to overall better sound quality . I do not have any overall quieter Wagner orchestra recording on vinyl - and in >2000 records. The dynamic range is huge. Nither is the low end better represented in any other record I have heard.   

I hope that clarifies "unplayable"/"phenomenal" in this   - or any other vinyl recording. This one IS "phenomenal" - IF played back with superbly adligned and adjusted superb tracking cartridge. And is "unplayable" if lesser or less well adjusted equipment is used. 

I also have a few other releases of the other originally same recording - on the same label, but from various countries.  And there ARE marked differences in cutting  levels - sometimes amounting to 7 dB and more. It is the compromise regarding the actual diameter of the groove ending from the centre of the record - allowing less inner groove distortion with lesser styli - but paying the penalty in reduced dynamic range and higher noise.   Again, the final result achieved depends on the playback equipment used. Cheap cartridge pushed too hard by good record can actually sound bad - but no cartridge can make up for the loss on too conservatively cut record. Compromises ...


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 13, 2019)

GearMe said:


> Wow...60 to 80 dB?  That's basically 'normal conversation' to 'dial tone' levels!
> What would your peaks get to playing back well-recorded music?
> 
> Agreed, _99 dB is not comfortable for_ *sustained levels and extended periods.*
> ...



That all is pretty darn speculative, IMHO. I keep a decibel meter by my listening position at home. For me 70 dB average for music in the home at the listening position for any reasonable period of time is definitely a little uncomfortable. Over 90 dB at home at the listening position for me is ridiculous, even for peaks. That’s either a weighted or c weighted. And we don’t know how the Pioneer handled peaks. The test was over 40 years ago. We’ve picked it apart to death. It’s not the be all and end all but it had a lot going for it and it is one piece of important information. And again, who cares? Time to move on to other stuff, maybe less than 40 years old, IMHO. And to change the focus of the thread to testing and away from wild speculation.


----------



## taffy2207

This thread reminds of this lately  :-


----------



## GearMe

Steve999 said:


> That all is pretty darn speculative, IMHO. I keep a decibel meter by my listening position at home. For me 70 dB average for music in the home at the listening position for any reasonable period of time is definitely a little uncomfortable. Over 90 dB at home at the listening position for me is ridiculous, even for peaks. That’s either a weighted or c weighted. And we don’t know how the Pioneer handled peaks. The test was over 40 years ago. We’ve picked it apart to death. It’s not the be all and end all but it had a lot going for it. And again, who cares? Time to move on to other stuff, maybe less than 40 years old, IMHO. And to change the focus of the thread to testing and away from wild speculation.


Kinda my point...crappy test with incomplete write-up and possibly flawed assumptions.

FWIW...most folks I know that have good systems tend to play them at realistic levels...not human conversation/dial tone levels.

Merely trying to emphasize it's not as black and white as this thread often 'paints' it to be.


----------



## KeithEmo

Cables and electronics... I very much doubt it.

However, the flexible mechanical suspension of speakers and many headphone drivers does change over the first few, or few dozen, hours of use.
This will result in easily measured differences in performance (the free-air resonant frequency will become lower as the suspension gets softer - resulting in a lower in-box resonance).
However, usually, the specified performance parameters of the parts involved, and of the entire unit, are measured_ after_ this so-called burn-in period. 
(So it's more likely to fail to meet spec before burn-in than the other way around.)

In sealed enclosures, and those with open backs, the difference is usually minor.
However, with tuned systems, like ported speakers, where it may cause the tuning to work properly or not, it can make an audible difference.



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I'm begging for it!  Please...give me something to chew on!  I want to believe...I'm a fan of audio gear.  I love the stuff and I would be very happy if expensive amps could put out a better clean signal than cheap ones!  I'd love it if I could improve the sound of my headphones (or amp) by burning them in for a week.  I'd enjoy upgrading all my cables if I knew it would actually improve the SQ!  But all the published tests I can find lead me to believe it's all hokum!  So, please...point me to the stuff that proves it isn't!
> 
> BTW, I've been over at ASR all morning reading threads there.  Interesting!  Great forum...and nothing I've seen there really does anything to help me believe the myths!


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> Cables and electronics... I very much doubt it.
> 
> However, the flexible mechanical suspension of speakers and many headphone drivers does change over the first few, or few dozen, hours of use.
> This will result in easily measured differences in performance (the free-air resonant frequency will become lower as the suspension gets softer - resulting in a lower in-box resonance).
> ...



Any mechanical transducer after any longer period of non-use has to "warm up" - say at least half an hour of normal operation.

There are quite a few known cases there were problems in ported enclosure speaker production - because, at some point, driver manufacturer has made some changes to the mechanical parameters of the drivers - WITHOUT telling the speaker manufacturer. I has only been brought up AFTER the numerous reports of customers auditioning defective speakers at dealers have reached the company - and the complaints by the prospective purchasers turned out to be true.

One can count burn in as an additional step in Quality Control - which, unfortunately, costs both time and money. In a highly competitive environment, it is all too easy to be left out.


----------



## KeithEmo

gregorio said:


> 1. Which is luckier as far as a sound science forum is concerned?: Having experts who can interpret the tens of thousands of tests every year OR, having marketers who just make-up whatever suits their agenda based on their FALSE assertion that these tests/evidence don't exist, then require the impossible (that science prove a negative, that their made-up nonsense could never be true) and then finally, they call this complete anti-science "pure science"? That's so absurd it's funny!!
> 
> 2. There aren't any "interesting results in there"! You don't seem to have much of a grasp of "science" ... how do you think we arrive at facts? Running tests, examining the results and what they show/demonstrate. So, assuming that by "interesting" you mean results that don't align with the asserted facts (and therefore could be used to support marketing nonsense), then that doesn't exist because the asserted facts include those results. What is interesting, is that some of the asserted scientific facts are often a representation of an upper limit, that may only true rarely and under extreme conditions. For example, the asserted fact of human hearing being 20Hz - 20kHz. We tested several thousand different teenagers over the course of several years; at a normal listening level the mean highest freq response was between 16kHz and 17kHz, only a tiny fraction could reliably hear 19kHz and not a single one of them could hear 20kHz.
> 
> ...



If you have _EVER_ found a _PERFECT_ null between anything - including two supposedly identical channels on the same amplifier - I would love to hear where it was.
(Or are you suggesting that _you_ get to decide what's "a good enough null" that we can ignore what's left?)

Incidentally, you said that "we tested thousands of teenagers over several years"... and then quoted the "mean highest frequency response".
I seem to be having trouble finding a precise definition of that term.
A "statistical mean" is a specific form of average... while the meaning of "highest" seems to be obvious.
Perhaps, if we could see the actual scores, we could pick out what comprises simply "the single best score" and see what it is.

I agree entirely with your comment about professional engineers....
Any test to measure a limit of human hearing "ability"....
- Should include both professional engineers and professional musicians (because they may reasonably be expected to have the "most well trained ears"....)
- Should include young children (because we know they usually have the best measured "hearing acuity".....)
- Should also include subjects from a wide variety of racial and genetic (because we need to consider that hearing acuity may be linked to specific genes.....)
(It isn't practical to test every human on Earth... but you should at least include any and all groups who it can be reasonably suggested MIGHT be significant outliers.)

And, yes, all joking aside, you _SHOULD_ allow the widest possible latitude when deciding what subjects to include - because human characteristics are well known to "clump".
And, yes, that does also include applying common sense.
I doubt that a human baby would be likely to run faster than a professional adult runner.
However, it is ingenuous to suggest that has anything to do with whether one may have _better hearing acuity_ than you or I (or anyone else).
For example, it would be a mistake to attempt to determine "how long humans live" without including people from the one town in Russia where many seem to live exceptionally long.

Incidentally, for the person who posted about "how ridiculous it would be to believe that a human could run a mile in two minutes"....
I happened to look at the actual statistics (there's a nice graph on Wikipedia).
The "best recorded one mile time" has improved a full 20% in the past 180 years.
I'm not so sure that considering that it might improve 50% in the new few hundred, or the next few thousand, would be foolish at all.
(Or that it would be _beyond possibility_ that an outlier alive today might conceivably do so. Quite unlikely - yes; impossible - maybe not.)

Also incidentally, the current official one-mile record is held by a fellow named  Hicham El Guerrouj.
He beat the "four-minute mile" by a solid quarter of a minute.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 13, 2019)

GearMe said:


> Kinda my point...crappy test with incomplete write-up and possibly flawed assumptions.
> 
> FWIW...most folks I know that have good systems tend to play them at realistic levels...not human conversation/dial tone levels.
> 
> Merely trying to emphasize it's not as black and white as this thread often 'paints' it to be.



The equivalent of a fortissimo (that literally means “very loud”) singer three feet from my face or practicing at the piano will do fine for me for long-term listening in the home. ~70 dB average, according to your chart, depending on how you measure it.

And hey, that’s something I’ve actually researched, tested and measured! Cool!


----------



## Phronesis

Steve999 said:


> I disagree with you on point two and I think point four is too over-generalized to be meaningful! Who cares? I sure don’t. Points one, three five I absolutely agree! Most importantly, good to have you back!! Missed you! How long until you change your pic?



For me, when the discussion goes in circles, it becomes uninteresting.  It would be possible for the discussions to enter new territory if they were truly scientific, but the predominant agenda of Sound Science is to debunk audiophile myths rather than do science.  That's not an unreasonable agenda, but it mostly amounts to preaching to the choir.  Discussions in head-fi outside of Sound Science are no longer particularly interesting for me either, because they usually involve people expressing subjective preferences and propagating audiophile myths (and trying to debunk them can get you banned).  Hence no change in avatar in quite a while, but just for you, I've now changed it.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 13, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> All of the above is the main reason why I disagree with bigshot so much.



I think you have a problem with me because you are more interested in self validation than finding out the truth. There's nothing I can do to help that. I don't think you are capable of interacting normally with me because you can't talk *with*, only *at*. I don't think that is deliberate.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 13, 2019)

GearMe said:


> Wow...60 to 80 dB?  That's basically 'normal conversation' to 'dial tone' levels! What would your peaks get to playing back well-recorded music?[



It's easy to misjudge numbers on a page. I always recommend that people who are interested actually make an effort to experience what those numbers mean in real world sound to be able to put the numbers in perspective. For relative volume levels, I'd suggest picking up an SPL meter, and turning up your home stereo to a normal loud listening level and measuring it. I bet if you measure your own speaker system, you'll find that you aren't going much over 70dB.

The loudness where the sound reaches your ear is what counts, not the volume emitting from a sound source when you are standing right in front of it. For instance, a symphony orchestra has instruments that can put out volumes of as much as 110dB, but that doesn't mean that you hear it that loud from the audience. Out in the seats, it's more like 60dB.

For point of reference, 85dB is the OSHA limit for protection against hearing damage. That is well into the "flinch zone". And well recorded music generally has a dynamic range of under 50dB or so, so 80dB is about the point where you can hear all the way down to the theoretical noise floor over a room tone.

Headphones are a little different. Since there is no space between the headphone and your ear, it's easy to misjudge volume and end up listening too loud. A lot of people damage their hearing that way.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 13, 2019)

Phronesis said:


> Here are the conclusions I came to after months of talking to you guys, doing my own tests, and thinking about this stuff:



You finally did a blind, A/B switched, line level matched listening test? That's great! I was waiting for that a very long time. What did you compare? Tell me about your test. I honestly want to know how you went about your first controlled test. I don't just want to pick it apart. If you applied the three main controls and compared apples to apples, that is very interesting to me.



Phronesis said:


> the predominant agenda of Sound Science is to debunk audiophile myths rather than do science.



Actually, the purpose here is to apply scientific principles to improving the sound of home audio systems. It's the practical application of science to achieve a specific goal- perfect sound for the purposes of listening to recorded music in the home. We spend so much time on myths because people come in here and try to convince us that up is actually down and right is actually left. That does waste an awful lot of time.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> It's easy to misjudge numbers on a page. I always recommend that people who are interested actually make an effort to experience what those numbers mean in real world sound to be able to put the numbers in perspective. For relative volume levels, I'd suggest picking up an SPL meter, and turning up your home stereo to a normal loud listening level and measuring it. I bet if you measure your own speaker system, you'll find that you aren't going much over 70dB.
> 
> The loudness where the sound reaches your ear is what counts, not the volume emitting from a sound source when you are standing right in front of it. For instance, a symphony orchestra has instruments that can put out volumes of as much as 110dB, but that doesn't mean that you hear it that loud from the audience. Out in the seats, it's more like 60dB.
> 
> ...



Well, there is no such thing as relative volume levels. It is what it is - at any given moment.

You seem to forget I deal also with binaural. And that records - and reproduces - PRECISELY at ear levels - both as position and SPL. When using artificial head for recording, monitoring with IEMs under mufflers , I often double check for volume of monitoring - and, despite always seating in some far corner of the venue, where there is less sound than in the centre of the venue behind the conductor, the live sound is almost always a few dB louder than what I am listening to directly from the mics in headphones. I did pay attention to that years ago; monitoring in same acoustic space as live music requires almost perfect sound isolation - and if the opposite is what is used, you end up cranking the sound of headphones WAY too high - just to arrive at point the sound of the monitor overpowers the sound of live music and you get at least vague idea what is getting recorded. Listening to such high volume not only is dangerous, it also totally skews all relationships.
So, it has been one of my first things to take proper care of. 

If I  record using my own head wearing mics in the audience, then it is direct 1:1 relationship - I do not go on stage and crawl into the piano ... - or whatever that silly.

And, no, Mahler 2 live does not have only 50 dB dynamic range,  nor it peaks at only 80 dB SPL - both at the precise location of a person attending the concert. 
Today it is possible to record and reproduce it at true to life levels - at least when using binaural. And proper "headphones" for binaural DO have space between headphone and your ear.


----------



## dprimary

analogsurviver said:


> Well, there is no such thing as relative volume levels. It is what it is - at any given moment.




This is news to every audio engineer in the world. Ninety-nine percent of levels are relative. Absolute levels are rarely known. Unless you have measured the dB-SPL unweighted and calibrate to it everything is relative. Until record companies start putting a calibration tone in an album, with instructions on calibration your system to that level they are just guessing.


----------



## bigshot

analogsurviver said:


> You seem to forget I deal also with binaural.



How can I forget? You constantly bring that and phono cartridges up even when it’s irrelevant to the conversation and no one else is particularly interested. Your conversations don’t extend further than your own head. I know that isn’t your fault though.


----------



## analogsurviver

dprimary said:


> This is news to every audio engineer in the world. Ninety-nine percent of levels are relative. Absolute levels are rarely known. Unless you have measured the dB-SPL unweighted and calibrate to it everything is relative. Until record companies start putting a calibration tone in an album, with instructions on calibration your system to that level they are just guessing.



OK, in that context, it is so. For now.

But, there will come time calibrating the original sound during the recording and making sure that replay gain in player software and volume setting for the headphones/speakers used would be, if not exactly the same, say no more than 2 dB off the target value. Such a requirement would also have to include calibrating/equalizing headphone/loudspeaker . Music is supposed to be played at certain loudness - and reproduction should follow that as closely as possible. Although Fletcher-Munson curves might not be 100% correct, the sound timbre DOES change with volume - thus real music levels and those of reproduction should ideally match. Maybe Fletcher-Munson curves should be re-examined, improved if required and incorporated into player software, where listener would be required to input the desired peak SPL level - and DSP would automatically provide the correct required EQ curve.

When we arrive at about this kind of universally accepted agreement ( like smartphone world finally agreed on charger connections ) - then we might start talking about "no audible difference". Provided, of course, that electronics and transducers can provide frequency response and dynamic range required or even specified against some kind of minimum requirement standard. 

I concur that remote controlled volume for listening via speakers is more important than the last n-th degree of the sophistication of the amplifier. The volume setting that does work in any given room at  home can be off by low enough amount that a listener would not bother making the trip to volume control and back - whereas a remote control can be used for fine volume adjustment.even by a single listener. Having to make fine volume changes by ear in different location than listening area can be hard; particularly with dipole speakers. If your volume knob is anywhere close to the dipole plane, there would be close to zero output at your volume setting position. It is far less hard to do with point source speakers - but still far harder than from listening spot with a remote. 

I have started putting calibrating tones in my recordings from vinyl - referenced at 1 kHz @ -18 dBFS. Both for any comparison purposes among various cartridges/arms/tables, as well as a proof that the cartridge used has actually been properly installed and adjusted. Although this adjustment of recording level can be royal PITA ( cartridge outputs vary from 0.04 to more than 5 mV at reference 1 kHz/5cm/sec ) and is sometime not only impractical but altogeher impossible ( the range of gain control required is outside most equipment) , I do try to follow it as closely - within reason. I would not put yet another line stage between the phono preamp and recorder input if the output of the cartridge "lacks" less than 3 dB from target value. There is always calibration tone of 1 kHz available for comparision volume matching.

Now, it would be fine if a relatively inexpensive reference "noisemaker" for actual musical recording could be made available to everyone.  That could be the beginning of putting calibration tones in the recordings of commercially available music.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

analogsurviver said:


> OK, in that context, it is so. For now.
> 
> But, there will come time calibrating the original sound during the recording and making sure that replay gain in player software and volume setting for the headphones/speakers used would be, if not exactly the same, say no more than 2 dB off the target value. Such a requirement would also have to include calibrating/equalizing headphone/loudspeaker . Music is supposed to be played at certain loudness - and reproduction should follow that as closely as possible. Although Fletcher-Munson curves might not be 100% correct, the sound timbre DOES change with volume - thus real music levels and those of reproduction should ideally match. Maybe Fletcher-Munson curves should be re-examined, improved if required and incorporated into player software, where listener would be required to input the desired peak SPL level - and DSP would automatically provide the correct required EQ curve.
> 
> ...


While i admire the heroic recording techniques. ...i will still be listening in an average room,that room will dictate the best spl level for me to enjoy your recording and will not be anywhere near an orchestra at full roar in a concert hall.I will however enjoy it at a scale suitable to my venue.Realism is scalable


----------



## bigshot

The intended venue for recordings is the living room you listen to it in.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> The intended venue for recordings is the living room you listen to it in.


Right!!...that is exactly what makes our little hobby work!


----------



## bigshot

It's also why moving a couch usually will make much more of an improvement in sound quality than buying a thousand dollar DAC!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> It's also why moving a couch usually will make much more of an improvement in sound quality than buying a thousand dollar DAC!100%  true...and my wife approves of couches more than audio gear ...win,win situation.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Oh dear ..not sure how i messed that post


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Btw...yellow smarties disappear into jalapeno peanuts...pretty much identical....perfect


----------



## upstateguy (Jun 13, 2019)

bigshot said:


> It's also why moving a couch usually will make much more of an improvement in sound quality than buying a thousand dollar DAC!



*+1

There is no last n-th degree.........  . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



*


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> It's easy to misjudge numbers on a page. I always recommend that people who are interested actually make an effort to experience what those numbers mean in real world sound to be able to put the numbers in perspective. For relative volume levels, I'd suggest picking up an SPL meter, and turning up your home stereo to a normal loud listening level and measuring it. I bet if you measure your own speaker system, you'll find that you aren't going much over 70dB.
> 
> The loudness where the sound reaches your ear is what counts, not the volume emitting from a sound source when you are standing right in front of it. For instance, a symphony orchestra has instruments that can put out volumes of as much as 110dB, but that doesn't mean that you hear it that loud from the audience. Out in the seats, it's more like 60dB.
> 
> ...



It's odd that we can quote published sources/studies/etc. when they support our opinions/position and then ignore others when they don't.

Then the "you haven't measured it, therefore your argument is invalid" tactic is typically invoked.  Would I need to personally measure the Earth's gravitational pull in order to be able to invoke it in a discussion?

The OSHA PEL is actually 90 dB...NIOSH REL is 85 dB.   https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/noisehearingconservation/pel.html

Additionally, the OSHA PEL is for workplace environments where the _time-weighted average (TWA)_ PEL is over an 8-hour work shift.  Peaks well above 85 dB are allowable...

So... if a listener has their system playing at 85 dB, guess they'll be 'flinching' the whole day!  

On another OSHA chart, they publish typical sound pressure levels for different things - https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/noisehearingconservation/loud.html

On that chart, they describe a night club environment as 110 dB -- not clear if this is peak or average value.  If that's an average value, the PEL is 1/2 hour.  Obviously, most peaks in music are for a relatively small amount of time relative to the total performance time and if the 110 dB is peak level, then PEL would be > 1/2 hour

Yes, these levels (> 100 dB) exist in clubs, rock concert venues, listening rooms, etc.

In the end, am thinking I'll trust the OSHA/University/etc. published data over this forum's "I'll bet if you measure it argument deflections"...if that's ok with you  

TBH...this side-trip regarding listening levels is not worth the effort.  I simply proposed that the test being cited might be suspect based on my personal experience with those exact speakers and a variety of amps ranging from 100 to 400 wpc.  100 wpc was underpowered for the way I listened in my listening room.  If you choose to not believe that, good on you.  I'll stand by what I said.

Bottom line, they're just different use cases.  You listen at lower levels and, when I owned this stuff, I listened at higher levels.  

In fact, I had two setups in two different rooms for this very reason.  One for rock (JBL, or Infinity, etc.) and one for acoustic (Maggies, or Quads, or Acoustats, etc.). When we listened to rock, we typically played our music loud.

Now I just use headphones (and have many different sound rooms!)


----------



## bigshot (Jun 14, 2019)

I suggested that you get a SPL meter and check it yourself. That would give you your answer, not more numbers on more pages. They don't cost that much. 85dB is VERY loud in you living room with your speakers and your music.

Remember that the dB scale is exponential. The difference between 20 dB and 30 dB isn't the same as the difference between 80dB and 90dB. You're talking about VERY loud sound.

As I said, with headphones it is very easy to incur hearing damage with loud volumes. Please be careful.


----------



## gregorio

GearMe said:


>



We have to be careful here. Firstly, without distance, these numbers are meaningless. For example, from certain positions within a symphony orchestra, levels can reach 137dB. However, by the time we're at the distance of say the conductor's position, peak levels are typically around 105dB, although some exceptional pieces can reach as much as about 115dB or so. But at the ideal audience seating position, around 90dB would be the typical max peak. Also, although rock gigs have been measured at 150dB, that was only a couple of metres from the speaker array, the audience would be many metres further away. If the audience were experiencing 150dB peaks at a rock gig, they would have severe permanent hearing damage! Secondly, the one example where distance is given (fortissimo singer @ 3ft), is completely incorrect. Operatic singers at fortissimo, from 3ft, can reach sustained levels of around 100dB, with peak levels significantly higher. Of course though, no audience member ever sits 3ft from an operatic singer!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> We have to be careful here. Firstly, without distance, these numbers are meaningless. For example, from certain positions within a symphony orchestra, levels can reach 137dB. However, by the time we're at the distance of say the conductor's position, peak levels are typically around 105dB, although some exceptional pieces can reach as much as about 115dB or so. But at the ideal audience seating position, around 90dB would be the typical max peak. Also, although rock gigs have been measured at 150dB, that was only a couple of metres from the speaker array, the audience would be many metres further away. If the audience were experiencing 150dB peaks at a rock gig, they would have severe permanent hearing damage! Secondly, the one example where distance is given (fortissimo singer @ 3ft), is completely incorrect. Operatic singers at fortissimo, from 3ft, can reach sustained levels of around 100dB, with peak levels significantly higher. Of course though, no audience member ever sits 3ft from an operatic singer!
> 
> G



Basically, venue size(and shape) matters.   110SPL in my bathroom is different than 110SPL at the Barclays, even dangerous to my health!  That sound has no where to dissipate.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] If you have _EVER_ found a _PERFECT_ null between anything - including two supposedly identical channels on the same amplifier - I would love to hear where it was. (Or are you suggesting that _you_ get to decide what's "a good enough null" that we can ignore what's left?)
> [2] Incidentally, you said that "we tested thousands of teenagers over several years"... and then quoted the "mean highest frequency response". I seem to be having trouble finding a precise definition of that term. A "statistical mean" is a specific form of average... while the meaning of "highest" seems to be obvious.
> [2a] Perhaps, if we could see the actual scores, we could pick out what comprises simply "the single best score" and see what it is.
> [3] And, yes, all joking aside, you _SHOULD_ allow the widest possible latitude when deciding what subjects to include - because human characteristics are well known to "clump".
> ...


 
1. Why? Every time you repeat your falsehood, effectively that we can measure everything/differences, I point out the Null Test which does exactly that. You then always come back with some variation of; you can't get a perfect null with analogue equipment, which of course is nonsense that ironically relies on an audiophile myth! We don't need a perfect null because human hearing is not perfect, a null which peaks at say -110dB is inaudible, we have masses of reliable evidence covering many decades which demonstrates this fact and in some cases even a very poor null (at say -20dB) is inaudible! This is probably about the fifth time I've had to refute your false assertion, point out the Null Test and then refute your false/misrepresented objection to it. So, why? Why do you keep going round in circles and repeating the same falsehood when you know it's false?

2. In a test to determine the highest frequency teenage subjects can hear, the mid point of the distribution (average maximum limit) was between 16kHz and 17kHz.
2a. Even if I still had access to that data (which I don't), it would be highly illegal to share it. The "single best score" was 19kHz, although it wasn't single, about half a dozen students achieved this, none ever managed 20kHz though. Interestingly, these best scores were all obtained by older (more experienced) students, 19-21 year olds, not the youngest (16 year olds).
3. Our students had a very wide cultural background, from many different countries and of course, there are universities all over the world running sound engineering courses.

4. You are misrepresenting what I have stated. Almost without exception all the students had better hearing acuity than me, but worse listening skills, which of course is why I was teaching them listening skills and not the other way around! What's the point of stating that we should "also include applying common sense" if you then don't? The only rational answer is: An attempt to legitimise a false/fallacious assertion, another extremely common audiophile tactic!

5. Ah, so you're ignoring the response already given to this misrepresentation! Let me remind you: "_The world record for the mile in the late 1960's was 3:51 and today it stands at 3:43. Even with all the modern scientific advancements in training that's still only an improvement of just 8 seconds in over 50 years, so a further improvement by another 103 seconds (to 2:00) is NOT "reasonably unlikely" it's incredibly unlikely and almost certainly utterly impossible (without artificial enhancements)!_" - Just as with the very young children nonsense, you're now adding; maybe "in the next few thousand years". Again, you market your amps to very young children do you? Do you state in your marketing that it might be possible to hear a difference with your amps in a few thousand years time, assuming humans evolve better hearing? This is the application of common sense is it? 



analogsurviver said:


> [1] Well, there is no such thing as relative volume levels. It is what it is - at any given moment.
> [2] I often double check for volume of monitoring - and, despite always seating in some far corner of the venue, where there is less sound than in the centre of the venue behind the conductor ....
> And, no, Mahler 2 live does not have only 50 dB dynamic range,  nor it peaks at only 80 dB SPL - both at the precise location of a person attending the concert.
> Today it is possible to record and reproduce it at true to life levels - at least when using binaural.



1. That's a staggering statement from someone who professes to have recording experience/knowledge! Decibels (dB) is arguably the most fundamental of measurement scales in audio and you use it all the time yourself but you apparently don't even know what it is. The very first line of the wiki definition is: "_The *decibel* (symbol: dB) is a unit of measurement used to express the ratio of one value of a power or field quantity to another on a logarithmic scale._" - Any volume level expressed as a decibel is therefore by definition "relative". How is it possible you don't know pretty much the very first thing that any new student of recording should know? Staggering!

2. Again, that's just staggering! You demonstrate you know you get less sound at your position in the audience than at the conductors position. In fact, you could roughly calculate how much less using the inverse square law that you yourself quoted! At the conductors position, a couple of meters or so from the orchestra, peak levels of a Mahler symphony might reach as high as about 110dBSPL,  "some far corner of the [symphony hall] venue" would very approximately be about 40m away and using the inverse square law would result in a peak level of roughly 85dB. However, this figure only includes loss in a free field, it doesn't include audience (or any other) absorption or additional HF air absorption, so the peak level at your seating position is indeed going to be about 80dBSPL or lower. It would be easy to measure the SPL, so why haven't you? Furthermore, although you are distant from the orchestra, you are still inside the audience and therefore the orchestra is going to be much quieter but the noise floor is going to be roughly the same. Even taking the most optimistic peak level of 85dB and the likely noise floor about 40dB, you are ironically correct, you indeed wouldn't have a dynamic range of "only 50db", it would be significantly less; possibly as much as 45dB but probably no more than about 40dB!! Again, how is it possible you didn't know this and have never noticed (in all your years of proclaimed study and recording experience)? It's literally unbelievable!

The rest of your post is effectively utter nonsense as it's based on this staggering/unbelievable ignorance!

Why is it that when engaging with audiophiles (and audiophile marketers), that they inevitably lower the discussion to the completely absurd with absolutely zero relevance to the discussion/today's consumers? Babies' hearing acuity, human evolution in a few thousand years, CD isn't good enough even though it has a dynamic range 1,000 times greater than what you're actually recording, we haven't done parallel universes yet, is that next? sheesh!

G


----------



## GearMe

gregorio said:


> We have to be careful here. Firstly, without distance, these numbers are meaningless. For example, from certain positions within a symphony orchestra, levels can reach 137dB. However, by the time we're at the distance of say the conductor's position, peak levels are typically around 105dB, although some exceptional pieces can reach as much as about 115dB or so. But at the ideal audience seating position, around 90dB would be the typical max peak. Also, although rock gigs have been measured at 150dB, that was only a couple of metres from the speaker array, the audience would be many metres further away. If the audience were experiencing 150dB peaks at a rock gig, they would have severe permanent hearing damage! Secondly, the one example where distance is given (fortissimo singer @ 3ft), is completely incorrect. Operatic singers at fortissimo, from 3ft, can reach sustained levels of around 100dB, with peak levels significantly higher. Of course though, no audience member ever sits 3ft from an operatic singer!
> 
> G



Agreed...thank you for using logic and data instead of ignoring them and defaulting to the standard "buy a Rat Shack SPL tester" deflection when another's use case doesn't align with your personal view.  
It's an old and tired argument on this thread that lacks thought and is of little value to the discussion when there is real data 'out there' to work with.  

You don't need to measure things when they've been repeatedly measured and there's been an established set of data to leverage.  You can certainly question/discuss the studies' assumptions/processes (i.e. Stereo Review's amplifier test using Maggie's) and make judgements about a given test's relevance to your individual use case.

So...according to your ideal audience (Classical Orchestra) position, the audience would be hearing a 90 dB peak -- _well into the "flinch zone"_ by Bigshot's standards.  Not sure why concert-goers would pay good money to subject themselves to this constant flinching  

A quick run through with an SPL Calculator for the Rock Concert gig (150 dB at 2m) would yield...

20 meters - 130 dB
30 meters - 126.5 dB
40 meters - 124 dB
50 meters - 122 dB
100 meters - 116 dB

Changing that peak number to 130 dB at 2 meters still yields 96 dB at 100 meters.  

We'd have to limit the Rock Gig's set up to a max of 118 dB at 2 meters...to stop 'flinching' at 100 meters (more than a football field away -- 118 dB @ 2m = 84 dB @ 100m -- chart below)

Googling "SPL levels in Clubs" reveals measurements/studies/etc. suggesting that the OSHA number for Club environments (110 dB) is reasonable as well with peaks as high as 131 dB and average values 100-110 dB in a club environments.







Bottom line...people can and do listen to a variety of music at different levels in a variety of settings.  Just because their use case doesn't align with another's doesn't make it invalid or require measurement to be 'deemed so'.  
If the playback systems exist to reproduce the music at those levels and someone says they do, I'll take their word for it..._assuming positive intent_ (a novel concept in this forum for some members)!


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 14, 2019)

GearMe said:


> Agreed...thank you for using logic and data instead of ignoring them and defaulting to the standard "buy a Rat Shack SPL tester" deflection when another's use case doesn't align with your personal view.
> It's an old and tired argument on this thread that lacks thought and is of little value to the discussion when there is real data 'out there' to work with.
> 
> You don't need to measure things when they've been repeatedly measured and there's been an established set of data to leverage.  You can certainly question/discuss the studies' assumptions/processes (i.e. Stereo Review's amplifier test using Maggie's) and make judgements about a given test's relevance to your individual use case.
> ...




110-120dB SPL?

Twenty minutes of maximum 95-100 SPL during thirty minutes of 'worship' in my own CHURCH is too much for me, let alone anything north of 100!

(Although: I've been told that if something is too loud to me, the inverse might be true - something could still be wrong with my hearing)


----------



## KeithEmo

It is funny how that circle keeps going around and around....
(Although I'm not sure where it exactly started this time.)

1)
You pointed out how a null test will demonstrate even the tiniest differences...
I agree entirely, however, as I pointed out, if you null two of anything _carefully enough_, you always fine a little difference... 
So, rather than prove "two things are actually identical"...
We always end up back at "now that we know exactly what the difference is we have to decide whether it counts or not".
At which point someone chimes back in with that mystical knowledge that a certain null is "good enough we can act as if it's inaudible without bothering to test it".
(I suspect you're right, and that some difference is "small enough to be inaudible", but I'm not quite sure exactly where that number lies... maybe we need to test it.)
(And I think that's even more true with digital systems - where you can have extremely large measured differences that only occur for very brief amounts of time.)

2)
I do apologize for #2.
I personally am willing to accept that the results from those particular tests were what you say.
(But a lot of other folks on this forum seem to think that "all claims are anecdotal if we don't get the data that goes with them".)
And, yes, those results are interesting... especially that they show that, at least under those conditions, experience seems to be more significant that "raw hearing acuity".
(But we still don't actually know if the massive difference in the hearing acuity of a five year old would override that difference - until we test it.)

3)
That's good... and eliminates one possible issue with the results that many others seem to overlook.
(Like the tests that only include the rather narrow demographic of members of some particular "audiophile group".)

4)
Perhaps "common sense" was a poor choice of words.
When we design a test that is intended to "prove a general case"....
The general advice is to include any and all test samples that may reasonably be expected to prove the case.
Since a single outlier renders you unable to make a generalization about "everyone" you have to try as hard as you can to find all the outliers.
This is always a balance between practicality and thoroughness... and always ends up excluding a few that "everyone agrees won't matter"...
This is a flaw that is present in all tests and is, for all practical purposes, unavoidable.

I would, however, point out that it is much more of an issue in some situations that others.
For example, there is a lot of incentive provided for fast human runners to come forward.
The possibility of an Olympic gold medal, and a few $million in endorsements, makes it extremely likely that most fast runners HAVE been clocked.
Even further, anyone who exhibited unusual aptitude in school has a good chance of receiving additional training to achieve their maximum potential.
However, there is no such clear-cut incentive for people with exceptional hearing to come forward and be tested.
Therefore, in practical terms, only a tiny percentage of every human on Earth has even had their hearing tested.
(At a wild guess... very few five year olds, with their excellent hearing acuity, has ever gone to a course to train them how to listen properly.)

5)
On the last part of your last comment...
I very much doubt we have many five year old customers...
(And, to be honest, I doubt many of our customers would buy equipment just because their five year old child preferred the way it sounds.)
However, as has been pointed out so often, this is not a forum about marketing... but about science.
Whether, if five year olds could hear a difference, there would be any commercial value to that fact is a matter for another forum.
I'm merely curious, for scientific purposes, whether it may happen to be true or not.



gregorio said:


> 1. Why? Every time you repeat your falsehood, effectively that we can measure everything/differences, I point out the Null Test which does exactly that. You then always come back with some variation of; you can't get a perfect null with analogue equipment, which of course is nonsense that ironically relies on an audiophile myth! We don't need a perfect null because human hearing is not perfect, a null which peaks at say -110dB is inaudible, we have masses of reliable evidence covering many decades which demonstrates this fact and in some cases even a very poor null (at say -20dB) is inaudible! This is probably about the fifth time I've had to refute your false assertion, point out the Null Test and then refute your false/misrepresented objection to it. So, why? Why do you keep going round in circles and repeating the same falsehood when you know it's false?
> 
> 2. In a test to determine the highest frequency teenage subjects can hear, the mid point of the distribution (average maximum limit) was between 16kHz and 17kHz.
> 2a. Even if I still had access to that data (which I don't), it would be highly illegal to share it. The "single best score" was 19kHz, although it wasn't single, about half a dozen students achieved this, none ever managed 20kHz though. Interestingly, these best scores were all obtained by older (more experienced) students, 19-21 year olds, not the youngest (16 year olds).
> ...


----------



## GearMe

TheSonicTruth said:


> 110-120dB SPL?
> 
> Twenty minutes of maximum 95-100 SPL during thirty minutes of 'worship' in my own CHURCH is too much for me, let alone anything north of 100!
> 
> (Although: I've been told that if something is too loud to me, the inverse might be true - something could still be wrong with my hearing)



I'd expect this might vary somewhat by individual, the setting, etc.   Gregorio would have better insight than I would.

Not sure what 110-120 number you're referring to but I'm just using numbers that can be found on OSHA or in studies on the web.
According to OSHA, they allow 2 hours at 100 dB TWA; 1/2 hour at 110 dB

So...as an example, someone hitting the Club for the night at 110 dB TWA is risking hearing damage if they stay longer than a half-hour.  On the other hand, someone experiencing momentary peaks at 110 dB is not at risk...if their TWA level is 90 dB or less over an 8 hour period or 95 dB over a 4 hour period.


----------



## gregorio

GearMe said:


> [1] So...according to your ideal audience (Classical Orchestra) position, the audience would be hearing a 90 dB peak -- _well into the "flinch zone"_ by Bigshot's standards.
> [1a] Not sure why concert-goers would pay good money to subject themselves to this constant flinching
> [2] A quick run through with an SPL Calculator for the Rock Concert gig (150 dB at 2m) would yield...
> 20 meters - 130 dB
> ...



1. Yes, under some circumstances. The audience is not going to get that at a piano recital, they might possibly get it with one of the big, late romantic period or later symphonies. However, we're talking about probably one or two such peaks, maybe a handful, in a 45min symphony.
1a. So firstly, it wouldn't be a "constant flinching", it would be very occasional/exceptional flinching. This isn't the case with some popular music genres though, where the peak level is likely to be hit quite a few times even in a short 3-4 minute song, due to the quite heavy compression employed. Why would people pay good money for this? For the same reason that people pay good money to flinch at a horror movie. It is in fact possible to induce a sense of euphoria from high SPLs, a fact often exploited in heavy metal genres in the past. However, it's become apparent over the last 3 decades or so that such SPLs come with a very significant risk of hearing damage.

2. In fact, some of those calculations correspond to actual events. For example, the world record loudest ever gig was held for quite a few years by The Who. At 32m from the speakers at The Valley (football stadium) gig, the peak level was measured at 126dB. Obviously though, the very fact that it was the world record holder demonstrates that this was truly exceptional and not the norm! Additionally, in the '70's and '80's when being the loudest band was a serious point of pride and marketing for a number of high profile bands, they all suffered very significant hearing damage and in the late '80's Guinness dropped the category of loudest band, on the grounds that it did not want to encourage hearing damage.

3. OSHA sets the occupational noise limits for industry and is regularly lobbied by large industries/corporations. The WHO on the other hand seem more concerned with limits damaging to health, rather than being acceptable to industry. I believe their current recommendation is peak levels no higher than 110dB, not 131dB.

4. Yes it does, if their "use case" is dangerous! Depending on what sort of music bigshot is listening to, his reference level is not unreasonable, especially if we don't fail to ignore the fact that at the same SPL, music/audio will subjectively sound much louder in a small room (such as a sitting room) than in a large room (such as a cinema or concert venue).

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree.....

I would also say that it should be up to the individual listener to decide what levels they personally prefer.
BigShot may prefer to always listen at what he considers to be comfortable listening levels...
Someone else may actually feel that you're supposed to flinch when those cannons go off in the 1812 Overture...
And hearing a really loud noise that makes you jump once in a while isn't dangerous... and may add a lot to your sense of realism.
(Remember the scene in Tommy, where the Acid Queen smashes the mirror.... it's supposed to make you jump.... because smashing a mirror is really loud.)
And someone else may just occasionally "want to make their ears bleed" - even though they know it's probably not a great idea.
(But, yes, if you want to claim that your system can reproduce a symphony orchestra _accurately_, then it should be able to recreate the original levels involved, including the cymbal crashes, and the cannons.)

I should also point out that the idea that "a device only needs to be able to perform exactly as well as you need it to" is somewhat misleading.
Many of us don't generally drive over the 55 mPH speed limit...
Yet very few people I know would be willing to purchase a car with a governor that absolutely limited its speed to 55 mPH... or a car that just plain couldn't go any faster...
In fact, everyone I know owns a car that can go far faster than they could safely drive it.
(After all, you may occasionally need to go a bit faster, to pass someone, or just because you're in a big hurry...)
It makes equal sense to expect your audio system to be able to play louder that your typical listening level - for those days when you just want to turn it up a bit.

It's also worth noting that our perception of loudness varies considerably.
An average level of 80 dB is going to sound far louder to someone arriving home from their job as a librarian...
Than it is so someone arriving home from their job repairing jet engines...
So, odds are, their typical listening levels are likely to also vary considerably...



gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, under some circumstances. The audience is not going to get that at a piano recital, they might possibly get it with one of the big, late romantic period or later symphonies. However, we're talking about probably one or two such peaks, maybe a handful, in a 45min symphony.
> 1a. So firstly, it wouldn't be a "constant flinching", it would be very occasional/exceptional flinching. This isn't the case with some popular music genres though, where the peak level is likely to be hit quite a few times even in a short 3-4 minute song, due to the quite heavy compression employed. Why would people pay good money for this? For the same reason that people pay good money to flinch at a horror movie. It is in fact possible to induce a sense of euphoria from high SPLs, a fact often exploited in heavy metal genres in the past. However, it's become apparent over the last 3 decades or so that such SPLs come with a very significant risk of hearing damage.
> 
> 2. In fact, some of those calculations correspond to actual events. For example, the world record loudest ever gig was held for quite a few years by The Who. At 32m from the speakers at The Valley (football stadium) gig, the peak level was measured at 126dB. Obviously though, the very fact that it was the world record holder demonstrates that this was truly exceptional and not the norm! Additionally, in the '70's and '80's when being the loudest band was a serious point of pride and marketing for a number of high profile bands, they all suffered very significant hearing damage and in the late '80's Guinness dropped the category of loudest band, on the grounds that it did not want to encourage hearing damage.
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 14, 2019)

GearMe said:


> Agreed...thank you for using logic and data instead of ignoring them and defaulting to the standard "buy a Rat Shack SPL tester" deflection when another's use case doesn't align with your personal view.



Actually experiencing sound is the best way to judge it. When we say things like "loud normal listening level" it can be very difficult to assign a specific number to it. How loud is loud? How normal is normal? Where are you sitting? What kind of music? What kind of room? But if you are in your living room and turn the music up to the loudest comfortable volume and measure it, you can find a specific number that applies to your situation. It might be a little different than mine because my situation might be a little different. But it will be in the same general ballpark. At least by hearing it, you have some experience to know what that number sounds like.

The way I figured out my rules of thumb was to sit down with a sound editing program hooked up to my stereo and to experiment with various parameters of sound to hear the effect. You don't have to be clinically precise or use fabulously expensive testing equipment, you just have to get a feel for what a frequency or volume level or flavor of dynamic compression or whatever you're trying to figure out _actually sounds like._

Too often audiophiles look to abstract numbers on a chart to justify pushing limits beyond what is necessary. For instance, there was one guy who claimed human ears demanded a noise floor of at least -120dB. The only way you arrive at such an extreme position like that is to not know what a peak level of 120dB sounds like... to have never figured out what a listening room's natural room tone is... and to have no concept of what kind of dynamics commercially recorded music is designed to have.

Other people claim that there are instances of people who register brain waves to super audible frequencies. But what do those frequencies sound like? (or more specifically NOT sound like?) And what happens if you take your favorite SACD and do a high pass filter at a specific point. Theory and measurements are great, but how important is 5kHz or 15khz or 25kHz or 35kHz to Beethoven's 9th symphony? You only know the answer to that by listening.

Everyone around here likes to put on white lab coats and serious expressions and talk about precise numbers and exacting standards, but that isn't how human ears work. There's a range to perception. Specific points within that range mean a lot less than a feeling for the overall range itself. Understanding the context of the abstract numbers comes by listening and experimenting, You really shouldn't look down your nose at a suggestion to grab a $60 SPL meter and figuring out what 80dB peak sounds like with your own music on your own stereo. Doing that might teach you something more useful than all the charts in all the books on your shelf.

By the way, I've attended Wagner's Ring Cycle, which is probably one of the loudest things you can experience in the concert hall. It didn't get up anywhere near 90dB in my seat in the middle of the house. It was more in the range of 60-70dB with maybe a horn blast once in a while that went a bit above that. I listen to music on my home stereo louder than I've ever heard music in the concert hall and I don't get much above 80dB there. But I admit, most music I listen to doesn't have atomic bombs going off. Most of it is within a dynamic range of 45 to 50dB. I think Gregorio might be basing his loudness estimate on standard miking positions for recording in an empty house, or perhaps short impulses of less than a second. That isn't the same as a loud listening level for commercially recorded music.

As for OSHA standards, 90dB is the top limit for long term exposure. 120dB is forbidden even for very short exposure times. 120dB is the threshold of pain. I can't picture what 130dB would be like and I don't want to find out. When you get sustained sound levels above 90, you are in the danger zone and it sure isn't comfortable to listen to music that loud. Again, grab a SPL meter and get a feel for what these numbers represent. It's all too easy to interpret the numbers to justify incrementally more and more until you get into the range of crazy town.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 14, 2019)

GearMe said:


> According to OSHA, they allow 2 hours at 100 dB TWA; 1/2 hour at 110 dB



Half an hour at 110dB SPL?

I can't evrn tolerate 95dB in my church for 30 minutes!

"TWA" - Wasn't that an airline??


----------



## castleofargh

from the few tests I've done, I don't seem to ever let my music peak at 90dB at home, be it with speakers or headphones. most of my casual listening time at night will probably peak 20dB below that. a few very dynamic tracks probably peak higher, but if they're really stupidly dynamic tracks, chances are they're not in my playlists because I can't hear crap on the quiet parts, or I really like the track anyway so I've compressed it to hear something. 
as for a live event, if it's loud I'll have prepared earplugs, won't go, or I'll leave after a few minutes. it's been socially awkward a few times, but why would I endure something that bothers me and might be bad for my ears?
I went to see a specialist long ago because I had read about some hypersensitivity troubles and thought I had that. the guy diagnosed me with an acute case of not enjoying loud sounds and being a dick about it. which apparently is not actually classified as a disease and doesn't have a treatment.


----------



## KeithEmo

The treatment is good earplugs.



castleofargh said:


> from the few tests I've done, I don't seem to ever let my music peak at 90dB at home, be it with speakers or headphones. most of my casual listening time at night will probably peak 20dB below that. a few very dynamic tracks probably peak higher, but if they're really stupidly dynamic tracks, chances are they're not in my playlists because I can't hear **** on the quiet parts, or I really like the track anyway so I've compressed it to hear something.
> as for a live event, if it's loud I'll have prepared earplugs, won't go, or I'll leave after a few minutes. it's been socially awkward a few times, but why would I endure something that bothers me and might be bad for my ears?
> I went to see a specialist long ago because I had read about some hypersensitivity troubles and thought I had that. the guy diagnosed me with an acute case of not enjoying loud sounds and being a dick about it. which apparently is not actually classified as a disease and doesn't have a treatment.


----------



## GearMe

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, under some circumstances. The audience is not going to get that at a piano recital, they might possibly get it with one of the big, late romantic period or later symphonies. However, we're talking about probably one or two such peaks, maybe a handful, in a 45min symphony.
> 1a. So firstly, it wouldn't be a "constant flinching", it would be very occasional/exceptional flinching. This isn't the case with some popular music genres though, where the peak level is likely to be hit quite a few times even in a short 3-4 minute song, due to the quite heavy compression employed. Why would people pay good money for this? For the same reason that people pay good money to flinch at a horror movie. It is in fact possible to induce a sense of euphoria from high SPLs, a fact often exploited in heavy metal genres in the past. However, it's become apparent over the last 3 decades or so that such SPLs come with a very significant risk of hearing damage.
> 
> 2. In fact, some of those calculations correspond to actual events. For example, the world record loudest ever gig was held for quite a few years by The Who. At 32m from the speakers at The Valley (football stadium) gig, the peak level was measured at 126dB. Obviously though, the very fact that it was the world record holder demonstrates that this was truly exceptional and not the norm! Additionally, in the '70's and '80's when being the loudest band was a serious point of pride and marketing for a number of high profile bands, they all suffered very significant hearing damage and in the late '80's Guinness dropped the category of loudest band, on the grounds that it did not want to encourage hearing damage.
> ...



Thanks for the reply...

Was being a bit snarky/sarcastic re: Bigshot's 'flinching' comment...sorry if that got lost in translation! 

I get your view on #4 but tend to be a 'audio libertarian' on this...the way someone wants to listen is their business as long as it's not disturbing someone else. 

Don't agree with motorcycle helmets either (though I've never ridden a bike...even as a passenger)

You wanna listen at low levels? Fine...put on some Kenny G and well, um...(go to sleep?)







You wanna put on Quadrophenia and blast the JBL's?  Even better! 



(FWIW, I'm reasonably certain that it's a Federal offense to play The Who at less than 90 dB!)   



After all, to quote Jimmy Buffet..."It's 5:15 somewhere"
(now...here's some mellow, mood music to ease into the weekend)  








Gads...just listening to Quadrophenia makes me want to buy a set Klipschorns


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> The treatment is good earplugs.



I've always disagreed with the notion of needing ear muffs or plugs in live music scenarios(concerts, worship, etc.). They are like closing port holes on Titanic.

Consider, instead, more smaller arrays or individual speakers, placed at regular intervals around or in the spectator accommodations.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> I've always disagreed with the notion of needing ear muffs or plugs in live music scenarios(concerts, worship, etc.). They are like closing port holes on Titanic.
> 
> Consider, instead, more smaller arrays or individual speakers, placed at regular intervals around or in the spectator accommodations.



In an ideal world, where musicians would not be loading 5 k worth equipment into 500$ car for a 50$/head gig - or worse, being forced to play for free to get "exposure" - where there would be enough time for sound check ( it has to be said musicians themselves are many times too late on the premise to make a decent sound check ... ), where venue owners would not give preference to new mirrors and other decor while skimping on "acoustics" to the max , etc & so forth - maybe. 

Not many bands can or wish to afford their own permanent sound engineer - who in no time becomes, de facto, n+1 th member of the band. It is hard enough as it is - even for the permanent sound engineer, following the band from venue to venue, even if the band has its own sound equipment. If it is necessary to use whatever is at any given venue, the task gets even tougher. 

Adding more smaller speaker arrays would compound the problem further. Setting up, calibrating, adjusting proper delay, etc would take too much time for most scenarios. 

Anyone who has done anything of the sort will also tell you dismantling everything takes almost the same time as setting up - and while the musicians could/should sleep, roadies MUST  truck gear to the next venue, to be set up for another concert next evening. 

Not many bands can afford arrays with delay - like Rolling Stones on that beach -  for XY.000 spectators, who were paying a sustainable entrance fee.

Even less clubs are willing to have a permanent arrays of multiple speakers - as it would llimit the number of table$ for le$$ strictly musical events.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jun 14, 2019)

That's a nice idea... but in practice it's very difficult to achieve. The problem is that sound travels slowly through air (about one millisecond per foot). Because of this, there's no way to use a bunch of small arrays, widely scattered, to create a consistent sound field throughout a large area. if you place two speakers fifty feet apart, and play the same audio through both of them, someone standing directly between them hears a single sound, but anyone standing too close to one or the other will hear sound coming from the other delayed, which will sound like an echo. In order to avoid this, you have to make sure that anyone standing too far off center cannot hear sound from the far speaker. You need to ensure that the sound from the near speaker dominates what they hear well enough that they won't notice the sound from the far speaker.

If you were to place one speaker every 20 feet around the edges of a large room, each person would hear the sound coming from the nearest speaker with no delay, and the sound coming from the two speakers twenty feet to either side, at a slightly lower level, delayed by 20 milliseconds, and so on. The result is that, if you can hear sound from speakers more than about fifty feet away, it sounds like a clear echo. And, even worse, sound from speakers that are closer won't sound like an echo, but it will turn what you're listening to into a blurry jumble of sound that is totally unintelligible. There are ways to avoid this, but they involve very carefully positioning directional arrays of speakers so that the sound anyone hears in any particular spot is dominated by a single set of speakers. If you look at very large stadiums, they often have speakers up front facing the audience, then arrays positioned further out, on poles, also facing out. They may also have arrays positioned far above the audience, positioned to fire over the heads of the front rows, and so only be audible further out. However, the speakers that the outer rows hear must be positioned or directed far enough out that the people who hear them don't hear the sound coming from the front speakers. If you don't get it right, the entire venue sounds like a giant cave, with massive echoes, and very poor intelligibility.

Large sports arenas and other dual-purpose venues have an even worse situation. One thing that helps minimize the problem I described is to use room treatments on the walls and ceiling, to at least minimize the reflected sound reaching each listener from distant speakers. However, room treatments costs money, and they reduce the overall sound level in the room... meaning that you need more power to achieve reasonable listening levels (or the loud levels many bands and their audiences want). You will often see room treatments used in real symphony halls and similar venues - but rarely in venues like sports stadiums that are occasionally also used for rock concerts.

All told, it's very difficult to achieve a pleasant listening level over a large area.
It requires a significant amount of planning, some compromises, and a willingness to spend more money to optimize the sound of the venue.

In short, it's something that you would expect a high quality symphony hall to do....
But you're not likely to find it in the sort of bar where each band "brings their own PA system and sets up between music sets".

Of the fifty or so concerts I've heard....
Four or five were performed in venues that sounded really good....
Maybe a dozen were performed in venues that were at least credible....
And the other two thirds were in venues that were very loud but had the acoustics of a gymnasium....
(And, like it or not, a popular band will sell out in either.... )



TheSonicTruth said:


> I've always disagreed with the notion of needing ear muffs or plugs in live music scenarios(concerts, worship, etc.). They are like closing port holes on Titanic.
> 
> Consider, instead, more smaller arrays or individual speakers, placed at regular intervals around or in the spectator accommodations.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 15, 2019)

A dB meter is nice to have. If anyone is interested, you can download a dB meter app for an iPhone, but I find it under-estimates decibel levels for content that is bass heavy. My stand alone decibel meter seems more accurate. (Remember I have two subwoofers ; ) ). I’ve also compared the iPhone app to the real dB meter for lower notes on the piano and the levels shown on the real dB meter are higher, I think the iPhone mic just is not sensitive enough to lower frequencies. I don’t think android devices are standardized enough in terms of the mic to make a dB meter app reliable or practical, but maybe they are.

So right now I am in my listening area with my nicest stuff (which many would consider quite mid-fi I’m sure). The noise floor for the room measures about 32 dB. I am watching a baseball game with fast a-weighted peaks at about 54 dB, and I still find the sound very pleasing at that volume. I am sure my receiver is doing all sorts of mumbo jumbo to make such a low volume still sound satisfying. My receiver says “PCM [dolby digital symbol] Surr.” whatever all that means. I’ve got the surround sound on with two towers, two surround speakers, a center channel speaker, and of course two subwooofers. Anyway, it sounds really nice, and the dB meter is my companion for a lot of things, like making sure the output from the subwoofers is proportionate with the rest of the system, checking how well the auto-room-calibration feature from my receiver is working in terms of distance and relative loudness of the speakers (the receiver can put out a test noise signal for each speaker so I can double-check), checking noise floor for my room, getting a hang of where the sweet spot in terms of volume is for me for music enjoyment, so I don’t have to use trial and error, etc. Also, if I understand correctly, the receiver auto calibration and auto eq uses a 70 dB signal to calibrate the volume at which a flat response will be best approximated from my seating position. So maybe that tells you something, that 70 dB seems to be the reference level for a flat response. As the volume gets turned down perhaps it does whatever (adds some bass and a little less treble I guess) to keep things sounding satisfying.

So the point is. . . wait. . . I forgot, Oh well. If you read this thanks. I tested some things. With a decibel meter.


----------



## dprimary

Steve999 said:


> A dB meter is nice to have. If anyone is interested, you can download a dB meter app for an iPhone, but I find it under-estimates decibel levels for content that is bass heavy. My stand alone decibel meter seems more accurate. (Remember I have two subwoofers ; ) ). I’ve also compared the iPhone app to the real dB meter for lower notes on the piano and the levels shown on the real dB meter are higher, I think the iPhone mic just is not sensitive enough to lower frequencies. I don’t think android devices are standardized enough in terms of the mic to make a dB meter app reliable or practical, but maybe they are.




The one from Studio Six Digital was able to bypass the built-in filters in the microphone to get a more flat response. Of course you can get a low cost calibrated Type 2 microphone from them for $200 that is really handy. They also have measurement preamps and Type 1 microphones if you need that.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> That's a nice idea... but in practice it's very difficult to achieve. The problem is that sound travels slowly through air (about one millisecond per foot). Because of this, there's no way to use a bunch of small arrays, widely scattered, to create a consistent sound field throughout a large area. if you place two speakers fifty feet apart, and play the same audio through both of them, someone standing directly between them hears a single sound, but anyone standing too close to one or the other will hear sound coming from the other delayed, which will sound like an echo. In order to avoid this, you have to make sure that anyone standing too far off center cannot hear sound from the far speaker. You need to ensure that the sound from the near speaker dominates what they hear well enough that they won't notice the sound from the far speaker.
> 
> If you were to place one speaker every 20 feet around the edges of a large room, each person would hear the sound coming from the nearest speaker with no delay, and the sound coming from the two speakers twenty feet to either side, at a slightly lower level, delayed by 20 milliseconds, and so on. The result is that, if you can hear sound from speakers more than about fifty feet away, it sounds like a clear echo. And, even worse, sound from speakers that are closer won't sound like an echo, but it will turn what you're listening to into a blurry jumble of sound that is totally unintelligible. There are ways to avoid this, but they involve very carefully positioning directional arrays of speakers so that the sound anyone hears in any particular spot is dominated by a single set of speakers. If you look at very large stadiums, they often have speakers up front facing the audience, then arrays positioned further out, on poles, also facing out. They may also have arrays positioned far above the audience, positioned to fire over the heads of the front rows, and so only be audible further out. However, the speakers that the outer rows hear must be positioned or directed far enough out that the people who hear them don't hear the sound coming from the front speakers. If you don't get it right, the entire venue sounds like a giant cave, with massive echoes, and very poor intelligibility.


d&B Soundscape pretty much automates all that, connected to a performer tracker it positions all the performers in the soundfield even while they move across the stage. If the performer in the middle and you are in the left of the hall there sound to you will be to your right  where the performer in on the stage, if you are on the right side of the hall there sound will be to your left. They can walk around the whole audience and the system will track them though the many dozens of loudspeakers in the room.

Every Cirque du Soleil sounds really good and they use hundreds of loudspeakers they even manage to make the Beatles palatable, of course replacing all the drum tracks was a vast improvement.


----------



## dprimary

bigshot said:


> As for OSHA standards, 90dB is the top limit for long term exposure. 120dB is forbidden even for very short exposure times. 120dB is the threshold of pain. I can't picture what 130dB would be like and I don't want to find out. When you get sustained sound levels above 90, you are in the danger zone and it sure isn't comfortable to listen to music that loud. Again, grab a SPL meter and get a feel for what these numbers represent. It's all too easy to interpret the numbers to justify incrementally more and more until you get into the range of crazy town.



You can't picture much at 130dBSPL your eyeballs start bouncing around at around 126dBSPL. 150 dBSPL is unpleasant on your whole body even though you have all the hearing protection you can get.


----------



## bigshot

Too much is never enough!


----------



## bigshot

KeithEmo said:


> That's a nice idea... but in practice it's very difficult to achieve.



I have no problems just turning the volume knob down a bit. Perhaps your amp doesn't have a volume control. I know there are ones without tone controls. That is the height of stupid


----------



## dprimary

bigshot said:


> Too much is never enough!



The scary part it modern touring systems are  so clean and have so much headroom in most venues, you don't even notice how loud it is. When it harsh and distorted it easy to notice. I  was at and outdoor jazz concert a few years ago near FOH thinking this sounds really good, then a few minutes later thinking this seems pretty  loud, I pull out a meter shocked at the level I grab my wife to move back about 80 feet.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

dprimary said:


> You can't picture much at 130dBSPL your eyeballs start bouncing around at around 126dBSPL. 150 dBSPL is unpleasant on your whole body even though you have all the hearing protection you can get.



130 SPL & up sounds like IDLING 747 territory.

And the primary reason why I no longer attend any live concerts, and seldom even go to my church!  Louder is not all!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> I have no problems just turning the volume knob down a bit. Perhaps your amp doesn't have a volume control. I know there are ones without tone controls. That is the height of stupid



Tone/EQ not as critical as a pair of attenuators, even if they're behind a flip-up face cover.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> 1) You pointed out how a null test will demonstrate even the tiniest differences... I agree entirely, however, as I pointed out, if you null two of anything _carefully enough_, you always fine a little difference...
> [1a] We always end up back at "now that we know exactly what the difference is we have to decide whether it counts or not". At which point someone chimes back in with that mystical knowledge that a certain null is "good enough we can act as if it's inaudible without bothering to test it". (I suspect you're right, and that some difference is "small enough to be inaudible", but I'm not quite sure exactly where that number lies... maybe we need to test it.).
> 2) I personally am willing to accept that the results from those particular tests were what you say. (But a lot of other folks on this forum seem to think that "all claims are anecdotal if we don't get the data that goes with them".)
> And, yes, those results are interesting... especially that they show that, at least under those conditions, experience seems to be more significant that "raw hearing acuity".
> ...



1. Firstly, if you "agree entirely" that a null test "will demonstrate even the tiniest differences" then your previous post was at best misleading: "_If you hear a difference, but can't seem to find a measurement that would account for it....- maybe you're simply not measuring the right thing ... - maybe you're not measuring it accurately_" - Because a null test, one of the oldest and most commonly used tests, completely covers all these assertions! Secondly, it is NOT true that if you null two of anything you will always find a little difference. For example, if you null two identical digital audio files you will find absolutely no difference. Your assertion is true only for analogue signals/components, due to the random nature of thermal noise. However ...
1a. You appear to yet again be employing that same typical audiophile fallacy/falsehood. Maybe you personally haven't tested it and/or are not aware of the testing which has been done but it's a complete falsehood to state it doesn't exist just because you personally are ignorant of it. In actual fact the exact opposite is true, it's been tested exhaustively, over numerous decades by countless thousands of people! You say we should obviously include some common sense but then don't. For example, when I'm dialogue editing I will typically employ a null test 50 or more times a day. You think maybe that if the test reveals a small difference I just say to myself "oh well" and move on or do you think I test it to find out if it's audible and by how much? Actually, a lot of the time I do just move on, because after 20 odd years and god knows how many thousands of tests to determine if the difference is audible, I can often tell just from looking at a spectogram of the difference file. I still end up having to physically test a fair proportion of the time though, probably about a third of the time. And of course, I'm just one of many thousands of engineers who edit dialogue around the world. Furthermore and again, countless thousands of sound engineering students are taught how to conduct a null test, determine the significance of the result and demonstrate the ability to do this under examination conditions. Also of course, there is a wealth of scientific evidence to draw from. As simple and obvious example would be that if the difference file exhibits a small difference that's above 20kHz, then the science tells us it will be inaudible and this is just one of several similar examples.

2. But of course, we need to apply some common sense! Anecdotes ARE evidence, although typically the least reliable form of evidence but also, I don't recall reading a single published scientific hearing study that didn't have at least one flaw. Audiophiles will therefore often invent a completely fallacious equivalency; anecdotes are flawed and so are scientific studies, so I logically choose to believe the Head-fi poster who actually owns a Chord Hugo over a scientist who probably doesn't even know a Chord Hugo is, let alone what it sounds like! This is a complete fallacy though because omits common sense, the common sense that all flaws are not equivalent and neither therefore is all evidence. Even within anecdotal evidence one can apply common sense and give it more or less weight. For example, I would tend to give more weight to the anecdotal evidence from Bob Katz than to the average head-fi poster because I know that Katz has considerable knowledge/experience of controlled testing while the average Head-fi poster probably isn't even volume matching. Even so, as it's anecdotal evidence I still wouldn't just accept a Katz anecdote as fact, unless it was corroborated by more reliable evidence. It's up to the individual reader whether they choose to believe the test results I have reported, which is effectively anecdotal as I can't provide the actual data to corroborate it. However, common sense dictates that there must be considerable testing, hearing ability and listening skills are absolutely fundamental to a music/sound engineer and therefore it's common sense that students hearing is tested, that they're taught listening skills and those skills are tested/examined. Therefore, it's both factually incorrect and contrary to common sense to state that "we" don't test!
2a. There's an obvious problem with your statement. You assume that we just individually decide that a difference is inaudible and that's the end of it. Is it common sense to assume that music/sound engineers differ from other human beings in that we are all completely devoid of any curiosity? If all competently designed ADCs/DACs are transparent (have no audible differences) then no competent engineer would ever test them, however we do, regularly, because of curiosity. But how do you audibly test inaudible differences? Again, common sense, we magnify/amplify the differences. For example, it's standard procedure to loop a recording through an ADC/DAC ten times and audibly compare the result with the same 10x loopback recording through a different ADC/DAC. We've effectively magnified the artefacts of each of the ADC/DACs by 10 times and the differences are audible. Or, when testing different dither algorithms, we record the dither and then amplify it by 40dB or so and then we can audibly compare them. The obvious problem with your statement is therefore "_the massive difference in the hearing acuity of a five year old_", there's no evidence to even hint at the possibility that five year olds have a massive difference in hearing acuity, the evidence suggests a difference of very roughly 10% and possibly as much as 20% compared to an adult but that's no where near the 1,000% or 10,000% which we commonly have to apply in order to discern differences!

4. Again, we need to apply some common sense! Hundreds of thousands of people, probably well in excess of a million, have had their hearing tested over the decades. Is it possible an outlier exists who has 10% more hearing acuity than anyone ever measured? Sure, somewhat unlikely but certainly possible. What about 10,000% more hearing acuity? No, that's not credible. The physiological structures in the ears aren't capable of it and anyone who had say 40dB more hearing sensitivity than me would be in constant pain, they wouldn't be able to function normally and they would have been discovered.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] And hearing a really loud noise that makes you jump once in a while isn't dangerous... and may add a lot to your sense of realism.
> [2] And someone else may just occasionally "want to make their ears bleed" - even though they know it's probably not a great idea.
> [3] (But, yes, if you want to claim that your system can reproduce a symphony orchestra _accurately_, then it should be able to recreate the original levels involved, including the cymbal crashes, and the cannons.)
> [4] I should also point out that the idea that "a device only needs to be able to perform exactly as well as you need it to" is somewhat misleading.
> ...



1. That depends. A really loud noise that makes you jump doesn't actually need to be really loud, the human perception of loudness is relative. See #5 below.

2. The problem with that of course is that who in their right mind would want to make their ears bleed? This appears to be a quite common view amongst Americans, that they should be free to make their ears bleed if they want or for that matter, own a gun and shoot themselves in the head. The problem is that in reality the majority of people who do make their ears bleed will either not be in their right mind, in which case you are enabling those with mental health issues to self-harm or will be children and adults who do so by accident. For this reason the EU has strict legal limits on the max level of headphone output on mobile devices, as several studies indicated young people's hearing was being damaged and incidentally, we also have strict laws on gun ownership. Also, if the level has to be raised to an "ear bleeding" level in order for some artefact to become audible, then that artefact is inaudible.

3. Yes, but again, how loud is a cymbal crash? At 2" probably 120dB or more but at the ideal audience position, probably lower than 90dB. BTW, cannons are not a standard member of a symphony orchestra!

4. Applying common sense, the response is that it depends. Sure, many/most amps become increasingly non-linear and noisy beyond around 80% of max amplification and I would always advise an amp powerful enough to allow at least 20% headroom. A DAC on the other hand does not require headroom.

5. Yes, to start with, it's relative. An 80dB sound will sound very loud if it's preceded by say 40dB sound but if it's preceded by 75dB sound it won't. This fact of perception has been routinely employed in film sound for many decades, if fact audiences are commonly so expectant of a subsequent loud noise when the level gets lower, that we can use that expectancy to further surprise them.
5a. Our hearing can adapt quite quickly, just a few seconds in the case of loudness within safe levels but up to several hours if levels have been extreme. In other words, an average level of 80dB is going to sound about the same to a librarian as a jet engine repairer as their hearing would be adapted to the level of car/traffic noise on their way home.



bigshot said:


> I think Gregorio might be basing his loudness estimate on standard miking positions for recording in an empty house, or perhaps short impulses of less than a second. That isn't the same as a loud listening level for commercially recorded music.



You'd have noticed that I gave very different and higher figures for being close to the orchestra than for being in the audience, the close figures are based on mic'ing positions but the figures for being in the audience were not, they were based on my experience as a live sound engineer and with audiences being present. However, I'm typically basing my peak levels on a window of 0.3 secs, a peak level using a slow response would measure somewhat lower. Also, for safety sake, I'm basing my peak level of around 90dB on the most extreme examples. Although very loud for it's day and still very loud compared to say a Mozart symphony, Wagner's ring isn't as loud as it gets. Later pieces/symphonies can get louder still, Mahler being a good example but Holst, Stravinsky, R. Strauss and various others. For the vast majority of audience members, for the vast majority of performances, in the vast majority of concert venues and using a slow response to measure peaks, 80dB or so would likely be about the maximum.



Steve999 said:


> The noise floor for the room measures about 32 dB.



BTW, typical SPL meters are extremely poor at measuring low levels/noise floors. Typically they're only accurate for levels of around 60dBSPL and higher. Unless you have a meter specifically designed for low levels and/or a very expensive one (thousands of dollars) with particularly low self-noise, your measurement of 32dB is likely to be out by a significant amount.

G


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 15, 2019)

gregorio said:


> BTW, typical SPL meters are extremely poor at measuring low levels/noise floors. Typically they're only accurate for levels of around 60dBSPL and higher. Unless you have a meter specifically designed for low levels and/or a very expensive one (thousands of dollars) with particularly low self-noise, your measurement of 32dB is likely to be out by a significant amount.
> 
> G



Thanks! This is an instance where I didn’t know what I didn’t know. It makes sense though, because I don’t see any dB meters on Amazon that go below 30 dB.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jun 15, 2019)

Anyone who worries about their hearing would be well advised to acquire a set of earplugs and bring them along when attending any live event... just in case.
(There are specific brands and models that are deisgned to reduce the level while preserving as much fidelity as possibly - which are quite different than "safety earplugs".)

Several years ago I attended a free public sponsored outdoor concert here in Nashville - one of our "Concert On The Green" series. However, I purchased one of the VIP tickets, which includes drinks, food, and special VIP seating. The special VIP access included the option of sitting or standing up front - just to the side of the stage - directly in front of the main front speakers. By that I mean that you could lean on the fronts of the actual speakers if you chose to do so. At that position the music was bordering on uncomfortably loud - with earplugs - and certainly far above safe limits without them. Don't assume that you won't be subjected to dangerous sound levels... or that, at some concerts, there will even be a spot in the far corner that is not uncomfortably loud. You're much better off always having a set of earplugs along in case you need or want them.

And, no, I don't think cannons are a standard instrument for most symphony orchestras. But I'm also pretty sure I've read of at least one recording of the 1812 Overture that did feature real cannons - presumably firing blanks. It was recorded, and you can buy the recording, although I've never heard it personally.

And, yes, some people do like to listen to music at dangerously high levels.
I distinctly recall a customer returning a small pair of our powered speakers "because they wouldn't go over 118 dB in his listening room".



Steve999 said:


> Thanks! This is an instance where I didn’t know what I didn’t know.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> And, no, I don't think cannons are a standard instrument for most symphony orchestras. But I'm also pretty sure I've read of at least one recording of the 1812 orchestra that did feature real cannons - presumably firing blanks. IT was recorded, and you can buy the recording, although I've never heard it personally.



The Telearc release is supposed to feature real cannons.



KeithEmo said:


> Anyone who worries about their hearing would be well advised to acquire a set of earplugs and bring them along when attending any live event... just in case.



I'll keep saying it - without shame - but if ear protection is needed at any spectator event besides airshows and car races/monster truck, then something is wrong.


----------



## KeithEmo

I kind of agree....

However, the fact remains that many live events are unpleasantly, or even dangerously, loud....
In many cases, the band, and/or most of the audience, prefers it that way....
Some are hust poorly laid out - and, in order for the people in the back to hear at all, it's going to be too loud in the front.
In others it is situational..... 
In the concert I mentioned, and many others, there were certainly areas where the sound level was reasonable, but the choice was between "dangerously loud" and "bring binoculars".
(Whether we happen to agree or not... in most rock concerts "the good seats" is synonymous with "the really loud seats".)

There is also a big difference between the situations you commonly encounter with classical and popular or rock music.
With classical music, the performance will often be at a symphony hall, or some such venue with excellent acoustics.
And, in addition, you will often have choices - for example, to avoid the local hall that you know is always loud, or to choose seats towards the back.

However, with a popular rock or heavy metal group, on tour, they are often only at one venue in a given area.
And, in many cases, that venue is either a multi-purpose stadium, a sports arena, or a bar that offers live bands.
And, with many bands that tour, they may only appear in one place in each area, and quite infrequently - especially if you live outside a large metropolitan area.
Therefore, if you want to hear your favorite band live, you may have little choice beyond "go or stay home".
And, personally, I'd rather have earplugs in my pocket, and maybe need them, and put up with the compromise in sound quality, than miss my favorite band altogether.
It's just one of the unfortunate facts of mnodern life - like cell phones dropping calls.
(Sure, I'd probably attend more live concerts if that wasn't the case, but it is what it is.)



TheSonicTruth said:


> The Telearc release is supposed to feature real cannons.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll keep saying it - without shame - but if ear protection is needed at any spectator event besides airshows and car races/monster truck, then something is wrong.


----------



## bigshot

To some people an anecdotal impression is an invitation to perform controlled tests to verify it. For others, anecdotes are all they need, especially if it validates their preconceived bias. Similarly, absolute extremes are only relevant at the North Pole, in an anechoic chamber or in a space station, not necessarily in a person's living room. Yet some people are more concerned with extreme examples than ones that hold true for the vast majority of circumstances. Again, it helps if the extreme example validates.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> The Telearc release is supposed to feature real cannons.
> The Telarc does feature real cannons.
> 
> 
> I'll keep saying it - without shame - but if ear protection is needed at any spectator event besides airshows and car races/monster truck, then something is wrong.


I have been - unfortunately - to many shows that went past any reasonable SPL - and, given the correct legislation, would have put he perpetrators out of bussinbess for sure.

In my late teens, I had a infection of the right ear. And after that, for years and decades, any excessive bass has been giving me pain in the right ear - within minutes.
I remember leaving Wishbone Ash concert - after the first song - around 1979. It was unsupportable; not only me, many others have complained, endured a few more songs, and eventually left. Too much is too much.

Recently, in 2017, it was Phil Niblock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phill_Niblock - at Sajeta festival.  The "drone" music accompaniying his movies in a cinema theatre NEVER went below about 80- 85 dB SPL - and I would have to check the actual file, but IIRC "dynamic range" averaged below 10 dB, with an ocasional "peak"of maybe 15 dB. I have been appaled that he DEMANDED these high levels - for a non stop one hour or so. I have been to his concert three times - first, last and never again. Had ringing in the ears lasting to the next morning...

Compared to that, rock/alternative/electronic/whatever music that followed has been - a relief... And no, it is NOT purely subjective assesment of levels - metering on Korg recorders is quite OK , and I had to use the lowest gain settings on mike preamp available to avoid overload - just barely. After that, the levels - even the peak, let alone constant - have been considerably lower.

SPL meters that do give meaningful results are quite costly - particularly those that can accurately measure below 60 dB SPL. Regardless which "number" we assign to the loudness of music, the really relevant figure is average SPL over larger period of time. A normally compressed acoustic recording with dynamic range below 50 dB would actually register louder than the non compressed version of the same recording - despite non compressed version registering considerably higher peaks.  No one would count drum rim shots as being particularly loud - but, in fact, there is little else that registers with such peak SPL - simply because the duration of rim shot is so short.

Reproducing such uncompressed recording requires MUCH more powerful amplifiers - and whatever transducer at the end has to be capable of playing it back without severe limitations.
A typical commercial recording might get away with less than 1/3rd of the peak output capability - but still sound subjectively louder than non compressed recording played back with equipment that can do it justice. 

A good example of great recording that is anything but squashed by loudness wars is https://www.discogs.com/Bill-Berry-And-His-Ellington-Allstars-For-Duke/release/3551938  It WILL clip the amplifiers that are thought to be "powerful enough" with regular commercial recordings - particularly brass. I can vouch for the original direct to disk release only; few samples in digital are available here : http://www.kreiselsound.com/downloads_1.php


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 15, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> ( it is what it is.)




That expression makes me want to VOMIT.  (Nothing personal Keith!)

Anything of _human_ origin or design can be changed if enough folks give a damn.

So then what "is what it is"?  The sun, for that matter.  Many millions of years from now, it will run out of fuel and go super nova.

It cannot be stopped.  Unnecessarily loud concerts, or church worship, can be.

The best way to protest is simply to not go - even if it's a once in a lifetime appearance in your hometown.  Second best?  Write the show organizers, or the artist's management, and tell them you don't like it so loud you need hearing protection.

Keep that wave of resistance going!


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> That expression makes me want to VOMIT.  (Nothing personal Keith!)
> 
> Anything of _human_ origin or design can be changed if enough folks give a damn.
> 
> ...



It , unfortunately, IS at it is.

They have sold a s..tload of CDs by a VERY popular female singer - and only one friend and myself have been complaining for being clipped sky high. Only to be pitied by the staff ( including one ex-colleague ...) and being brushed off by : " ... you're just too old ..."

I know a guitar player that would crank it up to and beyond the capability of the sound equipment - and when I first complained in private, but then in public, he turned his nose up, probably thinking what right do i have to interfere with his artistic freedom. 

Concert organizer are doing concerts for PROFIT - and in order to do that, they have to reach large enough audience. And if the audience is mainly young and not (yet) concerned about their hearing and more or less expects and demands it LOUD, that is what concert organizers have to provide - or someone else will do it for them. We can "resist" as much as we may , we may be as right as it can be - majority will have it its way. The show will go on with or without us...

I am glad church worship here has not gone THAT loud as it has , obviously, the case in your neck of woods. That is, or should be, possible to rectify with the local church people ; but it is next to impossible with amplified live concerts, where money is at stake. 

So... - which ear plugs are considered not too detrimental for SQ and do not cost an arm and a leg ? Many musicians I would still like to see performing live won't be around forever - and the concert in (censored) acustics hall at herendous levels is likely the only chance I will ever get.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 15, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> would crank it up to and beyond the capability of the sound equipment - and when I first complained in private, but then in public, he turned his nose up, probably thinking what right do i have to interfere with his artistic freedom.



You did the right thing, confronting him!  Now just don't buy any of his future material.

Often times it isn't audiences who demand unnecessarily loud concert volumes.  It can be the same people who demand stupid-loud mastered CDs or downloads:  The artist themself, their management, their label.  In the case of the concert, it can be the venue management or chamber of commerce demanding such loud volumes.  Ignorance comes from many sources, not just the people in the audience. It can also come from the so-called 'authorities' - management, the engineers teching the event,  et al.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree.
Anecdotal evidence should never, in and of itself, be considered to be proof of anything.
But, the more anecdotal evidence there is that seems to agree about something, the more it indicates that there is something there worth testing.

You also need to remember that a lot of what we call "fact" is actually more accurately what science refers to as a model.
For example, for a long time, we were told that "matter is made of three basic types of particles, protons, neutrons, and electrons, and none of them can be broken apart".
This is what I was taught in school as "fact" - and that model was pretty much accurate enough to allow us to design nuclear reactors and atomic bombs.
Of course, it wasn't a fact. but merely a model... and now, after doing more research, we've discovered that those particles are actually made up of smaller bits and pieces after all.
(And we're back to devising more and better experiments to learn more about those pieces.)
The old model is still quite useful - but we are no longer able to ignore anecdotal evidence that conflicts with it. 

We humans also have a nasty habit of assuming that OUR context applies to everyone.
For example, I would agree that I would not expect to hear audible differences between various audio interconects, placed between a modern preamp and power amp.
The reason is that most modern gear has a relatively low output impedance that won't interact very much with the range of capacitance we typically see in interconnects.
HOWEVER, the exact opposite is true of vintage consumer level tube gear, and modern tube gear based on many vintage designs.
(A lot of high-end vintage tube gear had a low impedance output, but the output impedance of most consumer level preamps was between 100 kOhms and 1 mOhm.
And, with that high output impedance, the differences in capacitance between interconnect cables would often produce audible and measurable interactions.
In fact, even modern magneitc phono cartridges are sensitive enough to load capacitance to interact differently with different interconnects - between the cartridge and preamp.)

Considering the fact that so many people anecdotally claim to hear differences between DACs, doesn't that suggest the need for extensive and thorough testing?
Does it really seem that tests of the limits of human hearing, conducted using static sine waves, are likely to be universally valid under all conditions?
And, even if a few people do turn out to be imagining differences that aren't really there, does that make it safe to conclude that _ALL_ of the reported differences are imaginary?
And, yes, if all of the existing tests are so flawed, and so easy to pick apart, doesn't that make you wonder if they _MIGHT_ have missed something important? 

Likewise, an awful lot of people claim to hear differences between amplifiers...
How can you be sure, without a lot of testing, that "they _ALL_ must be imagining it"?

As for "absolute extremes"....
I believe it's up to the individual to decide for themself how important they are...
Assuming, for the sake or argument, I had a DAC that sounded different, but that difference was only audible with five songs, a certain amplifier, and a certain pair of headphones...
Wouldn't it be up to me whether I considered that to be important enough to influence my decision about which DAC to own?
How about whether I decide to pay extra for an amplifier and speakers because they can reproduce that Telarc recording with the cannons in it without clipping?
Isn't it my money - and my choice about how to spend it?
And, just as being any sort of collector, isn't being an audiophile sometimes about "excellence for it's own sake".
Just_ knowing_ that, even if you can't hear a difference, the distortion on your new amplifier is much lower than on your old one.

One time I actually owned a MIL-SPEC signal generator that was rated to be able to operate at the North Pole - at minus fifty degrees.
I never went to the North Pole... but it was a cool piece of gear anyway (no pun intended).

To me it's also a matter of semantics...
If there is an exception to the rule, then it isn't a rule after all, and we should say "it's usually true " or "true most of the time".
However, we should never say "something is always true" if it isn't.
That would be misleading (even with the best of intentions).



bigshot said:


> To some people an anecdotal impression is an invitation to perform controlled tests to verify it. For others, anecdotes are all they need, especially if it validates their preconceived bias. Similarly, absolute extremes are only relevant at the North Pole, in an anechoic chamber or in a space station, not necessarily in a person's living room. Yet some people are more concerned with extreme examples than ones that hold true for the vast majority of circumstances. Again, it helps if the extreme example validates.


----------



## KeithEmo

Absolutely...

Unfortunately it can be difficult to reach the folks who get to decide...
And convince them that they are losing customers by playing the music too loud...
(Odds are, based on their actions, they currently believe the opposite.)



TheSonicTruth said:


> You did the right thing, confronting him!  Now just don't buy any of his future material.
> 
> Often times it isn't audiences who demand unnecessarily loud concert volumes.  It can be the same people who demand stupid-loud mastered CDs or downloads:  The artist themself, their management, their label.  In the case of the concert, it can be the venue management or chamber of commerce demanding such loud volumes.  Ignorance comes from many sources, not just the people in the audience. It can also come from the so-called 'authorities' - management, the engineers teching the event,  et al.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> Absolutely...
> 
> Unfortunately it can be difficult to reach the folks who get to decide...
> And convince them that they are losing customers by playing the music too loud...
> (Odds are, based on their actions, they currently believe the opposite.)



I have heard from the sound guys musicians compete in game called "who will have the biggest/highest stack of speakers on stage". With band B trying to outdo the Band A on the NEXT concert, only to be repeated by the Band C vs Band B on yet another concert after that.

And all three bands turning down the use of far superior then spanking new speaker system, because it is - onobrustive on stage. Bigger is better ... and to hell with the facts and truth! 

For the third concert, sound guys did put yet another "floor" of speakers on stage - but no cables were abused for connecting that surplus "floor". They were there just for the show and all to see that Band C had the biggest array of speakers on the stage.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 16, 2019)

More anecdotal BS doesn't make it any more real. The way to determine if something is real is to test it. No one needs to worry about extremes beyond their ability to hear. They can worry if they want. It's a free country. But they are dumb to waste energy on stuff that doesn't matter when a simple test would tell them everything they need to know. A recording that can't be played on a normal stereo system is an out of spec recording. I have thousands of CDs and thousands of records, and I can think of only one out of spec recording. It was an audiophile LP. Sucker bait. I'm sure that album forced a lot of people to upgrade, but it didn't matter because nothing could track it properly. The CD of that album works fine. The problem was the groove width, not the sound quality.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 16, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Anecdotal evidence should never, in and of itself, be considered to be proof of anything. But, the more anecdotal evidence there is that seems to agree about something, the more it indicates that there is something there worth testing.
> [2] You also need to remember that a lot of what we call "fact" is actually more accurately what science refers to as a model.
> [2a] For example, for a long time, we were told that "matter is made of three basic types of particles, protons, neutrons, and electrons, and none of them can be broken apart".
> [2b] This is what I was taught in school as "fact" ...
> [2c] We humans also have a nasty habit of assuming that OUR context applies to everyone.



1. Indeed, which is why it has been tested!

2. Do you have even a single scrap of reliable evidence that the facts of digital/analogue/electrical audio signal behaviour are not facts but just a model AND even a single scrap of reliable evidence indicating a flaw in the model which materially affects the known facts of signal behaviour? There's probably nothing in human history more well understood/proven/demonstrated than the behaviour of digital/analogue/electrical signal behaviour, if our "facts" are incorrect our modern world simply would not exist! So although your assertion maybe correct, it is utterly irrelevant/inapplicable to audio. Congrats on employing YET ANOTHER classic audiophile tactic/fallacy.
2a. The particle that we deal with in audio is the electron, do you have some evidence that an electron can be "broken apart"? When it was discovered that protons and neutrons could be "broken apart" (into quarks, etc.) which of the known/accepted audio facts were thereby rendered incorrect and had to be changed?
2b. So, because you personally were incorrectly taught at school (that an unproven theory was a fact), therefore that what the rest of us accept as audio facts are just unproven theories (which are maybe wrong).
2c. As you've just perfectly demonstrated!!!



KeithEmo said:


> [3] Considering the fact that so many people anecdotally claim to hear differences between DACs, doesn't that suggest the need for extensive and thorough testing?
> [3a] Does it really seem that tests of the limits of human hearing, conducted using static sine waves, are likely to be universally valid under all conditions?
> [3b] And, even if a few people do turn out to be imagining differences that aren't really there, does that make it safe to conclude that _ALL_ of the reported differences are imaginary?
> [3c] And, yes, if all of the existing tests are so flawed, and so easy to pick apart, doesn't that make you wonder if they _MIGHT_ have missed something important? ....



3. Indeed it does, which is why we have done extensive, thorough testing.
3a. No it doesn't, in fact common sense (in addition to reliable evidence) dictates that it's likely to be universally invalid! For example, it's been demonstrated that the limit of human hearing in response to random jitter is around a nano-second or few but this is with a signal (and other conditions) specifically designed to optimise detection. However, this specific isolated signal and other conditions do NOT exist universally, in fact they never exist when a consumer listens to music/sound recordings. Therefore, "universally" the limits of human hearing are very significantly poorer (with the one exception of this specific signal/conditions)! Another example, when testing high freq response, we compare an isolated static sine wave with silence, which is the optimal conditions for reliable detection. Detecting those same high freqs when they are part of a music recording is substantially more difficult. Therefore, while your statement is true, your implication that under other conditions the actual limits might be higher is utterly false, the reliable evidence (and common sense) demonstrates the exact opposite!
3b. Firstly, it's not a "few people", it's a lot of people over many decades and Secondly, when those who report audible differences (which are below audibility) are tested under controlled conditions, they invariably cannot detect those differences. Until there is some reliable evidence to the contrary, it is obviously both "safe" and common sense to conclude that reports of inaudible differences being audible are imaginary! What common sense alternative is there?
3c. Firstly, all of the existing tests are not "so flawed", they typically have at least one flaw but that may or may not have a significant effect on the findings. Congrats on employing the exact fallacy I mentioned only a few posts ago, the equivalency of flaws. Secondly, everyone: Countless tens of thousands of scientists, professionals, etc., over the course of numerous decades, all over the world have "missed something important", with the exception of audiophiles, who don't know what that "something important" could be and have absolutely no reliable evidence for it! That's you applying common sense is it?

And so on, apparently infinitum. Packing so many fallacies into a single post is impressive but even more impressive is that they're all pretty much just repeats of the classic "golden oldie" audiophile fallacies/myths which have been so thoroughly debunked. Amazing!

G


----------



## Phronesis

All of our interactions with reality are through models. Depending on the situation, some models are judged to be better than others.  No model is perfect, but some can be very good.  Models in the physical sciences tend to be better than those in the social sciences with respect to predictive ability, and our understanding of the human mind is still quite limited - that has a lot of implications for audio stuff.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Phronesis said:


> All of our interactions with reality are through models. Depending on the situation, some models are judged to be better than others.  No model is perfect, but some can be very good.  Models in the physical sciences tend to be better than those in the social sciences with respect to predictive ability, and our understanding of the human mind is still quite limited - that has a lot of implications for audio stuff.



Some of us consider social science to be physical as well.  I don't see the properties of a human to be any different from any other object in the observable universe.  There is no evidence to suggest that there is freedom of choice, and the best information that I can find on the subject indicates that any other explanation is most likely an illusion of our perception.  Though, why would we include common social models to design audio equipment?  I only care about the audio signal, not the countless interpretations of that signal.  It would be ridiculous to try and evaluate audio equipment by emotions.


----------



## Phronesis

sonitus mirus said:


> Some of us consider social science to be physical as well.  I don't see the properties of a human to be any different from any other object in the observable universe.  There is no evidence to suggest that there is freedom of choice, and the best information that I can find on the subject indicates that any other explanation is most likely an illusion of our perception.  Though, why would we include common social models to design audio equipment?  I only care about the audio signal, not the countless interpretations of that signal.  It would be ridiculous to try and evaluate audio equipment by emotions.



I agree that everything is (maybe) ultimately physical, but I don't think we can expect to model biological systems and minds effectively with the same types of models, especially quantitative models, which are used in physical science. 

The problem of free will is vexing, and my hypothesis is that we do have free will, or at least partially free will, though I have no good answer for where freedom of will might 'reside', except to say that models of mind which don't account for the subjective experience of consciousness are likely to be incomplete in important ways that we don't understand.

With respect to audio, if you're interested in how things subjectively sound to people (which is what most buyers of gear are interested in, not measurements for their own sake), I think you have to contend with subjective and cognitive aspects in your models, or otherwise accept that your models have limitations which may reduce their usefulness to a degree which is somewhat unknown.


----------



## castleofargh (Jun 17, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> Considering the fact that so many people anecdotally claim to hear differences between DACs, doesn't that suggest the need for extensive and thorough testing?


that reason also justifies investigating alien abductions, healing crystals and "water memory". so I have a hard time agreeing that it's a legitimate one. if human resources were unlimited, then sure, why not have some bored people go test every completely unsubstantiated claims that somebody else made, or any idea someone thought was good when 99.9% of the time it will turn to be yet another garbage idea. if we had no limit in researchers and funding, I'd agree with you for the fun of it and out of pure curiosity. 
but in real life, looking for something is inevitably time spent not looking for something else. it just makes more sense to estimate the value of a statement through the amount of supporting evidence that come with it, and just dismiss the rest. even more so under those circumstances where many people making the claims could have spent 1 hour of their lives trying to demonstrate what they could effectively notice or not by ear with a somewhat controlled experiment, instead of just deciding that if they feel something under casual listening, then it's objectively the sound difference causing it(which to me is evidence of ignorance, not evidence that there is probably something to be heard).  all in all, I see your approach as pushing the burden of proof on anybody but the very guys claiming that there is something to investigate. 
maybe there is, maybe there isn't, most likely there is something, sometimes. what's really going on is what's really going on and I'm fine with that no matter what it is. unlike some, I'm not here trying to oppose reality. but I can only think of one instance where investigating anecdotal unsupported claims is necessary IMO, and that's when there is potential danger in ignoring the claim. if someone claims he smelled gas near the kitchen, I won't demand supporting evidence and controlled testing, I'll rush to the kitchen to check. but I'm not elite audiophile enough to consider possible tiny audible differences between some DACs under some conditions to be a matter of life and death for anybody. so I'm fine waiting for actual evidence and keep spending my time tuning my EQ and finding cool tracks to listen to. because I do have evidence that those stuff make a clearly audible difference.

edit: saying we shouldn't test something unless it's supported by evidence, in the topic about testing audiophile myths was not my brightest moment. ^_^


----------



## KeithEmo

Let's be perfectly honest here...

It isn't going to kill anyone to buy a DAC and find out later that it isn't audibly perfect.
But, then, it isn't likely to kill them to spend an extra $100 for better performance they can't actually hear either.
We're essentially talking about luxury items here.

The factors that affect DACs, and the types of flaws they exhibit, are quite different than the sorts of flaws typically seen in Class A/B amplifiers.
DACs do different things right, and different things wrong, which seems to suggest that tests that apply to one may not apply well to the other.
For example, Class A/B amplifiers most often exhibit THD, IMD, and noise.... so those are the factors that tests for them focus on.
But DACs most often exhibit near perfect THD, IMD, and frequency response measurements.
However, in contrast, DACs are more prone to complex combinations of ringing, and non-harmonically-related artifacts.

Yet, we're expected to accept that tests designed for amplifiers are likely to highlight audible differences between DACs.
To me, the whole point of discussing "testing something" is to discover flaws in previous tests and design better tests to achieve more accurate results.
Finding yet better and more convincing excuses not to test something "because you're sure it doesn't matter" just doesn't seem to accomplish much.

Read back a few dozen pages in this forum.....
See how many posts were dedicated to "new and interesting things we could test"...
And how many to "suggestions about testing things in new and interesting ways that might produce new and interesting data"...
And how many were dedicated to "reasons why we shouldn't bother to test something because we just know the results won't be interesting"...

If you accept what some people seem to be claiming....
- we know that all cables sound the same (I would tend to agree there)
- we know that all decent DACs sound the same
- we know that all decent amplifiers sound the same
- we seem to agree that there's no point in testing speakers or headphones "because they're a matter of personal preference"

So what exactly ARE we all talking about testing?

Could someone please point me to the most recent post ABOUT ACTUALLY TESTING SOMETHING.
(Specifically; one that wwasn't shouted down with a thousand replies of "we already know all we need to about that one"?)




castleofargh said:


> that reason also justifies investigating alien abductions, healing crystals and "water memory". so I have a hard time agreeing that it's a legitimate one. if human resources were unlimited, then sure, why not have some bored people go test every completely unsubstantiated claims that somebody else made, or any idea someone thought was good when 99.9% of the time it will turn to be yet another garbage idea. if we had no limit in researchers and funding, I'd agree with you for the fun of it and out of pure curiosity.
> but in real life, looking for something is inevitably time spent not looking for something else. it just makes more sense to estimate the value of a statement through the amount of supporting evidence that come with it, and just dismiss the rest. even more so under those circumstances where many people making the claims could have spent 1 hour of their lives trying to demonstrate what they could effectively notice or not by ear with a somewhat controlled experiment, instead of just deciding that if they feel something under casual listening, then it's objectively the sound difference causing it(which to me is evidence of ignorance, not evidence that there is probably something to be heard).  all in all, I see your approach as pushing the burden of proof on anybody but the very guys claiming that there is something to investigate.
> maybe there is, maybe there isn't, most likely there is something, sometimes. what's really going on is what's really going on and I'm fine with that no matter what it is. unlike some, I'm not here trying to oppose reality. but I can only think of one instance where investigating anecdotal unsupported claims is necessary IMO, and that's when there is potential danger in ignoring the claim. if someone claims he smelled gas near the kitchen, I won't demand supporting evidence and controlled testing, I'll rush to the kitchen to check. but I'm not elite audiophile enough to consider possible tiny audible differences between some DACs under some conditions to be a matter of life and death for anybody. so I'm fine waiting for actual evidence and keep spending my time tuning my EQ and finding cool tracks to listen to. because I do have evidence that those stuff make a clearly audible difference.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> Let's be perfectly honest here...
> 
> It isn't going to kill anyone to buy a DAC and find out later that it isn't audibly perfect.
> But, then, it isn't likely to kill them to spend an extra $100 for better performance they can't actually hear either.
> ...



Agreed on all counts - BUT one ...

If anyone frequent on this thread ever again writes that ALL cables in audio, for all aplications do not mater and can not make BOTH audible and measurable difference - there WILL be trouble.

Audio is NOT only RBCD player into some electrically strictly resistive load transducer - that should be by now CLEAR. If making that "all cables sound the same" remark again, please DO - clearly - state what are the exceptions. I know that you are aware of this and understand the mechanisms behind exceptions, but please do remind other of these too. I have absolutely no desire to repeat what two of the most known exceptions to the "cables sound the same" are - not for the upteenth time.

Equally, saying there is no point in testing headphones or speakers is - silly, to remain on the polite side. No single transducer will ever be so universal that another will not trounce it in some, no matter how far fetched or rarely encountered in music feature. Of course it is personal preference - as well as is personal preference for a musician to own at least say 2 flutes at the same time - one for intimate chamber music and one for say Debussy's Faun in a LARGE  hall. It is impossible to cover such extremes with a single flute - and that one can certainlly extend that for headphones and speakers, too.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> Let's be perfectly honest here...
> 
> It isn't going to kill anyone to buy a DAC and find out later that it isn't audibly perfect.
> But, then, it isn't likely to kill them to spend an extra $100 for better performance they can't actually hear either.
> ...


I was going to contest your views because facts>beliefs blablablah, but then I remembered we're in this topic where testing apparently unfounded legends is exactly what we're here to do. so while I clearly maintain the opinion of my previous post in general, I have to admit that it's completely inappropriate for this specific thread and I was wrong. ^_^

about measurement standards, I think most of them are antiquated and more like traditions than actual standards the industry must follow or express properly. with that said, DACs are a tricky thing in the sense that what an ADC or a DAC can do is about the limit of what we can easily test without having to resort to extremely expensive equipment. so beside revealing when something goes dramatically wrong in a DAC(like having horrendous aliasing or some unwanted noise leaking in somehow) we will usually have to conclude that "yup, it's a DAC".
  as to introduce other measurements, I doubt anybody here has anything against the idea. we certainly have plenty of headroom before we will reach technical information overload in this hobby. the problem is that the industry usually doesn't share its research and extensive lists of measurements. so if we(consumers) don't even get to see what has been measured and known all along, what hope do we have to see innovative measurement protocols? I'm not optimistic about this.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 17, 2019)

It's great to test things to the limits of our ability to measure. Thoroughness is certainly admirable. But ultimately, the information we learn may be more *interesting* than it is useful. The equipment we are talking about testing here has an intended purpose... faithfully reproducing commercially recorded music in the home. For the measurements to be useful, they have to fit within that context.

Does it matter that a coo coo clock cannot operate under zero gravity? I don't think they are likely to have one on the Space Station. Does it matter that a player can accurately reproduce super audible frequencies or have a noise floor significantly below the inherent noise floor in commercially recorded music? Well, it might be interesting to know, but it really doesn't matter.

There is such a thing as "good enough". Most of us make determinations similar to that every day in every aspect of our lives... Do I have enough gas in the tank to get to work and back today? Do I have a couple of quarters in my pocket for the parking meter?

I've been interested in hifi for about 45 years now. I remember what turntables and tape decks were. Back then, it was all about optimizing every little aspect that you could... buy a better grade of tape, fancy record cleaning systems, noise reduction gizmos... Well, we've gotten past all that now. We have a format and equipment that is perfect for the purposes of listening to commercially recorded music in our living rooms. Nothing is missing. Nothing is degraded. Our ears are receiving every nuance of sound that they can possibly hear.

Once you achieve that goal, what do you do? There are two options:

1) You double down on perfect for the intended purpose and try to achieve better than required. That is an interesting exercise in seeing how far past the bleeding edge you can push it.

or 2) You sit down in that comfy chair in your living room and immerse yourself in wonderful music presented to you with a fidelity that matches or exceeds your ability to listen to it.

I have no objection to "obsession for obsession's sake". If someone enjoys calculating Pi to more decimal points than is necessary, I say, "Have fun with it." But if they are going to go into a forum like this and tell people that they are missing out on some sort of tangible benefit, or THEORETICAL tangible benefit, then I throw up the flag for a foul. No one is missing out on sound because they are listening to a CD instead of an SACD. They're only missing out on irrelevant frequencies that flat out don't matter for the intended purpose.

When you conduct a test, you can go for abstract information, or you can try to solve a problem. The test should be designed with a purpose too. The problem here is twofold: People are demanding higher standards of others than they demand of themselves. And they are straying out of context into lala lands of "what ifs" and doubling down on tiny details.

Neither of those two things will help you get a great sounding stereo system. It's more likely to lead you astray.


----------



## GearMe

Hmmm....I can yield to the idea that an esoteric 5 figure dac/amp/etc is 'technically' better than a value driven 3 figure one.  That said, a _well designed/run_ DBT with the right sample size/characteristics is the great equalizer for these scenarios.  If the study yields no statistically significant difference, then I'm not buyin' what they're sellin'


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 18, 2019)

Yes, I think, well I know, there are some “objectivists” who churn through gear or spend huge amounts of money chasing measured “technical” superiority that goes well beyond the thresholds of audibility. Some of them are very knowledgeable and will tell you this themselves. I am persuaded that there is some considerable merit to buying an amp or a receiver designed to drive the type of speakers you have and with a good chunk of headroom. That extra headroom might commonly cost an extra $100 or $150 in my experience. Otherwise for my tastes the extra moolah is best spent on good speakers, EQ with room correction, surround sound, and, absolutely, two quality powered subwoofers.  Since they take on a heavy load. i.e., the low frequencies, I would think the subwoofers would be a way of providing for more headroom for the amp to drive the passive speakers.

Crank this!!!


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 18, 2019)

bigshot said:


> It's great to test things to the limits of our ability to measure. Thoroughness is certainly admirable. But ultimately, the information we learn may be more *interesting* than it is useful. The equipment we are talking about testing here has an intended purpose... faithfully reproducing commercially recorded music in the home. For the measurements to be useful, they have to fit within that context.
> 
> Does it matter that a coo coo clock cannot operate under zero gravity? I don't think they are likely to have one on the Space Station. Does it matter that a player can accurately reproduce super audible frequencies or have a noise floor significantly below the inherent noise floor in commercially recorded music? Well, it might be interesting to know, but it really doesn't matter.
> 
> ...



There is - in real world - no such thing as "good enough". At least not in audio - yet.

Referring to the RBCD as being  ( quote ) : a format and equipment that is perfect for the purposes of listening to commercially recorded music in our living rooms. Nothing is missing. Nothing is degraded. Our ears are receiving every nuance of sound that they can possibly hear. (end of quote ) is misleading - at best.

There is a reason why formats with frequency response well past 20 kHz ( tape, analog record, hirez digital ) are gaining traction - and that reason is sound quality. There are many technical whys and hows behind it - but let+s limit ourseves with ther fact that real world filtering of digital recording and playback is still anything but perfect and can introduce more garbage well past 20 kHz  than any analog recording ever had.

SACD is nothing else than DSD64 ( 64 times oversampling of 44.100 Hz  used for RBCD ) 2.8something MHz at 1 bit. It is absolutely the lowest "grade" that is usable - and barely at that. Its main drawback is really high levels of ultrasonic noise above 20 kHz. If the recording level is not pushed close to 0dBFS, and god forbid recording peaking at -10dBFS or less,  with lesser amps it IS possible to start clipping the amp - with no or really low level music playing in DSD64. It becomes audible as "noise" once you go past certain volume setting on the amplifier - and the setting that does allow for the clipping of the amp in ultrasonics to be avoided is not going to attain normal listening level.

I did a fair amount recording in DSD64 before switching to DSD128 - which I regard to be as minimal standard for DSD as was/is Yugo the minimal requirement for aN usable car. Although no more recorded information can get retrieved by upsampling a DSD recording  originally made in lower sampling frequency, what CAN be achieved is lowering the level of that ultrasonic noise. And that reduction gives one 6dB lower ultrasonic noise for each doubling the sampling frequency. Even Foobar2000 already suports DSD1024 - more or less for this reason, since there are only a handful native genuine DSD512 recordings available at the time and none DSD1024 ( all have been upsampled ) .

There is a thread about "what frequencies are in HDTracks" ... - mainly used for complaining there are artefacts not contained in music and altogether slamming anything with any output above 20 kHz does not only serve no purpose, but is detrimental to sound quality. And THAT  is - partially at least - correct at the time; since downloads available today have been agreed to be made/upsampled from lower resolution recordings using both hardware and software available "at the time". That "at the time" can with advances in digital be measured in ever increasingly ( or decreasingly, whatever you prefer ) shorter amounts of time. One thing IS certain - though; no one is going to use in the future digital gear made in late 80s/90s/00s ( as is common with analog gear ) - not if the best sound quality is the aim.

Whatever advances in DACs ( and that HAS TO include ADCs of comparable quality, too.. ) in the future, it WILL be also about lowering whatever artefacts ( noise, aloiasing, jitter, etc ) above 20 kHz - in GHz range, if required.

Only in this way a truly clean audio ( to 100 kHz or so - musical instruments DO contain frequencies that high ) with insignificantly low anything else can bew achieved. And only that can then be - finally - called "audibly transparent".

Remember one certain thing : from such master that is ship shape to 100kHz or even above, one can make CD ( with all of its audible limitations ) - whreas one can not make a 100 kHz master from a RBCD master. Only improving upon brickwall filtering issues and noise - not the actual content.

From that is clear - I at least hope so - that throwing all hirez (both upsamplings and true native hirez, regardless if PCM  or DSD ) in the same one basket is WRONG.

One has to use native hirez recordings for listening evaluations. And, no, you can not have (n+1)th remastering of the Dark Side Of The Moon - and think of it as true hirez. It can only be the best digital copy of the analog master tape - with all the limits and limitations of the SOTA studio gear that has been available back in the day.

Most of the "no difference" stems from this fact - not from the inability of currently available equipment to deliver.

There is no denying that the level of musicianship achieved in many "old, non hirez" recordings is unlikely to be ever witnessed again - and I to prefer good song on portable radio to superbly recorded audiohile covers on multimillion equipment.

Just don't compare apples to oranges; the history of recorded sound only spans some 125 years or so - and there have been serious improvements made with each modernization. Unfortunately, RBCD has been the first time at least some aspects of performance were worse than its predecessors. Now is the level of technology high enough to allow for digital to become free of the most glaring drawbacks - without havingto cost an arm and a leg.

For the meaningfully large selection library of good native hirez recording by good>great artists, at least some 20 years will be required. Most of us on this thread will probably no longer be around to witness this happening. But I most certainly do not want to be viewed as somebody who wanted to prevent that from happening.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 18, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Unfortunately, RBCD has been the first time at least some aspects of performance were worse than its predecessors.




Name at least three of those aspects in which you claim RB to be "worse than its predecessors".

(Besides those crappy brittle jewel cases which can be difficult to open or close, crack constantly, lose sections of the spider that holds the disc inside, etc)

Crimey, you audiophiles make CD out to be worse than cassette tape, for cryin out loud!


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> Name at least three of those aspects in which you claim RB to be worse than its predecessors.
> 
> (Besides those crappy brittle jewel cases which can be difficult to open or close, crack constantly, lose sections of the spider that holds the disc inside, etc)
> 
> Crimey, you audiophiles make CD out to be worse than cassette tape, for cryin out loud!



1. Frequency response limited to 22050 Hz - by which there should be absolutely no output. At least in theory.
2. Severe phase shift in the treble due to brickwall filtering required.
3. Interchannel phase problem I have already described ( when it happens, one channel lags behind the other for the exact rise time of the sampling frequency chosen ) ; it can creep up even today, with certain combinations of hardware and software, 
NOBODY  can test all devices and all software that  in practice can be used together. And it can sound really ugly with good recordings.

Using decent noise reduction, analog tape ( reel to reel ) can meet or exceed 100 dB S/N - which is better than RBCD.

Set, game and match to - analog. 

Not to mention hirez - either PCM or DSD - done right.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 18, 2019)

Inaudible problems. I wish all of my problems in life were impossible to perceive.

This is a good illustration of my point though... unnecessarily high sampling rates, unecessarily low noise floors, phase shifting slightly above the absolute bleeding edge of hearing (which isn't the treble range by the way)... Without the context of the limits of human perception, it's easy to drift off into the lala land of "more is better". With human ears, it's a waste of time though. If you want to justify all of this auditory excelsior, you are going to need an ear upgrade first.

The irony is that with about $50 worth of equipment and a friend to help you, a blind test will tell you that you don't need all of the things you are pumping up as vitally important. It's so easy to know the truth, hard to defend the lie. It takes jumping through hoops to continue to support a blatant misconception after all of the arguments and evidence that has been presented to you. But I guess you have enough leisure time to devote to that.

I don't think you care at all about sampling rates or noise floors or binaural recordings. I think you just like the reactions you get from standing in the middle of the forum and shouting silly things with a completely straight face. You're just thirsty for attention.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Inaudible problems. I wish all of my problems in life were impossible to perceive.
> 
> This is a good illustration of my point though... unnecessarily high sampling rates, unecessarily low noise floors, phase shifting at the absolute bleeding edge of hearing (which isn't the treble range by the way)... Without the context of the limits of human perception, it's easy to drift off into the lala land of "more is better". If you want to justify all of this auditory excelsior, you are going to need an ear upgrade first.



It only goes to highlight you never got to experience really good recordings on really good equipment. Does not have to cost an arm and a leg, but it does require eschewing practices most often followed. 

Filter this, limit that, compress everything, send it couple of times trough mixing desk, ... then there is actually little or anything really good left worth preserving on any type of recording.


----------



## bigshot

You WISH you had access to the equipment I've had access to over the years.

Don't try pulling the old trick "either your equipment sucks or you're deaf" because I'll wipe the floor with you on that argument.

As for filtering, you just said that you need to apply a noise reduction filter to analog tape to get it to perform better than redbook. Tape has generation loss, mixing consoles don't. If you're worried about the sacred purity of recorded sound, you won't get that with analog tape. You don't talk as if you have any real experience recording professionally. You talk like a duffer.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> 1. Frequency response limited to 22050 Hz - by which there should be absolutely no output. At least in theory.
> 2. Severe phase shift in the treble due to brickwall filtering required.
> 3. Interchannel phase problem I have already described ...
> 4. NOBODY  can test all devices and all software that  in practice can be used together.
> ...



1. As opposed to say vinyl, which has accurate freq response to about 16kHz and then it's mostly noise/interference/distortion. Whereas CD has no noise, distortion or anything else above 22.05kHz. Winner - CD, easily!
2. Brickwall filtering on CD has absolutely zero phase shift in the treble or anywhere else, hence why it's called a "linear phase filter"! Analogue on the other hand, all over the place. Winner - CD, by an infinite amount!
3. Which was impressive the first time because you tried to describe a problem that you've just invented but does NOT exist! There is absolutely zero interchannel phase on CD, again, unlike analogue. Winner - CD, by an infinite amount!
4. No, they can't. However, that doesn't matter with CD as bit perfect can be easily achieved. Not true with analogue of course, thermal noise for example is cumulative. Winner - CD, easily.
4a. Yes, analogue thermal noise and distortion can eventually sound ugly, CD however can't, unless it's been made to sound ugly! Winner - CD, as there is no thermal noise or distortion with CD it wins by infinity again!
5. No it can't, around 90dB is the most that can be achieved with analogue tape and that's before generational loss. CD on the other hand can manage 120dB dynamic range. Winner - CD by roughly 100 times over good reel to reel tape. BTW, you do know that noise reduction is a set of filters? Ever seen what filters in the analogue domain do to the signal's phase? Oh dear, that blows your #2 out of the water!
6. Only if you're playing "suicide chess", otherwise it's a complete whitewash to CD!



analogsurviver said:


> It only goes to highlight you never got to experience really good recordings on really good equipment.



It only goes to highlight that either you've only ever experienced the cheapest, oldest, most defective consumer CD recording/reproduction equipment or that you're utterly deluded. I'll go for the latter, as you're describing things "sounding ugly" that don't even exist!!!!

G


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> You WISH you had access to the equipment I've had access to over the years.
> 
> Don't try pulling the old trick "either your equipment sucks or you're deaf" because I'll wipe the floor with you on that argument.
> 
> As for filtering, you just said that you need to apply a noise reduction filter to analog tape to get it to perform better than redbook. Tape has generation loss, mixing consoles don't. If you're worried about the sacred purity of recorded sound, you won't get that with analog tape. You don't talk as if you have any real experience recording professionally. You talk like a duffer.



True - I wish I had access to some of the equipment ypu may or may not have had over the years.

Except that I would try to use it for the improvement, not maintauning status quo. And that is a BIG difference.

Noise reduction is NOT filtering - not in a sense it has to specifically attenuate  some frequencies at some predetermined way, such as brick filtering for RBCD.  Usually, it is compression on recording and mirroring expansion on playback. Depending on type of noise reduction, it may involve filtering - but these filters need not to be so steep and are therefore muchg more manageable. 

Sorry, there are more pure sounding recordings made using analog tape than whatever RBCD recorded. If you have forgotten, DSD  is my choice because it does sound the most analogue-ish of all available digital. Except DSD does not require any noise reduction to meet or exceed RBCD and is free from all analogue artefacts of tape. 

I am well aware of the generation loss in analog tape recording. That is why I tend to use direct to disk analog records for really serious evaluations. 

Remember  one thing : being proffessional means just that - nothing less, but also nothing more. It does NOT  mean being, wishing to be - or even trying to be - the best. 

Whilst on head-fi, I did get to expand some nice - and some not so nice - vocabulary. Take notice it will get used at the correct time.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] Noise reduction is NOT filtering - not in a sense it has to specifically attenuate some frequencies at some predetermined way, such as brick filtering for RBCD. Usually, it is compression on recording and mirroring expansion on playback. Depending on type of noise reduction, it may involve filtering - but these filters need not to be so steep and are therefore muchg more manageable.
> [2] Sorry, there are more pure sounding recordings made using analog tape than whatever RBCD recorded.
> [2a] If you have forgotten, DSD is my choice because it does sound the most analogue-ish of all available digital.
> [2b] Except DSD does not require any noise reduction to meet or exceed RBCD and
> ...



1. Ever seen what analogue compression/expansion does to the signal? Obviously not, which begs the question, why not? You've been doing this supposedly for how many years? And, even though the noise filters are not so steep as anti-alias filters, they are in the analogue domain and are therefore LESS manageable, not more!

2. And indeed you should be "sorry", for keep repeating the same old nonsense without the slightest of evidence!
2a. Well that's a terrible indictment of DSD!
2b. Nonsense, DSD requires massive noise shaping, without noise shaping DSD provides only 6dB dynamic range as opposed to the 96dB (un-noise shaped) dynamic range of CD. How does 6dB "meet or exceed" 96dB? 
2c. Hang on, if DSD is free of all analogue tape artefacts, how can it sound "analogue-ish"? Does it have all the artefacts of vinyl instead or maybe the artefacts of a wax cylinder?

3. So instead of the generational loss of tape recording, you instead go for an even greater loss from converting through a physical disk cutter. That's you trying to make an improvement and be the best is it? How's that going?

Don't you feel even slightly embarrassed at the nonsense you're spouting?

G


----------



## bigshot

Is he talking about DBX? Did they use that in studios back in the day, Gregorio? I was never aware of it if they used it on the projects I was working on, but I did see it on consumer gear. And as well as it worked, DBX processing was certainly NOT lossless.


----------



## dprimary

bigshot said:


> Is he talking about DBX? Did they use that in studios back in the day, Gregorio? I was never aware of it if they used it on the projects I was working on, but I did see it on consumer gear. And as well as it worked, DBX processing was certainly NOT lossless.



There was bunch of different ones all with artifacts, Dolby A and SR, DBX type 1, Telefunken C4, EMT. SR was the only one that had much acceptance and that was only in film. Then there was all the low performance consumer schemes Dolby B,C and S, DBX type 2 and Telefunken high com.


----------



## old tech

Funny that.  If I was aiming for the best possible recording/playback I would not want it to sound analogish or digital (whatever that means), in fact I wouldn't want it to sound anything different than the original recording.

As far as filtering and phase effects, Asurvivor seems to gloss over the RIAA equalisation required for LP production.  A very imprecise EQ curve at both the cutting and playback ends - just one of the long list of reasons why LPs can never approach RBCD for fidelity.

Off topic, and given your field of work @gregorio why is it that many modern documentaries have background music so loud that it makes it difficult to hear the actual dialogue?  Is it because they are designed for flat screen TVs with crappy speakers?


----------



## Steve999

old tech said:


> Off topic, and given your field of work @gregorio why is it that many modern documentaries have background music so loud that it makes it difficult to hear the actual dialogue?  Is it because they are designed for flat screen TVs with crappy speakers?



I know I am no @gregorio and it’s probably a dumb question but do you have a center channel speaker?


----------



## old tech (Jun 18, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> I know I am no @gregorio and it’s probably a dumb question but do you have a center channel speaker?


No, just through decent stereo speakers.  No issues though with movies or TV broadcast, just a problem with many newer docos.

One of the reasons I asked whether it is due to being produced for crappy speakers is that those docos are fine to watch on you tube on a PC or tablet's native speakers but again the background music is intrusive when listening through headphones.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 18, 2019)

old tech said:


> No, just through decent stereo speakers.  No issues though with movies or TV broadcast, just a problem with many newer docos.
> 
> One of the reasons I asked whether it is due to being produced for crappy speakers is that those docos are fine to watch on you tube on a PC or tablet's native speakers but again the background music is intrusive when listening through headphones.



I can imagine that—if the music has more extended frequency response than the dialogue, as it inevitably will, then full range speakers will play the music at a relatively louder volume as compared to the voice—speakers that would be more centered on the vocal range with less extended frequency response would have relatively louder voice playback as it would attenuate the lower and higher frequency parts of the music. Makes sense to me.

I think a center channel speaker with a surround sound receiver could possibly help—some of the available surround modes are meant to emphasize dialogue during TV watching, e.g., “TV-Logic” on my receiver (though as I look at the manual online that requires a 5.1 configuration on my receiver). Also there are settings to reduce or broaden stereo width that you can play around with with a center channel speaker and stereo speakers. I can also turn up the relative volume of the center channel speaker or separately tweak the EQ on it.

Although as I just sit here and flip through the modes I have the best luck with just plain Dolby 5.1 surround.

The headphone situation seems like a puzzler. I don’t know how you’d work around that.


----------



## dprimary

old tech said:


> Funny that.  If I was aiming for the best possible recording/playback I would not want it to sound analogish or digital (whatever that means), in fact I wouldn't want it to sound anything different than the original recording.
> 
> As far as filtering and phase effects, Asurvivor seems to gloss over the RIAA equalisation required for LP production.  A very imprecise EQ curve at both the cutting and playback ends - just one of the long list of reasons why LPs can never approach RBCD for fidelity.



That is the problem with analog recording there never has been an analog recording system that does not change the sound, you are always losing something. The signal from the microphones has never played back on an analog recording sounding anything like what went in. With experience you learn how to get it to kind of sound like the original sound, but it is never really close.  2" tape for multitrack cost over $300 a reel now and gives you 30 minutes, 1/2" to mix the stereo master is $100 reel now.  That doesn't mean it can't be pleasing with a great amount of effort.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Is he talking about DBX? Did they use that in studios back in the day, Gregorio?



@dprimary response was accurate. Dolby SR was the method most widely adopted for pro reel-reel tape recording and that's presumably what analogsurvivor is talking about because the dynamic range of the best reel-reel tape is around 75dB, plus Dolby's advertised 25dB tape noise reduction would give the figure he quoted of 100dB. However, the 25dB NR is a best case scenario, laboratory conditions, test signals, etc. In the real world, in a studio with musical material, around 90dB is the max. Analogsurvivor seems to read all the marketing of analogue tape/vinyl, take all the positives, ignore or never learn all the negatives OR the practicalities/realities. However, he does the exact opposite with CD, he takes only the negatives, obviously never bothers to actually measure/reliably test to determine the audibility of those negatives and has probably never even seen most the analogue equipment he worships and posts about, let alone actually used it extensively! For example, Dolby NR used compansion (compression/expansion) to reduce noise in one or several bands, Dolby SR was one of the most sophisticated as it used several bands (within the audible spectrum) which change dynamically according to the input signal. Question; How do we divide the spectrum into one or more bands? Answer: We use a series of filters! So with NR we have a series on filters, none of which are linear phase because they're analogue and they're all in the audible band, while with CD we have just one filter which is linear phase and is outside the audible band. He's living in a complete analogue marketing fantasy land which bares no relation to the real physical world!



old tech said:


> Off topic, and given your field of work @gregorio why is it that many modern documentaries have background music so loud that it makes it difficult to hear the actual dialogue? Is it because they are designed for flat screen TVs with crappy speakers?



There's no single, simple answer to this question, it's a combination of factors. Modern documentaries are mixed in 5.1, when you playback in stereo you're hearing a downmix automatically generated by a Dolby chip, which is also applying some compression scheme. The source (library) music and SFX arrives for mixing already compressed and is then upmixed stereo or processed to be surround (and some of this has to be routed to the LFE channel) but the dialogue which arrives for mixing is uncompressed, is mono and remains mono (which is routed to the centre channel). The combination of all these factors can, with some material and stereo playback systems, end-up with the dialogue sounding quieter than intended relative to the music (and SFX). The only solution to this would be to create a separate dedicated stereo mix but this would cost an unacceptable amount of extra time/money and require separate broadcast/distribution channels and inventory. There is the additional variable of where in the world the documentary was created and where it is being broadcast/distributed, which can affect the mix. Compared to the music world, docos in particular typically have a very convoluted chain between the mix stage and consumer.

G


----------



## bigshot (Jun 19, 2019)

old tech said:


> One of the reasons I asked whether it is due to being produced for crappy speakers is that those docos are fine to watch on you tube on a PC or tablet's native speakers but again the background music is intrusive when listening through headphones.



It's probably a frequency balance issue. Your tablet probably is lopping off a lot of low end in the music. Lowering the bass when you listen with headphones might help. Out of phase material can get very loud with those 3D sound buttons on TV sets, but I don't think you're using that.


----------



## KeithEmo

I can think of a few other things....

For one, some tables have built-in "sound enhancer modes" that are supposed to make music sound better.
These may include DSP processing options that are intended to make music sound "more spacious" from those little speakers...
Many devices with small speakers also use DSP processing to deliberately add harmonic distortion to low bass.
(By substituting harmonics of the original low bass, which the tiny speaker can reproduce, they mask the fact that it cannot reproduce the original frequency.)
I would check the sound settings - and look for "extra features" you can turn off.

Second, most tablets have really tiny speakers, many of which are simply unable to deliver intelligible voices very well.
And, of course, they may be doing odd things with the downmix.
(Again, intended to make music sound better, but not necessarily voice.)



bigshot said:


> It's probably a frequency balance issue. Your tablet probably is lopping off a lot of low end in the music. Lowering the bass when you listen with headphones might help. Out of phase material can get very loud with those 3D sound buttons on TV sets, but I don't think you're using that.


----------



## Steve999

I am guessing @old tech has two very nice stereo speakers that he would prefer to listen through.   A lot of A/V receivers will have a mode that tries to make a downmix to two channels to sound similar to how 5.1 surround sound would, which apparently is what the new documentaries are often mixed in. On my receiver it’s called “Theater-Dimensional.” I’m listening to it now and it sounds pretty good. It’s not true 5.1 Dolby surround sound but it sounds quite good. I’ve read it can have trouble with reverb-heavy original mixes but I haven’t experienced that. I’m pretty sure other manufacturers have variants on the same concept. Something like that might help to maintain the intended balance between voice and music for a 5.1 surround sound program but with only two speakers. Just a thought.


----------



## old tech

Steve999 said:


> I am guessing @old tech has two very nice stereo speakers that he would prefer to listen through.   A lot of A/V receivers will have a mode that tries to make a downmix to two channels to sound similar to how 5.1 surround sound would, which apparently is what the new documentaries are often mixed in. On my receiver it’s called “Theater-Dimensional.” I’m listening to it now and it sounds pretty good. It’s not true 5.1 Dolby surround sound but it sounds quite good. I’ve read it can have trouble with reverb-heavy original mixes but I haven’t experienced that. I’m pretty sure other manufacturers have variants on the same concept. Something like that might help to maintain the intended balance between voice and music for a 5.1 surround sound program but with only two speakers. Just a thought.


Yes, that is correct - I listen to the TV through my stereo's (active) speakers.  Most of the time it is great.

It is more some of the later documentaries that seem to have overly intrusive background music.  Switching the stereo speakers off and listening through the TV fixes that problem but the trade off then is lousy sound generally.

I know that for TV/video, the better path is 5.1 than using my stereo's speakers, but I don't use the TV much and the current set up is good enough most of the time.  So I've never had the inclination to look into this.


----------



## bigshot

You could get a good sound bar for the TV. It might handle it better.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> It's probably a frequency balance issue. Your tablet probably is lopping off a lot of low end in the music. Lowering the bass when you listen with headphones might help.



Yes, it is ultimately a freq balance issue but the question is why? The doco would have been mixed on a system with a wide freq response, so why did the re-recording mixer not notice that the music/effects were too loud relative to the dialogue? The answer is that in the mix stage the dialogue did balance well with the music and effects, the problem is downstream.


KeithEmo said:


> Second, most tablets have really tiny speakers, many of which are simply unable to deliver intelligible voices very well.



If anything, the opposite is typically true. Considering the tiny speakers, tablets and mobiles typically deliver intelligible voices very well. We have a great deal of experience over many decades of delivering intelligible voices over tiny speakers, from the telecommunications industry.



Steve999 said:


> I am guessing @old tech has two very nice stereo speakers that he would prefer to listen through. A lot of A/V receivers will have a mode that tries to make a downmix to two channels to sound similar to how 5.1 surround sound would, which apparently is what the new documentaries are often mixed in.



The downmix is typically made by Dolby itself. The format in most countries for the audio on HDTV is Dolby Digital 5.1 and as this is proprietary, any device certified as HDTV compliant (even HDTV "ready") must licence the technology/chip to decode the audio datastream from Dolby. The output is either 6 channels of audio or a 2 channel (stereo) downmix depending on the instructions given by the device in which it's fitted. In the case of a TV for example, that will always be a 2 channel downmix, so if you want 5.1 output you effectively bypass the Dolby chip in the TV, stream the Dolby Digital to say an AVR and then the Dolby chip in the AVR decodes the datastream to 5.1. Of course, once the datastream has been decoded (either to 5.1 or down-mixed stereo) by the Dolby chip, then the AVR is free to do whatever it wants to it, EQ or some other DSP for example. Furthermore, within the Dolby datastream is metadata which instructs the dolby chip to apply one of 6 different dynamic range control (compression) profiles during decoding ("Film light", "Film Heavy", "Music", "Off", etc.). However, this metadata is designed to be overriden by the device settings and most AVRs allow you to do this, although it's often difficult to find/hidden away in the menu structure somewhere. Lastly, in the case of most TV, this metadata is set by the Video Editor, not the re-recording mixer and let's just say that many Video Editors are not particularly knowledgeable when it comes to the audio side of things. Most of the time though, this system works pretty well but the compression profile sometimes has problems with docos, due to the previously mentioned fact that docos use library music which is already compressed, then there's typically other compression applied during mixing and then the decode process is probably adding more again and in this case the result can be somewhat unpredictable and cause the music to sound louder than the dialogue.

Additionally, "two very nice stereo speakers" is a relative term. Stereo speakers are typically designed for music reproduction and that means they typically enhance the bass somewhat, as commercial music studios typically have a "house curve" that includes a raised bass and therefore high fidelity reproduction likewise requires a raised bass. However, this is not the case in the TV/Film world, we do not have a "house curve" per se, the speaker/room response is standardised and mandated to be more flat.



old tech said:


> It is more some of the later documentaries that seem to have overly intrusive background music. Switching the stereo speakers off and listening through the TV fixes that problem but the trade off then is lousy sound generally.



Since around 2012, a new loudness paradigm in TV production has gradually been adopted by most of the developed world. There are many advantages with this new loudness paradigm over how it was done previously but as with almost everything "audio" there exists the potential for "better" to actually end-up "worse" under certain unusual circumstances and docos (and even the occasional TV drama) are the most likely to present those circumstances. The combination of your TV speakers having a weak bass response, plus a Dolby DRC profile and dialnorm setting (set by the TV) to optimise dialogue would account for more intelligible dialogue but overall worse sound quality.

I've obviously tried to keep this relatively simple but when we get into the guts of it, it's actually quite complex and there are some major differences between music production and TV sound production, not least because TV sound is highly specified/regulated while there are pretty much no specifications or regulations for music production.

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 20, 2019)

gregorio said:


> therefore high fidelity reproduction likewise requires a raised bass. However, this is not the case in the TV/Film world, we do not have a "house curve" per se, the speaker/room response is standardised and mandated to be more flat.



Perhaps I'm naive, or grossly misinformed, but I've always thought, for nearly as long as I've been a live, that hi-fidelity reproduction - of music, movies, toilets flushing, anything - requires a flat response.

As for TV sound, in general, I find it to be theee most dynamically compressed, not necessarily loudness-processed, but more compressed than even the most recent pop or rock  CD release.  If anyone here is a racing fan, and specifically of NASCAR, they have a 30-40sec. segment called 'Crank It Up!' during broadcast of the race.

During  such segment, all network and driver-related graphics exit the screen,  and viewrs are encouraged to turn up the sound on their TV sets or home theater systems.  Now I have attended the races, and what i'm 'cranking up ' sounds NOTHING like it does  at the actual track!  Even through my big speakers, it sounds.

like.

mush.

PBS(U.S.) is about as dynamic as it gets on broadcast television.  I can crank up things like 'This Old House', and from the kitchen it sounds like an actual renovation is taking place in the living room!  Same for their Saturday nigh feature classic movie.  For the most part, the original screen aspect ratio and sonic impact of those films is passed along to viewers.  I wish the major networks could do the same, especially with sports.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> I can think of a few other things....
> 
> For one, some tables have built-in "sound enhancer modes" that are supposed to make music sound better.
> These may include DSP processing options that are intended to make music sound "more spacious" from those little speakers...
> ...


----------



## dprimary

Are they adding distortion to "create bass" of is the distortion a side effect of using the rumble motors to extend the bass making the whole tablet a LF driver. Much like the old servo drive subwoofers, except without a direct connection to the driver surface and a whole lot of real time math.


----------



## bigshot

gregorio said:


> Yes, it is ultimately a freq balance issue but the question is why? The doco would have been mixed on a system with a wide freq response, so why did the re-recording mixer not notice that the music/effects were too loud relative to the dialogue?



Recently, I've seen small sound services mixing on small speakers for TV. I've never worked that way myself. I always mix to full range first, and then check on small speakers to see if anything causes problems. It may be that the documentaries he's talking about are just handing the mix to a DIY guy who isn't working to professional standards. It pays to do things right. I had a project once where the budget had been blown through and they tried to cheap out on post. It bit them in the ass.


----------



## KeithEmo

I've never heard of someone effectively "making an entire tablet into a low frequency driver".... although I have heard of putting vibration drivers in headphones to "simulate low bass".
The catch is that, compared to a speaker cone, and entire tablet is quite heavy, and so would take a lot of power to actually move enough to make bass.

What I have frequently seen, with small powered speakers and Bluetooth speakers, is specific and carefully controlled harmonic generation.

The principle is simple.....

Let's assume you have a small desktop speaker that is unable to make significant output below 100 Hz.
You do NOT want any frequencies below 100 Hz being sent to the amplifier that powers that speaker.
They won't be reproduced properly, they'll probably cause distortion, they'll waste amplifier power, and they'll reduce dynamic range by bringing the speaker closer to its power limit.
Therefore, you'll apply a high-pass filter to block frequencies below 100 Hz.
Unfortunately, by doing so, you will significantly alter the overall tonal balance.
And, beyond even that, some instruments that produce mostly low fundamental notes will simply disappear from the mix.

The simplest solution is to boost frequencies right above that cutoff point to produce an illusion of more bass.
This is often done with bass reflex speakers.... they are sometimes deliberately tuned with a bump in response above their cutoff point to compensate for the lack of bass below that point.
The result is a speaker that plays drums with a lot of "punch" - even though the actual lowest notes are weak.
This works well with some content... but only some.

However, modern DSP technology offers more advanced options.
First of all, a high-pass filter, and a slight boost in frequencies right above the cutoff point, are both set.
Then the DSP is programmed to artificially create harmonics to go with the lowest fundamentals which are being filtered out.
These harmonics aren't just noise - because they are harmonically related to the original content.
So, for example, instead of simply being removed, the lowest noted from that big drum are filtered out, and replaced with a little burst of harmonics of their frequency.
The end result is that the bass drum has a lot less boom, but has some extra punch to make up for it, and ends up not sounding all that bad.

The concept is quite elegant...
Instead of simply blocking the frequencies the little speaker can't play...
They are instead replaced with newly generated content that is "perceptually similar" - but which the speaker can play...
The end result, if you do it correctly, is something that sounds very much like the original - at least superficially.
(Of course, this sort of processing is all proprietary, and is quite complex, which is why it sometimes seems to work very well, and sometimes not so well.)



dprimary said:


> Are they adding distortion to "create bass" of is the distortion a side effect of using the rumble motors to extend the bass making the whole tablet a LF driver. Much like the old servo drive subwoofers, except without a direct connection to the driver surface and a whole lot of real time math.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] Perhaps I'm naive, or grossly misinformed, but I've always thought, for nearly as long as I've been a live, that hi-fidelity reproduction - of music, movies, toilets flushing, anything - requires a flat response.
> [2] As for TV sound, in general, I find it to be theee most dynamically compressed, not necessarily loudness-processed, but more compressed than even the most recent pop or rock  CD release.
> [2a] If anyone here is a racing fan, and specifically of NASCAR, they have a 30-40sec. segment called 'Crank It Up!' during broadcast of the race. During  such segment, all network and driver-related graphics exit the screen,  and viewrs are encouraged to turn up the sound on their TV sets or home theater systems.
> [2b] Now I have attended the races, and what i'm 'cranking up ' sounds NOTHING like it does  at the actual track!  Even through my big speakers, it sounds. like. mush.
> [3] PBS(U.S.) is about as dynamic as it gets on broadcast television.  I can crank up things like 'This Old House', and from the kitchen it sounds like an actual renovation is taking place in the living room!  Same for their Saturday nigh feature classic movie.  For the most part, the original screen aspect ratio and sonic impact of those films is passed along to viewers.  I wish the major networks could do the same, especially with sports.



1. Yes, that is somewhat naive. Each have somewhat different requirements for hifi reproduction. For example, movies have what's called the "x-curve" which is applied to the monitoring (B-chain) during mixing and reproduction (although this isn't applicable to home reproduction), TV is essentially flat and the common/usual trend for several decades with music is for a house curve with a raised bass but as there are no mandated specifications/requirements (unlike TV and film) this house curve can essentially be whatever the individual studio wants. In general, a slightly raised bass in the consumer reproduction chain would therefore give a more hi-fidelity reproduction and many/most consumer transducers have this built-in (for example, it's one of the typical differences between a "speaker" and a "monitor"). A flat response will certainly give a more hi-fi reproduction than whatever is the natural response of speakers+room acoustics in a consumer listening environment but ideally, most of the time, for the highest-fidelity music reproduction, you should achieve a flat response and then raise the bass a little. A flat response is therefore somewhat of an audiophile myth.

2. While TV can be quite heavily compressed, it is nowhere near the levels of compression applied to much pop/rock music. Even going back as far as the late 1960's, pop and rock genres often/routinely drove compressors to (and beyond) distortion. In fact with quite a few sub-genres, heavily over-driven compression is a required sonic characteristic of the genre. This is never the case with TV. Also, since 2012, it absolutely IS "necessarily loudness-processed"! This isn't just different, arbitrary loudness specifications/requirements of individual TV channels/networks, in the USA (and some other countries) it's an actual legal requirement. In the case of the USA, it was enshrined in law by the CALM Act (2010).
2a. The workflow with live events is necessarily entirely different to films and other TV content which is not live, such as docos, dramas, etc. With docos for example, the dialogue of the interviews is recorded at the same time as the filming. Once all the footage has been acquired, it is edited and then passed to the audio post production team, who clean up the production dialogue, source, edit and sync all the sound effects, add the music and narration and then mix all of it together to create a 5.1 mix. This mixing process (called "Re-recording" in the TV/film world) involves balancing all the elements, applying noise reduction, EQ, compression, reverb, etc., writing "automation" to ensure balance not only within each scene but obviously between scenes and finally this mix (along with the other required deliverables) is recorded ("printed"). We do of course entirely control the dynamic range of each of the elements and of the completed mix and constantly tweak all of this during mixing according to taste but obviously within the loudness specifications. While the time, cost, exact details and number of personnel involved in audio post varies greatly, this is broadly the workflow of all TV/Film, with the obvious exception of live events and most ENG (news), where there is no audio post process! However, live events still have to comply with loudness specifications. I have no direct experience of doing the sound for NASCAR or other motor racing events but what effectively seems to happen is that an independent mic and/or set of mics is associated with each camera position (appropriately balanced/processed) and then as the director changes camera/angle, the sound switches to the mics associated with that camera. The exact setup and workflow for such events has evolved over decades, therefore considerable experience is required and particularly at events such as motor racing, where there can be very high SPLs and wide dynamic range, then considerable compression typically has to be applied, in order to play it safe and remain within loudness specifications, baring in mind that you obviously can't go back and tweak it a few weeks later in audio post.
2b. When you have attended races, are you "at the actual track" or are you in the audience stands? It's obviously going to sound significantly different if your ears are in a significantly different location to the mics and that's in addition to the compression, NR, crossfading and other processing required in order to: Maintain a similar loudness between different cameras/mic setups, allow the commentary to be intelligible and comply with loudness specifications. Considering all the practical difficulties of creating 5.1 mixes with multiple 5.1 mic setups, such high SPLs and dialogue/commentary that has to sit above it and that it's all compliant with loudness specs, I'm amazed at how good the sound usually is.

3. Your "wish" is significantly different to that of most other consumers. The vast majority of consumers want to watch a sports event live, within a few seconds of it being filmed, they don't want to wait weeks (or in the case of films, many months) until after the event is filmed, to allow for audio post and the creation of high fidelity, wide dynamic range, etc.! Also, rather ironically, you've actually got this completely backwards! Particularly in film, pretty much none of the sound is "real", none of the Sound FX were recorded during filming, they are created and recorded in a completely different environment, with different equipment and different people using it, even much/most of the dialogue was recorded weeks/months after the filming. With a live sports event though, it's the opposite, ALL the sound you hear is the actual sound that's occurring at that event and that instant in time.



bigshot said:


> Recently, I've seen small sound services mixing on small speakers for TV. I've never worked that way myself. I always mix to full range first, and then check on small speakers to see if anything causes problems. It may be that the documentaries he's talking about are just handing the mix to a DIY guy who isn't working to professional standards. It pays to do things right. I had a project once where the budget had been blown through and they tried to cheap out on post. It bit them in the ass.



At the end of the day, loudness and other specs have to be met, penalties are severe for not doing so and as you say, bites them in the ass. Docos are generally near the bottom of the genres budget spectrum though, so sound quality is generally nearer the minimum required to pass QC. A lot of docos are mixed on relatively small speakers but with bass management (with a sub), so they still have a somewhat "full-range". This can't really be avoided as 5.1 has been a standard requirement for quite a few years. Most commonly, docos are mixed on good systems by very experienced personnel because although it costs a lot more per hour, the number of hours required is a lot less and the end result more reliable. The issue described by @old tech is known about but isn't easily solvable, it's a fairly uncommon, unpredictable consequence of 5.1, unavoidable professional workflows, loudness specs and consumer playback equipment.

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 21, 2019)

gregorio said:


> . A flat response is therefore somewhat of an audiophile myth.



Well, I do not consider myself an audiophile, because I seek to 'remove the audio system' from the music, not have the system itself 'enhance' the music - the goal of many audiophiles. 



gregorio said:


> Considering all the practical difficulties of creating 5.1 mixes with multiple 5.1 mic setups, such high SPLs and dialogue/commentary that has to sit above it and that it's all compliant with loudness specs, I'm amazed at how good the sound usually is.



Personally, I could care less about multi-channel, 5.1, 7.1, or 9,573,547.1 sound!  For me, reasonable frequency response and dynamics are more important.  Our precious little TV speakers are capable of withstanding more dynamic impact than I think TV engineers give them credit for.




gregorio said:


> With a live sports event though, it's the opposite, ALL the sound you hear is the actual sound that's occurring at that event and that instant in time.



True.  Just horribly compressed. Those Nascars whipping by microphones mounted on the crash barrier sound like someone rapidly sweeping a concrete floor with a broom!  And the roar of the crowd after a home run at Yankee Stadium over my surround system has the visceral impact of someone turning on a small tabletop fan.  And the bat itself connecting with the ball?  A little old lady snapping shut her purse:  The frequency response is there, but little dynamic IMPACT.

Now none of that requires "weeks in post-", does it?  Just easing up a little on the rack settings.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] Well, I do not consider myself an audiophile, because I seek to 'remove the audio system' from the music, not have the system itself 'enhance' the music - the goal of many audiophiles.
> [2] Personally, I could care less about multi-channel, 5.1, 7.1, or 9,573,547.1 sound!  For me, reasonable frequency response and dynamics are more important.
> [2a] Our precious little TV speakers are capable of withstanding more dynamic impact than I think TV engineers give them credit for.
> [3] True.  Just horribly compressed. Those Nascars whipping by microphones mounted on the crash barrier sound like someone rapidly sweeping a concrete floor with a broom!  ... The frequency response is there, but little dynamic IMPACT.
> [4] Now none of that requires "weeks in post-", does it?  Just easing up a little on the rack settings.



1. If a particular music recording was mixed with say a 3dB hump in the bass, then replaying it on a good freq response system with a 3dB hump in the bass is not "enhancing" the reproduction, it's reproducing it with higher fidelity, while reproducing it with a flat system would be lower fidelity.

2. TV and commercial music recordings are not created for you personally or what you personally consider "reasonable" dynamics to be. For example, millions of TV consumers around the world do care about multi-channel and therefore content is created in multi-channel because it's relatively easy and artefact free to turn multi-channel into stereo but not so the other way around.
2a. Another extremely common audiophile myth/falsehood. According to audiophiles, engineers, who've been educated/trained and whose job it is to know how their mix is going to be heard/played back, apparently know a lot less than they do, a person who is uneducated/untrained and has never even tried to create a mix for TV broadcast or music distribution.

3. Firstly, so you've effectively stated that you think a real but volume lowered/compressed soundtrack sounds a lot less "real" than a soundtrack which is completely unreal/fake in every respect. Secondly, how do you know what a Nascar sounds like from a couple of feet away on a crash barrier? All those who work that closely with running race cars have to wear hearing protection because we're talking about levels which can exceed 110dBSPL, sometimes by a lot. And no, TV speakers are not capable of that and even if they were, what consumers (apart from you apparently) would want anywhere near that? You may have your own preferences for what you consider to be a "reasonable" dynamic range but we have to work (by law and/or specifications) to a dynamic range considered to be "reasonable" by everyone else!

4. How would you know? If we're to get the highest possible quality and the widest dynamic range within the permissible limits, how else can this be achieved without audio post? If you could answer that, you'd completely revolutionise TV/Film production and be an exceedingly rich man! The rack, fader and other settings are as they are to avoid the sound (of the sport) completely obliterating the commentary and avoid the possibility of breaking the law/not complying with specifications. Again, we've had many multi-billion dollar companies/organisations, in competition, all over the world, with teams of engineers and scientists researching and actually implementing TV broadcast of live sports events for over 80 years but you, with no knowledge of any of this research/information, no experience and no idea of how it's actually done or why, think that all of us have got it wrong and you know better.

Part of the problem/issue described by @old tech is due to the fact that the new loudness paradigm allows a larger dynamic range than previously and less use of compression!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 21, 2019)

gregorio said:


> that the new loudness paradigm allows a larger dynamic range than previously and less use of compression!



And that must break your heart, Calbi.  Dynamics control is your bread n butter!

Notice I said "ease back " on the amount of DRC in broadcast, not eliminate it entirely. 

Ease back Greg, just as we eased into this over-compressed loudness paradigm over the course of the '90s-early 2000s in the first place.


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> Perhaps I'm naive, or grossly misinformed, but I've always thought, for nearly as long as I've been a live, that hi-fidelity reproduction - of music, movies, toilets flushing, anything - requires a flat response.
> 
> As for TV sound, in general, I find it to be theee most dynamically compressed, not necessarily loudness-processed, but more compressed than even the most recent pop or rock  CD release.  If anyone here is a racing fan, and specifically of NASCAR, they have a 30-40sec. segment called 'Crank It Up!' during broadcast of the race.
> 
> ...




I wouldn't expect in car or near track audio to be similar to what you hear in the stands.  Speaking from experience, both within a race car and as a track side marshal, what you're getting on the broadcast is a relatively good representation of those experiences.  Obviously, volume limited for the audience's hearing protection.  In the stands, you've getting direct and reflected sound from all of the cars - in car, motor and wind noise are the primary sounds.


----------



## KeithEmo

Just to sort of summarize what a few others have already said.

In general, you usually don't get to hear "exactly what the real thing was like", and you probably wouldn't want to.

What you get to hear is a carefully crafted version of a combination of "what the producer or artist wanted you to hear" and "what the recording engineer believes most people in the audience will believe sounds like it should". A real gunshot, in an enclosed room, without hearing protection, is usually so loud it makes your ears ring, and affects your hearing for some time... so what you hear when a gun is fired on a TV show is really "what most people expect a gunshot to sound like"... adjusted to avoid exceeding any safety regulations or making the listener actually uncomfortable. Likewise, real racing cars are awfully loud, so what you hear is hopefully carefully tweaked to convey "the feeling of really loud engines", but minus the safety issues and levels that would quite possibly damage your hearing or your stereo system or TV. (A real "LASER battle in space" would be incredibly boring... there's no sound at all in a vacuum... and you can't see a LASER beam in a vacuum unless it's pointed directly at you. Therefore, what you see and hear in a movie is a combination of "cool flashing lights and sound effects" and "what most viewers imagine a LASER battle in space would be like". In a documentary, we would like to hope that they do their best to "convey the gist of the actual experience". However, still, nobody wants to have to jam their fingers in their ears when the cars drive by in front of them.)

Even beyond that, most people want their TV viewing experience to be relatively sedate. MOST viewers want everything at about the same level, so they don't have to get up and adjust the volume during the loud spots or the quiet spots. While there are several systems that do their best to control and level the volume... not all of them are supported by every TV or other piece of gear... so many show producers prefer to just avoid dramatic changes in level entirely.  



bfreedma said:


> I wouldn't expect in car or near track audio to be similar to what you hear in the stands.  Speaking from experience, both within a race car and as a track side marshal, what you're getting on the broadcast is a relatively good representation of those experiences.  Obviously, volume limited for the audience's hearing protection.  In the stands, you've getting direct and reflected sound from all of the cars - in car, motor and wind noise are the primary sounds.


----------



## sander99

gregorio said:


> 1. If a particular music recording was mixed with say a 3dB hump in the bass, then replaying it on a good freq response system with a 3dB hump in the bass is not "enhancing" the reproduction, it's reproducing it with higher fidelity, while reproducing it with a flat system would be lower fidelity.


I am confused by this. What exactly do you mean with "If a particular music recording was mixed with say a 3dB hump in the bass", do you mean that the 3 dB hump was only in the monitor system that the engineer was using during mixing and not in the resulting sound track, or do you mean that the 3 dB hump was actually in the resulting sound track? The way you say it makes one think the latter, but if that is the case and you play it back on a system that has the same 3 dB hump in its freq response it would add up to a 6 dB hump in total, wouldn't it?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> so what you hear when a gun is fired on a TV show is really "what most people expect a gunshot to sound like"... ad



smh!  No WONDER the first comment made by so many survivors and witnesses to the recent spate of mass shootings is "I thought it was fire crackers"!    

Because they are conditioned to the MUSHY CRAP that passes for gunfire on TV or in movies..  "BSHHH - BSHHH - BSHHH!!"

I actually think that this is a public safety issue - people out at the mall, or in school, or wherever some nut decides to off-load a few thousand rounds - don't even know what real gunfire sounds like!    It's more of a POP-POP-POP if being fired rapidly, as from a six-gun.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

sander99 said:


> The way you say it makes one think the latter, but if that is the case and you play it back on a system that has the same 3 dB hump in its freq response it would add up to a 6 dB hump in total, wouldn't it?



Thank you!!!

For me, personally, a playback system with a 'hump' anywhere on the spectrum is akin to the windows in my house all being tinted a certain color - distorting the view of what I see through them.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 21, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] Notice I said "ease back " on the amount of DRC in broadcast, not eliminate it entirely.
> [2] Ease back Greg, just as we eased into this over-compressed loudness paradigm over the course of the '90s-early 2000s in the first place.



1. And notice I said; required specifications and legal requirements! Do I follow what some misinformed person, with no knowledge or experience thinks he wants or do I follow the specifications and legal requirements (and keep my job)? Not a tough choice for anyone with a rational mind!

2. This loudness paradigm has only existed for about a decade and only started becoming a delivery specification/legal requirement about 7 years ago. So whatever it is that you're talking about (presumably the loudness war in popular music), it's got nothing to do with the loudness paradigm in TV!!



sander99 said:


> I am confused by this. What exactly do you mean with "If a particular music recording was mixed with say a 3dB hump in the bass", do you mean that the 3 dB hump was only in the monitor system that the engineer was using during mixing and not in the resulting sound track, or do you mean that the 3 dB hump was actually in the resulting sound track?



It's only in the monitoring chain and therefore what's in the track is the inverse. When the producer/musicians get the balance they want, the track would contain 3dB lower bass, corresponding to the 3dB raised bass in the monitoring system. On playback, a similar 3dB raised bass (to the studio's 3dB raised bass) will give the correct balance/higher fidelity, while a flat reproduction would result in 3dB too little bass (and therefore lower fidelity).



TheSonicTruth said:


> For me, personally, a playback system with a 'hump' anywhere on the spectrum is akin to the windows in my house all being tinted a certain color - distorting the view of what I see through them.



We've already determined and you've already admitted that you don't know what the undistorted view should be. You thought the "real" sounded fake and the fake sounded real! A slightly raised bass on most consumer music reproduction systems would, according to your analogy, be like adding an inverse distortion to your window, to counteract the distorted view of what you're seeing (but are apparently unaware of)! @bigshot was correct, it's functionally the same as the RIAA curve.

G

Edit: KeithEmo was also correct, people watch the TV for leisure/entertainment, they want a comfortable dynamic range, which is nowhere near the physical limits of human hearing (the pain threshold). The new loudness paradigm provides for a larger dynamic range than previously (up to 20dB LRA) and this is already beyond the comfort limits of many consumers' listening conditions!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> slightly raised bass on most consumer music reproduction systems would, according to your analogy, be like adding an inverse distortion to your window, to counteract the distorted view of what you're seeing (but are apparently unaware of)! @bigshot was correct, is functionally the same as the RIAA curve.



So based upon what you were saying earlier - about 3dB humps -  am I incorrect in leaving my tone controls flat during playback?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> This loudness paradigm has only existed for about a decade and only started becoming a delivery specification/legal requirement about 7 years ago. So whatever it is that you're talking about (presumably the loudness war in popular music), it's got nothing to do with the loudness paradigm in TV!!



Yes, the music loudness war - that paradigm. Not 1770 or EBU-r128, etc.

And if you think the over-compression and makeup practices of that war were confined solely to recorded music, then it is you who are living in a fantasy world.  Remember TV commercials so much louder than the program they occurred during?  That was part of the reason for the development of the loudness standards I referred to, above.


----------



## analogsurviver

I have no idea how the actual bullet fired towards you sounds like.  But based on the speeds of modern guns, it is most likely you will never hear the one to hit you - because they travel mostly faster than the sound in air. You might catch a muzzle fire blaze - or puff of smoke - with your eyes; and try to throw yourself to the ground and/or behind whatever shelter might be around. If the shooter is at large enough distance, you even might escape; if close(r) by and his aim is true ...

One of the better movies regarding the bullets/explosions is Das Boot - with re-recorded sound in the Director Cut version. I have to admit I ducked a few times - while listening with baby Stax in ear system. As noted above, I have yet to experience real live ammunition fire aimed at me and therefore can not comment how autechnic sounding Das Boot acually is ; but it is damn convincing and frightening, when the story plot in the movie demands it. Baby Stax is capable of 114 dB SPL - although most probably likely less than the real thing, it does have an extremely fast and ringing free pulse response ( better than the larger normal sized Stax models, which are again likely to be better than most, but not all, dynamic models ) - therefore it can sound extremely convincing.

Any explosion is likely to produce sound not only in officially audible ( up to 20 kHz ) range, but also far above that frequency. So, a shot from any barreled weapon is among the first candidates to test the realism of the reproduction achievable. You know what follows... - recording has to catch > 20 kHz and gear downstream also has to be able to reproduce it - if it is to sound truly realistic.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 21, 2019)

gregorio said:


> The new loudness paradigm provides for a larger dynamic range than previously (up to 20dB LRA) and this is already beyond the comfort limits of many consumers' listening conditions!



I thought that part of what standards such as R128 and BU-1770 were designed to do was reduce inconsistencies between program segments - actual program, commercials, other broadcast material, and also reduce volume level differences from one channel to the next.

Before that, peak-based metering was the norm in digital production, and volumes - between segments on the same channel, and when switching between channels, was all over the place.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 21, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> If I wanted a 'tinted window' to what I was listening to, I would mess around with the bass & treble knobs. If I wanted to hear the recorded content itself, I'ld leave them centered - flat.



You seem to be missing the point: If you leave your bass and treble knobs flat, you will not be getting "flat", you will be getting whatever curve the HP designers have implemented or whatever curve the speaker manufacturer has implemented, plus the effects of your listening room acoustics.



TheSonicTruth said:


> Yes, the music loudness war - that paradigm. Not 1770 or EBU-r128, etc. ... And if you think the over-compression and makeup practices of that war were confined solely to recorded music, then it is you who are living in a fantasy world. Remember TV commercials so much louder than the program they occurred during? That was part of the reason for the development of the loudness standards I referred to, above.



The paradigm of TV changed to a system (set of specifications) based on perceived loudness, as opposed to the previous paradigm which was a set of specifications based on levels. The music industry does not have any specifications, is constrained only by the ultimate physical level limits of the distribution media and this paradigm has never changed!

The world I'm living in is the world of a professional engineer, who's worked in the TV/film industry for about 25 years, for many major networks and international distribution. What's your world, what education, knowledge and experience do you have, have you ever even been in a TV mix/dubbing suite, let alone actually used one? To the rational mind, there's only one answer to who is living in a fantasy world and therefore all you're doing is demonstrating that you do not have a rational mind!



TheSonicTruth said:


> I thought that part of what standards such as R128 and BU-1770 were designed to do was reduce inconsistencies between program segments - actual program, commercials, other broadcast material, and also reduce volume level differences from one channel to the next.



What, you mean you're not sure exactly what it is and what it's for? And you're arguing about it with someone who has to implement and comply with it daily, for a living? ... Which of us is living in a fantasy world?

G


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> The paradigm of TV changed to a system (set of specifications) based on perceived loudness, as opposed to the previous paradigm which was a set of specifications based on levels.


I remember the dreadful years with ads being massively processed to sound loud, coming in the middle of some old movie where the perceived levels of conversations were a good 20dB below, sometimes probably more. I cannot understand how it took so many years for laws(or just common sense from the TV stations) to do something about it.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 21, 2019)

Doggone! I thought that one was funny. My best jokes end up on the cutting room floor.



analogsurviver said:


> I have no idea how the actual bullet fired towards you sounds like.



The setup lines keep coming fast and furious.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 21, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> I have no idea how the actual bullet fired towards you sounds like.  But based on the speeds of modern guns, it is most likely you will never hear the one to hit you - because they travel mostly faster than the sound in air.



Having been through this many times, I have learned by experience that what you do is warp space-time so that the bullet takes a very slow and circuitous route, catch it between your thumb and index finger, throw it on the ground and quickly cover your ears so that you have some hearing protection by the time the sound of the gunshot reaches your ears.

To quote @bfreedma (who is actually The Hornet!), “This is the Internet and I am Batman.”


----------



## GearMe

Steve999 said:


> Having been through this many times, I have learned by experience that what you do is warp space-time so that the bullet takes a very slow and circuitous route, catch it between your thumb and index finger, throw it on the ground and quickly cover your ears so that you have some hearing protection by the time the sound of the gunshot reaches your ears.
> 
> To quote @bfreedma (who is actually The Hornet!), “This is the Internet and I am Batman.”


----------



## bigshot

Steve999 said:


> To quote @bfreedma (who is actually The Hornet!), “This is the Internet and I am Batman.”



I guess that makes me the Joker.


----------



## sander99

gregorio said:


> It's only in the monitoring chain and therefore what's in the track is the inverse. When the producer/musicians get the balance they want, the track would contain 3dB lower bass, corresponding to the 3dB raised bass in the monitoring system. On playback, a similar 3dB raised bass (to the studio's 3dB raised bass) will give the correct balance/higher fidelity, while a flat reproduction would result in 3dB too little bass (and therefore lower fidelity).


Thank you, I already figured something like that, I just wasn't sure.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 21, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I guess that makes me the Joker.



Hey! It's @bigshot !  



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Miller_(musician)


----------



## bigshot

I may be the joker, but I don't smoke and I'm in bed by 11.


----------



## Davesrose (Jun 21, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> I remember the dreadful years with ads being massively processed to sound loud, coming in the middle of some old movie where the perceived levels of conversations were a good 20dB below, sometimes probably more. I cannot understand how it took so many years for laws(or just common sense from the TV stations) to do something about it.



The last few pages have referred to TV as the ATSC/broadcast TV standards.  But more and more....folks are just watching via streaming (such as me...who's only now watching "TV" for sports).  I've upgraded my home theater system to include 4K OLED TV and 7.1.4 speakers...so I do appreciate "TV" original content coming from Netflix and Amazon that can have true 4K Dolby Vision and Atmos.  However, I have found the loud ads are still alive and present.  Most specifically: Vudu's free movies.  It's completely computer controlled, so the add blocks come in very randomly.  With older 2 channel source material, I've found I need to lower volume (maybe partly original levels and most content being a higher frequency): it forces me to lower volume and the ads aren't much louder.  However, more modern 5.1 content with nice range and sound field....the ads are way louder when they spring up, and I need to mute immediately.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 21, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> With older 2 channel source material, I've found I need to lower volume (maybe partly original levels and most content being a higher frequency): it forces me to lower volume and the ads aren't much louder. However, more modern 5.1 content with nice range and sound field....the ads are way louder when they spring up, and I need to mute immediately



Soooo... Which of the two - 2ch or 5.1 -  is worse in that regard?  confused


----------



## Davesrose

TheSonicTruth said:


> Soooo... Which of the two - 2ch or 5.1 -  is worse in that regard?  confused



Well in the situation I mentioned (watching older 2.0 movies vs more modern 5.1 movies with Vudu) my discussion was about volume differences with ads.  Overall, I've found the 2.0 movies also have a type of harsh sound to them (they're more dialogue centric, but also more "grating" than say mono channel with DD 5.1).  Just going from hearing, it seems there's mainly content in the mids, and I lower my volume -10DB.  When ads hit with this content, I don't feel such a great discrepancy to need to mute or lower volume immediately.  However, with 5.1, I don't lower volume for the content...and then when ads come on, they're pretty blaring!  This isn't a criticism of the content, but a modern example of disparity between "TV content" vs ads (albeit streaming services).


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 21, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Soooo... Which of the two - 2ch or 5.1 -  is worse in that regard?  confused



You think you are confused. I am sitting here with four remotes trying different permutations of, shall we say, signal flow. If I get a red Dolby symbol on my receiver I am pretty sure the receiver is getting the original digital source signal. If you turn features of various things on and off you make the copyright and licensing detection schemes unhappy and then the receiver gets a two-channel pcm signal to play with instead of a Dolby Digital signal. The permutations of what you can and cannot do depending on the signal path and features of the various program source devices is completely mind-boggling. I could write 20 pages on it, and I've barely scratched the surface. For example if I choose to make my TV speaker available for use, even if I don't turn the volume up on the TV,  the TV will only send a PCM two-channel digital signal out to the receiver. However, if I disable the TV speaker, and do everything else just so, the TV will send the original Dolby Digital signal to the receiver, and I will get the pretty red Dolby Digital symbol. The resulting different combinations of options in sound processing between something like a Roku or an Apple TV or apps and options on the TV or the A/V receiver are just incredibly confusing. I think I have it figured out by intuition now but to document it or describe the myriad options and trade-offs would be extremely difficult. I wish there was a "just do whatever is best" button.


----------



## Davesrose (Jun 21, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> You think you are confused. I am sitting here with four remotes trying different permutations of, shall we say, signal flow. If I get a red Dolby symbol on my receiver I am pretty sure the receiver is getting the original digital source signal. If you turn features of various things on and off you make the copyright and licensing detection schemes unhappy and then the receiver gets a two-channel pcm signal to play with instead of a Dolby Digital signal. The permutations of what you can and cannot do depending on the signal path and features of the various program source devices is completely mind-boggling. I could write 20 pages on it, and I've barely scratched the surface. For example if I choose to make my TV speaker available for use, even if I don't turn the volume up, the TV will only send a PCM two-channel digital signal out. However, if I disable the TV speaker, and do everything else just so, the TV will send the original Dolby Digital signal to the receiver. The implications for different options in sound processing between something like a Roku or an Apple TV or apps and options on the TV or the A/V receiver are just incredibly confusing. I think I have it figured out by intuition now but to document it or describe the myriad options and trade-offs would be extremely difficult. I wish there was a "just do whatever is best" button.



My anecdote is even simpler: these impressions are watching Vudu from Apple 4K TV.  It outputs either 2 ch PCM, 5.1 ch PCM, or Atmos.(unless you try to over-ride for it only outputting 5.1 DD all the time).  After I setup my system, I was most surprised that apps on my LG TV can actually output Atmos to my Denon reciever (even though the TV doesn't have eARC...but I guess since Atmos can be carried via DD).  But I think overall streaming output is still best with my Apple 4K TV (also compared with HTPC, which is great for downloaded/ripped files, and Roku Ultra which doesn't support Dolby Vision).


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> [1] I remember the dreadful years with ads being massively processed to sound loud, coming in the middle of some old movie where the perceived levels of conversations were a good 20dB below, sometimes probably more.
> [2] I cannot understand how it took so many years for laws(or just common sense from the TV stations) to do something about it.



1. The specifications for theatrical film sound have always been different to the specs for TV sound, as obviously the little speakers in a TV can't cope with anywhere near the dynamic range that a say $100k theatrical sound system can. The new loudness based TV specs brings TV more in line with theatrical film but there's still roughly an 8dB - 10dB difference and before the TV loudness specs, the difference could in some cases be as much as 20dB (as you stated). With more modern films broadcast on TV, you typically are not hearing the original theatrical mix, you're most likely hearing the BluRay mix (which is typically only about 4dB quieter than the new TV specs) or an actual TV mix. Incidentally, a modern blockbuster may have 70 or so different sound mixes!

2. That's because the reality of the situation is the exact opposite of what you (the consumer) and I (the programme maker) imagine it to be! Typically, us programme makers never get to meet the TV execs (with the exception of the producer and possibly director), the first time I did was when working on a particularly high budget programme and the execs visited the dubbing theatre, presumably because they were somewhat nervous about spending so much money, it was a somewhat shocking experience. They had no direct interest in the programme making process, in the artistic intent, the story we were telling or pretty much any other aspect that defined my job, in fact the opposite, they seemed to dislike it! Eventually I understood what perhaps should have been obvious - to a TV exec, the programmes/films they broadcast are little more than a "necessary evil". To buy TV content obviously costs the execs considerable amounts of money, it's an unwanted but unavoidable expense that they'll never directly recoup. Where they actually make money is from selling the advertising time/space between the programme/s and therefore, that's what they're really interest in. The only have any interest in the programmes themselves, in terms of how they affect their advertising slots. To respond to your point then, even though consumers found it annoying, the data (of which there was/is a great deal) demonstrated that louder ads grabbed consumers' attention more than quieter ones and TV execs are always going to do what the advertisers want because that is where their revenue comes from. They were never unilaterally or voluntarily going to "do something about it" and as the global TV advertising market is worth several hundred billion (roughly 10x the global theatrical film market), they (the advertisers and to a lesser extent the broadcasters) actively lobbied against any proposal which they thought might threaten it. It took a "perfect storm" set of circumstances for it to finally change.



Davesrose said:


> [1] The last few pages have referred to TV as the ATSC/broadcast TV standards. But more and more....folks are just watching via streaming (such as me...who's only now watching "TV" for sports).
> [2] I've upgraded my home theater system to include 4K OLED TV and 7.1.4 speakers...so I do appreciate "TV" original content coming from Netflix and Amazon that can have true 4K Dolby Vision and Atmos. However, I have found the loud ads are still alive and present. Most specifically: Vudu's free movies. It's completely computer controlled, so the add blocks come in very randomly.
> [2a] With older 2 channel source material, I've found I need to lower volume (maybe partly original levels and most content being a higher frequency): it forces me to lower volume and the ads aren't much louder. However, more modern 5.1 content with nice range and sound field....the ads are way louder when they spring up, and I need to mute immediately.



1. The ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee, specifically the ATSC 85/A) covers the broadcast TV loudness specs for the USA, while in the EU we have the EBU (European Broadcast Union) R128 specs but as both are based on the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) recommendations, specifically ITU BS. 1770, they are very similar and other countries who've implemented loudness specs have adopted one of these two specifications. For example, Canada and Australia have adopted the ATSC 85/A specs and like the USA, as an Act of Law.

2. Where the loudness specs are an Act of Law, the law only covers broadcasters/cable distribution content providers, not online streaming services. If the law applied to online content it would effectively kill YouTube, Vimeo, vBlogs and any other consumer/amateur generated video content posted publicly.
2a. Older 2 channel material would have been created under the previous paradigm of level based specifications. As they were based on levels, rather than loudness, the same peak level can be made to sound louder, with EQ, compression and other processes that affect the perception of loudness. The loudness based specs actually allow higher peak levels than previously but overall (as an average), is quieter than previously (which allows for the larger dynamic range). The difference in volume (on unregulated distribution platforms) between older content and adverts is therefore almost certain to be less than the difference between content compliant with loudness specs and the adverts.

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> Where the loudness specs are an Act of Law, the law only covers broadcasters/cable distribution content providers, not online streaming services. If the law applied to online content it would effectively kill YouTube, Vimeo, vBlogs and any other consumer/amateur generated video content posted publicly.



I thought YT, Spotify, and other streaming services already had their own loudness standards, like -12 or -16LUFS or something.  Automatical levelling would occur when viewers played stuff off them.

And how would standardized loudness "kill" streamers?  I for one hate it when I'm listening to a YT playlist, and I constantly have to adjust volume after every 1-2 songs, or, get blasted out by a commercial(commercials were worst thing ever to happen to YT!)


----------



## KeithEmo

I think quite a few people are unclear about exactly what we're talking about in terms of things like "loudness standards".
When we're talking about listening to things in your own home, on your own TV, or your own speakers or headphones, there are no "loudness limits" whatsoever.
It may be possible to regulate how loud a theater, or a concert hall, is allowed to set their sound system, but nobody can regulate how loud your speakers or headphones can go.
Nobody can prevent you from buying huge speakers, huge amplifiers, and turning up the Nascar show so the cars are just as loud on TV as they were in person.
Or turning your headphones up loud enugh to match the levels of a real rock concert - or a real battlefield.
(The loudest spots on a digital recording will be at or near "0 dB" - which will play however loudly you set your system to play it.)

What we're talking about here are things like percieved loudness and dynamic range.

For example, it's physically impossible to "jack up the maximum level of TV commercials so they're ridiculously loud" (they can only play as loudly as your TV is able to play them).
What they were doing was reducing the levels of the normal dialog, so you'd turn the volume up, so, when the commercials came on, they were _relatively_ very loud.
Or deliberately cutting down the bass, and boosting the midrange, so the commercials would sound louder and more insistent, even at the same maximum peak dB SPL level.
Or using dynamic compression to raise the average level.
(The loudest things stay the same loudness. But the quietest things, and the middle things, are boosted, so the average level is increased.)
If you use a lot more "upwards compression" on the commercials than on the regular show dialog you can make their _average_ level _relatively_ a lot louder.
(Arguably, in "the bad old days", they were deliberately playing the show very quietly... so they could "trick you" into turning the volume way up... so they could make the commercials louder.)

I should also point out that, in reality, almost nobody wants dynamic range that's actually realistic.
If Dirty Harry fired that 44 Magnum a half dozen times in that office, and the movie actually played a real recording without compression, you wouldn't have to worry about the dialog.
Because, if you weren't wearing hearing protection, you wouldn't hear much of anything for several minutes - and might well suffer permanent hearing damage.
And, yes, there's a reason why the guys you see on those Nascar pit videos are all wearing ear protection.
And you don't even want to think about how loud a real jet engine at close range, or a rocket blastoff, or a grenade going off, or even a gunshot, really is.
Therefore, in most cases, what we really want is an intelligent compromise between "real", and "what will deliver a _sense _of realism".

I have a suggestion - for anyone who's never done it before.....

Today, you can purchase a small digital recorder, with built in coincident stereo microphones, for a few hundred dollars (from folks like Zoom, and Tascam, and Roland, among many others.)
These little devices are actually capable of recording with quite good fidelity.
In other words, just turn it on, and it will do a pretty good job of recording exactly what's going on - with reasonably low distortion and flat frequency response.
Ask a buddy who plays at your local bar if you can record him some night...
Or offer to record a few choir performances for your local church pastor...
Try it a few times and you'll find out very quickly how difficult it is to "just make a recording that sounds like the real thing"...
You'll be amazed at how work, and editing, and adjusting, will be needed to make a recording that even remotely _sounds like_ you _didn't_ alter it...

Note:
It's proper etiquette, and also legally a good idea, to ask before recording someone... 
However, these days, when everyone has a phone with a video camera and a recorder, you might be surprised how many bar bands and church pastors will welcome
"a good quality recording so they can hear what they sound like and maybe post it on their web page".
(You will usually find people more receptive if you promise them a copy of the final edited recording - and promise not to sell it or use it commercially.)
You may find it quite enlightening exactly how much work goes into "making a simple recording that sounds natural".



TheSonicTruth said:


> I thought YT, Spotify, and other streaming services already had their own loudness standards, like -12 or -16LUFS or something.  Automatical levelling would occur when viewers played stuff off them.
> 
> And how would standardized loudness "kill" streamers?  I for one hate it when I'm listening to a YT playlist, and I constantly have to adjust volume after every 1-2 songs, or, get blasted out by a commercial(commercials were worst thing ever to happen to YT!)


----------



## bigshot (Jun 22, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Soooo... Which of the two - 2ch or 5.1 -  is worse in that regard?  confused



The operative phrase was "older" not necessarily the number of channels. Older movies, like ones from the 40s, would sound more controlled dynamically because they are compressed and mixed for clarity with a more limited dynamic range. They are normalized up to peak level and this means their overall level is likely to sound louder. So you turn the volume down a bit to compensate. When a commercial comes up at peak level, it isn't a great contrast.

A modern dynamic soundtrack might go to commercial at a very low level in a quiet passage, and the contrast in volume compared to the normalized up commercial would be more jarring. For low level late night listening, more compressed dynamics is preferable. If you are giving the program your full attention and the volume is higher, a dynamic program might be better.

Of course commercials are always a pain.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 22, 2019)

bigshot said:


> They are normalized up to peak level a



And ^that^ right there is one of the single biggest contributors to this loudness issue in the digital and the broadcast realms.

To borrow this diagram, from the book of  a mastering engineer who I have shaken the hand of and hold in higher regard than most - sorry Greg, sorry Ludwig, and Lord-Alge) - the right-hand diagram represents(in principle) the loudness situation during the pre-digital VU analog meter era(basically from the birth of metering up to the early 1980s) and also the ideal we must aim for and return to.

Imagine that '-24' figure and associated red line in that right hand version to represent the zero on any typical VU meter manufactured between WW2 and the '80s.  That zero, and the 2dB above and below it on a typical VU, is the sweet spot where both producers and deliverers of broadcast content kept the needles on their recorders, mixers, and master output faders, effectively guaranteeing loudness consistency 90% of the time...






The left diagram, of course, represents the path digital, since its advent,  has taken us down - literally into the sub-basement level - with it's early _peak-based-maximize-level-while-avoiding-clipping_ mantra: 'aim for 0dB' Full Scale.  Effective bit-depth utilization is guaranteed, while average levels - how we perceive loudness - are given zero regard, and are all over the frickn' place.  Notice the loudness difference between columns #4('avg broadcast') and #7('bcast commercial') in that peak-norm. diagram - no WONDER content viewers are scrambling for their TV remotes (or ripping their earbuds out of their skulls!)  to check their volume during commercial sets!


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 22, 2019)

My Apple TV has a “reduce loud sounds” option in the audio settings. It says it helps you reduce loud sounds so you can listen to movies and music without disturbing others, but still hear all of the details. I am wondering if it does some combination of reducing peaks, applying compression, and applying EQ to enhance listening at low levels.

I can’t believe all of the different sound options in all of my devices. I never appreciated it until I started digging through menus the last few days. It seems so complex for a normal person to get their arms around. Not easily understood or well documented.

Just this 13-page FAQ from Dolby gives me a headache:

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-digital.pdf

Someone just tell me what button to press already.  Right now I have most everything on every device set to “auto” and I just hope it’s all playing nice together.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 22, 2019)

You cut out the context of what I was talking about... I was talking about movies from the 40s. Those movies had optical soundtracks and were intended to be viewed in theaters. They were compressed for a very good reason. If movies back in the 40s had massively wide dynamic ranges, half the soundtrack would be buried in noise and audiences would be straining to hear what was going on. The focus was on BALANCE and CLARITY. That is much more important than just wide dynamics. Different applications require different compression levels. More isn't better. The right amount mixed for balance and clarity is.

Steve999, your document there has the answer to the original problem we were discussing. Dolby has a feature called Dialogue Normalization, which keeps dialogue clear over the music at different volume levels. See number 23.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> You cut out the context of what I was talking about... I was talking about movies from the 40s. Those movies had optical soundtracks and were intended to be viewed in theaters. They were compressed for a very good reason. If movies back in the 40s had massively wide dynamic ranges, half the soundtrack would be buried in noise and audiences would be straining to hear what was going on. The focus was on BALANCE and CLARITY. That is much more important than just wide dynamics. Different applications require different compression levels. More isn't better. The right amount mixed for balance and clarity is.
> 
> Steve999, your document there has the answer to the original problem we were discussing. Dolby has a feature called Dialogue Normalization, which keeps dialogue clear over the music at different volume levels. See number 23.




Based on the diagram I just posted, it is possible for both heavily-DRC'd material and highly dynamic content to coexist. Meters with a loudness-ballistic(vs.  peak based) algorithm should be mandatory, on pocket digital recorders, digital mixing consoles, and digital processors.  A peak indicator could be provided, which remains green when peaks are below a specific threshold, turn yellow, then orange, and then red at the onset of clipping.  0 itself already has several suggested standards, ranging from LUFS-16 down to -24.


----------



## old tech (Jun 22, 2019)

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, that is somewhat naive. Each have somewhat different requirements for hifi reproduction. For example, movies have what's called the "x-curve" which is applied to the monitoring (B-chain) during mixing and reproduction (although this isn't applicable to home reproduction), TV is essentially flat and the common/usual trend for several decades with music is for a house curve with a raised bass but as there are no mandated specifications/requirements (unlike TV and film) this house curve can essentially be whatever the individual studio wants. In general, a slightly raised bass in the consumer reproduction chain would therefore give a more hi-fidelity reproduction and many/most consumer transducers have this built-in (for example, it's one of the typical differences between a "speaker" and a "monitor"). A flat response will certainly give a more hi-fi reproduction than whatever is the natural response of speakers+room acoustics in a consumer listening environment but ideally, most of the time, for the highest-fidelity music reproduction, you should achieve a flat response and then raise the bass a little. A flat response is therefore somewhat of an audiophile myth.
> G


I have to say I'm a bit confused with this.  Is what you are saying that mastering for music playback includes a bump in the lower frequencies?

I have never heard that transducers (speakers) or other equipment in the playback chain have a sort of reverse bump built in.  I have never seen it in frequency response curves (always exceptions of course, but I mean in the general sense) of speakers/playback equipment/recorded material and why would it be necessary in the first place - ie why would studios include that emphasis and then the consumer industry design around it?  Is there a specific standard around it for studios and consumer manufacturers to follow? What about mastering destined for vinyl which the format inherently emphasises the mid-bass due to the inaccuracies of that medium.  Wouldn't it make it worse?

I admit I am no expert in audio engineering but I did spend quite a bit of time in a well known Melbourne studio through a friend that worked there.  I never noticed an intentional bump in the lower frequencies in the mastering process, except when it was part of a bag of tricks to improve the sound.

Lastly, while it is true that professional studio monitors are flat and on their own do not go very deep, many studios augment their monitors with sub(s) to reach right down into the lower registers.  Ian Sheppard had a podcast on this and other mastering engineers that contributed to that episode said they do the same after spending time "tuning" the sub to integrate seamlessly with the monitors.   How would this play out if the typical home hi fi adds another 3db to the lower frequencies.

G, I'm not being critical or necessarily doubting what you say, it is just that it is the first time I've heard of it and I haven't seen specs of recorded material or home hi fidelity speakers that are tuned to reverse a 3db gain.


----------



## KeithEmo

What you suggest makes sense but, unfortunately, the reality is somewhat more complex.

The real world has a huge dynamic range. Our ears, and our brains, routinely apply what amounts to a massive amount of very long term dynamic range compression. At night, when it's quiet, your ears become so sensitive you can hear crickets, and the kitchen faucet dripping. During the day, at the office, they reduce their sensitivity to accommodate hearing normal conversation, while not being deafened by the copier. And, when you go to a concert, they adjust again. The catch is that these adjustments occur over a variety of time frames, from a few seconds, to many minutes, often far longer than the duration of a commercial, or a scene in a TV show, and over a truly impressive range of loudness levels. More importantly, since your brain is controlling them, they remain for the most part unnoticed. For example, when you start your car, your ears do in fact physically adjust to reduce their sensitivity. However, your brain, realizing that you're starting the car, or that a car is approaching down the street, also adjusts itself to be perceptually less sensitive... and it interacts with your ears to proactively prepare them for the loud noise to follow. So, when you hear the car start, your brain is already prepared to compare that sound to what it expects a car engine to sound like. However, you're not expecting that loud commercial, which is part of why it's so jarring. When that TV show jumps from a bedroom scene, to an office scene, to a scene at the race track, your ears don't have the same time to adjust. And, since your brain isn't involved in the process, it doesn't receive the same cues about what levels to expect. This is why there is both art and science in determining the best compromise. and ignores. 

The result of all this is that how things fit together gets very complicated.
Take three clips, a commercial, a quiet woodland scene, and a scene in a crowded bar.
All three may be "within reasonable loudness and dynamic range limits".
Yet the commercial may seem terribly loud if it pops into the middle of the woodland scene...
But that same commercial may be almost inaudible if dropped into the middle of the barroom scene...
Figuring out what levels would make the commercial seem "equally loud and annoying" in both situations is a very complex process.
There is no "meter" that can recognize whether your commercial is going to be played in the middle of a televised concert or a quiet scene in the woods (a leats not yet).

And, to make matters worse, all of this also depends on the absolute listening level, because our hearing sensitivity is far from linear.
So, if two sounds are carefully adjusted so that one sounds a certain amount louder than another... that relationship will only be true at a certain _absolute_ level.
Turn the volume up or down, and the apparent difference in loudness will itself change because of the nonlinearity of our hearing.

The upshot is that you not only need to use compression to reduce the overall dynamic range...
But the amount you use must itself vary depending on the absolute level at which you're listening...

There are a variety of "midnight modes" and "automatic volume controls" that attempt to do this - with varying success.
Some attempt to "figure things out and level them" automatically.
Others, like Dolby Volume, themselves operate based on settings that are programmed into the disc itself by the sound engineer.
Dolby Volume is a standard. 
The producer of the disc programs its behavior into the disc.
The equipment you play it on then applies those settings when you enable it (and you have choices about how it does so.)

Most mixing consoles and mastering programs do support a variety of these sorts of options... and many support the latest "perceptual loudness control standards".
Many pocket recorders also offer limiting and compression options.
(However, in general, you're better off laaving them off, and applying adjustments more carefully when you create the mix.)



TheSonicTruth said:


> Based on the diagram I just posted, it is possible for both heavily-DRC'd material and highly dynamic content to coexist. Meters with a loudness-ballistic(vs.  peak based) algorithm should be mandatory, on pocket digital recorders, digital mixing consoles, and digital processors.  A peak indicator could be provided, which remains green when peaks are below a specific threshold, turn yellow, then orange, and then red at the onset of clipping.  0 itself already has several suggested standards, ranging from LUFS-16 down to -24.


----------



## Davesrose

old tech said:


> I have to say I'm a bit confused with this.  Is what you are saying that mastering for music playback includes a bump in the lower frequencies?


I would never speak for Gregorio, but I do know that there is a discrepancy with frequency curves with different environments.  One genre that I know has a natural delineation with higher frequencies is auditoriums with live symphonies.  I'm in Atlanta, which has done the main Telarc recordings for symphonies.  I've heard that when they do a recording, they place sheets of wood over all seats to help mitigate decay.

Since upgrading my home theater receiver to a new Denon, I've also noticed it has settings that say "cinema" that can slightly roll off treble: with "Cinema EQ" their reasoning is that there can be higher treble in a home system vs center channel theater that's behind a screen.

These are just a couple examples of frequency curves...I can see that there would be many others.


----------



## Davesrose (Jun 22, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> What you suggest makes sense but, unfortunately, the reality is somewhat more complex.
> 
> The real world has a huge dynamic range. Our ears, and our brains, routinely apply what amounts to a massive amount of very long term dynamic range compression. At night, when it's quiet, your ears become so sensitive you can hear crickets, and the kitchen faucet dripping. During the day, at the office, they reduce their sensitivity to accommodate hearing normal conversation, while not being deafened by the copier. And, when you go to a concert, they adjust again. The catch is that these adjustments occur over a variety of time frames, from a few seconds, to many minutes, often far longer than the duration of a commercial, or a scene in a TV show, and over a truly impressive range of loudness levels. More importantly, since your brain is controlling them, they remain for the most part unnoticed. For example, when you start your car, your ears do in fact physically adjust to reduce their sensitivity. However, your brain, realizing that you're starting the car, or that a car is approaching down the street, also adjusts itself to be perceptually less sensitive... and it interacts with your ears to proactively prepare them for the loud noise to follow. So, when you hear the car start, your brain is already prepared to compare that sound to what it expects a car engine to sound like. However, you're not expecting that loud commercial, which is part of why it's so jarring. When that TV show jumps from a bedroom scene, to an office scene, to a scene at the race track, your ears don't have the same time to adjust. And, since your brain isn't involved in the process, it doesn't receive the same cues about what levels to expect. This is why there is both art and science in determining the best compromise. and ignores.



I have  medical background, so I'll have to pick this apart.  There's no set time in which your ears become more sensitive.  If anything, I'd say many people's auditory systems become more dull during night-time because of what other stimulus they've added  When you say your ears adjust during a concert, it greatly depends on what kind of concert.  An acoustic performance will be much different than a concert with loudspeakers at high volumes.  With the loud concert, at "damaging" levels, your ears will adjust as a defense: middle ear muscles will clamp down and you'll have less sensitivity with frequency range.  These are during a period of time.  I drive a Prius, so there's no effect with my engine start....but even the loudest engine: that's too short of a time to effect your autonomic system.  Instead of your hypothetical of driving down the road in a car, another factor for hearing can be your diet (if you don't have proper nutrients).  Finally, when it comes to loud ads, it shouldn't be an art: it's measurable.

I know my complaint about Vudu's free with ads content has to do with it not being part of the TV broadcast standard: but it is what more and more of what audiences are encountering (as we cut the broadcast TV ties).


----------



## old tech

Davesrose said:


> I would never speak for Gregorio, but I do know that there is a discrepancy with frequency curves with different environments.  One genre that I know has a natural delineation with higher frequencies is auditoriums with live symphonies.  I'm in Atlanta, which has done the main Telarc recordings for symphonies.  I've heard that when they do a recording, they place sheets of wood over all seats to help mitigate decay.
> 
> Since upgrading my home theater receiver to a new Denon, I've also noticed it has settings that say "cinema" that can slightly roll off treble: with "Cinema EQ" their reasoning is that there can be higher treble in a home system vs center channel theater that's behind a screen.
> 
> These are just a couple examples of frequency curves...I can see that there would be many others.


I can understand that with the production side, there are all sorts of recording, mixing and mastering tricks to achieve the wanted sound.  I can also understand mastering for the intended audience, eg compromises in order to sound good on a variety of home, car and other environments, that sort of thing.  But why would there be an assumption that most home speakers need a specific 3db bump in the lower register?  And more to your point, wouldn't the assumption be that most listeners of symphonies would have a decent stereo and a quiet environment? Why alter the mastering for a specific case of listeners that use certain AV settings - unless of course the CD, SACD (for 5.1) or whatever specifically states that the listener should use a particular setting on their gear?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> Yet the commercial may seem terribly loud if it pops into the middle of the woodland scene...



Don't even, Keith!

I've been jarred by commercials coming out of a Nascar race in progress, green flag conditions not caution, mind you.

And what I was illustrating with those graphs is that such nonsense can be fixed - if enough viewers complain, and if TV station want to.


----------



## analogsurviver

Davesrose said:


> I would never speak for Gregorio, but I do know that there is a discrepancy with frequency curves with different environments.  One genre that I know has a natural delineation with higher frequencies is auditoriums with live symphonies.  I'm in Atlanta, which has done the main Telarc recordings for symphonies.  I've heard that when they do a recording, they place sheets of wood over all seats to help mitigate decay.
> 
> Since upgrading my home theater receiver to a new Denon, I've also noticed it has settings that say "cinema" that can slightly roll off treble: with "Cinema EQ" their reasoning is that there can be higher treble in a home system vs center channel theater that's behind a screen.
> 
> These are just a couple examples of frequency curves...I can see that there would be many others.



You are definitely on the right track here. As I never would record in a studio and infinitely prefer live recording in real venues, one can not deny that there WILL be mistakes in playing in live concerts .... - and musicians just don't like them to land on the finished product.

So, logical would be to record in the same venue - but without the audience, so repeating recording of the difficult passages is possible. Right ?

Erm... not quite. There are very few venues that do not change acoustics with audience present and without - and recording without audience would simply not sound right. Audience represents a considerable ( in some cases close to 100% ) portion of absorption - thus having a great effect on decay. Even IF one could obtain "real fake audience" to just seat quietly during the recording session ( most unlike what one as a concert goer experiences live ; stopping for mistakes, repeating the portion of score until satisfied, pauses, "I think we should redo from bar x to bar y, because I did not sing/play at my best" by any (number of ) players/singers, interruptions by traffic ( mostly aircraft taking off/landing - audible from miles around the airfield ) etc, etc. )) - in real world only performers and recording crew is really interestin in making the recording right. No "real fake audience" would seat - for the better part of the day, sometimes evening/night, into the vee hours - at exactly the same spot during all of the recording, interrupted by necesarry breaks. But it is indispensable for having the "acoustics" consistent across the entire recording session/s)

It has been a long journey from when I first started recording to where things stand today. And the biggest obstacle has been the treating of the acoustics of venues for the lack of audience. It can be done in many ways - above mentioned used by Telarc being just one of them. And, yes, this alone creates not only decay as desired, but also some kind of "curve".

The similar can be said for any recording studio. No studio is "neutral" - each has its own sonic stamp, dependant both on the equipment used and more, much more on the taste/decisions  of the people who work in the studio. And there are cases that explicitely mentions the equipment used for monitoring during recording and/or mastering - which, ideally, should be also used by the end user. It is up to the recording engineer/producer to decide for which segment of the audience/market to  adjust the finished product for - havingit accurately flat down to (insert any number below 100 Hz you feel is appropriate ) to sound right on big full range speakers in large room ( expensive...)  - or being bumped a few dB in bass, to sound appealing on smaller speaker much more people can afford. The later intended deviation from a flat curve, although technically/scientifically not nice, can mean worlds of difference in recording sales.


----------



## sander99

old tech said:


> I have to say I'm a bit confused with this. Is what you are saying that mastering for music playback includes a bump in the lower frequencies?
> 
> I have never heard that transducers (speakers) or other equipment in the playback chain have a sort of reverse bump built in.



I guess you missed my question and G.'s answer. There is no inverse bump in the playback chain, but a bump. There is no bump in the audio track resulting from the mix, but there is a bump in the monitor system that they listen to during mixing. Because of this bump there will be an inverse bump in the resulting audio track (see bold part below).



sander99 said:


> What exactly do you mean with "If a particular music recording was mixed with say a 3dB hump in the bass", do you mean that the 3 dB hump was only in the monitor system that the engineer was using during mixing and not in the resulting sound track, or do you mean that the 3 dB hump was actually in the resulting sound track?





gregorio said:


> It's only in the monitoring chain and therefore what's in the track is the inverse. *When the producer/musicians get the balance they want, the track would contain 3dB lower bass, corresponding to the 3dB raised bass in the monitoring system.* On playback, a similar 3dB raised bass (to the studio's 3dB raised bass) will give the correct balance/higher fidelity, while a flat reproduction would result in 3dB too little bass (and therefore lower fidelity).



Nevertheless, I do think this is a somewhat strange situation, maybe just a case of a "de facto situation", a situation that was not originally planned or aimed for but somehow resulted from history.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

sander99 said:


> Nevertheless, I do think this is a
> somewhat strange situation, maybe just a case of a "de facto situation", a situation that was
> not originally planned or aimed for but somehow resulted from history.



Yeah, Calbi needs to clarify this in terms most ordinary folk can understand.  Julian Hirsch: where are you when we need you!  RIP good man.


----------



## old tech

sander99 said:


> I guess you missed my question and G.'s answer. There is no inverse bump in the playback chain, but a bump. There is no bump in the audio track resulting from the mix, but there is a bump in the monitor system that they listen to during mixing. Because of this bump there will be an inverse bump in the resulting audio track (see bold part below).
> Nevertheless, I do think this is a somewhat strange situation, maybe just a case of a "de facto situation", a situation that was not originally planned or aimed for but somehow resulted from history.


Yes, I understood it is an inverse bump in the audio track, hence the point that an ideal home hi fi should raise that frequency (whatever that is) by 3db.  But why is there a bump in the monitor system in the first place, necessitating consumer hi fi be engineered to counteract it?  It seems entirely unnecessary and somewhat surprising that a 21st century studio cannot have a perfectly flat frequency response from 20hz to 20khz when a reasonably flat response is achievable in a home listening environment.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 23, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] I thought YT, Spotify, and other streaming services already had their own loudness standards, like -12 or -16LUFS or something. Automatical levelling would occur when viewers played stuff off them. .... I for one hate it when I'm listening to a YT playlist, and I constantly have to adjust volume after every 1-2 songs, or, get blasted out by a commercial(commercials were worst thing ever to happen to YT!)
> [2] And how would standardized loudness "kill" streamers?


1. You are contradicting yourself: If YT had implemented a loudness standard then you would not "_constantly have to adjust volume after every 1-2 songs_", you would never have to adjust the volume because it would be the same between all the songs and commercials! YT does reportedly have their own loudness standards (which equate to about -13LUFS) but obviously they haven't applied this to everything, exactly how and when they apply it isn't known. Also, when loudness normalisation is applied, it would have to be applied during ingest, not playback.
2. Most home/amateur videos are made with mic's built into video recording device (digital camera, mobile phone, etc.) and then posted with little/no audio processing, which almost invariably results in a relatively high noise floor. Applying loudness normalisation automatically on ingest would require adding a considerable amount of compression and make-up gain, which would result in a considerable increase in the noise floor and render the dialogue (and/or other wanted sound) of most home videos unintelligible. The other option would be for the public to get the necessary audio tools, learn how to use them and apply their own loudness normalisation before posting but that's a lot of time/effort, they just want to post their home videos/vBlogs, not learn audio post. Neither option would be acceptable and therefore if loudness normalisation were imposed, video distribution platforms which rely on content supplied by consumers would be "killed"!


TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] To borrow this diagram, from the book of  a mastering engineer who I have shaken the hand of and hold in higher regard than most - sorry Greg, sorry Ludwig, and Lord-Alge)
> [2] - the right-hand diagram represents(in principle) the loudness situation during the pre-digital VU analog meter era(basically from the birth of metering up to the early 1980s)
> [2a] ... and also the ideal we must aim for and return to.
> [3] Imagine that '-24' figure and associated red line in that right hand version to represent the zero on any typical VU meter manufactured between WW2 and the '80s.
> ...


1. Clearly, just shaking someone's hand does not mean you have any understanding of what they're saying!!

2. No it does NOT, you actually have this backwards! The left hand diagram represent the loudness situation of both the VU (analogue) meter era and the digital era before loudness normalisation. The right hand diagram represents the era of loudness normalisation, which cannot be achieved with a VU or any other analogue meter and can only be done in the digital era!
2a. So the peak (or "quasi peak" in the case of a VU and other QPPMs) level specifications as opposed to the loudness specifications is the "ideal" that we must aim to return to? The "ideal" that encouraged huge amounts of compression and other processing which allows the audio to sound louder without increasing the peak (or quasi-peak) levels. This is the exact opposite of what you've previously incessantly argued, that the "ideal" is less compression and more dynamic range!

3. I have great difficulty in "imagining that" because a typical VU or any other type of meter manufactured between ww2 and the '80's cannot measure loudness ONLY quasi-peak levels!
3a. Firstly, if producers kept the needles within plus or minus 2dB of the VU zero point, then the end result would have no more than 4dB dynamic range, which would in most cases require pretty heavy compression to maintain. Secondly, it would absolutely NOT "guarantee loudness consistency 90% of the time", a VU meter does not measure loudness, it measures the quasi-peak levels and it's mainly due to this fact that the TV commercials were so much louder than the programmes!!

Additionally, I presume you're talking about Bob Katz? Bob is an extremely knowledgeable, experienced and highly respected professional music mastering engineer, however, he's not a film or TV re-recording mixer. The charts you posted are not correct (or you are posting them out of context). Cinema Movies do not have any loudness normalisation but if you take theatrical mixes and measure their LUFS value, they should on average come out at around -32dBLUFS, not -24LUFS. However, this is a rough average and varies significantly, a big action/war blockbuster will obviously have a higher LUFS than say a gentle period drama (which is likely to be more around -35dBLUFS). This is one of the most compelling current arguments against applying loudness normalisation to cinema movies, filmmakers do not want a drama film to be the same loudness as say the loudest action packed war films.

4. and finally, NO, it doesn't!


TheSonicTruth said:


> Meters with a loudness-ballistic(vs. peak based) algorithm should be mandatory, on pocket digital recorders, digital mixing consoles, and digital processors. A peak indicator could be provided, which remains green when peaks are below a specific threshold, turn yellow, then orange, and then red at the onset of clipping. 0 itself already has several suggested standards, ranging from LUFS-16 down to -24.


With this post and the post I've responded to above, you are demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what loudness normalisation actually is, or how it works! Loudness normalisation/specifications is a series of measurements of the signal which has had a filter (that roughly corresponds to a loudness contour) and gating applied and then all these short term measurements are averaged over the duration of the program to arrive at the LUFS (or in the case of the ATSC, LKFS) value.

Your suggestion is therefore clearly nonsense! What "loudness-ballistic algorithm" could there possibly be that accurately measures what hasn't happened and hasn't been recorded yet and then creates an average which incudes those measurements? There's only two possible ways of achieving a particular LUFS/LKFS value: A. To do so in audio post, after all the recording has been completed and can therefore be measured/analysed or B. To provide a running total of what the LUFS is so far, highly restrict the peak levels and dynamic range of what will be recorded and then, with relatively minor real time adjustments, the LUFS value can be maintained. It should be obvious that "B" is the only option for the live broadcast of sports events but it requires "setting the rack" (as you put it) just so, and "easing off" the compression would make it more difficult or impossible to comply with the LUFS spec/legal requirement.



Steve999 said:


> [1] I can’t believe all of the different sound options in all of my devices. I never appreciated it until I started digging through menus the last few days. It seems so complex for a normal person to get their arms around. Not easily understood or well documented.
> [2] Someone just tell me what button to press already.  Right now I have most everything on every device set to “auto” and I just hope it’s all playing nice together.



1. It is complicated for the consumer and under the hood, it's far more complicated.

2. What button to press depends on what you want. "Auto" will typically give you what the average consumer wants, the average consumer with a decent/average sound system in a decent/average listening environment. If it's late at night and you don't want to disturb the neighbours/children, choosing a higher compression scheme, often called "night mode" or something similar (and a lower volume) will probably give you what you want. If on the other hand you've got a better than decent/average consumer system and listening environment, don't have to worry about disturbing anyone else and want the full dynamic range actually contained in the dolby datastream, then you should turn off the dialogue normalisation and compression and turn up your volume to suit. Incidentally, "off" for dialogue normalisation is normally represented as "-31" and you should check this after you start the film/program as some AVRs will override your settings with the settings in the dolby metadata. Lastly, you'll have to experiment, even if this is what you want, depending on the individual mix, it might not always give better results plus, exactly what your AVR is doing and is calling these parameters is often not easy to fathom!



old tech said:


> [1] I have never seen it in frequency response curves (always exceptions of course, but I mean in the general sense) of speakers/playback equipment/recorded material and why would it be necessary in the first place - [1a] ie why would studios include that emphasis and then the consumer industry design around it?
> [2] Is there a specific standard around it for studios and consumer manufacturers to follow?
> [2a] What about mastering destined for vinyl which the format inherently emphasises the mid-bass due to the inaccuracies of that medium. Wouldn't it make it worse?



1. Virtually no consumer speakers are full range (20Hz - 20kHz), even very good ones tend to roll-off quite severely by about 40Hz and start rolling-off around 50Hz - 60Hz and of course, most consumers don't own "very good speakers". Many consumer speaker manufacturers slightly boost the bass freqs to try and compensate for bass freqs their speakers can't reproduce at all or can't reproduce powerfully enough. Also, many consumers add more bass with their tone controls. I'm sure you probably know consumers who do this but how many consumers do you know who reduce the bass on their 2 speaker stereo systems?
1a. No, it's the other way around. Mastering is the process of taking the studio mix and adjusting it to sound as intended when played back by the consumer. If the consumer (or their equipment) is adding bass, then the mastering process needs to take this into account, by for example, likewise adding bass to their monitoring system/environment.

2. No, there are no standards for music studios, recording or mastering studios. There are for Film sound mixing studios but they are only applicable to cinemas, not home consumers and home consumers typically don't get the theatrical mix anyway. Many mastering studios are flat but then some/much of the mastering process occurs at very high playback levels which increases the perception of the amount of bass anyway. However, some do have a "house curve" and many recording/mix studios do.
2a. No, it would make it better. If the mastering studio had a "house curve" with a raised mid bass, then the master would contain less mid-bass and compensate for the "emphasised mid-bass" on vinyl. I've never mastered specifically for vinyl though, so I can't say exactly what they did/how they did it. Mastering specifically for vinyl pretty much died out many years ago, most vinyl today (and for the last couple of decades or so) is pressed from the same master as the digital releases and if the RIAA curve is applied at all, it's typically done by the pressing plant rather than the mastering engineer.



Davesrose said:


> Since upgrading my home theater receiver to a new Denon, I've also noticed it has settings that say "cinema" that can slightly roll off treble: with "Cinema EQ" their reasoning is that there can be higher treble in a home system vs center channel theater that's behind a screen.



Yes, the treble can effectively be too high in a theatrical mix ... due to the use of the x-curve. Your system would therefore in theory also have to roll-off the treble (as per the x-curve) in order to get a perceptually flat response. Of course though, this assumes you are reproducing the theatrical mix, which typically isn't the case, typically you're reproducing a BluRay or TV mix (which are not made with the x-curve in the monitoring chain). Unfortunately, it can be difficult to know, as even films/versions listed as "Original Theatrical Cut" or "Mix" quite commonly aren't. Personally, I'd leave that setting "off", the x-curve is actually quite a complex thing, in that it depends on the HF perception of reproduced sound in a large room (such as a cinema) and therefore even if you are listening to a theatrical mix, trying to compensate for the x-curve might not be appropriate in your relatively small room, hence why I said "in theory" above. If you're interested in more than my oversimplified assertion/explanation, try this article, it's short, easy to understand and accurate.

G


----------



## KeithEmo (Jun 23, 2019)

I think you misunderstand the situation at a very basic level.

1) It is the advertisers, and not the viewers, who are the "paying customers" for a TV or radio show.
1a) The paying customers (the advertisers) want their commercials to reach the most viewers overall.
1b) The significant metrics are how many people watch the show and how many people watch the show to the end (called a "stickiness" rating)... and NOT how happy they are.
      (That only matters if they become so unhappy that they change the channel.)
      (In the case of NASCAR - most people will watch to the end because they want to see who wins.)
2) The advertisers want their commercials to stand out and grab your attention... whether that means being funnier, being more pleasing, showing sexier spokespersons, or simply playing louder.
      (And they want to be especially sure you hear their commercial when you wander into the next room to grab a beer during that commercial break.)

Obviously, if those annoying commercials were _annoying enough to actually get people to stop watching the show_, then there would be sufficient motivation to "fix" the situation.
Or, if you could actually convince the advertisers that you would avoid purchasing their product as a protest against their annoying commercials, that would also convince them.
However, the reality is that they already know, from long experience, that this rarely if ever happens.
In fact, historically, the most effective commercials have been either the ones everyone likes, or the ones that are "so annoying everybody remembers them"...

In most major brand advertising the goal is usually something called "brand recognition".
This means that they want you to remember their name of their product - so it seems familiar the next time you go shopping.
In this context, a commercial that you remember because you hate it is almost as effective as one that you remember for some other reason.
And, apparently, in reality, people rarely avoid buying a product because they find the commercials annoying (more often the gruimble about the ads - then buy the product anyway).
(Are you really going to stop watching NASCAR because the level of the commercials annoys you? Really?)
Unfortunately, this means that, to the advertiser, annoying the audience isn't necessarily a bad thing - unless you can convince them that it will actually cost them viewers.

I suspect you'll find that the few public service announcements on NPR stations are played at relatively reasonable levels.
That's because their listeners really are _their_ paying customers (because you presumably have some influence over their funding).

I should point out something else....
For most people I know the volume level of commercials is NOT their most objectionable characteristic.
Here's what most people I know find most annoying about commercials:
1) The sheer number of them (between 14 and 21 minutes out of every hour)
2) "Bottom thirds" (those annoying commercials that play during the show - that you can't avoid because they play at the same time as the parts you want to see).



TheSonicTruth said:


> Don't even, Keith!
> 
> I've been jarred by commercials coming out of a Nascar race in progress, green flag conditions not caution, mind you.
> 
> And what I was illustrating with those graphs is that such nonsense can be fixed - if enough viewers complain, and if TV station want to.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> 1. You are contradicting yourself: If
> YT had implemented a loudness standard then you would not "_constantly have to adjust
> volume after every 1-2 songs_", you would never have to adjust the volume because it would
> be the same between all the songs and commercia



Not all content in YT playlists(self-created or ones I have favorited)  has been loudness normalized.  In some playlists, I have to rush to turn down the volume for an outlier song or commercial.



gregorio said:


> does NOT, you actually have this backwards!



You say that all the time to me!  It's a political tool, used to deflect attention from the truth.  You're good Greg!  You should run for office.



gregorio said:


> r. The charts you posted are not correct



Tell Mr. Katz that - they're from his book.


That's why, at the mastering engineers resort retreat, there are two pools: One containing Katz & Diament, and another containing you and all the rest.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 23, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Not all content in YT playlists(self-created or ones I have favorited)  has been loudness normalized.  In some playlists, I have to rush to turn down the volume for an outlier song or commercial.



I don't think YouTube normalizes anything. They just take what you upload. If it works in a playlist, that's because the recording was mastered to work well in shuffle mode.



TheSonicTruth said:


> Based on the diagram I just posted, it is possible for both heavily-DRC'd material and highly dynamic content to coexist. Meters with a loudness-ballistic(vs.  peak based) algorithm should be mandatory, on pocket digital recorders, digital mixing consoles, and digital processors.



I'm not talking about how sound is represented graphically. I'm talking about mastering for a specific purpose. sound in movies in the 40s were compressed to optimize them for the expected venue and playback system. It's no different today. If most people are listening to music with phones and earbuds on the street, you don't want to master them the same as for high end home stereos in silent listening rooms.


----------



## danadam (Jun 23, 2019)

When you right-click on a video and select "Stats for nerds" then an overlay box will show up and one of the things displayed there is how much the volume is reduced:




In the attachment https://cdn.head-fi.org/a/10310926.zip there is a 30 seconds of the downloaded stream (opus converted to flac, in case your player doesn't support opus) so you can compare the volume from youtube player to the actual volume "baked" in the file. For me the difference is clear. Here's the youtube link:


BTW isn't it strange that audio forum doesn't allow uploading audio files?


----------



## bigshot

Interesting. That's a neat trick. Thanks!


----------



## Davesrose

gregorio said:


> Yes, the treble can effectively be too high in a theatrical mix ... due to the use of the x-curve. Your system would therefore in theory also have to roll-off the treble (as per the x-curve) in order to get a perceptually flat response. Of course though, this assumes you are reproducing the theatrical mix, which typically isn't the case, typically you're reproducing a BluRay or TV mix (which are not made with the x-curve in the monitoring chain). Unfortunately, it can be difficult to know, as even films/versions listed as "Original Theatrical Cut" or "Mix" quite commonly aren't. Personally, I'd leave that setting "off", the x-curve is actually quite a complex thing, in that it depends on the HF perception of reproduced sound in a large room (such as a cinema) and therefore even if you are listening to a theatrical mix, trying to compensate for the x-curve might not be appropriate in your relatively small room, hence why I said "in theory" above. If you're interested in more than my oversimplified assertion/explanation, try this article, it's short, easy to understand and accurate.
> 
> G



Yeah, I've left "Cinema EQ" off as I notice it doesn't make a whole lot of difference with most movie tracks, and I could be using the same format for streaming TV series and music.  Interestingly, there's also the room calibration software from Audyssey that apart from adjusting levels and crossovers for all speakers, also has "Multi-EQ" (which has its own frequency curves).  It defaults to "Reference", which it says has another slight roll off in high frequencies to be optimized for movies.  It says "flat" is better for small rooms, but I notice it more noticeably has more upper mids (and probably a flatter response that's better for all uses).  It might also be that I notice more and more, thunderous bass is an ideal for action movie fans.  It is kind of funny how some people say just to use the automatic calibration with included mic and Audyssey setup, while others say you should do some of your own calibrations.  I have bought a SPL meter and laser measuring device to manually set speaker distance and levels for each speaker.  When I've switched between my measured levels vs Audessey's default distance/levels, the overall volume has seemed slight (though I think my measurements have helped keep the center channel clear and equalize my height speakers).

Interesting to read in your article about stark differences with cinema and room treatments.  You bring up another topic over theater master vs home media.  I would have thought some of the new standards in 4k/HDR/3D audio would mean home releases would need less attention to re-authoring.  My background is more video, and know cinema standards have had intermediates that are true 2K or 4K cinema resolutions (along with 10-12 bit color).  With 4K video, it's been reliant on h.265 to be able to have more file compression.  I'm sure there's also more compression with streaming services vs UHD discs.  But since more consumer products are UHD and support Dolby Vision, I would have assumed there might be less effort for re-scaling and adjust contrast for 8bit HD. I had also assumed the audio chain might be easier with movies first being mixed for cinema and then home systems having the same surround processor (IE, Atmos supporting 128 tracks): especially since even streaming now supports Atmos (albeit on a DD core instead of a disc's TrueHD core).  There are still many movies made with 2K or 3K intermediates (since 4K requires a lot of computing power: especially scenes with 3D VFX)....so scaling to UHD resolution is a given.  I would think color grading now is similar with cinema vs home media, so a lot of the re-authoring is setting resolution and optimal compression.  I assume an Atmos mix for cinema would have the same object information for the home master, but that certain EQ curves could be applied for the frequency differences with cinema vs home theater.  I've also noticed Netflix is having more and more of their series and movies in Atmos: I assume since it's direct to home, they don't ever need to apply these cinema standards.


----------



## dprimary

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, that is somewhat naive. Each have somewhat different requirements for hifi reproduction. For example, movies have what's called the "x-curve" which is applied to the monitoring (B-chain) during mixing and reproduction (although this isn't applicable to home reproduction), TV is essentially flat and the common/usual trend for several decades with music is for a house curve with a raised bass but as there are no mandated specifications/requirements (unlike TV and film) this house curve can essentially be whatever the individual studio wants. In general, a slightly raised bass in the consumer reproduction chain would therefore give a more hi-fidelity reproduction and many/most consumer transducers have this built-in (for example, it's one of the typical differences between a "speaker" and a "monitor"). A flat response will certainly give a more hi-fi reproduction than whatever is the natural response of speakers+room acoustics in a consumer listening environment but ideally, most of the time, for the highest-fidelity music reproduction, you should achieve a flat response and then raise the bass a little. A flat response is therefore somewhat of an audiophile myth.
> 
> 
> G




X-curve  (See SMPTE ST 202) is applied to the measurement window.  It is not really an eq curve. It is based on the average theater size of 500 seats, the x-curve is what was found to be the typical response in testing many 500 seat theaters (it was also developed a long time ago) What it does, is attempt to give you the same response in 100 seat theater or 2000 seat theater as it does in the 500 seat one. Dub stages are smaller than 500 seats so the response is set to mimic a 500 seat theater. So if you are in a small 20 seat room the air and room are not absorbing much the high and lows like the 500 seat room. A 200o seat room will be absorbing more than the 500 seat room.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] Not all content in YT playlists(self-created or ones I have favorited)  has been loudness normalized.  In some playlists, I have to rush to turn down the volume for an outlier song or commercial.
> [2] You say that all the time to me!  It's a political tool, used to deflect attention from the truth.  You're good Greg!  You should run for office.
> [2a] That's why, at the mastering engineers resort retreat, there are two pools: One containing Katz & Diament, and another containing you and all the rest.



1. If not all content on YT has been loudness normalised then by definition it is not a "standard".

2. You quoted 2 graphs which are clearly labelled "Peak Level Normalization" and "Loudness Normalization", then you effectively relabel them by *FALSELY* stating they are "Digital Era" and "Analogue Era" respectively, PURELY to suit your own agenda and then you accuse me of deflecting from the truth and playing politics! How ironic and hypocritical is that? Impressive!! The solution is glaringly simple, if you don't want me to "say that to you all the time" then don't "all the time" make assertions that are so false/incorrect that they're actually completely backwards! Your solution of making up falsehoods and then defending them with insults isn't acceptable here and doesn't work anyway, as you've demonstrated a number of times, so why do you persist with such a pointless tactic?
2a. What "retreat" and "pools" would they be, ones you've just falsely made up? "Mastering" and mastering engineers only exist in the music industry, not in the film industry and while Bob is a leading expert in mastering, he's not a leading expert in film sound, in fact he's relatively inexperienced. Finally, there really aren't two pools, that's a gross over-simplification but if there were, I'd actually be in the same one as Bob. So again, you've made-up a falsehood that's actually backwards, the exact opposite of the truth. Thanks for demonstrating my point, again!



Davesrose said:


> [1] It is kind of funny how some people say just to use the automatic calibration with included mic and Audyssey setup, while others say you should do some of your own calibrations.
> [2] I would think color grading now is similar with cinema vs home media, so a lot of the re-authoring is setting resolution and optimal compression.
> [3] I assume an Atmos mix for cinema would have the same object information for the home master, but that certain EQ curves could be applied for the frequency differences with cinema vs home theater. I've also noticed Netflix is having more and more of their series and movies in Atmos: I assume since it's direct to home, they don't ever need to apply these cinema standards.



1. To be honest, that makes perfect sense to me. Using the automatic calibration is going to provide superior results to just plugging your speakers in and not doing any calibration, as many consumers do. It's also likely to provide better results than someone who tries to do their own calibration but doesn't really know what they're doing. But, if you have the tools, know how to use them and know the facts which are pertinent to home cinema (as opposed to theatrical standards) then you'll generally get a better result than an auto calibration.

2. I'm certainly no expert on colour grading but as far as I'm aware, there are still differences. Colour grading for reflected light is somewhat different to colour grading for produced light.

3. Not exactly, there are other differences. For example, differences in peak levels, overall loudness, balance between front and surround speakers and potentially a few others. It is possible to play a theatrical mix on a home system without it sounding terrible, if you've got a better than average home Atmos system but for the best results a separate home Atmos mix would be created. Netflix actually require this as a delivery requirement/specification: "_If a 85 db reference theatrical mix is created, two complete sets of deliverables are required. One for theatrical, one for nearfield._" - In the "Nearfield Atmos Mix" section. (Netflix Originals Delivery Specifications, v3.2.1)



dprimary said:


> A 200o seat room will be absorbing more than the 500 seat room.



Counter-intuitively, one would expect to boost the mid/high freqs in a larger room to compensate for the greater air absorption but the x-curve applied to cinemas' b-chain effectively does the opposite. This is mentioned and somewhat explained in the article I referenced in my previous post.

G


----------



## bigshot

Audessey is good for getting a starting place, but fine tuning might be necessary. I have a Yamaha amp with their in house room calibration circuit. It did good with some things and terrible with others. I did a lot of measuring and experimenting beyond its setting.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> You quoted 2 graphs which are clearly labelled "Peak Level Normalization" and "Loudness Normalization", then you effectively relabel them by *FALSELY* stating they are "Digital Era" and "Analogue Era" respectively, PURELY to suit your own agenda



Like I said: Tell Katz he's "wrong" - to his face!    





There's Bob Katz and Barry Diament - and then there's you and all the others.  I think I know who to trust.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] Like I said: Tell Katz he's "wrong" - to his face!
> [2] There's Bob Katz and Barry Diament - and then there's you and all the others. I think I know who to trust.



1. I would tell Bob he's wrong to his face about cinema sound. There is not now nor has there ever been loudness normalisation in film. Have you never been to the cinema to watch a film? Are dramas the same loudness as blockbuster action films? In film we have relative loudness, due to the fact that monitoring levels are standardized but there is no loudness normalisation. *Now what about YOU*, are you going to tell Bob "he's wrong to his face"? You stated: "_As for TV sound, in general, I find it to be theee most dynamically compressed, not necessarily loudness-processed, but more compressed than even the most recent pop or rock CD release._" - However, both Bob (in the graphs YOU quoted) and me stated it's the other way around!

2. There's me, Bob Katz and numerous other experienced professionals - and then there's you. Anyone with even the slightest of rational minds would "know who to trust"! You've demonstrated your typical nonsense, you've interpreted what Bob has written, according to your personal agenda and then posted that interpretation out of context as fact. 
Once again, because you don't seem to be getting it: Unlike the music industry, TV has always had standardised levels based on analogue Quasi Peak Program Meters (QPPMS, like a VU meter). This remained the case long into the digital era, even into the era of DAWs in the late 1990's, with plugin QPPMs (which were programmed with the identical scales and ballistics as the previous analogue versions). Although the exact specified peak level varied between different networks, nevertheless peak level normalisation was the ONLY paradigm used up until only about 7 years ago (with the legal requirement to change to loudness normalisation). It was these old peak/quasi-peak normalisation standards which caused the era of much louder TV commercials and the loudness normalisation standards which cured that issue can ONLY be performed in the digital domain/era. So your whole analogue/digital thing is nonsense as far as TV sound is concerned, as the issue is dramatically improved with digital technology (loudness normalisation). It's amazing that you can misinterpret/apply what's inside Bob's book but that you can't even understand it's title! It's called "Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science.", it's NOT called "Re-recording Audio: The Art and the Science"!!

I asked you "_Your solution of making up falsehoods and then defending them with insults isn't acceptable here and doesn't work anyway, as you've demonstrated a number of times, so why do you persist with such a pointless tactic?_" - And your response is simply to blindly carry on doing exactly what I accused you of (trying to defend your falsehoods), which just makes you look even more foolish/ignorant. Why?

G


----------



## Phronesis

Enjoy:


----------



## bigshot

If the one on the right is digital, I don't understand the chart. With digital, you've got nothing at all above zero, so if you want to include headroom, you would have to push the limit of the headroom down to zero... which would result in a chart that looks exactly like the one on the left, just 20dB lower.

I'm not clear on what "headroom" would be in digital. But I'm not a tech head, so I may be misunderstanding it.


----------



## KeithEmo

In one context headroom is merely a way of _defining_ or _describing_ the characteristics of a circuit.
However, looking at it a different way, it's simply a fiction that you get to define however you like.
Headroom is essentially "the difference between something's rated output and the maximum output it can actually deliver".
And, obviously, it is going to depend on how you choose to call out your ratings.

Let's say you have an amplifier which is perfectly clean up to a level of 2V - and clips at 2V.
You could rate that amplifier at 2V - in which case it would have "no headroom". 
You could rate it as having "1V of output" and say it had "1V of extra headroom" (6 dBV).
Or, if you were aiming for a huge headrom rating, you could instead choose to rate it as having "0.1V output" in which case it would have LOTS of "headroom".
Those would all be equally reasonable ways of describing the same amplifier.

Now, let's say you have an amplifier that can deliver 100 watts RMS continuously forever...
And can deliver 200 watts RMS for five seconds before it starts to distort (when its power supply runs out of stored power)...
Is it "a 100 watt amplifier with a lot of headroom" or "a 200 watt amplifier with a weak power supply"?
In fact, both answers describe that amplifier equally well.

The tricky part is the relationship between modern measurement standards and actual music.
We currently measure amplifiers based on how much power they can deliver continuously.
However, in reality, music is very dynamic, so this is not very representative of what we generally expect an amplifier to do when we use it.
(With typical music, the peak power often exceeds the average power by a factor of 10x or even 20x.)

Therefore, arguably, an amplifier that can deliver 200 watts for five seconds at a time really is "a 200 watt amplifier" _FOR PURPOSES OF PLAYING MUSIC_.
However, designing that 100 watt amplifier with enough headroom to deliver 200 watts short term costs more...
(Note that, by our current measurement standards, we could only describe it or sell it as "a 100 watt amplifier".)
Not many people will be willing to pay as much for it as they would for a 200 watt amplifier because "it has 3 dB of headroom".

In the case of recording technology, headroom is useful as a safety margin.
You record at -20 dB instead of at 0 dB for two main reasons....
1) Because your equipment actually has higher distortion very close to 0 dB - and you wish to avoid it.
2) Because you can't be sure that there won't be occasional peaks above what you expect.

While there is still truth to both of those considerations when making a live recording, or a digital copy of an analog source...
neither is really true in the context of digital audio playback these days.

Unlike tape devices , the THD on most DACs is no higher at -3 dB than at -20 dB...
Therefore, your recording is _NOT_ "going to sound better on most playback equipment if you record it at -20".
And, likewise, most modern solid state amplifiers are quite clean right up to the point where they clip...

Modern digital recordings have a perfectly well known 0 dB point.
I no longer have to worry about "recording a cassette at -20 dB so I avoid distortion and don't miss any clips that might go over"...
Nowadays, I can record a CD so that the loudest peaks reach _PRECISELY_ -3 dB (or whatever number I choose).
Most sane folks prefer to stay at least a few dB below 0 for various reasons - but not all.
There is no uncertainty, no possibility of a short loud peak "getting past the meter", and almost no likelihood that the CD player will distort more at -2 dB than at -20 dB.
(In fact, when I look at that clip, I can hit one button and see precisely and immediately how loud the loudest point is. 
And another button adjusts it so the loudest spot in taht clip is exactly as louds as it can possibly be - without clipping.)

Therefore, in many situations, there is simply no longer a _PURPOSE _for leaving lots of headroom.

Feel free to argue that, by leaving such decisions to automatic gadgets, we often end up with results that are _artitically_ somewhat poor...
However, from a practical perspective, for most of us these days headroom is a commodity of limited value.

Many of us still agree that power amplifiers sound best when they have "power to spare" and "plenty of headroom".
_HOWEVER_, if you want "a 100 watt amplifier with lots of headroom", the solution is simple.
You don't need to find and purchase an expensive "100 watt amplifier with phenomenal amunts of headroom".  
Buy a 200 watt amplifier "with no headroom at all" - and just _CALL IT_ "a 100 watt amplifier with lots of headroom".
It really is the same thing.



bigshot said:


> If the one on the right is digital, I don't understand the chart. With digital, you've got nothing at all above zero, so if you want to include headroom, you would have to push the limit of the headroom down to zero... which would result in a chart that looks exactly like the one on the left, just 20dB lower.
> 
> I'm not clear on what "headroom" would be in digital. But I'm not a tech head, so I may be misunderstanding it.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> If the one on the right is digital, I don't understand the chart. With digital, you've got nothing at all above zero, so if you want to include headroom, you would have to push the limit of the headroom down to zero... which would result in a chart that looks exactly like the one on the left, just 20dB lower.
> 
> I'm not clear on what "headroom" would be in digital. But I'm not a tech head, so I may be misunderstanding it.



The caption says that the right is analog, left is digital.  Wikipedia says that digital still has headroom because the "0" (nominal level) is not whatever loudest peak is hit during a song.  There's also various standards with different nominal levels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headroom_(audio_signal_processing)

I would assume that audio is similar to photography: in which a digital medium is still reliant on an analog to digital converter, and then ultimately the digital to analog converter used in playback.  With photography, a RAW file records all sensor data: going down to the noise floor and highest saturation point.  Digital cameras can record a higher dynamic range than displays and print have been able to reproduce: so you can optimize contrast through adjusting contrast curves (or tone mapping).  To create a rendered image, they also pick the black point and white point in the tonal scale (and each camera brand has different values: some have cleaner ADCs and can have a lower black point, while others try to have higher saturation).  I can imagine how much more complicated things get when you have a recording system that is also dependent on time: when there can be swings in dynamic range.


----------



## bigshot

I guess I don't understand what normalization does under the hood. I always thought 100% was raising the peaks to the edge of clipping. I assumed that was zero.


----------



## KeithEmo

You are correct....
(But you must remember that "normalizing" is a very general term which really just means "adjusting a bunch of stuff to all be at some standard level".)
In general, normalization usually is applied to audio signals such that the loudest peaks are reised to 0 dB (or some level near it).
If you look at it one way normalization is the process of very carefully eliminating unnecessary headroom.

The purpose of having headroom is as a safety margin.
The reason you leave headroom in a recording is so that, if a few peaks are a little louder than you thought they would be, your recording won't clip.
However, because the noise floor occurs at some fixed level, when you reduce the overall level to leave headroom, you reduce the S/N ratio.
(Not to mention the fact that, if you're talking about a radio station, your broadcast becomes a tiny bit less loud compared to your competitors.)
Therefore, once your content is finalized, the final step is often to raise the overall level such that the loudest peaks are "as high as they can be without clipping".
(At this point, since you know there will never be higher peaks, there is no reason to leave headroom... so it is removed in order to optimize the S/N.)

In the old days, you would carefully adjust the levels manually until the loudest peaks were just under the loudest possible level, which would be the loudest safe level you could use.
However, with an old style analog system, that actual maximum point might be somewhat vague - for example, with tape or vinyl, due to record EQ, the maximum level varies with frequency.
Therefore, you would have to run the entire file, carefully detect the highest peaks, then leave a little extra headroom to allow for any slight errors you might have made.
With a digital system, since you actually have the numerical value of every sample, there is a very well defined maximum level - "0 dB".

In most digital editors, when you select "normalize", you actually get to enter a number.
The program then scans the entire file, finds the highest peak level in it, and raises the overall level such that the peak is adjusted to become the level you selected.
(So, if you "normalize to 0 dB", the program scans the file, finds the highest peak level, then raises the level of the entire file equally such that the loudest point is at a level of 0 dB.)
However, in some cases, you might decide to normalize to a different value.
For example, some digital systems actually do have issues at exactly 0 dB, so many editors prefer to avoid actually going to 0 dB, and normalize to -2 dB or -3 dB.

The idea of normalizing can also be viewed at different levels.
For example, you could normalize the levels of all the songs on a CD such that the highest peak on _each_ song is at -2 dB.
Or, instead, you could normalize the level of the entire CD so that the loudest peak on the loudest song is at -2 dB.
In that case, you would say that the entire CD was normalized to -2 dB, but the individual songs were not normalized, because you prefer to preserve the level differences between them.

But, yes, saying that "you had normalized the level to 100%" is normally equivalent to saying that you "normalized to maximum level" or "normalized to 0 dB"....
I suppose someone might use the expression to mean that they had "completely" applied the process of normalizing the levels... 
(As compared to "partially normalizing the levels" - which could mean "moving the levels closer to being fully normalized while still leaving some variation".) 



bigshot said:


> I guess I don't understand what normalization does under the hood. I always thought 100% was raising the peaks to the edge of clipping. I assumed that was zero.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 29, 2019)

I just don't see what this is pointing at. If the recording has been mixed and mastered, and you have a digital file of the song, you normalize it up to just under 100%. You don't need headroom because the peak has been established. You don't have to guess what it is. It's right there in the track established and fixed. Headroom has nothing to do with it.

I can see maintaining headroom when you record, because you can't totally predict how high the peaks will go. But that isn't what our friend SonicTruth is referring to this about. He's trying to shoehorn in his pet subject again- hot mastering. With mastering, the peak level is established in the mix. They compressed the old Stones singles to make them sound loud and opaque the same way they do current pop songs. It doesn't matter if it's digital or analog. Compressed and loud is the same in either case. I don't see what he's talking about... and I don't understand those charts.

The way I always understood it was that with digital, you build in headroom BELOW zero, not above it. With tape, you can burn in peaks above zero because the distortion doesn't sound as bad. I don't see how this is reflected in those charts.


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 29, 2019)

I've had those same thoughts after staring at the chart for a while. Also, the first chart he put up was quite a bit different from the second chart, which confuses me even more. My gut feeling is we'd have to read the actual pages in the books and not just look at the pictures to get it, as unfortunate as that may sound. Or have a recording engineer explain it to us.


----------



## Davesrose (Jun 29, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I just don't see what this is pointing at. If the recording has been mixed and mastered, and you have a digital file of the song, you normalize it up to just under 100%. You don't need headroom because the peak has been established. You don't have to guess what it is. It's right there in the track established and fixed. Headroom has nothing to do with it.



At least sources I've seen show that there's still headroom with digital systems (+24dB with 24 bit masters for example).  There might be performance and standardization reasons why you don't set to your highest peak.  I see that Wikipedia's chart in headroom starts above 100dB for live/mic levels, and that master files are +24dB and CDs being slightly less than +20.  Loudspeakers can apparently have very low headroom space: so perhaps if you didn't have headroom space in the source files, there could be issues with loudness and particular reproduction systems (and where Keith is coming from with audio reproduction system).  There's also apparently quite a few different standards for the nominal level.  Will look forward to Gregorio's explanations.

I'm wondering also if my more technical understanding of digital photography is a good analogy with audio.  Video files now have dynamic ranges that exceed normal consumer displays.  8 bit per channel (256 tones of color) was the standard with analog displays and most photos on paper.  Now high dynamic range is one of the rages for consumer 4K video.  The best consumer displays can start approaching 10bpc color (1024 tones of color), while regular digital intermediate video files have been 12bpc (4096 tones).  The best video RAW is now some RED cameras that can reach 16bit (fully realized with their sensors: 65,536 tones).  There are now standards, that try to automatically normalize higher dynamic ranges to lower ones.  Dolby has pretty much defined themselves now in the home 4K market.  Atmos is becoming the standard 3D audio format , and Dolby Vision being the first 12bit format (that could take the same DR as an intermediate file and tone-map to the display's calibrated DR).

Just as an aside, since I'm doing more music listening with headphones and loudspeaker listening with home theater setup, I am finding new remasters to Atmos/DTS:X to have some pretty interesting immersion.  Even though my previous 7.1 system had a good surround field in the X/Y plane, I find the new mixes for 3D don't just emphasize heights.  I've also noticed older movies can have more ambient sounds going to the sides and in back of me.  Case in point Apollo 13's DTS:X remix: music had some added depth with instruments and reverb going on in my surrounds (with 7.1.4).  There were also scenes in ofices where they had typewriter sounds all in back of me (more immersive and pronounced than what I've heard with the previous lossless surround).


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 30, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I just don't see what this is pointing at. If the recording has been mixed and mastered, and you have a digital file of the song, you normalize it up to just under 100%. You don't need headroom because the peak has been established. You don't have to guess what it is. It's right there in the track established and fixed. Headroom has nothing to do with it.
> 
> I can see maintaining headroom when you record, because you can't totally predict how high the peaks will go. But that isn't what our friend SonicTruth is referring to this about. He's trying to shoehorn in his pet subject again- hot mastering. With mastering, the peak level is established in the mix. They compressed the old Stones singles to make them sound loud and opaque the same way they do current pop songs. It doesn't matter if it's digital or analog. Compressed and loud is the same in either case. I don't see what he's talking about... and I don't understand those charts.
> 
> The way I always understood it was that with digital, you build in headroom BELOW zero, not above it. With tape, you can burn in peaks above zero because the distortion doesn't sound as bad. I don't see how this is reflected in those charts.



I understand Bob's charts because I learn better via visualization than via acres of text.  You are probably the opposite of me.

The left chart simply represents various sources/tracks, of differing dynamic range(or PLR) normalized so that they all peak at or a fraction of a dB below 0dB full digital scale.  Instead of being 'commercials' or 'movie soundtracks' or 'news broadcast' or whatever, imagine, for purpose of the discussion, that all of those items in the left-hand graph are SONGS - of widely varying dynaamic ranges  - on a CD.  Since they are peak-normalized, whoever is listening to that album will have to adjust the volume up or down at the beginning of each song, depending on their actual sequence.

Now, imagine the right-hand graph representing that SAME album, but all songs on it LOUDNESS normalized - either with the help of a loudness meter plugin, or even by the engineer just using their ears, playing each one at a time, or several simultaneously, until no one song seems to stick out in the ensuing cacophony.

Mastered that way, such a CD could be played with the listener setting their volume once, during the first track, and perhaps never having to adjust the volume again - except to turn it down to take a phone call, or perhaps because his concentration when driving is needed while proceeding through a construction zone.

Make sence now, Biggie?


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 30, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> Also, the first chart he put up was quite a
> bit different from the second chart,



Yes, they were of different colors, and one did not identify each source.

A HUUUGE difference - had me on the floor gasping for air!


----------



## Davesrose

TheSonicTruth said:


> The left chart simply represents various sources/tracks, of differing dynamic range(or PLR) normalized so that they all peak at or a fraction of a dB below 0dB full digital scale.  Instead of being 'commercials' or 'movie soundtracks' or 'news broadcast' or whatever, imagine, for purpose of the discussion, that all of those items in the left-hand graph are SONGS - of widely varying dynaamic ranges  - on a CD.  Since they are peak-normalized, whoever is listening to that album will have to adjust the volume up or down at the beginning of each song, depending on their actual sequence.


How do you infer this?  The caption says this is from given albums (certainly not every SONG).  That would mean with this normalization, there won't be such dramatic swings to adjust volume with a song.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Davesrose said:


> How do you infer this?  The caption says this is from given albums (certainly not every SONG).  That would mean with this normalization, there won't be such dramatic swings to adjust volume with a song.



So you're saying that in the left-hand example, if, as I suggested one imagine each bar in the graph to represent a group of songs, such as on an album, the listener would NOT have to adjust volume between songs??


----------



## Davesrose

TheSonicTruth said:


> So you're saying that in the left-hand example, if, as I suggested one imagine each bar in the graph to represent a group of songs, such as on an album, the listener would NOT have to adjust volume between songs??



I'm thinking you're the only one to infer the left hand chart is representing individual songs.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Davesrose said:


> I'm thinking you're the only one to infer the left hand chart is representing individual songs.



Nowhere in that caption does Katz suggest or imply what those bars represent.

But in the left example, whether the bars represent individual songs or entire albums, then from left to right within that graph those songs or albums get progressively louder and louder.


----------



## Davesrose

TheSonicTruth said:


> Nowhere in that caption does Katz suggest or imply what those bars represent.
> 
> But in the left example, whether the bars represent individual songs or entire albums, then from left to right within that graph those songs or albums get progressively louder and louder.



Did you miss the sentence in the caption that says "A standarized average level yielded fairly consistent loudness from album to album."?


----------



## dprimary

Davesrose said:


> The caption says that the right is analog, left is digital.  Wikipedia says that digital still has headroom because the "0" (nominal level) is not whatever loudest peak is hit during a song.  There's also various standards with different nominal levels:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headroom_(audio_signal_processing)



That page is horrible. The simple fact they have different "headroom" for different  bit depths is flawed. Digital has the same headroom no matter the bit depth. It has been said "footroom" would be a better term. In music recording headroom is something you leave yourself for peaks. So is they are trying to explain with 24 bit you can record at lower level to leave yourself more head room that be correct. In things like film the levels are more standardized to keep dialog at around -18 dBFS that leaves 18 db for effects like car chases, explosion and so. in the chart is the "speaker" a person speaking? or a loudspeaker? It looks more like the dynamic range of person than a loudspeaker. Then they throw a few EBU level standards and don't really explain any of it.


----------



## Davesrose

dprimary said:


> That page is horrible. The simple fact they have different "headroom" for different  bit depths is flawed. Digital has the same headroom no matter the bit depth. It has been said "footroom" would be a better term. In music recording headroom is something you leave yourself for peaks. So is they are trying to explain with 24 bit you can record at lower level to leave yourself more head room that be correct. In things like film the levels are more standardized to keep dialog at around -18 dBFS that leaves 18 db for effects like car chases, explosion and so. in the chart is the "speaker" a person speaking? or a loudspeaker? It looks more like the dynamic range of person than a loudspeaker. Then they throw a few EBU level standards and don't really explain any of it.



Where is your source that all digital sources have the same headroom?  I think the link I quoted is good enough for showing how different standards are.  Given that "footroom" isn't a recognized definition, I'm not really sure what standard you would be recognized.


----------



## dprimary

gregorio said:


> Counter-intuitively, one would expect to boost the mid/high freqs in a larger room to compensate for the greater air absorption but the x-curve applied to cinemas' b-chain effectively does the opposite. This is mentioned and somewhat explained in the article I referenced in my previous post.
> 
> G




I missed your post before. I think we are saying the same thing from the opposite direction. It really depends on the room you can have large bright room or a dead one. Unlike music studios where the acoustics and monitors are referenced to "flattness" The x-curve is reference made from the measurement of many (100's, 1000's I don't think I have ever seen how many) The theory being it the mix theater sounds like the average theater(I would say response, but it not really what we consider response today since it only frequency) so it should sound very close to what the engineers mixed. So I design mix theaters to support x-curve in the other control rooms which tend to be much smaller those I design to be flat. You could apply an x-curve but you are doing it in room that falls into small room acoustics which the x-curve was not designed for, it is getting into the same problem as using x-curve in the home theater. I'm probably about as clear as mud in this post.


----------



## dprimary

Davesrose said:


> Where is your source that all digital sources have the same headroom?  I think the link I quoted is good enough for showing how different standards are.  Given that "footroom" isn't a recognized definition, I'm not really sure what standard you would be recognized.



0dBFS is the same on every piece of equipment and software I have used. I can record the same signal  with 8 bit, 16, 24 and 32. They will all play back at the exactly the same level the only difference will be the noise floor. Bit depth only pushes your noise floor down. There is only two standards on the page the EBU level for FM broadcast and digital broadcasts. For FM you will compress the signal to 9dB peak to nominal, for digital you can have that range be 18 dB. I guess you can claim 24 bit has 24dB of headroom since the best analog struggles to have even 20 bit of resolution. In practice you will raise the record level to leave the 24 dB of room in the noise floor. The page should be labeled Headroom in EBU broadcast standards and the chart at the bottom deleted.


----------



## dprimary

TheSonicTruth said:


> So you're saying that in the left-hand example, if, as I suggested one imagine each bar in the graph to represent a group of songs, such as on an album, the listener would NOT have to adjust volume between songs??



One would hope the artist listened to the album song levels as it was mastered, so the the album flows with listener adjusting the levels, we often lowered individual song levels a few dB to give a consistent levels from one song to the next.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree entirely. 
It actually provides what might amount to a few interesting details - if you already understand the context quite thoroughly.

I think I know a decent non-technical way to explain it......

Headroom sort of serves the purpose of a shoulder on a mountain road.
You try really hard to avoid getting onto the shoulder... but it's reassuring to know it's there... and you may occasionally end up there.
(And it would be really bad to go off the road if the shoulder wasn't there.)

When you're recording a live performance, or an analog source, you don't know what the exact levels of the loudest spots will be.
But, in order to optimize the S/N of your recording, you would want to set the levels just below the level where the loudest sounds will clip.
What you do is that you compromise.
You set the level to where you think the loudest level will be (you can clap your hands or wait for the band to warm up to help you guess).
Then you set the level down an extra 10 dB (allowing yourself that much of a margin for error about the highest level).
That safety margin you leave yourself is the headroom.

However, the situation is very different when you're playing a CD, or a commercially produced audio file.
You already have all the data to look at.
You don't need to leave any headroom as a safety margin because you know _exactly how loud the loudest spot is._..
And you can pretty well trust that, with anything you read from a CD, the loudest peaks will be somewhere between -2 dB and 0 dB.
There's no reason to leave a safety margin, and accept the sacrifices that go with doing so, because you _absolutely_ know you won't need it.

What makes things like TV commercials sound so loud is that they're very often compressed...
When you apply compression to an audio signal you narrow the difference in loudness between the quietest and the loudest spots.
By bringing the level of the quietest things closer to the level of the loudest things...
And then bringing the level of the loudest things to their maximum level...
You have also increased the level of the quiet things - a lot...
Therefore, the _average _level will have gone way up.

The whole meme of "loudness wars" is a total misnomer...
The peak level you can store on a CD hasn't changed...
Therefore modern CDs aren't any _louder_ than older ones...
What they are is more dynamically compressed...
The quiet parts have been made less quiet - which raises the average level - but the loudest spots aren't any louder.

The catch, however, is that this is _NOT_ some sort of equipment flaw or operator error....
It is a conscious artistic decision....
Modern recordings don't sound like that "because the guy who mixed them couldn't get them right"...
They sound _exactly_ like they're _intended_ to sound...
(Which, sadly, seems to be what a lot of people these days prefer, or at least accept.)



dprimary said:


> That page is horrible. The simple fact they have different "headroom" for different  bit depths is flawed. Digital has the same headroom no matter the bit depth. It has been said "footroom" would be a better term. In music recording headroom is something you leave yourself for peaks. So is they are trying to explain with 24 bit you can record at lower level to leave yourself more head room that be correct. In things like film the levels are more standardized to keep dialog at around -18 dBFS that leaves 18 db for effects like car chases, explosion and so. in the chart is the "speaker" a person speaking? or a loudspeaker? It looks more like the dynamic range of person than a loudspeaker. Then they throw a few EBU level standards and don't really explain any of it.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 30, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> The whole meme of "loudness wars" is a total misnomer...
> The peak level you can store on a CD hasn't changed...
> Therefore modern CDs aren't any _louder_ than older ones...
> What they are is more dynamically compressed...
> ...



The above statement neglects, completely, to take into consideration how humans, and presumably other species that hear, actually HEAR.

Sure, peaks/transients are louder than other sounds. But in the case of music, they last typically less than 1/10 of 1 second, sometimes as little as 10-30milli-seconds.  Their presence, relative to the average level of a song, make folks want to get up and dance to it, or at least nod their head or tap their foot.  A recording with a good arrangement plus a higher PLR actually makes one want to crank UP the volume, not turn it down.

"Therefore modern CDs aren't any _louder_ than older ones."

Then come to my place, Keith, put on my Run-DMC CD from 30 years ago, set the volume to your preference.  Then, switch in Black Eyed Peas' 'Elephunk',(similar rap genre)  from  last decade, and play it back with the volume left where you set it for the older DMC, and see if your ass doesn't get blasted right back into my dining room!

"What they are is more dynamically compressed....
The quiet parts have been made less quiet - which raises the average level -"

That final part is correct:

The "AVERAGE LEVEL" - which is 90% of what we judge the loudness of something by!! Not the peaks!

Which totally invalidates your statement about post-2000 albums(CD or download) not being "any louder" than pre-2000 CDs.

What a load a...


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 30, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Yes, they were of different colors, and one did not identify each source.
> 
> A HUUUGE difference - had me on the floor gasping for air!



Look where the 0 db reference level is on the two sets of charts (click to expand below). And that's just the beginning of it. The two charts are very different. If you can’t figure that out or be more articulate those are problems that are beyond my control.



TheSonicTruth said:


> TheSonicTruth said:
> 
> 
> >


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo wrote: "
The catch, however, is that this is _NOT_ some sort of equipment flaw or operator error....
It is a conscious artistic decision....
Modern recordings don't sound like that "because the guy who mixed them couldn't get them right"...
They sound _exactly_ like they're _intended_ to sound...
(Which, sadly, seems to be what a lot of people these days prefer, or at least accept.)"

Of which I am perfectly aware!

A "conscious artistic decision" to produce a single or an album that sounds like a over-loaded clipped input stage on a cheap portable radio.

"intended to sound" exactly like an over-loaded clipped input stage on a cheap portable radio.

"a lot of people these days prefer, or at least accept.)" - because they assume the experts know better and it should be left up to them.  A real audio expert would draw the line, apply the principles of _gain-staging_, and allow the various sections of the amplifier to get the thing as loud as the consumer wants to play it.

Then, when they hear something which is well-produced, or at least adequately produced, adhering to basic audio engineering prinicples, it sounds somehow 'wrong' or 'off' to them.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think we're in perfect agreement.



TheSonicTruth said:


> KeithEmo wrote: "
> The catch, however, is that this is _NOT_ some sort of equipment flaw or operator error....
> It is a conscious artistic decision....
> Modern recordings don't sound like that "because the guy who mixed them couldn't get them right"...
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Forget "my preferences"...... it's simply a matter of which definition you use for "loudness"....

If you use the defnintion of "perceived loudness" then the new CDs are indeed louder...
This is the definition someone listening to music, or mastering it, would use.

However, if you use the definition as "the actual signal levels we need to handle successfully" then it has not...
This is the definition someone measuring a signal, or determining how much amplifier power or DAC voltage will be required to reproduce it, would use.

If you look at the actual levels on that vintage Run DMC CD and the latest Black Eyed Peas album....
You will almost certainly find that the voltage level of the loudest peaks on both is somewhere within two or three dB of 0 dB....
Therefore the peak loudness on both is the same...
(And the same amount of amplifier power would be required to reproduce each at the same peak level without clipping.)
And, of course, the noise floor is also the same on both...
So, technically both recordings also have the same dynamic range...
However, the newer recordings have less long term dynamic variation in level...

In the context of "what we _HEAR_", the perceived loudness of new CDs is usually much higher...
However, in the context of how much voltage and how much power do you need to reproduce the signal without clipping....
The highest peak voltage hasn't gone up....
And neither has the highest peak power necessary to play it....

Here's a really excellent in-depth article that explains the difference...
And provides LOTS of statistics from various studies about the subject...
I HIGHLY recommend that everyone read the whole thing.

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/dynamic-range-loudness-war

According to their analysis: 
"the loudness war actually didn't result in any reduction in the closest well-defined descriptor there is to "dynamic range”, 
which is loudness range as defined by the EBU 3342 technical document. 
Neither is it possible to ascertain any decrease of dynamic variability at any scale."

They describe it this way:
"In the end, it's all about style. Reduced crest factor values bring a 'compact' aspect to the sound; Waves describe it as a 
"heavily in-your-face signal that rocks the house” on their MaxxBCL page. It may be suited to your kind of music, or it may not."

However, my point was that, in the context of "what signal levels you need to be able to handle cleanly".....

For a preamp, or a DAC, there has been no difference... because the peak levels, the noise floor, and the distance between them, has NOT changed.
The new CDs may sound louder - but they are no more likely to cause your preamp to distort at the same volume setting.

However, for a power amplifier, which may or may not be able to deliver the same output power dynamically and long term...
- having an amplifier that can deliver full power continuously is more important than before
- while having an amplifier with plenty of headroom to handle dynamic peaks has become less important



TheSonicTruth said:


> The above statement neglects, completely, to take into consideration how humans, and presumably other species that hear, actually HEAR.
> 
> Sure, peaks/transients are louder than other sounds. But in the case of music, they last typically less than 1/10 of 1 second, sometimes as little as 10-30milli-seconds.  Their presence, relative to the average level of a song, make folks want to get up and dance to it, or at least nod their head or tap their foot.  A recording with a good arrangement plus a higher PLR actually makes one want to crank UP the volume, not turn it down.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> (And the same amount of amplifier power would be required to reproduce each at the same peak level without clipping.)
> And, of course, the noise floor is also the same on both...
> So, technically both recordings also have the same dynamic range...
> However, the newer recordings have less long term dynamic variation in level...
> ...



But something else HAS gone up, over time, within that 96dB container we call Red Book:  The AVERAGE level, which my repeated mention of here seems to have had thus far zero effect on your understanding of how we hear. You continue to fixate on peaks, which again, while louder than average level, are mostly fleeting in their existence during playback of a recording.

Higher average levels = higher average voltages, which can indeed cause longer-term strain on both input and output stages of even a moderately expensive stereo receiver or amplifier.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 30, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I guess I don't understand what normalization does under the hood. I always thought 100% was raising the peaks to the edge of clipping. I assumed that was zero.



Part of the confusion which appears to be occurring is due to the misunderstanding of the term "normalization". Normalisation just means raising or lowering different audio files/tracks to the same specified amount of the same specified property. Firstly then, you are saying just "normalization" and haven't specified the property! This is entirely understandable though, because by far the most commonly the specified property was peak level and therefore, when the term "normalisation" was used on it's own, it was assumed to mean "peak normalisation". Furthermore, as there is only one recognised standard in music, the physical limit of 0dB, it is assumed this is the "specified amount". However, that's not the case in other areas of commercial audio, TV for example. Before the new/current paradigm, the "specified property" of normalisation was again peak levels (or quasi-peak levels) but the "specified amount" varied. Most commonly in Europe it was -9dB. IE. In most European TV stations the audio was normalised to -9dBFS.

All this might seem like semantics but it's vital to understand the above, otherwise there's not the slightest chance that you'll understand the new paradigm of "loudness normalization". The "specified property" of loudness normalisation is the human perception of loudness, which is both frequency and time dependant but unrelated to peak level!



Steve999 said:


> I've had those same thoughts after staring at the chart for a while. Also, the first chart he put up was quite a bit different from the second chart, which confuses me even more. My gut feeling is we'd have to read the actual pages in the books and not just look at the pictures to get it, as unfortunate as that may sound. Or have a recording engineer explain it to us.



They are a bit different. The second one is basically demonstrating that with digital we can normalise to the absolute peak (0dBFS) and over time most pop/rock music has become more compressed, higher average levels and typically either no headroom or only a few tenths of a dB from absolute peak. You couldn't do that with analogue media because unlike digital media, which stays perfectly flat/linear until you hit 0dBFS, analogue media gradually distorts more and more before hitting the absolute physical limit. Some of that distortion, in limited amounts, was often desirable artistically (tape saturation being a good example) but even then, there was a significant gap between the peak levels of the recording and the peak physical limit of the media, this gap is the "headroom". The first graph makes more sense, and it's designed to illustrate a point simply, which it does, but it's not entirely accurate. To be honest, it's many years since I read/studied Bob's book and the charts could be more accurate than they appear, depending on exactly how he's defining "headroom".



TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] I understand Bob's charts because I learn better via visualization than via acres of text.
> [1a] The left chart simply represents various sources/tracks, of differing dynamic range(or PLR) normalized so that they all peak at or a fraction of a dB below 0dB full digital scale. Instead of being 'commercials' or 'movie soundtracks' or 'news broadcast' or whatever,* imagine, for purpose of the discussion, ...*
> [1b] Now, imagine the right-hand graph representing that SAME album, but all songs on it LOUDNESS normalized - either with the help of a loudness meter plugin, or even by the engineer just using their ears, playing each one at a time, or several simultaneously, until no one song seems to stick out in the ensuing cacophony.
> [1c] Mastered that way, such a CD could be played with the listener setting their volume once, during the first track, and perhaps never having to adjust the volume again - except to turn it down to take a phone call, or perhaps because his concentration when driving is needed while proceeding through a construction zone.
> ...



1. Ironically, you've both confirmed what I posted in my last message and explained why you DON'T understand Bob's charts!! Instead of "visualizing" an understanding from Bob's charts, read the text, understand the context of the charts and then you'll have a much higher likelihood of arriving at a true understanding instead of a complete misunderstanding!
1a. Instead of "imagine, for the purpose of the discussion", why don't you stick to the actual facts rather than changing the "purpose of the discussion" to your personal agenda?
1b. Again, this is the "sound science" forum, not the "what thesonictruth wants to imagine" forum! Also, your last suggestion clearly wouldn't work. A song "sticking out in the ensuing cacophony" could just indicate that it's at a particular loud point relative to the other songs, not that it's louder overall. For example, it might be sticking out because it's the chorus while the other songs are in their verse. Again, you don't seem to understand what loudness normalisation is but rather than go and learn what it is, you simply carry on regardless.
1c. Yes, you could and there would certainly be some great advantages to loudness normalisation being applied to music creation but there would also be some disadvantages. Rather than only picking facts (or misunderstandings) which support your agenda, why don't you include all the facts and arrive at a true understanding?

2. True!
2a. Oh dear, completely false! You said you don't want me to state that your assertions are completely wrong/backwards but seem oblivious to the blatantly obvious solution, don't post assertions that are completely wrong/backwards to start with! Surely that's not a difficult concept to grasp? To your point: An acoustic Mahler Symphony obviously has no compression and very high peaks relative to it's average level. How many people have you seen "get up and dance or at least nod their head or tap their foot" at a Mahler Symphony? On the other hand, DJ's in night clubs typically apply huge amounts of compression and reduce the peak/transients to almost no higher than the average level of a song. How many people have you seen "get up and dance, or at least nod their head or tap their foot" in a night club? There are several factors at play here of course, but high peak/transients relative to average song level isn't really one of them!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] The whole meme of "loudness wars" is a total misnomer...
> [1a] The peak level you can store on a CD hasn't changed...
> [1b] Therefore modern CDs aren't any _louder_ than older ones...
> [1c] What they are is more dynamically compressed... The quiet parts have been made less quiet - which raises the average level - but the loudest spots aren't any louder.



1. While I agree with the basic message/principles of your post, this part of it is incorrect. You are confusing loudness with level!
1a. True.
1b. False, modern CDs are louder than older ones but their peak level hasn't changed.
1c. Partly true. The average level is higher but the loudest spots are also louder (although their peak level is the same). Loudness is a human perception, while levels are not. The perception of loudness depends on several factors; average levels over the short term, differences/contrasts in average levels over the longer term, the audio frequency/pitch of those levels and a few other factors (size/distance of an acoustic environment for example).

The loudness wars is not just about more compression, it's also about all the other factors that affect the perception of loudness and therefore "loudness wars" is not a misnomer, it's accurate.



TheSonicTruth said:


> The "AVERAGE LEVEL" - which is 90% of what we judge the loudness of something by!! Not the peaks!



If you're going to correct someone, please do so with the actual facts. Average level is not 90% of what we judge loudness by, there are other factors as important or more important. For example, which is louder: A. A sound with an average level of -10dB (RMS) or B. A sound with an average level of -16dB (RMS)? The answer according to you must be "A" but the correct answer is that it's impossible to know from the information given, it could be either. For example, if A is centred around 80Hz and B is centred around 2kHz, B will sound several times louder, even though it's average level is half of A!

G

Edit: I wrote this before I saw Keith's last post. I have posted that document several times and also highly recommend it. I would say that there is only one definition of loudness - "perceived loudness", the actual signal levels are the actual signal levels and not "loudness".


----------



## bigshot (Jun 30, 2019)

I may be dense, but in the digital chart, what does the stuff above 0dB labelled headroom represent? Wouldn't that headroom be into the range of clipping? When I record, I set my peak level a bit below 0dB to prevent a stray peak from clipping. I call that headroom, but it is always below 0dB, not above it like that.

Also you let me know that my understanding of normalization was peak normalization. That is what I always run across in digital audio. But he has peak normalization labelled analog. I'm totally confused by this graphic.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> I may be dense, but in the digital chart, what does the stuff above 0dB labelled headroom represent? Wouldn't that headroom be into the range of clipping? When I record, I set my peak level a bit below 0dB to prevent a stray peak from clipping. I call that headroom, but it is always below 0dB, not above it like that.



In that Sound On Sound loudness article?  

I pay that thing no mind.  This goes against my handle, below, but I can HEAR if something sounds louder, given the same volume setting.  A remaster CD of '1984' sounds louder than an original CD of 1984, and the waveform on the DAW is just visual confirmation of it.


----------



## bigshot

I think paying it no mind is good advice.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> DJ's in night clubs typically apply huge amounts
> of compression and reduce the peak/transients to
> almost no higher than the average level of a song.



I don't know what that would make you want to do, but it would make me want to EXIT THE F|_|KING CLUB IMMEDIATELY.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> I may be dense, but in the digital chart, what does the stuff above 0dB labelled headroom represent? Wouldn't that headroom be into the range of clipping? When I record, I set my peak level a bit below 0dB to prevent a stray peak from clipping. I call that headroom, but it is always below 0dB, not above it like that.
> 
> Also you let me know that my understanding of normalization was peak normalization. That is what I always run across in digital audio. But he has peak normalization labelled analog. I'm totally confused by this graphic.



One can 'normalize' a set of audio files to anything they wish:  Peaks, average, loudness, RMS, -10, -20, -40 dBfs, whatever.  I prefer whatever normalization it is called that ensures that I NEVER EVER have to touch my volume control at any point even during a 50 song playlist(!)   Is that called loudness normalization or average level normalization?

One can loudness-normalize by ear, or with the aid of a loudness-based meter.


----------



## GearMe

https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=ReplayGain


----------



## TheSonicTruth

GearMe said:


> https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=ReplayGain



MP3Gain for Windows: The only reason I still encode to lossy!  Works like a charm!


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> [1] I may be dense, but in the digital chart, what does the stuff above 0dB labelled headroom represent?
> [1a] Wouldn't that headroom be into the range of clipping?
> [1b] When I record, I set my peak level a bit below 0dB to prevent a stray peak from clipping. I call that headroom, but it is always below 0dB, not above it like that.
> [2] Also you let me know that my understanding of normalization was peak normalization. That is what I always run across in digital audio. But he has peak normalization labelled analog. I'm totally confused by this graphic.



1. It represents the headroom you could employ if 0dB = -24dBFS.
1a. No, clipping would then occur at +24dB (0dBFS).
1b. You set your peak level a bit below 0dBFS and that is your headroom. You have to realise that there is no direct correlation between the digital dBFS scale and the analogue dB scale (which typically means the dBVU scale). In the film world this is standardized, -20dBFS = 0dBVU but in the music world it's whatever you want. Bob has chosen -24dBFS = 0dB to illustrate his point.

2. Yes, again, "normalisation" simply means adjustment to the same specified amount of a specified property. Your understanding of normalization is limited to only (the property of) peak and only (the amount of) 0dBFS. However, the property could be for example RMS (IE. RMS Normalization rather than peak normalization) and the amount could be -20dBFS or any other amount. In the case of old analogue TV, the property was quasi-peak and the amount varied by country or region but in the UK TV audio was (quasi-peak) normalised to +5.5 on a BBC quasi peak program meter (QPPM). Loudness normalisation has nothing to do with peak or quasi-peak levels, it is normalisation referenced against (has the property of) the perception of loudness and the amount in ATSC specifications is -24LKFS or -23LUFS in Europe. As loudness normalisation has nothing to do with peak levels, max permitted peak levels have to be specified separately (but not normalized to!).



TheSonicTruth said:


> In that Sound On Sound loudness article? I pay that thing no mind. This goes against my handle ...



Indeed it does. If you're going to pay the facts "no mind" then obviously you're never going to arrive at "the sonic truth"!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> Indeed it does. If you're going to pay the facts "no mind" then obviously you're never going to arrive at "the sonic truth"!
> G



That SOS article tries to refute the loudness war, both the recent nuclear(digital) one, and the long-term uptick in overall loudness in recorded songs and albums.  I know what I can both hear, and confirm(in a DAW).


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> I don't know what that would make you want to do, but it would make me want to EXIT THE F|_|KING CLUB IMMEDIATELY.



And of course that's why DJ's do it, they don't want anyone to dance, they want everyone to exit the f*cking club and they want to earn good money from the night club owners for doing so. Sorry, I'm confused, I thought you didn't want me to say that you've got it completely backwards?

What I would want to do or what you would want to do is irrelevant. This is the sound science forum not the "what thesonictruth would want to do" forum! How many times???

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> And of course that's why DJ's do it, they don't want anyone to dance, they want everyone to exit the f*cking club and they want to earn good money from the night club owners for doing so. Sorry, I'm confused, I thought you didn't want me to say that you've got it completely backwards?
> 
> What I would want to do or what you would want to do is irrelevant. This is the sound science forum not the "what thesonictruth would want to do" forum! How many times???
> 
> G



Well, the 'science' I follow suggests that even limited exposure to excessively high volume levels can be hazardous to hearing in and even overall health, long-term.  If the music in a club is so dam loud I can't even hear myself to say excuse me to get across the room to the restroom, or order a drink, then it's too dam LOUD - period!

Even someone with a negative IQ(if possible) could figure that out.


----------



## GearMe

TheSonicTruth said:


> MP3Gain for Windows: The only reason I still encode to lossy!  Works like a charm!



There's a variety of implementations out there...I've tried it for a while but then went away from it.  Glad you've got something that works for you!

If I recall, Foobar was able to do a variety of different formats in one scan.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

GearMe said:


> There's a variety of implementations out there...I've tried it for a while but then went away from it.  Glad you've got something that works for you!
> 
> If I recall, Foobar was able to do a variety of different formats in one scan.



I can get Foobar to _calculate _the amount of replay gain, but I don't know how to apply it!  IE if a certain WAV requires -2.7dB playback gain, how do I embed that in meta?


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] That SOS article tries to refute the loudness war, both the recent nuclear(digital) one, and the long-term uptick in overall loudness in recorded songs and albums.
> [1a] I know what I can both hear, and confirm(in a DAW).



1. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. The very first sentence, emphasised in bold, is: "_*We all know music is getting louder.*_" The article absolutely does NOT try to refute the loudness war and it in fact proves that there is one, what the article is actually questioning is a common misunderstanding about the loudness war. Apparently then, you are paying it "no mind" because you don't have a mind capable of understanding it!

1a. Assuming you have a DAW with loudness analysis tools (and know how to use them) then yes, you could confirm what you think you're hearing. 



TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] If the music in a club is so dam loud I can't even hear myself to say excuse me to get across the room to the restroom, or order a drink, then it's too dam LOUD - period!
> [1a] Even someone with a negative IQ(if possible) could figure that out.



1. No, not too damn loud - period, too damn loud for you. If it were too damn loud period, then it would be deserted and soon go out of business. This is NOT the "what's too damn loud for thesonictruth" forum!! Again. how many times?
1a. Yes, even someone with a negative IQ could figure this out, someone with an even lower IQ would be able to figure it out once it's been explained and someone with a still lower IQ could figure it out, after it's been repeatedly explained numerous times. Again, how many times are you going to need and where does that leave you, a magnitude below a negative IQ, more than a magnitude?

G


----------



## Davesrose

gregorio said:


> 1a. Yes, even someone with a negative IQ could figure this out, someone with an even lower IQ would be able to figure it out once it's been explained and someone with a still lower IQ could figure it out, after it's been repeatedly explained numerous times. Again, how many times are you going to need and where does that leave you, a magnitude below a negative IQ, more than a magnitude?



While IQ tests are very flawed (they have a cultural bias), there's no such thing as a negative number.  Unless, like the *arbitrary* number of nominal level in digital...we set the "average" 100 to 0   But to get back on subject, I think it's best to take a higher ground and not bandy about "low IQ".


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Davesrose said:


> While IQ tests are very flawed (they have a cultural bias), there's no such thing as a negative number.  Unless, like the *arbitrary* number of nominal level in digital...we set the "average" 100 to 0   But to get back on subject, I think it's best to take a higher ground and not bandy about "low IQ".



I was being facetious when I mentioned a 'negative' IQ.  Don't take it so literal.  Common sense should tell anyone that if their ears are starting to buzz that they should not be in a club that loud.


----------



## Davesrose

TheSonicTruth said:


> I was being facetious when I mentioned a 'negative' IQ.  Don't take it so literal.  Common sense should tell anyone that if their ears are starting to buzz that they should not be in a club that loud.



Hard not to take it literal in the "science" forum


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 30, 2019)

gregorio said:


> Again, how many times are you going to need and where
> does that leave you, a magnitude below a negative IQ,
> more than a magnitude?



You know what, Mr. Calbi? 

You're a nasty, bitter individual, regardless of how many gold records might be on your wall.

Belittling someone, telling them 'they have everything backwards', that they're 'obfuscating' matters, all political tools used to cover one's butt when they're confronted with someone who knows a thing or two about that person's profession.

I'll definitely be suggesting that folks take their mastering business elsewhere!


----------



## bigshot (Jun 30, 2019)

gregorio said:


> 1. It represents the headroom you could employ if 0dB = -24dBFS.



Bingo! There's my answer. I was reading zero as the clipping point. -24dB is some arbitrary buffer they're building in. OK. If you just drew the digital chart with zero as the edge of clipping, it would look pretty much the same as the analog chart.

SonicTruth, you are really making a pain in the ass of yourself. That is what Gregorio is trying to tell you with his colorful bluntness. When I was talking about ignoring, I was referring to you. You're like a broken record and you don't listen to anything anyone else says. Those aren't good traits. Your spitefulness is even worse. I'd suggest that you should sit down and be quiet. Take a walk in the sunshine. Interact with people in real life. This forum doesn't bring out the best in you.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> Bingo! There's my answer. I was reading zero as the clipping point. -24dB is some arbitrary buffer they're building in. OK. If you just drew the digital chart with zero as the edge of clipping, it would look pretty much the same as the analog chart.
> 
> SonicTruth, you are really making a pain in the ass of yourself. That is what Gregorio is trying to tell you with his colorful bluntness. When I was talking about ignoring, I was referring to you. You're like a broken record and you don't listen to anything anyone else says. Those aren't good traits. Your spitefulness is even worse. I'd suggest that you should sit down and be quiet. Take a walk in the sunshine. Interact with people in real life. This forum doesn't bring out the best in you.




Interacting with people who play mind-games and tell you that the bright object shining down from the sky at noon isn't the sun tends to do that to me.

And I'm prod to be a PITA to so called big industry professionals.  I know a lot more than some of you give me credit for, or care to admit.


----------



## Davesrose

TheSonicTruth said:


> Interacting with people who play mind-games and tell you that the bright object shining down from the sky at noon isn't the sun tends to do that to me.
> 
> And I'm prod to be a PITA to so called big industry professionals.  I know a lot more than some of you give me credit for, or care to admit.



Yet you've shown you have ignorance of sources you try to quote.


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't know where you got that from.
They provided lots of statistics about the actual change that has been occurring...
And then went on to explain what those changes mean in detail.
All they refuted was some over-simplistic claims about the situation.
They also made a major case for the claim that the change is not the result of flawed technology, or even human error, but is instead a deliberate "artistic choice".
Therefore, rather than being "an example of technology devolving" is is simply an example of artistic tastes changing.

Modern CDs have exactly the same dynamic range as vintage CDs...
What ahs changed is that the engineers who mix them usually choose to squeeze the levels into a narrow part of that range a larger percentage of the time...

In other words, if you compare a modern CD to a fifty year old album, in this context, neither is "recorded at poorer quality"...
Both sound pretty much like the artist and recording engineer wanted them to sound...
The main difference is that you and I _PREFER_ the artistic choices made by most mixing engineers in 1970 to the choices made by most mixing engineers today.



TheSonicTruth said:


> That SOS article tries to refute the loudness war, both the recent nuclear(digital) one, and the long-term uptick in overall loudness in recorded songs and albums.  I know what I can both hear, and confirm(in a DAW).


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jun 30, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> I don't know where you got that from.
> They provided lots of statistics about the actual change that has been occurring...
> And then went on to explain what those changes mean in detail.
> All they refuted was some over-simplistic claims about the situation.
> ...



"Modern CDs have exactly the same dynamic range as vintage CDs..."

Of course they do - the format itself that is.

What is put on them - then vs recently, does NOT.  One would have to be either deaf, dead, or living in the Amazon rain forest to not recognize that.

As far as technology and choice are concerned, I already know that it is artistic choice, albeit technically incorrect procedure that violates every fundamental of recorded sound.  It is possible, with CD, to leave in as much of the original performance dynamics to blow out automotive speakers or living room windows - something previously impossible to contain on LP or even the best half inch studio tape.  

That latter scenario is not one I would condone, just to be clear.    It's up to the artist to utilize as much of, or as little, of that *potential* DR as they want, and also up to you and i not to buy stuff at the hyper-squashed, super-loud end of that spectrum.


----------



## KeithEmo

Your last statement has some truth to it - although only in a very limited way - and only in a limited number of circumstances.
In many cases, running an amplifier at a higher output level will cause it to "wear out" slightly more quickly, mostly because it will be generating a tiny bit more heat.
Of course, the actual effect will be relatively small in most cases.
(I don't drive my car every day at 50 mpH... even though I'm sure it wears out a tiny bit more quickly at 55 mpH.)

However, the same is almost never true for input circuitry, or for the output circuitry on most preamps.
In low-power applications, as long as you avoid overloading anything, the signal level has negligible effect, or no effect at all, on either circuit stress or life expectancy.
(If the circuitry is operating in Class A then it would have no effect at all; if it's operating in Class A/B then it could have a tiny effect.)

Yes, a power amp, and a speaker, both "have to work harder" when the average level is higher.
However, that really isn't true for devices like CD players, DACs, and preamps.
Either they can handle the highest peaks without clipping - or they can't.
In fat, in almost all cases, even a moderate amoutn of clipping won't cause any harm - other than a nasty sound.
(I said "almost" because there are a very few small signal circuit configurations where clipping can cause actual damage.)

And, yes, when you're talking about SIGNAL levels, the level you concern yourself with is the maximum peak level...
If your circuit cannot pass the maximum peak levels then it will clip on the peaks...
If your circuit CAN pass the maximum peak levels without clipping, then it will also pass all lower levels without clipping.

The only "real argument" against the current trend is that we find it to sound unpleasant and unnatural.
(And that's enough for me to consider it to be "a bad thing"... but I will concede that  as being merely my preference.) 



TheSonicTruth said:


> But something else HAS gone up, over time, within that 96dB container we call Red Book:  The AVERAGE level, which my repeated mention of here seems to have had thus far zero effect on your understanding of how we hear. You continue to fixate on peaks, which again, while louder than average level, are mostly fleeting in their existence during playback of a recording.
> 
> Higher average levels = higher average voltages, which can indeed cause longer-term strain on both input and output stages of even a moderately expensive stereo receiver or amplifier.


----------



## KeithEmo

Exactly.

And there's one more thing which is worth pointing out - because it often causes this sort of confusin.
It is true that various standards may specify a "0 dB reference level" that is well below clipping - in order to build headroom into the system.
However, when you open a file in most audio editors, or create a new file, most default to showing "0 dB" as the clipping point (maximum digital level; "all ones").

Therefore, in the context of consumer equipment, when comparing analog equipment to digital equipment.... 
Most analog preamps have a defined "0 dB" level, which refers to the setting where their gain is 1, but you can exceed that level by a significant degree before clipping occurs.
(So they could be said to have "headroom above 0 dB".)
However, many digital audio editors, and most digital audio equipment, including most DACs, define their clipping point as 0 dB.
(And they claim to neither have, nor have any use for, headroom above that.)



bigshot said:


> Bingo! There's my answer. I was reading zero as the clipping point. -24dB is some arbitrary buffer they're building in. OK. If you just drew the digital chart with zero as the edge of clipping, it would look pretty much the same as the analog chart.
> 
> SonicTruth, you are really making a pain in the ass of yourself. That is what Gregorio is trying to tell you with his colorful bluntness. When I was talking about ignoring, I was referring to you. You're like a broken record and you don't listen to anything anyone else says. Those aren't good traits. Your spitefulness is even worse. I'd suggest that you should sit down and be quiet. Take a walk in the sunshine. Interact with people in real life. This forum doesn't bring out the best in you.


----------



## KeithEmo

What you're missing, and the point that article in SOS was attempting to explain, is that what you're talking about is _NOT_ "dynamic range".
Dynamic range is defined as "the difference between the loudest sound and the quietest sound".
And, based on that defnintion, any song whose loudest peak reaches near 0 dB, and which fades down to the noise floor when it finishes, utilizes the entire dynamic range of the CD.
(And, on both vintage and modern CDs, the majority of songs meet that criterion.)

Therefore, by definition, modern CDs have the same dynamic range as always...
What manifests itself as higher average loudness is NOT a reduction in dynamic range (according to the proper definition of that term).
It is in fact a reduction in the crest factor (the average variation between the average level and the peak levels).

I would also disagree with your claim that it is "a technically incorrect procedure that violates every fundamental of recorded sound".
It certainly isn't a good way to achieve an accurate reproduction of the original... which would make it a bad idea if that's your gaol.
However, as long as it achieves exactly what the artist or engineer intended, how can you claim that it violates some arbitrary "fundamental" of how recordings should be made? 
(I could just as reasonably claim that turning an amplifier up until it clips is "clearly poor practice - regardless of whether the guitar player wants to play "fuzz guitar" or not.)

It is absolutely possible to make a recording on a CD that retains most of the dynamic range of the original performance.
And, personally, I generally prefer recordings that are mixed that way.
But I cannot unilaterally claim that choices made by a particular artist or recording engineer are "wrong" simply because I personally find them displeasing.



TheSonicTruth said:


> "Modern CDs have exactly the same dynamic range as vintage CDs..."
> 
> Of course they do - the format itself that is.
> 
> ...


----------



## old tech

TheSonicTruth said:


> I can get Foobar to _calculate _the amount of replay gain, but I don't know how to apply it!  IE if a certain WAV requires -2.7dB playback gain, how do I embed that in meta?


Not sure about wav files (do they have meta data?), but for all other formats it is easy peasy.  Select the files, right click and then choose whether you want replay gain applied by track or album.  There are options to choose the amount of gain.

What I haven't worked out as yet (though admittingly haven't really tried) is how to apply gain to the actual file, rather than the meta.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

old tech said:


> Not sure about wav files (do they have meta data?), but for all other formats it is easy peasy.  Select the files, right click and then choose whether you want replay gain applied by track or album.  There are options to choose the amount of gain.
> 
> What I haven't worked out as yet (though admittingly haven't really tried) is how to apply gain to the actual file, rather than the meta.



In the case of MP3, the amounf of playback gain to be applied gets stored in the metadata.


----------



## old tech

TheSonicTruth said:


> In the case of MP3, the amounf of playback gain to be applied gets stored in the metadata.


Yes, but I mean how to apply the gain to the actual file - for playback on devices that do not have replay gain.


----------



## castleofargh

old tech said:


> Yes, but I mean how to apply the gain to the actual file - for playback on devices that do not have replay gain.


once you have scanned some files in foobar so they have the gain metadata, you can right click -> "replaygain" -> "apply track replaygain to file content" or same with album replaygain. you will get a warning that it's not a reversible process so you might want to do that on a copy ^_^.
or if you want you can add that operation while converting your files. when you use the "convert" tool in foobar(right click on selected files -> "convert" and the "..." so you have access to the options), in the processing option of the converter you can select which gain metadata you want applied and the file will be encoded with that(like it would for any other DSP you would add there like some EQ, crossfeed, or whatever). both give you the file at that gain instead of just a tag that something must understand and apply on the fly while playing the track. I do this all the time for files I put on my old and dumb DAPs.


----------



## old tech

castleofargh said:


> once you have scanned some files in foobar so they have the gain metadata, you can right click -> "replaygain" -> "apply track replaygain to file content" or same with album replaygain. you will get a warning that it's not a reversible process so you might want to do that on a copy ^_^.
> or if you want you can add that operation while converting your files. when you use the "convert" tool in foobar(right click on selected files -> "convert" and the "..." so you have access to the options), in the processing option of the converter you can select which gain metadata you want applied and the file will be encoded with that(like it would for any other DSP you would add there like some EQ, crossfeed, or whatever). both give you the file at that gain instead of just a tag that something must understand and apply on the fly while playing the track. I do this all the time for files I put on my old and dumb DAPs.


Thanks for that.


----------



## castleofargh

in case you're not too familiar with the rest either, or for others who will try, I would suggest to go in the preferences->tool->replaygain scanner and select some oversampling. it adds a lot of CPU usage(and in those hot days, it can be a real test for some computers), and make scanning the files really long. so maybe not go for the maximum oversampling, but a little bit can go a long way in determining a peak value that will account for most intersample clipping. it can be good on occasion to scan more accurately and then select "apply gain and prevent clipping according to peak" when choosing the replay gain options to apply. even without considering intersample clipping, limiting to peak will avoid clipping all the very dynamic stuff where replay gain will suggest boosting the gain(almost all classical music). of course then it won't sound as loud as the rest, some choices must be made here. an even perceived loudness, or no clipping ever even if most aren't noticed in practice.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

castleofargh said:


> once you have scanned some files in foobar so they have the gain metadata, you can right click -> "replaygain" -> "apply track replaygain to file content" or same with album replaygain. you will get a warning that it's not a reversible process so you might want to do that on a copy ^_^.
> or if you want you can add that operation while converting your files. when you use the "convert" tool in foobar(right click on selected files -> "convert" and the "..." so you have access to the options), in the processing option of the converter you can select which gain metadata you want applied and the file will be encoded with that(like it would for any other DSP you would add there like some EQ, crossfeed, or whatever). both give you the file at that gain instead of just a tag that something must understand and apply on the fly while playing the track. I do this all the time for files I put on my old and dumb DAPs.



My Foobar was free. So while I can scan files to determine how much replay gain is needed, I don't have that "apply track replay gain" option.

Also, I'm  not really familiar with the mechanics of how the actual software applies the gain.


----------



## castleofargh

TheSonicTruth said:


> My Foobar was free. So while I can scan files to determine how much replay gain is needed, I don't have that "apply track replay gain" option.
> 
> Also, I'm  not really familiar with the mechanics of how the actual software applies the gain.


you don't have something like this?



I guess it's possible as I've added too many stuff to foobar to count, but I don't see anything that looks like it would change the functions of replaygain. as comonents I have ReplayGain Scanner(well, replaygain) and ReplayGain override which I believe is to let me pick the replay gain action on playback depending on how I play my music(like if I select shuffle playback I can activate the per track gain but if I play by default I can use per album or nothing at all and I don't have to go switch myself every time).


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> While IQ tests are very flawed (they have a cultural bias), there's no such thing as a negative number.



Yes I know, I was just following along with the analogy.



TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] You know what, Mr. Calbi?
> [2] You're a nasty, bitter individual, regardless of how many gold records might be on your wall.
> [3] Belittling someone, telling them 'they have everything backwards', that they're 'obfuscating' matters,
> [3a] all political tools used to cover one's butt when they're confronted with someone who knows a thing or two about that person's profession.
> [4] I'll definitely be suggesting that folks take their mastering business elsewhere!



1. Nope, I've no idea what Mr. Calbi knows. I've never met or even communicated with him. You can't even get your attempted doxxing right!
2. You're the one making the insults and attempting to dox!
3. Actually getting everything backwards and obfuscating matters is the big problem here in the science forum, telling that person they've got it backwards (refuting their falsehoods) isn't, in fact it's encouraged! How after all this time do you still not understand this simple fact?
3a. Again, you're under a delusion! There are many thousands of things to know about TV mixing and many thousands of other things to know about music mastering. Someone who knows one or two of those things is NOT an expert, they're pretty much the opposite of an expert and if they think they are an expert then they're delusional!!!
4. Me too, I've never suggested that my clients go to Mr. Calbi.



TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] Interacting with people who play mind-games and tell you that the bright object shining down from the sky at noon isn't the sun tends to do that to me.
> [2] And I'm prod to be a PITA to so called big industry professionals.
> [2a] I know a lot more than some of you give me credit for ...



1. Interacting with people looking up at the midnight sky but believing it's noon and therefore insisting that the bright object shining down on them is the sun, will always get the same response: You're ignoring or are ignorant of some of the facts and your assertion is therefore completely false, that bright shiny object is NOT the sun, it's the moon! The first thing a sane person would do is check their facts but not you. You just bleat about being told you're completely wrong, pay the facts "no mind" and therefore blindly continue being completely wrong, so you're refuted again, which you bleat about even more and so on ad infinitum! 

2. I too would be proud to be a PITA to big industry professionals BUT ONLY if I actually had my facts straight. If I had the facts completely backwards, then in effect I'd be proud of repeatedly being an ignorant fool!
2a. Then why don't you demonstrate it for a change, instead of demonstrating the exact opposite? What's actually happening is that you're giving yourself unlimited credit for a very limited amount of knowledge! Furthermore, understanding only comes from knowledge of all the pertinent facts, if you're paying some of the pertinent facts "no mind" then you're even more likely to have a false understanding than someone with no knowledge at all, hence the old cliche "a little knowledge is dangerous"!



TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] "Modern CDs have exactly the same dynamic range as vintage CDs..." Of course they do - the format itself that is. What is put on them - then vs recently, does NOT.
> 2. One would have to be either deaf, dead, or living in the Amazon rain forest to not recognize that.



1. Yes it does and you've been provided with reliable evidence/proof. If you disagree, then this being the science forum, present reliable evidence/proof to the contrary!

2. That's not reliable evidence/proof, it's just an insulting assertion that you've made-up, don't you know the difference? Do you really expect to be given "credit" for this?



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Therefore, by definition, modern CDs have the same dynamic range as always... What manifests itself as higher average loudness is NOT a reduction in dynamic range (according to the proper definition of that term). It is in fact a reduction in the crest factor (the average variation between the average level and the peak levels).
> [2] I would also disagree with your claim that it is "a technically incorrect procedure that violates every fundamental of recorded sound". It certainly isn't a good way to achieve an accurate reproduction of the original... which would make it a bad idea if that's your gaol. It is absolutely possible to make a recording on a CD that retains most of the dynamic range of the original performance. ... And, personally, I generally prefer recordings that are mixed that way.



Again, I agree in principle with your post but there are a couple of points which aren't quite right.

1. I agree up to the point that "it is in fact a reduction in the crest factor". Certainly the reduction in crest factor correlates with the progression of the loudness war and indicates more compression/limiting (particularly look-ahead limiting). However, crest factor isn't the only factor and indeed crest factor is not part of the calculation of loudness. What manifests as higher average loudness is a higher, frequency adjusted, RMS. Frequency is a huge part of the perception of loudness, it's part of the loudness wars and crest factor does not account for frequency. 

2. Again, I agree entirely, up to the last two sentences. Yes, it is possible to maintain the dynamic range of the original performance but typically it's highly undesirable to do so. Even in the case of an acoustic classical music performance, it's typically desirable to reduce the dynamic range somewhat, because the dynamic range recorded is typically greater than the dynamic range the audience would perceive. When it comes to popular genres (rock/pop/electronic/etc.) the situation is far more drastic and I don't see how you could have developed such a preference. Typically, a mix with no dynamics processing never exists and even if one does, it only exists for a few minutes and is almost certainly heard by no one except the engineer. Typically: Half the lead vocal is near inaudible and the lyrics completely unintelligible, the drumkit sounds like a toy drumkit being played in a toilet and the guitars sound like they're playing a different piece (albeit in the same key). It sounds terrible and barely even recognisable, no one would prefer that but because it typically sounds so bad at that stage, no one is allowed to hear it, commonly not even the musicians themselves!

G


----------



## bigshot (Jul 1, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> And I'm prod to be a PITA to so called big industry professionals.



I suppose negative attention is better than no attention at all. I don't know if that's going to carry you very far though. It must feel weird to have so little going for you that you have to go into internet forums and pick fights over stuff you only half understand. It kind of makes me feel sorry for you.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> Yes I know, I was just following along with the analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




RE:  Modern vs Vintage CDs

Then explain to me why I must LOWER the volume of the modern CD from the volume setting that was comfortable for listening to the vintage one?

If they are equally dynamic, then exactly what changed?


----------



## KeithEmo

You do not_ HAVE T_O lower the volume.
You find the mastering style of many modern engineers to be unpleasant...
And so you choose to reduce the volume...

How you interpret the explanation is a matter of how you look at the situation itself.
A modern CD has the same physical dynamic range as an old one...
The loudest sounds can be, and probably are, just as loud...
And the quietest sounds are just as quiet.

Dynamic range refers to the range between the quietest sounds and the loudest sounds...
In this case, the range between those two has remained the same...
All that has changed is how the person mastering the disc has chosen to use that range.

A good analogy might be with painting...
Black paint is still black, and white paint is still white, but some artists choose to paint brighter paintings than others.
(There could even be a trend where brighter paintings become popular... but the range between black and white hasn't changed.)



TheSonicTruth said:


> RE:  Modern vs Vintage CDs
> 
> Then explain to me why I must LOWER the volume of the modern CD from the volume setting that was comfortable for listening to the vintage one?
> 
> If they are equally dynamic, then exactly what changed?


----------



## james444

TheSonicTruth said:


> RE:  Modern vs Vintage CDs
> 
> Then explain to me why I must LOWER the volume of the modern CD from the volume setting that was comfortable for listening to the vintage one?
> 
> If they are equally dynamic, then exactly what changed?




I think the Sound On Sound article explains that pretty well:







Look at the mean distribution curve for songs produced in 2007. It peaks at a higher level than the mean curve for 1967 songs. This means the songs are generally louder in 2007. Then look at the 'widths' of both curves: they're comparable, which basically means that something closely related to dynamic variability hasn't changed between 1967 and 2007. Now look at the little indentation at the right of the 2007 curve: songs from this year feature a density of high-level samples that's unnaturally high: level distribution suddenly stops following Gauss's normal distribution near the high levels. Compare the shapes of the two curves: it looks like the blue one was literally 'pushed' towards the right. This shows the result of brickwall limiting.

To go on with the comparison with images, it's as if, for the last 20 years, all pictures in books and magazines have been getting brighter and brighter. There are still deep blacks, the contrast remains intact, but all images look brighter. This is illustrated with the Tower Bridge pictures on the image. It's as if everything these days is supposed to look 'flashy', even though common sense suggests there are some images that shouldn't look flashy at all, in any situation. This is all the more true in the case of audio content, for which 'brighter' doesn't simply mean a higher density of clearer pixels. It also means reduced crest factor, envelope modifications, use of the second loudness paradigm and, in the worst cases, distortion. Common sense suggests that although there is nothing wrong with these characteristics as such, they shouldn't be on virtually all records.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 1, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> You do not_ HAVE T_O lower the volume.



Of course I do - my own ears tell me the f'king modern CD, or remaster of vintage, is LOUDER!

Keith, to be frank, I'm sick of yours, and Gregorio's, and Bigshot's, and everyone else's play on words and mind-games in here.

If my wife tells me it's too fking loud,  then it's TOO F'KING LOUD


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> Of course I do - my own ears tell me thr f'king modern CD, or remaster of vintage, is LOUDER!
> 
> Keith, to be frank, I'm sick of yours, and Gregorio's, and Bigshot's, and everyone else's play on words and mind-games in here.
> 
> If my wife tells me it's too fking loud,  then it's TOO F'KING LOUD




Words to consider:  "It can't be everyone else all the time". 

Have you ever thought of taking a step back and giving consideration to the possibility that the communications issue is on your end?  Or the irony that you keep calling out others for being insulting while posting pictures of horses, cursing constantly and doxing (failed)?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bfreedma said:


> Words to consider:  "It can't be everyone else all the time".
> 
> Have you ever thought of taking a step back and giving consideration to the possibility that the communications issue is on your end?  Or the irony that you keep calling out others for being insulting while posting pictures of horses, cursing constantly and doxing (failed)?



On "my" end??

I've got clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, telling me that a certain CD of mine ISN'T really louder than the other, given the same volume setting, even when my OWN EARS tell me otherwise, and you're telling me the communication issue is with me?

Well I'll tell you something: I've got a very big casino to sell you!


----------



## GearMe (Jul 1, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> On "my" end??
> 
> I've got clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, telling me that a certain CD of mine ISN'T really louder than the other, given the same volume setting, _*even when my OWN EARS tell me otherwise,*_ and you're telling me the communication issue is with me?
> 
> Well I'll tell you something: I've got a very big casino to sell you!



*If someone tells you "Use your ears"* _- they're probably a politician...  

(sorry it seemed to fit the 'discussion)_


----------



## bigshot

SonicTruth, sit down and hush. This is the kind of behavior that gets people thread banned. You don't want that to happen to you again, so treat others with respect- don't insult people or try to dox them, engage with others- don't rant at them, and keep with the flow of the conversation- don't keep dragging it back to your pet subject when no one else has any further interest in discussing it.


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> On "my" end??
> 
> I've got clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, telling me that a certain CD of mine ISN'T really louder than the other, given the same volume setting, even when my OWN EARS tell me otherwise, and you're telling me the communication issue is with me?
> 
> Well I'll tell you something: I've got a very big casino to sell you!




Rather than using your ears, why don't you use an SPL meter and take the possibility of bias out of the equation.  Even though I'm not sure that's what others are telling you.

And again, you to accuse others of being insulting and make that post...


----------



## castleofargh

oh please shoot me now... 

quasi-modo ON:
*personal attacks = no* 
how freaking hard is it to follow that one simple rule?

I don't know who started or how much went down because TBH I'm super bored with this topic and don't read a lot of it(like when I come and 3 pages have been added, I close the tab). right now I'm still in that grey area where things aren't right but I do nothing. it's not like I'm fine with that clever "no u" level of argument that always occurs when someone starts attacking the messenger instead of the message. but why do that when *personal attacks = no* ?
the reason why I'm not moderating is laziness and the complexity of the task. as doing it properly would require that I delete obviously all the improper posts, but also all the quotes and direct replies. each time a post has relevant content and some attack, I have to weight the pros and cons and decide if I should delete(I can't edit your posts anymore since the new forum so it's all or nothing). but then if I remove something significant, the entire page might become an unreadable mess without context, so then what do I do? remove the entire thing? and all the people who did nothing wrong wonder why they got unfairly censored by that dickhead modo. it's a real pain in the butt to moderate entire pages because not only one guy didn't follow the rules, but then several others replied to it and just added oil to the fire.  
if something has no place on this forum, ignore the kid who did it and report the post please. that's by far the best thing you can do for your fellow Head-fiers.
beside just the crazy idea of doing what is right, don't mistake my laziness/lack of moderator skill, for a go ahead signal to keep on going with the attacks! this post is a warning, it even has red in it! sign of danger in most of the animal kingdom. if things don't fall in line, I'll consider that you've seen this warning and ignored it. which is close to killing john wick's dog, level of provocation.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 2, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> RE: Modern vs Vintage CDs. Then explain to me why I must LOWER the volume of the modern CD from the volume setting that was comfortable for listening to the vintage one? If they are equally dynamic, then exactly what changed?



Hallelujah brother, now that is how you should have started; by asking questions rather than making false assertions of fact! Unfortunately though, you're not really asking questions, you're just being facetious again because you've made it abundantly clear that you "pay no mind" to the answers to these questions!!



TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] Keith, to be frank, I'm sick of yours, and Gregorio's, and Bigshot's, and everyone else's play on words and mind-games in here.
> [2] If my wife tells me it's too fking loud, then it's TOO F'KING LOUD



1. And again, completely backwards, well done! You're the one "paying no mind" to the facts, so you're the one playing mind-games!!

2. You're joking right? Do you really believe that science/the facts are dictated by what your wife tells you, or is it that you believe this is the "What thesonictruth's wife tells him" forum? I stated (and it should be obvious in a science based forum) that if you have a contrary view to the presented reliable evidence/proof then you need to present your own reliable evidence/proof. What your wife tells you does NOT qualify as reliable evidence/proof and the fact that you have presented it, just further demonstrates that you obviously have no idea what science and "reliable evidence/proof" actually means. Clearly you're in the wrong forum!
In this particular case, it's not so much what your wife has told you that is wrong, it's what you've erroneously concluded from it but there's no point in explaining this any further because it would answer your questions above and you'll pay it "no-mind" anyway!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 2, 2019)

gregorio said:


> Hallelujah brother, now that is how you should have started; by asking questions rather than making false assertions of fact! Unfortunately though, you're not really asking questions, you're just being facetious again because you've made it abundantly clear that you "pay no mind" to the answers to these questions!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And in the above post, you have given me  no answers regarding the below:

Allow me to clarify:  I understand that the Red Book format of the CD hasn't changed in nearly 40 years.  BUT: Something, about _what has been put on it - the CONTENT_ - has CERTAINLY changed.  Comparing rock to rock, 'American Idiot'(Green Day) is MUCH LOUDER than 'Highway To Hell'(AC/DC CD from mid '80s).  And rap to rap: 'Elephunk'(Black Eyed Peas), blows away 'Run-DMC' or 'Whodini'(both mid-'80s original CDs).

I have simulated this phenomenon myself in my DAW:  I ripped a wav of a vintage song into my DAW and made a copy of it.  Then, I applied a moderate level of DRC and peak-limiting(4dB) to the copy, then applied gain to bring what's left back up to a hair below full scale.

Then I switched between the two while listening, and the one I processed IS LOUDER than the one I left alone.  Even if I peak-normalized the original rip, it was still much softer than the processed version.

My wife out in the hallway told me to STOP - "you're scaring the cats!" - every time I switched to the louder version.  And if you don't believe my wife, you'll incur the wrath of the Philippines: If a Filipino says something's louder than something else - it's LOUD.  And if they smell smoke Gregorio - don't argue! Movie's over, time to exit the cinema.  No BS from that side of the ocean, lol!

So back to my example, yes, they both peak at -0.5dBfs, but the one I FUTZED with is definitely louder. No need to emply a SPL Meter to know that!  I can HEAR the results with my ears, and I can see the difference - the fattened-up sausage waveform vs the ragged one with lots of spikes - in my daw.

Enough with the political tactics Gregorio: alleging I've "got it all backwards", that I make "false assertions", basically that I can't tell sh|t from shinola when they're both in front of me.  Of all the participants within the last five pages of this thread, YOU have imparted to me the LEAST amount of actual knowledge, yet the greatest amount of political diatribe and deflection and criticism of how I "don't know anything".  Not that anyone else within these latest few pages has imparted that much more useful info, but still, you are leading in that regard.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> And in the above post, you have given me no answers regarding the below: ...



Your statement is false, you deciding to ignore the answers is completely different from "me having given you no answers". You accuse us of playing word games when in fact you're the one playing word games! The answers (along with reliable supporting evidence/proof) have ALREADY been posted in the article to which you "pay no mind"! If you really want answers, then read the article, if you don't understand it, then ask but don't just make-up another bunch of false assertions, justify them with what your wife told you and then bleat and insult everyone when your false assertions are refuted!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 2, 2019)

gregorio said:


> Your statement is false, you deciding to ignore the answers is completely different from "me having given you no answers". You accuse us of playing word games when in fact you're the one playing word games! The answers (along with reliable supporting evidence/proof) have ALREADY been posted in the article to which you "pay no mind"! If you really want answers, then read the article, if you don't understand it, then ask but don't just make-up another bunch of false - G



(Gavel knock knock) Judge:  'Vague, ambiguous, deflecting from topic at hand'


See, you just did it again Greg:  telling me to go read some article I've already read three times, even once before I started posting here, instead of using your own words to explain what I'm actually experiencing with modern releases on CD vs releases from 30 years ago on CD.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> See, you just did it again Greg: telling me to go read some article I've already read three times, even once before I started posting here, instead of using your own words to explain what I'm really experiencing with modern releases on CD vs releases from 30 years ago on CD.



It really is impressive, I refute your false statement and you respond by making another false statement and accuse me of doing the same thing again! It's truly ridiculous! I've posted that article before (in a different thread) and explained it to you in my own words. You explain to me why should I do it again, especially in light of the fact that you "Pay it no mind" anyway?

You stated "_That SOS article tries to refute the loudness war, both the recent nuclear(digital) one_" but the main section (after the intro) starts "*Is Music Really Louder Now? - **Yes it is, and there is no doubt about that.*". You've apparently read that 3 times and still somehow falsely understood it to mean the opposite. Sorry but I don't know how to explain that sentence any clearer, even if I wanted to. Obviously, it doesn't matter how many times you read even a perfectly clear, simple sentence if you're "paying it no mind"!

G


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 2, 2019)

As cool as it would be, I really don’t think @gregorio is Greg Calbi. Greg Calbi does not appear to be a classically trained musician and he does not appear to be involved in the production of movies, for starters. So my best judgment is that it is a pretty serious offense toward both @gregorio and Greg Calbi to identify @gregorio as Greg Calbi.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> It really is impressive, I refute your false statement and you respond by making another false statement and accuse me of doing the same thing again! It's truly ridiculous! I've posted that article before (in a different thread) and explained it to you in my own words. You explain to me why should I do it again, especially in light of the fact that you "Pay it no mind" anyway?
> 
> You stated "_That SOS article tries to refute the loudness war, both the recent nuclear(digital) one_" but the main section (after the intro) starts "*Is Music Really Louder Now? - **Yes it is, and there is no doubt about that.*". You've apparently read that 3 times and still somehow falsely understood it to mean the opposite. Sorry but I don't know how to explain that sentence any clearer, even if I wanted to. Obviously, it doesn't matter how many times you read even a perfectly clear, simple sentence if you're "paying it no mind"!
> 
> G





Steve999 said:


> As cool as it would be, I really don’t think @gregorio is Greg Calbi. Greg Calbi does not appear to be a classically trained musician and he does not appear to be involved in the production of movies, for starters. So my best judgment is that it is a pretty serious offense toward both @gregorio and Greg Calbi to identify @gregorio as Greg Calbi.



In all honesty, in my last reply I was too lazy to type out -orio! lol


----------



## bigshot

I don't have a wife, but if I had let my mom tell me when something was too loud, my teenage years would have been a lot less enjoyable.


----------



## castleofargh

Steve999 said:


> As cool as it would be, I really don’t think @gregorio is Greg Calbi. Greg Calbi does not appear to be a classically trained musician and he does not appear to be involved in the production of movies, for starters. So my best judgment is that it is a pretty serious offense toward both @gregorio and Greg Calbi to identify @gregorio as Greg Calbi.


I can tell Greg's name to whoever pays me ...





...one million dollars!


----------



## castleofargh

@TheSonicTruth you do seem a little stuck in your worldview(like most opinionated people). if a CD feels louder than another one, then so be it. we now have an entire sample size of 2 CDs, so what? all the terms we mostly use incorrectly to define sound levels or notions of loudness, dynamic, etc, have an actual definition that some people do know and use correctly when interpreting what we say. maybe it's not very fair to crucify you when you use some wrongly for your argumentation and then let me go when I do the same. but you can't really expect equal treatment and high level tolerance from someone you have repeatedly antagonized on that very same subject. me being the ignorant modo trying his best, does invite more forgiving reactions in this particular context. 

 you like to take stuff and use it as evidence of loudness war, abusive compression, and similar "bad habits" of modern recording. but most of the time, what you show has many reasons to be what it is, and you picking your favorite explanation is not accepted as a fine rigorous argument. judging digital tools and methods by what was perhaps a standard for old analog stuff, is at best a retrograde way to look at things, and more often than not, simply an incorrect way to define things. musical genres have evolved, recording and playback tools have evolved, the job of a sound engineer has evolved, our consumer habits concerning music have evolved a lot, including how we listen to music(a lot more on the go or in noisy places). we wouldn't criticize modern music because it doesn't follow the standards of the first waltz.

now forgetting all this for a sec, a CD has 16bit to play with. if I was creating my album and someone came telling me to follow say EBU R128 recommendations for my music content, I'd tell that person to F off. first because I'm the creator and wish to do things the way I want. but also because I'm not giving up 3 or 4 of my 16bits when that loudness standard could pretty much be applied on playback or the listener could just go and turn the volume knob. it completely makes sense to normalize peaks to 0dB on a music album because it is how you retain the most data. to take the photography analogy posted before, it is the reason why on films I would often underexpose a little. while on digital camera I have completely embraced "exposing to the right", because that's what gives me the most information with that type of sensor. and just the same as digital audio, we end up playing very close to clipping because that's the best choice in this context.
back to music, of course a classical album is by nature not going to be overly processed, it involves acoustic instruments and maybe voices also not processed much, so the overall dynamic range will tend to be pretty big. placing the peaks near zero dB will make that genre sound overall much quieter than say a recording of a typical synthesizer, or some modern music with heavily processed voices and instruments. nobody's wrong, nothing is "bad", they're just different genres done differently and giving different results. 

when you argue that a modern release of an old album is too compressed for your taste, I can sympathize with that, in fact I often agree(not always, but often enough). when you argue that the music should follow the original intent, I can again understand where you come from. I can certainly understand the desire to respect the integrity of an art piece. although what exactly gets to be defined as the art piece when most of what we will hear never even existed, and the playback will always be affected by the playback gears? that's kind of a tricky notion for me. but beside those 2 ideas, anytime you complain about music being louder or too compressed, that's really just your own taste disagreeing with the style of a period. it's not different than when someone hates rap music. there is no objective argument about that, no right or wrong. before was one way, after is another, it's basically evolution.


----------



## bigshot

I know who Castle is. He is one of the knights who say Ni.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> I know who Castle is. He is one of the knights who say Ni.


Ahh!  Don´t use that word!  He might send us off to get another shrubbery.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 3, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> if a CD feels louder than another one, then so be it. we now have an entire sample size of 2 CDs, so what? all the terms we mostly use incorrectly to define sound levels or notions of loudness, dynamic, etc, have an actual definition that some people do know and use correctly when interpreting what we say. ma



"feels louder"?  It IS louder!!

Just to satisfy all the politicians on here, I metered the two CDs I mentioned, Elephunk and DMC:  80dB sensitivity, A-weighting, Slow response.

Once I had DMC hovering around Zero  @ 80db, where most of the songs I sampled stayed midway through, I switched to Elephunk.  Same amp volume and meter settings and physical location - about where I would sit.

Barely two bars in, the intro to Elephunk PEGGED THAT METER ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT!  Sure, it dropped for a few seconds at a time, to about +2 SPL, or during a softer intro, like trk. 13 "Where Is the Love"?, but once even that song got going, it stayed above +4 on that meter consistently, pegging to the right often.

So now, are you all satisfied that I am not imagining things?  The MATERIAL on my more recent CD IS LOUDER than the material on my older one.

Aside: Once I volume normalized - TURNED DOWN - Elephunk to average 0 on the meter, I noticed one thing - the needle quite consistently hovered there.  When I put DMC back on, and normalized - TURNED IT UP - to 0 on the meter, the needle moved above and below zero a bit more than it did during the Black Eyed Peas.  This movement to me implies more range in loudness on the older DMC recording, and less on the BEP one.  More dynamics?  You guys tell me - you're the experts in semantics!   I just deal with what IS.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

castleofargh said:


> anytime you complain about music being
> louder or too compressed, that's really just your own
> taste disagreeing with the style of a period



It's not my taste, or even about my taste.  Stop playing word games!  Elephunk proved louder than DMC.    American Idiot proved louder than Highway To Hell and even my Kiss CDs.  

Castle, with me you get the real deal.  If we park our cars together and your's is white and mine is Navy, your car is BRIGHTER than mine - period.   It's not my "opinion".  White is a brighter color than Navy.  Facts here, not Fox!


----------



## james444

TheSonicTruth said:


> Castle, with me you get the real deal.  If we park our cars together and your's is white and mine is Navy, your car is BRIGHTER than mine - period.   It's not my "opinion".  White is a brighter color than Navy.  Facts here, not Fox!



Not quite, I'm afraid. Your example is valid for lightness, but not necessarily for brightness. While it's a fact that white is a lighter color than navy (regardless of lighting condition), the same cannot be said about brightness. 

If Castle's white car is parked in the shade and your navy car is parked in the sun, the navy car may well be perceived as brighter than the white one.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/5102224/


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> It's not my taste, or even about my taste.  Stop playing word games!  Elephunk proved louder than DMC.    American Idiot proved louder than Highway To Hell and even my Kiss CDs.
> 
> Castle, with me you get the real deal.  If we park our cars together and your's is white and mine is Navy, your car is BRIGHTER than mine - period.   It's not my "opinion".  White is a brighter color than Navy.  Facts here, not Fox!




Has anyone argued that one CD may be louder (or softer) than an entirely different title?  That seems like a statement of the obvious.  The previous discussion was about the difference (or not) between two versions of the same recording.

You don't like louder CDs.  I think everyone knows that.  Can we move on?

As stated above, you car color analogy is incomplete/incorrect.  That tends to be an issue with over-generalizations.


----------



## Light - Man

Maybe if Castles car was set on fire (no fraudulent insurance claims intended ) then it might be as bright as white.

See guys, we can't even agree on the difference between black and white on this thread!

Time to cull this thread and put it out of its misery.

This thread is just a conduit for bickering and nothing positive or worthwhile will ever be achieved here.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bfreedma said:


> That seems like a statement of the obvious. The previous discussion was about the difference (or not) between two versions of the same recording.



Keith Emo, a few pages back, suggested that I "don't have to turn down" the volume for the CD that sounds louder to me.  So perhaps you should clarify that with him.  Of course I have to turn down the louder recording - people are leaving the room!

As far as 'original' vs 'remastered' of the same album - in the case of say, 'High Voltage' - of course the meter indicates louder for the remaster!  Not as extreme as Elephunk or American Idiot(albums of their own era) but still louder.


----------



## KeithEmo

This whole "argument" has deteriorated into an argument about semantics.

Let's just that, for the sake of argument, on average, more people bought white cars this year than fifty years ago.
But let's also agree that a white car made today is not any brighter than a white car made fifty years ago.

It is technically most accurate to say: "More people are buying white cars now than fifty years ago."
It is also correct to say: "The average color of a car bought today is brighter than the average color of a car fifty years ago."
I would consider it less concise and less informative to declare that: "Cars have gotten brighter in the last fifty years... "
Although you might reasonably argue that it isn't technically incorrect either.
(It's less concise because it fails to provide enough details to tell us if more white cars were sold or if the color of white paint has actually gotten brighter.)

I think that, at this point, when it comes to modern music recordings, we all know what we mean.

The article in SOS was making a point of what they see as a sort of misunderstanding, or perhaps misattribution (I agree with their assertion).
Many people today seem to believe that modern music is "poorly recorded" due to "incompetent engineering"....
Many others seem to believe that CDs, or perhaps digital media, or even digital audio editors, somehow "inherently" reduce dynamic range - either deliberately or unintentionally....
The point of the article, backed up by plenty of data, is simply that the technical capabilities of modern recording formats and modern equipment are just the same as they ever were....
(If anything, they're _far better_. For example, a 24 bit digital audio file can reproduce far wider dynamic range than a vinyl record album.)
And it is merely an _artistic choice_ of modern artists and recording engineers to produce music that on average occupies a smaller part of that range more of the time.
(And this makes "the loudness war" a "cultural shift" or "a matter of taste" or even "artists selling out to tone-deaf producers and listeners" rather than "a technical failing or limitation".)

In this case, since there are words that define the situation accurately and concisely, it seems to make sense to use _them_....
Rather than to continue arguing whether words that describe the situation in more common terms, but less accurately, "are right or not"...



TheSonicTruth said:


> It's not my taste, or even about my taste.  Stop playing word games!  Elephunk proved louder than DMC.    American Idiot proved louder than Highway To Hell and even my Kiss CDs.
> 
> Castle, with me you get the real deal.  If we park our cars together and your's is white and mine is Navy, your car is BRIGHTER than mine - period.   It's not my "opinion".  White is a brighter color than Navy.  Facts here, not Fox!


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> I know who Castle is. He is one of the knights who say Ni.


for another million I can leak photographic evidence that you're hiding a space alien in your bat cave.




TheSonicTruth said:


> It's not my taste, or even about my taste.  Stop playing word games!  Elephunk proved louder than DMC.    American Idiot proved louder than Highway To Hell and even my Kiss CDs.
> 
> Castle, with me you get the real deal.  If we park our cars together and your's is white and mine is Navy, your car is BRIGHTER than mine - period.   It's not my "opinion".  White is a brighter color than Navy.  Facts here, not Fox!


my point wasn't that an album couldn't be louder, but that you're complaining about it as if it was a mistake. I just see different albums being different, and a youngster raised on modern stuff might actually complain that DMC is too quiet to fit with the rest of his playlist. old recordings did often have more headroom and many were more dynamic. now it's different. the real options are as such:
1-do nothing and accept that different albums are simply different the way they already are when using different singers, notes, and all that. if it annoys you like it does me, you can use replaygain, some sort of normalizers like Sony and other brands have on some devices, or play music from online services that already reduce the difference in perceived levels to some extent, or whatever option you find best for yourself. I just output my signal at 24bits because replaygain+EQ+often digital volume setting, it can become a lot for a 16bit signal. 

2-try to even things out by pushing the quiet stuff up until 0dB. but in many instances(almost all classical music for starters) those quiet stuff still have some content already near 0dB. so now the actual choice is to clip such album to make it sound like the others(nobody is a fan of that idea). or to compress those albums to gain the headroom necessary to align it better with the perceived level of modern stuff. it's done fairly often with new releases and you absolutely hate that approach and made everybody well aware of that, but it's still one solution that that perceived loudness issue. 

3-try to even things out by reducing the gain of the louder stuff. I talked about R128 in my previous post, that's one possibility, knowing that in practice without clipping anything and without compressing anything, there will be many track/albums(including again, a lot of classical music) that won't be able to comply and will remain a good deal quieter subjectively than the predefined loudness target. and as I said, people making albums will probably never agree to sacrifice several bits of their CD for that purpose unless they are forced to do it by law. 
to solve the matter of the very dynamic albums remaining too low so they aren't clipped nor compressed, we would have to reduce the gain of everything else to match the quietest albums. but now we're talking pretty massive gain reduction for modern albums genres. we're now seriously flirting with quantization noise becoming audible even for the cardboard ears and their blind tests, who gather in this sub section. meaning that in this scenario, we're pretty much forced to use 24bit. it's doable, it's a serious solution to most issues, but even then, many people will complain. starting with all the true believers of 24bit learning about all the bits that might be sacrificed on the album they will purchase. and ending with guys like me who don't mind using 24bit to much, but don't want to have to pay extra for it. even less so when some options from 1- can give me the same result with a cheaper 16bit album. 

4- force mastering engineers to do things the way you want like a dictator, even if it means that the album cannot sound the way the artist or sound engineers wanted it to sound. that would probably kill entire musical genres. 


am I missing some solutions? if not, then there you have your options. good luck forcing you view of the correct choice onto the rest of the world.


----------



## taffy2207

castleofargh said:


> for another million I can leak photographic evidence that you're hiding a space alien in your bat cave.



To be fair, that's ET fault for claiming he could hear differences between Audio Formats though


----------



## gregorio (Jul 4, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> if I was creating my album and someone came telling me to follow say EBU R128 recommendations for my music content, I'd tell that person to F off. first because I'm the creator and wish to do things the way I want. but also because I'm not giving up 3 or 4 of my 16bits when that loudness standard could pretty much be applied on playback or the listener could just go and turn the volume knob.



Hang on, careful here. That's not how EBU R128 (or ATSC 85/A or the underlying ITU BS.1770) loudness normalisation works. If you have a completed master, analyse it with say R128 and then raise or lower the level to achieve a target loudness, the end result is very different to if you create a mix/master to comply with that same target loudness!! To over-simplify; loudness normalization works on the principle of applying a filter (what's called a "K-Weighted" filter, that's somewhat related to the inverse of a loudness contour) and then measuring the average (RMS) of that filtered signal over the duration of the song. Because it's an average over time, there are two fundamental ways of achieving that average: A. Simply have a signal that always maintains that target average or B. Have a signal that spends half it's time at the maximum level above the target average and half it's time at a corresponding amount below the target average. For example, let's say our target loudness is -20LUFS and we have two signals, "A" and "B": Signal "A" peaks at 0dBFS, stays there constantly and measures -10LUFS. Signal "B" also peaks at 0dBFS and also measures -10LUFS but only half the time, the other half the time it peaks at say -12dBFS and measures -30LUFS. To achieve our target loudness of -20LUFS: Signal "A" has to be lowered by 10dB, it now peaks at -10dBFS and stays there. Signal "B" doesn't have to be changed at all, it already hits the target (averages -20LUFS) and it still peaks at 0dBFS (half the time). Clearly there is a significant difference between "A" and "B" but the only option available on playback is effectively "A", lower the whole signal/song to match the target loudness, however the creators of the signal/song can do either "A", "B" or anywhere in between. In practice, there are virtually no circumstances where the artists would choose "A", they would virtually always choose some variation of "B". This has two consequences: Firstly, applying the loudness standard on playback would be a significantly different (and undesirable) result to applying it during creation and Secondly, the resultant masters would still peak at or near 0dBFS and so the artists would not be "giving up" any bits (but of course they couldn't stay at 0dBFS constantly).



TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] Just to satisfy all the politicians on here, I metered the two CDs I mentioned, Elephunk and DMC:  80dB sensitivity, A-weighting, Slow response. ...Barely two bars in, the intro to Elephunk PEGGED THAT METER ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT!  Sure, it dropped for a few seconds at a time, to about +2 SPL, or during a softer intro, like trk. 13 "Where Is the Love"?
> So now, are you all satisfied that I am not imagining things?  The MATERIAL on my more recent CD IS LOUDER than the material on my older one.
> [2] .... This movement to me implies more range in loudness on the older DMC recording, and less on the BEP one.  More dynamics?  You guys tell me - you're the experts in semantics!   I just deal with what IS.



1. You're joking right? OK, let's use an analogy because clearly you can't understand what's going on with audio: Let's say I make the assertion that a 1.0l VW Polo has a more powerful engine than say a 6.0l truck. Everyone who knows anything about vehicle engines would tell me I'm wrong. So I say, "to satisfy all those politicians", that I've measured and proven it, the Polo's engine goes all the way to 5,500rpm on a tacho, while the truck only goes to 4,000rpm. Unfortunately of course, a tacho does not measure engine power, it only measures RPM and RPM is only one factor in the power output of an engine. I've actually measured the wrong thing, I should have measured BHP and/or torque! The only thing I've actually proven (and "satisfied" everyone of) is that I'm ignorant about engines/engine power! However, I know I'm not ignorant, I know a thing or two about engines, so everyone else is just playing semantics/mind-games and being politicians. - What am I? Am I both ignorant and deluded (that I know what I'm talking about) or am I right and everyone else is wrong?
You've measured sound pressure level (SPL), not loudness (LUFS/LKFS), you've measured the wrong thing! You've therefore satisfied us of just one thing, that you don't know what loudness is and are ignorant that SPL is only one factor of it!

2. And the movement of the needle on the tacho implies to me more range in engine power on the Polo, and less on the truck. You guys tell me - you're the experts in semantics! I just deal with what IS.



TheSonicTruth said:


> Keith Emo, a few pages back, suggested that I "don't have to turn down" the volume for the CD that sounds louder to me. So perhaps you should clarify that with him. Of course I have to turn down the louder recording - people are leaving the room!



What people are leaving the room? You + your wife + maybe a mate or, all the people in the world? We've already ascertained that some/many night clubs are too loud for you (and presumably your wife), does everyone always leave these clubs? If these clubs were always empty, they'd rapidly go out of business and there wouldn't be any of these clubs. So how do you explain their continued existence, if it's not just your (and your wife's) personal taste about loudness?

G


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> Hang on, careful here. That's not how EBU R128 (or ATSC 85/A or the underlying ITU BS.1770) loudness normalisation works. If you have a completed master, analyse it with say R128 and then raise or lower the level to achieve a target loudness, the end result is very different to if you create a mix/master to comply with that same target loudness!! To over-simplify; loudness normalization works on the principle of applying a filter (what's called a "K-Weighted" filter, that's somewhat related to the inverse of a loudness contour) and then measuring the average (RMS) of that filtered signal over the duration of the song. Because it's an average over time, there are two fundamental ways of achieving that average: A. Simply have a signal that always maintains that target average or B. Have a signal that spends half it's time at the maximum level above the target average and half it's time at a corresponding amount below the target average. For example, let's say our target loudness is -20LUFS and we have two signals, "A" and "B": Signal "A" peaks at 0dBFS, stays there constantly and measures -10LUFS. Signal "B" also peaks at 0dBFS and also measures -10LUFS but only half the time, the other half the time it peaks at say -12dBFS and measures -30LUFS. To achieve our target loudness of -20LUFS: Signal "A" has to be lowered by 10dB, it now peaks at -10dBFS and stays there. Signal "B" doesn't have to be changed at all, it already hits the target (averages -20LUFS) and it still peaks at 0dBFS (half the time). Clearly there is a significant difference between "A" and "B" but the only option available on playback is effectively "A", lower the whole signal/song to match the target loudness, however the creators of the signal/song can do either "A", "B" or anywhere in between. In practice, there are virtually no circumstances where the artists would choose "A", they would virtually always choose some variation of "B". This has two consequences: Firstly, applying the loudness standard on playback would be a significantly different (and undesirable) result to applying it during creation and Secondly, the resultant masters would still peak at or near 0dBFS and so the artists would not be "giving up" any bits (but of course they couldn't stay at 0dBFS constantly).


not sure I get your point. if I wanted to make a modern album with low dynamic like many in existence, the kind that troubles @TheSonicTruth for being too loud, wouldn't I have to put the highest peak several dB down so the average can reach the target?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

castleofargh said:


> not sure I get your point. if I wanted to make a modern album with low dynamic like many in existence, the kind that troubles @TheSonicTruth for being too loud, wouldn't I have to put the highest peak several dB down so the average can reach the target?



You, as the material provider, don't have to adhere to the loudness standard.  The deliverer(broadcaster, streamer, etc) will apply appropriate gain to bring it into line.

As far as "troubling me"?  I am hardly the only person on Earth bothered by excessively loud music or other content.  A Google of loudness will surely not bring up "the sonic Truth".  I'm just tired of the politicians and connivers on here  trying to tell me what I hear, see, or feel isn't real.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> not sure I get your point. if I wanted to make a modern album with low dynamic like many in existence, the kind that troubles @TheSonicTruth for being too loud, wouldn't I have to put the highest peak several dB down so the average can reach the target?



Not necessarily, depending on the construction of the song and what the average (LUFS/LKFS) target actually is. As the SOS article demonstrates/proves, the dynamic range/variability hasn't really changed much over the decades, even though compression and limiting have significantly increased. With a typical "intro/verse/chorus/verse/chorus/outro" type structure, you could achieve a lower LUFS by making the mix of the intro, outro and verses more sparse (though not necessarily lower peak level) while the choruses are still the same level (peaking at 0dBFS, with the same amount of compression/limiting). Other genres, such as most EDM, has a somewhat less strict song structure but still has sparser (or quieter sounding) sections building up to louder/big climax type sections, even though it's all compressed to death. The only pieces where you'd struggle and probably have to reduce peak level is some thrash/death metal pieces, which sometimes have little/no structure, it's just dense thrash from beginning to end.

@TheSonicTruth - Oh, you must be right - because using big, bold fonts for your insults definitely qualifies as reliable evidence/proof. 
And BTW, you did NOT measure loudness, by your own admission you measured SPL and, for the umpteenth time, neither me, nor the article, nor anyone else here is stating that there isn't a loudness war! You can't understand analogies deliberately simplified for your benefit and you can't even understand simple sentences! Honestly, what is wrong with you?

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> Honestly, what is wrong with you?



Nothing at all.  Because if there was, there would also be something wrong with my wife, and any guests we have had over, listening with us.

I just listened to CDs from different eras, and for the most part the recent ones ARE LOUDER, to anyone's ears, not just mine, than those of 30 years ago.  

And all the deflections in the world, telling me I'm "measuring the wrong thing", etc.  won't change that indisputable conclusion.

Like I said gregorio: Run for office!  You'd be a great politician - tell people what they want to hear, tell them what's real, and what isn't.  Wait: don't we have someone in DC doing all that now?  I must have you and him mixed up in my mind.


----------



## castleofargh

TheSonicTruth said:


> You, as the material provider, don't have to adhere to the loudness standard.  The deliverer(broadcaster, streamer, etc) will apply appropriate gain to bring it into line.
> 
> As far as "troubling me"?  I am hardly the only person on Earth bothered by excessively loud music or other content.  A Google of loudness will surely not bring up "the sonic Truth".  I'm just tired of the politicians and connivers on here  trying to tell me what I hear, see, or feel isn't real.


I'd be very happy if all the audio sources had a sort of replaygain integrated.  as to politician, I write "perceived louder" instead of "being louder", you interpret that as me doubting your ability to tell if something is really louder. just now I mention your name as a very obvious example of someone unhappy with music stuck near 0dB all the time, and you're mad as if you weren't by far the most obvious reference of someone obsessed and very vocal about those stuff on the forum. all right, I'm a politician if you want. 


I think I'm done trying to clarify your mess.


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> Not necessarily, depending on the construction of the song and what the average (LUFS/LKFS) target actually is. As the SOS article demonstrates/proves, the dynamic range/variability hasn't really changed much over the decades, even though compression and limiting have significantly increased. With a typical "intro/verse/chorus/verse/chorus/outro" type structure, you could achieve a lower LUFS by making the mix of the intro, outro and verses more sparse (though not necessarily lower peak level) while the choruses are still the same level (peaking at 0dBFS, with the same amount of compression/limiting). Other genres, such as most EDM, has a somewhat less strict song structure but still has sparser (or quieter sounding) sections building up to louder/big climax type sections, even though it's all compressed to death. The only pieces where you'd struggle and probably have to reduce peak level is some thrash/death metal pieces, which sometimes have little/no structure, it's just dense thrash from beginning to end.


all right so I didn't get the wrong idea. but maybe I'm expecting more albums to have to go seriously down in gain than is actually the case based on what replaygain(that now relies on the R128 thing AFAIK) does to my library.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

castleofargh said:


> perceived louder"



If 100 people think something is either louder than something else, or is too loud, period, they're not "perceiving" it - it's JUST TOO FRICKN LOUD!

Stop with the play on words already - all of you!


----------



## Light - Man




----------



## Yuurei

TheSonicTruth said:


> If 100 people think something is either louder than something else, or is too loud, period, they're not "perceiving" it - it's JUST TOO FRICKN LOUD!



And what if 1000 people think it's not louder or too loud?


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> Nothing at all. Because if there was, there would also be something wrong with my wife ...



Thanks for proving my point! And thanks also for the again entertaining: It must be scientific fact because my wife is the same!



castleofargh said:


> all right so I didn't get the wrong idea. but maybe I'm expecting more albums to have to go seriously down in gain than is actually the case based on what replaygain(that now relies on the R128 thing AFAIK) does to my library.



Firstly, to be honest, I'm not sure what replaygain is exactly based on, it might be the same basic principle as R128 (IE. The underlying ITU k-weighted RMS) but I'd be surprised if it is actually R128. There seems to be various different flavours of replaygain. R128 is designed for TV broadcast and loudness is normalised to -23LUFS. However, that is too low for many playback devices, the target for Apple Music is (according to Bob Katz) equivalent to -16.5LUFS and Youtube (when they apply it) is reportedly equivalent to -13LUFS. Again, we come back to the problem of music having no agreed/mandated standards, this is a pretty big difference between target levels and it also goes back to where we first started, -23LUFS potentially being a bit low even for some TVs/systems and is sometimes one of the reasons why the dialogue might seem occasionally too quiet.

Secondly, even with a fairly low target LUFS, it is of course still possible to have the loudest sections at 0dBFS and heavily compressed but the duration of those sections may have to be shorter (relative to the duration of the song) and the less loud sections even quieter. Generally that would still be preferable to most artists than just lo lower the level of the whole song. What I would expect to see eventually though is still the loudest sections peaking at 0dBFS quite consistently but probably three things: Not quite so much limiting, not so much EQ (or multi-band compression + make-up gain) emphasising the most sensitive region of hearing and a gradual evolution of song structure/construction. 



TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] If 100 people think something is either louder than something else, or is too loud, period, they're not "perceiving" it - it's JUST TOO FRICKN LOUD!
> [2] Stop with the play on words already - all of you!



1. True, providing of course the population of the planet is 100 people, is that what you're suggesting? You haven't answered the question of how come all the night clubs still exist, where the music is too frickn loud for you but not for the countless thousands who pay good money for it to be that loud! This is the sound science forum, not the "it's too loud for thesonictruth and his wife" forum. How many times (are you going to make a fool of yourself)?

2. Yes, a simple sentence is a "play on words" and you've repeatedly demonstrated that you can't understand a simple sentence but that's your problem, not ours! "All of us" can't stop with the sentences because it's how the rest of our species communicates!

G


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> Firstly, to be honest, I'm not sure what replaygain is exactly based on, it might be the same basic principle as R128 (IE. The underlying ITU k-weighted RMS) but I'd be surprised if it is actually R128. There seems to be various different flavours of replaygain. R128 is designed for TV broadcast and loudness is normalised to -23LUFS. However, that is too low for many playback devices, the target for Apple Music is (according to Bob Katz) equivalent to -16.5LUFS and Youtube (when they apply it) is reportedly equivalent to -13LUFS. Again, we come back to the problem of music having no agreed/mandated standards, this is a pretty big difference between target levels and it also goes back to where we first started, -23LUFS potentially being a bit low even for some TVs/systems and is sometimes one of the reasons why the dialogue might seem occasionally too quiet.
> 
> Secondly, even with a fairly low target LUFS, it is of course still possible to have the loudest sections at 0dBFS and heavily compressed but the duration of those sections may have to be shorter (relative to the duration of the song) and the less loud sections even quieter. Generally that would still be preferable to most artists than just lo lower the level of the whole song. What I would expect to see eventually though is still the loudest sections peaking at 0dBFS quite consistently but probably three things: Not quite so much limiting, not so much EQ (or multi-band compression + make-up gain) emphasising the most sensitive region of hearing and a gradual evolution of song structure/construction.


things have changed a good deal over the years in foobar and probably will again. at some point we could set our own target, but I can't seem to find that option anymore. tried a few tracks and I'm getting a stable -18LUFS (using dpmeter3 VST inside foobar) for each entire individual track while track gain is applied. so hey indeed seem to have given up on the -23LUFS and picked a gentler value, at the cost of the target not coming close to most of my classical albums that I can't boost without clipping or compressing them. 

about your secondly, I agree that if such standard was forced onto the music industry, they would most likely adapt to that and most would change the way they would make their album. part of my previous argument was about how things changed with new tools so I'm not going to contest that likely possibility^_^. but I was considering the case of someone who wished to make an album with the dynamic of the worst Metallica album, because that's how he imagined his tracks should sound. or even more annoying, already released albums that had really low dynamic and would be released again with a mandatory loudness normalization standard. but I guess that would lead to remastering when possible instead of giving up some dBs. so you do have a point.


----------



## GearMe (Jul 4, 2019)

Yuurei said:


> And what if 1000 people think it's not louder or too loud?



It's 10x TOO FRICKIN' LOUD!!! 

(or not)


----------



## bigshot (Jul 4, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> I am hardly the only person on Earth bothered by excessively loud music or other content.



In the kinds of music I listen to, it isn't an issue at all. If compression bothers you so much, you should explore other kinds of music. I think you'll find that the problem isn't as pervasive as you seem to think it is. And there are some kinds of music that actually benefit from compression. If you understand why it's happening, you can figure out how to avoid it.



TheSonicTruth said:


> Nothing at all (wrong with me).  Because if there was, there would also be something wrong with my wife, and any guests we have had over, listening with us.



I had an uncle who at every family gathering would bring up the topic of duck hunting. He would say, "Speaking of duck hunting..." and the whole room would go quiet. Everyone had learned that if you just let him get his comments out, the conversation could turn back to other more interesting subjects.

When I have family and friends over and I put on music or a movie, we talk about the music or the movie. The movies and music I play have enough about them to think about and discuss that we don't need to get to technical minutia about how it was recorded.

By the way, have you considered picking up a second hand dynamic expander? It might help your system a bit. Loudness can also be exacerbated by room reflections. Room treatment might help too... if the wife will allow.



Yuurei said:


> And what if 1000 people think it's not louder or too loud?



He must throw very large parties for his wife and guests to number 1000! Perhaps he has a harem of wives!



gregorio said:


> It must be scientific fact because my wife is the same!



If you are seeking the solution to a problem occurring in quite different situations, it's best to look for a common denominator. Perhaps the wife is the problem. (says me, the confirmed bachelor!)


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> And there are some kinds of music that actually benefit from compression.



I'm pretty sure without _proper _amounts of compression a lot of the classic rock from the '70s, and rap from the '80s would not sound quite like it does.

In the nuclear(digital) era - mid-1990s to present - it, combined with limiting, has been overused, at least in the popular genres(rock, pop, rap, country, r&b).


----------



## bfreedma




----------



## bigshot (Jul 4, 2019)

It isn't a problem in the rock, rap, country and r&b I listen to, but that stuff probably isn't considered contemporary pop music.


----------



## AudioThief

Head-Fiers, I have a question for you.

On the subreddit /r/headphones, they like to mock head-fiers (and audiophiles in general) for believing in sound improvements that "can't be scientifically proven". Now, I know of measurements, and I know of THD measuerments etc.

If we agree that measurements by and large tell you about the headphones balance and linearity, and that a low THD number is an objectively good thing, can we also agree that most reasonably made headphones score well here, objectively speaking? 

So then, my question becomes - How can you "prove" objectively that a Stax headphone has more clarity and detail, and a faster transient response than say a Philips SHP9500? Can someone prove that to me?

Obviously I've heard electrostats and the philips, and I know that the stax are much better. But how can you prove it? How can you even prove scientifically that there is a difference between the sound quality of a Stax SR-009 and ATH-M50s beyond their differing measurements, that tells you nothing about soundstage, timbre etc.. ?

I am asking because it seems that a lot of people, especially on reddit, has gotten this bizarre notion that everything and anything can be proven. As far as I can tell, there is very little science behind headphones, and it seems to be very much an art. This also goes for amplifiers and DACs. How can you prove that one amplifier is better than the other? You can't right, so does that mean there is no difference? Again, I am assuming nothing horribly badly made, cheap or broken. I am assuming competently built stuff.


----------



## castleofargh

AudioThief said:


> Head-Fiers, I have a question for you.
> 
> On the subreddit /r/headphones, they like to mock head-fiers (and audiophiles in general) for believing in sound improvements that "can't be scientifically proven". Now, I know of measurements, and I know of THD measuerments etc.
> 
> ...


typical measurements are going to quantify a specific variable under specific conditions, so if you measure say THD in a given frequency range while using a given source at a given listening level, you can usually tell that one headphone is doing better for that variable than another one. but even with something that simple, let's say both headphones have very similar total amount of distortions but one has more second order harmonics while the other has more third order. then what? unless we predefined that for example between even and odd harmonics, one is less objectionable to the listener, we have no simple way to decide which is objectively better. and then at a different listening level or with another amp, the result will probably change a good deal confirming one headphone's superiority, or just showing how loud each can go before struggling. 
and that's only for 1 type of measurement. now multiply the measurements that we can do for headphones, and very often you will end up with one headphone having maybe a more balanced frequency response but also more distortions than another one. who's to decide in an objective way that +2dB at 4kHz is worst than say 3%THD at 30Hz? and +2dB compared to what frequency response target? we end up trying judge apples and oranges. 

measurements have value when we have a very specific thing to test. if the question was which headphone gives a signal closest to the input signal, we could just record what comes out null it with the original signal and whichever headphone has the quietest remaining signal wins. but even for that you would have to define a few things like listening level and some concept of the ear that should be the judge as different people will have different ears that will alter the frequency and thus the result of a null. what that also means is that objectively, a certain headphone might be objectively more accurate for one person and not for another. 

at some point you have to define the exact question, make sure it's a question that can be tested, and then define precisely the testing method and conditions that should be used to try and answer that question. more often than not you will have to make somewhat arbitrary decisions that may affect the results of the test. so it's important when we get a result, to also pay attention to the conditions of the test to know when the result is valid and when we don't actually know. 



 you talk about detail and clarity, those are subjective impressions from a given listener. so a listening test will probably be the way to go about it, but that might be easier said than done. first because we'd have to be able to put both headphones on your head without you being able to tell which one is the Stax. and another issue comes from the fact that for some subjective impressions, different people will perceive different things. 10 people might sometimes have 10 different subjective impressions of 1 single objective event. so proving that you consistently prefer one headphone or find that it has more details and clarity, it might be annoying but we can probably test and prove it. but that probably wan't demonstrate much for other listeners. to know about them, we'd have to test them, or at least test enough people and get a consistent enough result for us to confidently say that headphone whatever is judged to have more clarity by X percent of the subjects tested. and then you count on stats to properly represent the entire world. but that remain fundamentally a test about a subjective notion. 
about faster transient, that's something objective and we can easily measure it. but how much impact that actually has on our subjective impression of fidelity? just recording a sweep or a Dirac pulse won't answer that. so I insist, it's very important to clearly define what we want answered, and to avoid questions that turn out to be very vague once we start considering all the possible usage conditions and things that could be measured.


----------



## Andrew LB

Hate to break it to you guys, but music these days is definitely recorded with a higher overall volume than in decades past. The past decade and a half has seen music transition largely to digital and streamed content and due to advances in processing power, songs can now be equalized by software and the way they've done it is to first drop all track volume by 5-10% in order to give headroom for the software to the level up the tracks that don't fit within the desirable range of loudness. In response the industry really began compressing the dynamic range to make the music louder. Go listen to the original release of Rage Against the Machine and then the remastered version, both are on spotify.

Check this out as well: https://www.npr.org/2009/12/31/122114058/the-loudness-wars-why-music-sounds-worse


----------



## KeithEmo

I would absolutely agree with that statement...

_ANYTHING_ you can hear _CAN_ be measured...
However, out of the many things that can be measured concerning a DAC, or an amplifier, we often only measure a few standard ones.
And the number of things we can and do measure with headphones is even less.
Some of those other things may be difficult to measure...
And still others may be difficult to correlate with what we hear...
(In other words, just having a whole bunch of measurements doesn't necessarily tell us which ones make something sound a certain way.)

For example, "soundstage" is not a "thing"...
It is more accurately an emergent property of several other characteristics...
An electrical audio signal is a simple two-dimensional value (it is a voltage that varies over time).
"Soundstage" is a sort of composite characteristic our human brain MAKES UP...
What we perceive as "soundstage" is made up from some combination of frequency response, phase shift, time delays, distortion, and directional information we actually hear.
And, while we can measure all of those things individually with great accuracy...
Figuring out what complex combination of them our brain looks for and represents to us as "sound stage" may be somewhat less certain.
(If you play two absolutely identical electrical signals through the same gear they will exhibit the same sound stage.
However, if your two signals aren't identical, determining how the differences will affect the sound stage is not so easy.)

In your headphone question....

Electrostatic headphones have a much lighter diaphragm than pretty much all dynamic headphones....
So I would expect the Stax model to be able to make better square waves and deliver a much cleaner waterfall plot.
(I would expect to see major differences in those two areas.)
Also, because the diaphragm is lighter, there is less of an impedance mismatch between it and the air it is driving (which can reduce other issues)

I would expect it to be obvious what the differences are if you were to look at those measurements.
However, those aren't measurements that are typically taken for headphones...
(Probably partly because they aren't "traditional measurements for headphones" and partly because they may actually be difficult to measure with headphones.)

Beyond even that, electrostatic headphones tend to have a very flat, or slightly rising, frequency response at very high frequencies...
Which tends to convey the impression of greater detail - even beyond a measured difference.
(We tend to perceive devices with a rising high frequency response, or a bump at certain higher frequency ranges, as "more detailed".)
(And, yes, if you were to actually compare measurements of a bunch of headphones people describe as "very detailed", you would find similarities between them.)

In the case of DACs...

If you actually look at a variety of measurements you will see that DACs measure quite differently in a variety of ways.
Name _AN_Y two DACs and you will have little difficulty finding obvious and easily _measurable_ differences between them.
(The arguments start when people start insisting that this or that difference should be ignored "because it can't possibly be audible".)



AudioThief said:


> Head-Fiers, I have a question for you.
> 
> On the subreddit /r/headphones, they like to mock head-fiers (and audiophiles in general) for believing in sound improvements that "can't be scientifically proven". Now, I know of measurements, and I know of THD measuerments etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve999

KeithEmo said:


> In the case of DACs...
> 
> If you actually look at a variety of measurements you will see that DACs measure quite differently in a variety of ways.
> Name _AN_Y two DACs and you will have little difficulty finding obvious and easily _measurable_ differences between them.
> (The arguments start when people start insisting that this or that difference should be ignored "because it can't possibly be audible".)



And I would add for our kind guest, @AudioThief , the same holds true for amps. With DACs, you are the most unlikely to get audible differences. With respect to amps in the context of headphones, please see the second sticky in this sub-forum re: headphones and amplifier impedance interactions.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Andrew LB said:


> listen to the original release of Rage Against
> the Machine and then the remastered version, both are
> on spotify.



RATM's catalogue has ZERO business being 'remastered' in the first place.


----------



## AudioThief

@KeithEmo 

@castleofargh 

Thank you for the great replies. I am in over my head on a strictly technical level here, so if what I am saying doesn't make too much sense.. then thats why.

My first question is, how do we know that blind testing, ab/x etc is the correct way of finding out about what is factually right in terms of sound? I've never tried to blind test anything, but I predict it would be very difficult for me to hear the differences on a variety of equipment.. Because I am used to always use my hearing in conjunction with my other senses. I think we can all agree that all headphones in a given category is relatively similar to each other when we consider all sources of sound we have ever been subjected to in our lifetime. So it makes sense that it is very difficult to distinguish one thing from another in a blind test where we don't readily understand the source of the sound beyond it being headphones. Or the differences being in a hidden box, as with testing DACs and amps. 

But clearly, there exist consensus on a lot of things in the headphone world.. Now I know that parroting is very prevalent in the audio community.. Its one of my biggest pet peeves, in fact. People often just parrot what they've heard about a piece of given equipment. But even still, there is consensus on a lot of things. For instance, the HD800 has a big soundstage. Or TH 900 has a hot treble. Or the LCD 2 has a lot of body. So clearly people somehow generally come to the same conclusion about a lot of equipment. Those same people, in a blind test, likely would not be able to discern these qualities out of the headphones unless they knew they would be using those headphones, and actively look for those qualities. Lets say you took a group of people and had them blind test the th 900, lcd2, hd800 - none of them had ever heard those headphones.. And lets say you took 500 people who underwent that test. Would they give us those characteristics? I would be surprised if they did that. Hell many would probably have issues hearing any significant difference! If that were the case, and the results showed that the differences were small, would that mean the TH 900 doesn't actually have a hot treble, the HD 800 doesn't actually have a wide soundstage, and the LCD 2 doesn't actually have a lot of body? 

I am just thinking out loud here, to me blind testing doesn't sound intuitively right to me.

As for bright given an impression of detail.. Well, what is an impression of detail? My thinking is that the HD 800 isn't more detailed than the 007s, however they are clearly brighter to my ears. And wouldnt detail just be how much detail you could hear, not how loud it is relative to the other sounds - obviously if you can't hear the details because its drowned out, then its not a detailed headphone.. Which is why the LCD 2 to my ears would be more detailed than the th 900... Because its more even in FR and thus there is more space for details if that makes sense. 

My question is basically.. What is the difference between impression of details vs details.. ? 

I am sorry if I sound very dumb, as I said I am in way over my head here.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm just going to take a shot at your first question.....

The whole purpose of blind testing is to isolate what we're hearing from all those other factors.

The reason you do blind testing is because you want to be able to judge how something sounds without allowing any of those other factors to interfere.
We all have a variety of human biases.
For example most of us expect more expensive equipment to sound better.
While others may expect bigger amplifiers, or shinier ones, or more complicated ones, to sound better.
By blocking out all of those causes of bias we are better able to focus on one aspect - how it sounds.
(In an audiophile forum context we assume that our goal is to asses how something sounds - so all that other stuff would merely be distractions to that goal.)

Even if you're quite willing to spend more money for "the fancy trim" or "the pretty display"....
Audiophiles generally prefer to be able to determine how something sounds independent from all that other stuff.

Different headphones do sound different...
And most people find it easier to focus on those differences when the distractions are removed...

NOTE that "a blind test" does not necessarily mean that you have no frame of reference or even that you can;t see any of the participants.
For example, you could listen to several different headphones, while being able to see them...
You could then do a blind comparison of Brand X, to decide how "Brand X" compares to the known ones, without being able to see the price tag or color scheme on Brand X.
(Without being able to see it, you have no way to form an expectation of what it will sound like, so you can concentrate more on what it DOES sound like.)

And, in a different way, your assertion may also be true....
If you FAIL to notice much difference, or any difference, when you can't see what you're listening to....
Then any difference you imagine you hear when you CAN see them must be due to something else....
(if they really sounded different then they would still sound different - even with your eyes closed...)




AudioThief said:


> @KeithEmo
> 
> @castleofargh
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jul 5, 2019)

Andrew LB said:


> Hate to break it to you guys, but music these days is definitely recorded with a higher overall volume than in decades past.



That may be true of pop music, which is mastered to be played on cell phones with earbuds in the street, but it isn't true of other genres of music. For instance,  classical music is more dynamic than it's ever been.



AudioThief said:


> how do we know that blind testing, ab/x etc is the correct way of finding out about what is factually right in terms of sound?



It's a way of eliminating variables that you don't want to affect your comparison. If you are testing one amp to see if it sounds different than another amp, your personal bias about the brand shouldn't enter into it. If you want to buy a McIntosh amp simply because you like the idea of teal blue lights and the status owning a McIntosh system gives you, there's no reason to do a blind comparison. But if you want to know if a McIntosh sounds different than a Pioneer, you probably should compare blind. Everyone is subject to bias. It's hard wired into our decision making process.


----------



## castleofargh

AudioThief said:


> @KeithEmo
> 
> @castleofargh
> 
> ...


about the changes and difficulties of doing a blind test, you're right that it can feel difficult, or even a very poor way to test something. because we will often seem to do poorly compared to all the stuff we noticed in a sighted impression. but that's perfectly normal and only revealing how much of our impressions isn't just sound. if I was to make a crude comparison, it would be similar to testing our sense of balance by standing on one foot with our eyes closed or with our eyes open. the difference is pretty radical because we rely so much on what we see to correct our balance. while our actual sense of balance from the stuff in our ears, that sense isn't very impressive on its own. just because we get discomfort for doing things with fewer senses than we usually have, doesn't mean that the test doesn't work properly for the specific sense being tested. on the contrary, it might be the only time when we're really relying on it fully because for once, it's all we have. 

about the differences in interpretation and actual experience, I would say that the bigger the difference, the more homogeneous the result over a large sample of listeners. if a headphone has 15 more dB at 80Hz compared to another with an otherwise similar signature, even if not everybody has the exact same impressions of the actual amount of bass, everybody will at least agree that it has significantly more bass than the other headphone. now when the difference in signature is more subtle, it's very possible that just the difference in the shape of the head and ears will cause to perceive a certain frequency as boosted by a few dB while someone else won't. and at last, when the differences are really tiny, coming close to the threshold of audibility or below, then many people in sighted tests will "hear" whatever they already expected to hear. at this point not only do we get a vast disparity in impressions, but a many of them are wrong and they're not actually hearing that sound the way they think they do. 
so I should logically tell you that blind tests are really only useful to test small changes in sound. and that would be correct if we didn't encounter a big problem in the hobby: maniacs who discuss tiny irrelevant like it was a super big deal, and keep calling them night and day differences. as a result of adding superlatives for social effect, half the time you get a feedback about subjective impressions, you have no clue as to the actual magnitude of what is described, or even if it's true at all. and that's ultimately the reason why we end up asking for measurements or a demonstration in the form of a blind test for almost anything. not because it's always needed and people are always wrong, but because we often aren't able to tell if something big is happening, or if a guy is just exaggerating everything because he thinks that how you show you're an elite audiophile, by showing that not only you always notice a difference, but you notice it massively because of how good your ears are. as a result I trust almost nobody's subjective impression of a product. 



 if you start testing the reliability of sighted listening, like for example letting subjects think they're having a sighted test, but the devices in front of them are dummies, people tend to fail so bad that it's usually mainly used for comedy or to troll fans of a given product to show that they don't know what they're doing. audiophiles don't know about the weakness of a sighted impression for small differences, or start shouting "lalalalalalala I can't hear you" anytime those issues are brought on the forum. but the issues are real and they don't go away just by pretending that they don't exist or that they only happen to others. having some mean to control how we do in a test is nice, if only for our own peace of mind.


----------



## AudioThief (Jul 6, 2019)

Thank you for the thourough posts @KeithEmo & @castleofargh

If we say we have a "continuum of reality", where on the left side we have essentially the reality being that only the results of blind testing and measurements being legitimate - i.e most, almost all amps/dacs/cables and what have you would be a waste of time and money. While on the right side, the reality was that there are subtle, percievable differences from DAC to DAC and so on, where bias didn't play in at all to anyone.

I'd wager to say that the truth would be found somewhere in between those two extremes. I'd say that eliminating bias is indeed the most important thing, and the one thing that affects us most. But I am worried that while blind testing is better than sighted testing because of those biases, it doesn't strike me as perfect.

Is the general consensus around these parts that any competently put together DAC will sound the same? Because if that is the case, I'll need to go take a look in the mirror. I think that this is a very interesting subject that I find there is a wide spread within the community as to what people believe to be true, so I want to home in on the seemingly most correct beliefs..

edit: I am trying to read up on the topic. So I have read the first post in this thread and I'll read around more on this sub forum as well, to get a good overview. 

A thought popped into my head. In the matter of blind testing, say you were to have two vocalists do covers of a song, but you didn't get to know who sang, or who the vocalists even were. They performed the same song i.e no differences except the voice. 

Clearly, in a sighted test it would be very easy to distinguish who sang what, and you could probably tell which one you liked more. 

But suppose you didn't get to see or know anything. Most would be able to hear a difference, easily. But I would imagine that judging who were the technically most adept vocalist would be near impossible (I am here comparing it to which DACs was the most costly, for instance).

Now lets say you had a computer program that could take their performances, and equate them i.e they had the exact same timing, volume, etc - the only thing different now being their raw voice. I would imagine that telling them apart in a blind test would be near impossible, but I would also imagine that telling them apart with the help of knowing who sang when would be much, much easier. And not only because of some sort of bias towards the one or the other. Or say you never got to know who sang what, but you got to listen to song A or song B for several years.. I'd think you would pick out a favorite, one you liked more than the other. Even if telling the difference in the blind test was impossible.

I am sure you have been exposed to examples such as these a million times, so I am just wondering what is wrong in my logical chain here? To me, blind tests just doesn't sway me as much as I suppose it does to a lot of others. At the same time, I don't want to be essentially believing in shamanism.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 6, 2019)

AudioThief said:


> [1] On the subreddit /r/headphones, they like to mock head-fiers (and audiophiles in general) for believing in sound improvements that "can't be scientifically proven".
> [2] If we agree that measurements by and large tell you about the headphones balance and linearity, and that a low THD number is an objectively good thing, can we also agree that most reasonably made headphones score well here, objectively speaking?
> [3] So then, my question becomes - How can you "prove" objectively that a Stax headphone has more clarity and detail, and a faster transient response than say a Philips SHP9500? Can someone prove that to me?
> [3a] Obviously I've heard electrostats and the philips, and I know that the stax are much better. But how can you prove it?
> ...



1. Not just subreddits but various other forums as well, this sub-forum for example, pro-audio forums and probably most famously/strictly, HydrogenAudio.

2. Not really, most headphones don't score particularly well, the balance between the two drivers is typically rather approximate, the linearity can be rather poor and the frequency response very variable.

3. Arguably the single biggest problem in the audiophile world is the almost complete lack of understanding of the difference between a property of a sound signal (be it a digital, analogue or acoustic signal) and a perception. While we can measure all the properties of a sound signal, we can't generally measure perceptions. What makes the situation complex is that differences in the properties of a sound signal affect our perception (given a sufficient amount of difference) but that our perception can change (dramatically in some cases) even when the sound signal is absolutely identical IE. This different perception can be due to something we see and/or some cognitive bias but have absolutely nothing to do with the actual sound waves entering our ears. Using your examples, transients are a property of a sound signal (which we can therefore measure) and therefore prove scientifically/objectively that one device has a faster transient response than another. "Clarity" and "Detail" on the other hand are not audio properties, they are perceptions! And in these two cases, there are sound signal properties which can affect that perception, a significant amount of noise in the signal will reduce the perception of clarity and detail for example. Therefore, if you hear (or more precisely, "perceive") greater clarity/detail with the Stax there are 3 possibilities: A. The greater clarity/detail you are hearing is entirely due to some actual difference in the sound waves being reproduced by the different headphones, or B. The greater clarity/detail you're hearing has nothing whatsoever to do with the sound waves being reproduced by the different headphones and is entirely due to your perception, or C. Some combination of "A" and "B".
3a. There's three problems here: Firstly, "much better" is a value judgement and therefore by definition a perception, which brings us back to the problem above. Secondly and related to the first problem, there are numerous individual factors/variables which are combined to give an overall perception of "better" or "worse", so you're going to have to define "better" much more precisely. Lastly, in a science/fact based forum (such as this one) if you can't "prove it" or at least provide reliable supporting evidence, then what you "know" is in fact just an unsupported belief/impression and not an actual fact or science.
3b. Again, there's two problems here: Firstly, "quality" is again a human value judgement, is therefore a perception and there is no way to measure "quality", so we need to be more precise. If for example we define quality as "fidelity", then that is a property of a sound wave and we can measure it, compare those measurements for the different headphones and objectively/scientifically state which is higher fidelity. However, that won't necessarily tell you much about soundstage, because soundstage is one of those perceptions which is a combination of a number of different sound properties, plus factors unrelated to sound properties. On the other hand, it would tell us a lot about "timbre", because timbre is directly related to a single sound property, frequency response.
3c. They are right, "everything and anything" can be proven about the properties of the sound waves the headphones or other equipment are reproducing. What generally can't be proven is what happens after those sound waves have entered your ears, how your brain changes and interprets the information from your ears and combines it with other information to create a "perception".
3d. No, that's incorrect. Headphones are entirely based on science, the science of electrical/analogue signals and their conversion to acoustic sound waves. However, there's certainly "art" too, visual appearance for example and marketing.
3e. Again, how do you define "better". In the case of an amplifier, it's job is obviously to amplify an analogue signal. So, if we define "better" as higher fidelity amplification then we can relatively easily prove which amplifier is better and if there is no measurable difference or it's a tiny difference below audibility then the two will sound identical (though not necessarily be perceived as identical)! Same for a DAC, whose job is just to convert digital audio data to an analogue audio signal.



Andrew LB said:


> [1] Hate to break it to you guys, but music these days is definitely recorded with a higher overall volume than in decades past.
> [2] The past decade and a half has seen music transition largely to digital and streamed content and
> [2a] due to advances in processing power, songs can now be equalized by software and
> [2b] the way they've done it is to first drop all track volume by 5-10% in order to give headroom for the software to the level up the tracks that don't fit within the desirable range of loudness.
> ...



1. You need to be very careful how you phrase things here in this forum, such as; "definite" assertions of fact and the use of condescension. Even worse, is the use of condescension in conjunction with a "definite" fact that's actually wrong! Music these days is typically NOT "recorded with a higher overall volume than decades in the past", in fact it's often recorded with a lower overall volume than decades past! It's typically mixed and mastered with a higher overall volume but not recorded.

2. The transition to digital started in the late 1970's, which is four decades ago, not one and a half and the consumer transition was largely complete three decades ago. Streaming is much more recent though.
2a. Yes but those advances in processing power were achieved many years ago and digital/software EQ was available by around the mid 1980's.
2b. No, the way we did it was the way we'd always done it. There is no need to first drop the track volume by 5-10% to give headroom, where did you get this from?
2c. No, the use of compressors/limiters to make music louder was not in response to this.

3. There's two problems here: Firstly, that is a massively over-simplified article and as such there is a great amount of factual detail missing. Extrapolating other facts/conclusions from it will therefore almost certainly result in false conclusions/facts. Secondly, it appears to contradict what you're stating, not support it. For example "_The 'Loudness Wars' have gone back to the days of 45s_..." - that's seven decades ago and long before either digital recording or digital EQ.



AudioThief said:


> [1] I've never tried to blind test anything, but I predict it would be very difficult for me to hear the differences on a variety of equipment.. Because I am used to always use my hearing in conjunction with my other senses.
> [2] I think we can all agree that all headphones in a given category is relatively similar to each other when we consider all sources of sound we have ever been subjected to in our lifetime.
> [2a] So it makes sense that it is very difficult to distinguish one thing from another in a blind test where we don't readily understand the source of the sound beyond it being headphones. Or the differences being in a hidden box, as with testing DACs and amps.
> [3] But clearly, there exist consensus on a lot of things in the headphone world.. Now I know that parroting is very prevalent in the audio community.. But even still, there is consensus on a lot of things. For instance, the HD800 has a big soundstage. Or TH 900 has a hot treble. Or the LCD 2 has a lot of body. So clearly people somehow generally come to the same conclusion about a lot of equipment.
> ...



1. Your view is common amongst audiophiles but if you think about it, it contains a serious logical contradiction. If you are hearing a difference due to your other senses, for example your sight, then by definition you're not hearing a difference, you're seeing a difference! What you're actually doing is experiencing a perception, rather than just hearing and a perception is an impression manufactured by your brain which is a combination of all your senses, including your hearing, plus various cognitive biases. What a blind test attempts to achieve is the elimination of your other senses and cognitive biases, leaving you with only what you're actually hearing.

2. That depends on what you mean by "relatively similar". For example, differences between headphones are relatively large and well within the range of audibility. Differences between say amps and DACs though are relatively small and inaudible (assuming they're competently designed for high fidelity and used appropriately).
2a. Agreed, if two things sound similar but look different, then it's much easier to distinguish between them. But again, that additional easiness is down to what you're seeing (and the resultant cognitive biases), not down to what you're actually hearing! In other words, let's say we have two DACs, a $60 DAC and a $2,000 DAC but this more expensive DAC is just the exact same $60 DAC placed in a much more expensive case. It would obviously be easy to distinguish between them in a sighted test but in a blind test it would be impossible (because the actual sound is identical). So the question is; would you be prepared to pay the extra $1,940 for no audible difference, just a nicer case? For some audiophiles the answer might be "yes" but the vast majority would expect $2,000 DAC to have some audible benefit over the $60 DAC, not only a visual benefit.

3. Just because there is a consensus of belief doesn't mean that it's right/factually accurate. At one time there was a consensus of belief that the Earth was the centre of the universe, that blood letting with leeches cure almost every illness, that witches were real evil beings, etc. That's effectively why science was invented, to separate the consensus' of beliefs into a facts or a false superstitions/myths. A consensus of belief can just as easily be fact or myth and therefore it tells us nothing!
3a. Well firstly, a decent double/blind test should be designed to eliminate the other senses and biases, while optimising the conditions for hearing the difference. Secondly, if those people could not hear a difference in such a test it is either because there are no audible difference or those particular people do not have the hearing acuity to hear them. Either way, for those particular people, if they can perceive the difference in a sighted test but not a decently designed blind test, logically it must be due to the factors the blind test has eliminated; sight and cognitive biases, rather than sound and hearing. Which brings us back to the question in 2a above!

4. There are quite a few areas in science (and the facts) which appear to contradict intuition. But "education" can be described to a large extent as the bringing of intuition in line with science. Fortunately, although quite complex, it is within the grasp of most people to educate themselves enough in the science/s of audio for those intuition contradictions to disappear, unlike certain other areas of science, such as quantum mechanics for example, which is completely counter-intuitive for all but a small number of massively educated physicists. The problem is, most audiophiles simply can't be bothered, which is understandable because it's still quite an undertaking, so instead they just take the most readily available and easily digestible information and then extrapolate conclusions/facts from that. Unfortunately, almost all the "most readily available and easily digestible information" isn't science or the facts, but marketing materials!

5. No problem. None of us were born with the knowledge of how audio works, so it's not a case of you being dumb, just a case of you being at a different place in the journey, a place we've all been. That's one of the reasons this sub-forum exists, to separate the facts from the intuition (or marketing) and hopefully help people along that journey. Unfortunately, you'll find this forum can often/sometimes get very heated, in pretty much every case it's because many audiophiles are only interested in justifying their intuition at all costs, even if it obviously contradicts the science/actual facts and is completely illogical!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> It's typically mixed and mastered with a
> higher overall volume ...



So you're admitting it!

Hallelujia!!!


----------



## AudioThief

@gregorio  That is the single best post I've read on this forum. I am at work so I could only skim it, I will read it again later today (EU time). I appreciate it a lot, thank you


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> So you're admitting it!



There is a loudness war, I and others have presented reliable evidence that proves it (but that you "pay no mind"), I've been commenting against it for probably at least a decade before you even knew it existed and I've repeated this god knows how many times! Honestly, what is wrong with you?

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 6, 2019)

gregorio said:


> There is a loudness war, I and others have presented
> reliable evidence that proves it (but that you "pay no mind"),
> I've been commenting against it for probably at least a decade before
> you even knew it existed and I've repeated this god knows how many
> ...



Then how come all of you are asking me to use a meter to prove that a remastered version of an album on CD is louder than the original issue on CD, or modern CD releases in general, when my own DAM EARS tell me the remastered is louder?  Then you go and tell me I used the "wrong meter" - the SAME TYPE  enforcers use to check volume compliance at clubs and concerts?


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> Then how come all of you are asking me to use a meter to prove that a remastered version of an album on CD is louder than the original issue on CD, when my own DAM EARS tell me the remastered is louder? Then you go and tell me I used the "wrong meter" - the SAME TYPE enforcers use to check volume compliance at clubs and concert?



When is enough, enough? Again, what is wrong with you? I never asked you to use a meter to prove anything, I never mentioned remastered versions of an album on CD and the meters they use to check compliance at night clubs and concerts are NOT measuring or checking volume/loudness, they are measuring sound pressure level compliance, there is no loudness compliance for clubs or concerts. It's all complete nonsense you've just made-up!



AudioThief said:


> @gregorio That is the single best post I've read on this forum. I am at work so I could only skim it, I will read it again later today (EU time). I appreciate it a lot, thank you



I'm glad it was useful. If you find something that doesn't make sense or doesn't agree with your intuition, please don't be afraid to ask. Don't let the heated exchanges put you off. Heated exchanges never occur if you ask questions, only if you repeatedly make false assertions of fact.

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

From my mentor!

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3343.pdf


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3343.pdf



Exactly! Now where in that document does it say that you measure loudness with an SPL meter? Also, the tech specs it contains have only been implemented for TV broadcast in some/most European countries. It does not apply to music, either music recordings, clubs or live gigs. The legal restriction for clubs and live gigs, if there is one, is NOT based on loudness but on peak level (sound pressure level, SPL), which is what you measured!

It's good that you've finally posted some actual reliable evidence, rather than just "because your wife said so". Clearly though, you obviously haven't understood the document you've posted, as it contradicts your assertions!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> Exactly! Now where in that document does it say that you measure loudness with an SPL meter? Also, the tech specs it contains have only been implemented for TV broadcast in some/most European countries. It does not apply to music, either music recordings, clubs or live gigs. The legal restriction for clubs and live gigs, if there is one, is NOT based on loudness but on peak level (sound pressure level, SPL), which is what you measured!
> 
> It's good that you've finally posted some actual reliable evidence, rather than just "because your wife said so". Clearly though, you obviously haven't understood the document you've posted, as it contradicts your assertions!
> 
> G


Gregorio: Open your narrow mind and try to apply this excerpt on page 9 to the music business - the PRINCIPLE of peak vs loudness norm.




Again, what's on the left corresponds to what has happened, in part, due to peak metering throughout much of the era of digital audio recording, mixing, and mastering - peak-based metering.  On the right wouls be both the idea, and APROXIMATELY: what the situation was back during the analog/VU meter era, pre digital.  Loudness metering would allow us to get back to that.

Now go ahead, demonstrate to everyone here what a j*rk you are by saying I've "got it all backwards"!

Seriously!  That's all you're good at.


----------



## bigshot

I think it's hopeless. I don't think he understands what anyone else is saying. He's just reciting routines that he's memorized.


----------



## bfreedma

Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.

*Jean-Jacques Rousseau*


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> I think it's hopeless. I don't think he understands
> what anyone else is saying. He's just reciting
> routines that he's memorized.



BS..  I understand a LOT more than you all care to admit or give me credit for.


----------



## AudioThief (Jul 6, 2019)

Can someone give me a quick rundown on the major differences between a typical objectivist and a typical subjectivist?

I am having difficulty placing the exact stance of objectivists.. On reddit, you will hear people talk about zero audible gains above HD650 (in price), for instance. That doesn't make sense to me. At the same time, cables making a difference doesnt make sense to me either.


----------



## dprimary

TheSonicTruth said:


> From my mentor!
> 
> https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3343.pdf




That is a broadcast standard. It does not apply to SPL or loudness in a live venue. It would only apply to the broadcast feed of the live event which is whole different mixing desk and processing chain.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 6, 2019)

AudioThief, Opinions aren’t the difference between subjectivists and objectivists... what they base them upon is. If you ask a subjectivist, they will talk about their personal experiences. An objectivist will point to controlled tests and explanations of how things work.

Both sides can go too far. Subjectivists run into trouble when they apply their own solipsistic experience to others. Objectivists go off the rails when they lose sight of context and start arguing in theory with no basis in practical use.

There is an intersection between the two sets in audiophile circles. Those are the ones who think up complicated scientific theories to validate their subjective biases. A true objectivist should accept the facts however they fall. He shouldn’t cherry pick and twist logic to “win”.

The other side of that coin is the person who accepts that they have biases and serving those preferences can be comfortable, but with things that matter, facts rule.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] Again, what's on the left corresponds to what has happened, in part, due to peak metering throughout much of the era of digital audio recording, mixing, and mastering - peak-based metering. On the right wouls be both the idea, and APROXIMATELY: what the situation was back during the analog/VU meter era, pre digital. Loudness metering would allow us to get back to that.
> [2] Now go ahead, demonstrate to everyone here what a j*rk you are by saying I've "got it all backwards"!
> [3] Open your narrow mind ...
> [4] BS.. I understand a LOT more than you all care to admit or give me credit for.



1. Show me in the document where it states that. You can't, because it doesn't. You've simply made up that false assertion to suit your agenda! An analogue (or digital) VU meter is a peak meter (technically a quasi-peak meter) and is therefore represented by the left graph, the opposite of what you keep falsely stating.

2. Again, you're in the wrong forum. This forum allows and even encourages members to refute utter nonsense. In other words, I would be a jerk if I didn't call you out for getting it completely backwards!

3. No, that's the last thing I'd want to do! I've worked and studied hard over several decades to narrow my mind to the actual facts and eliminate the utter nonsense that ignorant people and marketers try to peddle. I'm also narrow minded towards climate deniers, flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers!

4. Again, there's your problem. You think you understand a lot and therefore give yourself a lot of credit but you've proven that you can't even understand simple sentences (let alone technical documents). Again, if you seriously expect us to give you credit for that, then there must be something wrong with you. What other alternative is there? 



dprimary said:


> That is a broadcast standard. It does not apply to SPL or loudness in a live venue. It would only apply to the broadcast feed of the live event which is whole different mixing desk and processing chain.



That's not going to help, he's already been told and had it explained in detail, more than once. At this stage the only rational explanation is that he doesn't understand because he doesn't want to but then of course the question is; why is he here in this forum?

G


----------



## bigshot

Certain personality types latch onto forums and then aim at tearing down the most knowledgeable people in the forum. They see it as a good old boys club that is closed to them, instead of seeing it as a community where everyone shares to their own experience and ability. It boils down to insecurity. Instead of learning from others, they tear down everyone above them so they are the top influencers.

Needless to say, it isn’t a strategy that works very well.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 6, 2019)

AudioThief said:


> [1] Can someone give me a quick rundown on the major differences between a typical objectivist and a typical subjectivist?
> [2] I am having difficulty placing the exact stance of objectivists.. On reddit, you will hear people talk about zero audible gains above HD650, for instance. That doesn't make sense to me. At the same time, cables making a difference doesnt make sense to me either.



1. Bigshot has it right. Essentially a subjectivist believes that his/her perception isn't a just a perception but is actual reality/fact. Therefore, if a scientific fact disagrees with their perception, then the science must be wrong. An objectivist believes that the demonstrated facts are the actual facts and if they disagree with a perception then the perception must be incorrect. There's tons of evidence going back many centuries that perception can be fooled and indeed music and most other commercial audio relies on this fact but to a subjectivist that's just a circular argument because reliable evidence is just a tool of science and science must be wrong in the first place.

2. Unfortunately, some objectivists are extremists, they suffer from the same problem that most other audiophiles do, they don't know the difference between a perception and a property of an audio signal or don't fully appreciate it. For example, we can measure the difference between a HD650 and a more expensive/exclusive headphone and that difference, while not massive would probably be within the range of audible. Now whether that difference is a "gain" (or not) is a value judgement, a perception and therefore it can only be answered subjectively because there is no objective measurement for a value judgement. So stating there is "zero audible gain above HD650" would not be an objectivist statement.

Not sure if this helps?

G


----------



## AudioThief

gregorio said:


> 1. Bigshot has it right. Essentially a subjectivist believes that his/her perception isn't a just a perception but is actual reality/fact. Therefore, if a scientific fact disagrees with their perception, then the science must be wrong. An objectivist believes that the demonstrated facts are the actual facts and if they disagree with a perception then the perception must be incorrect. There's tons of evidence going back many centuries that perception can be fooled and indeed music and most other commercial audio relies on this fact but to a subjectivist that's just a circular argument because reliable evidence is just a tool of science and science must be wrong in the first place.
> 
> 2. Unfortunately, some objectivists are extremists, they suffer from the same problem that most other audiophiles do, they don't know the difference between a perception and a property of an audio signal or don't fully appreciate it. For example, we can measure the difference between a HD650 and a more expensive/exclusive headphone and that difference, while not massive would probably be within the range of audible. Now whether that difference is a "gain" (or not) is a value judgement, a perception and therefore it can only be answered subjectively because there is no objective measurement for a value judgement. So stating there is "zero audible gain above HD650" would not be an objectivist statement.
> 
> ...



Thank you.

Well, I am at some sort of crossroads here. Since I found this sub forum and looked into it, I've had to re-evaluate some things. I used to own a bunch of headphones, the likes of HD650, TH 900, Denon AH-D5000 etc. That was until I heard e-stats, at which point I went 100% into that. I was/am 100% sure I perceive estats to be strictly better sounding to my ears. I could swear the Stax SR-007 mk1s sounded like crap out of the small 252s amplifier, and much better out of the much more powerful 727ii amplifier. The difference was not so staggering for the L300, in fact it was very barely audible (although I did perceive it to be audible at the time).

I also upgraded my DAC from a modi multibit to a Gustard x20 Pro, again feeling it made a difference, albeit minor I felt it was worth it. 

Since then, I've sold almost all of my gear because I missed my previous estats (l300) and prefered their signature to the 007s. Although I still believe the 007s to be technically "better" to my ears. I feel a bit ridiculous even saying it, because who knows if there actually is any difference in "technicalities". 

So I have an issue drawing the line. Clearly, subjectivism doesn't make any logical sense, and its intellectually dishonest to simply say "I can hear it so it must be true". At the same time, I am having a very hard time coming to terms with basically 95% of it all being some figment of my imagination - If our minds were that readily fooled even when looking for the honest truth, what other facet of life is but an illusion - How often am I legitimately prefering something that is equal to something else, only because of some strange bias that I generally don't hold. And in how large of a degree does a bias work the other way, i.e objectivists refusing to hear a difference because they do not want to accept that some higher priced gear might sound better? 

By the way, @gregorio, I really appreciate the way you take your time to break down the posts you reply to. This thread is very tricky to maneuver for a beginner, and its much easier when I get it broken down and answered in that matter, I am sure it must be time consuming for you.


----------



## GearMe (Jul 6, 2019)

gregorio said:


> 1...snip
> 
> 2. Unfortunately, some objectivists are extremists, they suffer from the same problem that most other audiophiles do, they don't know the difference between a perception and a property of an audio signal or don't fully appreciate it. For example, we can measure the difference between a HD650 and a more expensive/exclusive headphone and that difference, while not massive would probably be within the range of audible. Now whether that difference is a "gain" (or not) is a value judgement, a perception and therefore it can only be answered subjectively because there is no objective measurement for a value judgement. So stating there is "zero audible gain above HD650" would not be an objectivist statement.
> 
> ...



I'd go so far to say that a universal 'Zero Audible Gain' statement (applied to transducers) is just wrong given that people have measurably different hearing capabilities, as well as different preferences, etc.

For instance, some like the 650's, others the 600's, still others the DT880s.  Some love the orig HD800, others the 800S, still others hate any of the Senns and would choose Focal, Audeze, etc.

Basically restating Gregorio's post with examples but I gle..snipary of people that don't allow for human variability/preferences/etc. when it comes to transducers.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 6, 2019)

AudioThief said:


> Since then, I've sold almost all of my gear because I missed my previous estats (l300) and prefered their signature to the 007s. Although I still believe the 007s to be technically "better" to my ears. I feel a bit ridiculous even saying it, because who knows if there actually is any difference in "technicalities". So I have an issue drawing the line.



There is a third camp as well... consumerists. A lot of the audiophile business is based on churning equipment... always selling off something to pay for something else, usually with no specific goal in mind. There are people who don't really care much about music, they just enjoy unboxing new equipment and setting it up. The google like mad to read every word spoken about the component and try to convince themselves that they've achieved perfection... until the new and improved model comes out and the cycle repeats.

Personally, I never understood this. I see my equipment as tools for a purpose. I want the thing that does the job neatly and efficiently. Once I get that, I use it until it wears out. Every time I experimented with buying something because of what other people say about it, I've been burned. In my system, the equipment is all hidden out of view. The projection screen is behind a beam, the equipment is all on a bar in the back of the room. I run everything from my iPhone. Of course the speakers are visible; but honestly, if there was a way to hide them too, I would do it.

I'm interested in the technical side of things, and I am interested in the creative side. I guess I'm neither an objectivist nor a subjectivist. When it comes to electronics, objectivism works best for me. When it comes to listening to music, objectivism is OK to provide context and to analyze structure, but subjective appreciation is the end goal. I don't see a point in assigning human attributes to machines, and I don't see a point of seeing creativity purely as mechanics. Each in its own place.

Nothing wrong with being a blend


----------



## bigshot

You ask about objectivists having bias... yes. EVERYONE has biases. That's why you do a blind test to remove bias from the equation. It might be impossible to eliminate all bias, but if you get rid of most of it, you're ahead of the game.

There are a few tricks I've learned...

Price does not always equate with sound quality. The component with the highest jitter ratings recorded was made by McIntosh and cost a small fortune.

Mechanical sound is always more variable than electronic sound. Speakers, rooms and headphones all sound different, even the same make and model. I have yet to find an amp or player that sounds different.

Having a goal in mind is the best way to achieve better sound. Random swapping of equipment renders random results.

Understanding how sound reproduction works is key to sorting out the bologna from the truth in audio commentary.

Your ears are where the buck stops. Sound better than you can hear doesn't matter. So make an effort to find out the limits of your own hearing.

Controlled tests are easy and inexpensive to do. Take advantage of return windows to do a controlled listening test. Return it if there is no difference.

Music is what matters. Spend 10X what you spend on equipment on music and 1000X the time you spend shopping on listening to it.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> snip....
> 
> Music is what matters. Spend 10X what you spend on equipment on music and 1000X the time you spend shopping on listening to it.



This!


----------



## KeithEmo

I think that, when it comes to audiophiles, even terms like "subjectivist" and "objectivist" themselves mean different thins to different people (or perhaps it's just a matter of applying them differently.) According to the dictionary, something that is objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts", and the meaning of subjective is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions". 

When it comes to audiophiles I've actually seem this pair of terms used in several different contexts.

In the context of the dictionary meaning, an "objectivist" is someone who always considers the things that measures best to be best, while a "subjectivist" bases what's best at least somewhat on their personal opinion. So, for example, an objectivist would say "a good solid state amplifier is better than a triode amplifier because it has lower distortion" whereas a subjectivist might say "the triode amplifier is better because I think it sounds better". Note that there is no actual disagreement on the facts involved... but simply a different choice of priorities. (Of course, a subjectivist might point out that, since there is no objective measure for "sound quality", there can never be an objective claim about sound quality at all.)

However, in the audiophile community, I see a lot of disagreements labelled as being "subjective vs objective" that are really something different.... and a lot of that seems to originate from the fact that a lot of the subject matter itself is very complex and often doesn't lend itself to a simple objective analysis (which is itself a subject of disagreement). For example, someone stated in another post that "if we wanted to decide which amplifier was more accurate we could simply measure it" or "we could simply do a null and the amplifier that provided the best null would be the most accurate". However, in reality it's not so simle, because there are a long list of measurements we could make, and no set way to prioritize them. 

Which would be the more accurate amplifier?....
- the one with a frequency response flat from 20 - 20k +/- 2 dB and 0.01% THD
- the one with a frequency response flat from 20 - 20k +/- 0.1 dB and 1% THD

Obviously neither is perfect.
And you can't simply say that "the one that nulls with a smaller resulting difference is more accurate"...
Because one or the other of those differences might turn out to be far more _audible_.
To make matters even more complex, even though both may be audible, different individuals may find one or the other more important to them.
(In that context, you might say that the decision about how to prioritize the objective differences was itself subjective.)

Another thing I find is that many arguments supposedly between "subjectivism" and "objectivism" really relate more to other distinctions....
For example, I find that many audiophiles, and most humans in general, really prefer to self-identify themselves as being objective.
For example, a true subjectivist would say: "I like tube equipment, even though it is less accurate, and has more distortion, because I just plain prefer the way it sounds".
However, in reality, many audiophiles instead adopt a pseudo-objective point of view (apparently "everybody likes to believe their opinion is based on facts").
Instead of that, they claim: "Even though the THD, IMD, and frequency response are worse, tube equipment is still OBJECTIVELY better in some other ways you aren't measuring."
Some may claim that "it provides a more holographic 3D soundstage" - as if that were simply a mesaurement we didn't bother to make.
Others will actually insist that there is an objective yet intangible difference - which can be easily heard but cannot _ever _be measured.
Note that neither of these is "true subjectivism" because they're claiming that the difference is a real physical thing and not a matter of personal opinion.

A "true subjectivist" would care only what they personally experienced and 'felt".
They would say: "I like it and that's all that counts" - and wouldn't bother to argue with others whose opinions disagree with theirs.

In the case of something like headphones it's impossible to say that "one is objectively better than the other".... because the differences are too complex.
Perhaps, to you, the one with the flattest frequency response is better...
While, to someone else, the one with the lowest THD is better...
And, to yet another person, both are of equal priority...
And, of course, to someone else, the one that is the most comfortable would be the best ("if you can't stand to wear it them it doesn't matter how good it sounds".)

Back when SONAR was being developed, the Navy chose to use electrostatic headphones for SONAR gear....
Presumably, based on the technology of the day, they found that electrostatic headphones were best for discerning the sorts of fine details SONAR operators need to listen for...
This agrees with my personal experience - that electrostatic headphones seem to do a very good job of making very fine details and textures stand out.
But I'm not sure if this means they're "accurate"... or just that they emphasize details...and it's certainly a matter of individual taste if you prefer to have details emphasized or not.
I personally DO prefer equipment that allows me to discern all of the finest detail as well as I possibly can.
(And, in return for that benefit, I'm willing to accept the cost that it might make some flaws more obvious that I might prefer to overlook.)
But, of course, that is a personal choice, and not some assertion of "objective superiority".


----------



## bigshot

Bias doesn't just enter the picture when you test. You can reflect bias when you put the facts into context. You can cherry pick, employ logical fallacies, refer to unrelated analogies, and refuse to accept anything until someone proves a negative to you. The human mind has a million ways to skew the truth to the way it wants it to be.


----------



## castleofargh (Jul 7, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Gregorio: Open your narrow mind and try to apply this excerpt on page 9 to the music business - the PRINCIPLE of peak vs loudness norm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and there you go again. extrapolating your own meaning from a graph that is extensively described and not at all talking about what was going on during the analog era. it doesn't matter that you safeguard what you obviously know to be wrong with a big approximately, that crap has nothing to do here and you decide to make the amalgam anyway for your own propaganda. you keep lashing out while using the "if it looks like a duck, then it's a duck" mindset which on many occasions now, resulted in you presenting something from over interpreted to strictly false, as if it was the obvious reality. so of course people react to your mistakes and explain them, like they should in this sub forum. but each and every time, instead of taking it in and simply admitting that you were wrong about something, you go all in as if admitting one mistake would put your higher anti loudness war purpose in danger.
and that's where you're really bad at handling the situation.  because to most of us here your reaction to being wrong about something is only seen as ignorance or worst, dishonesty. so after that you have zero chance to convince us of anything. but what's even worse is that there isn't a single individual here who's a fan of the loudness war. you've been preaching to the choir all along, and done a crappy job at that.
I don't take any pleasure in kicking you while you're already on the ground, but the exact same situation keeps repeating. first time I noticed you to the point of never forgetting your nickname to this day, you were massively grave digging any topic somewhat related to dynamic and loudness war, that sure wasn't a fun way to meet. the next time I think was the fiasco about how you tried to make a point using the DR app without knowing how that app even calculated its numbers, and drawing all sorts of faulty conclusions from it. next was about compressors and how they basically were the tool of the devil loudness war, while forgetting how compressors are ubiquitous because their uses are many, extending well beyond just trying to stick a record to to 0dB. then at some point it degraded into sound engineers are bad at their job, and are trying to lie about the loudness war, which is the day you and another member put a target on your own back with pure and simple defamation. I've had to strongly act as a modo a number of times to settle that crap. and you can tell how Gregorio has been truly in love with you ever since(but don't worry just because he's the most vocal one, doesn't mean he's been the only one taking offense). there has been numerous other little events, of course always related to your idea that big dynamic is good, loudness war is bad, but again, all too often with your own spin to it that makes your argument incorrect half the time. and then we're back to step one.  and as soon as the topic is completely unrelated, you act like a perfectly normal and reasonable guy. I said something similar to @71 dB recently(in a nicer way), you guys are just fine almost all the time, but you have that one trigger where you let your passion for something control you at the cost of reason. and just like I said to him, you're far from alone, you just happen to have your own very specific triggers. I have mine. in fact I have more than one and all too often I start writing a bomb to exterminate someone. but most of the time, I read the message and decide not to post. that's what Headfi has done to me. I'm not more tolerant, or calmer, I just don't publish on the web any and every thought I have. you could try that sometimes.

I don't think it's an overstatement to say that what has been going on here is not healthy. nor does it help in any way to promote more dynamic music.


----------



## Davesrose

I'm not really sure why I haven't unsubscribed again from this thread...as it goes round and round in circles.  Page after page of Sonic Truth not having civil discourse as to the principles of the "loudness wars": I think the rest of us do understand there's differences with normalization, peak SPL, etc.  Time and time again, I've just wanted to reference the best source:


----------



## castleofargh

AudioThief said:


> Can someone give me a quick rundown on the major differences between a typical objectivist and a typical subjectivist?


I've been wondering about that for at least a decade. and my conclusion so far is that people have their own subjective interpretation of what objectivism and subjectivism mean .
I clearly believe in an objective reality because the evidence supporting that is everywhere. and I clearly make subjective decisions. so what does that make me? my first guess was that it means I'm like anybody else, but apparently not.


----------



## bigshot

Davesrose said:


> I'm not really sure why I haven't unsubscribed again from this thread...as it goes round and round in circles.



There's a reason for that. The original post is a smoking gun and is probably the most important post in this whole forum. It's natural that people who want to attract attention to themselves and tear down the concept of controlled testing would latch onto it to tear it down.


----------



## AudioThief

castleofargh said:


> I've been wondering about that for at least a decade. and my conclusion so far is that people have their own subjective interpretation of what objectivism and subjectivism mean .
> I clearly believe in an objective reality because the evidence supporting that is everywhere. and I clearly make subjective decisions. so what does that make me? my first guess was that it means I'm like anybody else, but apparently not.



This reminds me of a discussion I had with my father some time back. Basically, he and his friend & colleague (both of whom are engineers) said something akin to - " The truth is something we agree upon". Now it might be a case of semantics, but I fundementally disagree with this stance. I believe that the truth is the truth no matter what us humans figure out about it. Now clearly, what we believe to be true at any given time is the best approximation of truth, but we must always be open to the truth being something else than what we currently believe is true. 

Anyways, again I am having some difficulties placing myself on the spectrum of objectivist - subjectivist. Here are my rough definitions based on some years reading on head-fi, reddit etc.. 

Objectivist: 

- All DACs sound the same, this is a fact (given comptetent manufacturing/design)
- All amplifiers sound the same, this is a fact (unless badly made/tube etc)
- Headphones sound different, but its mainly just a matter of EQ 
- "Detail" is actually just treble heavy signature
- Any headphone rig exceeding 600$ including amp and DAC is a matter of taste, not of quality (so for instance, HD650 cannot be beaten in a technical aspect unless you prefer a brighter signature, or more bass)
- You can tell how a headphone sounds based on its measurements, any quality stated beyond that is simply "perceptions" and essentially disposable impressions.

Subjectivist:

- Believes DACs sound slightly different, but with the differences being impactful - for instance adding a sense of space to recordings, lowering treble spikes, tighter bass response etc. (not measurable afaik?)
- Believes amps sound different but even less so than DAC, except when speaking of electrostatic amplifiers, in which the differences seem to be viewed as more important than DACs
- May or may not believe cables sound different
- Believe a wide range of headphones deliver a wide range of different levels of quality, so for instance clearly there is a host of headphones performing strictly better (to their ears) than HD650, but not necessarily HD800. It seems most agree that its a matter of taste once you get to around HD800 and up. 
- Believes that measurements is only one part of the puzzle

Now clearly, at least around these parts, objectivists and subjectivists seem to agree that the perceived differences are real. Then we have to ask ourselves, well why do we perceive these differences? Is there a difference in sound, or is it completely made up in our minds?

This is interesting because to me, both stances seem reasonable. It makes completely sense to me that biases and expectations would sway the way I think of equipment. It also makes sense to me that those biases could make me hear something isn't actually there. For instance, looking back at it I remember going from my modi MB DAC to my Gustard X20 Pro and I felt it did EXACTLY what I hoped it would do - make the sound a tad bit more flat/even sounding and bigger overall sound. Thats a bit strange, isnt it? I expected it to do that, and it did that. Thats weird, that doesn't logically make sense. That sounds like a bias at work. At the same time, I can remember listening to my rig before purchasing and being annoyed several times at certain point in songs, at several different moments thinking that this is the one imperfection I want taken away. And once I did upgrade my DAC, after months of deliberation, I never once had any complaints. I really did find the rig to behave exactly like I wanted it, and I stopped looking for upgrades. So was I never annoyed with the sound in the first place, convincing myself that I needed to waste hundreds of dollars on a big box to take up desk space? Or was I in fact annoyed with the sound, then once the new DAC arrived, I just masterfully learned to simply ignore it to fool myself? 

I am looking at other aspects of my life, and I find that my view of the world would be wildly different if it turns out that my enjoyment of any experience was such a big subject of my biases that I am essentially never able to judge somethings quality without considering a host of other factors before it. When I buy a pair of shoes, I like to think that I am completely able to judge its comfort based on its comfort, not if its a 100$ adidas shoe or a 300$ adidas shoe. 

Earlier today, I sat outside bathing in the sun - I live in the city, close to a road with lots of traffic. I closed my eyes and listened to the cars driving by. I considered how hard it would be for me to recognize the sound of a semi trailer driving past if I didn't already know that semi trailers drive past the road that is there regularly - if I had no concept of where I even was, who knows what my mind told me that sound would be. A train? Some strange machine flying in space? Me being carried away rapidly past a factory? I can't help but consider that blind testing seems to be a weak sort of proof, but at the same time, clearly biases play in to a large degree also, especially in this community.

It feels as if the truth is somewhere in between, its hard to say I am a strict objectivist because it just doesn't sit right with me that its all bias.


----------



## Fuzzy789 (Jul 7, 2019)

AudioThief said:


> Can someone give me a quick rundown on the major differences between a typical objectivist and a typical subjectivist?
> 
> I am having difficulty placing the exact stance of objectivists.. On reddit, you will hear people talk about zero audible gains above HD650 (in price), for instance. That doesn't make sense to me. At the same time, cables making a difference doesnt make sense to me either.



How?, Diminishing returns is a thing a $400 IEM/Full size will be a night and day over a $60 one. While anything at $1200 is just minimal gains versus the $400 iem/full size, like your not missing much at all if your using a ER4XR on all aspects. I don't understand how that bias when overblowing the gains on "TOTL" gear is okay around allot audiophile circles, The only one in my view that deserves it title is stax but even then your not missing out much unless you need a headphone that costs more than my PC and on par with a used car...


The only time cables help sound is if the IEM is output Independence sensitive which is common with BA based gear, the CFA andro is a more well known case

Not to mention sound sigs are FR based if the driver is good enough you can EQ in the same sound sig. Hence i highly doubt the gains of 5 to 12 driver's to 1 to 4 driver in the multi BA area


----------



## gregorio

AudioThief said:


> [1] I could swear the Stax SR-007 mk1s sounded like crap out of the small 252s amplifier, and much better out of the much more powerful 727ii amplifier. The difference was not so staggering for the L300, in fact it was very barely audible (although I did perceive it to be audible at the time).
> [2] I also upgraded my DAC from a modi multibit to a Gustard x20 Pro, again feeling it made a difference, albeit minor I felt it was worth it.
> [3] Although I still believe the 007s to be technically "better" to my ears. I feel a bit ridiculous even saying it, because who knows if there actually is any difference in "technicalities".
> [4] Clearly, subjectivism doesn't make any logical sense, and its intellectually dishonest to simply say "I can hear it so it must be true".
> ...



You reply is particularly interesting because it highlights some of the fundamental issues very well indeed. I'll break my response down into individual points but largely, they are all one and the same point:

1. Commonly when it comes to audio, we have two basic sides to the scientific/rational approach of working out what the actual facts are: What is the observed evidence and what are the underlying scientific principles/facts involved. Then, we combine these two sides to arrive at an answer with a "level of confidence" (sometimes this can effectively be 100%, other times we're just talking about probabilities). Before we do this though, we also have to break down these two sides individually into confidence levels. What confidence do we have in the accuracy/reliability of the "observations" and what confidence do we have in the underlying scientific principles. For example, the two confidence level extremes as far as observations are concerned are generally: Sighted A/B or "impressions" tests (being the lowest confidence) and highly controlled laboratory double blind tests with a large sample size (being the highest confidence). On the scientific principles side, are we talking about one of two or more competing theories (low confidence) or are we talking about a proven/completely accepted scientific fact, such as a "law of physics" for example (unassailably high confidence)? We also need to have a confidence level in how the underlying scientific principles are being applied, their context. It's a very common audiophile marketing trick to correctly describe some scientific principle/fact but in practice it's actually nonsense because it's out of context and inapplicable. Taking this basic rational/scientific approach, what you believe ("could swear") you heard/perceived is almost worthless, as it's "observed evidence"  with the very lowest reliability/confidence level. However, on the scientific principles side; electrostatic headphones have a very unusual power requirement compared to the vast majority of headphones (extremely high impedance and voltage swings). For this reason, differences between amplifiers' output characteristics (voltage and impedance for example) which would be inaudible on the vast majority of headphones, could be quite easily audible when using electrostatics (depending on the exact design of a particular set of electrostatics). So to start with, the underlying scientific principles indicate that there is (or could be) audible differences with your headphones and those amps and furthermore, it's entirely likely that a more powerful amp will drive a set of electrostatics more linearly/accurately (audibly so) than a lower powered amp. Therefore, although your observations constitute evidence of the lowest reliability, I am more inclined (though still not convinced) to accept them as accurate, because they closely align with the underlying scientific facts.

2. This is a very good example of the opposite situation. The underlying scientific principles (and objective measurements of DACs) demonstrate that while there certainly are differences between DACs, provided they are competently designed for high fidelity, those differences are below (and typically way below) audibility under normal usage. So now, not only is your observed evidence of the lowest confidence level but it also contradicts the science/objective facts and therefore I have virtually no confidence in it whatsoever!  Logically, if an observation contradicts the science/facts, then it needs to have the opposite, extremely high confidence, in order to be taken seriously (highly controlled, double blind, large sample size and repeatable for example).

3. We keep returning to: What does "better" mean? For example, a set of headphones (or other equipment) which emphasises the bass would likely be perceived as "better" by anyone who has a preference for louder/more bass but if we define "better" as higher fidelity, then this set of headphones is actually worse. In other words, "better" has no meaning beyond a particular individual's preferences, so unless we define "better" more precisely and relate it to an audio property (rather than a perception) then we can only answer subjectively. Unfortunately, the common consequence of audiophiles not appreciating the difference between a perception and an audio property is that if something sounds "better" to them personally then it is better period, regardless of how we define "better". This is an obvious problem because "better" is most commonly defined as "higher fidelity" and therefore to many audiophiles "higher fidelity" and "better to them personally" is the same thing, leading them to blindly insist that equipment which is objectively, provably lower fidelity is actually higher fidelity. Vinyl verses CD is probably the most obvious example of this but there are several.

4. Agreed.
4a. This really is the heart of it all! What we perceive is, for virtually the entirety of our lives, our only experience of reality and also, if there is a difference between what we perceive and reality, the vast majority of the time it makes relatively little practical difference to our lives, so we can (and naturally do) just accept our perception as reality. Therefore, "coming to terms" with our perception not being reality (and sometimes being extremely different to reality) is really not required most of the time and it if is, it's a bitter pill to swallow. Very few of us can just easily override/discard the experience of a lifetime, it takes time and requires a lot of counter-experience, for example comparing our perception to reality by using objective measurements and performing blind tests and, doing this repeatedly over time. It's worth it though, it really is an eye opener. For some people (and many audiophiles fall into this category), it's too bitter a pill to swallow and in some extreme cases, it's a pill they won't even accept exists, despite the obvious evidence: For example, we all know our vision is a perception which doesn't entirely represent reality, we don't perceive a complete loss of vision every second or so (when we blink), our brain creates a perception with the blanks filled in and, we all know that because perception is at least partially just an invention of the brain that our vision can be easily fooled, we've all seen a variety of optical illusions which prove this but for most of us, most of the time, it makes relatively little difference, it's little more than a curiosity. However, there are exceptions, visual art (paintings, etc.) for example is largely/entirely based on visual illusion/perception. Likewise, if we just want to enjoy listening to music, then it also doesn't really make much practical difference but if we're going to analyse/discuss music (or it's recording and reproduction) then it makes a huge difference because music is also almost entirely based on perception/illusion! In fact, music is itself a perception, it doesn't really exist, it entirely depends on the brain's propensity to emphasise sonic patterns and create relationships between them. That's why we don't even have a proper definition of "music", there are various different definitions but there are exceptions to all of them. Probably the most surprising and obvious example of the brain completely changing the sense of hearing to create a perception is the McGurk Effect, it's well worth the 3.5 minutes if you haven't seen it before.

4b. It works both ways. A well designed blind test tries to focus on what we're actually hearing by eliminating biases, regardless of which way they are working. Of course, an individual can effectively lie, for example by selecting random answers when in fact they can identify a difference and that is why we have more confidence in the results of controlled tests with a larger/wider sample size. It's also worth noting that biases are relatively complex things. Firstly, there a lot of different biases, Secondly, our perception is virtually never under the influence of just one of them, Thirdly, many of these biases are subconscious and Lastly, there's no set priority between them, the brain is constantly evaluating them, making a judgement/perception for each event and again, doing this subconsciously. A common fallacy inadvertently employed by many audiophiles is along the lines of: "I didn't expect to hear a difference but was surprised that I did and this proves that the difference I heard was not due to (expectation) bias". This is a fallacy because it ignores all the other biases (including other expectation biases) of which they were not consciously aware and which typically have more influence over our perception than the biases we are aware of! 

5. Again, glad it helped. Yes, it does take time but it's time I enjoy spending more than the time I spend going round in circles, trying to respond logically to completely illogical, false assertions of facts. Having said that, it perhaps doesn't take as much time as you might imagine, as for several years I was a university lecturer in audio engineering/music technology and so have already thought at length how to explain how audio works and the perception of it to those just starting the journey.

G


----------



## bigshot (Jul 7, 2019)

AudioThief said:


> Anyways, again I am having some difficulties placing myself on the spectrum of objectivist - subjectivist. Here are my rough definitions based on some years reading on head-fi, reddit etc..



Again... I'll repeat myself. Subjectivist and Objectivist has nothing to do with specific opinions about home audio. It's a PROCESS for determining the truth. Subjectivists trust their own perception and feelings. Objectivists trust verifiable facts that can be tested.

Look at your own post critically here. You dearly want the truth to be somewhere in the middle. You've had several lengthy answers that pointed out things that you hadn't considered, yet none of that has affected what you are saying. This post is pretty much the same as your first post on this subject. Is your bias preventing you from incorporating solid information from other people? THAT is why we try to eliminate bias. The way to define what is real is to take input from others and look for patterns. We don't try to create the patterns in our own head and then go on to prove them. That's what we do when we conduct controlled listening tests and work out the odds by averaging samples. The chips fall where they fall and we figure out the truth from that. It's an ongoing process of refining that is never completed. Logical analysis is a skill that becomes stronger from regular use.

I would explain point by point the problems in your specific examples representing both subjective and objective "beliefs on reddit", but you threw out so much wrongness in one bullet point list, it would take three Gregorios to have the patience to go through it all.

You can't learn without taking input, testing it, and putting it into proper context. Critical thinking is how we do that. That is why for technical things, objective analysis is better than blindly trusting subjective impressions.

Instead of trying to find out who is right, start thinking critically for yourself. Take one achievable subject and discuss it with us, Stay on point and see how we approach it and the facts we use to support our case. You'll understand what objective analysis is better by doing it than by letting reddit cut to the chase and just tell you the conclusion. Objectivism is all about HOW YOU REACH CONCLUSIONS... not the conclusions themselves.


----------



## sander99 (Jul 7, 2019)

Question (and maybe an answer to AudioThief's doubts concerning blind testing):
Would it be a good idea to do the following, or can there be any problems with this from a scientific perspective:
First do extensive sighted listening to the things you want to compare, take as much time as you like. Get "familiar" with the sound, and try to find "suspected differences" and specific audio fragments with wich you seem to hear these "suspected differences". Then do a well set up double blind ABX test using those specific audio fragments. Only if you can confirm the "suspected differences" in this test they can become "accepted differences".
In fact, I am wondering if this approach should not even be considered mandatory before concluding that there is no difference (or rather: I think this approach would raise the level of confidence that there is no difference). (Certain differences are maybe only audible with specific kinds of audio fragments, and not by all people. If you just do an double blind ABX test with a "random group of people" and a "randomly chosen set of audio/music fragments" and just look at the "statistical relevance" of the deviation from 50% correct score you could get to a false conclusion if for example none of the audio/music fragments was suitable to hear the difference.)
[Edit: I just now discovered the following thread:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-flaws-in-blind-testing.520756/
Maybe this is already discussed there? I found the thread because I wanted to refer to the example of Swedisch Radio where - as someone claimed - important differences were missed in a blind test. Differences that someone else immidiately picked up in a "sighted test". Hence my idea to first do sighted listening to find "suspected differences". (I don't know about what all the real facts in the  Swedish Radio case are, still have to look at that.)]


----------



## bigshot (Jul 7, 2019)

What would the purpose of the sighted listening be? To train yourself to hear differences? Because if there isn't a difference, and you can prove that conclusively in a blind, level matched, direct A/B switched test, there's nothing to train yourself to hear, all you would be doing is convincing yourself that differences exist that don't actually exist.

You'll note that I said "blind, level matched, direct A/B switched". There are reasons for each one of those controls. Blind testing reduces the impact of bias. Level matching avoids the human tendency to think louder sounds automatically have better sound quality. Direct A/B switching helps avoid auditory memory from fading between samples. You can google why these controls are important. These are all well established techniques with solid reasons behind them. They can help you discern differences that are smaller than can be discerned in uncontrolled tests. You can go ahead and throw them all out and do a sloppy test first, but it isn't going to change the results of the controlled test. And you're not going to hear things you couldn't hear in the controlled test either. The controls are already guaranteeing that you are getting the most precise and accurate comparison possible- free from bias , perceptual error and memory problems. Why would a test with bias, perceptual error and memory lapses give you a more accurate result?


----------



## sander99

We crossed posts here, see my edit under my previous post.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 7, 2019)

Feel free to discuss here. It's more on topic than the rest of the stuff in the comments lately. You also might want to look at the first post in the thread. It has a section on controlled testing and why it's important and examples of tests that have been conducted.

The only thing to avoid is throwing out too many specific areas to discuss at once. That inevitably leads to chaos. Just take it one point at a time and help keep the discussion focused.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 7, 2019)

The important thing to remember about listening tests is that they are not intended to detect all differences, just AUDIBLE ones. There can be differences that are measurable, but not audible. That may be important from a theoretical point of view, but not from a practical one. We are looking for differences that will impact our systems when we are listening to music in our living rooms. The average controlled listening test with tones detects differences that are an order of magnitude smaller than anything that would make a difference when you're listening to Beethoven on the couch. There is such a thing as good enough. Too many people chase down rabbit holes of absolutism. Most differences you read about in audiophile forums are completely irrelevant to real world music listening. You have to make an effort to learn what the numbers actually sound like to really understand. There are a couple of good AES demonstrations in my sig file if you are interested.


----------



## sander99

bigshot said:


> They can help you discern differences that are smaller than can be discerned in uncontrolled tests.


Ok, I didn't know that. Note I would never accept a difference heard in a non-blind test as _prove_ that there is a difference, I only _considered the possibility_ that some differences might be _easier found_ with a sighted test.


bigshot said:


> There is such a thing as good enough. Too many people chase down rabbit holes of absolutism.


Oh, I absolutely agree. We are basically in the same camp I think. My intension was just to have "something to give" to the people who criticise or doubt controlled blind testing, without giving up the conrolled blind test as a final demand to prove audible differences.


----------



## bigshot

The truth doesn’t always lie halfway between opposing opinions. I’ve learned that over the years. I had to unlearn all that stuff they taught kids on the Smurfs!


----------



## castleofargh

sander99 said:


> Question (and maybe an answer to AudioThief's doubts concerning blind testing):
> Would it be a good idea to do the following, or can there be any problems with this from a scientific perspective:
> First do extensive sighted listening to the things you want to compare, take as much time as you like. Get "familiar" with the sound, and try to find "suspected differences" and specific audio fragments with wich you seem to hear these "suspected differences". Then do a well set up double blind ABX test using those specific audio fragments. Only if you can confirm the "suspected differences" in this test they can become "accepted differences".
> In fact, I am wondering if this approach should not even be considered mandatory before concluding that there is no difference (or rather: I think this approach would raise the level of confidence that there is no difference). (Certain differences are maybe only audible with specific kinds of audio fragments, and not by all people. If you just do an double blind ABX test with a "random group of people" and a "randomly chosen set of audio/music fragments" and just look at the "statistical relevance" of the deviation from 50% correct score you could get to a false conclusion if for example none of the audio/music fragments was suitable to hear the difference.)
> ...



the way I see it, your suggestion would try to reassure people who believe their own sighted impressions but doubt blind tests. and you consider that it could help setup a more relevant test. maybe that would help on occasion but as it would for the wrong reasons, IDK if it's desirable. 
a blind test can have mistakes and will have limitations. but a sighted test is always a flawed test. lack of control, extra variables, nothing done to limit personal biases and preconceptions, how could that ever count as a conclusive experience and support the idea of finding audible differences? that would be a pretty dangerous game where we validate something we should not, for the sake of convincing someone. but once we have given such value to sighted experience, why would those people let us take that back? they were already in a position of trusting themselves and not the blind test, and now we would tell them that their sighted impressions are legit enough to condition how and when we should do a blind test. if I was on their side, I would conclude that sighted impressions are legit and that we need blind tests even less than before. ^_^ 

to find test signals or conditions favorable to spot differences, think of that as engineering. we want to test something and some people with know how and the right mind, will be in charge of creating the tool that does it. they may come up with lousy solutions full of flaws, or they may build a very clever test, humans will be humans. but consider that science doesn't consist of one test and we're done. ideally, people with proper qualifications would set up and administer the test. ideally, we'd have other scientists look at the test and try to find errors(with some fame when they succeed, so the incentive is there). ideally, the guys making the experiments would share as much information as they can, and report potential issues if they find them, instead of trying to achieve a result they want at any price. ideally, other people would try to replicate the experience and check if the results agree with the first one. 
when the entire science machine is in action, the likelihood for a test to do what it was supposed to do will dramatically increase along with the confidence in the results and the quality of the interpretation of those results. 
on the other hand, when none of this is applied, well, the results may or may not be informative, the conclusion may be an overreach, and I wouldn't blame anybody for not placing 100% confidence in them.  IMO even the first post in this thread has conclusions that go too far compared to the experiments described and their results.

once you start to consider things not in truth and falsehood but as statistics, degrees of confidence, and conditional truth, the facts become more compact, specific, and I find them easier to digest.


----------



## AudioThief

gregorio said:


> You reply is particularly interesting because it highlights some of the fundamental issues very well indeed. I'll break my response down into individual points but largely, they are all one and the same point:
> 
> G



Thank you for this great post. 

I have gotten a much better idea, and my perceptions have indeed changed quite drastically since entering this sub forum a couple of days ago. In large part because of your great way of explaining things, gregorio. 

@bigshot I have no idea why you are being rude, I think I've come across as completely honest as to what is my core belief entering this sub, and trying to understand/get it explained. I am looking for truth, nothing more nothing less. I'm sorry that I'm too stupid to understand it as quick as you'd like me to, I guess. 

I think I got what I came for from Gregorio.. I'll keep lurking, thanks for the enlightenment.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 7, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> tonce you start to consider things not in truth and falsehood but as statistics, degrees of confidence, and conditional truth, the facts become more compact, specific, and I find them easier to digest.



We had an earthquake in my neighborhood recently. I was watching the news and they had the seismologists from the USGS on TV and one of them answered a question by saying, "Earthquakes were much simpler back when we didn't have so much data." That made me laugh, but it's true. More data may be more complicated, but you're closer to the truth too.



AudioThief said:


> @bigshot I have no idea why you are being rude, I think I've come across as completely honest as to what is my core belief entering this sub, and trying to understand/get it explained. I am looking for truth, nothing more nothing less. I'm sorry that I'm too stupid to understand it as quick as you'd like me to, I guess.



I'm not being rude at all. I'm asking you to look at your own biases. You have biases. I have biases. They are as plain as the noses on our faces to everyone but us. It isn't rude to point out that you might have human failings just like me and the rest of the human population.

Subjectivists get mad at objectivists because they honestly believe that they can control their biases and make an honest effort to simply look for the truth. But I'm sorry. No human can do that without the proper tools. Bias, placebo, cherry picking, slips in logic... all these things operate below your conscious level. You are operating on bias and making illogical decisions every single minute of every day. If you didn't, it would take you hours to make every small decision you make in a typical day.

Feeling insulted is proof that you aren't being totally free of investing your ego into this. I didn't call you stupid. I said that I told you something and it didn't seem to register with you. I said that you got a lot of new input but after going through it your original premise didn't change in the least. I suggested that you seem to prefer to tread a line between the two concepts. Is that not a true statement?

All I was doing was pointing out bias. Feel free to point mine out! I am aware of my bias. I use bias where it's helpful, but if I am looking for an objective fact, I use objective tools to eliminate it. When I go to do a test to determine if one amp sounds different from another I go to great pains to control my ability to express preference by making the choices blind, and I negate my perceptual error by level matching and direct switching. I analyze my results using critical thinking and logic. That is how I know I'm getting closer to the truth. I deny myself a chance to have a preference. What I want to believe is completely irrelevant to the truth, so I make an effort to remove it from the equation. Subjectivists make no effort at all. That's why their results are "impressions" not "facts".

Objectivism is a process, not a destination. I can't emphasize that enough. It doesn't mean all amps sound the same. And it doesn't mean cables don't matter. I would be happy to be found wrong on both of those things. It wouldn't be an insult to me because evidence that proves I am wrong about it puts me a step closer to the truth,... and it's a gold plated invitation to a whole new line of inquiry. If you can do that, you're doing me a favor. But to do that, you are going to have to apply the same stringent controls to your test that I do with mine.

I take the time to puzzle things out because I want to understand how they work. I don't want to rely on one group or another to make my mind up for me. These aren't baseball teams, they are processes for discerning the truth. As an objectivist, if I'm wrong, that is the best thing that can happen because it's an opportunity to learn.

Hopefully, this clarification will help you understand what I'm saying a little better.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm seeing a major flaw here in terms of how the idea of "subjective vs objective" is being conflated with the difference between blind and sighted tests.
Doing a double blind test does _NOT_ ensure you of getting objective results...
All a blind test does is to avoid one specific sort of bias - a false positive based on expectation bias.
For one thing, if you have an expectation bias _NOT_ to hear a difference between two devices, a simple blind or abx test will do nothing to eliminate it.
For another thing, a blind test doesn't eliminate purely subjective responses; for example, even in a blind test, a subject might _PREFER_ the sound of a device with more distortion.
(And, even if you're supposedly testing for "whether they hear a difference or not" they may still apply a subjective standard to reporting "tiny differences" or "significant differences".)

There is a classic example of "visual bias" that is often described in psychology textbooks...
A well-prepared steak is divided into two halves - and one half is dyed bright green with an odorless tasteless food dye.
When subjects are invited to compare a green piece of steak to a normal looking piece, with their eyes closed, they routinely report no difference (proving the dye has no effect on taste).
But, when invited to sample pieces, and allowed to see what they're eating, subjects consistently report that the green steak doesn't taste good.
This clearly demonstrates some sort of _bias_ to percieve green steak as "bad" (almost certainly because we've been taught to associate that color with "spoiled meat").
_HOWEVER_, this is _NOT_ a matter of "subjective vs objective"... (which would suggest something based on "opinion or expectation).
Even when the subjects know that the steak is identical, and have _no conscious expectation or opinion that they will taste different_, they _STILL_ perceive a difference.
It is in fact a demonstration that, due the complex way in which our rbains are wired, input from one sense may affect how we interpret input from a different sense.
We actually, OBJECTIVELY, experience the taste of the steak differently when we see a green color associated with it - and an MRI will show a different sensory response in our brain.

To me it seems like an exact parallel if a certain audiophile finds that a "big impressive speaker" sounds better - but only when he or she can see those "non-audible attributes"....
- or "one with a big impressive price tag"
- or "one with better specs" 
(something "we imagine we hear because we expect to hear it" is quite different from "a subjective evaluation of something"...)

I would also agree that I personally prefer to know whether what I'm hearing is being influenced by this sort of bias or not.
Therefore, at least as a starting point, being able to determine how various devices sound while avoiding various common types of bias is certainly useful...
However, I DO NOT believe that the terms "subjective" and "objective" apply here.

The proper way to phrase the situation would be that "a blind test will rule out most positive expectation biases due to recognizing or seeing the product".



castleofargh said:


> the way I see it, your suggestion would try to reassure people who believe their own sighted impressions but doubt blind tests. and you consider that it could help setup a more relevant test. maybe that would help on occasion but as it would for the wrong reasons, IDK if it's desirable.
> a blind test can have mistakes and will have limitations. but a sighted test is always a flawed test. lack of control, extra variables, nothing done to limit personal biases and preconceptions, how could that ever count as a conclusive experience and support the idea of finding audible differences? that would be a pretty dangerous game where we validate something we should not, for the sake of convincing someone. but once we have given such value to sighted experience, why would those people let us take that back? they were already in a position of trusting themselves and not the blind test, and now we would tell them that their sighted impressions are legit enough to condition how and when we should do a blind test. if I was on their side, I would conclude that sighted impressions are legit and that we need blind tests even less than before. ^_^
> 
> to find test signals or conditions favorable to spot differences, think of that as engineering. we want to test something and some people with know how and the right mind, will be in charge of creating the tool that does it. they may come up with lousy solutions full of flaws, or they may build a very clever test, humans will be humans. but consider that science doesn't consist of one test and we're done. ideally, people with proper qualifications would set up and administer the test. ideally, we'd have other scientists look at the test and try to find errors(with some fame when they succeed, so the incentive is there). ideally, the guys making the experiments would share as much information as they can, and report potential issues if they find them, instead of trying to achieve a result they want at any price. ideally, other people would try to replicate the experience and check if the results agree with the first one.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't disagree with BigShot here... but I do disagree with the vehemence with which he defends his point of view.

I've done lots of "engineering work" - designing and testing various equipment and components - which often requires that things be measured.
In almost every case, there is a reasonably well established level of accuracy that is required for a successful result.
In some circuits, you need resistors matched to within 1%; in others a 10% part will be perfectly adequate.
However, when I measure resistors, I still use a meter that is certified to be accurate within 1/10 of 1%.
(The difference in price for the more accurate meter is inconsequential.)
The reason I do this essentially boils down to: "It never hurts to be more accurate than you need to be".
In engineering, we often discuss a more specific benefit, commonly known as "safety margin".
("If you start out with something that's a lot better than what you need, then it will still be OK, even if it drifts a little bit, or if you were a little optimistic.")

And, not surprisingly, I tend to apply a similar standard or guideline to the audio equipment I own.
Whenever possible, I don't buy equipment that is "just good enough that its flaws are inaudible to me"...
I prefer to have equipment that is "a lot better than the bare minimum that I need"...
(So, if I was quite certain that THD was only audible above 0.5%, I would still prefer to have an amplifier with a THD of 0.05% instead of 0.5%, "because it has a better safety margin".) 

And, yes, I do also agree that there is "taking things too far"......
That's why I haven't spent $10k on a meter that's accurate to 0.001%.....
(However, if someone were to offer me one for only 20% more than my current meter cost, I might consider it...)
And why I'm willing to settle for audio equipment that's "probably only 10x better than what I really need".....
But I absolutely don't agree that "there is absolutely no reason to pursue better performance past what's demonstrably audible" - I'll take my 10x safety margin; even if it costs a little extra; as long as it isn't too much extra.



bigshot said:


> The important thing to remember about listening tests is that they are not intended to detect all differences, just AUDIBLE ones. There can be differences that are measurable, but not audible. That may be important from a theoretical point of view, but not from a practical one. We are looking for differences that will impact our systems when we are listening to music in our living rooms. The average controlled listening test with tones detects differences that are an order of magnitude smaller than anything that would make a difference when you're listening to Beethoven on the couch. There is such a thing as good enough. Too many people chase down rabbit holes of absolutism. Most differences you read about in audiophile forums are completely irrelevant to real world music listening. You have to make an effort to learn what the numbers actually sound like to really understand. There are a couple of good AES demonstrations in my sig file if you are interested.


----------



## sander99

Ok, I now have read more about the Swedish Radio example: apparently the test was not well designed and set-up.
In combination with assuming bigshot is right about blind, level matched, direct A/B switched giving a better chance to discern differences I retract my proposal to do sighted listening before doing a blind test.


----------



## bigshot

It's good to throw suggestions out there. You run it up the flagpole and figure things out based on how it does.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I'm seeing a major flaw here in terms of how the idea of "subjective vs objective" is being conflated with the difference between blind and sighted tests.
> Doing a double blind test does _NOT_ ensure you of getting objective results...
> All a blind test does is to avoid one specific sort of bias - a false positive based on expectation bias.
> For one thing, if you have an expectation bias _NOT_ to hear a difference between two devices, a simple blind or abx test will do nothing to eliminate it.
> ...


did you perhaps quote the wrong post? because in the one you quote I didn't mention objective or subjective once ^_^.


----------



## castleofargh

sander99 said:


> Ok, I now have read more about the Swedish Radio example: apparently the test was not well designed and set-up.
> In combination with assuming bigshot is right about blind, level matched, direct A/B switched giving a better chance to discern differences I retract my proposal to do sighted listening before doing a blind test.


trick question: how do you confirm how successful casual listening is in detecting audible differences?


----------



## bigshot (Jul 8, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> did you perhaps quote the wrong post? because in the one you quote I didn't mention objective or subjective once ^_^.



I think we're long past expecting a reasonable answer from that source. Bias is one thing. Commercial interests are another.

On another topic, challenging beliefs is at the heart of objectivism. If it's impolite to challenge, you'll never arrive at the truth. Challenges are judged by how well they present their case. Supporting arguments are what matter ultimately. If you don't believe the supporting arguments, you prove them wrong. You don't just throw up smoke.


----------



## AudioThief (Jul 8, 2019)

@bigshot You can insist on not being rude all you want, but I felt obviously ridiculed by you and I think you understand why. I have no issues accepting my biases - I have been completely open about what I believe, and I've attempted to argue for that. Through getting it explained by the posters in this sub, dwelling on it and reading around (especially the main post) I have changed my view.

I guess the main reason I take offence is because you essentially accuse me of being intellectually dishonest on purpose. It is hard not only having spent a lot of time dwelling on this hobby, but also money and emotional energy and then get the whole fundament of it essentially ripped away and having to rebuild a new version of it - one that is closer to the truth.

Anyways, sorry for cluttering the thread.

Yesterday, after having concluded that what I've been hearing is likely to be so influenced by biases that I cannot really trust it at all, it kinda took over my whole day - I couldn't get it out of my head. Today, my STAX SR-L500 arrives in the mail. Have I wasted my money? I mean I swear I loved the estat sound, but I am starting to think that the differences between the LCD 2.2c and SR-L500 are mostly in my head - maybe they sound essentially identical (for most listening at least), and its really just money out the window.


----------



## castleofargh

AudioThief said:


> @bigshot You can insist on not being rude all you want, but I felt obviously ridiculed by you and I think you understand why. I have no issues accepting my biases - I have been completely open about what I believe, and I've attempted to argue for that. Through getting it explained by the posters in this sub, dwelling on it and reading around (especially the main post) I have changed my view.
> 
> I guess the main reason I take offence is because you essentially accuse me of being intellectually dishonest on purpose. It is hard not only having spent a lot of time dwelling on this hobby, but also money and emotional energy and then get the whole fundament of it essentially ripped away and having to rebuild a new version of it - one that is closer to the truth.
> 
> ...


@bigshot has been a naughty boy recently and seems to have his posting style stuck on "roast".


about headphones and differences, or becoming paranoid about what to believe, all you need is to be clear about what you're asking for:
- if you're looking for community validation, then listen to the community.

- if you're looking for some objectively superior product that provides higher fidelity, then measurements and only measurements can tell you something about it. but as we discussed before, one headphone might do one thing better and not another. it will then come back to you and your own priorities to decide if that's the improvement you wanted or not. that objective quality route will usually be a a struggle as it's very hard to find exhaustive and rigorous headphone measurements. professionals don't usually share their data, so you often end up with nothing much or some amateur measurements that may or may not properly reflect fidelity for your pair and your use.

- if you're looking for something you enjoy, the only person that matters is you, the only variable that counts is "am I enjoying this?". if you enjoy using a headphone, then it's doing something right. maybe it's not sound, maybe it's the sound but what really reaches you is a special sauce instead of some pure fidelity, or maybe it's about comfort, maybe it's because you read something in a review, maybe it's the price or the marketing around the headphone or whatever. the actual reason why we enjoy something doesn't need to be clear. I believe it's all right to just enjoy and be happy about it. all our warnings about biases and not mistaking a feeling for what's happening in the objective world are relevant when what you're looking for is a fact. or when you post on a forum and don't wish to misinform thousands of people by forcing unchecked beliefs onto others as if they were undeniable truths. but otherwise, are facts making us enjoy music more? not sure there is any correlation between the two.knowledge never claimed to be the path toward happiness. 

what I'm trying to say is:


----------



## gregorio

sander99 said:


> Would it be a good idea to do the following, or can there be any problems with this from a scientific perspective:
> First do extensive sighted listening to the things you want to compare, take as much time as you like. Get "familiar" with the sound, and try to find "suspected differences" and specific audio fragments with wich you seem to hear these "suspected differences". Then do a well set up double blind ABX test using those specific audio fragments. Only if you can confirm the "suspected differences" in this test they can become "accepted differences".
> In fact, I am wondering if this approach should not even be considered mandatory before concluding that there is no difference (or rather: I think this approach would raise the level of confidence that there is no difference). (Certain differences are maybe only audible with specific kinds of audio fragments, and not by all people. If you just do an double blind ABX test with a "random group of people" and a "randomly chosen set of audio/music fragments" and just look at the "statistical relevance" of the deviation from 50% correct score you could get to a false conclusion if for example none of the audio/music fragments was suitable to hear the difference.)



There are a few problems here and in fact there's a better idea, one that is commonly (but not always) employed. Firstly the problems:

A. It's not such a good idea to use say an ABX test for "suspected" differences. First find out if there is an actual difference, which is generally easier, quicker and more reliable anyway. This way, the ABX test is hopefully going to answer a specific question: "Is this specific difference audible". As I said in my post to AudioThief, "Commonly we have two sides to the scientific/rational approach", and "commonly" indicates "often but not always", and that's because we sometimes don't need the "observed evidence" side. For example, if there is no actual difference then there's no point in any sort of listening test because either it will just confirm what we already objectively know or it won't, in which case it must be a faulty test. "Observed evidence" might also be unnecessary because it's irrelevant for another reason or has already effectively been done. For example, if the difference is say just random noise at -140dBFS, then we can't even reproduce it in the first place, or if the difference is above 30kHz there's zero chance we can hear it because we've already extensively tested frequency hearing thresholds over many decades, with countless subjects, and 30kHz significantly above that threshold.
B. The goal of an ABX or other double blind test should always be to pass it. I can't think of a single published scientific audio double blind study where they used a "randomly chosen set of audio/music fragments", they always use a set of carefully chosen of audio fragments which maximise the chances of the differences being audible. In fact, a test signal will often be used, a signal which doesn't necessarily ever exist in music/audio recordings but is specifically designed to make the particular difference being tested more audibly detectable. This enables us to apply the results of the test to a wider group of people than just the test subjects, with a higher degree of confidence. A good example of this is the testing that has been carried out for random jitter audibility. Using a specifically designed test signal, some subjects have been able to discern random jitter down to just two or three nano-seconds. However, this signal never exists in nature or in any audio/music recordings and when doing random jitter tests using music recordings, the lowest reported results have been 200 nano-secs, although most subjects struggle to discern lower than 500 nano-secs. From this we can draw some conclusions with a high degree of confidence, for example, while different people have different hearing acuity and different levels of listening skills, we can say with very high confidence that no one one can hear random jitter below two or three nano-secs with musical material.
C. It's not really a problem. If those test subjects could not discern a difference then you have your answer, it makes no difference. The problem only occurs if you try to apply that answer to other people/everyone else.

And now the better idea, which also has several points (but can depend on exactly what it is that we're testing):

A. We don't just have a "random group of people" but a selected "random group". I know this sounds contradictory but let me give an example: If we randomly pick 20 people off the street, the probability is high that they'll all just be members of the public, it's unlikely there will be any audiophiles or any experienced, professional musicians or sound/music engineers in that group. So depending on what we're testing, we can (and often do) select a group of random test subjects that deliberately includes representation of all 4 of these groups.
B. Essentially the same as "B" above, not use a "randomly chosen set of audio fragments" but a very carefully chosen set of audio fragments or a specifically designed test signal.
C. Quite commonly the test subjects are "trained" for 20 or 30 minutes before the actual DB test, especially if the difference being tested is not one we're accustomed to identifying. This is typically done using either test signals or a section of modified music that's had the specific difference added at an artificially very high level, to make it easily identifiable and then over the course of the training the amount of this added difference is reduced. This acclimatises/sensitises the subjects to the difference being tested, optimises their chances of detecting the difference during the test and makes the results applicable to others with a higher degree of confidence.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] I'm seeing a major flaw here in terms of how the idea of "subjective vs objective" is being conflated with the difference between blind and sighted tests. Doing a double blind test does _NOT_ ensure you of getting objective results...
> [1a] For one thing, if you have an expectation bias _NOT_ to hear a difference between two devices, a simple blind or abx test will do nothing to eliminate it.
> [2] For another thing, a blind test doesn't eliminate purely subjective responses; for example, even in a blind test, a subject might _PREFER_ the sound of a device with more distortion.
> [2a] (And, even if you're supposedly testing for "whether they hear a difference or not" they may still apply a subjective standard to reporting "tiny differences" or "significant differences".)
> ...



1. Yes it does, unless it's a flawed double blind test, in which case one may still have some confidence in the result but obviously not as much.
1a. Yes it will, unless it's a flawed blind or ABX test. Firstly, an expectation bias not to hear a difference doesn't necessarily result in a false negative. A number of times I've done ABX tests not expecting to detect a difference but have, or even thought during the test that I wasn't detecting a difference but the results demonstrated otherwise. This isn't always the case of course, in which case "a simple blind or ABX test" is flawed and something other than a "simple blind or ABX test" is called for (in order to arrive at a higher confidence level result), for instance a more complex ABX test. A bigger/wider sample size for example and/or some control iterations (EG. One or more of the samples has an artificially high difference that's easily discernable).

2. I don't understand this assertion, a blind test is not designed to "eliminate purely subjective responses" it's designed to test them! What a blind test is designed to eliminate is biases which affect our "purely subjective response" (hearing). Most obviously, a blind test is designed to eliminate the biases introduced by sight and leave us with just the "purely subjective response" of hearing. If you want to eliminate subjective responses then you can't use ABX or any listening test, you have to use an objective measurement.
2a. If you're testing for "whether they hear a difference or not", it doesn't matter if the subjects detect a tiny difference or a massive one, just that they detected a difference.

3. Sorry, that's completely illogical. If two pieces of steak objectively have the exact same flavour, texture, etc., but we experience a difference between them, then by definition that experience cannot be objective, it must be subjective! And, if our subjective response (of taste) is influenced by a different sense, say sight, then of course there will be some difference in sensory response in our brain, it will obviously include more activity in those areas of the brain responsible for processing vision and probably some differences in those areas of the brain combining all the information to create the overall/final perception.

G


----------



## AudioThief

Which headphones measure the overall best, i.e most "high fidelity" out of all, not considering price class? I can imagine some pretty cheap model could share the frequency response of my Stax, but would they sound the same as a matter of fact? Or is figuring out fidelity a mix of many, many measurements ? (I most often see the FR graph, but I don't understand any of the other measurements)


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 8, 2019)

AudioThief said:


> Which headphones measure the overall best, i.e most "high fidelity" out of all, not considering price class? I can imagine some pretty cheap model could share the frequency response of my Stax, but would they sound the same as a matter of fact? Or is figuring out fidelity a mix of many, many measurements ? (I most often see the FR graph, but I don't understand any of the other measurements)



The Sony MDR-7506 (about $80) have come out on top in a very careful study that took into account data on user preferences, and have come out on top a couple of times before that over the course of decades. No way they are as comfortable as your Stax though. A lot of people find them too emphasized in the mids and treble. The Sony MDR-V6 have their own Wikipedia page and it discusses the very similar Sony MDR-7506s a lot.

My current faves for just knocking around are the Superlux HD 681s (about $30). They are full range and pretty flat and neutral, and very comfortable, really nice subjective sound for my taste, pretty close to top of the heap, but build quality is awful and you get negative bragging rights.

If you don’t have Bosephobia the QC35 IIs (about $350) are very comfy measure quite well and have a lot of the modern luxuries like wireless, noise cancelling, etc. Again, negative bragging rights.

You can check out the rtings.com web site but their ratings were found not to correlate very well with user preference by Harman (a major manufacturer who has done a lot of research to combine findings as to what people prefer with objective measurements). Interestingly Harman found that the least accurate group as to predicting user preference was professional reviewers.


----------



## AudioThief

But are these headphones, as a matter of fact the most high fidelity ones, or simply those with the flattest GR graphs?


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 8, 2019)

[/QUOTE="AudioThief, post: 15050823, member: 470047"]But are these headphones, as a matter of fact the most high fidelity ones, or simply those with the flattest GR graphs?[/QUOTE]

They are all within a range such that it would be a matter of opinion, IMHO, along with many other headphones.

The MDR-7506s have been found to be the highest fidelity headphones full stop on more than one occasion. Read the Wikipedia article,  There are beauties and clunkers throughout the price spectrum. But a number of people just plain don’t like 7506s. : )


----------



## AudioThief

Steve999 said:


> [/QUOTE="AudioThief, post: 15050823, member: 470047"]But are these headphones, as a matter of fact the most high fidelity ones, or simply those with the flattest GR graphs?



They are all within a range such that it would be a matter of opinion, IMHO, along with many other headphones.

The MDR-7506s have been found to be the highest fidelity headphones full stop on more than one occasion. Read the Wikipedia article,  There are beauties and clunkers throughout the price spectrum. But a number of people just plain don’t like them. : )[/QUOTE]

So if people believe that say the hd800 are better, it is a matter of opinion that would likely Split 50/50? Or do people prefer lower fidelity? (i suspect a random group would prefer the hd800s over the sony, ststidtically speaking)


----------



## KeithEmo

Not really, although my reply wasn't directed specifically to your post, but to the whole discussion in general.
(Although I was sort of tagging onto your reference to blind testing...)

From a lot of what I read it seems to me that many people, especially on this forum, believe that "double blind tests eliminate the problem of a lack of objectivity".
There seems to be a somewhat dubious pair of assumptions that:
- without blind testing people and test results can't be objective
- when you perform a double blind test you _always_ rule out the negative effects of bias

As if double blind testing is a "cure for all the ills of other types of testing and subjective opinions", performing a double-blind test will automatically produce an accurate result, and "people will convert to being objective once shown how foolish and inaccurate being subjective really is"... I merely wanted to "put double blind testing in its place" - which is as an excellent way to eliminate one particular sort of expectation bias.- and nothing more or less than that.



castleofargh said:


> did you perhaps quote the wrong post? because in the one you quote I didn't mention objective or subjective once ^_^.


----------



## sander99

Note I retracted my proposal anyway, and also gregorio gave me more good reasons to do that, but for the record:


castleofargh said:


> trick question: how do you confirm how successful casual listening is in detecting audible differences?


I don't know. But re-reading my original post I see I was a bit unclear about one thing: I wrote "Then do a well set up double blind ABX test using those specific audio fragments" but I didn't mean to use _only_ those, I just meant to _include_ them in the set of audio fragments to be used in the ABX test. So the whole intended purpose of the sighted listening was just to create an _additional_ _chance_ to find "suspected differences". And again I stress the point that that was the only intended purpose of the sighted listening, and that by no means any final conclusions should be drawn from the sighted listening itself. Without confirmation in the controlled blind test the "suspected differences" can be thrown out of the window so to speak.


----------



## castleofargh

sander99 said:


> Note I retracted my proposal anyway, and also gregorio gave me more good reasons to do that, but for the record:
> 
> I don't know. But re-reading my original post I see I was a bit unclear about one thing: I wrote "Then do a well set up double blind ABX test using those specific audio fragments" but I didn't mean to use _only_ those, I just meant to _include_ them in the set of audio fragments to be used in the ABX test. So the whole intended purpose of the sighted listening was just to create an _additional_ _chance_ to find "suspected differences". And again I stress the point that that was the only intended purpose of the sighted listening, and that by no means any final conclusions should be drawn from the sighted listening itself. Without confirmation in the controlled blind test the "suspected differences" can be thrown out of the window so to speak.


oh sure. in here we often have people who tell us with total confidence that they can perceive stuff that I can't seem to perceive, and sometimes that I believe an average human shouldn't be able to notice. of course I would always invite those people to test the specific samples where they believe they heard a difference in a blind test. because then that test's entire purpose is to demonstrate that they indeed were able to noticed something in there for whatever reason. the blind test if passed is evidence supporting their claim. which is great even if it would be better to have people claim stuff only after they have evidence of it. but that's yet another issue.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 8, 2019)

AudioThief said:


> I guess the main reason I take offence is because you essentially accuse me of being intellectually dishonest on purpose.



Not on purpose, but rather because of subconscious bias. That isn't intentional. As I said, we're all subject to bias affecting the way we make decisions. Sorry if I offended you. I don't think less of you at all because you exhibit bias. I do too. That's why I apply controls to my listening tests. And challenging bias is how you get closer to the truth.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> Not really, although my reply wasn't directed specifically to your post, but to the whole discussion in general.
> (Although I was sort of tagging onto your reference to blind testing...)
> 
> From a lot of what I read it seems to me that many people, especially on this forum, believe that "double blind tests eliminate the problem of a lack of objectivity".
> ...


well that's not my position. I'm just in favor of blind testing to demonstrate audibility because I don't believe casual listening to satisfy the concept of "listening test". one of the first things I said to @AudioThief was that controlled tests were really important for small differences. and in the very post you had quoted, I present a list of developments that help science experiments and research in general, get it right more often than not. I start each item of that list with "ideally". I think that makes it clear enough that I don't expect things to often work that way in practice, and that I do expect flaws and various issues. but hopefully we can discuss those and fix some or agree that a test is inconclusive because those issues weren't fixed(which is my reason to find inconclusive almost all sighted impression ^_^).


----------



## bigshot (Jul 8, 2019)

Headphones are the most difficult to test because of a few reasons... it's hard to do an ABX because the feel of the headphone gives it away, you can't do direct A/B switched because you have to physically take them off and put them on, and different people have different ears- both in the shape of the ear canal and in the preference for the sort of sound they prefer. Controlled testing is easier with other aspects because the purpose of amps and players is to reproduce with maximum fidelity. A transducer is turning signals into physical sound. There are more variables there. Usually, you consider the transducers to be the "wild card". Everything else in the chain must perform to spec, and you adjust your calibration to suit the transducer.

In general, the goal for a good headphone is a reasonably balanced response curve (some would say the Harman curve is the best), distortion below the threshold of audibility, and comfort. Your Stax would fit the bill. Comfort and low distortion is fairly common. The trick is the response curve. However any decent midrange headphones should be able to be EQed to conform to your desired curve.

There really is no perfection with headphones though, because commercially recorded music is designed to be played on speakers. Headphones are by definition a compromise for the sake of convenience.

--

By the way, I believe that without blind testing, it is very difficult to prevent bias from affecting the results. And blind testing is one of the most effective ways of reducing the influence of bias on tests. But bias is only part of it. Perceptual error needs to be addressed too. Stating things in absolute terms doesn't change that. It just adds irrelevant semantics to the argument.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would like to add something to that....
There is another legitimate purpose to "sighted listening"....
It is one of the important ways in which we learn (in this case "learn how to listen".
(And that may refer to "learning how to listen critically in general" and to "learning what to listen for in terms of differences between those two specific samples".)

I have repeatedly heard how, "since a statistically significant percentage of listeners can't reliably tell the difference between a WAV file and a 256k AAC file - they are audibly identical".
The presumption, which makes sense at some level, is that " if a real difference existed then a significant number of people would notice it".
However I question whether this "commonsense assumption" is actually true.

Every so often a museum acquires a painting of somewhat dubious provenance... it's "probably a real Rembrandt" - but they aren't sure.
Wouldn't it make sense to invite a sample of the public in, invite them to see the painting, and see what percentage statistically believe that it's authentic?
(After all, if a "statistically significant number of viewers" fail to find anything wrong with it", then shouldn't we assume it's authentic?)
Oddly, however, they usually instead rely on the opinions of a few actual experts, who probably have a lot of experience with many real Rembrandts, as well as a variety of fakes.

Among other things, we humans "learn how to notice things" (we learn to focus our attention on specific details).
One obvious example is that tiny bug on the windshield that, even though you failed to notice it for days, cannot be ignored once you do notice it.
I suggest that the same is often true for minor flaws and differences in audio gear or content.
You may not notice that "clinker" - but, once you do notice it, or someone points it out to you, it becomes obvious - and annoying.
(And, even if you don't notice that one odd-sounding note until someone points it out to you, it may in fact be consistently audible once you do notice it.)

I'm not an art expert - and it's quite possible that, if I were to see both today, I might not recognize a real Rembrandt from even an inexpert forgery.
HOWEVER, if I were to spend a week with an expert, I'm sure he or she could teach me a lot about how to tell the difference, and drastically improve my ability to do so.
And, even more specifically, an expert on Rembrandt _forgeries_ could almost certainly teach me the specific flaws to look for in products by various forgers.
And, even more specifically than that, when comparing a specific forgery to the original, I suspect there are many differences I could _LEARN_ to notice, once someone pointed them out to me.
(I might never notice a brush stroke going in the wrong direction until someone pointed it out to me - but, since I can see it readily at that point, you cannot claim that it isn't visible to me.)

For exactly the same reason it makes perfect sense to allow an unlimited number of sighted comparisons _BEFORE_ a blind test.
So what if I have to listen to the lossless and lossy copies of that song a dozen times before I notice a few small differences...?
And so what if I only notice those differences after looking at the waveforms on an oscilloscope trace...?
And so what if I only notice it after someone says "listen carefully to how that note fades away... just there...."?
By doing so I have in essence "become an expert in the differences between those two particular files".
Then, once I have reached the optimum level of my ability to detect that difference, would be the appropriate time to perform our test.
(After all, if there really is no audible difference, then I still won't be able to detect a difference that really doesn't exist... right?)
If, after I reach that point, I _STILL_ fail to be able to reliably detect a difference with a blindfold on, THEN we can reasonably claim to have "tried as hard as we can to rule out the possibility that a difference actually exists".

(And, of course, if you're like most people, you may be perfectly satisfied to have a "really good forgery" of a Rembrandt hanging in your living room.)



sander99 said:


> Note I retracted my proposal anyway, and also gregorio gave me more good reasons to do that, but for the record:
> 
> I don't know. But re-reading my original post I see I was a bit unclear about one thing: I wrote "Then do a well set up double blind ABX test using those specific audio fragments" but I didn't mean to use _only_ those, I just meant to _include_ them in the set of audio fragments to be used in the ABX test. So the whole intended purpose of the sighted listening was just to create an _additional_ _chance_ to find "suspected differences". And again I stress the point that that was the only intended purpose of the sighted listening, and that by no means any final conclusions should be drawn from the sighted listening itself. Without confirmation in the controlled blind test the "suspected differences" can be thrown out of the window so to speak.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think we're in absolute agreement.

And, as I mentioned once before, I had hoped that this forum would be a place to discuss some of the limitations in previous tests, and how they could be improved upon....



castleofargh said:


> well that's not my position. I'm just in favor of blind testing to demonstrate audibility because I don't believe casual listening to satisfy the concept of "listening test". one of the first things I said to @AudioThief was that controlled tests were really important for small differences. and in the very post you had quoted, I present a list of developments that help science experiments and research in general, get it right more often than not. I start each item of that list with "ideally". I think that makes it clear enough that I don't expect things to often work that way in practice, and that I do expect flaws and various issues. but hopefully we can discuss those and fix some or agree that a test is inconclusive because those issues weren't fixed(which is my reason to find inconclusive almost all sighted impression ^_^).


----------



## bigshot (Jul 8, 2019)

As someone who has actually authenticated art professionally, I can say that authentication isn't just having a trained eye. It is an objective process of testing materials, researching and validating provenance, and comparing technique to see if it is consistent with known samples. It isn't so much discernment as it is having a body of research to refer to. People make the mistake of thinking that art is purely subjective. It isn't. It can be analyzed objectively with science just like anything else. In any case, art isn't authenticated by eye. There have to be strong supporting arguments to prove authenticity.


----------



## KeithEmo

So, if you had a good forgery, and an original, and wanted to determine which was which, you _WOULDN'T_ ask 100 people, statistically analyze their responses, and claim that the results proved anything, right?



bigshot said:


> As someone who has actually authenticated art professionally, I can say that authentication isn't just having a trained eye. It is an objective process of testing materials, researching and validating provenance, and comparing technique to see if it is consistent with known samples. It isn't so much discernment as it is having a body of research to refer to. People make the mistake of thinking that art is purely subjective. It isn't. It can be analyzed objectively with science just like anything else.


----------



## bigshot

I would perform controlled tests to determine whether the material was consistent with the place and time, and I would interview people and research the record to establish provenance. I wouldn't just ask people how they subjectively feel about the painting, no.

If I wanted to establish thresholds of human perception, I would probably test a wide sampling of people and determine a range.

With one thing, you are researching an object, with the other you are testing the ability to perceive. Apples and oranges.


----------



## KeithEmo

If you look at the performance measurements for various headphones it's no surprise at all that they sound quite different.
(Compared to amplifiers and DACs, many headphones, even supposedly "high end" models, measure very poorly.)

I ran across this really thorough table of test measurements for a long list of headphones.
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/sound-quality/total-harmonic-distortion
RTINGS seems to have a long list of remarkably thorough headphone reviews.

Check out both the listed values and the graphs for your favorite models.....

For example.....

Sennheiser HD600:
THD @ 20 Hz @ 90 dB .... over 5%
THD @ 20 Hz @ 10 dB .... over 10%

Interestingly, the models that are widely considered to be "best sounding" and "most accurate", don't necessarily measure the best at all.
(I also note that, with the excellent variety of measurements presented, I 





Steve999 said:


> [/QUOTE="AudioThief, post: 15050823, member: 470047"]But are these headphones, as a matter of fact the most high fidelity ones, or simply those with the flattest GR graphs?



They are all within a range such that it would be a matter of opinion, IMHO, along with many other headphones.

The MDR-7506s have been found to be the highest fidelity headphones full stop on more than one occasion. Read the Wikipedia article,  There are beauties and clunkers throughout the price spectrum. But a number of people just plain don’t like them. : )[/QUOTE]


----------



## AudioThief (Jul 8, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> If you look at the performance measurements for various headphones it's no surprise at all that they sound quite different.
> (Compared to amplifiers and DACs, many headphones, even supposedly "high end" models, measure very poorly.)



Which would mean that the Sony MDR-7506 (one of the well measuring headphones) as a matter of fact sound better than say a Stax SR-009, Lambda, HD800 or Focal Utopia - and that any perceived or real difference would be a matter of taste, not in fidelity - and that taste would be a tossup or 50/50 assuming that people in general prefer higher fidelity / flat FR. So if we took a big sample size, and only looking at sound quality (i.e ignoring comfort, mobility or what have you) most would prefer the Sony MDR-7506 because it measures better and thus as a matter of fact sounds better?

edit:

And, of course, the sole reason as to why you will in general hear people prefering the 009 or Utopias to the MDR-7506 is not because they sound any better, or even that they prefer the sound, but rather they are heavily biased by looking at the price tag or being mass suggested by the internet.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 8, 2019)

Headphones generally are weakest in the sub bass. You really need speakers for that.

As I said before, different people have different shaped ear canals and different preferences for response. Headphones involve variables that make it difficult to define what is "perfect". You can't judge headphones until you define your ideal response curve. That is different for different people. It isn't a matter of asking, "Does this one sound different than that one?" We know that they sound different. Every headphone sounds different. In fact, there's usually an audible sample variation between the same make and model. That's why you apply sound processing (i.e.: EQ) to taste.


----------



## castleofargh

AudioThief said:


> But are these headphones, as a matter of fact the most high fidelity ones, or simply those with the flattest GR graphs?


the issue here is that the objective best fidelity headphone will massively depend on the frequency response. think about distortions, let's say we have 8% THD right in the midrange where it going to be impossible to miss. that will still mean extra unwanted signal some 20 something dB below signal. subjectively it's a lot more objectionable than a signature with fluctuations here and there within +/- 3dB of some predefined flat in the audible range. but objectively, a change in frequency response affects even the loudest signal while that horrendous THD remained 20dB or less below said loudest signal. so from a purely quantitative point of view some might argue that the FR variation results in the lowest fidelity. it's super weird to look at it that way because the very purpose of a headphone is listening, but I think we could consider a bunch of similar situations with other variables once we have settled on exactly how to quantify fidelity. if we assume that fidelity is getting the same output signal as the entry signal, then we might be tempted to make a null test and whatever comes out with the highest amplitude is the worst fidelity. in such a case a phase shift(which is under most conditions, going to go unnoticed for a listener), would qualify as some of the worst signal degradation possible.
but even with something as simple as a null between input and output, we will have problems to solve. for example, should we do that with a recording device that is electrically neutral? or should we record the sound as it would be when reaching an eardrum? and if so who's eardrum? different people will get different changes in sound caused by their outer ear and ear canal length.

so as you can see, we have a few things to determine before we go and claim headphone XXX to have the highest fidelity. some of which might seem more arbitrary than others despite how they can massively affect the results. like once we have determine most things, do we run our fidelity quantification formula over 100Hz to 15kHz? 20Hz-20kHz? or as much as we can because we're looking for objective fidelity without care for human hearing?  in the end I'm afraid that such results would not actually lead to anybody's favorite headphone. and if we proceed toward a more rational approach where we include the typical listener's preferences, hearing thresholds, and how some noises or distortions can feel low fidelity even when they're a lot quieter than some others we might even find euphonic, then the estimation becomes even more complicated and I'm pretty sure we couldn't find a consensus on the definitive list of criteria to use. @Steve999 mentioned rtings.com, they try to implement a few sets of objective and subjective values to try and guess when a headphone is going to please the average human. it's very interesting and they certainly had a few good ideas when starting this, but it's just one way to approach a very complicated system of measurement, feelings, how they might interact, and how close you yourself are from an average human(it might seem like a joke said like that, but I'm very serious).

or we could take a completely non audiophile and yet pretty objective approach, and determine that pretty much any headphone with head tracking is objectively superior  to almost any headphone without it. all it take is to shift the reference of input sound. if we assume that albums were  mastered for speaker playback, then failing to try and approach that reproduction of sound is a very serious fidelity fail.

so I don't have a definitive answer because I don't know how things should be defined or what should take priority. sorry but if you have your own priorities, then perhaps we can reach a result. like some will find very important to have a headphone that extends far in the ultrasounds. someone else will swear by the measured THD. when someone is obsessed about one specific variable(sometimes for the wrong reasons), finding his ideal product becomes much easier.


----------



## bigshot

When it comes to headphones, there's enough sound you can actually hear to deal with! Super audible frequencies and microscopic THD readings aren't the best path to perfect sound.


----------



## KeithEmo

Interesting.... but I disagree with your final premise.
(I consider both looking at a Rembrandt painting and listening to a song to be equally "experiences of things"...) 

Philosophically, I see little difference between:

1) A painting that I know is a forgery - even though I am unable to see the difference.
2) An audio clip which I know isn't recorded accurately - even though I am unable to hear the difference.

Why would you find the experience of looking at a really good Rembrandt forgery any less satisfying than of listening to a really good quality compressed file?
In both cases, we have something which we know is "technically inferior to the original in measurable ways"...
But, in both cases, we assert that we are unable to tell the difference...

Let me phrase that differently....

Assuming you were to be offered the opportunity to own a real Rembrandt or a good Rembrandt forgery ...
You may _ONLY_ look at it...
You may not sell it and you needn't worry about it being stolen...
Would you agree that "if you can't see the difference then a forgery would be just as good as the original"?
Or would you, for some intangible reason, still find it more satisfying to have "the real thing"?
(Would you even wonder if, even though you see no difference today, someday you might notice one?)

To me, an AAC file is "just a really good forgery of the original"...
Whereas a true lossless copy is exactly the same as the original (so, in effect, it _is_ the original)...
And, as such, even if in a particular situation I can't hear the difference, I find it less satisfying based on that knowledge alone...

I think you also missed my original point - and I'm afraid that is partly because I didn't explain it very well.

Let's assume you were to come into possession of the estate of a superb forger.
Among the contents, you find a long lost Rembrandt, and a really superb forgery of that same painting.
You have an opportunity to show both to a bunch of people, ask each to tell you which they believe is the original and which the forgery, and analyze their responses.
(This would be the equivalent of comparing two audio files in a blind test - you are using inexperienced subjects and limiting them to a single form of input.)
Assuming that you were to analyze your results and find that "statistically people were unable to distinguish the forgery from the original" (their guesses were dead-on 50/50).

Which would be your response:
1) 
"I guess, if statistically nobody could tell the difference, then it really doesn't matter which is which, because they're obviously equally good".
2) 
"I know, from my tests, which is the original... and I consider it to be valuable because I know it's the original.
The fact that a bunch of test subjects couldn't see any difference doesn't convince me that there is no significant difference."

(Note that, if you picked #2, you have just conceded that the measured differences are more important than the lack of perceptible differences.) 



bigshot said:


> I would perform controlled tests to determine whether the material was consistent with the place and time, and I would interview people and research the record to establish provenance. I wouldn't just ask people how they subjectively feel about the painting, no.
> 
> If I wanted to establish thresholds of human perception, I would probably test a wide sampling of people and determine a range.
> 
> With one thing, you are researching an object, with the other you are testing the ability to perceive. Apples and oranges.


----------



## AudioThief

castleofargh said:


> the issue here is



Let me ask you another question: 

Would someone be able to EQ a pair of Sony MDR-7506 in such a way to make it indistinguishable sound wise from the headphones I mentioned in a blind test?


----------



## KeithEmo

Just for the record - I happen to agree with you - that electrostatic headphones often do something that makes them sound better than dynamic headphones.
(I personally prefer the sound of even mid-priced electrostatics to any dynamic headphones that I've ever heard - at any price point.)
I'm inclined to suspect that it involves a very good transient response, which would show up on a waterfall plot, which I've never seen measured and presented for headphones.
(This would make sense from the point of view of physics - a very light diaphragm, which stores very little energy, lacks a pronounced resonant frequency, and couples well to air.)

It would also seem obvious to me that those of us who prefer electrostatic headphones above others place a very high priority on this particular characteristic...
While others may not...



AudioThief said:


> Which would mean that the Sony MDR-7506 (one of the well measuring headphones) as a matter of fact sound better than say a Stax SR-009, Lambda, HD800 or Focal Utopia - and that any perceived or real difference would be a matter of taste, not in fidelity - and that taste would be a tossup or 50/50 assuming that people in general prefer higher fidelity / flat FR. So if we took a big sample size, and only looking at sound quality (i.e ignoring comfort, mobility or what have you) most would prefer the Sony MDR-7506 because it measures better and thus as a matter of fact sounds better?
> 
> edit:
> 
> And, of course, the sole reason as to why you will in general hear people prefering the 009 or Utopias to the MDR-7506 is not because they sound any better, or even that they prefer the sound, but rather they are heavily biased by looking at the price tag or being mass suggested by the internet.


----------



## AudioThief

KeithEmo said:


> Just for the record - I happen to agree with you - that electrostatic headphones often do something that makes them sound better than dynamic headphones.
> (I personally prefer the sound of even mid-priced electrostatics to any dynamic headphones that I've ever heard - at any price point.)
> I'm inclined to suspect that it involves a very good transient response, which would show up on a waterfall plot, which I've never seen measured and presented for headphones.
> (This would make sense from the point of view of physics - a very light diaphragm, which stores very little energy, lacks a pronounced resonant frequency, and couples well to air.)
> ...



Makes sense to me, but what you said would be just speculation - not something that could be stated as fact. Its probably pretty obvious that I am confident I could personally differentiate my L500s from the Sony MDR 7506 in a blind test - but I can't conduct one. I am also confident that if you got 1000 subjects and showed them say a Stax SR-009 and a Sony MDR-7506 and heavily laid into them about how incredible the Sony's were - maybe with an extremely exclusive presentation etc, i.e loading them with positive bias, I believe that bias would be overriden by the superior sound quality of the Stax. That is my personal belief. 

Then again, I believed DACs made a difference only 24 hours ago, so who knows.


----------



## castleofargh

AudioThief said:


> Let me ask you another question:
> 
> Would someone be able to EQ a pair of Sony MDR-7506 in such a way to make it indistinguishable sound wise from the headphones I mentioned in a blind test?


EQ alone never. with more advanced DSPs it might be possible to come very close under the condition that what the DSP is asking of the headphone, doesn't push it into significant distortions somewhere(like maybe trying to compensate a big low frequency roll off). but making 2 headphones sound completely indistinguishable, in most cases I doubt it. more likely there will be something noticeable even if we did everything right and somehow managed to make a listening test where the listener cannot guess which headphone is on his head from pads or weight.

you know, headphones are usually by far the lowest fidelity component of a playback system, and there is no clear consensus on the frequency response one should aim at so we see vast differences in signature. so you can't and shouldn't try to apply the same reasoning to transducers that we have used for DACs. nobody here is claiming that we shouldn't be able to tell those headphones apart by ear. literally nobody!  the measurements alone suggest clear and easily audible differences, so your opinion that you could tell a difference is this time the consensus on the subject. don't mistake our absolute certainty that some biases affect your uncontrolled impressions(and everybody else's), with a claim that you're making everything up and that there are in fact no audible differences to be heard.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 8, 2019)

The lead designer of the Oppo PM1s told me that the difference between expensive cans and midrange ones isn’t so much design and materials as it is manufacturing tolerances. He was aiming for under a 1dB variation, and to achieve that, they had to test on the production line and weed out copies that didn’t make spec.

I think you might be able to hear a difference between one set of Stax and another, even if they are the same model. As I said, transducers are the wild card in any system. You calibrate the rest to make up for the error in the transducers.


----------



## AudioThief

Thank you for answering all my questions. I also want to mention that having frequented different forums and participated in many discussions with probably close to 100 000 forum posts on different topics, I want to applaud @castleofargh , @gregorio & @bigshot for being (generally at least) very to the point, educational and intellectually honest. I can't remember having posters take their time and carefully explaining concepts in such a manner on other boards.

My "audiophile" journey has lasted in excess of 2 years, and for essentially the entirety of that time I have read reviews and forum posts describing headphones and other equipment. And I learned that oftentimes, the consensus was wrong to my ears (I didn't really like the HD650 that much, but I did like the TH 900 although it measures worse etc). So I would sift through and find posts from users who oftentimes liked similar gear to what I had already heard and liked - Obviously with my newfound view of things, I will put even less stock in peoples descriptions and perceptions about gear.

I said earlier in one of the stax threads that I would comment on my new SR-L500 headphones, and compare them to other headphones I've owned and/or heard. Now I'm starting to think that if I did that, I would just go back to audiophoolery. At the same time, I can't help but imagine that my percetions about these headphones, although hard to prove or be factually correct, could help someone looking for a pair of headphone. Is the general consensus here that to even comment on the sound of headphones, considering the differences in human hearing, biases etc, is just cluttering and confusing the audio world?


----------



## castleofargh

AudioThief said:


> Thank you for answering all my questions. I also want to mention that having frequented different forums and participated in many discussions with probably close to 100 000 forum posts on different topics, I want to applaud @castleofargh , @gregorio & @bigshot for being (generally at least) very to the point, educational and intellectually honest. I can't remember having posters take their time and carefully explaining concepts in such a manner on other boards.
> 
> My "audiophile" journey has lasted in excess of 2 years, and for essentially the entirety of that time I have read reviews and forum posts describing headphones and other equipment. And I learned that oftentimes, the consensus was wrong to my ears (I didn't really like the HD650 that much, but I did like the TH 900 although it measures worse etc). So I would sift through and find posts from users who oftentimes liked similar gear to what I had already heard and liked - Obviously with my newfound view of things, I will put even less stock in peoples descriptions and perceptions about gear.
> 
> I said earlier in one of the stax threads that I would comment on my new SR-L500 headphones, and compare them to other headphones I've owned and/or heard. Now I'm starting to think that if I did that, I would just go back to audiophoolery. At the same time, I can't help but imagine that my percetions about these headphones, although hard to prove or be factually correct, could help someone looking for a pair of headphone. Is the general consensus here that to even comment on the sound of headphones, considering the differences in human hearing, biases etc, is just cluttering and confusing the audio world?


impressions have value. many people want to read some and do find them helpful. so please don't muzzle yourself if you have impressions to share. I would simply suggest that you check your posts to make it as clear as possible that those are your opinions and personal impressions, not some definitive claims about what the headphone does. even a warning at the start, or a small "IMO" here and there, can go a long way IMO ^_^.


----------



## AudioThief

castleofargh said:


> impressions have value. many people want to read some and do find them helpful. so please don't muzzle yourself if you have impressions to share. I would simply suggest that you check your posts to make it as clear as possible that those are your opinions and personal impressions, not some definitive claims about what the headphone does. even a warning at the start, or a small "IMO" here and there, can go a long way IMO ^_^.



Great!

One more question - are there some descriptions that are more egregious than others? I am thinking that its probably hard to measure that a headphone is "dry" vs "wet/liquid" yet it feels as if these are perceptions that stay quite consistent from peoples impressions on varying headphones. I don't think I've heard anyone ever call the HD 800 "liquid sounding". I could easily call a headphone "bright" and back it up with measurements that makes sense. But that probably isn't true for dry vs liquid (I thought perhaps transient response could be measured and better = drier, but when I think about the 007 (liquid) vs lambda (dry) that doesn't make sense either - both measure well across the board I would imagine)


----------



## bigshot (Jul 8, 2019)

AudioThief said:


> One more question - are there some descriptions that are more egregious than others?



Analogies to other senses can be vague and analogies don't really say anything specific about sound. So referring to sound as something you see or a texture you feel doesn't say much. Neither do flowery descriptions or descriptions of emotions sound makes you feel. Sound is basically made up of frequency (pitch), amplitude (volume) and time (rhythm). And sound fidelity is judged by specific aspects of sound- frequency response balance, distortion level, noise level, dynamics and timing error. Modern solid state electronics and digital recording has pushed most if not all of these aspects of sound fidelity beyond our ability to hear the error. It isn't easy to find a DAC, player or amp that sounds worse than any other. If you do find one, the odds are that it is a manufacturing error.

Transducers are where the rubber hits the road. Anything mechanical is going to have a significant degree of error. Some of that you can correct for through sound processing (i.e.: equalizing response imbalances) but other things aren't so easy to fix. The most important purchase in any home audio system is the transducers, and nothing beats auditioning them before buying or a no questions asked money back guarantee.

I've been a hifi nut for over four decades now. The big thing I've learned is to keep focused on practical things. Numbers on a sheet of paper are great if you can estimate what they represent in real world sound, but chasing better specs for the sake of better specs is a fool's errand, because beyond a certain point, you just can't hear a difference. The best thing you can do is listen critically. Analyze what you hear by the attributes of sound fidelity... Can I hear a response imbalance? Can I hear distortion? Then verify that you are hearing what you think you hear with a simple controlled listening test. If you establish a problem, then try to figure out where it's coming from and address it directly. Too many people randomly swap equipment in hopes of achieving better sound, but random swaps only result in random sound. You have to have a strategy.

Forums like this are a great place to bounce problems off other folks and learn. I've learned a lot here myself. That's why I'm here. Hang around. Not all forums are full of crazy people. We only have a few of them here.


----------



## GearMe

AudioThief said:


> Let me ask you another question:
> 
> Would someone be able to EQ a pair of Sony MDR-7506 in such a way to make it indistinguishable sound wise from the headphones I mentioned in a blind test?



To some degree, Sonarworks seems to be aimed in this direction


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 8, 2019)

AudioThief said:


> Great!
> 
> One more question - are there some descriptions that are more egregious than others? I am thinking that its probably hard to measure that a headphone is "dry" vs "wet/liquid" yet it feels as if these are perceptions that stay quite consistent from peoples impressions on varying headphones. I don't think I've heard anyone ever call the HD 800 "liquid sounding". I could easily call a headphone "bright" and back it up with measurements that makes sense. But that probably isn't true for dry vs liquid (I thought perhaps transient response could be measured and better = drier, but when I think about the 007 (liquid) vs lambda (dry) that doesn't make sense either - both measure well across the board I would imagine)



Sorry I wasn't there to follow up this morning--I had to, you know, like work. Looks like everyone did a great job helping you though, probably better than I could have done. Home now and listening to my Sony MDR-V6s right now for fun. As you no doubt know by now they are very much like the MDR-7506. Yeah, they're really good. However, things to know: they are are kind of bright compared to a lot of let's say, luxury headphones, which often try to tame the highs a little--you could say that makes the luxury headphones more sophisticated, or easier on the ears, or you could say it makes them less accurate--people can argue day and night over that one; they come with a coiled cord. And they are a little tight when you first start using them but after you use them a lot they loosen up and become a lot more comfortable. I've had this pair of V6s I really don't know how many years. Is this the pair I bought in about 1985? I'm not sure. I've changed ear-pads on them a couple of times. The original Sony ear pads are always on Amazon, and then there's kind of a little micro-industry of off-brand pads for them. I'm a little wary of straying away to the off-the brand pads, even if they are leather or velour or whatever, because Sony got it right with THESE pads.

Also if your signal path has ANY noise in it (from the amp or in the recording, for example) the Sony's are much more likely to make it audible whereas many other headphones wouldn't.

Additionally your ears might feel hot or sweat a little or even be a little sore after long periods of listening.

And here's a cherry-picked article to make you secure in your choice:

https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-150-over-ear-headphones/

One warning: If you get the V6s DO NOT take the "for DIGITAL" stickers off, and if you get the 7506s DO NOT take the "PROFESSIONAL" stickers off. It's an emotional and spiritual thing. Just don't do it. 

And maybe you'll have this same pair of headphones 34 years from now. They don't really break. Just the ear pads wear out now and then. They're good benchmarks if you ever do get another pair of phones--you might say, are these new phones _really _better than my 7506s? It's a pretty high bar, IMHO. You might want something a little tamer in the treble and with an open design and designed more extensively for comfort to pair them up with. And if you want a good idea of everything that's in a recording, the 7506s / V6s are quite good for that.

Or maybe you'll decide you don't want to get them--that's cool too. I tried to give you all the negatives here so you wouldn't be in for any surprises.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 8, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> One warning: If you get the V6s DO NOT take the"for
> DIGITAL" stickers off, and if you get the 7506s DO NOT
> take the "PROFESSIONAL" stickers off. It's an emotional
> and spiritual thing. Just don't do it.



From the days when it was implied and believed that digital 'did something' to the sound of a recording or finished album.


----------



## WoodyLuvr (Jul 8, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> From the days when it was implied and believed that digital 'did something' to the sound of a recording or finished album.


Don't know if it is true or not but I do remember reading (back in the late 80s to early 90s) that Sony's MDR-Vx line was specifically engineered and tuned for CD (digital) playback as they no longer had to worry about (cover up) the analog hiss from cassette decks... thus explaining the "for Digital" label. Yes, still rather gimmicky, but nearly everything analog was being burned at the stake during this period ;-(


----------



## old tech (Jul 9, 2019)

WoodyLuvr said:


> Don't know if it is true or not but I do remember reading (back in the late 80s to early 90s) that Sony's MDR-Vx line was specifically engineered and tuned for CD (digital) playback as they no longer had to worry about (cover up) the analog hiss from cassette decks... thus explaining the "for Digital" label. Yes, still rather gimmicky, but nearly everything analog was being burned at the stake during this period ;-(


I bought some Pioneer Elite stereo components back in 1986 which had "Digital" proudly labelled on their facias.  It was not only on the CD player (a redundant label given CDs are well, digital), but also on the analog cassette deck, the amplifier and the AM/FM tuner!  If I bought the matching speakers they would probably have had a digital label as well.


----------



## analogsurviver

Regarding electrostatic vs dynamic speakers, and headphones in particular : if you can live without prodigios heavy low end and CAN power them correctly, decent electrostatics will win over dynamic counterparts. Detail, precision, HF  extension well past 20 kHz, etc,etc. If really high SPLs are required, electrostatic speakers may well not play loud enough and/or go low enough in frequency. In that case, dynamics will usually win.

Regarding "digital" components, if we overlook all already covered above, there ARE two categories that really should be capable of delivering - bradly speaking - the source signal quality. Speakers and headphones. At the launch of CD, there were very few end transducers capable of dealing with wider dynamic range. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatone . It was one of the very best speaker systems ever - but one that came over to the West in exceedingly small quantities. About 5 are known to ever hit non Japanese shores ...


----------



## bigshot

I'm using studio monitors from the early 70s and they deal with digital dynamics just fine.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jul 10, 2019)

OK, I will rephrase the statement from above :

Very few end transducers have been capable of dealing with dynamic range offered by CD at the launch of the CD; that, in particular, holds true for low frequencies, and in particular below 40 Hz. Live music can have an even greater dynamic range, with an even greater frequency response, particularly above 20 kHz. The later has been - again, at the introduction of SACD - addressed by "downstream" components, capable of at least 50 kHz "flat" response - and preferably beyond 100 kHz. That's why the Sony flagship speakers from the SACD introduction time are held in such esteem and sought after in the used market - IF they ever appear for sale.

Hit any studio monitor from the early 70s with an uncompressed live mic feed of a symphony orchestra with organ - and try to play it at real life SPL. It will fall to pieces - or, more likely, protect itself from destruction using any safety measures - achieving perfect - silence.

There is often cited the monitors used by various top labels - and, for classical music, Bowers & Wilkins have been used quite extensively. The "big" Diatone moped the floor with just about any western loudspeaker ever made, regardless of price. Here just a few musings ( inevitable in case of language, but more importantly, marketing barriers ) about Diatone - consider it as only a starting point for the online search about Diatone speakers : https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/diatone-speakers-any-good.341817/page-2   They are somewhat "available" in Japan in used market - but shipping would deter all but the most determined. No Diatone speaker I have ever heard of has been a lightweight relative to its size - these are VERY sturdily built.

Most will be familiar with Yamaha NS-1000 monitor speakers. It was a Diatone design , somewhat pared down to make it more affordable. The cabinets for NS-1000  have been in fact produced by https://www.alples.si/en/ - a long time established Slovenian furniture manufacturer in the valley below Jelovica https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jelovica, where Stradivari has been frequently known to travel to in search of the best wood for his violins.


----------



## gregorio

AudioThief said:


> Which headphones measure the overall best, i.e most "high fidelity" out of all, not considering price class? ... But are these headphones, as a matter of fact the most high fidelity ones, or simply those with the flattest GR graphs?



This highlights another problem that I've mentioned previously. The technical/factual side of the audiophile world is largely based on over-simplified statements of fact, which are easily digestible, and then conclusions/other facts (and a larger "framework of understanding") is logically extrapolated from these statements. This is where we run into difficulties; this "framework of understanding" is therefore entirely (or at least very largely) logical but also virtually certain to be flawed/faulty, potentially massively so, because it's based on over-simplified statements of fact which by definition omit information/details and which are therefore almost certain to be at least somewhat inaccurate. And then, the act of extrapolating conclusions/other facts from these oversimplifications is entirely likely to compound/amplify those inaccuracies! So what we end-up with is a conclusion or understanding of something with a very large range accuracy, from: Entirely accurate, somewhat accurate (or accurate only under certain conditions), generally inaccurate/wrong or so completely inaccurate/wrong that it's the exact opposite of the actual facts! Refuting a wrong/inaccurate audiophile "fact" is therefore not only challenging a belief but a logical belief and one that is probably shared by many others (audiophiles). The solution would be to not base conclusions/understandings on easily digestible over-simplifications but on the actual facts, which by definition are neither so easily digestible, nor simple!

What has this got to do with your questions? Actually, quite a lot:

More precisely defining "best" (as "high fidelity") is great, now we're dealing with an actual property, rather than a whole bunch of properties, biases, personal preferences and value judgements, all combined. However, we can still run into a problem because the term "high fidelity" is itself somewhat of an over-simplification, it omits some details, details that can result in it being somewhat imprecise/ambiguous under certain circumstances. The word "fidelity" comes from a Latin word meaning "faithful" or "to have trust in". In the case of say a DAC, "fidelity" is relatively straight forward, how faithful/accurate is the output signal relative to the input signal, the same for an amplifier, storage media and cables. What they have to do to achieve their job might (or might not) be complex but their actual job is straight forward, in the case of a DAC, nothing more than convert digital audio data as accurately as possible to an analogue signal. When we come to final output transducers however their job is not quite so simple, it's to convert the analogue signal to an acoustic signal and present that acoustic signal to the listener/s. The first part is tricky because we have to mechanically create physical sound pressure waves, a process which is inherently inefficient and we have a bunch of new scientific facts to deal with which will affect/reduce fidelity, inertia for example. The second part of their job is arguably even more tricky and brings us to the paragraph above: In the case of say speakers, the accuracy/fidelity of their output isn't so vital, what's vital is the fidelity of the signal that is presented to your ears and the two can be quite different due to various factors, for example; dispersion/diffusion characteristics of the speakers, the listeners' position relative to the speakers and room acoustics. In the case of headphones it's even more tricky still. Almost all commercial music/audio recordings are created primarily (Eg. Often but not exclusively) on and for playback on speakers. To explain/illustrate the point, let's imagine a master has been created exclusively on speakers and exclusively for speaker playback: The artists/engineers have positioned the instruments/sounds, processed and balanced them according to what they heard, which was the speaker output + the room (studio) acoustics and this is going to affect what the master contains. For example, when the engineers/artists are adding reverb (sound reflections) to the instruments/sounds, the mix itself is going to contain less reverb than intended because what the engineers/artists heard in the studio was the reverb they applied plus the reverb (sound reflections) created by the room acoustics of the studio. This isn't a huge problem though because when played back by consumers, they're going to hear the output of their speakers plus the acoustics/reverb of their listening room and the net effect is more or less what the artists/engineers heard and intended. However, if you play back this recording on headphones, you're not going to get these additional room reflections/reverb and this is a "certain circumstance" under which the term "fidelity" is imprecise/ambiguous: Is "fidelity" the accurate reproduction of the signal (master) or is it "being faithful to the artists/engineers intentions"? If it's the latter, then you would need to change the accuracy of the reproduced signal, in this given example by adding some reverb. So, using the typical meaning of "fidelity" (accuracy), you would have to reduce fidelity in order to attain higher "fidelity" (faithfulness)! And, the amount of reverb is just one example of many audio properties and perceptions that are likely to be affected! 

To answer your second question then: As FR and/or the perception of it is also one of the things almost certain to be affected, then the headphones with the flattest FR would likely be the most accurate (higher fidelity) but are also likely to be less faithful (lower fidelity). For example, the reproduction of low frequencies from speakers creates fairly high amplitude sound waves that impact our entire body, which creates the perception of more bass and therefore a mix created on speakers (for speaker reproduction) will have contain a little less bass than intended. Obviously the sound produced by headphones does not impact our entire body, just our ears. So, if a particular set of headphones tries to compensate for this by reproducing low frequencies a little louder (and therefore not having a flat FR) are they higher or lower fidelity (or both!)? The success of such a compensation (and potentially others) would largely come down to our individual perception, hence why so many are basically saying that the "most high fidelity" headphones is a matter of perception.

Please bare in mind that even this more detailed explanation, still contains various over-simplifications! Sorry, audio is really quite a complex thing, though still far simpler than quantum mechanics IMHO! Again, not sure if this helps?

G


----------



## AudioThief

@gregorio It does help - well, it didn't answer my question, but I guess my question was impossible to answer. 

I guess what I am thinking about is what exactly differentiates a high end headphone from a low end headphone. Lets say, for the sake of argument that we take the Stax SR-L300 and compare it to the Skullcandy - we want to have the flattest FR. Now on Innerfidelity there are a bunch of measurements that I don't understand. But to my eyes, I can't look at them and say one headphone is better than the other. But I can look at the FR graph and say that one is probably a bit flatter than the other.

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/StaxSRL300.pdf

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SkullcandyRocNationAviator.pdf

Now I am assuming, having heard the L300 and headphones in the same range as the Roc nation Aviator, that I would prefer the L300 over the Skullcandy's. If we were to tune the skullcandy to share the FR of the L300, would they sound the same? Probably not, since there are differences in driver distance from ear, driver size and shape etc. And I guess you could measaure the L300 transient response to be quicker since its an estat. 

So how do the headphone engineers go about creating a high end headphone like the Stax L300, 009S etc? If you let me indulge in some audiophoolery, there are some general perceptions people would likely share if we compared these two headphones to each other - The L300 being more "detailed", "true to life" and having better "imaging and soundstage" - not to forget "quicker". Is this purely an effect of the L300 being an openback electrostat with a flatter FR? In that case, what if we took a (somewhat) closedback, dynamic headphone like the Fostex TH610?

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/FostexTH610.pdf

Here, we have the same driver type (dynamic) and a closed back design with a more similar FR. If we tuned the Skullcandy FR to match these, would they sound VERY similar/almost identical? 

I guess what I am asking is, what exactly are engineers doing when they create a high end headphone? Not all high end headphones are the flattest in FR, but they seem to share some characteristics that are often not commented in this sub forum - typical perceptions like speed, soundstage/imaging, clarity, detail etc. Now these are subjective impressions, so if we were to say that they were close to factual I guess we would have to survey a lot of people - but its not far fetched to believe that if we took 1000 people, trained them to look for those "qualities" (detail, soundstage etc) and then blind tested them and asked to rate a host of headphones ranging from the cheapest iPod IEMS to the SOTA electrostats, I would assume there would be a correlation not only in flatness of FR, but in a host of other measurements and perhaps also price (up to a point). 

Typically, the frequency response will be posted to say something about how a headphone sounds. Sometimes, a square wave or a waterfall plot may be posted as well. Would these measurements be enough to comment on the sound of a headphone? 

Again I am reminded that each person is different, which accounts for the many differing views you will have on a given headphone - but generally speaking, if you crawl the internet you will understand some basics about a given headphone - electrostats are "fast", HD800 have a "wide soundstage" and are "bright", the LCD 2.2c are "liquid" and "tight bass". So clearly, at least to me, it seems that there are perceptions about headphones that are generally shared, but that may or may not show up in measurements. 

I guess the reasons I am asking about this is, well, I am a bit confused as to:

- What do we understand about headphone engineering? Are the engineers just somehow getting a flat FR and good measurements, and then audiophiles mass delude themselves about soundstage, realism, detail and so on? Or do high end headphone makers actually try to create headphones that are percieved by many if not all of the audiophiles as having such qualities?
- If a team of engineers was given infinite amount of money to create the objectively best pair of headphones known to man, would they just use all that time creating a flat FR, and barely bother listening to the headphones? And if they did achieve a record flat FR, would these headphones as a matter of fact be higher fidelity, and thus having every bit as much "soundstage", "detail" and whatever other audiphile superlatives you could throw at it compared to the host of headphones that exhibit such traits but that do not have such a flat FR? 

I guess, to sum all of this into one question so its easily digested: 

- Are there qualities in headphones that are not typically measured / possible to analyze in a meaningful way right now? I know measurements can tell us about frequency response, THD and transient response. But I can't help but looking at two different headphone graphs, feel they look pretty similar but sound very different to my ears - confident I could easily tell them apart in a blind test. Yet measurements doesn't explain to the lay man the typical audiophile terms - terms that are used to describe our perception and ultimately our experience with the headphone. 

I am truly sorry for exposing the fine members of this community to this insane rant, but I am just a very confused young man.


----------



## analogsurviver

AudioThief said:


> Let me ask you another question:
> 
> Would someone be able to EQ a pair of Sony MDR-7506 in such a way to make it indistinguishable sound wise from the headphones I mentioned in a blind test?



In a word - no.

Electrostatics ( and in recent times, the best orthodynamics joining the party ) have MUCH less moving mass than dynamic drivers - and even that low mass is driven uniformly across the entire surface of the diaphragm ( down to the molecule level in electrostatic, damped perfectly by the mass of the air trapped between the diaphragm and stator(s) - and to MUCH more crude, but still FAR smaller "sections" of diaphragm than on any conventional coil driver ) - their transient behaviour is MUCH different = better than conventional dynamic moving coil drivers. Existing DSPs are FAR too slow to be able to correct for the dynamic driver defficiences without imparting their own sound signature. 

That said, there is (was) a dynamic IEM costing peanuts having a GREAT transient response - Xiaomi Piston 2. https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/low-cost-high-value-25-xiaomi-piston-2 . 
It has to be EQed for overblown bass ( and some other more minor issues ...) - but  generally , it is>was one of the better offerings.


----------



## KeithEmo

You're actually asking several different - and complicated - questions there.....

First off, there are obviously things that can be easily agreed upon (seemingly), and measured, which we would expect to be "better" in a "high end" headphone.
We have simple measurements like frequency response and THD - which will obviously cause a headphone or speaker to sound different if they vary.
Bear in mind that "frequency response" is actually a very crude measurement of purely "how much sound amplitude is present at each frequency".
However, things like "transient response" and "sound stage" are all really aspects of the same one complex question...
Beyond simply delivring the correct "bulk amounts of sound at each frequency"... how well is a device able to replicate the actual pressure waveform of the original sound.
(What we call sound is the result of our brain's analysis of the variations in air pressure that reach our eardrums.)
This part is complicated because we cannot actually hear the shape of a waveform; what we hear are the results of our brain detecting specific characteristics of a waveform.
For example, what we normally term simply "transient response" is really a collection of "measurements"..... all relating to how well something can follow a complex waveform.
And a lot of the different terms we see relate to different ways in which a device can FAIL to faithfully reproduce the actual waveform - and what those failures sound like to humans.

In the case of a speaker, the diaphragm could be too heavy, and so be unable to accelerate quickly - which could cause it to be unable to follow rapidly chaging waveforms.
Or, if the diaphragm stores energy, then releases it later at a specific resonant frequency, short sharp sounds like drumbeats tend to become audibly less sharp.
Or if, for one fo a variety of reasons, different frequencies are delayed by different amounts, then we may percieve a difference in sound stage.
We cannot "hear where something is"; we hear a difference in the time when the sound from it arrives at our two ears, which our brain then analyzes and uses to calculate the original location.
If the speaker has "inaccurate phase response", then some of the reproduced sounds reach our ears at the wrong times, causing our brain to miscalculate - so "the sound stage seems wrong".
A "simple error" could cause us to thing that source in in a slightly wrong place... however, if various errors cause conflicting information, then our brain may simply register the location as "imprecise".

The point here is that the actual waveform that arrives at our ears through the air is very complex and carries a lot of information...
Most of that information is actually ignored or lost, but our brains pick out certain parts of it, based on very speficic characteristics of what we do manage to detect and analyze.
However, determining in detail which parts are important, and how our brain will react to specific errors and omissions, can be very complex.

Here's one example - just to demonstrate that point.
We often see arguments about whether "a few degrees of phase shift are audible"...
In fact, compared to electronic gear, a typical loudspeaker reproduces phase relationships incredibly poorly.
Some common commercial loudspeakers have a "phase error" of many HUNDREDS of degrees between 20 Hz and 20 kHz.
(You can find published phase response specs in many reviews... note how much they vary between seemingly similar speakers.)
However, luckily, phase errors between frequencies, as heard by a single ear, don't seem to matter much...
(So a speaker whose phase accuracy is incorrect by many hundreds of degrees can sound "just fine"...)
BUT our brain uses the RELATIVE phase shift between what our two ears hear as an important cue when determining the apparent location of the source.
So a phase error that was _different_ between the left and right ear by even a few degrees, at the wrong frequency, could cause us to hear a certain instrument as being "in the wrong place" by several feet.
(Even worse, if what we hear offers conflicting cues, due to different errors at different frequencies, our brain may become somewhat confused - and we may "hear" an "indictinct sound stage with imprecise instrument placement".)

And, in this case, we can test the phase shift at various frequencies quite easily, but relating that to "how many inches of error a particular phase error will cause in the sound stage location of a particular instrument" is far more compicated.
Audiophiles may TALK about "sound stage" as an abstract concept.... but you won't see anyone trying to measure "how many inches too far to the left the third violin is positioned by Speaker B". 
The problem is that doing so would be somewhat like trying to quantify and provide an actual measurement for "how realistic a certain painting is".
(Instead we show the graph - and then provide a subjective description of "what the sound stage sounded like" - and leave it to the person reading that review to relate the two.)
And, of course, not everyone agrees on what "the ideal sound stage" should be anyway (is "wider always better?" or is there such a thing as "accurate?")

To make all this even more complicated....

Each of us have differently shaped ears, and brains that are slightly different, so how well we pick out specific sorts of errors, and how much priority our brains assign to each, also varies.
And, to make matters worse, because of these differences, it is impossible to even agree on a standard way of measuring headphones in particular.
(Do you measure the sound level at the diaphragm, or at the outside edge of the ear, or at the eardrum... and, if the latter, whose eardrum and ear canal shape do you pick as "the standard one"?)
Most people seem to agree more or less that, when measuring headphones, a certain frequency response graph shape, as measured by standard test gear, "sounds flat", even though the graph itself is FAR from flat.
Therefore, you can compare measurements between various headphones, or you can compare each to this "assumed standard for audible flatness", but you cannot directly measure "accurate frequency response". 
(And, as you might expect, not everyone agrees on the exact frequency response that they should be aiming for.)

It's also worth pointing out that, in answer to your question, that, especially when it comes to headphones, there are other aspects of 'the user experience" that make a significant difference.
For example, you would expect "high end headphones" to look somewhat attractive...
More importantly, you would expect high quality construction, and for them to provide a reasonable service life...
And, obviously, you would expect "high end headphones" to be reasonably comfortable to wear...
And, in the real world, consistency is important (a headphone that sounds great, but only to the 5% of the population that they fit properly, isn't going to last long in the market)...
And, beyond that, more than even with speakers, different people have far different preferences.
(One person may enjoy a headphone that is "very revealing" - while another may find that same headphone to sound "fatiguing" or "bright".)

The measurement that we rarely see, but which I would find useful, would be a waterfall plot.
A waterfall plot shows "frequency response over time" to a specific test signal....
(You input a test impulse.... or a static test signal.... then plot the output at all frequencies, over time, as a 3-dimensional surface, after the signal stops.)
So it provides a lot of information about both frequency response, transient response and energy storage, and even some aspects of distortion performance.
(This is the result I would expect to show obvious differences between typical electrostatic and dynamic headphones....)
However, while these are sometimes published for speakers, ther are rarely if ever published for headphones.
(Waterfall plots are not typically used to eveluate electronic gear because, compared to loudpeakers, most electronic gear would deliver a near-perfect waterfall plot.)

To get back to your original question though.....
I'm going to give you a very circular - but almost certainly also very accurate - answer......
When designing a pair of high end headphones you try to make them sound the way you believe most of your customers "'expect high end headphones to sound".
Like it or not.... products are designed to appeal to customers..... and not to appeal to standards.
(And, with headphones, there really aren't any widely accepted standards about how they should sound or be measured anyway...)
And the fact that some listeners expect high-end headphones to sound "smooth", while others expect "incredible detail", or "ruthless accuracy", is why so many so-called high-end headphones sound so different.



AudioThief said:


> @gregorio It does help - well, it didn't answer my question, but I guess my question was impossible to answer.
> 
> I guess what I am thinking about is what exactly differentiates a high end headphone from a low end headphone. Lets say, for the sake of argument that we take the Stax SR-L300 and compare it to the Skullcandy - we want to have the flattest FR. Now on Innerfidelity there are a bunch of measurements that I don't understand. But to my eyes, I can't look at them and say one headphone is better than the other. But I can look at the FR graph and say that one is probably a bit flatter than the other.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Jul 10, 2019)

My 1970s studio monitors have JBL 15 inch woofers with the cloth surrounds. They do fine above 40 Hz or so. Below that, they probably don't produce much at all. But I use a Sunfire sub to get to the last octave and to take some of the power load off the mains. Many people think it's fine to just cover above 40 Hz or 50 Hz and not sweat the super low stuff. It's more important for modern movies than it is for music

Modern speaker designs are more efficiently designed and compact, but given enough real estate in your living room, 70s speakers can do a fine job too.



AudioThief said:


> I guess what I am thinking about is what exactly differentiates a high end headphone from a low end headphone.



The primary difference would be frequency response. How close does it get to your target curve (whatever that is)? A low end headphone night have limitations of material and design that may make the reproduction of very low frequencies greatly attenuated. Or high frequencies might have big peaks and valleys in the response. With low end headphones, compromises are made because of economic reasons. Those compromises would probably affect sound quality.

The other factor is manufacturing tolerances. A mid range set of headphones might have response variations of as much as +/- 3dB or more from one copy to another. That is in the range of audible differences. So even one set might sound different than another of the same make and model. High end headphones have tighter quality control. My PM-1s were manufactured to +/- 1dB, which would not be an audible difference. You have to pay extra if you want a precisely calibrated set of cans like that. I suspect the PM-2s are just the PM-1s that didn't meet the tight manufacturing tolerances... same basic cans, just a wider tolerance for response imbalance.

Distortion levels and dynamics also factor in, but those aren't nearly as much of a problem with modern headphones. Speakers perform an order of magnitude worse than mid range headphones on these aspects, yet they still sound better than headphones do.

Yes, you can EQ decent headphones to sound as good as much more expensive ones as long as they are capable of producing a full range of frequencies without distortion. And that isn't hard. Midrange cans are very good today, just not quite as well balanced. As I said, having the calibration hard wired into the cans costs money. EQing is a much more affordable way of achieving the same  basic results.

Speed, soundstage, imaging and clarity are non-specific audiophile terminology that all are covered by frequency response, distortion, dynamics and timing. Sound is basically frequency and amplitude arranged in time. If you get the response and timing correct, you've achieved all of those more non-specific terms. As a sidenote, soundstage and imaging are more a function of the mix itself than they are playback in headphones. People often use those terms to describe placebo effect and bias.

The "common knowledge" descriptions of certain headphones like "liquid" and "fast" and "wide soundstage" are just people reading other people's vague descriptions and parroting them. If you can't describe things accurately, you have to use vague terms. Those vague terms become a "lingo".., "buzzwords" that eventually end up with even less meaning than they had originally. If you want to describe sound, it's good to understand how sound works. Then you can use more precise terms for describing it.



AudioThief said:


> Are there qualities in headphones that are not typically measured / possible to analyze in a meaningful way right now?



Yes. Those involve the fit and the way the individual head shape and ear canal interact with the drivers in the headphones. There's no point measuring this because everyone's noggin is a different shape, and even shifting cans forward or back a tiny bit can create audible differences. When they measure headphones, one of the biggest challenges is coming up with a consistent orientation of the cans on the dummy head. Skull shapes affect sound, and skull shapes vary. What may work for one person might not for another. The only way to deal with this is to listen for yourself with your own peculiar set of ears.

There's no reason to get too anal about headphones though. It isn't the way music is intended to be heard. Music is mixed for speakers in a room, and headphones don't come close to reproducing that quality of sound. If you are going to go that deep into splitting atoms, it makes sense to at least do it in the way that the music was intended to be heard. And of course there are compromises to be made with speakers too when it comes to room acoustics and furniture arrangement. The transducers are always the wild card because they are mechanical and are subject to real world physics. The front end is easy. The front end is just a matter of fidelity- making sure the sound going in one end is the same as the sound coming out the other end.

I always try to keep things real world and practical. Hope this helps.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 11, 2019)

AudioThief said:


> Again I am reminded that each person is different, which accounts for the many differing views you will have on a given headphone - but generally speaking, if you crawl the internet you will understand some basics about a given headphone - electrostats are "fast", HD800 have a "wide soundstage" and are "bright", the LCD 2.2c are "liquid" and "tight bass".
> Are the engineers just somehow getting a flat FR and good measurements, and then audiophiles mass delude themselves about soundstage, realism, detail and so on?
> Are there qualities in headphones that are not typically measured / possible to analyze in a meaningful way right now? I know measurements can tell us about frequency response, THD and transient response. But I can't help but looking at two different headphone graphs, feel they look pretty similar but sound very different to my ears - confident I could easily tell them apart in a blind test.



KeithEmo's last response covered very well your main question about the design of headphones but as you say, you're still a bit confused and I'll try to address that. Your confusion appears to be exemplified by the statements;
"_So clearly, at least to me, it seems that there are perceptions about headphones that are generally shared, but that may or may not show up in measurements_." and
"_Yet measurements doesn't explain to the lay man the typical audiophile terms - terms that are used to describe our perception and ultimately our experience with the headphone._".

Your confusion appears to be based on the original issue I discussed, the difference between an audio property and a perception and then, how they are related. This last part is extremely complex to answer because there is no one answer! The "typical audiophile terms" are all over the place; some are A. single actual audio properties, some are B. perceptions that are based on single actual properties, some are C. perceptions that are based on an amalgamation of several different properties, some are D. perceptions that are not related to any audio property (are effectively just inventions of the ears/brain) and some/many are E. a combination of these last two (C+D). For instance, "Bright" is an example of "B", it's based on the single actual property of mid-high frequency content. A good example of "E" is the perception of loudness. "Fast" appears to be "B" effectively transient response, "tight bass" "C", a combination of transient response, lack of resonance and some other factors and I don't really know what they mean by "liquid", which illustrates another common problem of audiophile terminology, it's often very vague/ambiguous.

Your difficulty/confusion, the difficulty of most audiophiles and the difference between us, seems to be the fundamental reference point. The fundamental reference point for the vast majority of audiophiles is, unsurprisingly, the audiophile world (and it's terminology). While my fundamental reference point is actual audio properties. Therefore, you are looking for measurements of audio properties that "explain to the lay man the typical audiophile terms", while I (for example) am effectively doing the opposite, looking at how (or even if) the "typical audiophile terms" explain/describe audio properties. In other words, "soundstage, realism, detail and so on" are just accepted facts, because firstly you can hear (perceive) them and secondly, pretty much all you've ever seen/heard is the audiophile world discussing them as accepted facts, so you're looking for measurements of audio properties which explain these facts. To me though, the ONLY attributes/facts I accept are the audio properties and "soundstage, realism, detail and so on" are not facts, they're pretty much anything from a somewhat vague description of an audio property/properties to nothing more than complete (typically marketing driven) nonsense!

From an audiophile standpoint, my position effectively means that they are deluded and that the whole audiophile world is effectively based on mass delusion, and for most audiophiles that's an impossible pill to even contemplate, let alone swallow. However, even most audiophiles recognise that the audiophile standpoint has some logical inconsistencies, so if they refuse to contemplate the pill there are just two choice left: Just pretend these logical inconsistencies are irrelevant (or don't exist) or create a justification for them, but the problem with the latter is that the deeper you dig, the bigger/worse those inconsistencies become and to justify them invariably leads to contradicting some of the most indisputable scientific facts and a reliance on even more logical fallacies. For example, you are looking for measurements that explain audiophile terminology/qualities/etc., and we can't give them to you, so the logical conclusion would appear to be that we (science) can't measure everything. However, this is an obviously false conclusion or rather, it becomes obvious that it's false once you know and think about some of the indisputable facts. In this case it's summed up by the question; What is it that you're listening to? If the answer is a digital audio file then what you're listening to is a single measurement, the measurement of amplitude over time. The "bits" which comprise a digital audio file are just binary numbers that represent amplitude values, that's it, nothing more and nothing less. Therefore, "Everything" your DAC, amp and transducers are reproducing is entirely defined by this single measurement, or to put it the other way around, if there is something/anything (some quality or other) that can't be entirely defined by the single measurement of amplitude over time, then we can't record it and you can't reproduce it! As this is an indisputable scientific fact, then "everything" you are hearing (when you're listening to a digital audio file), think you are hearing, perceiving, preferring, judging or whatever, must either be: A. Entirely defined by this single measurement of amplitude over time (or some other measurement derived from it), B. A complete/pure invention of your brain/perception or C. Some combination of "A" and "B". There is simply no factual, rational or logical escape from this fundamental truth/fact of digital audio and therefore any questions or beliefs you have which contradicts this fundamental fact must be wrong (or at least, require some adjustment in their definition/understanding), regardless of how widespread that belief is or what the consequences are.

In practice then, most of your questions are somewhat "wrong", they require an adjustment in their definition and understanding: "Qualities", most of the other audiophile terms you've quoted and even "deluded" for example. Turning much of what you think/believe/know on it's head is an extremely difficult pill for anyone to swallow but your only other options are to just try to ignore it all (ignorance is bliss!) or justify it some other way which will invariably end-up with major logical inconsistencies and having to deny a raft of incontrovertible/proven scientific facts.

G


----------



## AudioThief

Thank you very much @gregorio & @bigshot 

I have to say, its been many years since I've had to reevaluate my stance and belief on something in such a large degree as I have done the last few days. At times, audio, audio equipment and audio reviews has been one of my main hobbies. While I have always had some vague stance on DACs, cables amps and so on, I've always been a firm believer that differences between headphones and their quality is factually significant. Having shown non audiophile friends my rigs, they have often times just acknowledged it sounded "pretty good" and thats about it. I always just told myself "oh well, if they just loved music as much as I did", or "if they had the time to really soak in the nuances!" - then they would understand, I thought.

I am now thinking that all my different headphones just plain didn't sound that different from each other after all. 

I am also, quite embarassingly, thinking back when I purchased a DIY amplifier from a Norwegian engineer. It is a powerful SS amp for a cheap price. I read about it on a Norwegian audio forum, and people talked about how great it sounded, that it was "somewhat dark-sounding" with "powerful bass". I remember asking the creator when I was contemplating purchasing it about its sound quality. I was a bit taken aback when he said something akin to "I don't comment about "sound character" or anything like that. This amplifier is up to spec to drive (headphone x y and z) and thats about it". I bet he thinks his customers are a bunch of lunatics, lol. 

It all lines up so perfectly as well - I didn't really believe in interconnects, so when I bought some they didn't really make a difference. I did believe in DACs, so it made a difference. Same with amplifiers. I never once actually took the time to critically think about it - even more embarassing, I've been permanently banned on the headphones subreddit because I was adamant about people misinforming others on there with their "extremist objectivist views". And now I understand that they were right all a long - at least more right than I was. 

I've worked a part time job at a supplement store that sells vitamin supplements, protein powders etc - but also a bunch of alternative stuff like diet pills that doesn't work, flower remedies, anti hair loss drugs (that doesn't work) etc. And for years and years I've always told myself that the people believing in this stuff is either stupid or crazy. Today I read about a woman who recommended taking some essential oils and mixing it with water to help with "calmness, stress relief" - laughable, I thought. Well, it makes perfect sense because she is a victim of placebo. Just as I was with my DAC. 

I am a bit surprised that people who have had their eyes opened to the reality even bothers writing about gear anymore. DACs aren't interesting, amps aren't interesting, and once you've bought a decent headphone, why care about all the others? Audiophiles are always chasing perfection - I always knew that didn't actually exist, but it seems even more ridiculous considering that audiophiles perception of everything audio is essentially plain wrong. 

I can't help but feel that its all just a giant scam. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be without the gear I do own. But I was completely blindsided by the audiophile community - there is not nearly enough talk about FACTS. I had no chance, I had no reason not to believe the people on the internet about this stuff damnit. I consider myself interested in knowing the truth, yet it took me over 2 years being into headphones before I actually got a reality check. Now we have more and more headphones, DACs and amps than ever. People are collecting gear like mad men - well meaning people that just enjoy audio, wasting thousands of dollars again and again on something they believe is significantly different or better - when its all in their head. 

I am honestly just embarassed, but also happy. Happy that I can at least consider the realities - I don't need to understand them. I am well and truly finally free, because what I thought was an exciting hobby was in fact simply an illusion. Back to enjoying the music


----------



## bigshot (Jul 11, 2019)

Amps and players have largely inaudible differences, but headphones do sound quite different from each other and the differences are clear in the measurements. Google up frequency response measurements on various headphones and you'll see what I mean. Many people say that the Harman Curve is the ideal. When you are judging by measurements, it's good to refer to that. But if the differences aren't too far off the ideal curve, you can certainly EQ to get closer, or close enough to do the job. But out of the box, there are audible differences. Incompatibility, particularly with impedance, can create differences too. It's important to understand enough about stuff like that to avoid problems.

As for there being nothing left to discuss if all amps and DACs sound the same... that isn't true. The problem isn't that there is nothing to discuss, it's that people spend all their time talking about things that don't matter. There's a lot to talk about when it comes to room acoustics, equalization, multichannel, sound processing and features. But most of those things require compromises and adaptation to an individual's personal situation. It requires more thought than just saying, "Hey! Go buy the Dynamo 4000 EX DAC! It sounds great!"

I've got a kick ass system, but there are still things I might like to do to improve it when I get the money and time. It isn't like interest in sound stops when you figure out what is true and what isn't. But you're correct. It is a scam. Salesmen try to play on their customers' vulnerabilities. But not everyone is like that. We used to have a great guy here who made high end cables. He was totally honest about the fact that his cables sounded the same as any others. But he could explain how nice the fabric coverings were and how durable the connectors were. There are reasons to buy things other than sound. It's just human nature to assume that if something is pretty, it must function better though. That's why they used to build fancy oak and mahogany cabinets to put the same basic spring motor and sound box into old phonographs, and that's why McIntosh has a pretty aqua colored light. If you really want bling, you should buy bling. The only problem is when people go into internet forums and try to convince other people that there is a sound difference when there isn't one at all.

You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just think critically, ask the right questions and be able to recognize the right answer when you're offered it. That advice works for all kinds of subjects in fact. The internet is unfiltered. It's up to you to figure out who knows what they're talking about and who is full of malarky. The comments in this thread are a great place to practice that discernment. You've got extremes on both sides to choose from!


----------



## gregorio

AudioThief said:


> I am now thinking that all my different headphones just plain didn't sound that different from each other after all.



Be careful not to fall into the same audiophile trap but in the opposite direction. IE. Reduce what I said into the easy to digest over-simplification that all audiophiles are just plain wrong/deluded about everything and the entire audiophile world is a giant scam. This isn't the case either, they are often wrong and a large part of the audiophile world is just a scam but not always. There's no alternative, if you want to get to the truth, to judging each situation on it's own merits. Audiophiles use the same sort of flowery language about say cables as they do for headphones, in the case of cables it's all nonsense, there are differences between cables but assuming both are designed for the job and are decently made, these differences are way, way below audibility. However, that's not the case with headphones, the measurable differences ARE within the range of audibility. That doesn't mean of course that all those flowery descriptions about different headphones are correct, just that some of those descriptions are not contradicting the basic science/facts and therefore could be correct (and could apply to us). This is where we have to make a value judgement based on what the facts actually are and which category their flowery language/terminology falls into (the A, B, C, D or E described in my previous post).

To respond to your actual point then, your different headphones do sound somewhat different. Maybe/Probably not as different as you might have previously believed and maybe not different enough for some people (who aren't accustomed to listening critically to headphones) to really notice a difference. Of course though, assuming you are sensitive to the audible difference then whether that difference is enough to justify their price is a judgement only you can make. 

As bigshot said, careful you don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

G


----------



## bigshot

I think the big takeaway is that if we can hear it, it's pretty certainly measurable, and it is possible to look at measurements and have some idea of what kind of sound quality they represent. Those are pretty big ltruths that many audiophiles are clueless about.


----------



## AudioThief

Thanks guys. 

Yes, I'll make sure I don't just make this knee-jerk switch - I'll just be more skeptical in the future - and be aware of the strong effect of bias. 

I have a question -

I've always wanted a Stax tube amplifier. I guess because I thought they would sound great with my lambdas. 

https://staxheadphones.com/products/driver-unit-for-earspeakers-1

This one, for instance. Well, tubes doesn't make any sense... It looks like the distortion rating is pretty good - so it should sound identical to a solid state? And if it doesnt, it just sound plain worse, right? This is essentially the one upgrade I would be looking to make in the future, but it probably doesn't make too much sense.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 11, 2019)

Well the price is ridiculous, but if you have the money handy, there are worse things to spend it on I suppose. I would bet that it sounds just as good as a decent solid state amp. The advantage would be that it is specifically designed for your headphones that have a unique set of impedance requirements. I'm sure you could find a solid state amp to do the job just as well for much less money, but it wouldn't have the pretty glowing tube. I just hung Christmas lights over my amp to get that effect.

I like how they labelled the outputs PRO ONLY. It inspires confidence and weeds out the riff raff. Trouble is, I don't know any pros who really use headphones. There may be no one qualified enough to plug anything in to it.


----------



## bfreedma

AudioThief said:


> Thanks guys.
> 
> Yes, I'll make sure I don't just make this knee-jerk switch - I'll just be more skeptical in the future - and be aware of the strong effect of bias.
> 
> ...




Don’t be hard on yourself for believing the marketing of the gear manufacturers- they spend a lot of money on convincing potential customers of the “value” of their gear and I suspect a large percentage of us who frequent Sound Science (professionals excluded) bought into the hype early in our audio journeys.  I know I did.  Credit to you to be willing to take a step back and reevaluate.

Tube amps can be audibly different and while technically worse, sometimes I find a change up to be enjoyable. My tube amp probably gets less than 10% of my listening time but sometimes it’s a nice option, even if the placebo effect from glowing tubes is more prominent than the actual audible difference.  As long as you don’t spend more than you can afford and can be honest with yourself and others about performance/differences/curing baldness, I’m a believer in buying things that you want - this is, for most of us, a hobby.  As others have mentioned, different headphones can have fairly significant measurable and audible differences.  While a lot can be addresses by EQ, personally, I like having a fairly neutral pair of headphones for the majority of my listening and a pair with more bass for when the mood strikes.

IMO/YMMV


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Well the price is ridiculous, but if you have the money handy, there are worse things to spend it on I suppose. I would bet that it sounds just as good as a decent solid state amp. The advantage would be that it is specifically designed for your headphones that have a unique set of impedance requirements. I'm sure you could find a solid state amp to do the job just as well for much less money, but it wouldn't have the pretty glowing tube. I just hung Christmas lights over my amp to get that effect.
> 
> I like how they labelled the outputs PRO ONLY. It inspires confidence and weeds out the riff raff. Trouble is, I don't know any pros who really use headphones. There may be no one qualified enough to plug anything in to it.




It’s not an ideal use of terminology, but the labeling on the amp refers to the bias and pin connectors.  Normal bias uses a six pin connector and a 230V bias
Pro bias uses a five pin connector and a 580V bias.


----------



## GearMe (Jul 11, 2019)

AudioThief said:


> Thank you very much @gregorio & @bigshot
> 
> Snip...
> 
> _"I am a bit surprised that people who have had their eyes opened to the reality even bothers writing about gear anymore. DACs aren't interesting, amps aren't interesting, and once you've bought a decent headphone, why care about all the others?"_



So...at some point you've owned some fairly different headphones (Stax SR-007 mk1, Stax SR-L300, Fostex TH 900, JVC HPDX1000, Denon AH-D5000, Sennheiser HD650)

-- many/all of which are considered to be nice cans...albeit with different strengths & weaknesses.  Going no further than the sound signatures of the SR-007 and the TH-900 highlights two different listening experiences.

TBH, there's nothing wrong with multiple sets of cans whether they're Basshead cans, Neutral/classical/acoustic/whateveryouwanttocallthem cans...or Rock (Grado), etc.  I'll often put on my Fostex cans and listen to music that is very different than what I listen to on my Focals.  On the other hand, I may just put on the HiFiMans or the Phillips; hit shuffle on the player and listen for hours to all sorts of genres -- depends on my mood.

Regardless, the key thing is...

(that _you're_)
_*


AudioThief said:



			"enjoying the music" 

Click to expand...

*_


----------



## bigshot

bfreedma said:


> It’s not an ideal use of terminology, but the labeling on the amp refers to the bias and pin connectors.  Normal bias uses a six pin connector and a 230V bias
> Pro bias uses a five pin connector and a 580V bias.



What pro application uses a different bias for headphones? All I've ever seen in the studio is regular old cans with a regular quarter inch jack.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> What pro application uses a different bias for headphones? All I've ever seen in the studio is regular old cans with a regular quarter inch jack.



It’s just terminology describing the two different connectors and voltages used for electrostatic headphones.  In the early 90s, Stax changed from the lower bias/plug type to the 580v 5 pin.  It seems like the rest of the market adopted the 580v/5 pin.  I have no idea why Stax called it “pro” (marketing?), but it doesn’t seem to be worth worrying about.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 11, 2019)

Some companies sure do like to make things complicated. The best thing about my headphones is that I can plug them into anything I own and they sound great. I don't need five pin connectors, pro bias or even a headphone amp. I've never understood why people box themselves into a corner by buying non standard stuff that requires specific (read: proprietary/expensive) equipment to work properly.

I guess the sacrifices and irritations are part of the fun, but I'm afraid I'm not feelin' it.


----------



## KeithEmo

The issues involved are slightly different when it comes to electrostatic headphones. Electrostatic headphones require an amplifier with very different capabilities than ordinary headphones or ordinary speakers - and one of those differences is a very high audio drive voltage delivered into a very high impedance but largely capacitive load. A typical electrostatic headphone drive amplifier can deliver an audio signal up to as much as 2000 Volts peak-to-peak into an almost pure capacitance.

Ultil recently, transistors designed to operate at those sorts of voltages, but relatively low power, with good reliability, were relatively scarce, and somewhat expensive. In those days, the common method for driving electrostatic headphones from a solid state amp was to use transformers to boost the output voltage. However, because tubes were designed to run at high voltage and low current, designing a tube amplifier that could drive electrostatic headphones directly, without transformers, wasn't especially difficult. So, from an engineering perspective, many of the factors that made tubes a bad match for driving regular dynamic speakers, made them a good match for driving electrostatic headphones. Therefore, there was actually a time when, even though solid state designs were easier to make and more practical for driving speakers, tubes still made sense for driving electrostatic headphones. 

Electrostatic headphones are also capable of delivering very low levels of distortion. This means that they tend to make amplifier clipping more audibly noticeable than other types. As a result, it's not unreasonable to claim that there might be audible advantages to the more graceful overload characteristics of tubes.

Many of these reasons are much less of a factor than they were forty or fifty years ago. However, it would be fair to say that many engineers would still find it easier to design an amplifier capable of delivering the voltages necessary to drive electrostatic headphones safely and effectively using tubes instead of transistors. And, because tubes are a better match to the requirements, this also means that, in this particular application, they're more nearly cost effective as well. (The single most difficult to design, and most expensive, component in a tube amplifier intended to run speakers is the output transformer... and you don't need one to drive electrostatic headphones... )



bfreedma said:


> Don’t be hard on yourself for believing the marketing of the gear manufacturers- they spend a lot of money on convincing potential customers of the “value” of their gear and I suspect a large percentage of us who frequent Sound Science (professionals excluded) bought into the hype early in our audio journeys.  I know I did.  Credit to you to be willing to take a step back and reevaluate.
> 
> Tube amps can be audibly different and while technically worse, sometimes I find a change up to be enjoyable. My tube amp probably gets less than 10% of my listening time but sometimes it’s a nice option, even if the placebo effect from glowing tubes is more prominent than the actual audible difference.  As long as you don’t spend more than you can afford and can be honest with yourself and others about performance/differences/curing baldness, I’m a believer in buying things that you want - this is, for most of us, a hobby.  As others have mentioned, different headphones can have fairly significant measurable and audible differences.  While a lot can be addresses by EQ, personally, I like having a fairly neutral pair of headphones for the majority of my listening and a pair with more bass for when the mood strikes.
> 
> IMO/YMMV


----------



## KeithEmo

You're missing the historical perspective. The performance of electrostatic headphones is affected by the bias voltage they use. However, especially back in the early days, it was more difficult to produce higher bias voltages, and to design headphones that would work with them safely without failing. Early models of Stax headphones were designed to operate at the lower voltage - and amplifiers designed to work with them delivered that bias. Then, later, they started offering "professional" models that had better performance when used with a higher bias voltage. The "pro" models would work at either bias voltage; but older "non-pro" models could not be safely run at the higher voltage. However, at that point, there were many older non-pro models in use, and still being sold, and many older amplifiers that only offered the lower "non-pro" bias voltage.

Therefore, Stax worked out an interesting system, with that extra pin acting as a key. Because of the extra pin, "pro" headphones, which can safely be used at either bias voltage, can be plugged into amplifier outputs that provide either. However, "non-pro" headphones, which cannot safely be used at the higher voltage, cannot physically be plugged into amplifier outputs that deliver the higher bias voltage. (Note that, internally, the bias voltage an amplifier can deliver is limited by the maximum bias voltage it generates. Therefore, while some early or low end amplifiers offered only the lower bias voltage, most of the models that offer the higher bias voltage also offer a separate output with the lower one, and the additional cost of doing so is negligible.)

So... yes... from a marketing perspective...
They could offer "pro amplifiers" that could only be used with "pro headphone models"....
And "all purpose amplifiers" that had an output connector for "pro models" and another output connector for "consumer models"....
(And both could be targeted at different markets for about the same price.)

However, from a purely practical perspective....
Using the connectors to ensure that headphones only rated for 300V bias wouldn't accidentally be plugged into 600V circuits was still a good idea.



bfreedma said:


> It’s just terminology describing the two different connectors and voltages used for electrostatic headphones.  In the early 90s, Stax changed from the lower bias/plug type to the 580v 5 pin.  It seems like the rest of the market adopted the 580v/5 pin.  I have no idea why Stax called it “pro” (marketing?), but it doesn’t seem to be worth worrying about.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 12, 2019)

There is no such thing as a "pro headphone". Professional equipment is for use in studios and is designed for specific purposes. It doesn't mean that it sounds better. It means that it is more flexible in a studio setting. High end headphones don't have any use in a studio setting. The word "pro" is abused by audio salesmen.

This sounds like the old B&O turntables with the strangely shaped headshell that only accepted B&O cartridges (which were overpriced and not really as good as the competition in that price range). Those turntables were only desirable because they were curate's eggs. Not because they were better. Now they can't sell them for a buck at the salvation army, because the cartridges aren't being made by B&O any more and NOS ones are hideously expensive. Stuff like that makes me mad. It's anti-consumer. Lousy design masquerading as cutting edge design.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> You're missing the historical perspective. The performance of electrostatic headphones is affected by the bias voltage they use. However, especially back in the early days, it was more difficult to produce higher bias voltages, and to design headphones that would work with them safely without failing. Early models of Stax headphones were designed to operate at the lower voltage - and amplifiers designed to work with them delivered that bias. Then, later, they started offering "professional" models that had better performance when used with a higher bias voltage. The "pro" models would work at either bias voltage; but older "non-pro" models could not be safely run at the higher voltage. However, at that point, there were many older non-pro models in use, and still being sold, and many older amplifiers that only offered the lower "non-pro" bias voltage.
> 
> Therefore, Stax worked out an interesting system, with that extra pin acting as a key. Because of the extra pin, "pro" headphones, which can safely be used at either bias voltage, can be plugged into amplifier outputs that provide either. However, "non-pro" headphones, which cannot safely be used at the higher voltage, cannot physically be plugged into amplifier outputs that deliver the higher bias voltage. (Note that, internally, the bias voltage an amplifier can deliver is limited by the maximum bias voltage it generates. Therefore, while some early or low end amplifiers offered only the lower bias voltage, most of the models that offer the higher bias voltage also offer a separate output with the lower one, and the additional cost of doing so is negligible.)
> 
> ...




That is the history, but the question was whether the “pro” nomenclature was representative of actual professional use or marketing.  I don’t think Stax made serious inroads into the professional environment, so assume this was more of a marketing strategy.

I thought it was obvious that a six pin connector couldn’t be plugged into a 5 pin socket.  Perhaps not.


----------



## Steve999

bfreedma said:


> I thought it was obvious that a six pin connector couldn’t be plugged into a 5 pin socket.  Perhaps not.



Story of my life really. I’m a six pin connector in a five pin socket world.


----------



## KeithEmo

Of course there is.... just like there are Stax Pro amplifiers.
(I didn't Photoshop the picture - the phony looking stencil of the word "Professional" really is put there on the actual amplifier by Stax.)
If you look around you, you will see a huge number of products with names that include the words "pro" or "industrial grade".
(Everything from sunglasses, to drain cleaner, to laundry detergent....)
It's also worth mentioning that real pro gear doesn't necessarily perform well.
Often "being professional grade" has more to do with reliability, and how long a tool or item will last, rather than on its delivering the absolute best performance.

Electrostatic headphones are quite complicated, and both the headphones themselves, and the amplifier that goes with them, are somewhat prone to failure.
(I might be willing to risk them wearing out or breaking easily in return for the best possible fidelity; but poor reliability would be a fatal flaw in a real piece of pro gear.)

You also neglected to mention that the B&O turntables themselves were quite pricey.
And, no, those B&O turntables didn't play records any better than any other type (although they did have a vaguely plausable excuse for the benefits of the custom headshell) ...
However, a friend of mine who is an artist assures me that, in terms of "artistic appearance", they perform extremely well...
He's actually considering purchasing a vintage one - not because of how well it plays records, but because of how cool it looks.

My point, just to be clear, is that their products commanded such high prices for their looks, and not for their _audio_ performance (or for the _combination_ of the two).
(Anybody could make a turntable that worked well, and anybody could make one that looked cool, but B&O earned their premium price by offering both in a single unit.)
However, I fail to see that as being a tragedy, as long as most of the people who bought them more or less understood that they were paying a premium for "cool looks".



bigshot said:


> There is no such thing as a "pro headphone". Professional equipment is for use in studios and is designed for specific purposes. It doesn't mean that it sounds better. It means that it is more flexible in a studio setting. High end headphones don't have any use in a studio setting. The word "pro" is abused by audio salesmen.
> 
> This sounds like the old B&O turntables with the strangely shaped headshell that only accepted B&O cartridges (which were overpriced and not really as good as the competition in that price range). Those turntables were only desirable because they were curate's eggs. Not because they were better. Now they can't sell them for a buck at the salvation army, because the cartridges aren't being made by B&O any more and NOS ones are hideously expensive. Stuff like that makes me mad. It's anti-consumer. Lousy design masquerading as cutting edge design.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> Of course there is.... just like there are Stax Pro amplifiers.
> (I didn't Photoshop the picture - the phony looking stencil of the word "Professional" really is put there on the actual amplifier by Stax.)
> If you look around you, you will see a huge number of products with names that include the words "pro" or "industrial grade".
> (Everything from sunglasses, to drain cleaner, to laundry detergent....)
> ...




Add Monster Beats by Dre to this collection. Even I was tempted by their appearance, until I started reading the reviews, and measurements on sites like Inner Fidelity.  Not to mention certain models require BATTERIES.  No thanks!

A brother once got so mad at me when I broke his heart by telling him that I had at least two headphones that sounded better than his Beats, each for half the moolah.


----------



## gregorio

AudioThief said:


> [1] This one, for instance. Well, tubes doesn't make any sense... It looks like the distortion rating is pretty good - so it should sound identical to a solid state?
> [2] And if it doesnt, it just sound plain worse, right?
> [2a] This is essentially the one upgrade I would be looking to make in the future, but it probably doesn't make too much sense.



1. It should sound identical to an SS amp, provided the SS amp has the signal output characteristics required by your headphones.

2. There's no way to answer that question unless you define what you mean by "worse". "Worse" (or "better") is not an audio property, it's a personal value judgement that is not correlated to any audio property. For example, let's say that we're talking about fidelity and a particular SS amp provides a level of fidelity that is audibly perfect/transparent. If you then use a tube amp instead, and there is an actual audible difference, then by definition the tube amp cannot be perfect/transparent, it must diverge in some way from perfect/transparent (introduce some sort of distortion) and therefore be lower fidelity. However, the type of distortion that tubes often introduce is based on even harmonics and is commonly referred to as "Euphonic" (distortion). "Euphonic" means "pleasing to the ears". Effectively what we have (or can have) with a tube amp is therefore both lower fidelity AND more "pleasing to the ears", so then the question becomes: Is "lower fidelity + more pleasing to the ears" worse (or better) than "higher fidelity + less pleasing to the ears"? For me personally the answer is "worse" because I want to hear the recording made by the artists/engineers with as little distortion as possible and if the artists/engineers had wanted the recording to be listened to with this type of added euphonic distortion then they would have added it to the recording. For someone else though, "more pleasing to the ears" is by definition "better", regardless of issues of fidelity or artistic intentions. So, the exact same signal (output by the tube amp) that I can rationally/correctly categorise as "worse" can be rationally/corrected categorised as "better" by someone else and therefore, "better" or "worse" cannot be related/correlated with the audio signal output by the tube amp, it's not an audio property (it's purely a perception/preference), it cannot be objectively measured, there can be no objective/correct answer to your question and therefore your question is flawed/wrong!
2a. It would make sense if: A. You can easily afford it and B. The difference is audible and C. "More pleasing to the ears" is better to you personally than higher fidelity.  If "C" is false, then it wouldn't make sense because you wouldn't be upgrading, you would be downgrading. If "B" is false then it also wouldn't make sense because you wouldn't be upgrading, you would be equi-grading, spending more money for exactly the same performance.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] If you look around you, you will see a huge number of products with names that include the words "pro" or "industrial grade". (Everything from sunglasses, to drain cleaner, to laundry detergent....)
> [2] It's also worth mentioning that real pro gear doesn't necessarily perform well.
> [2a] Often "being professional grade" has more to do with reliability, and how long a tool or item will last, rather than on its delivering the absolute best performance.



1. Agreed, but obviously, just because the term "pro" is routinely abused by marketing departments across numerous product types doesn't make it acceptable.

2. That's not strictly true, real pro gear does necessarily have to perform well, although it entirely depends on how you define "well". There are times when "well" can mean "terrible". An example I've given before is that of Auratone speakers, which at one time were found almost ubiquitously in commercial recording studios. They were terrible (they sounded truly horrific, which led to them affectionately being nicknamed "horro-tones") however, they were a useful professional tool because if you could get a mix to sound half-decent on horrotones then it would generally sound at least half-decent on anything. In other words, they "performed well" at being terrible! You don't find them in commercial studios much any more because the company redesigned and improved them!
2a. Certainly professionals require/demand reliability but usually with pro gear you can have reliability without compromising performance. In those few cases where you can't have both, sometimes we sacrifice some performance for reliability and sometimes the other way around, depending on the circumstances.

The obvious implication that marketing depends on is: As professionals depend on their equipment/tools for a living, which are covered as a business expense, then professionals tend to choose/use better (and typically more expensive) equipment/tools than anyone else. Therefore, "professional" means better and necessarily more expensive. In the audiophile world, the "abuse" is commonly three-fold! Firstly, their "professional" gear is not chosen/used by many (or any) professionals, Secondly, it's not chosen by professionals because it either doesn't perform better or actually performs worse than other pro gear and Thirdly, it's commonly even more expensive than top quality real professional gear! In other words, in the consumer/audiophile world, "professional" is typically just a marketing lie to justify a higher price.

G


----------



## GearMe

TheSonicTruth said:


> Add Monster Beats by Dre to this collection. Even I was tempted by their appearance, until I started reading the reviews, and measurements on sites like Inner Fidelity.  Not to mention certain models require BATTERIES.  No thanks!
> 
> A brother once got so mad at me when I broke his heart by telling him that I had at least two headphones that sounded better than his Beats, each for half the moolah.



Well -- the times they are a changin'...one man's trash...etc.  

Introducing Innerfidelity WOF member -- Beats Solo 2!!!     
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/time-rethink-beats-solo2-excellent

BTW, when Tyll retired to wander around the country in his pimped out step van, he actually took a set of Beats Solo 3 Wireless (with batteries) with him


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> It means that it is more flexible in a studio setting.


What does "flexible" mean here? Flexible enough to be put on the head of a horse?


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 12, 2019)

GearMe said:


> Well -- the times they are a changin'...one man's trash...etc.
> 
> Introducing Innerfidelity WOF member -- Beats Solo 2!!!
> https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/time-rethink-beats-solo2-excellent
> ...



Nice to hear some improvements have been made to both construction and sound quality. I'm still not taken with a headphone - a wired one at that - requiring batteries.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 12, 2019)

gregorio said:


> For me personally the answer is "worse" because
> I want to hear the recording made by the artists/engineers with
> as little distortion as possible and if the artists/engineers had
> wanted the recording to be listened to with this type of added
> ...



A general question:  Are you aware of any headphones that strike a balance between the two extremes: Sounding "good" but inaccurate for any aspect of production, and, accurate but sound "unpleasant" to the average commuter on the bus, or music fan just napping in their living room?.


My personal arsenal: MDR-7506, DT880 250ohm, SRH-440, Grado SR80i.  I can hear differences betwen all those, but nothing that I would call unpleasant.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 12, 2019)

71 dB said:


> What does "flexible" mean here? Flexible enough to be put on the head of a horse?


----------



## GearMe (Jul 12, 2019)

gregorio said:


> 2. There's no way to answer that question unless you define what you mean by "worse". "Worse" (or "better") is not an audio property, it's a personal value judgement that is not correlated to any audio property. For example, let's say that we're talking about fidelity and a particular SS amp provides a level of fidelity that is audibly perfect/transparent. If you then use a tube amp instead, and there is an actual audible difference, then by definition the tube amp cannot be perfect/transparent, it must diverge in some way from perfect/transparent (introduce some sort of distortion) and therefore be lower fidelity. However, the type of distortion that tubes often introduce is based on even harmonics and is commonly referred to as "Euphonic" (distortion). "Euphonic" means "pleasing to the ears". Effectively what we have (or can have) with a tube amp is therefore both lower fidelity AND more "pleasing to the ears", so then the question becomes: Is "lower fidelity + more pleasing to the ears" worse (or better) than "higher fidelity + less pleasing to the ears"? For me personally the answer is "worse" because I want to hear the recording made by the artists/engineers with as little distortion as possible and if the artists/engineers had wanted the recording to be listened to with this type of added euphonic distortion then they would have added it to the recording. For someone else though, "more pleasing to the ears" is by definition "better", regardless of issues of fidelity or artistic intentions. So, the exact same signal (output by the tube amp) that I can rationally/correctly categorise as "worse" can be rationally/corrected categorised as "better" by someone else and therefore, "better" or "worse" cannot be related/correlated with the audio signal output by the tube amp, it's not an audio property (it's purely a perception/preference), it cannot be objectively measured, there can be no objective/correct answer to your question and therefore your question is flawed/wrong!
> 2a. It would make sense if: A. You can easily afford it and B. The difference is audible and C. "More pleasing to the ears" is better to you personally than higher fidelity.  If "C" is false, then it wouldn't make sense because you wouldn't be upgrading, you would be downgrading. If "B" is false then it also wouldn't make sense because you wouldn't be upgrading, you would be equi-grading, spending more money for exactly the same performance.
> 
> G



Given what you do for a living, it makes sense that you'd "want to hear the recording made by the artists/engineers with as little distortion as possible"...for sure while you're on the clock.  Sounds like that's the case when you're listening for pleasure as well.

I have both SS and Tube setups in different rooms and enjoy both -- often choosing one setup or the other based on music, mood, convenience, comfort, etc.

Thoughts and a Question about as the "artists/engineers had wanted"...
I get this concept philosophically but it somewhat falls apart for me on the practical level; meaning that the artists/engineers are working in a given studio/mixing environment using a certain equipment setup in a particular acoustic environment.  Since the end-user's equipment and acoustic environment is different, it seems like it's not really an option to hear a track as the artist/engineer intended (imo)

Throw in the fact that each of our hearing FR capabilities are unique, and the concept of as the artist/engineer intended seems even more unobtainable...
So, I don't stress over this concept and just enjoy listening to the music whether it's on Bluetooth speakers in the back yard, NC headphones on a plane, ooey, gooey tubes, or transparent solid state.

My question is really a curiosity more than anything. I've heard several studio monitors that sound different to my ears; some seem a tad hot in the treble, others maybe tighter in the bass, etc.  How do you/your peers account/adjust for those differences when you're trying to deliver a satisfying end-product to your consumers?

Another related question...say you're dealing with artists that aren't "hearing it" the same way you are when you're both listening to the music and trying to make decisions, how does that process unfold to get to the final product?


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> What does "flexible" mean here?



Providing the maximum ability to adjust things in the mix.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> A general question: Are you aware of any headphones that strike a balance between the two extremes: Sounding "good" but inaccurate for any aspect of production, and, accurate but sound "unpleasant" to the average commuter on the bus, or music fan just napping in their living room?.



I'm not sure the average commuter on a bus would notice the difference, given the very high environment noise floor. Certainly the headphones I sometimes use for certain aspects of production are not particularly "pleasant" or rather, are considerably less flattering than the headphones I use for pleasure or to reference a mix and I wouldn't want headphones that strike a balance, I often need them to be fairly extreme and "exaggerate", to facilitate my work. In other words, I don't know the answer to your question or even if it is answerable.



GearMe said:


> [1] Given what you do for a living, it makes sense that you'd "want to hear the recording made by the artists/engineers with as little distortion as possible"...for sure while you're on the clock. [1a] Sounds like that's the case when you're listening for pleasure as well.
> Thoughts and a Question about as the "artists/engineers had wanted"...
> [2] I get this concept philosophically but it somewhat falls apart for me on the practical level; meaning that the artists/engineers are working in a given studio/mixing environment using a certain equipment setup in a particular acoustic environment. Since the end-user's equipment and acoustic environment is different, it seems like it's not really an option to hear a track as the artist/engineer intended (imo)
> [2a] My question is really a curiosity more than anything. I've heard several studio monitors that sound different to my ears; some seem a tad hot in the treble, others maybe tighter in the bass, etc. How do you/your peers account/adjust for those differences when you're trying to deliver a satisfying end-product to your consumers?
> [3] Another related question...say you're dealing with artists that aren't "hearing it" the same way you are when you're both listening to the music and trying to make decisions, how does that process unfold to get to the final product?



1. For sure but it's not quite that simple, depending on what you mean by "distortion". For example, in the case of an electric guitar, the recording made by the guitarist is largely irrelevant or rather, it's only relevant with distortion, some/most of which may have been recorded or isn't recorded and is added during mixing. We also typically want the "distortion" of the room acoustics (in the control room) because although they are almost certainly not identical to a consumer's listening environment, it's still a lot more similar than not having any room acoustics. There are other examples as well.
1a. When listening for pleasure, say at home, I use home consumer equipment and that's never going to sound identical (or even close) to the studio, however, that doesn't really matter to a large extent (explained in point 2 below). Certainly my job influences my "listening for pleasure" but then I also know people who don't do my job (or any job related to music/sound) but share my basic preferences for accurate reproduction and some who don't. 

2. I don't really accept this, due to a number of factors (in no particular order): 
A. While we spend a great deal of time working on minute details, our intentions (what we wanted) is commonly a "range" rather than one absolute precise thing. We know, even eliminating the variables of listening environment/system, that consumers are not going to perceive the music the same as we do, due to the listening biases that we build up from creating/working on the music.
B. We rarely only use "certain equipment". For example, commercial studios will typically have three sets of monitors: "Mains", which are large mid-field monitors, "Smalls" or "Alts", which are relatively small near-field monitors and "Refs", which are very small, pretty terrible, reference monitors/speakers, like the crappy speakers found in cheap TVs or even laptops and all three sets will be used on any given mix.
C. Pretty much the entire reason that the mastering process exists, is to adjust the final mix created in the recording/mix studio so that it sounds as intended when played back by consumers. This is often complex/difficult, involves a lot of subjectivity and almost always, requires compromise.
2a. In addition to the above factors, there's also the factor of experience. For example, if the studio monitors "seem a tad hot in the treble" then mixes created on them will generally be a bit low in the treble when played on other speakers/monitors, we can "bare that in mind" and make our mixes a bit hotter in the treble. In addition to the monitor characteristics, we also have personal preference/perception. In my case for example, a mix that sounds balanced to me often has a bit too much bass, so my studio monitors are adjusted to produce a bit too much bass to compensate, resulting in a better balanced mix. When I'm working in a different studio, that doesn't have it's monitors adjusted that way, then I consciously adjust and make the mix a little brighter than I would in my studio. This all depends on experience.

In general, audiophiles tend to be overly anal about the whole thing, based on a whole bunch of unfounded (and often completely wrong) assumptions over how/why we record, mix and master, what our intentions/priorities are and what "fidelity" means. My own personal preference, when listening at home, is to fall within the "range" and avoid any unintentional distortions that I can, which includes tube distortion that's not on the recording. However, I am not pushing my own personal preference as the only valid preference, I fully understand how/why many people would prefer "pleasing sound" to "accurate sound" and indeed, my job largely depends on my understanding of this. My only gripe is when audiophiles are effectively talking about "pleasing sound" and incorrectly calling it "accurate (or high fidelity) sound", because this leads to all kinds of problems, including much of the marketing abuse!

3. That depends on a lot of factors. For example, am I employing the musicians or are they employing me? If there's some disagreement then ultimately the employer is the final arbiter. Often though, there's some compromise due to various reasons: The musician's intentions are often a "range", most musicians are aware that what they're hearing is biased by their intentions and may not be as obvious to another listener, they're also aware that what they're hearing in the studio will sound somewhat different in a consumer environment and usually we're not dealing with a musician but several musicians, all of whom will have somewhat different perceptions and intentions, and often the engineer/producer will be given the "casting vote". Assuming the musician/s is the final arbiter, how much they will consider/accept what the engineer/producer is saying will largely depend on the trust they have in that particular engineer/producer. BTW, I've used the term "engineer/producer" because technically the engineer has no say over anything but purely technical matters, however in practise the line between engineer and producer is blurred and has become more blurred over the decades, it's not uncommon for the engineer and producer to be the same person.

G


----------



## GearMe

gregorio said:


> I'm not sure the average commuter on a bus would notice the difference, given the very high environment noise floor. Certainly the headphones I sometimes use for certain aspects of production are not particularly "pleasant" or rather, are considerably less flattering than the headphones I use for pleasure or to reference a mix and I wouldn't want headphones that strike a balance, I often need them to be fairly extreme and "exaggerate", to facilitate my work. In other words, I don't know the answer to your question or even if it is answerable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for a little bit of a peek into the process!  Always good to understand more than less...  

Would agree that Audiophiles can go way over the top on a lot of minutiae / irrelevant / etc. aspects of this hobby;  often focusing on a quest for the perfect system -- where music is just a tool to listen to their gear instead of the other way around.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> ords, I don't know the answer to your question or even
> if it is answerable.



Well for example, a lot of end listeners like a particular headphone because it has lots of  'boom  & sizzle' - either a recessed midrange response, or  exaggerated low end and top, VS one that both sounds and measures relatively neutral, or flat.

Do both hypothetical example phones each contribute, in their own way, some value to production(tracking, mixing, mastering, monitoring live, etc)?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> There is no such thing as a "pro headphone". Professional equipment is for use in studios and is designed for specific purposes. It doesn't mean that it sounds better. It means that it is more flexible in a studio setting. High end headphones don't have any use in a studio setting. The word "pro" is abused by audio salesmen.
> 
> This sounds like the old B&O turntables with the strangely shaped headshell that only accepted B&O cartridges (which were overpriced and not really as good as the competition in that price range). Those turntables were only desirable because they were curate's eggs. Not because they were better. Now they can't sell them for a buck at the salvation army, because the cartridges aren't being made by B&O any more and NOS ones are hideously expensive. Stuff like that makes me mad. It's anti-consumer. Lousy design masquerading as cutting edge design.



There certainly is such a thing as "pro headphone". Regardless if one thinks under this the regular studio gear with 1/4" TRS connection - or reference gear like Stax Lambda Pro and/or AKG K-1000 - or even Jecklin Float Electrostatic.  Since Lambda family, K-1000 and Float do not offer any attenuation of surrounding sound, there is a most undeniably pro oriented Stax model - the 4070 ( essentially, a VERY iungeniously made closed back version of open air Lambda ). All of these place ( next to none) emphasis of being flexible; their sole purpose is to offer maximum sound quality, everything else - cost included - be damned. If you have not seen - ever - any of these in studios, then the right question to ask is just what quality studios those were/are.

Look at pics of any serious recording session(s) by better recording engineers ... - and you should quickly spot the headphones mentioned above.

The word pro is often abused by audio salesman - but most definitely not in above case(s).

Regarding electrostatics and their need for more than two conductor wiring connection per channel, please read what @KeithEmo said. Nothing to add, except perhaps the statement that tubes/valves you like to malign soooooo much are actually even more naturally adept to driving electrostatics than he wrote - besting solid state in this application, both in performance and above all, reliability. All of electrostatic transformerless drive circuits are, essentially, horizontal deflection amplifiers from the cathode ray TVs - and, ever since TVs became pancakes no longer requiring cathode ray tubes as screens, the number of available semiconductors suitable for driving electrostatics has gone down... - and not up. What once used to be commonly off the shelf available parts became special back order exotica.

I am partly in agreement with you regarding B&O turntables - and fiercely oppose your opinion about B&O cartridges. B&O carts - the bettter ones, say the three models from TOTL down, are perhaps the only thing an otherwise non B&O user/lover would consider using in his/her system. Because B&O was the first to itroduce automated cartridge measurements - yielding all the essential data in about a minute time per cartridge, which would take at least ten time amount the time if done manually. Therefore, there were NO duds in B&O cartridges that did get shipped out of factory - and all the critical tolerances have been held to above industry standard tolerances. I prefer paying dearly for one I am sure it will work ok than having to sift trough many samples, before finding one that is within all spec and/or even better - overall, less expensive, too.

B&O TTs, although too much restricted by design/looks criteria, nevertheless WERE extremely well thought out and made. And the arms that took the cartridges directly plugged in were absolutely no gimmick, but an essential part of the overall design - enabling the cartrs to work BETTER than in 99.9% of any other tonearm designs. The only conventional arm I can think of that would allow for  approx similar performance is SME Series III - others that might even improve upon all belong to extremely rare/finnicky/costly. Anything else would work less well than a B&O arm. It was NOT lousy design masquerading as cutting edge design - but I agree that pricing should have been FAR more user friendly. A mere adapter that allows the use of a B&O cartridge in any other commonly available system will set you back around 75 $ or so - for old, used or NOS sample.

The virtues of basic B&O cartridge design has been recognized by Soundsmith in the USA - which had to back engineer the cartridge, as "clever" people at B&O destroyed all the jigs, tooling and blueprints during the CD craze wave that crushed everything in its wake. Today, the second > third? gen of Soundsmith built carts based on B&O design is available - with Zephyr MIMC (whatever the current complete designation ) being at the apex of bang for the buck ( around 2K). It leaves extremely little room for the improvement, no matter how much money one might want to spend - it is, simply, an amazing VALUE. At 2k, not cheap, but worth every dime.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would suggest that the term "pro" is often misused to market equipment - but only because much of the public assumes that 'pro equipment is always better" - even though that may not be the case. (More specifically, the traits that pros look for may not be the same ones that consumers value at all.) 

For example, with some medical equipment, the "pro version"  may well be the one which can be dropped into an autoclave and survive, which probably won't matter to most consumers.
And, even though they may be present "for effect" on consumer gear, those metal corners you see on a lot of "pro PA gear" don't improve the sound quality one bit.
They're there so the corners don't get crushed when it gets dropped - which inevitably seems to happen with portable stage equipment.
And, while they may well have an adverse effect on the sound, metal grilles and screens sure work well to keep careless hands out of your speakers.
Likewise, "pro tools" are often designed, at significant extra expense, to survive abuse better, or to be easier to repair, or to be more reliable, none of which may matter to a typical home user.
And, for that matter, the Navy chose electrostatic headphones for early SONAR gear because they apparently did the best job of emphasizing the differences in sound between various ships.
But nobody said that what they presented was "the most accurate rendition of those sounds" or even that they sounded at all "nice" or "pleasant".
Professional test and measurement equipment is often designed, NOT to be the most accurate, but to deliberately exaggerate specific things you're looking for or trying to measure.

However, for whatever reason, many members of the general public have come to associate "professional" with "better".... so the term ends up being used to bolster that claim.
You must also remember that even pros may have different priorities.

I know a few professionla crapenters who have purchased expensive titanium hammers that apparently are very comfortable to use for long periods of time.
But I know others who use low cost hardware store hammers "because they lose two or three hammers a week - so why spend a lot on one you won't have for long anyway".
LIkewise, some people who work in very loud environments purchase "professional grade active hearing protection", while others prefer $5 a bag disposable earplugs.
("They work pretty good, never have to be cleaned, and you get a new set every time you use them.)



bfreedma said:


> That is the history, but the question was whether the “pro” nomenclature was representative of actual professional use or marketing.  I don’t think Stax made serious inroads into the professional environment, so assume this was more of a marketing strategy.
> 
> I thought it was obvious that a six pin connector couldn’t be plugged into a 5 pin socket.  Perhaps not.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> What pro application uses a different bias for headphones? All I've ever seen in the studio is regular old cans with a regular quarter inch jack.


The turbo QUICK story how Stax Lambda ( the original ) became Stax Lambda Pro:

Mercedes-Benz ( automotive manufacturer ) started using binaural recordings to monitor noise levels in their cars. You CAN be sure they did test an awful lot of "cans" for the purpose - hopefully finding some domestic, German produced design that would satisfy their criteria.

Nope ... - Stax Lambda came on top. It was STILL not enough - particularly not in the low frequencies, and particularly not below 20 Hz. The only way to get more available excursion was trough making the gap between the diaphragm itself and the stator electrodes larger - which, of course, reduces efficiency. The solution was to use both bigger gap and bigger bias voltage - to have more ooompoh in the bass and similar efficiency as regular small gap Lambda with 230 V DC bias voltage. New Bias was found to be 580 V DC - and got named Pro. The Stax plug has been wired/pinned  so that it is impossible to plug regular/old/230V bias model  into a CLEARLY labeled PRO socket - to protect the eectrostatic drivers. It is possible to plug a Pro plug into a non pro socket ; it will work, but with appreciably lower sensitivity. 

For quite some time after the introduction of Lambda Pro, both amps and transformers have been available with one normal and one pro only socket - enabling the use of all Stax models available at the time. In recent times, all moved to pro 580 V DC bias - and normal 230 V DC bias is all but forgotten and available on new gear as special order only. There are schematics for the bias mods as required by various models available online - Stax community might be relatively small, but there is a reason why it is sometimes reffered to as "Stax mafia" - and it truly is an international, across the globe affair.

Almost every model introduced after Lambda Pro uses the 580 V DC bias - and some earlier models have also been added with Pro bias ( Gamma... ), but these are nowadays really rare.

A good starting point regarding Lambda Pro is https://kenrockwell.com/audio/stax/sr-lambda-pro.htm 

I "like" the desire of studios to downgrade to dynamic phones - for the sake their mixes sound acceptable to majority of users of ordinary equipment.


----------



## redrol

I just wanted to throw something out there.  A typical frequency graph you see in these forums compresses over about 1k to 20k visually in about an inch.  That is nearly impossible to actually tell anything meaningful from.   I guess all im saying is graphs are not really a good indicator of much except low frequency information.    Its pretty amazing how large a linear graph of 20hz - 20k would be.  Miles long...


----------



## sander99

redrol said:


> I just wanted to throw something out there.  A typical frequency graph you see in these forums compresses over about 1k to 20k visually in about an inch.  That is nearly impossible to actually tell anything meaningful from.   I guess all im saying is graphs are not really a good indicator of much except low frequency information.    Its pretty amazing how large a linear graph of 20hz - 20k would be.  Miles long...


Human hearing works logarithmicly, a doubling of frequency is one octave up. For example 10k to 20k is just one octave, there is no need to stretch this part of the graph because there is not happening more there then in a randomly choosen different octave, like 250 to 500 Hz.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 13, 2019)

Yeah, in human hearing you have about nine octaves altogether. Ideally each octave would be the same width in the graph. The top octave- 10,000 Hz to 20,000 Hz should be the same width as the bottom octave- 20 Hz to 40 Hz.

I've never seen fancy headphones in a recording studio for monitoring mixes. Only for isolation in tracking so the monitors don't feed back into the mikes, and for judging noise reduction with older recordings. Editors use headphones too so they don't disturb other editors working around them. None of these applications requires more than inexpensive cans. Sound fidelity is not an issue with headphones in the studio. Sound mixers don't trust headphones for balancing levels. They have monitor speakers for that. I do remember a studio mentioning that they had a good set of headphones which they kept locked up in a cabinet. It was there in case a client asked for it. They were rarely taken out of the locked cabinet.

I've worked primarily with the big sound houses in Hollywood, both TV/movie and music production houses.


----------



## redrol

sander99 said:


> Human hearing works logarithmicly,




Im not sure I believe this.  Sources?


----------



## bigshot

redrol said:


> Im not sure I believe this.  Sources?



Frequency doubling. If you double the frequency, you arrive at the same note one octave higher. So 20-40, 40-80, 80-160, 160-320, 320-640, etc. are single octaves.

https://www.howmusicworks.org/106/Sound-and-Music/Doubling-Frequency

The decibel scale works the same for amplitude.


----------



## sander99

sander99 said:


> Human hearing works logarithmicly





redrol said:


> Im not sure I believe this.  Sources?



Found just now with google, this is from the Phonetics Laboratory of the University of Oxford so is assume this is a reliable source:
http://www.phon.ox.ac.uk/jcoleman/LOGARITH.htm

I don't recall to have ever seen a graph related to audio with a linear frequency scale. Nor a linear level scale; human hearing also works logarithmicly for levels: a doubling of power is 3 dB louder.


----------



## Davesrose (Jul 13, 2019)

Note that it's sound that's logarithmic: not human hearing per say.  There are variances with hearing perception, so actually hearing certain FR can vary from person to person.  Our inner ears are very much a product of evolution: FR ranges within the human voice are the most protected from sustained damage and hearing loss.


----------



## bigshot

Yeah, frequencies and decibels are just measurement systems for sound.


----------



## AudioThief

https://www.inexxon.com/stax-übersicht-overview/stax-kopfhörer-headphones/sr-lambda-advanced-l500/

https://www.inexxon.com/stax-übersicht-overview/stax-kopfhörer-headphones/sr-lambda-advanced-l700/

https://www.inexxon.com/stax-übersicht-overview/stax-kopfhörer-headphones/sr-lambda-advanced-l300/


Could someone make a comment on these measurements? Is one flatter than the other? They all look basically the same to me.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 13, 2019)

A response chart is more useful than specs. But as a rule of thumb, the ideal is 20 to 20 with +/-3dB and distortion below .5%. There are exceptions of course and someone is going to pipe up and mention them now. But it’s good to understand what the numbers mean yourself rather than to depend on others. There are too many people who offer advice to whom overkill is never enough.

There are two interesting videos in my sig file that deal with aspects of sound that are often misunderstood. It has downloadable examples so you can hear for yourself what the numbers mean.


----------



## AudioThief

bigshot said:


> A response chart is more useful than specs. But as a rule of thumb, the ideal is 20 to 20 with +/-3dB and distortion below .5%. There are exceptions of course and someone is going to pipe up and mention them now. But it’s good to understand what the numbers mean yourself rather than to depend on others. There are too many people who offer advice to whom overkill is never enough.
> 
> There are two interesting videos in my sig file that deal with aspects of sound that are often misunderstood. It has downloadable examples so you can hear for yourself what the numbers mean.



Sorry, if you scroll down there is a FR graph. Let me directly paste them (my bad)

L500:

https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/im...70a4d4c3183f839e/version/1486976117/image.jpg

L300:

https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/im...8293e58b51c26cd2/version/1538657091/image.jpg

L700:

https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/im...1fe8d0fc85b27f11/version/1486976135/image.jpg


----------



## Davesrose

Headphones aren't made with a flat FR: not just for technical reasons but for psychoacoustic reasons as well.  A headphone is a lot different than a loudspeaker in that the driver is sitting over the ear helix.  Our outer ears are important for sound location (certain frequencies are reflected and focused in the ear canal), as well as influencing the FR spectrum.  Many folks like to now refer to the Harmon response curve, for example, which means to study different age groups and come up with a frequency graph that it considers "ideal".


----------



## bigshot (Jul 13, 2019)

I posted this earlier in the thread, but I can't find it now. This is the Harman Curve. Many people consider it to be the ideal response for headphones. It reflects the way speakers sound in a room more closely than flat.







For comparison, this is my Oppo PM-1. I generally give it a 2 or 3dB EQ boost at the top to even out that dip and it puts ir pretty close. Even without the boost, it still is close enough for government work.


----------



## Davesrose (Jul 13, 2019)

Harmon has also been updating their curves pretty regularly....they generate both ideal headphone curves and loudspeaker curves.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Davesrose said:


> Harmon has also been updating their curves pretty regularly....they generate
> both ideal headphone curves and loudspeaker curves.



I approximated a 'Harmon curve' on the EQ in my listening system, and the result was like nails on a blackboard!  That curve accentuates the very parts of the spectrum humans are already most sensitive to!  Ouch!


----------



## Davesrose

TheSonicTruth said:


> I approximated a 'Harmon curve' on the EQ in my listening system, and the result was like nails on a blackboard!  That curve accentuates the very parts of the spectrum humans are already most sensitive to!  Ouch!



Well I'd question your methods as well as what you think as "most sensitive".  We can see that the curve ups upper mids/high FR: areas that are typically considered less sensitive.


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 13, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> Well I'd question . . .what you think as "most sensitive".  We can see that the curve ups upper mids/high FR: areas that are typically considered less sensitive.



Have you ever been exactly wrong before? I have. It’s only human. 

Edit: What I mean is the ear is usually said to be most sensitive in an area centered around 2k-4k or so, just about right where that Harmon curve calls for the most emphasis. That’s just book knowledge, not something your average joe figures out for himself. 

Edit edit, to maximize clarity, add an informal reference, and minimize snarkiness:

https://biology.stackexchange.com/q...the-human-ear-most-sensitive-to-4000-hz-tones


----------



## Davesrose (Jul 13, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> Have you ever been exactly wrong before? I have. It’s only human.



Sure, but can you show me where the Harmon curve has been rejected?

Edit to your edit: Fletcher-Munson curves still don't show a sensitivity to high FR.


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 13, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> Sure, but can you show me where the Harmon curve has been rejected?



 Nope, that Harman curve gets a lot of respect. But so does this (with variations among experts):

https://biology.stackexchange.com/q...the-human-ear-most-sensitive-to-4000-hz-tones

PM-ed you.


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 13, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> I approximated a 'Harmon curve' on the EQ in my listening system, and the result was like nails on a blackboard!  That curve accentuates the very parts of the spectrum humans are already most sensitive to!  Ouch!



It’s quite possible the design of the transducers has already accounted for the Harman curve or something like it, so you could in a sense be piling the Harman curve on top of the Harman curve, which I imagine could be extremely grating.


----------



## Davesrose (Jul 13, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> Nope, that Harman curve gets a lot of respect. But so does this (with variations among experts):
> 
> https://biology.stackexchange.com/q...the-human-ear-most-sensitive-to-4000-hz-tones
> 
> PM-ed you.



Looks like chicken vs eggs to me.  The Harmon curves are FR.  The source you're now citing is also loudness.


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 13, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> Looks like chicken vs eggs to me.  The Harmon curves are FR.  The source you're now citing is loudness.



The point is in developing the loudness curve they ascertained the maximum sensitivity of human hearing was right around 3-4 khz. You wrote that the emphasis of the Harman curve was at the mid to hi frequencies to which the ear is least sensitive. In fact the headphone Harman curve emphasizes almost exactly those frequencies to which the ear is most sensitive, 3-4 khz, which you referenced on the Harman curve. It’s further worth noting that no one can figure out why our ears would have evolved to be most sensitive to those frequencies. The human speech voice is much lower in fundamental frequency (about 80-260 hz?). HTH.


----------



## Davesrose

Steve999 said:


> The point is in developing the loudness curve they ascertained the maximum sensitivity of human hearing was right around 3-4 khz. You wrote that the emphasis of the Harman curve was at this mid to hi frequencies to which the ear is least sensitive. In fact the headphone Harman curve emphasizes almost exactly those frequencies to which the ear is most sensitive, 3-4 khz, which you referenced on the Harman curve. It’s further worth noting that no one can figure out why our ears would have evolved to be most sensitive to those frequencies. The human voice is much lower in frequency. HTH.



Sorry, but think you're splitting hairs.  I said we're less sensitive to high FR (including upper mids).  Upper mids start at 4K, so you're bent on now proving me wrong.  As for physiology, my statement about FR being most protected: it does have to do with the inner ear.  My reference was the cochlea: where cilia in the lower frequencies are exposed to less viscous energy.


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 13, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> Sorry, but think you're splitting hairs.  I said we're less sensitive to high FR (including upper mids).  Upper mids start at 4K, so you're bent on now proving me wrong.  As for physiology, my statement about FR being most protected: it does have to do with the inner ear.  My reference was the cochlea: where cilia in the lower frequencies are exposed to less viscous energy.



I’m just looking at the Harman headphone curve and comparing it to the loudness curve. The headphone Harman curve most emphasizes the frequencies we are most sensitive to, not the ones we are least sensitive to. You said the Harman curve emphasizes the frequencies we are least sensitive to. That’s all I’m saying. It’s just the convergence of two areas where I have a slight amount of book knowledge. That’s it. That and it’s an interesting and somewhat puzzling subject.

Once you get into the structure of the inner ear and the hair cells and fluids in there and parts of the FR range being most protected, I am way out of my depth and would not pretend to hold a serious discussion about it.


----------



## Davesrose

Steve999 said:


> I’m just looking at the Harman headphone curve and comparing it to the loudness curve. The headphone Harman curve emphasizes the frequencies we are most sensitive to, not the ones we are least sensitive to. You said it emphasizes the ones we are least sensitive to. That’s all I’m saying. That and it’s an interesting and somewhat puzzling subject.
> 
> Once you get into the structure of the inner ear and the hair cells and fluids in there and parts of the FR range being most protected, I am way out of my depth and would not pretend to hold a serious discussion about it.



RE physiology: it's funny that my pre-med anatomy class was tought by a professor that was an expert in the pars patorsa (the cranial area that includes the inner ear).  We quickly skimmed the whole muscular system, but had to memorize everything about the inner ear cells.

I'm not sure myself, but there may be another possibility that upper frequencies are boosted in our response curves as a result of being less sensitive.


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 13, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> RE physiology: it's funny that my pre-med anatomy class was tought by a professor that was an expert in the pars patorsa (the cranial area that includes the inner ear).  We quickly skimmed the whole muscular system, but had to memorize everything about the inner ear cells.
> 
> I'm not sure myself, but there may be another possibility that upper frequencies are boosted in our response curves as a result of being less sensitive.



This tries to tie the equal-loudness contour in with the physiology of the ear, though you would be a better judge as to whether it does so successfully than I would:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

I think it’s important to note that there is a section in there with no references (in particular the section on headphone versus loudspeaker testing) as Wikipedia indicates at that section.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 13, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> I approximated a 'Harmon curve' on the EQ in my listening system, and the result was like nails on a blackboard!  That curve accentuates the very parts of the spectrum humans are already most sensitive to!  Ouch!



Did you apply the headphone curve to a speaker system? If not, did you apply the curve to your system after you had calibrated to a true flat response? You can't apply the Harman Curve on top of you headphones' natural curve, and you wouldn't want to apply the Harman Curve for headphones to a speaker system. I'm betting you slapped one curve over the top of another one and came up with a sandwich that didn't resemble the Harman curve at all.



Steve999 said:


> the ear is usually said to be most sensitive in an area centered around 2k-4k or so, just about right where that Harmon curve calls for the most emphasis.



It doesn't have anything to do with human hearing. The purpose of the Harman curve is to recreate what happens to the frequency response when flat speakers are put in a balanced room. The bass blooms to resonate within the space. The upper mids reflect off the walls and get a little more prominent. High treble is absorbed by distance, furniture and rugs and rolls off. 

When we say that commercial music is mixed with a flat frequency response that is just part of the story. The room is the other half, and no one around here ever seems to take the room into consideration. They all think of it as something that introduces error, but that isn't correct. It introduces desirable modifications to the sound too. With headphones you are eliminating the room by shoving the speakers over your ears. So you create a correction that adds some of the beneficial aspects.

I'm not totally up on this stuff, but I can tell you that my cans are very close to the Harman Curve and they sound closer to my speaker system than any other headphones I've tried. They just have a slight dip in the treble and the bass is a little weaker than optimal. But bass isn't headphones' strong point and I can fix the dip with EQ.


----------



## KeithEmo

Evolution tends to operate over very long time scales... and to be driven mostly by things that are pro-survival.
On the evolutionary scale human speech is a relatively new thing.

It makes sense that human hearing has evolved to be most sensitive to hearing things that make us more likely to survive.
Therefore, the sounds we are most sensitive to may be the ones we use to recognize hungry predators, or animals we can safely ignore, or those we can catch and eat.
It's also worth remembering that not every result of evolution is important or even significant.
Having more sensitive hearing in general is certainly a good survival trait.
However, it's quite possible that the particular frequency range we are most sensitive to is simply a "side effect" of how our ears work.

I also might suggest that the frequencies we are most sensitive to are those which are especially useful in determining the direction a sound is coming from.
Our ability to pick out "sound stage" with good accuracy would be very useful in helping us work out which direction the sound of a predator, or a potential meal, is coming from. 

Also remember that evolution works in all directions at once.
It could be that the human voice has evolved to use different registers than the sounds commonly produced by predators and prey...
(Because humans with a voice that is not especially similar to either will be less likely to be mistaken for either when another human hears noises they make.)



Steve999 said:


> The point is in developing the loudness curve they ascertained the maximum sensitivity of human hearing was right around 3-4 khz. You wrote that the emphasis of the Harman curve was at the mid to hi frequencies to which the ear is least sensitive. In fact the headphone Harman curve emphasizes almost exactly those frequencies to which the ear is most sensitive, 3-4 khz, which you referenced on the Harman curve. It’s further worth noting that no one can figure out why our ears would have evolved to be most sensitive to those frequencies. The human speech voice is much lower in fundamental frequency (about 80-260 hz?). HTH.


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 13, 2019)

bigshot said:


> The purpose of the Harman curve is to recreate what happens to the frequency response when flat speakers are put in a balanced room. The bass blooms to resonate within the space. The upper mids reflect off the walls and get a little more prominent. High treble is absorbed by distance, furniture and rugs and rolls off.
> 
> When we say that commercial music is mixed with a flat frequency response that is just part of the story. The room is the other half, and no one around here ever seems to take the room into consideration. They all think of it as something that introduces error, but that isn't correct. It introduces desirable modifications to the sound too. With headphones you are eliminating the room by shoving the speakers over your ears. So you create a correction that adds some of the beneficial aspects.



This is good, thanks. I had some understanding of the concepts but certainly not with this level of clarity and detail. And this helps to resolve what was otherwise counterintuitive to me—that the headphone Harman curve most emphasizes the frequencies to which our ears are most sensitive. It looks like it’s more of a coincidence than anything else.

Also, as you imply, the target Harman curve for speakers in a room looks to be very different than that for headphones. For speakers in a room the emphasis looks to be much more in the bass IIRC (but I’ll double-check myself).


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Steve999 said:


> I’m just looking at the Harman headphone curve and comparing it to the loudness curve. The headphone Harman curve most emphasizes the frequencies we are most sensitive to, not the ones we are least sensitive to. You said the Harman curve emphasizes the frequencies we are least sensitive to. That’s all I’m saying. It’s just the convergence of two areas where I have a slight amount of book knowledge. That’s it. That and it’s an interesting and somewhat puzzling subject.
> 
> Once you get into the structure of the inner ear and the hair cells and fluids in there and parts of the FR range being most protected, I am way out of my depth and would not pretend to hold a serious discussion about it.




I understand where Rose is misinterpreting the ELC(equal loudness countour):  A lot of folks think that the lower parts of that curve are where our hearing is least sensitive.  Completely backwards.  Easy to see why.

The ELC, and it's grand-dad, Fletcher-Munson, graphically depict how loud a sound at, IE, 100Hz would have be to _equal the loudness_ of something at 3 or 4kHz.


----------



## gargani

bigshot said:


> Did you apply the headphone curve to a speaker system? If not, did you apply the curve to your system after you had calibrated to a true flat response? You can't apply the Harman Curve on top of you headphones' natural curve, and you wouldn't want to apply the Harman Curve for headphones to a speaker system. I'm betting you slapped one curve over the top of another one and came up with a sandwich that didn't resemble the Harman curve at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm confused by this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
To my understanding, the Harmon Curve is for headphones, to compensate for how flat speakers sound in an anechoic chamber, as compared to the same speakers in a non-anechoic room.
Why is it needed for headphones; since, they aren't in a room, and therefore wouldn't be affected by room absorotions and reflections? ( assuming, the headphones measured as flat, as the speakers in an anechoic chamber).

All of this is based on my assumption, that flat speakers in an anechoic chamber is the ideal.
Maybe that's not the ideal though, and that's where I'm getting tripped up.


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 14, 2019)

gargani said:


> I'm confused by this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
> To my understanding, the Harmon Curve is for headphones, to compensate for how flat speakers sound in an anechoic chamber, as compared to the same speakers in a non-anechoic room.
> Why is it needed for headphones; since, they aren't in a room, and therefore wouldn't be affected by room absorotions and reflections? ( assuming, the headphones measured as flat, as the speakers in an anechoic chamber).
> 
> ...



Learning as I go—I believe this answers your question directly. Emulating the preferred response of speakers in a room is the starting reference point for the Harman headphone curve. And I think it’s fair to say it’s complicated, and you can get caught in a conceptual circle of confusion on the subject.

Speakers that measure flat in an anechoic chamber as a reference point would be too bright in a room. So that’s not the reference point for the Harman headphone curve. I think.

The Harman headphone curve is intended to deliver by headphone to your ears approximately the frequency response that reaches the ears in a room in which the speakers meet the target Harman in-room speaker response. I think. 

Which is where @bigshot ’s discussion of room effects comes into play. I think.

From the sources themselves, who appear to have wanted to clarify the point among experts:

_[T]he Harman Headphone Target Response matches the preferred in-room loudspeaker response with some tolerances ( +/-1 dB ) in the preferred bass and treble gain._

_The preferred in-room loudspeaker response is a smooth curve from 20 to 20 kHz with about a 9-10 dB downward tilted slope. We agree that a flat in-room response for a loudspeaker will sound too bright and thin. We used that as a baseline for adjustment. In the end, if the loudspeaker has a flat on-axis response you shouldn't need to adjust the treble, but the bass will probably need adjustment depending on the room, and the positioning of the loudspeaker and listener._

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/acoustic-basis-harman-listener-target-curve


----------



## gargani

Steve999 said:


> Learning as I go—I believe this answers your question directly. Emulating the preferred response of speakers in a room is the starting reference point for the Harman headphone curve. And I think it’s fair to say it’s complicated, and you can get caught in a conceptual circle of confusion on the subject.
> 
> Speakers that measure flat in an anechoic chamber as a reference point would be too bright in a room. So that’s not the reference point for the Harman headphone curve. I think.
> 
> ...


Ah, that clears things up for me. My main assumption that the ideal, was a flat response in an anechoic chamber was incorrect.

I'm still finding it counter-intuitive that the target curve calls for such a big boost, centered at 3khz. to 4khz., since that's where human hearing is the most sensitive.


----------



## SilentNote (Jul 14, 2019)

From my understanding, the diffuse field curve is the most neutral / flat. As in if you re-record what is heard at your eardrum, and played it back through the earpiece, and repeat it several times, there should not be too much difference.

Flat signal in, flat signal out.

The harman listener target curve is developed for a different reason - the intended reproduction of music. When a recording studio records music, they “target” the reproduction through a quality hi-fi system in a listening room. Note that this room is not a recording studio and adds “color” to the sound through its walls and ceiling.

The Harman listener target curve attempts to recreate this home listening condition in the IEM. Thus fulfilling the recording studio’s intended playback scenario - making it sound “best”.

Why isn’t flat signal the “best”? Because the recording studio did not record the music intending them to be listened in recording studios, but home theater systems.

Some interesting personal observation: music such as theatrical plays, recorded in the audience perspective (binaural), sound incredibly transparent (even soundstage) with flat iems like the ER4SR. However label recordings always sound better with a colored IEM.

The conclusion is that both target curves are excellent at their intended purpose. For monitoring of microphone recordings? Diffuse field curve flat. For simulating reproduction of home hi-fi? Harman listener target curve.

On other question about human ear sensitivity, our ears most likely evolved to listen to rustling leaves and crackling branches of predators. To miss that is a death sentence. These are both sounds higher than the typical vocal range.

As IEMs bypass the outer half of our ear’s natural amplification system, a good IEM needs to simulate that natural amplification. This tends to be a peak at 2.6-2.8kHz and a roll off at higher frequencies. i.e. the diffuse field curve.

Thus the next time you are auditioning a colored IEM, remember that you are really buying a listening room and a pinna.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 14, 2019)

gargani said:


> I'm confused by this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
> To my understanding, the Harmon Curve is for headphones, to compensate for how flat speakers sound in an anechoic chamber, as compared to the same speakers in a non-anechoic room.



No, it's the opposite. Flat speakers in an anechoic chamber sound flat. The room alters the response and mixing stages aren't anechoic chambers. If you look at a measured response of a good listening room with speakers from the listening position, it looks very much like the Harman Curve.



gargani said:


> I'm still finding it counter-intuitive that the target curve calls for such a big boost, centered at 3khz. to 4khz., since that's where human hearing is the most sensitive.



When you EQ and try to establish a balance for the response, you can see what is happening.  The idea of a listening room isn't to eliminate all of the reflections. It's to eliminate bad reflections. The speakers are only half of the sound of a speaker system. The room is just as important as the speakers. The Harman Curve is an attempt to synthesize the effect of space on sound. That physical space is what creates true soundstage. You can match the affect on the response, but you can't recreate true soundstage with headphones... at least not yet.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jul 14, 2019)

I think you've got pretty much the right idea.

For example, an IEM bypasses the outside of your ear, and the room itself, so we would expect an IEM to sound most natural with a binaural recording.
(A binaural recording is made using a microphone installed in place of an "artificial eardrum"; presumably this would be the exact signal we would want an IEM to deliver directly to our eardrum.)

However, thie issue of "diffuse field curve" and "anechoic curve" is far more complex.
(With speakers, we're attempting to duplicate the signal part-way on its way to our ear.)

In an anechoic chamber, there are no reflections, so all you hear is sound travelling directly from the speaker to your ear.

However, in a room, you are hearing two distinct sorts of sound.
The direct sound from the speaker arrives at your ear first (because it travels the shortest path).
Then, after various amounts of delay, sound arrives at your ear that has been reflected from one or more room surfaces.
This sound that arrives later is not only delayed - but its frequency response is altered by the acoustic properties of the room (different surfaces absorb more or less of different frequencies).
So, in a room, what you hear is a mix of the direct sound, and the sum of the reflected sound, which may itself vary over time.
To make this even more complex, our brains interpret "duplicate sounds arriving after a delay" differently depending on the length of the delay..
To slightly oversimplify things, we tend to hear reflected sounds that arrive after a long delay as "an echo", but sounds that arrive soon after the original simply make it seem louder.
(So, for example, if a room is very reflective at high frequencies, reflections from near walls make things sound "brighter", but reflections from far walls sound like distinct echoes.)

When we use some sort of meter or software to measure the frequency respons eof a speaker in a room we get to choose how we do so.
We can take a measurement very quickly, after the direct sound has had time to arrive, but before the reflected sound can arrive at the microphone.
(This is virtually the same as the response would be in an anechoic chamber.)
Or we can take a measurement over a period of several seconds, and average the total together.
(This is sometimes called "the power response" or 'the average response" and is influenced by the acoustics of the room; this is what you measure with a classic "SPL meter".)
Or we can measure both, and use the difference to tell us a lot about the acoustics of the room.
HOWEVER, it's pointless to argue that one or the other is "more correct", because our brain hears and analyzes both, and derives information from both, and from the difference between them.
This is why you cannot make "a live room sound dead", or vice versa, by using EQ.... because you can adjust EITHER the direct sound, or the total direct + reflected sound....
But the ratio between the two is directly tied to the PHYSICAL acoustic properties of the room.
(You can add some phony echoes by creating them electronically and adding themartificially... but you cannot remove excess room reflections other than by preventing them.)




SilentNote said:


> From my understanding, the diffuse field curve is the most neutral / flat. As in if you re-record what is heard at your eardrum, and played it back through the earpiece, and repeat it several times, there should not be too much difference.
> 
> Flat signal in, flat signal out.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

With multichannel, you can alter the timing between the front and rear channels to create cancellation or synthetic reverb that would make the recording sound either dead or live. It would be hard to totally control that in the real world though.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jul 14, 2019)

Exactly - but only within limitations.
It's realtively simple to create "fake room reverberation" - although the results often sound less than perfectly natural.
However, you cannot reduce room reverberation effectively, because you cannot "cancel out" existing sound using additional sound.
(Some software, like Izotope RX, can actually do this to a degree, by "clipping off the reverb tails".... but can only do under limited circumstances.)

Many people have the idea that, using some sort of advanced room correction, you can "cancel out sounds you don't want using out-of-phase signals".
(So that, for example, you could "correct for an excessively live room.)
The reality, of course, is that this is impossible.
If you measure a certain sound at a certain spot, and you wish to "remove" it, you can indeed generate an out-of-phase signal that exactly cancels it out.
You will have deliberately generated a "null".
However, that cancellation will only work as intended at one single precise spot in three-dimensional space.
At every other spot in space, not only will the original signal remain, but you will have added a second signal to it, which will add or subtract from it in complex patterns.
(You might as well try to cancel out a reflection from a flashlight by using another flashlight.)

The dimensions involved are related to the wavelength of the frequency involved.
At 20 Hz, which has a wavelength of about 50 feet, you could create a null several feet across.
However, at 10 kHz, where the wavelength is about one inch, cancellation would create a "comb effect", with peaks and nulls about an inch apart.



bigshot said:


> With multichannel, you can alter the timing between the front and rear channels to create cancellation or synthetic reverb that would make the recording sound either dead or live. It would be hard to totally control that in the real world though.


----------



## gargani

bigshot said:


> No, it's the opposite. Flat speakers in an anechoic chamber sound flat. The room alters the response and mixing stages aren't anechoic chambers. If you look at a measured response of a good listening room with speakers from the listening position, it looks very much like the Harman Curve.
> 
> 
> 
> When you EQ and try to establish a balance for the response, you can see what is happening.  The idea of a listening room isn't to eliminate all of the reflections. It's to eliminate bad reflections. The speakers are only half of the sound of a speaker system. The room is just as important as the speakers. The Harman Curve is an attempt to synthesize the effect of space on sound. That physical space is what creates true soundstage. You can match the affect on the response, but you can't recreate true soundstage with headphones... at least not yet.


Yes, I understand now, that the ideal is not to recreate the sound of a speaker in an anechoic chamber.
I guess ,as Steve999 said, that the called for boost, peaking at 3khz. to 4khz., is just coincidental to human hearing being the most sensitive in that area.


----------



## castleofargh

a bunch of things to correct here before continuing the discussion:
1/ the development of the Harman curve was made to find a target that is preferred by most listeners. the all thing about using flat speakers in a room as reference to tune the HD800 is true but it was only the initial curve to start one of the experiments they conducted at the beginning. in that experiment alone the listeners had deviated from it by choosing something warmer. and they ran many more listening tests over several years in different places to help fine tune people's preference(because some of the first EQs were just a bass knob and a treble knob, or multiple headphone choices) to lead to their target, one for headphones one for IEMs.

2/ the curves you usually find are stuff someone made himself. the one previously posted is an older version of the curve made by Tyll(the real innerfidelity). and even then it apparently didn't work on his own measurements as he felt compelled to alter the curve himself by ear before presenting so called examples of how a few headphone graphs would look like under that compensation curve. something I found troubling at the time because IMO it gaves a false idea about that curve and also about the type of measurements we could use to just go and apply the compensation to get the real Harman response. basically we have a general idea of what the curve looks like, which is a somewhat tilted toward warm DF compensation with some more bass boost. but that's about it for me, I don't have their measurement gears or calibration, my graphs may or may not give the Harman curve after I apply one of the graphs you find online that often doesn't actually come from Harman. and yet, I find myself going in that general direction of warmer DF+bass. so I want to support their curve if only for being a step in the right direction, IMO. 

3/ some of you are discussing apples and oranges when talking about the midrange boost. speaker measurements are usually done with a mic that has nothing to do with a human ear. when you see flat(electrically flat), we call the response flat. 
now when you measure the same speakers with a dummy head, you get the midrange bump on a RAW measurement. because a dummy head was acoustically designed to mimic an average human head and ears. I'm going chicken and the egg about this to say that we have a midrange boost naturally installed in our body. you can also see it on the DF compensation for headphones, which has been one of the most used standard in headphone measurements. so criticizing that boost makes no sense as it's only visible on a graph because the measurement coupler is imitating a human ear. 
of course the actual boost may be more significant for one person and less for another. it might not be centered exactly at the same frequency(it will still usually be within about 1kHz in that area), but on average the midrange boost is as accurate as we know it to be(yes, it did involve cadavers). and a little clue for those who doubt what I'm saying, what do you imagine to be the main cause for our superior midrange sensitivity in the first place?


all this to say that one doesn't have to prefer that curve(if you happen to know what it is and which graphs it can actually be applied onto), different people are indeed physically different in some ways and the numerous Harman studies were aiming at a general preference, not at a unanimous one.


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 14, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> a bunch of things to correct here before continuing the discussion:
> 1/ the development of the Harman curve was made to find a target that is preferred by most listeners. the all thing about using flat speakers in a room as reference to tune the HD800 is true but it was only the initial curve to start one of the experiments they conducted at the beginning. in that experiment alone the listeners had deviated from it by choosing something warmer. and they ran many more listening tests over several years in different places to help fine tune people's preference(because some of the first EQs were just a bass knob and a treble knob, or multiple headphone choices) to lead to their target, one for headphones one for IEMs.
> 
> 2/ the curves you usually find are stuff someone made himself. the one previously posted is an older version of the curve made by Tyll(the real innerfidelity). and even then it apparently didn't work on his own measurements as he felt compelled to alter the curve himself by ear before presenting so called examples of how a few headphone graphs would look like under that compensation curve. something I found troubling at the time because IMO it gaves a false idea about that curve and also about the type of measurements we could use to just go and apply the compensation to get the real Harman response. basically we have a general idea of what the curve looks like, which is a somewhat tilted toward warm DF compensation with some more bass boost. but that's about it for me, I don't have their measurement gears or calibration, my graphs may or may not give the Harman curve after I apply one of the graphs you find online that often doesn't actually come from Harman. and yet, I find myself going in that general direction of warmer DF+bass. so I want to support their curve if only for being a step in the right direction, IMO.
> ...



Okay, I think I might be almost starting to understand this. So the headphone Harman curve is what the the average preferred speaker in a room will look like when measured from inside the ear when you measure headphones? And the midrange bump is because If you stick a mic in an ear the way you measure a headphone if you are playing back from a speaker in a room with the preferred Harmon speaker in a room response that’s the frequency response you’ll get from the mic in the ear (on a average) receiving that sound? And the reason is the ear is indeed more sensitive in that area and the ear has already focused the sound in that way to form that midrange emphasis by the time the mic measures it in the ear?


----------



## GearMe

so...if a piece of music, say an acoustic jazz quartet, is made to target the Harman curve, it's not as 'Audibly Transparent' or 'High Fidelity' as it could be  (i.e. it's been EQ'd for the masses)?


----------



## castleofargh (Jul 14, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> So the headphone Harman curve is what the the average preferred speaker in a room will look like when measured from inside the ear when you measure headphones?


no,that was only what they started with because of the assumption that people liked that in speakers so why not try on headphones. but then the test subjects had an EQ and changed things to what they preferred, and the trend was for something warmer, then many more experiments many more data many more options to pick their favorite signature, and at some point they ended up with their target response. the flat speakers in a room was simply the starting point for the listening tests, they had to start somewhere, they went for that. it could have been electrically flat for example, but they already knew that nobody would want that crap, so instead they tried to start with something else.



Steve999 said:


> And the midrange bump is because If you stick a mic in an ear the way you measure a headphone if you are playing back from a speaker in a room with the preferred Harmon speaker in a room response that’s the frequency response you’ll get from the mic in the ear (on a average) receiving that sound?


if you stick a mic at the eardrum of somebody who doesn't mind, and measure a flat speaker, you will measure a midrange bump caused by the acoustic of the ear.  when you see headphone measurements they're done most of the time with a dummy head that also has that acoustic model(a fake ear canal and fake ear), so they measure a bump. it doesn't mean it's going to feel like a bump to us, a flat speaker does sound flat because everything we hear is boosted in the midrange, that's what we call natural sound. we never really hear flat sound IRL.  the measurements are just showing that because it's how our ears change the sound.

is it clearer that way?


----------



## castleofargh

GearMe said:


> so...if a piece of music, say an acoustic jazz quartet, is made to target the Harman curve, it's not as 'Audibly Transparent' or 'High Fidelity' as it could be  (i.e. it's been EQ'd for the masses)?


the Harman curve is an attempt to find a preferred target for headphones, it has nothing to do with a jazz band or how it would be mixed/mastered. and even if we assume you're talking about how we'd EQ our headphone, that would not be a claim about neutrality. they never claimed that. some may assume it is so because in general we tend to like flat response on speakers, but just the lack of tactile bass in the subjective experience with headphones will tend to mess with the chance that we're looking for the same thing. many people say that we're overly boosting the low end simply because we try to get a feeling of tactile bass again and we assume that more bass is the way. I find that to be a pretty reasonable idea.


----------



## Steve999

castleofargh said:


> no,that was only what they started with because of the assumption that people liked that in speakers so why not try on headphones. but then the test subjects had an EQ and changed things to what they preferred, and the trend was for something warmer, then many more experiments many more data many more options to pick their favorite signature, and at some point they ended up with their target response. the flat speakers in a room was simply the starting point for the listening tests, they had to start somewhere, they went for that. it could have been electrically flat for example, but they already knew that nobody would want that crap, so instead they tried to start with something else.
> 
> 
> if you stick a mic at the eardrum of somebody who doesn't mind, and measure a flat speaker, you will measure a midrange bump caused by the acoustic of the ear.  when you see headphone measurements they're done most of the time with a dummy head that also has that acoustic model(a fake ear canal and fake ear), so they measure a bump. it doesn't mean it's going to feel like a bump to us, a flat speaker does sound flat because everything we hear is boosted in the midrange, that's what we call natural sound. we never really hear flat sound IRL.  the measurements are just showing that because it's how our ears change the sound.
> ...


----------



## GearMe (Jul 14, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> the Harman curve is an attempt to find a preferred target for headphones, it has nothing to do with a jazz band or how it would be mixed/mastered. and even if we assume you're talking about how we'd EQ our headphone, that would not be a claim about neutrality. they never claimed that. some may assume it is so because in general we tend to like flat response on speakers, but just the lack of tactile bass in the subjective experience with headphones will tend to mess with the chance that we're looking for the same thing. many people say that we're overly boosting the low end simply because we try to get a feeling of tactile bass again and we assume that more bass is the way. I find that to be a pretty reasonable idea.



Thanks for the reply...yeah I know it doesn't have to do with a specific genre of music...giving an example. 

Just wanted to clarify that an industry leading methodology sounds like it's not targeting 'audibly transparent' or 'flat' or 'high fidelity' the way many folks think/talk/write about it.  In reality, it sounds like they asked/tested people's listening preferences and have constructed Headphone / IEM curves that satisfy the majority of them.

As far as the genres go, the questions I'd have are, when they sampled listener preferences, did they try to account for genre preferences, listening capability differences (young vs old), etc.?

Anecdotally, my son could listen to the Dave Brubeck Quartet and probably...
a. not really be interested and therefore his answers may not reflect those of a different segment of the population (i.e. acoustic jazz fans)
b. like it better on TH900's instead of HD800's -- simply because Eugene Wright's solos carry a bit more weight (drop that bass!) 

Same goes for me listening to some of the music genres that he likes!  I'm pretty sure headphone selection wouldn't matter to me on some popular music.

That said, we both like Dave Matthews Band, Zac Brown Band, and others.  Even so, I'd bet he'd choose to listen to them through different cans than I would...for several reasons.


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 14, 2019)

gargani said:


> Yes, I understand now, that the ideal is not to recreate the sound of a speaker in an anechoic chamber.
> I guess ,as Steve999 said, that the called for boost, peaking at 3khz. to 4khz., is just coincidental to human hearing being the most sensitive in that area.



Not just a coincidence! Our counterintuitive alarms were trying to tell us something! See @castleofargh ‘s posts four and seven posts up.


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 14, 2019)

GearMe said:


> Thanks for the reply...yeah I know it doesn't have to do with a specific genre of music...giving an example.
> 
> Just wanted to clarify that an industry leading methodology sounds like it's not targeting 'audibly transparent' or 'flat' or 'high fidelity' the way many folks think/talk/write about it.  In reality, it sounds like they asked/tested people's listening preferences and have constructed Headphone / IEM curves that satisfy the majority of them.
> 
> ...



I know Harman classifies listeners into skill levels. I think there are something like twelve. Getting up to seven is supposed to be pretty darn difficult. The “Harman” trained listeners tend to get the highest scores. Big surprise. The listening seems to be based on discerning audio quality rather than skill in musical listening. Musicians had a bit of an edge over your average Joe, but not so much as you might expect. IIRC.

I don’t know how their studies play out in terms of genre.

I also understand that other companies have their own data and techniques, but they are not as transparent about it all. For all we know another company could have better data, IMHO.

I’ve seen at least one slide from the Harman presentations that showed professional reviewers as a group had the very lowest predictive value for what people will like.

I also saw one slide where Consumer Reports’ findings very highly or most highly correlated with with Harman’s ascertained user preferences for headphones.

I am with what you are intimating philosophically, there are so many variables between the recording process and mastering and speaker production and trying to cater to preferences and types of listening on different speakers while mastering and characteristics of consumer speakers intended or not and listening rooms that there is no brass ring as far as transparency of transducers. Some people in some of these fields point to the lack of standardization in the audio chain from production to consumer as a problem, arguing that we could get closer to a precise concept of fidelity if there was standardization along the chain. They compare it to calibration of TVs or movie sound. My gut reaction is to ask would that leave less room to bend the rules, for artistic license, for trying new ideas, etc.

I think it’s nice to have a system where you are getting close enough so you know you are getting in some range of a reasonable approximation of what was nebulously “intended.” I have one system kind of for that, within a pretty modest budget. Otherwise I am like you, if I remember what you’ve said correctly, the point to where my enjoying the music a lot is not necessarily dependent on a relatively high level of fidelity. The beauty is in how much we enjoy music, not chasing an imaginary ideal audio system. IMHO, YMMV, IIRC, & etc.


----------



## castleofargh

GearMe said:


> Thanks for the reply...yeah I know it doesn't have to do with a specific genre of music...giving an example.
> 
> Just wanted to clarify that an industry leading methodology sounds like it's not targeting 'audibly transparent' or 'flat' or 'high fidelity' the way many folks think/talk/write about it.  In reality, it sounds like they asked/tested people's listening preferences and have constructed Headphone / IEM curves that satisfy the majority of them.
> 
> ...


they did many things, it's too bad that the papers were only available for free a short period of time after each was published. but you can probably find Sean Olive talking about some of it in videos.
they tested age and found no significant difference, they went to several continents to see if there could be cultural or genetic differences and apparently didn't find any(with the caveat that they didn't go test isolated population deep in the amazonian forest or that kind of stuff). I had many critics(and praises) about their job when they presented the first papers, because I thought that was it and it was clearly incomplete. but as the years went by and they kept testing new stuff depending on the results of previous tests and questions they came up with(you know, real science). so I can say that it's probably the most extensive and serious study about subjective preference of headphone signature. I doubt any internal study by any big firm went as deep as they did with as much rigor. 

I don't remember specifically when the listeners could pick the songs or if the choice was limited in genre, so I don't want to tell you something wrong. but I would assume that they have answered that type of problem at least a decade or 2 ago with their extensive research on listening tests with speakers. my guess would be that there is a matter of music genre involved but that it falls under the vast mystery of audio's circle of confusion, where at some point people master a certain type of music because they expect it to be played mostly on certain types of systems, and soon enough people start thinking that they need a system with a specific signature to best enjoy that genre, close the loop and enjoy ^_^.


----------



## gargani

Steve999 said:


> Not just a coincidence! Our counterintuitive alarms were trying to tell us something! See @castleofargh ‘s posts four and seven posts up.


Yes, I saw that. Thanks to yourself, castleofargh, and bigshot for your inputs.
I now understand the theory and process used to derive the harmon curve.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 14, 2019)

GearMe said:


> so...if a piece of music, say an acoustic jazz quartet, is made to target the Harman curve, it's not as 'Audibly Transparent' or 'High Fidelity' as it could be  (i.e. it's been EQ'd for the masses)?



No, the opposite is true. Music is mixed on calibrated speaker systems in a room. The Harman Curve is an attempt to duplicate that experience as closely as possible with headphones.

The thing people are missing is that every set of headphones you buy already has a response curve. If you apply a Harman Curve to that, you're stacking "mountains on top of  mountains". The curve of the headphones is being added to the Harman Curve. In order to apply the Harman Curve, you first have to EQ the cans flat. Then you know you aren't adding or subtracting anything because of stacking two curves on top of each other. No headphones are flat out of the box. It's a two step EQ process... 1) achieving flat response in the headphones 2) applying the Harman Curve to that.

Another misconception is that a response curve can be "perfect". Any target response is just a starting point. It isn't a destination. Every person's ear is different, every set of transducers is different, every room is different. A studio environment can be calibrated pretty tightly because the room is designed and built from the ground up for that specific purpose. A normal living room can't because it's designed for a completely different purpose. So for a home, you make compromises and adjust the target curve to fit your particular circumstances. A little more salt here... a little more pepper there... until you the listener is satisfied.

There are some things that can't be strictly objective because everyone's hearing and situation is different. But if you start with a target curve, you are beginning from a firm calibration. If you wander off too far, you can always snap back to calibration and try something else. Eventually you arrive at a response curve that is perfect for you, and that becomes your own target response.

I find that the Harman Curve is almost identical to my own personal target response. A lot of other people feel that way about it too. That makes it a good place to start.

I'm going to post this another time and point out something I didn't mention before...







If you notice, that green line is the response curve of a calibrated speaker system in a room from the main listening position. Notice how closely it follows the target. The difference is only in the bass. I think that is because in a room, bass flows across the floor like water and comes at the listener from all directions. With headphones, the bass is contained, so you have to boost the level a bit to make it feel as enveloping as it would in a room. That is just a guess though. I might be wrong.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 14, 2019)

Sadly, one of the headphones whose raw response closely matches Harman - NAD's VISO HP50 - is discontinued after only five years on the market(it debuted in 2013).  At less than $150msrp, it seemed like good competition to the venerable MDR-7506.

Wish I'd heard about this can sooner. Coulda-woulda-shoulda!


----------



## bigshot

my cans that are very close have been discontinued too. Good reason to EQ


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> If you notice, that green line is the response curve of a calibrated speaker system in a room from the main listening position. Notice how closely it follows the target.


I guess it's a matter of defining "close". if by that you mean the general shape beside the low end, then sure it's very similar. but then we had that with the diffuse field compensation that's been used for headphone graph for so many years before. it also "closely follows" that general shape. 
the problem being that almost everybody I talked to over the years(myself included because I talk to myself a lot ^_^), disliked something tuned to DF target and thought it had clearly too much amplitude in the upper freqs. so if that small of a change(if we pretend not to see the massive bass boost) can move opinions from "meh, and too bright", to apparently the preferred response on average for people, maybe it shouldn't be treated as a small change? I know I'm clearly nitpicking here, but I feel like I should.


----------



## bigshot

Any target curve is a generalization. Different people will want to adjust to their own taste. It's allowed. Modifying target curves isn't a mortal sin, thank goodness!


----------



## SilentNote

It seems to me the diffuse field curve successfully characterizes the amplification done naturally by our pinna, but failed to take into account of the amplification of the listening environment. What Harman is doing is accounting for the bypassed listening environment as well. This obviously has a lot of subjectivity in it as there is no objectively correct listening environment, and thus is preference based and a statistical average is taken.

Still, everyone's pinna and "expected" listening environment varies so nothing beats auditioning with your own ears if you are looking for that magical pair of IEM for yourself.


----------



## castleofargh

SilentNote said:


> It seems to me the diffuse field curve successfully characterizes the amplification done naturally by our pinna, but failed to take into account of the amplification of the listening environment. What Harman is doing is accounting for the bypassed listening environment as well. This obviously has a lot of subjectivity in it as there is no objectively correct listening environment, and thus is preference based and a statistical average is taken.
> 
> Still, everyone's pinna and "expected" listening environment varies so nothing beats auditioning with your own ears if you are looking for that magical pair of IEM for yourself.


yup, the big issue with a purely objective approach for headphones or for that matter IEMs, is that we have to assume that the tactile bass from sound in natural environments or in speakers isn't a factor. because if we say it is, then the solution is to actually provide tactile vibrations to the body. and we have to figure out, how, how much, if only a part of the body is enough and if not if a boost will compensate for missing the rest of the body, etc. well we already know that basically any physical vibration even at the wrong frequency does give an impression of more bass presence. but figuring out the rest isn't simple, and would require ultimately to accept a sort of standard for shakers' implementation. or just for the sake of determining a curve for headphones, use a woofer with the headphone, properly figure out the upper frequency and then go crazy over how to simulate the low end better? IDK
the other elephant in the room IMO, is how we listen to stereo albums mastered on/for speakers. so even if we bother with some ideal room and just the right amount of reflection, and sources at 30° when using a nice dummy head, in the end if the music we listen to on headphones, doesn't send the left channel to the right with the proper delay and correction as speakers do, then that reference loses a good deal of its purpose. because the subjective difference is not trivial. if we had the all thing identical to speaker playback, then of course I would expect the preferred sound on speakers to also be the preferred sound on headphones. but that's not what we're working with in practice, so the objective approach has to work on many assumptions and IMO turns out to be fairly incomplete. which is why I appreciate how Harman went for listening preference instead of trying to go pure objective approach on that one.  
but of course at the end of the day I also EQ to my own taste and don't really care what other people like or not. that's a headphone user's privilege.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jul 15, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> yup, the big issue with a purely objective approach for headphones or for that matter IEMs, is that we have to assume that the tactile bass from sound in natural environments or in speakers isn't a factor. because if we say it is, then the solution is to actually provide tactile vibrations to the body. and we have to figure out, how, how much, if only a part of the body is enough and if not if a boost will compensate for missing the rest of the body, etc. well we already know that basically any physical vibration even at the wrong frequency does give an impression of more bass presence. but figuring out the rest isn't simple, and would require ultimately to accept a sort of standard for shakers' implementation. or just for the sake of determining a curve for headphones, use a woofer with the headphone, properly figure out the upper frequency and then go crazy over how to simulate the low end better? IDK
> the other elephant in the room IMO, is how we listen to stereo albums mastered on/for speakers. so even if we bother with some ideal room and just the right amount of reflection, and sources at 30° when using a nice dummy head, in the end if the music we listen to on headphones, doesn't send the left channel to the right with the proper delay and correction as speakers do, then that reference loses a good deal of its purpose. because the subjective difference is not trivial. if we had the all thing identical to speaker playback, then of course I would expect the preferred sound on speakers to also be the preferred sound on headphones. but that's not what we're working with in practice, so the objective approach has to work on many assumptions and IMO turns out to be fairly incomplete. which is why I appreciate how Harman went for listening preference instead of trying to go pure objective approach on that one.
> but of course at the end of the day I also EQ to my own taste and don't really care what other people like or not. that's a headphone user's privilege.



One of your best posts so far.

Things along the above lines started LONG TIME AGO - still firmly in the pure analog domain, with CD launch still at least a decade in the future.

All of the issues mentioned have been tackled by various manufacturers from the past - partly, one, maybe two issues at the time - but never all together. The times were not yet ripe, the technology - or better said, profitability of such an endavour - has been at anything but reasonable investment return level. Nor has been the headphone market at anything like the magnitude it is today - where it, effectively, holds the lion's share of R & D in all of  audio today.

Harman Kardons approach with curve is the easiest way out possible - and does NOT address enough issues if we are finally to experience the sound of reproduction of recorded sound via both loudspeakers and headphones to converge towards similar>same impression - that of the sound heard in a live performance.

Issues not covered by HK:

1.) Type of headphones. Open air, semi closed, closed back.
BIG DIFFERENCE - as it governs human ability to use - or not to use - intraaural time/frequency information and the use of our outer ears (pinna).

An open air ( ear speaker ) "headphone" like AKG K-1000 ( or its successor, MySphere 3.x ) does allow for completely undisturbed natural use of our ears and head - whereas closed back (and IEMs ) completely prevent our natural ability to hear. With semi closed somewhere in between. Open air type require (almost) no individual compensation, closed backs and IEMs require crossfeed and frequency compensation because of the lost frequency filtering of our outer ear ( pinna ) - which gets completely avoided by IEMs. The more the headphone or earphone is removed from the open air design, the more and more complex and individually adjusted processing it requires. While hit/miss/chase/almost got it approach with curve(s) can bring an improvement, the total lack of crossfeed ( if and when required ) leaves LOTS to be desired.

2.) Type of loudspeaker. Point source, Line source or Dipole.
Again, BIG DIFFERENCE.

The primary difference among the three basic types ( or what actual loudspeakers approximate to in real life ) is their interface with room; the most affected being the point source ( omnidirectional, exciting room resonances in all directions/planes equally ), the least affected being the dipole ( does not radiate in its plane at all - its polar characteristics is figure of eight ) - with line source being in between the two extremes.

To lump such diverse interaction of the speaker basic types into a single curve for listening with headphones is a gross approximation - at best.

3.) There has been at least one commercially available loudspeaker line using "crossfeed in reverse" - Polk Audio. Again taking in consideration human head dimensions and spacing between the ears - something all other loudspeaker manufacturers "gloss" over. https://en.polkaudio.com/discover/sda-technology
https://polksda.com/

Above is only the tip of the iceberg, visible from the surface. We all know the vast bulk of the iceberg is hidden below the waves ... - but today's technology AND market penetration by headphones should yield a commercially viable solution in reasonable future.

Just don't delude yourself it can be done - at least not well - with a "curve" alone.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

castleofargh said:


> yup, the big issue with a purely objective approach for headphones or for that matter IEMs, is that we have to assume that the tactile bass from sound in natural environments or in speakers isn't a factor. because if we say it is, then the solution is to actually provide tactile vibrations to the body. and we have to figure out, how, how much, if only a part of the body is enough and if not if a boost will compensate for missing the rest of the body, etc. well we already know that basically any physical vibration even at the wrong frequency does give an impression of more bass presence. but figuring out the rest isn't simple, and would require ultimately to accept a sort of standard for shakers' implementation. or just for the sake of determining a curve for headphones, use a woofer with the headphone, properly figure out the upper frequency and then go crazy over how to simulate the low end better? IDK
> the other elephant in the room IMO, is how we listen to stereo albums mastered on/for speakers. so even if we bother with some ideal room and just the right amount of reflection, and sources at 30° when using a nice dummy head, in the end if the music we listen to on headphones, doesn't send the left channel to the right with the proper delay and correction as speakers do, then that reference loses a good deal of its purpose. because the subjective difference is not trivial. if we had the all thing identical to speaker playback, then of course I would expect the preferred sound on speakers to also be the preferred sound on headphones. but that's not what we're working with in practice, so the objective approach has to work on many assumptions and IMO turns out to be fairly incomplete. which is why I appreciate how Harman went for listening preference instead of trying to go pure objective approach on that one.
> but of course at the end of the day I also EQ to my own taste and don't really care what other people like or not. that's a headphone user's privilege.



Personal example:  A lot of people point out the high-freq spike(around 9.5kHz) on the Sony MDR-7506.  My hearing is already down 4dB at 8kHz, and I can barely hear above 12kHz anyway. And the rest of their signature is neutral enough to my ears.


----------



## taffy2207 (Jul 15, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Personal example:  A lot of people point out the high-freq spike(around 9.5kHz) on the Sony MDR-7506.  My hearing is already down 4dB at 8kHz, and I can barely hear above 12kHz anyway. And the rest of their signature is neutral enough to my ears.



I get the same thing with my phones. They're known for having peaky treble but I barely notice as I'm 48. My wife is 29 and has the same set up as I have and it bothers her more than me, but not that much. They sound like bliss 99% of the time to my old ears. I wouldn't recommend them to anyone though, they're far too eccentric, but, thankfully so am I.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> Well for example, a lot of end listeners like a particular headphone because it has lots of 'boom & sizzle' - either a recessed midrange response, or exaggerated low end and top, VS one that both sounds and measures relatively neutral, or flat.
> Do both hypothetical example phones each contribute, in their own way, some value to production(tracking, mixing, mastering, monitoring live, etc)?



They can, individually, sometimes. For example, headphones that "a lot of end listeners like" might be good as a reference when mastering, headphones which are flatter and exaggerate detail would be good when editing, isolation and a weak bass are priorities for monitoring a cue mix (by the musicians), etc. In other words, there are different requirements for different jobs and different job roles. There is no single headphone that can do all the required jobs well and there can't be, because the requirements are sometimes contradictory/mutually exclusive. It would be like trying to find one car that fulfils the roles of; small city car, large family cruiser, pick-up truck and race car. It would necessarily be compromised in at least one, if not all of these different roles.



analogsurviver said:


> [1] .... All of these place ( next to none) emphasis of being flexible; their sole purpose is to offer maximum sound quality, everything else - cost included - be damned.
> [2] If you have not seen - ever - any of these in studios, then the right question to ask is just what quality studios those were/are.
> [2a] Look at pics of any serious recording session(s) by better recording engineers ... - and you should quickly spot the headphones mentioned above.



1. That their "sole purpose is to offer maximum sound quality" is why they are NOT pro headphones! Firstly, "maximum sound quality" from headphones would only be useful under certain conditions/situations and even then, they still have to be practical, (durable, easy to carry around, quick to interface with studio equipment, etc.).

2. Firstly, the only headphones studios tend to own are those supplied to the musicians for listening to the cue mix. The different headphones used by the different engineers are generally considered "personal items", owned by the engineers themselves rather than the studios. I'm sure some engineers use some esoteric audiophile headphones but very few and the occasions where they would be the appropriate headphones for the job are very rare. Secondly, we've already ascertained (several times) that you have very little/limited experience of commercial recording studios and certainly not world class ones, so you should be asking yourself that question!
2a. That's what you're going on, staged publicity photos of recording sessions? Oh dear!

Again, you have no actual pro training/experience and little/no idea of why/how real professionals work, you just make-up false "facts" to suit your agenda and have convinced yourself you know all about professional/commercial recording and production from your purely amateur experience! 



Steve999 said:


> [1] It’s further worth noting that no one can figure out why our ears would have evolved to be most sensitive to those frequencies.
> [2] The human speech voice is much lower in fundamental frequency (about 80-260 hz?).



1. I don't believe that's entirely the case. We may not have absolute proof but there's very strong circumstantial evidence.

2. Your figures aren't really accurate but even if they were, it would be largely irrelevant, as fundamental frequency gives us relatively little information as far as human speech is concerned. The fundamental frequency of some sounds common in speech can be as high as 1kHz and extremely rarely is there any content at 80Hz. Also, the harmonics in speech are vital, they provide much of the information regarding the speaker's mood, intentions and meaning. Human speech can cover a range of 80Hz - 12kHz but the most vital range is about 200Hz - 6kHz, while the area around 2.5kHz - 3.5kHz is particularly important for clarity/intelligibility. As far as I'm aware, our sensitivity around 3kHz is due to that being the resonant frequency of the ear canal and it seems more than a little coincidental that this is also a particularly important frequency area for speech. Regarding evolution, complex spoken language appears to be a defining characteristic that's unique to our particular sub-species and possibly even to our sub-sub-species! Early Homo Sapiens (c. 200k-100k years ago) had a significantly different vocal tract physiology compared to Homo Sapiens of c. 100k-50k years ago and they wouldn't have been capable of all the vocalisations required by complex spoken languages.

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> They can, individually, sometimes. For example, headphones that "a lot of end listeners like" might be good as a reference when mastering, headphones which are flatter and exaggerate detail would be good when editing, isolation and a weak bass are priorities for monitoring a cue mix (by the musicians), etc. In other words, there are different requirements for different jobs and different job roles. There is no single headphone that can do all the required jobs well and there can't be, because the requirements are sometimes contradictory/mutually exclusive. I



Thanks!  

That's what I was after with that question.


----------



## johnn29

bigshot said:


> If you notice, that green line is the response curve of a calibrated speaker system in a room from the main listening position. Notice how closely it follows the target. The difference is only in the bass. I think that is because in a room, bass flows across the floor like water and comes at the listener from all directions. With headphones, the bass is contained, so you have to boost the level a bit to make it feel as enveloping as it would in a room. That is just a guess though. I might be wrong.



From Tyll Hertens presentation on the Harmen target curve he mentioned that the bass boost likely reflects the boundary gain when a flat in an anechoic chamber loud speaker is placed in a real room.

That video is really great for anyone interested in this stuff.


----------



## castleofargh

I get it, you guys are messing with me on purpose, replacing the last A in Harman by any other vowel.  
I'm calling the police.


----------



## johnn29

Harmon curve?

Another good video on it with Sean Olive 

Particularly telling was that an IEM EQ'd to the Harmon curve beat out all others in the price to preference correlation study. The host even Jokes that you can't take a 32 band EQ on the plane with you... but with autoeq that's easy on a phone or laptop


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> I get it, you guys are messing with me on purpose, replacing the last A in Harman by any other vowel.
> I'm calling the police.



And you're using capital letters and punctuation. I'm going to report that!


----------



## bigshot

johnn29 said:


> From Tyll Hertens presentation on the Harmen target curve he mentioned that the bass boost likely reflects the boundary gain when a flat in an anechoic chamber loud speaker is placed in a real room.



That's basically the same as when I read in a Victrola users manual that the machine is best placed in the corner of a room. The walls act like an extension of the horn to magnify the low end.


----------



## james444

As others have said, avoid getting too anal about target curves, since they're based on averaged data, whereas the curves for individuals tend to vary significantly.

Here are some examples of eardrum level measurements picked from various studies - grey areas show standard deviation:







And here's an example picked from the Harman study, measured in-ear responses for several subjects with the same headphone. Note that this headphone was rated to have excellent consistency (there were worse), but still showed about 10dB variation between individual listeners in the high mids. (You can play with EQ around 3kHz on your own headphones to get a feel for how much difference in sound such variation can make)


----------



## castleofargh

james444 said:


> As others have said, avoid getting too anal about target curves, since they're based on averaged data, whereas the curves for individuals tend to vary significantly.
> 
> Here are some examples of eardrum level measurements picked from various studies - grey areas show standard deviation:
> 
> ...


yup, when I tried to find some HRIR online that would work well for me and some made up crossfeed a few years back, it was my first time realizing how much difference the subjects would get with measurements at the ear from speaker sources. that was already pretty dramatic depending on the subject(and often non symmetrical BTW).
adding to that what I can easily measure as differences from placement of headphones or IEMs on my cheapo measurement rigs, and imagining sometimes glasses, beard, thick air, differences in skull size changing how much clamping a headphone would have and how compressed the pads would be, and I believe it's time to panic a little, and understand why even the very guys building dummy head references for measurements, do not claim to define a neutral target. 

 at least we don't have to worry that different measurement rigs will give different graphs, or that humidity and temperature will affect the results ... oh wait!!!!! 

I still like the Harman curve. I'm a rebel.


----------



## SilentNote

I think depending on the recording, they are either mastered for diffuse field flat or harman listener target.

So have the best of both worlds by owning both signatures!


----------



## AudioThief

SilentNote said:


> I think depending on the recording, they are either mastered for diffuse field flat or harman listener target.
> 
> So have the best of both worlds by owning both signatures!



brb creating a custom list of diffuse field vs harman target containing all of my songs... Now to figure out which tracks are mastered for what


----------



## castleofargh

AudioThief said:


> brb creating a custom list of diffuse field vs harman target containing all of my songs... Now to figure out which tracks are mastered for what


what? don't you have the "mastered for anechoic chamber" label on your special CDs?  




SilentNote said:


> I think depending on the recording, they are either mastered for diffuse field flat or harman listener target.
> 
> So have the best of both worlds by owning both signatures!


it seems like this time the audio circle of confusion got you good.


----------



## Steve999

castleofargh said:


> I get it, you guys are messing with me on purpose, replacing the last A in Harman by any other vowel.
> I'm calling the police.



oh come on. there's no harmin a little typo now & then.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> what? don't you have the "mastered for anechoic chamber" label on your special CDs?



We'll have one of the regular iconoclasts here telling us about the theoretical advantages of those CDs in a minute.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> We'll have one of the regular iconoclasts here telling us about the theoretical advantages of those CDs in a minute.



Nope ... CD not good enough for that. 

While there has been the regular to and fro going on, I have been recording  a five day music festival in binaural from 3rd to 7th July - and "aftermathing" ever since. Including going to listen to "binaural to speaker transfers" on several speaker systems, both at friends' and dealers' - before releasing them to the organizers of the festival, due any day now.

We did compare MP3 48kHz 320kbps version to the masters (either DSD64 or PCM 192/24 used to capture binaural to speakers transfer in real time - made in parallel to binaural in DSD128 ) - and, although astonishingly good for MP3, they pale in comparison to masters. As 48 kHz 320 kbps MP3 is very close in SQ to CD, I do not consider it worth the time to convert the masters to CD just to learn EXACTLY how much worse do they fare compared to the master. That they DO lose the important bit of particularly ambient information is clincher enough for me.

BTW, regarding diffuse field equalized and Harman Kardon curve, I am - firmly - in the diffuse field camp. Stax Lambda Pro went to the trouble of getting the can its proprietary Diffuse Field Equalizer ( developed and specified in Germany - THE home of Kunstkopf (Binaural ) technology and R & D - and then manufactured in Japan ). The box is called  ED-1 Monitor. It is the first of only two Stax' diffuse field equalizers, the other being the ED-5 for another model of Stax cans. There was also the extremely rare SRM Monitor, which has been effectively SRM1MK2 amplifier and ED-1 Monitor on a single chassis. 

Listening to binaural recording using Lambda Pro AND ED-1 Monitor ( plus the best electrostatic amp you can lay your hands on... ) simply transports you back to the original experience - in case of  video also being present, lacking only of smell and temperature sensations ( the place is confluence of two rivers, there were a few heavy rainstorms during the concerts held in/under the big tent, with the nearest river running some 15-20 metres to the right from the recording position - together, creating an usually quiet ( save for rainstorm/lightning intermezzos ) but unmistakable "sonic watermark", positively identifying the venue even BEFORE the music starts.)


----------



## gregorio (Jul 18, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> [1] We did compare MP3 48kHz 320kbps version to the masters (either DSD64 or PCM 192/24 used to capture binaural to speakers transfer in real time - made in parallel to binaural in DSD128 ) - and, although astonishingly good for MP3, they pale in comparison to masters.
> [1a] As 48 kHz 320 kbps MP3 is very close in SQ to CD, I do not consider it worth the time to convert the masters to CD just to learn EXACTLY how much worse do they fare compared to the master.
> [1b]That they DO lose the important bit of particularly ambient information is clincher enough for me.
> [2] Listening to binaural recording using Lambda Pro AND ED-1 Monitor ( plus the best electrostatic amp you can lay your hands on... ) simply transports you back to the original experience ...



1. And let's not forget that much earlier in this thread you tried to prove how much better DSD is than PCM/CD by posting an example of a DSD recording that you didn't realise was actually a 48kHz AAC at 192kbps! So obviously "NO", a "MP3 48kHz 320kbps version" cannot possibly "pale in comparison" because you've already proven you can't tell the difference, even at a lower bit rate!
1a. Of course it's not worth the time, because you cannot tell at all, let alone "EXACTLY"!
1b. So, the clincher for you is a "bit of information" which no one can hear and that you yourself have proven that you can't hear!

2. Again, much earlier in this thread you posted a "particularly good example" of a binaural recording that was not only a standard stereo (not a binaural) recording but because it was recorded from a video camera, the stereo imaged therefore changed/jumped every time the camera angle changed, which you yet again completely failed to notice. If you can't hear huge stereo image discrepancies that would be obvious even using the very cheapest stereo headphones, then the only place that using esoteric audiophile headphones (and amp) is going to "transport you back to" is the land of delusion!

The "clincher" for me, is the highest importance you place on sound that no one (including you) can hear, while being completely oblivious to sound that everyone should be able to hear! Furthermore, upon PROVING that you can't hear the difference between AAC 192kbps and DSD and can't hear obvious stereo image problems, most rational people would feel very embarrassed and either retract their false claim or at least just shut up, but not you. You just pretend that none of it happened and then keep repeating those same false claims as fact. If that's not delusional, I don't know what is!

G


----------



## bigshot

I called it

One thing I've noticed is that people who want you to think they know more than they actually do tend to speak of things as recipes. If you put this particular amp with this particular headphone and that particular type of recording, it is perfect. Of course the particular things they are talking about are always very obscure and expensive so no one else can afford to verify what they say. The people who tend to know what they're talking about don't mention specific brands and models. They speak in terms of the way things work and doing things in a way that optimizes performance. I imagine following the recipe sometimes works, but you aren't going to ever know why any more than the person reciting the recipe to you.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I called it
> 
> One thing I've noticed is that people who want you to think they know more than they actually do tend to speak of things as recipes. If you put this particular amp with this particular headphone and that particular type of recording, it is perfect. Of course the particular things they are talking about are always very obscure and expensive so no one else can afford to verify what they say. The people who tend to know what they're talking about don't mention specific brands and models. They speak in terms of the way things work and doing things in a way that optimizes performance. I imagine following the recipe sometimes works, but you aren't going to ever know why any more than the person reciting the recipe to you.



Please do yourself a favor - and read about the things mentioned in JAES. I might even dig up all the references - somewhere in my bookmarks. Lots of it is in German . I am citing the exact models only because it is one of the two ( both from Stax ) options to have been ever made commercially available, by any brand - and, given the price, obviously could not penetrate the market more than it did.. Perhaps less than 1 % of Stax Lambda Pro users have ever heard, let alone posess an ED-1 Monitor diffuse field equalizer - and Stax Lambda, regardless of the exact model, although if taken together perhaps represents at least one third of all electrostatic headphones in actual use today, is still relatively rare in grand scheme of things of usually moving coil dynamic headphone world. Stax went belly up in financial terms at least twice, simply because they refused to lower their standards of (near...) excellence and pursuit of perfection over commercial success. Long  are gone the days of their loudspeakers - and extremely powerful class A amps ( which have served as an inspiration to MANY American designers ) that have been necessary in order to power the extremely inefficient and electrically tough load electrostatic speakers... then they dropped the phono cartridges ( their best ever product ), followed by diffuse field equalizers. 
After the chinese Edifier bought Stax a few years ago, the fear of Stax going down in quality in order to generate more sales has fortunately not materialized in practice - Stax is even introducing new models, including finally decent electrostatic amp, capable of going head to head with any of the aftermarket amps available. These are all priced way above my reach - but see the comment below.

I did post the link to Lambda Pro - in which it is more than clearly written and argumented why a 3 decades old Lambda Pro plus at least SRM1MK2 amp ( the least of what I would reccomend to anyone interested in decent electrostatics ) would make mockery of say HD 800 and similar current dynamic phones. And it can be had for LESS than HD-800 & similar dynamic phones.. 

I have not heard MANY good audio devices - but would NEVER try to dismiss them just because they are either far to expensive for me to ever hope to posses them, are much different to whatever I am familiar with - or for whatever other reason. I would only do that in case they did not deliver the promised - or if a new device at appreciably less cost could do ALL  the previous high priced design could do.

I doubt that in California ( one of the richest places in the world ) there is sooooo tough to get to hear Stax ; OK, ED-1 Monitor IS rare, but everything else should be rather well represented at any given can jam and all major audio shows ( CES, RMAF, etc ). Also, I did not mention using any really expensive Stax stuff - there is any number of current dynamic phones exceeding the cost of decently preserved technically immaculate Stax aged 30 or so years.


----------



## analogsurviver

@castleofargh : how does one unblock a member ?


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> @castleofargh : how does one unblock a member ?


if you're talking about the ignore function, if you move your mouse over your name at the top right of the page, there is a list of stuff popping up, including "people you ignore".


----------



## analogsurviver

castleofargh said:


> if you're talking about the ignore function, if you move your mouse over your name at the top right of the page, there is a list of stuff popping up, including "people you ignore".


 Thank you. 

I have restrained from answering one particular member for FAR too long - no idea what he has been posting for at least half a year, with a few exceptions here and there, visible to me only if not logged in.


----------



## bfreedma

I’m putting on my tall boots...


----------



## GearMe




----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] I am citing the exact models only because it is one of the two ( both from Stax ) options to have been ever made commercially available, by any brand - and, given the price, obviously could not penetrate the market more than it did.
> [2] I did post the link to Lambda Pro - in which it is more than clearly written and argumented why a 3 decades old Lambda Pro plus at least SRM1MK2 amp ( the least of what I would reccomend to anyone interested in decent electrostatics ) [2a] would make mockery of say HD 800 and similar current dynamic phones.
> [3] I have restrained from answering one particular member for FAR too long ...



1. Nonsense! Top commercial studios spend many millions on equipment, Stax cost peanuts by comparison, they didn't "penetrate the market more than it did" for other reasons.

2. And that appears to explain at least part of your problem. You read some marketing or opinion piece and "hey presto" that's what you believe you hear, even though you've demonstrated that you can't actually hear even some of the audio basics. That's fine though, entirely up to you. However, what's not fine and what's not up to you is to state your delusions as fact, especially here in the sound science forum!
2a. Case in point! Do you have any reliable evidence that Lambda Pro's "make mockery of say HD800s"? Of course you don't because that's an opinion, NOT a fact! I've heard both the HD800s and the Lambda Pros, although not in direct comparison at the same time, and my impression is that the Stax are better in some regards in relation to my personal preferences but they certainly don't "make a mockery" of HD800s and to be honest, I preferred the LCD-X to both. However, that's just "my impression", it's not a fact and it's not science, it's therefore: A. Off-topic, B. Inappropriate for this sub-forum and C. Would be a blatant lie (or inadvertent lie, if I were deluded) to state it as a fact!

3. And that's because when you did respond, you did so by simply making-up falsehoods, posting examples which you didn't realise/couldn't hear weren't examples, posting marketing as "reliable evidence" and in the process just made yourself appear more and more ignorant/foolish, which is presumably why you "restrained from answering" in the first place! So, what do you mean it's been "FAR too long"? Far too long since you painted yourself into a corner, exposed your own falsehoods/delusions and made yourself look even more ignorant/foolish? Do us ALL a favour and leave it for even longer! Or better still, stop with the falsehoods and impressions/delusions stated as fact in the first place!!!

G


----------



## bigshot (Jul 19, 2019)

A reminder: No one is required to respond to my posts if they don't feel it is worth their time. If you have me muted and you still feel the need to respond to me, you probably have a problem with self control. That means that you should probably take a break from posting entirely. I doubt if anyone will mind.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> A reminder: No one is required to respond to my posts if they don't feel it is worth their time. If you have me muted and you still feel the need to respond to me, you probably have a problem with self control. That means that you should probably take a break from posting entirely. I doubt if anyone will mind.



FYI: Although - mostly - we don't see eye to eye, I never did put you on mute. Even when you were being banned, I contacted mods to reconsider their decision(s) - with the reasoning that you DO make valuable contributions - despite everything else.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 19, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> FYI: Although - mostly - we don't see eye to eye, I never did
> put you on mute. Even when you were being banned, I
> contacted mods to reconsider their decision(s) - with the
> reasoning that you DO make valuable contributions -
> despite everything else.



Gregorio and bigshot are both quite knowledgeable individuals, but, if they were MDs, they would have hurrible bedside manner! lol.  They both just need to be open to and acknowledge that others do grasp most audio concepts. Some of us just aren't as up to speed on the precise terminology, or on how to properly express ourselves.


----------



## bigshot

If you want to pay me a doctor's salary to do this, I promise you my bedside manner would improve.


----------



## richardxigua

Thanks for the time you put into preparing this post. It was VERY much appreciated.


----------



## bigshot

That first post is a great one.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Jul 22, 2019)

bigshot said:


> A reminder: No one is required to respond to my posts if they don't feel it is worth their time. If you have me muted and you still feel the need to respond to me, you probably have a problem with self control. That means that you should probably take a break from posting entirely. I doubt if anyone will mind.


GRRRR!!! :/


----------



## Sonic Defender

While I respect the opinions of all posters on this page, is there not anyway that some could avoid the very personal insults hurled at those who they can't agree with? Very unkind and does nothing to make an argument more water-tight. If the goal is to enlighten or open somebody's point of view, that is a crappy way to go, and if the real point is to insult and denigrate, not sure that is a great motive.


----------



## Steve999

I just tried to put myself on ignore but I got a big red error message saying you can’t ignore yourself. Is this like new-age self-help advice, or some ancient philosophical concept, or just a simple piece of practical wisdom?


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Steve999 said:


> I just tried to put myself on ignore but I got a big red error message saying you can’t ignore yourself. Is this like new-age self-help advice, or some ancient philosophical concept, or just a simple piece of practical wisdom?


Lol...yep its a millennial thing...can't make yourself sad.I may be kidding.....maybe


----------



## bigshot (Jul 23, 2019)

All opinions are not created equal. Some prove a point, and others are completely baseless. When someone comes back over and over with the same bogus opinions that have already been answered and proven wrong over and over, you basically have two options... 1) continue to answer the falsehoods and drive it underground for a week or two until it pops up again, or 2) dismiss it with a wave of the hand and move on. I just don't have the time to deal with repeated bologna over and over. I choose the latter. If that is read as a personal insult, I don't know what I can do about it. My time is valuable. I really don't care.


----------



## sander99 (Jul 28, 2019)

Question: Does anyone here know of any (controlled level matched, etc. if I forgot something) double blind abx tests comparing lossy Dolby Digital with (lossless) Dolby TrueHD (48 kHz or higher doesn't matter of course)? (Of course from the same master, so using a (real lossless) Dolby TrueHD, generate a lossy Dolby Digital version from that and compare. Maybe for different Dolby Digital bitrates as well. Normally the max is 640 kbit/s I think?)
I tried a quick google source but didn't find it. If someone here happens to know I can save myself the trouble of doing a more extensive search.
[Edit: 5.1 channel content in particular]


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Glmoneydawg said:


> Lol...yep its a millennial thing...can't make yourself sad.
> I may be kidding.....maybe




A lot of 'millennial-sounding' comments I've criticized, here and on other forums have actually been made by my ELDERS!  So either they are very 'young' 60-somethings, or I'm just a very 'old' 49.


----------



## bigshot

sander99 said:


> Question: Does anyone here know of any (controlled level matched, etc. if I forgot something) double blind abx tests comparing lossy Dolby Digital with (lossless) Dolby TrueHD (48 kHz or higher doesn't matter of course)? (Of course from the same master, so using a (real lossless) Dolby TrueHD, generate a lossy Dolby Digital version from that and compare. Maybe for different Dolby Digital bitrates as well. Normally the max is 640 kbit/s I think?)
> I tried a quick google source but didn't find it. If someone here happens to know I can save myself the trouble of doing a more extensive search.
> [Edit: 5.1 channel content in particular]



I don't know of any. That would be a pretty complicated test to set up. I also doubt if DD would necessarily be the same mastering as the TrueHD master. And the levels on blu-rays are always different. I think it would be safe to extrapolate from 2 channel tests and assume that as long as the data rate is sufficient, it is possible to achieve transparency with DD.


----------



## KeithEmo

While there are a lot of other variables that can creep in - like the decoder itself - at least in theory the comparison is actually trivially simple.
(This is assuming content that was originally produced in TrueHD....) 

When something is encoded in Dolby TrueHD, the process starts with the highest quality version, which is the TrueHD version, which is lossless.
From this version, the regular Dolby Digital version is produced - using lossy compression.
This is now "the core data stream" (remember that, even though this data stream is lossy, because the encoder is standard, it is deterministic).
The core is then subtracted from the lossless original, to produce an extra data stream, which contains the _difference_ between the lossless original and the DD version.

This sounds convoluted but it is actually very efficient for _delivering_ content. 

A "full Dolby TrueHD stream" includes both the lossy DD core and the data stream containing the difference information.
When this is processed by a full Dolby TrueHD decoder, the difference stream is added to the DD core, and together they are used to recreate the original lossless content.
(When you take the lossy file, and add the difference between it and the lossless original back in, you get back the lossless original.)
However, if either the transmission method, or the decoder you're using, is limited to "only support DD", then the extra difference information is simply lost or ignored.
And, in that case, only the lossy DD core is used, and you end up with "the DD version of the audio".

The point is that, if you have "standard Dolby TrueHD encoded content", it contains both the "regular lossy Dolby Digital version" and the "lossless TrueHD version".
And, if your processor offers you the option, you can compare them by simply choosing to listen to your disc "in Dolby TrueHD" or "in Dolby Digital".
(And, assuming you have a disc encoded according to the standard, they will be directly comparable.)

Assuming that you have a single "set of TrueHD data streams" this relationship between the core DD stream and the TrueHD stream will be true.
(So it should be true for a standard TrueHD disc - and for most streaming content that is really streamed in TrueHD.)



bigshot said:


> I don't know of any. That would be a pretty complicated test to set up. I also doubt if DD would necessarily be the same mastering as the TrueHD master. And the levels on blu-rays are always different. I think it would be safe to extrapolate from 2 channel tests and assume that as long as the data rate is sufficient, it is possible to achieve transparency with DD.


----------



## bigshot

And you've admitted that you can't hear the difference between high data rate lossy and lossless.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 30, 2019)

bigshot said:


> And you've admitted that you can't hear the difference between high data rate lossy and lossless.



You know, the way you've set things up, I can never tell who you are replying to!  Emo?

As far as high-rate lossy vs lossless, the mastering becomes more of a difference at that point, unless you're a bloodhound.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 30, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] While there are a lot of other variables that can creep in - like the decoder itself - at least in theory the comparison is actually trivially simple.
> [2] When something is encoded in Dolby TrueHD, the process starts with the highest quality version, which is the TrueHD version, which is lossless.
> [2a] From this version, the regular Dolby Digital version is produced - using lossy compression. This is now "the core data stream" (remember that, even though this data stream is lossy, because the encoder is standard, it is deterministic).
> [2b] The core is then subtracted from the lossless original, to produce an extra data stream, which contains the _difference_ between the lossless original and the DD version.
> [3] The point is that, if you have "standard Dolby TrueHD encoded content", it contains both the "regular lossy Dolby Digital version" and the "lossless TrueHD version". And, if your processor offers you the option, you can compare them by simply choosing to listen to your disc "in Dolby TrueHD" or "in Dolby Digital". Assuming that you have a single "set of TrueHD data streams" this relationship between the core DD stream and the TrueHD stream will be true.



1. Yes, there are a lot of variables and therefore in practise the comparison probably won't be trivial.

2. The process actually starts with the mix produced by the dubbing theatre, which will be 24/48 24bit wav files and in the case of feature films, almost always eight of them (7.1).
2a. Correct.
2b. AFAIK, the core is subtracted from the lossless original to produce two extra data streams, one contains the freq content data required to losslessly reconstruct the DD (5.1) mix and the other contains the data required to reconstruct the additional two channels of the original 7.1 mix.

3. No, most probably it won't! You obviously have to conduct the test in 5.1 (DD doesn't support more than 5.1), if you want to compare lossy vs lossless rather than 5.1 vs 7.1. However, in all the decoder cases I'm aware of, if you output trueHD as 5.1 what you actually get is: "the core DD" + "the data stream reconstructing the lossless info" + "the two additional channels downmixed to 5.1"! In other words, the relationship "would not be true", you still wouldn't be comparing lossy vs lossless, you'd also be comparing a 5.1 mix with a 7.1 mix downmixed to 5.1.



bigshot said:


> And you've admitted that you can't hear the difference between high data rate lossy and lossless.



Which is irrelevant in this case as DD is not "high data rate lossy"! DD is typically 448kbps, which for 6 channels of audio very roughly equates to a (stereo) MP3 of about 160kbps.



sander99 said:


> [1] Does anyone here know of any (controlled level matched, etc. if I forgot something) double blind abx tests comparing lossy Dolby Digital with (lossless) ...
> [2] Maybe for different Dolby Digital bitrates as well. Normally the max is 640 kbit/s I think?



1. I don't know of any published tests. I've blind tested DD against lossless in my studio and could reliably differentiate them but only with certain material and even then, it's not a big/obvious difference. I doubt many/any consumers could differentiate them but that's just an opinion, not a demonstrated fact.

2. It's typically 448kbps (which is what I used for my test). 640kbps is only supported on BluRay, other formats like DVD and HDTV are limited to 448kbps and even on BluRay 448kbps is still common for DD. BTW AFAIK, TrueHD is only supported by UHD Bluray and even then, many UHD blurays (and UHD streaming services) use DD+, which is still a lossy codec but has (potentially) a higher bit rate and even at the same bite rate is supposed to be an improvement over DD but I haven't tested it myself.

G


----------



## Davesrose (Jul 30, 2019)

gregorio said:


> 2. It's typically 448kbps (which is what I used for my test). 640kbps is only supported on BluRay, other formats like DVD and HDTV are limited to 448kbps and even on BluRay 448kbps is still common for DD. BTW AFAIK, TrueHD is only supported by UHD Bluray and even then, many UHD blurays (and UHD streaming services) use DD+, which is still a lossy codec but has (potentially) a higher bit rate and even at the same bite rate is supposed to be an improvement over DD but I haven't tested it myself.



TrueHD has been supported with regular blu-ray HD (as well as DTS-MA).  I've also noticed it isn't necessarily mixed in 7.1 surround: only more recently have more movies been mixed in 7.1 (I think also to coincide with movies being mixed in Atmos).  I have quite a few movies on blu-ray, and most are in 5.1 DTS-MA.  I've started collecting UHD discs, and they're either in Atmos (with TrueHD core) or DTS:X (or DTS-MA if not remixed).  I've noticed some streaming sites have also improved their quality by having DD+ (and it being a core for Atmos).  While the original DD specs don't support more than 5.1 channels, there are iterations of it that do (starting with EX and 6.1).


----------



## bigshot (Jul 30, 2019)

160 is pretty close to the threshold of transparency for most people. I haven't found many people who can discern above 192 in normal listening conditions. There's also DD Plus. Not sure how much that gets used because I don't check much for data rate info. On discs of all types it's usually sufficient to sound great. The only real difference I find between codecs is the volume level. They are never matched for some reason. I think all the different versions of Dolby and DTS are just ways to sell the brand name. Audio quality is rarely dependent on the codec. Data rate is more important for the number of channels than sound quality.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 31, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> I've also noticed it isn't necessarily mixed in 7.1 surround: only more recently have more movies been mixed in 7.1 (I think also to coincide with movies being mixed in Atmos). I have quite a few movies on blu-ray, and most are in 5.1 DTS-MA. I've started collecting UHD discs, and they're either in Atmos (with TrueHD core) or DTS:X (or DTS-MA if not remixed). I've noticed some streaming sites have also improved their quality by having DD+ (and it being a core for Atmos). While the original DD specs don't support more than 5.1 channels, there are iterations of it that do (starting with EX and 6.1).



Pretty much all major movies have been mixed in 7.1 for 15 years or so, long before Atmos was invented but it gets complicated here because there are various different speaker layouts for 7.1, some are purely theatrical, some purely consumer and some which are both. Dolby's 7.1 layout came a few years earlier than Atmos and was adopted more quickly (as it didn't require any change to cinemas' existing speaker numbers or placement). Most major movies are remixed for bluray, DVD, TV broadcast or streaming services. BTW, DD does only support up to 5.1 channels, Dolby EX/6.1 isn't 7 (discrete) audio channels it's still 5.1 audio channels. The additional (rear centre) channel isn't an audio channel, it's an output speaker channel that's extracted from the 5.1 audio channels, the same way as the centre channel is extracted from the two audio channels of Dolby Stereo/ProLogic. For Dolby consumer formats, more than 5.1 discrete channels requires DD+ or TrueHD, so 7.1 or Atmos is the main benefit of DD+/TrueHD.



bigshot said:


> [1] 160 is pretty close to the threshold of transparency for most people.
> [2] The only real difference I find between codecs is the volume level. They are never matched for some reason.
> [3] I think all the different versions of Dolby and DTS are just ways to sell the brand name.
> [3a] Data rate is more important for the number of channels than sound quality.



1. Exactly, close to audibility transparent but not necessarily beyond it!

2. No, that's really nothing to do with the codecs themselves but the metadata and the processing that it controls after the signal has been decoded. In the case of Dolby (DD, DD+ or TrueHD), the compression scheme and dialogue normalisation.

3. Sure, they all want to sell their brand but there are significant actual differences.
3a. That doesn't make any sense, the data rate defines the sound quality. For any given data rate the sound quality reduces as the number of discrete channels increases, because you've got fewer bits per second to encode each of those channels and as 5.1 channels is already at/slightly below the threshold of transparency with DD, then if you want more channels you need either more kbps, a more efficient/transparent codec or both, which is exactly what DD+ is!

G


----------



## bigshot

I've got no real use for "beyond audible transparency".

What I meant about data rate was overall data rate. Usually, the data rate is sufficient to achieve transparency. But transparency at 2 channel is a different data rate than transparency at 7.1. More pieces cut in the pie mean a bigger pie is needed.


----------



## Davesrose (Jul 31, 2019)

gregorio said:


> Pretty much all major movies have been mixed in 7.1 for 15 years or so, long before Atmos was invented but it gets complicated here because there are various different speaker layouts for 7.1, some are purely theatrical, some purely consumer and some which are both. Dolby's 7.1 layout came a few years earlier than Atmos and was adopted more quickly (as it didn't require any change to cinemas' existing speaker numbers or placement). Most major movies are remixed for bluray, DVD, TV broadcast or streaming services. BTW, DD does only support up to 5.1 channels, Dolby EX/6.1 isn't 7 (discrete) audio channels it's still 5.1 audio channels. The additional (rear centre) channel isn't an audio channel, it's an output speaker channel that's extracted from the 5.1 audio channels, the same way as the centre channel is extracted from the two audio channels of Dolby Stereo/ProLogic. For Dolby consumer formats, more than 5.1 discrete channels requires DD+ or TrueHD, so 7.1 or Atmos is the main benefit of DD+/TrueHD.



Actually, the first recognized theatrical movie mixed for and released in discrete 7.1 was Toy Story 3 in 2010 (Dolby has a technical paper about their partnership with Disney for it).  And even more recently, many theaters have stayed with DD 5.1 (movies even still having SDDS tracks as well).  When I upgraded to HDMI, I got a TrueHD/DTS-MA reciever that decoded 7.1 and had a 7.1 speaker setup (mainly for acoustic reasons).  I think the first blu-rays that I got to have 7.1 was Hell-boy and the Star Trek movie set.  Looking at Hellboy's IMDB, it was mixed for 5.1 (2004), but must have been remixed to 7.1 for the later BD release.  It is only recently that I've noticed practically all new BD releases now have a 7.1 track (possibly as a relative ease of extracting from Atmos).  RE DD: I specifically did say the original DD specs are 5.1, but like MPEG2 vs MPEG4....there are new standards (of which DD EX, DD+, Dolby AC-4, even TrueHD are considered subsequent versions).  As for going to more speaker channels, I saw an interview with a Dolby rep, who basically did say that when the next extension of going to 9.1 was considered....it seemed like a good idea to go Atmos so there would be more flexibility with both cinemas having various speaker configs and choosing speaker arrays for height or surround channels.


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> [1] Actually, the first recognized theatrical movie mixed for and released in discrete 7.1 was Toy Story 3 in 2010.
> [2] And even more recently, many theaters have stayed with DD 5.1.
> [3] Looking at Hellboy's IMDB, it was mixed for 5.1 (2004), but must have been remixed to 7.1 for the later BD release. It is only recently that I've noticed practically all new BD releases now have a 7.1 track (possibly as a relative ease of extracting from Atmos).
> [4] RE DD: I specifically did say the original DD specs are 5.1, but like MPEG2 vs MPEG4....there are new standards (of which DD EX, DD+, Dolby AC-4, even TrueHD are considered subsequent versions).



1. Actually, no it wasn't! The first recognised theatrical movie mixed for and released in discrete 7.1 was _Last Action Hero_ in 1993!
2. And, far less recently (than 2010), many theatres did upgrade to 7.1. There were over 6,750 by 1999!
3. No, Hellboy (2004) was originally mixed in 7.1 (and 5.1) but was reversioned for bluray as most/all major films are, as I've already stated.
4. DD and DD EX are both 5.1 audio channels. DD+ is not Dolby Digital it is "Dolby Digital Plus" and does not employ the Dolby Digital AC-3 codec.

You do seem to like arguing about film sound but it's bizarre you choose to do so with someone who's actually worked in film sound for over 20 years!!



bigshot said:


> I've got no real use for "beyond audible transparency".



Great, but again, what has that got to do with it? DD is not "beyond audible transparency"!

G


----------



## Davesrose (Jul 31, 2019)

gregorio said:


> 1. Actually, no it wasn't! The first recognised theatrical movie mixed for and released in discrete 7.1 was _Last Action Hero_ in 1993!
> 2. And, far less recently (than 2010), many theatres did upgrade to 7.1. There were over 6,750 by 1999!
> 3. No, Hellboy (2004) was originally mixed in 7.1 (and 5.1) but was reversioned for bluray as most/all major films are, as I've already stated.
> 4. DD and DD EX are both 5.1 audio channels. DD+ is not Dolby Digital it is "Dolby Digital Plus" and does not employ the Dolby Digital AC-3 codec.
> ...



I seem to argue with you, as you claim to be an expert in everything sound.  Even resorting to refusing to acknowledge terminology Dolby uses!  An expert that thought only UHD discs support TrueHD?  For example, you're now obfuscating 7.1 SDDS (that uses 5 center channels and 2 surround channels) with Dolby surround 7.1 (now granted, the distinction is channel layout: not who was the first with discrete channels).  Last Action Hero was not the first movie mixed for and released in Dolby 7.1: it was SDDS.  AS ALL SOURCES SAY, TOY STORY 3 WAS THE FIRST MOVIE MIXED FOR DOLBY 7.1.  So baring that in mind....how many theaters in your statistic had >2 discrete surround channels in 1999?? NONE  If you're going to claim the SDDS mix in Hellboy(2004) was the same 7.1 mix used in blu-ray, then you're clearly wrong.  The surround formats listed for Hellboy are DD, DTS, and D-Cinema 5.1: they had to upmix for the 7.1 surround on BD (which doesn't utilize multiple center channels, but has multiple surround channels).

Another example: Look up Dolby Digital and it lists all "versions".  Dolby Digital+ uses E-AC-3, a codec based on previous AC-3. Previously you've said I don't know what a track is because for some reason it would be different in an audio program vs video production program.  Now this analogy is like refusing to acknowledge h.263 and h.264 are not seperate specs still within MPEG-4


----------



## dprimary

Davesrose said:


> I seem to argue with you, as you claim to be an expert in everything sound.  Even resorting to refusing to acknowledge terminology Dolby uses!  An expert that thought only UHD discs support TrueHD?  For example, you're now obfuscating 7.1 SDDS (that uses 5 center channels and 2 surround channels) with Dolby surround 7.1 (now granted, the distinction is channel layout: not who was the first with discrete channels).  Last Action Hero was not the first movie mixed for and released in Dolby 7.1: it was SDDS.  AS ALL SOURCES SAY, TOY STORY 3 WAS THE FIRST MOVIE MIXED FOR DOLBY 7.1.  So baring that in mind....how many theaters in your statistic had >2 discrete surround channels in 1999?? NONE  If you're going to claim the SDDS mix in Hellboy(2004) was the same 7.1 mix used in blu-ray, then you're clearly wrong.  The surround formats listed for Hellboy are DD, DTS, and D-Cinema 5.1: they had to upmix for the 7.1 surround on BD (which doesn't utilize multiple center channels, but has multiple surround channels).
> 
> Another example: Look up Dolby Digital and it lists all "versions".  Dolby Digital+ uses E-AC-3, a codec based on previous AC-3. Previously you've said I don't know what a track is because for some reason it would be different in an audio program vs video production program.  Now this analogy is like refusing to acknowledge h.263 and h.264 are not seperate specs still within MPEG-4



You didn't specifically call out Dolby Surround 7.1, when I read it I had the same reaction as Gregorio that 7.1 has been around for decades.
From a mixing perspective for film, I consider all speakers but except the center and LFE to be part of the surround. In non atmos surround formats the channel are all discrete it does really matter as long as they can downmix to the release encodings. Atmos could in theory output any format even SDDS. Atmos systems with screens wider than 12 meters (40 feet) use 5 front speakers as SDDS did. Five front speakers make don't make any sense on smaller screens.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 1, 2019)

dprimary said:


> You didn't specifically call out Dolby Surround 7.1, when I read it I had the same reaction as Gregorio that 7.1 has been around for decades.
> From a mixing perspective for film, I consider all speakers but except the center and LFE to be part of the surround. In non atmos surround formats the channel are all discrete it does really matter as long as they can downmix to the release encodings. Atmos could in theory output any format even SDDS. Atmos systems with screens wider than 12 meters (40 feet) use 5 front speakers as SDDS did. Five front speakers make don't make any sense on smaller screens.



I was assuming we were talking about 7.1 surround (as that defined by Dolby) based on the context of posts: no where were we talking about SDDS.  Instead it was evolution of 5.1 to Atmos, and Gregorio claimed 7.1 (in the context of surround) had been around for years.  Even going so far to claim a 7.1 cinema mix could be the basis of the Hellboy BD 7.1 track (were whether SDDS or other formats, the theatrical release had 2 channel surround).  Sorry for the confusion of discrete vs surround config: I myself wasn’t thinking of SDDS as the topic was 7.1 surround on blu-ray (and I realized Gregorio was referencing SDDS with his claim of thatrical 7.1 in the 90s).


----------



## KeithEmo

The problem is that, when you start talking about surround sound, that term becomes even more vague.
(Even past the fact that what's "audibly transparent" to one person may not be to another... and that what's "audibly transparent" on certain content may not be on other content.)

Here's an easy example.....

Some of the early compression CODECS saved a lot of space by making the assumption that we aren't especially perceptive about the details of high frequency content.
It was particularly assumed that, while the amount of high frequency spectral content may be quite audible, we aren't very sensitive to the details.
As a result, at least one or two of the early surround CODECS simply didn't bother to store the information in the surround channels in the upper frequency bands.
During the encoding process, when they were analyzing what was present in each frequency band, if they detected what seemed to be "decorrelated noise" in the surround channels, they would simply discard it.
All they stored was a very generalized piece of data about "how much sound was present in that band".
Then, when decoding that content, they would simply "fill in" the upper bands in the surround channels with "about the right amount of decorrelated noise".
(I seem to recall that one particular CODEC would simply save that band from one channel - then duplicate it to all of the channels when decoding the content.)

This is NOT unprecedented in VOICE reproduction.
Many advanced telephone CODECs don't actually store the voice at all.
They break it down into small bits of sound - which can then be stored as "coefficients", and then "rebuilt" later from that information (in general terms this is called "tokenizing").
So, for example, they might find that a certain spoken sound in my voice is equivalent to "a 50 msec burst of noise in band 2 at level 5 mixed with a 50 msec burst in band 5 at level 7 followed by a 100 msec burst in band 3 at level 2".
They would then store this information - and identify it (for example as "sound #24").
Then, at the receiving end, when told to do so, the decoder would "play a copy of sound #24".
(The process is somewhat similar to MiDi.)

(Imagine a video transport system where a person at one end watches the action - then describes it over a phone to a remarkably fast artist at the other end.
The artist at the other end then DRAWS what the sender sees based on their description. You would end up with the equivalent of "a cartoon that looks very much like the original".)

You may have experienced this if you've ever had a cell phone conversation where the voice was quite intelligible but any background noise came through as odd electronic chirping noises....
Some of these CODECs, especially the early ones, actually handled voice quite well, but were confused by unusual sounds they were unable to "understand" and "deconstruct" - like background noise.
This was quite noticeable on many early "Internet phone systems".

Similar "decisions" are made all the time when applying compression to VIDEO content... with similar questions about whether they are "visible" or not.

I'm going to regale you with an example I saw on a DVD, which demonstrates the question very well.
In a certain very old disaster movie about a tornado.... one scene takes place in front of a background of very dark rapidly swirling clouds.
In the original VHS tape versions of this movie the clouds could very clearly be seen to swirl throughout the entire scene... along with a significant amount of tape background noise.
However, in the DVD version of the same movie, in that same scene, the clouds _DO NOT SWIRL_ (they change once or twice but essentially remained stationary).
This example is striking because, if you'd never seen the movie before, you would have said that "the DVD looked quite good"... and never missed the movements in the clouds.
However, if you were familiar with the tape version, or the original movie, it was obvious that the DVD version did not reproduce it accurately at all.
(And, apparently, even though there is a lot of random tape noise, we humans can easily discern the difference between swirling clouds and tape noise.)

The reason this happened is obvious (if you're familiar with video encoding for DVDs). 
Because noise, like tape noise, is in fact random, it doesn't compress efficiently, so accurately recording tape noise requires a lot of bandwidth.
In the CODEC used for DVDs, bandwidth is allocated intelligently.
And, in general, noise is something that most people prefer not to see, so you normally want to remove it anyway.
So, as part of the process, noise is filtered out before compression is applied, so as to preserve more bandwidth for useful information by avoiding "wasting bandwidth on noise".
(The choice of what to filter out can be controlled manually - but can also be done automatically in many encoders.)
In this particular scene, because the swirling clouds are very dark, and contain little information, the algorithms have "decided" that the swirling is "noise" and filtered it out.

Another way of looking at it would be to say that the encoder has substituted static clouds for the original "unimportant" swirling clouds in order to save space for more "important" information.
(It is performing "priority based perceptual encoding".)

It is in fact possible that, in this case,rather than the encoder, a human operator CHOSE to set the filtering at a level that would wipe out the swirling in the clouds.
However, the result is the same.....

Even though many viewers may PREFER the smoother filtered version....
We cannot reasonably claim that "the encoding is 'visibly transparent' to the original"....
(And it's quite obvious that "the original artistic intent" called for "ominously swirling dark clouds".)
So,if you were an aficionado of bad old disaster movies, would you prefer to see the encoded version or an ACCURATE reproduction of the original.
(Unfortunately, in this case, unless you were to acquire a theatrical master copy, you would be forced to choose between the tape noise from the VHS version, and the "smoothing errors" on the otherwise excellent DVD transfer.) 

TO BRING THE CONTEXT BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION....

Unless you have the lossless copy of a file, encode it yourself, and compare the two, can you TRUST the encoding process to never make similar "editorial decisions"?
(And, even if you confirm that ten files you encode and carefully compare are "audibly transparent", are you willing to believe and trust that EACH AND EVERY FILE encoded by someone else will be audibly transparent?)

Personally, not being a major aficionado of old movies, I'm willing to concede that "most DVDs look as good or better than the VHS version", and that's plenty good for me... so I'd rather have the DVD.
However, I'm simply not willing to make a similar concession for music.



bigshot said:


> I've got no real use for "beyond audible transparency".
> 
> What I meant about data rate was overall data rate. Usually, the data rate is sufficient to achieve transparency. But transparency at 2 channel is a different data rate than transparency at 7.1. More pieces cut in the pie mean a bigger pie is needed.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 1, 2019)

I only know what sort of mixes are on DVD and blu-ray. Since I got my home theater, I don't go to movies any more. The experience is better at home. Better picture, better sound, cheaper, more convenient.

Sometimes I feel like Gulliver watching the Kings argue about which end of the egg to break.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree - about theater movies.

We have a local "big iMax theater".

The picture is really impressive, and large, and they do 3D, and the audio is really powerful, and plays really loud....
But it doesn't _sound_ as good as what I have in my living room.



bigshot said:


> I only know what sort of mixes are on DVD and blu-ray. Since I got my home theater, I don't go to movies any more. The experience is better at home. Better picture, better sound, cheaper, more convenient.
> 
> Sometimes I feel like Gulliver watching the Kings argue about which end of the egg to break.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 1, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> Similar "decisions" are made all the time when applying compression to VIDEO content... with similar questions about whether they are "visible" or not.
> 
> I'm going to regale you with an example I saw on a DVD, which demonstrates the question very well.
> In a certain very old disaster movie about a tornado.... one scene takes place in front of a background of very dark rapidly swirling clouds.
> ...



Home video has vastly improved since whatever reference you're comparing with DVD vs videotape.  DVD matured over the years with improved encoding techniques and film scanning (telecine).  There also isn't really much inherent "noise" with digital authoring, as the only ADC is the scanner: there is grain from the source film and you can have artifacting from what encode you're using.  Early DVDs could have suffered more from compression artifacts or Digital Noise Reduction (which with telecine, the algorithms try to reduce grain, which can also result in less detail, present in the film and adds contrast around the edges).  For a time, movies have been scanned at 4K resolution for 35mm and 8k for 70mm during film restorations: maximizing resolutions that also means better grading (and since videophiles complain to studios, studios have also been less heavy handed with DNR: even re-issuing Blu-ray titles).  The main advantage with 4K for home applications isn't so much resolution but greater dynamic range: adding more colors and tonality in scenes that have higher peak brightness and retaining shadow detail.  Blu-ray and 4K UHD discs are also possible with more efficient video codecs than DVD: DVD was MPEG-2, BD is MPEG-4 (which allows greater compression with minimal artifacts).  As a physical medium BD can have multiple layers, but it seems most home movie releases are BD-50 for 1080P movies and BD-66 for UHD discs.  UHD 4K is able to be compressed further as it utilizes a new codec known as h.265 (MPEG-H).

I get better picture quality from my calibrated OLED TV at home then my local theaters....so for me, I like both my _picture _and _sound _at home vs the cinema (and it's great that older movies and some TV shows look and sound better than they originally did).


----------



## bigshot

I have DVDs that look almost as good as blu-rays. When DVDs went anamorphic, it was a huge improvement. I buy as many DVDs as I do blu-rays nowadays.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 1, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I have DVDs that look almost as good as blu-rays. When DVDs went anamorphic, it was a huge improvement. I buy as many DVDs as I do blu-rays nowadays.



That means you can buck the trend of having to replace your DVD or BD titles for the latest and greatest .  I’m a shutterbug and videophile, so I like collecting 4K now.  Some movies they’ve remastered also get a new encode from that source to BD (possibly making a better picture than a previous release).  It might be debated about merits of high resolution/DR audio, but video can still mature (as displays get bigger and the photography process can more easily take entire DR of scene).  Also, I’ve noticed prices on all disc formats seem to be dropping (probably because of demand with streaming).


----------



## bigshot (Aug 1, 2019)

I have a projection system with a ten foot screen. Using the THX standards, if I sat close enough to the screen to see the difference between 1080 and 4K, the edges of the screen would be in my peripheral vision. To me, the main advantage of blu-ray and 4K is color accuracy, but again, with a projection system, I'm not likely to be able to see the finer points of that. However seeing films projected in the dark on a big screen is a huge benefit. I don't watch TV any more. I just screen movies... even if they are TV episodes.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 1, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I have a projection system with a ten foot screen. Using the THX standards, if I sat close enough to the screen to see the difference between 1080 and 4K, the edges of the screen would be in my peripheral vision. To me, the main advantage of blu-ray and 4K is color accuracy, but again, with a projection system, I'm not likely to be able to see the finer points of that. However seeing films projected in the dark on a big screen is a huge benefit. I don't watch TV any more. I just screen movies... even if they are TV episodes.



The HD remastering for Star Trek Next Gen was pretty impressive.  The original VFX were filmed in passes on Vistavision film, and then scanned for analog SD editing.  With the digital HD remaster, they scanned the original film and digitally composited passes (making quality as good as a movie).  I find broadcast cable to be pretty bad by today’s standards.  No wonder people watch most TV shows streaming.  Some services like Netflix even has original programming in Atmos and Dolby Vision.  The only main disadvantage with streaming a lot of 4K content is running into your internet provider’s data caps.


----------



## bigshot

I'm lucky. Here in Los Angeles, Netflix and Criterion Channel streaming are rock solid and zippy. (Those are the streaming services I use.)I've never liked cable. I haven't had it since the early 90s. I just took the hundred dollars a month cable cost and bought discs with it. I buy a ton of DVDs of TV shows from British TV at Amazon UK. There are fantastic crime shows there and the quality of the DVD authoring is really good.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> I'm lucky. Here in Los Angeles, Netflix and Criterion Channel streaming are rock solid and zippy. (Those are the streaming services I use.)I've never liked cable. I haven't had it since the early 90s. I just took the hundred dollars a month cable cost and bought discs with it. I buy a ton of DVDs of TV shows from British TV at Amazon UK. There are fantastic crime shows there and the quality of the DVD authoring is really good.



Oh, I have no issues with Internet speeds in Atlanta: it’s just that if you’re watching a lot of 4K you’re using more data and likely to hit your data allocation for the month (and then I’d be charged an additional $10 For every 50GB).  If you like European shows, there’s also Acorn and MHZ


----------



## KcMsterpce

bigshot said:


> I have a projection system with a ten foot screen. Using the THX standards, if I sat close enough to the screen to see the difference between 1080 and 4K, the edges of the screen would be in my peripheral vision. To me, the main advantage of blu-ray and 4K is color accuracy, but again, with a projection system, I'm not likely to be able to see the finer points of that. However seeing films projected in the dark on a big screen is a huge benefit. I don't watch TV any more. I just screen movies... even if they are TV episodes.


I have a 110" screen and the Epson 5050UB. I'm now going to (attempt to) sell my LG OLED65C7, and the LG HU80KA. I have the screen mounted on an aluminum frame, and I just push it aside when I want to watch TV with my 65". These last few weeks, though, I've decided to just stick with the projector.
It's not as good as the OLED, but it's gorgeous enough to where I love the size of the screen more than the better spectral highlights that I get on the OLED. The Epson's black levels are divine (I have a high contrast grey screen), and it resolves grain like a champ. I've gone full projector now!


----------



## Davesrose

The other thing I've noticed with higher resolution displays is that it's easier to see what's in focus (one big contribution for perceived detail): with my 4K computer monitor, I see a shallower depth of field with my photos.  With 4K movies, I can see if shots are slightly out of focus (or more regularly, I've seen wide shots filmed with anamorphic lenses that show soft lens distortion on top and bottom of frame).  I was surprised to see a few scenes of Dark Knight that were slightly out of focus.


----------



## bigshot

KcMsterpce said:


> I have a 110" screen and the Epson 5050UB.!



I have an Epson 7500UB, which is probably quite similar to yours. Epson makes great projectors, and great scanners too.


----------



## KeithEmo

Absolutely... and 4k is better in other ways too.

However, I would disagree that the extra resolution in 4k doesn't help.
As a few people have noted, and it agrees with my personal experience, a properly done 4k video offers much more realistic specular highlights.
(The little pinpoints of brightness that make shiny metal and glittery things look different that "just bright objects" and make metallic surfaces look "shimmery".)
Even when you can't see the specific details, metallic objects, and glittery or shiny objects like sunlight on water, or glittery confetti falling through a spotlight, tend to look more realistic in 4k.
(HDR helps with the extra brightness... but it is the extra resolution that allows the highlights themselves to be sharp enough to appear to "glitter" or "shine".)
I find this most apparent on direct panel displays - which do better with fine details than projectors - but it is noticeable on a good projector as well.
A scene with shiny metal, or sunlight on water, looks better in 4k with HDR.... even if you're sitting too far away to consciously see the extra resolution.

H.265 offers better compression ratios than H.264.
H.265 also has the added benefit that, when pushed to the point where it does visibly degrade, it does so more gracefully than h.264
Whereas H.264 tended to show blocky artifacts when over-compressed, H.265 tends to simply get visibly a bit softer, which is usually far less visually annoying.

I agree on the rest of what you said...
However, in the context of this discussion, the explanation of why it happens was just sort of background...
My point was merely that, even though a DVD usually looks far better than a VHS tape, in that particular movie there were clearly visible alterations produced by the encoding process.
However, if you hadn't seen a different version, and didn't know what to look for, they would have escaped as unnoticed.
(My point being that "a lack of visible artifacts does NOT ensure that you're seeing an ACCURATE reproduction of the original".)
(Any number of people could have viewed that DVD and said "it looks just fine".... but, in fact, when you know what to look for, it looks obviously "visibly different than it should" in a few places.)

My point there was simply this....
- even if you were to encode many CDs using a certain lossy CODEC and find that they were all audibly identical to the original
- no matter how many that was true for - it still would NOT provide 100% assurance that your EVERY track encoded with that CODEC would be audibly identical to the original
- all lossy CODECs rely on discarding information that has been determined to be inaudible _USING A CERTAIN SPECIFIC MODEL OF WHAT IS AUDIBLE
- but all of those models make at least a few assumptions and generalizations, so none is 100% accurate, 100% of the time, with 100% of humans, and 100% of source material_
- both musical content, and perceptual lossy CODECs, are so complex that you simply cannot safely assume that "clinkers" won't EVER occur occasionally 


I used to take a lot of photos...
And, MOST of the time, a JPG looks just as good as a RAW file...
However, I still shoot important photos in RAW format, because the JPG doesn't ALWAYS look IDENTICAL to the JPG...
And, yes, I WOULD rather double or triple the negligible amount I spend on storage space rather than risk a single important photo being less than optimally stored.



Davesrose said:


> Home video has vastly improved since whatever reference you're comparing with DVD vs videotape.  DVD matured over the years with improved encoding techniques and film scanning (telecine).  There also isn't really much inherent "noise" with digital authoring, as the only ADC is the scanner: there is grain from the source film and you can have artifacting from what encode you're using.  Early DVDs could have suffered more from compression artifacts or Digital Noise Reduction (which with telecine, the algorithms try to reduce grain, which can also result in less detail, present in the film and adds contrast around the edges).  For a time, movies have been scanned at 4K resolution for 35mm and 8k for 70mm during film restorations: maximizing resolutions that also means better grading (and since videophiles complain to studios, studios have also been less heavy handed with DNR: even re-issuing Blu-ray titles).  The main advantage with 4K for home applications isn't so much resolution but greater dynamic range: adding more colors and tonality in scenes that have higher peak brightness and retaining shadow detail.  Blu-ray and 4K UHD discs are also possible with more efficient video codecs than DVD: DVD was MPEG-2, BD is MPEG-4 (which allows greater compression with minimal artifacts).  As a physical medium BD can have multiple layers, but it seems most home movie releases are BD-50 for 1080P movies and BD-66 for UHD discs.  UHD 4K is able to be compressed further as it utilizes a new codec known as h.265 (MPEG-H).
> 
> I get better picture quality from my calibrated OLED TV at home then my local theaters....so for me, I like both my _picture _and _sound _at home vs the cinema (and it's great that older movies and some TV shows look and sound better than they originally did).


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes, the quality you get from cable often isn't very good at all.
(And you'll notice that, with at least some cable services, the quality of footage you DVR is further reduced.)

Netflix is better... and their videos often look very good... but they still have far less bandwidth available than a 4k disc.
Your data cap wouldn't last long at all if you allowed 120 gB for a single movie.



Davesrose said:


> The HD remastering for Star Trek Next Gen was pretty impressive.  The original VFX were filmed in passes on Vistavision film, and then scanned for analog SD editing.  With the digital HD remaster, they scanned the original film and digitally composited passes (making quality as good as a movie).  I find broadcast cable to be pretty bad by today’s standards.  No wonder people watch most TV shows streaming.  Some services like Netflix even has original programming in Atmos and Dolby Vision.  The only main disadvantage with streaming a lot of 4K content is running into your internet provider’s data caps.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 2, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> However, I would disagree that the extra resolution in 4k doesn't help.
> As a few people have noted, and it agrees with my personal experience, a properly done 4k video offers much more realistic specular highlights.
> (The little pinpoints of brightness that make shiny metal and glittery things look different that "just bright objects" and make metallic surfaces look "shimmery".)
> Even when you can't see the specific details, metallic objects, and glittery or shiny objects like sunlight on water, or glittery confetti falling through a spotlight, tend to look more realistic in 4k.
> ...



I meant it as a generality with the average TV.  Almost all of that benefit is not primarily 4K resolution, but greater dynamic range.  SD and HD formats have been stuck at 8bit per channel tonality (or 256 shades of tone).  Some RED cameras now have RAW video files that record 16bpc.  Good HDR 4K TVs support Dolby Vision (which stores 12bpc DR: or 4096 shades of tone), and can display 10bpc DR (12 bit gets tone mapped to 10).  I would say one of the reasons a good OLED has extra shininess than a projector is because of contrast range and support for DolbyVision (higher end consumer projectors just support HDR10 AFAIK).  Another example of dynamic range being more a factor of "shiny highlights": many 4K releases with new movies are made with a 2K digital intermediate.  Studios are still by and large editing a movie in 2K HDR formats because of file size and rendering times.  They do use better upscaling processors for a UHD master then what your TV can do.  You can find a list of UHD Marvel movies and how many were done with a 2K intermediate.  I found Thor Ragnarok to be highly detailed, and it came from a 2K source.  I think Black Panther was their first 4K intermediate...and I couldn't say I could find it even more detailed from my TV/viewing distance.  So for newer movies that have been digitally edited, a primary benefit of the UHD title is the HDR component.  Older movies on film are inconsistent with their resolving power (based on filming technique and film stock).  After they're scanned in at least 4K HDR, they do get filters for removing any dust or scratches, color grading, and perhaps various digital restoration.  So 4K is a good back up resolution (for 35mm film: 70mm gets scanned at 8K).

Having said all that, I would agree that resolution is a factor for detail.  Normally, detail is thought of as the relationship between resolution and contrast (and as I stated before, with photography, it's also if the subject is in focus).  However, human perception is also a factor (IE if you're standing further away, you don't need an image that has as much "detail").  I sit close to my OLED TV, so I'm almost at the cusp of what "general" recommendations are of being able to see a difference with 1080 vs UHD.  The need for UHD (which specs are actually both 4K and future 8K standards) becomes more of a necessity the larger your display becomes (which will probably always be a trend).

And to get to your example of a VHS version of the movie showing more movement by way of analog noise.  I think what's more likely with the DVD version was that in the editing (probably using too much DNR to remove film grain), enough contrast was delineated to not let details of the tornado show through.  Again, studios were a bit more heavy handed with DNR earlier on (also algorithms to retain contrast weren't as sophisticated), and with a lot of complaining from videophiles, studios have eased up on DNR.



KeithEmo said:


> I used to take a lot of photos...
> And, MOST of the time, a JPG looks just as good as a RAW file...
> However, I still shoot important photos in RAW format, because the JPG doesn't ALWAYS look IDENTICAL to the JPG...
> And, yes, I WOULD rather double or triple the negligible amount I spend on storage space rather than risk a single important photo being less than optimally stored.



This is where I disagree.  There are professionals (sports photographers especially) who only take jpeg images so that they don't have to process the photo: where they're taking a lot of photos and need a fast turn around to go to the editors.  I always shoot RAW as I am able to get the full exposure range and be able to adjust contrast throughout the image (a RAW works like the negative did with film).  With RAW, you have a lot more leeway for adjusting exposure, reducing noise at high ISO, and fixing white balance issues.  Now JPEG is fine if you're happy with how it turned out and don't want to get into post processing.  With the consumer standard JPEG, it's limited to 8bpc.  Digital cameras now can record RAWs up to 16bpc: so you're throwing out a lot of information.  You're also tied to whatever color profiles you've had set in the camera (sports shooters who only shoot JPEG are very meticulous about how they've set up their profiles and workflows).

It's also interesting to go back to resolution with stills cameras.  So 4K video resolution is a little over 8MP.  My first DSLR was 12MP, and Sony has just announced a FF mirrorless that's 61MP.  Why more MP with a stills camera vs video?  I would say with video, because of action and viewing distance, you don't need as much displayed resolution.  Also from a practicality standpoint, it takes a lot more computer power to try to process a high resolution video vs one still.  With a still photograph, you may want to print it large, and still want the ability to let people come up to a few inches to closely examine.  Lastly, photographers also like to have the option to crop (sometimes heavily....say you took a picture of a bird and didn't have a long enough lens).


----------



## Davesrose

KeithEmo said:


> Your data cap wouldn't last long at all if you allowed 120 gB for a single movie.



blu-ray.com gives the disc size for every movie.  Thanks to h.265, I’ve noticed a lot of 4k discs are 66GB (a few are 100).  The largest bandwidth spec I’ve seen for streaming 4K is 16GB/hr.  My data cap is 1028GB a month...so can’t watch streaming 4K every night.  Streaming 4K is more compressed than disc, but I do find the quality is still good.  One main disadvantage is if your internet cuts out or your updated app doesn’t work right.


----------



## bigshot

I think the transfer and projection is more important to get a film like presentation than 720, 1080 or 4K. I have great looking DVDs. Resolution is overrated. If you have to stand up and cross the room and squint at the screen to see the difference, it’s overkill. I watch movies from the couch.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think we mostly do agree....

I don't really do much video, but, from what I've read, here are the primary differences....
Especially at the consumer level, DSLRs allow you to use a variety of lenses, including those with lower F-stop numbers when you want to limit depth of field....
Most lower-end video cameras have a smaller sensor, and less choice of lenses, and so pretty much ALWAYS deliver a long depth of field.
(They have very good low light sensitivity - which means that, in a normally lit scene, you must use a bigger F-stop... and they get noisy if you add a neutral density filter.)
This gives you a much wider number of lens options with a DSLR than a low end video camera. 

However, I've also heard that many higher-end consumer DSLR's have an issue with how the image is "exposed".
(Remember that many DSLRs still use a mechanical shutter in front of the sensor.)
They work well if the camera and the background are stationary...
However, if you try to do a horizontal camera pan, vertical objects like buildings will exhibit "tearing"...
Because the shutter exposes the sensor sequentially instead of instantly, different rows are exposed one after the other, resulting in a horizontal skew if you move the camera too fast.
(I'm sort of remembering that one of the Canon EOS cameras had this issue... the general advice is "well, director, don't do that sort of shot with this camera".)
Presumably a middle-line video camera can deliver equivalent resolution and sensitivity while avoiding this sort of quirks.

As for that movie.....
It could have been a deliberate choice of some human.
But I suspect that it could also have been the "most intelligent choice" of an automated system.
Remember that DVDs have limited bandwidth, so the encoder does a two-pass analysis/tradeoff when it encodes content.
MPEG depends on being able to re-use data from frame to frame to achieve a good compression ratio...
Therefore, since film grain, and plain old noise, are almost purely random, and change from frame to frame, they compress very poorly...
(Random noise is essentially the textbook example of "non-compressible data".)
Since an automatic system MUST fit the content into the bandwidth it's been allocated...
It's essentially going to analyze the content, then "set the noise filter threshold high enough that what's left has little enough random variation that what's left compresses well".
(So an automated system would try really hard to remove anything resembling random noise... and so would a human operator.)

You used to see this issue with encoded sports events.
A talking head, on a stationary background, always encoded very cleanly...
And a talking head, standing in front of a complex background, like a crowd, encoded well (although sometimes you'd see artifacts for a split second when the background shifted).
However, if the camera moved, and the crowd became a complex moving field, which compressed poorly...
You would notice all sorts of artifacts as the encoder struggled to squeeze everything into the allocated bandwidth....
Then, once the camera stopped moving, everything would "settle down again".

Yes, things have improved drastically since then....   



Davesrose said:


> I meant it as a generality with the average TV.  Almost all of that benefit is not primarily 4K resolution, but greater dynamic range.  SD and HD formats have been stuck at 8bit per channel tonality (or 256 shades of tone).  Some RED cameras now have RAW video files that record 16bpc.  Good HDR 4K TVs support Dolby Vision (which stores 12bpc DR: or 4096 shades of tone), and can display 10bpc DR (12 bit gets tone mapped to 10).  I would say one of the reasons a good OLED has extra shininess than a projector is because of contrast range and support for DolbyVision (higher end consumer projectors just support HDR10 AFAIK).  Another example of dynamic range being more a factor of "shiny highlights": many 4K releases with new movies are made with a 2K digital intermediate.  Studios are still by and large editing a movie in 2K HDR formats because of file size and rendering times.  They do use better upscaling processors for a UHD master then what your TV can do.  You can find a list of UHD Marvel movies and how many were done with a 2K intermediate.  I found Thor Ragnarok to be highly detailed, and it came from a 2K source.  I think Black Panther was their first 4K intermediate...and I couldn't say I could find it even more detailed from my TV/viewing distance.  So for newer movies that have been digitally edited, a primary benefit of the UHD title is the HDR component.  Older movies on film are inconsistent with their resolving power (based on filming technique and film stock).  After they're scanned in at least 4K HDR, they do get filters for removing any dust or scratches, color grading, and perhaps various digital restoration.  So 4K is a good back up resolution (for 35mm film: 70mm gets scanned at 8K).
> 
> Having said all that, I would agree that resolution is a factor for detail.  Normally, detail is thought of as the relationship between resolution and contrast (and as I stated before, with photography, it's also if the subject is in focus).  However, human perception is also a factor (IE if you're standing further away, you don't need an image that has as much "detail").  I sit close to my OLED TV, so I'm almost at the cusp of what "general" recommendations are of being able to see a difference with 1080 vs UHD.  The need for UHD (which specs are actually both 4K and future 8K standards) becomes more of a necessity the larger your display becomes (which will probably always be a trend).
> 
> ...


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 2, 2019)

On basic points we agree.  Such as 4K does make a difference.  I do see extra detail and whether the shot is in focus or if there's a distortion with the lens used: but the biggest advantage of 4K is the extra contrast with HDR (I have a background in photography, so I always like seeing more contrast range).  I also know jpeg is fine for folks who don't want to worry with post processing.  It's just for me (where I'm doing landscapes and portraits), I like having extra exposure range.  You also have the advantage of being able to save to an HDR format for future HDR displays (the JPEG group has developed 12bit specs, but it's not available in editing programs yet).  I also have a professional background in 3D medical animation, and have had to render and encode for DVD, blu-ray, and web.  Also with 3D, I have to take full 32bit HDR to get environmental light simulation.  I can also geek out on film and VFX as I'm a movie buff and have attended quite a few conventions with VFX departments.  Get ready for my visual geek 

There's a few different things you're bringing up....so let me clarify with my knowledge about photography.  First it's difficult to mix video cameras with DSLRs.  Yes, low end video cameras have fixed lenses.  But cinema cameras have specialty cinema lenses and a different type of mechanical shutter.  The issue you're referring to with a skewed image during panning is known as rolling shutter: and larger format cameras can exhibit this.  Also DSLRs that record video (have been referenced as HDSLR to differentiate between earlier ones that didn't take video) are likely to exhibit rolling shutter because their shutters are vertical travel shutters.  However, cinema cameras have had a rotary shutter (that also correlates to fps being 24 frame increments).  There's some different types of shutters current cinema brands are using, but they're all pretty minimal with rolling shutter.  As for differences in cinema lenses, they're specialized to not have focus shift (a DSLR lens can have the frame of the image change a bit during focusing), as well as apertures being in T-stops instead of F-stops.  F-stop is a ratio of the diameter of aperture compared to focal length, while T-stop is the actual exposure (amount of light) ratio.  Studios have been using HDSLRs for some "B-roll" shots (IE not main shots).  This might be done for the smaller size setup, and sometimes it's for the different framing of FF (full frame), 2:3 24x36mm sensor.  BTW, Canon has their EOS HDSLRs that are used for B-roll, but Canon also is a competing brand with a different cinema line.

When it comes to noise, it's basically that the camera isn't getting enough exposure (and the shadows have gotten into the camera's sensor values that extend into the noise floor).  Exposure is thought of the relationship between aperture and shutter.  The more open the aperture, the more light can expose, and you get shallower depth of field.  The slower the shutter, the more time there is for exposure (and there's a potential for motion blur).  If you raise ISO, the camera is "brightening" the image and amplifying the saturation gain (and beginning to introduce noise).  Current camera phones are great for taking photos outdoors.  However, they have a really tiny sensor compared to a FF DSLR.  It's a matter of physics: the larger sensor has larger photo-sites in which more photons can hit each site (thereby getting better exposure).  The advantage of a larger sensor is greater dynamic range and ability to shoot in darker situations.  One thing I've noticed about my DSLRs (even my first 5D I got 14 years ago), is that they have better high ISO performance than film.  I remember processing 1600 ISO film thinking there was a lot of grain.  With current DSLRs (even APS-C sized sensors), you can comfortably expose at 6400 ISO.

Now when it comes to video encoding....there's a lot of factors going on for picture quality: it's a lot more involved than how much compression was used with a certain codec.  There's even differences in sharpness with different camera brands.  Brands will put anti-alias filters on sensors to reduce moire.  So you don't get odd chroma patterns on fabric, but the image will be softer.  I found more than anything, when I was encoding with MPEG-2 and had to toe the line with applying more compression, it would be clearly evident as pixelation and blocking.  I noticed this more with my earliest DVDs after I upgraded to a HDTV plasma screen.  With maturation, studios seemed better about finding the right amount of compression to keep a good quality and still stay in file size.  It was also more primitive then MPEG-4: which offers variable bitrate, and the algorithms don't just sample colors in a single frame, but frame to frame.  It's also not an automatic process of scanning the film, having your master file, and encoding for disc.  It's individualized by movie to judge how much color grading, dust and scratch removal, and encoding there needs to be.  So, in short it's highly speculative to examine why that scene in the DVD was lacking enough detail.



KeithEmo said:


> I think we mostly do agree....
> 
> I don't really do much video, but, from what I've read, here are the primary differences....
> Especially at the consumer level, DSLRs allow you to use a variety of lenses, including those with lower F-stop numbers when you want to limit depth of field....
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

our needs for screen resolution and movie resolution depends on the viewing distance and screen size. without those variables, any conversation is bound to be full of holes.
just because a screen is 4K doesn't mean the resolution is the only difference with a smaller screen. as such, drawing conclusions about the benefits of increased resolution based on our impressions are wrong. it's not better than me sitting 6 meters away from my computer screen and thinking that I'll never need better than youtube 480P because what I'm seeing looks very sharp on my 24" screen. 
and the same logic applies for movie formats, codecs, etc. without being able to isolate the variable, all we have are assumptions and rushed conclusions. 

for cameras, it's been many years since I've stopped bothering with the MP numbers(on my first digital camera I had like 6MP I think and that was clearly not enough for my needs, coming form an EOS1N I cried for a few years before finding a proper transition to fully digital). noise in low light and my lenses are much more significant to me in term of how resolving the pic will be. I'm happy that I can crop for sure, but that's a different matter entirely.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Aug 2, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> our needs for screen resolution and movie resolution depends on the viewing distance and
> screen size. without those variables, any conversation is bound to be full of holes.
> just because a screen is 4K doesn't mean the resolution is the only difference with
> a smaller screen. as such, drawing conclusions about the benefits of increased
> ...



And although questioned for its value, and misunderstood by most, calibration does matter.  There are industry standard patterns, such as those on the Spears & Munsil disc:  https://www.biaslighting.com/produc...MIuYSMmrbl4wIVAZSzCh23JwQ5EAQYASABEgJEovD_BwE

That will guide one to adjusting the basic and advanced picture settings correctly.

Think of it as 'wheel alignment' for your screen!


----------



## bigshot (Aug 2, 2019)

Whether or not you can see the added resolution of 4K depends on how far you sit from the screen. And how close you sit to the screen affects the viewing angle and how much of the screen is off into your peripheral vision. The THX recommended viewing angle is 36 degrees. So if I do the math... I have a ten foot screen. I sit the THX recommended distance away from it of 15 feet. That puts me right smack in the sweet spot for blu-ray. 4K isn't necessary for me unless I get up out of my chair and stand 8-10 feet from the screen. If I do that, the viewing angle is about 65 degrees and the edges of the screen are out of my vision on the sides. In order to sit that close, THX recommends I would need a screen half that size... and it would still not be in the size/distance range for 4K to be worth it!

The truth is, if you are watching 1.85 movies at home. There isn't any practical way for 4K to make a bit of difference when it comes to resolution unless you get out of your chair and walk up to the screen. Do the math with the specs on your own setup using the calculator I've linked below, and you'll see what I mean. The only advantage to 4K is color and contrast... which is pretty much negated if you go to projection, because projectors have higher black levels.

Link to THX viewing distance calculator... https://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html







By the way, I did a Spears and Munsil calibration on my projector and it ended up falling right into every one of the detents in the settings. Epson has tight standards and I suspect their projectors are pretty much calibrated right out of the box.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 2, 2019)

The other factor is the width between the speakers. if you have a ten foot screen and you put the mains on either end of the screen, the recommended listening distance is going to be 12-14 feet from the speakers. Again, that puts you too far away from the screen to get any resolution advantage of 4K. You can sit closer, but the mains will be at an angle that negates any kind of soundstage.

I think the only way you could come up with a way to be able to benefit from 4K resolution would be to  only watch films shot in 1.33 aspect ratio and to put your mains behind the screen at either side. If you did that, you could sit closer and have everything still work. But it wouldn't work for Cinemascope!


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 2, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Whether or not you can see the added resolution of 4K depends on how far you sit from the screen. And how close you sit to the screen affects the viewing angle and how much of the screen is off into your peripheral vision. The THX recommended viewing angle is 36 degrees. So if I do the math... I have a ten foot screen. I sit the THX recommended distance away from it of 15 feet. That puts me right smack in the sweet spot for blu-ray. 4K isn't necessary for me unless I get up out of my chair and stand 8-10 feet from the screen. If I do that, the viewing angle is about 65 degrees and the edges of the screen are out of my vision on the sides. In order to sit that close, THX recommends I would need a screen half that size... and it would still not be in the size/distance range for 4K to be worth it!
> 
> The truth is, if you are watching 1.85 movies at home. There isn't any practical way for 4K to make a bit of difference when it comes to resolution unless you get out of your chair and walk up to the screen. Do the math with the specs on your own setup using the calculator I've linked below, and you'll see what I mean. The only advantage to 4K is color and contrast... which is pretty much negated if you go to projection, because projectors have higher black levels.
> 
> ...



One of the problems is that "enough detail" isn't just a factor of your display's native resolution (that graph is a general rule of thumb, and not set in stone).  Heck, I had a non-1080P plasma for years because it had great contrast and color rendition (and while native resolution wasn't 1080, it had better scalers with 1080i content than 720P).  Image quality starts with the cinematographer being able to expose well and having all important subjects in sharp focus.  Then it's how well the video files are edited and encoded for home formats.  I do still have DVDs...many TV shows.  A lot of those are still very watchable, but I can easily see their limitations on a big screen compared to HD.  1080P still looks good on my screen, and in given shots, I can see some good detail.  But let us not forget that UHD isn't just resolution.  More ground breaking is HDR.  With HDR, I find I can see better gradation in landscapes (where I can see detail in clouds and detail in shadows).  More readily, I can see greater contrast and detail in shadows.  Some of my favorite movies have been released in 4K, and I do see improvements all around.  Now watching some of my other favorite movies in HD, they do have detail...but seem flatter because I don't see as much shadow detail.  I think contrast being the bigger factor is also confirmed by UHD sources (in which quite a few modern movies rated as "reference" were from 2K HDR intermediates).


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Davesrose said:


> One of the problems is that "enough detail" isn't just a factor of your display's native resolution (that graph is a general rule of thumb, and not set in stone).  Heck, I had a non-1080P plasma for years because it had great contrast and color rendition (and while native resolution wasn't 1080, it had better scalers with 1080i content than 720P).  Image quality starts with the cinematographer being able to expose well and having all important subjects in sharp focus.  Then it's how well the video files are edited and encoded for home formats.  I do still have DVDs...many TV shows.  A lot of those are still very watchable, but I can easily see their limitations on a big screen compared to HD.  1080P still looks good on my screen, and in given shots, I can see some good detail.  But let us not forget that UHD isn't just resolution.  More ground breaking is HDR.  With HDR, I find I can see better gradation in landscapes (where I can see detail in clouds and detail in shadows).  More readily, I can see greater contrast and detail in shadows.  Some of my favorite movies have been released in 4K, and I do see improvements all around.  Now watching some of my other favorite movies in HD, they do have detail...but seem flatter because I don't see as much shadow detail.  I think contrast being the bigger factor is also confirmed by UHD sources (in which quite a few modern movies rated as "reference" were from 2K HDR intermediates).



Is your display calibrated(even just the basic controls)?


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 3, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Is your display calibrated(even just the basic controls)?



Yes, I have a calibration meter.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'll have to admit that I actually calibrate my computer monitor - but my new-ish Samsung TV looks close enough (with the settings I got from RTings punched in) that so far I haven't bothered.

However, the one thing that continues to annoy me is how TV manufacturers FAIL to make any effort to simplify TV calibration.

In the distant past calibrating a computer monitor was somewhat complicated - and the hardware needed to do so was somewhat expensive.
However, in the past few decades, it's become much simpler and more economical.... and entirely automated.
To calibrate my computer monitor, I plug the colorimeter into a USB port, stick it on the front of my monitor, and run the calibration software.
I then make, at most, two or three basic adjustments, start the program, and go have a cup of coffee.
The program automatically plays a set of color patches, analyzes the results, calculates the corrections, and transfers the calibration file to the computer.
With computers, the color lookup table (LUT) in the graphics card is replaced with a calibrated one, which provides a rough calibration of the monitor itself, similar to calibrating a TV screen.
In addition to this,a color profile file is generated, which is used for more accurate corrections by programs that individually support color management.
However, details, aside, the entire process is automated, and takes a vew minutes.
A reasonably good quality calibrator, which includes the software, can be purchased for $200 to $300, and requires no skill to operate.

It would be trivial for every monitor and projector manufacturer to include a calibration app in their unit.
Any user who wished to calibrate their TV could simply buy the optional colorimeter, plug it in, and hit a few buttons.
(This option has been available for decades for computers - and it surprises me that it hasn't become available for TV sets.)

Note that this only adjusts and calibrates the COLOR... because computer monitors don't generally use sharpening corrections.
(But that's the setting that's difficult to set accurately by eye using a disc.)



TheSonicTruth said:


> And although questioned for its value, and misunderstood by most, calibration does matter.  There are industry standard patterns, such as those on the Spears & Munsil disc:  https://www.biaslighting.com/produc...MIuYSMmrbl4wIVAZSzCh23JwQ5EAQYASABEgJEovD_BwE
> 
> That will guide one to adjusting the basic and advanced picture settings correctly.
> 
> Think of it as 'wheel alignment' for your screen!


----------



## KeithEmo

I should point out that any and all "distance guidelines" are simply matters of someone's opinion.
I personally don't care in the least "what viewing distance THX recommends".
Some people prefer to have the screen fill their entire field of vision - while others do not.

There is also a big difference between projectors and direct-view panels.
With a direct view panel each pixel is distinct and sharp.
Whereas, with a projector, there is always at least some tiny bit of color misalignment or color fringing, and the pixels themselves are never perfecty sharp.
(Even lenses and mirrors themselves have some tiny degree of chromatic aberration - an LCD pixel, or a self-illuminated OLED pixel, does not.)

I have a small living room, and a small 50" TV, and I ususlly sit what many current publications consider to be the optimum viewing distance for that size of screen.... (1.5x the screen width - about six or seven feet).
I personally DON'T like the screen to fill my entire field of vision.... but I find any detectable blurring or color fringing to be annoying.
And, when I'm wearing my glasses, while a good quality Blu-Ray disc looks very good, a good quality 4k disc does often look noticeably better.... especially if there are sparkly or shiny metal bits in the image.
The 4k image also does better at providing a more realistic impression of sunlight glinting off small waves on water.
(Watch some game show where, during the blowoff, they dump a bunch of glittery metal tinsel through the spotlights... look for the glittery parts to actually look metallic.)

(And, yes, some upscaled Blu-Ray discs come quite close, but can't quite match that impression I get in a true 4k picture.)
(And, yes, many 4k discs FAIL to look sinificantly better than the Blu-Ray version, possibly because they were actually filmed or edited at 2k, but some so.)
(And, yes, sometimes I DO walk up near the screen to look at a detail - just as some people occasionally turn up the volume on a quiet spot in the music to _hear_ a detail.)

I would also concede that some of those differences might be due to the original production choices.
(I would like to hope that, when a movie is being "filmed for 4k", better cameras and lenses are used, KNOWING that minor aberrations that would go unnoticed on a blu-Ray disc will be visible at 4k.)

The bottom line is that I would cheerfully agree that, for most people, with most movies, Blu-Ray resolution is "perfectly adequate"....
But, at least sometimes, 4k manages levels of detail and realism that Blu-Ray doesn;t ever seem to quite match.
(Note that I'm not arguing that "a perfectly produced Blu-Ray disc couldn't be visually perfect".... but merely that the best quality 4k image I've seen far surpasses the best quality Blu-Ray image I've seen.)



bigshot said:


> Whether or not you can see the added resolution of 4K depends on how far you sit from the screen. And how close you sit to the screen affects the viewing angle and how much of the screen is off into your peripheral vision. The THX recommended viewing angle is 36 degrees. So if I do the math... I have a ten foot screen. I sit the THX recommended distance away from it of 15 feet. That puts me right smack in the sweet spot for blu-ray. 4K isn't necessary for me unless I get up out of my chair and stand 8-10 feet from the screen. If I do that, the viewing angle is about 65 degrees and the edges of the screen are out of my vision on the sides. In order to sit that close, THX recommends I would need a screen half that size... and it would still not be in the size/distance range for 4K to be worth it!
> 
> The truth is, if you are watching 1.85 movies at home. There isn't any practical way for 4K to make a bit of difference when it comes to resolution unless you get out of your chair and walk up to the screen. Do the math with the specs on your own setup using the calculator I've linked below, and you'll see what I mean. The only advantage to 4K is color and contrast... which is pretty much negated if you go to projection, because projectors have higher black levels.
> 
> ...


----------



## ruthieandjohn

I have always sought to have the screen  images’s vertical dimension to subtend the same angle in my field of view as the image on the screen of a theater.  A quick trick I use is that the height of the image, whether in theater or on TV, should be the same as the height defined by holding my splayed open hand, thumb at bottom and pinkie at top, at arms length.  I also have to distinguish between screen size, which may need to be bigger than that, and image height, since wide screen movies often have a wider aspect ratio than my screen, so that my screen has blank bars above and below the image.

I know there must be formulas out there for this, so that one just multiplies the (diagonal) screen size by some number to determine the max viewing distance that will maintain an image height of a hand span, despite wide images that don’t fill screen height.  I just don’t know way that multiplier is.  Any ideas?  Thanks!


----------



## KeithEmo

Another unfortunate issue is that we don't actually know how and when a particular piece of content was encoded and compressed - and what settings were used.

For example, if you look at the compression used in MPG encoding, many standards specify an overall maximum bandwidth (go beyond that and not only won't your movie fit on the disc but some players won't play it).
Likewise, most streaming services have a specified overall bandwidth, or even adjust the bandwidth each customer receives based on packet failure rates or latency metrics.
However, because of how the video compression is done with MPG, complex scenes with lots of fine detail, or random noise, require more bandwidth.
What most high-quality encoders do is called "two-pass encoding"... they first read the entire video file once to determine which particular areas have the most detail.
They then go back and do the encoding itself - intelligently allowing more bandwidth for complex scenes and less for simpler scenes - to optimize the _OVERALL _use of bandwidth.

This is similar to the process that's used with "variable bit rate encoding".
- with VBR encoding you allow the overall bit-rate to vary as necessary to deliver the content at a steady "percieved quality level"
- with two-pass encoding, you first calculate which areas that need PROPORTIONALLY more bandwidth, then allocate more or less fo the total available bandwidth according to that determination
(so, with two pass encoding, the total bandwidth remains the same, but individual scenes or even frames may be allotted a smaller or greater portion of that total, aiming to maintain a steady "perceived quality")
(You're essentially saying "scene 1 needs twice as much bandwidth as scene two to look as good visually - now let's see how much we can allocate to each without exceeding our outside limit".)

This process yields a better overall result, especially with video that contains a variety of complex and simple scenes, but it takes more time and more processing power...
And, more importantly, it cannot be done in real time...
And how many simply play the original through a black box that "compresses the stream to fit into the specified bandwidth on the fly using a lower quality single compression pass.

There's also a sort of philosophical question involved here - which also relates to lossy audio compression - and it concerns what you MEAN by "accurate reproduction".
Let's assume we have a master film copy of an old movie.
And, as you would expect, the colors are a bit faded, and there is clearly visible film grain.

Which is "a more accurate reproduction of the film"?:
- carefully correct the color, and adjust the filtering to remove the film grain and noise, resulting in a clean, bright, colorful picture
- carefully reproduce the original, including the color shift and the film grain, so the viewer can see EXACTLY WHAT THE FILM VERSION WAS LIKE

I would specifically consider film grain.....
Some of us would probably consider film grain to be a flaw in the reproduction - to be eliminated
But some of us consider film grain to be an important aspect of how movies produced on film look - and WANT to be able to see differences between movies produced on film and video
(And some true aficionados will even compare the exact differences in film grain between different films and camera settings).
Many people still complain that "video just doesn't look like film" because it LACKS film grain and the almost imperceptible flicker introduced by the lower frame rate of film.

As I mentioned before, because film grain is largely random, accurately reproducing film grain actually requires far mroe bandwidth than simply filtering it out...
(and SOME viewers will consider doing so to be an improvement - but others will not)



Davesrose said:


> blu-ray.com gives the disc size for every movie.  Thanks to h.265, I’ve noticed a lot of 4k discs are 66GB (a few are 100).  The largest bandwidth spec I’ve seen for streaming 4K is 16GB/hr.  My data cap is 1028GB a month...so can’t watch streaming 4K every night.  Streaming 4K is more compressed than disc, but I do find the quality is still good.  One main disadvantage is if your internet cuts out or your updated app doesn’t work right.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 3, 2019)

This link goes to a calculator that gives you a way to judge the recommended angle of view for both THX and SMPTE factoring for screen size and distance from the screen. It shows the maximum and minimum distances too. This is what they use to design movie theaters, depending on whether to SMPTE or THX standards. https://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 3, 2019)

With my professional encoding software, it does a good job of estimating file size of a video based on current settings you choose.  You still do have the option to use 1 pass or 2 pass, as well as CBR or VBR.  You may want to have a large bitrate (larger then what can fit on a disc) MPEG-4 to use as a master file, and to have faster processing speed than working with an uncompressed video file.

As for bandwidth for streaming movies: there can be some degradation in quality if you don't have enough bandwidth, but apps will usually switch over to a lower resolution if they detect you don't have enough bandwidth.

I mentioned this before: if using more digital noise reduction (and using a less sophisticated algorithm), you'll reduce grain but also lose detail.  If you see a scene with too much DNR, a person's face might look as though they have heavy pancake make-up.  Better DNR schemes use techniques such as "unsharp mask" to try to retain detail.  But after getting complaints from videophiles, studios have also eased up on how much DNR they apply.



KeithEmo said:


> Another unfortunate issue is that we don't actually know how and when a particular piece of content was encoded and compressed - and what settings were used.
> 
> For example, if you look at the compression used in MPG encoding, many standards specify an overall maximum bandwidth (go beyond that and not only won't your movie fit on the disc but some players won't play it).
> Likewise, most streaming services have a specified overall bandwidth, or even adjust the bandwidth each customer receives based on packet failure rates or latency metrics.
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Aug 3, 2019)

And as has been said a gazillion times... the purpose of presenting sound isn't to exactly replicate the sound as it was in the studio... and the purpose of presenting films on home video isn't to exactly replicate the way it looked on film in a movie theater. The purpose is to optimize it for the medium, whether that be CD or blu-ray. On my home system, blu-rays often look better than they ever looked in a movie theater. Compression and noise reduction, intelligently applied, can optimize and improve the appearance of video. It enables you to fit more resolution in a smaller package and eliminate distracting flicker, chatter and gate weave that hogs bandwidth without offering any advantage.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

KeithEmo said:


> I should point out that any and all "distance guidelines" are simply matters of someone's opinion.
> I personally don't care in the least "what viewing distance THX recommends".
> Some people prefer to have the screen fill their entire field of vision - while others do not.
> 
> ...



You call 50" diagonal "small" for a residential setting?

Bless your heart!


----------



## bigshot

It looks like the only way for 4K to make a difference is for screens below 50 inches. But you have to sit pretty close to the screen to get the recommended viewing angle.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 3, 2019)

bigshot said:


> It looks like the only way for 4K to make a difference is for screens below 50 inches. But you have to sit pretty close to the screen to get the recommended viewing angle.



I assume this must be meant as a joke on Keith's expense.  It's amazing how large flat screens are getting now (and cheaper than when I bought my first HDTV).


----------



## KeithEmo

This seems to be where you disagree with a lot of other people...

Personally, when I listen to music,_ MY_ goal _IS_ to hear exactly what the recording enginer heard, in the studio, when he played the master recording on his console to proof it.
(I may not always play my music at that level - but I certainly insist on being able to do so when and if I choose to do so.)
Notice that I said that I want to hear exactly what the _mastering engineer _heard - and _NOT_ what the concert hall, or the recording studio where the musicians played originally, sounded like.
I consider the master, as produced by the recording engineer, to be "the original copy that sounds exactly how it's supposed to sound" - and that is exactly what I want to hear.

However, when it comes to video and TV, I personally am not a huge fan of actual movie theaters... and I'm quite satisfied with my 50" screen.
HOWEVER, the company I work for, Emotiva, sells both stereo and home theater equipment...
And I can tell you, for an absolute fact, that MANY of our customers are in fact doing the best they can to actually replicate a movie theater in their home theater room.
This often includes a big screen, theater style sound, theater style seats, and even movie posters on the walls and blackout curtains on the windows and doors.
(It would probably be more accurate to say that they do their best to to recreate an _ideal _movie theater - rather than replicating a specific imperfect example of one.)

When it comes to something like a movie, which was mastered for theatrical viewing, and then remastered for home video, the lines become a bit more blurred.

However, I very carefully chose the specific example I did for a reason...
Here we have a movie where, in certain scenes, there are _SUPPOSED TO BE_ dark swirling clouds...
It's pretty obvious that swirling clouds are "part of the original artistic intent" and that effort was made to ensure that the clouds would in fact swirl when the scene was filmed...
(I'm quite certain that the swirling clouds were edited in as a special effect to convey the fact that "s storm was brewing".... )
And, with all its other shortcomings, the VHS copy managed to reproduce that particular aspect correctly...
And, in contrast, that important visual element was MISSING in the DVD version...
(To me, this would be the equivalent of having a lossy compressed audio file, where one particular instrument was mysteriously missing.)

I agree that often real improvements are made during remastering.... and sometimes without an obvious cost somewhere else.
In this case, it's quite possible that their INTENT was to improve the quality without doing any harm...
Or that some human decided that "the noise bothered them" and made a conscious decision to sacrifice the swirling coulds in order to remove it...
(Although, considering the vintage of the movie, and that it was a low cost reissue, I suspect that in this case it was simply "what came out of the converter"...)

However, my point remains, which is that the result was OBVIOUSLY VISIBLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL...
If their intent was to produce a copy that was identical to the original, minus the tape noise, then they failed - because they also removed visible content in the process of removing the noise.
(If we were considering this in the same way we consider lossy audio compression - then it was clearly NOT "transparent to the original".)
(And my secondary point also remains - which is that you might not notice the obvious omission unless you had the original to compare it to.)



bigshot said:


> And as has been said a gazillion times... the purpose of presenting sound isn't to exactly replicate the sound as it was in the studio... and the purpose of presenting films on home video isn't to exactly replicate the way it looked on film in a movie theater. The purpose is to optimize it for the medium, whether that be CD or blu-ray. On my home system, blu-rays often look better than they ever looked in a movie theater. Compression and noise reduction, intelligently applied, can optimize and improve the appearance of video. It enables you to fit more resolution in a smaller package and eliminate distracting flicker, chatter and gate weave that hogs bandwidth without offering any advantage.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 3, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> I assume this must be meant as a joke on Keith's expense.



No. I have Keith muted and when I unmute him I only glance at the first sentence or two of his posts. I guess I'm the only one running the numbers through that viewing angle calculator and comparing them to the resolution chart. If you do that and run a few different scenarios, you'll find that 4K is only visible at the correct viewing angle on screens under 50 inches viewed from under 6 feet or so. With very large screens where you sit further back to achieve the proper viewing angle, 1080 is sufficient. The reason that theaters use 4K is to accommodate a wider range of seating positions. It isn't necessary for the ideal seating distance. Run the numbers and I think you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> No. I have Keith muted and when I unmute him I only glance at the first sentence or two of his posts. I guess I'm the only one running the numbers through that viewing angle calculator and comparing them to the resolution chart. If you do that and run a few different scenarios, you'll find that 4K is only visible at the correct viewing angle on screens under 50 inches viewed from under 6 feet or so. With very large screens where you sit further back to achieve the proper viewing angle, 1080 is sufficient. The reason that theaters use 4K is to accommodate a wider range of seating positions. It isn't necessary for the ideal seating distance. Run the numbers and I think you'll see what I mean.



It looks like you’re assuming a set viewing distance.  My screen is larger than 50”, and with my distance, it’s just at the cusp of difference of being able to see 4K resolution.  But it seems I’ll have to keep repeating: the advantage of the 4K format isn’t as much resolution as it is HDR.


----------



## KeithEmo

At the risk of sounding downright smarmy (I'll take that risk this time)....

When I wanted to see if I could notice a difference or not, instead of looking at a chart, or a calculator, I actually looked at some TV sets and monitors.
(And, without measuring my viewing distance or angle to make sure I'm following all the guidelines, I've found that sometimes I can actually see a difference.)

Perhaps, rather than worrying so much about numbers, and what you read somewhere, it would make sense to go out and look at a few actual TV sets.
And, if you see one that looks a lot better than the one you have now, when watching the same content, under the same conditions, then you should consider upgrading...
And, if you DON'T see one that looks significantly better, then you can probably save some money by NOT upgrading...
However, if you're buying a new set, you'll notice non-4k sets are getting difficult to find, 4k sets often don't cost significantly more, and you'll need a 4k set in order to get HDR.

Regardless of whether you care about 4k or not, thanks to improvements in technology, new panels are continuing to get better and cheaper.



bigshot said:


> No. I have Keith muted and when I unmute him I only glance at the first sentence or two of his posts. I guess I'm the only one running the numbers through that viewing angle calculator and comparing them to the resolution chart. If you do that and run a few different scenarios, you'll find that 4K is only visible at the correct viewing angle on screens under 50 inches viewed from under 6 feet or so. With very large screens where you sit further back to achieve the proper viewing angle, 1080 is sufficient. The reason that theaters use 4K is to accommodate a wider range of seating positions. It isn't necessary for the ideal seating distance. Run the numbers and I think you'll see what I mean.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Aug 4, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> At the risk of sounding downright smarmy (I'll take that risk this time)....
> 
> When I wanted to see if I could notice a difference or not, instead of looking at a chart, or a calculator, I actually looked at some TV sets and monitors.
> (And, without measuring my viewing distance or angle to make sure I'm following all the guidelines, I've found that sometimes I can actually see a difference.)
> ...




Keith, in your first paragaraph you're beginning to sound just a liiiitle 'videophile' ish.

I do window-shop the current fare once in a while.  And the guys at Best Buy or wherever hate me, because they know me as "that person who always changes the settings"(on the Samsungs at least, that's my make!) from the suitcase store or Vivid settings to something closer to correct.  It can take me several minutes alone just to turn off all the 'enhancers' and 'noise reduction' crap in the Advanced section!  Having a knowledge of what things like Contrast and Brightness actually do, VS what the average user thinks they do, also helps me.

And my verdict?  Proper adjustment trumps the next advance in resolution every time!  Besides, I don't know what kind of distributors or splitters the store-supplied signal is going through before it reaches those TVs. Is it screen-fit - or just 16:9 with who knows how much overscan?

An anecdote for the sad state of consumer knowledge these days:  Another customer, who I did not know, was curious as to what I was doing.  They saw the menus I was navigating and said "Does my home TV have all those adjustments?"  I just turned and stared at him, holding my remote up with my thumb on the MENU button.... !

I don't hold today's consumer entirely to blame:  In the name of aesthetics, those knobs that used to line the bottom of one side of those big 1970 25" console TVs are now thoughtfully hidden behind a Menu button!  Some sets now have ZERO buttons anywhere on the case, a big no-no in my opinion if anything ever happens to the factory remote control!  Stupidest thing I ever came across


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> It looks like you’re assuming a set viewing distance.  My screen is larger than 50”, and with my distance, it’s just at the cusp of difference of being able to see 4K resolution.  But it seems I’ll have to keep repeating: the advantage of the 4K format isn’t as much resolution as it is HDR.



I'm not talking about a set viewing distance, I'm talking about an optimal viewing angle. If you are at the sweet spot for viewing, resolution isn't the issue. I agree that the main difference between HD and 4K is in contrast and color... but those are the two things that projection can't reproduce as well as regular monitors. But regular monitors don't give the same movie experience as projection... So it evens out. If I had a 50 inch monitor, I would probably want UHD. But with my projector, with my screen size and viewing position, I don't think it would make that much of a difference. I've even attended screenings at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood where they projected blu-rays and they looked perfect. It's more of an issue with a TV set where you're liable to be walking around closer to the screen sometimes and where the contrast levels are broader.

Projection isn't the same as buying a TV set. When you are installing a projection home theater system, you can't just look at different ones and choose. The design of your theater... the throw distance, the angle  of the keystoning, viewing distance, screen size, location of the projector and screen, integration of the screen with the speakers, brightness levels and blackout curtains, sound system requirements... all of these things are variables that you have to work out. You can't just walk into a store and say show me what it will be like in my home. I hired an AV tech to help me choose the equipment and design the way it would be installed, and he did measurements and ran them in a calculator and drew up plans. It isn't like walking into Best Buy and looking at the wall of TV sets and just picking one.

TST, I'm with you. The remote and front panel controls are among the biggest considerations when I buy something. I have a Logitech Harmony Hub that makes my iPhone the remote, but it is still quicker to grab the regular remote once in a while... and it's even quicker to hit the power and eject and volume controls on the unit itself! When the lights are out and I'm watching a movie, I don't want to fumble to find the controls.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 4, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I'm not talking about a set viewing distance, I'm talking about an optimal viewing angle. If you are at the sweet spot for viewing, resolution isn't the issue. I agree that the main difference between HD and 4K is in contrast and color... but those are the two things that projection can't reproduce as well as regular monitors. But regular monitors don't give the same movie experience as projection... So it evens out. If I had a 50 inch monitor, I would probably want UHD. But with my projector, with my screen size and viewing position, I don't think it would make that much of a difference. I've even attended screenings at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood where they projected blu-rays and they looked perfect. It's more of an issue with a TV set where you're liable to be walking around closer to the screen sometimes and where the contrast levels are broader.



First, there is no one "optimal viewing angle"  (it seems, you're referencing THX, but there are other general guidelines).  Secondly, people have been buying large flat panel TVs to be able to have optimum picture quality and wider viewing angle to have more of the movie experience.  The only main disadvantage I've seen about getting the largest sizes (85" and above) is that the display doesn't have quite as consistent contrast throughout the frame.  I first saw Sony's 4K and 8K cinema projectors at Siggraph (the main convention for computer graphics in the film industry), and on a large cinema screen (that goes into the periphery of vision), it was even more clearly evident how much added detail there was compared to 2K projectors.

When it comes to display shopping: if you're anal, you're going to do the same with TV or projector.  I didn't base my OLED TV purchase on going to a store: that has horrible ambient light and who knows what settings.  I looked at trusted review sites, and my TV has all the options for me to fine tune black point, white point, and either do fine color calibration or go by SMPTE color bars.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2019)

You still haven't clicked through the link I gave you. It gives you both SMPTE and THX standards with optimal, minimum and maximum distances. There is an optimal viewing angle, and it isn't that different for the two. These are the standards they use to design commercial movie theaters.

I work in animation. I went to see Fantasia 2000 in Imax. I came out of it not understanding half of what I was looking at. The screen was so wide, I had to turn my head to look from one end to the other. When the picture would cut quickly, I would have to scramble to find the next focal point where the action was taking place. By the time I arrived at it, the scene had cut again and I was scrambling again. There was a sequence with three interweaved stories. I didn't even realize that I was seeing the same character sover and over because I couldn't follow it at all. I came out of the theater frustrated and with a sore neck. Later on, the director asked me what I thought of his work and I was honest and told him I couldn't make head nor tail of it because it cut so fast. He said, "Wait a minute... where did you see it?" I told him at an Imax theater. He said that the animators were horrified when they saw it in Imax. The execs chose to do that without asking them. It totally ruined the movie. You don't want parts of the screen off in your peripheral vision. It's uncomfortable and frustrating.

I was speaking to the other guy with how to pick a projection system. He doesn't understand what you and I know from experience.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 4, 2019)

bigshot said:


> You still haven't clicked through the link I gave you. It gives you both SMPTE and THX standards with optimal, minimum and maximum distances. There is an optimal viewing angle, and it isn't that different for the two. These are the standards they use to design commercial movie theaters.
> 
> I work in animation. I went to see Fantasia 2000 in Imax. I came out of it not understanding half of what I was looking at. The screen was so wide, I had to turn my head to look from one end to the other. When the picture would cut quickly, I would have to scramble to find the next focal point where the action was taking place. By the time I arrived at it, the scene had cut again and I was scrambling again. There was a sequence with three interweaved stories. I didn't even realize that I was seeing the same character sover and over because I couldn't follow it at all. I came out of the theater frustrated and with a sore neck. Later on, the director asked me what I thought of his work and I was honest and told him I couldn't make head nor tail of it because it cut so fast. He said, "Wait a minute... where did you see it?" I told him at an Imax theater. He said that the animators were horrified when they saw it in Imax. The execs chose to do that without asking them. It totally ruined the movie. You don't want parts of the screen off in your peripheral vision. It's uncomfortable and frustrating.
> 
> I was speaking to the other guy with how to pick a projection system. He doesn't understand what you and I know from experience.



Again, there are different recommendations (beyond THX).  Within SMPTE, my viewing distance/screen size is acceptable viewing angle and just at the cusp of perceptually seeing 4K.  You can go in circles trying to convince yourself about what optimal viewing angle there should be: but when it comes to cinema, it's always varied.  When growing up, my dad and I would find seats in a movie theater, and my grandfather and grandmother would find seats further back (my grandfather's rule was extending your arm all the way, than extending your thumb and pinkie as edges for the frame). I can understand an argument that you shouldn't include a periphery as our eye resolution is centered towards a pretty narrow angle.  However, we scan the environment (and why actual perceived resolution for our visual perception is even higher than 4K or 8K).  So I don't subscribe to it, and many people do tend to want a larger screen size.  It's also your argument for your projection system (that size trumps resolution).  If we were to go by your current stance of "recommended" viewing angles, IMAX and Cinamascope would never had been marketable.  Cinemascope was a theater standard.  The original IMAX standard is for science museums (and filmed with a horizontal 70mm format).  The IMAX in cineplexes is a smaller screen with *usually* an IMAX up-scaled digital format.

To me, the one cinema technology I've abhorred is 3D stereoscope.  When watching content, your eye wanders and can scan elements besides the talking character.  The object that's in focus and the only thing you can watch is the subject in a 3D movie.  I've also noticed that with a good HDR display, the image pops and seems less flat (and to me, better than a 3-D stereoscopic movie).


----------



## KeithEmo (Aug 4, 2019)

The problem with "standards" that attempt to quantify "what's visible" is that our ability to perceive and pick out details is actually quite complex.
We are actually able to pick out much smaller flaws and details of certian types than others.
And we often perceive details only vaguely - as "the glitter in that scene looks more metallic on screen A than on screen B" or "the water looks more like real water".

I mentioned specular highlights in another post.
Those are the tiny bright "glints" or "points" that you see on shiny metallic objects, and metallic tinsel, and the tips of ocean waves in direct sunlight (which may actually occupy a single pixel).
You may not be able to "see" an individual pixel at a certain distance.... but the smaller pixels in a 4k image still present a more realistic impression of things with specular highlights.
Shiny metal looks more like real metal, and water with sunlight glinting off it looks more like actual water.
How this affects "perceived realism" has been addressed in a few articles in trade magazines... but, since it's difficult to measure, and so somewhat subjective, is rarely mentioned otherwise.
(A single bright 4k pixel will be averaged to become four less bright pixels on an HD screen... and, whatever mechanism is involved in how we perceive it, it does look slightly different.)

Another excellent example I've found is exterior scenes that include a chain link fence in bright daylight..... where, presumably, the wire in the fence sometimes appears as a single pixel wide.
Specifically, look for scenes where there are detailed objects or people walking behind the fence.
As the camera, or objects behind the fence, moves... you see moire patterns between the wires of the fence and the objects behind it...
(These patterns look both clearer and less obvious on a 4k screen... and they tend to be easier to ignore as being "separate from what we're looking at".)

It's also worth noting that there could be several factors at work.....
- most modern 4k TVs are also HDR, while other TVs are not, which results in a significant difference in the dynamic range available on "4k sets"
- virtually all TVs and projectors implement a variety of smoothing, sharpening, and motion processing options to "improve" the picture, and these vary considerably
  (for example, a typical sharpening filter operates on groups of pixels, and not on individual pixels, and so affects areas far larger than a single pixel)
- it's also reasonable to assume that any movie intended to become a 4k film or disc will be filmed using cameras with sharper optics and sensors
- (and, of course, any computer graphics created for use with a 4k version of something will be created using different settings as well)

Things get even more complicated when you consider thngs like chroma subsampling.

Thanks to chroma subsampling, your Blu-Ray disc delivers 1920 x 1080 resolution on green, but only half that resolution on blue.
This looks fine on most videos, and on objects like cars and faces, but results in color fringes on small white objects on a dark backgound (like white text on a computer monitor).
You also get color fringes on specular highlights... (with 4:2:0 subsampling, a single white pixel becomes a single green pixel, on top of a set of four blue pixels, and multiple red pixels)
That's why, if you plan to use yur TV as a computer monitor, and use it with text, you want to choose one that supports 4:4:4 chroma subsampling.
Even though Blu-Ray discs use 4:2:0 subsampling, most computer graphic cards will deliver 4:4:4, with full resolution on all colors... and no color fringing.

In general, sets that support full 4:4:4 chroma subsampling cost extra (because it's "a premium feature").
However, because of its higher native resolution, any set that delivers 4k at 4:2:0 can deliver 1080p at 4:4:4...
(It can easily deliver all three color planes at "half of its maximum resolution - which is 4k".)

I would also advise anyone, before they make ganeralizations about "what is possible with 4k projectors", to find some way to look at the image on one of the latest 4k projectors from JVC, or Sony, or Panasonic. The latest LASER illuminated models are extremely expensive, and you're more likely to encounter one at a trade show, or a very high end store, than at Best Buy.... however the sharpness and brightness they deliver are both remarkable... both from across the room... and when you walk up to the screen. And, if you want to talk about what 4k CAN do, and whether the difference is visible or not, it's only fair to compare the best examples of the technology... And, yes, the latest "high end home models" do deliver far better performance that what you'll find in most theaters. And, of course, you can expect this level of performance to become far cheaper over time.



Davesrose said:


> Again, there are different recommendations (beyond THX).  Within SMPTE, my viewing distance/screen size is acceptable viewing angle and just at the cusp of perceptually seeing 4K.  You can go in circles trying to convince yourself about what optimal viewing angle there should be: but when it comes to cinema, it's always varied.  When growing up, my dad and I would find seats in a movie theater, and my grandfather and grandmother would find seats further back (my grandfather's rule was extending your arm all the way, than extending your thumb and pinkie as edges for the frame). I can understand an argument that you shouldn't include a periphery as our eye resolution is centered towards a pretty narrow angle.  However, we scan the environment (and why actual perceived resolution for our visual perception is even higher than 4K or 8K).  So I don't subscribe to it, and many people do tend to want a larger screen size.  It's also your argument for your projection system (that size trumps resolution).  If we were to go by your current stance of "recommended" viewing angles, IMAX and Cinamascope would never had been marketable.  Cinemascope was a theater standard.  The original IMAX standard is for science museums (and filmed with a horizontal 70mm format).  The IMAX in cineplexes is a smaller screen with *usually* an IMAX up-scaled digital format.
> 
> To me, the one cinema technology I've abhorred is 3D stereoscope.  When watching content, your eye wanders and can scan elements besides the talking character.  The object that's in focus and the only thing you can watch is the subject in a 3D movie.  I've also noticed that with a good HDR display, the image pops and seems less flat (and to me, better than a 3-D stereoscopic movie).


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2019)

You have to remember that acceptable viewing angle is with commercial theaters in mind. The outer regions of acceptable is front row all the way at the side. Ouch! If you're going to deviate from the recommended, it's better to sit further away from the screen rather than closer to it. But in the home, with smaller screens and smaller audiences, you can hew closer to the ideal. It's fine to fudge things a bit, but if you look at how the ideal recommended viewing distance works with screen sizes, there isn't much point to going 4K for higher resolution. It was interesting to run the numbers for a 50 inch set. I didn't realize that 4K would be an advantage there, but it is.

I agree about 3D. I hate the way it forces you to look at the single focal point. If you try to look into the distance or foreground, it hurts your eyes. That drives me nuts. Whenever I've been dragged to 3D movies, I end up taking off the glasses every 15 or 20 minutes to rest my eyes. I have VR headsets and they don't have that problem. Not sure why. But even with them, 3D movies look phony... like little models or something.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 4, 2019)

bigshot said:


> You have to remember that acceptable viewing angle is with commercial theaters in mind. The outer regions of acceptable is front row all the way at the side. Ouch! If you're going to deviate from the recommended, it's better to sit further away from the screen rather than closer to it. But in the home, with smaller screens and smaller audiences, you can hew closer to the ideal. It's fine to fudge things a bit, but if you look at how the ideal recommended viewing distance works with screen sizes, there isn't much point to going 4K for higher resolution. It was interesting to run the numbers for a 50 inch set. I didn't realize that 4K would be an advantage there, but it is.
> 
> I agree about 3D. I hate the way it forces you to look at the single focal point. If you try to look into the distance or foreground, it hurts your eyes. That drives me nuts. Whenever I've been dragged to 3D movies, I end up taking off the glasses every 15 or 20 minutes to rest my eyes. I have VR headsets and they don't have that problem. Not sure why. But even with them, 3D movies look phony... like little models or something.



I'm still not really sure how you're concluding 50 inches or below is optimal viewing angle for all home situations at 4K resolutions, and saying your 100"+ screen is great with DVD resolutions.  I'm comfortably sitting close to my OLED TV, and it's still not the viewing angle of the first 4K and 8K digital projection presentations I saw.  You mentioned one movie in IMAX (Fantasia 200, where you were scanning too much to the sides).  Most 4K presentations I've seen in multiplexes now are just within what I deem acceptable angle of view: filling my vision, and subjects that are easy to focus on.


----------



## Davesrose

KeithEmo said:


> I would also advise anyone, before they make ganeralizations about "what is possible with 4k projectors", to find some way to look at the image on one of the latest 4k projectors from JVC, or Sony, or Panasonic. The latest LASER illuminated models are extremely expensive, and you're more likely to encounter one at a trade show, or a very high end store, than at Best Buy.... however the sharpness and brightness they deliver are both remarkable... both from across the room... and when you walk up to the screen. And, if you want to talk about what 4k CAN do, and whether the difference is visible or not, it's only fair to compare the best examples of the technology... And, yes, the latest "high end home models" do deliver far better performance that what you'll find in most theaters. And, of course, you can expect this level of performance to become far cheaper over time.



My OLED supports 4:4:4.  I brought this up before: I'm not aware of many consumer projectors supporting Dolby Vision.  The laser ones such as LGs do have good contrast for a projector, but they still don't tone map 12bit color space.


----------



## KeithEmo (Aug 5, 2019)

CHeck out the _latest_ models....

"Auto Tone Mapping function which automatically adjust settings based on the mastering information projects HDR10 content at optimum quality. Combining brightness of 2,200 lm, dynamic contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1, and wide color gamut covering beyond the DCI-P3 range, the projector faithfully reproduces latest content including HDR10 and HLG."

From the description of JVC's latest model:
https://www.us.jvc.com/projectors/procision/dla_nx9/



Davesrose said:


> My OLED supports 4:4:4.  I brought this up before: I'm not aware of many consumer projectors supporting Dolby Vision.  The laser ones such as LGs do have good contrast for a projector, but they still don't tone map 12bit color space.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 5, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> I'm still not really sure how you're concluding 50 inches or below is optimal viewing angle for all home situations at 4K resolutions, and saying your 100"+ screen is great with DVD resolutions.



I can detect a difference between DVD and blu-ray. It just isn't enough of a difference to affect my viewing pleasure. The reason I say that 50 inches might require HD more than a ten foot projection screen is because the recommended viewing distance for a 50 inch monitor falls into the range on that chart where 4K would be able to make a difference. When you are sitting the recommended distance away from a ten foot screen, you can't discern a difference. If you run the numbers in that calculator to determine the ideal viewing distance and refer to the chart, you'll see what I mean. It's counterintuitive. I thought a bigger screen might make more difference too, but it doesn't, because bigger screens require more distance, and human eyesight is more sensitive up close. A movie theater also needs more latitude from ideal because they have to get hundreds of people into the room. They can't all have ideal seats like we can in our living room with just three or four people. The people in the front row in a movie theater are going to need to see more resolution than the people in the back row. That doesn't apply in a living room.

Did I explain it clearer this time?

I would advise if anyone wants to make generalizations about the capabilities of 4K projectors, they should look at the price tag of the projector they're talking about and see if it's in the same realm everyone else is talking about. Yes, there are projectors that have great image quality. But they cost considerably more than the $3-4K that most home theater people are able to invest in a projector. $18 grand is an absurd amount of money to spend on something that is likely to be rendered obsolete by a new and better model in five or six years. They aren't selling those to people like us. That is for corporate screening rooms or theaters. And that fantastic contrast level is directly proportional to how good your blackout curtains are... a limitation wives typically put on living rooms. Let's talk real world, not absolute extremes.


----------



## dprimary

bigshot said:


> It looks like the only way for 4K to make a difference is for screens below 50 inches. But you have to sit pretty close to the screen to get the recommended viewing angle.



Makes sense, for many years I only specified 4k or UHD displays for interactive and collaborative applications.


----------



## dprimary

KeithEmo said:


> CHeck out the _latest_ models....
> 
> "Auto Tone Mapping function which automatically adjust settings based on the mastering information projects HDR10 content at optimum quality. Combining brightness of 2,200 lm, dynamic contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1, and wide color gamut covering beyond the DCI-P3 range, the projector faithfully reproduces latest content including HDR10 and HLG."
> 
> ...



As far as I know, only projectors can reproduce REC2020. Many of them can do 100% of DCI-P3. Emissive displays are just barely hitting DCI-P3. Only a handful can do 100% of P3.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 5, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> CHeck out the _latest_ models....
> 
> "Auto Tone Mapping function which automatically adjust settings based on the mastering information projects HDR10 content at optimum quality. Combining brightness of 2,200 lm, dynamic contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1, and wide color gamut covering beyond the DCI-P3 range, the projector faithfully reproduces latest content including HDR10 and HLG."
> 
> ...



So no, no tone mapping of 12bit Dolby Vision...but yes to tone mapping 10bit.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> I can detect a difference between DVD and blu-ray. It just isn't enough of a difference to affect my viewing pleasure. The reason I say that 50 inches might require HD more than a ten foot projection screen is because the recommended viewing distance for a 50 inch monitor falls into the range on that chart where 4K would be able to make a difference. When you are sitting the recommended distance away from a ten foot screen, you can't discern a difference. If you run the numbers in that calculator to determine the ideal viewing distance and refer to the chart, you'll see what I mean. It's counterintuitive. I thought a bigger screen might make more difference too, but it doesn't, because bigger screens require more distance, and human eyesight is more sensitive up close. A movie theater also needs more latitude from ideal because they have to get hundreds of people into the room. They can't all have ideal seats like we can in our living room with just three or four people. The people in the front row in a movie theater are going to need to see more resolution than the people in the back row. That doesn't apply in a living room.
> 
> Did I explain it clearer this time?
> 
> I would advise if anyone wants to make generalizations about the capabilities of 4K projectors, they should look at the price tag of the projector they're talking about and see if it's in the same realm everyone else is talking about. Yes, there are projectors that have great image quality. But they cost considerably more than the $3-4K that most home theater people are able to invest in a projector. $18 grand is an absurd amount of money to spend on something that is likely to be rendered obsolete by a new and better model in five or six years. They aren't selling those to people like us. That is for corporate screening rooms or theaters. And that fantastic contrast level is directly proportional to how good your blackout curtains are... a limitation wives typically put on living rooms. Let's talk real world, not absolute extremes.



I don’t know of anyone who watches a movie at the front row of a stadium theater (due to awkward angle of viewing upwards).  I do know there are plenty of orientations and screen sizes where 4K resolutions can be perceived...by the numbers.  As stated, my TV is larger than 50” and gets close to SMPTE recommendations of 4K.  As for price: price of resolution is always going down.  Most new TVs are UHD, and there are projectors under $3K that have UHD resolution.


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> [1] I seem to argue with you, as you claim to be an expert in everything sound.
> [1a] Even resorting to refusing to acknowledge terminology Dolby uses! [1b] An expert that thought only UHD discs support TrueHD?
> [2] For example, you're now obfuscating 7.1 SDDS (that uses 5 center channels and 2 surround channels) with Dolby surround 7.1 (now granted, the distinction is channel layout: not who was the first with discrete channels). Last Action Hero was not the first movie mixed for and released in Dolby 7.1: it was SDDS. AS ALL SOURCES SAY, TOY STORY 3 WAS THE FIRST MOVIE MIXED FOR DOLBY 7.1.
> [3] NONE If you're going to claim the SDDS mix in Hellboy(2004) was the same 7.1 mix used in blu-ray, then you're clearly wrong.
> ...



1. Which is hypocritical baring in mind in another thread you stated "_I'm no sound expert..._" and not just hypocritical but nonsensical! You're "no sound expert" but have decided to argue with someone who's worked professionally specifically in film sound for over two decades!
1a. Of course I do, tracks and channels have been around far longer than Dolby and despite Dolby being one of the most influential companies in film sound, they don't get to dictate the terminology that all professionals use. And just because as a "no sound expert" you obviously don't understand the professional sound terminology (even though it's been explained to you!) that doesn't mean actual professionals don't!
1b. I didn't realise standard Blurays support TrueHD as I've never seen one, I've only ever seen TrueHD employed on UHD blurays. Nevertheless I was technically incorrect, my only excuse is that professional sound engineers don't author blurays.

2. No, that's an example of you getting it wrong! You stated "_the first recognized theatrical movie mixed for and released in discrete 7.1 was Toy Story 3 in 2010_", which is FALSE! More recently you've stated "_I was assuming we were talking about 7.1 surround_", in which case your statement is still FALSE! SDDS is a discrete 7.1 surround format. Dolby 7.1 is has a different speaker layout which I previously stated and which you've decided to argue with! ("_Pretty much all major movies have been mixed in 7.1 for 15 years or so, long before Atmos was invented but it gets complicated here because there are various different speaker layouts for 7.1, some are purely theatrical, some purely consumer and some which are both._")

3. You clearly have a reading problem, I've said several times that virtually all the sound mixes used on Bluray (and DVD previously) for major films are re-versioned (re-mixed)!

4. Dolby lists all of their digital formats as "Dolby Digital", even those that obviously have nothing to do with AC-3, such as TrueHD and Atmos! DD+ is based on the previous AC3 codec but is not AC3, it's Enhanced-AC3.

5. And clearly you don't know what that "some reason" could be, which is not surprising for someone who's "no expert" but what is surprising is that you'd continue to argue about it with someone who is!
5a. Nope, it's absolutely nothing even remotely like that false "analogy"!

G


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 5, 2019)

gregorio said:


> 1. Which is hypocritical baring in mind in another thread you stated "_I'm no sound expert..._" and not just hypocritical but nonsensical! You're "no sound expert" but have decided to argue with someone who's worked professionally specifically in film sound for over two decades!
> 1a. Of course I do, tracks and channels have been around far longer than Dolby and despite Dolby being one of the most influential companies in film sound, they don't get to dictate the terminology that all professionals use. And just because as a "no sound expert" you obviously don't understand the professional sound terminology (even though it's been explained to you!) that doesn't mean actual professionals don't!
> 1b. I didn't realise standard Blurays support TrueHD as I've never seen one, I've only ever seen TrueHD employed on UHD blurays. Nevertheless I was technically incorrect, my only excuse is that professional sound engineers don't author blurays.
> 
> ...



You see, you feel the need to respond to an older post in order to defend your stance that you're an expert in everything.  Last time I checked, being a sound engineer in Europe and admitting you've done one Atmos production, is not the same thing as being a day to day sound mixer for a major studio.  Also, people in the film industry do also take note of how their movies are delivered to the home market (while someone else is doing the disc authoring, I've never met a VFX or video production artist that didn't know BD specs). And contrary to your assertions, no theatrical mixes from the 90s included the type of 4 channel surround BD and Dolby 7.1 utilize. I do think it funny you now admitting to "Dolby Digital" as defined by Dolby and saying exactly what I did when it came to codecs.  I've also stated numerous times that I do have professional experience with tracks in 3D animation and video production software: in which a track is a similar concept.  All the film industry professionals I've met do like to share what they do: I've never met on that talks down to people.


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> [1] You see, you feel the need to respond to an older post [1a] in order to defend your stance that you're an expert in everything.
> [2] Last time I checked, being a sound engineer in Europe and admitting you've done one Atmos production, is not the same thing as being a day to day sound mixer for a major studio.
> [3] Also, people in the film industry do also take note of how their movies are delivered to the home market (while someone else is doing the disc authoring, I've never met a VFX or video production artist that didn't know BD specs).
> [4] And contrary to your assertions, no theatrical mixes from the 90s included the type of 4 channel surround BD and Dolby 7.1 utilize.
> ...



1. I'm responding as soon as I was able, ironically I've been busy on a film mix!
1a. That's clearly just a lie designed to be insulting. I have never claimed to be an "expert in everything"!
2. I am not a day to day sound mixer for a major studio, most of the mixes I do these days is for relatively low budget films which are typically released in 5.1/7.1. However, I have worked on films for major studios in the past. What about you, what films do you mix on a day to day basis?
3. How would you know, are you a film sound mixer or is this just another made-up assumption based on a completely different area? Why would a theatrical sound mixer care about "how their mix is delivered to the home market" when their mix won't be delivered to the home market? Again, because you're still obviously having trouble reading, home consumers will almost certainly get a reversioned mix!!
4. Another lie, I never asserted that!
5. Not as funny as I find it that you can't even understand what I'm admitting!
6. How would you know?
7. Then you haven't met many film sound professionals and certainly not worked with any/many!

G


----------



## bigshot (Aug 5, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> I don’t know of anyone who watches a movie at the front row of a stadium theater (due to awkward angle of viewing upwards).  I do know there are plenty of orientations and screen sizes where 4K resolutions can be perceived...by the numbers.  As stated, my TV is larger than 50” and gets close to SMPTE recommendations of 4K.  As for price: price of resolution is always going down.  Most new TVs are UHD, and there are projectors under $3K that have UHD resolution.



I answer a question and by the time I answer it, the question is forgotten! Let's do it this way... your projection screen is 120 inches across, right? How many feet from the screen is your main viewing position? If you have a TV too, what is the diagonal measurement and how far do you sit from it?



Davesrose said:


> You see, you feel the need to respond to an older post in order to defend your stance that you're an expert in everything.



He's responding to an older post because he had a nice weekend away from the computer. He's just catching up. Gregorio does know what he is talking about. We can all learn from him. I'm here to learn from people around me.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 5, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I answer a question and by the time I answer it, the question is forgotten! Let's do it this way... your projection screen is 120 inches across, right? How many feet from the screen is your main viewing position? If you have a TV too, what is the diagonal measurement and how far do you sit from it?



It's not forgotten: to me it seems we have a difference of opinion.  You believe "optimal" viewing angle is one number set in stone.  I've stated  that even with standards, they're all a bit different in what's recommended viewing distance.  Take THX and SMPTE.  If we were to assume we're watching a 65" TV, the THX recommended distances are 7.3 to 10.2 feet (7.3 or 36 degree viewing angle being recommended).  SMPTE recommends 8.8 feet (or 30 degrees).  If you like any of those viewing angles, that's fine.  But many stadium theaters I go to do have viewing angles greater than 36 degrees than just their front rows (which aren't taken, because it's awkward to look up).   People also have different seating arrangements at home: myself, I watch TV in a light recliner that's closer to the TV.  Others may watch on a sofa further back (and where 4K resolution wouldn't make a visual difference: barring HDR).




bigshot said:


> He's responding to an older post because he had a nice weekend away from the computer. He's just catching up. Gregorio does know what he is talking about. We can all learn from him. I'm here to learn from people around me.



Gregorio can be informative, but you have to sift through all his childish insults, pithy responses, and super ego.  I have a specialty in the visual arts, and when the topic came to cinematography and video encoding, did I accuse anyone of reading problems, or just reply in yes, no, you don't know what you're talking about bullet points?  No, I gave explanations of things (such as differences between cinema cameras and HDSLRs or options presented for video encoding).  I find it very productive to learn from VFX artists in the film industry, as they are very welcoming and also excited to show techniques they've developed.


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> [1] Gregorio can be informative, but you have to sift through all his childish insults, pithy responses, and super ego.
> [2] I have a specialty in the visual arts, and when the topic came to cinematography and video encoding ...
> [3] I find it very productive to learn from VFX artists in the film industry, as they are very welcoming and also excited to show techniques they've developed.



1. You're the one making up lies in order to childishly insult and, surely you need a super ego to argue with an expert when you're self admittedly "no expert"?

2. There are many analogies and similarities between visuals and sound but also many areas where they're completely different. Unfortunately, you appear ignorant of this fact and are falsely extrapolating what you know of visuals to audio and then arguing about it!

3. That's not my experience, although it very much depends on the "techniques they've developed". I've worked with several film VFX/CGI companies and even after signing an NDA there were still parts of the process I wasn't allowed to see. There are no books on how to be a re-recording mixer, it's all experience/knowledge and re-recording mixers are often very protective of that knowledge.

G


----------



## bigshot (Aug 5, 2019)

I think I asked you for the size and main viewing distance on your own TV and projector, not stadium theaters or theoretical home theaters. I'm just curious what your set up is so I can run the numbers and see what it comes out like.

You guys can feel free to get in pissing matches if you want, but I don't have any interest in that. I'm interested in viewing angles and distances. I keep a smile on my face and I keep repeating things until they get past all the bluff and bluster!


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 5, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I think I asked you for the size and main viewing distance on your own TV and projector, not stadium theaters or theoretical home theaters. I'm just curious what your set up is so I can run the numbers and see what it comes out like.



I wasn't being specific to what my setup is, as I was trying to point out that it's not just cinemas that have different viewing angles (others besides 30 or 36 degrees).  My setup has around a 40 degree angle of view and within the range of perceptual 4K resolution:

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship


----------



## TheSonicTruth

You know what my optimal viewing angle is?...


Any angle from which I can watch the _Red Sox, Cowboys, or Patriots LOSE a game!
_
Now where's the popcorn?


----------



## bigshot (Aug 6, 2019)

Weird. I ask a question clearly and you don't answer it. You just give me the conclusion. It really isn't a trick question, I'm just curious about how your setup is laid out. But if it is a sensitive topic, I'll drop it.

People are way too defensive around here.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> Weird. I ask a question clearly and you don't answer it. You just give me the conclusion. It really isn't a trick question, I'm just curious about how your setup is laid out. But if it is a sensitive topic, I'll drop it.
> 
> People are way too defensive around here.



I gave you the number that is important: viewing angle.  I even cited a source that gives you recommended "mixed" viewing angle (30 degrees) vs "cinema" (40 degrees) with charts at those distances given any screen size (which gives you scales for any popular display size).  If you don't want to accept it, not my hang up.


----------



## bigshot

You really don't need to be so defensive. I think running the numbers is fun. I'm interested in the kinds of home theaters people have. If you want to keep it all under your hat, that is fine.


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 6, 2019)

My TV is 48 inches diagonally and 4K but I’m not gonna tell you my viewing angle.    Because frankly I don’t know.

But I sit pretty close to six feet from the TV (depending how I have my recliner set). So if you want to do some fancy kind of math or if you have one of them there fancy charts you could probably figure out the viewing angle. 

My family got it as a present for me.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 6, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> My TV is 48 inches diagonally and 4K but I’m not gonna tell you viewing angle.    Because frankly I don’t know. But I sit pretty close to six feet from the TV (depending how I have my recliner set). So if you want to do some fancy kind of math or if you have one of them there fancy charts you could probably figure out the viewing angle.  My family got it as a present for me.



Your viewing distance and angle (32.5 degrees) are very close to the sweet spot, and you are right on the line of being able to see a difference between HD and UHD. You have a very nice family!


----------



## old tech

Back to audiophile claims and myths, this webpage which describes itself as "Pseudoscientific wank from the pages of audiophile magazines" (like What Hi Fi) is quite funny.  
https://wathifi.com/

Also check out this cable mob below.  Believe it or not, they also provide a service to recording studios to wire them up with these ultra-expensive cables, backed up with tons of pseudoscience.  I wonder how many studios have used their products and services and what sort of people are running them? 
https://www.lessloss.com/


----------



## ruthieandjohn

Thanks...how much burn in do their cables require?


----------



## old tech

ruthieandjohn said:


> Thanks...how much burn in do their cables require?


According to their website "After about 14 days of settling, the sound quality becomes even more organic and life-like."


----------



## TheSonicTruth

old tech said:


> According to their website "After about 14 days of settling, the sound quality becomes even more organic and life-like."


 
In fourteen days I might try a different mastering of the same  album, then I'll hear a difference, LOL!


----------



## castleofargh

organic and gluten free.


----------



## gregorio (Aug 14, 2019)

old tech said:


> [1] Believe it or not, they also provide a service to recording studios to wire them up with these ultra-expensive cables, backed up with tons of pseudoscience. I wonder how many studios have used their products and services and
> [2] what sort of people are running them? https://www.lessloss.com/



1. It would be a reasonably safe bet to say "none at all"! More accurately, there maybe a handful but I doubt a single one of them were using "these ultra-expensive cables", most likely the cables were the exact opposite of "ultra-expensive", they were most likely free (or very close to free). IE. Installed free of charge under some sort of endorsement deal. They list just two studios in the world that use their products: One is a specialist retro studio in Latvia, decked out with a bunch of vintage studio gear, and the other isn't even a commercial/professional recording studio, it's a private/home studio in Kazakhstan used only by the musician owner and his friends. That's it, not a single one of the dozens of world class studios or thousands of high quality commercial/professional studios, that's a pretty sad indictment!

2. Studios are relatively cheap and easy to setup these days and many are owned by musicians, very few of whom have any audio engineering training/education and are entirely likely to have an understanding of audio based on audiophile claims/myths. Of course, it depends on what we mean by the word "studio" (and the word "professional"), do we mean a home studio or do we mean a high class commercial studio? There are some very well specified home studios (probably over 100,000 worldwide) but there's still a big difference between these and high class commercial studios.

It's a typical audiophile nonsense company/website, that you'd have thought even the most avid audiophiles wouldn't all for! Listen to the "High Resolution Audiophile Recordings" for example. Does "high resolution audiophile" mean cr@p? OK, "cr@p" is a bit unfair, they're very good compared to someone recording a gig on their mobile phone but they're poor (even to the point of unacceptable) compared to what one would expect of good professional/commercial standards. Listen to the drums recordings, hear that nice punchy kick drum? No, because they've recorded it poorly! I could rip those drums recordings apart in a number of other ways too (but won't bother). Do you hear those lovely Bach Sonatas for Flute and Basso Continuo? No, they've turned them into Sonatas for Bassoon (with flute and harpsichord accompaniment)! And the piano is hilarious, they even say this: "_Download three excerpts of this amazingly pristine grand piano recording. The audio quality will speak for itself. You shall notice a disturbance in the right channel. This had to do with the faulty electrical wiring of the facilities (there was no ground) and we could not manage to keep this disturbance from entring the audio recording._" - Hang on, if the recording's got distortion on the right channel, then how is it "pristine", let alone "amazingly pristine"? In the audiophile dictionary, does "amazingly pristine" mean "incompetent"? If that's not bad enough, isn't this supposed to be a high-end wire/signal conditioning company? And the best advert they could come up with is an example that even they admit suffers from "faulty wiring"! Similar story with the drums recordings: "_This recording is absolutely pristine except for occasional very low-level 50 Hz buzzes which we have not yet tackled._" - And my piano playing is absolutely perfect, except for occasional beginner mistakes which I have not yet tackled! This is all hilarious, do audiophiles really fall for this nonsense?

G


----------



## KeithEmo

No list of pseudo-scientific audiophile stuff would be complete without these two....

http://www.pwbelectronics.co.uk/

http://www.machinadynamica.com/

As for LessLoss.....

Unless I missed it, I don't see their magic brick any more, the one that absorbs black body radiation and shines it on your equipment to lower the noise floor.
(The technical descriptions of how that supposedly worked were very... err... colorful...)
Although I do see several new more timely items - including a very exciting USB noise filter (and an even more special gadget for combining them in sets of four).
And I see they now have a DAC. 
And a streamer that's only $91,000 (but you do get 10% off if you buy four)...

It does really make you wonder if anyone actually _buys_ this stuff....  



old tech said:


> Back to audiophile claims and myths, this webpage which describes itself as "Pseudoscientific wank from the pages of audiophile magazines" (like What Hi Fi) is quite funny.
> https://wathifi.com/
> 
> Also check out this cable mob below.  Believe it or not, they also provide a service to recording studios to wire them up with these ultra-expensive cables, backed up with tons of pseudoscience.  I wonder how many studios have used their products and services and what sort of people are running them?
> https://www.lessloss.com/


----------



## bigshot

Generally, when cable companies say that their cables are used in recording studios, they offer a recording studio to wire them up for free in exchange for the right to say that their cables are used there. It's no skin off the studio's nose and they get free wire. But the cable companies that do this really aren't marketing to studios. They're marketing to consumers who want "the same cables that recording studios use".


----------



## KeithEmo

Would that be after the boll weevils settle in and start eating the organic cotton insulation?
(But, ignoring all the technical issues, with their products and their explanations, their web site sure is pretty.)



old tech said:


> According to their website "After about 14 days of settling, the sound quality becomes even more organic and life-like."


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> [1] Generally, when cable companies say that their cables are used in recording studios, they offer a recording studio to wire them up for free in exchange for the right to say that their cables are used there.
> [2] It's no skin off the studio's nose and they get free wire.
> [3] But the cable companies that do this really aren't marketing to studios.



1. Yep, as I mentioned, that's how it works, some sort of endorsement deal.
2. In practice, it is some "skin off the studio's nose". Commercial studios all use good quality, relatively cheap cables from companies such as Klotz, Van Damme and Mogami (for example). Audiophile makers/manufacturers are by definition speciality companies and often/typically take a different approach to solving problems which have already been solved, in order to differentiate their products both from other speciality companies and of course the much cheaper mass market manufacturers. The end result is commonly no difference from the far cheaper "mass market" solution but it's also quite common that there is a difference, a difference for the worse! This is entirely logical, an existing mass market solution by definition has been around longer (sometimes a decade or more "longer"), is more widely implemented/used and has therefore been widely and thoroughly tested by numerous end users over a long period of time. An audiophile solution therefore doesn't always work as well in practice as expected/advertised and even if it does, it's not uncommon that the maker has completely overlooked some other problem/issue that maybe more significant than the issue their esoteric solution is designed to solve! The "skin off the studio's nose" is that they'd have to install and thoroughly test the audiophile cables (or other audiophile equipment) to make sure it performs as well as standard mass-market cables/equipment. This requires technicians' and engineer's time, as well as studio downtime, all of which is expensive for a commercial studio and would still not be entirely revealing, as only relatively short term testing is practical. In other words, even if the audiophile cables (or other audiophile equipment) are offered completely free, it is still too much "skin off the studio's nose" to be worth it! The only exception would likely be a very few, small, privately owned studios specialising in recordings aimed solely at the audiophile market and therefore using audiophile cables might be seen as a marketing advantage (regardless of actual performance). Incidentally, I would expect such a studio to probably be owned by an audiophile/s in the first place.

3. Audiophile cable companies can't really market to commercial studios. Not withstanding the fact they'd be ignored (for the reason above), they just don't make many/most of the cables studios require. They make standard consumer speaker cables and interconnects, they don't make the mic and multi-core analogue and digital cables that studios use.

G


----------



## old tech

Keeping with the general theme of this thread, there is Interesting thread on the Australian website below on the follies of audiophiles.

[URL]https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/thread/9q78kwx9[/URL]


----------



## stonesfan129 (Sep 8, 2019)

Hello all, I didn't think this warranted a brand new thread so will ask here.  I have lots of CDs which I have ripped to FLAC with Exact Audio Copy to store on my server.  I listen to the FLAC files at home because I have plenty of HDD space.  I generally use LAME -V0 MP3 or Purchased AAC files from iTunes (256kbps vbr AAC) for my mobile devices.  I also have a FiiO X1 that I use once and then too.  My question is, what do I have to do to hear a difference between lossy formats and FLAC?  I hear lots of people saying different things from the difference being obvious to the difference being impossible to hear at that bitrate to needing high quality equipment, killer samples and knowing what artifacts to listen for.  My headphones are Sennheiser HD598SE.  At home I just use either my Sony soundbar or my Logitech speakers on my computer.  This isn't by any means a high quality listening setup.  Can anyone tell me what is needed to hear the difference?  Is the difference revelatory or is it pretty minor?


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 31, 2019)

stonesfan129 said:


> Hello all, I didn't think this warranted a brand new thread so will ask here.  I have lots of CDs which I have ripped to FLAC with Exact Audio Copy to store on my server.  I listen to the FLAC files at home because I have plenty of HDD space.  I generally use LAME -V0 MP3 for my iPod Touch.  I also have a FiiO X1 that I use once and then too.  My question is, what do I have to do to hear a difference between MP3 and FLAC?  I hear lots of people saying different things from the difference being obvious to the difference being impossible to hear at that bitrate to needing high quality equipment, killer samples and knowing what artifacts to listen for.  My headphones are Sennheiser HD598SE.  At home I just use either my Sony soundbar or my Logitech speakers on my computer.  This isn't by any means a high quality listening setup.  Can anyone tell me what is needed to hear the difference?  Is the difference revelatory or is it pretty minor?



It looks like LAME -V0 is the highest quality optimized vbr preset for LAME and the stated quality for that setting (and some significantly lower bitrate vbr settings) is that the result will be “transparent,” i.e., it is intended or proposed that almost no one will be be able to tell the difference between that and the flac file or other non-lossy source except perhaps in very rare cases. Reference:

http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=LAME

It looks like LAME -V0 is a specific and the best quality optimized preset in LAME and it’s about 245 kbps variable bit rate (VBR) MP3. It looks like the testing has generally shown that’s the best sound you can get out of LAME. You can use  the chart in the above link to hone in on where in the LAME presets you would more likely start to be able to hear a difference. You might be disappointed unless you practice a lot—that is, don’t be too down on yourself if you can’t hear a difference somewhere in the LAME vbr 128-170 kbps range. Your headphones, from what I have read, should be easily up to the task so don’t worry about that. If you don’t like your headphones please PM me and I will give you my address and make the sacrifice of taking them off of your hands. ; )

I used LAME for years. I use Apple 256 VBR AAC now just because it’s so easy and I’m very confident in it (just pop the CD in and rip it in iTunes without changing anything and that’s what you get) and it is a progression in the lossy encoding technology.

My short opinion answer is that I personally would not expect to be able to hear any difference at all between LAME -V0 and a flac file for listening to music on any system period, and my best guesstimate is that you are way within the safe zone of being able to use those files for anything.

My long answer is to find out for yourself for sure download Foobar2000 and the encoder pack and comparomoter and you’ll be able to run your own automated abx tests and see at what bitrates you can hear any difference. Actually that long answer was shorter than my short answer until now. 

Resources for anyone who is interested:

https://www.foobar2000.org/

https://www.foobar2000.org/encoderpack

https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx


----------



## KeithEmo

Some people will claim that "the difference is obvious and huge" - while others will argue equally vehemently that "if you think you hear a difference you must be imagining it".
(And, obviously, what one of us might consider a barely noticeable difference, someone else might consider to be a tragic flaw.)
I'm going to ignore both of them and try to answer your question.

Another suggestion would be to encode a few files at a very low bit rate - where the differences _are_ clearly audible - and listen to them.
Since the encoding philosophy is the same, but applied more aggressively for lower bit rates, you can assume that files recorded at a higher bit rate will contain similar flaws as those encoded at lower bit rates, but that they will be less audible.

As for what to listen to or for... each of us seems to find specific types of flaws to be especially obvious or annoying and others to be inaudible or simply trivial.
Here are the things I would listen for... (because, to me, they are often badly reproduced - for various reasons - and I tend to find those particular issues annoying)

- Try to use recordings you are familiar with
- Obviously, first listen for _ANYTHING_ that seems to be more or less emphasized in the encoded copy than in the original (since they are supposed to sound exactly the same)
- Listen to some familiar human voices (do they sound honky, or tubby, or just plain odd?)
- Listen to some voices where there are lots of sibilants (sharp "ssss" and "tssss" noises; these often sound unnatural; do they sound sharp, or like the person is spitting, or like a steam leak from a radiator?)  
- Listen to some well recorded cymbals and wire-brish cymbals (the Eagles Hotel California album is good for this; do they sound like someone hitting a piece of metal, or like a steam leak going hiss, hiss, hiss?)
- Listen to some recordings that contain plucked guitar strings (this will vary a lot from recording to recoerding - with some a lot clearer than others - but all we're looking for are differences between the original copy and the encoded copy)
- Listen to some well recorded piano music (do the keys make a nice sharp plink when hit... or do they sound sort of jangly?)
- Find a recording with a lot of background noise or tape hiss (does the background noise sound "natural" or does it seem to sort of bunch up in certain places, or seem sort of like it's breathing, or otherwise sound odd?)
        (this may seem like an odd flaw to listen for - but there are definitely recordings out there where, thanks to excessive or bad processing, the music itself sounds OK, but the background noise sounds so odd it has become distracting)
        (specifically, with some very outdated surround sound systems, low level background hiss is reproduced in monaural - and monaural noise sounds distinctly different than noise that is randomly different in each channel)
- Try to compare the sound stage (not only should each instrument or voice sound right, but it should be located exactly in the same place, and the location should seem equally sharp and concise)
        (some recordings start out this way, and the actual sounds in some poorly encoded audio signals may sound fine, but their location in space may sound vague or indistinct, or they may seem to move around or waver unnaturally) 



stonesfan129 said:


> Hello all, I didn't think this warranted a brand new thread so will ask here.  I have lots of CDs which I have ripped to FLAC with Exact Audio Copy to store on my server.  I listen to the FLAC files at home because I have plenty of HDD space.  I generally use LAME -V0 MP3 for my iPod Touch.  I also have a FiiO X1 that I use once and then too.  My question is, what do I have to do to hear a difference between MP3 and FLAC?  I hear lots of people saying different things from the difference being obvious to the difference being impossible to hear at that bitrate to needing high quality equipment, killer samples and knowing what artifacts to listen for.  My headphones are Sennheiser HD598SE.  At home I just use either my Sony soundbar or my Logitech speakers on my computer.  This isn't by any means a high quality listening setup.  Can anyone tell me what is needed to hear the difference?  Is the difference revelatory or is it pretty minor?


----------



## gregorio

stonesfan129 said:


> [1] My question is, what do I have to do to hear a difference between MP3 and FLAC?
> [2] I hear lots of people saying different things from the difference being obvious to the difference being impossible to hear at that bitrate to needing high quality equipment, killer samples and knowing what artifacts to listen for.



1. You would have to do one of two things: A. Evolve into a new species, with more acute hearing than Homo Sapiens or B. Buy very expensive audiophile gear, read the forums here on head-fi (except this one) and try to believe all of it. You still won't hear a difference but you might develop some cognitive/expectation bias that makes you think you can (IE. Perceive a difference rather than hear one).

2. As far as I'm aware, no one has successfully passed a DBT/DBX using the recent LAME -V0 setting and many thousands have tried, including highly trained professional listeners and some audiophiles who were absolutely convinced there was an obvious difference!

If you can't choose between the reliable evidence and all the audiophile hyperbole, then by all means try KeithEmo's methodology and find out for yourself.

G


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2019)

At the data rate you're encoding your lossy files, I doubt anyone can hear a difference between that and FLAC. I use AAC 256 VBR and it is audibly identical to lossless too.

The best way to figure out what to listen for is to encode a favorite song at various data rates from very low all the way up. Listen to the files in order. You'll hear clear artifacting in the low rate files. Note the location and listen to that spot as the data rate gets higher and higher. The difference is mostly about artifacting... it isn't listening for veils or soundstage or distortion or small details in the music... it's listening for weird digital splats and gurgles. At some point the gurgles fade away and the file achieves audible transparency. Once there are no artifacts any more and you've reached the line of audible transparency, you can up the data rate, but it won't improve the sound quality. Transparent is as good as it gets.

An even more useful exercise is to note the way people who are generally dead wrong about things talk. You'll see a certain vocabulary. They use vague terms that don't relate to specific aspects of sound fidelity... flowery terms like "veil" and incorrectly used terms like "soundstage width". They relate sound fidelity to specific musical aspects and talk about how to "train your ears". But they aren't describing sound quality. They are describing how they *feel* about the sound. They are describing placebo effect and helping you to share their completely uncontrolled bias. If you do a little research and focus on aspects of sound reproduction like distortion, noise, frequency response, etc. Understand how it works. Don't just take audio salesmen's word for it- you will figure it all out. It really isn't hard to spot the phonies.

One really fun thing to do is to ask someone who claims to be able to hear a "night and day" difference between lossless and lossy if they use lossy files. Odds are, they don't and they haven't used once since the days of 128k MP3 downloads in the 1990s.


----------



## james444

stonesfan129 said:


> I hear lots of people saying different things from the difference being obvious to the difference being impossible to hear at that bitrate to needing high quality equipment, killer samples and knowing what artifacts to listen for.



The LAME project keeps a list of (mostly user provided) test samples that have been known to cause (minor) problems with their psycho-acoustic and noise shaping model:

http://lame.sourceforge.net/quality.php

I don't know if the list is still being kept up-to-date or if recent LAME versions are free of these weaknesses now. But if I wanted to find audible artifacts in LAME encoded files, I'd probably start with that list.

That said, I personally don't bother. All the mentioned issues seem entirely negligible to me.


----------



## castleofargh

stonesfan129 said:


> Hello all, I didn't think this warranted a brand new thread so will ask here.  I have lots of CDs which I have ripped to FLAC with Exact Audio Copy to store on my server.  I listen to the FLAC files at home because I have plenty of HDD space.  I generally use LAME -V0 MP3 for my iPod Touch.  I also have a FiiO X1 that I use once and then too.  My question is, what do I have to do to hear a difference between MP3 and FLAC?  I hear lots of people saying different things from the difference being obvious to the difference being impossible to hear at that bitrate to needing high quality equipment, killer samples and knowing what artifacts to listen for.  My headphones are Sennheiser HD598SE.  At home I just use either my Sony soundbar or my Logitech speakers on my computer.  This isn't by any means a high quality listening setup.  Can anyone tell me what is needed to hear the difference?  Is the difference revelatory or is it pretty minor?



-if someone talks about killer sample, get him to share that sample and try it with abx. it could be interesting, but TBH it's also a clear sign that you have to search to even find something with a clear difference. the idea of any lossy codec being to take advantage of human hearing thresholds and auditory masking. depending on how complicated, exhaustive and conservative that model is for a given codec and sample setting, we can expect special cases. on the other hand, with the highest settings of any codec, the number of known issues is rather small and so is the usual impact itself. most codecs compete at low bitrates, that's where one becomes markedly better(and where mp3 gets humiliated by more modern codecs). 

-for some reasons, ABX could be perfectly fine(because the decoding works well in foobar) and your actual playback device could show difference. like a DAP with a some issue decoding either the mp3 or the flac file. shouldn't happen, but on the X1 for example, it did happen on the first firmware versions with mp3). 
I would argue that if the ABX was fine then the real problem wasn't mp3(or flac), but others may decide that if the result is wrong, the format is to blame anyway. or just not diagnostic anything and draw a conclusion that blames the format no matter the real cause(real or not). you know, sighted experience+jumping to conclusion+the desire to be one of those elite dudes who confidently explains how he needs lossless because his ears are too good for lossy(I wish I was less inquisitive, so I too could proudly say that 265k or higher sounds wrong). 

- intersample clipping. if nothing is done, the mp3 file will typically have higher true peaks. some AAC encoders seem to care about that, some not, I think no mp3 encoder cares. I've had very very rare occasions a few years ago when that had an audible enough impact on a given track to have me wonder if I had failed my conversion or if the album was mastered by a moron. before I even knew what intersample clipping was or how to check true peak values, I had solve the problem by setting the playback gain in foobar to -3dB(really completely arbitrary value that seemed to solve all my issues). many people add some DSP solution just in case this happens to result in noticeable sound(a limiter or something to reduce the gain overall). so the opposite logic to try and experience how it might sound, could be to take a few tracks and really stick the highest sample value to 0dB(not the true peaks!!!!) and try to see if you can detect the sound when it clips(assuming your playback solution is set to digital full scale output and nothing is going to "fight" those clips). in my case I've noticed that on most modern tracks the bass is often the loudest element, and a little clipping on low freqs is harder to notice. I think there is even a production trick for the loudness war suggesting that you can clip by a given amount in the subs and that the brain will reconstruct the missing top based on the rest of the wave. don't quote me on this, I don't know where I read that^_^. but it does seem to align with my personal experience. 

- ok now I'm really trying hard: you somehow encode music far from 0dB, or even better you have a track with some incredible dynamic. you might find a situation in a super quiet room with sealed in ear(that probably still involves listening too loud for the loud content of the track) where you could notice issues on the quiet content. very real situation, but now you pretty much have to go after it on purpose.

- my last idea, I'm not even sure it would happen like that, only making a wild educated guess. after that I give up: you have hearing damage in a very local frequency area from some accident, activity, sickness, drug, violent sound at that freq...(not that uncommon). let's say you hear almost nothing at normal listening level at 5kHz but your hearing is back to almost completely normal at 6kHz. maybe you'll encounter some case where a signal is removed in the lossy file because it's assumed masked by a strong 5kHz signal at that time in the song. but as you're not getting any 5kHz or a very reduced amplitude of it, it isn't masking the other signal a little higher in frequency and quieter. meaning you might be able to perceive it on the original but not on the lossy version. again, no clue if that's possible, IDK how local the hearing loss can be, or how our body and brain handle that. but if we're looking for craycray circumstances, here is one I guess.


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 31, 2019)

james444 said:


> The LAME project keeps a list of (mostly user provided) test samples that have been known to cause (minor) problems with their psycho-acoustic and noise shaping model:
> 
> http://lame.sourceforge.net/quality.php
> 
> ...



Those “killer samples” would be a good place to start. I do note that those notations date from the late 1990s to apparently March 2001 (LAME version 3.88) so it appears more than 18 years have passed, with a lot of developmet since then (especially up through 2012 in terms of improvements in sound quality). The current version of LAME appears to be LAME 3.100, released October 2017. I couldn’t find any indication of a killer sample for LAME 3.100 at -V0. That doesn’t logically mean there’s not one hiding in the bushes somewhere, but I’d be quite surprised and interested to learn of it.

Version 3.100 also seems to have a new straightforward switch to bring the digital gain down a tad if needed in 1 dB increments so as to avoid the digital clipping at peaks scenarios @castleofargh refers to, which seems to happen with some arguably problematic hardware and firmware combinations set full tilt (according to him if I am understanding what he wrote correctly).

https://svn.code.sf.net/p/lame/svn/trunk/lame/doc/html/history.html

http://rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php


----------



## ruthieandjohn

Instead of (or along with) blind ABX testing, does anyone ever compare the digital waveforms of the two methods, either sample by sample differences, or ensembles of several repetitions of each chain with statistical characterization and comparison of the two statistical distributions (If sampling phase is random), or short time spectral analysis and comparison via a spectral distance) of either approach?


----------



## castleofargh

ruthieandjohn said:


> Instead of (or along with) blind ABX testing, does anyone ever compare the digital waveforms of the two methods, either sample by sample differences, or ensembles of several repetitions of each chain with statistical characterization and comparison of the two statistical distributions (If sampling phase is random), or short time spectral analysis and comparison via a spectral distance) of either approach?


are you talking about mp3?


----------



## ruthieandjohn

I’m really thinking of anything that one subjects to A/B/X testing.... MP3 vs. hi-res, Small vs. large soundstage, custom vs. stock cables, and the like.


----------



## castleofargh

ruthieandjohn said:


> I’m really thinking of anything that one subjects to A/B/X testing.... MP3 vs. hi-res, Small vs. large soundstage, custom vs. stock cables, and the like.


ABX has a very specific purpose, trying to disprove that 2 samples sound the same. if that's our question, a listening test is kind of the obvious choice. but if your purpose is to answer a different question, then of course other tests might come in handy while ABX may just not be relevant at all. 
for lossy codecs, as their raison d'être is to get as much perceived transparency as possible while simplifying the signal to the extreme, it doesn't make much sense to focus on objective variations.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 1, 2019)

ruthieandjohn said:


> Instead of (or along with) blind ABX testing, does anyone ever compare the digital waveforms



Waveforms aren't a good way to judge sound _quality_. Two waveforms can look quite different and not sound different. It's like judging if a house has the same layout of your house by looking at a pebble on the walkway leading up to it. There are two things... measurements and audibility. Audibility is the one that really matters.


----------



## KeithEmo

The whole purpose of "perceptual lossy CODECs", which describes MP3, AAC, and virtually all other modern lossy CODECs, is to discard information that has been determined to be inaudible.
(Normal compression methods work very well, and do a great job of not wasting space beyond the minimum necessary; the only way in which lossy CODECs make smaller files is by tjhrowing away information.)

If you compare a file that has been MP3 encoded and then decoded, or a sample that has been converted to AAC and back again, you will find huge differences...
The waveforms look obviously different on an oscilloscope or other display that visualizes the actual waveform...
And there are huge differences in even basic properties like phase and frequency response...
Remember that, in a typical MP3 file, a significant percentage of the original musical information has been discarded...
The reason you don't notice is that the algorithm has carefully chosen to discard things you won't notice are missing (mostly because they're masked by something else)...
So, if you look at an MP3 file being played back, compared to the original, you'll be surprised at how waveforms that look and measure so differently can actually sound as close to each other as they do.

You should also note that, with this sort of compression, there is the possibility of types of distortion that have no common equivalent in the analog world.
With most analog gear, you have the possibility of speed variations - the proverbial wow and flutter, but those variations are periodic.
MP3 breaks the incoming content into "time slices", and looks at each one separately, deciding how that "piece of time and spectrum" should be treated.
The result of this is that sounds in specific frequency bands may have the time at which they start and stop shifted by several tens of milliseconds.

According to the models they use this is not supposed to be audibly noticeable...... but on an oscilloscope it will appear that individual frequency bands switch on and off sooner or later than they should by several milliseconds. 
(You're actually talking about several _milliseconds_ of an odd sort of data-correlated jitter.... but one that would be somewhat complex to model.)



ruthieandjohn said:


> Instead of (or along with) blind ABX testing, does anyone ever compare the digital waveforms of the two methods, either sample by sample differences, or ensembles of several repetitions of each chain with statistical characterization and comparison of the two statistical distributions (If sampling phase is random), or short time spectral analysis and comparison via a spectral distance) of either approach?


----------



## ruthieandjohn (Sep 1, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Waveforms aren't a good way to judge sound fidelity. Two waveforms can look quite different and not sound different. It's like judging if a house has the same layout of your house by looking at a pebble on the walkway leading up to it. There are two things... measurements and audibility. Audibility is the one that really matters.


Indeed, waveforms that are different can sound the same.

But for some of the more questioned improvements, such as high resolution vs. CD lossless, orone DAC vs. another DAC, or high quality vs. stock analog or digital cables, it would be instructive to see if the waveforms are the same...then there would be NO difference in sound, right?


----------



## gregorio (Sep 1, 2019)

bigshot said:


> [1] Waveforms aren't a good way to judge sound fidelity.
> [2\ Two waveforms can look quite different and not sound different.
> [3] It's like judging if a house has the same layout of your house by looking at a pebble on the walkway leading up to it.
> [4] There are two things... measurements and audibility. Audibility is the one that really matters.



1. This statement is not true, in fact the opposite is true, waveforms (and the information they contain) is the only reliable way to judge sound fidelity.
2. True, but now you're talking about something else, what something sounds like, as opposed to "sound fidelity".  And also, we're not just talking about what a waveform looks like but the information it contains.
3. No, it's like judging if a house has the same layout of your house by actually measuring all the positions and dimensions of the walls and other boundaries which define the layouts, rather than just having a look and guessing that they appear to be the same.
4. Sure but measurements are purely objective and therefore avoid any and all potential issues with testing a subjective sense. And of course, they precisely quantify what differences exist.



ruthieandjohn said:


> Instead of (or along with) blind ABX testing, does anyone ever compare the digital waveforms of the two methods, either sample by sample differences, or ensembles of several repetitions of each chain with statistical characterization and comparison of the two statistical distributions (If sampling phase is random), or short time spectral analysis and comparison via a spectral distance) of either approach?
> I’m really thinking of anything that one subjects to A/B/X testing.... MP3 vs. hi-res, Small vs. large soundstage, custom vs. stock cables, and the like.



Yes, sound/music engineers (and the sound/music engineering publications) do so frequently and have always done so. More precisely though, some things are objectively tested and the most common method of comparing waveforms is the Null Test, although it's usual to also compare the spectral (frequency) content. However, I say "some things" because there's simply no point in some cases. Cables are a good example of this: I'm sure at one time (say 100-200 years ago) there was an absolutely enormous amount of objective testing but at least a century ago, science had such an abundance of knowledge and objective evidence/measurements, that very accurate mathematical models could accurately predict signal behaviour through any cable of any length and as literally trillions of dollars have been dependant on this for nearly a century or so, you can be sure all the details have been fully investigated. So, no one seriously bothers to really measure consumer audio cables any more, there's nothing to be learned.

MP3 (and lossy codecs in general) are a special case, they're called perceptual codecs because they are designed on the basis of human perception rather than on the objective physical properties of an electric current or sound wave. Objective measurements therefore don't tell us much in this case, typically there are relatively large differences between say a high bitrate MP3 and WAV version of the same music file but they're audibly the same.

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree - but, as usual, the answer depends to a large degree on the context...
Or, to expand on what Gregorio said, "the information a waveform _contains_" may well NOT be visible to the naked eye.
(For the same reason that sometimes you can spot flaws by "eyeballing" them, and sometimes you use a level, or a straight edge, or a micrometer.)

When many people talk about "looking at the waveform" they're usually referring to looking at the waveform visually on an oscilloscope or similar visual display of voltage vs time.
The problem there is that, while certain types of distortion, like clipping on sine waves, are readily seen by simply looking...
When other types of distortion, or more complex waveforms, are involved, distortion becomes much more difficult to see on that sort of display.
(When I went to school it was widely agreed that an oscilloscope was only good for seeing distortion well over 5%... which is far above the threshold of audibility for many types.)
If you want a more sensitive, or more precise, measurement of distortion, you use some other method (like a distortion analyzer).

And, if you want to discuss this sort of thing in detail, it'a also worth knowing how various values you might see are actually measured.
For example, an old-style analog THD meter works by nulling. 
A signal generator is used to insert a very precise low distortion signal at the input...
A precision filter is then used to block that signal at the output... and any remaining signal present at the output is deemed as "THD + noise" ("other stuff that doesn't belong there").
In contrast, a modern digital test set uses the same precision input signal, but then analyzes the entire spectrum of the output, and mathematically analyzes it to determine what's there.

The modern tester tells you additional information - like how much of each harmonic is present - which can be very important.
However, the modern version may have other limitations. 
For example, with its default sample rate and hardware filters, a $50k Audio Precision test set ignores distortion products above about 80 kHz.
And, of course, since test gear always measures "numbers", it cannot reach conclusions about what is or is not audible.
(So no test set I am aware of will EVER tell you that something "is or is not audible".)

Many people seem to have an unfortunate tendency to treat values presented as a single number as if there's nothing else involved...
For example, they seem to assume that "any two devices with the same 0.5% THD have the same amount and type of distortion - and so it will be equally audible"...
This assumption is totally untrue and inaccurate - and can lead to many incorrect conclusions...
(It is equivalent to saying that "your breakfast cereal may contain up to 0.1% impurities" - without specifying whether we're talking about sand, cooked insect parts, ground glass, or cyanide.)



gregorio said:


> 1. This statement is not true, in fact the opposite is true, waveforms (and the information they contain) is the only reliable way to judge sound fidelity.
> 2. True, but now you're talking about something else, what something sounds like, as opposed to "sound fidelity".  And also, we're not just talking about what a waveform looks like but the information it contains.
> 3. No, it's like judging if a house has the same layout of your house by actually measuring all the positions and dimensions of the walls and other boundaries which define the layouts, rather than just having a look and guessing that they appear to be the same.
> 4. Sure but measurements are purely objective and therefore avoid any and all potential issues with testing a subjective sense. And of course, they precisely quantify what differences exist.
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

looking at the sound wave(or at the result of a null between 2 signals) is like looking at any graph of any sort, it can have some useful information but it will require to know what we're looking at, and how to interpret it to avoid mistakes. otherwise we're sure to rapidly fall into typical pseudo science, where something entirely irrelevant to a human is brought up simply because it looks scary on a given type of graph.



ruthieandjohn said:


> Indeed, waveforms that are different can sound the same.
> 
> But for some of the more questioned improvements, such as high resolution vs. CD lossless, orone DAC vs. another DAC, or high quality vs. stock analog or digital cables, it would be instructive to see if the waveforms are the same...then there would be NO difference in sound, right?


no 2 things will be identical(beside digital copies of the same data). it's only a matter of scaling before we find differences in everything else.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 1, 2019)

Sorry, I used the wrong word. I meant sound quality, not sound fidelity. I fixed it.


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> I agree - but, as usual, the answer depends to a large degree on the context...
> Or, to expand on what Gregorio said, "the information a waveform _contains_" may well NOT be visible to the naked eye.
> (For the same reason that sometimes you can spot flaws by "eyeballing" them, and sometimes you use a level, or a straight edge, or a micrometer.)
> 
> ...



I like this post.

Particularly that remark modern analyzers are still largely limited to approx 80 kHz - which is about the highest frequency that can be reasonably flat reproduced by predominantely still 192 kHz sampling frequency based analyzers. 

An analog oscilloscope is quite poor at visually displaying distortion at below approx 5 % - where audible has proven to be at least 1/10th this amount. Again, it depends exactly which distortion components are present - well below 0.05% odd higher (3rd, 5th, etc ) order harmonics can be painfully unpleasent, whereas  1% or so even (2nd,4th, etc) harmonics goes, while not unnoticed, certainly not heavily objected.

But analog oscilloscope WILL display/indicate everything in the output of any audio device - good or bad; up to the oscilloscope frequency limit. Even if there should be nothing say at 1 MHz and above, this is in no way true in real life. And any analyzer capable of analysis only up to 80 kHz or so is plain and simple - not good enough. It only looks goods on paper or computer screenshots, it simply sweeps the garbage under the carpet.

In this thread, there is a marked tendency to oversimplify; world consists of only RBCD, loudspeakers and headphones have uniform or benign impedance characteristics, etc. In such a limited kindergarten playground, "all cables/amplifiers/whatevers measure and sound the same" may even - within reason - hold true. And it , to a large extent, does.

Step into the real world - and this house of cards gets blown away in a heartbeat. It may well be fringe examples  - but they are real, as well as you can read this. And can be measured and can be heard. 

It only depends how much one is willing to investigate. And, above all - LISTEN. I am perfectly OK with the conclusion " performance of this calibre is not significant nor required in MY case/application" - but not when trying to limit any further progress by saying that RBCD is all it will ever be required for music reproduction - not to go into lossy files. 

If anyone doubts this position; ask, before or after another live concert involving acoustic drums, to be allowed to "play" ( or play for real, if you can ) a few strokes/hits on the snare, tom, kick and cymbals ... - and honestly answer yourself if ANY of the RBCD recordings played back in your home sounds even remotely as realistic.

Unfortunately, performance that does at least approach live does not come cheaply - and never will. However, in the last decade, the progress and trickle down of technology has brought the sound quality that could not be obtained for almost no amount of money at the beginning of the decade to not exactly small change, but perfectly acceptable price levels a dedicated listener with even very strained budget can - with careful shopping - put  together today.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Sep 1, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> I like this post.
> 
> Particularly that remark modern analyzers are still largely limited to approx 80 kHz - which is about the highest frequency that can be reasonably flat reproduced by predominantely still 192 kHz sampling frequency based analyzers.
> 
> ...



80kHz is so far beyond "enough" I can't help you if you don't "believe" it. We've been down this road before, though, so I don't expect you to give an inch on your unsubstantiated claims.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> Sorry, I used the wrong word. I meant sound quality, not sound fidelity. I fixed it.



I've always thought the two at least overlapped.


----------



## bigshot

Fidelity is accuracy. That is judged by measurements. Quality is how good it sounds. Judged by ear. Something can have higher accuracy but not sound any better. That was the point I was trying to make, but I typed too fast.


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> 80kHz is so far beyond "enough" I can't help you if you don't "believe" it. We've been down this road before, though, so I don't expect you to give an inch on your unsubstantiated claims.



OK - first a question for you.

What source(s) are you listening to ?

On which type of amplifiers and transducers ?


----------



## bigshot

He's right. It doesn't matter what he is listening to. You're talking about frequencies you can't hear as if they are important. And I don't need to consult your doctor to know you can't hear it... unless you aren't human?


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> He's right. It doesn't matter what he is listening to. You're talking about frequencies you can't hear as if they are important. And I don't need to consult your doctor to know you can't hear it... unless you aren't human?



I asked HIM - @colonelkernel8 .

For a reason. Because I expect him to answer the question honestly - so that we can proceed from whatever starting point as given/specified by him.

Question for you - can you hear noise ?


----------



## gregorio (Sep 2, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] And, of course, since test gear always measures "numbers", it cannot reach conclusions about what is or is not audible.
> [1a] (So no test set I am aware of will EVER tell you that something "is or is not audible".)
> [2] Many people seem to have an unfortunate tendency to treat values presented as a single number as if there's nothing else involved...
> [2a] This assumption is totally untrue and inaccurate - and can lead to many incorrect conclusions...



1. True, test gear is designed to measure actual properties of digital audio data, an analogue electric current or sound pressure waves, not how/if we may or may not hear/perceive them.
1a. That's nonsense of course! Objective measurements of audio properties themselves (by definition) obviously will not tell you that, you need to compare the objective measurements with what is reproducible in the first place and if it is reproducible (under reasonable listening conditions), then we can compare the measurements with hearing thresholds, using common sense/logic (IE. A brain)!

2. That depends on what the numbers are. Ultimately, digital audio is just a single set of numbers (representing amplitude over time). However, both measuring equipment and human hearing/perception can derive further information from this single set of numbers. Your argument (particularly in regard to THD) appears to be based on a common audiophile fallacy, actually several fallacies. For example, the difference between measurements of actual audio properties and published equipment performance specifications (for marketing purposes). Often we can treat a single measurement as if there's nothing else involved, it depends on the value of that single measurement, which brings us back to 1a.
2a. That's because "many people" don't seem to know what hearing thresholds are, and/or are not able to apply "common sense/logic". Although to be fair, much of the audiophile industry obfuscates or lies about hearing thresholds and makes the application of common sense/logic nearly impossible for "many people". Your argument appears to be circular!



analogsurviver said:


> [1] In this thread, there is a marked tendency to oversimplify; world consists of only RBCD, loudspeakers and headphones have uniform or benign impedance characteristics, etc. [1a] In such a limited kindergarten playground, ...
> [1b] "all cables/amplifiers/whatevers measure and sound the same" may even - within reason - hold true. And it , to a large extent, does.
> [2] Step into the real world - and this house of cards gets blown away in a heartbeat. It may well be fringe examples - but they are real, as well as you can read this. And can be measured and can be heard.
> [2a] It only depends how much one is willing to investigate.
> ...



1. Who in this thread has ever stated that the world only consists of CD and that speakers/HPs all have uniform impedance?
1a. A "limited kindergarten playground" that doesn't exist, that you've just falsely invented to push your false agenda (yet again).
1b. The actual "playground" we're in, is that of human hearing and yes, "within reason" it holds entirely true.

2. This is the self contradiction at the heart of nearly all your posts here. The "real world" you refer to is not "within reason", it is beyond reason and often so far beyond reason that it's completely ridiculous. So while it is the "real world" in the sense that it can be measured, it's a completely nonsense, fantasy world as far as what "can be heard" is concerned. Sure, we can measure 1mHz and far beyond, even into the Terra-Hertz range, but it's utter nonsense to state that it "can be heard"!! In other words, "this house of cards gets blown away in a heartbeat" ONLY if you completely ignore any sense of reason!
2a. It does indeed depend on how much one investigates and I would suggest you start by investigating the well researched/established science, especially considering what sub-forum you're in!!

3. Clearly that's not true, just another self-contradiction! "MY (our) case/application" is that of human hearing but you are NOT "perfectly OK" with that. Your "case/application" appears to be the hearing of some other creature, presumably some fantasy/alien creature because not even animals on this planet known for their high-freq hearing (such as dogs, certain bats and dolphins) can hear 1mHz as far as I'm aware!
3a. I'm perfectly fine with limiting progress to what is humanly possible and don't see the need for a limit applicable to some hypothetical alien species ... but that's just me! Maybe if I get abducted by aliens (with ultrasonic hearing) I'll change my mind?

4. Such as - any sane person?
4a. Huh? Why would I want a CD to sound like a real acoustic drumkit when the engineers/musicians have spent days deliberately making the drumkit sound nothing like an acoustic drumkit? Are you talking about an alien drumkit? Do aliens even play drumkits?


TheSonicTruth said:


> I've always thought the two at least overlapped.


They can, sometimes, in certain regards but there's no direct correlation.


analogsurviver said:


> OK - first a question for you. What source(s) are you listening to ?


Ultimately, human ears. What are you using?

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

analogsurviver said:


> Question for you - can you hear noise ?



YES, a lot of noise - on THIS THREAD!!


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Sep 2, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> It only depends how much one is willing to investigate. And, above all - LISTEN. I am perfectly OK
> with the conclusion " performance of this calibre is not significant nor required in MY case/application" -
> but not when trying to limit any further progress by saying that RBCD is all it will ever be required for
> music reproduction - not to go into lossy files.
> ...



That's because stuff is _done in mixing and in post_ to the recordings of those drums!

AS: Do you not realize that digital - CD specifically and digital audio as a whole - does _nothing_ to the captured sound?  PEOPLE do - with effects processing, at every stage of the album-making process!

For crying out loud listen to some Chesky or GRP label stuff, and not Billboard Hot 100 releases, which have had so much CRAP done to them that they bear next to no resemblence to the sound of the initial studio sessions.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> That's because stuff is _done in mixing and in post_ to the recordings of those drums!
> 
> AS: Do you not realize that digital - CD specifically and digital audio as a whole - does _nothing_ to the captured sound?  PEOPLE do - with effects processing, at every stage of the album-making process!
> 
> For crying out loud listen to some Chesky or GRP label stuff, and not Billboard Hot 100 releases, which have had some much CRAP done to them that they bear next to no resemblence to the sound of the initial studio sessions.



Oh dear... do yourself a favor and actually take a drumstick in your arm and "play" with the drumkit for say 30 seconds... and THEN come back again with "CD does nothing to sound" mantra.

Chesky is way above average ( Bob Katz, IIRC ) and , to a lesser extent, so is GRP ( I'll have to check who has been doing few releases I own ) . Billboard is something  to which I have , at least consciously , never listened to - even for a second.  

But no Chesky release I have ever heard did not have the directness of a well done binaural - or not nearly to the extent of which dispensing with ALL unecessary mumbo jumbo in the signal path can provide. 
Prior to turning making and marketing binaural, Chesky has been perhaps the most outspoken critic of binaural in general. Citing each and every (admittedly real ) disadvantage they could possibly find... - only to quietly delete the pages devoted to this topic on their website a few years later, hopping on the binaural train.

Things done in post on most commercially released, particularly digitally recorded or digitally remastered recordings ... less talked about, the better. 

For my taste, the best commercially released recordings are either on Proprius or Opus3 ( analog tape master, mainly classical and jazz ) - or, when hitting with the biggest calibre, direct to disk recordings on Miller & Kreisel label done by Ken Kreisel. Here a few demo moments : https://www.kreiselsound.com/downloads_1.php
Somewhere in between or around here I would place work by Kavi Alexander on Water Lilly Acoustics. 

More mainstream ( mainstream as in using more than ultimately minimalistic miking setup ) would come  Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings and most of what is available on Telarc. They both are musically satisfying and of course, way above average - but still do not provide that ultimate realism.

A little further back go excellent recordings once back in the day for Harmonia Mundi - FRANCE !!!! ( and not sister German or Italian labels ). Coinciding with the very best vintage ever for lacquer disks for cutting analogue record masters - second half of the 1970s. Pryral from Asnieres, France ( Paris suburb ).

Above may explain why I am completely untouched by never ending re-releases of - say - Canned Heat or Pink Floyd or Yes or... ( insert whatever you fancy here ) - either in digital form or in recent wave of vinyl remasters.  Here, I might be doing injustice to some remastering engineers who really tried their best to squeeze more music from the masters - but only as far as musical content is concerned. There is no way any analog tape now old 4 decades or more can contain better preserved information than a first stamper pressed record - and, as far as I know, except in cases where original tapes have for any reason become unavailable, there are VERY FEW re-releases made from the actual vinyl record.

Recently admitted fire in 2008 in Universal Studios https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/11/magazine/universal-fire-master-recordings.html
that destroyed many analog master tapes may mean there will be more of this "genre" in the future.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Sep 2, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Things done in post on most commercially released, particularly
> digitally recorded or digitally remastered recordings ...
> less talked about, the better.



"digitally recorded" or "digitally remastered" have nothing to do with it.

It's how _much _or how _little _post-processing, and what types, are done that matters - not whether that processing is done in the digital or analog realm.

The most important things are composition, venue used, performance, and session techniques - what gets captured in the first place, and also choices made at the mix and mastering stages of the project.  _Not_ what format(analog or digital)  the processing and/or delivery takes place in.


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> "digitally recorded" or "digitally remastered" have nothing to do with it.
> 
> It's how _much _or how _little _post-processing, and what types, are done that matters - not whether that processing is done in the digital or analog realm.
> 
> The most important things are composition, venue used, performance, and session techniques - what gets captured in the first place, and also choices made at the mix and mastering stages of the project.  _Not_ what format(analog or digital)  the processing and/or delivery takes place in.



Digitally recorded or digitally mastered - if PCM is concerned - IS the very staring point that allows opening the digital processing pandora box. 

Best processing is no processing - either in digital or analog domain.

But even after all the processing, final delivery "container" still matters. 
IF the processing has not been too heavy, reducing any difference from the capabilities of delivering method to an afterthought.

I agree the most important things are composition, venue used, performance and session technique in particular. I call that combined  "initial recording" - because "master" can mean so many different things to so many different people. 
If that initial recording is really done well, all post can be reduced to is splitting various portions of different takes of the same piece of music - no other processing whatsoever required.

That is the also the only way to natively record in DSD. It gives the sonic quality similar to that of direct to disk analog record, while still allowing for pauses longer than just few brief seconds between songs/movements and, of course, possibility to record each song/movement separately in time - and not entire side of the record ( approx up to 20 minutes per side ) in one go as mandatory in direct to disk.

However, the spirit of the performance is best preserved by recordings in one go - that's why direct to disk (live by very definition) and other live recordings regardless of the type are at the same time both loved and hated - depending on what one wants or expects from a recording in the first place.


----------



## bigshot

I honestly don’t think he can help it.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> I honestly don’t think he can help it.



In reference to??


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Sep 2, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> But no Chesky release I have ever heard did not have the directness of a
> well done binaural - or not nearly to the extent of which dispensing with ALL unecessary
> mumbo jumbo in the signal path can provide.



Binaural is a spatial miking format. The effects of a binaural miking session on the sound of a performance can be recorded to digital or analog. No significant difference(other than natural compression on the analog tape side)  in the original recorded capture.





analogsurviver said:


> Things done in post on most commercially released, particularly digitally
> recorded or digitally remastered recordings ... less talked about, the better.



It's the same major TYPES of processing in digital as in analog: tonal, spatial, dynamics.   Just in digital realm, more powerful.  Think of it as nuclear!





analogsurviver said:


> Billboard is something to which I have , at least consciously , never listened to - even
> for a second.



By 'Billboard' I just meant more or less anything that has spent a lot of time in the upper half of any music chart - 'Pop' music, 'Top Forty', AC, CHR, etc.    That stuff is the most heavily processed music of all.  Increasingly more so, in the last twenty years, than during the prior fifty.


----------



## KeithEmo

Sometimes I can't figure out if you're deliberately being obtuse - or if you're just being comical.

On  my first point.... 
First you claim "it's nonsense of course"... then you say I'm right.
(Which, to me, is confusing.)
My point was simple - and you seem to be agreeing with it.
No test measurement will ever describe the amount of distortion as "audible" or "inaudible"....
Test measurements are always presented as numerical results.... and concepts like "audible" or "inaudible" are virtually always human opinions or conclusions.
Therefore........
You will rarely if ever receive a test report listing "distortion" or "noise" as being "audible" or "inaudible".....  (unless someone in marketing edited the report).
Therefore, I would appreciate it if people would stop and saying things like "the measured distortion was inaudible".
(That statement is a lie. At best, the measured distortion was some number, which that person believes or has concluded is inaudible.)

On my second point....
THD specifies TOTAL harmonic distortion... which means "the sum of all the harmonic distortion added to together".
However, every frequency has an infinite number of harmonics, and the simple THD spec fails to specify how much of each harmonic is present.
THD is simply the sum... or TOTAL... of an infinitely long list of possible types of discortion erach of which may be present in various quantities.
(And it's relatively obvious to most people that different harmonics are both more or less audible and more or less unpleasant than others.)
Even beyond that, most "THD" measurements are actually "THD + noise", and most modern results are reported as such... but older mesaurements were not.
(They were, however, produced by nulling out the desired frequency, and measuring the total of everything that remained - which actually included harmonic distortion, other types of distortion, and just plain noise.)
However, the net result of all this is that two things that have "the same THD measurement" may have very different types of distrotion whose audibility may also be very different.
(And, if you believe that "two things with the same amount of THD will always sound the same" then you are incorrect.)

It's also worth noting that THD was a useful measurement specifically for analog equipment - where it was one of the two predominant types of distortion present - and often the most audible one.
However, digital equipment, including DACs and ADCs, are prone to types of distortion that are NOT "either THD, or IM distortion, or noise"...
(For example, the characteristic sidebands caused by jitter are neither THD or IM distortion, and must either be identified separately, or - less accurately - lumped together under "noise".)

I'm afraid we really have passed the point where "everything about how something sounds" can be said in two or three simple numbers.
(My apologies to those who would prefer to live in a world where that was still believed to be true.)



gregorio said:


> 1. True, test gear is designed to measure actual properties of digital audio data, an analogue electric current or sound pressure waves, not how/if we may or may not hear/perceive them.
> 1a. That's nonsense of course! Objective measurements of audio properties themselves (by definition) obviously will not tell you that, you need to compare the objective measurements with what is reproducible in the first place and if it is reproducible (under reasonable listening conditions), then we can compare the measurements with hearing thresholds, using common sense/logic (IE. A brain)!
> 
> 2. That depends on what the numbers are. Ultimately, digital audio is just a single set of numbers (representing amplitude over time). However, both measuring equipment and human hearing/perception can derive further information from this single set of numbers. Your argument (particularly in regard to THD) appears to be based on a common audiophile fallacy, actually several fallacies. For example, the difference between measurements of actual audio properties and published equipment performance specifications (for marketing purposes). Often we can treat a single measurement as if there's nothing else involved, it depends on the value of that single measurement, which brings us back to 1a.
> ...


----------



## bigshot

TheSonicTruth said:


> In reference to??



People who spin in circles thinking and saying the same things over and over again, even though it 's clear that the repetition makes other people around them frustrated. I don't think it's deliberate. I don't even think it's intended as communication. Most people in conversations say things because they want to share the information with other people. They have an interest in what the other person thinks about what they say, and they want to hear ideas other people have to offer them. But this kind of person seems to express their thoughts for no one's benefit but their own. It's as if the act of repeating the same things over and over is self validating. If they do reply to someone else, there's a weird disconnect between the idea they are replying to and the routine they launch into. You could ask, "Do you like lemons?" and it would come right back around to the same repeating concepts. The impetus for the routine doesn't matter. I always try to understand and engage with people when I'm chatting with them, but that isn't possible with a person like this. All I can do is continue on with the actual topic at hand or change the subject entirely. Engaging doesn't help. It only feeds it. You have to talk past them to people who do give and take in a conversation. It's sad. This sort of thing isn't all that common in internet chat forums, but internet chat forums tend to attract this sort of person. I don't think they can help it.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> People who spin in circles thinking and saying the same things over and over again, even though it 's clear that the repetition makes other people around them frustrated. I don't think it's deliberate. I don't even think it's intended as communication. Most people in conversations say things because they want to share the information with other people. They have an interest in what the other person thinks about what they say, and they want to hear ideas other people have to offer them. But this kind of person seems to express their thoughts for no one's benefit but their own. It's as if the act of repeating the same things over and over is self validating. If they do reply to someone else, there's a weird disconnect between the idea they are replying to and the routine they launch into. You could ask, "Do you like lemons?" and it would come right back around to the same repeating concepts. The impetus for the routine doesn't matter. I always try to understand and engage with people when I'm chatting with them, but that isn't possible with a person like this. All I can do is continue on with the actual topic at hand or change the subject entirely. Engaging doesn't help. It only feeds it. You have to talk past them to people who do give and take in a conversation. It's sad. This sort of thing isn't all that common in internet chat forums, but internet chat forums tend to attract this sort of person. I don't think they can help it.




I think the vast majority of the general public think that CD or digital itself imply something different in the sound of the same thing they owned on vinyl or cassette.  The marketing departments of consumer products thirty years ago didn't help matters by slapping the phrases "Digital Ready" or just "Digital" on everything from headphones and speakers to speaker wire and even cheap bookshelf systems that were starting to incorporate CD players.

People need to understand that 'digital' is just the next container for the storage of music, movies, and even printed word.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 3, 2019)

I don't think this has anything to do with audio. I guess you didn't hear what I said.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Sometimes I can't figure out if you're deliberately being obtuse - or if you're just being comical.
> [2] On my first point.... First you claim "it's nonsense of course"... then you say I'm right. (Which, to me, is confusing.)
> [2a] Therefore, I would appreciate it if people would stop and saying things like "the measured distortion was inaudible".(That statement is a lie. At best, the measured distortion was some number, which that person believes or has concluded is inaudible.)
> [3] On my second point.... THD specifies TOTAL harmonic distortion... which means "the sum of all the harmonic distortion added to together". (And, if you believe that "two things with the same amount of THD will always sound the same" then you are incorrect.)
> ...



1. And sometimes it's very obvious that you are being deliberately obtuse, to the point of (and sometimes well beyond) the comical! These situations only seem to occur when we're discussing some aspect of audio directly related to the marketing of your company's products ... coincidence?
2. It's only confusing to you because you're "deliberately being obtuse"! I doubt anyone else here is quite so obtuse but just in case, you're right that objective measurements don't by themselves mention audibility but clearly you're wrong in that we can't determine audibility from those measurements.
2a. Therefore, I would more than appreciate it if you would stop contradicting the demonstrated science and stating/implying that "the measured distortion is audible", because in many situations that statement is a (marketing) lie!!

3. That's utter (marketing) nonsense of course, which anyone with a modicum of common sense, who is not "deliberately being obtuse" would realise. If "the sum of all the harmonic distortion added together" is inaudible then OF COURSE any individual type of distortion which comprises the THD (+ N) measurement must also be inaudible! In other words, if you believe that "two things with the same amount of (inaudible) THD will ever sound different (in respect of THD)", then A. You are incorrect and B. You are either incapable of rational thought or are "deliberately being obtuse"!! Case in point ...
3a. If we "lump together" all jitter artefacts "under noise", and the totality of that "noise" is way below audibility, then "the characteristic sidebands" or ANY other component of that "noise" is also inaudible. You keep stating that jitter sidebands are "more audible", which is a lie, they would be exactly the same audibility, IE. Inaudible! And, going back to point #1, you state that the inaudible jitter artefacts/noise would be audible under a completely nonsense set of circumstances, a 1mW office system playing a music recording with no music on it. How much more "deliberately obtuse" and ridiculously "comical" can it get?!!

4. "Everything about how something sounds" can actually be said in one (set of) simple numbers because that's the ONLY thing that digital audio actually is! (My apologies to those who would prefer to live in some nonsense world of audiophile marketing BS where bits aren't just bits and digital audio contains some sort of magic not known to science). Just to repeat, if there are any confused by the "obtuse" (and "comical") marketing BS, it can depend on what we are measuring but if individually or combined those measurements are below the threshold of audibility, then they are inaudible, period!

G


----------



## analogsurviver

It is sad to still find people who did not have a chance to experience analog at its best. And, failing to do that for any reason, accepting that CD is "good enough". I understand cost can be and usually IS a factor - but that should not form a "brick filtering" of anything that is not CD. 

The same goes for high resolution digital. In this case, it has to be NATIVE high resolution recording - not transfer of either analog tapes, records or digital files originally recorded at lower resolution. They still can ( but only if done carefully ) bring an improvement in perceived sound; but they can not possibly meet or exceed modern day native high resolution digital recording, be it PCM or DSD.

That said, I would still prefer listening to some Bjorling and Knappertsbusch and the likes of their ilk from either a scratched ( but not jumping ) record, small portable transistor radio, etc -  to some modern day wannabe captured in the best technical conditions available today, played back by sky is the limit audio system in a fab room, built specifically for music listening.


----------



## gregorio

analogsurviver said:


> [1] Best processing is no processing - either in digital or analog domain.
> [2] I agree the most important things are composition, venue used, performance and session technique in particular.
> [2a] I call that combined "initial recording" - because "master" can mean so many different things to so many different people.
> [3] If that initial recording is really done well, all post can be reduced to is splitting various portions of different takes of the same piece of music - no other processing whatsoever required.
> ...



1. What utter nonsense! Applying your nonsense idea would result in there being no TV or Film sound from the mid 1930's onwards, pretty much no popular music from around the mid 1950's onwards and even relatively few classic music recordings, what's left? Your user name is apparently wrong, it should be "two-tin-cans-and-a-piece-of-string-survivor"!

2. Who are you agreeing with, yourself?
2a. No it doesn't.

3. You claim to have experience of commercial music recording studios but that clearly cannot be true, even of analogue recordings, let alone digital. Hence why you should be "two tin cans survivor", which (along with a tiny number of binaural recordings) is indeed about the only time "no other processing whatsoever [is] required"! 

4. Which is precisely why there are almost no commercial DSD recordings which are DSD throughout the process!
4a. Then why does it exist, why invent SACD in the first place, why not just stick to the already invented "direct to disk analog record"? Firstly of course, there is no "direct to disk analogue record" as far as consumers are concerned. At the very least, the master has to be "mastered" (duh!) and then records "pressed" from that master. Secondly, you are contradicting just about ALL the science (pertaining to audio signal fidelity), without a shred of evidence!

You go on about the "real world" but your "real world" is a complete fantasy which ignores nearly all the actual realities of the commercial music recording world for the last 60+ years!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

As for #1... 
I guess we just read things differently.

As for #2...
Until and unless you can find me a few actual test reports stating that "the THD on a certain piece of equipment is inaudible"....
Then stating it as a number will be the literal truth...
And claiming that it is or is not audible will be either an anecdotal claim or a matter of opinion.
(Note that I didn't specifically say that, in a given case, you are necessarily wrong... just that you will not find an actual measurement to substantiate the claim.
(I would _NEVER _make a claim beyond "statistically - most people can't hear it" or " I personally find it to be totally inaudible"......   )

As for #3....
Yes, obviously, if the total is inaudible, then the individual parts will also probably be inaudible.
(Excluding the unlikely possibility that two individually audible types happen to cancel out.)
Again, however, until and unless you can provide concrete data about "what level of noise is always inaudible" then this remains an unsubstantiated claim.
The problem I have is with generalizations.....
If I take a 20 Hz sine wave.... and add a 1 khz tone at 0.4% of its level.... which is at -50 dB.... the tone will almost certainly be audible.
So... _IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE_... 0.5% THD will be clearly audible (1 kHz is a harmonic of 20 Hz and the total will be 0.4%).
You can reduce that number, as an average, by half, by having it switch on and off every 0.1 second, but my bet is that the beeping noise will be even more audible.

As for #3a....
Jitter sidebands are harmonically unrelated to the content itself...
MOST people I know seem to agree that, at any given level that may be audible, patterned noise that is harmonically unrelated to the musical content...
- is more audible than most forms of random noise
- is more audible than most forms of harmonic distortion or noise that is harmonically related 
(because harmonics are naturally present in some quantities - so we tend to not notice them in small quantities - whereas our brains seem quite adept at noticing unrelated noises.)



gregorio said:


> 1. And sometimes it's very obvious that you are being deliberately obtuse, to the point of (and sometimes well beyond) the comical! These situations only seem to occur when we're discussing some aspect of audio directly related to the marketing of your company's products ... coincidence?
> 2. It's only confusing to you because you're "deliberately being obtuse"! I doubt anyone else here is quite so obtuse but just in case, you're right that objective measurements don't by themselves mention audibility but clearly you're wrong in that we can't determine audibility from those measurements.
> 2a. Therefore, I would more than appreciate it if you would stop contradicting the demonstrated science and stating/implying that "the measured distortion is audible", because in many situations that statement is a (marketing) lie!!
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

@gregorio ref post # 13506

1. What I said is what is best processing - which is none. I did not state it is universally applicable to every genre and type of music.

2. I was agreeing with person whose post I have quoted - @TheSonicTruth. 

2.a Wrong. It is ALWAYS "initial recording" ( be it 2 track stereo or multitrack recording ), from which "master" is made at a later stage. Master(s), even the ones with all individual tracks of a multitrack recording already brought to 2 channel stereo (or 5.1 or whatever),  can differ depending on the final delivery medium; each has its own set of limits and limitations. Master for analog record has to take into account limits and limitations regarding thickness of the lacquer ( which determines the maximum excursion of the cutting stylus in vertical direction which must never be exceeded - the first most important, governing how much out of phase or stereo bass can be put on record, followed by quite a few others, which are more trade-off between maximum signal to noise ratio vs playing time that can still be fitted on one side of the record . There are good descriptions how a master for disc cutting has to be prepared available online - and they tell a great deal about the capabilities and willingness to risk of a particular cutting provider) . Since MP3s are, like it or not, the way much if not most music is sold and distributed today, mastering engineers DID have to start  to master for MP3s a bit differently than say for a RBCD version. Compensating best they can for the defficiences of the final "container" - if you will. The most "unbridled passion" master would be that for the HiRez release - whether in PCM or DSD. And yet another different set of priorities is/was for the compact cassette release. All of these masters can have but do not need to have exactly the same music contained.

3. I should have put it more directly. I have been to enough studios to see and hear WHAT I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT IN A RECORDING. Not even in those I buy, but most definitely not in those I am about to make. 
Besides binaural, there are other 2 microphone ( or stereo microphone, if preffered it this way ) miking techniques that do not require any processing.
They require much more careful placement of both mics and musicians in order to be successful, since you can not "fix everything in mix" as is standard practice with multimiking multitrack recordings. As time is money, such recordings are more expensive than multitrack; musicians' fees are the same if they play to find the correct placement or for real - and finding that sweet spot can be VERY time consuming. 

4. The reason why there is not more native DSD recording lies mostly in the inability of the musicians to play without mistakes - and although technical difficulties are not trivial, they most definitely are not the prime reason.  If say a young talented and aspiring musician wants to record a piece of music his/her teacher recorded say 2 decades ago, using all the editing and error correcting techniques available in PCM, he/she has got to have pretty mighty cojones to allow publishing a recording that does not allow anything but splicing various parts of various takes of the same piece of music. Ever since digital audio is about, musicians are panically avoiding ANY mistakes to be put on record - period. To the point some very big names are recording from bar 1 trough 5, from bar 3 trough 8, from 5 to 10, etc - overlapping a few bars, until the end of composition is finally reached. Voila - note by note perfection can be edited from such a recording. What can not be edited IN is the spirit lost in such grueling process; something only (preferably live) performance in one go can, under lucky circumstances, provide. 

There is only a handful of musicians today who CAN play well enough live not to be bothered by gross mistakes. And who are not intimidated to record Direct to Disk . One example I am personally familiar with :



http://www.speakerscornerrecords.co...astor-piazzolla-tangos-del-angel-y-del-diablo

For somebody claiming to be an old studio cat, understanding Direct to Disc workflow is obviously something they did not teach in whatever school you have been attending. And , obviously, you did not find it required to investigate further on your own.

For if you did, you would have known that most usually, direct to disk session is run with a SINGLE lathe. Nobody in the biz interested in quality enough to bother with the stringent requirements of D2D back in mid 70s could afford more than a single lathe; therefore, there was only one master cut onto the lacquer disk, from which trough standard galvanic procedure only one stamper, from which the actual records were stamped, could be produced. That is WHY all D2D releases are LIMITED EDITION; each stamper is good only for so and so much copies, then it has to be discarded. Most D2D releases have individual serial number either stamped or hand written in for this purpose allocated area on the outer jacket. And, for obvious reasons, actual pressed record customer can buy # 0035 is preferable to # 1789 ( nearing its useful life as far as QUALITY pressing is concerned ).
With normal recordings, where master is on analog tape or some digital file, you can cut another lacquer disk>blabla>stamper , big companies could run more lathes in parallel at the same time, if the projected sales figure for that record has been large, etc - all of which was/is with D2D simply - impo$$ible.

D2D sessions, regardles who has been doing them, have always been backed by either analog or digital parallel recording - whether they did mention/admit it or not. For understandable reason - some of the music on originally D2D records had more customer demand than any single stamper could ever hope to supply. That's why, for example, Sheffield has after the original D2D stamper wore out, issued the same music, but this time lacquer disc>blabla>stamper was made from analogue tape master, recorded in parallel during the D2D session.

Homework: who was Keeper Of The Groove ?

I agree most of the recorded music from the last 6 decades could not have been produced in above described puristic manner. And for precisely this reason "older than 60" and "native HiRez of today" are so treasured by discerning listeners. 
I am not going to say that invention by Les Paul ( Sound On Sound, as he called it - and later more popularly known as overdubbing ) and everything that followed ( including plugin for plugin for.....plugin nowadays ) was by default bad, evil, music destroying, etc. No. Genres as envisioned by the likes of Vangelis, would simply be impossible without those inventions and people who could put them to the use of music - yourself included. And I appreciate that and am thankful for those new capabilities with which to express the art in new way. None of the music by my beloved Frank Zappa ( with the possible exceptions of his recordings with LSO ) , mastered with such passion and precision by Mark Pinske, would have been possible - that would really be a terrible loss. As well as countless other musicians' good music.

All I am saying that these new capabilities paid their very existence with reduced ultimately achievable sound quality. And where artistic musical capabilities they offer are not absolutely required, they are best simply left out. That is realistically possible only with acoustic music ( classical, jazz, ethno, etc ) - and for precisely this reason, there are very few recordings outside acoustic realm today in any form of HiRez.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 3, 2019)

Gregorio, these guys are using your replies to try to get you to give them an excuse to just pump out more irrelevant and incorrect streams of words. They're not really replying to anything you say. They're just trying to manipulate us to get us to jump through their hoops.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> I asked HIM - @colonelkernel8 .
> 
> For a reason. Because I expect him to answer the question honestly - so that we can proceed from whatever starting point as given/specified by him.
> 
> Question for you - can you hear noise ?



Not if it's 96 decibels lower than the signal. In fact, even if it were much higher you'd still have difficulty hearing it with the signal.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> OK - first a question for you.
> 
> What source(s) are you listening to ?
> 
> On which type of amplifiers and transducers ?



This old canard. Written on the first page of the "Audiophile Denial Handbook".

My sources and amplifiers are audibly transparent, with any speaker on the planet. Period. And before you go there, there isn't a record player on the planet that will achieve even half the reproduction quality, it's physically impossible.

My speakers are Focals. They aren't perfect as they're bookshelf speakers, but I have a Martin Logan sub to augment them. This is the only element of my signal chain that could be improved. But money is a concern, and speakers are expensive. That said nothing you have stated would affect anything at this point anyway, the speakers would sound the same with two identical signals.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> It is sad to still find people who did not have a chance to experience analog at its best. And, failing to do that for any reason, accepting that CD is "good enough". I understand cost can be and usually IS a factor - but that should not form a "brick filtering" of anything that is not CD.
> 
> The same goes for high resolution digital. In this case, it has to be NATIVE high resolution recording - not transfer of either analog tapes, records or digital files originally recorded at lower resolution. They still can ( but only if done carefully ) bring an improvement in perceived sound; but they can not possibly meet or exceed modern day native high resolution digital recording, be it PCM or DSD.
> 
> That said, I would still prefer listening to some Bjorling and Knappertsbusch and the likes of their ilk from either a scratched ( but not jumping ) record, small portable transistor radio, etc -  to some modern day wannabe captured in the best technical conditions available today, played back by sky is the limit audio system in a fab room, built specifically for music listening.


What is analog at its best? I've been to concerts.


----------



## Davesrose

colonelkernel8 said:


> What is analog at its best? I've been to concerts.



I think this brings on the most salient part.  I have read forum member responses that audio reproduction is its own thing and shouldn't try to reproduce the conditions of live acoustic performance.  However, I do like collecting blu-ray concerts.  They don't particularly mimic the "live" performance in that there are many camera angles focused on stage (IE not whatever seat you'd hold) and they usually have a mixed PCM stereo track as well as a high resolution 5.1 surround mix.  When trying to switch between the PCM 2.0 mixes and 5.1 lossless, I've noticed levels tend to be completely different.  I usually resort to preferring the high res surround that adds some ambience.  Camera angles are also ever changing...so the presentation isn't the same as having a static seat there.  Now that I have a really good OLED TV and 7.1.4 system, I'd say I get an even better presentation as the cameras are closer and the audio is well mixed.  Interesting side note I've noticed about my new receiver...if the source is 92khz+, it stays 2D surround without 3D surround for DTS:X (can switch to Dolby Surround and Auro-3D, but the EQ doesn't seem as good).


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> Not if it's 96 decibels lower than the signal. In fact, even if it were much higher you'd still have difficulty hearing it with the signal.



The fly in the ointment is EXACTLY here. It is NOT ALWAYS 96 dB below the signal ... - and most definitely CAN cause trouble in certain real world scenarios.  

I am asking again : which type of source(s), amp(s) and transducer(s) are in your frequent use ?


----------



## bigshot

If it's -50dB it is probably inaudible under music. But most equipment is at least -70dB.


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> This old canard. Written on the first page of the "Audiophile Denial Handbook".
> 
> My sources and amplifiers are audibly transparent, with any speaker on the planet. Period. And before you go there, there isn't a record player on the planet that will achieve even half the reproduction quality, it's physically impossible.
> 
> My speakers are Focals. They aren't perfect as they're bookshelf speakers, but I have a Martin Logan sub to augment them. This is the only element of my signal chain that could be improved. But money is a concern, and speakers are expensive. That said nothing you have stated would affect anything at this point anyway, the speakers would sound the same with two identical signals.



OK, please disregard my repeated question regarding your equipment; I should have read all the answers beforehand.

But, the answer to at least sources is incomplete. Analog record, analog tape, MP3, CD, SACD, BluRay, Hirez, PCM or DSD (- and at which sampling rates ? Which DAC(s) ? I am not kidding or joking, I would like to showcase what CAN go wrong - even if people are mostly not aware of it.

Regarding turntables; you would be surprised what they can actually put out ... - and not all "audibly transparent amplifiers" have the stomach for it.

"Audibly transparent with any speakers on the planet" are - maybe, and I EMPHASIZE MAYBE - amps that can be counted on the fingers of a single hand ( but since I can not know everything, I am generously extending that to fingers of  both hands ). "Any speakers on the planet" must also include electrostatics - and some of them dip well below half an ohm in impedance at certain frequencies, particularly in the treble;, that impedance is also highly reactive at the same time. It can be higher than 100 ohms in the bass and below 1 ohm in the treble - depending on the particular model of electrostatic speaker. There is one with "equalized impedance" ( Audio Exklusiv from Germany https://www.audio-exklusiv.de/en/start/ ), which has, for an electrostatic speaker, unbelievably constant impedance curve. The only catch is that it is 0.2 ohms in the bass, rising slowly to about 0.5 ohms in the treble... Most amps that are more than audibly transparent in most speakers a la Focal simply fall apart with those loads, like heavy brick thrown in your large balcony window. No way that can be "inaudible". But, amps that can play audibly transparent and LOUD into such difficult loads DO exist.

And, no, your setup should be more than good enough to reveal the difference between say RBCD and HiRez version of the same recording, provided MASTER (OR INITIAL RECORDING) of this recording is native HiRez.


----------



## analogsurviver (Sep 4, 2019)

colonelkernel8 said:


> What is analog at its best? I've been to concerts.



Analog at is best has always been, continues to be and will for always remain direct to disk recording - which is, by its very definition, a live recording. The only choice is if it is a live recording in front of the regular audience or "studio" recording without the audience - even if recorded in the venue where normally audience is present. It can only be a 2 track normal stereo, because quadrophonic carrier(s) frequency is around 45 kHz ( depending on the system ) - and cutter head maximum flat frequency response is 27 kHz, thus necessitating half speed mastering for quadrophonic.  One obviously can not make musicians play at half speed - so overzealous sellers on ebay offering "half speed mastered direct to disk records" have gone "one bridge too far".

This is by now long sold out direct to disk set recorded in concert using 2 microphone single point Bluemlein miking technique:



https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/brahms-symphonies-on-direct-to-disc-vinyl/


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> If it's -50dB it is probably inaudible under music. But most equipment is at least -70dB.


 
Errr... you've got tons of SACDs - don't you ?


----------



## analogsurviver

Davesrose said:


> I think this brings on the most salient part.  I have read forum member responses that audio reproduction is its own thing and shouldn't try to reproduce the conditions of live acoustic performance.  However, I do like collecting blu-ray concerts.  They don't particularly mimic the "live" performance in that there are many camera angles focused on stage (IE not whatever seat you'd hold) and they usually have a mixed PCM stereo track as well as a high resolution 5.1 surround mix.  When trying to switch between the PCM 2.0 mixes and 5.1 lossless, I've noticed levels tend to be completely different.  I usually resort to preferring the high res surround that adds some ambience.  Camera angles are also ever changing...so the presentation isn't the same as having a static seat there.  Now that I have a really good OLED TV and 7.1.4 system, I'd say I get an even better presentation as the cameras are closer and the audio is well mixed.  Interesting side note I've noticed about my new receiver...if the source is 92khz+, it stays 2D surround without 3D surround for DTS:X (can switch to Dolby Surround and Auro-3D, but the EQ doesn't seem as good).



Great post. Reflects reality really well. 

I most certainly do not agree with those saying audio reproduction is its own thing and shouldn't try to reproduce the conditions of live acoustic performance. On the contrary !

Although at home I do not have a surround set up ( too small room for it to really shine as it should, sadly not worth bothering ...), I have enough decent sounding surround experience to concur.  Camera angles and audio can get sometimes/most of the time too servile ( focusing on the lead singer/player only, and to hell with the rest... ) - but that is not defect of the format, but inappropriate use of its capabilities. Used properly, such live recordings can provide a better experience than actually being there, particularly if one's seats were rather far removed from the "sweet spot" - which is, at most live events requiring amplification, somewhere around and close to the mixing desk position. That is also reflected in the ticket prices.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 4, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> As for #1... I guess we just read things differently.
> As for #2... Until and unless you can find me a few actual test reports stating that "the THD on a certain piece of equipment is inaudible"....
> [2a] Then stating it as a number will be the literal truth...
> [2b] And claiming that it is or is not audible will be either an anecdotal claim or a matter of opinion.
> ...



1. Indeed. I read what you have written and refute it, if it's false. You seem to either just not read (or completely ignore) what's been written or read it with a view to figuring out how to misrepresent it, case in point:

2. A typical tactic you seem to employ. Part 1: Make-up a false statement, falsely ascribe it to me, then argue that the statement is false and therefore that I'm wrong/lying. Part 2: Completely ignore any response and just keep blindly repeating that the false statement (which you made-up) is false. In this specific case, I state that test gear designed to measure audio properties does not measure "_how/if we may or may not hear/perceive them_" and your reply is effectively, "find me a few test reports (which you've just stated don't exist)"! Tell you what, you find me some flying pigs and I'll find you the thing you're after that doesn't exist!
2a. That would be the literal truth BUT it would also be the literal truth to state that it's inaudible (if, of course, it is inaudible)!
2b. So let me get this straight, are you really saying that all the scientific audibility threshold tests carried out over the last century or so are "anecdotal claims or a matter of opinion"? That's funny, do you really not know what science is, or are you just attempting to pervert it for some marketing reason?
2c. How many times? Again: No, I will not find "an actual measurement" but I can find two actual measurements or in other cases I can find one actual measurement, which can then be compared to the threshold of audibility!
2d. Now that apparently is true, you indeed do seem to NEVER make a claim beyond "statistically - most people can't hear it" but that's presumably because of your marketing agenda. Of course I (and science) can and do make claims beyond that. For example, "that's 1,000 times below the threshold of audibility and is therefore inaudible" or "that's not even reproducible to start with, so obviously it must be inaudible"!!



KeithEmo said:


> As for #3....Again, however, until and unless you can provide concrete data about "what level of noise is always inaudible" then this remains an unsubstantiated claim.
> [3.1] If I take a 20 Hz sine wave.... and add a 1 khz tone at 0.4% of its level.... which is at -50 dB.... the tone will almost certainly be audible. So... _IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE_... 0.5% THD will be clearly audible (1 kHz is a harmonic of 20 Hz and the total will be 0.4%).
> As for #3a....Jitter sidebands are harmonically unrelated to the content itself...
> MOST people I know seem to agree that, at any given level that may be audible, patterned noise that is harmonically unrelated to the musical content...
> ...



3. Obviously that statement is just (marketing?) nonsense! Firstly, what do you think scientific hearing threshold tests are? And secondly, if the "level of noise" is so low it can't even be reproduced in the first place, you think that stating it's inaudible is "an unsubstantiated claim" do you?
3.1. Here we go again: That's not a "PARTICULAR" case, that's a completely hypothetical case that doesn't exist! How many music recordings can you name that contain nothing except a 20Hz sine wave? Secondly, how many DACs (for example) can you name that have jitter artefacts at -50dB? Are you saying that your DACs do? If so, they must be about the worst DACs ever released on the market! Why don't we take an actual "PARTICULAR" case, say a relatively cheap DAC where jitter artefacts peak at say -120dB, IE. Roughly 3,000 times lower in level than your hypothetical "case", which is certainly NOT audible (when listening to music at any reasonable level).

3a. Who are those "MOST people I [you] know", audiophile marketers or audiophiles suckered by them? Maybe you haven't noticed this is the science sub-forum? As is typical, you use a hypothetical situation that doesn't exist (so we're effectively back to your flying pigs and 1mW office system again)! Jitter artefacts (harmonically related or not) at say -120dB are NOT more audible than jitter artefacts at say -130dB, they have exactly the same audibility, which is "inaudible"! If I cut your head off, then you'll be dead. If I cut your head off and your arm off, will you be more dead or still just dead?
3a.1. No, our brains are completely inept at noticing unrelated noises that are inaudible!

Round and round with misrepresentations and fantasy "particular cases" we go, again and again! That tactic is a perversion of science and as you've demonstrated numerous times, doesn't work here in this sub-forum any way. So why do you keep trying it? What was it Einstein said about insanity (attrib.)? You think maybe it doesn't apply to you?

G


----------



## gregorio (Sep 4, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> 1. What I said is what is best processing - which is none. [1a] I did not state it is universally applicable to every genre and type of music.
> 2. I was agreeing with person whose post I have quoted - @TheSonicTruth.
> 2.a Wrong. It is ALWAYS "initial recording" ( be it 2 track stereo or multitrack recording ), from which "master" is made at a later stage.
> 3. I should have put it more directly. I have been to enough studios to see and hear WHAT I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT IN A RECORDING.
> ...



1. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat a false statement, it's still false!
1a. Yes you did! By not qualifying your statement, you are saying it is universally applicable.

2. No you weren't, that's NOT what he stated!
2a. That's clearly nonsense! If the master is "ALWAYS initial recording" then why/how can you make a master at a later stage, if you've already got the master at the initial recording stage?

3. Firstly, obviously you haven't and secondly, this isn't the "What analogsurvivor wants to see in a recording" forum.
3a. No mic'ing pattern or technique "requires" processing! We apply processing because it produces superior subjective results (for people/consumers apart from you, apparently).
3b. No, typically they are NOT successful, which is why typically we don't use only a stereo pair, we use mic'ing patterns proven to be more successful over the course of 70 odd years!!
3c. Of course! Positioning, setting-up and balancing say 40 mics takes less time and is therefore cheaper than setting up just 2, and spending days multi-track recording is quicker than just recording a single take.

4. Utter nonsense, they've been splicing together short takes since the early 1960's, long before digital even became available!
4a. That's false. "Spirit" or "feel" absolutely can be "edited in". Again, you seem to have pretty much no idea what's actually possible in a studio!



analogsurviver said:


> [5] There is only a handful of musicians today who CAN play well enough live not to be bothered by gross mistakes. And who are not intimidated to record Direct to Disk . One example I am personally familiar with ..
> [6] For somebody claiming to be an old studio cat, understanding Direct to Disc workflow is obviously something they did not teach in whatever school you have been attending.
> [6a] And , obviously, you did not find it required to investigate further on your own.
> [6b] Nobody in the biz interested in quality enough to bother with the stringent requirements of D2D back in mid 70s could afford more than a single lathe ...
> ...



5. And another beauty! As so often in the past, your best example turns out to be a recording so amateur and packed with "gross mistakes" it wouldn't even be acceptable as a student submission and would only be acceptable in a good commercial studio as a joke or an example of how NOT to record a performance!! And that's what you want in a recording is it? That's funny .... or it would be if you weren't seriously advocating it!

6. As there is so much to learn, there's generally not time to teach esoteric techniques that are almost never used because they're virtually always inferior.
6a. And obviously you have no idea what I've investigated and are just making-up lies!
6b. Yep, no one in the '70's or since is interested in quality, except you of course and the quality you're after is what, a joke and unacceptable even as a student submission?

7. Huh, is that some actual reality creeping into one of your posts?
7. No, apparently not, you had me worried for a second! Firstly, "native HiRez of today" is virtually all produced using exactly the same techniques we've been using on CD and analogue for years/decades and secondly, if you're talking about avid collectors of rare pressings or performances of specific musicians then yes but if (as you state/imply) you're talking about discerning listeners as far as audio fidelity is concerned then clearly that's utter nonsense. A 60 year old LP with better fidelity than modern digital is ridiculous!

8. How ironic, I've actually worked with Vangelis, the LSO and while not Zappa himself, I worked with his drummer a fair bit. And, "countless other musicians" covers pretty much every top/world class musician of the last 60 years or so!

9. As that's not true, then "all you are saying" is actually nonsense! So normal service is resumed 

G


----------



## KeithEmo

Just for the record... the one thing I do apologize TO YOU for is possibly being confusing about who I am specifically responding_ TO_.....
When I post a reply on the forum I am replying to something on the forum.... or to multiple things.... but not necessarily to one specific person.
Therefore, if I quoted your post, and part of my response is directed to it, that doesn't mean that I am responding only to it... and that was never my intent.

So, when I say something like "Show me the actual tests that back up that claim" I am mostly responding to BigShot.... 
The reason is that, every time *I* say something, that's what he says.... then he complains when I expect the same from him.
But, oddly, if *YOU* make a plain old claim he neglects to say the same thing.
In other words, when someone agrees with him, or when he's making the claim, he's willing to accept it sans-proof,  but he refuses to extend that courtesy to myself, or to anyone who_ disagrees_ with him.

I also tend to look at things from the perspective of what I would call "pure science".... while you seem to base your observations on more what I would refer to as "practical science".
For example, if I were to ask YOU: "What would happen if I bang two blocks of metal together" you might well reasonably respond that we'll hear a loud noise.
In contrast, I would be careful to point out that, in most cases there would be a noise, but in some specific cases there might be a nuclear explosion - if the metal happened to be Plutonium.
(And, to be fair, it might be quite fair to assume there are no plutonium paper weights in your studio, but we might find one or two in an advanced physics lab - so which answer is reasonable depends on the context.)

So... to answer your question..... 
"How many music recordings can you name that contain nothing except a 20Hz sine wave?"
The answer is...... 
"I can name at least one. I just recorded it using Adobe Audition. It's named   KeithTest1.WAV   and it contains 30 seconds of a 20 Hz sine wave."
(I'm planning to use it to test some subwoofers later.)

Note that nobody specified that it be "a commercial recording" or that you or I would find it pleasant to listen to...
However, my guess is that, if you were selecting a new mixing console, you wouldn't consider one that was unable to record a 20 Hz sine wave - just in case you ran into a recording of one.

The problem with measuring things like jitter artifacts, which I suspect *YOU* are well aware of, is that measurements don't always mean exactly what you think.
For example, let's assume that I have a distortion sideband that consists of a 1 kHz sine wave at -70 dB, and a noise floor that consists of unshaped white noise at an average level of -50 dB.
That -70 dB measurement is the amplitude of a sine wave... whereas the -50 dB measurement of the noise floor is an average, taken over a specified bandwidth, and averaged over some time.
I could easily produce a situation where the sine wave was louder than the noise floor - simply by limiting my measurement to a range of between 999 Hz to 1001 Hz.
That's how things like RADAR and SONAR are able to pick out specific return tones that are several dB below the noise floor.

I've seen tests that show that humans can also distinguish pure tones whose level is below the noise floor.
How well specific types of noise mask specific other sounds is actually quite a complex science... and is the basis for both lossy compression and noise shaping.
(And, since jitter sidebands are generally not harmonically related to the source content, and may fall at frequencies far above it, we should not assume they will be masked by it.)
It's also worth noting that, while you certainly CAN measure the actual peak level of a specific noise sideband, most of the spectrum plots we see published are smoothed... and so do NOT show the true peak level.

Again, please note that I would cheerfully agree that "it's quite likely that the jitter sidebands produced by most DACs are inaudible or mostly inaudible".... I simply would not be willing to state it as an absolute certainty.

As for Einstein quotes......
One of my favorites (at least attributed to him) is:  “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”



gregorio said:


> 1. Indeed. I read what you have written and refute it, if it's false. You seem to either just not read (or completely ignore) what's been written or read it with a view to figuring out how to misrepresent it, case in point:
> 
> 2. A typical tactic you seem to employ. Part 1: Make-up a false statement, falsely ascribe it to me, then argue that the statement is false and therefore that I'm wrong/lying. Part 2: Completely ignore any response and just keep blindly repeating that the false statement (which you made-up) is false. In this specific case, I state that test gear designed to measure audio properties does not measure "_how/if we may or may not hear/perceive them_" and your reply is effectively, "find me a few test reports (which you've just stated don't exist)"! Tell you what, you find me some flying pigs and I'll find you the thing you're after that doesn't exist!
> 2a. That would be the literal truth BUT it would also be the literal truth to state that it's inaudible (if, of course, it is inaudible)!
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Is anyone finding this conversation useful? I sure hope so.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Sep 5, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> Again, please note that I would cheerfully agree that "it's quite likely that the jitter sidebands produced by most DACs are inaudible or mostly inaudible".... I simply would not be willing to state it as an absolute certainty.




Noted.  Thanks.  Also, there might be a person on the planet who can run a 2 minute mile.  Let's not state that it's not possible with absolute certainty.  That would be presumptuous.

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/08/demo-musings-lets-listen-to-some-jitter.html


----------



## gregorio (Sep 5, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] In other words, when someone agrees with him [bigshot], or when he's making the claim, he's willing to accept it sans-proof,  but he refuses to extend that courtesy to myself, or to anyone who_ disagrees_ with him.
> [2] I also tend to look at things from the perspective of what I would call "pure science".... while you seem to base your observations on more what I would refer to as "practical science".
> [2a] For example, if I were to ask YOU: "What would happen if I bang two blocks of metal together" you might well reasonably respond that we'll hear a loud noise.
> In contrast, I would be careful to point out that, in most cases there would be a noise, but in some specific cases there might be a nuclear explosion - if the metal happened to be Plutonium.
> ...



1. No that is NOT true, it's just yet another misrepresentation (sigh!). The BIG difference is that what bigshot claims is almost always in agreement with the science (so it is NOT "sans-proof") and on those relatively rare occasions when it isn't in agreement with the science then I or someone else pick him up on it, request some reliable evidence and refute his claim if he doesn't provide it. You get exactly the same courtesy, however, you are "picked up on it" far more often because you contradict the science far more often!

2. That is indeed a serious issue, because it's just yet another typical audiophile marketing ploy! "Science" is already defined, you do NOT get to redefine it to suit your (marketing?) agenda. And worse still, you definitely do NOT get to redefine it in such a way that's pretty much the exact opposite of what science actually means! What you often argue is not just hypothetical situations that can't/don't exist but hypothetical situations which themselves contradict science. For example, can we state that: If a pig had wings, plus the skeleton, musculature and other attributes necessary to generate flight, then we would have a flying pig? No, we can't! If such a hypothetical creature actually existed, it wouldn't be classified by science as a pig, it would be some other class/genus/family of animal. Our statement would NOT be "pure science", it wouldn't be any sort of science, it would be "pure" nonsense! ...
2a. This isn't a nuclear physics forum and I'm certainly no expert on the subject but if we assume that I'm correct, then I don't need to make-up my own nonsense example, you've done it for me! Firstly of course, our two pieces of metal would NEVER "happen to be plutonium". Except in trace amounts, plutonium doesn't exist in nature, it has to be manufactured and when it is, it's probably about the most controlled metal on the planet. So, we've got a hypothetical that's nonsense to start with but there's even more! Even if it were possible, just banging together two pieces of plutonium wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion. Nuclear bombs are high precision devices that use a shaped explosive to "implode" the plutonium so the released neutrons sustain a chain reaction rather than just escaping into the atmosphere, they are not just simple devices that bangs two pieces of plutonium together. So in fact, you would indeed still just get a loud noise (plus probably a fatal dose of radiation). Your example is an assertion which isn't even true within the confines of your own (effectively impossible) hypothetical situation! *This is all so ridiculous, nonsensical, false and anti-science that I struggle to find a term that does it full justice. The best I can come up with is "UTTER NONSENSE" but you've come up with a different term: "PURE SCIENCE", which of course leaves me struggling for another term, one which does full justice to just how much you are attempting to pervert the word "science"!! *

3. "The answer is ..." - A false assertion, what a surprise! A 30 sec file containing nothing but a 20Hz sine wave is a test signal recording, NOT a music recording. So in fact you've failed to answer the question, another surprise!



KeithEmo said:


> [4] The problem with measuring things like jitter artifacts, which I suspect *YOU* are well aware of, is that measurements don't always mean exactly what you think.
> [4a] For example, let's assume that I have a distortion sideband that consists of a 1 kHz sine wave at -70 dB, and a noise floor that consists of unshaped white noise at an average level of -50 dB.
> [4b] That -70 dB measurement is the amplitude of a sine wave... whereas the -50 dB measurement of the noise floor is an average, taken over a specified bandwidth, and averaged over some time.
> [4c] I could easily produce a situation where the sine wave was louder than the noise floor - simply by limiting my measurement to a range of between 999 Hz to 1001 Hz.
> ...



4. Oh good, another circular argument based on fallacy/misrepresentation and a nonsense hypothetical.
4a. Here's our nonsense hypothetical. There are no commercial music recordings that have a -50dB white noise floor, unless you're truncating to 9 bits with TDPF dither, know many of those do you? Nor any with nothing but but a -70dB jitter sideband (and our hypothetical -50dB white noise), nor any DACs which produce a -70dB jitter sidebands!!
4b. OK, let's run with your nonsense hypothetical.
4c. Sure, so? What you appear to be arguing is that *YOU* are maybe ignorant of what the measurements mean. In which case that's obviously an issue of your ignorance, not an issue with the science or objective measurements. Or, are you saying that if we limit your measurement (to 999-1001Hz) but don't state it's been limited, for example, effectively some marketing lie/omission?

5. Very true, I've tested this myself, numerous times. *BUT* it entirely depends on the frequency of the pure tone and the precise nature of the noise floor. In other words, there are a particular set of conditions required in order for a pure tone to be audible below the noise floor. Therefore the question becomes; when are those conditions met? The answer, in the case of DAC jitter artefacts and listening to commercial music recordings (at a reasonable level) is never!
5a. We do NOT assume that jitter sidebands will be masked by the fundamental and harmonic frequencies of the music content, we assume they will either be masked by the noise floor (which of course comprises all frequencies) or simply not reproduced in the first place. And of course we don't only rely on this assumption, there have been countless controlled listening tests which verify it.
5b. Which is irrelevant (effectively a misrepresentation!) because we're talking about audibility and we do not hear true peak level, we hear loudness (or lack of it) which isn't directly related true peak level.

6. Nowhere do I recall Einstein saying "Everything should me made as ridiculous as possible and then base some false assertion on it" but if he did, wouldn't that have to be your absolute favourite?

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm still waiting to see a list of the "countless tests" that you and BigShot are privy to... but the rest of us are not.
(And please make sure they meet his requirements for "a real test and not just anecdotal evidence".)

I do apologize... that was a low shot. 
I actually believe that you may have conducted some tests to confirm this yourself....
Or that you even have enough experience to make a generalization that is usually true....
It's only BigShot who would insist that, since they weren't published, or peer reviewed, your tests are meaningless and we should ignore them.

However, your assertion is false..... about the metals.
Nowhere does the term "two blocks of metal" specify "common metals" nor "metals that occur in nature".
I simply asserted that, under some circumstances, when you bang two blocks of metal together, you get a fission explosion.
Oddly, yet again, in one sentence you accuse me of being absurd, but in the next sentence you concede that I'm technically correct....
(And I don't at all disagree with you that the circumstances required for that result would be relatively uncommon.)

However, there have in fact been several recent cases, one or two with tragic consequences, where someone incorrectly assumed that the chunk of metal they found WASN'T highly radioactive.
One was a fellow who made a keychain out of a piece of metal he found in a junkyard... it looked like a fish weight but turned out to be the Cobalt 60 slug from an X-Ray machine...
(He ended up dead a few days later - thanks to his assumption that "it must be an ordinary piece of metal" - and the resulting lethal case of radiation poisoning...... )
Also, humorously (or not), I read once that, when looking through some old file folders in the basement of the pentagon, a brick of plutonium was found, stuffed between two documents in folders.
(It had come from the desk of one of the scientists at the Manhattan Project... and gone unnoticed when his office was packed up after the project was closed.)
(Plutonium itself, in small quantities, is not especially radioactive, and can be handled more or less safely.... ) 
However, you are _MOSTLY_ correct, and assumptions like that _usually_ don't kill anyone.

I'm also pretty sure that Einstein was one of the guys who was in favor of "banging blocks of metal together to see what would happen"....
(He surely would have been offended if you'd suggested that it was an absurd idea.)
And the US government spent quite a lot of money and effort accumulating enough plutonium and enriched uranium to try it out....
(And, yes, as it turns out, in most cases, unless you bang them together quite violently, and hold them together for a short period of time, all you'll likely get is a loud noise and a fatal case of radiation poisoning.)

Real science is the part where you do experiments to test the theory...
Suggesting that we needn't consider the condition "because most people will never see it" is really closer to some sort of "consumer reporting"...
(Which is an extremely useful thing... but not exactly science.)

Also, from the title of this area of the forum, I was hoping this forum might be a place to discuss science....

As in....
- Gee, I think I observed something....
- Here are some theories about what it might be....
- Let's find out....

Instead, as far as I can see, every time anyone even suggests something like that....
The result is that they're told that: "We shouldn't waste our time because we all know they must be imagining it."
(Perhaps we should change the name from "TESTING audiophile claims and myths" to "DISPROVING audiophile claims and myths" or even "DEBUNKING audiophile claims and myths"... )
Although, honestly, I would find that rather boring...

Incidentally, just to put BigShot's paranoia to rest, if you check out the jitter specs on Emotiva's DACs and other products (that's the company I work for).....
You'll see that we don't even bother to publish jitter specs....
(So I guess that they really aren't "yet another marketing ploy used by all evil audio companies to trick unsuspecting consumers into buying stuff" after all...) 



gregorio said:


> 1. No that is NOT true, it's just yet another misrepresentation (sigh!). The BIG difference is that what bigshot claims is almost always in agreement with the science (so it is NOT "sans-proof") and on those relatively rare occasions when it isn't in agreement with the science then I or someone else pick him up on it, request some reliable evidence and refute his claim if he doesn't provide it. You get exactly the same courtesy, however, you are "picked up on it" far more often because you contradict the science far more often!
> 
> 2. That is indeed a serious issue, because it's just yet another typical audiophile marketing ploy! "Science" is already defined, you do NOT get to redefine it to suit your (marketing?) agenda. And worse still, you definitely do NOT get to redefine it in such a way that's pretty much the exact opposite of what science actually means! What you often argue is not just hypothetical situations that can't/don't exist but hypothetical situations which themselves contradict science. For example, can we state that: If a pig had wings, plus the skeleton, musculature and other attributes necessary to generate flight, then we would have a flying pig? No, we can't! If such a hypothetical creature actually existed, it wouldn't be classified by science as a pig, it would be some other class/genus/family of animal. Our statement would NOT be "pure science", it wouldn't be any sort of science, it would be "pure" nonsense! ...
> 2a. This isn't a nuclear physics forum and I'm certainly no expert on the subject but if we assume that I'm correct, then I don't need to make-up my own nonsense example, you've done it for me! Firstly of course, our two pieces of metal would NEVER "happen to be plutonium". Except in trace amounts, plutonium doesn't exist in nature, it has to be manufactured and when it is, it's probably about the most controlled metal on the planet. So, we've got a hypothetical that's nonsense to start with but there's even more! Even if it were possible, just banging together two pieces of plutonium wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion. Nuclear bombs are high precision devices that use a shaped explosive to "implode" the plutonium so the released neutrons sustain a chain reaction rather than just escaping into the atmosphere, they are not just simple devices that bangs two pieces of plutonium together. So in fact, you would indeed still just get a loud noise (plus probably a fatal dose of radiation). Your example is an assertion which isn't even true within the confines of your own (effectively impossible) hypothetical situation! *This is all so ridiculous, nonsensical, false and anti-science that I struggle to find a term that does it full justice. The best I can come up with is "UTTER NONSENSE" but you've come up with a different term: "PURE SCIENCE", which of course leaves me struggling for another term, one which does full justice to just how much you are attempting to pervert the word "science"!! *
> ...


----------



## bigshot

You're talking to yourself.


----------



## KeithEmo

Nah....

But obviously you have little interest in hearing anything that isn't a ringing endorsement of your opinions and viewpoints.
(Now I know where that sign from my office that said: "Those of you who think you know everything are very annoying to those of us who actually do" ended up...   )



bigshot said:


> You're talking to yourself.


----------



## bfreedma

How did we get here?  Better keep those cups from banging into each other...


----------



## bigshot

Say goodnight, Gracie.


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> The BIG difference is that what bigshot claims is almost always in agreement with the science (so it is NOT "sans-proof") and on those relatively rare occasions when it isn't in agreement with the science then I or someone else pick him up on it, request some reliable evidence and refute his claim if he doesn't provide it. You get exactly the same courtesy, however, you are "picked up on it" far more often because you contradict the science far more often!


I disagree. bigshot's punchlines and straight to the point attitude result in him making many claims about things being inaudible/irrelevant for humans. many of his claims are an overreach compared to the available data or can be disproved by the available data.

no matter the topic, the fundamental disagreement will be on what to do with the exceptions. <=== !!!!!!!!!!!!!?
often the topic itself is going to be about the exceptions or the absolute limits where they may or may not occur. the typical stand around here is that exceptions are only exceptions and don't change the statistical answer significantly leaning toward a clear result. and this would be fine if the many statements about inaudible stuff were clearly presented as statistical statements under clear conditions. but stuff like "jitter is inaudible", and "all DACs sound the same", are not it! at the very least, when presented that way, those statements are not in agreement with science. because science will see the exception as evidence disproving the statement. or at the very least, demonstrating that the model is incomplete and fails to describe all the present conditions. either way, science would demand a modification of the statement. which is sort of what Keith is aiming for, even if he sometimes has a roundabout/I want to believe, way of presenting the need to modify the statement. 

while bigshot typically will argue that the exception is not something that should happen, or that it would happen with gears he would call defective(most likely, so would I). and while we all understand the rhetoric here, and we all sort of agree(including Keith) in practice that the stuff said to be inaudible are probably not going to be and are very unlikely to ever matter to a random audio enjoying his music, from a strict scientific position, discarding those exceptions, that's just bigshot manipulating the data so that his conclusion can hold.
I've had this discussion almost as many times as Keith, and we're all sick of it, but something has to give. you guys either make a statement along with the specific criteria for it to be true(perfectly fine conditional truth). or you stop making those big global claims and start talking in term of statistical confidence that something will happen. then we're all on the side of science.

@bigshot. IMO, you should make a detailed post, stating how when you discuss relevant or significance, you mean at an audible level for a non mutant human listening casually to fairly typical music at safe listening level, etc. and list for DACs, amps, cables, what you wouldn't accept as a valid sample for any test regarding your statements(and maybe why). do something like this once, add what you come up with as you think about it, and add this in your signature with a warning that the link lists the conditions for your statements. so you don't have to keep explaining what you meant when you didn't specify those and someone didn't read your mind or knew you well enough. 
I usually suggest that to the troubling subjectivists, telling people to add in their sig that all their claims are based on subjective experience, or just to have a little "IMO" as a warning for anybody who actually cares about reality. but it might save you and others a lot of time and avoid many more conflicts if you had something like that in your sig, serving as default parameters when you can't be bothered to list them along with your statements(and maybe if you do a good job, it might become the go to reference for more people).


----------



## bigshot (Sep 5, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> I disagree. bigshot's punchlines and straight to the point attitude result in him making many claims about things being inaudible/irrelevant for humans. many of his claims are an overreach compared to the available data or can be disproved by the available data.



Which ones? Jitter? Noise below -50dB under music? Super audible frequencies? Crosstalk in digital audio? Differences between lossless and high data rate lossy? Differences between 16/44.1 and 24/96? Difference between cables? Differences between typical DACs and solid state amps?

Wow! I tried to read your suggestion at the end there twice, but that sentence was too long to fit in my tiny brain! Is there any way to say that shorter?


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Which ones? Jitter? Noise below -50dB under music? Super audible frequencies? Crosstalk in digital audio? Differences between lossless and high data rate lossy? Differences between 16/44.1 and 24/96? Difference between cables? Differences between typical DACs and solid state amps?


anything said in such a general way that we can find or manufacture a counter example within the boundaries of your statement, thus disproving your claim.



bigshot said:


> Wow! I tried to read your suggestion at the end there twice, but that sentence was too long to fit in my tiny brain! Is there any way to say that shorter?


lol, sorry. and that's why I'm not offering to do such a post myself ^_^.  my suggestion is for a link to a post that lists all your implied circumstances surrounding your statements. as they're pretty consistent(music listening, normal level, standard spec and playback chain arrangement, typical quality consumer device...), doing it clearly once could then be recycled many more times afterward. pretty much anytime you make those black and white statements without bothering to detail a clear context where that statement applies.


----------



## bigshot

Heh heh! OK. I don't like to overcomplicate things. I just answer the question they're actually asking. I let you guys handle all the footnotes!


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] I'm still waiting to see a list of the "countless tests" that you and BigShot are privy to... but the rest of us are not. (And please make sure they meet his requirements for "a real test and not just anecdotal evidence".)
> [2] I actually believe that you may have conducted some tests to confirm this yourself....
> [3] However, your assertion is false..... about the metals.
> [3a] I simply asserted that, under some circumstances, when you bang two blocks of metal together, you get a fission explosion.
> ...



1. The obvious question is; why are you "still waiting to see"? There are several published papers/studies (that have been mentioned/listed) which have been available for years, in fact up to 45 years. How many more decades are you going to "wait to see"? There's absolutely nothing we can do about your selective blindness! Which brings us back to the accusation made many pages ago, just because you haven't seen (and/or are otherwise ignorant of) the reliable evidence, does not mean that everyone else (including science) is just as ignorant. That's just a favoured audiophile fallacy! How many times? 

2. I have, quite extensively and pretty well controlled tests at that but even so, as I don't have them available to post/publish, I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. If the scientific papers are not enough for you and you want individual, published controlled tests, then I'm sure HA has many of them. With all that reliable evidence against jitter being audible (and in fact at least a magnitude or so below audibility), now it's your turn to provide some reliable evidence that it is audible (under the obvious conditions of recorded music and reasonable playback levels). And just in case there's any confusion, banging two pieces of plutonium together in a recording studio and a pig sitting next to you on a plane does not constitute reliable evidence that jitter is audible!

3. No it's not!
3a. Which is a false assertion (within a nonsense hypothetical)!
3b. You ARE being absurd and no I didn't.
3c. "Relatively uncommon"? The first recording studio was built in 1929 and since then several hundred thousand have been built, in all that time can you name just one single occasion where two blocks of plutonium have been hit together in a recording studio? Is this as "relatively uncommon" as flying pigs? In the audiophile marketing BS dictionary does "Relatively uncommon" = "Never in human history"?
3d. So you agree that your assertion was false! Because by your own admission you will in fact just get a loud noise rather than a "nuclear explosion", unless you have conditions which can't be met! And they can't be met because you wouldn't just get a loud noise and a fatal dose of radiation, you'd also get a great deal of heat. So how are you going to "hold them together for a short period of time" if your hands have melted? Maybe we could enlist the help of a couple of asbestos encased flying pigs to hold them together for us? Surely that's not too absurd by your standards of absurdity is it? 



castleofargh said:


> [1] I disagree. bigshot's punchlines and straight to the point attitude result in him making many claims about things being inaudible/irrelevant for humans. many of his claims are an overreach compared to the available data or can be disproved by the available data.
> [1a] no matter the topic, the fundamental disagreement will be on what to do with the exceptions. <=== !!!!!!!!!!!!!?



Really castle?

1. Can you give an example of such "available data" in relation to the current topic (jitter audibility)? And by "available data" I obviously mean "reliable evidence" not audiophile marketing/anecdotes.
1a. What exceptions, can you provide some? ... Actually, I can provide one, the Julian Dunn paper, which lists jitter audibility figures (in the "worst case scenario") far lower than any of the other papers and potentially just about within what some of the worst performing consumer equipment might exhibit. However, the paper assumes a peak level of 120dBSPL, a noise floor of 0dBSPL and no audio masking. In other words, our "exception" would be a listener in a top class anechoic chamber, with better than the best reproduction chain and who isn't human (IE. Some being who doesn't exhibit the human hearing traits of threshold shift and audio masking)! So at best, that's a "hypothetical exception", not an actual exception.

As is so often the case, it's all about just flogging the same old dead horses for marketing purposes. Jitter has been done to death, science has done it, pro music/sound engineers did it to death 20 odd years ago, other serious/science audio sites have done it to death and it's even already been done to death here in this sub-forum. The most memorable that I recall was "Jitter Correlation to Audibility", which was memorable because it was at a time when we still had several professionally knowledgeable contributors (who hadn't yet been "run off" by the audiophile BS trolls)!

G


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Sep 6, 2019)

well now let's be clear...Keith is looking for research that meets or exceeds his high standards of evidenciary credibility.  He requires science that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there isn't a Tibetan monk or a Soviet super soldier out there who can hear the sound of a footstep a kilometre away.  Until that is provided, jitter will continue to be a significant concern addressed solely by the application of many many dollars.


----------



## KeithEmo

1a. 
Again, I can't seem to find any of those published studies....
- Where they tested the audibility of various quantities of different types of jitter (different frequencies, waveforms, spectra, correlated and non-correlated to the data)
- Where they started with sample content known to initially have very low levels of jitter 
   (If you're going to test the audibility of various sorts of jitter, you must start with samples that have very low and precisely known amounts of jitter, then add measured amounts.
    Therefore, you've got to start with carefully prepared samples with known and extremely small amounts of jitter... and you must document this in your test results.
    The few tests I've seen published seem to have shown that "large amounts of very specific types of jitter are inaudible when added to normally produced commercial content".
    While interesting, from a consumer perspective, that does not at all answer the larger question.)
- Where the samples were listened to on gear that was tested and confirmed to be able to convey the difference 
    (In this case, for example, we would need to confirm that the loudspeakers they used to perform the tests could accurately reproduce those jitter sidebands.
     The obvious way to document this is by including analyses of the test signals used - including the output of the speakers in the actual test venue.
     In ANY experiment about whether something can be detected the first step is to confirm that it is actually present at the point where it is being tested.
     Alternately, if proof were found that no existing speaker could reproduce those sidebands, then the test would be proven to be both unnecessary and impossible to perform...
     At least for now. That would give us a null result - and not a final provable negative result.)

However, when I've looked, all I can find are a few tests, from back in the early days of CDs, where it was shown that content sourced from CDs, and from old analog master tapes, both containing unknown flaws of various types, and then played using one or two specific DACs, amplifiers, and speakers, didn't sound noticeably different, to a relatively small group of listeners, when large quantities of one specific type of jitter were added. I couldn't find any that properly documented the test signals they used, or that used a significantly wide variety of DACs, amplifiers, and speakers, of known, sufficiently adequate, and properly documented performance.  

3c. I'm sure that the (former) occupants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, before the end of WW II, will be pleased to know that they just imagined being incinerated "because banging two blocks of metal together DOESN'T produce a nuclear explosion". Conversely, all of the folks whose homes are currently being provided with electricity provided by nuclear power plants will be saddened to know that they've been running on "snake oil" all these years. (I would prefer to state the matter CORRECTLY AND ACCURATELY and say that: "Banging two blocks of certain metals together, in specific ways, under some circumstances, in fact CAN produce a nuclear explosion. However, because the metals involved are rare and expensive, and the conditions required are difficult to produce, most of us probably don't have to worry about it.")

3d. 
MY assertion was that "SOMETIMES, when you bang two bricks of metal together, you get a nuclear explosion"....
It has been widely shown, in many books on both history and physics, that what I said is in fact true.
I'm also quite certain you will not find a single source of proof that the statement is incorrect.... (although pre-atomic-era textbooks may neglect to mention it).

Note that, if you'd said: "It happens so rarely that most of will never have to worry about it" I wouldn't argue with you at all.

It's also worth noting that "figuring out how to hold the blocks of metal together long enough" did turn out to be a tricky problem.
(However, we did eventually figure out how to do so... at least well enough to prove the point. 




gregorio said:


> 1. The obvious question is; why are you "still waiting to see"? There are several published papers/studies (that have been mentioned/listed) which have been available for years, in fact up to 45 years. How many more decades are you going to "wait to see"? There's absolutely nothing we can do about your selective blindness! Which brings us back to the accusation made many pages ago, just because you haven't seen (and/or are otherwise ignorant of) the reliable evidence, does not mean that everyone else (including science) is just as ignorant. That's just a favoured audiophile fallacy! How many times?
> 
> 2. I have, quite extensively and pretty well controlled tests at that but even so, as I don't have them available to post/publish, I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. If the scientific papers are not enough for you and you want individual, published controlled tests, then I'm sure HA has many of them. With all that reliable evidence against jitter being audible (and in fact at least a magnitude or so below audibility), now it's your turn to provide some reliable evidence that it is audible (under the obvious conditions of recorded music and reasonable playback levels). And just in case there's any confusion, banging two pieces of plutonium together in a recording studio and a pig sitting next to you on a plane does not constitute reliable evidence that jitter is audible!
> 
> ...


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

KeithEmo said:


> 1a.
> Again, I can't seem to find any of those published studies....
> - Where they tested the audibility of various quantities of different types of jitter (different frequencies, waveforms, spectra, correlated and non-correlated to the data)
> - Where they started with sample content known to initially have very low levels of jitter
> ...



Hop in the way back machine to two posts above your previous post...


----------



## KeithEmo

Well... yes... since this is supposed to be a SCIENCE forum that IS what I expect (evidence with no credibility isn't evidence at all).
(I expect statements like: "Most people don't hear a significant difference" from Consumer Reports or my favorite marketing trade mag... )

Let's assume I assert that: "Sometimes, when you bang two bricks of metal together, you get a nuclear explosion".....
I would expect that, in a science forum, this might provoke a discussion about the conditions under which this happens, or the metals you need to use, or how pure they have to be.
Instead, the reply I get is: "Chumley banged two blocks of aluminum together a dozen times and they didn't explode. See... we've proven conclusively that you're making stuff up."
(I have nothing against that information, since it does add at least a few data points, but don't try and tell me that what happens with aluminum, or what happens with the paperweights on your desk, can be generalized to prove what happens with all metals.)

On the subject of jitter....

I DON'T KNOW what levels of jitter are audible....
I suspect that the amount that would be audible will depend on the waveform, frequency, and amount of data-correlation involved (many other folks seem to suspect the same thing)....
I also suspect that how audible it is will depend on the content it is associated with....
I also suspect that how audible it will be will depend on your other equipment.... 
And I an quite convinced that this has NOT been explored and tested in exhaustive detail....

And, yes, I am interested in "How much jitter people are likely to notice when playing typical commercially produced CDs"...
But I am ALSO interested, from a purely scientific perspective, in what levels are audible under absolute optimum conditions...

I would expect 1000 Hz sine wave jitter to be far more audible than 0.1 Hz sine wave jitter. 
And I would also expect both to be more audible with a 3 kHz test tone than with a 20 Hz test tone.
And I would expect 20 Hz square wave jitter to be more audible than 20 Hz sine wave jitter.
I would also expect that various combinations may be more of less audible than others. 
And I suspect that data-correlated jitter more audible than random jitter (which many people claim to be the case).

And, yes, I would really like to see someone run those tests instead of just guessing....

Here at Emotiva, where I work, we've made several different DAC models... and we often acquire competitors products to listen to.
I've also personally owned a few dozen DACs over the years.
And, yes, everyone I know here is quite convinced that we often hear small differences between them.
Often between products whose major specifications are so similar we would not_ expect_ to hear differences.
And, since we are a product manufacturer, and not a university, or a research laboratory, we often have neither the time nor the budget to figure out exactly why.
However, to me, that suggests that "we don't know everything yet" and "we probably could use some more research on the subject"...



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> well now let's be clear...Keith is looking for research that meets or exceeds his high standards of evidenciary credibility.  He requires science that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there isn't a Tibetan monk or a Soviet super soldier out there who can hear the sound of a footstep a kilometre away.  Until that is provided, jitter will continue to be a significant concern addressed solely by the application of many many dollars.


----------



## KeithEmo (Sep 6, 2019)

Indeed....

And, as someone said, it just goes around and around....

We have an old AES paper that, based on analysis alone, suggests that "sine wave jitter at certain frequencies as low as 20 picoseconds" may be audible....
And another old paper, describing a test run under rather questionable conditions, showing that, under those conditions, several tens of NANOSECONDS (or even thousands of NS) of a different sort of jitter proved to not be audible....
And another test, with even more "unspecifieds", run by Stereophile, that seems to set that number at 120 picoseconds.

The problem is that, taken in total, this all seems to back up what I said....
Which is that we don't have enough detailed information to reach any reliable general conclusions....

It's also worth noting that J-test, which was mentioned several times in that thread, and is widely quoted, DOES NOT measure internal jitter directly, and DOES NOT apply jitter directly to the input to see how a particular DAC responds to it. What J-test does is to apply a very specific input data signal that is known to cause the input circuits of many DACs to produce jitter (a sort of "torture test"). It then measures the jitter sidebands that result at the output. While this produces interesting and useful information - it does NOT specifically provide a direct indication of either how much internal jitter a DAC has or of how sensitive it is to specific amounts of jitter present on the input signal. (For example, it fails to differentiate how much jitter is generated due to the test signal, how much jitter is inherent in later circuitry, and how much is removed down the line by other circuitry...)



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> Hop in the way back machine to two posts above your previous post...


----------



## bigshot (Sep 6, 2019)

The standards get higher if the evidence doesn't seem to be going his way. And any question, regardless of how left field and poorly documented, is a valid reason to throw up our hands and assume that the high end audio salesmen must be right. This isn't a matter of knowing the truth, it's admitting the truth.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Sep 6, 2019)

bigshot said:


> The standards get higher if the evidence doesn't seem to be going his way. And any question, regardless of how left field and poorly documented, is a valid reason to throw up our hands and assume that the high end audio salesmen must be right. This isn't a matter of knowing the truth, it's admitting the truth.



Yeah, it's pretty annoying.  When it comes to disproving audiophile snake-oil mythology, he has ridiculously stringent,. highly specific, constantly increasing requirements for evidence.  However, when asked to provide any proof of said myths, he has no requirements whatsoever.  It's just "hey, you haven't disproved it (up to ridiculous standards set by him) so..."


----------



## KeithEmo

BigShot....

I'm afraid that's true for all of us - to a degree.
If there are a variety of options, we all tend to be more willing to trust evidence which agrees with our preconceived beliefs, and to distrust evidence that disagrees with them... that's just human nature.
(Do you prefer the test that showed that 10 NS of jitter is inaudible - or the AES paper that concluded that, under some circumstances, amounts as low as 20 PS might be audible?)

The catch here is that you are usually the one making the wide generalizations... which puts most of the burden on you.
You may think that it's "obvious" that "all DACs sound the same unless they're broken" - but not everyone agrees with your opinion on that subject.
However there is no question that it is a far reaching generalization.
(One reason most scientists avoid such wide generalizations, unless they're looking for press coverage, is that they are so difficult to prove, and so easy to effectively challenge.)

In this case, you seem to be asserting, in the form of a positive claim of fact, that jitter below some known level is INAUDIBLE - to every human being on the planet, under every possible circumstance, now and forever.
That's a pretty far reaching claim - and so calls for some pretty conclusive, credible, and overwhelming proof.
(However, when I look, I can't even find a general agreement about what that level might be, and every test seems to offer a different choice there.)

Since I never claimed that any specific amount of jitter, of any specific type, is audible, I have nothing to prove.
I merely claim that the proof you've provided is inadequate to justify such a far-reaching claim.
(And, in real science, if I find one legitimate flaw in your data, or the experiment that produced it, then it cannot be considered to be conclusive, and more testing is indicated.)

There is a qualitative difference between statistical claims like "most people say they don't hear a difference"....
And absolute generalized claims like "no human being currently alive can hear it"....
(The former may in fact be more useful to many people - especially in the context of a consumer product.)
(But the latter does require a much higher standard of proof.)



bigshot said:


> The standards get higher if the evidence doesn't seem to be going his way.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Nobody here is making the claim that ALL jitter is inaudible.  You know that very clearly.  We are making the claim (backed up by every study presented so far) that jitter at levels found in basically ALL modern dacs is inaudible.


----------



## KeithEmo

You forgot to finish that last sentence....
"Hey, if you haven't actually disproved it, then it's just possible that it may be true after all."

I have equally stringent expectations of proof for anything you wish to state as an absolute fact.

And, if that proof doesn't exist, I'm not going to lie and pretend that it does...
I'd rather be honest and say: "I've never seen anything that supports that claim" or "According to a lot of established science that doesn't seem to make sense".
That way, if I've missed something, or turn out to be wrong, I haven't also become a liar.

I'm actually inclined to agree with BigShot about most of this stuff...
A lot of it is snake oil, a lot of it is probably honest but misguided superstition, and a lot of it is probably the result of expectation bias...
However, I'm also willing to admit that this is my educated opinion on the subject...
And I'm also willing to admit that neither I nor anyone else knows everything about everything...
(And, as a result, a tiny portion of it probably has some basis in truth, and that may even include a few things that I personally don't believe.)

In real science, actively proving something, or failing to do so, are both relatively common...
(And, quite often, when something is not proven, we agree to _provisionally assume_ that it isn't true.)
However, actually DISPROVING things is very often much more difficult, and often just plain impossible.



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> Yeah, it's pretty annoying.  When it comes to disproving audiophile snake-oil mythology, he has ridiculously stringent,. highly specific, constantly increasing requirements for evidence.  However, when asked to provide any proof of said myths, he has no requirements whatsoever.  It's just "hey, you haven't disproved it (up to ridiculous standards set by him) so..."


----------



## KeithEmo

And, when you phrase it that way, I would _mostly_ agree with you.

However, I would omit that word "_ALL_"... and replace it with "_most_"... or some reference to "most modern designs"... or even "modern designs with good specifications"
I am aware of at least a few current DACs which use input transformers, output transformers, and even tube output driver stages. 
There are also a few current DACs that still use old-style phase-locked loops in their input stages (because someone insists they sound better).
(And, depending on how that unusual circuitry is implemented, I would NOT assume that it has inaudibly low levels of jitter.)



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> Nobody here is making the claim that ALL jitter is inaudible.  You know that very clearly.  We are making the claim (backed up by every study presented so far) that jitter at levels found in basically ALL modern dacs is inaudible.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Sep 6, 2019)

Here's the last thing I'm going to say about this because it's become boring in the extreme. 

In so far as sound quality is concerned, there is absolutely no need to spend more than $100 on a dac.  None whatsoever.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 6, 2019)

Jitter at the levels it occurs in even inexpensive home audio gear is usually an order of magnitude below the threshold of *AUDIBILITY*. There isn’t any reason at all to make jitter a consideration when buying. I have yet to find a single example of a home audio component with *AUDIBLE* levels of jitter. If someone knows of one, please speak up and let us know the make and model. Since I can’t prove a negative, I’m going to assume jitter is irrelevant until someone comes up with a concrete example of *AUDIBLE* jitter.

I also think that suggested spending cap on DACs is good advice. There’s less chance that someone would create a boneheadedly backwards design in inexpensive mass produced components than there is among high end boutique DAC manufacturers. Certainly there is no reason related to *AUDIBILITY* to spend more than that on a DAC. Transparent is transparent, and even my $40 Walmart DVD player is transparent.

I have one additional bit of advice... Avoid double talking sales pitch from home stereo salesmen. They just want to make you feel like you need to spend more than you really do. Buy from Amazon with a 30 day return window.

EDIT: Emphasis on words that were overlooked added.


----------



## KeithEmo

As a published specification I would most certainly agree.
You can be pretty sure that the amount of jitter present on any piece of equipment that actually specifies it will be relatively negligible.
(And, when a $29 DAC turns out to sound noticeably bad, usually nobody bothers to figure out the reason.)



bigshot said:


> Jitter at the levels it occurs in even inexpensive home audio gear is usually an order of magnitude below the threshold of audibility. There isn’t any reason at all to make jitter a consideration when buying. I have yet to find a single example of a home audio component with audible levels of jitter. If someone knows of one, please speak up and let us know the make and model. Since I can’t prove a negative, I’m going to assume jitter is irrelevant until someone comes up with a concrete example of audible jitter.
> 
> I also think that suggested spending cap on DACs is good advice. There’s less chance that someone would create a boneheadedly backwards design in inexpensive mass produced components than there is among high end boutique DAC manufacturers. Certainly there is no reason related to audibility to spend more than that on a DAC. Transparent is transparent, and even my $40 Walmart DVD player is transparent.
> 
> I have one additional bit of advice... Avoid double talking sales pitch from home stereo salesmen. They just want to make you feel like you need to spend more than you really do. Buy from Amazon with a 30 day return window.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 6, 2019)

First of all, I am talking about *AUDIBILITY*, not published specs. Secondly, a $29 DACs don't necessarily sound bad. Do you know of a specific make and model in that price range that sounds clearly worse than a proper DAC?


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> Really castle?
> 
> 1. Can you give an example of such "available data" in relation to the current topic (jitter audibility)? And by "available data" I obviously mean "reliable evidence" not audiophile marketing/anecdotes.
> 1a. What exceptions, can you provide some? ... Actually, I can provide one, the Julian Dunn paper, which lists jitter audibility figures (in the "worst case scenario") far lower than any of the other papers and potentially just about within what some of the worst performing consumer equipment might exhibit. However, the paper assumes a peak level of 120dBSPL, a noise floor of 0dBSPL and no audio masking. In other words, our "exception" would be a listener in a top class anechoic chamber, with better than the best reproduction chain and who isn't human (IE. Some being who doesn't exhibit the human hearing traits of threshold shift and audio masking)! So at best, that's a "hypothetical exception", not an actual exception.
> ...


you miss my point. I can reject unnecessary and unscientific absolutism(done on purpose or by omission), and also find jitter paranoia in DACs to be a ludicrous waste of time(lame puns are lame). those are not either/or positions. they're not even the same issues.
other than that, I said "many", not all of his claims, and got lucky or cautious enough to repeat it. that's the type of distinction I'd like to see when it's relevant.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 7, 2019)

Let me know when you see one. I think this might be as rare a bird as the DACs that sound different that no one can name. Everyone knows the truth. Some people just like to use more words to speak it, that's all. It all ends up at the same place.

I'll wait for someone who is interested in home audio comes along. There haven't been many of those lately. Perhaps they've been frightened off.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Let me know when you see one. I think this might be as rare a bird as the DACs that sound different that no one can name. Everyone knows the truth. Some people just like to use more words to speak it, that's all. It all ends up at the same place.
> 
> I'll wait for someone who is interested in home audio comes along. There haven't been many of those lately. Perhaps they've been frightened off.



That all DACs and amps sound the same is just plain not true. There are two models that are , for all practical purposes, "the same" - iFi Audio Micro iDSD and iFi Audio Micro iDSD BL. They offer exactly the same functionality, but 2 or so years later issued Black Label version has been painstakingly improved in everything that could be improved while keeping within the size of the original. From clock (affecting jitter, although original has already been much more than decent and waaaay below levels considered audible in this thread ) to the last capacitor in the circuit. They went to the trouble of sourcing custom op-amps built on copper frame - primarily because all current production ICs are produced on steel ( magnetic... ) frames ( what you see in the finished product are only the "legs" or pins - bulk of frame is encapsulated in plastic or ceramic IC package ). That steel/magnetism/hysteresis as a consequence introduces distortion - waaaaaaaaayyyyy below what holds for being audible in this thread, but known to everybody who ever tried to restore 70s era audio electronics - and learning it the HARD way.  The switch from electrically unquestionably better copper (wire, frame, etc ) for electronics occured around 2000 - because price of the copper went up by approx 600% in a relatively short period of only few years - and the laws of economy and competition took care of the rest. 

There are MANY more "small, insignificant, inaudible,cannot happen,etc" differences between regular Micro and Micro BL - but, taken TOGETHER, THEY are AUDIBLE. Both are quite common and widespread, price (when new) has been in 500-ish (original) and 600-ish (BL) - depending on which part of the globe you are located. 

Perhaps group could somehow scrape together two of the mentioned DACs, devise an ABX test, appoint the Oversee-er who would then collect and make the statistics of all the entries by those who would be willing to receive those 2 units, test them according to the beforehand agreed upon protocol ( IIRC, jRiver can asign two equal (to computer totally indistiguishable) devices to two listening "zones", even when playing back exactly same file format - trial period should be more than ample enough time to make the ABX , so no additional costs here ) - and ship those 2 units,  signed for with tracking and insurance to the next participant in the test after the completion of his/hers. Because of customs drama (and costs...), that should be limited EACH to say Europe, USA, Asia, etc.

That should dispell the myth that all DACs and all amplifiers sound the same. Just to be precise, there is no such thing as DAC without an amplifier in real life - the output of any DAC has to be buffered before it can interface with any real world load. An interconnect cable alone might already exceed the driving capabilities of DAC(s) and interfere with its performance. Only the unit we buy is called "DAC" - with output amplifier ( in most cases, taken care of by an op-amp these days ) being obligatory built in taken so much for granted to even not warrant a mention.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 7, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> 1a. Again, I can't seem to find any of those published studies....
> [1a] However, when I've looked, all I can find are a few tests, from back in the early days of CDs
> [1b] I couldn't find any that properly documented the test signals they used, or that used a significantly wide variety of DACs, amplifiers, and speakers, of known, sufficiently adequate, and properly documented performance.
> 3c. I'm sure that the (former) occupants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, before the end of WW II, will be pleased to know that they just imagined being incinerated "because banging two blocks of metal together DOESN'T produce a nuclear explosion".
> ...



1a. Then ALL that tells us is that you're not very good at find finding published studies, it does NOT tell us that the science doesn't exist or that the asserted facts based on those studies are wrong! Accused of employing this typical audiophile fallacy, all you do is simply rephrase and repeat exactly the same fallacy, round and round we go!!
1b. So 1974 was the early years of CD was it? What about 1998, 2006, etc.? For anyone interested, who doesn't already know, CD was publicly released in 1984. AGAIN, as previously, different manifestations of jitter artefacts HAVE been extensively tested, in fact the first published test ALREADY MENTIONED MORE THAN ONCE (BBC 1974) tested both random noise artefacts and sinusoidal artefacts (so did the 1998 Benjamin and Gannon paper and various others). So how is it that you cannot find a study that you've already been told where to find? Selective blindness!
1c. Ah yes, effectively the same nonsense YET AGAIN! They didn't test everyone on the planet, with every piece of music ever composed, using every combination of reproduction gear and therefore science doesn't know for sure. I tell you what I can't find: Where this thread, sub-forum (or science in general) is called: "Let's just make-up a fallacious argument and then repeat it endlessly"!

3c. Again, that's just utter nonsense. The inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki obviously didn't just imagine they were incinerated they were in fact incinerated (duh). BUT, they were NOT incinerated because someone banged together two blocks of plutonium, they were incinerated because an atomic bomb was detonated on them (also duh)! In fact one of the bombs didn't even contain any plutonium (duh again) and the one that did, only had ONE block of plutonium (more duh)! Atomic bombs do not work by someone banging together two blocks of plutonium, they work by having a SINGLE block of weapons grade plutonium (or uranium) and a shaped explosive to uniformly implode/compress that block (sphere as far as I'm aware). DUH!!
3c1. You're joking right? You think that in the core of every nuclear power plant there's someone banging together two blocks of plutonium? And, call me misinformed or crazy but I thought the point of a nuclear reactor was to generate heat using a controlled reaction that's specifically designed to avoid a nuclear explosion!
3c2. "Most of us"? Who are the others who aren't "most of us"? Presumably the guys in the core of every nuclear reactor banging together the blocks of plutonium? Why don't you email one of them and ask if it sounds different from banging together other blocks of metal? In the audiophile marketing BS dictionary, does "correctly and accurately" = "Utter nonsense"? Is there no limit to the level of nonsense you're willing to peddle? Jeez!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Well... yes... since this is supposed to be a SCIENCE forum that IS what I expect (evidence with no credibility isn't evidence at all).
> [1a] Let's assume I assert that: "Sometimes, when you bang two bricks of metal together, you get a nuclear explosion"..... I would expect that, in a science forum, this might provoke a discussion about the conditions under which this happens, or the metals you need to use, or how pure they have to be.
> [1b] Instead, the reply I get is: "Chumley banged two blocks of aluminum together a dozen times and they didn't explode. See... we've proven conclusively that you're making stuff up."
> [2] On the subject of jitter.... I DON'T KNOW what levels of jitter are audible....
> ...



1. Let's go through the full gamut of audiophile BS tactics shall we? What a great example of the oft employed tactic of hypocrisy! There are numerous scientific papers and controlled tests which indicate jitter from consumer DACs is way below audibility and nothing but audiophile anecdotes and marketing that it is audible. You're doing the exact opposite of what you state you "expect"!
1a. And there's one of your biggest problems here! Maybe if this were a theoretical physics forum, then someone *might* hypothesize about what *might* happen in some hypothetical parallel universe (where people bang together blocks of plutonium just for the hell of it or to generate electricity) but this ISN'T a theoretical physics forum, this is the sound science forum. We're not dealing with hypothesizing about hypotheticals, we're dealing with very well demonstrated and established science, which pertains to recording, reproducing and listening to sound/music (on this planet)! YET AGAIN, just another typical audiophile myth/tactic!
1b. No, that is not the reply you get, that's a lie/misrepresentation! Are you going for some sort of world record in how many BS tactics can you employ in one discussion? The actual reply you get is typically: "the conditions under which this happens" either cannot exist or do not exist and there is a wealth of scientific evidence that proves/supports this, now you provide some reliable evidence to the contrary. At which point you respond with flying pigs, 1mW office systems or some other BS tactic such as hypocrisy or misrepresentation, which you call "pure science"!!

2. Exactly, "YOU don't know", which obviously is due to YOUR ignorance. Science is fortunately not defined, limited or even affected by YOUR ignorance, so it's a fallacy/lie to state/imply that science is as ignorant as you! How many times are you going to try and peddle this fallacy?
2a. Clearly that's the EXACT OPPOSITE of the truth. You constantly demonstrate this by stating that jitter artefacts in consumer DACs are or could be audible based purely on "just guessing" and ignore all the actual controlled/scientific tests which have been done! If what you're asserting isn't "just guessing" then please provide some reliable evidence to support it!

3. So the solution you come up with is to make-up/repeat some audiophile marketing BS about the audibility of jitter! And then when challenged, employ a bunch of completely anti-science, BS tactics to defend it!
3a. To me it unavoidably suggests something entirely different: IE. That either YOU don't know hardly anything and could definitely use some more research on the subject OR, you do know but are deliberately trying to pervert the established science (trolling) in the name of your (or your company's) agenda/marketing!!



KeithEmo said:


> Sgt. Ear Ache said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody here is making the claim that ALL jitter is inaudible.  You know that very clearly.  We are making the claim (backed up by every study presented so far) that jitter at levels found in basically ALL modern dacs is inaudible.
> ...



1. It has been phrased that way, numerous times, which is why Sgt. Ear Ache stated "You know that very clearly". In fact, in the other thread on this subject, I actually detailed a relatively common situation (in recording studios, at one time) where jitter artefacts were quite easily audible, even at reasonable listening levels!

2. You can (apparently) omit and replace whatever you want BUT HERE, in this sub-forum (and in science in general), we need some reliable evidence. How do you not know this when you yourself have stated as much? I'm sure everyone here can work out the answer to that!

For everyone else: It's not impossible that some hideously incompetent audiophile maker/manufacturer has so badly screwed up jitter rejection (to the point that jitter artefacts are audible) that their DAC is effectively faulty/defective. Of course though, implicit in statements "that All DACs" (or "all cables" or whatever) is the obvious exclusion of defective DACs (cables or whatever). Obviously, a defective/broken cable will sound different to one that isn't. So in such a case we do NOT need to "_omit that word ALL and replace it with most_" and indeed we don't even need to explicitly state the exclusion of a defective item/DAC, because anyone with half a brain would take that exclusion as a given. HOWEVER (!), before we even get to the potential issue of someone who might have less than half a brain, there MUST be some reliable evidence that such a defectively designed DAC actually exists in the first place!

G


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> That all DACs and amps sound the same is just plain not true. There are two models that are , for all practical purposes, "the same" - iFi Audio Micro iDSD and iFi Audio Micro iDSD BL. They offer exactly the same functionality, but 2 or so years later issued Black Label version has been painstakingly improved in everything that could be improved while keeping within the size of the original. From clock (affecting jitter, although original has already been much more than decent and waaaay below levels considered audible in this thread ) to the last capacitor in the circuit. They went to the trouble of sourcing custom op-amps built on copper frame - primarily because all current production ICs are produced on steel ( magnetic... ) frames ( what you see in the finished product are only the "legs" or pins - bulk of frame is encapsulated in plastic or ceramic IC package ). That steel/magnetism/hysteresis as a consequence introduces distortion - waaaaaaaaayyyyy below what holds for being audible in this thread, but known to everybody who ever tried to restore 70s era audio electronics - and learning it the HARD way.  The switch from electrically unquestionably better copper (wire, frame, etc ) for electronics occured around 2000 - because price of the copper went up by approx 600% in a relatively short period of only few years - and the laws of economy and competition took care of the rest.
> 
> There are MANY more "small, insignificant, inaudible,cannot happen,etc" differences between regular Micro and Micro BL - but, taken TOGETHER, THEY are AUDIBLE. Both are quite common and widespread, price (when new) has been in 500-ish (original) and 600-ish (BL) - depending on which part of the globe you are located.
> 
> ...




It’s telling that you state these two DACS are audibly different then in the same post suggest an effort is made to ABX them.

What evidence do you have that they actually are audibly different?  It would be better if you could respond with a link rather than another long post.


----------



## analogsurviver (Sep 7, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> It’s telling that you state these two DACS are audibly different then in the same post suggest an effort is made to ABX them.
> 
> What evidence do you have that they actually are audibly different?  It would be better if you could respond with a link rather than another long post.


I did put it as short as possible.

You can go and search also my review of iFi Micro iDSD BL on head-fi ( it is there ) - but, since sceptics would never believe until they hear and ABX and whatnot, only such direct in the home test on your anicalliries and your files would really do the trick of convincing them not all DACs/amps sound the same. I did state in my review the equipment necessary to tell the two apart by measurements is beyond most labs, let alone individuals at home.

It is the only example I know of that is essentially the same device, but one built 2 years later and using MUCH improved parts. The DAC chipset in both cases is exactly the same - and both were and are available worldwide and not priced above what a reasonably dedicated listener/user would be prepared to pay for such performance. 

Both can handle up to DSD512/24.5MHz and PCM/DXD 768kHz - natively. All of these rates are also now supported in foobar2000.
Although I am not supporter of MQA, latest firmware upgrade/s) do include MQA support, for the halving of the upper sampling frequency playback.

Both are among the most powerful (trans)portable headphone amps around - offering 4000 mW/ch and even slightly more in the BL version.

In other words - there is no commercial recording format they can not play and they can (almost, not with all music ) drive the toughest headphones ever - AKG K-1000. With every other dinamic headphones, it is unlikely you will not be able to achieve ear splitting levels and beyond.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 7, 2019)

The way you know two DACs sound different is to do a blind, level matched, A/B switched comparison test. It doesnt have to be to clinical standards. Any controlled listening test is fine for a place to start. Anecdotal reports aren’t good enough. There are a million different anecdotal reports and they contradict each other. Cite a controlled test, and I’m sure we can muster up a team here who can take it to the next level of controlled testing.

We won’t just take your word for it, sorry. And pointing to differences in design doesn’t mean that a difference is audible. You need to compare with controls. If you’d like to do a controlled test yourself, we would be happy to tell you how to do it.


----------



## KeithEmo

Hmmmm...

As for atomic bombs..... As with many things, the practice there is a lot more complicated than the basic theory.... An atomic explosion occurs when you exceed a certain threshold of free neutron density. The simplest way of doing this is by arranging for a large enough mass of a material that emits free neutrons to exist in one place (critical mass). Once this condition exists, each neutron released is likely enough to strike another nucleus to cause a few more to be released, and you get a chain reaction.... and the simplest optimum configuration to get this to happen is a sphere. The easiest way to "make a sphere on cue" is to bang together two hemispherical chunks... although, in the original bombs, they used a hollow sphere (which is not an optimum configuration), which they then compressed into a solid sphere (which is an optimum configuration), by detonating a jacket of high explosives wrapped around it. (There was actually an iron inner jacket which served as a sort of sand-bag to hold things in place for a small fraction of a second after detonation... to allow the reaction time to build up. Various other methods were tried, including firing one block into another using a sort of gun arangement, and bringing together various other shapes and numbers or pieces... the sphere arangement was found to be the most practical... although there are a few more details involved even in that.

A fission reactor operates on exactly the same principle... except that the conditions for creating an explosiion are incompletely met, which results in what is essentially "a very slow controlled explosion which never completes". Fuel slugs are placed close enough together to make a very poor approximation of a single piece of material exceeding critical mass. Control rods are then added or removed to further moderate the reaction. Different sorts of control rods may either slow down or speed up the reaction. (Incidentally, the original fission bombs actually didn't work very well, and only a small percentage of the fuel was actually consumed, although it was enough to make impressive and effective explosions... but, as with most things, we've continued to improve the technology.)

As for those famous BBC tests  ( http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1974-11.pdf ).
Although they didn't provide much in the way of detailed documentation....
It appears that what they tested was "the threshold of audibility for massive amounts of jitter when added to content that already had high levels of jitter".
Therefore, in the context of modern equipment, and modern recordings, they don't actually tell us much.

If I were going to actually start pointing out flaws in that test....
- they used fewer than two dozen listening subjects overall (which isn't really very many)
- (I also wonder about the demographic.... for example, were any of them teenagers, or were they all middle aged men, with less than optimal human hearing?)
- they apparently used only two source samples
- they provided no data or documentation whatsoever about the quality of those test samples or even what their format was 
- (All they basically said was that they used some music that had been submitted for another project...) 
- (in their favor, they chose samples with sharp transients, which would seem to be a good choice in that regard)
- they specified little or nothing about the test conditions or the playback equipment they used
- (again, in their favor, they provided reasonably detailed information about the circuit they used to add controlled amounts of jitter)

The 1998 Benjamin and Gannon paper was quite a lot more useful - and an excellent example of how a study should be conducted and documented.
(It's a shame that it's buried behind a pay-wall where the information is unavailable to the general public... but, if you Google "Benjamin_and_Gannon_on_Jitter.pdf", you will find exposed copies.)
To widely paraphrase the results, the authors concluded that the minimum amount of sine wave jitter that is audible, with a sine wave test signal, under the conditions in which they conducted their test, is about 10 nanoseconds.
(Note also that they limited their conclusions to relatively high jitter frequencies, which would be perceived as "distortion", and ignored lower frequencies, which, if audible, would appear as speed variations like wow and flutter.)
(It's also worth noting that they conducted their audibility tests using a single model and brand of headphones....  so we have no idea how well their results would translate to other headphones... or to loudspeakers.)

However, the final two paragraphs of their conclusions are also worth considering - in their entirely:

"The influence of jitter in causing audible distortion was found to be less than anticipated by the authors,
and less that that predicted by both the technical and consumer audio press. Jitter induced by
the digital audio interface was not found to be an audible problem for any of the program material auditioned."

"It should not be assumed that jitter-induced distortion is a non-issue. Distortion induced by jitter is a 
real phenomenon and work to reduce its effects should continue. Although the threshold of audibility
was found to be relatively high in the author's experiments, the effect of all distortions in the audio
chain is cumulative and it is reasonable to reduce them to the lowest practical levels. Manufacturers of 
DACs may find the methodology for evaluating jitter susceptibility presented in this paper useful in
characterizing and presenting meaningful jitter specifications for their products."

As I've said, repeatedly, they did NOT suggest that their results were in any way "the last word on the subject".....

Incidentally, Gregorio, just for the record, do you agree with BigShot that "any $49 DAC from WalMart will sound audibly perfect".....?
(Personally, I've heard a variety of low-cost DACs whose sound is significantly flawed, for various reasons.)



gregorio said:


> 1a. Then ALL that tells us is that you're not very good at find finding published studies, it does NOT tell us that the science doesn't exist or that the asserted facts based on those studies are wrong! Accused of employing this typical audiophile fallacy, all you do is simply rephrase and repeat exactly the same fallacy, round and round we go!!
> 1b. So 1974 was the early years of CD was it? What about 1998, 2006, etc.? For anyone interested, who doesn't already know, CD was publicly released in 1984. AGAIN, as previously, different manifestations of jitter artefacts HAVE been extensively tested, in fact the first published test ALREADY MENTIONED MORE THAN ONCE (BBC 1974) tested both random noise artefacts and sinusoidal artefacts (so did the 1998 Benjamin and Gannon paper and various others). So how is it that you cannot find a study that you've already been told where to find? Selective blindness!
> 1c. Ah yes, effectively the same nonsense YET AGAIN! They didn't test everyone on the planet, with every piece of music ever composed, using every combination of reproduction gear and therefore science doesn't know for sure. I tell you what I can't find: Where this thread, sub-forum (or science in general) is called: "Let's just make-up a fallacious argument and then repeat it endlessly"!
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I have a rather tricky question for BigShot..... and this is a serious question...

You have repeatedly reported the results of blind tests you have conducted in which you failed to hear any differences between DACs (or amplifiers).
I am curious what protocols have you implemented to eliminate the possiility that your results are being influenced by a bias to NOT notice differences that might actually be there?
(After all, bias works both ways, and we are all at least somewhat biased.)

The only way I can think of to do this would be to include in your tests products which have known flaws which _should_ be audible... 
We could then confirm that both you, and the equipment and samples you use in your tests, are able to detect differences when they are present.
(For example, when testing any sort of meter or chemical detector, we always start with a "known sample", to confirm that our equipment is working properly.)

This would be a moot point if you are only testing what is audible in products that you plan to use personally.
However, if you expect the rest of us to consider how those results apply to us, it becomes significant.



bigshot said:


> Let me know when you see one. I think this might be as rare a bird as the DACs that sound different that no one can name. Everyone knows the truth. Some people just like to use more words to speak it, that's all. It all ends up at the same place.
> 
> I'll wait for someone who is interested in home audio comes along. There haven't been many of those lately. Perhaps they've been frightened off.


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> I did put it as short as possible.
> 
> You can go and search also my review of iFi Micro iDSD BL on head-fi ( it is there ) - but, since sceptics would never believe until they hear and ABX and whatnot, only such direct in the home test on your anicalliries and your files would really do the trick of convincing them not all DACs/amps sound the same. I did state in my review the equipment necessary to tell the two apart by measurements is beyond most labs, let alone individuals at home.
> 
> ...




A subjective review (complete with the usual puffery about your gear) is not in any way proof that those DACS sound different.  I’d ask for actual evidence, but I know from history that you won’t produce it.

Waiting on the proof that CD mats make an audible difference that you’ve claimed to have for 3 years.  Still having trouble posting that?...

I’ll leave you be as it’s clear you consider your subjective opinion as actual evidence.  Really nowhere to go given that.


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> A subjective review (complete with the usual puffery about your gear) is not in any way proof that those DACS sound different.  I’d ask for actual evidence, but I know from history that you won’t produce it.
> 
> Waiting on the proof that CD mats make an audible difference that you’ve claimed to have for 3 years.  Still having trouble posting that?...
> 
> I’ll leave you be as it’s clear you consider your subjective opinion as actual evidence.  Really nowhere to go given that.



Now, what I should do ? Get together X people ( how big that X should be ? ) - and run DBT ABX using two DACs ? 

You'll get your CD mat test, no problem...

I am "currently" ( over a year) dealing with turntables, arms, cartridges, record cleaning devices and processes - along with "digititis" that will, eventually, be used to digitize some 2-3K analog records. That approx 1K difference will be due to the condition of the records - "some" will certainly be beyond salvation, as they do not all come initially from my library. I ran the tests with the same cartridge, for each and every likely stylus tip profile - from conical to Micro Line, on new, mint, "regular normal use" and "very used/mistracked/too lightly tracked" records - among many others. Too long a list for this thread.

You WILL get the CD mat test - a very realistic one. It took me some time to think of how to do it right and include all variables encountered in actual normal playback.


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 7, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Now, what I should do ? Get together X people ( how big that X should be ? ) - and run DBT ABX using two DACs ?
> 
> You'll get your CD mat test, no problem...
> 
> ...



That’s odd, because for the last three years, you’ve made multiple posts here stating that you had the CD mat evidence but were having trouble posting it.  And sent me PMs stating the same.

 Kind of hard to reconcile that with today’s claim that you’ve been working on a test protocol.


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> That’s odd, because for the last three years, you’ve made multiple posts here stating that you had the evidence but were having trouble posting it.  And sent me PMs stating the same.



True. I only want make this CD mat test even better. And it will be done - but it can not have priority over regular work.


----------



## bfreedma

analogsurviver said:


> True. I only want make this CD mat test even better. And it will be done - but it can not have priority over regular work.



Cool story.  Ok with you if I don’t stay up late waiting for you to post it?


----------



## analogsurviver

bfreedma said:


> Cool story.  Ok with you if I don’t stay up late waiting for you to post it?


More than OK. I went to sleep in between those two posts - saw yours first thing in the morning after turning on the PC.

TBH - you can go to hibernate like a bear over the winter while awaiting the CD mat test. But, spring WILL come.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

CD "mat"?

What sort of idiophile contraption is that?


----------



## stonesfan129

TheSonicTruth said:


> CD "mat"?
> 
> What sort of idiophile contraption is that?



Is that some kind of a rubber mat you stand on to prevent static electricity from altering the sound quality of your CD player?


----------



## analogsurviver

TheSonicTruth said:


> CD "mat"?
> 
> What sort of idiophile contraption is that?



None idiophile device.

It is, basically, a thin disc that is placed atop the CD ( or better yet, DVD ) in all top loading and tray loading transports. There have been special paper, graphite and carbon fibre mats sold for this purpose. In practice, 0.2 mm ( or thereabouts ... ) mm thick carbon fibre version proved to be the most durable.

It is required in all transports that do not offer the support for the optical disk across its entire surface. Why, do you think, older Pioneer CD players and CD-R/RW recorders with "turntable" support in the exact size of the disk, on which you place CD with the recorded side facing up/towards you, are creating bidding wars on ebay - if and when they appear for sale ?



Naturally, turntable style CD transport costs more than standard variety - and reading errors that do occur in real time ( listening directly from a CD player, without the possibility for as many "passes" as required for perfect rip ) then have to be corrected for. No matter how sophisticated is error correction system/algorythm - it can NOT beat no error ( or, at least, less errors ) offered by turntable style support or, next best thing, CD mats used atop CDs ( or DVDs) in standard transports.

There is one application that requires warning :
DO NOT USE CD MAT IN ANY CD-DRIVE THAT (CAN) OPERATE AT MORE THAN ABOUT 4X NORMAL SPEED - such as with CD/DVD burners.

Dimensions of  CD hole, CD spindle clamp and CD mat have some tolerance; and it is possible that clamp will not clam the mat 100% in centre each and every time. If spun faster than about 4x, it can create havoc. I grew a custom to tick each and every box in whatever CD/DVD burning software to bring the speed of rotation DOWN - and as an extra precaution, burn at first a normal CD-R without the CD mat ...- since sometimes various settins interfere with each other and the computer will try to e "helpful" and increase the speed. This unfortunately also prevents verification of the written data at the end of burning - as this operation can not be made to turn more slowly, but will usually run at max speed the drive used is capable of. Most definitely not something one would want ...

There are also exceptions where the use of mats is impossible; those drives that only have a very narrow slot in which the optical disk is inserted. That additional 0.2 mm simply does not go in. Among others, Yamaha has such drives.

The diff use of CD mat can make ? A friend cursed me for not having demoed the CD mat to him before he replaced his CD recorder with newer CD player - because the new CD player no longer had the edge over older CD recorder ,but now using CD mat - the very reason why he purchased the new CD player in the first place.

It was inevitable - everything invented in the West gets copied, sooner or later, at a much lower cost in China. The first hit for CD mat on today's ebay :
https://www.ebay.de/itm/0-2mm-Kohle...566190?hash=item34085c4d2e:g:ZZ0AAOSwtLNcrxVZ


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] As for atomic bombs.....  they used a hollow sphere (which is not an optimum configuration), which they then compressed into a solid sphere (which is an optimum configuration), by detonating a jacket of high explosives wrapped around it. ... Various other methods were tried, including firing one block into another using a sort of gun arangement,
> [1a] A fission reactor operates on exactly the same principle... except that the conditions for creating an explosiion are incompletely met ...
> [2] As for those famous BBC tests  ( http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1974-11.pdf ). ... Therefore, in the context of modern equipment, and modern recordings, they don't actually tell us much.
> [3] The 1998 Benjamin and Gannon paper was quite a lot more useful - and an excellent example of how a study should be conducted and documented.
> ...



1. So NOT just someone banging together two pieces of plutonium then. Your assertion, within an already nonsense hypothetical, was false! Thanks for finally agreeing/posting some actual "CORRECT AND ACCURATE" facts that verify the accusation levelled against you. Which leaves us with two obvious questions: A. Why did you post a nonsense hypothetical AND make a false assertion about it in the first place? And B. Why did you then defend it for several pages with more false assertions (which you also falsely stated were "accurate and correct", in caps!)? The answer to these two questions is all too obvious!!!
1a. So you DON'T get a nuclear explosion AND it's not just someone banging together two pieces of plutonium. Your assertion, within an already nonsense hypothetical, was false.....  ditto as above!!!

*Enough with the nonsense hypothetical analogies and BS assertions. Let's deal with the nonsense your wrote with regards to jitter audibility instead! *

2. Clearly, that assertion is FALSE! Firstly, the flaws you mention are NOT flaws, they are potential flaws. Secondly and far more importantly, the conclusions the BBC research dept reached were remarkably similar to/in agreement with the conclusions of Benjamin/Gannon (and indeed, every other much later published test I'm aware of)! Three examples: 
A. The freq range where sinusoidal jitter artefacts would be more audible (assuming a high enough amplitude!). 
B. Actual listening tests where jitter artefacts down to 200ns were detected. 
C. The conclusion that "_a maximum jitter amplitude of 35ns RMS for jitter freqs above 2kHz [be permissible]_" - effectively to cover the most extreme cases with musical material (which they couldn't test for). 
The fact that these conclusions were remarkably accurate in a 45 year old paper AND they were using digital audio equipment a decade or so older than the oldest consumer digital audio equipment (CD players, 1984), actually "tells us" quite a lot. Which is why your assertion is FALSE!

3. It is better documented than the BBC test, I agree that the Benjamin/Gannon paper is an "excellent example" and I also agree that it is more useful, because they were able to actually manufacture and test the worst (theoretical) case scenario, rather than just deduce/infer it (as the BBC paper did/had to).
3a. That's a lie! You have NOT "paraphrased the results", you have paraphrased just one small part of the results, which is effectively a "lie of omission". AND, the one part you have paraphrased is irrelevant to the discussion any way, because the discussion is audible jitter artefacts with a musical signal (not a sine wave test signal)! One of the parts you've omitted is the one that is relevant, so thanks for playing the audiophile marketing BS game again, that's really appreciated in this sub-forum!!

*For those interested in a relevant explanation and paraphrasing (rather than an audiophile BS one):* The Benjamin/Gannon tests are interesting because of the extreme lengths they went to in order to achieve the lowest possible jitter artefact figure that's audibly detectable with a musical signal:
A. Trained, then selected test subjects, 
B. Very carefully selected music examples, with characteristics to optimise jitter detection (unrepresentative of the vast majority of music recordings) and 
C. Sideband jitter artefacts individually synthesised for each music example at frequencies designed to avoid audio masking. 
The combination of all three of these conditions almost certainly never exists in the consumer/audiophile world (but they are theoretically possible)! Given these theoretical conditions "_The threshold of detection ranged from about 30ns rms to 300ns rms of sinusoidal jitter_". This is remarkably similar to the 1974 BBC conclusion of 35ns and covers the 200ns they actually detected. Additionally, these results are in accordance with various other published tests, numerous unpublished informal controlled tests performed by sound/music engineers and published individual ABX tests in forums like HA. 
The obvious question in a forum such as this, is: How do these figures relate to the actual amounts of jitter produced by consumer equipment? Benjamin and Gannon provided some objective, reliable evidence. They measured the jitter induced by the built-in DAC/components of 50 mass market consumer devices. The worst was a HDTV with 12ns, the best was a laptop DVD drive with 7ps and the average was 142ps. In other words, these mass market consumer devices with cheap built-in DACs, all of which must be more than 21 years old, all had jitter well below the lowest detected level of the most audible jitter artefact in this extreme test scenario, on average about 200 times below and in the case of the laptop DVD drive, roughly 4,000 times below!

3b. Which again is irrelevant because they are NOT audible. This was dealt with even earlier (1950s) and confirmed ever since, hence WHY they limited their conclusions to high freqs!
3c. It's NOT worth noting that because it's not true! The BBC test and conclusions for example were performed with loud speakers. But of course this is just ANOTHER rewording of the fallacy you're so fond of peddling: Unless they test everyone with every combination of gear and every piece of music then science effectively doesn't know anything.

4. The obvious question is: Why, for the love of god, have you "said [it], repeatedly"??? It's nonsense, just another BS fallacy/misrepresentation and you keep saying it "repeatedly", WHY??!! NO ONE here, in science in general or the pro audio engineering community takes those results as the "last word on the subject! We take it as part of a body of reliable evidence: So on the one hand we have: This (Benjamin/Gannon) "excellent example" + a considerable number of other published scientific papers over the course of 45 years or so + a very considerable amount practical testing by professionals + a considerable amount reliable testing by others. On the other hand we have audiophile anecdotes, audiophile reviews and audiophile marketing but in all these decades, not a shred of reliable evidence whatsoever! Which brings us back to where we started, it's just the same old audiophile BS repeated endlessly!

5. Staying within the current topic of discussion (jitter audibility), I would say the following: If a current $49 stand-alone DAC performs several hundred/thousand times worse than the built-in components of an average mass market device of 25 years ago, then I would consider such a DAC to be defective! 

G


----------



## bigshot (Sep 8, 2019)

There may be minute differences in my DACs, DAPs and players that could be heard under extreme and unlikely situations. Applying tighter controls and allowing situations that go beyond what is normal for listening to music in the home *might* reveal something like that. But it would be very slight and wouldn't matter for the purposes of listening to music in the home. We aren't talking about infinitesimally small differences. We're talking about clear differences.

I am looking for two pieces of equipment:  in proper operating condition, of recent manufacture and design (not tubes or obsolete designs that are deliberately out of spec) and currently available, that sound clearly different under normal home listening conditions.

My system is calibrated the way I like it. If something sounds different, I don't want it. I would have to recalibrate to suit that particular component. I am motivated to avoid that. If something is different in an inaudible way, I don't care. I only care if the difference is audible.

It's really absurd that I have to spell everything out like this. Just show me two DACs or players that sound CLEARLY DIFFERENT. Pick ones that are the furthest apart to prove your point and you'll nail it. I don't think you can do that, because every one I've come across sounds the same given the purposes I am using it for. Testing to see if minute and insignificant differences might be slipping by me doesn't answer the question I'm asking. Finding two components that sound clearly different does.

I get really tired of semantic, theoretical and absolutist arguments that make excuses for not putting up any evidence. I can't prove a negative. It's up to you. Point to a clear difference that we can set up an independent controlled test and be able to hear without question or qualifying or waffling or blather... or just go talk about something else.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 8, 2019)

At this point, I don't think there is any reason to be arguing the science of the sound. The soundness of the argument is the problem. There are people who wouldn't know what proof is if it bit them on the ass. There is definitely a pattern here. It isn't hard for even a casual reader to figure out what the score is. The drag of the whole situation is that this nonsense is sucking up all of our time replying to it, when we could be having useful and productive conversations.

When someone mentions cd matts seriously, I say it's time to stick a fork in it and call the match finished. I don't think we need to wait for him to come up with a test to see what form of placebo is the most effective for him.


----------



## KeithEmo

If you're really curious about nuclear fission, please consult a good textbook on the subject, or perhaps an employed nuclear physicist....
Either one will inform you that, if you create a single mass of plutonium that exceeds critical mass, you WILL in fact produce a fission reaction.... (an explosion).
(The exact mass required to do so will depend on the physical shape - with the lowest mass required being in the shape of a sphere.)
If you bang the parts together by hand, or even press them together slowly, the result will probably be a small, inefficient, and self-limiting explosion.
(You might well end up with a small pop... barely strong enough to push the pieces apart... while releasing enough radiation to kill you.)
That's why, when we build bombs, we generally employ additional force to bring the pieces together, and hold them together.
So, yes, my "hypothetical" is in fact quite true..... although one might reasonably argue against it's being _practically_ useful.

As for jitter and DACs... I'm quite inclined to agree that, for most consumers, it isn't worth worrying about.
Most designers of commercial DACs follow good design practices - which result in relatively low levels of jitter.
It's also worth noting that measuring the levels of jitter present in most modern equipment is quite difficult.
The widely quoted "J-Test" DOES NOT measure either jitter, or the results of known amounts of jitter on the audio output, directly.
(Actually measuring jitter directly is difficult, the equipment required is expensive, and things like whether you measure it with the cover on or off will result in different results.)   
What most manufacturers actually do is to brag about their use of specific "low-jitter parts"... and "low jitter designs"... but they rarely actually specify jitter at all.
They then infer that, since they have used great care to reduce jitter, you should expect their product to sound better.

However, as for DACs in general, it has been my experience, and that of many others, that "all modern DACs do NOT sound the same".
(Therefore I cannot agree with BigShot's personal experience that "all modern DAcs sound exactly the same.)
It has also been my experience that many modern DACs DO NOT follow what I would call "good design practices".
As a result, some of them have audible flaws, which can be easily related to standard measurements.
(For example one modern expensive NOS DAC I owned had a frequency response that was -3 dB at 20 kHz.... which is probably why it sounded "very smooth".)
I will also concede that, when I encounter a $50 product that sounds bad, I often neglect to expend the time and effort to find out _why _it sounds bad.
(But I would certainly NOT tell someone who is sure they hear a difference that "they must be wrong"...)



gregorio said:


> 1. So NOT just someone banging together two pieces of plutonium then. Your assertion, within an already nonsense hypothetical, was false! Thanks for finally agreeing/posting some actual "CORRECT AND ACCURATE" facts that verify the accusation levelled against you. Which leaves us with two obvious questions: A. Why did you post a nonsense hypothetical AND make a false assertion about it in the first place? And B. Why did you then defend it for several pages with more false assertions (which you also falsely stated were "accurate and correct", in caps!)? The answer to these two questions is all too obvious!!!
> 1a. So you DON'T get a nuclear explosion AND it's not just someone banging together two pieces of plutonium. Your assertion, within an already nonsense hypothetical, was false.....  ditto as above!!!
> 
> *Enough with the nonsense hypothetical analogies and BS assertions. Let's deal with the nonsense your wrote with regards to jitter audibility instead! *
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't disagree with anything you said there at all....
And, as a statement of "providing useful advice to consumers deciding what DAC to purchase", it seems reasonable.

However, you seem to be restricting yourself to NOT include "extreme and unlikely situations....
(And, if we were discussing, "consumer guidelines" I would agree with you almost entirely....)
However, since this is a SCIENCE FORUM, I do not consider that narrow restriction to be appropriate....
(In fact, many scientific discoveries have been the direct result of analyzing and testing "extreme cases" which demonstrated flaws on previous assumptions.) 
Therefore, in a science forum, it is the extreme cases, where there may be room to expland our knowledge, that I find the most interesting.

The one main thing in which I disagree with you in the context of consumer products, is your faith in modern designs....
I've actually analyzed the designs of many modern DACs....
And, from my experience....
Many modern low cost DACs (sub $50) actually use obsolete circuitry, fail to follow even reasonable design practices, and sound bad (they probably also mostly measure badly).
(I've owned many "$29 USB sound cards" over the years, for various purposes' many sounded just fine; and many did not. And, no, I didn't keep or keep track of the bad examples.)
And, unfortunately, many expensive "audiophile DACs" do in fact use unusual designs which simply don't perform very well.

If they all followed the recommendations in the chip maker's app notes then they probably would sound very much the same. 
However, many designers seem quite convinced that they know better, while others simply realize they need an excuse to charge a high price.
However, regardless of the reasons, and regardless of whether the cause is intentional or not, it really is NOT safe to assume that "all modern DACs are properly designed".

The main "catch" to your generalizations, especially when we're literally talking about "sub $100 DACs", is that most low cost DACs don't provide much in the way of meaningful specifications...
And the average concumer has no way of even confirming if they meet the specs they do provide...
One very common problem is that, on many low cost DACs, the specs of the DAC chip they use are quoted as if they described the performance of the entire product.
(They do so because copying from the chip spec sheet is easier than actually measuring things... but the two are not necessarily the same.)



bigshot said:


> There may be minute differences in my DACs, DAPs and players that could be heard under extreme and unlikely situations. Applying tighter controls and allowing situations that go beyond what is normal for listening to music in the home *might* reveal something like that. But it would be very slight and wouldn't matter for the purposes of listening to music in the home. We aren't talking about infinitesimally small differences. We're talking about clear differences.
> 
> I am looking for two pieces of equipment:  in proper operating condition, of recent manufacture and design (not tubes or obsolete designs that are deliberately out of spec) and currently available, that sound clearly different under normal home listening conditions.
> 
> ...


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I don't disagree with anything you said there at all....
> And, as a statement of "providing useful advice to consumers deciding what DAC to purchase", it seems reasonable.
> 
> However, you seem to be restricting yourself to NOT include "extreme and unlikely situations....
> ...



Could you name a product that fits your quote below (sounds bad and measures audibly badly)?  Given how much you value specificity, it’s seems reasonable to expect you could name at least one.

“Many modern low cost DACs (sub $50) actually use obsolete circuitry, fail to follow even reasonable design practices, and *sound bad* (they probably also mostly measure badly).”


----------



## KeithEmo

As I said, when it comes to low cost products, I generally don't bother to measure them either way.

The last relatively expensive DAC I owned that sounded significantly "unusual" in what I would consider to be a bad way, and measured unusual, was a Metrum Octave.
According to our AP analyzer up at Emotiva, it had significant high-frequency rolloff, and rather high THD.
(Note that this is a NOS DAC which uses several somewhat unusual DAC chips and an unusual topology.)
As I recall, the specs called out a frequency response of 20 - 20 kHz +0/-3 dB @ 44k sample rate, so the measured -3 dB at 20 kHz agreed with the published specs.
(However, in terms of performance, I would still characterize it as "not very good".)
The measurements also showed somewhat higher THD in one channel than the other - which seemed to be both out-of-spec and not especially audible.

The last cheap DAC which I recall as sounding especially bad - and whose name I can remember - was a $19 "USB sound card" made by Turtle Beach.
(I don't recall what, if any, specs were provided. Turtle Beach used to be considered to be "a good brand name for computer sound cards".)

As for sounding different...... but NOT measuring noticeably different using the standard measurements....
For several years I owned a Wyred4Sound DAC2 - and I, and several different people I loaned it, all agreed that it audibly emphasized the midrange over other frequencies.
(This characteristic is quite often claimed for DACs that incorporate the Sabre DAC chip.)
Although it offered several different filter options, which did each sound different, listeners agreed that the seeming emphasis of the midrange was present on all of them (including the ones specified as flat).
(I didn't measure that DAC, but it was specified as having a very flat frequency response, and every review I read confirmed that as being true.)



bfreedma said:


> Could you name a product that fits your quote below (sounds bad and measures audibly badly)?  Given how much you value specificity, it’s seems reasonable to expect you could name at least one.
> 
> “Many modern low cost DACs (sub $50) actually use obsolete circuitry, fail to follow even reasonable design practices, and *sound bad* (they probably also mostly measure badly).”


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> As I said, when it comes to low cost products, I generally don't bother to measure them either way.
> 
> The last relatively expensive DAC I owned that sounded significantly "unusual" in what I would consider to be a bad way, and measured unusual, was a Metrum Octave.
> According to our AP analyzer up at Emotiva, it had significant high-frequency rolloff, and rather high THD.
> ...




Thanks for the specifics.

The inexpensive Turtle Beach cards had problems but I doubt it they were specific to the DAC.  As they were tanking years ago, they released a number of poorly written drivers and used nonstandard interrupts.  They didn’t seem to be too concerned about following Windows standards so they exhibited a number of odd issues.  No argument that they sounded bad.

Can’t agree with you on the W4S DAC2. I’ve owned one for many years (since the DAC2 was first released) and unless one of the filters was selected, I’ve found it to be neutral as has everyone else who has listened to it.  I’ve run a number of blind tests with it and no one has been able to pick it out from any other DAC it’s been compared to.   I still have it- happy to setup testing for anyone who would like to participate.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 9, 2019)

I've compared a $40 Walmart DVD player to a $1200 Oppo HA-1. There was no clear difference there. Is there a different cheap component I should try? Don't bother to reply unless you can name a SPECIFIC MAKE AND MODEL THAT YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED A CLEAR DIFFERENCE WITH UNDER CAREFUL LISTENING CONDITIONS.

I use a Mac for my audio. I know nothing about sound cards, but I know PCs can be noisy. That has nothing to do with the DAC. It's the fault of the computer.

bfreedma, I don't see any point to go to the trouble of testing something that hasn't shown a clear difference under controlled conditions in the past. We could be here until the cows come home spinning our wheels if we do that. I am looking for something that clearly sounds different under careful comparison... specifically blind, level matched, direct A/B switched. It isn't hard at all to do a test like that. If someone isn't willing to even attempt that, they aren't a reliable witness. And it isn't me disqualifying them, it's their own laziness and sloppiness.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 9, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] If you're really curious about nuclear fission, please consult a good textbook on the subject, or perhaps an employed nuclear physicist....
> [1a] Either one will inform you that, if you create a single mass of plutonium that exceeds critical mass, you WILL in fact produce a fission reaction.... (an explosion).
> [1b] You might well end up with a small pop... barely strong enough to push the pieces apart... while releasing enough radiation to kill you.
> [1c] That's why, when we build bombs, we generally employ additional force to bring the pieces together, and hold them together.
> [1d] So, yes, my "hypothetical" is in fact quite true.....



1. Oh good, let's again fall back on the good ol' audiophile tactic of hypocrisy. Why don't you find out some basics about nuclear fission before telling others to?
1a. No, in fact neither one will tell you that! You will get a fission chain reaction but you will NOT get a nuclear explosion! "_While the fundamental physics of the fission chain reaction in a nuclear weapon is similar to the physics of a controlled nuclear reactor, the two types of device must be engineered quite differently (see nuclear reactor physics). A nuclear bomb is designed to release all its energy at once, while a reactor is designed to generate a steady supply of useful power_." - Wiki.
1b. Hey, you were the one who said "nuclear explosion" and then bought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you think the inhabitants were incinerated by "a small pop"?
1c. When we intend a nuclear explosion rather than just a nuclear chain reaction, we always employ a large additional force, it is NEVER just "someone banging together two blocks of plutonium".
1d. Clearly it was NOT true and clearly to any rational person it was nonsense!


KeithEmo said:


> [2] As for jitter and DACs... I'm quite inclined to agree that, for most consumers, it isn't worth worrying about.
> [2a] Most designers of commercial DACs follow good design practices - which result in relatively low levels of jitter.
> [2b] It's also worth noting that measuring the levels of jitter present in most modern equipment is quite difficult.
> [2c] The widely quoted "J-Test" DOES NOT measure either jitter, or the results of known amounts of jitter on the audio output, directly.


2. Who are you agreeing with, who are the consumers who aren't "most consumers" and why should they worry about it?
2a. "Relatively low levels of jitter" - Relative to what? Relative to 25 year old mass market built-in components which on average have levels of jitter already several hundred times below audibility? Why would anyone be "worried about" jitter that is "relatively lower" than jitter which is already orders of magnitude below audibility?
2b. Sure, "quite difficult" but clearly entirely possible as there's commercially available instruments which do this. However, this is effectively a circular argument. One of the main reasons it's "quite difficult" is because "the levels of jitter in most modern equipment" are so small (so far below audibility)!
2c. The "J-Test" measures the amount of jitter induced in a device in response to a test signal optimised to produce the highest levels of jitter distortion. IE. A high frequency sine wave at full scale, typically 17kHz. The amplitude of the resultant jitter distortion should exceed the amplitude that would actually occur when reproducing a commercial music recording (as music recordings do not contain full scale 17kHz components). Furthermore, Benjamin/Gannon (and anyone else who has ever used the available equipment) did not use the "J-Test" to measure the jitter.


KeithEmo said:


> [1] However, as for DACs in general, it has been my experience, and that of many others, that "all modern DACs do NOT sound the same".
> [2] It has also been my experience that many modern DACs DO NOT follow what I would call "good design practices". As a result, some of them have audible flaws, which can be easily related to standard measurements.
> [3] (For example one modern expensive NOS DAC I owned had a frequency response that was -3 dB at 20 kHz.... which is probably why it sounded "very smooth".) I will also concede that, when I encounter a $50 product that sounds bad, I often neglect to expend the time and effort to find out _why _it sounds bad.
> [3a] (But I would certainly NOT tell someone who is sure they hear a difference that "they must be wrong"...)



An absolute classic example of audiophile fallacy and myth at work!!!

1. This is not the "your's or many others experiences" forum, it's the Sound Science forum. So if your or others experiences contradict the facts/science then we need some reliable supporting evidence. How many times? The bizarre thing is that YOU ask for reliable evidence, which you're provided with but you refuse to return the required/expected courtesy! How hypocritical is this?

2. So provide some reliable evidence/examples of modern DACs which have such bad "design practices" that they introduce jitter artefacts above the threshold of audibility!

3. So here we have the actual admission and the problem that lies at the heart of so much audiophile BS! You can't be bothered to find out why it sounds bad .... so what do you do? Are you honest and say you don't know why it sounds bad or are you dishonest and simply make-up some BS explanation? And when that explanation is refuted (with reliable evidence) are you honest and admit you don't really know and just made it up or are you dishonest and defend it to the death as at least a possibility, using more made-up nonsense, fallacies, misrepresentations, hypocrisy and any other offensive tactic you can think of? You even give an example of this right before your admission! What are the actual facts about the amount of 20kHz content found in commercial music recordings and how does that align with the reliable evidence/established science concerning the threshold of hearing 20kHz content? You haven't defined "very smooth", you haven't provided any reliable evidence that you could actually hear any difference and you've just made-up an explanation that according to the facts/science is NOT "probable" it's AT LEAST highly improbable!
3a. Again, you're just repeating one of your favourite types of fallacy! If someone states they hear a difference I/we would generally presume they are NOT wrong (that they are hearing a difference). However, their explanation of why they're hearing a difference and/or what specifically they're hearing a difference between, sometimes/often "must be wrong" and I certainly would tell them that!

Round and round we go.

G


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I've compared a $40 Walmart DVD player to a $1200 Oppo HA-1. There was no clear difference there. Is there a different cheap component I should try? Don't bother to reply unless you can name a SPECIFIC MAKE AND MODEL THAT YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED A CLEAR DIFFERENCE WITH UNDER CAREFUL LISTENING CONDITIONS.
> 
> I use a Mac for my audio. I know nothing about sound cards, but I know PCs can be noisy. That has nothing to do with the DAC. It's the fault of the computer.
> 
> bfreedma, I don't see any point to go to the trouble of testing something that hasn't shown a clear difference under controlled conditions in the past. We could be here until the cows come home spinning our wheels if we do that. I am looking for something that clearly sounds different under careful comparison... specifically blind, level matched, direct A/B switched. It isn't hard at all to do a test like that. If someone isn't willing to even attempt that, they aren't a reliable witness. And it isn't me disqualifying them, it's their own laziness and sloppiness.




Agree in general on testing, but still willing to offer it if it helps move the ball forward.

PCs are no noisier./less noisy in general than Macs these days.  They are all built using the same parts, buses, and processors.  For whatever reason, Apple still manages to sell commodity parts at a premium by utilizing a closed model.  Differentiation is really just a matter or the respective OS's and available software.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm beginning to suspect that I know a lot more about nuclear fusion than you do.... but I'm beginning to lose interest in explaining it .... or in arguing about the semantic details of how violent a fission reaction must be for one or the other of us to classify it as "an explosion". (However, as an example, it clearly is not going to serve our purpose here... )

Your comment about J-Test is entirely true .... but it also provides an excellent example of the problem at hand. The correct and accurate way to measure the amount of self jitter present in a circuit is to actually measure it. And the correct and accurate way to measure the susceptibility of a circuit to external jitter present on the source is to apply source signals containing various precisely known amounts of jitter and measure the results. J-Test does neither of these. It is, instead, as you say, is "optimized to produce the highest levels of jitter" - ASSUMING SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INPUT CIRCUIT USED. However, you will never know how much jitter that test signal will produce with a given circuit, and it is never directly measured. Therefore, you are in fact testing how the specific circuit will react untder one specific condition.... which is a very different matter.... and tells you far less. I could, for example, create an input circuit that performed very well under J-test, but produced massive amounts of jitter under other circumstances. (Any circuit which had a large amount of self-jitter, but which failed to produce extra jitter while passing that specific signal quild fit that description.) Therefore, J-Test, while useful, neither measures the actual self-jitter already present in a circuit, nor the amount of additional distortion that applying an input signal containing a specific amount of jitter will produce from that circuit. The result is interesting - it just isn't telling you those things.... so they go untested.

I agree, the levels of jitter present on modern equipment are difficult to measure "because they are so low"....
However, claiming that this also "proves" that they are inaudible is the circular argument....
They are low enough that measuring them is difficult....
This has no relevance whatsoever as to whether those levels are or are not audible....
(Things that are audible are in no way obligated to be either large or easy to measure.)
Likewise, the amounts that are present in commercial recordings has nothing whatsoever to do with what is or is not audible.
(We are NOT going to simply accept that "commercial recordings contain inaudible amounts of jitter"... which is why we're talking about actually testing it.)
Likewise, jitter may be present for any of several reasons besides the single specific mechanism J-Test uses to produce it.



gregorio said:


> 1. Oh good, let's again fall back on the good ol' audiophile tactic of hypocrisy. Why don't you find out some basics about nuclear fission before telling others to?
> 1a. No, in fact neither one will tell you that! You will get a fission chain reaction but you will NOT get a nuclear explosion! "_While the fundamental physics of the fission chain reaction in a nuclear weapon is similar to the physics of a controlled nuclear reactor, the two types of device must be engineered quite differently (see nuclear reactor physics). A nuclear bomb is designed to release all its energy at once, while a reactor is designed to generate a steady supply of useful power_." - Wiki.
> 1b. Hey, you were the one who said "nuclear explosion" and then bought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you think the inhabitants were incinerated by "a small pop"?
> 1c. When we intend a nuclear explosion rather than just a nuclear chain reaction, we always employ a large additional force, it is NEVER just "someone banging together two blocks of plutonium".
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Perhaps I can provide a little more information - just for the record.

1a. A reactor uses a sub-critical nuclear reaction. In order to achieve critical mass, you must have a certain mass of fuel, within specific proximity. Since a sphere is the densest concentration of mass - a sphere is the shape for which the amount necessary to achieve critical mass is the lowest. In a reactor, either the fuel is held further apart, or it is diluted by being alloyed by other metals, or areas of other materials (like control rods) are placed between various parts of the fuel. The reaction is essentially the same - although reactors are built in such a way as to prevent a critical mass reaction from occurring.

1b. By current definitions, the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively small, and relatively inefficient.... Each yielded less than a single megaton of energy and, by all current estimates, only a small percentage of their fuel was actually converted into energy.

1c. Absolutely, when we want a controlled nuclear reaction, rather than an uncontrolled reaction, we design the mechanism quite differently. 
A bomb is designed with the intent of producing a critical reaction; a reactor is designed to avoid even the possibility of that occurring (hopefully).

1d. I'm still waiting to see the part that isn't true.

2a. Relative to the levels present on older equipment... and relative to the levels which are easily heard or measured. Since you seem so sure that "the level of audibility for jitter is well known" and "modern equipment is all far below it", perhaps you can tell me why so many people seem worried about it.... Perhaps they don't agree with YOUR opinion about what level is audible. Obviously, however, considering the amount of discussion on the subject, a lot of people are in fact "worried about it".

2b. Difficult is always relative. However, from the fact that so many reviewers resort to compromises like J-Test, rather than actually measuring jitter, it is safe to assume that at least they find it difficult to measure. I can tell you that, in order to measure jitter directly, using the current models of Audio Precision equipment used by most manufacturers, you need to add an optional hardware module, which adds about $10k to the $50k - $60k price of the more standard version. In terms of dicciculty in taking the actual measurements, because jitter is strongly affected by circuit characteristics like stray capacitance, the measurement conditions have a major impact on the measurements. (Moving the test probe a few inches, or testing with the cover on or off, will often produce quite different readings. This makes it difficult to acquire consistent and accurate measurements.)

2c. J-Test is what it is... which is a simple, and easy to use, test which provides a very general indicator for "how susceptible a device is to certain common types of jitter". (Data-correlated jitter produced by certain types of circuits when subjected to certain test signals.) It also serves a useful purpose for vetting designs. AS A VERY BROAD GENERALIZATION, devices and circuits that perform poorly with J-Test also perform poorly under other conditions. However, as with most generalizations, that doesn't hold true at all in specific. For example, because it involves higher frequencies, J-test tells us nothing about how susceptible a circuit is to low frequency speed variations. (Jitter covers a range from a small fraction of one Hz to several kHz.... but J-Test only covers a narrow subset of that range.... and using a single waveform.)

In point of fact, and exactly opposite of what you continually claim, I DID in fact say "I don't know why they all sounded bad".
I am NOT the one who keeps ruling out possible explanations "because I know they aren't audible"....
I'm the one who isn't sure which ones are or are not audible (if I knew that then there would be nothing to discuss in this forum).



gregorio said:


> 1. Oh good, let's again fall back on the good ol' audiophile tactic of hypocrisy. Why don't you find out some basics about nuclear fission before telling others to?
> 1a. No, in fact neither one will tell you that! You will get a fission chain reaction but you will NOT get a nuclear explosion! "_While the fundamental physics of the fission chain reaction in a nuclear weapon is similar to the physics of a controlled nuclear reactor, the two types of device must be engineered quite differently (see nuclear reactor physics). A nuclear bomb is designed to release all its energy at once, while a reactor is designed to generate a steady supply of useful power_." - Wiki.
> 1b. Hey, you were the one who said "nuclear explosion" and then bought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you think the inhabitants were incinerated by "a small pop"?
> 1c. When we intend a nuclear explosion rather than just a nuclear chain reaction, we always employ a large additional force, it is NEVER just "someone banging together two blocks of plutonium".
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Sep 9, 2019)

I'm imagining our friend is like the sign in the old silent comedies that blows around in the wind and ends up pointing to the road to the quarry pit instead of the road to the big city. He spins around and always ends up pointing the wrong direction.

Does anyone care about nuclear reactors? It's just a diversionary tactic to get the conversation away from pointing out his mistakes.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I agree, the levels of jitter present on modern equipment are difficult to measure "because they are so low"....
> However, claiming that this also "proves" that they are inaudible is the circular argument....
> They are low enough that measuring them is difficult....
> This has no relevance whatsoever as to whether those levels are or are not audible....
> (Things that are audible are in no way obligated to be either large or easy to measure.)


while the idea is correct, in the sense that cause and consequence could have intermediaries being strongly influenced by small initial change(at least in some specific cases reaching some operating threshold). but I can't think of many examples where something is hard to measure but conclusively perceived by ear. your argument would push us to forget jitter measurement itself, and go look for the potential impact at the output signal, which is kind of what we do already. making it even less likely to find a situation where we're going to hear something but have a hard time measuring it. at best we're going to have a hard time identifying the cause of the measured change at the output, which is a very different problem.


----------



## bigshot

If you can hear it, it's audible. If it falls below the threshold of perception, it isn't. You can establish what the threshold is by measuring the point of just detectable difference. The JDD threshold for jitter is an order of magnitude more than jitter as it occurs in even the cheapest audio components. Jitter is not an issue that is worth considering when shopping for audio equipment. It's just a metric used by audio salesmen to get people to spend money they really don't have to spend.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree entirely....

Phenomena like jitter cover a huge range of possible variations.... from slow clock drift over tens of seconds to modulation products that may occur at tens of kHz.... and from specific waveforms, to purely random, to data-correlated.
- I wouldn't necessarily expect 100 picoseconds of sine wave jitter at 3 kHz and 100 picoseconds of random jitter at 0.1 Hz to be equally audible. 
- And I wouldn't expect a slow speed variation that takes place over several seconds to be as audible as one that occurs abruptly several time a second.
- And, likewise I wouldn't necessarily expect the same 100 picoseconds of sine wave jitter at 3 kHz to be equally as audible with a pure sine wave test signal as it is with music.

However, to make things even more complicated, it is quite often difficult to isolate one difference, like jitter, among others.
Many devices that have different amounts of jitter probably also have other differences...... 
In the case of DACs, that might include noise, distortion of various types, and ringing of various types., or even some other factors none of us have even considered so far.
And, in the case of devices that perform resampling, it may also include more complex and unique differences between the input and output signals. 

For example, the AD1986 ASRC is specified to deliver an output signal whose output is "identical to what it theoretically should be down to about 132 dB" - but they entirely fail to specify what the actual differences may be.
So, perhaps those unspecified differences to account for the fact that so many people insist that they hear a difference between when that chip is engaged and when it is bypassed.
Or perhaps it really simply reduces jitter - and the difference they're hearing is the lack of jitter (we've avoided considering the possibility that small amounts of certain types of jitter may be heard as an improvement rather than as a flaw).
Or perhaps there is some other difference being introduced along with the reduction in jitter.
(Or perhaps everyone who claims to hear a difference really is imagining it.)

To me, it makes more sense to approach the question from the direction of: 
"We've identified a difference, which multiple people claim to hear... let's confirm that it's really there."
"Then, once we've done that, we can proceed to some theories about what's causing it, and some experiments to determine which of those theories might be correct."
However, it is not good science to simply ignore claims made by others because you can't find a theory to explain them.

Remember the experiment where sighted observers consistently agreed that bright green meat didn't taste the same as meat that was normally colored?
Further experimentation has shown conclusively that......
- the meat itself tasted no different
- yet none of the subjects were lying or imagining the difference
It turned out that there are actually links in our brains that allow what we see to actually influence what we taste.
(Yet we would never have learned that important fact if we'd simply "written off" those results as "imaginary".) 

I absolutely agree that, if two DACs sound noticeably different, odds are that the difference is not being caused by differences in the amount or type of jitter...
(I can think of several other explanations that seem to be more likely to me.)
However, since I don't know for sure, I am NOT willing to give advice to other people, based on an assumption that I DO know for sure...
I prefer to limit myself to claims that are actually defensible... such as "IN MY OPINION I doubt it matters" or even "There is nothing I know of in our present scientific knowledge to support that claim".

Maybe it will turn out that test subjects consistently find that DACs with black knobs really do sound better than ones with silver knobs - but only if they can see the color of the knobs...
Since we KNOW that such a situation occurs with the taste of steak it seems not at all unreasonable to suspect that a similar link might exist between "perceived sound quality and knob color".
If so, it makes more sense to me to determine that correlation, so we can take it into account, rather than to simply continue to deny that it might exist, and argue that everyone who claims it does "must be imagining it".
(And, if it turned out to be the case, I would cheerfully classify it under the branch of SCIENCE we call "psychoacoustics" or the one we call "neuroscience"... since they are both types of "science related to audio".)



castleofargh said:


> while the idea is correct, in the sense that cause and consequence could have intermediaries being strongly influenced by small initial change(at least in some specific cases reaching some operating threshold). but I can't think of many examples where something is hard to measure but conclusively perceived by ear. your argument would push us to forget jitter measurement itself, and go look for the potential impact at the output signal, which is kind of what we do already. making it even less likely to find a situation where we're going to hear something but have a hard time measuring it. at best we're going to have a hard time identifying the cause of the measured change at the output, which is a very different problem.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

I'm interested to know about any PROVABLY (as in blind tested) audible sound quality that isn't also measurable in some way.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 9, 2019)

Certainly there is nothing that we can record that is audible but not measurable. If we can record it, we can measure it.

If I'm allowed to offer an even less direct answer to your question... Voices in your head are audible but not measurable. kill your parents


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

> Certainly there is nothing that we can record that is audible but not measurable. If we can record it, we can measure it.
> 
> If I'm allowed to offer an even less direct answer to your question... Voices in your head are audible but not measurable.



Oh, I completely accept the inarguable fact that imaginary sounds are not measurable!


----------



## bigshot

There are plenty of unmeasurable sounds that are imaginary too... bias and placebo are two big causes.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Sep 9, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> None idiophile device.
> 
> It is, basically, a thin disc that is placed atop the CD ( or better yet, DVD ) in all top loading and tray loading transports. There have been special paper, graphite and carbon fibre mats sold for this purpose. In practice, 0.2 mm ( or thereabouts ... ) mm thick carbon fibre version proved to be the most durable.
> 
> ...




lol. I don't think you understand how ridiculous this is. Does the laser impart a force on the CD greater than something measured in femtonewtons? I just don't understand why you're here. "Demoing" a product is not the same as testing it. I'd bet every penny I make for the rest of my life that a CD mat does absolutely nothing to the signal in an already functioning CD player. Plus, read errors don't manifest themselves as "less bass" or "too much treble" or god forbid "narrow soundstage", they manifest as skips or pops.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> More than OK. I went to sleep in between those two posts - saw yours first thing in the morning after turning on the PC.
> 
> TBH - you can go to hibernate like a bear over the winter while awaiting the CD mat test. But, spring WILL come.



Here's a test: get a cheap USB logic analyzer or oscilloscope. Connect SPDIF output of CD player under test to it. Compare output from CD with mat and CD without mat. Determine objectively that the data is completely identical. Change your mind.

I know, the last part is a stretch.

The Salae Logic 8 from https://www.saleae.com/ will get you there. The software it runs can save the output from each test as a bin file you can then do a compare of.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm not sure who you're replying to... but I absolutely agree with you there.
With current technology, we are ABLE to measure virtually anything with more precision and accuracy than human hearing, so anything which is audible should certainl;y be measurable.
The catch is that sometimes the data is so complex that it exceeds our ability to ANALYZE it effectively.
(Our huamn brains are still apparently able to correlate large quantities of data in ways that we are unable to do by machine - at least so far.)

For example, I could digitize a copy of my favorite Rembrandt painting with sufficient precision to be able to see the individual brush strokes, and the strands of fiber in the canvas.
I could also make a scan of similar precision and detail of the painting on my wall that I purchased for $25 at a garage sale.
I have little doubt that those two scans would contain enough information to allow us to determine which painting is the Rembrandt (and which one is more attractive)
And, with modern AI, I could probably find software that could even guess, with some degree of accuracy, which one was painted by Rembrandt.
However, as of now, we cannot _measure_ "why the Rembrandt looks much better than the garage sale painting".
In other words, we have sufficient measurements, but what we lack is the ability to fully interpret them.

I have no doubt whatsoever that, if two DACs sound audibly different, there are one or more measurements that will show that difference.
The problem is that, if you measure any two DACs, you will find MANY differences in their measurements.
I have never seen two DACs with IDENTICAL amounts of distortion and noise, and IDENTICAL noise spectra, and IDENTICAL spectra that might or might not be entirely due to jitter.
Look at the filter responses to various types of transients... you will see differences.
Look at the actual noise spectra at the output... you will see differences.
(Apply a signal with jitter at the input... and you will see differences in the differences that appear.)
It is circular logic to claim that "well, yes, there are all sorts of measurable differences, but you're sure none of them individually or in combination, is audible", and then go back to claiming that the measurements show nothing.
In fact, the measurements we already have show all sorts of differences, and there are probably many more measurements we haven't done yet....
So, if there is an audible difference.....
Maybe we haven't measured all of the right things...
Maybe our measurements aren't accurate enough...
Maybe we're wrong about some of those presumed "thresholds of audibility"...
Maybe the difference is due to some error we've made or some external factor we haven't thought of...
(Maybe, when we listen to five DACs in a row, the first one always seems to sound great, and the fourth one always seems to sound bad. 
We can test for this by varying the order of our test samples the next time we perform the test. )
Or maybe the difference really isn't there...

The problem, which isn;t really a problem, is that there are a lot of maybe's there.....
Claiming that you know everything that matters, after taking a few simple measurements, is an oversimplification.....
(And, yes, sometimes the simplest answer does turn out to be the correct one... but not always... and perhaps not even usually.)



Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I'm interested to know about any PROVABLY (as in blind tested) audible sound quality that isn't also measurable in some way.


----------



## KeithEmo

I am slightly confused about one thing you said....

The W4S DAC2 offers a choice between several filters.... and, as I recall, one was claimed to be the most accurate. However, because a reconstruction filter is required for the DAC to perform properly, there is no option to choose not to use any of them... so you were in fact always using one of the filters.

(Some niche DAC vendors actually do avoid including a filter, at which point the bandwidth limitations of the other analog circuitry act as a sort of informal and ill defined filter, with largely unknown and variable response parameters. However I'm pretty sure that Wyred4Sound didn't offer anything goofy like that on the DAC2 - at least not on the version I owned. )



bfreedma said:


> Thanks for the specifics.
> 
> The inexpensive Turtle Beach cards had problems but I doubt it they were specific to the DAC.  As they were tanking years ago, they released a number of poorly written drivers and used nonstandard interrupts.  They didn’t seem to be too concerned about following Windows standards so they exhibited a number of odd issues.  No argument that they sounded bad.
> 
> Can’t agree with you on the W4S DAC2. I’ve owned one for many years (since the DAC2 was first released) and unless one of the filters was selected, I’ve found it to be neutral as has everyone else who has listened to it.  I’ve run a number of blind tests with it and no one has been able to pick it out from any other DAC it’s been compared to.   I still have it- happy to setup testing for anyone who would like to participate.


----------



## KeithEmo

I think you're missing the point of the claim itself.....

If the "turntable style CD player" fails to clamp the CD tightly, then it will probably vibrate as it spins (surprisingly - many CD transports are not built to very tight tolerances).
And, if the CD vibrates too much, it _could_ cause the LASER to mistrack, which _could_ cause data errors.
And, if there are sufficient uncorrectable data errors, their presence could be audible.
(As someone suggested, if this were the case, I would expect clicks or skips to be the obvious symptom.)
And, IF THIS WERE OCCURRING, a mat or clamp that reduced the vibration _might_ reduce the number of data errors.

For whatever reason, even though a standard CD transport mechanism actually internally "knows" whether uncorrected errors have occurred or not, that information is usually not available.
The manufacturer of the transport mechanism could include an LED which would illuminate to assure you that the data you were receiving was perfect and error free - but they do not.
(I've always though it would be a good feature to include.)

I would personally consider that any CD transport that was susceptible enough to the effect to be a badly flawed design.
(That's one reason why I prefer to RIP CDs on a computer - and part of that process is a final verification to rule out the possibility that any uncorrected read errors have occurred.)
Likewise, standard commercial CD transports have excellent error correction, and so should repair most if not all such errors.
And, as someone already suggested, it should be simple enough to analyze the output data using separate software, and determine if this is happening or not.

However, since so many high-end CD players use custom designs, and even custom electronics, I would not assume that this applies to all current existing models.
(Since many use custom, non-standard components, we cannot rule out the possibility that they have unusual problems, which may be improved by unusual solutions.)
That's why it makes sense to thoroughly test claims like this...
(Or, if you prefer, simply avoid the types of CD transports that are likely to have this sort of problem.)



colonelkernel8 said:


> lol. I don't think you understand how ridiculous this is. Does the laser impart a force on the CD greater than something measured in femtonewtons? I just don't understand why you're here. "Demoing" a product is not the same as testing it. I'd bet every penny I make for the rest of my life that a CD mat does absolutely nothing to the signal in an already functioning CD player. Plus, read errors don't manifest themselves as "less bass" or "too much treble" or god forbid "narrow soundstage", they manifest as skips or pops.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> I am slightly confused about one thing you said....
> 
> The W4S DAC2 offers a choice between several filters.... and, as I recall, one was claimed to be the most accurate. However, because a reconstruction filter is required for the DAC to perform properly, there is no option to choose not to use any of them... so you were in fact always using one of the filters.
> 
> (Some niche DAC vendors actually do avoid including a filter, at which point the bandwidth limitations of the other analog circuitry act as a sort of informal and ill defined filter, with largely unknown and variable response parameters. However I'm pretty sure that Wyred4Sound didn't offer anything goofy like that on the DAC2 - at least not on the version I owned. )




I believe the default settings for bandwidth and IIR are supposed to be the most accurate and those are the settings I use.  You are correct that that does employ a filter - my original post was poorly worded.


----------



## bigshot

My amp has a built in equalizer and tone controls. That doesn't mean the amp isn't clean and flat.


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> Here's a test: get a cheap USB logic analyzer or oscilloscope. Connect SPDIF output of CD player under test to it. Compare output from CD with mat and CD without mat. Determine objectively that the data is completely identical. Change your mind.
> 
> I know, the last part is a stretch.
> 
> The Salae Logic 8 from https://www.saleae.com/ will get you there. The software it runs can save the output from each test as a bin file you can then do a compare of.



Thank you for the link - it may be helpful.

Unfortunately. this test, although perfectly valid, does NOT reflect reality - not in real life.

That's why I said I want to make it better. I did figure it out how, now I will have to learn something I never needed to do up to this date : cut both samples to exactly the same length, with exactly the same beginning and end, and then perform null test. 

I am FAR more interested in analog record playback than I will ever be in digital audio; I have to figure out how to change PCM ( grrr - unfortunately, DSD can not be processed ...) recordings from test records into some meaningful graphs. The biggest problem are ticks an pops, inevitable even in new records. As most measurements of phono equipment are linear ( without the RIAA filter required ), this is even more exaggerated in digital recordings of output from analog test records. There is a reason why the latest software plus proprietary test records cost so much... because the bulk of the work has been to determine best algorithms how to get rid of the ticks and pops while having no or minimal influence on the graph produced. I am interested in working with old non plus ultra test records from the golden age of analog, long out of print and today next to unobtainium, at any cost - simply because they were and continue to remain the best.


----------



## Killcomic

Why is it that every time I come here there’s someone arguing that their invisible friend exists?


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> lol. I don't think you understand how ridiculous this is. Does the laser impart a force on the CD greater than something measured in femtonewtons? I just don't understand why you're here. "Demoing" a product is not the same as testing it. I'd bet every penny I make for the rest of my life that a CD mat does absolutely nothing to the signal in an already functioning CD player. Plus, read errors don't manifest themselves as "less bass" or "too much treble" or god forbid "narrow soundstage", they manifest as skips or pops.



Oops.... - somebody talking theory, without ever recording music ( and by that, I mean REAL music - musicians/room/microphones/some kind of storage ) in real life.

Nope, assuming optical disc playback to be perfect is NOT how it is in real life.  Be nice and re-check the size of the CD pits - and then put any of your beloved CDs with hole on any of your fingers that fit into that hole. Flick the rim of the CD with the fingernail of the other arm - close to your ear. You WILL hear the CD vibrating.... - with amplitude exceeding the pit size. Forcing the laser serve to perpetually search for the focus.

Now repeat the same test - this time with the paper that comes in all/any CD-R media on top of the CD-R stack. You WILL hear much less  of the CD resonance, both in amplitude and in duration - it is over almost instantly and does not ring like CD normally does. That paper of course can not compare to the effect of the mat - where probably the best is graphite, but so thin graphite disk is brittle to the max and most likely anything but durable. Next best thing - carbon fibre mat. While probably not as good as graphite, with reasonable care it will last in normal 1x speed transports such as CD and DVD player for a lifetime. 

Of course, no one is flicking the rim of the CD while playing back - at least not with the magnitude of fingernail. Then again, re-check the size ( depth... ) of the information pits of the CD ... - and then, DVD. It is likely DVD benefits because of this even more than CD. Anything that rotates is bound to vibrate to some extent - no such thing as perfect bearings with zero free play and noise.

CD mat has another advantage - optical. CD-R ( and CD ) media is NOT entirely non permeable for light - just check some different samples looking trough them to a light bulb. Some are at least semi-transparent - and likely to be more or less so, depending on any label printing or graphics - meaning optical conditions are NOT uniform, but are changing according to whatever is on the label. Placing a black carbon fibre mat on top of the label will instantly make this translucence problem ( again, a possible source of forcing laser servo into constant focus correction )  obsolete. For each and every CD in your collection.

Unless you have "turntable  type" CD transport - then no mat is required.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] I'm beginning to suspect that I know a lot more about nuclear fusion than you do....
> [1b] but I'm beginning to lose interest in explaining it ....
> [1c] or in arguing about the semantic details of how violent a fission reaction must be for one or the other of us to classify it as "an explosion". (However, as an example, it clearly is not going to serve our purpose here... )
> 1d. I'm still waiting to see the part that isn't true.



1. and Wikipedia apparently, and not just about nuclear fusion but also flying pigs, 1mW office sound systems, etc.!
1b. If only!
1c. You've already classified it, you keep mentioning Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
1d. Duh, the part where you claim that someone hitting two blocks of plutonium together will cause a nuclear explosion.


KeithEmo said:


> [1] Since you seem so sure that "the level of audibility for jitter is well known" and "modern equipment is all far below it", perhaps you can tell me why so many people seem worried about it....
> [1b] Perhaps they don't agree with YOUR opinion about what level is audible.
> [2] The result [of a J-Test] is interesting - it just isn't telling you those things.... so they go untested.
> [3] I agree, the levels of jitter present on modern equipment are difficult to measure "because they are so low".... However, claiming that this also "proves" that they are inaudible is the circular argument....



1. You're joking right? You mean apart from marketing BS and ignorance of the reliable evidence/science?
1b. Great, then they'll have some reliable evidence that contradicts 45 years worth of reliable evidence/science, let's see it! 

2. Clearly that's a lie. You've been given (and you've quoted from!) a paper where "those things" were actually tested (not using the J-Test). Additionally, there are internationally recognised procedures for measuring jitter and commercially available equipment to carry out those procedures (again, not the j-test). Why would anyone design test equipment to test for something that "goes untested"? This is just ANOTHER rewording of one of your (and audiophilia's) favourite fallacies, YOU don't know (or YOU don't test) and therefore science and no one else does either.

3. It would be a circular argument if I had made that claim but I didn't. Completely misrepresenting what was actually stated and then refuting that misrepresentation is just ANOTHER repeat of one of your fallacious tactics!

It's like a broken record; accused of peddling fallacies, untruths/lies/misrepresentations, your response is to peddle fallacies, untruths/lies/misrepresentations, WHY? Don't you realise that it's ridiculous, insulting to this forum and just confirms the accusation? How does that benefit you or your company's reputation?


KeithEmo said:


> I wouldn't necessarily expect 100 picoseconds of sine wave jitter at 3 kHz and 100 picoseconds of random jitter at 0.1 Hz to be equally audible.


I would necessarily expect 100 pico-secs of jitter at 3kHz and 100 pico-secs of random jitter at 0.1Hz to be equally audible. I "would necessarily expect" this because all the reliable evidence over the last 45 years or so tells us that both are not just inaudible but more than an order of magnitude below audible. So the question is, WHY you "wouldn't necessarily expect" this, what are you basing YOUR expectation on? Is it some/any reliable evidence or is it ignorance/stupid, marketing requirements and/or audiophile "impressions"? As you've never even stated there is any reliable evidence to support your expectation, let alone presented it, that ONLY leaves one or more of other options!!!!


KeithEmo said:


> [1] To me, it makes more sense to approach the question from the direction of: "We've identified a difference, which multiple people claim to hear... let's confirm that it's really there."
> [1a.] "Then, once we've done that, we can proceed to some theories about what's causing it, and some experiments to determine which of those theories might be correct."
> [1b] However, it is not good science [1c] to simply ignore claims made by others because you can't find a theory to explain them.


1. If it "makes more sense" to you then why on Earth don't you do it? Are you saying that you have no "sense" or, is this just more hypocrisy?
1a. Firstly: But you haven't "done that", you haven't confirmed it's "really there" or reliably confirmed that it's audible! Secondly, YOU do NOT then proceed to some "theories", you don't even proceed to some "hypotheses" because even an hypothesis requires some supporting evidence. What YOU actually do is invent some nonsense "possibility" which contradicts the science, with no reliable supporting evidence whatsoever! Lastly, But YOU don't devise some experiments to determine which of those "theories" (nonsense possibilities) might be correct. What YOU actually do is invent some ridiculous analogies and then effectively demand that we/science prove that your nonsense "possibility" is impossible (which of course it can't because science can't prove a negative)!
1b. It's difficult to even imagine anything further from "good science" than what you're doing, it's anti-science. Congrats, a whole new level of hypocrisy!
1c. And, just to top it all off, a lie, you really are going for a royal flush on this one! CLEARLY, we DON'T "simply ignore" claims made by others. We compare those claims with the science/reliable evidence and if those claims contradict the science without any reliable evidence, only then do we ignore them. Furthermore, we CAN find a theory to explain them, in fact a very well documented, tested, demonstrated and well established theory (cognitive bias for example).

Let use one of your own examples to demonstrate the above:

"_For example, the AD1986 ASRC is specified to deliver an output signal whose output is "identical to what it theoretically should be down to about 132 dB" - but they entirely fail to specify what the actual differences may be. So, perhaps those unspecified differences to account for the fact that so many people insist that they hear a difference between when that chip is engaged and when it is bypassed._" - Let's assume the the specified performance is correct. Firstly, have you "confirmed that it's really there"? Have you measured the output of speakers/HPs to confirm they are actually outputting any differences (whatever they may be) at 132dB below peak? OBVIOUSLY you haven't because there are no speaker/HPs capable of that. Have you reliably confirmed it's audible? OBVIOUSLY, you haven't and OBVIOUSLY It would be impossible for something which can't be reproduced to be audible! So, you have NOT fulfilled the conditions that YOU stipulated and you proceed directly to "some theories". Secondly, your "theory" ("perhaps those unspecified differences ...") is not a theory, it's just a "nonsense possibility" that you've invented that contradicts the science/facts because it can't even be reproduced and is therefore effectively impossible!


KeithEmo said:


> [1] It is circular logic to claim that "well, yes, there are all sorts of measurable differences, but you're sure none of them individually or in combination, is audible", and then go back to claiming that the measurements show nothing.
> [2] So, if there is an audible difference.....
> Maybe we haven't measured all of the right things...
> Maybe our measurements aren't accurate enough...
> ...


Rinse and repeat!

1. It would be circular logic if that's what we were claiming but it's not. Therefore, misrepresentation, bla bla bla. I/We actually claim the exact opposite, the measurements DO in fact show something. Firstly, they will almost always show differences and sometimes they will show that those differences are below or even way, way below audibility!

2. Again, as YOU yourself stipulated, have you reliably "confirmed it's really there", is it really audible? And what do you do next? Go straight to a bunch of nonsense possibilities which contradict science/the facts. And, you didn't even invent them yourself, you're just repeating a bunch of the same old nonsense that the audiophile world has been peddling for decades!

Not TESTING audiophile claims and myths, just rewording and repeating them endlessly with NO testing or reliable evidence whatsoever. Round and round we go, when the audiophile BS will stop nobody knows (although all the indications are "never")!!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

You are absolutely correct.... it is extremely unlikely that a CD will ever play without some errors (probably many errors).
In fact, CD-R and DVD-R media is assumed to have errors, and the quality rating for it specifies the acceptable number of errors-per-second (BER) - among other things.
(Compared to CDs, DVDs have smaller pits, narrower tracks, higher allowable error rates, and even more robust error correction.)

HOWEVER, CDs also have a rather robust error _correction_ mechanism.
A significant amount of extra redundant information is stored on the disc (somewhere around 10% extra for a CD.)
Then, when the CD is played, the data is tested; and, if errors are detected, the extra information is used to correct the errors.
The first two levels of this error correction allow for_ perfect_ correction of the data... and these are referred to as _correctable errors_.
As long as the total amount and number of errors fall below this limit, once the data passes through the error correction algorithms, the errors no longer exist.
(There are no approximations involved... the data that is output is actually 100% perfect.)
(According to the standard, a single gap of up to 2 mm in a single track should be correctable... or a relatively large number of smaller errors... depending on their locations on the disc in relation to each other.)
This error correction is standard for normal Red Book CD readers - so all commercial CD transports, including low cost ones, are supposed to include it.
(Of course, it is possible that some custom designs might omit it, or fail to implement it correctly.)

Then, if and only if the amount of missing data, or the number of errors, exceed the amount which can be corrected, interpolation is used to simply "fill in the gap".
(At this point, we are replacing missing information with guesses, which may well be audible as ticks and pops, or may be audible in other ways as a degradation of the sound.)
For whatever reason, while it is easy to verify perfect data when using a computer player, audio CD players almost never report their error correction status....
(If this information was reported your CD player could include a "perfect data" LED to assure you that no uncorrectable errors had occurred or a "warning" LED to tell you that interpolation type error correction had been required.)

ASSUMING THE ERROR CORRECTION MECHANISM IS PRESENT AND WORKING PROPERLY, missing or misread pits don't matter unless they exceed the maximum number that can be successfully corrected.

Of course, there are several possible exceptions to this:
- The error correction mechanism may NOT be properly implemented on a given CD player.
- It's possible that enough vibration could cause so many data errors that they exceed the maximum number that can be corrected.
- It's possible that vibration could cause more errors to occur when reading a disc that is already dirty or damaged (thus rendering a "borderline" disc as "unreadable".).
- It's possible that, IN A CERTAIN SPECIFIC PLAYER, operation of the error correction mechanism itself could cause other issues.
  (For example, it's _possible_ that, if correcting a large number of errors were to consume too much processing power, the EC processor could lose data, or deliver its output data with excessive jitter, or experience some other unforeseen problem.)

As I mentioned above, assuming everything is working as it should, then none of these issues should occur....
(But, then, that is probably not a safe assumption.)
(In the old days, many reviewers included a standard test, to confirm how well the error correction in a given transport actually worked.)

One thing that many people don't realize is that, while audio CDs can play with flaws and interpolated errors....
On a CD-R or DVD-R used for computer data - even a single bad bit which cannot be corrected perfectly will cause an unrecoverable error.
(So the maximum number of uncorrected errors that can be tolerated on a data disc is zero.)



analogsurviver said:


> Oops.... - somebody talking theory, without ever recording music ( and by that, I mean REAL music - musicians/room/microphones/some kind of storage ) in real life.
> 
> Nope, assuming optical disc playback to be perfect is NOT how it is in real life.  Be nice and re-check the size of the CD pits - and then put any of your beloved CDs with hole on any of your fingers that fit into that hole. Flick the rim of the CD with the fingernail of the other arm - close to your ear. You WILL hear the CD vibrating.... - with amplitude exceeding the pit size. Forcing the laser serve to perpetually search for the focus.
> 
> ...


----------



## analogsurviver

KeithEmo said:


> You are absolutely correct.... it is extremely unlikely that a CD will ever play without some errors (probably many errors).
> In fact, CD-R and DVD-R media is assumed to have errors, and the quality rating for it specifies the acceptable number of errors-per-second (BER) - among other things.
> (Compared to CDs, DVDs have smaller pits, narrower tracks, higher allowable error rates, and even more robust error correction.)
> 
> ...



I should have be more exact in my post - what is actually meant to showcase the benefits of CDmat is RECORDING LIVE MUSIC - directly to CD-R or CD-RW disc.

Here, most of the error correction measures are reduced to the bare minimum - of course, the machine can not buffer in its memory something that has not even happened yet, etc... There is no computer software that can measure data errors in this case - or, at least, not something that has been available and affordable say 15 years ago.

Optical reading/recording is nowhere as "perfect" as some would like lead you to believe. It was a revelation to have find the last few gold CD-Rs from BASF on the shelf in a mall I used to briefly work at - less than 10 pcs, used up in 2 or maybe 3 recording sessions. Then, searching for yet more gold CD-Rs, it turned out that they were, about a decade ago, a dissapearing breed - cost for so called archival media has simply been to much for normal users. There was no denying gold CDs sound better than normal variety - but becoming unavailable - FAST. I have been searching for any "replacement" - archival or anything that might offer similar quality and longeivity. And found I did... - luckily, promo sale of then brand new CD-Rs were also compatible with Philips/Marantz CD-R ( pro ) recorders - which are otherwise quite picky beasts when it comes to media. That hunch/gamble paid off greatly - but it could have also backfired badly; one does not, at least not usually, buy at unseen/unheard/untested - 1000 CD-Rs in a single batch ( 10 boxes with 100 CD-Rs each ). These offered an unmistakable improvement in the sound quality obtainable from CD-R/RW recorders.

As with everything that is overachiever ( offers way too much vs asking price ), this product has been rather quickly terminated - but is, at least to my knowledge, the best CD-R, exceeding even gold variety. The claim was for archival use ( > 100 years ), so far I could not find any problems with by now over a decade old discs - already recorded or still blank.

And then came the CD mat. Again, offering improvement in CD-R/RW recording. Both the mentioned disks and mat have also been used for CD-R burning by computer - with the reservation no spinning above about 4x normal playback of the burner drive takes place - ever. 

But, usually, I burn my CD-Rs with SLOWER speed than 1x - Yamaha's AMQR (Audio Master Quality Recording) https://usa.yamaha.com/files/download/brochure/1/320331/CDR-HD1300_U_bro.pdf .  
Compared to normal CD-R burning , which allows 80 minute of audio on 700MB disk, AMQR only allows slightly above 63 minutes of audio. Burning 63 minutes of audio takes at "1x" speed slightly below 90 min - IIRC. It has been a while since I last burned a CD-R ...

It has been first available in computer burners - CRW-F1, both in-built and standalone USB version (which has quite good sounding analog RCA out ! ). To this day, these drives will sparkle bidding wars on ebay... particularly the NOS samples. 
Properly done AMQR recorded disc will outplay any commercially available CD, even if it has been derived from it (preferably ripped and data verified ) - couple that to both ripping and recording done using CD mat, and it is sure to put smile on your face and raised eyebrows on anyone who has not heard CD in this quality before.

As you can see, standard CD DOES have problems with jitter - at its very source, the disc itself. And that could be far worse a problem than the jitter in the DACs. I know most listen today to RBCD from the CDs ripped to hard drive, that CD players are dying bred, etc. 

But the need for stabilization of optical discs in SACD players is still very much there - unless you are willing to fiddle with SACD ripping, which most definitely WILL turn you into an - ebay hawk. The number of old(er) models of Sony Playstation ( before they ripped almost everything supporting SACD out... ) that are indispensable for (unofficial, of course ) ripping of SACDs at home level, available for sale, is ever dwindling - which drives the cost of remaining NOS units ever higher.


----------



## KeithEmo

For anyone interested in _RIPPING SACDs_......

You are quite correct.... until recently about the only way to RIP SACDs was to modify and hack a PlayStation or actually modify one of a few other SACD players.
_HOWEVER_, the Oppo 103/105 can also be used to RIP SACDs (that's the last model _before_ the most recent 4k 203/205 version).
Even better, it can be done by booting from special firmware on a USB stick (so you don't have to permanently modify the player).
I've also read that the same method works with one or two other models that use the same chip-set as the Oppo (maybe one or two recent Pioneer models???)

I've never done this.. and I personally have little interest in ripping SACDs.
However, it has been widely reported to work, and seems relatively simple.
You have to make up a special USB stick and boot the Oppo with it...
You then Telnet into the Oppo from any convenient computer and simply issue an instruction to RIP the disc and save the SACD ISO file.
If you Google it, you can find both the instructions, and the free software you need to make it work.
(The nice part is that it makes no permanent modification to the hardware or firmware on the Oppo itself.) 

BTW.....

Jitter present on the clock when the original A/D conversion takes place will add permanent distortion to the resulting digital audio data...
(The data itself is affected by both the analog input, the accuracy of the conversion, and the timing accuracy with which the conversion is clocked.)
And jitter present in the data coming off the disc, or while the data is being transmit, can cause mis-reads and data errors at those points...
However, since jitter is a characteristic of the clock, and not the data itself, as long as the data itself is error-free, you can always eliminate jitter simply by re-clocking the data.
(The clock is only used to _move_ data or convert between formats.... and a bad clock can cause data errors.... but the clock itself is not stored with the data. )

Many of the early CD recorders seemed to have various issues with their A/D conversions... and were prone to data dropouts and similar problems.
I had one of the early Marantz "pro" models.
It was very fussy about what type of blanks to use, and often produced flawed or unreadable discs, even if you were careful.
In the early days of separate "audio CD recorders".... , many "consumer" recorders were also restricted to using only "audio" CD-R blanks".
(This was the result of some sort of agreement between the recording industry and the manufacturers of audio CD recorders.)
Certain CD-R blanks were tagged as "audio" CD-R blanks after a royalty was paid to the music industry (they were actually marked as "audio" CD-Rs on the package.)
While a computer would write on any CD-R, "home CD audio recorders" would actually verify the disc, and would only record on CD-R blanks marked for "audio".
(When discs cost several dollars each there was about a 50 cent premium for "audio CD-Rs".)
However, more expensive "professional recorders" had no such restrictions, and would record on any type of CD-R.
In addition to this, many early recorders would only work with certain types of surface dyes (the different colored CDs use different sorts of dyes).
(My Marantz "professional" model worked with the older green 1x discs.... but would not work with the newer silvery ones or the blue dye on Verbatim brand discs.)



analogsurviver said:


> I should have be more exact in my post - what is actually meant to showcase the benefits of CDmat is RECORDING LIVE MUSIC - directly to CD-R or CD-RW disc.
> 
> Here, most of the error correction measures are reduced to the bare minimum - of course, the machine can not buffer in its memory something that has not even happened yet, etc... There is no computer software that can measure data errors in this case - or, at least, not something that has been available and affordable say 15 years ago.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Killcomic said:


> Why is it that every time I come here there’s someone arguing that their invisible friend exists?



The new one is reality doesn't exist.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> Thank you for the link - it may be helpful.
> 
> Unfortunately. this test, although perfectly valid, does NOT reflect reality - not in real life.
> 
> ...



This test does reflect reality. It is a measurement of reality. You're delusional to the point of no longer mattering.

Do we need a new forum titled: "Sound Pseudoscience" where cranks like analogsurvivor can go and live and talk about junk like CD mats and mass-dampened cables.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Sep 10, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> I should have be more exact in my post - what is actually meant to showcase the benefits of CDmat is RECORDING LIVE MUSIC - directly to CD-R or CD-RW disc.
> 
> Here, most of the error correction measures are reduced to the bare minimum - of course, the machine can not buffer in its memory something that has not even happened yet, etc... There is no computer software that can measure data errors in this case - or, at least, not something that has been available and affordable say 15 years ago.
> 
> ...



What kind of fool would record direct to disc? If the recorded data is in the digital domain, this serves NO purpose. It can be buffered in memory and the burned to the disc at its leisure with tons of error checks along the way. Recording directly to disc is the definition of audiophool nonsense.

"There was no denying gold CDs sound better than normal variety." The very definition of bull.

"These offered an unmistakable improvement in the sound quality obtainable from CD-R/RW recorders." bull.

"And then came the CD mat. Again, offering improvement in CD-R/RW recording." bull.

"Properly done AMQR recorded disc will outplay any commercially available CD." bull.

"and it is sure to put smile on your face and raised eyebrows on anyone who has not heard CD in this quality before." Purely subjective bull.

"As you can see, standard CD DOES have problems with jitter." bull.

"But the need for stabilization of optical discs in SACD players is still very much there." bull.

"unless you are willing to fiddle with SACD ripping, which most definitely WILL turn you into an - ebay hawk." I found a Pioneer Blu-Ray/SACD player on eBay for $50 and I can run a script on it that lets me rip the SACDs. It's really, really easy and cheap. I've ripped some symphonic music using it that I had on the mostly useless DSD format. But I've already ripped my last SACD, so I'll tell you what, if you want my Pioneer Blu-Ray/SACD player, I'll sell it to you for $1000. How about that!

It seems you can't help but make ridiculous assertions without evidence, so I will employ Hitchen's razor and suggest everything stated thus far can simply be discarded.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Sep 10, 2019)

analogsurviver said:


> Oops.... - somebody talking theory, without ever recording music ( and by that, I mean REAL music - musicians/room/microphones/some kind of storage ) in real life.
> 
> Nope, assuming optical disc playback to be perfect is NOT how it is in real life.  Be nice and re-check the size of the CD pits - and then put any of your beloved CDs with hole on any of your fingers that fit into that hole. Flick the rim of the CD with the fingernail of the other arm - close to your ear. You WILL hear the CD vibrating.... - with amplitude exceeding the pit size. Forcing the laser serve to perpetually search for the focus.
> 
> ...



Oops, somebody spewing bull pseudoscience, without ever getting a degree in engineering or even having a remote understanding of physics (or even a provable connection to reality).

Something both you and Keith fail to understand is that disc read errors manifest as clicks and pops, not as frequency domain amplitude shifts or flowery, abstract concepts such as "clarity" or "smearing". Time domain shifts from jitter in recording to disc are the definition of immaterial. First, the data is pushed into essentially a shift register 16 bits at a time before the DAC is able to convert it, so minor bit-to-bit jitter literally doesn't matter as the data is being reclocked at 44.1 kHz at output.

I'll say it again, I'll bet every penny I make for the rest of my life that a CD in a functioning CD player will output the same data with or without the mat.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 10, 2019)

I think it’s not something he can help. Engaging with him just makes it worse. He’s just talking to himself anyway. He doesn’t hear anything you say, except as an excuse to launch into another of his routines. No need to reply to him.

The other one is just hungry for attention. Again, not engaging directly is the best. Don’t quote. If you reply, address the rest of the group, not them directly.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> I think it’s not something he can help. Engaging with him just makes it worse. He’s just talking to himself anyway. He doesn’t hear anything you say, except as an excuse to launch into another of his routines. No need to reply to him.
> 
> The other one is just hungry for attention. Again, not engaging directly is the best. Don’t quote. If you reply, address the rest of the group, not them directly.



I know it. It's the same kind of repulsion and anger I get when arguing with people who believe the Earth is flat or that vaccinations are bad. I can't help myself at times.


----------



## bigshot

I don't think it's the same kind of thing. This isn't just crackpot opinions. I think this is behavior patterns they just can't help. And people on the internet aren't going to be able to help them change for the better, so there's no use trying.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> I don't think it's the same kind of thing. This isn't just crackpot opinions. I think this is behavior patterns they just can't help. And people on the internet aren't going to be able to help them change for the better, so there's no use trying.


I think you'll find that there is certainly a pathology to people who carry crackpot opinions, and it's similar to our friend here.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Lol.  When they were conversing with each other earlier today i was thinking it was like listening to a 9/11 truther and a flat-earther talking about Bigfoot.


----------



## old tech

Interesting article published by the AES.  By the late 1970s, all the major producers of direct to disc recordings (eg Decca, Telarc) had agreed that digital recordings were an improvement over analog tape and a significant improvement over direct to disc.  Probably explains why direct to disc recordings died out by the time CDs were introduced to the market place.

http://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf


----------



## bigshot

I remember reading an article in one of the hifi magazines at the time by Lincoln Mayorga and Doug Sax admitting that their previous article with the infamous stair step diagram was wrong. They opened up a CD line shortly after. They master their CDs from the tape backups they ran during the original direct to disc sessions. They only use needle drop masters when no tape master exists. They completely backtracked. The records sound great though.


----------



## analogsurviver

old tech said:


> Interesting article published by the AES.  By the late 1970s, all the major producers of direct to disc recordings (eg Decca, Telarc) had agreed that digital recordings were an improvement over analog tape and a significant improvement over direct to disc.  Probably explains why direct to disc recordings died out by the time CDs were introduced to the market place.
> 
> http://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf



Great link and few of inside stories I have not been familiar with.

I am not sure Decca ever did any direct to disk recording in "modern age" - only prior to introduction of analog magnetic tape. 

Telarc's first recording has been a direct to disk - Cleveland orchestra IIRC .
https://www.discogs.com/Lorin-MaazelCleveland-Orchestra-Direct-From-Cleveland/release/4552685

Both firms were among the first adopters of the digital recording - and competitors, rather fierce I might add. Decca had its own digital recorder, Telarc went with the Soundstream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundstream device. 

One of the best DECCA digital recordings - if not THE best - is 
https://www.discogs.com/Vienna-Phil...eujahrskonzert-In-Wien-Concert-/master/381877
And to this day, the original LP ( I will check the exact pressing I own - it has been the first pressing possible to buy in neighbouring Italy, most likely the first UK pressing ) - if played back on a superb record player - eclipses any of the DECCA digital releases I had the privilege to hear. Particularly listen to both polka and encore of the "Auf der Jagd" - where improvements in both dynamic range and bass extension over analog tape are clearly audible. You have to use a cartridge that can play back at least 90um amplitude at 300 Hz to do this recording justice - this rules out most of the MC cartridges on the market. DECCA never did any modern day direct to disk recording, let alone remote direct to disk recording ( lathe has some 300 kg, has to be in place at least a day before, etc - $$$$ ) - but that concert could have been even better captured in direct to disk way; only, it would not have been a double, but quadruple LP album. Of course, they chose not to shoot themselves in the foot - the aim of this recording has been to usher and promote the dawn of digital.

Both DECCA and Telarc choose the easy way out; admittedly, the demands and rigors of direct to disk recordings exceeds the capabilities of most musicians - much more so today then back in around 1980, when "digital photoshop" has not been even remotely as developed, widespread and entrenched as it is today. Today, any musician mistake is later in digital post production erased/repaired/whateveryouwannacallit. There is NO such "safety net" in direct to disk recording - everything gets recorded exactly as happened, no after the fact corrections are possible. And here lies the reason why both companies went digital - NOT the sound quality per se.

Soundstream recordings, in particular, have a rather nasty high frequency end - although improved upon the prototype ( see link above), it was still not enough for those listening to either live or analog recorded and reproduced music. Ii is true that Telarc produced great recordings as far as bass is concerned ( if you write a triangle concerto, Telarc will turn it into bass drum concerto ...- my remark back in the day) - but the other extreme left much to be desired.

The only limitation direct to disk really has is limited amount of time that can be put on the disk (depending on dynamic range/bass, it can be max approx 20 min per side - usually less ). Hence, in real world, that could well mean a single movement of a symphony per side - necessitating double the number of records compared to normally ( either analog tape or digital master ) recorded records. That, and by necessity limited amount of copies that can be made of any direct to disk recording, inevitably drives the cost of such releases up - to a level most consumers are no longer capable or willing to pay for.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> I remember reading an article in one of the hifi magazines at the time by Lincoln Mayorga and Doug Sax admitting that their previous article with the infamous stair step diagram was wrong. They opened up a CD line shortly after. They master their CDs from the tape backups they ran during the original direct to disc sessions. They only use needle drop masters when no tape master exists. They completely backtracked. The records sound great though.



Yep!...the *Record* sounded great;  the *Musicians* -- not so much!  

thinking mostly of the Lincoln Mayorga stuff but other ones come to mind as well -- Thelma Houston...UGH!


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> I know it. It's the same kind of repulsion and anger I get when arguing with people who believe the Earth is flat or that vaccinations are bad. I can't help myself at times.



Earth is not flat. 

But, at least some, vaccinations HAVE been proven to be bad. Ask somebody who formed a company and called it after his d**k - why he and his foundation has been recently kicked out of India. Or what "his" vaccine has actually been for - a couple of years ago in certain parts of Africa.

Those are the cases when I really get mad and repulsive !!!


----------



## analogsurviver

colonelkernel8 said:


> Oops, somebody spewing bull**** pseudoscience, without ever getting a degree in engineering or even having a remote understanding of physics (or even a provable connection to reality).
> 
> Something both you and Keith fail to understand is that disc read errors manifest as clicks and pops, not as frequency domain amplitude shifts or flowery, abstract concepts such as "clarity" or "smearing". Time domain shifts from jitter in recording to disc are the definition of immaterial. First, the data is pushed into essentially a shift register 16 bits at a time before the DAC is able to convert it, so minor bit-to-bit jitter literally doesn't matter as the data is being reclocked at 44.1 kHz at output.
> 
> I'll say it again, I'll bet every penny I make for the rest of my life that a CD in a functioning CD player will output the same data with or without the mat.


Something you fail to understand is the fact that NOTHING is understood in full extent. And things do start slipping downhill before, as in CD case, there is an audible click or skipping. You are either working with the best equipment ever made - or so poor a system that can not reveal anything but the most basic information.

You would have died pennyless.


----------



## gregorio

colonelkernel8 said:


> What kind of fool would record direct to disc?



An amateur, which analogsurviver has proved time and again that he is!



analogsurviver said:


> Something you fail to understand is the fact that NOTHING is understood in full extent.



How many times and in how many different ways are we going to get this fallacy repeated? "Science doesn't know everything" - and therefore I can make-up any old nonsense and claim it's true!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

You are partially correct..... but you have made an over-generalized claim.

A CORRECTIBLE error, once corrected, is simply no longer an error.... so it will not be audible at all (because it is simply no longer there).
However, an UNCORRECTIBLE error, or a series of uncorrectible errors, which are filled in by interpolation, may be audible as a tick or pop, or as a skip, or as increased distortion of some sort.
(This is moot in "a properly functioning CD player" - because there will be no uncorrectible errors.)

USUALLY, on CD players with analog outputs, interpolation is only applied to data on its way to the analog outputs, on the copy of the data being sent to the DAC, and is NOT applied to data sent to the digital output.

So, USUALLY, if you were to play discs with progressively larger numbers of uncorrectible errors.....
- If you're listening to the analog outputs of an audio CD player, interpolation correction of a few minor errors may in fact be inaudible, so you may initially hear nothing. 
   Then as the number and size of the errors increase, they will progress from barely audible distortion, to occasional ticks and pops, to solid skips, and finally to a fault when the drive is no longer able to track the disc.
- If you have the DIGITAL output of that CD player connected to a DAC, all of the uncorrectble errors will be output to the DAC (becaus interpolation is not applied to the digital output).
   In that situation, what you hear will depend on how the particular DAC you're using handles flawed or corrupted data.
   Some DACs may tolerate it without major errors; others will have an audible dropout while they resynchronize to the data stream; and some may simply stop working with an error message.
- Note that, on MOST computer drives, and with MOST computer software, even a single uncorrectible error will cause the player to stop entirely, and report a "bad disc". 
   (Most computer programs are designed to handle both audio and digital data discs - and are configured not to tolerate even a single uncorrectoble error in the data.) 
   (It actually requires specialized software if you want a data drive to make multiple attempts to read flawed data - or to continue reading once an error has been encountered.)

NOTE that everything I said applies to standard designs that follow the Red Book CD standard... and more or less standard design practices.
In the past there have been cases of custom-designed audio CD transports, with their own custom-written software, that did not follow the standards...
In at least one of those cases, the designer wrote his own software, which neglected to apply the standard error correction, and resulted in excessive correctible (but uncorrected) errors...
And, in one or two others, the designer wrote software that _intentionally_ altered the data in an _attempt_ to improve it...
(There was one where the designer replaced the complex but perfectly effective error-correction algorithms specified by the standard with simpler ones which he insisted "sounded better".... )

This complexity is one of the reasons why many of us prefer to record and play back music directly from digital files.
(With digital files, it is relatively simple to use checksums and cryptographic signatures to ensure that the data remains perfect and unaltered, and so avoid any ambiguity about errors and error correction.)



colonelkernel8 said:


> lol. I don't think you understand how ridiculous this is. Does the laser impart a force on the CD greater than something measured in femtonewtons? I just don't understand why you're here. "Demoing" a product is not the same as testing it. I'd bet every penny I make for the rest of my life that a CD mat does absolutely nothing to the signal in an already functioning CD player. Plus, read errors don't manifest themselves as "less bass" or "too much treble" or god forbid "narrow soundstage", they manifest as skips or pops.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 11, 2019)

gregorio said:


> How many times and in how many different ways are we going to get this fallacy repeated? "Science doesn't know everything" - and therefore I can make-up any old nonsense and claim it's true!



That is a variant on "We can't know anything because we don't know everything."

I use a DVD burner to read CDs and DVDs. It rips and burns them at high speed. I do checksums and have verify turned on. I've never had any problems.

There are few things in this world that are as foolproof and free of error as CD players. I wish my knees were that dependable.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> [1] That is a variant on "We can't know anything because we don't know everything."
> [2] I use a DVD burner to read CDs and DVDs. It rips and burns them at high speed. I do checksums and have verify turned on. I've never had any problems. There are few things in this world that are as foolproof and free of error as CD players.



1. Exactly and how many times have we seen that (or a variant on it) in this thread, other threads and audiophilia in general, for decades? And because "we can't know anything", we can therefore make-up "anything" as an audible fault/weakness and then sell audiophiles some snake oil to fix it or just state it can't be fixed and therefore vinyl/cassette/wax cylinders/two tin cans and a bit of string are better. Furthermore, we can support these assertions with made-up analogies, anecdotes, outright lies and self contradiction which proves they must be true, while poor old science can't absolutely prove anything, case closed!

2. Reed-Soloman error correction was remarkably efficient even on those rare occasions when there were any errors. Errors which did slip through all the nets were incredibly rare and the result of serious abuse or even more rarely, a faulty product. 

Here's a great example of self-contradiction:


analogsurviver said:


> much more so today then back in around 1980, when "digital photoshop" has not been even remotely as developed, widespread and entrenched as it is today. Today, any musician mistake is later in digital post production erased/repaired/whateveryouwannacallit. There is NO such "safety net" in direct to disk recording - everything gets recorded exactly as happened, no after the fact corrections are possible. And here lies the reason why both companies went digital - NOT the sound quality per se.



So the reason why both companies went digital in the late '70's/early 80's was not because of sound quality but because of "digital photoshop" which hadn't been developed at that time (and wouldn't be for a decade or more)! 

G


----------



## Mark74

KeithEmo said:


> ...
> A CORRECTIBLE error, once corrected, is simply no longer an error.... so it will not be audible at all (because it is simply no longer there).
> However, an UNCORRECTIBLE error, or a series of uncorrectible errors, which are filled in by interpolation, may be audible as a tick or pop, or as a skip, or as increased distortion of some sort.
> (This is moot in "a properly functioning CD player" - because there will be no uncorrectible errors.)
> ...



Found this a very worthwhile read - thanks for posting it.


----------



## bigshot

The OP is still doing its job well.


----------



## 71 dB

I have never heard distortion caused by a CD player interpolating errors it can't fix. The problem I have with some CDs I have bought used cheap is that my player can't play "through" the damaged parts of the dics and gets stuck where the serious errors are. When this happens I try the toothpaste trick. Sometimes it fixes the problem if the damage on the disc isn't too bad, sometimes it doesn't in which case I ask for a refund for the faulty disc and try to buy another functioning copy of it.

So, there's three degrees of CD data errors:

1 - correctable errors
2 - uncorrectable errors that do not make the damaged section of the disc unplayable
3 - uncorrectable errors that do make the damaged section of the disc unplayable

Of these only number 3 is a problem for me and if I am lucky the toothpaste trick solves the problem.


----------



## KeithEmo

For most people, it is uncommon for this to happen, and you may never experience it.
However, whether it is likely to occur depends on the particular disc player you have, and on how you treat your discs,

Data is stored on a CD in the form of a track comprised of alternating spots that are shiny and not-so-shiny. 
As the disc spins a LASER beam follows the track, and reads it as an alternating series of ones and zeros.
(The exact mechanisms involved are quite elegant... and quite complicated... and there are actually a few different ways of doing it... but the results are the same.)
The track itself, and the spots that store the data, are both tiny (their size is expressed in millionths of an inch.)
And, unlike a vinyl album, where a needle actually rides in a groove, the tracking is accomplished optically (the reader actually "follows the line").

The error correction mechanisms used in CD players operate by detecting and correcting gaps or errors in the data.
The data is verified mathematically - using a sophisticated variation of a checksum - so a gap is treated the same as a sequential string of incorrect numbers.
(Also note that data is read and tested in blocks... so, for a given block of 1024 numbers, that block is either "good" or "bad", and there is no qualitative determination of "how bad is it".)
However, it's not nearly as simple as storing duplicate copies of the data (for example printing each page of a book twice).
The duplicate data is spread out across the surface of the disc in a very particular way - designed to optimize the chances of being able to correct errors while using the least space for extra data.
(So, hopefully, if a scratch destroys some data, the extra data you need to correct it will be somewhere else, and will not also be destroyed by that same scratch.) 

As you've noticed, if you have a spot that is damaged so badly that the drive simply "loses its place", then the disc simply stops playing.
This is one of the standard hardware specifications for drive mechanisms... and there are special test discs, with increasingly large gaps on them, for testing how large a gap a specific drive can read past.
Reviews of disc players used to often include the results of this test... but, since most modern drives are pretty good, and most people handle their discs reasonably well, you don't see it much any more.
However, if you really abuse your CDs, you will find that some drives do far better than others with damaged discs.
(All of the discussion about error correction assumes that the drive has been able to continue to read the disc.)

Whether you ever encounter an interpolated error will depend on whether your drive is capable of reading past bigger flaws than the first two levels of error correction can fix.
(If you have a drive that is especially good at mechanically reading past bad spots you are more likely to encounter significantly serious, and even uncorrectable, data errors.)

The other relevant issue is that the ability to correct errors depends on the size of each error, the total number of errors, and the relative locations of the errors present.
(The system has been carefully designed to give you the best chance of fixing the sort of errors that are likely to occur on consumer audio discs due to physical abuse.)

In theory.....
- A single gap in a track up to 2.5 mm in length can be corrected perfectly (assuming the drive doesn't lose its spot).
- A single gap longer than 2.5mm will require interpolated correction (which is a nice way of saying that you get a patched-over gap that contains incorrect information).
- The damage caused by a single scratch, even a deep one, that runs radially (from center to edge) is usually correctable
- The damage caused by a single scratch that runs circumferentially , and may cause damage over a significant length in a single track, is often NOT correctable
(This is why we are always instructed to clean discs by rubbing from center to edge....so that any scratches we may cause are radial).
- The damage caused by a large number of small scratches can add up to a situation that causes uncorrectable errors
(If you cause enough damage, in enough different spots, you increase the chance that the data you need to correct one error will be the victim of another error.)
(This is why a disc that looks like it's been hit with sandpaper is more likely to be unreadable than a disc with a few isolated scratches.)

Also remember that the LASER used to read CDs is a specific color, and focuses slightly below the surface of the plastic, which allows some types of physical surface damage to be largely ignored. 
And, yes, if you have a disc that is sufficiently damaged, and in the correct way, you may well end up with a disc that can still be played, but will have multiple uncorrectable errors.
And, if you do, you may hear ticks and pops... or, if the individual errors are short, you may not hear the individual gaps as ticks, but they may be audible as distortion.
(A series of short ticks or gaps may not be audible as separate ticks... and will simply sound like distortion or noise.)

However, if you treat your discs well, this is a rare occurrence.

Out of many hundreds of discs I've ripped....
Which amounts to several thousand tracks....
I've encountered only a total of three or four uncorrectable errors that didn't disappear if I cleaned the disc....
(These are discs that "played through to the end with reported errors on one track".)
(One of those was a flaw in the pressing master which was present in the same spot on multiple copies of the same CD....)
(I don't know if those errors would have resulted in ticks or audible distortion since I wasn't playing the discs on an audio drive which had interpolation.)
(I use dBPowerAmp for ripping CDs... and it actually uses checksums, compared to an online database, to verify the accuracy of each track it rips, as do many other modern ripping programs.)



71 dB said:


> I have never heard distortion caused by a CD player interpolating errors it can't fix. The problem I have with some CDs I have bought used cheap is that my player can't play "through" the damaged parts of the dics and gets stuck where the serious errors are. When this happens I try the toothpaste trick. Sometimes it fixes the problem if the damage on the disc isn't too bad, sometimes it doesn't in which case I ask for a refund for the faulty disc and try to buy another functioning copy of it.
> 
> So, there's three degrees of CD data errors:
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

Damaged sections of CDs will either skip and click or not play at all. If a disc plays through without obvious artifacts, it is a safe bet that you are getting the correct sound. If you're ripping, just turn on verification. It certainly isn't something to lose sleep over or belabor with lots of paragraphs of discussion. As a format, CDs are remarkably dependable. The only real problem is if they get scratched. Blu-rays are considerably more scratch resistant.


----------



## KeithEmo

That is_ INCORRECT_... interpolation (otherwise known as error _concealment_) always results in artifacts, simply because it does not deliver the correct data, but those artifacts may or may not be obvious or audible. 

A section of a CD that is too badly damaged for the drive to track will either skip or not play at all.
A section with correctable errors will deliver perfect data after those errors are corrected.

And, if you're ripping that disc using a computer, and you use some form of active verification, any track with uncorrectable errors will be rejected or flagged.
(Therefore, if you're ripping your CDs, and you use a program that supports verification, then you needn't worry about this, which is an excellent reason to rip CDs.)

However, if you're using a separate "audio CD player".....
And it encounters uncorrectable errors....
It will then do its best to patch over the errors using interpolation and then proceed to deliver incorrect data to its internal DACs....
Details are scarce - but different drives are claimed to use different methods of error concealment - with some claiming to be better than others.
(This means that, while perfect data is perfect, and data with correctable errors is perfect after the errors are corrected, exactly what is done to conceal uncorrectable errors CAN NOT be assumed to always be the same.)

Again, this is moot if you succeed in simply avoiding uncorrectable errors.....
HOWEVER, if you do have uncorrectable errors, and interpolation is required, then how well interpolation succeeds in hiding the error will depend on several things:
- the number and duration of the errors
- the exact content that's playing when they occur
- exactly how well the interpolation on that particular device works
- the details of how the DAC in the particular device handles errors (some DACs will "lose synch" and deliver a loud pop; others will simply mute, which may be barely audible)

This all happens because, unlike data CD drives, audio CD players place a higher priority on "playing the disc through" rather than on  "delivering either perfect data or none at all".
Interpolation is a compromise intended to allow a player to "play a disc imperfectly rather than not at all".
This is not a quirk, or something unusual; it is the intent of the Red Book standard.

And, yes, _IF YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO KNOW HOW IT WORKS_, it rates an entire chapter in a book.

And, yes, if someone cared enough, they could actually test how well different drives conceal uncorrectable errors....
(but it seems easier to simply suggest that discs with uncorrectable errors should be discarded and replaced).



bigshot said:


> Damaged sections of CDs will either skip and click or not play at all. If a disc plays through without obvious artifacts, it is a safe bet that you are getting the correct sound. If you're ripping, just turn on verification. It certainly isn't something to lose sleep over or belabor with lots of paragraphs of discussion. As a format, CDs are remarkably dependable. The only real problem is if they get scratched. Blu-rays are considerably more scratch resistant.


----------



## 71 dB

I do treat my discs very well, thank you.  

It's the used CDs I buy to save money or to get my hands on hard to find OOP discs I have problems with sometimes, because the _prior owners_ of those discs DIDN'T know how to handle optical media! *I do.*


----------



## bigshot (Sep 19, 2019)

Meguire's Plastic Polish will fix any scratch that hasn't deformed the mylar playing surface underneath. It works wonders. toothpaste is slow, but it works.

Errors aren't a very serious problem with CDs. They are designed to be played and they do a very good job of it. No need to obsess over it. In fact, beat up old players that have fallen out of alignment probably cause more errors than CDs that have received normal care. Honestly, I don't know why people even waste energy discussing it, because anyone who owns a CD player and uses it regularly knows that most of the time they either play well or they don't play at all.


----------



## analogsurviver

First of all, I would like to thank @KeithEmo for the comprehensive covering of the subject. I knew it was not easy or even "perfect" ( FAR from it... ), but did not expect it to be that complex and problematic. That particular combination usually spells trouble in real life.

How many of you have been working in CD retail - for over a decade ? I could bore you to tears with stories about latest CD release by XY that just would not play in a CD player(s) made by YZ company. Among the staff of the shop, we had a motley selection of CD players - and over the years, we learned - the HARD way - that all CD records ( officially issued, not CD-R piracy versions ) are just NOT playable with all players on the market. And would suggest the customer aching to hear latest from XY on CD he/she just bought to listen to it in another make of CD players - even IF that meant sending the customer over to the competitors' - because they were carrying that brand we knew from "staff experience" would play that particular CD without a hiccup.

Regarding damaged discs - first, A WARNING. Toothpaste has been mentioned as remedy. CAREFUL with that one; it depends on the abrasive properties of the paste in question. Tooth pastes range from VERY mild ( usually for children or sensitive teeth ) to almost "sandpaper" - and which one to use depends on the degree of damage to the disc. If the scratches are deep, you will have to use "sandpaper" first, followed by at the very least VERY mild ( children ) variety. For the final polish, I found the paste sold for polishing screens on mobile phones to work wonders. In most normal cases, the use of the "sandpaper" paste would be detrimental - scratches it leaves may well be worse than what you have started with. Only practice can teach you how to proceed in each case.

We have a great public library also carrying CDs - but people have - most obviously - decided to put to the test the claim that unless you use the CD as object on which you put your part of the body where back loses its proper name to slide downslope on the snow covered ground, everything would be OK.
I only wish I met a friend with a CD ( disc...) polishing machine earlier... - it does it safer, faster and better than it can be done by hand. It, of course, polishes in a radial direction - and may, or may not, be still available somewhere online. As with any "dirt", heavily soiled/fingerprinted/scratched discs are recommended to be hand polished at least with baby toothpaste first - or else you will end up contaminating the polishing machine too much.


----------



## Mark74

KeithEmo said:


> In theory.....
> - A single gap in a track up to 2.5 mm in length can be corrected perfectly (assuming the drive doesn't lose its spot).
> - A single gap longer than 2.5mm will require interpolated correction (which is a nice way of saying that you get a patched-over gap that contains incorrect information).
> - The damage caused by a single scratch, even a deep one, that runs radially (from center to edge) is usually correctable
> ...



Thanks, this info can be useful to me - a family member's in-car CD player gouged quite a large number of  my CDs over many months, so I'm reluctantly in the CD surface repair business.



KeithEmo said:


> ... and focuses slightly below the surface of the plastic, which allows some types of physical surface damage to be largely ignored.



This fact leads me to wonder about my polishing technique.  When using a coarse grained polish to remediate a deep scratch, the CD's "mirror" shine is lost and replaced with a dull, mat, ugly surface with eliptical swirls.   I tend to feel obligated to keep on polishing with a finer grained polish to recreate a more (not perfect) shiny surface, but often wonder whether that may be just a waste of time.  I just want to rip it with EAC and store it away.

For a CD with no Accurate Rip data available, should you stop polishing the moment your drive reads the CD without skipping/stopping, or is there actual benefit in polishing the surface further ?


----------



## KeithEmo

Those are excellent questions...
Your first question is actually trickier than it sounds.

Because of how it works, the error correction on CDs is able to repair single relatively serious flaws, but can be "overloaded" by a large number of smaller flaws.
This suggests that it's a good idea to avoid adding any more smaller scratches or flaws than absolutely necessary.

It's also generally recommended, at least for a "final polish", to wipe radially (from the center out or from the outside in).
Next best is small swirls or ellipses.
Worst is to go around the disc parallel to the tracks.

However, the data on a CD is actually stored on a layer below the surface, and read by a LASER that is focused below the surface, and operates in a certain color range.
Because of this, the read mechanism is able to ignore many small surface flaws (again, depending on exactly what sort of flaws they are).
Unfortunately, this means that the answer depends on nit-picky details like the exact size and depth of the scratches you're adding, and even the direction they're running in.
All polishes work by making ever-finer scratches... the catch here is that what looks clearer to the human eye may not be exactly the same as what looks clearer to the read LASER.
(So those "dull elliptical swirls" may look perfectly clear to a red LASER focused below the surface... or they may not.)

In your case, though, your second question "informs" the answer that will apply to the first one.
If you were playing your CDs on an audio player there would be cause to wonder if significant amounts of "error concealment" (interpolation) was occurring.
However, because computer drives generally do little or no interpolation, as long as you're getting a "solid read", that probably means there are no uncorrectable errors, so there would be no point in going further.

A good compromise, if you want to be as sure as you possibly can be, would be this...
RIP the CD once and save the results...
Then give it one last "final polish" and RIP it again...
If you compare the two resulting digital files, and they are identical, then your "final polish" didn't make any difference...
(A lot of file management programs can generate checksums... to compare two files, simply create a checksum of the first ripped file, then "test" the second one against that checksum.)
Since minor scratches usually result in "soft errors" that change each time you attempt to read or polish them, if the results of two subsequent rips are the same, then the data you've read is probably perfect.
This is sort of a variation on the idea, which some software still offers, of reading the disc multiple times and assuming that, if it reads exactly the same multiple times, then it's probably good.
It's also usually a good idea to open the drive, then re-close it, between reads. 
This rules out the possibility that a slight shift in the position of the disc in the drive may affect the results. (
Many programs do this automatically when they "verify" discs.)

I haven't used EAC in a long time, but older versions used to offer a "secure read" option, which was independent from AccurateRIP, and which involved reading each sector multiple times (I think at different speeds).
If multiple reads produced the exact same data then it would assume the read was "good".
And, if one or more of the attempts produced identical data, but one or more did not, it would assume the version that was identical across multiple attempts was the correct one.
(I sort of remember some versions falling back to doing this if they failed to find the disc you were doing in the AccurateRIP database.)

*Either way, once you've got a good read using EAC, using its secure mode, there's probably no reason to keep polishing.*

Three other thoughts here....

First, there are several products on the market for "making foggy headlights clear again", and for "repairing scratched sunglasses and safety goggles"...
Rather than polishing out scratches, many of these work by filling in surface scratches with plastic, or with some sort of wax, which matches the optical properties of the original plastic.
(Most of them you apply, let dry, then "buff off".)
I tried this a long time ago with a commercial product for repairing the lenses on safety glasses - and it worked quite well (that particular product is no longer available).
I suspect that some of the newer products may work even better (especially since CDs are made of a type of polycarbonate plastic rather similar to modern headlight lenses).
I also suspect that some products designed to "remove scratches from the clear coat on cars" or "actually fill in the scratches" may work very well - but I haven't tried any of them.

Second, there are a few commercial music CDs that incorporate various types of copy protection that works by deliberately storing some "bad data" on the disc.
The idea is that they've incorporated "special errors" which won't produce audible flaws, or are "successfully" repaired by interpolation, but will cause the disc to be treated as a bad disc when you attempt to copy it.
Some of these discs have trouble playing on some ordinary players, some won't play at all on a computer, and some end up with multiple loud audible ticks when you try to RIP them.
There are several of these systems, none of which was very widely used, and most of which were used by only one or two manufacturers on certain discs, but the discs still turn up from time to time.
So, if you find a disc that "just won't RIP but looks OK", before you go nuts, try doing a Google search on that particular title or ASIN.
(This has been annoying enough people long enough that you will probably find it mentioned somewhere in reference to a particular disc if you look - and you can find lists of discs that use each.)
(Also, some programs may be more or less successful with RIPping some of these, and many of them were eventually reissued or replaced with new versions without the protection scheme.)

Finally.....
On audio CDs, the recorded layer is sandwiched between two sheets of clear plastic which are actually quite tough...
On CD-Rs, the recorded layer is in the top (label) side of a single clear sheet of plastic, with only a relatively thin layer of lacquer or plastic coating over it.
(That's why it's dangerous to write on the label side of CD-Rs or to pull adhesive labels off of them.)

The plastic on the front surface is actually quite thick.
I actually tried to repair a few very badly scratched discs once using a buffing wheel attachment on a grinding machine.
I was successful with one, but the other one overheated, the adhesive softened, and the disc actually fell apart.



Mark74 said:


> Thanks, this info can be useful to me - a family member's in-car CD player gouged quite a large number of  my CDs over many months, so I'm reluctantly in the CD surface repair business.
> 
> This fact leads me to wonder about my polishing technique.  When using a coarse grained polish to remediate a deep scratch, the CD's "mirror" shine is lost and replaced with a dull, mat, ugly surface with eliptical swirls.   I tend to feel obligated to keep on polishing with a finer grained polish to recreate a more (not perfect) shiny surface, but often wonder whether that may be just a waste of time.  I just want to rip it with EAC and store it away.
> 
> For a CD with no Accurate Rip data available, should you stop polishing the moment your drive reads the CD without skipping/stopping, or is there actual benefit in polishing the surface further ?


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> 1. Meguire's Plastic Polish will fix any scratch that hasn't deformed the mylar playing surface underneath. It works wonders. toothpaste is slow, but it works.
> 
> 2. Errors aren't a very serious problem with CDs. They are designed to be played and they do a very good job of it. No need to obsess over it. In fact, beat up old players that have fallen out of alignment probably cause more errors than CDs that have received normal care. Honestly, I don't know why people even waste energy discussing it, because anyone who owns a CD player and uses it regularly knows that most of the time they either play well or they don't play at all.



1. Surprisingly _Meguire's Plastic Polish_ seems to be available in Finland, 14 euros for a 300 ml bottle. The good thing about toothpaste is I buy it anyway. I don't know what you mean by "slow". Toothpaste treatment takes from start to finnish about 20 minutes, half of that is waiting for the toothpaste to do it's magic. I have that much time. How fast is _Meguire's Plastic Polish_? 27.43 seconds?

2. About 99 % of my CDs are problem free. Whether they are bought new or they have been owned previously by people who know how to handle optical media.


----------



## 71 dB

KeithEmo said:


> It's also generally recommended, at least for a "final polish", to wipe radially (from the center out or from the outside in).
> Next best is small swirls or ellipses.
> Worst is to go around the disc parallel to the tracks.



Wiping optical media radially should be teached in kindergarden. It's common knowledge and more important that learning the names of the weekdays and months. 

Scratches that are parallel to the tracks are the WORST!   A deep inch long scratch like that makes the toothpaste repair prosess of the disc pretty much hopeless.


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> How fast is _Meguire's Plastic Polish_? 27.43 seconds?



It takes a couple of minutes, and the surface always remains shiny, not matte surface like Mark74 describes.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> It takes a couple of minutes, and the surface always remains shiny, not matte surface like Mark74 describes.



Ok, thank you!


----------



## KeithEmo

Amazingly - some people just like to know how the stuff they use actually works.
However, in this case, a lot of people seem to have less favorable experiences with CDs than you have.
(Which tends to make many people even more interested in how they work - and the details about why sometimes they don't.)

There's also the fact that, unlike formats like vinyl and tape, one of the main selling points of CDs is that they deliver "perfect data" that doesn't deteriorate as they wear.
Therefore, some people are actually curious about whether CDs manage to live up to that claim, and how they might do so.

(You really do seem to find the world a very boring place.... where "nothing is interesting" and "everything just works good enough for everyone".)



bigshot said:


> Meguire's Plastic Polish will fix any scratch that hasn't deformed the mylar playing surface underneath. It works wonders. toothpaste is slow, but it works.
> 
> Errors aren't a very serious problem with CDs. They are designed to be played and they do a very good job of it. No need to obsess over it. In fact, beat up old players that have fallen out of alignment probably cause more errors than CDs that have received normal care. Honestly, I don't know why people even waste energy discussing it, because anyone who owns a CD player and uses it regularly knows that most of the time they either play well or they don't play at all.


----------



## KeithEmo

That sounds like a good - and readily available - solution.



bigshot said:


> It takes a couple of minutes, and the surface always remains shiny, not matte surface like Mark74 describes.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 20, 2019)

There's also a Meguiar's Plastic cleaner which is useful too. Used together with the polish it's a quick two step process. Discs look brand new afterwards. The only CD I haven't been able to rescue is one that had a kitchen chair set down on it and sat upon. I got rid of the scratch, but the mylar layer inside was deformed.

There are enough things to worry about in this world than to worry about things that just work. I'm a practical soul.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Meguire's Plastic Polish will fix any scratch that hasn't deformed the mylar playing surface underneath. It works wonders. toothpaste is slow, but it works.
> 
> Errors aren't a very serious problem with CDs. They are designed to be played and they do a very good job of it. No need to obsess over it. In fact, beat up old players that have fallen out of alignment probably cause more errors than CDs that have received normal care. Honestly, I don't know why people even waste energy discussing it, because anyone who owns a CD player and uses it regularly knows that most of the time they either play well or they don't play at all.



This goes to show you have most likely never heard CD - or CD-R, for that matter - performing at its peak capabilities.

On a FAR more subtle level, there are - clearly audible - differences to be had. I did describe how I use CDs and CD-Rs - it is more time consuming, but it does get better results in the end. Since I did record over 20 commercially available CDs, I do know how they SHOULD sound - most definitely, I have been there.

As a matter of fact, I do make a AMQR CD-R copy of EVERY commercially available CD I have recorded; if it is longer in duration than 63 minutes, that means splitting the programe into a 2 CD-R discs set. What I DO get is more resolution - particularly in the quiet end. The sound of decay travelling across/bouncing off the boundaries of the recording venue is clearly better reproduced. Similar can be said about better recorded commercially available CDs - the one I am positive about is  https://www.discogs.com/Vlatko-Stefanovski-Miroslav-Tadić-Krushevo/release/4388610
It truly came to life only after being transferred to CD-R using AMRQ process.
I have to stress that I have NOT started ripping my CD collection - yet. One day, if nothing more interesting will be showing up - an unlikely possibility. 

And NOTHING can prepare one for the AMQR CD-R version of the  https://www.discogs.com/Frank-Zappa-Civilization-Phaze-III/release/1386901
It takes mighty decent subwoofer(s) to handle the synth of this recording - it goes way above anything possible with acoustic instruments. The regular release is "decent" - but turns into a mashed pulp when compared with what AMQR version made from that same disc can do.

If you REALLY want to have best bass there is, it is only available in DIY : S.A.F.E. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4168761
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/62776-s-f-e-print.html
I do have the original Speaker Builder magazines - and a number of speakers have been made over the years. Even a "lightweight" version of SAFE housing a 12" driver will tip the scales at over 70 kg - for a single speaker.
In extremely short recapitulation : extension as in transmission line enclosures, but with "normal" efficiency - and better transients.


----------



## bigshot

Boloney


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Boloney



Sorry to hear such a comment. 

Being yes-man to all the guys quoted in links to your posts is a safe, comfortable position to have - and your mission is the suppression of everything that might challenge those written in stone claims.

Even stone gets abraded/transformed in the end ; it only takes a LOT of time for all the trials to finally succeed.


----------



## Mark74

Some seriously worthy practical advice, hidden here on the audiophile "myths" thread.  I'm stoked.



analogsurviver said:


> I only wish I met a friend with a CD ( disc...) polishing machine earlier...


I'm now on the lookout for said type of CD polisher.  Not seen many, though can recall seeing "manual" polishers a while back (not motorised); think they 'guide' your polishing motion, but perhaps they slow you down.



KeithEmo said:


> Rather than polishing out scratches, many of these work by filling in surface scratches with plastic,


Didn't know of these; will definitely be getting some.



71 dB said:


> takes from start to finnish about 20 minutes, half of that is waiting for the toothpaste to do it's magic


I'm lost on that one - I always go non-stop until my wrist gives up, then try out the disc.  Is this a special type of toothpaste; what does the toothpaste do when you let it sit on the CD undisturbed for 10 minutes ?


----------



## Mark74

analogsurviver said:


> As a matter of fact, I do make a AMQR CD-R copy of EVERY commercially available CD I have recorded;



Off the bat I must say I have quite a bit of respect for all studio recording engineers - in any field people at the coal face seem to learn a lot, and they seem to have to learn it quickly.




 

If the above image summarizes the AMQR process, it would suggest that it makes it easier for an optical drive to read the bits (or the "pits", as it were).  
But, a non-AMQR CD should sound the same as an AMQR CD as long as the optical drive can read both discs without uncorrectable errors.  Is that a fair statement Analog ?


----------



## bigshot (Sep 20, 2019)

'm afraid that is another solution to a problem that doesn't exist. But it is a very good way to produce out of spec discs.

I have a blu-ray drive that can read CDs, DVDs and Blu-Rays all at many times normal playback speed..., and whenever I do a checksum, it always comes out perfect. Why would a drive have trouble playing a CD perfectly at a much slower speed?

If you come up with a disc that is in reasonably good condition that errors, odds are the problem is an out of align player, not the spacing between the pits on the CD.


----------



## Hooster

Is somebody still using CDs?


----------



## analogsurviver

Mark74 said:


> Off the bat I must say I have quite a bit of respect for all studio recording engineers - in any field people at the coal face seem to learn a lot, and they seem to have to learn it quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In a nutshell, it is.

But, I will put it this way. A friend ( with tons more money than myself ) has been mocking my - to him - super time consuming "process" in order to get decent sound off CD optical media. He DID take care of obtaining some black CD-R blanks ( it is NOT a gimmick, apearently laser can focus better on that surface ... ), for which he claimed he can produce as good or better results in about 10-15 min per disc. 

I brought a commercially released CD and an AMQR CD-R copy ( of course, using carbon fibre CD mat both for reading the CD and for burning the CD-R ) I made at home a day earlier. He took my commercially released CD and made a CD-R copy to that black blank in about 15 minutes. No mat - as it can not be used at those spinning speeds.

Then, we listened. To all three discs. 
"F..k you...!!!" was the only comment he made - and that hastily made CD-R copy has been in the dustbin before the "u" from "you" died out in the room. 

Yamaha drives capable of writing AMQR can do it also faster than at 1x - but, although I DID try burning faster, the results have not been that good. I will have to check the user manual for the CRW-F1 drive, which also states that either the rotational speed of the disc or the distance between the pits is CONSTANT - making the life easier for the optical drive, as it does not have to constantly adjust all parameters.

It is funny to WATCH the results with AMQR discs. Some players won't accept it ... some take several tries before it is accepted ( and plays than better than standard disc ), some, mainly newer machines, treat it business as usual, some CD-R recorders do not recognize and display any CD-TEXT info on the AMQR CD-R - and some AMQR CD-Rs, on the same CD-R  recorder and burned with the same process on same burner, also display CD-TEXT info properly. 

I would take better SQ over CD-TEXT info any day in a millenium. Many commercially released CDs lack the CD-TEXT info to begin with ... and one has to manually add it ( or import from the internet libraries ) for the CD-R copy - either normal or AMQR.   

AMQR CD-R copy read and burned at 1x ( with mat...) can - almost - be said to be "hand made". It is most probably the most time consuming way ( burning a 63 min program AMQR disc takes more than 80 minutes at "1x" ) - but also the one offering the best SQ.


----------



## analogsurviver

Hooster said:


> Is somebody still using CDs?



Love it or hate it, CD still IS de facto standard in recorded music today - although it is being seriously challenged by MP3 as far as general public acceptance is concerned.

However, recent sales figures show that vinyl sales  is superseding the CD sales .... - again, after being superseded by the CD in early 80s.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 21, 2019)

I burn at the top speed my drive is capable of. That is the speed the drive is designed to burn at. You're more likely to get errors at lower speed than the fastest. However, I almost never get drive related errors. It's always the media. (Memorex blanks suck.)

"Burned with a mat"... Hogwash.


----------



## KeithEmo

That's what I would expect based on their description.

According to what they say, their process burns the same data onto the disc, but does so using a slightly more "conservative" physical format.
As with most specs, the Red Book CD standard sets a minimum and maxiumum range for pit and gap length.
(I'm not quite clear if Yamaha is actually going outside the spec - or simply locking the drive down so it always chooses the absolute most conservative setting within the spec.)
Either way, their claim seems to be that their process will make it easier for the drive to read the disc properly and without errors.
However, _ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE NO UNCORRECTABLE ERRORS_, then it should result in exactly the same data being written and read.
(The benefit would be that it would write discs that could be reliably read by a wider variety of players without errors.)

Note:

CD-Rs are actually recorded using a very different process than pressed discs.
On pressed discs, actual pits are pressed into the surface, and then the surface is plated with aluminum or gold.
CD-R discs store data on a layer of dye, which sits above a flat mirrored layer, and which is blistered or otherwise altered by the write LASER.
Because of the different process involved, the contrast in reflectivity of the data pattern written onto CD-R discs is much lower than on pressed discs.
Because of this they actually require somewhat different settings on the LASER mechanism in the drive you use to read them. 
To make life even more interesting, there are several different types of dyes, and each is different (although they're supposed to be interchangeable).
The original dye used on low-speed discs was green; Verbatim had their own exclusive dye which was deep blue; and modern high speed discs are usually silver or slightly golden.
Modern drives are designed to easily cover this entire range - but early ones were not (especially those sold before CD-Rs even existed.)
Many early CD players were designed for pressed discs and wouldn't play CD-R discs at all.
Many early CD-R writers would only accept CD-Rs that used the original green dye, and many early players would only play _that_ type.
Many early players would also only work, or would work better, with discs written at certain speeds (and many writers had stated "preferred" write speeds).
That's one reason why most CD writing software still offers the option of choosing a write speed rather than always using the fastest speed available.
(Presumably, some early drives wrote significantly off-spec pits at certain speeds, and certain players were more tolerant of off-spec pits than other.)

Yamaha also claims that their AMQR process results in less jitter on the recovered data.
Since the data is re-clocked by the player, this should have no effect on the jitter present on the output digital audio signal.
However, because jitter is one cause of data errors, reducing the jitter at the read interface could actually reduce the overall number of various types of read errors.

My point here is that, in the early days of CD-R recording, there were serious compatibility issues, and not all CD-R discs would read reliably on all players, or even close.
This was a legitimate and serious issue in the early days of audio CD-Rs.
For example, in those days, it was quite common to see lists of which specific brands of CD-R blanks would work best with specific writers or players.
Therefore, it's not unreasonable that Yamaha, and some other manufacturers, looked for ways to tweak the standard to produce more reliably readable discs....
And that they would be bragging about various attempts at solving the problem....
(And so we shouldn't rule out the possibility that their special discs might actually read more reliably in drives that are borderline or have substandard error correction.)

However, again,  assuming a perfect read, with no uncorrectable errors, on one of their discs, and on a "normal" disc, the data delivered should be exactly the same.



Mark74 said:


> Off the bat I must say I have quite a bit of respect for all studio recording engineers - in any field people at the coal face seem to learn a lot, and they seem to have to learn it quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Mark74 said:


> Off the bat I must say I have quite a bit of respect for all studio recording engineers - in any field people at the coal face seem to learn a lot, and they seem to have to learn it quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 21, 2019)

Mark74 said:


> I'm lost on that one - I always go non-stop until my wrist gives up, then try out the disc.  Is this a special type of toothpaste; what does the toothpaste do when you let it sit on the CD undisturbed for 10 minutes ?



Normal white toothpaste is best. I use _Pepsodent Super Fluor_. The toothpaste "dry up" and gets hard in 10-15 minutes and then I wash it away rubbing with my thumb. I believe the toothpaste is able to round hard edges of the scratch making it easier for the laser to read.


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> Love it or hate it, CD still IS de facto standard in recorded music today - although it is being seriously challenged by MP3 as far as general public acceptance is concerned.
> 
> However, recent sales figures show that vinyl sales  is superseding the CD sales .... - again, after being superseded by the CD in early 80s.


Nonsense. According to the RIAA, new CD sales are still at least 4 to 1 in the USA and much higher everywhere else.  For example, it is around 8 to 1 here in Australia and about 10 to 1 in Japan.  Over here we still have CD commercials on TV (mainly for compilations) but never LPs.  Most of the music stores here still stock CDs while it takes quite a bit of effort and driving around to find a place that sells LP records.

The growth in LP sales is also grossly overstated.  It is off a very low base and the growth has tapered in recent years.  It is, and always will be a niche format.  Having said that, the day will come when new LP sales will overtake CDs but not because there has been a huge shift to vinyl (as myth would have it) but rather because physical media is dying out and the days of the CD were numbered when digital audio no longer relied on a physical product for distribution.  To put it another way, CD (as a digital format) has evolved to digital formats that can be downloaded, saved or streamed.  Analog, on the other hand is stuck with a physical format which had its last hurrah with the hi fi VCR.  Vinyl is the last man standing and the tragedy for analog lovers is of course that the better fidelity analog formats lost out.  Even a professional cassette deck using high bias tapes had better fidelity than vinyl by the time we got to mid 1980s.


----------



## Hooster

analogsurviver said:


> Love it or hate it, CD still IS de facto standard in recorded music today - although it is being seriously challenged by MP3 as far as general public acceptance is concerned.
> 
> However, recent sales figures show that vinyl sales  is superseding the CD sales .... - again, after being superseded by the CD in early 80s.



Nope, CD is a dinosaur. Today's de facto standard is streaming audio.


----------



## 71 dB

Hooster said:


> Nope, CD is a dinosaur. Today's de facto standard is streaming audio.



I don't want to wake up one morning to realize my favorite music is gone from streaming services because of some stupid licencing issue. My favorite music on safely on my bookshelf as CDs. No copyright bull!


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 21, 2019)

71 dB said:


> I don't want to wake up one morning to realize my favorite music is gone from streaming services because of some stupid licencing issue. My favorite music on safely on my bookshelf as CDs. No copyright bull****!


A major development prior to streaming was SD cards (hard drive backed-up). All my hundreds of CDs are now conveniently accessible as .flac files in one tiny 256 Gb card 

P. S. The last time I used CDs after - can't recall


----------



## bigshot (Sep 21, 2019)

71 dB said:


> Normal white toothpaste is best. I use _Pepsodent Super Fluor_. The toothpaste "dry up" and gets hard in 10-15 minutes and then I wash it away rubbing with my thumb. I believe the toothpaste is able to round hard edges of the scratch making it easier for the laser to read.



You're supposed to scrub in a circular motion with a soft cloth to buff out the scratch.

Physical media is essential for people with broad musical interests. Probably a third of my collection is of music not available on streaming. That amounts to thousands of CDs. If you are interested in mainstream music, streaming is perfect because it covers that completely. But there's a lot of music that never made the transition from 78 to LP, a lot that never made the transition from LP to CD, and a lot that didn't make the transition from CD to streaming. The only way to hear that music is with physical media.

But once I get a CD, I rip it and put it on my media server, so it works the same as streaming.

Everything you need to know about media sales is in this chart...


----------



## megabigeye (Sep 21, 2019)

@bigshot, is that US sales only?  If so, sales have changed in the last few years, with vinyl sales poised to surpass CD sales by the end of 2019, at least according to RIAA via CNBC.  It's also interesting to look at Discogs' figures and see that for them CD sales have _grown_ 23% (it's also fun to see which albums were the best sellers).  I'm assuming that's because brick-and-mortar sales (and new production?) has gone down, so people are looking for (used?) physical formats online.  Around here, anyway, it's slim pickings if you're looking for CDs, as most of the record stores either don't carry them at all or have greatly reduced their inventory.
And here are Nielsen's numbers for comparison.  Somewhat interesting that they're quite different.

I tried to find worldwide sales figures, but wasn't having any luck.


----------



## taffy2207 (Sep 21, 2019)

https://www.ifpi.org/downloads/GMR2018.pdf

Source :- musicbusinessworldwide.com/five-key-takeaways-from-ifpis-global-music-report-2019/


----------



## bigshot (Sep 21, 2019)

megabigeye said:


> @bigshot, is that US sales only?  If so, sales have changed in the last few years, with vinyl sales poised to surpass CD sales by the end of 2019, at least according to RIAA via CNBC.



It depends on how the figures are spun, but the outcome is pretty clear... According to Billboard, Vinyl LP sales accounted for 11.9 percent of all album sales in 2018 (16.8 million of 141 million). I think the figure you are thinking of is that LP sales are growing faster than CD sales are falling. (In 2017 LP sales accounted for 6.5 percent, one year later 11.9 percent.)  Download and streaming dwarf physical media. Streaming accounts for 75% of the market right now. Digital downloads account for another 12% and physical media of all types is just 10%. What this means is that CDs are headed towards being a niche market like LPs are, not that LPs are becoming mainstream.


----------



## old tech

megabigeye said:


> @bigshot, is that US sales only?  If so, sales have changed in the last few years, with vinyl sales poised to surpass CD sales by the end of 2019, at least according to RIAA via CNBC.  It's also interesting to look at Discogs' figures and see that for them CD sales have _grown_ 23% (it's also fun to see which albums were the best sellers).  I'm assuming that's because brick-and-mortar sales (and new production?) has gone down, so people are looking for (used?) physical formats online.  Around here, anyway, it's slim pickings if you're looking for CDs, as most of the record stores either don't carry them at all or have greatly reduced their inventory.
> And here are Nielsen's numbers for comparison.  Somewhat interesting that they're quite different.
> 
> I tried to find worldwide sales figures, but wasn't having any luck.


Highly unlikely that vinyl sales in the USA will surpass CDs by the end of the year. According to RIAA data, revenue from LP sales may surpass CD revenue by the end of the year but not quantity of units. That's understandable given the much higher revenue (and profit) is made made from each LP.


----------



## Mark74

bigshot said:


> Physical media is essential for people with broad musical interests. Probably a third of my collection is of music not available on streaming. That amounts to thousands of CDs. If you are interested in mainstream music, streaming is perfect because it covers that completely. ...... The only way to hear that music is with physical media.



Key point made. 
Can be argued that, if you wait long enough, say another decade or two, more and more of the non-mainstream, esoteric and historical recordings will become available online. But then, who wants to defer their musical enjoyment for years ?  May not be around then.


----------



## KeithEmo

INTERESTING STATISTICS ABOUT MUSIC SALES.....

https://www.statista.com/chart/17244/us-music-revenue-by-format/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/188822/lp-album-sales-in-the-united-states-since-2009/

https://www.statista.com/chart/13578/vinyl-resurgance-style-over-substance/

https://www.statista.com/chart/12950/cd-sales-in-the-us/

https://www.statista.com/chart/13407/music-streaming_-who-pays-best/


Note that some are in number sold, while some are in $$$ sold, and some are in %.

Also note that, if you search, you can find some interesting statistics "per item".
For example, last year somewhere between 15 and 20 million vinyl albums were sold.
However, the SINGLE MOST STREAMED OR DOWNLOADED SONG topped several hundred million copies.

A few people have pointed out that the main flaw of streaming music is that, since you don't own a physical copy, you have no assurance that it won't someday cease to be available.
I have always personally considered this to be a significant concern - although, at least so far, only a very few albums have ever been "pulled from availability" (generally due to licensing issues). 
However, while a given album could suffer this fate, it seems extremely unlikely that this will ever happen to a significant number of albums...
There are many steaming services and, while one or another may eventually fail, it seems obvious that streaming services in general are here to stay.
(The only thing I worry about is that, because many are currently losing money, streaming services may begin to compartmentalize - by dividing subscriptions into separate plans.... 
If this happens, some of us may lose access to certain albums, the same way we lose access to some cable channels when our cable company starts only offering certain channels under certain plans.) 
HOWEVER, the obvious solution, which provides the best of both otpions, is actual album downloads.

I still occasionally purchase CDs - for albums that I really want to make sure I will always have access to.
However, if the option is available, I will ALWAYS choose to download the album directly; and, if I purchase the CD, I look at it as "a hardware download mechanism".
(As soon as it arrives, I rip it onto a hard drive, and the "plastic backup" goes into a box in the closet.)

And, while the plastic of a CD seems to offer an assurance of stability and permanence....
My entire collection of CDs fits on a single hard drive, which makes it simple to keep a backup copy of the entire collection, which is then easily updated and even stored offsite.
(Many people foolishly fail to do this... but the benefit still exists for those who take advantage of it.) 



bigshot said:


> It depends on how the figures are spun, but the outcome is pretty clear... According to Billboard, Vinyl LP sales accounted for 11.9 percent of all album sales in 2018 (16.8 million of 141 million). I think the figure you are thinking of is that LP sales are growing faster than CD sales are falling. (In 2017 LP sales accounted for 6.5 percent, one year later 11.9 percent.)  Download and streaming dwarf physical media. Streaming accounts for 75% of the market right now. Digital downloads account for another 12% and physical media of all types is just 10%. What this means is that CDs are headed towards being a niche market like LPs are, not that LPs are becoming mainstream.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 22, 2019)

Mark74 said:


> Key point made.
> Can be argued that, if you wait long enough, say another decade or two, more and more of the non-mainstream, esoteric and historical recordings will become available online. But then, who wants to defer their musical enjoyment for years ?  May not be around then.



I remember when cable TV started. They said there were going to be over 100 channels, and each one would be different. One would show crime movies from the 30s, another would have 70s TV sitcoms, another would have classic cartoons... with over 100 channels, that should cover everything, right? Well it turned out that there's over 100 channels of basically the same thing. There are three or four channels that air legacy titles. Even the classic cartoon channel started airing modern live action shows. Streaming won't reach down that far ever. At some point the CDs that contain the music that streaming doesn't cover will be as rare and sought after as the LPs that Japanese collectors snap up, and the pre-war blues 78s that go for hundreds of dollars. If your tastes extend beyond the average consumer, you will either have to buy obsolete media or do without. If you're a normal consumer, the market will give you all you want.

In the meantime, I have a huge collection that I am digitizing and will have the best of both worlds. It isn't about format. It's about availability of the music.


----------



## KeithEmo

To a degree you are correct.... however there are major differences between video and audio.... and, in the end, I expect them to make a significant difference there.
What you have described about "what we all expected cable to become" is actually largely what it has become.
My cable service does offer one channel for old westerns, and another for old evening sitcoms, and yet another for very old horror movies.
I could have over a thousand channels if I signed up for the big package... and they have a LOT of movies on demand as well.
Some of the main reasons so many shows still remain unavailable is a combination of lack of interest, licensing costs, and simple space.
The other is that we currently lack an in-place way to effectively "commercialize and monetize" those old movies for which there is little interest.
Someone has that old cartoon you want to watch... and they would cheerfully sell it to you for $1... but they have no way to actually do so.
Even though DVDs have become cheap, there is still effectively nobody who has come around to offering video DOWNLOADS, and no standard for doing so... yet.

I recently purchased a rather obscure (recent) album from Amazon.
I purchased it as a commercial CD but, when it arrived, what I got was a CD-R with an obviously ink-jet printed lable.
It looked like a bootleg copy, but an enclosd slip reassured me that it was legitimate.
"Since there is so little demand for that album it has not been issued as a commercial CD disc. Instead, Amazon has been licensed to print copies directly, when they are purchased."

We have also in fact had a recent attempt to do something similar for DVDs.
Some time ago Walmart offered an option that, if you owned any DVD disc, you could turn in the plastic, and they would....
"Exchange it for a digital copy that you could play on any of your electronic devices via your favorite streaming service".
What this meant was that they would accept your physical disc, destroy it, and trade it for a license to stream the movie.
(I don't know if this still exists or not - or if it was a commercial flop.)
My point is that, if the trend away from PHYSICAL digital media continues, this is the obvious direction in which things will eventually go.
However, the physical CD-R disc that Amazon sent me will disappear from the process.
Someday, instead of buying a used CD for $2, what you'll receive is either a copy of it as a digital audio file you can download, or a license to listen to it on your favorite streaming service.
And, if you sell that old CD, instead of being piled somewhere on a shelf, each disc will be carefully shredded, and "the licence it embodies" will be added to a server somewhere.

The technology to do this has been around for years...
The ONLY current sticking point is licensing.
Our current laws have simply failed miserably to keep up with the technology.

The music industry has traditionally had a seriously flawed idea about ownership.
The "official part of the music industry" will tell you that, if you purchase a music CD for $15, the plastic disc costs about $1, and the remaining $14 is being paid for the license.
Yet, by that logic, if you were to accidentally damage that disc, you should be able to purchase a new piece of plastic for $1, and transfer your license to it.
Likewise, if you long ago purchased a vinyl disc with that music on it, you should be able to purchase a CD style disc, and transfer your license to it.
Yet, instead, they now claim that the license is NOT separate from the plastic, and cannot be moved to a new piece of plastic.
(Now, magically, with the loss of that $1 piece of plastic, the license you paid $14 for has mysteriously vanished.)
And this outdated concept - that the license and the actual physical plastic are one and the same - is what is locking us into the current situation.

If I have an old album I don't want, and you DO want it, I can sell you the plastic vinyl album or CD, in exchange for some money.
The law allows me to do so... and this has been accepted reality for so long that nobody questions it.
Yet there is no OTHER WAY in which I can simply transfer ownership of that album to you in return for money WITHOUT THE PIECE OF PLASTIC.
(In essence, at this point, the CD itself is merely "the token which holds the license".)
What's missing is an alternate LEGALLY SANCTIONED MECHANISM whereby I can transfer ownership of the license.
However, because the current combination of music streaming and music piracy is well along the path towards destroying this outdated system...
We can reasonably expect that it will eventually be replaced by a newer and more practical one.

For example, instead of selling my old CDs to "ye olde CD shoppe" I'll be able to go into a shop and sell them my old pieces of plastic and their attached licenses.
They will then immediately RIP and shred the plastic discs.
They will then have digital copies of the music itself...
And the "licenses", each of which entitles one person to own and play the music from one of those discs, which they have 'recovered" or "extracted" from the discs themselves...
You will then be able to purchase a copy of that file, and the license that entitles you to play it, from your local shop.
Once this happens, every CD ever made will eventually end up in a worldwide database somewhere, where it can be easily downloaded by anybody.
And, once this occurs, you can bet that SOMEBODY will work out the details of a new licensing protocol to go with it.
(It would be foolish to delete the file after one download. There must be SOME way to sell more copies, collect the licensing fee for them, and distribute it "fairly".)

Of course, the music industry would prefer to prevent this, so there is no way for the owner to "recover his license form the plastic and has to buy a new one".
However, the obvious ancillary point to all this is that the practical aspects of the market and the technology will force this to happen, and sooner rather than later.

In the real world....
If you, or somebody you know, has "the last copy of that rare CD available on the planet".....
They're going to rip that disc and make copies for their friends.....
And, while many people might feel a touch of guilt about "stealing an album they should have bought".....
Very few people feel any guilt whatsoever about "acquiring a bootleg copy of an album that is otherwise unavailable"....
Therefore, in a sense, the music industry is essentially "racing against the clock" to find a legal way to sell that music before it becomes available for free....
(They basically need to find a way for you to sell that copy, and get their "fair share", before you get tired of waiting and simply start giving it away.)
And, yes, if you have or want some album that's really obscure, it may never "find its way into the system".....
However, as such a system becomes more ubiquitous, and more readily accessible, that barrier will be lowered.....

I can literally envision a day when EVERYONE has a streaming account somewhere...
And we are each offered a $1 credit for every CD we send in that they don't already have in their database.
(And every song, on every disc that's sent in, shows up on everybody's streaming service the next day....)

This will happen the day the music industry is forced to remove their collective thumb from their collective ass....
And that day is coming soon.... as the current business models for selling discs continue to become progressively less able to support the industry.
(We may, quite literally, see a day when physical discs simply become unsalable, and the streaming services become the ONLY customers who actually purchase music.)

We are already approaching this point with video....
Netflix, with their production of exlcusive content, has now become one of the top few remaining major studios....
And many stores have alreadys topped selling DVDs and Blu-Ray discs, or are discussing doing so....
And, if you try to actually purchase CDs, you will find that the list of places that carry them are dwindling rapidly.
(My local "vintage music shop" also no longer buys or accepts them for trade-in.)

Considering how rapidly streaming has risen from a novelty to dominate the market....
It seems clear that this is what the majority of customers actually want....



bigshot said:


> I remember when cable TV started. They said there were going to be over 100 channels, and each one would be different. One would show crime movies from the 30s, another would have 70s TV sitcoms, another would have classic cartoons... with over 100 channels, that should cover everything, right? Well it turned out that there's over 100 channels of basically the same thing. There are three or four channels that air legacy titles. Even the classic cartoon channel started airing modern live action shows. Streaming won't reach down that far ever. At some point the CDs that contain the music that streaming doesn't cover will be as rare and sought after as the LPs that Japanese collectors snap up, and the pre-war blues 78s that go for hundreds of dollars. If your tastes extend beyond the average consumer, you will either have to buy obsolete media or do without. If you're a normal consumer, the market will give you all you want.
> 
> In the meantime, I have a huge collection that I am digitizing and will have the best of both worlds. It isn't about format. It's about availability of the music.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 22, 2019)

At least 80% of cable channels are basically the same. And many of the ones on certain subjects are only on tiny bits of that subject like the History channel, which should be called the Hitler channel; or the exact opposite of what the subject is, like the Learning channel having series about ignorant hillbillies and the science channel having documentaries about UFOs. Cable sucks. It isn't even close to what it was promised it would be. It's just a bunch of commercials and shows that aren't even good enough for broadcast TV that you pay $100 a month for.

Subscription music is fine for what it is. I subscribed to XM for a while and it had a few stations I was interested in. But after a while, the playlist became apparent. They never got down to the songs I wanted to hear. They were too busy playing the ones I'd already heard a million times. That is comfortable for most people, but for me, it's deadly. I want to hear things I've never heard, not things I've heard over and over. I've had Spotify and it could never figure out what I wanted to hear. Amazon Prime Unlimited music is OK, but the other day I was looking at latin big band and 70s Disco 12 inch singles and the only way to hear what I was looking for was to buy a CD. I keep Amazon because it's handy for previewing things before I buy. I also use it for looped background music that plays through my Alexas. It's handy for that. But my music server is how I listen to music most of the time.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> 1. You're supposed to scrub in a circular motion with a soft cloth to buff out the scratch.
> 
> 2. Physical media is essential for people with broad musical interests. Probably a third of my collection is of music not available on streaming. That amounts to thousands of CDs. If you are interested in mainstream music, streaming is perfect because it covers that completely. But there's a lot of music that never made the transition from 78 to LP, a lot that never made the transition from LP to CD, and a lot that didn't make the transition from CD to streaming. The only way to hear that music is with physical media.



1. I have been able to fix CDs without scrubing in a circular motion with a soft cloth. Maybe this method helps with the more extreme cases?

2. Or people who prefer physical media. My father collects stamps. He could collect jpg-pictures of stamps on his harddrive, but he prefers the physical stamps. I prefer physical CDs and I don't need to justify it to anyone. It's my business how I consume music. I use streaming to explore music (recently Charli XCX's new album which I didn't like as much I predicted so I won't buy the CD and Raphael & Kutira new age stuff which isn't so good to justify the huge prices these albums go for), but I don't trust it so if I like what I hear I try to get the CD.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 22, 2019)

There are always collectors who collect like stamps. Some people collect headphones like that. I don't fill lists myself though. I chase down branches of the tree looking for relationships between performers and styles. It isn't as organized as stamp collecting- more organic.

I tend to explore particular subjects in bursts... for instance, I heard a Buddy Rich song that I liked, so I bought a few Buddy Rich box sets and devoured them. When I listen to a bunch of a particular kind of music, I can get a feel for the overall shape of the subject. That is what I'm interested in, not specific songs.


----------



## KeithEmo (Sep 22, 2019)

I'd have to say that I fall firmly on _BOTH_ sides of this one.

I personally _NEVER_ read the liner notes on CDs.
If I'm curious about the details I generally just Google them.
Therefore, when I acquire a new CD, it immedlately gets ripped, and the plastic gets tossed into the closet in a box.
However, of course, some people do enjoy that aspect of collecting music.

That said, I do also have somewhat of a "collector mentality".
Because of that, I have certain groups and artists who I 'collect", and I do enjoy knowing that "I have all their discs".
I also enjoy knowing that I will never lose access to any of their albums due to a licensing dispute or something like that (which might result in its becoming unavailable via streaming).
Therefore, I will always buy a copy of their latest album when it comes out, and keep the CD and the album notes in my permanent collection.

However, that only applies to a small percentage of all the music I listen to.
For a much larger majority of it, I am quite satisfied being able to simply punch up a song from a streaming service.
It saves me the aggravation of finding a CD that I rarely listen to, and, if one specific song were to become unavailable, it wouldn't be a tragedy.
(If I feel that way about one or two songs then I'll buy the CD they're on - or buy a download copy - or find a copy I can back up some other way.)
Also, to be honest, my main concern is that I not lose access to the music, so a full quality file I can download and back up on a hard drive is about as good as the plastic version.

I'm currently in the process of sorting through the remainder of the rather large collection of CDs I've acquired over the years.
I plan to rip and keep the ones that I consider "my favorites"... and the rest will go to a friend of mine who still has a CD player and enjoys handling the plastic.
(Those are the ones that never come out of the closet now anyway - because they're easier to stream.)

I should also point out that the whole ecosystem of tradictional physical discs has some serious drawbacks than many people seem to ignore.

First, there is the whole absurd notion about licensing and ownership.
A long time ago, I purchased a vinyl copy of Dark Side Of The Moon; at the time I was told that most of the $15 I paid was for the license to listen to the music.
Then I purchased the MFSL "audiophile version" (which is mastered very differently and sounds quite different).
However, not only did I pay for new plastic and new mastering, but I didn't even get a discount because _I HAD ALREADY PAID FOR THE MUSIC_.
Then, when it came out on CD, I was expected to pay full price again (even though they insisted that the plastic was only about $1 and the license was most of the price).
And, when the dog ate my disc one day, instead of simply "replacing the plastic for a service charge", those crooks expected me to pay full price again.
Many people complain that computer software companies are unethical.
However, as long as you retain a copy of the license, most of them will allow you to download a new copy of the actual software for free, or sell you a replacement disc for a few $$$.

Second, there is a trend with many record companies these days to issue_ multiple different copies_ of their physical CDs.
There may be "the regular copy, the deluxe copy, and the special copy they sell at Target"...
Or there may be different copies that are ostensibly targeted to different countries or continents.
While they have various ways of justifying the need to do so I personally find it to be highly unethical.
It means that, if I really want to buy "all the songs on their new album", I am forced to purchase multiple copies of the disc (different versions).
(Instead of being fair and saying: "You already paid $15 for the disc; we'll sell you the extra deluxe track for another $1".)
(I see no problem with having a "deluxe version" that has more songs than the "cheap version" - but, if I purchase the most expensive copy, I should get ALL the songs.
Don't tell me that there are two songs that are ONLY available on "the South American version disc"... but two other songs are only available on the US version.)

Not only do I personally find this highly unethocal...
But, from a practical point of view, it means that, _EVEN IF I BUY THE ACTUAL DISC I AM NOT ASSURED OF HAVING ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE ALBUM_.
(To me, this completely eliminates one of the main reasons for owning that disc, which was to actually be assured access to it.)



bigshot said:


> There are always collectors who collect like stamps. Some people collect headphones like that. I don't fill lists myself though. I chase down branches of the tree looking for relationships between performers and styles. It isn't as organized as stamp collecting- more organic.
> 
> I tend to explore particular subjects in bursts... for instance, I heard a Buddy Rich song that I liked, so I bought a few Buddy Rich box sets and devoured them. When I listen to a bunch of a particular kind of music, I can get a feel for the overall shape of the subject. That is what I'm interested in, not specific songs.


----------



## bigshot

Your collector's mentality has butted up against the real world.


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't get your comment.

At least so far, I can stream all the music I want, _AND_ own actual copies of the stuff I really care about.
If you're referring to the fact that we always seem to get screwed by _somebody_, at least if they can figure out a way to make a few extra bucks... that isn't likely to go away any time soon.

In all fairness, I do believe that, when it comes to different versions of discs, many music producers really do believe that it makes sense to have "customized versions for different audiences".
And, in fact, at least one group I like did eventually release a whole separate album, containing all the "bonus tracks" from various copies of their other albums.
By doing so, they enabled all the collectors to actually collect all their work, _AND_ managed to sell another album... which seems like an intelligent solution to me.
Alternately, these days, we can often purchase individual songs, via discs or single downloads, which also solves the problem nicely.
(Unfortunately, you are quite correct, and we are stuck in a world that quite often caters to "the lowest common denominator", or "strictly the best way to make a buck".)



bigshot said:


> Your collector's mentality has butted up against the real world.


----------



## marsza11

Thanks for the info


----------



## stonesfan129

I think streaming subscriptions make more sense if you do not already have a large collection built up.


----------



## bfreedma

stonesfan129 said:


> I think streaming subscriptions make more sense if you do not already have a large collection built up.



I used to feel the same, but once I implemented Roon with it's ability to support my existing library and streaming (Tidal in my case), I was able to save quite a bit of money by not continuing to purchase CDs while taking advantage of the Roon/Tidal recommendations which helped me find a lot of new music I likely wouldn't have purchased.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 24, 2019)

A great deal of the music I listen to isn't available on streaming, I'm afraid. Streaming isn't any good for music that is niche or out of print. It also can be unhelpful when you are looking for a specific mastering.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> A great deal of the music I listen to isn't available on streaming, I'm afraid. Streaming isn't any good for music that is niche or out of print. It also can be unhelpful when you are looking for a specific mastering.



Nothing is perfect.  I still have to buy some niche recordings, but overall, it works for me.


----------



## KeithEmo

That's been my experience.
I would note that the different streaming services vary wildly in terms of what they have available.
The new Amazon Music service seems very good - and has lossless files.
Spotify probably still has the best coverage - but their sound quality is sometimes lacking.

I've found that I can stream most of the more or less popular albums I want to listen to.
But they tend to be less than complete on older albums - even by popular groups.
And they almost never offer much of a choice on different versions of albums - other than modern or very popular ones.
See how many of the 25 different re-issues and re-masters of Dark Side of the Moon you can find on your favorite streaming service.

I've settled on streaming for most things...
And only purchasing downloads or CDs for really obscure items, or those I am unwilling to risk losing access to.



bfreedma said:


> Nothing is perfect.  I still have to buy some niche recordings, but overall, it works for me.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> That's been my experience.
> I would note that the different streaming services vary wildly in terms of what they have available.
> The new Amazon Music service seems very good - and has lossless files.
> Spotify probably still has the best coverage - but their sound quality is sometimes lacking.
> ...




Agreed -  I like Amazon's library and will likely switch to them if/when Roon supports it.  Unless things have changed, Amazon's player doesn't support WASAPI Exclusive mode, which while not a showstopper, isn't ideal.

The library is good, and at less than the cost of one CD, the monthly rate is hard to argue with as an existing Prime member.

In general with streaming services, I'm more interested in being exposed to new artists/music than specific masters though I understand those who feel different.  For the few cases where a significantly improved master exists, I'll still buy the physical media.  There are also a few "smaller" artists I really like, so sometimes will buy a CD simply to support them.  That's a short list though.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 24, 2019)

For historical recordings mastering makes a big difference. Some labels are good, others are noise. I have Amazon but I primarily use it for background music through my Alexas. It covers rock music pretty thoroughly, and sometimes it has jazz I am looking for, but not always. It almost never has the ethnic music I look for. I do a lot of digging and research, not so much "greatest hits" listening. A lot of the CDs I buy are either dirt cheap classical big boxes or specialty label or foreign CDs. Those aren't included often on streaming. A great deal isn't even available on Amazon, but only from the label's website. I find a lot of great stuff on YouTube actually. I download the file and add it to my music server.


----------



## bfreedma (Oct 24, 2019)

bigshot said:


> For historical recordings mastering makes a big difference. Some labels are good, others are noise. I have Amazon but I primarily use it for background music through my Alexas. It covers rock music pretty thoroughly, and sometimes it has jazz I am looking for, but not always. It almost never has the ethnic music I look for. I do a lot of digging and research, not so much "greatest hits" listening. A lot of the CDs I buy are either dirt cheap classical big boxes or specialty label or foreign CDs. Those aren't included often on streaming. A great deal isn't even available on Amazon, but only from the label's website. I find a lot of great stuff on YouTube actually. I download the file and add it to my music server.



All true, but your listening choices don’t generally represent the market that streaming is currently targeting.

I don’t agree with your assessment that streaming services are largely good for “greatest hits”. While they may not have all of the esoteric/historical niche recordings, the various services have fairly comprehensive catalogs.  If you’re looking for a specific mastering of Caruso from the 30s or “The German Bovine Flatulence Orchestra plays Polka Classics”, streaming may not be for you


----------



## krismusic

Streaming is the miracle of my lifetime as far as I am concerned. To have access to an overwhelming amount of the world's music in my pocket. To be able to play an example of virtually any artist who crops up in conversation, is little short of astounding.


----------



## sander99

I have a question, very on topic of this thread I think.
Where could I find a suitable "test set" of audio fragments for use in controlled level matched double blind ABX tests, or somewhat simpler level matched blind tests?
I assume there are known "test sets", some more and some less extensive, that are suitable for finding all or most possible audible differences?
Instead of actual audio data a list of albums (including specific master if relevant), track, time interval in the track would also be appriciated (maybe even better for me).
(Of course I don't expect anyone to make such a list for me, just if you happen to know one...)

And maybe, not needed for convincing me but maybe needed for convincing others, it would be nice to have a "high res" test set, of real 24 bits 192 kHz audio fragments. (So that when not hearing differences in some test, nobody can blame it on using "inferior" audio fragments.)


----------



## taffy2207 (Oct 26, 2019)

krismusic said:


> Streaming is the miracle of my lifetime as far as I am concerned. To have access to an overwhelming amount of the world's music in my pocket. To be able to play an example of virtually any artist who crops up in conversation, is little short of astounding.



Each to their own but I hate streaming due to the low rates Streaming Services pay :-

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/12/25/streaming-music-services-pay-2019/

I tend to buy direct from Bands websites, via Bandcamp or occasionally buy a CD. Streaming is not for me anyway due to my predominantly obscure & diverse Music tastes 



Spoiler: Off Topic Anecdote



Interesting anecdote. I had only 1 illegal download in my Music collection up until last year (Wayland - Sticked & Stoned). I'd searched for the Album for years and couldn't find it anywhere except as an illegal download. Last year I found the CD on Amazon for 72 pence, brand new. Go figure


----------



## bigshot (Oct 26, 2019)

sander99 said:


> Where could I find a suitable "test set" of audio fragments for use in controlled level matched double blind ABX tests, or somewhat simpler level matched blind tests?



Just take any well regarded "HD Audio" recording and knock it down to the formats you're comparing to... 16/44.1, AAC, MP3, etc. Then bump them back up to HD Audio and normalize them to the same place. Any audio editing program will be able to do that, and you'll end up with files that all look the same, as long as the test participants don't peek at the waveforms.



bfreedma said:


> All true, but your listening choices don’t generally represent the market that streaming is currently targeting. I don’t agree with your assessment that streaming services are largely good for “greatest hits”.



The definition of where the lines for esoteric and "greatest hits" lie on the spectrum depend on where the listener is on his own musical journey. I know that I'm not a typical consumer. Just pointing out that some people are at a point where streaming just can't serve all of their needs any more.

I also think we are going to see a contraction in streaming libraries. It happened in cable TV and home video. At first, they can't put out new content fast enough. Then they realize some things don't have as large of an audience and they start weeding.

Every time a new format comes in, a lot of stuff gets left behind on the old format. There's a vast amount of material that never made it from 78 to LP, from LP to CD, and from CD to streaming. When I was starting out in jazz, there were series of CDs with complete runs of music by a particular artist... Every Fletcher Henderson side in chronological order, every Cab Calloway, Fats Waller, Erskine Hawkins, even John Kirby and Ambrose and his Orchestra. These were hugely important to me in my research into the history of jazz. Now there are some greatest hits CDs, and those are on streaming. The rest of it is all out of print and unavailable on any format. It's sad, because the technology allows for more complete archives, not less. But that isn't how it works. If it isn't being licensed for sale any more, it isn't available. There's no archive of past streaming content like a used record store.

I remember going to Tower Records in the 80s and finding amazing new things every week. I would come home with arm loads of stuff. Then it started getting thinner and thinner until it seemed like everything was like the end caps on the aisles... hit of the day. That may happen in streaming too. They also might start dividing things up into corporate streaming services... Universal will have theirs, Sony will have theirs, Warner will have theirs... and you have to subscribe to all of them, or choose one. Or maybe slimmed down streaming libraries and you have to pay more for "all you can eat".

I really don't care how I get music or what format it is, just as long as I can get to the music I want. My media server library of rips seems to be the best choice to depend on for the long term. I'm really glad I built my CD library when I did. At least half of it isn't on streaming. Yes, the half of it that is streamable amounts to a huge chunk of listening time... perhaps 10,000 hours. But when I want to hear something from that other 10,000 hours that isn't on streaming... say a specific Erskine Hawkins B side mentioned in a book... listening to a greatest hits of Erskine Hawkins won't do the job.

I guess music serves different purposes to different people. I love art books that have catalogs with photos of every painting in the National Gallery of Art or the Louvre or the Hermitage too. The Taschen complete Rembrandt sketches books, or complete Michaelangelo, DaVinci and Schiele are my meat. Best of Van Gogh books don't serve the same purpose to me.

Edit: One side note... part of the explosion of back catalog historical recordings in the 80s had to do with the copyright law. There actually was a public domain back then. When the copyright extension bill passed, and the Naxos case came down, it all changed. Hopefully, with the clock ticking on copyright again, we will see more older recordings again bit by bit. But that will likely be on non-corporate controlled services. I'd like to see the internet go back to being the wild west again. It's good for culture.


----------



## sander99

bigshot said:


> Just take any well regarded "HD Audio" recording and knock it down to the formats you're comparing to... 16/44.1, AAC, MP3, etc. Then bump them back up to HD Audio and normalize them to the same place. Any audio editing program will be able to do that, and you'll end up with files that all look the same, as long as the test participants don't peek at the waveforms.


Oh, I did not want them specifically for comparing audio formats, but for comparisons in general, also to get some personal experience with these things.
And more specific I wanted to check the influence of adding a cheap little DSP box with analog inputs and outputs and hence AD and DA conversion (48 or 44.1 kHz) in my "system". (In fact I have 4 of those boxes with 4 inputs and 4 outputs and also wanted to try to loop a stereo signal through them all twice, so that it passes 8 AD and DA conversions in a row. I figured that if that doesn't give a clear audible difference then there is no need to worry at all about one such a box in the chain.)


----------



## bigshot (Oct 26, 2019)

I don't think I understand what you are intending to compare. An ABX test is intended to compare two sound samples to see if a difference between them can be discerned. It tests to see if two sounds are the same or not. If a DSP box is doing its job, there should be a clear difference between the enhanced audio and the direct audio with no enhancement. The only question there is a subjective decision whether you like the enhancement or not.

If you want to see if conversion from 24/96 to 16/44.1 makes a difference, then the way I described before will do that. If your DSP boxes have a direct pass through with no filters applied, you could do a test switching between a direct level matched signal and the pass through from the DSP box. That would tell you if the DSP box added degradation. But I don't know if a direct pass through would necessarily apply the data rate conversion. You'd need to find that out from the manual.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Just take any well regarded "HD Audio" recording and knock it down to the formats you're comparing to... 16/44.1, AAC, MP3, etc. Then bump them back up to HD Audio and normalize them to the same place. Any audio editing program will be able to do that, and you'll end up with files that all look the same, as long as the test participants don't peek at the waveforms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The ability to manage both my local library of thousands of CD rips and integrate a streaming service is why I find Roon so compelling.  Why have to choose one delivery model when I can have both?  If things change in the future, I’ll adjust.


----------



## sander99

bigshot said:


> I don't think I understand what you are intending to compare.


The boxes only have analog inputs and outputs. Any signal going through is converted to digital and back to analog. So I just want to check, without actually applying any DSP processing, if there is degradation due to the AD and DA conversions.


----------



## bigshot

Is there a bypass button so you can turn off the processing? Then just get a y adaptor and feed direct to one input and run the other through the box. Then just toggle between inputs. You might have to level match.


----------



## sander99

@bigshot: First of all, of course thank you for all the time and effort reacting to my question. I understand most of what you said and have that figured out myself already. My question was not really about the specific test I want to do now, but more general. Maybe you remember I was the one with the silly idea some time ago to maybe do sighted testing before blind testing, because I thought that would increase the chance to find "suspected differences" and suitable audio fragments for possible confirmation in a controlled blind test. And of course if not confirmed in a controlled blind test then these "suspected differences" would have to be dismissed. The idea behind this was that some differences may only be audible with suitable audio content, not just any randomly choosen audio fragment. Then gregorio reacted with the following (amongst other things):


gregorio said:


> I can't think of a single published scientific audio double blind study where they used a "randomly chosen set of audio/music fragments", they always use a set of carefully chosen of audio fragments which maximise the chances of the differences being audible.


Re-readin the rest of that post just now I think he meant a set carefully choosen to test the audibility of an already known - from measurements(?) - specific problem. But I was thinking maybe there is a more general set of audio fragments that in general maximises the chance of finding any differences in any blind comparison listening test.
So that's why I asked the question: where could I find such a set of audio fragments? But it's not super important. It is not as if I am planning to do some very important scientific tests. But if I do a little test and share the results with a few people, I want to try to do it good enough to be taken a little bit serious by those people, that's all.

Just in case you are interested, this is the little 4 in 4 out DSP box I was talking about before, costing 77 Euro's:
https://www.thomann.de/gb/the_t.racks_dsp_4x4_mini.htm
It has a number of standard functions like delay and PEQ that can be configured from a pc via USB. The default settings are such that the signal passes unchanged, but it will always pass the AD and DA conversions and has some level drop that I counteracted by setting the ouput gains at about +7 dB (only for comparison, and while making sure I don't input a level that could cause clipping). I did this gain setting by ear for now but I have an idea how to do it more precise later.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 27, 2019)

I usually test with music, not tones, because I listen to music. I have a bunch of tracks that have different characteristics that I can use to isolate specific parts of sound, but it isn't a fixed set of testing tracks. Just well recorded music with a full range of frequencies.

You shouldn't test to try to convince others though. Individuals can't test to the standards of peer reviewed scientific testing. Your own testing should be for your own edification. Listen to other people, and apply their suggestions, but you don't have to convince them. Some people can't be convinced no matter how good your test is. Just have a clear idea of the question you want answered and try to refine the test to answer it clearly.


----------



## castleofargh

sander99 said:


> @bigshot: First of all, of course thank you for all the time and effort reacting to my question. I understand most of what you said and have that figured out myself already. My question was not really about the specific test I want to do now, but more general. Maybe you remember I was the one with the silly idea some time ago to maybe do sighted testing before blind testing, because I thought that would increase the chance to find "suspected differences" and suitable audio fragments for possible confirmation in a controlled blind test. And of course if not confirmed in a controlled blind test then these "suspected differences" would have to be dismissed. The idea behind this was that some differences may only be audible with suitable audio content, not just any randomly choosen audio fragment. Then gregorio reacted with the following (amongst other things):
> 
> Re-readin the rest of that post just now I think he meant a set carefully choosen to test the audibility of an already known - from measurements(?) - specific problem. But I was thinking maybe there is a more general set of audio fragments that in general maximises the chance of finding any differences in any blind comparison listening test.
> So that's why I asked the question: where could I find such a set of audio fragments? But it's not super important. It is not as if I am planning to do some very important scientific tests. But if I do a little test and share the results with a few people, I want to try to do it good enough to be taken a little bit serious by those people, that's all.
> ...


when I don't know what I'm looking for, I just use a few of my favorite tracks because I knows them well enough that it might help me catch a difference(or so I hope^_^)
but maybe in your case you might want to measure(or at least listen), to some "silent" tracks(or something with a sine at -100dB), to test for added noise. and perhaps go the extra mile km and record the analog output with and without the box and check if there is any relevant change. then if you time and amplitude align the 2, you can play those in abx and still get a nice listening test.


----------



## bigshot

Why would something at -100dB matter?


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Why would something at -100dB matter?


to have a signal we'd like to look at while near a chimney. no I was thinking about how some gears may put themselves on standby when nothing relevant is detected at the input. I only considered that because we're dealing with somehow special boxes compared to a typical amp or a DAC so maybe....?


----------



## bigshot

I guess that might be possible. My subwoofer does that. But putting a normal signal through it would fix that fast I guess.


----------



## gregorio

sander99 said:


> I have 4 of those boxes with 4 inputs and 4 outputs and also wanted to try to loop a stereo signal through them all twice, so that it passes 8 AD and DA conversions in a row. I figured that if that doesn't give a clear audible difference then there is no need to worry at all about one such a box in the chain.) ...
> Just in case you are interested, this is the little 4 in 4 out DSP box I was talking about before, costing 77 Euro's: https://www.thomann.de/gb/the_t.racks_dsp_4x4_mini.htm ... It has a number of standard functions like delay and PEQ that can be configured from a pc via USB. The default settings are such that the signal passes unchanged, but it will always pass the AD and DA conversions and has some level drop that I counteracted by setting the ouput gains at about +7 dB (only for comparison, and while making sure I don't input a level that could cause clipping).



I've never come across that unit before. Obviously it's a consumer unit due to the connection type, plus I can't think of any professional situation where it would be of any use. Standard procedure when testing pro AD/DA units is to loop-back the stereo signal 10 times, in order to make the difference audible! With a relatively cheap consumer unit, especially as it's level appears to be considerably lower, fewer loop-backs might do the trick. I'm not sure what's causing the level drop by the way, although most likely it's one of two possible explanations: 1. It's reducing the level to give itself headroom for adding DSP or 2. You're feeding it a single-ended input, which would be roughly 6dB lower than the balanced input it's expecting.



sander99 said:


> But I was thinking maybe there is a more general set of audio fragments that in general maximises the chance of finding any differences in any blind comparison listening test. So that's why I asked the question: where could I find such a set of audio fragments?



There's not really a general set of audio fragments. We (audio engineers) each tend to have our own individual sets, which comprise a number of tracks (or bits of tracks) we ourselves have worked on and therefore know intimately what they should sound like and what problems we've had to address. The situation is more tricky for consumers, they don't know what/where/if there are problem areas and they don't know what any particular track should sound like. And again, usually we've got either a very good idea of what we're trying to detect (say from measurements) or a fairly good idea of what we're trying to detect. If for example we're comparing speakers, we might use a different set of test fragments/tracks than if we're comparing AD/DAs, because the artefacts are going to be significantly different. 



bigshot said:


> Why would something at -100dB matter?



For the consumer, it wouldn't but professionally it could. Particularly with non-acoustic music genres (and TV/Film sound), raw recordings are very likely to be heavily processed and therefore some artefact at -100dB could end-up becoming audible. A consumer should never encounter this situation though, unless they have some pretty serious flaw with their setup (very poor gain staging for example) but then of course they should address that flaw, rather than looking to improve something that should be well below audibility.

G


----------



## KeithEmo

There are a whole bunch of little "DSP boxes" with a variety of purposes. The popular "Mini DSP" boxes, which are really just general purpose audio DSP boxes you can load a variety of software on, can be loaded with a variety of filters and software - including crossover filters, room correction EQ, and even fancier room correction apps like Dirac Live. They come in different versions, with different numbers of channels, and balanced, unbalanced, or digital inputs and outputs, and offer a variety of "software modules", and the option of designing your own filters and downloading them to the box. 

The input and output levels on consumer equipment tend to be somewhat arbitrary... You aren't looking at "a level drop" per se. The maximum level of a digital signal is specified. What you're seeing is simply the maximum input level of the ADC side, and the maximum output level of the DAC side, both of which are independent of each other, and are determined by the analog circuitry in the box. (In general, the designers will have picked an input level such that "it's unlikely to be overloaded by a typical audio source" and an output level that's "plenty to drive whatever you may want to connect it to".

I have always found that it's best if YOU pick out a set of music to audition equipment with that is both demanding and familiar to you. I have never had great luck trying to determine how equipment sounds, or whether I can hear a difference between two different things, unless I am first extremely familiar with the sample music I'm using. That way I know what it should sound like, what specific things to listen for, and exactly what to expect. 

On a song I am familiar with, I recognize when a particular guitar pluck isn't quite right, or when I can't hear the scrape of a certain chair between two words in a certain song, or when the hall ambience isn't quite right, or the sound of an intake of breath at the beginning of a certain line in a song ... and I have no chance of noticing those sorts of details in a recording I'm not familiar with. 

Most of us also have a tendency to become acclimatized to a new piece of music over the first several times we hear it. We may notice more details as we listen each time... we may hear new details that make us like the track more... or we may notice annoying details that cause us to quickly become tired of it. To me, both of those situations constitute a bias, which cause my opinion of that track to "drift" over time. And, as long as that's still happening, even when I play it on exactly the same equipment, "each time I play the track it's a little different", which makes it impossible to compare different equipment... until I am what I would consider "totally familiar" with the track I'm using to compare it. (It's like the difference between trying to compare a celebrity you've never met in person with a professional impersonating them... and comparing someone you've known for a long time to someone trying to impersonate them at dinner. In the second instance, not only are bogus details likely to be more obvious, but you're also more likely to recognize that "it isn't my old friend"... even if you can't point out the specific details that you noticed.)

It's also worth noting that the music I may choose to listen to when evaluating equipment is not at all the same music I would use to show off that equipment. When auditioning gear, you should always bring your own sample music, rather than rely on what the salesman, or your buddy who just purchased it, prefers to use to demo it. This is true for several reasons. First, you want something you're familiar with. Second, the factors that you consider important may be different than those your buddy considers important. And, third, obviously the salesman is going to pick music that "plays to the strengths, and avoids the weaknesses, of the gear he or she is trying to sell you". (For example, when the Advent loudspeaker was first offered for sale, _EVERY_ audio store I know demoed them with a tune called Dance With Me by a group named Orleans.... because those particular speakers sounded just awesome with that tune.)

Since the original request was for suggestions... I'll throw out a few...

If you like bass, and organ music, try: The Six Wives of Henry VIII - by Rick Wakeman
And, if you like acoustic guitars, try:  The Eagles - Hotel California

Both of those have been re-mastered several times....
So use a specific version with you that you are familiar with.  



gregorio said:


> I've never come across that unit before. Obviously it's a consumer unit due to the connection type, plus I can't think of any professional situation where it would be of any use. Standard procedure when testing pro AD/DA units is to loop-back the stereo signal 10 times, in order to make the difference audible! With a relatively cheap consumer unit, especially as it's level appears to be considerably lower, fewer loop-backs might do the trick. I'm not sure what's causing the level drop by the way, although most likely it's one of two possible explanations: 1. It's reducing the level to give itself headroom for adding DSP or 2. You're feeding it a single-ended input, which would be roughly 6dB lower than the balanced input it's expecting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## sander99

gregorio said:


> You're feeding it a single-ended input, which would be roughly 6dB lower than the balanced input it's expecting.


That's what I am doing indeed.


----------



## gregorio (Oct 29, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> There are a whole bunch of little "DSP boxes" with a variety of purposes. The popular "Mini DSP" boxes, which are really just general purpose audio DSP boxes you can load a variety of software on, can be loaded with a variety of filters and software - including crossover filters, room correction EQ, and even fancier room correction apps like Dirac Live. They come in different versions, with different numbers of channels, and balanced, unbalanced, or digital inputs and outputs, and offer a variety of "software modules", and the option of designing your own filters and downloading them to the box.



Yes, I'm aware of some of the "Mini DSP" boxes, just not the particular one mentioned.



KeithEmo said:


> The input and output levels on consumer equipment tend to be somewhat arbitrary... You aren't looking at "a level drop" per se. The maximum level of a digital signal is specified. What you're seeing is simply the maximum input level of the ADC side, and the maximum output level of the DAC side, both of which are independent of each other, and are determined by the analog circuitry in the box. (In general, the designers will have picked an input level such that "it's unlikely to be overloaded by a typical audio source" and an output level that's "plenty to drive whatever you may want to connect it to".



There are international standards for unbalanced (consumer) line level and balanced (professional) line level, although I agree that many/most consumer units don't adhere to the standards. The actual difference between the two should be 11.8 dBu but typically with consumer gear the balanced connection is roughly 6dB hotter.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] I have always found that it's best if YOU pick out a set of music to audition equipment with that is both demanding and familiar to you. I have never had great luck trying to determine how equipment sounds, or whether I can hear a difference between two different things, unless I am first extremely familiar with the sample music I'm using. *That way I know what it should sound like*, what specific things to listen for, and exactly what to expect.
> [2] On a song I am familiar with, I recognize when a particular guitar pluck isn't quite right, or when I can't hear the scrape of a certain chair between two words in a certain song, or when the hall ambience isn't quite right, or the sound of an intake of breath at the beginning of a certain line in a song ... and I have no chance of noticing those sorts of details in a recording I'm not familiar with.



1. That was my point though, you DON'T know what it should sound like! You know what you are familiar with (and what you prefer) but your reference is arbitrary, your personal sound system/s.

2. Again, how do you recognise that a particular guitar pluck, hall ambience or intake of breath "isn't quite right"? I don't doubt that you can hear a difference but which one is "right" or more/less "right"? "Right" is just a reference to your own system/s and personal preferences. I've never heard a consumer/audiophile system which sounds similar to my studio/system and whenever I've had an audiophile in my studio, they've ALWAYS commented how surprisingly different it sounds and typically (though not always) they've preferred their own system. If I've created the music, then "Right" is how it sounds in my studio but audiophiles pretty much never get to experience this actual "right", their "right" is just a subjective personal preference (on systems which are ALL significantly different from "right").



sander99 said:


> That's what I am doing indeed.



That's going to make a direct AD/DA comparison difficult, especially if you're doing loop-backs, as with each loop-back you're cumulatively increasing the noise floor (and any artefacts it contains) by an additional 7dB. So effectively you are comparing gain-staging rather that the AD/DA process! I'm not sure exactly how you'd alleviate that problem, personally the first thing I'd try is: Do say two loop back recordings WITHOUT your 7dB gain on each loop, reduce the original by 14dB and then boost them both to the same volume level with your amp to compare them. Remember though, you're only listening for differences NOT making any quality judgements, because the quality of both will be degraded (a 14dB higher noise floor just for starters). I'd measure the actual levels though, rather than just guessing at 7dB and I'd also perform a null test.

G


----------



## sander99

gregorio said:


> with each loop-back you're cumulatively increasing the noise floor (and any artefacts it contains) by an additional 7dB. So effectively you are comparing gain-staging rather that the AD/DA process!


I guess this means I would always throw away 7 or 6 dB signal to noise ratio when using these boxes unbalanced? Not that that's necessarily a big problem for me.
I already did some listening with 8 loop-backs and indeed noticed the added noise.
Well, it is what it is, I can not test them under optimal conditions but I also can not use them under optimal conditions so in the end for me the question is: will they do good enough under the current conditions?


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree entirely... to a point.

You have no absolute reference.... but at least you have a _relative_ reference.... and that works for you in two ways.

1)
If you have some favorite music that you always use when auditioning equipment then, even though you may not know what that music sounded like in the recording studio, at least you know what it sounded like on a lot of other equipment. As neuroscientists love to point out, we can't really know if I see the same thing as you do when I look at something "red". However each of us has built up an internal reference of "what red looks like" by looking at lots and lots of things that we have been told are red. Likewise, if you listen to a certain set of familiar songs on a lot of equipment, and make sure to include a lot of equipment that is generally considered to be "good", you can build up a decent "consensus average" of what it should sound like. In fact, if you pay careful attention, you can even build up a detailed idea of "what it sounds like on gear that most people say is bright" and "what it sounds like on gear that most people say is harsh". It's not perfect.... but it's a lot better than no idea at all. (And, if you're lucky, you may actually have an opportunity to listen to it in a studio someday.)

2)
As some other folks like to point out... this thread is largely targeted towards people making purchasing decisions. In that context, from a purely relativistic perspective, if you know what familiar music sounds like on your system, you also probably have a pretty good idea of what you do and don't like about how it sounds..... This gives you a good basis for deciding whether it sounds "better or worse" (to you - based on your subjective opinion) on new gear you may be auditioning. Also, to put it bluntly, if you're purchasing new equipment, one of your goals is probably to improve how your system sounds _with the music you listen to_. (There's not much point in auditioning a system, and choosing one that sounds really great with jazz music, if all you listen to is heavy metal... after all, there's no guarantee that every system that sounds good with jazz will sound good with heavy metal, and most consumer systems are not going to be "extremely accurate with all types of music".)

The alternative here is to use music which you are NOT familiar with, and so have no idea whatsoever what it should sound like, in a studio OR on your personal system.
Of course, the other  alternative is to choose your equipment based solely on measurements, but that often seems not to work out well...
(And that's especially true for non-pros who don't have a solid basis for interpreting what the measurements mean.)



gregorio said:


> 1. That was my point though, you DON'T know what it should sound like! You know what you are familiar with (and what you prefer) but your reference is arbitrary, your personal sound system/s.
> 
> 2. Again, how do you recognise that a particular guitar pluck, hall ambience or intake of breath "isn't quite right"? I don't doubt that you can hear a difference but which one is "right" or more/less "right"? "Right" is just a reference to your own system/s and personal preferences. I've never heard a consumer/audiophile system which sounds similar to my studio/system and whenever I've had an audiophile in my studio, they've ALWAYS commented how surprisingly different it sounds and typically (though not always) they've preferred their own system. If I've created the music, then "Right" is how it sounds in my studio but audiophiles pretty much never get to experience this actual "right", their "right" is just a subjective personal preference (on systems which are ALL significantly different from "right").
> 
> G


----------



## gregorio

sander99 said:


> [1] I guess this means I would always throw away 7 or 6 dB signal to noise ratio when using these boxes unbalanced?
> [2] I already did some listening with 8 loop-backs and indeed noticed the added noise.



1. Not necessarily. If you've got the box in your playback chain but not actually applying any DSP then yes, you're effectively throwing ~6dB away but if you're applying DSP, say a +6dB EQ boost, reverb or some other process which adds to the signal, then effectively you're not really throwing anything away.

2. The problem you have is that you don't know if/how much of that noise is due to the AD/DA process and how much is due to gain staging. Given a theoretically perfect AD/DA process and a theoretically perfect test recording (with an infinitely low noise floor), each loop should result in very approximately 6dB more noise (due to dither and thermal noise) but presumably you're just using a music recording, which has a high noise floor relative to dither + thermal noise, which you're boosting by 7dB per loop. This boosted recording noise floor likely accounts for most (or likely virtually all) of the added noise you're hearing.



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Likewise, if you listen to a certain set of familiar songs on a lot of equipment, and make sure to include a lot of equipment that is generally considered to be "good", you can build up a decent "consensus average" of what it should sound like.
> [2] As some other folks like to point out... this thread is largely targeted towards people making purchasing decisions. In that context, from a purely relativistic perspective, if you know what familiar music sounds like on your system, you also probably have a pretty good idea of what you do and don't like about how it sounds..... This gives you a good basis for deciding whether it sounds "better or worse" (to you - based on your subjective opinion) on new gear you may be auditioning.



1. A lot of equipment that is "generally considered to be good" is setup poorly, for example, speakers that are "considered good" placed poorly or in a poorly shaped room with little/no or inappropriate acoustic treatment. Additionally, in the audiophile world "considered good" and "accurate" are often two quite different things (which are conflated). So in general I disagree, the average consumer (or audiophile) cannot build-up a decent consensus average of what it should sound like. Again, I've never heard an audiophile system which sounds like my studio, sometimes/often deliberately so. Pretty much without exception, every audiophile I've had in my various studios for nearly 30 years described the experience as highly analytical (typically shocking so) and/or some variation of "unmusical".

2. Firstly, I agree ... but obviously, as you state, that's "better or worse" relative to what an individual is familiar with and what their personal preferences are, not intrinsically or objectively "better or worse". Commonly, what is "better" subjectively to a particular audiophile (or even group of audiophiles) is actually "worse" but nevertheless they'll describe it as (or imply that it's) actually "better". This is the root cause of many audiophile myths! Secondly, what one is familiar with (and one's preferences) can change, sometimes dramatically and unpredictably. It's quite amazing how human hearing/perception can adapt to a very different system (with familiarity) and preferences take an almost 180deg turn, especially if they believe the different system is at least in some way better/more accurate. I've seen this several times with audiophiles I've worked with (inexperienced directors or acoustic musicians unused to recording studios), who initially hated the sound in my studio compared to their audiophile system.

Most consumers/audiophiles of course don't have much choice and I agree that using music they're familiar with is better than music they're not. I'm just pointing out the trap many fall into, namely confusing/conflating: Knowing what it should sound like with knowing one's preference for what it should sound like, there's typically a significant difference between the two! 

G
_
_


----------



## sander99 (Nov 1, 2019)

I hope I don't bore anyone to death with this long post... only read on your own leisure, if at all...
(A detail I left out first is that I didn't have all the boxes outputs at +7 dB, that was a first (and too high) rough estimation made listening with one pass through, at the last outputs of the 8 times loop I had a smaller value to correct. I now have +6.2 dB in each output, which is a tiny bit too low. I still have to do a precise measurement. But at least going from 8 to 1 loop the error is divided by 8 also.)

DSP 4x4 Mini input specs: Level +12 dBu, Impedance 1 MΩ (stereo), 500 kΩ (mono)

According to this calculator:
https://www.analog.com/en/design-center/interactive-design-tools/dbconvert.html#

+12 dBu means 3.08 Vrms / 4.36 Vpeak

Would that be (1) the voltage difference between hot and cold, or (2) between hot and 0?
Then inputting an unbalanced signal with 1.54 Vrms / 2.18 Vpeak would be
In case (1): +6 dBu
In case (2): 0 dBu
Right?



gregorio said:


> if you're applying DSP, say a +6dB EQ boost, reverb or some other process which adds to the signal, then effectively you're not really throwing anything away.


But to minimise the degrading effect of the ADC wouldn't it be better to input max level, and lower the input gain - assuming this works in the digital domain after the ADC - to create headroom for the processing?
(Internal processing is 32 bits by the way.)

Actually I have listened to the boxes in 2 different situations:
1. the boxes after the volume control (between the pre-outs of my receiver and the main-in power amp inputs of an integrated amp with removed pre-main bridges). Which is of course the worst possible situation.
2. the boxes before the volume control (between source and a normal input of the receiver).

As a "source" I used the zone 2 output (fixed volume, so full line level) of my Yamaha RX-V771 receiver but it is: 200 mV (1.2 kOhm); which according to the calculator is: -11.76 dBu, so almost 24 dBu too low!
Still very far from optimal.
[Edit: and this was in case (1), but now I know case (2) is "the case", so the situation is even worse: I am inputting almost 30 dBu too low! Which actually increases my respect for these boxes because except the added noise I can not hear anything wrong with 8 loop-backs.]

My intended use for the boxes is between the 16 analog outputs of my Smyth Realiser A16 (on order) and 16 channels of amplification in the form of 2 obsolete Yamaha RX-V750 7.1 receivers with analog 7.1 inputs and an old Yamaha AX-592 integrated stereo amp. For use of the A16 as a 16 channel decoder with real speakers, and for PRIR measurements both with PEQ, level, and delay in the chain which is otherwise problematic to achieve with only the analog outputs available on the A16 (most av receivers can not apply any dsp to analog 7.1 inputs).
Ideally I would have to do the volume control after the boxes (set A16 volume to max, or max -2.24 dB, see below), maybe I should find a third RX-V750, because their volumes follow the remote control beautifully synchronous (with digitally displayed discete steps, whereas the AX-592 has a motorized potentiometer that of course doesn't follow the others correctly and even by hand would be difficult to set right).

The A16 16 channel analog output specs are a bit more promising:
Impedance 10 Ohms
Peak Output 2 Vrms
Which would mean +8.24 dBu.

So in case (1) at least I can reach the +6 dBu on the DSP 4x4 Mini inputs.
But in case (2) I can reach only +2.24 dBu.
Correct?

But I am wondering if in case (1) it would be possible to input +8.24 dBu in the box unbalanced? If the input was implemented using a transformer (very unlikely I guess), or a differential amp that doesn't care about the absolute voltages (if that is possible at all?)...

By the way [Edit: back to the 8 loops test situation]: if I only had the cables I could do the actual loop-backs themselves balanced, so that only the first inputs and the last outputs of the loops are unbalanced. And I could raise the input gain of the first inputs (and lower the output gain of the last outputs) such that the signal reaches full level and probably stays that all the way through the 7 "middle" DA-AD (from the inside-the-box perspective) conversions. Then I could check the influence of 8 conversions with only one time the (extra "gainstaging") added noise. I have the first inputs and the last outputs in one and the same box, so in that box I could switch (using the "Matrix", just unfortunately not a fast instantanious switch) between including or excluding the additional 7 DA-AD conversions (all full level, balanced connections).


----------



## sander99

Ha ha, maybe not so smart to put "only read on your own leisure, if at all..." above my last post because now nobody answered this question:

Generally, if an input level for a balanced input is given, for example:
+12 dBu, which means 3.08 Vrms / 4.36 Vpeak
Would that be (1) the voltage difference between hot and cold, or (2) between hot and 0? (Which would make a 6 dB difference).


----------



## sonitus mirus

sander99 said:


> Ha ha, maybe not so smart to put "only read on your own leisure, if at all..." above my last post because now nobody answered this question:
> 
> Generally, if an input level for a balanced input is given, for example:
> +12 dBu, which means 3.08 Vrms / 4.36 Vpeak
> Would that be (1) the voltage difference between hot and cold, or (2) between hot and 0? (Which would make a 6 dB difference).



European studio level is +6 dBu, which is 4.38 Vpp (2.19 Vp) and 1.55 Vrms, so +12 dBu is peak to peak (8.7 Vpp).


----------



## gregorio (Nov 2, 2019)

sander99 said:


> Generally, if an input level for a balanced input is given, for example:
> +12 dBu, which means 3.08 Vrms / 4.36 Vpeak
> Would that be (1) the voltage difference between hot and cold, or (2) between hot and 0? (Which would make a 6 dB difference).



I'm not sure I understand and without the other piece of the puzzle, it doesn't mean much. The basic principle of a balanced connection is that the voltage between hot and cold is identical but inverted (out of phase). At the balanced input the cold signal is inverted (in phase), giving us two identical signals which are summed, effectively resulting in signal level x 2 (+6dB). Feeding this balanced input with an unbalanced signal means there is only one signal, not two and therefore the level is 6dB less.

Studio/Pro audio line level is +4dBu, while consumer line level is (supposed to be) -10dBV, which equates to -7.8dBu. However, what's important here is what that analogue signal level is referenced/calibrated to on the digital scale (dBFS), the missing piece of the puzzle. This is fixed by (and adhered to) international standards in the case of theatrical film and HDTV at: +4dBU = -20dBFS (peak level is therefore 0dBFS = +24dBu). There is no international standard for music though, by convention it's commonly +4dBU = -16dBFS but can be anywhere between -12dBFS to -20dBFS. Is that quoted +12dBu, the peak input (0dBFS)? If so, that's 12dBu lower than pro line level but if it's say -20dBFS then it's 8dBu higher than pro audio line level. In addition, do you know where the 6-7dB attenuation is actually occurring in your loop back? Maybe it's on the output?



sander99 said:


> But to minimise the degrading effect of the ADC wouldn't it be better to input max level, and lower the input gain - assuming this works in the digital domain after the ADC - to create headroom for the processing? (Internal processing is 32 bits by the way.)



More analogue gain usually incurs more internal self-noise (depending on it's nominal gain design), so having a lower analogue gain level would result in lower noise than a having a higher analogue gain level and reducing the digital gain. In fact, that's pretty much the whole point of 24bit A/D conversion, to allow for a lower analogue signal (mic pre-amp) level and therefore significantly more headroom, without having to worry too much about clipping or the noise floor of the digital domain. In this case though, the nominal design is for a higher level (balanced) analogue signal. So, assuming basic competency in the analogue input design, then it wouldn't make any audible difference, you'd probably be hard pushed to even measure a difference, maybe just a bit of extra thermal noise way down around -130dBFS or so.

G


----------



## sander99

gregorio said:


> The basic principle of a balanced connection is that the voltage between hot and cold is identical but inverted (out of phase).


That I understand. And that's why <the voltage difference between hot and cold> is 2x <the voltage difference between hot and 0>. 
Example: at one point in time hot = +2 V. cold = -2 V. 
<The difference between hot and cold> = (+2)-(-2)) = 2 + 2 = 4 V, 
<the difference between hot and 0> = 2 - 0 = 2. 
Maybe it looks a bit silly to write it down like that but it's just to show what I meant. Also I see now how my original question could be misinterpreted because the max amplitude of a signal is always a positive value of course, so the difference between the max amplitude of hot and the max amplitude of cold would be zero. By the way I assume Vpeak means max amplitude? (Ignoring "the other piece of the puzzle" for a moment.)

So to rewrite my original question a little bit:
+12 dBu means 3.08 Vrms / 4.36 Vpeak
Does this mean hot and cold both have a max amplitude of 2.18 V and hence the max amplitude of the hot - cold difference signal is 4.36 V?
Or does this mean hot and cold both have a max amplitude of 4.36 V and hence the max amplitude of the hot - cold difference signal is 8.72 V?

I understood from @sonitus mirus answer that the latter is the case, hot and cold both have a max amplitude of 4.36 V and hence the max amplitude of the hot - cold difference signal is 8.72 V.


----------



## Mark74 (Nov 3, 2019)

sander99 said:


> Does this mean hot and cold both have a max amplitude of 2.18 V and hence the max amplitude of the hot - cold difference signal is 4.36 V?
> Or does this mean hot and cold both have a max amplitude of 4.36 V and hence the max amplitude of the hot - cold difference signal is 8.72 V?
> 
> I understood from @sonitus mirus answer that the latter is the case, hot and cold both have a max amplitude of 4.36 V and hence the max amplitude of the hot - cold difference signal is 8.72 V.



Yes, Vpp approx 4.3v betw Hot and Gnd as per Sonitus.

Conventionally, rms and p-p values characterize the amplitude variation of a single signal rather than a comparison between two signals, however closely they may be related.


----------



## castleofargh

sander99 said:


> That I understand. And that's why <the voltage difference between hot and cold> is 2x <the voltage difference between hot and 0>.
> Example: at one point in time hot = +2 V. cold = -2 V.
> <The difference between hot and cold> = (+2)-(-2)) = 2 + 2 = 4 V,
> <the difference between hot and 0> = 2 - 0 = 2.
> ...


I have to say that I really don't understand where you're trying to go with this. surely you've found one of the gazillion online converters like http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-db-volt.htm 
are you asking if a unit is another one? if a single ended circuit is in fact secretly balanced? I confused about your confusion ^_^.


----------



## sander99

castleofargh said:


> I have to say that I really don't understand where you're trying to go with this. surely you've found one of the gazillion online converters like http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-db-volt.htm
> are you asking if a unit is another one? if a single ended circuit is in fact secretly balanced? I confused about your confusion ^_^.


I am not going anywhere with this because my question has been answered, I just wanted to explain better to gregorio what I meant.
You didn't get what it was all about? The DSP 4x4 Mini's I was talking about have balanced inputs and outputs (that I use unbalanced but that doesn't change the question or the answer). My question was about balanced inputs. The voltage specification could have been interpreted in 2 different ways as I explained. I briefly tried to google it before but apparently it is one of those things that everyone finds so obvious that they never mention it.


----------



## 71 dB

castleofargh said:


> I have to say that I really don't understand where you're trying to go with this.



I am feeling the same… …I don't get what exactly this discussion is about. Who cares what the voltage is as long as we don't overdrive any input causing distortion and also have high enough signal level to not have signal-to-noise issues? Any reasonably designed piece of audio electronics should have plenty of safety margin in this regard so that distortion doesn't happen in the input stage.


----------



## KeithEmo

Let me try to clear up a few things.

A balanced signal does not include a "hot" and "cold" signal - even though they are sometimes described that way.
The (+) signal is a full level in-phase signal and the (-) signal is a full level signal that is inverted (exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the first).
At the input those two signals are subtracted (remember that subtracting a negative value is the same as adding a positive value).
The result is an output signal that is TWICE the level of the in-phase input signal.

The idea is that any noise that impinges on both wires at the same time will be added to both.
Then, when you subtract the two signals....
The desired (+) signal, minus the desired (-) signal, gives you TWICE the desired signal.
But the undesired noise signal (on the + line), minus the undesired noise signal (on the - line), cancels out... and the noise mostly goes away.
This is the main reason why balanced connections are used.
(Certain distortions that might arise in the output and input circuitry may also cancel out.)

While it's true that some people consider the levels involved "so obvious they don't bother to mention them"....
It's also true that, since the main purpose of a balanced connection is NOT "to give you a higher level signal", not everyone treats it the same.
On some equipment, the two lines of a balanced connection do each carry a signal at the same level as a single unbalanced connection...
However, on a lot of gear, especially consumer gear, the balanced outputs and inputs operate at the higher "pro level", while the unbalanced inputs and outputs operate at a lower "consumer level".
And, on a lot of home audio gear, both lines of the balanced inputs and outputs operate at the lower "consumer level", which still provides the benefit of noise immunity.
And, because, of this, in some gear, the two signals in the balanced connections are subtracted as they should be, then the result is divided by two, to produce a lower level "safer" signal.

You will also find similar disagreement on what the "standard level" of an unbalanced signal "should be"...
There are "standards" that call for 0.770V, 1.0V or 2.0V ... and there is no single obligatory standard.
Therefore, most outputs are designed to be able to deliver enough voltage to satisfy any of those requirements...
And most analog inputs are designed with enough gain to work with most of those levels as well.
(You will also find that most consumer gear specifies an "output level" and a "MAXIMUM output level" - which is much higher - to cover that range of possibilities.)

Most two-channel analog preamps are set up in such a way that their analog inputs can handle much higher voltages.
In a typical analog stereo preamp, you have a passive Volume control first, followed by an active gain stage, which together can tolerate very high input voltages with no problem.
HOWEVER, in typical home theater gear, the input is immediately digitized, at which point you may have to worry about overloading the input ADC circuitry, which may occur at only 2V or so.



sander99 said:


> I am not going anywhere with this because my question has been answered, I just wanted to explain better to gregorio what I meant.
> You didn't get what it was all about? The DSP 4x4 Mini's I was talking about have balanced inputs and outputs (that I use unbalanced but that doesn't change the question or the answer). My question was about balanced inputs. The voltage specification could have been interpreted in 2 different ways as I explained. I briefly tried to google it before but apparently it is one of those things that everyone finds so obvious that they never mention it.


----------



## goodvibes

The great majority of analog preamps have a line stage (often a unity gain buffer) before the V control and additional gain after. Not arguing here, just clarifying. Too many on this board believe that balanced is inherently better but it's not. just a different way of doing things. Common mode rejection doesn't tend to offer much in home kit.For balanced to be better or even as good, the up and down phase would need perfect symmetry which is more difficult to achieve in the dynamic scheme of an amplifier than many appreciate.


----------



## analogsurviver

@goodvibes : Correcto mundo. Coming from analog, could not agree more. 

@KeithEmo : Coming from analog, I am acustumed to having AMPLE input overload margin. Not tube ample - not THAT high - but can't possibly disagree with the fact that preamps and power amp front ends running on VERY high power supply voltage rails ( dwarfing the bog standard +- 15 VDC most IC based preamps operate on ) do sound better in real use. If nothing else, this capability comes handy when dealing with a scratch or pressed defect on the analog record - the output of which will most likely clip the low power supply voltage powered circuits. Two of the solid state preamps I like both operate at +-45 + ( few volts above that , less than 50 ) supply rails - and do not encounter any of the stridency most IC based preamps fell prey to when having to deal with ample input overload.

It is far lesser concern with digital, but still having the capability "not needed/required" ( not just for say 1-2 dB above 0 dBFS ) on board does work better in the end.


----------



## goodvibes

Lots of headroom is good but so is stiffness of supply. If it's not bouncing I really don't think those sorts of margins are required. ICs have tiny tracks. I have often found that even when using some DAC chips etc, one channel of a stereo chip per side is preferred to running one chip for 2 channels. I think the issue with ICs (and some are good) is more about current than anything else. Trade offs because they can also be very fast and refined. There's a reason beyond costs that everyone including the old guard uses them in certain areas of low level circuitry.


----------



## analogsurviver

Well, correct again. I grew so acustomed to power supplies that still do not flinch even when the circuitry they power is grossly overloaded. It works much better than when the power supply can get modulated by the music it is supposed to back up flawlessly no matter what.

Yes, the tracks in ICs are tiny - and they do limit the current delivery. And the reason why even the most rabid dicrete design lovers would use ICs is the fact that they are, by the very definition - matched for electrical parameters. It is on the same die of silicone, after all ...  Getting a discretely build circuit to anything the precision even common ICs have long ago taken for granted is no laughing matter - it does take lots of money and lots of time - which ultimately translates into yet more money.

ICs are more reliable. Any piece of electronics that is in off condition cold but turns into an oven when actually running non-stop, is a time bomb. There are only two kinds of these: those that did fail and those that WILL. Class A amps are the most notorious for this - not to even start about valve/tube variety.

A clever designer would know the pros and contras and use the most (cost) effective solution in order to reach the goal envisioned at the beginning of the project. Valves/tubes are oft maligned in this thread; there are applications and uses they can not be ( yet ...? ) bettered by any other known technology. Audio included.


----------



## KeithEmo

That makes perfect sense to me.

With analog sources it's quite possible for a noise like a tick or pop to very briefly exceed the maximum level of the normal signal - by a very significant margin.
A tick or pop coming from a vinyl album may also contain very high levels of very high or even ultrasonic frequencies (this is how many "tick and pop removal" methods recognize them).
(With digital signals this is essentially impossible - since there is a specified "hard maximum signal level" at "0 dB" - the highest number that can be encoded.)
Therefore, it makes perfect sense that such a signal, when passed through a preamp or amplifier with lots of extra overload margin, might sound noticeably better.
(I would expect this to be most significant for the phono preamp itself...)

Analog circuitry often responds unfavorably to overloads, and may ring or otherwise distort for some time after being overloaded, which can make the overload far more audible than a simple "loud tick".
And, if so, then having a substantial overload margin would certainly reduce or prevent this.
(The input filters that precede A/D converters are also often rather sensitive to overload.)
And, yes, many circuits that use lots of feedback, like amplifiers using op-amps, tend to respond more dramatically to overload than other types, when driven outside their normal operating range.
Amplifier circuitry can be designed to respond "gracefully", even when it does overload, but this is something that is often not given much attention, and may account for significant differences in sound.
(After all "you're not supposed to overload it".)

This may well account for something that many people who listen to vinyl have noticed (I've never heard a name assigned to it but I always think of it as "the dirty windshield effect".
If you have dirt and bugs on your car windshield, they obviously reduce your visibility to a degree, until you remove them.
However, because your eyes have a limited depth of field, when you're watching the road, the dirt and distracting flecks on your windshield are out of focus to your eyes.
Because of this, even though collectively they reduce visibility, you tend not to notice individual bits and bugs... unless you deliberately focus your eyes on the glass.
Similarly, if you play a vinyl album with lots of ticks and pops, even though you hear the noise, it often seems to be "on a separate layer from the music"....
Because of this, even when there is a significant amount of noise, we often find it "easy to hear the noise as distinctly apart from the music".
This effect then seems to disappear when we digitize that music (if we fail to remove the ticks and pops first).
It could well be that, by perturbing both the analog and conversion gear in the signal path, and producing distortion that extends past the actual time of the tick itself, the noises are being made more audible.

(Just for the record, I personally have always found ticks, pops, and surface noise to be a distraction that I am simply unable to ignore... which is why I prefer digital audio to analog.)



analogsurviver said:


> @goodvibes : Correcto mundo. Coming from analog, could not agree more.
> 
> @KeithEmo : Coming from analog, I am acustumed to having AMPLE input overload margin. Not tube ample - not THAT high - but can't possibly disagree with the fact that preamps and power amp front ends running on VERY high power supply voltage rails ( dwarfing the bog standard +- 15 VDC most IC based preamps operate on ) do sound better in real use. If nothing else, this capability comes handy when dealing with a scratch or pressed defect on the analog record - the output of which will most likely clip the low power supply voltage powered circuits. Two of the solid state preamps I like both operate at +-45 + ( few volts above that , less than 50 ) supply rails - and do not encounter any of the stridency most IC based preamps fell prey to when having to deal with ample input overload.
> 
> It is far lesser concern with digital, but still having the capability "not needed/required" ( not just for say 1-2 dB above 0 dBFS ) on board does work better in the end.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would agree - provisionally.

Some audio circuit designs are very sensitive to even minor variations in supply voltage.
However, some circuit designs are virtually immune to them, and can tolerate huge variations in supply voltage with to measurable change in performance.

The specification that describes this is called "power supply rejection".
One thing many designers overlook is that the specifications of a chip, by itself, do not necessarily describe how it will perform in a particular circuit.
For example, most IC op-amps, as a separate device, have spectacularly good power supply rejection... 
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be unaffected by power supply variations when used in a _particular_ circuit topology.
(Some circuit topologies are themselves inherently sensitive to variations in supply voltage.)
Conversely, some of the reference voltages inside a DAC are super-critical of power supply fluctuations and noise...
However, because of this, many DAC chips include internal precision regulators to generate and regulate those reference voltages.
(And, sometimes, when designers bypass that internal circuitry in an attempt to "improve it", they compromise this internal control.)

It's also worth noting that many DAC chips in specific offer a special "mono mode".
In this mode, a full stereo DAC chip is operated with both channels "cross connected", with a resulting improvement in performance.
This mode uses both of the stereo outputs on the DAC chip to derive a single output channel.
(With these, the benefit is derived from the special operating mode, and not from the fact that the two chips are physically isolated.) 

However, in general, using two separate chips certainly isn't going to _hurt_... and sometimes it helps...



goodvibes said:


> Lots of headroom is good but so is stiffness of supply. If it's not bouncing I really don't think those sorts of margins are required. ICs have tiny tracks. I have often found that even when using some DAC chips etc, one channel of a stereo chip per side is preferred to running one chip for 2 channels. I think the issue with ICs (and some are good) is more about current than anything else. Trade offs because they can also be very fast and refined. There's a reason beyond costs that everyone including the old guard uses them in certain areas of low level circuitry.


----------



## analogsurviver (Dec 8, 2019)

My sins from yesterday - providing the sound for live streaming of the concert of the Gallus Foundation, which helps young talented musicians from Slovenia on their way to international recognition :  https://www.facebook.com/events/2475611512677703/   The livestream remains on YT for 48 hours after the beginning of the event IIRC - so, here it is : 
No processing whatsoever - only my custom version of Jecklin Disk . The original audio recording recording is in DSD128, uploaded to YT in the best possible/available quality - opus cca 160 kbps 48000Hz .

Happy listening !


----------



## castleofargh

To the page turner for the first performance: "You had one job!!!!!!!!" 
If she gets murdered in the next month, we'll all know who did it and why.


----------



## Mink (Jan 18, 2020)

analogsurviver said:


> My sins from yesterday - providing the sound for live streaming of the concert of the Gallus Foundation, which helps young talented musicians from Slovenia on their way to international recognition :  https://www.facebook.com/events/2475611512677703/   The livestream remains on YT for 48 hours after the beginning of the event IIRC - so, here it is :
> No processing whatsoever - only my custom version of Jecklin Disk . The original audio recording recording is in DSD128, uploaded to YT in the best possible/available quality - opus cca 160 kbps 48000Hz .
> 
> Happy listening !



Beautiful recording, I wish more commercial recordings would have this natural and organic sound. It amazes me how many times I prefer the sound of a Youtube video of a live recording over a big budget recording, even beating many stellar Harmonia Mundi recordings.


----------



## analogsurviver

Mink said:


> Beautiful recording, I wish more commercial recordings would have this natural and organic sound. It amazes me how many times I prefer the sound of a Youtube video of a live recording over a big budget recording, even beating many stellar Harmonia Mundi recordings.


Thank you for your comment - much appreciated. 

I would not want to make a recording any other way - even with unlimited budget. But capturing these three "acts" in a really optimum way would have required more careful and precise positioning of the microphone and - in particular - the orchestra, slightly but decisively different for each "act". 

That would require FAR more time than it was available - rehearsals from 10 AM till 7PM ( with lunch break from around 2PM till 4PM ) and then concert at 8PM - until the end of the day. Besides having to "deal with myself/recording", I had to organize/arrange/made to be possible the internet streaming ( "officially" an impossibility, for getting the acces to the internet via appropriate cable enabling fast enough and stable connection, some "diplomacy" had to be used and some rules had to be "bent" ... ). That was up and running just slightly over 45 minutes before the beginning of the concert.

The harpsichord had to be changed ... during the rehearsal, it has been found that the instrument available could not stay in tune for even a single movement. Soloist's own harpsichord had to be arranged to be picked up at her home, some 100 km away... to be carried by hand over pedestrian zone ( around 5PM), to be tuned best as possible in too short a time - all of which I have been co-ordinating - best I could.

Funny you have mentioned Harmonia Mundi recordings. I certainly do agree some of them are stellar - but those date back to mid 70s/early 80s, and are by most part analog. Later, things started sliding downhill ... - and at least some of the HM recordings of one of the greatest mezzosopranos of our time, Bernarda Fink, sound quite unnatural and unlike her voice heard live - or on my recordings of her voice that are commercially available.


----------



## addicted2music (Feb 22, 2020)

Can headphones be slightly damaged and cause slight distortion say in the treble? or if it breaks , it breaks, and the difference is easily audible and not a subtle change.  Whenever I switch on the ceiling fan, I hear some static from my headphones. My headphones are connected to the laptop on charge. Can this static or whatever it is change the sound slightly?


----------



## bigshot

Is it only in a particular song or all the time?


----------



## addicted2music

bigshot said:


> Is it only in a particular song or all the time?


I hear the static for a second . Even when I switch off the fan, I hear it for the same duration. It is not very loud.


----------



## castleofargh

addicted2music said:


> I hear the static for a second . Even when I switch off the fan, I hear it for the same duration. It is not very loud.


With one of my amps, I can tell when the fridge in the other room turns On. Only that moment is audible to me and I can't measure any significant change at the amp while the fridge is ON. But I clearly can record the artifact from the exact moment it's turning On. Unless it's extremely loud, don't mind it. If it really bothers you, there are probably ways to better isolate the audio gear from the rest of the power grid, but is it worth the investment? 

About headphones getting damaged and distorting, I don't think we can answer anything other than "it depends". I've seen drivers where the owner had pushed on the diaphragm and made it in a shape that was clearly not right, yet the sound from that headphone was surprisingly normal(at least subjectively). On the other hand, I've had a short tiny hair rubbing on the diaphragm and driving me crazy with all the buzzing it was causing.


----------



## addicted2music

castleofargh said:


> With one of my amps, I can tell when the fridge in the other room turns On. Only that moment is audible to me and I can't measure any significant change at the amp while the fridge is ON. But I clearly can record the artifact from the exact moment it's turning On. Unless it's extremely loud, don't mind it. If it really bothers you, there are probably ways to better isolate the audio gear from the rest of the power grid, but is it worth the investment?


I shouldn't worry about the artifact, right? that was my main concern.


----------



## bigshot

It’s probably in the recording, not the headphones


----------



## Davesrose

Doubt it's even recording but more electronics.


----------



## bigshot

addicted2music said:


> Can headphones be slightly damaged and cause slight distortion say in the treble? or if it breaks , it breaks, and the difference is easily audible and not a subtle change.  Whenever I switch on the ceiling fan, I hear some static from my headphones. My headphones are connected to the laptop on charge. Can this static or whatever it is change the sound slightly?



Ground loop. The ceiling fan is probably the problem.


----------



## addicted2music (Feb 24, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Ground loop. The ceiling fan is probably the problem.


Can it damage the driver? can it alter the sound? even since I heard the static, I think the treble's texture on my meze 99 classics has become slightly dry. Of course I could be imagining this, but I want to confirm. Also, I am still breaking them in.


----------



## bigshot

No it can't damage the driver. It just means that the shielding and grounding of the electrical in your house is funky. It should be fine if you take your laptop somewhere else to listen to music. It'lll probably be fine if you operate off batteries too.


----------



## alex9090

I hear a static noise using active noise cancellation headphones. I don't know if its because the microphone that receives background noise from different sources and just replicates the sound in the headphones or there are other electrical sources that interfere.


----------



## bigshot

That one is probably something broken in the noise cancelling electronics. That is entirely different than a ground loop problem.


----------



## Kazz123

Wow, just read through a big amount of stuff here, just wanted to say thanks for all the in-depth info. Glad to see a lot of people here with a reasonable approach to audio and sound.


----------



## bigshot

Plenty of unreasonable ones too!


----------



## SupperTime

Why does my external dac(powered) sound better from a pc digital out VS phone digital out (both bit perfect)?


----------



## castleofargh

SupperTime said:


> Why does my external dac(powered) sound better from a pc digital out VS phone digital out (both bit perfect)?


Hard to say. Your impressions only tell us how you feel, not what's going on with the sound.
Also bit perfect doesn't mean much on its own. It should mean that the DAC gets the bit values that were on the file, which would remove so many potential causes for differences. But in practice both the bit depth and the sample rate could be changed while still using a so called "bit perfect" path. and depending on settings, we might still have a sound mixer and digital gain applied at the source.

Right now we don't know much of anything about your situation. so trying to come up with a cause is...


----------



## regawdless

I'm honestly really confused regarding cables. Personally, I cannot hear any significant differences between cables. I did blind tests with different kinds of cables and I could not reliably tell if it's even the same cable or not. I heard very tiny differences, but that could've been my imagination.
Which is more or less in line with the stuff posted on the first page of this thread.

But I keep reading about huge differences, like this text here from this forum:

"Very "musical" cable. And lightens and tightens the mid-bass. At the sametime bass gets lots of authority. And more slam. Mids are very beautiful and airy. Very natural, clean and warm highs.
Sound is much larger also, and very well organized."

How does a cable do that? I love good sound but am no "audiophile" and don't have deep technical knowledge in this area.

What am I missing, I cannot make sense of it. So far cables have just been about looks and convenience for me.


----------



## taffy2207 (Mar 11, 2020)

You're not missing anything apart from BS Marketing aimed at Audiophiles. I lost consiousness briefly at the description of the cable as "Musical". You'll also notice that everything is positive about the cable. Noone wants to spend lots of money on a cable and admit it changes nothing.

Audiophile logic : If it costs more it is better. In reality, not so much.

Trust what you've tested, not what you've read.


----------



## regawdless

taffy2207 said:


> You're not missing anything apart from BS Marketing aimed at Audiophiles. I lost consiousness briefly at the description of the cable as "Musical". You'll also notice that everything is positive about the cable. Noone wants to spend lots of money on a cable and admit it changes nothing.
> 
> Audiophile logic : If it costs more it is better. In reality, not so much.
> 
> Trust what you've tested, not what you've read.



Makes sense, I've never read that an expensive cable makes the sound worse. But man, this forum is full of people raving about how cables improve and drastically changes the sound, especially in the IEM forums. This is crazy. 

I have a hard time understanding why people are spending hundreds of dollars on cables for slight changes - if any - if you can simply EQ, get way more significant results, can change it any time and adjust it to your liking.


----------



## taffy2207 (Mar 11, 2020)

regawdless said:


> I have a hard time understanding why people are spending hundreds of dollars on cables for slight changes - if any



Tonnes of reasons that probably have nothing to do with Music. Peer approval, one upmanship, filling holes in their lives, having the latest thing etc. There's a lot to be said about being happy with what you've got. I spend tonnes on Music and not very much on gear but hey, that's just me. The only thing I've tested is Music formats (thanks to the peeps in SS) which revealed a lot to me.


----------



## acbarn

regawdless said:


> Makes sense, I've never read that an expensive cable makes the sound worse. But man, this forum is full of people raving about how cables improve and drastically changes the sound, especially in the IEM forums. This is crazy.
> 
> I have a hard time understanding why people are spending hundreds of dollars on cables for slight changes - if any - if you can simply EQ, get way more significant results, can change it any time and adjust it to your liking.



Placebo is extremely powerful. We’re all subject to it, even if we’re totally aware of it.


----------



## PhonoPhi

acbarn said:


> Placebo is extremely powerful. We’re all subject to it, even if we’re totally aware of it.


The placebo effect is real; observed in drug testing and needs to be carefully factored out there.

I believe that my differently coloured cables can sound different and they do sound different to me, as far as my imagination can bring me.

(At the same time, it is harder for me to believe in an acoustic effect of different platings given my knowledge of materials science, but I do enjoy psychoacoustic effects of colours in cables))


----------



## bigshot

A cable can either pass signal faithfully or it can degrade it. It can’t improve it. A cable either works or it doesn’t.


----------



## pinnahertz

I sort of can't believe I'm writing yet another cable post.  

If a cable's task is to deliver a signal from a source to a destination without changing it, then most cables should not, and cannot have an audible impact.  However, in the real world, cables all have a set of electrical properties that are all degenerative to the signal being carried.  In typical cable applications those degenerative effects are far, far too small to be audible (many occurring way above the audible frequency range), and may be quite difficult to measure.  Other electrical properties don't have an impact until they make up a significant part of the total electrical circuit.  This can happen with speaker cables, but pretty much never with interconnects.  

The speaker cable scenario is that if a speaker presents a frequency variable load (i.e. not 8 ohms at all frequencies, rather peaking at 18 ohms, dipping to 3), AND the cable presents a significant resistance or complex impedance, then the result will be a variance in frequency response of the speaker.  This happens if the cable gage is too small, or the cable is too long, or both.  The effect can be audible and measurable.  Again, this only happens when the cable's properties become a significant factor in the total circuit, and that only happens in the consumer audio world with amps and speakers.  A speaker's impedance is low.  If a cable's impedance is 10% or greater than the value of that load, you have a frequency-variable voltage divider.   

Every other interconnect uses a voltage transmission system, where virtually zero power is being passed through the cable, being driven from a moderately low source impedance, and very lightly loaded at the destination.  And in consumer audio cables are generally quite short.  Extremely long cable runs would obviously compound any negative electrical properties, and would at some point become audible.  For example, a 2 mile telephone wire has very significant high frequency loss, often approaching 12-15dB at 15kHz.  So, don't run 2 miles of phone wire in your system. 

The question is: If cable electrical properties are always degenerative, how can a cable ever improve anything?  
The answer is: If the total system has a particular characteristic, such as a rising high end, that is not favorable, AND a particular cable's properties counteract that characteristic, then the degenerative effect is perceived as positive.   These combinations are quite rare, though, and mostly, cables don't change a thing audibly.  But since it's impossible for most consumers to do any sort of controlled ABX test on cables of any kind, the "tests" are sighted, and highly biased.  As a result, nobody hears a negative effect with more expensive cable, often a positive effect because the cable looks and feels "better", and costs more.  

The other fact to keep in mind is that some exotic cables have more than cable built into them.  They have impedance-modifying components hidden in the connectors, or in the "mystery blob" in the cable.  That's cheating, in so many ways.  

If the system requires some form of performance modification, there are far better, more controlled ways to get there.  The random cable combination stands little chance of changing anything, and even less of actually being beneficial.

Just to keep it real, I'll say that some really cheap interconnects actually are, well, a bit too cheap.  They may fail from minimal use, some connectors are pretty terrible, and some interconnects aren't even made with shielded cable.  Yeah, they still work fine most of the time, but if you need shielding, you won't have it.  

Might as well hit one are where cable can easily have an impact: the cable from a tone arm to a phono preamp.  Moving magnet cartridges "expect" a 47K ohm resistive load, but also expect a certain amount of capacitance, made up of the input capacitance of the preamp AND the capacitance of the cable, which may not be insignificant.  Changes in capacitive load can significantly alter frequency response.  But that's a whole deep subject, the short answer is, you have to fully test the system anyway to get it right.

It's still not a bad idea to use good cables, but good doesn't have to be expensive.  And with very few exceptions, no cable will change the signal it carries.  The few that do can't be expected to offer a positive change in any but the most rare and specific cases.


----------



## regawdless

pinnahertz said:


> I sort of can't believe I'm writing yet another cable post.
> 
> If a cable's task is to deliver a signal from a source to a destination without changing it, then most cables should not, and cannot have an audible impact.  However, in the real world, cables all have a set of electrical properties that are all degenerative to the signal being carried.  In typical cable applications those degenerative effects are far, far too small to be audible (many occurring way above the audible frequency range), and may be quite difficult to measure.  Other electrical properties don't have an impact until they make up a significant part of the total electrical circuit.  This can happen with speaker cables, but pretty much never with interconnects.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the informative post, helps me understand the topic more.


----------



## Àedhàn Cassiel

One question that people rarely address in threads like these: how different are _electrostatic _amps ("energizers")? I've been told I definitely should not even bother to try an SR-007 with my SRM-006t tube amp. bull or no?


----------



## bigshot

That would be a matter of impedance. What's the sensitivity and impedance ratings for your headphone and what impedance is your amp designed for? There's a thread on impedance that is pinned at the top of Sound Science. That would be the place to check and post any questions on this.


----------



## gregorio

Àedhàn Cassiel said:


> One question that people rarely address in threads like these: how different are _electrostatic _amps ("energizers")? I've been told I definitely should not even bother to try an SR-007 with my SRM-006t tube amp. bull or no?



This one isn't an audiophile myth! Electrostatic headphones (and speakers) operate on a different principle to electrodynamic headphones (and speakers), they require relatively low current and relatively high voltage. The peak voltage output of amplifiers for dynamic headphones ranges from around 1.8v in some portable devices (some mobile phones for example), up to around 24v in the higher (mains) powered HP amps. Electrostatic HPs on the other hand can require peak voltages up to around 1,000v.

So either you need an amp specifically designed for electrostatic HPs or a standard amp for dynamic HPs plus a transformer. The situation is further complicated by the fact that different makes/models of electrostatic HPs can have very different peak voltage requirements. Some may require 100v and others up to 1,000v. So, it's much easier to match the optimal peak voltage requirements of a particular set of electrostatic HPs with an amp designed specifically for that model of electrostatic HPs than it is with a standard, dynamic HP amp and a transformer. Unlike with many audiophile myths, the difference between a standard dynamic HP amp plus transformer and an amp specifically designed for a particular model of electrostatic HP can be significant enough to be audible.

If @pinnahertz notices your question, he can give a more exacting and detailed response than me.

G


----------



## Àedhàn Cassiel

Oh, I should have been clearer, the question/possible myth isn't whether electrostatic headphones do need a special kind of amplifier — but whether the choice within that range of amplifiers makes a dramatic difference on how the electrostatic headphone sounds.


----------



## bigshot

Electrostatic headphones are about as non-standard as you can get. I can imagine that even within the different makes and models, there is a range of required amp characteristics. I suspect it's a matter of designing a set of headphones that only works with your own brand of amp to guarantee a multiple sale.


----------



## pinnahertz

Àedhàn Cassiel said:


> One question that people rarely address in threads like these: how different are _electrostatic _amps ("energizers")? I've been told I definitely should not even bother to try an SR-007 with my SRM-006t tube amp. bull or no?


Answered the same question you posted in the other thread. 

But you've been told...what, exactly?  Definitely don't even bother?  It will totally screw up the sound?  So you want a second opinion before..what..trying the experiment anyway?  If you have both drivers, just try them.  Nothing will break so long as Stax didn't change the connector.  The specs on the driver isn't that different from the recommended unit.  Same polarizing voltage, same drive voltage, approximately the same maximums.  Headphones are a bridging load to the driver/energizer. 

Electrostatic headphones and drivers are something I've always considered a closed system.  There's a reason Stax recommends and sells drivers and headphones together.  If you want different sound, pick different headphones, or apply some real EQ that you can document, adjust, save, and recall.  At least your quest, whatever it is, would move forward more than asking for second opinions here. 

But since you asked....I've given Stax electrostats more than a fair shot.  I only sort of liked the Lambdas.  Sort of. They had some nice qualities, and some not as nice.  Certainly not a total package I would consider worth the investment.   The other models were just unlistenable, and no driver/energizer would fix that.  Unless they've worked some magic in the last couple decades, my interest remains lost.  I sold off my last pair years ago.   You asked.


----------



## bigshot

I think Stax are for people who like to make things difficult on themselves. There are so many more convenient alternatives out there, I'd rather go that route than don a hair shirt. Convenience and functionality is the most neglected aspect of high end audio. I see photos of people's portable rigs with a laptop and a million black boxes connected with big thick wires. Who wants a portable rig that fills a 20 pound backpack? Simple and elegant is better than complicated and awkward.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Àedhàn Cassiel said:


> Oh, I should have been clearer, the question/possible myth isn't whether electrostatic headphones do need a special kind of amplifier — but whether the choice within that range of amplifiers makes a dramatic difference on how the electrostatic headphone sounds.


Capacitive load of electrostatics (headphones or speakers)can make the amplifier roll off high frequencies...quite noticeable in some cases.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Mar 21, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I think Stax are for people who like to make things difficult on themselves. There are so many more convenient alternatives out there, I'd rather go that route than don a hair shirt. Convenience and functionality is the most neglected aspect of high end audio. I see photos of people's portable rigs with a laptop and a million black boxes connected with big thick wires. Who wants a portable rig that fills a 20 pound backpack? Simple and elegant is better than complicated and awkward.


In a perfect world simple and elegant would be best....but simplicity,elegance,convenience,price ect shouldn't really be a factor of what's best.....what's best is what's best regardless of other parameters.Electrostatic headphones don't seem to suffer from the same sound signature issues   as electrostatic speakers.


----------



## pinnahertz (Mar 22, 2020)

Glmoneydawg said:


> Electrostatic headphones don't seem to suffer from the same sound signature issues   as electrostatic speakers.


Right, but they do suffer from their own.


----------



## bigshot

Glmoneydawg said:


> In a perfect world simple and elegant would be best....but simplicity,elegance,convenience,price ect shouldn't really be a factor of what's best.....what's best is what's best regardless of other parameters.



It depends on what the end goal is. Obviously a well designed sound studio is the best sound there is, but sound studios don't function well as a living room. (There's nowhere to set your beer can down!) The thing that gets lost a lot of times in discussions of theoretical "best" is that the purpose of a home stereo is to listen to music in the home. That means that comfort and convenience counts. Even though I love the sound of my multichannel speaker setup, I know that the reason it sounds that way is more because of my home than my stereo. If someone is a student in a dorm room, their idea of perfect would be different.

But if I have learned anything over the years, it's that money doesn't necessarily buy good sound; and consistency, practicality, flexibility and usability are the main improvements to home audio that have been made since the introduction of high-fidelity stereo in the late 50s- not sound quality. One of the best sounding recordings I've ever heard was made in 1954, and at that time, you needed to be in a high end recording studio to even hear it. Now you can stream it to your telephone and hear it in anywhere you go. That is simplicity and elegance.


----------



## fronl

bigshot said:


> It depends on what the end goal is. Obviously a well designed sound studio is the best sound there is, but sound studios don't function well as a living room. (There's nowhere to set your beer can down!) The thing that gets lost a lot of times in discussions of theoretical "best" is that the purpose of a home stereo is to listen to music in the home. That means that comfort and convenience counts. Even though I love the sound of my multichannel speaker setup, I know that the reason it sounds that way is more because of my home than my stereo. If someone is a student in a dorm room, their idea of perfect would be different.
> 
> But if I have learned anything over the years, it's that money doesn't necessarily buy good sound; and consistency, practicality, flexibility and usability are the main improvements to home audio that have been made since the introduction of high-fidelity stereo in the late 50s- not sound quality. One of the best sounding recordings I've ever heard was made in 1954, and at that time, you needed to be in a high end recording studio to even hear it. Now you can stream it to your telephone and hear it in anywhere you go. That is simplicity and elegance.



That's a lot of how I feel, can an FLAC file sound better than Spotify? Sure, and for songs that really matter to me I'm happy to purchase a file,really sit, and listen critically. But 90-95% of my listening is done while accomplishing other things. Do my taxes, listen to music; work, listen to music; kick back on these very forums, listen to music. Rarely to do find myself with both time and the in the mood to do the most analytical listening. Do  I want to have the best pair of headphones on the best source possible nearby when I do these things? Sure, but the convenience factor is often a huge contributor to me as well. The amp/dac thats already plugged in with the headphones that are readily available are going to get snagged. The trick is having the right ones nearby


----------



## bigshot (Mar 23, 2020)

Quality and convenience keep getting closer and closer together. You really don't have to put up with inconvenience or pay a fortune for good sound any more- at least with the electronic components.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Quality and convenience keep getting closer and closer together. You really don't have to put up with inconvenience or pay a fortune for good sound any more- at least with the electronic components.


Yep....less time fiddling and more time listening/discovering.I never could have even imagined the way this hobby has evolved over the 45ish years I've been involved.


----------



## Iplaydrunk99

amazing post ty !


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Apr 7, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I think Stax are for people who like to make things difficult on themselves. There are so many more convenient alternatives out there, I'd rather go that route than don a hair shirt. Convenience and functionality is the most neglected aspect of high end audio. I see photos of people's portable rigs with a laptop and a million black boxes connected with big thick wires. Who wants a portable rig that fills a 20 pound backpack? Simple and elegant is better than complicated and awkward.





Glmoneydawg said:


> In a perfect world simple and elegant would be best....but simplicity,elegance,convenience,price ect shouldn't really be a factor of what's best.....what's best is what's best regardless of other parameters.Electrostatic headphones don't seem to suffer from the same sound signature issues   as electrostatic speakers.



I think in the hifi world there's such a perception / bias that the best system out there must be a beast of a thousand wires that that's what gets marketed to the audiophiles regardless of performance issues.  It's the reason why smartphone headphone outs have gone the way of the dodo while poorly engineered DAPs that can't even shield their headphone outs from WiFi and Bluetooth, let alone 4G radio are ruling the earth, and TeraPlayer lookalikes (oh, btw, the TeraPlayer probably failed because it's too compact) that don't even have WiFi or Bluetooth knock even those out of the park in terms of sound quality in people's imagination.  If you could spin a plausible story* around a 20kg brick that can only play wav files in alphabetical sequence, complete with loosely modular construction that falls into pieces at the drop of a hat, THAT will be the next holy grail of headphone audio quality, mark my words. 

*The story of course being how every user-enabling feature out there is an evil polluter of sound that must be eliminated, because it hogs CPU cycles, dirties the power, etc. to cover up for the fact that the designers of this particular brick can't engineer their way out of a paper bag


----------



## castleofargh

Joe Bloggs said:


> I think in the hifi world there's such a perception / bias that the best system out there must be a beast of a thousand wires that that's what gets marketed to the audiophiles regardless of performance issues.  It's the reason why smartphone headphone outs have gone the way of the dodo while poorly engineered DAPs that can't even shield their headphone outs from WiFi and Bluetooth, let alone 4G radio are ruling the earth, and TeraPlayer lookalikes (oh, btw, the TeraPlayer probably failed because it's too compact) that don't even have WiFi or Bluetooth knock even those out of the park in terms of sound quality in people's imagination.  If you could spin a plausible story* around a 20kg brick that can only play wav files in alphabetical sequence, complete with loosely modular construction that falls into pieces at the drop of a hat, THAT will be the next holy grail of headphone audio quality, mark my words.
> 
> *The story of course being how every user-enabling feature out there is an evil polluter of sound that must be eliminated, because it hogs CPU cycles, dirties the power, etc. to cover up for the fact that the designers of this particular brick can't engineer their way out of a paper bag


I've always been amazed to see instability, inconvenience and lack of options, treated as measures of high fidelity. I don't get it. At least when people correlate pricing with fidelity, I know it's BS more than half the time(in this particular hobby!), but I understand the rational.


----------



## bigshot

It's the audiophile equivalent of hair shirts and self flagellation.


----------



## hakunamakaka

I really don't get these audio graphs in nearly every review or impression of hp. In such regards many of the tube amps should be thrown away. They tell you close to nothing on how musical it is or it's sound reproduction, chasing for sharp imaging/micro detail extraction is another hi-fi jibberish where in reality sound is perceived differently and it's normal for it to blend together. Everyones has it's own sound perception. Focus on music itself, knowing what you like and exploring new sounds instead of chasing that "hi-fi" sound that will give you an eargasm of a drum kick note from the song that you heard 100x times. No "hi-fi" sound will beat a "budget" sound with the music that touches you


----------



## Joe Bloggs

hakunamakaka said:


> I really don't get these audio graphs in nearly every review or impression of hp. In such regards many of the tube amps should be thrown away. They tell you close to nothing on how musical it is or it's sound reproduction, chasing for sharp imaging/micro detail extraction is another hi-fi jibberish where in reality sound is perceived differently and it's normal for it to blend together. Everyones has it's own sound perception. Focus on music itself, knowing what you like and exploring new sounds instead of chasing that "hi-fi" sound that will give you an eargasm of a drum kick note from the song that you heard 100x times. No "hi-fi" sound will beat a "budget" sound with the music that touches you



Where did you get the idea that low fidelity would be more musical?


----------



## bigshot

We listen to low fidelity every day of our lives and don’t even notice it... in cars, on TV, radio, etc. Quality is a function of purpose. There are situations where sound fidelity is needed, and situations where it isn’t. Music is music and it’s quality doesn’t always depend on high fidelity. It’s all dependent on how it’s being used.


----------



## Davesrose (Apr 15, 2020)

Joe Bloggs said:


> Where did you get the idea that low fidelity would be more musical?



Given this environment now of COVID-19, and more and more folks uploading "Songs of Comfort"....it does appear people do respond more to performance vs what is deemed best with source engineering/format.  Mary Chapin Carpenter is also uploading "Songs From Home" now...which also clearly isn't a studio recording and gets on average 2K up votes to 10 down votes.  While Youtube uploads with recording from a mobile device is the most extreme....I've stated before that I have some Mozart concerts in SACD that are "technically" superior from a recording/processing level, but I don't find the music as engaging as other interpretations (especially Neville Marriner).


----------



## bigshot

Exactly. Music is music. If it's great music, you wouldn't mind if it rolls off at 10kHz. If it's bad music, it can go to the limits of an SACD and still be bad. Good fidelity can enhance good music, but do you really need high data rate audio files playing in the background while you work, or while you're riding a train? I'd rather just have really great music all the time with fidelity that serves my purpose.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> *Exactly. Music is music. If it's great music, you wouldn't mind if it rolls off at 10kHz. If it's bad music, it can go to the limits of an SACD and still be bad. *Good fidelity can enhance good music, but do you really need high data rate audio files playing in the background while you work, or while you're riding a train? I'd rather just have really great music all the time with fidelity that serves my purpose.



Couldn't agree more...would rather listen to music I like on a transistor radio than a great recording of mediocre/poor music on a state-of-the-art system.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Music should be the main focus and in todays era exploring it costs you nothing. I get caught in sounds and I mainly use youtube, may sound funny but it's best platform for me regards variety of music and there are so many amazing people that upload their vinyl rips. The ones I fall in love with and can afford I order to listen through my used budget turntable system . It takes time to know yourself, but the more you listen and explore, your taste in music will grow as well. If the love for music is not there, then your new  high end system will bring just a temporary pleasure and soon you will be eager to look for a new coloring of your songs.  It's weird that so many people choose this path and not other way around


----------



## Speedskater

Joe Bloggs said:


> Where did you get the idea that low fidelity would be more musical?


Well the real meaning of 'high fidelity' is high accuracy. So 'low fidelity' may be euphonic colorization, which can often be more musical or enjoyable than high fidelity reproduction.


----------



## gargani

Speedskater said:


> Well the real meaning of 'high fidelity' is high accuracy. So 'low fidelity' may be euphonic colorization, which can often be more musical or enjoyable than high fidelity reproduction.


Agree with the last few comments.
For me hi fi is a fun hobby. I like to compare and analyze the sound and presentation of my headphones.
However one has to be careful or instead of fun it can becomes a quest for the holy grail.
Searching for that 1% "improvement, when if found becomes a search for that next 1% improvement.
Fun is replaced with frustration and a smaller bank account.


----------



## bigshot

And that pursuit of accuracy down a rabbit hole is just as common in Sound Science sometimes as it is among the unwashed masses outside our cage.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Apr 17, 2020)

918 pages of fighting against psy-fi voodoo and suddenly everybody agrees that all the measures of fidelity stand for nothing, tube amps are more musical and high fidelity is about hearing the guy on the 5th audience row cough at 5:32 or something.  What the heck did I walk into?


----------



## GearMe (Apr 17, 2020)

Joe Bloggs said:


> 918 pages of fighting against psy-fi voodoo and suddenly everybody agrees that all the measures of fidelity stand for nothing, tube amps are more musical and high fidelity is about hearing the guy on the 5th audience row cough at 5:32 or something.  What the heck did I walk into?


Ha!  To my way of thinking, there's a lot of Audiophile time/money wasted chasing that holy grail of the perfect system -- some of which can be measured (mostly not heard); much of which is 'psy-fi voodoo'.  I did this years ago in my high-end stereo days...eventually realized it was a definite wombat for me

For me, I'd rather spend my $ on music first, then transducers, followed by amp/dac/source hardware (in a very distant 3rd place!)

That said, I have SS and Tube amps and enjoy both.  Yes, even with second-order harmonic distortion in the Tube amp case 

Regarding my transducers, some are more accurate while others aren't (think basshead-ish)...I enjoy them all!

Most importantly, I enjoy the music


----------



## taffy2207 (Apr 17, 2020)

Joe Bloggs said:


> 918 pages of fighting against psy-fi voodoo and suddenly everybody agrees that all the measures of fidelity stand for nothing, tube amps are more musical and high fidelity is about hearing the guy on the 5th audience row cough at 5:32 or something.  What the heck did I walk into?




It's what happens when you can't go outside, peace & love for your fellow man breaks out


----------



## hakunamakaka

Well I believe that if you did the listening test for musical/coloured signature and high end, majority people would go with the first choice.  Friends that visits me, all of them asking to play vinyl where my pre-amp/amp does the trick and switching to digital sounds emotionless. Sure where speed/pace is required my system would fail, but it's adjusted to my taste. It's the biggest myth in audio that high end is the best, then you can get caught up in numbers, waiting for release of "better" gear. It is so easy to find the sound that you love when the music takes the front seat, not the gear


----------



## PhonoPhi

hakunamakaka said:


> Well I believe that if you did the listening test for musical/coloured signature and high end, majority people would go with the first choice.  Friends that visits me, all of them asking to play vinyl where my pre-amp/amp does the trick and switching to digital sounds emotionless. Sure where speed/pace is required my system would fail, but it's adjusted to my taste. It's the biggest myth in audio that high end is the best, then you can get caught up in numbers, waiting for release of "better" gear. It is so easy to find the sound that you love when the music takes the front seat, not the gear


Thinking of conspiracy theories, I would not be sure that the makers of the high-end audio products did not figure this out long time ago and actively employ this, in fact, e.g. in enhancing pleasing harmonics and other "sound cooking" in some high-end audio players


----------



## old tech

hakunamakaka said:


> Well I believe that if you did the listening test for musical/coloured signature and high end, majority people would go with the first choice.  Friends that visits me, all of them asking to play vinyl where my pre-amp/amp does the trick and switching to digital sounds emotionless. Sure where speed/pace is required my system would fail, but it's adjusted to my taste. It's the biggest myth in audio that high end is the best, then you can get caught up in numbers, waiting for release of "better" gear. It is so easy to find the sound that you love when the music takes the front seat, not the gear


Your friends are different to mine.  They are bemused if I play vinyl when I have more convenient digital options which have more sound clarity and realism than legacy formats. The emotion we feel comes from the actual music, not some placebo effect of clicks and pops with a record spinning in the background.


----------



## hakunamakaka

You sound like one of these ignorant folks that has their truth and that’s it...it’s obvious that added tube colouring/distortion on pre-amp/amp chain  changes sound signature, even if I replace tubes you can sense the difference it’s not a voodo and you can’t deny it. there are old recordings which if not re-mastered you basically do not have other option, but I do collect new releases, only because I know it will sing through my turntable rig. Main point is if it’s not up to “high end” standards by numbers/ graphs it doesn’t mean it can’t be your high end sound. It’s a perception thing same as beauty, taste and hifi is nothing else as a human invented myth to trick people to chase that perfect sound or whatever underlying reason is. If you push it for a while masses will ride on it, generations will change, myths too and current hifi sound will be completely gone like that beauty icon of a fat woman which was completely rave in medieval age


----------



## castleofargh

Joe Bloggs said:


> 918 pages of fighting against psy-fi voodoo and suddenly everybody agrees that all the measures of fidelity stand for nothing, tube amps are more musical and high fidelity is about hearing the guy on the 5th audience row cough at 5:32 or something.  What the heck did I walk into?


 I read the posts and was like: "Wait! you guys listen to music? Why am I always the last one to learn about those stuff?" ^_^
But it isn't all bad because thanks to this, I've just devised the second law of forum thermodynamics: Any 2 products or ideas in an isolated thread will tend to become mutually exclusive over time.




hakunamakaka said:


> Main point is if it’s not up to “high end” standards by numbers/ graphs it doesn’t mean it can’t be your high end sound.


Depends on what you expect "high end" to be. To some it means HIFI, which is as objective as it gets. To some it just means overpriced stuff. To you it seems to be something that agrees best with your own taste. I guess it's a vague enough expression that we're fine having our own interpretations.


----------



## old tech

hakunamakaka said:


> You sound like one of these ignorant folks that has their truth and that’s it...it’s obvious that added tube colouring/distortion on pre-amp/amp chain  changes sound signature, even if I replace tubes you can sense the difference it’s not a voodo and you can’t deny it. there are old recordings which if not re-mastered you basically do not have other option, but I do collect new releases, only because I know it will sing through my turntable rig. Main point is if it’s not up to “high end” standards by numbers/ graphs it doesn’t mean it can’t be your high end sound. It’s a perception thing same as beauty, taste and hifi is nothing else as a human invented myth to trick people to chase that perfect sound or whatever underlying reason is. If you push it for a while masses will ride on it, generations will change, myths too and current hifi sound will be completely gone like that beauty icon of a fat woman which was completely rave in medieval age


Ok I'm ignorant because I get the emotional connection from the music rather than the format or ritual. I do often enjoy playing records, handling cassettes or watching the warm glow of tubes but more often it is just a distraction to the actual music. I'm not a fan of high end audio if by that you mean expensive. Mostly they cater to the euphonofile crowd rather than those chasing high fidelity. And that is fine if the sound signature aligns with your subjective preference but it also means all music is coloured that same way. I prefer transparency to the extent possible within the constraints of the listening room and speakers. I rather not have my playback chain being a participant to the sound, I want to hear the recording and mastering choices as close to original source as possible. In other words true high fidelity which is not terribly expensive to have these days. Then if there is a recording which could be improved for my tastes and I can't find a better mastering of it, then I'll make a case by case adjustment through DSP rather than sullying all my recordings with the same imbalance.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Apr 18, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> You sound like one of these ignorant folks that has their truth and that’s it...it’s obvious that added tube colouring/distortion on pre-amp/amp chain  changes sound signature, even if I replace tubes you can sense the difference it’s not a voodo and you can’t deny it.



See, he shows his true colours now.  If we can't agree to object to statements like these I don't know what this thread would be for.  Change the sound signature, sure;  improve it?  I'd take any number of professional sound processing units over the incidental benefits of some century old circuit tech.  To wit, I've never heard a tube amp do a better job at warming / taming recordings than a multiband compressor for example.  That was a decade back when my ears were sensitive enough to highs for it to matter;  these days a good DRC solution in combination with some taste EQ pretty much makes any grade, any signature of recording sound near ideal to me already.


----------



## hakunamakaka (Apr 18, 2020)

Joe Bloggs said:


> See, he shows his true colours now.  If we can't agree to object to statements like these I don't know what this thread would be for.  Change the sound signature, sure;  improve it?  I'd take any number of professional sound processing units over the incidental benefits of some century old circuit tech.  To wit, I've never heard a tube amp do a better job at warming / taming recordings than a multiband compressor for example.  That was a decade back when my ears were sensitive enough to highs for it to matter;  these days a good DRC solution in combination with some taste EQ pretty much makes any grade, any signature of recording sound near ideal to me already.




you missunderstood it. I’m not even arguing that my sound is better, it is very subjective.  Might be that you would listen to my preff sound and would say this guy is doodles..There are things in sound that can be measured, but what is the perfect sound is a myth. I might be missinterpering high end sound, but people through that out a lot once you look for something in audio gear


----------



## GearMe

old tech said:


> ... I want to hear the recording and mastering choices as close to original source as possible.


I get the sentiment but, for me, the concept of hearing music as transparently/close to original source as possible falls apart to some degree when I think about it -- which I don't anymore...unless some iteration of the 'as the artist intended' discussion pops up.  

Am not an expert in the recording/mastering process like some in this thread are. But to my way of thinking, the minute you introduce one or more people to the process with their unique physical hearing capabilities (different than mine/yours) as well as their own subjective listening preferences (different than mine/yours) all bets are off.  Additionally, they use a given set of speakers/headphones/processing equipment (different than mine/yours) to 'engineer' the final sound to be recorded.  

Since I don't have the same physical hearing capabilities, subjective listening preferences, or playback environment I decided a while ago to not worry about it and just enjoy the music.  



old tech said:


> ...that is fine if the sound signature aligns with your subjective preference but it also means all music is coloured that same way.
> 
> ...if there is a recording which could be improved for my tastes and I can't find a better mastering of it, then I'll make a case by case adjustment through DSP rather than sullying all my recordings with the same imbalance.



To your point, changing the sound signature can be done multiple ways...to each his own there.  I occasionally use EQ settings in my music players that definitely can improve my listening experience when poorly recorded music is selected.  

Also, I have a few listening stations in different rooms of the house...none of which are "high-end" (i.e. expensive)...all are high (enough) fidelity.  That said, some are slightly more high-fidelity than others (SS amp vs single-tube hybrid amp).  Until recently, I also had an OTL amp that I listened to my high impedance cans on -- got rid of that.  Any perceived value wasn't worth the time spent thinking/doing it...for me.

So, I can easily move from 'high-fidelity' to 'coloured' when I feel like it but rarely put much thought into that either.  

TBH, _the sound signatures of my various headphones have much more impact on my listening experience than any amp/dac equipment._  I'm may choose a set of cans for a listening session by convenience / genre / mood / comfort level / etc.  Doesn't really matter though as I can easily swap out for another set if they aren't working (foot tappin, head boppin, etc.) for me that day.


----------



## bigshot

Perfect sound FOR HUMAN EARS exists.


----------



## GearMe (Apr 18, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Perfect sound FOR HUMAN EARS exists.



Interesting...two questions come to mind:

- Since we're on Head-Fi what would be an example of the Perfect Sound system (source/dac/amp/headphones)?

- Let's say the artist and the sound engineer are in their 20's and have 'perfect' hearing while you and I are in our 50's or 60's and our hearing has degraded with age (and possibly further from too many concerts back-in-the-day!).  Is it likely we'll hear the same performance that they do -- a performance that the artist and the engineer both agreed was "as the artist intended" -- when we each listen to the same CD?


----------



## old tech

@GearMe 

I don't necessarily disagree with your points.  What I mainly wanted to say is that IMO, it is better to start with transparency to the source (within constraints) and then adjust to preferences rather than having gear which colours all music the same way.


----------



## pinnahertz

GearMe said:


> I get the sentiment but, for me, the concept of hearing music as transparently/close to original source as possible falls apart to some degree when I think about it -- which I don't anymore...unless some iteration of the 'as the artist intended' discussion pops up.


There's "as the artist intended" and "as the listener prefers".  With consumer rooms and speakers (and headphones) "as the artist intended" can be a bit of a stretch, but with careful design and calibration you can come close enough.  It may not match "as the listener prefers" though, until preferences slowly align with the new reality.


GearMe said:


> Am not an expert in the recording/mastering process like some in this thread are. But to my way of thinking, the minute you introduce one or more people to the process with their unique physical hearing capabilities (different than mine/yours) as well as their own subjective listening preferences (different than mine/yours) all bets are off.


Research has shown there substantial alignment of preference across the population.  We really don't all hear differently, though hearing acuity may change with age and damage.  Even then, when hearing loss is minor we tend to compensate for the new normal until loss becomes more severe. 


GearMe said:


> Additionally, they use a given set of speakers/headphones/processing equipment (different than mine/yours) to 'engineer' the final sound to be recorded.


In recent years there has been much more standardization in mixing rooms thanks, in part, the the film industry which actually has standards.  Sure, there are differences, but they are not so radical that a mix done in one (professionally designed) room sounds so different in another that someone would be motivated to make a radical change.  It's called "Interchange", and it's actually a big deal in the industry.


GearMe said:


> Since I don't have the same physical hearing capabilities, subjective listening preferences, or playback environment I decided a while ago to not worry about it and just enjoy the music.


Your decision is correct, even if the logic is flawed.



GearMe said:


> TBH, _the sound signatures of my various headphones have much more impact on my listening experience than any amp/dac equipment._ I'm may choose a set of cans for a listening session by convenience / genre / mood / comfort level / etc. Doesn't really matter though as I can easily swap out for another set if they aren't working (foot tappin, head boppin, etc.) for me that day.


No surprise.  Pretty much all perceived DAC differences are imagined, and many amp differences too.


----------



## pinnahertz

GearMe said:


> Interesting...two questions come to mind:
> 
> - Since we're on Head-Fi what would be an example of the Perfect Sound system (source/dac/amp/headphones)?


OMG, really?  


GearMe said:


> - Let's say the artist and the sound engineer are in their 20's and have 'perfect' hearing while you and I are in our 50's or 60's and our hearing has degraded with age (and possibly further from too many concerts back-in-the-day!).  Is it likely we'll hear the same performance that they do -- a performance that the artist and the engineer both agreed was "as the artist intended" -- when we each listen to the same CD?


Performance, yes.  Full spectrum, no.  Within some limits hearing tends to acclimate or adapt to the current "normal", which encompasses a degree of hearing loss.  Then, when it gets to the point where hearing loss, both overall sensitivity and spectral deficiencies, become severe enough to impeded necessary stimulus, then adaptation no longer works, because there's nothing left to adapt to.  Then we jam the hearing aids in, and a whole new process of adaptation and acclamation begins.  It's why prescription hearing aids are strongly suggested to be worn continually, and in both ears.  Those that don't comply never achieve the full benefit of the hearing assistance.  

The odd part is that until hearing loss becomes a clear impediment, most people don't even perceive the change, even when listening to music.  For example, the top octave slowly fades away with age, but the change is slow, so it's often barely noticed, even by professionals.  

I sorta wish this "we all hear differently" idea would end.  It's not true, even with a degree of hearing loss.  We may develop preferences.  Preferences are formed by experience.  If experience includes live acoustic music, we find our reference slides over to "neutral", and then the exaggerated "tinkle and boom" systems just sound wrong.  Otherwise, "tinkle and boom" sells audio systems!  

This is one of the things that bothers me about headphones, even more than speakers.  There are so many that are just terrible, anything but neutral, but these attributes can be positively reviewed anyway, moving us (as a population) further from neutral conditioning.  For example: how did Beats ever achieve any degree of success?  Yuk!  But they sell millions, and thus become a reference.  iPhone earbuds?  And so on.  It never ends.


----------



## GearMe

old tech said:


> @GearMe
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with your points.  What I mainly wanted to say is that IMO, it is better to start with transparency to the source (within constraints) and then adjust to preferences rather than having gear which colours all music the same way.


Yep...definitely a solid approach to listening to your music; one that I'm sure you thought through and provides you with the most enjoyable listening experience!    

Years ago I took a similar approach with my only stereo system.  Then at some point I realized that I enjoyed listening to rock/blues on one type of speaker (dynamic), acoustic/classical/jazz on another (planar or electrostatic), and home theater on yet another (subwoofers!!!) .  I literally ended up with 3 different systems in different rooms of the house.

What I learned from that was that transducers are really what matters (to me) -- assuming I have a decent system with enough clean power to drive them.  From that point on, I stopped thinking too much about the source/dac/amp and focused on finding speakers that I liked for a given use case. 

When we downsized to a townhome, I switched to headphones...what a blast!  Now I can buy both accurate and coloured systems for a few hundred dollars.  With those in place, I can use my accurate cans or my not-so-accurate cans as I feel like.  Focals, Audeze, Senn, Beyer, Philips, Fostex, Grado, etc...all different sound signatures; all enjoyable listening experiences with the right music and mindset.

I just don't agonize over these differences any more...


----------



## GearMe (Apr 19, 2020)

pinnahertz said:


> There's "as the artist intended" and "as the listener prefers".  With consumer rooms and speakers (and headphones) "as the artist intended" can be a bit of a stretch, but with careful design and calibration you can come close enough.  It may not match "as the listener prefers" though, until preferences slowly align with the new reality.
> 
> Research has shown there substantial alignment of preference across the population.  We really don't all hear differently, though hearing acuity may change with age and damage.  Even then, when hearing loss is minor we tend to compensate for the new normal until loss becomes more severe.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your detailed response and for validating my decision...even though it was achieved with a lack of proper logic! 

The central point, _for me_, is that it's not worth the effort to agonize over this 'as intended' idea -- especially if it involves careful design/calibration to align my system with a studio environment.

For someone that lives in this world or is highly invested in teasing out that last bit of sonic perfection from a system...have at it!  For me, the cans I listen to and the systems I listen to them on are already 'close enough' and I'd rather spend the time enjoying my music collection.

Also, to my way of thinking, it's perfectly acceptable for the "as the listener prefers" not aligning with "as the artist intended".  I enjoy listening to music through a wide variety of cans with different sound signatures.  Sometimes I listen on more accurate systems -- typically for acoustic/classical/jazz as you mentioned in a later post...not always though.  Other times I listen on less accurate systems -- typically for blues/rock/hip-hop/trance...not always though.  Sometimes...I boost the bass...just for fun!  

What's concerning is that some folks seem to need to convince others that their approach is better or prove they're right and the discussion often devolves into a point/counterpoint...never understood that mindset.



pinnahertz said:


> ...I sorta wish this "we all hear differently" idea would end.  It's not true, even with a degree of hearing loss.  We may develop preferences.  Preferences are formed by experience.  If experience includes live acoustic music, we find our reference slides over to "neutral", and then the exaggerated "tinkle and boom" systems just sound wrong.  Otherwise, "tinkle and boom" sells audio systems!
> 
> This is one of the things that bothers me about headphones, even more than speakers.  There are so many that are just terrible, anything but neutral, but these attributes can be positively reviewed anyway, moving us (as a population) further from neutral conditioning.  For example: how did Beats ever achieve any degree of success?  Yuk!  But they sell millions, and thus become a reference.  iPhone earbuds?  And so on.  It never ends.


Regarding adaptation to hearing loss, _interesting that we all hear the same!_ My sensitivity to sibilance going away over the years must be 'in my head'...ha! Either that or I developed a preference for it.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Perfect sound FOR HUMAN EARS exists.


You mean like hearing "I love you" or, "this is free". Because otherwise I don't agree.




pinnahertz said:


> I sorta wish this "we all hear differently" idea would end. It's not true, even with a degree of hearing loss. We may develop preferences. Preferences are formed by experience. If experience includes live acoustic music, we find our reference slides over to "neutral", and then the exaggerated "tinkle and boom" systems just sound wrong. Otherwise, "tinkle and boom" sells audio systems!


IMO both views are valid. We do all hear differently. it's a fact, no point denying it. But as you say, what's truly relevant in practice is our experience and reference. Same reason why everybody can tell that the yellow banana is yellow. Because we all got some silly book as kids with the notion of yellow and banana put together.
It doesn't say anything about what each of us really sees when presented with a yellow banana, but when we see it, it sure is a yellow banana to us.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 19, 2020)

GearMe said:


> Since we're on Head-Fi what would be an example of the Perfect Sound system (source/dac/amp/headphones)?



I have yet to find a CD quality sound source, DAC or amp that aren't audibly transparent when used correctly. Transducers are the wild card. But you can EQ any decent set of cans to sound pretty much however you might like them to sound. (with the possible exception of sub-bass, which good speakers in a complementary room do a better job of presenting naturally.)



GearMe said:


> Let's say the artist and the sound engineer are in their 20's and have 'perfect' hearing while you and I are in our 50's or 60's and our hearing has degraded with age (and possibly further from too many concerts back-in-the-day!).  Is it likely we'll hear the same performance that they do -- a performance that the artist and the engineer both agreed was "as the artist intended" -- when we each listen to the same CD?



The difference between a the upper threshold of a typical 60 year old and a typical 20 year old is about 15kHz as opposed to 20kHz. That is a half of an octave, or four whole notes on a musical scale. Not a lot of sound, especially when you take into account that there are no fundamentals in most music that high, and the only harmonics in that range are in cymbal crashes where the upper frequencies are masked by very loud sound in lower ranges. Unless you have severely degraded hearing from an injury or illness, that doesn't add up to a hill of beans. The top octave of human hearing (above 10kHz) is the least important octave in the entire audible range.

Now if you want to talk about "as the artist intended", you wouldn't be using headphones, because most commercial music is mixed for speakers. So if you want "as the artist intended" you would get studio monitors and do room treatment to get it as close to a recording studio as possible. Personally, I don't care as much about intent as my own taste. When I'm listening to music for pleasure, I am pleasing myself, not a sound engineer I've never met.


----------



## old tech

With not a great deal to do given the coronavirus restrictions, I've revisited the website devoted to the late Peter Alcatrez of The Audio Critic.

His 2015 article "What I've Learned in Six Decades of Audio" is interesting and relevant to this thread.

https://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/audio_critic_web1.htm#acl


----------



## gregorio

Interesting discourse over the last page or two, or at least it's interesting to me, and it's one of the main reasons I joined head-fi in the first place. As this is the Sound Science subforum (and it interests me), I'd like to address a few selected posts/quotes because while they're correct, they're only partially correct and therefore, also partially "incorrect". What we know, or think we know, sometimes/often only applies to us personally or to a subset of people and additionally, some terms which appear clear cut can legitimately be ambiguous.

"_*Where did you get the idea that low fidelity would be more musical?*_" - @Joe Bloggs 
"_*Well the real meaning of 'high fidelity' is high accuracy.*_"  - @Speedskater and the example: "_*So 'low fidelity' may be euphonic colorization, which can often be more musical or enjoyable than high fidelity reproduction.*_"

That definition of high fidelity depends on what you mean by "accuracy", accuracy of what? Accuracy/Fidelity of the recorded and reproduced sound that an instrument produces, of the sound that would enter the ears of an audience or of the sound that an audience would/could perceive? These are all objectively and subjectively quite different but the last one is a subjective determination, it therefore cannot be objectively compared with a signal/sound that never actually existed and any determination of fidelity/accuracy must also be subjective. 
This problem also rears it's head in other ways, for example: We can objectively measure an input signal (the recording to be reproduced), objectively measure the output from both speakers and headphones (at the listening position) and objectively determine which is more accurate/higher fidelity. However, in the case of a recording made on speakers for speaker reproduction, the input signal is not the expected/intended output signal. The input signal (the recording) is effectively the master minus listening room acoustics, which will be added to the output signal by the consumers' listening room but again, this input signal (master minus listening room acoustics) is a subjective determination. Objectively, reproducing this master with speakers will almost certainly be lower accuracy/fidelity than headphone reproduction but subjectively, it will almost certainly be higher fidelity/"more musical".

Isn't all the above just irrelevant semantics? Certainly it can be described as "semantics" but it could hardly be more relevant because it underpins most audiophile myths, the vast majority of audiophile marketing/reviews and on occasion, even catches out some of the regulars on this subforum, who otherwise have a good enough understanding of audio to not be fooled by the myths and marketing. It's vital to understand not only what "objective" and "subjective" actually mean but also exactly when/where each of them are applicable, because failure to do so can and often does (even in this subforum) lead to fallacious assertions of fact/science!

Therefore: In answer to Joe, I've given you an example above, plus, virtually the entire music mixing process could be described as lowering the objective fidelity in order to be "more musical".
And in answer to Speedskater; your assertion is essentially true but your example is not necessarily true. In the case of euphonic colourisation caused by say a tube amplifier, it could be higher fidelity or lower fidelity, depending on the recording being reproduced. A master made between about the 1940's and 1970's would account for the expected distortion (euphonic colourisation) of tubes, in the same way as masters account for the expected distortion of listening room acoustics with speaker reproduction. Therefore, reproduction with a typically coloured tube amplifier could be higher fidelity for a master of that period but lower fidelity for a later period master (when the vast majority of consumers used SS amps).

"*Focus on music itself, knowing what you like and exploring new sounds instead of chasing that "hi-fi" sound that will give you an eargasm of a drum kick note from the song that you heard 100x times. No "hi-fi" sound will beat a "budget" sound with the music that touches you*" - @hakunamakaka and "_*It takes time to know yourself, but the more you listen and explore, your taste in music will grow as well. ...*"_
"_*Couldn't agree more...would rather listen to music I like on a transistor radio than a great recording of mediocre/poor music on a state-of-the-art system.*_" - @GearMe 

Although not always the case, I would commonly rather listen to a great recording of mediocre/poor music on a very good system than music I like on a transistor radio. However, this raises the question of what we mean by "like" and what we mean by mediocre/poor. For example; I "like" being intellectually stimulated, which I can be by a great recording/reproduction of poor music because I can understand and appreciate how/why the recording is "great", as well as why (I judge) the music is mediocre/poor. And, mediocre/poor doesn't necessarily mean unpleasant, nasty, boring, harsh or just about any other negative adjective we can come up with. In fact, just about all of the great western music is great precisely because it contains some form of unpleasantness, nastiness, etc.! This is an issue of "like" verses "appreciate" and that it's possible "to like" having great appreciation for something we don't really like (many of Mozart's works falls into this category for me, as do some music sub-genres). Continuing on:

I understand what @hakunamakaka is trying to say and I personally broadly agree with it but it's actually somewhat self contradictory. He advises "focus on the music itself" but then doesn't! He actually focuses on his personal response to the music (his "taste" and what he likes), rather than on the "music itself". I don't disagree that it's a good idea to explore and expand one's tastes/preferences but there's another big step beyond this, which ironically is to "focus on the music itself". We can call this "appreciation" (as opposed to "liking") and depending on how far down this road we wish to travel, raises questions about the composition (it's structure, harmonic progression, arrangement/orchestration, etc.) and also about the recording itself (the performance/s, the editing, the mixing, etc.). A high-end (or at least a decent) system is therefore a requiste, in order to clearly hear the details of the performance/s, mixing, orchestration, etc. However, such a system is just a means to an end, not an "end" in itself, the mistake made by many who identify as an "audiophile".

All of this also raises the issue of the two meanings of the term "objectivity".

"_*it does appear people do respond more to performance vs what is deemed best with source engineering/format.*_" - @Davesrose

This one is a real can of worms! For example, what do you mean by "performance"? With popular music genres there typically isn't a performance, the performance is manufactured and even with live performance, it's rare that a live performance is entirely live and in some cases the only part that is actually a live performance is the dancing and comments to the audience between the songs! And, 6+ decades of records sales clearly demonstrate that more people respond to music/performances manufactured by engineers/producers. Likewise, "deemed best with the source engineering/format" can mean entirely different things. For example, at one time I personally deemed that SACD was the best format, not because it was technically any better/higher fidelity than CD but because it restricted consumer playback to only higher quality reproduction equipment and environments, which allowed mixing/mastering exclusively for such a scenario. And also:

"_*Quality is a function of purpose. There are situations where sound fidelity is needed, and situations where it isn’t.*_" - @bigshot

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any situations where sound fidelity is not needed! What is needed though, is a more comprehensive understanding of what "sound fidelity" means! A common example: A highly compressed/limited master would be deemed by most audiophiles as lower fidelity and poor engineering, many would (and do) actively revile the procedure. However, a highly compressed master can be higher fidelity than a master with little compression (a larger dynamic range), an obvious example: Listening to a lightly compressed/wide dynamic range master while driving will result in significant portions of the music being inaudible and fidelity doesn't get any lower than inaudible! A highly compressed master will reduce the dynamic range, raise the inaudible parts to audibility and therefore be infinitely higher fidelity. And, if that amount of compression can be applied in such a way as to maintain the essence of the song (as intended by the artists) then that's the exact opposite of poor engineering.

   -------------

Going back to my introduction; Sound Science represents humankind's accumulated knowledge of sound (and it's recording/reproduction and perception), it does not cover only one individual or even one subset of individuals, it covers the "bigger picture", various different subsets, groups of subsets and all people. Therefore, to be accurate/truthful in a Sound Science forum we too have to cover the bigger picture and NOT only our own picture  ... or at least, explicitly qualify assertions which are only our own (or our own subset's)!

G


----------



## hakunamakaka (Apr 19, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Perfect sound FOR HUMAN EARS exists.




It is a set of attributes that many people agreed on for a perfect sound, same goes for the sound transparency. I honestly think these very good marketing tools to get people caught in that "chasing" circle. We are very complex as individuals, plus add our brains where all information is perceived. In my schooldays classmate brought a device with high pitch noise, ofcourse teacher didn't hear it, many kids complained and there was a group that didn't hear it as well. If we would match, doctors would cure diseases with an ease.

Arguing regards which sound is better is same as arguing that apples are best tasting fruits.Short hi-fi fairy tale:

There is a community that believes in apples, perfects the strain, measures sugar, acidity levels, texture of an apple, than a random Jose wonders from overseas, village represents their perfected apple strain, he takes a bite  thinks for a minute and says: guys I actually prefer oranges...Whole village goes bananas, booo u do not understand anything about taste, either enjoy an apple or leave. He comes back to the Spain all lost, wondering if that's the right path he took, meets with Pedro express his worries, Pedro just calms him down, taps him on the shoulder and says: Dude forget about the apples, look how we perfected this new strain of orange


----------



## GearMe (Apr 19, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I have yet to find a CD quality sound source, DAC or amp that aren't audibly transparent when used correctly. Transducers are the wild card. But you can EQ any decent set of cans to sound pretty much however you might like them to sound. (with the possible exception of sub-bass, which good speakers in a complementary room do a better job of presenting naturally.)



Yeah...would agree that transducers are the wildcard.  I use EQ for some of mine and don't for others.



bigshot said:


> The difference between a the upper threshold of a typical 60 year old and a typical 20 year old is about 15kHz as opposed to 20kHz. That is a half of an octave, or four whole notes on a musical scale. Not a lot of sound, especially when you take into account that there are no fundamentals in most music that high, and the only harmonics in that range are in cymbal crashes where the upper frequencies are masked by very loud sound in lower ranges. Unless you have severely degraded hearing from an injury or illness, that doesn't add up to a hill of beans. The top octave of human hearing (above 10kHz) is the least important octave in the entire audible range.
> 
> Now if you want to talk about "as the artist intended", you wouldn't be using headphones, because most commercial music is mixed for speakers. So if you want "as the artist intended" you would get studio monitors and do room treatment to get it as close to a recording studio as possible. Personally, I don't care as much about intent as my own taste. When I'm listening to music for pleasure, I am pleasing myself, not a sound engineer I've never met.



Also agree, to some extent, based on personal listening experience.  That said, sibilance was a major deal to me when I was younger.  It isn't now.  A while ago, if I had put a set of Beyers on my head without applying EQ to tame the treble peak(s), I would not been a happy camper.  Today, I often listen to well recorded/mastered music with them and don't need/want to tweak their sound signature.  Like you said, it's the octave with least amount of overall information and it is primarily cymbals but also violin that doesn't sound like it used to to me.  At times, it feels like some music has lost 'the air" as well...especially classical and acoustic jazz.   Am also fully aware, that when we focus on 'hearing' differences, our mind can create them 'out of thin air'  

Haven't had my hearing measured since school (long time ago) and can fully accept that I may (likely do) have hearing damage from attending my fair share of rock concerts when I was younger.

Yeah...got past the whole "as the artist intended" a while ago, and like you, listen to music purely for pleasure.  

Wish I still had a nice speaker-based system.  They provide a better listening experience for sure...


----------



## bigshot (Apr 19, 2020)

gregorio said:


> "_*Quality is a function of purpose. There are situations where sound fidelity is needed, and situations where it isn’t.*_" - @bigshot
> 
> Off the top of my head, I can't think of any situations where sound fidelity is not needed



You might need CD quality sound when you are listening to Stauss's Alpine Symphony in your living room, but do you need it when you are listening to the traffic report on the radio in the car, or talking to your friend on a speakerphone, or getting a response from an Alexa device? Is a Caruso record completely obsolete because it doesn't have the required level of sound fidelity? Is there no purpose for low bitrate MP3s? We listen to recorded sound all day long without even realizing it. Some of that sound is high fidelity and some is quite reduced in quality. The way the fidelity is reduced in quality is designed to serve a particular purpose. There is no "one-size-fits-all". My point was that the fidelity requirements are variable according to the intended purpose. Some purposes require audible transparency, and some just require a basic level of being able to be comprehended. Expertly balancing the trade-offs and compromises to suit usability is what creates elegance for a purpose. Your compression scenario is a perfect example of this. The problem I see with audiophiles is that they pursue sound quality to extremes, beyond their ability to hear the difference, and beyond the basic need for the purpose. There is something to be said for  efficiency that does the job properly.

I went to design school, so "form follows function" is something that was driven into my skull!



gregorio said:


> "_*Couldn't agree more...would rather listen to music I like on a transistor radio than a great recording of mediocre/poor music on a state-of-the-art system.*_" - @GearMe
> 
> Although not always the case, I would commonly rather listen to a great recording of mediocre/poor music on a very good system than music I like on a transistor radio. However, this raises the question of what we mean by "like" and what we mean by mediocre/poor. For example; I "like" being intellectually stimulated, which I can be by a great recording/reproduction of poor music because I can understand and appreciate how/why the recording is "great", as well as why (I judge) the music is mediocre/poor.



I think you might be an exception because sound fidelity is your job. You can glean information from any great recording that you can use. It doesn't have to be musically engaging. But that isn't the case for non-engineers. Too many people on this forum listen to the recording, not so much the music. I understand that because I was like that earlier on in the hobby. I bought MFSL half speed mastered pressings of records like George Benson's "Breezin'" and Steve Miller "Fly Like An Eagle", and Sheffield Lab's Erich Leinsdorf Wagner and Amanda McBroom "Growing Up In Hollywood Town". I would sit in the dark and listen to them intently noticing a glisten on a cymbal or the thump of a bass. I didn't care for the music much, but the irony is I HATE HATE HATE these recordings now from a musical standpoint and can't bear to listen to them.

When I was in college, I stumbled across a local college radio station that played 30s Jazz and I heard Cab Calloway's "Some of These Days". I quickly ran a tape and got the last half of the song with the announcer's ID of the title. I listened to that over and over- just the last half of the song! and realized that even though this was a record from 1931, it had all the energy and vitality I was striving to hear in the audiophile recordings I had bought. I lived two blocks from Rhino Records, so I walked over and asked the guy at the counter for Cab Calloway. He led me back to a section in the back of the store I had never explored before and I bought an album. I took it home and listened to it and walked right back the same day and asked the guy, "What else sounds like this?" He started rattling off names... Fletcher Henderson, Duke Ellington, Fats Waller, Don Redman, Benny Goodman... I asked him for a pen and a bag and I wrote down everything he told me and spent every available cent I had on records on that list. That list led me to another list of small bands, then to Machito and Afro Cuban. From there on it was like falling from the top of a cliff. Music unfolded to me and I realized it was an ocean and all I knew of it was a tiny puddle. A lot of the music I was freaking out over wasn't just mono, it was from 78s. That didn't matter a bit.

I can listen to live recordings of Charlie Parker or dry recordings of the NBC orchestra under Toscanini and go crazy over them hearing details that I never heard before... not technical details like shimmer on cymbals or sub bass thump of upright basses being plucked... MUSICAL details in the performance. I totally get what gearme was saying about music being more important than fidelity. It all depends on what you are listening for.

Also, I've said this before and I know it makes people mad, but I'll say it again. It definitely *is* possible to like something musically because you have analyzed it, understand it and have applied a criteria of judging to it. That is how you get to a point of higher understanding. I used to hate Mozart too. It all sounded like lace doilies and filigrees to me. But that was because I was listening to it on a superficial level. At one point, I found those big black Time Life complete Mozart boxes at Rhino for a buck a disc. They were cheap because even though they were great recordings, the records themselves were crappy Canadian pressings. I bought them, took them home and listened to them and read the books that came with them from cover to cover. I heard Don Giovanni first and I was hooked... concertos, symphonies, even the divertimenti... I listened to all of it and devoured it ravenously and absorbed it all. When I was done, I loved Mozart. And the added bonus was that learning about Mozart taught me a lot about Haydn and Handel. Eventually it even informed my understanding of Oscar Peterson!

It's fine to just "like" music. Find a few albums that appeal to you and play them a lot. I have no problem with that. But truly experiencing and incorporating music into your life is different than that, and that takes listening to the music, not just the recording. And it takes thinking about how the music works and what it is trying to project and figuring out the criteria the composer or musician is following. That is an intellectual process, not just "like".


----------



## bigshot

hakunamakaka said:


> It is a set of attributes that many people agreed on for a perfect sound, same goes for the sound transparency. I honestly think these very good marketing tools to get people caught in that "chasing" circle. We are very complex as individuals, plus add our brains where all information is perceived. In my schooldays classmate brought a device with high pitch noise, ofcourse teacher didn't hear it, many kids complained and there was a group that didn't hear it as well.



Human hearing is finite. If that dog training device produced a tone just a quarter of an octave higher, odds are no one in your class would hear it. The nice thing is that the range of CDs encompass that tone. You can annoy your friends with a loud 18kHz tone if your speakers can reproduce it! SACDs have a broader response, but in direct comparisons there is no reason to believe that people can hear a difference between the two. The range of human hearing is 20Hz to 20kHz. There are people who might be able to hear 22kHz or 23kHz, but that high a frequency is probably only heard by them with pure tones at decent volume levels. They wouldn't be able to perceive that frequency in recorded music. There is such a thing as "good enough". I have yet to find an amp or CD player or DAC or DAP that isn't audibly transparent myself. When I started out in the hobby in the mid 1970s, I wouldn't have been able to say that.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> ...The problem I see with audiophiles is that they pursue sound quality to extremes, beyond their ability to hear the difference, and beyond the basic need for the purpose.



Yep....



bigshot said:


> ... Too many people on this forum listen to the recording, not so much the music. I understand that because I was like that earlier on in the hobby...



Yep again and same here...It was eye opening for me when I stopped caring so much about the fidelity and more about the music!   

The biggest thing I learned from this was that I should've listened more often to my Dad.    He loved music...especially Jazz and Big Band with a smidgen of classical thrown in for good measure.  Although he tried to pass this interest on to me, I didn't fully appreciate it at the time.  Once I did dive in, I couldn't listen enough to his music collection which was awesome in and of itself but also served as a springboard to other genres and artists.  The journey is never-ending and I'm always looking forward to what's around the corner...


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> [1] You might need CD quality sound when you are listening to Stauss's Alpine Symphony in your living room, but do you need it when you are listening to the traffic report on the radio in the car, or talking to your friend on a speakerphone, or getting a response from an Alexa device? Is a Caruso record completely obsolete because it doesn't have the required level of sound fidelity?
> [2] Is there no purpose for low bitrate MP3s? We listen to recorded sound all day long without even realizing it. Some of that sound is high fidelity and some is quite reduced in quality. The way the fidelity is reduced in quality is designed to serve a particular purpose. There is no "one-size-fits-all".
> [2a] My point was that the fidelity requirements are variable according to the intended purpose. Some purposes require audible transparency, and some just require a basic level of being able to be comprehended. Expertly balancing the trade-offs and compromises to suit usability is what creates elegance for a purpose.
> [2b] Your compression scenario is a perfect example of this.
> [3] The problem I see with audiophiles is that they pursue sound quality to extremes, beyond their ability to hear the difference, and beyond the basic need for the purpose.



1. Yes, you do need sound fidelity when listening to the traffic report on the radio, talking to a friend on a speakerphone and when listening to the Alpine Symphony. There are very subtle details in spoken language which give us valuable information. We can "get by" with a level of sound fidelity that doesn't allow those details to be fully reproduced but sound fidelity is always desired/preferable/needed and striven for. The exact same is true when listening to the Alpine Symphony. A Caruso recording isn't completely obsolete but obviously higher sound fidelity is needed. If there were no need, then Caruso recordings would not be remastered just about every time audio restoration tools advance significantly.

2. Yes there is a purpose for low bit rate MP3's but the purpose is NOT because sound fidelity is not needed. It's because practical limitations (bandwidth or storage for example) require that some of the needed sound fidelity be sacrificed. Why would MP3 codec developers focus for more than a decade on achieving better sound fidelity at low bit rates if it were not needed?
2a. Yes, that is the point I'm disagreeing with. Fidelity requirements are NOT "variable according to the intended purpose", they are ALWAYS needed but practical limitations sometimes mean that that requirement/need cannot be fully met.
2b. No, quite the opposite, my compression scenario is a perfect example of both the need for sound fidelity and the achievement of it! Although at the expense of a small minority who have above average equipment and listening conditions.

3. I don't see a problem with pursuing sound quality/fidelity to the extremes or even beyond the extremes. For example, I don't see a problem with someone pursuing a DAC with jitter at -140dB as opposed a DAC with jitter at say -120dB. I only see a problem if they assert that it makes a difference to the sound that enters their ears and/or that they can hear it. I also see a problem with audiophiles (and audiophile marketing) when they state they are pursuing high fidelity but actually aren't. As we know, many audiophile products result in same or in some cases lower fidelity.



bigshot said:


> [1] I think you might be an exception because sound fidelity is your job. You can glean information from any great recording that you can use. It doesn't have to be musically engaging. But that isn't the case for non-engineers.
> [2] Too many people on this forum listen to the recording, not so much the music.



1. But your statement confirms/supports my point! Even if I really were an exception, that alone would be enough to disprove any unqualified assertion. However, I'm not an exception, there are tens of thousands with the same job and even if we qualify the assertion by (for example) stating that it only applies to those who are "non-engineers", the assertion is still false! There are musicians (both amateur and professional), audiophiles, reviewers and other consumers who have some understanding, "appreciatiation" and place high priority on the music production. Of course though, this is a relatively small subset of consumers, most don't even know what music production is, let alone give it any priority but this was my point: Making an unqualified assertion of fact that only applies to us personally (or to our subset), that does not apply to others is, in a sound science forum, a false assertion because the default condition of science is everyone!
"Musically engaging" is a can of worms though, what is musically engaging to one person might not even be considered "music" by another and there are some circumstances where "musically engaging" isn't desirable even for the vast majority.

2. I would say the opposite, far too few people on this forum (head-fi) "listen to the recording". Unlike hearing, which is a passive process, listening is an active process and most people don't know how to listen to a recording (what to listen for). What many/most audiophiles "listen for" is their reproduction equipment and a comparison with personal preferences/perceptions, the recording itself is irrelevant except as a means to this end. So, they end up making all kinds of completely backwards, nonsense assertions. A common example, if a system reproduces a recording and the result is perceived as "natural", "real" or "like being there", then the system is classified as High-Fidelity. However, as almost no commercial audio/music recordings are actually "real" or "natural" , a high-fidelity reproduction system would reveal this fact and sound unreal and unnatural (if one listened to the recording itself and had the listening ability/skills), which is the opposite of the audiophile assertion! I wish many more would learn to "listen to the recording" itself, as that could financially incentivise the industry to make better recordings, rather than worse ones!



bigshot said:


> [1] It definitely *is* possible to like something musically because you have analyzed it, understand it and have applied a criteria of judging to it.
> [1a] That is how you get to a point of higher understanding.
> [2] I used to hate Mozart too. It all sounded like lace doilies and filigrees to me. But that was because I was listening to it on a superficial level.
> [2a] I heard Don Giovanni first and I was hooked... concertos, symphonies, even the divertimenti... I listened to all of it and devoured it ravenously and absorbed it all. When I was done, I loved Mozart.



1. I agree. However:
1a. Music analysis and understanding is an almost never ending rabbit hole. So, there isn't "a point of higher understanding", just an almost never ending succession of "points", the further down the rabbit hole we choose to go. The danger, as ever, is in getting "to a point of higher understanding", not realising or not choosing to know how much higher understanding can go (how many more points there are or what they are) and therefore not applying an informed/appropriate "criteria of judging". For example, is the music of John Cage ("4:33" for instance) actually bad, even to the point that many wouldn't even classify it as "music", or is it actually good or even great and those who think it's bad are simply suffering from insufficient understanding and inappropriate "applied criteria of judging"?

2. I hated Mozart when I was young, it was just boring. Then, after many years of formal study (music theory, composition and classical music performance), I gained a whole new appreciation. Mozart's works exhibit a sort of compositional perfection that few, if any, have ever rivalled. However, with the benefit of hindsight (200+ years of compositional development/evolution), that "perfection" is for me not only it's greatest strength but also it's greatest weakness. "Perfection" implies a single option, all other options being somewhat less than perfect. So if one knows the rules/criteria of "perfection" then a perfect composition would necessarily be predictable/unsurprising, which for my personal musical preferences is boring. I can marvel and "like" marvelling at Mozart's compositions, even though I don't really like most of them.
2a. I deliberately stated "_Many of Mozart's works fall into this category_" - But Don Giovanni is not one of the "Many". It still exhibits a sort of compositional perfection but is arguably a proto-romantic period work, which has somewhat different rules/criteria that are less predictable/unsurprising and relative to my personal preferences, is less boring/more likeable.

G


----------



## bigshot (Apr 21, 2020)

If exposing myself to new music and thinking about what I'm hearing and learning from it is a never ending rabbit hole, I am quite happy to dive in and never come out again!

I'm really not arguing with you, Gregorio. I am trying to clearly explain my thinking so you can read my post and know where I'm coming from. Do you understand what I'm saying or should I try to state it more clearly?

The great thing about judging criteria is that they are not fixed absolutes. My criteria evolves as I learn more and perceive things I might not have been able to before. And there's no one true set of criteria. Truth is like a diamond with a million facets. You can look from one angle and see one color, and from another and see a different color. Every angle is correct for its own context. Put all the angles together and you have a chance to fully appreciate the beauty of a diamond.

It's like the story of the blind men and the elephant. One felt a snake, another a tree trunk... They were all correct, but because they only saw things from their own point of view, they had a narrow, distorted view of reality. When we listen to other people's points of view and make an effort to understand them, we can compare and perhaps incorporate their perspective with our own point of view and gain a broader understanding of the truth. It's a process, not a destination.

The blind man holding the trunk could insist that an elephant was a large snake, but the harder he grabs onto that belief, the more he shuts out other observations that could lead him to a greater understanding of the whole. We should all strive to understand what genuine people say to us. We don't have to agree necessarily, but we can often learn more from someone we disagree with than someone we agree with. Strive to understand.

This is my zen moment for the day.


----------



## hakunamakaka

bigshot said:


> If exposing myself to new music and thinking about what I'm hearing and learning from it is a never ending rabbit hole, I am quite happy to dive in and never come out again!
> 
> I'm really not arguing with you, Gregorio. I am trying to clearly explain my thinking so you can read my post and know where I'm coming from. Do you understand what I'm saying or should I try to state it more clearly?
> 
> ...



Well said, the problem is that high fidelity folks think that their sound is the only "truth", with the main statement "I want to hear how artist intended(which can be easily disregarded) boooing different opinions away. I was in my own circle before, but luckily met few people throughout my life which opened doors to different sounds and music. It shaped my taste and understanding in a good way, otherwise I think I would have ended up in a very narrow place. These "perfect sound curves", graphs, numbers have their own place, but it doesn't show you the bigger picture on the journey through sounds and music enjoyment


----------



## bigshot

The mistake is the concept of "the creators intention". Creators don't have a specific intention. They want to engage the audience on the audience's own terms. Sound is designed for a range of presentations in all kinds of circumstances. There is no formula for the "perfect" presentation. There are only guidelines to guarantee that you aren't screwing it all up.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> [1] I am trying to clearly explain my thinking so you can read my post and know where I'm coming from. Do you understand what I'm saying or should I try to state it more clearly?
> [2] The great thing about judging criteria is that they are not fixed absolutes.
> [3] My criteria evolves as I learn more and perceive things I might not have been able to before.
> [3a] And there's no one true set of criteria. Truth is like a diamond with a million facets. You can look from one angle and see one color, and from another and see a different color. Every angle is correct for its own context. Put all the angles together and you have a chance to fully appreciate the beauty of a diamond.
> [3b] When we listen to other people's points of view and make an effort to understand them, we can compare and perhaps incorporate their perspective with our own point of view and gain a broader understanding of the truth.



1. I believe I do understand what you are saying and where you're coming from. But you DO need to state it "more clearly" or rather, "differently" because the way you're currently "stating it" invalidates it in a Sound Science forum!

2. True to an extent but it depends on the criteria.

3. This is where we come unstuck and disagree. Not because you have your own criteria, that they might be different from mine or someone else's, or are "wrong", but because you implicitly or explicitly apply them to everyone else and it's this act that effectively makes them "wrong"! We're then in the same vicious circle that you yourself often rile against, when misinformed visitors to this forum defend these "wrong" assertions by making further false, self-contradictory and hypocritical statements and using fallacies and false analogies. 
3a. Sure, we can go down the rabbit hole of looking at diamonds from different angles, evolve our judging criteria and more fully appreciating their beauty. However, it's false to say there is no one set of criteria, there is, the GIA's "4 Cs" is a globally accepted set of criteria, upon which the world's diamond trade relies. We're perfectly entitled to our own criteria, criteria different to the criteria accepted by consensus of the world's diamond experts, but we're not entitled to apply that criteria to everyone else or state there is no accepted set of criteria!
3b. I don't disagree but at what point does "_a broader understanding of the truth_" equal the actual truth and, how do you know that you've reached it? If your answer to either of these questions is that you don't know for sure, then you cannot apply your personal view/criteria to everyone else!! Your last post is a great example and even though I've highlighted several others in previous posts, you simply don't address them and continue repeating the same error:



bigshot said:


> [1] The mistake is the concept of "the creators intention".
> [2] Creators don't have a specific intention.
> [3] They want to engage the audience on the audience's own terms.



1. That's not a mistake, because:
2. You have not qualified this assertion, it therefore implicitly includes all creators. I'm a professional creator and I typically DO have a specific intention, my existence therefore proves your assertion is false! And, I cannot be dismissed as an outlier or exception because I've worked with countless other creators over several decades, spanning every continent and quite a few different/disparate genres and ALL of them had specific intentions. Furthermore, in the case of most classical music for example, the whole point of standard music notation is to communicate the specific and general intentions of the composer to the performer, who then interprets those intentions, which the recording engineer and music producer will then try to faithfully represent. In most other genres the producer will typically add their own specific and general intentions. Unlike you, I'm not going to assert this is true of all creators, even though it does apply to at least the vast majority, because there are some creators (and sub-genres) who have the specific intention that there is no specific intention.

3. This assertion is also untrue. Some creators do NOT want to engage the audience on the audience's own terms, some want to create ENTIRELY on their own terms and then it's up to the audience whether they're engaged or not. I personally don't subscribe to that approach because in live performance it demotes the audience from a contributing participant to merely a spectator but this doesn't mean that I can can apply my approach/view to everyone else and deny the existence of the contrary approach/view!

It is of course up to you and other individual consumers whether or not you choose to respect "the creators intentions" or believe there are any but it is FALSE to assert the concept does not exist or is a "mistake" for everyone else!!

G


----------



## hakunamakaka

Creator intentions doesn’t mean it’s the best of what he could achieve even by his own vision. There is no point to argue if it sounds as creator intended or what’s the ultimate sound. As music lover your focus shouldn’t be here in the first place. Enjoy what YOU like


----------



## bigshot (Apr 27, 2020)

hakunamakaka, Neil Young is the only performer I've heard of who has gone out of his way to dictate to people how they should listen to his music. It's like the old Martin Mull line... "I've suffered for my art. Now it's your turn."

There's also a great story about Artur Schnabel, who was famous for playing Beethoven's sonatas in the 30s. He was asked why he was reticent to record them and he said that he was afraid that somewhere someone would be listening to the glory of Beethoven while seated at the kitchen table in an undershirt eating a ham sandwich. There is a good example of artists' intent!


----------



## hakunamakaka

bigshot said:


> hakunamakaka, Neil Young is the only performer I've heard of who has gone out of his way to dictate to people how they should listen to his music. It's like the old Martin Mull line... "I've suffered for my art. Now it's your turn."
> 
> There's also a great story about Artur Schnabel, who was famous for playing Beethoven's sonatas in the 30s. He was asked why he was reticent to record them and he said that he was afraid that somewhere someone would be listening to the glory of Beethoven while seated at the kitchen table in an undershirt eating a ham sandwich. There is a good example of artists' intent!




If I love that music there is no way I could listen it in the background while doing something, I get caught so easily into the land of sounds. While I do have my own sound preference I'm not that hard to please and I don't take other opinions for granted as how it should sound. Had lots of discussion in my workplace with a colleague who is caught up in numbers/graphs of sound, stating that my sound system is no good(while never even listened to it ) as by nature it reproduces coloured and distorted sound, but personally I enjoy it a lot. It comes down to your on tastes I've demoed Focal 1008 BE which sounded analytical and lifeless and cheap dalis where much more engaging. For me the biggest joy is when I find a good tune or album release, without thinking of who/how someone intended it to sound.


----------



## bigshot

Numbers and graphs are the best place to start. Just like you have an experienced chef make your meal, and then you add salt and pepper to taste.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> The mistake is the concept of "the creators intention". Creators don't have a specific intention. They want to engage the audience on the audience's own terms. Sound is designed for a range of presentations in all kinds of circumstances. There is no formula for the "perfect" presentation. There are only guidelines to guarantee that you aren't screwing it all up.


The entire thrust of THX, both theatrical and at home, was to present the experience "as the creators intended".  They did it by standardizing certain critical performance criteria in rooms and equipment.  The idea collapsed because of the expense of manufacturing equipment and building rooms to THX spec, and ultimately market confusion over what THX actually meant.  But when the original performance targets were adhered to the goal of establishing a reasonable match between the creative environment and the presentation environment was actually achieved. 

If the creators intention wasn't important, there would never have been THX in the first place.


----------



## hakunamakaka

pinnahertz said:


> The entire thrust of THX, both theatrical and at home, was to present the experience "as the creators intended".  They did it by standardizing certain critical performance criteria in rooms and equipment.  The idea collapsed because of the expense of manufacturing equipment and building rooms to THX spec, and ultimately market confusion over what THX actually meant.  But when the original performance targets were adhered to the goal of establishing a reasonable match between the creative environment and the presentation environment was actually achieved.
> 
> If the creators intention wasn't important, there would never have been THX in the first place.




it has it’s place, but shouldn’t be your main focus, unless your work is related to that and you remaster tracks. For a listener this can be put out of the picture


----------



## GearMe

THX...out of the goodness of George Lucas's heart...just looking out for the consumer's best interests!  

Meh...am more inclined to believe that this strategy aligned with Lucas's innate ability to fully monetize an opportunity.  

Lucas is a very smart business man worth about $6 Billion and, while THX was a drop in the bucket compared to the Star Wars franchise and additional merchandising revenue, he understands the concept of exclusivity as well as anyone.  Audiences used to cheer when they saw the THX logo in the theater...masterful marketing!

For some audiophiles, it was a way to 'confirm' their purchase; others a bragging right.  For those with a good set of ears and the willingness to treat a room, not such a big deal.  

TBH, there have been so many different THX levels and products over the years it boggles the mind.  I recall the THX Certified PC's when they first came out 20 years ago; pair em up with your THX Computer Speakers and it was definitely an 'as the artist intended' experience!  Not sure if they ever got to THX Hair Dryers and Shavers   


OK...a little harsh I s'pose...since he's never demonstrated the desire to separate the public from their hard-earned cash...rinse and repeat.  
(may your cash be with _me_)

I'm sure he'll be remembered as a highly regarded, cutting-edge artist (his Oscars confirm); always pushing the envelope -- can't wait for Indiana Jones 5!!! 
That said, Raiders of the Lost Ark was very entertaining...to this day a movie I'd sit down to watch at home or even pay to see in the theater again.

Other than Raiders, his first two movies were among his best -- American Graffitti...and...wait for it THX 1138.


----------



## gregorio

hakunamakaka said:


> [1] Creator intentions doesn’t mean it’s the best of what he could achieve even by his own vision.
> [2] There is no point to argue if it sounds as creator intended or what’s the ultimate sound.
> [3] As music lover your focus shouldn’t be here in the first place.
> [4] Enjoy what YOU like



1. Maybe Da Vinci could have done better, even by his own vision, with the Mona Lisa. Maybe you don't like Mona Lisa's smile and if you had your own copy for your personal viewing pleasure, you would change it and that would be your choice. Or, maybe the smile Da Vinci painted was entirely intentional and maybe I want to view it as Da Vinci intended, even if I personally don't like the smile, don't understand why he painted it like that and think that my own judgement is better/preferable. No artist is perfect or creates perfect works but when I view or listen to an artist's work, I want to see or hear that artist's intentions and preferences, not my own.

2. This assertion is false! There is a point in arguing if it sounds as the creator intended, as that affects what the creator intended. Maybe you personally are not interested in what the artist intended, are only interested in your own preferences and therefore there's "no point" for you, which is your personal choice. However, you did not qualify "there is no point" as just your personal choice/preference and therefore implicitly stated "there is no point" for anyone, which is why your assertion is false because there is a point for me and many others!

3. I would state almost the exact opposite! Music is an art form and as such is a form of communication, so as a music lover I want to understand/appreciate what the creator intended to communicate. If I were not a music lover, if instead I just loved satisfying my personal "ear candy" preferences, then you're right and my "focus shouldn't be here in the first place". Of course, some music creators don't exercise the ability of music to communicate and so design their music to be nothing more than "ear candy", which is up to them but clearly this isn't true of the vast majority of music creators or of many music consumers.

4. Sure, you are entirely free to "Enjoy what YOU like" but I'm just as free to appreciate and love music on it's own merits, regardless of my personal preferences (even if I don't like it, or parts of it). For example, I first heard the "Rite of Spring" when I was a young teenager, I didn't just not like it, I actively hated it. It was just an unpleasant sounding cacophony of strained musical instruments. As my understanding of the composer's specific intent and of music composition in general grew, my view of the piece changed. The piece depicts a primitive ritual where a young girl is forced to dance herself to death, which is not a pleasant situation and which the composer communicates by the piece intentionally not sounding pleasant. The overt and subtle specific ways the composer achieves this has changed my view from actively hating it, to it being my most loved piece and I could argue that it's the greatest masterpiece ever composed, even though it's still unpleasant sounding relative to my personal preferences/likes!



bigshot said:


> [1] Neil Young is the only performer I've heard of who has gone out of his way to dictate to people how they should listen to his music.
> [2] There's also a great story about Artur Schnabel, who was famous for playing Beethoven's sonatas in the 30s. He was asked why he was reticent to record them and he said that he was afraid that somewhere someone would be listening to the glory of Beethoven while seated at the kitchen table in an undershirt eating a ham sandwich. There is a good example of artists' intent!



1. Now you've heard of another! I always "go out of my way to dictate how people" hear my mixes/music. For example, I will adjust say a guitar part by a few dB here and there. This dictates how people will hear my mixes/music because they cannot deconstruct my mix and change my intention of the relative balance of the guitar part. And again, I am not alone in this, every music producer I've ever heard of does the same, and so do many/most conductors, composers and musicians.

2. No, that is NOT a good example of artists' intent. It's an example of one artist's intent, it's also representative of some other artists but definitely NOT all artists' and probably only a relatively small minority!

G


----------



## GearMe

gregorio said:


> 1. Maybe Da Vinci could have done better, even by his own vision, with the Mona Lisa. Maybe you don't like Mona Lisa's smile and if you had your own copy for your personal viewing pleasure, you would change it and that would be your choice. Or, maybe the smile Da Vinci painted was entirely intentional and maybe I want to view it as Da Vinci intended, even if I personally don't like the smile, don't understand why he painted it like that and think that my own judgement is better/preferable. No artist is perfect or creates perfect works but when I view or listen to an artist's work, I want to see or hear that artist's intentions and preferences, not my own.



I honestly get both sides of this discussion...

That said, I'm not going to agonize over a system being perfectly set up to wring every little nuance 'necessary' to be 'faithful' to the artists intentions...not worth the effort...to me.  Also, it seems that some folks (don't believe you're one) spend their time listening to their gear using music instead of listening to their music with their gear.

As a sidebar, if I could have the perfect system but could only listen to Henry Mancini and Kenny G...vs a flawed system but I got to listen to Brubeck and Coltrane...gimme the flawed system e-v-e-r-y time!  



gregorio said:


> 4. Sure, you are entirely free to "Enjoy what YOU like" but I'm just as free to appreciate and love music on it's own merits, regardless of my personal preferences (even if I don't like it, or parts of it). For example, I first heard the "Rite of Spring" when I was a young teenager, I didn't just not like it, I actively hated it. It was just an unpleasant sounding cacophony of strained musical instruments. As my understanding of the composer's specific intent and of music composition in general grew, my view of the piece changed. The piece depicts a primitive ritual where a young girl is forced to dance herself to death, which is not a pleasant situation and which the composer communicates by the piece intentionally not sounding pleasant. The overt and subtle specific ways the composer achieves this has changed my view from actively hating it, to it being my most loved piece and I could argue that it's the greatest masterpiece ever composed, even though it's still unpleasant sounding relative to my personal preferences/likes!



You and I had similar experiences with this piece...for me knowing the story helped as well.  However, my appreciation for this piece and others like it honestly just came with age.  Similarly, I hated blues music when I was young.  Over time, it has become my favorite genre.


btw...Mona Lisa's smile?






(sorry...had to!)


----------



## bigshot (Apr 28, 2020)

pinnahertz said:


> The entire thrust of THX, both theatrical and at home, was to present the experience "as the creators intended".  They did it by standardizing certain critical performance criteria in rooms and equipment.  The idea collapsed because of the expense of manufacturing equipment and building rooms to THX spec, and ultimately market confusion over what THX actually meant.



Atmos is marching down the same road. But if it pushes things in the right direction, it's worth it. For now though, mixes are designed to suit a range of circumstances. Until the record industry decides to buy us all officially sanctioned equipment for our homes, that isn't likely to change!



GearMe said:


> THX...out of the goodness of George Lucas's heart...just looking out for the consumer's best interests!  Meh...am more inclined to believe that this strategy aligned with Lucas's innate ability to fully monetize an opportunity.



The fella who designed and set up my theater room was part of the team that designed and built the prototype THX installation at Skywalker Ranch. He was authorized to do THX certification and I asked him about it. He said that the original intentions were good, but it didn't play out as well in practice. When they had control over the room- as in brand new theaters- THX was very good. Trying to adapt it for the home was pretty pointless. He said that he could certify my theater, but that would involve paying a hefty license fee and he wouldn't do anything differently than without the certification. The only difference would be that he would spend a whole lot of time on paperwork and I would get a nice certificate to hang on the wall. I passed on it.


----------



## hakunamakaka

gregorio said:


> 1. Maybe Da Vinci could have done better, even by his own vision, with the Mona Lisa. Maybe you don't like Mona Lisa's smile and if you had your own copy for your personal viewing pleasure, you would change it and that would be your choice. Or, maybe the smile Da Vinci painted was entirely intentional and maybe I want to view it as Da Vinci intended, even if I personally don't like the smile, don't understand why he painted it like that and think that my own judgement is better/preferable. No artist is perfect or creates perfect works but when I view or listen to an artist's work, I want to see or hear that artist's intentions and preferences, not my own.
> 
> 2. This assertion is false! There is a point in arguing if it sounds as the creator intended, as that affects what the creator intended. Maybe you personally are not interested in what the artist intended, are only interested in your own preferences and therefore there's "no point" for you, which is your personal choice. However, you did not qualify "there is no point" as just your personal choice/preference and therefore implicitly stated "there is no point" for anyone, which is why your assertion is false because there is a point for me and many others!
> 
> ...



for me there is no point to seek for that "sound, I just don't see much point in it, if it's neutral and close to what I hear in live sessions I'm happy, don't care if I missed some micro details, instead "I'm spending money on music itself and there is no Vinyl, album release that I started to dislike in many years span. Mine hobby is to explore music, no high end sound will beat my favorite albums. You sound very immature if you relate only high end sound seekers as the only music lovers, but whatever floats your boat. Good luck


----------



## bigshot (Apr 28, 2020)

It really isn't very reasonable to expect that you can achieve studio standards in the home. You have to make compromises for livability, convenience and functionality. The trick is to apply those compromises intelligently, with a basic understanding of how things work. Just because you don't have rigid calibration, it doesn't mean that any old sound will do. You apply the science to solve the problem... and the problem is how to experience great sounding music in your home. You judge the results according to fitness for purpose, not precision.

That said, we're living in an age where technology allows us to own inexpensive systems that have greater fidelity than at any time in the past. It isn't terribly difficult to achieve great sounding music if you just keep focused on the things that matter and not the things that are a waste of energy and money. I admire efficient, inexpensive systems that do the job elegantly than expensive "money is no object" systems that make you jump through hoops to use ithem.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> Atmos is marching down the same road. But if it pushes things in the right direction, it's worth it. For now though, mixes are designed to suit a range of circumstances. Until the record industry decides to buy us all officially sanctioned equipment for our homes, that isn't likely to change!
> 
> 
> 
> The fella who designed and set up my theater room was part of the team that designed and built the prototype THX installation at Skywalker Ranch. He was authorized to do THX certification and I asked him about it. He said that the original intentions were good, but it didn't play out as well in practice. When they had control over the room- as in brand new theaters- THX was very good. Trying to adapt it for the home was pretty pointless. He said that he could certify my theater, but that would involve paying a hefty license fee and he wouldn't do anything differently than without the certification. The only difference would be that he would spend a whole lot of time on paperwork and I would get a nice certificate to hang on the wall. I passed on it.


Well, everyone has their idea of "pointless".  Yes, they had on odd idea of certification.  The point is not that certification was stupid, the point is that you got someone to build your room so that it _could_ have passed certification.  And that's actually still fairly rare.   Hardly pointless.  And if true, the THX goal was accomplished, just not official.   The real problem is that so few home rooms would pass, and it cost a lot to make them pass.  

THX at home, if fully implemented, accomplished the goal of matching the creative environment.  That doesn't mean it's always practical, which was their problem in the first place.


----------



## bigshot

The guy did say there was more than one degree of certification. Perhaps they realized that theatrical THX wasn't practical in homes and created a lower standard. I guess that's like a TV game show and the home game by Milton Bradley.


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> The guy did say there was more than one degree of certification. Perhaps they realized that theatrical THX wasn't practical in homes and created a lower standard. I guess that's like a TV game show and the home game by Milton Bradley.


Theatrical THX was never a possibility for the home.  Small systems and rooms at 3000cu ft don't work like big theaters, dub stages, or screening rooms.  Home THX (the original specs as written by Tom Holman) were specific to living room systems.  The target was a timbre and presentation match to a dub stage, and it did work.  The original specs morphed into THX Ultra II, to make room for THX Select, which was "cheapened" to get more of the badge into product and systems.  Select and Select II never really were a great match to creative (though better than most home systems, HTiBs, etc), Home THX, Ultra, Ultra II was a good match.  

Probably not known by many now, but Holman went on, after Lucasfilm, to produce a single person system called "MicroTheater", essentially THX for One.  It was designed to work around a DAW with placement and timbre match to a dub stage.  I actually worked with one of those systems, it was shockingly good.  Many sound editors and even re-recording mixers said the could totally work that way, and it did match a dub stage quite well.  It was installed in a number of editing suites, I think one I saw was at Fox, but the one I worked with was at Tom's TMH Labs.  I really wish they'd moved the product forward, but it was a rental-only business model, like Panavision.  He also designed speakers specifically for smaller screening rooms under the TMH badge, called Tesseract, and included a custom optimized active crossover and a couple of subs made by a third part.  Heard them in a 50 seat color timing room,  they blew me away, and I never say that easily about speakers.   He was all about scaling the experience, and it all worked, if expensive.


----------



## old tech

From the thread below, Steve Hoffman claims that a LP record sounds closer to a master tape than a 24 bit digital copy of it.

Apart from that being technically impossible - 16 bit digital is more than enough to sound identical to an analog master tape - isn't it sad that he perpetuates this myth when nearly every other highly awarded mastering engineer that has experience with both record and digital mastering  (eg Ludwig, Clearmountain and so on) have stated otherwise and would find such a claim laughable?  

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thre...g-reel-tape-copy.133328/page-32#post-24184059


----------



## Davesrose (Jun 8, 2020)

old tech said:


> From the thread below, Steve Hoffman claims that a LP record sounds closer to a master tape than a 24 bit digital copy of it.
> 
> Apart from that being technically impossible - 16 bit digital is more than enough to sound identical to an analog master tape - isn't it sad that he perpetuates this myth when nearly every other highly awarded mastering engineer that has experience with both record and digital mastering  (eg Ludwig, Clearmountain and so on) have stated otherwise and would find such a claim laughable?
> 
> https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thre...g-reel-tape-copy.133328/page-32#post-24184059




Well isn't Steve Hoffman known in particular to engineer for old LP titles?  I don't know how much of that is his experience just with analog or having a vested interest to be "anti-digital".

There might be an argument that the capabilities of LP are closer to old master tapes: IE larger magnetic tapes had some better capabilities, but still can't approach the capabilities of our current digital audio standards (in terms of frequency range and dynamic range).  We know that either tape or LPs have more frequency roll off.  I have collected some older used records thinking they may have been better mastered then some digital masterings, but I can't believe there would be any LP person would think vinyl exceed the capabilities of digital: it's just if there's a subjective preference of its colorization (and what I can think of current popularity of new LPs being made from digital sources).

I'm sure audio mastering has changed just as much as my experience with photography/digital video.  The earliest digital cameras couldn't produce the resolving power or dynamic range of 35mm film.  The first spec that I found digital to be better than analog was a better noise floor (IE being able to take photos in low light and high ISO).  Film has been a good archive medium: quite a few older movies have been color graded and mastered for 4K HDR now.  It's also interesting to see how TV productions have been transfered to a digital medium: IE Star Trek original series, which their special effects shots didn't hold up and all those shots redone in 3D.  STNG, though, was sourced with ILM, who had a process of filming VFX passes on larger film stock (just as movies were in the 80s: filming VFX on large film stocks to hold up to optical printing).  To meet the time constraints, those film negatives were scanned to video and edited in standard definition...but CBS could go back and rescan all film elements to do a digital master (where especially with VFX, you can add as many layers as you want, copy, distribute any number of times and stay bit perfect).  I think it's great that we now have smaller cameras that are able to have a higher resolving power and dynamic range than film did.  One huge comparison would be watching Top Gun in 4K: where you can see the limitations they had at the time: they were using a film format that had low resolving power, but were smaller for being able to attach to aerial photography.  Now you can watch the sequel, Maverick, in 4K (trailer until release later this year) and just see how much sharper and better the image is.  Now that production values are so great with current movies, I have noticed that cinephiles can be critical about other things: such as color grading or choice of aspect ratios....factors that are personal choices.

Though when speaking of studio masters, this is also reminding me of film restoration.  For quite a few years now, studios have scanned 35mm sources in 4K resolution and 70mm sources in 8K.  They have painstakingly color graded each shot, taken out any specks are marks in the negative etc....to make a pristine digital copy that looks better than anything someone would see in a multiplex that had run that original screening for how many cycles.  When they are done, the have the digital master that gets saved and will be handed to channels for home distribution and such.  They also make a new analog film master as well, just in case the software is no longer supported, and current film stocks can be archived for over 100 years.


----------



## analogsurviver

Peekaboo ...


----------



## bigshot

My personal opinion is that Hoffman’s opinion depends on which side his bread is buttered on. He’s getting more gravy from audiophiles lately so he leans that way.


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> My personal opinion is that Hoffman’s opinion depends on which side his bread is buttered on. He’s getting more gravy from audiophiles lately so he leans that way.


Probably explains his high regard for SACDs as of late given he has been trying to get back in the industry through a boutique label that only sell LPs and SACDs (no CDs or 24 bit downloads).


----------



## old tech

Davesrose said:


> Well isn't Steve Hoffman known in particular to engineer for old LP titles?  I don't know how much of that is his experience just with analog or having a vested interest to be "anti-digital".
> 
> There might be an argument that the capabilities of LP are closer to old master tapes: IE larger magnetic tapes had some better capabilities, but still can't approach the capabilities of our current digital audio standards (in terms of frequency range and dynamic range).  We know that either tape or LPs have more frequency roll off.  I have collected some older used records thinking they may have been better mastered then some digital masterings, but I can't believe there would be any LP person would think vinyl exceed the capabilities of digital: it's just if there's a subjective preference of its colorization (and what I can think of current popularity of new LPs being made from digital sources).
> 
> ...


Yeah, I get all that.  The issue here is not the mastering but reproducing a copy of a tape...


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> Peekaboo ...


He's back!


----------



## analogsurviver

Well, I will be only sporadically checking that things don't deteriorate ( or advance, depending on point of view ... ) to the point this group reaches the conclusion mp3s with 32kHz sampling and 96 kbps is enough for music - or that RBCD can replicate decent vinyl. 

Despite our differences, I am glad that most ( did not check much the period of my absence ) if not all are still rambling with no end.  Even the one(s) I am not supposed to name.

Wish everyone speedy recovery from the covideration - and some live music event(s) in reasonably near future.


----------



## stonesfan129

I wonder what kind of digital equipment they are playing things through where it doesn't sound transparent the way his LPs do.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 11, 2020)

stonesfan129 said:


> I wonder what kind of digital equipment they are playing things through where it doesn't sound transparent the way his LPs do.


The real question is the other way around - what kind of digital equipment has the performance which is capable of covering all the bandwidth of the best analog without introducing any objectionable quantization noise.

I know of exactly ONE documented and from third party verified "soundcard", ADC/DAC, audio interface, recorder  - or whatever you want to call that digital device  - that is good enough. It is the RME ADI2 PRO FS - which, within its specs
https://www.rme-audio.de/adi-2-pro-fs.html
includes ALL the nitty gritty measurements most other manufacturers hide like a snake does its feet - and all of these tough measurements have been confirmed by Archimago.
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/09/measurements-rme-adi-2-pro-fs-adc.html
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/10/measurements-rme-adi-2-pro-fs-as-dac.html

RME ADI2 started its life as PCM only capable unit, IIRC back in 2016. Since I am a DSD guy, I did not pay any attention to it because of that. But, it was (and still is ... ) a work in progress; somewhere along the line, firmware upgrade added native DSD capability; those claiming jitter does not matter will get a slap in the face of their digital life ... - because later production runs added suffix "FS", meaning the addition of femto clock - AGAIN,  well documented by measurements, which more than just pass the criteria required by this thread. And, again, verified by Archimago .

My present standard equipment is Korg MR-1 and MR-1000 portable DSD recorders. Both in stock and modified version - as the analog input to the ADC and analog output from the ADC  are iffy - at best - and if I want to stay polite about it. My modified MR-1000 is broadly equivalent/comparable to Tascam DA-3000 - and both make AUDIBLE mincemeat out of stock MR-1000. Both MR-1000 and DA-3000 use exactly the same "digititis" ( aka ADC chipset - and, IIRC, also the DAC chipset ) - and both start with a steep rise in quatization noise at 55 kHz or so, regardless if in PCM or DSD mode. Things can get REALLY bad at around 80 kHz ... - and, in order to keep this DIGITAL ultrasonic garbage as low as possible, this is the answer WHY do I insist - doggedly so - recording with peaks just a smidge below 0dBFS in DSD mode.
Korg MR series has, additionally, something I cherish and call "sharp curve safety exit ". These machines CAN survive recording levels up to 5-6 dB ABOVE 0dBFS when recording in DSD - and can also play back these hot recordings WITHOUT any audible protest - unlike most other digital gear, where 0dBFS is the SHARP end of the world. Tascam DA-3000 included - it breaks to pieces if the tiniest fraction of a dB over 0dBFS is exceeded, just like a view trough  the perfectly clear glass window ( anything below 0dBFS) - and the same view, if somebody throws a rock and shatters that glass ( anything exceeding 0dBFS)...
Korg Audiogate software can both transcode DSD to PCM, as well adjust for levels. That, sadly, involves unavoidable going from DSD to PCM and back to DSD, if the levels of the original ( mostly live ... ) recordings peaked above 0dBFS ( but not more than +6dBFS; most usually, it is a dB or two, as musicians during rehearsals, where and when I try to set the recording level , are usually playing somewhat reserved. I do try to allow for a reasonable headroom, but sometimes a rather timid rehearsal turns into fireworks concert - particularly if it is the first time recording that artist(s). An educated guesstimate is the best that can be done under such circumstances. Or, one can play it safe, record with ample overload margin, but then suffer the quantization noise increase and, after the levels have been "normalized" via DSD>PCM  normalization >DSD, the loss of native DSD recording  ). It is, also sadly, limited to the highest sampling frequency Korg devices support, that is to say 192/24 for PCM and DSD128.

All the above can explain WHY I have been waiting for a digital device capable of maintaining at least 100 dB S/N across its ENTIRE bandwidth - up to the very highest frequency it can present at its output, that is to say half the frequency of its highest sampling frequency.
For RME ADI2 PRO FS,  that means clean output up to 384 kHz.
For those who doggedly insist that CD is all it will ever take for "perfect" sound reproduction, RME provided yet another, even hardest slap in digital face - the filtering in the highest resolution, that is to say PCM 756kHz . The frequency response is LESS linear than in PCM384 ... - BECAUSE, they realized much better sonics are available without having to resort to brick wall filtering (used in all lower sampling frequency settings for PCM ) - and used far less steep output filtering for the highest level of quality possible and available at reasonable price today.

Because of all the above, I decided to record quite a few analog record playback equipment to PCM 96/24 - as it is the highest sampling that still maintains high S/N up to the highest frequency present at the output of my CURRENT  digital equipment. And, in addition, decided to make these recordings on the STOCK version of the Korg MR-1000 - in order to allow others to repeat under the same conditions. Think of it like my version of Courage The Cowardly Dog saying :



... - except replace "love" for "sound science" .

But, make no mistake - it does not sound as good as PCM 192/24, let alone DSD128. When REALLY fast analog is in question, I will definitely use DSD128 - WITHOUT any output filtering, signal to noise above 20 kHz be damned...

Needless to say, I am saving up for the RME... (Black Edition - sporting even further rafinements, mostly in analog parts of the machine ) - AND moving parts free portable khomputer to use it with, which more than doubles the investment required. Any laptop with a fan and enough processing power to support DSD256 recording will try to impersonate Private Tornado once called upon to do so - and, since I almost always record on location, in the same acoustic space as the musicians themselves, that is unacceptable.

Houg !


----------



## bigshot

Most all modern DACs and digital players are audibly transparent. LPs clearly aren't. That is self evident.


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> The real question is the other way around - what kind of digital equipment has the performance which is capable of covering all the bandwidth of the best analog without introducing any objectionable quantization noise.
> 
> I know of exactly ONE documented and from third party verified "soundcard", ADC/DAC, audio interface, recorder  - or whatever you want to call that digital device  - that is good enough. It is the RME ADI2 PRO FS - which, within its specs
> https://www.rme-audio.de/adi-2-pro-fs.html
> ...



Sorry but once again all I read is motivated by a rational that directly conflicts with itself and/or my understanding of waves, fidelity, and human hearing.  

-You need femto clock in digital encoding/decoding but disregard the comparatively humongous timing errors introduced by any analog recording/playback setup.

-You want 100dB of SNR on digital rigs but disregard the comparatively humongous noise level introduced by any analog recording/playback setup.

-A vinyl has ultrasonic content, I can agree with you on that even if I don't agree that we should care. But what's the fidelity of that content? You know it's super bad. Even within the audible range you can't afford to put too much high amplitude high frequency signal on a vinyl. So what happens when we bring in even shorter waves for ultrasonic content? The mechanical nightmare just becomes bigger. Yet you keep considering that as the reference we can only hope to try and match with digital. Even as a joke it's bad.

-Last but not least, and what is to me a profound misunderstanding on your part about waves and human perception. Your idea, tell me if I explain it wrong, that the music needs all the frequency content from the instruments to sound like the original music. Including the ultrasonic content that a human ear isn't equipped to register.
I cannot wrap my head around that notion. I get that if an instrument does 2kHz, 4kHz and 8kHz waves at the same time at audible amplitudes, arbitrarily removing 8kHz will alter how I perceive that sound and would be a bad thing to do. But I do not understand how that reasoning can extend to frequencies a human ear fails to perceive? 
You're presenting a device you consider fine because it will handle frequencies almost 20 times the accepted frequency limit of human hearing. And I'm fairly confident that if a device went higher, you'd rather have that. Almost 20 times the human frequency limit, to draw a bad but the only rhetorical parallel I can think of with frequencies, that's like arguing that a picture looks better if it sends back all of the UV range and a little bit of Xray from the scene initially captured. Do you need to have UV coming out of your pictures and monitor screens to feel like it's a quality reproduction? Do you need 300kHz signal coming out of your DAC to feel like it's quality sound? Seems like such an unnecessary things to insist on.


----------



## bigshot

LPs have a very wide bandwidth for noise. Just not signal.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> Most all modern DACs and digital players are audibly transparent. LPs clearly aren't. That is self evident.


I would like you to - finally - start understanding what it is all about.

I have never stated that analog record is - audibly transparent. In a way, under certain, VERY hard to satisfy conditions, it might even achieve all the required criteria. 

In sharp contrast to the digital, the very same analog record ( not only pressing, but the VERY SAME record; limited editions , like most direct to disk, have serial numbers either printed or hand written into specially for this purpose alloted space )  most definitely CAN - and usually DOES - sound markedly different on different analog playback setups. And the range of what sound quality can analog playback rig extract from the disk is, unfortunately, mind boggling. The extremes can be both VERY INFERIOR - but also VERY SUPERIOR - to what a top notch RBCD>HiRez PCM>DSD version of the same recording can do.

I will state only this; I have YET to hear any digital recording of analog vinyl record that is completely indistingushable from the vinyl played "live". I agree that the best digital equipment available today is enough for enjoying ( most of ) the music ; but it is not yet 1:1 facsimile of what is presented at its analog input.

The above is also true for the live microphone feed ; but, there is absolutely no way for the musicians to play the same music EXACTLY the same, time and time again, at the whim/flick of the finger by engineer/audiophile - for the purpose of various comparisons, A/Bs, etc - just not possible.

The second best option is using analog master tape as the source. Hard to come by, expensive like hell.
( Recently, Slovenian group Mascara Quartet has issued CD, LP and 1st generation from master tape Reel to Reel of their latest fully analog recording release - Barco Negro. Prices: 

CD 15 eur

LP 25 eur (sold out ) 
 , 

R2R ( for price/availability, best contact them at their website www.mascara.si )


The third best option is analog vinyl record. The least expensive  of the three - but still, MUCH more expensive than the digital. Infinitely more accesible to public at large than the previous two options.

I get it what is your goal - providing listeners with the least expensive equipment that satisfies certain quality criteria - and, for that , I DO RESPECT YOU.

Trouble is, I do not agree the level you find sufficient is good enough.
 And, like any experienced enough and clever employee knows how to ask his/her boss for leave,
( Employee: Boss, can I take an unexpected leave due to ( whatever plausible & important ) for 15 days ? Boss: Well, if you asked for 10 or maybe max 12 days, OK, but 15..., no , too much ...
Employee: Oh, great - 10 days will do just nicely !
( when all that he/she really wanted to get for sure was 7 days + 2 days travel in both directions ))

 I HAVE TO ASK FOR MORE OF THE DIFFERENCE THAN ACTUALLY REQUIRED.

Believe me, I am MORE inclined against making audiophiles to pay exorbitant prices than you are ... - but certain lowest standard has to be met. Even if that "research" is costly as hell; in due time lessons learned and clever rationalization can bring down the prices considerably. 

But, even that is CONSIDERABLY above say $500 surround receiver level. I do agree that they can sound phenomenally good for the money; just not good enough to do really well recorded music full justice.

You would not believe your own ears what REALLY good analog record playback can do. If I wrote here just what it all takes to reach that level, there would be an massive uproar on this thread - with you probably leading the charge. And each of the gang contributing by singling out one of the requirements, citing untold amount of references from the past that "it cannot possibly be true". 

Well, NONE  of the single "unnecessary spendings" can - all by itself - bring an overall audible improvement. 

But, ALL of them, used IN CONCERT - definitely CAN.
Leave any single one out and  you've done - nothing ...

Once the goal has been achieved, it is possible to make rationalizations and cost cutting - but only to the point where it still provides most of the essence  of the "no holds barred" "prototypes".


----------



## bigshot (Jun 11, 2020)

Analog is not audibly transparent. CD is. I don't know what could be better for a format to be than transparent. If you want to slather on euphonious distortion, speed fluctuations, surface noise and godawful inner groove distortion, you can do that by means of a DSP and precisely control it. If you've got a playback format that is better than human ears can hear, there is absolutely no reason to go backwards to inferior sound quality, particularly if the format is as clunky, delicate and inconvenient as vinyl is.

I HAVE good LP playback. I own over 25,000 records, including some of the best pressings ever made. And I have three turntables with a variety of cartridges, both MC and MM, LP and 78. I know exactly what good vinyl playback is capable of. But the capability of the CD format is better. It's self evident even without a blind test. Everyone knows that, my 80 year old mom knew that, the only people who don't are fetishistic audiophools who don't listen with their ears.

Your chatty, rambling posts may be convincing in your head, but they don't sound the same to other people I'm afraid. You're playing for an audience of one.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention... This is not your personal thread. You've been invited several times to create your own thread for your theories and speculation, but you haven't done it. I'll invite you again to do that. This thread is intended to discuss the original post, which is one of the best articles ever posted to this group. It isn't fair to jump into the limelight and try to make it your personal soapbox. It's operated quite well in your absence.


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> Blah blah blah
> 
> I will state only this; I have YET to hear any digital recording of analog vinyl record that is completely indistingushable from the vinyl played "live". I agree that the best digital equipment available today is enough for enjoying ( most of ) the music ; but it is not yet 1:1 facsimile of what is presented at its analog input.
> 
> ...



This is how transparent CD/digital is: I could digitally record the output of the worlds highest quality record player playing the finest vinyl pressing in the world and master it for a CD. Then, after level matching I could play back both the CD and the worlds highest quality record player through the same amplifier and speaker (of your choice) and you would never, and I truly mean never, be able to tell the difference.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 16, 2020)

^ I've actually done this. Maybe not the world's best turntable, but a damn good one.

Higher levels of noise, higher levels of distortion, high end roll off, and higher levels of speed fluctuation aren't better than a noise floor beneath the threshold of hearing, negligible distortion, a frequency response that goes beyond the range of human hearing, and rock solid timing. It's self-evident that LPs are inferior to CDs.


----------



## hakunamakaka

bigshot said:


> ^ I've actually done this. Maybe not the world's best turntable, but a damn good one.
> 
> Higher levels of noise, higher levels of distortion, high end roll off, and higher levels of speed fluctuation aren't better than a noise floor beneath the threshold of hearing, negligible distortion, a frequency response that goes beyond the range of human hearing, and rock solid timing. It's self-evident that LPs are inferior to CDs.




I do not have CD's, they simply do not contain such music that I'm in to, but regards digital/streamed music, my turntable setup beats it by a large margin and all I do have is old thorens TT with a budget ortofon cartridge. One of my favorite female vocalists Gal Costa, sounds bold and  more meshed together when I play her via my macbook, switch it to TT and sound simply opens up, you can feel the distance of her voice, guitar notes travels beautifully, notes have fullness, air and that slow decay which sounds so good with such music. Might be that my macbook DAC is simply not up to pair with the pre-amp which has been modded by les carpenter himself

You can hate, but I can tell that vinyls are not going away, though  I'm not stating that digital music can't be technically superior. The main thing for folks like me is the music that has been mastered and released on LP's, even new releases from bands like khruangbin, it's just made for my TT rig


----------



## GearMe

hakunamakaka said:


> I do not have CD's, they simply do not contain such music that I'm in to, but regards digital/streamed music, my turntable setup beats it by a large margin and all I do have is old thorens TT with a budget ortofon cartridge. One of my favorite female vocalists Gal Costa, sounds bold and  more meshed together when I play her via my macbook, switch it to TT and sound simply opens up, you can feel the distance of her voice, guitar notes travels beautifully, notes have fullness, air and that slow decay which sounds so good with such music. Might be that my macbook DAC is simply not up to pair with the pre-amp which has been modded by les carpenter himself
> 
> You can hate, but I can tell that vinyls are not going away, though  I'm not stating that digital music can't be technically superior. The main thing for folks like me is the music that has been mastered and released on LP's, even new releases from bands like khruangbin, it's just made for my TT rig


Glad you love your TT setup!  

I had Thorens TTs back in the day with some excellent tonearms and MC cartridges playing through a very nice 2 channel setup;  impressive sound for a TT setup.

Gotta say I don't miss the TT experience and feel that the overall sound quality of my digital setup is higher, it's significantly less expensive, and much less hassle -- especially with the advent of digital media players / pc software (playlists, shuffle, search, not cleaning/flipping record or changing CD, etc).  

It's great that we can each enjoy our personal audio experience in a manner that best suits us...


----------



## hakunamakaka

GearMe said:


> Glad you love your TT setup!
> 
> I had Thorens TTs back in the day with some excellent tonearms and MC cartridges playing through a very nice 2 channel setup;  impressive sound for a TT setup.
> 
> ...




I listen maybe 80% of digital and the rest on TT.  TT is more for special occasions, but if tuned right it can sound amazing on it’s own way. I wish I could show what difference it makes on my home setup against digital. You are put in a 3 dimensional space between 2 bookshelf speakers. The biggest downside is that Vinyl has to be mastered properly, maybe third of my collection is done poorly, another third ok and the rest is spectacular, which blows my friends off the sofa. What I came across as well is that in many cases vinyl lovers have a good taste in music 🎵


----------



## Davesrose (Jun 17, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> I listen maybe 80% of digital and the rest on TT.  TT is more for special occasions, but if tuned right it can sound amazing on it’s own way. I wish I could show what difference it makes on my home setup against digital. You are put in a 3 dimensional space between 2 bookshelf speakers. The biggest downside is that Vinyl has to be mastered properly, maybe third of my collection is done poorly, another third ok and the rest is spectacular, which blows my friends off the sofa. What I came across as well is that in many cases vinyl lovers have a good taste in music 🎵



Tuning is what audiophiles get caught up with for any format.  As someone who is agnostic, I don't view a given format as being audibly superior (as preference is very subjective and not what is measurably "superior").  I do think one should not lump all equipment with a digital chain as being the same: for example, the lowest quality audio devices I'll listen to during a given day is when I'm exercising with bluetooth earbuds going through my iPhone.  A given track will sound fine in that environment (and I can EQ my buds to have a FR that meets my preference with my music).  It, however, doesn't sound the same as my wired "audiophile" setups (home and office) where I have any digital source going Benchmark DAC 1 (was high end at the time, and now a good price used...providing completely flat measurements with any disputed audible ranges).  I use that as my base, and do also hear differences with given amps or headphones plug into it (owing to current differences, whether tube coloration, design of headphones).  When I was trying to tailor my TT, there could many issues with it: IE what stylus you chose, being able to adjust azimuth for stereo balance, or weight that could influence FR range.  IMO, digital, as a system, gives you more even tinkering with all the advanced DSPs and EQs.  I will say that now I am happy with using a fairly inexpensive FiiO portable player as my music source (that can accept any digital audio format), which I pipe to the Benchmark and any given analogue out gives me best AQ for all music (I have a MacBook Pro 2019, and can assure earphone out from it is very different from my headphone setup).  My digital setup works with my music.  I had collected classic rock on vinyl, and only new pressings I might buy are collectors items that have the neat new technologies (some of my alternative music has special holograms on the vinyl).  However, preference and music choice reigns supreme.  For example, I have collected some classical guitar music on vinyl since they never made it to other formats.  If they had made it to CD (or also some being RCA master series that were released on SACD), I would have bought in a heartbeat: I've always prefered a digital source for classical since I don't detect a noise floor (when DDD) and there can be a huge dynamic range.  One of the best symphony pieces as an example is Ravel's Boléro.  On the TT, you'd just hear some subtle noise at the very beginning and it's a very incremental buildup of volume and big percussion instruments being introduced.  For me, I get a better sense of no noise at the start and greater dynamic range with digital mastering and source.

As an example of how "digital" is also a chain of equipment, one thing that I have noticed this forum also perpetuates: is if a DAC chip has an inherent sound signature.  It is a common myth that anything with a Sabre chip is bright sounding.  I have a music streamer: SMSL DP3 that uses dual Sabre DAC chips.  If you listen to it's headphone stage, because of the circuit design, it does wind up being the muddiest and darkest sounding audio source I may have.  Personally, I then don't take stock in any argument about a DAC component choosing a particular chipset: the whole circuit design makes a greater difference.


----------



## colonelkernel8

hakunamakaka said:


> I do not have CD's, they simply do not contain such music that I'm in to, but regards digital/streamed music, my turntable setup beats it by a large margin and all I do have is old thorens TT with a budget ortofon cartridge. One of my favorite female vocalists Gal Costa, sounds bold and  more meshed together when I play her via my macbook, switch it to TT and sound simply opens up, you can feel the distance of her voice, guitar notes travels beautifully, notes have fullness, air and that slow decay which sounds so good with such music. Might be that my macbook DAC is simply not up to pair with the pre-amp which has been modded by les carpenter himself
> 
> You can hate, but I can tell that vinyls are not going away, though  I'm not stating that digital music can't be technically superior. The main thing for folks like me is the music that has been mastered and released on LP's, even new releases from bands like khruangbin, it's just made for my TT rig



I gotta say it. Note "fullness", "air", "guitar note travel" and "voice distance" are all imaginary terms.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> ^ I've actually done this. Maybe not the world's best turntable, but a damn good one.
> 
> Higher levels of noise, higher levels of distortion, high end roll off, and higher levels of speed fluctuation aren't better than a noise floor beneath the threshold of hearing, negligible distortion, a frequency response that goes beyond the range of human hearing, and rock solid timing. It's self-evident that LPs are inferior to CDs.



Of course. That's what I mean, a CD can capture everything an LP can reproduce, even the bad parts.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 18, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> I do not have CD's, they simply do not contain such music that I'm in to, but regards digital/streamed music, my turntable setup beats it by a large margin (snip) You can hate, but I can tell that vinyls are not going away, though  I'm not stating that digital music can't be technically superior. The main thing for folks like me is the music that has been mastered and released on LP's, even new releases from bands like khruangbin, it's just made for my TT rig



I'm not going to argue at all with the real reasons to collect LPs... There's a ton of music that exists on no other format, they are dirt cheap at swap meets, and they sound pretty good. I have tens of thousands of records and CDs of music of all kinds. The reason I have them is because when records went from cylinder to acoustic 78 to electrical 78 to hifi LP and 45 to stereo vinyl to reel to reel to 8 track to cassette to cd to SACD to DVD-A to blu-ray audio (whew! what a long list)... Throughout this long progression music dropped away at every step of the way. The only way to get that particular recording is in an obsolete format. So I have Victrolas and turntables capable of playing all the speeds and groove configurations (except Edison), along with equipment to play the various tape and digital formats. Nothing sounds better than a CD or a high data rate AAC file, so when I bother to play a record, I capture it so I don't have to go through that trouble again. I toss the file into my media server and it's available to me just by requesting it on my iPhone. Convenience counts, and that way, I enjoy the best of both worlds.

By the way, I have two Thorens turntables and a Dual. I have a variety of head shells with different cartridges for different purposes... Ortofon MC, Grado, Shure, etc. I can play any lateral cut record. Haven't got a good way to play vertical cut or cylinders yet. My brother is the one who collects Edisons and I just enjoy his collection when we visit.


----------



## hakunamakaka

bigshot said:


> I'm not going to argue at all with the real reasons to collect LPs... There's a ton of music that exists on no other format, they are dirt cheap at swap meets, and they sound pretty good. I have tens of thousands of records and CDs of music of all kinds. The reason I have them is because when records went from cylinder to acoustic 78 to electrical 78 to hifi LP and 45 to stereo vinyl to reel to reel to 8 track to cassette to cd to SACD to DVD-A to blu-ray audio (whew! what a long list)... Throughout this long progression music dropped away at every step of the way. The only way to get that particular recording is in an obsolete format. So I have Victrolas and turntables capable of playing all the speeds and groove configurations (except Edison), along with equipment to play the various tape and digital formats. Nothing sounds better than a CD or a high data rate AAC file, so when I bother to play a record, I capture it so I don't have to go through that trouble again. I toss the file into my media server and it's available to me just by requesting it on my iPhone. Convenience counts, and that way, I enjoy the best of both worlds.
> 
> By the way, I have two Thorens turntables and a Dual. I have a variety of head shells with different cartridges for different purposes... Ortofon MC, Grado, Shure, etc. I can play any lateral cut record. Haven't got a good way to play vertical cut or cylinders yet. My brother is the one who collects Edisons and I just enjoy his collection when we visit.




But for me it beats my digital source in music that i mainly listen to, that was not the case in the beginning when i had simple pre-amp, SS amp, that “tube” sound is real and after modding and replacing tubes, it’s more than obvious. Maybe you can achieve same effects with EQ via digital source, I can’t comment here. When I use macbooks-> ss amp-> speakers it falls miles away from my TT setup, when i route via tube amp difference gets smaller but still...What I can’t listen via my TT setup is electronic music, it lacks speed, attack and sounds a bit out of tune, some complex tracks can get messy as well.


----------



## GearMe

hakunamakaka said:


> But for me it beats my digital source in music that i mainly listen to, that was not the case in the beginning when i had simple pre-amp, SS amp, that “tube” sound is real and after modding and replacing tubes, it’s more than obvious. Maybe you can achieve same effects with EQ via digital source, I can’t comment here. When I use macbooks-> ss amp-> speakers it falls miles away from my TT setup, when i route via tube amp difference gets smaller but still...What I can’t listen via my TT setup is electronic music, it lacks speed, attack and sounds a bit out of tune, some complex tracks can get messy as well.



Since you favor TT setups, maybe a change in cartridge choice or even arm/cartridge configuration might help for EDM?  

Much like Bigshot, I had multiple TTs -- Thorens for belt drive and Denon or Technics for direct drive.  I had different tonearms (hi & low mass) and cartridges (hi & low compliance) in my setup as well...which definitely impacted the sound.  That said, assuming you pair the cartridge/arm correctly, the sound really was most impacted by cartridge choice.

Just dredging this up again..further reminds me what a pain TTs were...imo.  To each his/her own!


----------



## hakunamakaka

GearMe said:


> Since you favor TT setups, maybe a change in cartridge choice or even arm/cartridge configuration might help for EDM?
> 
> Much like Bigshot, I had multiple TTs -- Thorens for belt drive and Denon or Technics for direct drive.  I had different tonearms (hi & low mass) and cartridges (hi & low compliance) in my setup as well...which definitely impacted the sound.  That said, assuming you pair the cartridge/arm correctly, the sound really was most impacted by cartridge choice.
> 
> Just dredging this up again..further reminds me what a pain TTs were...imo.  To each his/her own!





too much of the hassle, not so easy to unscrew cartridge on my tonearm+ rebalancing tonearm, i keep my TT setup purely for slower paced acoustic, ambient music. Honestly even tubes are not as dynamic as my cheap ss amp, but offer sound calouring that i’m so addictive to. Vocals, instruments comes forward, but in warm, mellow sound. Maybe I’m that weirdo  that is still in love with black and white photos while everyone is going HD


----------



## 340519

colonelkernel8 said:


> I gotta say it. Note "fullness", "air", "guitar note travel" and "voice distance" are all imaginary terms.


Absolutely love you avatar. Had to say it!


----------



## bigshot (Jun 18, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> But for me it beats my digital source in music that i mainly listen to, that was not the case in the beginning when i had simple pre-amp, SS amp, that “tube” sound is real and after modding and replacing tubes, it’s more than obvious.



Then the reason you like it is because you like euphonious distortion and high end rolloff? I think I see now. I'm assuming you don't like surface noise, skips and pops, wow and flutter, flattened dynamics, right?

You can achieve that tube amp sound with CDs and solid state without added noise or other acoustic problems by using DSPs. The advantage of creating your distortion digitally is that you can finesse precisely the degree and type of distortion you want, without having to accept whatever envelope is hard wired into your amp's design. There is a thread here in Sound Science that talks about the various tube simulation DSPs and explains how they work if you are interested. The advantage to doing it that way is that you could just switch it off for your electronic music. I can totally see how that wouldn't sound as good drenched in sweet distortion syrup.

Nothing will help digital when the music that doesn't exist on CD though. But it will make digital rips of LPs sound exactly the way you want them to sound. So you can archive your record collection to digital backups and declick them.



GearMe said:


> Just dredging this up again..further reminds me what a pain TTs were...imo. To each his/her own!



I never quite feel like I get turntables and cartridges working perfectly together, especially for 78s. There are just too many variables to contend with- groove width, groove pitch, correct EQ curve, dealing with records pressed slightly off center, wear patterns higher or lower in the groove, proper stylus shape, whether to strap to mono or not... I spend so long setting up to play one record, it's usually just easier to slap it on the acoustic phono and play it with a steel needle that conforms itself to the shape of the record.


----------



## hakunamakaka

bigshot said:


> Then the reason you like it is because you like euphonious distortion and high end rolloff? I think I see now. I'm assuming you don't like surface noise, skips and pops, wow and flutter, flattened dynamics, right?
> 
> You can achieve that tube amp sound with CDs and solid state without added noise or other acoustic problems by using DSPs. The advantage of creating your distortion digitally is that you can finesse precisely the degree and type of distortion you want, without having to accept whatever envelope is hard wired into your amp's design. There is a thread here in Sound Science that talks about the various tube simulation DSPs and explains how they work if you are interested. The advantage to doing it that way is that you could just switch it off for your electronic music. I can totally see how that wouldn't sound as good drenched in sweet distortion syrup.
> 
> ...




Weirdly enough i like those pop’s before track starts, for me my digital gives me a bit dry sound  The syrup sound with slow decays... I’m just so addicted to it, the way vocals sound on my TT it’s just something, Brazilian Jorge Ben, Gal Costa...Not long ago I bought TOTL ciem just to have something close to that dreamy, creamy sound that I have at home playing LP’s


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> I never quite feel like I get turntables and cartridges working perfectly together, especially for 78s. There are just too many variables to contend with- groove width, groove pitch, correct EQ curve, dealing with records pressed slightly off center, wear patterns higher or lower in the groove, proper stylus shape, whether to strap to mono or not... I spend so long setting up to play one record, it's usually just easier to slap it on the acoustic phono and play it with a steel needle that conforms itself to the shape of the record.


Same here...it was enough of a pita that I evetnually sold my albums;  no regrets but understand others love the format or don't want to go without an undigitized album.


----------



## bigshot

I waited too long to sell them! And I have too many records to ever have time to properly digitize and restore them all. I got a house with a big library and filled it with them. I only play the 78s any more, because my digital library covers most of my LPs anyway.


----------



## analogsurviver (Jun 21, 2020)

castleofargh said:


> Sorry but once again all I read is motivated by a rational that directly conflicts with itself and/or my understanding of waves, fidelity, and human hearing.
> 
> -You need femto clock in digital encoding/decoding but disregard the comparatively humongous timing errors introduced by any analog recording/playback setup.
> 
> ...




I apologize for not replying sooner. I did not want to do a rush response and omit important issues.

You are most likely familiar with two chess players duking it out for a win in a bar - with waitress, just passing by, shoutingly warning one of them : "Hey, you're one move from getting a check-mate !"

The people in this thread are, mostly - yourself included -  so permeated with their own beliefs and religions, that the Big Picture of all things simply gets - missed. The typical "failure mode" is in trying to reduce the audible effects down to a SINGLE criteria - which, although in itself real and amenable to the principles of science, does NOT tell the whole story. And, what is even more dangerous, can actually DETRACT from the Big Picture.

I used analog record as the starting point for judging any ditalization process for a simple reason : It is AVAILABLE.
And, to a point, repeatable enough to be used as reference. Here I mean if the record is played not too many times - and particularly not too many times IN RAPID SUCCESION, then any record wear that inevitably occurs will be below the level of perception between the number of few plays required in order to compare whatever digital is being compared.
And, regardless of all the analog record failings and defects, a perfect digital replica should add or distract NOTHING from what can be played back with a state of the art analog record playback equipment.
And that NOTHING also includes frequency response from "DC to light" - not only the "officially" accepted range of frequencies audible to human EAR - but also those human beings can PERCEIVE. There were/are studies that imply the sound is NOT perceived by humans with ears only; it is true that the research in this direction is still in its infancy and not too broadly represented - but, it can not be denied it does exist. And that will most likely be continued in the future - in other fields of the science, not necesarilly directly related to sound waves .

Because of the Nyquist theorem, any real world ( aka non theorethically perfect ) digital equipment will also exhibit spurious output ABOVE its rated frequency response - at least twice that of the frequency of the nominal signal. Aliasing, quantization noise, etc, etc - something that was most definitely NOT  there in the original analog sound wave.

Remember the thread "What frequencies are in the HiRez files from HD Tracks"  ( or something like that ) ? There are MANY possible sources of adding something that was not in the original sound wave - from lighting ultrasound ( this can be "included" into original sound wave - although not desired in the first place ... ) - to whatever spurious frequency above 20 kHz the real world digital equipment used in making the recording has been adding. Many of the files now available on HD Tracks have been recorded/mastered using the very first generation of digital gear capable of 96 or 192 kHz sampling rates - and that very first generation of digital gear, regardless being TOTL at the time, has been anything but perfect.


Remember that digital is under the constant gun - being rushed to the market BEFORE being allowed to mature, the reason simply being commercial gain. This has been going on ever since the RBCD came into being - with incremental improvements ( each being hailed as THE final step to the perfection - only to be superseded by the next "final" version a couple of years later ... ) bringing us to the present day. When and where it can be - finally - said that - within reason - the sufficient quality of digitalization has reached the point any further developments and improvements will have more of an academic meaning than actually audible differences in sound.

That performance now includes reasonably flat usable frequency response to approx 150 kHz with at least 100 dB SNR up to approx 300 kHz and  negligible non linear distortions. Attained most likely by more machines than just the RME I mentioned - because it is the first digital device that does, within its specs, actually provide meaningful measurements most other manufacturers simply choose to omit.

The above mentioned performance is the minimum I consider to be "enough" for audio under the real world conditions. One might insist on even better SNR -  but, in real world, even if and when it is assumed microphones/preamps are up to the task of say 120 dB SNR ( there are a handful of examples that can actually provide it - but, generally, that kind of SNR is usually beyond most of the studio equipment ), there is no real world recording venue sporting noise floor approaching that of 0 dB SPL as perceived by human beings - even 20 dB SPL noise floor venues are considred exceptionally quiet, with most exceeding this figure quite considerably.
Therefore, 100 dB SNR is, for all practical purposes, "enough".

BTW - the best R2R analog tape with Telcom C4 or DBX noise reduction system is also capable of approx 100 dB SNR. And that can also be said for the DBX encoded analog records - and, to a lesser degree, but still perfectly audibly noiseless performance, the CX encoded records. Sadly, both DBX and CX encoded records are by now only a footnote in the history of recorded sound - but they are stark reminder of the capabilities of the analog technology being capable competing with digital. 

So far, I provided the "general" answer. What follows are answers to specific topics.

I agree that, comparatively, any analog recording has , as you put it, humongous timing errors. But, with care and patience, they can be brought below audible level ( even with a record - record centering turntables, the last "sour grapes" that, better sooner than later, some modern day turntable manufacturer will have to come up with again, after decades of hiatus of availability of record centering turntables from the only two Nakamichi models ). Technics did achieve the best wow and flutter performance both for R2R and cassette - with BOTH exceeding the performance of the second best tape transport in any format from any other manufacturer.
But, if that analog recording, in this case analog record, is used as reference source for comparing digital capture of sound, those jitter levels femto clocks prevent from occuring ARE helpful. Please see the specs/measurements  for the RME again.
When recording live music using analog microphone, there are NO timing errors from the source whatsoever - and digital process should also not introduce any.


Here, please DO note that even the digital equipment with the above "spec" is NOT perfectly fast   ; it does have its rise and fall times ( hopefully, these two are the same
... ) - and it inevitably lags behind the original analog input signal - regardless if it is record or live mic feed.
I will return to this kind of timing errors later, in closing section.

Regarding the capability of analog record to carry the ultrasonic content; you are right in that it is difficult. Yet, I  do not know HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO REPEAT :
ULTRASONIC CONTENT IN MUSIC IS LOW IN LEVEL - well within the capabilities of record mastering equipment. The hardest time for analog record mastering and playback is in the 5 to 10 ( or so... ) kHz range, due to both the actual recording ( or direct feed from mics/console in case of direct to disk recording ) AND the necesarry application of the RIAA recording equalisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization


And if the record mastering is done at lower than realtime playback speed, that further makes life for the record mastering equipment easier. With half speed mastering, records can sound better than the master tapes they were made from sound if played back at realtime speed.

From the late 70s, that is to say for over FOURTY years, styli that can play without any audible end of side distortion have been available; first Van den Hul ( Type IS, I and II - in descending order of quality ), followed in a couple years by Micro Line ( Micro Scanner, Micro Ridge, Micro Reach, SAS are the other commercial names ). The latest Micro Line  styli from Namiki ( and used by ever more cartridge manufacturers ) are perfectly capable of tracing 50 kHz at innermost record radius - WITHOUT pinching. And usable life of approx 1000 hours playtime, before permanent record damage due to stylus wear can become an issue - which is, by far, the best characteriustrics of Micro Line vs anything else.
The lowest priced cartridge featuring Micro Line stylus in current production today costs approx 200 $ - which I believe to be more than reasonably affordable. The lowest priced cartridge featuring Micro Line stylus AND frequency response that is reasonably flat up to 40-50 kHz is approx 500 $.

But - and this is a BIG but - contrary to your belief that the quality of this ultrasonic content is super bad, there was ( and, to an extent, STILL is ) equipment available that is certainly capable disproving your assertion. Admittedly rare, regretfully mostly discontinued, but nevertheless - still available, if one knows what and where to look for.
There were/are cartridges, capable of frequency response +- 1 dB ( or thereabouts, it is, unfortunately, somewhat termperature dependant - and that temperature sensitivity can be used to argue either way ) from whatever the lowest frequency limit ( almost completely tonearm dependant - to stay on the safe side, say from 50 Hz up ) up to the 50 kHz.

                                                          PERIOD.

With relatively low non-linear distortion(s) and channel separation exceeding 35 dB over most of the "officially audible" range, not just at 1 kHz.
And, it does sadden me to no end the fact that one comparatively quite inexpensive cartridge meeting or exceeding the above specs has been discontinued a few years ago - because it most definitely packed a FAR heavier punch that a cart in this price range "should".
After being around for at least two or three decades ...

On the other part of the spectrum of price and unobtainiability, there were at least  three phono cartridges capable of response beyond 100 kHz. Available today at pure chance/luck, provided piggybank is not an obstacle.


I disagree that using analog reference for judging digital is a joke - and certainly not a bad one. Only the digital with specs from above ( 150kHz usable response, 100dB SNR up to 300kHz ) can provide visually similar AND AUDIBLY  INDISTINGUISHABLE reproduction of a square wave from an analog record. The same goes for music.
But RBCD trying to capture/reproduce the same signal most definitely IS a bad joke - both as signal shape on an oscilloscope, as well AUDIBLY ON MUSIC.
Any higher sampling frequency digital device than RBCD that does not go to the above spec WILL introduce quantization noise - and is particularly bad in DSD64 - or what is more known as SACD. Which, again, should have never been made available; DSD128 is the  minimum usable resolution of DSD. PCM 96/24 is still too slow, 192/24 is USUALLY too noisy ( unless made on a machine, capable of at least twice the sampling frequency ) - >
which all brings us back to the above spec.


All of the above text is but a preface in order to explain WHY am I so convinced of the importance of including ultrasonics to at least 100kHz for the proper PERCEPTION of and not just LISTENING to sound.

I will try to describe the sonic difference of an exceptionally well made AND well documented originally analog master tape recording - available both as 45RPM analog record
https://www.discogs.com/Mickey-Hart-Airto-Flora-Purim-Däfos/release/1777748
and RBCD.
https://www.discogs.com/Mickey-Hart-Airto-Flora-Purim-Däfos/master/246919
Please note that I had one of the Rykodisc releases, which are NOT the proper representation of the analog tape made on custom R2R machine that could record FAR higher frequency response content than normal R2R can - and that recorder has NOT been available to Rykodisc at the time they mastered their CD(s). For further technical detail about Rykodisc CD mastering, one of the links to the release(s) does even contain the info on the exact hardware used to transfer analog to RBCD.

For what it's worth, here the YT link to Dafos :



But, regardless of master(s) and or recorder(s) available to Rykodisc -
what a state of the art analog record playback equipment can extract from this record, the RBCD can not even dare to dream of achieving - EVER.

The most notable differences are:
1. The width and, above all, the DEPTH of soundtage. RBCD is flat, LP is 3D - rivaling most of what the surround can provide.
Admitedly, this DOES get affected by the actual equipment used - the most hidden and hard to break "nut" in this case is the phono stage preamplifier - where only a handful selection from creme de la creme will actually do the real justice to this recording, which is so exceptional in every way of the meaning. And I do, regretfully, realize most people will never get to hear it at its best. Sad, but - true.
2. Initial transients - it is possible to extract the initial stroke - either by stick or hand, whatever various percussion instruments have been played with - BEFORE the "aftermath resonance" or  sound of the percussion as we know it from most recordings is actually heard. These tiny, barely audible "sneak peek previews" are completely absent from the Rykodisc CD release(s) ( and it can't possibly be much different on Reference Recordings' own RR-12CD  ) - yet they create an atmosphere that definitely is always present in live music and is missing in the vast majority of even good analog recordings; none of the RBCDs can recreate this kind of "lifelike liveliness".
3. When cymbals etc are concerned, you can be certain a guy with an old beat up but still functional Revox R2R will beat you in an audition towards making a demo recording showcasing various cymbal models/ranges from any manufacturer - IF you stick with digital recording limited to RBCD only. This particular recording by Keith Johnson is perhaps one of the best analog tape masters ever made - and record mastering by sadly late Doug Sax is also no slouch either.
The detail in high frequencies has to be heard to be believed - no words can prepare one for what will follow once a superb stylus etc hits the groove of this record.

ALL of the above has to do with TIMING - to which I wrote I will refer to earlier above. Or, as Van den Hul has put it ages ago :

"The life of the phono cartridge ( or any other audio device - MY addendum ) is in its rise time ."

Most of the spatial cues we hear live have to do with tiny amounts of time the signals for both ears are delayed from each other. And those delays humans can PERCEIVE and not necerary HEAR are shorter, MUCH shorter than the rise time of RBCD - which is, by its very own definition, carved in stone - limited ( not so ) hapilly forever after.

Taken together with ultrasonics defining timbre of instruments ( muted trumpet has LOTS of output around 80 kHz or so, for example ) and our ability to locate sound from time cues is the reason WHY do I find inclusion of ultrasonics at least to 50 kHz ( analog record mastered at less than real time speed, using master  with solid output above 20 kHz, be it analog or digital ) or at least to 100kHz using present day state of the art microphones and recording digital gear to be absolutely required.
There are superb analog tape recordings by now old 60 years and more, distributed to public at large as analog records - that trounce almost anything available today. Because, in the nutshell, then they tried to do their absolutely best - and bean counters not taking charge yet ...
One of those is Harry Belafonte at Carnegie Hall - where listening to the original pressing ( or better re-releases, of which there are many... ) being played back on a really good analog record playback equipment will shatter any RBCD in its very foundation.

Here a link to what of it remains if squeezed into YT - even if uploaded by the present owner of the master tape:


----------



## hakunamakaka

analogsurviver said:


> I apologize for not replying sooner. I did not want to do a rush response and omit important issues.
> 
> You are most likely familiar with two chess players duking it out for a win in a bar - with waitress, just passing by, shoutingly warning one of them : "Hey, you're one move from getting a check-mate !"
> 
> ...





Interesting read, my TT setup did not impressed me at the begining, but once phono preamp has been upgraded/modded,   properly mastered LP seemed to sound like from completely different audio system. I was amazed how such small speakers could produce this sound. My digital sounds flat and narrow in comparison, but as I stated I use cheap dac for digital music. 

Sad things is with poorly mastered releases, I can’t fully enjoy any of early tony allen releases


----------



## GearMe (Jun 21, 2020)

analogsurviver said:


> I apologize for not replying sooner. I did not want to do a rush response and omit important issues.
> 
> You are most likely familiar with two chess players duking it out for a win in a bar - with waitress, just passing by, shoutingly warning one of them : "Hey, you're one move from getting a check-mate !"
> 
> ...




Hmmm, no dog in this fight  (digital ease-of-use rules...imo)  but the *preamble* to your 'dissertation' strikes me as a tad ironic... 

"what a state of the art analog record playback equipment can extract from this record, the RBCD can not even dare to dream of achieving - EVER."
Is it possible that you might be *"permeated with your their own beliefs and religions"?*

Seems like TT/Cart/Phono Preamps have significantly progressed since I owned them...and I had some _really_ nice TT setups in the 70's & 80's along with having owned a variety of very good, time-aligned speakers over those years. 

TBH, just the noise and dynamic range issues of Albums were readily apparent to my ears; add in the inconvenience of the TT setup and Album playing experience and I couldn't move quickly enough away from vinyl!

That said, not really sure why this 'debate' needs to be resolved or why someone has to 'win' but the easy way to prove the superiority of analog over digital is to do a well run DBT with one of these Analog Uber-setups vs a Digital source playing through a state-of-the-art system and see what the results are.

Assuming vinyl noise/DR/etc. issues have been conquered (so as not to bias the test), it'd be impressive to me if the results indicated the listeners couldn't detect a difference between the formats...let alone actually preferred vinyl.

Regardless, on a practical note, many of us want to listen to a wide variety of music that has been recorded/mastered with varying degrees of quality -- _not_ a select number of unicorns that have to be played on high-end gear meticulously set up and maintained that has limited playback functionality! 
Never have been able to fit a turntable or RtoR in my pocket...or my backpack. 


All the above aside, if you love your vinyl setup 100x more than your digital setup (if you own one ), more power to you! 
It really is all about enjoying the music the way each of us wants to...


----------



## sander99

GearMe said:


> Never have been able to fit a ... RtoR in my pocket...or my backpack.


----------



## Hooster

analogsurviver said:


> The most notable differences are:
> 1. The width and, above all, the DEPTH of soundtage. RBCD is flat, LP is 3D - rivaling most of what the surround can provide.
> Admitedly, this DOES get affected by the actual equipment used - the most hidden and hard to break "nut" in this case is the phono stage preamplifier - where only a handful selection from creme de la creme will actually do the real justice to this recording, which is so exceptional in every way of the meaning. And I do, regretfully, realize most people will never get to hear it at its best. Sad, but - true.
> 2. Initial transients - it is possible to extract the initial stroke - either by stick or hand, whatever various percussion instruments have been played with - BEFORE the "aftermath resonance" or  sound of the percussion as we know it from most recordings is actually heard. These tiny, barely audible "sneak peek previews" are completely absent from the Rykodisc CD release(s) ( and it can't possibly be much different on Reference Recordings' own RR-12CD  ) - yet they create an atmosphere that definitely is always present in live music and is missing in the vast majority of even good analog recordings; none of the RBCDs can recreate this kind of "lifelike liveliness".
> ...



Bravo!!! Thank you for that. I wish I had the time, space, money and wherewithal to put together a good analog playback system. Sadly I don't and I use digital for convenience. Thank you for your educated post.


----------



## hakunamakaka

It explains a lot why for so many people TT setup does not impress them as phono preamp is overlooked in most cases, being it integrated in TT or as an extra output from sound cards. When you think of it, it’s the unit that receives the sound read from the vinyl.  My friend is struggling to get something close of what I have at home even having better TT, speakers, but using integrated preamp


----------



## 491838

What is your opinion on decay when it comes to headphones? I see that discussed a lot even by reviewers that I trust but I think it's one of those terms that doesn't really mean anything if both people discussing it aren't hearing the same thing.

To play devil's advocate, I would probably describe it as a sort of softness (lack of grain/harshness) in the mids and treble that's related to "detail" but having heard the LCD-2F and the HD800 with oratory's profiles I'm starting to see what's actually happening. The LCD-2 like my ER4 IEMs has softer sounding treble but they both also have holes in the treble or a more relaxed sounding treble, even with EQ (the LCD-2 doesn't really recover all the way up to neutral with oratory's profile in the treble). Listening to the HD800 with the oratory profile is quite confusing. The HD800 has a very similar tonal balance to the Harman/oratory EQ-ed LCD-2 but the treble sounds a bit sharper, more similar to a speaker. That sense of decay isn't really there (where is it?) because the HD800 has zero holes in the treble (but it has that 6K peak that can be 95-99% removed with EQ) presumably but is it more detailed than the LCD-2? Very confusing indeed. What's evidently clear is that the clarity of the HD800 is superior at least in part due to the more balanced tuning in the treble and mids but perhaps the thick pads on the LCD-2 contribute to its specific warmth and lack of clarity. However, these two headphones render detail quite differently as far as I can tell and I'm not entirely sure this is due to FR differences.


----------



## Hooster

hakunamakaka said:


> It explains a lot why for so many people TT setup does not impress them as phono preamp is overlooked in most cases, being it integrated in TT or as an extra output from sound cards. When you think of it, it’s the unit that receives the sound read from the vinyl.  My friend is struggling to get something close of what I have at home even having better TT, speakers, but using integrated preamp



TT setup is an art and a good phono preamp is an essential ingredient. So is a good turntable set up correctly, tonearm and cartridge and that all has to play well together of course.


----------



## bigshot

GearMe said:


> Seems like TT/Cart/Phono Preamps have significantly progressed since I owned them



Actually there hasn't been a lot of progress. Most of the technical advances came about in the 70s when LPs were at their zenith. Since then, they have been a tiny niche market and development dollars have moved on to digital. There's a disproportionately high number of expensive turntables and carts now, but that is because LPs are marketed to the high end audiophile market. But it's basically old wine in new bottles. LPs are LPs. If anything, pressings are worse now than in the past, because there are fewer pressing facilities and it is difficult to maintain quality without the economics of scale.

LPs are capable of very good sound quality if all the stars are aligned. But it can't stand up to the aural perfection of CDs.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 21, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> It explains a lot why for so many people TT setup does not impress them as phono preamp is overlooked in most cases, being it integrated in TT or as an extra output from sound cards.



Back in the 70s, output from phono cartridges were pretty consistent. One phono pre-amp was pretty much the same as any other. But now, boutique audiophile carts have output that is all over the map. They deliberately use out of spec output so you have to buy their own branded pre-amp (at a ridiculously inflated price). I ran into this on an Ortofon moving coil cartridge. I had a moving coil pre, but when I got the cartridge home, I found that Ortofon requires a higher boost than any other brand. I hate it when companies do stuff like that. The stereo store wouldn't take the cartridge back in exchange since I had opened it, so I was forced to buy the dumb Ortofon pre. I haven't bought another Ortofon product since. Too bad because that cart tracked really well. I find that tracking is more of an issue than anything else with carts.


----------



## Davesrose

I live in an area with lots of RF interference.  I have used various phono pre-amps for my setups and they have all sounded great....but many just pick up radio stations where I am now.  However, my higher end theater receiver now still has a phono input: and I do find it best.  I can directly input my TT's output with ground, and no outside noise.  I have a record cleaner and all that, but am still not sold that vinyl is an end all be all source.


----------



## bigshot

When I was a kid, my dad was a ham radio operator. I had to make sure I had my stereo off when he broadcast, or it would come through at ear blasting volumes! He instructed the whole family that if the neighbors asked, we didn't know where those radio signals were coming from. Happy father's day in heaven, dad! I'll never squeal on ya!


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jun 21, 2020)

Davesrose said:


> I live in an area with lots of RF interference.  I have used various phono pre-amps for my setups and they have all sounded great....but many just pick up radio stations where I am now.  However, my higher end theater receiver now still has a phono input: and I do find it best.  I can directly input my TT's output with ground, and no outside noise.  I have a record cleaner and all that, but am still not sold that vinyl is an end all be all source.



My vinyl journey started end eded up on budget when I bought old thorens 160 TT, yaqin ms23b phono preamp and adam t5v active studio monitors. All costing around 600$, once I've set things up and played my first records I was disappointed, loud, bold sound with vinyl audio noise(clicks, pops throughout the record). Than I thought this chinese ms23b preamp is no good, swapped it with mixer which had phono input, similar results with a little bit cleaner sound..after that my TT setup was simply collecting dust for a while when one day  I thought maybe,  as this turntable is old, it's cartridge and stylus are simply worn out, ordered new cartridge/stylus Ortofon VMS 20E Mk II for 60$, still similar results. I simply started to moan in one of the forums that there is no point in TT, SQ is lacking even though I could get it louder using mixers phono input,  One member though offered me to send my phono pre-amp to him to take a look and I did.  I didn't care of my TT setup anymore, but surprisingly I've received my unit after a month and he didn't even charged me at all.... I saw a new 3rd tube socked in unit and stock tubes removed and packed aside, he wrote me to order gold lionex tubes and then connect my modded preamp to TT.

Once I did it, it wasn't the same sound system anymore..I Don't get this experience via my digital, my TOTL CIEM's or my HP


----------



## James-uk

I’m currently using tidal for steaming music, but I’m considering moving to Apple music. Is it fair to say that Apple Music, which is encoded at 256 aac, is audibly transparent?


----------



## castleofargh

analogsurviver said:


> I used analog record as the starting point for judging any ditalization process for a simple reason : It is AVAILABLE.


What is the point of even discussing digital audio if you already decided that your reference would be the sound of an analog recording and playback system? 
If we can't agree on the reference that should be used, the easy fix is to consider running a given recording and playback system for a few generations of signal in a loop.

At some point we'd clearly be able to hear what everybody already knows. That tapes have generation loss bad enough that a lot of efforts and money(when possible) was put into using as few generations as possible in the making of a track. That vinyl is really a poor medium even compared to tape. And that digital sampling and analog reconstruction tend to offer the highest fidelity out of the pack. If we were to run that several times, nobody would need measurements to reach a conclusion on fidelity.



analogsurviver said:


> And, regardless of all the analog record failings and defects, a perfect digital replica should add or distract NOTHING from what can be played back with a state of the art analog record playback equipment.


In the same sentence you want to disregard analog issues with fidelity but demand perfection from digital... Can we try something a tiny bit less partial? 
Also nobody expects practical perfection as nobody can make it happen. But in term of fidelity, I worry about transducers more than I can ever worry about ADC, digital formats and DACs. Not because of some philosophy but because that's where the weak link really is and will probably remain for some time.

The argument about sensing with more than our ears is irrelevant and so is the argument that we're still learning and still have some things to discover in the human body. If you consciously notice something, then you do, no matter why or how. If you play a tone in the audible range, I will react to it when reaching a given level and this can be easily tested and controlled. Making it a fact that I'm noticing that signal at that listening level. Same thing with a light in my face. Same thing with wind or infrared light on my skin. The moment something in me gets stimulated enough for me to notice, I can consistently demonstrate that I'm factually noticing it. So why is it so hard to do the same for ultrasounds if they make an easily noticeable difference? If all the audiophiles claiming to hear the difference really could, it should be trivial to demonstrate the evident impact of ultrasounds and hires on listeners. But instead we have a handful of controversial studies suggesting that our brain might pick up on the difference, but no correlating sense from the listener. And some showing that if we blast really loud ultrasounds right on the skin or on the eyeball, then people can notice. And at last we have the fact that children can perceive ultrasounds at freqs near the audible range. That's pretty much all the outstanding evidence in favor of humans perceiving ultrasounds.
We could find 20 new organs sensitive to ultrasounds that wouldn't change how people keep failing to demonstrate their ability to tell anything about the ultrasonic content in music when in a controlled test. The facts are demonstrated by those tests, not by fringe philosophy of sound, and optimism.

As to what we could have achieved if we had stubbornly persisted in developing turntables and tapes, well they would still be impracticable, would still probably have higher generational loss than digital sampling+analog reconstruction, would still probably have lower fidelity(or similar but I can't imagine doing better), would probably cost more than digital equivalent. And from what you say, unless there was a radical change in some of the techs used, it might still require a lot of efforts and know how to set things right(meaning uncertainty in term of the actual fidelity). I don't find the prospect as appealing as you do.

Here is the only argument I have in favor of old analog techs beyond having them as collectibles or nostalgic reminders: old albums were made on and for the gears of their time, so I can agree with the desire to play those "the way they were intended to be played". I would still argue that we could play it that way once and make a good digital copy of it to actually use for the rest of our lives. but I have no issue with someone who simply enjoys using an analog setup and finds pleasure in the sort of ritual that goes with it.
  I will never have anything against people who enjoy using their turntable and maybe some old amp with 5% or more of THD. But that's completely different from the nonsensical game where we pretend that low fidelity is in fact high fidelity because we happen to like the low fidelity better.

Anyway I've lost hope that we'll be able to agree on those stuff. you keep thinking that I'm missing important aspects of the problem or only looking at what I want to see, and I keep thinking that you rely on axioms that were irrevocably proved wrong decades ago. Looks like an impasse.


----------



## GearMe (Jun 22, 2020)

castleofargh said:


> But in term of fidelity, I worry about transducers more than I can ever worry about ADC, digital formats and DACs. Not because of some philosophy but because that's where the weak link really is and will probably remain for some time.



Yep!

TBH...that's another reason for digital playback instead of TT/_*Cartridge.  *_It removes an unnecessary transducer with setup/maintenance issues from the playback chain not to mention the physical media being 'transduced' with the whole record care/cleaning/anti-stat thing...UGH!!!


----------



## 491838

James-uk said:


> I’m currently using tidal for steaming music, but I’m considering moving to Apple music. Is it fair to say that Apple Music, which is encoded at 256 aac, is audibly transparent?


If those were encoded from a lossless master. But some of these lossless services have special masters in some cases that aren't as loud/compressed as even the CD releases.

I wanted to switch to Spotify at one point but I couldn't trust that they used lossless sources for their 320K encodes.

Edit: Also, I EQ so it actually is better to use lossless in that case.


----------



## hakunamakaka

GearMe said:


> Yep!
> 
> TBH...that's another reason for digital playback instead of TT/_*Cartridge.  *_It removes an unnecessary transducer with setup/maintenance issues from the playback chain not to mention the physical media being 'transduced' with the whole record care/cleaning/anti-stat thing...UGH!!!




Yes it takes more care, but you can achieve amazing sq with TT even being on budget. There are so many releases till this day that comes out only on LP’s and all you have left with is to hope that someone will soon rip it and upload track on youtube. As well a lot of 1950-1980 LP releases consists of so much music which doesn’t have digital copies, you a left with no choice unless you are a member of closed community like what.cd was in the past. Listen to Victor Kiswell, some of Gilles Peterson mix releases and you will see how much of the music is still left to be found from that era  A real music geek would blow your mind with sounds that are present only in LP or ripped into his hard drive


----------



## GearMe

hakunamakaka said:


> Yes it takes more care, but you can achieve amazing sq with TT even being on budget. There are so many releases till this day that comes out only on LP’s and all you have left with is to hope that someone will soon rip it and upload track on youtube. As well a lot of 1950-1980 LP releases consists of so much music which doesn’t have digital copies, you a left with no choice unless you are a member of closed community like what.cd was in the past. Listen to Victor Kiswell, some of Gilles Peterson mix releases and you will see how much of the music is still left to be found from that era  A real music geek would blow your mind with sounds that are present only in LP or ripped into his hard drive


Yeah...I definitely have traded the ability to acquire un-digitized music for the sake of functionality and ease-of-use.  For me...it was a trade I can live with


----------



## old tech (Jun 24, 2020)

analogsurviver said:


> 1. *The width and, above all, the DEPTH of soundtage. RBCD is flat, LP is 3D - rivaling most of what the surround can provide.*
> Admitedly, this DOES get affected by the actual equipment used - the most hidden and hard to break "nut" in this case is the phono stage preamplifier - where only a handful selection from creme de la creme will actually do the real justice to this recording, which is so exceptional in every way of the meaning. And I do, regretfully, realize most people will never get to hear it at its best. Sad, but - true.


Apart from the usual nonsense you write, the part in bold is worth discussing as it is a (sort of) myth that I raised in this forum several years ago.  As most of us know, as sound stage in a recording is a product of the mix and use of left and right channels, it is impossible for vinyl to match a CD for soundstage accuracy - a quick comparison of cross talk would convince most non-science type dudes of that.  Yet sometimes vinyl does seem to have in particular a wider soundstage than digital. So too does my clock radio with the "wide" enhancement button pressed and some sound bars with DSP.  The problem is that it is a fake soundstage (ie it is not in the recording or the mix) and vinyl, particularly with worn records and or cheaper carts can have a lot of the fake and unrealistic soundstage.

I postulated that it may have something to do with timing inaccuracies and phase errors of analog playback - which explains why there is less of this fake "3D" effect with analog tape as it is a higher fidelity format than vinyl.  So you are right, vinyl can have a soundstage that rivals my clock radio but I am not into fake soundstages.  I perfer the pin point accuracy that I can only achieve with active speakers playing well produced digital recordings.  I am sure you would love the Bose 901 speakers as it has a very wide (and fake) soundstage.

Btw, the more I upgraded my TT and cart  over the years the less fake sound stage and the greater the pin point precision - though it still can't match my digital front-end.  I also notice the fake soundstage is more apparent on TT/carts that are not correctly aligned.


----------



## sorrowdragon (Jun 24, 2020)

My favorite type of audiofoolery test is where you get two duplicate MP3s or 16 bit 44khz lossless files, then convert one to lossless 24 bit 88 or 192khz, and rename the file to include the tags such as (Master) or (Studio Master).

Then get your audiofoolery friend or random audiofoolery moron to listen to and compare the audio files, while allowing them see the name of the audio file and the bitrate, etc that's being played, and sit back and laugh as the morons try to claim how the fake 24 bit studio master version of the song is superior, how they can hear more detail, better frequencies, better instrument separation/imaging, better soundstage or whatever other audiofoolery wank terms they want to use. It's even more funny if they start resorting to use audiofoolery emotional expressions in explaining the difference... It's essentially the audio equivalent to introducing and checking for if someone is experiencing a placebo effect.

These types of listening tests where intentionally sabotaged audio tracks are inserted amongst legit tracks, are how all these audiophile tests should be performed.. as if some individuals are truly capable of telling the difference and are true audiophiles, they'd be able to recognize if a perceived lower quality version of a song is better or sounds exactly the same than the one labeled as being better. These types of tests are better than the guessing game ones such as ones where they are blind and have no idea which are the mp3 or the lossless tracks and instead just take 50/50 chance guesses most of the time. 

So it's better to remove the "blind" from these types of tests and have them instead explain the difference between two qualities of a track while tossing in some faked/sabotaged and/or mislabeled examples into the test without telling them to see if they can pick them out or can't tell the difference and if it's just in their imagination and are fooling themselves like a placebo effect if they do claim there's a difference or the visually better version is superior.


----------



## hakunamakaka

honestly I do not pay much attention to audio format. For me good mp3 rip can nearly match lossless/flac and I could make mistakes during blind test. I can even go further as I heard plenty of good sounding songs via 128kbs soundcloud/ youtube streaming servcies


----------



## Blackwoof

hakunamakaka said:


> honestly I do not pay much attention to audio format. For me good mp3 rip can nearly match lossless/flac and I could make mistakes during blind test. I can even go further as I heard plenty of good sounding songs via 128kbs soundcloud/ youtube streaming servcies



MP3 with Lame pretty much fine at 128 ~ 160kbps despite what audiophiles with HD800's say. If a track struggles then save that one at 256k or another codec(AAC/Ogg).


----------



## PhonoPhi

Blackwoof said:


> MP3 with Lame pretty much fine at 128 ~ 160kbps despite what audiophiles with HD800's say. If a track struggles then save that one at 256k or another codec(AAC/Ogg).


It is hard to agree with such strong blank statement (and I am not an "audiophile with HD800").

It definitely depends what one listens to and how (what transducers are used).

For many listening to DDs with their listening preference geared to bass and mids (after all most of the auditory information is in the mids), the difference indeed can be minimal.

If one listens to any decent violin (or symphonic) recording and use drivers with the faster response, such as BAs, piezo, etc., the difference between 128-160 mp3 and CD-quality flacs is apparent.
Higher overtones, resolution and attack/decay are all very noticeably affected by the compression.

The math strongly supports this - if you compress ~3-4 times from CD-quality flacs (which is from 20 Hz to 20 kHz), higher frequencies (and/or fast response) are mutilated.

Estimating (simplistically) just based on the frequency range, it can be agreed that 15-20 kHz may be important only for the most discerning audiophiles, so 320 mp3 are largely undistinguishable from flacs.
~10 to 15 kHz may also be not the most important, so 256 mp3 are largely OK, and will do the job for most.
But then sacrificing more in resolution is cutting into real music!


----------



## bigshot

With AAC, I think there is no high end roll off above 192. It goes all the way up. I imagine it's the same with LAME. Roll off is at lower bit rates, not higher ones. Modern codecs at decent bit rates filter out sound you can't hear, not sound you can.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> With AAC, I think there is no high end roll off above 192. It goes all the way up. I imagine it's the same with LAME. Roll off is at lower bit rates, not higher ones. Modern codecs at decent bit rates filter out sound you can't hear, not sound you can.



AAC/Ogg at 192kbps the lowpass is at 19KHz and Opus is 20KHz from 80 - 512kbps. Lame shows the mp3 format was made for 16KHz since it struggles with content at 16.5 ~ 22.5KHz even with V0/320kbps. The HD800, ER3XR, Stax/audeze argument means nothing if your using 160 ~ 256kbps with AAC or vorbis since there more advanced codecs than Lame mp3 is.


----------



## bigshot

Yeah, at higher rates you just have to get above the level of audible artifacting and you’re home free. Add VBR and you’re doubly safe. I think AAC 320 VBR will actually go above 320, but I can’t think of a reason it would need to.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> but I can’t think of a reason it would need to.



Hard to compress stuff like white noise and hardest attacks/transients common in anything electronic or noisy genres. I've got some albums that reach 400kbps with Q6 Vorbis and 192kbps AAC.


----------



## bigshot

I doubt I would be able to tell if noise gets added to noise!


----------



## PhonoPhi

By the same type of arguments, if one can't perceive the difference between tea and coffee (after all, they are 99% water, no calories, dark in colour), then it really does not matter - hard to disagree.

Flacs preserve original CD-quality informaton and their are 2-2.5 times larger compared to 320 mp3 files. At 20 Hz to 20,000 kHz, all the frequencies can be heard - nothing to "cut what one can't hear" (we are not talking about 24/96, etc where these arguments may work), inevitably some audible information is lost.
If 192 are sufficient (or some justification is needed to be happy about them) - that is an entirely subjective choice.


----------



## Dyl2525

I have tried a few tube amps and ive never been able to notice much of a difference im wondering if it has just been that i need to try a better tube amp or that in all reality they may not sound that much different than solid state. I do like solid state amps for sure but ive always just never been able to see the appeal of tube amps because they sound almost no different to me maybe not much different but not the amount that people make them seem to be


----------



## bigshot (Jun 28, 2020)

PhonoPhi said:


> By the same type of arguments, if one can't perceive the difference between tea and coffee (after all, they are 99% water, no calories, dark in colour), then it really does not matter - hard to disagree.



I can easily taste the difference between tea and coffee, but no human I've ever found has been able to discern high data rate AAC or MP3 LAME and FLAC. It isn't the percentages of what the file is made of, it's the fact that the material that is eliminated is inaudible. They're masked frequencies that you can't hear. If you can't perceive it, it doesn't matter.



Dyl2525 said:


> I have tried a few tube amps and ive never been able to notice much of a difference im wondering if it has just been that i need to try a better tube amp or that in all reality they may not sound that much different than solid state.



It is possible to design a tube amp that is audibly transparent, just like a solid state amp. If that is the case, there is no difference to hear. But there are also tube amps that slather on euphonic distortion, which either you like or don't. If you like euphonic distortion, it's a lot easier to just use a DSP and adjust the distortion to just what you want. Having the degree of distortion hard wired into the design of the amp isn't very flexible. That's like an amp without tone controls.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> I can easily taste the difference between tea and coffee, but no human I've ever found has been able to discern high data rate AAC or MP3 LAME and FLAC. It isn't the percentages of what the file is made of, it's the fact that the material that is eliminated is inaudible. They're masked frequencies that you can't hear. If you can't perceive it...



Considering that the original point of the discussion was about 128-160 mp3 files, there is hardly much to discuss scientifically (if 128 with 4 times less the size than 16/44 flac carries all the information - it is surely some form of magic),  just to disagree since yours and mine experience seems to be different.


----------



## Dyl2525

bigshot said:


> I can easily taste the difference between tea and coffee, but no human I've ever found has been able to discern high data rate AAC or MP3 LAME and FLAC. It isn't the percentages of what the file is made of, it's the fact that the material that is eliminated is inaudible. They're masked frequencies that you can't hear. If you can't perceive it, it doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible to design a tube amp that is audibly transparent, just like a solid state amp. If that is the case, there is no difference to hear. But there are also tube amps that slather on euphonic distortion, which either you like or don't. If you like euphonic distortion, it's a lot easier to just use a DSP and adjust the distortion to just what you want. Having the degree of distortion hard wired into the design of the amp isn't very flexible. That's like an amp without tone controls.


Interesting, that is something I did not know. I actually own a pair of HD 800's which are known for being "amp picky" but tbh I really dont notice a difference. But I only have 2 amps so trying two different amps may not be the best way to experience it. Ive just never understood what people say by a "warm" sound because the only thing that gets warm on a tube amp is the amp itself


----------



## bigshot (Jun 28, 2020)

PhonoPhi said:


> Considering that the original point of the discussion was about 128-160 mp3 files, there is hardly much to discuss scientifically



The point of the discussion was lower bitrate lossy files? I missed that. Yes, lossy files below 160 are not audibly transparent. It's much more efficient to knock it up to 192 VBR and it will sound identical to lossless in 99.9% of cases. Up it to 256 or 320 VBR and you will be able to compress anything transparently. FLAC is fine for archiving if you don't own the original CD, but there's no reason to listen to FLAC over high data rate LAME or AAC.



Dyl2525 said:


> But I only have 2 amps so trying two different amps may not be the best way to experience it.



You probably have a well designed tube amp there.


----------



## Dyl2525

bigshot said:


> The point of the discussion was lower bitrate lossy files? I missed that. Yes, lossy files below 160 are not audibly transparent. It's much more efficient to knock it up to 192 VBR and it will sound identical to lossless in 99.9% of cases. Up it to 256 or 320 VBR and you will be able to compress anything transparently. FLAC is fine for archiving if you don't own the original CD, but there's no reason to listen to FLAC over high data rate LAME or AAC.
> 
> 
> 
> You probably have a well designed tube amp there.


Its acutally a little dot mk2 its alright nothing crazy im actually gonna end up selling it, I dont got the desk space for it


----------



## bigshot

There really isn't a lot of correlation between price and quality in audio any more. Even inexpensive stuff performs very well now.


----------



## Dyl2525

bigshot said:


> There really isn't a lot of correlation between price and quality in audio any more. Even inexpensive stuff performs very well now.


Fair enough look at the 789 that thing is considered to be amazing


----------



## bigshot

I really don't know makes and models. I buy the tool that does the job and I don't need anything else.


----------



## Blackwoof

96kbps Opus 1.3 > 192k Lame or 160k AAC/Vorbis.


----------



## Bozzunter

Dyl2525 said:


> I have tried a few tube amps and ive never been able to notice much of a difference im wondering if it has just been that i need to try a better tube amp or that in all reality they may not sound that much different than solid state. I do like solid state amps for sure but ive always just never been able to see the appeal of tube amps because they sound almost no different to me maybe not much different but not the amount that people make them seem to be



I’m glad to read this, it means I am not the only one. Obviously, in any forum outside of the science area the difference with tube amps are enormous, they pair very well with HD800, etc...

In my case, I have an Ifi Pro iDSD which has solid state, tube and tube with correction for distortions, whatever it means. With my Sennheiser HD800s and other cans I was never able to hear any difference whatsoever, but neither were a couple of friends who don’t even know what tubes are.

I couldn’t hear any difference among the half dozen filters either, at which point I realized I threw money to the shitter, but that was before reading this forum.


----------



## magicscreen

bigshot said:


> but no human I've ever found has been able to discern high data rate AAC or MP3 LAME and FLAC.


A little help


----------



## hakunamakaka

Bozzunter said:


> I’m glad to read this, it means I am not the only one. Obviously, in any forum outside of the science area the difference with tube amps are enormous, they pair very well with HD800, etc...
> 
> In my case, I have an Ifi Pro iDSD which has solid state, tube and tube with correction for distortions, whatever it means. With my Sennheiser HD800s and other cans I was never able to hear any difference whatsoever, but neither were a couple of friends who don’t even know what tubes are.
> 
> I couldn’t hear any difference among the half dozen filters either, at which point I realized I threw money to the shitter, but that was before reading this forum.




If amp/preamp has tubes it doesn’t mean that whole signal is routed through them.


Bozzunter said:


> I’m glad to read this, it means I am not the only one. Obviously, in any forum outside of the science area the difference with tube amps are enormous, they pair very well with HD800, etc...
> 
> In my case, I have an Ifi Pro iDSD which has solid state, tube and tube with correction for distortions, whatever it means. With my Sennheiser HD800s and other cans I was never able to hear any difference whatsoever, but neither were a couple of friends who don’t even know what tubes are.
> 
> I couldn’t hear any difference among the half dozen filters either, at which point I realized I threw money to the shitter, but that was before reading this forum.




even if amp/preamp has tubes it doesn’t mean you get tube sound. it depends on the board circuit and if I’m not mistaken you need at least 3 tubes to get such. Adding a tube is more as a marketing thing in most cases


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Yep...there are actually quite a few tube amps out there which are transparent. I own one of em in the Valhalla 2

Also, I paid my studio-friend a visit during the weekend. He’d set up a blind amp test in the studio with some 15 participants plus him and I. He asked me to join in but I’ve learned my lesson.
Anyhoo this time we were joined by 7 audiophiles ie folks who were vastly into gear and jewelencrusted cables. My friend started out as he most usually do with folks having full view of the merchandise...and then he asks them one by one to levelmatch the critters. Always ends up the same way: a) people can’t levelmatch for schiit and b) they inadvertently turn up the amp they secretly prefer.
“Levelmatched” or pseudomatched like this and you effectively end up with a couple of boxes that aren’t at the same level...yet our human ears can’t detect the volume difference. What we hear is a combination of bigger soundstage, better grip, details galore, increased transient attack etc etc...
Then he levelmatches the boxes and hides them behind a big curtain...and surprise suprise...nobody can tell a difference.
I think the volume knob is guilty of a lot of things...most likely 75% of all “upgrades” that more often than not sound exactly the same as the piece of kit it is replacing. All hail capitalism!


----------



## bigshot

magicscreen said:


> A little help



I’ve had some experience with that guy. I believe he cheats the test.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I’ve had some experience with that guy. I believe he cheats the test.



He was caught cheating at ABX tests @ AVS about a decade ago.  Oops...


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Jun 29, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I’ve had some experience with that guy. I believe he cheats the test.





bfreedma said:


> He was caught cheating at ABX tests @ AVS about a decade ago.  Oops...


That’s quite a serious charge. Do you have a link, or at least more info? How did he cheat? How was it discovered?


----------



## Blackwoof (Jun 29, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I’ve had some experience with that guy. I believe he cheats the test.



He got laughed out hydrogen audio for misunderstanding how MP3 worked. He used a chart showing it reaching 90% transparent at V0/320, having no clue it was a chart about peoples subjective thresholds not MP3 limitions.



SoundAndMotion said:


> That’s quite a serious charge. Do you have a link, or at least more info? How did he cheat? How was it discovered?



His Foobar ABX logs were invaild when he did a 24/96 test at AVS which his meltdown got the thread locked. HA don't like him at all...


----------



## sander99

magicscreen said:


> A little help


Take the .wav files, create the mp3 files from them yourself, and to be absolutely sure that the .wav and .mp3 are not treated differently somehow somewhere in the playback system: convert the mp3 back to the same wav format as the original wav, level matched, and then compare the 2 wav versions in a blind abx test...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 29, 2020)

bfreedma said:


> He was caught cheating at ABX tests @ AVS about a decade ago.



He was a little bit too invested in his unique ability to hear the unhearable. When a person's ego is all wrapped up in proving something that's probably not true, I think it's a good idea if someone else administers the test to them. He was here talking about being able to hear the difference between SACD and CD noise floors or something unlikely like that, and he tried to offer me "proof" with ABX logs.  He wanted me to automatically believe him just because he was presenting me with text files that said he could hear something. I asked him a simple question... "Did you loop small portions of the track and adjust the gain at all while you were taking the test?" he wiggled all around and wouldn't give a direct answer. I asked him clearly several times and never got an answer. He just got all huffy and tried to tell me that he had "highly trained ears" and knew better than the rest of us. Well, I have dumb old ordinary ears, and I can hear noise floors too if I jack the volume way up on the fade out of a song! I tend to prefer people who offer friendly suggestions over people who want to be king of the internet forum. He knew quite a bit and would have been interesting to talk with, but he didn't know his own limits. I think he created his own forum so he could pontificate and prevaricate without anyone questioning him. It's not a good idea to automatically take people on face value on the internet. Some people are who they are, but others create identities for themselves to feed their ego.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Jun 29, 2020)

Blackwoof said:


> His Foobar ABX logs were invaild when he did a 24/96 test at AVS which his meltdown got the thread locked. HA don't like him at all...


Invalid, how? The SHA1 signature check was invalid?


bigshot said:


> and he tried to offer me "proof" with ABX logs.


Did you do the signature test?


bigshot said:


> It's not a good idea to automatically take people on face value on the internet.


Most of your concerns remind me of your claims that you’ve tested everything you own, and everything’s transparent. I’d find it more plausible, if someone else tested you and included hidden references.


----------



## Blackwoof

SoundAndMotion said:


> Invalid, how? The SHA1 signature check was invalid?



He used a version of ABX plug in that didn't have that signature update. It was only useful for testing wither MP3 was okay at V2 or V0 for your DAP/Phone/PC, Not spamming them on a forum as hard facts.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 29, 2020)

If he's monkeying with the test files, will a signature test show that? I think he goosed the fade outs and didn't think anyone would ask him if he had gain ridden the files. I wouldn't have put it past him to be running the output through waveform analysis as he took the test either. I'm not exactly sure what he did, but when I asked that question, he got *really* squirrelly. Something was rotten somewhere in Denmark. I think in his case, it's good to just require an independent person to administer the test. He has too many tricks up his sleeve to trust him at his word.

I've gotten good with sniffing out cheaters with my lossy test. I have a little trick that reveals them every time and they don't prepare for it because they just want to be right and don't think about what it means to be right.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Jun 29, 2020)

Blackwoof said:


> He used a version of ABX plug in that didn't have that signature update.



Aha! That doesn’t prove he cheated, but without the hashes... can’t validate either.


bigshot said:


> If he's monkeying with the test files, will a signature test show that?


 Yes, if the hashes are there.


bigshot said:


> I'm not exactly sure what he did, but when I asked that question, he got *really* squirrelly. Something was rotten somewhere in Denmark. I think in his case, it's good to just require an independent person to administer the test.


You got really squirrelly when I asked about your tests. Have you considered an independent person who added hidden references?


----------



## bigshot

How about if he loops on a certain part of the track and adjusts the playback gain on his headphone amp? Or if he is running some sort of waveform analysis as he listens? I'm not familiar with ABX software...

I didn't bother to figure out exactly what he was doing and he certainly wasn't offering an explanation. But his reaction was way out of the norm for truthfulness. All my red flags were alerting.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Blackwoof said:


> He used a version of ABX plug in that didn't have that signature update.


Was there evidence he cheated? Or simply a lack of evidence that he didn’t? Using an old version of Foobar ABX (was it before or after SHA1 was added?) is not proof of cheating. Intentionally using an obsolete version would Indeed be suspicious, but is there real evidence?


bigshot said:


> How about if he loops on a certain part of the track and adjusts the playback gain on his headphone amp? Or if he is running some sort of waveform analysis as he listens? I'm not familiar with ABX software...
> 
> I didn't bother to figure out exactly what he was doing and he certainly wasn't offering an explanation. But his reaction was way out of the norm for truthfulness. All my red flags were alerting.


 Any evidence, besides a fully erect spidey sense?
FYI, I edited my last 2 posts... perhaps while you were typing,,,


----------



## bigshot

I don't have to eat a fish to know it's rotten. I can go by smell alone. I got to a point where I wasn't interested in engaging with him any more. I had no interest in going in for the kill.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


> I don't have to eat a fish to know it's rotten. I can go by smell alone. I got to a point where I wasn't interested in engaging with him any more. I had no interest in going in for the kill.


We should all hope you find a way to get out of jury duty each time!!


----------



## bigshot

I'm a producer. Being able to discern when people are being disingenuous is an important part of the job!


----------



## bfreedma (Jun 29, 2020)

SoundAndMotion said:


> That’s quite a serious charge. Do you have a link, or at least more info? How did he cheat? How was it discovered?



I’ll see if I can find it @AVS. May have been modded out.

One of Amir’s cheats that was uncovered was his adding a few seconds of silence to one of the two tracks he was ABXing.  Pretty easy to differentiate tracks then...
there were also issues with consistency of the SHA hash that made results files questionable.  These were discovered when the samples he was using were made available with the test results file on AVS.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bfreedma said:


> I’ll see if I can find it @AVS. May have been modded out.


That would be great! But with the tips you give below, I can search too.


bfreedma said:


> One of Amir’s cheats that was uncovered was his adding a few seconds of silence to one of the two tracks he was ABXing.  Pretty easy to differentiate tracks then...
> there were also issues with consistency of the SHA hash that made results files questionable.  These were discovered when the samples he was using were made available with the test results file on AVS.


THAT would be proof of cheating. If you or I (or anyone) find that, the matter would be settled.


----------



## iFi audio

Bozzunter said:


> In my case, I have an Ifi Pro iDSD which has solid state, tube and tube with correction for distortions, whatever it means.



Pro iDSD set in 'Tube+' mode reduces available negative feedback to a minimum. As a result, a greater amount of the tubes' natural harmonic distortion is produced. 



hakunamakaka said:


> If amp/preamp has tubes it doesn’t mean that whole signal is routed through them.



True. Pro iDSD's circuit set in the 'Solid-State" mode doesn't include them at all.



hakunamakaka said:


> even if amp/preamp has tubes it doesn’t mean you get tube sound.



We'd have to first determine what tube sound is and isn't. Tubes can be warm, rich and mild as much as they can be fast, direct and open. It depends on a tube and what one does with it.



hakunamakaka said:


> Adding a tube is more as a marketing thing in most cases



Whether one likes tubes or not is a subject for broad discussion, but I'd say that manufacturers into tubes know how to build circuits around them, which is more related to their knowledge on the subject and less so to marketing 



Bozzunter said:


> I couldn’t hear any difference among the half dozen filters either, at which point I realized I threw money to the shitter, but that was before reading this forum.



On this forum you can also read that many people found differences in Pro iDSD's filters and analogue stages rather clear and substantial  

This of course doesn't mean that you're in the wrong. If you don't hear any changes, you don't, which is fine, but at the same time this doesn't mean that there aren't any 

If you still have the product, I'd suggest listening to it in one mode for extended time, say several days, and then switching to a different mode.


----------



## bfreedma

SoundAndMotion said:


> That would be great! But with the tips you give below, I can search too.
> THAT would be proof of cheating. If you or I (or anyone) find that, the matter would be settled.



IIRC, the whole discussion of Amir’s testing was modded out of existence.  I’ll check the Wayback Machine yo see if there’s an archived version of AVS that contains the posts.  If you’ve been around a while, you’ll recognize the players.  Arnie Krueger and Steve Eddy among others.

just to pile on, I’ll try to dig up a video of a session AP held a few years ago where they had to ask Amir to hold further comments/questions due to his consistent incorrect statements about the AP555.  The eye rolling in the crowd is epic.  For context, Amir has claimed on his site that Audio Precision engineers know less about their own analyzer than he does, and that they come to him for advice.  AP publicly corrected that statement quickly.

In person, he isn’t a bad guy, but he has a case of chronic “Smartest Man In The Room” syndrome when discussing audio.  The biggest issue I have with him in regards to his findings is that he doesn’t seem to address actual audibility when discussing differences in measurements.  A lot of what he defines as “issues” are so far below audibility that they are meaningless.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 29, 2020)

bfreedma said:


> a case of chronic “Smartest Man In The Room” syndrome when discussing audio



Not that uncommon around here!

His concept of audible is numbers he circles in yellow highlighter taken out of context from a book.

I think it might be wise to take this to PM. It's already spawned another thread, and if we don't watch out, we'll summon the demon and he will be all over us again. For me, the matter is settled. I don't need any more of that kind of stuff.


----------



## Blackwoof (Jun 30, 2020)

--


----------



## magicscreen

sander99 said:


> Take the .wav files, create the mp3 files from them yourself, and to be absolutely sure that the .wav and .mp3 are not treated differently somehow somewhere in the playback system: convert the mp3 back to the same wav format as the original wav, level matched, and then compare the 2 wav versions in a blind abx test...


Thank you!
But I do not need this test. I can hear the differences between mp3 and flac files. 
Wav files sound better than 16bit/44kHz flac files.
But the best are the 24 bit/192kHz files.
It is unfortunate there is no higher resolution files than that. Maybe in the future if we had enough storage space.


----------



## sander99

magicscreen said:


> Thank you!
> But I do not need this test. I can hear the differences between mp3 and flac files.
> Wav files sound better than 16bit/44kHz flac files.
> But the best are the 24 bit/192kHz files.
> It is unfortunate there is no higher resolution files than that. Maybe in the future if we had enough storage space.


Then you definitely need to do the test. Do you know and understand that you can hear differences also when there is no audible difference? Your brain does most of the hearing, not the ears.
By the way: wav files and flac files do not sound at all, but they can be used to make a DAC produce an output signal. If the flac is decompressed you get the exact same bits as are in the wav. If the same bits are sent to the DAC (with the same timing) there can be no difference. Imagine the following playback system: first decompress the flac to the wav (that obviously is identical to the original wav, assuming no mistakes were made and neglecting meta data that could be different), then play the wav. How could this sound different from playing the original wav? So what I am saying: if (big if) there was audible difference between playing a wav or a flac then something is done wrong.

If you are able to hear the differences that you claim based on the audio alone, without knowing what you are hearing, ergo in a well controlled double blind ABX test, then you would probably be the first human being in history. Then you should go to a university to have yourself properly tested. You would become famous and probably there are rewards for you to be claimed.


----------



## hakunamakaka

mp3 quality can vary a lot. I could hear a difference between good 320kbs and the bad one. I could even link you with the track where spotify 320kbs LP rip sounds worse than youtubes 128kbs ripped and uploaded by user


----------



## sander99

I meant at least 320kbs good quality encoded. And of course the ridiculous claims about wav versus flac, and "even higher resolution" versus 192/24 versus 44.1/16.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 1, 2020)

magicscreen said:


> But I do not need this test. I can hear the differences between mp3 and flac files.



Sound Science is the one forum in Head-Fi where we get to say, "Do a controlled test or we can say you're wrong." And guess what? If you say you don't need to do the test, I get to say you don't know what you're talking about. You are a walking, talking poster child for expectation bias and placebo effect.



hakunamakaka said:


> I could hear a difference between good 320kbs and the bad one. I could even link you with the track where spotify 320kbs LP rip sounds worse than youtubes 128kbs ripped and uploaded by user



Have you got a controlled test to back that one up?


----------



## Bozzunter

Since this thread has partially degraded to things like recognizing mp3 vs wav, I was wondering if it’s possible to discuss headphones.

I mean, I’m not sure it’s possible to use a strictly scientific approach as with other topics, but I’d love to hear some opinions here. Namely, I purchased more and more expensive headphones (from Sennheiser 650 to 800s, Focal Elegia, Audeze LCD i4) and I would love to read about the subject outside the dedicated forums which reach a level of auditive hallucinations to be even funny. Well, not really.


----------



## castleofargh

magicscreen said:


> Thank you!
> But I do not need this test. I can hear the differences between mp3 and flac files.
> Wav files sound better than 16bit/44kHz flac files.
> But the best are the 24 bit/192kHz files.
> It is unfortunate there is no higher resolution files than that. Maybe in the future if we had enough storage space.


Can't tell if you're trolling us or not...


 People with a strong belief are always confident. But some will be right and some will be wrong about their beliefs, so why would we accept your self confidence as only measure of truth? Doesn't seem like a very good idea.
You're obviously free to do(not do) what you want, and believe whatever you wish to believe. But don't expect others to trust your blanket statements under those circumstances. *What is freely asserted is freely dismissed.*


----------



## bigshot (Jul 1, 2020)

Bozzunter said:


> I was wondering if it’s possible to discuss headphones. I mean, I’m not sure it’s possible to use a strictly scientific approach as with other topics, but I’d love to hear some opinions here.



Transducers are always the wild card because they are mechanical, and are subject to the limitations of the physical world; and because they are greatly affected by external factors- the shape of your ear canals, your room, etc. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to transducers. All you can say for sure is, "It depends." Since solid state electronics and digital audio are so precise, it's safe to use them as a baseline and adjust to suit your particular transducers and taste using EQ. As long as a set of cans can reproduce a full spectrum of sound loud without distortion, you should be able to massage the EQ to sound like anything you'd probably want them to sound like. That means that a decent mid range set of cans with EQ can sound as good as expensive ones. Start by approximating the Harman curve (see the other thread for info on that) and then adjust to personal taste. There is no absolute hard and fast calibration in home audio, like there is in pro audio. Consistency isn't an issue, pleasing yourself is. Feel free to add salt and pepper to taste. There's a point where science ends and personal preference begins. But you can approach determining your preferences scientifically, by experimenting, analyzing results and keeping track of what works and what doesn't.


----------



## PhonoPhi

castleofargh said:


> *...What is freely asserted is freely dismissed.*


Is it also applicable to people who claim that 128-160 mp3 are indistinguishable from CD-quality flacs?


----------



## bigshot

PhonoPhi said:


> Is it also applicable to people who claim that 128-160 mp3 are indistinguishable from CD-quality flacs?



Sure! The way to do it is to point to published studies or do a controlled test yourself. The way to counter a statement that isn't backed up is to answer it with a statement that is.


----------



## Blackwoof

PhonoPhi said:


> Is it also applicable to people who claim that 128-160 mp3 are indistinguishable from CD-quality flacs?



With lame, MP3 can be tranparent for most music and people. V4 Lame = 128k AAC/Vorbis. 

Even hydrogenaudio has defended that claim.



bigshot said:


> That means that a decent mid range set of cans with EQ can sound as good as expensive ones



Yep i don't bother with headphones anymore since i got the ER4SR/ER3SE. If i want a bassier sound for EDM/Metal/etc i just do a +5 db 125Hz and few fixes on 2 dips/peaks I'm all set.


----------



## Bozzunter

bigshot said:


> But you can approach determining your preferences scientifically, by experimenting, analyzing results and keeping track of what works and what doesn't.


Thanks for the answer, much appreciated. I still have doubts that a mid level headphone can reproduce the level of detail of a pair of HD 800s, as well as the soundstage. But I read so much BS in every headphone’s forum that I feel intoxicated and I’m not sure of anything anymore.

By any means, I don’t think my 1300€ spent for the HD800s (open) and 700€ for the Stellia (closed) were too much and I tend to agree that, based in my taste, anything else is completely pointless for me.


----------



## bigshot

Blackwoof said:


> With lame, MP3 can be tranparent for most music and people. V4 Lame = 128k AAC/Vorbis. Even hydrogenaudio has defended that claim.



For the average casual listener, that is certainly true. But the devil is in the details... and the words "most music and people".I spent a couple of weeks testing Fraunhofer, LAME and AAC. I found that what you say is generally true, but it wasn't uncommon for some tracks to artifact at that level. I found one particular recording with a string tone that was very difficult to encode. It required 320 LAME and 256 AAC to safely encode. (Frau was *almost* perfect at 320.) Since I didn't want to have to check each and every file I encoded, I chose 256 AAC and added VBR to it, just to be safe. Encoded like that, I think it's safe to say "all music and people".


----------



## bigshot

Bozzunter said:


> I still have doubts that a mid level headphone can reproduce the level of detail of a pair of HD 800s, as well as the soundstage



Distortion isn't a real issue with decent headphones. It's MUCH better than with speakers. And when it comes to headstage, no, EQ won't turn open cans into closed ones. But the level of detail is primarily due to response and auditory masking. Correct the response imbalances and you get more detail.

I participated in a group that worked with a designer of high end cans to help him produce something as near to perfect as practical. He told me that the difference between flagship models and normal high end models wasn't the quality of the materials. They usually include the same parts. The difference is the manufacturing tolerances. The headphones he was designing had a +/-1dB tolerance across the entire frequency range. This meant that as the cans came off the line, they were tested and the ones that didn't meet that standard were thrown in a reject pile. The cost of the rejects was amatorized into the cost of the final retail copies. In this particular case though, the company followed up the flagship with a 2 and 3 model. I suspect that all those rejects ended up being used for the lower end models.


----------



## Davesrose

magicscreen said:


> Thank you!
> But I do not need this test. I can hear the differences between mp3 and flac files.
> Wav files sound better than 16bit/44kHz flac files.
> But the best are the 24 bit/192kHz files.
> It is unfortunate there is no higher resolution files than that. Maybe in the future if we had enough storage space.




I'm just wondering since your premise is that high resolution audio always sounds best.  So if you take a 16bit/44khz file and convert to 24bit/192khz, it will sound better?


----------



## bigshot

Too much is never enough!


----------



## castleofargh

PhonoPhi said:


> Is it also applicable to people who claim that 128-160 mp3 are indistinguishable from CD-quality flacs?


Of course. ^_^ no claim should come without some demonstration of the fact. The only time we don't need to support our claims is when there are demonstrations of the claim already available that make the claim common knowledge. Both times a demonstration of the facts should be easily found. 

IMO 160 with LAME is really the lower level of mostly transparent audio. Even then I expect to notice some stuff from time to time without having to seek the killer samples. 128kbps mp3, that's cool when you want to try to ABX while running or while in a subway and on the move. I wouldn't bet too much on transparency under better listening conditions.
But in any case, there really is little interest in encoding with mp3 nowadays IMO. With AAC and Opus available, it seems counter productive to stick with mp3 while trying to save as much storage space as possible.


----------



## Davesrose (Jul 1, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Too much is never enough!



LOL...why not waste disc space with filling higher bitrates uncompressed. These days when it comes to mp3, I just go with 320k because I'm still not filling my 256GB micro SD card on my mp3 player.  Talk of 128-320k mp3s are minor compared to a premise that one needs fully uncompressed high res files.


----------



## bigshot

Outside of this bastion of sanity in the wild world of Head-Fi general, "MORE is always BETTER! And EVERY NUMBER CAN BE HEARD! And YOU CAN HEAR THE UNMEASURABLE! EVEN MY WIFE CAN HEAR IT!"


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 1, 2020)

Blackwoof said:


> With lame, MP3 can be tranparent for most music and people. V4 Lame = 128k AAC/Vorbis.
> 
> Even hydrogenaudio has defended that claim.
> 
> ...


Most people are listening from smartphones with whichever phones.
In a spirit of this forum (which I found nothing but scientific, I am sorry to say), I do not need personally any proof and won't even bother to argue any further that 128 mp3 are noticeably sonically inferior. (I was dabbling into 24/196 and 24/192 for a while, and won't claim that I hear any difference with CD-quality flacs for the same mastering (often they are different, mostly for the better, sometimes for the worst);  320 mp3 vs. flacs - pretty close as well, below ~192 - sorry, just listen to any good recording of violins).


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> Outside of this bastion of sanity in the wild world of Head-Fi general, "MORE is always BETTER! And EVERY NUMBER CAN BE HEARD! And YOU CAN HEAR THE UNMEASURABLE! EVEN MY WIFE CAN HEAR IT!"


That sums very well the science of this forum, thank you!


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> For the average casual listener, that is certainly true. But the devil is in the details... and the words "most music and people".I spent a couple of weeks testing Fraunhofer, LAME and AAC. I found that what you say is generally true, but it wasn't uncommon for some tracks to artifact at that level. I found one particular recording with a string tone that was very difficult to encode. It required 320 LAME and 256 AAC to safely encode. (Frau was *almost* perfect at 320.) Since I didn't want to have to check each and every file I encoded, I chose 256 AAC and added VBR to it, just to be safe. Encoded like that, I think it's safe to say "all music and people".



I use musepack at 170kbps for tracks that need 256 AAC & 320 Lame since it being a subband codec pre echo & transient attacks don't phase it.



PhonoPhi said:


> Most people are listening from smartphones with whichever phones.
> In a spirit of this forum (which I found nothing but scientific, I am sorry to say), I do not need personally any proof and won't even bother to argue any further that 128 mp3 are noticeably sonically inferior. (I was dabbling into 24/196 and 24/192 for a while, and won't claim that I hear any difference with CD-quality flacs for the same mastering (often they are different, mostly for the better, sometimes for the worst);  320 mp3 vs. flacs - pretty close as well, below 192 - sorry, just listen to violins).



Still dosen't change that ABX tests are needed, On Ambient & Slow music i can get away with V5 but i use V4 for safety. But for metal/electronic i need V1 to sound fine, I've had more issues with 128 AAC on ambient than i did with V5 Lame.


----------



## bigshot

Blackwoof said:


> I use musepack at 170kbps for tracks that need 256 AAC & 320 Lame since it being a subband codec pre echo & transient attacks don't phase it.



I don't want to have to rip and run into problems at all. I have tens of thousands of CDs and I rip them production line. I don't have time to carefully examine every rip for artifacts. I just use one setting that works for everything. I imagine the difference in file size between AAC 256 VBR and musepack 170 isn't that great. The difference in file size between FLAC and AAC 256 VBR is significant.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Here is another spoof. Just recently I've got TOTL ciem, just for the sake of my own interest I wanted to hear how expensive cIEM can sound and to be honest I'm not that impressed. I've decided to replace the stock cable with expensive DUNU 2 pin cable, blew extra 300$ and guess what...maybe, I mean maybe it can sound a "bit" louder, that's it.
Source iphone with lotoo S1 dac. So far this is my first and last experiment with cables and when you read those reviews....it seems there is magical difference between different cables....


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> I don't want to have to rip and run into problems at all. I have tens of thousands of CDs and I rip them production line. I don't have time to carefully examine every rip for artifacts. I just use one setting that works for everything. I imagine the difference in file size between AAC 256 VBR and musepack 170 isn't that great. The difference in file size between FLAC and AAC 256 VBR is significant.



Musepack has no frame limit so tracks like that can range from 224 ~ 600kbps. Since i use PC/Phone using mixed codecs dosen't bother me.


----------



## bigshot

How do you know it doesn't work with a different codec? Do you encode everything three different ways and choose the smallest? If you do, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din! I'd have no time to actually listen to music if I did that!


----------



## bigshot

hakunamakaka said:


> Here is another spoof. Just recently I've got TOTL ciem, just for the sake of my own interest I wanted to hear how expensive cIEM can sound and to be honest I'm not that impressed. I've decided to replace the stock cable with expensive DUNU 2 pin cable, blew extra 300$ and guess what...maybe, I mean maybe it can sound a "bit" louder, that's it.
> Source iphone with lotoo S1 dac. So far this is my first and last experiment with cables and when you read those reviews....it seems there is magical difference between different cables....



Here is the problem with your approach... You are looking for a solution without defining the problem you want to solve. If you have a problem that you can define, you can research ways to correct it and then have a good chance that it might make an improvement you can clearly hear. If you just swap more expensive stuff in randomly, you are just as likely to screw up sound as fix it, and in most cases, it might not make a difference at all. Random solutions produce random results.

The best way to improve your system is to make an effort to know how it works before you go buying stuff. Read about how capacitance works, google frequency response, research the specs of your equipment, figure out what the audible thresholds are... THEN you will have an idea of what needs fixing.

Too many people think being an audiophile is about shopping. The person who buys the most expensive and most convoluted and inconvenient system has the best. That is what the high end audio salesmen want you to believe because it makes you come back to buy the same thing over and over and over again, spending more money each time.

All you need to do is be an informed buyer. Understand what you are shopping for and decide if it will solve your problem and give you more convenience and better sound BEFORE you pull out your credit card. Once you get the new doohickey, carefully test it and return it if it makes no improvement. If you do that, you'll find that it doesn't cost a fortune to put together a good sounding system.


----------



## Blackwoof (Jul 2, 2020)

bigshot said:


> How do you know it doesn't work with a different codec? Do you encode everything three different ways and choose the smallest? If you do, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din! I'd have no time to actually listen to music if I did that!



My set is Lame V4 & V1 with the bad stuff at Q5 musepack. I just base it off the 4 power electronic albums i have, In most cases i don't need to do ABX tests to aid speed since i did them before. Outside of PE stuff i never had to set a non PE album or track with Lame to V1 ~ 320 but with AAC i had set a few to 256k because they failed at <160k?.

Yes i aim for small 90% of the time because there no point on V1 ~ 320/flac if the V4 sounds the same. But for metal/faster complex music i just target V1 as a happy medium. MPC there as workaround that MP3 limited to 320 frames despite the codec can do 640kbps with hacks.

This is for my non PC music hub since I'm thinking on getting a K702 with a Fiio K3.


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 2, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Here is the problem with your approach... You are looking for a solution without defining the problem you want to solve. If you have a problem that you can define, you can research ways to correct it and then have a good chance that it might make an improvement you can clearly hear. If you just swap more expensive stuff in randomly, you are just as likely to screw up sound as fix it, and in most cases, it might not make a difference at all. Random solutions produce random results.
> 
> The best way to improve your system is to make an effort to know how it works before you go buying stuff. Read about how capacitance works, google frequency response, research the specs of your equipment, figure out what the audible thresholds are... THEN you will have an idea of what needs fixing.
> 
> ...




unfortunately I do not live in a place where I could test much of interesting audio gear for me, but I totally agree with your approach. Either way my journey is finished with portable rig upgrades. I have old oppo pm3 which really stood it's own matched again 5x more expensive hifiman products like arya, the CIEM that I got have their own signature, but for sure I can't justify their price. Differences are nowhere near as big as when I swap my speaker setup between vinyl and digital source, that's what I could call a real improvement.
Once my wallet gets back to normal I got my eye on Klipsch speakers and a better dac to accompany or leave behind my LP source. For now I'm going back to my old habbit which is listening to music instead of thinking about the new audio gear


----------



## bigshot (Jul 2, 2020)

A speaker system can always soak up more money than a portable system! And getting better speakers is the best place to upgrade. I have a Klipsch center channel. I think Klipsch are all horn loaded, which makes them more directional... Better for sitting at a little distance from. I really like my Klipsch center. It's a good efficient speaker, a bit louder than other designs.

The nice thing about ordering stuff from Amazon is that you have a 30 day return window. That makes it easier to try stuff out and see if it works for you.


----------



## hakunamakaka

bigshot said:


> A speaker system can always soak up more money than a portable system! And getting better speakers is the best place to upgrade. I have a Klipsch center channel. I think Klipsch are all horn loaded, which makes them more directional... Better for sitting at a little distance from. I really like my Klipsch center. It's a good efficient speaker, a bit louder than other designs.
> 
> The nice thing about ordering stuff from Amazon is that you have a 30 day return window. That makes it easier to try stuff out and see if it works for you.




To be honest I think once you reach certain SQ level in portable system there is not much left to impress, things go down to personal preferences. I had that wow effect when I jumped from airpods to oppo pm-3 with portable dac/amp and it seems I hit the sweet spot. Afterwards had a chance to audition hifiman line hp, even though their high tier openbacks did sound bigger, but I did not see such a sound improvement as I got with my first higher end purchase. Speakers are a different story, but I'm looking only to a bookshelf sized speakers as I live in a tiny flat.


----------



## Bozzunter

I think that headphones are slightly off-topics here (although it was me to have started the thread), since it’s not really possible to make proper blind tests and the differences among models are objective anyway.

Nonetheless, when I read about Airpods Pro and Oppo PM-3, I am not sure I can be won over the argument that it’s not worth to spend more money like for any DAC or DAP.

There are several Airpods-like solutions from Sennheiser, Bose and Sony which sound better or much better than Apple’s solution which is barely acceptable with noise cancelling on, insufferable with Transparency and Off modes. I returned them all since one way or another they work less flawlessly than Airpods pro, but when we talk about the pure sound, it’s different leagues. Not much different than comparing Beats to some proper headphones in my opinion.

I didn’t listen to PM-3 but since I have experiences with similar planar models, I would bet any money that lots (most) of people would ditch them immediately should they listen to Sennheiser HD-800s, some models from Focal, LCD... Yeah, they’re more expensive but we’re not talking about throwing the money away for things where no one could find any difference in a blind test.


----------



## hakunamakaka

I have auditioned my pm3 against ananda/arya/senheisers 6xx through a various and expensive amps and basically difference are in small details apart from 20-30% larger soundstage due to openback design. The cost of arya is 5x my pm3..and for such a small margin of SQ improvement for me...would rather blow that on my speaker system. Only once I’ve gone out of control purchasing portable audio gear, is when i bought ciem, but I simply got tired of buying multiple highly praised chi-fi products in head-fi forum and being disappointed afterwards


----------



## Blackwoof

I highly doubt 99.9% of anyone would find the gains from going ER3XR/HD6XX to a LCD4 or HD800 worth it, Despite what the online audiophile community says.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Blackwoof said:


> I highly doubt 99.9% of anyone would find the gains from going ER3XR/HD6XX to a LCD4 or HD800 worth it, Despite what the online audiophile community says.


In a spirit of your factually unsupported strong statements: one may even downgrade a notch or two without noticing any sonic difference when listening to 128 mp3


----------



## dazzerfong (Jul 5, 2020)

Blackwoof said:


> I highly doubt 99.9% of anyone would find the gains from going ER3XR/HD6XX to a LCD4 or HD800 worth it, Despite what the online audiophile community says.



Why stop at Etymotics? I hazard 99.9% of the world wouldn't appreciate going from a Koss Porta Pro to HD800s. Hell, I bet they'd even like the Koss' more!


----------



## Blackwoof (Jul 6, 2020)

PhonoPhi said:


> In a spirit of your factually unsupported strong statements: one may even downgrade a notch or two without noticing any sonic difference when listening to 128 mp3



Ah so ABX'ing ER3XR vs HD800 to test wither <5% gains is worth it is unsupported, lol?. Yes i sure love to buy a $1600 headphone then find out that my ER3SE's with ER4SR EQ sound the same 99% of the time with the rare <1%, the HD800 shows fart sounds in the studio that the ER3 shows but is bit quieter.

Do any of you read your posts or being offended a natural state here?. lol


----------



## bfreedma

Blackwoof said:


> Ah so ABX'ing ER3XR vs HD800 to test wither <5% gains is worth it is unsupported, lol?. Yes i sure love to buy a $1600 headphone then find out that my ER3SE's with ER4SR EQ sound the same 99% of the time with the rare <1%, the HD800 shows fart sounds in the studio that the ER3 shows but is bit quieter.
> 
> Do any of you read your posts or being offended a natural state here?. lol




I'm having a hard time figuring out if you like Etymotic IEMs...

Nothing wrong with having a personal preference, but might want to dial down what's coming across as a severe case of fanboyism (fanboyitis?).


----------



## Bozzunter

Blackwoof said:


> Ah so ABX'ing ER3XR vs HD800 to test wither <5% gains is worth it is unsupported, lol?. Yes i sure love to buy a $1600 headphone then find out that my ER3SE's with ER4SR EQ sound the same 99% of the time with the rare <1%, the HD800 shows fart sounds in the studio that the ER3 shows but is bit quieter.
> 
> Do any of you read your posts or being offended a natural state here?. lol


If now you’re trying to say that an IEM sounds like open cans 99% of the times, to me you’re making statements as absurd as in the dedicated headphones forums.

HD800 were replaced by 800s a few years ago, please tell me a song to try when I can hear them farting.

I might not understand your mention to the studio: do you mean using an IEM in a studio for critical listening? 

You know, one thing is to show that to spend money in DAP/DACs is useless, I was into that game and I agree not based on strange ideas but for I cannot hear any difference whatsoever between any combination. The myth of DACs was more than properly debunked here.

Still, if the game with cans becomes ‘the less money I spend the smarter I am’ and any can, IEM, open, closed, planar, whatever other technology or kind, sounds the same with a proper equalizer, I think I can hardly agree.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Bozzunter said:


> If now you’re trying to say that an IEM sounds like open cans 99% of the times, to me you’re making statements as absurd as in the dedicated headphones forums.
> 
> HD800 were replaced by 800s a few years ago, please tell me a song to try when I can hear them farting.
> 
> ...




I can't comment on high end dac's, but I can tell the sonic differences between my budget portable lotoo s1 dac and my macbook output while connected to speakers.
Differences are even more obvious when I match it against iphones dac with my CIEM


----------



## KeithPhantom

Bozzunter said:


> You know, one thing is to show that to spend money in DAP/DACs is useless, I was into that game and I agree not based on strange ideas but for I cannot hear any difference whatsoever between any combination. The myth of DACs was more than properly debunked here.


With DACs, to hear a difference (distortion or noise) they have to be bad, and really bad (I am talking something like >= -40 dBFS 2nd harmonic). Buy a DAC that measures good and has all the features you are looking for, because all well-engineered ones are bound to sound the same.


----------



## KeithPhantom

hakunamakaka said:


> I can tell the sonic differences between my budget portable lotoo s1 dac and my macbook output while connected to speakers.
> Differences are even more obvious when I match it against iphones dac with my CIEM


Not to attack you, but those claims need to be supported by evidence.


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 7, 2020)

KeithPhantom said:


> Not to attack you, but those claims need to be supported by evidence.




No offence my friend. Might be that iphone dac is not up to that “standard”. I tried few budget portable dac/amps with my old pm3 and earsonics em10 CIEM and difference between iphone jack and lotoo S1 is huge for me, I can bring my CIEM very loud with iphone only, but it won’t   have that layering and 3D presentation, it seemed like a simple single driver iem and at the beginning I was so disappointed that I blew so much money for em10, but once i plugges it via S1 I could hear a difference instantly, it even improves my old pm3 sound. If you have a chance you can always test audio gear in shop that’s the best way...and by no means I have a very good hearing, but I could tell that bose qc35 hp lacks behind in sq against pm3.


----------



## KeithPhantom

hakunamakaka said:


> iphone dac is not up to that “standard”


I don't think the iPhone's DAC/amp is the problem (usually they measure good), it could be output impedance, amplification requirements not met, any leakage inside the electronic circuit, there are a million things that can fail. Also, remember to level-match, our brains are used to judge the loudest as the best. 





hakunamakaka said:


> If you have a chance you can always test audio gear in shop that’s the best way


Actually, I found that by looking at the measurements and comparing them to the measurements that my ears like the most I can narrow down my options faster than just listening alone, but that's for headphones/speakers. For DAC and amps, measurements tell you everything you need to know (even of they have the sound you're looking for)


----------



## hakunamakaka

KeithPhantom said:


> I don't think the iPhone's DAC/amp is the problem (usually they measure good), it could be output impedance, amplification requirements not met, any leakage inside the electronic circuit, there are a million things that can fail. Also, remember to level-match, our brains are used to judge the loudest as the best.
> Actually, I found that by looking at the measurements and comparing them to the measurements that my ears like the most I can narrow down my options faster than just listening alone, but that's for headphones/speakers. For DAC and amps, measurements tell you everything you need to know (even of they have the sound you're looking for)



Ofcourse it might be that iphone/macbook circuit is noisy as there are many other things ongoing there, I’m just saying that my portable finger sized S1 improves sq by a lot, even putting louder volume on my iphone, it sounds thiner and more congested. I was a bit angry and on urge to sell my em10 until I’ve put my hands on S1. 
I’m not big believer in graphs and measurments, for me sound is more like a beauty, every brain can intercept it differently and perception can change depending on your mood. I have pure tube  preamp which measures awfully, but I’m in love with it that still till this day collecting LP’s


----------



## KeithPhantom

hakunamakaka said:


> Ofcourse it might be that iphone/macbook circuit is noisy as there are many other things ongoing there, I’m just saying that my portable finger sized S1 improves sq by a lot, even putting louder volume on my iphone, it sounds thiner and more congested. I was a bit angry and on urge to sell my em10 until I’ve put my hands on S1.
> I’m not big believer in graphs and measurments, for me sound is more like a beauty, every brain can intercept it differently and perception can change depending on your mood. I have pure tube  preamp which measures awfully, but I’m in love with it that still till this day collecting LP’s


Don't think that I am going to shove you with measurements and stuff, if you have your opinion I respect it. I am in love with engineering challenges (as stupid as it sounds, but it is interesting to see companies striving to build the best measuring DAC even if there is no audible improvement) and with music (I am able to isolate knowledge and enjoyment at will). Just enjoy and you don't have to care about measurements to enjoy music, the problem is to deny facts (that's when I start getting annoyed by others) that can mislead others.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 7, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> Might be that iphone dac is not up to that “standard”. I tried few budget portable dac/amps with my old pm3 and earsonics em10 CIEM and difference between iphone jack and lotoo S1 is huge for me



Impedance mismatch. That is an amping issue, not the quality of the DAC. The DACs in Apple products have always been well into the range of audible overkill. Amp the output and it will be perfect.

I'm going to be honest... When you guys launch into alphabet soups of model numbers, I totally zone out. Most of the "common knowledge" about specific models is just repetition of other people's subjective impressions. I have no interest in that because most of it is bogus. If you can clearly hear a difference in DACs under controlled testing conditions, I'll bother to look up specific models. If you don't know how to do a controlled listening test, I would be happy to help you.



hakunamakaka said:


> Of course it might be that iphone/macbook circuit is noisy as there are many other things ongoing there



Nope. You are wrong. I've done controlled tests with several iPhones, iPods and various Macs going back to the 8500 AV and they are all audibly transparent. I've compared the iPhone to Oppo HA-1 and various blu-ray players. They all sound the same. If you are hearing noise, you probably have an impedance mismatch.


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 8, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Impedance mismatch. That is an amping issue, not the quality of the DAC. The DACs in Apple products have always been well into the range of audible overkill. Amp the output and it will be perfect.
> 
> I'm going to be honest... When you guys launch into alphabet soups of model numbers, I totally zone out. Most of the "common knowledge" about specific models is just repetition of other people's subjective impressions. I have no interest in that because most of it is bogus. If you can clearly hear a difference in DACs under controlled testing conditions, I'll bother to look up specific models. If you don't know how to do a controlled listening test, I would be happy to help you.
> 
> ...




I do not hear any noise going directly via iphone jack, but soundstage, depth, seperation increases with lotoo S1. For my "in ears", iphone  power output is more than enough and I dare to say anyone with hearing capabilities would be able to tell the difference between iphone and S1. I use S1 with one of the EQ which are available on it as it fits me best, but even with none it sounds more clean than iphone.  Prior I bought cheap portable amp from ali express Leory SD05 to drive my planar headphones, but this did nothing in comparison, just bringing few notches up regards volume.

I'm by no means skilled in sound science or interested in measurements and graphs, but I can differ what is more up to my liking. I always leaned towards warmer sound signature, to able to feel the "weight" on instruments and space between them..I do not chase most "accurate" and "transparent" sound, if it's colored to my likings I'm happy.
Oppo HA-1 is way above in class than my tiny S1 dac/amp, but I haven't heard it...If you say it's all in my imagination, so be it, I will not argue


----------



## castleofargh

Declaring it's placebo without evidence or ample information, is not better than declaring the DAC changed the soundstage on a hunch.
But what's true is that almost anything audible can change our spatial impression(non audio cues can do that too).

My confident expert opinion is that I don't know. I think it's a powerful position.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 8, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> I do not hear any noise going directly via iphone jack, but soundstage, depth, seperation increases with lotoo S1. For my "in ears", iphone  power output is more than enough and I dare to say anyone with hearing capabilities would be able to tell the difference between iphone and S1.



Time to do a line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind listening test to find out if that's correct. If you'd like help setting up the test, I'd be happy to help you.

By the way, "soundstage depth and separation" are typically how level differences are described. That is exactly what it sounds like if one sample is a little louder than the other. The iPhone has been measured very thoroughly, and its performance rivals high end DACs. Odds are the problem you're experiencing isn't because of the DAC in the iPhone. Impedance issues, level differences, expectation bias... it could be one of several things, or a combination of all of them.


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 8, 2020)

I can’t comment on standalone dac’s as I bought only budget, portable dac/amp combo for mobile use.HA-2 sounding cleanest, but with S1 presentation is on different level for me. There is a track “Borusiade - A body” and there is a part where vocals starts echoing left-right channel, with s1 dac/amp and my pm3 hp I’m hearing those echoes going above my head, with iphone only I would have to focus and push my imagination a bit. Send me a pm bigshot on how to do a blind test I will gladly do it, but please be aware that S1 is colouring the sound. For me it would be easy guess


----------



## bigshot

How is it coloring the sound? Does it not have a flat frequency response? Is it injecting distortion? If either of these are the case, then you totally would be able to discern a difference if the coloration reaches the level of audibility. Is the S1 a tube amp? Do you have published specs for it?


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 8, 2020)

bigshot said:


> How is it coloring the sound? Does it not have a flat frequency response? Is it injecting distortion? If either of these are the case, then you totally would be able to discern a difference if the coloration reaches the level of audibility. Is the S1 a tube amp? Do you have published specs for it?




No it’s a tiny usb dongle dac/amp, just google lotoo S1. Maybe it’s somehow artificially amends soundstage and presentation I don’t know..but I preffer sound through this dongle anytime over my iphone. I even got closer to my turntable setup via digital when used this dongle instead of macbook output with EQ set to “movie” and only if  bass didn’t get loose and highs a bit sharp, that would have been a steal for me


----------



## bigshot (Jul 8, 2020)

Is it advertised as deliberately coloring sound?

Is this what we're talking about? https://www.amazon.com/Lotoo-PAW-S1-Portable-DAC-Amp/dp/B088W3FQ4V


----------



## hakunamakaka

bigshot said:


> Is it advertised as deliberately coloring sound?
> 
> Is this what we're talking about? https://www.amazon.com/Lotoo-PAW-S1-Portable-DAC-Amp/dp/B088W3FQ4V



Yes exactly, I’m not sure how it’s advertised though. Only thing that annoys me is interference with phone, but I  preffer this in exchange of what I can hear via S1


----------



## bigshot

Others here might see something I'm overlooking, but there's no coloration at all indicated by the specs.

Interference is a different thing from fidelity.

What kind of headphones do you use with this?


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 8, 2020)

I bought  in ears “earsonics em10” and was so disappointed that at the beggining I wanted to sell them, but this dongle improved the sound and even my oppo pm-3 sounds way better with it. I use different EQ settings though which are available on S1. Even with none it sounds a bit warmer for me. I’ve tested many portable dac/amps...only ha-2 and S1 shifted sound signature for me. The main thing for me is the EQ presets and how the sound can be improved through them.


----------



## bigshot

If you're using EQ, all bets are off. The EQ is adding the color and improving the sound, not the DAC. That totally explains it.


----------



## Blackwoof

Bozzunter said:


> If now you’re trying to say that an IEM sounds like open cans 99% of the times, to me you’re making statements as absurd as in the dedicated headphones forums.
> 
> HD800 were replaced by 800s a few years ago, please tell me a song to try when I can hear them farting.
> 
> ...



Are you getting upset over people being realistic on a objective forum?. The only abusrd case here is you assuming that stuff like the HD800S is endgame when the K702 already does very wide staging for £105, The ER3XR with proper fit will be more on par on planar for speed/detail while being £140. By EQ the Ety's can handle 10db while the HD600/HD800 give up at +6db while distorting.

Your in a world of hurt when 95% of music is mixed on DT 770, HD600, K702 & ER4. Which makes the HD800, L700, LCD4 & more detail claims quite funny. I've never once touted the ER3XR for staging not my fault many "audiophile" TOTL gear unfit for studio use which use netural stuff 98% of the time.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 9, 2020)

Blackwoof said:


> Your in a world of hurt when 95% of music is mixed on DT 770, HD600, K702 & ER4.



Almost all commercial mixes and mastering is done on speakers. This brand rivalry alphabet soup of model numbers is dumb.

Spelling counts.


----------



## Bozzunter

bigshot said:


> Spelling counts.



Yeah, spelling and also grammar. I really have a hard time reading things like ‘I've never once touted the ER3XR for staging not my fault many "audiophile" TOTL gear unfit for studio use which use netural stuff 98% of the time.’

Again, if the point of Blackwoof is to show that one can’t improve the sound of a 100£ and 140£ headphones, I’m not upset, I simply find it funny. As much as putting HD600 and HD800 at the same level, or are we now trying to objectively say that they are the same?

I’m happy I started talking about headphones, since I realized I would throw 2K to the wind by buying a pair of Stellia when the Elegia sounds the same. But it ends here, if someone thinks that a 100£ headphone is all is needed to listen to music, well, good for him.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Bozzunter said:


> Yeah, spelling and also grammar. I really have a hard time reading things like ‘I've never once touted the ER3XR for staging not my fault many "audiophile" TOTL gear unfit for studio use which use netural stuff 98% of the time.’
> 
> Again, if the point of Blackwoof is to show that one can’t improve the sound of a 100£ and 140£ headphones, I’m not upset, I simply find it funny. As much as putting HD600 and HD800 at the same level, or are we now trying to objectively say that they are the same?
> 
> I’m happy I started talking about headphones, since I realized I would throw 2K to the wind by buying a pair of Stellia when the Elegia sounds the same. But it ends here, if someone thinks that a 100£ headphone is all is needed to listen to music, well, good for him.


That is the same person, who made statements before that the quality of 128 or 160 kb/s mp3 is fully sufficient.

Either it is really sufficient or trolling; futile (and wastes time) to argue in both cases.


----------



## hakunamakaka

So if such a tiny device can have that many quality EQ presets why can't other dac's ? Even with no EQ set, my pm3 hp sounds way better than with iphone, I can hear that planar omphh in bass on lower volumes, where through a phone it can go shouty/edgy, but dead. Might be as pm3 are underpowered directly with iphone, but stating that such as DAC's advertised devices are only marketing trick and all I'm hearing is placebo is a bit ignorant. If iphone would be able to play with my equipment I would be happy, but it doesn't cut it for me even if people try to state differently. I doubt that those expensive, full sized dac's are bought by majority only for dac purpose..I won't be surprised if they offer connectivity/eq/amplification/clean circuit or whatever other reason


----------



## castleofargh

Blackwoof said:


> Are you getting upset over people being realistic on a objective forum?. The only abusrd case here is you assuming that stuff like the HD800S is endgame when the K702 already does very wide staging for £105, The ER3XR with proper fit will be more on par on planar for speed/detail while being £140. By EQ the Ety's can handle 10db while the HD600/HD800 give up at +6db while distorting.
> 
> Your in a world of hurt when 95% of music is mixed on DT 770, HD600, K702 & ER4. Which makes the HD800, L700, LCD4 & more detail claims quite funny. I've never once touted the ER3XR for staging not my fault many "audiophile" TOTL gear unfit for studio use which use netural stuff 98% of the time.


objective forum or not, this looks very much like your opinion and personal feelings.
As for what some IEMs or headphones can handle in term of EQ before distorting, what is your reference amount of acceptable distortions? And perhaps just as important, what listening level should be measured?


----------



## KeithPhantom

Bozzunter said:


> Again, if the point of Blackwoof is to show that one can’t improve the sound of a 100£ and 140£ headphones, I’m not upset, I simply find it funny. As much as putting HD600 and HD800 at the same level, or are we now trying to objectively say that they are the same?


The same they are not, bit there are no huge differences in terms of objective performance (other than FR, which is not close to neutral in the HD 800). Their major differences are in how each driver reacts and their dampening, the HD 600 is closer to neutral, but the rolled-off bass and higher distortion are things they have to improve. The HD 800 has lower distortion products and slightly better bass, but it suffers from FR issues and ringing (lack of dampening/the driver overshoots and is hard to stop). Both have their issues, but both are a really good pair of headphones. Also, I don't think the HD 800 (or any other flagship) is worth what it selling right now, it doesn't provide the performance per dollar required to be considered for the price.


----------



## lapzoo

PhonoPhi said:


> That is the same person, who made statements before that the quality of 128 or 160 kb/s mp3 is fully sufficient.
> 
> Either it is really sufficient or trolling; futile (and wastes time) to argue in both cases.


http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.lame.html

Try it out yourself


----------



## hakunamakaka

KeithPhantom said:


> The same they are not, bit there are no huge differences in terms of objective performance (other than FR, which is not close to neutral in the HD 800). Their major differences are in how each driver reacts and their dampening, the HD 600 is closer to neutral, but the rolled-off bass and higher distortion are things they have to improve. The HD 800 has lower distortion products and slightly better bass, but it suffers from FR issues and ringing (lack of dampening/the driver overshoots and is hard to stop). Both have their issues, but both are a really good pair of headphones. Also, I don't think the HD 800 (or any other flagship) is worth what it selling right now, it doesn't provide the performance per dollar required to be considered for the price.




But so does many other cheaper models. If price/performance ratio is the main thing that matters I don’t think you need to punch above 5$ costing earbuds on aliexpress


----------



## PhonoPhi

lapzoo said:


> http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.lame.html
> 
> Try it out yourself


I do not need any reasoning for myself to try to justify using low-res files. The available SD card size grows much faster than my music collection.

I will continue to use flacs 16/44.1 and 24/96 (not because the latter are intrinsically better but since they are more than often different renderings of the master files), and I am NOT trying to convince anyone here (or everywhere) that it is the best choice or even that any difference exist.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> Almost all commercial mixes and mastering is done on speakers. This brand rivalry alphabet soup of model numbers is dumb.
> 
> Spelling counts.



As you keep crying at in another thread while ignoring my points but keep up the salt.


----------



## Blackwoof

castleofargh said:


> objective forum or not, this looks very much like your opinion and personal feelings.
> As for what some IEMs or headphones can handle in term of EQ before distorting, what is your reference amount of acceptable distortions? And perhaps just as important, what listening level should be measured?



And I'm still waiting for proof the ER3XR THD increases when EQ done. Since i notice some putting words in my mouth about my views on ER3XR + EQ. Oratory1990 has given detailed reasons why the ER4 should run 12db boost fine since he made the harman profiles for them with full mesurements.

https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/


----------



## Bozzunter

KeithPhantom said:


> The same they are not, bit there are no huge differences in terms of objective performance (other than FR, which is not close to neutral in the HD 800). Their major differences are in how each driver reacts and their dampening, the HD 600 is closer to neutral, but the rolled-off bass and higher distortion are things they have to improve. The HD 800 has lower distortion products and slightly better bass, but it suffers from FR issues and ringing (lack of dampening/the driver overshoots and is hard to stop). Both have their issues, but both are a really good pair of headphones. Also, I don't think the HD 800 (or any other flagship) is worth what it selling right now, it doesn't provide the performance per dollar required to be considered for the price.



I don’t know man, I have HD650 and their veil is insufferable, they sound even muffled to my ears.

We both agree that the performance per dollar of every high end is between bad and horrible. I paid 1250€ for my HD800s three years ago and I can’t say they weren’t worth it, but that’s 450€ less than the official price. The problem is the last three years, where every brand but Sennheiser went berserk with less and less justifiable offers. 

The funny thing is that in other forums everyone claims that perfect cans don’t exist. I claim that there are lots of perfect cans which can be equalized to everyone’s taste.


----------



## bigshot

hakunamakaka said:


> So if such a tiny device can have that many quality EQ presets why can't other dac's ?



I honestly would much rather have a small portable parametric equalizer with an amp than a DAC with an amp. I wish there was something like that, but the average audiophile hasn't made any effort to learn how to EQ. It isn't hard, but it takes an organized process. Presets are pointless. Every set of headphones is different and requires a specific setting. But it's possible to make mid-range cans sound just as good as high end ones with careful equalization.



PhonoPhi said:


> The available SD card size grows much faster than my music collection.



You need more music!



Bozzunter said:


> I don’t know man, I have HD650 and their veil is insufferable, they sound even muffled to my ears.



A +3dB boost in the low end of the treble range would probably fix that right up.


----------



## lapzoo

Something funny: I installed Equalizer APO about two weeks ago, because I wasn't all that satisfied with how my headphones sounded. So played around with the frequencies, adjusting it more and more to my preferred sound. I felt I was coming closer to it. Maybe an hour or so passed, while I tested everything with my favorite music. Only thing bugging me was it was still a tad too harsh somewhere in the treble. So to find out which region I'm most sensitive to, I dragged the high frequencies all the way up... Wait a minute, why do I hear no huge difference? It should blow my ears away, or not? Turned out I didn't install the software correctly -- my brain fooled me this whole time. I was hearing the same damn sound this complete last hour.

I knew the Placebo effect could be strong, but this really left me quite shocked.


----------



## castleofargh

hakunamakaka said:


> So if such a tiny device can have that many quality EQ presets why can't other dac's ? Even with no EQ set, my pm3 hp sounds way better than with iphone, I can hear that planar omphh in bass on lower volumes, where through a phone it can go shouty/edgy, but dead. Might be as pm3 are underpowered directly with iphone, but stating that such as DAC's advertised devices are only marketing trick and all I'm hearing is placebo is a bit ignorant. If iphone would be able to play with my equipment I would be happy, but it doesn't cut it for me even if people try to state differently. I doubt that those expensive, full sized dac's are bought by majority only for dac purpose..I won't be surprised if they offer connectivity/eq/amplification/clean circuit or whatever other reason


The irony is that some popular DAC chips offer internal EQ options. I'm guessing that most DAC manufacturers just don't want to bother with a user interface, or maybe they consider it's not a DAC's job? 
DAPs tend to make more use of those internal goodies(EQ, filter choices, volume control...).


----------



## castleofargh

lapzoo said:


> Something funny: I installed Equalizer APO about two weeks ago, because I wasn't all that satisfied with how my headphones sounded. So played around with the frequencies, adjusting it more and more to my preferred sound. I felt I was coming closer to it. Maybe an hour or so passed, while I tested everything with my favorite music. Only thing bugging me was it was still a tad too harsh somewhere in the treble. So to find out which region I'm most sensitive to, I dragged the high frequencies all the way up... Wait a minute, why do I hear no huge difference? It should blow my ears away, or not? Turned out I didn't install the software correctly -- my brain fooled me this whole time. I was hearing the same damn sound this complete last hour.
> 
> I knew the Placebo effect could be strong, but this really left me quite shocked.


I can't count how many times I've "successfully" fine tuned my EQ while bypass was active .


----------



## KeithPhantom (Jul 9, 2020)

Bozzunter said:


> I don’t know man, I have HD650 and their veil is insufferable, they sound even muffled to my ears.






I wouldn't call this veiled, except for the bass, this is one of the best FR measurements I've ever seen. This neither veiled nor muffled objectively, but you may prefer more treble, which deviates from objectively neutral.


Bozzunter said:


> We both agree that the performance per dollar of every high end is between bad and horrible. I paid 1250€ for my HD800s three years ago and I can’t say they weren’t worth it, but that’s 450€ less than the official price. The problem is the last three years, where every brand but Sennheiser went berserk with less and less justifiable offers.






I agree, this FR is scary bright. Peaks of 6 and 11 kHz almost 10 dB up from the reference level (90 dB) and the average level of the treble is way too high. For me, they are worth not more than half their original MRSP. Part of the price came from the R&D these headphones received (about 6 years) and all the aspects that were analyzed before even designing the first prototype. It is wild that this is the result of all of that.

EDIT: thanks to Solderdude from DIY-Audio-Heaven for posting these measurements.


----------



## bigshot

Maybe they should make a placebo equalizer for fine tuning bias! It could be like a child’s busy box with a dial for soundstage width, a veil lifter switch, and a microtransients lever.


----------



## pfzar (Jul 9, 2020)

Reminds me of so many times in the music industry working with singers. I need more reverb or more EQ. Touch the wrong knob. Turn the back and forth.  Is that good?  Perfect. On we go.


bigshot said:


> Maybe they should make a placebo equalizer for fine tuning bias! It could be like a child’s busy box with a dial for soundstage width, a veil lifter switch, and a microtransients lever.


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 10, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I honestly would much rather have a small portable parametric equalizer with an amp than a DAC with an amp. I wish there was something like that, but the average audiophile hasn't made any effort to learn how to EQ. It isn't hard, but it takes an organized process. Presets are pointless. Every set of headphones is different and requires a specific setting. But it's possible to make mid-range cans sound just as good as high end ones with careful equalization.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some of these EQ presets are really good and does the job for me, but EQ'ing manually has it's limitations as well, my colleague was trying to set his HD650 close to my PM-3 sound and while he got closer with one music track, once I put something more bass heavier hd650 started to burp. As well he struggled to bring whole sound of HD650 to sound as clean and detailed as pm3. With some models I do not get that whole rave. Audio shops in my country does not have wide selection of hp, but every shop that I visit and ask for set of hp they offer me one of the senheiser6xx series.  My a bit pricey pm-3 beats these series in every aspect of the sound and it's a more portable closed back. I was  expecting larger soundstage due to openback design, but nothing like that...Is it because of the sentiments of these hd series or it's just me that misses something ?


----------



## Slaphead

bigshot said:


> Maybe they should make a placebo equalizer for fine tuning bias! It could be like a child’s busy box with a dial for soundstage width, a veil lifter switch, and a microtransients lever.



Stick it in milled aluminium and you could flog it for 30K


----------



## KeithPhantom

Slaphead said:


> Stick it in milled aluminium and you could flog it for 30K


You just need to sell with a huge markup, you don't need volume to cover your operating costs. It is a great business idea.


----------



## Bozzunter

bigshot said:


> Maybe they should make a placebo equalizer for fine tuning bias! It could be like a child’s busy box with a dial for soundstage width, a veil lifter switch, and a microtransients lever.


As a matter of fact, it’s a widely implemented idea. My iBasso DX220 has 8 filters and they change absolutely nothing, to the point that even in the reviews (where if you turn up or down the DAP, if has an effect on the ‘signature’) they mentioned the lack of any effect whatsoever.

Let’s talk about Chord Hugo 2, whose filters through colored buttons should be audible only in high res music based on what Rob Watts says. And the list could go on forever.

Or perhaps you’re complaining that nothing like that exists with equalizers? 😁


----------



## KeithPhantom

Bozzunter said:


> My iBasso DX220 has 8 filters and they change absolutely nothing


Usually, filters have more effect in the transition band (from where it starts to cut up to Fs/2). Sometimes, intermodulation distortion that can be created by the aliased frequencies (assuming slow-cut-off filters with gentler slopes than the regular linear-phase filter) does not produce enough amplitude to be heard.


----------



## bigshot

hakunamakaka said:


> EQ'ing manually has it's limitations as well, my colleague was trying to set his HD650 close to my PM-3 sound and while he got closer with one music track, once I put something more bass heavier hd650 started to burp.



Inexperienced people tend to EQ on the extremes on bass and treble. They don't realize that the sound they are wanting to change is an octave or two lower than the band they're adjusting. They end up doing a great big boost in a range their cans can't produce or their ears can't hear and it causes distortion. There as some headphones that can't do bass at all, but I'm quite sure the HD650 is able to be EQed to match your PM-3s pretty closely.


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> but I'm quite sure the HD650 i


The HD 650 are only missing output from 20 to 40 Hz, they actually are at the reference level at 50 Hz, my main problem with them is the rather high distortion compared with my LCD-2 (but those are uncomfortable to wear for more than 30 minutes).


----------



## bigshot

Many headphones perform poorly at the bottom octave. If you want that, you need a subwoofer. What range do you hear distortion in? I have HD-590s and they don't distort.


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> Many headphones perform poorly at the bottom octave. If you want that, you need a subwoofer. What range do you hear distortion in? I have HD-590s and they don't distort.


The distortion of these is mainly high in the bass frequencies (20-50 Hz)




Everything over 1% is not optimal for small transducers such as headphones. Even though it isn't clearly audible for some, it can color the sound for me (-40 dB is pretty high for my liking).

About the sub, I'll get one right when I can get my first speaker system set up.


----------



## bigshot

Then I would guess that the fella who was EQing probably pushed the sub bass up into clipping. If he had just avoided boosting that last octave, it probably would have sounded pretty close.


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> Then I would guess that the fella who was EQing probably pushed the sub bass up into clipping. If he had just avoided boosting that last octave, it probably would have sounded pretty close.


Yes, but that also depends on the average level of the music, if the bass is down and the driver doesn't have that much distortion, it can handle some intensive EQ before it starts to creep up. We would have to know more specific to address his case.


----------



## bigshot

Sub bass is the range a lot of inexperienced people make errors when EQing. It isn't used in a lot of music, so if a person uses a song like that to EQ to, they can boost the non-existent sub bass along with the mid bass and not realize they're pushing it too high. Then they put on a hip hop song with tons of sub bass and it booms. Super common mistake. I've made it myself on occasion!


----------



## Davesrose

One thing I have enjoyed about planar headphones is a pretty good linear bass region.  I don't listen to music genres that boost bass/sub-bass...but some that extend into lower registers.  Examples being some alternative and electronic.  Also have cathedral pipe organ music of Bach that really goes down (and sounds great with a good speaker system).    Another factor with sub-bass is how much of that region is beyond auditory senses and more physical senses.  I find I have quite a few more recent movies mixed in Atmos that take full use of LFE and boost sub-bass in a controlled manner to have some visceral impact when called for.


----------



## bigshot

Movies are where I have run into problems EQing sub bass in the past. At the end of Cabin in the Woods, there is a scene that has a continuous sub bass rumble that is close to the edge of audibility. The walls started rattling like crazy, even turning the overall volume level down didn't help. I had to do a little EQ tweak down low to fix it. It was one of those sounds you feel more than you hear.


----------



## Davesrose (Jul 10, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Movies are where I have run into problems EQing sub bass in the past. At the end of Cabin in the Woods, there is a scene that has a continuous sub bass rumble that is close to the edge of audibility. The walls started rattling like crazy, even turning the overall volume level down didn't help. I had to do a little EQ tweak down low to fix it. It was one of those sounds you feel more than you hear.




Yeah, I also found that beginning of Blade Runner 2049 will really rattle the house when there's the begining scene of a close up of eye going to landscapes of protein farms and surrounds of an airborne car (you could hear the boom as well as feel it). Made for dramatic effects....makes me wonder how Denis Villeneuve's production will be for Dune.  For most movies, I have the set subwoofer level I've set.  Only on occasion do I find a track where it seems too powerful, and I have my remote app on my phone (where it's quick for me to lower the subwoofer level).  I can also be this anal about picture quality as well...I find I can get to my picture profile to lower or raise brightness a few points  just to maximize best black point on my OLED for that presentation!


----------



## castleofargh

KeithPhantom said:


> The distortion of these is mainly high in the bass frequencies (20-50 Hz)
> 
> 
> Everything over 1% is not optimal for small transducers such as headphones. Even though it isn't clearly audible for some, it can color the sound for me (-40 dB is pretty high for my liking).
> ...


For clarity, when you see a spike at 50 or 60Hz(depending on the country) on graphs like those, assume it's bleeding signal from the power line. It usually is. I get spikes like that anytime I measure stuff with a quiet test signal(which usually alerts me that I messed up my calibration).
My THD measurements are almost always higher than those made with good rigs in a quiet environment, and I almost always have a lot of crap showing up in the sub range(part of that being noises from down in the valley that I can't avoid). Even then my result is for the most part, more generous than your graph. Which makes it suspicious in my eyes as I expect to always have among the most THD with my cheapo crap rigs(yeahhh! Number one in THD!!!!)^_^.




Taken with sweep reaching 90dB SPL @1kHz.


I'm not trying to argue that the HD650 doesn't distort audibly in the low end, it most likely does.
In term of personal impressions and preferences, I would not hesitate a second to throw away the HD650 for the low end of the LCD2. I can't say by ear what is frequency response, what is distortion, what is DD vs planar; so I can only guess why I feel the way I do, and THD has pretty poor correlation with impressions so that doesn't help much. But I did enjoy the sound of the LCD2 more. Too bad I can get comfy for hours with the 650 and couldn't with the LCD2 :'(


----------



## KeithPhantom

castleofargh said:


> For clarity, when you see a spike at 50 or 60Hz(depending on the country) on graphs like those, assume it's bleeding signal from the power line. It usually is. I get spikes like that anytime I measure stuff with a quiet test signal(which usually alerts me that I messed up my calibration).
> My THD measurements are almost always higher than those made with good rigs in a quiet environment, and I almost always have a lot of crap showing up in the sub range(part of that being noises from down in the valley that I can't avoid). Even then my result is for the most part, more generous than your graph. Which makes it suspicious in my eyes as I expect to always have among the most THD with my cheapo crap rigs(yeahhh! Number one in THD!!!!)^_^.
> 
> Taken with sweep reaching 90dB SPL @1kHz.
> ...


I know, I never considered the spikes, only the average sloping level of the signals.


----------



## hakunamakaka

bigshot said:


> Inexperienced people tend to EQ on the extremes on bass and treble. They don't realize that the sound they are wanting to change is an octave or two lower than the band they're adjusting. They end up doing a great big boost in a range their cans can't produce or their ears can't hear and it causes distortion. There as some headphones that can't do bass at all, but I'm quite sure the HD650 is able to be EQed to match your PM-3s pretty closely.





bigshot said:


> Inexperienced people tend to EQ on the extremes on bass and treble. They don't realize that the sound they are wanting to change is an octave or two lower than the band they're adjusting. They end up doing a great big boost in a range their cans can't produce or their ears can't hear and it causes distortion. There as some headphones that can't do bass at all, but I'm quite sure the HD650 is able to be EQed to match your PM-3s pretty closely.



Might be that the coll


bigshot said:


> Inexperienced people tend to EQ on the extremes on bass and treble. They don't realize that the sound they are wanting to change is an octave or two lower than the band they're adjusting. They end up doing a great big boost in a range their cans can't produce or their ears can't hear and it causes distortion. There as some headphones that can't do bass at all, but I'm quite sure the HD650 is able to be EQed to match your PM-3s pretty closely.



I’m not sure if hd650 can be EQed close pm3. When hd650 was EQed, it got bassier but just not the same bass, more into boomy and loose side, while my planars had that tightness and texture to it. On pm3 with bass heavy tracks I could feel that air pressure and with proper amping my headphone cups would even rattle without any distortion. There was something in mid range as well, especially in vocals that differed between those two HP. I’m not sure if all sound characteristics reflects in those frequency graphs, but the way I think it’s just different driver. Planar HP was the best audio buy for me so far...and raised SQ bar very high


----------



## bigshot (Jul 11, 2020)

The last octaves on either end of the audible range are the least important. What I would recommend is to attenuate the sub bass to avoid clipping or distortion. Maybe do a roll off below 40. Sub bass is rarely very prevalent in headphones anyway, and it's the core frequencies that really give a set of cans its unique personality. I think you'll also find that there is considerable variation in response from one set of a particular make and model and another. High end cans aren't necessarily better quality, they just meet more exacting standards. The designer at Oppo told me that the PM-1s had a tolerance of +/-1dB, while the industry average is +/-3dB. He said that they rejected a lot of copies of the PM-1s that didn't meet spec. I suspect that those were recycled into the PM-2s and PM-3s. It's possible that the three models are just different degrees of deviation from the target curve.

Frequency response is the principle difference between different headphones. It's the level of the various frequencies of sound... that is exactly what you are hearing. Distortion is a deviation from accurate reproduction of the signal. That is much less prevalent in headphones than speakers, yet speakers can sound better than headphones. The only problem is at the top octave and the bottom octave where it is harder for headphones to produce controlled sound. But that doesn't matter as much because those frequencies aren't always in recorded music and they're at the edge of our ability to hear anyway. As long as they are kept out of clipping, that should be good enough. The bulk of bass response is above 40Hz, and the bulk of treble is below 10kHz.


----------



## old tech

I think this thread has totally deviated from the header topic.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 11, 2020)

Then point us to a new test not mentioned in the original post and we’ll discuss it! Maybe this one... https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993 Are there any details on the test anywhere?


----------



## hakunamakaka

bigshot said:


> The last octaves on either end of the audible range are the least important. What I would recommend is to attenuate the sub bass to avoid clipping or distortion. Maybe do a roll off below 40. Sub bass is rarely very prevalent in headphones anyway, and it's the core frequencies that really give a set of cans its unique personality. I think you'll also find that there is considerable variation in response from one set of a particular make and model and another. High end cans aren't necessarily better quality, they just meet more exacting standards. The designer at Oppo told me that the PM-1s had a tolerance of +/-1dB, while the industry average is +/-3dB. He said that they rejected a lot of copies of the PM-1s that didn't meet spec. I suspect that those were recycled into the PM-2s and PM-3s. It's possible that the three models are just different degrees of deviation from the target curve.
> 
> Frequency response is the principle difference between different headphones. It's the level of the various frequencies of sound... that is exactly what you are hearing. Distortion is a deviation from accurate reproduction of the signal. That is much less prevalent in headphones than speakers, yet speakers can sound better than headphones. The only problem is at the top octave and the bottom octave where it is harder for headphones to produce controlled sound. But that doesn't matter as much because those frequencies aren't always in recorded music and they're at the edge of our ability to hear anyway. As long as they are kept out of clipping, that should be good enough. The bulk of bass response is above 40Hz, and the bulk of treble is below 10kHz.




Oppo PM-1 has bigger driver than PM-3 and I believe is way better sounding HP.  I’m wondering as well if these paid bit perfect players like audirvana make an audible SQ difference between itunes or streaming services


----------



## bigshot

I tried audirvana and didn't like it. The interface is really clunky. Or at least it was when I tried it. I doubt there is any difference in sound quality. My Macs are all audibly transparent. It doesn't get any better than that.

Maybe the PM-2s were the PM-1s that didn't meet spec.


----------



## KeithPhantom

hakunamakaka said:


> Oppo PM-1 has bigger driver than PM-3 and I believe is way better sounding HP. I’m wondering as well if these paid bit perfect players like audirvana make an audible SQ difference between itunes or streaming services


Changes in sound quality by software are really minor (unless you are talking about lossy compression), if the software is well-designed, the differences between "bit-perfect" and processed audio (usually up/downsampling, but it can be also EQ or other DSP) are minor and inaudible.


----------



## KeithPhantom (Jul 11, 2020)

bigshot said:


> The last octaves on either end of the audible range are the least important. What I would recommend is to attenuate the sub bass to avoid clipping or distortion. Maybe do a roll off below 40.


Many mixing engineers just high-pass everything in the bass ranges at even higher frequencies, so you're not even listening to the original content at those frequencies.


----------



## KeithPhantom

hakunamakaka said:


> Oppo PM-1 has bigger driver than PM-3


Larger drivers are a trade-off. You can get more bass presence by moving more air with larger drivers at the cost of increased distortion (smaller drivers distort less) and less control over the driver (regardless of the technology).


----------



## hakunamakaka

KeithPhantom said:


> Many mixing engineers just high-pass everything in the bass ranges at even higher frequencies, so you're not even listening to the original content at those frequencies.



Bet there are lots of music based for such low frequencies especially in electronic. I don't believe that EQ is a holy grail unless I will see it, but so far whole days effort didn't brought dynamic headphone bass sounding close to planar. 



bigshot said:


> I tried audirvana and didn't like it. The interface is really clunky. Or at least it was when I tried it. I doubt there is any difference in sound quality. My Macs are all audibly transparent. It doesn't get any better than that.
> 
> Maybe the PM-2s were the PM-1s that didn't meet spec.




Yes PM-2 is a lower class sibling of PM-1. I'm demoing audirvana and I can tell that at least music can sound louder there it's just I don't have many flac/loosless music if that makes a difference as well..


----------



## KeithPhantom

hakunamakaka said:


> Bet there are lots of music based for such low frequencies especially in electronic.


Not quite, the bulk of the bass (even for bass-heavy songs) is from 40 Hz upwards. Humans can detect those frequencies, but they are interpreted as deep rumbles instead of sound, so headphones just aren't able to replicate speakers in that area (no body transfer possible with such small transducers). 




hakunamakaka said:


> I don't believe that EQ is a holy grail unless I will see it


If the driver is nimble enough and doesn't distort much when forced to do extra work at specific frequencies, EQ can totally change their FR. It is pretty powerful but I agree, it cannot change bad headphones or speakers to sound like good ones. 






hakunamakaka said:


> but so far whole days effort didn't brought dynamic headphone bass sounding close to planar.


What is "planar bass"? If you mean faster decay and lower distortion in that area, you can achieve that only by designing a better driver, no EQ can help you to achieve better decay or distortion characteristics. EQ only digitally boosts or cuts frequencies, it doesn't change the physical behavior of the driver.


----------



## hakunamakaka

HD650 didn


KeithPhantom said:


> Not quite, the bulk of the bass (even for bass-heavy songs) is from 40 Hz upwards. Humans can detect those frequencies, but they are interpreted as deep rumbles instead of sound, so headphones just aren't able to replicate speakers in that area (no body transfer possible with such small transducers).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I might not be good with describing sound, but for me my pm-3 bass was tight, more controlled, faster and created more air pressure maybe as it is closed back.  My colleague was convinced  that he can emulate this, but whole day spend and all he could do is to bring hd650 to more boomy side or even to the point where it starts to burp. When we switched from laptop to amped source pm-3 opened up even more while I couldn’t tell much difference on HD650. Felt like planar driver had way more breathing space to increase quantity and quality  of bass.


----------



## KeithPhantom

hakunamakaka said:


> HD650 didn
> 
> I might not be good with describing sound, but for me my pm-3 bass was tight, more controlled, faster and created more air pressure maybe as it is closed back.  My colleague was convinced  that he can emulate this, but whole day spend and all he could do is to bring hd650 to more boomy side or even to the point where it starts to burp. When we switched from laptop to amped source pm-3 opened up even more while I couldn’t tell much difference on HD650. Felt like planar driver had way more breathing space to increase quantity and quality  of bass.


Subjectively, I find the bass in my HD 6XX and my LCD-2 F to be really close. But I'm able to trade some bass quality for comfort in my case (the LCD-2 are really uncomfortable)


----------



## bigshot

hakunamakaka said:


> I might not be good with describing sound, but for me my pm-3 bass was tight, more controlled, faster and created more air pressure maybe as it is closed back.



And as I already explained, it sounds like your friend was boosting largely inaudible sub bass frequencies to the point of causing the bass to distort and clip. EQ is a tool you have to learn how to use. It isn't intuitive and you can make mistakes very easily. But if you use it well, it can make a set of midrange cans sound very, very close to high end ones. I have PM-1s and I have no doubt that I could take a set of HD-650s and make them sound almost identical.


----------



## castleofargh

hakunamakaka said:


> HD650 didn
> 
> I might not be good with describing sound, but for me my pm-3 bass was tight, more controlled, faster and created more air pressure maybe as it is closed back.  My colleague was convinced  that he can emulate this, but whole day spend and all he could do is to bring hd650 to more boomy side or even to the point where it starts to burp. When we switched from laptop to amped source pm-3 opened up even more while I couldn’t tell much difference on HD650. Felt like planar driver had way more breathing space to increase quantity and quality  of bass.


I agree with bigshot on EQ not being intuitive and needing learning. It's treacherous because it does seem way more intuitive than it is. I also don't think that adjusting an EQ based on 2 FR graphs from a dummy head is the right method. Because the dummy doesn't have our ears so there will most likely be some remaining variations when for example one driver is much larger than the other like is probably the case here.
The best approach would probably be to use binaural mics and measure both headphones on the listener himself, then adjust the FR and confirm the result with another measurement. That IMO should us get pretty close subjectively(so long as neither headphone has very noticeable distortions, natively or as a result of the EQ).

Maybe it's not something obvious for everybody, but adjusting only the bass is a mistake if the point if to try and get similar subjective impression of bass. We get our impression from the global signature. Plus, many bassy sounds have an initial impact with higher frequency content, so we may need to account for that.

On the Realiser A16, the simulation is calibrated using only the frequency response of the headphone. When the very same mics and input are creating a full impulse response when measuring the speakers+room. It should be trivial for them to also do that for the headphone if they thought it would make a decisive difference, yet they decided to only bother with the frequency response. It's an anecdote but as it's about a device aimed specifically at simulating certain subjective impressions while trying to remove/limit the impact of the headphone used, I think it supports the idea that getting the frequency response right is most of what we need subjectively from a headphone (again, with the assumption that it won't cause loud distortions and that it can be EQed the way we want it to be).


----------



## sander99

I agree with the main message of your post, but have some doubts about the following:


castleofargh said:


> It should be trivial for them to also do that for the headphone if they thought it would make a decisive difference, yet they decided to only bother with the frequency response.


I suspect it is a bit more complicated. What is measured in the PRIR is "re-enacted" on playback, that is easy with convolution.
But what is measured in the HPEQ is compensated at playback. How would you compensate for the time a driver needs to come to a halt? How would you compensate for reflections in the cups? I don't think that is something you can (completely) do with convolution. Remember there are such things as functions for which there exists no inverse function. In a way I think it is a lucky coincidence that the compensating part works good enough with EQ only.
Look at the "re-enactment" part another way: adding reflections and reverb etc. is easy, but the inverse operation: removing them?


----------



## castleofargh

sander99 said:


> I agree with the main message of your post, but have some doubts about the following:
> 
> I suspect it is a bit more complicated. What is measured in the PRIR is "re-enacted" on playback, that is easy with convolution.
> But what is measured in the HPEQ is compensated at playback. How would you compensate for the time a driver needs to come to a halt? How would you compensate for reflections in the cups? I don't think that is something you can (completely) do with convolution. Remember there are such things as functions for which there exists no inverse function. In a way I think it is a lucky coincidence that the compensating part works good enough with EQ only.
> Look at the "re-enactment" part another way: adding reflections and reverb etc. is easy, but the inverse operation: removing them?


Sure. When I said trivial, it was about deciding to use more than FR, not that effectively compensating for more would always be trivial(or possible). Even EQ cannot correct all causes of FR variations if we go that way.


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 13, 2020)

Totally agree that you can EQ things to greatly increase SQ of HP, but for regular person like me, simply can't be bothered. Even when buying audio gear, the sound that excites me most at the shop, I find it  later hard to listen for long sessions. Can't make correct, quick decisions and need more time with hp/iem either to fall in love or dislike their sound signature, adding EQ'ing while not knowing what to do and how it should sound it's too much of the hassle. Multiple IEM's where bought which where highly praised here, but was not making me happy(lots of details, precision, but sounding unnatural/aggressive for me). When I saved money and bought musical iem instead, I'm close to my honeymoon as I was with pm3. I can't justify it's price, but at the end of the day it's the sound that keeps my toe tapping, no bothering of what and how sound signature needs to be fixed, just plug to a phone+ dac/amp and play. Either way you choose to reach your goal, buying gear/modifying sound with software,  at the end we are all here for the same


----------



## bigshot (Jul 13, 2020)

For casual listening, like on the go where you're contending with street noise, etc. there's no reason to EQ. It's more for when you are listening carefully at home. When you use EQ regularly, you learn to listen more critically and identify specific frequency bands. You'll find that your tastes in tone aren't as random. You determine a target response curve and prefer that when you're listening seriously. A balanced response benefits more than just tone. It also can make music sound clearer by eliminating masking. But if you get really good headphones that are the way you want them out of the box, that is the best of all. Unfortunately, that can be expensive.

Of course it's fine to just follow the breeze of your subjective feelings and just do what feels good at the time. But that isn't really the topic of this particular forum.


----------



## hakunamakaka

bigshot said:


> For casual listening, like on the go where you're contending with street noise, etc. there's no reason to EQ. It's more for when you are listening carefully at home. When you use EQ regularly, you learn to listen more critically and identify specific frequency bands. You'll find that your tastes in tone aren't as random. You determine a target response curve and prefer that when you're listening seriously. A balanced response benefits more than just tone. It also can make music sound clearer by eliminating masking. But if you get really good headphones that are the way you want them out of the box, that is the best of all. Unfortunately, that can be expensive.
> 
> Of course it's fine to just follow the breeze of your subjective feelings and just do what feels good at the time. But that isn't really the topic of this particular forum.




My old pm3 holds it's test of time. I get easily drawn into music with them and they are the reason why many times I had to go to work with little sleep. Maybe I haven't heard true high end sound, but am I missing a lot ? I've seen headphones going to ridiculous prices and needing a proper standalone amplifier. For me it's hard to imagine that SQ could go that much better...


----------



## bigshot (Jul 14, 2020)

There is absolutely no reason to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading. If you can identify some aspect of sound that is lacking, then you can look for something to solve that problem. But if it sounds good to you, there is no reason to buy something more expensive at random in the hopes that because it costs more, it will sound better. Random changes bring random results. Analyzing your sound and identifying problems is the way to improve sound. Very few audiophiles seem to realize that. They get sucked into consumerism and mistakenly correlate sound fidelity and price. Price, sound quality and musical quality are three completely separate things. If you want to understand them, you have to learn the terminology and how each of the aspects you are considering works.


----------



## hakunamakaka

bigshot said:


> There is absolutely no reason to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading. If you can identify some aspect of sound that is lacking, then you can look for something to solve that problem. But if it sounds good to you, there is no reason to buy something more expensive at random in the hopes that because it costs more, it will sound better. Random changes bring random results. Analyzing your sound and identifying problems is the way to improve sound. Very few audiophiles seem to realize that. They get sucked into consumerism and mistakenly correlate sound fidelity and price. Price, sound quality and musical quality are three completely separate things. If you want to understand them, you have to learn the terminology and how each of the aspects you are considering works.



I do not see any issues with my old HP and I still mainly lean to them even after many purchases. Someone said that because of long-term and excessive listening through the same HP I've got a "brain burn in" and now it's hard to quickly appreciate different sound. Curiosity of trying new stuff drew me forward, but I was not ending in a happy place. Once I shifted my focus back to music itself, I forgot about the need to upgrade and become happy listener again. Well at least I learned that no IEM can emulate the sound of full sized headphones


----------



## bigshot

Buy music that is new to you. That’s a much better way to blind buy.


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> There is absolutely no reason to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading. If you can identify some aspect of sound that is lacking, then you can look for something to solve that problem. But if it sounds good to you, there is no reason to buy something more expensive at random in the hopes that because it costs more, it will sound better. Random changes bring random results. Analyzing your sound and identifying problems is the way to improve sound. Very few audiophiles seem to realize that. They get sucked into consumerism and mistakenly correlate sound fidelity and price. Price, sound quality and musical quality are three completely separate things. If you want to understand them, you have to learn the terminology and how each of the aspects you are considering works.


This is gospel and perfectly explains why I am not an audiophile (they usually do not take measurements in consideration too).


----------



## Bozzunter

bigshot said:


> And as I already explained, it sounds like your friend was boosting largely inaudible sub bass frequencies to the point of causing the bass to distort and clip. EQ is a tool you have to learn how to use. It isn't intuitive and you can make mistakes very easily. But if you use it well, it can make a set of midrange cans sound very, very close to high end ones. I have PM-1s and I have no doubt that I could take a set of HD-650s and make them sound almost identical.



I want to reply also to another post where you talked about EQ. See, like you say almost no one knows how to use it, myself included.

Let’s leave alone the fact that EQ is a blasphemy for a “real audiophile”, I am well past that. Let’s also leave alone the fact that my knowledge is nil: I could find several EQ settings to be used in order to make my Focal Elegia sound well (its mids are insufferable to my ears).

The issue, in my case, is the convenience that’s often mentioned in this forum when talking about DAPs. Sure, you have your collection of music and there are plenty of options. But what about streaming, and specifically, streaming through Spotify? There was a time where I used to swear Tidal sounded better, now I believe it’s placebo and little else. I have my 7 year listening history in Spotify, 500 artists I am notified of when they release something, etc... And in Spotify you can NOT have parametric equalizer. I tried suggested configurations for fixed band equalizers and nothing come close to what I get with a parametric equalizer.

So, back to square one, I’d rather use headphones which do NOT need an equalizer to sound good. Sennheiser HD800s? Hell yeah. Audeze Sine (purchased at $220 second hand), perfect as well. The rest of my options is painfully uncomfortable, so much as I have to use a DAP. Because let’s talk about parametric equalizer on an iPhone. There you cannot stream anything, there is no USB Audio Player.


----------



## bigshot

That certainly is a drawback to streaming. Right now, I only use EQ on my speaker system. I got headphones that I'm happy with without EQ. That may be your only option.


----------



## James-uk

bigshot said:


> That certainly is a drawback to streaming. Right now, I only use EQ on my speaker system. I got headphones that I'm happy with without EQ. That may be your only option.


Out of interest, which headphones do you use? And does their frequency response come close to your EQ’d speaker system?


----------



## bigshot

Oppo PM-1. They come as close to balanced as headphones can get for my particular target curve. The only thing missing is sub bass (naturally) and the upper mids are boosted about 2dB- that’s close enough for government work.


----------



## KeithPhantom (Jul 17, 2020)

James-uk said:


> which headphones do you use?


I use my LCD-2 more than my other headphones, I just like that they improve over the HD 6X0 family (except the weight). But if there is a better headphone improving the HD 6X0 family, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Bozzunter

As I previously said, the Sennheiser HD6x0 is mentioned a lot but in my opinion it’s by far the ‘less good’ (I’d say the worst) of my small collection.

You said that the 800s are too bright and you have the 800 anyway. I’d be really curious to see how big is the difference between them, but I’m unlikely to have the chance.

Please try the Audeze Sine. They’re a bargain, they have a lightning cable for direct connection to iPhones and 10 band equalization (not for you) and the normal audio cable is also perfect. No equalization needed at all, sorry not to use the usual flurry of useless terms like more spacious, detailed, etc but HD6x0 are absolutely no match to them. Someone claims they have a substantial clamping force but I find this BS. Besides, there are pads in the aftermarket which can be to everyone’s taste, and if you can live with LCD-2, I guess you could also be punched on your face while listening and you wouldn’t care. 😁

I’d be very hard pressed to find headphones with a better price/quality ratio. There’s also the open version but I never tried it, although I’d buy it in a heartbeat if I found them in Europe.


----------



## Blackwoof

Bozzunter said:


> I want to reply also to another post where you talked about EQ. See, like you say almost no one knows how to use it, myself included.
> 
> Let’s leave alone the fact that EQ is a blasphemy for a “real audiophile”, I am well past that. Let’s also leave alone the fact that my knowledge is nil: I could find several EQ settings to be used in order to make my Focal Elegia sound well (its mids are insufferable to my ears).
> 
> ...



Or buy Win 10 tablet with APO installed, Use BT dac for to power any $220+ headphone?. If only microsoft suppourted 64bit Arm CPU's on phones.


----------



## Bozzunter

Blackwoof said:


> Or buy Win 10 tablet with APO installed, Use BT dac for to power any $220+ headphone?. If only microsoft suppourted 64bit Arm CPU's on phones.


Well in this case a DAP is surely more practical, considering that I would also use an iPad 😬


----------



## KeithPhantom

Bozzunter said:


> You said that the 800s are too bright and you have the 800 anyway. I’d be really curious to see how big is the difference between them, but I’m unlikely to have the chance.


With EQ they are great, but they feel like you're sitting 20 seats away from the musicians. The directionality and separation are exaggerated for my liking (my LCD-2 do that in a more natural way). FR, they are great with my EQ preset, but my problem is moving my EQ between devices (some of my sources don't support EQ). 




Bozzunter said:


> Please try the Audeze Sine. They’re a bargain, they have a lightning cable for direct connection to iPhones and 10 band equalization (not for you) and the normal audio cable is also perfect. No equalization needed at all, sorry not to use the usual flurry of useless terms like more spacious, detailed, etc but HD6x0 are absolutely no match to them. Someone claims they have a substantial clamping force but I find this BS. Besides, there are pads in the aftermarket which can be to everyone’s taste, and if you can live with LCD-2, I guess you could also be punched on your face while listening and you wouldn’t care. 😁


I'll see if I can try them. I use my LCD-2 when laying in my bed with some neck support, so they're not an issue. But if I try to sit down without the support, my neck starts complaining.


----------



## Blackwoof

Bozzunter said:


> Well in this case a DAP is surely more practical, considering that I would also use an iPad 😬



Well their Rockbox's PEQ and the newer Fiio DAP's can use neturon wich also has PEQ, Totally forgot about that.


----------



## Bozzunter

Blackwoof said:


> Well their Rockbox's PEQ and the newer Fiio DAP's can use neturon wich also has PEQ, Totally forgot about that.


But Neutron doesn’t have streaming so, for me, back to square one.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Is there any audible SQ difference when passing data with bluetooth or cables ? I've just received portable bluetooth dac/amp and honestly if I'm matching it against my wired S1 without any EQ filters I can't tell any difference between them from any of my HP. I'm not even using their highest bluetooth LDAC codec as I'm stuck with iphone and AAC.


----------



## Bytor123

hakunamakaka said:


> Is there any audible SQ difference when passing data with bluetooth or cables ? I've just received portable bluetooth dac/amp and honestly if I'm matching it against my wired S1 without any EQ filters I can't tell any difference between them from any of my HP. I'm not even using their highest bluetooth LDAC codec as I'm stuck with iphone and AAC.


I'm 56, so my ears will certainly not be the best, but I can't tell any difference at all. Which is great!


----------



## hakunamakaka

Bytor123 said:


> I'm 56, so my ears will certainly not be the best, but I can't tell any difference at all. Which is great!



Honestly I've spent all day trying to spot the difference and couldn't. Seems that soon cables will be the thing of the past and needed only if additional amping is required. I was so skeptical with all that bluetooth SQ while passing the data, but now I don't see any reason to go back to cabled source. If i've got that device earlier much of the money would have been saved :/


----------



## bigshot

hakunamakaka said:


> Is there any audible SQ difference when passing data with bluetooth or cables ?



Back when bluetooth was new, I could barely discern a difference, but I can't any more. The codecs have probably improved.


----------



## Davesrose

hakunamakaka said:


> Is there any audible SQ difference when passing data with bluetooth or cables ? I've just received portable bluetooth dac/amp and honestly if I'm matching it against my wired S1 without any EQ filters I can't tell any difference between them from any of my HP. I'm not even using their highest bluetooth LDAC codec as I'm stuck with iphone and AAC.



AAC is certainly good enough for audio specs.  Most new generations of blue tooth are meant to improve bandwidth for further distance and larger data streams like 4K video.


----------



## dazzerfong

hakunamakaka said:


> Is there any audible SQ difference when passing data with bluetooth or cables ? I've just received portable bluetooth dac/amp and honestly if I'm matching it against my wired S1 without any EQ filters I can't tell any difference between them from any of my HP. I'm not even using their highest bluetooth LDAC codec as I'm stuck with iphone and AAC.



https://btcodecs.valdikss.org.ru/sbc-encoder/

Can test what they sound like here.


----------



## James-uk (Jul 25, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> Is there any audible SQ difference when passing data with bluetooth or cables ? I've just received portable bluetooth dac/amp and honestly if I'm matching it against my wired S1 without any EQ filters I can't tell any difference between them from any of my HP. I'm not even using their highest bluetooth LDAC codec as I'm stuck with iphone and AAC.


I’m in the market for going wireless, which dac/amp did you go for?

Ps: My experience with AirPods Pro has been very good so in want a solution for my headphones now.


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 25, 2020)

dazzerfong said:


> https://btcodecs.valdikss.org.ru/sbc-encoder/
> 
> Can test what they sound like here.



I’m skeptical on such tests. How do they decide through which bitrate music is being transmitted ? Software layer is VERY important here and how it deals in unstable connection, lot's of calculation needs to be done on both ends. Data needs to be compressed to some degree when loss happens and specs listed in bluetooth codecs can mean very little in real-life scenario. Android companies still can't crack AAC codec which is licensed by apple and has no good throughput, but apple folks somehow figured out how to compress data efficiently. Even if you listen loossless/flac format over BT AAC at the end you will  receive compressed AAC file.



Davesrose said:


> AAC is certainly good enough for audio specs.  Most new generations of blue tooth are meant to improve bandwidth for further distance and larger data streams like 4K video.



Bluetooth codecs where made purely for audio transmission and connectivity with devices that doesn't require much data to be passed, don't get mistaken by wireless video streams, these are different beasts with dedicated antennas,  different hardware and protocols are used there. BT could never achieve such speeds and In no shape or form it could deliver video stream, but good thing for us it seems that for audio it doesn't need much. Only issue is pairing and how devices used for audio en-codes and decodes data passed over BT.



James-uk said:


> I’m in the market for going wireless, which dac/amp did you go for?
> 
> Ps: My experience with AirPods Pro has been very good so in want a solution for my headphones now.



I've got Shanling UP4 from aliexpress, it is not even comparable how much better portable solution it is even against the tiniest wired portable dac/amp. Iphones output can't come close to the SQ that this BT dac/amp will deliver. I listen mainly to streams  though and was not able to tell the difference between wired and BT dac/amp. I can't imagine ever again carrying wired dac/amp and being worried about bent cable/loss of signal and just being a messy combo with phone, espeially when you need to use it. My phones battery drain as well is forgotten


----------



## Davesrose

hakunamakaka said:


> Bluetooth codecs where made purely for audio transmission and connectivity with devices that doesn't require much data to be passed, don't get mistaken by wireless video streams, these are different beasts with dedicated antennas,  different hardware and protocols are used there. BT could never achieve such speeds and In no shape or form it could deliver video stream, but good thing for us it seems that for audio it doesn't need much. Only issue is pairing and how devices used for audio en-codes and decodes data passed over BT.



No, bluetooth was created for data transmission, not just audio.  Early applications were also for door locks.  Bluetooth 4.0 has a speed of 25Mbps: high enough for 4K video.  Here are video profiles currently available with Bluetooth:

Audio/Video Assigned Numbers


----------



## castleofargh

hakunamakaka said:


> Bluetooth codecs where made purely for audio transmission and connectivity with devices that doesn't require much data to be passed, don't get mistaken by wireless video streams, these are different beasts with dedicated antennas, different hardware and protocols are used there. BT could never achieve such speeds and In no shape or form it could deliver video stream, but good thing for us it seems that for audio it doesn't need much. Only issue is pairing and how devices used for audio en-codes and decodes data passed over BT.


Under the BT naming, they now use something that's  pretty much wifi. At least it's  way closer to wifi than it is to the original rubbish that was BT back in the days. 
My own experience is that I am now more often annoyed by the hissing amp in some portable headphones, than by any form of audible or practical restriction from BT.


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 25, 2020)

Davesrose said:


> No, bluetooth was created for data transmission, not just audio.  Early applications were also for door locks.  Bluetooth 4.0 has a speed of 25Mbps: high enough for 4K video.  Here are video profiles currently available with Bluetooth:
> 
> Audio/Video Assigned Numbers




This is the link of what bluetooth is “capable” off.. As I said in BT connectivity numbers doesn’t have much in common with real-life experience. Better show me an app/phone that is capable to transmit video over BT. Ok if not found at least give me a codec which transmits video over BT  Large speeds can be achieved with wifi, but many things needs to be considered as well, overlay with other networks, setup, distance. Large part of my job is with such IT infra networks. Don’t missguide people, BT doesn’t have such throughput

BT and wifi are different things, even though the concept looks similar


----------



## Davesrose (Jul 25, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> This is the link of what bluetooth is “capable” off.. As I said in BT connectivity numbers doesn’t have much in common with real-life experience. Better show me an app/phone that is capable to transmit video over BT. Ok if not found at least give me a codec which transmits video over BT  Large speeds can be achieved with wifi, but many things needs to be considered as well, overlay with other networks, setup, distance. Large part of my job is with such IT infra networks
> 
> BT and wifi are different sings, even concept is similar BT won’t be able to achieve what wifi has to offer, but it doesn’t nees to



No, this link lists the actual *current* protocols.  I'm not sure if you read the link, as it clearly states media type 1 is video, and MPEG-4 is an accepted codec (and h.263 is actually an older format).  Probably from when it was first used for connecting digital cameras with cell phonesl. Wifi is more standard for transmitting video, but there are still uses for having point to point data transmission.  I am involved with software development and do know what wifi is, thanks.  I'm also involved with video production.  Your claim that bluetooth won't be able to have speeds for video is easily disproven.  It's even theoritically possible to transmit 4K with BT 4.0: compressed 4K for streaming is usually around 20Mbps.

2014: 6 Bluetooth Enabled Cameras to Connect & Enhance your Smartphone


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 25, 2020)

Davesrose said:


> No, this link lists the actual *current* protocols.  I'm not sure if you read the link, as it clearly states media type 1 is video, and MPEG-4 is an accepted codec (and h.263 is actually an older format).  Probably from when it was first used for connecting digital cameras with cell phonesl. Wifi is more standard for transmitting video, but there are still uses for having point to point data transmission.  I am involved with software development and do know what wifi is, thanks.  I'm also involved with video production.  Your claim that bluetooth won't be able to have speeds for video is easily disproven.  It's even theoritically possible to transmit 4K with BT 4.0: compressed 4K for streaming is usually around 20Mbps.
> 
> 2014: 6 Bluetooth Enabled Cameras to Connect & Enhance your Smartphone



Your link has nothing to do with streaming video/audio and this magical 24mbit/s is not over the bluetooth. Different purpose and different protocols are being used, you should be aware of such in software dev. Streaming audio via BT doesn't have good throughput, no protocols are available for video. Data upload/download works completely different than streaming as it can simply push data in larger chunks without worrying of any latency and simply re-try with any packets lost.

Bluetooth can support old MPEG-4 I'm not denying that, but show me the protocol which carries video stream over BT.

Ignore those "BT" advertised nonsense, they have nothing to do of what we hear and how real BT works in reality. Best guide below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth


In same link you can find BT protocol stack:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth#/media/File:Bluetooth_protokoly.svg


----------



## Davesrose

hakunamakaka said:


> Your link has nothing to do with streaming video/audio and this magical 24mbit/s is not over the bluetooth. Different purpose and different protocols are being used, you should be aware of such in software dev. Streaming audio via BT doesn't have good throughput, no protocols are available for video. Data upload/download works completely different than streaming as it can simply push data in larger chunks without worrying of any latency and simply re-try with any packets lost.
> 
> Ignore those "BT" advertised nonsense, they have nothing to do of what we hear over BT connection. Best guide below:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth



My link does: it shows actual application of an external camera as essentially a webcam for smartphone (what a remote interface uses). I can't believe you're accusing me of misguiding people.  One doesn't need to be in IT: you clearly are not reading any source. You don't believe my source from bluetooth themselves, that list the actual protocols!!  Being in software development, I do have to read what material from the creators of a standard.  I would assume someone who claims to be in IT would also need to.  But an example from a developer forum, that's not some future hypothetical:

2012: Android: How to transfer video and audio via bluetooth connection?
2016: Video Streaming over bluetooth

And apparently, you don't read your link:



> *List of applications*
> 
> Live video streaming to the visual cortical implant device by Nabeel Fattah in Newcastle university 2017.[42]"



And the real indicator...bluetooth has the A/V Distribution Transport Protocol.  If it didn't have video standards, it would be called Audio Transport Protocol....not Audio/Video!!


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 25, 2020)

Davesrose said:


> My link does: it shows actual application of an external camera as essentially a webcam for smartphone (what a remote interface uses). I can't believe you're accusing me of misguiding people.  One doesn't need to be in IT: you clearly are not reading any source. You don't believe my source from bluetooth themselves, that list the actual protocols!!  Being in software development, I do have to read what material from the creators of a standard.  I would assume someone who claims to be in IT would also need to.  But an example from a developer forum, that's not some future hypothetical:
> 
> 2012: Android: How to transfer video and audio via bluetooth connection?
> 2016: Video Streaming over bluetooth
> ...




I don’t want to go back and forth with you. This A/V is just:

“The Audio/Video Distribution Transport Protocol (AVDTP) is used by the advanced audio distribution (A2DP) profile to stream music to stereo headsets over an L2CAPchannel intended for video distribution profile in the Bluetooth”


High throughput over “BT” is basically carried over LAN using protocol IEEE802 and both devices needs to have such. 

Sorry I didn’t want to be rude, but go through wiki page it will explain a lot. If you would be able to push high throughput over BT reliably, you would become very rich  in days time.


----------



## Davesrose

hakunamakaka said:


> I don’t want to go back and forth with you.



Something I agree with: can't have a constructive exchange with someone who denies facts presented to them (*current* BT video protocols).


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jul 25, 2020)

Davesrose said:


> Something I agree with: can't have a constructive exchange with someone who denies facts presented to them (*current* BT video protocols).




correction no dedicated video protocols over BT due to its nature and limitations


----------



## Davesrose

hakunamakaka said:


> correction no dedicated video protocols over BT due to its nature and limitations



Since you have been editing your posts and backpedaling about forms of transmission over bluetooth....bluetooth still has VIDEO protocols (not just audio).  Bluetooth's own site lists numbers for A/*V* distribution for assigning streams.  And as Stack Overflow indicates: bluetooth RFCOMM channels are most used for transmission video.


----------



## hakunamakaka

castleofargh said:


> Under the BT naming, they now use something that's  pretty much wifi. At least it's  way closer to wifi than it is to the original rubbish that was BT back in the days.
> My own experience is that I am now more often annoyed by the hissing amp in some portable headphones, than by any form of audible or practical restriction from BT.




That's true it's simply hidden wifi and has nothing to do with BT connection that we use for music listening. BT technology stays the same it uses shortwaves to connect to devices, only software layer has improved a lot, but it's limited.  I can confirm that apple managed to push very good AAC quality through BT, curious to see how android is working using LDAC or APTx over BT


----------



## hakunamakaka

Davesrose said:


> Since you have been editing your posts and backpedaling about forms of transmission over bluetooth....bluetooth still has VIDEO protocols (not just audio).  Bluetooth's own site lists numbers for A/*V* distribution for assigning streams.  And as Stack Overflow indicates: bluetooth RFCOMM channels are most used for transmission video.




There is no working, officially released protocol that can carry video streaming data on BT.. Yes it is "doable" with RFCOMM and good coding skills, lots of effort and  very bad results at the end. Maybe there is something on stackoverflow I don't know, but I really want to see working BT video stream which in perfect conditions/without any distance to travel for signal and newest BT firmware could push only up to 2Mbit/s. These max 2Mbit/s would start quickly fade a away as soon as you would move devices further from each other.   For the sake of argument and if you try really hard, you can even make the bicycle fly, but it doesn't mean that's right approach.


----------



## PhonoPhi

After all the last comments, it is time to unsubscribe...


----------



## Davesrose

All one has to do is look up RFCOMM to find implementation with several software languages. And with bluetooth 3.0 +HS or 4.0, 25Mbps is possible. The premise was current BT implementations are more than enough bandwidth for transparent audio. I'm not going to continue an endless loop of refusal of ignoring BT protocols or obfuscation of transmission standards in the bluetooth protocols.


----------



## dazzerfong (Jul 25, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> I’m skeptical on such tests. How do they decide through which bitrate music is being transmitted ? Software layer is VERY important here and how it deals in unstable connection, lot's of calculation needs to be done on both ends. Data needs to be compressed to some degree when loss happens and specs listed in bluetooth codecs can mean very little in real-life scenario. Android companies still can't crack AAC codec which is licensed by apple and has no good throughput, but apple folks somehow figured out how to compress data efficiently. Even if you listen loossless/flac format over BT AAC at the end you will  receive compressed AAC file.



Then adjust the quality for SBC. It's a dynamic profile.

AptX is a take-it-or-leave it. You either get the full quality of AptX, or you get glitches. You being skeptical doesn't change the underlying mechanics of it.

AAC is a problem with Android because it can't be decoded/encoded efficiently through hardware. Thus, degrade the quality to improve efficiency. Read this:

https://www.soundguys.com/understanding-bluetooth-codecs-15352/

Funny thing is that SBC actually stomps AAC in terms of frequency response, even on iOS. That being said, testing AAC is the hardest codec due to the high amounts of variability.

AptX though? Easier - every device that supports AptX performs pretty much the same except for dropouts.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Davesrose said:


> All one has to do is look up RFCOMM to find implementation with several software languages. And with bluetooth 3.0 +HS or 4.0, 25Mbps is possible. The premise was current BT implementations are more than enough bandwidth for transparent audio. I'm not going to continue an endless loop of refusal of ignoring BT protocols or obfuscation of transmission standards in the bluetooth protocols.



I agree let's not go off-topic, but BT itself is slow, this +HS is basically Wifi hidden under  BT and uses IEEE 802.11.



dazzerfong said:


> Then adjust the quality for SBC. It's a dynamic profile.
> 
> AptX is a take-it-or-leave it. You either get the full quality of AptX, or you get glitches. You being skeptical doesn't change the underlying mechanics of it.
> 
> ...




AAC is very well done on iOS and I can't sense any difference with wired dac/amp. Only disadvantage is that my iphone starts lagging when I use IEMs over  BT dac/amp and weirdly enough connection dropouts occur when I keep things in different pockets


----------



## Blackwoof

Not really drama worthy, But it really irk's me how quick hydrogenaudio's TOS#8 kills any discussion. I'm not doing a 8/8 trial test to have my lossy opinions deem vaild on a 15sec to 1.5 min sample, Showing artifacts the site knows full well can happen. Even more nightmarish if turns out it encoder bug that wen't ignored like VBR making files be at 96kbps when it needs 192k average or higher, which is a issue on some AAC and mp3 encoders.


----------



## pinnahertz

Blackwoof said:


> Not really drama worthy, But it really irk's me how quick hydrogenaudio's TOS#8 kills any discussion. I'm not doing a 8/8 trial test to have my lossy opinions deem vaild on a 15sec to 1.5 min sample, Showing artifacts the site knows full well can happen. Even more nightmarish if turns out it encoder bug that wen't ignored like VBR making files be at 96kbps when it needs 192k average or higher, which is a issue on some AAC and mp3 encoders.


So you object to their requirement that users making statements about sound quality provide objective support of the claim?  It's a Science-based forum, like this one.  Subjective opinion will always be challenged, because it's so unreliable, even being influenced by input from other sense besides hearing and psychological factors like expectation.  I don't know why anyone, in a Sound Science forum, would have a problem with that.  It takes the "I know what I hear" discussion off the table.  Good riddance.


----------



## Blackwoof

pinnahertz said:


> So you object to their requirement that users making statements about sound quality provide objective support of the claim?  It's a Science-based forum, like this one.  Subjective opinion will always be challenged, because it's so unreliable, even being influenced by input from other sense besides hearing and psychological factors like expectation.  I don't know why anyone, in a Sound Science forum, would have a problem with that.  It takes the "I know what I hear" discussion off the table.  Good riddance.



Wow, Imagine anyone giving a crap about you since your okay assuming people are lying no matter what. I forgot this forum get's offended when Subjective testing is needed to do some tests & tune headphones, Senn & beyer still did by ear tuning like grado despit 95% of is by objective data. I've posted 12 samples there over 3 years so just carry on flaming without reading posts, Which I'm noticing every i say anything here.


----------



## pinnahertz

Blackwoof said:


> Wow, Imagine anyone giving a crap about you since your okay assuming people are lying no matter what. I forgot this forum get's offended when Subjective testing is needed to do some tests & tune headphones, Senn & beyer still did by ear tuning like grado despit 95% of is by objective data. I've posted 12 samples there over 3 years so just carry on flaming without reading posts, Which I'm noticing every i say anything here.


Nobody said anything about you lying, or anybody lying.  There is high value in subjective testing, in fact, it's the only way to ascertain the net audible impact.  The problem is when subjective testing is uncontrolled, and bias is uncontrolled.  It just results in data with a lot of errors in it.  Errors are bad.  Everybody deserves good data.  To do that, and use subjective listening, dictates a certain protocol that is more intensive than casual. It's objective analysis of subjective test data. 

Tuning by ear is valid, but there are right ways and wrong ways to do it.  The headphone curves we're seeing today are the result of scientifically controlled subjective listening tests, but they sure don't come from a guy making a choice without any means of bias control.  They are not simply opinion, they are repeatable across a large group of listeners of various ages and backgrounds, and collected without introducing biases.


----------



## castleofargh

Blackwoof said:


> Wow, Imagine anyone giving a crap about you since your okay assuming people are lying no matter what. I forgot this forum get's offended when Subjective testing is needed to do some tests & tune headphones, Senn & beyer still did by ear tuning like grado despit 95% of is by objective data. I've posted 12 samples there over 3 years so just carry on flaming without reading posts, Which I'm noticing every i say anything here.


This type of response just demonstrates how your subjective impression of something does not always correlate with the facts. Thus making a case to support their rule. Read his post again.

Here we let opinions and really even empty claims fuel the audiophile drama. And while it's a more inclusive approach, I do not know if it's a better one. Most people get mad, like right now.
In any case, to post about not wanting to have to provide a test in the testing thread is an interesting choice.


----------



## danadam

castleofargh said:


> Here we let opinions and really even empty claims fuel the audiophile drama. And while it's a more inclusive approach, I do not know if it's a better one.


It certainly helps creating 15'000 message long threads


----------



## pinnahertz

danadam said:


> It certainly helps creating 15'000 message long threads


Those threads, and the incessantly repeating arguments are why I don't hang around here much anymore.  Too many dead horses being beating.


----------



## Blackwoof

castleofargh said:


> This type of response just demonstrates how your subjective impression of something does not always correlate with the facts. Thus making a case to support their rule. Read his post again.
> 
> Here we let opinions and really even empty claims fuel the audiophile drama. And while it's a more inclusive approach, I do not know if it's a better one. Most people get mad, like right now.
> In any case, to post about not wanting to have to provide a test in the testing thread is an interesting choice.



I really don't why i bother posting here, I'm done peace out.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 18, 2020)

Blackwoof said:


> Wow, Imagine anyone giving a crap about you since your okay assuming people are lying no matter what. I really don't why i bother posting here, I'm done peace out.



The standards for veracity on internet forums and on social media are very, very low. I thought everyone knew that. It shouldn't be surprising that lot of people are deliberately lying online. The internet is a place for subjective self-validation, not objective facts. I think assuming people are lying is a pretty practical place to start from under the circumstances. Lord knows, we've had enough evidence of deliberate obfuscating in this forum to last a lifetime. It's kind of ironic that you would choose this particular thread to express an opinion like that. Have you read the first post? The whole point of this thread is proof through controlled testing.

The other thing that seems to happen over and over is people getting in a huff and announcing that they are leaving. They usually come back and make the same mistakes again... and go through the cycle of revolving doors over and over.

One point that doesn't get made often is that subjective bias is a fine way for you to conduct yourself. Only you know how to please you. The problem comes when you start recommending your subjective biases to other people as facts. You are distinctly unqualified to offer advice based on bias to anyone else, because your biases are almost certainly different than theirs. Around here, we make an effort to back up what we say. If you don't want to bother, that's fine. Just keep your subjectivity to yourself where it belongs.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

bigshot said:


> Around here, we make an effort to back up what we say. If you don't want to bother, that's fine. Just keep your subjectivity to yourself where it belongs.



Pot meet kettle. This is rich coming from a guy whose default position is that anyone who comes in here with a claim is surely a charlatan peddling a ruse. That’s not objective either. That’s starting from a point of bias and it kills open dialogue when you force someone into a defensive position from the jump. There is a way to dialogue without coming across like a damn cross examination in court.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 18, 2020)

Bias towards relying on facts isn't subjective.

When you can't back up what you say, and the evidence piled up in front of you says the exact opposite of what you are claiming, that is the time when you should choose one of two options... 1) shrug your shoulders and move on or 2) do some research to figure out where you went wrong. Getting all butt hurt just makes you look petty and vindictive.

All opinions are NOT created equal. Some opinions are informed and some are ill informed. Evidence is what you use to sort them out, not belligerence. Honestly, I don't know why you keep doing this to yourself. There are dozens of Head-Fi forums where you can share your subjective impressions and have people unquestioningly admire them. This is just the one forum where you can't do that. I think you're in the wrong place.

If you want to shrug your shoulders and move on, please do that. If you want to figure out where you went wrong, do some research and set up your own informal controlled tests.


----------



## bigshot

By the way, I don't have to assume people are charlatans. They usually prove it themselves with their own words.


----------



## magicscreen

Blind testing gives false results.
You hear everything sounding the same.
Only a fool is using blind test to evaluate audio equipment.
Very misguiding procedure. How many people were misguided by that and using a low quality device instead of enjoying a better amp or dac? What a loss.
But I have to admit it is a very clever evil trick to prove that everything sounds the same.


----------



## bigshot

magicscreen said:


> Blind testing gives false results.



Mighty foolish words there. Your bias is stronger than your common sense. Like I say.... they prove it themselves with their words.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Aug 29, 2020)

magicscreen said:


> Blind testing gives false results.


Yes, that can be true sometimes, but not _because_ the test is blind. Rather, because blinding alone is not enough, and ignoring the rest of a proper test design can give false results.



bigshot said:


> By the way, I don't have to assume people are charlatans. They usually prove it themselves with their own words.






For example, claiming to understand proper test design, when they don't. Are you the pot or kettle.... definitely that color.



magicscreen said:


> You hear everything sounding the same.


 Not _because_ a test is blind.


----------



## castleofargh

magicscreen said:


> Blind testing gives false results.
> You hear everything sounding the same.
> Only a fool is using blind test to evaluate audio equipment.
> Very misguiding procedure. How many people were misguided by that and using a low quality device instead of enjoying a better amp or dac? What a loss.
> But I have to admit it is a very clever evil trick to prove that everything sounds the same.


Now because you're totally not a troll, you're going to explain to us what alternative available to the average audiophile, will demonstrably and consistently offer more accurate results in a listening test. I cannot wait to learn about that method and see evidence of its accuracy.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Aug 29, 2020)

castleofargh said:


> Now because you're totally not a troll, you're going to explain to us what alternative available to the average audiophile, will demonstrably and consistently offer more accurate results in a listening test. I cannot wait to learn about that method and see evidence of its accuracy.


If he believes what he is writing and doesn't post here to be intensionally disruptive, then he's not a troll. Being persistently disruptive would make someone a troll. If he wants to civilly and respectfully discuss his beliefs about blind testing on head-fi, this is the right sub-forum... according to the rules, he's not allowed to discuss this outside of Sound Science.

Or did I read the rules wrong?

I'd also like to hear what he believes is better...


----------



## bfreedma

magicscreen said:


> Blind testing gives false results.
> You hear everything sounding the same.
> Only a fool is using blind test to evaluate audio equipment.
> Very misguiding procedure. How many people were misguided by that and using a low quality device instead of enjoying a better amp or dac? What a loss.
> But I have to admit it is a very clever evil trick to prove that everything sounds the same.




Please hurry and inform the medical industry of the efficacy failure of blind testing...

We now return to our regularly scheduled show - "How I murdered the scientific method via being really, really sure the Placebo Effect doesn't exist"


----------



## KeithPhantom

Do not feed the troll, this is a waste of time and resources. Just let him prove his point if he can.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

If the goal is to name-call, browbeat and condescend someone into not posting here:
a-good job
b-shame on you.

I doubt your method will convince many people. If you're so burnt out that you don't want to go over this stuff anymore, just ignore it. You realize this is the right place for his post, don't you? 

IME, most blind tests for audio that are described in forum posts are set up to either reject the null hypothesis or they fail to reject, e.g. a standard ABX. There's nothing wrong with that, if you understand what it means. When people tout a failure to reject as support for the null hypothesis, that leads to :





> But I have to admit it is a very clever evil trick to prove that everything sounds the same.


 And let's be honest, many are set up to fail. 

If you don't have the patience to engage someone in a way that helps them understand, just don't engage. I'm often impatient, but then I just ignore the posts.


----------



## castleofargh (Sep 23, 2020)

SoundAndMotion said:


> If he believes what he is writing and doesn't post here to be intensionally disruptive, then he's not a troll. Being persistently disruptive would make someone a troll. If he wants to civilly and respectfully discuss his beliefs about blind testing on head-fi, this is the right sub-forum... according to the rules, he's not allowed to discuss this outside of Sound Science.
> 
> Or did I read the rules wrong?
> 
> I'd also like to hear what he believes is better...


You're trying to defend the wrong person here IMO. Back in May he even ended up creating a thread to allegedly discuss blind testing in practice. It was some trolling nonsense about a hooligan punching an objectivist. the "story" ended with @magicscreen managing to draw a conclusion that didn't agree with the statistics he had made up for his ad absurdum thought experiment. expert work that got instantly promoted to "deleted thread".


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Aug 29, 2020)

castleofargh said:


> You're trying to defend the wrong person here IMO.



I'm sorry I was unclear in my posts. I was not defending @magicscreen; I was criticizing the responses to him. I didn't know his history, but it wouldn't change what I wrote. I don't see this as an "us vs. them" topic. i see it as those who understand having an opportunity to help those who don't. And regardless of what @magicscreen writes, many people are skeptical of proper testing, and well reasoned and reasonable responses may help those others.  

EDIT: @castleofargh , based on what you wrote, I looked at some of his previous posts. It has lowered my expectations that he’ll have interesting reasons to be skeptical of blind testing. Thanks for the tip. We’ll see if he can manage something response worthy.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 30, 2020)

SoundAndMotion said:


>



Claiming to be able to clearly hear "night and day" differences that are far below the thresholds of human hearing.



SoundAndMotion said:


> If he believes what he is writing and doesn't post here to be intensionally disruptive, then he's not a troll.



Thank you Mr. Dictionary-Definition! What do you call someone who believes what they are saying, but what they are writing is pure cow effluvia? (I added that last word so you could define it for us too!)

Account created two years ago. Only 33 posts, most of them here recently sharing cow effluvia... hmmm...


----------



## SoundAndMotion

I meant you Mr. Pot...
.... and slow too.


----------



## bigshot

I know what you meant. You have a chip on your shoulder (or a stick somewhere else). I don’t disagree with what you say that much, and I haven’t gone out of my way to deliberately make you mad. So I chalk it up to it just being your personality. I’m sure you’re a lot more polite in real life.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

I do have a chip on my shoulder regarding sloppy, easily misinterpreted language. As you know, I've suggested adding, taking away, or modifying a word or two, here or there. You often use sweeping generalizations (notice "often" ≠ "always"), which renders what you say false.. But you complain I'm trying to "put you in a box".
I agree, over a beer, or a coffee, we'd probably get along just fine. The subtle, unspoken gestures and nods would communicate the missing, or refine the sloppy.
Feel free to point out my mistakes; I make them. But I try (and sometimes fail) to acknowledge the correction and be grateful. You fight back.
I'd love a detente.🕊


----------



## bigshot

Why don't you focus on the subject instead of mad dogging me?


----------



## Brahmsian (Sep 5, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Every time a new format comes in, a lot of stuff gets left behind on the old format. There's a vast amount of material that never made it from 78 to LP, from LP to CD, and from CD to streaming.


That reminds me of my favorite piece of music when I was a kid, a track called ”Reap What You Sow” from one of my dad's LPs from a jazz ensemble called San Francisco Ltd. I used to go nuts whenever he played it.





My dad's LP collection is long gone (probably thrown away by my mom). I tried to find it on CD, but apparently it never made its way onto the format.

Some years ago, it made its way onto YouTube though : )



Edit: Going by memory, but the sound quality you hear in the video is nowhere near the quality you would hear were you to play the actual LP. What I remember is that the band was right there in our living room. If you decide to listen to it, don't miss the solo.


----------



## bigshot

Thanks for this! I used to go nuts for the Buddy Rich Class of 78 album, particularly Birdland. The way the drums drove the band into those huge swells. Wow!


----------



## kyotousa

ford2 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DayoftheGreek* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> ...


Do you want a Porsche tho? Also that's some crappy analogy, since Porsche actually performs better as there's track record to prove it lol


----------



## hakunamakaka (Sep 7, 2020)

Can a low power amplifier damage IEM's for any other reason than power output ? Faulty circuit ? quality of power itself ? I always listen on normal sound levels, but my luxury cIEM's right side gave up after a few weeks of usage with this tiny portable amp. Sent to repair them and was told that treble transducers needs to be replaced, unfortunately it will cost a lot...:/ But While I was waiting for them to be fixed, ordered cheap replacement IEM's which uses dynamic drive instead of multiple BA, but similar thing happened using same portable amp, right side of new IEM got very quiet and lost bass. Is it unlucky coincidence ? I'm Really scared to plug anything else to it.....Weird thing that everything plays fine for a few weeks and then the right side faults


----------



## castleofargh

hakunamakaka said:


> Can a low power amplifier damage IEM's for any other reason than power output ? Faulty circuit ? quality of power itself ? I always listen on normal sound levels, but my luxury cIEM's right side gave up after a few weeks of usage with this tiny portable amp. Sent to repair them and was told that treble transducers needs to be replaced, unfortunately it will cost a lot...:/ But While I was waiting for them to be fixed, ordered cheap replacement IEM's which uses dynamic drive instead of multiple BA, but similar thing happened using same portable amp, right side of new IEM got very quiet and lost bass. Is it unlucky coincidence ? I'm Really scared to plug anything else to it.....Weird thing that everything plays fine for a few weeks and then the right side faults


Not really the topic for this. But I didn't delete the last 500 pages so...

It's hard for us to guess if your amp is causing the issue, or if you got unlucky(a lot of what is random is not perceived as random by our brain, a sample side of 2 isn't all that). Maybe your right ear has a shape, angle, whatever that makes it more likely to produce and send wax into the IEMs? Maroon 5, gremlins...

Maybe you have some habits that make the right ear more likely to fall on the ground or hit a desk or whatever resulting in more physical shocks? 
There isn't much that will damage a driver with low power. I would be more worried about pretty significant output, but maybe just when your turn the amp ON and OFF? R maybe maybe some serious DC voltage? So you may not get some audibly loud impact, but the driver is forced to keep moving off axis? I really don't know anything about that. I only heard the same urban legends that most audiophiles did. So I wouldn't want to feed you with nonsense.
Another scenario I can think of, would be to mess up between balanced stuff and singled ended plugs. But TBH I would expect the sound to be wrong from the get go, or the amp to be the one to suffer in the long run.

In short. IDK.


----------



## dazzerfong

hakunamakaka said:


> Can a low power amplifier damage IEM's for any other reason than power output ? Faulty circuit ? quality of power itself ? I always listen on normal sound levels, but my luxury cIEM's right side gave up after a few weeks of usage with this tiny portable amp. Sent to repair them and was told that treble transducers needs to be replaced, unfortunately it will cost a lot...:/ But While I was waiting for them to be fixed, ordered cheap replacement IEM's which uses dynamic drive instead of multiple BA, but similar thing happened using same portable amp, right side of new IEM got very quiet and lost bass. Is it unlucky coincidence ? I'm Really scared to plug anything else to it.....Weird thing that everything plays fine for a few weeks and then the right side faults



What amp is it? Answer will depend on whatever it is.


----------



## hakunamakaka

dazzerfong said:


> What amp is it? Answer will depend on whatever it is.



Shanling up4, nothing that In regards that I treat right side differently. This is totally mystery for me, but both IEM’s gave up in  few weeks...Sorry for off-topic I though knowledgeable people might drop an eye on this thread


----------



## magicscreen

Here is the difference between DACs, loud and clear .
Loxjie D20 vs SMSL Sanskrit 10th mkII VS Audio-Gd nfb-1


----------



## sonitus mirus

magicscreen said:


> Here is the difference between DACs, loud and clear .
> Loxjie D20 vs SMSL Sanskrit 10th mkII VS Audio-Gd nfb-1


Which one is broken, or are they both broken?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 2, 2020)

The difference between DACs is that one is black, one is blue and the other is copper colored. THAT PROVES IT ALL RIGHT! Even my wife can tell the difference! (copper colored is warmer)


----------



## KeithPhantom (Oct 2, 2020)

bigshot said:


> The difference between DACs is that one is black, one is blue and the other is copper colored. THAT PROVES IT ALL RIGHT! Even my wife can tell the difference! (copper colored is warmer)


I have the Sanskrit, it is as “transparent” as my MacBook Pro and my iPhone and the motherboard audio from my PC.


----------



## KeithPhantom

We’re talking about Audio-GD, the guys with a DAC with a 55 dB SINAD. I wouldn’t be impressed if they released an amplifier with even worse measurements just to make it “distinguishable” from the sea of “virtually transparent” amplifiers.


----------



## danadam (Oct 3, 2020)

magicscreen said:


> Here is the difference between DACs, loud and clear .
> Loxjie D20 vs SMSL Sanskrit 10th mkII VS Audio-Gd nfb-1


Yep, it's clear that loudness wasn't matched. AudioGD is the loudest, then SMSL and last Loxjie.
Because apparently I am extremely bored:

```
Extract:
sox input.flac smsl.flac trim 10944000s 1920000s
sox input.flac audiogd.flac trim 17744971s 1920000s
sox input.flac loxjie.flac trim 24446629s 1920000s

-- Null peaks and RMS ----------------
  SMSL - AudioGD
Pk lev dB     -12.21    -15.24    -12.21
RMS lev dB    -34.90    -35.22    -34.59

  SMSL - Loxjie
Pk lev dB     -15.77    -15.77    -15.89
RMS lev dB    -35.91    -36.23    -35.60

  AudioGD - Loxjie
Pk lev dB     -11.81    -13.66    -11.81
RMS lev dB    -31.86    -32.20    -31.55

-- Peaks and RMS ----------------
  SMSL
Pk lev dB      -6.26     -7.25     -6.26
RMS lev dB    -24.92    -25.15    -24.71

  AudioGD
Pk lev dB      -4.56     -5.61     -4.56
RMS lev dB    -23.31    -23.55    -23.09

  Loxjie
Pk lev dB      -7.65     -9.34     -7.65
RMS lev dB    -26.83    -27.01    -26.66

-- LUFS ----------------
-21.0 LUFS, audiogd.flac
-24.5 LUFS, loxjie.flac
-22.7 LUFS, smsl.flac
```


----------



## bigshot

All recorded through the microphone in a cell phone!


----------



## magicscreen

danadam said:


> Yep, it's clear that loudness wasn't matched.


Thank you! Indeed there is volume difference.


----------



## dazzerfong

magicscreen said:


> Thank you! Indeed there is volume difference.



Then why bother posting it as proof? Or was it intended as sarcasm?


----------



## castleofargh

danadam said:


> Yep, it's clear that loudness wasn't matched. AudioGD is the loudest, then SMSL and last Loxjie.
> Because apparently I am extremely bored:
> 
> ```
> ...


thanks for doing it.
 It's frustrating to see a community so passionate about audio, so insistent on being able to judge everything by ear, ignoring/forgetting something as fundamental as listening level. And what's incredible is how most people on the forum fail to consider that on a daily basis.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 4, 2020)

I do a lot of judging by ear. Ears are what I listen to music with. They're probably the most important part of the chain. As long as you take into account the limitations of human hearing and understand how ears work and what we can and can't hear, you can judge by ear better. A lot of people get unrealistic results from listening tests, but I think that is more a fault of their thinking process than their ears. Analyzing what you hear is the hard part. If you aren't thinking right, you won't hear right.


----------



## Brahmsian

bigshot said:


> The difference between DACs is that one is black, one is blue and the other is copper colored. THAT PROVES IT ALL RIGHT! Even my wife can tell the difference! (copper colored is warmer)



Are you referring to both standalone DACs and DAC-amps or just the former?


----------



## bigshot

It’s a joke. There’s no way anyone could tell anything from that video.


----------



## Brahmsian

bigshot said:


> It’s a joke. There’s no way anyone could tell anything from that video.


I agree. I’m just trying to gauge amp differences. I’ve owned four but at different times, so I’ve never directly compared them. My understanding is that there are amps that don’t color the sound and amps that do, and the latter can vary significantly in how they sound.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Brahmsian said:


> I agree. I’m just trying to gauge amp differences. I’ve owned four but at different times, so I’ve never directly compared them. My understanding is that there are amps that don’t color the sound and amps that do, and the latter can vary significantly in how they sound.


To even "color" the sound, you need an amplifier that's pretty much broken (a horrid SINAD of 55 dB or even less). The human ear is horrible at detecting nonlinearities, so don't expect to hear much of a difference, if there's an audible difference.


----------



## bigshot

I've been asking folks for a specific make and model of an amp or DAC that audibly colors the sound for several years now. No one has been able to provide one yet. Even back in 1987, Stereo Review wasn't able to find one. See page 78... https://worldradiohistory.com/Archi...iFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf


----------



## Blackwoof

Just noticed on the ER4SR's had for short while they total to 0.35% at 100db. They should look like this even at 90db.


----------



## magicscreen

I have a vinyl rip which has been recorded as 24bit/192 kHz audio.
Why does it have better sound quality than the CD version?
Because of the LP source or the higher resolution?


----------



## VNandor

magicscreen said:


> I have a vinyl rip which has been recorded as 24bit/192 kHz audio.
> Why does it have better sound quality than the CD version?
> Because of the LP source or the higher resolution?


Maybe the vinyl has a different and better master. Maybe they are the same but the "vinyl sound" compliments the recording well. Maybe it's because the higher resolution but this one is the most unlikely. If you are curious, you could try and downsample the vinyl rip to 16bit/48kHz and check if it still sounds better than your CD.


----------



## hakunamakaka

magicscreen said:


> I have a vinyl rip which has been recorded as 24bit/192 kHz audio.
> Why does it have better sound quality than the CD version?
> Because of the LP source or the higher resolution?




It depends on mastering a lot. Especially for the music that is released in LP era, as music was mastered  for vinyls. That’s one of the reasons  reasons why some selective and demanded releases costs so much when there are no properly re-mastered releases. To make matters worse I’ve came into situation were I bought LP’s and they were simply re-printed poor digital rip. With current era of music I do not bother that much, unless I know it  will sound amazing with tube sound with artists like Khruanginb Universe release. Good 128kbps rip can sound nearly as good as any hi-res release


----------



## KeithPhantom

magicscreen said:


> I have a vinyl rip which has been recorded as 24bit/192 kHz audio.
> Why does it have better sound quality than the CD version?
> Because of the LP source or the higher resolution?


“Better sound quality” is subjective. What do you mean by “better resolution”? Could you provide objective data supporting your argument?


----------



## old tech

magicscreen said:


> I have a vinyl rip which has been recorded as 24bit/192 kHz audio.
> Why does it have better sound quality than the CD version?
> Because of the LP source or the higher resolution?


Most likely different mastering than the CD version which has a sound that suits your individual subjective preference.  CD has higher resolution than vinyl so a rip into a 24/192 container won't make any difference.


----------



## hakunamakaka

old tech said:


> Most likely different mastering than the CD version which has a sound that suits your individual subjective preference.  CD has higher resolution than vinyl so a rip into a 24/192 container won't make any difference.




Is it a complex process ? Why some rip’s sounds low quality ? I’m not as good as describing sound, but can give few youtube examples


----------



## magicscreen

hakunamakaka said:


> Is it a complex process ? Why some rip’s sounds low quality ? I’m not as good as describing sound, but can give few youtube examples


You need a high quality turntable+cartridge+phone amplifier+ADC for make a high quality vinyl rip.
First, youtube already has low sound quality. You will never hear a real vinyl rip on youtube.
Second, there are a lots of vinyl rip there like this: TEAC TN300
This turntable is a crap. It is only good for destroying your precious vinyl discs.


----------



## bigshot

Some albums sound best on CD. Others sound best on the first LP release. Still others sound best on SACD or Blu-ray. It has nothing to do with the format. All of these formats are capable of sounding very good. The reason they are different is because of the degree of care taken when they mastered the music to disc and the condition of the masters. A recording made in 1970 might have sounded great then, but the master tape might have gotten beat up in the intervening years. Or perhaps the record label paid to have the recording restored in recent years and the newer version sounds better.

There is no one answer to "which is best?" It all depends on the particular circumstances with that particular album. If you ask serious collectors who have heard multiple releases, they can usually steer you towards the best.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> Some albums sound best on CD. Others sound best on the first LP release. Still others sound best on SACD or Blu-ray. It has nothing to do with the format. All of these formats are capable of sounding very good. The reason they are different is because of the degree of care taken when they mastered the music to disc and the condition of the masters. A recording made in 1970 might have sounded great then, but the master tape might have gotten beat up in the intervening years. Or perhaps the record label paid to have the recording restored in recent years and the newer version sounds better.
> 
> There is no one answer to "which is best?" It all depends on the particular circumstances with that particular album. If you ask serious collectors who have heard multiple releases, they can usually steer you towards the best.



It's this in a nutshell. More often than not, there are terrible masters (mixed way too hot) for rereleases on CD and digital formats that were much better during the original LP release, but this is just a rule of thumb and I think modern sound engineers and mixers are getting the picture as mainstream consumer audio equipment increases in performance that they need to in some ways return to how they mixed music before radio.


----------



## magicscreen

Minimal rules for a successful blind test?
How many tries?
How many positive tries?
For example 5 positive out of 5 tries = 5/5.
5/5?
10/10?
9/10?
8/10?


----------



## dazzerfong (Oct 15, 2020)

magicscreen said:


> Minimal rules for a successful blind test?
> How many tries?
> How many positive tries?
> For example 5 positive out of 5 tries = 5/5.
> ...



Depends on what you want to define as 'successful'. For science, it's usually a p = 0.05 (lower the better).

To determine that, use something called a_ binomial table. _Or you use an online calculator:

https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx#:~:text=What is the cumulative binomial,example of a cumulative probability.

If you're curious, binomial table looks like this:






So, take for example you want 20 trials. Assuming probability of each guess is 50%, if you guessed 14 correctly, that's a p = 0.037, or 3.7% you randomly got that result.

Then you have something called effect size, which is a whole can of marbles. Basically, if you can 'pass' the 0.05 benchmark, you can then determine if it's a large effect or small. To make it very simple, basically the larger the pass percentage (taking into account your sample), the greater the effect.

Summary: doesn't really matter unless you're trying to publish your results.


----------



## KeithPhantom

dazzerfong said:


> Depends on what you want to define as 'successful'. For science, it's usually a p = 0.05 (lower the better).
> 
> To determine that, use something called a_ binomial table. _Or you use an online calculator:
> 
> ...


That will only determine correlation between two variables of the hypothesis testing is isolated and done as the sole method of verifying existence of causation. Repeatability is extremely important, specially with different sample sizes, test conditions, and the such. 

Also, p=0.05 only takes account of +- <= 2 SD/ 5% SE (~95% CI), not being enough for fully isolate the presence of outliers in some stringent testing. Sample size is also to be considered, since binomial and t distributions tend to be closer to the normal distribution when large sample sizes are used and more accurately represent the cummulative probability distribution. With statistics, determining causation is a science and an art, because multiple testing has to be provided, being this repeatble and analyzed by external parties as well.


----------



## reginalb

bigshot said:


> The difference between DACs is that one is black, one is blue and the other is copper colored. THAT PROVES IT ALL RIGHT! Even my wife can tell the difference! (copper colored is warmer)



You missed the biggest difference of all! One of those DACs is an XBox. The others are clearly not.


----------



## dazzerfong (Oct 15, 2020)

KeithPhantom said:


> That will only determine correlation between two variables of the hypothesis testing is isolated and done as the sole method of verifying existence of causation. Repeatability is extremely important, specially with different sample sizes, test conditions, and the such.
> 
> Also, p=0.05 only takes account of +- <= 2 SD/ 5% SE (~95% CI), not being enough for fully isolate the presence of outliers in some stringent testing. Sample size is also to be considered, since binomial and t distributions tend to be closer to the normal distribution when large sample sizes are used and more accurately represent the cummulative probability distribution. With statistics, determining causation is a science and an art, because multiple testing has to be provided, being this repeatble and analyzed by external parties as well.



And that's why I said this only matters if you're trying to get stuff published - if so, it gets complicated very quickly. You will then have correlation coefficients to determine the level of repeatability, effect size to determine magnitude of said effect.

95% CI is the standard in general: you start with that and based on how confident you want to be, you adjust how many standard deviations you want to be within. Considering audio is hardly a crucial thing to get more than 95% confident, I think p = 0.05 for audibility is reasonable. For drugs, maybe not.

Throwing things at potential testers in a way to dissuade testing in my opinion is not the right way, especially if said things are statistical tricks. Start small and simple, and when you're intending to publish, up the rigour then. Pointless to do it before, especially if one's trying to see for themselves.


----------



## KeithPhantom

dazzerfong said:


> And that's why I said this only matters if you're trying to get stuff published - if so, it gets complicated very quickly. You will then have correlation coefficients to determine the level of repeatability, effect size to determine magnitude of said effect.
> 
> 95% CI is the standard in general: you start with that and based on how confident you want to be, you adjust how many standard deviations you want to be within. Considering audio is hardly a crucial thing to get more than 95% confident, I think p = 0.05 for audibility is reasonable. For drugs, maybe not.
> 
> Throwing things at potential testers in a way to dissuade testing in my opinion is not the right way, especially if said things are statistical tricks. Start small and simple, and when you're intending to publish, up the rigour then. Pointless to do it before, especially if one's trying to see for themselves.


It was just clarifying because scientific testing can be too strict at times for the regular John. And I agree, he should stick to something simple that works.


----------



## dazzerfong

KeithPhantom said:


> It was just clarifying because scientific testing can be too strict at times for the regular John. And I agree, he should stick to something simple that works.



That's why scientific testing is in the realm of scholars and academics, and everyone else has everything else. I mean, hell, if you're doing it for your own benefit, loosen up the confidence intervals for all I care - not exactly proclaiming it as fact to anyone else.

I think the best compromise between the realm of publications and the average Joe is binomial probability for ABX. Simple enough to grasp, and no real calculations to do besides looking up a table.


----------



## old tech (Oct 15, 2020)

When I do my testing (between equipment or to determine different masters) I keep it simple.  Level matched and double-blind with a couple friends or colleagues.  Not sufficient for a peer reviewed paper but good enough for me. It's amazing the amount of times the test exposes the perception tricks of the brain.

Btw, most of my needle-drops were done in the 1990s, making 16/44 CD versions of my LPs.  This was before the days of consumer software and were done through a colleague in a recording studio using my turntable.  To date, no-one has been able to reliably pick the CDs apart from the LPs when playing on the same turntable.


----------



## hakunamakaka

old tech said:


> When I do my testing (between equipment or to determine different masters) I keep it simple.  Level matched and double-blind with a couple friends or colleagues.  Not sufficient for a peer reviewed paper but good enough for me. It's amazing the amount of times the test exposes the perception tricks of the brain.
> 
> Btw, most of my needle-drops were done in the 1990s, making 16/44 CD versions of my LPs.  This was before the days of consumer software and were done through a colleague in a recording studio using my turntable.  To date, no-one has been able to reliably pick the CDs apart from the LPs when playing on the same turntable.




Turntable setup can change the sound a lot. Good phono preamp itself can create such a large difference that you may think that you got different set of speakers. If you are aiming for very clean, hi-res sound don't even bother with turntables, but if that's not the case, good turntable can shift your music to a new extent especially with instrumental and vocal centric music(brazilian,afro,jazz, organic grooves, opera etc..)


----------



## bigshot

old tech said:


> When I do my testing (between equipment or to determine different masters) I keep it simple.  Level matched and double-blind with a couple friends or colleagues.  Not sufficient for a peer reviewed paper but good enough for me. It's amazing the amount of times the test exposes the perception tricks of the brain.



^ This. I think everyone should do basic controlled listening tests for themselves. Too often I see people claiming tests are too hard to do, so they will just believe what they believe; or if a person's tests don't validate their preconceived ideas, they start nit-picking the technical aspects of the testing until it becomes impossible to please them. Like you say, a basic controlled test will get you consistent enough results to know which direction to go.



hakunamakaka said:


> Good phono preamp itself can create such a large difference that you may think that you got different set of speakers.



There are things that make MUCH more of a difference than the phono preamp. It isn't rocket science to apply an RIAA curve and boost to line level. The trick is in the mechanical aspects... the size and shape of the stylus (elliptical, conical, etc.), the depth and condition of the grooves, the quality of the vinyl used, moving magnet vs moving coil, and the alignment and tracking. I have tens of thousands of records- both LPs and 78s. The amp is the easiest part of the process. Turning groove modulation into signals is the hard part. Once it's a signal, amplifying it is easy.


----------



## old tech

hakunamakaka said:


> Turntable setup can change the sound a lot. Good phono preamp itself can create such a large difference that you may think that you got different set of speakers. If you are aiming for very clean, hi-res sound don't even bother with turntables, but if that's not the case, good turntable can shift your music to a new extent especially with instrumental and vocal centric music(brazilian,afro,jazz, organic grooves, opera etc..)


I agree that there is a lot of sound quality variations between turntables but never noticed much, if any, differences between pre-amps if they are compatible with the cartridge being used. The main thing with moving coil cartridges is that there is no capacitance mis-match and for very low output MCs, that the pre-amp is not noisy - which can be an issue with simple tube designs.  I don't know what combination of catridge/pre-amp you are using but it could be the loading which is creating the difference you are hearing.

As Bigshot pointed out, the role of the pre-amp and amp is to amplify the signal something that is trivially easy to do with fidelity over the past few decades.  From my experience the main contributor to different sound quality is the cartridge, stylus and (to a lesser extent) the tonearm. The alignment and maintenance is also important (and often neglected by setting and forgetting). I always check all the turntable components and if necessary adjust the alignment before doing needle-drops.

If for whatever reason some of your records have a preferred vocal centric sound, a proper needle drop from your turntable/pre-amp should result in an identical sound to your turntable/pre-amp.


----------



## bigshot

I think that turntable amps are talked about so much because they are a big upsell item. Once you've convinced them to spend a wad on a turntable and a cart, the next thing is to get them to drop hundreds more on an amp. When I was in high school, I worked in a clothing store. When a man bought a suit, you'd suggest a shirt to go with it... then a tie... new shoes... then of course matching socks... and how are you fixed for underwear, sir? Multiple sales. That is where commissioned salespeople make money.


----------



## Davesrose

I'm a special case that my townhouse is near a radio tower.  So I have found that different amp designs either pick up the radio station or introduce hum.  My plate amp with my subwoofer will have a loud hum with a straight line: I found I was able to eliminate it with an isolator from Blue Jeans.  When I first setup a surround receiver in the townhouse, it would pick up the radio station in the speakers (until I got a surge protector that had RF filter).  Previously I had gotten a TT that didn't have built in preamp.  Funny thing was that I first got a Parasound TT amp for it...and it had loud static.  The retailer didn't ask for it back, they just sent another TT amp I selected from NAD.  When I moved to the townhouse, the NAD would pick up some of the radio station: which was audible during quieter segments.  Most recently I upgraded my receiver to a 11 channel Atmos receiver.  It is quite a bit more expensive than my previous receiver.  My previous receiver didn't have a phono input: this one does...it probably isn't that expensive a component in it.  However, it is really grounded well (and I guess part of the RF filter).  I can give the NAD TT amp away: the receiver's phono input is much better as the sound is cleaner (no noise or audible radio station during any passage of a record).  I assume a TT preamp might be more sensitive to interference because it does require more amplification.


----------



## hakunamakaka

old tech said:


> I agree that there is a lot of sound quality variations between turntables but never noticed much, if any, differences between pre-amps if they are compatible with the cartridge being used. The main thing with moving coil cartridges is that there is no capacitance mis-match and for very low output MCs, that the pre-amp is not noisy - which can be an issue with simple tube designs.  I don't know what combination of catridge/pre-amp you are using but it could be the loading which is creating the difference you are hearing.
> 
> As Bigshot pointed out, the role of the pre-amp and amp is to amplify the signal something that is trivially easy to do with fidelity over the past few decades.  From my experience the main contributor to different sound quality is the cartridge, stylus and (to a lesser extent) the tonearm. The alignment and maintenance is also important (and often neglected by setting and forgetting). I always check all the turntable components and if necessary adjust the alignment before doing needle-drops.
> 
> If for whatever reason some of your records have a preferred vocal centric sound, a proper needle drop from your turntable/pre-amp should result in an identical sound to your turntable/pre-amp.




I’m the kind of guy who can’t hear nuance change in music, stopped messing with cables, even with my portable rig I can’t notice a difference between wired and bluetooth dac/amp(yes I have high end IEM) I know lots of number cultists and high fidelity guys hate tubes, but there is something special for me in the way they reproduce sound. With tube preamp difference was easy to notice and sounded way more to my taste, on the other side SS preamp gave sound closer to my digital setup. TT is old thorens and only retro MM ortofon cartridge was replaced for 60$.

I heard few TT with intergrated phono-preamp in the shop and they sounded boring. I don’t see myself buying a new turntable, either they are insanely expensive or they look and sound cheap


----------



## bigshot

The difference between tube amps and solid state can be audible. But a DSP that adds distortion like a tube amp could make a solid state amp sound just as distorted.


----------



## magicscreen

bigshot said:


> The difference between tube amps and solid state can be audible. But a DSP that adds distortion like a tube amp could make a solid state amp sound just as distorted.


Tube amp != distortion.


----------



## reginalb

magicscreen said:


> Tube amp != distortion.



That's exactly what it does. What would you call it?


----------



## KeithPhantom

reginalb said:


> That's exactly what it does. What would you call it?


You can make good measuring tube amps of you put the effort in. SS ones also distort.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Distortions sounds a bit negative like the sound gets awful... for me coloring sound fits better description. Tube amps keeps harmonics even when overdriven, that’s one  of the reasons why guitar players mainly stick with tubes.


----------



## KeithPhantom

hakunamakaka said:


> Distortions sounds a bit negative like the sound gets awful... for me coloring sound fits better description. Tube amps keeps harmonics even when overdriven, that’s one  of the reasons why guitar players mainly stick with tubes.


Not always harmonics are even, but that's preference


----------



## danadam

hakunamakaka said:


> Distortions sounds a bit negative like the sound gets awful... for me coloring sound fits better description. Tube amps keeps harmonics even when overdriven, that’s one  of the reasons why guitar players mainly stick with tubes.


AFAICT guitar players don't have a problem with word "distortion", they use it all the time and not in the meaning "awful".


----------



## dazzerfong

hakunamakaka said:


> Distortions sounds a bit negative like the sound gets awful... for me coloring sound fits better description. Tube amps keeps harmonics even when overdriven, that’s one  of the reasons why guitar players mainly stick with tubes.



Colouring = distortion. Distortion is anything that deviates from the 'truth'. Can be positive or negative: in itself doesn't mean much.


----------



## bigshot

hakunamakaka said:


> Distortions sounds a bit negative like the sound gets awful...



That's just semantics. Distortion means any deviation from the original signal. Fidelity means lack of deviation. Coloration usually refers to an imbalance of frequency response. You can like tubes. That is fine. But the reason tubes sound like tubes is because they add distortion to the signal.


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> That's just semantics. Distortion means any deviation from the original signal. Fidelity means lack of deviation. Coloration usually refers to an imbalance of frequency response. You can like tubes. That is fine. But the reason tubes sound like tubes is because they add distortion to the signal.


The bad ones change the sound, the good ones are also transparent.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 18, 2020)

There is a place for euphonic distortion. Hearing an Elvis single on an old tube phonograph is a great experience. I remember going to a bar in a little town in Arizona that had an old Seeberg jukebox, and I pumped quarters into it one after another because it had such an interesting and beautiful sound. It made C&W songs I was familiar with sound totally new and different. There's nothing wrong with using distortion. It just doesn't make sense to always have distortion hard wired into your amp. That's why I say adding it with a DSP to a clean solid state amp is the way to do it. Switch it on when you want it and off when you don't.


----------



## old tech (Oct 18, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> Distortions sounds a bit negative like the sound gets awful... for me coloring sound fits better description. Tube amps keeps harmonics even when overdriven, that’s one  of the reasons why guitar players mainly stick with tubes.


Yeah, but that is music production rather than music reproduction.  Whatever sound a musician likes as art, surely the point is that a transparent reproduction is closer to that sound the musician hears. Would you playback your music through a guitar amp while pressing the fuzz pedal?

Anyway, as has been said previously in this long thread, a tube amp can be made to sound as transparent as a good SS amp but the virtue equation works against it - ie it will be more costly to manufacture and purchase, inefficient to run and higher maintenance. But transparency is not the reason why some prefer tube amps, it is because the distortions can sound pleasant. Likewise, a SS amp can be made to sound like a coloured tube amp but again that is usually not the reason why others prefer SS amps.


----------



## hakunamakaka

KeithPhantom said:


> The bad ones change the sound, the good ones are also transparent.



Here I disagree, what's bad for high fidelity folk can be an amazing shift in sound for a person who enjoys that distortion. I have SS chain with my digital music and I use it quite a lot as well, but there are so many good album releases that fits tubes well. Gold Lionex as an example are known to distort sound a lot towards the warm side, though demand for them is high. I've never stated that tubes are superior to SS, for me these both serve different purpose for different genre of music. I would always chose to play Norah Jones album via tube setup than my digital source, but there are music that works other way around, through years I've learned what would fit my LP collection and what I can keep in digital.

I believe that DSP could emulate tube sound, but if I'm happy with my current equipment I don't feel a need to change


----------



## sander99

old tech said:


> Would you playback your music through a guitar amp while pressing the fuzz pedal?


Actually that may be a great idea to get more (inter-)actively involved with the music! 
(Just for fun once in a while).


----------



## bigshot

The problem with tube distortion is that it is hard wired in. You can't decide to listen clean. You have to get two completely different amps. And say you want somewhere in the middle? A light amount of distortion... That is a third amp to buy. You can distort a clean amp using digital processing, but you can't clean up a distorted one. There's a thread here on DSPs designed to emulate different kinds of tube distortion and response coloration. It's possible to make a solid state amp sound exactly like any tube amp you want. The advantage is that all of the parameters are on slider pots, so you can craft *exactly* the amount you want. You aren't locked into a sound chosen by the designer of the tube amp. You also don't have the sound shift as it warms up or the tube ages. It's much more precise to do it with DSPs.


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> *The problem with tube distortion is that it is hard wired in. You can't decide to listen clean. You have to get two completely different amps*. And say you want somewhere in the middle? A light amount of distortion... That is a third amp to buy. You can distort a clean amp using digital processing, but you can't clean up a distorted one. There's a thread here on DSPs designed to emulate different kinds of tube distortion and response coloration. It's possible to make a solid state amp sound exactly like any tube amp you want. The advantage is that all of the parameters are on slider pots, so you can craft *exactly* the amount you want. You aren't locked into a sound chosen by the designer of the tube amp. You also don't have the sound shift as it warms up or the tube ages. It's much more precise to do it with DSPs.


Yes that is the issue.  I have two main stereo systems in my home.  One is transparent within the constraints of my speakers and room acoustics and the other has more of its own (pleasant) sound signature.  The former sounds much better with well recorded/produced/mastered material and it clearly delineates different masterings of the same recordings.  The other system sounds better on poorly recorded/produced/mastered material as you don't hear the flaws so much because the sound signature dominates playback.  So one is high fidelity and the other is high euphony.  The problem with the high euphony is that much of the high quality work and different sound character that went into the well produced material is not as clearly defined. Pick your poison but for most times I choose high fidelity.


----------



## reginalb

I'd like to add one more advantage to tube amps: they can really be beautiful. I had one on my desk for a long time because I just loved how it looked. It ran in to some issues, some connection is loose in it. I should probably send it in for repair, but we'll see.


----------



## bigshot

I have Christmas lights over my stereo for the same reason.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Maybe I'm lucky, but longevity is not compromised with tubes so far, 3 years without any issues and that's still one of the better audio purchases for me. Thus I can not say the same for cables and IEM's. Cables changed only in visual aesthetics for me, IEMs the worst performance/price ratio in all stereo equipment, In many cases I could mistakenly put cheap IEM in the same bucket with the flagship that costs few thousands. There is no such as out of head experience as said in reviews, if we disregard bass, sound is small  wrapped in a tiny square around your head at best. I somehow have large interest for horn speakers and they will come one day


----------



## dazzerfong (Oct 20, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> Maybe I'm lucky, but longevity is not compromised with tubes so far, 3 years without any issues and that's still one of the better audio purchases for me. Thus I can not say the same for cables and IEM's. Cables changed only in visual aesthetics for me, IEMs the worst performance/price ratio in all stereo equipment, In many cases I could mistakenly put cheap IEM in the same bucket with the flagship that costs few thousands. There is no such as out of head experience as said in reviews, if we disregard bass, sound is small  wrapped in a tiny square around your head at best. I somehow have large interest for horn speakers and they will come one day



Interestingly I have kind of the opposite experience with IEMs: plenty of cheap junk which are carbon copies of each other, and only once you push out a bit more do designs get a bit more interesting for me. Out of head experience is impossible with IEMs and headphones anyway*, so I treat that as exaggeration.

* with normal recordings: binaural and HRTF-manipulated sounds are different.


----------



## hakunamakaka

dazzerfong said:


> Interestingly I have kind of the opposite experience with IEMs: plenty of cheap junk which are carbon copies of each other, and only once you push out a bit more do designs get a bit more interesting for me. Out of head experience is impossible with IEMs and headphones anyway, so I treat that as exaggeration.



There is a difference in higher tiers between IEMs, but it's not so obvious as it is with headphones or speakers. I've tried many expensive IEMs when needed sound on the go, was not so impressed, but still ended with flagship IEM as it was most musical for me, but when I had a chance to listen to higher end headphones(arya,HD800,LCD-x..) . I Was blown away, especially with LCD-X even though they lacked in technical abilities against others, but musically they were above of what I have heard.Warm/meaty sound with lush vocals and amazing bass... It was very similar to my speaker+tube setup. None of the IEMs could even come close while being 2-3x more expensive
 Peoples perception is different and when they turn their imagination on it can go to ridiculous extents. You can easily find statements/reviews in forum where people say that this IEM is more expansive than HD800s, cables for 500-1000$ will completely upgrade the sound of your headphones or an almighty EQ can do wonders and bring planar bass to HD650 headphone. I disregarded all of these statements with the cost of my wallet. Now I read with large grain of salt on peoples opinions and impressions(especially raved/hyped reviews), best way is to test for free if possible and trust your own ears


----------



## SoundAndMotion

dazzerfong said:


> Out of head experience is impossible with IEMs and headphones anyway, so I treat that as exaggeration.


Nonsense.
The spatial cues for out-of-head sound with HPs/IEMs can occur 3 ways:
1- It can be recorded with a binaural setup. Of course, your HRTF must be close enough to the binaural mic setup (e.g. Kemar) and you either have to hold your head relatively still or be less sensitive to head motion.
2- It can be added with DSP using your own HRTF with, for example, the Smyth Realiser, Redscape 3D, Waves NX or similar. Each of those include head tracking. There's also HeSuVi, but I don't think it has head tracking.
3- Coincidence. Your brain is always trying to localize sound based on your own HRTF. If a particular recording is mixed such that your brain interprets spatial cues, you can perceive out-of-head sound. But it may never work for you, depending on your HRTF and how your brain uses head motion. But your not perceiving it does not mean that others can't, without imagination or exaggeration. This does seems somewhat rare though.


----------



## dazzerfong (Oct 20, 2020)

SoundAndMotion said:


> Nonsense.
> The spatial cues for out-of-head sound with HPs/IEMs can occur 3 ways:
> 1- It can be recorded with a binaural setup. Of course, your HRTF must be close enough to the binaural mic setup (e.g. Kemar) and you either have to hold your head relatively still or be less sensitive to head motion.
> 2- It can be added with DSP using your own HRTF with, for example, the Smyth Realiser, Redscape 3D, Waves NX or similar. Each of those include head tracking. There's also HeSuVi, but I don't think it has head tracking.
> 3- Coincidence. Your brain is always trying to localize sound based on your own HRTF. If a particular recording is mixed such that your brain interprets spatial cues, you can perceive out-of-head sound. But it may never work for you, depending on your HRTF and how your brain uses head motion. But your not perceiving it does not mean that others can't, without imagination or exaggeration. This does seems somewhat rare though.



I should attach an exclaimer there - in the spirit that the IEM themselves contribute to it without using HRTF/binaural. Thank you for pointing that out.

I can localise sounds and point out where the sound's coming from with my IEMs, but it's not an out-of-head feeling to me. This is especially apparent in classical music.

I'm more than familiar with binaural recordings, and am more than convinced of its effect. But that's less to do as a function of the IEM, but rather the recording technique.


----------



## bigshot

The original point was that reviews said that a particular model of IEMs provided "outside the head sound". That is just purple prose and hyperbole.

I've never been able to hear anything beyond secondary depth cues and phasey stuff myself.  I'm open to the possibility, but binaural and head tracked dimensional sound doesn't do much for me. The only way I've perceived surround is with a multichannel speaker setup.


----------



## dazzerfong

Binaural sealed the deal for me with the virtual barber shop demo.



In it, it really felt as though the shaver went over my head.


----------



## bigshot

With me, the shaver keeps popping from a couple of inches from my nose to close behind my head and back and forth. In front, behind, above, below... it has no precise location. I can't control it. It sounds weird, but it doesn't sound real at all.


----------



## Brahmsian

bigshot said:


> With me, the shaver keeps popping from a couple of inches from my nose to close behind my head and back and forth. In front, behind, above, below... it has no precise location. I can't control it. It sounds weird, but it doesn't sound real at all.


For me, it had pretty precise location and lots of depth, but not like it was actually outside the headphones.


----------



## bigshot

I think the reason that binaural has never really caught on for commercial recording is that it works differently with different people. One size doesn't fit all.


----------



## castleofargh

I like those demo files:
http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/salles/listen/sounds.html
Each is made from the HRTF of one person and of course each time what's actually simulated is a proper horizontal circle around the listener(at about 1m away I think, I don't really remember). It doesn't show us how other people are perceiving things, but at least we get a feeling for how much change a different head can cause to sound and how we'll interpret it.


----------



## megabigeye

dazzerfong said:


> Binaural sealed the deal for me with the virtual barber shop demo.
> 
> 
> 
> In it, it really felt as though the shaver went over my head.



For me this was actually less convincing than many stereo recordings.  With my IEMs it was completely left-right, with my headphones it was only marginally more convincing, but I wouldn't call it realistic at all.  There was a binaural recording of waves on a beach that I heard a couple years while ago and it sounded so off that it was disorienting for me.  I also find ASMR to be really horrible (but that's my misophonia as much as anything).

Also, why was Cookie Monster playing guitar and calling himself Manuel?  I guess everybody needs a hobby.


----------



## reginalb

Works well for me. As he says throughout, it's all about how your brain interprets it. You guys must have broken brains.


----------



## pfzar (Oct 21, 2020)

HRTF's are measured in a few different ways.  Blocked meatus, meaning the microphone is placed in the concha bowl, the entrance to the ear canal,  or DRP the Drum Reference point. KEMAR/HATS, or a probe mic, meaning the microphone is placed at a depth relative to the eardrum. 

These two methods will result in different measurements that describe the HRTF. 
Got sidetracked and didn't finish post.  

A large portion of the spatial audio playback world is using real human HRTFs as opposed to the HATS method.  Which is a blocked meatus measurement.  This will result in the majority of spatial audio reproduction sounding best on over and on-ear devices.  

The IEM's al Etymotic would need a different filter applied to the algorithm to get the same out of the head experience as a traditional headphone.  

Some Binaural mics are also recording at the entrance to the ear canal and not at the DRP.


----------



## Slaphead

bigshot said:


> I think the reason that binaural has never really caught on for commercial recording is that it works differently with different people. One size doesn't fit all.



Yep, doesn't work for me at all, well it can almost work, until I twitch my head and then everything collapses into either a phasey mess or just a condensed centre image lacking in dynamics.

If you want real binaural then a stereo speaker system is the only valid choice.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Well I tried both types of IEM's that goes deep into your ear and not, none of the came close regards sense of space compared to the headphones. These praised out of your head IEM's had one thing in common and that was lot's of bass, sound itself was still wrapped in my head. With some high tier openback headphones I could get the sense of large surroundings around me, but Arya's drivers were covering nearly my whole head. While reviews claiming that specific IEM's beating/matching most spacious open back headphones I start to believe that forums are flooded with promotional reviews, but what's more surprising that many folks agree with them, so maybe I really don't know how to listen...


----------



## sander99 (Oct 21, 2020)

hakunamakaka said:


> but what's more surprising that many folks agree with them


They hear what they expect to hear. Hearing perception is done mostly by the brain, and is influenced by many things going on in the brain, including input from other senses. The influence of expectation bias is orders of magnitude larger than the smallest real differences that are audible. That is why non-blind tests are essentially worthless. The problem is that this information is not known by the majority of the people, and this fact is exploited to the max for financial benefit by many companies.
It makes me very sad because a lot of money is being spend on things that make no to almost no real difference. And that money could have been spend on things that do make a difference: for example loudspeakers, acoustic treatment, clever room correction dsp, binaural simulation over headphones of loudspeakers in a room, ...


Slaphead said:


> Yep, doesn't work for me at all, well it can almost work, until I twitch my head and then everything collapses into either a phasey mess or just a condensed centre image lacking in dynamics.


Yes, if you move your head and the spatial clues don't adapt to the movement the brain gets clues that it is being tricked and can reject the out of head illusion. Not everyone is affected equally by this though.

I think a nice comparison can be made with the following situation:
Sometimes when you sit in a train in a trainstation and the train next to yours start to move you can have the feeling that it is your train moving, and that the next train is standing still. (Or was it the other way around? Or maybe both is possible.) Until your brain picks up a clue that reveales the true situation. Then the first illusion collapses and is immediately replaced by another illusion, that corresponds with the real situation.

Another problem of standard binaural recordings is that they generally don't match your personal HRTF.


Slaphead said:


> If you want real binaural then a stereo speaker system is the only valid choice.


Listening to a Smyth Realiser A16 using your personal measured PRIR and HPEQ and using headtracking (to keep the virtual speakers stationary, so properly adapting the spatial clues to the head movement) comes very, very close.


----------



## KeithPhantom

sander99 said:


> Smyth Realiser A16


I would like to try it, but it's damn expensive. It isn't that I crave any kind of "spatial sense" while listening to music, but it would be nice to try and see if it can change my mind (even after owning the HD 800 I did not feel any "spacious" feeling).


----------



## bigshot

I used to think head tracking was the key, but I can’t get any kind of surround sense with my Oculus Quest either. I think it’s mostly personal anatomy.


----------



## sander99

KeithPhantom said:


> I would like to try it, but it's damn expensive.


Yes I agree the normal price is very high. Luckely I have a standing pre-order for 2000 Euro's (incl. shipping, 2nd headtracker, and 20% VAT). The real lucky ones backed the kickstarter project for less than 1000 Euro's.
But there is always free impulcifer software from @jaakkopasanen. Only you need to buy mics and some audio interface. If he could add headtracking would that be something...


----------



## colonelkernel8

sander99 said:


> Yes I agree the normal price is very high. Luckely I have a standing pre-order for 2000 Euro's (incl. shipping, 2nd headtracker, and 20% VAT). The real lucky ones backed the kickstarter project for less than 1000 Euro's.
> But there is always free impulcifer software from @jaakkopasanen. Only you need to buy mics and some audio interface. If he could add headtracking would that be something...


2000 euros is still over and beyond insanely expensive...but I guess some fools spend that money on cables, and if this is as revolutionary as they say it is, then I really do hope you enjoy it.


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 21, 2020)

When it comes to convincing positional audio without an external DSP, I have been fooled with demo Dolby Atmos Headphone tracks (with over ear headphones).  There are very few examples: and it's different than the Dolby Atmos speaker tracks in movies (I think Dolby has been advertising it for gaming).  Otherwise, yes....I also never found a traditional binaural recording as being a true positional audio experience (with any type of headphone).


----------



## magicscreen

KeithPhantom said:


> You can make good measuring tube amps of you put the effort in. SS ones also distort.


Thank you! At last one intelligent man.


----------



## magicscreen

bigshot said:


> Amps sound the same test in your signature.



1. Were they really concentrating like a spectrum analyser for two and half hours? I could not tell after that whether I am girl or boy.
2. Why groups? And why objectivist participants? In a four member group the 2 subjectivist can make 100% then the 2 objectivist will degrade the average?
It would be better remove that stupid test from your signature.

Anyway blind test is a false method. You cannot find a successful blind test on the internet which is proving it does not work.
Only stone deaf people developed it so they can sleep well knowing that not only they are disabled.


----------



## KeithPhantom

magicscreen said:


> Anyway blind test is a false method. You cannot find a successful blind test on the internet which is proving it does not work.
> Only stone deaf people developed it so they can sleep well knowing that not only they are disabled


Umm, it is being used to test vaccines for COVID-19 and nobody in the scientific community is arguing for its deprecation, actually, they are supporting this kind of test and the evidence it provides.


----------



## bigshot

I've heard Atmos headphone mixes, and fancy surround in Oculus Go and none of it puts anything outside my head. I keep looking though.


----------



## bigshot

magicscreen said:


> Anyway blind test is a false method. You cannot find a successful blind test on the internet which is proving it does not work.



You are clueless.


----------



## hakunamakaka

bigshot said:


> I've heard Atmos headphone mixes, and fancy surround in Oculus Go and none of it puts anything outside my head. I keep looking though.



I don't think Oculus Go/Atmos type of headphones can give a proper justice regards very spacious listening experience. These thingies focus for gaming, virtual reality were imaging is important. Any closed back headphone has no chance for very spacious sound, but out of head experience is achievable, though would be costly. 

AKG K1000 
RAAL SR1A

They won't wrap your head though and there will be a large gap between your ears and it's drivers.


----------



## Adnen Ayed

From experience, I can confirm blind tests can confirm differences in equipment,  having worked with Sony high end audio engineers for two years in Shibaura, Tokyo between 1995 and 97.

I sent several products for testing, including to What Hifi, etc. Sometimes, the reports from different countries' tests, like UK, Australia, Germany, and US, would be so similar.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I used to think head tracking was the key, but I can’t get any kind of surround sense with my Oculus Quest either. I think it’s mostly personal anatomy.




The Quest is a nice piece of relatively inexpensive gear, but it isn't close to what a Realizer can do.  Try one if you get the chance.


----------



## castleofargh

colonelkernel8 said:


> 2000 euros is still over and beyond insanely expensive...but I guess some fools spend that money on cables, and if this is as revolutionary as they say it is, then I really do hope you enjoy it.


It's not revolutionary, the method used is pretty much half a century old. And it doesn't make cat ears grow on the wife. The ultimate result when all works fine, is going to be something real close to when you use your speakers(or whichever room you recorded with it). And speaker sound isn't revolutionary or incredible in any way.
So IMO, the main interest is for all the people who cannot afford to fire up their speakers at night(or ever) because of neighbors. I'm like that and in that specific respect, it's revolutionary for me. Now even at the kickstarter price, it's a rather expensive present I made to my neighbors ^_^. Because that's what it is to me. Never would I use headphones at home if I was alone in it and it was located on the countryside in the middle of nowhere. I find speaker playback soooooo much better. 
But now I can use something very close in the middle of the night and there is nobody to complain. So we're all happier and grateful.
And for people who have a house with the acoustic of a public toilet(too small, all concrete stuff, weirdo shapes,etc), they can go record some much nicer room at a friend's house, and voila! Also kind of cool.

But yes it's too expensive for what it really is. The retail price is above 4000€... That's scary but I've seen DACs and headphones at those prices so who knows? Maybe it makes sense for some people? And I don't think it will go down by much, if at all. The A8 stayed at around 3000€ for years. It's bound to remain a small market so long as Smyth is leading it.


TLDR; it's almost speaker! And in a better way than


----------



## castleofargh

magicscreen said:


> Anyway blind test is a false method. You cannot find a successful blind test on the internet which is proving it does not work.
> Only stone deaf people developed it so they can sleep well knowing that not only they are disabled.


What's the point of posting something like this? 
There's such a huge amount of data showing the necessity of experimenting on a variable with as much control over the other variables as possible. We usually need to do it just so we can effectively demonstrate causality between variable A and B. So rejecting controlled experiments is just irrational.

There is an even bigger amount of data on human biases and our inability to strictly separate our various senses from each other and from whatever ideas we have at the time. Can what we see change what we hear? Yes!!!!!! Can what we've been told change what we hear? Yes again! 
So if our impressions about sound can change from non audio variables, it's obvious that a more accurate impression about sound requires that we remove as many of those non audio variables as possible before testing for sound. At least it should be obvious to anybody who wants the correct answer about perceived sound.
Not saying that blind testing is perfect or easy. It's not and anybody is welcome to seriously address the flaws of a specific type of experiment so people can pay attention to those issues when experimenting, but also when interpreting the data from other similar experiments. 
But your post is nonsensical, and I'm not a fan of that.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

castleofargh said:


> What's the point of posting something like this?


You are impressively patient! And nice summary. I wonder if he'll answer...


----------



## bigshot

hakunamakaka said:


> I don't think Oculus Go/Atmos type of headphones can give a proper justice regards very spacious listening experience.



I was using my Oppo headphones with it. The Quest has really accurate head tracking. And the app I was checking out (Cirque du Soleir) had an immersive soundtrack by Head Space who supposedly are at the forefront with dimensional mixes for VR. Things crossing right to left were very clear. It had traveling sound elements that were clearly supposed to be in front and in back of you, and it was a very nice mix with lots of secondary depth cues. But it all sounded "inside the head" and nothing sounded like it was in front or behind me.


----------



## Slaphead

bigshot said:


> I used to think head tracking was the key, but I can’t get any kind of surround sense with my Oculus Quest either. I think it’s mostly personal anatomy.



I've got an Oculus Rift S, and basically all it appears to do is panning with head movement - there's no crossfeed as far as I can tell. On the other hand Sony appears to really nail it with the Playstation VR. There are real depth cues going on, and in something like Wipeout you can really hear exactly where your fellow racers are coming up behind you, and as you turn your head it really does sound like your turning your head rather than a simple pan.


----------



## Blackwoof (Oct 31, 2020)

Not impressed how what facts and logic, seems to vary a lot at ASR. I'm given 4 likes on the ER3XR's speed & detail, Then suddenly I'm hounded on being a audiofool and them saying "lol 0.9%" in the same when i post again???. Sometimes i just never reply since many don't even fully read your opinion or argument if it makes them doubt the site. Even Hydrogenaudio has this issue sometimes when they overhype QAAC performance at 128kbps.


----------



## castleofargh

Forums are groups of people. It would be weird(and rather dangerous) if they all always acted as a monolithic mind.


----------



## bigshot

Even though at the lower end of the spectrum, they do seem to do that!


----------



## Blackwoof

castleofargh said:


> Forums are groups of people. It would be weird(and rather dangerous) if they all always acted as a monolithic mind.



Both are like that on most things ironically, HA forums = <128kbps being transparent & ASR = them assuming everything must be low THD. Since i had a few say 0.7 ~ 1.64% at 1KHz is bad, But ignore speakers are higher at wider scale the ER4XR still low THD in that case. But HA takes the cake with their TOS#8 being used to remove "Here my ABX showing QAAC at 160kbps being 4.1 & Lame(192k)/Vorbis 160k being 4.8".

I've seen that happen while their trained testers get a free pass??, Without being asked to show samples most of the time.


----------



## bigshot

Why do I have so much trouble reading your posts? I can't make head nor tail of what you are trying to say.


----------



## sander99

bigshot said:


> Why do I have so much trouble reading your posts? I can't make head nor tail of what you are trying to say.


Maybe he had a drink or two in remembrance of his fellow scotsman Sean Connery.


----------



## bigshot

Blackwoof said:


> Both are like that on most things ironically, HA forums = <128kbps being transparent & ASR = them assuming everything must be low THD. Since i had a few say 0.7 ~ 1.64% at 1KHz is bad, But ignore speakers are higher at wider scale the ER4XR still low THD in that case. But HA takes the cake with their TOS#8 being used to remove "Here my ABX showing QAAC at 160kbps being 4.1 & Lame(192k)/Vorbis 160k being 4.8".



If I can gently make a comment. The problem with this comment isn't dyslexia. You're jumbling together acronyms and numbers in a way that makes it unintelligible to others. If you slowed down and put across context, other people would get more out of it. I find that reading my comments out loud is a good way to make sure they are conversational.


----------



## gargani

Out of curiosity, what frequency do people here consider the transition frequency from upper midrange to lower treble, on a frequency response graph?


----------



## castleofargh

gargani said:


> Out of curiosity, what frequency do people here consider the transition frequency from upper midrange to lower treble, on a frequency response graph?


Over the years I've been faithful to that graph.


----------



## analogsurviver

Peer rewieved double blind test scientific evidence vs anecdotal evidence


----------



## iFi audio

castleofargh said:


> Over the years I've been faithful to that graph.



Yep, I've been using something similar, but not this complex and with different colors on it 

Nice refereence though, thanks!


----------



## colonelkernel8

analogsurviver said:


> Peer rewieved double blind test scientific evidence vs anecdotal evidence



No.


----------



## PointyFox




----------



## gargani

PointyFox said:


>


??? oh, that makes sense.


----------



## PointyFox

gargani said:


> ??? oh, that makes sense.


Yes, he used anecdotal evidence to prove that anecdotal evidence is "both reliable and relevant"...


----------



## Sterling2 (Dec 23, 2020)

The other day I listened to a new LP from Hauser.  I enjoyed it, all but for the occasional pop, which was a distraction. So, I purchased a CD, as well as 24/96 FLAC and Apple Music downloads of the album. No attempt at any sort of “scientific “ experimentation with the media to sort out what media and 13 means to the media was best in any manner that  best might be discerned; but, I now have an impression that the Apple Music download to iTunes transported via Airport Express for delivery of optical S/PDIF to my Pre-Pro was the most pleasant and convenient  listening experience; thus, I’m now rethinking the need for LPs, CDs, and hi-res downloads as perhaps somewhat a mythical fascination.


----------



## bigshot

That's what happens when you depend on placebo. Your conclusions aren't based on any fact, so they keep morphing all over the place depending on your mood.


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> That's what happens when you depend on placebo. Your conclusions aren't based on any fact, so they keep morphing all over the place depending on your mood.


Give an example.


----------



## bigshot

Today I am grumpy and it's overcast. My ice cream tastes bland. Tomorrow it is a sunny day and I feel great and it's the best ice cream I've ever eaten. The ice cream didn't change. It came out of the same carton with the same recipe. My impression of it changed. But from my perspective, it seems like two different ice creams.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Today I am grumpy and it's overcast. My ice cream tastes bland. Tomorrow it is a sunny day and I feel great and it's the best ice cream I've ever eaten. The ice cream didn't change. It came out of the same carton with the same recipe. My impression of it changed. But from my perspective, it seems like two different ice creams.



Ice cream burn in.  The molecules in the ice cream needed to properly align as synergy developed with your make/model of refrigerator and it’s power cable.


----------



## Sterling2

bfreedma said:


> Ice cream burn in.  The molecules in the ice cream needed to properly align as synergy developed with your make/model of refrigerator and it’s power cable.


 My preferences to music media and the means to enjoy recorded music is largely a matter of the fact I can only access what I can budget and I can only understand products via credentialed review..


----------



## bigshot

And bias. Every human being is subject to bias. If you want to eliminate that, you do controlled tests.


----------



## castleofargh

@Sterling2 wrote that he has an impression about what's most pleasant and convenient to him. It's not like he came claiming that apple music was the highest fidelity and that it was clearly audible. He shared his preference, which is perfectly fine IMO.


----------



## bigshot

He expressed his preference, which is another word for bias.


----------



## Sterling2 (Dec 24, 2020)

bigshot said:


> He expressed his preference, which is another word for bias.


I got a word for you, ASSUMPTION. That's what you do. If you had interpreted  my post without bias to support your notion of being an all star performer here  on all manner of informed opinion  you would have recognized that I was seeking a determination of preference, thus no bias.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Personally, I’m looking for the best sound without sacrificing things such as comfort and features. Before I was in avid opposition to Bluetooth (which I don’t consider ideal even after the multiple codes and the implementation between different manufacturers) and wireless in general, but now I am becoming not only a supporter, also an user, with me considering to sell my ‘audiophile’ headphones with my amplifier because I think the current wireless solutions are so good that I do not detect any loss of quality between wired and wireless. The science of audio has given us the opportunity of advancing our old ways, and the DSP revolution brought by the ANC headphones with personal, live HRTF and frequency response compensation will be the next advancement for personal audio, solving the problem of how a single transducer cannot cover all variations of ears present and how each person hears audio differently. In my opinion, it is a good time to be present in the industry, there’s more competition than ever and innovation is frequent.


----------



## sonitus mirus

KeithPhantom said:


> Personally, I’m looking for the best sound without sacrificing things such as comfort and features. Before I was in avid opposition to Bluetooth (which I don’t consider ideal even after the multiple codes and the implementation between different manufacturers) and wireless in general, but now I am becoming not only a supporter, also an user, with me considering to sell my ‘audiophile’ headphones with my amplifier because I think the current wireless solutions are so good that I do not detect any loss of quality between wired and wireless. The science of audio has given us the opportunity of advancing our old ways, and the DSP revolution brought by the ANC headphones with personal, live HRTF and frequency response compensation will be the next advancement for personal audio, solving the problem of how a single transducer cannot cover all variations of ears present and how each person hears audio differently. In my opinion, it is a good time to be present in the industry, there’s more competition than ever and innovation is frequent.


Convenience is a powerful trait, and it is good that current technology has evolved to allow us to enjoy music without making sacrifices to sound quality over functionality.  My greatest annoyance with audiophiles is the common notion that well-recorded music in a lossy format played over measurably competent yet cost-effective gear cannot sound astounding.


----------



## hakunamakaka

In my experience none of the bluetooth headphones could offer the sound quality of the desktop rig. I think it will have it's place in the market, especially for someone interested in open back sound.  If we leave features aside and are interested in sound quality only, you can go very far with desktop equipment without spending much money. All these Bluetooth/Noise cancelling headphones would fall short in that regard


----------



## taffy2207 (Dec 24, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Today I am grumpy and it's overcast. My ice cream tastes bland. Tomorrow it is a sunny day and I feel great and it's the best ice cream I've ever eaten. The ice cream didn't change. It came out of the same carton with the same recipe. My impression of it changed. But from my perspective, it seems like two different ice creams.






bfreedma said:


> Ice cream burn in.  The molecules in the ice cream needed to properly align as synergy developed with your make/model of refrigerator and it’s power cable.



I was far more impressed that he time travelled if I'm honest, At least it's going to be sunny tomorrow


----------



## KeithPhantom (Dec 24, 2020)

sonitus mirus said:


> Convenience is a powerful trait, and it is good that current technology has evolved to allow us to enjoy music without making sacrifices to sound quality over functionality.  My greatest annoyance with audiophiles is the common notion that well-recorded music in a lossy format played over measurably competent yet cost-effective gear cannot sound astounding.


That’s why I’m looking for the most convenient yet faithful representation of sound. In my books, stuff like external amps and DACs are just a detriment to the experience of just listening to music.


----------



## KeithPhantom

hakunamakaka said:


> In my experience none of the bluetooth headphones could offer the sound quality of the desktop rig. I think it will have it's place in the market, especially for someone interested in open back sound.  If we leave features aside and are interested in sound quality only, you can go very far with desktop equipment without spending much money. All these Bluetooth/Noise cancelling headphones would fall short in that regard


In regards to Bluetooth codecs, I don’t find any difference that makes me wonder if I’m losing quality, I don’t even detect a difference from wired, so I seriously stopped caring about that aspect. About the transducers themselves, this will depend on the market and what is the preferred sound by the masses unless audiophiles start taking taking wireless seriously and start developing solutions that cater to their needs.


----------



## analogsurviver

Look what the cat named Fake just dragged in .... :

https://www.orchestraltools.com/sto...nt=Image_Ad_02_BStrings_25%_(3799386673474778


----------



## bigshot (Dec 29, 2020)

I won't watch anything that requires me to allow all sorts of cookies to watch, especially if it smells of snake oil. Do you have a more private place to view that video? Like youtube?

When bluetooth first came out, I could detect a tiny bit of artifacting. But that was a long time ago. Modern codecs are totally transparent. I don't see any reason to be dogmatic about bluetooth being inferior aside from the obvious audiophool "bigger is always better" fallacy.


----------



## Sterling2 (Dec 30, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I won't watch anything that requires me to allow all sorts of cookies to watch, especially if it smells of snake oil. Do you have a more private place to view that video? Like youtube?
> 
> When bluetooth first came out, I could detect a tiny bit of artifacting. But that was a long time ago. Modern codecs are totally transparent. I don't see any reason to be dogmatic about bluetooth being inferior aside from the obvious audiophool "bigger is always better" fallacy.


 The 2007/8 collapse of US economy motivated all businesses to rethink their need to offer better for less to stay in business. The result in A/V markets has been the disappearance of notions like "high end", since there's not much out there today to meaningfully distinguish high end from low end other than cosmetics which allude to product superiority, like sculptured aluminum casings or beautiful veneer facades. In other words, there’s a world of inexpensive plastic cased and vinyl clad gear out there today to play recorded music for very life like performance.


----------



## magicscreen

Why is every audiophile old?
Do they have more refined and experienced hearing ability?


----------



## bigshot

Most audiophiles aren’t old. It’s young men in their thirties with disposable income and not a lot of financial responsibilities yet. And audiophiles have the same ears as any other human. Some audiophiles like to believe they are “special” though. Male ego stuff...


----------



## megabigeye

I've noticed that a lot of headphone enthusiasts are relatively young men, but a lot of "speaker guys" are male retirees.  Probably because they have expendable cash and enough space to put speakers and a listening room.


----------



## sander99

Some smart men with little expendable cash are listening to a virtual high end surround speaker setup in a virtual treated room over relatively cheap headphones.


----------



## bigshot

Speaker guys generally have houses. The main reason to use headphones is to avoid making the neighbors mad in apartment buildings.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bigshot said:


> Speaker guys generally have houses. The main reason to use headphones is to avoid making the neighbors mad in apartment buildings.


That and price-performance. To get those deep lows you need to shell out.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Jan 6, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I won't watch anything that requires me to allow all sorts of cookies to watch, especially if it smells of snake oil. Do you have a more private place to view that video? Like youtube?
> 
> When bluetooth first came out, I could detect a tiny bit of artifacting. But that was a long time ago. Modern codecs are totally transparent. I don't see any reason to be dogmatic about bluetooth being inferior aside from the obvious audiophool "bigger is always better" fallacy.


It's just a plugin for digital audio workstation software that lets you recreate string sections for whatever you're working on. Ironically, the samples are 48kHz/24bit, far too low for Mr. @analogsurviver. Must be why he's calling it "fake".


----------



## inmytaxi

Headphones as a hobby to scratch the 'buy nice things' itch is remarkably cheap. One sports car purchase by a different sort of person would buy my lifetime's expendature's on audio gear.

 Not to mention that I love listening to music, and the Grado family, Dan Clark and Zach whomever and the men and women at Schiit make remarkable products that I am thrilled to be able to buy.


----------



## bigshot

I've spent an awful lot of money over the decades. I buy nice things, but I like to get my money's worth, and I want to know that it is useful for my purposes. It seems a lot of people go a long way beyond that to scratch their itch.


----------



## SennheiserNoob

I stick with headphones because I have neighbors (living in an apartment) - if I were to go to speakers, I'd want to be able to play them on the loud side which I am sure would upset a few people.


----------



## bigshot

Before I owned my own house, I had speakers in an apartment. I chose a neighborhood that had lots of loud parties. Never got a complaint that way, and I can sleep through anything!


----------



## SennheiserNoob

bigshot said:


> Before I owned my own house, I had speakers in an apartment. I chose a neighborhood that had lots of loud parties. Never got a complaint that way, and I can sleep through anything!



Smart - wish I had been as forward-thinking. XD


----------



## bigshot

The rent was cheap too! Luckily, I like Mariachi music.


----------



## 538681

megabigeye said:


> I've noticed that a lot of headphone enthusiasts are relatively young men, but a lot of "speaker guys" are male retirees.  Probably because they have expendable cash and enough space to put speakers and a listening room.



I think its more about what you grew up with. There were few headphones and no IEMs back when. I'm 65 but started being an enthusiast for music equipment much later, after 2005. I happen to prefer IEM and headphone sound over speakers for their close to the head sound and portability. I find IEM SQ better than speakers or headphones. The technology has really matured in the last few years.


----------



## bigshot

If you hear (and feel) a good speaker system, you would probably change your mind. Multichannel is much better on speakers and that is as much of a sound quality improvement as stereo was over mono.


----------



## 538681

bigshot said:


> If you hear (and feel) a good speaker system, you would probably change your mind. Multichannel is much better on speakers and that is as much of a sound quality improvement as stereo was over mono.



I don't care much for speakers compared to earphones for a number of other reasons. I like to listen to my music in bed, walking around the house, hiking, and especially sitting on my back porch with a beer enjoying the view (I can see the whole city of Reno, NV, all the way to the mountains).  When outdoors, music is no longer in my head but come down from the sky; there is no comparison with speakers. But, I actually like music close to my head as if I was the microphone to vocals and instruments. I don't want to be the audience. Sitting precisely in front of speakers to get the best sound is a prison to me, I get very restless. I really only use my speakers when I want to share music with others which is important.

I have friends with excellent speaker systems and treated rooms but I'm not particularly impressed. My UM MEST or Audeze LCDi3 just has better SQ for me.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 14, 2021)

Yeah. I am talking about sound quality, not convenience or suitability for your purpose. Nothing sounds better than a good multichannel system playing a great 5.1 music mix. But headphones are more portable, cheaper and easier to set up.


----------



## 538681

bigshot said:


> Yeah. I am talking about sound quality, not convenience or suitability for your purpose. Nothing sounds better than a good multichannel system playing a great 5.1 music mix. But headphones are more portable, cheaper and easier to set up.



I'm sorry, but I disagree. I was talking about both convenience and SQ. SQ is influenced also by your location and comfort (if not the time of day). I prefer my $1k IEMs to my $50k friend's system any day of the week. I just don't enjoy sitting in a room in front of speakers which affects my perception of the sound. I'm blown away by some new IEM's on the market which just does not happen with speakers.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Well if you love that intimate presentation and in your head sound I understand why IEM's are preferred and they can be special tuning wise, but judging sound quality alone I have to agree with bigshot, they can't compete even against well placed bookshelf speakers. My openback Clears comes close, but it still feels like studio monitors would be pushed very close to my ears. If you could lower down outside noise and  bring well treated/good speaker sound with you, everyone would forget IEM's and headphones


----------



## 538681

hakunamakaka said:


> Well if you love that intimate presentation and in your head sound I understand why IEM's are preferred and they can be special tuning wise, but judging sound quality alone I have to agree with bigshot, they can't compete even against well placed bookshelf speakers. My openback Clears comes close, but it still feels like studio monitors would be pushed very close to my ears. If you could lower down outside noise and  bring well treated/good speaker sound with you, everyone would forget IEM's and headphones



It's funny how folks struggle with this. Let me be clear, I don't particularly care for the speaker sound and I have heard a few systems (plenty in high end system stores in large treated rooms). I really tried to get excited about them but I will choose IEMs or Headphones over speaker systems each and every time. Their gestalt just cannot be matched by speakers. The biggest myth is that the goal of headphone sound is to be more and more like speakers. No, afraid not, I like headphones/IEMs for the very reason they are not like speakers. Speakers just cannot compare with S class IEMs (speed, clarity, detail, or tonality) (actually I like IEMs more than Headphones, especially the tribrids). 

That's just the way it is for me.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 14, 2021)

Would you rather hear the sound of a live band playing acoustic instruments all around you or plug in to a mike feed and listen to them through your headphones inside your head while the musicians play right in front of you? Would you prefer to go to a movie theater with THX or Atmos sound and plug in and hear it inside your head instead of hearing the sound coming from the screen and all around you?

The goal of headphones is to sound as good as headphones can sound. Headphones can never sound like speakers. It requires space for sound to bloom. However a good set of nearfield speakers can sound very much like headphones. Commercial music is recorded and mixed to sound best on speakers. But whatever you find most convenient for you is fine. Clearly, you can't take a speaker system with you on the bus. But at home on the couch, speakers can't be matched by headphones. Especially multichannel where you have a coherent sound field with directional sound coming from where ever the mixer wants to place each mix element. That can give you a real 360 degree ambience and clear dimensional placement of every instrument.

I have great headphones and I like them a lot. But they don't hold a candle to my listening room and 5.1 system.


----------



## hakunamakaka (Jan 14, 2021)

Crankyrat said:


> It's funny how folks struggle with this. Let me be clear, I don't particularly care for the speaker sound and I have heard a few systems (plenty in high end system stores in large treated rooms). I really tried to get excited about them but I will choose IEMs or Headphones over speaker systems each and every time. Their gestalt just cannot be matched by speakers. The biggest myth is that the goal of headphone sound is to be more and more like speakers. No, afraid not, I like headphones/IEMs for the very reason they are not like speakers. Speakers just cannot compare with S class IEMs (speed, clarity, detail, or tonality) (actually I like IEMs more than Headphones, especially the tribrids).
> 
> That's just the way it is for me.



Myself I own multi BA custom IEM, tried few audio 64, I was on hype train there when my wallet was itchy and reviews said that  they have godlike performances. As I said you are a fan of IEM intimate presentation and that is ok, but that speakers/hp can’t compete against IEM speed/clarity that’s a very bold statement.


----------



## 538681

bigshot said:


> Would you rather hear the sound of a live band playing acoustic instruments all around you or plug in to a mike feed and listen to them through your headphones while they play right in front of you?
> 
> The goal of headphones is to sound as good as headphones can sound. Headphones can never sound like speakers. It requires space for sound to bloom. However a good set of nearfield speakers can sound very much like headphones. Commercial music is recorded and mixed to sound best on speakers. But whatever you find most convenient for you is fine. Clearly, you can't take a speaker system with you on the bus. But at home on the couch, speakers can't be matched by headphones.



Ok, this will be my last reply since you don't seem to want to acknowledge my experience at a minimum; I never expected you to agree.

What I would like is to have my ear practically on every acoustical instrument in the room. I do not want to be in the audience. IEMs, and to a lesser extent headphones, do a pretty good approximation of that and its fantastic.

Good for near-field speakers, that's a step up, real progress, but its easier to just wear headphones.

Speakers can be surpassed by IEMs, and by quite a bit.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 14, 2021)

If you hear a multichannel speaker system with a balanced response and channel levels in a good room acoustic, you will hear every detail there is to hear, with the added benefit of dimensionality and precise placement of each voice in the orchestra.

Recorded music is mixed using speakers, not headphones. You may prefer headphones for whatever personal reasons, but the people making the music are balancing and judging the mix based on how it sounds on speakers. If you want fidelity to their intent, you use speakers. And when the mix is multichannel, it is as big a step up in fidelity as the difference between mono and stereo. It's one of those things where even your mom would hear a clear improvement. No single comparison at all. It isn't being in an audience. The whole room becomes a sound field, which is infinitely better than the straight line through your head with stereo headphones. Eventually, technology will allow headphones to emulate spacial presentation, but at this point it is expensive and clunky to do that kind of sound processing. Speakers have a definite edge there. I'm guessing you probably haven't heard multichannel music on a system designed for that.


----------



## 538681 (Jan 14, 2021)

bigshot said:


> If you hear a multichannel speaker system with a balanced response and channel levels in a good room acoustic, you will hear every detail there is to hear, with the added benefit of dimensionality and precise placement of each voice in the orchestra.
> 
> Recorded music is mixed using speakers, not headphones. You may prefer headphones for whatever personal reasons, but the people making the music are balancing and judging the mix based on how it sounds on speakers. If you want fidelity to their intent, you use speakers. And when the mix is multichannel, it is as big a step up in fidelity as the difference between mono and stereo. It's one of those things where even your mom would hear a clear improvement. No single comparison at all. It isn't being in an audience. The whole room becomes a sound field, which is infinitely better than the straight line through your head with stereo headphones. Eventually, technology will allow headphones to emulate spacial presentation, but at this point it is expensive and clunky to do that kind of sound processing. Speakers have a definite edge there. I'm guessing you probably haven't heard multichannel music on a system designed for that.



Ok, this is worth one more reply.

I do much prefer studio music to live (just better quality to my ear). I also like electronic, non EDM, music plus jazz, classical, and a variety of vocals. I like what is sonically interesting. I do not value fidelity to an engineer's intent. Their intent might be interesting intellectually but it is not a SQ metric for me. More bluntly, I just don't care that their intent was to make music for speakers. If it doesn't work for my setup, it just does not work.

The problem with speakers is getting that "balanced response and channel levels in a good room acoustic", or whatever. I have never heard it done well enough, I suppose, to convince me that it is superior.  It certainly is not a dollar value proposition.

In the end though you do not have one shred of scientific evidence for your claims about SQ. To me its just a lot of group think echo chamber assertions. I'm telling you my experience with modern IEMs (less so with headphones) is one of superior SQ to any speaker setup I so far have heard, the best one's being in expensive showrooms at music stores with equipment I could never possibly afford.

I'm sure someone somewhere may impress me enough with their home system in some mythical land where I have all the time in the world.

Oh, I actually think most recorded music is made to sound good using an iPhone and earbuds. A vastly larger market than speakers.


----------



## castleofargh

Crankyrat said:


> Ok, this is worth one more reply.
> 
> I do much prefer studio music to live (just better quality to my ear). I also like electronic, non EDM, music plus jazz, classical, and a variety of vocals. I like what is sonically interesting. I do not value fidelity to an engineer's intent. Their intent might be interesting intellectually but it is not a SQ metric for me. More bluntly, I just don't care that their intent was to make music for speakers. If it doesn't work for my setup, it just does not work.
> 
> ...


About scientific evidence of sound quality, there is an interesting matter of choosing the reference. Which can be simple, or a deep philosophical question, depending on how you approach the idea of fidelity. 
If we consider the reference as us in front of a band, first we'll be disappointed because albums are rarely done with that in mind. Second, it's obvious that speaker playback contains more elements of that experience. Some sound sources anchored to the room, not following our head movements. The bass shaking our body. Most of the very usual cues of sound bouncing in a room and on our head(wrong room, but a room still, and alterations by our body that are like real sounds from a distance). 
Playback on headphones or IEMs is something else entirely. Sound mostly in our head and turns with it. No tactile bass. A sound in the left channel only heard by the left ear leading to some instruments only being heard on one side sometimes, something completely unrealistic). All that can be considered dramatically incorrect if the reference is a real human standing in front of a band. Speaker playback also has many incorrect elements compared to that reference, but for the most part we keep a more natural, more realistic experience. The overall deviations should logically give speaker playback as an easy fidelity winner.

Now if we instead pick the 2 outgoing channels from the track as reference, then IEMs and headphones tend to have superior fidelity compared to speakers. Simple reference, simple result.
But should we really use that as reference when even to this day, most sound engineers will have created those tracks using speakers? The older the track, the more it becomes clear that the artistic intent was speaker playback. Should that count when considering sound quality? I happen to think it should.
But then that goes both ways. I've heard some electronic stereo tracks that had clear headphone surround, or some sort of HRTF model simulating multichannel speaker experience. That clearly suggested the intent to have it played on headphones or IEMs, because those types of spatial cues would be mostly lost on speakers. but while it's a serious argument for headphone/IEMs, it's also clearly at the anecdotal level. Out of what has been produced in history, stuff mastered for headphones is still a tiny amount.


Anyway, over years of talking with headphone and IEMs maniacs, I can say that you're not alone with a preference for the clean IEM presentation. It's been a long lasting and hopeless discussion with a friend of mine who just adores the amount of details he feels from his many CIEMs. While I wish to get speaker sound everywhere . So again, you're not alone. But I can also say that you seem to be in the minority, even in the Headfi world. Most people can appreciate the difference in presentation and experience. Most are happy to get both, like some way to spice things up, or yet another opportunity to make their own choice. But at the end of the day, only a minority really seems to prefer the IEM experience over that of a good speaker playback(when they have a choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).


----------



## GearMe

So --- audio listening preferences (music, equipment, basshead, treblehead, etc.) are personal...no right or wrong here!  Whatever floats your boat, good on you.

TBH, the idea that someone would/should change their own preference to align with another's (i.e. Speakers vs IEMs, 'fidelity' to the artist's/engineer's intent vs 'infidelity' , etc.) simply because they haven't truly experienced the pinnacle of the 'best' acoustic delivery mode (argued earlier in the thread) is honestly insulting.  'Really...you just don't know any better...poor schlep'   Ugh!  That thinking is behind so much of what is wrong with the world today.

Anecdotally, regarding the market's preference for Speakers vs IEMs / Headphones, I really feel like there's been a major shift.

My kids (Millennials) don't even own a stereo system or a home theater but they do own earbuds, tws iems and headphones.  Same goes for the majority of their friends.  They listen to music from their phones, watch movies on their laptops, and when they do watch content on their TVs...they're happy with the speakers in the TV.  I actually have a nice 5.1 HT system that I tried to give to my son a few years ago when I upgraded.  He turned it down -- didn't see the need for it!  

And their kids?...are using iems or gaming headphones on their Xbox or Nintendo Switch while they're playing Fortnite, Minecraft, etc.

Would be curious to hear what the next generations in your 'circle' are using to enjoy music and movies...


----------



## 538681 (Jan 14, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> About scientific evidence of sound quality, there is an interesting matter of choosing the reference. Which can be simple, or a deep philosophical question, depending on how you approach the idea of fidelity.
> If we consider the reference as us in front of a band, first we'll be disappointed because albums are rarely done with that in mind. Second, it's obvious that speaker playback contains more elements of that experience. Some sound sources anchored to the room, not following our head movements. The bass shaking our body. Most of the very usual cues of sound bouncing in a room and on our head(wrong room, but a room still, and alterations by our body that are like real sounds from a distance).
> Playback on headphones or IEMs is something else entirely. Sound mostly in our head and turns with it. No tactile bass. A sound in the left channel only heard by the left ear leading to some instruments only being heard on one side sometimes, something completely unrealistic). All that can be considered dramatically incorrect if the reference is a real human standing in front of a band. Speaker playback also has many incorrect elements compared to that reference, but for the most part we keep a more natural, more realistic experience. The overall deviations should logically give speaker playback as an easy fidelity winner.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your reply, very well thought out. I appreciate your understanding what IEMs bring to the table. I would add that technological innovation right now is most profound with IEMs and mostly in China. I would not have made my claims even 5 years ago. This year at least a half dozen IEMs have made astounding progress in SQ.

Just for fun, try out the few binaural recordings you can get your hands on. That will remove even the sound stage component of the argument against IEMs. But...that's not really what I'm interested in when listening to IEMs. Imaging is very important to me and as long as the sound stage supports it I don't need more.

The notion of natural or realistic is very imprecise. I am neither inclined or able to be at the original source for the music, "reference is a real human standing in front of a band" ( I actually don't like the usually poor SQ of live music). I don't care one wit as to the intent of anyone in the recording chain. It is not a metric I use for determining fidelity. I'll go further, if I can manipulate the sound to be as unnatural and unrealistic as I can to please me, I will. Intent, natural, realistic are not metrics I have any interest in or care about. I listen to a lot of reviewers but when they use those terms all I hear is blah, blah, blah. I exaggerate of course to make a point. As to the notion of feeling sound in your body which generally means sub-base response. I have certainly noted that but frankly find it annoying. It does nothing for me. I have left live music venues when this becomes too apparent, in other words too loud.

As to my opinion being majority or minority status. You can't seriously believe I care about that? Nothing more to be said about the matter.

But again, I thank you for acknowledging "clean IEM presentation". That's something speaker maniacs can't seem to say.


----------



## 538681 (Jan 14, 2021)

GearMe said:


> So --- audio listening preferences (music, equipment, basshead, treblehead, etc.) are personal...no right or wrong here!  Whatever floats your boat, good on you.
> 
> TBH, the idea that someone would/should change their own preference to align with another's (i.e. Speakers vs IEMs, 'fidelity' to the artist's/engineer's intent vs 'infidelity' , etc.) simply because they haven't truly experienced the pinnacle of the 'best' acoustic delivery mode (argued earlier in the thread) is honestly insulting.  'Really...you just don't know any better...poor schlep'   Ugh!  That thinking is behind so much of what is wrong with the world today.
> 
> ...



Ah, they are not my circle. I actually want very high quality sound! I'm a retired software engineer with plenty of money to spend on this hobby.

I have a completely unsubstantiated theory as to why I like IEMs more than any speaker system I heard. I also think its a reason why speaker people are generally older (although the highest market sales right now, in billions, are soundbar speakers).

Do you remember the first time you tasted hard liqueur (not sweet)? Godawful wasn't it? But then the pleasure that became associated with it! In short order, if so inclined, you become a connoisseur and the taste becomes sublime. If it was Rum, you like Rum, if Scotch then only that will do.

What was your first experience with music from a device (speaker, headphone, IEM)? Usually it was on some cheap piece of trash if you were young. Mine personally was monaural radio, then Koss headphones, 5.1 surround sound speakers for the TV, and finally Bose headphones 10 years ago. Each step was an improvement. 5 years ago I got my first Etymotic IEM. What a revelation! What pleasure! The psychological anchor was set.

Since then I thought I would get more satisfaction from a good speaker system (because lots of folks said so) and hunted for them in high end music stores to no avail. I listened for hours to my friends very expensive system. Sorry, I just want my IEM. I wanted speakers that would reproduce that pleasure, but failed. I proceeded to buy ever more expensive IEMs which separated me ever further from speaker systems, that for me, were decidedly inferior. I bought headphones which are nice when you get tired of having a plunger in your ear.

The point is, I think everyone is subject to this psychological anchoring bias. If your first significant pleasure was with a good speaker system you are now biased, for ever more, to those sound cues. You will never be satisfied with headphones or IEMs. It will always be perceived as a step down.

But one should not think there is any scientific validity to these biases in the physical world. They are only valid in the biggest DSP in the chain, your brain. I look forward to when we can have better measurements, not only for FR, noise, and distortion, but for detail, sound-stage, and imaging. At a certain point we will be able to look at a spec and truly choose what we prefer without having to try everything under the sun, which is difficult and often impractical.


----------



## Ohman

Regarding speaker cables I can't tell the difference between most unless there is a significant disparity in gauge. What I can tell however, is the difference between silver and copper. One must keep in mind that all speakers are designed with the assumption that copper cables will feed them, not silver and there is a large enough difference in resistance to be noticed. The stupidest purchase I ever made (in the audio realm) was Siltech silver cables to feed a pair of Linn Caber speakers. It made them sound like toy speakers: sibilance, screaming mids and feeble bass was the result. I switched for common hardware store lamp wire and everything was fine, back to normal.

Interconnects are somewhat different. There is a very noticeable difference between El Cheapo and mid-range ones, but not so much between insanely priced ones and mid-range ($40 to $100 for the pair). The expensive ones will usually have better connectors and thicker sleeve but that has no effect on how they convey sound as long as the gauge is the same.

Amplifiers I can tell between mellow ones and bright ones but couldn't pinpoint a specific brand/model in a blind test .Here again very cheap ones sound poorly but I probably wouldn't be able to distinguish a $600 receiver from a $3000 receiver unless they'd be a serious difference in power rating and then again this would only show when the units' volume set high up. In that case the probability that the cheaper amp would clip first is pretty high owing to the expensive one having anti-clipping circuitry that lowers the volume automatically when it reaches a point where speakers (presumed to be high-end) are likely to hit bottom.


----------



## bfreedma

Ohman said:


> Regarding speaker cables I can't tell the difference between most unless there is a significant disparity in gauge. What I can tell however, is the difference between silver and copper. One must keep in mind that all speakers are designed with the assumption that copper cables will feed them, not silver and there is a large enough difference in resistance to be noticed. The stupidest purchase I ever made (in the audio realm) was Siltech silver cables to feed a pair of Linn Caber speakers. It made them sound like toy speakers: sibilance, screaming mids and feeble bass was the result. I switched for common hardware store lamp wire and everything was fine, back to normal.
> 
> Interconnects are somewhat different. There is a very noticeable difference between El Cheapo and mid-range ones, but not so much between insanely priced ones and mid-range ($40 to $100 for the pair). The expensive ones will usually have better connectors and thicker sleeve but that has no effect on how they convey sound as long as the gauge is the same.
> 
> Amplifiers I can tell between mellow ones and bright ones but couldn't pinpoint a specific brand/model in a blind test .Here again very cheap ones sound poorly but I probably wouldn't be able to distinguish a $600 receiver from a $3000 receiver unless they'd be a serious difference in power rating and then again this would only show when the units' volume set high up. In that case the probability that the cheaper amp would clip first is pretty high owing to the expensive one having anti-clipping circuitry that lowers the volume automatically when it reaches a point where speakers (presumed to be high-end) are likely to hit bottom.



i assume since you didn’t mention any testing protocols that your statements are based on subjective sighted observation.

Bluntly, that won‘t change any minds here, nor should it.


----------



## GearMe (Jan 15, 2021)

Crankyrat said:


> Ah, they are not my circle. I actually want very high quality sound! I'm a retired software engineer with plenty of money to spend on this hobby.
> 
> I have a completely unsubstantiated theory as to why I like IEMs more than any speaker system I heard. I also think its a reason why speaker people are generally older (although the highest market sales right now, in billions, are soundbar speakers).
> 
> ...


Interesting...for me I started with a decent Sansui receiver and a set of EPI speakers, moved to JBL 100s with a Phase Linear 400 amp...was young, listened exclusively to Rock & Roll and looking for 'realistic' sound levels. As my music tastes grew, I moved to Dahlquist DQ 10s, Quad ESL, and Maggies with some dynamic driver detours along the way.  What I found was I loved electrostatic and planar speakers for acoustic music but that my Rock/Blues/R&B experience suffered even though I had added a subwoofer.  

As soon as I got a real job and a house, I expanded to having an Acoustic system and a Rock/Blues system in two different rooms.  Eventually, I finished our basement and added a 5.1 HT setup.  Acquiring/upgrading these systems was an interesting (and expensive!) journey.

When having kids forced me to buy some headphones (Senns, Stax), I learned a couple things.  I enjoyed the flexibility of headphones (could listen at 'realistic' levels...even when the kids were asleep) and having multiple sound signatures at significant cost savings was a big plus.  

Fast forward, I still have a good (not expensive) 5.1 HT system to watch movies but I jettisoned my expensive 2 channel systems and just use headphones / iems now for music listening.

So...if that psychological anchoring bias existed for me, I was able to overcome it!  

Today, I own multiple headphones/iems (dynamic, planar, electrostatic, hybrids) with a variety of sound signatures and really enjoy the ability to change my 'sound room' for music genres or even my mood (today's a basshead day, tomorrow's a neutralhead day, etc.).  Also, the bonus is that all of these 'sound rooms' cost way less and take up much less space than several 2 channel systems.

Honestly, I (like you) prefer the headphone/iem experience at this point!


----------



## Ohman

bfreedma said:


> i assume since you didn’t mention any testing protocols that your statements are based on subjective sighted observation.
> 
> Bluntly, that won‘t change any minds here, nor should it.



Such was not my intention, when I write "I" it implies personal experiences. Sorry if that wasn't clear, it was not about changing anyone's mind. Subjective it was indeed but that doesn't necessarily make it worthless. At least I hope not.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Ohman said:


> Regarding speaker cables I can't tell the difference between most unless there is a significant disparity in gauge. What I can tell however, is the difference between silver and copper. One must keep in mind that all speakers are designed with the assumption that copper cables will feed them, not silver and there is a large enough difference in resistance to be noticed. The stupidest purchase I ever made (in the audio realm) was Siltech silver cables to feed a pair of Linn Caber speakers. It made them sound like toy speakers: sibilance, screaming mids and feeble bass was the result. I switched for common hardware store lamp wire and everything was fine, back to normal.
> 
> Interconnects are somewhat different. There is a very noticeable difference between El Cheapo and mid-range ones, but not so much between insanely priced ones and mid-range ($40 to $100 for the pair). The expensive ones will usually have better connectors and thicker sleeve but that has no effect on how they convey sound as long as the gauge is the same.
> 
> Amplifiers I can tell between mellow ones and bright ones but couldn't pinpoint a specific brand/model in a blind test .Here again very cheap ones sound poorly but I probably wouldn't be able to distinguish a $600 receiver from a $3000 receiver unless they'd be a serious difference in power rating and then again this would only show when the units' volume set high up. In that case the probability that the cheaper amp would clip first is pretty high owing to the expensive one having anti-clipping circuitry that lowers the volume automatically when it reaches a point where speakers (presumed to be high-end) are likely to hit bottom.


Use this online tool to show the actual differences in resistance between silver and copper speaker wires that are otherwise identical and please let me know how this could make any audible difference.  We can tell that there is a difference, but unless there is a pathological example used that would be obvious and outside the realms of the point of this discussion, it is unlikely to be identified by human ears when listening to music.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wire-resistance


----------



## bigshot (Jan 15, 2021)

Crankyrat said:


> I do much prefer studio music to live (snip) I like what is sonically interesting. I do not value fidelity to an engineer's intent



That's fine. You have a preference for a particular kind of coloration. It's like people who prefer the euphonic distortion of tubes. They like it even if it isn't accurate or true to the fidelity of the original recording. You can feel free to listen to music however you like, from a massive "Voice of the Theater" system all the way down to a transistor radio. What you like is what you like. But this is the Sound Science forum. We tend to focus on objective fidelity, and that means response curves, inaudible levels of distortion, and presenting the music as close to the way it was intended as possible. Everyone makes personal compromises based on their living situation, finances and personal preferences. But that isn't enhancing sound fidelity. It's a trade off of sound fidelity in favor of functionality for our purposes. We all do that, but most of us acknowledge that it's a trade off. We don't claim that those compromises result in better sound fidelity than if we didn't make them.

If you want sound fidelity, which means hearing all the details in perfect balance, you try to get as close to what the original engineers heard in the studio as possible. That means studio monitors, a large room with a good acoustic, and an optimal sitting position.



GearMe said:


> TBH, the idea that someone would/should change their own preference to align with another's (i.e. Speakers vs IEMs, 'fidelity' to the artist's/engineer's intent vs 'infidelity' , etc.) simply because they haven't truly experienced the pinnacle of the 'best' acoustic delivery mode (argued earlier in the thread) is honestly insulting.  'Really...you just don't know any better...poor schlep'   Ugh!  That thinking is behind so much of what is wrong with the world today.



You need to understand that when I talk about multichannel music, I'm talking about a kind of system that the majority of audiophiles have never heard before. Stereo involves the meshing of two channels to create a flat plane of sound. Multichannel meshes many speakers into a three dimensional sound field where the soundstage isn't just left and right, but up and down and front and back as well. I'm not talking here about just directionality. We've all heard that in movie theaters with surround sound. I'm talking about a coherent sound field with the ability to place sound objects in three dimensional space. This is a fairly new thing and if I say "you haven't experienced the pinnacle of the best acoustic delivery mode", I'm not being insulting. I'm simply stating something that is very likely a fact.

I'll tell you a story about how I came to a realization about all this. I had a good stereo system in my apartment with two studio monitors. I loved it. When the movie The Incredibles was released, I was invited to a screening of the film at the Frank Wells Theater at the Disney Studio. At the time, the Wells Theater was one of the most state of the art screening rooms in the world, with digital projection and a sound system that was designed in perfect harmony with the acoustics of the room. It isn't a big theater- maybe a few hundred seats and I got there early and got one of the best seats. What I experienced there that night was an epiphany. Before that, I was pursuing a balanced response and low distortion. But here I wasn't just hearing those parameters, I was hearing ones I hadn't even considered. Phase, space conveyed through reflection and delay of sound, the ability for multiple speakers to mesh and put a whisper right inside your ear, or all the way over in the far side of the room. I heard sound objects pass from one corner to another corner. I heard dialogue firmly anchored in the image on the screen. I felt rumbling bass that seemed to be coming up out of the floor and resonated in my chest cavity. When the movie ended, I realized that I could continue optimizing my stereo system until the cows come home and it wouldn't ever come anywhere close to this.

When the time came that I was ready to buy a house, one of my primary requirements was to find a place with a room suitable for building a theater like the one I had heard (obviously on a scale that normal humans can afford). I was lucky and found the perfect place. I installed a 10 foot drop down screen and an HD projector, and I went to work experimenting to create a speaker system capable of recreating that experience I had. It wasn't easy. Home theater is different in many ways than a listening room, and I wanted this to serve for both movies and music. I experimented with speaker placement, moved furniture around, upgraded speakers here and there, and assembled a collection of reference music recordings in 5.1. It took a few years to get it the way I wanted it. But now when I listen to stereo speakers or headphones, I can clearly hear what they are missing.

There is a dimension of sound beyond what most audiophiles talk about. It doesn't have anything to do with copper vs silver wire, open or closed headphones, more expensive DACs, or drivers made from the purest unobtanium. The difference that takes sound into the next dimension is the proper use of physical space.. distance, direction, reflection, ambience... You can get a very primitive idea of what I'm talking about by listening to binaural recordings (when they work properly). But imagine binaural with 7 or 12 or 17 different channels! Multichannel sound goes far beyond two channel. It still isn't "real" because it isn't intended to be real. It's "hyper real"- better than real- almost like an auditory holodeck. You can synthesize this sort of thing with the Smyth Realiser I'm told. But if you have the space and ability to build a multichannel system in your home, it is an experience that you just have too experience yourself. You can't explain to other people in words. (even though I just tried to do that in the past few paragraphs.)


----------



## Ohman

sonitus mirus said:


> Use this online tool to show the actual differences in resistance between silver and copper speaker wires that are otherwise identical and please let me know how this could make any audible difference.  We can tell that there is a difference, but unless there is a pathological example used that would be obvious and outside the realms of the point of this discussion, it is unlikely to be identified by human ears when listening to music.
> 
> https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wire-resistance



I understand your point but I have seen so many graphs pertaining to equipment that looked fantastic on paper, passed blind testing with flying colors, but nevertheless failed to replicate the numbers outside of a controlled environment that \\i have become a tad bit skeptical of both myth and science-backed claim. I'm straddling the fence here, on the one hand I believe that many audio myths are just that, myths. On the other hand I have done experiments that I could replicate when asked to do so. That may still be subjective but unless I kept repeating the exact same mistake over and over, every time I demonstrated the silver vs copper experiment (for example) to other people and that those people were all mistaken, which is rather unlikely, the experiments may have some value outside audio labs. I'm not saying the science backing up or debunking widespread assumptions is wrong, just that in the typical home listening room numbers don't always match the listener's perceived performance from their equipment.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 15, 2021)

There are two kinds of measurements... Those that are audible by human ears, and those that are not. You determine which is which by performing a blind, level matched direct A/B switched comparison. That establishes a threshold of perception. Blind testing is not random. It's very precise.

There is absolutely no reason to expect that silver and copper sound different based on the measurements and the established thresholds of perception. You are claiming to hear a difference. It's up to you to prove that if you want us to pay attention to your claim in Sound Science. You don't do that by telling us about uncontrolled, sighted, anecdotal impressions. You do that by conducting a proper listening test.

If you would like to learn how to do that for yourself, we would be happy to help you. The process is relatively simple. It involves eliminating the possibility of expectation bias and perceptual error. You can do a test like this in a couple of hours. The equipment needed costs well under $50. If you would like to put your belief to the test and find out the truth for yourself, let us know and we will help.

But this is the Sound Science forum. It's different than the other forums in Head-Fi. Here, we get to ask for controlled tests. We can dismiss sighted impressions.


----------



## Ohman

bigshot said:


> There are two kinds of measurements... Those that are audible by human ears, and those that are not. You determine which is which by performing a blind, level matched direct A/B switched comparison. That establishes a threshold of perception. Blind testing is not random. It's very precise.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason to expect that silver and copper sound different based on the measurements and the established thresholds of perception. You are claiming to hear a difference. It's up to you to prove that if you want us to pay attention to your claim in Sound Science. You don't do that by telling us about uncontrolled, sighted, anecdotal impressions. You do that by conducting a proper listening test.
> 
> ...



Point taken.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> You need to understand that when I talk about multichannel music, I'm talking about a kind of system that the majority of audiophiles have never heard before. Stereo involves the meshing of two channels to create a flat plane of sound. Multichannel meshes many speakers into a three dimensional sound field where the soundstage isn't just left and right, but up and down and front and back as well. I'm not talking here about just directionality. We've all heard that in movie theaters with surround sound. I'm talking about a coherent sound field with the ability to place sound objects in three dimensional space. This is a fairly new thing and if I say "you haven't experienced the pinnacle of the best acoustic delivery mode", I'm not being insulting. I'm simply stating something that is very likely a fact.
> 
> I'll tell you a story about how I came to a realization about all this. I had a good stereo system in my apartment with two studio monitors. I loved it. When the movie The Incredibles was released, I was invited to a screening of the film at the Frank Wells Theater at the Disney Studio. At the time, the Wells Theater was one of the most state of the art screening rooms in the world, with digital projection and a sound system that was designed in perfect harmony with the acoustics of the room. It isn't a big theater- maybe a few hundred seats and I got there early and got one of the best seats. What I experienced there that night was an epiphany. Before that, I was pursuing a balanced response and low distortion. But here I wasn't just hearing those parameters, I was hearing ones I hadn't even considered. Phase, space conveyed through reflection and delay of sound, the ability for multiple speakers to mesh and put a whisper right inside your ear, or all the way over in the far side of the room. I heard sound objects pass from one corner to another corner. I heard dialogue firmly anchored in the image on the screen. I felt rumbling bass that seemed to be coming up out of the floor and resonated in my chest cavity. When the movie ended, I realized that I could continue optimizing my stereo system until the cows come home and it wouldn't ever come anywhere close to this.
> 
> ...


Entirely missed the point.

_"You need to understand..."_

When the goal of a dialogue is to tell someone that they 'don't get it' and that you know better, you're really not communicating.



"But this is the Sound Science forum..."

Fwiw, it's ok for someone to participate in the Sound Science forum discussions even if their views don't perfectly align with the group's.


----------



## sonitus mirus

People asking questions and challenging opposing perspectives are most welcomed by me.  Just be civil, please.  A lot of music aficionados will simply ignore this forum altogether and continue to get their information from white papers created for marketing purposes, media sources that pursue benefits that contend with consumers' best interests, or they simply find solace in a limited community that all agree with each other. Sure, we see many questions repeated, but I don't expect that will ever stop and I don't allow myself to become frustrated by this predicament.  Sometimes I will participate, and other times I will just read the comments and move on.  I am thankful for the participation and I appreciate everyone's opinion, even if I don't always agree with it.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Healthy discussions are good for the forum even when arguing a bit, but people will exaggerate a lot and especially in audio if something is to their likings. Newcomers can get easily be misguided by such believing that cables will make night and day difference or no headphone can much IEM speed🙈


----------



## bigshot (Jan 16, 2021)

GearMe said:


> When the goal of a dialogue is to tell someone that they 'don't get it' and that you know better, you're really not communicating.



When someone is offered evidence and help to prove the truth to themselves and they refuse to entertain the idea that they might be wrong, that isn't listening.



GearMe said:


> Fwiw, it's ok for someone to participate in the Sound Science forum discussions even if their views don't perfectly align with the group's.



I can guarantee you that if you go too far down that road, you will be engaging in an exercise in futility. We aren't allowed to even mention controlled testing in any other Head-Fi forum. Don't be surprised if we don't cater to non-rational subjectivity in the one rational forum on Head-Fi. We're happy to discuss and patiently explain, and you're happy to still "like" whatever you want yourself, but there's no point arguing subjectivity. It's by definition solipsist. We focus on objective reality around here.

I'm not angry or anything. We've just been down this road a lot. It always ends the same. We are still here and the people who argue subjective impressions get really mad and finally go away (usually about 30 posts after they should have left in the first place). I'd suggest you start by reading the first post in this thread. It's the topic you're commenting on, and I'm guessing you haven't read it yet.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> There are two kinds of measurements... Those that are audible by human ears, and those that are not. You determine which is which by performing a blind, level matched direct A/B switched comparison. That establishes a threshold of perception. Blind testing is not random. It's very precise.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason to expect that silver and copper sound different based on the measurements and the established thresholds of perception. You are claiming to hear a difference. It's up to you to prove that if you want us to pay attention to your claim in Sound Science. You don't do that by telling us about uncontrolled, sighted, anecdotal impressions. You do that by conducting a proper listening test.
> 
> ...


No reason to expect a difference between silver and copper??...silver is shiney...so obviously "brighter" sounding     this has got to be one of the most blatant expectation biases out there.....i know you missed me bud


----------



## bigshot

Who let the dawg out? Woof-woof! Woof-woof!


----------



## 538681 (Jan 16, 2021)

bigshot said:


> That's fine. You have a preference for a particular kind of coloration. It's like people who prefer the euphonic distortion of tubes. They like it even if it isn't accurate or true to the fidelity of the original recording. You can feel free to listen to music however you like, from a massive "Voice of the Theater" system all the way down to a transistor radio. What you like is what you like. But this is the Sound Science forum. We tend to focus on objective fidelity, and that means response curves, inaudible levels of distortion, and presenting the music as close to the way it was intended as possible. Everyone makes personal compromises based on their living situation, finances and personal preferences. But that isn't enhancing sound fidelity. It's a trade off of sound fidelity in favor of functionality for our purposes. We all do that, but most of us acknowledge that it's a trade off. We don't claim that those compromises result in better sound fidelity than if we didn't make them.
> 
> If you want sound fidelity, which means hearing all the details in perfect balance, you try to get as close to what the original engineers heard in the studio as possible. That means studio monitors, a large room with a good acoustic, and an optimal sitting position.
> 
> ...



Bigshot, You sound like a salesman. I'm sure all your very expensive toys are a hoot to listen to but the majority of us live in the real world of crappy rooms or apartments and have to watch our budgets. And, as has been shown, you get used to the very best and always want more. relative deprivation has been understood for more that 50 years.

Also I quote you: "If you want sound fidelity, which means hearing all the details in perfect balance, you try to get as close to what the original engineers heard in the studio as possible." Well, that's not what your are selling!

Do you pal around with engineers, have them over for dinner? Trying to know the intention of engineers is a quixotic quest. I did a quick survey of sound engineers on Quora and what setups they use when making recordings and came up with a lot of diversity:

1) A tiny minority use studio monitors only.
2) The vast majority start with monitors but then check their results on headphones, car stereos, lousy devices of all sorts, and of course Apple buds. A market must.
3) A minority claim headphones are sufficient, especially if you know what you are doing. Given portability requirements, for a lot of music producers this is all they do.
4) Many others just use setups as the market dictates for their genre.
5) No one seems to try out anything on multichannel speakers except when producing for TV or Movies.

Also, you don't get to dictate what "sound fidelity" is except for yourself. Your assertions are not "scientific", just opinion. Claiming it is anything but is a not so subtle form of bullying. Not that we cannot agree on a lot of SQ metrics but "get as close to what the original engineers heard in the studio as possible" is not one of them, its a myth. It's not doable and its illogical and you are contradictory.

I have to admit I'm not getting the objective scientific buzz I want in this forum, I think I'll head back to ASR and headphones.com.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Crankyrat said:


> Speakers can be surpassed by IEMs, and by quite a bit.


Just to know, what do you mean by "surpass"? Are you talking in absolute or relative terms? How do you measure "surpass"? You do also have to acknowledge his experience and his opinion, even when they are conflicting. The same I say to the others. 

Personally, I do not like IEMs for enjoying music, neither speakers for mobility and "detail" reasons (also they are kinda hard to set up to make them play nice with a room). I think the sweet spot is in full-size headphones that do not compromise mobility. That is why I am into Bluetooth stuff, where I do not have to be tethered to a DAC or an amplifier, where I do not have to worry about power or this and that. I found that going simpler and cheaper you can get gear that at least is better than many of the expensive stuff at measurements (my QC35 II measure leagues better than the Focal Clear I had, and sound better in my opinion). I do understand the shortcomings of my approach, especially being limited by battery power with many of my devices and the low variety of choices.


----------



## 538681 (Jan 17, 2021)

KeithPhantom said:


> Just to know, what do you mean by "surpass"? Are you talking in absolute or relative terms? How do you measure "surpass"? You do also have to acknowledge his experience and his opinion, even when they are conflicting. The same I say to the others.
> 
> Personally, I do not like IEMs for enjoying music, neither speakers for mobility and "detail" reasons (also they are kinda hard to set up to make them play nice with a room). I think the sweet spot is in full-size headphones that do not compromise mobility. That is why I am into Bluetooth stuff, where I do not have to be tethered to a DAC or an amplifier, where I do not have to worry about power or this and that. I found that going simpler and cheaper you can get gear that at least is better than many of the expensive stuff at measurements (my QC35 II measure leagues better than the Focal Clear I had, and sound better in my opinion). I do understand the shortcomings of my approach, especially being limited by battery power with many of my devices and the low variety of choices.



Your right. I feel my high end IEMs have the properties of better clarity and detail. Clarity refers to contrast and detail to sharpness or in a more abstract definition: amount of information. This is a physical result of the size of the drivers. This assertion is also a matter of my limited experience with speakers but a number of engineers seem to agree with what I have experienced when I look it up on the Web. They use IEMs specifically to hear more detail. To match a $1000 IEM would take take a multiple of that cost with speakers. Now clarity and detail are only 2 properties of a long list, of course.


----------



## Ohman

Glmoneydawg said:


> No reason to expect a difference between silver and copper??...silver is shiney...so obviously "brighter" sounding   this has got to be one of the most blatant expectation biases out there.....i know you missed me bud



I can guarantee you that silver is black and unsightly when exposed to the world beyond the cozy sleeve where it dwells but you knew that 

More seriously now. After being admonished by Bigshot for my lack of objectivity in this sacred thread I got to thinking what if he is right, what if silver wasn't the culprit behind the bad sounding Linns, or rather, what if it wasn't the silver inside the sleeve that was triggering the cacophony?  Reliving my "protocol" I remembered that I had used untinned bare wire on the power amp side and banana on the speakers. I don't listen to that system often because I live in an apartment tower and don't want to annoy other people in nearby units, the rather large Kaber is decidedly neighbor-unfriendly.

So the bare cable tips remained dormant inside the amp for weeks if not months before I got to using that rig and they sounded bad. I had forgotten what I had learned in college all those years ago about some of silver's properties that could negatively alter conductivity when the metal is seriously tarnished, especially in a low voltage environment. Now I think that perhaps oxidation had something to do with the distortion but don't quote me on this, it's just positing on my part not even theory. .


----------



## GearMe (Jan 17, 2021)

bigshot said:


> When someone is offered evidence and help to prove the truth to themselves and they refuse to entertain the idea that they might be wrong, that isn't listening.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok...there is no absolute 'truth' for a personal audio _preference_ -- which is what Crankycat was discussing.  S/he wasn't discussing how a cable/dac/amp/etc sounded better but was simply refusing to have their will bent to the 'truth' that speakers were the better way for them to enjoy their audio experience.

It's not listening when someone redirects what should be a short dialogue about a _preference _to a sermon on why another person should listen to audio in the appropriate, prescribed mode.

From a broader perspective, it's less than helpful to any constructive dialogue when these types of efforts are done using baseless assumptions to support one's points.

This can be a recurring problem in these discussions. One such example is the assumption that I haven't read the first post. I did...a long time ago...and have spent a decent amount of time in the past in this and other Sound Science threads. Fwiw, this discussion and many others in Sound Science threads are often not germane to the first posts (like most threads) but they still roil on. So I struggle when somebody invokes the OP argument...can seem disingenuous at times.

The most concerning thing about the whole thing is the attitude/mindset that implies a superiority..."patiently explain", "exercise in futility", "finally go away (usually about 30 posts after they _should have left_ in the first place)", "we're still here". 

This approach doesn't' win many converts. Instead, it turns people away (sound familiar?). Is this what the group or certain members want(s)?

So what you end up with is a very small group that could have an outsized impact with the right relational approach but instead remains small and feels like an echo chamber...sad really.

Btw...I actually enjoy scientific/data-driven discussions.  I've had a lot of engineering, math, science, and business training.  At various points in my career, I've been a Systems Engineer, Analyst, Developer, etc. Even went back to school recently to pursue a Masters in Analytics and am a couple courses away from graduating.

So...I believe in many of the foundational constructs that this group espouses. But I also believe it will remain small in size and impact until the perceived approach to discussions changes.

Which, unfortunately, is a significant loss to the Head-Fi community as a whole!


----------



## bigshot

Crankyrat said:


> Do you pal around with engineers, have them over for dinner?



No, but I am a producer, and I’ve supervised more recording sessions and sound mixes than I can count. In the studio, mixes are not checked on headphones. Headphones are only used for isolation during recording. And multichannel is not just for TV and movies. There are many recordings available in multichannel sound.


----------



## GearMe

Crankyrat said:


> I have to admit I'm not getting the objective scientific buzz I want in this forum, I think I'll head back to ASR and headphones.com.



Sorry to hear that Crankycat...

I get it and took a several month hiatus a while back but would encourage you to hang in there as your insight and perspective is valuable!


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 17, 2021)

If this is an "objectivist" forum, then for the IEM vs. speaker debate, should it make all the sense that generating sound directly in the ear canal is the most efficient and cost-effective?

With the multi-transducer IEM, sealing the ear channel, any sound pattern can be created.
Technical capabilities of the current generation of BA, piezo and EST drivers make only the physical design and matching the anatomy of individual air channels the main limitations.

Does it make all the sense to use few mW of power instead of vibrating a lot of air in a specially designed room only for a mere fraction of it reaching someone's ears?

Also to add a scientific perspective here, if one familiar with far-field and near-field wave/light physics, the possibilities in the latter case are much more potent!

Would not the arguments about what "producers do and not do" and how great "the speaker setups may be" considered "subjectivist", no matter how eloquent and dominating they seem to be?

P. S. 10:55 - typo editing (


----------



## hakunamakaka

For me IEM's can sound very good while being very cheap as well, but once you go higher in price bucket in my taste for music they give the smallest sound improvement compared to headphones and even speakers. When I was looking into S tier of IEM's they used to cost 1000$-2500$ and now you can see gizmos going up to 6000$ with electrostatic drivers.  Maybe my expectations were too high for IEM, but honestly I've never came across of IEM that can sound as large and as natural as headphone/speaker could. I do not get that feeling that I'm in the same room with the band or neither that I'm in warehouse rave listening to electronic music .  With IEM everything is wrapped in such a tiny space inside your head that I just get a fraction of what I could achieve with headphones. For me the only thing where they are a clear winner is portability


----------



## bigshot (Jan 17, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> If this is an "objectivist" forum, then for the IEM vs. speaker debate, should it make all the sense that generating sound directly in the ear canal is the most efficient and cost-effective?



That may be efficient and cost effective, if that's your goal. But if the goal is accurate sound quality, then you would want to listen to the music the way the people who recorded and engineered it listened to it. The mistake people make is thinking that the effects of the room are unwanted distortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Space *completes* the soundstage that the engineers designed for the music. There is no soundstage until you set up your speakers in a room and sit in the proper listening position. The room is as much a part of the intended sound as the speakers and amp. A good room is as important as a good stereo system.

Headphones are more portable, less expensive, easier to use, and they provide privacy. These are all clear practical advantages to headphones. Speakers provide a true dimensional soundstage, the bass is kinesthetic, and the room adds depth and bloom to the sound. These are all aspects of *sound quality*, not convenience or efficiency. That is why it is closer to the intent of the people who engineered the music. How could it be otherwise, if it is exactly how they monitored the sound when they were making their mixing decisions? None of the advantages of speakers are a matter of convenience. The advantage of speakers is accuracy of the sound quality.

It's undeniable that The Beatles' intent for how their records should sound was the way that the monitoring system at Abbey Road Studios made it sound. It's also undeniable that your living room is different than Abbey Road Studios. But you can get it close enough to get a clear idea of what they intended- clearer than listening on headphones.

It's perfectly fine to color your sound. Add reverb or crossfeed. Listen with IEMs and remove the whole element of the room acoustic so you can hear the recording dry. Add euphonic distortion with tube amps, Choose a v shaped response curve. All those things are perfectly fine. Everyone should listen to music in the way that they want to. But these are subjective preferences related to personal taste that aren't generally the subject of discussion in Sound Science. Here we discuss fidelity and accuracy. Accurate is as close as possible to the way the people who recorded the music intended it to be heard.

So my objection isn't to someone choosing to prefer IEMs for convenience, cost, efficiency, or even personal taste. I only object to the idea that listening to music on IEMs provides objectively correct sound quality, because it doesn't.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> That may be efficient and cost effective, if that's your goal. But if the goal is accuracy, then you would want to listen to the music the way the people who recorded and engineered it listened to it. The mistake people make is thinking that the effects of the room are unwanted distortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Space *completes* the soundstage that the engineers designed for the music. The room is as much a part of the intended sound as the speakers and amp. A good room is as important as a good stereo system.
> 
> Headphones are more portable, less expensive, easier to use, and they provide privacy. These are all clear advantages to headphones. Speakers provide a true dimensional soundstage, the bass is kinesthetic, and the room adds depth and bloom to the sound. These are all aspects of *sound quality*, not convenience or efficiency, and that is why it is closer to the intent of the people who engineered the music. How could it be otherwise, because it is exactly how they monitored the sound when they were making their mixing decisions! None of the advantages of speakers are a matter of convenience or taste. The advantage of speakers is accuracy of the sound quality.
> 
> ...



You make excellent arguments.

My main point is simply that how and why one can deny IEMs not being able to recreate anything what is intended objectively.

What are the arguments against that reproducing any complexity of the sound should be much easier with the transducers working as close as possible to the ears (headphones are close to IEMs here).

The sound is all in the ears, the room is just one of the aspects of sound patterns generated that can be understood and reproduced. The room is not perceived directly.

The sound perceived is what reaching the ears. What can objectively IEMs miss in sound reproduction other than joy (and expense) of setting up the speakers that generate tens if not hunders of watts of sound waves, only few milliwatts of which are actually reaching eardrums?


----------



## bigshot (Jan 17, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> What are the arguments against that reproducing any complexity of the sound should be much easier with the transducers working as close as possible to the ears (headphones are close to IEMs here).



If you are talking about conveying an abstract signal into the ears in an efficient manner, that's true. But we're talking about music. Would it be clearer and more efficient to reduce a piano to just keys, hammers and strings- no cabinet or lid- and listen to someone play with our ear right on top of the spot where the hammer hits the string? Or make a violin with just a neck and strings and no resonating box?

Sound isn't just a direct signal. It interacts with the space in our environment to create a complex sense of depth, it bounces off walls creating sophisticated reflections. Every day as we go through life, the sound we hear is being modified by our environment to provide us with audible cues that convey distance, the shape of the environment, and response variations that indicate whether the walls are hard marble or soft foam rubber. We may not consciously be aware of this, but we our minds are constantly analyzing this envelope around the sound. If it is missing, or if the cues aren't accurate, sound can seem "false".

With commercial music, sound mixers use these aspects to calibrate the size and position of the sound objects. When you listen with headphones, instruments in a band are spread out in a straight line right through the center of your head. The sound is contained in a 6 to 8 inch diameter space between your ears. But with speakers, there is a standardized arrangement of sound source and listening position. It is a triangular setup that is scalable for larger or smaller listening rooms. When you sit in the proper position in the triangle the physical distance interacts with the mix of the music to create an illusion of soundstage. This isn't something that just happens randomly. The engineers who mix the music juggle physical distance and secondary depth cues embedded in the mix to create a combination of recorded music and room to create an aural image that feels like the performers are in front of you arrayed out from left to right. Secondary depth cues (reverb, time delay) built into the mix extend the feeling of depth beyond the actual physical space, and the dispersion of your speakers spreads the soundstage wider than just the distance between the two monitors and higher than the height of the cabinets. The illusion of a large plane of sound in front of you is established. This is the sound that the engineers mixing the record intended. It's a complex combination of recording tricks AND physical space.

But there is one more aspect that isn't usually discussed in audiophile circles... Your listening room in your home has a distinctive sound signature. If you stand in the center of the room and clap your hands, the walls and furniture add an envelope to the sound of your handclap. When you speak in the room, it adds that same unique envelope to your voice. We don't consciously listen to natural acoustics, but they are an important part of how we hear sound. If you remove this envelope, it can be very disturbing. I visited Carlsbad Caverns many years ago. I remember the tour guide leading us to a very large chamber, and he told us all to be quiet. He turned off the lights and the pitch blackness was blinding and the stone quiet was deafening. It was something that would be difficult to tolerate for a long period of time. People who have been in anechoic chambers have commented on this too. Natural acoustic is one of those things that you don't appreciate until you don't have it. And the acoustic of your own living room is as familiar and comfortable to you as the feel of your own bed.

So yes, from an abstract viewpoint, putting the sound source right in your ear is efficient. But it isn't complex. Room acoustics are infinitely complex, and humans depend on room tone, reflection and variation in response to establish soundstage. Without this, it is impossible to picture the sonic image the engineers intended as you listen. Headphones only provide 1 dimension, while speakers provide two dimensions of complexity. Does that make sense?


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 17, 2021)

bigshot said:


> If you are talking about conveying an abstract signal into the ears in an efficient manner, that's true. But we're talking about music. Would it be clearer and more efficient to reduce a piano to just keys, hammers and strings- no cabinet or lid- and listen to someone play with our ear right on top of the spot where the hammer hits the string? Or make a violin with just a neck and strings and no resonating box?
> 
> Sound isn't just a direct signal. It interacts with the space in our environment to create a complex sense of depth, it bounces off walls creating sophisticated reflections. Every day as we go through life, the sound we hear is being modified by our environment to provide us with audible cues that convey distance, the shape of the environment, and response variations that indicate whether the walls are hard marble or soft foam rubber. We may not consciously be aware of this, but we our minds are constantly analyzing this envelope around the sound. If it is missing, or if the cues aren't accurate, sound can seem "false".
> 
> ...


What would be exactly  the difference from a scientific perspective between "music" and any abstract or arbitrary sound wave reaching the ear?

When cable believers are laughed at here, do you talk about electrical signals or "music" grooving through the wires?

The science behind acoustic waves is very well understood, so whatever sound waves reach the ear, as intended in any great Beatles recording, should be understood and then recreated.

Recreating this sound pattern should be much easier with IEMs or headphones.

What "dimensions" are missed, what exactly can be deficient?Please explain to me scientifically.

"Infinitely complex" sounds so "subjectivists' - after all, those cables can be "infinitely complex" as well - there are billions and billions of atoms there all vibrating


----------



## bigshot (Jan 17, 2021)

The signal itself is the same. The difference is that the signal is only half of the final product. The engineers are creating a track that they are intending to be decoded by the acoustics of the listening room.

This might not apply to certain genres of music, like electronica or top 40 pop; but it applies to every other kind of music as well as TV and movies. The basic triangle of left, right and listener is an integral part of how the mix is balanced. If you remove one point of that triangle, you are reducing the dimension of the image. You’re either listening to mono is a room, or you’re listening to stereo with no room. Neither one of those options is faithful to the intent of the people who created the recording.

The scientific principle we’re dealing with is the physical effect of space and mass on sound. We can easily measure impedance and response. Just hook up a meter and there it is. But measuring how sound is affected by traveling a specific distance and bouncing off a solid object of specific mass and a specific orientation in space, relative to other objects- that is when it starts to become complex.

It becomes even more complicated when you have to make compromises because of the design and construction of your particular house. How do your necessary compromises impact the sonic image? Is it still within acceptable tolerances? Or does it negatively impact the dimensional sound image, or the timing of reflections, or the response curve at various listening positions in the room. There are guidelines and principles to deal with these issues, but in the real world it can be difficult to isolate one particular aspect to optimize it- everything affects everything else. It’s an added level of complexity, but without it, you don’t get the added dimension of sound inhabiting space and interacting with it.

This is an aspect of sound fidelity that you don’t have to think about if you don’t have speakers. You hear speaker guys say the room is as important as the speakers, and it’s true. A system can sound like a dog’s breakfast because of lousy equipment, or it can be top class equipment in a bad room and it will still sound bad.

Like everything in the real world, it is striking a balance and minimizing all of the negatives that you can. It’s more complicated, more expensive and requires more work, but the benefit is an added dimension of sound. Multichannel increases the number of sound sources beyond just two. That increases the complexity exponentially, but it also increases the dimensional impact of the sound just as much. Mono < Headphones < Stereo Speakers < Multichannel


----------



## 538681

bigshot said:


> No, but I am a producer, and I’ve supervised more recording sessions and sound mixes than I can count. In the studio, mixes are not checked on headphones. Headphones are only used for isolation during recording. And multichannel is not just for TV and movies. There are many recordings available in multichannel sound.



Oh my, you are hopelessly out-of-date. Your assertion that headphones are not used is just wrong. Take some time and go to Quora and search for variations of sound engineers and what they use to mix and master music. Engineers that strictly use only monitors for mixing are in a vanishing small minority. A growing group says that headphones are all you really need.

I know traditions as to what is "right" die slowly. And there are always a lot of older gatekeepers that cry foul. In the end the market will dictate.

Not including headphones, soundbars, ear buds, car stereo etc. in your sound quality evaluations will lead to failure in the broad market. It would appear in my survey producers and engineers understand that all too well.

In the 50 plus engineers of whose comments I read one thing was clear. Not a single one had any interest in the tiny tiny market of multi-channel systems for music (as opposed to TV or Movies). Listening to music on multi channel systems is not hyper-real but hyper-fake, although quite fun.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 17, 2021)

(Dunning Kruger) You lose me at this point. Whatever. Feel free to make this an ego thing. I have no interest in that. I’m sure there are other people reading who are interested. I’ll just speak past you from now on. I know the drill.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 17, 2021)

bigshot said:


> The signal itself is the same. The difference is that the signal is only half of the final product. The engineers are creating a track that they are intending to be decoded by the acoustics of the listening room.
> 
> This might not apply to certain genres of music, like electronica or top 40 pop; but it applies to every other kind of music as well as TV and movies. The basic triangle of left, right and listener is an integral part of how the mix is balanced. If you remove one point of that triangle, you are reducing the dimension of the image. You’re either listening to mono is a room, or you’re listening to stereo with no room. Neither one of those options is faithful to the intent of the people who created the recording.
> 
> ...


What is exactly meant by "decoded by the acoustics of the listening room"?

Is the room specified exactly?
Are transducers specified?
It is actually always alluded me, for instance, how well DD (membranes) can reproduce the sound of violin, with high Q strings? An approximation at best, right?

Whatever "complexity" of the room and the music may be, what is exactly not understood in the sound wave pattern reaching the ear channels?
The sound pressures can be measured in any point and then recreated by transducers. The computing power is now there, the quality of the transducers as well.

The more channels - the better for the fidelity.
Multi-transducer IEMs placed near the ear drum should be able to do the job of recreating any sound pattern more precise, at lower energy and material cost.

Again, the analogy between near-field microscopy, much more powerful in its resolution than conventional far-field, will be well applicable.


----------



## 538681 (Jan 17, 2021)

bigshot said:


> That may be efficient and cost effective, if that's your goal. But if the goal is accurate sound quality, then you would want to listen to the music the way the people who recorded and engineered it listened to it. The mistake people make is thinking that the effects of the room are unwanted distortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Space *completes* the soundstage that the engineers designed for the music. There is no soundstage until you set up your speakers in a room and sit in the proper listening position. The room is as much a part of the intended sound as the speakers and amp. A good room is as important as a good stereo system.
> 
> Headphones are more portable, less expensive, easier to use, and they provide privacy. These are all clear practical advantages to headphones. Speakers provide a true dimensional soundstage, the bass is kinesthetic, and the room adds depth and bloom to the sound. These are all aspects of *sound quality*, not convenience or efficiency. That is why it is closer to the intent of the people who engineered the music. How could it be otherwise, if it is exactly how they monitored the sound when they were making their mixing decisions? None of the advantages of speakers are a matter of convenience. The advantage of speakers is accuracy of the sound quality.
> 
> ...



Thank you for making your biases and preferences clear. Given your stated goal, accurate sound quality, you can proceed to use science to help you obtain that goal.

However you seem to imply that "accurate" is a necessary component of "sound quality". I think you know full well that there is no ISO standard for SQ. SQ is a pile of different properties that we all argue about. Bias and preference dictate what properties we feel are important (detail, tone, clarity, accuracy, etc.). Then we can pursue them in a scientific manner. I personally feel "accurate" is academic, good luck to you.

Now for those engineers that have chosen headphones to mix their music on, accurate would mean using headphones, not that I care, its not a property in my bias/preference SQ mix I value.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 17, 2021)

Phonophi, there are standards for room acoustics for studio design, and they involve the same principles as home listening room treatment. Ethan Winer has some interesting videos and articles on this online. You might want to Google him.

Yes, transducers are also calibrated to a balanced response. There are times when you might open a mix in New York and get it approved in Los Angeles. If recording studios weren’t standardized, mixes would sound different everywhere you go. Generally, a recording studio has a chief engineer whose job it is to design, build and maintain the studio space and equipment. That’s the person who designs the space to conform to acoustic standards in the industry, and calibrates the response of the monitors. As I said before, headphones aren’t suitable for mixing because everyone’s physiognomy is different, and the same headphones on two different people might sound totally different. Castle knows more about that aspect than I do though.

The solution to emulating the effects of multichannel and space on sound without speakers and a room isn’t multi driver IEMs, it’s digital signal processing to create a virtual space. Along with that comes the need for head tracking and accounting for individual anatomy that affects a person’s hearing. If you are interested in that, look up the Smyth Realiser. It’s still pretty basic and very expensive, but who knows what might be developed in the future. Again, Castle is a better source of info on this than me. He has a Smyth Realiser.

Fidelity is a lot more than just detail. It’s balance as well. In order to achieve maximum fidelity, you have to take all aspects of sound reproduction into account and balance them all. Headphones may be good at one aspect, but as I said before, speakers add an additional dimension to sound reproduction, and multichannel speaker systems add a dimension beyond that. If you look at the history of recorded sound from the 1890s to today, you can see the progression.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 17, 2021)

bigshot said:


> There are standards for room acoustics for studio design, and they involve the same principles as home listening room treatment. Ethan Winer has some interesting videos and articles on this online. Yes, transducers are also calibrated to a balanced response. There are times when you might open a mix in New York and get it approved in Los Angeles. If recording studios weren’t standardized, mixes would sound different everywhere you go. Generally, a recording studio has a chief engineer whose job it is to design, build and maintain the studio space and equipment. That’s the person who designs the space to conform to acoustic standards in the industry, and calibrates the response of the monitors.
> 
> The solution to emulating the effects of multichannel and space on sound isn’t multi driver IEMs, it’s signal processing to create a virtual space. Along with that comes the need for head tracking and accounting for individual anatomy that affects a person’s hearing. If you are interested in that, look up the Smyth Realiser. It’s still pretty basic and very expensive, but who knows what might be developed in the future.


Very good points, thank you.

In another perspective, what is transmitted to transducers is just a voltage modulation (an amplitude changing in time) per channel, nothing more, so a very single point, right? Then this "single point" modulation needs to be converted in all the music.

Then in the great symphonic recordings, especially Karajan's era, they could afford to use many microphones, and when instruments were playing solo or important parts, they brought their sound more.
Is it "real",  as could be ever experienced by the audience in the very best seats of any most acoustically sophisticated hall? No!
Is the room acoustics of any primary importance to listen to clarinet or violin solo up close? Not really!
But can it sound fantastic with great soloists? Absolutely!!

In both of these examples, multiple transducers near the ear offer much more in bringing the music!


----------



## bigshot (Jan 17, 2021)

Yes, it isn’t the goal of commercially recorded music to recreate a live performance. The goal of sound mixing is to create optimized sound that is better than the performance itself. It’s the job of the artists and engineers to make the decisions and sculpt the sound they are looking for. They use a standardized studio environment for playback, and calibrate to industry standards. So if you want faithful reproduction that presents the sound the way they intended it, you use a standardized environment and calibrated monitors too... at least as much as livability allows. Obviously it isn’t convenient to live in a recording studio environment. Some compromises have to be made. You get to decide how many and what kind of compromises you are willing to make, and that dictates the degree of fidelity you are able to achieve. Those compromises can range from having a couch as your listening point instead of a chair and mixing board and everything else the same as a studio, all the way to perching a transistor radio on your kitchen table. You make those choices and you end up with more or less what was intended.


----------



## sander99

bigshot said:


> Mono < Headphones < Stereo Speakers < Multichannel


I would like to extend this to the following, and with the remark that for me the "<" and "=" symbols are not referring to absolute quality but only to the spatial aspects of sound. More steps could be inserted.

Mono
<
Headphones with normal non-binaural stereo
</=
Headphones with generic (non-personalised HRTF based) binaural signals
<
stereo over a pair of personal HRTF based head tracked binaurally simulated speakers in a room over headphones or iems
</=
Stereo Speakers
<
multichannel over a set of personal HRTF based head tracked binaurally simulated speakers in a room over headphones or iems
</=
Multichannel speaker system
*<
personal HRTF based head tracked direct binaural rendering of any sounds anywhere in 3d space over headphones or iems* (not based on the principle of panning between two or more soundsources each heard by both ears, a principle which is in the core limited and not fully natural and the reason why ultimately headphones or iems have the potential - given the proper input signals, and thanks to the ability to independently control the sound to each ear - to surpass speakers in the spatial aspects department.)

Let's say the last step in above comparison is my personal conviction, partly based on my experiences with the Smyth Realiser A16, see quote below.

At this moment the last step is not really available yet, certainly not music content wise, so for now speakers and virtual speakers are the best options. For people who don't give much weight to realistic out-of-head localisation of sound and more weight to other aspects it is perfectly all right to have another order of preference.



sander99 said:


> Now I want to point your attention to the following: please be aware that if you listen to certain content over virtual loudspeakers using the A16, that you are actually listening to several sound rendering systems/concepts in a row. Let's say for the moment we listen to a stereo recording over 2 loudspeakers. The first is the priciple of binaurally rendering loudspeakers in 3D space. The other is the principle of panning between two sound sources (the principle of stereo over loudspeakers).
> The solo function of the A16, where you select one of the virtual loudspeakers to play on it's own and the other loudspeakers are silent is very interesting. When you use this, you take out the second principle (of panning) and get a nice demonstration of the first principle, binaurally rendering one sound source at one location in 3D space.
> From my experience, the A16 puts that one sound source pin point precise and rock steady on it's intended position.
> You could compare the following 2 situations:
> ...


----------



## castleofargh (Jan 18, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> What would be exactly  the difference from a scientific perspective between "music" and any abstract or arbitrary sound wave reaching the ear?
> 
> When cable believers are laughed at here, do you talk about electrical signals or "music" grooving through the wires?
> 
> ...


With music there is intent. It's art after all and the conditions to experience that art tend to matter and have impact. In some sense you could draw a parallel with listening to music in mono. You measure some test signals in front of the speaker, then you measure the pair of speakers, maybe you'll get the about the same thing if you do it one by one, but there will be some small differences in production of the speakers, so the stereo system will most likely look worse. If you measure the test tones sent to both channels at the same time then it's sure that the mono test will be better, as you now will have to handle 2 sound sources from 2 different positions, maybe some phase issue between the speakers, etc.
But what if the test track was in stereo and for stereo? What if it was made specifically for 2 speakers at about 30° on each side from the mic? If we know of that intent and that the aim was a stereo system, then the mono option will end up inferior and its inability to do stereo will show.

There is a similar problem with IEMs vs speakers, and it is why I said that deciding of the reference was important and could be difficult.
When some instrument is full left channel, on IEM it's felt as 90° near the left ear or in the head(depends on people). On speakers the same track is felt at 30° on the left at some distance. Where was it intended to be? Answer that and you have your answer for which system is more accurate.
If you agree with bigshot and I that in general stereo albums are produced with speakers, then it would make no sense to feel a sound source 90° on the side in our ear. There is no need to measure something, but if you did, you would go take the reference in the studio where the track was mastered with a dummy head at the sit position. And then record IEMs and speakers in a room, with the same dummy head. That would be an objective measurement of fidelity. And while we would still have to debate which of the variables are more important, because no matter what we measure, we tend to stick with what's audible and how audible or objectionable it is. Ultimately the purpose is still to have a human listen to it. I expect the speakers even in a different room, to come closer because of the lack of left right mixing with IEMs, the lack of HRTF impacting the sounds, no reverb whatsoever and the likelihood for a bigger frequency response deviation. But of course if like @Crankyrat you reject the idea that music was made on speakers, then the reference has to be something else. And the result will also be affected. At this point I feel that the notion of artistic intent becomes even more evident. The main reason he thinks the way he does, is because of the music genres he enjoys. And it's the same for me with different genres/era and a different conclusion.



I completely agree with how he describes the experience of using IEMs. The feeling of clarity is a fact for me(that can be affected by FR but I EQ everything anyway). The lack of reverb, the lack of some sort of crossfeed, and most of all the solid isolation we can get from ambient noises, they all contribute to an impression of clarity and an ability to notice details. When I consider listening tests, if I'm trying to notice as much as possible without consideration for the listening conditions, I take IEMs. If I have to rank the playback method, it's IEMs, headphones, one speaker, then 2 or more. With 2 or more speakers in a room being what will let me notice the least differences, or will get me the worst hearing thresholds for many audio cues.
Ironically I also get very good results most of the time with IEMs that measure really bad. So I think it has little to do with absolute fidelity from the transducers and more to do with isolation and the removal of reverb, distance, etc. Which again can be seen as a sign of fidelity, or not. If I play a track and I have to notice something at 1kHz, I can start filtering out everything around that frequency and it will probably help. Is what I'm hearing that way, more accurate? Nope. It's a different method that facilitates hearing some things and alters or removes others. If I'm tasked with pointing where the sound comes from in a test, with IEMs I will do very poorly. Each time you can turn things around so long as you change the reference you're after.

So I agree with @Crankyrat on the perception, and I disagree on the notion of fidelity. Although if we were to circle back to your proposition of objective measurements, headphones or vented IEMs with large dynamic drivers tend to win against both speakers and most of the TOTL IEMs using BA drivers or a mix of drivers. So maybe there a third position on this for even more battles. ^_^


----------



## bigshot (Jan 17, 2021)

If the intent of the people who created the music was to optimize it for a standard calibrated speaker setup, then the difference between that sound presentation and a different presentation like crossfeed in headphones, what you are describing as higher "detail" and dry presentation in IEMs, or the tinny sound of a transistor radio would qualify as distortion in the broadest sense of the term. Anything that sounds different than a standard calibrated speaker setup would represent a deviation from the intent. The lack of crossfeed and reflection might make it easier to focus on some detail in the recording, but that is detail at the expense of the experience as a whole.

But as I keep saying... If you LIKE that sort of distortion, and you don't mind just listening to a portion of the sound that is intended, then by all means, that is how you should listen to your music. There are people who think mono playback of stereo recordings provides better balance and detail too. But it is a deviation from the way it was intended to be heard, so you would have to talk about subjective sound quality, not objective sound fidelity.

Ignoring the issue of authenticity, the advantage of hifi over 78s is clearly a big improvement in sound fidelity, likewise stereo over mono is clearly a further improvement. The advantage of stereo speaker soundstage over headphones is a big improvement as well. And the advantage of multichannel speaker systems over stereo speakers is another big improvement. All those things seem pretty self evident to me. I do enjoy the sound of my acoustic Victrola, but that is a personal preference and I wouldn't argue that acoustic playback is an improvement in sound quality, only authenticity. The reason that commercial music sounds better on speakers than headphones is both authenticity AND sound quality.


----------



## DougD

bigshot said:


> << snip snip >>
> 
> When the time came that I was ready to buy a house, one of my primary requirements was to find a place with a room suitable for building a theater like the one I had heard (obviously on a scale that normal humans can afford). I was lucky and found the perfect place. I installed a 10 foot drop down screen and an HD projector, and I went to work experimenting to create a speaker system capable of recreating that experience I had. It wasn't easy. Home theater is different in many ways than a listening room, and I wanted this to serve for both movies and music. I experimented with speaker placement, moved furniture around, upgraded speakers here and there, and assembled a collection of reference music recordings in 5.1. It took a few years to get it the way I wanted it. But now when I listen to stereo speakers or headphones, I can clearly hear what they are missing.



Could you share a list of some of your reference 5.1 music recordings? Apologies if you already have, and I missed seeing it.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 18, 2021)

Just about any Elton John SACD, Kraftwerk Catalogue, Beatles Love, Donald Fagen The Nightfly, Steely Dan Gaucho, Lee Ritenour Six String Theory, Allman Bros Live at the Filmore, Jean Michel Jarre, Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland, Miles Davis Bi tches Brew, Tomita's Japanese 5.1 remixes, Steven Wilson's remixes are usually of a high quality. Chicago Quad box... I can probably think of more if you want. The odds of good vs bad mixes is about 50-50.

Hope this helps.


----------



## 538681 (Jan 18, 2021)

bigshot said:


> Phonophi, there are standards for room acoustics for studio design, and they involve the same principles as home listening room treatment. Ethan Winer has some interesting videos and articles on this online. You might want to Google him.
> 
> Yes, transducers are also calibrated to a balanced response. There are times when you might open a mix in New York and get it approved in Los Angeles. If recording studios weren’t standardized, mixes would sound different everywhere you go. Generally, a recording studio has a chief engineer whose job it is to design, build and maintain the studio space and equipment. That’s the person who designs the space to conform to acoustic standards in the industry, and calibrates the response of the monitors. As I said before, headphones aren’t suitable for mixing because everyone’s physiognomy is different, and the same headphones on two different people might sound totally different. Castle knows more about that aspect than I do though.
> 
> ...





bigshot said:


> If the intent of the people who created the music was to optimize it for a standard calibrated speaker setup, then the difference between that sound presentation and a different presentation like crossfeed in headphones, what you are describing as higher "detail" and dry presentation in IEMs, or the tinny sound of a transistor radio would qualify as distortion in the broadest sense of the term. Anything that sounds different than a standard calibrated speaker setup would represent a deviation from the intent. The lack of crossfeed and reflection might make it easier to focus on some detail in the recording, but that is detail at the expense of the experience as a whole.
> 
> But as I keep saying... If you LIKE that sort of distortion, and you don't mind just listening to a portion of the sound that is intended, then by all means, that is how you should listen to your music. There are people who think mono playback of stereo recordings provides better balance and detail too. But it is a deviation from the way it was intended to be heard, so you would have to talk about subjective sound quality, not objective sound fidelity.
> 
> Ignoring the issue of authenticity, the advantage of hifi over 78s is clearly a big improvement in sound fidelity, likewise stereo over mono is clearly a further improvement. The advantage of stereo speaker soundstage over headphones is a big improvement as well. And the advantage of multichannel speaker systems over stereo speakers is another big improvement. All those things seem pretty self evident to me. I do enjoy the sound of my acoustic Victrola, but that is a personal preference and I wouldn't argue that acoustic playback is an improvement in sound quality, only authenticity. The reason that commercial music sounds better on speakers than headphones is both authenticity AND sound quality.



Bigshot: "The reason that commercial music sounds better on speakers than headphones is both authenticity AND sound quality."

Absolutely and emphatically not. What "sounds better" is utterly subjective and as far away from objective science as you can get.

Castleofargh: "But of course if like @Crankyrat you reject the idea that music was made on speakers".

I didn't say that but I'll go much further. The goal of "authenticity" is academic and frankly, not very interesting, to me. To meet that high standard you would have to get your artists and engineers into the same room you play your music in and ask them, if what they hear is what they, the notion goes, intended. The idea is funny really. I bet they would argue amongst themselves and, in the end, say they cannot actually remember what on earth they intended. But they might ask if you enjoy the music? Oh, you do! Well, that's what I intended. Job done.

I searched for "sound quality" in google and what comes up are a lot of "properties" of sound. In other words, not the notion of quality that implies better or worse but the more basic definition of quality as "a distinctive attribute or characteristic". Now "quality" can be both a set of characteristics and how we evaluate them. Reasonable people, no doubt, can come to an agreement on a subset of sound properties that make up SQ. In my searches on sound quality not once did "authenticity" or "realistic" come up but I'm sure I'd find it somewhere.

The idea of "authenticity" or "realistic" based on some "reference" in relation to SQ is just made up. A few of you think that's important but, I dare say, most do not. Is it just some previous century thing? But now I'm being snarky.

"Authenticity" to some supposed "intent" can be a goal, a quixotic one, but a goal nevertheless. But please do not conflate that goal with the vague but ever so persistently used notion of "Sound Quality".


----------



## GearMe

PhonoPhi said:


> What is exactly meant by "decoded by the acoustics of the listening room"?
> 
> *Is the room specified exactly?
> Are transducers specified?*
> ...



*This* has always been an area of interest for me as well.  One would literally need to have the recording's "as intended" information (room/speakers) and then be able to apply DSP settings that could align the differences between the "as intended" recording environment vs the infinite variations of consumers playback environments (room/speakers, IEMS, headphones, etc).  

There are attempts to fabricate the illusion using DSP settings (Concert Hall, Club, Studio, etc.) that can provide interesting sound effects / listening experiences.  However, it seems debatable that they are really moving us any closer to the "as intended" experience without using the specified "as intended" configuration information, comparing it with the consumer's playback environment, and then building a tailored set of DSP settings for that consumer's listening environment at that given moment.  Having a system that would do this would be cool to play with and listen to.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 18, 2021)

The standard speaker/listener triangle for stereo playback is scalable. If you sit further back, you widen the space between speakers. This means there aren’t a million different setups. There is just one in different sizes.

DSPs are different. They alter distance cues to create synthetic environments that could never exist in a living room. They are coloration, not setup. If you have the standard speaker configuration for multichannel, it sets up a coherent sound field that can be altered to create these synthetic ambience. Again, there is just one proper speaker configuration, it’s just scalable proportionately.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 18, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> With music there is intent. It's art after all and the conditions to experience that art tend to matter and have impact. In some sense you could draw a parallel with listening to music in mono. You measure some test signals in front of the speaker, then you measure the pair of speakers, maybe you'll get the about the same thing if you do it one by one, but there will be some small differences in production of the speakers, so the stereo system will most likely look worse. If you measure the test tones sent to both channels at the same time then it's sure that the mono test will be better, as you now will have to handle 2 sound sources from 2 different positions, maybe some phase issue between the speakers, etc.
> But what if the test track was in stereo and for stereo? What if it was made specifically for 2 speakers at about 30° on each side from the mic? If we know of that intent and that the aim was a stereo system, then the mono option will end up inferior and its inability to do stereo will show.
> 
> There is a similar problem with IEMs vs speakers, and it is why I said that deciding of the reference was important and could be difficult.
> ...


I do appreciate all the good points and all the words.

If music is "an art", then is the signal propagation through the cables an art as well when music is the signal? After all, music is so multidimensional?

The signal propagation through cables is described by science, right?

Then the physics of transducers (and microphones) should be as well! The science of the sound wave at any given point of space and time can be fully understood.

Related to the latter point, all the art and complexity of music is effectively reduced to two channels reproducing only two (!) points in space (More channels - just few more points)

If we have only two (or few) points it should make all the sense to move them as close to the ear drums to increase the fidelity - simple common sense (and physics)!

Whatever historic developments of speakers as limited reproduction devices were -  does not justify their physical superiority, only historic and sentimental.

Anyone here really thinks that violin sound up close (violin solo) can be truthfully reproduced by the room speakers based on membranes? It can be a good approximation, but it will definitely be only an approximation. Fast transducers placed near the ears do a much better job, based on the physics.

But then again, if music is an art, let's start with rolling our favourite cables to fully enjoy it.

If science is to be discussed - please do, please bring science-based arguments (transducer characteristics wave front reconstructions, etc.)

Specifically, the math and physics of the clear superiority of multiple transducers placed near the ear for reproducing any required wavefront pattern is evident to me.
What would be the scientific arguments against it?


----------



## PhonoPhi

Let me summarize my points in a single (hopefully simpler) statement: if the knowledge of how music should actually sound exists, the reproduction of this intended sound pattern should be much easy (better precision and fidelity, less energy and materials required) to accomplish with fast multiple transducers placed as close to the ears, since the sound is detected and processed by ear drums, and all the complexity (and art of music, space, etc)  is reduced to the sound wave reaching ear drums.


----------



## GearMe (Jan 18, 2021)

bigshot said:


> The standard speaker/listener triangle for stereo playback is scalable. If you sit further back, you widen the space between speakers. This means there aren’t a million different setups. There is just one in different sizes.
> 
> DSPs are different. They alter distance cues to create synthetic environments that could never exist in a living room. They are coloration, not setup. If you have the standard speaker configuration for multichannel, it sets up a coherent sound field that can be altered to create these synthetic ambience. Again, there is just one proper speaker configuration, it’s just scalable proportionately.


Yes -- a speaker triangle is scalable...to some degree.  _Oh wait a minute, rooms matter right? _

So even the same speakers in the same room would have different room interactions (to varying degrees) when they are closer/farther from the walls, corners, etc.  The room can be a significant constraint to speaker placement...especially depending on the speaker type.

What about bipole vs dipole vs direct radiating?  In the real world, people own and enjoy all of these types of speakers in a variety of configurations including 2.0, 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 9.1, 9.2 and I'm sure additional N.x configurations that I'm unaware of.

Think about Maggies vs DefTech BP Series vs typical box based speakers.  Some speakers are very placement sensitive while others are not.

The world is rarely as binary (or as simplistic) as people would like it to be.



Again, without taking into account the context of the discussion, often the salient point is lost or worse yet discarded to redirect the discussion.  The context was related to achieving the lofty objective of "As the Artist Intended"...which as @Crankyrat pointed out is a tough ask at best.

In that context, my wish was for a tool that would account and adjust for the differences between the Studio's room/speakers and the listener's unique room/speakers or headphones or iems.

A tool like this would be able to leverage EQ, DSP, etc. to account for the nearly infinite (more than one) variety of real-world transducer choices and room configurations that listeners own and then recommend the optimal settings for their unique system/room to close the gaps in sound reproduction between it and the Holy Grail of "As the Artist Intended".

Now if I could only hear things the way I did in my youth when I ventured into this audio hobby!  

Oh wait a minute...so is _my_ "As the Artist Intended" optimized 7.1 setup not going to work for the rest of my family when we're watching a movie or listening to The Allman Brothers Live at Fillmore East?

Hmmm...maybe @Crankyrat and @PhonoPhi were on to something with the IEMs (or Headphones) angle?

In the meantime, guess my family will have to suffer though it during the movies...nobody else listens to the Allman Bros or Jimi; so I'm good there.


----------



## Roland P

This video might be interesting, it's about the mdr-z1r and there is a recording engineer in it:


----------



## sander99

Intent and realism are by themselves already complex concepts with different aspects to it. Yes of course we can only guess what the complete intent of the artists and the producers was. And yes, for example music is generally not produced to sound like some specific reality, but just to sound good (whatever that means exactly).

But sometimes the chosen audio format can give a clue about partial intentions.

Take for example 7.1 channel surround sound. It seems obvious to me that the intent of the creator of this format, and the intent of the artists and producers who chose to use it is:
-That sounds in the left front channel are intended to be perceived as coming from the left front (and don't seem to originate from something sticking to or in your left ear).
-That sounds in the center channel are intended to be perceived as coming from the center front (and don't seem to be in the middle of your head).
-That sounds in the left side surround channel are intended to be perceived as coming from your left (but not from something sticking to or in your left ear).
-That sounds the left rear surround channel are intended to be perceived as coming from the left rear (and don't seem to originate from something sticking to or in your left ear).
etc.
-And that sounds panned between for example the center channel and the right front channel are intended to be perceived as coming from somewhere inbetween the center front and the right front (and don't seem to be somewhere between the middle of your head and your right ear, or in general somewhere inbetween your ears).
etc.



PhonoPhi said:


> if the knowledge of how music should actually sound exists, the reproduction of this intended sound pattern should be much easy (better precision and fidelity, less energy and materials required) to accomplish with fast multiple transducers placed as close to the ears, since the sound is detected and processed by ear drums, and all the complexity (and art of music, space, etc) is reduced to the sound wave reaching ear drums.


The above intentions of 7.1 surround can be achieved with transducers placed close to the ear provided they are fed with the suitable signals for that (personal HRTF based binaural signals). 
But they can not be achieved by feeding the unprocessed 7.1 channels (either as a 2 channel downmix, or using different transducers for the different channels all close to the ear). But if someone prefers to listen to 7.1 this way, do it! Although for the life of me, I can not imagine why someone would prefer a tiny line of sound inside his head (or at best a tiny bubble of sound reaching a few inches outside the head that some people experience) over a world full of sound all around you.


----------



## PhonoPhi

sander99 said:


> ...  I can not imagine why someone would prefer a tiny line of sound inside his head (or at best a tiny bubble of sound reaching a few inches outside the head that some people experience) over a world full of sound all around you.


Imagination is surely an important thing (but not a scientific fact), and with a good imagination even cables can sound better, but then the ear drums are responding only to the air vibrations reaching them (the air vibrations in a ear channel of an inch by 0.3 inch or so are all that matters, unless one points to the fact otherwise). "A world full of sound" not reaching the ears is physically irrelevant, as beautiful as it can be to any rich/wild imagination, and IEMs sealing the ear channels are exactly the most effective way to reproduce any sound/music intended or not.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Without cross-feed, I find listening to some music with headphones of any type to be an awkward, negative experience when compared to listening over speakers in a treated room with a low noise floor.   An extreme example of this can found with the hard panning in a mix such as with any early Beatles release when stereo was still a bit of a gimmick for pop music.  Most traditional instruments and human voices have a localized point of reference at some distance along with reflections that healthy humans hear with both ears.  While many electronic sounds, low bass, and a lot of percussion does not generally have a reference point, without well-balanced channel recordings or signal processing, familiar sounds can appear starkly different from normal hearing while using headphones.

Neither listening preference is more correct than the other without applying some specific criteria.  And no single solution is better than the other from an overall perspective, in my opinion.  It is difficult to deny that for the cost, headphones of any type offer a much better value with regards to general sound quality in terms of noise floor and frequency response.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 18, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> If music is "an art", then is the signal propagation through the cables an art as well when music is the signal?



You're making this more complicated than it is. Making, recording and mixing music is a creative process using technical means. This is no different than any other art form. You have ideas and you have tools, and you use the tools to make a product called art. The artists making an album use a specific setup to monitor the sound when they are making their creative decisions. That is a triangulated speaker set up. This is the standard they use to ensure that the choices they make are the sounds the end user hears. They put their recording down on a CD and you buy it. From there on, there is no more art, only technical reproduction of sound. You can reproduce the signal with a high degree of fidelity, but unless you also reproduce the triangulated speaker system they used to mix it, you will be hearing something different than what the artists heard. It's the same as taking the Mona Lisa and exactly reproducing it, and then hanging it on your wall and lighting it with purple lights. It is the Mona Lisa, but it doesn't look anything like what it looked like to DaVinci. That is fine if your favorite color is purple, but that isn't accurate.

It's very simple. The way the speakers produce the sound and the way the space modifies it is part of the intended sound. That is how it was monitored during recording and mixing. You can listen to it through headphones if you want, and you can feel free to prefer it that way, but that isn't listening with a high degree of fidelity to the intended sound.



PhonoPhi said:


> Let me summarize my points in a single (hopefully simpler) statement: if the knowledge of how music should actually sound exists, the reproduction of this intended sound pattern should be much easy (better precision and fidelity, less energy and materials required) to accomplish with fast multiple transducers placed as close to the ears, since the sound is detected and processed by ear drums, and all the complexity (and art of music, space, etc)  is reduced to the sound wave reaching ear drums.



You keep missing the point that the effect of the room on the sound is an *intended* part of the way the recording is supposed to be heard. If you listen to a recording intended to be heard on speakers with headphones, you are not hearing what the people who created the album heard. You are only hearing *part* of it. The soundstage doesn't exist without physical space for the sound to inhabit, and soundstage is an important part of the way the music should be heard.

You mentioned classical music before. Are you familiar with the work of the record producer John Culshaw? Back in the 50s, he experimented with creating dimensional soundstage in recordings of opera, most notably the Solti Ring cycle. His recordings are a perfect example of what I'm trying to explain. He recorded the orchestra in front of a stage with a numbered grid painted on it. The stage was miked to correlate with the soundstage of a standard triangulated stereo speaker setup. So when the singers moved around the stage, the listener at home would get a clear sonic image of the actors moving around in his living room. When a character enters from stage right and runs to the left, you can see them cross on the sonic stage in front of you with your ears. You can listen to Culshaw's recordings on headphones and absolutely none of that comes through. It's a straight line through the center of the head like any other recording. But on speakers, it becomes a three dimensional image.

This concept of a "sonic stage" became standard operating procedure in mixing classical music, jazz and all other genres of music. Later on, technology advanced to allow mixers to create *virtual* sonic stages so they didn't need to record on a physical stage with the grid painted on it any more. That started with the Beatles with Sgt Pepper and continued with Pink Floyd and many other rock acts. Sometimes the virtual sonic stages are changing from moment to moment in a single song. Acoustics and spacial relationships shift and change with the arrangement of the song. But what didn't change is the standard monitor system of the triangulated speaker set up. Without that, all of this spacial information is reduced to just a single line from left to right going through the middle of your ears. Other then the small exceptions I mentioned before, everything is designed to work with a standard triangulated speaker setup. You can choose to not listen that way, but you aren't hearing the mix the way it was intended to be heard.

Why do orchestras perform in concert halls with reverberation and reflections? Because the best concert halls add an envelope of dimensionality to the sound that *completes it*. It isn't just the sound emitting from a violin's strings, it's how that sound fills the space and interacts with it. Sound is meant to inhabit the space around us, not be injected directly into our ears.



PhonoPhi said:


> the ear drums are responding only to the air vibrations reaching them (the air vibrations in a ear channel of an inch by 0.3 inch or so are all that matters, unless one points to the fact otherwise).



This is where I repeat my point that the speakers are decoding the signal on the CD and using the physical space in the room to transform and complete the sonic image. If you bypass the speakers and room and plug it directly into your ears, you haven't completed the intended chain of conversion from digital pits in a CD to sound reaching your ears. I'm sure there are people who prefer raw cookie dough to baked cookies, and that is fine. But when they eat the raw dough, they aren't experiencing what the recipe intended for them to experience.



sonitus mirus said:


> It is difficult to deny that for the cost, headphones of any type offer a much better value with regards to general sound quality in terms of noise floor and frequency response.



I recently bought a pair of portable, rechargeable bluetooth speakers. They are cheap and don't have much in the way of low bass. But they are very clear sounding in the mids and treble. Originally, I just got them so I could have music on the back patio while I BBQ, but I'm finding that I'm using them in situations where I would have normally used cans in the past. They make the image of the music more clear, without sacrificing much detail at all (except in the sub bass). The same is true in my car. I would much rather listen to music through the crappy stock speakers in the door panels than I would my AirPod Pros with noise cancelling. If the only consideration is noise floor and frequency response, definitely headphones are better. But there is more to the reproduction of recorded music than just dynamic range, noise, distortion and response.

One of the reasons that I bought a Yamaha AVR for my multichannel system was because the engineers of Yamaha went to specific venues like the Vienna Muikverein and the Berlin Philharmonie, and clubs like the Bottom Line and the ones on the Sunset Strip, as well as acoustics used for string quartets, movie theaters, broadway stages, etc... and they quantified the acoustics and replicated them in DSPs. I've really think that the envelope around the sound can be as important as the sound itself, and it is INFINTELY more important than the small deviations in response and noise floors that a lot of audiophiles worry about.

When we talk about fidelity, a lot of times we limit that to the five or six parameters we commonly measure. But with the introduction of digital audio and modern electronics, those parameters are pretty much handled now. No need to worry about them. Maybe there are other considerations that deserve more attention and scientific quantification. And maybe there are aspects of sound reproduction that can reproduce sound with a higher degree of fidelity beyond any of these parameters.

My experience with the very basic beginnings of multichannel sound has shown me that there are things that aren't even considered that can make a huge improvement in the reproduction of music. I have speakers that are 10 inches tall and 6 inches wide that can fill a room with sound with as much detail and bass as high end headphones. With five of those, it's possible to create a sound field that is on a whole different plane of existence than the best headphones made.

I really think that the reason so many audiophiles ignore this whole aspect of sound reproduction is because they have never heard anything like it. They can't conceive of a level of sound reproduction beyond what they're already familiar with. So they dive deep into minutia, improving noise floors that are already inaudible and worrying about frequencies they can't even hear. They may have a basic idea that timing is important, but they focus on tiny slivers of time instead of the bigger shifts that make the most difference in sound quality. I do believe that the future of home audio is going beyond accuracy and actually modifying the signal and sound waves to sculpt the sound itself. But that isn't going to happen by making excuses for only getting half a loaf because it is cheaper and more portable. And emphatic self validation of the superiority of their current system isn't going to motivate any audiophile to improve the quality of their sound.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 18, 2021)

bigshot said:


> You're making this more complicated than it is. Making, recording and mixing music is a creative process using technical means. This is no different than any other art form. You have ideas and you have tools, and you use the tools to make a product called art. The artists making an album use a specific setup to monitor the sound when they are making their creative decisions. That is a triangulated speaker set up. This is the standard they use to ensure that the choices they make are the sounds the end user hears. They put their recording down on a CD and you buy it. From there on, there is no more art, only technical reproduction of sound. You can reproduce the signal with a high degree of fidelity, but unless you also reproduce the triangulated system they used to mix it, you will be hearing something different than what the artists heard. It's the same as taking the Mona Lisa and exactly reproducing it, and then hanging it on your wall and lighting it with purple lights. It is the Mona Lisa, but it doesn't look anything like what it looked like to DaVinci. That is fine if your favorite color is purple, but that isn't accurate.
> 
> It's very simple. The way the speakers produce the sound and the way the space modifies it is part of the intended sound. That is how it was monitored during recording and mixing. You can listen to it through headphones if you want, and you can feel free to prefer it that way, but that isn't listening with a high degree of fidelity to the intended sound.
> 
> ...


I do appreciate your great examples. They make an excellent point why speakers may be an easy and preferable (and often more truthful) way to listen to historic recordings.

My point is simpler - sound reproduction with the headphones, IEMs is technically superior and more capable. I used largely IEMs, and quite budget ones, but 3-D stage is there. Again fast multiple transducers can deliver.

True, sometimes if the carriage is designed to be carried by horses, the automobiles/electromobiles may not give the same experience, but it does not attest to the technical inferiority of the latter.

The orchestras perform in halls because, to start with, they have to, and a lot efforts are invested actually to decrease unwanted reflections, then there are "sweet spots", premium seats, etc.
My favourite recordings again when the instruments are recorded separately and mixed to give the resolution and to shift focus to the solo or sections that literally take the stage (halls are less important, if any).

Then if to take piano music for instance, the "purist" records of piano distant in the hall, almost as a mono source are far less exciting to me than the ones when two mics are close, and my head feels literally as if in the piano. Unrealistic to purists - sure, but engaging and enjoyable - absolutely, and the music should be enjoyable, right.

So back to science a bit, if to record what listeners should hear - it should be the sound wave entering the ear channels, right?
With this ultimate knowledge of all the details measured, it should make the best sense to reproduce it there where it all matters - next to the ears.

Understandably, historic practices were different, but now the technical limitations of reproduction with small capable transducers are not there anymore. These transducers (BAs, piezo, EST) became reasonably affordable to be used in multiple arrays - not only in the frequency domain but spatially (that is to deliver any time and phase details needed).


----------



## bigshot (Jan 18, 2021)

Ultimately, the option of wearing headphones or IEMs is the most efficient way to produce high quality sound. Obviously, you aren't physically pushing a whole room full of air around. It is easier to manufacture an efficient transducer to convey the sound waves. But technology isn't quite at the point where headphones can do everything speakers can. In order for that to be the case, you would need sophisticated signal processing to create a virtual space for the sound to inhabit. The output from your CD would go into a computer that would calculate the acoustic effects of a room with specific optimized dimensions and wall density/reflectivity. The computer would apply that envelope in real time to the recorded signal and create a processed output that would then be channelled to your headphones as a standard stereo signal.

In addition to this, the computer would need to take into account your particular physiognomy... your shoulders, head, ear canal shape etc. All of these aspects are key to your perception of directionality. The technical term for this is HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function), and I admit this is not an area I know a great deal about. But everyone has a different HRTF, and your computer would need to create a precise set of parameters to emulate your individual HRTF or the illusion of 3D audio would completely evaporate. By the way, HRTF is the reason some people hear sounds in binaural recordings as dimensional and some don't. There is no one size fits all.

The next aspect to consider is head tracking. We perceive distance partially by moving our head to discern the placement of sound objects in three dimensional space. It's like a deer that hears the footfall of a wolf and turns its head and cocks its ears to place the sound in space. In order to do this, you would need some sort of sensor conveying the motion of your head to the computer. The computer would then have to recalculate the room acoustics and the HRTF model on the fly, so as you move your head, you hear the sound dimensionally and naturally.

The last aspect I can think of (if anyone can think of more, feel free to chime in) is the kinesthetic sense. Certain low frequencies are felt, rather than heard. And some frequencies create a resonant frequency that can produce a very strong reaction in people. I remember when I first saw the movie Cabin In The Woods. At the climax of the movie, there is a low frequency rumble that is very disconcerting. I don't quite know how to describe it, but the low frequency rumble sounds like an absence of sound. It becomes a room tone that you tune out. But the sub sonic vibration creates a feeling of fear or anxiety (at least it did in me!) Without a subwoofer that goes down to 12 Hz, I might not have felt that and it certainly wouldn't be perceptible with headphones. Video game controllers sometimes have "haptic feedback", meaning you feel the hits in your hand when you strike something or fire a weapon. Low frequencies below the threshold of hearing can produce a kind of haptic feedback too. Home theater has a very primitive way of dealing with this... it's called a "butt shaker". You put it under where you sit and it vibrates when the soundtrack includes super low frequencies. It works for explosions in war movies, but something much more sophisticated would be needed to match the kinesthetic response of a good speaker system.

Edit: I did think of one more issue... It deals with social interaction. Normal people tend to watch TV and listen to music in groups. It won't work to have complete isolation. How would you say, "Could you please pause this so I can go to the bathroom?" IEMs and headphones would need smart passthrough functions. The Apple AirPods do this, and add the option of answering phone calls too. Perhaps it could incorporate the functions of a remote control, or Alexa commands, etc. But for families, some kind of ability to interact in real life would be needed. I'm thinking if you had a device like this, you would wear it all the time. The one problem I hope they solve is how to keep track of tiny things that go in your ear. I've already lost one of my AirPods.

All of this is very complex, but it isn't impossible. As I've said, the Smyth Realiser addresses many of these issues. But as we know with all technology, the devil is in the details. Real time computations like this require a lot of CPU horsepower, and research has to be done to optimize creating individual HRTF settings. Is it possible that we all might have something like this in ten years? Who knows. That depends on how the market accepts it. If we all had a system like this, recordings could be made with alternate acoustics... you could take a dry recording of a symphony orchestra and have your computer calculate a concert hall to suit it. Or mixers could place sound objects and instruments in three dimensional space, the way Atmos speaker installations can do now. But that would require universal implementation with the public... just like every halfway decent speaker system in living rooms follows the triangulated setup, and every multichannel system starts with an established 5.1 speaker configuration. Standards matter.

Without signal processing, headphones are always going to be a step below speakers when it comes to soundstage and dimensionality. Maybe that will change as technology advances.


----------



## sander99 (Jan 18, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> So back to science a bit, if to record what listeners should hear - it should be the sound wave entering the ear channels, right?
> With this ultimate knowledge of all the details measured, it should make the best sense to reproduce it there where it all matters - next to the ears.


Unless you don't care at all about out-of-head localisation of sound (a property all natural sounds from your surroundings): this would only be true if the sound was recorded at the entrance of the ear canals. Which it is not. What's more: to be precise it would only be true for you if the sound was recorded at the entrance of specifiically *your* ear canals, because everyone's head and ears color the sound differently on the way to the ear canals. (And that is just one of many reasons why this method is not used so much.)

Do you realise that in a way we agree about your statement that iems are much more potent than loudspeakers? Only I say it depends on what you do with them and what your goal is, I'll come back to that further below.


PhonoPhi said:


> Imagination is surely an important thing (but not a scientific fact), and with a good imagination even cables can sound better, but then the ear drums are responding only to the air vibrations reaching them (the air vibrations in a ear channel of an inch by 0.3 inch or so are all that matters, unless one points to the fact otherwise). "A world full of sound" not reaching the ears is physically irrelevant, as beautiful as it can be to any rich/wild imagination, and IEMs sealing the ear channels are exactly the most effective way to reproduce any sound/music intended or not.


It is very difficult to react to above post because many things in it can be interpreted in different ways.

For example your reference to imagination and cables. It almost seems - but I could be wrong - as if you think that human sound localisation is total imagination, or as if sound localisation in audio reproduction is pure placebo. (And just for your information: I am not one of those that believe a different cable or DAC will suddenly change the soundstage or some nonsense like that. However using suitable DSP or switching from headphones to speakers does.)

Human sound localisation and for example the role of HRTF has been scientifically studied extensively, it is not fantasy (even if imagination and a truckload of other psychological factors can have influence on sound localisation and sound perception as a whole).

Most real life sounds that we hear are coming from our environment, outsides our selves, outside our heads. And we perceive them as such. (Or rather, most people do. I could imagine that there are exceptions. For example I wonder how it would be with people that grew up with good hearing in both ears but completely lost their hearing in one ear. I mention this because some of the people here write things that make me think that possibly they perceive sound placement completely different compared to the average person.)

I have looked again at some of your earlier posts and have some remarks:


PhonoPhi said:


> Related to the latter point, all the art and complexity of music is effectively reduced to two channels reproducing only two (!) points in space (More channels - just few more points)


Actually you don't need more than 2 points for reproducing more than 2 channels. All sounds from outside end up at the ear drums and at each ear drum is arriving one total sum signal.



PhonoPhi said:


> With the multi-transducer IEM, sealing the ear channel, any sound pattern can be created.
> Technical capabilities of the current generation of BA, piezo and EST drivers make only the physical design and matching the anatomy of individual air channels the main limitations.
> 
> Does it make all the sense to use few mW of power instead of vibrating a lot of air in a specially designed room only for a mere fraction of it reaching someone's ears?
> ...


Yes, iems potentially have more possibilities than loudspeakers! Because given the proper input signals iems can simulate everything that loudspeakers can do. [Edit: Correction, everything except the tactile aspects of loudspeakers.]
Plus a lot more. With loudspeakers on the other hand you can not simulate everything iems can do. Because with loudspeakers you can not control what total sum signal reaches each ear drum independently.

How do you simulate loudspeakers over iems? Generate the exact same sound that would have gone into your ears had you'd been listening to loudspeakers.

What more can you do with iems (if and when the technologyis ready for that)? Directly render sounds at any desired location in 3d space, by generating and letting the iems reproduce the exact same sounds that would have gone into your ears that would have had that sound really been produced at the desired location in 3d space.
Plus what is already possible now: render sound inside your head.

And again: if you don't care about out-of-head sound, but mainly about maximum clarity and detail just play your normal stereo recordings over iems without processing.
But don't say there is no scientific reason to do it differently. There is a scientific reason. Most natural sounds are perceived as coming from outside your head, from a distance. Science has studied how this works. Out-of-head sound can be easily achieved by using speakers (any number of channels, even mono). Or by using headphones/iems with proper binaural signals (either simulating speakers or doing direct binaural rendering of sound).


----------



## sonitus mirus

So with IEMs being so incredibly fantastic and superior to speakers, what is the purpose of a device such as the A16 Realiser?


----------



## bigshot

He used the term potent. I don’t quite understand that. A good speaker at a healthy volume level is plenty potent!


----------



## sander99

sonitus mirus said:


> So with IEMs being so incredibly fantastic and superior to speakers, what is the purpose of a device such as the A16 Realiser?





sander99 said:


> At this moment the last step [Edit: Directly render sounds at any desired location in 3d space] is not really available yet, certainly not music content wise, so for now speakers and virtual speakers are the best options.


So the purpose of the A16 is to simulate speakers over headphones or iems. I don't have an opinion about headphones versus iems. Also I didn't say IEMs are incredibly fantastic, I said that with IEMs and the technology to generate the proper personal hrtf based signals you can do everything that speakers can plus more.
Although to be fair, I must confess that for a moment I forgot about the tactile factor of loudspeakers, so I will have to correct myself on that!

The A16 does take care of simulating speakers fairly well. But there is some room for improvement. I think the PRIR measurement process with in-ear-mics is the weak link now. Ideally the measurements should take place at the ear drums, without anything being present in the ear canals. But that is a problem as you can surely see. Also the results can differ with slightly different in-ear-mic positioning. HPEQ measurement of IEMs is even more problematic (not possible now, but a manual HPEQ is possible for IEMs). Maybe scanning ears, head, and body and modelling and calculating all the needed information from that could be a solution in the future.


----------



## PhonoPhi

To keep it short: CDs (the common ones) only have information on how the intensity of the sound pressure changes with time in two channels (two points) - then its all about processing and transducers how deliver it to the ears. Right now, the IEM processing is largely frequency-based (different transducers are responsible for different frequencies), but it is getting there with the transducer placement and phase differences.

Yes, I do not care about "out of head" sound for a simple reason that this is the sound that does not reach my ears.
The same way - I only care about  (see) the  light that reaches my eyes That is how detectors/sensors work.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 18, 2021)

The out of your head sound doesn’t reach your ears with IEMs, but it does with speakers. Sound is supposed to surround you like it does in the real world, not be boxed up inside your head in a straight line between your ears. That isn’t natural, and it isn’t the way the people making the record heard it.

I’ve given you some clear explanations. I’ll give you some tome to absorb the information.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 18, 2021)

bigshot said:


> The out of your head sound doesn’t reach your ears with IEMs, but it does with speakers. Sound is supposed to surround you like it does in the real world, not be boxed up inside your head in a straight line between your ears. That isn’t natural, and it isn’t the way the people making the record heard it.
> 
> I’ve given you some clear explanations. I’ll give you some tome to absorb the information.


There was no single scientific explanation, sorry!

That was exactly one of my points starting this conversation.
This thread is still more about subjective personal experiences (such as bigger speakers in a nice room are surely better )

IEMs can easily handle spatial localization - the impression of the distant sound "out of head".
Why would not they? Because "speakers are better"? The latter argument, as potently subjective it is, does not work.


----------



## 538681 (Jan 18, 2021)

Looks like audio will take a few more years to catch up with movies. If "Fidelity" or "Accuracy" were at all important we would still be watching 60's French movies. Just look up how "Game of Thrones" was produced. Amazingly complex blend of real and illusion.

I watched a video of a drummer using software to achieve the effect he wanted for a recording for streaming release and then for the changes he needed to make to use it live (very different). I could barely follow the complexity of it all, but it was all done on headphones with a short check on cheap speakers, this is the future.

Artist and Engineer "intent" is to sell music so they can make a living. Sell "great" music (for some), but it must sell.

Continuing to review current music engineering practices "triangulated speaker systems" as a reference will be disappearing like the Do-Do bird, due to its mismatch with how music is consumed and the economics of recording. The use of speaker systems was just an artifact of technology and history after all.

Computers and software will do whatever you want with authority. In the end it will be music lovers who decide in a Darwinian game. IEMs, Headphones, Soundbars, and car music stereo is what you better be producing for, not the tiny slice of the market called "triangulated speaker systems".  And your answer is not that if it sounds good on the traditional setup it will sound good everywhere. That's simply not true and engineers know it. That's just a balm to "the way its always been done". The young, as usual, will change the way things are done in the tribe.

IEMs and Headphones are far better positioned to take advantage of the technology to come. IEMs especially, with all the activity in China, are advancing far faster in technology than high end traditional speaker systems. Like a virus, they can mutate far faster to meet prevailing conditions. It's the market, its all in the numbers.


----------



## sander99

PhonoPhi said:


> To keep it short: CDs (the common ones) only have information on how the intensity of the sound pressure changes with time in two channels (two points) - then its all about processing and transducers how deliver it to the ears. Right now, the IEM processing is largely frequency-based (different transducers are responsible for different frequencies), but it is getting there with the transducer placement and phase differences.
> 
> Yes, I do not care about "out of head" sound for a simple reason that this is the sound that does not reach my ears.
> The same way - I only care about  (see) the  light that reaches my eyes That is how detectors/sensors work.


I now have to give up. It is useless to continue any discussion until you have studied the subject of head related transfer function and human sound localisation. Of course your ears only detect the sound that reaches your ears. But your ears and brain together make you perceive it as originating from some location or locations, that could be inside or outside of your head. Just like your brain makes you perceive the objects that you see at some location, even though it only uses the light that comes into your eyes (although different mechanisms are in play here compared to hearing).

I am now seriously wondering if maybe you are an exception in how your brain processes sound. Let me ask you a question: If someone is standing behind you say 6 feet behind you and 3 feet to the right without you knowing that and then speaks to you, are you able to locate this person by the sound of his voice? Of course not inch perfect, but approximately?

And after writing the above I see your next post:


PhonoPhi said:


> IEMs can easily handle spatial localization - the impression of the distant sound "out of head".


It is like you are constantly contradicting your self.

'I do not care about "out of head" sound for a simple reason that this is the sound that does not reach my ears.'
versus
'IEMs can easily handle spatial localization - the impression of the distant sound "out of head".'

About that last one: with the proper signals to the iems: yes. But directly sending the 2 channels from the average cd: generally no although once in a while there could be a (sometimes coincidental) effect like that.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 18, 2021)

sander99 said:


> I now have to give up. It is useless to continue any discussion until you have studied the subject of head related transfer function and human sound localisation. Of course your ears only detect the sound that reaches your ears. But your ears and brain together make you perceive it as originating from some location or locations, that could be inside or outside of your head. Just like your brain makes you perceive the objects that you see at some location, even though it only uses the light that comes into your eyes (although different mechanisms are in play here compared to hearing).
> 
> I am now seriously wondering if maybe you are an exception in how your brain processes sound. Let me ask you a question: If someone is standing behind you say 6 feet behind you and 3 feet to the right without you knowing that and then speaks to you, are you able to locate this person by the sound of his voice? Of course not inch perfect, but approximately?
> 
> ...


It would be fair for me to give up.
You are taking like "social scientist", creating some "controversies" on my behalf...

I stated and continue to repeat that the sound wave reaching the ears contain all the information (phase delays, etc) to perceive localization, etc.
So IEMs are fully sufficient and most efficient.

Any physics-based arguments that you need to place transducers far from the detector (ears) to reach any better effect?

That is supposed to be science-based thread, so please provide scientific, that is physics and math- based, arguments!


----------



## sonitus mirus

I think you are missing a piece that we are trying to explain.  Even a single speaker, away from your ears at few feet will have a drastic difference in the way you hear it.  This could be duplicated with headphones or iems, but not without signal processing/hrtf.


----------



## bigshot

PhonoPhi said:


> There was no single scientific explanation, sorry!
> 
> That was exactly one of my points starting this conversation.
> This thread is still more about subjective personal experiences (such as bigger speakers in a nice room are surely better )



You must have missed or misunderstood what we’re talking about. It’s all there if you want to go back and review it. If you have questions or don’t understand what we’re talking about, let us know. We’re happy to explain.


----------



## PhonoPhi

sonitus mirus said:


> I think you are missing a piece that we are trying to explain.  Even a single speaker, away from your ears at few feet will have a drastic difference in the way you hear it.  This could be duplicated with headphones or iems, but not without signal processing/hrtf.


I am surely missing scientific arguments...

Why would I disagree with your point above? Surely, it is different.
Surely, IEMs should reproduce differently being close to the detector, but exactly they can fully duplicate the sound.


----------



## bigshot

PhonoPhi said:


> I stated and continue to repeat that the sound wave reaching the ears contain all the information (phase delays, etc) to perceive localization, etc.



But of course commercially recorded music doesn’t include all those localization cues. It is assumed that your listening room and speaker placement will provide that. When you listen in a physical space, your personal HRTF and head tracking will enhance the recorded sound- something that isn’t possible without a Smyth Realiser.


----------



## sander99 (Jan 18, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> I stated and continue to repeat that the sound wave reaching the ears contain all the information (phase delays, etc) to do the localization, etc.
> Any physics-based arguments that you need to place transducers far from the detector to reach any better effect?


That depends on the type of recording/signal. Your brain has learned during your life how to interpret various sound localisation clues. And there is more than level and time differences alone, with only those you could not tell the difference between 30 degrees left front or 30 degrees left rear because that would give the same level and time difference. What is a little bit unfortunate is that a part of those clues are different for evey individual. Your brain has learned to interpret the sound colorations caused by bending around *your* head, and into *your* ears (hrtf filtering). That is why it is impossible that one stereo recording played back over headphones or iems could give a convincing and correct out-of-head placement for all listeners. At best if someone made the recording with in-ear-mics in his/her own ears then only this same person - and maybe a twin sibling or others with very similar head and ear shape - could experience a convincing and correct out-of-head placement of the sound. But then there is still the problem that moving your head may spoil the illusion because your brain will not expect the image to turn with your head.
There exist so called binaural recordings made with a dummy head with microphones in the ears. How well they work will differ heavily depending on how well ones anatomy resembles that of the dummy head, but on average they work poorly.
Someone long ago discovered that if you hear two identical physical sound sources at maximum 60 degrees apart your brain will interpret that as if the sound was originating inbetween those two sound sources. And by changing the volume ratio of the two sound sources you could shift that so called phantom image to any position inbetween the two sound sources (panning). It is actually a kind of not-a-priory logical effect, and probably just happens because the brain doesn't know what else to do with it because in nature there will almost never be 2 identical sound sources. (And actually I think there exist a ver small percentage of people for whom it doesn't work.)
This was the basis for the concept of stereo over 2 loudspeakers. Now the nice thing is that this concept does not depend on your personal hrtf. The sound of the two loudspeakers is subjected to your personal hrtf on it's way to your ear drum. And it will sound as if it is coming from approximately the same distance as where the loudspeakers are.

To create a convincing out of head experience over headphones or iems you will need binaural signals matching with your personal hrtf.
One relatively easy way to do that is by binaurally simulating loudspeakers, using specific measurements concerning your personal hrtf.
(The Smyth Realiser A16 can do this. And it uses head tracking to keep the virtual speakers stationary when you turn your head.)


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> You must have missed or misunderstood what we’re talking about. It’s all there if you want to go back and review it. If you have questions or don’t understand what we’re talking about, let us know. We’re happy to explain.


If you kindly succinctly restate any scientific arguments from a lot of the words above, I would be really grateful (otherwise I can repeat your great words that you used several times in the cable discussion that we are not getting anywhere since the scientific facts are all that matter not emotional repetition that your opponent may not get something).


----------



## PhonoPhi

sander99 said:


> That depends on the type of recording/signal. Your brain has learned during your life how to interpret various sound localisation clues. And there is more than level and time differences alone, with only those you could not tell the difference between 30 degrees left front or 30 degrees left rear because that would give the same level and time difference. What is a little bit unfortunate is that a part of those clues are different for evey individual. Your brain has learned to interpret the sound colorations caused by bending around *your* head, and into *your* ears (hrtf filtering). That is why it is impossible that one stereo recording played back over headphones or iems could give a convincing and correct out-of-head placement for all listeners. At best if someone made the recording with in-ear-mics in his/her own ears then only this same person - and maybe a twin sibling or others with very similar head and ear shape - could experience a convincing and correct out-of-head placement of the sound. But then there is still the problem that moving your head may spoil the illusion because your brain will not expect the image to turn with your head.
> There exist so called binaural recordings made with a dummy head with microphones in the ears. How well they work will differ heavily depending on how well ones anatomy resembles that of the dummy head, but on average they work poorly.
> Someone long ago discovered that if you hear two identical physical sound sources at maximum 60 degrees apart your brain will interpret that as if the sound was originating inbetween those two sound sources. And by changing the volume ratio of the two sound sources you could shift that so called phantom image to any position inbetween the two sound sources (panning). It is actually a kind of not-a-priory logical effect, and probably just happens because the brain doesn't know what else to do with it because in nature there will almost never be 2 identical sound sources. (And actually I think there exist a ver small percentage of people for whom it doesn't work.)
> This was the basis for the concept of stereo over 2 loudspeakers. Now the nice thing is that this concept does not depend on your personal hrtf. The sound of the two loudspeakers is subjected to your personal hrtf on it's way to your ear drum. And it will sound as if it is coming from approximately the same distance as where the loudspeakers are.
> ...


Binaural recordings work great for me with IEMs.
What brain processes is the wave pattern reaching the ear. How it is created does not matter based on physics, information processing, etc.


----------



## castleofargh (Jan 21, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> To keep it short: CDs (the common ones) only have information on how the intensity of the sound pressure changes with time in two channels (two points) - then its all about processing and transducers how deliver it to the ears. Right now, the IEM processing is largely frequency-based (different transducers are responsible for different frequencies), but it is getting there with the transducer placement and phase differences.
> 
> Yes, I do not care about "out of head" sound for a simple reason that this is the sound that does not reach my ears.
> The same way - I only care about  (see) the  light that reaches my eyes That is how detectors/sensors work.


You're clearly misunderstanding. The sounds perceived out of your head are every single sound around you. The only sound that are different are bodily noises. When an instrument sends a sound wave towards you, or when an object reflects light, you will indeed perceive them with what reaches your ears and eyes. But you will feel like they are wherever they are in space. Your brain learns how to do that at an early age. Sound and light are basically the same thing in that respect, we locate stuff by comparing information from left and right eyes/ears. You don't look at a tree and feel like the tree is inside your head on on your eye. You don't hear someone talking and feel like he's inside one ear or inside your skull. But with IEMs and typical stereo albums, we do.

I get you insistence on the objective concept of taking the content of the CD and saying; left output is closer to the original signal on the CD therefore it's more accurate. But there is another mistake behind that reasoning. You forget the INTENT! Did I mention that before? ^_^ The intent does exist and can very much matter. If I wish to make something that works more or less on headphones, I'll need to use binaural recording. Or I'll record as usual and then apply some processing with a generic HRTF profile to help most listeners get a more realistic experience. One where it doesn't feel like the band is inside their head. @sander99 is right about your example of sound close to the violin. If the intent was to let you hear the sound as if right next to a violin(a sound I personally find harsh and painful), the proper and easiest method would be to have you stand next to the violin and record with the binaural microphones in your ears. Then, the right playback method would be headphones or IEM, ideally, tuned for you to avoid conflicting audio cues or plain imbalance in signature. In that scenario I would be the first to tell you that speaker playback is the wrong tool for the job. There are some DSPs trying to make binaural recording more... Well binaural on speakers, but default speaker playback is wrong. Because on a binaural recording, the left channel is only intended to reach the left ear. The left speakers would also be heard by the right ear and that would significantly alter the listener's impression(and objectively, the sound at the eardrum).

You insist on discussing as if somehow CDs were made for headphones. They weren't! I won't deny that within modern albums, some probably were done with special attention to headphones, but as bigshot explained, this is not very practical. Because while you can calibrate speakers to have a fairly flat and standard response at a given position in most rooms, it's pretty hard to calibrate headphones. Even if that was done with some chosen standard, the way humans perceive sound would still result in different people feeling a different response, and depending on the size of the head, slightly different angles for the source of the sound. For many music genre that might not matter much, and maybe the creator of an album doesn't care or even better, doesn't know. Maybe with covid we have everybody stuck at home and many of them having to manage with headphones for production? Anything is possible. but IMO, out of everything ever produced on CD, the part mastered for headphones is a drop in the ocean.

When you look at the PS5, what they want to do for the sound is to simulate some HRTF processing, which implies they want to give a feeling of sounds coming from outside. And on the airpod pro, the spatial thingy with head tracking is doing the same thing. They basically take one channel(because this is not limited to stereo music) and process it the way a speaker at a given position and distance would sound to a human ear. it's all still pretty generic stuff and the actual impressions may vary, but that's where we're heading. If you decide not to trust what we say here, or maybe you need to learn a thing or 2 about psychoacoustics to understand what we're trying to say? there is no need to accept or understand anything to see the industry leaders are moving away from how IEM and headphones sounded until now. because it does not make sense acoustically and psychoacoustically when we consider how and why the records were made.
With time, with hopefully more and more customization, the very way we record and master albums will change. it's a certainty. And TBH, there will be absolutely no reason to stick to stereo albums. Ideally, with our very own HRTF profile in our cellphone or DAP, and the IEM identified by it, we will get full 3D experience with IEMs and headphones. But, and tell me if I seem to insist too much, for that to happen we need the music producers to have a different intent and working methods.
The irony is that you and @Cranky might actually prefer the sound you're getting now, even though the future will finally have sound truly made for IEMs and headphones.


@Crankyrat sorry for putting words in your mouth before. honest mistake.

@GearMe the issue of getting the right playback when aiming for accuracy and fidelity is a huge one. most of it is explained with the famous circle of confusion of audio: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html
But instead of all or nothing, we can still consider aiming for something reasonably close to the intended target(if that's what we want! ^_^), by using speakers when the album was made for them. By placing them at 30° instead of where there is some available place in the room. By trying to have a room acoustic not too similar to that of public toilets, etc. All the little steps that follow a known standard usually followed by sound engineers themselves.
Or maybe we should just do our worst to have the most noob consumer approach and random gears, thinking that the industry made the albums for that scenario. It hurts because it's probably true.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 18, 2021)

bigshot said:


> But of course commercially recorded music doesn’t include all those localization cues. It is assumed that your listening room and speaker placement will provide that. When you listen in a physical space, your personal HRTF and head tracking will enhance the recorded sound- something that isn’t possible without a Smyth Realiser.


Sorry I missed it.
No disagreement here.
Only as stated above, more and more recordings are produced for the most common consumers of music that use headphones and IEMs.


----------



## sander99

PhonoPhi said:


> Binaural recordings work great for me with IEMs.
> What brain processes is the wave pattern reaching the ear. How it is created does not matter based on physics, information processing, etc.


(If binaural recordings work well for you: congratulations then the used dummy head matches your personal hrtf.)
And again you seem to contradict yourself. If binaural recordings work for you, then you must surely have noticed a difference between those and normal stereo recordings? Then you should know already that the kind of signals/recordings you use make a difference.


----------



## 538681 (Jan 18, 2021)

Lets pick this apart from the point of view of a music consumer (me):

"The out of your head sound doesn’t reach your ears with IEMs, but it does with speakers."

_IEMs can absolutely meet this criteria, actually far more accurately with binaural recordings or DSP. Not that I care._

"Sound is supposed to surround you like it does in the real world, not be boxed up inside your head in a straight line between your ears."

_No it isn't. The sound is what I want it to be. I constantly move between my speakers, IEMs, and headphones because that maintains the "Wow" factor for the different devices. I'm easily bored. And I most definitely don't want "real" whatever that is. I expect far more than that._

"That isn’t natural, and it isn’t the way the people making the record heard it."

Natural? Please. I guess you don't watch movies with special effects. Natural, for entertainment purposes, is not on the list. And yet again, you have no idea how "people making the record heard it" unless you are a clone and have perfect audio memory (0.2 second the last time I read about it).

This constant indulgence in vague terms like "Natural", "Real", and "Fidelity" is the nadir of scientific thinking. I feel these terms need to be purged from the dialog.


----------



## PhonoPhi

castleofargh said:


> You're clearly misunderstanding. The sounds perceived out of your head are every single sound around you. The only sound that are different are bodily noises. When an instrument sends a sound wave towards you, or when an object reflects light, you will indeed perceive them with what reaches your ears and eyes. But you will feel like they are wherever they are in space. Your brain learns how to that at an early age. Sound and light are basically the same thing in that respect, we locate stuff by comparing information from left and right eyes/ears. You don't look at a tree and feel like the tree is inside your head on on your eye. You don't hear someone talking and feel like he's inside one ear or inside your skull. But with IEMs and typical stereo albums, we do.
> 
> I get you insistence on the objective concept of taking the content of the CD and saying; left output is closer to the original signal on the CD therefore it's more accurate. But there is another mistake behind that reasoning. You forget the INTENT! Did I mention that before? ^_^ The intent does exist and can very much matter. If I wish to make something that works more or less on headphones, I'll need to use binaural recording. Or I'll record as usual and then apply some processing with a generic HRTF profile to help most listeners get a more realistic experience. One where it doesn't feel like the band is inside their head. @sander99 is right about your example of sound close to the violin. If the intent was to let you hear the sound as if right next to a violin(a sound I personally find harsh and painful), the proper and easiest method would be to have you stand next to the violin and record with the binaural microphones in your ears. Then, the right playback method would be headphones or IEM, ideally, tuned for you to avoid conflicting audio cues or plain imbalance signature. In that scenario I would be the first to tell you that speaker playback is the wrong tool for the job. There are some DSPs trying to make binaural recording more... Well binaural on speakers, but default speaker playback is wrong. Because on a binaural recording, the left channel is only intended to reach the left ear. The left speakers would also be heard by the right ear and that would significantly alter the listener's impression(and objectively, the sound at the eardrum).
> 
> ...


Not much disagreement here again.
My main point was that IEMs are most capable and efficient transducers that can recreate anything intended, as long as this information is known.
I agree that this information may need to be processed differently, which may not be practical now, but the software of the sound processing is amazingly capable and developing further very fast.
Also a lot of recordings are at least geared to headphones and IEMs.

I only can't agree that the violin sound up close is necessarily harsh and painful - just decreasing the volume to the right levels to hear all the attacks and decay (I am blessed that my kids play strings, and while starting a bit painfully, I now enjoy to listen to them up closely, and that was my main quest in sound reproduction, IEMs did amazingly for me there).


----------



## PhonoPhi

sander99 said:


> (If binaural recordings work well for you: congratulations then the used dummy head matches your personal hrtf.)
> And again you seem to contradict yourself. If binaural recordings work for you, then you must surely have noticed a difference between those and normal stereo recordings? Then you should know already that the kind of signals/recordings you use make a difference.


@Crankyrat answered you very well.
I can only add that I would not exactly understand what "normal stereo recording" is, to me they all have some degree of the spatial localization. Some of my IEMs underemphasize it, some overemphasize. The same as with the speaker placements.


----------



## sonitus mirus (Jan 18, 2021)

Crankyrat said:


> Lets pick this apart from the point of view of a music consumer (me):
> 
> "The out of your head sound doesn’t reach your ears with IEMs, but it does with speakers."
> 
> ...


I agree with the general idea of what you stated.  By “natural", I think we are talking about the generally accepted intent of stereo music rendering, which for nearly everyone, up until relatively recent times, was to have a listener hearing sounds from two speakers in front of them. Listening with headphones places the audio content between the listener’s ears and inside their head, spatially speaking.  I believe we are shifting towards something different and new.


----------



## bigshot

PhonoPhi said:


> If you kindly succinctly restate any scientific arguments from a lot of the words above, I would be really grateful



Commercially recorded music is created with calibrated speakers in an acoustically designed room using a standardized placement of speakers and listening position. This creates a dimensional soundstage that is impossible to replicate using headphones without sophisticated real time signal processing, HRTF calibration and head tracking. Fidelity to the sound the artists and engineers created requires more than just equipment, and the sound is more than just the signal on the CD. It requires a physical space to inhabit. This completes the intended sound and brings it to a level of maximum fidelity to how the creators intended it to sound.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 19, 2021)

[QUOTE="PhonoPhi, post: 16115746,]more and more recordings are produced for the most common consumers of music that use headphones and IEMs.
[/QUOTE]

That isn’t true. The only stuff I’m aware of that is mixed using headphones are home brew studios in people’s spare bedrooms. Professional sound studios all use speakers.

Originally I had said that electronica was sometimes mixed using headphones. I said that because I heard someone else mention that. I'm not sure it is true now. Booka Shade, Kraftwerk, Tomita and Jean Michel Jarre have all released multichannel albums that could never have been mixed on headphones. I think only home made records by up and coming artists use headphones like Gregorio said. I've never seen a set of high end cans in a recording studio, and I've never worked in a recording studio without full size studio monitors for playback.


----------



## 538681

bigshot said:


> Commercially recorded music is created with calibrated speakers in an acoustically designed room using a standardized placement of speakers and listening position. This creates a dimensional soundstage that is impossible to replicate using headphones without sophisticated real time signal processing, HRTF calibration and head tracking. Fidelity to the sound the artists and engineers created requires more than just equipment, and the sound is more than just the signal on the CD. It requires a physical space to inhabit. This completes the intended sound and brings it to a level of maximum fidelity to how the creators intended it to sound.



"Commercially recorded music is created with calibrated speakers in an acoustically designed room using a standardized placement of speakers and listening position."

Less and less so, that's the future.

The rest of what you say is irrelevant. It is not the way most people listen to their music or what they care about. The artists and engineers I found, when searching, know this. You need to make your music sound good on non-traditional speaker setups our be left behind.

I guess we can say the "intent" of music is changing (or already has) to satisfy a continuously changing market.

I'd say lets find out what the relevant properties and metrics compose music sound quality today, or least the subset we can agree on. Then we can talk about the science that best realizes it.


----------



## bigshot

Whatever. I'm not talking to you any more. You don't have to reply.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Crankyrat said:


> "Commercially recorded music is created with calibrated speakers in an acoustically designed room using a standardized placement of speakers and listening position."
> 
> Less and less so, that's the future.
> 
> ...



This Q&A basically sums up my finding about the subject, even if it is just a few people being interviewed. The responses are similar to what I have read from others.  This one quoted point stands out to me the most, and is probably pertinent for major studios from a perspective of being cost effective with regards to making an album.

*



			AA:
		
Click to expand...

*


> First, I would say that in my experience I have always found that making a record sound great over good loudspeakers still always translates to the earbuds, but the opposite is not true.



https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/expert-mastering-engineers-on-headphones.html


----------



## bigshot (Jan 19, 2021)

I know that the only things I've ever used headphones for in production, and the only things I've ever seen them used for, is recording and editing. Never for mixing. The primary benefit of headphones is isolation. Anyone who has shared an office with a sound editor knows that hearing the same bit of music or dialogue over and over again as they trim and set up cross fades is exasperating. When I did it, I did assembly using cans, then switched to speakers for balancing levels. They put me in my own soundproof room to do it so I wouldn't disturb others. Likewise with recording, you don't want playback creating a feedback loop in the booth, so the talent wears cans to hear the click and basic playback track. Sometimes headphones can be helpful detecting little pops and clicks that slip by during editing, but they are unsuitable for determining balances of EQ and level, which makes them useless for mixing.

-----

Sander99: This is a bit of a tangent, but I've been thinking about your interesting points in this convo, and they led me to a realization about the ultimate purpose of simulated space using real time signal processing. All of our discussion is based on the capabilities of the Smyth Realiser- simulating speakers in a room. But I think that is just the first step, and the concept of signal processing will evolve far beyond that. I believe that the future won't be just for playing music on headphones that sounds like speakers, but rather for creating dimensional soundscapes for TV and movies, and beyond that for virtual reality environments.

The next step is already being implemented with Dolby Atmos, which is an object oriented three dimensional mixing platform. This means that you could place a sound source precisely in three dimensional space- not just two stereo speakers- but dozens and dozens of objects. Each object would be placed in space and would be modified by the envelope of sound from the room or objects around it. You could create a complete surround environment that mimics the aural characteristics of a snow covered mountain top, a rain storm, the Sistine Chapel, or Carlsbad Caverns; and you could place sound objects within it- voices, music, sound effects- and they would be with in that aural ambience. Imagine what that would do for movies and TV.

Then take that one step further- virtual reality. Not only would you be able to hear these sound objects in an environment, maybe the sound sources could move around the dimensional soundscape, and you wouldn't be anchored to a single listening position. You could move around the aural stage and hear the sound from different perspectives. Real time processing would match what you hear to what you see. You could get up out of your seat at a classical concert and walk up on the stage and move among the orchestra, listening to different instruments as they play. You could move around a virtual world and hear the sounds that go with the fantastic imagery in natural perspective. And the world could be moving and changing perspective and ambience all around you.

I have the Oculus Quest VR headset, and it has an extremely primitive implementation of dimensional sound. There's no custom HRTF, so it doesn't work very well. But it has amazing head tracking. On the headset are four cameras that keep you oriented in six degrees of freedom to move in real time with no lag at all. If you merged a Smyth Realiser with an Oculus Quest, you would have a device capable of creating a whole universe of three dimensional sound and imagery that you could walk around in and interact with. At that point, perhaps two channel recorded music would become obsolete. Albums would be recorded and mixed with an object based platform to create a dimensional, interactive experience. Perhaps there would be environmental equivalents of the Visualizer in iTunes, creating randomly generated environment that interact with the individual sound objects in the mix. Or the movement through a CG environment could be programmed like a ride at Disneyland. Or elements of the real world space and sound could be combined with the programmed sound and imagery using augmented reality.

This all points to something that goes beyond the century old concept of recorded music. It goes beyond movies and television as well. It certainly would free us from being planted in a fixed listening position. And if the headphones and VR headset are reduced down to a pair of smart eyeglasses and earbuds, you could wear this all the time to process everything you experience with augmented reality, and switch to full virtual reality whenever you want. It would be like living inside a movie or video game. Simulating speakers in a room will seem like "rechanneled for stereo" records did in the early years of stereo.

I'm quite sure that headphones will ultimately replace speakers, but I don't think they will be emulating speakers any more. They'll be creating synthetic aural environments.


----------



## 538681

Hey, I'd like to capture the authentic experience of a live music listener! Get your Binaural Dummies out and lets go do it.

Below I quote from a rather sophisticated listener with very refined tastes. It's a start at our "intent" spec sheet. I tell you, I'd buy that album!

"From the sum of your comments I gather you listen outside the Schroeder limit (critical distance). I do not like the 3,000+ seat steel cage behemoths, having grown up with Boston’s wood frame acoustics, narrower and taller. For most of the seats, over-sized concert halls compress the signal acoustically, reducing transient peaks. Wide halls have insufficient side reflection. When we go to Stern, we are in the 10th row which is already too vague for my taste. Our subscription in Tully is 7th row, which is around the Shroeder limit. In Geffen Hall, the first row is more reverberation than direct sound! The idea of making this venue mixed use is ridiculous, because it is already too big and boxy for all but late Romantic works.

I vastly prefer our sixth row Weill seats and the best of all is the 7th row center in 600 seat Zankel, possibly the best concert hall seats in the world. I have not mapped the Guilder-Lehrman Hall yet, but it is the only competition in New York." -  acuvox

At:
https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/how-important-are-dynamics/ 

It's the last comment. I was doing some research on the SQ quality referred to as "dynamics".

Acuvox has a lot to say about how loudspeakers can never capture Symphonic music's dynamics.


----------



## bigshot

Certain instruments in an orchestra produce a tremendous volume level. In fact, in an orchestra, the musicians who sit in front of the brass section usually wear hearing protection, because a trumpet can produce unsafe volume levels. However you don't generally listen to a trumpet from a distance of one foot. You sit in an audience yards and yards from the trumpets. At that distance, the peak levels are reduced significantly. In general, it isn't comfortable to listen to music with a peak level much over 80dB. And the room tone of even the quietest concert hall without an audience is over 30dB. So the maximum comfortable dynamic range. is about 50dB. You would be hard pressed to find any commercial recording with a dynamic range much greater than that.

High end audio salesmen often talk about dynamic ranges over 120dB being mandatory. This is just sales pitch. If you actually heard something with a 120dB range and could perceive from the quietest sound possible to the loudest sound possible, you would incur hearing damage. The 90dB of dithered CD sound is even overkill.

Science is fun!


----------



## sander99

@bigshot: yes, yes, that is the direction I was thinking in! The first step beyond multichannel speakers, directly rendering sounds at any chosen location, I already mentioned.

Listening to stereo recordings over iems with in-the-head sound is such a "first decades of the 21th century" thing, don't you think? Better skip that giant leap backwards from multi channel speakers to that "lost generation" thing all together.

By the way: I also had the idea of combining out-of-the-head sound at variable distance and in-the-head sounds. I was thinking of making a science-fiction film (or you can produce it as a science-fiction cartoon!) in which an alien entity comes from far away, closer and closer, and finally creeps inside your head!


----------



## bigshot (Jan 19, 2021)

I have actually heard that in certain multichannel recordings even with speakers. I can't remember what it was (might have been an Alan Parsons Project album) but I remember one where there are whispered vocals that are placed so they are smack dab in your head. Uncanny. I imagine it doesn't work on systems that a little bit out of spec either in placement or levels. Close miking created secondary depth cues that made it easier for the mind to process.

I'm thinking about how to incorporate animation into VR. I worked with the creator of Adventure Time and he was talking about doing it. There is a British film called Borley Abbey that used a very unique process involving live action characters shot on green screen incorporated into a 3D modeled environment with layering in After Effects. It was low budget, but it had an amazing visual style. I think some of the techniques used on that film could be applied to VR.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> That isn’t true. The only stuff I’m aware of that is mixed using headphones are home brew studios in people’s spare bedrooms. Professional sound studios all use speakers.
> 
> Originally I had said that electronica was sometimes mixed using headphones. I said that because I heard someone else mention that. I'm not sure it is true now. Booka Shade, Kraftwerk, Tomita and Jean Michel Jarre have all released multichannel albums that could never have been mixed on headphones. I think only home made records by up and coming artists use headphones like Gregorio said. I've never seen a set of high end cans in a recording studio, and I've never worked in a recording studio without full size studio monitors for playback.



Thank you. I got now few points that I was missing, and my apologies for the heat of the arguments.

I did take binaural recordings too much for granted as easily achievable, when needed. The binaural recording always worked well for me (even too well, I was scared quite a bit by the wall knocking, since spatial localization coincided with a dark window... and the barber was realistic and at the right level depending on IEM position/seal right at the head), and then the stage/positioning was always there to some extent in most stereo recording - "the imaginary stage", so I assumed it quite easily attainable, if needed.

I was/am more into resolution/details then spacial positioning. My favorite symphonic recordings are where I can hear most instruments clear, the positioning is secondary.

Based on these points, some limitations of IEMs for spatial localizations became apparent.
Ideally, 4-5 groups of drivers would work best and any sound pattern should be in principle achievable (the main point I tried to argue for and which theoretically holds), but precise positioning may present some problems - the price to pay for the near-field design. So headphones may be more practical in implementation than IEMs both for incorporating arrays of driving and securing their spacial positioning a bit further from the ear drums.

A very fruitful discussion, and my apologies again.


----------



## bigshot

Special positioning requires physical space. My listening room is pretty close to a natural human scale. It is about 20 feet wide and 30 feet long. A little larger might be a bit better. You don’t get that with either headphones nor IEMs.


----------



## sander99

PhonoPhi said:


> 4-5 groups of drivers would work best and any sound pattern should be in principle achievable (the main point I tried to argue for and which theoretically holds)


I have nu clue what you mean by this, where you get this from, or what theory you are talking about(?). I would think one driver per ear can be enough.
Is it maybe marketing talk from some company?


----------



## PhonoPhi

sander99 said:


> I have nu clue what you mean by this, where you get this from, or what theory you are talking about(?). I would think one driver per ear can be enough.
> Is it maybe marketing talk from some company?


If "marketing talk" is your mentality, I am sorry to disappoint you that I am talking from the practical experience and my own thinking. Your clues are your own business...

The practical experience - multiple BAs work great, these drivers shine in specific frequency ranges of 2-3 octaves.
The group of drivers is for the spatial domain.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 19, 2021)

Multiple drivers is usually to optimize each driver to a specific frequency range in response. Better response may unmask secondary depth cues, but it won’t create primary distance cues. The spaces between the drivers and the eardrum with IEMs and headphones are minuscule. Not like the 8 to 10 foot distances we’re talking about with speakers. Soundstage requires physical distance in feet, not centimeters. It also requires walls and a room. You can’t fit all that in your ears!


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> Multiple drivers is usually to optimize each driver to a specific frequency range in response. Better response may unmask secondary depth cues, but it won’t create primary distance cues. The spaces between the drivers and the eardrum with IEMs and headphones are minuscule. Not like the 8 to 10 foot distances we’re talking about with speakers. Soundstage requires physical distance in feet, not centimeters. It also requires walls and a room. You can’t fit all that in your ears!


It is harder to fit definitely.
If you are familiar with DLP arrays, that are found the best success in projectors, quite a bit is possible, e.g. piezo arrays.
Again, being close to the detector makes it easy to generate the desired wave pattern, but is definitely more challenging with the requirements for precise positioning.


----------



## bigshot

The special definition we’re talking about isn’t part of the signal.


----------



## Ohman

bigshot said:


> I've never seen a set of high end cans in a recording studio



Focal Clear Pro. But I don't know how common such equipment is in commercial studios, their primary market could simply be home studio.


----------



## bigshot

I once asked a chief engineer at a studio if they had any good headphones. He said they bought a pair when they opened for business in case a client wanted them, but they were still in a cupboard unopened. They had a pile of beater headphones they used for isolation when recording though.


----------



## castleofargh

PhonoPhi said:


> If "marketing talk" is your mentality, I am sorry to disappoint you that I am talking from the practical experience and my own thinking. Your clues are your own business...
> 
> The practical experience - multiple BAs work great, these drivers shine in specific frequency ranges of 2-3 octaves.
> The group of drivers is for the spatial domain.


An unpopular opinion on the forum, but mine anyway: a single dynamic driver, well vented with a competent acoustic tuning, will tend to outperform the best efforts of multi BA drivers. I reach out to BA IEMs myself, but only because I want something small and isolating while on the go. 2 things BAs are ideal for. But for most variables of fidelity, a better option can be found. And we're back to having to define our reference. If SNR from outside counts, then BAs are less often defeated. And if we envision a loud environment, then a fully sealed ear canal becomes the objective winner at all time. 

About space or impression of space, what matters is the sound pressure at each eardrum. if one transducer can give one eardrum the right signal, then we don't need more.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 19, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> An unpopular opinion on the forum, but mine anyway: a single dynamic driver, well vented with a competent acoustic tuning, will tend to outperform the best efforts of multi BA drivers. I reach out to BA IEMs myself, but only because I want something small and isolating while on the go. 2 things BAs are ideal for. But for most variables of fidelity, a better option can be found. And we're back to having to define our reference. If SNR from outside counts, then BAs are less often defeated. And if we envision a loud environment, then a fully sealed ear canal becomes the objective winner at all time.
> 
> About space or impression of space, what matters is the sound pressure at each eardrum. if one transducer can give one eardrum the right signal, then we don't need more.


Actually, the superiority of single-DD IEMs is the current dominant opinion - my perception from multiple IEM threads.

A clear advantage of the single DD is the timbre, while BAs are superior in resolution, often at the expense of the timbre/coherence.
I am personally much more into the resolution, hence BAs for me. I do like the recent generation of vented BAs with less "vacuum" seal, less isolation but more comfort.

For the resolution, one driver working at all the frequencies is challenging. There are violins, violas, cellos and DBs and not a single "play it all" string instrument for a good reason of natural resonances and avoiding cross coupling.

Having multiple drivers both in the frequency domain (what is actively implemented now) and spatially (multiple channels similar to 5.1 etc) should provide most flexibility for the sound reproduction.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 19, 2021)

I have a set of KEF speakers where the different drivers are nested in a radial design. The idea has something to do with aligning waves from the source... Not sure exactly how it works but they sound great.



PhonoPhi said:


> Having multiple drivers both in the frequency domain (what is actively implemented now) and spatially (multiple channels similar to 5.1 etc) should provide most flexibility for the sound reproduction.



Do you listen to five IEMs from the other side of the room? It seems to me that once you put a multi driver IEM in your ear, it's operating as a single sound source.


----------



## sander99

PhonoPhi said:


> If "marketing talk" is your mentality, I am sorry to disappoint you that I am talking from the practical experience and my own thinking. Your clues are your own business...


Sorry if I sounded a bit offensive, apologies. I actually was curious what you meant exactly and if you were thinking there is a connection with sound localisation.
And your next statement shows that you do:


PhonoPhi said:


> Having multiple drivers both in the frequency domain (what is actively implemented now) and spatially (multiple channels similar to 5.1 etc) should provide most flexibility for the sound reproduction.


However, castle is right here:


castleofargh said:


> About space or impression of space, what matters is the sound pressure at each eardrum. if one transducer can give one eardrum the right signal, then we don't need more.


That doesn't mean you could not use seperate sets of drivers for additional channels, but by itself that won't make you perceive them as differen channels at a different location, and the other way round: it is not needed for simulating different channels.
But I guess you could feed the different sets of drivers each with a binauralised signal for a different channel, so that each set has less work to do. Not sure if that would have a real advantage though.


----------



## sander99

@PhonoPhi: just in case you are wondering how you would simulate a multichannel speaker system with one driver (or one set of drivers together reproducing one headphone input channel) in each ear the following quote may be usefull:


sander99 said:


> You have only 2 ears, yet you can hear where sound is coming from (within certain limitations of course). The brain uses all kind of information to determine that, and I could mention them all here but actually you don't even need to know exactly what it is. All that needs to be done to recreate the same experience as listening to 16 speakers in a room is making sure that the exact same signals that enter your ears when you listen to real speakers will enter your ears when listening to NORMAL STEREO headphones. That is what the realiser does. It measures the total net result that enters your ears as a result of the testsweeps being played over the speakers (per speaker per ear, so in fact 2x16 "transfer functions"), including all colourations from bending around your head and into your ears, including all reflexions and reverberations and their colourations from bending etc. etc.
> With the result of this measurement (the PRIR) the Realiser can later apply the same changes to any source signal (music or whatever in any of the supported formats from mono to multichannel) you feed to it, creating the sensation of hearing the same source signal being played over the speakers.
> 
> Digital Signal Processing creates a stereo signal intended for the headphone based on up to 16 input signals and 32 channel to ear transferfunctions, a abstract description of what it calculates (without taking the headtracking into account) could be:
> ...


----------



## PhonoPhi

sander99 said:


> @PhonoPhi: just in case you are wondering how you would simulate a multichannel speaker system with one driver (or one set of drivers together reproducing one headphone input channel) in each ear the following quote may be usefull:


Surely, one driver can be used.
Yet, there are limitations of resonances, cross-couplings, etc.

One membrane can hardly practically vibrate perfectly as needed to reproduce music in 3-decade range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz.

Then a lot of efforts is involved in DDs to make them work better, as mentioned  - very strong field, multiple coils, compensation...
To me an array of small drivers each working in  a well-defined limited range of 2-3 octaves is a more flexible solution.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 20, 2021)

I tend to think that a multi driver IEM is probably good if it's well implemented, not because it's multi driver. A well implemented single driver would be good too. We're talking about tiny little drivers, not huge woofers that need to fill a whole room. It isn't impossible to make a single full range driver, and clearly there are single driver models that sound great. I have planar magnetic headphones. A lot of people say planar magnetic is better than regular dynamic cans. But I've heard dynamic headphones that sound just as good as my PMs. There really isn't one aspect that makes a design good. It's the balance of all the aspects.

But all this is about response, not dimensional soundstage or sound fields.


----------



## sander99

PhonoPhi said:


> Surely, one driver can be used.
> Yet, there are limitations of resonances, cross-couplings, etc.
> 
> One membrane can hardly practically vibrate perfectly as needed to reproduce music in 3-decade range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
> ...


Yes I understand. I just wanted to give some more context to my other post in which I state that an additional set of drivers by itself will not be perceived as a different channel, I mean will not be perceived as sound coming from a different direction. So using different drivers to work on different frequency bands can be usefull, but it does not mean it would be usefull to also make another "division of work" by adding extra sets of drivers for other channels (for 5.1 etc.).

What I really mean I gues is: If you think 4 or 5 drivers per ear make a good optimal choice for covering the audio spectrum with good resolution and sufficient sound pressure levels to listen to stereo recordings, then I say that same design is equally good for multichannel (using binaural signals, and multichannel over iems or headphones without binaural signals is meaningless).


----------



## PhonoPhi

sander99 said:


> Yes I understand. I just wanted to give some more context to my other post in which I state that an additional set of drivers by itself will not be perceived as a different channel, I mean will not be perceived as sound coming from a different direction. So using different drivers to work on different frequency bands can be usefull, but it does not mean it would be usefull to also make another "division of work" by adding extra sets of drivers for other channels (for 5.1 etc.).
> 
> What I really mean I gues is: If you think 4 or 5 drivers per ear make a good optimal choice for covering the audio spectrum with good resolution and sufficient sound pressure levels to listen to stereo recordings, then I say that same design is equally good for multichannel (using binaural signals, and multichannel over iems or headphones without binaural signals is meaningless).


More drivers (both in capabilities and quantaties) offer better flexibility and more opportunities.

With BAs, my limited experience that 4-5 frequency bands work really well for the resolution (the price to pay is definitely their coherence).
Another (more subtle and of minor relevance to this discussion) point is that multiple BAs working in the same frequency range can offer better smoothness with the partial canceling of their individual resonances (similar to a single violin vs. symphonic violin section).

Then spatially, it would be just simpler to generate the desired wavefront with all the required details at the ear channel entrance using several spatially separated groups of drivers.


----------



## sander99

PhonoPhi said:


> Then spatially, it would be just simpler to generate the desired wavefront with all the required details at the ear channel entrance using several spatially separated groups of drivers.


I am still doubting if you understand my main point: Using more drivers is fine but the spatial placement of the drivers will not influence the perceived direction of the sound.


----------



## bigshot

I don’t think he has experienced special sound aside from the secondary depth cues in recordings. I have a lot of trouble explaining what soundstage is to people who have only used headphones. It just isn’t part of their frame of reference.


----------



## castleofargh

PhonoPhi said:


> Then spatially, it would be just simpler to generate the desired wavefront with all the required details at the ear channel entrance using several spatially separated groups of drivers.


I'm also not sure about that. You're already at the entrance of the ear canal(or in it) so you do not need to create a "sound field".  What you do need it a signal processed for that playback method(including your own HRTF applied to it).
Using multidriver+crossovers aren't only bringing benefits, so the pros and cons have to be weighted carefully. I've heard several IEM manufacturers talking about 3ways being a good compromise for BAs. I do not know if it's accurate, but they know more than me for sure. That's specifically with BA drivers in mind. When free to chose, I'm still not sure that multidriver is the optimal way. The easiest, sure, but best for fidelity?


----------



## bigshot

When you get into multiple drivers, you run into issues with overlapping frequencies. Not sure how that plays out in IEMs. In an ideal world, a single full range driver should be easier to balance, and it seems there are high quality single driver models on the market, so it shouldn’t be impossible.


----------



## PhonoPhi

sander99 said:


> I am still doubting if you understand my main point: Using more drivers is fine but the spatial placement of the drivers will not influence the perceived direction of the sound.


I think you (and me) are both concentrated on our main points.
Let us (me) stop here.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> When you get into multiple drivers, you run into issues with overlapping frequencies. Not sure how that plays out in IEMs. In an ideal world, a single full range driver should be easier to balance, and it seems there are high quality single driver models on the market, so it shouldn’t be impossible.


Single driver should have this "ideal" transducer independently simultaneously vibrating from 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
I do agree that historically single drivers were most developed solution. Can it be practically sufficient, hard to say.

Overlapping frequencies are addressed by different crossovers designs, starting from simple frequency filters. Still, definitely the most difficult aspect to work out with multiple transducers.


----------



## PhonoPhi

castleofargh said:


> I'm also not sure about that. You're already at the entrance of the ear canal(or in it) so you do not need to create a "sound field".  What you do need it a signal processed for that playback method(including your own HRTF applied to it).
> Using multidriver+crossovers aren't only bringing benefits, so the pros and cons have to be weighted carefully. I've heard several IEM manufacturers talking about 3ways being a good compromise for BAs. I do not know if it's accurate, but they know more than me for sure. That's specifically with BA drivers in mind. When free to chose, I'm still not sure that multidriver is the optimal way. The easiest, sure, but best for fidelity?


A good question. Thinking of the simplest implementation of phase delays, I would think it is just easier with physically distinct drivers (?)


----------



## bigshot

How would you have timing error inside an ear?


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 22, 2021)

bigshot said:


> How would you have timing error inside an ear?


(I am not sure if it is addressed to me, also I realized that I exceeded "my reasonable usefulness" in this thread. I am not an engineer. I do work with science, but not directly relevant...)

Having several channels similar to 5.1, 7.1, etc, any timing errors can be calibrated with the software similar to speaker calibration. It would be great that in addition to the "head shape", individual anatomy of the ear channels, as well as individual physiology and preferences of the sound perception can be selectively adjusted.

I did not have any experience with "Smyth Realiser (?). I am sure that the software can be reasonably implemented at the DAC-transducer level, if there will be a demand/market for spacially-resolved sound reproduction.

Right now, I simply enjoy my all-BA IEMs, in particular exploring music (and different sound implementation) of Decca Analog collection, along your recommendations in classical music


----------



## bigshot (Jan 23, 2021)

I don't think you understand what multichannel is. It isn't just multiple speakers... it's is 4 or more separate and discrete tracks channeled to different parts of the room, both front and rear. It's surround sound that interacts with the listening room to create a 360 degree sound field. You can't do that with IEMs, even ones with multi driver designs. We aren't talking about stereo. It's multitrack audio designed to create a sound environment.


----------



## PhonoPhi

5.1 headphones exist for a long time. Making multichannel IEMs may be impractical, but the boundary is mute between small headphones and larger planar IEMs, and some drivers are very small now.

So I am not sure what I need to understand. Please tell me. I'll patiently learn.
I actually have one of those budget 5.1 headphones - poor implementation, now disassembled at my desk...but I was curious at one point.


----------



## bfreedma

PhonoPhi said:


> 5.1 headphones exist for a long time. Making multichannel IEMs may be impractical, but the boundary is mute between small headphones and larger planar IEMs, and some drivers are very small now.
> 
> So I am not sure what I need to understand. Please tell me. I'll patiently learn.
> I actually have one of those budget 5.1 headphones - poor implementation, now disassembled at my desk...but I was curious at one point.



Using fairly basic DSP to simulate multichannel via headphones doesn’t present surround nearly as comprehensively as discreet channel multichannel audio via speakers.  The Smyth Realizer is the only decent simulation via headphones I’ve experienced.  That said, it still, for me, was not close to a well setup MCH speaker setup.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 23, 2021)

If you’ve never experienced multichannel sound, the only way I can explain it to you is to say that it is as much an improvement over stereo as stereo is over mono.

I think the reason there are long discussions on spatiality of sound is because many headphone users just can’t conceive of what spatial sound sounds like, since they’ve never experienced it themselves. If you’ve heard it done properly, it’s a self evident improvement.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> If you’ve never experienced multichannel sound, the only way I can explain it to you is to say that it is as much an improvement over stereo as stereo is over mono.
> 
> I think the reason there are long discussions on spatiality of sound is because many headphone users just can’t conceive of what spatial sound sounds like, since they’ve never experienced it themselves. If you’ve heard it done properly, it’s a self evident improvement.



Running 7.2.4 Atmos, so fairly sure I’ve experienced multichannel


----------



## bigshot

Yep! Do the overhead speakers make a big difference with music? I’m running a slightly modified 5.1.


----------



## castleofargh

PhonoPhi said:


> 5.1 headphones exist for a long time. Making multichannel IEMs may be impractical, but the boundary is mute between small headphones and larger planar IEMs, and some drivers are very small now.
> 
> So I am not sure what I need to understand. Please tell me. I'll patiently learn.
> I actually have one of those budget 5.1 headphones - poor implementation, now disassembled at my desk...but I was curious at one point.


5.1 headphones don't work too well. Multidriver headphones already had a long history of sucking. So there is that. But for the specific job of translating directional clues, the best you get is some cues of direction from the outer ear(if the drivers are far enough, small enough, and at the right place). But you still bypass the impact of the rest of the head and torso, and room reverb. For the remaining HRTF, the DSP of the headphones could use a generic version(from a dummy head), and then hopefully some people would come close(and some wouldn't). Same with reverb, it's easy enough to add some reverb to a signal, but will it be convincing? Again that depends. So we just have several variables, each enough to have our brain go: "wait a minute, that's not how it works!".

It's much safer to either have sound sources at a legit distance so all of our HRTF is applied naturally and we feel like the sound comes from the right direction and distance(and we all do when using the same setup!), or to have a unique channel at the ear, processed with the right measurement for each specific listener(demands measurements of sort). Anything in between will require the acoustic and processing parts of both solutions or it just won't be correct and chances are, it won't feel right. So, it's an unlikely choice for the future.

 I count multidriver IEMs as a unique channel at/in the ear.


----------



## PhonoPhi

One of main points starting these arguments was to check whether scientific discussion based on facts and hypothesis is possible here. From the most of the last comments, it is crystal clear then quite to the contrary, the arguments are driven by personal experiences, opinions, etc, as per "you can really understand only if you truly experience it".

Are horses more natural than steam engines? Sure!
It took some time and efforts to shift the prevailing paradigm...

Finally, in a spirit of some comments above - bringing not seemingly antithetical cable discussions - did you really experience all the cables? No!?

Thank you, the case is closed 

P.  S. Again, the physics allows complete wave front reconstruction, compact capable transducers are available at reasonable cost now, the software is feasible (first precedents were mentioned).
So any "surround sound" can be reproduced at ears despite whatever prevailing paradigm is now and especially subjective personal experiences based on century-old developments...

How and when it will be done will be largely determined by consumer interest and manufacturer innovations to compete in the markets.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 23, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> One of main points starting these arguments was to check whether scientific discussion based on facts and hypothesis is possible here. From the most of the last comments, it is crystal clear then quite to the contrary



I think you are under informed on the subject and don't know the difference.

This forum isn't really about pure theoretical science. It's about practical applied science... specifically scientific principles applied to reproducing recorded music. Sure shooting surround sound straight into the ears is the most direct way to do it. Or perhaps putting an HDMI jack on the back of your skull and plugging in direct. Or projecting music with lasers into your brain... But none of these technologies really exist.

There are standards used when music is recorded to ensure the playback on the other end of the chain is as close to the monitored sound as possible. It involves calibrated response, mastering and a standardized speaker setup. Now as an individual, you are free to recalibrate however you want. Color the sound. Compress it. Expand it. Run it through tubes to distort it. Or listen using headphones for convenience's sake. That is all fine. It's your choice. But if you want your playback to have a high degree of fidelity to the original intent, you set up a speaker system that reflects the same standards studios adhere to. Those standards were established using scientific principles.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> I think you are under informed on the subject and don't know the difference.


About the horses and steam engines? Or the cables? 

Would the statement that someone "under informed" without stating the specifics (scientific facts, arguments, hypothesis) be so subjective and anti-scientific (and would it work mightily in proverbial cable discussions)?

Absolutely, I am severely under-informed about your subjective experience and opinion.
I "do not know the difference" between your opinion and "cable believers."


----------



## bigshot (Jan 23, 2021)

You don't have any experience or knowledge of the importance of room acoustics and speaker placement on the sound of recorded music. You also don't appear to understand what multichannel sound is and what it adds to recorded music.

We have been through this routine before. Someone with little understanding of the science regarding a particular subject, but a strong personal preference comes in to sound science. They argue with us a while without knowing what they are talking about. We patiently explain the things they don't understand until we are blue in the face from repeating ourselves. Then then the person claims victory saying we "aren't scientific enough". The next step is them getting frustrated and angry and they go away in a huff. It's a tiresome merry-go-round, but we are all used to it here.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> You don't have any experience or knowledge of the importance of room acoustics and speaker placement on the sound of recorded music.


That is correct.
Why should it be important for recording the sound wave at the ears (all the details to be heard are there) and reproducing it?

That is exactly the point that needs to be discussed based on physics.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 23, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> Why should it be important for recording the sound wave at the ears (all the details to be heard are there) and reproducing it?



I have no idea what that sentence means.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 23, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I have no idea what that sentence means.


OK


----------



## bigshot

You need to slow down with your conclusions and start communicating clearly. You aren't just talking to yourself here. Try to make it clear so others can understand. I can't clearly answer a question that you haven't asked clearly.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> You need to slow down with your conclusions and start communicating clearly. You aren't just talking to yourself here. Try to make it clear so others can understand. I can't clearly answer a question that you haven't asked clearly.


Since I repeated this point in several forms multiple times already, I think it is really a good point to stop here before hearing more personal opinions on what and how should I do (arguably not a proper place, but that exactly what this thread became or even more likely were "segregated" here for a good reason).
All the best.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 23, 2021)

Feel free to claim victory and leave. I'm sure others benefitted from the points made in this discussion, even if you didn't.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Yep! Do the overhead speakers make a big difference with music? I’m running a slightly modified 5.1.



Not much difference with the content I have to date. I hope things will get better as ATMOS becomes more prevalent, but I wonder if the market will ever be large enough to encourage significant work/cost to be done.

More impact with movies as some of the panning and overhead sound easily lends itself to the format.


----------



## bigshot

That was kind of what I expected. You might want to get Kraftwerk's Catalogue, if you don't already have that. It is mixed for Atmos and from what I can tell from the 5.1 fold down, it should use the overhead speakers a lot.


----------



## sander99

@PhonoPhi:
These are all very complicated subjects. If you want to come anywhere close to understanding what is being said here in terms of science/physics/mathematics/theory you could start reading this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization

And once you have a grasp of how human sound localization works you can take a closer look at different types of audio recordings. What kind of localization cues are in there, and what kind are not. (And sometimes it is a mix of different sounds that each can have a different set of localization cues and/or a different perspective).

With the above information maybe you will be able to understand that different types of recordings (in particular even different types of stereo recordings) need different delivery methods for optimal results (with respect to sound localization).

PS: I'll admit that I know almost nothing about designing IEMs. But I do know a lot about the above subjects. And so does @castleofargh and a few other people here.


----------



## bigshot

He doesn't understand.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> He doesn't understand.


No "claiming victories, I am not "invested" in the subject in any sense (not trying to sell here anything, not claiming superiority, just that it can be done and should be much more cost-effective), and would love to hear good scientific arguments.

Instead, as above, all the arguments are that I do not understand something and should "learn something", and again my assumption/hypothesis was formulated (and reformulated/repeated) physically/ mathematically.

So it feels like trying to discuss automobiles with the tribe of the proud horse owners. I do have all the respect for your great horses, so "no victory" claims/feeling again, just little point of arguing further...

Yet, the complete analogy with "cable discussions" is fully deserved (Identical subjective arguments that your opponents have not really experienced it and should learn more; do try as a gedanken experiment applying your arguments as "cable believers", marvelous fit indeed  ).


----------



## bfreedma

PhonoPhi said:


> No "claiming victories, I am not "invested" in the subject in any sense (not trying to sell here anything, not claiming superiority, just that it can be done and should be much more cost-effective), and would love to hear good scientific arguments.
> 
> Instead, as above, all the arguments are that I do not understand something and should "learn something", and again my assumption/hypothesis was formulated (and reformulated/repeated) physically/ mathematically.
> 
> ...



Nice insults.

I see this in Sound Science from time to time.  Someone visits with a concept they’ve decided is “the way things are”, and continues to argue a narrow slice of the technology while refusing to acknowledge clear issues/deficiencies as they are pointed out (Expected room interaction, phase coherency, wave propagation, etc.).

Enjoy your multi driver IEMs, but standing on your soapbox and shouting isn’t making a compelling argument and/or changing minds.  It isn’t changing mine at least


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 24, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> Nice insults.
> 
> I see this in Sound Science from time to time.  Someone visits with a concept they’ve decided is “the way things are”, and continues to argue a narrow slice of the technology while refusing to acknowledge clear issues/deficiencies as they are pointed out (Expected room interaction, phase coherency, wave propagation, etc.).
> 
> Enjoy your multi driver IEMs, but standing on your soapbox and shouting isn’t making a compelling argument and/or changing minds.  It isn’t changing mine at least


"Scientific forum"??
"Deficiencies?

Anyone formulated what can be missing in terms of the reconstruction of the wave front??

We record the sound near each ear as it "should be, let it be in the most perfect/calibrated room and reproduce.

OK for a given "head anatomy", but then more substantial/influential than the "head anatomy is the anatomy of individual ear channel, so no perfect "Beattles" reproduction "as intended" for anyone other than the sound engineer, right?

But then why indeed I should argue here in vain...

So safely back to your elite horses, gentleman 
I need to stop writing here.

P. S. Your first line is a perfect example of an unsubstantiated perception bias, so dominant in this thread...


----------



## bfreedma

PhonoPhi said:


> "Scientific forum"??
> "Deficiencies?
> 
> Anyone formulated what can be missing in terms of the reconstruction of the wave front??
> ...



Thanks for validating my post.  Goodbye.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bfreedma said:


> Thanks for validating my post.  Goodbye.


It is all about individual perception and its limitations as per Einstein' famous quote.
Goodbye indeed.


----------



## redrol

I like this thread because folks talk about actual sound science rather than emotional opinions.   This is how we get actually better sound playback.


----------



## sander99

PhonoPhi said:


> Anyone formulated what can be missing in terms of the reconstruction of the wave front??


Depends on what signal you feed the IEMs.

In the case of a typical stereo recording based on panning sounds between the two channels:
There will be no controlled/intended spectral localization cues whatsoever (no monaural spectrum cues, no binaural spectral cues), let alone spectral cues matching with your personal Head Related Transfer Function. (In real life spectral cues are the result of direction-dependend filtering of sound by body, head, ear flaps, pinna that the brain learns to interpret during life)(Sometimes someone's brain might pick unintended coïncidental spectral cues that could place (in the listeners perception) sound a little bit out of the head, or a little bit forward or backward inside the head.)
There can be ITD (Interaural Time Difference) and ILD (Interaural Level Differences) cues but without supporting (and non-contradicting!) spectral cues you will never perceive sound far outside your head at a pinpoint location. (And some recordings do not contain any ITD cues at all, or only for some sounds in the recording.)
Also there will be no correct reaction to moving the head. The brain can initiate involuntary head movements to get another perspective to solve ambiguities in sound localization.

In the case of a dummy head binaural recording:
There will be spectral cues, but generally not matching your personal HRTF. And there will be supporting ITD and ILD cues. This may place sounds a bit further out of the head, but unless you are very lucky in matching HRTF these will not be placed in the correct directions at the correct distances.
(In the case of a binaural recording the correct directions and distances would be the actual directions and distances relative to the dummy head during the recording.)
Also in this case there will be no correct reaction to moving the head. The brain can initiate involuntary head movements to get another perspective to solve ambiguities in sound localization.
(The barber shop example is convincing for many/most people because a number of aspects are all favorable to success:
-The sound of the scissors is close to the head, and close-outside-the-head sound is easier to achieve than far-outside-the-head sound
-The sound of the scissors is behind the head, and you can not see what's behind you so visual cues won't contradict the auditory cues
-The sound of scissors close behind your head is familiar to most people, )

 So that's what's "missing in terms of the reconstruction of the wave front".

When listening to a typical panning-based stereo recording over loudspeakers (real or well implemented personal HRTF based and headtracked virtual speakers) all above types of localization cues are added to the sound waves before they reach your ear drums. Admittedly, the perceived distance is determined mainly by the distance from the listener to the loudspeakers, and not controlled by the recording (although secondary cues like reverberation can add some depth).
Again: there is nothing wrong with choosing to listen to such a recording with IEMs, but many people will prefer to perceive sound as coming from a distance outside of the head, like >90% of all sounds that we hear in "nature", including the sounds of all life acoustical instruments and voices.


----------



## sander99

@PhonoPhi:
I forgot a few things and continue here.
Most localization cues are binaural, and depend on what happens in both ears. With multichannel over loudspeakers each ear hears all the loudspeakers. Because of that your brain can localize all the loudspeakers around you. Next sounds are panned between 2 or more loudspeakers and the panning effect will make you perceive the sound somewhere between those loudspeakers. That can be in any direction, only thanks to the fact that your brain can localize all the loudspeakers, only thanks to the fact that both ears hear all loudspeakers and get all the real physical localization cues from all loudspeakers.
For example blowing the left front channel and the left rear channel directly into your left ear with different channels inside IEMs and without additional processing is meaningless. Your brain won't be able to perceive the sound from the "front drivers" as coming from a significantly different direction as the sound from the "rear drivers" (Even monoraul spectral localization cues will not be present because the sound of both the "front-drivers" and the "rear-drivers" has skipped the direction-dependend filtering by your body, head and outer-ear.). So panning between those two drivers (or those two sets of drivers) will not work. Might as well just add the signals together and put them in one set of drivers (conventional downmix to stereo). And that is fine too if you prefer that. But most people will prefer multichannel sound to come from all directions. Otherwise it wouldn't be any different from stereo!


----------



## bigshot

He’s just being argumentative for argumentative’s sake. The only thing he has to say is that the IEMs he bought are better than anything else. Validation bias. Nothing else there.


----------



## bigshot

bfreedma said:


> I see this in Sound Science from time to time.  Someone visits with a concept they’ve decided is “the way things are”, and continues to argue a narrow slice of the technology while refusing to acknowledge clear issues/deficiencies as they are pointed out



That’s a bingo. Remember our friend who had definite opinions on compression without having a clue about how compression is used? It was the only subject he could talk about. The same misconceptions over and over again. Not a good use of our time.


----------



## bigshot

PhonoPhi said:


> I need to stop writing here.



Finally something we can agree on!


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 24, 2021)

bigshot said:


> He’s just being argumentative for argumentative’s sake. The only thing he has to say is that the IEMs he bought are better than anything else. Validation bias. Nothing else there.


Sorry, factually wrong statement!
(Not worth my lawyers to contact yours of course..)
I never said that my IEMs are "better", I enjoy them, but they are not. I do have all the respect for calibrated room setups, different from the science though...

P. S. I ignore the rest.


----------



## sonitus mirus

With only 2 speakers on or in a person's ears, what is it that distinguishes between a sound coming from in front or behind the listener?  Same goes for sounds perceived as originating above or below the listener's position.  Is it only that we expect, based on experience, that certain sounds should originate at specific locations?  What if one person's hearing does not perceive these sounds the same as another?  Take the exhaust of a rally car in a video game.  Common sense would suggest the sound should be coming predominantly from the rear of the car, but logically, with only two dimensions, this could just as easily appear to be coming from the front of the listener when positioned in the driver's seat.  

I found an interesting article that talks about some to the things recently discussed here.  It is mentioned how multiple drivers may be somewhat advantageous to spatial sound sensations, with some caveats.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/how-we-test-gaming-headsets,5212-2.html

_" 5.1- or 7.1-channel sound delivered through headphones is always imaginary, and can only be achieved by the brain relying on previous experience. "_


----------



## Bytor123

Probably a stupid question - but why not 6.1? Or 5.2? Etc.?


----------



## bigshot

A lot of the stuff discussed on audiophile forums is imaginary!


----------



## bigshot (Jan 24, 2021)

5.1 is two fronts left and right, a center, two rears left and right and the point one is the subwoofer. The other standard is 7.1 which adds side channels. You can have more than one sub, so 5.2 is a real thing. But the base configuration is an odd number because of the center channel. Atmos is an additional dot number. That indicates the number of overhead speakers. (An even number for however many overhead stereo pairs you have.)


----------



## Bytor123

bigshot said:


> 5.1 is two fronts left and right, a center, two rears left and right and the point one is the subwoofer. The other standard is 7.1 which adds side channels. You can have more than one sub, so 5.2 is a real thing. But the base configuration is an odd number because of the center channel. Atmos is an additional dot number. That indicates the number of overhead speakers. (An even number for however many overhead stereo pairs you have.)


I see, thanks. So is 7.1 'better' than 5.1?


----------



## bfreedma

Bytor123 said:


> I see, thanks. So is 7.1 'better' than 5.1?



If you have the room to properly place the speakers, 7.1 will usually be an improvement.  Since speakers 6/7 are rears, if your searing position is against or very close to the rear wall, they won’t add much value.

In most rooms, I’d add a second sub before going from 5 to 7 speakers (If anyone was asking...).


----------



## bigshot

And better quality speakers are better than more speakers too. I read something somewhere that said the orders of magnitude of improvement in multichannel is a matter of doubling. Two channels are better than one. Four are better than two, and so on. Since a lot of recorded music is designed for a front weighted soundstage the three front speakers are very important. I cheaped out and got a mediocre center channel when I first started out. It didn’t cut it and it was the first thing I replaced.


----------



## Bytor123

bfreedma said:


> If you have the room to properly place the speakers, 7.1 will usually be an improvement.  Since speakers 6/7 are rears, if your searing position is against or very close to the rear wall, they won’t add much value.
> 
> In most rooms, I’d add a second sub before going from 5 to 7 speakers (If anyone was asking...).


Thank you. I'm trying to understand this - so on a recording there could be several (five, seven...) distinct 'sounds' that could emanate from a discreet speaker in such a system? I get the 'size of the room' limitations as to where one could place speakers. But in theory, is there a limit to the number of speakers that would 'make a difference'?


----------



## bigshot (Jan 24, 2021)

Most mixes now are 5.1 or 7.1. The amp will fold down the mix to 5.1 if you don’t have 7.1. The number of speakers isn’t as important as how all the speakers mesh and fill the space. A bigger room needs more speakers. But more speakers isn’t necessarily better if the room doesn’t require more.

Atmos systems for movie theaters can have dozens of channels. Atmos isn’t as common in the home yet though.


----------



## Bytor123

bigshot said:


> Most mixes now are 5.1 or 7.1. The amp will fold down the mix to 5.1 if you don’t have 7.1. The number of speakers isn’t as important as how all the speakers mesh and fill the space. A bigger room needs more speakers. But more speakers isn’t necessarily better if the room doesn’t require more.


Thanks for your reply. I may sound daft with this, but - if a recording is of a single voice (or instrument), does it come come from all the speakers? So - Rush three instruments and a voice...what's coming from where?!


----------



## sonitus mirus

Bytor123 said:


> Thanks for your reply. I may sound daft with this, but - if a recording is of a single voice (or instrument), does it come come from all the speakers? So - Rush three instruments and a voice...what's coming from where?!


That is actually a great question.  I always assumed a multi-channel recording of music was still focused on the main front speakers (left front, right front, and center channels) along with a subwoofer, with additional speakers acting as "active" reflections from the recording room.  Most of the multi-speaker setups I have seen and heard have back speakers or side speakers that are not the same size and power of the two left/right front speakers.  So, any idea about being equally surrounded by music in the same sense that stereo offers seems a bit odd.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 24, 2021)

There are several different approaches to mixing music for multichannel. Some create a realistic front stage and use the rears for ambience. Classical music is usually mixed that way. Others put the listener in the center of the band, with instruments all around you. Likewise, some mixes put a single instrument in a single channel. Singers are often in the center channel. Others create stereo pairs between the various five speakers to place the sonic image halfway between the two. By doing this, a sound can travel diagonally across the room from front to rear. Still others use phase differences to create an immersive sound field pulsing around you. Different songs might have several of these approaches in a single song. In order to reproduce the more sophisticated effects, it takes careful balances and high quality speakers all around. Done right, it’s three dimensional.

I don’t have the multichannel Rush box, so I can’t comment on that. But I will say it is kind of hit and miss. There are good mixes and bad ones. It’s good to read reviews before dropping the money on an expensive box set.


----------



## Bytor123

bigshot said:


> There are several different approaches to mixing music for multichannel. Some create a realistic front stage and use the rears for ambience. Classical music is usually mixed that way. Others put the listener in the center of the band, with instruments all around you. Likewise, some mixes put a single instrument in a single channel. Singers are often in the center channel. Others create stereo pairs between the various five speakers to place the sonic image halfway between the two. By doing this, a sound can travel diagonally across the room from front to rear. Still others use phase differences to create an immersive sound field pulsing around you. Different songs might have several of these approaches in a single song. It’s three dimensional.


Thanks. I think I'd need to hear such a system to fully understand what's going on. Well, appreciate it rather than understand! 👍


----------



## bigshot

If you ever get to Los Angeles, look me up and I’ll audition my system for you.


----------



## Bytor123

bigshot said:


> If you ever get to Los Angeles, look me up and I’ll audition my system for you.


Ha, cheers, you're on 👍!


----------



## sander99

@PhonoPhi:
To be fair, it could be that with binaural recordings and simulated binaural signals IEMs do have an (extra, if you prefer) advantage over normal headphones. Because the IEMs don't interact with the outer ear there is less need for "headphone" compensation. For example the Smyth Realiser A16 requires an extra measurement (HPEQ) of the headphones that it uses to compensate for the frequency response of those headphones on your head (again different per individual). It is also possible to use IEMs with the A16 and do a manual HPEQ. Coincidently I have spoken with Mike Smyth about that when I had a demo of the A16 in May 2017. If I remember correctly he said that creating a HPEQ for IEMs is mainly about compensating for one ear canal resonance.


----------



## magicscreen

Here is a good example why (double) blind test is a faulty method


----------



## sonitus mirus

That video is probably better to use as an analogy for audio gear marketing that fools people that don't understand the value and purpose of double-blind testing.


----------



## bigshot

In a double blind testing, neither the subject nor the operator have any control over the outcome because neither of them know which is which. That makes it impossible to stack the deck or do tricks, whether consciously or unconsciously. The people stacking the deck and tricking you are the high end audio salesmen who tell you not to believe controlled tests because their product doesn't come out any better than any other product when they are properly compared.


----------



## Bytor123

Double blind randomised control trials are the 'gold standard' in testing interventions. There are disadvantages - there's an argument on ethics in the case of medical interventions being 'randomised' for example. But even a critic asserts  “...RCTs (do is) show that what you’re dealing with is not snake oil” https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/09/trials


----------



## castleofargh

magicscreen said:


> Here is a good example why (double) blind test is a faulty method



While this video could be interestingly related to some neural mechanisms hypothesized in the paper of that other thread https://www.head-fi.org/threads/we-hear-what-we-expect-to-hear.952054/ , I don't understand why you keep making anti blind test posts with argumentation on the order of: "here's a pigeon, therfore blind test is flawed". 
Even as a troll, it's mediocre.


----------



## redrol

Audio claim:  the less mass a driver surface has, the better it will be at producing a waveform.   This leads to something like the Sonion EST (electric) driver which claims to have the thinnest/least mass driver that exists in retail form. 

BS or not?  I think likely truth but as usual the devil is in the details which I don't actually know.


----------



## bigshot

A lot of audiophile claims of headphone and IEM manufacturers are things that might apply to speakers, but don’t translate in practice to such a reduced scale. An IEM driver is already small and low mass. It doesn’t take a huge amount of power to push a tiny driver. When you scale it up to a big box speaker, those kinds of things might be critical issues, but in a tiny thing you’re shoving in your ears, there are much more important things. The proof is in the pudding. How well does it work as a whole?


----------



## redrol (Jan 27, 2021)

Gotcha.  I do think I personally hear a more natural playback in the treble range with them.  But compared to ye ol standard DD driver, pretty similar. I don't hear BA as being the same.

For me the big deal is when you subtract the head and ear gain factors you have to add that back in.  In a way that works for most people.  Not trivial at all.

In terms of driver mass, who knows.  Probably proportional to the amount of power you are driving with.


----------



## sander99

redrol said:


> Audio claim: the less mass a driver surface has, the better it will be at producing a waveform.


I found an interesting article related to the subject. It actually is about (dynamic) woofers, but at least some of the reasoning will be applicable for other driver types as wel I think.
The key sentence: "Mass isn't the problem - inductance is."
Disclaimer: The article originates from a subwoofer manufacturer so I don't know how trustworthy it is.

http://diy-audio.narod.ru/litr/WooferSpeed.pdf


----------



## redrol

" Guess what - we just answered the original question! It turns out that transient response of a woofer is not a function of the moving mass, as is commonly espoused (one of the most infamous audio myths). In actuality, it is based upon the inductance of the driver. And the greater the inductance, the slower the driver - the lower the transient response. "

I see!! Interesting stuff that I did not know.


----------



## analogsurviver

Last time I've checked, Newton's 2nd Law of Physics has been still around.

The mass of any physical transducer becomes an issue whenever the acceleration is too high for the given constant mass to follow. That condition is met and exceeded at either 
- low SPLs ( where pressure aka force across the surface is given and can not be increased - the only course is then lagged response by that constant mass - or, in audio talk, loss of definition at low(er) volume ) or 

- high enough frequency - where the amplitude of the signal will begin to roll off ever more with ever higher frequency above certain point, again dependant on mass. The lower the moving mass, the higher the frequency the transducer can work at within prescribed deviation from the absolute linear.


----------



## analogsurviver

magicscreen said:


> Why is every audiophile old?
> Do they have more refined and experienced hearing ability?


At really young age - teen - people take everything for granted - and tend not to pay too much attention to sound. Furtheremore, there just is no money available to really enter audiophile arena. Or, at least it used to be like that. Today there are  ways to get a really decent sound even with money most teenagers can afford - at least with portable audio. That kind of performance for that kind of money has been unheard of even five years ago. Enter the speakers - no appreciable change, although - again - the level of quality available today at affordable prices  is much higher than back in the day. If you figure in the most important factor - the room - things have not changed one single bit. By the time people can afford decent gear in decent environment, their capability to hear will be diminished. 

Sad - but true. 

However, an experienced 70 year old listener will be much more likely to describe the sound reproduced more accurately than a teenager who certainly can hear pure sine tones far higher up - but lacks years and decades of experience of listening to both music and its reproduction.


----------



## sander99 (Jan 28, 2021)

analogsurviver said:


> Last time I've checked, Newton's 2nd Law of Physics has been still around.


Yes, F=ma as mentioned in the document. Written differently: a=F/m. With more mass you just need more force to reach a certain acceleration. If you increase the mass, and you increase the force (by increasing the current, by increasing the voltage) with the same ratio and everything stays the same (all other things being equal). Only efficiency is lower.
(By increasing or decreasing the volume, all acceleration of the driver's moving parts is increased or decreased by the same factor, the resulting wave shape is identical except for the amplitude, simply giving lower or higher volume. The same should hold for adding mass to the driver: simply gives a lower volume. Again, all other things being equal.)

[Edit3: Actually the force has to move more than only the mass of the moving parts of the driver, but also the mass of the displaced air, plus mechanical resistance of the suspension. So things are a bit more complicated. But that doesn't mean that increased mass can not be compensated for with increased force.]

In the "all other things being equal" there may (or may not) be complications, but Newton's 2nd Law of Physics doesn't cause any problems for the above!

[Edit: By the way, related to this: The reason why multi-way loudspeakers use different sized drivers for different frequency bands is not that larger and hence heavier drivers would not be able per se to reproduce the higher frequencies, but because the dispersion pattern depends on the ratio between wavelength and driver size. Large drivers will beam the higher frequencies more than low frequencies.]
[Edit2: Electrostatic loudspeakers have the reputation to be "fast and precise" supposedly because they have a very light membrame. However others claim that in reality because of the narrower dispersion pattern of the large driver surface there are less reflections and reverberations, and that can be perceived as increased "precision".]


----------



## redrol

analogsurviver said:


> At really young age - teen - people take everything for granted - and tend not to pay too much attention to sound. Furtheremore, there just is no money available to really enter audiophile arena. Or, at least it used to be like that. Today there are  ways to get a really decent sound even with money most teenagers can afford - at least with portable audio. That kind of performance for that kind of money has been unheard of even five years ago. Enter the speakers - no appreciable change, although - again - the level of quality available today at affordable prices  is much higher than back in the day. If you figure in the most important factor - the room - things have not changed one single bit. By the time people can afford decent gear in decent environment, their capability to hear will be diminished.
> 
> Sad - but true.
> 
> However, an experienced 70 year old listener will be much more likely to describe the sound reproduced more accurately than a teenager who certainly can hear pure sine tones far higher up - but lacks years and decades of experience of listening to both music and its reproduction.



The 70 year olds I know cannot hear high end at all.


----------



## bigshot

By the time you hit a certain age, nothing works! But children don't have any advantage when it comes to listening to recorded music. The added frequencies they can hear over a normal adult are all above 15kHz, which is the top quarter octave of the frequency range. Recorded music has very little content in this range, and those frequencies don't travel through space well. They certainly don't add to sound quality.

The things young people can hear better are high frequency squeals from defective fluorescent light ballasts and CRTs. Not the kinds of things you would clap and jump up and down to be able to hear.


----------



## analogsurviver

sander99 said:


> Yes, F=ma as mentioned in the document. Written differently: a=F/m. With more mass you just need more force to reach a certain acceleration. If you increase the mass, and you increase the force (by increasing the current, by increasing the voltage) with the same ratio and everything stays the same (all other things being equal). Only efficiency is lower.
> (By increasing or decreasing the volume, all acceleration of the driver's moving parts is increased or decreased by the same factor, the resulting wave shape is identical except for the amplitude, simply giving lower or higher volume. The same should hold for adding mass to the driver: simply gives a lower volume. Again, all other things being equal.)
> 
> [Edit3: Actually the force has to move more than only the mass of the moving parts of the driver, but also the mass of the displaced air, plus mechanical resistance of the suspension. So things are a bit more complicated. But that doesn't mean that increased mass can not be compensated for with increased force.]
> ...



Correct - as long you CAN increase the force. This ends with low SPLs, where you can not increase the force - because  for certain SPL it is given and adding any more force woul increase SPL required - which is forbidden if the accuracy is to be maintained.

Regarding ESL vs dynamic drivers. Correct - to a point. Please go trough the paper of Peter Walker from Quad - where he describes the design of push pull electrostatic design , which is now almost universally adopted by the vast majority of manufacturers. 
Save one - for which said late Peter Walker is quoted as saying which loudspeaker not developed by him he would have liked to be his brainchild. 

The main difference between a dynamic and an electrostatic driver is in the fact that ESL diaphragm is - across most of its range, if designed correctly - damped by AIR - therefore not requiring the Aichille's heel of any dynamic driver, which is the inevitable departures from the perfect piston motion in most dynamic drivers. Even if we limit the dynamic drivers to the free open air performance of dipoles ( ribbons, planars, etc ), without having to deal with the more common issues of enclosure problems, there usually is still the problem of dynamic driver having larger mass and therefore worse performance.

Only recently there have been breaktroughs in this regard - dynamic drivers capable of better transient response than ESLs. ESLs are notoriously hard to drive in electrical sense in the treble ( requiring drive that is, in EU at least, forbidden to be sold to the general public due to safety )  and the fact that stator electrodes in ESLs are extremely hard to make to be both acoustically as transparent as possible while having low mechanical resonance - the two being mutually exclusive and always the hardest compromise any manufacturer of ESLs is faced with.

Although most ESLs are quite>very>extremely directional ( to the point I would definitely prefer headphones over "head-in-a-vice-loudspeakers-or-extremely-poor-sound" , there ARE ways around it. At least two - mentioned above, albeit not explicitely.  One behaves like a dipole, another as a full height line source. Both still offer better /less exitation of room modes and reflections than a common dynamic speaker in a box - not to mention inherently better transient response and far lower THD.

Currently, the fastest transducers available are both EARSPEAKERS - MySphere 3.2 ( a very advanced dynamic full range driver ) and RAAL Requisite SR1a ( world's first full range ribbon ).  

Similar level of performance in loudspeakers is available in Alsyvox range of planar/ribbon from Spain. I do NOT want to go and audition them, despite one of my acquaintances owning a pair in less than 10 km range.

Entry model starts at 60+kEur ...


----------



## sander99

analogsurviver said:


> Please go trough the paper of Peter Walker from Quad


I think I read that once a long time ago, and would like to read it again. Do you know where I can find it?


----------



## analogsurviver

sander99 said:


> I think I read that once a long time ago, and would like to read it again. Do you know where I can find it?


----------



## analogsurviver

Here you go : http://www.hembrow.eu/personal/widerangeelectrostatic.html


----------



## 71 dB

sander99 said:


> [Edit: By the way, related to this: The reason why multi-way loudspeakers use different sized drivers for different frequency bands is not that larger and hence heavier drivers would not be able per se to reproduce the higher frequencies, but because the dispersion pattern depends on the ratio between wavelength and driver size. Large drivers will beam the higher frequencies more than low frequencies.]
> 
> [Edit2: Electrostatic loudspeakers have the reputation to be "fast and precise" supposedly because they have a very light membrame. However others claim that in reality because of the narrower dispersion pattern of the large driver surface there are less reflections and reverberations, and that can be perceived as increased "precision".]


Multi-way loudspeakers exist, because it's extremely demanding to make a driver that operates well within all 10 octaves (music uses typically 8-9 octaves) of human hearing. It's much easier to divide the frequency range into pieces of fewer octaves and use drivers that are mechanically and acoustically optimized for each of those narrower bandwidths. It's correct that larger drivers can (theoretically) produce high frequencies and the insane directivity becomes an issues above frequencies were the driver is not anymore small compared to the wavelength. Typically large (bass) drivers however can't produce high frequencies well, because they are not mechanically rigid enough at high frequencies to radiate sound effectively. This is a direct consequence of the driver being optimazed mechanically for low frequencies (resonance damping etc.) 

This is a good point.


----------



## sander99

Crankyrat said:


> The rest of us listen to music with IEMs, Headphones, stereo speakers (sold my 5.1 system, I grew up), etc, and would like to discuss them also. Your very tiny world is only interesting to a few.


"The rest of us..."
No, although I also listen to stereo speakers, and (virtual speakers over) headphones, I certainly also listen over (real and virtual) multi channel speaker systems.
But indeed head-fi is of course primarely aimed at headphone and iem listeners. Part of those are not aware of the limitations of conventional headphone- and iem listening. So I think it is very important and usefull to inform them about the differences between headphones and speakers etc.
You may have a deliberate personal preference for iems or headphones over speakers, or stereo speakers over multichannel, based on experiencing all of those and that is okay.
But there also exist many people who never heard a well setup speaker system and are fully unaware of the pros and cons, and the differences in spatial representation of sound. They could very well develop a preference for speakers or multichannel speakers if they are made aware of the possibilties and try and compare for themselves.


----------



## 538681 (Feb 6, 2021)

sander99 said:


> and compare for themselves.



Fair enough but it was not actually my intent to exclude "multi channel speaker systems".

"But indeed head-fi is of course primarily aimed at headphone and iem listeners"

You could have fooled me! But I guess its just this so called "Sound Science" thread and sub-threads where it appears there is an undue number of speaker salesmen.

Given this thread is supposed to be about "Myths" the one I feel is endlessly promulgated is the Myth that in order to have sound quality you need to have audio fidelity or accurate sound reproduction. Loose, vague, and very unscientific synonyms get thrown around like "natural", "realistic", and "accurate" with absolutely zero evidence that a certain piece of music over a certain device actually exhibits this property (although I might believe a musician). At the moment many of us, not privy to engineers rooms or the live music venue, must just take other peoples word for it.

Some folks feel this means using speaker monitors in a treated room that mimics the sound engineers setup. This conflates the spatial makeup or "sound stage" attribute as a necessary property of sound quality. I posit that these spatial properties are the only attributes that truly make up the difference we see between IEMs, Headphones, 2 channel speakers, and multi-channel systems. There are also devices that apparently can entirely mimic multi-channel "presence" in headphones but I digress

I propose that "spatial" properties are not an aspect of Sound Quality. They are a property of preference. Folks give far to much weight to the effect. Reviewers make outlandish claims as to this cable or DAC or whatever changes sound stage. Generally always in terms that more is better.

I have found spatial properties to be some of the most subjective of all. When lying in bed with my headphones, music is cozily intimate. Sitting with the very same headphones they can take on surround sound properties depending on the music. Outside, the same headphones make music appear as if coming from the heavens. This, my old 5.1 surround system, was incapable of doing.

I have a pair of near field Genelecs on my desk, very carefully placed, so sound never appears to come from my speakers. There are a number of electronica tracks that make my head turn because the sound comes from behind me.

Do I prefer my Genelec speakers to my IEMs or headphones? Of course not, except on Tuesday or Friday when I'm writing. IEMs are great for critical listening and my headphones after a beer. Next week I'll mix it all up.

So to come back to my main points:

Myth one: Audio fidelity or accurate sound reproduction is possible and a worthy goal. I say, except for the very few, its not possible nor would you recognize it even if you had it. Thus its not a worthy goal. For me, however, its not a goal because I don't care.

Myth two: That spatial properties, that define speakers as different from headphones or IEMs, are somehow better. It's different, but given myth one above, not important in the definition of sound quality.

Ok, so perhaps I'm a lost soul wandering around in a faraway soundscape. But I'm certainly having a good time.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 6, 2021)

Since this thread has been pinned, it's become the general open topic thread for Sound Science. It's always a good idea to lurk a bit before you come out swinging.

I'll be happy to discuss these topics with you if you reel in and stop the ad hominem attacks.


----------



## castleofargh

Crankyrat said:


> Fair enough but it was not actually my intent to exclude "multi channel speaker systems".
> 
> "But indeed head-fi is of course primarily aimed at headphone and iem listeners"
> 
> ...


You defend your personal preferences that we can summarize as placing the feeling of detail you get from IEM, above most of the rest. There is no science or objectivity to it, it's only what you happen to care most about. Not everybody has the same priorities about sound.

Myth one, is a logical fallacy. By that logic, we can't exactly reproduce the sound of a piano, so why bother making it sound like a piano? That's not an argument. Audio reproduction isn't black or white. Nether are our feelings about audio.

Myth two has been explained to you a few times now. We assume that the album was made with and for speakers, because historically it's undeniable that the bulk of everything available was done for stereo speakers. We also consider that even today, it's just more practical for a professional to try and work on something standardized so that interactions with other professionals can stay consistent. Something hard to have with headphones or IEMs.
So once we settle on the fact that most albums were done for and with speakers, it's not a myth but a fact that speaker playback will give an experience closer to the original intent than the indeed significantly different IEM experience. And coming closer to the original intent is tightly related to the idea of fidelity.
If you have albums made with headphones(and no speaker simulation), or at least with headphone playback as main "client", then you'll logically come to the opposite conclusion. But rejecting something as not important just because you don't really care about it, that's as subjective as it gets.


I feel like we're going in circle now. Like what you like, bigshot does the same, and all is well. Being a headphone and IEM forum doesn't mean we should ignore reality anytime it doesn't make them look good. It's by pointing out the issues we have, that we'll get more people working on fixing/mitigating them. IMO that's better than being stuck in a hobby so slow to evolve that the industry has spent decades making up issues just so that they could sell us stuff to fix them.


----------



## 538681 (Feb 6, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> You defend your personal preferences that we can summarize as placing the feeling of detail you get from IEM, above most of the rest. There is no science or objectivity to it, it's only what you happen to care most about. Not everybody has the same priorities about sound.
> 
> Myth one, is a logical fallacy. By that logic, we can't exactly reproduce the sound of a piano, so why bother making it sound like a piano? That's not an argument. Audio reproduction isn't black or white. Nether are our feelings about audio.
> 
> ...



You are incorrect on so many fronts. I am making the case that its all about "preferences" including your desire to divine "intent",  but for sake of brevity I'll just take the piano example.

"Myth one, is a logical fallacy. By that logic, we can't exactly reproduce the sound of a piano, so why bother making it sound like a piano? That's not an argument. Audio reproduction isn't black or white. Nether are our feelings about audio."

There is no logical fallacy. I never said we can't bother but its quixotic. What piano? Played where? How close were the mics? How did the player chose to play the piano? Does the engineer hear piano tunes correctly? Did the engineer change things up a bit due to bad conditions for the recording?  Anyway, you implied as much. A sound engineer may or may not be obsessed with creating a certain piano sound, should I be?

In the room or on my head or in my ears its not going to be THAT piano, by a mile. And if I, with my memories of the way a piano should sound, doesn't think its correct, I'll EQ the heck out of the sound, to hell with anyone's intent.

I find the obsession with "intent" in sound to be rather funny. Let's take the analogy of film. Film buffs and art historians concern themselves, sometimes, with the "intent" of the film writer, director, editor, actors and others. But as critics or viewers we could care less. If we happen to know their intent we will say if they failed or succeeded, as will the box office. The viewer is in the driver seat.

If the filmmaker weakly complains that their film was only meant to be in an IMAX theater to understand their full "intent", they would be making fools of themselves. Now I like to see an IMAX movie now and then, but always more than viewing it at home? Of course not, I just have a "preference" for one or the other based on mood (or I did before Covid).

In short, you have no scientific basis for making a claim that if a music listener puts enough effort and money into a system, in an attempt to reproduce the "intent" of the sound engineers, he will have a better experience. A better experience over headphones or IEMs? Often not. You can say they will have a different experience and you can get into discussing those nuances I suppose, like fidelity, if that for some reason interests you. You can claim your preferences for speakers. But you need to step back into reality and don't make specious claims of a higher quality of experience, what we ought to hear, for the rest of us.

Film was my first love, perhaps film is in many ways a more mature medium dealing with the mix of art and technology.


----------



## bfreedma

Crankyrat said:


> Fair enough but it was not actually my intent to exclude "multi channel speaker systems".
> 
> "But indeed head-fi is of course primarily aimed at headphone and iem listeners"
> 
> ...



Quite a rant, but at the end, I realized that your version of “science” is simply your preference, not an objective position.

All good - we all prefer what we prefer, but you might want to consider toning down the dramatics over your personal subjective preferences.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Feb 6, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> ... but you might want to consider toning down the dramatics over your personal subjective preferences.


It always ends up as a condescending advice/directive from the same group of people here...

OK, not going to argue that the "as intended" can be reproduced only if one has the exact same ear channels, as a sound engineer, and the differences in pinna gain alone won't make it "the same", whichever the efforts in "calibrating", so "fidelity" is nothing but subjective...

On a positive, we all can agree that the speaker setups are perfectly/ideally compatible with all types of hearing aids


----------



## sander99

PhonoPhi said:


> "as intended" can be reproduced only if one has the exact same ear channels, as a sound engineer


Of course not. This idea is like a reverse understanding of some of the things explained in this thread. What does NOT work is trying to get the same vibrations at everybodies ear drums. Because everybodies brains will interpret the same vibrations differently!


----------



## PhonoPhi

sander99 said:


> Of course not. This idea is like a reverse understanding of some of the things explained in this thread. What does NOT work is trying to get the same vibrations at everybodies ear drums. Because everybodies brains will interpret the same vibrations differently!


"Some of the things explained in this thread..."
If brains are interpreting vibrations differently, why bother with science, just calibrate your speakers to your liking and enjoy the music!

Why should someone then to bother to impose their subjective opinions to other people other than for insecurities(?) of one's ego?

While it can be  kind of OK in a casual conversation, doing it under auspice/pretense of "science" is hardly acceptable.


----------



## sander99 (Feb 6, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> If brains are interpreting vibrations differently, why bother with science, just calibrate your speakers to your liking and enjoy the music!


And again a reverse understanding. If a speaker measures flat at the listening position, and you play a flat recording of for example an acoustic instrument, the same frequency spectrum that would have been produced by the instrument is produced by the speaker. Your HRTF applies the same changes to that same frequency spectrum and in both cases the same _changed_ frequency spectrum will reach your ears (sorry) ear drums. So your brain will interpret the playback of the recording the same as the real instrument. (Yes, this is a simplification not looking at some complicating factors but it is _really_ a bit difficult to discuss everything involved.)
If another person does these 2 things (listening to the instrument or the flat recording played back over flat speakers) his brains will also interpret both the same although his hrtf is different and the frequency spectrum reaching his ear drums is different both from the original as from the frequency spectrum on your ear drums.
(Another question is whether you and this person will have the same experience, that is a question we will never be able to answer but that is another matter.)
If however you play back that flat recording over your IEMs the frequency spectrum reaching your ear drums will be different from the frequency spectrum reaching your ear drums when listening directly to the instrument. So your brain will interpret it differently (to your brain it will sound colored compared to the real instrument). The same for the other person. And his brain will interpret it not only different from the real instrument, but also different from how your brain interprets the recording over IEMs. So the common reference is gone as well!
Now you may wonder about electronic instruments. You could argue they don't have a "objective real" sound because they only can be heard via transducers (of whatever kind). However, if someone would want to have some control over how people will experience these, more specific: would want everyone to experience them similar and not totally different, then playback over speakers can be used as a common reference, while playback over IEMs (or headphones) can not!
All the above is with regards to both tonality and spatial aspects of the sound!

By the way, binaural recordings (or binaural simulations) are not suitable for playback over speakers. Because then the signal would undergo the whole HRTF thing twice! A binaural recording simply has not the right "dimensionality" (as in meters or seconds or newtons or watts all have a different dimensionality) so to speak for speaker playback. Similar a traditional "panning based" stereo recording has in fact not the right "dimensionality" for IEM or headphone playback. (Even if someone can enjoy the resulting sound anyway).


----------



## bigshot (Feb 6, 2021)

Crankyrat said:


> You are incorrect on so many fronts. I am making the case that its all about "preferences"



That's the old logical fallacy, "We can't know everything, so we can't know anything."

There are objective ways to improve sound fidelity. And even if you don't get all the way to perfect sound, the results are more accurate than just going with subjective impressions that are subject to bias, placebo and perceptual error.

If your goal is purely subjective sound that appeals to you personally, that is perfectly fine. I see the value in that. But it's best to start with a baseline of accuracy and fidelity before you start slathering on the ketchup. It can be very hard to pinpoint your personal subjective target without a starting point. Your unconscious bias and perceptual errors can lead you around in circles because they aren't consistent. Eat something that doesn't agree with you and you go in one direction, have a nice glass of wine and you go in another. If you start from a baseline of accuracy, your flailing about will be much more contained and you will find your personal nirvana a lot easier.

But subjectivity isn't the topic of this forum. Here we apply scientific principles and good old horse sense to try to improve the fidelity and accuracy of our home audio systems. That doesn't mean that our systems are objectively *perfect*. It just means that they are more faithful to the intent of the source because we have addressed the science and reduced subjective and perceptual pitfalls. This is a lot more effective than throwing up your hands and saying "it's impossible!" and choosing to just "like" something because you "like" it.

The disagreement here isn't factual. It's a matter of attitude. The Sound Science regulars aren't being condescending when we respond with information. We're doing what we are here to do. Help people and learn about things we don't know yet. If you adopted the same attitude, we wouldn't be arguing. To be honest, most of us are tired of arguing with people who don't understand the basic concept of this group. We'd prefer not to argue. But when someone comes in with a chip on their shoulder and gets aggressive, we get that way too.


----------



## bigshot

PhonoPhi said:


> If brains are interpreting vibrations differently, why bother with science, just calibrate your speakers to your liking and enjoy the music! Why should someone then to bother to impose their subjective opinions to other people



That's a bingo. Subjective tastes only apply to an individual. It's a waste of time to recommend your tastes to someone who has different tastes. But that's done all the time on Head-Fi and in all kinds of other internet forums. It's the noise to the signal here in Sound Science. The advice that actually helps people achieve a goal is the objective steps to take to achieve fidelity. Fidelity is possible to quantify and improve. All you have to do is strive to be as close to the intent of the source sound as you can. Calibration and using similar means of reproduction of sound are both good ways to achieve fidelity when it comes to commercially recorded music.


----------



## redrol (Feb 6, 2021)

You can always go full jump-the-shark and get the same studio monitors used to master the album in question.  Set them up to nearfield listen.  It can happen..

I'll say this, people that do that have my respect.


----------



## bigshot

The trick isn’t the brand of monitor, it’s the calibration. If you want accurate, you want to get a balanced response. In a home situation that can be a challenge, but you get it as close as you can and the closer you get, the more accurate it is.

By the way, the little speakers on top of the mixing board aren’t the main monitors. Those are used for editing and tracking. The main monitors are full size cabinet speakers. Those are the ones they use for mixing and mastering.


----------



## 538681

bigshot said:


> That's the old logical fallacy, "We can't know everything, so we can't know anything."
> 
> There are objective ways to improve sound fidelity. And even if you don't get all the way to perfect sound, the results are more accurate than just going with subjective impressions that are subject to bias, placebo and perceptual error.
> 
> ...



You are such a broken record.

BigShot: "Help people and learn about things we don't know yet."

I don't think you actually meant that but how true that is. As for the rest you are dreaming.

I see very little science in what you talk about. Sure there is the mechanics of sound reproduction but that is not what I am talking about. What I clearly see is an itsy-bitsy club obsessed with an overreaching definition of "fidelity". And then an even tinier cult that attempts to elevate reproducing the "intent" of audio engineers for home use, as if that should be important. No doubt this is due to you being a producer and thus quite full of yourself and despite your protests exceedingly condescending. But I no doubt return the favor.

Now if we want science we need to head over to Audio Science Review, not here, and check out their definition of fidelity. A quick summary says its limited to what can be measured (as science usually is). This includes noise, distortion, and more tenuously frequency response. Absolutely nothing about so called spatial properties since there is still no agreed upon way of measuring that (not that they are not trying, for games anyway). When ASR does discuss spatial properties its clearly in the subjective listening category and the most descriptive term I heard yet about it is "fun". Enough said.

So that leaves FR as a difficult thing to reproduce in headphones and IEMs. ASR does not resolve this issue by attempting to decipher "intent" of sound engineers. They use curves like Harman to match. If you accept the curve its easy to attempt to match scientifically. However, Harman curves are a worthy subject of debate, just like your numerous assertions, about their relation to music enjoyment.

You know, if you go to headphones.com, almost all the folks there talk far less pedantically and overbearingly about their feeling concerning speakers and headphones. They know full well it is a matter of preference. Given the fact you don't just go away, I think that's where I'll be heading.

What on earth are you even doing in a forum that is supposedly about IEMs and headphones? You clearly don't like them. My conspiratorial side thinks you are really just a speaker salesman trying to convince uneducated members to buy much more expensive systems. But, ah, that can't be true.

Final tip, if you don't want a reply don't respond. Your not up to the task.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 6, 2021)

I'm sure I've said this to you in the past under different screen names, but I invite you to ignore my posts. If you are going to mad dog me, you aren't going to last long here. If I reply to you, you can be sure I'm not really talking to you, but to the lurkers who are willing to listen.

One tip: If you start out and end your post with personal attacks, I won't read all the stuff in the middle.


----------



## Ohman

Crankyrat said:


> Now if we want science we need to head over to Audio Science Review, not here, and check out their definition of fidelity.



Fidelity = what you hear, good and bad. It's subjective as it varies with individuals.

Jeez guys it's just a forum about headphones, who'd thought it'd be so heated? Sheesh!


----------



## 538681

bigshot said:


> I'm sure I've said this to you in the past under different screen names, but I invite you to ignore my posts. If you are going to mad dog me, you aren't going to last long here. If I reply to you, you can be sure I'm not really talking to you, but to the lurkers who are willing to listen.
> 
> One tip: If you start out and end your post with personal attacks, I won't read all the stuff in the middle.



" you aren't going to last long here"

I shiver in fear and trepidation. And yes, please don't read what I have to say, let others, if they choose, respond.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 7, 2021)

Fidelity is accuracy to the original sound source. Opinions about preferences are subjective.

If you want to hear Sgt Pepper with the highest degree of accuracy, you go to Abbey Road Studios and listen to the master tape on the same system the Beatles used when they were mixing it. If that isn't practical, you get as close to that as you can... setting up a similar setup in your home that is calibrated to the same kind of standards. The closer you come to that, the greater the degree of fidelity. Thankfully, digital audio has pretty much solved the problem of fidelity when it comes to signal from master tape through the amp. The harder part now is the playback- the transducers and room. But that isn't unachievable.


----------



## 538681

So for a couple of outside refinements:

https://independentclauses.com/fidelity-vs-sound-quality-a-comparison-of-digital-and-analog/

And quote:

"This is based on an erroneous conflation of two terms that should be kept distinct, “fidelity” and “sound quality.” Fidelity describes the degree of accuracy to which a medium recreates a sound. Sound quality, however, is subjective. It’s not a measurement; rather it’s an indication of preference."

What are we actually more interested in here? I'd say Sound quality. But sure, pursue "fidelity" if you like, I'm sure its a fascinating hobby for some. I accept that fidelity, for now, is more available to scientific analysis. Just don't conflate it with Sound Quality.

Now for a far more heady read that I expect few will fully tackle, ...the myth of perfect fidelity:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20551940.2020.1713524

And I quote the summary:

"Whether it is heard in the control room of the music studio, in the comfort of one’s own living room, while driving in a car or dancing in the club, the signal at one end of the chain is both radically different and fundamentally the same as the signal that went in. Radically different in the sense that its spectral contours and temporal flow are singularly unique in comparison to those that went in; and fundamentally the same in the sense that, regardless of this difference or similitude, it is just as physically real and present as the input signal. The transient traces left behind by the cuts of technical filters thereby confirm the primacy of the unrepresentable moment of filtering. They put an end to the idea that sound recordings are incomplete or flawed reproductions of some “original” sonic event. Instead, the logic of filtering emphasizes that a technological produced sound is never an ideal replication of some supposed “original,” but always a singularly complex and essentially new sound altogether."


----------



## bigshot

So. There’s a football game tomorrow, right?


----------



## bfreedma

I see we have another “single topic guru” here to correct everyone.  Seems to happen once a quarter or so, though this is the second time in a week...

let the windmill tilting continue!


----------



## 538681

I won my $10 bucks! Thank you, that's all I needed to know. Live near the mountains here, time to go ice climbing.


----------



## castleofargh

Ohman said:


> Fidelity = what you hear, good and bad. It's subjective as it varies with individuals.
> 
> Jeez guys it's just a forum about headphones, who'd thought it'd be so heated? Sheesh!


Fidelity is, initially at least, a very objective audio concept. You have a reference, you have copies/reproductions/playbacks of that reference and the one coming closest to the original has more fidelity. Sometimes it's quite tricky to assess, but the general concept is simple and clear enough.



Crankyrat said:


> So for a couple of outside refinements:
> 
> https://independentclauses.com/fidelity-vs-sound-quality-a-comparison-of-digital-and-analog/
> 
> ...


So you didn't like the references we suggested, fine. I thought that you would come up with your own reference, but it seems that you want to reject them all(based on what is IMO a logical fallacy, but you said it's not so, 1-1 we'll never know^_^) and go with how we feel about good sound. and I say, fine.
 You care more about your vision of sound quality. Good. To each their own.
 I have a deep dislike for noticeable hiss on a record, while some people don't mind it at all and can barely even notice it until you point it out. They might very clearly prefer a fairly old and hissy vinyl they have, to a clean CD(for many reasons). I never would make such a choice.
I care a lot that my impression of sound comes from outside my head and that I don't have mono feeling like it's stuck on my forehead(something I almost always get with IEMs and headphones playing most stereo albums), you obviously do not feel that or do not mind it. All that is perfectly fine because it's about impressions and personal preferences. There is nothing to win, nobody to find being wrong. We like what we like for the reasons we like them. 

Now if this is indeed what you care about, why do you keep asking for more science? Science of what?


----------



## old tech (Feb 7, 2021)

Crankyrat said:


> So for a couple of outside refinements:
> 
> https://independentclauses.com/fidelity-vs-sound-quality-a-comparison-of-digital-and-analog/


That article contains many truths with regards to fidelity but the subjective part is pure anecdotes from a selective few.  Given this is a sound science forum I prefer controlled peer review studies such as that below. It certainly accords with my anecdotes over the past 30 years that listeners mostly prefer higher fidelity and because of that, and all things equal, digital productions over analog.

Geringer, J., Dunnigan, P. "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings." _Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education._ 1 Jul. 2000, Number 145: 1-13.

"Music majors were subjects who listened to digital and analog recordings of the same concert performances, recorded unequalized and unmixed (to control EQ variables and level matched. It was a double blind test and the listeners were able to switch back and forth between the two at will. Overall, the digital version was preferred in all ten scoring areas.

The researchers concluded that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings as higher in quality than the corresponding analog versions. The listeners gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble and overall quality, as well as separation of instruments and voices. The ratings were consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions."

Can you show me a similar controlled study showing the opposite? And remember, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes not data.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 7, 2021)

There is nothing wrong with adjusting your curve to taste, but I've always focused on accuracy first, and I get that as close as I can before tweaking for personal taste. I learned that from EQing. You always want a baseline curve to work from, because you don't want to drift aimlessly between corrections. There are auto EQ gadgets that can get you in the ball park. You use the curve that generates as your baseline, and make small corrections, one at a time. If you aren't sure you're going in the right direction, pop back to the baseline and try again. It's a lot easier to discern subjective improvement if you correct in one direction at a time and work in small increments. Every frequency affects every other frequency, so you'll find you tend to seesaw a bit. That's natural. You have to strike a proper balance across the range.  If you do it a little at a time with a careful approach, you'll probably find that the subjective adjustments you make aren't that far from the baseline. You also learn how to analyze response and identify problems and develop strategies for how to deal with them.

If you throw your hands up and start out from a random curve and make wide adjustments, your ears have a lot more trouble discerning what works and what doesn't. I imagine what is happening is your brain is trying to adjust to the imbalance and confusing the process. You'll listen to one wildly imbalanced curve for a while and your ears will adjust to it. Then a day or two later, the imbalance will be very irritating and you'll readjust again. Rinse and repeat and you end up going from one extreme to the next, never arriving at a curve you really like. You never learn anything about how to analyze and correct imbalances because random methods produce random results.

Calibrating is important to do before you start adding the subjective salt and pepper, because of masking issues. You can't balance frequencies to your own taste when you can't hear all of them. The most detailed, full range and balanced sound I've ever heard have been on the mixing stages I've worked on. My home system isn't quite there, but it that the goal I'm aimed at. Of course in a home, you have to make certain concessions for livability. The more concessions you make, the further you get from accurate. But even if you can't achieve absolute perfection, pretty close to perfect is better than random subjectivity. Would I like to have a calibrated studio in my home? You bet! But I don't have the room for it right now.


----------



## magicscreen

Why do "bit-perfect" music players have different output levels?
Neutron player and UAPP on Android.
I recorded the output of a DAC with a PC sound card and there is a difference.
Neutron 0.68, UAPP 0.72 using Audirvana recording a 1k sinus wave
UAPP is in bit-perfect mode, USB mode
Neutron: DSP off, Follow source freq, Direct USB Access
It was the same problem for JRiver and foobar on PC. JRiver was louder.


----------



## redrol

magicscreen said:


> Why do "bit-perfect" music players have different output levels?
> Neutron player and UAPP on Android.
> I recorded the output of a DAC with a PC sound card and there is a difference.
> Neutron 0.68, UAPP 0.72 using Audirvana recording a 1k sinus wave
> ...


Likely they are not actually sending raw bits to the DAC decode.  Some kind of processing going on is my guess.


----------



## sonitus mirus

magicscreen said:


> Why do "bit-perfect" music players have different output levels?
> Neutron player and UAPP on Android.
> I recorded the output of a DAC with a PC sound card and there is a difference.
> Neutron 0.68, UAPP 0.72 using Audirvana recording a 1k sinus wave
> ...


What is "bit-perfect"?  More information is needed with regards to the setup and test.  Clearly something is different with the signal input or the recorded output, but what is different, we can't tell from the information provided.


----------



## magicscreen

Audio Blind Tests and Listener Training
Why training and exercise is important for blind tests.
If you cannot make a successful blind test between audio cables you have not trained enough.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 6, 2021)

Sorry. If you have to struggle and strain and study to be able to hear something, it just doesn't matter when you sit down on a couch and listen to music in your living room. I've told this to Amir too. Test tones and direct switching between two sources that have been level matched are already an order of magnitude or two beyond what you actually need to listen to music for enjoyment. You mind will adjust to accommodate fairly large colorations. Accommodating a difference that is so tiny that you have to "train" yourself to hear it just doesn't matter at all. Training yourself to hear the unbearable is just silly. And if it doesn't show up in a blind test even after you've trained yourself, it flat out doesn't exist. There are enough tests that include golden eared audiophiles that fail dismally in blind tests to show that.

Now you can be obsessive about it and demand that your sound be the purest of the pure. If you have the slightest doubt it can be a burr under your saddle or a pebble in your shoe. But that has nothing to do with sound quality. That is a psychological issue. Perhaps the best way to deal with that is appealing to bias to create a placebo effect to calm your doubts and quiet your mind from focusing on niggling little details that make no difference to normal people. But I don't think that is what the snake oil salesmen are really intending with their manipulation and prevarications. And even if it is for the person's own good, they are grossly overpaid for pulling the wool over people's eyes like that.

People who are satisfied with themselves don't work to become better at perceiving. They work on discerning and producing. They develop a skill. They go to school and study a subject. They analyze and publish their thoughts. They get accolades for achieving something to help other people or society as a whole. They don't work to become a better passive consumer, and they don't invest their ego in something that every human being in the world can do, and bats and dogs can do even better.

Listen to MUSIC and train to understand it. Don't waste your time training yourself to jump off a ladder at progressively increasing heights until you can fly like Superman.


----------



## bfreedma

Have to love those differences that are “night and day” when the average audiophile does an uncontrolled subjective test, yet those same differences can’t be measured and humans require training to (maybe) hear them in controlled testing.

Kind of hard to rationalize that.


----------



## redrol

If the argument is that music enjoyment doesn't need this kind of stuff.. that is subjective so.. sorry, no argument to be made really.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 6, 2021)

There is a purpose to the audio equipment we buy. Fitness for the purpose matters more than just esoteric and theoretical virtues. That’s the big problem with audiophiles. They run down the rabbit hole of better and better numbers without ever trying to equate that with real world sound. We aren’t just slathering on science tas thickly as we can. We are solving a problem. Practicality and efficiency is objective and completely relevant... maybe more relevant than much of what gets discussed among audiophiles.


----------



## DuncanDirkDick

bfreedma said:


> Have to love those differences that are “night and day” when the average audiophile does an uncontrolled subjective test, yet those same differences can’t be measured and humans require training to (maybe) hear them in controlled testing.
> 
> Kind of hard to rationalize that.


The average audiophile can't even decide if a given phone is bright, warm, lush or whatnot. Tough everyone agrees on "cable sounding" between silver and copper. Strange, eh


----------



## 118900 (Mar 9, 2021)

DuncanDirkDick said:


> The average audiophile can't even decide if a given phone is bright, warm, lush or whatnot. Tough everyone agrees on "cable sounding" between silver and copper. Strange, eh


And the sound matches the colour of the cable. Copper is “warmer” and silver is “brighter”....

and when people hear these same differences  in digital cables.....

there is a valid point made by some that hearing is far more complicated than can be properly measured and in particular the way the brain processes signals is far more complicated than current equipment can process, but I genuinely find it hard to believe the copper/warmer - silver/brighter thing, especially for digital cables.


----------



## DuncanDirkDick

Is there a pseudo-scientific argument against null-testing for analog cables?


----------



## castleofargh

People having different feelings about headphones can be explained by HRTF, seal quality, previous headphone, music tastes, and the vast freedom of interpretation for flowery vocabulary. So it doesn't work as an argument to reject feeling differences from silver cables. But having a great many people feeling the same thing from the simple mention of silver, now that strongly suggests it's BS, because silver alone doesn't magically enforces RLC values in a wire. While actual sound changes from the circuit will be set by RLC values.


----------



## bigshot

Frequency response curves are personal. There is no "one size fits all", just a ballpark place to start. The idea is to keep sound calibrated throughout the chain until it reaches the last stage, the amp. That is where you adjust the tone controls to taste. You can do it by selecting cans that fit your taste too. But if coloration was incorporated earlier in the chain, some sources would be properly colored and others wouldn't. That's why the goal is transparency up to the final output.


----------



## DuncanDirkDick

I can see where you're coming from with your argumentation, but I wouldn't necessary agree depending on the type of sources used. There is merit in introducing coloring in the source component. Take vinyl and a digital source. They will inherently sound different due to a different mastering process (e.g. mono cutoff) and SNR. I probably want my vinyl to sound different nowadays and using different cartridges is an easy way to do it. With a sounded last stage - rather than a amplification wire - I have an additional effort to match components if possible at all.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 10, 2021)

Your turntable is calibrated to the RIAA curve. Once your preamp corrects for  that, you have a regular line level input, the same as any other source. I guess if you find that all LPs sound wrong, you could apply a blanket EQ to it, but I don’t think many people do that. It’s different for 78s because there was no standard curve in the early days. But aside from that, LPs should all be calibrated the same.


----------



## magicscreen

bigshot said:


> Listen to MUSIC


Thank you very much.
You buy something, sit down and listen to it.
What do you hear? Do you like it or not?
This is the only important thing.


----------



## bigshot

You start from a place of calibration for fidelity. Then you can adjust to your own taste. But unless you start from accuracy, you flail about, not knowing where to start. That's why people end up with headphones with 15 different sounds. They can't find the sound they really like because it isn't anchored to anything real. Randomness produces random results.


----------



## Bozzunter

I don't even think that such people can't find the sound they really like. In my opinion it's the madness to try and "fine tune", "optimize", "improve" something (the sound) in a world where, alas, the optimal has already been reached way too many years ago (headphones, DAC, amplifiers, you name it). If you read the opinions about Sennheiser HD 800s, for instance, you find things like: "the bass is very weak", "the bass is perfect", "you don't understand bass"... with the peaceful conclusion "OK you listen to what you like". That may be the issue: OK, I'm entitled to listen to what I like, but I'd do a better service to myself to understand the sound a little more before rambling on delusional issues (Sennheiser is an example but you can find the same BS on basically every headphone).

In a way it's kind of intriguing to think that technology will always improve and make things better. That's why too many people can't accept that a $10 DAC (like the lightning to line out adapter from Apple) provides all it needs and even more. "Better" to think that we need the power of four or even eight DAC in order to process the sound, sigh.

On a personal note, I wouldn't really suggest to use EQ to find the perfect sound. Unless you listen to your own music, if you use Spotify it is not really practical (the internal EQ is a joke and you're forced to use external programs). It's way better to understand what's a good sound and one pair of headphones, two maximum, without going berserk with changing 1db here, 2db there and so on.

It's a real pity that Audeze's solutions with their own lightning cable with internal equalizer didn't become widespread. You can't go better than that on a practical level.


----------



## 118900

Bozzunter said:


> I don't even think that such people can't find the sound they really like. In my opinion it's the madness to try and "fine tune", "optimize", "improve" something (the sound) in a world where, alas, the optimal has already been reached way too many years ago (headphones, DAC, amplifiers, you name it). If you read the opinions about Sennheiser HD 800s, for instance, you find things like: "the bass is very weak", "the bass is perfect", "you don't understand bass"... with the peaceful conclusion "OK you listen to what you like". That may be the issue: OK, I'm entitled to listen to what I like, but I'd do a better service to myself to understand the sound a little more before rambling on delusional issues (Sennheiser is an example but you can find the same BS on basically every headphone).
> 
> In a way it's kind of intriguing to think that technology will always improve and make things better. That's why too many people can't accept that a $10 DAC (like the lightning to line out adapter from Apple) provides all it needs and even more. "Better" to think that we need the power of four or even eight DAC in order to process the sound, sigh.
> 
> ...


My personal $0.02 worth: I think that the apple “dongle” is an excellent product for its money but I disagree that it is the be all and end all of DAC capabilities. Having owned a few DACs myself and having performed A/B testing (but not measurements, I rely on others to do that) I can definitely guarantee that there are DACs that significantly improve the sound and in particular the 3D depth imaging to a point that the recording sounds far more realistic, immersive and enjoyable, at a price though.

I put this down to the evolution of conversion principles based on the growing understanding of how the brain processes sound (in particular analogue waveforms constructed from digital data) as explained by people like Rob Watts who explains his theory in detail rather than the bunkum many others sell.

I also believe that technology (including materials technology) does advance and that this can bring changes and improvements, however these changes are seen every decade or so and certainly don’t translate into the “major” improvements some manufacturers try and fob every few years. The basic technological premises for the vast majority of components have changed very little and the vast majority of manufacturer’s are simply tweaking existing products and selling these as the “next big thing”.


----------



## castleofargh

Bozzunter said:


> I don't even think that such people can't find the sound they really like. In my opinion it's the madness to try and "fine tune", "optimize", "improve" something (the sound) in a world where, alas, the optimal has already been reached way too many years ago (headphones, DAC, amplifiers, you name it). If you read the opinions about Sennheiser HD 800s, for instance, you find things like: "the bass is very weak", "the bass is perfect", "you don't understand bass"... with the peaceful conclusion "OK you listen to what you like". That may be the issue: OK, I'm entitled to listen to what I like, but I'd do a better service to myself to understand the sound a little more before rambling on delusional issues (Sennheiser is an example but you can find the same BS on basically every headphone).
> 
> In a way it's kind of intriguing to think that technology will always improve and make things better. That's why too many people can't accept that a $10 DAC (like the lightning to line out adapter from Apple) provides all it needs and even more. "Better" to think that we need the power of four or even eight DAC in order to process the sound, sigh.
> 
> ...





castleofargh said:


> People having different feelings about headphones can be explained by HRTF, seal quality, previous headphone, music tastes, and the vast freedom of interpretation for flowery vocabulary.


If people have a different placement and seal quality on a hd800, of course they can experience very different amounts of bass. Sean Olive argues that it might be a lead cause of disagreements when describing the sound of headphones.

About EQ, if we stick with the HD800 as an example, there will be occasions when EQing it will objectively be better than using some other headphone coming closer to my perceived flat. The tricky question in the end is always to know what we need. Then everything else goes pretty smoothly IMO. Sadly, I'd say that most audiophiles have no clue so they endlessly try stuff until they get lucky. There has to be a better way to approach that hobby and again, that's just my opinion, EQ is a great way to explore and learn about ourselves. It's also a great way to turn an "almost there" headphone into a "I like that".


----------



## Bozzunter

juansan said:


> I put this down to the evolution of conversion principles based on the growing understanding of how the brain processes sound (in particular analogue waveforms constructed from digital data) as explained by people like Rob Watts who explains his theory in detail rather than the bunkum many others sell.


Rob Watt's theoretical ramblings has been more than debunked in this very forum, with scientific arguments. What he really defends are a bunch of concepts with no relevance whatsoever for practical listening, starting with his theory of samples. It doesn't surprise that his DACs go from $400 to $20,000, and if I lived in US I'd be more than wiling to plan a blind test in person and to offer 20K against $50 to whom discerns any difference between his products and the Apple DAC.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 11, 2021)

3D depth imaging is one of those terms that sounds very technical, but it’s actually just another flowery term for subjective impression.

I don’t have the Apple dongle, but I have a stack of Apple products and I have yet to find one that isn’t audibly transparent, and an order of magnitude better specs than transparent too. If you hear something as better than an Apple product, I would strongly suspect that expectation bias has more to do with it than sound quality.


----------



## castleofargh (Mar 11, 2021)

juansan said:


> My personal $0.02 worth: I think that the apple “dongle” is an excellent product for its money but I disagree that it is the be all and end all of DAC capabilities. Having owned a few DACs myself and having performed A/B testing (but not measurements, I rely on others to do that) I can definitely guarantee that there are DACs that significantly improve the sound and in particular the 3D depth imaging to a point that the recording sounds far more realistic, immersive and enjoyable, at a price though.
> 
> I put this down to the evolution of conversion principles based on the growing understanding of how the brain processes sound (in particular analogue waveforms constructed from digital data) as explained by people like Rob Watts who explains his theory in detail rather than the bunkum many others sell.
> 
> I also believe that technology (including materials technology) does advance and that this can bring changes and improvements, however these changes are seen every decade or so and certainly don’t translate into the “major” improvements some manufacturers try and fob every few years. The basic technological premises for the vast majority of components have changed very little and the vast majority of manufacturer’s are simply tweaking existing products and selling these as the “next big thing”.


If you want depth and 3D imaging, do yourself a favor, stop using headphones and get some nice multichannel system + albums/movies. Or go read about HRTF and psychoacoustics, and find gears that might implement that in a more or less customized way with headphones. Because the tentative justifications by Rob Watts for doing too much of everything on the basis that he can, are real close to marketing fairy tales.
There is no research backing any of his grand subjective claims. What we know about human hearing screams that he's talking nonsense. Just because he somehow convinced people to give him a platform to share his perception fantasies, doesn't mean there is anything true about it.

Listen to him when he talks about math and engineering. The man is real good at that. But when he talks about humans and psychoacoustics, he's clearly no better than any other random audiophile with some weird idea. If his ideas were correct, you wouldn't have a clue what sound localization is, because at anytime in real life there are stuff several magnitudes louder than what he's trying to fix, that are constantly added to any given sound source. And yet, it all works out fine. His ideas about human hearing are silly, and the magnitudes he declares relevant are ludicrous. You can't salvage something so wrong.
I could add 3 national anthems 50dB below the sound of a given instrument and I would still have the necessary cues to locate that instrument with a precision within my very human abilities. Using a gazillion tap filter and -250db noise shaping is great if you're trying to isolate the fart of a dude on the other side of the planet at the time of the recording for some CIA pet project. Although we don't have the tech to record anything with that level of accuracy in the first place, and we most likely never will, sorry CIA.


----------



## DuncanDirkDick

bigshot said:


> Your turntable is calibrated to the RIAA curve. Once your preamp corrects for  that, you have a regular line level input, the same as any other source. I guess if you find that all LPs sound wrong, you could apply a blanket EQ to it, but I don’t think many people do that. It’s different for 78s because there was no standard curve in the early days. But aside from that, LPs should all be calibrated the same.


My argument has nothing to do with RIAA, rather with technicalities of LPs and their mastering. You cant compensate for mono bass cutoff (which is mastering specific) or low SNR. I know it's quite common for people wanting a different sound signature for a noisy analogue source and a high SNR digital source. I'm just challenging your "coloration in the last piece of the chain" argument. Using EQ wouldn't be coherent to that as well.


----------



## bigshot

Mastering is supposed be consistent across the board. You’re talking about custom EQing each LP differently to correct mastering errors. I have tens of thousands of records and I don’t feel a need to do that. The only thing I have in the chain right in front of my turntable is my Burwen noise reduction unit. I EQ 78s individually on my shellac turntable, but that’s because there was no standard response curve back then.


----------



## 118900 (Mar 11, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> If you want depth and 3D imaging, do yourself a favor, stop using headphones and get some nice multichannel system + albums/movies. Or go read about HRTF and psychoacoustics, and find gears that might implement that in a more or less customized way with headphones. Because the tentative justifications by Rob Watts for doing too much of everything on the basis that he can, are real close to marketing fairy tales.
> There is no research backing any of his grand subjective claims. What we know about human hearing screams that he's talking nonsense. Just because he somehow convinced people to give him a platform to share his perception fantasies, doesn't mean there is anything true about it.
> 
> Listen to him when he talks about math and engineering. The man is real good at that. But when he talks about humans and psychoacoustics, he's clearly no better than any other random audiophile with some weird idea. If his ideas were correct, you wouldn't have a clue what sound localization is, because at anytime in real life there are stuff several magnitudes louder than what he's trying to fix, that are constantly added to any given sound source. And yet, it all works out fine. His ideas about human hearing are silly, and the magnitudes he declares relevant are ludicrous. You can't salvage something so wrong.
> I could add 3 national anthems 50dB below the sound of a given instrument and I would still have the necessary cues to locate that instrument with a precision within my very human abilities. Using a gazillion tap filter and -250db noise shaping is great if you're trying to isolate the fart of a dude on the other side of the planet at the time of the recording for some CIA pet project. Although we don't have the tech to record anything with that level of accuracy in the first place, and we most likely never will, sorry CIA.


I do own a 5.1 system, thanks, but your comments don’t really tell me why I’m getting very strong depth perception from one product and not others and then *after* noticing this independently I read his explanation which confirms this and goes some way towards explaining it.

Maybe it is all BS, but if that is so could you kindly expand on why his ideas about human hearing and interpretation are so wrong?

you cite how people wouldn't have a clue what sound localization is, because at anytime in real life there is stuff several magnitudes louder than what he's trying to fix, but surely the whole point is that in real life the sounds you hear aren’t converted to digital before you hear them.

don’t get me wrong, if you have a valid point that you can illustrate I would be more than happy to learn more, it’s why I’m following this thread in the first place.


----------



## 118900

bigshot said:


> 3D depth imaging is one of those terms that sounds very technical, but it’s actually just another flowery term for subjective impression.
> 
> I don’t have the Apple dongle, but I have a stack of Apple products and I have yet to find one that isn’t audibly transparent, and an order of magnitude better specs than transparent too. If you hear something as better than an Apple product, I would strongly suspect that expectation bias has more to do with it than sound quality.


Doing A/B testing and hearing a significant difference in the depth (or at least perceived) depth of field?

I did an A/B test a few years ago between a generic USB cable and an audioquest “carbon” one (before I had found out about asynchronous signal transfer) and heard zero difference between the two (having purchased the audioquest cable before hand so you definitely expect bias) so you may be right but I try to be critical of equipment I compare. 

again I may be absolutely wrong and the results of what I heard may simply be in my mind but I would like to know the science behind it all


----------



## sonitus mirus

juansan said:


> Doing A/B testing and hearing a significant difference in the depth (or at least perceived) depth of field?
> 
> I did an A/B test a few years ago between a generic USB cable and an audioquest “carbon” one (before I had found out about asynchronous signal transfer) and heard zero difference between the two (having purchased the audioquest cable before hand so you definitely expect bias) so you may be right but I try to be critical of equipment I compare.
> 
> again I may be absolutely wrong and the results of what I heard may simply be in my mind but I would like to know the science behind it all


Until you can show that you are actually hearing a difference, the science is going to be restricted to psychology.


----------



## 118900

Bozzunter said:


> Rob Watt's theoretical ramblings has been more than debunked in this very forum, with scientific arguments. What he really defends are a bunch of concepts with no relevance whatsoever for practical listening, starting with his theory of samples. It doesn't surprise that his DACs go from $400 to $20,000, and if I lived in US I'd be more than wiling to plan a blind test in person and to offer 20K against $50 to whom discerns any difference between his products and the Apple DAC.


It’s 10 not 20 not that that changes things. I will search the forum, thanks


----------



## 118900

sonitus mirus said:


> Until you can show that you are actually hearing a difference, the science is going to be restricted to psychology.


So record the analogue waveforms produced by two volume matched DACs under identical circumstances? Doable.

frequency response curves alone prove there are differences between DACs.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 11, 2021)

Line level matched, direct A/B switched blind listening test with enough trials to definitively show a pattern. Once a difference is established, then you make the test repeatable so other people can verify your results.

Can you please show me response specs for DACs that show an audible difference? Do you know what the approximate threshold of audibility is for response deviations?


----------



## sonitus mirus

juansan said:


> So record the analogue waveforms produced by two volume matched DACs under identical circumstances? Doable.
> 
> frequency response curves alone prove there are differences between DACs.


A DAC can utilize different filters, but these are usually very subtle and quite obvious in measurements in how the frequencies are impacted.  If you are seeing FR differences that could be attributed to audible differences outside of an intentional choice of filter, then maybe you are referring to a DAC/amplifier combo?  A DAC that is working as intended should be relatively flat through the human hearing range.  I normally choose a filter that is sharp out to 20kHz as I believe this is the most accurate, and I have no issues with pre-ringing as some would claim, yet never seem to provide any evidence to suggest they can actually identify it.


----------



## 118900

bigshot said:


> Line level matched, direct A/B switched blind listening test with enough trials to definitively show a pattern. Once a difference is established, then you make the test repeatable so other people can verify your results.
> 
> Can you please show me response specs for DACs that show an audible difference? Do you know what the approximate threshold of audibility is for response deviations?


Let me do a search after dinner, need to finish my beer...


----------



## bigshot

Trappists make the best beer! My favorite is Orval.


----------



## 118900

bigshot said:


> Trappists make the best beer! My favorite is Orval.


I have some other nice Trappist ones downstairs quadrupel one as well just a tad sweet though. Anyway let me get this down and then will look up FR curves although @sonitus mirus has really already answered


----------



## 118900

Bozzunter said:


> Rob Watt's theoretical ramblings has been more than debunked in this very forum, with scientific arguments. What he really defends are a bunch of concepts with no relevance whatsoever for practical listening, starting with his theory of samples. It doesn't surprise that his DACs go from $400 to $20,000, and if I lived in US I'd be more than wiling to plan a blind test in person and to offer 20K against $50 to whom discerns any difference between his products and the Apple DAC.


Genuine ask - Could you let me have the link please? I have searched the thread and the only reference to Rob watts are my own posts and another post which doesn’t go into any details.


----------



## VNandor

DuncanDirkDick said:


> Is there a pseudo-scientific argument against null-testing for analog cables?


Have you tried null testing cables? I don't think you could get a convincing null (different cable or not, it doesn't matter) by just recording the same signal twice, inverting one of them and then adding them together. The more processing you add to the signals to get a good null, the less convincing the test is going to be.


----------



## Bozzunter

juansan said:


> Genuine ask - Could you let me have the link please? I have searched the thread and the only reference to Rob watts are my own posts and another post which doesn’t go into any details.





Sure thing man, but being an Italian who lives in Spain, I choose wine over beer.

Apart from joking, it’s already late here but I’ll surely search for it tomorrow and post here whatever I find.


----------



## DuncanDirkDick

I wouldn't really call inverting and adding dsp. The devices and plans exist and is has been done.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 11, 2021)

I like expensive beer and cheap wine. Two buck Chuck! When I was a kid my sister lived in Napa and she would get gallon jugs of Zinfindel for a couple of bucks at the winery. It was young, thin and watery, but it was great for picnics.


----------



## VNandor (Mar 11, 2021)

DuncanDirkDick said:


> I wouldn't really call inverting and adding dsp. The devices and plans exist and is has been done.


I don't understand what you mean. You read some "plans" about null testing that doesn't invert the signal? Can you show me where it has been done before? Speaking from experience, null testing analog signals aren't easy (it seems impossible to get a convincing null without some post processing) and I would like to know how others are doing it.


----------



## 118900 (Mar 11, 2021)

Bozzunter said:


> Sure thing man, but being an Italian who lives in Spain, I choose wine over beer.
> 
> Apart from joking, it’s already late here but I’ll surely search for it tomorrow and post here whatever I find.


Thanks very much. And I’m a Brit with Spanish origins living in Italy! 👍👍 so it will be a nice bottle of amarone this weekend for me

my father loved his marques de caceres from Rioja.


----------



## DuncanDirkDick

VNandor said:


> I don't understand what you mean. You read some "plans" about null testing that doesn't invert the signal? Can you show me where it has been done before? Speaking from experience, null testing analog signals aren't easy (it seems impossible to get a convincing null without some post processing) and I would like to know how others are doing it.


The schematic is literally the first hit on google. Ofc you have to invert one signal, but I wouldn't call inverting, adding and phase compensation complex DSP operations. Why don't you think you'll get a null signal? I don't get your argument. Besides it has been done, there are videos on how it has been done on yt.


----------



## VNandor (Mar 11, 2021)

DuncanDirkDick said:


> The schematic is literally the first hit on google. Ofc you have to invert one signal, but I wouldn't call inverting, adding and phase compensation complex DSP operations. Why don't you think you'll get a null signal? I don't get your argument. Besides it has been done, there are videos on how it has been done on yt.


I said there's no easy way to get a convincing null between analog signals. Looking up the schematic of some circuit and building it is not easy. I looked it up on youtube and found Ethan Winter's video on it. If someone can buy a box like that, then testing between cables is going to be fairly easy and probably convincing enough to any audiophile who isn't completely lost. Maybe someone could say that the opamp the signal goes through is somehow "not good enough" to reveal the "subtle differences" between the cables? And of course the ultimate excuse for audophiles is always that they hear the difference between their precious cables so if a test setup can't reveal it, it must be the setup that is wrong.

Anyways, the way I tried to test analog signals did not involve splitting the signal. I had to play back and record the test signal twice, which does cause some errors that don't null correctly by just properly aligning, inverting and adding the signals together.


----------



## DuncanDirkDick

Well the simplicity is the nice thing. Except for the phase compensation / inverting the signal path is equal. I would agree, without the correct phase compensation you can't null it. There is a project over at diy forum to build a simplified version. But it's pretty quiet over there.


----------



## castleofargh

juansan said:


> I do own a 5.1 system, thanks, but your comments don’t really tell me why I’m getting very strong depth perception from one product and not others and then *after* noticing this independently I read his explanation which confirms this and goes some way towards explaining it.
> 
> Maybe it is all BS, but if that is so could you kindly expand on why his ideas about human hearing and interpretation are so wrong?
> 
> ...


I can't tell why you feel how you feel. I can't even tell if it has anything to do with sound, or if maybe it's about volume difference between DACs more than anything else. We understand a good deal about perception of audio cues thanks to many very specific controlled experiments, testing one variable at a time and learning more about the consequences of changing it. But considering some subjective consequences and finding out the cause, that's a different story. We might be lucky to even come up with some educated guesses. 


About Mr Watts explanations, 
we can start with a pretty serious lack of controlled experiments to validate anything before he came to tell everybody about it. A few years have passed, so I can only assume that he has no intention, or no mean to demonstrate any of it.
But I'd still say that the biggest issue comes with the magnitudes involved in his stories. He's talking about playing with ludicrously small stuff in the signal, then declares those changes audible. Even he is puzzled by that "discovery" and mentioned it a few times, because of how it so obviously goes against all we know about human hearing abilities. And yet he doesn't look for testing error or interpretation error on his part as the most logical answer to this conundrum. Instead he basically went something like, "oh well", and then talked as if we now knew for a fact that humans can perceive changes at magnitudes they really can't so we should probably keep an open mind about all those accepted limits...
One might conclude that he's really ignorant about human hearing, another might argue that it's all just marketing. What it's not is rigorous.
Be it in the time domain or in the amplitude domain, what he attributes as causes for the alleged audible improvements, are many times smaller than a all lot of crap omnipresent in recording, playback signals, and around us(in us) at all time. Most of which we already don't notice. And from our understanding of hearing, we know about auditory masking, where the loud stuff tends to mask the very quiet signals. Which leads to my not controversial belief that crazy low amplitude stuff aren't audible in music. Something he doesn't seem to care about in his reasoning.


----------



## Don Hills

VNandor said:


> I said there's no easy way to get a convincing null between analog signals. ...
> ... I had to play back and record the test signal twice ...



True. You need to digitise them and use something like this:
DeltaWave Audio Null Comparator
It adjusts for phase and timing differences so you should be able to get useful results from comparing your two runs.


----------



## 118900 (Mar 12, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> I can't tell why you feel how you feel. I can't even tell if it has anything to do with sound, or if maybe it's about volume difference between DACs more than anything else. We understand a good deal about perception of audio cues thanks to many very specific controlled experiments, testing one variable at a time and learning more about the consequences of changing it. But considering some subjective consequences and finding out the cause, that's a different story. We might be lucky to even come up with some educated guesses.
> 
> 
> About Mr Watts explanations,
> ...


Thank you for explaining. 👍

it seems rude to just write a one liner to your long and detailed comment but to be clear you have given me much to think about and research.


----------



## renanrischiotto (Mar 31, 2021)

Can a better cable make my out-of-phase headphone fixed?
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/phase-audio-problem.956966/


----------



## magicscreen

My phone charger is altering the sound quality if I plug it in the power strip. Why?


----------



## bigshot

Grounding problem. Phones have problems with that sometimes.


----------



## castleofargh

Or some heavy power saving feature when unplugged, or it's in his head, or....


----------



## bigshot (Apr 10, 2021)

I'm assuming it is clearly audible noise. If it's noise it's grounding. If it's some sort of "veil" or  "more alive" or some other subjective description, then I'm fairly certain a blind test hasn't been done and it can be chalked up to expectation bias.

I'm waiting to get some clarification in another thread where the person says that something that sounds like a ground loop is caused by being in contact with wood. That makes no sense, and I've asked for a clarifying test.

It's kind of weird because I haven't experienced ground loop problems or RF interference in many years. People must live in houses with out of code wiring, they live under AM radio antennas, or the equipment they buy must be very poorly designed.


----------



## renanrischiotto

bigshot said:


> I'm assuming it is clearly audible noise. If it's noise it's grounding. If it's some sort of "veil" or  "more alive" or some other subjective description, then I'm fairly certain a blind test hasn't been done and it can be chalked up to expectation bias.
> 
> I'm waiting to get some clarification in another thread where the person says that something that sounds like a ground loop is caused by being in contact with wood. *That makes no sense*, and I've asked for a clarifying test.
> 
> It's kind of weird because I haven't experienced ground loop problems or RF interference in many years. People must live in houses with out of code wiring, they live under AM radio antennas, or the equipment they buy must be very poorly designed.



Welcome to technology.


----------



## Headbander

bigshot said:


> Grounding problem. Phones have problems with that sometimes.


Do you mean when charging or when operating on battery. There shouldn't be grounding issues when on batteries


----------



## 118900

Headbander said:


> Do you mean when charging or when operating on battery. There shouldn't be grounding issues when on batteries


He was specifically replying to someone asking about changes in SQ when *charging* the phone.


----------



## redrol

bigshot said:


> I'm assuming it is clearly audible noise. If it's noise it's grounding. If it's some sort of "veil" or  "more alive" or some other subjective description, then I'm fairly certain a blind test hasn't been done and it can be chalked up to expectation bias.
> 
> I'm waiting to get some clarification in another thread where the person says that something that sounds like a ground loop is caused by being in contact with wood. That makes no sense, and I've asked for a clarifying test.
> 
> It's kind of weird because I haven't experienced ground loop problems or RF interference in many years. People must live in houses with out of code wiring, they live under AM radio antennas, or the equipment they buy must be very poorly designed.


Nope.  This is very very easy to run into no matter how 'good' your equipment is.   I could post a quick video showing how to get a ground loop in 2 seconds.  For instance, just plug a usb dac's output into a power amp sharing the same room ground.


----------



## bigshot

This conversation went in circles so many times with conflicting information and completely new info thrown in later that should have been mentioned up front. Then he said he was unable to test using a different location. I gave up. He’s using an AC converter of some sort. That is probably the source of his problems, but at this point I don’t care any more. You can try to help him if you want, but it’s a waste of time to argue with my posts because I couldn’t get him to explain the problem clearly. It kept changing.


----------



## redrol

Gotcha.  I don't know how to help him because ground loops can be extremely hard to diagnose.  I do know that I could stop mine by literally breaking the pin off the ground on my KRK speakers... this isn't a great idea however.

Here, I made an example of a ground loop.


----------



## bigshot

Yes. Ground loops are impossible to diagnose if a person won’t do tests to figure out where the problem is.


----------



## Steve999 (Apr 20, 2021)

I found this interesting re: ground loops and I sort of understood the concepts for the first time. Though apparently there is still room for argument around the edges, as is so often the case. Maybe it can be of interest or help someone help themselves. 

Addresses some claims and myths as well.


----------



## simplemoney

This just got posted on YouTube.  Basically an audiophile decimated a "science guy", proving cables do matter.


----------



## bfreedma

simplemoney said:


> This just got posted on YouTube.  Basically an audiophile decimated a "science guy", proving cables do matter.



This video is nothing more than another cable seller’s version of “trust your ears” based on only sighted subjective evaluation.  

if you aren’t posting this video as a joke, I don’t know what to say.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bfreedma said:


> if you aren’t posting this video as a joke, I don’t know what to say.


I'm pretty sure it's a joke, that @simplemoney made the video, that he's brand new here but SimpleTheater at ASR, and that he's here to troll as suggested by preload in this thread.


----------



## Steve999 (Apr 28, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> This video is nothing more than another cable seller’s version of “trust your ears” based on only sighted subjective evaluation.
> 
> if you aren’t posting this video as a joke, I don’t know what to say.



odd


SoundAndMotion said:


> I'm pretty sure it's a joke, that @simplemoney made the video, that he's brand new here but SimpleTheater at ASR, and that he's here to troll as suggested by preload in this thread.


Yeah if so he picked the exact wrong forum section in head-fi to troll.  

@simplemoney , don’t be so simple! You can try the cables, bla bla bla tweaks etc., forum of head-fi, but if you do, be ready for an immediate ban. You picked the free-speech section of head-fi. Long story.


----------



## bfreedma

SoundAndMotion said:


> I'm pretty sure it's a joke, that @simplemoney made the video, that he's brand new here but SimpleTheater at ASR, and that he's here to troll as suggested by preload in this thread.



i hope so, but given some of the posts here, it’s hard to tell.


----------



## PhonoPhi

SoundAndMotion said:


> I'm pretty sure it's a joke, that @simplemoney made the video, that he's brand new here but SimpleTheater at ASR, and that he's here to troll as suggested by preload in this thread.


It is moderately funny, 100% truthful, and I would personally have more problems with those who can get "trolled" by this video than with the video itself.


----------



## Steve999 (Apr 28, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> It is moderately funny, 100% truthful, and I would personally have more problems with those who can get "trolled" by this video than with the video itself.



Actually as I put on my serious hat I think it’s pure fiction and rather condescending in creating a straw man out of those with whom @simplemoney would disagree (which would not include me BTW for his information). But maybe that’s just me.


----------



## castleofargh

Once again it is confirmed that one can laugh of anything, but not with everybody.
I thought it was both fun and more rational than usual cable arguments we’re getting here.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 28, 2021)

There really isn't much point acting like audiophools to make fun of them. They believe their bologna with great tenacity and conviction. They can't be shamed. I tend to think that facts and logic don't work much better. Perhaps it's better to just blow them off.

They can't hear a difference and they know it. But they'll grab at any excuse to deny the truth... "I don't believe in tests." "You aren't scientific enough." "Someone somewhere may be able to hear this." "I trust my ears." "Science doesn't know everything, so it can't know anything." It's like a broken record.


----------



## 118900

simplemoney said:


> This just got posted on YouTube.  Basically an audiophile decimated a "science guy", proving cables do matter.


Of course cables matter, you won’t hear anything unless you connect your gear with cables, duh……… 🤣


----------



## old tech

juansan said:


> Of course cables matter, you won’t hear anything unless you connect your gear with cables, duh……… 🤣


Unless you have a wireless set up.


----------



## 118900 (Apr 29, 2021)

old tech said:


> Unless you have a wireless set up.


I have a gut feeling the context wasn’t a wireless environment, but I may be wrong…….

PS: how would provide electricity to your components? Even with wireless charging, somewhere along the “line” (pun intended) there will a cable.


----------



## bigshot

If the line is audibly transparent, it doesn't matter if there is a wire or not.


----------



## 118900

I see that irony isn’t a thing here….  Over and out.


----------



## bigshot

We're here to help people make smart choices, not just goof around. Sadly, that is an uphill battle.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> We're here to help people make smart choices, not just goof around. Sadly, that is an uphill battle.


The warriors of light (pardon, "transparency"), Don Quixotes of HiFi relentlessly on the look for trolls lurking out there...

So true, there is little science in it though, since it happens that you are just trying to uphold your subjective preferences, starting with the "transparency"...


----------



## bigshot

Wrong


----------



## old tech

juansan said:


> I have a gut feeling the context wasn’t a wireless environment, but I may be wrong…….
> 
> PS: how would provide electricity to your components? Even with wireless charging, somewhere along the “line” (pun intended) there will a cable.


It was a tongue in cheek comment, though no doubt that some of these cable believers would also hear a difference between different lossless wireless setups.

As for wireless mains power - now let me find that paper by Nicola Tesla.


----------



## Ryokan

When I first started getting into higher end audio a salesman in a store told me buying expensive cables wouldn't make any difference to the sound, save your money basically. A while later I decided to buy some more expensive speaker cable (£50 Vs £5 or so), one reason was the cheap cabling wasn't very pliable, and straight away I heard a difference for the better. Though I wasn't tempted to spend hundreds as I've learnt about diminishing returns and was surprised I could hear an improvement as I didn't expect to. It was a while ago was I just imagining a difference? though it was quite a marked one at the time.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Ryokan said:


> When I first started getting into higher end audio a salesman in a store told me buying expensive cables wouldn't make any difference to the sound, save your money basically. A while later I decided to buy some more expensive speaker cable (£50 Vs £5 or so), one reason was the cheap cabling wasn't very pliable, and straight away I heard a difference for the better. Though I wasn't tempted to spend hundreds as I've learnt about diminishing returns and was surprised I could hear an improvement as I didn't expect to. It was a while ago was I just imagining a difference? though it was quite a marked one at the time.


Imagination is often a big part of it.
Yet, cables can matter.
You did not specify what were your transducers, which is an important part. A simple rule of 1/8 (cables with the low impedance of less than 1/8 than the rest (transducers plus the source)) was perfectly applicable in my experience. I have experienced cables making a noticeable difference for IEMs with the impedance below 16 Ohm.


----------



## Ryokan

PhonoPhi said:


> Imagination is often a big part of it.
> Yet, cables can matter.
> You did not specify what were your transducers, which is an important part. A simple rule of 1/8 (cables with the low impedance of less than 1/8 than the rest (transducers plus the source)) was perfectly applicable in my experience. I have experienced cables making a noticeable difference for IEMs with the impedance below 16 Ohm.



It was either Bowers and wilkins CM9(?) or PMC Twenty 23 speakers.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Ryokan said:


> It was either Bowers and wilkins CM9(?) or PMC Twenty 23 speakers.


I've looked for PMC 23, they are 8 Ohm. Longer cables can easily measure near 1 Ohm, so that would explain it to me. I do have quite limited experience with speakers, so others can chime in.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Personally I had no luck with cables, either when it was for BA IEM or headphones, but with DAC's it's a different story. It is not true that all well measured dac's sound the same, on well resolving gear they can have even bigger impact to the sound than amplifiers. While they differ in their tonality even between delta sigma dacs, differences can grow even larger if you bring R2R dacs in the picture, but the biggest one comes with their staging capabilities. Surface of the soundstage improves greatly and they can make a huge impact on well recorded music. If flat sound is down to your preferences than in majority cases dac's can be ignored


----------



## redrol

I was testing some 'high res' files I have.  Just 96hkz.  Lets have a look at the spectral frequency graph.
Those tones above the audible band are obviously some kind of electrical noise.   Fail.


----------



## 71 dB

Ryokan said:


> When I first started getting into higher end audio a salesman in a store told me buying expensive cables wouldn't make any difference to the sound, save your money basically. A while later I decided to buy some more expensive speaker cable (£50 Vs £5 or so), one reason was the cheap cabling wasn't very pliable, and straight away I heard a difference for the better. Though I wasn't tempted to spend hundreds as I've learnt about diminishing returns and was surprised I could hear an improvement as I didn't expect to. It was a while ago was I just imagining a difference? though it was quite a marked one at the time.


Simply put the resistance of the speaker cable has to be low enough so that the damping factor (DF = Zload / Zsource) of the amp+cable+speaker system remains high enough. If the output impedance of an amp is 0.1 Ω, the resistance of a cable is 0.4 Ω and the impedance of a speaker is 8 Ω, the damping factor DF = ( 8 / (0.1+0.4) ) = 16. The rule of thumb is that damping factor should be 8 or bigger, but this really depends on the electro-mechanic properties of the loudspeaker. Sensitive speakers with uneven impedance curve have very little mechanical damping meaning they need electric damping for accurate sound (thigh controlled bass). The bigger damping factor the more electric damping. Reflex ported speakers in general require more electric damping than closed box speakers.

So you need basic cheap speaker cable, but take into account how low the resistance must be. If you have insensitive 8 Ω closed box speakers and you need short cables you are fine using relatively thin basic cables. If on the other hand you have sensitive reflex ported speakers with low nominal impedance (4 Ω or less) and long cables you need thick basic cables for accurate sound. For example AWG16 (1.31 mm²) copper cable has impedance of 6.4 mΩ/ft (20 mΩ/m). So, if your speaker cables are only 10 ft long, the cable impedance is 2*10*6.4 mΩ = 0.128 Ω. I use basic cheap 1.5 mm² speaker cables myself and it just works (not very long cables except for surround speakers + insensitive 8 Ω speakers). For more demanding cabling I'd use 2.5 mm² (~AWG13) cable and for extreme cases (crazy 1-2 Ω speakers) 4.0 mm² (~AWG11) cable.

Also, check the cable terminals once a year and tighten the connection for good connection. People buying new expensive cables might have suffered from loosened and oxidized connections with their old cables and when they make the cable change they tighten the connection and think the improved sound is due to the new cable when it is in fact due to better connection.


----------



## peskypesky

juansan said:


> I see that irony isn’t a thing here….  Over and out.


buh-bye


----------



## Ryokan

71 dB said:


> So you need basic cheap speaker cable, but take into account how low the resistance must be. If you have insensitive 8 Ω closed box speakers and you need short cables you are fine using relatively thin basic cables. If on the other hand you have sensitive reflex ported speakers with low nominal impedance (4 Ω or less) and long cables you need thick basic cables for accurate sound. For example AWG16 (1.31 mm²) copper cable has impedance of 6.4 mΩ/ft (20 mΩ/m). So, if your speaker cables are only 10 ft long, the cable impedance is 2*10*6.4 mΩ = 0.128 Ω. I use basic cheap 1.5 mm² speaker cables myself and it just works (not very long cables except for surround speakers + insensitive 8 Ω speakers). For more demanding cabling I'd use 2.5 mm² (~AWG13) cable and for extreme cases (crazy 1-2 Ω speakers) 4.0 mm² (~AWG11) cable.



Does this mean that using an inappropriate cable for a certain system the sound would be affected?

When I thought I perceived a difference (clearer sound, brighter highs) my cables were not much more than 3M, and I made sure both were the same length, as I'd read this was the correct way, uneven lengths wasn't ideal but moreso for much longer cables (?).


----------



## 71 dB

Ryokan said:


> Does this mean that using an inappropriate cable for a certain system the sound would be affected?
> 
> When I thought I perceived a difference (clearer sound, brighter highs) my cables were not much more than 3M, and I made sure both were the same length, as I'd read this was the correct way, uneven lengths wasn't ideal but more so for much longer cables (?).


Yes, of course, but inappropriate doesn't mean cheap or lacking snake oil. It means the electric properties are inappropriate for the given system. For another system the exact same cable can have completely fine electric properties.

Yes, always have your cables for left and right channel be the same cable type and same length so that whatever the cable does to the sound, it is done similarly for both channels and the stereo image/channel balance remains "intact".


----------



## bigshot

Ryokan said:


> Does this mean that using an inappropriate cable for a certain system the sound would be affected?



Of course not. We're assuming you're using the right cable for the job.

If a cable is properly designed and manufactured to do the job, it won't sound any different than any other cable that is properly designed and manufactured to do the job. Cables can't sound better than functional. They can only have degraded sound because it's the wrong cable for the job or it is defective by design or manufacture.


----------



## Ryokan

bigshot said:


> Of course not. We're assuming you're using the right cable for the job.
> 
> If a cable is properly designed and manufactured to do the job, it won't sound any different than any other cable that is properly designed and manufactured to do the job. Cables can't sound better than functional. They can only have degraded sound because it's the wrong cable for the job or it is defective by design or manufacture.



When I went from a cheap cable to a more expensive one I fancied I heard a difference straight away, and thought @71dB's point came into play - that the resistance for the set up wasn't optimal:



> Simply put the resistance of the speaker cable has to be low enough so that the damping factor (DF = Zload / Zsource) of the amp+cable+speaker system remains high enough. If the output impedance of an amp is 0.1 Ω, the resistance of a cable is 0.4 Ω and the impedance of a speaker is 8 Ω, the damping factor DF = ( 8 / (0.1+0.4) ) = 16. The rule of thumb is that damping factor should be 8 or bigger, but this really depends on the electro-mechanic properties of the loudspeaker. Sensitive speakers with uneven impedance curve have very little mechanical damping meaning they need electric damping for accurate sound (thigh controlled bass). The bigger damping factor the more electric damping. Reflex ported speakers in general require more electric damping than closed box speakers.


----------



## bigshot (May 10, 2021)

Price has nothing to do with the sound of a cable, but it has everything to do with bias. We expect expensive things to be better than inexpensive things, and we want to validate that our money has been well spent. Without a blind comparison, you can't be sure bias isn't the reason behind it.

A difference in cables that alters the overall volume level slightly can show up as a difference. We tend to perceive louder sounds as sounding better than slightly quieter ones, even when the fidelity is identical. That's why level matching is important.

Auditory memory is very short. When comparing similar sounds, a couple of seconds is all it takes to forget the sound you just heard. That is why direct A/B switching is important.

Level matched, direct A/B switched blind comparison is the way to compare sound. Without eliminating the possibility of perceptual error and bias, your impression can easily be incorrect. This isn't a failing by any means. Every human being is subject to these things and they are more powerful than we imagine. When you're comparing similar sounds, you have to take them into account and eliminate them from the equation.


----------



## Ryokan

Ok but how about the point on damping factor?


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> Of course not. We're assuming you're using the right cable for the job.
> 
> If a cable is properly designed and manufactured to do the job, it won't sound any different than any other cable that is properly designed and manufactured to do the job. Cables can't sound better than functional. They can only have degraded sound because it's the wrong cable for the job or it is defective by design or manufacture.


That is in the ideal world of speakers and headphone, perhaps.

Not with crazy low impedance multi-BA IEMs!
There really - it is choosing your preferred sweet spot for you source/cablrs to have your preferred bass/treble balance.


----------



## bigshot (May 10, 2021)

I personally believe that IEMs are deliberately designed to use non-standard impedance so you're stuck buying their brand of amps and cables. It's perfectly possible to make a product that sounds great and adheres to standards. Some audiophiles tend to judge quality by how inconvenient a rig is. I refuse to buy non-standard stuff myself. I value both fidelity AND simplicity of use.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> I personally believe that IEMs are deliberately designed to use non-standard impedance so you're stuck buying their brand of amps and cables. It's perfectly possible to make a product that sounds great and adheres to standards. Some audiophiles tend to judge quality by how inconvenient a rig is. I refuse to buy non-standard stuff myself. I value both fidelity AND simplicity of use.


Yes, I slowly came to the same notion, being reluctant to purchase IEMs well below 16 Ohm (again, the cited values are just at 1 kHz, the values at resonances can be much lower...), so the most reasonable range being 24-32 Ohm.

Though sometimes different signatures with different setups can be fun


----------



## bigshot

I prefer to use an equalizer to adjust response. I get as close as I can get out of the box, then I EQ as a final tweak if necessary.


----------



## PhonoPhi (May 10, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I prefer to use an equalizer to adjust response. I get as close as I can get out of the box, then I EQ as a final tweak if necessary.


True, but then to equalize something - one needs to make sure that  there is something, e.g. treble not dampened by some transducers or mastering/recording(?) of some of those "golden audiophile recordings"


----------



## bigshot

Most headphones can be EQed plenty far enough to do the job, but yeah... a bad recording is a bad recording. Although I have had some luck fixing some really awful recordings using DSPs.


----------



## peskypesky

bigshot said:


> I prefer to use an equalizer to adjust response. I get as close as I can get out of the box, then I EQ as a final tweak if necessary.


I'm the same. I'd rather adjust eq than buy more sets of headphones or IEM's to get slightly different sound signatures.


----------



## peskypesky

bigshot said:


> Most headphones can be EQed plenty far enough to do the job, but yeah... a bad recording is a bad recording. Although I have had some luck fixing some really awful recordings using DSPs.


Bad recordings are a pain. What I do is take the audio into Adobe Audition and use eq and compression to try to get it sounding as good as I can (to my ears).


----------



## bigshot

I have DSPs on my AV receiver that can work wonders. For instance really dry and harsh mono Toscanini recordings with the NBC orchestra... I apply a hall ambience and they sound almost as good as stereo with no harshness and no boxiness.


----------



## 71 dB (May 13, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> Yes, I slowly came to the same notion, being reluctant to purchase IEMs well below 16 Ohm (again, the cited values are just at 1 kHz, *the values at resonances can be much lower*...), so the most reasonable range being 24-32 Ohm.
> 
> Though sometimes different signatures with different setups can be fun


The impedance values at resonances are actually _higher_, because admittance on the electrical side shows as impedance on the mechanical side:

Zm = (Bℓ)² / Ze.​
Here the constant (Bℓ)² is just the squared force factor Bℓ of the transducer voice coil. Mechanical resonances happen at frequencies where the mechanical impedance Zm has its local minimum (maximum mechanical admittance Ym = 1/Zm meaning the mechanical parts can move freely without much energy losses). On the electrical side this shows as maximum electrical impedance Ze (mimimum electrical admittance Ye = 1/Ze).

Since mechanical resonancies can only increase the electrical impedance, the minimum electrical impedance of a transducer is higher than the voice coil resistance. At some frequencies far from the driver resonance the highest frequencies where the voice coil inductance starts to "kick in" the impedance can reach this minimum.


----------



## KeithPhantom

PhonoPhi said:


> Not with crazy low impedance multi-BA IEMs!


IEMs that at the end of the day end up being worse at following a target curve than single-driver IEM (Etymotics). I do not see why multi-driver IEMs are a thing, when you still need to optimize how you use a single driver for full-range, then you add more and make your design less coherent and harder to optimize. To be honest, EQ ends up being one of the best if not the best improvements you can get for your system, be it headphones, speakers, or IEMs.


----------



## PhonoPhi

KeithPhantom said:


> IEMs that at the end of the day end up being worse at following a target curve than single-driver IEM (Etymotics). I do not see why multi-driver IEMs are a thing, when you still need to optimize how you use a single driver for full-range, then you add more and make your design less coherent and harder to optimize. To be honest, EQ ends up being one of the best if not the best improvements you can get for your system, be it headphones, speakers, or IEMs.


BA drivers are limited in their range by design.
Also several BA drivers working together give a similar effect as a violin section vs. a single violin.
The coherence is definitely a limitation, but with more overlaping driver range (with more drivers), it can be partially mitigated.


----------



## PhonoPhi

71 dB said:


> The impedance values at resonances are actually _higher_, because admittance on the electrical side shows as impedance on the mechanical side:
> 
> Zm = (Bℓ)² / Ze.​
> Here the constant (Bℓ)² is just the squared force factor Bℓ of the transducer voice coil. Mechanical resonances happen at frequencies where the mechanical impedance Zm has its local minimum (maximum mechanical admittance Ym = 1/Zm meaning the mechanical parts can move freely without much energy losses). On the electrical side this shows as maximum electrical impedance Ze (mimimum electrical admittance Ye = 1/Ze).
> ...


It is true that the impedance increase appreciably near the resonance (at the lower energy side), as with any resonators/oscillators. 

Then at the resonance, the energy consumption is at maximum, and the impedance goes to lower values. The linear scale of the resistance, most commonly plotted, does not make it as apparent as the pre-resonance increases.


----------



## 71 dB

PhonoPhi said:


> It is true that the impedance increase appreciably near the resonance (at the lower energy side), as with any resonators/oscillators.
> 
> Then at the resonance, the energy consumption is at maximum, and the impedance goes to lower values. The linear scale of the resistance, most commonly plotted, does not make it as apparent as the pre-resonance increases.


I have hard time following your logic here. Seems you are talking about temporal effects of some sort.


----------



## PhonoPhi

71 dB said:


> I have hard time following your logic here. Seems you are talking about temporal effects of some sort.


Here is the graph superimposing BA resonances and impedance.



Note the shift, and if more energy could be supplied, the resistance at resonances could go to very low values.


----------



## peskypesky

KeithPhantom said:


> IEMs that at the end of the day end up being worse at following a target curve than single-driver IEM (Etymotics). I do not see why multi-driver IEMs are a thing, when you still need to optimize how you use a single driver for full-range, then you add more and make your design less coherent and harder to optimize. To be honest, EQ ends up being one of the best if not the best improvements you can get for your system, be it headphones, speakers, or IEMs.


Yeah, I've gone back to single dynamic driver IEMs lately. I experimented with some hybrids, but the dd's sound as good or better and are less expensive. At least from the ones I've bought.


----------



## castleofargh

PhonoPhi said:


> Here is the graph superimposing BA resonances and impedance.
> Note the shift, and if more energy could be supplied, the resistance at resonances could go to very low values.



I has confusing.
What is that graph in black exactly?


Here is what I think I understand about resonance:
At electrical resonance, I don't even need to summon my inner Pythagoras to get the vector, as total impedance equals resitance. So of course that's where we get lowest impedance and max signal can pass(more power).
BUT! That's if we only consider the electrical circuit as a cause of impedance.

Mechanical resonance is when the signal passes the best too, but mechanically. For dynamic drivers, the coil moving in a magnetic field will generate electrical signal opposing the original signal. Typically that's where we get the biggest impedance bump in the audible range(at low freq). And that's what @71 dB  is saying.

For BA drivers, it's different in many ways, even though the laws of physics probably still hold 
First, the coil doesn't move. So it's probably not a design as good at sending back EMF(my uneducated guess).
Single BA drivers do tend to have a measured impedance graph shaped like the blue line(with lowest impedance in the bass). The impedance values are a different matter as I doubt I have ever measured a single BA IEM with such a massive deviation in the midrange. But the general shape is a good basis to think about BAs and measured impedance.

Not sure I’ve contributed anything, please go on.


----------



## 71 dB

PhonoPhi said:


> Here is the graph superimposing BA resonances and impedance.
> Note the shift, and if more energy could be supplied, the resistance at resonances could go to very low values.


I have been talking about dynamic drivers. I don't know much about BA drivers because I don't use IEMs. Something about BA causes the impedance drop at the maximum SPL frequency, but I don't know why because I have never analysed BA's. Sorry.


----------



## PhonoPhi

71 dB said:


> I have been talking about dynamic drivers. I don't know much about BA drivers because I don't use IEMs. Something about BA causes the impedance drop at the maximum SPL frequency, but I don't know why because I have never analysed BA's. Sorry.


All-BA designs were discussed, in the context of Andro. They do have very pronounced resonances  compare to DDs, where the resonances of a thin light membrane is likely beyond the audible range.


castleofargh said:


> I has confusing.
> What is that graph in black exactly?
> 
> 
> ...


What is shown in black is effectively the sound produced by the driver at frequency sweep.

Here is more detail on these graphs, and more details on the BA design: 
https://mynewmicrophone.com/the-complete-guide-to-balanced-armature-iems-earphones/

Indeed, not the coil itself is moving, but pretty stiff armature, and the resonance frequency is in the audible range.
With the resonance limitations, it is hard to make a single all-range BA.

Lastly, the impedance rises before reaching the resonant frequency. At the resonant frequency, the energy consumption can be huge (that is why distortions discussed), so if more energy will be supplied - the drivers can disintegrate, while the impedance is the lowest.
So good BAs are a lot about dampening, make them more manageable and smoother. There is a fine line in the dampening before BA start to sound like DDs (often the case with Sonion ones).


----------



## 71 dB

Clearly I have been ignorant thinking the theory of DDs can be applied to all headphones... ...obviously what I said does not apply to BAs.


----------



## magicscreen

Audiophile myth: Tube amplifiers have a warm sound only because the tubes have light.
But if I listening with closed eyes or opened eyes, there is no difference.
Debunked & demystified!


----------



## bigshot

Tube amps are all over the place. The best of them sound as clean as solid state amps.


----------



## PhonoPhi

magicscreen said:


> Audiophile myth: Tube amplifiers have a warm sound only because the tubes have light.
> But if I listening with closed eyes or opened eyes, there is no difference.
> Debunked & demystified!


A good one (as a "demistification" pun)


bigshot said:


> Tube amps are all over the place. The best of them sound as clean as solid state amps.


What about this science: https://producerhive.com/ask-the-hive/odd-vs-even-harmonic-distortion/

Do best clarinets sound like oboes?


----------



## PhonoPhi

71 dB said:


> Clearly I have been ignorant thinking the theory of DDs can be applied to all headphones... ...obviously what I said does not apply to BAs.


Your point was very helpful - pre-resonance rise in impedance is important, and may dominate for well-dampened BAs. I think now I got an explanation, why some all-BA designs behave differently. Thank you!


----------



## bigshot

Not all tube amps have euphoric distortion. Some are clean. Tube amps are all over the place.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> Not all tube amps have euphoric distortion. Some are clean. Tube amps are all over the place.


True, from a consumer point of view.
Yet, if to talk about the science - the physics of overtones is there for lamps. Then the overall designs can either supress/minimize it or take an advantage of it. The former is hard to understand, given the efficiency of solid-state electronics.


----------



## 71 dB (May 15, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> Your point was very helpful - pre-resonance rise in impedance is important, and may dominate for well-dampened BAs. I think now I got an explanation, why some all-BA designs behave differently. Thank you!



I don't feel having done much else that reveal holes in my knowledge, but you are welcome!  



PhonoPhi said:


> What about this science: https://producerhive.com/ask-the-hive/odd-vs-even-harmonic-distortion/
> 
> Do best clarinets sound like oboes?



Of course not.


----------



## bigshot

Better to apply distortion like that with a DSP. That way you can precisely adjust it.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> Better to apply distortion like that with a DSP. That way you can precisely adjust it.


Agreed.
Least distortions induced are most instructive for end-user customization


----------



## Ryokan

When ripping to flac which compression level is better? My default is 4 but it goes up to 8, is there any benefit? File size seems the same.


----------



## 71 dB (Jun 2, 2021)

Ryokan said:


> When ripping to flac which compression level is better? My default is 4 but it goes up to 8, is there any benefit? File size seems the same.


The level means how much processing is being done to find and remove redundancy in the music. Level 8 can produce the smallest file sizes (the differences are quite small), but the amount of time needed to encode the flac varies a lot. Level 4 is a good compromise between file size and encoding time. Since flac is a lossless format, there is no differences in audio quality (it is always same with the original file). It just about how much redundancy we want to squeeze out, how much we need to do calculations to do it.


----------



## Ryokan (Jun 2, 2021)

71 dB said:


> The level means how much processing is being done to find and remove redundancy in the music. Level 8 can produce the smallest file sizes (the differences are quite small), but the amount of time needed to encode the flac varies a lot. Level 4 is a good compromise between file size and encoding time. Since flac is a lossless format, there is no differences in audio quality (it is always same with the original file). It just about how much redundancy we want to squeeze out, how much we need to do calculations to do it.



Thanks for the explanation 71 dB. 

Just did another rip at default level and there's only a few mb difference.


----------



## 71 dB

Ryokan said:


> Thanks for the explanation 71 dB.
> 
> Just did another rip at default level and there's only a few mb difference.


You're welcome Ryokan. 

Yes, the file size differences are very small. This is because there's a lot of "obvious" redundancy and the rest is "less-obvious" redundancy that take more computional efforts. It gets harder and harder to approach the zero redundancy limit.

Obvious/less obvious in information theory-wise: Obvious redundancy => algorithmically simple to remove => computationally easy => fast.


----------



## Ryokan

71 dB said:


> You're welcome Ryokan.
> 
> Yes, the file size differences are very small. This is because there's a lot of "obvious" redundancy and the rest is "less-obvious" redundancy that take more computional efforts. It gets harder and harder to approach the zero redundancy limit.
> 
> Obvious/less obvious in information theory-wise: Obvious redundancy => algorithmically simple to remove => computationally easy => fast.



Is this why Flac files are smaller than Wav? Both are lossless copies but Flac contains less 'chaff'.


----------



## 71 dB

Ryokan said:


> Is this why Flac files are smaller than Wav? Both are lossless copies but Flac contains less 'chaff'.


Yes. Both WAV and FLAC have the the exact same information, but WAV says the same things (fragments of information) many times while FLAC tries to say the same things fewer times, the whole idea of lossless data compression.

Strictly speaking WAV is not "lossless", because information isn't compressed so you can't lose anything. So:

*WAV*: Neither lossless or lossy. Contains all the information + lots of redundancy (same information many times)
*FLAC*: Lossless, because data is compressed, but without losing information (only redundancy removed)
*MP3*: Lossy, because data is compressed beyond the redundancy limit assuming the listener won't hear (or care about) the difference.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Editing original post, updating broken links etc. The pictures don't show up for me, so will have a look at that as well.


----------



## bigshot

Prog Rock Man said:


> Editing original post, updating broken links etc. The pictures don't show up for me, so will have a look at that as well.



Thanks! We all appreciate it. As much as it is abused in the comments, this is the most important post in Sound Science.


----------



## HeadUnit

Prog Rock Man said:


> The author of the article goes on to say;
> 
> "My point being, taking part in any kind of blind listening test necessarily creates an unnatural condition, one that we never encounter when listening to music for pleasure."


To which my riposte is now: set up a blind test. Hide your cables or DAC or whatever out of sight. Listen as usual. Have someone else make a change, without telling you or you even see their face or any other hint. They write down in a diary when they made the change. You see if you notice any change, and check versus their diary. Natural conditions. Not easy to do this test, but removes all excuses (I think). 

Great thread, thank you!


----------



## bigshot

Most resistance to controlled testing is because they know what a fair test would reveal and they don’t want to admit it.


----------



## HeadUnit

KingStyles said:


> The testers when picking out the equipment may have listened before hand and tried to pick equipment with sound signatures that all resembled each other rather than amps that tend to have a more drastic differences. Also, at what level did they set the db at. If the level was perhaps higher clipping or a lack of drive may have been found in the amps that didnt produce as much power.


I really do not think that happens. Like speaker cable tests often have a wide variety-I mean coat hanger wire, come on. And at Harman where my buddy worked they were not thinking like that. As for the level, oh you are right that can sure make a difference, like in one (non-blind) test we did
https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/denon-vs-parts-express-round-1.984507/
but the usual contention for amps is they sound the same when operated below clipping (which with some speakers could be much earlier than we think). I'd note that depending in particular on the speakers, clipping could be earlier than we might think...which is perhaps why amps don't have clipping lights???


----------



## Mehran

Hey all, I am wondering if using a splitter for testing 2 cables at once is a viable option to test if a cable make a difference to sound. Has anyone done it here?


----------



## peskypesky

bigshot said:


> Most resistance to controlled testing is because they know what a fair test would reveal and they don’t want to admit it.


All resistance to controlled testing is because they know what a fair test would reveal and they don’t want to admit it.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 27, 2021)

Mehran said:


> Hey all, I am wondering if using a splitter for testing 2 cables at once is a viable option to test if a cable make a difference to sound. Has anyone done it here?



I've split headphone cables. No problem.

Ludwig meet Johann, Johann meet Ludwig. Now we've all been introduced!


----------



## castleofargh

Mehran said:


> Hey all, I am wondering if using a splitter for testing 2 cables at once is a viable option to test if a cable make a difference to sound. Has anyone done it here?


It really depends on what you're testing and how. Having an extra cable going nowhere usually wouldn't matter to us. But having an extra circuit in parallel isn't necessarily the same story. If the extra loop goes into 5 to 10kohm, that again shouldn't have much influence, but it would be good to be sure before drawing conclusions on a test we couldn't control properly.

If you test very low impedance cables, you have to keep in mind that the impedance increase happens mostly in the plugs and at the contact areas. So adding more contacts with a splitter or ideally a switch, that could make a significant difference(I’m thinking mostly about IEM cables here). 

In general, anytime you're changing the conditions in your listening experiment, it would be good to measure a few stuff before and after to confirm that you're not creating your own problem with the listening test. If you know how to, your could record what comes out with and without the splitter, and try to abx that(test the test) It's not perfect, but it would be reassuring  for a listening test if you couldn't tell the difference with and without the extra setup. 
That still requires to be able to record some output after the next gear in the chain, and to be able to cut the recorded samples so they are aligned for the abx. It’s already more than what most members of my family can do.


----------



## Mehran (Jun 28, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> It really depends on what you're testing and how. Having an extra cable going nowhere usually wouldn't matter to us. But having an extra circuit in parallel isn't necessarily the same story. If the extra loop goes into 5 to 10kohm, that again shouldn't have much influence, but it would be good to be sure before drawing conclusions on a test we couldn't control properly.
> 
> If you test very low impedance cables, you have to keep in mind that the impedance increase happens mostly in the plugs and at the contact areas. So adding more contacts with a splitter or ideally a switch, that could make a significant difference(I’m thinking mostly about IEM cables here).
> 
> ...


Thanks for the thorough and very technical response. For me anyway 😄. It's beyond my technical ability/knowledge and frankly interest to go into it. All I can gather is that I can hear a difference in the two cables but for the wrong reasons. So it's not viable for me. Thanks 👍


----------



## bigshot

Try it and see if it works. Splitting headphones shouldn’t be a problem.


----------



## sonitus mirus

peskypesky said:


> All resistance to controlled testing is because they know what a fair test would reveal and they don’t want to admit it.



I think most people that refuse to accept controlled testing as being reliable are simply having a hard time coming to grips with what can be an astonishing revelation, and there are plenty of pseudo-plausible excuses available to support their irrational assumptions.


----------



## peskypesky (Jun 29, 2021)

sonitus mirus said:


> I think most people that refuse to accept controlled testing as being reliable are simply having a hard time coming to grips with what can be an astonishing revelation, and there are plenty of pseudo-plausible excuses available to support their irrational assumptions.


Yes. It's like learning that a penny will fall from a tower at the same rate as a cannonball. Or that the earth is not flat. Or that light is both a wave and a particle.


----------



## Arthur Weston

I’ve been tested to have higher than normal hearing frequency range. This begs question about preference and taste, like fine wines. Do some “taste more” in sound?


----------



## bigshot

Arthur Weston said:


> I’ve been tested to have higher than normal hearing frequency range.



That is great if you want to hear the squeal in bad ballasts in fluorescent lights and CRT TVs. But those frequencies aren't audible in music. Your "refined" hearing is bogus.


----------



## Arthur Weston

bigshot said:


> That is great if you want to hear the squeal in bad ballasts in fluorescent lights and CRT TVs. But those frequencies aren't audible in music. Your "refined" hearing is bogus.


So tell me, is there “refined” taste in food/wine? What’s the science there? $10,000 bottle vs $5 bottle argument. 

It’s proven that animals have much better hearing than humans and even some humans have better hearing than other humans.


----------



## bigshot

Refined taste in wine is discernment in analysis of the flavor. It doesn’t mean they have a superhuman tongue. You hear like a human, just like the rest of us. If you want to convince us of your discernment, talk about your analysis of great music. Not your ability to hear super audible frequencies that you can’t hear and don’t matter anyway.


----------



## Arthur Weston

bigshot said:


> Refined taste in wine is discernment in analysis of the flavor. It doesn’t mean they have a superhuman tongue. You hear like a human, just like the rest of us. If you want to convince us of your discernment, talk about your analysis of great music. Not your ability to hear super audible frequencies that you can’t hear and don’t matter anyway.


I’m certainly not saying i’m better than anyone here and that I know more because I can hear more and have experienced more than anyone else.

I took an exam that was duplicated several times by an audiologist during a medical physical exam to get my hearing tested for health reasons. What happened is that could still hear the testing of of tones, or beeps beyond the normal cutoff range. This happened about 3 beeps beyond their normal cutoff and because this situation occurs less frequently, they tested more than once and concluded my hearing was well above average. I suppose I have “sensitive” hearing.

When it comes to music, I am passionately obsessed with high quality reproduction. I can not only pick up on tiniest of details in treble, but feel the thumping of the lowest lows. As far as midrange is concerned, I appreciate tight and clean mids.


----------



## castleofargh (Jun 29, 2021)

Arthur Weston said:


> I’ve been tested to have higher than normal hearing frequency range. This begs question about preference and taste, like fine wines. Do some “taste more” in sound?


Of course. Like pretty much anything else, we all have different hearing, vision, ideas, running speed... The norm is never more than an averaging of statistics. But does that have actual impact on personal taste? I would guess no more than everything else. Taste in music seems to be pretty deeply rooted in what we got exposed to as kids and apparently even more so, as teenagers(some paper suggested as much based on stats from streaming websites).
Then, the frequency range is only one variable and we all get somewhat different frequency responses, timing, etc because of the shape/size of our head, our age, heavy blows, some disease we got and some drugs we took for them, etc).
Also, and that's probably relevant: Music is not made for dolphins by dolphins.



A usual listening test checks up to 8kHz, it's very possible to do better than average and go above the top line. It means you still notice the tone at quieter amplitude than most. I got that myself in the upper range most of my life, at least I did before I went to drive old and very noisy trains for a few months :'(. Now I'm your average 45 year old guy with "good" average hearing. I honestly haven't noticed a change in my experience of music or my taste around that fairly short period of ear destroying job. And while I did notice that it was goodby 17kHz and above at my listening levels when I bothered testing for that with appropriate gear, I already was spending most of my listening time on the go with IEMs that rolled off massively between 10 and 14kHz. So at least in my case, I always had other priorities than frequency extension.

But I did spend my younger years getting mightily bothered by high freqs noises of all kinds that nobody else was noticing. And just in general, by people watching TV and listening to music loud enough that I wanted to go somewhere else. That I do remember clearly. And I've always disliked cymbals and real life violin sounds from up close. I still feel that way now that I can't hear a good deal of the upper range where they can go. But is it because my brain has declared that I would forever dislike those? Or is it because what I dislike has little to do with 17kHz and above in those instruments? I honestly have no idea.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Arthur Weston said:


> I’ve been tested to have higher than normal hearing frequency range.


I’ve got a question for you: can you help me hear the filter effects of a DAC at about 23 kHz when 44,100 S/s? I would like to know how it sounds up there.


----------



## old tech

Arthur Weston said:


> I’m certainly not saying i’m better than anyone here and that I know more because I can hear more and have experienced more than anyone else.
> 
> *I took an exam that was duplicated several times by an audiologist during a medical physical exam to get my hearing tested for health reasons. What happened is that could still hear the testing of of tones, or beeps beyond the normal cutoff range. *This happened about 3 beeps beyond their normal cutoff and because this situation occurs less frequently, they tested more than once and concluded my hearing was well above average. I suppose I have “sensitive” hearing.
> 
> When it comes to music, I am passionately obsessed with high quality reproduction. I can not only pick up on tiniest of details in treble, but feel the thumping of the lowest lows. As far as midrange is concerned, I appreciate tight and clean mids.


So what is your age and what was your frequency response curve? Like all human senses, hearing follows a bell distribution curve among the population.  It is generally accepted that a healthy young adult can hear a range of frequencies between 20hz and 20khz. Some young adults can hear frequencies below 20hz and over 20khz. They are the exceptions or outliers that can hear up to 23khz or thereabouts. But as far as human hearing health goes it doesn't matter because our hearing is less sensitive outside the midrange and the real world is not test tones.  In other words, masking effects of frequencies where our ears are most sensitive would swamp these outlier attributes.

Audiologist tests typically cut off around 10 to 12 khz because that is all that matters for health reasons. The beeps you may have heard in that test are unlikely to be anywhere near 20khz.The main reason for these tests are for peaks and drops within the relevant range - hence the question what was your frequency response curve because that would tell a more accurate story about the health of your ears.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 30, 2021)

Arthur Weston said:


> When it comes to music, I am passionately obsessed with high quality reproduction. I can not only pick up on tiniest of details in treble, but feel the thumping of the lowest lows. As far as midrange is concerned, I appreciate tight and clean mids.



I think you're grossly overestimating your hearing ability. You obviously have your ego invested in it. You should find something that you actually create yourself with taste and skill to be proud of, because I'm completely sure that your hearing ability is ordinary.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> I think you're grossly overestimating your hearing ability. You obviously have your ego invested in it. You should find something that you actually create yourself with taste and skill to be proud of, because I'm completely sure that your hearing ability is ordinary.



Maybe....


----------



## bigshot

Photos or it doesn't count!


----------



## LongBeforeShort

Nice post, but way too long! This is why after scrolling down quickly i was only reading the conclusion and a couple of the in-between stuff because it was the same in general.

I agree with that, no cable sound, it sounds the same (transistors, assuming the power is enough and no filter or modes engaged). But sight for some may be an important factor to be able to enjoy the music and that is totally fine.


----------



## bigshot

"Brevity is the soul of wit." - Shakespeare


----------



## LongBeforeShort (Jul 5, 2021)

Very interesting stuff in your signature bigshot.

What I find interesting is, that some intelligent people just avoid science, when it comes to audio. I find it very strange to trust objective science for many, but not for a few areas, if it doesn't fit your pocket world.


----------



## redrol

I agree.  I tend to throw the retort of how the hell you think the computer you are posting with works?  It's cognitive dissonance.


----------



## jg1337

bigshot said:


> I think you're grossly overestimating your hearing ability. You obviously have your ego invested in it. You should find something that you actually create yourself with taste and skill to be proud of, because I'm completely sure that your hearing ability is ordinary.


Well, aren't you *tremendously *overestimating your own skills and judgements? Like, HUGE TIME overestimating who you are and what you know?


----------



## bigshot (Jul 19, 2021)

No. I’m relying on the preponderance of the evidence from controlled listening tests that make an effort to eliminate the effects of bias and perceptual error. You are in Sound Science. If you present us with subjective impressions, we can dismiss it and tell you to do a level matched, direct A/B switched blind listening test before we will consider your claims. I’ve done many tests like this. How many have you done?

have you even read the first post in this thread?


----------



## Blackwoof

Yup, I highly doubt people can even hear the 16KHz Low pass that 170kbps VBR Lame MP3 uses or the 16KHz roll off the Etymotic ER4 has.


----------



## jg1337 (Jul 19, 2021)

bigshot said:


> No. I’m relying on the preponderance of the evidence from controlled listening tests that make an effort to eliminate the effects of bias and perceptual error. You are in Sound Science. If you present us with subjective impressions, we can dismiss it and tell you to do a level matched, direct A/B switched blind listening test before we will consider your claims. I’ve done many tests like this. How many have you done?
> 
> have you even read the first post in this thread?


I have set up quite some computer-controlled A/B tests because I wanted to find out about cable, DAC, power supply and other highly controversial impacts on the system, as you said, eliminating visual and other biases. First off: "Perceptual error" is an ideologized and pejorative term, as clearly there is no such thing as a definite or reference perception you could possibly compare against - you could only compare against the emitter's emission, but this is not a perception (as the name 'emission' indicates). Perception includes another entity outside of the emitter which can introduce more than what can be measured from the emission. Consequentially, there is no such thing as 'perceptual error'. That's the root of my previous message, you seem to think you know a lot more than you really do (and especially about things you can't possibly be aware of, i.e. other people's perception and feelings).

As previously stated, I have conducted a number of A/B tests even going so far to buy some components multiple times and implementing Raspberry Pi-based circuits to switch test scenarios without interaction, leaving no room for human test procedure control error. I am a software engineer and highly interested in electrical engineering, so that was quite fun and not at all challenging to build. What's challenging, however, is to explain the test results I and two (non-audiophile) friends got. I must have gotten something very basic, very obviously wrong (I don't see it, though!), otherwise how could it be that I do in fact get statistically significant results and can discern 3 types of RCA cables (some probably more expensive than your car ), differentiate amps SUPER easily (esp. with tubes involved) and am apparently able to tell the difference in 320 kbps vs 1411 kbps PCM/DSD within seconds, really.

I still wonder what causes this - I did eliminate all influences I could have, or at least that I am aware of. Completely dark room (devices and LEDs of components all patched so there's really no visible light in the room and certainly not at the listening position), levels automatically and electronically matched using a two separate
Earthworks Audio M30 professional measurement microphones, all components far behind the listening space in an acoustically professional mastering studio room (aside from the 610Bs, 1176s, LA2A, Avalons, etc. in front of the desk) using reference monitor speakers ($15,000/pair). A raspberry automatically and randomly (as much as randomness is possible using standard computers) controls which set of components play (depending on the test, e.g. testing 3 different DACs), a PHP-based web interface is where I enter my perceptions during execution of the test. PHP reads from an XML file which describes the test in an abstract language, which in turn is also used by the Raspberry to perform the desired actions. Finally, you can see your test results in the PHP web app. A-B-X, statistically significant at >90% recognition rate in 20+ tests.

That's my provable experience and I welcome anybody to visit me, inspect the circumstances, watch me pass the test and then tell me what's wrong.

Finally, the gist of your postings boils down to 'it does not exist unless you can measure it'. I truly understand and value your fact-driven approach (that is why I came up with building my own reliable tests). However, that would logically expand to that every assumption of anything ever in existence simply did not happen until proven; that's quite ridiculous given that the scientific approach throughout human history has always and inevitably been based on experience, based on discovering an unexplained phenomenon which ultimately led to scientific discovery. Lastly, there is no such thing as 'the science [says]', there's generally nothing absolute (but you act as if) - scientific discovery is not something given by a god or nature but purely realized by human beings. Dude, at this point we don't even know how we came to exist.


----------



## LongBeforeShort (Jul 19, 2021)

Blackwoof said:


> Yup, I highly doubt people can even hear the 16KHz Low pass that 170kbps VBR Lame MP3 uses or the 16KHz roll off the Etymotic ER4 has.



Just go to such a test, if available or do it yourself and give it a go. But let someone else do the switch for you and it has to be3 different sources, so you don't know which amp is running while switching. All of this needs to be done aside from level matching and sending the same data to all 3 devices at the same time to make sure you're eyes and mind don't get the better of you.

After the test is done. You can do it yourself with your own hands to start the process of accepting what happened. Everything is built on science, everything can be explained by science, everything that got certain measurements by science sounds the same, the only problem is us humans and our expectations.

I have done blind test in the past and in present and got my own stuff to be able to do it, so what i say is 100% the truth and no my "biased opinion" and beliefs. If you should ever come to germany, you are welcome to come and listen for yourself. Why can i say this? Because i know and im certain to win the battle.

So i have done science + practice test.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 19, 2021)

IG1337… By “preventing perceptual error” I mean level matching and direct A/B switching to avoid a preference for a louder sample and error due to the shortness of auditory memory. I may come back and read more of your post, but it’s WAY too long. You should try to be more concise if you want people to read what you write. And rushing to judgement when you don’t even understand what I’m saying doesn’t encourage me to dive in and plow through your word salad.


----------



## GearMe

Hmmm...I didn't struggle with the length of jg1337's post.  

That said, some salient points to provide a Cliff's Notes version.  

- Computer-controlled, automated A/B tests
- Levels automatically and electronically matched using a two separate Earthworks Audio M30 professional measurement microphones
- Completely dark room (devices and LEDs of components all patched so there's really no visible light in the room and certainly not at the listening position)
- Test results in the PHP web app. A-B-X, statistically significant at >90% recognition rate in 20+ tests
- Statistically significant results and can discern 3 types of RCA cables (some probably more expensive than your car ), differentiate amps SUPER easily (esp. with tubes involved) and am apparently able to tell the difference in 320 kbps vs 1411 kbps PCM/DSD within seconds

Rather than debate a misunderstanding/miscommunication and redirect what could be an interesting discussion, it would seem to make sense to focus on the science of his testing and the results!


----------



## jg1337 (Jul 19, 2021)

bigshot said:


> IG1337… By “preventing perceptual error” I mean level matching and direct A/B switching to avoid a preference for a louder sample and error due to the shortness of auditory memory. I may come back and read more of your post, but it’s WAY too long. You should try to be more concise if you want people to read what you write. And rushing to judgement when you don’t even understand what I’m saying doesn’t encourage me to dive in and plow through your word salad.


Thanks for pointing that out, maybe you should be less concise and more precise to make people understand what you are saying? The statement about your wording was a side note only, anyway.

I am genuinely sorry that your short-sighted mind does not allow for reading and understanding more complex statements spanning merely an entire A4 page in response to your very superficial and less than elaborate messages. If you really think a debate is or should be limited to overly simplified short statements, well, then you disqualified yourself from any 'scientific' type of debate all together. What a poor response from somebody who barks so loudly.


----------



## jg1337

GearMe said:


> Hmmm...I didn't struggle with the length of jg1337's post.
> 
> That said, some salient points to provide a Cliff's Notes version.
> 
> ...


Thank you for summarizing a few points. I felt the need to elaborate on a few side notes and facts since these results "shouldn't be" (given the general tone of this sub forum). Maybe I should record a video demonstrating the facilities or similar. In the end, maybe I should make that very clear, I seek answers to my undoubted experience in a blind test. I am curious to find evidence at which point my test is faulted, may be subject to pure luck (a lot, I guess!) or maybe... in the end... finding some people (given certain circumstances) are able to reliably pass an ABX test.


----------



## KeithPhantom

jg1337 said:


> What's challenging, however, is to explain the test results I and two (non-audiophile) friends got. I must have gotten something very basic, very obviously wrong (I don't see it, though!), otherwise how could it be that I do in fact get statistically significant results and can discern 3 types of RCA cables (some probably more expensive than your car ), differentiate amps SUPER easily (esp. with tubes involved) and am apparently able to tell the difference in 320 kbps vs 1411 kbps PCM/DSD within seconds, really.


Please present your data, assumptions on data sampling and statistical treatment.




jg1337 said:


> That's my provable experience and I welcome anybody to visit me, inspect the circumstances, watch me pass the test and then tell me what's wrong.


No, this is how it doesn’t work. You have to prove to be repeatable and falsifiable. That means other people should see your observations, hypothesis, data collection, experiment design, statistical treatment, and data interpretation in order to criticize your efforts. In other words, you should be able to go to another people’s also-valid experiments of either the same thing or derivations of your topic in order to prove your reliability in detecting differences.

What shocks me is the part between digital-to-analog converters and especially cables. Null tests show that most of the differences are about -90 dBFS. For now and until you present your data and methods, I cannot take you at face value and cannot take you as an exception of the rule until you build enough reliability by repeating the experiments under the design of other fellow scientists and your and their data has been collectively evaluated.


----------



## GearMe

Yes...the data and methodology for the tests on cables and dacs would be interesting to see!  

The tube based amps not so much.


----------



## sander99

What is also important is which cables, DACs and amps @jg1337 could (allegedly or really) discern and how they were used.
Because there can of course be cables, DACs and amps that are not audibly transparent.
And in the case of cables that would also depend on output- and input impedances of the connected devices.
And in the case of amps: 
-tube amps certainly can be non-audible transparent
-amps driven "out of spec" (unsuitable load, too loud/clipping) can or will be non-audible transparent (under those conditions)

About measurements:
I would expect that in all cases where @jg1337 can really hear a difference there will be a measurable difference.

Another thing: we would assume that no volume riding or gain staging tricks are used. For example using a recording made at -80 dB or a digital attenuation of -80 dB and turning the analog volume control after the DAC wide open.

@jg1337: For me the key point of interrest would be:
Can you really discern differences between two items that both are designed to be audibly transparent and both measure good enough to be considered audibly transparent according to todays scientific consensus?
That is what you sort of suggest by adding your remark about measurements.
But that would be extremely surprising.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> IG1337… By “preventing perceptual error” I mean level matching and direct A/B switching to avoid a preference for a louder sample and error due to the shortness of auditory memory. I may come back and read more of your post, but it’s WAY too long. You should try to be more concise if you want people to read what you write. And rushing to judgement when you don’t even understand what I’m saying doesn’t encourage me to dive in and plow through your word salad.



While I suspect you’re correct and these tests are flawed, I believe you (or anyone else) lose a lot of credibility when you refuse to read posts.  A one page equivalent post isn’t unreasonable, particularly when we ALWAYS demand to know testing methodology in detail when these types of claims are made.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 19, 2021)

I'm afraid I don't know anything about the tests he's citing. I didn't get that far.



> First off: "Perceptual error" is an ideologized and pejorative term, as clearly there is no such thing as a definite or reference perception you could possibly compare against - you could only compare against the emitter's emission, but this is not a perception (as the name 'emission' indicates). Perception includes another entity outside of the emitter which can introduce more than what can be measured from the emission. Consequentially, there is no such thing as 'perceptual error'. That's the root of my previous message, you seem to think you know a lot more than you really do (and especially about things you can't possibly be aware of, i.e. other people's perception and feelings).



IG337, I'll explain why I didn't read further than this first paragraph. It started out with a simple misunderstanding of what I meant by "perceptual error". This could have been solved very easily by simply asking me what I meant by that term. But instead, you built a whole argument around your misunderstanding, turning my words into something I never said, and concluding by telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about.

That's starting out on the wrong foot. I don't understand how you could expect me to read further than that first paragraph up there. If someone comes to me with respect, I'll reciprocate. If they come to me twisting what I say to quickly set up a straw man argument, knock it down and do a victory lap, I'm not going to waste my time reading anything more they have to say. That first paragraph is very important. It's where you establish your position. If your position is based on a logical fallacy, I may just dismiss your whole post out of hand. Be aware that I'm going to judge whether I'm interested in communicating with you by the argument you put forward in your first paragraph. Tone also matters. I totally have the right to dismiss people who address me without respect. Your apology would have been enough to get us back on the right track, but then you had to ruin it with this concluding paragraph...



> I am genuinely sorry that your short-sighted mind does not allow for reading and understanding more complex statements spanning merely an entire A4 page in response to your very superficial and less than elaborate messages. If you really think a debate is or should be limited to overly simplified short statements, well, then you disqualified yourself from any 'scientific' type of debate all together. What a poor response from somebody who barks so loudly.



I'm sorry. These are the sorts of things a jerk says, and I have no interest in suffering fools gladly. I'm not an admin here and I'm not getting paid for it. I'm here to help people and you clearly aren't interested in my help. So why should I bother? This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen people behave like you around here before and it is never worth my time to engage with them. You'll march around and make a big fuss for a while, and then you'll go away and I'll still be here. Sound Science is a community and you don't go into a new community with this kind of attitude and expect to be welcomed.

Now, if you'd like to start over fresh and drop the rudeness and intellectually dishonest argumentative techniques, we can proceed. The ball is in your court.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

jg1337 said:


> I have set up quite some computer-controlled A/B tests because I wanted to find out about cable, DAC, power supply and other highly controversial impacts on the system, as you said, eliminating visual and other biases. First off: "Perceptual error" is an ideologized and pejorative term, as clearly there is no such thing as a definite or reference perception you could possibly compare against - you could only compare against the emitter's emission, but this is not a perception (as the name 'emission' indicates). Perception includes another entity outside of the emitter which can introduce more than what can be measured from the emission. Consequentially, there is no such thing as 'perceptual error'. That's the root of my previous message, you seem to think you know a lot more than you really do (and especially about things you can't possibly be aware of, i.e. other people's perception and feelings).
> 
> As previously stated, I have conducted a number of A/B tests even going so far to buy some components multiple times and implementing Raspberry Pi-based circuits to switch test scenarios without interaction, leaving no room for human test procedure control error. I am a software engineer and highly interested in electrical engineering, so that was quite fun and not at all challenging to build. What's challenging, however, is to explain the test results I and two (non-audiophile) friends got. I must have gotten something very basic, very obviously wrong (I don't see it, though!), otherwise how could it be that I do in fact get statistically significant results and can discern 3 types of RCA cables (some probably more expensive than your car ), differentiate amps SUPER easily (esp. with tubes involved) and am apparently able to tell the difference in 320 kbps vs 1411 kbps PCM/DSD within seconds, really.
> 
> ...


It may have been the loudness matching method used.

The things you are comparing against are electronic in nature and not really requiring a microphone in room to measure their loudness.  Using a mic to measure and compensate loudness introduces a whole lot of random variables in your room that may actually mess up the volume matching beyond what it may be without any effort at matching at all (I'm not saying that that's what's definitely happened, but I don't know what your method for mic based volume matching was, and can definitely see this as a possbibility).

What should have been done, was electronic readings done at the speaker terminals in parallel with the actual speakers, and setting a reference voltage there.

Also, what were the actual means by which volumes were automatically adjusted?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Joe Bloggs said:


> It may have been the loudness matching method used.
> 
> The things you are comparing against are electronic in nature and not really requiring a microphone in room to measure their loudness.  Using a mic to measure and compensate loudness introduces a whole lot of random variables in your room that may actually mess up the volume matching beyond what it may be without any effort at matching at all (I'm not saying that that's what's definitely happened, but I don't know what your method for mic based volume matching was, and can definitely see this as a possbibility).
> 
> ...


@jg1337 ...?


----------



## bigshot (Jul 22, 2021)

I don't think he's interested in talking. He just came here to use another sock posting ID to yank my chain and I called him on it. If anyone thinks he's smarter than he actually is, it isn't me. Like I say, this isn't my first rodeo.


----------



## Blackwoof

jg1337 said:


> What's challenging, however, is to explain the test results I and two (non-audiophile) friends got. I must have gotten something very basic, very obviously wrong (I don't see it, though!), otherwise how could it be that I do in fact get statistically significant results and can discern 3 types of RCA cables (some probably more expensive than your car ), differentiate amps SUPER easily (esp. with tubes involved) and am apparently able to tell the difference in 320 kbps vs 1411 kbps PCM/DSD within seconds, really.


And yet folk like you never show any proof of being to tell 320kbit/s MP3. Since Video games, Streaming, TV still use lossy under 256kbps.


----------



## sander99

bigshot said:


> I don't think he's interested in talking. He just came here to use another sock posting ID to yank my chain and I called him on it. If anyone thinks he's smarter than he actually is, it isn't me. Like I say, this isn't my first rodeo.


You could be right of course. But it is also possible that he is sincere, made "honest mistakes" in his listening tests and maybe also tested some odd not audibly transparent items. And maybe he comes back in the weekend because he has a busy day job during the week...


----------



## bigshot

I'm sure he'll be back. I'm just not sure what the posting ID will be.


----------



## Hamltnblue

This thread caught my eye tonight. Entertaining for sure.
I didn‘t read the entire 977 pages but the old saying “owning a race car does not make one a race driver” definitely applies here.  Many experts can state facts, specs, blind tests etc, but have no little idea what they are talking about.
For instance, many think all cables are the same. They are not. They are however a part of the overall amplifier circuit up to the point of connection at the speaker or headphone. Changes in conductor metals, insulation materials, twists per foot, and even soldering techniques can affect the circuit.  Differences in capacitance can have a significant effect on individual sounds. Anyone who ever studied basic electronics has been exposed to the formula for capacitive reactance. 

The biggest thing missed is that hearing is a learned skill.  Frequency range is just a small part of it.
The brain is the processor and has to learn or be taught.
Many audiophiles simply do not hear all of the available sounds, and wouldn’t know if they changed or not. 
Put a dozen people in a room with good equipment and have them write down what they hear in a recording.  You’ll get plenty of variance.


----------



## Mehran

I suggest audiophiles take the time to actually enjoy music once in awhile. It can help the. neurosis.


----------



## 71 dB

Hamltnblue said:


> This thread caught my eye tonight. Entertaining for sure.
> I didn‘t read the entire 977 pages but the old saying “owning a race car does not make one a race driver” definitely applies here.  Many experts can state facts, specs, blind tests etc, but have no little idea what they are talking about.
> For instance, many think all cables are the same. They are not. They are however a part of the overall amplifier circuit up to the point of connection at the speaker or headphone. Changes in conductor metals, insulation materials, twists per foot, and even soldering techniques can affect the circuit.  Differences in capacitance can have a significant effect on individual sounds. Anyone who ever studied basic electronics has been exposed to the formula for capacitive reactance.
> 
> ...


Nice of you as a new member of the forum with a dozen posts to just casually say people here do not know what they are talking about. You don't even need to read "the entire 977 pages." How much did you read? One page? Three pages?

Cables are the same in the sense that as long as they work and do their job they don't stop you enjoying the music. The potential improvements in sound quality are so increadibly tiny, that for a normal person or even an audiophile it is meaningless. Other things are massively more important such as ergonomics or the frequency response  of the headphones. I write this as someone with a university degree in electrical engineering. 

Even if we admitted cables do matter, what are people supposed to do with it? Buy ALL cables in the word and select the best 10 out of them to be used in different situations: One cable for rock music, another for classical music etc. Is that what you want? Sorry, but I am not interested of cables. My cables works and I enjoy music. I don't see the point of thinking about some other cables being better. There is always something better. If I keep chasing for better I can never be happy for what I have now. It's not 1948 anymore when audio gear was bad. Decent audio gear in 2021 is so good, that music listening experience is bottlenecked by bad music production. Well produced, mixed and mastered recordings sound phenomenal if you have decent audio gear. The best cables in the World don't help you at all if the recording is ruined by lousy production and loudness war.

The ways we see the World are not the same. Differences in attitude and beliefs can have a significant effect on happiness of individuals. Whenever something in our lives is "good enough" (such as "mediocre" headphones cables) we better take them as victories in life to be happy about, because there are so many things in our lives that are not "good enough" and also not easily improved. Thank God at least normal audio cables don't suck!


----------



## Hamltnblue

71 dB said:


> Nice of you as a new member of the forum with a dozen posts to just casually say people here do not know what they are talking about. You don't even need to read "the entire 977 pages." How much did you read? One page? Three pages?
> 
> Cables are the same in the sense that as long as they work and do their job they don't stop you enjoying the music. The potential improvements in sound quality are so increadibly tiny, that for a normal person or even an audiophile it is meaningless. Other things are massively more important such as ergonomics or the frequency response  of the headphones. I write this as someone with a university degree in electrical engineering.
> 
> ...


I actually read about 50 and have some common sense .  And a degree in electrical engineering is not a degree in electronic engineering, and definitely not audio engineering.  There are several here that may not have a degree in anything that may actually have a better knowledge in the subject.  I too have a sound background, but am always trying to learn.  In my opinion,  readers should shy away from advice from anyone who knows all and has closed the book.  
I do agree to the majority of your post.

The point of the post was simply to point out, just because something cannot be seen or heard from any one of us, doesn't mean that it isn't experienced by another. 
If you admit that differences in a cable spec are small, you might consider that that small difference is enough to potentially filter out a small subtle portion of a sound. 
 Some people are sensitive to these changes.  It is easy to be a nay Sayer if any of us isn't one of them.


----------



## castleofargh (Jul 27, 2021)

Hamltnblue said:


> I actually read about 50 and have some common sense .  And a degree in electrical engineering is not a degree in electronic engineering, and definitely not audio engineering.  There are several here that may not have a degree in anything that may actually have a better knowledge in the subject.  I too have a sound background, but am always trying to learn.  In my opinion,  readers should shy away from advice from anyone who knows all and has closed the book.
> I do agree to the majority of your post.
> 
> The point of the post was simply to point out, just because something cannot be seen or heard from any one of us, doesn't mean that it isn't experienced by another.
> ...


And the other way around. Just because some people claim to hear differences, does not necessarily mean they did.
IMO, it is important to stick to the facts we have. Take any idea, no matter how weird, and chances are you will find people on the web believing it. Is that a reason to suddenly accept the idea as true?
We have some circumstances leading to audible level of change from cables. They're measurable and typically predictable with enough electrical specs. Maybe some stuff will be at the edge of audibility and only some people will notice it. I’m completely fine with all that. Does it mean I will trust the first guy claiming to have heard a change on the forum? Not without some supporting evidence.
Sticking to reality and keeping an open mind also means to account for all the times someone will ”hear” a change when there is none in the sound. Falling for a psychological bias with cables is a very likely scenario.
 If a controlled test shows an ability to tell 2 cables apart by ear, then all is well and for sure we'll be able to measure the most likely cause of difference.


----------



## redrol

Hamltnblue said:


> For instance, many think all cables are the same. They are not. They are however a part of the overall amplifier circuit up to the point of connection at the speaker or headphone. Changes in conductor metals, insulation materials, twists per foot, and even soldering techniques can affect the circuit.  Differences in capacitance can have a significant effect on individual sounds. Anyone who ever studied basic electronics has been exposed to the formula for capacitive reactance.


Yeah.  No.  A cable of 3-4 feet properly made and used normally will reproduce human audible frequencies perfectly.  There will be no differences that are measurable between 20-20hkz.

Thats just the way it is man.  You can bring up random electrical properties but that doesn't make them do anything in this context.


----------



## LongBeforeShort

I have tested different amps with different cables level matched, not only did the amps sound the same, all of them had different cables attached. I don't know if people would produce cables outside of the norm just to make it not work the way it should, but i have yet to cross paths with something like that....

For me pretty much all SS amps, cables discussions are for the vast majority probably nonsense, because at the end of the day, they got a specific job to do and that's it. I could not sleep well if everyone would build something else, imagine living in a world where all wheels were different in shape.

What's important is the required power output, loudspeaker (room)/headphone, source, features of the amp (room correction, eq etc.).


----------



## bigshot (Jul 26, 2021)

Hamltnblue said:


> The point of the post was simply to point out, just because something cannot be seen or heard from any one of us, doesn't mean that it isn't experienced by another.



That is true, but it's true because some people have degraded hearing, and don't hear everything that other people hear. It isn't true that some people have superhuman hearing able to hear things no one else does. Just because some people have degraded hearing it doesn't mean that other people hear better than humans can hear.

Human hearing is finite. The upper limits of human hearing are well defined and documented. No one can hear sound that is so far down below the signal it is completely obliterated, and no one can hear super audible frequencies that human hearing just isn't able to detect. There is some fuzziness right around the line, but it is very small and inconsequential when it comes to listening to music in the home.

No one can hear the difference between two properly designed and functioning interconnects. Just because one wire has red insulation and another has blue, or if one cost $6 and the other cost $1000, it doesn't mean that they sound different. There is such a thing as audible transparency. If a wire performs to spec and is audibly transparent, it will sound exactly the same as every other audibly transparent wire.

Do people on internet forums lie about how their hearing is superior to normal mortals? I don't think I need to answer that question. We all know the truth about that.


----------



## Hamltnblue

Actually, a person can have significantly degraded hearing and hear much more than a healthy 20 year old.  The ear is only a receiving device if you will, Just like the eyes, nose, and other senses.  How your brain process the information received is  what you hear.  
People spouting that they have superior hearing is actually pretty funny.  One thing is a definite though.  Depending on learning and/or experience, a person can certainly hear much more listening to a sound reproduction as others.  It isn't because the others can't, it's because they don't know to look/listen for it, and haven't trained themselves to do so.  They also probably don't realize others are not hearing the same things they are.  went through the proces and once taught it as well.  Watching others have the light bulb go off is a great thing.

Now if you don't hear something in the first place, you likely wouldn't know it was missing or changed if specs change. Not saying anyone is or isn't in the category but sometimes it could be what is going on when people say they hear no difference.  I believe them every time, but once again, doesn't mean someone else isn't.


----------



## bigshot

Interpreting sound is different than just perceiving sound. Usually around here we're talking about simple perception and fidelity, which are more objective than interpreting speech or decoding sound location cues. Measuring and quantifying interpretation isn't as cut and dried as measuring whether you can hear something or not. But audiophiles like to conflate the two and convince themselves that their "vast experience" at passively listening to music on their stereo system means that they can hear super audible frequencies and sub audible noise floors.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Jul 26, 2021)

Hamltnblue said:


> This thread caught my eye tonight. Entertaining for sure.
> I didn‘t read the entire 977 pages but the old saying “owning a race car does not make one a race driver” definitely applies here.  Many experts can state facts, specs, blind tests etc, but have no little idea what they are talking about.
> For instance, many think all cables are the same. They are not. They are however a part of the overall amplifier circuit up to the point of connection at the speaker or headphone. Changes in conductor metals, insulation materials, twists per foot, and even soldering techniques can affect the circuit.  Differences in capacitance can have a significant effect on individual sounds. Anyone who ever studied basic electronics has been exposed to the formula for capacitive reactance.
> 
> ...


If you put "blind tests" and "little idea what they are talking about" in the same sentence... 

BTW, frequency response, distortion and phase response are the only factors that can be measured and/or perceived here, and frequency response is already by far the thing we're most sensitive to.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Until evidence is produced that a cable can audibly affect sound quality and that affect can be reliably reproduced, so that people can buy a cable made a certain way, knowing that it will do a specific thing to their hifi, such as the AB cable from company XYZ, will make their system's treble brighter, then ABX testing stands as the only credible method for determining if something does actually affect sound.


----------



## pibroch (Jul 27, 2021)

It's very easy for bass guitarists to consistently pick EQ differences between some different models of electric guitar cables. For example some muffle high frequencies more than others. (I used this to good effect when I used to play bass guitar.)

To any sound engineers with suitable training who may be reading this, how might these differences be deliberately designed?


----------



## bigshot (Jul 27, 2021)

Those cables are designed to impart coloration. Home audio cables are designed to be audibly transparent. Guitar amps add heavy doses of distortion, but home audio amps are designed to be transparent. Two completely different purposes.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

pibroch said:


> It's very easy for bass guitarists to consistently pick EQ differences between some different models of electric guitar cables. For example some muffle high frequencies more than others. (I used this to good effect when I used to play bass guitar.)
> 
> To any sound engineers with suitable training who may be reading this, how might these differences be deliberately designed?


https://www.pedalsnake.com/blog/2016/08/guitar-cables-better/


----------



## bigshot

I can see a bassist using a cable that rolls off the highs. Do they have special cables for bass? Or am I just imagining this?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I would need to a proven link between how a cable is made and what it is made of and the effect that has on SQ and the cause of that effect, before I would be convinced.


----------



## vergesslich2 (Jul 28, 2021)

lunarmouse said:


> Quote (topic was burn-in):
> I agree. The sound MIGHT not change much, it's just us ourselves get used to the sound signature of the new headphone.


Don't know if my question belongs to here, but is listener fatigue dependent on a frequency response characteristic?

When in a Youtube video someone claims a headphone becomes less bright after some time (and does not try to answer the listening fatigue matter), I'm reminded of my listener fatigue that occured when I tried to master a track. The more fatigue there probably was, the more bright I made a tune with headphones. From then on I thought that the fatigue would occur at high frequencies more than at low frequencies, disqualifying headphones with bright characteristics for buying them for a constant (and not fatiguing and or possibly ear damaging) listening experience. So, to make it short, I sticked to the HD 600. But I have no evidence. Maybe I could become a bit bass deaf, and it would be just my personal taste of degrading my hearing.

PS: Oh, found it in Wikipedia. Quote: "Statistical analysis yielded a correlation between exposure of higher-frequency sounds to lower temporary threshold shifts and greater levels of tiredness and hearing loss." Should have googled it.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 28, 2021)

Listener fatigue is usually due to frequency response imbalances, particularly narrow spikes in the upper mids. It can also be due to headphones that aren’t comfortable to wear.


----------



## vergesslich2

bigshot said:


> Listener fatigue is usually due to frequency response imbalances, particularly narrow spikes in the upper mids. It can also be due to headphones that aren’t comfortable to wear.


Can it also be rather wide plateaus in that region that make it  too bright? I watched oluvs video about the K612, found the FR very balanced, ordered it and found it too bright with every source I just had, like if I had to tilt the whole FR. Which is actually a question. Maybe the wider the peak is, more like a plateau, the easier I could (tilt) eq it, and so I should buy a "linear" headphone and an amp with a matching bass boost function, in order to avoid the fatigue problem?


----------



## bigshot (Jul 28, 2021)

It can be tiring to listen to headphones with imbalanced responses across huge chunks of the range, but you can clearly hear that. I'm assuming that we are talking about headphones that sound relatively balanced. A significant boost above 1kHz isn't something you wouldn't notice right away. However a +6dB spike across a tiny sliver of upper mids, like say a 16th or 32nd of an octave, may not be immediately apparent to you when you listen to music, but would be hard to listen to after a while. You might even not know what it is that is making you feel that way.

Yes, broad even imbalances are easy to fix with just about any equalizer. Tiny spikes require a good parametric equalizer where you can dial in frequency (location of the correction in the spectrum), amplitude (the level of the correction +/- in dB), and the Q (width of the correction).


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Jul 29, 2021)

vergesslich2 said:


> Can it also be rather wide plateaus in that region that make it  too bright? I watched oluvs video about the K612, found the FR very balanced, ordered it and found it too bright with every source I just had, like if I had to tilt the whole FR. Which is actually a question. Maybe the wider the peak is, more like a plateau, the easier I could (tilt) eq it, and so I should buy a "linear" headphone and an amp with a matching bass boost function, in order to avoid the fatigue problem?


The easiest way to find out, is to grab a copy of Sinegen and sweep the frequency spectrum
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4zrci9cd7a8mz9s/SineGen.exe?dl=0

You'll find out for yourself whether there are narrow spikes in the upper frequencies.  Keep in mind, though, that for wide tonal balance, not every frequency is supposed to sound as loud as the other, because the equal loudness contour of human hearing is not flat.


----------



## Vamp898

As i started at the very bottom and upgraded all the way to the end game, this is my personal experience


*Old Device**News Device**Difference in sound**Worth the money (imho)*Pixel 3aXperia 1 IIBig UpgradeWorth the moneyXpeira 1 IINW-A50Small UpgradeNot really worth the moneyNW-A50NW-ZX500Big UpgradeWorth the moneyNW-ZX500NW-WM1ZMedium UpgradeNot for MSRP, otherwise yesNW-WM1ZTA-ZH1ESVery small Upgrade. Its there but not obvius.Not worth the money

Upgrading cables never improved the sound for me, not a single time.

Now with audio formats


*Old Format**New Format**Difference in sound*MP3/AAC 128kbpsMP3/AAC 320kbpsBig difference, easily audible. Analysis in Audacity show, its loud enough to be easily be audible without concentratingMP3/AAC 320kbps44.1 KHz 16 bit FLACTiny difference. In complex songs if you know where to listen, there can be a difference, but its small. Like the ringing of a snare drum in a section where lots of instruments play or the sound of a cymbal when lots of reverb is used. Analyzing the differences in Audacity shows only very tiny audible differences you need to focus to hear them and you will only be able to catch them in songs you know well unless you're trained to spot them.

With some songs, there is absolutely no difference like the Album Home from Tatsuya Maruyama. Even Audacity shows no difference. With other songs, the difference is big (like from Alcest or フレデリック)44.1 KHz 16bit FLAC96 KHz 24bit FLACNo audible difference to me. Audacity shows an difference, but nothing that i would ever be able to hear.

Some songs have better mixing/mastering in the Hi-Res Audio Version, so it can still be worth getting the Hi-Res Audio version, but not because its Hi-Res, because its mixed/mastered for a different target audience.

It is worth the mention that with a smartphone like the Pixel 3a and cheap headphones (MDR-XB50), there is absolutely no difference in an 320kpbs AAC and a FLAC. I was not able to spot the difference at all (even when i knew where it is) where with the WM1Z and the IER-M9, i could spot them. But the difference from 128kbps AAC to 320kpbs AAC is still there and audible. So the upgrade to 320kbps is even worth with a crappy audio system. The upgrade to FLAC most likely not.

If you use a modern AAC codec with 320kbps VBR (should go up to 576kbps), almost all differences to FLAC disappeared. In most songs, i was no longer able to spot a difference except for very very rare occasions in single songs. But sadly, i don't know any shop that provides 320kbps VBR so only matters if you convert yourself

So my personal conclusion

Cables are a myth
Players can make a big difference
Desktop Amps are not worth it with easy to drive headphones (like all Sonys)
If you have the money to spend, you can still get an tiny but audible upgrade

Sometimes there is no difference from an AAC 320kbps to an FLAC
If there is a difference, its small, but audible.
It depends totally on the song.
I'd always go for FLAC

No audible difference from Audio CD Quality to Hi-Res Audio
Sometimes Mixing and Mastering is better in the Hi-Res Audio Version
Sometimes there is only AAC/MP3 and Hi-Res Audio as an option
If there is no extra cost, always go for Hi-Res Audio
If there is a difference in price, its a gamble if it sounds better

Headphones do have the biggest impact on sound
Do always upgrade the headphone first
Go for the cheapest player you need
Don't use your phone unless is an Xperia 1 II or III
Especially when its an iPhone


LDAC transmits Audio CD Quality lossless, always use LDAC
With every LDAC capable headphone i own, i was able to spot a difference from 320kbps AAC to FLAC when using LDAC
WH-1000XM3 (Only able to spot a difference with ambient sound off, so no ANC)
WI-1000XM2 (Only able to spot a difference with ambient sound off, so no ANC)

If your phone doesn't have LDAC, buy a player or upgrade the phone

So this is my personal experience and in the end, there is no simple answer.

A myth is something that only exists because people say so. If Audacity says, there is an audible difference, its no longer a myth but a matter of your equipment and how well you know the song.

And Audacity says "Its very complicated and different with every single song" --> so no simple answer to that. It depends.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Aug 18, 2021)

But LDAC is not lossless on CD input, no Bluetooth codec is, not even ones with above-CD peak bitrates...


----------



## Vamp898 (Aug 18, 2021)

Joe Bloggs said:


> But LDAC is not lossless on CD input, no Bluetooth codec is, not even ones with above-CD peak bitrates...


According to Sony, LDAC compresses lossless up to 44.1 KHz 16 bit (at 909kbit/s) and 48 KHz 16 bit (at 990kbit/s)

At least they say so on the Japanese homepage (but i am pretty sure i've read that in other languages too). I even thought it was written somewhere in the libldac codec on Linux

I am not an audio file expert but at least my FLAC files average at around 750-850kbit/s so why should 990kbit/s LDAC not be able to do that?

The English Wikipedia Site says this



> When the codec is set to 16 bits/44.1kHz at 909 kbps (or 16 bits/48kHz at 990 kbps) LDAC can stream lossless audio that is identical in quality to (or slightly higher than) Audio CD or standard resolution uncompressed audio.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Careful with the marketing blurb, as LDAC might be identical in "quality", but it would be impossible to be bit perfect and truly lossless as the max bit rate (990 kbps) is lower than a CD (1411 kbps).


----------



## Vamp898

sonitus mirus said:


> Careful with the marketing blurb, as LDAC might be identical in "quality", but it would be impossible to be bit perfect and truly lossless as the max bit rate (990 kbps) is lower than a CD (1411 kbps).


The 1411kbps are uncompressed (aka WAV). Neither FLAC nor AIFF use 1411kbps. As said they average on 750-850kbit/s (in rare cases up to 950kbit/s)

Lossless compression exists and LDAC does use lossless compression.


----------



## sander99

Actually the bitrate of FLAC depends on the complexity of the audio signal. The more complex the signal, the less redundancy there is in the PCM data and the less datacompression can be applied. So it is not guaranteed that FLAC will always be under 990 kbps. I could imagine they made something that is lossless most of the time and when not they apply some lossy compression. And is the 990 kbps bandwith always available, or is it sometimes less in an environment with more bluetooth connections or other interfering factors? That could be another reason for sometimes having to apply some lossy compression.


----------



## danadam

Vamp898 said:


> in rare cases up to 950kbit/s


Hmm... To be sure I re-encoded with flac 1.3.3 and best compression:
Joe Satriani - Is There Love in Space

```
1058 kb/s - Gnaahh
1075 kb/s - Up In Flames
1051 kb/s - Hands In The Air
1068 kb/s - Lifestyle
 941 kb/s - Is There Love In Space?
1082 kb/s - If I Could Fly
1066 kb/s - The Souls Of Distortion
 974 kb/s - Just Look Up
1005 kb/s - I Like The Rain
 982 kb/s - Searching
 849 kb/s - Bamboo
```
Nightwish - Highest Hopes (Limited Edition)

```
1026 kb/s - Wish I Had An Angel
1041 kb/s - Stargazers
1062 kb/s - The Kinslayer
1030 kb/s - Ever Dream
1025 kb/s - Elvenpath
1005 kb/s - Bless The Child
 979 kb/s - Nemo
 892 kb/s - Sleeping Sun 2005
1041 kb/s - Dead To The World
1027 kb/s - Over The Hills And Far Away
 952 kb/s - Deep Silent Complete
1090 kb/s - Sacrament Of Wilderness
 930 kb/s - Walking In The Air
1060 kb/s - Wishmaster
 902 kb/s - Dead Boy's Poem
 970 kb/s - High Hopes
```


----------



## sonitus mirus

Vamp898 said:


> The 1411kbps are uncompressed (aka WAV). Neither FLAC nor AIFF use 1411kbps. As said they average on 750-850kbit/s (in rare cases up to 950kbit/s)
> 
> Lossless compression exists and LDAC does use lossless compression.



Sure, but the key word used here is average.  There are plenty of CD rips that show much higher bitrates with FLAC.  Some complex sounds that are similar to noise, such as applause, may kick-up the bitrate well over 1000 kbps.  If a short part in a piece of music is difficult to compress, the nature of FLAC is that the bitrate used will have to be at a rate that would make the entire file lossless, and therefore the bitrate will be over 1000 kbps, despite 95% of the file only requiring 400 kbps.

It is mathematically impossible for 990 kbps to be sufficient for all CDs to be 100% lossless.  You are saying LDAC uses a lossless compression, but does Sony?


----------



## sonitus mirus

danadam said:


> Hmm... To be sure I re-encoded with flac 1.3.3 and best compression:
> Joe Satriani - Is There Love in Space
> 
> ```
> ...



Are these CD rips of 16/44.1?


----------



## danadam

sonitus mirus said:


> Are these CD rips of 16/44.1?


Yes, of course.
And the bitrate is taken from ffprobe output.


----------



## sonitus mirus

danadam said:


> Yes, of course.
> And the bitrate is taken from ffprobe output.


Thanks!  I assumed that would be true, but I wanted to make sure it was clear this was the case.


----------



## Vamp898

> You are saying LDAC uses a lossless compression, but does Sony?


I just repeat what Sony says, i did neither invented LDAC nor developed an LDAC Codec

Here is the source of libldac: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/libldac/+/refs/heads/android11-d1-s7-release/src/

Maybe someone with more C knowledge than me can explain how and why it works.

But i did find conflicting information on the Sony website!

There are Multiple versions of the LDAC Explanation site (depending on which product you look at).

The version i know (which was also translated into English as i found) said "Identical to CD Quality"

The Version that is used for Active Speakers only says "Playback with High Quality"

So it seems that Sonys itself doesn't really know if its lossless or not.



> Hmm... To be sure I re-encoded with flac 1.3.3 and best compression:


I took a deeper look on how FLAC works because my music does have much lower bit-rates (mostly. Some Bands as Eluveitie show similar results, but thats kinda it).

It seems that the structure of the Song plays a big role in how good FLAC can compress it.

It seems like the Sons i listen too are well structured (but the most complex songs i have/know are all in Hi-Res Audio, maybe i should convert them to 44.1KHz/16bit and check how well FLAC can compress them.

There are some tests on the Internet who recorded the output that came out of an DAC using LDAC and compared it to direct playback from the same DAC and mentioned that there is no difference.

One of those tests, and i think the most famous one, is this one: https://www.soundguys.com/ldac-ultimate-bluetooth-guide-20026/


----------



## Davesrose

sonitus mirus said:


> Careful with the marketing blurb, as LDAC might be identical in "quality", but it would be impossible to be bit perfect and truly lossless as the max bit rate (990 kbps) is lower than a CD (1411 kbps).





Vamp898 said:


> I just repeat what Sony says, i did neither invented LDAC nor developed an LDAC Codec
> 
> Here is the source of libldac: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/libldac/+/refs/heads/android11-d1-s7-release/src/
> 
> ...


Why not start with Wikipedia?  Wikipedia says LDAC is both lossless and lossy (link):



> LDAC is a lossless and lossy codec,[2][3] which employs a hybrid coding scheme based on the Modified discrete cosine transform[4] and Huffman coding[5] to provide more efficient data compression. By default, LDAC audio bitrate settings are set to Best Effort, which switches between 330/660/990 kbps depending on connection strength;[6] however, audio bitrate and resolution can be manually adjusted on Linux (when using Pipewire[7]), and on some Android platforms, Sony smartphones and Walkman devices at the following rates; 330/660/990 kbps at 96/48 kHz and 303/606/909 kbps at 88.2/44.1 kHz with depth of 32, 24 or 16 bits. When the codec is set to 16 bits/44.1kHz at 909 kbps (or 16 bits/48kHz at 990 kbps) LDAC can stream lossless audio that is identical in quality to (or slightly higher than) Audio CD or standard resolution uncompressed audio.


----------



## sonitus mirus

That still does not make a lot of sense.  They are streaming a lossless source at a quality level that is identical or better.  It is not bit perfect lossless and I am unable to find any direct reference from Sony stating such a claim.  It is like MQA lossy.  It might sound great, but it is technically lossy with regards to CD.   But, for that matter, AAC 256 is identical in quality to any 24/192kHz file from an audible perspective.


----------



## Davesrose

sonitus mirus said:


> That still does not make a lot of sense.  They are streaming a lossless source at a quality level that is identical or better.  It is not bit perfect lossless and I am unable to find any direct reference from Sony stating such a claim.  It is like MQA lossy.  It might sound great, but it is technically lossy with regards to CD.   But, for that matter, AAC 256 is identical in quality to any 24/192kHz file from an audible perspective.


I would think LDAC can be like Dolby TrueHD: when you encode, you're encoding at the higher lossless bitrate, and there can be a "core" Dolby Digital track for devices/bandwidths that can't take it.  If you're getting 990kbs it's at least very close to bit perfect with uncompressed 16 bits/48kHz (I'm less familiar with audio codecs, but modern video codecs improve quality with given bitrates quite a bit with each generation of specs).


----------



## Vamp898

sonitus mirus said:


> That still does not make a lot of sense.  They are streaming a lossless source at a quality level that is identical or better.  It is not bit perfect lossless and I am unable to find any direct reference from Sony stating such a claim.  It is like MQA lossy.  It might sound great, but it is technically lossy with regards to CD.   But, for that matter, AAC 256 is identical in quality to any 24/192kHz file from an audible perspective.


Its possible to distinguish an (CBR) AAC 320 from an 16/44.1kHz file.

Even with average J-Rock/J-Pop songs like オンリーワンダー from フレデリック its possible to spot differences, how should there be no difference from AAC 256 file?

Of course not with every file/song but with lots of songs even the measurements in Audacity say that there is an audible difference. That doesn't mean some is able to spot them, but they are there and they are audible depending on the listener and the setup.

I assume that not every Headphone/DAC/AMP combination is good enough, but i was able to spot those difference back with my NW-ZX507 and an MDR-Z7M2 and those are neither the top of the mountain nor ultra detail revealing.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 23, 2021)

Vamp898 said:


> Its possible to distinguish an (CBR) AAC 320 from an 16/44.1kHz file.


No it isn’t. AAC is transparent even below 320. Do a level matched, direct A/B switched blind comparison and you’ll find out.


----------



## castleofargh

Vamp898 said:


> Its possible to distinguish an (CBR) AAC 320 from an 16/44.1kHz file.
> 
> Even with average J-Rock/J-Pop songs like オンリーワンダー from フレデリック its possible to spot differences, how should there be no difference from AAC 256 file?
> 
> ...


Be careful here. Audacity doesn’t care about auditory masking, your brain doesn’t have that option.


----------



## Vamp898

bigshot said:


> Do a level matched, direct A/B switched blind comparison and you’ll find out.


I did exactly that, and i was able to spot the FLAC every single time with the above mentioned song.

There is a specific part in the song that starts at 02:36 where you can hear differences in the ringing of the snare first and than in the attack of the ride starting at 02:48

All i did was to wait for that part and i instantly knew if it was the AAC or the FLAC, simple as that.

This also matches exactly the values measured by Audacity where Audacity shows an audible difference at those parts (beside other parts). 

I compared the (CBR) 320kbps AAC with the 48 KHz 24 bit Version of the song.

With the VBR 320kbps AAC (which goes up to 576kbps) those differences disappeared. I was no longer able to tell a difference with the VBR 320 AAC, but switching back to the CBR version, i was again able to tell the differences.

So there is an audible difference between CBR 320 AAC and VBR 320 AAC, so of course there is an audible difference in CBR 320 AAC to FLAC


----------



## 71 dB

Vamp898 said:


> I did exactly that, and i was able to spot the FLAC every single time with the above mentioned song.
> 
> There is a specific part in the song that starts at 02:36 where you can hear differences in the ringing of the snare first and than in the attack of the ride starting at 02:48
> 
> ...


So does CBR AAC *ruin* the enjoyment of listening to the song for you, because two short parts of the song sound a little different?


----------



## Blaithin (Aug 23, 2021)

Vamp898 said:


> I did exactly that, and i was able to spot the FLAC every single time with the above mentioned song.
> 
> There is a specific part in the song that starts at 02:36 where you can hear differences in the ringing of the snare first and than in the attack of the ride starting at 02:48
> 
> ...



It is possible to train yourself to identify the masking and artifacts consistently, but it's really not something you want to do unless you're being paid to do it.

I believe Amir of ASR has that kind of training, and even he's hesitant to recommend people undergo that process.

The differences between lossy and lossless are subtle unless you use "killer" tracks that will sound very wrong when turned lossy. The content of the recording matters much, much more. You can have all the bits at your disposal, but a crappy performance and/or recording is still crappy even in lossless format. But an excellent performance AND recording, you could compress it and STILL the "soul" shines through. IMO, If the essence of something is beautiful, no amount of corruption will tarnish that beauty.

I have a great example linked below:


Voices of Music Vivaldi Winter w/ Cynthia Freivogel.

The above recording exists only in lossy formats (Ive tried to buy it from them. No dice. Donated instead.), but it is bar none the most beautiful recording and performance of Vivaldi's Winter I've seen and heard to date. The church's acoustics coupled with that sublime performance never fails to bring me to tears. Im not even a classical/baroque music guy and the Vivaldi suite by these performers keeps me coming back.

I have no quandaries about not knowing whether I can hear lossless vs lossy. I prefer the ignorance of being able to enjoy the vast majority of the world's music. To give up variety and the ability to experience new talent and new music over a format..For the moot point of proving to myself that I've got golden ears? (I don't. I've gone down the same path as you)

It's just not worth it if I have to draw this much blood at the puritanical altar of "Sound."

There are just some lines not worth crossing imo


----------



## sonitus mirus

Vamp898 said:


> I did exactly that, and i was able to spot the FLAC every single time with the above mentioned song.
> 
> There is a specific part in the song that starts at 02:36 where you can hear differences in the ringing of the snare first and than in the attack of the ride starting at 02:48
> 
> ...



When I mentioned AAC 256, I was referencing Apple Digital Masters and what I recommend most people should be using when encoding to lossy for any reason.

https://www.apple.com/apple-music/apple-digital-masters/docs/apple-digital-masters.pdf



> ". A 256 kbps AAC file is encoded with a target bit rate of 256 kilobits/second. It utilizes Variable Bit Rate (VBR) encoding, which uses each bit strategically, dynamically allocating less data for simple sections and *more data for complex passages*."


----------



## bigshot (Aug 23, 2021)

Vamp898 said:


> I did exactly that, and i was able to spot the FLAC every single time with the above mentioned song.



Try it again and lower the volume on the FLAC a hair before you encode it in AAC. It may be clipping. Some encoders boost the volume slightly when they encode, pushing hot mastered tracks a little into clipping.



Blaithin said:


> The above recording exists only in lossy formats (Ive tried to buy it from them. No dice.



When you compare a lossless from one source with a lossy from a different vendor, you run into mastering differences. The way to tell is to take your own lossless copy and encode your own lossy copy.

Also, there is no reason to use CBR. VBR can't hurt. It can only help.

I wonder why it is that whenever I ask the info on killer tracks, it always seems to be a really obscure foreign CD that costs a lot of money to order from overseas. I just did that for another person's killer track. I'm not eager to do it again. Why don't domestic CDs at reasonable prices ever have killer tracks? I bet there it has something to do with expectation bias.


----------



## GearMe (Aug 23, 2021)

Blaithin said:


> ...You can have all the bits at your disposal, but a crappy performance and/or recording is still crappy even in lossless format. But an excellent performance AND recording, you could compress it and STILL the "soul" shines through. IMO, If the essence of something is beautiful, no amount of corruption will tarnish that beauty.
> 
> ...I have no quandaries about not knowing whether I can hear lossless vs lossy. I prefer the ignorance of being able to enjoy the vast majority of the world's music. To give up variety and the ability to experience new talent and new music over a format..For the moot point of proving to myself that I've got golden ears? (I don't. I've gone down the same path as you)
> 
> ...


Amen  

Rather hear a song I love as a 128kbps MP3 on a boombox, than a pristine audiophile release of some yawnfest on a state-of-the-art system!

Nice performance...btw!

Bought a couple of their CDs





bigshot said:


> ...I wonder why it is that whenever I ask the info on killer tracks, it always seems to be a really obscure foreign CD that costs a lot of money to order from overseas. I just did that for another person's killer track. I'm not eager to do it again. Why don't domestic CDs at reasonable prices ever have killer tracks? I bet there it has something to do with expectation bias.



So...Voices of Music is a non-profit based out of San Francisco.  They sell their CDs for $9.99 - *here*

No Vivaldi - Four Seasons as of yet though.

Sounds like they're working on delivering a 4K video of The Four Seasons, are half way through, and would appreciate *donations*.


----------



## bigshot

I agree too. One of the best recordings I've ever heard was an LP of Fiedler's Gaeitie Parisienne that was recorded in 1952. I think it was the second Living Stereo recording made by RCA. The stuff that matters are the judgements made by the musicians and engineers, not incremental increases in data rates. I think sometimes audiophiles spend more time listening to the formats of their music than they do the music itself.


----------



## Blaithin

GearMe said:


> Amen
> 
> Rather hear a song I love as a 128kbps MP3 on a boombox, than a pristine audiophile release of some yawnfest on a state-of-the-art system!
> 
> ...



Yeah, I'm waiting for that CD. Thanks a ton for the link! The person handling their YT channel never linked that to me. Just said that their songs would be available on Soundcloud.

Also, yes, I'm considering donating again due to my overly enthusiastic streaming of their content.


----------



## Blaithin (Aug 24, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I agree too. One of the best recordings I've ever heard was an LP of Fiedler's Gaeitie Parisienne that was recorded in 1952. I think it was the second Living Stereo recording made by RCA. The stuff that matters are the judgements made by the musicians and engineers, not incremental increases in data rates. I think sometimes audiophiles spend more time listening to the formats of their music than they do the music itself.


I agree (again hahaha). That lesson was a hard-earned one for me...while I was never wholly on any side of the debate, I have always leaned more towards the more objective side. It is hard...even nigh impossible, however, to convince people who are more entrenched in the subjective rhetoric with factual arguments. It is like an [American] conservative vs liberal and vice-versa...no amount of facts will convince those who hold their beliefs with fervent religiosity. You cannot convince them...you can only shake them up and hope they start thinking more critically about their current direction.

Which is why my method is to rock the boat where there's common ground...to kind of poke around and see whether they're more of a hard-line audiophile or a music lover. Most people will start questioning themselves once you kind of ask what they're willing to sacrifice for sonic perfection because sonic perfection will eventually demand of you to abandon music you love for sounds you [supposedly should] love.

It is not too different from Abraham being asked to kill Isaac for God...though in a kinder interpretation, God is not so cruel as to test Abraham that far...Sound, however, is not so kind a god. Kind of like my friend...who woke up one day to the amazing system and recordings he's had since forever, but found he loved none...(he kind of broke down); Found that he was satisfying something that did not satisfy him. He's since dialed himself back and we're both firmly in the same direction music lovers first...audiophiles no longer.

P.S. I like to inject religious metaphors when speaking about audiophilia because the online audiophile community has always inspired a certain modicum of zealotry that I find funny. What with the miraculous "experiences" from pseudo-scientific stuff, and the fervent gesticulating about each upgrade as if experiencing God's grace, or being possessed by the Holy Spirit. (Plus, the Judeo-Christian mythos is easier to help re-frame my arguments to a pre-dominantly Western crowd)


----------



## Blaithin (Aug 24, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I wonder why it is that whenever I ask the info on killer tracks, it always seems to be a really obscure foreign CD that costs a lot of money to order from overseas. I just did that for another person's killer track. I'm not eager to do it again. Why don't domestic CDs at reasonable prices ever have killer tracks? I bet there it has something to do with expectation bias.



There was a whole thread dedicated to the lossy-lossless thing over on ASR (been trying to find it)...I think there was a Tracey Chapman (known for Fast Car) track considered to be a killer track posted there...something about her voice having so much natural distortion that it works against mp3 compression pretty badly.

As for Amir's general sentiment for hearing differences in ABX testing (direct quote from a totally different thread).


> It is hard for me too despite my training.
> 
> I should also note that training is not limited to hearing impairments but optimal way to take the test. Ability to loop small segments for example is very important as compression artifacts vary from moment to moment. You can have all the training in the world but if all you do is play one clip, then play the other, you may very well miss the differences.



He makes training for ABX'ing sound like Asian education hahaha. Training to take successfully take a test was never appealing to me, and it still isn't

Edit: Found it. Don't know if you can post ASR links here so I just put the thread title instead. Look for "Anybody Out There Who Hears a Difference Between 320 kbps MP3 and Red Book CD? What Differences Do You Hear?" thread title on ASR. The first few tracks linked via youtube are Suzanne Vega - Tom's Diner (Original version), and Tracey Chapman - Fast Car (Presumably not the 2015 re-master of the song).


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2021)

I think certain people who claim to have exceptional hearing are just serving their own egos because they want to be seen as "authorities". Certain people cheat on listening tests. And I called certain people out on it once. Certain people refused to answer my questions. Certain people need their own forum so they don't get questioned in a way that they don't want to be questioned. I don't believe what certain people claim, even if they now admit what I called them out on and they refused to admit before.

The way to judge the quality of music is to listen to music the same way you normally listen to it. Use your own equipment in your own living room playing a song. Sit on the couch and listen very carefully. Listen to the song a few times if you want. Listen to it a hundred times. Can't hear a difference? Then it doesn't matter.


----------



## Blaithin (Aug 31, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I think certain people who claim to have exceptional hearing are just serving their own egos because they want to be seen as "authorities". Certain people cheat on listening tests. And I called certain people out on it once. Certain people refused to answer my questions. Certain people need their own forum so they don't get questioned in a way that they don't want to be questioned. I don't believe what certain people claim, even if they now admit what I called them out on and they refused to admit before.
> 
> The way to judge the quality of music is to listen to music the same way you normally listen to it. Use your own equipment in your own living room playing a song. Sit on the couch and listen very carefully. Listen to the song a few times if you want. Listen to it a hundred times. Can't hear a difference? Then it doesn't matter.


While I personally don't care too much about the detectability of lossy compression in music. I still put some trust in the other members and regulars of ASR even if we assume that Amir has his own agenda for doing what he does. I don't feel like you're giving enough credit to those other members for standing up to what ASR is all about when Amir, himself, fails to hold up that standard.

Amir gets dogpiled on a lot, and most often by his forum's most notable members, no less (a lot more than you'd think). This is especially when there's a lapse in the rigor that their particular forum demands. It's happened before, and it's happened far more times than you'd assume just in the last 2 months from his headphone reviews. If you bother to read past the first few pages, it's almost always the older members who end up keeping him in check, and "fighting" him over perceived problems in his methodology. If they verify what he says then I can, at least, be sure there's some merit in it.

You also have to kind of give them credit for not shutting down unwanted discussion. Their moderators aren't trigger happy, and many of the most unfavourable points raised against Amir by relative outsiders (Resolve, Antdroid, Crinacle, Chocomel etc. etc.) are not deleted, but instead are left out in the open, and heavily reinforced by regulars when they have good points to add to the discussion/debate [and they usually do] even if it puts Amir in a bad spot (take the whole MQA thing where his membership really roasted him for his views). That's more freedom of speech than most other audio forums I've ever participated in, and that, in itself, is admirable.

What is shut down quickly in ASR have pretty much been forum mud-slinging threads, and the general climate is incredibly civil even if you don't agree with their perspective. I've spoken with some members and they're not really the hardline objectivists they're broadly generalised as. That label is better reserved for Hydrogen Audio. I've posted quite a few subjective impressions in there, and, as long as I make sure I'm not claiming my experience as fact then they're cool with it, and even welcome it as long as its not off-topic.

ASR is not really an Amir cult so much as it is a mechanism for Amir to 1.) deliver his measurements and 2.) have those measurements challenged with the additional perks of forums in general. The guy gets into hissy fits when challenged, and uses questionable debate tactics. But at least he eventually takes the feedback so he's not completely ossified unlike the founders of other major bastions of audio.

All I want to say is, "Credit given where credit is due."


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2021)

You can believe in whatever you want. I'm sure there are nice people there. I don't disagree with that. But a certain person who runs the site is a fraud. That is my belief based on my past history with the certain person. It's all in the archive of posts here in Sound Science. I don't bother to follow the hijinx of people I know to be disingenuous. Other people can do that if they want. I don't care. I don't have to listen to people who "prevaricate".


----------



## Blaithin

bigshot said:


> You can believe in whatever you want. I'm sure there are nice people there. But a certain person who runs the site is a fraud. That is my belief based on my past history with the certain person. It's all in the archive of posts here in Sound Science.


I see. Well, I'm not here to convince you to change your mind about said person. If that is your wish then I won't pursue any more discussion in this particular direction.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2021)

No problem. I like you. You're quoting me and telling me about someone I have no respect for. I'm struggling to be as polite as I can and still explain the situation. Does that make sense?


----------



## Vamp898 (Aug 31, 2021)

I don't know if exceptional hearing is related to that. My girlfriend for example does have (due to heavy medication) issues with hearing. Especially with high frequencies (pretty much everything above 8KHz). She can still hear them if they are loud enough, but often when we stroll, i can hear cicadas while she can't.

On of her most Favorite bands is fleet foxes and she have no issues to know which is the 128kbps AAC and what is the FLAC (not 320 AAC though)

So i think exceptional hearing isn't directly linked on how good your brain does the job in separating instruments, concentrating on certain aspects of a song and so on.

> I wonder why it is that whenever I ask the info on killer tracks, it always seems to be a really obscure foreign CD that costs a lot of money to order from overseas

The song i mentioned costs 262 Yen (roughly 2€) in Hi-Res Audio. Digital. Welcome to 2021, no need to order CDs from oversea.

Beside that, Japan does have the biggest music market in the world, so its absolutely no suprise that a lot of non-mainstream music comes from there.

Also the band i mentioned フレデリック (Frederic) does have tens of millions of clicks on youtube, they even are on spotify. Its not that obscure.

Another Song is from amazarashii called スピードと摩擦 (every weeb knows that song, sadly) which can easily picked from the AAC version.

I think its not related to obscure foreign CDs, i think its more that Japanese tend to produce and mix totally different than western people do.

In the west, most is recorded with tubes because "It sounds better (c)(r)(tm)" and so any micro detail is destroyed anyway. Then we tend to mix either extremely warm or extremely sterile.

That doesn't mean that every japanese song is easier to pick apart, but japanese tend to love complex songs with tons of micro sounds and effects and everything.

In some song from さユり there are sound effects in the 12-14KHz region in the background (who are preserved in the AAC btw, i can't pick heir Songs apart from the AAC to FLAC), there she is singing an the drums and guitar and bass plays. Or the 2016 Version of the Album ソルファ from Asian Kung Fu Generation (another very famous band because, afair, some of their songs where used in the Anime Naruto which i haven't watched so can't say for sure).

Even BABYMETAL Songs can (depending on the song) easily be picked apart and you can't say that BABYMETAL is a obscure oversea band.

Just because you live in your western music bubble doesn't mean others are wrong.

Japanese songs tend to be more detail focused and, yes, sometimes overproduced while western songs, in general (not all) are recorded either more warm or mixed sterile dead (especially every genre that has core in its name).

But there are Bands like Alcest from France (especially the first 3 albums) where you can also pretty easy hear the difference from the 320 AAC to the FLAC. It just depends totally on what you listen to.

I think Ecailles de lune and Souvenirs d'un autre monde are one of the prominent examples of western music where it is pretty easy to hear the difference between the AAC and the FLAC, even with the WH-1000XM3 (and that says a lot).


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2021)

I live in the good old US of A! We have a postal system that is inexpensive and no tariffs, but when I order things from Japan or Europe, the postal shipping is incredibly expensive. Not because of the US side of the mail, it's because of the international mail. I ordered one CD. I'm expecting that the first title mentioned had the most obvious artifacting. I'm not going to order more until I get this one and find out whether it is a killer track or not. I want 16/44.1 I don't want to convert twice to get it to AAC. That just means arguments about dithering and yada yada yada.

I'm not interested in anyone's musical taste. I'm interested in killer samples. If the killer sample doesn't sound bad, I'm not going to listen any further. I've seen the same kind of smoke thrown up in the past. Put forward your best argument and stand behind it.


----------



## Vamp898

I buy music digital/online at Mora (From Sony: https://mora.jp/) or レコチョク (From Rakuten: https://recochoku.jp/) 

But スピードと摩擦 is available at Qobuz: https://www.qobuz.com/de-de/album/speed-to-masatsu-amazarashi/uxk60bua5v2sa

I can pick the AAC from the FLAC Version of this song every single time.

I just noticed a difference in Coward from the Interstellar Soundtrack, the part that starts at 07:55. at least i think i can hear a difference in the background with the WM1Z and the IER-M9, but did not do any blind testing.


----------



## Blaithin (Aug 31, 2021)

bigshot said:


> No problem. I like you. You're quoting me and telling me about someone I have no respect for. I'm struggling to be as polite as I can and still explain the situation. Does that make sense?


Makes enough sense. I got enough of the undercurrent to know more or less how much. I chose to respect your wishes because it would've been counterproductive, off-topic, and wholly unnecessary to this  thread. Anyways, this will be the last post about this just to get this whole thing back on track


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2021)

Vamp898 said:


> i think i can hear a difference in the background with the WM1Z and the IER-M9, but did not do any blind testing.



I'm not at all interested in anecdotal impressions. I am looking for proof. I ordered Aoega COAV. That supposedly has a clear killer track on it with a specific time where it artifacts. Either that is the case or it's BS. Don't give me weeaboo nonsense about Japanese music being more "detailed". Music is music. Artifacting has nothing to do with detail or complexity. It's just a sound that the codec wasn't designed to deal with at that data rate. I'm not going to order a dozen CDs just because someone tells me to. Blackwolf tells me Aoega COAV should prove it to me. I know him. He is a regular here. I trust that. I'm not ordering any more right now. If you want to make suggestions, rip me something lossless 16/44.1 and put it up for me to download and I'll check it. Better yet edit it to the 20 second section of the track where it artifacts. Then I can’t miss it.


----------



## Vamp898 (Aug 31, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I'm not at all interested in anecdotal impressions. I am looking for proof. I ordered Aoega COAV. That supposedly has a clear killer track on it with a specific time where it artifacts. Either that is the case or it's BS. Don't give me weeaboo nonsense about Japanese music being more "detailed". Music is music. Artifacting has nothing to do with detail or complexity. It's just a sound that the codec wasn't designed to deal with at that data rate. I'm not going to order a dozen CDs just because someone tells me to. Blackwolf tells me Aoega COAV should prove it to me. I know him. He is a regular here. I trust that. I'm not ordering any more right now. If you want to make suggestions, rip me something lossless 16/44.1 and put it up for me to download and I'll check it.


> Artifacting has nothing to do with detail or complexity

Huh? Thats a suprise. Maybe you should tell that the FFMPEG developers, they think different. But what do AAC Encoder developers know about AAC, right?

But it depends on what Version and Encoder of AAC we're talking about, but i mean the general AAC-LC that is available at every streaming service.

Not all AAC Encoders are the same. We first need to define, what AAC Encoder do we use in which versions and with which profile.

Harald Popp, leader of the department that develops the codecs at Frauenhofer IIS says that even though AAC is statistically transparent, it is not. If you're trained you can hear differences in an controlled setup.

That is why they increased the Maximum Bit-Rate to 576kbit/s with xHE-AAC and claim better sound quality at 320kbit/s compared to AAC-LC.

So even the developers of AAC say, that there is a difference and if you're trained, it can be heard and due to this, they are further improving the Codec.

And as said in my initial post, i am no longer able to pick the AAC Version apart from the FLAC when i use the most current AAC at 320kbit/s VBR (which goes up to 576kbit/s). With AAC-LC (320kbit/s CBR) i am.

And its dependend on the setup too. Its easier for me to pick them apart with the IER-M9 (much easier) than with the MDR-Z1R, so even the headphones play a big role in all of this too.

There are just too many factors to be considered to make a general statement which is why i said "With 320kbit/s CBR AAC-LC, i can hear a difference. With 320kbit/s VBR xHE-AAC, i can't"

Also this is the reason why blind tests made by Frauenhofer don't play a role for me too. What Player did they use? What Songs did they play? What Headphones did they use?

In the end, they make money with AAC and want to sell it, they have an interest in telling that it is, according to their statistic, transparent.

> rip me something lossless 16/44.1 and put it up for me to download and I'll check it.

All my music is digital and it would be illegal anyway.

The Track costs 2,99€ at Qobuz in Hi-Res, i'll pay you the 2,99€ and you can buy the Song with my money, is that a deal?


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2021)

Complexity and detail in music has nothing to do with artifacting. Randomness and sounds that the codec just wasn't designed to deal with does. One of the hardest things to encode, especially at lower data rates, is massed audience applause. White noise too. That isn't at all complex or detailed. It's sustained broadband randomness. But who listens to white noise? Nursery rhymes encode just as easily as Shostakovich. Musical complexity is irrelevant. Codecs are designed to encode all kinds of music.

When someone tells me they have a killer track that they're sure won't encode properly... but they haven't bothered to check it in a blind listening test, it doesn't instill confidence in me. I'm looking for a killer track that will artifact at AAC 256. I haven't found one yet. If I'm going to have to lay out money to buy the track, I would prefer it if the person recommending the killer track has actually checked it to make sure. I've been stung many times by people who claim that lossy is not transparent, and then once it looks like I'm actually going to check what they claim, they start backpedaling and shifting the goal posts (i.e.: you need trained ears / your equipment sucks / you must be deaf / you need to live with the sound for a few months to hear the difference.) I've got no time for that nonsense. And I don't want a hundred different suggestions of tracks that *might* be what I'm looking for. I want something you're sure of. And I don't care how fabulous the music is. Odds are any music that artifacts that badly is going to be pretty difficult to listen to.

Everyone knows that music can artifact with older codecs and less than ideal data rates. Personally, I think that AAC and higher data rates combined with VBR has completely eliminated the problem. If you have evidence that it hasn't, I'm all ears. This thread is called "Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths". That is exactly what I'm doing.

By the way, I am an archivist at a 501(c)(3) non-profit digital archive. I have fair use protection for experiments like this. If you want to send me a one minute clip of a killer track, it isn't illegal.


----------



## Vamp898

bigshot said:


> Complexity and detail in music has nothing to do with artifacting. Randomness and sounds that the codec just wasn't designed to deal with does. [...]  I'm looking for a killer track that will artifact at AAC 256


256kbps CBR AAC-LC or 256kbps VBR xHE-AAC? They use different methods and fail with different things.

Are we talking about the Codec failing and causing artifacts, or failing to keeping information that is able to be perceived (those are different things).

Also to put this in relevance, you have no influence on what Codec in what Version Streaming sites use. Your statement is not generally true. AAC 320kpbs (depending on the settings an the method used), can be statistically transparent. That doesn't mean the AAC 320kbps you download from, for example, mora is transparent to you when you listen to it with your player and your headphones.

AAC-LC does fail with increased complexity. I don't know why you disagree with Frauenhofer (the inventor of AAC) and FFMPEG (who developed their own AAC Codec), the Source Code is OpenSource, you can just look how it works..

With complexity i don't mean how creative a song is, i think thats clear. An complex Piano piece is less likely to fail than just an average boring rock song.

With complexity i, and i think thats obvious by the examples i mentioned, mean the amount of sounds and overlapping going on. The more instruments that play, the better they are recorded to contain more detail and micro detail, the more they overlap and use effects like hall and reverb, the more sounds that go on, the more likely is the codec to fail.

It droppes informations that are assumed to be not perceived by the listener, but this highly depends on lot of factors (not just the listener). As said, i can pick apart songs with the IER-M9, i can not with the MDR-Z1R. So there are lots of factors that can cause if an sound is being able to be perceived.

Not to mention that there are Equalizers that increase the volume of sounds otherwise not being able to be perceived too.

AAC works on an algorithm that drops informations based on assumptions if it is able to be perceived by the listener _and_ at the same times, can artifact doing so. If the attack on a ride changes, there is no artifacting going on.

So if you have some insider information we're all not aware of that proofs, Frauenhofer (again, the inventor and main developer of AAC), FFMPEG and Wikipedia (who explains how AAC works) wrong _please_ share it.

Frauenhofer says, that there can be a difference and due to that, they increased the bit-rate with xHE-AAC and improved the codec further by using different technologies. They even planned to release an lossless codec a few years ago (i remember it was supposed to be called HD-AAC or something like that) but dropped that in the favor of xHE-AAC (and most likely because there are already enough lossless codecs on the market).



> By the way, I am an archivist at a 501(c)(3) non-profit digital archive. I have fair use protection for experiments like this. If you want to send me a one minute clip of a killer track, it isn't illegal.


According to the law of which country? The US? We're not living in the same country and beside that, i would need to cut together pieces without knowing what your setup enables to hear what differences. You would need the whole song.

I offered you to pay for the song, i am not going to open Audacity and cut samples together.

Also, and this is a real world test that makes sense, you would have to compare the Hi-Res Audio Version Qobuz offers you and compare it to the AAC Version qobuz offers you. We're talking about real world here, not what could be possible if the world would be different.

Maybe AAC is fine and Spotify/Apple/Qobuz/Mora/レコチョク are messing things up when converting, that could be the case, but then, again, this is real world and if those services are messing things up when converting to AAC, you don't want to listen to the AAC Version.

As said, i can't pick them apart with the MDR-Z1R, maybe you use that headphone and don't hear a difference too. Sometimes there are new things i discover in songs after having listened to them like 100 times over months or even years.

There are even Instruments i can't hear with the MDR-Z1R but i can with the IER-M9 (like the triangle that plays in the background at some parts). Or in other words, when you know where and when it is, you are able to perceive it with the MDR-Z1R, but there are too many distracting things going on that without knowing its there, i would never ever have noticed that and so never would have noticed a difference from an AAC to the FLAC

If there is such a big difference going from one headphone to another, instruments that appear and disappear, there is absolutely no way for you to know if i am able to perceive it based on your own experiments.

Artifacts are easy to pick up because they are defects in the encoding. Changes in the ringing of a snare or the attack of a ride is something completely different.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 1, 2021)

I'm going to encode it at AAC 256 VBR using iTunes. Do you have a killer track for me or not? If you do, post it for download and I'll set up a nice controlled listening comparison and we can find out if it artifacts audibly or not.


----------



## Vamp898 (Sep 1, 2021)

My claim was for AAC 320 CBR (AAC-LC). You're encoding with AAC 256 VBR (xHE-AAC) so you're testing something different than i claimed.


----------



## bigshot

Ah. So your killer track wouldn’t artifact at AAC 256. Not so killer, I guess.


----------



## castleofargh

Vamp898 said:


> Another Song is from amazarashii called スピードと摩擦 (every weeb knows that song, sadly)


Ahaha, I don't know that song, I didn't watch that specific anime, therefore I'm not a weebo!!! YES!!!!!!!!!


 Now just from reading Frederic in your post yesterday, my brain waited for me to go to bed before deciding that I couldn't know the night without dancing.


odotenai yoru o shiranai
odotenai yoru ga ki ni iranai
odotenai yoru o shiranai
odotenai yoru ga ki ni iranaoi yo
...

anyway, clearly not a weeb.


----------



## Vamp898

bigshot said:


> Ah. So your killer track wouldn’t artifact at AAC 256. Not so killer, I guess.


Yes, because xHE-AAC 256 goes way beyond 500kbps and at that point, its pretty much impossible to grasp a difference.

But no streaming service i know provides xHE-AAC, so it doesn't matter. They provide AAC-LC and with that, you can hear a difference. That is what i said and that is what matters in the real world


----------



## bigshot (Sep 1, 2021)

AAC 256 VBR is the encoding Apple uses for its streaming service. I’ve found it to be compact in file size and completely transparent.


----------



## Vamp898

castleofargh said:


> Ahaha, I don't know that song, I didn't watch that specific anime, therefore I'm not a weebo!!! YES!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> Now just from reading Frederic in your post yesterday, my brain waited for me to go to bed before deciding that I couldn't know the night without dancing.
> ...



Im not sure if someone who listens to japanese music (amongst others) is considered a weeb. I always thought the term describes some kind of hardcore anime/japan fanboys who think everything in japan is better. 

But its a slang word, so i'm not sure if there is any real definition. But if everyone who is interested in any aspect of japanese culture is called a weeb, the usage of the word is that inflationary that it doesn't really matter anyway. If that is what a weeb is, then call me weeb.


----------



## Vamp898

bigshot said:


> AAC 256 VBR is the encoding Apple uses for its streaming service. I’ve found it to be compact in file size and completely transparent.


Do they? Didn't know that. I haven't met a single person in my life who uses Apples streaming service, so i wasn't aware of that. I only remember i read that Apple does have different rules in different countries. In some countries, they only provide AAC-LC with VBR (so maximum 112kbps per channel).

But i don't know if that is still the case.

Its the same with Spotify and Amazon Music, it differs from country to country what they provide and how. Some countries have Lossless, others don't.

But because i love music, i don't stream anyway. I don't know what Apple pays to the artist, but Spotify pays for 1'000'000 Album streams roughly the same as the artist would have got with 200 CD sales. That means everyone have to listen to the album at least 5000 times, otherwise the artist is loosing money.



> [...]streaming is not the future of music, but kinda the end of it[...]


----------



## bigshot (Sep 1, 2021)

Vamp898 said:


> Do they? Didn't know that. I haven't met a single person in my life who uses Apples streaming service, so i wasn't aware of that.



Apple Music has 660 million subscribers. It's the biggest streaming service I believe. All of their audio files have been AAC 256 VBR since 2007. https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/04/29/apple-music-paying-subscribers/

But I really don't care about streaming. I'm interested in the sound quality of encoders. I was looking for a killer sample that clearly artifacts at a higher data rate with a modern encoder. I did a lot of research and testing before I built my media server to determine what the most efficient codec and setting was. AAC at one setting was equivalent to MP3 LAME at a full notch above. AAC was 99.9% transparent at 192 and fully transparent at 256 CBR. In my media server, I use AAC 256 VBR because it is supported across all platforms, smaller than MP3 for the same audio quality, and completely free of artifacting. I see people claim that lossy isn't transparent and that AAC can artifact with certain killer tracks. But whenever I investigate, it always turns out that AAC 256 VBR renders perfectly for human ears.

If there is an exception to that, I want to know about it. But I'm going to want to prove it. I'm not just taking someone's word for it.


----------



## redrol

Last time I really noticed crappy mp3 quality was back in the early days of the Fraunhoffer(sp?) encoder.  I think even the LAME encoder need quite a few years to achieve good transparency. SBC sucks.  Other than that, I'm definitely not picky, Big shot is right.  We are in a good place for codecs.


----------



## bigshot

And streaming sounds great too.


----------



## redrol

Sure does!  I have no idea why people get all up in arms over it.  Less cables is good.. if it works properly.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> Apple Music has 660 million subscribers. It's the biggest streaming service I believe. All of their audio files have been AAC 256 VBR since 2007. https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/04/29/apple-music-paying-subscribers/


It's also getting academic that I'm an Apple Music subscriber and noticing they've started going back and getting a lot of their catalogue in "master lossless" format.  I think it's ongoing as it's a stage that they also elect what albums they go back and mix with Atmos "spatial".  My impression of Atmos with true 7.1.4 Atmos speakers: some albums sound good in the format, others I prefer in regular stereo.


----------



## KeithPhantom

The only thing I can see is a improvement at low bitrates, but they all pretty much converge at 128 kbps. I do not see why one would massively better than the other options at high bitrates.


----------



## Vamp898

KeithPhantom said:


> The only thing I can see is a improvement at low bitrates, but they all pretty much converge at 128 kbps. I do not see why one would massively better than the other options at high bitrates.


Yes, and the IER-Z1R is perfectly flat according to this official image from Sony


----------



## castleofargh

Vamp898 said:


> Yes, and the IER-Z1R is perfectly flat according to this official image from Sony


LMAO. That graph looks massively legit.


----------



## Davesrose

Vamp898 said:


> Yes, and the IER-Z1R is perfectly flat according to this official image from Sony


That's marketing for you.  Every headphone is tuned differently to have different FRs.  They aren't flat because they have close interactions with people's ear anatomy (which have certain sensitivities with certain ranges).  Here are some averaged measurements of the earphone:

In Ear Fidelity: IER-Z1R


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 8, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> LMAO. That graph looks massively legit.


That is just an illustration of the crossover-circuitry principle (3-way it seems. 12 mm driver, 5 mm driver and BA something). In that sense is might be "legit", but of course most consumers don't know how to interpret it and its in Japanese (I tried to learn some Japanese last year, but... ...their insane writing system!   )


----------



## Davesrose

71 dB said:


> That is just an illustration of the crossover-circuitry principle (3-way it seems. 12 mm driver, 5 mm driver and BA something). In that sense is might be "legit", but of course most consumers don't know how to interpret it and its in Japanese (I tried to learn some Japanese last year, but... ...their insane writing system!   )


It might have been more accurate to the consumer to say what frequencies each driver is targeted for (because the illustration doesn't even show number increments in the axes).  Apparently, 12mm and 5mm are dynamic drivers, while sandwiched between is "Balanced Armature" (would think it might be a passive radiator).


----------



## 71 dB

Davesrose said:


> It might have been more accurate to the consumer to say what frequencies each driver is targeted for (because the illustration doesn't even show number increments in the axes).  Apparently, 12mm and 5mm are dynamic drivers, while sandwiched between is "Balanced Armature" (would think it might be a passive radiator).


Balanced Armatures are active.


----------



## Vamp898

Davesrose said:


> It might have been more accurate to the consumer to say what frequencies each driver is targeted for (because the illustration doesn't even show number increments in the axes).  Apparently, 12mm and 5mm are dynamic drivers, while sandwiched between is "Balanced Armature" (would think it might be a passive radiator).


I know that all three drivers are active at 1KHz, at least this graph shows that there is no hard cut and they do overlay to a certain degree.

It does the job in showing the basic idea of the concept, but in the end, you can't correctly simply science. Science is complex and marketing needs to be as simple as possible. That will never match


----------



## Davesrose

71 dB said:


> Balanced Armatures are active.


I think they can be either active or passive when it comes to crossover https://mynewmicrophone.com/the-complete-guide-to-balanced-armature-iems-earphones/ .  I wonder if these Sony phones use a passive design since they have active dynamic drivers on either end.


----------



## Vamp898

Davesrose said:


> I think they can be either active or passive when it comes to crossover https://mynewmicrophone.com/the-complete-guide-to-balanced-armature-iems-earphones/ .  I wonder if these Sony phones use a passive design since they have active dynamic drivers on either end.


I have no clue and I think this image also won't help


----------



## Inspector Gadget

thats a simple passive crossover using rubycon film caps and resistors. balanced armature is simply a type of driver. crossovers can be passive, active, or a combination of both, but that doesnt have anything to do with the type of driver.


----------



## Blackwoof

KeithPhantom said:


> The only thing I can see is a improvement at low bitrates, but they all pretty much converge at 128 kbps. I do not see why one would massively better than the other options at high bitrates.


Opus 1.3 already covers what that codec touting at 12 ~ 128kbps. 99% of everyone I know just use Lame MP3 at V0 if they go lossy.


----------



## magicscreen

I am converting my WAV PCM file to DSD64. This way it has much better sound.


----------



## bfreedma

magicscreen said:


> I am converting my WAV PCM file to DSD64. This way it has much better sound.



Your troll game is unconscionably weak.

Do better.


----------



## magicscreen

bfreedma said:


> Your troll game is unconscionably weak.
> 
> Do better.


My opinion is strong. I blind tested it. Volume matched double blind test. It is a fact.


----------



## bfreedma

magicscreen said:


> My opinion is strong. I blind tested it. Volume matched double blind test. It is a fact.



Based on your posting history here, I don’t believe you have done any of that.

Grow up.


----------



## 71 dB

magicscreen said:


> I am converting my WAV PCM file to DSD64. This way it has much better sound.


Are you claiming PCM has hidden goodness that comes out when you convert to DSD?


----------



## castleofargh




----------



## bigshot

He’s degenerated to idle blather.


----------



## old tech

71 dB said:


> Are you claiming PCM has hidden goodness that comes out when you convert to DSD?


A genie is released from the PCM file.


----------



## Slaphead

I will say that there is only one good reason to convert PCM to DSD, and that is that DSD a very good digital archive/preservation format due to the way it works. It can take quite a battering of flipped bits and still sound good as all bits are treated equal, PCM on the other hand is extremely susceptible to flipped bits as PCM assigns bits in increasing magnitude.

As for an improvement in sound quality - nope not going to happen


----------



## redrol

Slaphead said:


> I will say that there is only one good reason to convert PCM to DSD, and that is that DSD a very good digital archive/preservation format due to the way it works. It can take quite a battering of flipped bits and still sound good as all bits are treated equal, PCM on the other hand is extremely susceptible to flipped bits as PCM assigns bits in increasing magnitude.
> 
> As for an improvement in sound quality - nope not going to happen


My computer doesn't flip bits.  If it did, it wouldn't work.  If you are talking about bit-rot on big HDs.. I don't care this isn't a data center.


----------



## 71 dB

redrol said:


> My computer doesn't flip bits.  If it did, it wouldn't work.  If you are talking about bit-rot on big HDs.. I don't care this isn't a data center.


Well, you won't probably use the _same_ computer for decades do you? You buy a new computer before the old one starts flipping bits.


----------



## Slaphead (Sep 23, 2021)

redrol said:


> My computer doesn't flip bits.  If it did, it wouldn't work.  If you are talking about bit-rot on big HDs.. I don't care this isn't a data center.


Yes it does, all computers flip bits, it's just that through inbuilt error correction you don't notice it, most of the time - That BSOD that you got one time and never again, or that unexpected program crash you got once and never thereafter, well they are mostly as a result of a bit or two flipping randomly in such a way that the error correction thinks it's actually valid data.

However, what I'm referring to is long term storage of music - the archiving and preservation. DSD, through its very nature, provides enough redundancy that when corrupted data enters the stream that cannot be corrected it will have a mostly inaudible effect on the analog signal, and by mostly I mean below the level of human hearing. Flip the most significant bit in a PCM stream and you'll get that loud CD click. Flip a bit in DSD and you won't even notice it because all bits are equally significant.

Anyway that's really the only advantage of DSD over PCM. Overall however PCM has way more advantages than DSD as a working format.


----------



## bigshot

I think you are talking about preserving it aeons after you are dead and buried. Simply maintaining backups will do the same, wouldn't it?


----------



## sonitus mirus

Slaphead said:


> Yes it does, all computers flip bits, it's just that through inbuilt error correction you don't notice it, most of the time - That BSOD that you got one time and never again, or that unexpected program crash you got once and never thereafter, well they are mostly as a result of a bit or two flipping randomly in such a way that the error correction thinks it's actually valid data.



It is absolutely ridiculous to attribute any one-time event of a BSOD to a flipped bit when there are a lot of other more realistic causes for such a predicament.  I've had faulty RAM with one bit stuck discovered after testing and analyzing.  Even with that obvious situation, my PC did not crash to blue screen on a daily basis before the problem was identified and resolved.  The chance of some random bit going wrong here and there causing a BSOD would be exceedingly uncommon.  It is far beyond reasonable to be concerned about something like that impacting music playback.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I agree too. One of the best recordings I've ever heard was an LP of Fiedler's Gaeitie Parisienne that was recorded in 1952. I think it was the second Living Stereo recording made by RCA. The stuff that matters are the judgements made by the musicians and engineers, not incremental increases in data rates. I think sometimes audiophiles spend more time listening to the formats of their music than they do the music itself.


Hmmm ... careful with that one.

Back in those days, they all strived for the absolute best they could possibly accomplish. Bean counters have not taken over yet. And it was recording on the best medium/format then in existence - not the one that merely/barely yields so-called "audible transparency". Sure the recording mentioned does not stop in frequency response at 22.050,00 Hz - dropping off to nothing.

This recording underwent more format changes and variations than almost any other. I would love to lay my hands on a NOS sealed copy of this LP - the original first pressing. And make a decent digital high sampling frequency recording and FFT analysis of what is actually in the groove - from 1952.
All the digital meant only deciding how much of this original analog sound can be preserved in "digital of the month" while keeping the price low enough to generate sustainable sale figures.  It never was about just incremental increases of data rate, it has always been about preserving the quality of the original.

Lacking the ability to grow extra kidneys etc  that would allow for the purchase of such so old LP in case it ever again pops up for sale in such condition is making this issue - unfortunately - moot.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 27, 2021)

The only sound in an LP groove above 20kHz is noise and distortion.

The Fiedler album doesn't sound good because of its specs. Its specs are inferior to a CD. It sounds good because the miking and balances were very well chosen. Engineering matters more than format.

I have a colored vinyl audiophile pressing of this album. I think I paid $15 for it. Sounds great.


----------



## Contrails

> Engineering matters more than format


This.


----------



## old tech

analogsurviver said:


> Hmmm ... careful with that one.
> 
> Back in those days, they all strived for the absolute best they could possibly accomplish. Bean counters have not taken over yet. And it was recording on the best medium/format then in existence - not the one that merely/barely yields so-called "audible transparency". Sure the recording mentioned does not stop in frequency response at 22.050,00 Hz - dropping off to nothing.
> 
> ...


I thought you'd be back at some point.

You know that the state of the art 8 track recorder used at Abbey Road studio back in 1968 (along with the best tape formulations back then) had a SNR of ` 70db and a frequency response of 30 to 15khz at +/- 2db.  Given records used a master of at least three generations down from the recorder, apart from noise, how would a 1952 record have musical content anywhere near 22 khz?

Btw, the Beatles White Album sounds great despite the constrained SNR and frequency response of the SOTA equipment of the day.


----------



## 71 dB

old tech said:


> I thought you'd be back at some point.


Back or not, I'm ignoring him. I have zero interest of what he says, because he has zero interest of learning anything.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> The only sound in an LP groove above 20kHz is noise and distortion.
> 
> The Fiedler album doesn't sound good because of its specs. Its specs are inferior to a CD. It sounds good because the miking and balances were very well chosen. Engineering matters more than format.
> 
> I have a colored vinyl audiophile pressing of this album. I think I paid $15 for it. Sounds great.


It is not true that the only sound in an LP groove above 20 kHz is noise and distortion.

It might be true for the Fiedler album of 1951 - because tape recorders back then did not go that high in frequency. 

I agree it sounds good for the reasons you cited.

However, there ARE analog records produced later that DO contain SIGNAL above 20 kHz. Mainly in jazz, where percussion can go well past 70 kHz - either in official 192/24 download or in recording from original LP using a cartridge with response extended at least to 50 kHz - where the leve(s) and frequeny limits might be a little less, but definitely "playing with the pulse of music" - and larger in amplitude than random residual noise. 
To my surprise, I found clearly defined trumpet harmonics well past 50 kHz - on some digitally ( obviously, NOT at 44.1 kHz sampling ) recorded jazz records from GRP. They have used DMM ( Direct Metal Mastering  ), which was advertised to have improved high frequency range compared to normal lacquer cutting - but I never saw any official specs/claims by how much. It clearly can and does perform better.
BTW - if record is mastered at lower than realtime speed, the high frequency limit of the resulting record gets higher inversely to the actual cutting speed used. Over 50 kHz is possible. And it has been used and the records are out there.


----------



## analogsurviver

71 dB said:


> Back or not, I'm ignoring him. I have zero interest of what he says, because he has zero interest of learning anything.


I only chimed in to see if the most/all of the gang is alive and well - in these crazy times.

There is at least one Finn that could have learned a thing or two by not ignoring me - the music, sound, recorded sound and the life in general did not start in digital - which is only a sampling of. 

Digital does have its merits, but it is not "be all, end all" by any stretch of imagination.


----------



## bigshot

I don't think it's possible to scrape off the barnacles. When they get the attention they crave, they'll go away again. I avoid replying with a quote because it's just "invoking the demon". And responding to points only encourages them. Best to just speak past them. I need to take my own advice more often.


----------



## dogrelata

bigshot said:


> I don't think it's possible to scrape off the barnacles. When they get the attention they crave, they'll go away again. I avoid replying with a quote because it's just "invoking the demon". And responding to points only encourages them. Best to just speak past them. I need to take my own advice more often.


I have to start by confessing I’ve only read the last 25 pages or so, plus parts of the OP, so apologies if what I’m about to ask has already been covered.

The question is about ABX blind testing. I’m curious if control tests are ever carried out, i.e. tests with comparable pieces of equipment that have measurably different outputs to determine how participants fare in being able to differentiate between said pieces of equipment?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 20, 2021)

dogrelata, See the link in my sig file labelled... Stereo Review January 1987 Pg 78 You will need to open the PDF to page 78.

There are established thresholds of audibility, known as the JDD or "just detectable difference" for the various measurements... signal to noise, response, distortion, timing error, etc. There are variations in how the error is created and measured, but you can look at specs and get a ballpark idea if something is audible or not. Most of the things that audiophiles point to (HD Audio, jitter, etc.) are more than an order of magnitude below the JDD.


----------



## danadam

bigshot said:


> There are established thresholds of audibility, known as the JDD or "just detectable difference" for the various measurements


Google claims it is "just noticeable difference", JND


----------



## castleofargh

dogrelata said:


> I have to start by confessing I’ve only read the last 25 pages or so, plus parts of the OP, so apologies if what I’m about to ask has already been covered.
> 
> The question is about ABX blind testing. I’m curious if control tests are ever carried out, i.e. tests with comparable pieces of equipment that have measurably different outputs to determine how participants fare in being able to differentiate between said pieces of equipment?


ABX is just one method(favored not because it's great, but because it's relatively simple and available to many). When actual researchers are concerned with what you're asking, they always go for different tests. Like maybe tests with known audible samples added to the series. Those will serve to remove participants who are trying to fail on purpose, or just those who have real hearing issues, making them unfit for that experiment.

Don't hold you breath for big serious scientific research about DACs sounding different, or similar gear questions. The guys who can do it, don't give a crap about such questions. And the average audiophile won't bother with anything even slightly inconvenient. Not the facts I like, but the facts I get anyway.


----------



## bigshot

Just do the tests yourself. It isn’t hard to do a simple blind listening test. People make it out to be a lot more complicated than it is.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Just do the tests yourself. It isn’t hard to do a simple blind listening test. People make it out to be a lot more complicated than it is.




Carrying out a valid DBT isn't really as simple as you're making it out to be.  

At minimum, you need measuring devices necessary to properly level match and the skill to do that properly.  And, assuming this is at home and not in a lab with automated switch gear, at least one more person willing to control the DBT.  That person needs to be willing to execute the switching for a period of time long enough for the test subject to execute enough test cycles to be statistically significant.

Certainly not an impossibly high bar, but also not something one person is going to properly undertake in an hour.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 20, 2021)

A DBT for peer reviewed publication is the same thing as a DBT for personal research, just to a different degree of precision. I keep explaining this over and over, but everyone keeps making it an "all or nothing" thing. Blind testing is a useful tool for eliminating bias whether you have a lab full of equipment or if you are just a person trying to optimize the stereo in your living room. It's still a double blind test, and it still helps eliminate bias.

Level matching can be done simply to a degree that can discern if a difference is big enough to worry about. Just run a tone through both sources and switch back and forth and adjust until you can't hear a difference any more. That works fine. If you can't hear a difference with a steady tone, there is no way it's going to make a difference when you play music. And a friend will be patient enough to help you do enough tests to know whether you should worry about it or not. You don't need to calculate pi to the 100th decimal point. There is such a thing as "good enough for government work". If you can't do it in an hour, take two hours.

Test for yourself. Don't throw up your hands and give up because you don't have a degree in engineering. Critical thinking and testing is for EVERYONE, not just people in white lab coats.


----------



## dogrelata

bigshot said:


> dogrelata, See the link in my sig file labelled... Stereo Review January 1987 Pg 78 You will need to open the PDF to page 78.
> 
> There are established thresholds of audibility, known as the JDD or "just detectable difference" for the various measurements... signal to noise, response, distortion, timing error, etc. There are variations in how the error is created and measured, but you can look at specs and get a ballpark idea if something is audible or not. Most of the things that audiophiles point to (HD Audio, jitter, etc.) are more than an order of magnitude below the JDD.


Thanks.

It was quite ironic that the sceptics 'out-scored' the believers by 2%, albeit statistically insignificant.  I also noted the use of "very heavy duty speciality speaker cable".  I wonder if it was to placate the believers or an indication of subconcious bias on the behalf of David Clark.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> A DBT for peer reviewed publication is the same thing as a DBT for personal research, just to a different degree of precision. I keep explaining this over and over, but everyone keeps making it an "all or nothing" thing. Blind testing is a useful tool for eliminating bias whether you have a lab full of equipment or if you are just a person trying to optimize the stereo in your living room. It's still a double blind test, and it still helps eliminate bias.
> 
> Level matching can be done simply to a degree that can discern if a difference is big enough to worry about. Just run a tone through both sources and switch back and forth and adjust until you can't hear a difference any more. That works fine. If you can't hear a difference with a steady tone, there is no way it's going to make a difference when you play music. And a friend will be patient enough to help you do enough tests to know whether you should worry about it or not. You don't need to calculate pi to the 100th decimal point. There is such a thing as "good enough for government work". If you can't do it in an hour, take two hours.
> 
> Test for yourself. Don't throw up your hands and give up because you don't have a degree in engineering. Critical thinking and testing is for EVERYONE, not just people in white lab coats.



You are reducing the controls to a level that the DBT has no value.  Instead, you have some personal "good enough" criteria that, frankly, is well short of achieving statistical or test validity.

Level matching by ear isn't "close enough" for a proper DBT.  I wouldn't accept that answer from a "cable guy" either.  It should really be done at the electrical level and if not available, with an SPL meter.  We don't accept level matched claims from the cable guys and we shouldn't be moving the goalposts for ourselves.

You're also dramatically underestimating the time and test cycles needed to achieve statistically significant results.  Perhaps you have a friend who will conduct 10 test cycles of 10 tests per cycle, but most folks won't have a test partner willing to invest days into proper testing.  This is certainly going to take more than the hour or two state in your post

We've done this before Bigshot, and while we probably land at the same conclusions, I can't support your position that limited test cycles without proper controls, particularly accurate volume matching creates acceptable testing.  If one of our cable friends executed a "DBT" without proper level matching or enough test cycles, would you consider it proof that cables sound different?  I know I wouldn't...



PS - Please quote the posts you respond to.  It's both the internet norm and provides context.


----------



## redrol

Yeah I have a very hard time volume matching.  These days I do a 1k tone sine wave and try and get that the same volume in both ears with 2 different iems.


----------



## analogsurviver

bigshot said:


> I don't think it's possible to scrape off the barnacles. When they get the attention they crave, they'll go away again. I avoid replying with a quote because it's just "invoking the demon". And responding to points only encourages them. Best to just speak past them. I need to take my own advice more often.


It is interesting I have to thank you for teaching me strictly non audio related words in English - like "barnacles" .  

We ( barnacles ) also serve a purpose ( or two, or more ) - like preserving the past : 
https://www.livescience.com/barnacle-encrusted-crusader-sword-israel?utm_campaign=socialflow

And, no, double blind ABX testing is nowhere near as simple as you are constantly trying to convey. 
There are already answers by others to have pointed it out, but things really begin to get problematic when dealing with analog sources, where a real hardware ABX box that does not degrade the signal more than DUT is required. 
Foobar2000 is only usable with PCM digital and unusable with anything else. As that "anything else" by default tends to be better than any PCM, it does present a real problem. 
There is only one commercially available real hardware ABX box :
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...o-you-know-of-any-serious-abx-switcher.14788/


----------



## bigshot (Oct 21, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> You are reducing the controls to a level that the DBT has no value.  Instead, you have some personal "good enough" criteria that, frankly, is well short of achieving statistical or test validity.



Do I have to repeat myself again? I am not aiming at validity for a formal test. I am figuring out for myself if it is worth worrying about. I keep repeating that and it doesn't get through. If something is so small that I have to use test equipment to calibrate my system to properly discern it, it flat out doesn't matter. I use my home stereo to listen to music sitting on the couch. I'm looking for audio fidelity that matters in that kind of a setting, not a testing lab. I understand that there are very minute differences. I'm not trying to discern that. That stuff can be measured better than it can be heard. I'm looking for things that matter to my ears. Of course for that purpose the comparison has a value.

I think everyone should make an effort to minimize bias and perceptual error when they are comparing different components for their system so they can make informed decisions. I don't think that requires splitting the atom. And I'm not going to discourage them from even trying because their degree of controls wouldn't please the AES.

For our resident "barnacle" the absolutism of how a "proper" listening test is conducted is an excuse to gleefully abandon controls entirely and embrace pure subjectivism, which is so much easier to do. "You can't know everything so you can't know anything." That is much more counter productive to what all of us home stereo fans here in sound science are trying to accomplish than being off on level matching by a quarter or a half a dB.



dogrelata said:


> It was quite ironic that the sceptics 'out-scored' the believers by 2%, albeit statistically insignificant.  I also noted the use of "very heavy duty speciality speaker cable".  I wonder if it was to placate the believers or an indication of subconcious bias on the behalf of David Clark.



It was probably because the believers thought it would be easy and didn't put as much effort into listening. The skeptics knew it was going to be tough, and might have tried a bit harder... or it is just normal error.


----------



## analogsurviver

I have never said to abandon any control whatsoever and rely on pure subjectivism. I did say - and stand behind - that after being level matched to within 0.2 dB  or less, I will always give preference to  whatever that can please me over longer period of time - like at least the time for a normal concert ( roughly two hours ) than anything coming on top in DBT ABX. It is nice if anything audio to come on top in both categories, although it is exceedingly rare - but giving greater pleasure over longer period of time is what people generally seek in listening to any kind of music, be it live or reproduced.

I wish I could afford Van Alstine ABX comparator - but even then, there definitely are things to improve in my audio chain(s) that would make a far bigger actual difference - not only prove that difference(s) exist - for the same outlay.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 22, 2021)

Auditory memory be damned then. At two hours per sample it will take you months and months to live up to the number of trials required by the more stringent testmasters here. When was the last time you conducted one of these marathon sessions? Never?


----------



## dogrelata

castleofargh said:


> ABX is just one method(favored not because it's great, but because it's relatively simple and available to many). When actual researchers are concerned with what you're asking, they always go for different tests. Like maybe tests with known audible samples added to the series. Those will serve to remove participants who are trying to fail on purpose, or just those who have real hearing issues, making them unfit for that experiment.
> 
> Don't hold you breath for big serious scientific research about DACs sounding different, or similar gear questions. The guys who can do it, don't give a crap about such questions. And the average audiophile won't bother with anything even slightly inconvenient. Not the facts I like, but the facts I get anyway.


Out of curiosity I've spent some time on Google trying to find ABX test results of audio gear and couldn't find much.  Those I did were mostly carried out by interest groups, 'trade' publications or hi-fi dealerships.  As you say, there seems little interest in the subject from 'academia', which is not surprising given it's a niche area that affects a very small percentage of the populous.

Moving off-topic slightly, there is some serious research in the medical sciences regarding the efficacy of placebos.  There are have been a number of studies claiming there are measureable benefits to sufferers given placebos.  More recently there have been some studies that suggest positive results are being observed even when patients know they are being given placebos.  

The point I'm trying to make with the above is why would the scientific community spend precious funding trying to measure whether people can hear the difference between a Stax SRM-252S and a BHSE in a blind test, when the chances of a positive outcome may be relatively small and significantly different to what might be expected if participants could see what they're listening to.

For the record, I'm much closer to the objective end of the spectrum but not naive enough to assume that my perception of what I'm listening to and experiencing isn't heavily influenced by things I've read or how my gear looks or even feels.


----------



## castleofargh

dogrelata said:


> Out of curiosity I've spent some time on Google trying to find ABX test results of audio gear and couldn't find much.  Those I did were mostly carried out by interest groups, 'trade' publications or hi-fi dealerships.  As you say, there seems little interest in the subject from 'academia', which is not surprising given it's a niche area that affects a very small percentage of the populous.
> 
> Moving off-topic slightly, there is some serious research in the medical sciences regarding the efficacy of placebos.  There are have been a number of studies claiming there are measureable benefits to sufferers given placebos.  More recently there have been some studies that suggest positive results are being observed even when patients know they are being given placebos.
> 
> ...


The first post is the biggest source of audiophile blind tests I know of. For actual research, they usually have a better understanding of electricity and human psychology, so they won't even get into something ambiguous or massively pointless even under the best circumstances(I say that and then I read something about the poop of that one super rare insect, so I won't claim to understand science funding, I really don't).

AFAIK placebo has been proved potentially effective when the brain is in control of whatever effect we're after(The Demon Haunted World discusses that rapidly, and it's from 1995). Not like placebo will cure brain cancer. But as you mention, with anything even vaguely related to feelings, then absolutely, placebo could affect us. Sense of pain or discomfort being the most obvious and important demonstrated cases.

This is in line with modern psychology and what we bring up almost everyday; human biases. Most will still affect us after we've been made aware, like price changing our sound impression. More than the notion of placebo, it's about us not being in control of how some variables will influence us. When you take a pill, even if it's sugar, you're taking a pill. You've done it many times for stuff supposed to make you feel better. The brain has had time to make that sort of connection(the same way it does with alcohol or chocolate cake). Being told it's just sugar or just water, might not be enough to break all the connections our brain has already made between pills and feeling better. At least that's how I interpret it.

For audio, imagined sound, could trigger the same neuron paths as actually hearing the sound(I should link to the related paper, but I failed to find it...). So when people say "I heard the difference" despite 2 sound samples being identical, they might have no way of knowing otherwise without the test itself convincing them that they're wrong. And a sighted listening can't do that. So we're at a standstill where people almost exclusively use a listening method that cannot and will not separate the right sound impressions from the self made delusions(from slightly altered impressions of sound, exaggerated memories of differences, to completely made up crap). 
That's a serious issue in a hobby where so many people love to think they're always right.


----------



## analogsurviver

dogrelata said:


> Out of curiosity I've spent some time on Google trying to find ABX test results of audio gear and couldn't find much.  Those I did were mostly carried out by interest groups, 'trade' publications or hi-fi dealerships.  As you say, there seems little interest in the subject from 'academia', which is not surprising given it's a niche area that affects a very small percentage of the populous.
> 
> Moving off-topic slightly, there is some serious research in the medical sciences regarding the efficacy of placebos.  There are have been a number of studies claiming there are measureable benefits to sufferers given placebos.  More recently there have been some studies that suggest positive results are being observed even when patients know they are being given placebos.
> 
> ...


The outcome on blind test to Stax SRM-252S ( a typical electrostatic amp uncapable of supporting wide bandwidth without inevitable slew rate distortion setting in due to too little POWER/CURRENT to drive the capacitive load properly ) and a BHSE ( which is one of the few that can drive properly to at least 20 kHz a single pair of ES headphones ) would be heavily influenced by the source/programme. When the music and its recording do not have high level high frequency information, the difference should be negligible. If listening to a HiRez demo recording ( let alone live mic feed ) for a cymbal manufacturer, the poor little Stax against BHSE has less chance than a snowflake in hell. 

Measurements of any gear that acutally drives electrostatics is scarce - for a reason. High voltage probes are required and acquisition of these can only be justified by someone actually building ES amps for commercial availability. I did a very extensive set of measurements of Stax SRM1MK2 and iFi Pro iESL transformer with best DIY probes I could come up with - but did not decide to publish those measurements due to the fact that each had its own set of problems. Stax simply runs out of current if high level high frequency signal comes along ( resulting in distortion ), although an order of magnitude better than "normal" audio transformer, the iFi unit still has problems with saturation at high level bass, some variation in frequency response regarding the step up ratio chosen and - surprisingly - higher than expected distortion in the midrange at anything higher than at say ( from the memory ) -6dB. Still, the transformer has audibly less "noise" ( correct - distortion ) under normal listening conditions - which DO entail high frequencies in most music. Making it the preffered choice in pure qualitative terms. Performance vs cost is an entirely different matter ...

If and when I can get to refurbishing my first pair of Stax Lambda Pro headphones, I will describe the procedure and accompany it with the measurements. It will also put to rest for good the erronous notion tha cables do not matter. It is perfectly possible to get near BHSE performance with SRM1MK2 - by replacing the stock Stax cable with a considerably less capacitive one. The problem here is mostly the sheer cable size/inconvenience/dominance of the modified cable(s) compared to reasonably compact stock cable - since there is no other way of achieving the as low capacitance as required. 
The other way of getting the same quality of reproduction is using a much more powerful amp - BHSE territory.


----------



## dogrelata

castleofargh said:


> The first post is the biggest source of audiophile blind tests I know of. For actual research, they usually have a better understanding of electricity and human psychology, so they won't even get into something ambiguous or massively pointless even under the best circumstances(I say that and then I read something about the poop of that one super rare insect, so I won't claim to understand science funding, I really don't).
> 
> AFAIK placebo has been proved potentially effective when the brain is in control of whatever effect we're after(The Demon Haunted World discusses that rapidly, and it's from 1995). Not like placebo will cure brain cancer. But as you mention, with anything even vaguely related to feelings, then absolutely, placebo could affect us. Sense of pain or discomfort being the most obvious and important demonstrated cases.
> 
> ...


You've touched upon something I've often wondered about but assumed the current state of mapping neuron paths/neural networks wasn't yet at the point where sufficiently detailed maps could be produced.

It would be interesting to see if a recording of a neuron path for listening to a track on equipment A matched that of equipment B.  If not, are the maps consistently reproduced over a number of repeats of the same piece of music, suggesting the brain might be sensitive enough to detect small differences in equipment output, even if these differences aren't big enough to be identified by the conscious brain and effectively non-audible.


----------



## dogrelata

analogsurviver said:


> The outcome on blind test to Stax SRM-252S ( a typical electrostatic amp uncapable of supporting wide bandwidth without inevitable slew rate distortion setting in due to too little POWER/CURRENT to drive the capacitive load properly ) and a BHSE ( which is one of the few that can drive properly to at least 20 kHz a single pair of ES headphones ) would be heavily influenced by the source/programme. When the music and its recording do not have high level high frequency information, the difference should be negligible. If listening to a HiRez demo recording ( let alone live mic feed ) for a cymbal manufacturer, the poor little Stax against BHSE has less chance than a snowflake in hell.
> 
> Measurements of any gear that acutally drives electrostatics is scarce - for a reason. High voltage probes are required and acquisition of these can only be justified by someone actually building ES amps for commercial availability. I did a very extensive set of measurements of Stax SRM1MK2 and iFi Pro iESL transformer with best DIY probes I could come up with - but did not decide to publish those measurements due to the fact that each had its own set of problems. Stax simply runs out of current if high level high frequency signal comes along ( resulting in distortion ), although an order of magnitude better than "normal" audio transformer, the iFi unit still has problems with saturation at high level bass, some variation in frequency response regarding the step up ratio chosen and - surprisingly - higher than expected distortion in the midrange at anything higher than at say ( from the memory ) -6dB. Still, the transformer has audibly less "noise" ( correct - distortion ) under normal listening conditions - which DO entail high frequencies in most music. Making it the preffered choice in pure qualitative terms. Performance vs cost is an entirely different matter ...
> 
> ...


I'm not suggesting these amps sound the same.  Apart from anything else, they have very different specifications so it would be surprising if they did.    

The choice of amps was simply for illustration purposes as examples of products that might be expected to create a preconceived bias amongst those who were asked to listen to them fully sighted.  Depending upon a number of variables, they may or may not sound similar in a blind test, especially at lower volume levels and for those who aren't familiar with the Stax sound.  

Remember this thread is about ABX blind testing as opposed to sighted testing and whether one type of test has the potential to introduce preconceived biases that the other doesn't, apart from participants knowing there's a 50% chance they're listening to one amp or the other.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Do I have to repeat myself again? I am not aiming at validity for a formal test. I am figuring out for myself if it is worth worrying about. I keep repeating that and it doesn't get through. If something is so small that I have to use test equipment to calibrate my system to properly discern it, it flat out doesn't matter. I use my home stereo to listen to music sitting on the couch. I'm looking for audio fidelity that matters in that kind of a setting, not a testing lab. I understand that there are very minute differences. I'm not trying to discern that. That stuff can be measured better than it can be heard. I'm looking for things that matter to my ears. Of course for that purpose the comparison has a value.
> 
> I think everyone should make an effort to minimize bias and perceptual error when they are comparing different components for their system so they can make informed decisions. I don't think that requires splitting the atom. And I'm not going to discourage them from even trying because their degree of controls wouldn't please the AES.
> 
> ...




You can repeat yourself as much as you like.  It doesn't change the reality that what you are doing isn't a valid test due to lack of proper controls and far too few test iterations.

If the model works for you, that's great, but you're the one opening the door to others to question testing.  Frankly, this really doesn't belong in this thread as you are certainly not testing "Testing audiophile claims and myths", you are more likely creating them.


----------



## analogsurviver

dogrelata said:


> I'm not suggesting these amps sound the same.  Apart from anything else, they have very different specifications so it would be surprising if they did.
> 
> The choice of amps was simply for illustration purposes as examples of products that might be expected to create a preconceived bias amongst those who were asked to listen to them fully sighted.  Depending upon a number of variables, they may or may not sound similar in a blind test, especially at lower volume levels and for those who aren't familiar with the Stax sound.
> 
> Remember this thread is about ABX blind testing as opposed to sighted testing and whether one type of test has the potential to introduce preconceived biases that the other doesn't, apart from participants knowing there's a 50% chance they're listening to one amp or the other.


I just wanted to give a clear example where ABX is ... nothing but a waste of time. Besides that , it is an practical impossibility.

SWITCHING two high volage amps/transformers/whatever is an extremely daunting task... - if nothing else, there is NO standard or prescription how polarising voltage is applied. Stax high bias voltage ( Pro ) is 580 VDC - but, in some Stax amps the stators are negative voltage and moving diaphragm is positive - and vice versa in other Stax amp models. In that case, direct ABX is sheer impossibility - as Stax headphones really do not like to be correctly/reversibly polarized; it is at least 10 seconds between changing the connection by unplugging from one amp to another with reverse polarising voltage before anything approaching normal output level is again attained. And, DON'T do it while wearing the headphones on your ears ... - the noises are really obnoxious and could lead to hearing damage.. 

Now, imagine a switcher (circuit) that has to deal > 1kV difference at switching ... - and you must NOT connect the output during switching to ground or any fixec potential.

I know what you wanted to say regarding sighted vs blind testing - but you have chosen perhaps the least likely ABX to be ever conducted in practice.


----------



## dogrelata

analogsurviver said:


> I just wanted to give a clear example where ABX is ... nothing but a waste of time. Besides that , it is an practical impossibility.
> 
> SWITCHING two high volage amps/transformers/whatever is an extremely daunting task... - if nothing else, there is NO standard or prescription how polarising voltage is applied. Stax high bias voltage ( Pro ) is 580 VDC - but, in some Stax amps the stators are negative voltage and moving diaphragm is positive - and vice versa in other Stax amp models. In that case, direct ABX is sheer impossibility - as Stax headphones really do not like to be correctly/reversibly polarized; it is at least 10 seconds between changing the connection by unplugging from one amp to another with reverse polarising voltage before anything approaching normal output level is again attained. And, DON'T do it while wearing the headphones on your ears ... - the noises are really obnoxious and could lead to hearing damage..
> 
> ...


Cool.  I'll take you off the list of potential participants when I set up the test


----------



## analogsurviver

dogrelata said:


> Cool.  I'll take you off the list of potential participants when I set up the test


Cool. More time to actually listen to the music.

I have no idea as to how the bias voltage is applied in the BHSE - it may or may not be the same "polarity" as the Stax SRM-252S. I got caught by surprise when Stax SRM1MK2 and iFi Pro iESL shared the bias voltage polarity - and Stax SRM 007 had an opposite bias polarity.

Also, even assuming that these two are "bias polarity compatible", the only way to set up an online ABX would be binaural re-recording in PCM of a pair of headphones NEVER moved troughout the entire duration of the test involving two amps. 

When setting up such test, make sure the actual sound output is matched in absolute phase. Various models of Stax headphones produce various absolute phase outputs with various models of amplifiers ( or transformers ); please check InnerFidelity reports - which do indicate the absolute phase polarity of the combination headphone/amp under test. If absolute phase is important and audible, it is with headphones - makes for far greater difference in perceived sound than the two rather evenly matched amps ( not a midget from Stax vs Goliath in the form of BHSE ).

Good luck with the test !


----------



## castleofargh

dogrelata said:


> You've touched upon something I've often wondered about but assumed the current state of mapping neuron paths/neural networks wasn't yet at the point where sufficiently detailed maps could be produced.
> 
> It would be interesting to see if a recording of a neuron path for listening to a track on equipment A matched that of equipment B.  If not, are the maps consistently reproduced over a number of repeats of the same piece of music, suggesting the brain might be sensitive enough to detect small differences in equipment output, even if these differences aren't big enough to be identified by the conscious brain and effectively non-audible.


still not the one I was looking for, but they explain(I don't get all of it...) how they manage to identify brain activity without actually having(or being able) to track each neurons https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.30.320176v1.full
Because for now we cannot. We get to see activation of general areas(with way too many neurons), or study small groups of extracted neurons from animal while they still work , by measuring or sending electrical signals. If I gave you a false impression that we could really follow neuron per neuron activity in a living human brain, sorry for being misleading.  

There was another work discussing ... I'm not sure I remember that correctly. Something where as we learn a sound sample, and we listen to it, we have some sort of inverted expectation or something. So if we get what we expect, nothing much happens(they cancel out), but when the difference becomes big enough(no idea where the threshold is or how it's characterized), then it causes a reaction and we notice. 
Now the bonus question: What happens if we have inaccurate expectations from a flawed memory or biased experiences in the first place? ^_^


----------



## bigshot (Oct 22, 2021)

dogrelata said:


> Moving off-topic slightly, there is some serious research in the medical sciences regarding the efficacy of placebos.  There are have been a number of studies claiming there are measureable benefits to sufferers given placebos.  More recently there have been some studies that suggest positive results are being observed even when patients know they are being given placebos.  The point I'm trying to make with the above is why would the scientific community spend precious funding trying to measure whether people can hear the difference between a Stax SRM-252S and a BHSE in a blind test, when the chances of a positive outcome may be relatively small and significantly different to what might be expected if participants could see what they're listening to.



When used to correct conditions and behavior, placebo effect is generally just a short term fix. Real satisfaction and happiness generally doesn't comes from tricking your perception, but by actually altering your perceptions in a beneficial way: setting parameters and goals, assessing priorities, making a plan and following it, charting progress, and taking time out for fun and relaxation. That sort of process can be much more effective in leading to true satisfaction than placebo. However, I think a lot of what we see in extreme cases of "audiophilia nervosa" is due to actual psychological conditions... Obsessive compulsive disorder causing one to feel the need to keep replacing equipment over and over in search of incrementally better and better specs that only exist on paper, not in human ears... Or personality disorders related to the need to feed ego for dominance by buying equipment for status or prestige so they can lord it over others. Or Aspergers Syndrome- people who are focused on certain subjects to a point where it goes beyond practicality. In these cases, placebo wouldn't help because the sources of the behavior are more deep seated. That might be why there aren't more studies on inaccurate perception in home audio. Naturally, everything is a spectrum, so the degree of the condition is directly related to the seriousness or benign nature of the problem. For most people, it isn't a problem. They just buy a stereo and listen to it. It's the minority at the extremes that make the most noise in internet forums. In fact, internet forums might have more to do with it than home audio. The irony is that none of this has anything to do with actual sound fidelity, but it seems to drive the whole home audio market.



bfreedma said:


> You can repeat yourself as much as you like.  It doesn't change the reality that what you are doing isn't a valid test due to lack of proper controls and far too few test iterations. If the model works for you, that's great, but you're the one opening the door to others to question testing.  Frankly, this really doesn't belong in this thread as you are certainly not testing "Testing audiophile claims and myths", you are more likely creating them.



Whatever. I'm perfectly capable of determining whether a piece of equipment meets the standards I need for my purposes. I'm not trying to discern gnat hairs for peer review. I'm simply looking for fitness for my purpose. That doesn't require a PhD and a government grant. We're talking about making recorded music sound great in our homes, we aren't curing cancer here. I think that science is very useful to lay people, and I encourage everyone to do their own tests. I don't discourage them by making testing an impossible mountain to climb. I think if more people applied simple basic controls to their listening comparisons, we wouldn't have so many people coming in here claiming "night and day" differences between power plugs, the necessity of inaudible frequencies, or 90% of the other nonsense we deal with. Holding up papers from the AES makes absolutely no difference to these people. But if you can get them to do a simple listening test with controls adequate for the purpose, they might change their minds. I've seen that before in Sound Science.

I believe people are basically smart enough to make decisions for themselves. They don't need an expert to do a fancy study to tell them what to eat for breakfast or what kind of mp3 player to buy. They just need a basic understanding of how things work and tools for determining the lay of the land. With that, they can make their own informed decisions. I'm perfectly happy to be the one in Sound Science who speaks to normal people who fall in the middle between Einstein and the wrong end of Dunning Kruger.

Science isn't just for scientists. It's for real people too.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Whatever. I'm perfectly capable of determining whether a piece of equipment meets the standards I need for my purposes. I'm not trying to discern gnat hairs for peer review. I'm simply looking for fitness for my purpose. That doesn't require a PhD and a government grant. We're talking about making recorded music sound great in our homes, we aren't curing cancer here. I think that science is very useful to lay people, and I encourage everyone to do their own tests. I don't discourage them by making testing an impossible mountain to climb. I think if more people applied simple basic controls to their listening comparisons, we wouldn't have so many people coming in here claiming "night and day" differences between power plugs, the necessity of inaudible frequencies, or 90% of the other nonsense we deal with. Holding up papers from the AES makes absolutely no difference to these people. But if you can get them to do a simple listening test with controls adequate for the purpose, they might change their minds. I've seen that before in Sound Science.
> 
> I believe people are basically smart enough to make decisions for themselves. They don't need an expert to do a fancy study to tell them what to eat for breakfast or what kind of mp3 player to buy. They just need a basic understanding of how things work and tools for determining the lay of the land. With that, they can make their own informed decisions. I'm perfectly happy to be the one in Sound Science who speaks to normal people who fall in the middle between Einstein and the wrong end of Dunning Kruger.
> 
> Science isn't just for scientists. It's for real people too.




All well and good, but you should really stop referring to your personal definition of how to pursue accurate testing as "Science".  "Good enough for Bigshot" isn't how I've seen acoustic science described in any textbook.

The issue I have with this is not how satisfied you are with your results, it's that you appear to have a much lower bar for yourself than for anyone else when it comes to establishing "science" and it's associated validation.  I don't think we should have different criteria for what passes in Sound Science for subjectivists and objectivists - what you're doing makes it much more difficult to discuss that line when the people you refer to as "barnacles" make unsupported claims.   How can we ask them to follow established methodology if we don't follow it ourselves?

As you're fond of saying, the rules in Sound Science are different than the rest of this site...


----------



## bigshot

OK. I’m impressed with your scientific purity. I’m just a lowly practical person.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> OK. I’m impressed with your scientific purity. I’m just a lowly practical person.



Sarcasm in lieu of a reasonable response - that’s what I’d expect from one of your so called “barnacles”, not you.  I’ll remind you of your self assessment when you once again go after someone in a Sound Science thread for not properly performing tests to support their opinions.  

I’m simply asking you to abide by the same standards that we (including you) ask others for when they make claims based on insufficient process or data.  Sound Science has consistently not responded well to subjective opinions projected as objective facts without proper testing.  IMO, that’s what you’re currently bringing to the table based on your own personal biases.  

It’s detrimental to the discussion of the value of proper testing/statistical analysis if we aren’t willing to expend the effort to do it correctly ourselves.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 23, 2021)

I've already given a reasonable response and you're not registering it. I'm not interested in pure science in theory. You can own that. I'm interested in applying basic scientific principles to help make my home audio system sound better- not perfect to the nth degree, just better. That doesn't require stringent tests. I'm not building a lab or a recording studio. I'm not publishing at the AES. I'm listening to music in my living room to enhance my lifestyle, and trying to please myself and my friends and family. If there was a forum here for reasonable people with normal goals and a rational process for working to achieve them, I would be there. But we've been herded into absolutist "us and them" groups, and I'm even worse at being a hoodoo mystic than I am at being a white coated, bespectacled scientist, so here I am. You're stuck with me.

I abide by the standards I ask other people to abide by. I don't ask them to take my word for anything. I offer my opinion and I tell them how I reached my conclusions. Most of all, I offer suggestions to help them apply achievable controls to stick a toe into the world of rational skepticism and science so they can find out for themselves. If they haven't applied any controls at all, I explain why controls are necessary and I tell them that their results will be more accurate if they implement them. I'm not going to tell them that applying controls requires equipment and knowledge beyond their ability, so they should just take the word of a scientist at face value. I would like to instill a little bit of skepticism and experimentation in them so they can understand and solve their own problems. I grew up watching Mr Wizard do simple experiments on TV with basic household items. That kind of science is fine with me.

I don't want to be an expert or an authority. I want to be a facilitator, helping them grow and learn for themselves. I don't care how stringent their controls are as long as they make an honest effort to implement them. If it isn't enough, they can do a little more next time and get a little better results. "Right and wrong" are defined differently by every person on Earth. I prefer to speak in terms of "not so hot and a little better". In the past, I've helped folks set up simple listening tests that helped them realize in which direction the truth lay. That was a lot more useful to them than linking to technically dense AES papers that require a subscription, or plowing through paragraph after paragraph of complicated jargon that focuses more on the exceptions to the rule than the simple truth. I don't want to be a scientist and feel the need to cross every T and dot every I. I just want to help.

Normal people who come here want to know if an SACD really does sound better than a CD, or if spending a lot more money on an amp will make a big difference. They aren't asking for a thesis paper. They just want an explanation of the why and how of things in laymen's terms so they can decide what to spend their money on. There's way too much talking over people's heads in this forum already. I shouldn't be required to add to that. I would rather help people understand the fundamentals of how things work and help them figure out how to come up with a rational strategy for making their stereo sound better. Pretty simple goal. And I'm attempting to do this in an internet discussion forum- just about the most informal mode of communication there is. There is no qualification for typing in words here. Anyone can do it. And people lie to us or make stuff up here all the time. Worry about them first.

Arguing about silly stuff like this is what makes me feel like a king in Gulliver's Travels arguing about which end of an egg to break. I'm not writing at length here because I enjoy it. I'm speaking precisely to try to explain where I'm coming from so folks understand and stop trying to paint me as something I'm not.


----------



## dogrelata

castleofargh said:


> still not the one I was looking for, but they explain(I don't get all of it...) how they manage to identify brain activity without actually having(or being able) to track each neurons https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.30.320176v1.full
> Because for now we cannot. We get to see activation of general areas(with way too many neurons), or study small groups of extracted neurons from animal while they still work , by measuring or sending electrical signals. If I gave you a false impression that we could really follow neuron per neuron activity in a living human brain, sorry for being misleading.
> 
> There was another work discussing ... I'm not sure I remember that correctly. Something where as we learn a sound sample, and we listen to it, we have some sort of inverted expectation or something. So if we get what we expect, nothing much happens(they cancel out), but when the difference becomes big enough(no idea where the threshold is or how it's characterized), then it causes a reaction and we notice.
> Now the bonus question: What happens if we have inaccurate expectations from a flawed memory or biased experiences in the first place? ^_^


Thanks, that was really interesting.  

If this technology were ever to reach the point of producing high resolution recordings of our own perceived/imagined version of music it would be fascinating to see if the brain subtley make changes to the original to make it more pleasing to us.  If that was the case, the revised version could then be listened to, with the potential for further changes, etc.  In theory, after a number of iterations, we'd reach a point where we longer make any more changes and that would be a perfect version of that piece of music.

Obviously by the time this technology matured, it would be possible to project music directly into the brain while we slept, waking up a new master recording, tailored to our own tastes.  Pure sci-fi, obviously, but what else are we going to do on a wet Satyrday afternoon in October!


----------



## VNandor

bigshot said:


> Level matching can be done simply to a degree that can discern if a difference is big enough to worry about. Just run a tone through both sources and switch back and forth and adjust until you can't hear a difference any more. That works fine. If you can't hear a difference with a steady tone, there is no way it's going to make a difference when you play music. And a friend will be patient enough to help you do enough tests to know whether you should worry about it or not. You don't need to calculate pi to the 100th decimal point. There is such a thing as "good enough for government work". If you can't do it in an hour, take two hours.
> 
> Test for yourself. Don't throw up your hands and give up because you don't have a degree in engineering. Critical thinking and testing is for EVERYONE, not just people in white lab coats.


Suggesting that volume matching by ears is good enough when testing sources should be a bannable offense on the sacred ground of the almighty Sound Science Sub-Forum of Head-Fi.

On a more serious note, you definitely don't need to have a degree in engineering to get a multimeter and to use it to properly match sources, it's not nearly as inaccessible as you make it out to be. No lab coat needed, just an ounce of interest in proper testing and some common sense. Doing a blind-test while relying on volume matching by ears is effectively the same as doing a sighted test: the test is simply not good enough to draw any meaningful conclusion from it.

I don't think you would accept a positive result from someone who blind-tested two DACs but did the volume matching by ear.


----------



## Brahmsian

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31786800/


----------



## bigshot (Oct 24, 2021)

dogrelata said:


> Obviously by the time this technology matured, it would be possible to project music directly into the brain while we slept, waking up a new master recording, tailored to our own tastes.



Sounds like it might be a "just one more thing" at the next Apple event!



VNandor said:


> Mr Ban Hammer Wrote: I don't think you would accept a positive result from someone who blind-tested two DACs but did the volume matching by ear.



Haven't had one yet. And who said that I care if you would accept it or not? Didn't I explain that my testing is for my own information, not to publish for others? I encourage other people to do their own tests for themselves applying controls to the best of their ability. My advice is to take the word of anyone posing as an expert in an internet forum. Do your own homework. Question and try to discern for yourself.

I think I need some sort of cut and paste. People don't understand what I'm saying.


----------



## danadam

analogsurviver said:


> I wish I could afford Van Alstine ABX comparator


I don't think they are available any more:


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Sounds like it might be a "just one more thing" at the next Apple event!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I understand what you are saying.  I just don't agree that your tests have can be used to draw any conclusion (including for you) without proper controls.  

Just applying the same standards to you that we ask others to follow in Sound Science and know that "volume matched by ear then very limited number of tests" would be called out for insufficient controls if someone else were to draw hard conclusions from substandard testing.


----------



## bigshot

You would be surprised how useful my tests have been for me.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> You would be surprised how useful my tests have been for me.



Useful for you?  Possibly.  Useful in establishing any objective conclusion?  No. 

For all of the discussion of testing methodology and placebo, I can't understand how you or anyone else can make objective statements derived from the results of uncontrolled testing.

What you've actually got is a subjective personal preference.  Same as the people who visit making claims about cables/DACS/Amps.  Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't accurate to call what you have objective results in the Sound Science subforum.


----------



## bigshot

I’m only doing tests for myself. I can’t seem to get that across. I test to figure out how things work so I can make a plan of what to do. Im not trying to prove anything to anybody. People should do their own informal tests so they can figure out how things work too.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I’m only doing tests for myself. I can’t seem to get that across. I test to figure out how things work so I can make a plan of what to do. Im not trying to prove anything to anybody. People should do their own informal tests so they can figure out how things work too.



Again, please follow the norms and quote post you are responding to.

Do you not see the irony of posting conclusions based on improper controls in Sound Science?  If it helps you find your subjective preference, great, but suggesting this type of testing has any real value (even to you) in formulating objective results isn't, IMO, appropriate in this subforum.

If we allow ourselves a double standard, how can we ask others to follow correct methodology?  If a cable "believer" posted here claiming to hear differences based on insufficient level matching and test trials, would you accept their claim?


----------



## bigshot

This is silly!


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> This is silly!




My last comment then -  Posts here should adhere to objective testing criteria if the results of those tests are used to support a claim.  Ironically, your posts have essentially the same objective value as the posts made by those you call "barnacles" - not a good look.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 25, 2021)

Requiring that posts in an internet forum meet rigorous standards is laughable. I don't think anyone should put complete faith in ANYTHING said in an internet forum. There are too many people making up fake personas and lying through their teeth because they think there are no consequences on the internet. Someone can come in here and detail the most rigorous testing standards possible, and they may very well be a 17 year old sociopathic high school dropout living in their mom's basement whose only experimentation has been with a bong. Welcome to the internet!

I present myself honestly. I never claim to be a scientist and I don't claim my tests meet any kind of "official standard". I do tests to experiment for myself and figure out how things work. That's a LOT better than doing nothing and just following what other people in audiophile forums say. I share what I've learned and I offer tips and resources, but I never claim to be any kind of scientific authority myself. People need to do their own experiments and research for themselves and I've helped a few do just that by offering tips. I'm the only one here offering visitors help with setting up their own listening tests. I'm not the one saying, "It's too hard to do tests to academic standards. Just trust me on this. I'm a scientist!"

I'm not Moses with tablets, I'm just a guy who licked his finger and held it up to figure out which direction the wind was blowing. We don't need Moseses around here. We need more people making an effort to figure out for themselves how things work. That should be what Sound Science is about. It's a forum about applying scientific principles to make our home stereo sound better. It's a place for real people, not a private club for official card carrying scientists.


----------



## GearMe

Ha --- this back and forth discussion vaguely reminds of a book that we probably all had to read in high school about some kids stranded on an island.

Context matters!  Head-Fi is an Internet Forum about the _Personal _Audio Hobby and how we choose to 'implement' that in our _own_ lives.  We chat, share some ideas, and hopefully come away from it with some entertainment/knowledge/etc that makes our life more enjoyable through these interactions.  Ideally, some of the information members pass on to us we can leverage (if so desired) to increase our enjoyment when we listen to music.

Bigfoot has hit the target as far as any 'value' that the Sound Science sub-Forum could provide (imo).  If I were to chose to waste my time doing a (sort-of) 'blind test', I would follow something similar to what Bigfoot does because it would be Good Enough _for me._ 

I say this having an analytics/engineering/business educational and work background --- understanding the methodology, statistics, and potential usefulness behind the process.

So, if other people feel the need to turn up the 'precision' to appeal to their objectivity angst, more power to them...knock yourselves out!  

But in the end, imo, the value that this tiny sub-forum provides to the community becomes diminished as this pedantic need for 'precision' fails to reach and influence the vast majority of Head-Fi members (my anecdotal observation...not backed by ANY hard data)!


----------



## bigshot

I’m a yeti, not a Bigfoot!


----------



## analogsurviver

danadam said:


> I don't think they are available any more:


It was/is a decent piece of kit. If it were not for the money, I would have not missed out on this one. C'est la vie.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> I’m a yeti, not a Bigfoot!


Think I'm gonna stick with Bigfoot as your new name...


----------



## bigshot

I do take a big shoe size…


----------



## BobG55 (Oct 27, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I’m a yeti, not a Bigfoot!


I’ve seen photos so, I can vouch for him ! 😁


----------



## bigshot




----------



## BobG55

bigshot said:


>


Location changed to “Forests of the Pacific” LOL 😂.  I love it !


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> People should do their own informal tests so they can figure out how things work too.


I have done that with cross-feed. It revolutionised my headphone listening. 

P.S. You have got a new avatar. I liked the Mickey Mouse one more. You used that on other forums too, so your post were easy to recognize all over the internet.


----------



## 71 dB

bfreedma said:


> Useful for you?  Possibly.  Useful in establishing any objective conclusion?  No.


Science gives us objective conclusions. It is us people with our subjective preferences insisting otherwise.

The real problem might be our inability to distinguish objective audio from subjective audio. Objectively CD is technically superior audio format compared to vinyl, but subjectively some people find the sound of vinyl better. That's why CD versus vinyl arguments are kind of silly: Objectivity and subjectivity fight each other, when they aren't commensurable things to begin with. Ego, having good hearing and placebo effect make this even more confusing.


----------



## castleofargh

71 dB said:


> Science gives us objective conclusions. It is us people with our subjective preferences insisting otherwise.
> 
> The real problem might be our inability to distinguish objective audio from subjective audio. Objectively CD is technically superior audio format compared to vinyl, but subjectively some people find the sound of vinyl better. That's why CD versus vinyl arguments are kind of silly: Objectivity and subjectivity fight each other, when they aren't commensurable things to begin with. Ego, having good hearing and placebo effect make this even more confusing.


The problem in this case is that a poorly controlled experiment shouldn't be conclusive. That's it.


 I understand what @bigshot means when he say he doesn't need research level conditions to form his own opinion. It's all the more understandable that if with poor volume matching, he still doesn't notice differences, then it's VERY unlikely that he would with volume matched down to 0.05dB.
Another point for him is that failing to disprove the null hypothesis is not a big deal. That result in term of interpretation, is very close to not having done any test.
If he had been claiming clear audible differences with a poorly controlled test, then I'd have immediately posted to reject the validity of his conclusion along with others. But not personally noticing a difference between 2 stuff... who cares beside the listener himself? It doesn't prove there is nothing to hear. Just that this time he didn't notice a change.

Of course it would be better to have proper testing conditions, flawed tests can lead to false results with a strong sense of proved result from "controlled" methods. That rapidly falls straight into pseudo science. So it can be real dangerous and I also very much understand those who commented about inconclusive being inconclusive. But IMO, that is only really an issue when a blind test is successfully passed. Then scrutiny is a must. 
Science works toward disproving ideas. That's when we get the juicy stuff.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2021)

With any test, you have parameters. You don't need to expend 90% of your time and energy trying to tie everything down the 20th decimal point. You define the purpose of your test and use that to set the limits. You use your energy applying the results to achieve your purpose.

I define my goal as "making my home stereo sound better when I play music in my living room". I construct my tests with that in mind. Testing with tones and measurement equipment is an order of magnitude or more beyond what I need for making my home stereo sound better when I play music in my living room. The thresholds of perception between a strict test and me on my couch are a football field apart. Maybe if I applied the most stringent controls and tested with carefully calibrated tones, I would just barely be able to hear a difference. But would that matter for my purpose? Nope. In my living room listening to music, that difference would be completely inaudible. The parameters I set are plenty well suited for my purpose. Tighter standards wouldn't produce any better results.

Science is great and it helps us immeasurably in just about everything we do. But it isn't a reason unto itself. It should serve a purpose. Defining the purpose of a test is as important as the results. Perhaps more so, because without defining the purpose, the results are just abstract numbers on a page. And MY tests are for improving MY stereo system. They aren't intended to prove anything to you. You can do your own tests designed to suit your purposes. And you can judge the effectiveness of your testing every time you sit down to listen to music, just like I do.

I think it's better to do a whole bunch of useful tests, rather than just one perfect one that sucks up all your time and doesn't serve any practical purpose.


----------



## redrol

So I review In Ears.  For the most part volume matching isn't super important because I basically just turn up until i'm at the edge of what I can actually enjoy and leave it at that.  Rate that.  I find that cranking the volume allows my brain to process smaller things that I may not notice.  Having said that, there have been a few times I had the same model of IEM I needed to figure out if there were  q/a changes and that means volume matching perfectly.  This is not at all easy.. and its hard if say 2 IEMs are extremely close in overall tuning as well.

Basically louder is better, we all know this, so you have to make god damn sure you are taking that into account.  This might seem like.. What its just listening to music type of thing.  Problem is some men spend huge amounts of their expendable income on these things and expect you to have some idea what you are talking about.


----------



## bigshot

Impossible to do direct A/B switching, and even blind if you can feel the difference.


----------



## Redcarmoose

redrol said:


> So I review In Ears.  For the most part volume matching isn't super important because I basically just turn up until i'm at the edge of what I can actually enjoy and leave it at that.  Rate that.  I find that cranking the volume allows my brain to process smaller things that I may not notice.  Having said that, there have been a few times I had the same model of IEM I needed to figure out if there were  q/a changes and that means volume matching perfectly.  This is not at all easy.. and its hard if say 2 IEMs are extremely close in overall tuning as well.
> 
> Basically louder is better, we all know this, so you have to make god damn sure you are taking that into account.  This might seem like.. What its just listening to music type of thing.  Problem is some men spend huge amounts of their expendable income on these things and expect you to have some idea what you are talking about.


Yes, but I'm not so sure many use volume metering to certify volumes are played back at exactly the same level? Maybe some do? It would just take a IEM meter hooked up to computer software. But truly different volumes (not measured) offer endless issues when testing IEMs. In truth there is no way to just to it by ear. And different volumes create all kinds of discrepancies. I'm not using a meter, and fly by the seat of my pants too.

Still the damping effect of some amps is noticeable despite the volume. Even with sensitive IEMs.......it seems some amps are just better? Obviously this is more of a real concern with full-size headphones, where a loss of damping factor causes all kinds of trouble.



 Depending on amp character.............it really means many things. Meaning a slight boost in bass amount of an amp can almost make a weaker amp seem to exude damping quality when in fact it's just more bass. Then relatively flat amps will still show (slightly) more bass, just due to damping factor. It's funny as I have a FiiO Alpen 2 E17K that is bass heavy. I have an Apple iPod Touch which is relatively flat. The bass heavy IEMs are noticeably bass heavy with the Alpen 2 E17K, where they are relatively flat with the Apple iPod Touch. And always damping factor will make bass seem more authoritative, clean and help pace. The way the FiiO gets described  is really warm by most reviews, but it's truly noticeable having a bass boost in comparison to an iPod Touch.


----------



## castleofargh

Redcarmoose said:


> Yes, but I'm not so sure many use volume metering to certify volumes are played back at exactly the same level? Maybe some do? It would just take a IEM meter hooked up to computer software. But truly different volumes (not measured) offer endless issues when testing IEMs. In truth there is no way to just to it by ear. And different volumes create all kinds of discrepancies. I'm not using a meter, and fly by the seat of my pants too.
> 
> Still the damping effect of some amps is noticeable despite the volume. Even with sensitive IEMs.......it seems some amps are just better? Obviously this is more of a real concern with full-size headphones, where a loss of damping factor causes all kinds of trouble.
> 
> ...


The impedance relation will have some specific effect on the low end, but that effect is relatively small, and usually almost entirely hidden by the fluctuations from non flat impedance curves(IEM and/or amp). So when you talk about getting more bass due to damping factor, it can be true, and then again with some IEMs the opposite can happen. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/fee...oing-it-wrong-impedance.866714/#post-13891664

About matching levels with IEMs(or headphones really), long story short, it won't work. 

 I applied a really effective way to stop reviewing wrong, I stopped doing reviews. That's how far from a solution I was with IEM related stuff? I thought that by learning a lot more about human hearing, acoustic and measurements, I would end up with something solid. Turns out I only found out that there were many other problems I wasn't aware of, Making me feel even less qualified.


----------



## Redcarmoose

castleofargh said:


> The impedance relation will have some specific effect on the low end, but that effect is relatively small, and usually almost entirely hidden by the fluctuations from non flat impedance curves(IEM and/or amp). So when you talk about getting more bass due to damping factor, it can be true, and then again with some IEMs the opposite can happen. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/fee...oing-it-wrong-impedance.866714/#post-13891664
> 
> About matching levels with IEMs(or headphones really), long story short, it won't work.
> 
> I applied a really effective way to stop reviewing wrong, I stopped doing reviews. That's how far from a solution I was with IEM related stuff? I thought that by learning a lot more about human hearing, acoustic and measurements, I would end up with something solid. Turns out I only found out that there were many other problems I wasn't aware of, Making me feel even less qualified.


Well, an example of damping factor changing an IEM would be the IER-Z1R. While it sounds “OK” from an IPod, the true character of the IER-Z1R is only obtained with more damping. Much of the classic attributes/artifacts of amp mismatching are noticeable attempting to drive the IER-Z1R with the IPod. A reduction of bass clarity and a creeping lower midrange bass, reducing pace and detail ends a big deal. Thus it’s imperative to get it more juice than what a regular IPod is capable of. IMO


----------



## redrol (Nov 1, 2021)

I have to agree with I have IEMs that change tonality fairly drastically with lower OI devices.  Electrical damping is needed for many BA sets for instance.  Having said that, I think you don't need to spend a lot.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Also strangely the Sony DAPs just barely have enough juice for the IER-Z1R. So obviously the IER-Z1R came out in February of 2019. The Sony 1A and 1Z came out at the very end of 2016. And surprisingly many feel the 1A/1Z are not actually up for the task of driving the IER-Z1R. Many are reporting superior results from other amplification than the most powerful Sony DAPs. I tend to agree but have not heard the other DAPs they are referring to, other than desktop amps which of course offer slightly more power.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Nov 1, 2021)

redrol said:


> I have to agree with I have IEMs that change tonality fairly drastically with lower OI devices.  Electrical damping is needed for many BA sets for instance.  Having said that, I think you don't need to spend a lot.


Obviously this is real, but I always wonder how much of it is expectation bias. Meaning you plug an IEM into a more powerful amp and it’s a given that you expect slightly different tone. However slight, it truly is on that border-line at times of being fooled by what you have come to expect. This is one thing that’s very hard to admit for myself as often I have talked about the qualities of desktops in IEM use. But at times it’s very close to being the same? Of course it depends on the IEM, but perception is a funny thing!


----------



## hakunamakaka

My IEM's do sound best with desktop equipment, but I have to admit that differences were not that large as I was expecting. It made me settled with mid-tier DAP as I know now that I can't improve much further with flagship players. However one of the biggest surprises in audio was when I moved from iphone dongle to a dedicated source, even a bluetooth dac/amp with sensitive IEM's sounded much better. Same happened to my desktop equipment when I moved away from laptops USB interface. I had very simplified view regards source as it only passes 0101, but strangely clean source does matter


----------



## sonitus mirus

hakunamakaka said:


> My IEM's do sound best with desktop equipment, but I have to admit that differences were not that large as I was expecting. It made me settled with mid-tier DAP as I know now that I can't improve much further with flagship players. However one of the biggest surprises in audio was when I moved from iphone dongle to a dedicated source, even a bluetooth dac/amp with sensitive IEM's sounded much better. Same happened to my desktop equipment when I moved away from laptops USB interface. I had very simplified view regards source as it only passes 0101, but strangely clean source does matter


That certainly could be the case for your specific situation, but I don't agree in general with your claims.  I would avoid hyper-sensitive IEMs that can be noticeably impacted by digital sources, if this is actually the problem.


----------



## redrol

Then you would be avoiding some damn good iems.  And at the end of the day you can pay 80 bux for a Radsone ES100 and get an output impedance of .5ohm .  This is not hard to deal with nor special at this point.


----------



## hakunamakaka

redrol said:


> Then you would be avoiding some damn good iems.  And at the end of the day you can pay 80 bux for a Radsone ES100 and get an output impedance of .5ohm .  This is not hard to deal with nor special at this point.



Yep these bluetooth dac/amp's are cheap. I don't know how they do it, but even with lower bit rate codec as AAC it's still superior to wired apple dongle. By logic dongle should best such BT connection, but that's not the case for me.  My guess is that iphone itself is a noisy source, just having 4g connection is CPU intensive task. 

With Utopia on my desktop setup improvements were as well quite dramatic. Optical connection from denafrips was way better than using USB from macbook. HD650 though to my ears didn't care much which source I used, but with Utopia the sound shift was to the same degree like switching between SS & tube amps


----------



## bigshot

I don't know why people buy stuff that is incompatible when there's so much good stuff that doesn't require jumping through hoops to get to work.


----------



## castleofargh

hakunamakaka said:


> Yep these bluetooth dac/amp's are cheap. I don't know how they do it, but even with lower bit rate codec as AAC it's still superior to wired apple dongle. By logic dongle should best such BT connection, but that's not the case for me.  My guess is that iphone itself is a noisy source, just having 4g connection is CPU intensive task.
> 
> With Utopia on my desktop setup improvements were as well quite dramatic. Optical connection from denafrips was way better than using USB from macbook. HD650 though to my ears didn't care much which source I used, but with Utopia the sound shift was to the same degree like switching between SS & tube amps


It would be good to have measurements. Because subjective impressions, to me, are just that. I can never rule out psychological biases, or when sound differences are clear, simple preference based on personal taste instead of fidelity. 
Unless I clearly hear the background hiss or unmistakably high distortions/clipping, I think only measurements will tell which output is actually better *into a given load*.


----------



## bigshot

I think there are a lot of assumptions in that quote that have absolutely no basis in fact.


----------



## hakunamakaka

castleofargh said:


> It would be good to have measurements. Because subjective impressions, to me, are just that. I can never rule out psychological biases, or when sound differences are clear, simple preference based on personal taste instead of fidelity.
> Unless I clearly hear the background hiss or unmistakably high distortions/clipping, I think only measurements will tell which output is actually better *into a given load*.



I didn't buy a new gear expecting to push me to higher audio nirvana, I just had an opportunity to test. I did return the unit though, but the changes were not small to consider psychological bias and I'm thinking to build a cheap alternative streamer. There was no hiss using my macbook usb, but with dedicated streamer background was dead silent with improved staging capabilities and better behaved treble on Utopias. I thought it was somehow artificially lifted, but it made no difference for HD650, though this headphone is not clean sounding to begin with.

I've found that my dac is prone to RF noise over USB, might be that's the reason why optical sounded better with streamer. There is an article regards laptops usb's as well, but I'm doubt-full if the power noise could be the cause https://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/05/measurements-computer-usb-5v-power.html?m=1

Logically I could listen to HD650 and would not bother, but other gear sounds much better. I don't have measuring equipment neither I want to prove something, it is just a food for a thought. You can totally disregard it and move on.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 4, 2021)

It sounds like you’re choosing buggy gear somewhere. A DAC shouldn’t be subject to RF noise, and you shouldn’t be getting hiss. Those are easy things to prevent from happening. You’ve got something wonky going on. If it was me I’d try to isolate the problem and replace the bum component with something ghat works properly.


----------



## sonitus mirus

hakunamakaka said:


> I didn't buy a new gear expecting to push me to higher audio nirvana, I just had an opportunity to test. I did return the unit though, but the changes were not small to consider psychological bias and I'm thinking to build a cheap alternative streamer. There was no hiss using my macbook usb, but with dedicated streamer background was dead silent with improved staging capabilities and better behaved treble on Utopias. I thought it was somehow artificially lifted, but it made no difference for HD650, though this headphone is not clean sounding to begin with.
> 
> I've found that my dac is prone to RF noise over USB, might be that's the reason why optical sounded better with streamer. There is an article regards laptops usb's as well, but I'm doubt-full if the power noise could be the cause https://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/05/measurements-computer-usb-5v-power.html?m=1
> 
> Logically I could listen to HD650 and would not bother, but other gear sounds much better. I don't have measuring equipment neither I want to prove something, it is just a food for a thought. You can totally disregard it and move on.



This is a perfect example of a claim that should be tested with regards to audiophile myths.  To assert obvious differences with "better behaved treble Utopias" and "improved staging capabilities" from a properly functioning digital source is absurd and requires additional explanations to understand and validate.  Psychological aspects, such as bias, can always be considered.  The brain is responsible for everything that is experienced.  Measurements or other rational edifications would need to be included before making broad assumptions.


----------



## hakunamakaka

sonitus mirus said:


> This is a perfect example of a claim that should be tested with regards to audiophile myths.  To assert obvious differences with "better behaved treble Utopias" and "improved staging capabilities" from a properly functioning digital source is absurd and requires additional explanations to understand and validate.  Psychological aspects, such as bias, can always be considered.  The brain is responsible for everything that is experienced.  Measurements or other rational edifications would need to be included before making broad assumptions.


ok


----------



## bigshot

Bias is not a small thing, and it can’t be consciously controlled. Everyone has it.


----------



## Killcomic

bigshot said:


> Bias is not a small thing, and it can’t be consciously controlled. Everyone has it.


Rubbish!
I have no biases and I can always tell the difference between my expensive oxygen free USB cable and a cheap one... except when blind testing.


----------



## redrol

hahaha

I have a secret method for overcoming bias.  It's pretty simple, just get to the point you just do not care about the thing you are testing.  Then.. care so little you can't even remember what you are testing.


----------



## OhmsClaw

Killcomic said:


> Rubbish!
> I have no biases and I can always tell the difference between my expensive oxygen free USB cable and a cheap one... except when blind testing.


Get into Kpop, you'll have many Biases 🤣.
The only biasing in my equipment better be op amp and diode related.


----------



## PointyFox

redrol said:


> hahaha
> 
> I have a secret method for overcoming bias.  It's pretty simple, just get to the point you just do not care about the thing you are testing.  Then.. care so little you can't even remember what you are testing.



I'm the same way. I never have any expectations.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

PointyFox said:


> I'm the same way. I never have any expectations.


You do know he's only joking about this working, right?


----------



## PointyFox

Joe Bloggs said:


> You do know he's only joking about this working, right?


No. I guess I have special apathy powers then.


----------



## bigshot

Hahaha! Satire is dangerous business, it catches up the apathetic in its net.


----------



## PointyFox

My thought going into testing new expensive gear is "this had better be good", not "this should be good".


----------



## bigshot

Congratulations. That is expectation bias.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

bigshot said:


> Congratulations. That is expectation bias.


I have had experiences of a candidate defying both expectation bias and louder-is-better preference only to still fade into anonymity in a volume matched blind test anyway.  These are things predicting probabilities in a sighted test, not things to let you get away without a blind test by any means.


----------



## bigshot

Bias can either be right or wrong. It just isn’t arriving at the decision based entirely on facts. Humans are like that. We can’t help it. When we see something expensive, we immediately start thinking that it should be higher quality. It could be high, it could be low. Our mind unconsciously makes assumptions.


----------



## PointyFox

bigshot said:


> Congratulations. That is expectation bias.



Congratulations. You're wrong.


----------



## bigshot

You win the Dunning Kruger Award for persistent lack of self-awareness!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

PointyFox said:


> Congratulations. You're wrong.


"This had better be good" sounds every bit like an expectation _against_ something sounding better than whatever you already have.

Regardless,


Joe Bloggs said:


> I have had experiences of a candidate defying both expectation bias and louder-is-better preference only to still fade into anonymity in a volume matched blind test anyway.  These are things predicting probabilities in a sighted test, not things to let you get away without a blind test by any means.


.


----------



## PointyFox

Joe Bloggs said:


> "This had better be good" sounds every bit like an expectation _against_ something sounding better than whatever you already have.
> 
> Regardless,
> 
> .



No, not at all. I hope it's good since I'd have spent a lot of money on it but at the same time know that it could be terrible, great, or anywhere in between.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 2, 2022)

Finish the sentence... This had better be good 



Spoiler



...or I've wasted my money!



There is definitely a preferred outcome there.

It doesn't matter anyway because there isn't a human being on Earth that is free of bias. It's how we make decisions. We can minimize bias by adding controls, like a blind test, but for some strange reason the people believe they have no bias are the same people who "don't believe" in controlled testing. We all know that is because deep down they know they are fallible, they just don't want to prove it to themselves.


----------



## 71 dB

What's up with your avatar bigshot? 
You used to have the Mickey Mouse for years and now you change it like socks...


----------



## PointyFox

bigshot said:


> Finish the sentence... This had better be good
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't put words in my mouth. The rest of the sentence would be "...or I'll return/sell it". Also I believe in controlled testing so there goes your theory.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

PointyFox said:


> Don't put words in my mouth. The rest of the sentence would be "...or I'll return/sell it". Also I believe in controlled testing so there goes your theory.


so why bother about what happens in uncontrolled testing at all and this ongoing argument about that?

As we all know (and kept trying to point out), "I expected this to be worse not better" (or the other way round, or "I didn't expect anything") is not a get-out-of-jail card for uncontrolled testing.


----------



## castleofargh (Jan 3, 2022)

@PointyFox it's a different sort of expectation bias, but it still very clearly is one. And there is nothing strange about it unless you're a space lizard. If I put in more money than is usual, I obviously expect a product that will be better made. Ease of use, form factor, UI, sound, some or all of those things should be improved if more money was put into making it. That is our expectation.
I would never judge a 50$ device the way I judge the 1500$ counterpart. If they were the same products, I would most likely say good things about the 50$ one, and crap all over the 'expensive for no reason' device. It's not the bias where we paid a lot so we dream up qualities that don't exist, but it's a bias still. If I was able to judge things objectively while focusing on signal fidelity, I would be able to say the same about the 2 devices. When it comes to making personal decisions, I'm not able and not willing to.
But of course we both understand that if the question we want answered was "can I tell them apart by ear?" then we need the tools that remove/mitigate our biases. I don't think there is a conflict here. Different tools for different jobs.


----------



## PointyFox

castleofargh said:


> If I put in more money than is usual, I obviously expect a product that will be better made. Ease of use, form factor, UI, sound, some or all of those things should be improved if more money was put into making it. That is our expectation.


Not mine. Some of the things I've liked the least I've paid the most for. Expecting everyone to think the same as you is expectation bias.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

PointyFox said:


> Not mine. Some of the things I've liked the least I've paid the most for. Expecting everyone to think the same as you is expectation bias.


What's the pount of expounding your lack of expectation bias if sighted tests are just as flawed either way?


----------



## bigshot (Jan 3, 2022)

71 dB said:


> What's up with your avatar bigshot?



I love monkeys. I wish I had a monkey. Sometimes we have monkeys here in Sound Science!


----------



## PointyFox

Joe Bloggs said:


> What's the pount of expounding your lack of expectation bias if sighted tests are just as flawed either way?


Reread the preceeding posts.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 3, 2022)




----------



## Joe Bloggs (Jan 3, 2022)

PointyFox said:


> Reread the preceeding posts.


Against my better judgement, I did, and it just reinforces my feeling of what a great dumpster fire this is turning into



--I think you and I agree on more things than any two typical head-fi members, I just can't see where this going or why, at all

🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## bigshot (Jan 3, 2022)

Weenie roast!

Honestly, you have to admit you saw this coming from his first post. Anytime someone declares that they have a special ability that no human has, you can bet they are going to stick to their guns. You aren't going to be able to convince him he doesn't have this magical ability to bypass bias using logic. It's an illogical claim to start with.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jan 3, 2022)

bigshot said:


>


You are constantly challenging perception of science by the common public.

In a cartoon form, it could perhaps be expressed as the famous "reaching the limits" from Simpsons counterargued by Einstein's only certain infinity intrinsic to humanity


----------



## bigshot

Never forget the contribution of simians to science!


----------



## oakparkmusicguy

@bigshot - I knew someone who had a monkey as a pet. I can objectively say it had a very strong and distinct smell. Subjectively the smell was horrible!

I even tried it blindfolded  lol 😂


----------



## bigshot

Maybe now that COVID has destroyed all of our senses of smell...


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I love monkeys. I wish I had a monkey.


Oh dear... ...I haven't liked monkeys since I watched Tom Green's _Subway Monkey Hour _(and Japanese people haven't liked Tom Green since that ordeal).



bigshot said:


> Sometimes we have monkeys here in Sound Science!


No wonder things go often bananas!


----------



## lofah99247

Appreciate it! This is an great site!


----------



## Davesrose (Jan 4, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Never forget the contribution of simians to science!



Since this is supposed to be the science section, we should not also confuse apes with monkeys 🙉


----------



## QuasiSpecies

How am I not surprised that this thread has degenerated into this…


----------



## sonitus mirus

QuasiSpecies said:


> How am I not surprised that this thread has degenerated into this…



This is a high point.


----------



## Davesrose

QuasiSpecies said:


> How am I not surprised that this thread has degenerated into this…



I think us great apes are doing pretty well at the moment: I don't see feces being thrown at the moment 😀


----------



## James-uk

I’m aware that good compression such as 256 AAC is near audible transparency for the majority of listeners, and I for one can’t honestly hear a difference. 
Can the same be said for lossy Bluetooth AAC?


----------



## bigshot

I think so. I used to be able to discern Bluetooth, but with the modern codecs, it’s transparent to me.


----------



## DownToThis

Speaking of monkees...


----------



## jjss

I'm sure the name "Douglas Self" would sound familiar to many of you on this forum. He's kinda guru in electroacoustic and have written many books, one of which is the "Audio Power Amplifier Design". The one I have is the 6th edition 2013 print version. In its chapter 1, he's written at length on "misinformation in audio" and "science and subjectivism" and it seems that as early as 60's and 70's last century, this phenomena existed already. Interestingly many of the myths, false claims and cults that we're seeing TODAY on FB groups, and other forums were indeed same / similar "claims" made by the then-audiophiles when listening to / reviewing amplifiers. Some examples are (1) there's the mystical aspect of sound / audio that can't be measured (2) subjective review is the way to go (3) sound effects claimed but can't be measured or no measurements provided (4) “Objective measurements are unimportant compared with the subjective impressions received in informal listening tests” (5) “Degradation effects exist that are unknown to orthodox engineering science, and are not revealed by the usual objective tests” ... and the list goes on! 

The single most common fallacy I found is that ppl (out of whatever reasons) just don't bother to differentiate personal experience / perception with a claim of a purported "fact". When queried, you soon would be detoured to some other things!! 

I have zero motivation to ruin someone's joy in this hobby, but just can't stand still when something is clearly wrong or someone clearly deserves better should they know the facts and figures correctly. I too am learning all these daily and I sometime struggle to "un-do" some of my "beliefs"! Anyway happy listening and all the best!!!


----------



## bigshot

I've been a hi fi nut for a long time, and I noticed the rise in BS beginning in the early 80s. Digital audio was beyond most people's frame of reference, so they applied things that might be true of analog audio to digital. And the whole stair steps and digital harshness stuff... and high pressure commissioned salespeople at places like Pacific Stereo. Once digital had clearly won the race, along came jitter and other hoodoos. Back in the 50s and 60s the audio press was much more fact based. Advertorial is what changed that. The funny thing is that reality is just below the surface, but a lot of people don't even know to look for it.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> I've been a hi fi nut for a long time, and I noticed the rise in BS beginning in the early 80s. Digital audio was beyond most people's frame of reference, so they applied things that might be true of analog audio to digital. And the whole stair steps and digital harshness stuff... and high pressure commissioned salespeople at places like Pacific Stereo. Once digital had clearly won the race, along came jitter and other hoodoos. Back in the 50s and 60s the audio press was much more fact based. Advertorial is what changed that. The funny thing is that reality is just below the surface, but a lot of people don't even know to look for it.


Was it really limited to the 80s?  I think the Bose 901s were overhyped (which were marketed all throughout the 70s).  I can appreciate that way back when they did have reflective sound....but at what cost?  To be listenable, you had to have the included equalizer to have a manageable FR...and still compared to a full range speaker sounds really weak.  My family does have a story about how my dad was tasked with going out to get a dinning room table and came back with the 901s.  This was in the early 80s, but it's a continuation of the hype of Bose.


----------



## bigshot

The late 70s was when chains of stereo stores became prevalent. The BS laid down by the commissioned salespeople at Pacific Stereo was the first place I remember hearing that stuff. Magazines like Stereo Review completely sold out around the same time. You could probably pin down an exact date by looking at those trade magazines.


----------



## 71 dB (Jan 28, 2022)

Only after having studied a few years in the university was I able to call out all the audio BS (so I was in my twenties). In fact it also meant my first shock of my beautiful worldview shattering in pieces and replaced by an uglier one: "They are actually trying to FOOL me out of my money! How rude!"


----------



## hakunamakaka

71 dB said:


> Only after having studied a few years in the university was I able to call out all the audio BS (so I was in my twenties). In fact it also meant my first shock of my beautiful worldview shattering in pieces and replaced by an uglier one: "They are actually trying to FOOL me out of my money! How rude!"



Yes and now upcoming inflation will take your money either way. Life is not fair if you put in that perspective


----------



## Roland P

I remember the ‘Stereo everywhere’ ads frome the 80s, 90s. Around 1991, I got my Sony D66 Discman and Sennheiser headphones. It sounded perfect, and probably was.


----------



## jjss

In UK its probably the HiFi News magazine that help fuelled the growth of subjectivism, esp at the time (the 70's) the Paul Messenger's column of "Subjective Sounds"! Dislike it we may, unfortunately the commissioned salespeople were and still are today part of the fabric connecting, upholding, disseminating this subjectivism cult.


----------



## dunring

Amazing post, if you want to read the articles cited that are now behind a paywall, just go to the Wayback Machine and I was able to bring up the originals they store there when it was first published.


----------



## bigshot

Prog Rock Man is a hero for creating that post!


----------



## chesebert (Feb 25, 2022)

71 dB said:


> Only after having studied a few years in the university was I able to call out all the audio BS (so I was in my twenties). In fact it also meant my first shock of my beautiful worldview shattering in pieces and replaced by an uglier one: "They are actually trying to FOOL me out of my money! How rude!"


Studied EE? If yes, there are 2 kinds of EEs: there is the "wire is wire and LRC has minimal affect on circuit and can be ignored" and there is "it's not just a wire, it's a circuit with LRC, propagation delay, energy dissipation, power dissipation, signal integrity issues, external noise and potential electromagnetic field for high current wires, skin effects for high frequency wires. geometry concerns, and so on and so forth" 

So you can be more paranoid about minute details in electronics after you have gone through the university


----------



## Powermankw

So... Let me start with I am a firm believer in hi-fi gear. I am definitely biased to price. I finally decide to jump in, get some great gear. Read every review I can find, apply some critical thought, go for consensus safe bets. It does sound great, but not "amazing". 

So I'm all in. Read more. Got to get my money's worth out of my cans. I have to know. I can't compare or audition, so what else can I do... 3 times the $. Bona fide contenders. Probably better but not willing to spend... Pull the trigger. 

I waited for the angels to sing... But they never came. Yes its "Better", but it's subtle. Really hard to state how... Richer. But very slight. 

The point... Before jumping in... All reviewers tend to to speak as if there is no price difference. All cheap gear can rival the best... Gushing reviews. Any negatives are slight. After purchase... Here at Head-Fi... Everyone talks of attributes and differences as drastic, matter of fact, certainties. Just night and day.... Well.... I'm not getting it. I'm not saying I'm selling, I'm not saying I'm mad... I didn't know, I found out... I'm just saying, at this point, I can't tell you where the what I spent 3X on besides beautiful boxes.

Now it's early, I still need to give it time. I may indeed say that's all I'm willing to spend and I will keep them knowing it is as good as it gets... Which has value... But this post/thread/subject... Ya... I'm thinking the emporer is wearing a g-sting. It's something, but barely....


----------



## chesebert

Quick look at your profile indicates you have an equipment mismatch and fund misallocation. 


Powermankw said:


> So... Let me start with I am a firm believer in hi-fi gear. I am definitely biased to price. I finally decide to jump in, get some great gear. Read every review I can find, apply some critical thought, go for consensus safe bets. It does sound great, but not "amazing".
> 
> So I'm all in. Read more. Got to get my money's worth out of my cans. I have to know. I can't compare or audition, so what else can I do... 3 times the $. Bona fide contenders. Probably better but not willing to spend... Pull the trigger.
> 
> ...


----------



## Powermankw

chesebert said:


> Quick look at your profile indicates you have an equipment mismatch and fund misallocation.


It hasn't been updated... And it wasn't about bashing the gear itself... My mismatch was corrected, and the difference is negligible at this point. Money had very little impact.... Compared to how discussions go.


----------



## chesebert

god forbid a reviewer points out any negative about any gear, all hell will break loose and the manufacturer will make a big stink about the reviewer. The whole audio review/YouTube industry is one big circle jerk.


----------



## Powermankw (Mar 3, 2022)

chesebert said:


> god forbid a reviewer points out any negative about any gear, all hell will break loose and the manufacturer will make a big stink about the reviewer. The whole audio review/YouTube industry is one big circle jerk.


Which I expect/understand... But then there are end users... Not much different.


----------



## chesebert

Powermankw said:


> Which I expect/understand... But then there are end users... Not much different.


Well, that's expected given no good thing can come about ranting on your own gear in public. PM is usually how you get the "real" impression. The state of the audio gear "review"/journalism is quite sad and getting worse. That's what you get when all the dealers are gone and everyone has to rely on reviews/videos.


----------



## Powermankw

chesebert said:


> Well, that's expected given no good thing can come about ranting on your own gear in public. PM is usually how you get the "real" impression. The state of the audio gear "review"/journalism is quite sad and getting worse. That's what you get when all the dealers are gone and everyone has to rely on reviews/videos.


Well bless your heart. I have PM'ed, and despite saying it a couple times, I am not ranting about my gear... Which by the way I have not named because again... That's not the point. Ya... No crap... Trade rags sell gear... In every hobby on the planet. We know...

The point of the thread, and my post, is bias in people that claim big differences yet it doesn't bear out in testing... Which itself can show bias. It is an interesting topic. I now have more 1st hand experience myself and posted on the topic. That's all.


----------



## chesebert

Audio is such a subjective hobby that I think it would be difficult for anyone to tell you whether 3x 5x 10x or 20x is where you will experience diminished return. 

To my ears, $10k MSRP priced equipment is the threshold level that separates “hi-fi” from “high end” for me. “High end” to me means there is a palpable realism with real sound density, weight, dynamics, resolutions and timbre accuracy. 

YMMV obviously.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 3, 2022)

I've never found any correlation between price and sound quality. There's great sounding cheap stuff and terrible expensive stuff. However price is a huge influence on expectation and validation bias.

HiFi is short for high fidelity. That usually means accuracy to the original signal to the thresholds of our ability to hear. High End usually just means expensive.


----------



## Powermankw (Mar 3, 2022)

chesebert said:


> Audio is such a subjective hobby that I think it would be difficult for anyone to tell you whether 3x 5x 10x or 20x is where you will experience diminished return.
> 
> To my ears, $10k MSRP priced equipment is the threshold level that separates “hi-fi” from “high end” for me. “High end” to me means there is a palpable realism with real sound density, weight, dynamics, resolutions and timbre accuracy.
> 
> YMMV obviously.


So... OK. That's an important point. There is that point. My friend am I have discussed... Where is it? We don't know. We don't have enough experience or money. The point of diminishing returns. Everything gas it. 

So yours is 10K.thats still a bit shocking to most. But cool. So between say... 2K and 10K...to get to that summit point... "VAST" differences between gear? Angels sing at 10K, but it's just open mic night below? I'm not being flip... Seriously asking because I don't know. If 10K is the point, then ya I'm not willing to pay for angels. I'll just have to wait to hear it in a shop or show.


----------



## KeithPhantom

chesebert said:


> realism with real sound density, weight, dynamics, resolutions and timbre accuracy.


How is all of that defined in clear terms? I just want to know how another person defines these terms. Honestly, for me, sound is just air pressure waves that can be modeled using physics and math. And auditory perception can be also and has been tested, especially when it comes to auditory masking and biasing.


----------



## chesebert (Mar 3, 2022)

Powermankw said:


> So... OK. That's an important point. There is that point. My friend am I have discussed... Where is it? We don't know. We don't have enough experience or money. The point of diminishing returns. Everything gas it.
> 
> So yours is 10K.thats still a bit shocking to most. But cool. So between say... 2K and 10K...to get to that summit point... "VAST" differences between gear? Angels sing at 10K, but it's just open mic night below? I'm not being flip... Seriously asking because I don't know. If 10K is the point, then ya I'm not willing to pay for angels. I'll just have to wait to hear it in a shop or show.


I think there is some misunderstanding. I said $10k MSRP gear, not that you need to pay $10k, and it also doesn't mean this gen $10k MSRP gear. There is a difference between different generations of $10k gear, but even $10k gear from say 10 years ago still has that "high end" sound. For example, I have owned and heard multiple generations of Linn Klimax DS ($25k MSRP) since 2009ish. Is there a difference between different generations, absolutely. Is the first gen Klimax DS garbage compared to the latest generation? Absolute no, in fact the first gen Klimax DS still sound incredible (and can be picked up for less than $2k if you search around). 

What I think is happening is that most of the high cost that goes into audio equipment manufacturing is related to analog design (not just analog output, but the entire clock, circuit board design, layout, power, noise, vibration, special parts, special treatment, etc.) and good analog design and implementation cost a lot of money. 

Well, that has been my experience anyway.


----------



## chesebert

KeithPhantom said:


> How is all of that defined in clear terms? I just want to know how another person defines these terms. Honestly, for me, sound is just air pressure waves that can be modeled using physics and math. And auditory perception can be also and has been tested, especially when it comes to auditory masking and biasing.


Perhaps you can help build the model. I am not aware of any math model that describes perceived sound quality.


----------



## KeithPhantom

chesebert said:


> Perhaps you can help build the model. I am not aware of any math model that describes perceived sound quality.


Of course, they are models already in existence and in wide use in the design and engineering of electroacoustic devices: frequency response graphs, phase measurements, in the case of speakers, "spinoramas". Other things such as distortion and noise are important until they cross the threshold of auditory masking in terms of our ears. Electronics can measure/"hear" better than ears.


----------



## chesebert (Mar 3, 2022)

KeithPhantom said:


> Of course, they are models already in existence and in wide use in the design and engineering of electroacoustic devices: frequency response graphs, phase measurements, in the case of speakers, "spinoramas". Other things such as distortion and noise are important until they cross the threshold of auditory masking in terms of our ears. Electronics can measure/"hear" better than ears.


We have no idea what we actually need to measure to achieve certain sound quality. We know what to measure to make a piece of electronics do x (amp or A/D,D/A conversion, etc). People used to not measure jitter and jitter wasn't even a thing back in the days. Also, people used to also focus on slew rate of an amp. Yeah, we had no clue then and no clue now. Why does a large open loop gain with large amount of global negative feedback sound bad? No idea.

I don't know how people design electronics these days, but the way I was taught was circuit idea -> rough hand calculation -> cadence layout -> SPICE simulation and Matlab simulation ----> rinse and repeat until you are happy with the output -> build breadboard model and put it on scope and Matlab analysis ->if it works as simulated then you go build a prototype and measure. if everything works that was the end of that. For audio manufacturers, they are just starting at that point. They would then need to listen and tweak the circuit to make it sound good....whatever "good" is up to their interpretation. Some designer/brands have their "house sound" but that iteration process can take way longer than the first part. No measurement can help determine what "good" is.


----------



## sander99

chesebert said:


> For example, I have owned and heard multiple generations of Linn Klimax DS ($25k MSRP) since 2009ish. Is there a difference between different generations, absolutely. Is the first gen Klimax DS garbage compared to the latest generation? Absolute no, in fact the first gen Klimax DS still sound incredible (and can be picked up for less than $2k if you search around).


Time for you to do some double blind ABX testing I think. Or start reading this thread from the start.
$2k, let alone $25k for a digital music streamer is pure nonsense. An audibly transparent network music streamer (with an audibly transparent DAC inside) shouldn't have to cost more than $100,- I would think, or maybe a few hundred if you want many "bells and whistles" and solid build. Much better to invest the bulk of that $25k in loudspeakers and acoustic treatment.


----------



## chesebert

sander99 said:


> Time for you to do some double blind ABX testing I think. Or start reading this thread from the start.
> $2k, let alone $25k for a digital music streamer is pure nonsense. An audibly transparent network music streamer (with an audibly transparent DAC inside) shouldn't have to cost more than $100,- I would think, or maybe a few hundred if you want many "bells and whistles" and solid build. Much better to invest the bulk of that $25k in loudspeakers and acoustic treatment.


I did and it wasn't close. You should try.


----------



## bigshot

chesebert said:


> Perhaps you can help build the model. I am not aware of any math model that describes perceived sound quality.



Perception isn't fidelity. Your ears are subject to a lot of subjective influences- specifically bias and perceptual error. The way to judge sound quality is fidelity. How close is the sound that is produced to the sound as it is recorded on the source recording? That is an objective thing and can be measured.


----------



## chesebert

bigshot said:


> Perception isn't fidelity. Your ears are subject to a lot of subjective influences- specifically bias and perceptual error. The way to judge sound quality is fidelity. How close is the sound that is produced to the sound as it is recorded on the source recording? That is an objective thing and can be measured.


Okay, tell me how you would design a null test to prove fidelity?


----------



## Powermankw

chesebert said:


> I think there is some misunderstanding. I said $10k MSRP gear, not that you need to pay $10k, and it also doesn't mean this gen $10k MSRP gear. There is a difference between different generations of $10k gear, but even $10k gear from say 10 years ago still has that "high end" sound. For example, I have owned and heard multiple generations of Linn Klimax DS ($25k MSRP) since 2009ish. Is there a difference between different generations, absolutely. Is the first gen Klimax DS garbage compared to the latest generation? Absolute no, in fact the first gen Klimax DS still sound incredible (and can be picked up for less than $2k if you search around).
> 
> What I think is happening is that most of the high cost that goes into audio equipment manufacturing is related to analog design (not just analog output, but the entire clock, circuit board design, layout, power, noise, vibration, special parts, special treatment, etc.) and good analog design and implementation cost a lot of money.
> 
> Well, that has been my experience anyway.


Right, what it cost to put one in my house is a different discussion. I get it. And of course some monetary threshold is still arbitrary. But for me, my deal is simply not enough experience. My sample size sucks. When everyone speaks/describes, I have no reference point to tie it to. So I am left with what I read.

I have been involved with many more hobby and all are similar in this respect. Now that my sample sized double... Though still tiny... I am just suprised at the money spent for the resulting SQ. 

As far as value in design and construction.... Absolutely. It does cost, which may or may not contribute to SQ. Two COSC chronometer can have the same accuracy... Do the same job, but one has vastly more craftsmanship and materials and cost 3 times as much... Same thing. Performance didn't change...


----------



## chesebert

Powermankw said:


> Right, what it cost to put one in my house is a different discussion. I get it. And of course some monetary threshold is still arbitrary. But for me, my deal is simply not enough experience. My sample size sucks. When everyone speaks/describes, I have no reference point to tie it to. So I am left with what I read.
> 
> I have been involved with many more hobby and all are similar in this respect. Now that my sample sized double... Though still tiny... I am just suprised at the money spent for the resulting SQ.
> 
> As far as value in design and construction.... Absolutely. It does cost, which may or may not contribute to SQ. Two COSC chronometer can have the same accuracy... Do the same job, but one has vastly more craftsmanship and materials and cost 3 times as much... Same thing. Performance didn't change...


There is no substitute for listening/owning a bunch of gear over years/decades. 

I think chronometer is actually a good analogy. You can have 2 chronometers that are both certified but one using expensive metal with decoration that will cost 3x as much but performs the same the one using customary materials. However, what if you start using tempered metal that's milled to micron level accuracy, spring that are specially treated and made with precision machining, and use bearings that are made of diamond and precision cut to micron level with the same exact shape and assemble the chronometer in ultra clean room and seal the chronometer. I bet you would get a more expensive but more accurate chronometer.


----------



## sander99

chesebert said:


> I did and it wasn't close. You should try.


Maybe you forgot to level-match?
Maybe the expensive streamer was changing the sound with (hidden) DSP or other methods?
Maybe you happened to compare to a cheap streamer that by chance was not an audibly transparent one?

Really, what does a streamer actually do? Read audio data over the network and render it via the internal DAC and/or digital outputs? How on earth should it cost more than $100,- to do that audibly transparent?


----------



## chesebert

sander99 said:


> Maybe you forgot to level-match?
> Maybe the expensive streamer was changing the sound with (hidden) DSP or other methods?
> Maybe you happened to compare to a cheap streamer that by chance was not an audibly transparent one?
> 
> Really, what does a streamer actually do? Read audio data over the network and render it via the internal DAC and/or digital outputs? How on earth should it cost more than $100,- to do that audibly transparent?


I totally get where you are coming from. I worked on clock and PLL design briefly in the past. So I was like the biggest skeptic when Linn came out with their streamer and I got my slimdevices and computer.  Damn when what you know conflicts with what you hear you have to take a pause and assess. yeah it took me going to the dealer months after months for about a year to prove to myself Linn was a vastly better sounding machine than slimdevices. 

Don’t take my word for it. It’s a journey take your time.


----------



## Powermankw

chesebert said:


> I think chronometer is actually a good analogy. You can have 2 chronometers that are both certified but one using expensive metal with decoration that will cost 3x as much but performs the same the one using customary materials. However, what if you start using tempered metal that's milled to micron level accuracy, spring that are specially treated and made with precision machining, and use bearings that are made of diamond and precision cut to micron level with the same exact shape and assemble the chronometer in ultra clean room and seal the chronometer. I bet you would get a more expensive but more accurate chronometer.


That's what I said. You just used more words. 😂


----------



## bigshot (Mar 3, 2022)

chesebert said:


> Okay, tell me how you would design a null test to prove fidelity?



The single biggest problem with home audio is response. I would start by measuring that. Second place would be noise. Lastly, would be distortion. Timing isn't much of an issue with digital. The transducers are going to be the weakest link by far. Electronics are designed to perform to very high fidelity standards. To determine how high a fidelity is enough, I would look at the established thresholds of perception. Where I can compare apples to apples, a line level matched, direct A/B switched blind listening test is useful. When you are comparing signals, a null test is helpful.


----------



## Powermankw

What is really interesting is that I have zero problem admitting I'm a price snob. Universal law... Expensive is better. It's completely sighted comparing. It is a definite fact bass is clearly better in quantity and quality. That alone has the strong potential to skew my perception. Yet outside of that, very little difference that I can accurately judge. So why that is so surprising is that I should clearly revel in my bias and I should conclude its angels singing... But that is not what I hear.

Now my friend who has very little time on all my gear says it is not subtle, or close... New is clearly better.

Trip.


----------



## 71 dB (Mar 4, 2022)

Powermankw said:


> Expensive is better.


I hope you have inherited a lot of money, have a well-paying job or you have won millions in a lottery because otherwise your life is doomed to be materially unsatisfactory.

My philosophy is to find out _how expensive_ "good enough" is and hope to be able to afford that. That way I can more or less achieve materially satisfactory life and only worry about other things such as the frustration of not figuring out my purpose, role and place in this world.


----------



## chesebert

I try not to judge these days; for all i know the person may be holding 1000 BTCs.


----------



## Vamp898

chesebert said:


> I try not to judge these days; for all i know the person may be holding 1000 BTCs.


They may be worthless in the next few hours


----------



## chesebert

Even more imperative to get that $200k system before BTC becomes worthless - buy more gear


----------



## Powermankw

It was simply a hyperbolic statement. I've circled the sun on this rock a few times, it's not my first trip. I have already stated a threshold I'm unwilling to spend beyond. 

There is one general rule of thumb though that is pretty accurate... You get what you pay for. Just because I may generally think something more expensive is "better"... Doesn't not = "I can afford anything on the planet". Come on....


----------



## chesebert

I also subscribe to a combination of "there is no free lunch; companies are rationale in their pricing - max profit; and you get what you pay for"


----------



## Powermankw

71 dB said:


> I hope you have inherited a lot of money, have a well-paying job or you have won millions in a lottery because otherwise your life is doomed to be materially unsatisfactory.
> 
> My philosophy is to find out _how expensive_ "good enough" is and hope to be able to afford that. That way I can more or less achieve materially satisfactory life and only worry about other things such as the frustration of not figuring out my purpose, role and place in this world.


Why would you jump to that extreme? Pretty wild assumption off a flip statement. I have been involved in many many hobbies. I am an admitted gear whore. In every single segment of gear... There is begginer trash cycled through quickly, then there is stratospheric summit gear. In between is meat of the market, where everyone searches for the best they can get on a normal person budget. There are gems. I typically always want to be mid tier budget, looking for the best bang for my buck. Nothing in that has anything to do with being rich or unsatisfied.


----------



## Powermankw

chesebert said:


> I also subscribe to a combination of "there is no free lunch; companies are rationale in their pricing - max profit; and you get what you pay for"


Exactly... And back to the topic... I am not a mystery to companies selling products. They research, they know darn well I am looking for affordable gear that performs like top tier gear... Que the tsunami of BS claims supporting such.... Which then begins my work of trying to get what I want wading through the flood of BS. 

Plus... I know darn well, from being in other hobbies... Many many people perpetuate more BS claims to justify why they seeming paid a ton for nothing... A $4000 automatic that keeps worse time than a $50 quartz. 

I mountain biked for ever. I finally got a Sumit boutique frame and built it right. I can tell you all day long how that thing was just on rails... Absolutely telepathic... The feel... Yet my friend was completely equal to me on any ride with a bike at a quarter of the cost. It was nice, but no need to justify... You absolutely do not have to spend a ton to ride well. Fact.


----------



## Vamp898

Powermankw said:


> Exactly... And back to the topic... I am not a mystery to companies selling products. They research, they know darn well I am looking for affordable gear that performs like top tier gear... Que the tsunami of BS claims supporting such.... Which then begins my work of trying to get what I want wading through the flood of BS.
> 
> Plus... I know darn well, from being in other hobbies... Many many people perpetuate more BS claims to justify why they seeming paid a ton for nothing... A $4000 automatic that keeps worse time than a $50 quartz.
> 
> I mountain biked for ever. I finally got a Sumit boutique frame and built it right. I can tell you all day long how that thing was just on rails... Absolutely telepathic... The feel... Yet my friend was completely equal to me on any ride with a bike at a quarter of the cost. It was nice, but no need to justify... You absolutely do not have to spend a ton to ride well. Fact.


You can buy a car for 130'000€ that wins you races and you can buy a car for 130'000€ that does a lot bling bling and will have an engine failure before hitting 60k


----------



## bigshot (Mar 4, 2022)

Powermankw said:


> I have already stated a threshold I'm unwilling to spend beyond.



I don't have any hard and fast rule about how much I'm willing to spend beyond, assuming I have enough money. I've spent a great deal of money on equipment and music over the decades... enough to buy a very nice house. I don't regret a bit of that. But I want to know that by spending more, I'm getting significantly more. That just isn't guaranteed in home audio. There's no audible difference between midrange audible transparency and high end audible transparency. I don't need specs better than my ears, because I'm only going to be listening using my ears. I'm not interested in home audio as a status symbol, and I don't care if the faceplates all light up the same color of aqua green. I just need to get my money's worth of use out of a component- I don't need it to be able to survive nuclear blasts or last for hundreds of years. If something performs as well as my ears can hear and is convenient and efficient at doing its job, I'm sold.



Powermankw said:


> There is one general rule of thumb though that is pretty accurate... You get what you pay for.



With all of the boondoggle, snake oil and outright BS in home audio, I honestly don't know how someone could say that with a straight face. You're either making a satirical joke or you're quite naive.


----------



## Powermankw (Mar 4, 2022)

bigshot said:


> With all of the boondoggle, snake oil and outright BS in home audio, I honestly don't know how someone could say that with a straight face. You're either making a satirical joke or you're quite naive.


Well then read my post because it's neither. I have spoke to BS claims and I wasn't talking about audio, it applies to most things... And I stand by it. It's your job to figure out the con men... Which I also said.


----------



## bigshot

Then we agree that getting what you pay for isn't anywhere near a given.


----------



## Powermankw

bigshot said:


> Then we agree that getting what you pay for isn't anywhere near a given.


It generally is, when you actually verify what your money is paying for. You understand you can't get an ounce of gold for a dollar right? Legitimate value and being conned out of your money is not the same thing. Spend your money however you see fit and I will do the same.

You really think arguing samantics and broad brushes is a valuable endeavor after reading a couple lines of text on a screen from a guy you never met? If you want to know what I really think, then ask. If you want to paint a guy you don't know into an imaginary corner... I have better things to do.


----------



## bigshot

I think you must be judging by something other than audible sound. When it comes to DACs for instance, there is generally no audible difference between them at all. Perhaps different features, fancier cases, LED screens, etc... But an $8 Apple dongle sounds to human ears exactly like most high end DACs. The reason I think it's important to point this out is because the marketing of high end audio would have you think otherwise. There is a lot of sales pitch and skewed statistics involved. If you take the sales literature and websites of high end audio manufacturers at face value, you definitely don't get what you pay for.


----------



## Powermankw (Mar 4, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I think you must be judging by something other than audible sound. When it comes to DACs for instance, there is generally no audible difference between them at all. Perhaps different features, fancier cases, LED screens, etc... But an $8 Apple dongle sounds to human ears exactly like most high end DACs. The reason I think it's important to point this out is because the marketing of high end audio would have you think otherwise. There is a lot of sales pitch and skewed statistics involved. If you take the sales literature and websites of high end audio manufacturers at face value, you definitely don't get what you pay for.


Thank you. But as I've said it's not all marketing. Many many... Most end users have plenty of bias and exaggeration as well. And while you can't trust all, as a consumer I do the best I can to take things with a grain of salt and not assign too much credibility. But I too am human and have my biases.

Hell this site alone would not even exist if all it was for was to posts new purchases. The vast majority here is happy to share all the many differences with all the gear they have heard or owned... Without even getting to wires and streams... So now with the ability to poll so much data from end users on what is real.... It's definitely not all producers and marketing.

Regardless, I will admit that audio is a different animal from pretty much any other thing I have been involved with. Most everything else is tied to real measurable performance. If it's just asthetics, that is understood. Most generally know what matters and doesn't or can figure it out. But audio is purely subjective with very few ties to the truth. The only other crowd I know of like that are stoners with BS stoner mythology. But they are stoned...


----------



## chesebert

Just like wine, art, cigar, and Michelin restaurants.


----------



## Powermankw

chesebert said:


> Just like wine, art, cigar, and Michelin restaurants.


However... Wine is just taste. Those things you listed are purely subjective personal taste. Audio unfortunately is physics based equipment with physical properties and measurements yet with mostly subjective evaluation. It's a bad combination. And hence this thread...


----------



## hakunamakaka (Mar 5, 2022)

Powermankw said:


> However... Wine is just taste. Those things you listed are purely subjective personal taste. Audio unfortunately is physics based equipment with physical properties and measurements yet with mostly subjective evaluation. It's a bad combination. And hence this thread...



Some folks try to pave purely objective route for audio. There is a narrative that any source "transparent" gear with hp's matching harman curve gives best performance that fits us all. Even disregarding a huge variety of transducers and what they bring to the table. Than there is a gear which measures poorly like abyss 1266, but when you give it an actual listen you are floored from the sound it produces, though measurement folks would simply write it off without even hearing it


----------



## sander99

hakunamakaka said:


> There is a narrative that any transparent gear which matches harman curve gives best performance that fits us all.


Total mixup in this statement. I have not seen anybody here claim the above, but the following instead: Electronics are often audibly transparent, and hence completely neutral. And neutrality in electronics is completely unambiguous and precisely defined. Transducers are generally not transparant. And in the case of headphones neutrality is a more complex concept, and different for different individuals. And the harman curve is an avarage that does not fit us all, but comes close for a large group of all people. At least close enough as a good starting point.


----------



## chesebert

There is no audibly transparent electronics. What does “audibly transparent” even mean? Go and experience some gear, spend some time with your favorite dealer. Enjoy the journey.


----------



## sander99

chesebert said:


> What does “audibly transparent” even mean?


This question was asked in the following post, and answered in posts that follow behind it.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/megas-thread-of-basic-questions.913627/#post-15142138


----------



## hakunamakaka (Mar 5, 2022)

sander99 said:


> Total mixup in this statement. I have not seen anybody here claim the above, but the following instead: Electronics are often audibly transparent, and hence completely neutral. And neutrality in electronics is completely unambiguous and precisely defined. Transducers are generally not transparant. And in the case of headphones neutrality is a more complex concept, and different for different individuals. And the harman curve is an avarage that does not fit us all, but comes close for a large group of all people. At least close enough as a good starting point.



With certain electronics differences can be very large, but let's say I go for audibly transparent route, how do I achieve such sound ? With EQ I can make nearly any headphone to sound neutral. How do I know which one is the most "correct" sounding one ?


----------



## sander99

hakunamakaka said:


> With certain electronics differences can be very large, but let's say I go for audibly transparent route, how do I achieve such sound ? With EQ I can make nearly any headphone to sound neutral. How do I know which one is the most "correct" sounding one ?


Aha, that is a good question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer myself. But let's say my personal view is that "normal" headphone listening to normal stereo (or downmixed to normal stereo) sound is not desirable anyhow. I'd rather listen to simulated loudspeakers over headphones. And that kind of automatically removes the problem of not clearly defined headphone neutrality. With a Smyth Realiser A16 or Impulcifer you measure with in ear-microphones both the loudspeakers in a room and your headphones. The loudspeakers are imitated, and the headphone is compensated for so the headphone's own signature is taken out. Problem solved. (Except that there is another problem: the measurements with blocked ear canal don't fully account for the influence of the ear-canal, so without additional manual corrective EQ there can still be some difference in tonality between the virtual and the real speakers. But at least you can compare the virtual with the real speakers to check if they sound the same. While with normal headphone listening to normal recordings: there is no clear reference to compare to.)


----------



## hakunamakaka

sander99 said:


> Aha, that is a good question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer myself. But let's say my personal view is that "normal" headphone listening to normal stereo (or downmixed to normal stereo) sound is not desirable anyhow. I'd rather listen to simulated loudspeakers over headphones. And that kind of automatically removes the problem of not clearly defined headphone neutrality. With a Smyth Realiser A16 or Impulcifer you measure with in ear-microphones both the loudspeakers in a room and your headphones. The loudspeakers are imitated, and the headphone is compensated for so the headphone's own signature is taken out. Problem solved. (Except that there is another problem: the measurements with blocked ear canal don't fully account for the influence of the ear-canal, so without additional manual corrective EQ there can still be some difference in tonality between the virtual and the real speakers. But at least you can compare the virtual with the real speakers to check if they sound the same. While with normal headphone listening to normal recordings: there is no clear reference to compare to.)



Though it is still unclear what is that transparent sound when we take transducers into the equation. In the end you actually listen to a different coloration which you think fits your tastes best. In many cases folks simply describe their favorite sound as "neutral"/ transparent. EQ use case is limited, because certain tonal characteristics are not present in frequency response. Maybe Smyth A16 could push sound to a new boundaries, but it is too expensive for a home use


----------



## Powermankw

hakunamakaka said:


> Though it is still unclear what is that transparent sound when we take transducers into the equation. In the end you actually listen to a different coloration which you think fits your tastes best. In many cases folks simply describe their favorite sound as "neutral"/ transparent. EQ use case is limited, because certain tonal characteristics are not present in frequency response. Maybe Smyth A16 could push sound to a new boundaries, but it is too expensive for a home use


Yep... Makes sense.


----------



## sonitus mirus

hakunamakaka said:


> Though it is still unclear what is that transparent sound when we take transducers into the equation. In the end you actually listen to a different coloration which you think fits your tastes best. In many cases folks simply describe their favorite sound as "neutral"/ transparent. EQ use case is limited, because certain tonal characteristics are not present in frequency response. Maybe Smyth A16 could push sound to a new boundaries, but it is too expensive for a home use


The limitations of EQ are primarily about room response with speakers.  The Smyth technology is attempting to recreate a room response over headphones.  The DAC and amp would make practically no difference, because any variations would be audibly transparent unless a specific filter characteristic was chosen or there was some other outlier that would easily appear on normally measured parameters. (clipping, external signal interference, ground loop, etc.).  That said, any transducer that measures similarly with regards to frequency response for any given decibel level should be quite transparent with others using a modest amount of equalizing.  Though with headphones, there is simply too many things that might make a difference; such as head shape, hairstyle, clamping force, earpad shape, earpad material, and probably many other reasons not related to the electrical performance.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 5, 2022)

hakunamakaka said:


> There is a narrative that any source "transparent" gear with hp's matching harman curve gives best performance that fits _the majority of people._



FTFY



hakunamakaka said:


> let's say I go for audibly transparent route, how do I achieve such sound ? With EQ I can make nearly any headphone to sound neutral. How do I know which one is the most "correct" sounding one ?



By comparing the sound of the headphones to the sound of a speaker system that has been calibrated to a balanced response. You'll never get all the way there, but you can certainly get closer than cans out of the box. And whatever EQ curve you arrive at, it's going to be only right for you. Other people with different skull shapes will have different ideal response curves.


----------



## hakunamakaka (Mar 5, 2022)

I can assure that similarly measured transducers can sound very far apart. tried few focal hp’s which comes in similar physical build, but uses different drivers and magnets thus bringing different tonal character to the sound which EQ couldn’t match.

which speaker model is a reference for a transparent sound ? As they all sound different. Folks throw terms as transparent/neutral sound yet I haven’t heard speaker setup that was able to reproduce instruments. Even expensive ones were variations to certain degree and couldn’t match  live jam session.


----------



## chesebert

sander99 said:


> This question was asked in the following post, and answered in posts that follow behind it.
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/megas-thread-of-basic-questions.913627/#post-15142138


This is your description of "audibly transparent": "An audible transparent device doesn't audible change the audio represented by the output compared to the audio represented by the input"? 

I think you lack basic electronics knowledge and you are confused. The only device that is arguably "audibly transparent" is a short copper wire.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 5, 2022)

An audibly transparent amp is called “a wire with gain”. Properly applied, amps and DACs are audibly transparent.


----------



## chesebert (Mar 5, 2022)

bigshot said:


> An audibly transparent amp is called “a wire with gain”.


There is no such amp. Sorry, nice in theory but cannot be achieved in real life.

What you are describing is a perfect amplifier - this is not achievable in real life. I will just list a few parameters that you know: perfect amp requires infinite bandwidth, infinite slew rate, infinite input imp and 0 output imp


----------



## bigshot

I bet you are well versed on specs as they apply to measurements of equipment, and completely ignorant of how those specs relate to the thresholds of human hearing. If you’d like to become informed, I’d suggest starting with the AES seminars linked in my sig file.


----------



## chesebert

I have been in this hobby for decades. I know about Ethan for the longest time and remember him from various other forums. No need to rehash old stuff.


----------



## sander99

chesebert said:


> This is your description of "audibly transparent": "An audible transparent device doesn't audible change the audio represented by the output compared to the audio represented by the input"?
> 
> I think you lack basic electronics knowledge and you are confused. The only device that is arguably "audibly transparent" is a short copper wire.


I am not confused at all. You seem to have overlooked the word audible (or audibly it should have been I guess, my bad).


chesebert said:


> There is no such amp. Sorry, nice in theory but cannot be achieved in real life.
> 
> What you are describing is a perfect amplifier - this is not achievable in real life. I will just list a few parameters that you know: perfect amp requires infinite bandwidth, infinite slew rate, infinite input imp and 0 output imp


No, what he is describing is an amplifier that doesn't _audibly_ distort or color, doesn't produce _audible noise_ and covers the full frequency range that _humans can hear_. And most modern amplifiers can do this, provided they were designed to do so and are used within specifications: so with a suitable load impedance and without clipping.
Most DA converters are audibly transparent by a large margin (under normal use, not if you use a crazy low level digital signal and amplify the analog output like crazy).


----------



## bigshot (Mar 6, 2022)

Ah! I get it. You aren’t just ignorant, you refuse facts and information contrary to your fixed beliefs. That’s different. Mr Dunning, meet Mr Kruger. No reason having a discussion with people like that. They just talk without listening. Goodnight.


----------



## chesebert

My opinion is informed by my technical education, engineering experience and my listening and comparison experience. I know what measurements are for and their limitations. You place too great of an emphasis on measurements and not on actual listening experience. This is a hobby and not work, take trips to your dealers and have fun.


----------



## bigshot

I am talking about listening, not measurements. Audibility is all about listening. You seem incapable of listening to anything anyone else says to you. No degree will fix that.


----------



## chesebert

I suggest you spend more time listening and less time theorizing over spec and measurements. Focus on what is not what it should be.


----------



## bigshot

I don't think you spend any time listening to anything except yourself.


----------



## gregorio (Mar 6, 2022)

hakunamakaka said:


> Some folks try to pave purely objective route for audio.


Yes, those folks would be the sane/rational folks. The other folks wouldn't be sane/rational because you cannot have a subjective impression of something you can't even sense!


chesebert said:


> There is no audibly transparent electronics. What does “audibly transparent” even mean? Go and experience some gear, spend some time with your favorite dealer.


Of course there is audibly transparent electronics and there have been for around 40 years! Audibly transparent means that any differences/distortions are below the threshold of audibility or outside the range of human hearing.


hakunamakaka said:


> [1] With certain electronics differences can be very large, but [2] let's say I go for audibly transparent route, how do I achieve such sound ?


1. Yes, there's obviously a big difference between say a DAC and an amplifier but between the same electronic devices, say between different DACs for example, the differences are tiny, with a few pathological exceptions.
2. Huh? You obviously can't achieve "such sound" because electronic devices do not input or output sound, they operate only with audio signals (analogous electrical signals, digital data or both). If you want to achieve something with sound then you need something other than an electronic device, for example an electro-mechanical device (a transducer). As far as electronic devices are concerned, then the audibly transparent route is the only logical route and in fact, it's pretty difficult to take any other route these days.


hakunamakaka said:


> [1] With EQ I can make nearly any headphone to sound neutral. [2] How do I know which one is the most "correct" sounding one ?


1. But now you're talking about a difference type of device again, neither an electronic device nor an electro-mechanical device but a biological device, the human ear/brain.
2. I don't know. How do you know which is the most "correct" sounding (perceiving) ear/brain?


hakunamakaka said:


> I can assure that similarly measured transducers can sound very far apart. tried few focal hp’s which comes in similar physical build, but uses different drivers and magnets thus bringing different tonal character to the sound which EQ couldn’t match.


Sure they "_can sound very far apart_" and you don't even need different drivers and magnets, even exactly the same speaker or HP "_can sound very far apart_" depending on a number of variables, such as placement in a room or positioning on your head and that's even before we consider the different ear/brains of those perceiving the sound!


hakunamakaka said:


> which speaker model is a reference for a transparent sound ? As they all sound different.


That's like asking: Which model of engine is the reference for motor vehicles? Obviously there is no answer, there's too many variables requiring different models of engine, vehicle type, weight, size, aerodynamics, etc. Same with speakers, the sound isn't dependant on just the speakers but on the size of the room, the acoustics of the room, the positioning of the speakers in the room, the listening position/s, etc.


hakunamakaka said:


> [1] Folks throw terms as transparent/neutral sound yet [2] I haven’t heard speaker setup that was able to reproduce instruments.  Even expensive ones were variations to certain degree and couldn’t match live jam session.


1. What folks throw around the term "transparent sound"? Neutral sound is achievable, audibly transparent audio is easily achievable but audibly transparent sound is much more difficult, virtually impossible in practice.
2. I have heard speaker setups that were able to reproduce instruments and blind tests have shown that a range of listeners, from public to pro musicians and engineers could not differentiate between live musicians and a recording, given the same conditions of course. 


chesebert said:


> [1] What you are describing is a perfect amplifier - this is not achievable in real life. [2] I will just list a few parameters that you know: perfect amp requires infinite bandwidth, infinite slew rate, infinite input imp and 0 output imp


1. No, no one is describing a perfect amplifier. What we're describing is an audibly transparent amplifier. (see above)
2. How many humans do you know with infinite bandwidth hearing, with ear drums that can break the laws of physics and ossicles that can move faster than the speed of light? Human hearing has a relatively small bandwidth and it's relatively easy with modern electronics to create an amplifier that operates audibly transparently within (and even well beyond) that relatively small bandwidth.


chesebert said:


> I suggest you spend more time listening and less time theorizing over spec and measurements. Focus on what is not what it should be.


Then why don't you? Why are you focusing on breaking the laws of physics, other fallacies and perceptual errors and instead focus on "what is"? Of course you can only do that with controlled DBTs but you should try it, I'm sure you'll find it very illuminating.

G


----------



## Powermankw

So... What brought me to this thread was I bought a couple boxes, that were reported to be superior sound quality, yet when I plugged them in, I could not tell any. Not subtle, or sort of... None. The 1st boxed I burned in for ~300 hours... Nope. My second box came... Nope. After 4-5 days... Oh, there is a difference. I attribute most to the 2nd box, because it's still hard to tell a difference between my 1st box and old box. 

I take my 1st box and old box over to friends... It is clear difference. Not drastic, but not subtle. Clear, easily identified every time. And it's the difference I attributed to box #2. So clearly, box #1 is doing more than I thought. Come to find out, old box is really close to box number 1 so my difficulty to differentiate at home is confirmed. 

Box #1 is a DAC, #2 is an amp. Possibilities are the DAC made a difference, but I could not hear it thru my amp... But now I can. Which means amp got better... And this is still from a person that finds claims of "burn in" highly suspect. Yet... 5 days later, the difference is clear and obvious.

My point... Clearly to me there is more BS that needs to be corrected than not. But to go to the other end of the spectrum and claim zero differences exist in audio gear is too extreme as well. Everything is not false, and everything can't be attributed to BS marketing and placebo. I can't say if my gear sounds better because superior design, parts, coloration, or all. But I bought it for better SQ, and it is better. Clearly. Still debatable if that difference is "worth it"... Whole different discussion. If there is better from here, I can't see more being worth what I would have to pay... For me... But it certainly has been an interesting couple of weeks.


----------



## bigshot

Did you use the same headphones for each test? And did you level match and do a direct A/B switched comparison?


----------



## Powermankw

bigshot said:


> Did you use the same headphones for each test? And did you level match and do a direct A/B switched comparison?


It was on 2 channel system. Easily compare A/B dac inputs. Swapped cables, swapped inputs, blind switching... Clearly better.


----------



## bigshot

You said something about different amps... That's why I asked.


----------



## Powermankw

bigshot said:


> You said something about different amps... That's why I asked.


No... This is head-fi. I had an all in one matrix for my HPs. All my time was listening to new amp/dac compared to my old all in one, and just anolog out from old all in one. There is a difference between dacs, but it is slight. Between old and new, it's clear. 

My friend was curious how good his DAC was in his integrated 2ch system. So I took both my dacs over, and he has integrated dac, and bluesound dac. So we played.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 7, 2022)

The difference could be the amp part of your all in one, not the DAC. Impedance issue.


----------



## Powermankw (Mar 7, 2022)

bigshot said:


> The difference could be the amp part of your all in one, not the DAC. Impedance issue.


Not when only DACs are compared and impedance is equal. And I attributed the difference to my new amp at home... but just comparing DACS without the amp... it's clear.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Did you painstakingly level match output? If you didn't, and there can be significant differences, the loudness difference will be readily apparent.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 7, 2022)

Powermankw said:


> Not when only DACs are compared and impedance is equal. And I attributed the difference to my new amp at home... but just comparing DACS without the amp... it's clear.



I'm trying to figure out how you compared them and you keep confusing me with the way you answer. Did you compare standalone DACs, or DAC/amps? If you compared DAC/amps, the amp part of the unit is MUCH more likely to sound different than the DAC part. If they are DACs without amps, did you listen to them through the same amp and with the same headphones?

Secondly, as sonic defender asks, did you level match?

Did you have them side by side playing the same song with the same mastering and switched between them?

Did you sample the two blind and could you accurately discern which was which multiple times?

Perhaps it would help if you described how you did your listening test. You're giving us conclusions and not telling us how you reached them.


----------



## Powermankw

What started this off was getting new headphone gear. Pontus is a stand alone DAC. The matrix is all in one with pre-outs... So I can input both to my new stand alone amp. Switching inputs, A/B. 

I went to friends with his intigrated amp. Digital in goes to internal DAC, analog bypasses DAC.... So... We can swap however we want, to whatever we want... And just switch back and for A/B. ... It's only one amp with inputs, levels are match... Yes I know to level match... It is level matched.


----------



## Powermankw (Mar 8, 2022)

And to level matching... I understand slight differences can give the perception that one is "better" than another. But to me, slight differences are questionable. If it's that close... Too close to call... This isn't slight, it's not level... The detail, texture, sound... It's clearly better... Blind A/B, everytime. It's not something different, it's just better. That does not make all BS true, it does not mean every difference all claim are true... But in this conversation it goes to the other end of the spectrum to 100% of everything is 100% false. Most things don't work that way. In this case, we can clearly tell the order of DACs SQ, regardless how they are hooked up and swapped around.


----------



## chesebert (Mar 7, 2022)

People without technical know how or basic electronics knowledge gravitate toward one or the other end of audiophile spectrum on the basis of pure belief. These competing beliefs are often championed by some guy and followed by the believers. It’s like religions at this point to be honest.

Jude should just rename this sound scientology.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 7, 2022)

Powermankw said:


> Pontus is a stand alone DAC. The matrix is all in one with pre-outs... So I can input both to my new stand alone amp. Switching inputs, A/B.



Much clearer. I'm getting you now. So when you say "pre-outs" you mean line level output not controlled by the volume pot... and analog line level output from the two DACs went into the input of your amp and you used the amp to switch. I'm not familiar with these particular models of DACs so I didn't know what their features were.

A couple more questions...

Did you check to see that the two DACs use the same filter? They both appear to have a lot of options. The coloration may be coming from the settings.

Do you have a third DAC that you can compare to these two? It would be helpful to see how a third one compares to these two.


----------



## Powermankw

Yes, correct. 

It's a Cambridge Audio integrated that has its own dac. He also has a bluesound which has analog and digital outs. My DACs have both RCA and XLR. We had optical and coaxial... We swapped all cables, inputs, outputs...clear difference. The matrix has filters but no info and I can't tell what they do. They all roll off the top, and neither of us can hear over 12-13k. However, through this we did finally figure out why the bluesound sounded like crap... Low pass set at 40 that he never knew. That helped out the BS, but even after that it was still last.

Pontus>Matrix>Cambridge>BS.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 8, 2022)

Did any of them sound similar?

Did you output coaxial or optical in any of your listening tests? Did the results for that follow the results for analog output?


----------



## hakunamakaka (Mar 8, 2022)

In my experience when difference is so obvious you don't need exact volume matching. I can switch between source inputs on my amplifier and my desktop setup easily bests the use of an iphone or macbook even if play music more quietly. Only with warmer and slightly veiled sounding headphones like hd650 I had to focus a bit, but once I plug my studio monitors or utopias it is an easy pick even for someone who doesn't listen to music at all.

I was in the same boat that all sources sounds the same with digital, if hp's/speakers are powered enough, but It took me just one visit to local dealer to see what my hp's are really capable off. I sold my e30/l30 stack and looked for better alternatives in used market. I would never make such fuzz for very marginal improvements. Now my setup fits all my needs for critical listening and I don't even need to use EQ anymore which previously came at the cost of detail.


----------



## gregorio

Powermankw said:


> [1] Possibilities are the DAC made a difference, but [2] I could not hear it thru my amp... But now I can. Which means amp got better...


1. That is a possibility but it's a remote possibility and ONLY with some rare esoteric DAC designs, such as NOS or "tube" DACs.
2. No, it doesn't mean the amp got better. There's a range of potential reasons why you experienced what you did but you've just jumped on one (and probably the least likely one!) and dismissed all the other most likely ones.


Powermankw said:


> My point... Clearly to me there is more BS that needs to be corrected than not. But to go to the other end of the spectrum and claim zero differences exist in audio gear is too extreme as well.


Yes, both extreme ends of that spectrum are false BUT how is your "_other end of the spectrum_" relevant? No one is making the claim of "zero differences", in fact quite the opposite! Firstly, here in Sound Science we generally consider a larger number of differences (that can affect what we hear/perceive) than is considered in other subforums, based on the science. And Secondly, actual audio performance differences are NOT zero, there are ALWAYS differences between DACs and they can be anything from tiny to very large. For example there are some DACs that produce artefacts at around the -90dB level, others at around the -130dB level, that's a 100 times difference, not tiny at all!

We're definitely NOT claiming there are zero differences, what we're claiming is that under reasonable listening conditions there would NOT be any audible difference. Using the above example again, artefacts at -90dB are inaudible and artefacts at -130dB are not even reproducible, let alone audible. So, we have a very large difference in audio performance but zero difference in audible performance! This claim is based on rational and reliable evidence; objective measurements of DACs and about 130 years of scientific research. And by definition, this evidence is reproducible, you could verify it for yourself.


Powermankw said:


> Everything is not false, and everything can't be attributed to BS marketing and placebo.


We're not claiming everything is false, for example there are differences between transducers that are well within the range of audibility and controlled listening tests unambiguously verify this fact. There are even verified audible differences between some DACs and amps but ONLY some very rare/esoteric designs, as mentioned above. Furthermore:
1. "BS marketing" isn't just outright lies (although there's plenty of those), it's a range of; lies of omission, false implications, etc. 
2. Calling something "Placebo" (we should more accurately call it "perceptual error") comes with the obvious caveat that conditions must be equal and normal/reasonable (EG. Within design parameters). For example, many DACs have significantly different voltage output levels, this is a real/actual difference and trivially identified in controlled listening tests. Therefore many DACs really do result in significantly different sound, no placebo/perceptual error here! However, there's an obvious condition; we need to provide a different amount of amplification for each of the DACs to ensure equal conditions (the same voltage output level) and now the differences are well below audibility, cannot be differentiated in controlled listening tests and ARE placebo/perceptual error (with a few pathological exceptions).

This second point is a big one! In some/many cases audiophiles are hearing actual, real differences. The problem is, those particular differences should not exist, they only exist because their testing methodology is faulty. Only when those particular differences have been eliminated, when the conditions are equal and reasonable (voltage output level being just one example) can we start talking about actual differences, audible differences and perceptual error/placebo.


Powermankw said:


> I can't say if my gear sounds better because superior design, parts, coloration, or all. But I bought it for better SQ, and it is better.


Unless your testing methodology is definitely not faulty (which isn't yet indicated), then you have not ascertained that there is in fact any audible difference at all, let alone that one is better. But likewise, we cannot say with absolute certainty that there is not an audible difference, one of the "boxes" you are testing might be one of the rare pathological exceptions mentioned above.


Powermankw said:


> And to level matching... I understand slight differences can give the perception that one is "better" than another. But to me, slight differences are questionable. If it's that close... Too close to call... This isn't slight, it's not level... The detail, texture, sound... It's clearly better... Blind A/B, everytime.


That's a non-sequitur, because a relatively slight actual difference can give rise to a relatively large difference in perception. This has been known/demonstrated for many centuries. For example, the perceptual difference between a sequence of music in a major key and one in a minor key is perceptually large but the actual difference is relatively small, just one of the several/many notes that comprise the chords is lowered by the smallest musical pitch (1 semi-tone). There is a great deal of misunderstanding about perceptual error/placebo in the audiophile community (fuelled by marketing BS!). For example, a perceptual error can be anything from a very slight, barely perceivable difference/error to a relatively massive difference. EG. A perceivable difference/error of roughly 10,000 times. It might surprise you to learn, although it's really not that surprising at all, that far and away the most common mis-perception is at the relatively massive end of the scale! So, it's an audiophile myth that placebo is "close"/small/slight and that if a difference is big/obvious it can't be placebo.

Again, what you are asserting might actually be the reality: Either because one or more of the "boxes" you are comparing is one of the very rare exceptions or because of a faulty test methodology (failure to ensure equal conditions) or it might not be the reality and simply be a perceptual error, also due to a faulty test methodology (failure to eliminate bias).

G


----------



## gregorio

hakunamakaka said:


> In my experience when difference is so obvious you don't need exact volume matching.


There we have it again, a repeat of the same old audiophile myth/fallacy I just discussed in my last post. And what reliable evidence supports your assertion? None at all, just "my experience", which is actually contrary to the reliable evidence. And you didn't just post that anywhere but actually in the Sound *Science* forum and in a thread specifically dedicated to audiophile myths! That's really impressive 


hakunamakaka said:


> I can switch between source inputs on my amplifier and my desktop setup easily bests the use of an iphone or macbook even if play music more quietly. Only with warmer and slightly veiled sounding headphones like hd650 I had to focus a bit, but once I plugged my studio monitors or utopias it was an easy pick even for someone who doesn't listen to music at all.



And what does that prove? 

It could prove a wide range of things: Placebo effects, output power (voltage or impedance) differences between the different devices and loads, different software/DSP, etc. What have you done to eliminate these probabilities? The only objective evidence we have is that the output of a reasonably recent iPhone is audibly perfect, all artefacts are well below audibility. So either you have a faulty test methodology or there really is an audible difference between your iPhone and your desktop setup, in which case there must be something very seriously wrong with your desktop setup. But then of course your conclusion would have to be the other way around, unless you think that lower fidelity "bests" high fidelity?

G


----------



## chesebert (Mar 8, 2022)

I suggest you all just stick with Apple dongle as dac for all use cases, because  according to your sound science belief nothing is better and it’s all in your head if it doesn’t measure materially/audibly better: ruler flat frequency response, 98db+ SIND, .001% THD+D, 18bit+ resolving power, jitter lie below -100db. It can also drive 300ohm at less than .001% THD+N so no problem driving preamps/amps.

According to “sound science” doctrine, if you spend more than $9 on a dac you must not be doing it for sound quality unless you are an idiot.


----------



## Sonic Defender (Mar 8, 2022)

What a weak response. The science is sound, explained well and applied appropriately and when the subjectivist cannot offer anything like evidence to counter the point, they start implying that objectivists are dogmatic. Use your illusions folks. No wonder I spend more time at audiosciencereview now. There it is the subjectivists who are held to account whereas here, the members who actually use their brain to collect evidence are ridiculed by those who are so easily swayed by group think and marketing. Sad really.


----------



## chesebert

I think a majority of the “sound science” believes are either too poor or too lazy to ever try any gear that costs more than a few hundred. They cling onto the idea that their perfectly measured Topping (or similarly priced junk) is the end game and they are not missing out on any great sound by not getting or trying the more expensive gear.


----------



## Sonic Defender (Mar 8, 2022)

chesebert said:


> I think a majority of the “sound science” believes are either too poor or too lazy to ever try any gear that costs more than a few hundred. They cling onto the idea that their perfectly measured Topping (or similarly priced junk) is the end game and they are not missing out on any great sound by not getting or trying the more expensive gear.


Wrong. I have over $15000 in speakers, my amp was $3000 and I sold my $3000 DAC and now have a $600 DAC. Any other ridiculous claims? We sound science types use our brains for critical decision making, we don't get dragged around by every post from random people on the Internet.


----------



## Powermankw (Mar 8, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Did any of them sound similar?
> 
> Did you output coaxial or optical in any of your listening tests? Did the results for that follow the results for analog output?


***.... I said I used all inputs and outputs we could to swap to see if it was the configuration... It wasn't the configuration. We only used optical and coax for digital outputs from streamer to the DACs and we swapped to see if it was that. We used RCA and XLR analog outputs and switched those... And for giggles we used all the different analog inputs on Amp to see if it was that.... We swapped everything we could every way we could.

The matrix was close to pontus... If that was it... No a Big difference. After the bluesound was corrected it was closer to Cambridge, but not BIG difference. But the Pontus was clearly better... In richness, texture, space. Bass, mid, treble all sounded better. Clearly.


----------



## chesebert

Sonic Defender said:


> Wrong. I have over $15000 in speakers, my amp was $3000 and I sold my $3000 DAC and now have a $600 DAC. Any other ridiculous claims? We sound science types use our brains for critical decision making, we don't get dragged around by every post from random people on the Internet.


Then you are wasting money according to folks here because your $3k amp measures no better materially/audibly than class D box that are few hundred. Your $600 dac is also a waste given it likely  measures no better than apple dongle.


----------



## gregorio

chesebert said:


> I suggest you all just stick with Apple dongle as dac for all use cases because  according to your sound science belief nothing is better and it’s all in your head if it doesn’t measure materially/audibly better: ruler flat frequency response, 98db+ SIND, .001% THD+D, 18bit+ resolving power, jitter lie below -100db. It can also drive 300ohm at less than .001% THD+N so no problem driving preamps/amps.
> 
> According to “sound science” doctrine, if you spend more than $9 on a dac you must not be doing it for sound quality unless you are an idiot.


No, according to sound science doctrine you can't: "_suggest you all just stick with Apple dongle as dac for all use cases_", "_unless you are an idiot_" because:
1. Not "all use cases" include an Apple device you can plug an Apple dongle into.
2. What about the use cases of a 5.1, 7.1 or Dolby Atmos speaker system, how do you get that out of an Apple dongle?
3. What about the use case of headphones with voltage/impedance requirements outside the design parameters of the Apple dongle?

Isn't this all self evident?


chesebert said:


> I think a majority of the “sound science” believes are either too poor or too lazy to ever try any gear that costs more than a few hundred. They cling onto the idea that their perfectly measured Topping (or similarly priced junk) is the end game and they are not missing out on any great sound by not getting or trying the more expensive gear.


And where's your evidence for another round of nonsense? It's very unlikely you've ever tried the level of expensive gear I've used extensively, $100k speaker systems in acoustically designed rooms costing millions, etc. But how's that relevant to the objective evidence/facts?

Just making up nonsense to justify previously made-up nonsense obviously doesn't wash in science (or this subforum), do you really not know that?

G


----------



## chesebert

Does the $100k system measure better than $10k system? $1k system? Did you level match everything? Did you do proper ABX? Did you use the same cables, sit in the exact same spot, use the same music/mastering copy, did you control for AC quality and power factor at the time? Did you make sure your all amps and dacs you tested have no dc offset/bias on their outputs. Did you make sure your room is properly treated and tested for proper impulse response? Did you clean your ears of waxes? Did you have adequate sleep? Did you have any alcohol intake? Did you experience any loud noises in the last few days from your test date? 

I can probably think of dozens more parameters but I will spare you the nonsense.


----------



## gregorio

chesebert said:


> Then you are wasting money according to folks here because your $3k amp measures no better materially/audibly than class D box that are few hundred. Your $600 dac is also a waste given it likely measures no better than apple dongle.


According to what folks here? No one here would say he wasted his money, unless: His $3k amp and $600 DAC had the same or worse functionality than an Apple dongle AND he bought them purely based on audible performance, EG. No aesthetic considerations.


chesebert said:


> [1] Does the $100k system measure better than $10k system? $1k system? [2] Did you level match everything? [3] Did you do proper ABX?


1. Yes.
2. That was not possible.
3. Because 2 was not possible, this was not possible.
(A $1k or even $10k speaker system would not be appropriate or even work for the size of the room, listening position/s and speaker configurations used).


chesebert said:


> Did you use the same cables, sit in the exact same spot, use the same music/mastering copy, did you control for AC quality and power factor at the time? Did you make sure your all amps and dacs you tested have no dc offset/bias on their outputs. Did you make sure your room is properly treated and tested for proper impulse response? Did you clean your ears of waxes? Did you have adequate sleep?


Yes but cables make no difference, AC quality makes no difference, the rest also "yes".


chesebert said:


> Did you have any alcohol intake? Did you experience any loud noises in the last few days from your test date?


No.

It was not a test date. It's countless dates and numerous tests over a 30 year period in my own studio (with $25k speakers, $10k ADC/DACs), professionally acoustically built and treated and I've worked extensively in a number of world class studios with far more expensive multi-million dollar rooms/speakers than my somewhat modest ~$400k setup. What expensive rooms/speakers/setups have you extensively experienced? Probably nothing that I wouldn't consider cheap or extremely cheap?

Again, none of this is relevant to any of the reliable/objective evidence discussed, only to contradict your nonsense FALSE assertion of not trying expensive gear.



chesebert said:


> I can probably think of dozens more parameters but I will spare you the nonsense.



Oh, if only you would spare us the nonsense!!

G


----------



## Sonic Defender

This level of acrimony happens, at least partially, because discussions around evaluating claims and those who think they are important are shuttered off here. It is a shame. I do understand that head-fi is a for profit business and I have no issues at all with that, but I do think if more tolerance was shown for objectivists in the other forums, these adversarial interactions would not be nearly as virulent. Saying that, I won't lie. I have seen out in the other forums objectivists posters getting needlessly heated up. I think we can all be sometimes guilty of overdoing it. Man is it frustrating to have to defend science in this post-truth, post-evidence reality. No wonder the Trump's of the world are having a field day. Evidence and accountability are so out of favour. It feels like only individualism matters anymore. Shame.


----------



## Powermankw

gregorio said:


> 1. That is a possibility but it's a remote possibility and ONLY with some rare esoteric DAC designs, such as NOS or "tube" DACs.
> 2. No, it doesn't mean the amp got better. There's a range of potential reasons why you experienced what you did but you've just jumped on one (and probably the least likely one!) and dismissed all the other most likely ones.


[/QUOTE]
I didn't "jump" to anything, I listed two possibilities, there are others. It's not even the reason for a difference, just a possible reason for why there was a change.


gregorio said:


> Yes, both extreme ends of that spectrum are false BUT how is your "_other end of the spectrum_" relevant? No one is making the claim of "zero differences", in fact quite the opposite! Firstly, here in Sound Science we generally consider a larger number of differences (that can affect what we hear/perceive) than is considered in other subforums, based on the science. And Secondly, actual audio performance differences are NOT zero, there are ALWAYS differences between DACs and they can be anything from tiny to very large. For example there are some DACs that produce artefacts at around the -90dB level, others at around the -130dB level, that's a 100 times difference, not tiny at all!
> 
> We're definitely NOT claiming there are zero differences, what we're claiming is that under reasonable listening conditions there would NOT be any audible difference. Using the above example again, artefacts at -90dB are inaudible and artefacts at -130dB are not even reproducible, let alone audible. So, we have a very large difference in audio performance but zero difference in audible performance! This claim is based on rational and reliable evidence; objective measurements of DACs and about 130 years of scientific research. And by definition, this evidence is reproducible, you could verify it for yourself.


exactly... And I am telling you in our experiment there is a clear audible difference. I have not made the case for why, just that there is. A clear difference. While you have stated some inaudible difference to say it's possible, just not audible.



gregorio said:


> We're not claiming everything is false, for example there are differences between transducers that are well within the range of audibility and controlled listening tests unambiguously verify this fact. There are even verified audible differences between some DACs and amps but ONLY some very rare/esoteric designs, as mentioned above. Furthermore:
> 1. "BS marketing" isn't just outright lies (although there's plenty of those), it's a range of; lies of omission, false implications, etc.
> 2. Calling something "Placebo" (we should more accurately call it "perceptual error") comes with the obvious caveat that conditions must be equal and normal/reasonable (EG. Within design parameters). For example, many DACs have significantly different voltage output levels, this is a real/actual difference and trivially identified in controlled listening tests. Therefore many DACs really do result in significantly different sound, no placebo/perceptual error here! However, there's an obvious condition; we need to provide a different amount of amplification for each of the DACs to ensure equal conditions (the same voltage output level) and now the differences are well below audibility, cannot be differentiated in controlled listening tests and ARE placebo/perceptual error (with a few pathological exceptions).


Yes, you tell its possibly better, but only for false reason... Back to audible improvements are not possible.


gregorio said:


> This second point is a big one! In some/many cases audiophiles are hearing actual, real differences. The problem is, those particular differences should not exist, they only exist because their testing methodology is faulty. Only when those particular differences have been eliminated, when the conditions are equal and reasonable (voltage output level being just one example) can we start talking about actual differences, audible differences and perceptual error/placebo.
> 
> Unless your testing methodology is definitely not faulty (which isn't yet indicated), then you have not ascertained that there is in fact any audible difference at all, let alone that one is better. But likewise, we cannot say with absolute certainty that there is not an audible difference, one of the "boxes" you are testing might be one of the rare pathological exceptions mentioned above.


Right... My experience is faulty, you just haven't determined how yet... Because there only a minute rare exceptions and you are skeptical this is one just by mere statistical rarety.


gregorio said:


> That's a non-sequitur, because a relatively slight actual difference can give rise to a relatively large difference in perception. This has been known/demonstrated for many centuries. For example, the perceptual difference between a sequence of music in a major key and one in a minor key is perceptually large but the actual difference is relatively small, just one of the several/many notes that comprise the chords is lowered by the smallest musical pitch (1 semi-tone). There is a great deal of misunderstanding about perceptual error/placebo in the audiophile community (fuelled by marketing BS!). For example, a perceptual error can be anything from a very slight, barely perceivable difference/error to a relatively massive difference. EG. A perceivable difference/error of roughly 10,000 times. It might surprise you to learn, although it's really not that surprising at all, that far and away the most common mis-perception is at the relatively massive end of the scale! So, it's an audiophile myth that placebo is "close"/small/slight and that if a difference is big/obvious it can't be placebo.
> 
> Again, what you are asserting might actually be the reality: Either because one or more of the "boxes" you are comparing is one of the very rare exceptions or because of a faulty test methodology (failure to ensure equal conditions) or it might not be the reality and simply be a perceptual error, also due to a faulty test methodology (failure to eliminate bias).
> 
> G


I have yet to state why hear a difference. I have gone from none when new to now a clear difference. There can be many reasons. It's a R2R DAC, but I can say it's because the R2R archetecture... I can just say there is a clear difference. 

And while you state rare possibilities, you keep trying really hard to dismiss those by inprobabilities.... Which leads us back to what I am hearing is false, because there are no differences statisticaly significant or audible. Cool.


----------



## Powermankw

Sonic Defender said:


> This level of acrimony happens, at least partially, because discussions around evaluating claims and those who think they are important are shuttered off here. It is a shame. I do understand that head-fi is a for profit business and I have no issues at all with that, but I do think if more tolerance was shown for objectivists in the other forums, these adversarial interactions would not be nearly as virulent. Saying that, I won't lie. I have seen out in the other forums objectivists posters getting needlessly heated up. I think we can all be sometimes guilty of overdoing it. Man is it frustrating to have to defend science in this post-truth, post-evidence reality. No wonder the Trump's of the world are having a field day. Evidence and accountability are so out of favour. It feels like only individualism matters anymore. Shame.


But that still stats from the basis objectivists are "right" just not listened to. There is clearly obviously more garbage in this hobby just because it is for profit and subjective... However, that doesn't mean all claims are false and it is 100% garbage in every case. 

Forums naturally pit one against another. This type of discussion always ends up on the extreme ends of the spectrum. Rarely in life is any truth on an extreme end. 

And yes, your Trump comment is nothing more than a vieled ad hominen to dissmis those you disagree with as not being scientific... Those that state a claim are already in default. What does an ad hominem have anything to do with objectivity or science?


----------



## hakunamakaka (Mar 8, 2022)

ASR is full of topping fanboys blindly following Amir. I had issues with one of their amps and they blamed my headphones as overpriced junk. they can bash headphone simply because it is expensive or a driver clips on hearing damaging level…while non of these users actually heard it.

I enjoy reading threads where actually knowledgeable users discuss why certain gear in various setups brings improvements and actually learn stuff. here is more for entertainment to fuel some discussion and to see another gregs reply on how my desktop setup is low fi compared to dongle 🐒

I bet I could trigger him to use caps lock in few more posts 😀


----------



## chesebert (Mar 8, 2022)

I am still waiting for greg to explain how the $100k rig is objectively, measurably and audibly better than $10k rig, $1k rig and $500 rig, and all the gear compared to such $100k rig from an objective, measurable and audibility basis. Greg should also explain how any difference in sound is caused directly by a change in measurement.

I am particularly interested in Greg's take on how the dac used in the $100k rig is objectively, measurably and audibly better than the apple dongle, and what measurable differences were the direct result of any such changes in sound.


----------



## sander99

chesebert said:


> I am particularly interested in Greg's take on how the dac used in the $100k rig is objectively, measurably and audibly better than the apple dongle, and what measurable differences were the direct result of any such changes in sound.


A few posts back he told you that the apple dongle is audibly transparent. And, of course, he didn't say his DAC is audibly better because audibly better than audibly transparent is not possible! But his DAC is better suited for the purposes that he uses it for. And it may be measurably better, which could be usefull in a studio for several reasons.


----------



## chesebert

So according to “objective science” as deemed by this forum, if you spend more than $9 on a dac for 2 channel playback you are just paying for “features” and a nice box. 

Got it.


----------



## hakunamakaka

chesebert said:


> So according to “objective science” as deemed by this forum, if you spend more than $9 on a dac for 2 channel playback you are just paying for “features” and a nice box.
> 
> Got it.



I'm surprised that some companies invest in PSU and circuit designs. They could just use dongle topology and fill the box with useless electronics. Either way end consumer is stupid and clueless, driven by how nicely the shiny box glows. Only a small circle of chosen ones cracked the mystery of gear with "science" even though they haven't designed a single dac or amp


----------



## Sonic Defender

Powermankw said:


> But that still stats from the basis objectivists are "right" just not listened to. There is clearly obviously more garbage in this hobby just because it is for profit and subjective... However, that doesn't mean all claims are false and it is 100% garbage in every case.
> 
> Forums naturally pit one against another. This type of discussion always ends up on the extreme ends of the spectrum. Rarely in life is any truth on an extreme end.
> 
> And yes, your Trump comment is nothing more than a vieled ad hominen to dissmis those you disagree with as not being scientific... Those that state a claim are already in default. What does an ad hominem have anything to do with objectivity or science?


No mate, my Trump reference is not at all directed to anybody in this thread. I am using it as further evidence of the war on science that has percolated so powerfully to the surface. The analogy is simply that Trump spouted ridiculous, completely unfounded claims and was not only allowed to get away with it, he actually thrived because of it. The connection is that here in head-fi people spout all kinds of assertions with absolutely no evidence besides the oh so sad, trust me I hear it, and I believe my ears. Sigh. Thank god science isn't conducted like that.


----------



## bigshot

Powermankw said:


> ***.... I said I used all inputs and outputs we could to swap to see if it was the configuration... It wasn't the configuration. We only used optical and coax for digital outputs from streamer to the DACs and we swapped to see if it was that. We used RCA and XLR analog outputs and switched those... And for giggles we used all the different analog inputs on Amp to see if it was that.... We swapped everything we could every way we could.
> 
> The matrix was close to pontus... If that was it... No a Big difference. After the bluesound was corrected it was closer to Cambridge, but not BIG difference. But the Pontus was clearly better... In richness, texture, space. Bass, mid, treble all sounded better. Clearly.



I think I've understood what you are trying to say, but it's hard because you keep jumping forward and not clearly answering my questions. Could you just give me a yes or no on these questions please?

Bluesound and Cambridge sounded pretty close, correct?
Pontus was the one that sounded radically different? Have I got that right?
When you output from the three DACs using coaxial or optical, the results followed the way it sounded when you compared using the analog outputs? Correct?


----------



## bigshot

chesebert said:


> According to “sound science” doctrine, if you spend more than $9 on a dac you must not be doing it for sound quality unless you are an idiot.



I think it's pretty dumb to judge audio fidelity by price tags and not measurements and controlled listening tests.


----------



## chesebert

"sound science" forum fails at step 1 of the scientific method: ask a question about something that you observe. Need I go on?


----------



## bigshot

chesebert said:


> Need I go on?



No thank you.


----------



## Powermankw

bigshot said:


> I think I've understood what you are trying to say, but it's hard because you keep jumping forward and not clearly answering my questions. Could you just give me a yes or no on these questions please?
> 
> Bluesound and Cambridge sounded pretty close, correct?
> Pontus was the one that sounded radically different? Have I got that right?
> When you output from the three DACs using coaxial or optical, the results followed the way it sounded when you compared using the analog outputs? Correct?


Well... Partly because I've stated it and don't wish to keep entertaing your quest to find me wrong. I trouble shoot for a living. I've stated no miraculous claims other than one box clearly sounded better than another, but appearantly that is too outrageous to let stand. And you don't seem to be listening, but rather waiting to tell me where I went wrong...

You don't output digital from a DAC.... It's a Digital to Analog Converter. If you do... Well you are Bypassing the DAC function.

The bluesound streamer has digital outputs, coax/optical... They bypass the internal DAC. Digital outputs, to DAC digital inputs. Surely you are not questioning me using DAC outputs to test another DAC... DAC outputs analog. Analog outputs to integrated amp analog input. Analog inputs bypass internal integrated amp DAC. Both DACs have RCA and XLR outputs and integrated amp has RCA and XLR inputs. As I have stated numerous times, we swapped configuration every single way possible on all 4 DACs and it is NOT the configuration. 

And I never said "radically". That is your word. I said clearly. A clear difference, not close, but not drastically different. The Matrix is in the middle of the Pontus and the Cambridge. Still clearly different, but closer. We both could easily identify what was what. The bluesound was closest to the Cambridge. Close enough to not stand too firm on a conclusion, but the Cambridge sounded better. We both heard a clear improvement over the Cambridge from the Matrix, and most definitely the Pontus.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 8, 2022)

Did you check the settings on the three DACs to see what the filter was set to? Does the Pontus have any noise shaping or response adjustments that might not be comparable to the other two?

The reason I asked you about the digital out was because you said you tried all the outputs and it came out the same. So you didn't try all the outputs.


----------



## GearMe

Sonic Defender said:


> No mate, my Trump reference is not at all directed to anybody in this thread. I am using it as further evidence of the war on science that has percolated so powerfully to the surface. The analogy is simply that Trump spouted ridiculous, completely unfounded claims and was not only allowed to get away with it, he actually thrived because of it. The connection is that here in head-fi people spout all kinds of assertions with absolutely no evidence besides the oh so sad, trust me I hear it, and I believe my ears. Sigh. Thank god science isn't conducted like that.



Thanks for the clarification.  You routinely strike a tone that is reasoned and balanced -- much appreciated! 

That said, your comment definitely _could_ be read the way @Powermankw interpreted it...especially in the context of the 'welcoming' environment that the Sound Science forum often presents to Subjectivists as it 'relates' to/with them. 🤦‍♂️ Invoking an association/similarity/etc. between the Subjectivists and Trump as part of an argument while neglecting to address relevant questions/points raised about inconsistencies in the application of 'Sound Science' principles in _might_ feel like an Ad Hominem attack.  

For instance, I don't believe the comment and reply below was really fully addressed...



Sonic Defender said:


> Wrong. I have over $15000 in speakers, my amp was $3000 and *I sold my $3000 DAC and now have a $600 DAC*. Any other ridiculous claims? We sound science types use our brains for *critical decision making*, we don't get dragged around by every post from random people on the Internet.





chesebert said:


> Then you are wasting money according to folks here because your $3k amp measures no better materially/audibly than class D box that are few hundred. *Your $600 dac is also a waste given it likely  measures no better than apple dongle.*




Funny, I also have a $600 DAC that sounds nice...am sure your does as well!  

But @chesebert brings up a good point; if the Apple Dongle meets/exceeds the 'Threshold of Audible Transparency' for a 2-channel DAC, then the comment regarding an Objectivist wasting their hard-earned $$$ is reasonable/relevant (i.e. why pay for even a $600 DAC when a $9 DAC would do?).

So...why do each of us own 'expensive' $600 DACs?   

It's an easy answer for me; possibly exposing my lack of critical decision making skills.  It matched the OTL amp I bought at the same time -- which paired nicely with my high-Z Senn and Beyer headphones!  

Why did you overpay...by a factor of 60x?


----------



## Powermankw

bigshot said:


> Did you check the settings on the three DACs to see what the filter was set to? Do the Pontus have any noise shaping or response adjustments that might not be comparable to the other two?


How many times must you ask the same question? The answer I already gave you has not changed.


----------



## Powermankw

Sonic Defender said:


> No mate, my Trump reference is not at all directed to anybody in this thread. I am using it as further evidence of the war on science that has percolated so powerfully to the surface. The analogy is simply that Trump spouted ridiculous, completely unfounded claims and was not only allowed to get away with it, he actually thrived because of it. The connection is that here in head-fi people spout all kinds of assertions with absolutely no evidence besides the oh so sad, trust me I hear it, and I believe my ears. Sigh. Thank god science isn't conducted like that.


I didn't say you attributed to an individual. It is a dismissal of an argument by grouping it with other instances of where you find others wrong. Damn... Your defense of it is yet another fine example of a clearly flawed logic. Hell.... Bordering on strawman... Since Trump doesn't have a ****** thing to do with me listening to a stereo. 

So.... You dismiss idiots, by doing the same behavior. If you want to talk science, then start. Stop with the logic fallacies and personal dismissals. You know... Unsubstantiated trash talk.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 8, 2022)

Forgive me, but you answer simple yes or no questions with paragraphs that include a bunch of into and subjective opinions that I didn't ask for. It is extremely difficult for me to sort out facts from your subjective conclusions. I'm trying to help figure it out, but you're not speaking clearly. It's like you are more interested in expressing your opinion than you are sharing information, and you're so afraid of saying something incorrect that you won't just state things clearly and concisely. I'll just give up and come to my own conclusion if you want. I was just trying to understand what you did and what the results were without the subjective impressions.

It seems that you came here ready for a fight, and you are bound and determined to make it that, even if I wasn't fighting you. I've seen all of this before. I know where it comes from.


----------



## Powermankw

bigshot said:


> Forgive me, but you answer simple yes or no questions with paragraphs that include a bunch of into and subjective opinions that I didn't ask for. It is extremely difficult for me to sort out facts from your subjective conclusions. I'm trying to help figure it out, but you're not speaking clearly. It's like you are more interested in expressing your opinion than you are sharing information. I'll just give up and come to my own conclusion if you want.


My nose is getting sore being led around. If you can't differentiate between a statement and a narrative, or fact verses opinion, then how can you possibly understand "sound science"? If you don't understand DACs output analog, then how are you going to find where I'm wrong?

No...there are no filters skewing results. 

No, the Pontus has no filters. 

The Pontus has over sampling, and non over sampling, to which I already stated I can't hear any difference.

What next?


----------



## bigshot

You seem upset. Why? How does my asking for clarification so I can understand equate with leading you around by the nose? Are you interested in having a conversation? Because being short and overly defensive isn't a productive way of doing that.


----------



## Vamp898

Why is measuring Amps by recording the output of Songs so uncommon?

I've noticed several times that Amps that measure pretty much identical (or the difference in the measurements are way below the threshold of hearing) actually show a lot of difference if you actually play a song and record the output.

I first noticed that when i compared the WM1A to the WM1Z. The measurements actually don't match the difference these two DAPs have. But if you record a song with both, an App like Audacity (or similar) easy show exactly the difference you hear.

Sure this is not a reproducible way to compare Amps because with every Song, the difference are at different places. But still if you know that song and know how that sounds, you can understand the difference from the measurement.

Who cares if the SNR of Amp 1 is 10db larger than Amp 2 if both are better than every human ear that ever existed or will ever exist.

Its the same with earphone. I've bought earphones in the past due to measurement and never did the Earphone sound anywhere close to what i expected.

I can understand the grave for any kind of "Test" that shows who is best but to this day, it didn't work out.

Earphone that measure very different sound close while earphone that measure almost identical sound so different, that its almost impossible to be any further apart. Amps who measure almost identical with inaudible difference have an clear and audible difference.

All this measurements mumbo jumbo is just pouring oil into the audiophile myth thing as it raises more questions than it actually answers.

It even goes so far that people deny audible difference because they don't appear in measurements, just because they are looking at the wrong measurement.

So i'd say --> Get a set of reference songs and measure Amps/DAPs/DACs by playing these songs. If Audacity doesn't see any difference, there is non. If it does, and its below the threshold of hearing, the difference doesn't matter.

If its there and above the threshold (like with the WM1A and WM1Z), it doesn't matter what any measurement says. There is a difference and everyone can hear it. Case closed.


----------



## Powermankw

bigshot said:


> You seem upset. Why? How does my asking for clarification so I can understand equate with leading you around by the nose? Are you interested in having a conversation? Because being short and overly defensive isn't a productive way of doing that.


I have answered that too... Because it seems you are not on a genuine quest for understanding, but rather looking for a Gottcha! Seems rather passive/aggressive. If I'm wrong, then my bad. However, how am I supposed to take it when you tell me you can't read the English I write, or the information contained within, but must instead answer your specific questions specifically how you state I need to answer. Is this a conversation or a questionnaire? 🤷


----------



## bigshot (Mar 8, 2022)

Vamp898, sound consists of three elements... frequency, amplitude and time. For there to be an audible difference, one or more of those aspects need to be altered beyond the thresholds of human hearing. Determining if there is a difference is the first step. The second step is to determine what the difference is and how much of it there is. Measurements can help you isolate that... response, noise, distortion and timing can all be measured to determine where the difference lies. Some are more likely than others. Bias can be a factor too, so can perceptual error.

The goal here isn't to find something that is different and I like it different like that. That is coloration, not accuracy. The goal is to find something that is accurate to within the thresholds of hearing. It isn't hard to achieve transparency in the digital realm. The whole technology was designed from the ground up to be accurate. It really *should* be transparent. If it isn't, it doesn't matter if it's better sounding or worse sounding, it's not performing to spec.

So we get to a situation where one DAC sounds subjectively better than another... Either the two DACs sound identical and it's expectation bias (which is often the case with expensive new shiny equipment we just took out of the box), or it is perceptual error (lack of level matching, too long between samples), or there actually *is* an audible difference between the two and one is performing out of spec. The odds are in favor of the one that sounds like every other DAC being accurate, and the one that sounds clearly different being the colored one. Perhaps you like that kind of coloration. It would be useful to know exactly what kind of coloration that is. Is it response (which NOS or alternately sharp vs slow filters with OS might indicate) or is it something else?

Is it bias? Is it perceptual error? Is this one model colored? Is everything colored except for this one model? Is everything colored to various degrees? These are the questions to ask in order of likelihood. In Sound Science, most comparisons brought to us don't get past the first two questions.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 8, 2022)

Powermankw said:


> how am I supposed to take it when you tell me you can't read the English I write, or the information contained within, but must instead answer your specific questions specifically how you state I need to answer. Is this a conversation or a questionnaire?



I'm asking the questions I need to understand what you are describing. Clarity is important. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm trying to read what you are saying and process it, but the defensiveness is making it too wiggly to pin down clearly. I take time to write as clearly as I can to prevent misunderstandings and to make it as easy for my readers to grasp what I'm saying as possible.


----------



## castleofargh

chesebert said:


> So according to “objective science” as deemed by this forum, if you spend more than $9 on a dac for 2 channel playback you are just paying for “features” and a nice box.
> 
> Got it.


I'm fine with differences of opinion. Someone saying "science says" does not mean the rest of the sentence is science. You can ask for evidence or provide your evidence of the contrary anytime. But several of your posts aren't to support an opinion. They're completely dishonest attempts at putting words into other people's mouth with silly strawman arguments.
In that same vein of complete misrepresentation, what's going on with all the anti Sound Science BS? A whole 2 people said stuff you didn't like and now you're on a crusade to roast the entire section? 
I don't take the amalgam and attacks(as weak as they are) too well as a modo.

One thing that's clear to me, be it with you or @hakunamakaka, is that you present a lot of your own personal and I'm guessing sighted experiences, as facts about the sound of gear. This section strongly worries(or at least it should) about psychological biases and poor experiments. It would be nice to see blind testing, research papers, measurements, and anything that will actually constitute evidence. I don't think that all DACs will sound the same, even less so when basically nobody will even bother with volume matching or checking that the amp is maybe not made for the given input voltage. Under uncontrolled conditions, I personally notice differences between just about anything if I try to find differences. 
But because I also sometimes try to test the same gears under more controlled conditions, I had to come to the realization that I exaggerate a lot of of things, and that I just plain make up the rest. Of course sometimes I'm correct, but how do I know when if I never bother to go beyond my sighted impression? When @hakunamakaka once again tries to support not doing a proper test, saying that you don't need level matched gear when the differences is big enough, I reply, what's a big enough difference that we can claim to know it's not about volume level, visual bias, or some stuff we forgot to check properly? Is it when the difference is bigger than 3 bananas? 
Without proper testing and clear quantification of variables, it will never go beyond he said you said. 
Or better expressed:



> Stronger reasons are obtained from sure experiments and demonstrated arguments than from probable conjectures and the opinions of philosophical speculators.


-William Gilbert

I'm been reading a book called(don't laugh at me) "the Science Book". It's a sort of history of science for the noob, and I got that quote from it. This cool Willy dude was apparently the first to consider, thanks to 17 years of data gathering, that the planet was a giant magnet with an iron core.


----------



## chesebert (Mar 8, 2022)

Vamp898 said:


> Why is measuring Amps by recording the output of Songs so uncommon?


Back when I was learning and doing these things, I was taught to only measure at 1khz because once you figure out the amplifiers transfer function all complex sine waves will be subject to the same transfer function. Given any music is just an aggregate of different sine waves added together you only need to figure out the property at 1khz. The bandwidth is measured the same way, you do -3db up and down the frequency until you hit the corner frequency. I used to hand calculate the bandwidth for each stage but I think later on we just use SPICE for most of this stuff.

You can't design amp using some song and rely on a microphone recording of some speaker's output. That's just ludicrous.


----------



## chesebert (Mar 8, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> I'm fine with differences of opinion. Someone saying "science says" does not mean the rest of the sentence is science. You can ask for evidence or provide your evidence of the contrary anytime. But several of your posts aren't to support an opinion. They're completely dishonest attempts at putting words into other people's mouth with silly strawman arguments.
> In that same vein of complete misrepresentation, what's going on with all the anti Sound Science BS? A whole 2 people said stuff you didn't like and now you're on a crusade to roast the entire section?
> I don't take the amalgam and attacks(as weak as they are) too well as a modo.
> 
> ...


nice and all but no one has the resources to do these basic science. We don't really know how the brain actually processes music - let's get that figured out first.

We live in the real world and in the real world, designer would run simulations and lab test (using things like AP) to make sure the equipment works is not broken or has weird behavior. Then depending on the designer, the designer would then make various prototypes with slightly different tweaks here and there and listen. Measurements are done throughout the process to ensure basic engineering competency.

Whether you like it or not this is the state of art for hifi design. Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 8, 2022)

Fidelity has nothing to do with how the brain processes music. Accuracy is objective. Controlled listening tests minimize perceptual error and bias so you can focus on fidelity.


----------



## Powermankw

bigshot said:


> I'm asking the questions I need to understand what you are describing. Clarity is important. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm trying to read what you are saying and process it, but the defensiveness is making it too wiggly to pin down clearly. I take time to write as clearly as I can to prevent misunderstandings and to make it as easy for my readers to grasp what I'm saying as possible.


Well, that is a perceptual error. I write clearly, and I am careful of my choice of words. I have given plenty of clear information you missed. So onward.. ..

So... I have bias, and expectation. I came here because I did not get what I expected. However, it has changed. It is clear, and no matter how the variables are swapped, the difference was consistent. The difference was not slight, it was clear.

Yet to you, said to the other poster... There are only 3 possibilities. DACs sound identical... Period. If they don't, the listener is faulty, or one of the DACs is... The only possible options. That's not scientific. Of course you base that on your own experience. 

So, your own experience... Through exhaustive experiments, under properly controlled conditions.... There is no difference. DACs sound identical. Except, you did think there was a difference, you just found out you were wrong. 

So if all our biases, and all our perceptual errors and expectation can make sane educated people believe that there are differences in equipment when there is in fact none.... Then is the opposite not possible. That biases, expectations, and perceptual errors make sane educated people believe gear sounds the same when in fact they do sound different? You have already stated your perceptions and experiments were faulty. Prove they are true now.


----------



## castleofargh

Vamp898 said:


> Why is measuring Amps by recording the output of Songs so uncommon?
> 
> I've noticed several times that Amps that measure pretty much identical (or the difference in the measurements are way below the threshold of hearing) actually show a lot of difference if you actually play a song and record the output.
> 
> ...


It's not too hard to do, but interpreting the results is. And you have to consider that a null will show a difference 100% of the time. Might be a tiny one, might be a big one only caused by a phase shift at some frequencies or a poor time alignment(that wouldn't sound any different to us). 
If the alterations were the same type but of different amplitudes, then I'd say go for it. You null the recorded signal with the original track and pick the DAP with least variations.
But how often will 2 DAPs have the same type of issues?

Also with DAPs, there are some extra rounds of uncertainty:
Do they have the same impedance(at all frequencies, not just at 1kHz)? If not or unsure, did you use a flat impedance IEM/headphone to do your tests and listening? 
If you just check the signal unloaded(into an ADC the impedance will be 10kOhm or more), then there is a very real possibility that the result, whatever the type of measurement, will not be valid for when you use your IEMs at a given listening level. 
Those are issues for any measurements TBH. DAPs are just that much of a mess, being plugged into all types of loads and following almost no standard themselves(only some marketing trends). Next to that, a standelone DAC is almost living the dream with clear standards for inputs and outputs and only fairly reasonable differences in output voltages. That way when we measure them, there is a great chance for the measurements to apply to the DAC when in use in our rig. Which is nice.

I don't have anything against your suggestion, more measurements are better than no measurement. But as I said, I'm not optimistic about interpreting the results. And if you do measure with a mic out of the IEMs, then I'm afraid you will often end up measuring your room and the impact of you IEM on the amp section.


----------



## castleofargh

Powermankw said:


> Well, that is a perceptual error. I write clearly, and I am careful of my choice of words. I have given plenty of clear information you missed. So onward.. ..
> 
> So... I have bias, and expectation. I came here because I did not get what I expected. However, it has changed. It is clear, and no matter how the variables are swapped, the difference was consistent. The difference was not slight, it was clear.
> 
> ...


@bigshot is like that. He will make generalizations about all stuff being the same, and if not, then bad stuff. For most things he knows better but still does it because he thinks it's more important to push audiophiles in the right general direction instead of having them go paranoid over some small percentage occurrences. 
I disagree because we(wannabee science people) are supposed to care about facts even the rare ones. But in the context of an audiophile forum, I obviously understand his position. 

I think it's you who wrote that you found out about people exaggerating in the forum(1500%true). Well, just consider that bigshot is like everybody else, but also unique in how he exaggerates in the direction of not spending more money for vague reasons. Worse things could happen to audiophiles 


With DACs, the truth is that if you take the opinion of 100 people on this forum, between 0 and 1 of the 100 will talk about a proper blind test with matched levels and all that. Makes it difficult for some of us to not systematically assume bad experiment and psychological biases, given how statistically, it's a super safe bet. 
Of course there are other possibilities. A bunch of them. But how can we tell without some form of controlled test? Pretending to trust and respect every claims leads to ... well... outside of this section. We're trying something else. Trust nobody and wait for supporting evidence to change your mind.
You seem like a reasonable and fairly zen guy, so I'm confident that you can understand how all this weird "guilty of bias until proven innocent" behavior is conditioned by years of wasting time trying to diagnose made up differences, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with you and who you are in particular.


----------



## Powermankw

castleofargh said:


> @bigshot is like that. He will make generalizations about all stuff being the same, and if not, then bad stuff. For most things he knows better but still does it because he thinks it's more important to push audiophiles in the right general direction instead of having them go paranoid over some small percentage occurrences.
> I disagree because we(wannabee science people) are supposed to care about facts even the rare ones. But in the context of an audiophile forum, I obviously understand his position.
> 
> I think it's you who wrote that you found out about people exaggerating in the forum(1500%true). Well, just consider that bigshot is like everybody else, but also unique in how he exaggerates in the direction of not spending more money for vague reasons. Worse things could happen to audiophiles
> ...


Thanks. I agree... Totally safe bet there is much more voodoo and chicken bones than sound objective observationon. The pendulum is far on one side. The answer is not to yank it far to the other. So what is there left to do... 

We try to do controlled experiments with sound techniques, objective observation, analyze the data. We get data, outcomes, conclusions. Fantastic. Step in the right direction.... 

However, the only true measure is still the most unreliable. Humans are not standardized test equipment based on proven standards and calibrated to a finite degree of accuracy... The only true measure is subjective wildy fallible humans. Yes we can measure physical properties of electricity and signals and analyze them... But then how does it sound to humans... More importantly, how does emotional content, ascribed value, and personal preference of music measured and perceived by humans played for humans get objectively measured for sound quality? Regardless whether they claim no difference or clear difference, it's still a human. 

We just believe we proved a particle nobody can see. We still have no clue how gravity works. We still have no way to detect dark matter but theorize the cosmos is full not empty. Does that mean all skeptics are wrong... No. But it doesn't prove they are right. We can only measure physical properties we can... Then we judge how it sounds. Being unable to prove x measurement indicates y sound, because one can not be linked to x does not prove there is no difference. I'm just saying there is room for valid differences in SQ outside of a few physical properties we can measure. Even if we have indeed proven in many instances that those differences are not as significant as one believed in controlled experiments in sterile conditions.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Powermankw said:


> I'm just saying there is room for valid differences in SQ outside of a few physical properties we can measure.


If measurements were the best route to trust on how things actually sound to us, there would be no engineers tuning the sound of your speakers/headphones by ear.
There is no way to measure how everything falls in order and sounds nice to human ears. In many cases we use very limited set of measurements to determine if headphone sounds good/not. It took me owning few headphones to realize that. 

I remember when out of curiosity I've ordered HD650 which measures nearly perfect and is praised as high fidelity HP on ASR, but in reality it was far behind when compared to the flagships that I had. If high fidelity varies that much it is very absolute term.


----------



## gregorio

Powermankw said:


> I didn't "jump" to anything, I listed two possibilities, there are others.


Of course you did, this is what you stated: "_Possibilities are the DAC made a difference, but I could not hear it thru my amp... But now I can. Which means amp got better..._" - It doesn't mean the amp got better, it would only mean the amp got better if you eliminated the other possibilities of why you heard a difference, such as a perceptual error or fault in your testing methodology.


Powermankw said:


> exactly... And I am telling you in our experiment there is a clear audible difference. I have not made the case for why, just that there is. A clear difference. While you have stated some inaudible difference to say it's possible, just not audible.


No, I clearly stated there are various reasons why you perceived a "_clear audible difference_": A faulty testing methodology, the use of a rare pathological DAC or a perceptual error.


Powermankw said:


> Yes, you tell its possibly better, but only for false reason... Back to audible improvements are not possible.


Of course, there's no rational or logical alternative! Again, the vast majority of DACs have artefacts that are all well outside the range of audibility. In other words, everything within the range of audibility is without ANY (audible) artefacts and is therefore, by definition, audibly perfect. Also by definition, there can be nothing better than "perfect", everything else can therefore ONLY ever be one of two things: The same (also perfect) or different, imperfect. There is no other possibility and therefore audible improvements MUST be impossible!


Powermankw said:


> Right... My experience is faulty, you just haven't determined how yet... Because there only a minute rare exceptions and you are skeptical this is one just by mere statistical rarety.


I did not state your experience is faulty. In fact there's a very good chance it was not faulty, you could easily have experienced a real/actual difference due to a faulty test methodology or it's possible that you used one of the pathological exceptions, although that's obviously unlikely. There's also a good chance your experience was due to a perceptual error. As virtually all human beings are almost constantly experiencing perceptual error, as we very rarely see audiophiles performing tests without serious errors in methodology and as the pathological DAC exceptions are so rare (and you hadn't indicated this was the case), it's entirely logical/scientific to conclude as I did: There probably is no audible difference but we can't be absolutely certain.


Powermankw said:


> I have yet to state why hear a difference. I have gone from none when new to now a clear difference. There can be many reasons. It's a R2R DAC, but I can say it's because the R2R archetecture... I can just say there is a clear difference.


Ah, now you've stated it's R2R, that changes the odds somewhat. There's still probably no audible difference but that probability is lower as some R2R implementations are audibly different.


Powermankw said:


> [1] And while you state rare possibilities, you keep trying really hard to dismiss those by inprobabilities.... [2] Which leads us back to what I am hearing is false, because there are no differences statisticaly significant or audible. Cool.


1. Duh, of course, that's what "improbability" effectively means. Although we can never dismiss it entirely of course (which I didn't), only in line with the degree of improbability, which I did.
2. That's your narrative, the narrative you've invented and falsely attributed to me! I've said above and previously there's a significant probability that what you are hearing is not false. Namely: What you heard could be true due to a testing fault (which is very possible) or due to there actually being an audible difference between the DACs (very improbable, although less improbable now you've revealed one was an R2R).

G


----------



## gregorio

chesebert said:


> [1] I am still waiting for greg to explain how the $100k rig is objectively, measurably and audibly better than $10k rig, $1k rig and $500 rig, and all the gear compared to such $100k rig from an objective, measurable and audibility basis. [2] Greg should also explain how any difference in sound is caused directly by a change in measurement.
> 
> [3] I am particularly interested in Greg's take on how the dac used in the $100k rig is objectively, measurably and audibly better than the apple dongle, and [3a] what measurable differences were the direct result of any such changes in sound.


You're joking right? On the bizarre off chance you're not joking, here are the answers:

1. It's objectively, measurably and audibly better than a $10k rig because a $10k rig would not be able to output the SPLs required for a large mix room with a listening position say 20m from the speakers. A $1k rig even less so. If I remember correctly, the $100k rig had a max speaker power output of around 40,000 watts.
2. A difference in measurement of say 10 - 30dBSPL is a difference in sound that is trivially audible/identifiable.

3. The DAC in the $100k rig required a MADI input to handle the 6, 8 or 64 digital audio channels. The Apple dongle has neither a MADI input nor the ability to convert even 6 digital audio channels, let alone 64. So the DAC used in the $100k rig is "_objectively, measurably and audibly better than the Apple dongle_" because it output an analogue signal while the Apple dongle would not.
3a. The DAC used in the $100k rig resulted in a SPL measurement between about 25dBSPL and 105dBSPL. The Apple dongle would result in an SPL measurement of just the noise floor of the mix room. So the measurable difference would be up to around 80dBSPL and typically about 50-60dBSPL.


chesebert said:


> "sound science" forum fails at step 1 of the scientific method: ask a question about something that you observe. Need I go on?


Not only have you just demonstrated that you don't even know step 1 of the scientific method but you've done it in an actual sound Science forum! So "No", what possible reason could there be for you to "go on"?

Sure, when science is attempting to explain how or why some natural phenomena works, it usually starts with a question about an observation. However, in this case science is obviously not trying to explain a natural phenomena; digital audio doesn't exist in nature and DACs do not grow on trees, have to be mined or occur naturally. Science obviously couldn't start with an observation about digital audio or DACs because there was no digital audio or DACs to observe until after someone invented them. How is this not blatantly obvious?


hakunamakaka said:


> I'm surprised that some companies invest in PSU and circuit designs. They could just use dongle topology and fill the box with useless electronics.


Some companies invest in PSU designs because many DACs are designed to be powered by an AC mains supply, not an iDevice. It is quite surprising that some companies invest in circuit designs but I don't know of any audiophile DAC company that relies only on it's own circuit designs.


hakunamakaka said:


> [1] Either way end consumer is stupid and clueless, driven by how nicely the shiny box glows. [2] Only a small circle of chosen ones cracked the mystery of gear with "science" even though they haven't designed a single dac or amp


1. Not stupid and clueless, it's just that many/most of the "clues" they encounter have their basis in false marketing.
2. What "mystery of gear"? There is no mystery of gear, gear doesn't grow on trees, it's not the result of some biological or cosmic phenomena that science doesn't yet fully understand, the gear is invented from the "science". If the science was wrong, DACs and digital audio wouldn't exist! Also, what "small circle"? The circle of scientists, pro audio music/sound and design engineers and universities and their students is NOT a small circle, it's a much bigger circle than a few thousand misinformed audiophiles! And lastly, we don't need to have designed a DAC to quote the proven/demonstrated science about how they perform/work.

How is it possible that you don't know any of this?

G


----------



## Powermankw (Mar 9, 2022)

gregorio said:


> Of course you did, this is what you stated: "_Possibilities are the DAC made a difference, but I could not hear it thru my amp... But now I can. Which means amp got better..._" - It doesn't mean the amp got better, it would only mean the amp got better if you eliminated the other possibilities of why you heard a difference, such as a perceptual error or fault in your testing methodology.


Possibilitie"S". I listed a couple... Didn't say ONLY TWO.


gregorio said:


> Of course, there's no rational or logical alternative! Again, the vast majority of DACs have artefacts that are all well outside the range of audibility. In other words, everything within the range of audibility is without ANY (audible) artefacts and is therefore, by definition, audibly perfect. Also by definition, there can be nothing better than "perfect", everything else can therefore ONLY ever be one of two things: The same (also perfect) or different, imperfect. There is no other possibility and therefore audible improvements MUST be impossible!


You have defined your argument to the most narrow possibility... A chip or chip set, that converts 1s and 0s to an analog signal. Did I say I isolated and tested chip sets... No I didn't... I said my box... My DAC, from input, to output... So since there is no possibility that any conversion has audible artifacts... It is impossible that my box can sound different. Therefore, imperfect is the only possibility... That would be false.


gregorio said:


> I did not state your experience is faulty. In fact there's a very good chance it was not faulty, you could easily have experienced a real/actual difference due to a faulty test methodology or it's possible that you used one of the pathological exceptions, although that's obviously unlikely. There's also a good chance your experience was due to a perceptual error. As virtually all human beings are almost constantly experiencing perceptual error, as we very rarely see audiophiles performing tests without serious errors in methodology and as the pathological DAC exceptions are so rare (and you hadn't indicated this was the case), it's entirely logical/scientific to conclude as I did: There probably is no audible difference but we can't be absolutely certain.


I didn't say you did... I said exactly what you said... No difference... And if there is... The person is wrong, or the box is... Well... There is indeed exceptions... But that is OBVIOUSLY UNLIKELY.... And then you state it's logical to jump to a conclusion without actually having the facts... Can you show me where that is stated in the scientific method?


gregorio said:


> Ah, now you've stated it's R2R, that changes the odds somewhat. There's still probably no audible difference but that probability is lower as some R2R implementations are audibly different.


So there are no audible differences... Oh, except the ones that have audible differences. How cool is that! Amazing


gregorio said:


> 1. Duh, of course, that's what "improbability" effectively means. Although we can never dismiss it entirely of course (which I didn't), only in line with the degree of improbability, which I did.


Glad we got that straight... Yes there can be, but I'm certain it's not true in your case. Cool.


gregorio said:


> 2. That's your narrative, the narrative you've invented and falsely attributed to me! I've said above and previously there's a significant probability that what you are hearing is not false. Namely: What you heard could be true due to a testing fault (which is very possible) or due to there actually being an audible difference between the DACs (very improbable, although less improbable now you've revealed one was an R2R).
> 
> G


I have stated exactly what you said... And exactly what you just stated again... There are exceptions, but you don't have one. So if I heard a difference... The ONLY two possibilities are... I'm wrong... Or the equipment is faulty. The only two.

Now I myself can't say it is R2R... Because that again can be marketing BS. But I did not test a chip and check the math... I have only said one box sounded different than another. It can be intentionally voiced to add distortions, it could have other DSP wizardry... But all of that is impossible... Because there are only two possibilities... They can indeed design it to be audibly different... It's not broke... It's doing what it is designed for. But of course that is impossible.... Because there is no difference... The human is wrong, or the gear is faulty. Well... Except for when there is a difference... But that is so unlikely we can ignore that, and just focus on the wrong human. Cool.


----------



## gregorio (Mar 9, 2022)

Again, Oh the irony! You state there's a lot of voodoo (marketing BS) but not as much as we're suggesting and you support that assertion by (unwittingly) repeating a whole bunch of tired myths and fallacies that audiophile marketers have been trotting out for years that were completely debunked decades ago. It doesn't get any more ironic than that! EG:


Powermankw said:


> However, the only true measure is still the most unreliable. Humans are not standardized test equipment based on proven standards and calibrated to a finite degree of accuracy... The only true measure is subjective wildy fallible humans.


No, none of that is true, even though it is routinely rolled out by audiophile marketers. The only true measure is an objective measurement and even pretty old measuring equipment is capable of a level of accuracy and precision way beyond (typically orders of magnitude beyond) what any human can achieve.


Powermankw said:


> [1] Yes we can measure physical properties of electricity and signals and analyze them... But then how does it sound to humans... [2] More importantly, how does emotional content, ascribed value, and personal preference of music measured and perceived by humans played for humans get objectively measured for sound quality?


1. But that's an entirely different question. "How does it sound to humans?" is a completely different question to "What is the performance of a DAC?". For starters, you can't hear the output of a DAC, so the answer to the first question must always be "Nothing". What you're really asking is: "How does the human brain respond to the sound reproduced by speakers/room acoustics or by headphones?", now that's a totally valid and important question but it's a very different question from "what is the performance of a DAC?". We don't fully understand how the brain works, we have extremely limited objective measurement methods of the human brain and almost none when it comes to predicting it's likely evaluation. None of this is relevant to DACs though, because a DAC does not have a human brain nor is it trying to emulate a human brain, all a DAC does is the relatively simple task of converting digital data into an analogue signal, that's it, nothing more. So that's what we measure when we measure a DAC.
2. Again, a DAC does not have emotions, it doesn't have personal preferences, it does not have any sound or any concept of judging quality, it just applies mathematical procedures to data and an analogue signal. The only rational question we can ask of a DAC is therefore: How much error is introduced by it's application of those mathematical procedures? Likewise, if we want to measure the human brain's response to sound, then we need to measure a human brain, not a DAC.

How is the above not all obvious and self-evident? Is it because audiophile marketing routinely attempts to confuse/conflate these two entirely different questions?



Powermankw said:


> [1] We just believe we proved a particle nobody can see. We still have no clue how gravity works. We still have no way to detect dark matter but theorize the cosmos is full not empty. Does that mean all skeptics are wrong... No. But it doesn't prove they are right. We can only measure physical properties we can... Then we judge how it sounds. Being unable to prove x measurement indicates y sound, because one can not be linked to x does not prove there is no difference. [2] I'm just saying there is room for valid differences in SQ outside of a few physical properties we can measure.


More typical audiophile marketing fallacies:

1. Sure, science doesn't know everything about everything but it does know everything about a lot of things. Not knowing everything about gravity or dark matter is irrelevant to digital audio or a DAC, what is it that you think we don't know about digital audio and analogous electrical signals?

2. No there is NOT. For your statement to be true, you would have to prove that Claude Shannon's proven theorem is wrong and that the digital age therefore does not exist. Good luck with that! Even if we ignore that insurmountable problem, there's another even more obvious logical fault with your assertion: Digital audio data is itself just a single measurement, the measurement of voltage amplitude over time. If there were something else that science doesn't know about and/or can't measure, then it can't be recorded with digital audio, which is only capable of that one single measurement. And obviously, if we can't record it in the first place, then you can't reproduce it!

G


----------



## gregorio (Mar 9, 2022)

Powermankw said:


> Possibilitie"S". I listed a couple... Didn't say ONLY TWO.


You said possibilities for why the "_amp got better_" but you just jumped on the conclusion that the amp was actually better.


Powermankw said:


> So since there is no possibility that any conversion has audible artifacts... It is impossible that my box can sound different. Therefore, imperfect is the only possibility... That would be false.


Of course that's false, I didn't say there's no possibility of audible conversion artefacts or that it's impossible your box can sound different or that imperfect is the only possibility.


Powermankw said:


> There are exceptions, but you don't have one. So if I heard a difference... The ONLY two possibilities are... I'm wrong... Or the equipment is faulty. The only two.


There are only two possibilities: 1. That you are wrong, due to a faulty test methodology or 2. One or more of your boxes are (audibly) imperfect.


Powermankw said:


> [1] I have only said one box sounded different than another. It can be intentionally voiced to add distortions, it could have other DSP wizardry... But all of that is impossible... [2] Because there are only two possibilities... They can indeed design it to be audibly different... It's not broke... It's doing what it is designed for.


1. Firstly, I did not say that's impossible, again you've just made that up and falsely attributed it to me. Secondly, if it has DSP wizardry anything else that is adding audible distortions then by definition it is adding audible distortion, is not audibly perfect and therefore must be audibly imperfect. And obviously, if they've intentionally voiced it to add distortion then they've intentionally made it imperfect.
2. I didn't say it was broke, maybe it's deliberately designed to be imperfect but even if it is, that still does not change the two possibilities because regardless of whether it's inadvertently imperfect or deliberately imperfect, it's still imperfect!


Powermankw said:


> But of course that is impossible.... Because there is no difference... The human is wrong, or the gear is faulty. Well... Except for when there is a difference... But that is so unlikely we can ignore that, and just focus on the wrong human. Cool.


Again, all your false narrative falsely attributed to me. My actual assertion is that: There (very rarely) can be a difference between DACs, it is NOT impossible. If there is a perceived difference it's by far more likely that it's due to a faulty test methodology but those (very rare) cases where there is an actual audible difference are due to some serious imperfections.

G


----------



## chesebert

Audiophiles on both ends of the extreme are just delusional and are laughing stock of the rest of the audio enthusiasts. 🤣


----------



## Powermankw (Mar 9, 2022)

gregorio said:


> Again, Oh the irony! You state there's a lot of voodoo (marketing BS) but not as much as we're suggesting and you support that assertion by (unwittingly) repeating a whole bunch of tired myths and fallacies that audiophile marketers have been trotting out for years that were completely debunked decades ago. It doesn't get any more ironic than that! EG:


You must be a ton of fun at a party. 


gregorio said:


> No, none of that is true, even though it is routinely rolled out by audiophile marketers. The only true measure is an objective measurement and even pretty old measuring equipment is capable of a level of accuracy and precision way beyond (typically orders of magnitude beyond) what any human can achieve.


Good grief... You want to narrow your discussion to 1s and 0s...a DAC only converts, it has no sound. Show me anywhere I said anything about the conversion audibly distorts... Anywhere... We are not talking about a chip, we are talking about a component in an audio signal path... I said, this box sounds different than that box... When I take two boxes, and add them to my audio chain, I hear a difference. I HEAR a difference.... So, that involves not only what the chip is doing, but what the rest of it is doing, when added to my audio chain.


gregorio said:


> 1. But that's an entirely different question. "How does it sound to humans?" is a completely different question to "What is the performance of a DAC?". For starters, you can't hear the output of a DAC, so the answer to the first question must always be "Nothing". What you're really asking is: "How does the human brain respond to the sound reproduced by speakers/room acoustics or by headphones?", now that's a totally valid and important question but it's a very different question from "what is the performance of a DAC?". We don't fully understand how the brain works, we have extremely limited objective measurement methods of the human brain and almost none when it comes to predicting it's likely evaluation. None of this is relevant to DACs though, because a DAC does not have a human brain nor is it trying to emulate a human brain, all a DAC does is the relatively simple task of converting digital data into an analogue signal, that's it, nothing more. So that's what we measure when we measure a DAC.
> 2. Again, a DAC does not have emotions, it doesn't have personal preferences, it does not have any sound or any concept of judging quality, it just applies mathematical procedures to data and an analogue signal. The only rational question we can ask of a DAC is therefore: How much error is introduced by it's application of those mathematical procedures? Likewise, if we want to measure the human brain's response to sound, then we need to measure a human brain, not a DAC.


Yes... I don't care how a chip is mathematically perfect... I care how a audio device I paid good money for sounds to me, in my system. We are not talking about a PLC, or DCS, or my cars EMC. We are talking about the effect the DAC has in the audio chain, perceived by me, be it real or falsely attributed to something else.


gregorio said:


> How is the above not all obvious and self-evident? Is it because audiophile marketing routinely attempts to confuse/conflate these two entirely different questions?


Yes, how is it not obvious we buy DACs to process digital streams to produce sound for our enjoyment?


gregorio said:


> More typical audiophile marketing fallacies:
> 
> 1. Sure, science doesn't know everything about everything but it does know everything about a lot of things. Not knowing everything about gravity or dark matter is irrelevant to digital audio or a DAC, what is it that you think we don't know about digital audio and analogous electrical signals?
> 
> ...


Seems to me... We are arguing over theoretical perfect signal. Input equals output. Audio content recorded, reproduced, altered in no way. If in does not equal out... Stop talking, it is not perfect, therfore it is, wrong. If you hear a difference from in equaling out, you are obviously wrong. Fine great.

But we do know some like coloration, EQ, distortion... Every electric guitar musician in the world searches for their perfect way to distort sound, and we love it. We can argue this crap all day, in the end... My new DAC sounds clearly better than the others. Richer, filled, better. Not huge, not drastic, tough call on "worth it", but clearly better. Arguing over why is fun, but does it really matter, not exactly. It matters wasting my money, it does matter to me if it's just made up in my head... But I didn't exactly buy it because I care about 1s and 0s, but because I want to listen to incredible music from a digital source. My real world enjoyment is still a goal and still a factor. It's the only reason I bought it.

I've investigated this rabbit hole enough. Shock... Most audio claims are BS. Humans are very gullible and fallible. Other than quality construction and materials, cables don't do crap for sound. It's likely I could have got same performance for half the price... 1/3...1/4? Stop chasing hi-res audio because nothing is audible after 16/44...got it. Cool. I will continue taking a critical look at things as I always have... And enjoy my purely luxury item, purchased with play money, for nothing more than my mere subjective enjoyment and entertainment.... While arguing on an internet forum, with people I don't know... For mere entertainment and enjoyment, about stuff that has no real scientifically measured effect on my life. How awesome is that!


----------



## castleofargh

Quasi-modo:
I removed a few posts(offenders and some posts replying to them). And I would like to congratulate @hakunamakaka for the achievement of getting reported by 2 people on a same post. It's something that seldom happens in the section where reports of any kind are already rare.


----------



## chesebert (Mar 9, 2022)

That's just how these discussions usually go; a lot of different dogmatic views without any real science or engineering discussion - you know like effect of DSD conversion, filter design, noise shaping, time domain performance, frequency domain performance, local negative feedback, global negative feedback, 0 negative feedback, voltage vs current feedback, direct FPGA output vs output stage, I/V conversion vs none, passive vs active I/V conversion, FET vs bipolar vs MOSFET, diamond output stage vs traditional push/pull vs single ended; you know, stuff that actually matters.

It's fun to engage here once in a while so you kind of get the lay of the land, but it usually ends up being a big waste of time without any real insight.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Really knowledgable folks do not participate here. Why waste time and energy for no purpose, unless it is just for entertainment


----------



## gregorio

Powermankw said:


> You want to narrow your discussion 1s and 0s...a DAC only converts, it has no sound.


No, let's widen the discussion, so what do you think a digital to analogue converter is doing other than converting 1s and 0s into an analogue signal?


Powermankw said:


> We are not talking a bout a chip, we are talking about a component in an audio signal path...


I'm not talking about a DAC chip either, I'm talking about a DAC.


Powermankw said:


> When I take two boxes, and add them to my audio chain, I hear a difference. I HEAR a difference....


You do know that just repeating an assertion doesn't make it a fact?


Powermankw said:


> We are talking about the effect the DAC has in the audio chain, perceived by me, be it real or falsely attributed to something else.


You don't seem to realise or understand that the "_effect the DAC has in the audio chain_" and how it's "_perceived by you_" are two entirely different questions.


Powermankw said:


> Yes, how is it not obvious we buy DACs to process digital syreams to produce sound for our enjoyment?


It is obvious, which is why I stated that how our brains respond to the sound is a "_totally valid and important question_". Didn't you read what you're arguing with? A DAC doesn't produce sound it produces audio, so we measure the performance of DACs using audio measurements and audio measurements are measurements of audio, not measurements of your brain and your level of enjoyment. Now what part of that isn't obvious?


Powermankw said:


> [1] Seems to me... We are arguing over theoretical perfect signal. Input equals output. Audio content recorded, reproduced, altered in no way. If in does not equal out... [2] Stop talking, it is not perfect, therfore it is, wrong.


1. After all this time, that is what it "_seems to you_", really? No, we're not talking about anything near a theoretical perfect signal but I'm not going to explain yet again the difference between audibly perfect/transparent and actually perfect.
2. And again, your made-up narrative falsely attributed to me! That is unacceptable and now getting very boring. What I actually said is: It's either perfect or imperfect. I did not say it is wrong.


Powermankw said:


> But we do know some like coloration, EQ, distortion...


What you like is a function of your brain, the function of a DAC is to convert digital data into an analogue signal. A DAC doesn't have a human brain, likes or dislikes!


Powermankw said:


> Every electric guitar musician in the world searches for their perfect way to distort sound, and we love it.


I know, I've worked with Dave Gilmour on distorting his sound and numerous other pro guitarists. Audibly imperfect does not mean wrong, unlikeable or unlovable, it just means "not audibly perfect", distortions can obviously be euphonic.


Powermankw said:


> We can argue this crap all day,


Then why are you? The solution is simple, don't argue crap in the first place.


Powermankw said:


> in the end... My new DAC sounds clearly better than the others.


Keep repeating that and everyone here and in the world of science will eventually believe you.


Powermankw said:


> I've investigated this rabbit hole enough.


Clearly you haven't!!

G


----------



## chesebert

I know it’s been like this for the last decade at headfi but there is always hope. That’s why I pop in every few years to check 😅


----------



## gregorio

chesebert said:


> Audiophiles on both ends of the extreme are just delusional and are laughing stock of the rest of the audio enthusiasts.


What both ends?


chesebert said:


> That's just how these discussions usually go; a lot of different dogmatic views without any real science or engineering discussion


That is how these discussions usually go but there's just two dogmatic views, those based on the facts/science and those based on marketing BS. Of course, there are also some who come here just to troll, who don't care about any view and just say any old nonsense to provoke argument. Which are you? BTW, I gave you responses to your questions above even though they were nonsense. So which are you again?


chesebert said:


> It's fun to engage here once in a while so you kind of get the lay of the land, but it usually ends up being a big waste of time without any real insight.


If you post nonsense questions what do you expect other than "_a big waste of time without any real insight_"? If you don't want it to be a big waste of time then don't make it one!


hakunamakaka said:


> Really knowledgable folks do not participate here.


How do you know? You are participating here so your assertion presumably applies to you but if you're not knowledgeable how could you know if others are or aren't?

G


----------



## Powermankw (Mar 9, 2022)

🤦


----------



## chesebert

“Sound science” always wins, doesn’t it 😄 /s


----------



## bigshot

Has cheeseburt ever done anything but thread crap? Has he ever actually talked about the topic?


----------



## bigshot (Mar 9, 2022)

Powermankw said:


> So... I have bias, and expectation. I came here because I did not get what I expected. However, it has changed. It is clear, and no matter how the variables are swapped, the difference was consistent. The difference was not slight, it was clear.



Bias and perceptual error can result in clear differences, even when no differences exist. It isn't conscious and you can't suppress it. You can only minimize it to the point where it no longer affects your comparison. You do that with a blind, level matched, direct A/B switched listening test with multiple trials.

The idea is to start at one end of the range of possibilities and sweep to the other end, checking off the boxes as you go. Start with the most likely and work your way towards the least likely. That is what I tried to do with you, but you kept leaping over steps, leaving possibilities for error open. We can fix that though if you just take a logical approach to your testing. The first step is to eliminate bias and perceptual error. As I understand it, you did do direct A/B switching, which eliminates error due to auditory memory. However, if I am reading you correctly, you did the comparison sighted and although you said you understand level matching, you didn't say you did it. You can't assume that line level is level matched. It can vary as much as 2 1/2 dB in my experience.

So the first order of business for you would be to carefully level match. Some people here would demand that you do it with a measurement. I would be a little more lax about it. If you carefully balance the levels by ear using tones, it's good enough for me. But if you have the ability, you really should do it by measuring. The next step after that is a blind test. You have a friend who is interested, so that should be no problem.

When you've eliminated the possibility of perceptual error or expectation bias, then we can talk about the next most likely possibility... that one of the units is operating out of spec.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Powermankw said:


> 🤦


It has already been mentioned that using R-2R could account for the differences you claim to be hearing.

Archimago recently did some testing on a device using this filter type a few weeks ago.

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2022/01/review-measurements-cayin-ru6-r-2r-usb.html



> Clearly the RU6 is not performing at the same objective level as the LHLabs Geek Out V2 that I got years ago, or an inexpensive USB-powered "desktop" DAC like the Topping D10s. We can see that in "NOS" mode, there is a -3dB high frequency response dip which is typical.
> 
> R-2R DACs, unless quite expensive utilizing _very _precise resistors will show resolution limits and that's what we're seeing here. Whereas we're basically measuring ideal 16-bit technical performance out of the Geek Out V2 and D10s, we cannot say the same with the Cayin. Some graphs to consider:



This difference is measurable and perhaps even audibly detectable by some with certain gear and the right environment, but the results are that one of the DACs is not objectively perfect.  This is not a mystery that requires much discussion, as it is clearly objectively measuring differently from a device that objectively measures audibly transparent with regards to the recorded digital signal.


----------



## Powermankw

sonitus mirus said:


> It has already been mentioned that using R-2R could account for the differences you claim to be hearing.


Yet exceedingly rare, and highly unlikely. As it stands, I really enjoy my flawed perception of my imperfect DAC.


----------



## Powermankw

bigshot said:


> Bias and perceptual error can result in clear differences, even when no differences exist. It isn't conscious and you can't suppress it. You can only minimize it to the point where it no longer affects your comparison. You do that with a blind, level matched, direct A/B switched listening test with multiple trials.
> 
> The idea is to start at one end of the range of possibilities and sweep to the other end, checking off the boxes as you go. Start with the most likely and work your way towards the least likely. That is what I tried to do with you, but you kept leaping over steps, leaving possibilities for error open. We can fix that though if you just take a logical approach to your testing. The first step is to eliminate bias and perceptual error. As I understand it, you did do direct A/B switching, which eliminates error due to auditory memory. However, if I am reading you correctly, you did the comparison sighted and although you said you understand level matching, you didn't say you did it. You can't assume that line level is level matched. It can vary as much as 2 1/2 dB in my experience.
> 
> ...


That's more helpful... But you talk like I'm clueless about testing. I test and troubleshoot for a living. 

In my case, I said the emporer has no clothes... None. And then magically, for no reason, they just appeared. That's what you want me to believe. That my bias, perception, and expectation made clothes appear, where I already said there were none. Sure.

For the ones that were close, I would be reluctant to draw firm conclusions. But, for the others, it wasn't close, it was clear. We didn't level match, but we both thought they were... They sounded the same. Perhaps they were not, but you will not convince me that what I heard was an slight level imbalance. I believe I could "like" A better than B by a slight level imbalance... But it's not what I "liked", it was a clear improvement in SQ. However, for giggles, when I get my matrix back, forget a meter, I'll directly measure the outputs.

And this was blind... We tried to make it wrong... I wasn't switching, I had no idea what input was on... We both did it. Every single time, both of us could identify the better sounding DAC, regardless which one it was, or how it was configured.


----------



## bigshot

Bias is real. Bias can skew results significantly.

OK. You can do accurate level matching. That is great. Do that, then do a blind test with multiple trials (I would say 30 is enough) and keep score. That will allow us to check off bias and perceptual error.

You’ll want to think about the best way to adjust the levels, so you don’t introduce coloration with the level matching.


----------



## sander99

If you can know (consciously or subconsciously) which is which due to a level difference then the door for bias and placebo is wide open. Your (or mine or anyone's) brain can construct a completely different perception/experience for the different things that you switch between in that case. This can not be avoided by not being consciously biased or something like that.


----------



## redrol

The way I deal with this is literally forgetting the thing I'm using.  It helps to have like 10 different amps and 25 iems.   After a bit I just cant even remember what I shoved in.  At that point, its all just naked impressions.  In other words, idiots win this war.  I'm also not at all concerned with something being better or a winner or whatever.  Just listen, enjoy, cool.

FWIW I can a/b test most of my amps.  A/B/X only a few.   And this is with IEMs, not speakers.


----------



## gregorio

Powermankw said:


> [1] Yet exceedingly rare, and highly unlikely. [2] As it stands, I really enjoy my flawed perception of my imperfect DAC.


1. There are billions of DACs in daily use around the world, probably fewer than 1 in 10,000 of them are R2R DACs and of those R2R DACs, some have artefacts below audibility, some have artefacts just within audibility but only under certain conditions and only a small number have artefacts well within audibility that are really obvious/clear. So obviously it's exceedingly rare and highly unlikely.
2. As it actually stands, while your perception is flawed, you/we do not know for sure that's the cause of your perception of a difference or that your DAC is audibly imperfect. However, if your assertion is actually true, then no problem. No one here is trying to tell you what you should or should not like/enjoy, no one is saying that you should not enjoy even a highly imperfect DAC. The problem arises when you assert that this highly imperfect DAC is actually better, because it's actually not better, it's worse and you just happen to like/prefer worse.


Powermankw said:


> But you talk like I'm clueless about testing. I test and troubleshoot for a living.


Hmmm ...


Powermankw said:


> We didn't level match, but we both thought they were...


Do you really test and troubleshoot for a living by going purely on what you and someone else thought? You don't use any objective measurements or try to eliminate all the factors that can skew your tests and troubleshooting? I can't see how that would work professionally, maybe for something like wine tasting but not for electronic/digital technology. What do you test for a living?


Powermankw said:


> They sounded the same. Perhaps they were not, but you will not convince me that what I heard was an slight level imbalance. I believe I could "like" A better than B by a slight level imbalance... But it's not what I "liked", it was a clear improvement in SQ.


But they didn't sound the same, one apparently had a "clear improvement in SQ". What you don't seem to realise is that a slight level imbalance is typically not perceived as a slight level imbalance, it's typically perceived as a difference in SQ, the louder one as an "improvement in SQ". What you've stated is akin to me stating: You will not convince me that I have a cold, I know I don't have a cold because I've got a sore throat and a runny nose.


Powermankw said:


> However, for giggles, when I get my matrix back, forget a meter, I'll directly measure the outputs.


Bare in mind that for several decades science has required level matching to within 0.1dB, because much in excess of that can invalidate the results.


Powermankw said:


> And this was blind... We tried to make it wrong... I wasn't switching, I had no idea what input was on... We both did it. Every single time, both of us could identify the better sounding DAC, regardless which one it was, or how it was configured.


Are you saying it was blind or double blind? Even if it was double blind, while being a good start, it doesn't count for much if you don't eliminate the other factors that can bias the results (such as level matching).


redrol said:


> [1] The way I deal with this is literally forgetting the thing I'm using. ... After a bit I just cant even remember what I shoved in. At that point, its all just naked impressions. In other words, idiots win this war. ....
> [2] And this is with IEMs, not speakers.


1. Is it just naked impressions though? You consciously can't remember what you shoved in but what about subconsciously? Baring in mind that we've (science has) proved that subconscious processes can make a massive difference to what is perceived.

I'm not having a go at you, few of us here have the facilities to measure IEMs and even with high end test equipment, objective/comparative measurements of IEMs are problematic. Even testing other components is a matter of ease/difficulty and personal choice for most people here. Some things are quick, cheap and easy to test to the highest standards (free ABX and null test software for example), others are fairly quick, cheap and easy and some are time consuming and very difficult. Some/Many therefore tend to run compromised tests, on the basis that the results are probably good enough for their purposes. That's fine, as long as they don't then try to claim the results are facts, necessarily apply to others and realise that the results are scientifically invalid. 

I'm sure you realise all this but others clearly don't.

2. I'm very glad to hear that, because I don't think your solution would be very practical with speakers. I can't see how it would be possible to "_literally forget_" what speakers you "_shoved in_" your ears, at least not without some serious sedation. 

G


----------



## Powermankw

gregorio said:


> 1. There are billions of DACs in daily use around the world, probably fewer than 1 in 10,000 of them are R2R DACs and of those R2R DACs, some have artefacts below audibility, some have artefacts just within audibility but only under certain conditions and only a small number have artefacts well within audibility that are really obvious/clear. So obviously it's exceedingly rare and highly unlikely.


I already agreed with your assertion. But that you for making it clear why you are so right.  


gregorio said:


> 2. As it actually stands, while your perception is flawed, you/we do not know for sure that's the cause of your perception of a difference or that your DAC is audibly imperfect. However, if your assertion is actually true, then no problem. No one here is trying to tell you what you should or should not like/enjoy, no one is saying that you should not enjoy even a highly imperfect DAC. The problem arises when you assert that this highly imperfect DAC is actually better, because it's actually not better, it's worse and you just happen to like/prefer worse.
> 
> Hmmm ...
> 
> Do you really test and troubleshoot for a living by going purely on what you and someone else thought? You don't use any objective measurements or try to eliminate all the factors that can skew your tests and troubleshooting? I can't see how that would work professionally, maybe for something like wine tasting but not for electronic/digital technology. What do you test for a living?


You don't even know me. Condescending ***** and your winning personality are a great combination. Note how you bassiscally dismissed me before you ever get around to asking me what I do. Pro touch right there...


gregorio said:


> But they didn't sound the same, one apparently had a "clear improvement in SQ". What you don't seem to realise is that a slight level imbalance is typically not perceived as a slight level imbalance, it's typically perceived as a difference in SQ, the louder one as an "improvement in SQ". What you've stated is akin to me stating: You will not convince me that I have a cold, I know I don't have a cold because I've got a sore throat and a runny nose.
> 
> Bare in mind that for several decades science has required level matching to within 0.1dB, because much in excess of that can invalidate the results.
> 
> Are you saying it was blind or double blind? Even if it was double blind, while being a good start, it doesn't count for much if you don't eliminate the other factors that can bias the results (such as level matching).


This doesn't have anything to do with testing anything. It's just beating down another comer so there is no doubt just how wrong they are. I love being devil's advocate. I love taking the minority position. I was already receptive to how distorted the discussion on audio is. I already statated I did not hear a difference new with my stuff, but now do. If it was about tracking down why now, what is the specific difference... I would be curious of that answer.... But again, that's not what this is. There is no value in this, I have zero use for it, stop talking to me.


----------



## bigshot

PowermanKw, you’re being unnecessarily argumentative and disrespectful to the people you’re talking to. You shouldn’t expect to get respect yourself if you march around with that chip on your shoulder. I think you should take your own advice and stop talking. You’re not impressing anyone but yourself.


----------



## Powermankw

bigshot said:


> PowermanKw, you’re being unnecessarily argumentative and disrespectful to the people you’re talking to. You shouldn’t expect to get respect yourself if you march around with that chip on your shoulder. I think you should take your own advice and stop talking. You’re not impressing anyone but yourself.


It is very possible. One must speak the language to understand it. However, I came with curiosity, yet that is not where we are now. Easy to blame the newbie for the breakdown. Cool, it's all me... As it was from the start.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 11, 2022)

I gave you a chance to start over and work with us to understand what is going on with your equipment, but you haven't taken it yet. Instead, you just continued to dig your hole deeper with Gregorio. He is a very knowledgeable person and could be an asset to your understanding if you kept your eyes on the prize and didn't go down the argumentative road. Read your response to him again. There wasn't a bit of useful info in there, just arguments.

Generally, when you don't hear a difference and then you do, it's a red flag that you might need to strengthen the controls on your listening test. My advice is to do that and see if you still hear a clear difference.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Powermankw said:


> It is very possible. One must speak the language to understand it. However, I came with curiosity, yet that is not where we are now. Easy to blame the newbie for the breakdown. Cool, it's all me... As it was from the start.


You have my sympathy I have been there , if you can move beyond the personal there is much that is entertaining and informative here 

As it says on the box when a claim is made it will be tested 

Although some of the prolific contributors have an abrasive manner they mean well and really do know their stuff

Perhaps if you could more clearly define your claim , I find it helps to keep things as short and simple as possible


----------



## bigshot

Yes, take it step by step and explain what you find at each step without jumping straight to your conclusion. I gave you a logical way to break it down.


----------



## Powermankw (Mar 11, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Yes, take it step by step and explain what you find at each step without jumping straight to your conclusion. I gave you a logical way to break it down.


I understand how to break it down logically. I gave you answers to your questions, some several times, yet you didn't seem to be listening. Then said no point reading. Forums are naturally adversarial. This a a poor medium for conversation. I like conversations. I don't like being treated like I don't know the difference between inputs and I'm a mindless sheep following the mindless crowd... And here we are.

Seems to me the conversation started with you are wrong, now help us figure out how wrong you are.

If you want to helpful, which it appears to be the case, then maybe start with OK... Now you hear a difference, we just don't why or what is specifically responsible for it. To figure that out, do it again, but rule out some common errors, do a proper test, and examine what is different. Without getting that straight, we are all just guessing. That's being objective, that's usually where I start when I can't explain something. But that is just me.


----------



## chesebert

Powermankw said:


> It is very possible. One must speak the language to understand it. However, I came with curiosity, yet that is not where we are now. Easy to blame the newbie for the breakdown. Cool, it's all me... As it was from the start.


Apart from your FOTM Denafrips dac, your other gear selection is very sophisticated and definitely does not scream "newbie" to me


----------



## bigshot

I did start with, “OK you hear a difference.” I spelled out the reasons why that might be in order of likelihood. Go down the list in order and check off the boxes, and we’ll track down the reason. Start with bias and perceptual error. Those account for the vast majority of impressions like yours.


----------



## Powermankw

chesebert said:


> Apart from your FOTM Denafrips dac, your other gear selection is very sophisticated and definitely does not scream "newbie" to me


I'm just FOTM... Damn, now it's a new month.... Ughh


----------



## chesebert

Powermankw said:


> I'm just FOTM... Damn, now it's a new month.... Ughh


You may need to wait until after Axpona - shills come out after product announcements


----------



## Steve999 (Mar 11, 2022)

Powermankw said:


> I understand how to break it down logically. I gave you answers to your questions, some several times, yet you didn't seem to be listening. Then said no point reading. Forums are naturally adversarial. This a a poor medium for conversation. I like conversations. I don't like being treated like I don't know the difference between inputs and I'm a mindless sheep following the mindless crowd... And here we are.
> 
> Seems to me the conversation started with you are wrong, now help us figure out how wrong you are.
> 
> If you want to helpful, which it appears to be the case, then maybe start with OK... Now you hear a difference, we just don't why or what is specifically responsible for it. To figure that out, do it again, but rule out some common errors, do a proper test, and examine what is different. Without getting that straight, we are all just guessing. That's being objective, that's usually where I start when I can't explain something. But that is just me.



Maybe try the first few chapters of this book and it will discuss the concepts folks are laying out and cite research papers illustrating them:

https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reprod...ion&qid=1647044729&sprefix=toole+reproduction

The author is one of the true legends and giants in the field of home audio.

Chapter 3 in particular is entitled Subjective Measurements—Turning Opinion into Fact. This debate is decades old in essence and the essential questions have been asked & answered many times over. The particulars of the discussion morph from one decade to the next as new gadgets and technology come to market.

After that groundwork the book goes on to even more interesting and fruitful things. It’s highly readable and it discusses in detail how to actually get better sound out of your audio system, if you are using loudspeakers.


----------



## Powermankw

Thank you. That looks interesting. I'll give it a read.


----------



## gregorio

Powermankw said:


> I already agreed with your assertion. But that you for making it clear why you are so right.


It was unclear whether you were agreeing or being sarcastic. All I did was explain the basis for the assertion.


Powermankw said:


> [1] You don't even know me. [2] Condescending ***** and your winning personality are a great combination. [3] Note how you bassiscally dismissed me before you ever get around to asking me what I do. Pro touch right there...


1. I don't need to know you.
2. It's irrelevant whether my personality comes across as winning or not, because my personality does not change the facts/science. Many audiophiles seem to believe what is being asserted on the basis that the asserter seems like a nice, good or honest person or has a "winning personality". There would be a great deal fewer false audiophiles claims and myths if instead they believed assertions on the basis of whether they agrees with the facts/science.
3. It doesn't really matter what you do (I was just curious). Even if you are in an unusual field where testing is a purely subjective, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect such a professional to know that other fields are not tested purely subjectively, especially when making assertions about other fields!


Powermankw said:


> This doesn't have anything to do with testing anything. It's just beating down another comer so there is no doubt just how wrong they are.


It has everything to do with testing because "beating down another corner", eliminating ("beating down") the errors that produce incorrect results and eliminating the options of what is occurring, is the "how" and "why" we test in the first place.


Powermankw said:


> [1] I love being devil's advocate. I love taking the minority position. [2] I was already receptive to how distorted the discussion on audio is.


1. Many people come here and make false assertions because they've been misinformed, others because they just want to troll. There's effectively no difference between being a troll and playing devil's advocate, unless you make it clear that you're playing devil's advocate.
2. No, you weren't. You agreed there was some/much BS in the audiophile world but then you stated "_But as I've said it's not all marketing_" and proceeded to make a bunch of false assertions, some of which were in fact amongst the oldest and most classic examples of audiophile marketing BS, and you haven't been receptive since.


Powermankw said:


> I already statated I did not hear a difference new with my stuff, but now do. If it was about tracking down why now, what is the specific difference... I would be curious of that answer.... But again, that's not what this is. There is no value in this, I have zero use for it, stop talking to me.


There is potentially "value in this" but not for you personally, if you're not receptive to it. There's a limited number of reasons why you did not hear a difference "_but now do_", far and away the most likely is a perceptual and/or testing error (to which you are obviously not receptive) but rather than find out for sure, through logical deduction or some other objective/scientific means, you'd rather just manufacture arguments based on fallacies, marketing BS and misinterpreting/mis-quoting what's being stated by others. If you find "_zero use/no value_" in the inevitable result of you doing that, then don't do it!

If you're not trolling and really do want to find the answer, then you can start by not being so evasive and clarifying some pertinent details, for example: Are box A and B both different boxes or are they the same box at different times? What exactly are box A and B, which model/s of DAC? What exactly was your test procedure? Etc...

G


----------



## jagwap

I agree that there is only really double blind ABX testing to really get anywhere close to proving stuff sounds different.  But even then it is flawed by the subjective when someone doesn't want to hear a difference and makes sure they don't.

However time and again, it comes up that fast switching between units or systems doesn't allow for certain audio qualities.  It certainly takes all the fun out of listening to music.  It allows people to hear many qualitative differences that are immediate: tonal, impact, soundstage to a point.  However much of what makes music enjoyable is the harmonic and rhythmic progression over time, and fast ABX switching doesn't allow that really.  Even the flow of one track into another and where that carries you is important, if you are enlightened enough to leave the shuffle button alone.   

Whenever anyone says in this forum that there system gets better over time, even if is over the period of an album, they get shot down as it being in their head.  But there are so many instances of this, what if you need to listen for a while before the nuances of why the music is better come forward, and there are differences for technical reasons we are missing?  What if you only hear the musical aspects of the system when you've stopped being analytical (I have certainly witnessed this multiple times in listening panels).  How to ABX that? We all know that audio memory does not last.  

I am not claiming anything other than: when we stop listing to the details, and start to enjoy the music (which is what it is for), how to blind test that?


----------



## bigshot

Blind testing eliminates bias in any direction. What you’re talking about is refusing to participate fairly in the test. That is easy to eliminate. Just give the subject two clearly different samples and see if they can’t or won’t discern a difference. Honestly, I can’t see that as being common.


----------



## danadam

jagwap said:


> But even then it is flawed by the subjective when someone doesn't want to hear a difference and makes sure they don't.


I don't see how does it matter. A failed test from someone who doesn't want to hear a difference does not invalidate someone else's result, as long as that result is statistically significant.


jagwap said:


> However time and again, it comes up that fast switching between units or systems doesn't allow for certain audio qualities.


No one forces you to do fast switching in ABX test. If you believe it will give you better results, you can listen for an hour to A, then for another hour to B, then another hour to X and then decide. You can even listen to each on different days.


jagwap said:


> what if you need to listen for a while before the nuances of why the music is better come forward


I don't see how ABX test prevents this.


----------



## bigshot

Small differences are more easily heard with direct switching. Long samples allow the ears to acclimate. You can feel free to take all the time you want, but it’s going to lower your accuracy.


----------



## Sonic Defender

I know that at a head-fi meet I hosted a number of years back when I conducted a 7 subject, 5 trials per subject test looking for an ability to discriminate between a 320mp3 and the lossless master that it was made from; for each trial I always used the same song and the same 2 minute section of it. I felt that you needed to give some amount of acclimation time, but seeing as how both test samples were given the same playback time and from the same section (start up to 2 minutes in) the acclimation was equal. Worked as you would guess, out of the 7 head-fi members in the experiment, not one subject did better than 55% discrimination, so complete guessing.

At the beginning there were two participants who assured me they could tell the difference between two such samples as they had conducted many sighted listening tests at home and were supremely confident that blind testing wouldn't change their ability to discriminate. They were wrong. I love teachable moments.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 23, 2022)

If an MP3 is not transparent at upper bitrates, it’s because of artifacting, not veils over sound or subtle differences. Discerning artifacts just requires close attention. Longer samples won’t reveal differences any better.


----------



## chesebert

I am not surprised. 320kbps mp3 with noise shaping sounds pretty good for normal heavily compressed modern music. 

Also your system is likely not all that resolving in the first place.


----------



## Sonic Defender

chesebert said:


> I am not surprised. 320kbps mp3 with noise shaping sounds pretty good for normal heavily compressed modern music.
> 
> Also your system is likely not all that resolving in the first place.


Are you being ridiculous on purpose? Seriously, if you have nothing to contribute than you should just leave the thread.


----------



## chesebert

What? Not sure what you mean. I was just giving my experience with 320mp3 vs pcm


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> Blind testing eliminates bias in any direction. What you’re talking about is refusing to participate fairly in the test. That is easy to eliminate. Just give the subject two clearly different samples and see if they can’t or won’t discern a difference. Honestly, I can’t see that as being common.


Bias would be present as preferred outcome

Only in a correct blind test (unaware participants) would bias be avoided


----------



## bigshot (Mar 23, 2022)

Cheese's just a troll.

Dog, he was suggesting that bias could make someone not discern a difference between samples even if there was an audible difference. That isn't bias. That is refusing to follow the rules of the test. I was suggesting that you could test for that by giving the subject two clearly different samples in a blind test and see if they can hear a difference when there actually *is* a difference.

The truth is, arguing stuff like this is pointless for practical purposes, because the differences we are talking about here are quite small. If you have to go to the trouble of doing a blind test to find out if a difference exists, odds are it doesn't matter when you sit down on your couch to listen to Beethoven. There are bigger (and much more audible) fish to fry when it comes to improving the quality of a home audio system. The differences between digital players can't score high in the grand scheme of things, no matter what you choose to believe.


----------



## bibbs

give 3 people 3 different sets of headphones using the same equipment and each person will give different results of what they hear/like about each headphones. if people are willing to fork out silly money on audiophool equipment then let them but i would just like to say that you wont find that equipment in recording/mastering studios. so if its not used there then how is it better? you cant create something that is missing. it all comes down to personal preferance and money/snobbery just like people that collect expensive watches. they can so they will as it gives them pleasure.


----------



## GearMe (Mar 25, 2022)

bigshot said:


> ...Dog, he was suggesting that bias could make someone not discern a difference between samples even if there was an audible difference. That isn't bias. That is refusing to follow the rules of the test. I was suggesting that you could test for that by giving the subject two clearly different samples in a blind test and see if they can hear a difference when there actually *is* a difference.
> 
> The truth is, arguing stuff like this is pointless for practical purposes, because the differences we are talking about here are quite small. If you have to go to the trouble of doing a blind test to find out if a difference exists, odds are it doesn't matter when you sit down on your couch to listen to Beethoven. There are bigger (and much more audible) fish to fry when it comes to improving the quality of a home audio system. The differences between digital players can't score high in the grand scheme of things, no matter what you choose to believe.


Yep...speakers and room treatments!  (assuming you've got a clean, well-powered system for those speakers and room)


----------



## gregorio

bibbs said:


> if people are willing to fork out silly money on audiophool equipment then let them but i would just like to say that you wont find that equipment in recording/mastering studios.


I have seen some high end headphones in studios, not too often though. There are also a few speakers that are used in studios that audiophiles also seem to value, ATC springs to mind for example, and a few near-fields but beyond that; audiophile cables, DACs, amps and most of the rest of it, you’re right, not only don’t you find it in studios, even suggesting it would be met with ridicule!

G


----------



## gregorio (Mar 24, 2022)

jagwap said:


> I agree that there is only really double blind ABX testing to really get anywhere close to proving stuff sounds different. But even then it is flawed by the subjective when someone doesn't want to hear a difference and makes sure they don't.


No one says that ABX is perfect, it’s not perfect, it is possible to effectively cheat. But it’s possible to cheat a sighted test even more easily. What we say is that ABX is the most reliable evidence, not that it’s perfect.


jagwap said:


> However time and again, it comes up that fast switching between units or systems doesn't allow for certain audio qualities.


Time and again it comes up that cables make a difference but (with the obvious conditions) they don’t. So coming up time and again means nothing. The point of fast switching is to choose a test signal or those parts of a music recording that exhibit those “certain audio qualities” and then fast switching allows you to really focus and compare that/those “certain audio qualities”. If you don’t do this, then your testing methodology is incorrect!


jagwap said:


> However much of what makes music enjoyable is the harmonic and rhythmic progression over time, and fast ABX switching doesn't allow that really.


Another test methodology failure! We don’t use ABX to measure enjoyment, we use it to detect audible differences. As has been mentioned, there is no requirement for fast switching, you can take as long as you like. However, the evidence shows that it is easier to detect differences using fast switching. I’ve seen people fast switch just a second or less, I personally usually find that too short, 4-6 seconds is often best for me but sometimes 2 secs or less makes it easier. It depends on the nature of the difference I’m trying to detect but longer than about 6-7 secs doesn’t seem to be conducive for me personally.


jagwap said:


> Whenever anyone says in this forum that there system gets better over time, even if is over the period of an album, they get shot down as it being in their head.


Because all the reliable evidence indicates it is in their head and there’s no reliable evidence that the system does actually get better over time. I’m not saying it’s impossible, some mechanical parts *might* wear in and some components like tubes or certain R2R DACs can be susceptible to temperature or non-linear wear/behaviour.

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> No one says that ABX is perfect, it’s not perfect, it is possible to effectively cheat. But it’s possible to cheat a sighted test even more easily. What we say is that ABX is the most reliable evidence, not that it’s perfect.
> 
> Time and again it comes up that cables make a difference but (with the obvious conditions) they don’t. So coming up time and again means nothing. The point of fast switching is to choose a test signal or those parts of a music recording that exhibit those “certain audio qualities” and then fast switching allows you to really focus and compare that/those “certain audio qualities”. If you don’t do this, then your testing methodology is incorrect!
> 
> ...


You are missing my point.

I am saying there may audible differences that only present themselves over long passages of music, due to the way the music builds, falls, and in general involves you.  If that is true, we need something object to compare that. ABX will not work  well, if at all.


----------



## sonitus mirus

jagwap said:


> You are missing my point.
> 
> I am saying there may audible differences that only present themselves over long passages of music, due to the way the music builds, falls, and in general involves you.  If that is true, we need something object to compare that. ABX will not work  well, if at all.


Time is not a limitation of an ABX test.  Just have someone listen to the music for as long as they want and then decide if it was different than what was expected.  Check back after a set number of trials.  What were the results?  If you simply cannot possibly determine if there is any difference with this method, than what is the point?  Why does it matter? It must be so close to the same that we are simply nitpicking silly, imperceptible differences, if any.


----------



## bigshot

It's kind of telling that the people who say there are clear audible differences between wires and DACs are the same people who refuse to acknowledge the value of blind testing.


----------



## castleofargh

jagwap said:


> You are missing my point.
> 
> I am saying there may audible differences that only present themselves over long passages of music, due to the way the music builds, falls, and in general involves you.  If that is true, we need something object to compare that. ABX will not work  well, if at all.


That's a hypothesis I've seen expressed many times, and I can see why people would think about it. But I also haven't seen evidence supporting it. 
I can perfectly imagine cases where the difference would sort of build up over time, like how one device would consistently let me feel more ear "fatigue". I've experienced something like that a number of times and I obviously don't believe I could tell which device is more fatiguing after a few switches of a 3second sample. 
But while the ABX(or other more relevant types of blind test) wouldn't help me get that particular subjective experience, what's to say that it wouldn't let me detect the audible difference that leads to being more fatigued with device A?
How often is an audible difference going to only manifest over a long period of time? Having to be too small to get picked up in a blind test with rapid switching of samples, yet big enough to register in the brain, be remembered, and have some stacking effect? That can only be a really small percentage of audio events(if they exist at all).
That particular sound, also has to survive data optimization from the brain done by taking part of a stimulus that is enough to identify something we already know, and actively trying to discard the rest and focus on stuff not yet identified(same thing that makes us miss the wife's new haircut).

I've tried real hard to imagine such a case over the years, and I didn't have much success. The only thing I can think of is related to infra and ultrasounds. They would have to be big enough to be damaging or tiring to humans(for the stacking effect), but at frequencies we're not able to notice right away. It's not a fun or likely scenario where our audio gear is the source of that. 
After years of discussing this, that's all I have. A sort of best worst case scenario you'd weaponize to attack ambassadors or something.

I obviously believe that some impressions take time to develop. I have zero doubt about that. But I very much doubt that those impressions will only manifest in device A without a rapid switching between device A and B disproving the null hypothesis. When that does happen, my first thought is that a visual difference or some other non audio bias is probably what's creating the difference in experience over time. Because that's the well known and well documented option.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 25, 2022)

I can imagine that being possible with high levels of super audible frequencies. But with two very similar samples, auditory memory would be very short. In art it's the same with color sampling. You can walk into a room painted blue, and then walk through a white room to another room painted a very similar shade of blue and it is very hard to notice the difference. But if half the walls in a room are painted in one blue and the other half in another, you can quickly flick your eyes back and forth and see in a second that there is a difference. You'd also have a better idea what the difference is.

The one thing that time could do is allow your ears adjust so you don't care that there is a difference.


----------



## gregorio (Mar 25, 2022)

jagwap said:


> You are missing my point.


No you are missing the point, or rather several points! The ABX test is not an audiophile test, it’s a scientific test. It has just one specific purpose, to falsify the null hypothesis (that the difference/s is not audible). ….


jagwap said:


> [1] I am saying there may audible differences that only present themselves over long passages of music, due to the way the music builds, falls, and in general involves you. [2] If that is true, we need something object to compare that. ABX will not work  well, if at all.


1. What differences that maybe audible?  Baring in mind the above purpose of the ABX test: Step 1 is to find a difference/s, then step 2 is to design an ABX test to show that that difference is audible.

Step 1: A difference can only be one of two things, either it’s: “A” - A constant difference, it’s present all the time or “B” - A variable difference, it’s only present some of the time and/or the amount changes over time.

Step 2: In the case of “A” we take an ABX sample from anywhere that corresponds with hearing sensitivity. In the case of “B”, obviously we take an ABX sample where there is actually a difference and/or where the difference is greatest (and corresponds to hearing sensitivity).

So again, what difference are you testing? If you don’t know, then you don’t know if the test is even capable of fulfilling it’s purpose and that’s pretty much the definition of a badly designed test!

2. Again, the point of an ABX test is to falsify the null hypothesis, so the goal is to maximise the chances of audibly detecting the difference, not minimise those chances! As research indicates that comparisons involving short term memory are both more reliable AND more sensitive, obviously that’s what we want to employ, because we’re trying to maximise the chances of detection. However, as has been mentioned more than once but you still keep ignoring, there is no time limit, the samples can be as long as you want.

Contrary to your false assertion, ABX does work very well, with the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS exception that it “_will not work well or at all_” if you don’t understand what an ABX test is for and then design a bad ABX test!

G


----------



## old tech

jagwap said:


> You are missing my point.
> 
> I am saying there may audible differences that only present themselves over long passages of music, due to the way the music builds, falls, and in general involves you.  If that is true, we need something object to compare that. *ABX will not work  well, if at all.*


Why not? long term ABXs have been conducted many times, such as in the link below
http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf


----------



## hakunamakaka

Brain burn in exists, listen to certain audio signature for prolonged period of time and it will show way larger differences than ABX different headphones at once. Ofcourse better HP will still show its quality in sound. Testing lots of gear at once wold be tiresome for your brain and wouldn’t lead to correct conclusions. Same goes for smell and taste


----------



## castleofargh

hakunamakaka said:


> Brain burn in exists, listen to certain audio signature for prolonged period of time and it will show way larger differences than ABX different headphones at once. Ofcourse better HP will still show its quality in sound. Testing lots of gear at once wold be tiresome for your brain and wouldn’t lead to correct conclusions. Same goes for smell and taste


Do you mean that we'll notice more real audio differences over time, or that we'll make them up over time in our brain?


----------



## bigshot

I think he’s making up more than just differences in sound!


----------



## hakunamakaka

castleofargh said:


> Do you mean that we'll notice more real audio differences over time, or that we'll make them up over time in our brain?



If you had 2 different sets of headphones and listened to them occasionally for longer period of time you would be able  to notice their differences better than user without any prior experience in ABX test. In such cases human brain is not very rational with quick and rushed decisions. 

Testing more audio equipment in short period of time results in less reliable output


----------



## gregorio

hakunamakaka said:


> If you had 2 different sets of headphones and listened to them occasionally for longer period of time you would be able to notice their differences better than user without any prior experience in ABX test.


I can ABX headphones without ever hearing them, even during the test. Talk about methodology failure, you're joking right?


hakunamakaka said:


> [1] In such cases human brain is not very rational with quick and rushed decisions.
> [2] Testing more audio equipment in short period of time results in less reliable output


1. Do you have some reliable evidence to back that claim up or did you just make it up?
2. What testing more audio equipment? Just two things are compared.

G


----------



## bigshot

He’s basing his evidence on the general consensus of the best and brightest minds in the audiophool community.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> He’s basing his evidence on the general consensus of the best and brightest minds in the audiophool community.


Imagine a person who tasted only Merlot but is firmly convinced that all wines are essentially the same based on the undeniable scientific evidence of their alcohol content and nutritional value. Not unreasonable.

Now imagine this person commenting about his/her wine insights in connoisseur's forums. Still, OK, the freedom of speech and beliefs can apply.

Then imagine this person treating any person arguing with him/her as a troll...

Just a hypothetical (H/B)ollywood scenario, all characters are totally surreal


----------



## castleofargh (Mar 28, 2022)

It's very intuitive and true that if you spend more time with a device, you get to know it better. Now is that actually improving one's ability to tell the audio differences between it and some other gear he owned the years before? Again, intuitively it seems reasonable to think so, but it also triggers a bunch of alarms about biases and memory. Audiophile are always more than happy to start saying "lalalala I can't hear you lalalala" anytime bias and flawed memory are brought up, but wishful thinking and burying our head in the sand doesn't actually make the possibility of error go away. It only demonstrates an unwillingness to find the truth unless the truth says we were right.
It's the same with measurements. How often do you see someone who distrusts measurements, telling people not to trust the ones that confirmed his opinion?


We always end up staring at a wall because we disagree on what constitutes evidence of audible sound change. And just like on facebook or on TV, the very same event will tend to be interpreted differently by different people.
When I started to fail certain blind tests for gears or audio files, where I was convinced by my sighted impressions of a pretty clear sound difference, I concluded that my sighted impressions were probably wrong or vastly exaggerated. But many audiophiles experienced something similar and straight up concluded that they were right and that it proved the flaws in blind testing. Some go as far as saying that blind test are made to be failed...
How do we make someone like that change his mind and understand the merits of controlling an event to prove its existence? How do you convince me that when I felt a difference sighted and failed the abx, I was in fact correctly noticing the sound difference in my longer sighted sessions? What kind of event would work as evidence that our respective conclusions are wrong?
For me, it's simple, more controls more tests. Ultimately I'm all about statistics and level of confidence(which is directly related to the quality of the controls). I get how a blind test is always limited and potentially flawed, but I also have too many well documented reasons to distrust a sighted impression. The smaller the actual audio difference, the less I can trust some a sighted impression(including mine of course as I'm still mostly human).



About long vs short listening, the research we do have:
-we may start to alter the memory of a sound event mere seconds after hearing the audio sample. That includes the duration of the audio sample and the time for the transition. The most accurate recall of audio event does come immediately after hearing it and does tend to get worse over time(thanks captain obvious).
That's not a good thing for long listening sessions and audio events that are days or month old.

-the more we recall a memory, the more likely we are to change it. Fairly recent data suggests that we rebuild a new version of the memory every time we recall it.
Also not suggesting that longer listening sessions would help getting the facts right.

-and of course there are centuries of evidence supporting controlled testing instead of "I know what I heard". The argument about long vs short listening can't ignore that if ABX is the short option while the long listening option doesn't have the same standards for controls.



So I started by saying that it's natural to feel like we're finding more details and differences about sound over time. And I ended arguing that research is attributing part of that feeling to more errors and biases generating new impressions. What I'm saying is that we're indeed wired to fool ourselves.


----------



## sonitus mirus

PhonoPhi said:


> Imagine a person who tasted only Merlot but is firmly convinced that all wines are essentially the same based on the undeniable scientific evidence of their alcohol content and nutritional value. Not unreasonable.
> 
> Now imagine this person commenting about his/her wine insights in connoisseur's forums. Still, OK, the freedom of speech and beliefs can apply.
> 
> ...



In this scenario, the only thing we are about with digital audio is the calories and alcohol by volume of any digestible liquid.  Then, imagine some people claiming that drinking a similar amount as another, that both measure identically with these attributes, can make one more inebriated and fatter.  Then they argue about having tasted the liquid, and they trust their taste buds and nose to tell them how many calories and how much alcohol is in the glass, and that there must be something else to account for why they measure the same.


----------



## bigshot

I don’t know why people come to sound science to announce they don’t believe in ABX testing. It’s as dumb as going to a Western BBQ to advocate veganism.


----------



## hakunamakaka

Give similarly sounding headphones to a user for a quick ABX test and results can be close to a coin flip, let him have those headphones for longer period of time and he will tell you why and which set he prefers most. over time he will simply be more familiar with their sound.

Some super humans know how stuff exactly sounds just with their eyes....So looking at the chart tell me which headphone( Utopia or Clear) has annoying peaks in treble and why ? Either way this is crap-storm thread as some folks are too butthurt to have any normal discussion


----------



## Powermankw

castleofargh said:


> It's very intuitive and true that if you spend more time with a device, you get to know it better. Now is that actually improving one's ability to tell the audio differences between it and some other gear he owned the years before? Again, intuitively it seems reasonable to think so, but it also triggers a bunch of alarms about biases and memory. Audiophile are always more than happy to start saying "lalalala I can't hear you lalalala" anytime bias and flawed memory are brought up, but wishful thinking and burying our head in the sand doesn't actually make the possibility of error go away. It only demonstrates an unwillingness to find the truth unless the truth says we were right.
> It's the same with measurements. How often do you see someone who distrusts measurements, telling people not to trust the ones that confirmed his opinion?
> 
> 
> ...


How refreshing. Reasoned explaination without all the ridicule and BS. Well done.


----------



## gregorio

Powermankw said:


> How refreshing. Reasoned explaination without all the ridicule and BS.


But as you can see from the post prior to yours, it doesn’t make any difference because …


hakunamakaka said:


> Give similarly sounding headphones to a user for a quick ABX test and results can be close to a coin flip, let him have those headphones for longer period of time and he will tell you why and which set he prefers most.


So, not only don’t you know what an ABX test actually tests for (hint: It is NOT preference) but you don’t know why it exists or it’s methodology. 


hakunamakaka said:


> Either way this is crap-storm thread as some folks are too butthurt to have any normal discussion


I’m not sure about “some” folks but there’s certainly at least one, you must have a lot of fun in front of a mirror. 

Going to a science based forum and arguing about a test that you clearly don’t know how to run or even why it exists or what it tests for, is NOT a “normal discussion”!

BTW, hope your butt gets better.

G


----------



## Powermankw

🙄 Homie please... 

It's not even a forum... It's one thread, in a sub forum. People come to the sub forum, to learn about a whole host of audio topics. You realize there are entire forums for you right... SBAF, ASR... Or are you already spreading the joy of audio there too?


----------



## old tech

Powermankw said:


> 🙄 Homie please...
> 
> It's not even a forum... It's one thread, in a sub forum. People come to the sub forum, to learn about a whole host of audio topics. You realize there are entire forums for you right... SBAF, ASR... Or are you already spreading the joy of audio there too?


I don't think he'd get too far on the ASR forum.


----------



## SlothRock

Ok y’all - I’m ready to be roasted. But in all honesty, would love to start up a discussion based on where I’m at with my sound journey.

I friggin love music and I love audio (probably a duh here) and I’m actually less into graphs than I am into just listening to a pleasing sound signature that lets me hear a whole bunch of detail in songs I love.

Now where I’m at is I want to have a versatile headphone/amp collection but I’m not the kinda guy that will tell you a cable makes a sound difference and I’ve only heard a couple solid state amps up until this point.

I like to buy for “endgame” so I have a verite closed and a soon to be HD800s and I think I’ll likely just be keeping my collection to one closed back and one open….maayyybeeee stretching two open backs with one planar but won’t be someone who has 10 headphones at once.

Similar with the amp, I’ve only had solid state but am trying my first tube amp soon after I found a deal on a TOTL one here in this forum.

My question is - does any of this feel redundant? Does it feel “not worth it” to have a tube and solid state based off how you all are measuring what can and can’t be heard by the human ear? I’m all up to learn more and expand my horizons and just want a system where I have a variety of tones I can get while having a lot of focus, I.e. minimal equipment and headphones


----------



## bigshot

You should be able to get by with just one set of headphones if you audition before you buy and make sure you like the one you choose. There aren't a bunch of different good sound signatures, there is just one for you and you alone. So take your time listening to a bunch of different cans and choose wisely. Once you decide on your ideal headphones, then start thinking about an amp (if you even need one). No need to spend a lot of money on that. Unless you've chosen very idiosyncratic headphones, an amp shouldn't cost much more than $150.


----------



## chesebert

SlothRock said:


> Ok y’all - I’m ready to be roasted. But in all honesty, would love to start up a discussion based on where I’m at with my sound journey.
> 
> I friggin love music and I love audio (probably a duh here) and I’m actually less into graphs than I am into just listening to a pleasing sound signature that lets me hear a whole bunch of detail in songs I love.
> 
> ...


For dynamic headphone a quality tube amp will offer comparably excellent sound to SS but with a different rendition to the music. I think if practical, it's a worthwhile endeavor.


----------



## bigshot

^ Don’t listen to him. He’s trolling.


----------



## gregorio (Mar 29, 2022)

SlothRock said:


> Ok y’all - I’m ready to be roasted.


We don’t “roast” people here unless they keep making false assertions even after the facts have been explained. Asking questions avoids all that anyway, so ask away without fear of roasting!

With amps, provided you get the right one for your HPs (appropriate power/impedance) then the rule of thumb is that they all sound exactly the same. The exception to this rule of thumb is some tube amps. Tubes add relatively high levels of distortion (which any half decent SS amp doesn’t), sometimes this distortion is inaudible, in which case the tube amp will sound the same as all the SS amps and sometimes it is audible, in which case it will sound different some/most/all of the time. The type of audible distortion added by tubes can often be “euphonic”, meaning that it can sound pleasing/pleasant to some people, even though it’s lower fidelity.

Much of the above is a bitter pill to swallow for many audiophiles and stems from how the brain works. Our brains manufacture a perception that avoids conflicts between our senses/knowledge. For example, if we see a difference between two things (two different amps for instance) but don’t hear a difference, that’s a conflict our brain may/will try to rectify by creating a difference in our hearing perception (that doesn’t exist). Same with knowledge, if we know one of the amps is more expensive for instance. These are just two examples of many potential biases and typically we have several/many conscious and subconscious biases simultaneously.

HPs are a category of device called a “transducer”, meaning it converts from one form of energy to another, in this case from electrical energy (analogue audio) to kinetic energy (sound waves). This process is highly inefficient and unlike the rule of thumb with DACs and amps, HPs do have audible differences. So this is a good area to spend your money.

G


----------



## gregorio

Powermankw said:


> It's not even a forum... It's one thread, in a sub forum.


The Sound Science subforum is obviously a subforum, not just one thread. 


Powermankw said:


> People come to the sub forum, to learn about a whole host of audio topics.


They come this subforum to learn and/or discuss the science/actual facts of audio and sound, as the name of the subforum indicates. If they instead come to promote audiophile marketing falsehoods, even after the science/facts have been explained, then they’re perverting the name and purpose of this subforum, are in the wrong place and will be treated accordingly. 


Powermankw said:


> You realize there are entire forums for you right... SBAF, ASR...


And dozens of pro-audio forums/subforums, in addition to this Sound Science subforum. 


Powermankw said:


> Or are you already spreading the joy of audio there too?


What joy of audio, how can we have joy in something we can’t even sense? To a limited extent it’s maybe possible to have joy in the creation or manipulation of audio but typically, if we’re talking about “joy”, then we’re talking about the subjective perception of sound, a significantly different thing to the science/facts of audio.

G


----------



## bigshot

I get joy from music. Sound fidelity either satisfies me or it doesn't. I don't get joy from equipment.


----------



## hakunamakaka

gregorio said:


> So, not only don’t you know what an ABX test actually tests for (hint: It is NOT preference) but you don’t know why it exists or it’s methodology.



I don't disregard ABX test, I just don't  see it valid in all cases and especially comparing headphones. We are way more easily distracted as you may think and even in controlled test you won't be able to mute someones brain. Not to mention time gap while switching between different headphones.

The chart itself can influence how you will hear stuff, the same way how golden plated cable can influence cable lover. You may believe differently, but charts won't tell you how actually HP's will sound, though they are good to be used as a reference point.
You claim to be able ABX hp's just looking at the chart and knowing exactly how it will sound, yet still unable to provide constructive comparison between 2 sets of headphones that I inquired, the usual....


----------



## castleofargh

hakunamakaka said:


> I don't disregard ABX test, I just don't  see it valid in all cases and especially comparing headphones. We are way more easily distracted as you may think and even in controlled test you won't be able to mute someones brain. Not to mention time gap while switching between different headphones.
> 
> The chart itself can influence how you will hear stuff, the same way how golden plated cable can influence cable lover. You may believe differently, but charts won't tell you how actually HP's will sound, though they are good to be used as a reference point.
> You claim to be able ABX hp's just looking at the chart and knowing exactly how it will sound, yet still unable to provide constructive comparison between 2 sets of headphones that I inquired, the usual....


Who ABX headphones? yes, taking them off for a swap is already too big of a distraction and delay for relevant results. 
Also, ABX is about disproving the null hypothesis, the assumption that they sound the same. Who thinks that 2 different headphones sound the same? It seldom happens. Even within the same headphone series it's common to have audible variations. When we place them differently on the head, we usually get audible variations. Over time as the pads settle in a compressed position, we tend to get audible variation. Most of that goes unnoticed by listeners because they're relying on casual experience which isn't all that precise.
At large nobody needs to prove that headphones are audibly different. So I agree with you, ABX is not for headphone comparisons. But that's kind of what Greg was referring to when saying you don't know what ABX is for.


----------



## bigshot

If he listened, he would understand and learn. But he refuses to listen. He just argues. That says troll to me.


----------



## hakunamakaka

So we agree that I don’t know abx and you can’t compare hp’s purely based on charts ?


----------



## gregorio (Mar 29, 2022)

hakunamakaka said:


> I don't disregard ABX test, I just don't see it valid in all cases and especially comparing headphones.


Apart from you, who has suggested using an ABX test for comparing headphones? No one! So you’ve made up a false argument and then argued against it?! Again, the ABX test is a double blind/unbiased test designed to falsify the null hypothesis (that there are no audible differences), it is NOT a preference or general comparison test! How many times?


hakunamakaka said:


> You claim to be able ABX hp's just looking at the chart and knowing exactly how it will sound …


Where did I claim that? Unless you can quote where I made such a claim, that’s just yet another falsehood that you’ve made-up!


hakunamakaka said:


> [1] So we agree that I don’t know abx and [2] you can’t compare hp’s purely based on charts ?


1. Yes, we can certainly agree on that. So if you agree that you don’t know this scientific test, why would you come to a science forum and argue about it? I can only think of one obvious answer!

2. Again, apart from you, who is suggesting that? If we had charts that demonstrated all the differences between two HPs were below the threshold of human detection, then we could conclude there would be no detectable difference between them, other than perceptual error/placebo. However, we do not have charts for all the differences and those we do have, do NOT indicate all the differences are below the threshold of detection. Which is why no one here is suggesting what you yet again falsely claim/imply we’re suggesting!

G


----------



## castleofargh

Powermankw said:


> How refreshing. Reasoned explaination without all the ridicule and BS. Well done.


Thank you. Long winded posts to argue that everybody's wrong are how I managed to make so many audiophiles love me over the years. 
That and telling someone to calm down as a modo. I already got like 12 e-friends on the forum in just a short decade, so I know I'm on the right path.


----------



## bigshot

Everyone loves Castle!


----------



## jagwap

hakunamakaka said:


> Brain burn in exists, listen to certain audio signature for prolonged period of time and it will show way larger differences than ABX different headphones at once. Ofcourse better HP will still show its quality in sound. Testing lots of gear at once wold be tiresome for your brain and wouldn’t lead to correct conclusions. Same goes for smell and taste


I see this repeated over and over, but where is the proof.  It just appears to be a preferred opinion here on Sound Science to other factors.

I know that when I listen to music, not the sound/clarity/imaging/bass/thump/air/sparkle/etc ABX is good for identifying, but the actual music, its rhythmic thread and harmonic progression, it takes more than a couple of bars  to get that. Sometimes more than a song on a well structured album. There has been plenty of opinion quoted that we cannot remember from five minutes to the next in ABX accurately. It is harder than regular switching between A/B for confirming the details.  I'm saying that the details are important to get right, and confirm are transparent, but is it really why we listen to music in our spare time, and are we getting that bit right?

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

The link above is great, but does not state the playback was long term.


----------



## gregorio (Mar 29, 2022)

jagwap said:


> I see this repeated over and over, but where is the proof. It just appears to be a preferred opinion here on Sound Science to other factors.


No, it’s NOT just “a preferred opinion” (that brain burn in exists) here on Sound Science, it’s a fact demonstrated by reliable evidence and not contradicted by any reliable evidence. Floyd Toole, Sean Olive and others have demonstrated, with reliable experiments, how the brain acclimatises to the sound signatures of speakers and acoustic environments. In fact this is quite an old line of scientific investigation going back to around the 1950’s, due to the significant costs of creating reliable professional listening/monitoring environments. Likewise the effects of listening fatigue have been studied, again because of it’s financial implications in professional scenarios.


jagwap said:


> I know that when I listen to music, not the sound/clarity/imaging/bass/thump/air/sparkle/etc ABX is good for identifying, but the actual music, its rhythmic thread and harmonic progression, it takes more than a couple of bars to get that.


Yes, but we don’t use ABX for listening to music, we use it to falsify the null hypothesis. I’m not sure how many times we need to repeat this?!

The majority of the time, an ABX test has nothing to do with music whatsoever, we’re trying to discern a difference that isn’t in the music, for example some added: Noise, distortion or other artefact. In the case where we are looking for something in the music, we don’t use ABX to identify “it’s rhythmic thread” or “harmonic progression”, just to detect an audible difference. In these two given examples that would be a timing and a frequency difference, which is best achieved using short sections and fast switching. Again, this is not just a “preferred opinion”, it’s based on considerable reliable evidence regarding how human memory works dating back to the 1970’s, Nelson Cowan’s studies, Clarke’s 1982 paper and numerous others since. However, not everything about memory and perception is proved beyond doubt, which is why the ABX test does NOT restrict the length of samples or the amount of time allowed to listen to them.

This last sentence alone falsifies your criticism but you keep ignoring it!!


jagwap said:


> http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
> 
> The link above is great, but does not state the playback was long term.


That’s because “long term” has been demonstrated, time and again, to lower the chances of a successful test. There was no time limit given to the subjects.

G


----------



## Powermankw

gregorio said:


> The Sound Science subforum is obviously a subforum, not just one thread.


This thread is about myth vs fact concerning what people perceive as a difference when controlled blind testing does not support that. Quite interesting. Venture out of this thread and most in this sub-forum are about how things work, not just how everybody is wrong.


gregorio said:


> They come this subforum to learn and/or discuss the science/actual facts of audio and sound, as the name of the subforum indicates. If they instead come to promote audiophile marketing falsehoods, even after the science/facts have been explained, then they’re perverting the name and purpose of this subforum, are in the wrong place and will be treated accordingly.


I'm sorry, I missed your gate keeper title. Do you have a badge I can see? The benefit of the scientific method is to find the truth, and remove human fallacies. Can you show me the part in the scientific method where it states to apply ridicule and condescending narrative to the results, because I can't find it. It's all about the science right?


gregorio said:


> And dozens of pro-audio forums/subforums, in addition to this Sound Science subforum.
> 
> What joy of audio, how can we have joy in something we can’t even sense? To a limited extent it’s maybe possible to have joy in the creation or manipulation of audio but typically, if we’re talking about “joy”, then we’re talking about the subjective perception of sound, a significantly different thing to the science/facts of audio.
> 
> G


Well... Because that's the whole point... It isn't about testing electronics circuits. MRIs make a lot of noise, but that is not their function. News flash, humans like music. Audio reproduction in this area is about reproducing music for the mere enjoyment by humans. Not test tones, random noise, or jack hammers... Music... Created by humans, to be heard by humans. And contrary to your statement, many do that for the joy of it. It seems you may be stuck in the trees unable to find the forest. 

Now obviously, when subjective emotions are introduced, there will be myths and misconceptions, hence this thread. However, you seem genuinely miffed, when people on an audio forum, dare to discuss the forest, over your insistence that one must only discuss trees here. Another seemingly emotional responce. Spock would inform you that is illogical. Is your purpose here to educate, or share your interest in audio science with others, or just ridicule as a self appointed gate keeper?


----------



## hakunamakaka

jagwap said:


> I see this repeated over and over, but where is the proof.  It just appears to be a preferred opinion here on Sound Science to other factors.
> 
> I know that when I listen to music, not the sound/clarity/imaging/bass/thump/air/sparkle/etc ABX is good for identifying, but the actual music, its rhythmic thread and harmonic progression, it takes more than a couple of bars  to get that. Sometimes more than a song on a well structured album. There has been plenty of opinion quoted that we cannot remember from five minutes to the next in ABX accurately. It is harder than regular switching between A/B for confirming the details.  I'm saying that the details are important to get right, and confirm are transparent, but is it really why we listen to music in our spare time, and are we getting that bit right?
> 
> ...




I definitely need more time to identify strengths of the headphone. Some of the stuff is quite obvious, but other goodness or quirks takes time to be revealed. Even with frequency chart i’m surprised quite often. A perfect example was clear vs utopia, while one having less detail and treble presence managed to sound more harsh and annoying compared to the other.

Maybe I just can’t make quick decisions and form a decision solely based of chart


----------



## Dogmatrix

Concerning difference , there are many research papers concerning perception over time

Look up , sensory acclimation

Hard going but very interesting


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> No, it’s NOT just “a preferred opinion” (that brain burn in exists) here on Sound Science, it’s a fact demonstrated by reliable evidence and not contradicted by any reliable evidence. Floyd Toole, Sean Olive and others have demonstrated, with reliable experiments, how the brain acclimatises to the sound signatures of speakers and acoustic environments. In fact this is quite an old line of scientific investigation going back to around the 1950’s, due to the significant costs of creating reliable professional listening/monitoring environments. Likewise the effects of listening fatigue have been studied, again because of it’s financial implications in professional scenarios.
> 
> Yes, but we don’t use ABX for listening to music, we use it to falsify the null hypothesis. I’m not sure how many times we need to repeat this?!
> 
> The majority of the time, an ABX test has nothing to do with music whatsoever, we’re trying to discern a difference that isn’t in the music, for example some added: Noise, distortion or other artefact. In the case where we are looking for something in the music, we don’t use ABX to identify “it’s rhythmic thread” or “harmonic progression”, just to detect an audible difference. In these two given examples that would be a timing and a frequency difference, which is best achieved using short sections and fast switching.



Quite right, I  should not use the term or practice ABX for this, but blind switching.  However I disagree that fast switching is best for determining what I am talking about, the rhythmic and harmonic progression.  It interrupts them if the 2 or more samples are different.  What I am asking, not arguing, the other experts here is how to scientifically test this.  Because as you say:


> That’s because “long term” has been demonstrated, time and again, to lower the chances of a successful test. There was no time limit given to the subjects.


And then you go on to agree with me by arguing over semantics. I do not state ABX or other switching cannot be long passages, but that they do not give good results, again agreeing with you. 


> Again, this is not just a “preferred opinion”, it’s based on considerable reliable evidence regarding how human memory works dating back to the 1970’s, Nelson Cowan’s studies, Clarke’s 1982 paper and numerous others since. However, not everything about memory and perception is proved beyond doubt, which is why the ABX test does NOT restrict the length of samples or the amount of time allowed to listen to them.
> 
> This last sentence alone falsifies your criticism but you keep ignoring it!!
> 
> ...



I am simply asking if there is a better reliable test we can come up with that can test these characteristics, which are after all most important.  I fully expected the reaction I got, but take a moment.  Apart from the misuse of the term ABX when I meant unit under test blind switching, have we actually disagreed with each other?  Really?  I know it is your default position on this forum, to point out where everyone else is wrong, but if you don't have a real idea how to do such a test, why point score?


----------



## Dogmatrix

jagwap said:


> Quite right, I  should not use the term or practice ABX for this, but blind switching.  However I disagree that fast switching is best for determining what I am talking about, the rhythmic and harmonic progression.  It interrupts them if the 2 or more samples are different.  What I am asking, not arguing, the other experts here is how to scientifically test this.  Because as you say:
> 
> And then you go on to agree with me by arguing over semantics. I do not state ABX or other switching cannot be long passages, but that they do not give good results, again agreeing with you.
> 
> ...


Could you be more specific around rhythmic and harmonic progression and how one headphone would differ from another in that respect ?


----------



## bigshot

Dogmatrix said:


> Concerning difference , there are many research papers concerning perception over time Look up , sensory acclimation



"Auditory Memory" would also be an applicable google.


----------



## castleofargh

Quasi-modo:
I removed a bunch of posts that nobody is going to miss. Please try as much as possible to fight about the ideas and not the people posting them. I know it's not always possible or easy, I trolled someone in the post I made just before this one(bad castleofargh!). Trust me I get how things can turn out when we get provoked just a little. But as a modo, I cannot let fighting old kids be the only conversation.


----------



## old tech

jagwap said:


> http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
> 
> The link above is great, but does not state the playback was long term.


Some of the subjects, mainly casual audiophiles, had the equipment in their home for months.

Another test I posted a while back which compared consumer preferences for digital or analog recordings, similarly allowed the test subjects to switch back and forth at will with no (reasonable) time constraints (though this was a double blind AB rather than an ABX test).


----------



## jagwap

old tech said:


> Some of the subjects, mainly casual audiophiles, had the equipment in their home for months.
> 
> Another test I posted a while back which compared consumer preferences for digital or analog recordings, similarly allowed the test subjects to switch back and forth at will with no (reasonable) time constraints (though this was a double blind AB rather than an ABX test).


If this gives consistent results then my question is answered.  However as you may see in the "debate" it has been stated there is doubt about the long term memory in such tests.  I'm asking is there a better way.


----------



## Nago

I saw the post about tubes vs solid state and I started asking myself (note that I never heard tubes so far): Isn't it possible to archive a feeling similar to tube-sound by simply EQing your headphones towards a warm sound signature?


----------



## jagwap

Dogmatrix said:


> Could you be more specific around rhythmic and harmonic progression and how one headphone would differ from another in that respect ?


I am not being specific to headphones.  This thread is about audio in general, but happens to be in a sub-forum on a headphone site.

I have usually found subjectively that some systems are musically more engaging than others. But as this section of the forum makes clear, this is not good enough to think or feel that there is a difference.  You need to prove it.   It is not down to conventional frequency response and distortion, dynamic range etc. I have some ideas, but in order to qualify them we need a test that can be relied upon.  It needs to be recognised statistically accurately as different.  As I do not think the rapid switching between systems is able to allow this musical thread in whatever form to grow, and as there are citations above backing up the idea that long term memory of what something sounds like accurately is not easy, perhaps possible, I am asking how we can evaluate if this is real, and if it is, how to quantify it.

I suspect there is not a simple answer unless old tech is right.


----------



## jagwap

Nago said:


> I saw the post about tubes vs solid state and I started asking myself (note that I never heard tubes so far): Isn't it possible to archive a feeling similar to tube-sound by simply EQing your headphones towards a warm sound signature?


I doubt it.  I have heard tube amps which do not sound "warm" (Japanese Audio Note brand for example)  I think EQ alone is not what tubes impart.


----------



## gregorio (Mar 30, 2022)

Powermankw said:


> Venture out of this thread and most in this sub-forum are about how things work, not just how everybody is wrong.


Firstly, it's not everybody who's wrong in this subforum, just the one or few. And, if you venture out of this thread, then most are about how things work but again, there is very commonly/typically at least one person who contradicts the facts based on some audiophile myth/marketing or perceptual error.


Powermankw said:


> The benefit of the scientific method is to find the truth, and remove human fallacies. Can you show me the part in the scientific method where it states to apply ridicule and condescending narrative to the results, because I can't find it. It's all about the science right?


I can't show you that, can you show me the part of the scientific method where it states we should tolerate trolls and those trying to pervert the science? Don't such people get ostracised from the scientific community? How would science have progressed if they weren't? In the actual world of scientists, there are plenty of arguments, acrimony, condescension, etc.


Powermankw said:


> Well... Because that's the whole point... It isn't about testing electronics circuits.


It is if we are talking about DACs, amps, etc. A DAC or amp for example does not have a human brain, it has no personality or perception, it is just a bunch of electronic circuits. ....


Powermankw said:


> News flash, humans like music. Audio reproduction in this area is about reproducing music for the mere enjoyment by humans.


News flash, audio is an electrical signal and/or digital data. Audio reproduction is the reproduction of that signal/data and humans can't hear an electrical signal or digital data, so how can they enjoy it? Humans do like music but music is sound, not audio, sound and audio are different forms of energy. If we are to scientifically (or just logically/factually) consider the different components of an audio/sound system, then we have to consider the difference between audio and sound and only then can we consider the perception of sound.


Powermankw said:


> [1] Not test tones, random noise, or jack hammers... Music... Created by humans, to be heard by humans. [2] And contrary to your statement, many do that for the joy of it. [3] It seems you may be stuck in the trees unable to find the forest.


What reliable/objective evidence are you basing this last sentence on? Aren't you doing exactly what you are accusing me of? To your actual points though:

1. Again, audio cannot be heard by humans, only sound can be heard.
2. No, many listen to sound for the joy of it, they cannot listen to audio for the joy of it. Certainly many create audio recordings for the joy of it and sometimes not only for the joy of it but also to earn a living. Again though, that's not really the audio they're taking joy from, but the reproduction of sound from that audio.
3. No, I am stuck in the trees and the forest, while you seem stuck in only a patch of the forest and are not considering either the trees or the whole forest! For example, test tones, random noise and jack hammers obviously can be represented by audio and are created by humans. And, particularly the last two are done for the joy of it, joy of both the creators and listeners. Music is just a sub-set of enjoyable/entertaining commercial sound, what about the larger sub-set of commercially created audio, TV and film sound, which typically includes the creation and use of random noise and occasionally even the sound of jack hammers? Doesn't anyone create or consume films and TV for the joy of it? Of course, there's also the area of telecommunications. It seems like you maybe stuck in just a small patch of the forest! What happens if we take the audio of a film's sound or a telephone conversation and feed it through an audiophile DAC and amp? Does it get reproduced horribly distorted or not reproduced at all because they only deal with music? Ironically, I started as a professional musician, then created music recordings commercially, have worked in the TV and film industry for several decades and in the project before last, spent about 2 days creating the sound of a jack hammer and longer than that creating random noise, for my joy (and payment of course) and the joy of those watching and listening the film.


Powermankw said:


> However, you seem genuinely miffed, when people on an audio forum, dare to discuss the forest, over your insistence that one must only discuss trees here.


That's false! I've got absolutely no problem with discussions about the forest, indeed I've had many discussions about the forest and even started threads about the forest here myself. I've only got a problem when people repeatedly make false assertions about the trees, based on faulty assumptions about a small part of the forest!


Powermankw said:


> Another seemingly emotional responce. Spock would inform you that is illogical.


And yet even Spock occasionally made illogical, emotional responses ... and I'm not a Vulcan!


Powermankw said:


> Is your purpose here to educate, or share your interest in audio science with others, or just ridicule as a self appointed gate keeper?


I don't "just ridicule", I educate, share my interest in audio science and learn from others. The ONLY time I ridicule is in response to ridicule and the repeated ridiculous, and even then, it's only after sharing the audio science/facts (without ridicule).

G


----------



## bigshot (Mar 30, 2022)

Nago said:


> I saw the post about tubes vs solid state and I started asking myself (note that I never heard tubes so far): Isn't it possible to archive a feeling similar to tube-sound by simply EQing your headphones towards a warm sound signature?


For high fidelity tube amps, yes. It’s even possible for tube amps to be audibly as balanced and clean as solid state. Lower fidelity tube amps have audible levels of euphonic distortion on top of response imbalances. That would require a DSP to produce.


----------



## castleofargh

jagwap said:


> I am not being specific to headphones.  This thread is about audio in general, but happens to be in a sub-forum on a headphone site.
> 
> I have usually found subjectively that some systems are musically more engaging than others. But as this section of the forum makes clear, this is not good enough to think or feel that there is a difference.  You need to prove it.   It is not down to conventional frequency response and distortion, dynamic range etc. I have some ideas, but in order to qualify them we need a test that can be relied upon.  It needs to be recognised statistically accurately as different.  As I do not think the rapid switching between systems is able to allow this musical thread in whatever form to grow, and as there are citations above backing up the idea that long term memory of what something sounds like accurately is not easy, perhaps possible, I am asking how we can evaluate if this is real, and if it is, how to quantify it.
> 
> I suspect there is not a simple answer unless old tech is right.


If you don't have a specific reference or some confidence about what objective variation is causing the more engaging impression, It's extremely hard to test. Beside having as many people as possible listening to the gears without knowing what they are, and getting some statistical result about opinions(on regular basis), I don't know how else to approach your question. 
To quantify anything we have to know something about it right? At the very least we would need a clear reference, and then people would rate other sounds based on how much they subjectively part from that reference. The question of how long the listening should be is not an issue IMO, so long as people aren't told when the source changes. but if we let them listen to some gear for a month or 2, I'm pretty confident that for many reasons, the results would be less consistent and accurate than with short listening and rapid switching. All I know about signal detection and human psychology mostly opposes the intuitive idea that listening longer help knowing better. that last idea is real for sure, but at what cost?
  I really would need something pretty specific and compelling to think that all the trouble of long periods are ultimately more beneficial to the *accurate* detection and qualification of something. 

When I was doing reviews I often said that I only had a fair and stable idea of what that device had to offer after about a month, that's why I think I get what you're thinking about, if only in a broad way. But That opinion could be based on how my own impressions settle down and mostly stop changing after a month. It doesn't actually demonstrate that I have a better grasp on the sound qualities, only that I feel like I do. I write too much, you know all that already.


----------



## bigshot

It takes me a while to come to a conclusion too, but that’s because I’m not sure until a convincing bit of evidence pops up. That doesn’t have anything to do with length of samples though.


----------



## castleofargh

Dogmatrix said:


> Concerning difference , there are many research papers concerning perception over time
> 
> Look up , sensory acclimation
> 
> Hard going but very interesting


Good call, this is also part of why I'm concerned with long use of something. 
If the objective is to know how typical people feel after a long use, then of course we should have people try gear for a long time. But for just about anything else, long time tends to add more variables to something that's already not simple. 



bigshot said:


> It takes me a while to come to a conclusion too, but that’s because I’m not sure until a convincing bit of evidence pops up. That doesn’t have anything to do with length of samples though.


But how do we prove it? That's what @jagwap has been asking. If we only rely on short samples to validate or invalidate ideas, aren't we automatically discarding long experiences as being different(if they are) only because of errors? I think that's mostly true, but to prove it is another story.


----------



## The Jester

Probably the best recommendation is from a reviewer like yourself and others who listened “long term” to a certain component in their own system, and after returning it found there was “something missing” and went out and bought that component, then comes the problem of evaluating and measuring it against the component it replaced and finding something to put a finger on and saying “that’s what made the difference” ?


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> I do not state ABX or other switching cannot be long passages, but that they do not give good results, again agreeing with you.


Yes but isn't it a given that you won't get good, reliable results if you're using a test incorrectly or entirely the wrong test in the first place?


jagwap said:


> However I disagree that fast switching is best for determining what I am talking about, the rhythmic and harmonic progression. It interrupts them if the 2 or more samples are different.


Why would it interrupt them? Why can't you play the whole progression and then fast switch to another whole progression? And, why would fast switching to another whole progression be worse than slow switching to another whole progression? That's exactly what we do with ABX, it's just that the whole progression or enough of it, would typically be just a few seconds in duration rather than the 10's of seconds or minutes of a rhythmic or harmonic progression.


jagwap said:


> What I am asking, not arguing, the other experts here is how to scientifically test this.





jagwap said:


> I am simply asking if there is a better reliable test we can come up with that can test these characteristics, which are after all most important. I fully expected the reaction I got, but take a moment. Apart from the misuse of the term ABX when I meant unit under test blind switching ...


OK, so you're asking how to test for differences in rhythmic and harmonic progression when blind testing units? Both of these things are necessarily functions of audio properties that can be measured. "Rhythm" is the reoccurring pattern of strong and weak beats over time and a rhythmic progression is therefore a progression from one rhythmic pattern to another (then potentially on to another, ad infinitum). Rhythm is therefore fundamentally an issue of timing, because what differentiates one rhythm from another is where in time those strong and weak beats occur. Likewise, harmonic progression refers to the juxtaposition and progression of a sequence of chords and a chord is typically 3 simultaneous different notes (although it may contain only 2 notes or many more than 3). Harmonic progression is therefore fundamentally an issue of frequency, because what differentiates one chord from another and one chord progression from another are the different notes those chords contain.

It is not difficult to devise a test for timing or one for frequency, however it's pointless to blind test units/components for differences in rhythmic or harmonic progression because the scale of the differences is so vastly different. For example, differences in rhythmic patterns and progressions are several milli-secs at a minimum and typically in the tens and hundreds of milli-sec range. Such timing differences do not occur with say DACs or amps, timing differences of DACs are more than a million times lower than that and at that level don't manifest as timing differences anyway, but as very low level (inaudible) noise/distortion. Similar problem with harmonic progression, the scale of the frequency difference needed to change a chord (or progression of chords) is vastly greater than any DAC or amp ever produces. The potential exception here could be a tube amp that adds a very large amount of distortion/IMD relatively low in the audible spectrum, potentially enough to effectively add another note to the chord/s. I'm not sure if there are any consumer amps that do that, although over-driven guitar amps sometimes do. Even HPs/Speakers don't do that, although they might potentially change the balance of the notes in a chord enough to cause the perception of a marginally different chord/progression.

G


----------



## bigshot

I think a very long listening sample would be the best way to determine if I like a particular sound signature. Determining whether there’s a difference between two very similar sounds would be best done by flicking between the two and seeing if I can detect a difference.


----------



## Powermankw

gregorio said:


> Firstly, it's not everybody who's wrong in this subforum, just the one or few. And, if you venture out of this thread, then most are about how things work but again, there is very commonly/typically at least one person who contradicts the facts based on some audiophile myth/marketing or perceptual error.
> 
> I can't show you that, can you show me the part of the scientific method where it states we should tolerate trolls and those trying to pervert the science? Don't such people get ostracised from the scientific community? How would science have progressed if they weren't? In the actual world of scientists, there are plenty of arguments, acrimony, condescension, etc.
> 
> ...


OK


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> Yes but isn't it a given that you won't get good, reliable results if you're using a test incorrectly or entirely the wrong test in the first place?
> 
> Why would it interrupt them? Why can't you play the whole progression and then fast switch to another whole progression? And, why would fast switching to another whole progression be worse than slow switching to another whole progression? That's exactly what we do with ABX, it's just that the whole progression or enough of it, would typically be just a few seconds in duration rather than the 10's of seconds or minutes of a rhythmic or harmonic progression.
> 
> ...


Not quiet.  An example I can give is say a crossover.  A typical 24 dB/oct Linkwitz-Riley 80Hz crossover causes over 5mS of timing error around the crossover range, whether it be done in analogue or digital domain, due to group delay.  So if EQ can do this, so can the HP limits of a product.  Speakers with infinite baffle tend to have less group delay in low frequencies than port speakers.  I know some smart acoustic engineers who know how to minimise this effect, but most don't.  They just grab the low cost low frequency boost.  This is all know about, but often overlooked.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Mar 30, 2022)

bigshot said:


> For high fidelity tube amps, yes. It’s even possible for tube amps to be audibly as balanced and clean as solid state. Lower fidelity tube amps have audible levels of euphonic distortion on top of response imbalances. That would require a DSP to produce.


Since it is supposed to be the "scientific" forum, I could not help asking: how cutting or emphasizing different order harmonics can be classified as " fidelity". (If the "perfect" tubes exist- why to use them would be a simple pragmatic question).
Please explain kindly, as "scientifically" as you can.


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> Since it is supposed to be the "scientific" forum, I could not help asking: how cutting or emphasizing different order harmonics can be classified as " fidelity". (If the "perfect" tubes exist- why to use them would be a simple pragmatic question).
> Please explain kindly, as "scientifically" as you can.


If the goal is highest fidelity for a given investment tubes would be silly scientifically
Highest fidelity is not always the desired outcome


----------



## bigshot (Mar 30, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> Since it is supposed to be the "scientific" forum, I could not help asking: how cutting or emphasizing different order harmonics can be classified as " fidelity".


High Fidelity means that it meets or exceeds the thresholds of human hearing. It doesn’t mean theoretically perfect. There are audibly transparent tube amps. They aren’t all designed to introduce coloration. A high fidelity tube amp can be audibly identical to a solid state amp even though that solid state amp measures much better.

It’s obviously much more efficient to just buy a solid state amp if your goal is high fidelity, but tube options do exist. I think a lot of the appeal of tubes has nothing to do with practicality nor sound. I think some people just have a fetish for tubes.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> High Fidelity means that it meets or exceeds the thresholds of human hearing. It doesn’t mean theoretically perfect. There are audibly transparent tube amps. They aren’t all designed to introduce coloration. A high fidelity tube amp can be audibly identical to a solid state amp even though that solid state amp measures much better.
> 
> It’s obviously much more efficient to just buy a solid state amp if your goal is high fidelity, but tube options do exist. I think a lot of the appeal of tubes has nothing to do with practicality nor sound. I think some people just have a fetish for tubes.


The physics of the tubes is such that they are lacking odd harmonics (making them "euphonic" to many), so it is really hard to understand what would be "high-fidelity" tubes, the tubes with some DSP that evens out harmonics (?)
So, arguably, "fidelity" and tube amps do not fit well together.


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> The physics of the tubes is such that they are lacking odd harmonics (making them "euphonic" to many), so it is really hard to understand what would be "high-fidelity" tubes, the tubes with some DSP that evens out harmonics (?)
> So, arguably, "fidelity" and tube amps do not fit well together.


Brilliant plan , I take my expensive custom tube amp specifically designed to colour, run it through my equally expensive RME to dsp out the colour
Result a simulation of a simple ss amp costing maybe 1/10


----------



## PhonoPhi (Mar 30, 2022)

Dogmatrix said:


> Brilliant plan , I take my expensive custom tube amp specifically designed to colour, run it through my equally expensive RME to dsp out the colour
> Result a simulation of a simple ss amp costing maybe 1/10


Irony on irony is super ironic indeed.
My point was about the use of " fidelity "  - to cut through the irony just in case.


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> Irony on irony is super ironic indeed.
> My point was about " fidelity " use - to cut through irony just in case.


But seriously folks
Back in the day tubes were all there was so amp designers did strive for fidelity and companies like Dynaco , Marantz , Pilot built some legendary designs that still stand today
With the rise of solid state fidelity became much cheaper so market forces favoured tube designs that accentuate tube character over fidelity


----------



## bigshot (Mar 30, 2022)

Another is McIntosh. There are transparent tube amps. They aren’t all colored. It isn’t a magic tube with a DSP, it’s a design that prioritizes fidelity.

As I said, some tube amps sound just as clean and balanced as solid state amps do.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> A typical 24 dB/oct Linkwitz-Riley 80Hz crossover causes over 5mS of timing error around the crossover range, whether it be done in analogue or digital domain, due to group delay.


Sure, when it comes to transducers we can run into issues. Perhaps an even more obvious example would be laptop or cellphone speakers, which commonly produce little or nothing below about 200Hz or so. Obviously that’s likely to affect the chords (and harmonic progression) because the lowest note of the chord may not be reproduced. However, in both this example and yours, I don’t see how long term listening would make discerning this difference easier or more reliable. Using my example, it would be easier just to pick a single chord lasting just a few secs where the bass note is not reproduced by one speaker, than listening to an entire progression of chords where some maybe affected and others not. 


PhonoPhi said:


> Since it is supposed to be the "scientific" forum, I could not help asking: how cutting or emphasizing different order harmonics can be classified as " fidelity". (If the "perfect" tubes exist- why to use them would be a simple pragmatic question).
> Please explain kindly, as "scientifically" as you can.


It can’t be classified as perfect fidelity but it could be classified as “high fidelity” if the cutting or emphasising of those harmonics is below the level of audibility. We could also describe this as “audibly perfect fidelity”. 

G


----------



## PhonoPhi (Mar 31, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Another is McIntosh. There are transparent tube amps. They aren’t all colored. It isn’t a magic tube with a DSP, it’s a design that prioritizes fidelity.
> 
> As I said, some tube amps sound just as clean and balanced as solid state amps do.


Sounds great.
Do you have the data (that should be easily measurable) that those amps have non-attenuated even harmonics?
Otherwise, all the words of "fidelity", "transparency" remain just as a subjective opinion.





gregorio said:


> Sure, when it comes to transducers we can run into issues. Perhaps an even more obvious example would be laptop or cellphone speakers, which commonly produce little or nothing below about 200Hz or so. Obviously that’s likely to affect the chords (and harmonic progression) because the lowest note of the chord may not be reproduced. However, in both this example and yours, I don’t see how long term listening would make discerning this difference easier or more reliable. Using my example, it would be easier just to pick a single chord lasting just a few secs where the bass note is not reproduced by one speaker, than listening to an entire progression of chords where some maybe affected and others not.
> 
> It can’t be classified as perfect fidelity but it could be classified as “high fidelity” if the cutting or emphasising of those harmonics is below the level of audibility. We could also describe this as “audibly perfect fidelity”.
> 
> G


Again, are there data available, supporting the statements on "perfect fidelity", "audibly perfect"  etc for tube amps and in general - otherwise we are also into near-perfect, kind of perfect, perfect but subjective one, and a forum opinion, as "fidelity" types and shades.


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> Again, are there data, that are available, supporting the statements on "perfect fidelity", near-perfect, kind of subjective one, and a forum opinion.


There’s a great deal of data. For example there are numerous DSP modelled tube amps and other tube equipment out there, so there must be a lot of data but I’m not sure how much is publicly available. There are publicly available measurements for some tube DACs. It’s also pretty easy to do them yourself provided you have access to a tube amp of course. Did some myself several years ago.

“Perfect fidelity” is where two signals completely “null” in a null test, typically, an input and an output signal. “Near-perfect” is therefore where the results of a null test nearly null. “Kind of a subjective one” (or a totally subjective one) is where someone doesn’t rely on an objective measurement and partially or completely relies on perceptual impressions. A forum opinion is the latter. Hope that helps?
G


----------



## PhonoPhi

gregorio said:


> There’s a great deal of data. For example there are numerous DSP modelled tube amps and other tube equipment out there, so there must be a lot of data but I’m not sure how much is publicly available. There are publicly available measurements for some tube DACs. It’s also pretty easy to do them yourself provided you have access to a tube amp of course. Did some myself several years ago.
> 
> “Perfect fidelity” is where two signals completely “null” in a null test, typically, an input and an output signal. “Near-perfect” is therefore where the results of a null test nearly null. “Kind of a subjective one” (or a totally subjective one) is where someone doesn’t rely on an objective measurement and partially or completely relies on perceptual impressions. A forum opinion is the latter. Hope that helps?
> G


It helps conceptually/perceptually.

Given your vast knowledge, I would appreciate a good reference or two illustrating the comparison of harmonics for common tube amps, those "solid-like" tube amps and good solid state ones.
That would be greatly in a spirit of a scientific forum - meaningfull exchange of the credible (peer-reviewed, etc) information.


----------



## castleofargh

PhonoPhi said:


> It helps conceptually/perceptually.
> 
> Given your vast knowledge, I would appreciate a good reference or two illustrating the comparison of harmonics for common tube amps, those "solid-like" tube amps and good solid state ones.
> That would be greatly in a spirit of a scientific forum - meaningfull exchange of the credible (peer-reviewed, etc) information.


I don't know where you're going with this. What peer review? There are many many amplifiers with many differences in measurements. some tube amps have give only the max power output or some power output at 5%THD because they never go below 1% to give the standard spec like you'd see on most SS amps. But you'll also find some tube amps that stay a magnitude or 2 below, even rather powerful stuff for speakers. It shouldn't be too much of a thought process to expect that as you get amps with much better specs, they will tend to start sounding closer to one another. And if the stuff is super flat, super clean, then why couldn't it sound very clean and flat into most loads, like a clean and flat good SS amp will?
 I don't see this as controvertial TBH. Just the number of designs falling under the umbrella of tube amp justifies to expect a fairly wild range of specs, and possibly, sounds.

I don't know about others, but I can tell you that I won't go spend half a day browsing Stereophile or wherever to find you a reasonable number of examples that don't just look like cherry picked anecdotes. I like you, but not _that_ much.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Mar 31, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> I don't know where you're going with this. What peer review? There are many many amplifiers with many differences in measurements. some tube amps have give only the max power output or some power output at 5%THD because they never go below 1% to give the standard spec like you'd see on most SS amps. But you'll also find some tube amps that stay a magnitude or 2 below, even rather powerful stuff for speakers. It shouldn't be too much of a thought process to expect that as you get amps with much better specs, they will tend to start sounding closer to one another. And if the stuff is super flat, super clean, then why couldn't it sound very clean and flat into most loads, like a clean and flat good SS amp will?
> I don't see this as controvertial TBH. Just the number of designs falling under the umbrella of tube amp justifies to expect a fairly wild range of specs, and possibly, sounds.
> 
> I don't know about others, but I can tell you that I won't go spend half a day browsing Stereophile or wherever to find you a reasonable number of examples that don't just look like cherry picked anecdotes. I like you, but not _that_ much.


"Peer review" is the reference to the credible information as the research evidence.
I do understand that largely this forum represents an opportunity for people to express their personal opinions as "scientific". I slowly came to accept it.

My specific question is about harmonics gearing at loose definitions of "fidelity".


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> I would appreciate a good reference or two illustrating the comparison of harmonics for common tube amps, those "solid-like" tube amps and good solid state ones.


Here’s a useful example because it includes objective measurements for several different tubes in the same amp. There are quite a few tube units measured on the same site, so knock yourself out. 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...tube-rolling-does-it-make-a-difference.28583/

If you want peer reviewed, published scientific papers though, your going to have to search some archives (AES, etc.). This area was done decades ago and today is more about fashion than science. I read some in the early 1990’s but they were already old papers then, so you might find some useful papers from the 1980’s but more likely earlier. 

G


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> I do understand that largely this forum represents an opportunity for people to express their personal opinions as "scientific".


Ahh, now it’s coming clear, I wondered why you asked about fidelity the way you did.

Sure, a null test is a subjective test I invented and I’m just falsely pushing it as scientific. Same with ABX. I’m particularly proud of both of them, as I managed to invent them long before I was born and even long before there were any audiophile trolls. What foresight!

G


----------



## PhonoPhi

gregorio said:


> Here’s a useful example because it includes objective measurements for several different tubes in the same amp. There are quite a few tube units measured on the same site, so knock yourself out.
> 
> https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...tube-rolling-does-it-make-a-difference.28583/
> 
> ...


Just for the record: my question was/is specifically about the harmonic content related to the simple fact that the physics of the tube is such that odd harmonics are supressed.

Providing some random references indeed knocks out even the illusion of the credibility, sorry.


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> Just for the record: my question was/is specifically about the harmonic content related to the simple fact that the physics of the tube is such that odd harmonics are supressed.


Glad we got that sorted and thanks for explaining that tubes break the laws of physics. 


PhonoPhi said:


> Providing some random references indeed knocks out even the illusion of the credibility, sorry.


They’re objective measurements. Don’t like them? Then go find your own or do as I have and measure them for yourself. It’s effectively an axiom that tubes introduce distortion, no need to keep proving an axiom but according to you, that would make it a personal opinion. Yep, everything is a personal opinion here, even the science!

G


----------



## PhonoPhi (Mar 31, 2022)

Once again, the point is that the questions remain unanswered, so it is just the forum of subjective opinions, not much different from cable affictionados. They use the same pattern of vague indirect references followed by personal attacks.

I tried my best to steer the discussion to the direction of the harmonic enhancement (THD is a different aggregate parameter),  as arguably, one of the primary audiophilic MSG.

Leaving the room.


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> Once again, the point is that the questions remain unanswered,


No they don’t.


PhonoPhi said:


> so it is just the forum of subjective opinions
> , not much different from cable affictionados. They use the same pattern of vague indirect references followed by personal attacks.


I’ve given you published measurements, I’ve told you where to look for the published science, I told you the objective test to use and I haven’t provided a single impression or subjective opinion of tubes. So yes, ALL that is exactly like the cables subforum/aficionados. Clearly you’ve never been to the cables forum!


PhonoPhi said:


> I tried my best to steer the discussion to the direction of the harmonic enhancement (THD is a different aggregate parameter),  as arguably, one of the primary audiophilic MSG.


Of course you didn’t, you actually tried your best to steer the discussion to making false allegations that this forum is purely opinion based. Eg. Trolling!

Clearly you didn’t even bother to read the link I sent you, either that or you don’t even know what an FFT is! Incidentally, please point out the 3rd harmonic suppression!


PhonoPhi said:


> Leaving the room.


Please do, let me get the door for you!

G


----------



## bigshot

Because there is distortion, it doesn't mean that it's audible. Because there are super audible frequencies, it doesn't mean they are audible. Because there is a noise floor, it doesn't mean noise is audible.

It's great to know the specs of equipment, but without any knowledge of the thresholds of human perception, it's just numbers on a page.

If you actually *want* distortion, and there's nothing wrong with that if you do, it's a lot more controllable to start with a solid state amp that produces clean balanced sound, and apply distortion in the form of DSPs where you can sculpt and fine tune the adjustments to achieve the particular kind of euphonic distortion you are after. If you try to do it by buying tube amps, you are stuck with the sound signature that is hard wired into the amp. You might have to go through dozens and dozens of random sound signatures before you find one you like, and even then it won't be as precise as one produced by a good DSP plugin.


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> Once again, the point is that the questions remain unanswered, so it is just the forum of subjective opinions, not much different from cable affictionados. They use the same pattern of vague indirect references followed by personal attacks.
> 
> I tried my best to steer the discussion to the direction of the harmonic enhancement (THD is a different aggregate parameter),  as arguably, one of the primary audiophilic MSG.
> 
> Leaving the room.


After a 2 second search granted not from a pear reviewed journal just a random tube guy but he is not selling anything so reasonable credibility can be assumed

*Tubes* generate a whole spectrum of harmonics when overloaded, particularly the second, third, fourth, and fifth, to give a very full bodied sound._  Tubes also differ from op-amps and transistors in that they can be operated in the overload region without adding objectionable distortion_.  A slow rising edge and open harmonics combine to create an ideal sound.  Within the 15-20 dB overload range, the electrical output of the tube increases only 2-4 dB, creating a natural compression.  Since the edge is increasing within this range, the subjective loudness remains uncompressed to the ear.  It is this effect cause tube amps to have a higher apparent volume level not indicated on a volume (VU) meter.



Tubes sound louder and have a better signal-to-noise ratio because of the extra subjective headroom that transistor amplifiers do not have.  Tubes get their punch from their natural overload characteristics.  Since loud signals can be reproduced at higher levels, the softer signals are also louder.  This is the famous “sweet spot” that tube amps exhibit.  Strong second and third harmonics give a feeling of a more natural bass response.

Is there some reason you cant look up stuff yourself ?


----------



## bigshot

He's left the room. He's not going to admit he's wrong and he doesn't have any points to make. Let him go.


----------



## old tech (Mar 31, 2022)

Dogmatrix said:


> After a 2 second search granted not from a pear reviewed journal just a random tube guy but he is not selling anything so reasonable credibility can be assumed
> 
> *Tubes* generate a whole spectrum of harmonics when overloaded, particularly the second, third, fourth, and fifth, to give a very full bodied sound._  Tubes also differ from op-amps and transistors in that they can be operated in the overload region without adding objectionable distortion_.  A slow rising edge and open harmonics combine to create an ideal sound.  Within the 15-20 dB overload range, the electrical output of the tube increases only 2-4 dB, creating a natural compression.  Since the edge is increasing within this range, the subjective loudness remains uncompressed to the ear.  It is this effect cause tube amps to have a higher apparent volume level not indicated on a volume (VU) meter.
> 
> ...


The first para is purely subjective, reflecting his personal preference for less fidelity.

The second para is a preference for distortion, or a type of distortion. While most would agree subjectively that distortion from overload in a tube amp (his so called sweet spot) than clipping from a SS amp, surely the goal for high fidelity is not to drive an amp into distortion - ie correctly specifying the amp for its purpose.


----------



## old tech

Dogmatrix said:


> But seriously folks
> Back in the day tubes were all there was so amp designers did strive for fidelity and companies like Dynaco , Marantz , Pilot built some legendary designs that still stand today
> With the rise of solid state fidelity became much cheaper so market forces favoured tube designs that accentuate tube character over fidelity


That's the key point.  Tube amps can and have been designed to be as transparent as SS amps (within the bounds of human hearing), providing both amps are operating within their specifications.  However, the virtue equation works against the tube amp as it will be more expensive, less efficient and higher maintenance.  So many high end tube amps are intentionally designed with less fidelity to achieve a house "signature sound" to differentiate the products and help justify the price point.


----------



## Dogmatrix

old tech said:


> The first para is purely subjective, reflecting his personal preference for less fidelity.
> 
> The second para is a preference for distortion, or a type of distortion. While most would agree subjectively that distortion from overload in a tube amp (his so called sweet spot) than clipping from a SS amp, surely the goal for high fidelity is not to drive an amp into distortion - ie correctly specifying the amp for its purpose.


Fair I guess but you would have to take it up with the random tube guy
My point was about learning
At my graduate exhibition from design school I cleverly bailed up the newly minted chancellor in the corner of the room and asked him what he thought universities were for , he said they were to teach people how to learn
Which is why I suppose when the great corporations and  bureaucracies have their annual graduate intake looking for potential new executives they don't particularly care what you studied . Often a relatively blank canvas is preferred they are looking for people who know how to know .


----------



## bigshot

Design is a career where you have to learn to learn or you don’t survive. I got a degree in design. They taught me graphics- type spec, paste up, how to use a lucigraph, etc. After I graduated, the Mac came out and I had to learn a totally new way of doing things.


----------



## Dogmatrix

old tech said:


> The first para is purely subjective, reflecting his personal preference for less fidelity.
> 
> The second para is a preference for distortion, or a type of distortion. While most would agree subjectively that distortion from overload in a tube amp (his so called sweet spot) than clipping from a SS amp, surely the goal for high fidelity is not to drive an amp into distortion - ie correctly specifying the amp for its purpose.


A difficulty in public fora such as this even with a science label is that if we want to remove ourselves from all subjective discussion it requires a background knowledge in mathematics and engineering I certainly don't possess 
Electronics engineering is a thing and people spend years studying to better understand the things we really just play with here
The truth is out there !


----------



## bigshot

There are electrical engineers participating in this forum. We actually have a very broad spectrum of knowledge here. No one has to know everything. You just have to be open to learning from others. I do that here all the time.


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> There are electrical engineers participating in this forum. We actually have a very broad spectrum of knowledge here. No one has to know everything. You just have to be open to learning from others. I do that here all the time.


I suppose what I was eluding to is a saturation point . Experts , much appreciated as they are can only take mere mortals like myself so far  going further would require effort on my part beyond a public forum level
A matter of relative expectation as to what level of understanding can be reached here


----------



## bigshot

I don't know about other people, but I'm here to listen to people who know more than I do and learn from them. In return, I'll offer to help people understand things I know that they may not be aware of. Isn't that what internet forums are for? I don't have to have a degree in electrical engineering myself to understand the basic concepts, and basic concepts are what I need to be able to apply science to my home audio rig.


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> I don't know about other people, but I'm here to listen to people who know more than I do and learn from them. In return, I'll offer to help people understand things I know that they may not be aware of. Isn't that what internet forums are for? I don't have to have a degree in electrical engineering myself to understand the basic concepts, and basic concepts are what I need to be able to apply science to my home audio rig.


Indeed those are very reasonable expectations for participation in an internet forum


----------



## Davesrose

Dogmatrix said:


> Tubes sound louder and have a better signal-to-noise ratio because of the extra subjective headroom that transistor amplifiers do not have.  Tubes get their punch from their natural overload characteristics.  Since loud signals can be reproduced at higher levels, the softer signals are also louder.  This is the famous “sweet spot” that tube amps exhibit.  Strong second and third harmonics give a feeling of a more natural bass response.
> 
> Is there some reason you cant look up stuff yourself ?



I know you're intensionally generalizing for the tubes are the holly grail crowd.  I'm just quoting this part because I don't see it as a factor for tubes: I have solid state devices (like my Benchmark DAC), that can have settings for boosting gain and can shift loudness quite a bit.  My main "stackable" headphone amp I like is a hybrid: I had to disassemble it to put in a vintage set of tubes to be more 'distorted' when I go to tube mode (that's still slight compared to some tube rolling I tried with tube only components).  The amp has a clear difference in loudness if you go from a balanced output vs unbalanced-but not tube vs SS. I also have a OTL amp that I've had for years.  I did like collecting different tubes for it and checking what distortion was better for "soundstage" or "dynamics".  I can't use it now as I work from home, and my home is close to a radio tower (which gets transmitted in that amp, even if I use RFI power source).


----------



## gregorio (Apr 1, 2022)

old tech said:


> surely the goal for high fidelity is not to drive an amp into distortion


Well yes and no. Take for example a recording including an electric guitarist. The guitarist will certainly drive his amp into distortion and very possibly such a massive amount of distortion that it dominates the output signal, but then we would typically want to record that output in high fidelity (without further distortion), then mix and master it (with more added distortion but also considering the perception of fidelity) and then reproduce it in high fidelity.

I know you probably know this but the vital difference between production (inc. Recording, mixing and mastering) and reproduction is often lost on audiophiles, leading to a bunch of misunderstandings, myths and false claims.


Dogmatrix said:


> if we want to remove ourselves from all subjective discussion it requires a background knowledge in mathematics and engineering I certainly don't possess


I believe this is where we often run into difficulties here and on other sites, which are the only places we find this absolute division between subjective and objective. In reality we have subjective, objective and factual, an assertion can be subjective but still be factual/correct and of course it can be subjective and incorrect. There’s often not a clear division between them in practice, because we’re ultimately dealing with science/technology to record and produce an art form (music) and that act of recording and producing are themselves also largely an art form. Except in specific instances, we don’t use this artificial absolute division between objective and subjective in the recording industry, the division where necessary, is between factual and non-factual.

One of the typical examples is Music Theory, which fundamentally is maths and physics, starting with the mathematical ratios of notes and harmonics produced by vibrating objects (such as strings) discovered by Pythagoras, and subsequently far more advanced math. But it’s also based on the subjective perceptual effects of that math, for example the perception of consonance and dissonance between different juxtapositions and combinations of pitch ratios and this is entirely reliant on personal impressions and experience, so is as subjective as it gets. However, it’s the cumulative personal impressions of countless musicians and composers over 7+ centuries and of course, of those who consume the music. So effectively we have countless informal (and some formal) studies with effective sample sizes in the many millions and in which we can have a high level of scientific confidence. So what is Music Theory? Is it subjective or objective, is it a science, is it some combination that can be considered factual, does it apply to all humans equally, it certainly is an area of academic study and research but is the reality a complex jumble of all these things that we need to consider on a case by case and specifically a part by part basis? If it’s the latter, which is what I contend, that doesn’t lend itself to the simple explanations or “sound bites” required by most audiophiles. And, Music Theory is just one example, we have a similar problem with recording, mixing/production and mastering. Lastly of course, what we’re dealing with here, is the reproduction of the combination of music theory, recording, mixing and mastering. If all this were not already complex enough, we have audiophile marketing reliant on deliberately confusing and misrepresenting all the above … easy meat!

Incidentally, is all the above nothing more than purely my personal subjective opinion and therefore shouldn’t be allowed for discussion in this subforum? 

G


----------



## jagwap

Tubes do not have to be high distortion at line level.  Give them light loading and a current source as a load and the THD will be low.  Remember a single silicon transistor will distort like hell without a lot of help.  Low THD transistor circuits need plenty of transistors to make them linear.  "Plenty of tubes" is not physically or financially viable.  However a tube version of Nelson Pass's JFET preamp will behave well too.

I suspect some of the attractive sound qualities to tubes is not just the low order distortion, and the graceful clipping, both of which can easily be emulated with transistors. It is their resilience to thermal changes.  Once warmed up, tubes do not change temperature quickly, meaning their gain and bandwidth stays steady.  Transistors are far lower thermal mass, and when the temperature changes their on voltage, gain, bandwidth, input capacitance, you name it, it varies with temperature.  So if a transistor amp near clips, all of the signal path loads up trying to push harder. After that all of the transistors start recovering at different rates depending on their loading and mass, including the bias network and the input stage.  If they are all on an IC, it does not help, as the output transistors now heat up everything with the varying signal.  There has been decades of work overcoming that stuff, and the continuing improvements to opamps is testimony to the real work being done.  I can now buy opamps for <$0.10 that can outperform ones I used to pay $10.

Transistors can be arranged to have less of this effect, and there is an interesting paper on the simulation of these techniques: http://peufeu.free.fr/audio/memory/  Do not get put off by some of the terminology.  The simulations back up the idea. I have tried some of these techniques with good results.  

Do NOT go to the brand's website for information.  It seems in order to obscure what they are really doing they have described in sure a way it makes homeopathy seem plausible. 

Let the flame war commence...


----------



## GearMe

Dogmatrix said:


> I suppose what I was eluding to is a saturation point. *Experts, much appreciated as they are, can only take mere mortals like myself so far. * Going further, would require effort on my part beyond a public forum level.    A matter of relative expectation as to what level of understanding can be reached here



To your point, if you want to go deep it requires an investment.  But as Bigshot said...



bigshot said:


> I don't know about other people, but I'm here to listen to people who know more than I do and learn from them. In return, I'll offer to help people understand things I know that they may not be aware of. Isn't that what internet forums are for?* I don't have to have a degree in electrical engineering myself to understand the basic concepts, and basic concepts are what I need to be able to apply science to my home audio rig.*



That said, an expert...should be able to have the conversation at any level, and ideally, encourage the learnings of others by providing those folks with an enticing path forward if they are interested in a deeper dive.


----------



## castleofargh

GearMe said:


> That said, an expert...should be able to have the conversation at any level, and ideally, encourage the learnings of others by providing those folks with an enticing path forward if they are interested in a deeper dive.


To quote another humble genius: "sounds good, doesn't work."
Expertise and pedagogy are different things. Not only am I convinced that many very knowledgeable people can't make their knowledge easy and accessible to the layman person, but I'm also sure that many teachers are bad at it.
I sure wish it wasn't the case and that the Feynman technique was universally applied and fully effective, but it's just not what happens. There's a reason why said Feynman is a legend(at least to me he is) in term of explaining complex stuff to others. That's because not many people could do what he could.


----------



## gregorio

GearMe said:


> That said, an expert...should be able to have the conversation at any level


I can’t really agree with that. Experts only need to have conversations with those they work with, which most commonly is other experts. 

Incidentally, I think Einstein only said that because he didn’t believe in quantum mechanics! 😁


castleofargh said:


> Expertise and pedagogy are different things. Not only am I convinced that many very knowledgeable people can't make their knowledge easy and accessible to the layman person, but I'm also sure that many teachers are bad at it.


I fully agree with this. It was a big shock when I started work as a lecturer. After 18 years or so as a professional  musician, then sound/music engineer, I didn’t realise how much I knew and took whole swathes of knowledge for granted, because everyone I dealt with for nearly all that time either knew as much as me or often, considerably more. It was only when faced with students who hardly even knew the basics, that I started to realise. It was then a far bigger task than I’d expected to step back many levels and explain things in a way they could understand and appreciate. I think I ended up doing a fairly decent job but it took a lot of time, effort and thought. 

Quite a few of those with whom I’ve worked would have struggled or not been interested enough to invest the time/effort. I invited some of them to give guest lectures on occasion but it was only for final year students on the highest level courses and even then it usually took 1 or 2 subsequent sessions of me explaining before they really understood it.

G


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> Let the flame war commence...


Hmmm, it is tempting 


jagwap said:


> Transistors can be arranged to have less of this effect, and there is an interesting paper on the simulation of these techniques: http://peufeu.free.fr/audio/memory/ Do not get put off by some of the terminology. The simulations back up the idea. I have tried some of these techniques with good results.


I had a brief scan of that document but my knowledge of electronic circuit design is not good enough to make an educated judgement. However, the few bits I did read, the listening tests in particular, rang some alarm bells. Sighted, with apparently more than a few audiophile myths and not corroborated by the null tests I’ve done or detailed measurements I’ve seen.

On the face of it, it looks like a typical audiophile solution to a non-existent or irrelevant problem but I’m not certain, so I’ll hang back on the flaming for now. 

G


----------



## GearMe

castleofargh said:


> To quote another humble genius: "sounds good, doesn't work."
> Expertise and pedagogy are different things. Not only am I convinced that many very knowledgeable people can't make their knowledge easy and accessible to the layman person, but I'm also sure that many teachers are bad at it.
> I sure wish it wasn't the case and that the Feynman technique was universally applied and fully effective, but it's just not what happens. There's a reason why said Feynman is a legend(at least to me he is) in term of explaining complex stuff to others. That's because not many people could do what he could.



Of course...we could always use more knowledgeable people that are willing/able to explain things in a simple fashion!  

Does an Expert's lack of doing this indicate their inability to communicate in a simple, organized, coherent fashion?  Or...does it indicate a laziness, or worse yet, an unwillingness to make the effort?

I'll grant that some Experts may legitimately 'struggle' to explain a concept simply as Gregorio said.  But unfortunately, I believe that many more Experts fall into the second category of 'not been interested enough' that Gregorio also mentioned.  This is a big miss and not beneficial to the human race as a whole.




gregorio said:


> *I can’t really agree with that. Experts only need to have conversations with those they work with, which most commonly is other experts...*
> 
> G



Personally...I'm so glad that some Experts make the effort to pass their knowledge along to those that are curious enough to take the journey that really starts with baby steps. prior to walking, and then running.  Without them educating the next generation of Experts, we would not have the continuous stream of innovations that the world has benefited from and the growing knowledgebase that we do.  

Question @gregorio ...why did you take 'a lot of time effort and thought' to bring your students along?  My bet is that it wasn't just because you were paid to do so.



A personal story related to this concept...my Dad was a Nuclear Thermionic Engineer for NASA for most of his professional life (before he retired to teach at a PAC 10 university).  He held multiple patents on some complex stuff.  

When I asked him what he did, he always took the time to explain it in _terms that I could understand_...which changed over the years as my knowledgebase grew.  Not surprising, that when he _retired_, he went on to teach!  

BTW, _why did he go into teaching_ after he retired with a nice pension?  To give back and help the next generation of budding engineers become the group that would take what he and others had done so far...and build upon it!


----------



## bigshot (Apr 1, 2022)

GearMe said:


> That said, an expert...should be able to have the conversation at any level, and ideally, encourage the learnings of others by providing those folks with an enticing path forward if they are interested in a deeper dive.



I share your frustration, but not all experts are good teachers or communicators. If you aren't an expert yourself, you either need to be able to parse all the technical terms and ignore all the footnotes that don't apply to the info you need.

I find that with some people here in sound science, the discussions spiral outwards instead of drilling down to make points. The focus on the pertinent facts gets blurred by a million sidelines into obscure, unlikely exceptions. Those exceptions are true and factual, but spending that much time on them makes them look more important than they actually are. Often the first couple of sentences in an answer to my question are what I'm looking for. I ignore the five paragraphs of worst case scenarios and one in a million exceptions that follow them. The other problem is ego. There can be a lot of pulling out rulers. That kind of stuff is a sign of insecurity. Usually the people who know the least are the most aggressive and competitive.

In college, I was taught to speak clearly and succinctly in an organized fashion, and to keep the focus on the main point. Not everyone was taught that. Some fields value all the i dotting and t crossing more than the subject itself, and the focus often shifts to details instead of the core point. I worked with a great film director who would give instructions and then at the end, he would say, "Am I clear?" That was my cue to quickly communicate back to him that I understood what he needed. Being able to transfer information is a valuable skill, and I find myself saying, "Am I clear?" to the students I teach.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> *Not all experts are good teachers or communicators*. If you aren't an expert yourself, you either need to be able to parse all the technical terms and ignore all the footnotes that don't apply to the info you need.
> 
> I find that with some people here in sound science, the discussions spiral outwards instead of drilling down to make points. The focus on the pertinent facts gets blurred by a million sidelines into obscure, unlikely exceptions. Those exceptions are true and factual, but spending that much time on them makes them look more important than they actually are. Often the first couple of sentences in an answer to my question are what I'm looking for. I ignore the five paragraphs of worst case scenarios and one in a million exceptions that follow them. The other problem is ego. There can be a lot of pulling out rulers. That kind of stuff is a sign of insecurity. Usually the people who know the least are the most aggressive and competitive.
> 
> In college, I was taught to speak clearly and succinctly in an organized fashion, and to keep the focus on the main point. Not everyone was taught that. Some fields value all the i dotting and t crossing more than the subject itself, and the focus often shifts to details instead of the core point.


*Agreed...some by limitation (less than you'd imagine) and many by choice.  *

Can't imagine getting through college without a fundamental understanding of critical thinking, problem solving, and communicating effectively.  Applying these skills and some hard work to almost any knowledge-driven pursuit will often take a person a long way to their own benefit as well as others around them (work associates, etc.).


----------



## gregorio

GearMe said:


> Question @gregorio ...why did you take 'a lot of time effort and thought' to bring your students along? My bet is that it wasn't just because you were paid to do so.


True but I can’t pretend it was completely altruistic either. There was some altruism but it was largely because I tend to set an inadvertently “high bar” for myself. It’s not a deliberate thing, it’s more like over achieving at not being bad. I was lucky enough to find myself, for a couple of quite long periods of my life, working with those who really were amongst the best in the world, so avoiding being bad at your job in that sort of company means you end up being pretty good compared to many others, which you don’t realise at the time. When I changed to being a lecturer, I don’t think I was an especially good lecturer but I did work hard at not being a bad one. Working hard at that though, typically results in slowly loosing the expertise in your original field, which is one of the reasons I gave it up after 6 years and went back into the profession. 

IME, different experts are different people, with different motivations and different paths to their expertise. A very few do have the natural ability to converse and explain to those at a much lower levels. I changed my profession and had to really work at explaining it to others at a lower level. Most other experts don’t have that natural teaching/explaining ability, they spend their time maintaining and developing their expertise in their field, don’t change profession and therefore don’t develop that ability. That’s a good thing IMHO, we want dedicated experts.


bigshot said:


> The focus on the pertinent facts gets blurred by a million sidelines into obscure, unlikely exceptions. Those exceptions are true and factual, but spending that much time on them makes them look more important than they actually are.


But that’s often missing the point of science. As we discussed previously with ABX, the point of the ABX test is to falsify the null hypothesis. In other words, it’s to find that single exception which all on it’s own blows the null hypothesis out of the water.

Maybe that exception is not pertinent to you personally, which is fine of course or maybe it is pertinent and you unwisely or unwittingly dismiss it. But whichever, those single exceptions to the null hypothesis are the very foundation of science and this is the Sound Science forum. It’s not the personal forum of what one person thinks is pertinent to them, although of course we’re all perfectly free to ignore what isn’t pertinent to us personally. 

G


----------



## bigshot

As I've said a gazillion times, my purpose here is to use scientific principles to improve the sound of my home audio rig. I'm not particularly interested in pure scientific theory. I am interested in applied science to achieve a goal.

GearMe, I teach for purely altruistic reasons. When I was starting out, I was very fortunate to have some very important people mentor me and share their knowledge and experience with me. I never could have paid them to do that. They were doing it for altruistic reasons, so I feel an obligation to pay that forward to the next generation. There's way too much selfishness in this world, and there's often more business in the business of education than there is education.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> As I've said a gazillion times, my purpose here is to use scientific principles to improve the sound of my home audio rig.


Why have you said it a gazillion times? Sure, that’s your purpose and you’re perfectly entitled to it but not everyone has your home rig, considers “improve the sound” as you do or even has a similar purpose. They might come here to learn the truth about a particular claim, to broaden their general understanding of sound/audio or for other reasons. 


bigshot said:


> I'm not particularly interested in pure scientific theory.


Again, it’s of course up to you what you’re interested in but:

1. Whether you’re interested in a pure scientific theory or not, is irrelevant. You might not be interested in reading Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication but you’re using it every time you turn on your computer or play a digital audio file whether or not you’re interested in it or regardless of whether you’re even aware of it and the same goes for countless other pure scientific theories. 

2. Science is almost entirely built on pure scientific theories. So how can we ban them in a Science forum? And ban them purely on the basis of whether you’re personally interested in them or not? If we did, how is that any different from say the cables forum banning DBT or effectively any science they’re not interested in (which is most of it)?


bigshot said:


> I am interested in applied science to achieve a goal.


How is it possible to discuss applied science, if you’re not allowed to discuss the scientific theories being applied? Again, same as the cables forum, perfectly fine to discuss the pseudo-science but you’re not allowed to discuss the science the pseudo-science is based on.

Rather than repeating your purpose a gazillion times, wouldn’t it be better to start your own forum, for example,  “Bigshot’s Purpose” or “What bigshot is interested in”, instead of trying to turn this subforum into your purpose?


bigshot said:


> There's way too much selfishness in this world,


Yes but on the other hand, being focused and dedicated, even to the point of obsession, requires at least some, if not a great deal of selfishness and is the path to expertise for many. 


bigshot said:


> and there's often more business in the business of education than there is education.


Now that I totally agree with and was the main reason I got out and went back to the profession. 

G


----------



## bigshot

I let you know this because it’ll inform you on what I am looking to find out when I ask a question. I’m assuming you don’t speak entirely for your own benefit. If you were you could just do monologues and not answer questions. If you’re going to interact with people you need to take the intent of their questions into account. Otherwise, they’ll just take your answers as irrelevant, no matter how many facts they contain.


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> Hmmm, it is tempting
> 
> I had a brief scan of that document but my knowledge of electronic circuit design is not good enough to make an educated judgement. However, the few bits I did read, the listening tests in particular, rang some alarm bells. Sighted, with apparently more than a few audiophile myths and not corroborated by the null tests I’ve done or detailed measurements I’ve seen.
> 
> ...


I am grateful for your near restraint. Unusual.

Yes there is no listening proof. The work is incomplete. But the simulations show there is enough previously not widely know issues to look into. Many of these techniques are already adopted by the audio and instrumentation IC industry, but often for other beneficial reasons of sheer accuracy, which is also a benefit.


I think it is an indication as to one reason why not only tubes sound different, but also the highly acclaimed work of John Curl and Nelson Pass, who I believe pioneered the use of physically large silicon transistors where they weren't strictly needed like the input stage of power amps. Some have cited lower noise, but that can be achieved far cheaper with low Rbb small transistors.


----------



## Dogmatrix

jagwap said:


> Tubes do not have to be high distortion at line level.  Give them light loading and a current source as a load and the THD will be low.  Remember a single silicon transistor will distort like hell without a lot of help.  Low THD transistor circuits need plenty of transistors to make them linear.  "Plenty of tubes" is not physically or financially viable.  However a tube version of Nelson Pass's JFET preamp will behave well too.
> 
> I suspect some of the attractive sound qualities to tubes is not just the low order distortion, and the graceful clipping, both of which can easily be emulated with transistors. It is their resilience to thermal changes.  Once warmed up, tubes do not change temperature quickly, meaning their gain and bandwidth stays steady.  Transistors are far lower thermal mass, and when the temperature changes their on voltage, gain, bandwidth, input capacitance, you name it, it varies with temperature.  So if a transistor amp near clips, all of the signal path loads up trying to push harder. After that all of the transistors start recovering at different rates depending on their loading and mass, including the bias network and the input stage.  If they are all on an IC, it does not help, as the output transistors now heat up everything with the varying signal.  There has been decades of work overcoming that stuff, and the continuing improvements to opamps is testimony to the real work being done.  I can now buy opamps for <$0.10 that can outperform ones I used to pay $10.
> 
> ...


Flame on I suppose

Reading the linked text I found it lacked any level of credibility . I do not claim the technical knowledge to understand but right from the introduction it is a fail .
Listing three facts in the introduction of a technical paper is ok if they are facts these are not . Fact A and B are statements of little relevance , not verifiable as I would expect a fact to be and Fact C is just wrong
What interests me is why anyone would consider such a text with an introduction that would not make the grade for a high school science project to be a serious engineering discovery
What kind of filter do you apply when deciding if a claim is credible ?


----------



## jagwap

Dogmatrix said:


> Flame on I suppose
> 
> Reading the linked text I found it lacked any level of credibility . I do not claim the technical knowledge to understand but right from the introduction it is a fail .
> Listing three facts in the introduction of a technical paper is ok if they are facts these are not . Fact A and B are statements of little relevance , not verifiable as I would expect a fact to be and Fact C is just wrong
> ...


A variety of things. The credibility of the original patent and it's source, the method of the simulation, and the fact when I tried some of the techniques in my amplifier designs they worked. Doubled our sales and reviews trounced the completion.

None of the above is good enough as proof required in this forum. So it is therefore presented as an audiophile idea to be torn down by the usual suspects. But it is an interesting theory which cannot be torn down by frequency response, THD, noise and EMI interference. I present it to show there is potentially more to audio performance than the same old measurements trotted out to denounce ideas. 

I think it is good to have an open mind. If even one mind here opens to that notion, then I see that as an achievement.


----------



## Dogmatrix

jagwap said:


> A variety of things. The credibility of the original patent and it's source, the method of the simulation, and the fact when I tried some of the techniques in my amplifier designs they worked. Doubled our sales and reviews trounced the completion.
> 
> None of the above is good enough as proof required in this forum. So it is therefore presented as an audiophile idea to be torn down by the usual suspects. But it is an interesting theory which cannot be torn down by frequency response, THD, noise and EMI interference. I present it to show there is potentially more to audio performance than the same old measurements trotted out to denounce ideas.
> 
> I think it is good to have an open mind. If even one mind here opens to that notion, then I see that as an achievement.


An open mind is admirable but we must apply some limits to avoid the magic beans
A patent is a right to exclusivity and in itself does not endorse an invention 
A forum is just a group discussion proof is not required but may be requested

As far as an audiophile idea goes my difficulty with it would largely concern magnitude , does the beauty of the destination justify the cost of the journey . For my money something that is not measurable or demonstrable  is not sufficiently significant .


----------



## bigshot

Dogmatrix said:


> Fact A and B are statements of little relevance , not verifiable as I would expect a fact to be and Fact C is just wrong



I agree. Formatting it as a scholarly paper and using dense language is fine, but starting out with logical fallacies stated as fact discourages me from reading any further as well. The point of the paper may or may not be correct. There's no way to tell when the person doing the study starts off that far from the mark.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> If you’re going to interact with people you need to take the intent of their questions into account.


To a certain extent maybe but:
1. It’s not always clear what their intent is. 
2. You can’t remember everyone’s intent. 
3. There’s the overriding intent of this subforum, namely, sound science.

If someone publicly posts in a science forum, the answer they should expect to get is hopefully one based on the science. If that wasn’t their intent, then they’ve posted in the wrong forum.


bigshot said:


> Otherwise, they’ll just take your answers as irrelevant, no matter how many facts they contain.


As they posted publicly, I’ll do my best, within my time constraints, to provide all the relevant facts. Some of those facts might not be relevant for them personally but might be for others reading the forum. If they want answers/facts ONLY relevant for them personally then they shouldn’t post their question/assertion publicly, they should send a PM or setup their own forum.

G


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> But it is an interesting theory which cannot be torn down by frequency response, THD, noise and EMI interference. I present it to show there is potentially more to audio performance than the same old measurements trotted out to denounce ideas.


But they’re not “_the same old measurements trotted out …_” - They are mostly the same old specs that manufacturers typically trot out and are often enough by themselves to denounce ideas. But then I would expect most here to understand the difference between specs and measurements. In science and in this subforum we also trot out the same old DBT and I often trot out the same old null test measurement. What “_more audio performance_” will not be revealed by the same old null test? And, why wasn’t one provided to give objective evidence? I think I can guess but as I’m not absolutely certain I’ll keep my flame muted.

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> But they’re not “_the same old measurements trotted out …_” - They are mostly the same old specs that manufacturers typically trot out and are often enough by themselves to denounce ideas. But then I would expect most here to understand the difference between specs and measurements. In science and in this subforum we also trot out the same old DBT and I often trot out the same old null test measurement. What “_more audio performance_” will not be revealed by the same old null test? And, why wasn’t one provided to give objective evidence? I think I can guess but as I’m not absolutely certain I’ll keep my flame muted.
> 
> G


I didn't say specifications nor measurements, so you are not quoting me. You do that sometimes. Add meaning to someone's statement when it is not necessarily there.

I am not privy to the test methods of the original inventor. All we have is the patent, which is clear, and the marketing which is garbage. So I would be sceptical too just from that. However I tried some of it, and the results were clear and repeatable. While I cannot prove the simulations and the patent are the reason for the improvement, they did not affect the listed items above. That is important.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 2, 2022)

gregorio said:


> I’ll do my best, within my time constraints, to provide all the relevant facts.



I'll try to sort out the answer to the question I'm asking from all that then. Maybe it might help to put the answer to the question the person is asking in a separate paragraph and clearly label the stuff they don't have to read.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> I didn't say specifications nor measurements, so you are not quoting me.


You stated “_I present it to show there is potentially more to audio performance than the same old measurements trotted out to denounce ideas_.” - So clearly you did say measurements and I am quoting you.


jagwap said:


> You do that sometimes. Add meaning to someone's statement when it is not necessarily there.


I took your statement above to mean you wanted to demonstrate there are audio properties not revealed by the same old measurements. What meaning have I added? I just pointed out that the measurements you mentioned: “_frequency response, THD, noise and EMI interference._” - Are mostly the measurements used for specifications and there are other “same old measurements” that would reveal those audio properties.

G


----------



## Dogmatrix

jagwap said:


> I didn't say specifications nor measurements, so you are not quoting me. You do that sometimes. Add meaning to someone's statement when it is not necessarily there.
> 
> I am not privy to the test methods of the original inventor. All we have is the patent, which is clear, and the marketing which is garbage. So I would be sceptical too just from that. However I tried some of it, and the results were clear and repeatable. While I cannot prove the simulations and the patent are the reason for the improvement, they did not affect the listed items above. That is important.


Something I struggle to understand is if you have a clear and repeatable improvement why would you not want data and test results that would withstand any level of scrutiny . Surely the marketing value would be worth the effort


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Maybe it might help to put the answer to the question the person is asking in a separate paragraph and clearly label the stuff they don't have to read.


All those facts are the answer and they need to read all of them if they want a comprehensive answer. I don’t know which of those facts the person asking is interested or not interested in, and as it’s a publicly posted question and a public response, I have to consider others that may read it who may have different interests. Furthermore:

1. Let’s not forget that most false audiophile marketing is not just false facts but “lies of omission”. And,
2. This is the science forum, not my personal opinion forum. This includes me deliberately omitting relevant facts based on my personal opinion that they might not be interesting. 

To avoid these potential mine fields and the potential criticism that this is just another personal opinion forum. It’s far better to provide all the relevant facts, as far as my time and knowledge allow. 

If that means you have to read a bunch of facts you personally are not interested in, then tough, this is a public sound science forum, not a forum solely based on your opinion of what’s interesting. 

G


----------



## bigshot

I’m afraid I’m only interested in the info I need. Other people can ask for all the non applicable footnotes if they are interested. I’m just explaining to you why we run into problems sometimes. I like you and I value your knowledge, but sometimes you answer questions in a way that confuses rather than clarifies.


----------



## gregorio (Apr 2, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I’m afraid I’m only interested in the info I need.


Fine, then only read and reply to what you’re interested in and ignore the rest of the presented science but again, I’m not going to deliberately omit, butcher or pervert the science just because you personally are not interested in it!


bigshot said:


> Other people can ask for all the non applicable footnotes if they are interested.


I don’t present non-applicable footnotes, I (try to) present all the applicable facts. I try NOT to omit applicable facts based on my opinion of what one individual might not find interesting because again, this is neither my opinion forum nor the forum of what one individual finds interesting, it’s the sound science forum!

I’m struggling to see what is apparently so difficult to understand?

G


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I'm not particularly interested in pure scientific theory.


I'm not particularly interested in gaming *. That's why I don't register on, post on or read gaming boards. Why would I? I don't go on those boards to tell I am not particularly interested in gaming. Since this is sound science sub-forum, you can expect to find talk about pure scientific theory here. 

* Apart from certain specific aspects such as the use of "liminal space" aesthetics in game maps.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 2, 2022)

71 dB said:


> ...  you can expect to find talk about pure scientific theory here...



Very well put: "talk" not scientific theories, no science, just opionated comments. No scientific evidence discussed/shown.
No proper scientific referencing, just self-deprecating often more than lengthy personal opinions, sorry..
Cable guys commonly do the better jobs to justify their opinion (or livelyhood to sell cables) , e.g. - research papers about graphene, etc.

So I am with the bigshot, I like his opinions (that I may not always agree with) here much more than attempts on trying to be scientific


----------



## bigshot

This is a sub forum of a home audio forum. I was here when the group was created. It was created to be everything encompassed by the rest of Head-Fi, with the only difference being that blind testing, placebo and bias can be mentioned here, and it isn’t allowed in the rest of Head-Fi. It was never intended to be a forum for scientists to talk about science. It’s a place to talk about home audio of all kinds and how science can be used to improve it.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Tubes 101 from when tubes were high tech


----------



## Dogmatrix

Ten years later science has been busy


----------



## Dogmatrix

By 1967 this progress thing is getting completely out of control


----------



## gregorio (Apr 3, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> Very well put: "talk" not scientific theories, no science, just opionated comments.


You’ve made how many posts in this subforum over what period of time? And you’ve only just realised this is not a research forum for scientists, it’s a discussion forum? Really?


PhonoPhi said:


> [1] No scientific evidence discussed/shown.
> [2] No proper scientific referencing, just self-deprecating often more than lengthy personal opinions, sorry..


Yes, you should be sorry! But then if you really were sorry, why do you keep doing it? There’s only one logical conclusion.

1. Sure, no one here has ever discussed or shown Nyquist/Shannon Sampling Theory, any other scientific laws, principles, axioms or theories, any published scientific studies, any objective measurements/evidence, etc. Have you never read any of the threads in this subforum, even the ones you’ve posted to, including this one?

2. Few here have direct access to much of the published science because it covers a number of different scientific disciplines and is behind various paywalls. There is no requirement for Harvard or other “_proper_” referencing protocols here. There have been scientists and engineers in this subforum but they’ve mostly been driven away by shills and ignorant trolls, for example:

Again, how many posts have you made here? You post fake questions and misrepresent the answers, post personal opinions devoid of any science, do not use “_proper scientific referencing_” yourself and then falsely insult and criticise this subforum’s members for not discussing science, only posting personal opinions and not using proper referencing. How is that not the epitome of hypocrisy?


PhonoPhi said:


> Cable guys commonly do the better jobs to justify their opinion (or livelyhood to sell cables) , e.g. - research papers about graphene, etc.


Of course they do. Your incorrect personal opinion is at least humorous in this instance though!


bigshot said:


> I was here when the group was created. It was created to be everything encompassed by the rest of Head-Fi, with the only difference being that blind testing, placebo and bias can be mentioned here, and it isn’t allowed in the rest of Head-Fi. It was never intended to be a forum for scientists to talk about science. It’s a place to talk about home audio of all kinds and how science can be used to improve it.


So you’re saying this subforum was intended to be the “General Home Audio Improvement” forum (or maybe the “Bigshot’s Home Audio Improvement” forum) but was erroneously named “Sound Science” just to indicate that science could be mentioned here, though not discussed (unless you think it’s interesting)? That certainly explains why you keep trying to effectively change it!

I’ve been posting here for about 14 years on and off. Why, in all that time, hasn’t an admin corrected the error, re-named this subforum and re-written all the info and links on the subforum’s home page? And why has no one, apart from you, ever even mentioned this error or the mod ever censored the discussions of scientific theories/knowledge/studies, as they routinely do in other subforum’s?

I, apparently incorrectly, assumed that this was a subforum where anyone (including scientists, engineers and home audio enthusiasts) could discuss any aspect of Sound Science. So perhaps @castleofargh can clarify if my assumption is incorrect and if so, what sound related science/scientific theories we’re not supposed to discuss here.

Bigshot, we’re mostly in agreement here, because your assertions do not generally contradict the science/facts but occasionally you sweep facts/science under the carpet or falsely claim it’s not applicable, on the basis that you don’t believe it applies to you or you’re not personally interested in it.

G


----------



## bigshot

I’m saying that this forum was intended to be exactly the same as the all of the rest of Head-Fi except you are allowed to mention blind testing, placebo and bias.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> I’m saying that this forum was intended to be exactly the same as the all of the rest of Head-Fi except you are allowed to mention blind testing, placebo and bias.


Exactly my point! You’re saying this forum was incorrectly named, it’s not a forum for the discussion of Sound Science. It’s a forum the same as the others, based on subjective opinion and audiophile marketing. The only difference is that we’re allowed to mention science in this forum, though apparently not discuss it, if you’re not interested in it.

Most of the threads here, including this one, therefore need to be deleted then?

G


----------



## castleofargh

I can't deny:


bigshot said:


> the same as the all of the rest of Head-Fi except you are allowed to mention blind testing, placebo and bias.


There is no actual requirement to demonstrate anything or stick to the available facts when claiming something. The only rules are about marketing, some(IMO) fairly American political correctness, and staying on topic. All things that, as you know, I mostly fail to enforce.

Go crazy, discuss stuff.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> Go crazy, discuss stuff.


Even sound related science? And even the sound related science bigshot is not interest in?

G


----------



## bigshot (Apr 3, 2022)

Feel free to talk about all kinds of things that are irrelevant to the subject of home audio. March about and complain that people here “aren’t scientific enough”. I can ignore you, just like that guy a few posts back who was talking about irrelevant stuff and accusing you of not being scientific enough. It’s a shame, because if you weren’t so focused on yourself and if you made an effort to understand what the people you’re interacting with are saying, you could be a very helpful asset to this group. You certainly wouldn’t expend so much energy tilting at windmills.

I guess it’s pretty typical of the type of people who make up a big chunk of the population of Internet forums though. Lack of empathy and poor communication skills are common.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Feel free to talk about all kinds of things that are irrelevant to the subject of home audio. March about and complain that people here “aren’t scientific enough”. I can ignore you, just like that guy a few posts back who was talking about irrelevant stuff and accusing you of not being scientific enough. *It’s a shame, because if you weren’t so focused on yourself and if you made an effort to understand what the people you’re interacting with are saying, you could be a very helpful asset to this group*. You certainly wouldn’t expend so much energy tilting at windmills.
> 
> I guess it’s pretty typical of the type of people who make up a big chunk of the population of Internet forums though. Lack of empathy and poor communication skills are common.



Highlighted for the irony.

You seem far more concerned with confirmation of your personal audio opinions than any actually science.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Feel free to talk about all kinds of things that are irrelevant to the subject of home audio.


What things that are irrelevant to the subject of home audio? Castleofargh said we could discuss stuff, not restricted to only home audio and so I will feel free to talk about things you’re apparently not interested in, despite you trying to discourage that freedom!


bigshot said:


> March about and complain that people here “aren’t scientific enough”. I can ignore you


Then why don’t you? If you’re not interested then ignore it … But you don’t, you march about and complain that people are too scientific and post relevant facts that you’re not interested in!!!

G


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 3, 2022)

Trying to be brief and not personal (acceprting the clear fact that there is no science here, just more scientific-like opinions and quasi-scientific long essays).

The really great aspect of this forum is that wise moderation/moderators made possie such diverse opinions and personalities coexist 

Now, a subjective opinion/thought, in a spirit of cherished discussions (or my limited understandings thereof): if I ever plan to get a home audio system (not very likely), my ultimare test would be a comparison of live violin performance in this space (good exerpts from solo Bach and Vivaldi seasons would perfectly do) with the recording of this very performance in this very room and reproduced there.


----------



## bfreedma

PhonoPhi said:


> Trying to be brief and not personal (acceprting the clear fact that there is no science here, just more scientific-like opinions and quasi-scientific long essays).
> 
> The really great aspect of this forum is that wise moderation/moderators made possie such diverse opinions and personalities coexist
> 
> Now, a subjective opinion/thought, in a spirit of cherished discussions (or my limited understandings thereof): if I ever plan to get a home audio system (not very likely), my ultimare test would be a comparison of live violin performance in this space (good exerpts from solo Bach and Vivaldi seasons would perfectly do) with the recording of this very performance in this very room and reproduced there.



There is a great deal of science and scientific method here.

That you choose to ignore it or don't have the background to understand it doesn't change that.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 3, 2022)

bfreedma said:


> There is a great deal of science and scientific method here.
> 
> That you choose to ignore it or don't have the background to understand it doesn't change that.


Providing proper scientific reference has been refused in writing.

As well, no useful answers to my direct questions (at least three times).
I perfectly accept that "no one is under any obligation" to answer my questions, but then the tone of the pretense of being helpfully scientific or scientifically helpful may need to go down a bit...


----------



## bfreedma

PhonoPhi said:


> Providing proper scientific reference has been refused in writing.
> 
> Then no useful answers to my direct questions (at least three times).
> I perfectly accept that "no one is under any obligation" to answer my questions, but than the tone of the pretense of being helpfully scientific or scientifically helpful may need to go down a bit...



What has been refused in writing is doing your research for you.  No one has any obligation to explain a link posted in response to one of your crackpot theories.  Bring something interesting/possible to the discussion and you’ll get better responses.


----------



## bigshot

You guys have fun with it. You grab on harder than I’m willing to. I’ll just keep on doing it my way. It would be really nice if you could stay focused on practical and useful info. You’ve both got a lot to offer. But you spar with the trolls so much, I guess everybody seems like a troll to you. I don’t see any reason to fight.


----------



## jagwap

PhonoPhi said:


> Trying to be brief and not personal (acceprting the clear fact that there is no science here, just more scientific-like opinions and quasi-scientific long essays).
> 
> The really great aspect of this forum is that wise moderation/moderators made possie such diverse opinions and personalities coexist
> 
> Now, a subjective opinion/thought, in a spirit of cherished discussions (or my limited understandings thereof): if I ever plan to get a home audio system (not very likely), my ultimare test would be a comparison of live violin performance in this space (good exerpts from solo Bach and Vivaldi seasons would perfectly do) with the recording of this very performance in this very room and reproduced there.


That is an interesting test. There is a raft of detail to get into regarding micing up the performer, which I know my limitations on, and will not get into.

However, I have heard string instruments well replayed often on great systems. The same with steel guitars and others, almost like they're in the room.

Now brass, that's tougher. Only once have I heard a trumpet hanging in mid air, with a quality of realism that astounded. Piano, never.


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> Trying to be brief and not personal (acceprting the clear fact that there is no science here, just more scientific-like opinions and quasi-scientific long essays).
> 
> The really great aspect of this forum is that wise moderation/moderators made possie such diverse opinions and personalities coexist
> 
> Now, a subjective opinion/thought, in a spirit of cherished discussions (or my limited understandings thereof): if I ever plan to get a home audio system (not very likely), my ultimare test would be a comparison of live violin performance in this space (good exerpts from solo Bach and Vivaldi seasons would perfectly do) with the recording of this very performance in this very room and reproduced there.


I worked for a speaker company who set up a cellist between a pair of their premier speakers behind a curtain and sat a professor of musicology in front who testified he could not pick the difference on a national tv program . Great marketing but it didn't really prove anything 

Real scientific research is generally reserved for important questions that save lives or drive economies . Much of what we discuss isn't very important so to get to real science we need to distil things down which then becomes dry and technical requiring strong background knowledge to avoid misinterpreting


----------



## Davesrose

Dogmatrix said:


> Real scientific research is generally reserved for important questions that save lives or drive economies . Much of what we discuss isn't very important so to get to real science we need to distil things down which then becomes dry and technical requiring strong background knowledge to avoid misinterpreting



Wow, so even though there are many accepted sciences in physics, computer science, anthropology, comparative anatomy, neurology, political science, economics, geology, etc....the only "real" ones are for human medicine or economical?  Today I watched Moonfall: it's an entertaining movie...but you really have to turn your brain off when it comes to anything based in reality: especially concepts in physics.  I don't really view this forum as "science" because it's not a peer reviewed science source. We get folks that are sensational and are pseudoscience, and then we have folks  that try to be authoritative from their backgrounds in something more audio (whether pro audio or being an authority on this forum).   I'm experienced within the medical realm: articles are submitted through different sources, but get more traction through continued relevance and citations.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Davesrose said:


> Wow, so even though there are many accepted sciences in physics, computer science, anthropology, comparative anatomy, neurology, political science, economics, geology, etc....the only "real" ones are for human medicine or economical?  Today I watched Moonfall: it's an entertaining movie...but you really have to turn your brain off when it comes to anything based in reality: especially concepts in physics.  I don't really view this forum as "science" because it's not a peer reviewed science source. We get folks that are sensational and are pseudoscience, and then we have folks  that try to be authoritative from their backgrounds in something more audio (whether pro audio or being an authority on this forum).   I'm experienced within the medical realm: articles are submitted through different sources, but get more traction through continued relevance and citations.


Any forum is a reflection of its contributors the title is only an ambition 
Expecting formal science because the sub heading includes the word science would be unrealistic


----------



## 71 dB (Apr 4, 2022)

This place is becoming really strange. Of course this isn't peer reviewed_ s_cience, but that doesn't mean discussion here can't be more fact/science -based than on a board where people share their subjective feelings-based opinions about snake oil cables and what not.


----------



## Dogmatrix

71 dB said:


> This place is becoming really strange. Of course this isn't peer reviewed_ s_cience, but that doesn't mean discussion here can't be more fact/science -based than on a board where people share their subjective feelings-based opinions about snake oil cables and what not.


Make it so number one


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> You grab on harder than I’m willing to.


You say that but then in almost the very next sentence, there you are, grabbing on hard yet again ...


bigshot said:


> It would be really nice if you could stay focused on practical and useful info.


Practical and useful info for whom? You and your personal home stereo or anyone who may visit and read what's been posted? If it's the latter, who gets to decide what's practical or useful for anyone/everyone? It's not me and it's not you, so I'll carry on providing all the relevant info (as far as I'm able) and let the reader decide what's useful for them!


Davesrose said:


> [1] Wow, so even though there are many accepted sciences in physics, computer science, anthropology, comparative anatomy, neurology, political science, economics, geology, etc....the only "real" ones are for human medicine or economical? ... [2] I don't really view this forum as "science" because it's not a peer reviewed science source.


1. I'm not really sure that's what he meant. Research funding is certainly channelled according to potential economic returns, even in medicine that saves lives, there's more research in areas that are more common than in rare deceases that kill but you're a medical professional and would know better than me. In the case of audio, there's been massive amounts of research because of the economic returns, not so much of audio products per se but because audio is part of telecoms and therefore is also an issue of national security. Much/Most of what we have in the audio world was invented for the telecoms industry, often many decades ago, so it can be difficult to locate today because the company may have published it themselves, published in various scientific journals or used international bodies (ITU, EBU, etc.) and those documents are often deprecated.
2. It's a public sound science discussion forum, not a peer reviewed scientific publication forum.


jagwap said:


> However, I have heard string instruments well replayed often on great systems. The same with steel guitars and others, almost like they're in the room.
> 
> Now brass, that's tougher. Only once have I heard a trumpet hanging in mid air, with a quality of realism that astounded.


Brass is typically harder because the sound we're used to is generally more reliant on reflections. I have heard recordings and reproductions that are indistinguishable, however, that's in commercial studios with great monitoring environments. There was a published DBT study done some years ago, can't remember where now and don't have the time to look it up but it has been linked to in this subforum previously. Musicians and speakers behind a screen in a concert hall, test subjects trying to differentiate between them, results no better than random chance.

G


----------



## bigshot

Reflections are a huge part of sound in concert halls. Back in the early days of recording, Edison sponsored "Tone Tests" where they put a singer and a diamond disk phonograph on stage, turned off the lights and the singer started singing. At some point the singer would exit in the dark and the lights would come up revealing the phonograph finishing the song.


----------



## F208Frank

gregorio said:


> You say that but then in almost the very next sentence, there you are, grabbing on hard yet again ...
> 
> Practical and useful info for whom? You and your personal home stereo or anyone who may visit and read what's been posted? If it's the latter, who gets to decide what's practical or useful for anyone/everyone? It's not me and it's not you, so I'll carry on providing all the relevant info (as far as I'm able) and let the reader decide what's useful for them!
> 
> ...


Gregorio do you feel cables matter at all? I read a few of your responses and you always give such a strong response.

Let me go first, I myself found the cable making the most difference to be the headphone or IEM cable.

Second for me it would be the IC, and then I would lump USB and power together. 

Admittedly I do not spend crazy amounts of money on cables and I do agree they are in the land of heavy diminishing returns, but I do enjoy having at least some "decent" cables.


----------



## gregorio

F208Frank said:


> Gregorio do you feel cables matter at all?


Sure, good quality counts for me personally, because in a professional environment cables can take a bit of a beating and you can’t afford a failure if they’re running behind walls. The difference between me (+ others in pro-audio) and much of the audiophile communìty is that good quality doesn’t actually cost much. Neutrik connectors are about $3, cable also just a few bucks a metre, there’s no performance benefit paying more than that. Some of my cables are fairly expensive but that’s because they’re quite long runs of multi-core (16x3, 25 D-Sub, for example). 

Headphone and IEM cable can make a bit of difference as far as comfort is concerned. The rest is just appearance and snake oil, with a huge mark-up. There isn’t even a diminishing return. 

G


----------



## Chimmy9278 (May 26, 2022)

Recently found this video: 

Apologies if it has already been discussed before, but I still have a few questions.

Now, a disclaimer, after learning about null testing, I am confident a passive cable, regardless of marketing, sounds the same as any other cheap cable with the same physical specs in terms of length and girth. In other words capacitance and resistance, and most cases these difference are too small to matter even if it is measurable, so cables sounds the same.

The video is ABing between 2 cables, $120 and $4800. The AB testing done in this video by Jay yielded mostly random results, insignificant as he says, so we can ignore those, but in his testing, he guessed correctly which one is which 9 times in a row, which is very impressive (14 minute mark). My calculation for the probability of that happening per chance is 1/512, or 0.1953%.

Which begs the question, was he just lucky or do the cables actually have a difference.
Now, I did not see him mention anywhere the specs of the expensive cable, e.g. if it is passive or active and its size. Secondly, the AB testing he is doing here with guaranteed switching can and will induce a bias in which the listener will be forced to find a difference since he knows it has been switched for certain.

Can someone help me out here? My guess is that he used an active cable.


----------



## PointyFox (May 26, 2022)

Chimmy9278 said:


> Recently found this video:
> 
> Apologies if it has already been discussed before, but I still have a few questions.
> 
> ...




The likelihood he'd guess 9 out of 9 is lower than what he did, which was guess 9 out of 10 right.
If the test was completely blind and he couldn't tell the difference, the odds of him guessing 9 out of 10 is a bit higher at 1.074 %.
I could see his ears weren't plugged. Maybe he could tell by the unplugging/replugging sounds?

I was playing one of the Zelda games and there's this minigame where you have to guess the correct box out of 2 five times in a row. I did it on my first try, not knowing I was supposed to cheat with a certain item to tell me which was correct. The odds of getting 5/5 is only around 3.1 %.


----------



## Chimmy9278

PointyFox said:


> The likelihood he'd guess 9 out of 9 is lower than what he did, which was guess 9 out of 10 right.
> If the test was completely blind and he couldn't tell the difference, the odds of him guessing 9 out of 10 is a bit higher at 1.074 %.
> I could see his ears weren't plugged. Maybe he could tell by the unplugging/replugging sounds?


Now now, we should have good faith for him not cheating with this in between plugging sound.

Perhaps I missed something on that rag written with his results. Are there 10 trials? Will need to recheck. My math on probability is also shaky, time to ask on stack about how 9/10 tries yield a higher possibility then 9/9.

But indeed we might have to resort to him cheating if the info on the expensive cable is not provided.


----------



## KeithEmo

Chimmy9278 said:


> Recently found this video:
> 
> Apologies if it has already been discussed before, but I still have a few questions.
> 
> ...



First let me admit that I sort of skimmed the video.... I did watch all of it... but not all carefully.

First - I agree with you entirely - there is no reason for "a more expensive cable" to be able to do ANYTHING better than a cheap cable in terms of actually transmitting the signal to the speaker. There may be a few amplifiers out there that are very sensitive to RF interference picked up by the speaker cables - in which case a shielded speaker cable might help. But there are also a few amplifiers that are sensitive to capacitance - and those few may have problems with the extra capacitance in a shielded cable. It is worth mentioning that some expensive cables DO have really odd electrical characteristics which may cause some amplifiers to act oddly... and could cause the audio to sound different... but, if so, they are ALTERING THE SIGNAL, and not "carrying it better".

Also, as far as I know, there is no such thing as an "active speaker cable". (Putting a DC bias on the insulation, or an outer shield, serves no technical purpose at audio frequencies, and does NOT make the cable itself "active".)

Second - If ANYONE heard ANY difference in an online test then it was due to something external. Just look at the signal path: Original amplifier, to speaker cable, to speaker, to microphone, to analog-to-digital converter, to a digital file, to playing that file back on a DAC, going to an amplifier, going to another speaker cable, going to another speaker. There are MANY places in that signal path that are almost certain to produce differences far more significant than those we're testing for... so, even if there was some real subtle difference in that original speaker cable, it would be entirely obscured by those other differences. (To put that differently any difference in the original speaker cables would have to be huge to make it through all that other gear.)

Now... there are lots of ways in which people can be biased to prefer one thing over another when there is no actual difference. There are obvious things, like hearing switching noises, or the tone of voice of the person asking the questions, or waiting to see what others pick. There are also more subtle things like the order in which things are listed. In taste tests of foods people will often consistently choose "the brighter one", or "the one on the right", or the first one they taste. With music, we tend to hear more details after hearing a track multiple times, which may make later runs sound better or worse (depending on whether we notice more good details or more flaws).

And, finally, they did mention that they are using Class-D amplifiers. As a broad generalization Class D amplifiers tend to be more sensitive to the electrical characteristics of their load, which includes the speaker cables. Therefore it is not impossible that a Class-D amp might sound different with speaker cables having different capacitance. Note that this would NOT mean that one was better, and it would simply be random what sort of difference would be heard with different amplifiers and different cables.

I also didn't really look at his methodology....

For example, even though he didn't tell the listeners which was which, did he say "here's cable A" and now "here's cable B"?

The proper way to do this is to have each listener listen to a whole bunch of trials...
Not knowing which cable they are listening to each time...
And not specifically switching each time (each trial is independently random)
Have them write down their results...
Then tally them later...

This avoids certain known problematic psychological effects..... 
For example, even if I don't know which cable it is, once I say "I think that Cable #1 has a wider sound stage" ....
I am biased to actually HEAR a wider sound stage the next time I listen to Cable #1 ...
(And that effect is magnified if I say so - to other people - and especially if I say it out loud - to people I know.)
The way to avoid this is to have me listen to 20 trials - not tell me which cable I'm hearing each time - and tally the results. 
And do the same with the other test subjects.
(I should also be instructed to write down my results - and NOT share them with the other listeners - until done.)
(In fact - we should be isolated- so we cannot see each other smile or frown during a particular trial.)

In short his test seemed quite informal....
(Which he did admit several times.)


----------



## Chimmy9278 (May 26, 2022)

KeithEmo said:


> First let me admit that I sort of skimmed the video.... I did watch all of it... but not all carefully.
> 
> First - I agree with you entirely - there is no reason for "a more expensive cable" to be able to do ANYTHING better than a cheap cable in terms of actually transmitting the signal to the speaker. There may be a few amplifiers out there that are very sensitive to RF interference picked up by the speaker cables - in which case a shielded speaker cable might help. But there are also a few amplifiers that are sensitive to capacitance - and those few may have problems with the extra capacitance in a shielded cable. It is worth mentioning that some expensive cables DO have really odd electrical characteristics which may cause some amplifiers to act oddly... and could cause the audio to sound different... but, if so, they are ALTERING THE SIGNAL, and not "carrying it better".
> 
> ...


By active cabling I mean there are some tweaks to the cables in which might alter the signal, but since he didn’t tell us what expensive cable he used, we can never know about that. Which is in turn the biggest flaw of this test, not recording the variables!

While like you said, a class D might be more sensitive, the difference does not mean one cable is better than the other, and I doubt those differences are audible anyways. Just turning up the volume should make a bigger difference than the cable.

So like you said, his comment about soundstage is most likely influenced by previous comments. Yet what I am curious about is not his comments, but the objective test results of 9/10 guesses being correct. I do not think the elements you mentioned above, which are good points, has enough effect to produce this result.


----------



## PointyFox (May 26, 2022)

There are a ton of blind studies that have hilarious results, like the test between a high end audio cable and a coat hanger that no one could pass or the guy who promised a $10,000 prize to anyone who could identify which amplifier was playing 12/12 times (a few thousand audiophiles have taken the test and failed).

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/

A good one is the "legendary study that embarrassed wine experts" where a guy had 54 wine tasting students taste test a red and white wine. A week later he took the same white wine and dyed half of it red with tasteless food coloring. The students then described the dyed white wine the same as they did the red wine a week earlier, which was completely different than how they described the undyed white.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

So...the tastes that wine experts are tasting are mostly based on the color of the wine, not the actual taste. A similar thing to tasting also happens with hearing.


----------



## gregorio

Chimmy9278 said:


> Which begs the question, was he just lucky or do the cables actually have a difference.


Well cables do actually have a measurable difference, the problem we have is that those differences are typically 1,000-100,000 times below audibility, so not even close to audible. This of course assumes the same basic length, gauge, etc. I didn’t watch the whole vid but I assume these basic specs were the same?

There’s clearly some problems with their methodology and they admit some of them. It really needs to be a double blind test or better still, avoid all those related potential issues by doing an ABX. Just being lucky is of course a possibility but I’d put my money on a methodology fault. I’m sure Ethan Winer would have helped them out with an ABX switch if they’d asked.

G


----------



## Chimmy9278

gregorio said:


> Well cables do actually have a measurable difference, the problem we have is that those differences are typically 1,000-100,000 times below audibility, so not even close to audible. This of course assumes the same basic length, gauge, etc. I didn’t watch the whole vid but I assume these basic specs were the same?
> 
> There’s clearly some problems with their methodology and they admit some of them. It really needs to be a double blind test or better still, avoid all those related potential issues by doing an ABX. Just being lucky is of course a possibility but I’d put my money on a methodology fault. I’m sure Ethan Winer would have helped them out with an ABX switch if they’d asked.
> 
> G


All of the problems in their method probably caused this 9 in a row hit.

Though an ABX switch for cables blind testing would be more expensive, since you will need two sets of cables, amp to switch, switch to speakers, increasing the budget for their choice of a $4800 cable.


----------



## iFi audio

Chimmy9278 said:


> By active cabling I mean there are some tweaks to the cables in which might alter the signal,



These tweaks are active as in: powered, then that would be an active cable.


----------



## gregorio

Chimmy9278 said:


> Though an ABX switch for cables blind testing would be more expensive, since you will need two sets of cables, amp to switch, switch to speakers, increasing the budget for their choice of a $4800 cable.


Or just a very short cheap wide gauge cable from amp to switch and then the expensive one from switch to speakers. If that bothers any cable purists, they could just cut the expensive cables in half 

G


----------



## gregorio

iFi audio said:


> These tweaks are active as in: powered, then that would be an active cable.


How do you power a speaker cable? Obviously you can power the signal in the cable but isn’t that already being done by the amp?

G


----------



## iFi audio

gregorio said:


> How do you power a speaker cable? Obviously you can power the signal in the cable but isn’t that already being done by the amp?



I'm not sure how would you do that on a speaker cable, but one of our power cords features an active circuit that measures signal from the mains and artificially generates its oppositely phased wave to cancel noise, which in principle is similar to ANC in headphones.


----------



## Chimmy9278

iFi audio said:


> I'm not sure how would you do that on a speaker cable, but one of our power cords features an active circuit that measures signal from the mains and artificially generates its oppositely phased wave to cancel noise, which in principle is similar to ANC in headphones.


I really did mean an interconnect cable that has components to adulterate the signal.


KeithEmo said:


> Putting a DC bias on the insulation, or an outer shield, serves no technical purpose at audio frequencies, and does NOT make the cable itself "active".


Indeed, I have seen cables that does this, but since Jay never told us what that cable is, we will never know if there are some “clever” engineering aside from active shielding on the cable that enabled him to guess correctly so many times. I used to term active merely to categorize any cables that have fancy things added to them rather than just carrying the signal.


----------



## Chimmy9278

Kevin Gilmore has already tried cryogenic audio set up, didn't help much. 

This video is supposed to be ironic, right? He said later on it is placebo.


----------



## gregorio

Chimmy9278 said:


> This video is supposed to be ironic, right?




G


----------



## iFi audio

Chimmy9278 said:


> I really did mean an interconnect cable that has components to adulterate the signal.



I haven't yet seen such a cable that would feature an externally powered box with circuits designed to modify the signal, but who knows, maybe it exists.


----------



## DougD

PointyFox said:


> There are a ton of blind studies that have hilarious results, like the test between a high end audio cable and a coat hanger that no one could pass or the guy who promised a $10,000 prize to anyone who could identify which amplifier was playing 12/12 times (a few thousand audiophiles have taken the test and failed).
> 
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/
> 
> ...



In many ways, the human brain is not a reliable measurement instrument for objective testing. It really is hardwired to do just the opposite, to allow prior experiences to influence current decisions. So we get probability-based decisions, but made faster. Which is useful for survival. (That's my simplistic summary of some of Daniel Kahneman's work.) The brain has learned that red wine has certain characteristics different than white wine, and it's hard to get the brain to ignore that.

And that's also why it is difficult to design and do a truly blind A-B test immune from potential bias. (I didn't want to spend 38 minutes watching the cable-test video, so I don't know exactly how they set up that test.)


----------



## iFi audio

DougD said:


> And that's also why it is difficult to design and do a truly blind A-B test immune from potential bias.



Any such comparisons are quite exhaustive and that also makes them difficult.


----------



## bigshot

It depends on your purpose. If you’re looking to submit for peer review, you need to cover all your bases. But if you aren’t a research scientist, any controls are better than no controls at all.

But with most of the things that are argued in Head Fi, it’s pointless because the science behind it has most likely already been worked out by the AES and others.


----------



## iFi audio

bigshot said:


> AES



I've just googled that and found Advanced Encryption Standard, but that's probably not what you had in mind  ?


----------



## sander99

@iFi audio: audio engineering society


----------



## bigshot

Sorry, I try to avoid acronyms. Sometimes I slip up. Here you go... https://aes2.org


----------



## iFi audio

sander99 said:


> @iFi audio: audio engineering society


Thanks, I feel this much smarter already


----------



## gregorio

iFi audio said:


> I've just googled that and found Advanced Encryption Standard, but that's probably not what you had in mind?


I take it you’re joking?


----------



## iFi audio

gregorio said:


> I take it you’re joking?



Nope, I really had no idea what these three letters meant, hence the question 

Upon seeing i.e. ASR I wouldn't even ask


----------



## gregorio (May 31, 2022)

iFi audio said:


> Nope, I really had no idea what these three letters meant, hence the question


How do you implement the AES digital input on your DACs if you don’t know what the AES is, or how to look it up and actually find the AES specifications? Not to mention all the other basic audio science/engineering published by them?

G

Edit: TBH, I’m more than a little shocked!


----------



## iFi audio (May 31, 2022)

gregorio said:


> How do you implement the AES digital input on your DACs if you don’t know what the AES is, or how to look it up and actually find the AES specifications?



It's not me who has to know how to do these things, our engineers do that. I'm iFi's rep here on Head-fi.



gregorio said:


> G
> 
> Edit: TBH, I’m more than a little shocked!



Suffice it to say, I don't have to know what each acronym stands for. But I know of Audio Engineering Society


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> How do you implement the AES digital input on your DACs if you don’t know what the AES is, or how to look it up and actually find the AES specifications? Not to mention all the other basic audio science/engineering published by them?
> 
> G
> 
> Edit: TBH, I’m more than a little shocked!



Google gave me 4 links discussing 3 different meanings before giving me wikipedia for the encryption format, and there is simply no sign of ”our” AES in the first 3 pages of search for me unless I add ”audio” to the search and then get it instantly.
Beyond that, he just didn’t know what he didn’t know. Not much he could do about it. Acronyms are so overused here in France that you keep hearing the same ones in completely unrelated conversations. It’s a real PITA(not standing for: Paranormal Investigation Team of Atlanta).


----------



## gregorio

iFi audio said:


> I'm iFi's rep here on Head-fi.


My bad, I obviously knew you are ifi’s rep here but I mistakenly thought you actually knew about the technicalities of ifi’s products. Most of the reps here seem to be the designers, engineers and/or owners. 

G


----------



## iFi audio

gregorio said:


> I mistakenly thought you actually knew about the technicalities of ifi’s products. Most of the reps here seem to be the designers, engineers and/or owners.



It's OK. Just to clarify, I know tech inside our (...and outher manufacturers') products to quite a degree, but that doesn't mean that I have to be familiar with every acronym, whether it's industry related or not. Hope this helps, thanks!


----------



## chesebert

iFi audio said:


> It's OK. Just to clarify, I know tech inside our (...and outher manufacturers') products to quite a degree, but that doesn't mean that I have to be familiar with every acronym, whether it's industry related or not. Hope this helps, thanks!


FYI, the AES/EBU digital input on iFi and AMR dacs was developed jointly by AES and EBU   Don’t we all love acronyms


----------



## gimmeheadroom (May 31, 2022)

chesebert said:


> FYI, the AES/EBU digital input on iFi and AMR dacs was developed jointly by AES and EBU   Don’t we all love acronyms


I "believe" [1] that EBU adds the requirement for transformers at each end; that's not required by the AES standard alone but rather an addon from our European buddies (I have a lot of people on ignore so I may have missed if somebody said that EBU is European Broadcast Union.)

[1] obligatory "statement of belief" since we're in the sound science forum section


----------



## iFi audio

chesebert said:


> the AES/EBU digital input on iFi and AMR dacs was developed jointly by AES and EBU



Was it  ?



chesebert said:


> Don’t we all love acronyms



I'm starting to love them more and more


----------



## gimmeheadroom

iFi audio said:


> I'm starting to love them more and more



You can get help from ALA - Acronym Lovers Anonymous


----------



## iFi audio

gimmeheadroom said:


> Acronym Lovers Anonymous



FYI, just found their address, thanks LOL ROTFL


----------



## bigshot (Jun 1, 2022)

EVERYBODY POUNCE!







It isn't an acronym. It's an anagram for the ocean.


----------



## Mink

It is mind boggling to me why anyone would want to spend big money on cables. First of all, if there are audible differences, these differences are subtle at best, even the most die hard cable believer would agree on this. Yes there are (supposed) golden eared audiophiles, who supposedly can pick apart differences more easily, but they would still agree that those audible differences are way less obvious than differences between speakers, headphones, applying room treatment and applying EQ.
So why spend time and money on the least effective way of improving the sound?


----------



## gregorio

Mink said:


> It is mind boggling to me why anyone would want to spend big money on cables.


You’ve answered your own question. For some audiophiles, spending big money on cables boggles their mind into believing they sound better. 


Mink said:


> First of all, if there are audible differences,


There aren’t though, differences are tiny and way, way below audibility. 


Mink said:


> these differences are subtle at best, even the most die hard cable believer would agree on this.


That’s not entirely true, some die hard cable believers are convinced the differences are “night and day”. 


Mink said:


> Yes there are (supposed) golden eared audiophiles, who supposedly can pick apart differences more easily,


But only under certain conditions. For example, under controlled listening test conditions audiophile cables and equipment emit a damping field which temporarily turns golden eared audiophiles into normally hearing human beings. Science has documented these results countless times, without a single exception but hasn’t yet determined the nature of this damping field.


Mink said:


> So why spend time and money on the least effective way of improving the sound?


Because that’s what being a modern audiophile is all about! It’s got nothing to do with the actual sound and everything to do with spending time and money for bragging rights and to elicit a placebo effect. 

G


----------



## Mink

To be frank, I am not entirely insensitive to shiny audio jewelry.  My cables, RCA interconnects (WireWorld Oasis 5) and digital ones (RU connected) aren't the cheapest you can buy, yes I selected them for looks and built , but at least they didn't cost me more than 50 euro per cable or pair of cables. Still I think I must have overpaid


----------



## Mink

And to further indulge my shallow taste for audio related aesthetics (well at least I do find the cable to look rather pretty) and because I never tried this sort of cable myself, I have bought myself a fancy power cable from Amazon.
Nothing really expensive (28 Euro), but still more costly than an average one you can get for 6 bucks or less (and obviously free with the DAC/Amp you have bought.
Let's find out how well this cable "greatly reduces noise and enhances the entire audio system with wider dynamics".
My guess is that it does jack s**t, but oh well, at least it looks nice


----------



## Dogmatrix

Mink said:


> And to further indulge my shallow taste for audio related aesthetics (well at least I do find the cable to look rather pretty) and because I never tried this sort of cable myself, I have bought myself a fancy power cable from Amazon.
> Nothing really expensive (28 Euro), but still more costly than an average one you can get for 6 bucks or less (and obviously free with the DAC/Amp you have bought.
> Let's find out how well this cable "greatly reduces noise and enhances the entire audio system with wider dynamics".
> My guess is that it does jack s**t, but oh well, at least it looks nice


I don't understand all the fuss really our consumer driven world is full of expensive products that offer no benefit over more reasonably priced alternatives , it is possible to pay 20K for a bag not a bag of anything just a freakin bag


----------



## BobG55 (Jun 1, 2022)

Dogmatrix said:


> I don't understand all the fuss really our consumer driven world is full of expensive products that offer no benefit over more reasonably priced alternatives , it is possible to pay 20K for a bag not a bag of anything just a freakin bag


That reminds me of something the former great middleweight boxing champion, Bernard Hopkins, said during an interview a few years ago.  He was asked how he was doing financially and I’ll never forget part of his reply : “A Timex keeps time just as well as a Rolex”.  He was saying in part that he never squandered his money on things/ material which he considered to be a waste.


----------



## chesebert (Jun 1, 2022)

Dogmatrix said:


> I don't understand all the fuss really our consumer driven world is full of expensive products that offer no benefit over more reasonably priced alternatives , it is possible to pay 20K for a bag not a bag of anything just a freakin bag


Wrong website  Headfi's entire purpose is to help you spend as much money as you can on useless electronics and meet people who are spending just as much and even more than you are on useless electronics.

Had you bought a $20k bag 10 years ago you could probably sell that same bag for $40k now.

Had you bought a $20k Rolex 10 years ago, you could probably sell that same Rolex for $80k now.


----------



## bigshot

Action Comics no 1 sold for a dime. Because something is expensive today, it doesn’t mean it will be worth more in the future. Just ask people with large collections of Franklin Mint silver coins from the 70s.


----------



## gregorio (Jun 2, 2022)

Dogmatrix said:


> I don't understand all the fuss really our consumer driven world is full of expensive products that offer no benefit over more reasonably priced alternatives …


They do offer a benefit; prestige, exclusivity, brand name, build quality, etc. What they don’t offer is a practical benefit in their basic functionality. Louis Vuitton doesn’t falsely advertise or imply their bags will improve the quality of whatever you carry around inside them. The reason there’s a fuss here, is because audiophile products virtually always do make that false claim.


BobG55 said:


> “A Timex keeps time just as well as a Rolex”.


Another example. Rolex don’t claim their watches tell time more accurately or better than far cheaper electronic watches, they just claim the best raw materials, finest workmanship, prestige, etc.


Mink said:


> To be frank, I am not entirely insensitive to shiny audio jewelry.


That’s fine and entirely up to you and anyone else of course. The problem is that it’s not advertised as only shiny audio jewellery, it’s advertised as actually improving system performance. As you quote:


Mink said:


> Let's find out how well this cable "greatly reduces noise and enhances the entire audio system with wider dynamics".


No better than any other, cheaper power cable that’s appropriately specified for the task. The only thing it could “enhance”, beyond aesthetic appearance, is a placebo effect and that’s only because of the false advertising!

G


----------



## Dogmatrix (Jun 2, 2022)

chesebert said:


> Wrong website  Headfi's entire purpose is to help you spend as much money as you can on useless electronics and meet people who are spending just as much and even more than you are on useless electronics.
> 
> Had you bought a $20k bag 10 years ago you could probably sell that same bag for $40k now.
> 
> Had you bought a $20k Rolex 10 years ago, you could probably sell that same Rolex for $80k now.


I'm not stupid I put all my cash into crypto and NFT
Actually 20 years ago I bought a house for 45K one just down the road almost identical sold for 350K last month 
So I should have bought a bag and watch instead


----------



## Dogmatrix

Prestige is interesting and relevant
Wouldn't the seller be implying that others will be impressed by the mere mention of their brand
Snake oil ?


----------



## iFi audio

Mink said:


> My guess is that it does jack s**t, but oh well, at least it looks nice



It looks nice indeed


----------



## Mink

Does anyone remember that Maxell audio tape commercial? Well that's exactly what happened when I plugged this power cord in and listened to a few bars: I was blown away!



Just kidding. The cable looks cool though


----------



## iFi audio

Mink said:


> Does anyone remember that Maxell audio tape commercial? Well that's exactly what happened when I plugged this power cord in and listened to a few bars: I was blown away!



I imagine that you were 

And I do remember that commercial. I also remember this variant with a butler:


----------



## Mink

Haha, nice one!


----------



## gregorio

Mink said:


> Well that's exactly what happened when I plugged this power cord in and listened to a few bars:


What? You plugged that power cord in and you got so much tape hiss it ripped the socket from the wall? 

G


----------



## 71 dB

Here is an idea: 

Since electricity doesn't really travel inside the electric cables, but rather _around_ the cables as an electromagnetic field, how about selling *snake-oil air* to audiophools?


----------



## ModRQC

Prog Rock Man said:


> *(As I find more blind tests I will add them to the list here.)*
> 
> So, we love to have a good discussion/argument/rant here (and on all the other audio forums I have seen) about the many claims audiophiles make that others dismiss as myths. The arguments go round in circles; I hear a difference - but there cannot be a difference, it is all in your mind - have you tried different cables? - I don’t need to it is all in your mind etc etc, we all know how it goes.
> 
> ...



Thanks! A most interesting read.


----------



## upstateguy

Mink said:


> And to further indulge my shallow taste for audio related aesthetics (well at least I do find the cable to look rather pretty) and because I never tried this sort of cable myself, I have bought myself a fancy power cable from Amazon.
> Nothing really expensive (28 Euro), but still more costly than an average one you can get for 6 bucks or less (and obviously free with the DAC/Amp you have bought.
> Let's find out how well this cable "greatly reduces noise and enhances the entire audio system with wider dynamics".
> My guess is that it does jack s**t, but oh well, at least it looks nice


Nothing wrong with a nice looking cable.  
What device are you using it with?


----------



## Mink

This one


----------



## dougms3

71 dB said:


> Here is an idea:
> 
> Since electricity doesn't really travel inside the electric cables, but rather _around_ the cables as an electromagnetic field, how about selling *snake-oil air* to audiophools?


That is incorrect, electricity does not travel around the cable as an electro magnetic field.

It seems your confusing a few different things together.  I assume you're referring to the skin effect with solid core cables.  It doesnt work the same way with stranded wire thats bundled together without a dielectric between them.

Yes the electricity does travel inside the cable, but in a solid core cable, most of it travels closer to the surface of the core (skin effect).  Anything that carries power has an EMF and it moves with the flow of power.  The shielding and dielectric help to contain this field and also to prevent outside emi from interfering with the signal.

 Whoever told you that electricity travels around the cable as an emf is the one peddling snake oil.


----------



## castleofargh

dougms3 said:


> That is incorrect, electricity does not travel around the cable as an electro magnetic field.
> 
> It seems your confusing a few different things together.  I assume you're referring to the skin effect with solid core cables.  It doesnt work the same way with stranded wire thats bundled together without a dielectric between them.
> 
> ...


I learned that current is the flow of electrons, but that electrons move very slowly, while the energy is "carried" outside the wire very fast(speed of light or something).


----------



## 71 dB

dougms3 said:


> That is incorrect, electricity does not travel around the cable as an electro magnetic field.
> 
> It seems your confusing a few different things together.  I assume you're referring to the skin effect with solid core cables.  It doesnt work the same way with stranded wire thats bundled together without a dielectric between them.
> 
> ...


I don't bother arguing with you. I don't care what you believe.


----------



## chesebert

dougms3 said:


> That is incorrect, electricity does not travel around the cable as an electro magnetic field.
> 
> It seems your confusing a few different things together.  I assume you're referring to the skin effect with solid core cables.  It doesnt work the same way with stranded wire thats bundled together without a dielectric between them.
> 
> ...


Depending on if it’s dc or ac/signal.


----------



## bigshot

I read on a manufacturer's site that electricity flows like water, so I had all the wall jacks in my home moved up at the top of my wall, so the current can flow downhill to my stereo components.


----------



## sander99




----------



## dougms3

sander99 said:


>


----------



## dougms3

chesebert said:


> Depending on if it’s dc or ac/signal.


If they don't know which one this is in reference to, they have no business commenting on this subject.


----------



## chesebert

Looks like I responded without much context. Are we talking about skin effect in relation to audio frequency?


----------



## Davesrose

This seems like the best discussion I've seen about current in relation to stranded cables and AC vs DC https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...w-on-the-surface-of-a-wire-or-in-the-interior


----------



## gregorio

dougms3 said:


> Yes the electricity does travel inside the cable, but in a solid core cable, most of it travels closer to the surface of the core (skin effect).


No, it doesn’t. Electricity (EG. 50Hz mains) has a skin effect depth in copper cable of around 10mm (8.5mm in the case of 60Hz mains) and as consumer electrical cables are significantly less than 10mm (or 8.5mm), the electricity travels equally through the core and surface.

Skin effect depth decreases inversely to frequency, at 1kHz it’s around 1.2mm and at 20kHz it’s around 0.7mm. So, skin effect only potentially becomes an issue (skin effect depth being significantly less than the cable’s cross-sectional radius) when we get into frequencies above about 100kHz or so.

G


----------



## dougms3

gregorio said:


> No, it doesn’t. Electricity (EG. 50Hz mains) has a skin effect depth in copper cable of around 10mm (8.5mm in the case of 60Hz mains) and as consumer electrical cables are significantly less than 10mm (or 8.5mm), the electricity travels equally through the core and surface.
> 
> Skin effect depth decreases inversely to frequency, at 1kHz it’s around 1.2mm and at 20kHz it’s around 0.7mm. So, skin effect only potentially becomes an issue (skin effect depth being significantly less than the cable’s cross-sectional radius) when we get into frequencies above about 100kHz or so.
> 
> G


So you think this is an absolute regardless of gauge of wire?  Does this change with quality of copper (ie ofc, occ), silver plated copper, current, configuration of the cables (ie litz), etc?  Or are you referring to only cheap consumer "included in the box" ac cables?

There are alot of variables you're ignoring.

In DC electricity travels uniformly, not in AC.

And yes the skin effect has a greater effect above 100khz but does not mean anything under that frequency is not affected.


----------



## gregorio

dougms3 said:


> So you think this is an absolute regardless of gauge of wire?


Why would I think that when I specifically mentioned the diameter/radius of wire twice?


dougms3 said:


> Does this change with quality of copper (ie ofc, occ), silver plated copper, current, configuration of the cables (ie litz), etc?


Extremely little (insignificantly) with the quality of copper and silver plate. We’re only talking about relatively small amounts of current in an audio signal and Litz cable for example, can make a big difference but for radio freq signals, up to about 1mHz, not for signals in the audible range. 


dougms3 said:


> There are alot of variables you're ignoring.


Of course I am, because they’re irrelevant within the range of audible frequencies, audio signal currents and gauge of consumer audio cables. 


dougms3 said:


> And yes the skin effect has a greater effect above 100khz but does not mean anything under that frequency is not affected.


True, it just means the effect is so small within the audible band of freqs that it’s inaudible and irrelevant.

G


----------



## dougms3

gregorio said:


> Why would I think that when I specifically mentioned the diameter/radius of wire twice?


So what diameter /radius of wire are you specifically referencing with those exact measurements in mm? You know, since you didn't mention that.


gregorio said:


> Extremely little (insignificantly) with the quality of copper and silver plate. We’re only talking about relatively small amounts of current in an audio signal and Litz cable for example, can make a big difference but for radio freq signals, up to about 1mHz, not for signals in the audible range.
> 
> Of course I am, because they’re irrelevant within the range of audible frequencies, audio signal currents and gauge of consumer audio cables.
> 
> ...


All the numbers change withthe number of the current so how can you be sure to say its insignificant and irrelevant but dont know the specific effects, havent tested it or know the numbers?

Variables throw a wrench in theories.  

Like Mike Tyson says "everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face."


----------



## bfreedma

dougms3 said:


> So what diameter /radius of wire are you specifically referencing with those exact measurements in mm? You know, since you didn't mention that.
> 
> All the numbers change withthe number of the current so how can you be sure to say its insignificant and irrelevant but dont know the specific effects, havent tested it or know the numbers?
> 
> ...



All true.  And all utterly irrelevant within the range of audibility for cables used in any normal home audio scenario.

If you have a specific example of a cable where you feel what you posted is actually impacting audibility, now would be a great time to share the specifics.


----------



## gregorio

dougms3 said:


> So what diameter /radius of wire are you specifically referencing with those exact measurements in mm? You know, since you didn't mention that.


I didn’t mention it because it doesn’t matter, as I’ve already stated. Depth of skin effect depends on the frequency of the signal. 


dougms3 said:


> All the numbers change withthe number of the current so how can you be sure to say its insignificant and irrelevant but dont know the specific effects, havent tested it or know the numbers?


Except I have tested it, countless times. 


dougms3 said:


> Variables throw a wrench in theories.


What variables?


dougms3 said:


> Like Mike Tyson says "everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face."


What punch in the face?

G


----------



## dougms3

gregorio said:


> I didn’t mention it because it doesn’t matter, as I’ve already stated. Depth of skin effect depends on the frequency of the signal.
> 
> Except I have tested it, countless times.
> 
> ...


If you state exact numbers, the number of the diamter/radius matters alot.  

Are these countless tests super secret to gregario only?  Does it apply to everyone as a fact or only in your experience?

All of the greek letters in the formula are called variables.

The skin depth and the resistance per square (of any size), in meter-kilogram-second (rationalized) units, are

δ=(λ/πσμc)1/2Rsq=1/δσ
where,
δ = skin depth in meters,
_R_sq= resistance per square in ohms,
_c_ = velocity of light _in vacuo_
= 2.998 × 108meter/second,
μ = 4π _x_10−7×_r_henry/meter,
1/σ = 1.724 × 10−8ρ/ρ_c_ohm-meter.
For numerical computations
δ = (3.82 × 10−4λ1/2)_k_1
= (6.61/_f_1/2)_k_1centimeter
δ = (1.50 × 10−4λ1/2)_k_1,
= (2.60/_f_1/2)_k_1inch
δ_m_ = (2.60/_fmc_1/2)_k_1, mil
_R_sq= (4.52 × 10−3/λl/2)_k_2
= (2.61 × 10−7_f_1/2)_k_2ohm
_k_1= [(1/μ_r_)ρ/ρ_c_]1/2
_k_2 = (μrρ/ρc)
_k_1,_k_2= unity for copper
_Example:_ What is the resistance/foot of a cylindrical copper conductor of diameter _D_ inches?
R=(12/πD)Rsq=(12/πD)×2.61×10−7(f1/2)=0.996×10−6(f1/2)/Dohm/foot
If _D_ = 1.00 inch and _f_ = 100 × 106hertz, then _R_ = 0.996 × 10−6x 104≈ 1 × 10−2ohm/foot.

And that formula is does not account for magnetic permeability and is calculated with NO dielectric.

That's called an analogy the punch is the variable.


----------



## gregorio

dougms3 said:


> Are these countless tests super secret to gregario only? Does it apply to everyone as a fact or only in your experience?


Anyone can do a null test between the signal entering a cable and the signal exiting, and countless tens of thousands have done. 


dougms3 said:


> All of the greek letters in the formula are called variables.


So you think Pi is a variable?


dougms3 said:


> If _D_ = 1.00 inch and _f_ = 100 × 106hertz, then _R_ = 0.996 × 10−6x 104≈ 1 × 10−2ohm/foot.
> And that formula is does not account for magnetic permeability and is calculated with NO dielectric.
> That's called an analogy the punch is the variable.


No, that analogy is called “NONSENSE” because there are no consumer audio wires that are 1 inch in diameter! The actual range of variables we have to deal with is between about 0.01ins (30AWG) and 0.08ins (12AWG). So no punches in the face!

G


----------



## dougms3

gregorio said:


> Anyone can do a null test between the signal entering a cable and the signal exiting, and countless tens of thousands have done.
> 
> So you think Pi is a variable?
> 
> ...


So you've done this null test with every "variable" correct?  Like the aforementioned ofc, occ copper, spc, litz, gauges, pvc/ptfe/pet dielectrics, etc.

Excuse me, except pi.  Technically, it depends on how you represent it, ie 3.14, 3.141, 3.1459, well you get my drift but i digress, I'll give you that one.

What you call an analogy is an example hence it states IF d= 1".

What if i told you I've seen consumer power cables with larger than 12awg conductors, ruh roh didn't see that punch coming.


----------



## bfreedma

dougms3 said:


> So you've done this null test with every "variable" correct?  Like the aforementioned ofc, occ copper, spc, litz, gauges, pvc/ptfe/pet dielectrics, etc.
> 
> Excuse me, except pi.  Technically, it depends on how you represent it, ie 3.14, 3.141, 3.1459, well you get my drift but i digress, I'll give you that one.
> 
> ...



While I'm still unsure whether power cables *much* larger than 12awg would see audible impact, no one here said a cable could not be built incorrectly or misused for the wrong scenario.

Sure, someone can build a 1 meter diameter cable for home audio use.  But why would anyone use, let alone need that cable.

Of course, I'm sure whoever built that 1m diameter cable would offer another expensive add on product to eliminate problems caused by that cable...

So again, can you produce an actual example of a product that would suffer the issues you describe?


----------



## bigshot (Jun 23, 2022)

^ what Bfreedma says.

When it comes to fidelity, wires can't "sound better" than audibly transparent. They can only sound different. There's a threshold of perception that they have to exceed for differences to be audible. There are reasons why a wire might not be audibly transparent for a particular purpose. You wouldn't use a hammer for the same thing you use a jewelers screwdriver. But when you buy an Amazons Basics or Monoprice interconnect, it is designed to be audibly transparent for a particular purpose... transmitting line level signal three meters transparently. If you use it for that purpose it should be transparent. If it's not, that will show up in a null test or a carefully controlled listening test. We don't have to test every wire in the world to say that consumer audio cables are all audibly transparent they are used for the purpose they were designed for. That would involve millions of tests. It's up to the people who claim that one cable sounds better than another to prove their claim.

When you say a very expensive interconnect made of the rarest of hand rolled unobtanium sounds better than a regular Amazon cable, I see no reason why that might be the case, so I immediately suspect expectation bias... which is fair because expectation bias is at the root of most errors in audiophila. Cables can't sound better, only degraded. Why would every cable in the world be degraded audibly identically except this one fancy schmancy cable? It makes no sense. It's clearly expectation bias.

If you have a wire that you think sounds better, pass it along for testing. Prove it. It's probably going to be a waste of time, but I'm sure someone will go to the effort if you allow them to make you eat crow when they prove you wrong. Making a claim of an unexpected result without proving it is a waste of everyone's time. You can throw around all sorts of scientific "what ifs" to try to muddy the waters, but it isn't going to impress me. I've seen all that too many times in the past. I know how these things play out. There will be a whole lot of theoretical back and forth and nothing will be offered in the way of specific evidence. All that needs to be said is, "show me a wire that sounds different when used for the purposes it was designed for".


----------



## castleofargh

All this is because @71 dB made a joke? you're a hard public.


----------



## bfreedma

castleofargh said:


> All this is because @71 dB made a joke? you're a hard public.



Nothing to do with 71db.  Just tired of the seagulls who visit.

For those not familiar with the term:  Seagulls "fly in, make a lot of noise, dump on everything, then fly out without contributing anything of value."


----------



## Light - Man

Sorry guys but you cannot stereotype all Seagulls as bandits!


----------



## bigshot

We have a new Sound Science mascot... Jonathan Livingston Threadcrapper! He can join our batshark character!


----------



## dougms3

bfreedma said:


> While I'm still unsure whether power cables *much* larger than 12awg would see audible impact, no one here said a cable could not be built incorrectly or misused for the wrong scenario.
> 
> Sure, someone can build a 1 meter diameter cable for home audio use.  But why would anyone use, let alone need that cable.
> 
> ...


My point is that you are theorizing.  

Your presented your personal experience and opinion as fact and i presented to you variables that you didn't account for.

Whether a cable makes a difference or not is not the discussion here because i can see now that this thread is for cable haters, the discussion is that you claimed the skin effect is absolute with specific numbers and i disagreed, you know with the variables.

There is no plausible way for either of us to prove anything without massive amounts of money, so we discuss, isn't that the purpose of this thread?

Otherwise why not just rename the thread to "cable haters" thread.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 23, 2022)

Can't you cite a single commercially available cable that isn't audibly transparent when used for its intended purpose? It sounds like you're expecting us to prove a negative.


----------



## bfreedma

dougms3 said:


> My point is that you are theorizing.
> 
> Your presented your personal experience and opinion as fact and i presented to you variables that you didn't account for.
> 
> ...



It’s difficult to have this discussion when you can’t even keep the people you’re responding to straight.  i made no claims about skin effect, though I do agree with @gregorio.

It’s also interesting that you presented math without being able to relate it to an actual product, then accuse those asking for relevant examples as “cable haters”.  I don’t hate cables as clearly, cables are necessary, though I do dislike claims about cables that are irrelevant in any reasonable use case.

Since you can’t/won’t identify any products audibly impacted, how about doing the math and showing hard data for a cable length of 10 feet being audibly impacted by whatever you’re claiming.  If you’re simply saying that we now have the capability to measure things in excess of 1000x beyond human hearing, sure, but why should anyone care when discussing audio claims and myths?


----------



## KeithPhantom

dougms3 said:


> us


No, *you’re the one who has to prove something, since you are the one doing the alternative claim, which must be tested against the null hypothesis (cables do not make any difference). *

Now, getting strong statistical evidence of rejection of the null hypothesis (cables do not make a difference) with ears (were talking of differences easily in the range of -130 to -160 dBFS) would be a really impressive feat.


----------



## dougms3

KeithPhantom said:


> No, *you’re the one who has to prove something, since you are the one doing the alternative claim, which must be tested against the null hypothesis (cables do not make any difference). *
> 
> Now, getting strong statistical evidence of rejection of the null hypothesis (cables do not make a difference) with ears (were talking of differences easily in the range of -130 to -160 dBFS) would be a really impressive feat.


Prove what to who?  

If thats what you believe you go on wit yo bad self girl, I could care less.  If you want me to believe that then you have to prove that to me.



bigshot said:


> ^ what Bfreedma says.
> 
> When it comes to fidelity, wires can't "sound better" than audibly transparent. They can only sound different. There's a threshold of perception that they have to exceed for differences to be audible. There are reasons why a wire might not be audibly transparent for a particular purpose. You wouldn't use a hammer for the same thing you use a jewelers screwdriver. But when you buy an Amazons Basics or Monoprice interconnect, it is designed to be audibly transparent for a particular purpose... transmitting line level signal three meters transparently. If you use it for that purpose it should be transparent. If it's not, that will show up in a null test or a carefully controlled listening test. We don't have to test every wire in the world to say that consumer audio cables are all audibly transparent they are used for the purpose they were designed for. That would involve millions of tests. It's up to the people who claim that one cable sounds better than another to prove their claim.
> 
> ...


Why don't you organize your thoughts calmly, because no one said anything about anything sounding better.  It looks like you're having an argument with yourself.  



bfreedma said:


> It’s difficult to have this discussion when you can’t even keep the people you’re responding to straight.  i made no claims about skin effect, though I do agree with @gregorio.
> 
> It’s also interesting that you presented math without being able to relate it to an actual product, then accuse those asking for relevant examples as “cable haters”.  I don’t hate cables as clearly, cables are necessary, though I do dislike claims about cables that are irrelevant in any reasonable use case.
> 
> Since you can’t/won’t identify any products audibly impacted, how about doing the math and showing hard data for a cable length of 10 feet being audibly impacted by whatever you’re claiming.  If you’re simply saying that we now have the capability to measure things in excess of 1000x beyond human hearing, sure, but why should anyone care when discussing audio claims and myths?


I don't recall ever responding to you but obviously you have some bias against higher end cables, I'll play along.  What higher end cables have you tried?


----------



## bfreedma

dougms3 said:


> Prove what to who?
> 
> If thats what you believe you go on wit yo bad self girl, I could care less.  If you want me to believe that then you have to prove that to me.
> 
> ...



Nope.  Not feeding a now obvious troll.  Work on your game - come up with something new and interesting.


----------



## dougms3

bfreedma said:


> Nope.  Not feeding a now obvious troll.  Work on your game - come up with something new and interesting.


Who are you having this conversation with?

Don't include me in your teen angst soliloquies.


----------



## sander99

dougms3 said:


> What higher end cables have you tried?


Why would anyone want to try a higher end cable when for example a $1 or $10 cable is audibly transparent (audibly perfect, not audibly changing the signal)? Better than audibly transparent is not possible. If you have a cable that is audibly different from an audibly transparent cable then it is objectively worse. So all that someone "needs" to do to be sure he doesn't "miss out" on anything is test the cable he uses for audibly transparency (for example with a null test).


----------



## dougms3

sander99 said:


> Why would anyone want to try a higher end cable when for example a $1 or $10 cable is audibly transparent (audibly perfect, not audibly changing the signal)? Better than audibly transparent is not possible. If you have a cable that is audibly different from an audibly transparent cable then it is objectively worse. So all that someone "needs" to do to be sure he doesn't "miss out" on anything is test the cable he uses for audibly transparency (for example with a null test).


To verify your theory, put your theory to a practical test, that is unless you're afraid you might be wrong...

Amazon has a very lenient return policy, just saying.


----------



## Vamp898

sander99 said:


> Why would anyone want to try a higher end cable when for example a $1 or $10 cable is audibly transparent (audibly perfect, not audibly changing the signal)? Better than audibly transparent is not possible. If you have a cable that is audibly different from an audibly transparent cable then it is objectively worse. So all that someone "needs" to do to be sure he doesn't "miss out" on anything is test the cable he uses for audibly transparency (for example with a null test).


A really bad/cheap cable can have issues.

Up from a certain point, it doesn't matter.

So if you use an 100€ cable or an 4000€ cable doesn't matter

But there is a difference between an 1€ cable and an 100€ cable.


----------



## 71 dB (Jun 24, 2022)

Vamp898 said:


> A really bad/cheap cable can have issues.
> 
> Up from a certain point, it doesn't matter.
> 
> ...


A 100 € cable might be mechanically more reliable than a 1 € cable and that is one aspect.

The question is how should you spend the additional 99 € to get the _largest_ possible difference? Maybe the best way to go is spend 10 € on a cable and 90 € on acoustical materials to absorb some early reflections?


----------



## gregorio (Jun 24, 2022)

dougms3 said:


> So you've done this null test with every "variable" correct?


Of course I’ve done the null test with every variable correct, why would I run an audio system or a test with deliberately the wrong gauge cables?


dougms3 said:


> Like the aforementioned ofc, occ copper, spc, litz, gauges, pvc/ptfe/pet dielectrics, etc.


You mean have I tested every combination of every cable in every audio system? I’ve tested a fair few but obviously not every brand of cable in every audio system but that’s the point of science, I don’t need to, isn’t that obvious?

Presumably you don’t believe a “go faster” stripe/sticker can actually make a car go faster? How do you know it doesn’t, have you tried every “go faster” sticker on every model of car? Obviously you don’t need to, science knows enough about aerodynamics, power/weight and the other variables to predict a go faster stripe cannot make a significant difference and countless tests demonstrate no exceptions (punches) to this prediction.


dougms3 said:


> What you call an analogy is an example hence it states IF d= 1".


I didn’t call it an analogy, you did! And, it is NOT an example, there are no consumer audio cables with a 1” diameter.


dougms3 said:


> What if i told you I've seen consumer power cables with larger than 12awg conductors, ruh roh didn't see that punch coming.


1. OK, 10awg that’s an extra 0.02” of diameter. So no, I didn’t see that punch coming or felt it either!
2. If you’re talking about a power cable rather than an audio cable, then we’re talking about a max frequency of 50Hz or 60Hz and there is no skin effect at those frequencies even with 0000awg!


dougms3 said:


> My point is that you are theorizing.


Nonsense, it could hardly be less theorising and more demonstrated in practice!


dougms3 said:


> Your presented your personal experience and opinion as fact and i presented to you variables that you didn't account for.


1. What “personal experience”, you think maybe @bfreedma and I are the only people who have ever objectively tested power or audio cables in the last 150 years?
2. You keep stating there are variables we haven’t accounted for but the only such variable you’ve mentioned is one that never exists in a consumer audio system! There are potentially a number of skin effect variables but they do not apply to consumer audio or power cables. For example wire material, there are no consumer audio or power cables made of Aluminium, steel or other materials, so that variable is irrelevant, as is the variable of freq loss above the range of human hearing, as is the variable of wire gauge/diameter because we never use a gauge so wide as to cause any significant/audible skin effect HF loss.


dougms3 said:


> There is no plausible way for either of us to prove anything without massive amounts of money, so we discuss, isn't that the purpose of this thread?


Why do we need to prove what has already been demonstrated/proven for a century or more? And, “Massive amounts of money” have already been spent. You think maybe the power and telecoms industries have never spent any money researching/testing wire variables for the last 150 years or so? Where do you think the equation you quoted came from?

If you want to dispute the long established/demonstrated science, you’re going to need to do way better than inapplicable examples, audiophile cable marketing or just claiming “you’re wrong because you’re cable haters”!! You can start, as others have suggested, with an actual (applicable) example.

G


----------



## 71 dB (Jun 24, 2022)

dougms3 said:


> What higher end cables have you tried?


I have one 100 € Cambridge Audio RCA cable between my CD player and amp. It is by far the most expensive cable I have. I don't hear anything special in the sound, but the cable seems VERY reliable and I expect it to serve me well the rest of my life. I have had it for 20 years already. I think 20 € would be more sensible price for an 1 meter long RCA cable build that well, but it is what it is, niche market.


----------



## gregorio

dougms3 said:


> If you want me to believe that then you have to prove that to me.


It’s already been proven, countless times over many decades. The differences, as @KeithPhantom stated have been proven to be around -130dB to -160dB, which can’t even be resolved by HPs/Speakers and therefore cannot be audible anyway. Nevertheless, numerous controlled audibility tests have been done and proven that differences at those level are inaudible. If you want to ignore all the proof and instead believe audiophile marketing (that has no reliable evidence/proof) that’s up to you but then why state “you have to prove that to me”? That makes no sense if you’re already ignoring all the proof!


Vamp898 said:


> But there is a difference between an 1€ cable and an 100€ cable.


Yes, there’s a big difference. They almost certainly look different, there’s a great deal more profit margin with the €100 cable and therefore a big difference in the marketing budget for them and, there *might* be a meaningful build quality difference but that would only be meaningful for some people, depending on usage. Is there an audible difference in audio performance though? You’ll need to provide some reliable evidence of that.

G


----------



## dougms3

gregorio said:


> Of course I’ve done the null test with every variable correct, why would I run an audio system or a test with deliberately the wrong gauge cables?
> 
> You mean have I tested every combination of every cable in every audio system? I’ve tested a fair few but obviously not every brand of cable in every audio system but that’s the point of science, I don’t need to, isn’t that obvious?
> 
> ...


Again presenting your opinion and bias as if it were a fact.  Post links or quotes with references if your goal is to "test a claim or myth", but we both know you dont have that otherwise it'd be here already.  I'm not going to even bother engaging in this nonsense because you're just making up random things at this point.

You can't even comprehend that in a formula an an example is given for a calculation, like in all basic math.  You take the example for a formula literally and point fingers "thats not real".  Why don't you plug in your made up numbers in that formula and see what diameter you get, unless you're gonna say that "formula is not real" too.

Its obvious you can't even quote me properly because, I never said "you’re wrong because you’re cable haters”!!

"Otherwise why not just rename the thread to "cable haters" thread."  This is what I said.  Not the same thing is it, someone's brain has a habit of twisting words.

If you can't even remember or bother to look at what I posted 1 page ago, and replace what I said with your own narrative, you don't need me for this conversation.

Lol you've accounted for every variable in your "test" huh?, I think we're done here.


71 dB said:


> I have one 100 € Cambridge Audio RCA cable between my CD player and amp. It is by far the most expensive cable I have. I don't hear anything special in the sound, but the cable seems VERY reliable and I expect it to serve me well the rest of my life. I have had it for 20 years already. I think 20 € would be more sensible price for an 1 meter long RCA cable build that well, but it is what it is, niche market.


If you think 100 € is an expensive cable stick with your 1 € cables.


----------



## gregorio

You have some nerve demanding links/quotes to reliable evidence when you’ve completely failed to do so yourself. 


dougms3 said:


> Again presenting your opinion and bias as if it were a fact. Post links or quotes with references if your goal is to "test a claim or myth", but we both know you dont have that otherwise it'd be here already.






Encyclopaedia Magnetica and Wikipedia. Or how about this link which gives more pertinent detail regarding AWG sizes, skin effect depth and frequency.

But let me get this clear, are you seriously claiming that Wikipedia, encyclopaedia magnetica, various text books, pretty much all the universities and EE education facilities on the planet are ALL just quoting my personal opinion and bias as fact? Or, was your assertion just a lie?


dougms3 said:


> I'm not going to even bother engaging in this nonsense because you're just making up random things at this point.


What, making up random things like 1” diameter consumer audio/power cables, skin effect affecting consumer power cables and my opinion being published as fact on Wikipedia, other encyclopaedias and the world’s education establishments? Pot, kettle, black!! You obviously shouldn’t “even bother” to engage with yourself!

And lastly, that’s a “no” then, you cannot post any reliable evidence of audible differences or of skin effect having any effect on consumer power cables.

G


----------



## GearMe

castleofargh said:


> All this is because @71 dB made a joke? you're a hard public.



Agreed...don't disagree with the content but delivery could often use some work


----------



## GearMe

71 dB said:


> A 100 € cable might be mechanically more reliable than a 1 € cable and that is one aspect.
> 
> *The question is how should you spend the additional 99 € to get the largest possible difference?* Maybe the best way to go is spend 10 € on a cable and 90 € on acoustical materials to absorb some early reflections?


This!


----------



## 71 dB (Jun 24, 2022)

dougms3 said:


> If you think 100 € is an expensive cable stick with your 1 € cables.


Yes, I do think 100 € for a cable is a lot, because I am not brainwashed by snake oil sellers. Nobody has to stick with 1 € cables. Those can be total garbage that develop problems when you bend them a little. Most of my RCA cables are DIY cables made of cheap cable and connectors. Those cost a few euros per cable and seems to be reliable plus I can make them just long enough for the purpose.


----------



## T400 (Jun 24, 2022)

$/€100 can be a lot. I recently spent $100 on two Audioquest Evergreen RCA to RCA cables thinking a little extra money for 'well-built' cables might be worth it as a likely final cable purchase, even though I'm skeptical about any purported improvements in sound quality which don't pass my laugh test - the first test performed by any worthy scientist. They are crap. One was defective out of the box. I've had very good luck with $10 cables that are now back in place where the Audioquest were intended to be used.


----------



## bigshot

dougms3 said:


> Why don't you organize your thoughts calmly, because no one said anything about anything sounding better.


I'm calm. No need to parade and strut. We can just talk. Why would someone spend 100 times more on a cable if it didn't sound better? 

OK, now replace "better" with "different". Same same. The point stands. Can you point to any cable that sounds different for the intended purpose than an Amazon Basic cable?


----------



## Dogmatrix

Cable manufacturers such as Belden and Mogami also have comprehensive data sets available , free


----------



## bigshot (Jun 24, 2022)

dougms3 said:


> To verify your theory, put your theory to a practical test, that is unless you're afraid you might be wrong... Amazon has a very lenient return policy, just saying.


I'm not going to kite my money randomly comparing cables. Do you own a cable that sounds different than an Amazon Basics cable? If so, we can arrange a simple test.



Spoiler



I'm going to bet two bits that within a week he comes in with a sock account agreeing with himself.


----------



## Corti

sander99 said:


>




Prepare yourselves for audiophial-air to actually become a product, when snake-oil merchants are going to discover this video.


----------



## bfreedma

Corti said:


> Prepare yourselves for audiophial-air to actually become a product, when snake-oil merchants are going to discover this video.



Here’s a ready made first customer for audiophile air.  This cable company touts their audiophile air pockets In the cable sheathing.

https://perkune.com/airgap-isolation/


----------



## Corti

bfreedma said:


> Here’s a ready made first customer for audiophile air.  This cable company touts their audiophile air pockets In the cable sheathing.
> 
> https://perkune.com/airgap-isolation/


so it has already begun..
damnit sander99!



> _"Perkune audiophile ‘AirGap’ insulation has over 720 pockets of trapped air per square inch.
> These pockets of trapped air are in the material which runs around the entire length of the cable."_


i mean over 720 pockets of trapped air! if that doesnt count anything.

the terms and expressions section https://perkune.com/terms-and-expressions/ is also amusing, if it wasnt so sad.


----------



## T400

I wouldn't settle for anything less than 1440 pockets of tapsi. Ever.


----------



## The Jester

Air isn’t “the best” dielectric a vacuum is, but you won’t get a “natural” sound as “nature abhors a vacuum”, 😬
Valid that air is an excellent dielectric though, good RG59/U cables have used a foamed dielectric for years … for TV antenna cable frequencies .. Lol


----------



## Dogmatrix

The Jester said:


> Air isn’t “the best” dielectric a vacuum is, but you won’t get a “natural” sound as “nature abhors a vacuum”, 😬
> Valid that air is an excellent dielectric though, good RG59/U cables have used a foamed dielectric for years … for TV antenna cable frequencies .. Lol


I built a pair of rca interconnects early in my adventure with some very nice Belden coax turns out antenna frequencies are very different to analogue audio , lesson learned


----------



## gregorio

T400 said:


> I recently spent $100 on two Audioquest Evergreen RCA to RCA cables thinking a little extra money for 'well-built' cables might be worth it …. They are crap. One was defective out of the box.


This sort of thing isn’t incredibly rare in the audiophile world and not only with cables. The problem is quality control, many of the makers of audiophile equipment are relatively small “boutique” manufacturers who either (apparently) don’t believe in measurements or cannot afford decent measuring equipment. The result, not uncommonly, is audiophile equipment that not only costs ten or a hundred times more but actually performs worse than the cheaper counter parts, although not audibly so in most cases. The audiophile adage of “the more money spent = diminishing returns” is commonly untrue, it’s often; “more money spent = no returns” or even, “more money spent = inverse returns”!

In general, with cables, you’d expect a €100 audiophile cable to have better build quality than a €1 cable but not significantly better than a mass produced €10 - €20 cable.

It’s telling that @dougms3 doesn’t think a €100 cable is expensive. I suppose for an audiophile, brainwashed by a snake oil audiophile cable sector that can charge up to around €10,000 and commonly charges several hundred Euros for a cable, then a €100 cable would seem cheap in comparison.

G


----------



## Sproketz (Jul 4, 2022)

71 dB said:


> Here is an idea:
> 
> Since electricity doesn't really travel inside the electric cables, but rather _around_ the cables as an electromagnetic field, how about selling *snake-oil air* to audiophools?


I took my headphone cables to the Vatican and held them up over my head during the blessing ceremony. It totally brought a heavenly sound to them. I dubbed them The Holy Headphone Cables of Rome.

I also have a different pair I had in my pocket when I shook hands with Lucien Greaves. They sound amazing for listening to metal now.


----------



## dougms3

gregorio said:


> This sort of thing isn’t incredibly rare in the audiophile world and not only with cables. The problem is quality control, many of the makers of audiophile equipment are relatively small “boutique” manufacturers who either (apparently) don’t believe in measurements or cannot afford decent measuring equipment. The result, not uncommonly, is audiophile equipment that not only costs ten or a hundred times more but actually performs worse than the cheaper counter parts, although not audibly so in most cases. The audiophile adage of “the more money spent = diminishing returns” is commonly untrue, it’s often; “more money spent = no returns” or even, “more money spent = inverse returns”!
> 
> In general, with cables, you’d expect a €100 audiophile cable to have better build quality than a €1 cable but not significantly better than a mass produced €10 - €20 cable.
> 
> ...


Lol called me did you?

I see you're too scared to post outside of this hater's thread.  Someone lit the bat signal in here.

If 100 euros is expensive for you, you picked the wrong hobby. 

You can make up all the fake "science" but read the title of thread, go ahead and test something son.  I'll prepare your answer for you.

"EVERYBODY HAS TO PROVE EVERYTHING TO ME ONLY AND I DONT HAVE TO PROVE NOTHING TO NOBODY SNAKE OIL SCIENCE WINRAR"


----------



## bigshot

This is pretty clearly a troll with nothing to say.


----------



## Davesrose

dougms3 said:


> Lol called me did you?
> 
> I see you're too scared to post outside of this hater's thread.  Someone lit the bat signal in here.
> 
> ...



I've had issues with Gregorio trying to speak from authority on issues I have more experience with (especially video standards).  He also sometimes infers a lot while he's mis-representing with his own random outline schematic in a reply.  I do take him at face value that he is a sound engineer in Europe and has experience with multi-thousand dollar rigs.  Just a heads up that he's talking about the home audio foolery that says you need to spend lots of money for some cable that measures just as well if it's a few bucks.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 5, 2022)

Many of the regulars in sound science know what they’re talking about, but that doesn’t stop them from arguing with other people who know what they’re talking about.

All that knowledge and experience, but we spend most of the time answering blatant trolls…


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> Many of the regulars in sound science know what they’re talking about, but that doesn’t stop them from arguing with other people who know what they’re talking about.
> 
> All that knowledge and experience, but we spend most of the time answering blatant trolls…


Is this directed towards me?  So the most I do contribute is with the video standards of movie codecs..and bit rate with imaging.  Went with Gregorio's thread of 16 bit audio while he also invoked how it relates to image quality.  I have tried to provide real world examples of how he initially didn't understand dynamic range with imagery (he only understood 8-bit color space).  It's not about initial bit depth of 24 or 32 bits, but floating bit of actual dynamic range.

Anyway, that is my area..I'm just trying to say that while I have had issues with Gregorio, his responses here are to be considered...and he's an engineer instead of justifying a $100 cable (while he's used to multi thousand dollar systems).


----------



## 71 dB

dougms3 said:


> If 100 euros is expensive for you, you picked the wrong hobby.



Don't be silly. Expensive audio cables are a niche market for those who are into high-end. Most people whose hobby is audio are not part of this niche market. There are ery different ways and styles of doing audio and for many 100 euros cables are insanely expensive including me. It not that we don't have the money. It's about spending the money were it counts more.

In high-end circles science isn't the deciding factor. Instead placebo effect, feelings and wicket mental images is the justification and snake oil sellers are there to take advantage of that.


----------



## bigshot

Davesrose said:


> Is this directed towards me?


no. General note


----------



## Dogmatrix

dougms3 said:


> Lol called me did you?
> 
> I see you're too scared to post outside of this hater's thread.  Someone lit the bat signal in here.
> 
> ...


I recently came across an excellent book I think you would benefit from


Good Arguments​
What the Art of Debating Can Teach Us About Listening Better and Disagreeing Well
By Bo Soe


----------



## gregorio

dougms3 said:


> I see you're too scared to post outside of this hater's thread.


Then you must be blind. I’ve posted to numerous threads and not only in this subforum. Furthermore, “yes” this is a “hater’s thread”, a thread for those who hate the marketing lies which lead to audio myths. Who is not a hater of marketing lies, apart of course from marketers themselves, their shills and some of those suckered by those lies? Which are you?


dougms3 said:


> If 100 euros is expensive for you, you picked the wrong hobby.


I did not say €100 is too expensive for me. I’ve probably spent near €1m on audio equipment in the last 30 years and €10k+ on cables. €100 is obviously expensive when a €10 cable has practically identical or better performance and build quality. 


dougms3 said:


> You can make up all the fake "science"


What fake science have I made up? You mean the “fake science” I quoted from Wikipedia and other sources? Provide examples of the fake science I’ve supposedly made up or you’re the one making up nonsense. 


dougms3 said:


> but read the title of thread, go ahead and test something son.


As I’ve already stated, I have objectively tested cables, numerous times and have quoted reliable sources based on testing. To avoid being a complete hypocrite, it’s your turn to objectively “test something son” and/or provide reliable objective evidence based on testing. You repeatedly refuse to avoid being a complete hypocrite though!!


dougms3 said:


> I'll prepare your answer for you. "EVERYBODY HAS TO PROVE EVERYTHING TO ME ONLY AND I DONT HAVE TO PROVE NOTHING TO NOBODY SNAKE OIL SCIENCE WINRAR"


Of course, that’s science/logic 101! You’ve made the claim of Skin Effect in audio/power cables affecting audible frequencies, therefore YOU have to provide reliable evidence and I have to prove nothing, this is basic science and logic 101. Are you really saying that you don’t even know the basics of science/logic?

However, given the thread title, I have already provided proof/reliable evidence of what frequencies Skin Effect actually affect.

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> I’ve probably spent near €1m on audio equipment in the last 30 years and €10k+ on cables.
> 
> G


Wow! I have hardly spent 1 % of that in the last 30 years, but then again I am the "bang for the buck" guy. I tend to use stuff as long as they work and instead of just buying the most expensive stuff on the market, I set a reasonable bar for performance and try to achieve that bar as cheaply as possible. In the 21st century good sound should be affordable, even cheap. That's the point of digital audio etc. So, you have spent more on cables alone than I have spent on audio gear in all! Then again, I am not a millionaire, so I couldn't spent much more than I do.


----------



## bigshot

He’s talking about wiring studios.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> He’s talking about wiring studios.


gregorio? In that case it depends on _whose_ studios he is wiring. If it is his own studio, then obviously he has to pay for the cables himself. In studio cabling I believe it is actually the high-quality connectors in the ends of the cables that cost the most rather than the cable in between.


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> I've had issues with Gregorio trying to speak from authority on issues I have more experience with (especially video standards).


Do you have any examples of where I tried to speak from authority about video standards? As far as I recall, I’ve never done so. 


Davesrose said:


> Went with Gregorio's thread of 16 bit audio while he also invoked how it relates to image quality. I have tried to provide real world examples of how he initially didn't understand dynamic range with imagery (he only understood 8-bit color space).


What I stated was: “_It's easy to see in a photograph the difference between a low bit depth image and one with a higher bit depth, so it's logical to suppose that higher bit depths in audio also means better quality._” - Which as far as the average consumer in 2009 was concerned, was a perfectly valid analogy. I wasn’t claiming or even implying any authority on image or video standards.


Davesrose said:


> I do take him at face value that he is a sound engineer in Europe and has experience with multi-thousand dollar rigs.


I have some experience of multi-thousand dollar rigs but they were consumer rigs. At work, virtually all the experience I have is with multi-hundred thousand and multi-million dollar rigs. 


71 dB said:


> Wow! I have hardly spent 1 % of that in the last 30 years, but then again I am the "bang for the buck" guy.


I’m a “bang for the buck guy” as well, the difference is that I need a different “bang”. A fair proportion of that €1m was on acoustic construction/treatment. Then there’s also mics, control surfaces/mixing desks, etc, and in the past, time-coded DAT and multi-track DAT machines. And, since I started nearly 30 years ago, I’ve had 3 studios. 


71 dB said:


> So, you have spent more on cables alone than I have spent on audio gear in all!


Some of my cables are expensive. 50m of 24x3 or 16x3 multi-core is quite expensive and so are some of the special purpose cables. 


71 dB said:


> Then again, I am not a millionaire, so I couldn't spent much more than I do.


I’m not a millionaire either. Although I’ve earned substantially more than €1m over the last 30 odd years. 


71 dB said:


> In studio cabling I believe it is actually the high-quality connectors in the ends of the cables that cost the most rather than the cable in between.


Sometimes but not usually. As per commercial studios, I generally use Neutrik connectors which are about €4-5 each, although I probably use over 100 of them. Also, my studio has a machine room, so I have relatively few cables less than about 10 meters in length. 

G


----------



## bigshot

This is kind of funny. We have this wonderful communication medium, and everyone talks to themselves!


----------



## Davesrose

gregorio said:


> What I stated was: “_It's easy to see in a photograph the difference between a low bit depth image and one with a higher bit depth, so it's logical to suppose that higher bit depths in audio also means better quality._” - Which as far as the average consumer in 2009 was concerned, was a perfectly valid analogy. I wasn’t claiming or even implying any authority on image or video standards.



Oh, back to being confused again: I gave you more credit.  You compared 8 bit per channel (24 bit images) to total 8 bit RGB images (a comparison that was up to 1990s).  24bit RGB is 8bit per channel: 256 shades of contrast and now also known as standard dynamic range.  Digital cameras have had "raw" sensor files that store 12bit, 14bit, 16bit per channel dynamic range.  What 4K has brought to cinema and home media is a distribution that delivers 10bit (HDR10 1024 shades of contrast) or 12bit (Dolby Vision: 4096) high dynamic range in their compressed video codecs.


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> You compared 8 bit per channel (24 bit images) to total 8 bit RGB images (a comparison that was up to 1990s).


No I didn’t. The only reference to images in that post is the quote I gave above, which made no reference to colour channels and was not intended to. The post was obviously about audio and the simple analogy to low bit rate images would have made sense to consumers, who were well acquainted with such images due to the low resolution of phone cameras at that time.

A simple analogy is all it was, it was obviously not a technical expose of how bit depth is actually employed in digital images, just what was widely accepted by consumers at that time. This is why it was valid as an analogy, regardless of it’s technical accuracy.

G


----------



## Davesrose

gregorio said:


> No I didn’t. The only reference to images in that post is the quote I gave above, which made no reference to colour channels and was not intended to. The post was obviously about audio and the simple analogy to low bit rate images would have made sense to consumers, who were well acquainted with such images due to the low resolution of phone cameras at that time.
> 
> A simple analogy is all it was, it was obviously not a technical expose of how bit depth is actually employed in digital images, just what was widely accepted by consumers at that time. This is why it was valid as an analogy, regardless of it’s technical accuracy.
> 
> G


No, we spent many pages of you misunderstanding 24 bit images in regard to human vision and dynamic range.  A concept every photographer in 2009 knew about.  Anyway, we don’t have to stay off topic.  Refer back to my previous post about what dynamic range is in relation to imaging.


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> No, we spent many pages of you misunderstanding 24 bit images in regard to human vision and dynamic range.


Which had no relevance to the analogy in my post. 


Davesrose said:


> A concept every photographer in 2009 knew about (an audience referenced in your quote).


No, the audience referenced in my post was obviously audiophiles and audio hobbyists, not photographers!

G


----------



## Davesrose

gregorio said:


> Which had no relevance to the analogy in my post.
> 
> No, the audience referenced in my post was obviously audiophiles and audio hobbyists, not photographers!
> 
> G



It is relevant when dynamic range is a factor of image quality...and has become more accessible with anyone now that HDR is in consumer formats. Apologies about audience: I edited the post you're quoting, but apparently you replied too quickly.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> I’m a “bang for the buck guy” as well, the difference is that I need a different “bang”. A fair proportion of that €1m was on acoustic construction/treatment. Then there’s also mics, control surfaces/mixing desks, etc, and in the past, time-coded DAT and multi-track DAT machines. And, since I started nearly 30 years ago, I’ve had 3 studios.


Well, that's how audio should be: You set yourself the target "bang" level and then figure out a cost effective way to get there.


gregorio said:


> Some of my cables are expensive. 50m of 24x3 or 16x3 multi-core is quite expensive and so are some of the special purpose cables.


Yeah, but in your case the high price comes from long cable runs. Of course 50 m of anything will cost a lot, but when you pay 100 € for a 1-2 m long cable you are perhaps being sold snake-oil.



gregorio said:


> I’m not a millionaire either. Although I’ve earned substantially more than €1m over the last 30 odd years.


Well, I hope so. Otherwise the "investments" would have been bad.



gregorio said:


> Sometimes but not usually. As per commercial studios, I generally use Neutrik connectors which are about €4-5 each, although I probably use over 100 of them. Also, my studio has a machine room, so I have relatively few cables less than about 10 meters in length.
> 
> G


In Finland Neurik connectors are maybe even pricier than that. Adapters are 10-20 euros.


----------



## gregorio

Davesrose said:


> It is relevant when dynamic range is a factor of image quality.


No, it’s not. It would be relevant in a discussion about image quality but in a post about audio with just a single passing analogy to image quality appreciable by typical 2009 consumers, it’s not even slightly relevant!

G


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> In Finland Neurik connectors are maybe even pricier than that. Adapters are 10-20 euros.


Ouch, a single Neutrik XLR connector is €20 in Finland? A bag of 100 cost me about €300 when I last bought them.

G


----------



## redrol

dougms3 said:


> Lol called me did you?
> 
> I see you're too scared to post outside of this hater's thread.  Someone lit the bat signal in here.
> 
> ...


heheh, have you realized no one believes cables do anything in this particular forum?  The being poor angle is fun as well.


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> Ouch, a single Neutrik XLR connector is €20 in Finland? A bag of 100 cost me about €300 when I last bought them.
> 
> G


Depends on the neutrik model for me in France. I often indulge in the 10 to 15€ plugs instead of the 5 bucks ones because I believe in expensive cables  
Some of the cheaper ones are either not as pretty, or they’re more annoying to solder, which is a real problem when you’re as bad at it as I am. So I now go for "luxury" plugs and my cables can easily cost up to 50 bucks thanks to purchasing everything by the unit and getting murdered by delivery costs.
It really makes no sense for me to make my cables unless I need something super specific to satisfy my messed up measurement curiosity(which happens a few time a year). But I’m sure buying in bulk is way cheaper. It’s like getting just 1 of something from Mouser, only desperate people and masochists do it.


----------



## bigshot

Every time you come around on the Merry Go Round again, I'll wave to you!


----------



## gregorio

dougms3 said:


> I see you're too scared to post outside of this hater's thread.


Oh dear, are you honestly claiming I don’t post outside this thread?


dougms3 said:


> If 100 euros is expensive for you, you picked the wrong hobby.


No, €100 for audio equipment is cheap to me, I’ve even spent well in excess of that amount on a single cable. €100 is only expensive when €10 does the job just as well or better.


dougms3 said:


> You can make up all the fake "science” …


Except I haven’t, I’ve provided references. You on the other hand …


dougms3 said:


> but read the title of thread, go ahead and test something son.


I have, numerous times, as I’ve already stated more than once. What do you think testing more than numerous times is going to prove, especially as cables have been tested far more than numerous times by other engineers and scientists for well over a century!

And, why should it only be me who reads the title of this thread, why don’t you “go ahead and test something son? At the VERY LEAST, quote some reliable evidence based on objective testing/measurements, to support your claims, in order to avoid being a complete hypocrite. 


dougms3 said:


> I'll prepare your answer for you. "EVERYBODY HAS TO PROVE EVERYTHING TO ME ONLY AND I DONT HAVE TO PROVE NOTHING TO NOBODY SNAKE OIL SCIENCE WINRAR"


Of course! Don’t you know the basics of science/logic? Don’t you think you should, BEFORE arguing in a science based forum? You made the claim, it’s up to you to provide reliable evidence to support it. It’s not up to me to disprove it. Didn’t you know that?


castleofargh said:


> I often indulge in the 10 to 15€ plugs instead of the 5 bucks ones because I believe in expensive cables


I didn’t even know Neutrik made €15 XLRs! Try Thomann’s, Neutrik male and female XLRs = €2.88 and €3.49 respectively and that’s single price, not bulk price! That’s what I use and pretty much every other commercial studio.

G


----------



## Vamp898 (Jul 5, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Many of the regulars in sound science know what they’re talking about, but that doesn’t stop them from arguing with other people who know what they’re talking about.
> 
> All that knowledge and experience, but we spend most of the time answering blatant trolls…


Well yes and no. There are such and such.

There are enough audio science guys who will refer you to an measurement to make their point, but would also admit that measuring 1kHz sinus wave tells you nothing about the real performance.

Add an 10kHz wave to the 1kHz wave and the dynamic drops from 127db to below 90db.

Play music instead of 1kHz fine ways and record the output and suddenly the amp no longer performs flat and linear.

Replace the brass volume knob with an aluminium volume knob and the sound changes even though the measurements are identical.

Every of these examples can be measured and show up in measurements, but not in a way where it's possible to compare the performance of two devices reproducible and reliable.

So even though they know a 1kHz wave tells you pretty much nothing, they still refer you to the measuring done with the 1kHz because that's the standard, everyone does that and it's the only thing that can be reliably reproduced.

If the only thing that can be reproduced reliable doesn't tell you about the real world performance makes arguments tiresome , long lasting and probably never ending.

I can't remember how often people came up with the Nyquist theorem not understand what the word theorem means and why it is only an theorem.

Also there area tons of hobbyist who do gain knowledge in audio science but lack the physics background.

For examples people who measure IEM and fail to understand why two IEM that measure almost identical have an day and night difference while two IEM that measure very different sound similar.

Just look at how many people think that IEC couplers provide accurate results just because they are an IEC Standard and then fail to explain why am 5mm DD does have the identical dips and peaks as an dual BA.

Audio science is an complex topic and even when you focus on one aspect of it, is still an 5-years master study.

I haven't seen a single masters degree in Audio science from anyone here and even people with years of experience, senior engineer working for rivaling companies, have day long fights about the accuracy of certain DAC designs and then comes a third guy from the company and says "We have an new capacitor technology with an different ESR, let's start your fight from the beginning"

It is to complex for the people who are developing these devices with years of experience to understand, it is for sure to complex for every single one of us


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Ouch, a single Neutrik XLR connector is €20 in Finland? A bag of 100 cost me about €300 when I last bought them.
> 
> G


Adapters (XLR -> Plug etc.) are that much I think. Here is one example of a connector:

NEUTRIK - XLR CABLE CONNECTOR, 3-PIN FEMALE, SILVER PLATED, NICKEL => *6**,47 €*

Not that bad actually...


----------



## castleofargh

Vamp898 said:


> Replace the brass volume knob with an aluminium volume knob and the sound changes even though the measurements are identical.


psychological brass.


----------



## bigshot

The things I'm talking about don't have anything to do with science. It's more an Internet forum thing.


----------



## 71 dB

Vamp898 said:


> Add an 10kHz wave to the 1kHz wave and the dynamic drops from 127db to below 90db.


This is totally nonsensical. What "dynamic" drops from 127 dB to below 90 dB? Does the amplitudes of the 10 kHz and 1 kHz sine waves matter? 



Vamp898 said:


> Play music instead of 1kHz fine ways and record the output and suddenly the amp no longer performs flat and linear.


Measuring with 1 kHz sine wave doesn't tell much about the system, but how often is this a case? If the system is linear and time-invariant enough, we can predict how it behaves with complex signals such as music. If it is not linear then it is not and even 1 kHz shows it.



Vamp898 said:


> Replace the brass volume knob with an aluminium volume knob and the sound changes even though the measurements are identical.


Huh? Alchemy for audio?



Vamp898 said:


> Every of these examples can be measured and show up in measurements, but not in a way where it's possible to compare the performance of two devices reproducible and reliable.


You just said replacing volume knob gives identical measurement, and then you say these things show up in measurements! How, if the measurements are identical? Not only is what you write nonsensical, you contradict yourself in your nonsense! Amazing!



Vamp898 said:


> So even though they know a 1kHz wave tells you pretty much nothing, they still refer you to the measuring done with the 1kHz because that's the standard, everyone does that and it's the only thing that can be reliably reproduced.


You are right, it doesn't tell you much, but nobody claims it does? It is just a data point to give a general idea. If the dynamic range for example varies with frequency, you'd need a graph to show it, but you can also just tell what it is at 1 kHz. Less information, but easier to print on a marketing paper.



Vamp898 said:


> If the only thing that can be reproduced reliable doesn't tell you about the real world performance makes arguments tiresome , long lasting and probably never ending.


Nonsense again. If you think only 1 kHz can be reproduced reliably you are mistaken badly. 1 kHz measurement are JUST HISTORICAL REMNANTS from time when measurements were difficult to make. Nowadays impulse response measurement are easy, but they give you the _impulse response_ of the system, not one neat number!



Vamp898 said:


> I can't remember how often people came up with the Nyquist theorem not understand what the word theorem means and why it is only a theorem.


Only a theorem? Who doesn't know the meaning of the word?

Theorem means mathematically proven or provable statement.  The sampling THEOREM has beem mathematically proven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem



Vamp898 said:


> Also there area tons of hobbyist who do gain knowledge in audio science but lack the physics background.


Sure, there are all kind of hobbyists, but many of us have studied physics on university level, which hardly means lacking the physics background, or do you expect Nobel prize winners in physics here?



Vamp898 said:


> For examples people who measure IEM and fail to understand why two IEM that measure almost identical have an day and night difference while two IEM that measure very different sound similar.


Headphones are very tricky to measure, because so many things affect the sound. Some people may fail to understand this, but I certainly don't.



Vamp898 said:


> Just look at how many people think that IEC couplers provide accurate results just because they are an IEC Standard and then fail to explain why am 5mm DD does have the identical dips and peaks as an dual BA.


I know nothing about IEMs. I claim zero expertise of the topic. 



Vamp898 said:


> Audio science is an complex topic and even when you focus on one aspect of it, is still an 5-years master study.


I am learning constantly more, but the groundwork happened in university.



Vamp898 said:


> I haven't seen a single masters degree in Audio science from anyone here and even people with years of experience, senior engineer working for rivaling companies, have day long fights about the accuracy of certain DAC designs and then comes a third guy from the company and says "We have an new capacitor technology with an different ESR, let's start your fight from the beginning"


Audio science is kind of a niche topic. I studied electrical engineering in university specialicing in acoustics and signal processing. Probably not good enough for you. Sorry.

Surely you understand that companies are not just about audio science. They are about making money. Not only does the sonic properties or capacitors matter, the cost of those capacitor matter too, because it affects the profit margin. Also, there has to be fake controversy about things to make your own company look better than the other one. Lets just say it can be very little about audio science and a lot of "capitalistic competition."



Vamp898 said:


> It is to complex for the people who are developing these devices with years of experience to understand, it is for sure to complex for every single one of us


Or maybe they purposely make them look more complex than they are?


----------



## bigshot




----------



## Vamp898

71 dB said:


> This is totally nonsensical. What "dynamic" drops from 127 dB to below 90 dB? Does the amplitudes of the 10 kHz and 1 kHz sine waves matter?


It is explained (partly) in this video



tl;dw Amps are optimized to show their best performance at 1kHz Sinus waves. Give them something else and they'll show something that is closer to what they are actually capable of.

Its the exact same issue with all measurements. CO2 output of cars, crash tests of cars, camera sensors, pretty much everything that can be tested with a standardized test leads to companies optimizing their products to show the absolute best value at this specific test. Break the rules and modify the test and see how they fail.

Just look at the measurements of High-ISO Noise and dynamic range of image sensors in standardized tests and try to replicate them using/owning the actual camera. Its impossible. Change the environment temperature by 5° and the Sensor that measured better, suddenly measures worse.


> Huh? Alchemy for audio?


its not alchemy, just physics.

The AKM DAC Chip in the DMP-Z1 doesn't have any sort of digital volume control. That means the Alps volume knob acts as an potentiometer to lower the input signal to the analog amp to implement an volume control.

Every component that touches an analog signal is slightly modifying it. If that matters is written on a different sheet of paper but it is impossible to let an analog signal travel through physical media without modification (that's the reason why Sony generally swears on full digital amps but again, whole different story).

Even Alps themselves (the developer of the volume knob) claimed that Sonys findings are wrong until they were handed an prototype under an NDA to verify it. And to their surprise, they confirmed Sonys findings through the development of the DMP-Z1 and after producing several prototypes they gave up and told Sony to stick with the brass volume knob.

Every standardized measurement showed the exact same result, but doing blind A/B tests, they were able to pick them apart.

Of course this could be an completely fake and madeup story. But the aluminium volume knob would have saved Sony money and, especially, weight (which was their initial concern to even create the aluminium knob).

And they show the prototypes they used on developer interviews, they do exist in real. There is not much reason for this story to be made up but of course, there is no proof either. But what would be the intention to fake this story?

Its the same with the brass housing of the NW-ZX2. Sony developed an brass housing of the NW-ZX2 to see the influence to the sound. They actually did not expect any difference and just wanted a different material for the housing for the optics. But to their surprise, even though the measurements did not change, it sounded different. And it sounded worse.

This brass housing prototype of the NW-ZX2 exists to this day, Sony never released an actual product using this brass housing. So again, why should they made up this story? "We made a prototype out of brass, it sounded bad so it never made it into production". What kind of made up fake story is that? Whats the intention? This brass prototype was developed after the release of the ZX2, so the ZX2 (made of aluminium) was already sold at that point.

And they didn't even release that story in the first place. They just used it as a side node in an developer interview for a different product.

Why does Sony make up all these fake stories that show that their experiments did not result into good sounding products? Just to piss of people who are into measurements? Sony does not release _any_ measurements for any products. Neither for Headphone/Earphone, nor for any of their Amps or Players because they say "It doesn't mater". 

I could agree on your point if they would release measurements that make them look better. But they don't, they never ever talk about any competitor (Sony is one of the few companies that acts like there are no other companies) nor release any figures that you could use to compare their products to others.


> You just said replacing volume knob gives identical measurement, and then you say these things show up in measurements! How, if the measurements are identical? Not only is what you write nonsensical, you contradict yourself in your nonsense! Amazing!


Yes, i did not write a 1000 page essay to explain in every detail. I tried to explain it but obviously i failed, so i try again.

It did not show up doing standardized measurements like playing an 1kHz sine wave or an 20Hz-20kHz sweep, measuring the output impedance and so on. They measured identical.

But when playing an actual song and analyzing the output, there was a difference by comparing the recordings of the songs.

This is an easy measurement. Just invert the second recording and mix/add them together. The result is the difference. But this is not an standardized measurement and the differences change from song to song, so you can not predict what change will be there with a given song. Its not reproducible/reliable.


> Theorem means mathematically proven or provable statement. The sampling THEOREM has beem mathematically proven.


Absolutely correct. It has been proven mathematically. As you can travel 3-times the speed of light mathematically. In math, you can proof it, but _not_ in the real world.

The Nyquist Theorem needs a perfect filter to work. Perfect filters don't exist as they have an infinite runtime and so would never produce any sound.

Nobody cares what works in math. We are not listening to math theorems. We are listening to existing, physical, analog signals, in the real world where no information transformation happens faster than the speed of life and perfect filters don't exist.


----------



## bigshot

Audio CDs are audibly transparent to human ears. That’s good enough for me.


----------



## Vamp898

bigshot said:


> Audio CDs are audibly transparent to human ears. That’s good enough for me.


More importantly. Audio CDs are better than the songs you put on.


----------



## bigshot

And better than the headphones or speakers you play it on. If it sounds perfect to your ears nothing else matters. It can be the same, it can be worse… same same for the purposes of listening to music in the home.


----------



## jagwap

71 dB said:


> Or maybe they purposely make them look more complex than they are?


No, we really don't.  I have occasionally mentioned things that make a difference here, and I get the same reaction.  It is frustrating that a science forum doesn't want to learn from the people who make the stuff, but prefer to tear every new and contentious idea down.


----------



## bigshot

It’s really easy. Just prove it. Don’t just expect us to take your word for it.


----------



## Dogmatrix

jagwap said:


> No, we really don't.  I have occasionally mentioned things that make a difference here, and I get the same reaction.  It is frustrating that a science forum doesn't want to learn from the people who make the stuff, but prefer to tear every new and contentious idea down.


What would be top of the list of "things that make a difference" ,I would be genuinely interested in exploring


----------



## 71 dB

Vamp898 said:


> Amps are optimized to show their best performance at 1kHz Sinus waves. Give them something else and they'll show something that is closer to what they are actually capable of.


As I said, 1 kHz is just ONE DATA POINT. If you measure using 1 kHz, you know what happens at 1 kHz.



Vamp898 said:


> its not alchemy, just physics.


What physics?


----------



## 71 dB

Vamp898 said:


> It did not show up doing standardized measurements like playing an 1kHz sine wave or an 20Hz-20kHz sweep, measuring the output impedance and so on. They measured identical.





Vamp898 said:


> Yes, i did not write a 1000 page essay to explain in every detail. I tried to explain it but obviously i failed, so i try again.
> 
> It did not show up doing standardized measurements like playing an 1kHz sine wave or an 20Hz-20kHz sweep, measuring the output impedance and so on. They measured identical.
> 
> ...


So someone has measured something somewhere? Okay. I guess the measurements were unable to so the difference. Measurements are not perfect. 



Vamp898 said:


> Absolutely correct. It has been proven mathematically. As you can travel 3-times the speed of light mathematically. In math, you can proof it, but _not_ in the real world.


No you can't if you do the math correctly using hyperbolic geometry. We think about speed wrong, but it doesn't matter, because our everyday speeds are so much lower than the speed of light, but when you approach the speed of light, you need to switch to hyperbolic geometry.

Theoretically there are particles (Tachyons) that travel faster than the speed of light, but those particles travel back in time, while we travel forward in time. That's why WE can't travel faster than light.

Digital audio is not perfect. ADCs and DACs are not perfect. The suffer from non-linearities, jitter and what not, but the sampling theorem means there is a well-defined upper limit for the quality set by the sampling frequency and bit depth. We can always make better ADCs and DACs with lower non-linearities and jitter to approach this limit. The good thing is digital audio has reached a level of quality that surpasses human hearing. It is good enough.



Vamp898 said:


> The Nyquist Theorem needs a perfect filter to work. Perfect filters don't exist as they have an infinite runtime and so would never produce any sound.


Near perfect filters exist and they are good enough for human ear. Perfect analog audio doesn't exist either. In fact, it is much more difficult to go near perfect with analog. That's why the world has gone from analog to digital.



Vamp898 said:


> Nobody cares what works in math. We are not listening to math theorems. We are listening to existing, physical, analog signals, in the real world where no information transformation happens faster than the speed of life and perfect filters don't exist.


Now you are talking about what you care about. That's your business. You can care about whatever you want, but you can't go around claiming proven math isn't proven. Math tells us HOW the filters we have are non-perfect so that we know what it means to use non-perfect filters. If you think analog systems are somehow better you are mistaken badly.


----------



## 71 dB

jagwap said:


> No, we really don't.  I have occasionally mentioned things that make a difference here, and I get the same reaction.  It is frustrating that a science forum doesn't want to learn from the people who make the stuff, but prefer to tear every new and contentious idea down.


What new ideas? New ideas to cash in? Sorry, but people like me will shot down such ideas.


----------



## castleofargh

Vamp898 said:


> It is explained (partly) in this video
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The variability of measurements when some conditions change, sure.
The idea that standardized tests don’t give the entire picture(they don’t claim to), of course.
Real life doesn't have the convenience of perfection that math has, and I also remember many rational shortcuts about Nyquist. Probably went for it myself sometime.

 But for the rest, where we fall into second hand data with what ends up being your interpretation of it... I’m not sold on much. 
If Sony or anybody else can demonstrate sound discrimination in a blind test but can’t measure some difference from the 2 DAPs, bunch of people need to be fired.

Having a difference in the signal and not knowing where it comes from, that I believe so very easily. Finding the why and how of something we know to happen, that can be near impossible sometimes in all research domains. But hearing a difference we can’t record and observe in the signal from 2 DAPs? That I cannot believe. My imagination cannot stretch that far.
 Once, I could perceive(barely) stuff by ear(blind) that I couldn’t seem to be able to dissociate from too much noise in my room on the recorded signal no matter how I tried to express the data. It’s not that I didn’t measure differences, it’s that I had too many to isolate just one.


----------



## gregorio

Vamp898 said:


> It is explained (partly) in this video


Where, I couldn’t find it?


Vamp898 said:


> Why does Sony make up all these fake stories that show that their experiments did not result into good sounding products?


Really, you’ve never heard of marketing?


Vamp898 said:


> It did not show up doing standardized measurements like playing an 1kHz sine wave or an 20Hz-20kHz sweep, measuring the output impedance and so on. They measured identical.


You seem to be confusing published specifications, standardised measurements and audio measurements. Their published specs may have been the same and certain standardised measurements may have been the same but that does NOT mean “they measured identical”. If you “soup up” a Ford Fiesta so that it does 0-60mph in the same time as a Ferrari, does that mean the Fiesta has the same performance as a Ferrari? It obviously won’t go round a race track as quickly as a Ferrari, why do you think that is? Is it due to some form of magic that can’t be measured or simply because they did not measure all the other performance indicators, such as performance above 60mph, braking, aerodynamics/downforce, traction, etc.? Obviously, the Fiesta would not perform as well as the Ferrari because it would not “measure identically” and if it did, then it would perform as quickly on a track as the Ferrari. Isn’t this obvious?


Vamp898 said:


> This is an easy measurement. Just invert the second recording and mix/add them together. The result is the difference.


This is called a null test and has been a widely used standard test/measurement for probably a century or so. As this test/measurement yielded a difference, obviously your statement “_they measured identical_” MUST be false! What you presumably meant was; “the published specs were identical”?


Vamp898 said:


> It has been proven mathematically. As you can travel 3-times the speed of light mathematically.


No you can’t. 


Vamp898 said:


> The Nyquist Theorem needs a perfect filter to work.


Obviously this is nonsense. If it were true, then filterless NOS DACs would never output any audio. The actual truth is: The Nyquist Theorem needs an absolutely perfect filter to work absolutely perfectly. In practice, the filters even in cheap DACs work near perfectly, certainly well beyond the limit of audibility. 


Vamp898 said:


> Nobody cares what works in math.


Of course they do, without the math there would be no ADCs, DACs or pretty much any other audio equipment and there would be no digital audio. 


Vamp898 said:


> We are not listening to math theorems.


Sort of correct, we are not listening to math theorems, we’re listening to the output of math theorems. 


Vamp898 said:


> We are listening to existing, physical, analog signals, …


No we’re not! Not unless you’ve got XLR or Phono connectors embedded in your skull. What we’re actually listening to is an Acoustic signal (a sound pressure wave). If we could listen to analogue signals then we wouldn’t need speakers or headphones!

Even if you don’t understand what a “Theorem” is, simple logic would dictate that: As digital audio is predicated on the Nyquist/Shannon Theorem and if the Theorem does not work without a perfect filter and there are no perfect filters, then digital audio cannot work/exist. You’re not really claiming that are you?

G


----------



## jagwap

castleofargh said:


> But for the rest, where we fall into second hand data with what ends up being your interpretation of it... I’m not sold on much.
> If Sony or anybody else can demonstrate sound discrimination in a blind test but can’t measure some difference from the 2 DAPs, bunch of people need to be fired.


I've come across stuff that took years later to be measured or resolved that was audible.  Sometimes the test gear needs to catch up.  

In this case it is the chassis material that makes the difference, but steady state signal tests do not show it up? I've seen that countless times.  Not in a DAP, but in devices with magnetics, like toroidal transformers and output inductors placed next to steel or other ferrous material chassis.  It does not affect power, distortion and only in grossly incompetent designs: noise or crosstalk.  However it is distinctly audible.  Not many find this out as it doesn't occur to them to make the chassis out of 2 or three different material to see what happens , or take other mitigating measures, as the conventional measurements do not show any issues.  Once you've heard it, it is something you know to avoid.


castleofargh said:


> Having a difference in the signal and not knowing where it comes from, that I believe so very easily. Finding the why and how of something we know to happen, that can be near impossible sometimes in all research domains. But hearing a difference we can’t record and observe in the signal from 2 DAPs? That I cannot believe. My imagination cannot stretch that far.
> Once, I could perceive(barely) stuff by ear(blind) that I couldn’t seem to be able to dissociate from too much noise in my room on the recorded signal no matter how I tried to express the data. It’s not that I didn’t measure differences, it’s that I had too many to isolate just one.


The issue I believe is we do not have a reliable way of measuring non steady states in the analogue domain.  In an ideal world we could put dynamic signal, even music in the test system and get a readout of the error.  In digital we can subtract one from the other and look at the difference in ideal circumstances.  However in analogue things like the phase shifts cause by even the out of band frequency limits dominate any subtraction a surprising amount.  Attempts to compensate for them are extremely complex and usually result in failure.  I have seen a few try this with varying results.  Brunel University was demonstrating a prototype in the 1980's, but nothing seemed to come of it.  I have not seen any AES papers etc. A major hi-fi company tried twice, once getting very involved by brick-wall filtering the bass and treble out to examine the mid-band subtraction FFT.  I cannot recall much other than they found some interesting thing, but it was generally a failure.  If some one has this working, they will likely not share it as they could have a significant advantage over the competition.  Like the early laser infrarometers Wharfedale and B&W had in the 70s & 80s.  But once Klipple came along, everyone can measure this stuff.

So my previous experience does not discount the fact that a chassis made an audible change, and that change did not result conventional measurements finding the effect.

Sits awaiting the flame war...


----------



## bigshot (Jul 7, 2022)

If it takes years to prove something is audible, it probably doesn't make any difference to normal home listening. Audiophiles waste way too much time worrying about sound they can't hear, while the sound they can goes unbalanced.

Most of the time, unmeasurable audible differences are due to expectation bias. That is why we have blind listening tests.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> So my previous experience does not discount the fact that a chassis made an audible change, and that change did not result conventional measurements finding the effect.


I think this is the issue that audiophile marketers play on and therefore some/many audiophiles fall for: What do you/they mean by “_conventional measurements_”, the measurements used for published specs, the typical test routines of say an AP55, all the measurements of which an AP55 is capable or all the possible audio measurements? I can certainly buy the idea of audible differences with identical published specs, possibly even with the typical test routines of say an AP55 in pathological cases, but an audible difference that doesn’t show up in ANY measurement, including a Null Test, how’s that even possible?

I’ve heard of rare situations where it was difficult to find the measurement type for a particular audible difference but not being able to measure an audible difference always ultimately comes down to the incompetence of the person attempting the measurement, albeit with mitigating circumstances on occasion.

An audible difference that cannot be measured is an audiophile myth. A myth that defies logic, because digital audio is itself a measurement. So if there were something that digital audio can’t measure, then it can’t be recorded or reproduced.

G


----------



## castleofargh

jagwap said:


> I've come across stuff that took years later to be measured or resolved that was audible.  Sometimes the test gear needs to catch up.
> 
> In this case it is the chassis material that makes the difference, but steady state signal tests do not show it up? I've seen that countless times.  Not in a DAP, but in devices with magnetics, like toroidal transformers and output inductors placed next to steel or other ferrous material chassis.  It does not affect power, distortion and only in grossly incompetent designs: noise or crosstalk.  However it is distinctly audible.  Not many find this out as it doesn't occur to them to make the chassis out of 2 or three different material to see what happens , or take other mitigating measures, as the conventional measurements do not show any issues.  Once you've heard it, it is something you know to avoid.
> 
> ...


Right, I should have stuck to that particular case and not generalize to any 2 DAPs. Even I have been troubled by phase or even overall time shifts between gears making inaudible differences look huge in a null test, so we end up with the reversed issue of measured difference we can’t easily judge in term of audibility. But would that be a problem here where you can just swap the casing on the same DAP, record a song twice and subtract them?


----------



## bigshot (Jul 8, 2022)

Responding to Gregorio's post...

Most audible differences that can't be measured haven't even been proven conclusively to be audible differences yet. I think that is much more common than pathological cases as you call them. Audiophiles tend to look to the unlikely exceptions to the rule when they haven't even disproven the most likely reason (bias) yet. Then they justify the uncontrolled bias by pointing to the effect of psychology on perception and questioning the validity of controlled listening tests in general.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Would not at least in the case of recorded sound everything audible be measurable since the act of recording is measuring sound in the recording space . So anything not measurable is infidelity


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Jul 8, 2022)

Dogmatrix said:


> Would not at least in the case of recorded sound everything audible be measurable since the act of recording is measuring sound in the recording space.


There’s an appealing logic to that. But it’s not true… at least if “measurable” means the measurements are doable. If it means it’s possible, even with currently unknown methods, then the logic stands.

Think of 2 examples that we do know about. (I don’t know of examples we don’t know about – duh!)

Think of the frequency response. Although analog circuits exist in spectrum analyzers, currently we typically digitize the time-domain voltage and then perform a calculation (Fourier transform - FT). If we didn’t know how to do a FT, we would have a recording of the signal, but no frequency response.

Similar with TIM (transient intermodulation distortion), which was unknown before… somewhere around the 70’s. You could have recorded it, but without specifically looking for it, not known of its existence.


----------



## Dogmatrix

I am thinking along the lines of microphones and the subsequent equipment being measuring devices 
But I could comprehend of things like beat frequencies happening as the result of reproduction and therefore not strictly speaking present in the recording/measurement


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> Even I have been troubled by phase or even overall time shifts between gears making inaudible differences look huge in a null test, so we end up with the reversed issue of measured difference we can’t easily judge in term of audibility.


Yes but as you say, that’s the opposite of the claim of audible differences that can’t be measured. BTW, have you tried DeltaWave? It seems very good at auto alignment when nulling two different recordings. Down to an accuracy of 1/1000th of a sample apparently. 


bigshot said:


> Most audible differences that can't be measured haven't even been proven conclusively to be audible differences yet.


I’m talking about audible differences and there are no “_audible differences that can’t be measured_”. Audible differences that are inaudible are obviously not “audible differences”. What you’re talking about is entirely different, the misidentification of a psychological difference as an audible difference. 


SoundAndMotion said:


> There’s an appealing logic to that. But it’s not true… at least if “measurable” means the measurements are doable.


Logically then, surely the opposite must be true; Dogmatrix’s statement IS true if the measurements are doable. So let’s look at your two examples:


SoundAndMotion said:


> If we didn’t know how to do a FT, we would have a recording of the signal, but no frequency response.


Firstly, obviously that’s a hypothetical, we do know how to do a FT, it certainly is “doable”. Secondly, I don’t claim to have sufficient math ability to fully understand Shannon’s proof of the sampling theorem but doesn’t it rely (at least indirectly) on Fourier? In other words, if we didn’t know how to do a FT, we wouldn’t have the sampling theorem, digital audio wouldn’t exist and therefore we would not “have a [digital] recording of the signal”?


SoundAndMotion said:


> Similar with TIM (transient intermodulation distortion), which was unknown before… somewhere around the 70’s. You could have recorded it, but without specifically looking for it, not known of its existence.


As I understand it, TIM shouldn’t be an issue with any reasonably competent design and arises in response to a test signal that probably never exists in music recordings. In other words, it’s existence wasn’t known because it probably didn’t exist (in real world music/sound recording and reproduction)! It was discovered by accident about 50 years ago when someone cross wired an amp. I assume you are referring to the fact that TIM is not revealed in a typical THD measurement and before the 1970’s TIM was not specifically measured. However, although the TIM test/signal was not done before the 1970’s it was certainly “doable” and, a null test would reveal TIM (if present). This brings us back to: What is published as specs and what is typically measured as opposed to what can be measured. Obviously, if something isn’t typically measured, that does NOT mean it cannot be measured. 

So, as both your examples were/are in fact “doable”, then Dogmatrix’s assertion was true!



Dogmatrix said:


> I could comprehend of things like beat frequencies happening as the result of reproduction and therefore not strictly speaking present in the recording/measurement


The beat frequencies are in the recording, except in the case of false/perceptual error “beats”, such as “binaural beats”. In which case, it’s not in the recording or the result of reproduction, it’s all in the mind of the listener.

G


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Jul 8, 2022)

gregorio said:


> So, as both your examples were/are in fact “doable”, then Dogmatrix’s assertion was true!





SoundAndMotion said:


> But it’s not true… at least *if *“measurable” means the measurements are doable. If it means it’s possible, even with currently unknown methods, then the logic stands.
> 
> Think of 2 examples that we *do* know about. (*I don’t know of examples we don’t know about *– duh!)





Dogmatrix said:


> Would not at least in the case of recorded sound *everything* audible be *measurable* since the act of recording is measuring sound in the recording space .


(I added *bold*)
God, you love to argue!

I said "if" to say not everything is "doable", because if we don't know how to do it, we can't do it. (duh!) I said "I don't know of examples" because "we don't know about" them. Then I gave 2 examples that we "do" know about, to show that *"if"* we didn't know about them, we couldn't do the measurements, because we don't know.... oh, come on!

Is that clear yet? No math involved. (BTW, yes Shannon depends directly on Fourier). Without Shannon, digital audio wouldn't exist *in its present form*, but it certainly can exist without Shannon (perhaps less efficiently, or perhaps with empirically derived methods that are as efficient).

Dogmatrix's original sweeping statement can be made correct, either by stating the assumption that even if we don't know how yet, we eventually will, or by being less sweeping.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 8, 2022)

SoundAndMotion said:


> I said "if" to say not everything is "doable", because if we don't know how to do it, we can't do it. (duh!)


You seem to have missed my point, that everything is effectively doable, for example:


SoundAndMotion said:


> Then I gave 2 examples that we "do" know about, to show that *"if"* we didn't know about them, we couldn't do the measurements, because we don't know.... oh, come on!


The example you gave of TIM disproves your assertion. We didn’t know about TIM before the 1970’s, we didn’t know the test signals to use to generate TIM and we didn’t know there was a form of IMD that a standard THD measurement wouldn’t reveal BUT STILL we would have been able to reveal/measure it with a Null Test (which had been around for many decades before TIM was discovered)!

A null test will reveal any and all (“everything”) differences between 2 audio signals, regardless of whether we know what’s causing it or whether or not we have a way of measuring it in isolation.


SoundAndMotion said:


> Without Shannon, digital audio wouldn't exit *in its present form …*


Dogmatrix and I were talking about the digital audio that does exist, not some hypothetical digital audio that does not exist.


SoundAndMotion said:


> Dogmatrix's original sweeping statement can be made correct …


Dogmatrix’s original sweeping statement is already correct, although it only covers our real world. To make it correct, does he/we really have to add the caveat: “This assertion may not be true for intelligent life from other planets or in parallel universes where digital audio may have a different form”?

G

EDIT: Incidentally, without Shannon, digital audio almost certainly would exist in it’s present form. The proof was published independently by others and in some cases prior to Shannon (Raabe, Kotelnikov, Whitteker, Gabor, Ogura and arguably the first, Borel in 1897). The difference is where it was published and it’s influence on the communication industry.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

gregorio said:


> You seem to have missed my point, that everything is effectively doable, for example:


You missed my point: if you don't know how to do something, you can't do it. No, everything is not effectively doable.



SoundAndMotion said:


> God, you love to argue!


I learned a few years ago when I went round for round with you for many cycles (on Shannon, in fact), that you don't try to counter with facts and logic, you use attrition. I gave up in that exchange when you basically said (I'm paraphrasing from memory, but I can dig it up): a perfect signal destroyed by noise is still perfect; it's just in the noise.

I can shred your post (e.g. using a null test), but why bother, you'll just come back with more inane stuff you don't understand. Your comment about life on other planets and parallel universes was so stupid, it's offensive. BTW, Dogmatrix mentions recording, not digital audio. 

I'll give you this: I used "Shannon" as a placeholder for the Sampling Theorem (which you also often do, e.g. yesterday). So you are right that we're both technically wrong when we do so, because others came up with the same proofs separate from Shannon. Should we both stop, or since you know exactly what I meant, can you use facts, not nit-pick-to-death.

So without the Sampling Theorem, digital audio could still exist (contrary to what you often say), but would be in a different form.


----------



## bigshot

Points are being missed left and right around here!


----------



## bigshot

SoundAndMotion said:


> So you are right that we're both technically wrong.


That should be the motto for this group!


----------



## gregorio

SoundAndMotion said:


> if you don't know how to do something, you can't do it.





SoundAndMotion said:


> you don't try to counter with facts and logic, you use attrition.


Isn’t the bottom quote ironic and hypocritical? Your top quote is just a repeat of the same mantra which is not a “counter” with facts/logic. Your own example, we didn’t know how to measure TIM but still we would have been able to reveal/detect it, with a null test. Of course, one can argue that if we know how to do a null test then we do “know how to do something” and your top quote is obviously correct but then your claim that we didn’t know how to detect/measure TIM was false.

You claimed that Dogmatrix was wrong but the two examples you gave to support your assertion were incorrect. TIM would have been detectable and (paraphrasing) “what if the sampling theorem didn’t exist” is inapplicable because it does exist. So apart from attrition, do you have any examples which actually support your assertion. 


SoundAndMotion said:


> I gave up in that exchange when you basically said (I'm paraphrasing from memory, but I can dig it up): a perfect signal destroyed by noise is still perfect; it's just in the noise.


We can revisit that if you wish, although you’d have to define “destroyed”. 


SoundAndMotion said:


> I can shred your post (e.g. using a null test), but why bother …


Then why bother having a sound science subforum in the first place and why do you bother posting anything in it? Please give a valid example of an audible difference between 2 audio files that would not be picked up by a null test.


SoundAndMotion said:


> BTW, Dogmatrix mentions recording, not digital audio.


True but then what percentage of recordings do not involve digital audio?


SoundAndMotion said:


> Your comment about life on other planets and parallel universes was so stupid, it's offensive.


But then if you give an example that would only exist in a parallel universe or on another planet, how else should one state the caveat? And, isn’t giving such an example to claim someone else is wrong stupid and offensive to start with?


SoundAndMotion said:


> So without the Sampling Theorem, digital audio could still exist (contrary to what you often say), but would be in a different form.


Even if Shannon and everyone else who can be credited for the Sampling Theorem had never lived, then others would have probably discovered essentially the same “form”. However, both your and my opinion on this is just speculation and irrelevant anyway, because on this planet we do have the Sampling Theorem.

G


----------



## bigshot

Whew! The last paragraph had to do with sound. I thought I’d get all the way to the end with no sound.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> The last paragraph had to do with sound. I thought I’d get all the way to the end with no sound.


True, much of it was to do with audio rather than sound; TIM, null tests, sampling theory, digital audio, etc. Are we not allowed to discuss those things?

G


----------



## bigshot (Jul 9, 2022)

It looked like just general argumentativeness to me, but I admit, I didn’t read it carefully. We’re in the part of the cycle where it’s more fire than facts.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> It looked like just general argumentativeness to me, but I admit, I didn’t read it carefully.


No, it’s specific “argumentativeness”. In my case, an argument specifically against the audiophile myth that there are audible differences that cannot be measured/revealed with measurements. IMO, that’s a particularly good myth to bust because many other audiophile claims and myths rely on it. 

So maybe you should read more carefully before responding or just don’t respond if you’re not interested.

G


----------



## bigshot

It went beyond that several posts back.


----------



## Light - Man

bigshot said:


> Whew! I thought I’d get all the way to the end with no sound.



Whew, that sounds like far too dangerous an experiment to me!


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> I think this is the issue that audiophile marketers play on and therefore some/many audiophiles fall for: What do you/they mean by “_conventional measurements_”, the measurements used for published specs, the typical test routines of say an AP55, all the measurements of which an AP55 is capable or all the possible audio measurements? I can certainly buy the idea of audible differences with identical published specs, possibly even with the typical test routines of say an AP55 in pathological cases, but an audible difference that doesn’t show up in ANY measurement, including a Null Test, how’s that even possible?


I am not in marketing.  I design the products for a living, and despise almost all marketing nonsense.  You relay on this null test, which I have never seen work despite multiple attempts on analogue gear.



gregorio said:


> I’ve heard of rare situations where it was difficult to find the measurement type for a particular audible difference but not being able to measure an audible difference always ultimately comes down to the incompetence of the person attempting the measurement, albeit with mitigating circumstances on occasion.


Not it doesn't.  You need to get involved in the design side.  There are plenty of examples, and the people involved are not always incompetent.  If they were you wouldn't spend so much money on their equipment. 


gregorio said:


> An audible difference that cannot be measured is an audiophile myth. A myth that defies logic, because digital audio is itself a measurement. So if there were something that digital audio can’t measure, then it can’t be recorded or reproduced.
> 
> G


That last point is logical, but in the recording of the difference, if no difference is evident because it is swamped by the phase, amplitude and timing errors of the two devices, then it is moot.  It is an unprovable proof.


castleofargh said:


> Right, I should have stuck to that particular case and not generalize to any 2 DAPs. Even I have been troubled by phase or even overall time shifts between gears making inaudible differences look huge in a null test, so we end up with the reversed issue of measured difference we can’t easily judge in term of audibility. But would that be a problem here where you can just swap the casing on the same DAP, record a song twice and subtract them?


That would be interesting.  The differences may be low enough to measure something.  But none of us were there.  Manufacturers rarely divulge all of their working, for obvious reasons.


Dogmatrix said:


> Would not at least in the case of recorded sound everything audible be measurable since the act of recording is measuring sound in the recording space . So anything not measurable is infidelity


Same as Gregorio's point. But makes the same assumptions.  That we can analyse ALL the differences on the recording.


gregorio said:


> Yes but as you say, that’s the opposite of the claim of audible differences that can’t be measured. BTW, have you tried DeltaWave? It seems very good at auto alignment when nulling two different recordings. Down to an accuracy of 1/1000th of a sample apparently.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


I have not heard of DeltaWave.  I will look into it, as it looks interesting.  How does it remove the phase differences and know they fully removed.  What if the phase differences ARE the difference.  Don't say we cannot hear them because i know we can.  Group delay of 15uS or more between channels at high frequencies, and more than a few mS at low frequences when compared to midband is audible.  

As to TIM test, it DID show up issues with designs.  Amps were slow back then.  Also, what null test was available back then.  DeltaWave I suspect wasn't.  It was what those teams I was describing was trying to do, and they failed.  Some of them were smarter than average, before you insult them again.


gregorio said:


> BUT STILL we would have been able to reveal/measure it with a Null Test (which had been around for many decades before TIM was discovered)!


Where is this null test?  I've over 30 years in the industry, and I have never seen it work, with the exception of the ones I mention, where they didn't really.



gregorio said:


> A null test will reveal any and all (“everything”) differences between 2 audio signals, regardless of whether we know what’s causing it or whether or not we have a way of measuring it in isolation.


Yes, but with the possible exception the DeltaWave you speak of, I have not seen a successful Null Test of analogue gear.


----------



## Dogmatrix

The question does not stretch to analysis it simply illuminates the logical connection between measured and measurable  
All things measured , known or unknown are by definition measurable


----------



## bigshot

Dogmatrix said:


> All things measured , known or unknown are by definition measurable


I can’t wait to see the argument against that one!


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> I can’t wait to see the argument against that one!


I'm hoping for a measured response.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> You relay on this null test, which I have never seen work despite multiple attempts on analogue gear.


Yes, I rely on it quite a bit, I probably do a couple a week on average but have days when I do 10 or more, which is similar to other audio engineers in my line of work. Usually I’m doing a null test on digital files but I have occasionally done it on analogue gear and it always works, although it is easier to screw up. I suppose it depends on what you mean by “works”. If you mean achieve a perfect null, you’re never get one with analogue gear because you’ll always have (at least) the slight difference random/thermal noise.


jagwap said:


> That last point is logical, but in the recording of the difference, if no difference is evident because it is swamped by the phase, amplitude and timing errors of the two devices, then it is moot. It is an unprovable proof.


If an audible difference is so swamped by phase, amplitude and timing errors that it’s not evident in the difference file, then it wouldn’t be audible. However, this is pretty much a hypothetical scenario because to swamp an audible difference would need relatively massive amounts of phase, amplitude or timing errors. Many times more than you’d find even in cheap gear.


jagwap said:


> How does it remove the phase differences and know they fully removed. What if the phase differences ARE the difference.


It doesn’t remove phase differences, it just aligns the two test files. So if for example there’s clock drift, that will still affect the difference file. However, it can be adjusted and disabled. The developer is very open to discussion and questions. 


jagwap said:


> Same as Gregorio's point. But makes the same assumptions. That we can analyse ALL the differences on the recording.


Hang on, I’m not making that assumption! The contents of a digital audio file (including of course the contents of a digital null test difference file) can be analysed in terms of amplitude because a measurement of amplitude is of course what a digital audio file is, and it can be analysed in terms of frequency content with a Fourier transform but it cannot necessarily be analysed in terms of anything else, what is causing that difference for example. In other words, we can analyse the combination of ALL the differences but not necessarily analyse any of the individual differences that make up that combination. 


jagwap said:


> As to TIM test, it DID show up issues with designs. Amps were slow back then. Also, what null test was available back then. DeltaWave I suspect wasn't.


Obviously deltawave wasn’t available back then. I’ve been in the business nearly 30 years and have virtually always done null tests using digital recordings. Although I have done it in the analogue domain a few times and seen older generation engineers do it by simply outputting the difference result to a main studio monitor and listening for anything audible or hooking it up to an oscilloscope. Also, using the null test principle was at one time a technique for feeding a cue mix to a recording artist, although I’ve never used it myself.

G


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> I can’t wait to see the argument against that one!


To be fair this kind of logic grenade does not mean much it is more a debating tactic 
In our context a debate concerning differences between equipment used for recorded audio reproduction it means the term unmeasurable is an automatic fail


----------



## Dogmatrix

On reflection my previous post is bad , it opens the context unnecessarily and invites attack
I would have been safer and more correct to limit the context to the recorded data


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> Yes, I rely on it quite a bit, I probably do a couple a week on average but have days when I do 10 or more, which is similar to other audio engineers in my line of work. Usually I’m doing a null test on digital files but I have occasionally done it on analogue gear and it always works, although it is easier to screw up. I suppose it depends on what you mean by “works”. If you mean achieve a perfect null, you’re never get one with analogue gear because you’ll always have (at least) the slight difference random/thermal noise.
> 
> If an audible difference is so swamped by phase, amplitude and timing errors that it’s not evident in the difference file, then it wouldn’t be audible. However, this is pretty much a hypothetical scenario because to swamp an audible difference would need relatively massive amounts of phase, amplitude or timing errors. Many times more than you’d find even in cheap gear.


I'm not saying it swamped the audio differences in that the audio differences were tiny.  I'm saying it made the good analysis of the audio differences impossible.

Really good gear will have enough phase shift to cause large signals in the difference signal.  You need DC <> light to get rid of it for sure.  1Hz <>100kHz is no where near enough.  How do you differentiate from audible phase shift and inaudible?  Like in crossovers? Only a limited amount of work has been done on that.  Hawksford, Harman...



gregorio said:


> It doesn’t remove phase differences, it just aligns the two test files. So if for example there’s clock drift, that will still affect the difference file. However, it can be adjusted and disabled. The developer is very open to discussion and questions.


I found the thread on audiosciencereview.com and I will wade through it.  A brilliant tool if it works.  There seem to be some rather less effective applications before.  It is non-trivial to do, as generations of audio design engineer has found.  However if it doesn't align the phase differences, they could swamp and comparison of different analogue gear in the time domain.  It will also add those of the ADC.  Which are audible, which are artefacts?



gregorio said:


> Hang on, I’m not making that assumption! The contents of a digital audio file (including of course the contents of a digital null test difference file) can be analysed in terms of amplitude because a measurement of amplitude is of course what a digital audio file is, and it can be analysed in terms of frequency content with a Fourier transform but it cannot necessarily be analysed in terms of anything else, what is causing that difference for example. In other words, we can analyse the combination of ALL the differences but not necessarily analyse any of the individual differences that make up that combination.
> 
> Obviously deltawave wasn’t available back then. I’ve been in the business nearly 30 years and have virtually always done null tests using digital recordings. Although I have done it in the analogue domain a few times and seen older generation engineers do it by simply outputting the difference result to a main studio monitor and listening for anything audible or hooking it up to an oscilloscope. Also, using the null test principle was at one time a technique for feeding a cue mix to a recording artist, although I’ve never used it myself.


Interesting. Listening in analogue to the difference is a useful tool.  I know people who listen to jitter error too.  However you do know that is a subjective listening test, and NOT a measurement.  So it does not support your argument well.  As to measuring the difference signal, we are back to the problem I described.



gregorio said:


> G


So there may be a null measurement tool that started in 2019 I didn't know about.  Before that these things eluded us in measurement form, and until I get a bit more info on Deltawave, we'll see if it is the blanket cure all to all audio measurement.


----------



## 71 dB (Jul 10, 2022)

What I am interested of is why audio engineers need to do null tests on weekly basis? I have not worked as audio engineer so I wouldn't know. What exactly are audio engineers comparing with null tests? Why is there B to be compared against A with null test? Why isn't there just A? If there are A and B, isn't it because there was a need to have different versions? Meaning it is KNOWN and DESIRED that A and B are different? For example different masters of a recording for different streaming platforms.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 10, 2022)

71 dB said:


> What I am interested of is why audio engineers need to do null tests on weekly basis? I have not worked as audio engineer so I wouldn't know.


Many audio engineers will do a null test when comparing equipment or as part of a problem solving sequence. That’s relatively infrequent though, probably less (or a lot less) than once a month. The most common use is probably by Dialogue Editors. At the start of audio post production (for TV and Film) the Production Sound Mixer will supply the Dialogue Editor with a polywav for every “take”. These polywavs typically contain 5-16 mono files, each of which is either a different mic (EG. A boom mic, different actors’ lav mics or a plant mic), a mix track (a mix of one or all of the mics) or some sort of safety track (a straight duplicate or a duplicate with reduced gain). Therefore, some of these tracks sound obviously different, some are different but sound very similar and some are identical. A null test is often the quickest and surest way to separate the very similar from the identical, so we may do dozens of them a day at certain points in the editing process.

Another common use of a null test is to identify the phase difference between two recordings we know are from different mics/sources and this applies to music recording (as well as TV/Film sound). It’s quite common to have two different mono mics or sources for the same instrument. For example, it’s common to mic a snare drum with a mic on top (the batter head) and one underneath (the snare head), or to record an electric guitar both from the DI input and with a mic next to the cab. Particularly with the snare drum, there is always an audible phase difference between the two mics. So, we do a null test and slide one of the files in time until we find the quietest (greatest null) location and that’s the phase offset. We’ll usually just do this by ear but of course it’s easy to meter/measure the amplitude of the difference file to be sure.

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Many audio engineers will do a null test when comparing equipment or as part of a problem solving sequence. That’s relatively infrequent though, probably less (or a lot less) than once a month.


That makes sense.



gregorio said:


> The most common use is probably by Dialogue Editors. At the start of audio post production (for TV and Film) the Production Sound Mixer will supply the Dialogue Editor with a polywav for every “take”. These polywavs typically contain 5-16 mono files, each of which is either a different mic (EG. A boom mic, different actors’ lav mics or a plant mic), a mix track (a mix of one or all of the mics) or some sort of safety track (a straight duplicate or a duplicate with reduced gain). Therefore, some of these tracks sound obviously different, some are different but sound very similar and some are identical. A null test is often the quickest and surest way to separate the very similar from the identical, so we may do dozens of them a day at certain points in the editing process.



Thanks for explaining these things to us who don't know hardly anything!

Wouldn't it be easier to name the mono files according to what they are? For example *Take_03_Boom_mic.wav* and *Take_03_Boom_mic_duplicate.wav*? To me it looks messy to have 5-16 files without direct indication (filename) of what they are so that Dialogue Editors need to do null tests to figure out what is what. 



gregorio said:


> Another common use of a null test is to identify the phase difference between two recordings we know are from different mics/sources and this applies to music recording (as well as TV/Film sound). It’s quite common to have two different mono mics or sources for the same instrument. For example, it’s common to mic a snare drum with a mic on top (the batter head) and one underneath (the snare head), or to record an electric guitar both from the DI input and with a mic next to the cab. Particularly with the snare drum, there is always an audible phase difference between the two mics. So, we do a null test and slide one of the files in time until we find the quietest (greatest null) location and that’s the phase offset. We’ll usually just do this by ear but of course it’s easy to meter/measure the amplitude of the difference file to be sure.
> 
> G


I actually know about this and I had to address this when I was in the mixing course. However, instead of null tests, what we did was process the signals of each mic until they could be mixed together getting the desired sound. In the simplest form you change the polarity of one of the mics and test which polarity gives louder sound. Of course you can slide the signals to be exactly aligned, but whether one needs to do that to achieve desired sound is another thing. Certain comb-filtering effects can be beneficial for sound with "character."


----------



## old tech

jagwap said:


> I am not in marketing.  I design the products for a living, and despise almost all marketing nonsense.  You relay on this null test, which I have never seen work despite multiple attempts on analogue gear.
> 
> 
> Not it doesn't.  You need to get involved in the design side.  There are plenty of examples, and the people involved are not always incompetent.  If they were you wouldn't spend so much money on their equipment.
> ...


Apology if I am reading your post incorrectly, but null testing on analogue gear has been part of a designer's basic tool kit for generations.

As an example, null testing was crucial for the Carver challenge, where Carver used null testing to make different analogue amps sound identical - including between tube and solid state amps. It would have been impossible (or very improbable) for him to tune the different amps without utilising null testing.


----------



## jagwap (Jul 10, 2022)

old tech said:


> Apology if I am reading your post incorrectly, but null testing on analogue gear has been part of a designer's basic tool kit for generations.
> 
> As an example, null testing was crucial for the Carver challenge, where Carver used null testing to make different analogue amps sound identical - including between tube and solid state amps. It would have been impossible (or very improbable) for him to tune the different amps without utilising null testing.



I imagine Carver did do this as a small part of what he did, but I've never seen any one else use it successfully.  The level of tuning needed to get a good result, like he was aiming for is impractical in daily use. (Edit): He was trying to match as exactly as possible the out of band response so that the in band phase response matched.  He is one of the few design engineers to recognise this as important, AND publish the fact (indirectly).  So if this is important for audio, cancelling it before a null test may not be valid.  Something to discuss...

I'm still reading, but the DeltaWave software appears to be trying to automate it in the digital domain, which is excellent.  I am getting concerned that there may be some things being tuned out to get a null that are actually audible (see above).  I need to get into it more.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> Wouldn't it be easier to name the mono files according to what they are? For example *Take_03_Boom_mic.wav* and *Take_03_Boom_mic_duplicate.wav*?


No, all the mono files within a polywav must have the same file name, typically something like “01-03T05.wav”, denoting Scene 1, Shot 3, Take 5. The individual wavs within that polywav will be named say “01-03T05.A6.wav” or “01-03T05.A3.wav”. The “A6” and “A3”denotes the field recorder channel number. However, within the bwav spec is a “Label” metadata field, so you can put “Boom”, MixL, A3Dup or actor’s character name in there. The problem is that going through menus and using small 1-9 keys to change the labels for say 10 channels takes more time than is often available and the labels are consequently often incorrect. 


71 dB said:


> However, instead of null tests, what we did was process the signals of each mic until they could be mixed together getting the desired sound. In the simplest form you change the polarity of one of the mics and test which polarity gives louder sound.


But that “simplest form” is effectively a null test. The quieter one being due to a greater amount of “nulling” (phase cancellation). Sometimes though it’s useful to actually address the time offset differential, say between a close/spot mic and more distant ones, such as a main array.

G


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> I'm not saying it swamped the audio differences in that the audio differences were tiny. I'm saying it made the good analysis of the audio differences impossible.


Yes, as I mentioned, a null test is not a good analysis tool from the point of view of identifying the components of the total difference. For example, if we have a significant difference file due to both a phase difference and say IMD, there’s probably no way to analyse how much of the difference is due to one or the other. A null test only gives the total difference, effectively a single measurement of both together, plus whatever other types of distortion (say thermal noise) is present. Presumably, this inability to analyse the individual components of a “difference file” is why the null test isn’t more commonly used by some/many audio equipment designers.


jagwap said:


> It will also add those of the ADC. Which are audible, which are artefacts?


The artefacts of the ADC should be in common on both recordings and therefore cancelled out in the null test. The exception would be random artefacts, such as thermal noise or dither but differences lower in level than these are not going to be audible. 


jagwap said:


> There seem to be some rather less effective applications before. However if it doesn't align the phase differences, they could swamp and comparison of different analogue gear in the time domain.


Before DeltaWave, many people used “Audio DiffMaker”, not as effective/comprehensive as DeltaWave but perfectly usable. 


jagwap said:


> Listening in analogue to the difference is a useful tool. … However you do know that is a subjective listening test, and NOT a measurement. So it does not support your argument well.


This raises 3 points:
1. Yes, it is a subjective listening test but in a commercial studio, using main monitors and raising the level of the difference output by say 10-15dB covers your point about audibility for almost any reasonable listening level. However …
2. Typically we’ll examine a spectrogram (FFT) of the difference file, in the case of something significant in the difference file that wasn’t audible. Maybe it’s higher frequency than our old ears can hear for example.
3. Most importantly, point #2 (the spectrogram) is an objective measurement and before that, so was an oscilloscope reading. So, it does support my argument well. The case of an engineer/s choosing not to use an oscilloscope in a purely analogue null test doesn’t affect my argument, as that’s a different argument. Which is the point I was trying to make previously; the difference between something that is not measurable vs something that is measurable but they simply didn’t bother to measure it.


jagwap said:


> I know people who listen to jitter error too.


Really, why/how? The jitter from even cheap devices is a long way below audibility and has been for many years. Are you talking about deliberately screwed up jitter performance or maybe accumulated jitter from daisy-chained digital audio devices?

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> No, all the mono files within a polywav must have the same file name, typically something like “01-03T05.wav”, denoting Scene 1, Shot 3, Take 5. The individual wavs within that polywav will be named say “01-03T05.A6.wav” or “01-03T05.A3.wav”. The “A6” and “A3”denotes the field recorder channel number. However, within the bwav spec is a “Label” metadata field, so you can put “Boom”, MixL, A3Dup or actor’s character name in there. The problem is that going through menus and using small 1-9 keys to change the labels for say 10 channels takes more time than is often available and the labels are consequently often incorrect.


So, this need for null tests originates from inadequate user interface in the field recorder?

At worst things like this lead to situations were one person saving time/money leads to 10 other people needing to work more.


gregorio said:


> But that “simplest form” is effectively a null test. The quieter one being due to a greater amount of “nulling” (phase cancellation). Sometimes though it’s useful to actually address the time offset differential, say between a close/spot mic and more distant ones, such as a main array.
> 
> G


The “simplest form” could certainly be called a null test, but doing it doesn't "feel" like doing a null test. The feel might be more important than definitions and semantics when mixing music.

The biggest problem of (small) time offset is comb-filtering effect. Sometimes those can be desired, sometimes not. Time offsets aren't a bad thing by themselves, because for example spatial hearing is partially based on them. Sometimes time offsets produce sound that it not desired and in those situations fixing them is smart, of course. If the level difference of two mics having time offset is 10 dB for example, the resulting comb-filtering effect is somewhat mild (~5.7 dB), but if those mics are mixed together at very similar level, the effect can be massive. When recording in reverberant places as concert halls the mic signals have tons of time offset by themselves because of reflections. It is just called spatial information. Our ears expect some comb-filtering and temporal smearing from sound, because that's what happens acoustically around us.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> So, this need for null tests originates from inadequate user interface in the field recorder?


Partially although some of the more recent field recorders allow a keyboard to be used, which helps a bit. The problem is that there may still not be time between shots to change all the labels. 


71 dB said:


> At worst things like this lead to situations were one person saving time/money leads to 10 other people needing to work more.


Except it’s the other way around. During production (filming) there would usually be at least 25 people working on set and up to as many as 200, plus it could be costing many thousands per minute and there are always tight deadlines. They are not going to hold up the production just because it inconveniences the dialogue editor in post production.


71 dB said:


> When recording in reverberant places as concert halls the mic signals have tons of time offset by themselves because of reflections. It is just called spatial information.


No, it can also be called a mess! Because we’ve got tons of reflections times tons of mics getting the direct sound and reflections all at different times. It’s true what you say though, the decisions are all subjective depending on the situation and the sound desired, plus in say classic music in a concert hall we want some of that reverb (spatial information). So sometimes that “mess” is subjectively OK but usually we’ll do some time alignment. Typically we’ll have a main array, some close/spot mics, some outriggers and some more distant room/ambience mics. We almost never time align the ambience mics, the outriggers are usually at around -6dB and we usually don’t time align those either (but occasionally we might) but the close mics are usually time aligned (though not always). The reference would usually be the main array. In rock, pop, etc., we’re generally not bothered with reverb/spatial information during recording and editing, as this will mainly be added during mixing, although the drumkit may be an exception in some genres. So what and whether we time align is purely down to subjective choices about the sound colouration that results.

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> Yes, as I mentioned, a null test is not a good analysis tool from the point of view of identifying the components of the total difference. For example, if we have a significant difference file due to both a phase difference and say IMD, there’s probably no way to analyse how much of the difference is due to one or the other. A null test only gives the total difference, effectively a single measurement of both together, plus whatever other types of distortion (say thermal noise) is present. Presumably, this inability to analyse the individual components of a “difference file” is why the null test isn’t more commonly used by some/many audio equipment designers.


Yes. This has been my point.


gregorio said:


> The artefacts of the ADC should be in common on both recordings and therefore cancelled out in the null test. The exception would be random artefacts, such as thermal noise or dither but differences lower in level than these are not going to be audible.
> 
> Before DeltaWave, many people used “Audio DiffMaker”, not as effective/comprehensive as DeltaWave but perfectly usable.


Before that? These are relatively recent.  I am still looking into these, and I like much of what I am seeing.  However there are indications that some of the calibrations may null out what we may be looking for.  Hopefully optional calibration.


gregorio said:


> This raises 3 points:
> 1. Yes, it is a subjective listening test but in a commercial studio, using main monitors and raising the level of the difference output by say 10-15dB covers your point about audibility for almost any reasonable listening level. However …
> 2. Typically we’ll examine a spectrogram (FFT) of the difference file, in the case of something significant in the difference file that wasn’t audible. Maybe it’s higher frequency than our old ears can hear for example.
> 3. Most importantly, point #2 (the spectrogram) is an objective measurement and before that, so was an oscilloscope reading. So, it does support my argument well. The case of an engineer/s choosing not to use an oscilloscope in a purely analogue null test doesn’t affect my argument, as that’s a different argument. Which is the point I was trying to make previously; the difference between something that is not measurable vs something that is measurable but they simply didn’t bother to measure it.


But until these software tools came along, it was not useful as a design tool, so, what did those "incompetent" engineers do then?  In design we often need different analysis.


gregorio said:


> Really, why/how? The jitter from even cheap devices is a long way below audibility and has been for many years. Are you talking about deliberately screwed up jitter performance or maybe accumulated jitter from daisy-chained digital audio devices?
> 
> G


This is the jitter ERROR. The phase noise output from the type 2 phase detector of the PPL .  They would listen to see if there was audio content buried in the noise. The ear can be sensitive to this.  Not something I have done myself.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> Yes. This has been my point.
> Before that? These are relatively recent.


Yes, I realise that a null test has limited use as an audio equipment design tool and before the analysis tools such as Audio DiffMaker and Deltawave, even less so. But as I mentioned, in the analogue domain/era, listening to the results of a null test was common and of course in a studio setting that also means “measuring”, as input/output channels would be metered (typically a VU meter) and I’ve seen oscilloscopes and other meters used. 


jagwap said:


> I am still looking into these, and I like much of what I am seeing. However there are indications that some of the calibrations may null out what we may be looking for. Hopefully optional calibration.


Yes, there are many configurable settings, including disabling many of them. 


jagwap said:


> But until these software tools came along, it was not useful as a design tool, so, what did those "incompetent" engineers do then?


Regardless of how useful a design tool many design engineers considered null testing to be, it was available and the results were measurable, at least in terms of a meter level or oscilloscope output.

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> Regardless of how useful a design tool many design engineers considered null testing to be, it was available and the results were measurable, at least in terms of a meter level or oscilloscope output.
> 
> G


But that doesn't mean it is of any use for design work and identifying the issues that steady state measurements cannot see.  This was the original point.  

Just because something works in your subset of the audio world, it doesn't prove everyone else is wrong.  So it would please me if you stopped calling my colleagues (who couldn't find a measurement) incompetent.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> But that doesn't mean it is of any use for design work and identifying the issues that steady state measurements cannot see. This was the original point.


No, the original point was that audible differences are measurable. Because, all audible differences are in the “difference output” of a null test, which is measurable. I’m not disputing that a null test is of limited use to an equipment designer, who needs to know the individual components/causes of the differences, rather than just the total difference.


jagwap said:


> Just because something works in your subset of the audio world, it doesn't prove everyone else is wrong.


But it does prove that audible differences are measurable, regardless of whether another subset of the audio world finds that total difference/combination of differences useful or not.

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> No, the original point was that audible differences are measurable. Because, all audible differences are in the “difference output” of a null test, which is measurable. I’m not disputing that a null test is of limited use to an equipment designer, who needs to know the individual components/causes of the differences, rather than just the total difference.
> 
> But it does prove that audible differences are measurable, regardless of whether another subset of the audio world finds that total difference/combination of differences useful or not.
> 
> G


No it doesn't.  It does not prove the differences we were looking for were measureable. Only the ones you were looking for.  Your world is not the universe.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> No it doesn't. It does not prove the differences we were looking for were measureable. Only the ones you were looking for.


Yes it does because the results of a null test are not the differences of what you were looking for or “only the ones” I was looking for, but of ALL the differences together.

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> Yes it does because the results of a null test are not the differences of what you were looking for or “only the ones” I was looking for, but of ALL the differences together.
> 
> G


But the ones we were looking for were not measureable because they were swamped by the other artifacts, as has been explained multiple times.

We are going round in circles, because you HAVE to be right.  Which is either trolling, or arrogance.  You choose which.


----------



## castleofargh (Jul 13, 2022)

jagwap said:


> No it doesn't.  It does not prove the differences we were looking for were measureable. Only the ones you were looking for.  Your world is not the universe.


Objectively, a recording of the signal is a measurement down to the resolution a given apparatus gave us. The only fairly solid limit being for signals below our resolution power.
 But for everything above, if we have quantified the signal, haven't we measured it?
 Then the null is an expression of all the differences down to our resolution limit.

Of course it can be quite the useless data for some of the questions we have about the signal, human hearing, or the behavior of some device. I mean, all the other measurements protocols exist to find ways to extract some variables from the rest of the mess.

Greg might be a *little* stuck on this because he will not renounce now, in the future, or in any parallel universe, the notion that quantified signal is measured signal. I hope I’m not putting too many words into his mouth but it feels like everything else is a direct consequence of that one idea.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> But the ones we were looking for were not measureable because they were swamped by the other artifacts, as has been explained multiple times.


What you (or I) were looking for is irrelevant, what you get is the total. Let’s say you have a difference file (“A”) from a null test with some significant content due to say a phase discrepancy and some other audible distortion. Of course we’re not going to know from difference file “A” what is causing this difference (that it is due to phase and some other distortion or how much of each). Now let’s say we have difference file “B”, which is exactly the same null test as “A” (with the same phase discrepancy) but without the other audible distortion. I presume you are not claiming that “A” and “B” will measure identically? If this is the case, then our measurement of “A” is a measurement of phase offset + distortion, ergo we must have measured distortion. This might not be of any use to you, or be what you were looking for, because all we’ve got is that total and no idea how much of that total difference is caused by this “other audible distortion”. 


jagwap said:


> We are going round in circles, because you HAVE to be right.


No, I don’t have to be right but I do have to see some evidence of how/where I’m wrong.


castleofargh said:


> Greg might be a *little* stuck on this because he will not renounce now, in the future, or in any parallel universe, the notion that quantified signal is measured signal.


That’s not necessarily true, I subjectively quantify signals all the time but I can’t rely on that in all cases because my margin of error might not be good enough and some perceptual effect could result in me being way off. Measurements are both more accurate and more reliable, which is why professional recording and mixing equipment always has meters. In the case of digital audio, the act of recording it includes the act of quantisation which is a measurement but I could potentially renounce that in the future or in a parallel universe, if someone can show me some reliable evidence that’s not how ADCs work.

G


----------



## jagwap (Jul 13, 2022)

gregorio said:


> What you (or I) were looking for is irrelevant, what you get is the total. Let’s say you have a difference file (“A”) from a null test with some significant content due to say a phase discrepancy and some other audible distortion. Of course we’re not going to know from difference file “A” what is causing this difference (that it is due to phase and some other distortion or how much of each). Now let’s say we have difference file “B”, which is exactly the same null test as “A” (with the same phase discrepancy) but without the other audible distortion. I presume you are not claiming that “A” and “B” will measure identically? If this is the case, then our measurement of “A” is a measurement of phase offset + distortion, ergo we must have measured distortion. This might not be of any use to you, or be what you were looking for, because all we’ve got is that total and no idea how much of that total difference is caused by this “other audible distortion”.
> 
> No, I don’t have to be right but I do have to see some evidence of how/where I’m wrong.
> 
> ...


You said everything is measurable.

What you have proved is only that everything can be be recorded. A form of measurement, but not necessarily the same as analysis.

If the artefacts to prove something is audible are hidden but other artefacts, it doesn't mean they are not there.  You said anyone who could not analyse them mean they are not there or is incompetent.

I think we have now established that is not the case.

A *Little* stuck?


----------



## gregorio (Jul 13, 2022)

jagwap said:


> You said everything is measurable. … What you have proved is only that everything can be be recorded. A form of measurement,


Exactly, so therefore everything is measurable which is the only thing I was trying to prove, hallelujah!!

What might not be measurable is everything in isolation but then I’ve not claimed that.


jagwap said:


> but not necessarily the same as analysis.


I have not claimed it is the same as analysis and when you stated I was assuming that it was, I specifically refuted that and gave the limited conditions of analysis of a difference file (in post #15,398).


jagwap said:


> If the artefacts to prove something is audible are hidden but other artefacts, it doesn't mean they are not there.


True, they are there and they have/could have been measured as part of the difference file from a null test, though not in isolation and not necessarily still audible, as I’ve said more than once.


jagwap said:


> You said anyone who could not analyse them mean they are not there or is incompetent.


No I didn’t, what I said was: “_but an audible difference that doesn’t show up in ANY measurement, including a Null Test, how’s that even possible?
I’ve heard of rare situations where it was difficult to find the measurement type for a particular audible difference but not being able to measure an audible difference always ultimately comes down to the incompetence of the person attempting the measurement, albeit with mitigating circumstances on occasion._”

So in the case of TIM, was some new, previously non-existent, measuring equipment required to detect it, or could it be measured by the standard spectrum analysers of the day, but simply wasn’t? If it’s the former, then we would have an example of something audible that couldn’t be measured in isolation but could have been measurable within a null difference file. If it’s the latter, isn’t that ultimately;  Incompetence of those who failed to do the measurement, albeit with mitigating circumstances?


jagwap said:


> I think we have now established that is not the case.


Where/How have we established what I stated is not the case? What you seem to think you’ve established is that we cannot individually analyse the components of a difference file but I don’t get the point, as I’ve already stated that all along!

G


----------



## jagwap (Jul 13, 2022)

gregorio said:


> What you seem to think you’ve established is that we cannot individually analyse the components of a difference file but I don’t get the point, as I’ve already stated that all along!
> 
> G


But that IS the point. You choose to ignore it, so that you do not lose the argument.  Being able to record in PCM doesn't mean we have finished the job.

If we cannot analyse an audible difference, it doesn't mean it is not there.


----------



## Dogmatrix

jagwap said:


> But that IS the point. You choose to ignore it, so that you do not lose the argument.  Being able to record in PCM doesn't mean we have finished the job.
> 
> If we cannot analyse an audible difference, it doesn't mean it is not there.


Is there a logic trap here ?
Would not defining something as audible require analysis ?


----------



## jagwap

Dogmatrix said:


> Is there a logic trap here ?
> Would not defining something as audible require analysis ?


If you require more than objective listening tests to prove it, yes.

But the arguement here is are there possible audible differences that cannot (yet) be quantified in measurement.

Gregorio is arguing that a recording of the audio is a measurement and so that is proof all audible differences are measurable.

I am arguing he is being pedantic to prove a pointless point in order to win the argument. As this does not get us closer to working out what measurable difference the audible difference makes.


----------



## Dogmatrix

jagwap said:


> If you require more than objective listening tests to prove it, yes.
> 
> But the arguement here is are there possible audible differences that cannot (yet) be quantified in measurement.
> 
> ...


I see

Carrying the unknown is difficult in any debate , more so in this context 

Aren't the measurable parameters well defined in terms of audio ?


----------



## jagwap

Dogmatrix said:


> I see
> 
> Carrying the unknown is difficult in any debate , more so in this context
> 
> Aren't the measurable parameters well defined in terms of audio ?


Isn't this where we came in?...

Back in the beginning there was the big bang, and the universe started expanding....


----------



## Dogmatrix

jagwap said:


> Isn't this where we came in?...
> 
> Back in the beginning there was the big bang, and the universe started expanding....


Perhaps it has come full circle

There has been quite a volume of interesting , if a little obscure and technical , information in this line of debate 

That's a win !


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> But that IS the point. You choose to ignore it, so that you do not lose the argument.


How can I “choose to ignore it” when I mention it almost every post?


jagwap said:


> Being able to record in PCM doesn't mean we have finished the job.


Maybe not for an audio equipment designer who may need to precisely identify a difference, what’s causing it and what design changes will reduce/eliminate it, but we have finished the job if the question is simply can it be measured. 


jagwap said:


> If you require more than objective listening tests to prove it, yes.


But we don’t need more than an objective listening test to prove it. Again, an audio equipment designer would probably need to know what the audible  difference is but we’re just asking if there is an audible difference. 


jagwap said:


> But the arguement here is are there possible audible differences that cannot (yet) be quantified in measurement.


Yes that is the argument here but that’s not the argument you seem to be having! The argument you are making is different, namely; We can have an audible difference that is not analysable in isolation.

That argument is taken as a given by music/sound engineers because we encounter it almost constantly. Take the example of a typical orchestra recording, can we analyse in isolation say the 3rd desk of the 2nd violins? Obviously a desk of violins is audible but we cannot analyse it in isolation. Does this mean there’s some unidentified audible phenomena we can’t measure?


jagwap said:


> Gregorio is arguing that a recording of the audio is a measurement and so that is proof all audible differences are measurable.


I’m being more precise than that because a null test first allows us to separate the differences from the content that isn’t different (audible or not, down to the resolution of our ADC and FFT), measure the amplitude of that difference content, by virtue of digitally recording it and measure it’s frequency content, using a FFT of that recording. 


jagwap said:


> I am arguing he is being pedantic to prove a pointless point in order to win the argument.


It is not a pointless point, “Is it measurable?” is the whole point, though apparently not for you because you want to measure and analyse it in isolation. 


jagwap said:


> As this does not get us closer to working out what measurable difference the audible difference makes.


A null test does get us closer because now we are dealing with only the difference/s rather than the difference/s + all the content that isn’t different. It may or may not get us all the way to working out exactly what it is, but that’s a different question. Again, the question is, “Is there a measurable difference?”, not “What is the measurable difference in isolation?”. 

We have tests/measurements for some specific things in isolation, such as IMD, we also have tests/measurements for groups of things, such as SINAD but we don’t have tests/measurements for every isolated thing, such as a test/measurement specifically for the 3rd desk of 2nd violins. If we want to measure this in isolation, then we have to isolate it before we measure it. EG. Record the 3rd desk of 2nd violins on their own and then measure it or, create a difference file where the audible difference is isolated (not obscured by something else) and then measure it. But of course now we’re talking about test procedure rather than the actual measurements themselves.

G


----------



## bigshot

jagwap said:


> the arguement here is are there possible audible differences that cannot (yet) be quantified in measurement.


Arguments like this remind me of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... How are you planning to prove unquantified differences without quantifying them? The fact is, a signal off a mixing board is audibly identical to a nice shiny CD made from the bounce down. You can run it back through that process 100 times and it will still sound exactly the same to human ears. If there is a difference, it doesn't matter. Why argue about things that don't matter? 

The majority of the arguments in this forum can be lumped into two categories... outright falsehoods being propped up by logical fallacies, and exceptions to the rule that don't matter in the real world. You have a choice... baloney or Brobnigag.


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> How can I “choose to ignore it” when I mention it almost every post?
> 
> Maybe not for an audio equipment designer who may need to precisely identify a difference, what’s causing it and what design changes will reduce/eliminate it, but we have finished the job if the question is simply can it be measured.
> 
> ...


You are choosing to miss the point. To make a point. 

I don't feel like repeating it all again. That does not mean you have won the arguement. It mean you didn't engage on the arguement, but steered it away from the argument:

Some repeatable audible differences cannot yet be quantified and analysed, yet.


----------



## bigshot

jagwap said:


> Some repeatable audible differences cannot yet be quantified and analysed, yet.


Name one.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> You are choosing to miss the point.


I’m not choosing to miss the point, I’ve addressed the point more than once but it’s a different point.


jagwap said:


> To make a point.


Absolutely, to make the point that all audible differences are measurable (though not necessarily analysable).


jagwap said:


> It mean you didn't engage on the arguement, but steered it away from the argument:
> 
> Some repeatable audible differences cannot yet be quantified and analysed, yet.


I did “engage on the argument” (of audible differences being measurable), but I didn’t engage on your argument (some audible differences aren’t analysable) because I’m not disagreeing  with that argument. In fact, I even gave an example of a repeatable audible difference that cannot be analysed, the 3rd desk of the 2nd violins in a typical orchestra recording!

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> I’m not choosing to miss the point, I’ve addressed the point more than once but it’s a different point.
> 
> Absolutely, to make the point that all audible differences are measurable (though not necessarily analysable).
> 
> ...


Does anyone here think that is relevant to the improvement of the art of audio engineering?  Isn't it just a step forward in the art of pedantry?

You usually do better than this...


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> I’m not choosing to miss the point, I’ve addressed the point more than once but it’s a different point.
> 
> Absolutely, to make the point that all audible differences are measurable (though not necessarily analysable).
> 
> ...


Now, the next step is: Can audio subjectivism find differences in audio that objective analysis cannot yet qualify or quantify?


----------



## 71 dB

I rather enjoy the summer than engage in this pointless-looking discussion. 

⛱️


----------



## bigshot

I still haven't made up my mind whether some posters in this group are sophisticated bots or not... It's clear that the intended audience for all these words is themselves.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Excellent technical questions have been raised and answered , it would seem all that remains is the unknown so I ask

What is the significance of the unknown if it remains unknown ?

And

Where could the unknown be hiding ?

Not a Bot


----------



## craiglester

I'm still confused how anyone could say that audible differences could be beyond measurement. I was under the impression measuring equipment was comfortably capable of measuring anything audible. If you can't measure it, is it really there?


----------



## bigshot

Dogmatrix said:


> Where could the unknown be hiding ?


WHERE YOU LEAST EXPECT IT! THE SHADOW KNOWS!


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> WHERE YOU LEAST EXPECT IT! THE SHADOW KNOWS!


I know , but the Shadow is busy


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> Does anyone here think that is relevant to the improvement of the art of audio engineering?


I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t! And that seems to be the issue, you are coming at this from the point of view of “_improving the art of audio engineering_” (audio equipment design) but I’m not, I’m just answering the question/myth.  


jagwap said:


> Isn't it just a step forward in the art of pedantry?


No, it’s refuting a common audiophile myth, but maybe you see that as pedantry because you are only thinking in terms of what is useful/interesting to improve the art of equipment design?


jagwap said:


> You usually do better than this...


Do I? 


jagwap said:


> Now, the next step is: Can audio subjectivism find differences in audio that objective analysis cannot yet qualify or quantify?


That’s not the next step or rather, it’s potentially the next step after refuting the myth but it’s exactly the same “step” you appear to have been making all along. The answer is already in my previous responses to you: We can measure all audible differences at least by virtue of being able to record them digitally but we cannot (yet) un-mix a recording and therefore isolate all the individual components so they can be analysed, for example isolate the 2nd violins in a typical orchestral recording or separate certain distortions from other distortions. However, human perception does allow this to a degree in certain cases, as demonstrated by my 2nd violins example and the “cocktail party effect”, which has been well studied.

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t! And that seems to be the issue, you are coming at this from the point of view of “_improving the art of audio engineering_” (audio equipment design) but I’m not, I’m just answering the question/myth.
> 
> No, it’s refuting a common audiophile myth, but maybe you see that as pedantry because you are only thinking in terms of what is useful/interesting to improve the art of equipment design?
> 
> ...


It is the "myth" the objectivist have been fighting here for years: that subjective listening can not hear things that cannot be scientifically analysed.  It was always phrased as cannot be measured because EVERYONE commonly thinks of that as SINAD, Intermodulation, FFT etc measurement, except you.  You decided to define a recording as a measurement.  So we rephrase, to avoid, well, whatever.

So now, here it is.  One of the key objectivists, agreeing that listening can reveal what analysis cannot (yet), after all these years of confronting those who suggested anything like it.

I kind of expected music, trumpets, fireworks.  

A window opens:
"Sound Science Forum Level 2: 
         pedants corner"


castleofargh Can we pin this as a sticky?


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 15, 2022)

jagwap said:


> It is the "myth" the objectivist have been fighting here for years: that subjective listening can not hear things that cannot be scientifically analysed.  It was always phrased as cannot be measured because EVERYONE commonly thinks of that as SINAD, Intermodulation, FFT etc measurement, except you.  You decided to define a recording as a measurement.  So we rephrase, to avoid, well, whatever.
> 
> So now, here it is.  One of the key objectivists, agreeing that listening can reveal what analysis cannot (yet), after all these years of confronting those who suggested anything like it.
> 
> ...


Recordings can be perfectly classified as measurements.
One must have a detector(s) to record the sound.

How recordings and their possible limitations including artefacts relate to hearing with all its psychoacoustic complexity is another story.

Can recordings (at least in their current form) capture all what can be heard - no, but it is a different duscussion.

Yet, the very nature of recordings makes them perfectly quantifyable, leaving no room for people listening to reproductions of these recording (however diversely imperfect in their turn these reproductions are and however creatively hyped to audiophiles) for "hearing things", pretending hearing things and debating their pretenses any meaningfully, let alone scientifically.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 15, 2022)

jagwap said:


> It is the "myth" the objectivist have been fighting here for years: that subjective listening can not hear things that cannot be scientifically analysed.


No, that is neither the stated myth nor the myth we’ve been fighting! The actual myth we’ve been fighting is that there are audible differences that cannot be measured. “Audible differences” is not “subjective listening” and “measurable” is not “scientifically analysable”.

So, you’ve invented a statement that’s true but significantly different to the myth and then fallaciously claimed the myth is therefore true! That’s a non-sequitur.

Incidentally, your statement (not the myth!) has been demonstrated true numerous times. Take for example the McGurk Effect, we can subjectively listen and hear a difference between “baa” and “faa” but we cannot “scientifically analyse” that difference in the audio signal (because there isn’t one).


jagwap said:


> It was always phrased as cannot be measured because EVERYONE commonly thinks of that as SINAD, Intermodulation, FFT etc measurement, except you.


Are you really claiming that NO ONE thinks the metered/measured amplitude of an audio signal is a measurement?


jagwap said:


> You decided to define a recording as a measurement.


Of course I didn’t, Shannon, Nyquist and others did, long before I was even born!

Your arguments are just getting ridiculous now!

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> No, that is neither the stated myth nor the myth we’ve been fighting! The actual myth we’ve been fighting is that there are audible differences that cannot be measured. “Audible differences” is not “subjective listening” and “measurable” is not “scientifically analysable”.


Then put that as a sticky at the top of this forum.  Because no one else separates them in common discussion.  "There was an audible difference but I couldn't measure it" is the common discussion here, and while you have wilfully decided to take that as not true, because you can record it in order to deny this, without fully explanation that is what you mean until recently.  People mean the type of measurement that analyses the signal, and if you didn't know that you are obtuse.  If you knew that you are purposely obstinate and argumentative for your own amusement.


gregorio said:


> So, you’ve invented a statement that’s true but significantly different to the myth and then fallaciously claimed the myth is therefore true! That’s a non-sequitur.


So what is the myth? Define it clearly, because it has been taken as what I have said by all those you argue with.  Your definitions do not always align with teh rest of the profession.



gregorio said:


> Incidentally, your statement (not the myth!) has been demonstrated true numerous times. Take for example the McGurk Effect, we can subjectively listen and hear a difference between “baa” and “faa” but we cannot “scientifically analyse” that difference in the audio signal (because there isn’t one).


So you having been fighting people here all these years, knowing you agree with them, but you are just taking them for a ride on your version of semantics.


gregorio said:


> Are you really claiming that NO ONE thinks the metered/measured amplitude of an audio signal is a measurement?


Of course not. Now you are putting words in to my mouth.  That is covered by "etc."



gregorio said:


> Of course I didn’t, Shannon, Nyquist and others did, long before I was even born!
> 
> Your arguments are just getting ridiculous now!
> 
> G


All of this has been ridiculous.  You are a hinderance.

I think I get where you are coming from on this forum, and it no better than Big Shot despite all the knowledge.


----------



## castleofargh

jagwap said:


> It is the "myth" the objectivist have been fighting here for years: that subjective listening can not hear things that cannot be scientifically analysed.  It was always phrased as cannot be measured because EVERYONE commonly thinks of that as SINAD, Intermodulation, FFT etc measurement, except you.  You decided to define a recording as a measurement.  So we rephrase, to avoid, well, whatever.
> 
> So now, here it is.  One of the key objectivists, agreeing that listening can reveal what analysis cannot (yet), after all these years of confronting those who suggested anything like it.
> 
> ...


There is a tendency to react strongly to ideas like ”we can’t measure everything” even though it’s just a fact, because we overwhelmingly read it from people who wish to discredit and disregard objective approaches, and doing so, remove accountability when they make empty claims.
If we’re discussing quantum physics and particles, nobody knowing anything would oppose the claim that we can’t measure everything.
For all the wrong reasons, context matters.

Because I’m slightly sadistic, I propose another direction:
Audibility is defined by controlled listening, not measurement. But isn’t a controlled test a measurement?


----------



## gregorio (Jul 15, 2022)

jagwap said:


> Because no one else separates them in common discussion.


Again, that’s nonsense! A large percentage of the posts on this subforum are all about separating “audible differences” from “subjective listening”. On other forums on head-fi your assertion is more true, not least because any mention of the tests used to separate the two is forbidden. Your statement is false because many do separate them. So, your logic appears to rely on: I am wrong because a subset of audiophiles are ignorant (and wish to remain that way). How is that not ridiculous?


jagwap said:


> "There was an audible difference but I couldn't measure it" is the common discussion here,


No it’s not! It might be a common discussion but it’s not the common discussion or the myth being addressed. Why on earth would I disagree with yet another DIFFERENT made up statement that is (or could be) true? How do I know what that individual could or couldn’t measure? Maybe they don’t have a voltmeter or any sort of measuring device and therefore “couldn’t measure” anything at all. Obviously though, just because they don’t own a voltmeter (or don’t know how to use it) doesn’t mean that voltage differences are not measurable!


jagwap said:


> and while you have wilfully decided to take that as not true,


Of course I’ve wilfully decided to take the myth as not true. You think maybe I should willingly decide that the reliable, objective evidence is false while a myth without supporting reliable evidence is true?


jagwap said:


> because you can record it in order to deny this, without fully explanation that is what you mean until recently.


Digital audio data is a measurement (of amplitude over time). So:
1. How can people spend hours, days or even years discussing every aspect of reproducing digital audio data if they don’t even know what it is? And,
2. I’ve explained it countless times anyway and more than once in this thread!


jagwap said:


> So what is the myth?


What do you mean what is the myth, you’ve just quoted it and responded to it. Don’t you read what you’re responding to?


jagwap said:


> Of course not. Now you are putting words in to my mouth. That is covered by "etc."


Right, so you “of course” agree that a measurement of amplitude is a measurement and as digital audio is a measurement of amplitude, ergo recording something as digital audio MUST be a measurement. Therefore:


jagwap said:


> People mean the type of measurement that analyses the signal, and if you didn't know that you are obtuse.


Hang on, you can’t have it both ways. Do you and others, as you’ve just claimed, “of course” know that a measurement of amplitude is a “measurement” OR do you/they think it’s ONLY a “measurement” if it separates/isolates phenomena so they can be analysed? Which is it, it can’t be both! And if you didn’t know that, then you are deliberately obtuse!


jagwap said:


> All of this has been ridiculous. You are a hinderance.


I thought for a while you were trying to make a reasonable (though misguided) point but your last few ridiculous posts indicate you were probably just trolling, shame.

But thanks, yes, my aim is indeed to be a hindrance! A hindrance to the attempted justifications of false audiophile claims and myths!!

G


----------



## Corti (Jul 15, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> Audibility is defined by controlled listening, not measurement. But isn’t a controlled test a measurement?


i didnt read the discussion beforehand, just addressing your sadistic question 

i would say a controlled test is a controlled test and it can include measurements but not necessarily needs to.

e.g. an apple falling to the ground. you can measure the physical impact it has on the ground.
but you can also do this as a controlled test where you dont measure, but you put different people under the falling apple and they report if it hurts when the apple falls onto their head.
there you dont measure anything but it would still be a controlled test because you control the parameters of the test. however the results do not rely on measurements but on the fact that the people have pain receptors and their ability to communicate what happens.

isnt this the main difference between empirical science like psychology and hard science like physics?
both are of important value and reasonable approaches to understand the world.

a thought about audibility vs. measurements in audio when someone claims to hear something, that could not be measured:
between the heard sound and the claim lies a long chain of different signal transformation (i.e. a physical wave impact on the eardrum, which will be transformed into action potentials and runs through long neuronal networks which will be processed by even larger and complex filter systems, which then leads to a certain behaviour that is controlled somewhere else in the brain.).
i think there are a lot of influences/manipulations along this transformation chain that may lead to a claim someone makes about hearing something even though it can not be physically measured (because there never was a sound-difference in the first place).
i dont think you can ever practically create two tests with the exact same conditions either (even though science relies on reproducibility).
but creating the same condition again for a machine that measures is way easier/more reliable than for a humanbeing with all these neuronal signal transformations and internal filters.

so yea, i think what im trying to say is that people can actually hear differences when detectors do not measure differences, just because the neuronal signal-transformation-chain is so long and blackbox-like and can change dramatically even within seconds, leading to additional/altered perceived information that was not inherent to the sound-wave.
what someone 'hears' is not the same what a device measures (i go by the definition that we dont hear sound-waves but we hear what our brains filtered and transformed so we can make sense of it. if the registration of sound-waves itself was already called 'hearing' then any machine that detects sound would also 'hear').
to create a device that measures what a human would perceive, the device would need to have a human neuronal circuit included, which is kinda absurd. but without this i dont see this discussion ever coming to an end.

oof, this post has gotten longer than initially intended.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I had the same two headphones for over a decade, till both literally fell apart within in months of each other, resulting in the purchase of two new headphones in quick succession. 

One purchase I am disappointed with, the other I am happy with. 

One set of new headphones gives me goosebumps when I listen to certain tracks, the other does not. Both of my previous sets of headphones were capable of giving me goosebumps.

I don't care how well they measure, or how they are made. I now know that sound quality is measured by pleasure.


----------



## bfreedma

Prog Rock Man said:


> I had the same two headphones for over a decade, till both literally fell apart within in months of each other, resulting in the purchase of two new headphones in quick succession.
> 
> One purchase I am disappointed with, the other I am happy with.
> 
> ...



Sound preference can certainly be "measured by pleasure", but sound quality connotes a more objective set of measurable targets.

Or said another way, preference is variable by the individual listener, quality is a static target across all listeners


----------



## gregorio

Corti said:


> isnt this the main difference between empirical science like psychology and hard science like physics?


Yes, exactly but if we’re talking about audibility, then we’re talking about both. We have the hard physics of the device we’re measuring, plus many decades and in some cases over a century of controlled tests regarding what is audible. So, we have a wealth of reliable and accurate data, although in the case of controlled audibility tests, not necessarily precise data, a “range” rather than a precise number. We typically deal with potential outliers to this range with test signals that isolate and exacerbate the phenomena being tested and therefore, the lowest threshold of audibility is commonly well below the level that anyone could detect when listening to music. 


Corti said:


> to create a device that measures what a human would perceive, the device would need to have a human neuronal circuit included, which is kinda absurd. but without this i dont see this discussion ever coming to an end.


Isn’t the discussion rationally ended by accepting that an objective audio measurement of a device (say a DAC or amp) is just an objective audio measurement of the device, not a measurement of human perception? Even if we add certain aspects of human perception to the equation, say “audibility”, commonly the discussion is already ended rationally because the differences are commonly magnitudes below what is audible even with test signals.

G


----------



## Slaphead

jagwap said:


> It is the "myth" the objectivist have been fighting here for years: that subjective listening can not hear things that cannot be scientifically analysed.  It was always phrased as cannot be measured because EVERYONE commonly thinks of that as SINAD, Intermodulation, FFT etc measurement, except you.  You decided to define a recording as a measurement.  So we rephrase, to avoid, well, whatever.
> 
> So now, here it is.  One of the key objectivists, agreeing that listening can reveal what analysis cannot (yet), after all these years of confronting those who suggested anything like it.
> 
> ...


I hate to break it to you, but your ears are simply a measuring device, and a pretty crappy one by today's technological standards.

A thin piece of skin connected to a couple of bones which then excite a fluid in the inner ear where the frequencies are picked up by a bunch of hairs of varying length (a good proportion of the short ones which you've lost by the time you're 40) which resonate at particular frequencies according to their length

Basically your hearing is a bad mechanical FFT where your brain effectively acts as an interpolator and upscaler to fill in the gaps.

Your hearing is crap, as is everybody else's, in comparison to even audio measuring technology from the 60's.


----------



## bigshot

Fidelity might be a better term for it than quality.


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> Fidelity might be a better term for it than quality.



Or euphony.

I had a pair of IEMs that used to give me goosebumps galore, particularly with opera arias. Highly enthusiastic, I sent them to an objectivist friend and it turned out they measured pretty badly. Here's what he wrote:


> Unfortunately, ... is not even close to hi-fidelity. Then again, once funkiness goes extreme, the basic principle of electroacoustic engineering diminishes, and the judgement of good/bad sound turns into the matter of personal preference, as ... users find such distortion to be euphonic.



I think he hit the nail on the head. It's neither fidelity nor quality. Euphony, on the other hand, is an entirely subjective experience.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 15, 2022)

I was suggesting fidelity as a term that is objective and measurable, as opposed to quality, which has subjective contexts. Euphonic is even worse in that regard.

Odds are, your goosebumps were coming from the opera aria, and had nothing to do with the sound equipment you were playing it on. I can play a Caruso record from 1909 and get goosebumps, but no matter how good the equipment, lousy music won’t. Subjectivity is more a function of the music than the sound.


----------



## james444

bigshot said:


> Odds are, your goosebumps were coming from the opera aria, and had nothing to do with the sound equipment you were playing it on.



Nope, as I could listen to the same arias with other (objectively better) IEMs and not get those intense goosebumps. I think these particular IEMs just manipulated sound reproduction in a way that made it subjectively feel more dramatic and involving. Much like one might manipulate colors and contrast of a photo to make it "pop".


----------



## bigshot

Then it’s probably expectation bias.


----------



## Dogmatrix

castleofargh said:


> There is a tendency to react strongly to ideas like ”we can’t measure everything” even though it’s just a fact, because we overwhelmingly read it from people who wish to discredit and disregard objective approaches, and doing so, remove accountability when they make empty claims.
> If we’re discussing quantum physics and particles, nobody knowing anything would oppose the claim that we can’t measure everything.
> For all the wrong reasons, context matters.
> 
> ...


"The Ear As A Measuring Instrument HARVEY FLETCHER Provo, Utah Brigham Young University, he ear as used here* means all the hearing mechanism* --including the nerves and the brain--of a living person. It is usually thought that to make accurate measurements of any sound, one must have some sort of meter which he can read.
*Author: *Harvey Fletcher
*Publish Year: *1969"

AES library $33 for non members


----------



## odarg64 (Jul 15, 2022)

Slaphead said:


> Your hearing is crap, as is everybody else's, in comparison to even audio measuring technology from the 60's.


Accepting this would save some folks a lot of time and money.


----------



## gregorio

james444 said:


> I think he hit the nail on the head. It's neither fidelity nor quality. Euphony, on the other hand, is an entirely subjective experience.


Yes, he did hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately though, your extrapolation from it doesn’t, it’s not logical:

Presumably you must agree with the basic facts that there must be a difference between the objective reality (the actual sound pressure waves) and a subjective experience (in this case, your perception of Euphony), otherwise you wouldn’t have stated it’s “_an entirely subjective experience_”? So, what you are judging is not the actual sound but the difference between the actual sound and your perception, which therefore must be some sort of “Perception Quality” as opposed to “Sound Quality”. 

Furthermore, you stated “_it’s neither fidelity nor quality._” - So, if it’s not sound (but the difference between sound and perception) and it’s not “quality”, how can it possibly be described as “Sound Quality” when it’s neither sound nor quality?

G


----------



## Dogmatrix

This is quite a long read and mostly about instruments but it is well written and properly referenced
I think it is very appropriate for the current state of play here

https://euphonics.org/6-1-its-science-but-not-as-we-know-it/


----------



## james444 (Jul 16, 2022)

gregorio said:


> Presumably you must agree with the basic facts that there must be a difference between the objective reality (the actual sound pressure waves) and a subjective experience (in this case, your perception of Euphony), otherwise you wouldn’t have stated it’s “_an entirely subjective experience_”?



Sure!



gregorio said:


> So, what you are judging is not the actual sound but the difference between the actual sound and your perception, which therefore must be some sort of “Perception Quality” as opposed to “Sound Quality”.



I think I wasn't actually *judging* anything. Just making an empirical observation that this particular earphone gave me more goosebumps than others with the same music.



gregorio said:


> Furthermore, you stated “_it’s neither fidelity nor quality._” - So, if it’s not sound (but the difference between sound and perception) and it’s not “quality”, how can it possibly be described as “Sound Quality” when it’s neither sound nor quality?



Afair, I never described it as "sound quality". Maybe you misunderstood my remarks. I was actually referring to these posts:



Prog Rock Man said:


> One set of new headphones gives me goosebumps when I listen to certain tracks, the other does not. Both of my previous sets of headphones were capable of giving me goosebumps.
> 
> I don't care how well they measure, or how they are made. I now know that *sound quality is measured by pleasure*.





bigshot said:


> Fidelity might be a better term for it than quality.



My point being, that neither sound quality nor fidelity are measurable by pleasure, since both belong to realm of objectivity, whereas pleasure is a subjective experience. The only audio term I'd see fit to being measured by pleasure is "euphony".


----------



## Prog Rock Man

bfreedma said:


> Sound preference can certainly be "measured by pleasure", but sound quality connotes a more objective set of measurable targets.
> 
> Or said another way, preference is variable by the individual listener, quality is a static target across all listeners



SQ, to me, is measured by realism, does the kick drum sound like a kick drum and clarity, can you hear the kick drum? Sound preference is whether you like to have lots of bass, such as kick drum in your music.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

bigshot said:


> I was suggesting fidelity as a term that is objective and measurable, as opposed to quality, which has subjective contexts. Euphonic is even worse in that regard.
> 
> Odds are, your goosebumps were coming from the opera aria, and had nothing to do with the sound equipment you were playing it on. I can play a Caruso record from 1909 and get goosebumps, but no matter how good the equipment, lousy music won’t. Subjectivity is more a function of the music than the sound.



I find goosebumps are dependent on the hifi, and also the circumstances. I can listen to a track on the radio at work and get nothing and then listen to same track at home on my hifi and get goosebumps. When I changed my source from a Yamaha cassette deck to my first CD player, a Sony, I was gutted to find that tracks that gave me goosebumps now sounded flat and I got nothing. I experienced the same when my K702s were replaced with DT990Pros.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

james444 said:


> ...
> My point being, that neither sound quality nor fidelity are measurable by pleasure, since both belong to realm of objectivity, whereas pleasure is a subjective experience. The only audio term I'd see fit to being measured by pleasure is "euphony".



Euphony is a good term. I derive a certain amount of pleasure from sound quality, in that I love a well recorded track played on great hifi. I think many people are the same, but they never listen to decent hifi, and when they do, they are surprised at how good the sound is. To get goosebumps, I need a decent hifi, but even then it is not guaranteed.


----------



## Corti (Jul 16, 2022)

gregorio said:


> Isn’t the discussion rationally ended by accepting that an objective audio measurement of a device (say a DAC or amp) is just an objective audio measurement of the device, not a measurement of human perception? Even if we add certain aspects of human perception to the equation, say “audibility”, commonly the discussion is already ended rationally because the differences are commonly magnitudes below what is audible even with test signals.


you're right, if the discussion was if different devices sounded the same when they measured the same above a certain audibility threshold, then the discussion is rationally ended. and the fact about this black box brain-modulation etc. i talked about does not change any of it, since it would apply to all devices in the same way (or rather not to the devices but to the specifics persons sound perception).. so it would only mean that we hear or perceive sound differently, which i guess nobody denied (at least not in this sub-forum).

but this is also not the discussion i meant when i said ‘the discussion will never come to an end’. the discussion i meant was if it is possible for a person to hear something different, when the sound that reached the persons ear was the same.

and i tried to point at the hypothesis that if you play sound through your headphones or speakers and then you change something, say the dac, listen again, there is a chance to hear something different and thats due to how the state of your brain can change within a short time, making the same sound sound differently (besides things like expectation bias of course, which do add to the effect or is part of the same. but this should be avoidable by dbt).

those things that make you sometimes get pleasure from your music and another time you just feel bored, even though its the same music and the same system..

there is so much complexity to our hearing and sound perception. one thing that i keep wondering about is _why_ we humans even find pleasure in music at all.

it's not that there is anything obvious in the evolutionary nature of humans that could lead to this (or i dont know of anything), maybe it's the symmetry in it that harmonizes with our neuronal activities, similar to the golden ratio in pictorial art and others.. or maybe........ it's just a coincidence. either way, it's fascinating.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 16, 2022)

If a person is hearing differences without taking precautions to control the effect of bias or perceptual error, it's not worth talking about. A basic blind, level matched, direct A/B switched listening test isn't difficult to do, and that will eliminate the majority of claims. If something passes a basic/casual controlled test, then it's worth investing the time into discussing and testing it further. But in audio circles, it never rarely gets to the point of doing any sort of controlled test at all and bias and perceptual error are free to skew results.

Differences that are purely subjective aren't worth discussing either, because your "goosebumps" on one day may be different than your "goosebumps' on another day... to say nothing of my "goosebumps" on any day of the week. All you can say to a positive subjective reaction is "that's nice for you".

There's a tendency among audiophiles to say, "We can't know everything, so we can't know anything." That's a logical fallacy. Even if a controlled test is faulty, the error will be cancelled out over repeated trials.

All of this has been worked out years and years ago. I don't know why people argue about it so much. I think their ego wants to defend their subjective impression, and they are too lazy to do a test to verify it (or too afraid that they'll be proven wrong.)


----------



## Dogmatrix

Euphoria is interesting as it is often implied in marketing so could be considered as a major ingredient in snake oil
Much of the science revolves around substances which are illegal outside of clinical use
Euphoria in psychology see , Peak Experiences ; Abraham Maslow and Flow ; Mihaly Robert Csikszentmihalyi 

Safe to say no device in our hobby can consistently or predictably produce a euphoria in the user


----------



## Vamp898

bigshot said:


> If a person is hearing differences without taking precautions to control the effect of bias or perceptual error, it's not worth talking about. A basic blind, level matched, direct A/B switched listening test isn't difficult to do, and that will eliminate the majority of claims. If something passes a basic/casual controlled test, then it's worth investing the time into discussing and testing it further. But in audio circles, it never rarely gets to the point of doing any sort of controlled test at all and bias and perceptual error are free to skew results.
> 
> Differences that are purely subjective aren't worth discussing either, because your "goosebumps" on one day may be different than your "goosebumps' on another day... to say nothing of my "goosebumps" on any day of the week. All you can say to a positive subjective reaction is "that's nice for you".
> 
> ...


A/B Blind Tests reproducible show differences where no should be.

The Sony NW-WM1A and NW-WM1Z for example measure identical but sound different. Several A/B Tests have been done to show that but the difference is so big, that you don't even need an A/B Test. There is an significant difference in the overall sound signature, nothing marginal.

If you play a song and record the output, you can even measure the difference easily, but on the common, standardised test procedures (RMAA), there is no difference.

And because this difference doesn't show up in RMAA, people think that other differences like the inaudible change from cables, is also there and just doesn't show up.

That is why I always recommend that is someone thinks there is a difference, play a song, record it and upload the proof. People then can analyze them with Audicity and A/B for themself.

This whole Screenshots from RMAA and similar is what brought us into this misery.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Vamp898 said:


> The Sony NW-WM1A and NW-WM1Z for example measure identical but sound different. Several A/B Tests have been done to show that but the difference is so big, that you don't even need an A/B Test. There is an significant difference in the overall sound signature, nothing marginal.


Link ?


----------



## bigshot (Jul 17, 2022)

Vamp898 said:


> The Sony NW-WM1A and NW-WM1Z for example measure identical but sound different. Several A/B Tests have been done to show that but the difference is so big, that you don't even need an A/B Test.



I need an A/B test.

Blind Comparison?
Multiple Trials?
Level Matched?
Direct A/B Switched?

You say if you record it, you can measure a difference? What measures differently? Response? Distortion? How do you know the difference isn't the capture you performed to record it? If a difference isn't measurable live and is measurable if you record it. the first thing I would suspect is the recording.

This is interesting. Can't wait to see the report on the testing procedures. You say there were several tests even! Great. Bring it on. I would love to be proved wrong.

EDIT: I just googled and couldn't find any mention of a test. Just a whole lot of vague audiophile mumbo jumbo. These were controlled tests you're referring to, right? Not sighted impressions? Expectation bias due to high price tags have been eliminated? Do you own these, or have you owned these yourself?


----------



## Dogmatrix

I can get onboard with the 1A and 1Z sounding different , they are different and Sony targets them at different markets they also use DSP in their DAP's . Indeed "Signature Sound" is part of the marketing so sound different , why not .
What I can't fathom is why the difference is undetectable to any device known to technology and yet glaringly obvious at the same time 
We could make millions if we can build the mysterious difference detector , can't be that hard


----------



## bigshot

I had people tell me that Sabre chips sounded different- a glare. Then I got a DAC/amp with a Sabre chip and it sounded the same as everything else I own. I can see how a manufacturer might hobble the fidelity of an expensive component to try to justify the higher price, I just haven’t seen that in the real world yet. I want to see the results of the listening test before I start hypothesizing about unproven, purely theoretical differences.


----------



## castleofargh

Dogmatrix said:


> I can get onboard with the 1A and 1Z sounding different , they are different and Sony targets them at different markets they also use DSP in their DAP's . Indeed "Signature Sound" is part of the marketing so sound different , why not .
> What I can't fathom is why the difference is undetectable to any device known to technology and yet glaringly obvious at the same time
> We could make millions if we can build the mysterious difference detector , can't be that hard


That’s not what @Vamp898 said. RMAA while really cool, is still limited(even more so on the free version). I used to use it a lot way back then, and at least on the old versions, it took some practice to avoid false readings.
Also IDK if the measures of the DAPs were unloaded, loaded, or recording the output of some IEM(probably not, even though it’s what we need to best correlate measurements with hearing sounds on said IEMs).

As an extra, if the ”blind test” was done directly on the DAPs, then it’s very unlikely for the volume level and time alignment to satisfy the conditions of a proper blind test(it drove me crazy too many times). Obviously that has nothing to do with how much difference really exists, but poor testing leads to poor confidence.


----------



## bigshot

Why couldn’t it be level matched? Just use the same test tone in each one? And if you use a very long audio file for the comparison, you only need to sync once and then just let them play. If the file is over an hour long, that is time to do several trials.


----------



## Dogmatrix

castleofargh said:


> That’s not what @Vamp898 said. RMAA while really cool, is still limited(even more so on the free version). I used to use it a lot way back then, and at least on the old versions, it took some practice to avoid false readings.
> Also IDK if the measures of the DAPs were unloaded, loaded, or recording the output of some IEM(probably not, even though it’s what we need to best correlate measurements with hearing sounds on said IEMs).
> 
> As an extra, if the ”blind test” was done directly on the DAPs, then it’s very unlikely for the volume level and time alignment to satisfy the conditions of a proper blind test(it drove me crazy too many times). Obviously that has nothing to do with how much difference really exists, but poor testing leads to poor confidence.


Yes , that post was a bit of a throw back really I own the 1A and have read extensively about it and the 1Z . The guys at Sony are very open about shaping the sound to create a distinction between the two
My only request to @Vamp898 is for a link to the tests
I don't understand most of the RMAA connected comments so was only addressing  "measure identical but sound different"
I don't have a problem with that but I have never seen it actually play out in a plausible way


----------



## Piotr Michalak

bigshot said:


> I had people tell me that Sabre chips sounded different- a glare. Then I got a DAC/amp with a Sabre chip and it sounded the same as everything else I own. I can see how a manufacturer might hobble the fidelity of an expensive component to try to justify the higher price, I just haven’t seen that in the real world yet. I want to see the results of the listening test before I start hypothesizing about unproven, purely theoretical differences.


This is strange, because at first I would agree with little differences between DACs, untill I listen to them for an hour or more. 

At a glance, the iPhone dongle is as good as my $2k DAP, metaphorically speaking.

Than I get tired of different sound signatures or maybe rather styles of reproductions. And I start hearing shortcomings.

That's also how I measure transparency and neutrality of the source - the better it is, the longer can I listen to it without being tired. 

Maybe the bass is faster and highs are clearer, and more precise. 

But I I perceive it subconsciously, mostly. It only comes through after a longer listen. 

Sometimes differences are night and day. AK SP1000M is a bit underpowered it seems, and has huge synergy with Oriolus BA300S, for me. It's a huge jump in quality. 

But then, when I connect the Oriolus to L&P P6 pro, it doesn't seem to do anything!

I also hear differences between WM1A and WM1Z obviously, especially feeling that the latter is a LOT more refined. 

You may also find my measurements somewhere on head-fi where I tested and posted if these WM1Z "filters" do anything. (I mean like the vinyl processor etc.). And the differences were negligible at least in the frequency response; and I couldn't HEAR much of a difference too, to be honest! Seems like a placebo (to me).

Getting back to the topic, there are also different days. 

I have a theory that it depends on what is the weather, however it may sound. And what is the time of the day or night. 

By that, I mean mostly pressure, apart from if it is quiet in the surroundings (meaning the night) and maybe our biology changes (brain frequency?) making us susceptible to hear differently in the evenings. 

Getting back to pressure, I grew to believe that our cochleas, eustachian tubes and auditory ossicles are very susceptible to changes in pressure... both external as well as internal. 

That's why I also have a feeling that I hear differently when (after) drinking a coffee (versus no coffee and versus two cups also)! 

So "hearing things" may even be a function of not only an objective measurement, and then our subjective take on it, but also on one day I prefer neutral bass for example, and some added weight on the other. 

And I rank my earphones and DAPs differently depending on how I feel, and they sound astonishing on some days (making me scream "this is end-game!"), and I somehow don't like them on the others.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Piotr Michalak said:


> Getting back to pressure, I grew to believe that our cochleas, eustachian tubes and auditory ossicles are very susceptible to changes in pressure... both external as well as internal.


The cochlea is literally a pressure vessel , our brains must compensate otherwise audible difference would be profound but at a subconscious level , it is an intriguing theory


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Why couldn’t it be level matched? Just use the same test tone in each one? And if you use a very long audio file for the comparison, you only need to sync once and then just let them play. If the file is over an hour long, that is time to do several trials.


Often enough, the volume steps of different DAPs aren’t allowing for less than 0,1dB near the listening level you feel comfortable with. As for synch, it’s tricky to do just right by hand. Even when I managed to get it right with a mix of luck and perseverance, and remembered to use a long file to avoid different delays in switching to the next track, DAPs that had some small clock speed differences would do their thing over time. it was never a problem for 3 to 5 minute tests where they wouldn’t move more than a handful of samples apart, and half the time that was in the right direction improving the alignment. But for long sessions, I had to pay attention to that too.
 Now perhaps both of the Sony DAPs mentioned use the same key parts for clock and volume so it’s all irrelevant?


----------



## Dogmatrix

Re atmospheric pressure , found this it seems our internal systems have it covered unless the change is sudden or extreme

Kitahara M, Ozawa H, Kodama A, Izukura H, Inoue S, Uchida K. Effect of atmospheric pressure on hearing in normal subjects. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1994;510:87-91. doi: 10.3109/00016489409127310. PMID: 8128881.


----------



## gregorio

james444 said:


> I think I wasn't actually *judging* anything. Just making an empirical observation that this particular earphone gave me more goosebumps than others with the same music.


But you weren’t just making an empirical observation that you got more goosebumps, you also “judged” what was causing it (euphony). 


james444 said:


> Afair, I never described it as "sound quality". Maybe you misunderstood my remarks.


You quoted bigshot saying that maybe “Fidelity” should be used instead of sound quality and responded “Or euphony”. Maybe I did misunderstand that you meant Euphony should be used instead of sound quality?


Prog Rock Man said:


> SQ, to me, is measured by realism, does the kick drum sound like a kick drum and clarity, can you hear the kick drum? Sound preference is whether you like to have lots of bass, such as kick drum in your music.


That definition is highly problematic for two reasons: Firstly, a kick drum sound (deliberately) almost never sounds like a real kick drum. Therefore, there would be almost no recordings (which include a kick drum) that could have good sound quality, which obviously is not the case. Secondly, how do you know this realism you experience (or don’t experience) isn’t just due to a personal bias or other perceptual error?

“Fidelity Quality” is the only rational measure of “Sound Quality”. Although we still have to be careful about defining the fidelity of what; fidelity to the performance is almost never entirely achievable and is very rarely even desirable. Do we mean fidelity to the recording (which again is rarely desirable), fidelity to the mix or fidelity to the master?


Corti said:


> but this is also not the discussion i meant when i said ‘the discussion will never come to an end’.


I didn’t mean my response to appear like I was disagreeing with what you posted, more like just expanding on it. 


Vamp898 said:


> The Sony NW-WM1A and NW-WM1Z for example measure identical but sound different.


No they didn’t/wouldn’t! This is the mistake many audiophiles make, instigated/encouraged by audiophile marketing. Certain measurements maybe identical, possibly (but rarely) even ALL the typically published specs and in very rare circumstances, even the typical measurements which go beyond the published specs. But if they sound different there is ALWAYS at least one measurement that will reveal it, albeit very rarely not a common/typical one.

So either they do not actually sound different or they do sound different and will measure differently, given the correct test/measurement. Let’s try YACA; let’s say we modify a VW Polo so it achieves a 0-100kph time the same as a new Ferrari. Does this mean our polo has a measured performance identical to a Ferrari? The Ferrari will have performance differences obvious to our senses, does that mean there are performance differences we can sense but not measure? If instead of a 0-100kph time we measured say a 0-268kph time, then we’d easily see this measured difference but no one publishes a 0-268kph time and possibly no one has ever done that specific test, does that mean this performance difference is unmeasurable?

G


----------



## Vamp898

gregorio said:


> But you weren’t just making an empirical observation that you got more goosebumps, you also “judged” what was causing it (euphony).
> 
> You quoted bigshot saying that maybe “Fidelity” should be used instead of sound quality and responded “Or euphony”. Maybe I did misunderstand that you meant Euphony should be used instead of sound quality?
> 
> ...


As said, it can be revealed very easily by just recording a song.

But we are taking about people in the audio science hobby. People who sometimes spend sometimes more than 10'000€ for a measurement rig.

And they are the ones that people listen to and according to them, there is no difference in measurement because, of course.

You don't spend >10'000 on a measurement rig and then just record the line-out. And if the measurements rig says no audible difference, the following cult will spread the word


----------



## Piotr Michalak

Dogmatrix said:


> Re atmospheric pressure , found this it seems our internal systems have it covered unless the change is sudden or extreme
> 
> Kitahara M, Ozawa H, Kodama A, Izukura H, Inoue S, Uchida K. Effect of atmospheric pressure on hearing in normal subjects. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1994;510:87-91. doi: 10.3109/00016489409127310. PMID: 8128881.


Nice! Haven't read it but I wonder if takes into account only "normal hearing" (as in real life interactions, speaking, listening to music casually) or also hi-fidelity / ciritcal listening, where we are much more discerning and analytical.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 17, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I had people tell me that Sabre chips sounded different- a glare. Then I got a DAC/amp with a Sabre chip and it sounded the same as everything else I own. I can see how a manufacturer might hobble the fidelity of an expensive component to try to justify the higher price, I just haven’t seen that in the real world yet. I want to see the results of the listening test before I start hypothesizing about unproven, purely theoretical differences.


What was exactly the chip?
(Sabre, as most manufacturers, have several product lines)
What was the amp?

It is really great to be specific, especially given your persistent insistence for others performinh different blind tests.

In my experience "non-coloured" USB DACs at least are rather unique than not, similar to not selling just one red wine, 12.5 vol% for ultimate personal enjoyment.


----------



## Vamp898

bigshot said:


> I had people tell me that Sabre chips sounded different- a glare. Then I got a DAC/amp with a Sabre chip and it sounded the same as everything else I own. I can see how a manufacturer might hobble the fidelity of an expensive component to try to justify the higher price, I just haven’t seen that in the real world yet. I want to see the results of the listening test before I start hypothesizing about unproven, purely theoretical differences.


The amp (especially the capacitors in it) are the most important factor in the sound signature of an device. If you change the DAC but keep the amp, there will most likely be no audible difference. But the same DAC can sound very different, with different amps.

Get a DIY Amp, change one capacitor, even if the new one has the same ratings on paper but uses a different technology, the sound changes.

And to my experience, there also is a big difference between DAC/Amp Kombos and full digital amps. The latter sounding faster and more direct.

So it's the amp you want to change, not the DAC


----------



## bigshot (Jul 17, 2022)

Piotr Michalak said:


> Than I get tired of different sound signatures or maybe rather styles of reproductions. And I start hearing shortcomings.


That sounds like it has more to do with your subjective feelings than it does any actual audible difference. Small differences are most clear in direct A/B switching. Ears adjust to small differences over time. You should be getting less discerning, not more. What is happening here is the length of time, which I’m sure is sighted- not blind, is allowing bias to creep in and make you think you hear differences that don’t exist.

Controls exist in controlled tests for a reason. If you throw out blind comparisons, and let perceptual error due to auditory memory affect your comparison, you’re going to imagine differences that don’t exist.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 17, 2022)

Vamp898 said:


> The amp (especially the capacitors in it) are the most important factor in the sound signature of an device. If you change the DAC but keep the amp, there will most likely be no audible difference. But the same DAC can sound very different, with different amps.


You’re describing user error. The amp is interacting with the impedance of the transducers, so it’s really the transducers that are making the difference, not the amp. An amp should be audibly transparent, and most of the time it is. When it isn’t, it’s because the amp isn’t properly suited to the transducer. Used with the correct transducer, that amp would be audibly transparent too.

It is drop dead easy to make audibly transparent DACs and amps. Used properly, most amps and DACs on the market are audibly transparent. I say “most” just to satisfy people who say a colored amp or DAC might theoretically exist. Other than NOS DACs, I have never run across anything that isn’t transparent. And in the years I’ve been at Head Fi, I’ve been asking for evidence of a colored amp or DAC, but I have yet to get anything but subjective impressions and audiophoolery to indicate that such a thing exists. Please prove me wrong with a controlled listening test that shows there is a clear difference.


----------



## gregorio

Piotr Michalak said:


> This is strange, because at first I would agree with little differences between DACs, untill I listen to them for an hour or more.
> 
> At a glance, the iPhone dongle is as good as my $2k DAP, metaphorically speaking.
> 
> Than I get tired of different sound signatures or maybe rather styles of reproductions. And I start hearing shortcomings.


How do you know you’re hearing the shortcomings between two different DACs or different sound signatures and that you are not just experiencing the shortcomings of your hearing/perception becoming tired?


Piotr Michalak said:


> That's also how I measure transparency and neutrality of the source - the better it is, the longer can I listen to it without being tired.


But you are not measuring transparency or neutrality of the source, you are measuring how long it takes you to get tired and that is dependent on a whole bunch of variables that have nothing to do with audible transparency or neutrality. Obviously, for example, how tired you were when you started listening or when you last ate, how much mental or physical exertion you’ve done before starting to listen, your stress and emotional state, etc, etc, etc. 


Piotr Michalak said:


> Maybe the bass is faster and highs are clearer, and more precise.


All that is easily measurable but you’re not measuring them, what you’re experiencing is almost certainly changes in your perception due to fatigue/tiredness. 


Piotr Michalak said:


> But I I perceive it subconsciously, mostly. It only comes through after a longer listen.


After a longer listen you obviously must be more fatigued than when you started. So again, how can you claim to be hearing something that is inaudible or unmeasurable and not just a change in your perception due to fatigue (or some other factor)?


Dogmatrix said:


> Re atmospheric pressure


There’s actually a lot of research been done on this, as it was and can be a life and death situation. Consider an aircraft pilot, subject to changes in air pressure and therefore a partial loss of hearing which will affect their ability to hear/communicate on the radio and with their co-pilot or navigator. This caused deaths and warranted considerable research, much of which was done prior to and during the 2nd WW, for obvious reasons.

Incidentally, quite a lot of the aforementioned Harvey Fletcher’s research was used in this regard.

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> No they didn’t/wouldn’t! This is the mistake many audiophiles make, instigated/encouraged by audiophile marketing. Certain measurements maybe identical, possibly (but rarely) even ALL the typically published specs and in very rare circumstances, even the typical measurements which go beyond the published specs. But if they sound different there is ALWAYS at least one measurement that will reveal it, albeit very rarely not a common/typical one.
> 
> G


No. This is where we started pages ago. Let's use your terminology. There is NOT ALWAYS a measurement that allows an analysable difference in these sort of circumstances yet. You agreed that a few pages ago, and this, despite what you say able measurement definition, is what we mean: analysis of the cause.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 17, 2022)

bigshot said:


> You’re describing user error. The amp is interacting with the impedance of the transducers, so it’s really the transducers that are making the difference, not the amp. An amp should be audibly transparent, and most of the time it is. When it isn’t, it’s because the amp isn’t properly suited to the transducer. Used with the correct transducer, that amp would be audibly transparent too.


Let me continue with the wine analogy - the different taste of wines then equally can be called "a user error", since the taste "interacts" with the taste buds, interfering with the ultimate fidelity of the main purpose of alcohol consumption!

P. S. Finally, I am starting to get your definition of "fidelity"


----------



## bigshot (Jul 17, 2022)

Piotr Michalak said:


> Nice! Haven't read it but I wonder if takes into account only "normal hearing" (as in real life interactions, speaking, listening to music casually) or also hi-fidelity / ciritcal listening, where we are much more discerning and analytical.


All hearing is normal hearing. You can’t will yourself to hear the unhearable. Audiophiles invest their egos in their golden ears, but those appendages become tin in controlled listening tests.

There is normal hearing and degraded hearing. Hearing can be degraded by damage and extreme old age. But you can’t hear beyond normal hearing with normal human ears. That’s just your ego fooling you.

From your previous post, I get the feeling that you listen more with your feelings than your ears. Whether or not that ham sandwich you ate for lunch agrees with you has more to do with the perceived sound signature than the fidelity of the equipment.


----------



## gregorio

Vamp898 said:


> The amp (especially the capacitors in it) are the most important factor in the sound signature of an device. If you change the DAC but keep the amp, there will most likely be no audible difference. But the same DAC can sound very different, with different amps.


Obviously that’s false. How does a DAC know when it’s attached to a different amp and change it’s sound accordingly? The DAC is always outputting the same analogue audio signal, regardless of what amp it’s connected to. Please provide some reliable evidence otherwise. 


jagwap said:


> Let's use your terminology. There is NOT ALWAYS a measurement that allows an analysable difference in these sort of circumstances yet.


Oh god, not again. Your statement is FALSE, that is NOT my terminology, I did NOT say there is always a measurement that is analysable. How many times do I have to repeat this and how many times are you going to argue with an assertion you’ve made up and falsely attributed to me?

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> Obviously that’s false. How does a DAC know when it’s attached to a different amp and change it’s sound accordingly? The DAC is always outputting the same analogue audio signal, regardless of what amp it’s connected to. Please provide some reliable evidence otherwise.


I do not think you know enough about these interactions to be so certain.  The untrasonic outptu of DAC, while filtered, is still present.  The amplifier will react differently to that even if the front end is bipolar or JFET.  You say this stuff as definative, yet you do not have the experience to know the subtitles of this.


gregorio said:


> Oh god, not again. Your statement is FALSE, that is NOT my terminology, I did NOT say there is always a measurement that is analysable. How many times do I have to repeat this and how many times are you going to argue with an assertion you’ve made up and falsely attributed to me?
> 
> G


You are miss reading my intention. I am changing the terminology to fit what is actually being discussed, so you cannot keep asserting something that people take will as we know all measurements.  We don't. You know we don't.  But if they don't read the previous pedantic debate they will not know that.  Please be more clear and use analysis instead of measurement when necessary to be clear.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 17, 2022)

jagwap said:


> I am changing the terminology …


Right, so you admit you changed/made up the terminology and therefore your statement “Let’s use your terminology” was a lie.


jagwap said:


> I am changing the terminology to fit what is actually being discussed


No, you’re not! You’re changing the terminology to fit your agenda of “analysable” but the discussion is not about what is analysable. The discussion is that there was an audible difference while the measurements were all identical. Therefore, any measurement that isn’t identical disproves that observation/assertion, regardless of whether or not that non-identical measurement is analysable.

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> Right, so you admit you changed/made up the terminology and therefore your statement “Let’s use your terminology” was a lie.


My terminology was "measurement", for what you called analysis. Because measurement for you includes recording it.  Something you are likely well qualified to do. Yet is useless on its own in this case.  


gregorio said:


> No, you’re not! You’re changing the terminology to fit your agenda of “analysable” but the discussion is not about what is analysable. The discussion is that there was an audible difference while the measurements were all identical.


No it isn't. The common measurements as you put it, which do not include your get-out clause of recording it, and saying you're done. Measurements that allow analysis did not show anything.  Also uncommon measurements do not allow any analysis to find a cause.



gregorio said:


> Therefore, any measurement that isn’t identical disproves that observation/assertion, regardless of whether or not that non-identical measurement is analysable.
> 
> G




An MP3 at a high bit rate (by your own words, transparent), proves nothing on its own.  Neither does PCM on its own.  We need analysis to understand the difference. We do not always have that analysis available to us, so your "ALWAYS" is not necessarily correct.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> Because measurement for you includes recording it.


Measurement for everyone includes (digitally) recording it because a digital recording is a measurement, regardless of whether others know this basic fact or not and you yourself admitted that amplitude is a measurement!


jagwap said:


> Something you are likely well qualified to do. Yet is useless on its own in this case.


Obviously it cannot be useless because I’ve just used it (to disprove an observation/assertion)!  Also obviously, a measurement that evidences an actual objective difference is inherently useful and we can, if required, proceed to identifying what the difference is and what’s causing it.


jagwap said:


> The common measurements as you put it, which do not include your get-out clause of recording it, and saying you're done.


The “clause” I’m using, as you well know, could be a recording of the difference or some other measurement. And a recording of the difference is analysable, at least in terms of frequency content, which you also know. And, as it disproves the observation/assertion then we are “done”. If the poster comes back with the question; “What is the difference”, then obviously, that’s another, different question!


jagwap said:


> Also uncommon measurements do not allow any analysis to find a cause.


A Transient Inter-Modulation measurement is an uncommon measurement, doesn’t it allow us to analyse TIM?


jagwap said:


> An MP3 at a high bit rate (by your own words, transparent), proves nothing on its own. Neither does PCM on its own. We need analysis to understand the difference.


The question in this case was “does a measurement exist that evidences the existence of the difference”. Your argument; Does a measurement exist that allows “_analysis to understand the difference_” is obviously an entirely different question. I can’t see why you find this so difficult to understand, unless of course you do understand it and are just trolling?

G


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> The untrasonic outptu of DAC, while filtered, is still present. The amplifier will react differently to that even if the front end is bipolar or JFET. You say this stuff as definative, yet you do not have the experience to know the subtitles of this.


The subtitles of what? What you have described is obviously an amplifier reaction, not “_the same DAC can sound very different …_”, which is the point being addressed. And I do have a great deal of experience analysing the output of DACs. 

Is this always going to be your MO, stating that I/We are wrong by arguing a completely different point?

G


----------



## bigshot

Inaudible frequencies that have been filtered out make no audible difference for two separate reasons!


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> The subtitles of what? What you have described is obviously an amplifier reaction, not “_the same DAC can sound very different …_”, which is the point being addressed. And I do have a great deal of experience analysing the output of DACs.
> 
> Is this always going to be your MO, stating that I/We are wrong by arguing a completely different point?
> 
> G


It is not a different point.  The sound is different. The reasons it can be different are either beyond you, or you are only arguing that the OP said the DAC sounds different when they mean the system sounds different, and you are pouncing on the the distiction to be pedantic.


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> The subtitles of what? What you have described is obviously an amplifier reaction, not “_the same DAC can sound very different …_”, which is the point being addressed. And I do have a great deal of experience analysing the output of DACs.
> 
> Is this always going to be your MO, stating that I/We are wrong by arguing a completely different point?
> 
> G


You chose to argue a different point than the OP, so that you can tell them they are wrong. That seems to be your motive. You hide it in pedantic semantics so that you can not be challenged.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> It is not a different point.


Either you’re claiming that different responses from amps somehow feedback and cause the DAC to change it’s output or it IS a different point! 


jagwap said:


> You chose to argue a different point than the OP, so that you can tell them they are wrong.


You’re getting confused, that’s your modus operandi! Repeating the accusation just levelled at you is only worthy of a young child or a troll.

G


----------



## jagwap

My motivation for posting here is as far from trolling as it is possible to be.  I am here to "change hearts and minds".  Initially it was to stop the objectivist bullies from stomping all over genuine audio enthusiasts when they speak of their experiences.  Especially when they experience something I have seen in person, and had verified by colleagues. Some of their experiences are valid, and they get discouraged by the attitude here.  In audio we do not know everything yet, and I think we have agreed that recently.  But still, the barrage continues.


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> Either you’re claiming that different responses from amps somehow feedback and cause the DAC to change it’s output or it IS a different point!


No, I'm not. I said system, and you removed that.


gregorio said:


> You’re getting confused, that’s your modus operandi! Repeating the accusation just levelled at you is only worthy of a young child or a troll.


No, I'm not. 


gregorio said:


> G


"BANNED FROM POSTING! All posts are invisible to members until approved by admins, who are approving almost none of them!"

Is this true? Seems unlikely recently.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> My motivation for posting here is as far from trolling as it is possible to be. I am here to "change hearts and minds".


But if you’re here to “change hearts and minds” by arguing different points to the ones being raised, then you are trolling. If you can argue the actual points under discussion, in agreement with the science or with reliable evidence if not, then you could change hearts and minds and wouldn’t be trolling.


jagwap said:


> No, I'm not. I said system, and you removed that.


Exactly, so you admit it again. The assertion I quoted and was discussing was: “_But the same DAC can sound very different, with different amps._” - No mention of “system”, only of the same DAC sounding different (according allegedly to what you plug it’s output into). 

Can a system sound different with a different DAC or amp? Potentially “yes”, given certain conditions but that is a different question/assertion!!!

G


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Inaudible frequencies that have been filtered out make no audible difference for two separate reasons!


To be fair, it is possible. There are some DACs with relatively poor filters. I’ve measured some that had particularly poor filters at a sampling rate of 192kHz and only filtered out content above Nyquist down to around -40dB. And, some amps can be very sensitive to ultrasonic freqs above their design range and produce IMD in the audible freq range in response.

I don’t know if there are still DACs around with such poor filters or how many amps are available that would produce IMD in response to such relatively low levels of ultrasonic content.  This combination of DAC and amp might be extremely rare (I don’t know) but it is possible. This doesn’t affect our discussion though because if it does occur then it’s the amp changing the sound, not the DAC.

G


----------



## bigshot

jagwap said:


> My motivation for posting here is as far from trolling as it is possible to be.  I am here to "change hearts and minds".  Initially it was to stop the objectivist bullies from stomping all over genuine audio enthusiasts when they speak of their experiences.  Especially when they experience something I have seen in person, and had verified by colleagues. Some of their experiences are valid, and they get discouraged by the attitude here.


Kind of like Zorro for subjugated anti intellectual types, eh? I bet all the little children crowd around you cheering and wanting to shake your hand when you arrive at the pueblo!


----------



## GearMe (Jul 17, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Kind of like Zorro for subjugated anti intellectual types, eh? I bet all the little children crowd around you cheering and wanting to shake your hand when you arrive at the pueblo!



Ugh...bummer, Bigshot.  You can do better!


----------



## PhonoPhi

GearMe said:


> Ugh...bummer, Bigshot.  You can do better!


True, and then answer the question on what exactly ESS DAC and amp he tested and could not hear any difference.


----------



## bigshot

Oppo HA-1


----------



## Sonic Defender

None of you can hear a difference in any audibly transparent DAC, which means almost every DAC made in the last 5 years, barring poor engineering/implementation. All of the new DACs from Topping, SMSL, Gustard, Schiit etc, they are all beyond totally transparent. How you people think you can hear differences is beyond me.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 17, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Oppo HA-1


I wish the statement of different DACs/amps being perfectly "transparent" were true.

What I experienced that most portable DAC/amp are coloured.

It makes sense to me from at least two aspects:

1. Selling most of audiophile commercial products necessitates some difference that can be heard.

2. The transpatency/neutral is a unique single equalizer point similar to a pure white colour on a colour palette. Many components - DAC, amps have their hues, being not perfect either due to technical limitations or by their design, so building "pure white" (neutral, transparent) out of these components should require significant efforts.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 17, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> What I experienced that most portable DAC/amp are coloured.


Is this opinion based on level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison with multiple trials averaged? If not, then I'm just going to tell you that in my experience, the opinions of people who fail to eliminate the possibility of perceptual error or bias coloring their results aren't worth considering.

It isn't difficult to manufacture a transparent amp/DAC. I have yet to find one that isn't transparent with the proper transducers.

And if you think that just because it's expensive, it must sound better... well, let's just say you are the target demographic for snake oil.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 17, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Is this opinion based on level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison with multiple trials averaged? If not, then I'm just going to tell you that in my experience, the opinions of people who fail to eliminate the possibility of perceptual error or bias coloring their results aren't worth considering.
> 
> It isn't difficult to manufacture a transparent amp/DAC. I have yet to find one that isn't transparent with the proper transducers.


I have tried to match the signature of my old DAP and I largely could not.
Not the level of "level matching".
I did appreciate the wisdom of level matching that could make a simple Apple USB DAC a very competitive option and unmatched by the price/performance ratio.

My two favourite USB DACs are "warm" and "brighter" one (same Cirrus chips, the same company) - they are distinguishable at any level matching. The first I use with my piercing all-BA IEMs, the second is more universal.

I would not disagree that using DSP, e.g. some parametric equalizer, is a potentially smarter solution, but some DAP/DAC signatures are hard to match.


----------



## bigshot

So I'm guessing this is based on no controls on your comparison. That tells me how to take it.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Since the fire at AKM some opportunities have risen to compare AKM and ESS in very similar implementations
Although the two chips use different operating voltage some swaps notably RME ADI 2 DAC have been as direct as possible
RME have attempted to stay out of  the flame by stating "there should be no audible difference" there is however a great deal of discussion on the subject
Unfortunately no revelations , just the usual cliche anecdotal impressions AKM warm and fuzzy vs ESS sharp and detailed no serious AB test I could find
As always no audible difference in test data


----------



## bigshot (Jul 17, 2022)

Vamp898 is pretty quiet about the info on tests of the  Sony NW-WM1A and NW-WM1Z... I'm getting the feeling those are subjective impressions being described as "tests" too. No point arguing with people who don't care enough to fact check themselves. I sure won't take their word for it.

The truth is that there's only one sound for transparent fidelity. If two components sound different, one or both of them are defective, either by manufacture or design. I don't think any manufacturer wants their product to measure worse than the competition. Colored is probably broken.


----------



## jagwap (Jul 17, 2022)

gregorio said:


> But if you’re here to “change hearts and minds” by arguing different points to the ones being raised, then you are trolling. If you can argue the actual points under discussion, in agreement with the science or with reliable evidence if not, then you could change hearts and minds and wouldn’t be trolling.
> 
> Exactly, so you admit it again. The assertion I quoted and was discussing was: “_But the same DAC can sound very different, with different amps._” - No mention of “system”, only of the same DAC sounding different (according allegedly to what you plug it’s output into).
> 
> ...


But they listened to it through the amps to hear the difference. They didn't listen to the DAC output in isolation while plugging in different amps. So of course it is the system differences they are listening to.

You jump on the words they use in order to argue another pointless argument to attack someone's assertion, when you know that isn't necessarily the point. Even you admit there are interactions between some DACs and amp above. But no, you don't enlighten the debate by helping with this information. You critisize. It's pedantry or trolling. Why do you get satisfaction from these things?


----------



## KeithPhantom

Again, trying to detect anything regarding purely electronic devices such as DACs and amplifiers using a common audio chain is mostly moot due to transducers being so bad (both in terms of linearity/frequency response and nonlinearity/distortion) compared to these electronic devices. Add ears to the mix, and then you get the perfect cocktail of equipment that cannot operate at the same level of fidelity of devices upstream and probes that can be easily fooled by deltas in acoustic pressure and biases.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 17, 2022)

jagwap said:


> But they listened to it through the amps to hear the difference. They didn't listen to the DAC output in isolation while plugging in different amps. So of course it is the system differences they are listening to.


It sounds to me like they were listening to differences in amps. Amps and transducers interact a lot more than amps and DACs do. In fact, I would be surprised if any DAC is less than audibly transparent.

By the way, you don't need to end every one of your replies with a troll smack for Gregorio. He's going to keep replying no matter what insult you heap upon him at this point.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 17, 2022)

bigshot said:


> So I'm guessing this is based on no controls on your comparison. That tells me how to take it.


Again, I do have those two differently sounding USB DACs (due to their amps definitely), and I still could not match the sound of my old DAP.
I do have many more USB DACs which may be harder to distinguish in some blind tesrs, but those two - easy. I also have the third one - ESS-based, but nothing like more common ESS sound due to its amp, it is  made to be "analoguish" and has some background hiss which would make it unmistakably distinguished.
What do I need to prove there?

So instead of spending time  trying to prove something to guys like you, I would rather wish to get some practical feasible advice, which this thread is hardly famous for, in my experience with it.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 17, 2022)

If the amp is the source of the problem, did you make an effort to find transducers that worked equally well with both amps you were comparing? The hiss is probably due to impedance too. Find headphones with a sympathetic impedance to both DACs, run a test tone through, calibrate the two, then do blind tests. Claiming you can't properly audition the DACs because of impedance mismatches doesn't mean that there is a difference between DACs. It just means there is an impedance mismatch.

That is the start. You still haven't said that you compared blind in direct A/B switched with multiple trials. If you don't make an effort to eliminate perceptual error and bias, don't be surprised if we chalk it up to perceptual error and bias.

DACs should be transparent or there's something wrong with them. Amps can be transparent if paired with the right transducer. I've compared everything I own with a DAC and a line out and it all sounds the same. If a DAC sounds different, I'd be surprised. I'm not surprised amps sound different with IEMs or high impedance cans. That isn't the fault of the amp though. With the proper transducer, all of those should be transparent too.

My suggestion is to not jump to theorizing why differences exist if you can't prove there is a difference.






...and this is said by the guy who thought fairies could be photographed!


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> Again, I do have those two differently sounding USB DACs (due to their amps definitely), and I still could not match the sound of my old DAP.
> I do have many more USB DACs which may be harder to distinguish in some blind tesrs, but those two - easy. I also have the third one - ESS-based, but nothing like more common ESS sound due to its amp, it is  made to be "analoguish" and has some background hiss which would make it unmistakably distinguished.
> What do I need to prove there?
> 
> So instead of spending time  trying to prove something to guys like you, I would rather wish to get some practical feasible advice, which this thread is hardly famous for, in my experience with it.


The path to practical feasible advice here is a concise focused question


----------



## The Jester

PhonoPhi said:


> Again, I do have those two differently sounding USB DACs (due to their amps definitely), and I still could not match the sound of my old DAP.
> I do have many more USB DACs which may be harder to distinguish in some blind tesrs, but those two - easy. I also have the third one - ESS-based, but nothing like more common ESS sound due to its amp, it is  made to be "analoguish" and has some background hiss which would make it unmistakably distinguished.
> What do I need to prove there?
> 
> So instead of spending time  trying to prove something to guys like you, I would rather wish to get some practical feasible advice, which this thread is hardly famous for, in my experience with it.


Maybe the difference with your ESS based DAC is the filter option used by its designer, (if it’s say the Sabre 9018) some manufacturers allow user switching between various filter options programmable by software on the chip itself, “slow roll off” akin to NOS maybe the one chosen for the “analoguish “ sound,
But that then begs the question, if another manufacturer uses a different filter option that sounds slightly different which option would be considered “audibly transparent” ?
Why, according to some, would a DAC chip manufacturer allow an option to switch between the “audibly transparent” option and three or more “broken” ones ?
Or maybe it’s just a matter of fine tuning to suit various output stage differences ?


----------



## jagwap (Jul 17, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> So instead of spending time  trying to prove something to guys like you, I would rather wish to get some practical feasible advice, which this thread is hardly famous for, in my experience with it.


I'll try and help.

As stated by myself and Gregorio, any ultrasonic output from a DAC can be demodulated into the audio band by the PN junction of the amplifier's input transistor.  The designers have various ways of minimising this, but some designers are better/more experienced than others. This issue can only be attenuated. Not removed. But at some point it should become inaudible. That point will vary from product to product.

There are other interactions to watch:
Mains powered units invariably have ground currents circulating between them. This is less noticeable with balanced connections usually used in pro gear, because the XLR connector has a specific connection for this, and any disruption these currents cause are not on the audio connection, and common mode rejection helps remove anything left in bad cases.

Single ended (RCA phono) connections rely on the ground connection to tie the units together. If the ground currents are significant this will modulate the ground, and can cause audio interaction. Modern equipment it often worse due to unsympathetic switch mode power supply design. In order to pass EMC quickly, the engineer may put a larger Y capacitor across the primary and secondary. This short cut increases the ground currents significantly. This can be altered in ungrounded equipment. If the unit does not have a ground connection on the power lead, you can reverse the mains polarity, swapping live and neutral.

(WARNING, DO NOT DISCONECT ANY MAINS EARTH DESIGNED TO BE CONNECTED.)

Early CD players were found to sound different if you took the figure if eight shaver lead and reversed it. Philips researched this. I met an engineer from Philips who worked in it.

So you can try this: find the polarity of mains connection that works best on each product in your system. It will likely be the lowest ground currents circulating. I've worked for companies that do this for you, and fix the mains polarity.

So, how can DACs be transparent if doing this is easy to distinguish?

I have Big Shot on ignore. All he contributes is "everything outside of speakers sound the same and I will never change my mind. You're an iditot if you disagree". Not very productive.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 17, 2022)

The default filter should be transparent. Most of the rest probably are too. It isn’t a particularly necessary feature. I can’t imagine anyone choosing to have a brick wall filter, but give a monkey a busy box and they’re gonna flip switches!


----------



## jagwap

PhonoPhi said:


> Again, I do have those two differently sounding USB DACs (due to their amps definitely), and I still could not match the sound of my old DAP.
> I do have many more USB DACs which may be harder to distinguish in some blind tesrs, but those two - easy. I also have the third one - ESS-based, but nothing like more common ESS sound due to its amp, it is  made to be "analoguish" and has some background hiss which would make it unmistakably distinguished.
> What do I need to prove there?
> 
> So instead of spending time  trying to prove something to guys like you, I would rather wish to get some practical feasible advice, which this thread is hardly famous for, in my experience with it.


Another interaction is the size of the capacitor on the DAC output interacting with the amplifier input impedance. If the input impedance is smaller on one amp than the other, and the output capacitor is not large enough, one system will have higher phase shift at LF than the other. I know people who have proved this is audible. Likewise the output EMC capacitance on the DAC, adds to the input EMC capacitance on the amp input. If the accumulation of capacitance is different it will result in a different low pass filter when combined with the output impedance. A good design makes this negligible, which is not guaranteed unfortunately. More likely is the tolerance of the capacitors is not tight enough, the left and right phase shift will be different. If it is high enough it can effect stereo image.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 17, 2022)

“Defective by manufacture or design”

Building a transparent amp isn’t rocket science. I’ve yet to run across one that isn’t. If anyone knows of an amp that is poorly designed to the degree of not being transparent, instead of speaking of it in theory, they should name the specific make and model so people can avoid it.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Thank you, all, a lot of good points to consider and think over, I will try to reply more specifically slowly.

I do not have problems that different USB DACs sound different because their amps, etc were designed differently - I take it now for granted.

It indeed took me sometime to realize that my old DAP was coloured, partially due to some idealistic dogma of "transparency" .
My problem was first being able to find the same/similar colour, and now to have some reasonable guide for it.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Dogmatrix said:


> The path to practical feasible advice here is a concise focused question


While DAC colouring problem is hard to "focus", I do have a specific question that I tried to ask before and did not get an exact answer.
The question is about the limits of an Apple USB DAC to drive different IEMs in terms of their impedance. While the upper limit can be inferred from the voltage limitations, what would be the lower limit on the IEM impedance - I could not find specs.


----------



## jagwap

PhonoPhi said:


> Thank you, all, a lot of good points to consider and think over, I will try to reply more specifically slowly.
> 
> I do not have problems that different USB DACs sound different because their amps, etc were designed differently - I take it now for granted.
> 
> ...


If you are looking for the same colouration that is tricky. Your best hope is to buy something from the same brand, hoping that is their in-house sound.


----------



## jagwap

PhonoPhi said:


> While DAC colouring problem is hard to "focus", I do have a specific question that I tried to ask before and did not get an exact answer.
> The question is about the limits of an Apple USB DAC to drive different IEMs in terms of their impedance. While the upper limit can be inferred from the voltage limitations, what would be the lower limit on the IEM impedance - I could not find specs.


It is usually a current limit. As you say they do not publish this.

If it is the standard lighting DAC dongle, many people tore it down and analysed it. If I recal the Cirrus part is a special part number for Apple, which doesn't help find a datasheet.

The current limit is usually the amount of current that the negative rail charge pump can supply, and this will often be frequency dependant. Low frequencies will drag more current from the switched capacitor network that creates the negative rail voltage than high frequencies.


----------



## PhonoPhi

jagwap said:


> If you are looking for the same colouration that is tricky. Your best hope is to buy something from the same brand, hoping that is their in-house sound.


Exactly, and trying to get the same/similar product would be the easiest solution.
I did realize it later, but at first I was not aware (could not believe) colouration.
My old DAP is Pioneer XDP-30R, which I tought of as ESS, but it has treble softened/smoothened that biased my IEM selection.

Since all sources were portable, their grounding is simpler being more limited than portable DACs


----------



## Vamp898

PhonoPhi said:


> Thank you, all, a lot of good points to consider and think over, I will try to reply more specifically slowly.
> 
> I do not have problems that different USB DACs sound different because their amps, etc were designed differently - I take it now for granted.
> 
> ...


Or just get an THX AAA one, they are uncoloured.

If you like the uncoloured sound, THX amps are available in all sizes and forms. USB dongle, DAP, large desktop amp and so on


----------



## PhonoPhi

The Jester said:


> Maybe the difference with your ESS based DAC is the filter option used by its designer, (if it’s say the Sabre 9018) some manufacturers allow user switching between various filter options programmable by software on the chip itself, “slow roll off” akin to NOS maybe the one chosen for the “analoguish “ sound,
> But that then begs the question, if another manufacturer uses a different filter option that sounds slightly different which option would be considered “audibly transparent” ?
> Why, according to some, would a DAC chip manufacturer allow an option to switch between the “audibly transparent” option and three or more “broken” ones ?
> Or maybe it’s just a matter of fine tuning to suit various output stage differences ?


A good point!
Filter option was enabled in X30 that is exactly 9018-based but then the amp was made to smoothen the glare and possibly to differentiate from other DAPs.

If to compare DACs/amps to a glass, the perfect non-coloured one would be hard.

@bigshot - It is not that brainy to to make "transparent" powered DAC, making portable one may be already a bit harder. Then DACs are made to be different, again similar to not being just "red wine" but different vintages.
Is this good or evil - another point.


----------



## Vamp898

PhonoPhi said:


> A good point!
> Filter option was enabled in X30 that is exactly 9018-based but then the amp was made to smoothen the glare and possibly to differentiate from other DAPs.
> 
> If to compare DACs/amps to a glass, the perfect non-coloured one would be hard.
> ...


As I always say, the best DAC is not having one in the first place. If you can life with the lower output power, full digital amps are the way to go. Why amplify an analog signal if you can just amplify the digital one.

Attention: personal opinion, not a fact


----------



## bigshot

jagwap said:


> If you are looking for the same colouration that is tricky.


It’s not tricky at all. The impression of coloration is likely a result of perceptual error and/or bias. As long as he doesn’t change that, just about any DAC will do.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

Vamp898 said:


> As I always say, the best DAC is not having one in the first place. If you can life with the lower output power, full digital amps are the way to go. Why amplify an analog signal if you can just amplify the digital one.
> 
> Attention: personal opinion, not a fact


Do you have a USB connection in the base of your neck? How do you avoid turning it into physical sound that your ears can hear?

Doh! (Head slap)

Here is the theme song for Sound Science tonight...


----------



## jagwap

Vamp898 said:


> As I always say, the best DAC is not having one in the first place. If you can life with the lower output power, full digital amps are the way to go. Why amplify an analog signal if you can just amplify the digital one.
> 
> Attention: personal opinion, not a fact


In theory yes. But fully digital amplifiers tend to be lower performance than current top end DACs in most respects. So turning that on it's head, it would be better to use a DAC with enough power to driver your transducer.

But at that point, they become the same thing.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

^ he didn't even notice the line, "the best DAC is not having one in the first place". Yeah, my headphones sound better with no DAC. And of course "lower performance" means a little bit lower performance, but still below the threshold of human hearing. If you don't do controlled listening tests, it's all just abstract numbers, not sound. Better numbers are better, right?! Not if those better numbers can't be heard. You end up chasing numbers down a rabbit hole and achieving nothing. There is such a thing as good enough. But with audiophools, too much is never enough. Meanwhile, better transducers and a corrected response curve could make improvements in fidelity that make a real difference.

Stick your head in the sand and block me now. All the snake oil salesmen beg you to do it.


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> While DAC colouring problem is hard to "focus", I do have a specific question that I tried to ask before and did not get an exact answer.
> The question is about the limits of an Apple USB DAC to drive different IEMs in terms of their impedance. While the upper limit can be inferred from the voltage limitations, what would be the lower limit on the IEM impedance - I could not find specs.


Have you tried the AES this sounds a little beyond what is extensively an amateur enthusiast forum


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> ^ he didn't even notice the line, "the best DAC is not having one in the first place". Yeah, my headphones sound better with no DAC. And of course "lower performance" means a little bit lower performance, but still below the threshold of human hearing. If you don't do controlled listening tests, it's all just abstract numbers, not sound. Better numbers are better, right?! Not if those better numbers can't be heard. You end up chasing numbers down a rabbit hole and achieving nothing. There is such a thing as good enough. But with audiophools, too much is never enough. Meanwhile, better transducers and a corrected response curve could make improvements in fidelity that make a real difference.
> 
> Stick your head in the sand and block me now. All the snake oil salesmen beg you to do it.


I think you have been over run time to call artillery on your own position


----------



## gregorio (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> I wish the statement of different DACs/amps being perfectly "transparent" were true.


What statement? I don’t think anyone has made that statement and if they have, they didn’t intend it the way you seem to have interpreted it. See my response to your point #2 below.


PhonoPhi said:


> What I experienced that most portable DAC/amp are coloured.


Right, so the first thing to do is determine if your experience is due to most portable DAC/amps actually being coloured or if it’s due to your perception.


PhonoPhi said:


> It makes sense to me from at least two aspects:


Hang on, you’ve jumped straight into theorising why most portable DAC/amps are coloured. This is fallacious for two reasons: Firstly, you haven’t ascertained that they are actually audibly coloured and secondly, your two aspects/hypotheses are incorrect anyway!


PhonoPhi said:


> 1. Selling most of audiophile commercial products necessitates some difference that can be heard.


Clearly that is not true. Certainly “_most audiophile commercial products necessitates some differences_” but those differences are in functionality, appearance, marketing, price, etc., and therefore in perception, NOT necessarily differences that can be heard! There are numerous audiophile products out there that the audiophile community has been trying to conclusively prove do have “differences that can be heard” for several decades but have abjectly failed under controlled test conditions to do so, even when offered $1m!


PhonoPhi said:


> 2. The transpatency/neutral is a unique single equalizer point similar to a pure white colour on a colour palette.


No, it’s not. Using your analogy, transparency is a whole range of different, very slightly off white colours. However, for this analogy to actually be analogous requires that the human eye could not differentiate between pure white and any variation of very slightly off white.


PhonoPhi said:


> Many components - DAC, amps have their hues, being not perfect either due to technical limitations or by their design, so building "pure white" (neutral, transparent) out of these components should require significant efforts.


There is no “pure white”, it is impossible to make a DAC or amp perform perfectly. There is always at least thermal noise that puts a hard limit on how “white” it’s possible for an analogue circuit to be, and there are other distortions which cannot be reduced to absolutely zero. However, as alluded to above, “pure white” would only be necessary for transparency if human ears had infinite resolution AND were otherwise perfect but you cannot rationally argue that they do. It is not rationally disputable that human hearing has threshold limits and EVERYTHING that falls below those limits, no matter how imperfect or off-white, is audibly transparent because it cannot be audibly differentiated from perfect/“pure white”. So, “yes”: DACs and amps do “have their hues” but with the exception of a few extreme, pathological examples, we are only able to measure these hues, we cannot see/hear them because they fall below the threshold of human audibility and therefore are audibly transparent.


PhonoPhi said:


> My two favourite USB DACs are "warm" and "brighter" one (same Cirrus chips, the same company) - they are distinguishable at any level matching.


If your two favourite USB DACs were actually identical, then still they could be differentiated as “warm and brighter” at any level matching! … With the exception of a very accurate level matching, which typically is difficult to achieve unless you digitally process the outputs.


PhonoPhi said:


> What do I need to prove there?


If you’re going to make assertions about audible colouration then you have to prove or at least reliably evidence that there are in fact audible colourations!


PhonoPhi said:


> I would rather wish to get some practical feasible advice, which this thread is hardly famous for, in my experience with it.


How can anyone provide any “practical feasible advice” if we don’t know if your audible colourations are actually audible or are just perception error?

For example, if it is just a bias induced perceptual error then “practical feasible advice” would be something along the lines of: Find the most expensive, visually appealing DAC with the most outlandish marketing claims that can still influence your perception. However, if there is a real, audible difference, then the “practical feasible advice” would be completely different (and would depend on exactly what that difference is).

G


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

Dogmatrix said:


> I think you have been over run time to call artillery on your own position


I can't figure out what you mean there, I'm afraid.

You go, Gregorio.

The problem here isn't a misconception about the technical specifications of home audio equipment. It's a fundamental misconception about what human ears can hear. Refusing to do controlled listening tests just makes the misconceptions worse.

And I'm still waiting for the links to the multiple tests of the Sony DAPs. (crickets)


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> I can't figure out what you mean there, I'm afraid.
> 
> You go, Gregorio.
> 
> ...


Sorry it was obscure , no worries the guns have fired


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

Oh, I looked back and figured it out... punctuation problem.

This is typical. These guys know that they can't put up an argument in Sound Science to support their purely subjective impressions, so they band together in groups of two or three. They actually believe that multiple people repeating each other's false claims might qualify as proof. They also ignore our answers to their comment and bait us with insults tagged onto the end of their posts, hoping to derail the conversation into personal attacks instead of how wrong they are. That's the sort of thing you do when facts aren't on your side.

This all comes down to audibility. Transparent means the specs are good enough to exceed our all too human ability to hear. That isn't a huge leap. High fidelity sound goes back to the 1950s.


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> A good point!
> Filter option was enabled in X30 that is exactly 9018-based but then the amp was made to smoothen the glare and possibly to differentiate from other DAPs.
> 
> If to compare DACs/amps to a glass, the perfect non-coloured one would be hard.
> ...


Re glass
I was a glass maker in one of my more honorable lives 
If by non-coloured you mean a refractive index of 1 ie a vacuum then yes that would be hard 
However if non-coloured can be characterized as transparent ie a glass door that requires stickers to stop people trying to walk through it then it is not difficult at all
Generally drinking vessels use glass of much higher quality than doors so unless the glass is intentionally coloured it would be safe to call it transparent
Compares quite well to dacs just transpose threshold of perception visual/audible


----------



## PhonoPhi

Dogmatrix said:


> Re glass
> I was a glass maker in one of my more honorable lives
> If by non-coloured you mean a refractive index of 1 ie a vacuum then yes that would be hard
> However if non-coloured can be characterized as transparent ie a glass door that requires stickers to stop people trying to walk through it then it is not difficult at all
> ...


Colour is defined by absorption in the visible (400 nm to 700 nm), I am not sure why you are bringing the subject of refraction here! 
You (and others) did not answer the specific question on Apple USB DAc, yet again the comments on personal perception (subjective and not helpful are abundant).


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> But they listened to it through the amps to hear the difference.


Of course they didn’t. They listened to it through the amps, through the HPs/Speakers, through the air, through their ears and then through their perception/brain.


jagwap said:


> So of course it is the system differences they are listening to.


No, that has NOT been ascertained, unless you include their ears and brain/perception as part of their audio system! But AGAIN, the claim was specifically changes in the same DAC, not the system or their perception.


jagwap said:


> You jump on the words they use in order to argue another pointless argument to attack someone's assertion, when you know that isn't necessarily the point.


That doesn’t make any sense, “_the words they use_” is their assertion. If they use different words and mean something else, then it’s a different assertion. Of course, it’s entirely possible I misunderstand or misinterpret someone’s point but that doesn’t appear to be the case here.


jagwap said:


> Even you admit there are interactions between some DACs and amp above.


Yes but not necessarily audible ones, only as a possibility rather than as something for which I have reliable evidence and an interaction which causes the amp to change the signal, not the DAC!


jagwap said:


> But no, you don't enlighten the debate by helping with this information.


What debate? It maybe doesn’t enlighten your debate/agenda but it does enlighten the debate, at least potentially for those who don’t already know it.


jagwap said:


> You critisize. It's pedantry or trolling.


No, I am refuting (an audiophile claim/myth) and given the title of this thread how can that be pedantry or trolling? However, supporting audiophile claims/myth by arguing something other than the actual claim, that is trolling!


PhonoPhi said:


> The question is about the limits of an Apple USB DAC to drive different IEMs in terms of their impedance. While the upper limit can be inferred from the voltage limitations, what would be the lower limit on the IEM impedance - I could not find specs.


No, AFAIK, Apple doesn’t publish that spec and even if they did, it still might not help you as there are at least 2 different versions with different output power.

There are independent measurements that might be useful though: This one is for Apple’s lightning adapter rather than USB but provides some measurements with a 37.5 Ohm load. This one is of Apple’s USB (C) dongle and indicates and impedance of 0.9 Ohm. In both cases, I believe it’s the US version.

G


----------



## bigshot

I don't know why it's harder to make a transparent portable DAC than it is a transparent home DAC. The chips themselves sounds pretty much the same to ears, and it doesn't take Hoover Dam to power a set of headphones.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 18, 2022)

gregorio said:


> What statement? I don’t think anyone has made that statement and if they have, they didn’t intend it the way you seem to have interpreted it. See my response to your point #2 below.
> 
> Right, so the first thing to do is determine if your experience is due to most portable DAC/amps actually being coloured or if it’s due to your perception.
> 
> ...


A very good point that colouration is a window defined by the limits and bias of perception.

Can one distinguish two different DSP settings? In many cases they can, that is clearly the case with the two USB DACs I mentioned.
The "house sound" is common in the audiophile world. If all USB DACs were the same - no sales, as simple as this.

P.S. typo editing


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> I don't know why it's harder to make a transparent portable DAC than it is a transparent home DAC. The chips themselves sounds pretty much the same to ears, and it doesn't take Hoover Dam to power a set of headphones.


Limitations of power both in voltage (battery) and current to reproduce the fast transients of the treble and often not to choke the power of bass drivers. 
Does it preclude "transparency" - definitely not, but makes the design more challenging and more prone to some skewed implementations.

I am not sure why you find the fact that most USB DACs and DAPs are designed with the specific sound signature, e.g. "house sound" of some DSP processing applied hard to believe. Some companies, like Sony, also differentiate their line of products this way.
In many aspects, it would be easier if all DACs&amps were "transparent", I agree, but it is not the case, alas.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> Limitations of power both in voltage (battery) and current to reproduce the fast transients of the treble and often not to choke the power of bass drivers.
> Does it preclude "transparency" - definitely not, but makes the design more challenging and more prone to some skewed implementations.


If it isn’t audible, it makes no difference in practice. Transparent is perfect to human ears. No need for anything better… even though most DACs are better than transparent by an order of magnitude or more.

The reason I don’t believe that every DAC sounds different is because I’ve done listening tests with every audio component I own and they are all transparent. And every time someone tells me about a colored DAC, they say that they didn’t bother to eliminate the effects of perceptual error and bias.

Here in Sound Science we get to require controlled tests to back up claims. This is the only part of Head Fi where subjective impressions and sloppy comparisons don’t cut it. If you want me to acknowledge coloration in a DAC, do a listening test yourself to prove it, then help us verify your results. Until then, claims are just hot air.

DSPs, filters and equalization aren’t what we’re talking about. We are talking about a DAC that is colored sounding out of the box. For a DAC to not be transparent, it would have to have measured specs that would read as horrible on paper. No manufacturer wants to make inaccurate DACs. They want to convince you they make the best sounding DAC, which is impossible since DACs are generally *designed* to be audibly transparent and sound like every other audibly transparent DAC. That is the baseline. Then you can add tone controls or DSPs to your heart’s content.


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> Colour is defined by absorption in the visible (400 nm to 700 nm), I am not sure why you are bringing the subject of refraction here!
> You (and others) did not answer the specific question on Apple USB DAc, yet again the comments on personal perception (subjective and not helpful are abundant).


I thought the pertinent factor was non-coloured ie transparent ergo refractive index sorry if I misunderstood
Colour is a little more complicated but heres a link
https://www.britannica.com/science/color
Re Apple "others" far more knowledgeable than me  have had a good go at it and I did point to the AES sorry if that wasn't helpful


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> If it isn’t audible, it makes no difference in practice. Transparent is perfect to human ears. No need for anything better… even though most DACs are better than transparent by an order of magnitude or more.
> 
> The reason I don’t believe that every DAC sounds different is because I’ve done listening tests with every audio component I own and they are all transparent. And every time someone tells me about a colored DAC, they say that they didn’t bother to eliminate the effects of perceptual error and bias.
> 
> ...


It has been discussed that the DAC/amp are inseparable in most portable applications.

If the transducers cannot be powered properly - the effect on the sound are very noticeable.

That is why it would be so much more helpful to discuss the specific limitation of well-known, measured, torn apart, etc Apple USB DAC.

I am taliking about portable USB DACs again to be clear.


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> You (and others) did not answer the specific question on Apple USB DAc,


I believe I have, just above.


PhonoPhi said:


> yet again the comments on personal perception (subjective and not helpful are abundant).


Well duh, of course. As the vast majority of DACs are audibly transparent, as your observations seem poorly controlled and as your explanations of them are incorrect, the overwhelming likelihood is that your experience/observations are due to your personal perception. So of course our responses will be about personal perception, until you can provide some reliable evidence that it’s not an issue of personal perception. 


PhonoPhi said:


> Can one distinguish to different DSP settings.


That depends on which DSP settings and ONLY if it’s above the audible threshold. The typical DSP settings involved with DA Conversion are significantly below that threshold, although there are some pathological exceptions.  


PhonoPhi said:


> In many cases they can, that is clearly the case with the two USB DACs I mentioned.


No, assuming you’re talking about DA  Conversion then only in very few, pathological cases “they can”. And, that is not clearly the case with the two USB DACs you mentioned. What is “clearly the case” is that you have not actually measured them, have not adequately controlled your listening tests and most likely are distinguishing differences caused by your perception!


PhonoPhi said:


> The "house sound" is common in the audiophile world.


No it’s not, the vast majority of DACs are audibly transparent and therefore have no “house sound”. What IS common in the audiophile world is BS marketing implying a “house sound” and therefore a whole bunch of audiophiles perceiving a “house sound” due to the biases created by that marketing! It’s relatively easy to provide reliable evidence of a “house sound”, for example a frequency response graph with deviations from flat large enough to be audible. 


PhonoPhi said:


> If all ISB DACs were the same - no sales, as simple as this.


Simple but wrong! Firstly, there are no USB DACs that are the same, they have different appearances, different price points, possibly different functionality and definitely different marketing! Secondly, because of all these differences there’s a high probability that a difference in sound will be perceived, even though there is no audible difference.

So, because of all these differences (both real and just perceived) there ARE sales, “simple as this”!

G


----------



## castleofargh

About the nonsense of everything is the same and sounds the same, I always feel conflicted.
On the one hand it’s obvious that some Dacs and amps will have their own sound. Then on top of that, some interactions between gears will on occasion create or magnify differences.
Even if the tech was one system from just one manufacturer, we’d have someone selling a variant with another crappier sound just because it’s possible and the guy’s a rebel. And you all know he’d sell a bunch!

On the other hand almost nobody claiming experience with different sounding gears has had a proper listening test to control if the perception of difference comes from sound, and then from sound determined by the gear and not a volume difference or some interactions with a peculiar device.
It’s all nice and all to see confident people, but it’s a human fact that many of the most confident people are also the most ignorant on a given subject. When that subject it testing and the platform an audiophile forum, I’d be impressed to learn that 1% of the statements come from people with experience in listening tests.
Knowing that, knowing how most claims of differences come from casual sighted impressions, we can be very confident that there are consistently fewer audible differences, if any, than what’s being reported.
It would be nice to have this clearly acknowledged by the community someday. Even if knowing audiophiles, it probably would be in the form of ”people are often wrong, but not me. I’m different and I know what I heard". 

And that’s why I’m conflicted. In a case by case I believe @bigshot is always wrong for trying to deny claims of audible differences. But I also believe that at a statistical level I'd win big by betting on him all the time.




Vamp898 said:


> As I always say, the best DAC is not having one in the first place. If you can life with the lower output power, full digital amps are the way to go. Why amplify an analog signal if you can just amplify the digital one.
> 
> Attention: personal opinion, not a fact


To quote a modern philosopher: "sounds good, doesn’t work".


----------



## bigshot

Which DAC have you found to not be transparent, Castle?


----------



## PhonoPhi

gregorio said:


> I believe I have, just above.
> 
> Well duh, of course. As the vast majority of DACs are audibly transparent, as your observations seem poorly controlled and as your explanations of them are incorrect, the overwhelming likelihood is that your experience/observations are due to your personal perception. So of course our responses will be about personal perception, until you can provide some reliable evidence that it’s not an issue of personal perception.
> 
> ...


Again, in USB DACs, it is the DAC/amp module.

I do abhore "marketing BS" as well.
I just happened to get a bunch of those USB DACs, few different DAPs, etc for my own curiousity.
Largely waste of money given the capability of a simple Apple USB DAC/amp, but the difference heard is hardly imaginable.

For the Apple DAC - the specific question again: what are its limitations in terms of using with the low- impedance IEMs - specific numbers and underlying science.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> A very good point that colouration is a window defined by the limits and bias of perception.


I missed this but feel it’s important to address because I did not make that point, it’s not a very good point and if colouration were a window defined by the limits and bias of perception then it wouldn’t be a window, it would be infinite. Bias and perception are limited only by what your brain is capable of imagining! Colouration is a window defined by the limits/thresholds of audibility, assuming of course we’re talking about actual audible colouration and not perceived/imagined colouration.

G


----------



## PhonoPhi

Dogmatrix said:


> I thought the pertinent factor was non-coloured ie transparent ergo refractive index sorry if I misunderstood
> Colour is a little more complicated but heres a link
> https://www.britannica.com/science/color
> Re Apple "others" far more knowledgeable than me  have had a good go at it and I did point to the AES sorry if that wasn't helpful


Sorry I chucked a bit on the Britannica reference.
This area is a part of my scientific expertise.
Here is an excellent book on colour - all the origins, related to refraction as well - https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Phy...+Causes+of+Color,+2nd+Edition-p-9780471391067
It is a scientific book but written on a good level for science enthusiasts, most university libraries should  have it.


----------



## PhonoPhi

gregorio said:


> I missed this but feel it’s important to address because I did not make that point, it’s not a very good point and if colouration were a window defined by the limits and bias of perception then it wouldn’t be a window, it would be infinite. Bias and perception are limited only by what your brain is capable of imagining! Colouration is a window defined by the limits/thresholds of audibility, assuming of course we’re talking about actual audible colouration and not perceived/imagined colouration.
> 
> G


"Threshholds of audibility" is a better definition, agreed.

I can only wish to hear the same level of attention to details for the specifics of the Apple USB DAC/amp, sorry for being pedantic and repetitive


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> Again, in USB DACs, it is the DAC/amp module.


It doesn’t matter as the vast majority of DACs and amps are audibly transparent (again, with a few pathological exceptions). The difference with amps is we have to realise they are designed to power a specific range of transducers. Therefore, given a transducer outside of that range, there is quite possibly going to be an actual audible difference/colouration.


PhonoPhi said:


> I do abhore "marketing BS" as well.


Unfortunately, that doesn’t make much difference. Obviously, you’ve first got to be able to actually identify that the marketing is BS and that’s typically difficult or very difficult because there’s very little marketing that is complete, wall to wall BS. The vast majority is at least partially true/factual and some is entirely true/factual and is only BS due to some or possibly just one “lie of omission”. Secondly and even more difficult, even if you do recognise it’s BS and abhor it, you’ve still got to avoid letting it have ANY (conscious or subconscious) effect on your biases/perception!


PhonoPhi said:


> I can only wish to hear the same level of attention to details for the specifics of the Apple USB DAC/amp, sorry for being pedantic and repetitive


You should be sorry, because I’ve already answered your question about the Apple dongle (as well as I’m able) with links to objective evidence and mentioned it again in a subsequent post!

It’s at the bottom of post #15,548. 

G


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 18, 2022)

gregorio said:


> It doesn’t matter as the vast majority of DACs and amps are audibly transparent (again, with a few pathological exceptions). The difference with amps is we have to realise they are designed to power a specific range of transducers. Therefore, given a transducer outside of that range, there is quite possibly going to be an actual audible difference/colouration.
> 
> Unfortunately, that doesn’t make much difference. Obviously, you’ve first got to be able to actually identify that the marketing is BS and that’s typically difficult or very difficult because there’s very little marketing that is complete, wall to wall BS. The vast majority is at least partially true/factual and some is entirely true/factual and is only BS due to some or possibly just one “lie of omission”. Secondly and even more difficult, even if you do recognise it’s BS and abhor it, you’ve still got to avoid letting it have ANY (conscious or subconscious) effect on your biases/perception!
> 
> ...


Perhaps, I should be sorry, but the reference cited: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pple-vs-google-usb-c-headphone-adapters.5541/ , while being informative, does not answer my question about the lower limit of the impedance that can be used, and that is the reason for continuing to ask.

Now, to discuss this reference instructively: interestingly, the lowest impedance they tested was only 33 Ohm, while most IEMs are 16-32 Ohm, 16 Ohm being the most common/standard value. I do beleive most people use (at least used before switching to wireless), iems and buds with their phones rather than headphones.
My conjecture is that the distortion numbers at 16 Ohm did not look as sensationally good to report (?)
The specs of most USB DAC/amps are from 16 to 150-300 Ohm or 32 to 300 Ohm; I've seen 8 Ohms only only on very few of them, while a lot of IEMs are below 16 Ohm and some blatantly go to 4-5 Ohms.

If the current limits can be inferred from the cited data - please explain how it can be done and what would be the numbers - I will be really greatful.


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> Sorry I chucked a bit on the Britannica reference.
> This area is a part of my scientific expertise.
> Here is an excellent book on colour - all the origins, related to refraction as well - https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Physics+and+Chemistry+of+Color:+The+Fifteen+Causes+of+Color,+2nd+Edition-p-9780471391067
> It is a scientific book but written on a good level for science enthusiasts, most university libraries should  have it.


Thanks , my undergraduate dissertation was titled "Light and colour" so I'm good


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> Perhaps, I should be sorry, but the reference cited: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pple-vs-google-usb-c-headphone-adapters.5541/ while being informative does not answer my question about the lower limit of the impedance that can be used, and that is the reason for continuing to ask.
> 
> Now, to discuss this reference instructively: interestingly, the lowest impedance they tested was only 33 Ohm, while most IEMs are 16-32 Ohm, 16 Ohm being most common/standard values, and I do beleive most people use (at least used before switching to wireless), iems and buds with their phones rather than headphones
> My conjecture is that the distortion numbers at 16 Ohm did not look as sensationally good to report (?)
> ...


If there is a problem with your iems I can recommend the Airpods Pro


----------



## PhonoPhi

Dogmatrix said:


> If there is a problem with your iems I can recommend the Airpods Pro


My daughter has Airpods Pro and laughs at my sound explorations 

I found Airpods Pro very competently made/tuned, but I do enjoy the sound of multi-BA IEMs, and they commonly need more power that currently can be provided by wireless.

Overall, while enjoying the hobby, I try to understand the science and common misconcepts, at least to make more informative decisions.

Where tests felt instructive, I did them -  with the Bigshot help I learned my limits on mp3 perception, as well as a lot  about golden audiophile files.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> Now, to discuss this reference instructively: interestingly, the lowest impedance they tested was only 33 Ohm, while most IEMs are 16-32 Ohm, 16 Ohm being most common/standard values, and I do beleive most people use (at least used before switching to wireless), iems and buds with their phones rather than headphones.
> My conjecture is that the distortion numbers at 16 Ohm did not look as sensationally good to report (?)


Although the last graph does indicate the output impedance measured down to 0.9 Ohms.

My conjecture is that at 16 Ohms the numbers probably won’t look quite as good but will probably still be significantly below audibility. However, that is just conjecture, I don’t have an Apple dongle currently to test and when I did have one, I just tested it down to my typical load (around 40 Ohms).

G

Edit: Again, the US version, not the European one.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Which DAC have you found to not be transparent, Castle?


I only have anecdotes on things I tried shortly and didn’t own. The few mostly rigorous blind tests I did turned out as 50/50 so i’m useless. I remember some Audio gd DAC that felt real different to me when casually unplugging stuff at some audio meeting, but I don’t know what model it was.
I think that at least some filter options sometimes do seem to change the sound on some DACs that have them(and DAPs), but that too never went beyond short casual test with friends. I never owned such a DAC and don’t really care for filter options.


The rest falls clearly into what we would both consider defective. Like one of the early Schiit DAC(was it a modi?) where I could notice noises on 2 out of 3 computers/laptop at someone’s house. For all I know it could have been a defect only on that particular DAC instead of the series. At the same time, since then we got the magic usb box and several generations of super special usb from Schiit, so maybe there was really something in need of improvement. ^_^


----------



## odarg64 (Jul 18, 2022)

Dogmatrix said:


> Thanks , my undergraduate dissertation was titled "Light and colour" so I'm good


That's it? Most 'dissertation' titles tell the potential reader something about the original research conducted.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 18, 2022)

gregorio said:


> Although the last graph does indicate the output impedance measured down to 0.9 Ohms.
> 
> My conjecture is that at 16 Ohms the numbers probably won’t look quite as good but will probably still be significantly below audibility. However, that is just conjecture, I don’t have an Apple dongle currently to test and when I did have one, I just tested it down to my typical load (around 40 Ohms).
> 
> ...


I do have the US version.

On the higher impedance side, the limits are fairly clear - while distortions are minimal, the limitations of the voltage at 1 V limits the power available, and the dynamic range is expected to be affected near maximal values.

On the lower side, the limitations are by the current and by the noise that are usually less documented, especially the former.

I agree that the distortions at 16 Ohm are expected to be much higher; more than 4 times would be a reasonable estimate (the square of the current). Would it be audible is a good general question. I would love to understand where and how the limitations will manifest, since by lowering the impedance the limits of the source will be hit sooner or later.

The impedance of the source, a good 0.9 Ohm in the Apple case, is a good quick  guide for matching with the transducers. While 1/8 rule is commonly cited, I found 1/16 is a safer guide in my limited experience with IEMs and portable sources, and then still there are sources that have the impedance below 1 Ohm,while specified to work in a range of 16 to 150-300 Ohm.

My limited thinking/conjectures is in the direction of the source (especially portable) limitations  in fast current modulations and instant power available. The latter can be at least partially mitigated by powerful capacitors.

It would be great to discuss these limitations in the Science Forum.


----------



## Vamp898 (Jul 18, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Do you have a USB connection in the base of your neck? How do you avoid turning it into physical sound that your ears can hear?
> 
> Doh! (Head slap)
> 
> Here is the theme song for Sound Science tonight...



I enjoy how your joke reveals that you have no clue how digital amps work =)

But don't worry, the understanding of digital amps is too much for most people who did not fully understand how digital audio actually works.

And no, digital amps don't have an DAC, the digital signal is pushed out as an analog signal in the last step before it gets to the receiver by the LC Filter.

This is the big advantage of digital amps. Except for the cable, the analog signal is not touched by any component.

While in analog amps, the analog signal goes through several components and analog amps use excessive error correction which further modifies the signal.

But the error correction allows them to have higher output while digital amps are limited to their actual output.

Except the TA-ZH1ES which uses two amps. One for the sound and one to create an correction signal cleaning up distortion. But this is an very complex and and expensive setup hence is used very rarely. Also most Headphones don't need that much power anyway


----------



## castleofargh (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> Perhaps, I should be sorry, but the reference cited: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pple-vs-google-usb-c-headphone-adapters.5541/ , while being informative, does not answer my question about the lower limit of the impedance that can be used, and that is the reason for continuing to ask.
> 
> Now, to discuss this reference instructively: interestingly, the lowest impedance they tested was only 33 Ohm, while most IEMs are 16-32 Ohm, 16 Ohm being the most common/standard value. I do beleive most people use (at least used before switching to wireless), iems and buds with their phones rather than headphones.
> My conjecture is that the distortion numbers at 16 Ohm did not look as sensationally good to report (?)
> ...


That’s a legit concern. In general, you can assume that amp fidelity degrades with low impedance load. Well, if more current actually flows in it, because with extremely sensitive IEM you might end up loud enough with very small voltage compared to a higher impedance one, and as a result still get low current.
I agree that even 16 ohm is too high to realistically test modern IEMs.

I’m Apple racist and like any good racist, I know nearly nothing about what I hate, so I can’t help you.


----------



## Corti

Vamp898 said:


> And no, digital amps don't have an DAC, the digital signal is pushed out as an analog signal in the last step before it gets to the receiver by the LC Filter.


But how is the digital signal being pushed out as an analog signal if there is no DAC involved? Did it just magically transform from digital to analog?


----------



## odarg64

Vamp898 said:


> And no, digital amps don't have an DAC, the digital signal is pushed out as an analog signal in the last step before it gets to the receiver by the LC Filter.


Is 'pushed out' different from 'conversion?'


----------



## Corti

odarg64 said:


> Is 'pushed out' different from 'conversion?'


Maybe the "digital amp" pushes the digital signal so long until it becomes analog on its own.


----------



## Vamp898

Corti said:


> But how is the digital signal being pushed out as an analog signal if there is no DAC involved? Did it just magically transform from digital to analog?


I already answered that, by the LC Filter. And no, LC Filter are not DACs and have no relation to them.

So it's not magic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-D_amplifier

Attention, not all Class D amps are full digital amps. But all full digital amps are Class D amps (afaik)


----------



## Corti

Vamp898 said:


> I already answered that, by the LC Filter. And no, LC Filter are not DACs and have no relation to them.
> 
> So it's not magic.
> 
> ...


You have not answered it. You said a digital signal is being pushed out as an analog signal which then gets to the receiver by the LC filter. 
It's like saying "i threw an apple out the window as a banana."


----------



## odarg64

Corti said:


> Maybe the "digital amp" pushes the digital signal so long until it becomes analog on its own.


Digital to analog extrusion.


----------



## Vamp898

odarg64 said:


> Is 'pushed out' different from 'conversion?'





Corti said:


> You have not answered it. You said a digital signal is being pushed out as an analog signal which then gets to the receiver by the LC filter.
> It's like saying "i threw an apple out the window as a banana."


Yes, because you don't understand how PWM works and what relation LCs have to it.


----------



## Corti (Jul 18, 2022)

It doesn't matter if i understand PWM or LC, you just wrote a sentence that doesn't make sense.
But i'm getting the impression that it was just a punctuation (comma) issue. You should read your statements again and try to put appropriate commas.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> I only have anecdotes on things I tried shortly and didn’t own. The few mostly rigorous blind tests I did turned out as 50/50 so i’m useless. I remember some Audio gd DAC that felt real different to me when casually unplugging stuff at some audio meeting, but I don’t know what model it was.


That’s pretty much the same kind of lack of hard evidence as our trolling friends. I don’t believe manufacturers would create something that is deliberately hobbled by coloration or house sound. The deviation from a flat response or whatever other kind of kludge they would use would show up loud and clear in the published specs. The crowd that loves numbers would have a field day tearing it apart.

I see no reason to scrupulously maintain an option when I can’t find any evidence to back it up in well over a decade of searching. I might as well insert the caveat that certain pigs may know how to hover, if not actually fly. Just because something sounds like it might be true, it doesn’t mean that it is. We have plenty of people coming in to Sound Science with unproven stuff that sounds reasonable to them. We don’t put up with reasonable sounding arguments like “it costs more money so the manufacturer must have made it sound better”, or reasonable sounding claims like cheap Chinese cables sound clearly inferior to fancy ones.

If I did have evidence that some particular audio component was deliberately colored, I’d feel obligated to document and quantify the coloration, and let everyone know about it, so no one would buy that by mistake thinking it was high fidelity.

If we’re going to demand facts based opinions from others, the same should apply to us I would think.


----------



## jagwap (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> I do have the US version.
> 
> On the higher impedance side, the limits are fairly clear - while distortions are minimal, the limitations of the voltage at 1 V limits the power available, and the dynamic range is expected to be affected near maximal values.
> 
> ...


You are right that there is not enough data there to be sure that it can drive 16 ohms IEMs well, especially if they are multi IEM devices, as the crossover is likely to have an uneven impedance, and possibly a minimum impedance that could be lower.  But given it can do 1Vrms into 33 ohms, logically it can do <0.5Vrms into 16.5ohms.

However, it doesn't say what frequency the 33ohm test was at, and lower frequencies will be tougher.  I recall a Samsung S6 or S7 breaking up badly when trying to drive 18ohms.  So give it some margin: 0.3Vrms into 18 ohms is 5mW. Loud enough?

Edit: these are reasonable estimates, not proven.


----------



## Vamp898

Corti said:


> It doesn't matter if i understand PWM or LC, you just wrote a sentence that doesn't make sense.
> But i'm getting the impression that it was just a punctuation (comma) issue. You should read your statements again and try to put appropriate commatas.


Could you please pinpoint the error? I'm failing to find it


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

Vamp898 said:


> And no, digital amps don't have an DAC, the digital signal is pushed out as an analog signal in the last step before it gets to the receiver by the LC Filter.


This is something new to me. Isn’t that last step a DAC conversion? You’re talking about playing sound into your headphones without a digital/analog conversion?

Volume pots should be audibly transparent too, regardless if they are analog or digital. This sounds like one of those inaudible things that audiophiles lay awake at night worrying about.

EDIT: I did a little googling. Class D amps don’t need DAC conversion because they’re not really a digital amp. They’re just a different way of handling analog.  It’s all over my head, but the general consensus is that the advantages over a regular PCM to DAC to analog chain is purely theoretical at best. It’s one of those esoteric audiophile things.


----------



## Corti (Jul 18, 2022)

Vamp898 said:


> Could you please pinpoint the error? I'm failing to find it





Vamp898 said:


> And no, digital amps don't have an DAC, the digital signal is pushed out as an analog signal in the last step before it gets to the receiver by the LC Filter.


You say digital amps don’t have an DAC(s). You say a digital signal is pushed out as an analog signal before it gets to the receiver by the LC Filter.

With this syntax it would mean digital to analog conversion/pushing/extrusion happens followed by going to the receiver by the LC Filter. But without explaining how conversion happens.

If you said “The digital signal is pushed out as an analog signal (now fullstop or comma). Before, it gets to the receiver by the LC Filter.

With this syntax it would mean the signal goes to the LC Filter before it is being ‘pushed’ from digital to analog. I think this is what you mean.. but maybe you are just more confused than before now.

Edit: I don’t want to be pointing at grammar or spelling, but correct syntax is essential for making a logical statement.


----------



## Vamp898

bigshot said:


> This is something new to me. Isn’t that last step a DAC conversion? You’re talking about playing sound into your headphones without a digital/analog conversion?
> 
> Volume pots should be audibly transparent too, regardless if they are analog or digital. This sounds like one of those inaudible things that audiophiles lay awake at night worrying about.


There is more than volume pots in the circuit. Modern analog amps are pretty complex, they are just one chip but inside this chip, there are several components and circuits. The feedback error correction most likely has the biggest influence on the signal. But it's just one of many aspects.

An DAC actively converts the digital signal into an analog signal.

An LC Filter, hence the name, filters the digital PWM signal and the result is an analog signal.

So an DAC gets an signal as an input, is reading it, converting it to analog and then is creating a new analog signal as output.

The LC is filtering the signal that is going through him. The output signal is the input signal, just filtert.

There is no conversation like in DACs going on, it's still the same signal.

It's a pretty simple/stupid circuit consisting of an capacitor and an inductor unlike an DAC which is an pretty complex IC.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

Class D amps aren’t really digital. The input is analog so you would place the DAC before the amp. They operate with Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) which kind of sounds like PCM, so I guess people started calling them “digital” even though they are end to end analog.

Again, it isn’t rocket science to create an audibly transparent amp, DAC or player. You don’t need to jump through all these hoops to get perfect sound for human ears. In fact, you can achieve perfect digital and analog signals without spending more than fifty bucks at Walmart. There’s no reason sound wise to engage in theoretical monkey spanking like this.


----------



## GearMe (Jul 18, 2022)

FWIW...this was a decent starting point for me to understand the basic concepts/differences in Class D vs other amps.  Guessing most of you know this but including for those that may not.  Any other links with additional info/insights would be awesome!

https://www.analog.com/en/analog-dialogue/articles/class-d-audio-amplifiers.html


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 18, 2022)

bigshot said:


> That’s pretty much the same kind of lack of hard evidence as our trolling friends. I don’t believe manufacturers would create something that is deliberately hobbled by coloration or house sound. The deviation from a flat response or whatever other kind of kludge they would use would show up loud and clear in the published specs. The crowd that loves numbers would have a field day tearing it apart.
> 
> I see no reason to scrupulously maintain an option when I can’t find any evidence to back it up in well over a decade of searching. I might as well insert the caveat that certain pigs may know how to hover, if not actually fly. Just because something sounds like it might be true, it doesn’t mean that it is. We have plenty of people coming in to Sound Science with unproven stuff that sounds reasonable to them. We don’t put up with reasonable sounding arguments like “it costs more money so the manufacturer must have made it sound better”, or reasonable sounding claims like cheap Chinese cables sound clearly inferior to fancy ones.
> 
> ...


Why would the forum should rebolve around your beliefs and people being obliged to prove anything contrary to your beliefs? Does it sound like a religious sect a bit?
You have strong tendencies to make it personal, Bigshot-centric  (A related quasi-scientific thought is that in this model of Universe all apples (and bananas) thrown will inevitably get onto Bigshot )

Different wines taste differently.
Audiophile DACs/amps & DAPs are made to be different that more than often include colouration and/or harmonic manipulation for more pleasing sound.

Is Apple USB DAC/amp fully  "transparent"? It is definitely close, but some argue that it is designed to reproduce the human voice the best - some form of "sound shaping".
Then how to distinguish reliably - what parameters to measure?

The consumer products are different from the professional products.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 18, 2022)

jagwap said:


> You are right that there is not enough data there to be sure that it can drive 16 ohms IEMs well, especially if they are multi IEM devices, as the crossover is likely to have an uneven impedance, and possibly a minimum impedance that could be lower.  But given it can do 1Vrms into 33 ohms, logically it can do <0.5Vrms into 16.5ohms.
> 
> However, it doesn't say what frequency the 33ohm test was at, and lower frequencies will be tougher.  I recall a Samsung S6 or S7 breaking up badly when trying to drive 18ohms.  So give it some margin: 0.3Vrms into 18 ohms is 5mW. Loud enough?
> 
> Edit: these are reasonable estimates, not proven.


My understanding is that for the low impedance, not the voltage but the current is the limitation (the same power is produced with the lower voltage but higher currents).

The loudness is not a problem, on the opposite - low-impedance IEMs sound louder for the same source setting (another form of the "loudness war" in some sense).
The high currents required and especially their fast modulations are hard to produce, especially for the portable amps. hence the distortions that is especially evident for multi-driver IEMs, where exactly the impedance values are cited for 1 KHz, while it may go much lower close to the resonance frequency of BA drivers.
For the powerful amps - the background noise/hiss is a common problem, with a typical solution being using impedance adaptors to rectify the situation.


----------



## Vamp898

bigshot said:


> Class D amps aren’t really digital. The input is analog so you would place the DAC before the amp. They operate with Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) which kind of sounds like PCM, so I guess people started calling them “digital” even though they are end to end analog.
> 
> Again, it isn’t rocket science to create an audibly transparent amp, DAC or player. You don’t need to jump through all these hoops to get perfect sound for human ears. In fact, you can achieve perfect digital and analog signals without spending more than fifty bucks at Walmart. There’s no reason sound wise to engage in theoretical monkey spanking like this.


I was talking about full digital amps (I pointed that out specifically). And what happens? People open Wikipedia and say, that Class D amps are not digital.

You don't know if Class D amps are digital or not. Do you understand? You have no knowledge on that topic. You spend 5 minutes gathering informations from Wikipedia but informations are not Knowledge.

I was not talking about Class D amps in general, I was talking about full digital amps. They don't take an analog signal as input

That is why the TA-ZH1ES needs an ADC (from AKM by the way) for its analog ports. To convert the signal to digital because it's an full digital amp. It does not accept analog input signals.

And about transparency, no, you don't get transparent amps for five bucks at Walmart.  As mentioned earlier, people don't understand how RMAA works.

That's the main issue here. People Extremely over simplify complex topics and then think it's simple.

You simplify things for the sake of explanation and understanding by leaving out essential infornations.

I made several A/B Blind tests and even non audiophile can easily pick apart analog and digital amps and even different digital amps from each other (Like the WM1A and WM1Z)

But it's impossible to explain the basics and foundation of electricity and acoustics with every single post. You have to understand that we are not unpaid teachers doing our full-time job proofing people wrong sharing their strong opinions as facts.

If you don't understand how these things work, why are you here explaining it to others?

And no, it's not possible to look these things up in a matter of seconds on Wikipedia, that is why you, again, started spreading wrong infornations after reading 5 sentences on Wikipedia.

It is a complex topic people with master degrees and years of experience fight over for days. You can't join by just reading 5 sentences on Wikipedia.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> Why would the forum should rebolve around your beliefs and people being obliged to prove anything contrary to your beliefs?


This forum doesn’t revolve around Bigshot’s beliefs, it revolves around scientific/established facts. Mostly Bigshot’s beliefs are in broad agreement with the science/facts but occasionally they’re not and then we argue with him.


PhonoPhi said:


> Does it sound like a religious sect a bit?


No, it doesn’t sound like that at all. Bigshot’s and our beliefs are based on objective, established facts, unlike a religious sect whose beliefs are based purely on faith.


PhonoPhi said:


> Audiophile DACs/amps & DAPs are made to be different that more than often include colouration and/or harmonic manipulation for more pleasing sound.


You keep repeating that mantra but provide no reliable evidence to back it up. Meanwhile the published specs, independent measurements and controlled listening tests all reliably evidence no audible colouration and harmonic manipulation/distortion well below audibility (with a few pathological exceptions). What YOU claim therefore sounds like a religious sect!


PhonoPhi said:


> Is Apple USB DAC/amp fully "transparent"?


No but it is audibly transparent.


PhonoPhi said:


> It is deginitely close, but some argue that it is designed to reproduce the human voice the best - some form of "sound shaping".


Are those who make that argument  effectively part of a religious sect or do they have objective measurements and controlled listen tests to back up their argument?


PhonoPhi said:


> The consumer products are different from the professional products.


The functionality is usually different, the build quality is commonly different, the appearance is often different and the marketing is almost always vastly different but the basic principles are typically very similar or the same.

G


----------



## Corti

PhonoPhi said:


> Different wines taste differently.


I don’t understand your analogy about the taste of wine to sound-waves.

The taste of wines differ vastly because there are millions of molecules (like alkaloids) involved that are sensed by our taste-buds. Everything together creates a taste sensation. But we can not measure the taste of wine, because we would need detectors with all the different chemical receptor sites for every single molecule within the wine. additionally we don’t even know what exact molecules the wine is made of.. and every portion of wine would vary greatly in quality and quantity of the different molecules.

But we can surely measure soundwaves. Because soundwaves are not as complex as the interaction of millions of different chemical molecules.

So when you amps and dacs measure identical (above audibility) and have controlled blind tests with people who can statistically not distinguish between differences in these amps or dacs, how is this not evidence enough that there is no audible difference?

If you gave the persons two different wines however, they would all taste differently because of the reasons i mentioned. I think the comparison doesn’t make sense.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 18, 2022)

Corti said:


> I don’t understand your analogy about the taste of wine to sound-waves.
> 
> The taste of wines differ vastly because there are millions of molecules (like alkaloids) involved that are sensed by our taste-buds. Everything together creates a taste sensation. But we can not measure the taste of wine, because we would need detectors with all the different chemical receptor sites for every single molecule within the wine. additionally we don’t even know what exact molecules the wine is made of.. and every portion of wine would vary greatly in quality and quantity of the different molecules.
> 
> ...


We can measure about every molecule in wine and link it to taste, etc- very complex, but sensing based on the artificial nose concept and old good (modern) chromatography do the job. It is complex and expensive to make for every wine, but can be done for specific wine samples to learn about their taste, smell, colour, etc.

My analogy was about audiophile products being different like different wines.
If it does not work for you - OK.

With DACs/amp, their output can be measured, which is much better quantifyable than sound waves, since transducers are usually far from perfect.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 18, 2022)

gregorio said:


> This forum doesn’t revolve around Bigshot’s beliefs, it revolves around scientific/established facts. Mostly Bigshot’s beliefs are in broad agreement with the science/facts but occasionally they’re not and then we argue with him.
> 
> No, it doesn’t sound like that at all. Bigshot’s and our beliefs are based on objective, established facts, unlike a religious sect whose beliefs are based purely on faith.
> 
> ...


I hope I do not force anyone to proof/justify my "beliefs" here.
As a scientist, I do not see much value in controlled tests for DACs here specifically, it may only prove that I can hear the difference (not universal) and here it will be just more sceptical questions from guys like bigshot.

I have a bit hard time to understand why it is not reasonable to assume that some DSP is inevitably applied to most amps and daps in audiophile products?
Does Apple USB/amp reproduce all the frequencies equally not rolling off 15-20 kHz for instance?  Do we have a clear proof of this?
I am open to correcting my misconcepts based on the tangible evidence.


----------



## Corti (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> We can measure about every molecule in wine and link it to taste, etc- very complex, but sensing based on the artificial nose concept and old good (modern) chromatography do the job. It is complex and expensive to make for every wine, but can be done for specific wine samples to learn about their taste, smell, colour, etc.
> 
> My analogy was about audiophile products being different like different wines.
> If it does not work for you - OK.
> ...


Hmm, ok can you give me a list of all the molecules in a certain wine? If you say that it is possible, then there must be studies/papers about it (or is it top secret?). How else do you know about the possibility?

My knowledge is that we are far from knowing all the exact ingredients (requiring the chemical isolation of every single different molecule) within different plants and their fruits. We can certainly do mass spectrometry or chromatography, but that doesn’t tell us all about their atomic-structure (which is critical to know when we want to know how they react with taste-buds and the olfactory system).

What i could think of is that we can measure parts of the ingredients (those that we already chemically isolated) and link them to the five human tastes and say: this wine  contains a certain amount of x alkaloids, so that the wine probably tastes y amounts sweet, z amounts salty etc. but its only an approach and far from being exact.

While we can measure the output of amps/dacs very precise. and we are talking about identical and not about similar. 
But if that’s not the case and we can measure exactly every single molecule I would seriously like to read about it.


----------



## bigshot

PhonoPhi said:


> Why would the forum should rebolve around your beliefs and people being obliged to prove anything contrary to your beliefs?


Um... because this is the Sound Science forum and we try to adhere to things based on scientific fact here. No one is forcing you to "believe" in science. We're just posting on topic for this forum. None of us are infallible, but none of us spout totally unsubstantiated claims over and over without listening to anything anyone else says to us either. I think you are in the wrong forum. Why do you feel the  need to "convert" us to  accept your totally subjective impressions? That sounds more like a religion than simply following scientific testing procedures does.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

Vamp898 said:


> That is why the TA-ZH1ES needs an ADC (from AKM by the way) for its analog ports. To convert the signal to digital because it's an full digital amp. It does not accept analog input signals.


And according to its spec sheet, in addition to an ADC, the TA-ZH1ES features a "high-performance built-in USB DAC". How is that "no DAC is better"? Analog class D amps don't have DACs. Digital seem to. I honestly am completely baffled by your line of argument.

Here's a suggestion... Drop the "I know more than you" attitude and lets just talk simply on my level. How does a digital amp that accepts USB input of PCM, DSD, AAC, MP3, FLAC and Apple Lossless files produce analog output without a DAC? It would need a DAC to decode those various sound formats wouldn't it?

Let's approach transparency simply too... Please show me a single controlled scientific test that shows that the line out from two different DACs (not NOS) sound different. Not your opinion. A test that shows that. Easy, right?


----------



## sander99

PhonoPhi said:


> My analogy was about audiophile products being different like different wines.





Corti said:


> While we can measure the output of amps/dacs very precise. If that’s not the case and we can measure exactly every single molecule I would seriously like to read about it.


That is not even an issue. The analogy doesn't make sense for other reasons.

A DAC has to convert a given digital input signal to an analog output signal.
It is possible to do this with enough precision such that (amplified and played back over transducers) it can not be audibly distinguished from an even more precisely - or even perfectly - converted signal (amplified and played back over the same transducers). Which means it can be done audibly transparent or audibly perfect.
What now determines what pleasure you get from it, is the content of the digital signal, the music or movie sound or whatever, that should be according to your taste.
This is a compeletely different situation from tasting wines. The wines themselves are the content. They are not supposed to "perfectly convert" some input coming from somewhere else. So there is no concept of transparency. Different wines taste different like different music pieces sound different. If you want to compare a DAC with something wine related, I'd sooner compare it to a glass to drink the wine from (although that also isn't a really good analogy).


----------



## bfreedma

PhonoPhi said:


> I hope I do not force anyone to proof/justify my "beliefs" here.
> As a scientist, I do not see much value in controlled tests for DACs here specifically, it may only prove that I can hear the difference (not universal) and here it will be just more sceptical questions from guys like bigshot.
> 
> I have a bit hard time to understand why it is not reasonable to assume that some DSP is inevitably applied to most amps and daps in audiophile products?
> ...



You’re a scientist who doesn’t see value in controlled testing?  

Check please.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

"As a chef, I don't see much value in preparing food".

I think that lets us know he isn't anything even remotely resembling a scientist.



PhonoPhi said:


> Does Apple USB/amp reproduce all the frequencies equally not rolling off 15-20 kHz for instance? Do we have a clear proof of this?
> I am open to correcting my misconcepts based on the tangible evidence.


https://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/lightning-adapter-audio-quality.htm
Quote: "It's flatter than most audio analyzers. I measure -0.075 dB at 18,500 Hz, -0.15 dB at 19,250 Hz, -3.5 dB at 20,900 Hz and then it cuts off sharply to -95 at 21,700 Hz. This is flawless; bravo!"

That's a review of an $8 DAC. Here is a review of an older iPhone's headphone output.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6s-plus-audio-quality.htm
"ruler flat driving real loads"


----------



## gregorio (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> As a scientist, I do not see much value in controlled tests for DACs here specifically, it may only prove that I can hear the difference (not universal) and here it will be just more sceptical questions from guys like bigshot.


Hmmm. As a scientist you must presumably be aware of basic science? For example, the basic principle of the null hypothesis? In audio, the common null hypothesis is that there is no audible difference. If you can hear a difference you have therefore falsified the null hypothesis! Of course though, you do actually have to hear an audible difference, not just perceive a difference due to some bias/perceptual error and that means a well controlled test. Furthermore, if you do a controlled test and falsify the null hypothesis, be prepared to have your methodology scrutinised/criticised if your result is contrary to the results obtained by others who’ve done the same controlled testing. But as a scientist I don’t need to tell you that because you already know that experimental results must be reproducible by others to even start to be considered reliable evidence.


PhonoPhi said:


> I have a bit hard time to understand why it is not reasonable to assume that some DSP is inevitably applied to most amps and daps in audiophile products?


Because most amps are analogue devices which therefore do not perform any DSP. Most Daps on the other hand obviously include DACs and almost all DACs do necessarily perform DSP. The question though isn’t if there is any DSP occurring (because there almost always will be), the question is: Are the effects of that DSP above the threshold of audibility?


PhonoPhi said:


> Does Apple USB/amp reproduce all the frequencies equally not rolling off 15-20 kHz for instance? Do we have a clear proof of this?


Firstly, as the question is as just stated above, why are you asking this? You’ve picked the audio region (15-20kHz) with the highest audibility threshold. In fact, much/most of that region has an audibility threshold higher than is possible at reasonable listening levels for adults beyond their late teens. IE. It doesn’t matter whether we’re rolling off 1dB or 60dB it won’t be audible (for adults in much of that range).

Secondly, we do have reliable evidence and I’ve already presented it to you! Quoting the first link:

“_I measure -0.075 dB at 18,500 Hz, -0.15 dB at 19,250 Hz, -3.5 dB at 20,900 Hz and then it cuts off sharply to -95 at 21,700 Hz._”

Again, not even close to audible. -0.15dB might be just barely detectable with a highly trained, far more sensitive than average listener with perfect hearing, if it were a specifically designed test signal in the most sensitive hearing region (around 3kHz) but there’s not even a remote chance at 19kHz with a music signal!

However, there are a few pathological cases of DACs with larger roll-offs far lower in the audio spectrum, which can be audible under certain conditions; Some NOS DACs and some filter choices to emulate such NOS DACs for example.

G


----------



## Corti (Jul 18, 2022)

sander99 said:


> That is not even an issue. The analogy doesn't make sense for other reasons.
> 
> A DAC has to convert a given digital input signal to an analog output signal.
> It is possible to do this with enough precision such that (amplified and played back over transducers) it can not be audibly distinguished from an even more precisely - or even perfectly - converted signal (amplified and played back over the same transducers). Which means it can be done audibly transparent or audibly perfect.
> ...


Good point, but i still want that complete list of wine molecules (including structural geometry). maybe i can then 3D-print my own tastey-ophile wine


----------



## hakunamakaka

How some of you is not bored arguing this stuff over and over again is beyond my comprehension. Do you actually have time to listen to music ? There is more to life than head-fi


----------



## james444 (Jul 18, 2022)

gregorio said:


> But you weren’t just making an empirical observation that you got more goosebumps, you also “judged” what was causing it (euphony).



If you read my OP carefully, I actually didn't. It was my objectivist friend who came up with the term. Anyway, that's just a side note and not really important.



The Jester said:


> Maybe the difference with your ESS based DAC is the filter option used by its designer, (if it’s say the Sabre 9018) some manufacturers allow user switching between various filter options programmable by software on the chip itself, “slow roll off” akin to NOS maybe the one chosen for the “analoguish “ sound,
> But that then begs the question, if another manufacturer uses a different filter option that sounds slightly different which option would be considered “audibly transparent” ?
> Why, according to some, would a DAC chip manufacturer allow an option to switch between the “audibly transparent” option and three or more “broken” ones ?
> Or maybe it’s just a matter of fine tuning to suit various output stage differences ?



I have an LG V30 with Sabre 9218 DAC. This mainstream chip can be found in many portable devices, like smartphones, DAPs and USB-dongles. According to the manufacturer ESS it offers a "fully programmable FIR filter with eight presets provides a customizable sound signature". On my LG V30, three of these presets are selectable via user interface and they do indeed sound slightly different.

IMHO, this makes the whole discussion about all DACs being audibly transparent somewhat moot, because it's obviously very unlikely that all implementations of this DAC chip will use the same FIR filter configuration. Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things, since the actual sound differences should be tiny. However, as you rightly stated, only one out of all possible configurations could be considered "audibly transparent".

As for your last two questions, I found the following info on the three DAC filter presets on my V30. They're named short, sharp and slow.


> Short I think is what is generally called minimum phase. It removes preringing on the impulse response, but causes phase shift across frequency response.
> 
> Sharp is the normal setting on most things.
> 
> Slow gives less ringing on the impulse response but there will be more aliasing.



According to where I got the info from, it seems to be related to a "never-ending debate of linear versus minimum phase filters":
https://troll-audio.com/articles/linear-and-minimum-phase/

That's all I can say on this topic, as I neither know much about DACs, nor do I care much about tiny differences in their sound signatures.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Corti said:


> Hmm, ok can you give me a list of all the molecules in a certain wine? If you say that it is possible, then there must be studies/papers about it (or is it top secret?). How else do you know about the possibility?
> 
> My knowledge is that we are far from knowing all the exact ingredients (requiring the chemical isolation of every single different molecule) within different plants and their fruits. We can certainly do mass spectrometry or chromatography, but that doesn’t tell us all about their atomic-structure (which is critical to know when we want to know how they react with taste-buds and the olfactory system).
> 
> ...


There are limited classes of molecules.
So true, identifying every single molecule is not feasible, while identifying anything required for specific purpose is a reality these days stemming from the advances in biochemical analysis.
Here is recent relevant review on approaches to identify the composition: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12161-021-02138-6
The lower the concentration of molecules - the more concentration techniques needed - the subject of this review.

I am not sure what you would print "3-D" but making an artificial wine won't be much of a problem to  99+%
Water, ethanol, sugars, carbon dioxide, organic acids, phenolics, esters, yeast fragments - would be sufficient.

Proving to be a scientists here would beeven more ironic than doing controls for bigshot...


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> "As a chef, I don't see much value in preparing food".
> 
> I think that lets us know he isn't anything even remotely resembling a scientist.
> 
> ...


Would the response hold when multiple frequencies are applied (as in real.music).
Would they be equally represented?
Do you have any evidence for it?
Frequency sweeps are useful to the extent, their limitations are obvious in transducer characterization.


----------



## bigshot

If the filter isn't user configurable, I'm sure the manufacturer is going to set it to use the default (read: transparent) filter.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 18, 2022)

james444 said:


> it's obviously very unlikely that all implementations of this DAC chip will use the same FIR filter configuration. Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things, since the actual sound differences should be tiny. However, as you rightly stated, only one out of all possible configurations could be considered "audibly transparent".


Why is it obviously very unlikely they will use the same filter configuration? Switchable filters have been around for quite a few years and in all cases I’ve seen, the standard, fast filter is the default.

Also, typically most of the filter presets are audibly transparent, typically only one isn’t, the slowest, which often rolls-off starting around 10kHz and so will be audible with some music, assuming decent hearing up to at least 12kHz-14kHz. However, specs I’ve seen for other chips had 5 switchable filters so with 8, the chip you’ve quoted might have more than one that’s potentially audible.

Different DACs have typically always had somewhat different filters (though not switchable). Many had filters starting around 20kHz, some at 19kHz, some 18kHz or even 17kHz or so and some slightly higher than 20kHz. They are all different sound signatures and they are all audibly the same! Now you can get all those inaudibly different filters in one DAC, plus maybe one or two dodgy filters you might be able to actually hear. It’s pretty much all nonsense but great for audiophile marketing, which is why they’ve done it of course!


PhonoPhi said:


> Would the response hold when multiple frequencies are applied (as in real.music).


No, it would be even more inaudible! In music the majority of the energy is in the lower frequency range, so you’ve almost certainly got significantly lower levels of very high freq content to start with. AND, with a real/music signal and multiple frequencies, there’s a high probability of audio masking occurring in that very high freq range, even assuming the freqs above 17kHz-18kHz were potentially audible in isolation!

G


----------



## Corti (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> Here is recent relevant review on approaches to identify the composition: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12161-021-02138-6


So I was able to download the paper because I have an account that lets me access springer scientific content for free instead of paying 40€.
In the paper they talk about extracting substance classes and how they contribute to the quality of the wine.
But they do not at all measure anything like the taste of the wine. They just show different extraction methods. Search function did not even find the term ‘taste’

But I didn’t expect otherwise.. so the comparison of wine taste and sound of ‘audiophile products’ is still non-sense to me.



PhonoPhi said:


> Water, ethanol, sugars, carbon dioxide, organic acids, phenolics, esters, yeast fragments - would be sufficient.


Lol so there is only 1 sugar, 1 organic acid, 1 phenolic, 1 ester and 1 yeast fragment in the world, no variations.. I see, then of course it should be easy to make artificial wine, perfect manual.. i'll just go to supermarket and buy 1 Water, 1 ethanol, 1 sugars, 1 carbon dioxide, 1 organic acids, 1 phenolics, 1 esters and 1 yeast fragments 



PhonoPhi said:


> I am not sure what you would print "3-D" but making an artificial wine won't be much of a problem to 99+%


“not much of a problem to 99+%,” whatever that is supposed to mean.
But you also didn’t understand that the 3-d printing was a joke..
I guess I’m wasting my time talking about nonsense which does not relate to what was discussed before.

also your quote from earlier


> We can measure about every molecule in wine and link it to taste


is still unproven. we can not measure about every molecule in wine. we can only extract certain classes of substances.

But this has already been highly off-topic.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> Would the response hold when multiple frequencies are applied (as in real.music).
> Would they be equally represented?
> Do you have any evidence for it?
> Frequency sweeps are useful to the extent, their limitations are obvious in transducer characterization.


In DACs, the highest frequencies up by the cutoff are the ones that are most likely to have deviation from a flat response. If you notice, the spec becomes a bit worse, the higher you go... Rockwell says, "I measure -0.075 dB at 18,500 Hz, -0.15 dB at 19,250 Hz, -3.5 dB at 20,900 Hz and then it cuts off sharply to -95 at 21,700 Hz." If it is within .075 dB at 18.5kHz, you can be sure it's as balanced as it can possibly be a few octaves down. Likewise, if the response is balanced with tones far beyond the threshold of perception, with music, it's going to be even further below the the threshold. Human ears are much less forgiving of deviations in tones than they are in music. The measurements I linked you to show that the Apple dongle is audibly transparent by more than one order of magnitude. The specs are significantly better than the industry average.



PhonoPhi said:


> I am open to correcting my misconcepts based on the tangible evidence.


I think I'd like to see some evidence to back up this comment right about now. You've received the tangible evidence of your "misconcepts".


----------



## PhonoPhi

Corti said:


> So I was able to download the paper because I have an account that lets me access springer scientific content for free instead of paying 40€.
> In the paper they talk about extracting substance classes and how they contribute to the quality of the wine.
> But they do not at all measure anything like the taste of the wine. They just show different extraction methods. Search function did not even find the term ‘taste’
> 
> ...


Off- topic it is; the main components of the wine taste and smell were established quite a long time ago.
Great that you could access the review - I selected it as an example that all components can be concetrated, isolated and measured. The intro gives a good brief overview of other methods.
Looking through the reviews, I was a bit surprised that the artificial nose sensors are not used more. Traditions, and then what is needed is studied, but not much else, it is more applied field than pure science.

The concentrations of main components are known, surely different combinations are infinite, but to make a decent synthetic wine undistinguishable by taste at least to a table wine should not be any problem.

Similarly, knowing what to measure with DAC/amps would be much more instructive that general talk about "transparency".


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 18, 2022)

bigshot said:


> In DACs, the highest frequencies up by the cutoff are the ones that are most likely to have deviation from a flat response. If you notice, the spec becomes a bit worse, the higher you go... Rockwell says, "I measure -0.075 dB at 18,500 Hz, -0.15 dB at 19,250 Hz, -3.5 dB at 20,900 Hz and then it cuts off sharply to -95 at 21,700 Hz." If it is within .075 dB at 18.5kHz, you can be sure it's as balanced as it can possibly be a few octaves down. Likewise, if the response is balanced with tones far beyond the threshold of perception, with music, it's going to be even further below the the threshold. Human ears are much less forgiving of deviations in tones than they are in music. The measurements I linked you to show that the Apple dongle is audibly transparent by more than one order of magnitude. The specs are significantly better than the industry average.
> 
> 
> I think I'd like to see some evidence to back up this comment right about now. You've received the tangible evidence of your "misconcepts".


I am fine with my "misconcepts" and wish you the same.

For the specs, to start with -  37.5 Ohm is not totally unrealistic, but far from typical 16 Ohm.

For the impedance, I have already seen three values - 0.3 Ohm, 0.9 Ohm and 1 Ohm (from what you cite).
0.3 Ohm is not likely to be right, but that is still the same type of enthusiatic measurements googled and cited...


----------



## Dogmatrix

odarg64 said:


> That's it? Most 'dissertation' titles tell the potential reader something about the original research conducted.


That was it , within the context of the specific degree it was considered sufficient although I was advised of some risk


----------



## james444

gregorio said:


> Why is it obviously very unlikely they will use the same filter configuration? Switchable filters have been around for quite a few years and in all cases I’ve seen, the standard, fast filter is the default.



How about "give people options and they'll choose"? How about probability and common sense?

These cheap ESS chips with configurable filters have been implemented by the hundreds, if not thousands in portable devices. They're all over sites like Alibaba in Chinese phones, DAPs and USB dongles. Sold by dozens of boutique audio companies that don't give a damn about what objectivists think.  Yet you're absolutely convinced that all of these manufacturers use the same filter configuration? Really?

Footnote: I share your sentiments about audiophile marketing nonsense and dodginess. But this is strictly about the claim that all DACs sound the same, nothing else.



bigshot said:


> If the filter isn't user configurable, I'm sure the manufacturer is going to set it to use the default (read: transparent) filter.



So you're "sure". But that isn't exactly science, is it?

Sorry about being somewhat provokative. But you wouldn't let a post like yours pass, if it came from someone else. Just applying your standards to yourself here.


----------



## danadam (Jul 18, 2022)

Vamp898 said:


> An LC Filter, hence the name, filters the digital PWM signal and the result is an analog signal.


I wouldn't call that PWM signal "digital". And apparently neither would Bruno Putzeys: All amps are analouge.pdf
Some excerpts:


> What makes a signal digital is whether the recipient
> interprets it as such i.e. if there has been an agreed
> method of coding symbols into it, used by both ends.





> Since power
> stages and the necessary LC-output-filter deal with
> currents, voltages and time, they are profoundly
> analogue.





> Unfortunately, an LC lowpass filter doesn’t take
> numbers as its input. It takes a time-varying voltage
> and integrates it, warts and all.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

I’m sure because most filters are audibly transparent, as Gregorio has pointed out; and because I’ve never run across a DAC or player that isn’t audibly transparent after over a decade of searching for one. That isn’t to say none exist… some very misguided audiophiles still buy NOS DACs… just that if they do exist, they are mighty uncommon.

Also, I can’t imagine a manufacturer knowingly building out of spec equipment. If a DAC isn’t audibly transparent with normal 16/44.1, how is it going to handle hi res files? How many people are going to line up to buy a DAC that can’t play any file to digital spec?

One thing to keep in mind… it’s impossible to prove a negative. To claim that something doesn’t exist is impossible. You’d have to search the whole planet to know for sure. But it’s very easy to prove it does exist. All it takes is a controlled test. When everyone who claims to hear a difference between DACs refuses to subject themselves to simple controls to eliminate perceptual error and bias, that tells me something.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 18, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I’m sure because most filters are audibly transparent, as Gregorio has pointed out; and because I’ve never run across a DAC or player that isn’t audibly transparent after over a decade of searching for one. That isn’t to say none exist… some very misguided audiophiles still buy NOS DACs… just that if they do exist, they are mighty uncommon.


If the filters are "audily transparent" why would they be implemented for end users?
In the devices, where I have these options, the implemented effect of filters was audible.


----------



## odarg64

Dogmatrix said:


> That was it , within the context of the specific degree it was considered sufficient although I was advised of some risk


Seems a bit general, but o.k. Did you write about research you conducted or was it a literature review?


----------



## Dogmatrix

odarg64 said:


> Seems a bit general, but o.k. Did you write about research you conducted or was it a literature review?


Just an undergraduate dissertation not a doctorate , perhaps the bar is lower down here , I graduated so apparently it was o.k.


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> I am fine with my "misconcepts" and wish you the same.
> 
> For the specs, to start with -  37.5 Ohm is not totally unrealistic, but far from typical 16 Ohm.
> 
> ...


While I acknowledge the efforts of those who have responded to the technicalities of the question I still feel you would be better served in an electronics based forum
I am struggling to grasp the myth in question , as I understand it impedance interactions of this nature are well understood
I keep in mind when posting questions in public fora that the answers are somewhat dependent on the  serendipitous nature of the participants knowledge base  

As I see it if there is an issue it simply highlights Apple has failed to keep pace with a trend (falling impedance) in third party related equipment


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 18, 2022)

Dogmatrix said:


> While I acknowledge the efforts of those who have responded to the technicalities of the question I still feel you would be better served in an electronics based forum
> I am struggling to grasp the myth in question , as I understand it impedance interactions of this nature are well understood
> I keep in mind when posting questions in public fora that the answers are somewhat dependent on the  serendipitous nature of the participants knowledge base
> 
> As I see it if there is an issue it simply highlights Apple has failed to keep pace with a trend (falling impedance) in third party related equipment


The question related to this forum is at which impedance  Apple USB DAC/amp will loose its "trasparency" and how exactly it will happen.
Having specific numbers would be great, but good personal experience or smart conjectures (we'll name them hypothesis) are very welcome.

I felt there are so many "scientists" here, who should be in perfect position to answer this simple question related to their pertitent expertise on transparency and fidelity, for instance by performing a couple of double blind tests


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> If the filters are "audily transparent" why would they be implemented for end users?


Excellent question! If CD quality sound was indiscernible from 24/96, why would they sell downloads of albums in 24/96? Why SACDs? If an Amazon Basics cable sounded exactly like a $400 fancy cable, why would they make fancy cables? If a $8 Apple dongle sounded just as good as a $2,000 DAC, why would they make expensive DACs?

For the life of me, I can't think of a reason. I think you are better qualified to tell us why people spend lots of money on things they don't really have to spend money on.


PhonoPhi said:


> In the devices, where I have these options, the implemented effect of filters was audible.


I think at this point, we've pretty much established that you aren't a reliable witness when it comes to whether things are audible or not.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> The question related to this forum is at which impedance  Apple USB DAC/amp will loose its "trasparency" and how exactly it will happen.


I think you're asking at what point does user error make a difference. You should always use properly matched impedances and not try to force a square peg in a round hole. I wouldn't use IEMs with grossly out of standard impedance with an Apple dongle. You need to use the proprietary, expensive DAC/amp that the manufacturer of your IEMs roped you into needing.

I notice you deleted the answer to my question about your acceptance of tangible evidence of your misconceptions. Saying that you were satisfied with your misconceptions made you look a little too intellectually dishonest I guess. Better to just not answer it and move the goalposts with the irrelevant impedance issue. You keep digging your hole deeper. Let me know when you reach China.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> Excellent question! If CD quality sound was indiscernible from 24/96, why would they sell downloads of albums in 24/96? Why SACDs? If an Amazon Basics cable sounded exactly like a $400 fancy cable, why would they make fancy cables? If a $8 Apple dongle sounded just as good as a $2,000 DAC, why would they make expensive DACs?
> 
> For the life of me, I can't think of a reason. I think you are better qualified to tell us why people spend lots of money on things they don't really have to spend money on.


I hear implementation of at least some of ESS filters. Again, it is a software implementation, so how much it is cooked, I am not able to tell.

Surely, most of the premium DAC chip manufactures, such as ESS is in the business of earning money, so catering to (and milking) audiophiles is quite logical.


bigshot said:


> I think you're asking at what point does user error make a difference. You should always use properly matched impedances and not try to force a square peg in a round hole. I wouldn't use IEMs with grossly out of standard impedance with an Apple dongle. You need to use the proprietary, expensive DAC/amp that the manufacturer of your IEMs roped you into needing.


Why using 16 Ohm or 14 Ohm IEM would be a user error?

The Apple dongle is proclaimed to be a universal solution.

I love it! It taught me a lot. But then it has its limitations. Knowing limitations and knowing how to mitigate them is a good part of science to me. The science that makes some difference instead of producing a bunch of papers.


----------



## bigshot

Your friends aren't posting any more. I think they are embarrassed for you.


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> The question related to this forum is at which impedance  Apple USB DAC/amp will loose its "trasparency" and how exactly it will happen.
> Having specific numbers would be great, but good personal experience or smart conjectures (we'll name them hypothesis) are very welcome.
> 
> I felt there are so many "scientists" here, who should be in perfect position to answer this simple question related to their pertitent expertise on transparency and fidelity, for instance by performing a couple of double blind tests


The "scientists" thing looks a lot like a chip on a shoulder , I am aware of a couple of actual card carrying scientists in the community non of them are active right now 
Still don't see the myth I haven't seen any one suggest transparency is guaranteed under all circumstances if that's the point , the question seems rather fluid
Amp manufacturers often state a range of workable impedance so I assume they are able to calculate the answer to your question and understand why it happens 
So again would not a diy electronics forum be better perhaps there is a simple formulae 
Or perhaps as I think others have insinuated it is not a real performance issue


----------



## bigshot (Jul 18, 2022)

Apple designs its things to work within its own sphere of products, and within the range of the typical use of its customers. They never claimed their dongle works with everything. Obviously it doesn't work with phones of other brands without a lightning connector, and it doesn't work with IEMs with ridiculously non-standard impedances. There's no motivation to support wired IEMs that require proprietary amps when they sell AirPods that are simpler and more convenient.

There are IEMs that are designed with such non-standard impedance, only the amps made by the same brand as the IEMs will work properly with them. That is a trick to get you to buy more of their products. I have high end headphones that work fine straight out of the headphone jack of any Apple product. They don't need amping at all. It isn't difficult to find that kind of synergy. In fact, it's a lot easier than finding the extreme example that doesn't work.

This whole argument is silly and disingenuous. All the clowns came piling out of their little car and stirred up stuff for a while. It's time for the Bozos to get back into their little car and drive away now.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 18, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Apple designs its things to work within its own sphere of products, and within the range of the typical use of its customers. They never claimed their dongle works with everything. Obviously it doesn't work with phones of other brands without a lightning connector, and it doesn't work with IEMs with ridiculously non-standard impedances. There's no motivation to support wired IEMs when they sell AirPods.
> 
> This whole argument is silly and disingenuous. All the clowns came piling out of their little car and stirred up stuff for a while. It's time for the Bozos to get back into their little car and drive away now.


Your last paragraph sounds very scientific and comvincingly argumentative.

 Apple does sell USB C DAC/amp that perfectly works with Android.
Actually, this Apple dongle is my first ever Apple product.


----------



## Dogmatrix

@PhonoPhi  found this after a quick search of amp manufacturers 

https://www.ti.com/lit/an/sloa105a/...utput power requirements, first,,which means


----------



## PhonoPhi

Dogmatrix said:


> @PhonoPhi  found this after a quick search of amp manufacturers
> 
> https://www.ti.com/lit/an/sloa105a/sloa105a.pdf#:~:text=Answer: Starting from the output power requirements, first,,which means


Very useful, thank you.
It would be great to find the power requirements to realize different amplification. I will look for related publications.


----------



## Dogmatrix

PhonoPhi said:


> Very useful, thank you.
> It would be great to find the power requirements to realize different amplification. I will look for related publications.


No worries 
I think the given equation is universal you just need the relevant values


----------



## KeithPhantom (Jul 18, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> I hear implementation of at least some of ESS filters


This requires evidence. Most of the differences in filters come in terms of ripple and cutoff (and this is assuming a minimum Nyquist frequency of 20,000 Hz), and the former is around the 1 dB for a standard elliptic filter. Then we have phase, but phase shifts are absolute using linear-phase filters and really small for minimum-phase filters. Audibility can be debated just in these facts.


----------



## castleofargh

Is there no owner of an Apple dongle who also has some low value resistors some wires and an ADC to test when the dongle gets in trouble with small load? Even an approximation with a free RTA and some sine as test signal would be a significant addition to not knowing anything. Or IDK, people with legendary low impedance IEMs who maybe noticed obvious distortions above a certain volume level? Or they didn’t and all is probably reasonably fine. Any clue would be better than what we have now in regard to driving low impedance IEMs. Debating around it without any data feels even sillier than usual given how many of those dongles have been sold all around the world.


----------



## gregorio

james444 said:


> Yet you're absolutely convinced that all of these manufacturers use the same filter configuration? Really?


No, not at all. In fact I actually stated that manufacturers have be using different filters for many years and not just different filter transition bands but even different types of filter. Most use a standard linear phase filter with around a 2kHz transition band, some with a 1.5kHz band or more than a 2kHz band and the use of a different type of filter, such as a minimum phase filter, is not exceptionally rare. However, what all these different filters have in common is that they’re all audibly indistinguishable, with one exception, a very slow minimum phase filter with a 12kHz or so transition band starting at around 10kHz but even that is only audible under certain conditions. All the DACs I’ve seen with switchable filters, used the standard linear phase fast filter as the default but of course, “what I’ve seen” doesn’t count as any sort of reliable evidence, it’s entirely possible a particular DAC does use a different preset. However, that would only make an audible difference if they chose the worst/most dodgy one and I don’t know of any examples where they do or would do that, because it would be risky to release an audibly perfect DAC that out of the box had a significantly inferior performance. Again, my logic and experience in this matter doesn’t count as reliable evidence but then I don’t need to provide any, it’s the claim that requires supporting evidence; it’s obviously very unlikely they will use the same filter settings and the implication that cause audible differences (albeit tiny ones). 


james444 said:


> But this is strictly about the claim that all DACs sound the same, nothing else.


True, but then I don’t subscribe to that claim. The objective facts indicate that virtually all DACs have at least a marginally different “sound” (analogue signal output) but the vast majority will sound the same (given obvious conditions). However, as there are few rare exceptions, we cannot claim all DACs sound the same. Some NOS DACs have audible differences and the Pono player I briefly tested appeared to employ a dodgy slow filter with a large transition band starting around 10kHz. 


james444 said:


> Sorry about being somewhat provokative. But you wouldn't let a post like yours pass, if it came from someone else. Just applying your standards to yourself here.


I absolutely agree, I’ve got no problem with you being provocative and there’s no need to be sorry at all. Likewise from my side, sorry if it seems like I’m having a go at you, I’m not. I’m just using some of what you stated as an example, to refute the common audiophile claim of most/all DACs having different audible sound signatures and the justification  that’s due to different filters.

G


----------



## 71 dB (Jul 19, 2022)

danadam said:


> I wouldn't call that PWM signal "digital".


Semantics. PWM signals are analog physically, but the information content is digital in nature and originates digitally. You need the ideas/math of digital signal processing to make PWM signal out of the non-PWM input signal. In that sense "digital" amps are hybrids, both analog and digital while "analog" amps are purely analog. An amp based on PWM is very different (technically and performance-wise) from amps that don't.


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> If the filters are "audily transparent" why would they be implemented for end users?


Because you have to have a filter, it’s a requirement of sampling theory. A reconstruction filter attenuates the error signal (content above the Nyquist point) to insignificant levels and is therefore what enables audible transparency. This is why pathological designs such as filterless NOS DACs are not necessarily audibly transparent.

If you’re asking in this day and age, when we can trivially implement audibly transparent filters for peanuts, why filters that are not audibly transparent are available to end users, then the answer is:

They’re not generally available to end users. They’re not generally available on pro-audio ADCs/DACs because engineers generally don’t want faulty filters and they’re not available on most consumer devices because most consumers don’t know anything about DACs but wouldn’t be too happy to learn of a deliberately faulty implementation. They’re only typically available to audiophiles and that’s because some/many audiophiles not only will accept a faulty implementation (if it’s couched in marketing, such as more musical, engaging, analogue, etc.) but will actually pay 10x, 100x or even more for it. That’s a profit margin hardly any audiophile DAC manufacturer could afford to ignore!

Same is broadly true of amps. It is not simple to design an amp that is audibly transparent but it’s now standard and has been for such a long time that it’s cheap to do so and expected. Nevertheless in the audiophile world we see inferior, obsolete technology employed, that everyone else gave up on nearly half a century ago, that is not always audibly transparent (tubes being the obvious example) for exactly the same reason as with some pathological DACS: With more or less the same BS marketing, some/many audiophiles will willingly pay 10 or 100 times more.

I’m surprised you have to ask that question.  


PhonoPhi said:


> In the devices, where I have these options, the implemented effect of filters was audible.


Probably there’s one of the options that’s audible. Are you claiming they’re all audible? Do you have reliable evidence of that? 


PhonoPhi said:


> The question related to this forum is at which impedance Apple USB DAC/amp will loose its "trasparency" and how exactly it will happen.


That’s an odd way of phrasing the question, which strongly implies an agenda! The Apple dongle is audibly transparent, it does not loose it’s audibly transparency. However like pretty much every device ever invented, it does not have infinite performance, it has a design range and if you go outside that range, that’s “user error” and it will not perform optimally. Isn’t this obvious?


PhonoPhi said:


> I felt there are so many "scientists" here, who should be in perfect position to answer this simple question related to their pertitent expertise on transparency and fidelity, for instance by performing a couple of double blind tests


Another fallacy based argument! 

Firstly, there are not “so many scientists here”, there are many interested in the science/facts, some who employ scientific principles/tests for their own understanding and some who employ the audio/sound sciences professionally.

Secondly, even an actual scientist in one of the audio/sound sciences will not have comprehensively tested every DAC that is or has been on the market with every transducer. This of course is also true in every other field that involves numerous combinations of products. 

You claim to be a scientist, how do you not already know all the above?


PhonoPhi said:


> Why using 16 Ohm or 14 Ohm IEM would be a user error?


It would be a user error if that is outside the design range of the amp you’re using, isn’t that obvious? 


PhonoPhi said:


> The Apple dongle is proclaimed to be a universal solution.


Where does Apple claim that? I’d like to see any dongle designed for mobile use power a 100,000w live gig PA system, Stax Electrostatic HPs and a whole range of other transducers. There are no universal amp solutions of any type, let alone a dongle! Again, I’m surprised you don’t know that!

There’s a lot of “surprise” above of what you’re asking and don’t appear to know! There wouldn’t be nearly so much “surprise” if what you are actually doing is trolling but I can’t completely rule out that you genuinely don’t know. 

G


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 19, 2022)

KeithPhantom said:


> This requires evidence. Most of the differences in filters come in terms of ripple and cutoff (and this is assuming a minimum Nyquist frequency of 20,000 Hz), and the former is around the 1 dB for a standard elliptic filter. Then we have phase, but phase shifts are absolute using linear-phase filters and really small for minimum-phase filters. Audibility can be debated just in these facts.


Again, there were software options in the DAP, not an engineering stand.


castleofargh said:


> Is there no owner of an Apple dongle who also has some low value resistors some wires and an ADC to test when the dongle gets in trouble with small load? Even an approximation with a free RTA and some sine as test signal would be a significant addition to not knowing anything. Or IDK, people with legendary low impedance IEMs who maybe noticed obvious distortions above a certain volume level? Or they didn’t and all is probably reasonably fine. Any clue would be better than what we have now in regard to driving low impedance IEMs. Debating around it without any data feels even sillier than usual given how many of those dongles have been sold all around the world.


I have a couple of Apple dongles that I can sacrifice, a resistor box, but since I never had any stationary amp, I do not think I have any ADC.
I can possibly acquire ADC.
Very smart idea to convert to digital, somehow I always  thought of recording and comparing only analogue signals.


gregorio said:


> Because you have to have a filter, it’s a requirement of sampling theory. A reconstruction filter attenuates the error signal (content above the Nyquist point) to insignificant levels and is therefore what enables audible transparency. This is why pathological designs such as filterless NOS DACs are not necessarily audibly transparent.
> 
> If you’re asking in this day and age, when we can trivially implement audibly transparent filters for peanuts, why filters that are not audibly transparent are available to end users, then the answer is:
> 
> ...


A lot of good points.
Sometimes you are picking on the phrasing and may infer different meaning.
Let me retract the "scientist" claim,  just the life dweller.

I am trying to remain "dual" - to scientific principles and to my subjective experiences in this hobby. The deeper truth is born in the battle of the opposite 

Guilty of teasing Bigshot, which is anti-antitrolling in my book of jungles.


----------



## jagwap

71 dB said:


> Semantics. PWM signals are analog physically, but the information content is digital in nature and originates digitally. You need the ideas/math of digital signal processing to make PWM signal out of the non-PWM input signal. In that sense "digital" amps are hybrids, both analog and digital while "analog" amps are purely analog. An amp based on PWM is very different (technically and performance-wise) from amps that don't.


There are analogue PWM signals, such as those in a class D amplifier that are created without a DSP in the power control section.  They are entirely analogue, even though they are on or off, in that the timing between the ons and offs is analogue.  The PWM in a DAC is synchronous to a main clock, so can be considered digital.  There are class D amplifiers that do that too, and could be considered a digital amplifier.

Confusing isn't it.


----------



## bigshot

jagwap said:


> There are analogue PWM signals, such as those in a class D amplifier that are created without a DSP in the power control section.  They are entirely analogue, even though they are on or off, in that the timing between the ons and offs is analogue.  The PWM in a DAC is synchronous to a main clock, so can be considered digital.  There are class D amplifiers that do that too, and could be considered a digital amplifier.
> 
> Confusing isn't it.


The argument here was that class D amps needed no DAC to decode audio files, so the chain was digital throughout. Is PWM capable of amplifying and decoding PCM or MP3 files without using a DAC?


----------



## gregorio (Jul 19, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> Sometimes you are picking on the phrasing and may infer different meaning.


Entirely possible. This isn’t an ideal medium for communication.


PhonoPhi said:


> Let me retract the "scientist" claim, just the life dweller.





PhonoPhi said:


> I am trying to remain "dual" - to scientific principles and to my subjective experiences in this hobby. The deeper truth is born in the battle of the opposite


There is no battle of the opposite. Or rather there is, but it’s not a real one, it only exists in the audiophile world (not the wider audio world) and has been artificially manufactured by audiophile marketers and their shills, to support marketing BS! A very large proportion of audiophile marketing at least partly relies on deliberately confusing the subjective and objective, the art and the science and then discrediting the objective and the science. In actual fact, there’s not much overlap that allows for any opposition. Established science has generally avoided art; preferences, value judgements, subjective choices or even trying to define what art/music, etc, is! Some cutting edge AI/machine learning is researching these areas but so far has no impact on past or current consumer audio equipment. The art world has done the same, it avoids treading on the toes of science, although it does of course use science and technology as tools. The only small area of overlap is in some aspects of perception but only on a relatively superficial level, such as: Is this phenomena perceivable. And when there could potentially be a conflict, science is always right, because it specifically avoids the possibility of being wrong, which is why it never makes a prediction of what an individual will like, or even if an individual will consider something to be art/music.

Bare in mind, all the above is coming from someone who has made their living almost their entire adult life from being a subjectivist! In my world, established proven science is proven, period. So on those occasions when my perception would conflict with the science, I either re-train my perception, correct the error and avoid the same circumstances next time or ignore it on the basis of my judgment (often informed by science) that most/all others will have the same perception error. So for example, I do not need to correct, retrain or avoid my perception of the illusion of stereo but I do have to avoid certain situations regarding stereo/soundstage placement and vision, because I cannot train myself not to fall victim to that perceptual error and others/listeners will not experience it.

So in my experience/opinion, the deeper truth is not born in the battle of the opposition, it’s born in the realisation that there is no opposition! They both coexist perfectly happily, unless of course you allow audiophile marketing to affect your beliefs and it’s extremely difficult not to, if you’re part of that community.

G


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Is PWM capable of amplifying and decoding PCM or MP3 files without using a DAC?


As I understand it, “yes”. You do obviously have to convert say PCM to PWM but you don’t necessarily have to convert to analogue to do that. However …


71 dB said:


> Semantics. PWM signals are analog physically, but the information content is digital in nature and originates digitally.


I’ve stayed out of this discussion so far for two reasons: Firstly, as you say it’s largely “semantics”, it depends on how we view “digital” and Secondly, there are a lot of potential and actual variations in exactly how class D amps are implemented and I don’t know what they all are, beyond the basic principles of operation, I’m relatively ignorant. With that in mind:

Is the information content “digital in nature” though? Certainly there are similarities, clock controlled electrical on/off pulses in both cases for example. However, in the case of digital audio, those on/off electrical pulses represent something else and therefore have to be decoded. They represent “bits”, which are grouped into “words”, which in turn represent numerical values, all of which has to be decoded once the digital audio data signal (on/off electrical pulses) has been received. As I understand it, this isn’t the case with the PWM signal used in class D amps. The on/off electrical pluses are the information, they do not represent something else, do not need decoding and therefore is not digital data (in my view/opinion).

G


----------



## bigshot (Jul 20, 2022)

It seems to me there wouldn't be much advantage in converting from PCM to PWM then converting PWM to analog when a simple DAC can do that in a single step.

Are "digital" class D amps common, or did I get dragged into a discussion about curate's eggs that don't really exist in the real world again?


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> As I understand it, “yes”. You do obviously have to convert say PCM to PWM but you don’t necessarily have to convert to analogue to do that. However …
> 
> I’ve stayed out of this discussion so far for two reasons: Firstly, as you say it’s largely “semantics”, it depends on how we view “digital” and Secondly, there are a lot of potential and actual variations in exactly how class D amps are implemented and I don’t know what they all are, beyond the basic principles of operation, I’m relatively ignorant. With that in mind:
> 
> ...


PWM doesn't need decoding? Huh? Of course it does! It is a series of pulses of differing widths, not the analog signal we want to feed into speakers. However, the beauty of PWM is that the decoding is extremely simple and is done on analog domain! Low pass filter is all you need.


----------



## 71 dB (Jul 20, 2022)

bigshot said:


> It seems to me there wouldn't be much advantage in converting from PCM to PWM then converting PWM to analog when a simple DAC can do that in a single step.


Sound quality-wise no, but class D amps have some advantages such as excellent benefit factor (low energy comsumption + amps run cooler) and that you can't really overdrive a class D amp.


bigshot said:


> Are "digital" class D amps common, or did I get dragged into a discussion about curate's eggs that don't really exist in the real world again?


Seems like they are becoming more common. Battery powered portable devices are obviously candidates to use class D amps.


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> It seems to me there wouldn't be much advantage in converting from PCM to PWM then converting PWM to analog when a simple DAC can do that in a single step.
> 
> Are "digital" class D amps common, or did I get dragged into a discussion about curate's eggs that don't really exist in the real world again?


They are common in sound bars , subs , portable speakers and active monitors among others , due to their efficiency


----------



## Dogmatrix

I am thinking wireless headphones , iems likely use class D amps but checking the big players in the market none of them mention any amp at all so if they are class D they don't seem proud of it


----------



## bigshot

That sounds like a car stereo.


----------



## Dogmatrix

On further investigation the active monitor and sound bar people are happy to talk about multiple class D amplifiers often one for each driver 

From Adam T8V blurb 

"The U-ART tweeter’s 4:1 velocity transfer ratio, in combination with the new Class D amplifiers’ high dynamic range, yield respective max. peak SPL of 118 dB per pair. The tweeter, which extends up to 25 kHz, works as a team with the HPS Waveguide."


----------



## jagwap

71 dB said:


> Sound quality-wise no, but class D amps have some advantages such as excellent benefit factor (low energy comsumption + amps run cooler) and that you can't really overdrive a class D amp.
> 
> Seems like they are becoming more common. Battery powered portable devices are obviously candidates to use class D amps.


Let's clarify something: Class D amps are not often digital. I'm not saying you don't know that, but it is an easy assumption from some of teh thing people are saying.  

You really can overdrive Class D amps. They often clip poorly so is a reason why people do not like them for some purposes, like guitar amps where overdrive is important.  Of course there are ways around this, but it has been a hindrance to then doing badly in uncontrolled tests.

Maybe you mean you cannot overdrive a digital amp with a signal that peaks at 0dBFS? That would be potentially true.


----------



## jagwap

Dogmatrix said:


> On further investigation the active monitor and sound bar people are happy to talk about multiple class D amplifiers often one for each driver
> 
> From Adam T8V blurb
> 
> "The U-ART tweeter’s 4:1 velocity transfer ratio, in combination with the new Class D amplifiers’ high dynamic range, yield respective max. peak SPL of 118 dB per pair. The tweeter, which extends up to 25 kHz, works as a team with the HPS Waveguide."


Class D has come a long way in the last 10 years.  But they are not necessarily digital.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 20, 2022)

Class D digital amps don't appear to be used much for what we talk about here. It seems to be yet another esoteric digression.


----------



## Dogmatrix

jagwap said:


> Class D has come a long way in the last 10 years.  But they are not necessarily digital.


Yes I did lose the point a little . For the record all the devices I looked at with class D amps still had dac chips so nothing unusual about class D in those terms


----------



## Dogmatrix

castleofargh said:


> To quote a modern philosopher: "sounds good, doesn’t work".


That should have been the end of this whole digital amplifier thing , looking back it was a technical misunderstanding
Stemming I think from this line in Wiki 
 "The modulator clock can synchronize with an incoming digital audio signal, thus removing the necessity to convert the signal to analog."
Later in Wiki it also says somewhat confusingly 
"The term "class D" is sometimes misunderstood as meaning a "digital" amplifier."
At least we proved that true


----------



## KeithPhantom

For me, the biggest difference in equipment comes from DSP and transducer frequency response curves. I don’t care about DACs, amplifiers, cables, audio formats, etc. as long they are in compliance of some minimum operating performance, and this minimum level of performance exceeds what any transducer can ever hope to achieve. DSP helps a lot in terms of linearity with transducers and being as close as possible to your desired frequency response curve.


----------



## Dogmatrix

This from the good chaps at Ti

https://www.ti.com/lit/an/sloa319/s...ttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ti.com%2Fproduct%2FTPA3116D2

It appears the "Digital amp" is simply an integrated dac/amp solution


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> PWM doesn't need decoding? Huh? Of course it does! It is a series of pulses of differing widths, not the analog signal we want to feed into speakers.


Maybe my understanding is incorrect. Aren’t those “pulses of differing widths” our actual output signal, albeit filtered?

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Maybe my understanding is incorrect. Aren’t those “pulses of differing widths” our actual output signal, albeit filtered?
> 
> G


Audio PWM amps need filters. If PWM is used to drive say a motor, filtering is not needed (the inertia of the motor acts as a low pass filter).


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> Audio PWM amps need filters.


So the signal is not decoded/converted, it’s the same signal just LP filtered?

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> So the signal is not decoded/converted, it’s the same signal just LP filtered?
> 
> G


PWM and PDM signals are "decoded/converted" using just a low pass filter. Sometimes a low pass filter isn't even needed if the load has certain properties. In audio it is about how well you want the PWM signal filtered to call the result high fidelity sound?


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> PWM and PDM signals are "decoded/converted" using just a low pass filter.


If you start with an electrical signal and end with that electrical signal (filtered), what have you converted that signal into? Isn’t it always that electrical signal and therefore not converted into something else?

G


----------



## 71 dB (Jul 21, 2022)

gregorio said:


> If you start with an electrical signal and end with that electrical signal (filtered), what have you converted that signal into? Isn’t it always that electrical signal and therefore not converted into something else?
> 
> G


It is semantics if we convert anything. Is analog => digital => analog zero or 2 conversions? Is regular signal => PWM => regular signal zero or 2 conversions?


----------



## GearMe (Jul 21, 2022)

71 dB said:


> It is semantics if we convert anything. Is analog => digital => analog zero or 2 conversions? Is regular signal => PWM => regular signal zero or 2 conversions?



So...semantics aside (would love that to be a thread rule!), is there any value to choosing one over the other?

Or put another way, what are the pros/cons of each approach and does one approach have an audible benefit over the other?  And...if so, what is the cost differential to achieve that benefit?

Thanks in advance for your insights!


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> Is Analog => digital => analog zero or 2 conversions?


Electrical signal (analog) => digital data => Electrical signal (analog) is 2 conversions. Although you could argue it’s more, as we need to transfer that digital data by converting it into a non-analogous electrical signal (or light signal) and back to digital data again before converting it back to an analog electrical signal.


71 dB said:


> Is regular signal => PWM => regular signal zero or 2 conversions?


Electrical signal (analog) => Electrical signal (PWM) => Electrical signal (analog) is no conversions, because it’s not converted or encoded into something else, it’s always an electrical signal (that’s just modified). However, the first modification is somewhat similar to the process of digitisation, so arguably there is one conversion, although I’m not sure if it’s similar enough to actually call it a conversion.


71 dB said:


> It is semantics ...


I said to start with that I agree. It is at least somewhat a matter of semantics.

G


----------



## GearMe

gregorio said:


> Electrical signal (analog) => digital data => Electrical signal (analog) is 2 conversions. Although you could argue it’s more, as we need to transfer that digital data by converting it into a non-analogous electrical signal (or light signal) and back to digital data again before converting it back to an analog electrical signal.
> 
> Electrical signal (analog) => Electrical signal (PWM) => Electrical signal (analog) is no conversions, because it’s not converted or encoded into something else, it’s always an electrical signal (that’s just modified). However, the first modification is somewhat similar to the process of digitisation, so arguably there is one conversion, although I’m not sure if it’s similar enough to actually call it a conversion.
> 
> ...



From a practical side, have you had the opportunity to use Class D/PWM/etc. in your systems or have peers that did?  If so, were there any differences worth noting?  Appreciate the experiences you add to these topics!


----------



## jagwap

You are all getting caught up in semantics, as it has been stipulated by some forum members that there can be no interpretation, only their own view of the meaning of terms, even if others disagree...

There are class D amplifiers and digital class D amplifiers that do not need filters after their PWM output, and they rely on the speaker drive to do the low pass filtering mentioned above.  They work fine, but they tend to be low power, and some of them will not pass EMC regulations if the output cables are even a few mm long (the marketing departments of these ICs have caused many issues and redesigns).  There are one or two well thought out solutions that work as advertised though.


----------



## bigshot

To go way WAY back to where this all started, it was said that Class D "digital" amps are better because they don't require a DAC. They take digital input and put out analog without any DAC. I asked if that was the case way back then, and now it's clear that isn't true. It's taken an awful lot of side trips and theoretical definitions to just get that answer. It's almost impossible to get the cats herded into focusing on a simple answer here sometimes.


----------



## gregorio

GearMe said:


> From a practical side, have you had the opportunity to use Class D/PWM/etc. in your systems or have peers that did? If so, were there any differences worth noting?


I haven’t had one in my system but they were testing one in another studio I was working at. I was part of a listening test (sighted) and they also did some measurements and some null tests. The objective tests indicated more harmonic distortion with the class D and we all thought we heard it (before the objective tests) but it was a relatively small difference. I personally don’t give any weight to just noticeable differences in a sighted test, even my own. Also, this was over 10 years ago and I believe there’s been some meaningful design advances since. So again, not sure any of this is useable/applicable anymore.

G


----------



## GearMe

^  Thanks!


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> To go way WAY back to where this all started, it was said that Class D "digital" amps are better because they don't require a DAC. They take digital input and put out analog without any DAC. I asked if that was the case way back then, and now it's clear that isn't true. It's taken an awful lot of side trips and theoretical definitions to just get that answer. It's almost impossible to get the cats herded into focusing on a simple answer here sometimes.


I certainly fell to a little confusion but I think it has been resolved

Two separate but related issues were in play 

1. Can PWM be characterized as "digital" ?
Yes , but it is semantics since it is a square wave pulse but not a "digital" format

2. Can class D amps accept digital input ?
No , although class D can be characterized as digital internally it cannot decode a digital format and is exclusively analogue in and out


----------



## jagwap

Dogmatrix said:


> I certainly fell to a little confusion but I think it has been resolved
> 
> Two separate but related issues were in play
> 
> ...


I would say: Sometimes.  It depends on whether the timing of the PWM transitions is quantised, i.e. it is synchronous to a clock.  This is true of DACs and a few class D amps.  It the timing is purely down to the self oscillation of the amplifier (ICEPower, Pascal, Hypex, Purify etc.), or the comparison to a triangular wave as it is in a huge majority of class D then it should be classed as analogue.  So just because there is a clock synchronising the amplifiers, it doesn't mean it is digital.  Just because it has a digital input doesn't mean it is digital either (Texas Instruments TAS57xx range with a DAC built in).


Dogmatrix said:


> 2. Can class D amps accept digital input ?
> No , although class D can be characterized as digital internally it cannot decode a digital format and is exclusively analogue in and out


Some can.  They have DACs built in as described above.  Or the overal box the amp comes in accepts digital as the user wants to distribute the audio over digital, such as Dante or AES67.  This is getting more common in live systems and cinema too.   Then the amps can have DSP to handle crossovers and line array beam-forming, lowering the cabling significantly.

However some are true digital amps.  Some can output oversampled noise shaped PWM and are esentially Power DACs. Sanyo pionieered this in the domestic market, somewhat unsuccessfully. Zetex had an interesting solution with high technical performance, using a digital feedback loop.  It sounded good too, as long as your speakers did not have too troubling an impedance, like electrostatics.


----------



## bigshot

jagwap said:


> Some can.  They have DACs built in as described above.


Here is a perfect example of the merry-go-round in action.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> To go way WAY back to where this all started, it was said that Class D "digital" amps are better because they don't require a DAC.


That was sort of the claim, although it’s not a claim I entirely agree with. Class D amps have some clear advantages and some disadvantages. Not requiring a DAC wouldn’t be one of those clear advantages though IMHO, it would be a very slight advantage because DAC chips cost peanuts and are audibly transparent. 


bigshot said:


> I asked if that was the case way back then, and now it's clear that isn't true.


Then either you haven’t read carefully or haven’t understood what’s been written because it is not clear! 

Maybe I gave the impression that it’s a clear cut, black and white issue. If so, that’s not what I intended because:
1. I don’t know enough about all the different class D amp implementations to speak with any great conviction or authority and,
2. My personal view is not absolutely clear cut anyway!


bigshot said:


> It's taken an awful lot of side trips and theoretical definitions to just get that answer.


What answer, the absolute answer you seem to have taken away from all this, that doesn’t really exist?


bigshot said:


> It's almost impossible to get the cats herded into focusing on a simple answer here sometimes.


Well of course. Why do you think it should be possible “_to get the cats herded into focusing on_” something that doesn’t seem to exist? In this case, there is no simple answer and the obvious problem with inventing a simple answer when there isn’t one, is that it will be the wrong answer some of the time!

G


----------



## castleofargh

From all this I get either that DACs aren’t DACs or that a cable, a transducer or just about anything else is potentially a DAC because it will low pass the signal.
IMO spreading the events over several devices doesn’t make the DAC action go away. Conversion is conversion even if it’s done only with a codec or an all or nothing switch, and a low pass of sort.

As for class D stuff, there are plenty of products. I didn’t test any in recent years(at least knowingly), but I was for a long time under the impression that class D = hiss factory. I always thought the perk of class D was efficiency and less heat as a result(both can be significant advantages IMO). I’ve been told several times that improvements were made and I see no reason to doubt that. But if I was looking for top fidelity(I usually am not), I would need a lot of convincing before thinking class D is it.
 My old cheap JBL something 308(speakers) have integrated class D amps and... for whatever true reason, they hiss.

For Sony DAPs I’ve never been able to find enough data to know for sure if all those years they used a class D amp or if they mostly just tried to make their DAC design survive half a volt and a little current to avoid adding a power hungry opamp. Fidelity never rhymed with Sony DAPs. I’ve owned more of them than all other brands combined, but in over 2 decades I never bought one thinking it would have higher fidelity than some of the similar priced competition(and it never did AFAIK). I loved some of the functions, the form factor(before they went for bulky CNC cases), and most of all, I loved how they didn’t care about a nearby cellphone getting a call(something that most opamps really love to turn into audible signal). But for fidelity and hires, IMO, they invested a lot in the golden logo and marketing to make people think it meant a lot.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> As for class D stuff, there are plenty of products. I didn’t test any in recent years(at least knowingly), but I was for a long time under the impression that class D = hiss factory.


And inherently higher distortion. 


castleofargh said:


> I always thought the perk of class D was efficiency and less heat as a result(both can be significant advantages IMO).


Which in turn also means potentially smaller and lighter because you don’t have to deal with that heat (with say heat sinks and a larger circuit board) and therefore also potentially cheaper. 

The distortion and hiss can be dealt with (down to inaudible levels) but that increases cost, size and weight, and decreases efficiency, which is all the potential advantages of class D in the first place. Plus, reducing THD for example, down to say 0.1% (which is inaudible) doesn’t look great for many audiophiles compared to say class A amps that typically have much lower or several orders of magnitude lower THD.

That’s my understanding of class D amps, which again, isn’t very comprehensive.

G


----------



## bigshot

People here who are looking at class D amps on the market are reporting that they often have DACs built into them. They aren’t generally DACless.


----------



## jagwap (Jul 22, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> From all this I get either that DACs aren’t DACs or that a cable, a transducer or just about anything else is potentially a DAC because it will low pass the signal.
> IMO spreading the events over several devices doesn’t make the DAC action go away. Conversion is conversion even if it’s done only with a codec or an all or nothing switch, and a low pass of sort.


Yes this is true. I suppose the exception is DSD signal that only needs a low pass filter to become a recreation of the recording. However all other DACs need additional conversion from PCM .



castleofargh said:


> As for class D stuff, there are plenty of products. I didn’t test any in recent years(at least knowingly), but I was for a long time under the impression that class D = hiss factory. I always thought the perk of class D was efficiency and less heat as a result(both can be significant advantages IMO). I’ve been told several times that improvements were made and I see no reason to doubt that. But if I was looking for top fidelity(I usually am not), I would need a lot of convincing before thinking class D is it.


They are much better, but not usually class leading.

A few exceptions to that are Hypex and Purify (both Bruno Putzy designs at heart), ICEPower, Pascal and Crown DriveCore. These are all competitive with Class B on noise and distortion. But there's more to audio than that. (Here we go again...)



castleofargh said:


> My old cheap JBL something 308(speakers) have integrated class D amps and... for whatever true reason, they hiss.


It may not be the amps alone. If they are low cost the ADC or DAC in there may not be very quiet. In a product balancing the noise budget is key.  I heard them recently. Not bad for the price. The environment didn't allow me to notice the noise.



castleofargh said:


> For Sony DAPs I’ve never been able to find enough data to know for sure if all those years they used a class D amp or if they mostly just tried to make their DAC design survive half a volt and a little current to avoid adding a power hungry opamp. Fidelity never rhymed with Sony DAPs. I’ve owned more of them than all other brands combined, but in over 2 decades I never bought one thinking it would have higher fidelity than some of the similar priced competition(and it never did AFAIK). I loved some of the functions, the form factor(before they went for bulky CNC cases), and most of all, I loved how they didn’t care about a nearby cellphone getting a call(something that most opamps really love to turn into audible signal). But for fidelity and hires, IMO, they invested a lot in the golden logo and marketing to make people think it meant a lot.


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> People here who are looking at class D amps on the market are reporting that they often have DACs built into them. They aren’t generally DACless.


I found some "digital" amplifiers which were class D but had no digital input but were marketed as Digital Amplifier
Did not find a single class D with standard digital connection usb , tos , hdmi or bnc without a dac or equivalent


----------



## bigshot

Dogmatrix said:


> I found some "digital" amplifiers which were class D but had no digital input but were marketed as Digital Amplifier
> Did not find a single class D with standard digital connection usb , tos , hdmi or bnc without a dac or equivalent


Analog input and output doesn’t sound like digital to me.

Thanks. You’re the one that clearly answered my question.


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> Analog input and output doesn’t sound like digital to me.
> 
> Thanks. You’re the one that clearly answered my question.


Could be bursting my own bubble but .
Sony S-Master may be a full digital class D they talk about maintaining the digital signal throughout , I have no idea how


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Here is a perfect example of the merry-go-round in action.



Not everything can be defined with a simple binary response.  You should stop attempting to shut down discussions you appear to not understand.


----------



## GearMe

bfreedma said:


> Not everything can be defined with a simple binary response.  You should stop attempting to shut down discussions you appear to not understand.



Welllll...the question is about Digital!


----------



## jagwap

Dogmatrix said:


> Could be bursting my own bubble but .
> Sony S-Master may be a full digital class D they talk about maintaining the digital signal throughout , I have no idea how


My recollection of the marketing pitch is the same. Digital in, digitally processed, and digitally synchronised PWM out. So a digital amp.  

However, at headphone power levels this is a bit easier than a 4000W live stage amp.


----------



## bigshot

Considerate people help other people understand by listening to their questions and answering them clearly. Sometimes it’s like everyone here is talking purely for their own benefit. No regard for anyone else in the conversation. Just a collage of monologues all going on at the same time. It may be that I should have more patience with poor communication and lack of empathy. Some people may not be able to help it. But it’s hard to know that in a chat forum where we aren’t face to face.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 22, 2022)

jagwap said:


> My recollection of the marketing pitch is the same. Digital in, digitally processed, and digitally synchronised PWM out. So a digital amp.


Was it able to handle a variety of sound formats… PCM, MP3, FLAC, 24/96, etc?. My confusion is how all of those formats are decoded without a DAC designed to handle them. It seems that a one size fits all binary approach wouldn’t cover it all.

Perhaps there is some sort of conversion going on, similar to what goes on in a DAC, except to PWM instead of analog. It seems to me, a conversion is a conversion. Not that it would make any audible difference.


----------



## 71 dB

GearMe said:


> So...semantics aside (would love that to be a thread rule!), is there any value to choosing one over the other?
> 
> Or put another way, what are the pros/cons of each approach and does one approach have an audible benefit over the other?  And...if so, what is the cost differential to achieve that benefit?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your insights!


Conventional amps behave very differently from PWM amps when overdriven. The former "clips" the top and bottom parts of the waveform generating non-linear harmonic distortion. How "nasty" this phenomenon is depends on how the amp is designed. Some amps use "soft-clipping" and people find the way tube amps clip sonically "beautiful". PWM amps however, behave differently. More volume means wider pulses until they are as wide as possible. If the load causes the amp voltage (pulse height) to drop, it affects all pulses similarly (power source capacitors make the change of voltage very slow compared to how fast the pulses are generated. This means that the sound quality isn't affected almost at all, but the power is limited: In other world the amps gives good un-distorted sound, but at lower level than "asked".


----------



## jagwap

71 dB said:


> Conventional amps behave very differently from PWM amps when overdriven. The former "clips" the top and bottom parts of the waveform generating non-linear harmonic distortion. How "nasty" this phenomenon is depends on how the amp is designed. Some amps use "soft-clipping" and people find the way tube amps clip sonically "beautiful". PWM amps however, behave differently. More volume means wider pulses until they are as wide as possible. If the load causes the amp voltage (pulse height) to drop, it affects all pulses similarly (power source capacitors make the change of voltage very slow compared to how fast the pulses are generated. This means that the sound quality isn't affected almost at all, but the power is limited: In other world the amps gives good un-distorted sound, but at lower level than "asked".


This is true.

Unfortunately, due to the increased efficiency of class D, and the switch mode power supplies that commonly power them, the designers use far smaller PSU capacitors than old linear PSU with a class B amp would get.  So the clipping is usually much worse as the rail loos charge.  As class D without feedback is reliant on steady rails for good THD performance, many class D amps perform really badly as power goes up:   Also the near 100% modulation of nearly all class D amps near the clip point mean they also have clipping issues. "If the load causes the amp voltage (pulse height) to drop, it affects all pulses similarly (power source capacitors make the change of voltage very slow compared to how fast the pulses are generated." It is only slow unless near clipping.   Artificial clipping, soft limiters, and other techniques are available as you  say, with some loss of power.  This is why I mentioned before that musical instrument maps, such as guitar amps, do not favour class D, yet.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Considerate people help other people understand by listening to their questions and answering them clearly. Sometimes it’s like everyone here is talking purely for their own benefit. No regard for anyone else in the conversation. Just a collage of monologues all going on at the same time. It may be that I should have more patience with poor communication and lack of empathy. Some people may not be able to help it. But it’s hard to know that in a chat forum where we aren’t face to face.



The irony.  Someone who doesn't quote who they are responding to castigating others for talking for their own benefit and monologues...


----------



## danadam

bigshot said:


> Was it able to handle a variety of sound formats… PCM, MP3, FLAC, 24/96, etc?. My confusion is how all of those formats are decoded without a DAC designed to handle them.


Your usual DACs also don't decode MP3 or FLAC. They accept PCM and the decoding from MP3/FLAC to PCM has to be beforehand (e.g. by computer).


----------



## bigshot (Jul 22, 2022)

danadam said:


> Your usual DACs also don't decode MP3 or FLAC. They accept PCM and the decoding from MP3/FLAC to PCM has to be beforehand (e.g. by computer).


Really? If I play an MP3 over wifi using AirPlay, or to my AirPods using bluetooth I know that it isn't handing PCM across, but the compressed format. Is there something in the AirPort or AirPods that is converting to PCM before it hands the signal to the built in DAC?

I always thought that conversion from the various audio formats to PCM was done in the DAC.


----------



## Dogmatrix

jagwap said:


> My recollection of the marketing pitch is the same. Digital in, digitally processed, and digitally synchronised PWM out. So a digital amp.
> 
> However, at headphone power levels this is a bit easier than a 4000W live stage amp.


Cool , the puzzle piece I missed was PWM being analog and digital in character
So zoomed out it appears and works like an analog wave form ie you can run a transducer with it 
Zoom in and you can see the digital on / off nature of the pulse

Much like @bigshot  I still can't quite get how we go from say optical input to PWM 
What is the conversion stage ?


----------



## jagwap

Dogmatrix said:


> Cool , the puzzle piece I missed was PWM being analog and digital in character
> So zoomed out it appears and works like an analog wave form ie you can run a transducer with it
> Zoom in and you can see the digital on / off nature of the pulse
> 
> ...


I have Big Shot on ignore so I didn't see the question.  

Optical always starts with PCM, converted to SPDIF for transmission (PCM is usually 2-3 clocks + data when carried electrically on a circuit board.  SPDIF is one connection.).  So any other format is converted before transmission. When received by the unit it is converted back to PCM.  In the case of a DAC or digital amp, the PCM is converted from the multi-bit PCM to single bit PWM (there are other schemes, but that will just muddy the waters). Single bit cannot carry the full audio dynamic range unless it is MUCH faster switching than the sample rate.  Also noise shaping is used to increase the dynamic range in the audioband, by pushing the noise into the ultrasonic regions.   Then you filter this off in analogue.

USB drives can be different as this can carry different formats like MP3, AAC, FLAC etc.  Then you need an audio processor in teh receiver to decode these to PCM before the DAC.  USB from a PC is PCM though, using the computer to decode.

Bluetooth is different again.  It takes the PCM, which will have been decoded from MP3, AAC, FLAC etc. in the phone, then re-encodes to SBC, AAC ABTX or LDAC for transmission.  The BT receiver decodes this back to PCM for the DAC which is usually built into the BT IC, for the headphones.  Some argue that the act of decoding in one lossy format, and re-encoding in another lossy format is less transparent, and this may be the case.  BT claims high-ish data rate but it drops off in real life.


----------



## bigshot

So there's a couple kinds of conversion going on. It's not as if it's a direct digital path straight through from file to analog output. And it sounds like if you want to play any kind of format through it other than PCM, you need a computer or DAC to convert it to something the amp can handle. You might even have an ADC in the analog inputs of the amp adding another layer of conversion. It seems that the concept that "the best DAC is no DAC at all" isn't really the advantage of a class D amp over a typical one.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 23, 2022)

bigshot said:


> So there's a couple kinds of conversion going on.


Yes, but there’s always some kind of conversion going on, regardless of whether we’re talking about PWM or CD, wav, MP3, etc. …


bigshot said:


> It's not as if it's a direct digital path straight through from file to analog output.


Hang on, what kind of conversion are you talking about? Are you talking about an A/D or D/A conversion or are you talking about a format conversion, from one digital format to another digital format? If it’s the latter, then we do have a “_digital path straight through_” because the information is always digital, we don’t need to convert it to analogue. If by “_direct digital path …_” you mean there’s no format conversion occurring then that’s not the case with PWM but that’s also not the case with any other digital audio format (with the possible exception of SACD).


bigshot said:


> And it sounds like if you want to play any kind of format through it other than PCM, you need a computer or DAC to convert it to something the amp can handle.


You don’t necessarily need a computer or a DAC but you do need a chip (or part of a chip) that can convert to PWM. However, the same is true of just about all digital audio formats, you need a computer, chip or part of a chip to convert from wav, AAC or whatever into PCM. The difference with PCM is that you then must have a DAC to convert it to analogue, which itself almost certainly performs a digital format conversion before the analogue conversion (to an oversampled format with fewer bits for example).


bigshot said:


> You might even have an ADC in the analog inputs of the amp adding another layer of conversion.


Although as with DACs, that A/D conversion should be well outside audibility.


bigshot said:


> It seems that the concept that "the best DAC is no DAC at all" isn't really the advantage of a class D amp over a typical one.


Agreed but then that’s already been stated numerous times, as have the real advantages (and disadvantages) of a class D amp.

G


----------



## bigshot (Jul 23, 2022)

See the original reference to class d amps in this thread. That’s what I’m referencing. A whole bunch of other stuff was brought up subsequently, and the original reference wasn’t addressed directly.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> A whole bunch of other stuff was brought up subsequently, and the original reference wasn’t addressed directly.


A whole bunch of “_stuff was brought up subsequently_” so that we could address the original reference directly!

G


----------



## bigshot (Jul 23, 2022)

It obfuscated. It took me repeating my question several times to get a simple answer… many thanks to dogmatrix and jagwap.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> It obfuscated.


Of course it did, because the subject and answer is obfuscated. 


bigshot said:


> It took me repeating my question several times to get a simple answer.


But you didn’t get a simple answer, you got an obfuscated answer based on semantic opinions, because as far as I’m aware, the answer is an obfuscated semantic opinion. 

G


----------



## 71 dB (Jul 23, 2022)

bigshot said:


> See the original reference to class d amps in this thread. That’s what I’m referencing. A whole bunch of other stuff was brought up subsequently, and the original reference wasn’t addressed directly.


You have a tendency of wanting to dictate for all of us _what_ is discussed and _how_. Please try to understand why "whole bunch of other stuff" is brought to discussions and the argumentative value of it happening. We come from different backgrounds, have differing education, knowledge and experience. The result is "whole bunch of stuff"is being brought on the table and we don't think "I wonder what bigshot wants to see/read?" when we post.


----------



## castleofargh

When we start we know that we want to disagree, but it often takes time to know what to disagree on.


----------



## bigshot

That's when you just disagree in general and figure out what you disagree on later!


----------



## jagwap

castleofargh said:


> When we start we know that we want to disagree, but it often takes time to know what to disagree on.


No we don't.

Yes we do.

This isn't an argument.

Yes it is.

No it isn't, it's just contradiction. 

No it isn't... 

(C) Monty Python


----------



## Vamp898

Reading some comments I noticed that there is some misconceptions about the LCs in digital amps.

You can push the PWM signal directly into an speaker and it will result in music.

The speaker itself acts as a filler (due to its inductance) and so a PWM signal, directly fed into a speaker, will result in music.

But this will cause a waste of power, heat and a lot of noise (especially high frequency). Three things you don't want

That is why you not use the speaker as an filter but LCs before the speaker to filter this noise. The result of the filtering is a nice, noise free (hopefully), analog signal.

The better the LCs, the better the filtering, the better the sound.


----------



## DarginMahkum

Debunking the pseudoscience...


----------



## bigshot (Aug 29, 2022)

Find one called "Scientific Proof of Audible Differences in Audio Cables" and I'll be more interested. Honestly, I don't see the point expending energy debunking claims like this. I'm sure you can measure tiny differences, but they don't matter. We can measure mosquito's hairs, but it doesn't matter when you swat the bug trying to suck your blood.


----------



## DarginMahkum

bigshot said:


> Find one called "Scientific Proof of Audible Differences in Audio Cables" and I'll be more interested. Honestly, I don't see the point expending energy debunking claims like this. I'm sure you can measure tiny differences, but they don't matter. We can measure mosquito's hairs, but it doesn't matter when you swat the bug trying to suck your blood.


If that is what you are interested in, you are welcome to search for it yourself. Otherwise I find it quite childish to complain about everything you see in sight.


----------



## bigshot

I have registered your opinion and taken it under consideration.


----------



## Bret Halford

bigshot said:


> Find one called "Scientific Proof of Audible Differences in Audio Cables" and I'll be more interested. Honestly, I don't see the point expending energy debunking claims like this. I'm sure you can measure tiny differences, but they don't matter. We can measure mosquito's hairs, but it doesn't matter when you swat the bug trying to suck your blood.


Quantifying and judging things based on criteria many orders of magnitude below human perception is ASR's jam though


----------



## Bytor123

Bret Halford said:


> Quantifying and judging things based on criteria many orders of magnitude below human perception is ASR's jam though


The opposite - ASR points out the inaudible.


----------



## DarginMahkum

bigshot said:


> Find one called "Scientific Proof of Audible Differences in Audio Cables" and I'll be more interested. Honestly, I don't see the point expending energy debunking claims like this. I'm sure you can measure tiny differences, but they don't matter. We can measure mosquito's hairs, but it doesn't matter when you swat the bug trying to suck your blood.


You probably didn't even check what the video is about but just assumed that it is debunking your "but I know science" views, made an assumption and started complaining just like the measurement allergics. It is not a surprise the prejudice and lack of motivation to understand is a common denominator for the two. Emotional reaction seems to be the common symptom.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 29, 2022)

No, I glanced at it. He's basically right in that case, but as I said, it doesn't take a 45 minute video to make that point. 

Bret Halford is right. I remember when he used to be here. He once tried to tell us that -120dB was audible. Then I asked him if he was fudging a blind test by looping and riding the gain. He refused to answer, but admitted it later on his own site.


----------



## DarginMahkum (Aug 29, 2022)

bigshot said:


> No, I glanced at it. He's basically right in that case, but as I said, it doesn't take a 45 minute video to make that point.
> 
> Bret Halford is right. I remember when he used to be here. He once tried to tell us that -120dB was audible. Then I asked him if he was fudging a blind test by looping and riding the gain. He refused to answer, but admitted it later on his own site.


But neither you, nor your buddy was able to grasp the point. It is not about whether the cables are audible or not but apparently some idiot "published a paper", probably after being paid from a cable company scientifically prove the cable tale and looks like it fools some people that it is scientifically proven that the cables tale is real. It was all about that, and I sent it in good faith that it might help someone - assuming the people here are slightly more competent in human relations and basic reading. Sorry, my mistake.


----------



## redrol

Oh come on now.  We can all take pleasure in the fact we don't waste money on cables.  I find Amir very very long winded but for the most part, agree with his takes.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 29, 2022)

I can take pleasure in the fact that I don't waste my valuable time watching 45 minute videos breaking down and answering self evident dumbness point by point. I'm not big on marathons of shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## DarginMahkum

bigshot said:


> I can take pleasure in the fact that I don't waste my valuable time watching 45 minute videos breaking down and answering self evident dumbness point by point. I'm not big on marathons of shooting fish in a barrel.


It is pretty dumb to rush to the keyboard and start typing without even knowing what it is about. You must be a cable worshipper convert. Such a stupid thread with silly little boys excited about the little thing hanging in front of them, thinking everyone that says hi  to the room is there to hear a story about their little mickey.


----------



## bigshot

Your opinion has been registered and duly considered.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> No, I glanced at it. He's basically right in that case, but as I said, it doesn't take a 45 minute video to make that point.


You are right, it doesn't take 45 minutes. The video is only 41:48.  I just watched it and it was entertaining. I enjoyed it.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 30, 2022)

I'm sure there is someone out there with the patience for arguments proving self evident things, but I'm not one of them.

By the way, I wonder if I had said it was 42 minutes, would someone have equated the lacking 12 seconds with all the people on Earth to argue that 12 seconds is a HUGE ERROR? Is three minutes a HUGE ERROR? Is 3 minutes a HUGE ERROR because it's actually three minutes and twelve seconds?


----------



## 71 dB (Aug 30, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I'm sure there is someone out there with the patience for arguments proving self evident things, but I'm not one of them.


Self-evident for you and me, but not for most people. The video had hardly any _informative_ value for me, but the debunking of such a moronic "study" of cables is just as good entertainment as watching someone debunk lunatic claims of flateathers. Maybe you just find your entertainment elsewhere? That's fine. Each to their own...



bigshot said:


> By the way, I wonder if I had said it was 42 minutes, would someone have equated the lacking 12 seconds with all the people on Earth to argue that 12 seconds is a HUGE ERROR? Is three minutes a HUGE ERROR? Is 3 minutes a HUGE ERROR because it's actually three minutes and twelve seconds?


Where could we find a 45 minutes long YT video for you teaching sense of humour?  

If you express the length in minutes, then obviously rounding the lenght to minutes is what people expect. You could have also said it is an hour long video, because 41:48 rounds "up" to 1 hour. You didn't even round to 5 minutes blocks, because then it would have been 40 minutes! Maybe you rounded it to 15 minutes blocks? That would make sense at least!


----------



## gregorio (Aug 30, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Honestly, I don't see the point expending energy debunking claims like this.


You’re joking? Firstly, you have for many years and still do expend energy debunking claims like this. Secondly, this claim is a special case, it’s not just some random audiophile spouting nonsense on the internet or some BS advertising on a manufacturer’s website or in a brochure. This is a series of scientific papers by an actual scientist, published by one of the world’s greatest and most respected repositories of sound/audio science. Given the name of this subforum, we should be PARTICULARLY concerned about “claims like this”!!


bigshot said:


> I can take pleasure in the fact that I don't waste my valuable time watching 45 minute videos breaking down and answering self evident dumbness point by point.


Patently it was NOT “_self evident dumbness_” to the AES peer reviewers and AES peer review process, otherwise they would have refused to publish those papers. Also, the AES presumably has far higher standards for “self evident dumbness” than the average gullible audiophile. Although clearly, at least in the case of these papers (and there are some other examples), it raises some very serious questions and concerns regarding the AES’ peer review process.

Unfortunately, you do indeed seem to take pleasure in the fact that you sometimes don’t “waste” your valuable time with the published science. Given the name of this subforum, that is sometimes extremely unhelpful and given the thread title, what should we test audiophile claims against, your personal experience and opinions or science?

G


----------



## bigshot

Whatever. I’m not up to argue about nothing today. I’ll keep an eye on it to see if something real starts to be discussed.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Whatever. I’m not up to argue about nothing today.


But yesterday you were? And, you were not arguing “about nothing”, you were arguing about published science, although it’s not clear you actually realised that’s what you were doing!


bigshot said:


> I’ll keep an eye on it to see if something real starts to be discussed.


Huh? How are the discussed published scientific papers not real? And, anyone interested in Sound Science should have REAL concern about published sound/audio science which is grossly incorrect and if you’re not interested in sound science, then why are you even here in this subforum, let alone actually posting?

G


----------



## GearMe (Aug 30, 2022)

gregorio said:


> You’re joking? Firstly, you have for many years and still do expend energy debunking claims like this. Secondly, this claim is a special case, it’s not just some random audiophile spouting nonsense on the internet or some BS advertising on a manufacturer’s website or in a brochure. This is a series of scientific papers by an actual scientist, published by one of the world’s greatest and most respected repositories of sound/audio science. Given the name of this subforum, we should be PARTICULARLY concerned about “claims like this”!!
> 
> Patently it was NOT “_self evident dumbness_” to the AES peer reviewers and AES peer review process, otherwise they would have refused to publish those papers. Also, the AES presumably has far higher standards for “self evident dumbness” than the average gullible audiophile. Although clearly, at least in the case of these papers (and there are some other examples), it raises some very serious questions and concerns regarding the AES’ peer review process.
> 
> ...



Feeling torn... 


On the one hand, I could care less if someone believes cables make a difference in their audio system.  Want to spend hard-earned $$$$ on Nordost, et al?  Knock yourself out!  I wish you unending hours of listening bliss.

On the other hand, want to explore other options for improving your system that might be a 'better' use of your funds?  Good on you...do the research/comparisons/etc, make a choice, and then live with it!  And...I wish you unending hours of listening bliss.

_Really, this is a prime example of first world problems!
(to be fair, just about any discussion agonizing over Audio is)_

The cable topic is so overdone from both the Objectivist and the Subjectivist sides, it's hard to imagine what more can/should be said.



However, and I state this being just about as far from an Amir acolyte as one can be, there is value here in questioning the AES process.  45 minutes' worth of value? Not for me!

Still, it's kinda hard to believe a legit scientist would get to the spot that he did -- but again, really don't care.  He wants to move into another lane and spend a lot time publishing something like this...more power to him!

That said, if the AES peer review process doesn't have a 'serious' discussion on his research, it's definitely cause for concern.


----------



## GearMe (Aug 30, 2022)

gregorio said:


> But yesterday you were? And, you were not arguing “about nothing”, you were arguing about published science, although it’s not clear you actually realised that’s what you were doing!
> 
> Huh? How are the discussed published scientific papers not real? And, anyone interested in Sound Science should have REAL concern about published sound/audio science which is grossly incorrect and if you’re not interested in sound science, then why are you even here in this subforum, let alone actually posting?
> 
> G



Love your passion! 

FWIW, I don't feel this forum _really _educates many people that are coming from the Subjective side of the house.  Those kinds of scenarios seem to end up following a similar pattern with less than optimal use of time and results.

Objectivists, on the other hand, are already very comfortable 'following the data' and can often share things that are informative/useful to others with similar inclinations.



So...for me...I personally see more value in the SS forum to discuss topics that are more grey than black/white.  The repetitive stuff about cables, etc. gets old (imo).

In this case, I believe you're right regarding your concerns about the AES peer review process (even about mundane topics like cables) and that somebody calling it out is necessary.


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> But yesterday you were? And, you were not arguing “about nothing”, you were arguing about published science, although it’s not clear you actually realised that’s what you were doing!
> 
> Huh? How are the discussed published scientific papers not real? And, anyone interested in Sound Science should have REAL concern about published sound/audio science which is grossly incorrect and if you’re not interested in sound science, then why are you even here in this subforum, let alone actually posting?
> 
> G



Posts like the one you are responding to make it so much harder to have factual discussions here.

One individual’s personal view of science that repeatedly ignores anything inconvenient to them is what enables subjectivists to also cherry pick their “facts”.


----------



## gregorio

GearMe said:


> Really, this is a prime example of first world problems …


In a sense, but in that sense this whole site, audiophilia and all Hi-Fi gear is a first world problem. In another sense though, even third world countries have telecom systems, local music and sound recordings and broadcasts, so cable performance is an issue for them too. 


GearMe said:


> Still, it's kinda hard to believe a legit scientist would get to the spot that he did


Although I understand he’s an astrophysicist, so not a legit audio/sound scientist. That’s no excuse for quite a lot of his assertions though, because they break the basic rules of all science. 


GearMe said:


> The cable topic is so overdone from both the Objectivist and the Subjectivist sides, it's hard to imagine what more can/should be said.


If by “objectivist” you mean sound/music engineers, pro-audio and science, then to be honest it’s not really “overdone”. Sure we talk about cables a lot because we need lots of them, lots of different types and positioning them is often a problem but we never have discussions about audiophile cables. I’ve been in the business almost 30 years and I presume sometime previous to that, when audiophile cables first hit the market in the ‘70s or ‘80s, there was some discussion but it was quickly put to bed with some objective testing and simply hasn’t been any sort of issue for decades. It’s only in the relatively tiny audiophile community where it’s been “overdone” and that’s only because the marketing works for some. 


GearMe said:


> FWIW, I don't feel this forum _really _educates many people that are coming from the Subjective side of the house.


I’m not sure how many it “really educates”, there’s no doubt it does educate some but many of the audiophiles who venture here have no intention of being educated; some are just after validation of their audiophile beliefs/purchases, some think they’re the ones doing the educating and some come here just to troll. But whatever the reason, there’s no doubt that you can’t educate someone who doesn’t want to be educated, at least not without a few weeks of waterboarding and/or some electrodes!  So, I personally am generally not trying to educate, I just refute the nonsense and post the facts. 

BTW, I don’t want to give the impression I disagree with everything you said, I agree with a lot of it. 

G


----------



## GearMe

gregorio said:


> In a sense, but in that sense this whole site, audiophilia and all Hi-Fi gear is a first world problem. In another sense though, even third world countries have telecom systems, local music and sound recordings and broadcasts, so cable performance is an issue for them too.
> 
> Although I understand he’s an astrophysicist, so not a legit audio/sound scientist. That’s no excuse for quite a lot of his assertions though, because they break the basic rules of all science.
> 
> ...


Yep, was adding the first world thing to my earlier post when you replied stating same.

Re: Sound/Music Engineers and cables, I'd expect the behavior/outcomes that you outlined.  

Re: Audiophile Cable Believers, the human psyche is amazing...it's the extremely rare person that's going to fess up and say..."Wow! I just spent $15K on my 2m interconnects and I can't hear a difference".  So, in my live and let live world, I seriously hope they enjoy their purchase.  At some point, if they want to learn, they'll sincerely research/question/etc. and start to change behaviors based on what they learn.

I get the refuting the nonsense thing; just wish there was less need for it and more discussions around other topics.

Anyway, I suppose there's some solace in the argument that 'if it educates just one'...


----------



## DarginMahkum (Aug 30, 2022)

I don't know what was discussed here in more than a thousand pages, what the people expect from a newcomer but I just wanted to get out of the "use your ears only" community. Coming from an electrical engineering background and earning a living with software and DSP programming, I really expected a more "objective" attitude and I thought that sending about such an odd situation would be an interesting or at least a neutral entry for me to this thread, as I was already quite bothered by the others and going into endless discussions with them, but quite surprising and irritating to see the reaction here. I don't get why we are still talking about the length. I didn't watch it fully, either, but what I saw was already jaw dropping for a "scientific" publication. The worst I expected was "yeah, happens, even AES is not independent from the dirty market today" or no response. Hell, I was wrong...

Anyway... Amir and his site might be slightly on thr pop-culture of audio science, but still it fills a huge gap and 90% of the HeadFi is still technically far behind ASR. I follow him, check his reviews time to time.


----------



## gregorio (Aug 30, 2022)

DarginMahkum said:


> The worse I expected was "yeah, happens, even AES is not independent from the dirty market today" or no response. Hell, I was wrong...


There are hardcore audiophiles throughout this site, even in this forum sometimes. However, bigshot is not one of those and usually what he says is not in contradiction with the science, not always though unfortunately. In this case, I think he had a bad day and maybe didn’t fully realise what he was responding to.


DarginMahkum said:


> Anyway... Amir and his site might be slightly on thr pop-culture of audio science, but still it fills a huge gap and 90% of the HeadFi is still technically far behind ASR. I follow him, check his reviews time to time.


I’ve had a couple of big “run ins” with Amir several years ago. He clearly has a good grasp of the basic audio science, is well read on the subject, is intelligent and has expertise in certain areas. In some areas he’s not quite so well informed though, the practical realities of music performance and it’s recording for example, and when he is wrong, he’ll battle on regardless. Nevertheless, I do fully support and appreciate what he’s doing with regards to actual audio performance of hi-fi equipment and wish there was a great deal more of that in sites like this one. Although I do take some of his conclusions/subjective opinions and most of his listening tests with a pinch of salt.

G


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> There are hardcore audiophiles throughout this site, even in this forum sometimes. However, bigshot is not one of those and usually what he says is not in contradiction with the science, not always though unfortunately. In this case, I think he had a bad day and maybe didn’t fully realise what he was responding to.
> 
> I’ve had a couple of big “run ins” with Amir several years ago. He clearly has a good grasp of the basic audio science, is well read on the subject, is intelligent and has expertise in certain areas. In some areas he’s not quite so well informed though, the practical realities of music performance and it’s recording for example, and when he is wrong, he’ll battle on regardless. Nevertheless, I do fully support and appreciate what he’s doing with regards to actual audio performance of hi-fi equipment and wish there was a great deal more of that in sites like this one. Although I do take some of his conclusions/subjective opinions and most of his listening tests with a pinch of salt.
> 
> G



By far the biggest issue I have with ASR/Amir is the lack of acknowledgement of what is audible and what isn't.  

A DAC with a noise floor of -128db vs. one with a noise floor of -131db  is not going to result in audible differentiation.  Far too many on ASR including Amir either don't understand or don't acknowledge that measured differences massively beyond human hearing are irrelevant.


----------



## gregorio (Aug 30, 2022)

DarginMahkum said:


> what the people expect from a newcomer


We don’t expect much here, just the obvious really: Assertions of fact to actually be facts; to either agree with the accepted science or to have some reliable evidence to support an assertion which doesn’t agree with it. Your background will greatly help. If you not sure of something, ask rather than make up assertions of fact and opinions are OK as long as they’re qualified as opinions rather than presented as facts but I’m sure you know all this as a matter of course. 

G


----------



## gregorio

bfreedma said:


> By far the biggest issue I have with ASR/Amir is the lack of acknowledgement of what is audible and what isn't.


Yep, that’s probably my main gripe too. I use his method of listening frequently, literally countless thousands of times over the years. Whacking up the volume by say 40dB in a very quiet passage and looping it, to listen and identify different parameters of dither for example, is very informative and provides actual experience which you can’t fully appreciate no matter how many metrics you measure. However, that doesn’t mean it’s actually audible, you can’t listen to anything other than carefully selected short passages that way without blowing your speakers and/or damaging your hearing. Hearing damage levels is outside of “audibility”!

G


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2022)

He knows he's talking about stuff that it inaudible. He's just arguing a best case scenario... and the best case scenario involves looping fadeouts and riding the gain.

Focusing on exceptions and bleeding borders of audibility just muddles the truth of what the relative importance of various degrees of fidelity. There's stuff that matters when you sit down to listen to your stereo, and there's stuff that doesn't. But reading most home audio info on the internet (including ones that are scientifically based) it can be really hard to figure out where that dividing line lies. Too many Brobnigagian arguments and purely theoretical footnotes that run for pages swamping the content which can be stated in a few sentences.

My complaints aren't with the facts or with science. I don't disagree with the ultimate point of the video. I just don't see why something THAT simple and obvious needs to be discussed with thousands of word and complicated explanations. And why does it take all those trappings of authority? Couldn't it be stated more clearly and simply? When you obfuscate, focus on rare exceptions to the rule, and deliberately try to talk over the head of the regular people your video is there to serve, you may feel just like a "real live scientist", but you muddle up your message and leave openings for the audiophiles to come in and grab onto your rare exceptions and make them into "what ifs?" They can use the lack of clarity to spread smoke. That is exactly what we see on manufacturer's tear sheets... a whole bunch of science talk to slip the Barnum past.

It would be interesting to tally up the subjects discussed in Head Fi to see what we talk about the most. I bet if we did that, the most self evident and obvious would be right up there at the top... the sorts of things that AES doesn't even entertain... Do DACs sound different? Do cables sound different? The effects of bias. These subjects aren't really in question. They can be answered in a sentence or two. Yet this forum expends hours and hours of poster's time composing complex treatises that run on for page after page. The people here have a lot more knowledge and experience to share than to just cover the same dumb things over and over.

I'd like to see some consideration for how information is presented, because in this forum regardless of how good the info is, it's disorganized, over-written and full of ego. I'm guilty of this myself sometimes. But that isn't when I get in trouble. I get in trouble when I cut to the chase and call a spade a spade. I'd like to see more conversations get more real and less bloviated.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> I just don't see why something THAT simple and obvious needs to be discussed with thousands of word and complicated explanations.


Firstly, if it were “_THAT simple and obvious_” to everyone then it would be impossible for anyone to be confused or misinformed about it, which clearly isn’t the case. For some it obviously isn’t “THAT simple” which therefore requires some discussion and explanations. To me, the explanations Amir presented were “simple” while to you they were “complicated”. This demonstrates the fact that what you consider “That simple” or “complicated” might in fact be the exact opposite to others. 

Secondly, an assertion is not true simply because you, me, Amir or even Einstein says so. There has to be reliable supporting evidence. This is especially true in this case because Amir is asserting that certain published scientific papers are grossly incorrect, because they are based on bad science. Bad science cannot be addressed with more bad science, it needs to be addressed with reliable evidence and discussion of equipment and methodology so that it is repeatable. 


bigshot said:


> Couldn't it be stated more clearly and simply?


Almost always, but it’s a real skill to do so, very time consuming and commonly results in falsehood through oversimplification. 


bigshot said:


> When you obfuscate, focus on rare exceptions to the rule, and deliberately try to talk over the head of the regular people


He wasn’t trying to obfuscate, he did not focus on rare exceptions to the rule and he wasn’t talking to “regular people”. Regular people know almost nothing about audio, they don’t know what an ABX is, have no idea about audio measurement methodology and definitely have never heard of the scientific papers the video is all about. Even in the audiophile community there is no “regular audiophile”, some believe in audible cable differences, some don’t, some believe in audible differences with some types of cable but not others and most have at least some misconceptions about the signals being transferred and how cables work. You are neither a regular person nor a regular audiophile and not only do you seem to think you are, but you seem to think you are somehow actually representative of all “regular people”, which is often the root cause when you are wrong about something!


bigshot said:


> That is exactly what we see on manufacturer's tear sheets... a whole bunch of science talk to slip the Barnum past.


No, that is NEVER “_what we see on manufacturers’ tear sheets_”! What we actually see in cable marketing is pseudoscience, testimonials and the use of actual science that is always accompanied by “lies of omission”, which invalidates it. 


bigshot said:


> [1] Do DACs sound different? [2] Do cables sound different? [3] The effects of bias.


If you want the clearest, simplest correct answers to these questions they would be:

1. Yes. 2. Yes. and 3. No simple answer.

Don’t you really want less clear, less simple but more accurate answers? For example, given certain conditions the answer to #1 is typically “No” but there are some rare exceptions, the answer to #2 is “No” and #3 is the same. But obviously this is less clear and less simple because we have to mention/discuss those “certain conditions”. 


bigshot said:


> I get in trouble when I cut to the chase and call a spade a spade.


No, you NEVER get in trouble for that. What you actually get in trouble for, is calling a shovel a spade, because you either don’t know there’s a difference between a shovel and a spade or the difference doesn’t affect you personally!

G


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2022)

^ tldr

Let’s give it the old college try myself…

Cables, as long as they are the right cable for the job and they aren’t defective, all sound the same… uncolored and perfect. A fancy cable can’t sound better than an inexpensive cable, a defective or inappropriate cable can only sound worse. There’s no reason to spend a lot on a cable. Just buy an inexpensive one that is solidly made.

Three sentences, and that’s more than is really needed to get the idea across, because I’m just trying to head off some of the bloviating at the pass. I can really be more clear, succinct and concise. Let me try to do it in three *words*, not three sentences…

Cables don’t matter.

One of those words is a contraction, so feel free to write a few paragraphs explaining why it’s really four words, not three.

If this works, then we’re done with 90% of the cable posts. We can scratch those off the list.


----------



## DarginMahkum (Aug 31, 2022)

It is hard to grasp why people are so hardliners of some simple point even when they are practically on the same side. It reminds me the movie Zelig from Woody Allen, when he starts beating up the visitors with a stick when they don't agree with his idea of weather not being good. As far as I remember, that was after a long theraphy treatment to improve Zelig's self conidence.


----------



## bigshot

I just realized I missed balanced cables…

For use in the home, balanced cables don’t offer any advantage, but if they look cool to you, go to town, my man!

I tried to inject a little jovial friendliness to counter the dour judgemental attitude of so many posts. How is that working?


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Let me try to do it in three *words*, not three sentences…
> 
> Cables don’t matter.


You used 3 words and I used only one. They effectively state the opposite to each other but both are correct under certain circumstances and wrong under others. You already know that your 3 words are wrong because you’ve already effectively stated that the wrong cable for the job or a faulty cable does matter! 

You’ve also failed to mention the condition of equal cable length. Nor have you defined “matter” to mean audible performance, because for most consumers visual appearance also “matters”, at least to some degree. 


bigshot said:


> If this works, then we’re done with 90% of the cable posts.


But it doesn’t work and you’d actually be done with about 0% of cable posts. Plus, you already know your 3 word answer is wrong, it does not necessarily agree with the facts/science, so how does such an assertion have any more validity than the assertions we see in the cables forum? And, how is it not obvious that such an unqualified assertion does more harm than good in a subforum differentiated by the very fact that it is based on fact/science?

We’ve had this argument before bigshot, a Sound Science forum cannot be defined by oversimplifications which contradict science or by only what “matters” to you personally. If that’s what you want, start your own forum but please do not undermine this one!

G


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2022)

Here’s the game… see if you can make your reply clearer and more concise than the post you’re replying to. Don’t answer three paragraphs with six. That can result in the literary equivalent of a nuclear meltdown!

Another fun game… let’s apply the points made about cables to other things!

Cables don’t sound the same if they are defective or the wrong cable for the job.

On an overcast day, it’s nice to settle in with a hot cup of tea in a bone China cup, unless the bone China cup is broken and the scalding hot tea pours straight into your lap, or the cup is actually a bone China chamber pot and the teapot isn’t big enough to fill it.

It’s a good thing we added those caveats! If we didn’t, people would have scalded crotches and be drinking from potties!


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Here’s the game… see if you can make your reply clearer and more concise than the post you’re replying to. Don’t answer three paragraphs with six.


No, that is NOT the game! If you want to play your own game with your own rules then setup your own forum and stop trying to convert this one.

The “game” I am playing is to make my replies as factually accurate and in agreement with the science as I am able. Being concise has to be a consideration but hopefully NOT at the expense of rule #1. 

How is the above not obvious to you?

G


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Here’s the game… see if you can make your reply clearer and more concise than the post you’re replying to. Don’t answer three paragraphs with six. That can result in the literary equivalent of a nuclear meltdown!
> 
> Another fun game… let’s apply the points made about cables to other things!
> 
> ...



This is getting old Bigshot.  If you're not interested in sound science, why do you continue to post in Sound Science?

All these posts do is make it easier for audiophiles to use the edge cases you want to ignore as "proof" that science is incorrect.  

Perhaps we need a new forum - "Inaccurate and/or incomplete science that fits Bigshot's personal preferences"


----------



## redrol

Balanced cables (as in actual XLR / TRS) have a nice advantage for home setups, no ground loops.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Cables, as long as they are the right cable for the job and they aren’t defective, all sound the same… uncolored and perfect. A fancy cable can’t sound better than an inexpensive cable, a defective or inappropriate cable can only sound worse. There’s no reason to spend a lot on a cable. Just buy an inexpensive one that is solidly made.
> 
> Three sentences, and that’s more than is really needed to get the idea across, because I’m just trying to head off some of the bloviating at the pass. I can really be more clear, succinct and concise. Let me try to do it in three *words*, not three sentences…


Yes, you get "the idea" across with these three sentences, but you can't use them to debunk claims about cables based on tests made with 40 nanosecond pulses! You need to go more scientific and explain how 40 nanosecond pulses are so far outside the bandwidth of (analog) audio that it doesn't matter AT ALL if a cable performs badly with 40 nanosecond pulses. 



bigshot said:


> Cables don’t matter.


Sometimes they do! If you need a long HDMI cable to transfer 4K video + Atmos sound, cables probably matter. If you have speakers with very low minimum impedance (say 1-2 Ω) and you need long cables, you need to careful about how thin cables you use or you may cause problems with frequency response and even damping!


----------



## redrol

The exact reason some home user might want go to balanced (aside from fart sniffing) is to do a full house audio system snaked through say a crawl space or similar.  100-200ft runs are not out of the question.


----------



## The Jester

71 dB said:


> Yes, you get "the idea" across with these three sentences, but you can't use them to debunk claims about cables based on tests made with 40 nanosecond pulses! You need to go more scientific and explain how 40 nanosecond pulses are so far outside the bandwidth of (analog) audio that it doesn't matter AT ALL if a cable performs badly with 40 nanosecond pulses.


Maybe this video doing the rounds of various forums may explain chasing minute time differences:

But I’m guessing the only way such small differences could be noticed is if the final transducer, headphone or speakers was capable of reproducing such minute levels, 
The Wilson speakers referred to are around $850k … 😳


----------



## bigshot (Sep 1, 2022)

redrol said:


> The exact reason some home user might want go to balanced (aside from fart sniffing) is to do a full house audio system snaked through say a crawl space or similar.  100-200ft runs are not out of the question.


Good point! Clear and concise and helpful to people putting together a home system. Good job. You win this round. The fart sniffing gag is good for extra credit points for having a sense of humor.

The no ground loops one isn't as helpful because that is usually a fault of a funky computer, not the external the audio equipment.


----------



## castleofargh

The Jester said:


> Maybe this video doing the rounds of various forums may explain chasing minute time differences:
> 
> But I’m guessing the only way such small differences could be noticed is if the final transducer, headphone or speakers was capable of reproducing such minute levels,
> The Wilson speakers referred to are around $850k … 😳



This is really frustrating for me to watch. It’s full of accurate and well researched/demonstrated information, but it’s also full of misleading ideas and conclusions, more by omission and cherry picking the magnitudes for the demos, than by actually lying, but misleading anyway. Bringing audiophiles in the middle of it, is for me where clear dishonesty is at play. Then again he got everybody talking about him with that strategic clickbait. So, great success! 
In several such amalgams the facts come from experiments under conditions that cannot be matched with actual music and listening conditions, so acting like one is conclusive for the other is a clear mistake and I’m sure that as a researcher he knows better. 

Demonstrating the impact of timing by moving the start of one of 2 tones looks like a problem we could have with huge phase shifts from crossovers or BA drivers. But only at first glance. Remove the time aligned reference we can play anytime and it instantly becomes much harder to identify a problem. Add more tones(even a single instrument has more than 2 tones at once) to match actual music and of course it again becomes harder to perceive the specific freq or freqs that are getting delayed. Change the delay, pick a second signal that’s not exactly double of the first, etc and the result will mostly be harder to notice.

Telling audiophiles that the transient response is very important for audibility when the so called demo does nothing short of cutting the entire transient out of the signal... come on! To prove that the brand of paint matters, you go and remove the house as counter example? The phenomenon mentioned is real of course, but it cannot serve to justify audiophile anything as no generic playback system just magically eats up all transients in the music. The very worst that can happen is to lose the higher frequency content of it, for which audibility is IMO hard to prove even now if the filter doesn’t audibly attenuate the audible range.

Hair cells triggerings are much more common than just when we get the one signal we care about. They seems to get triggered for any bodily or external noises, some will activate with head movements, some are bent out of shape and basically alway on, and I seem to remember a triggering no matter what, somewhere around 100 times/s?(might be just as bs as my usual memory of numbers).
 My point is that there is constantly noise sent by the hair cells. That obviously changes everything for the brain and what it will treat as an audio cue or when it will even get a signal.

There is also the obvious lack of discussing auditory masking in both time and amplitude with any complex signal like music, even though again, he keeps bringing up audiophiles and their gears. That doesn’t serve his narrative so I get why it’s omitted.

The argument about the sound system that couldn’t convince him there’s a grand piano playing in front of him, well that’s just the wonder of listening with his eyes. There is a high chance that if he was hearing a hidden grand piano while thinking he’s demoing a sound system he saw in front of him, he would still not be convinced that it sounds like a grand piano.


The frack is the last thing he shows while talking interconnects?

I now feel a need to go create a brand of audiophile bananas with all the stuff that neurons need for cleaner action potential that improves soundstage. And maybe also Brawndo Myelin for improved digital connectivity in the head.


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 1, 2022)

The Jester said:


> Maybe this video doing the rounds of various forums may explain chasing minute time differences:
> 
> But I’m guessing the only way such small differences could be noticed is if the final transducer, headphone or speakers was capable of reproducing such minute levels,
> The Wilson speakers referred to are around $850k … 😳



Comments on the video:

Firstly: It is ironic how a video about _High End Audio_ has really crappy sound quality! This is painful to listen to!

The "timber" example of 440 Hz + 880 Hz (50 % + 50 % vs 60 % + 40 %): the example B means 3.5 dB variation of "flat" frequency response which is somewhat good if not excellent response, expecially with speakers in a room. Low performance systems (e.g. TV speakers) can have easily 3 times bigger variation (10 dB). So, this example is not very extreme: The difference in timber of A and B should not be massive to begin with.

The delay example: 880 Hz signal is delayed 3/4 cycles of 440 Hz = 1.7 ms! Sound travels almost 2 feet in that time! To create this much delay between 440 Hz and 880 Hz in a speaker, you'd need "the worst acoustic engineering in human history" level screw up! Also, the examples are very short, so losing a lot of the 880 Hz in the begining really stick out and also, these are busts of sinewave, not musical signals that have a non-zero attack time.

The phase example: Hearing is pretty insensitive to phase shift. Phase is most important when signals of same frequency are summed, because they may cancel each other causing massive amplitude changes.

So, the delay difference was made a massive issue by an example that is totally unrealistic Nobody listens to "music" made of short 440 Hz and 880 Hz bursts with speakers  with the worst acoustic engineering ever. Everything matters. It is just where are limits of audibility / high fidelity. How much from flat can the frequency response be? How much group delay can there be? How much phase shift can there be? Any of these matters, if you don't need the requirements!

The time reversal example: Well, of course piano sounds different played backwards! What crappy sound system plays music backwards? We humans are good at telling causal and non-causal processes apart, because non-causal processes are unnatural. No wonder piano sound played backwards sounds unnatural (different!)

Equating "needed" time resolution with one cycle of the highest frequency you can hear seems strange. Human hearing is much more complex than that! At least that is addressed later in the video.

Multi-way speakers (such as the Wilson Audio one) need to time-align the separate speakers elements, but mainly between neighbouring bands! You don't need microsecond accuracy between bass and treble! At lower frequencies the temporal accuracy is less crucial. The 0.4 microsecond rise time thing with the amp isn't important. Rise time is not the same as temporal accuracy! It is the bandwidth of the amp. 1.8 MHz bandwidth is overkill.

All the human hearing thing is to make audience believe this man knows what he is talking about. He certainly does know, but is he honest?

My thoughts: Most people can't afford High End Audio gear, but Professor Kuncher probably can, because maybe he has been hired (with good pay!) by High End companies to make presentations like this one.

I wasted time watching that video and writing this comment. I should have been listening to Bach's secular cantatas!


----------



## gregorio

The Jester said:


> Maybe this video doing the rounds of various forums may explain chasing minute time differences:


But it doesn’t. A few micro-secs isn’t a minute amount of time in digital audio, it’s a huge amount of time, even for good old CD. There are some other issues in the vid that others have mentioned but I don’t get how audiophiles can use it to support some argument. 

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> But it doesn’t. A few micro-secs isn’t a minute amount of time in digital audio, it’s a huge amount of time, even for good old CD. There are some other issues in the vid that others have mentioned but I don’t get how audiophiles can use it to support some argument.
> 
> G


True, but the video doesn't talk about digital audio/good old CD. It talks mainly about _speakers, _doesn't it?


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> True, but the video doesn't talk about digital audio/good old CD. It talks mainly about _speakers, _doesn't it?


TBH, I didn’t watch all of it, I skipped quite a bit but he did use the 5 micro-sec thing in a published paper quite a few years ago in a misguided attempt to discredit CD. 

G


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 1, 2022)

gregorio said:


> TBH, I didn’t watch all of it, I skipped quite a bit but he did use the 5 micro-sec thing in a published paper quite a few years ago in a misguided attempt to discredit CD.
> 
> G


Oh, that's something I didn't know. In this video he did not "attack" CD. Someone must have explained to him how temporal accuracy of digital audio works...

... now that I think of it, maybe all of this has been originally about attacking CD (16/44.1 format) in favour of hi-rez formats, but the humiliation has been too much, so he has moved on to bash non-high end audio equipment... oh dear!


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> Someone must have explained to him how temporal accuracy of digital audio works...


As far as I’m aware, he’s published loads of papers (100+). Almost all of them are on the subject of astrophysics only about 4 on audio. He was ripped a new one by some scientists on HA and did in fact acknowledge the errors.

This was all about 10 years ago, so I don’t remember the details beyond him making the false assumption that CD had a temporal resolution of 22 micro-secs and was therefore insufficient for a 5 micro-sec discrimination ability. 

G


----------



## The Jester

Cui Bono ?
Who’s funding the research ?
With most research there are “guidelines” to keep things “on track” but then the train can only go where the tracks are laid,
Same with the previous “debunking” video, any suggestion that there is more to comparisons than a suite of tests and a brief “listen” should be immediately discredited …
Once it gets into the $$ of the speakers mentioned plus commensurate amplification and source how much is actual performance vs pride of ownership, if live music is your passion for the same $$ how many live concert tickets could be purchased, I’m sure most wives out there would prefer that to a couple of huge speakers parked in the middle of the room .. 
To use another car analogy one may buy their new Ferrari, park it in the garage and admire its beauty, take it out on a Sunday for a “spirited” drive within the road regulations and park it outside the local coffee shop,
Another may pay considerably more for their Ferrari and never get to take it home, instead the car is delivered to a track of choice complete with support crew and taken back again when the day is over,
Both could describe themselves as “enthusiasts” ..


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 1, 2022)

gregorio said:


> As far as I’m aware, he’s published loads of papers (100+). Almost all of them are on the subject of astrophysics only about 4 on audio. He was ripped a new one by some scientists on HA and did in fact acknowledge the errors.


He over-estimates his competence on audio.



gregorio said:


> This was all about 10 years ago, so I don’t remember the details beyond him making the false assumption that CD had a temporal resolution of 22 micro-secs and was therefore insufficient for a 5 micro-sec discrimination ability.
> 
> G


To be fair, that 22.7 µs assumption is an easy mistake to make if you don't understand digital audio well. Somehow this all feels familiar to me, but my memory and mind work as they work. Usually I memorize only the "logic behind things" and forget about who said or wrote it. To my mind the name of the Professor saying something misinformed is useless information. Misinformed opinions being expressed is the relevant thing for me.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 1, 2022)

71 dB said:


> To be fair, that 22.7 µs assumption is an easy mistake to make if you don't understand digital audio well.


True but you absolutely don’t expect that from a university professor or a published peer reviewed scientific paper!

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> True but you absolutely don’t expect that from a university professor or a published peer reviewed scientific paper!
> 
> G


Depends on the field. How many university professors of biology, literature, history or *astrophysics* know the 22.7 µs thing? Not many I would guess. However, if you are a university professor of digital signal processing and audio, not knowing the 22.7 µs thing is embarrassing and surprising.

However, peer reviewed scientific papers should not have such rubbish printed, totally agreed!


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> How many university professors of biology, literature, history or *astrophysics* know the 22.7 µs thing? Not many I would guess.


Agreed, not many. However, you would absolutely expect a scientist in any scientific field to fact check and follow the basic procedures of science and, you would expect that even more so from a professor!


71 dB said:


> However, peer reviewed scientific papers should not have such rubbish printed, totally agreed!


Thinking back on it, I seem to remember the AES were challenged about publishing this (and some other terrible) papers. Their response was basically along the lines that they knew the paper was essentially nonsense but allowed publication because they thought it would stimulate some scientific discussion. I’m paraphrasing but I recall thinking that was about the lamest excuse for publishing rubbish imaginable!

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Agreed, not many. However, you would absolutely expect a scientist in any scientific field to fact check and follow the basic procedures of science and, you would expect that even more so from a professor!


I expect people to do things for money, fame, social status..



gregorio said:


> Thinking back on it, I seem to remember the AES were challenged about publishing this (and some other terrible) papers. Their response was basically along the lines that they knew the paper was essentially nonsense but allowed publication because they thought it would stimulate some scientific discussion. I’m paraphrasing but I recall thinking that was about the lamest excuse for publishing rubbish imaginable!
> 
> G


It certainly stimulates some sort of discussion, but is still strange.


----------



## DarginMahkum (Sep 5, 2022)

Oh, come on! No version that we can shove up our arse, so that we are free of ground noise while listening to music? I am sure millions are feeling the buzz in their bottoms.


----------



## redrol

I've recently been able to train myself to pick Sabre vs AK dac's 10/10 times A/B testing.  not ABX but AB.  What I listen for is high treble 'noise'.  AK sounds far more dark and distinct while sabre is splashy and has peaking.  This took me over a year.


----------



## jagwap

redrol said:


> I've recently been able to train myself to pick Sabre vs AK dac's 10/10 times A/B testing.  not ABX but AB.  What I listen for is high treble 'noise'.  AK sounds far more dark and distinct while sabre is splashy and has peaking.  This took me over a year.


----------



## sander99

redrol said:


> I've recently been able to train myself to pick Sabre vs AK dac's 10/10 times A/B testing.  not ABX but AB.  What I listen for is high treble 'noise'.  AK sounds far more dark and distinct while sabre is splashy and has peaking.  This took me over a year.


With a low level digital signal and high analog gain/volume setting? By using digital attenuation or a special test track with low level digital signal? Or volume riding fade-ins or fade-outs?


----------



## redrol

I just thought id troll a bit.  Not like i can prove it to anyone.  I am selling all my sabre stuff though.


----------



## redrol

sander99 said:


> With a low level digital signal and high analog gain/volume setting? By using digital attenuation or a special test track with low level digital signal? Or volume riding fade-ins or fade-outs?


 Honestly, high volume, a specific planar in ear, I helped tune.  I guess since I know how it sounds so well, i can tell different dacs easily.  I also swapped amps with the dacs using the same amps, etc, and the damn sabres always sound like there is high frequency noise, its surely treble but it sounds similar to static noise.


----------



## bigshot

Do you hear a difference with all music or just certain test tracks? And only with one particular set of transducers? Why would you spend a year training yourself to hear a difference that you couldn't hear otherwise? The difference must be very, very small. I have a DAC with a Sabre chip in it. When I listen to music with it, it sounds the same as any other DAC. I have better things to do than to convince myself I can hear a difference.

I don't doubt that differences exist. They are just so small, you would never notice them in normal music listening. You'd have to jury rig the test to make the differences audible.


----------



## gregorio

redrol said:


> I've recently been able to train myself to pick Sabre vs AK dac's 10/10 times A/B testing.  not ABX but AB.  What I listen for is high treble 'noise'.  AK sounds far more dark and distinct while sabre is splashy and has peaking.  This took me over a year.


Obviously, if it’s not a DBT/ABX then all bets are off, anyone can perceive differences even when there aren’t any.

Even with DBT/ABX, it’s still possible to reliably hear a difference between almost anything under certain circumstances. For example, if the gain staging has been messed up (low digital volume plus high gain as @sander99 stated), if the volume hasn’t been accurately matched or if accurate volume matching requires driving the amp hard enough to produce audible noise or distortion.


redrol said:


> I just thought id troll a bit. Not like i can prove it to anyone.


Do you mean the whole claim is a troll or that it’s a real claim which is effectively a troll because you have no reliable evidence to support it? If it’s the former then at least it’s presented the opportunity to reiterate what should be obvious conditions. If it’s the latter, why did you spend a year training yourself to effectively produce unreliable evidence? If your claim were true, then we would see a significant variation in the mid/high freq response and a noise floor with Sabre DACs around -50dB or maybe as low as -80dB or so if you had to train for a year, but we don’t see either of these things.

G


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 7, 2022)

redrol said:


> I just thought id troll a bit.  Not like i can prove it to anyone.  I am selling all my sabre stuff though.


I thought you may make a bit too overgeneralized statements.
All big DAC chip manufacturers have several lines of chips serving different purposes.
For instance, AK has (had?) their budget (and lower power) line of 437** (most bland sound in some implementations to me) and  their premium 439*** with the "velvet" sound that also did not bode well for my preferences, due to different subjective and objective factors.

The DAC manufacturers are in the business of selling products, especially their premium ones, so the different sound of DAC chips makes much more practical sense compared to largely theoretical/gedanken concepts of "transparency".

Anyhow, reading yet another time about having this DAC with this very chip and not "hearing the difference" made me think of wines again.

Imagine, one finding Merlot different compared to other wines and being persistently asked: "did you alcohol-level match"?
If yes, and it still tastes different: did you match sugar/glucose levels, acidity, polyphenols, etc?
If it still tastes different - then you have to make comparisons in one big gulp - it will surely taste the same 

I propose to call this "scientific" comparison methodology "biggulp theory", in recognition of some forum members and the Universe, as one of the two infinite things according to one big man.


----------



## DarginMahkum (Sep 7, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> The DAC manufacturers are in the business of selling products, especially their premium ones, so the different sound of DAC chips makes much more practical sense compared to largely theoretical/gedanken concepts of "transparency".


This is not how development of such products work. They don't try to differ in so called sound signature, but the algorithms used and the feature set, and that depends on the processing power of the signal processing module inside the chip, power consumption requirements, fabrication technology used (28nm, 14nm etc.), number of channels and other factors that might be contributing to the final product. The idea is always to achieve the best engineering specifications (based on measuremensts) with the available processing power. When you check the datasheet of a DAC chip these are what is going to be mentioned, not any audiophile terminology. It will be all and only the engineering terms and the details of filters used etc. Here is the datasheet of AK4499 for you. And there will be no serious professional level audio product development company in the world (RME, Benchmark etc.) that will use any of the audiophile terminology, as they will only target engineering perfection with the chips they use.

Here is a deeper analysis of ESS and AKM versions of RME ADI-2. Although there are measurable differences, there is nothing audibly different. Why? Because they are professionally developed products that don't need any audiophile terminology.

There is a concept of ESS IMD hump which might appear in some less than excellent implementations of ESS based design but whether that is audible is another topic.


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> The DAC manufacturers are in the business of selling products, especially their premium ones, so the different sound of DAC chips makes much more practical sense compared to largely theoretical/gedanken concepts of "transparency".


But that doesn’t make “_much more practical sense_” it makes much less! Even in the 1990’s relatively cheap DAC chips were audibly transparent. It makes no sense whatsoever for modern DAC chip manufacturers to produce chips with so much lower fidelity (that they actually sound different) than cheap chips of 25 or so years ago, to call them “Premium” and to charge more for them. This would be the opposite of “making more sense”! What does make sense and what the DAC chip manufacturers actually do, is produce “Premium” modern chips with even greater fidelity (that’s well beyond audibility) and with far greater functionality, such as; onboard processing of different audio formats, multiple switchable filters, etc. 


PhonoPhi said:


> Anyhow, reading yet another time about having this DAC with this very chip and not "hearing the difference" made me think of wines again.


Why on earth would it make you think of different wines, what have wines got to do with DAC chips? Different wines obviously have different compositions which are well within the detection thresholds of human smell/taste. There’s no equivalence at all, except possibly in the “flowery” descriptive language used by wine connoisseurs and audiophiles.

G


----------



## bigshot

Why would a DAC manufacturer make a product that is deliberately colored? Who would buy a DAC that wasn’t calibrated properly? If two DACs were audibly different, that would clearly show up in measurements. Everyone would know they were substandard just by looking at the specs.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Why would a DAC manufacturer make a product that is deliberately colored? Who would buy a DAC that wasn’t calibrated properly? If two DACs were audibly different, that would clearly show up in measurements. Everyone would know they were substandard just by looking at the specs.


If all people cared about specs, nobody would listen to vinyl these days. 
Colored sound is one of the easiest ways to make your product "special" on the audio market.
All you need to do is call the sound more "musical" and some audiophools are ready to empty their wallets...


----------



## GoldenOne (Sep 7, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Why would a DAC manufacturer make a product that is deliberately colored? Who would buy a DAC that wasn’t calibrated properly? If two DACs were audibly different, that would clearly show up in measurements. Everyone would know they were substandard just by looking at the specs.


There will hardly be any DAC manufacturers that DELIBERATELY colour things.
The possible exceptions being tube output DACs like lampizator, or maybe those like some SMSL DACs with adjustable harmonic distortion settings (though these are optional and not a baked in part of the DAC).

But, the key thing is, different manufacturers have different beliefs about what 'transparent' means, should be, or how to achieve it.

Chord believes that the reconstruction filter is a critical part of a transparent and accurate sound, so they focus heavily on that. Even if it means the cost is increased due to compute power and development requirements. Other manufacturers rarely include high performance reconstruction filters.

Topping believes that as high a SINAD as possible is the way to transparent sound, even if it means making their DACs susceptible to issues like intersample overs clipping.

Benchmark believes that intersample overs clipping is unacceptable, and includes sufficient headroom in their DACs to avoid it, even though it means sacrificing ~3dB of SINAD and dynamic range.

Companies like RME prefer to use opamps for their output stages. Others like Gustard prefer to utilise discrete implementations (at least in their higher end products)


None of these companies are 'deliberately colouring' anything, and they're all doing what they believe is the right way to do things. And yet they're doing things differently


----------



## 71 dB

redrol said:


> I've recently been able to train myself to pick Sabre vs AK dac's 10/10 times A/B testing.  not ABX but AB.  What I listen for is high treble 'noise'.  AK sounds far more dark and distinct while sabre is splashy and has peaking.  This took me over a year.


What are you going to do with this skill? Does it increase your enjoyment of music or can you use it in your job?

The most probable cause for audible differences is the use of different reconstruction filters which can shape magnitude spectrum of the highest half-octave so much that a trained ear can notice it. While I have never done proper listening tests, I am very certain I can hear the differences between reconstruction filters at 44.1 kHz, but not at higher frequencies. For me the difference manifests itself mainly as the width of the soundstage.

To me this kind of audible differences are quite insignificant. A "dark" sounding DAC can be brightened up with EQ and vice versa. Also, ear tends to get used to certain sound and the difference really "exists" for us only when we are comparing. In normal life we pick our DAC and use it all the time so that our ear gets totally used to the sound, bright or dark. The enjoyment of music isn't compromised at all.


----------



## DarginMahkum (Sep 7, 2022)

GoldenOne said:


> There will hardly be any DAC manufacturers that DELIBERATELY colour things.
> The possible exceptions being tube output DACs like lampizator, or maybe those like some SMSL DACs with adjustable harmonic distortion settings (though these are optional and not a baked in part of the DAC).
> 
> But, the key thing is, different manufacturers have different beliefs about what 'transparent' means, should be, or how to achieve it.
> ...


But Benchmark sacrificing 3dB of SINAD in the inaudible region does not make any difference for the end result, as it is still not audible. Or the sharpness the 4M taps bring against a 16K tap filter.


----------



## PhonoPhi

How many new technical features DACs would need? If DAC chips would just do their simple job, we would simply have few cost-effective solutions, and that is it. In some sense, Apple USB DAC is along these lines.

Also, the fact that different DAC chips can be implemented in a similar way with the major standard parameters measured similarly does not need to be disputed.

Then I wish all DAC/DAP implementation would sound the same, alas, it is largely not the case in portable devices.

Is AKM "velvet sound" a gimmick?

My "conspiracy theory" is that harmonics and perhaps phase differences between the channels are subtly manipulated to sound more pleasing similar to lamp sound, as the most successful DAP manufacturer likely does for their special sound.
Before you menrion THD - if only the series of harmonics are processed and manipulated as a group (enhancing/depressing some n-th harmonics, etc.), it won"t be detected with a single-frequency probing.

Colouring the sound in a pleasing way is likely to be appreciated by consumers to enjoy the music.


----------



## GoldenOne

Ill have to respond properly to this once home. But I did actually repeat this with a slightly different methodology (using sox and hqplayer, rather than the deltawave built in filters) and got much different results.

Also the difference file he has provided is 44.1khz which seems odd given the nature of the test


----------



## bfreedma

PhonoPhi said:


> How many new technical features DACs would need? If DAC chips would just do their simple job, we would simply have few cost-effective solutions, and that is it. In some sense, Apple USB DAC is along these lines.
> 
> Also, the fact that different DAC chips can be implemented in a similar way with the major standard parameters measured similarly does not need to be disputed.
> 
> ...



My conspiracy theory is that science is largely correct and the equipment manufacturers utilize misleading marketing, leading to many imaginary reasons owners feel their purchase is "special".

Of course, there is the real possibility that "audiophile" brands intentionally color their output.  Not sure why anyone would pay more for less transparency rather than applying EQ...


----------



## bigshot (Sep 7, 2022)

There’s no difference of opinion about what transparent is… 20 to 20 flat, inusible noise and distortion… a $20 Apple dongle does that far beyond the thresholds. The only reason one DAC would sound different than another is if one is deliberately colored to perform out of spec. I’d like someone to show me a DAC that sounds and measures that way. I’ve asked for years for an example of this and no one can give me a specific example.

Why would a manufacturer make a DAC that doesn’t even properly decode 16/44.1, much less higher data rates? It makes no sense whatsoever. The only thing I’ve seen are NOS DACs that are obsolete technology.


----------



## gregorio

GoldenOne said:


> But, the key thing is, different manufacturers have different beliefs about what 'transparent' means, should be, or how to achieve it.


I’m not sure they do have different beliefs about what “transparent” means, they all seem to implicitly agree that it means “fidelity”. Although I agree that some seem to prioritise certain aspects of fidelity over others and therefore have different implementations. However, this does NOT imply different “colourations” because these are all inaudible aspects of fidelity. Chord’s approach to filters would improve fidelity but only above the frequency threshold of human hearing. Topping’s approach improves fidelity but only below the volume/level threshold of human hearing. Benchmark’s approach seems the most rational, sacrificing some inaudible SINAD to make sure there are no ISP issues, which can be audible under certain conditions, although even cheap, half decently designed DACs have been able to deal with ISPs for many years, so there’s no audible fidelity benefits here either. 

In all cases, we’re talking about approaches to fidelity/transparency that are beyond the thresholds of audibility,  with the occasional pathological exceptions mentioned, “tube” DACs or some NOS DACs for example. 


PhonoPhi said:


> How many new technical features DACs would need?


Isn’t it obvious that DAC chips/DACs need an infinite number of new technical features? Once all the other DAC chip manufacturers have the same feature set as your DAC chip, you only have two options: 1. Compete by lowering your price or 2. Come up with a new technical feature your competitors don’t yet have.

#1 is a poor long term option because it squeezes profit margins and leads to an unsustainable race to the bottom (a price war), which is bad for share price and can ultimately lead to insolvency. 
#2 is an obviously better long term option because it maintains or even improves profit and can continue ad infinitum as long as marketing can keep convincing consumers there’s some actual benefit. For example, 16/44 is more than adequate for human hearing. Then we had 96/24, way beyond human hearing and not even reproducible by the best transducers, let alone audible. Then we went to 192/24, in some cases we’re up to 384/32, next will be 768/32 and so on ad infinitum, until even the most gullible audiophiles can no longer be convinced there’s any audible benefit  but there’s no sign of that yet!

G


----------



## DarginMahkum (Sep 7, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> How many new technical features DACs would need? If DAC chips would just do their simple job, we would simply have few cost-effective solutions, and that is it. In some sense, Apple USB DAC is along these lines.
> 
> Also, the fact that different DAC chips can be implemented in a similar way with the major standard parameters measured similarly does not need to be disputed.
> 
> ...


There are some contradicting expressions often used by audiophiles:

- I want to hear the music exactly as it was produced, that is why I don't use DSP and EQ.

Then they go and buy some device with altered sound and say it sounds better. They have no clue about why it sounds the way it sounds (assuming it sounds really different), but when you ask them "then why don't you use EQ or a high quality DSP", they tell you they are against EQ because 1) EQ is bad 2) they want to listen to music as it is supposed to sound like.

Very contradicting behavior, especially when you consider EQ is a much more deterministic than trying to match "you have no clue what goes on in here" devices.

To me, this type of decision making is already questinable. That person probably 1) likes to socialize more than being an audio enthusiast. 2) is more interested in buying the next expensive gadget to confirm the marketing and fan club hypes floating around it. 3) is lazy and does not want to learn "new tricks" that can be solved by just spending a few hours of reading and experimentation. That is also in sync with being so much offended by measurement data, as one has to learn before talking about it. 4) likes spending money as a theraphy.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with all those. Everything you mentioned and things like stage can be easily tweaked with simple DSP in a much more deterministic and reproducible way. There are so many excellent VSTs for that, but no. It is simply impossible to convince someone who likes to have 5 devices with tweaked sounds to even try this method. Have seen it so many times.

So I question if the idea is really having a pleasing sound etc. or buying the next most hyped gadget. Otherwise if one buys the a technically perfect amplifier and DAC (assuming he is not looking for additional features like Roon endpoint etc.), and adds a good EQ / DSP on top, the possible options of sound, including that so called "pleasing sound" would be vastly larger than the number of DACs and amplifiers in the market for much less money.

PS: Portable devices are a different story, as in many cases the output goes through the headphone amplifier.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> The most probable cause for audible differences is the use of different reconstruction filters which can shape magnitude spectrum of the highest half-octave so much that a trained ear can notice it. While I have never done proper listening tests, I am very certain I can hear the differences between reconstruction filters at 44.1 kHz, but not at higher frequencies.


Maybe you should do some proper listening tests, I’m quite confident you can’t hear the differences between reconstruction filters, except in a few pathological exceptions.

Most DACs have a 44.1kHz reconstruction filter with the transition band starting around 19-20kHz, some though have a transition band starting around 18kHz or even 16kHz. However, a just noticeable difference at 16kHz is around 3dB but that’s with a pure tone (so no masking) at a high level (95dB if I remember correctly) and with young and perfect ears. Even taking these optimal conditions, you would need a slow roll-off filter with a transition band starting probably somewhere around 10kHz, so it’s at -3dB by 16kHz. There are such reconstruction filters but they are rare (sometimes as an option on DACs with switchable filters) and even then, with a musical signal, not so young ears and a more reasonable listening level you would struggle at the very least. I can’t say it’s absolutely impossible but it is very unlikely. The only exception I can think of would be a filterless NOS design at 44.1kHz, which typically start to loose HF response far lower than 10kHz. 

I don’t think you would be so “very certain” after a DBT/ABX but it would be interesting to know for sure. 

G


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 7, 2022)

gregorio said:


> Maybe you should do some proper listening tests, I’m quite confident you can’t hear the differences between reconstruction filters, except in a few pathological exceptions.
> 
> Most DACs have a 44.1kHz reconstruction filter with the transition band starting around 19-20kHz, some though have a transition band starting around 18kHz or even 16kHz. However, a just noticeable difference at 16kHz is around 3dB but that’s with a pure tone (so no masking) at a high level (95dB if I remember correctly) and with young and perfect ears. Even taking these optimal conditions, you would need a slow roll-off filter with a transition band starting probably somewhere around 10kHz, so it’s at -3dB by 16kHz. There are such reconstruction filters but they are rare (sometimes as an option on DACs with switchable filters) and even then, with a musical signal, not so young ears and a more reasonable listening level you would struggle at the very least. I can’t say it’s absolutely impossible but it is very unlikely. The only exception I can think of would be a filterless NOS design at 44.1kHz, which typically start to loose HF response far lower than 10kHz.
> 
> ...


As I said, if I really hear differences it is pretty insignificant in regards of music enjoyment, so it doesn't matter.

I also have to add, that the most differences I think I hear is with headphones.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 7, 2022)

gregorio said:


> I’m not sure they do have different beliefs about what “transparent” means, they all seem to implicitly agree that it means “fidelity”. Although I agree that some seem to prioritise certain aspects of fidelity over others and therefore have different implementations. However, this does NOT imply different “colourations” because these are all inaudible aspects of fidelity. Chord’s approach to filters would improve fidelity but only above the frequency threshold of human hearing. Topping’s approach improves fidelity but only below the volume/level threshold of human hearing. Benchmark’s approach seems the most rational, sacrificing some inaudible SINAD to make sure there are no ISP issues, which can be audible under certain conditions, although even cheap, half decently designed DACs have been able to deal with ISPs for many years, so there’s no audible fidelity benefits here either.
> 
> In all cases, we’re talking about approaches to fidelity/transparency that are beyond the thresholds of audibility,  with the occasional pathological exceptions mentioned, “tube” DACs or some NOS DACs for example.
> 
> ...


Very much true.
MQA-supporting DAC chips highlights and exacerbate this issue...


DarginMahkum said:


> There are some contradicting expressions often used by audiophiles:
> 
> - I want to hear the music exactly as it was produced, that is why I don't use DSP and EQ.
> 
> ...


True. I would not be sure about conventional band equalizers, but DSP should able to compensate or achieve desired coloriration with DACs and can do quite a bit to help adjust transducers.
Yes, the mantra of "no equalizing" is running strong with many, with some (like me), it is more lazyness/simplicity. I do have two USB dacs: one warmer, one more analytical, using the same DAC chips. Could I use just one with DSP - most likely.
At some point, I got about 20 USB DACs trying to match the colouration of my older DAP. From many perspectives, quite a bit of waste of money, but I learned few things and also  became more open for different sound signatures.


----------



## GearMe

bfreedma said:


> My conspiracy theory is that science is largely correct and the equipment manufacturers utilize misleading marketing, leading to many imaginary reasons owners feel their purchase is "special".
> 
> Of course, there is the real possibility that "audiophile" brands intentionally color their output.  *Not sure why anyone would pay more for less transparency rather than applying EQ...*



*Personal preferences* --  it sounds better to them...improving their _individual_ listening experiences.  Which is cool.  

After all, it's their $$$ they vote with and their personal listening preferences they're catering to; preferences that are both real (i.e 'Pathological' Tubes, Transparent, basshead cans, treblehead cans, neutral cans, bass boost, crossfeed, 'mis-applied' EQ, etc.) and imagined (hi-res, cables, etc.).

Some of us enjoy both 'Transparent' as well as 'Pathological' systems; attaching to them a variety of cans with different sound signatures...switching configurations up for any number of 'illogical' reasons.  

BTW...you don't _have_ to shell out mega-bucks for solidly built 'Pathological' amps, etc.  

Now...'Imagined' differences?  That's another story!  One should expect to shell out significant coin for those as there's often a direct correlation between the amount paid and the perceived benefit.


----------



## bfreedma

GearMe said:


> *Personal preferences* --  it sounds better to them...improving their _individual_ listening experiences.  Which is cool.
> 
> After all, it's their $$$ they vote with and their personal listening preferences they're catering to; preferences that are both real (i.e 'Pathological' Tubes, Transparent, basshead cans, treblehead cans, neutral cans, bass boost, crossfeed, 'mis-applied' EQ, etc.) and imagined (hi-res, cables, etc.).
> 
> ...



Agreed on all points.  If statements were couched as "personal preference" rather than "reference", these discussions would be much easier.

I certainly have buying criteria that goes beyond baseline performance, but those are feature, aesthetic and personal purchasing preferences.  The key is realizing that all of my purchasing criteria other than baseline audio reproduction are indeed, my personal preferences and not universal reasons to select gear.

For example, I like my GSX-MkII but certainly wouldn't tell someone that they needed to spend that much on an amp to get the same transparency.  If someone asked for a recommendation for a well built, good looking (IMO), high resale value product that was also a competent technical component, I'd certainly include it as an option.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 9, 2022)

The important thing is that transparency is a calibrated baseline. It guarantees that if you have a preferred EQ or DSP setting, you can swap in different amps and DACs and your system will still sound the way you want it to. If every component was a different color, it would require a complete rebalancing every time you bought something new.

I have no quibble with people who prefer a specific coloration. We all have different ears. Just because a system is transparent, it doesn't mean that you have to listen to it that way. There are tone controls, equalizers and DSPs that are designed to take the calibrated sound and sculpt it any way you want. My personal EQ curve is a couple of dB different than flat. Nothing wrong with that. The components upstream from my DSPs are all transparent though.

I studied design in college. They taught me that form followed function, and efficiency in solving the problem is beautiful. When I look at systems that are covered with bling and conspicuous consumption, they don't impress me. They evoke the same reaction as velvet sofas covered in plastic furniture covers, gold plated toilets and handbags that cost a fortune because of the logo printed on them. But I can be delighted by a system that is well thought out and inexpensive.


----------



## castleofargh

I’m like that too. Using EQ and more on just about any setup, and given how much work it can be to find just the settings I like most(now that I’m pretty clear in what it is), I naturally put gear stability high on my priority list and wish for the next one to sound the same. 
A reasonable amount of fidelity seems like a good practical reference to that effect.

And of course I’m all in with @bfreedma wishing for people to discuss how they feel and what they like instead of constantly trying to redefine those feelings and preferences as objective facts about sound.
People believe there is one objective reality and use objective means to know more about it.
Or they believe in subjectivism and don’t try to define the objective reality because they don’t believe it exists. 
Thinking that something about the sound is real for all because I think I heard it(sighted), that’s one weird third option and I’m not sure how it should be called?


----------



## DarginMahkum (Sep 9, 2022)

@GoldenOne, just saw your video "Why you can't trust audio measurements", with a cover title "Don't trust me". Such a misleading click-bait title that rather than contributing to the debate just gives more confusion to people, especially those 90% that does not watch the content or try to understand but just stick to the title. It is just silly title, really.



PS: Though I think the content is OK.
PS2: I guess I am late to the game. It is an old video. Sorry. But that doesn't change the fact that it has a misleading click-bait title.


----------



## redrol

I will DSP/EQ when i have no other choice (for IEMs) but mostly I take them apart and modify them to hit my favorite frequency curve.  In the end, if you can do it, it makes using the IEM much easier.


----------



## bigshot

redrol said:


> I will DSP/EQ when i have no other choice (for IEMs) but mostly I take them apart and modify them to hit my favorite frequency curve.


I like to be a little more precise than that. I know exactly what my preference is as a deviation from Harman with the frequency band and dB. I can precisely dial that in on all of my cans. Stuffing Kleenex in it or shaving off foam rubber would be too much of a clumsy kludge for what I am trying to do.


----------



## redrol

I dont shove crap in my iems man.  I have very precise curves I intend to hit: for instance here is one: (L/R)


----------



## bigshot (Sep 9, 2022)

This is a measurement from one of your modded IEMs? Or is it just a curve from something you like? If it's the latter, how are you sure that the correction you make matches that curve?

You see, I can take a published curve and dial in an exact correction with my equalizer. I'm not guessing.


----------



## redrol

It's a modified IEM.  Thats my curve, as per listening.  I modify until its good for me and then take the formula and repeat.  I acutally have 12 of these 14.8mm planar IEMs which I am going to be selling.


----------



## redrol (Sep 9, 2022)

Here is a front view.  I did have to take the shell apart and change the back damper on the driver.. and poke out the front vent precisely or if I don't hit the mark, have to apply a damper to the vent.  The rubber insert there is designed to move the mid peak up and also squash treble.  And combined with a wide bore tip as shown, creates a horn type shape which increases the midrange to where I want.  This has taken me months to achieve and now I do the mod for people.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 9, 2022)

So you're basically tweaking it until you like it... That isn't what I do. For my speaker system, I calibrated my system flat using a calibration mic, then I adjusted EQ by ear over a period of a couple of months, listening to a wide range of music and movies until I was happy with it. Then I noted the difference between my calibrated flat curve and my "by ear" curve and I use that as a correction to the curve. For headphones I did something similar. I took published measurements of my cans, applied correction to bring them in line with Harman, and then applied a very minor personal correction to that.

I can take a speaker system that measures flat, or a set of cans calibrated to Harman and get it to my personal preference in a few minutes without voiding my warranties. That is a lot more precise and repeatable than the way you're doing it.

It also helps to buy IEMs or headphones that are close to your personal target curve rather than to buy ones that are off and try to kludge them.


----------



## redrol (Sep 10, 2022)

You are misunderstanding.  Im not tweaking until I get something that sounds good.  I have specific targets:
Pinna gain needs to be between 2.5k and 2.8k and about 6-8db in gain vs 1k.  Bass slope should be about 2-3dub under pinna.  Entire FR should slope downwards for good volume scaling (fletcher muchen).  I don't see why you are intent making me sound like some idiot.  I've spent my life in audio and decided to make IEMs that sound good.

As far as taking a kludge and making them good.  How exactly do you think IEMs are tuned?  Im working with a shell in a specific shape and format and I go from there.  I know some generalities in terms of how to actually tune but each driver (for example planar vs DD) requires different tuning methods.

It's quite impossible to tune IEMs to flat, everyone is different.  I compare to my studio system and thats the best I can do.


----------



## bigshot

How fine of an adjustment can you make in Q and dB. I can make pinpoint adjustments down to .5 dB.


----------



## redrol

Very fine my friend.  You can't hear .5db anyways.  As you know.


----------



## castleofargh

redrol said:


> Very fine my friend.  You can't hear .5db anyways.  As you know.


In a casual listening of the IEM. Because with a direct switch and 0.5dB somewhere in the midrange, sure we can.


----------



## bigshot

It’s pretty small. Close enough for government work for EQing.


----------



## redrol (Sep 10, 2022)

Lol. 


castleofargh said:


> In a casual listening of the IEM. Because with a direct switch and 0.5dB somewhere in the midrange, sure we can.


.5 is pushing it.  I can definitely hear say +1 in both treble and bass.  When you create more contrast it's defintitely easier to hear.  For Mids (high mids I suppose) around 2.5k I can't hear small changes as much which is odd.  Maybe it's IEMs vs Headphone/Speakers.


----------



## DarginMahkum (Sep 15, 2022)

It's cool dear audiophile, nobody's going to think you are soft just because you use EQ.  I was watching some old episodes and I felt like I should send this, again.


----------



## bigshot

Proper application of EQ can make the biggest impact on the quality of sound of all tweaks. Professionals use EQ. Audio fans should too.


----------



## redrol

I don't agree.  How can you actually know what to adjust in the first place?


----------



## bigshot

There’s a process. In a nutshell, you start with a calibration mic and calibration app. Once you achieve a basically flat response, then you systematically make tiny adjustments while you listen to a variety of recordings to bring it in to your personal target curve.

It isn’t plug and play. It requires careful listening, analysis and systematic adjustments. But it can do more to improve the sound of your system than any other tweak. It can also make midrange transducers sound about as good as better ones.


----------



## redrol

So you are saying go spend more money on a bunch of stuff, then learn about it and then, Poof! EQ to the moon!


----------



## bigshot (Sep 15, 2022)

What do you mean? You buy equipment that is close to ideal, then you EQ it to being absolutely perfect. EQ is one of those things where you don’t know how much you need it until you’ve got it.

I can explain in more detail if you’re interested.


----------



## jagwap

It is all about energy.  If you tweak a narrow band then 1dB is hard to hear, also dependent on where it falls in the ears' sensitive range.  It you alter a very wide band then we are really sensitive. I recall a paper where they proved that the RIAA curve needs 0.1dB accuracy in the midrange poles and zeros of the EQ, because a tiny error leads to octaves of energy being higher or lower than the other section.


----------



## bigshot

Too much is never enough in Sound Science.


----------



## IanB52

jagwap said:


> It is all about energy.  If you tweak a narrow band then 1dB is hard to hear, also dependent on where it falls in the ears' sensitive range.  It you alter a very wide band then we are really sensitive. I recall a paper where they proved that the RIAA curve needs 0.1dB accuracy in the midrange poles and zeros of the EQ, because a tiny error leads to octaves of energy being higher or lower than the other section.


I've been able to hear HF shelf EQ cut/boost down to .25db. .5db is not that hard either, but you are right, these are easier to hear with a really wide band and a narrow band might be harder to hear.


----------



## bigshot

Hearing a difference with tones isn’t the same as setting a response curve for listening to commercially recorded music in the home. A detent every .5dB is fine for the purposes of a music listener. .25 and .1dB may be needed for studio work, and it’s interesting to talk about in theory, but in practice it’s a totally different scale than the average music listener would need.


----------



## redrol

.25 for studio work?  I mean jesus thats pushing it.  .5 is kind of standard and you would need some good a&& ears.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 16, 2022)

With tones, studio calibration is as precise as they can get it. I agree that .5 is fine for home equalization.

The thing that happens around here all the time is we start out talking about home audio, then a scientific genius pipes up about exceptions that are so extreme, none of us have run into them. Then someone starts applying studio standards, and then standards for peer reviewed studies. We fade from hearing with human ears to talking about expensive measurement mics… and pretty soon we aren’t talking about listening to a Beethoven album in our living room any more. The scale shifts so much, it’s impossible to satisfy the footnote brigade at all and they start saying I’m not “scientific enough”.


----------



## BobG55 (Sep 16, 2022)

I’ve been using EQ for years.  Started off w/ the modest JDS Labs Subjective 3.  Then the Schiit Loki Mini followed by the Mini+ & now, the Lokius.  My Audio set up is quite modest & I listen to CDs.  My two headphones are the HD600 & HD650.  EQ makes all the difference in the world and the sound of my set up is excellent.  Anyone can check my profile to see the expensive amplifiers, DACs and headphones I’ve owned in the past. My point is : EQ makes all the difference in the world for me anyways and I personally find that my listening pleasure and my bank account have benefited greatly because of it.





Modest indeed : Burson HA160 (at least 12 years old) / Schiit Lokius EQ / TEAC PD-H600, all aluminium, award winning CD player, also 12 years old/ Amazon interconnect cables/ HD600 & HD650 as previously mentioned.  That’s it.


----------



## bigshot

Nice solution to the problem!


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 17, 2022)

bigshot said:


> With tones, studio calibration is as precise as they can get it. I agree that .5 is fine for home equalization.
> 
> The thing that happens around here all the time is we start out talking about home audio, then a scientific genius pipes up about exceptions that are so extreme, none of us have run into them. Then someone starts applying studio standards, and then standards for peer reviewed studies. We fade from hearing with human ears to talking about expensive measurement mics… and pretty soon we aren’t talking about listening to a Beethoven album in our living room any more. The scale shifts so much, it’s impossible to satisfy the footnote brigade at all and they start saying I’m not “scientific enough”.



Once again, this is the “Sound Science” forum, not the “Bigshot’s Opinions on Home Audio Reproduction“ forum.

You should stop hypocritically mocking the other subjectivists who post here - they are your peers.  The exceptions you don’t like discussing enable and form the basis for their fraudulent claims when left out of the conversation.


----------



## 71 dB

bfreedma said:


> Once again, this is the “Sound Science” forum, not the “Bigshot’s Opinions on Home Audio Reproduction“ forum.


We don't live in an exactly identical house as Bigshot does with exactly the same furniture/acoustics using exactly the same audio gear listening to the exactly same music. 
That's why we may not do things exactly the same way Bigshot does, but it may still work for us.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 17, 2022)

Bla bla bla. This is a home audio forum, it’s not an abuse forum. I don’t know what it was that I said that made you go all scorned lover with me. But there’s no excuse for your behavior. Sit down and wait until you have something constructive to post.

71dB, for some reason suggesting that EQ might improve a person’s system isn’t scientific enough. I don’t claim people should do things exactly the way I do, I just share what works for me and explain the basic concepts I used to get there. You don’t have to be Isaac Newton to have an apple fall on your head. Gravity isn’t just for stuffy scientists.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Bla bla bla. This is a home audio forum, it’s not an abuse forum. I don’t know what it was that I said that made you go all scorned lover with me. But there’s no excuse for your behavior. Sit down and wait until you have something constructive to post.
> 
> 71dB, for some reason suggesting that EQ might improve a person’s system isn’t scientific enough. I don’t claim people should do things exactly the way I do, I just share what works for me and explain the basic concepts I used to get there. You don’t have to be Isaac Newton to have an apple fall on your head. Gravity isn’t just for stuffy scientists.



You just posted on an anti-science rant in Sound Science, insulting anyone who didn’t agree with your personal threshold of “science“ and wonder why you got a negative response back?  My apologies, Your Majesty 

You have a lot of personal/psychological commentary about other people because they don’t agree with you.  To date, I haven’t responded in kind.

I don’t think you would enjoy being on the receiving end of the same, but I’d be happy to psychoanalyze your posts if you keep this up.  Something about the need for you to always be right is sure to come up…


----------



## bigshot

Whatever.


----------



## IanB52

redrol said:


> .25 for studio work?  I mean jesus thats pushing it.  .5 is kind of standard and you would need some good a&& ears.


The use case is typically for mastering where they want to slice it as thin as possible to push treble right up to the point before it starts getting sibilant or harsh. It can be surprisingly difficult to get this right. You can hear it if the band is wide enough as with a shelving EQ.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> 71dB, for some reason suggesting that EQ might improve a person’s system isn’t scientific enough. I don’t claim people should do things exactly the way I do, I just share what works for me and explain the basic concepts I used to get there. You don’t have to be Isaac Newton to have an apple fall on your head. Gravity isn’t just for stuffy scientists.


Yeah, but we could use billions to make our systems better. At what point the system is good enough? For me it already is and I can stop wasting money.


----------



## bigshot

EQ is cheap. It’s not like chasing down the amp and DAC rabbit hole.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> EQ is cheap. It’s not like chasing down the amp and DAC rabbit hole.


Price is not the only aspect. Where to put the EQ can be tricky. If I EQ the speaker sound to compensate the room acoustics for example, that EQ will affect headphones too, which might require completely different EQ. Since there is nothing wrong with my speaker or headphone sound in regards of frequency response (because the response is good enough to allow getting used to it) I don't need to think about EQ. Cross-feed for headphones is the only thing I do, because it is important for me.


----------



## bigshot

I was answering your comment about price.

EQ requires you to learn how to use the tool. I think that’s a given.

The difference between crossfeed and EQ is that crossfeed alters the intended sound. EQ can get you closer to it.


----------



## castleofargh

Xfeed requires EQ, so I have a hard time understanding the argument here.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> I was answering your comment about price.
> 
> EQ requires you to learn how to use the tool. I think that’s a given.
> 
> The difference between crossfeed and EQ is that crossfeed alters the intended sound. EQ can get you closer to it.



Who's intended sound (your's, the artist's)?


----------



## bigshot

First you calibrate to as close to balanced as you can. That is the original artist’s intent. Then you listen to a wide range of recordings, and if you want to tweak the curve to your personal taste, you can do that. For most people with good hearing, that’s not likely to be more than a db or two here and there. With a good mix, calibrated sounds darn good.


----------



## gregorio

redrol said:


> .25 for studio work? I mean jesus thats pushing it. .5 is kind of standard and you would need some good a&& ears.


Occasionally we use EQ adjustments down to 0.1dB but that’s not because we can hear a difference but to hit a specification. In most cases 0.7dB is the minimum we can hear but under certain circumstances that can extend to 0.2dB. This is why 0.1dB matching is required for scientifically accepted DBTs. 

I’ve never come across anyone who could hear an EQ difference less than 0.2dB and I’ve tested many. I’ve met several who thought they could but under blind testing were not able to. 

G


----------



## redrol

I assume you mean a shelf of frequencies because a small blip is not going to be hearable.


----------



## gregorio

redrol said:


> I assume you mean a shelf of frequencies because a small blip is not going to be hearable.


Not a shelf, a parametric EQ with a very low (wide) “Q” setting. As 71dB stated, a narrow EQ band requires a higher dB level to be audible. 

G


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> First you calibrate to as close to balanced as you can. That is the original artist’s intent. Then you listen to a wide range of recordings, and if you want to tweak the curve to your personal taste, you can do that. For most people with good hearing, that’s not likely to be more than a db or two here and there. With a good mix, calibrated sounds darn good.



Thanks...your process makes sense as described.

In the end, the listener (you) is EQing to their preferences -- which sounds like is within a couple dBs from 'calibrated' for you.  Additionally, it sounds you're listening to a lot of 'good' mixes and enjoying what you hear.  Good on you...glad you're enjoying the music!  


How do you work with the 'poor' mixes?


----------



## bigshot

With bad recordings, it depends on what's wrong with them. Sometimes older recordings might be dry or have surface noise. Running them through a DSP to add a hall ambience or noise reduction will help. If it's an EQ problem, like sibilance, I just dial a correction that sounds good by ear. Once you've EQed a little bit, you start learning the numbers that correspond to different parts of the sound, so it isn't so much of a trial and error thing. Generally, I try to make one correction at a time and keep it small. That helps me keep in control of the changes, so I don't end up wandering off randomly into a weird curve that doesn't work.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I was answering your comment about price.


Well what does EQ cost? $1? $10? $100? $1000? Affordable is a relative concept. To you $100 might be pocket money, but to some other people is a lot. 



bigshot said:


> EQ requires you to learn how to use the tool. I think that’s a given.


Yep. All tools require you learn how to use them.



bigshot said:


> The difference between crossfeed and EQ is that crossfeed alters the intended sound. EQ can get you closer to it.


Well, that's the point. I want reduced channel separation so I alter the "intended" * sound with crossfeed. 

* Intented perhaps with speakers, but not so much with headphones. With speakers we have acoustic crossfeed. For some reason cross-feed skeptics are not worried about it while claiming that electronic cross-feed with headphones somehow ruins the sound.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Occasionally we use EQ adjustments down to 0.1dB but that’s not because we can hear a difference but to hit a specification. In most cases 0.7dB is the minimum we can hear but under certain circumstances that can extend to 0.2dB. This is why 0.1dB matching is required for scientifically accepted DBTs.
> 
> I’ve never come across anyone who could hear an EQ difference less than 0.2dB and I’ve tested many. I’ve met several who thought they could but under blind testing were not able to.
> 
> G


I mix my own music using 1 dB accuracy which seem to be accurate enough for most tracks, but there are certain tracks that require 0.5 dB mixing. Typically these are quieter broadband supporting tracks (e.g. parallel reverb)  that make the music "fuller" and are masked a lot by other tracks. These tracks are supposed to be "sensed" rather than heard. Increasing the level of such tracks by 1 dB makes their presence clearly "bigger" and those sounds can become too dominant for their role creating problems. Not doing anything might leave them too quiet to be even sensed. In those situations 0.5 dB level increase does the trick for me.

So, in my opinion tracks that are very dominant in the music can be often mixed with 1 dB or even 2 dB accuracy and the difference in sound is a matter of taste while quieter supporting tracks need to be mixed often at 0.5 dB accuracy, because otherwise they don't do what they are supposed to do for the music. The closer a sound is being masked completely the more important is accurate level.

I also believe that the better a track fits the other tracks (spatiality, spectrum, dynamic compression level, timbre, etc.) the easier it is to find a good mixing level and the less changes in level matter. So, if finding the correct mixing level is very difficult, something about the track is wrong in relation to the rest of the tracks. Those problems should be addressed first. Subtle things such as attenuating the track by 2 dB below 200 Hz with a shelf-filter can be game-changers.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 19, 2022)

I have no interest in being dragged into another crossfeed discussion with you. If you like it, swell. Use it. Say you like it. But you don’t have to make scientific theories up to justify it.


----------



## old tech

This is a bit of a laugh. The plaintiff in this class action appeals to audiophile myths in their lawsuit against MoFI. 

It will be interesting to hear MoFI's defence as they too subscribe to many of these myths.

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2022/09/musings-regarding-mofigate-class-action.html


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I have no interest in being dragged into another crossfeed discussion with you. If you like it, swell. Use it. Say you like it. But you don’t have to make scientific theories up to justify it.


That's fair. You don't have to discuss with me about anything. It's you yourself who chooses to be active here. I have changed the way I talk about cross-feed from what is was  when I came to this forum because I have learned the surprising thing that people have differing spatial hearing, something I don't really understand, but accept as a fact. Cross-feed is not unscientific mumbo jambo. It was invented decades ago based on theories of spatial hearing. If you don't understand the justifications of cross-feed that's your problem, not mine. Because cross-feed is so simple in the way it tries to "honour" spatial hearing and people have different spatial hearing, the result seems to be a matter of taste. Some like it, some don't. For me cross-feed provides astonishing improvement in headphone sound spatially increasing the comfort of headphone listening drastically, but that's me. I am a weirdo after all...


----------



## MooMilk (Oct 10, 2022)

as of now - nothing had stood against double blind tests with noiseless ("clickless") switch between setups


----------



## gooeyrich (Oct 11, 2022)

Do cables make any measurable difference?


----------



## gregorio

gooeyrich said:


> Do cables make any measurable difference?


That depends on the precision of the measuring device and the length of the cable. Using high precision measuring tools then the answer to your question is typically “yes” but that difference will be way below audibility (assuming the correct cable for the task of course). 

G


----------



## DarginMahkum




----------



## IanB52 (Nov 4, 2022)

DarginMahkum said:


>



His tackle box is interesting, but doesn't do anyone any favors by switching so quickly back and forth on his audio clips, which is made more indistinguishable by YouTube audio. Especially where distortion is involved, you need to hear a long decay and some dynamic playing to suss out the breakup characteristics. Even individual tube manufacturers have different breakup profiles, and frequency response. And all these qualities are more notable in the room rather than over the internet for reasons like volume and speaker interaction.

In real life, every tube/bias variable he discounts makes some small difference, and most importantly, in combination with each other. These things are apparent if you give a listener more than a half second between switching.

There have been solid state and digital emulations of tube amps for beyond 30 years, informed by the exact knowledge of EQ curves and gain structure he refers to...and none of them convincingly replicate the real thing. There is indeed a reason why so many amps exist in this world, because under real world conditions, and as part of a musical instrument chain, it is extremely difficult to duplicate them, even through the same cabinet. Even clone amps and reissue amps sound and behave subtly different then the amps they are copying, often because capacitors, transformers, and tubes themselves are different.

But again, this is most apparent when you are the guitar player, your playing is interactive with an amp tone, and you can observe how the sound changes over time.

I am surprised how similar he can make short audio snippets over YouTube, but if all it takes to turn a Twin Reverb into an AC30 is some EQ and a cabinet we would have a totally different amp (and pedal) market. And anybody who has spent time with these amps, speakers, and EQ effects knows that you can create superficial similarities, but they aren't going to hold up in real world conditions because tone is actually complex. Being so reductive about it just creates more newbie ignorance.


----------



## bigshot

Of course this doesn't apply to home audio amps, because guitar amps are designed to add coloration, and home audio amps are designed to be audibly transparent.


----------



## redrol (Nov 4, 2022)

I watch that guy but yeah, thats squarely in guitar territory.  Not much to do with this forum.  I also am a fart-sniffing guitar guy, except, much like high end audio I just buy what I like, not what people tell me is good.   Also, it's best to spend your money getting better practicing, not buying gear.



> There have been solid state and digital emulations of tube amps for beyond 30 years, informed by the exact knowledge of EQ curves and gain structure he refers to...and none of them convincingly replicate the real thing.


   Yeah, no.  You are behind the times by 10+ years.
Here is a fun video (all digital gutiar amp).  I own the same thing, a Kemper profiling amp which is a distortion convolution device.


----------



## IanB52

redrol said:


> I watch that guy but yeah, thats squarely in guitar territory.  Not much to do with this forum.  I also am a fart-sniffing guitar guy, except, much like high end audio I just buy what I like, not what people tell me is good.   Also, it's best to spend your money getting better practicing, not buying gear.
> 
> 
> Yeah, no.  You are behind the times by 10+ years.
> Here is a fun video (all digital gutiar amp).  I own the same thing, a Kemper profiling amp which is a distortion convolution device.



I've played on the Kemper and it was put to shame by a Princeton Reverb sitting beside it. The enthusiast who showed it to me was obviously very excited about being able to go direct line out to the front of house mixer and to have easy recall, but it definitely sounded fake side by side.


----------



## redrol (Nov 5, 2022)

Thats nice but as with everything, these take skill to use correctly and have sound correct.  The video I posted sounds legit right?  You ignored that though.


----------



## DarginMahkum

IanB52 said:


> I've played on the Kemper and it was put to shame by a Princeton Reverb sitting beside it. The enthusiast who showed it to me was obviously very excited about being able to go direct line out to the front of house mixer and to have easy recall, but it definitely sounded fake side by side.


Put to shame? How? Just because the player was not able to tweak it, it is "put to shame"? You can claim all you want, but both KPA and AxeFX3 are extremely good in mimicking real amps. But with a real amp, you try the amp, you like it and take it home with minimal tweaking. With KPA/AxeFx you need to invest time to learn to tweak. Especially the AxeFx gives so much options that it is easy to get lost. But it doesn't make sense to call it put to shame with its endless options of sounds, compared to a real amp of a near fixed configuration which is just plug and play.


----------



## redrol

Yep Good toughts.  Also a TON of big touring bands are using Kempers and AxeFX's.  And they should, being able to take a USB memory stick to a gig with no extra gear is a massive advantage since shipping big racks around the world is stupid expensive these days.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 5, 2022)

I don't see any reason why in theory digital emulation can't sound just as good as analog effects. It's just a matter of the right processing. Whether or not a particular product does specifically what you're looking for is a matter of preference.


----------



## redrol (Nov 5, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I don't see any reason why in theory digital emulation can't sound just as good as analog effects. It's just a matter of the right processing. Whether or not a particular product does specifically what you're looking for is a matter of preference.


Yeah, since I can say I have been on guitar forums since the internet started basically, mostly these things end up devolving into a hype-purchase-sell-hype infinite loop.  Same as headfi. 
At the end of the day, I think limiting your options on what you can change in terms of guitar tones actually helps a player.   Keeps you more focused on getting better and achieving things in a different way rather than just using the same preset a million other players use.

Hilariously, after owning the Kemper for near 10 years, I realized the amps don't matter that much and the speaker and cabinet does.  It's like %75 speaker and %25 amp.  Go figure.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> I don't see any reason why in theory digital emulation can't sound just as good as analog effects. It's just a matter of the right processing. Whether or not a particular product does specifically what you're looking for is a matter of preference.


Non linear behaviors can be way more demanding when it comes to simulation. Both when properly defining them and for the extra processing to simulate them.
For those reasons and more personal decisions/preferences, I would expect most systems to stick with convolution and linear stuff in practice. 
Of course the guy who really wishes for a replica of some model, "just" has to find the right functions. I'm just not sure that a good 10 times the effort for parts of distortions that are often undesirable, is something people often do. IDK.


----------



## bigshot

A tool is a tool. Great artists can work with basic tools, but duffers blame their tools. It’s nice to work with fancy tools, but that’s a luxury, not a necessity.


----------



## IanB52 (Nov 5, 2022)

DarginMahkum said:


> Put to shame? How? Just because the player was not able to tweak it, it is "put to shame"? You can claim all you want, but both KPA and AxeFX3 are extremely good in mimicking real amps. But with a real amp, you try the amp, you like it and take it home with minimal tweaking. With KPA/AxeFx you need to invest time to learn to tweak. Especially the AxeFx gives so much options that it is easy to get lost. But it doesn't make sense to call it put to shame with its endless options of sounds, compared to a real amp of a near fixed configuration which is just plug and play.


Put to shame in the sense like it sounds like a cheap joke emulating the rough outlines of a sound, but sounding very much not that sound and instead something flat and lacking dynamics and complexity.

Does that work in a mix? It just might, and especially for high gain sounds with lots of effects that don't require complexity. But put it next to a real Princeton, AC30, or Matchless on the edge of breakup and it sounds artificial and uninspiring.

Anyway, done with this rant. These things are much less subtle than with hifi gear. But as usual the real arguments for emulators is convenience, flexibility and cost, and a reality that in typical quality live mixes or recordings they sound good enough to the average non-tone conscious listener.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 5, 2022)

Lack of complexity can be because of lack of experience with the settings. Digital emulation often has a steep learning curve, and there's rarely adequate documentation with these things. If you aren't willing to spend a few weeks experimenting and establishing your preferred settings, you aren't going to get anywhere with it. But that isn't a fault of the software.


----------



## IanB52

bigshot said:


> Lack of complexity can be because of lack of experience with the settings. Digital emulation often has a steep learning curve. If you aren't willing to spend a few weeks experimenting and establishing your preferred settings, you aren't going to get anywhere with it. But that isn't a fault of the software.


It has to be able to closely emulate the sound, responsiveness, and controls of the given amp. There should be no extra learning curve if the emulation is correct.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 5, 2022)

Responsiveness and control require programming with a digital processor. It isn't hard wired in like with a vintage guitar amp.

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't plug and play. If you had worked with it for a while and established settings, you probably could have arrived at something you like. Emulation is very sophisticated now. It isn't like it was five or ten years ago.


----------



## DarginMahkum

IanB52 said:


> It has to be able to closely emulate the sound, responsiveness, and controls of the given amp. There should be no extra learning curve if the emulation is correct.


Of which amplifier, with which cabinet, with which microphone, with which settings? In case you got it wrong, they don't try to mimic a single amp with a single setting but infinite number of possibilities. And from that you need to learn to carve out your sound.

If you don't want to learn anything new or invest time, if you don't need any of these, as you already have some preconfigured amplifiers and sounds you like, well you don't have to. But just because "you" don't want to do that, don't expect that this will be valid for everyone. There are people out there that are willing to learn, invest the time and experiment.

Times are changing and the new generations have a different view of things. They are born into amp simulations, profiling etc. So how you see things and how they or someone willing to invest the time see things are different. For current technology, this is now a solved problem with more that enough processing capabilities of ordinary DSPs/processors. It gives you nearly infinite options which of course won't be easy as buying a static amplifier.


----------



## IanB52 (Nov 5, 2022)

DarginMahkum said:


> Of which amplifier, with which cabinet, with which microphone, with which settings? In case you got it wrong, they don't try to mimic a single amp with a single setting but infinite number of possibilities. And from that you need to learn to carve out your sound.
> 
> If you don't want to learn anything new or invest time, if you don't need any of these, as you already have some preconfigured amplifiers and sounds you like, well you don't have to. But just because "you" don't want to do that, don't expect that this will be valid for everyone. There are people out there that are willing to learn, invest the time and experiment.
> 
> Times are changing and the new generations have a different view of things. They are born into amp simulations, profiling etc. So how you see things and how they or someone willing to invest the time see things are different. For current technology, this is now a solved problem with more that enough processing capabilities of ordinary DSPs/processors. It gives you nearly infinite options which of course won't be easy as buying a static amplifier.


So I really think this is cool. But it hasn't been able to beat a particular conventional setup for me, unless I need a easy access to a gazillion sounds through a footswitch. Most of the time when I use any kind of DSP emulation (mostly mixing plugins), I do it to demo sounds or experiment. But in the end, I'm still going to use the real deal equipment unless it just isn't a possibility due to circumstances.


----------



## DarginMahkum

IanB52 said:


> So I really think this is cool. But it hasn't been able to beat a particular conventional setup for me, unless I need a easy access to a gazillion sounds through a footswitch. Most of the time when I use any kind of DSP emulation (mostly mixing plugins), I do it to demo sounds or experiment. But in the end, I'm still going to use the real deal equipment unless it just isn't a possibility due to circumstances.


Frankly I agree with you that if you have the amp you like, why do you need to go through the super complex modelling wormhole. Mesa Mark V was "the" amplifier for me that is enough for any sound I like with all the tweaks I need. I haven't been playing for years now as I became a workaholic and I am not professional musician, but I still (just) enjoy the idea of getting one. But for me now even a computer modeller is good enough like TH-U.

Anyway, back to HPs.


----------



## Meme123

placebo! audiophile! sometimes, we need to put money at a good place that can make real improvement of our system.
too many snake oil all over places, your money , your call
But please atleast open your mind to any good or bad invest to improve whatever you think best for your hard earn money

regards


----------



## bigshot

That sure is fish in a barrel!


----------



## The Jester

“A fool and his money are soon parted” …


----------



## castleofargh

I love quantum stickers. They really help for everything.


----------



## The Jester

castleofargh said:


> I love quantum stickers. They really help for everything.


And crystals, don’t forget the crystals … 🙄


----------



## redrol

Meme123 said:


> placebo! audiophile! sometimes, we need to put money at a good place that can make real improvement of our system.
> too many snake oil all over places, your money , your call
> But please atleast open your mind to any good or bad invest to improve whatever you think best for your hard earn money
> 
> regards



There will never be a non-scam audiophone network switch.  These idiots lack the ability to actually engineer one.   One time I got an 'Audiophile' PC build.  It was shutting off and doing odd crap.  Finally I noticed the power supply looked odd.  Opened it up.  Idiot put pieces of insulated aluminum all inside the thing, shoved in rando places.  One was making a short when it heated up enough.  Fantastic.


----------



## Davesrose

redrol said:


> There will never be a non-scam audiophone network switch.  These idiots lack the ability to actually engineer one.   One time I got an 'Audiophile' PC build.  It was shutting off and doing odd crap.  Finally I noticed the power supply looked odd.  Opened it up.  Idiot put pieces of insulated aluminum all inside the thing, shoved in rando places.  One was making a short when it heated up enough.  Fantastic.


Well the video did make a case for the D-Link being "audiophile" if the people who thought they heard a difference preferred the unmodified box.  Just reshoot/re-edit the video to not sound skeptical, but emphasize any component in it being some kind of unique feature pertinent to audio.  There may be some audiophiles who aren't swayed if the price isn't inflated 10 fold....but there might be enough that see an awesome deal with an audiophile grade switch.


----------



## redrol

More like placebo.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 8, 2022)

I wonder what percentage of the overall audiophile market is spent on things that make no audible difference? 50%? More? If we added that to the money spent for unnecessary bias in other markets, we might find that placebo is the principle export of the US!


----------



## RMesser9

bigshot said:


> I wonder what percentage of the overall audiophile market is spent on things that make no audible difference? 50%? More? If we added that to the money spent for unnecessary bias in other markets, we might find that placebo is the principle export of the US!


Probably more than 50%


----------



## bigshot

I think even higher than that.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I wonder what percentage of the overall audiophile market is spent on things that make no audible difference? 50%? More? If we added that to the money spent for unnecessary bias in other markets, we might find that placebo is the principle export of the US!


As if placebo was an US thing. I am affraid it is universal. The US is not the only one exporting it.


----------



## Artu15

Whats intresting for me is that when i listen to gear and have like 10 minutes breaks beetwen testing i can swear that i hear a great diffrence. But when i minimize the testing time to a few seconds i see the thruth. That the diffrences are really minimal and you sometimes have to focus really hard to notice them.


----------



## Artu15

But im sure that i usually dont like the best obejctivly performing gear. So i dont pay great attention to measurments. Whats important for me _is that they wont be absolutly terrible . For Example AudioGD sound bad. But Hifiman EF400, Burson sounds great to my ears _


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 23, 2022)

Artu15 said:


> But im sure that i usually dont like the best obejctivly performing gear. So i dont pay great attention to measurments. Whats important for me _is that they wont be absolutly terrible . For Example AudioGD sound bad. But Hifiman EF400, Burson sounds great to my ears _


We’re not on exactly the same page but in the same ballpark. I pick the equipment with the features i value most and that I just kind of like having and  that is not priced out of proportion to what it really is, after I do my due diligence that it will be transparent or very close to it. Like you said if there is an audible difference or degradation it’s often quite negligoble, often down to the level of hair-splitting.

For transducers I like a reasonably priced headphone or speakers that get me into the ballpark fully extended for the great majority of recordings and neutral. Once I get to a certain level in the area of extended and neutral, which is really not very expensive nowadays, things like my brain adapting, room setup, furniture, subwoofers, or for headphones crossfeed and EQ, become larger factors or differentiators than those last increments toward transducer accuracy.

I might respect the numbers on audio electronics a little more than you—if it measures in the range that is generally considered audibly transparent, and functions as advertised, I don’t consider my fluctuating perceptions over time to be attributable to anything but me.

In the last maybe five years home audio that comes close enough for me to extended and neutral has become enormously easier to afford and set up, due to information that is increasingly out there in books and on the web and things you can learn and measure with a moderate amount of intelligence and effort, imho. Once I get into a certain range I feel pretty confident that in terms of sound I’m getting to a zone of six one, half-dozen the other. 🙂


----------



## gargani (Nov 28, 2022)

Steve999 said:


> We’re not on exactly the same page but in the same ballpark. I pick the equipment with the features i value most and that I just kind of like having and  that is not priced out of proportion to what it really is, after I do my due diligence that it will be transparent or very close to it. Like you said if there is an audible difference or degradation it’s often quite negligoble, often down to the level of hair-splitting.
> 
> For transducers I like a reasonably priced headphone or speakers that get me into the ballpark fully extended for the great majority of recordings and neutral. Once I get to a certain level in the area of extended and neutral, which is really not very expensive nowadays, things like my brain adapting, room setup, furniture, subwoofers, or for headphones crossfeed and EQ, become larger factors or differentiators than those last increments toward transducer accuracy.
> 
> ...


I think audio perception is fluid, constantly changing. This also has an effect as well as external conditions and placebo and expectation bias.
This stuff is complicated. For me if an amp or dac measures below the human audibility threshold, I'm satisfied.


----------



## gregorio

Artu15 said:


> Whats intresting for me is that when i listen to gear and have like 10 minutes breaks beetwen testing i can swear that i hear a great diffrence.


And that’s the thing, you ARE hearing “a great difference”, you’re not imagining it and it’s not placebo! What seems to catch many audiophiles out is the cause of that slight or great difference. Due to marketing, reviews, etc., they will often mis-attribute that difference to the audiophile equipment they are listening to/testing, rather than to the real reason. When we listen (or process any sensory information) we are able to focus our attention not only on that specific sense but on specific aspects/features of what we’re sensing. 

For example, we can look at a photo of a group of people, focus on a particular person and notice more detail about that person but at the same time of course we will be less aware of details in the other parts of the photo we’re not concentrating on. In all likelihood, we’re going to change the focus of our attention numerous times in just a few seconds (as we look at the different people in the photo) and each time we will notice more details in what we’re focusing on, while loosing details in the other areas, even if we’ve previously focused on those other areas. Obviously the photograph doesn’t know where we’re focusing and change it’s level of detail accordingly, the photograph doesn’t change at all, it’s our perception that changes depending on where we’re focusing our attention. The same is true of listening, we can (and do) concentrate on particular features of what we’re listening to, it’s what allows us to pick out a particular voice in a crowd (the “cocktail party effect”) or pick out particular instruments/lines in a music ensemble (whilst loosing the details of what we’re not focusing on).

Going back to your example: What exactly were the things/thing you were focusing on within the recording before your 10 min break (and at what level of focus/concentration)? After a 10 min break it’s very unlikely you will instantly go back to focusing on the exact same thing/things with the exact same level of focus and therefore you will hear a difference. 

This is what seems to fool so many audiophiles and what a considerable amount of audiophile snake oil and marketing relies on!


Artu15 said:


> But when i minimize the testing time to a few seconds i see the thruth.


Going back to the group photo analogy; if you crop the photo to just one or two people, there are far fewer people to focus our attention on and therefore far fewer different perspectives. Likewise, you have far fewer things to focus on if you only listen to a few seconds worth of music and also, it’s far easier to maintain that specific focus if there’s little time between each playing and therefore it’s far more likely you will hear them as in fact they are, with no difference. 


gargani said:


> I think audio perception is fluid, constantly changing.


Yep, as explained above. Obviously though, there’s a great deal more detail within what I explained, as perception is naturally drawn to certain features and this is what composers have been exploiting for many centuries (and producers/mixers for many decades).

G


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 18, 2022)

Artu15 said:


> Whats intresting for me is that when i listen to gear and have like 10 minutes breaks beetwen testing i can swear that i hear a great diffrence. But when i minimize the testing time to a few seconds i see the thruth. That the diffrences are really minimal and you sometimes have to focus really hard to notice them.


When you notice a big difference (the one after 10 minutes), what is the big difference, in what aspect of the sound, and what are small changes? Do you just think it's big?
I'm interested in how you perceive the changes
Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're making things up.
  It is for sure from your prejudice, but please answer my question.


There is no doubt that some patterns can be applied to a part of the population, but they cannot be applied as a rule to all


----------



## GoldenOne

I think a big part of the reason there's still so much debate around things like audibility differences in DACs, cables, software, etc etc is simply because a lot of people misunderstand placebo/expectation bias themselves.

There's a few key points:

1) Placebo doesn't mean you're lying or stupid
2) Expectation bias goes both ways
3) Placebo affects EVERYONE regardless of your experience, hearing ability, gear, age, knowledge etc
4) A difference cannot be 'too big/obvious to be placebo'
5) Sighted testing isn't reliable, and controlled blind testing is actually really hard to do. Most 'blind tests' are not actually blind.
6) Expectation bias can affect you even if you don't consciously expect a particular outcome


*1) Placebo doesn't mean you're lying or stupid.*

This is probably the biggest one. Some people seem to think that when someone says 'it's probably just placebo', that they're accusing the other person of lying. Placebo is a crazy powerful influence.
When you say "I can hear a difference in cables", I BELIEVE YOU. In fact I'm pretty certain that yes, you ARE hearing a perhaps even very clear and obvious difference.
What I'm not certain about is whether that difference you're hearing is because of a genuine difference between the cables, or because your mind is playing tricks on you.

Secondly, this doesn't mean 'you're stupid'. EVERYONE is susceptible to placebo. You are, I am, and everyone reading this is. It has nothing to do with intelligence and it is not something that we can be trained to overcome.


*2) Expectation bias goes both ways*

_"Expectation bias occurs when an individual's expectations about an outcome influence perceptions of one's own or others' behaviour"_ - ScienceDirect.com

Obviously the main argument for the existence of audible differences in things like cables is simply that....well...people say they can hear them.
And as explained above, I'm CERTAIN that they are hearing a difference. BUT, in order to show that the difference being heard is due to a genuine difference between cables and not just placebo, you MUST do a controlled blind test to eliminate placebo as a factor. You must entirely remove your ability to discern which cable is which by any other means than hearing. And then do enough runs to ensure that the result was not just obtained by chance. (See point 5)
If you don't, then whilst yes the difference might seem huge and obvious to you, neither you nor I actually know that it really exists. 

Contrarily, many people will use an argument such as 'Well I tried both and I couldn't hear a difference so you must be imagining it/it must be placebo'.
This argument forgets that expectation bias and placebo goes both ways. If you believe cables or DACs or anything at all doesn't make a difference, then it's quite likely you won't hear a difference when you compare. Because expectation bias goes both ways!

I could go get swimming lessons. But if I fundamentally believe swimming teachers can't teach you to swim, they can't really force me to float now can they?
Blind testing can show that something is audible, it cannot be used to prove a negative/prove that something is NOT audible.
*
3) Placebo affects EVERYONE regardless of your experience, hearing ability, gear, age, knowledge etc*

This is again quite a common counter-argument to the suggestion that a difference might be caused by placebo. People will list off a resume of their experience, knowledge, intelligence, hearing ability, wealth etc, but none of this matters.
EVERYONE is susceptible to placebo. It doesn't matter how good your hearing is, what you've heard before, or how much experience/training you have.

Placebo affects everyone including you, me, Albert Einstein and there's a reason why even in fields like medicine where effects should be more obvious, blind testing and control groups are used. Because sighted testing is NOT reliable.

Another related argument being that 'it can't be expectation bias because I went in expecting the opposite to happen'. Unfortunately again, this doesn't matter. What you consciously expect doesn't negate expectation bias. For placebo to be a potential factor you simply have to be AWARE of what you're listening to. 
To test properly, you have to fully remove your knowledge of what is being listened to.

*4) A difference cannot be 'too big/obvious' to be placebo*

Related to the previous point, nothing is 'too obvious' to be placebo.
Even outside of audio there have been plenty of other people that have even taken advantage of just how powerful placebo and expectation bias can be.
Take a look at faith healers for example. People will go from being in such chronic pain they can't walk to suddenly running and crying across a stage as a 'miracle' or the pain of their cancer fades away.
If you want a couple interesting resources on the power of suggestibility, I would HIGHLY recommend watching 'an honest liar'. A documentary about the life of James Randi, who fun fact: Had an outstanding prize of $1,000,000 available to anyone able to demonstrate supernatural powers, INCLUDING the ability to hear differences in speaker cables. No one was able to pass....
His debunking of various faith healers, magicians and psychics in often very high profile and elaborate ways are both entertaining and fascinating as he explains how all of it works and why they work so well.



His TED Talk is also excellent:


I had quite an entertaining personal experience with someone similar, a stage hypnotist called Martin Taylor. (He was the one who Derren Brown credits as inspiring him into his current line of work).
He described himself as 'the hypnotist who doesn't use hypnosis'.
In his act he with complete and utter transparency explains how 'hypnotism' works. How there are no trances, there are no magic or intricate brain-melting methods used to get people to do his bidding. No, people will do the things he says, hear the things he tells them to hear, smell the things he tells them to smell simply because the power of suggestion and expectation can be pushed to extraordinary limits. Especially when there's a room full of a couple hundred people watching. Our brains are fascinating and flawed and can be exploited.

He comes up and quite clearly explains that 'hypnosis' doesn't exist and that none of it is real. And yet 5 minutes later he has people with their hands stuck together unable to pull them apart, people shouting things in response to trigger words, falling asleep on command and smelling a horrifically unpleasant smell that doesn't actually exist. He's excellent. And a great example of how no, nothing is 'too obvious' or big to not be placebo. The people on stage didn't ACTUALLY have their hands stuck together. They were just told that it was impossible to pull them apart and due to a mix of suggestion and pressure from both themselves and others, they therefore were unable to do so.

*5) Sighted testing isn't reliable, and controlled blind testing is actually really hard to do. Most 'blind tests' are not actually blind.*

I've already talked above about how sighted testing isn't reliable. No matter how 'obvious' a difference is or how clear it seems to you. If you are testing sighted, then you cannot be sure of what is causing that difference.

But the other issue is that there are a number of 'blind tests' that get shared in various places....that aren't actually blind. It's actually REALLY hard to do a blind test properly.
Let's take the example of cables.

- You have to ensure that the switching itself is random.
This is the 'double blind' part you might also hear. You cannot have a human determine whether cables should or should not be swapped during the test, because our own pattern prediction can skew results. Switching must be determined by something as close to truly random as possible, such as a random number generator.

- You can't let the participant(s) know whether cables have been swapped.
You need them to leave the room, not be able to hear what is happening inside, and make sure that the delay between runs is fixed. Otherwise even subconsciously they might have an indication of whether cables have been swapped based purely on how long it took before they were able to come back in, or even the sound of the cables being plugged in. Some cables will sound different when being moved/plugged in than others. So just having their view hidden is insufficient.

Just these two alone already make it a fair bit more involved than you might expect, but the third point is the biggest one:

- You MUST do a large number of runs, else even if you got all of them right, your result is not actually statistically significant.
If you do a low number of runs, then even if you get most or all of them right, there is a large chance that you could have just gotten that result by guessing.
For example if you get 8/10 right, there is still a 5.5% chance you just got that by guessing. 
If you keep the proportion of correct answers the same (80%), but double the number of runs to 20, then 16/20 correct reduces that probability of the result being just luck to 0.6%! MUCH lower.
Do 50 runs, and get 40/50 correct, and there is only a 0.001% chance you could have obtained that by guessing.

So many blind tests online either do not appropriately control for possible tells or indicators. Or only do a small number of runs.
7 or 8/10 might seem significant, that's almost all of them right! But actually, there is still a noteworthy chance it was just luck. Do more runs, and get a better result, not much point doing something half-heartedly and getting inconclusive results when you could just do it a bit longer and get something much more concrete.


*6) Expectation bias can affect you even if you don't consciously expect a particular outcome*

As mentioned earlier, expectation bias only requires you to be AWARE of what is being listened to. Either directly via sighted testing, or just getting an indicator that might skew probability of results, such as the sound of cables being swapped or the time it took to do so. 
What you believe going into the test doesn't actually determine whether Expectation bias is/isn't a factor. It ALWAYS is


----------



## bigshot

With a normal person, the biggest bias is probably expectation bias. But with audiophiles, I'd argue that validation bias is even more important. Audiophiles get invested into how much better their trained golden ears hear than everyone else's ears. They are motivated to skew things to prove their hearing superiority. Also, audiophiles tend to decide on WHY a problem exists, than whether it exists at all. I see this all the time here with the people who come in and argue. They have some pet concept they've read somewhere in sales literature or some audio misconception and they doggedly do everything in their power to make that the case- cherry picking, refusal to believe science to the contrary, refusal to believe in the scientific method... all this to prove that they're RIGHT, DAMMIT! They usually don't argue on point and they usually don't provide evidence (unless it's cherry picked) because they are arguing an emotional thing, not a factual one.


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 18, 2022)

GoldenOne said:


> I think a big part of the reason there's still so much debate around things like audibility differences in DACs, cables, software, etc etc is simply because a lot of people misunderstand placebo/expectation bias themselves.
> 
> There's a few key points:
> 
> ...



I agree with everything that has been said about the scientific hypothesis.
Except for the cases when I perform tests on well-known music sections, and when it is not my goal to deceive myself that I am in profit when in fact it was taken away from sound, just because 100 out of 100 say that it is a "fantastic" thing.
My point is that mass psychology cannot be applied as an absolute truth to everyone.
I think your hypothesis is applicable in cases where there are small changes (or none), but when the change is obvious, then... I don't think anyone is that imaginative (except maybe Artu15)
I agree with you  that blind tests in controlled conditions should exist, as a fire-wall for various frauds


And yes, an "audiophile" is someone who is fascinated by listening, an audiophile do not listen with logic, but with "observation".
And as I said before, the science of sound and listening go hand in hand, but listening decides, and science enables
It's my POV


----------



## bigshot

I listen to music, not equipment.


----------



## T 1000

bigshot said:


> I listen to music, not equipment.


That's how it should be, but your sentence seems naive to me.
No equipment, no music


----------



## bigshot (Dec 18, 2022)

The equipment is just a means to an end. If it presents the music cleanly and efficiently, it’s done its job. A lot if audiophiles go beyond that, inventing reasons to worry about things that don’t matter. They end up being able to speak at length about trivia and outright snake oil related to sound reproduction, yet still listen to the same music they listened to when they were 20. There’s no time to explore new music because it’s all taken up by shopping and researching new purchases. The focus on black and chrome electronic boxes overwhelms their interest in music, which is the real point of all of this.

Look at how much people are invested in arguing about high data rate lossy, 16/44.1 and 24/96, or the importance of transports to sound quality, or whether fancy cables are necessary, or whether a $2,000 DAC sounds better than an $8 Apple dongle or jitter rates or distortion levels. Most of the time, none of this matters. Maybe differences are measurable, but when you're sitting on the couch listening to Mozart's Requiem they don't make a lick of difference. Audiophiles take obsessive compulsive disorder to new levels... and it is normal and expected of them by other audiophiles!

The main concerns with putting together a home audio system is finding transducers that you like. If you can achieve that, you're most of the way there. The easiest part is creating a system of amps and players that sounds great. The only thing to consider with them is that they are ergonomic and functional and they have the features you need. If you have a speaker system, room acoustics and layout can be added to the list of important considerations. That can be quite difficult, because intelligent compromises need to be made between sound quality and the everyday use of the room when not listening.


----------



## T 1000

bigshot said:


> The equipment is just a means to an end. If it presents the music cleanly and efficiently, it’s done its job. A lot if audiophiles go beyond that, inventing reasons to worry about things that don’t matter. They end up being able to speak at length about trivia and outright snake oil related to sound reproduction, yet still listen to the same music they listened to when they were 20. There’s no time to explore new music because it’s all taken up by shopping. The focus on black and chrome electronic boxes overwhelms their interest in music, which is the real point of all of this.
> 
> Look at how much people are invested in arguing about high data rate lossy, 16/44.1 and 24/96, or the importance of transports to sound quality, or whether fancy cables are necessary, or whether a $2,000 DAC sounds better than an $8 Apple dongle. None of this matters. Maybe differences are measurable, but when you're sitting on the couch listening to Mozart's Requiem they don't make a lick of difference. The main concerns with putting together a home audio system is finding transducers that you like. If you can achieve that, you're most of the way there. The easiest part is creating a system of amps and players that sounds great. The only thing to consider with them is that they are ergonomic and functional and they have the features you need. If you have a speaker system, room acoustics and layout can be added to the list of important considerations. That can be quite difficult, because intelligent compromises need to be made between sound quality and the everyday use of the room when not listening.


First of all, calm down, nobody here is expressing anything but their beliefs.
Therefore, music happens in space (the same with headphones), the more capable the equipment, which is usually more expensive, the more realistic the presentation, it can often be more fascinating than reality. Synthetic music is designed to use the capabilities of good equipment to display the artist's vision. The acoustics give you the feeling of being present at the event.
The realization of all this employs the entire industry, and the audiophile who strives for such an experience.
The rest of us have to come to terms with the fact that due to lack of finances, we have stopped halfway.
There are shortcuts, but we have to see the facts as they are.
That's why we exchange opinions


----------



## T 1000

A tone has its own position on the sound stage, texture, energy with which it stands out in relation to other tones, its movement on the sound stage, whether its spread is fluid or is a "split" movement, then there is the layering of the presentation of several comparative events... and much more.
All this is better shown when the quality of the equipment increases, then with engineering solutions.
These are general facts known to everyone who has embarked on the path of upgrading


----------



## T 1000

double post


----------



## Bytor123

T 1000 said:


> A tone has its own position on the sound stage, texture, energy with which it stands out in relation to other tones, its movement on the sound stage, whether its spread is fluid or is a "split" movement, then there is the layering of the presentation of several comparative events... and much more.
> All this is better shown when the quality of the equipment increases, then with engineering solutions.
> These are general facts known to everyone who has embarked on the path of upgrading


What is 'texture' in terms of sound? What is 'energy' in terms of sound? What does 'layering of several comparative events' mean? How do you know that 'all this is shown when the quality of the equipment increases'?


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 19, 2022)

Bytor123 said:


> What is 'texture' in terms of sound? What is 'energy' in terms of sound? What does 'layering of several comparative events' mean? How do you know that 'all this is shown when the quality of the equipment increases'?


it is the path of knowledge that I have passed

1. Texture - let's take the bass for example - I'll use it to compare the two headphones Arya and Senn. HD 540 Reference Gold
On Arya, a certain type of bass will be presented seismically and in the same tone for a few seconds and every listener will react with WOW.
On the Senn.HD540RG, the same bass will always be "heavy as lead", while it will emerge from the many tones that shape it and will have its own 3D display (as a living substance in constant motion).
The texture is a thick part of the frequencies
2. Energy-that's where amplifiers are important
3. Layering-
tomorrow...
Under number 1, actually my explanation refers to another phenomenon, not specifically to the texture of the tone


----------



## bigshot

Your "artist's vision" is not due to wires and capacitors. It's due to musicians' creativity and sound engineers' skill at presenting the music. Your playback equipment creates nothing. zilch. nada. All it does is faithfully reproduce the sound encoded in the shiny disc or digital audio file. The magic of music transcends technology. I can listen to Caruso on a 78rpm shellac record played with a steel needle on an acoustic gramophone and get that. Crediting your stereo system with creating a magical musical experience is like crediting the paperboy for the news in the newspaper.

More money doesn't mean better sound quality. Technology has advanced to a point where we are able to inexpensively record, distribute and play back high definition video in your own home. I have a theater in my home with a ten foot screen that looks better than most movie theaters. This is several orders of magnitude more complicated, data intensive and technologically advanced than simply playing back stereophonic sound with high fidelity. We've been able to do that since the 1950s.

It's gotten to the point where the technology of high quality digital audio components are mass produced in China and elsewhere for next to nothing. The DAC chip in your high end DAC probably cost under $10. What are you paying for then? You are paying for build quality. You're paying for the design of the feature set and user interface. You're paying for marketing. Oh boy, are you paying for marketing! Even a cheap Walmart $40 DVD player can play a CD to the level of transparency. You can refuse to believe that, but it's true. A $120 blu-ray player can render 24/96 perfectly, and it will sound the same.

You are hearing differences because you refuse to apply controls to your listening tests, so they are skewed by bias and perceptual error. The only other reason why you are hearing clear night and day differences would be because something in your system is badly broken, either by manufacture or design.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 18, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> A tone has its own position on the sound stage, texture, energy with which it stands out in relation to other tones, its movement on the sound stage, whether its spread is fluid or is a "split" movement, then there is the layering of the presentation of several comparative events... and much more.



Baloney. You're talking in meaningless poetic words about something that is just basic physics. You might as well wax poetic about the chair you're sitting on or your television set. Absurd.

Soundstage isn't something magical and ephemeral. It is basic placement of sound objects on the left/right axis in a mix. It's baked into the recording. Your equipment has nothing to do with it. Unless you have serious channel separation issues, which hasn't been the case since the analog era; or unless your speaker system is set up improperly in a room with poor acoustics, soundstage is not an issue.

Open or closed headphones is not soundstage. Soundstage exists on speakers only.



T 1000 said:


> it is the path of knowledge that I have passed



I think it's actually gas.


----------



## gregorio

T 1000 said:


> The realization of all this employs the entire industry, and the audiophile who strives for such an experience.


Not really. The “entire industry” does not “realise” that because much of it is untrue or only partly true. The entire audiophile industry might have that “realisation” but the audiophile industry is just a tiny part of the entire (audio) industry. 


T 1000 said:


> These are general facts known to everyone who has embarked on the path of upgrading


Again, that’s not true. I have embarked upon the path of upgrading for 30 odd years and I do not know those “general facts” because they are not facts, in many cases they are just audiophile marketing bs. So I alone disprove your assertion of “everyone” but in addition to me, most professionals in the audio world, outside the audiophile community, also know this. 


T 1000 said:


> it is the path of knowledge that I have passed


Is the “path of knowledge” of audiophile marketing BS really knowledge though? If someone has passed the “path of knowledge” of say the Flat Earth Society, IE. They know all the explanations presented by those in the flat earth society for why the earth is flat and actually believe that the earth is flat, are they knowledgeable or just gullible and misguided?

G


----------



## T 1000

bigshot said:


> I think it's actually gas.


Phew, you're so simple, I expected you to say that in Latin


----------



## Bytor123

Puto actu gas


----------



## bigshot

Google translate to the rescue!

Puto te plenae aestus aeris.

Bytor123 beat me! I owe you a coke!


----------



## T 1000

gregorio said:


> Not really. The “entire industry” does not “realise” that because much of it is untrue or only partly true. The entire audiophile industry might have that “realisation” but the audiophile industry is just a tiny part of the entire (audio) industry.
> 
> Again, that’s not true. I have embarked upon the path of upgrading for 30 odd years and I do not know those “general facts” because they are not facts, in many cases they are just audiophile marketing bs. So I alone disprove your assertion of “everyone” but in addition to me, most professionals in the audio world, outside the audiophile community, also know this.
> 
> ...


1. exactly
2.I accept the correction, although such claims cannot be applied to everyone
3. I'm really not interested in that kind of philosophy


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 18, 2022)

Bytor123 said:


> Puto actu gas


The point is not for you to translate for me
bigshot knows how to express himself with professional terminology, and then when his system fails, he says the same thing, but like this, "you wouldn't learn too late even if it bites you in the ass", hence my suggestion


----------



## T 1000

Phew, this is turning into a sparring match again.
I do not want that.
It's late


----------



## bigshot

T 1000 said:


> bigshot knows how to express himself with professional terminology, and then when his system fails, he says the same thing, but like this, "you wouldn't learn too late even if it bites you in the ass", hence my suggestion


I might be wrong, but I think my quote actually was, "You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass."

Just setting the record straight!


----------



## gregorio

T 1000 said:


> 1. exactly
> 2.I accept the correction, although such claims cannot be applied to everyone
> 3. I'm really not interested in that kind of philosophy


1. If you know that then why do your strive for it?
2. True, they only apply to those who have not drunk the audiophile koolaid, which is most everyone in the audio world, outside the audiophile community. 
3. I don’t understand. If you’re “not interested in that kind of philosophy” why did you publicly post that “_it is the path of knowledge that I have passed_”?

G


----------



## Bytor123

A sparring match is a friendly argument 👍


----------



## T 1000

gregorio said:


> 1. If you know that then why do your strive for it?
> 2. True, they only apply to those who have not drunk the audiophile koolaid, which is most everyone in the audio world, outside the audiophile community.
> 3. I don’t understand. If you’re “not interested in that kind of philosophy” why did you publicly post that “_it is the path of knowledge that I have passed_”?
> 
> G


What?!
The answer is to my audio experience, and you mention the flat earth
Pretend you just want a fight
You are irrelevant to further dialogue


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 18, 2022)

Bytor123 said:


> A sparring match is a friendly argument 👍


The topic is least discussed here
When I say my point of view, they immediately start biting, and from the same people. And all this without counter-arguments, including insults.
Well, when after everything I read "people here must learn to listen to what we teach them", it makes me sick


----------



## gregorio

T 1000 said:


> The answer is to my audio experience, and you mention the flat earth


Of course, because it’s an applicable analogy. You explained your audio experience in terms of audiophile reviews and other audiophile marketing nonsense, contrary to the actual facts and science. The Flat Earth Society present their personal experience of seeing the earth and explain their belief in nonsense terms contrary to the actual facts and science. It’s the same, what’s the difference?


T 1000 said:


> Pretend you just want a fight
> You are irrelevant to further dialogue


I’m trying to understand what you are claiming. You can’t just make untrue claims about the “entire industry”, what “everyone” knows and “the path of knowledge you have passed” and then when questioned respond that it’s irrelevant to further dialogue.

This is the sound science forum, do you honestly think we’re just going to accept whatever you say as fact, without question, when it’s contrary to the actual facts/science?

G


----------



## T 1000 (Dec 18, 2022)

gregorio said:


> Of course, because it’s an applicable analogy. You explained your audio experience in terms of audiophile reviews and other audiophile marketing nonsense, contrary to the actual facts and science. The Flat Earth Society present their personal experience of seeing the earth and explain their belief in nonsense terms contrary to the actual facts and science. It’s the same, what’s the difference?
> 
> I’m trying to understand what you are claiming. You can’t just make untrue claims about the “entire industry”, what “everyone” knows and “the path of knowledge you have passed” and then when questioned respond that it’s irrelevant to further dialogue.
> 
> ...


The Sound Science forum is, but it looks more like drunk workers in an English pub, who got up and rolled up their sleeves.
I say white, you say black, I say black, you say white.
Sound Science? you are insulting my intelligence


----------



## Bytor123

T 1000 said:


> The Sound Science forum is, but it looks more like drunk workers in an English pub, who got up and rolled up their sleeves.
> I say white, you say black, I say black, you say white.
> Sound Science? you are worth my intelligence


I don't think that's what's going on - you make some statements that are based on your personal experience and present them as universal and fact, and that's challenged. Your experience is valid - to you!


----------



## T 1000

Bytor123 said:


> I don't think that's what's going on - you make some statements that are based on your personal experience and present them as universal and fact, and that's challenged. Your experience is valid - to you!


And your experience is universal?


----------



## Bytor123

T 1000 said:


> And your experience is universal?


Not at all - that's the point!


----------



## gregorio (Dec 19, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> That is your problem, that you are guided by strange logic and not by generally known phenomena (obviously not to you and your small group).


So you can’t answer a single one of the simple questions I put to you and your only response is insults and more made-up nonsense.

What option are you leaving us with, other than that you must be a troll?



T 1000 said:


> Educate yourself online before you open your mouth to contradict me.


Maybe that’s your problem? You apparently seem to believe that “educating yourself online” is actual education, apparently without realising that most of what’s online is either misleading/false marketing or the musings of end users with little/no actual education in the underlying science.

So what are you saying, that in order to “open my mouth to contradict you”, I have to know and agree with false marketing and the ramblings of the ignorant but I’m not allowed to use any real education of the actual facts/science? You do realise this is the Sound Science subforum and not the Monty Python School for Audiophiles?


T 1000 said:


> An audio science engineer who mocks and denies the existence of noise masking sound?


What audio science engineer are you talking about? It’s not anyone here and it’s certainly not me because I did NOT “mock or deny the existence of noise masking sound”. I asked how “otherwise inaudible” noise can “mask a large part of the sounds”? A perfectly reasonable question to which the only response you’ve given is insults and falsehoods. How is this anything other than being a troll?


T 1000 said:


> Whenever I start a discussion with someone else, and with my view on the subject, you join in (uninvited) and jump on my back and sink your fangs into my neck.


But we are invited, this is a public forum and therefore we are invited by default. If you want a private forum, only for those you invite, then go and start one. And, we “jump on your back and sink our fangs into your neck” because you have NOT started a discussion with someone else, you have ambushed a public discussion started long ago by others, made false assertions which contradict the science and when justifiably refuted, you then respond with insults, even more made-up nonsense and now complain that your public discussion is public!

If you had even a passing interest in actual education, you could start by reading the relevant pages on Wikipedia regarding audio masking, the inherent noise of CD or any other of your assertions, or at least asking where to find the relevant pages but clearly you haven’t even taken that first step and your ONLY interest appears to be in using the word “education” to make more false assertions about others. Again, what option are you giving us other than that you must be a troll?

G


----------



## Dogmatrix

Lo-Fi is a thing now, who knew ?

https://www.thomann.de/blog/en/lo-fi-music-phenomenon/


----------



## megabigeye

Dogmatrix said:


> Lo-Fi is a thing now, who knew ?
> 
> https://www.thomann.de/blog/en/lo-fi-music-phenomenon/


Huh? Lo-Fi has been a genre for more than 40 years. Check out Daniel Johnston. Though I'd hardly call his music soothing or chill. More like tense and highly neurotic.


----------



## bigshot

Dogmatrix said:


> Lo-Fi is a thing now, who knew ?
> https://www.thomann.de/blog/en/lo-fi-music-phenomenon/





> Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit – all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them. --Brian Eno


----------



## Dogmatrix

megabigeye said:


> Huh? Lo-Fi has been a genre for more than 40 years. Check out Daniel Johnston. Though I'd hardly call his music soothing or chill. More like tense and highly neurotic.


Nice mansplain boomer!
Like everyone knows that to be a thing requires at least 100 youtube channels, 1000 retweets and an influencer with at least 10000 followers Duh!


----------



## hundreth

I did my first rapid volume matched A/B test today with a switcher.

THX AAA One vs. Singxer SA-1. Op amp based AB amp vs. Discrete Class A. $150 vs. $600.
Even sighted, they sound absolutely identical. It's pretty insane hahaha.

The good news is, the 6XX are amazing and I'm just enjoying listening to music.


----------



## bigshot

Nice setup. You'll get use out of that.


----------



## megabigeye (Dec 19, 2022)

Dogmatrix said:


> Nice mansplain boomer!
> Like everyone knows that to be a thing requires at least 100 youtube channels, 1000 retweets and an influencer with at least 10000 followers Duh!


Sorry, Millennial. Your irony didn't survive its journey through the internet. 

Also, that article starts out making it sound like lo-fi is a new concept.


----------



## castleofargh

@T 1000 
What are you trying to do here? A place where you can demand that people accept anything you say unconditionally without proof is called a cult. We don't do religion on this forum.

To have a conversation, or even a proper constructive argument, we need common ground. We must have a common set of beliefs if not a common set of facts. Otherwise how will one trust anything the other says?
 Some tried to explain to you that controlled listening tests come from knowledge in psychology(about human biases) and the science of testing a hypothesis(get *reliable* empirical evidence). But you have little to no knowledge in those particular domains so of course their arguments aren't convincing you(you can't know what you don't know) and instead you keep believing that you're that mythical human who didn't ever tricked himself while listening to audio gear.
On the other side, you posting about random sighted impressions and unproved stuff you keep wrongly calling facts. That is never going to convince us on audio facts because of what we do know about psychological biases and testing requirements.
I cannot unlearn the papers and books I've reads about psychological biases or how to setup a controlled test. But you could go learn something on those topics, and in the meantime you could accept that you know too little to keep lecturing everybody on the forum. You have options but for now at least, you're simply too ignorant on certain topics for us to have a proper conversation about them. I'm not saying this to make fun of you, we all know only what we know and nobody knows everything(beside mother). I can't tell the name of half the vegetables I saw at the market. I'm terrible in some audio domains like tube amp designs or speaker and really anything beyond very basics rules of acoustic. When there is such a topic, my go to move is usually to keep quiet.


You keep claiming to have experience and knowledge, but it's all personal experience acquired without a controlled environment. To you it means something, to us it's your personal opinion from testing conditions nobody should trust. We have no reason to think otherwise because it's not shared information, it's your private information. Let me clarify what I mean by that:
-_Private information_ is what you've experienced yourself.
-_Shared information_ is information that many people received through some experimental setup. They either participated/witnessed the experiments, or maybe they got to draw their own conclusion by analyzing the data from that experiment. 
You telling others a story and asking them to trust you *does not* turn _private information_ into _shared information_! To those people there is no reason to consider what you say as if it was a fact. What they see is someone claiming something for all the wrong reasons on the internet. Credibility = 0.  You keep doing just that and somehow expect other people's behavior to change. But they/we still have no reason to trust you. You have given us nothing we can consider evidence.

Here is a simple example of the point I'm trying very hard to make you understand:
Think about the difference between you claiming to be able to find my card in a deck of 52, and you performing the trick in front of an audience. You might have been able to do it all along, and to you it's really the same thing to do it on your own or to do it for an audience. But if you never showed it to us, why should we believe you?
People who see you perform the trick will be easier to convince as you literally demonstrate your ability to them(_shared information_). To those people it's proof that you can do it. That's how you get something to become known as a fact.
Now take that and apply it to you claiming something about how audio gear sounds. A well documented blind test will be considered _shared information_ by many people in this sub forum. What you've posted so far didn't do much beyond getting annoying. 

This is Sound Science. If you don't think controlled testing is how we confirm audibility, chances are you shouldn't read this sub forum. I took the time to make this post and honestly I'm not confident it will change anything but I thought I had to try one last time.


@bigshot 
You were once again doing most of the back and forth with him, and then you post about how hopefully the admins finally took care of him???? Each time you talk to him, it's like begging him to come back.
I ask again, how do you explain this paradox? You do most of the complaining but you're never as active those days as when fighting with those guys. I don't get it. I know gregorio has directive 42 engraved in his programming that forces him to react to anything his database identifies as a false statement. But you don't have such compulsion. I've seen you many times in the past getting bored and forgetting that someone even existed.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 19, 2022)

We all know that he will continue to be engaged and will continue to post nonsense regardless of what I personally do. Say I don’t reply… there are dozens of other people who will reply, one of whom keeps replying even when he’s revealed to be a troll. Why does the majority have to be blamed for the actions of one bad apple?

What I was doing was flushing him out, and I succeeded. That should have been enough to finish him, but here we are again. Now he says, “I was just kidding. I’m not really a troll.” Do you honestly believe that? If these interruptions were dealt with pre emptively and not allowed to continue until the whole group grinds to a halt, I wouldn’t have to flush them out. I’m flushing them out so an end can be put to it. It’s not my job, but no one else is doing it. I would much prefer to sit quietly and just have these problems dealt with quietly by the mods. That would be heaven!

There is one way to make sure he goes away, and reasoning with him isn’t it. That’s been done. His mask slipped. This guy is clearly a troll. Look at the tone of his posts. He isn’t here to participate. If someone takes that antagonistic of a stance, it’s time to show him the door. He has gotten to that point over a dozen times and he’s still here posting triple posts of conversation stopping baloney every single day.

Please record his iP address. I guarantee you’ll see it again in the future, and maybe then we won’t have to go through week after week of this.

Also, they know about Gregorio’s Rule 42. That is EXACTLY why they come here. Gregorio isn’t doing anything wrong, and he isn’t going to stop. The problem needs to be addressed at the source.


----------



## redrol

Claim:  In ear monitors must have 'pinna gain' to compensate for the lack of outter ear / head gain.  Test:  I decided to tune an in ear to as flat as I could: 






Results: this sounds incredible and correct for lack of a better word.  Maybe this entire pinna gain thing is not all its cracked up to be.  I don't have any more data other than my own ears and to me this sounds more reference than most in ears with pinna gain.


----------



## castleofargh

redrol said:


> Claim:  In ear monitors must have 'pinna gain' to compensate for the lack of outter ear / head gain.  Test:  I decided to tune an in ear to as flat as I could:
> 
> 
> 
> Results: this sounds incredible and correct for lack of a better word.  Maybe this entire pinna gain thing is not all its cracked up to be.  I don't have any more data other than my own ears and to me this sounds more reference than most in ears with pinna gain.


Can you tell me what you mean by "pinna gain"? Because for some it's the entire ear gain they call that way. To others it's concha+pinna(usually a main boost above 5kHz), and finally a handful means the pinna gain which is really not much. 
Where is the measurement coming from and what exactly is it?


----------



## redrol

OK so Pinna Gain usually is a hump around 10db starting at 800-1000hz and ending wherever the tuners decide is good.  Yeah Concha+pinna.   Regardless this IEM has almost none of either.  This measurement is using a 711 Occluded Ear simulator microphone and, it's a real live In Ear I am building (14.8mm Planar driver).  The 8k bump is a coupler resonance and doesn't exist.  Above 10k is not accurate on these 711s either.


----------



## james444

"Pinna gain" is widely and incorrectly used on the IEM forum for that typical Etymotic 2.5kHz bump (which is actually a compensation for ear canal & drum gain rather than pinna).


----------



## redrol

Ah well, there you go.  So, then probably this IEM actually has 'pinna gain' compensation by virtue of having an extremely short bore tube.  It just barely seals into the most outter part of the ear canal.   Good stuff, thanks for that.  It's actually near impossible to understand what Pinna gain is on this forum.


----------



## Bret Halford

Current general consensus is that there should be a broad hump around 2.5 KHz in the amplitude response of in-ear monitors to compensate for the ear and canal's various resonances. It should probably be referred to as 'Ear Resonance' rather than pinna. Canal and Concha do have much more effect:






Etymotic did indeed largely pioneer this model for consumer IEMs, as far back as the early 90s. They have further history on the medical device side of things, and they took (and still do) a very scientific approach to tuning their models based referenced to a published response curve they developed.

In parallel, there were also early  groups like Jerry Harvey or Westone that based their monitor tunings off of the feedback of the musicians they worked with on tour and used their prototype IEMs as performance monitors. For whatever reason, these tend to be just flatter without as much compensation, and what boost is there is closer to 1 kHz than ~2.5 as expected.

The virtues of getting your tuning advice from musicians with substantial noted hearing loss from decades of tuning aside, I do find the latter 'musician tuned' iems highly pleasing for rock, but much less so for just about everything else.


----------



## redrol

I am in fact a musician, a guitarist.  Luckly I still have my hearing because my guitar tones are generally thick and saturated vs middy and trebly.  My hearing stops around 17k.
2 years ago I decided i'd had enough spending money on random in ears and made my own.   
Your comment about flat tunings working well for rock and roll and metal is on point.  I've been trying to understand in ear tuning that works for all genres of music, not just one or 2.  Real ears don't work like that, why should In ears.  FWIW, this tuning is actually my favorite for all types of music.  





Ignore the small blips, those are driver issues I can't tune around.  To me this sounds pretty damn good with every kind of music I can throw at it.  And we  have around 5db of ear gain' compensation as well as for bass.  It's actually very close to near-field monitors.  A lot of times I'll remove one in ear, play music on my studio monitor speakers, volume match each ear, and then get an impression of how the tuning should go to match the room sound.


----------



## james444

redrol said:


> Ah well, there you go.  So, then probably this IEM actually has 'pinna gain' compensation by virtue of having an extremely short bore tube.  It just barely seals into the most outter part of the ear canal.   Good stuff, thanks for that.  It's actually near impossible to understand what Pinna gain is on this forum.



Etymotics are long tube / deep fitting IEMs. I too feel that shallow sealing IEMs don't really need that much of a compensation @2.5kHz.


----------



## redrol

I think you are right and beyond that, it means that a heck of a lot of iems are tuned wrong for their bore length.


----------



## Bret Halford (Dec 23, 2022)

Most couplers in use will add that (or rather a fixed reference)resonance already... It's deep inserts that are trickier to compare to target since it's hard to avoid any coupler length that shouldn't be contributing.

Edit: also just to clarify re: hearing loss, I was referring to Van Halen who's been very open about the costs of touring on his ears. Indeed that damage inspired a lot of the work with Harvey.


----------



## redrol

That makes no sense because you would think an IEM tuned for musicians with hearing loss would have plenty of gain in the treble.


----------



## bigshot

Adjusting something centered on 2.5kHz makes a lot more sense than a bump from 10kHz up. That last octave is usually pretty uncontrolled, but it's OK because that octave isn't particularly important to reproducing music. I don't see how bumping that could help anything at all.


----------



## redrol

Yeah I don't like that either, I was just theorizing about deaf musician tuning.  

Anyhow, here is a video I just did about this subject:


----------



## bigshot (Dec 23, 2022)

Interesting video. The shapes of the IEM all vary, which I'm sure makes a difference in the response. But people's inner ears are all shaped differently too. You say that there is as much as a 10dB deviation, depending on the person's own ear shapes... That is a huge deviation.

I don't know anything at all about IEMs, but I have experimented with EQing speakers, and to a lesser degree headphones. With speakers, I've found that there is a pretty clear calibration point for the room. It all depends on the acoustics of the room, furniture, listening position and room treatment, but it's a fixed point. However, what sounds "good" to people can vary. Looking at the plotting of the test subjects' responses in the Harman research with headphones shows that most of this individual variation extends 3dB or so in all directions. It's just a guess, but I think the variation with speakers might be pretty similar.

I'm lousy at math, but if the distance between Harman preferences is 3dB in each direction, that means that there is roughly a core range of 6dB. That is factored into your 10dB deviation in some way. I don't know exactly how, but I wonder what would be the outcome if you determined a preferred EQ curve between speakers, headphones and IEMs... What would the differences between them would be? That might indicate what part of individual preference is just the way people hear, and what part is due to the shapes of their heads and inner ears.

This is all spit in the wind stuff, but it would be interesting to try and track down. Finding a way to translate measurements of headphones and relate them to IEMs would be useful. Your video asks some very good questions.


----------



## Bret Halford

redrol said:


> That makes no sense because you would think an IEM tuned for musicians with hearing loss would have plenty of gain in the treble.


Again, I'm not particularly judging on the hearing loss, although I would trust the audiologists that treated them more tbh... it was more poignant motivation for musicians that worked with JH. They generally were hard rockers where the tuning really works well. If anything, I think a flat tuning is safer in avoiding timbre wonkiness that musicians might be more sensitive to, and the ear resonance really doesn't matter for monitoring as much as it might for pleasurable listening. 

That said, no you would not expect boosted treble. Let's loop back to the discussion about ear resonance: our ears expect boosted frequencies here because sound naturally resonates in the canal etc (so it's louder). If preferences were compensatory as you suggest, we would not expect a boost as a result... the ear resonance preference isn't evidence of hearing loss. You could also look at Harman's preference categories by demographic, there was a distinct subset of younger women (aka people with 'better' hearing) that preferred more (not less) treble compared to the general population. Older males? We like our bass  

Generally we prefer sound reproduction that seems 'natural' and if you generally experience sound with some roll off in the highs, I see no reason why you wouldn't prefer inserts that did the same.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> Adjusting something centered on 2.5kHz makes a lot more sense than a bump from 10kHz up. That last octave is usually pretty uncontrolled, but it's OK because that octave isn't particularly important to reproducing music. I don't see how bumping that could help anything at all.


Here we are again!

Surely, as a "scientist" (at least how it may seem to appear from an avatar), the author of the post quoted above measured the frequency response of few IEMs, right?! A rhetorico-ironic question in this quasi-debate.

It is true that for most of far-field reproduction systems 10+ kHz is hard to reproduce and control. That is why most good old classical recordings are just cuttung out this region, and many "golden classical recordings" taper from ca. 5 kHz or even earlier - not to aggravate with "uncontrolled".

it is also true that it is quite hard to record 10+ kHz by a microphone, as a hiss region.

But then there is electronically recorded music and IEMs where both high-quality production and reproduction of 10+ kHz is possible.

Not much "information" in that region but it just adds a subtle quality that can be called HFi, perhaps 

It can be agreed that the sound reproduction of most acoustic instruments (other than percussions, naturally) are largely not affected by 10+ kHz region.

I am trying to look around for good violin recordings where the difference can be discerned, given that violins can produce strong higher overtones.
///////////////////////////////////////

Actually, the main reason that I post here now is that I finally found good info on limitations of the Apple dongle (I tried to ask several times before in this scince forum...)

Here it is:
Test report
There are a lot of information in this detailed technical report. Given that figures are not numbered, the best identifier is blue-coloured areas in the two most relevant figures.

Apple dongle shines at around 42 Ohm (not surprisingly given that the Apple earphone impedance was 42 Ohm).
That is why Ken Rockwell measured all the great (and often cited like mantra here and in other places) parameters ar around 40 Ohm, but did not measure at 16 Ohm!

From 42 Ohm upwards, the usability will power (voltage) limited and the Apple dongle can work with impedance of up to 100-150 Ohm depending on transducer sensitivity.

But then from 40 Ohm and below, the Apple dongle becomes more current limited with the noise and distortion mounting strongly. My limited interpretation: OK-ish up to 20 Ohm, and less so below. 
Now, if there is a single common IEM impedance number, it is 16 Ohm (and again that is a single value at 1 KHz, multi-driver IEMs can have a roller coaster of the impedance frequency dependence), so the Apple dongle seems to be appreciably practially limited.

It will be great to discuss science/numbers further.

Sorry for the tone of my first part, I was imitating "caught the big troll by the tail" type of communication not so uncommon here.


----------



## bigshot

With transducers, it's common to compensate for missing frequencies by boosting something near that range... for instance, a mid bass boost to make lack of sub bass less noticeable. Do you all think that if there is a range of frequencies missing due to hearing loss that they could be compensated for by boosting something a little closer to the middle of the spectrum?


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> Here it is:
> Test report
> There are a lot of information in this detailed technical report.


There is a lot of information in that report but note it is a report on the A2155 Apple Dongle, which as far as I’m aware, is the EU model. The EU model is restricted (by EU regulation) to an output of 0.5v, whilst the model in the US and presumably other markets outside the EU have a 1.0v output.

G


----------



## bigshot

And the Apple dongle is designed for portable cans. You might need to amp the output for some headphones.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Dec 25, 2022)

gregorio said:


> There is a lot of information in that report but note it is a report on the A2155 Apple Dongle, which as far as I’m aware, is the EU model. The EU model is restricted (by EU regulation) to an output of 0.5v, whilst the model in the US and presumably other markets outside the EU have a 1.0v output.
> 
> G


A very good point. I did not notice it.
The limitation on the voltage side will further cap the highest impedance that can be used.
I recenty tested a NA version using a simple single-BA (legendary ED29689, the same in Etymotic E4R) transducer (14 Ohm at 1 kHz, 105 dB/mW) with different impedance adapters. 150 Ohm is definitely to much. 105 Ohm is still OK, but at the limit. So for EU version there will be less than 80 Ohm definitely, closer to 60 Ohm of driveable impedance. No wonder EU version is called anemic, and it knocks off the reputation of the Apple dongle, and it is really great within its limits.
P. S. Corrected 105 dB/mW (not W)


bigshot said:


> And the Apple dongle is designed for portable cans. You might need to amp the output for some headphones.


Amping the dongle largely defies its purpose, there are plenty of very decent $10-$20 way more powerful usb dacs.


bigshot said:


> With transducers, it's common to compensate for missing frequencies by boosting something near that range... for instance, a mid bass boost to make lack of sub bass less noticeable. Do you all think that if there is a range of frequencies missing due to hearing loss that they could be compensated for by boosting something a little closer to the middle of the spectrum?


Amplifying mid-bass to get more sub-bass? May I quote you in other forums?


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> No wonder EU version is called anemic, and it knocks off the reputation of the Apple dongle, and it is really great within its limits.


Yep, but Apple had no choice if they wanted to continue selling dongles in the EU and it’s no more anaemic than any other dongle that’s EU compliant. 


PhonoPhi said:


> Amplifying mid-bass to get more sub-bass? May I quote you in other forums?


That’s not as mad as it sounds. It’s common in music production (typically popular genres) to apply certain processing techniques which take advantage of specific perceptual effects to increase the perception of low bass by enhancing higher harmonics. This is necessary to help account for all those consumers who don’t have systems with much/any bass response. Some smaller speakers are designed to heavily rely on the “Missing Fundamental” perceptual effect for example. So amplifying mid bass to enhance (the perception of more) sub-bass may in fact work in some/many cases.

Not everything that looks like nonsense is in fact nonsense!

G


----------



## bigshot (Dec 25, 2022)

It’s called the mid bass hump. You should be able to google it.

We were talking about the Apple dongle as a DAC not an amp. It isn’t the same as a DAC/amp.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Dec 25, 2022)

bigshot said:


> It’s called the mid bass hump. You should be able to google it.
> 
> We were talking about the Apple dongle as a DAC not an amp. It isn’t the same as a DAC/amp.


Just an image for you (not to spare many words) of few DAC/amps at least twice more powerful than Apple dongle:




Are there pure DACs as consumer devices?
Adding an amp to a portable DAC is ergonomically ridiculous, but very "audiophile", a credit for you there!


gregorio said:


> Yep, but Apple had no choice if they wanted to continue selling dongles in the EU and it’s no more anaemic than any other dongle that’s EU compliant.
> 
> That’s not as mad as it sounds. It’s common in music production (typically popular genres) to apply certain processing techniques which take advantage of specific perceptual effects to increase the perception of low bass by enhancing higher harmonics. This is necessary to help account for all those consumers who don’t have systems with much/any bass response. Some smaller speakers are designed to heavily rely on the “Missing Fundamental” perceptual effect for example. So amplifying mid bass to enhance (the perception of more) sub-bass may in fact work in some/many cases.
> 
> ...


I can understand that the midbass hump can work in some limited scenarios. Specifically, when no sub-bass information is present, as commonly the case for classical music.
In general, for electronic recordings with sub-bass lines, even slight overemphasis of mid-bass can be ruinous, and people outcry about it in other forums. That is the reason for my comment on another failed attempt of overgeneralization of specific experience - no googling experience needed there 

I largely did not care about the bass not listening much to digitally recorded music but I had a chance to get an IEM where sub-bass and the last octave were well accentuated with the neutral rest, and then I realized the significant difference for transducer requirements for acoustically and electronically/digitally recorded music.


----------



## VNandor

gregorio said:


> That’s not as mad as it sounds. It’s common in music production (typically popular genres) to apply certain processing techniques which take advantage of specific perceptual effects to increase the perception of low bass by enhancing higher harmonics.


It's typically a more involved processing compared to the suggested bump in mid bass and it's being done in the production stage tuned specifically to the song's needs, that's not really 1:1 comparable to applying a mid bass hump during playback.


----------



## bigshot

Try it. See if it helps.


----------



## Steve999 (Dec 25, 2022)

VNandor said:


> It's typically a more involved processing compared to the suggested bump in mid bass and it's being done in the production stage tuned specifically to the song's needs, that's not really 1:1 comparable to applying a mid bass hump during playback.


if I remember correctly (in part that’s a way of my being lazy with references), our brains have a way of inferring bass an octave lower from harmonic content in the next octave up, so addimg a little in that octave octave up can help us in perceiving bass in the octave below. There’s stuff on the net illustrating this, and how in some contexts it works (you can perceive a lower note for a frequency that was not reproduced at all, for example).

For me, the emphasis in the next bass octave up can sound like the lower notes are being hit in a fun and bouncy and punchy way, while if the actual low note is hit (say the low E or F or G on a bass) it has a much more solid and almost growling sound, you feel it more.

Happy to be corrected if I have any of this not quite right. I’ve always found it super interesting how we can infer musical notes in that range from incomplete information, even if the fundamental tone is not actually reproduced.


----------



## VNandor

I've been using a HD600 with EQ for enjoying the latest and greatest electronic music for years now. They don't have much sub by default and boosting the sub sounded better to me than boosting the mid bass which they already have too much of for my tastes. I've spent way more time and effort on getting the bass where I wanted for my monitor speakers but with no success. I think they won't ever sound good until I move my setup out the corner of my room.



Steve999 said:


> if I remember correctly (in parT that’s a way of my being lazy with references), our brains have a way of inferring bass an octave lower from harmonic content in the next octave up, so addimg a little in that octave octave up can help us in perceiving bass in the octave below. There’s stuff on the net illustrating this, amd how in some contexts it works (you cam perceive a note for a frequency that was not reproduced at all, for example).



There's a wikipedia article titled "Missing fundamental". The audio processing part says Waves Audio was taking advantage of this effect as early as 1999. But even back then the processing they used was more advanced than just slapping a filter somewhere and calling it a day. I didn't already know any of that, I just know that people nowadays use a more sophisticated approach to increase the perceived sub bass than just using an EQ.


----------



## megabigeye

PhonoPhi said:


> I recenty tested a NA version using a simple single-BA (legendary ED29689, the same in Etymotic E4R) transducer (14 Ohm at 1 kHz, 105 dB/mW) with different impedance adapters. 150 Ohm is definitely to much.


What do you mean you "tested" it? And you're testing it by using a 14 ohm transducer and a 150 ohm adapter? Wouldn't that be essentially using the 14 ohm transducer with a 150 ohm output impedance?
I'm not trying to needle you or catch you out, I'm genuinely curious because I'm not completely sure how these things work. 

I frequently use my North American Lightning dongle with my HD 650 and my DT 1990 and to my ear it sounds fine and gets more than loud enough. Granted, not a scientific test at all.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Dec 25, 2022)

megabigeye said:


> What do you mean you "tested" it? And you're testing it by using a 14 ohm transducer and a 150 ohm adapter? Wouldn't that be essentially using the 14 ohm transducer with a 150 ohm output impedance?
> I'm not trying to needle you or catch you out, I'm genuinely curious because I'm not completely sure how these things work.
> 
> I frequently use my North American Lightning dongle with my HD 650 and my DT 1990 and to my ear it sounds fine and gets more than loud enough. Granted, not a scientific test at all.


"Tested" means took the things and tried how they work.

I did add different impedance adapters from 18 to 150 Ohm. For the other tests, I have also made a variable balanced impedance adapter - a lot of interesting observations with different multi-driver IEMs.

A truly perspective-dependent, I either constructed 164-Ohm IEM or used the output impedance of 150 Ohm. The same circuit.

Ethymotic in their E4R started with 100 Ohm impedance (I was told) and are now using 45 Ohm with the same 12-14 Ohm BA transducer.

P. S. Early hit of the "post" button


----------



## castleofargh

PhonoPhi said:


> A truly perspective-dependent, I either constructed 164-Ohm IEM or used the output impedance of 150 Ohm. The same circuit.


Probably not. Yes for the amp section it's like a load with the sum impedance and it almost always objectively improve the amp's signal. But for the IEM it's an amp with amp+"cable" impedance. Meaning that subjective experience will very much change based at least on the impedance curve of the IEM instead of just being about the amp.  
Now you can lower the impact on the IEM side with a voltage divider instead of resistors in series but even then the result is rarely one where the IEM "sees" the exact same impedance and only the amp works better. I guess this could be calculated to come real close but there are limits to what can be done for one side without changing the other. 
Megaultragianteye has a point IMO that in term of experience it wouldn't do to confuse the results as only being the amp's behavior.

Etymotic used the resistors for tuning of the FR. And it's really not important, but the er4s was around 100ohm in total with one 75ohm? resistor per channel for the old er4s.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 25, 2022)

A similar thing exists at the top end. I used to restore classical 78s and one very good trick was to include a little bed of high frequency hiss. The recording didn’t include any content in that frequency band, but the small bed of hiss gave the ear something to hear so it wouldn’t be noticed as missing. It was pretty amazing how muffled sounding recordings would open up with just the addition of well placed hiss. Brass and strings would sound much better.

It sounds like Vnandor’s headphones already have a mid bass hump. There’s only so much it can help. More isn’t necessarily better. I haven’t had much luck EQing up sub bass when there isn’t any sub bass to dial up. You’re fortunate that there’s enough to EQ. HD600s are good headphones with more latitude than a lot of others.

You’re absolutely right that sub bass with speakers requires a good room and proper arrangement of the system in the room. Speakers work best when they’re free standing, away from walls. Corners are the worst, I’ve found.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 25, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> I can understand that the midbass hump can work in some limited scenarios. Specifically, when no sub-bass information is present, as commonly the case for classical music.
> In general, for electronic recordings with sub-bass lines, even slight overemphasis of mid-bass can be ruinous, and people outcry about it in other forums.


There’s no magic bullet, it may work with some masters and not with others. As a rough rule (EG. Fairly often not the case), it won’t work well with very heavily compressed masters and electronic music is commonly the most compressed. Although few consumers will be aware because they don’t get to see it, the final mix of most popular genres typically has it’s peak level at around 80Hz (between 60-100Hz), which is largely due to the kick drum, although the bass guitar also contributes greatly. Once the mastering is complete the peak level is spread across a wider spectrum and commonly from around 80Hz to 200Hz and sometimes even centred around 200Hz. If you think about the use of compression, it’s obvious why. A (full band) compressor reduces the peaks and then make-up gain can be applied, to “make-up” for the gain that’s been reduced. So if our final mix has its peaks around 80Hz, it’s around 80Hz that the compressor will primarily reduce and make-up gain brings up the level of the whole mix. Our around 80Hz content is roughly back where it started but everything else is significantly louder which means the balance is out. We probably need to make that area a bit louder but we can’t because it’s already at peak and more compression is not going to help, so what do we do? The answer to this question is one of the main areas that separates the men from the boys when it comes to mastering engineers (of many popular genres), because there’s not one single answer but a whole raft of potential solutions and in the vast majority of cases, it’s an individual and often very subtly different blend of “tricks” appropriate for each song. If a track/song is part of the “loudness wars” then pretty much all of these “tricks” have been pushed to (or maybe beyond) their limits. So applying the simple trick of adding more to the “bass hump”, even just a small amount, is likely to make the whole thing sound noticeably worse because that simplest of “tricks” has already been applied during mastering very near or at it’s limit.

To give another more precise example: We always used to give all the students an exercise which was to mix a raw recording of a supplied piece of metal genre, with instructions to particularly concentrate on the punchy/loud kick drum emblematic of metal genres. We’d come back after 45mins and usually they’d have a sheepish look because the kick was moderately loud but just a mush and their track probably had half a dozen or more different plug-ins all trying to manipulate the bass region. So first thing we’d do is disable all their plugins, add an EQ plugin, tighten the Q to quite narrow, boost by 10dB and sweep it to find the resonant harmonic of the kick transient, which almost always lives between 1.2kHz and 1.8kHz. Then, lower the boost to around 6dB, add a bit of moderately lazy compression, bring the whole mix back in and then check to see how far the student’s jaw had dropped! They never consider for a second that adding boost so far outside the frequency band they thought they were working with could have such an effect on that band. I’ve had many students double check what I’ve done, because they couldn’t believe it and were searching for some other plug-in (processing the bass) they think I’ve hidden in the routing somewhere. 😁

There’s no rule, it depends on what sort of music you listen to and even with types where it does work well, adding more of a bass hump probably won’t work all the time.


VNandor said:


> The audio processing part says Waves Audio was taking advantage of this effect as early as 1999.


Yep, I owned Waves MaxxBass back in the day and well before that there were analogue bass enhancers. I had the famous Aphex Aural Exciter with “Big Bottom” in my first studio in the early ‘90’s and other units I know of, were around at least by the mid ‘80’s. Never knew exactly what any of them were doing because it was all trade secrets, we could only guess to an extent by examining a null test. As I mentioned, there’s numerous ways of processing the bass, from as simple and obvious as an EQ boost or multiband compressor to sophisticated dynamic multi-tone synthesis based on various perceptual effects and commonly, several different ones are used in combination.

G


----------



## The Jester (Dec 25, 2022)

bigshot said:


> A similar thing exists at the top end. I used to restore classical 78s and one very good trick was to include a little bed of high frequency hiss. The recording didn’t include any content in that frequency band, but the small bed of hiss gave the ear something to hear so it wouldn’t be noticed as missing. It was pretty amazing how muffled sounding recordings would open up with just the addition of well placed hiss. Brass and strings would sound much better.
> 
> It sounds like Vnandor’s headphones already have a mid bass hump. There’s only so much it can help. More isn’t necessarily better. I haven’t had much luck EQing up sub bass when there isn’t any sub bass to dial up. You’re fortunate that there’s enough to EQ. HD600s are good headphones with more latitude than a lot of others.
> 
> You’re absolutely right that sub bass with speakers requires a good room and proper arrangement of the system in the room. Speakers work best when they’re free standing, away from walls. Corners are the worst, I’ve found.


Interesting,
Some say that RFI in components and cables that are not optimally shielded can result in a similar low level hiss, so someone who swaps out a cable for one with big shiny gold plated connectors and/or less than optimal cable shielding would then perceive it to be “brighter, more airy, more detailed “ etc ?
And on the reverse a well shielded cable with a non metal connector housing like say ABS could minimise the effects ?

Edit:
Just watching the morning news, hope all you guys in the US are OK during the snowstorms …


----------



## gregorio (Dec 25, 2022)

The Jester said:


> Some say that RFI in components and cables that are not optimally shielded can result in a similar low level hiss …


Not really, not unless it’s exceptionally badly shielded (and it’s not a balanced cable). I say “not really” because you can hear hiss and other artefacts which should be inaudible if you screw up the gain-staging, screwing up the impedance or power matching can also cause audible hiss.

Bigshot is right, that’s an old trick, used it myself at times, though not when restoring vinyl. Another old trick, not used so much these days with digital recording; if you take white noise and band limit it (around 10kHz - 14kHz) adding it to cymbals really enhances them, ear can’t tell the difference. They used this trick quite often back in the analogue days, because of the nature of tape response and wear while mixing, you’d loose a lot of the high-end and the cymbals would end up sounding dull. Bit of white noise fading out with the cymbal decay, those cymbals got their zing back and sounded “like you were there” 

G


----------



## bigshot

Ooo! Good trick for cymbals! Tucking that one away in my bag of tricks!


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Good trick for cymbals! Tucking that one away in my bag of tricks!


It’s worth having it in your “bag of tricks” but it’s far more limited in these days of digital recording and mixing, because you don’t loose the high freqs to start with and because the HF is far more accurate/cleaner/detailed with digital. So when I’ve tried it, it was a bit of a “faff” to get it right. Can be an alternative or addition though, when you need a lot of Aural Exciter but that makes it sound a bit too synthetic or phasey.

G


----------



## bigshot

I would use it with transcribing 78s.


----------



## The Jester

gregorio said:


> Not really, not unless it’s exceptionally badly shielded (and it’s not a balanced cable). I say “not really” because you can hear hiss and other artefacts which should be inaudible if you screw up the gain-staging, screwing up the impedance or power matching can also cause audible hiss.
> 
> G



I wasn’t thinking of “audible hiss” but a lower level that may cause artificial brightness, there are more “home audio” components offering balanced connections being released but I’d guess the most common is still single ended RCA’s,
I’ve experienced first hand how invasive RFI can be to sensitive electronics (non audio) and thought it could be of interest here ?


----------



## bigshot

It has to be audible to have an audible effect.


----------



## The Jester

bigshot said:


> It has to be audible to have an audible effect.



Audible as being able to define it as a definite hiss rather than a low enough level not to be perceived as an independent hiss ?


----------



## gregorio (Dec 26, 2022)

The Jester said:


> I wasn’t thinking of “audible hiss” but a lower level that may cause artificial brightness,


If that “artificial brightness” (due to hiss) is audible, then the hiss is audible, it’s just being perceived/identified as something else. In other words, the hiss cannot be inaudible but cause some effect that is audible. With threshold testing for example, it is quite often the case that what is defined as “above the threshold” (audible) is due to the ability to hear some indirect effect of what we’re testing. In a DBT or ABX, it’s only necessary to detect any audible difference, that difference does not have to be identified.


The Jester said:


> there are more “home audio” components offering balanced connections being released but I’d guess the most common is still single ended RCA’s,


“Balanced connections” reject RFI but are only required under certain circumstances which typically don’t exist in “home audio”, unusually long cable runs and/or unusually high RFI. A single ended connection, modestly shielded will be fine. The obvious exception is transferring digital audio data but then digital connections are virtually always balanced/differential connections.


The Jester said:


> I’ve experienced first hand how invasive RFI can be to sensitive electronics (non audio) and thought it could be of interest here ?


Indeed it can be. But then radio frequencies are by definition in a different spectrum to audio frequencies and it’s obviously incumbent on any consumer audio equipment manufacturer to design their equipment to function properly in consumer environments.

G


----------



## 71 dB

I tend to "ignore" this thread because it is pinned always on the top. It doesn't "jump up" as a sign of activity.


----------



## The Jester

Probably a good idea … 🙄


----------



## bigshot

It’s the most important thread in the forum. That’s why it’s a target for thread crapping.


----------



## bigshot

My dad was a ham radio operator.. His stereo would play faintly when it wasn’t even turned on!


----------



## The Jester

Would there be regular standard revisions for consumer audio in regards to RFI rejection ?
The average home contains far more potential RFI sources than 20 or even 10 years ago, Mesh WiFi, automated “smart home” devices, even down to WiFi LED lightbulbs, plus every family member having a mobile phone or tablet etc …


----------



## bigshot

You know, since the demise of CB radios, I haven’t had any problems with RF. Twenty years ago, I used to hear truck drivers passing by. They probably use Wi-Fi hotspots now. Wi-Fi interference is more of a problem for me than RF.


----------



## gregorio (Dec 26, 2022)

The Jester said:


> Would there be regular standard revisions for consumer audio in regards to RFI rejection ?


There are no standards for consumer (analogue) audio to revise. It’s down to individual manufacturers (and market forces) to decide how much RFI rejection their equipment provides. It would effectively be incompetent to design consumer equipment with so little RFI rejection that its audible performance is affected by the levels of RFI encountered in consumer environments, as competing products are not affected. This isn’t the case with digital audio transfer, where there are bodies which define standards (for example, for USB, Ethernet, etc.) and they do produce revisions. Although these tend to be for extensions or updates to the protocol to allow more functionality or higher transfer rates for instance.

In the case of old consumer equipment, from a time when RFI was significantly lower in consumer environments, it may well be more susceptible to modern levels of consumer RFI but equally, as there is no fixed/standard level of consumer RFI, modern levels of consumer RFI may well fall within the rejection tolerance allowed by a particular manufacturer at that time.

G


----------



## cloudconnected

I dont belive in Cable Sounds


----------



## redrol

wires sound like nothing


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> There are no standards for consumer (analogue) audio to revise. It’s down to individual manufacturers (and market forces) to decide how much RFI rejection their equipment provides. It would effectively be incompetent to design consumer equipment with so little RFI rejection that its audible performance is affected by the levels of RFI encountered in consumer environments, as competing products are not affected. This isn’t the case with digital audio transfer, where there are bodies which define standards (for example, for USB, Ethernet, etc.) and they do produce revisions. Although these tend to be for extensions or updates to the protocol to allow more functionality or higher transfer rates for instance.
> 
> In the case of old consumer equipment, from a time when RFI was significantly lower in consumer environments, it may well be more susceptible to modern levels of consumer RFI but equally, as there is no fixed/standard level of consumer RFI, modern levels of consumer RFI may well fall within the rejection tolerance allowed by a particular manufacturer at that time.
> 
> G



This is not exactly true.  All gear has RFI rejection standards: FCC in US, CE in Europe and CCC in China for example.  However these standards are not enough to guarantee RFI does not affect the audio. I have seen plenty of examples where the standard is fully complied with with a good margin, yet interference, either conducted or radiated is measurable *and *audible. It often falls outside of the regulations' frequency requirements. This from very competent design teams, that learnt from the experience for next time, but did not necessarily share their in-house experience with professional bodies like the AES etc.  It is getting rarer as experience increases, but never fully disappears as an issue, especially as the environment gets more saturated with faster and more powerful interference over more frequencies.


----------



## bigshot

The only time I've ever found RF interference is near radio broadcasting stations. Wifi is way more funky than RF. Crowded channels and interference there is a constant battle.


----------



## castleofargh

Op amps are really fond of singing along a nearby communicating cellphone. Some more than others but they all sing if not massively shielded. It's usually worse with portable products for various but kind of obvious reasons(space, grounding, high sensitivity transducers making all picked up crap louder).


----------



## jagwap

castleofargh said:


> Op amps are really fond of singing along a nearby communicating cellphone. Some more than others but they all sing if not massively shielded. It's usually worse with portable products for various but kind of obvious reasons(space, grounding, high sensitivity transducers making all picked up crap louder).


Indeed. Particularly CDMA phones (Verizon is finally ending this horrible format).

Generally JFET and CMOS input opamps are more immune than the more common and lower noise bipolar types, as they do not present a PN junction directly on its input, like a "crystal radio" arrangement. However unwanted junk can get in through the other pins too. People always assume that PSRR (Power Supply Rejection Ratio) takes care of that. However that is around the audioband and a bit higher. Eventually at higher frequencies the rejection goes to zero and then  becomes negative, i.e. it amplifies it!

Layout and decoupling is not a universal art.


----------



## redrol

HMMMM.  Are you guys saying I should wrap my opamps in a shield?!


----------



## Dogmatrix

redrol said:


> HMMMM.  Are you guys saying I should wrap my opamps in a shield?!


More convenient to wear the tin foil hat that way you cover everything, just make sure it is properly grounded or the hum will get in


----------



## jagwap

redrol said:


> HMMMM.  Are you guys saying I should wrap my opamps in a shield?!


Joking aside: Some gear does.  Although it also can be for marketing/confidentiality reasons.

For example the Marantz HDAM modules we legitimate discrete opamp circuits in a copper can, which helped screen them, and hide what's inside.  They were a nice JFET input MOSFET output class A circuit.  However another company I won't name, with a similar reputation did similar with a PSU regulator circuit.  But rather than it hiding a discrete regulator circuit, it was hiding a $0.10 TO-220 linear regulator and trying to make it look special.

However with modern SMT opamps, on a multi-layer PCB, good decoupling, sensible RF filtering, and most importantly great layout, you have a good chance of making the unit nearly imune.

But remember, all of the above only reduces effects, never eliminates them.  So it is a matter of knowledge, experience, often backed up by measurement and learning by listening, to know when how much reduction is enough.  Some RF fixes increase ground currents between units, which bring other issues.

RF is like a game of wack-a-mole. Push it down in one place, and it pops up in another.


----------



## redrol

I have 2 modified devices with opamps jacked way above the circuit board via adapters.   Prolly the worst case scenario.  I'll consider shielding them.


----------



## bigshot

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I don’t think this is an issue for most people. If you hear interference, then track it down.


----------



## gregorio (Friday at 4:55 AM)

jagwap said:


> All gear has RFI rejection standards: FCC in US, CE in Europe and CCC in China for example.


All consumer equipment has legal limits for the amount of RF they produce but are there standards, which include consumer audio gear and analogue interconnect cables, for RF rejection?


jagwap said:


> This from very competent design teams, that learnt from the experience for next time, but did not necessarily share their in-house experience with professional bodies like the AES etc.


Is it really “from very competent design teams” though, or is this just another example of common audiophile marketing, where something is supposedly extremely complex/difficult to achieve and only expensive audiophile equipment manages it, such as jitter rejection to below audibility or USB noise rejection for example?

I’m not saying it’s not complex or difficult to achieve, just that as it can be achieved by some/many cheap units, why should it be such an apparent problem for vastly more expensive audiophile gear and wouldn’t that be a case of incompetent design teams, without enough knowledge/experience? The example given of CDMA cellphones for instance; CDMA has been around for over 50 years and a N. American standard for cellphones for over 25 years. Wouldn’t you expect a design team even of only basic competency to know this and have the knowledge/experience to mitigate it?

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> All consumer equipment has legal limits for the amount of RF they produce but are there standards, which include consumer audio gear and analogue interconnect cables, for RF rejection?


Yes. In some markets (EU for example). It is called Susceptibility.  But it does not guarantee that audio equipment is isolated well enough for optimum performance.  It maybe just keep the local taxi radio from coming through your speakers.


gregorio said:


> Is it really “from very competent design teams” though, or is this just another example of common audiophile marketing, where something is supposedly extremely complex/difficult to achieve and only expensive audiophile equipment manages it, such as jitter rejection to below audibility or USB noise rejection for example?


May I re-iterate, I am not in or have any relation to marketing.  I am an engineer with over 30 years design experience and I have worked in and alongside many very competent teams (and some who were less so, and assisted them when I was able).  I have not stated that "only expensive audiophile equipment manages it", as have worked in budget audio and pro audio, where there isn't the money to mess around.


gregorio said:


> I’m not saying it’s not complex or difficult to achieve, just that as it can be achieved by some/many cheap units, why should it be such an apparent problem for vastly more expensive audiophile gear and wouldn’t that be a case of incompetent design teams, without enough knowledge/experience? The example given of CDMA cellphones for instance; CDMA has been around for over 50 years and a N. American standard for cellphones for over 25 years. Wouldn’t you expect a design team even of only basic competency to know this and have the knowledge/experience to mitigate it?
> 
> G


Because: for general EMI

1: People miss things, as EMI can be rather elusive.  The regulations do not cover all the product requirements, only the compliance requirements.
2: People sometimes do not know what to measure for, until they listen, and hear an issue, then go looking for it in novel measurable areas.
3: Nobody knows everything. That includes everyone here too, including you and I.
4: Mitigate: Let's be clear - these things can only be reduced, never removed.  It is an attenuation of interference.  How much reduction required is not tightly defined, and some companies are are more particular than others.
5: Every now and then something gets in and gets demodulated at a point and/or frequency no one on the team has seen before, and needs addressing.  However that has also happened to be found in the field after the product has been released. This does not make them incompetent, just lacking a specific obscure knowledge, which perhaps no one has ever seen before.

Your view that all electrical audio problems have been solved is optimistic. We are always learning new stuff.  Which is good, because the world is throwing more RF at us all the time.


----------



## The Jester

Or when you open the box of a piece of equipment and it‘s supplied with a power cord with a moulded ferrite bead at one or either end ?
Manufacturer going a little bit further or without such a cable the unit may just fail mandatory testing, so a redesign or just pop a correctly tuned ferrite on the supplied power cable,
Given that, if a standard or even an “audiophile quality” cable is substituted it could possibly sound worse ?


----------



## jagwap

The Jester said:


> Or when you open the box of a piece of equipment and it‘s supplied with a power cord with a moulded ferrite bead at one or either end ?
> Manufacturer going a little bit further or without such a cable the unit may just fail mandatory testing, so a redesign or just pop a correctly tuned ferrite on the supplied power cable,
> Given that, if a standard or even an “audiophile quality” cable is substituted it could possibly sound worse ?



I am not asserting any facts here, but my opinion based on having been a while in the industry, is that any cables in the box that have added ferrites on them, usually co-molded on, are not there for fun. 95% at *least *are because they are necessary to pass EMC compliance in a market with that plug.  It is possible that the manufacturer got some cheap, lower cost than non-filtered cables, due to some clearance sale, but unlikely.  It really suggests they couldn't fix it in time or within budget internally so kludged this on.  So it would be recommended to use the in box cable.  Or a better product.  It could even be some marketing, because marketing follows little logic when observed from a technical view point.

However it may be fixing immunity from outside EMI that doesn't exist in your environment, so then you will never notices a difference.  

As to your last point, there are so many permutations, I cannot find the time here to list them. The answer is a *VERY *conditional yes.


----------



## Ghoostknight

im kinda wondering about the studys in the first post the conclusion if often something like "49% of the listeners could tell them apart" but what actually does this mean?

1. each listener was giving one chance and in the end 49% guessed right
2. each listener had multiple chances and 49% were able to guess consistently right

this is a huge difference imo if 49% can tell reliably the difference then the study disproofs nothing since there will always be people that dont hear a difference and people that are, just because around 50% couldnt doesnt make this a coinflip and disproofs the myth
same goes kinda for both points tho unless everyone guessed 50% right


----------



## bigshot

jagwap said:


> Yes. In some markets (EU for example). It is called Susceptibility.  But it does not guarantee that audio equipment is isolated well enough for optimum performance.  It maybe just keep the local taxi radio from coming through your speakers.


I've never found any RF interference to be a problem unless it is an obvious problem, like the local taxi radio coming through my speakers. Unless you can detect a problem, it isn't a problem. Too much of audiophile stuff is finding solutions to problems that don't exist. RF isn't normally a subtle thing. And if it is subtle, as long as it's subtle enough to not be heard, it doesn't matter.


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> Because: for general EMI
> 1: People miss things, as EMI can be rather elusive. The regulations do not cover all the product requirements, only the compliance requirements.
> 2: People sometimes do not know what to measure for, until they listen, and hear an issue …


The tendency here on head-fi is to look at a relatively tiny segment of the market and consider that to be the whole world. For example, audiophiles tend to view the world of audio only in terms of the audiophile world and even here in this subforum we tend to discuss the recording/reproduction of audio almost exclusively in terms of the music industry. Just to put this into perspective, the global music recording industry had revenue in 2021 of around $26 billion, while the global film/TV/video industry had revenue of around $600 billion. Abbey Road Studios, one of the biggest music recording studios, has 3 main studios, plus the Penthouse Studio, two smaller “budget” studios and employs around a dozen music engineers. Todd A/O, the biggest film/TV audio post facility for many years, had 17 mix stages, over 100 sound edit suites and employed around 250 sound engineers. The overwhelming majority of professional audio recording/production in the world is done in the TV/film world, music is a relatively tiny corner of the commercial audio content creation world.

What relevance does this have? I won’t go into all the details of film/TV audio creation because it’s far more complex and diverse than music recording but I’ll mention two pertinent areas: Film/TV is recorded in many different locations, sometimes “on set”, in purpose built “sound stages” and sometimes “on location”; in airports, kitchens, factories, hospitals, military bases, train stations and pretty much anywhere you can think of. This “production sound” has to be edited and cleaned by editors spending many hours a day, day in, day out, studying spectrograms (and other analysis tools), identifying and dealing with pretty much every source of EMI (and other unwanted sounds) known to man. There’s probably tens of thousands of sound engineers/editors around the world doing this right now. Another area is “Foley”, where we have to record masses of extremely quiet sounds. For example, most films have 2 or more tracks of “Cloths”; clothes rustles, cloth rubs, scratches, swooshes, etc. This is far more demanding on audio equipment than what we encounter in the music industry because we need to massively amplify these tiny signals, 60dB of gain is very common and 80dB is not unheard of. So even tiny amounts of EMI or other mic, amp or digital conversion noise/distortion can become an easily audible issue (and has to be identified and dealt with). We commonly have to hold our breath while recording and be very careful of the clothes we’re wearing because these noises can be far louder than what we’re trying to record. Again, there are thousands of Foley artists/editors doing this around the world right now (and have been for generations).

There’s not much which is “elusive” with 60-80dB of gain or in all the shooting locations used, plus all the filming equipment (cameras, computers, lighting and monitoring equipment and power generators, radio mics, etc.)!


jagwap said:


> Your view that all electrical audio problems have been solved is optimistic.


For consumer audio reproduction, sure they have (assuming that “solved” means reduced to inaudible). Of course, this doesn’t rule out the possibility that some boutique audiophile manufacturers simply miss something or even deliberately ignore it, because marketing is more important than actual performance. Think about the Apple dongle for example; here we have a bit of cable, two connectors and a DAC/Amp all physically connected to a device which is an actual radio, bluetooth and wi-fi transmitter/receiver, plus various CPUs/GPUs/processors chugging along just a couple of inches away. Yet all this close proximity EMI/noise is reduced to inaudibility by a dongle that costs ~$9. Is it really such a difficult/impossible task to design a DAC/amp with similar isolation for a 10x-100x (or more) higher price?

G


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> The tendency here on head-fi is to look at a relatively tiny segment of the market and consider that to be the whole world. For example, audiophiles tend to view the world of audio only in terms of the audiophile world and even here in this subforum we tend to discuss the recording/reproduction of audio almost exclusively in terms of the music industry. Just to put this into perspective, the global music recording industry had revenue in 2021 of around $26 billion, while the global film/TV/video industry had revenue of around $600 billion. Abbey Road Studios, one of the biggest music recording studios, has 3 main studios, plus the Penthouse Studio, two smaller “budget” studios and employs around a dozen music engineers. Todd A/O, the biggest film/TV audio post facility for many years, had 17 mix stages, over 100 sound edit suites and employed around 250 sound engineers. The overwhelming majority of professional audio recording/production in the world is done in the TV/film world, music is a relatively tiny corner of the commercial audio content creation world.
> 
> What relevance does this have? I won’t go into all the details of film/TV audio creation because it’s far more complex and diverse than music recording but I’ll mention two pertinent areas: Film/TV is recorded in many different locations, sometimes “on set”, in purpose built “sound stages” and sometimes “on location”; in airports, kitchens, factories, hospitals, military bases, train stations and pretty much anywhere you can think of. This “production sound” has to be edited and cleaned by editors spending many hours a day, day in, day out, studying spectrograms (and other analysis tools), identifying and dealing with pretty much every source of EMI (and other unwanted sounds) known to man. There’s probably tens of thousands of sound engineers/editors around the world doing this right now. Another area is “Foley”, where we have to record masses of extremely quiet sounds. For example, most films have 2 or more tracks of “Cloths”; clothes rustles, cloth rubs, scratches, swooshes, etc. This is far more demanding on audio equipment than what we encounter in the music industry because we need to massively amplify these tiny signals, 60dB of gain is very common and 80dB is not unheard of. So even tiny amounts of EMI or other mic, amp or digital conversion noise/distortion can become an easily audible issue (and has to be identified and dealt with). We commonly have to hold our breath while recording and be very careful of the clothes we’re wearing because these noises can be far louder than what we’re trying to record. Again, there are thousands of Foley artists/editors doing this around the world right now (and have been for generations).
> 
> There’s not much which is “elusive” with 60-80dB of gain or in all the shooting locations used, plus all the filming equipment (cameras, computers, lighting and monitoring equipment and power generators, radio mics, etc.)!


I know this. I've designed equipment in this field. I've delt with these issues. What's your point? You are trying to contradict me, but how? 


gregorio said:


> For consumer audio reproduction, sure they have (assuming that “solved” means reduced to inaudible). Of course, this doesn’t rule out the possibility that some boutique audiophile manufacturers simply miss something or even deliberately ignore it, because marketing is more important than actual performance. Think about the Apple dongle for example; here we have a bit of cable, two connectors and a DAC/Amp all physically connected to a device which is an actual radio, bluetooth and wi-fi transmitter/receiver, plus various CPUs/GPUs/processors chugging along just a couple of inches away. Yet all this close proximity EMI/noise is reduced to inaudibility by a dongle that costs ~$9. Is it really such a difficult/impossible task to design a DAC/amp with similar isolation for a 10x-100x (or more) higher price?
> 
> G


Isolation of 100x is only 40dB. That would be very poor for anyone wanting good performance. I assume you didn't mean that.

You have also said in the past you deal in large scale audio systems. This can be where problems add rather than cancel. Particularly bad can be stadiums, or large multi building or multi generator truck systems. 

I do not yet see what your position is yet except to take a contrary one.


----------



## jagwap

gregorio said:


> The tendency here on head-fi is to look at a relatively tiny segment of the market and consider that to be the whole world. For example, audiophiles tend to view the world of audio only in terms of the audiophile world and even here in this subforum we tend to discuss the recording/reproduction of audio almost exclusively in terms of the music industry. Just to put this into perspective, the global music recording industry had revenue in 2021 of around $26 billion, while the global film/TV/video industry had revenue of around $600 billion. Abbey Road Studios, one of the biggest music recording studios, has 3 main studios, plus the Penthouse Studio, two smaller “budget” studios and employs around a dozen music engineers. Todd A/O, the biggest film/TV audio post facility for many years, had 17 mix stages, over 100 sound edit suites and employed around 250 sound engineers. The overwhelming majority of professional audio recording/production in the world is done in the TV/film world, music is a relatively tiny corner of the commercial audio content creation world.
> 
> What relevance does this have? I won’t go into all the details of film/TV audio creation because it’s far more complex and diverse than music recording but I’ll mention two pertinent areas: Film/TV is recorded in many different locations, sometimes “on set”, in purpose built “sound stages” and sometimes “on location”; in airports, kitchens, factories, hospitals, military bases, train stations and pretty much anywhere you can think of. This “production sound” has to be edited and cleaned by editors spending many hours a day, day in, day out, studying spectrograms (and other analysis tools), identifying and dealing with pretty much every source of EMI (and other unwanted sounds) known to man. There’s probably tens of thousands of sound engineers/editors around the world doing this right now. Another area is “Foley”, where we have to record masses of extremely quiet sounds. For example, most films have 2 or more tracks of “Cloths”; clothes rustles, cloth rubs, scratches, swooshes, etc. This is far more demanding on audio equipment than what we encounter in the music industry because we need to massively amplify these tiny signals, 60dB of gain is very common and 80dB is not unheard of. So even tiny amounts of EMI or other mic, amp or digital conversion noise/distortion can become an easily audible issue (and has to be identified and dealt with). We commonly have to hold our breath while recording and be very careful of the clothes we’re wearing because these noises can be far louder than what we’re trying to record. Again, there are thousands of Foley artists/editors doing this around the world right now (and have been for generations).
> 
> ...



OK, let me propose another arguement. We come from different positions because of where we are in the industry.

You put together professional systems, and as such you need to assume the gear you are using works perfectly together, unless it proves not to. Otherwise you are going to go mad with paranoia.

I need to think the opposite way. I need to assume the gear I am designing potentially has significant problems for a small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of customers a year, until we prove they don't. Otherwise we could lose our customers' confidence.

You NEED to believe in it, and that is why you will not take on board what I am saying.

I NEED to assume things can go wrong, or we won't spot them in time.

Does that help with you understanding of my position?


----------



## gregorio

jagwap said:


> Isolation of 100x is only 40dB.


Err, 100x $9 is $900. 


jagwap said:


> We come from different positions because of where we are in the industry.
> 
> You put together professional systems, and as such you need to assume the gear you are using works perfectly together, unless it proves not to.


No, the position I come from is having to deal with audio which has been recorded in locations from extremely quiet, almost anechoic studios to exceptionally hostile environments (high noise and/or high EMI), recorded on anything from $60 prosumer recorders to the highest end amps and ADCs costing many thousands. And “dealing with” means all kinds of unusual things, such as round trips through DACs and very common things, such as applying extreme amounts of gain to very quiet signals and then having to carefully analyse and reduce all the noise/interference revealed by applying such amounts of gain. So, I get to clearly hear, see and process all those things that are completely inaudible to consumers, for hours a days and for days on end. From the sound of Daniel Craig’s tongue against his teeth to EMI from virtually every source, to all those distortions from amps and ADCs/DACs that are way below audibility.

G


----------



## bigshot

I don’t generally worry about problems that haven’t proven to be problems. I find my time is better spent on other things. I understand the ‘just in case” mindset, and I guess it’s OK if there are no real problems to address, but I don’t see it as having much of an impact on improving sound at the end of the day.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Apart from tubes I have not had issue with noise since about 1986


----------



## bigshot

Same here, but even a little further back.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Err, 100x $9 is $900.


No. If you buy 10 you get 5 % off. If you buy 100 you get 10 % off. So it is $810.


----------



## 71 dB

jagwap said:


> I NEED to assume things can go wrong, or we won't spot them in time.


A large portion of engineering is about figuring out what can go wrong. Whenever a bridge collapses somewhere, failure in figuring out what can go wrong is most probably the reason for it.


----------



## jagwap

71 dB said:


> A large portion of engineering is about figuring out what can go wrong. Whenever a bridge collapses somewhere, failure in figuring out what can go wrong is most probably the reason for it.


Absolutely. Luckily if the noise floor starts modulating a bit on a mic amp when some RF gets in, no one dies. The singer just doesn't sound at their best.

However, if the "magic smoke" gets out of a product, it can spoil the performance...Kaboom!


----------



## bigshot

Perhaps it would be a good idea to get an oil change for your car every day, just in case.


----------



## The Jester

bigshot said:


> Perhaps it would be a good idea to get an oil change for your car every day, just in case.


Not the appropriate forum to open that can of worms .. 🤔


----------



## gregorio

Ghoostknight said:


> im kinda wondering about the studys in the first post the conclusion if often something like "49% of the listeners could tell them apart" but what actually does this mean?


What studies in the first post concluded “something like 49% of listeners could tell them apart”?

Not one of the studies concluded that. What the studies actually concluded was something like “49% selected the correct answer by chance”, because if there’s two choices, then obviously there’s a 50% chance of selecting the correct answer.

Let’s say you put a monkey in front of a screen which asks the question: “Does Pi = A. 3.14159 or B. 3.14152”, provide two buttons labelled A and B and give them a piece of banana each time they press either of the buttons. The law of averages states that over time, with enough monkeys about 50% of them will press button A. Does this mean that 50% of monkeys are able to not only read the question but actually know the value of Pi to five decimal places?


Ghoostknight said:


> this is a huge difference imo if 49% can tell reliably the difference then the study disproofs nothing


Let’s say you have 10 subjects, each doing 10 tests/trails. If 49% can reliably tell the difference then the 51% group would likely produce around 25 correct responses and 25 incorrect responses, while the 49% group would produce roughly 49 correct responses. So of the 100 trials, you would get roughly 75 correct responses and 25 incorrect responses. You would therefore have provided evidence to disprove the null hypothesis (that no one can tell the difference). If instead you only get 49 correct responses, that would not disprove the null hypothesis and therefore the statement that “no one can tell the difference” still stands. 


jagwap said:


> Luckily if the noise floor starts modulating a bit on a mic amp when some RF gets in, no one dies.


True, but in my line of work, when amplified by 60-80dB that “bit of modulating noise floor” would be easily audible (and easily visible on a spectrogram) and if it were not dealt with, would eventually result in someone loosing their job.

G


----------



## Ghoostknight

gregorio said:


> What studies in the first post concluded “something like 49% of listeners could tell them apart”?
> 
> Not one of the studies concluded that. What the studies actually concluded was something like “49% selected the correct answer by chance”, because if there’s two choices, then obviously there’s a 50% chance of selecting the correct answer.
> 
> Let’s say you put a monkey in front of a screen which asks the question: “Does Pi = A. 3.14159 or B. 3.14152”, provide two buttons labelled A and B and give them a piece of banana each time they press either of the buttons. The law of averages states that over time, with enough monkeys about 50% of them will press button A. Does this mean that 50% of monkeys are able to not only read the question but actually know the value of Pi to five decimal places?


yes but this is the wrong approach imo, if everyone is just getting "one chance", because you end up with the problem you are describing, even if 50% were picking the right answer you couldnt tell "right choices" and "choices by chance" apart



gregorio said:


> Let’s say you have 10 subjects, each doing 10 tests/trails. If 49% can reliably tell the difference then the 51% group would likely produce around 25 correct responses and 25 incorrect responses, while the 49% group would produce roughly 49 correct responses. So of the 100 trials, you would get roughly 75 correct responses and 25 incorrect responses. You would therefore have provided evidence to disprove the null hypothesis (that no one can tell the difference). If instead you only get 49 correct responses, that would not disprove the null hypothesis and therefore the statement that “no one can tell the difference” still stands.


yea i agree, sounds right, maybe i missunderstood some of the conclusions


----------



## gregorio

Ghoostknight said:


> yes but this is the wrong approach imo, if everyone is just getting "one chance", because you end up with the problem you are describing, even if 50% were picking the right answer you couldnt tell "right choices" and "choices by chance" apart


Exactly, which is why we never give everyone just “one chance”. 10 chances/trials is typically the minimum but even then, there’s still a small chance of getting 10 correct responses purely by chance, although having a larger sample size (number of test subjects) will tend to even out such unlikely rare occurrences, so we never have sample sizes of just one either.

G


----------

